Transcript: Special Council Meeting - 2026/06/29

Speaker A · All right, welcome to today's special council meeting for Monday, June 29, 2026, our first official meeting of summer. Hope everyone's had a great weekend and enjoyed the sunshine. With that, I'm going to call this meeting to order. Councilor Morley, can we have our territorial acknowledgment, please?

Speaker B · Certainly. The city of Langford sits upon the traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples of the Wasakum, Sanghis, Skina nations and the Wisonic peoples, represented by the Sarla, Cochin, Siout, Sachem and Malahat nations. We thank them sharing this beautiful land.

Speaker A · Thank you very much, sir.

Speaker C · Good evening, everyone.

Speaker D · My name is Marie Watmo and I will be the moderator for tonight's meeting. Participation by the public is in person or via Zoom, either using the Zoom app or telephone. If you're joining us through the Zoom app and wish to make a comment, please use the raise hand function in the app, keeping in mind that you're able to both raise and lower your hand. You'll be called on based on your username and will need to unmute yourself when it's time for you to speak. If you're joining us via telephone, you must press Star nine on the telephone keypad to raise your hand. You should hear a recording advising you. The moderator will be notified that you wish to speak and you'll be called on using the last three digits of your phone number.

Speaker D · Please press star6 on the telephone keypad to unmute your phone. If you're attending in person, you can approach the podium one at a time. Once the public input portion begins. And in all cases, please start by providing us with your first initial, last name and municipality of residence. For the record, during public participation, you may speak to any item on the agenda, subject to the three minute time limit. There may be more than one opportunity to speak, but additional comments are limited to those not raised by you previously and at this time. We remind the public that the City doesn't tolerate bullying or harassment of city staff, elected officials or members of the public during council and committee meetings. So please keep your comments respectful.

Speaker D · For any matters not appearing on tonight's agenda, please contact City hall by calling 250-478-7882 during regular business hours. And if you experience technical difficulties in getting through tonight, please contact City hall tomorrow. As always, the City also accepts written submissions and comments.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Can I have an approval of the agenda, please?

Speaker E · I'll move the council approve the agenda as presented.

Speaker F · Thank you.

Speaker A · I'll second any comments. Last question. All those in favor Pose that passes. All right, we are automatically on to item number five, presentations. We have three presentations tonight, each roughly 30 minutes. So we got about an hour and a half to sit and relax and watch some.

Speaker G · Oh, they're back on now.

Speaker A · We're back on. Okay, first one. 5. 1 proposed parks DCC rates. That's approximately 30 minutes. Staff.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker H · Chair.

Speaker G · Introduce Sean Heffernan. He's the planner and senior local government advisor with Urban Systems who's been assisting us with developing the updated development cost charge rates and bylaw. And bylaw.

Speaker A · Floor is yours. There we are.

Speaker I · Good evening, Council. Thanks very much for having me tonight.

Speaker A · Yeah.

Speaker I · As you already noted, tonight we'll be talking about the parks development cost charges and we're going to walk through basically the draft bylaw draft rates for the bylaw itself too. Just a brief refresher. We're going to walk through a quick overview of DCCs and how they actually function, like how they're implemented and the different components that are used to develop a development cost charge bylaw. We're then going to talk about the draft DCC parks rates. We'll walk through some community comparisons and then talk about some implementation items as well. So just quick refresher on development cost charges. So again, these are fees and charges that are used to cover the cost of off site infrastructure required to support growth and development. They're based on the principle of cost sharing and that growth pays for growth.

Speaker I · They are regulated by the province through Part 14, Division 19 of the Local Government Act. There's also a D. C. best Practices Guide if you want to know kind of more details. There's also a best practices guide for elected officials that's a little bit shorter and succinct. Why do we use DCCs? So the purpose of DCCs is to ensure that you are collecting money in a fair and equitable manner to support the provision of off site services. In this case, we're talking about park improvement and park acquisition services. This is meant to create a consistent framework for collecting fees and charges and transparency around how those those charges translate to the park improvements and acquisitions being delivered by the community.

Speaker I · It also helps ensure the timely processing of applications in lieu of DCCs. A more negotiated approach may take more time and be more uncertain for the development. So why are we doing the DCC update now? The city's recently dropped it a new parks and trails master plan. There are some current opportunities to initiate key purchases and the delivery of projects in alignment with ongoing development in the city. Credit amounts for previously completed Projects requiring review and updating to align with the credits being used in those cases for works and works delivered. And the DCC bylaw was Last updated in 2022. So this is an alignment with best practice where we recommend the updating of DCCs every three to years.

Speaker I · This ensures the city's list is relevant and continue to collect enough revenue to provide the works and acquisitions required in the program. So what projects are DCC eligible? So the province actually has a very specific list of what types of park projects you can include in a DCC program. Unlike other services, which are a bit more broad, the parks category is quite narrow. So what it actually usually provides is what I'd like to say is kind of the basic components. So it's lighting, trails, landscaping, irrigation benches and things like that too. So other more, you know, specific features, those benefiting specific user groups, tennis courts, you know, turf, things like that can be done through the ACCs. But the DCC bylock takes care of basic park acquisition improvement.

Speaker I · So the proposed land use categories that we're looking at for the development cost charge bylaw are in alignment with the recently adopted ACC bylaw. So this looks at single family lots greater than 400 square meters, single family lots less than 400 square meters, duplexes, townhomes, condos or apartments, as well as commercial and industrial uses. I'll note that commercial and industrial uses will be a new category of charge in the DCC program. The city does not currently charge for commercial industrial uses. And the proposed DCC program presented tonight will include charges for those, which is something that is becoming more and more typical across the region where parks programs are actually collecting DCCs from commercial and industrial uses.

Speaker I · Just a key consideration, like we've again looked at these categories again to align with the ACCs, but also to ensure there's consistency with this zoning bylaw as well as to reflect consistency in charges in relation to the new small scale multi unit housing legislation as well too.

Speaker I · So there'll be some updates and changes from your current DCC bylaw to kind of reflect these needs. Just a quick overview of how we develop the rates. So the DCC program development is relatively straightforward. Essentially you look at the list of improvements and acquisitions that you're acquiring over a specific time horizon. In this case, We've used a 30 year time horizon for the program itself and you, you determine basically the associated population or number of units that you're expected to, you know, see in that 30 years of growth. And the total capital costs and improvement values are essentially then split across Those units and floor area for industrial and commercial uses. And that gives us the DCC rate itself.

Speaker I · Each project receives what's referred to as a benefit allocation. So we look project by project and we determine essentially the benefit of each project to new versus existing users. In many cases, the project benefit allocation in this community is 100%. Many of the projects on the list are very driven by growth and development in the community. Therefore, they've received the highest benefit of 100%. There's also what's referred to as the SIS factor. So this is a little different than the benefit allocation in itself in that it's a peer policy decision by council. Council may choose to adjust the municipal assist factor to increase or decrease the development cost charge rates. And this is a pure policy decision by council. And that will impact the overall rate.

Speaker I · So that municipal assist factor again must be between 1 and 99%, 99 being the highest, 1% being the lowest. You're required by legislation to provide at least a 1% municipal assist factor, which is what the program currently has in place at this time for the current draft rates, is a 1% assist factor. If council were to increase that, it would have the effect of reducing the overall DCC rates. But then that money must be made up through a non DCC revenue source in order to compensate the program. Just a quick overview of how that works. So we have kind of a hypothetical project here where we've assumed a project costs a million dollars. We've given it a benefit allocation of 35% just for conversation's sake.

Speaker I · So you can see here that the 35% or $350,000 becomes the developer contribution through the development cost charge bylaw. And the city's contribution of 650,000 is used to kind of make up the remainder. Then you see kind of the assist factor come in, which has the effect of reducing the overall development cost charge by 1%. So in this case it's $3,500. So the actual cost that goes into the program itself is 346, $346,500. So we're going to go into the draft DCC park rates. So this is just the current DCC rates. So currently they kind of split between acquisition improvements. We've consolidated those two costs in this bylaw.

Speaker I · So there's just kind of one parks DCC rate now that includes both acquisition and improvement, with acquisition making up the majority of the program. So currently your typical single family lot greater than 400 meters would pay $3,357. And your typical multifamily unit pay $1,438 with townhouses and duplex paying around 2,000. So the new DCC rates result in a rather modest increase of 5. 6% across the board. So in they went up about 100 or so dollars. When we look at kind of the townhouse or two family dwelling, you know, the single family dwellings greater than 400 square meters went up by about $180 and the condo apartment units went up by about $80.

Speaker I · So relatively small change. You will notice this does include a new rate for commercial industrial uses per square meter at $15. 35 per square meter. Just a quick run through of community comparisons here. So again, community comparisons, it's a good thing to remember this isn't an apples to apples comparison. Different communities have different charges based on kind of the needs of that community. And they can vary quite substantially. And the different types of units that they actually charge by can vary as well. So some charge by square meter, others charge by units. So what we're providing here is basically a rough comparison of, you know, community in the region will compare Both for overall DCCs as well as the specific development cost charges.

Speaker I · So this is again just looking at single family lots. So greater than 400 square meters. You know, Langford currently sits in the lower, lower part of this. The existing parks DCC again would be kind of like third from the bottom with the proposed parks, kind of keeping it in the exact same position there. Overall, the total proposed DCCs are remain relatively low. So you can see here in this graph, the parks would be the green bar with roads being gray and drainage being yellow. And then the orange is regional dcc. So that'll be for your crd. Juan de Fuca Water Distribution System Development cost charges so when we look at townhouses again we see Langford would be third from the third from the bottom for the parks dccs and it will remain there.

Speaker I · Again, there's not a significant change in the rate itself. Again, this would be kind of near the bottom of all DCCs in the region for townhouses, the same trend for apartments as well too. So again you'd be coming through from the bottom and then kind of near the bottom overall. For commercial, this is where you would be a little bit higher. So you'd be kind of to the upper end of the middle. For commercial park dccs just above Victoria and below Courtney and Colwood, for your overall commercial DCCs you would be. Here you go from previously not charging parks. So this is again a new charge and then with the new parks DCC charge, you'd be bumped up to $84. 50 per square meter.

Speaker I · So that would just put you between Oak Bay and Victoria, near kind of the lower middle end of communities in the region. I'll quickly run through some fluentation considerations. So it's required by legislation as best practice to engage parties affected by the DCC bylaw every time you do a review or update of the DCC program. So we've recommended consultation with development community and other interested stakeholders. This approach can take many forms in the sense that usually there's a posting on online on the community's website. So you'd put it up on the city's website and then you'd reach out to interested parties directly for consultation. Given the scale of the change,

Speaker J · we

Speaker I · do not envision a significant consultation process through this because it is very minor and what we would do is very typical. This is very kind of common approach for DCC update where we just do something online and then follow up with like a virtual engagement session with the development community. Just a couple things to consider too is the timing of payments. So when we look at the implementation of new DCC rate, they really don't come into effect immediately. So there's something called an in stream protection period, which I'll talk about on a subsequent slide. But there's also the ability to pay in installments. So there's new legislation from the province that allows developers to pay in installments with 25% due at the time of building permit issuance, with the remaining 75% to be paid at either time of occupancy or four years, whatever comes first.

Speaker I · So this creates a bit of a lag in actually when the fees are paid. There's also option for DC waivers and reductions. So council is allowed to waive or reduce development cost charges for certain forms of eligible development under the local Government Act. This can include not for profit affordable housing, for profit affordable rental housing, housing designed for reduced environmental impact or greenhouse gases. So this would typically be established through a separate DCC sorry DCC reductions bylaw which does not require inspector approval. So we typically recommend this is done as separate bylaw so that you don't connect it with your DCC bylaw. And if you ever wanted to change the waivers and reductions, then you don't have to actually send that back to the inspector municipalities for review and approval.

Speaker I · You can just do it on your own through that separate bylaw of the city where the DCCs are waiver reduced just like Increasing the assist factor, you must make up any of that non DCC revenue with other sources of funding to compensate the program. We'll talk a little bit about the in stream protection and grace periods. So under the Local Government act, when a new DCC program is implemented, any in stream applications are given a 12 month in stream protection period where they will be grandfathered under the previous rates. In this case, that would mean that any in stream applications which could include applications for rezoning, development permit, development variance permit, as well as building permit and subdivision, which have 12 months to receive their subdivision approval or building permit before the new rates would come into effect on their developments.

Speaker I · The council also has the option of delaying the effective date of adoption or what's referred to as a grace period. The best practices guide suggest this could be done up to the year, which would essentially then create another gap between when the new DCC program actually came into effect. Next steps so you can see here on the arrow, we've gone through the process of reviewing the program, reviewing the master plan, reviewing all the various inputs with staff and our project team to develop project list. We've provided the draft DCC rates here tonight for your review and consideration with the next step being consultation with interested parties. At that point we'll take any feedback from those parties.

Speaker I · If council wishes to proceed with consultation prior to bringing that bylaw back for three readings and then at that point it goes to the ministry for review approval by the inspector municipalities. That's my presentation. Any questions?

Speaker A · All right, thank you sir. Counsel, any questions?

Speaker K · Councilor Wagner, thank you for the presentation. Through the chair I was hoping to see a project list. So if I go look at the Parks Master Plan or just try to parse out which things are improvements or which things are new projects, can you comment on the project list?

Speaker I · Certainly. And I could have then maybe staff to add any comments there as well too. Or you'd like to start?

Speaker G · Yeah, through the chair. Thanks for that. We do have a list. Obviously it's not here tonight. We're still working through through the, through the rates here. A big portion is acquisition as laid out in the Parks Master Plan. That's about three quarters of the new DCC rates are for an acquisition of parklands which like again which was the priority of the OCP and the Parks Master Plan. And the remainder is a lot of existing projects that hadn't been completed. For example, Veterans park is still, still on there, obviously been reduced because we've already acquired the properties. And then the Woodlands Park, Sioux Lake Road et CETERA are all project that are still on the list.

