This site is in beta — data may be incomplete and features are still being added.

MattersEnvironmentBYLAW NO. 2136First seen Jan 10, 2022Last discussed Nov 18, 2024

Langford tree protection bylaw

The bylaw sets rules for cutting trees in Langford while the city develops an Urban Forest Management Plan. The report says the earlier interim tree bylaw was due to expire Aug 4, 2023.

Where it stands: Listed for adoption Jul 17, 2023; no adoption decision is recorded in the provided history.

Background

Earlier and later steps of the same initiative.

  1. Jan 10, 2022

    Tree protection options

    The report reviews Langford’s existing protection of sensitive ecosystems and considers whether additional tree-protection rules or policy changes are needed. It raises questions about how a new bylaw would complement current development permit protections and public consultation.

  2. Dec 19, 2022 – Dec 21, 2022

    Temporary tree-cutting restrictions

    A temporary ban restricted cutting trees with trunks over 20 centimetres in diameter, subject to specified exceptions, while the City developed a broader tree management policy. A companion bylaw enabled tickets, including a $1,000 fine for listed offences.

  3. Apr 15, 2024 – May 6, 2024

    Interim tree protection extension

    The amendment would extend the interim tree protection rules through December 31, 2024, while the city develops its Urban Forest Management Plan. It provides a bridge to longer-term tree protections as that plan is prepared.

Timeline

Every time this matter appeared in council records, newest first.

  1. November 18, 2024·Public comment
    • Glenn Willing (Happy Valley)Concerned · Tree-protection bylaw
      Raises concerns about arborist costs, missing notices, ALR exemptions, and whether replacement planting can restore mature wildlife canopy.
    • Lisa VauxhallAsks · Tree-protection bylaw
      Asks council to disclose tree-related liability costs and consider suspending the bylaw ahead of approaching storms.
    • S. Kerry (Bear Mountain Parkway)Mixed · Tree-protection bylaw
      Applauds the plan but urges stronger protections, including development-process rules and species-specific measures for trees such as Garry oak and Arbutus.
    • Mary Brooke (West Hills)Mixed · Urban Forest Management Plan
      Supports hiring an arborist but questions limiting maple trees and seeks more information about Langford’s official tree.
    • Mike Morton (Phelps Avenue)Concerned · Urban forest and taxpayer costs
      Urges council to recognize residents as natural assets and weigh taxpayer costs, noting mature neighborhood trees grew without planting.
    • Norman JoelConcerned · Tree-removal costs and liability
      Warns that permits and arborist requirements could make tree removal costly and asks council to consider liability if a dangerous tree falls.
    • Jeff McGeeConcerned · Tree-protection bylaw
      Asks council to avoid punitive rules, citing a past requirement to replace six dangerous trees with 15 trees and 35 bushes.
    • A residentSupports · Urban Forest Management Plan
      Urges OCP and zoning changes to protect canopy, connect ecosystems, strengthen significant-tree penalties, hire an arborist, and fund low-income compliance costs.
    • Carrie DalbergMixed · Urban Forest Management Plan and bylaw
      Supports the plan and hiring an arborist, while urging species-specific protection for Garry oak, Arbutus, Pacific dogwood, and Pacific yew.
    • S. PlankSupports · Urban Forest Management Plan
      Supports the plan and an arborist, and urges brownfield-focused development, stronger protection of forested areas, wider setbacks, and species protections.
    • Bev SolstromOpposes · Tree-protection bylaw
      Opposes costly restrictions on private tree removal and urges council to notify residents and address hazardous trees on city property.
    • Nicholas Joel (Happy Valley)Asks · Urban forest data
      Questions the sources and methods used to calculate canopy loss and the timing and meaning of the thermal-image data.
    • Ron Coutre (Gold Stream Avenue)Mixed · Tree-protection bylaw
      Commends the plan and asks council to include retaining walls, driveways, sidewalks, and pathways among infrastructure considered in tree-removal permits.
    • Kristen ArumMixed · Tree protection and development permits
      Supports the plan and arborist, but urges clearer development-permit criteria, species and ecosystem protections, and more brownfield development.
    • Wendy Hawes (Luxton Highway)Opposes · Proposed road and tree removal
      Opposes removing trees from private property for a proposed road and urges the city to align road planning with its tree-protection goals.
  2. April 15, 2024·Public comment
    • Arnold (Ravensview Drive)Asks · Project agreement and attainable homeownership
      Asks for clarification on a project's no-go process, partner voting rules, and proposed changes to the attainable homeownership program.
    • Sandy SeifertOpposes · Tree bylaw and financial plan
      Opposes extending the temporary tree bylaw and challenges the proposed tax increase as unsupported and harmful to residents.
    • Scott Perry (Glennike Road)Opposes · Tree bylaw
      Opposes extending the temporary tree bylaw, arguing Langford's 48% tree canopy makes the restriction unnecessary.
    • L Plomp (Winfield Terrace)Mixed · Urban forest, housing policy, and financial plan
      Supports continued urban-forest planning and the tax increase, and asks that attainable-homeownership assistance include West Shore first responders.

