Phase Two Engagement Program
April 2026
The City of Delta acknowledges that we are on the shared, traditional, ancestral, and unceded territories of the scəwaθən (Tsawwassen), xʷməθkʷəyəm (Musqueam), and other Coast Salish Peoples. We extend our appreciation to these First Nations for the opportunity to enjoy this land together.
The City conducted a second phase of engagement to confirm interest in participating in the Sunshine Hills Neighbourhood Tree Protection Pilot Program and confirm the proposed bylaw changes informed by Phase One survey results. This phase included a survey of property owners in the three selected neighbourhoods that met the Phase One thresholds for participation and support. Engagement began on March 24 and closed on April 15. The following report summarizes the engagement approach and key findings.
2,693
Letters Mailed to Study Area
1,629
8,653
Reach of 3 Social Media Posts
6,624
90 E-blast Recipients
Postcards Mailed to Property Owners Yard Signs Installed
1,271
39
Attendees at 1 In-Person Open House
53 Surveys Completed 439
Comments Received Through Let's Talk Delta
The Cougar Canyon, Sunshine Hills, and Scottsdale neighbourhoods advanced from Phase One based on participation rates and support thresholds and make up the proposed pilot program area. In Phase Two, 1,629 property owners across these three neighbourhoods were invited to complete the survey. A total of 439 responses were received, representing a 27% participation rate.
Support for the pilot program was high among participants with 71% wanting to implement the pilot program as presented.
As part of the survey, Delta also provided participants with the opportunity to comment on the recommendations for the pilot program that were developed based on community input. Support was mixed, due primarily to the fact that participants would like to see the City go further to protect trees, particularly related to large scale tree loss.
The following summarizes the feedback received, including recurring themes identified across responses.
Lowering the diameter threshold for a large tree under the current bylaw was presented as a tool to expand protection to more mature trees. A majority of respondents supported lowering the threshold (61%), with an additional 14% supporting the change with modifications. Feedback reflected interest in strengthening measures, including lowering the threshold further, increasing replacement requirements, and enhancing monitoring and enforcement. Participants that did not support the change (25%) noted concerns related to cost, fairness, and property impacts.
Continued on next page.
Currently, property owners may remove one tree for any reason every 24 months without an arborist report. Half of respondents (50%) supported removing this allowance, with 19% supporting it with modifications and 31% not supporting it. Participants suggested the change could help slow incremental canopy loss and strengthen accountability through more consistent requirements for tree removal. At the same time, there were concerns that it may disproportionately impact individual homeowners—particularly those with more trees.
Creating a Significant Tree definition received 43% full support, 28% supporting it with modifications, and 29% not supporting the change. Feedback highlighted interest in creating further protections for large canopy-forming trees to preserve neighbourhood character and environmental benefits, alongside requests for refinements such as higher fees, stronger replacement requirements, expanded criteria, and limits on the number of trees that can be removed. At the same time, respondents raised concerns about cost, feasibility, and fairness for homeowners, as well as questions about whether financial deterrents would effectively influence large scale tree loss from redevelopment practices.
Consistent with Phase One findings, responses across all proposed changes emphasized that large-scale tree loss associated with redevelopment is the primary concern. Many respondents questioned whether the proposed bylaw changes would effectively address this issue and suggested a need to better differentiate between individual homeowners and development-related activity, including stronger restrictions on redevelopment. Notably, 39% of respondents indicated they had not participated in the Phase One survey, where information on municipal authority and limitations was provided, which may contribute to ongoing expectations about the City’s ability to regulate development-related tree removal. This underscores the importance of clear, accessible communication to support residents’ understanding of municipal limitations and align public expectations with regulatory realities.
Feedback across all response types pointed to the need for improved education and communication. Common areas of confusion included tree replacement requirements and how they are implemented, as well as frequent requests for exemptions for hazardous or diseased trees— provisions that already exist—indicating gaps in awareness. Concerns were also raised about the reliability and oversight of arborist assessments, despite established accreditation and monitoring processes. These findings suggest that alongside any bylaw changes, proactive and transparent communication will be critical to improve understanding, and build trust in City processes.
Among respondents who did not support the proposed changes, there was a clear preference to maintain the current bylaw, with views that it provides a more appropriate balance between protection and flexibility. Concerns focused on regulatory overreach, impacts on property rights, increased financial burden, and perceived inequities, particularly for properties with higher tree density.
In February 2026, the City completed Phase One of engagement for the Sunshine Hills Neighbourhood Tree Protection Pilot Program. The full engagement summary from this phase is available here. Findings were presented to Council at the March 9 Regular Meeting and staff were directed to proceed to Phase Two to confirm the direction of the proposed bylaw changes and confirm interest in participation among property owners in select neighbourhoods.