Speaker G · And we also have neighborhood and community park buckets, so to speak, that we can draw out of for improvements in some of our existing parks and to add new parks. And also if we were to acquire land in an area of Langford as identified in the parks master plan, those improvement buckets can be. Dollars can be used for those acquisitions too to put in the amenities that we need.

Speaker A · Do you have a follow up?

Speaker K · Sort of. So I'm thinking of something we already own. For example, the. There's the Sioux Lake Road to improve that. We don't have a specific plan for that park. So is that something that would. That'd be a separate issue as we would develop a plan. So we're not necessarily collecting money because we don't know what it is that we're going to put there. How does that work?

Speaker G · Through the chair, it is identified as a project that is we haven't received council direction on the plan for that park. We have an amount in there that's an estimate based on what staff believe we can do for improvements in that park regardless of the council direction. So I said it's over a period of years to collect the monies. But it's identified as a project, which means once we get council direction, we can start moving. We have the funds and funds are available in our DCC pot, then we can work towards whatever council decides they'd like to do with that property. So it is listed as a project, but it isn't.

Speaker G · Doesn't specifically say what will go there. It just says that it is Sioux Lake Road and it will be park improvements.

Speaker K · That's helpful.

Speaker F · Thank you.

Speaker A · Thanks, Councillor. Councilor Gary, thank you.

Speaker L · Through you, Mayor.

Speaker E · Actually, thank you for the presentation.

Speaker A · That was.

Speaker E · It was a good update and always a good review for understanding DCCs and how they evolve and how they're applied. So I think it's great to do that review. My question is actually for staff because it was mentioned about reductions in DCCs for not for profit, affordable housing. And I was wondering where that sits in our current workflows if we have a conversation upcoming.

Speaker F · Thank you for the question.

Speaker M · Through the mayor, as council is aware, we're working on Lankford's first housing strategy right now. So this is an item that was raised through some of our focus groups that we had early on in the project as a, you know, a lever that the city could pull to assist nonprofit housing providers. So we'll be exploring that further as we take the housing strategy to the draft Stage and council will have an opportunity to provide further input at that stage.

Speaker A · Do you have a follow up?

Speaker E · No, that's helpful, thank you.

Speaker A · Okay, anyone next? Go ahead, Councilor Wagner. Here's a chance.

Speaker K · Well, just to clarify next steps then. It sounded like there would be an online survey for the public and then we'll revisit this and we'll. Before there's a decision, we'll see the project list and all those details through the mayor.

Speaker I · Yes, if we're conducting a the public consultation going forward, we would provide the project list as well as similar presentation information available to the development community and other interested parties to review and that would typically post on the city's website. We could conduct a survey as part of that work and that's certainly something we can discuss. I think we'd want to understand sort of through that what information we intend to get out of it and the interested parties. So it's certainly something we can consider. And then we would again conduct a virtual session which would be open to the public and stakeholders to attend for the review, basically similar information.

Speaker I · And in that we would provide this project list in advance too, so that interest parties could review that and comment on it during that session.

Speaker K · Okay, thank you. So then just to follow up through the chair to staff, there's no decision, as I understand it, on our agenda tonight. It's not coming up. So I'm just wondering about discussions that will happen or if this is going to be managed by staff as what they feel is appropriate.

Speaker G · Thanks. Through the chair, the staff will continue managing the project list. And with any input from council, we are planning on bringing this to for a second third meeting on July 20th. So it'll be a, be a quick, quick consultation. But again, with the rates only going up by about 5%, we don't expect too much pushback from the public or from the development community.

Speaker K · The final question then, unless someone else has one, but just about the rates, then I would guess this might go to staff again. But just thinking of, you know, sort of the amount we can expect to charge for DCCs. They do have to be approved by the province. There's only so much to give. So it just. So I understand this correctly, it seems like we're going to shift to land acquisition as a priority because that was identified in our plans. But the overall rate would stay similar because there's really only so much you can charge that still the projects have to remain feasible. Right. So if you could just comment on that.

Speaker G · Yeah, through the chair. Yes, exactly. Obviously with we can't continue to increase the rates to the point where it hampers development, but by increasing them slightly and by not having two, two different pots like we did previously in acquisition and improvements and putting it correct me if I'm wrong, Sean, but putting it into sort of one account, so to speak, it gives us more flexibility for to use it for acquisition or improvement.

Speaker G · But again, like you said, the priority in the parks master plan and the majority of the funds that are identified in the projects list are acquisition.

Speaker I · Through the mayor. I may also note too that the addition of a charge for commercial and industrial use also increases the amount of revenue the program will generate.

Speaker K · Thank you. That clarifies for me.

Speaker A · And now we have Councillor Herter.

Speaker F · Thank you. Through you, thank you for just mentioning that piece about the commercial industrial being a new addition because that was part of my question. I did have a separate question regarding the municipal assist factor because you mentioned that that would be sort of the the point where there is sort of that policy decision amongst council or the conversation to be had through you to staff or perhaps to yourself. Would that conversation need to happen at first, second, third reading for the bylaw? I just want to clarify

Speaker I · through the mayor and I may refer to staff on this too. But you know, increasing the missile assist factor, if you felt the rate tonight was too high, I think that would be good feedback for the project team and ourselves to consider in terms of what would how we'd bring the program forward. Again, if you were to increase the missile assist factor, bring the DCCs down and you know, again you'd have to find a kind of non DCC revenue source to compensate for that. But that would be good feedback I believe for tonight.

Speaker F · I don't wish to share that feedback, but I appreciate it.

Speaker A · Thank you very last chance. Anyone else?

Speaker E · Thank you. Through you Mayor, just because we're on the topic of the municipal assist factor and we've covered this at the crd, perhaps you could give an example of I know there's in the mainland the municipal assist factor was used to transition for a hard like a big increase. And so that was kind of a way to soften a large increase. I don't know if you could speak more to that just to kind of add context because I don't believe that we use any municipal success factor over one in Langford right now.

Speaker A · Yeah.

Speaker I · Through the mayor, 1% is by far the most commonly used municipal assist factor. And I think you're correct in your assessment that when you see higher missile assist factors it's usually surrounding the implementation of a new program or to help buffer the significant increase in DCC rates, which in some cases have increased by 100, 200%, depending on the length of time between bylaw updates and the cost of the infrastructure being provided. So it's something that is a tool for council to use and it is probably most commonly used in those cases where there's a large increase or new program being brought in that they would like to give the development industry more opportunity to kind of adjust to in terms of a cost perspective.

Speaker A · Okay, thank you very much, sir, for all this. We've been waiting for this to come through in the latest update. So thank you and you have a great evening.

Speaker I · Thanks very much. Thanks for having me.

Speaker E · I wanted to call a point of privilege. Thank you. We're getting a lot of feedback in this part of the table and I was just wondering if we could take a moment to see if we can address that.

Speaker A · It's.

Speaker E · I'm finding it very distracting.

Speaker A · Sure. Let's just call say a five minute recess. Can I have a motion for that?

Speaker N · Please remove recess for five minutes.

Speaker F · Second call.

Speaker A · Those in favor. Most. Thank you. For those that are wondering, we're getting the speaker voices back through the speakers on in a very distorted, quiet way. It's just like a little ear wormy and that's quite distracting. No, it's this one here.

Speaker N · If we get any feedback here doesn't. I don't hear anything.

Speaker A · All right, thank you for that break there. We seem to be going so I can get everyone's attention. Our next presentation is designed guidelines. Staff, take her away.

Speaker J · Yes.

Speaker M · Thank you, Mayor. I'm happy to welcome to the room tonight Valeria Perez Melvito with Modis Design Consulting. She's a senior urban designer with Modis and has been acting as the project manager for our design guideline update. So we're happy to have her here today to run through the process and the highlights of what has changed with our proposed new design guidelines on the agenda tonight. Later.

Speaker L · Thank you so much, Leah. And good evening, mayor and council and staff. Thank you for having me tonight. I am proud to present, as Leah said, the final draft of the City of Langford's form and character development permit area design guidelines. This document represents a pretty significant step forward in ensuring that as Langford continues to grow, it does so with intention, high quality design and a distinct sense of place. So I'm excited to get into the details with you. For our agenda this evening, we'll start with a brief presentation with an overview of the project's Scope as well as the process that brought us here today. Then we'll walk through the core components of the final design guidelines.

Speaker L · I'll try to keep the presentation short so that we hold time for discussion. Any questions that you might have at the end. I wanted to start also by reintroducing myself. As Leah said, my name is Valeria. I'm a senior Urban Designer at modis and I also wanted to acknowledge that while I'm standing here today presenting the final draft, there's a team of consultants that have been critical parts of this effort. Edward Porter, Project director Cal Shrigley, Architect and illustrator Jordan Wilson, Planner and project support and Scott Hein, Design Guidelines and Advisory Design Panel Advisor. I'll provide a quick overview of our project scope just to sort of reframe why we're here today. The current guidelines were adopted in the late 90s and early 2000s.

Speaker L · They've served the city well, but they're really a patchwork of over 20 separate DPAs, some still relevant, others that no longer reflect the pace or quality of growth that we're seeing today. With Langford's new official Community Plan now in place, this update was a timely opportunity to bring everything together, to modernize the structure, make it easier to use and make sure it reflects where Langford is headed. We started our work this fall with background research, preliminary analysis and industry outreach. We then had the opportunity to meet with you all in Tour Langford at the Charette in November. The outcomes of that session with staff and council gave us the structure for the document as it is today. We then assessed and made recommendations for establishing an adp, an Advisory Design Panel to close out the year.

Speaker L · Then this spring, we focused on taking the findings of the evaluation matrix and our direction from the charrette to draft the guidelines themselves. Both the form and character and environmental DPAs that will be presented later today went out for public consultation in April and May to final to finalize the edits to both respective documents. We then held an implementation workshop with staff to walk through the next steps, which brings us today where we present the final guidelines for your consideration. Before we get into the details of the update, it may be helpful to take a quick look at how the design guidelines fit into the broader planning toolkit.

Speaker L · These components each have a very distinct job that shapes development in different ways. While there are many other plans and strategies to consider, very basically we can think of this as a three step process. First we have policy which comes in the form of the official Community Plan. This is a high level vision. It tells us what we want and where we want it to go over the next several decades. Then we have, as a second layer, regulation in the form of the zoning bylaw. These are black and white rules. Zoning dictates exactly how much can be built on a site, the specific land uses and levers such as maximum height, density, etc. Then we have the guidelines our development permit areas.

Speaker L · If zoning gives the developer sort of a 3D box with which they can build in, the DPAs dictate how that box is then shaped it, sculpts it and details it so that it actually looks like it belongs in Langford. With that, it's important to understand that the guidelines cannot override zoning. They can't change density or use. Their job is strictly to ensure that whatever zoning allows is executed with a high quality of form, character and placemaking. The goals of the design guidelines were quite robust. Design guidelines are the bridge between policy and practice. They're not about prescribing one look, but about setting expectations, helping applicants, staff and council understand what design looks like and what we consider good design in Lankford.

Speaker L · They should make the process smoother, more predictable and more transparent for everyone. At the onset of the project, we sought to do the following that is listed on this slide. We sought clarity to communicate a vision for a new development, establish a simple and singular language when describing that vision, ensure there's consistency in the new development that we see going forward, so that there is a coherent fabric in Langford, and finally, that the tool that fuels that process supports good design outcomes.

Speaker L · This was our mandate to simply simplify the process and distill the complexity of 21 DPAs in different styles, from different eras of development, into a more streamlined and efficient document. We're happy with where we've landed and feel that Langford will have, moving forward, something that is much more concise and compelling, that hopefully doesn't get, or that hopefully does get referenced a lot more than the previous document. Something that is interesting to look at and work with, Understanding there's real inherent value in the existing guidelines. We created a matrix to evaluate the existing material for context. The city had almost 1100 guidelines. That's a lot. And I want to reassure council that we didn't just throw out the old rules and start from scratch.

Speaker L · Our team conducted a line by line audit of the existing guidelines, using a detailed evaluation matrix to ensure we preserved institutional knowledge that was baked into the existing guidelines. And a screenshot of that matrix is what you see on the slide today. This is where we assess their present day relevance and determined whether they should be removed, consolidated, retained or reviewed. Those that were marked for review were assessed against other bylaws to understand if the element that was being regulated in that guideline was better suited or was present in another of the city's documents or whether it should be maintained as part of the design guidelines.

Speaker L · The guidelines that then surface through consolidation or being marked as retained totaled just shy of 175. These were understood as ideas that sort of stood the test of the matrix and were then combined with our urban design understanding and regular conversations with staff to generate a first draft of the design guidelines. In summary, we started with nearly 1100 guidelines across 21 DPAs and ended up with 75 guidelines in one citywide DPA. An important part of this 10 month journey that we've had is was our consultation. We spoke with the development industry, city staff, council and the public to figure out exactly what was and wasn't working with the old guidelines and what needed to be included in the new version.

Speaker L · Beyond recurring meetings and reviews with the project team, we engaged staff and council in three major milestones. A multi day charrette with council and staff allowed us to test options, explore priorities and identify tensions. A mid course meeting with council earlier this year confirmed the direction for the project and finally and most recently a staff implementation workshop last month refined the document and focused on next steps with regards to public consultation. An online mapping tool was used to gather input from the public in the early stages of the project. We gathered place based input on where urban design is working well, where existing buildings and streets best represent Langford, and where improvements could strengthen neighborhood character. We received just over 900 responses.

Speaker L · A second round of online engagement this spring collected feedback on the draft guidelines where we received just over 50 comments. Lastly, industry outreach interviews were conducted to understand the role of existing DPAs in the development industry and how we might support making that process more streamlined through our engagement. Five clear themes emerged. A clear, flexible and streamlined process. As I just mentioned, we heard consistently from both the development industry and city staff that the old framework was difficult to navigate with too many guidelines and DPAs. To understand these new guidelines remove the guesswork providing clear expectations upfront which ultimately supports the approvals process without being so rigid and prescriptive that it might stifle creativity. Second, human scaled and connected spaces.

