As a measurement, plantable space is the leading indicator of an sustainable urban forest, while overall tree canopy measurement is a lagging indicator.
A loss of plantable space reduces the opportunity for canopy at the local level, meaning at the neighbourhood level. The benefits that the trees provide and protects the whole of a city for shade, stormwater and heat reduction through evaporation. It’s important that those benefits are localized.
Plantable space is tied to developments at completion of development. It’s a measurement as an indicator of what is possible for canopy cover over the lot. We are challenged by not knowing what the finished plantable space looks like at the end of a project, because plantable space is a variance, and is not legislated.
Therefore, to ascertain whether the urban forest is indeed expanding and if development practices are sustainable, we must examine the Tree Protection Bylaw, which establishes a minimum number of trees per lot or 50 stems per hectare, predicated on projected canopy coverage over time. Currently, this concept remains theoretical and lacks empirical backing. Municipal council members should be inquiring about the number of projects that have met the minimum stem count requirements.
The existing Tree Protection Bylaw (21-035) Implementation Manual suggests that a 15% increase in canopy cover within a span of 30 years is feasible by adhering to current urban forestry policies concerning tree protection on both public and private properties.
A canopy target (40%) for the city has been established through a Council Member Motion, COTW, April 03, 2025 in the Draft Victoria OCP 2025, but targets for specific neighborhoods has yet to be established because of a desire by Council to “move away from neighbourhood level plans (Council Member Motion: Urban Forest Canopy).” The motion passed 5 to 3 (Dell, Kim, and Thompson voted against).
Growth is gradual for replacement trees, and any reduction in growth will show up later as a lagging indicator, if we are not measuring the leading indicator of plantable space.
Unfortunately, metrics for plantable space was discontinued in the recent City of Victoria, Vegetation Canopy Change Detection Analysis (2007-2023) by Terra Remote Sensing. However, there is a baseline for 2013 and 2019, and we need to replicate that measurement between 2013, 2019, and 2023.
Through metrics, we can see gains and losses, which are particularly important for equity-seeking neighbourhoods in the City of Victoria. We can see the loss of plantable area/space in the Harris Green (-21%) and downtown (-15%) neighbourhoods (Table 5). We need to ask City staff to request a change order from Terra Remote Sensing to report on Vegetation Plantable Area (ha) and % of change from 2013-2023
Table 5, screencapture from City of Victoria “Vegetation Canopy Change Detection Analysis (2013-2019)
Resources
City of Victoria “Vegetation Canopy Change Detection Analysis (2013-2019)
City of Victoria “Vegetation Canopy Change Detection Analysis (2007-2023)
Re: “Without more trees, B.C.’s next heat dome could be even deadlier,” comment, July 2.
Many thanks to Dr. Bethany Ricker, David Quigg, and Dr. Melissa Lem for pointing out in their op-ed the reality of extreme weather events despite advancements in building codes, as well as the now depleted funds to provide vulnerable households with air conditioning units.
The City of Victoria is a great example of how equity-deserving neighbourhoods are losing out. Between 2013 and 2019, neighbourhoods like downtown and Harris Green had a combined net loss of 36% plantable areas.
While our urban tree canopy grew by the equivalent of 100 soccer fields between 2013 and 2023, and the municipality added more than 8,000 net new homes, the tree canopy numbers don’t look great over the last five years compared to the ten-year span. Between 2019 and 2023, we are 23 hectares short of the urban tree canopy growth rate of the previous four years. This is because many recent developments cannot meet the tree replacement minimums due to increased building footprints, preferring to pay into a cash-in-lieu fund instead. Housing densities are already pressuring the urban forest, and if the rate continues to slow, we will approach a 0% or net loss scenario.
It is integral that our municipal leaders acknowledge now that BC’s housing legislation will impact green corridors for people and wildlife. While Bill 44 doesn’t remove local environmental protections such as tree protection by-laws, the new legislation states that municipal rules can’t “unduly restrict” density. Tree protection bylaws are rendered moot if the trees fall within a building envelope.
B.C.’s housing strategy makes no mention of trees, greenspace, or urban cooling, and support from local politicians is a crucial step in incorporating tree canopy and climate goals as a core part of B.C.’s housing strategy for a climate-ready future.
Without more trees, B.C.’s next heat dome could be even deadlier
If B.C. is truly committed to protecting its residents from the next climate disaster, we must prioritize shade, green space and urban cooling alongside density.
Dr. Bethany Ricker, David Quigg and Dr. Melissa Lem Jul 2, 2025 3:00 AM, Times Colonist
Urban trees are important in reducing heat during events like the 2021 heat dome. DELTA OPTIMIST
A commentary by two members of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and an organizer with Sierra Club B.C.
Four years ago, British Columbia endured the deadliest weather event in recorded Canadian history.
The 2021 heat dome claimed the lives of more than 600 people, many of whom died alone in overheated homes.
As we mark the fourth anniversary of this devastating mass casualty event with record-breaking heat elsewhere in the country, we must confront a troubling truth: B.C. remains dangerously unprepared for the next one.
Despite some advancements, including updated building codes, rebates for heat pumps and a now-depleted $30-million fund to provide vulnerable households with air conditioning units, one of the most critical aspects of climate readiness has seen little to no progress. In fact, it’s getting worse.
Our communities are rapidly losing tree canopy, green space and permeable surfaces — the very elements that keep cities cooler during extreme heat.
The result is a growing urban heat-island effect that leaves already susceptible residents at increasing risk.
We all know what it’s like to walk down a tree-shaded street on a hot day and what it’s like when trees are replaced by concrete. During extreme heat, shaded areas can be up to 20°C cooler than exposed pavement.
While heat domes were previously rare, they are now projected to become more common, with some models predicting they could occur three out of every 10 years by mid-century if greenhouse gas emissions aren’t reduced.
The 2022 Extreme Heat Death Review Panel was unequivocal: “A number of deaths occurred in neighbourhoods with large roads, large buildings, high density and low greenness.”
It also warned that “declining tree canopy and permeable surfaces in urban areas will increase vulnerability to extreme heat.”