The following summarizes the key findings from Phase Two engagement:
The engagement process was structured in phases, moving from gauging interest and identifying options in Phase One to confirming the pilot program details in Phase Two prior to potential implementation. The graphic below outlines the step-by-step process
Step 1:
Gauge Interest and Identify Options
Step 2: Council Direction
Step 3:
Step 4: Implement Pilot Program
Findings from the Phase One survey identified three proposed amendments to Delta’s Tree Protection and Regulation Bylaw that received the strongest support from the community.
These included:
•Loweringthediameterthresholdforalargetreefrom60cmto50cm
•Removingthe1-in-24-monthallowancetoremoveatreewithoutanarboristreport
Step 5: Council Update
• IntroducingaSignificantTreedefinition,applyingtoDouglasFir,WesternRedCedar,Himalayan Cedar,NorwaySpruce,andGiantRedwoodtreeswithadiameterof70cmorgreater.This wouldinclude:
o ReviewingdevelopmentapplicationsproposingtheremovalofaSignificantTreeto assesswhetherreasonabledesignchangescouldsupportretention;
o IncreasingthepermitfeeforremovingaSignificantTreefrom$100to$200;and
o Triplingreplacementrequirements(orcash-in-lieu)wherefiveormoreSignificantTrees areproposedforremoval.
Theseamendmentsformedthebasisoftheproposedtreeprotectionprogrampresentedtothe communityinPhaseTwo,whichtookplacefromMarch24toApril15,2026.Thefollowingoutlines theactivitiesundertakentoraiseawarenessoftheprojectandprovideopportunitiesforthe communitytoinformapotentialNeighbourhoodTreeProtectionPilotProgram.Acompletelistof activitiesisprovidedintheCommunications&EngagementTimeline(AttachmentA).
As a neighbourhood-specific pilot program, engagement was intentionally focused on areas that demonstrated the strongest initial interest in Phase One. Having met the thresholds of over 20% participation and at least 75% support, property owners in Cougar Canyon, Sunshine Hills, and Scottsdale were invited to participate in Phase Two. As those most directly affected by the proposed bylaw changes, property owners were asked to complete a detailed survey to provide feedback on the proposed changes and confirm their interest in participating. Responses were limited to one per property to ensure each parcel was represented equally.
All other Delta residents, including non-property owners, were invited to provide comments through the public comment box on the project page.
Communications focused on targeted notifications to ensure property owners within Cougar Canyon, Scottsdale and Sunshine Hills neighborhoods were informed of the opportunity to participate and confirm their interest in the program as presented. Broader communications to the community were delivered through digital channels.
A letter was sent to all 2,693 property owners invited to participate in the Phase One survey to close the loop on initial findings and outline next steps. The letter identified which neighbourhoods met the thresholds to advance to Phase Two and provided information on how residents could participate. It also encouraged recipients in the three selected neighbourhoods to watch for a postcard containing their unique Phase Two survey access code.
Two postcards were mailed to 1,629 property owners in the Cougar Canyon, Scottsdale, and Sunshine Hills neighbourhoods, informing them of the proposed bylaw changes and inviting them to complete the survey. One postcard was sent at the beginning of the engagement period and a second as a reminder toward the end. Each postcard included a unique access code tied to the property to ensure one response per address, along with contact information for questions or support with the survey and an invitation to attend an in-person open house where residents could ask staff questions.
Three social media posts were published during the engagement period that had a combined reach of 8,653. The first post was shared a few days before postcards arrived in mailboxes and notified property owners in the selected neighbourhoods to keep an eye out for their postcard containing a unique survey access code. Subsequent posts served as reminders to complete the survey before the deadline and encouraged all other residents to share feedback through the public comment box on the project page.
In coordination with the first social media notification, a total of 90 yard signs were installed along main roads throughout Cougar Canyon, Scottsdale and Sunshine Hills neighbourhoods a few days before postcards arrived in mailboxes. The signs encouraged residents to keep an eye on their mailboxes for their postcard and helped raise awareness of the opportunity to provide feedback, particularly for those who may not receive updates through social media or other digital channels.
The Let’s Talk Delta website served as the central hub for all Phase Two engagement information. The project page was updated with new materials, including the results of the March 9 Council meeting and a map outlining the communities included in the Phase Two survey. An FAQ section was also provided to address common questions and support informed participation. Supporting materials, project updates, and details on how to participate were available to help residents stay informed and participate in the process.
Two e-blasts were sent to 6,624 mailboxes to inform residents about opportunities to participate and attend the in-person open house.
One in-person open house was held at Sunshine Hills Elementary, with 39 residents in attendance, with the intent of supporting informed participation. The session provided residents with an opportunity to learn more about the proposed bylaw changes, including municipal authority and limitations, as well as the results of Phase Two engagement, and to ask staff questions. Residents were also invited to participate in facilitated discussions using real-world scenarios to better understand how the proposed changes would be applied in the application process.