Speaker L · This was a major priority for the public and especially for council. The community wants development that doesn't turn their back on the street. The theme emphasized well designed streets, dedicated gathering spaces and site layouts. That seamlessly connect residents to each other and their broader neighborhood context. Third was integrating nature. Langford's natural surroundings are a massive part of its appeal. The guidelines address the widespread desire to protect existing trees, ensuring that landscaping is considered at the very onset of a project through the site planning rather than as an afterthought. We want new buildings to integrate softly and respectfully to the natural environment that Langford has in abundance. Fourth, vibrant and authentic design.

Speaker L · As Langford grows, we want to actively dissuade the use of generic copy paste architecture that could belong in any city. This principle encourages development to reflect the unique and entrepreneurial spirit, arts and culture of this specific community. And finally, enhancing local identity. This is tied throughout all of the themes that I just mentioned, but this is how we physically execute that authentic design to build a strong local identity. The guidelines now actively promote thoughtful architectural massing, visual depth on facades and the use of high quality exterior materials as simple examples of that. Together, these themes ensure that we aren't just building more housing or commercial space as an example, but we're building a better urban framework for Langford.

Speaker L · I'll maybe just stop here and give an overview of the principles just before getting into the specifics of the document. But everything that we wrote for each guideline was informed by four key principles which we presented to Council in February. Those are honoring place, building, resilience, creating connection, and fostering creativity. So that means that we're building with what exists, not over it, physically and socially, linking people and spaces, creating lasting value through durable and adaptable design, and allowing expression and flexibility with clear expectations. These are not stylistic directions, they are values that shape how the guidelines are written. So without further ado, this is how the document is physically laid out.

Speaker L · The guidelines themselves are broken up into four categories, starting with site planning, architecture, landscape architecture, and special considerations. Each section begins with the section page that we have on the screen right now. It provides a brief explanation of the intent and then outlines objectives that help to provide further structure for the guidelines themselves. This section, site planning, is about how development of any size sits on its respective lot and shapes the ground level, ground plane experience. This is where much of the public realm quality is shaped. The core objectives here force applicants to respect neighborhood relationships, intelligently organize space, prioritize pedestrian safety, and seamlessly integrate circulation. As you can see in the examples that I've included here, this is a spread for the design guidelines.

Speaker L · They are organized under an objective, in this case starting from left to right, respecting relationships, organizing space and prioritizing people as I had previously mentioned, which are then further described underneath an intent statement that was informed by our public consultation. As you can see in this example, this means pushing parking away from the street, pulling commercial frontages forward and using buildings to frame public plazas. We then move on to the Architecture section which provides direction on building exhibition, but importantly not on style. It focuses on climate responsiveness, good neighbor relationships, friendly human scale, building faces, appropriate finishes, and the goal here is to elevate design quality without becoming prescriptive about one particular aesthetic preference.

Speaker L · Again here, this is an example of two pages from the Architectural Guidelines. As you can see, each section follows the same layout to ensure it is predictable and easy to navigate. Each page contains images that further help to explain the most important elements of each guideline and of each objective section. Here the images illustrate from the bottom and left to right, integrated canopies to support weatherproofing. Provides links to helpful external resources. In this case, the BC Code provides an example of visual interest created via color, facade articulation and materials in the top right. And finally, how architecture and landscaping can and should work together to maximize the area of land and create privacy. The third category is landscape architecture. This plays a critical role in Langford's ecological function and local character.

Speaker L · This section addresses designing with nature, protecting and enhancing the urban forest, functional and usable landscapes, revealing the nature, the natural beauty of surroundings. Given the strong public feedback around green character and ecological concerns, the section carries particular weights. As you can see across each section. We have given each section its own color to support readers ability to find their way in the document and further improve legibility so we can again see the same format and its supportive color coding. Final category covers special considerations. These are the critical elements that capture cross cutting themes like safety, public art, lighting, signage and retrofit and repair. These elements may not necessarily drive building form, but they significantly influence how development is experienced. Providing clear direction here reduces friction and improves outcomes. And finally, this is an example of what this looks like.

Speaker L · So here we are talking about passive surveillance, ensuring that we are building alongside what already exists and being a good neighbor in architectural design and then making room for art and arts and culture as we develop. One of the greatest strengths of this new framework is that it is a single unified set of guidelines that adapts to Langford's diverse landscapes. So rather than prescribing a rigid architectural theme or aesthetic for each neighborhood, the guidelines require developers to analyze their specific site context first and design. A response that fits a citywide DPA does not mean uniform design. It means consistent Expectations applied thoughtfully across different contexts. The Guidelines are structured to begin with site conditions, surrounding uses, scale, landscape features and street context before addressing architectural expression.

Speaker L · This ensures that design responds and is shaped by place, not form. The Guidelines are primarily intended for more intensive residential, commercial, institutional and industrial development, where form and character have the greatest impact on the public realm. Minor works, small scale alterations and exempted development would not necessarily trigger the full scope of review, maintaining proportionality in an individual application. The Design and Practice section that follows in the next slide will demonstrate how the same principles and objectives can be interpreted differently across ground oriented forms versus denser forms in the Design Guidelines. We also cover this in the Design and Practice section, which is across all land uses where design guidelines apply. So again, this is the final section of the document.

Speaker L · It provides visual examples to show applicants how exactly all of the principles that have been covered and described through the guidelines in the preceding sections can look in practice across different uses and scales of development. And I will just share a few examples here of ground oriented residential, which effectively means anything that has a front door on the street. So you're thinking of here we're looking at sort of duplexes all the way to townhouses as an example. The guidelines focus heavily on the friendliness of front door when it applies to this form of development. They emphasize clear transitions between public sidewalks and private spaces and leverage laneways to hide vehicles and improve pedestrian safety as some key examples.

Speaker L · Now, as you can see on this spread that I have on the screen, every type of development that is highlighted in this section is paired with an illustration and then real world images to support how that might look. This again is just another example of what this section looks like when applied to medium density residential buildings. The focus sort of scales up. The Guidelines require stronger pedestrian connectivity, highly visible uncelebrated shared entrances and articulated street walls that break up the massive buildings so it doesn't loom over the sidewalk, or that we get what we call the fear of the blank wall. The last portion of my presentation today is really just on what lies ahead, which is the implementation. Recognizing that writing a new set of guidelines is only part of the work, the work continues during implementation.

Speaker L · To ensure these guidelines are practical and effective for the city, our team focused heavily on the tools needed to support on the ground in the last few months. In February, we presented the findings of a comprehensive report recommending the establishment of a clearly scoped and limited advisory design panel. When City hall chooses to adopt this, it will add an invaluable layer of professional and community expertise to help city staff and council evaluate complex applications. During our implementation workshop with city staff, we proposed a fundamentals checklist. An example of the content is up on the slide right now. While it may not be required in every application, but save for newer, more nuanced submissions, it shifts the burden of proof to the applicant by asking them to explain how their application meets the intent of the four organizing principles that I shared and how they meet the guidelines with room for explanation where they feel they do not.

Speaker L · This supports staff by avoiding planners having to hunt through the submission to see if they comply with all the guidelines. And the checklist requires the applicant to explicitly explain their rationale. Finally, we should acknowledge change management. This document, as I said at the onset of my presentation, represents a significant shift for Langford in how it manages development. We recognize that this will come with some learning curves for everyone from staff at the permit desk to architects and developers submitting applications. So it's. We're sort of in that phase of learning to crawl, then walk, and then finally to run. The guidelines need to be practiced towards enshrining their inherent values and ensuring a proactive and consistent equitable fair application process.

Speaker L · And the MODIS team personally remains committed to supporting a smooth and collaborative transition as everyone gets accustomed to this new design guidelines for Langford. And that's all. I'll just open the floor for any discussion or questions that you may have.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. I mean, we started this way, way back, the very beginning in spring of 23 and now we are here. I know council is going to have some questions. Councilor Harder. Right away, thank you.

Speaker K · Through you.

Speaker F · Thank you so much for that presentation. I loved the clarity of it and just the explanation for how we're trying to make this document more accessible and clear for everyone. So thank you. My first question, I was surprised to see how many guidelines we had. I'm just wondering if you can provide sort of a number of DPAs that might be typical in other municipalities and guidelines, just for context.

Speaker L · Yeah, that's a great question. Through the chair, I. I would offer that typically when we have personally done design guidelines in the past, they come in many different shapes and sizes. There is an approach which is what Langford had for a long time, which is as master plans come in, for example, a new set of design line design guidelines can be introduced as to sort of create a specific environment for that development. That's one way. And the other way, which is much more common, is based on land use. And so you could imagine having a set of guidelines for small scale multi unit housing versus commercial, guidelines versus industrial.

Speaker L · We've taken a different approach here which says sort of regardless of the type of development that you have or the land use, these principles, we feel, represent all kinds of development and will just be implemented in different ways. Sort of a roundabout answer to your question.

Speaker J · Question.

Speaker L · But it depends basically on which approach is taken and how large the city is.

Speaker F · Thank you. So just to clarify my understanding, I guess under our old approach we would see sort of these unique neighborhood styles, and that's why Bear Mountain feels very different than Goldstream Meadows or Happy Valley for instance. Is that correct?

Speaker L · That's right, yeah. And I should offer that based on staff's direction and based on the types of development that we're seeing, these guidelines have taken over as one citywide dpa, with the exception of Bear Mountain, West Hills and South Skirt Mountain, which will retain their DPAs as a result of them being master planned communities that are still under development.

Speaker L · So where we no longer see that development happening or it's built out, those specific guidelines become just a bit of a headache for staff and for applicants to read through. To give you a more specific answer on your original question about number, we might see sort of seven. But if you're going for land use, you might have one set of guidelines for each type of use to regulate kind of design within that.

Speaker E · Okay, that's very helpful.

Speaker F · I do have a separate question if I might. Thank you. This is just within with regards to some of the special considerations. I loved to see that we're, you know, taking safety as a consideration, of course, but we're also looking at art and culture through design as well. And I was wondering if that might extend to heritage. I know in Langford we don't have any sort of special heritage protections for designated or registered buildings, but we have a lot of older buildings that have a lot of cultural value or just local significance. And I'm wondering how these new guidelines might approach that.

Speaker L · Yeah, that's a great question. Through the chair, I feel like where we see heritage specific guidelines and protections, it is usually through a conservation area, which, as you point out, Langford doesn't have. Certainly something worth exploring if there is areas of high heritage value. But I would say that these guidelines, as more general and high level, speak to respecting your neighbors. And so we even. And maybe I'll just pop it up on the screen here, just as an example, in the section that you're talking about in the bottom left here, we have sort of an older house that's being Considered and held within a kind of newer development.

Speaker L · And so what we see is the prioritization of retrofitting and repairing areas versus just kind of blank slate development and then also just kind of having guidelines that allow for connectivity and articulation that respect existing development.

Speaker F · Thank you. That was actually the photo that sprang that question to mind. So it's great to hear that we're going to be looking for ways to kind of respect Old Langford while celebrating New Langford as well through design. So that was very comprehensive. Thank you for your answers.

Speaker A · Thank you. And next we have Councillor Wagner.

Speaker O · Thank you.

Speaker K · To the chair question about the landscaping side of things, and particularly commercial. We see a large sign or a large parking lot, are we going to be able to really make that friendly? You talked about friendliness of the door, but that was for residential. So how do we friendly up our commercial zones? Do you have any comments on that?

Speaker L · Yeah. Thank you. And through the chair, we. Parking lots are particularly complicated, especially in a place that tends to see surface parking or structured parking above grade. What we've highlighted specifically within the landscape guidelines, and what I'll do is for the sake of the conversation, just bring this spread up, is to respond specifically about parking lots. We've introduced sort of units for number of parking stalls before. There is an expectation that those parking stalls after 10 are broken up by landscaping and then further specify room for trees. So we've spent quite a bit of time talking about trees with staff through both the design guidelines and the zoning bylaw, knowing that those two documents should go hand in hand with the tree protection bylaw to ensure that there is not only a requirement for trees, but that the specific implementation of those strategies is reflected within the design guidelines and that we speak to soil volumes and soil quality to support landscaping within development forms, specifically within parking lots.

Speaker K · Thank you. And then just a follow up on that, if I might there I was sort of looking for a tree replacement table or something like that, similar to what we would see in the tree bylaw. But I was speaking with Steph earlier and I guess the design guidelines don't really have that ability to be prescriptive. But are we able to. I guess, you know, we're going to see there's going to pave over something or they're going to take down a small bunch of single family homes, put in a larger development and the trees do tend to all go and there's not a lot of room for other trees.

Speaker K · So I just wondered about that sort of tree replacement or compensation for those tree loss and how we can address that.

Speaker L · Absolutely. And I'll invite Leah to answer any specifics beyond what I offer here, which is to say that guidelines can offer, for example, language around picking the right kind of tree so that that is drought tolerant, so that it is original to this sort of landscape that we have, it honors its place and we're not introducing anything that is foreign to the Langford environment.

Speaker L · But as we generally have a rule of thumb, if you can put a number to it, it should be in a bylaw instead of in the design guidelines, just given the ability for staff to require it versus to have it be a little bit more subjective in nature. So what we've done to support that very important idea is that we've reviewed the tree protection bylaw and instead worked with staff to introduce language within the zoning bylaw and specifically within new zones that I believe were recently presented to council so that there is room for live landscaping.

Speaker L · And a lot of the language that I was just mentioning around ensuring sufficient soil volumes and lot coverage remains for trees depending on the type of development. So if we're seeing small scale multi unit forms, the tree requirement and live landscaping requirement would adjust accordingly. Same goes for larger multifamily development.

Speaker K · Thank you. Yeah, that's helpful. I remember the, the public engagement with the map and there was a lot of interest in, in different areas and people talking about walkability and, and cycling infrastructure and all these things. So it was a complicated mess of public engagement because people have. They kind of know what they want it to feel like, but we don't all know how to articulate it in design terms. So I did really appreciate how this document was so visual, had lots of examples and it'll be interesting to see how it gets implemented. And I didn't know. I thought maybe staff had something to add. I could.

