The science is conclusive, trees matter! Not only can trees help regulate weather, filter smoke and pollutants, absorb stormwater runoff and prevent floods, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, provide beauty, shade, and shelter for thousands of needed insects, pollinators and birds, but they also provide a calming influence that greatly contributes to the livability of cities.

This list of questions was given to City of Victoria candidates running in this October 15, 2022 election by the Community Trees Matter Network. Individuals, groups, and organizations are encouraged to use these types of questions in their decision making and debates.

1) Victoria’s urban forest helps save lives and contributes to human health by cooling streets and homes and cleaning wildfire smoke and other pollutants from the air.

A) Do you support making the Urban Forest Manager part of the Planning Department to reflect the important work of urban forests in protecting the health and well-being of our community? Why or why not?

Chris Coleman:  “I’m certainly open to making the position part of the Planning Dept, if that is the best fit. There would, however, need to be discussion of where the position fit in the Departmental Org chart (i.e. is it a position with the appropriate authority & budget to achieve its goals?). I think the Planning Dept may well be the best place for the position….but I’d like the discussion.”

Ben Isitt: “Since the Urban Forest encompasses City owned parkland and boulevards, as well as private parcels subject to zoning and development controls, I am not convinced that moving the Urban Forest function into the Planning and Development Department is the most appropriate way to proceed. However, I believe that all employees within the Planning and Development Department need to recognize the importance of the urban forest. Policies and procedures supporting tree retention and restoration of the Urban Forest canopy should be included in training for all Planning Department staff, as well as in the review of all development proposals.”

Christopher Hanna: “The densification proposed by the Missing Middle (townhouses, quadplexes etc.) in single-family neighbourhoods almost guaranteed that the roots of neighbouring trees will be damaged.

Raising houses on their existing foundations (preserving the existing house footprint) or building a garden suite (almost always based upon a slab foundation) greatly reduces the potential for damage to existing root systems.

There is some uncertainty regarding who is liable for damage caused by trees that owners have wanted to trim or cut down due to size— is it the homeowner who cannot reduce the potential danger posed by the tree or the city who refused to allow the threat to be reduced or eliminated.

Another problem that needs to be addressed is the question of very large trees (such as Douglas Firs) on city lots.  In my opinion these trees should not be permitted on urban lots as they are too tall and thereby pose a danger to houses and persons.

I also do not believe that homeowners should have to plant TWO trees when they remove one.  This is an overreach by the civic authorities in my opinion.

I heartily agree with you on the need to preserve school lands for future generations.  Many school grounds could also be improved by the planting of large deciduous trees.”

Stephen Hammond: “It would depend on the reporting relationship between the UFM and the head of Planning. I believe integrating protection of the tree canopy and especially of mature trees into planning and development processes is important. Integrating the Urban Forest Manager into Planning and Development may increase this integration, but if the UFM reports to the head of Planning, there is a chance that their autonomy could be undermined. The UFM should have a separate locus of authority, independent of Planning.”

Marg Gardiner: “Trees are supposed to be part of consideration in all development proposals.  However, in development proposals, neighbours’ pleas to not have trees removed seem not to be heard. Although I know of ‘protected trees’ being removed, I have not seen a recent data chart or listing of saves, gains and losses.

I don’t think that moving staff would make a difference . . .  it is direction from Council that is needed.

I support the recommendations in the Urban Forest MasterPlan, and was an “Alternate Member” of the Steering Committee.

However, I am concerned that the complementary “Greenways” plans are sometimes cast aside in development discussions.”

Matt Dell: “The City officially hired an Urban Forest Manager in 2020 and I support the work this position does in the City. It’s critical that we have a dedicated staff person to review and implement the Urban Forest Master Plan vision. I am strongly committed to implementing the Urban Forest Master Plan, including to acquire new parkland, plant more trees in existing parks, and ensure all new developments preserve trees or create public funding to acquire more green space.

Rob Duncan:  “Yes, because urban trees are important for our community in a number of ways.”

Jeremy Caradonna:  “Yes, I support both actions.”