A fact sheet was prepared to support informed participation. It provided an overview of the Phase Two engagement, including the results of Phase One and how neighbourhoods were selected to advance to the second survey. The fact sheet also outlined the proposed bylaw changes, shared key information about the project, and explained how residents could get involved.
Residents who were not property owners, as well as those living outside the defined Sunshine Hills area, were invited to share their feedback through a public comment box on the Let’s Talk Delta project page after reviewing the project fact sheet. A total of 53 residents provided responses.
A total of 1,629 property owners across the Cougar Canyon, Scottsdale, and Sunshine Hills neighbourhoods were invited to confirm interest in participating in the pilot program as proposed through an online survey, with 439 responses received. The survey was designed not only to gather feedback, but also to build understanding of the proposed bylaw changes and how they may affect property owners. Questions asked whether respondents had participated in the Phase One survey, whether their views had changed, and sought input on the three proposed bylaw amendments to enhance tree protection, as well as confirmation of interest in participating in the pilot program within their neighbourhood.
The following is a summary of the feedback received through the online survey and comment box.
Q1: Please review the map and identify the neighbourhood in the Sunshine Hills area where you own property.
Responses indicate that Sunshine Hills neighbourhood property owners had the highest level of participation across the Sunshine Hills area. This is reflective of the relative size of the neighbourhood compared to Cougar Canyon and Scottsdale.
Q2: Did you or someone in your household complete the first survey to gather input on possible options and gauge interest in a pilot program?
While a majority of respondents participated in Phase One (52%), a significant portion did not (39%), indicating expanded reach and inclusion of respondents who may be encountering the proposed changes for the first time.
Q3: Before today, were you aware of the plans to create a Neighbourhood Tree Protection Pilot Program in the Sunshine Hills area?
Awareness of the proposed pilot program was relatively high, with 79% of respondents indicating at least some level of familiarity. One in five respondents (20%) reported no prior awareness.
Q4: Lowering the Threshold for Large Trees - To what extent do you support this proposed change?
A majority of respondents support lowering the threshold for large trees (61%) with 14% supporting the change with modifications, indicating overall support for lowering the threshold for large trees.
Please provide your comments
Across all response types, there was consistent recognition that tree loss—particularly related to redevelopment—is a key concern, although views differed on whether lowering the threshold would effectively address this issue. There was also broad alignment on the need for flexibility, with respondents across all groups emphasizing the importance of allowing exemptions for hazardous trees and considering property-specific conditions. Calls for stronger enforcement, monitoring, and complementary approaches were also noted, while a key point of divergence was the balance between protection and property impacts, with some prioritizing expanded tree retention and others raising concerns related to costs, fairness, and property rights.
Continued on next page.
Below is a summary of themes from comments, organized by the three response categories.
• Desire to protect more trees with recognition that lowering the threshold would capture more trees under protection alongside concern about ongoing tree loss and its impact on neighbourhood character, aesthetics, and the identity of Sunshine Hills.
• Concern about large-scale tree loss associated with redevelopment and “mega homes,” alongside a perception that current bylaws are not effectively preventing it, with support reflecting a need to better balance housing growth with preservation of mature tree canopy.
• Environmental and ecological benefits, as a rationale for lowering the threshold, with respondents noting that expanding protection would help retain more trees that contribute to air quality, cooling, climate resilience, and erosion prevention, as well as support wildlife habitat, biodiversity, and broader environmental protection goals.
• Interest in clearer implementation and stronger oversight, including how thresholds are applied, how replacement requirements function, and how the City will monitor and enforce compliance.
• Recognition of safety considerations, with support for flexibility to allow tree removal where there are risks to people, property, or infrastructure.
• Support for lowering the diameter threshold further, with suggestions to reduce it below 50 cm (e.g. as low as 30cm) and views that the threshold should better reflect tree age, condition, and ecological value rather than relying solely on diameter.
• Need for exemptions and flexibility based on property-specific context, with respondents noting that trees posing safety risks or causing damage to homes, infrastructure, or underground services—or those that are hazardous, diseased, or poorly maintained—should be excluded, alongside calls to consider factors such as proximity to structures, lot size, and existing tree density, and recognition that not all properties are suitable for replacement planting.
• Request to focus on large-scale tree loss related to redevelopment, with comments that stronger measures should target redevelopment practices rather than individual homeowners removing a single tree, and views that current and proposed changes may not effectively limit largescale tree removal.
• Stronger replacement and retention requirements, with support for increasing replacement ratios and ensuring comparable species are planted for long-term value, alongside concerns that replacement planting does not adequately compensate for the loss of mature trees and requires stronger oversight.
• Increased penalties and restrictions on removal, with suggestions for higher financial penalties, stricter limitations for newer property owners, and caps on the number of trees that can be removed from a property.