Speaker M · I'll thank you through the care. I think Val did a great job explaining that as part of the process, as we were going through these guidelines and kind of working with the team on what our new zones could look like, which are in a bylaw for consideration of adoption tonight to be the main zones moving forward for new developments that come in for rezoning, there was that discussion of what is the right mechanism to meet the goals that the community has expressed both through this process and previous processes like the official community plan, urban forest management plan and such.

Speaker M · So ensuring that the new zones had specific regulations around setbacks and the live landscaping that was mentioned, that was really critical. And as we kind of discussed on the June 1 meeting it was implemented into these zones as kind of a pilot project. And as we work through the first few development applications that come through with these zones and we can test how these concepts are working on the ground with these applications, we could consider expanding, expanding that out further to, you know, the general regulation. So they would apply throughout Langford. And then the. The important thing with the, the design guidelines is just ensuring that the organization of space on the lot leaves room for that live landscaping kind of area, whether it's within one of these zones or elsewhere in Lankford.

Speaker M · You know, having that public interface with additional kind of double row of street trees and things like that has been really important to the community throughout the last couple of years of public processes. So just ensuring that the guidelines support that type of organization of space on lots and the designing of buildings to accommodate that type of space, whether it's on the frontage or in a private kind of amenity area, that was really central to all the work that has been done on this project and the zoning work that has been done in conjunction.

Speaker K · Great, thank you. Yeah, all the pieces of the puzzle coming together. Appreciate that.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Next person, I would like to comment. All right, well, I got a question. I think I missed it. On the landscape architecture last page, I was coughing and I thought I heard you say something, something. Color match or color. What was that?

Speaker L · That was more just in relation to the document design. So the footer and the, the way that we introduce language, the. The colors within the document themselves are color coded just to support understanding and legibility of the document.

Speaker A · Okay, thank you. Anyone else? All right, thank you very much. This was fantastic. Looking forward to the next one.

Speaker F · Thank you.

Speaker A · And our Last presentation today, 5. 3 environmental development permit guidelines. And this is approximately 30 minutes.

Speaker M · Thank you, Mayor. As we get switched over to the next presentation here, I just want to welcome to the podium here Lauren Smith, who is a natural areas planner with Diamondhead Consulting. Diamondhead has been working with staff and the community for the. The last year or so on doing kind of a significant review and update to our environmental development permit area guidelines, which have been in place for quite some time and have not been updated, especially the mapping has not been updated in quite a long time in the face of Lankford's rapid growth. So a full review and update and kind of check in with the community on how things are going was very warranted.

Speaker M · And Lauren is here tonight to kind of walk us through the process that has been going on over the last few years and kind of where where the new maps and guidelines that have been developed through the process landed. So over to you Lauren.

Speaker C · Great, thank you. And I just want to acknowledge that my two co workers were instrumental in this work. Then I'm actually stepping in for Cassie. She's currently on mat leave, but Cassandra Cummings and Aubrey Butcher were pretty much the ones who are facilitating this and working really closely with Leah and Matt. So I'm happy to come and present on the work that's all been done behind the scenes, as well as Allison Kwan and Kevin Hutchins who were instrumental in conducting the fieldwork. So just a quick overview of what

Speaker L · we're going to talk about today.

Speaker C · So we'll go over the project, the purpose and how it kind of came to be the result of the engagement we conducted to get to the updated guidelines and what they're containing, as well as going over what those updates actually are, some key themes that came out of it, as well as going over the mapping and how that was and then finally heading off with a question period.

Speaker C · So first, just a quick overview of what an EDPA is, which is an Environmental Development Permit area. It's a tool that local governments can use to help guide development in areas that are on or within proximity to or have sensitive ecological features that have been identified as a priority for protection by municipality. It is through the Local Government act, which gives the jurisdictions to protect said features and it is pretty adjustable to the municipality and what they seem and their community deems as that protection priority. They serve as a flagging mechanism and they're able to be incorporated within the ocp, but as well as supported by additional outstanding planning policies such as the Urban Forest Management Plan and they're guided by the general planning direction that the city is choosing to go.

Speaker C · So what needs to be in an edpa? So they contain the objectives that provide higher level guiding principles for how environmental protection is to be a applied within the jurisdiction. So they should include maps that identify where those development permit areas are within the municipality and what specific set of guidelines are going to be used to meet said objectives. They provide a pathway for identifying and implementing the environmental protections that they rather than eliminating or stagnating development, they help develop in a responsible way. And they can also contain exemptions for specific land use types or activities that may or may not require a landowner to go through the development permitting process.

Speaker C · And that's things such as ecological restoration projects or certain practices that are under ALR land. So the purpose of this update is that Langford has maintained Environmental Development Permit area since 1988 or 1998 Excuse me, with the last update that was conducted in 2013 and so as one of BC's fastest growing communities, development pressure in this area is quite significant and unfortunately sensitive environmental features typically are are disproportionately affected by development from both a cumulative effects standpoint as well as a proximity to the purpose of this update was to ensure that Langford remains in best management practices as is being set for environmental protections in B.

Speaker C · C. as well as under the provincial and federal regulations and protection permits such as the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation and using updated improved mapping will help with higher accuracy in where these development permitted areas are and they help to better align, expand and clarify the objectives and guidelines as was previously updated in 2013 as well as be reflective of the new planning policies such as that urban forest management plan.

Speaker C · So the scope of this project just for a quick overview First a background review of the existing link for policies and comparable policies from municipalities within BC as a whole was reviewed to understand kind of what the best management practices for environmental development preliminaries currently are as well as review the existing GIS database and datasets that were available to us.

Speaker C · Fieldwork was then conducted through a biophysical inventory and habitat mapping to confirm the absence or presence of those features that were identified through GIS as well as update the previous mapping on where development had occurred and features had been lost. This mapping was then followed by engagement with public, the development community and Langford staff and council to inform and help guide the final updates to the exemptions guidelines and objectives.

Speaker E · And now we're here

Speaker C · so going over how the engagement and data analysis for the update was conducted. So first the spatial data analysis use a combination of LIDAR derived products which is a it stands for light detection and ranging. It's a very high accuracy surface model that can be used to identify things such as water courses or urban tree canopies to very very high degree accuracy, sometimes as high as 30cm and this helps to identify potentially unmapped water courses and or confirm the absence of water courses that have either been lost or put into the storm network.

Speaker C · Additionally a patch size or we also used environmentally sensitive inventories so the SEI that helped identify where potentially environmentally sensitive features were and help help direct the field work and strategic field mapping locations that were reused during the verification process as well as a minimum patch size of 0. 5 hectares was used. This is just representative of best management practices for areas that provide ecosystem and habitat value. So the fieldwork was conducted from April 28 to May 2 of 2025 and with the field verification so strategically selected based on the results of that preliminary spatial analysis. So sites were chosen based on publicly accessible, although sometimes RSF was able to have access from private landowners to go on to their land to take an assessment of the potential features that were there, as well as verify any streams that were identified through the flow accumulation model to make sure that they were actually present.

Speaker C · So I mentioned 54 field plot locations were selected during this process and they were strategically placed out throughout the jurisdiction. So following the fieldwork engagement with Langford, staff was conducted. So there's two rounds that was done, the first being on June 9th of 2025 and the second being on June or December 11th of 2025 to review the previous EDPA process and gain feedback and understanding of where processes were maybe could be improved or common things that staff liked or ideas for, you know, big pie in the sky, what would you like to see in the in the update?

Speaker C · So feedback was that the current EDA process staff felt the greater clarity could be used as well as clearer definitions on what was to be protected or what was included within the EDPA and what would be clear definitions for a stronger development and smoother application process. Staff also indicated that the alignment with the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation or RAPPER was a priority and they crawled for stronger monitoring and restoration requirements as well as the inclusion of ecological connectivity considerations. So on January 28th of this year, a feedback or a focus group with the developer community was held to go over the guidelines as they were previously drafted, currently drafted, I suppose to get feedback on the community who frequently works with the guidelines and get their feedback on what the proposed updates might have entail and see if there's any sort of potential red flags that they saw in what was done.

Speaker C · So the general consensus of the focus group was that they were supportive of having environmental development permanent areas. They saw the value in it, but emphasized that the need for those clear strong definitions on what is or is not included in the EDPA was a priority, as well as that alignment with the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation, which I will just say rapper from. And finally two sets of public engagement was conducted to get feedback on the update. So the first one being a story map and attending survey which was run ran from June 18th to July 14th of 2025, which we got 178 responses. And this was to allow the community to identify areas that they've had either priorities or places they valued or places where they had concerns about environmental protection with the second one being the let's Track Langford survey which was conducted from May 26 to June 9 of this year.

Speaker C · And again that was to gather feedback on the updates as they were written and see if there's any concern from the community and feedback on what was being proposed. So from these two feedback sessions at the public, a few key themes emerged. The first being that respondents from the story map and the attending survey had high rates of dissatisfaction with how environmental protections were previously being conducted within in Langford with a very strong emphasis on mature forests and old trees. In particular, respondents indicated a strong preference for a proactive and protectionist approach to existing environmental features rather than a retroactive and replacement or compensation following development.

Speaker C · And this was actually echoed in the let's Chat Langford survey where many respondents felt that or called for stronger language and more prescriptive on environmental protections while some others did express concerns on the impacts that restrictions may have on them. But it should be noted that from the let's Chat Langford page a lot of the concern for restrictions on landowners did in fact come from what was defined as a stream under the WRAPR regulation. So that just is subject to a provincial protection. So potentially some education components may be necessary or clear definitions that mimic wrapper included within the guidelines. Okay, so moving on into the EDPA updates themselves.

Speaker C · So quick overview before we get really into the sort of meat of the updates. So the first is the objectives were updated as part of this process to better align with the updated OCP as well as the goals and objectives of the Urban Forest Management plan as well as what was contained within the previous dpa. And as mentioned the better alignment with those protection policies. One of the largest changes of the three was that the OR of this update was that the maps were reduced from three maps down to two. So there's two now, now two distinct EDPAs. There is the sensitive ecosystem DPA as well as the riparian DPA which is of like the water courses.

Speaker C · And then additionally the over high level updates and key updates were for the guidelines of the edpa. They were expanded and clarified and exemptions were expanded clarified in response to the feedback that we received. So first is the objectives. Most of these are concurrent with what is in the currently in the edpa. However there is two additions, particularly number four which is a new objective that's been added and that is the in response to the call for greater consideration of ecological connectivity from Lankford staff and from through the public story map and tending serve. So the inclusion of that is enabling wildlife movement and gene flow through preserving and enhancing connectivity. That just includes that more representative view of ecosystem function in Langford, rather just than just focusing on simply patches individually.

Speaker C · The second biggest update into the objectives was the mention of the urban forest within the preserve and enhance habitat with ecosystem features and functions. So again just being reflective of the urban forest management plan. So as I mentioned, the maps have changed from A3 maps included in the original environmental development permit area down to 2, so the first one being the new sensitive ecosystems dpa. So this the map I'm showing here shows the original DPA which is in the hatch green below with the brighter green being the new proposed areas on top. So again these updates were made based on the absence or presence of features that were previously included in the mapping that have been either lost or removed from development or modified with their boundaries.

Speaker C · It combines the sensitive ecosystem and potential habitat biodiversity maps from the previous DPA into one and also included refinements based on the field verification that was conducted to have this higher accuracy mapping as well as using the Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory to simplify and clarify what is included in sort of more of the terrestrial side of sensitive ecosystems.

Speaker C · The second new updated mapping is the riparian DPA and so again this is based on the results of the GIS data analysis that looked at flow modeling to identify potentially unmapped watercourses that were then later verified within the field for their absence or presence. A 45 meter buffer was applied to the water courses that were identified and confirmed following the field and GIS data analysis and the 45 meter was added to be inclusive of the measures to protect the SPIA as designated by wrapper. So Wrapper has a 30 meter riparian assessment area, but then they also have an additional up to 15 meters that can be included as a measure to protect the spia.

Speaker C · So by using a 45 meter buffer it just ensures that all properties that could be affected through wrapper get flagged, because again this is a flagging mechanism rather than a prescriptive mechanism and it just ensures that there's no surprises for applicants down the road that when they're going through the process their property is going to be looked at as well as any works within that 30 meters as per wrapper would then require the DPA.

Speaker C · So again that 45 meters or the extra 15 meters to make that 45 is just to be inclusive of the wrapper protection regulations. So the overview of the updates to the guidelines themselves, again as received from feedback from staff, the clarity, specificity and alignment with the Provincial and federal legislations was implemented. So that's being more inclusive of things like species at risk as well as any potential fish habitat and other ecosystem protections as per provincial and provincial regulations such as Wildlife Act. The guidelines are then subdivided into categories to just give again a little bit better flow and read to the document. So there is general guidelines that were developed as well as specific guidelines around the vegetation and restoration as well as avoiding impacts to environmentally sensitive and valuable features or spias.

Speaker C · The biggest change comes from the inclusion of that ecological connectivity consideration as I mentioned previously, which again is essential for ensuring that ecosystem function is protected alongside ecosystem areas. And the verbiage providing the stronger protections around species at risk and wildlife habitat also is inclusive and represented within the inclusion of connectivity because conservation of wildlife doesn't really happen without activity. Another key update was increasing the reliance on QEP and professional judgment during the DP application process and the incorporation of design standards for development that helps reduce the cumulative impacts and of proximity to of developments to sensitive areas. And this also includes monitoring requirements before and during construction. I went a little too fast. Burdensome. Skip my slide. Yeah, again.

