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.
In 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.
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.”
The City of Victoria’s Urban Forest Canopy Analysis from 2019 to 2023 was posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2025.
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.
Critical review
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 (1.17% 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”.
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.
A conversation about the distribution of biodiversity within and between the City of Victoria’s neighbourhoods.
To complement the City’s excellent inventory of all trees on public land, the Victoria Community Association Network (VCAN) has involved each neighbourhood in an inventory of Garry oaks and other elements of biodiversity on private property. Each neighbourhood developed their own approach and will be reporting back to residents on what they learned and what we have learned about the larger patterns within our urban forest.
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. Objectives of the project include:
to connect people, cultural connections to the territory, map current Garry oak distribution, enhance canopy equity.
to directly benefit residents and wildlife, wildlife corridors for the movement and dispersal of organisms, and establish nodes of functioning.
assist in protecting and restoring the function of sensitive ecosystems and natural areas, including habitat corridors and assist with the parks acquisition strategy (9.2 of the Official Community Plan).
This project was made possible by a City of Victoria “My Great Neighbourhood Grant”, the volunteers, a GIC consultant, and support letters from the Sierra Club and the Rockland Neighbourhood Association who administered the grant.
GOMPS provided a letter of support and urban forest expertise via a walking tour for participants.
Zoom to enlarge areas on the map. The City of Victoria Garry oak tree inventory data is noted in green. Other points represent individual trees or areas where Garry oaks exist. Please note, this is not an individual Garry oak tree count and does not represent all Garry oak trees in the City of Victoria. Neighbourhoods participating in this community building project included Burnside Gorge, Downtown, Fairfield / Gonzales, Fernwood, Hillside Quadra, James Bay, North Jubilee, South Jubilee, North Park, Oaklands, Rockland, Victoria West.
The scale of land use changes in the City of Victoria created a discussion by the VCAN Mapping Team on how start a conversation about the Garry oak ecosystem with market actors like builders and developers. The City of Victoria’s Tree Protection Bylaw (2021) and Urban Forest Master Plan (2013) were created before the “Victoria 2050” Draft OCP (2025) and does not account for increased building footprints and heights. Therefore, there will likely be updates to these documents.In the meantime, this invitation serves as a starting point for conversation, to create cultural and ecosystem awareness, and to maintain and enhance a healthy canopy and ecosystem through collaboration.The document is available as a Word (.doc) template. Each neighbourhood can insert their logo, and percentage of canopy cover using data from the included charts.