Emmanuel Parenteau: “To give you an idea of where I stand, I was dead set against the removal of the Cherry Blossom trees when it was proposed by council 2 years ago. What makes Victoria such a gem is its green spaces and tree canopies. My platform is mainly centered around the homeless crisis and affordability (housing) and we are in a busy campaigning season. I perused the Urban Forest Master Plan but did not study it in depth. I agree with the spirit of the document. I would have to study it in depth and then meet with your society to discuss details. I don’t know if I would agree with everything. But I certainly wouldn’t totally disagree either. I want to keep Victoria as green as possible (for example I was against the downtown lawn bowling club being replaced with a large condo structure (behind Spaghetti Factory).”

David Johnston:  “As Mayor I will be acting to stop the addiction epidemic, outright. To that end tent-cities will become tenable again (to the chagrin of those at the helm of the condominium development who happen to be the only ones with a stake in having the streets flooded with crack, crystal meth and heroin), allowing a never seen before pool of gardeners to help face imminent global economic and environmental collapse by blanketing the whole city with a permaculture makeover.”

William Scott:  “I passionately support these recommendations, and they are part of the third plank of my election platform ( see below). Furthermore, I believe that before developments involving Douglas Fir/Garry Oak ecosystems locally and throughout the CRD proceed, Goals R, Y & Z in the forestry plan should apply. Typically, destruction occurs, including the scraping of all plants and 10,000 year-old soil from an entire lot or within the building footprint.  A thorough salvage of the plants and soil should be mandated so that there is a pool of plants and soil available for ecological restoration efforts on the green spaces of parks, schools, and private lands elsewhere in the city or CRD region.

My Platform #3 Consideration of the flora and fauna of our natural systems must go beyond tokenism.

The city’s Climate Adaptation Working Group and Leadership Plan reports suggest that hotter, drier summers; increased drought like conditions; and extreme rainfall events will be more likely, dramatically affecting our land and ocean-based ecosystems.  In the city, the urban forest acts to reduce flood risk and keep neighbourhoods and public spaces cool. The Missing Middle initiative as proposed revealed how little the natural ecosystem is considered by city planners. It is essential that the urban forestry director, the urban forest master plan and the parks department become a more vital part of any development proposal, such that they have the same weight as Engineering. 

Built systems must incorporate suitable habitat and regeneration of natural systems in new or compromised green spaces.

Community gardens, pollinator pathways along city streets, and back yard biodiversity are vital to the health and well being of all the city’s inhabitants.”

Susan Simmons:  “I support the idea of this but would need to know more about the specifics. I am a conservationist and want to do all I can to preserve and manage all of our forests.”

Marianne Alto:  “Prior to being a city councillor, I was a member of the Steering Committee that drafted the first version of the Urban Forest Master Plan, so I do support making and activating policies that reinforce and realize its recommendations. The city’s tree canopy and healthy green spaces need enhanced tree and native planting programs, and overall we must continually update the UFMP and Tree Protection – and other – Bylaw(s) to reflect their collective relationship to urban design and expected densification. These documents are guides that need to be evolutionary, living strategies. Whether that is best served by a single urban forest manager or the attention of the whole planning department, tasked with the responsibility of ensuring the UFMP is intrinsic in planning, I am open to discussing.”

Sandy Janzen:  “Yes.”

Janice Williams:  “The urban forest manager was a new position that was filled in 2020 with Brooke Stark and is responsible for the long-term planning, the city’s natural area arboriculture and private tree protection. What is suggested is a reorganization of the position that has been recommended by the Urban Forest Master Plan dated February 2013. I’d like to consult with the City Manager to review the position, its main objectives and evaluate how the position is currently performing against its objectives. I would listen to the feedback provided by the city manager as to the best organizational position for this role. It may also be worthwhile to consider this role as a regional position (more appropriate at the CRD level) rather than a municipal one as the opportunities for urban forest development and renewal are likely more feasible at a regional or at least core regional (Esquimalt, Oak Bay, Victoria, & Saanich) level.

Derek Pinto:  “Yes.  I am huge tree lover. Have been all my life. Preserving urban trees is critical. Thanks so much for the work you are doing.”

Steve Orcherton:  “ I do support urban forest considerations  when considering planning initiatives. However,  I think we may be able to augment this assistance to decision making through a heightened participation from our parks staff with city planning. Of course any initiative of this sort would need to establish mandates/roles and realize achievable goals. 