  3. July 17, 2023· Council

    Tree protection bylaw listed for adoption

    Final approval. The bylaw is now in force.

  4. July 17, 2023·Public comment
    • S. Seifert (Walford Road)Concerned · Bylaw department update; sheltering
      Challenges the bylaw report’s account of homelessness, raises impacts on residents and businesses, and urges action on encampments and camper parking.
    • M. Morton (Phelps Avenue)Opposes · Tree protection bylaw
      Opposes the tree protection bylaw as an unfair process that creates financial burdens for Langford homeowners and residents.
    • A residentMixed · CRD arts and culture
      Supports a thorough report on CRD arts participation and its benefits, while noting regional connections and limited local facilities.
    • Lisa Foxall (Players Drive)Opposes · Meeting minutes; CRD arts and culture; FCM conference
      Opposes the costly, irreversible CRD partnership, urges local arts investment, and asks council to document social-media policy repercussions and report on FCM spending.

  5. June 19, 2023· Council

    Tree protection bylaw appeared for readings amid public concerns

    Council approved the content and final wording. Adoption is the last step.

  6. February 7, 2023·Public comment
    • Mike Morton (Phelps Ave)Opposes · Tree protection bylaw
      Opposes the temporary tree bylaw, asks what studies informed it, and urges council to table adoption for a proper public hearing.
    • Joan Smurl (Lexton Road)Opposes · Tree protection bylaw
      Opposes the bylaw, citing steep penalties and inadequate fire-safety consideration, and asks for fire department guidance.
    • Dave Smurl (Luxton Road)Opposes · Tree protection bylaw
      Opposes restrictions on removing hazardous trees, citing storm damage and the need to protect property from fire and wind risks.
    • Mike Wignell (Selwyn Road)Opposes · Tree protection bylaw
      Opposes the bylaw as unfair to property owners and suggests limiting the number of trees that can be removed per property each year.
    • Renneth Lewey (Bellamy Road)Mixed · Committees and code of conduct
      Supports committee structures and asks council to add social-media conduct rules that keep councillors accessible outside partisan pages.
    • Lisa Foxall (Players Drive)Opposes · Tree bylaw and code of conduct
      Opposes the tree bylaw and asks for an open house, while requesting a social-media clause for councillors’ conduct.
    • Sienna Geary (Bear Mountain Parkway)Supports · Committees, code of conduct and tree bylaw
      Supports the proposed committees, code of conduct, respectful workplace policy, and temporary tree bylaw.
    • Sandy Seifer (Walford Road)Opposes · Tree bylaw and code of conduct
      Opposes the tree bylaw as punitive to homeowners and asks council to reconsider it; supports adding a social-media clause to the code of conduct.
    • Michael Sunshine (Langlista Drive)Supports · Committees, code of conduct and tree bylaw
      Supports the proposed committees, code of conduct, and tree bylaw, citing respectful governance and the value of Langford’s tree canopy.
    • Wendy Hobbs (Luxon Road)Concerned · Committee structure and tree bylaw
      Urges council to establish a dedicated protective services committee and raises concerns about unnecessary tree removal during development.
    • Corina Craig (Lakehurst Drive)Mixed · Committees, code of conduct and tree bylaw
      Supports the temporary tree bylaw, asks for conflict-free board of variance members, and questions the draft code’s limits on council involvement in HR decisions.
    • Colton Weatherston (Christina Crescent)Supports · Tree protection bylaws
      Supports the temporary tree bylaw and related bylaws, saying interim protection allows time for broad public input on a permanent policy.
    • Dave Saunders (Pears Road)Opposes · Tree protection bylaw
      Opposes the bylaw, citing conflicts with fire-safety guidance and impacts on residents who have maintained trees for decades.
    • A residentMixed · Tree bylaw, code of conduct and hookup fees
