MattersEnvironmentBylaw No. 2115; Bylaw No. 2116First seen Dec 19, 2022Last discussed Jan 17, 2023
Temporary tree-cutting restrictions
AdoptedA 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.
Where it stands: Both bylaws adopted Dec 21, 2022; the tree-cutting ban was set to expire after 180 days.
Background
Earlier and later steps of the same initiative.
Jun 19, 2023 – Jul 17, 2023
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.
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.
- John AlexanderAsks · Tree-protection bylaws
Asks council to consult affected landowners before adopting the tree-protection bylaw, arguing rushed decisions create uncertainty for development. - Beth Solzgram (Walford Road)Concerned · Tree-protection bylaws and fines
Questions how tree cutting could be illegal without a bylaw and asks council to justify the proposed fines. - Dora Stroud (Janine Drive)Supports · Tree-protection bylaws
Supports adopting the tree-protection bylaws and notes that the Greater Victoria Climate Hub also supports them. - Elizabeth Campbell (Lakeside Place)Supports · Tree bylaw and urban-forest planning
Supports the tree bylaw and offers forest-science expertise to help with future urban-forest planning. - Bernadette Armstrong (Rodney Road)Mixed · Tree bylaw and Bray development
Supports the temporary tree bylaw and asks whether further discussion is possible on the Bray development amid nearby density concerns. - Kristen ArumSupports · Tree-protection bylaws
Supports the tree-protection bylaws, saying public advocacy made the action feel responsive rather than unexpected. - Kim Robinson (Page Avenue)Supports · Tree-protection bylaws
Supports the tree bylaw and commends council and staff for acting quickly in response to public support. - Kara DoblockSupports · Urban forest plan and tree-protection bylaws
Praises the urban-forest-plan report and supports hiring a consultant and advancing the tree-protection bylaws. - Corina Craig (Lakehurst Drive)Supports · Tree-protection bylaw
Supports the temporary tree bylaw and commends council and staff for responding to tree cutting while developing a permanent approach. - Carnal ChimaSupports · Tree-protection bylaws
Supports the tree bylaws and the procedural review, saying swift action was necessary to meet a community need. - Michael Sunshine (Lang Vista Drive)Supports · Tree-protection bylaw
Supports the tree bylaw, arguing responsible property owners have little to fear, and welcomes future input on tree management. - Pete Kidge (East Spencer Road)Supports · Tree-protection bylaws and penalties
Supports both bylaws and argues penalties should deter harm to irreplaceable trees, including restrictions on future development applications. - Rennie Luberts (Sanehill Place)Mixed · Urban forest plan, tree bylaws and Latoria Road intersection
Supports the urban forest plan, tree bylaws and Latoria Road signals, and asks for clarification about sidewalks on the Klahani side. - Norman Joel (Walford Place)Concerned · Tree bylaw process and traffic signals
Criticizes the tree bylaw’s rushed, nontransparent process and asks council to consider a signal at Happy Valley School. - Tanya Sunshine (Lang Vista Drive)Mixed · Zoning fence rules and tree-protection bylaws
Supports the tree bylaws, asks for changes to zoning fence rules for public facilities, and urges attention to native and endangered species. - Patsy Hamilton (Granderson Road)Supports · Tree bylaw and urban forest management
Supports the temporary tree bylaw and the proposed urban forest management policy to protect residents and the natural environment. - Lisa Foxall (Players Drive)Opposes · Tree-protection bylaw process
Opposes the bylaw process as rushed and lacking public consultation, and asks about expert input, costs and the rationale for council’s action. - Mike Wignall (Sullivan Road)Mixed · Tree-protection bylaw scope and process
Appreciates the procedural redo but urges clear limits, fair penalties and stakeholder consultation to avoid burdening homeowners. - Nicholas Droll (Walford Place)Asks · Tree bylaw costs and process
Asks for details on legal and staff costs, when the bylaw was initiated, and whether direction was given publicly. - Sarah Plank (Goldstream Avenue)Supports · Tree-protection bylaws
Supports the bylaws, arguing election commitments and the urgency of preventing irreversible tree loss justify swift interim action. - Sienna (Langford Parkway)Asks · Tree-bylaw information access
Asks council to make information easier to access so residents can understand the bylaw and find answers without navigating older systems. - Devin Dignam (Reunion Avenue)Supports · Tree-protection bylaws
Supports council’s swift action to address a gap in existing protections and anticipates consultation on a permanent bylaw. - Scott Barry (Glen Lake Road)Opposes · Tree bylaw process and resident costs
Condemns the lack of notice and public input and asks whether council will compensate residents for costs caused by the bylaw. - Nithya Harris (Humpback Road) · Tree-protection bylaw and urban-tree benefits
Describes a 2021 urban-tree-canopy assessment that measured the benefits and functions provided by trees and forests.
- John AlexanderAsks · Tree-protection bylaws
- 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.
- Mike Wignall (Lankford)Concerned · Tree-protection bylaws 2115 and 2116