• Support for tree replacement and stronger requirements, including increased replacement ratios, with some concern about where and how replacement trees are planted, a desire for improved monitoring of replacement success, and recognition that replacement planting does not fully compensate for the loss of mature trees.
• Implementation, monitoring and accountability, with concerns regarding the visibility and follow-through of replacement planting and questions about whether trees are being planted and maintained, alongside suggestions for stronger oversight and accountability measures to ensure compliance.
• Calls for greater City accountability, including concerns about perceived inconsistencies in approvals and a desire for the City to lead by example in protecting trees on public land.
• Regulatory overreach and property rights, with comments that the proposed changes impose excessive regulation, limit homeowner autonomy, and restrict control over private property.
• Preference to maintain the current threshold and bylaw, with views that the existing 60 cm definition is appropriate and that current regulations are sufficient without further amendment.
• Increased costs and financial burden, with concerns that the proposed changes would result in higher permit fees, replacement requirements, and overall costs for homeowners, particularly those with multiple mature trees.
• Safety, maintenance, and property impact concerns, with comments that large trees can pose risks to homes, infrastructure, and personal safety, and this may discourage removal.
• Focus on developers and large-scale tree loss, with views that tree removal is primarily driven by redevelopment and that lowering the diameter threshold will not meaningfully reduce canopy loss and may unfairly impact individual homeowners.
• Inequitable impacts on properties with more trees, with concerns that lowering the threshold would disproportionately affect homeowners with higher tree density compared to others.
• Concerns about development, housing, and property use, with views that the proposed changes may restrict redevelopment, limit housing options, or make property use more difficult.
• Desire for consistency across Delta, with concerns that neighbourhood-specific application creates inequity and that regulations should be applied city-wide.
• Views that requirements should be less restrictive for homeowners, with some respondents suggesting thresholds should be easier to meet or allow greater flexibility for non-developmentrelated tree removal.
• Concerns that the proposed change would not effectively preserve neighbourhood character, with views that existing protections already support the aesthetic and environmental qualities that define the area.
Responses indicate moderate support for removing the 1-in-24 months allowance, with (43%) of respondents fully supporting the change. However, nearly one-third do not support the change, indicating concern from participants.
I fully support this change I support this change with modifications I do not support this change
Feedback in support of removing the 1-in-24-month allowance noted that it could help discourage incremental tree loss. In contrast, those who supported the change with modifications or did not support it expressed concerns that it may disproportionately impact individual homeowners, especially those with more trees, though redevelopment was widely perceived as the primary driver of canopy loss. Views were mixed on the role of arborists, with some seeing value in supporting more justified removal decisions, while others raised concerns about cost, accessibility, consistency, and the need for oversight. There was also consistent emphasis across all respondents on maintaining practical flexibility, particularly to allow for the timely removal of hazardous or clearly problematic trees and to account for site-specific conditions.
Below is a summary of themes from comments, organized by the three response categories.
• Perception that this could help prevent unnecessary tree removal more effectively than current allowance and would help to avoid cumulative canopy loss.
• Support for clearer and more consistent rules, with the removal of the allowance seen as strengthening requirements for arborist oversight, evidence-based decisions, and clear justification before any tree removal.
• Support for stronger enforcement and accountability, with suggestions for clarity about what happens when trees are removed without permits, increased penalties and improved enforcement to deter unauthorized removal.
• Questions about whether the rules would apply equally to developers and homeowners, along with concerns about the cost burden of arborist reports and overall fairness in how regulations are applied.
• Calls for greater City accountability and enforcement, including the need for oversight of arborist reports, monitoring of compliance, and meaningful penalties to deter unauthorized or inappropriate tree removal.
• Recognition of the need for flexibility, with support for allowing exceptions where trees pose legitimate safety risks or cause unavoidable damage to property or infrastructure.
• Concern that arborists may be biased, or financially incentivized to support tree removal, leading to calls for City-approved or vetted arborist lists, independent or third-party review, and increased City oversight and accountability, including suggestions for City-led arborist services and random audits.
• Concern that a one-size-fits-all approach may not be appropriate, with suggestions that tree type (e.g., non-native, ornamental, or fruit trees) and site-specific conditions—such as tree density or the impact of a tree on the property—be considered for exemptions.
• Need for exemptions for safety, damage, and property impacts, with suggestions that trees posing risks or causing damage to structures, infrastructure, or the safe enjoyment of property be eligible for timely removal without full requirements, including consideration of photo-based review in certain cases.
• Concerns about cost, accessibility, and efficiency of arborist reports, with views that the process should be more affordable, timely, and not create barriers to removing trees for legitimate reasons, with suggestions for the City to subsidize or partially reimburse costs or have a City-led inspection as an economical alternative.