Lack of proximity to greenspace was further identified as an independent risk factor for mortality, alongside being elderly, isolated and low-income.
The same report urged immediate action. It directed the province to ensure key legislation updates mandating protection and restoration of urban tree canopy and permeable surfaces as part of B.C.’s Climate Preparedness and Adaptation Strategy.
That directive has not been followed.
This is not a question of choosing between housing and greenspace — we can and must increase both. The province’s push to add urgently needed housing supply is a necessary step to address the housing crisis. Urban infill and density are critical climate solutions, and we fully support that goal.
But B.C.’s housing strategy makes no mention of trees, greenspace or urban cooling. Without these safety measures, we risk designing neighbourhoods that are less resilient to extreme heat.
Recognizing this, the Union of B.C. Municipalities passed a 2024 resolution urging the province to incorporate tree canopy and climate goals into its housing strategy.
In many B.C. communities, neighbourhoods with the least tree cover are also those with the highest levels of poverty, isolated seniors and people with disabilities and chronic illnesses. These residents are most at risk during extreme heat events.
Ensuring equitable access to shade, green space and cooling through targeted tree planting and preservation efforts isn’t just about beautifying neighbourhoods — it’s a public health imperative.
No one should be more likely to die during a heatwave because of the postal code they live in.
We’ve already seen the consequences. During the 2021 heat dome, emergency departments and paramedics were pushed past their limits. First responders saw a 50 per cent increase in call volume, reaching an all-time high. Hospital visits spiked for heat stroke, dehydration, heart failure, kidney failure and other critical conditions.
Trees are not luxuries, they are life-saving infrastructure. Trees cool cities, reduce heat-related illness, improve mental health and save lives. Protecting and expanding the urban canopy is one of the most effective, equitable and affordable public health interventions available.
Climate safety and housing need not be at odds. In fact, they must go hand in hand. We need to build housing and green infrastructure together, creating communities that are affordable, climate-resilient and safe for all.
Premier David Eby and his ministers can start to fix this by:
1. Implementing the coroner’s directive to embed tree protection and restoration in key legislation.
2. Establishing a plan to restore and expand urban greenspace, particularly in equity-deserving neighbourhoods where tree canopy is sparse.
3. Incorporating tree canopy and climate goals as a core part of B.C.’s housing strategy.
Every year that passes without decisive action puts more lives at risk. If B.C. is truly committed to protecting its residents from the next climate disaster, we must prioritize shade, green space and urban cooling alongside density. This is not a trade-off — it’s how we build a climate-ready future. Our health and our lives depend on it.
A response by a City of Victoria Councillor in the Opinion section, Times Colonist, July 12, 2025.
Victoria needs more trees and green space
Re: “Without more trees, B.C.’s next heat dome could be even deadlier,” comment, July 2.
Many thanks to Dr. Bethany Ricker, David Quigg and Dr. Melissa Lem for pointing out in their op-ed the reality that “climate safety and housing need not be at odds. In fact, they must go hand in hand.”
We especially need more trees and urban greenspace “in equity-deserving neighbourhoods where tree canopy is sparse” — like downtown, Harris Green and areas to the north.
The city is working on these areas, with requirements for new buildings to protect and add trees.
City crews are adding new trees where we build bike-and-roll lanes and improve streets (e.g. Blanshard Street most recently).
Between 2013 and 2023, our urban tree canopy grew by the equivalent of 100 soccer fields, while we added more than 8,000 net new homes (almost entirely multifamily buildings).
We have much more to do. As the authors note, we need communities “that are affordable, climate-resilient and safe for all.”
And we know from experience that it’s possible.
Dave Thompson
Councillor
City of Victoria
Reflections by Squirrel for Mayor
Initial reflections of City of Victoria’s 2019-2023 LiDAR vegetation change detection analysis
-The rate of urban forest growth fell by 50% from the previous period of analysis (2013-2019)
-The urban forest net gain was +47.4 hectares between 2013-2019 (+2.37% to 28.83% city-wide), and according to the City’s website an additional net gain occurred in 2019-2023 of +24 hectares (1.26% to 30% city-wide).
-Terra Remote Sensing provided comment on the 2013-2019 COV change detection analysis, and it is relevant to reflect as the rate of growth drops by 50%: ” It will be of importance to monitor the continual changes in the city’s vegetation canopy to assess whether the fill in growth of existing and new plantings will continue to outstrip the vegetation loss. Further to on-going monitoring, determining age class, distribution, and species composition will help to forecast vegetation growth trends and potentially predict when vegetation growth will cease to offset losses.”
– In four short years we are 23 hectares short of the previous four years’ urban tree canopy growth rate. COV Parks notes “A consistent finding is that the growth of healthy mature trees offsets canopy lost due to development, extreme weather, decline and disease.”, but it’s important to reflect on the slowing rate of growth.
– Limitations: the only information provided by the City on the 2019-2023 canopy gain is “From 2013-2023, Victoria’s tree canopy grew by about 70 hectares, which is more than 100 soccer fields”.
2013-2019 grew about the size of 60 soccer fields. 2019-2023 grew by only 40 soccer fields. The data looks better if reported over a ten year period from 2013-2023.
The numbers look a lot better over 2013-2023 than 2019-2023. We can see the momentum of canopy growth vs. canopy loss is shrinking fast, and we could soon revisit the 2007-2013 period which produced a net gain of .05% (1 hectare). It’s below the margin of error for the analysis methods.
-The conversation around the City’s potential adoption of a goal to achieve 40% canopy cover city-wide should consider 2019-2023’s halving of the canopy growth rate.
Canopy goals should be achievable: you cannot get to 40% if the rate continues to slow and we approach 0% or a net loss scenario.
A Special Council Meeting was held at the District of Saanich’s July 7th meeting regarding the proposed Quadra McKenzie Plan (QMP). More than 100 people packed Saanich municipal hall. Each presenter had three minutes to provide input. The Quadra McKenzie plan, which has been in the works since 2023, will decide how a major chunk of Saanich centred around the two thoroughfares will be built out. Current plans allow six-storey buildings near major roads and centres, with up-to-24-storey buildings allowed on select lots near the intersection of Quadra and McKenzie. Links to video below.