      Criticizes the tree-bylaw process, supports limits on elected officials’ HR role, and asks council to lower hookup fees.
    • A resident (Rodney Road)Supports · Tree protection bylaw
      Supports the temporary bylaw and asks for clearer details about arborist requirements, saying tree protection benefits the neighbourhood.
  7. December 21, 2022·Public comment
    • Mike Wignall (Lankford)Concerned · Tree-protection bylaws 2115 and 2116
      Criticizes the rushed public process and asks for resident consultation on the temporary tree bylaw.
    • Dora Stroud (Janine Drive)Supports · Tree-protection bylaw
      Supports temporary and permanent tree protections, citing trees’ ecological and community benefits and calling for substantial penalties.
    • Wendy Hobbs (Luxton Road)Supports · Tree-protection bylaw
      Supports the bylaw and asks council to consider buffer zones and consistent enforcement.
    • Siena Geary (Bear Mountain Parkway)Supports · Tree-protection bylaw
      Supports the temporary bylaw in response to increased tree removal around the municipality.
    • Karina CraigSupports · Tree-protection bylaw
      Supports the temporary bylaw and thanks council for transparent action and community consultation.
    • Michael Sunshine (Lang Vista Drive)Supports · Tree-protection bylaw
      Supports a temporary tree-cutting bylaw and a longer-term tree-management policy to protect Langford’s trees.
    • Tanya Sunshine (Lang Vista Drive)Supports · Tree-protection bylaws 2115 and 2116
      Supports both bylaws, urges protection for native species, and calls for maximum per-tree penalties for violations.
    • Matt Rogers (Windman Lane)Supports · Tree-protection bylaw
      Supports the temporary bylaw and asks council to address tree protection in the development-permit process.
    • Sarah Plank (Goldstream Avenue)Supports · Tree-protection bylaw
      Supports the temporary bylaw and fines to deter tree removal while a permanent bylaw undergoes public consultation.
    • Lori Pomp (Winfield Terrace)Supports · Tree-protection bylaw
      Supports the temporary measure and suggests using penalty revenue to help residents cover arborist costs.
    • Peter Ketch (Spencer Road)Supports · Tree-protection bylaw
      Supports temporary and permanent protections and asks for tree-removal criteria that consider community quality of life and meaningful penalties.
    • Patsy Hamilton (Granderson Road)Supports · Tree-protection bylaw
      Supports moving forward with a tree-protection bylaw to protect nearby mature trees.
    • Lisa Foxall (Players Drive)Opposes · Tree-protection bylaws 2115 and 2116
      Opposes advancing the bylaw without proper notice and consultation, citing potential effects on jobs, housing, investment, and the local economy.
    • Glenn Willing (Willing Drive)Mixed · Tree-protection bylaw
      Supports a process for reviewing tree-cutting requests but urges stronger enforcement capacity and access to professional arborist advice.
    • Normal Joel (Walfred Place; Finney Road)Concerned · Tree-protection bylaw costs
      Warns that arborist-report requirements and enforcement could impose substantial costs on property owners and taxpayers.
    • Sue Stroud (Janine Drive)Supports · Tree-protection bylaw
      Supports the temporary bylaw and recommends an ongoing tree inventory to track canopy, tree health, and areas needing more trees.
    • Kristen Aram (Finlison Arm Road)Supports · Tree-protection bylaw
      Supports the emergency bylaw and maximum penalties to protect the urban canopy, wildlife habitat, and climate resilience.
    • Nicole Brown (Wendy Drive)Supports · Tree-protection bylaw
      Supports the temporary bylaw and expects council to balance tree protection with the local economy.
    • Randy Luberts (Dane Hill Place)Supports · Tree-protection bylaws 2115 and 2116
      Supports both temporary bylaws and urges public involvement in developing permanent protections for environmental and personal-health benefits.