Shea Smith:  “I would like to assure you I support as much green space in Victoria as can be especially for trees.Yes i would support a urban forest manager as part of planning as it does play its own specific area and needs to be treated as such with an equal amount of representation.”

Rod Graham:  “Thank you for your concern about preserving mature trees in Victoria.  Yes – definitely these 26 recommendations as well as making the Irban Forest Manager part of the Planning department. We need to keep as much vegetation as possible – We also need to curb over- development in urban areas.”

Riga Godron:  “Yes because then it would actually be prioritized.”

Michelle Wiboltt:  “This, in part, is why I like the ideas of “pod villages “ less destructive ALLs rounds, reasonable.”

Rafael Fuentes:  “My guideline would be the overall community plan of the city of Victoria.  If elected, I would love to work and collaborate with your organization moving forward.  Keep up the the great work !”

B) Do you support making the 26 recommended actions in the Urban Forest Master Plan part of the Planning Department’s mandate?

Chris Coleman:  “Yes. I was part of Council when this report was first brought forward. I was supportive then; I am supportive now!”

Ben Isitt: “Yes.”

Stephen Hammond: “Yes.  I would also like clarification about the Plan’s “quality over quantity” statements, and their actual implications.”

Matt Dell: “Yes, I strongly support the Urban Forest Master Plan vision and commit to upholding this important document. I’ve worked hard to protect urban trees in my role as President of the South Jubilee Neighbourhood Association, including to help our community acquire a new park in 2020 that protected 27 old Garry Oak Trees (Kasapi Park).”

Rob Duncan:  “Most of them.”

David Johnston:  “Don’t know what those are, but if they recognize that implicit survival means survival with honour they are probably on the up and up. Though, I do realize that a lot of effort has gone into the policies of a lot of organizations that must work around certain official presumptions of what the City is to become. As Mayor of Victoria the condos will stop. We will not become a small soulless Dubai.”

Susan Simmons:  “Respectfully, your plan is new to me. I would therefore like to spend more time reviewing it, perhaps with someone from your group walking me through it. What I have reviewed so far though looks great.”

Sandy Janzen:  “Honestly, I would need more time to look into this Urban Forest Master Plan but on principle if it supports maintaining and preserving trees, green spaces and parks then it’s a definite Yes from me.”

Janice Williams:  “I think the recommended actions merit review and consideration, but would want to consult with the City Manager and the planning department to determine the feasibility of wholesale adoption into the mandate as there may be conflicts with other elements of the planning department mandate. Further, it may be more useful to take a regional approach on this issue.”

Derek Pinto:  “Yes.”

Steve Orcherton:  “In Principle yes; however the application and implementation will require considerable discussion and deliberation  from Council. It is important first to educate the public on the value of forests on  both public and private lands.”

Shea Smith:  “I support the work of the urban forest manager so yes I would ask for the 26 recommendations to be used I’m planning to some degree.”

Rod Graham:  “Yes – definitely these 26 recommendations as well as making the Irban Forest Manager part of the Planning department. We need to keep as much vegetation as possible – We also need to curb over- development in urban areas.”

Riga Godron:  “Yes.”

 

2) Public school land is part of our “Public Facilities, Institutions, Parks and Open Space” (OCP section 9).

A) Do you agree/disagree with the sale or lease of public school open space and green space for purposes other than education and recreation? Why or why not?

Chris Coleman:  “Generally no. There are always, however, unusual circumstances that might need consideration.”

Ben Isitt: “I generally oppose the sale of School District 61 lands, because these lands are required for long-term educational purposes, including outdoor education, and they are also required for community recreation and ecological function in our build-out city.”

Stephen Hammond: “I would agree with the lease, in some cases, depending on what the purposes are.”

Marg Gardiner: “Some of the school ‘public lands’ belongs to the City and some to the School Board.

In general, I believe that a compact City such as Victoria should keep ownership of as much land as possible.  Depending on the item in the Urban Forest MasterPlan and the site of the school, school lands may contribute to realisation of the MasterPlan objectives.”

Matt Dell: “I think all public land should remain protected and used for open space, natural ecosystems or recreation. While I am strongly pro-housing, I would rather see new housing added on parking lots, or overtop of older buildings (with protections for tenants). I do not advocate for building on school land or parks.”