Next steps on the Draft Quadra McKenzie Plan
Public consultation on the revised Draft Plan will be undertaken from August to October, 2025, and will include an online survey, open houses and online webinars. Based on public input, a refined Draft Quadra McKenzie Plan will be presented to Council for consideration in Winter 2025/2026. You do not need to be a resident of Saanich to participate, or attend the next public hearing.
Squirrel for Mayor urges the District of Saanich Council to commit to comprehensive environmental assessment and meaninful Indigeous consultation before any further development is considered.
Overview of July 7th meeting.
The District of Saanich, like many island municipalities is at a crossroad: either proceed with a plan that guarantees further ecological destruction, or pause, reassess and support long-term ecological protection, Indigenous stewardship, and community-led conservation planning.
The meeting was attended by urbanists who promote density and traffic infrastructure to foster urban growth, as well as local residents concerned about the tangible impacts of proposed changes. Saanich Councillor Colin Plant said the proceedings at council had become a “trainwreck”. The proposed QMP include changes to the zoning to allow the demolition of two-storey homes to make way for 6 storey and up to 24-storey condominiums. This narrative of density has affected every charming community that has transformed into a bustling metropolis across the globe, much to the detriment of the urban forests, ecosystems and biodiversity.
The idea that housing targets set by both federal and provincial policies will destroy the most biodiverse hotspot in British Columbia is upsetting. Especially to locals and residents with an understanding of forest ecologies on Vancouver Island. One only needs to drive down the Quadra McKenzie area and see that roadways are lined with Garry oak trees. The destruction of the urban forest, which is the Garry oak ecosystem, will not “save” a forest somewhere else. A large percentage of Vancouver Island’s coniferous forests are logged by a variety of companies, and there are growing concerns about the impacts on old-growth forests on Vancouver Island. Commercial logging on private and public land is increasing. But more significantly, those forests are a different type of forest than the urban forest of Greater Victoria.
Plans for a large-scale transformation along Quadra Street and McKenzie Avenue – two of Saanich’s busiest roads – aim to turn these main arteries into lively urban corridors. (Photo sourced from draft of Quadra McKenzie Plan)
Public safety at council meetings
Public hearings should never create a sense of insecurity. It’s ironic that some of the urbanist speakers who felt uncomfortable attending this meeting due to their support for the QMP are part of the same group and reason why folks felt uneasy about attending hearings for 902 Foul Bay and the Missing Middle Housing Initiative in City of Victoria. This suggests a reversal in who feels threatened to speak in Saanich compared to Victoria, possibly due to the higher percentage of homeowners in Saanich (69.2%) versus Victoria (39.5%). Urbanists tend to outnumber homeowners in City of Victoria during public hearings.
The public addressed the Mayor and Council of Saanich knowing there is at least one Saanich council member who engages with urbanist representatives to discuss land use strategies, including member motions and preparations for UBCM floor and media strategies. The same urbanist group was selected by the province to provide input on the provincial budget on June 16, 2025. They also attended Langford’s OCP hearing on June 25, 2025, and actively advocated for the removal of public hearings related to the development of Bills 44 and 47.
Another urbanist who also spoke in favour of the plan said, “this meeting is an abusive process and I and other working people should not need to be here. This meeting is entirely for those with the time and privilege…” Even more true if you want to attend meetings in multiple municipalities and make time to lobby the province.
Irony continues for the urbanist group who is active with local government in private and public, yet labels local opposition to land use changes as NIMBY (Not In My Backyard), a term used in critiques of public engagement with local government. More amusing though, is how the term first surfaced in a February 1979 newspaper article in Virginia’s Daily Press, “agencies need to be better coordinated and the “nimby” (not in my backyard) syndrome must be eliminated.” The article is quoting Joseph A. Lieberman, a member of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, addressing nearly 500 health scientists in the Fort Macgruder Conference Centre about how to handle the “nimby” (not in my backyard) opposition to radioactive waste disposal.
Daily Press, Newport News, Virginia · Tuesday, February 13, 1979. Earliest use of acronym NIMBY.Use over time for: nimby. Oxford Dictionary. Accessed May 28, 2025
The phrase ‘”not in my back yard”, without the acronym, also appeared in “Hazardous Wastes, an environmental journal discussing the disposal of hazardous waste in Alberta, Canada in February 1980. Over time, the use of the word “nimby” went from being used by the energy, mining, and nuclear industry, which seriously out resources its critics, and was adopted by private market housing advocates in connection to residential land use at the municipal level.
Several Saanich residents wearing Save Our Saanich pins introduced themselves as “proud NIMBY’s – Nature in My Backyard”. Nature in My Backyard was first proposed in 2011 by David Suzuki to reclaim the term NIMBY, emphasizing genuine community care rather than being coined by the interests of those willing to impose harmful ecological destruction of residential areas.
An urbanist statement regarding the urban forest during the meeting:
“Building housing inside the city means we don’t have to cut down the forest outside of it, or pave over agricultural land in order to house people. And I personally care more about the forest than the trees I can see from my window. Yes, they are nice but they’re not nearly as important as those forests in fighting climate change or making the local environment better.”
If an urbanist says that having trees visible from windows in not essential, in the context of supporting the Quadra McKenzie Plan, you probably should believe them.
That’s why the QMP is alarming. Due to the impacts of colonization, the Mayor and Council of Saanich are currently determining the fate of the urban forest, which is the Garry oak ecosystem, one of the most endangered ecosystems in Canada, with only three percent remaining in its natural state. These ecosystems exist primarily on the southeastern tip of Vancouver Island and adjacent Gulf Islands, as well as in two isolated groves east of Vancouver. Tag Saanich, you are it.
Public Health Emergency
Regarding urbanist comments, trees are indeed essential at the neighborhood level. The decline of green infrastructure, combined with rising temperatures, is creating a substantial public health emergency.
