Will the candidate you vote for in next month’s election work to protect Victoria’s trees?

Elections provide an opportunity for us to compel our future politicians to focus upon issues of special concern, and to record their stances so that we can hold them to account when they’re elected.

Candidates in the December 12th by-election were sent the following 4 questions. Their responses, along with their contact numbers, are below, in the order in which we received them.

 

1. Will you work to ensure Development Services staff prioritize the retention of mature trees in all their discussions with development proponents?

Sean Leitenber – sean@seanleitenberg.ca
Yes. Trees are very important to me. It takes 50 years for the tree to grow and minutes to cut it down.
I lost 8 large yellow cedars on my property this year alone and it is devastating. They are why I bought this home. Those trees were part of my home, as well as a home to hundreds of other creatures.

Bill Heflin – heflin@shaw.ca
I am pleased to support your group in every way I can. In answer to your questions I doubt that one councilor can do much to influence Development Services but I will do everything I can to preserve mature trees on our near development sites including early decisions regarding retention of mature trees.

Roshan Vickery – roshantvickery@gmail.com
Thank you for reaching out to me. I am an environmentalist who comes from the Jane Jacobs/David Suzuki school. I think globally and act locally. I have not owned a car since 1990, ride a bicycle year round when I am not walking, and am a dedicated recycler. I am also in favour of rehabilitating existing building stock rather than tearing them down for new developments. I am not anti-development but I am anti bad development. One of the reasons that I am running is because I don’t see anyone on council who is prepared to stand up for neighbourhoods. In response to your first question, yes I will ensure that Development Services staff prioritize the retention of mature trees in all discussions with development proponents.

Rob Duncan – rduncan@gmx.com
Yes, I certainly would. As a rule, mature trees are not assigned the importance they should be in development decisions.

Hailey McLeod haileyraemcleod@gmail.com
My background is in Canadian History and specifically Indigenous rights which influences my priorities. They are mainly the rights and wellbeing of traditionally marginalized communities, and challenging some of the legal and theoretical bases that privilege some people over others. As such, when coming to discussions on development, the most vulnerable members of our community will be at the forefront of every motion I bring forward and every vote I cast. That said, I understand that people are inextricably dependent on the health of our environment, and my vision for this city is one that protects urban green spaces, particularly when there is evidence that it is vital to the local ecosystem.

Alexander Schmid aschmid@uvic.ca
I would work with Development Services staff to prioritize the retention of mature trees in reference to development. Mature trees take up CO2 much more efficiently then young trees. The new trees would take many years to reach the same CO2 uptake.

Stefanie Hardman stefanie@togethervictoria.ca
Yes, mature tree retention is a priority for me and I would like to see it as a priority for Development Services staff as Victoria continues to grow and develop. As I received my Masters in Urban Planning in the Faculty of Environmental Studies (York University), my approach to planning and development is holistic with an environmental focus.

It is especially important to ensure retention of mature trees in development projects, as a large proportion of Victoria’s urban forest inventory is on private land — yet these trees provide crucial services for the health and sustainability of our communities as a whole, and once lost, take decades for replacement trees to grow to maturation.

I have the skills, as an urban planner, to communicate with staff in development services as well as development proponents about the importance of retaining mature trees.

Stephen Andrew info@stephenandrew.ca
I support the city’s urban forest master plan and recognize the importance of the retention of mature trees when considering development proposals.

 

2. Consider the following scenario: a development variance request to reduce required setbacks would result in the removal of ten bylaw-protected trees.
Would you :
a) support the request if it increased the supply of rental housing?
b) visit the site to assess the situation?
c) require the proponent to redesign the building without the need for mature tree removal?

Sean Leitenberg:
I believe that a councillor should visit every development site. Our city is less than 20 square miles. So I would visit the site and work directly with city staff to ensure tree retention is a priority. We are innovative creatures. I believe we can develop and maintain our mature trees.

Bill Heflin:
I would want to visit the site but I would generally require redesign after I could speak of my first hand knowledge of the site.

Roshan Vickery:
I would visit the site and then require the proponent to redesign the project without removing any mature trees.

Rob Duncan:
a) No, if the trees were protected I wouldn’t support their removal. If they were mature trees that were not protected, I would still be inclined not to approve the application, especially if they were native trees.

b) Yes, I would probably want to visit the site in any case.

c) Yes, if my approval was being sought, the trees would have to be saved.

Hailey McLeod:
C. Most of the time. While my top priority will be increasing affordable housing for residents because I see housing a non-negotiable human right, this can be done without bypassing bylaws that protect urban trees. My position may differ based on specific circumstances. For example I would be far more likely to support a real low income affordable housing operation that only minimally infringed on tree protection by-laws, and less likely to support a development that was not low-income or if there was strong evidence that the protected trees had environmental or social significance. The interests of developers will certainly not come ahead of environmental protections.