Rob Duncan:  “No, I generally disagree, except possibly in the case of using the land for a high priority affordable housing development. The reason I disagree is that there’s already not enough green space in Victoria, and we shouldn’t be using the green space that there is for other purposes.”

Jeremy Caradonna:  “In general, I believe that public school land is essential for the urban canopy and as green space. I do support the social housing building in Fernwood that will be built on land acquired by the school district, which was not green space. Currently, the biggest challenge is the use of portables. Many schools have added them in recent years (Oaklands, George Jay) and the trend is towards diminished green space. We need to ensure that educational needs are met without compromising essential green space.”

Emmanuel Parenteau:  “I’m not totally against it, no. But it would have to be decided upon in a case by case basis.”

David Johnston:  “As Mayor I will need be wooed like a tyrant king if anyone wants to lay a cement foundation for anything other than gardens or public facilities.”

William Scott:  “On principle, I disagree with the sale of public school open space and green space.  We already have many schools with a growing number of portables placed outside on their school grounds, and there is no crystal ball available to tell us that we will not need this space in the future for new schools.  We should not be making up for the province’s lack of funding by selling off school district property.  I am not opposed to the leasing of school district property. I taught adults at S.J. Willis and the building’s unused classrooms and gymnasium were rented out for various events and community activities.”

Susan Simmons:  “I feel we are loosing public green spaces and am not in favour of that. We need to preserve as many of these space as we can. I would be in favour however of the city looking into purchasing public school space for parks and community gardens. We lost our community garden in James Bay. It was sad to see it go. It provided a retreat to many.”

Marianne Alto:  “In very limited circumstances, I think SD lands can be used to expand residents’ opportunities to enjoy open, green space with and without minor recreation facilities (such as outdoor gym equipment, 

playgrounds, fields for unorganized play etc.). With a city that has severely limited land, serious consideration must be given to the highest and best use of every square metre. These conversations must be had collaboratively with the school district and residents, to ensure there is balanced, intentional design and decision making for any new uses of SD lands. We must work together to ensure every Victorian can enjoy a healthy, safe, active life, in a caring community that balances the 

needs of all, without ignoring urban pressures and realities, and always looking for solutions based in compassion, practicality and reason. The City’s Parks and Open Space Master Plan will help protect sensitive ecosystems, create new spaces for parks and pathways, and more parks and open spaces in all neighbourhoods. But as we grow, we need more public opportunities for Victorians to gather and share, with new playgrounds, plazas and parklets – places where Victorians who embrace modern living in smaller private spaces have the chance to easily socialize and enjoy outside environments near where they live. School district lands can play a part of this.” 

Sandy Janzen:  “Disagree because school green spaces are for children to learn and play in.”

Janice Williams:  “I think the sale or lease of public school open space is very case specific and each case merits consideration of its advantages and disadvantages. As our city grows, it should be expected that we will need more capacity in our schools and that we will also need more public green space. To this end selling public school lands may be at odds with long term needs for both educational purposes and recreational purposes. Increased density often means that people are without private green space and are far more reliant upon the public green spaces that remain. As such those green spaces have to be well maintained and available for their intended use by the public.”

Steve Orcherton:  “I am seeking Municipal Council office – not as a trustee in SD 61. Having said that, I value green space and have always held the view that Public Lands should not be sold or leased , rather public lands need to be held in the public trust. Public land needs to be conserved for future public use.”

Riga Godron:  “No to selling public school land.  Public school land is a publicly held resource that should be cherished and cared for by the people elected and entrusted with its preservation.”

B) Do you agree/disagree with using public school land to address some of the 26 recommendations in the Urban Forest Master Plan? Why or why not?

Chris Coleman:  “I agree with such use. The educational system benefits enormously from such possible applications, any number of which make school “Living Biology Laboratories” for example. It can be used to support all manner of educational endeavour…..in teaching French, for example, we learn “Si vous voulez écouter les chants des oiseaux, n’achetez pas des cages……plantez des arbres!””

Ben Isitt: “I support using public school land to support the recommendations in the Urban Forest Master Plan, recognizing the School District 61 Board’s authority respecting school lands, because these parcels of greenspace are of critical importance within neighbourhoods and have a role to place in retaining and restoring the Urban Forest canopy and providing community cooling in the content of climate change.”