The University of Victoria’s “Plan2Adapt” climate modeling for South Island projects an average temperature increase of over 3 degrees Celsius by 2050 compared to the 1960-1990 baseline. This rise will likely lead to more frequent heat domes and severe droughts. Garry oak ecosystems and individual trees, naturally adapted to such conditions, serve as vital nature-based solutions to counteract the urban heat island effect, particularly benefiting vulnerable populations.
The impacts of climate change on public health in British Columbia were tragically highlighted during the 2021 heat dome, which resulted in over 600 deaths. Since then, oppressive summer conditions have become increasingly common, particularly affecting seniors, individuals with disabilities, low-income residents, and those with various health issues in the urban environment.
It’s essential that urbanists, who gravitate toward anthropocentric methods for best management for human activities to achieve economic and social development, begin to reflect on the ecocentric, or natural values approach as well. An anthropocentric viewpoint is the main reasons the planet is suffering in climate crisis.
Living Artifact Threatened by the Quadra McKenzie Plan
Driving along the proposed QMP roadways, one can easily observe the surrounding Garry oak trees.
The urban forest management of Čaŋēɫč (lək̓ʷəŋən), ĆEṈ¸IȽĆ (SENĆOŦEN), or p’hwulhp (HUL’Q’UMI’NUM’), known scientifically as Garry oak (Quercus garryana), along with its associated ecosystem (Kwetlal or ḰȽO,EL), is under threat from the Quadra McKenzie Plan.
The Kwetlal food system, or Garry oak ecosystem, represents a living artifact of Indigenous peoples who have stewarded this land for generations, shaped by thousands of years of Indigenous agroecological management that created the oak savannah after the glacial retreat approximately 10,000 years ago. Without these practices, the landscape would likely be dominated by dense stands of Douglas-fir and Grand fir. Over 1,645 organisms, including plants, insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, have co-evolved within this unique ecosystem. The local genetic adaptations of the Garry oak and its associated species community would be challenging and costly to reintroduce if lost.
Garry oak is the only native oak species in British Columbia and plays a significant role in the lək̓ʷəŋən and W̱SÁNEĆ cultural heritage, connecting urban Indigenous youth to their ancestors and serving as a vital avenue for the continuation of knowledge as traditions evolve.
The Greater Victoria area boasts a high concentration of rare species compared to the rest of the province. Garry oak ecosystems are recognized as a “hot spot” of biological diversity, being the most diverse terrestrial ecosystems in British Columbia and home to species classified as “at risk” by the Province.
Up, and Saanich residents
Watching the QMP hearing reminded me of Up, the 2009 animated comedy-drama adventure film produced by Pixar Animation Studios for Walt Disney Pictures. The story begins with the main character Carl as a ten-year-old boy. Trials and tribulations of life ensue and he persists in his tiny home. Now widowed and elderly, Carl in his late 70’s, holds out while the neighbourhood around him is developed. To a sensitive soul, this touches one’s heart deeply.
The movie modelled the house after the real life Whitewood Cottage in Seattle, also known as the Edith Macefield house. According to the Seattle Times, “she became a cause célèbre, a little old lady who said no to big developers.” It appears that Edith, who undoubtedly exhibits “Nimby” tendencies, had managed to preserve a single tree. I would venture to guess that an urban squirrel managed to share the space with Edith, too. 🌱🐿💪🏽💥
Edith Macefield in front of her house, with a neighbor’s dog and a late 1930s Ford Coupe.Edith Macefield’s old Chevy Cavalier is parked in front of her tiny Ballard house as development engulfed her small home in June 2008. (Alan Berner/The Seattle Times
“Radioactive Waste: National Regulations Needed”. Daily Press. 13 February 1979. p. 23. Archived from the original on 29 January 2024. Retrieved 29 May 2025.
Unchanged: Sniatynski, Gillian (February–March 1980). “Hazardous Wastes”. Environment Views. 2 (6): 5. The ‘not in my back yard’ syndrome is a compound of fears about health, safety, and environmental quality https://dn790009.ca.archive.org/0/items/enviroviews2n6/enviroviews2n6.pdf
Squirrel for Mayor was at the Victoria International Airport on June 24, 2025 for the Remote Sensing: Garry Oak Species Detection Project with the Garry Oak Meadow Preservation Society and Terra Remote Sensing to launch a Bell 206B3 Jet Ranger, equipped with a Phase One IXM-100 camera for aerial data acquisition to perform Garry oak species detection in developing a new approach to mapping Garry oak species presence using LiDAR and geoAI. By conducting species-specific detection analysis to form a species composition baseline, the project can enable future analysis opportunities that are Garry oak-specific. LiDAR was flown over the City of Victoria and the District of Saanich’s urban containment boundary. The goal of the project is to provide data to interested parties (e.g., environmental non-profits, researchers, community scientists, municipal staff, etc.), providing them with a new high bar in remote sensing data quality to innovate on the analysis front.
Photo by Ryan Senechal. On location at the Victoria International Airport for the Remote Sensing: Garry Oak Species Detection Project . Bell 206B3 Jet Ranger, equipped with a Phase One IXM-100 camera in the background.
FROM: David Quigq (Sierra Club). Dr. Melissa Lem and I will be doing a press conference/media interviews on Tuesday June 24th at 11am in front of Eby’s office in Kits. That’s the morning we’ll submit the letter with signatories to the province.
Please share this letter widely to organizations and individuals who would be likely to sign.
Here’s the outreach template: Dear________,
We all deserve to live in climate-safe communities and there is much that needs to be done. In observance of the fourth anniversary of the 2021 Heat Dome—one of the deadliest environmental disasters and mass casualty events in Canadian history—we are writing to hold the Government of British Columbia to account for its public commitment to ensure this preventable tragedy is never repeated.
Please fill out this form to add your organization and name to the letter written by Canadian Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) and Sierra Club BC calling on Premier Eby and key Ministers to follow through with the directives from the 2022 Extreme Heat Death Review Panel Report to increase cooling green space and tree canopy, especially in neighbourhoods high on the material deprivation index, and empower municipalities to build communities that are not only affordable and livable but safe, resilient, and health-promoting for all residents.