Speaker C · So just highlighting that the inclusion of ecological connectivity is one of the largest inclusions into the guideline updates, as well as that alignment with provincial and federal regulations. So the exemptions of the EDPA were also updated to now be reflective of the individual edpa. So that means specific exemptions are now applicable to either the sensitive ecosystems or the riparian dpa. And again, this was done to improve the clarity and idea or clarity and process flow around what is included in the WRAPA regulations and what is included as identified through Langford's environmental protection priorities. So this ensures that protecting important ecological features also may override the general DPA exemptions for the wider DPA guidelines, which has the potential to close any loopholes or confusions and strengthens the protection process.

Speaker C · And applicants must now clearly demonstrate why developments meet or meet an exemption criteria through the QEP assessment, in which the city still maintains the authority to review and approve of said exemption or whatnot. And this again just helps to maintain that flexibility in the DP process and allow for the project nuance to be considered for development, also requiring specifications and that justification to be presented. So the overall summary of the changes is that there's improved clarity around the direction and guidance within the guidelines for applicants and reviewers. So that's coming from the feedback that we got from the development community as well as public survey and Langford staff alignment with the regional and provincial protection priorities, especially under Wrapper was a major consideration for the guideline updates.

Speaker C · And then again the emphasis on ecological connectivity and making sure that the protection priorities priorities within the new edpa, especially within the mapped areas, is reflective of community values and is also technically defensible through the methods used for the field verification and initial selection process of the included features through sensitive ecosystem inventory and GIS analysis as well as ensuring that the mapping is up to date and reflective current day conditions as well as current day protection priorities and requirements requirements.

Speaker E · Great.

Speaker A · That was fantastic. Council. I've got a pretty good belief there's going to be some questions here. Councilor Wagner's got her leg going already.

Speaker K · I don't have to go first if

Speaker A · anyone else your leg first.

Speaker K · So through the chair, thank you for the presentation. Sorry, I started to get tickle my throat so I have a lozenge. I had some other questions but you did say something that really piqued my interest. You said water courses that were lost or put into the stormwater system. Were those identified and can we recover those? Is there a mechanism to do? I think in another section you said we can have a focus on restoration. So just wondered if you could flush that idea out a little bit more. How do we protect our watersheds that go across multiple properties when we're considering an application often comes in one specific property owner comes in an application. So can you sort of explain how that might actually work?

Speaker C · Yes, I guess so. In terms of when water courses are lost to development. So streams being incorporated into stormwater and I can't necessarily speak to Langford because unfortunately I didn't conduct the field work but typically throughout B. C. historically streams have been incorporated into stormwater systems. So effectively, quote unquote lost. However they can be daylighted. That's a much larger project to consider. Not necessarily maybe something under the dpa, but it is opportunity for but the restoration requirements in terms of the EDPA are more so for the health and protection of riparian areas. And again that is directed under the RAPA regulation. So any potential impacts to or development in adjacent to watercourses as defined by Rapper could use or are in requirement for things like invasive species removal or setbacks, which is the biggest one from the watercourse as well as potentially, you know, including large woody debris or best management practices and making sure those streams have a more natural function than they used to.

Speaker C · Daylighting and recovering streams, not so much because that's obviously just like a very large infrastructure project. But it is something to consider. I think it'd be identifying the Potentially culverted or pipe streams in Langford be a different project, but one that would be very interesting to see.

Speaker K · Thank you for that. So with these guidelines though, can we avoid losing more?

Speaker J · Yes.

Speaker K · So presumably we don't want to culvert them, we want to check them, make sure they're healthy. So things like woody debris or other build site specific considerations that would protect them from being impacted, is that right?

Speaker E · Yes,

Speaker C · sorry, I'm a little new to council presentations.

Speaker E · Yes.

Speaker C · So protecting streams in the sense of the. In order to deliver to stream you would still have to go through the provincial application process. That's not something that someone during a development end can just do. That would have to go through the Water Sustainability act and then the WCA application process and typically doesn't happen as much anymore. They're really trying to avoid that through rapid regulations but the opportunity is always potentially there to have, you know, type string systems. But again that's more under the provincial side of protections for watercourses which again that get then reflected in EDPAs. So it's more so flagging of how far set back your development can be from that water course before it then requires you to go through the WSA and you know the higher steps of actually putting infrastructure into a water course.

Speaker C · To answer your question on the restoration of streams, that is something that can follow the best management practices for restoring streams, especially in salmon bearing areas such as out on the coast. So again that's all things too. But any changes in and about a stream, any works in about a stream, typically follow through the wrapper guidelines. And so really using EDP typically in British Columbia rapper communities are now following the lead of what is set the precedent by the province for watercourse protections just so that it remains in alignment with the protections that they require.

Speaker K · Great. So it sounds like the maps are a critical piece because we have to identify that there is a watercourse there and then that triggers the provincial regulations.

Speaker C · Correct. And even for watercourses that that maybe don't show up on mapping. So any previously unmapped watercourse before the flow model or before we identified it still has protections on it. So having high accuracy and up to date mapping is critical for applicants because if they, even if they have a stream and it doesn't appear on a dpa it still is subject to provincial protections. So having these this up to date mapping, showing the new water courses, showing where they've been verified by fieldwork is essential in ensuring that the applicant knows the process. And also then they don't have to go through the provincial process. They can go through the municipal process. So with meet or exceed wrapper, it effectively allows applicants to.

Speaker C · Rather than going through the provincial application, which can take minimum 90 days, it's pretty long. The, you know, local and the, effectively the wrapper process, but through their local municipality.

Speaker K · Thank you for that extra information because that was something I was thinking about was the provincial delays that I hear about that are a big problem for permitting. And so, yeah, thank you again for clarifying. I'll hold off and see if there's other questions.

Speaker A · All right, next person. Okay. Councillor Regner, you're up again.

Speaker K · Okay. Well, I'm a scientist. I have lots of questions. I'll try to be brief. I was really excited to hear about the wildlife corridors. So that was something I was going to ask about. But it seems like it's fairly well fleshed out in. Still for me, a little hesitant to understand how do we look across properties when we have the applications come one at a time. So that connectivity, how do we actually establish that in real life?

Speaker A · Thank you.

Speaker M · Through the chair, this is the importance of the, the strengthening of the guidance to QEPs or qualified environmental professionals that's provided in the updated guidelines. So it's kind of like we have to show them through the guidelines what the direction is for, what they are looking at as part of their assessment, what they have to look at as part of their recommendations. So by providing strengthened and clarified guidance about the content of those environmental impacts studies, that connectivity pieces is new. So that is something that they will have to expressly consider when they're looking at a site and what areas they are recommending for retention versus areas that are okay for development.

Speaker M · So it's showing the QEPs what the expectation is for those reports and for their recommendations.

Speaker D · Okay, great.

Speaker K · But it wouldn't be that onerous for them because they're qualified environmental biologists or whatever, they end up being professionals of some kind that they would have that experience. So the developer is not going to hopefully find this as a big change, particularly it may even make things go more quickly because it's more clear through the chair.

Speaker M · Yes, exactly. As we like to say, clear is kind. So if you're, if you're clear in the guidelines about expectations, it smooths the process out because it reduces the back and forth that might occur if staff don't feel that the guidelines are being met. You know, you have to be explicit and clear in the expectations in order to get the results and the products and the reports. That are expected as a result of those guidelines.

Speaker A · Anyone else, any final ones?

Speaker K · I'm okay. This item comes up later as well. So thank you.

Speaker A · All right. Seeing as this comes up later. Thank you very much. We are always liking the pushing policy forward and this is a great next step. So thank you.

Speaker D · Thanks.

Speaker A · All right, so we will be starting with item number six, public participation. Just remember everyone that please give us your name and your municipality of residence and what specific items you are talking about on the agenda. Someone like to come forward Please raise your hand. I see a hand. Come on forward.

Speaker J · Thank goodness for turning the heat down. We're cooking a lot. Okay. Wendy Hawes, 34402 Loxton Highway. Still I'd like to start talking about 10. 3. No, sorry. 10. 2. Regarding the SoFi reports. Interesting. A report came out today from David Williams and Yarrow Yunus from the Business Council of British Columbia. The thing the report saying the runaway train is accelerating. An updated look at growth in B. C. municipal spending. Municipal operating spending has grown much faster than inflation and population and getting worse. Report recommend municipal government anchor their operating spending grow to population growth and inflation. So I don't think Langford has grown 57% yet.

Speaker J · Our taxes have gone up 57%. While I was looking at the schedule of employees renumeration, I went way back to like 2022. It was 11,759,661. Now we are at 2025. No, I'm going to go to 2024. It was 15,478,544. And then in 2025 19,487,751. So I thought that we went by the CPI. It was 2. 3. That's almost a 25% increase. So I'm not sure. Maybe Mr. Dilabo can, can you know, explain that to me. I just wanted to chat a bit. Oh and if you wanted to see that report, it was just posted recently online for voters the Business Council of British Columbia. So you might want to look there. I just wanted to point out that I don't find that your minutes are. Minutes are seven. I don't find that your minutes are even remotely what a resident is talking about.

Speaker J · I mean for it just to be said that the speaker expressed concern and requested the council do nothing at this time. That was regarding 9. 3 which was the waste management. There was a lot more that I said there and I think the public should be able to read the fact that I said you shouldn't Go ahead of that because that's fettering the next council, which means you shouldn't be making that large of a decision for the next council.

Speaker J · Well, I have looked around. I don't know if you guys are purposely not collecting the garbage, but at the FIFA games and around town right now, the garbage is. It's disgusting. The FIFA games. Someone sent me a picture as a Langford resident. There was big garbage bags that were full of garbage. We don't want that as Langford residents. So please get the garbage picked up and stop making this by saying if we have municipal garbage, we'll be able to control this because you can't. And that's pretty much all I have to say.

Speaker E · Thanks.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Next person like to come forward, please raise your hand. Come on up.

Speaker O · Hi, I'm Lisa Foxall from Langford. I'm going to speak to 5. 1, 10. 2, 10. 3. First of all, 5. 1. I'm urging council not to raise the DCCs. It is essentially a new tax which will make Lankford less competitive. We need to encourage investment in Lankford and not drive it away. The why and the $35 million purchase that Langford paid. We've yet to see a financial report or a cost analysis on this building. The problem was never the pool, but the operator. The city did not provide us a business case and now Lankford is in record debt.

Speaker O · Lankford could be on the hook for $14. 8 million in life cycle costs in the next 17 years. It would be great to see a business case and all those reports. Now, speaking of record debt, when I go through the financial report, the SOFI report, what stands out to me is $1 million in consultants. I don't see any decrease in the consultant fees. Our taxes have increased substantially year after year over the last four years to now 57%. Yet we have not decreased these consultant fees. And what also stood out to me may be minor for some, but signs. How the heck did Langford spend $170,000 on signs last year? Did we buy a sign company or like what? How did we do that in 2022? We spent $74,000 in signs. So where's the fiscal responsibility here?

Speaker O · Now another thing that I had a look at was mayor and council's expenses. And I looked a few years back and the last few years, mayor and council's expenses came up to a total of $157,000. Now if we look over at our neighbors, they spent $117,000. And the thing there is, is that they have the same job. Yes, their population is smaller, but the job is the same. They set policies, good governance.

Speaker O · And I'm just scratching my head wondering why our expenses were so much higher. 2023, Lankford spent 68,0002-0245-3000-2025, 36,473. Granted, there was an improvement in 2025, so that's a good thing.

Speaker A · I'm sorry. Your time is up.

Speaker F · Okay?

Speaker O · So thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Next person to come forward, please raise your hand. Okay. Is there anyone online? All right, I will close public participation. Thank you very much. All right, our next item

Speaker K · here on

Speaker A · consent agenda, that is item seven. Are there any changes to the consent agenda prior to a motion?

Speaker C · Thank you, mayor.

Speaker F · I will move that counsel approve the consent agenda as presented.

Speaker E · I'll second.

Speaker A · All those in favor posed. All right, that passes. So item number eight, considerations and matters removed, is no longer in place. So we are on to item number nine, notice of intent, 9. 1, BVP 25 0006.

Speaker A · 698 Atkins Avenue.

Speaker K · Doesn't look like there's any staff comments, so I will move. Pardon me, there's a lot here.

Speaker D · I might.

Speaker K · Here, I'll start here. I move that development variance permit number DVP 25006 is issued by the council for the city of Lankford to Stantech Architecture on behalf of the city of Lankford to allow the expansion of the RCMP detachment on the priorities legally described as law.

Speaker K · A Section 72 to Squamil District Plan, VIP 72543. PID number 025105671. 698 Atkins Avenue, Lot 12, Section 72, Squamil District Plan 1954, PID number 006737501678 Atkins Avenue, Lot 2, Section 32, Squamil District Plan 34.

Speaker F · 8:30.

Speaker K · PID number 000306118. 674 Atkins Avenue, Lot 1, Section 72, Squamil district plan 34830. PID number 000306100. 2792 Winster Road, Lot 15, Section 32, Squamil district plan 1954, PID number 004188969, 2788 Windsor Road, and subject to the following terms and conditions. One, variances as listed A and B. Two expiry. And I think I've made it.

Speaker K · And Staff can correct me if they would prefer that I read more of that out.

Speaker F · Thank you.

Speaker K · So moved.

Speaker A · Do we have a seconder?

Speaker F · Thank you. I'll second.

Speaker K · Okay.

Speaker A · Any motivation?

Speaker K · Well, I'll just briefly say, you know, this is the RCMP expansion and. And we've talked about this at some length already, so I did read out all of the experiences at the last time we discussed this item and there are many variances and that is a little bit disappointing. But I've supported this project all the way along and I'm still supporting it now. Thank you, Council.

Speaker A · Harder.

Speaker F · Thank you. Not much more to add. Actually just threw you a question to staff. And that would be perhaps if there's an opportunity to provide a bit of a public update on sort of what the site's going to look like when groundbreaking might occur if this DBP is passed by council. And I guess a question as well is where is this sitting? With the other municipalities that are partnering with us

Speaker C · through the chair.

Speaker E · There'll be more information provided within the upcoming weeks.

Speaker F · Okay, thanks. I can hold my horses on that then. I think Councillor Wagner covered the intent of the motion, so I'm happy to leave it there.

