Staff Report: Trees and Tree Protection Bylaws

BACKGROUND

Since February of 1997, the City of Langford has protected sensitive ecosystems, including trees, through the Development Permit powers of the Local Government Act. Using the Province’s 1994 Sensitive Ecosystems Inventory (SEI) as a starting point, the City designated all of those areas identified in the SEI as Development Permit Areas, then added a 43m Riparian Development Permit Area around lakes and streams and designated all lots 5 acres or larger in area as potential wildlife habitat and biodiversity areas. The potential wildlife habitat and biodiversity DP area was then expanded to include information provided by the Garry Oak Ecosystems Recovery Team (GOERT) in 2008 as well as smaller lots with low density.

When Council considered the designation of Development Permit Areas in 1997, the question of a separate tree bylaw was also considered. It was felt, at the time, that the introduction of a tree protection bylaw would have the effect of hastening, not hindering, tree cutting, as anyone with a tree that they might want to remove would do so before a bylaw could be passed. The Development Permit process was also thought to be a more comprehensive solution, as it allows for whole ecosystems to be considered, not simply a tree-by-tree approach.

In the intervening 24 years since adoption, designated Development Permit Areas have worked in concert with other policies and regulations to protect and preserve ecosystems in the following ways:

• Approximately 70% of the total land area of Langford is within a designated Development Permit Area. That means that the removal of trees on 70% of the total land area of Langford are being controlled or has been considered in some manner through the Development Permit process.

• Starting in 2004, with the rezoning of Hull’s Field from AG1 (Agriculture 1) to CD2 (Comprehensive Development 2) Council has sought and obtained 40% of undeveloped land as a public amenity as a condition of rezoning. This became embedded as policy in the 2008 Official Community Plan and has carried forward and been applied to the rezoning of Bear Mountain, South Skirt Mountain and Westhills, as well as smaller greenfield sites (eg: the Weir rezoning on Latoria Road).

• Approximately 12% of Langford is within a Comprehensive Development zone and therefore subject to Council’s 40% policy as outlined above.

• Since incorporation, the City of Langford has added 139.81 ha (345.49 acres) of Park and covenanted greenspace.

• There is a total of approximately 918 ha (2268.25 acres) of parkland within the City of Langford. This represents approximately 22% of the total land area within the City of Langford.

COMMENTARY

Although Provincial legislation would allow Council to adopt a tree protection bylaw, the danger to standing trees remains the same as noted above. Avoiding public foreknowledge of a proposed tree protection bylaw would necessitate zero public consultation, which could leave the perception of a parochial attitude on the part of the City, rather than consulting with the public about tree retention in general.

It is also uncertain how many trees in Langford could be preserved by the introduction of a tree protection bylaw, when the following current aspects of tree retention are considered:

• There is no need for overlap with the existing Development Permit Areas.
• Comprehensive Development Areas should be eligible for exemption as the deal struck at rezoning establishes greenspace retention.
• Other Provincial and Federal legislation add protection for certain trees that are significant wildlife trees.
• Municipal Tree Protection bylaws usually exempt the removal of trees within prescribed building envelopes.
• Sites in Langford that are already developed, but are being redeveloped, are most often being developed into higher density, multi-family residential which is encouraged to have high site coverage (see above).
• The City of Langford, through the Form and Character Development Permit process requires full landscaping in conjunction with all small lot, multi-family, commercial, business park and industrial development. This landscaping includes trees.
• The City of Langford, through Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 1000 requires the planting of street trees, often times in areas where no trees previously existed.
• Although a tree protection bylaw can prescribe tree replacement, it is unlikely that the City would ever want to require the retention of a diseased, damaged, or dying tree, as determined by a qualified professional (arborist, forester, biologist). Older, dead and dying trees would be replaced by newer trees which the public might not view as equivalent.
• When assessing potentially hazardous trees, arborists tend to err on the side of caution. The City would not want to accept the liability of requiring a tree to be preserved if a qualified professional has deemed them to be a potential hazard.
• With the exception of diseased, damaged or dying trees, most homeowners wish to retain the trees on their property as they represent an asset which positively affects their property’s value. The Planning Department does not receive many calls in a given year from homeowners wishing to remove healthy trees for no reason.

Council may also wish to consider the following, before considering a tree preservation bylaw:

• A number of mature trees, especially the sort of fir trees that exist in many of the existing residential areas of Langford, are susceptible to wind throw. Fir, as a species, are also susceptible to sudden fungal root rot. While these trees may appear to be fine, they can deteriorate quickly and fall without notice, causing considerable damage.
• Both the current and previous Regional Plans (CRD’s Regional Sustainability Strategy and the previous Regional Growth Strategy) identify Langford as an area of growth. The corollary to this is that outlying areas may remain untouched, undeveloped and rural.

If Council wishes to change its approach tree protection, this should be done with caution. When all of the caveats to a tree protection bylaw are applied, it is unlikely that such a bylaw would actually preserve any trees that are not already being preserved. If the City were to implement general tree replacement in conjunction with tree removal (more than what is already mandated in some Development Permit areas) then staffing needs will have to be re-considered. It is not unreasonable to expect that a full-time equivalent staff position could be employed simply to answer tree questions, review tree removal applications, issue tree permits and ensure that all work is bonded.

To date, Langford has struck a balance between development and greenspace retention. The City has made excellent progress in preserving greenspace and creating more park land since incorporation. The percentage amount of greenspace in Langford is now comparable to or exceeds that of most urban municipalities in BC. It may not be possible to transform the urban fabric of Langford into the kind of community that mirrors the objectives of the Official Community Plan and the Regional Sustainability Strategy with respect growth and density if tree-by-tree preservation becomes an objective by policy.

OPTIONS / RECOMMENDATION

Option 1

That Council receive this report for information.

OR Otion 2

SUBMITTED BY

SUBMITTED BY: Matthew Baldwin, MCIP RPP, Director of Planning and Subdivision

Concurrence:
Michael Dillabaugh, Director of Finance

Concurrence:
Marie Watmough, Acting Director of Corporate Services

Concurrence:
Darren Kiedyk, Chief Administrative Officer