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

MattersEnvironmentBylaw No. 2206First seen Dec 21, 2022Last discussed Apr 7, 2025

Tree protection bylaw

A proposed city tree-protection bylaw would set rules for protecting trees. The available record does not explain its specific requirements or costs for residents.

Where it stands: Bylaw listed for adoption Dec 3, 2024; no adoption outcome recorded.

Background

Earlier and later steps of the same initiative.

  1. Jun 20, 2022 – May 5, 2025

    Tree protection ticketing bylaw

    The amendment sets $1,000 ticket fines for cutting or damaging a tree contrary to the tree protection rules, failing to obtain or follow a permit, or disobeying an order. It gives the city a way to enforce those rules through municipal tickets.

Timeline

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

  1. April 7, 2025·Public comment
    • Chad Bryden (Langford)Concerned · Construction impacts
      Supports minimizing construction impacts but asks council to consider project costs, timelines, local material reuse, and industry expertise when drafting guidelines.
    • A residentSupports · Social media, MIST, and construction impacts
      Supports keeping social-media comments open, funding MIST, and advancing enforceable construction guidance while protecting staff through moderation and repeat-offender controls.
    • Matthew Park (West Hills Land Corp)Mixed · Construction impact guidelines
      Supports most construction guidelines but asks for clarity on rock-processing restrictions, citing added trucking, emissions, housing costs, and project delays.
    • W Bowers (Langford)Supports · Parks and youth safety
      Supports recreation for all ages and prioritizing resident safety, citing youth risks and persistent scam calls and urging attention to vulnerable residents.
    • Elle Plomp (Langford)Supports · Construction impacts and social media
      Supports enforceable construction rules barring neighborhood rock crushing and keeping Facebook comments open while banning individuals who bully or post offensive material.
    • A residentConcerned · Construction impacts
      Requests clearer rules for generator fumes and noise, neglected properties, local hiring, and blast notifications with development contacts.
    • Lisa Foxall (Langford)Mixed · Tree bylaw and social media policy
      Opposes turning off Facebook comments and argues tree-bylaw enforcement adds unnecessary bureaucracy and costs without reported violations.
    • Norman Joel (Langford)Mixed · Industrial extension, construction impacts, and social media
      Supports the nearby industrial business, warns banning on-site crushing raises housing costs, and opposes restricting residents’ social-media participation.
    • Chris Foxell (Langford)Concerned · Construction impact guidelines
      Supports most construction guidance but asks council to assess specific projects for potential cost and timeline effects before adopting further bylaws.

  2. December 2, 2024· Council

    Bylaw listed for adoption; no outcome recorded

    Final approval. The bylaw is now in force.

  3. November 18, 2024· Council

    Tree-protection bylaw received three readings

    Council considered Bylaw No. 2206; a motion to extend the meeting to midnight was defeated and Council then voted to defer committee resolutions and to give Bylaw No. 2206 three readings.

    Decision: Gave first, second and third readings to the tree protection bylaw.

    Passed 6–0

    Decision: Defeated the proposed meeting extension to midnight.

    Defeated 0–3· Against: Colby Harder, Kimberley Guiry, Keith Yacucha

  4. 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.
    • 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.
  5. July 17, 2023·Public comment
    • A residentOpposes · Arts and culture; zero-carbon step code
      Opposes CRD arts funding and urges a local arts centre; recommends a less restrictive zero-carbon step code to avoid added housing costs.
    • 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.
    • Ren Louie (Bellamy Road)Opposes · CRD arts and culture
      Opposes joining either CRD funding tier, citing rising costs, no opt-out, uncertain local benefits, and limited influence over grant spending.
    • 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.
    • Arnold Rossander (Ravens View Drive)Opposes · CRD arts and culture
      Opposes joining without an exit clause and asks the evaluation to consider a proposed Colwood-area arts centre initiative.
  6. June 19, 2023·Public comment
    • Ren Louie (Bellamy Road)Mixed · Social media policy and tree bylaw
      Supports option two restricting council membership in exclusive social media groups and says tree-bylaw costs could instead reduce borrowing and tax increases.
    • Mike Morton (Phelps Avenue)Opposes · Tree bylaw
      Opposes the tree bylaw, objecting to city access to private property and limits on homeowners’ control of their trees.
  7. 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.
    • Hans Frederickson (Miola Place)Supports · Committee structure
      Supports keeping committees, saying residents’ experience can help council make decisions and serve Langford.
    • 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.
    • Nicholas Joel (Walford Place)Supports · Committee structure
      Urges council to retain the current committee structure, consult existing members, and explain goals and selection criteria for any changes.
  8. January 17, 2023·Public comment
    • 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.
  9. 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.