Speaker E · Thanks.

Speaker A · Anyone else?

Speaker E · Thank you, Mayor. We had a very fulsome report at our last council meeting with questions answered and discussed discussions. My feelings since that meeting have have not changed as Councillor Wagner has been supportive of every part of this project. I have as well. Just coming up to where I feel it doesn't align with where the city is looking to be as far as street engagement and the setbacks. So I'll be voting against. Just consistent with the discussion that happened at the last meeting without anything further down that.

Speaker A · Okay. Anyone else? Call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? Unopposed. Councilor G. Okay, we are on to item number 10 reports. 10. 1 Development Variance Permit Application, 1320 West Hills Drive.

Speaker M · Thank you, Mayor. West Hills Land Corp has applied for a development variance permit to facilitate the dedication of a 1. 0 hectare for shore area as park along Langford Lake. West Hills will retain ownership of the remainder portion of the existing lot with the intention of constructing a restaurant or pub in the future in accordance with the existing CD3 comprehensive development West Hills Zone. Under the proposed DBP, the construction of the works and services and provision of bonding would be deferred from being required prior to subdivision approval to being required prior to building permit issuance and would be constructed as part of the works and services associated with the building permit.

Speaker M · The Local Government act authorizes council to issue a DVP that would vary the provisions of a works and services bylaw, such as bylaw 1000 in this case, and impose conditions in relation to the variance. The required works and services will be secured through a covenant registered on title of the remainder lot prior to subdivision approval in accordance with this, the permit as laid out in the staff report.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Questions? Okay, anyone take a stab at a motion there, Councilor Morley?

Speaker B · All right, this is another very long one. All right. I move the council direct staff to provide notice that council will consider issuing a development variance permit for 1320 W. Hills Dr. With the following variants that Section 1. 13 works and services agreements of subdivision and development servicing bylaw number 1000 be varied to allow a subdivision without the construction of works or services or entering into servicing agreement or outstanding works and Services subject to 1, that the applicant registers a no build section 219 covenant on title prior to the subdivision approval that requires works and services to be completed in accordance with bylaw number 1000 to the satisfaction of the Director of engineering and Public works prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Speaker B · Two, that the applicant register a no build section 219 covenant on title prior to subdivision approval that requires geotechnical analysis of the site in accordance with bylaw number 1000 to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering and Public Works to determine if there is any restrictions to building on the site prior to the issuance of the building permit.

Speaker B · And three. That the site be subdivided in accordance with figure one of this report.

Speaker K · Port and we'll second location.

Speaker A · Sir?

Speaker B · Well, I gotta catch my breath. Okay, so. Yeah, I support this application because it secures important waterfront parkland for the community. Now, rather than leaving it under a short term arrangement. The proposed variance reflects a practical phased approach by deferring services until development is ready while still ensuring full requirements are met before any building can proceed through a no build covenant. Overall, this strikes a good balance between delivering immediate public benefit and maintaining strong oversight. And I'm comfortable supporting this motion.

Speaker A · Thank you, Councilor Wagner.

Speaker K · Yeah, thank you, Councillor Morley. Not much to add there. Just this is a great park already. There's a dock and some other amenities that are there. So it makes sense to me to secure this as a community benefit in perpetuity and have a lot of clarity there for everyone. And then it does make sense that because the timing of such a large master plan community at West Hills, we don't know when they're going to develop this. So it does seem to just be practical consideration of putting the things that are in the covenant with this no build requirement. I'm satisfied that when the time comes our staff will have all the requirements be met.

Speaker K · And in the meantime we can move ahead with securing park.

Speaker A · Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I'll call the question. All those in favor post that passes. We're on to 10. 2 2025 statement of financial information. Sir. Thank you.

Speaker H · Your worship. Before council this Evening is the 2025 Statement of Financial Information also known as the Sophie. It's a requirement under the legislation that the city produce this document and it needs to be approved by June 30 and so before council this evening for council's approval. Happy to answer any questions that council may have.

Speaker A · Council questions or thought of a motion Councillor Cucha.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker N · Yeah. Just hoping for some clarification on some questions that came through Public participation there to start off with employee remuneration statement is that it increased by 25% over this time period. My presumption is that is my understanding we've added a few new employees over this time period. Is that part of what's capturing that or anything additional that you can speak

Speaker H · to that through the chair. Any additional employees would be included in that. The level of CPI increase for employees would also be included in that. Also included in this year's number is retro payment for firefighters due to the IAFF contract being renewed. And that's a three or four year retro. And so those are pretty sizable numbers that were paid out in 2025. The SoFi is based on the cash basis. So it's not based on our accounting expenditure side. So we expense those in previous years and then they're paid out in the current year. And so so that would be another reason for an additional increase in 2025 that would not have been in previous years.

Speaker A · Thank you.

Speaker N · Yeah, I do have an additional one and it was with respect to the 1 million in consultants. I recognize that expenses don't necessarily always align with taxation revenue. There are other sources of revenue that we do draw on. And so I'm just wondering if you can speak to do we have an idea as to the the breakdown of this expense what proportion was through taxation sources through other sources altogether

Speaker H · through the chair. To be honest I'm not sure what the $1 million consultants I would have to get that information and a breakdown from the member of the public as to what a million dollars for consultants is. But having said that that is correct. Not all of the these expenditures are funded by property taxes. They can be funded by various number of other sources Permanent revenues, grants, surplus if we have already collected that money in previous years. These are actual and literal expenses and payments, maybe not even expenses, but payments that the city has made to any of these organizations. So it's not that all of these are funded through property taxes.

Speaker N · Thank you very much.

Speaker A · Okay. Councillor Wagner.

Speaker K · Yeah, thank you. I did have a bit of a similar question. I just was reflecting on whether this shows. Doesn't really show our operating budget or our debt or other aspects of the budget. So I think you may have already clarified. But it really is. Is just showing payments, including to nonprofits, to consultants. But I wasn't sure about the $1 million either, so I'll be checking into that later. But it does list each staff salary and the increases. And I was also wondering about RCMP had increased salaries. As I recall there when we did the budget process. Firefighters and RCMP officers all also got a pay increase per officer, not necessarily

Speaker A · new officers through the chair.

Speaker H · The RCMP members are not City of Langford employees and so that's why they are not listed in the SoFi. We pay the receiver general for the RCMP and so that's where that number shows up. Firefighters are City of Langford employees and that's why firefighters show up on, on the SOFI statement. So this only covers any City of Langford employee that makes over $75,000 as per the legislation.

Speaker K · And sorry, since I've looked through here now as a second look, I did notice some of the other municipalities listed, for example the District of Sook, you know, that kind of thing. I'm not quite sure what we gave the money for. So that's something you could clarify

Speaker H · through the chair. I don't know specifically, but we do make payments to various or other municipalities for training as an example for any services that they provide. It might actually be sewed that administers the ttac. So we make a payment to whoever administers it. I don't recall exactly. And so yes, there are payments that are made to other municipalities as a result of services that are provided by those municipalities.

Speaker K · Yeah, thanks for just providing those couple examples. That's helpful and go ahead.

Speaker A · Sorry through you.

Speaker H · Another reminder is the CAO just reminded me as well. The City of Langford also collects money for the casino and we distribute that to the other municipalities. So. And SEOK is one of those municipalities as well. So that would be another reason why we would have paid the District of Seok.

Speaker K · Thank you. Yes, I was just thinking back to our budget and appreciate you reminding me how this ties in.

Speaker A · And because we Were given the example of 2022 to now. We now have all the MEs for the RCMP as Lankford employees. Correct? Through you.

Speaker H · Yes, that's correct. However, I believe that happened in 2026. The transfer over.

Speaker A · Okay. Oh, we're getting the. All right. Doesn't matter. We. We do have all the mes now as Lankford employees

Speaker B · per.

Speaker A · Right. See no other hands. Call the question. All those in favor. Oh, there's no motion yet. Good lord. Anyone like to take a stab at a motion?

Speaker N · I guess since I started that off at Western, I'll jump into a motion that. Oh, it just disappeared on me. Let me just pull up my hard copy here. The council approve the 2025 Statement of Financial information as presented.

Speaker F · I'll second that.

Speaker A · Any motivation?

Speaker N · No. As was brought up, there were some great questions that came forward there through public participation. It seems like a lot of those differentials really are just the difference between the way that we engage in our financial planning versus the cash flow side of the SoFi and also just the difference between expenses versus revenues. It's easy to take a look at all of these expenses and assume this is all taxpayer funds. But as was discussed, there are other sources of revenue that we do deal with from grants from. We had the revenue from the casino. I believe it's, you know, anywhere between 70 to 80% is when I was looking as a taxpayer revenue to the expenses side.

Speaker N · So there is quite a bit here that although it might be shocking, they can often be purposed grants for that purpose. And in that case there it's just benefit to our community versus if that grant would have gone to another community, should that community have advocated. And we didn't. So it's not always taking a look at the expenditures. The. Oh my goodness, that's where the taxpayer dollar went because it is only one side of the story.

Speaker A · Thank you.

Speaker F · Thank you. Yeah, great comments, great questions for my colleagues. I'm happy to see that the Sophie is here for us to approve, recognizing there's legislative requirements for us to do so. But I think the only comment that I would also add is my appreciation for this tool is a way to the public to hold us accountable. I think it's great when folks take the opportunity and the time to look at the work that's been done over the term and 2022. You can see, you know, since then we've. We have added a significant amount of staff to provide services to our residents. And I think the comments surrounding the additional agreements for IAFF were really helpful. To shed some context into that significant increase.

Speaker F · But I don't want to skim over the fact that we also added 27 firefighters, which is a significant amount of staff to hire in one term. Because we needed to have 27 or 247 firefighting firefighters. We needed to have 247 staffing at Station 2 for our firefighters. So my appreciation there. I'm happy to see this coming. Council.

Speaker A · Okay. See no lights. Call to question. All those in favor? Opposed? That passes. Fair and page. We are now on to 10. 3. Lankford Aquatic center supplementary agreement with the YMCA.

Speaker D · Thank you.

Speaker A · Chair.

Speaker D · Through you, following the city's acquisition of the aquatic center and assumption of the role of landlord under the lease, SNAP are bringing forward a supplementary agreement that formalizes the party's current financial arrangement. The agreement also ensures that all monies related to the aquatic facility remain invested in the facility under the terms of the proposed agreement. If the ymca, YWCA of Greater Victoria generates a surplus, those funds will remain tied to the aquatic center to be used for either facility related reserve needs or for programming and services.

Speaker A · Anyone go for a motion or a question?

Speaker N · Thank you. I'm actually just hoping to seek clarity for accounts on the public here. Just from the comments again during public participation and we just. Confirmation. We never bought the ymca. I believe the ymca Eric's in the audience here. Is still very much an autonomous and independent organization. Thank you. Farther is maybe out of order because it's only adjacently relevant. But we did purchase the West Hills Aquatic Center.

Speaker A · My belief is yes.

Speaker N · Was there bit of Mandela effect? I seem to recall quite a detail financial analysis and business case for that purchase. Is there confirmation of that? Yeah.

Speaker A · Okay.

Speaker N · Thank you. Those were the questions I had.

Speaker A · Councillor Morley.

Speaker B · Thank you. As part of the Langford Aquatic Center. Excuse me.

Speaker A · The.

Speaker B · The agreement we had with the ymca. It had the underlying operating deficit.

Speaker A · Okay. So just one question. Are you asking a question?

Speaker B · I'm asking a question.

Speaker A · Okay.

Speaker B · I got there.

Speaker A · Just want to make sure.

Speaker B · So I can't remember where it was. Now the report that we had, it didn't seem to address the underlying operating deficit. And so I have a question regarding. Is the YMCA still operating at a deficit.

Speaker D · Through the chair? I do believe that they are at a break even this time.

Speaker B · Okay.

Speaker A · Thank you. Council. Harder.

Speaker F · Thank you. I'd be prepared to put a motion on the floor if there's no other question. Thank you. I will move that Council approve the Aquatic center supplementary agreement between the City of Lankford and the YMCA YWCA substantially in the form attached to the staff report and authorize the mayor and chief administrative officer or corporate officer to execute execute the agreement that council direct staff to work with the YMCA YWCA to explore expanding regional recreational opportunities at the Langford Aquatic center with a focus on programming for youth in grades six through 12 and that council direct staff to bring forward all necessary bylaws and related documents to establish the city's Aquatic center management reserve fund for the purpose of receiving and holding funds contributed pursuant to the supplementary agreement and using those funds solely for aquatic center related expenses.

Speaker N · Be happy to second that.

Speaker A · Okay. Motivation.

Speaker F · Thank you. I think like a lot of Langford residents, this building wasn't necessarily on my radar when we came to council four years ago. But as I've served at this term, it's become a building of increasing concern for me. And I think the rest of the region as well is starting to see that level of concern as the region starts to face the costs of aging infrastructure which coincides with was highlighted today in the chimps colonists. So I'm really happy to see this in front of council tonight because I think it's a show of good governance that we are formally establishing a reserve fund to start saving for those $14 million in life cycle costs that were mentioned during public participation tonight that we discovered when we did the due diligence to acquire the Langford aquatic Center in 2024, which I might remind council, the city would have been responsible for covering the those.

Speaker F · Those costs whether we owned this building or not. So in that light, I think it's especially great news that we are formalizing a mechanism to save for the future while also ensuring that Langford tax dollars are staying in Lankford. However, I did want to take this opportunity to also look at seeing if there are ways to expand recreational programming, particularly recreational programming hours at the Lankford Aquatic center under the existing agreements. Recognizing that that financial position of the YMCA is potentially improving because ultimately this is one of the key areas I think Langford residents are looking for council in the city to take action on is expanded access to recreation.

Speaker F · And I know personally I hear about the challenges that our community is facing in finding opportunities for youth to just hang out, have a place to play, have a place to go. And at the same time, I also see the success of our youth nights at the West Shore Parks and Rec Center Center. And yet when I look at the Langford Aquatic center on Saturdays and Sundays, you know, their doors are closed by 5pm So I think since acquiring this facility, we've seen the Conversation of pools in our region change. And in our fast growing region especially, I think a lot of our pools are falling in peril.