• Support for clearer definitions, information and removal criteria, including requests to clarify thresholds, tree types, and what qualifies as a permitted removal or exemption, alongside calls for clearer bylaw wording, more transparent and consistent decision-making processes, faster approvals—particularly for urgent cases—and improved communication, including public display of permits and easier access to information.
• Concerns about loopholes related to development and permitted structures, with views that building design should be adjusted to retain trees and that current wording in bylaw may allow avoidable removal.
• Desire to differentiate between homeowners and development-related tree removal, with comments that individual homeowners removing one tree should be treated differently from largescale removal associated with redevelopment.
• Preference to retain a limited allowance for tree removal, such as permitting one tree every 3–5 years, allowing removal of smaller or non-significant trees, and accommodating minor removals.
• Increased costs and financial burden, with concerns that requiring an arborist report would add unnecessary expense for homeowners, particularly for routine or necessary tree removal.
• Regulatory overreach and property rights, with comments that the proposed change limits homeowner autonomy and imposes control over private property.
• Preference to maintain the current allowance, with views that the existing 1-in-24-month rule provides a reasonable balance and sufficient flexibility.
• Safety, maintenance, and property impact concerns, with comments that trees posing risks or causing damage should be removable without added delays or requirements.
• Views that tree loss is primarily driven by redevelopment and that the proposed change would target homeowners and with requests to focus efforts on new builds, density and loss of multiple trees.
• Inequitable impacts on properties with more trees, with concerns that additional requirements disproportionately affect homeowners with multiple mature trees.
• Concerns about red tape, delays, and administrative burden, with views that the process would introduce unnecessary steps and make tree management on private property more difficult.
• Potential impacts on property use and value, with concerns that increased restrictions may limit redevelopment options, property use, or future resale value.
Q6: Creating a Significant Tree Definition - To what extent do you support this proposed change?
Responses indicate moderate support for introducing a Significant Tree definition, with a notable proportion of respondents supporting the change with modifications (28%).
I fully support this change I support this change with modifications I do not support this change
Please provide your comments
There was broad interest in strengthening financial deterrents, limiting the number of trees that can be removed, and enhancing replacement requirements, alongside concerns related to costs, space constraints, and the long-term maintenance of replacement trees. Some respondents also questioned whether the proposed approach would be effective in influencing developer behaviour. Views varied on the balance between enhancing protection and maintaining fairness for homeowners, with some supporting stricter measures to preserve significant trees and others raising concerns about financial burden, property rights, and whether the proposal adequately targets development-driven canopy loss.
Below is a summary of themes from comments, organized by the three response categories.
Support
• A defined category would help preserve large canopy-forming trees and maintain neighbourhood character and environmental benefits.
• Support for increased fees and stronger financial deterrents, with views that higher permit costs and cash-in-lieu contributions are needed to discourage unnecessary removal, particularly by developers.
• Concern about large-scale tree loss from redevelopment, with support reflecting a need for the Significant Tree designation to meaningfully influence building design and reduce the removal of mature trees associated with larger homes and redevelopment pressures.
• Support for a retention-first approach in development applications, with views that building design should be adapted to preserve significant trees wherever possible.
• Recognition of the need for flexibility, with support for allowing exceptions in situations where strict application of the definition may not be appropriate across all property contexts (e.g. properties with multiple trees).
• Acknowledgement of safety and hazard-based considerations, with support for permitting removal where trees pose risks to people, property, or infrastructure despite meeting the Significant Tree criteria.
• Interest in clearer implementation and definitions, including how Significant Trees are classified, how replacement requirements are applied, and how compliance will be monitored and enforced.
• Views that removal should be limited to unsafe or necessary cases and that development should be designed to retain trees wherever possible.
• Need for flexibility for safety and property-specific conditions, with views that exemptions should apply for dangerous trees and that site-specific factors should be considered.
• Need for higher fees, lower diameter threshold and stronger financial deterrents, with views that proposed costs are too low to influence behaviour, alongside concerns that a “pay-to-remove” model may persist—particularly for development—where fees are treated as a cost of doing business and may not effectively prevent large-scale tree removal.
• Stronger replacement requirements and on-site planting, with support for replanting trees on the same property and concern that current approaches do not adequately compensate for the loss of mature trees.
• Uncertainty about feasibility of replacement requirements, with comments that required replacement numbers may not be realistic given lot size and space constraints.
• Desire to differentiate between developers and homeowners, with views that developmentrelated tree removal should be subject to stricter requirements and higher costs
• Concerns about cost impacts and fairness for homeowners, with views that requirements may be too burdensome for individual property owners and should differentiate between homeowners and developers.
• Desire for Caps on Tree Removal limiting the number of Significant Trees that can be removed from a property, with suggestions that caps should apply regardless of replacement or payment plans.