The letter states that climate safety and housing need not be at odds, they must go hand in hand. To view the letter:
Thank you for standing up for livable communities and our collective well-being. Please share this sign-on effort with organizations, local politicians, and influential individuals in your network.
The deadline to add signatures is midnight on Monday June 23, 2025.
The inaugural event attended by Squirrel for Mayor was at “A Rally to Save the Centennial Sequoia,” planned by “Friends of Centennial Square,” a group of residents from the City of Victoria. The rally was aimed at protesting the City Council’s decision to remove a mature sequoia tree to facilitate a redesign of the square. Over time, the Sequoia tree has come to symbolize more than merely the act of cutting down a single tree; it now serves as a reflection of insufficient transparency and, arguably, indicators of moral hazard, within municipal governance.
July 2024 Victoria City Council approved (6 to 3) (1) a design (2) for Centennial Square which included the destruction of the square’s Sequoia tree.
June 12, 2025 a rally held to save the tree was attended by over 300 people, according to the Times Colonist.
July 3, 2025 the Mayor and Council voted will reallocate more than $10 million — including $2.5 million from a controversial plan to revitalize Centennial Square — to tackle rising street disorder downtown. The Centennial Square project will still go ahead as scheduled, starting this fall, but the eastern part of the proposed project, including removal of the sequoia, is on pause indefinitely.
After letters, rallies, FOI requests and data reviews, and community engagement, the City will move forward to review the risk posed by the Sequioa in an “evidence-based” way. This is a great example of the role of public participation in successful urban forest governance. Show us the receipts!
“Last month, Victoria city council made the difficult decision to redeploy, for community safety priorities, some of the funds allocated toward two projects that have received grants from the province: facility upgrades at Royal Athletic Park (RAP) and infrastructure upgrades at Centennial Square.”
The article continues. “In terms of the sequoia, here is the bind in which council finds itself:
On one hand, the professional advice given to council by parks and engineering staff remains valid — that the root system of the tree poses medium-term risks to public safety, and that it is a matter of “when, not if” the tree will need to be removed. On the other hand, there has been an outpouring of love and support for the tree, and many people have questioned the rationale for removing it.
With this decision, the issue has been delayed indefinitely. When council eventually returns to the issue, we would propose that the city undertake an independent engineering and arborist analysis to confirm the risk level posed by the tree, and to chart a viable path ahead.It is imperative that we move forward in an evidence-based way.”
Arborist and urban forest educator Ryan Senechal offers an analysis of the Technical Memorandum recently shared by the City of Victoria regarding its stated need to cut down Centennial Square’s giant sequoia tree. He says the tree is healthy, and could be pruned to achieve more openness, while keeping its cooling shade and other important eco-services. by Ryan Senechal, MUFL, arborist and urban forest educator
1. The city of Victoria made specific and repeated note of an underground BC Hydro powerline which is encased in concrete and runs under the Sequoia’s root system. Councillor Caradonna and senior Parks staff have repeatedly expressed safety concerns about BC Hydro’s infrastructure, yet no specific information outlines a potential conflict investigated by Dialog or Talmack. No conflict with BC Hydro infrastructure was identified in either Dialog’s report or Talmack’s report.
2. The city has yet to acknowledge the important services the sequoia provides to the community, or show up for its own asset which (unlike the 60-year-old services underground), is not at the end of its service life. The Sequoia tree has many years of service left to provide to the city, and is itself important city infrastructure. Dialog identifies aging infrastructure as a concern for continued root system conflict. However, underground services can be modernized, lined, relocated, or installed, using arboricultural management techniques — these are practices being conducted every day in our region, in order to retain trees through construction.
3. The incomplete removal of Cormorant Street road surface has been mentioned as a problem, with comments that it “restricts soil aeration and drainage impacting root growth and tree vitality”. This appears to be pure speculation. No evidence was provided to illustrate this relationship. The tree is healthy. Those same buried road surface conditions were present when the tree was installed, and there is no indication that those subsurface conditions have changed dramatically, or potentially created an issue for the tree’s root system.
4. There is more than enough information here to suggest adequate work has not been conducted to investigate the tree’s potential to be retained in the redesign. Statements have been made by Dialog, city of Victoria senior Parks staff, and city councillors that lack evidence of thorough investigation onsite, relying on speculative comments produced – not from breaking ground and verifying – but from looking at maps, and other surface-level professional opinions.
5. Dialog commented on the ecosystem services to be provided by the planned 17 deciduous replacement trees, but no perspective was provided on those currently delivered by the Sequoia. A deciduous tree that is small at maturity has low potential to deliver equivalent benefits to the Sequoia, even when groups of them are planted. The benefits Dialog mentions are many years away. Dialog also commented on stormwater management delivery through the soil cells provided for the new trees, yet they have not conducted analysis of the current stormwater benefits offered by the existing lawn and Sequoia tree.
Along with their leaves, deciduous trees lose most of their potential to disrupt rainwater just as rainfall arrives each fall. We are reliant entirely on the soil volume’s ability to capture and slow rainwater from reaching storm drains. The Sequoia, on the other hand, provides year-round leaf area that slows rainwater before it is absorbed into a massive soil area.
Below is a summary of the Sequoia’s current ecoservices, calculated using iTree app:
• Leaf area: 2500 square metres
• Carbon storage: 7.5 tonnes
• Carbon sequestration (annually): 8.128 kg
• Avoided water runoff (annually): 4.162 cubic metres
• Water intercepted (annually): 21.43 cubic metres
• Input measurements: 168.7 cm diameter at 1.4m height, 22 m total height, 2 m crown base height, 15.2 m crown width (N/S), 14.5 crown width (E/W), 5 side crown light exposure, 1 to 5% crown missing, 1 to 5% crown dieback
6. Dialog appears to have a different view on the Sequoia’s health condition than the professional arborist who authored the construction impact assessment (Talmack Urban Forestry). The author of that report lists their name and certifications, which indicate their specialization as a professional arborist, consistent with the city of Victoria’s policies and expectations for comment on tree condition and tree risk assessment.
