Urban Forest Strategy Canopy Targets and Programming Correspondence

From: mrs linda jeaurond
Sent: December 8, 2025 7:38 PM
To: Info Address info@viewroyal.ca; Mayor And Council Email mayorandcouncil@viewroyal.ca
Cc: janedev.lee; Roz Vrcc; Ian Brown; Peter Hamilton; Richard Caldwell; Patricia Gooch; Gillian Petrini; Angela Hanes
Subject: Urban Forest Strategy Canopy Targets and Programming

Dear Mayor Tobias and council,

Thank you for developing an Urban Forest Strategy for View Royal, as it's very useful to see such a detailed analysis of what we have and what's possible.

However the urban canopy recommendation before you reflects a do nothing business as usual position. It is business as usual that created the canopy cover problem in VR in the first place. Our community has acknowledged that a climate emergency is here, assets must be managed to address foreseeable risks.

View Royal has a fundamental duty to protect the long-term well-being and safety of residents, and the municipality, over short-term budgetary convenience.

Natural infrastructure in urban areas, like tree canopy, saves View Royal money in engineered infrastructure and insurance risks by reducing burdens on stormwater management as well as energy and water use in heat and drought events. It also improves public health and increases biodiversity by providing clean air, shading, carbon sequestration, and pollution filtering for our vital watersheds.

If View Royal were to limit tree canopy targets to "net-neutral," it may reduce short-term costs, but it also increases long-term risks and costs, because it would result in higher costs for managing extreme heat, drought, and flooding, as well as insurance for the municipality and residents.
https://www.intactcentreclimateadaptation.ca/recent-reports/

1. At a minimum we request that View Royal to adopt Diamond Head's 1% growth strategy (mentioned in the Engineering report & on Diamond Head's report page 44-45)

The Staff Recommendation for net neutral isn't enough.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1817561116

If it requires a tax increase to hire an urban forester and other staff support, then 88% of residents support it.

As Staff noted, staffing is critical. From Diamond Head's report: "...it is important to recognize that a full range of program actions, beyond just the act of planting of trees, benefits the sustainability of an urban forest management program, supports community resilience to climate change, and elongates tree lifecycles. Activities like cyclical pruning, tree watering, community outreach, planning and development processes, and program monitoring each are every bit as important to growing View Royal’s urban forest canopy as is the act of planting trees itself."

2. Diamond Head's report shows that 58% of urban forest is on private land. This means that all new developments need to ensure enough space for high canopy cover on private lots, not just public rights of way. This means connected green spaces and soil volumes through consistent setbacks in front and/or back yards in new developments.

Note - use BC Bill 16’s expanded works and services authorities for enhanced urban tree canopy and heat mitigation:
“An expanded list of items that local governments can require, including things like street furniture, parklets, streetlamps and sustainable design features. Expanded road dedication authority to require new developments to provide more land for things like wider sidewalks, street trees and traffic calming that cannot be accommodated within current limits”
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housing-tenancy/local-governments-and housing/housing-initiatives/new-local-government-tools#

3. View Royal is calculating that the Urban Containment Boundary can go with a lower 30% target because Thetis Lake & areas outside UCB provide higher %, so the average is 40%. (Page 45-46 of Diamond Head report) Often municipalities allow for lower canopy coverage around 30%-35% in some neighbourhoods. However, that doesn't take into account climate adaptation for urban areas, which the CRD has recognized is critical.

This includes protection from extreme heat and flash flooding over impermeable surfaces caused by urban heat islands, as well as the need for shading on active transportation routes, and the need for wildlife corridors adjacent to important habitat areas like the Victoria Harbour Migratory Bird Sanctuary.

4. View Royal needs to state that its overall goal is 40% urban canopy, as other neighbouring CRD municipalities and also Metro Vancouver have done:

Metro Vancouver’s
40% target is inside the Urban Containment Boundary.
https://metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/Documents/metro vancouver-tree-regulations-toolkit.pdf
https://metrovancouver.org/services/regionalplanning/

Victoria,
motion from Marg Gardiner to increase canopy to 40%, adopted into new OCP:
https://pub-victoria.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=101687

Oak Bay 40%
https://www.oakbay.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/DOB-Urban-Forest Management-Stategy.pdf

Saanich is actually 44%:
44% District-wide • 26% in Stanch Core • At least 30% in all other Local Areas, with 40-year planting targets: • At least 26,000 new (non-replacement) trees by 2064 on public property • At least 28,000 new (non-replacement) trees by 2064 on private property
https://www.saanich.ca/assets/Parks~Recreation~and~Community~Services/Documents/Action%20Plan%20fromSaanichUFS.pdf

Langford 40%
https://langford.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Urban-Forest-Management Plan.pdf

Esquimalt 40%
https://www.esquimalt.ca/sites/default/files/docs/related/Esquimalt_final_Urban Forest-Management-Plan-2016_0.pdf

5. Set Urban Forest Targets as part of an overall Climate Adaptation Strategy, Stormwater Management, and Ground Permeability, as Colwood has done:

"The urban tree canopy is expanded by an additional 327 ha, increasing ground permeability, and reducing stormwater runoff by 7.5%."

"The urban tree canopy provides only modest savings at $76/t in the scope of this analysis, but does not include the additional co-benefits from reduced infrastructure costs, reduced urban heat island, increased land value, or improvements to the community’s connection to nature and mental health. These benefits would improve the net savings of urban tree canopy increases"

https://icleicanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Colwood-Adaptation Strategies_ICLEI-FINAL.pdf
https://www.colwood.ca/sites/default/files/2024-06/Climate%20Planning%20Foundations%20Report_July20_Endorsed%20Aug%2028%202023.pdf

6. Get trees into the ground now.
   Select drought-tolerant landscaping and native trees eg Garry Oaks and Arbutus to achieve targets - because trees takes 20+ years to reach maturity for canopy cover (and with natives like Garry oaks, it takes 50+ years to have good canopy & 200 years for maturity)
   Avoid fast-growing non-native trees as they don't support native insects & wildlife as effectively - creating problems for biodiversity - and they're often not adapted to our climate, so they may not survive as well without water.

In conclusion, a significant increase in tree coverage, to at least 40% inside the urban containment boundary UCB is needed to mitigate future built-in catastrophic costs associated with climate change.

To plan for anything less is not only fiscally shortsighted it is a dereliction of duty.

It’s also strongly against known public sentiment.

Council, we urge you to not let this municipality become a regional climate laggard, especially considering the significant environmental achievements you have made during this term.

This is not the time to dilute or reduce climate ambitions.

Sincerely,

VRCC core team, Ian Brown, Richard Rj Caldwell, Jane Devonshire, Patricia Gooch, Peter Hamilton, Angela Hanes, Roz Isaac, Linda Jeaurond, Gillian Petrini

———-Additional references———