Residents strongly opposed the proposed removal of over 40 mature Douglas fir trees for a new subdivision, warning it will exacerbate the local heat island effect and reduce the neighborhood's already low 15% tree canopy. Although the developer plans to retain a small tree grove in the site's southwest corner alongside one Oregon white oak and plant new ornamental saplings, community members argued this mitigation is insufficient to replace the carbon sequestration benefits of old-growth trees. Neighbors urged the city to enforce native vegetation codes and require the preservation of the larger, mature tree grove located in the property's northeast corner.
Forests_green_space
Vancouver Land Use Hearings · Jun 16, 2026 · 1:40:31–1:40:41 · Watch on CVTV ↗
Keywords: open space parks old growth forestry Urban forest Urban Forest tree canopy urban forest Forestry
What was said
1:39:29 like I said, with high walking traffic. Today alone, we went on a short 10 minute walk and we stopped and spoke with three other neighborhood families, all of whom had young children. And I just wanna say that this is not unusual. I do know that the surveyors, I know, I know we're talking. The surveyors came out in the evening, or sorry, in the winter time where families weren't out as much. But during these nice weather days, we're talking lots of families out all the time. Can you stand up for me? Thank you. With increased density and without adequate pedestrian protections, we are creating a real safety concern. My concern here is that additional vehicles are not going to stay isolated to just the subdivision entrance. Drivers will be using additional surrounding residential streets. And right now we don't have crosswalks. We don't have sidewalks that run all the way up the street to the park. And this development is gonna be right along that same thing, that same path.
1:40:27 And these are neighborhood streets that again, people are using to access parks, bus stops, homes, all of those things. I just wanna make it very clear to the city that the safety impact really does need to be measured on how these families move through this neighborhood every day, not just on the parcel itself and not on a bad weather day. Before allowing this level of density to move forward, I do ask that the city make specific findings that the proposed development is compatible with the existing neighborhood and that the surrounding street network can safely handle the increased cars, parking, and all of the pedestrian safety impacts that will be happening. I don't wanna see a kid run out from behind a car. At minimum, I do ask that the city require a reduced density alternative. Happy to have you build houses, but can we cut it down a little bit and bind safety improvements before any approval. This should include safe crossings, continuous sidewalks, traffic calming signage protections around school bus stops, and just protections for walking routes
1:41:26 that families use to reach Diamond Park and also the surrounding homes. So I do respectfully ask that the city to deny this proposal as presented or require a lower density alternative that will help us maintain this walkability that we love about this neighborhood.
Evidence (1 match)
direct keyword 1:40:31–1:40:41 open space, parks, old growth, forestry, Urban forest, Urban Forest, tree canopy, urban forest, Forestry
we don't have crosswalks. We don't have sidewalks that run all the way up the street to the park. And this development is gonna be right along that same thing, that same path. And these are neighborhood streets that again, people are using to access parks, bus stops, homes, all of those things. I just wanna make it very clear to the city that the safety impact really does need to be measured on how these families move through this neighborhood every day, not just on the parcel itself and not on