Speaker F · And I don't think that we can afford to keep waiting to talk about delayed infrastructure investments, because they're already here, they're coming home to roost. And we're seeing crumbling infrastructure all across the region. So I want to prevent that position from being the reality in Lankford, you know, decades to decades from now. And I think that just by having this conversation tonight, I would at least like to give staff the direction to explore a conversation to see if there is an opportunity to expand recreational offerings. Because I think the report really noted one significant piece of the finances for this particular facility, and that is that Langford agreement from years ago. That's just how it is.

Speaker F · But today, residents are being saddled with 100% of the costs at this facility, even though Langford residents only make up about 70% of all attendees. So I think if we can look for ways to expand recreational opportunities, that's one thing. And perhaps future councils can look at ways to cost share this, some of the recreational services at this facility in a more equitable way, potentially with some partners around the region.

Speaker A · Okay, Councillor Kucha, thank you.

Speaker N · I don't actually have much to add that was really well phrased. One question I do have is just the specificity of the motion there around youth in grades six through 12. I'm wondering if you could provide some

Speaker F · motivation around that, certainly through you, Mayor. So this was an area, truthfully, that I wanted to provide some granularity on, but I didn't want to be too specific on. And when I looked to the West Shore programming or the West Shore Parks and Recreation programming, rather, I did note that the Youth Knights are targeting that age group, grade six through 12. And so I thought that if that's

Speaker E · a programming where we're a program where

Speaker F · we're seeing a lot of success already, maybe we could look to mirror some of the requirements. Requirements and expand that program with another partner.

Speaker N · Thank you. That was the one part that I was not sure of as to why that fit in. But I definitely understand that the motivation then for seconding this is really not to echo or repeat most of what you said, but just really to reiterate that I don't think many of us necessarily came in expecting that, that this is going to be the big. The big item of discussion that we were going to be facing with recreation in the city and in the region. Many of us taking a look, campaigned on increased Recreation and community centers. But I mean, as I said, as I believe Councilor Harder said there, it doesn't really make much sense to open up new ones when we can't even maintain and keep the ones that we have open.

Speaker N · So I think this made a lot of sense to maintain this. And now it's moving forward with the YMCA that's proven to be a great partner to date. The initial exploration was that they were amongst the most cost effective to deliver this service to the city and just look for ways that we can actually improve this service and continue to expand upon it so that we can ensure that our residents really are getting the best value and that this recreation center really gets well used by a notebook.

Speaker N · Just Langford residents, but all West Shore residents. So I'm very supportive of this as it came forward.

Speaker A · Anyone else? Councillor Wagner?

Speaker E · Yeah.

Speaker K · I have a fairly straightforward question. Might lead to other questions. Could you read the motion out again?

Speaker E · That's new.

Speaker F · The new part, certainly. So I just added some wording in between the two forms of the motion there. So the additional wording that I've read in is that council direct staff to work with the YMCA YWCA to explore expanding recreational opportunities at the Lankford Aquatic center with a focus on programming for youth in grades six through 12.

Speaker K · Thank you. So I might ask for that again, depending on what I can learn from staff. But I'm wondering, maybe first to the mover here. Have you discussed with staff what working with the YMCA might look like? And has the Y YMCA did any discussions or is this just the first?

Speaker F · Thank you, Councillor Wigner, through the mayor, just in response to that, I think the intent for this motion tonight is to really give the direction to staff to have those conversations. To my knowledge right now, I am not aware of those conversations happening. So I wanted to get the ball rolling with them. Thank you.

Speaker K · Then through the chair to the staff. Would this be something that would fall to our director of works or. Sure. Who to ask? I'm concerned about the workload issue and how this would fit in with other workflows and our Westshore Parks and Recreation Facilities master plan process that we're going through. So I just wonder if there's any comment staff could provide to, I guess, put this in context of existing work.

Speaker G · Sir, thank you through your worship, and thank you for the question. Given that there was no time frame, I am confident that we have the capacity to take on this new assignment. I would like to comment that we meet with Derek and the Y on a regular basis. So, you know, starting this type of conversation won't be a huge problem for staff. So I don't think it's going to impact our work program in the coming months. So we can take it on.

Speaker K · Thank you. That's helpful. I know our strategic plan put a lot of effort onto staff. So since there's a motion on the floor, I can flip flop between questions and comments. I think for some reason, yeah, I am a little concerned about adding something sort of at the in the middle of things here. It felt a little out of scope for me. We were looking at the, this YMCA agreement in terms of setting up a reserve fund. And so I appreciate the motion coming forward. I'm just thinking about it a little more deeply and I'm not sure if I have another question. Just caught a little off guard and yeah, not sure about the grade six to 12 or if we're going to be competing with West Shore Parks and Recovery Direct.

Speaker K · And I'm not sure if I can ask the chair of West Shore Parks the direct during a meeting or what would be appropriate if there's any other comments. Don't want to put people on the spot, but that's me stalling because there's a lot of things that I'm thinking about right now. Not sure whether to support or not.

Speaker A · If I can. If you are thinking about things, then just yield to someone else and you can think to yourself there.

Speaker K · Well, the question I guess was can I ask through the chair to another member of this council, is that appropriate or not? Just a little bit more background on the youth programming at the West Shore Parks and Recreation and how that might be impacted through you.

Speaker E · Mayor, I have a feeling my comments are going to speak directly to Councillor Wagner's concerns. So perhaps if I don't cover it and Councillor Wagner has a further question then.

Speaker A · Sounds good.

Speaker E · I can elaborate.

Speaker K · Great, thank you.

Speaker A · Go ahead. You have the floor.

Speaker E · So on, on the motion, I'm going to speak broadly and then I'll, I'll, I'll get down to the more specifics with West Shore Parks and how it relates to this particular motion. We know both schools and arenas are expensive to build, but they're also incredibly expensive to run. One of the benefits that I conveyed to folks that have been concerned about the purchase is that the autonomy that having ownership over the Aquatic center gives with both how the building is managed and with the relationships with all of the tenants, including the ymca, ywca.

Speaker E · And so what we can do is manage both their relationships and what is a very expensive facility to run with the Best intentions with the best intentions for a facility and how well this center services the community. As far as the West Shore Parks and Recreation Master plan which was just recently approved by the board. It looks both at the regional growth of recreation and it also looks at where West Shore Parks and Recreation fits within that growth and and what our current capacities are for for kind of the expanding. One of the main recommendations is for a particular staff position in order to facilitate that conversation. West Shore Parks and Recreation is doing really well at providing recreation at that facility.

Speaker E · It is a very well used facility and our staff are working very well within the demand. However, expanding beyond that demand would require a change in how or the approach in our staff capacity. And so that's kind of like the first step in what the plan will see going forward. I'm hoping that we'll have something come to council. As far as the master plan is, it was very recently adopted. It was just last week by the board which is very exciting because I think it's a great path forward both for the society and for the region. The youth nights in particular are incredibly popular. We have hundreds of kiddos that come. While the age range is consistent with what the motion has forward. The highest demand is that middle school age. But having the broader age range allows flexibility.

Speaker E · We have have kiddos all across and youth I should say some across the spectrum as well. So we had one youth that was graduating out of the program and kind of looking at, you know, that change and that loss. So having the broad age range is great for having the youth with different needs of accessing recreation. And then just to speak to kind of the successes in particular just because there's the direction is for a staff to work. I know there'll be an opportunity to ask the staff of West Shore park smart creation about what makes a good youth night. But providing pizza is a really great draw. We have a great relationship with local pizza restaurant.

Speaker E · So there's always food and then having dedicated time that are just for youth. So that when you know that when they're coming from for the pool it is actually just a space for them. And I think that's been great for just providing a level of safety. And then the cross programming as well. There's dry floor access and in a room for games and whatnot. So just kind of making sure that

Speaker D · you're

Speaker E · providing program for complex needs that we see in our youth. I. I'm happy to support that at least in principle. That there is a need for more youth programming. As fond as I am for the programs at West Shore Parks and Recreation and acknowledging that they are also provided at the Centennial Center.

Speaker F · The pool part is a bit of

Speaker E · a stretch for kiddos in the west, in the West Hills area, both youth and elementary school age as well. So having more locally just means that they. Because a lot of them won't be traveling by this or using active transportation, it just makes it more accessible. So happy to support and hopefully that covered enough that Councillor Wagner was curious about.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Anyone else, if you have a question or.

Speaker K · Yeah, I can I have a comment. I don't think it has to be a question. I'm just commenting about. What I've heard is that the there's room to grow in this youth programming area. Staff indicated that they could take on these conversations as part of how they already meet with the Y. So appreciate that there was extra discussion about this because I wasn't really sure how it might impact our other partners and our own staff. So starting a conversation about how to use that space more fully, it is an interesting thing to explore. So I feel with the new information that I received, I can support the motion.

Speaker A · Anyone else? All right, just try to call to question. I'll just say I'll support this. There is no doubt that the work that's being done at Westshore Parks and Rec on their youth nights is huge. And the youth nights when they're swimming, there can be a huge lineup of kids in the waiting room waiting for someone to leave, leave. That shows right there the amount of desire there is. And so if we can work with the ym, YWCA and be able to take some of that load off, never mind the fact there's people that always get out to Callwood. And so we have our own center here.

Speaker A · So we are not mandating specific times, hours or anything. This is just starting the conversation. And I think that's what we need, need to build that. That extra level of support for youth recreation and sport. So call the question.

Speaker N · Although, sorry, if I can just jump in. Well, I think it's great that we've spent a lot of time talking about the youth aspect of this, which was the amendment to the motion. I think there's actually a lot of really great aspects of the original report and supplementary agreement that needs to be highlighted. That was the original report coming forward here, here. And so if I may just briefly highlight this, it really is aimed about ensuring the longevity of not just the Aquatic center, but this partnership with the ymca ywca. One of the big parts here is that as The YMCA turns to breaking even and turns to become profitable.

Speaker N · It's that there's provisions built into this to ensure that a proportion of those profits are reinvested back into this facility, back into Langford. And so that is given the landlord agreement, given the situation that we have over ownership of the building, that in the case of profit, these profits don't just leave, they are reinvested back in. And that definitely secures Langford residence, secures the taxpayer in this case. And definitely all the youth stuff is vitally important and near and dear to me me. But I just did want to get back to the main intent of the main motion that was coming forward this evening.

Speaker A · All right, sir. All the question. All those in favor opposed that passes. We're on to item number 11. Bylaws 11. 1. Bylaw number 2110 Lankford zoning bylaw amendment number 696854 Littoria Road. Bylaw number 2110 2026. This is our first, second and third reading in.

Speaker K · I'll move that council give first, second and third readings to Lanford Zonate bylaw amendment number 696854 Latoria Road bylaw number 2110 2026.

Speaker A · I'll second motivation.

Speaker K · I think this is fairly straightforward.

Speaker E · We.

Speaker K · We saw this application come forward. It's my understanding that the owner owner there's a current house on this lot. They want to stay in that house and subdivide and the future development of the other part of the lot will come back for rezoning. So there will be a discussion on how that develops in the future.

Speaker E · Thank you. Not much further additional to add as we had a pretty robust discussion at the last meeting and apparently I'm losing my voice. So I will lean on Councillor Wagner's comments. Thanks.

Speaker A · Anyone else? Hey, I'll call the question all those in favor posed that passes. Let's turn the page. We are on to 11. 2. Bylaw number 2268 and 2269 Frankford Official Community Plan bylaw number 2200amendment number 2 form a character design guidelines and Lankford Zoning bylaw number 300. Amendment number 767. Bylaw number 2268. 2026. This is first reading and City Lankford Tree Protection bylaw 22692026 first, second and third readings.

Speaker M · Thanks Mayor. Just before we get into that and just. I'll keep it brief. We did have a very thorough presentations earlier today tonight. But the purpose of the report at this stage of the agenda is to present bylaw number 2268 and 2269. So bylaw number 2268 has been drafted to delete all of the existing design and development permit area guidelines from the Zoning Bylaw, to add the new design guidelines and environmental development permit area guidelines to the official Community plan, to update the official Community plan maps designating the riparian and sensitive ecosystem Development Development Permit areas with the new maps presented earlier and to add the existing Development Permit area guidelines relating to Hazardous area Development Permit Areas as well as several comprehensive development zones to the OCP and then to make various related amendments to the Zoning Bylaw.

Speaker M · So all in one bylaw one Bylaw to amend many bylaws. The new design guidelines and environmental development permit area guidelines and map included in bylaw number 2268 have been comprehensively updated following an extensive process involving background review, analysis, public and interest holder engagement, which again was described earlier tonight. As also noted earlier, the feasibility of establishing an advisory Design panel in Langford was explored as part of the review of the Design guidelines. So in addition to considering the first reading of bylaw number 2268 90, council may wish to provide direction regarding the establishment of an ADP in Lankford. Additionally, bylaw number 2269 has been drafted to repeal and replace Tree Protection bylaw number 2206.

Speaker M · Key changes included in the new Bylaw include aligning with the Environmental Development Permitary update and current best practices for tree protection bylaws, consolidating the hazardous tree removal approvals that have have been considered separately through the Development permit area exemption process and the tree permit process into one streamlined process and addressing gaps and clarifications that have arisen as staff have worked with the current Tree protection bylaw since November 2024.

Speaker M · If council is supportive of these updates as described in more depth in the staff report, they may wish to consider proceeding with the first three readings of Bylaw no. 2269 to night.

Speaker A · Anyone want to take a stab at a question or go ahead there? Councilor G. Thanks.

Speaker E · I'm happy to start with a motion hopefully that council give first reading to Lankford official community plan bylaw number 2200, amendment number two form and character Design Guidelines and Lankford zoning bylaw number 300amendment number 7767, bylaw number 22682026 and the council give first, second and third reading to City of Linford true protection bylaw number 22692026 and the council directs staff to bring forward Bylaw to establish an advisory design panel pursuant to section 461 of the Local Government Act.