• Interest in incentives for tree retention, with suggestions to introduce financial or tax-based measures to encourage homeowners to preserve mature trees.
• Support for stronger enforcement and accountability, with calls for improved monitoring and penalties to ensure compliance with tree protection bylaws.
• Perceived limits of replacement trees, with recognition that replacement planting does not replicate the ecological or aesthetic value of mature trees, and that large, established trees are effectively irreplaceable and require stronger protection.
• Requests for clearer definitions and implementation details, including how trees are classified, how replacement requirements are applied, and how cash-in-lieu contributions are used.
Continued on next page.
• Increased costs and financial burden, with concerns that proposed fees, replacement requirements, and cash-in-lieu contributions would create significant expense for homeowners and impact housing affordability.
• Regulatory overreach and property rights, with comments that the proposal limits homeowner autonomy and imposes excessive control over private property.
• Preference to maintain the current bylaw, with views that existing regulations are sufficient and provide an appropriate balance between protection and flexibility.
• Ineffective in addressing development and large scale tree loss, with views that developers may treat fees as a cost of doing business and that the changes may not prevent canopy loss.
• Concerns about feasibility of replacement requirements, with comments that required replacement numbers are unrealistic given lot size and space constraints.
• Safety, maintenance, and property impact concerns, with views that large trees can pose risks and should be easier to remove when causing damage or safety issues.
• Negative impacts on property use, development, and value, with views that increased restrictions may limit redevelopment potential and affect property value.
• Concerns about replacement effectiveness and loss of mature trees, with comments that replacement planting does not adequately compensate for the loss of established canopy.
• Measures do not go far enough to protect Significant Trees, with some respondents indicating opposition based on the need for substantially stronger restrictions, higher fees, or stricter limits on removal.
• Suggestions that tree protection should consider species differences, with views that nonnative or less desirable species should not be subject to the same level of protection.
• Disproportionate impact on properties with a higher number of trees, with views that homeowners who have retained more trees are unfairly penalized compared to those with fewer trees.
Q7: Do you understand that these changes could mean higher costs and additional requirements should you need to remove trees on your property for any reason?
Respondents understanding of impacts was high, with 99% indicating awareness of potential increased costs and requirements.
Q8: Based on the proposed bylaw amendments described in this survey, do you support the implementation of a Tree Protection Pilot Program in your neighbourhood?
Survey results indicate strong overall support for the pilot program, with 71% of respondents in favour and 29% not supporting its implementation in their neighbourhood.
Q9: You indicated you completed the Phase One survey regarding the proposed Sunshine Hills Neighbourhood Tree Protection Pilot Program. In that survey, did you support the proposed Sunshine Hills Neighbourhood Tree Protection Pilot Program?
Among the 231 respondents who participated in the Phase One survey, 74% indicated they previously supported the pilot program, while 13% did not and 13% were unsure.
Note: Those who indicated they had completed the Phase One Sunshine Hills Neighbourhood Tree Protection Pilot Program survey were also asked whether they supported the Pilot Program at that time. Based on their responses, participants were grouped into the following categories: Supported, no change; Supported previously, now oppose; Opposed, no change; and Opposed previously, now support. Respondents who did not recall their previous response were grouped under I don’t recall.
Continued on next page.
Responses indicate that most participants did not change their opinion between Phase One and Phase Two, with 70% continuing to support the pilot program and 13% continuing to oppose it. A small proportion (3%) shifted from supporting the program to opposing it.
Please tell us why your view has changed.
Among the eight respondents who reported a change in view, shifts were primarily driven by concerns about the effectiveness and focus of the proposed measures. Respondents questioned whether the changes would meaningfully deter redevelopment-related tree loss and noted they may instead create a financial burden for property owners. There was also interest in more directly targeting developers rather than homeowners.
Below is a summary of themes from comments.
• Views that proposed measures do not meaningfully deter large scale tree loss from redevelopment, as increased fees are seen as too low to influence behaviour and unlikely to prevent ongoing canopy loss.
• Desire to target developers rather than homeowners, with comments indicating that proposals disproportionately impact long-term property owners while failing to address redevelopment as the primary driver of tree loss.
• Desire for stronger tree protection measures, with perceptions that current proposals do not go far enough and calls for more meaningful deterrents and stronger regulatory approaches to preserve tree canopy.
• Cost concerns, with views that proposed changes introduce financial burdens that may be too high for property owners.
Q10: Do you have any additional comments about the proposed Neighbourhood Tree Protection Pilot Program that have not been captured in the survey?
The 258 responses reflect mixed views, with consistent themes around fairness, cost, and effectiveness. While there is reiteraton of support for protecting mature trees for environmental and neighbourhood character reasons, concerns continued to be raised about property rights, financial burden, and whether the proposed measures will effectively address large scale tree loss. Respondents also called for clearer implementation, stronger enforcement, and flexibility for safety considerations, with mixed views on expanding the program city-wide.