Such qualifications, for example, include ‘International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist’, and ‘Tree Risk Assessment Qualified’. The attending arborist who visited the site in March of 2024 determined the Sequoia to be in good health and good structural condition. They recommended the tree be removed because of the design constraints that were provided to them (presumably by Dialog) in the form of plans for the square, and there are no indications that infrastructure conflicts or tree health or tree stability were the rationale for the removal recommendation.
City of Victoria previously shared condition information on its open data portal, as gathered by city of Victoria Parks arborists and contractors. The condition ratings that were last publicly available (before the City quietly removed condition information from the public tree species data layer in 2021) were that the Sequoia was in good health and good structural condition as of June 17th, 2019.
7. Dialog notes the tree is shade-intolerant and therefore intolerant of urban growing conditions. This is counterfactual to the evidence we see with our own eyes, and contrary to what the academic literature says. Sequoias exist in abundance in Victoria in a wide range of growing conditions, including soil conditions and light availability. Think about the Sequoia at Honda City. Think about the Sequoia(s) at the Victoria Art Gallery. There are two Sequoias growing in the shade of a high-rise building, surrounded by other trees at the intersection of Fisgard and Quadra. The report author has had little exposure to the urban forest in Victoria if their opinions on Sequoia species’ viability in downtown Victoria is any indication.
8. Centennial Square’s Sequoia has about the best sun exposure you could hope for in the downtown realm, and that light availability is not going to change, based on the designs the city has shared.
9. The report author notes “most horticulturalists and arborists recommend that giant Sequoia should only be planted in areas with abundant space”. It’s not ethical for me to speak on behalf of “most horticulturalists and arborists” without their consent, but my professional opinion is that this Sequoia’s existing soil area and above ground growing space is abundant and appropriate for the species. We’re not talking about whether or not it is appropriate to plant a tree, we’re talking about a tree that already exists.
10. The report author references an established critical root zone radius of 19.8m, and suggests that it has already outgrown its root space. The report author would be wise to refer to Industry Best Management Practices produced by the International Society of Arboriculture guiding tree management through construction, which provides important context overtop what we imagine as a radius of root system around the tree. Critical root zones are areas defined where any work ingress requires arboricultural management techniques.
This is the area often visually identified by orange fencing wrapped around trees’ root systems during construction. That area is not necessarily off limits. Instead, it requires knowledgeable and qualified professionals to guide or make recommendations that will minimize stress to the tree. When critical root zones need to be accessed on private property, including for modifying parts of the tree’s root system to allow for utility repairs or new installations, these conditions are authorized by arborist staff at the city of Victoria.
The author of the Technical report has ignored the consulting arborists’ role in providing technical solutions where a desired critical root zone cannot be achieved. This is substandard practice in the design and building of urban realm renewal.
11. The Memorandum lists no author and no staff qualifications specific to arboricultural expertise.
12. The Design firm lists no professional arborists or urban foresters on their staff profile page.
13. The references provided to support Dialog’s opinions on Sequoia amount to two horticultural hobbyist blogs, and information provided by the city. Horticulture blogs aimed at a consumer audience are not traditional forms of professional evidence, and are not contextual to urban arboriculture.
In addition, the City of Victoria made specific and repeated note of an underground BC Hydro powerline which is encased in concrete and runs under the Sequoia’s root system. According to an article by Mary Fowles and Jennifer Button at CRD Watch, “Councillor Caradonna and senior Parks staff have repeatedly expressed safety concerns about BC Hydro’s infrastructure, yet no specific information outlines a potential conflict investigated by Dialog or Talmack. No conflict with BC Hydro infrastructure was identified in either Dialog’s report or Talmack’s report.”
As BC Hydro’s Freedom of Information department put it: “Please be advised that we checked with the departments who would have known about the tree and electrical vault, and none of them indicated knowing about any correspondence with the City of Victoria (to or from).”
Response to FOI Request from HydroCllr. Caradonna’s email: Caradonna Email.png
THAT Council approve the updated concept design for Centennial Square and direct staff to proceed with implementation as outlined in this report, as amended by the following: 1. Increase the child-orientated play features in the final designs. Committee of the While Minutes July 04, 2024 7 2. In future consider commercial mixed-use to return to the north side of the Square. 3. After removal of the unsafe trees, and without slowing down the project, staff to repurpose the timber within the Victoria community as they see fit.
Sequoia tree at Centennial Square, City of Victoria, BC. August 2024.
At the January 23rd Council of the Whole Meeting, Councillor Matt Dell shared his experiences of tree removal and replacement regarding the need to advance a city, thus emphasizing the need for context in urban planning. “I grew up in a farming family in the South Okanagan, where trees are cut down and replanted every 20 years. For some, removing trees is seen as a crime against humanity, while for others, it’s a necessary step toward advancing the city.” Unlike the routine cutting and replanting of fruit trees, the biodiverse ecosystems which include native and non-native trees requires a deeper understanding of its diverse inhabitants, many of which are already threatened by habitat loss and environmental changes.
Sequioa tree at Centennial Square.
An announcement was published at the Victoria News on May 12th, about provincial funding of $713,510 to boost climate preparedness at Centennial Square in Victoria, BC.
The news release boasts how the upgrades will, in part, improve stormwater management. With new trees and added greenery, the square is striving to become more climate-resilient, mitigate heat island effects, and better manage stormwater runoff.
This is a significant amount of money. The cost to plant a tree in hardscape areas, such as the suggested tree planting in Centennial Square, rises to $10,000 per tree or more when existing plantable space is not available. Therefore, it’s important to note that there are existing ecosystem services at this location, and the technical Memorandum by Dialog for this project lists no author and no staff qualifications specific to arboriculture expertise.
As urban forester Ryan Senechal notes (Creatively United), “Dialog commented on the ecosystem services to be provided by the planned 17 deciduous replacement trees, but no perspective was provided on those currently delivered by the Sequoia. A deciduous tree that is small at maturity has low potential to deliver equivalent benefits to the Sequoia, even when groups of them are planted. The benefits Dialog mentions are many years away. Dialog also commented on stormwater management delivery through the soil cells provided for the new trees, yet they have not conducted analysis of the current stormwater benefits offered by the existing lawn and Sequoia tree.”