    • Nicholas Joel (Walford Place)Asks · Tree-protection bylaw costs
      Asks who will pay for enforcement and arborist assessments, and whether the city will cover assessments for unsafe trees.
    • Colton Weatherson (Christina Crescent)Supports · Tree-protection bylaws 2115 and 2116
      Supports both bylaws as a temporary safeguard against tree cutting while a permanent policy is developed.
    • Kara Delbrook (Fashionables)Mixed · Tree-protection bylaw
      Supports the temporary bylaw but urges thorough consultation, affordable exemptions for dangerous trees, and added protection for native species.
    • Erin Vandermaid (Greystone Place)Concerned · Permanent tree-protection bylaw
      Urges a balanced permanent bylaw that protects trees without unduly restricting development or homeowners’ ability to address unsafe trees.
    • Bev Solstrom (Walford Road)Opposes · Tree-protection bylaw
      Opposes the bylaw as rushed and insufficiently consulted, citing potentially unaffordable arborist assessments for homeowners.
    • David Drawnsfield (Pete Road)Mixed · Tree-protection bylaw and dangerous-tree exemptions
      Supports tree cover but warns the bylaw could prevent necessary work to protect a home and property from a nearby hazardous tree.
    • Joel Leodakis (Page Avenue)Opposes · Tree-protection bylaw
      Opposes the rushed bylaw, citing existing development-permit protections and concerns about costs, delays, consultation, and private property impacts.
  8. July 18, 2022·Public comment
    • A resident (Phelps Avenue)Supports · Tree protection
      Urges council to strengthen urban-tree protections and consult residents and professionals on a strategy suited to Langford.
    • A residentAsks · 2021 annual report
      Asks staff to explain the financial-plan and actual developer-contribution figures and confirm whether the affordable-housing policy remains in force.
  9. January 10, 2022·Public comment
    • Mary Wagner (Deville Road)Mixed · Tree protection and construction noise
      Supports a tree protection bylaw and opposes construction-noise permits, citing risks to trees and residents’ protection from noise.
    • A residentMixed · Construction noise, tree protection, and attainable housing
      Requests public consultation, shorter construction hours, stronger tree protections, and attainable homes accessible to single-parent families.
    • A residentConcerned · Construction noise, tree protection, and Finney Road rezoning
      Raises concerns about limited public consultation, construction-noise enforcement, tree removal, and the Finney Road rezoning.
    • A resident (Goldstream Avenue)Supports · Tree protection
      Supports the staff report, arguing that development permit requirements adequately protect trees in Langford.
    • A resident (Kingsview Ridge)Supports · Tree protection
      Supports a dedicated tree protection bylaw and calls for public consultation and stronger action against deforestation.
    • A resident (Ravensview Drive)Supports · Tree protection
      Supports the staff report, arguing that development permit review adequately protects trees while allowing housing construction.
    • A resident (Goldstream Avenue)Supports · Attainable housing, construction noise, and tree protection
      Supports attainable homeownership, proposed construction-noise amendments, and the existing development permit process for tree management.
    • A residentConcerned · Tree protection, construction noise, and Finney Road rezoning
      Urges council to preserve trees and consider residents and future generations while addressing construction noise and Finney Road rezoning.
    • A residentSupports · Attainable housing, tree protection, and construction noise
      Supports the city’s housing, tree-management, and construction-noise efforts, arguing that housing supply helps affordability.
    • Mary Wagner (Deville Road)Opposes · Construction noise
      Clarifies that Saturday blasting would expand current hours and asks for clear rules or removal of noise permits.