Speaker K · I will second.

Speaker E · I'm probably gonna. My comments are gonna be pretty much around the design guidelines and I'll leave space for my colleagues to fill in because I have a lot, mostly a lot to say about those. I've been trying to be strategically patient with this process because the impact of any build form is that is like a 50 year investment in the community. And so I've been very eager to have a conversation with the community about what's important to them about the built form and how that presents. In Lankford, this is also a delegated authority when it comes to council. So this isn't in other communities where you have form and character as part of a council conversation. In Langford that's delegated to staff.

Speaker E · And so having a conversation around the design guide guidelines is particularly important because that is the expectation that the community has and that's what staff have to work with. Hearing all the parts, the guidelines and the sheer number of them. I've reviewed the guidelines a couple times. I don't know if my colleagues have this thoroughly because of how robust as far as like size was, but I've had concerns about how they. I don't feel that they quotably addressed the expectations of what the lived experience was in different parts of Lankford. And so I see that as a strength in the new guidelines and looking at holistically the city and what folks living in Lankford should be expected to experience while living here.

Speaker E · There is parts of the old guidelines that talked very specifically about colonial history. And that's just in one part, which is kind of like when you have fragmented guidelines like these. It doesn't really show a holistic view of what the city's values are. And so by having this be holistic in its view, it does, I feel it does more represent the city as we now are. And then there was the infamous River Rock, which we've heard a lot about, which is kind of like was the most, most probably consistent part of the old guidelines, because it was throughout and yet it wasn't consistently applied. And so what happens and why it's important to have clear, communicated guidelines is we'll have developers come in and not really understand what's important to Lakeford residents as opposed to what we want to see.

Speaker E · So if a developer was looking at our old guidelines and saw River Rock is really important to us, they would go ahead and proceed to do that. Whereas the in actuality we hadn't really been acquiring Riverwalk for quite some time because it hasn't really been a reflection of the values of the current city. I don't think it's unique for a community to have old documents like these be such a strong guiding principle. I'm sure it's quite common, but we're not a young city anymore. We've grown fast and we need a policy that is current, that is effective and meets the maturity of a city of approximately 60,000.

Speaker E · When we invest in our city and we have a standard of quality of life shows what it's like to live in Langford. That's the type of investment that we also attract. It attracts investment from people that look for quality and value and it's a cycle that eventually grows a better city. As far as the adt, it's just, what a great way to get feedback from professionals, which we don't have a staff capacity to carry with. The only cost to the city is what it would cost to run those meetings because there's no remuneration. We're getting professional insight on specific projects, not all of them, that help guide our staff as to what the best pass forward would be. Because these are in fact, guidelines, they're not something as strict.

Speaker E · There's a lot of give and take as to what works for a particular project coming around. I understand why it took so long. As I see the benefit of the alignment with the Urban Forest Management Plan and the ocp, I believe we have stronger guidelines because of it. I'm really sorry, I'm losing my voice. And then finally, we're going to have to see how these design guidelines perform in the community. And if we have an ADP and we have that professional feedback when we revisit these guidelines to see how they're doing, we'll have that much better understanding of how well they're doing. And then the last thing I'll just briefly say on the tree protection bylaw is just having the tree replacement in. The actual bylaw is more intuitive, clear and easy to find. So I found that was a great addition.

Speaker E · And thank you for bearing with me.

Speaker A · Thank you, Councillor Wagner.

Speaker K · Thank you, Councilor Guyre. We covered a lot of ground. I had some other comments as well that we did here in a presentation. You know, 1100 guidelines is maybe a few too many. So it's. It's been hard to follow and sort of, you know, if you don't have a priority, if you have too many priorities, then you don't have a priority. So really being clear about this. I'm actually thinking it's going to be very beneficial to the development community that they know what's being expected. And I really like that. There'll be be a checklist that there was work on implementation of how do we actually roll this out, that it will be clear for everyone and less back and forth.

Speaker K · So it'll be less demand on staff, resources and developers and just having that instead of confusion and then maybe the outcome isn't what we actually were hoping for. It's challenging. I will, you know, comment a little bit about the Sustainable Development Advisory Committee. There's always this interest in talking about landscaping and design and other things that we're often reminded that that's out of scope of our committee. But there's an eagerness for us to weigh in and really sort of get that quality design or how does it feel at the street or can we save an iconic tree on that corner. There's just a lot of conversation that has been building up and so I see a lot of that reflected in the design guidelines which is quite exciting.

Speaker K · And having the advisory design panel I think will be really helpful because that is another layer of expertise that can again take some burden off staff. Add that really like the diversity of who will be on the committee. So I serve as the chair of the water advisory committee for the region and we have representatives from scientific community and industry and rate payers organizations, agriculture. Having that really diverse, diverse view, all those different eyes on an application can I think be really helpful. So in this case we're going to have architects, landscape architects, urban designers, engineers, other professionals and non professionals and possibly including local first nations. So there's.

Speaker K · I find this quite exciting that we could have that extra look and not to go overboard but it'll be, it's

Speaker F · very clearly scoped out here.

Speaker K · So if people read the details of the report, you'll find that there's going to be specific applications that will be managed through that process for the environmental development permit areas. Modernizing this to strengthen guidelines for heat island effects, landscaping, urban agriculture, pollinator friendly species accessibility. There's so many wins in here. So I think the whole document was quite user friendly. I enjoyed looking through it, trying to figure out what it would actually mean. I did ask questions ahead of time and some in the public meeting. So I don't want to spend too much time going over everything. But in terms of the zoning bylaw, I'm quite excited to talk about live landscaping. I was understanding that, you know, we're really going to be Encouraging not using artificial turf, not having this paved over areas.

Speaker K · We can have the sort of green livable features that, that it's what made people want to be in Lankford. They like that we are close to nature. People came here to maybe not be in a big city, but we've grown really fast, so we're trying to find a balance now. And how do we manage as we keep growing and still have our, you know, the natural environment be integrated into design, all the things that make Langford great. So I could go on. I'll probably leave it there. The, the tree bylaw update is really appreciated because that's, you know, know we've had a year of this particular bylaw to be experienced by staff and there were things that needed to be clarified.

Speaker K · So in particular putting in what more details on what damage means and what, you know, consider for the developers to

Speaker F · be really clear about what you do

Speaker K · need to do to protect a tree during development. So just, again, having that clarity really can speed things up and make for a lot of better relationships. So I think all of this massive body of work is really setting us up for success.

Speaker A · Thank you, Chancellor Cucha.

Speaker L · I'll be very brief.

Speaker N · A lot of the big aspects there were covered. I just want to say that really, when you start off with a situation of 1100 guidelines, and this can be taken a look at many of our older guidelines, bylaws, and the rest, when they're separated, when they're hard to decipher, when they're hard to find them, all this acts as a barrier to entry, this acts as a barrier to get involved.

Speaker N · And so through this process of modernizing our guidelines, our regulations across the board, and I don't mean simplifying as in simplifying, but as in bringing them together in a more simple, easy to access place. This encourages more access, this encourages new developers who might not have been able to face that cost of wading through 1100 guidelines to consider Langford as a new place to do business. So I'm quite excited to see this. 1100 down to 75, three maps down to 2. All of these are improvements in the process that can help support the industry as well and create not just better communities, but have even more players competing against one another, hopefully driving price as well.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Anyone else? Councilor Harder or Councilor Morley, then Councillor Hard,

Speaker B · thank you. Mine will be very short. I'm just very pleased to support these bylaws because I feel that they represent an important step forward with the community and demystifying those 1100 lines of information. So this modernizes our approach to design, strengthens our protections for the natural environment, which is always good, and provides clear expectations for how Langford grows. Who are the developers looking at the environment is always important and it's exciting to see us taking meaning, practical action to protect ecosystems, support our urban forest, and build a more livable, sustainable city for the future.

Speaker A · Thank you very much and Councilor Herter, thank you.

Speaker F · Through you, I think everything's been covered very well by my colleagues, but I did have just a few questions related to the changes within the tree production bylaw. So through you, perhaps to the Director of Parks and Recreation. I did note that the new bylaw proposes adding schedule B to show some diagrams of appropriate tree protection fencing. And I just wanted to check in and see if there's. If we're having challenges with adherence to the protection requirements as it stands.

Speaker G · Thanks. Through the chair. Not anymore. Especially since Arborist came on board. We've got somebody now that has the time to check up on development sites and really follow through.

Speaker A · True.

Speaker G · Again, it's just strengthening the language and the bylaw up to current best practices that other municipalities take. But for the most part, we're not having those challenges anymore. For the last year or so, it's been going pretty smooth.

Speaker F · Excellent. And then my next question may be a two part question perhaps to the Director of Planning and Director of Parks. And that's just within the OR with regards to the consolidation of the approvals for the hazardous tree removal. So I just wanted to understand the real impact of this change. Will it result in sort of a change in fees for applicants seeking to remove a tree or will it just, I guess, stand to simplify the process? Because that's sort of the one thing I have heard from residents is, you know, they have a danger tree or a hazard tree that they're concerned about and there seems to be a bit of concern or unclarity with the current process.

Speaker G · Yeah, through the chair, it was exactly that. Just to streamline the process. Since the tree bylaw came in the initial tree bylaw, when the tree was in a development permit area, it kind of fell under planning. And once it was outside of the DP area, it fell to parks. And with having dedicated arborist in parks, it made sense to streamline that process. And so now everything funnels back down through the arborist. So with the assistance of planning, obviously, but instead of having, you know, some planners that don't have the expertise and trees that were forced to make decisions based on our burst reports that they received and now we've got somebody that can peer review those in a way within our department and again streamline the process so there's less confusion.

Speaker F · Great to hear that the added expertise is helping to streamline things.

Speaker E · That's wonderful.

Speaker F · I don't think I have any other comments to add, so I'll just say my gratitude to staff for these recommendations, recommendations and proposals here. I think this is going to go a long way in improving how our city looks and feels in the future. So thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you. I'll just end with there's been a whole lot said so there's no need to really repeat it. Thank you to staff and consultant there and I'll call the question. All those in favor post that passes.

Speaker A · We are now on to item 10. 3. Bylaw number 2274 and 2273. The Lankford zoning bylaw number 300. Amendment number 761. Omnibus number 68, new residential zones bylaw number 2274, 2026 that is for adoption.

Speaker A · And Lankford zoning bylaw 300amendment number 760, small scale multi unit housing bylaw number 2273, 2026. And this is for adoption as well, Councillor Magnus,

Speaker K · if I can find it here. Pardon me now I'm on the wrong page. Sorry about that everyone. I move that council adopt Langford zoning bylaw number 300, amendment number 761, omnibus number 68, new residential zones byl number 2274, 2026 and the council adopt Lankford's bylaw number 300. Amendment number 760, small scale multi unit housing by number 2273. 2026.

Speaker A · We have a seconder. I'll second motivation.

Speaker K · Not really much for it's just for adoption but. So we've discussed this already but I think it does tie in with what we've been talking tonight. So just having the clarity around the. The. The new zones and the landscaping requirements and it does say including one tree at least on site. So that kind of thing I think is really important for putting all the puzzle pieces together to make the OCP actually become realized. This is an important amendment.

Speaker E · Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you, Councilor Gary.

Speaker E · Nothing further. Thanks, Mayor.

Speaker A · Okay, all the question. All those in favor post that passes and we are on to 11. 4. Bylaw number 2275, 2270 and 2271. City of Lankford Amenity Cost Charge. Bylaw number 2275. 2026. This is for adoption.

Speaker A · And city of Lankford inclusionary zoning bylaw number 2270, 2026. This is for adoption. And city Lankford reserve funds establishment bylaw 2005 bylaw number 857, amendment number 3, bylaw number 2271, 2026 and this is for adoption as well.

Speaker N · Thank you. I'd like to move option one, that council adopt amenity cost charge bylaw number 227-52026 and that council adopt inclusionary zoning bylaw number 227-02026 and that council adopt city of Langford reserve funds establishment bylaw 2000, 2004, bylaw number 857.

Speaker N · Amendment number three, bylaw number 22712026.

Speaker F · I will second that.

Speaker A · Okay. Any motivation?

Speaker N · We had quite the in depth presentation on this last time. Honestly similar to my previous comments. Just excited to see the modernization of this and coming forward Converter.

Speaker O · Thanks.

Speaker E · Through you.

Speaker F · Likewise. Just happy to see that this is going to give the city a mechanism to make sure that growth is paying for growth moving forward and that our city is going to be well served by all of the quality of life amenities as we continue to grow.

Speaker A · Yeah, caught a question. All those. Councilor Wagner.

Speaker K · Well, I just wanted to know. I actually think this is a pretty big deal. So I know we're on adoption, but the amenity cost charge bylaw here actually establishes money for a recreation center, specifically an arts center and a community center and other street improvements. So these are things that community is really looking for. So I'm quite excited that that's included there. And they're also really expensive. It's easy to say you want to have more sports or more recreation opportunities, but the costs are quite high. So I'm excited about that. And the inclusionary zoning reserve fund, maybe for some people that don't recall, it's about affordable housing. So that's also a really big deal. We really want to see see more people being able to afford their homes.

Speaker K · And it included 50% of the units having two bedrooms as a requirement. For some of those units, there's things that are harder for them to get built. And so it's a great example of what we can do and also transportation demand management. So all good news in here.

Speaker F · Thank you.

Speaker A · All right, I'm going to call the question. All those in favor? Those that passes. All right. Our last thing is can I have a motion to go in camera please?

Speaker N · Thank you. I'll move that council close the meeting to the public pursuant to section 91E and 2B of the community charter to consider the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality the consideration of information received and held in confidence relating the negotiation between the municipality and a provincial government or federal government, or both, or between a provincial government or the federal government, or both, and a third party.

Speaker A · Second that all those in favor? All right. That passes.