Senechal continies, “Along with their leaves, deciduous trees lose most of their potential to disrupt rainwater just as rainfall arrives each fall. We are reliant entirely on the soil volume’s ability to capture and slow rainwater from reaching storm drains. The Sequoia, on the other hand, provides year-round leaf area that slows rainwater before it is absorbed into a massive soil area.
Below is a summary of the Sequoia’s current ecoservices, calculated using iTree app:
• Leaf area: 2500 square metres • Carbon storage: 7.5 tonnes • Carbon sequestration (annually): 8.128 kg • Avoided water runoff (annually): 4.162 cubic metres • Water intercepted (annually): 21.43 cubic metres • Potential Evapotranspiration (annually): 59.05 cubic metres • Oxygen production (annually): 21.67 kg • Input measurements: 168.7 cm diameter at 1.4m height, 22 m total height, 2 m crown base height, 15.2 m crown width (N/S), 14.5 crown width (E/W), 5 side crown light exposure, 1 to 5% crown missing, 1 to 5% crown dieback”
In addition, the City of Victoria made specific and repeated note of an underground BC Hydro powerline which is encased in concrete and runs under the Sequoia’s root system. According to an article by Mary Fowles and Jennifer Button at CRD Watch, “Councillor Caradonna and senior Parks staff have repeatedly expressed safety concerns about BC Hydro’s infrastructure, yet no specific information outlines a potential conflict investigated by Dialog or Talmack. No conflict with BC Hydro infrastructure was identified in either Dialog’s report or Talmack’s report.”
As BC Hydro’s Freedom of Information department put it: “Please be advised that we checked with the departments who would have known about the tree and electrical vault, and none of them indicated knowing about any correspondence with the City of Victoria (to or from).”
THAT Council approve the updated concept design for Centennial Square and direct staff to proceed with implementation as outlined in this report, as amended by the following: 1. Increase the child-orientated play features in the final designs. Committee of the While Minutes July 04, 2024 7 2. In future consider commercial mixed-use to return to the north side of the Square. 3. After removal of the unsafe trees, and without slowing down the project, staff to repurpose the timber within the Victoria community as they see fit.
The urban area of the City of Victoria is the Garry oak ecosystem (GOE)–– a fact often left out of discussions on the urban forest. The Garry oak ecosystem, or Kwetlal food system in the ləkwW əŋən language, has been shaped by Indigenous agroecological management for thousands of years and emerged after the glacial retreat around 10,000 years ago. Prior to European settlement, most of the land now within the City of Victoria (with the exception of the shorelines and the low-lying riparian areas), supported the Garry oak ecosystem. The open woodland character resulted from millennia of ləkwW əŋən land management and harvesting. In the absence of these activities, the landscape would be dominated by closed stands of Douglas-fir and Grand fir.
The Garry oak (GO), a long-lived keystone species, currently supports over 1,645 co-evolved species of plants, insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, making its preservation crucial. GO and associated ecosystems in this region have a unique local genetic adaptation would be difficult to re- introduce if lost. With continued intentional inputs drawing from ləkwW əŋən knowledge, human and non- human populations may continue to benefit from this highly adaptable and long-lived plant community.
A significant value for Victorians is nature, our climate, our hills, our natural green areas, and our urban forest. Section 4, Blue Green Networks of the 2025 DRAFT OCP, includes a brief description of the City’s need for attention to the Urban Forest. The Urban Forest city-wide canopy cover is about 28 per cent (Draft OCP).
The City of Victoria Urban Forest Master Plan (February 2013) recommends that a canopy cover goal of 40% would be appropriate for cities in the Pacific Northwest. Table 1 of that document, citing a 2013 LIDAR analyses, states Victoria’s City Wide Canopy Coverage was 26%. (see Appendix for list of reference documents).
The City’s Tree Protection Bylaw’s (21-035) Tree Reserve cash-in-lieu program receives funds when trees are removed from private property (75% of the urban forest) in order to replace them on public property (25% of the urban forest). While the City performs an appraisal value for trees on public property which could be valued between $6000 and $100,000 per tree to compensate for the value of the tree, installation and maintenance of the replacement tree, the cash-in-lieu fee associated with a deficit of the tree minimum at the end of a project on private land is $2000 per tree.
Therefore, there are not enough funds collected from private property tree removals to plant and maintain replacement trees on public property. The City cannot replace trees on private land and achieve a 40% tree canopy target by 2050. We recognize higher costs that the City will need to increase costs for maintenance of trees removed from private property and maintained on public property.
An increase in fees for cash-in-lieu would incentivize developers to replace more trees and conversely, to disincentivize expedient tree removal.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That Council direct staff to
Set 5-year tree canopy (growth) targets within the OCP supporting a 40% city-wide 2050 tree canopy goal.
Set five-year neighbourhood-level planting targets within the OCP to reach a 40% tree canopy by 2050.
3. Raise cash-in-lieu fees when a development does not meet the Tree Protection Bylaw tree minimum on private property from $2000 to $5000 per tree to go into the Tree Reserve Fund, to reach 40% tree canopy by 2050.
Outcome:
1. Set 5-year tree canopy (growth) targets within the OCP supporting a 40% city-wide 2050 tree canopy goal. (APPROVED)
2. Set five-year neighbourhood-level planting targets within the OCP to reach a 40% tree canopy by 2050. (APPROVED – Amended to add “city-wide” to indicate that the Neighbourhood targets can vary from 40% but contribute to the city average of 40% and passed 5 to 3, Dell, Kim, and Thompson voted against.)