Stephen Hammond:  “It would depend on which recommendation is being addressed. Having a school host trees, participate in protection programs, contribute to biodiversity strategies might be useful and educational.”

Matt Dell:  “Yes I agree with this. Many of the recommendations in the Master Plan are specifically about public land, including to map trees, monitor health, and vigorously plant new trees. I support planting new trees on public school land, especially so children can be surrounded by green space, shade and nature.”

Rob Duncan:  “Yes, I think public school land could in some cases be used to address recommendations of the Urban Forest Plan, provided this use doesn’t interfere with construction of new schools. The land surrounding schools could certainly be used to enhance the urban forest. I believe this would be acceptable because I see enhancing the urban forest as a high priority.”

David Johnston:  “Haven’t read the recommendations. Of course, it would absolutely vary.”

William Scott:  “I agree with this.  It makes sense for biodiversity reasons, connecting the green space of schools to parks, pathways and back yards, and for the use of school land by people in the community during non-school hours.  Specifically, it is advantageous  for achieving D, G, H, O, R, Y & Z of the UFMP’s recommendations.  

Involving the schools and local neighbourhoods in school ground and back yard biodiversity is important.  Students, parents and community members will tend to take personal actions to involve themselves in learning about and participating in activities, to salvage, preserve, or restore their urban forest and the Garry Oak ecosystem. It is also a wonderful opportunity for Lekwungen Traditional Ecological Knowledge, culture and history to be genuinely appreciated by all.”

Susan Simmons:  “I would be happy to see public school land being used as part of our urban forest where possible. I would like to see us increase urban forest opportunities. I am blessed to live across from Beacon Hill Park.”

Shea Smith:  “As much as the kids need there space if we needed to allocate some school or public land to the preservation of our urban forest, I believe that would be in our best interest as we all benefit. As far as actually selling the land that would be a decision harder to be made because of the permanence of  the transaction. It  would be better to zone rather than to liquidate.”

Sandy Janzen:  “like I said above I would need more time to look into these 26 recommendations but I am a nature nut if that is a strong enough indicator on how I would draft policies concerning our natural landscape.”

Janice Williams:  “I think this has to be done in consultation and collaboration with the school district.”

Riga Godron:  “Yes to implementing the 26 recommendations of the Urban Forest Master Plan.  The city of Victoria can use its land assets to expand the urban forest without cutting into school property.”

 

3) The South Island population is estimated to increase by 6,000 per year, and municipalities have the autonomy to develop their land base to attract newcomers.

A) Do you subscribe to the oft-cited theory that removing trees in Victoria for “infill development” will save trees in other municipalities? Why or why not?

Chris Coleman:  “No……there is absolutely no evidence to prove this true. Further, the only way such a correlation could be proven is if something like CACs (or specifically designated funds) were used to purchase & protect lands in other jurisdictions. The present system sees no relationship between other regional jurisdictions.”

Ben Isitt: “I think that new housing needs to be pursued within the City of Victoria, and that the existing build-up core area of the Capital Region is the appropriate location for new development to occur, rather than in wilderness areas and farmland within the Capital Region. However, I support retaining trees to the greater extent possible, by encouraging the conservation and renovation of existing buildings into multi-famiy housing, and by encouraging the siting of buildings in a manner that optimizes tree retention and minimizes tree removal.”

Stephen Hammond:  “No. Trees have benefits for Victoria residents and assessment about possible removal has to be assessed in terms of the impact on Victoria, not linked to other municipalities.”

Marg Gardiner: “Simple answer is NO. Victoria has no control over what trees exist beyond the city’s boundaries or what the future outside the City will bring in the way of development or tree canopy.

Trees elsewhere do not enhance our (residents) quality of life.  Climate change will make the tree canopy more important each year, to not only absorb GHGs but to provide shade and lower ground level temperature in public places.”

Matt Dell: “I support smart densification in the city, that preserves trees, boulevard trees and green space. We are building incredibly large single family homes, and I would rather see many of those be divided into multiple units so more families can fit in the city, while preserving green space. Infill should not jeopardize urban trees.  I do believe that sprawl is not desirable and threatens new forests, farmland and trees. All communities around BC, Canada, and the world should seek ways to densify urban areas, while preserving or adding new trees.”