• Frustration with current maintenance of boulevard or City-owned trees and requests for improved pruning, inspection, and care of public trees.
• Concerns that the area is already heavily treed or overgrown, questioning the need for additional measures where they affect food gardening, infrastructure, and property use.
• Requests to allow periodic removal without substantial penalties where tree density is significantly higher than surrounding properties.
• Suggestions for incentives and alternative approaches, including ideas such as tax incentives, rebates, or minimum tree requirements for each property to encourage retention rather than relying solely on penalties.
• Concerns about trust, transparency, and process are expressed, with some respondents questioning the effectiveness of engagement and whether feedback will meaningfully influence decisions.
• Concern about property rights and perceived government overreach, with some respondents expressing that homeowners should retain greater control over tree management on private property and avoid additional regulatory burden, alongside questions about municipal liability for damage caused by retained trees.
• Ongoing tension between housing needs and tree protection, with views that redevelopment and densification are primary drivers of tree loss and that current proposals may not adequately address development-related impacts while increasing costs for homeowners.
• Concern about increased costs and financial burden, particularly for existing homeowners, with perceptions that fees may be unaffordable, inequitable, or treated as a cost of doing business by developers.
• Continued support for tree protection, with many respondents emphasizing the importance of preserving mature trees for environmental, aesthetic, and community value.
• Recognition of safety and risk considerations, with calls for clear allowances to remove trees that pose hazards to property, infrastructure, or personal safety.
• Mixed views on program scope and expansion, with some advocating for broader, city-wide application and others expressing concern about targeting specific neighbourhoods.
• Fairness and equity concerns, including perceptions that the program may disproportionately impact certain property owners, particularly those with more trees or long-term ownership.
• Need for clearer implementation, communication, transparency, and enforcement, including how the program will be implemented, how decisions are made, how compliance is monitored, and how replacement requirements are fulfilled.
• Concern about loss of neighbourhood character, with many respondents linking tree removal to changes in aesthetics, livability, and the overall identity of the community.
• Emphasis on climate and environmental considerations, with recognition of trees as critical for ecosystem health, climate resilience, cooling, and supporting biodiversity.
A total of 53 comment forms were received from residents across Delta, including residents from Sunshine Hills, Westview, Sunshine Village, Sunshine Woods, Cougar Canyon, Scottsdale, and other North Delta neighbourhoods, as well as Ladner. This distribution indicates that interest in the proposed pilot program extends beyond the defined Sunshine Hills engagement area and reflects broader concern across the municipality. Respondents expressed interest in providing feedback for a range of reasons, including general interest in tree protection and neighbourhood planning, as well as living within or adjacent to the Sunshine Hills area and expressing frustration with how neighbourhood boundaries were defined. Others shared specific experiences related to tree removal, including unauthorized cutting and the loss of mature trees associated with redevelopment, which contributed to their interest in participating.
Feedback highlights both support for stronger tree protection measures and concerns related to fairness, costs, and impacts to property owners. Comments frequently focused on ongoing canopy loss associated with redevelopment, while also raising questions about how the program would be implemented, who it would apply to, and whether it effectively addresses the primary drivers of tree removal. Below is a summary of the key themes from the comment form:
• Comments supporting removal of the 1-in-24-month allowance and requiring arborist reports for all tree removals noting that Delta is the only municipality in the Lower Mainland with this allowance.
• Calls for stricter regulations, higher fines, and stronger enforcement, alongside enhanced replacement requirements—including multiple replacement trees and improved monitoring of tree survival—to better deter tree removal and support canopy retention.
• Support for introducing the “Significant Tree,” with suggestions to refine thresholds and lower the threshold that triggers the multiplication of fees from five down to three.
• Interest in expanding enhanced protections beyond Sunshine Hills to other areas of Delta (e.g. Beach Grove).
• Comments describing widespread removal of mature trees associated with redevelopment, including “clear-cutting” of lots and construction of larger homes that maximize lot coverage.
• Comments noted that tree replacement is not consistently enforced or does not achieve longterm canopy retention, with associated impacts to neighbourhood character, aesthetics, livability, and the loss of historically treed identity.
• References to increased density, parking pressures, and changing neighbourhood form linked to tree loss.
• Comments identifying redevelopment, rather than individual homeowners, as the primary driver of canopy decline.
• Comments identifying existing and proposed costs (permits, arborist reports, replacement requirements) as burdensome for homeowners and concerns that increased fees would be unaffordable and inequitable.
• Suggestions for financial incentives, compensation, or cost-sharing if stronger protections are implemented.
• Perception that current fines and fees are insufficient to deter redevelopment-related tree removal.
• Comments expressing frustration with survey design with perceived bias.
