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.
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.
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.
The City of Victoria has collected urban tree canopy data over multiple years by to perform ongoing measurements of its urban forest canopy. The City has outsourced urban tree canopy monitoring (i.e., vegetation) twice the past, measuring between 2007-2013 and 2013-2019. This process should be repeated with the recently obtained urban tree canopy measurement capture in LiDAR for 2023. By doing so, there will be better understanding of how the urban forest has been impacted by development policies and practices between 2019 and 2023.
The results of urban forest monitoring compares urban forest measurements over time and clarifies how present land use development policies and the Tree Protection Bylaw interrelate. This analysis is integral to understanding proposed changes to the Official Community Plan (OCP) and the potential for neighbourhood level urban tree canopy loss over the medium to long term.
Research supports how deficiencies in tree canopy at the neighborhood-level
a) diminish residents’ physical and mental health outcomes; b) removes wildlife habitat and reduce overall species diversity; and c) reduces ecosystem services capacity, for example, provision of surface shading during heatwaves and reducing peak stormwater flows.
From 2013 to 2019, Victoria’s urban forest grew by 2.37%, achieving a citywide canopy cover of 28.8%. The growth measured during this period predates the updated Tree Protection Bylaw (21-035) and adoption of required tree minimums through the development process.
The Tree Protection Bylaw has not been updated since the introduction of City of Victoria’s Missing Middle Housing Initiative and the Province of BC Bills 44 and 37. This is significant, because housing policies which prioritize the built environment can undermine physical protections for trees and tree minimums thru developments established in the Tree Protection Bylaw – and the families of wildlife trees support.
The targeted tree density (i.e., “tree minimum) established in the Bylaw have so far not been evaluated for effectiveness. This approach to urban forestry stewardship through urban development is theoretical. It lacks empirical evidence to support its effectiveness and continued application.
Over 75% of the urban forest is on private property. While the Tree Reserve Fund has collected nearly 1.8 million dollars from January 2021 to March 2024, The accumulation of funds in the Tree Reserve between 2021-2023 is evidence of that ineffectiveness. In only 3 years the City accumulated $1,047,000 from developments that could not achieve the tree minimum, which equals net deficit of 523 trees from private property.
The release of 2023 LiDAR data, and the City’s own Tree Protection Bylaw metrics concerning tree removal and replacement related to development presents a timely opportunity to update urban forest monitoring. Analyzing changes from 2019 to 2023 will improve City of Victoria’s understanding of existing urban forest policies and the links to land use development changes over the past five years. This will also help inform Bylaw modernization, and improve the potential for realizing the goals set forth in the “Victoria 2050” vision and in the Urban Forest Master Plan.
On behalf of the RNA LUC,
we offer the following recommendations to Mayor and Council as part of the OCP review process:
Slide 3 We request that City of Victoria Urban Forestry staff perform the following data analyses and provide recommendations to incorporate in the Draft OCP “Victoria 2025.”
a) 2021-2025 neighbourhood-level metrics on quantity of trees retained and quantity of trees removed through developments, and b) 2021-2025 neighbourhood-level metrics on quantity of development sites that met Tree Protection Bylaw tree minimums compared to developments that did not meet the Tree Protection Bylaw tree minimums.
Obtain vegetation (urban tree canopy) change detection analysis for 2019-2023 using the methods of previous monitoring surveys conducted by Terra Remote Sensing
Define the percentage of plantable space for residential zoning parameters relative to findings of Actions 1 and 2.
This letter serves as an open invitation for you to consider some of the unique community forest qualities in the territory that you now call home.
The urban landscape of Victoria is characterized by Kwetlal, known also as the Garry oak ecosystem (GOE). This is a crucial detail often overlooked in conversations about the urban forest. Before European settlement, the majority of the land that now encompasses the City of Victoria was dominated by Garry oak ecosystems, and that is in large part because of Lekwungen management over thousands of years.
The Garry oak tree, a long-lived keystone species, is vital to this ecosystem, supporting over 1,645 organisms (plants, insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals). More than 100 of these species are currently classified as Species At Risk in British Columbia.
Recently, the City of Victoria supported a story mapping project through the My Great Neighbourhood Grant. The project’s goals were building community awareness of cultural connections to the land, examining the effects of settlement on the landscape, and creating opportunities for residents to engage with urban nature. The story mapping also aimed to identify wildlife corridors that enable organism movement between ecological hubs.
During the story mapping project, we learned that old-growth trees (defined as those over 250 years old by the BC Government), some exceeding 500 years, continue to thrive in parks and in neighborhoods within the City’s boundaries. These old trees are an important symbol of the rich cultural heritage from Lekwungen stewardship. Together, the project team achieved remarkable outcomes through community engagement and participation. We gained insights into the uniqueness of each neighborhood and identified vital wildlife corridors that also provide health and wellness benefits to people.
At the Council of the Whole Meeting on January 23rd concerning the topic of tree removal in Central Park, you shared opinions from your experiences of tree removal and replacement on a 20-year cycle in the South Okanagan regarding the need to advance a City, “I grew up in a farming family in the South Okanagan, where trees are cut down and replanted every 20 years.” Context is important when it comes to the environment trees are being managed in. When it comes to trees in highly built-up areas, maximizing the useful life expectancy of public trees is well understood in urban forestry management professional discipline. The benefits derived from urban trees are just beginning to outgrow the costs at 20 years from planting. Crucial City infrastructure like water mains and recreation facilities begin to degrade from the moment they are installed, requiring increasing amounts of maintenance until they must be replaced. Trees are City infrastructure and unlike pipes in the ground, the benefits delivered to the City from its trees provides a cost benefit ratio that is increasingly favourable over the span of decades.
Garry oak and associated ecosystems in this region have a unique local genetic adaptation to the environment and its associated species community would be difficult to re-introduce if lost. Garry oak is highly adapted to severe droughts and heat, including on rocky outcrops with shallow soil. Protecting existing patches of GOE, providing appropriate management, and expanding patches will have great importance for the life cycles of many organisms, and in a changing climate for biodiversity and human health.
The ongoing dialogue about tree removal and urban development in Victoria must account for the intricate relationships between species and their habitats. Unlike the cyclical practice of cutting and replanting fruit trees, the Garry oak ecosystem benefits from a more nuanced approach. It requires a commitment to understanding the needs of its diverse inhabitants and recognizing that many of these species are already under threat due to habitat loss and environmental changes.
As we move forward, it is essential for a collaborative approach for Victoria’s urban forest. Stewardship of Garry oak ecosystems is an act of recognition, appreciation, and support for Indigenous historic and ongoing management. By fostering collaboration and open dialogue, we can create a more resilient and vibrant urban landscape that is crucial to reconnect community members to each other and connect the community with nature of the region.
In conclusion, we invite Councillor Matt Dell and all members of the council to join us in this important journey. Let us work together to not only protect the Garry oak ecosystem but also to inspire our community about the value of trees for human health and for biodiversity. Through collective action and informed decision-making, we can ensure that Victoria remains a thriving city where nature and culture coexist harmoniously, benefiting generations to come.