Alexander Schmid:
In reference to the scenario, I would visit site to see if there is any possible way to keep the mature trees and still have increased rental housing. Consulation with an arborist would ensure that viable trees are protected.

Stefanie Hardman:
Any loss of bylaw-protected trees is important to me. Increasing the supply of rental housing is critically important to our community — but how we build that housing matters too. So as far as part (a) is concerned, increasing the supply of rental housing would not be sufficient grounds in itself for this variance if it is running counter to our other goals as a city.

In response to part (b), as an urban planner who has a graduate diploma in place-based environmental education, I think site visits can be quite valuable in order to come to a situated understanding of place. Further, hearing from a variety of perspectives, including experts and community members, will allow me to make an informed decision on each development variance request.

And regarding part (c), this relates back to question 1: the importance of working with Development Services staff to prioritize the retention of mature trees in all their discussions with development proponents. Projects that meet our goals for increasing our rental housing supply do not have to come at the cost of our mature trees. Often projects can be redesigned to ensure they are serving both of these very important goals.

Stephen Andrew:
I would rely in large part on the staff and variance board to provide sufficient information about a particular situation to make an informed decision as I doubt that a binary tree or housing choice would present itself. I might visit the site, but being neither an arborist nor a building engineer there is little that I could personally contribute to such a discussion, beyond the underlying idea that both rental housing and the urban forest are important to the vibrancy of Victoria.

 

3. Will you actively work toward establishing a culture at the City in which trees matter and are not just seen as an impediment to development?

Sean Leitenberg:
I believe I live in a City where trees matter just not as much as they should at City Hall. The city’s top priority is development. If the developers knew they had to put trees higher up the priority list, they would design accordingly.

Bill Heflin:
I absolutely will.

Roshan Vickery:
Yes I will work towards a culture at City Hall in which trees matter. Every time. The protection of the urban forest is a priority for me. I will advocate for the protection of mature trees at all times. This may make me unpopular on council but I have big shoulders. I am pro-bicycle lanes but I was saddened and appalled when the city removed the mature tree at Government St and Humboldt St. Likewise I have watched with dismay as Abstract removed 10 mature trees in order to build the Bellewood Park project and then had the audacity to advertise the development as a unique opportunity to experience nature. I worked at 1115 Fort St for 20 years and have lots of friends who live in that neighbourhood. I have both feet firmly on the ground. I also would be deeply upset if the cherry trees on View St were replaced with local species. They are as much a part of Victoria as the Garry Oak meadows in my opinion. They have earned their right to be here. Mature trees share a lot in common with mature buildings. They have an inherent life force and energy. If you look at my website, roshanvickery.com you will see that I reference Vancouver artist Michael Kluckner. I agree with him that there is such a thing as sick cities. Vancouver is an example of a sick city. Victoria is following that example. All neighbourhoods including Old Town are under threat, There is a definite retreat from heritage conservation and rehabilitation. I am fighting to save neighbourhoods. I want diverse neighbourhoods. I am not convinced that density is the answer. I think that cities can ebb and flow without continued growth. Speculative housing is a world wide phenomenon and Victoria is no exception. I could go on and on but I think you get my point. Why would we sacrifice the things that we all care about and that are necessary for our health and well being. Says something about human nature. If you have any questions please reach out to me.

Rob Duncan:
Yes, I would definitely try to establish such a culture. I have been a naturalist, birdwatcher and gardener all my life, and I am currently the steward of the new community garden (conceptualized as a native plant food forest) at Begbie and Belmont in Fernwood. I believe trees are vital f or a community for a number of reasons, and if elected, I would be a strong advocate for preservation of mature trees.

Hailey McLeod:
I do not support development for development’s sake. We are beyond exponential capitalist growth being a realistic option. Establishing a culture in the city where we are respectful of our neighbours, and make choices for the good of residents over foreign landlords and investors, will be my top priority. This will include thinking about long term human wellbeing, and trees are an obviously necessary part of that.

Alexander Schmid:
It is important to keep mature trees which are not an impediment to development.

Stefanie Hardman:
Yes, absolutely. Trees are of critical importance, especially as we develop and grow. Rather than seeing trees as an impediment to development, we need to see them — first of all, as valuable in their own right — but furthermore, as hard working green infrastructure that benefits the City’s management of rain water, provides cool shade, filters the air we breathe, sequesters carbon, and is essential to urban biodiversity.