Rob Duncan:  “No. This sounds like rhetoric originating with developers who want to cut down trees they see as being in the way. And there’s nothing to stop developers in other municipalities from doing the same, regardless of what happens in Victoria.”

Jeremy Caradonna:  “I don’t think Victoria needs to lose many trees at all for infill. It’s a false dichotomy. In any case, I am very concerned about loss of trees in our suburbs, and in my experience, it is large single family home development that leads to the greatest loss of trees. I could cite many examples in Fairfield, Gonzales, and Fernwood, and yet this infill is rarely cited as a problematic driver for loss of urban canopy.”

Emmanuel Parenteau:  “Again, I want as much greenery preserved as possible. But I would not blanket ban the removal of any and all trees. I’d like to thread the needle on this one. But I only support Official Community Plan zoning and this keeps densification in already densified areas of town. Which would, in principle, prevent a large scale tree loss, in my opinion.”

David Johnston:  “No. The developer mentality is a cultishly psychotic lack of foresight. If the current political string-pullers had their way Victoria’s population would double every year. We are in a genuine state of emergency that we can’t admit because we have debts to pay. Better to end the addiction epidemic so that tent-cities can be made tenable enough to attract 10-20% of the population than pretend cutting down trees for more condos is a noble idea.”

William Scott:  “I do not subscribe to this theory.  It is likely that the true carrying capacity of Victoria with 90,000 people in 19 km2 has already been exceeded.  Over the 35 years I’ve lived here, development has continually destroyed many of the remaining remnants of the Garry Oak/ Doug Fir forest. Development in both Victoria and other areas of the CRD has accelerated over the past ten years. For example. Langford is proceeding with a frontier-like mentality to development, with little regard for trees or the ecosystem.  I expand on my views on development and urban trees in #2 of my platform on my website votewilliamscott.ca.”

Susan Simmons:  “No. We do not control with other cities do or do not do. The infill development the City of Victoria was considering through their Missing Middle Initiative did not protect our urban forest. New infill developments often clear cut properties as they build. My preference is to preserve trees when we can.”

Marianne Alto:  “Victoria has about 150,000 trees so our urban forest is an iconic part of our sense of the city. Trees define many locations on public and private lands, offer urban habitat for many city-living animals, birds and insects, help mitigate climate change and extreme weather. At the same time they help balance the impacts of urban development, which we know is inevitable – but the effects of which we can mitigate with careful balanced planning that achieves our goal of housing for everyone but retains the green face of the city. We don’t have to sacrifice Victoria trees for the sake of trees elsewhere, but we do have to include some regional analysis in our decision-making. I urge you to read the Climate Adaptation pillar in my platform at altomayor.ca. 

Sandy Janzen:  “I don’t agree with this theory, once mature tress are cut down replacement saplings take decades to catch up.”

Janice Williams:  “No. Each municipality is free to make its own development plans, and as such “sacrificing Victoria’s trees to save Langford’s trees” is wishful thinking at best. In order for this thinking to hold, there would have to be an agreement between the municipalities that units built in one municipality would mean fewer units built in another municipality further, given Victoria’s relatively developed status, there may be an argument to be had that the relatively few trees that remain are relatively more important and that a tree in Victoria has a different value than a tree in a dense forest on the Westshore. If anything, there should be region wide tree minimum goals – where development in new areas is expected to retain and encourage tree canopy in the long term so that all neighbourhoods can enjoy the benefits of trees and no neighbourhoods are expected to be tree deprived.”

Derek Pinto:  “No.”

Steve Orcherton:  “No, and I have never heard of this theory. We need to make infill decisions that consider all aspects of infrastructure required to allow density increases. Sewer, water , Policing,  Fire and bylaw services, municipal services, roads, transportation, and others and of course the forest canopy in our city.”

Shea Smith:  “As far as removing trees here to save trees somewhere else. Tough one as no one likes to see any lost forest land. I don’t believe I would because our forest is critical to us as our size is only so big. So I don’t believe I would support the beautification of other areas while reducing our benefits.” 

Rod Graham:  “I am in complete agreement and would actually go further even and recommend the curtailing development. Curb development and make it a priority to have input from the activist and scientific communities when anyone or any group/business suggests any development – especially when cutting down ANY vegetation is suggested.

