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

MattersEnvironmentFirst seen Jan 17, 2023Last discussed Nov 18, 2024

Urban Forest Management Plan

Completed

A consultant presented the city’s Urban Forest Management Plan and background on a related bylaw. The plan concerns the city’s urban forest, which matters for how trees are managed across the community.

Where it stands: Consultant presented the plan Nov 19, 2024; no further action is recorded.

Background

Earlier and later steps of the same initiative.

  1. 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· Council

    Consultant presents urban forest plan and bylaw background

    Consultant presented the Urban Forest Management Plan and Bylaw No. 2206 background.

  2. November 18, 2024·Presentation

    Presentations were delivered on the Urban Forest Management Plan and the Westhills YW/YMCA Aquatic Centre.

  3. 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
  4. April 15, 2024·Presentation

    Two presentations were received: Urban Forest (Diamond Head Consulting) and Arts Centre Accessibility (Juan de Fuca Performing Arts Centre Society).

  5. January 17, 2023·Public comment
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.