3. Raise cash-in-lieu fees when a development does not meet the Tree Protection Bylaw tree minimum on private property from $2000 to $5000 per tree to go into the Tree Reserve Fund, to reach 40% tree canopy by 2050. (This has been moved to a later date so that staff can report back)
Additional Information
The relationship between land use development and tree canopy is a dynamic one; each influences the other. Our community’s aspirations for the future, as outlined in the Official Community Plan (OCP), reflect our values. The Urban Forest Master Plan lays out specific goals that guide us toward realizing this vision. Trees, particularly those on private properties, play a crucial role in enhancing the ecosystem services that benefit our residents. By increasing the cash-in-lieu fee from $2,000 to $5,000 per tree that falls short of the required minimum, we create a strong incentive for developers to comply with the Tree Protection Bylaw rather than diminishing our community’s green resources. Even the addition of a single tree per development can have a meaningful impact on our ecosystem without incurring costs for the city in terms of planting and maintenance.
Cash-in-lieu charges are for each tree that does not meet the required minimum on a property at a 1:1 ratio. This approach differs from the 3:1 tree retention credit ratio that encourages the preservation of large, healthy specimen trees. It’s important to note that trees retained and replacements made to meet the minimum requirements are exempt from these cash-in-lieu charges.
While the City recognizes the value of trees on public lands when calculating ecosystem services, cash-in-lieu payments have not successfully compensated for tree loss. Over the past three years, the City has collected $1,047,000 from developments that fell short of the tree minimum, resulting in a net loss of 523 trees from private properties. The cost of planting trees in boulevards is at least $1,250 each, and in areas with hardscaping, like linear parks, the cost rises to $10,000 or more, not to mention the ongoing maintenance required. Many municipalities still use outdated cash-in-lieu fees that don’t reflect the actual costs of planting trees on public land, leading them to operate at a loss. By raising these fees, the City of Victoria can enhance tree canopy growth, discourage unnecessary tree removals on private properties, and better support the budget necessary for maintaining ecosystem services provided by City staff on public land.
There are important points, and assist towards a positive impact on residents’ physical and mental health and a greener, more sustainable community.
Deliberation related to neighbourhoods: Derrick Newman, City of Victoria Director of Parks, wants to look at neighbourhood typology rather than “artificial boundaries within the city limits.” Councillor Caradonna said that the “point of the one city OCP is to move away from neighbourhood level plans, and what I’m seeing and hearing from staff is that number 2 creates a lot of challenges because then we’re back to figuring out what’s going on at the neighbourhood level,” and that he “does not want to move us backwards to neighbourhood plans.”
Using LiDAR data to Measure the City’s Tree Canopy. LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) technology uses laser pulses to create detailed 3D models of the environment.
The City of Victoria’s Urban Forest Canopy Analysis from 2019 to 2023 was posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2025. Individual data points create point clouds based on latitude, longitude and elevation, which can be used to generate detailed maps.
Data
Explore the tree canopy change across the City on VicMap . You’ll find layers for tree canopy measurements taken in 2013, 2019, and 2023 in the layer list under Environment.
The Tree Canopy TIF images are available on our Open Data Portal ( opendata.victoria.ca ):
The 2019 LiDAR was provided by LiDAR BC and can be downloaded directly from their website. The 2013 and 2023 LiDAR datasets are too large to share on our Open Data Portal. LiDAR data requests indicating an area of interest can be sent to GIS@victoria.ca. LiDAR analyses for these projects were performed by Terra Remote Sensing Inc. located in Sidney, BC.
Background
The City has measured urban forest canopy cover using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) technology since 2013. Measurements were taken in 2013, 2019 and 2023 using consistent methodology to ensure accuracy and comparability.
LiDAR generates detailed 3D models to assess the horizontal and vertical growth of trees while filtering out low vegetation and built infrastructure. The technology is detailed, accurate, and comprehensive in classifying vegetation above two metres.
Status
The City’s total tree canopy cover grew from 26 per cent to 30 per cent between 2013-2023, an increase of approximately 70 hectares, or more than 100 soccer fields. Importantly, the data shows growth in all neighbourhoods across the City.
This increase is primarily associated with healthy, existing, mature trees. This trend also suggests that the City’s long-term approach to urban forest management has been effective, and that trees are being managed well on private property (75% of the urban forest).
Additional details are now available on the City’s website which illustrate the tree canopy change over time and explain how canopy is measured using LiDAR. The map and downloadable data are available at the City’s story map website.
Reflections
Initial reflections of City of Victoria’s 2019-2023 LiDAR vegetation change detection analysis
-The rate of urban forest growth fell by 50% from the previous period of analysis (2013-2019)
-The urban forest net gain was +47.4 hectares between 2013-2019 (+2.37% to 28.83% city-wide), and according to the City’s website an additional net gain occurred in 2019-2023 of +24 hectares (1.26% to 30% city-wide).
-Terra Remote Sensing provided comment on the 2013-2019 COV change detection analysis, and it is relevant to reflect as the rate of growth drops by 50%: ” It will be of importance to monitor the continual changes in the city’s vegetation canopy to assess whether the fill in growth of existing and new plantings will continue to outstrip the vegetation loss. Further to on-going monitoring, determining age class, distribution, and species composition will help to forecast vegetation growth trends and potentially predict when vegetation growth will cease to offset losses.”
– In four short years we are 23 hectares short of the previous four years’ urban tree canopy growth rate. COV Parks notes “A consistent finding is that the growth of healthy mature trees offsets canopy lost due to development, extreme weather, decline and disease.”, but it’s important to reflect on the slowing rate of growth.
– Limitations: the only information provided by the City on the 2019-2023 canopy gain is “From 2013-23, Victoria’s tree canopy grew by about 70 hectares, which is more than 100 soccer fields”.
2013-2019 grew about the size of 60 soccer fields. 2019-2023 grew by only 40 soccer fields. The data looks better if reported over a ten year period from 2013-2023.
The numbers look a lot better over 2013-2023 than 2019-2023. We can see the momentum of canopy growth vs. canopy loss is shrinking fast, and we could soon revisit the 2007-2013 period which produced a net gain of .05% (1 hectare). It’s below the margin of error for the analysis methods.
-The conversation around the City’s potential adoption of a goal to achieve 40% canopy cover city-wide should consider 2019-2023’s halving of the canopy growth rate.
Canopy goals should be achievable: you cannot get to 40% if the rate continues to slow and we approach 0% or a net loss scenario.