I have been involved in environmentalism for decades. I created the save our trees no flyers please campaign in the 90s and have been involved in environmental activism all my life.” 

Riga Godron:  “I do not believe that Victoria should lose any urban forest to preserve forestation in other outlying areas. In stark contrast I think an immediate action plan needs to be implemented to restore and replant the Victoria’s urban forest.”

B) If you support the theory cited above, how will you explain to Victoria residents that they must lose the known benefits of mature trees in their neighbourhood (heat mitigation, environmental and health benefits, property value) in the hope of saving trees in other municipalities?

Ben Isitt:  “Please see my response above.”

Matt Dell:  “I don’t support infill development that removes old trees. I think we need to find ways to create density that fits within existing trees, while creating programs to accelerate planting of more trees across the city.  This question is framed as a black or white issue, and I don’t see it that way. Again, in 2020 my community acquired 3 building lots and created a new public park with 27 old Garry Oak trees. There are lots of opportunities to acquire more park space around the city. I’m horrified how development is proceeding in Langford and would like to see a regional conversation about how we can accommodate new people, while making Victoria even more green.”

Rob Duncan:  “I don’t support the theory in the slightest.”

Janice Williams:  “I do not subscribe to the theory and believe that balanced development is critically important. I believe that density should be accompanied by enhanced park development and maintenance and that there are benefits to a mix of public and private greenspace that includes trees, and that mature trees are an important part of that.”

 

4) Setbacks on properties are vital to the protection of the critical root zones of our tree canopy. (We have lost many mature trees to developments in which the trees were on the perimeter of properties.) Will you use your vote to preserve setbacks that protect critical root zones?

Chris Coleman:  “I am in favour of this approach but again, there will always be unusual exceptions that will need to be considered. It does highlight, however, one of the possible problems with the blanket zoning approach that was suggested under the MMHI; until very late in the process, nobody was discussing the impact on the City’s arboreal inventory.”

Ben Isitt:  “Yes, if re-elected I will continue to use my voice and vote at the Council table to preserve trees, including the critical root zones of trees.”

Stephen Hammond:  “Yes.”

Marg Gardiner:  “I agree with the assertions in this question, the need to protect the root zones of our tree canopy; but can never guarantee a vote without seeing the proposal.”

Matt Dell:  “I agree with strong enforcement for setback policies that protect mature trees, and will not be supporting development that requires destruction of valuable trees in the city.”

Rob Duncan:  “Yes.”

Jeremy Caradonna:  “I don’t know enough about the subject to have a strong position at this point. My plan is to increase the urban canopy by supporting a comprehensive canopy plan and by rewilding key portions of the city, including Clover Point, which I believe should become a part of the Garry oak ecosystem, with a field of camas and oaks.”

Emmanuel Parenteau:  “This would, again, be on a case-by-case basis. I abide by the spirit of this principle, not necessary the letter-of-the-law in every case.”

David Johnston:  “The ends do not justify the means. As Mayor of Victoria all effort will go towards fiscal responsibility without the common disregard for nature or honesty.”

William Scott:  “Yes, I’ve seen mature trees die when buildings approved by Development Services (aka Planning) proceed.”

Susan Simmons:  “Yes. I will do my best to preserve the critical root zones.”

Marianne Alto:  “I’ll consider all aspects of land use planning in an effort to design and manage our forest to maximize biodiversity and conservation of ecosystems. It’s always about balance.” 

Sandy Janzen:  “Yes I will use my vote to preserve setbacks that protect critical root zones.”

Janice Williams:  “Setbacks are likely site specific – in areas where there are mature boulevard trees, it is likely more important to have an appropriate setback. In areas without boulevard trees the setback could likely be relaxed. Set backs are also critically important in terms of maintaining options for future transportation demands – including providing space for active modes (walking/biking), space for public transit and space for private vehicles.”

Derek Pinto:  “Yes.”

Steve Orcherton:  “Yes, I am, in principle, supportive of development that requires proper consideration of  density along with the health of trees and our  canopy.”

Shea Smith:  “As far as setbacks on property that infringes on critical root areas. Fairness between the property owners and to future Victorians would have to be where my support would go. Fairness in finding the best ways to protect the interests of all party’s. While I would not support penalizing owners I would support raising awareness and asking for compliance from properties to protect these critical root systems.”