• Concerns about perceived low participation rates and whether results are representative of the broader community.
• Feedback from residents who felt excluded from Phase Two due to neighbourhood boundaries or challenges accessing the survey.
• Requests for broader inclusion and opportunities for all Delta residents to provide input regardless of location.
• Comments emphasizing that policies should focus on redevelopment and developer practices rather than individual homeowners.
• Calls to apply tree protection measures consistently across Delta rather than limiting to select neighbourhoods.
• Recommendations for increased planting on public lands and broader municipal action.
• Concerns regarding risks posed by large or aging trees, including potential property damage or safety hazards, alongside requests for flexibility to remove hazardous trees and recognition that not all trees are equal.
• Comments regarding management of trees on public land or adjacent properties (e.g., ravines) and responsibility for maintenance.
Staff held an open house at Sunshine Hills Elementary School to support informed participation, with 39 residents attending. Feedback reflected mixed views on the proposed bylaw changes. Some participants questioned whether the measures would effectively protect trees, noting a perceived emphasis on fees over retention. At the same time, there were consistent calls for higher costs and stronger financial deterrents to address redevelopment-related tree loss, alongside interest in incentive-based approaches and concerns about fairness, particularly for properties with more trees. The idea of voluntary tree planting on neighbouring properties with fewer trees to help offset replacement requirements for properties with higher tree density was noted as well as offering reduced rates to heavily treed lots.
Feedback on specific measures highlighted both benefits and concerns. The proposed Significant Tree definition was seen as a potential deterrent if fees are substantial; however, participants questioned whether proposed costs are sufficient, how replacement trees would be accommodated, and the effectiveness of replacing mature trees with smaller ones. Removing the 1-in-24-month allowance was viewed as beneficial in requiring professional assessment, but raised concerns about increased costs, limited space for replacement trees, and impacts on homeowners. Some preferred retaining the allowance with added supports such as fee reimbursements or tax incentives. Lowering the large tree threshold was generally supported as a way to protect more trees earlier, though limitations of using diameter alone were noted.
Additional feedback focused on implementation considerations. Participants expressed concern that higher fees may contribute to housing unaffordability if passed on by developers, while also noting they may not be a sufficient deterrent. Concerns were raised about the potentially inequitable impact of changes on more heavily treed properties, along with perceptions that those supporting enhanced tree protections may not be directly affected due to having fewer trees on their own properties. At the same time, there were concerns about impacts to homeowners removing trees for non-development reasons. Participants emphasized the need to balance homeowner flexibility with stronger protections, including more rigorous permit review, and improved enforcement of replacement requirements. Suggestions also included rezoning Sunshine Hills, directing cash-in-lieu funds to local replanting, introducing an appeal process, and exploring zoning or policy tools to protect neighbourhood character. Some participants also raised concerns about potential expansion beyond the pilot area and whether feedback would influence decisions.
March 2 Let’s Talk Delta Update
Project page is updated with the Phase One Engagement Report and Council Report for the March 9th Regular Council meeting
March 9 Council Direction Motion to proceed with engagement passed.
March 18 Letter #1 arrives in mailboxes
March 20 Social Media Post #1
March 20 Community Signage
March 24 Postcard #1 arrives in Mailboxes
March 27 Social Media Post #2
March 27 E-blast #1
March 27 Let’s Talk Delta Update
April 10 Postcard #2 arrives in Mailboxes
April 11 Open House
All property owners involved in the Phase One Survey are informed of Council’s decision, where to find the Phase One Engagement report, and what neighborhoods would advance to the Phase Two Survey. Cougar Canyon, Scottsdale and Sunshine Hills property owners are notified to keep their eye on their mailboxes for their postcards with their unique survey access codes.
Property owners are reminded to keep their eyes on their mailboxes for their postcards with unique survey access codes. Other residents are invited to visit the project page to fill out the public comment box starting March 27.
Signage installed across the Cougar Canyon, Scottsdale and Sunshine Hills neighborhoods at key intersections and roadways to remind property owners to keep an eye on their mailboxes.
Property owners in Cougar Canyon, Sunshine Hills and Scottsdale receive a postcard with their unique survey access codes and are invited to attend an Open House.
Residents are informed that engagement is open for Phase Two.
Subscribers are informed that engagement is open for Phase Two.
Updated with background on project, Phase Two fact sheet, and opportunities to participate.
Property owners in Cougar Canyon, Sunshine Hills and Scottsdale receive a final postcard with their unique survey access codes, reminding them of the deadline to provide feedback
Residents invited to an open house at Sunshine Hills elementary to learn more about the proposed changes.
April 14 Social Post #3 Residents are reminded that the last day for feedback is April 15.
April 14 E-blast #2
April 15 Engagement Closed
Residents are reminded that the last day for feedback is April 15.