Most people in our community value the trees that make our neighbourhoods calmer, cooler, and more comfortable. Unfortunately, too often we look at development projects in isolation instead of considering the overall effect on our urban forest cover. I commit to working to preserve and revitalize Victoria’s urban forest and ensuring that we are upholding, and improving, our Urban Forest Master Plan, Tree Preservation Bylaw, and other policy that guides decision-making with regard to trees — as well as ensuring the staffing and in-house knowledge at the City to undertake this work.

I will be looking for recommendations from community experts and groups like the Community Trees Matter Network on how we can best protect and enhance our urban forest.

Stephen Andrew:
I think with our commitment to the urban forest master plan, the amended tree protection bylaw and the UN trees in cities challenge commitment, all of which I support, Victoria already has a culture of not viewing trees as simply an impediment to development. I would work to support this perspective.

 

4. The City is committed to increasing rental housing. It is also committed to protecting the urban forest and fighting climate change. Currently, the development process is resulting in hundreds of mature, protected trees being routinely removed to make way for buildings with large footprints, presumably to increase densification, mostly with market-priced condos and market-priced rental apartments. The CTMN is very concerned with this trend, and the seeming lack of any real checks and balances to protect the urban forest. Is the protection of the urban forest a priority for you? If so, what will be your approach to protecting mature and protected trees from destruction when building proposals are put forward?

Sean Leitenberg:
Yes
If so, what will be your approach to protecting mature and protected trees from destruction when building proposals are put forward?
I would ask staff to work with the developers first to retain the trees before I had to make a decision on the proposal. Then visit the site and have an Arborist opinion as to the lifespan of the trees and make my decision based on good judgement.
It takes a year to build the home and another 50 years to get the tree back.

Bill Heflin:
Protection of the urban forest will be a real and major priority for me, including the establishment of roof green spaces on existing buildings. The greenest thing we can do to reduce our carbon foot print is to plant trees.

I will propose a carbon substitution system. If people are going to free the carbon in mature trees, they must make provision for the absorption of an equivalent of that much carbon in the footprint of what they are building within the first five years of the project. As an economic approach I believe this makes a certain amount of sense.

I would be happy to discuss these and other issues with your group if you wish. Thank you for the opportunity to hear my voice on something I consider quite important.

Rob Duncan:
Yes, the preservation of the urban forest is a high priority for me. In cases where market-priced housing is being proposed, I would be strongly inclined to oppose development that involves removing mature trees. If it was the kind of affordable housing the community needs most, the decision might not be so cut and dried, and would include consideration of whether the trees in question are native. I would still be likely not to approve the proposal.

Hailey McLeod:
I would love to see more mixed use zoning that diversifies our neighbourhoods, with higher density housing developments rather than the large neighbourhoods we have reserved for single family dwellings. I think we can be smarter about our city planning and would rather see more affordable housing and more protected green spaces, rather than more urban sprawl. When making a decision, I will ask myself how the proposal benefits the community. Would leaving the space undeveloped be of the greatest social and environmental value, even if a development might be of a higher economic value? I would way the question carefully and do as much research beforehand as possible when making a decision. Since I am not a tree expert, I would seek advice from those more informed on urban environmental protection.

Alexander Schmid:
The City is always talking about climate change and it should protect the urban forest which contains a significant number of mature trees. I would try to make urban forest a priority by balancing the need for development with the need for keeping healthy green spaces. It is necessary that we make sure that trees stay healthy by doing the proper maintenance especially in the case of drought. To offset climate change the trees must be protected for future generations that will be living in Victoria. As well as absorbing and storing carbon dioxide, trees supply us with much needed oxygen.

Stefanie Hardman:
Rather than being at odds with each other, both mature trees and rental housing share this in common: preservation is key. The most affordable private-market rental housing we will have is that which is already built — so my approach to rental housing is to ensure that we prioritize protecting and retaining our existing rental stock. We absolutely need to do the same with trees. Mature trees, once lost, take decades to be replaced by growing young trees. And as we are in the midst of a climate emergency, we do not have time to wait.

I would be interested to learn more from the Community Trees Matter Network about the gaps in the existing policies to protect mature trees and grow our urban forest — for example, the new Urban Tree Protection bylaw updated to reflect and implement several Urban Forest Master Plan recommendations. I would like to maintain communication with the CTMN to hear about opportunities to improve processes, policies, and more at the City to most effectively protect our urban forest.

Stephen Andrew:
There will inevitably be conflicts between the natural and built environments. I am of the opinion that we can balance the two competing needs by recognizing that each is important, but not necessarily to the exclusion of either. As much as we need housing of all kinds, we need a healthy natural environment, and the urban forest is critical to achieving that goal. So yes, the protection of the urban forest would be a priority.