Riga Godron:  “As I have stated publicly in previous all candidate meetings, (Fairfield/Gonzales meeting 2018), I myself owned a property in which a developer was able to hire an arborist to remove mature trees on the property line in violation of the set-backs because of the capital their business injected into the municipality, and because of that traumatic experience of losing the greenspace we had I am biased to help preserve and urban forest that I can.”

 

5) Do you support giving tax breaks or help with maintenance costs to property owners who retain more mature trees to reflect their great contribution to the public good?

Chris Coleman:  “I am less in favor of tax breaks & more in favor of maintenance support, but am open to both.

I think there is a glorious local evolutionary example of the way trees can enhance our neighbourhoods of which few speak. If you go to the corner of Bay & Quadra and look down the street towards Hillside Ave, Try to imagine what it would look like with no trees, 5 lanes of traffic & no centre medians………that’s what it was like 25 years ago!

The Council of the day (& I was the Neighbourhood liaison) was approached by ICBC with 50 cent dollars to improve a high incident traffic accident area. This financial incentive saw a complete overhaul of the way this neighbourhood hub saw itself……and while the introduction of street trees was balked at to begin with, it was quickly embraced……and a very different community emerged!”

Ben Isitt:  “No. I support examining incentives to support maintenance costs associated with mature trees, but without seeing a viable plan and costing of how a tax-break program or subsidy program could be applied to parcels with thousands of mature trees, I cannot endorse the idea at this stage. One option that could reduce costs to property owners could be increased city support for the disposal of branches following pruning, or potentially the option of pruning services being provided by municipal employees for mature trees on private parcels on an “at-cost” basis.”

Stephen Hammond:  “ It’s an interesting idea, but I’d first like to see a projection of what such a program might cost.”

Marg Gardiner:  “In the past few weeks, candidates have been asked to complete a dozen or so surveys.  Many ask for tax breaks.  I believe that we need to apply a zero-tax lens to our review of the budget before making any commitments regarding taxation.”

Matt Dell:  “Yes, I’m happy to explore this idea if it will help preserve our existing tree base. I would like to see more funds from development be directed towards acquiring new park space in the city.”

Rob Duncan:  “Yes.”

Jeremy Caradonna:  “Sounds like a promising idea!”

Emmanuel Parenteau:  “Perhaps in a few instances (e.g.: truly high maintenance scenario) but not in the majority of cases, to be honest.”

David Johnston:  “We will potentially have thousands of gardeners no longer slaving for the right to sleep. I’m sure deals will be made to foster and maintain. Tax breaks… probably not. More likely the other way- more taxes for those with unused gardening potential.”

William Scott:  “I would like to have a good look at the budget before blindly saying yes to that one, but I am not opposed in principle.  Having parks involved in helping homeowners make decisions makes sense as well.”

Susan Simmons:  “This is an interesting proposition. I like it but I will need further information however to make a final decision. (Sorry I can not be more in-depth. It is important to me I have a solid understanding of what I am committing to. I do hope if elected your group will meet with me and guide me through your plan.)

Marianne Alto:  “I’m very open to that idea.”

Sandy Janzen:  “Yes I will support giving tax breaks or help with maintenance costs to property owners who retain more mature trees.. I’m big on trees ! :  )”

Janice Williams:  “I would support providing limited public support for mature trees on private property however, do not think tax breaks are the appropriate mechanism to do so. I do think that tree health and maintenance is important, and that the costs associated with it should not be an undue burden – I also think that there are risks of mature trees that are not properly cared for (ie: limb fall during high winds) and that the city could mitigate that risk by identifying trees that are not in good health and working proactively to either restore the health of the tree or replace it accordingly.”

Derek Pinto:  “yes!!!! Great idea!!”

Steve Orcherton:  “This is an idea that I have not considered. This would require public consultation and council deliberation and budget consideration. However, I think as a city we need to encourage the retention of mature healthy trees.”

Shea Smith:  “Yes I support subsidies for costs on maintenance as a building block.”

Riga Godron:  “Absolutely I support giving property tax rebates and city maintenance staff hours to care for trees on private property.”

 

Updated October 14, 2022