Transcript: Council Meeting - 2026/07/20

Speaker A · All right, and welcome everyone to today's council. Council meeting. First though, we are actually having the public hearing. So it's actually separate from the council meeting, but I call this public hearing to order. Councillor Harder, can we have our territorial acknowledgment please?

Speaker B · Yes. Thank you. City of Lankford sits upon the traditional territories of the Coast Salish people of the Wasabzim, Songhees and Chiana first nations as well as the Surtlip, as well as the Messianic peoples represented by the Sartlip, Seyote, Sachem, Mokuchin and Malahat First Nations. We thank them for sharing this beautiful land.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. All right, we are going right into our first public input. This is for bylaw number 2253 and 2254, the Lankford Official Community Plan bylaw number 2200, amendment number 1602 Madrona Place bylaw number 2253, 2026 and Lankford zoning bylaw number 300, amendment number 757 602. Madrona Place bylaw number 2254 and 2026. Members should know that this is the only time you can speak to this item 3. 1. Once I close public the public hearing, no one else council cannot receive any more input and you cannot speak to it at the general public participation. And we suspend a three minute rule on this as long as you are talking specifically about that item and not wandering off. So first time call. Anyone like to speak to item 3. 1?

Speaker B · Come here, I'll just introduce first. Thank you. So Reid Kaufman of Langford Heights Development has applied to amend the official community Plan designation of 602 Madrona Place from employment lands to complete community and to rezone the same parcel from the Business Park 9 Millstream Road Northeast or BP 9 Zone to the 1 and 2 Family Residential or R2 Zone.

Speaker B · These applications address mapping errors from the previous application that did not include this lot in the residential portion of the Langford Heights development. And this application will facilitate the creation of three residential lots where there is currently one residential lot and one business park lot. In support of the application, the applicant has agreed to provide the amenity contributions in the amount of $1,000 per new lot towards the Affordable Housing reserve fund and $6,000 per new lot towards the General Amenity Reserve Fund as a bonus for increased density, a Section 219 covenant registered in priority of all other charges on title that agrees to the that the following will be provided and implemented to bylaw number 1000 standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering and Public.

Speaker B · Full frontage improvements, stormwater management plan, a construction parking management plan, a mitigation plan and a comprehensive geotechnical plan. That a further covenant be registered to designate the 10 meter wide area on the east side of 602 Madrona Place as a non disturbance area. That a further covenant be registered agreeing that the garages are to be used for the parking of vehicles and not the storage of items that would prevent the parking of vehicles therein. And that the city's low carbon concrete policy be implemented. Notifications and advertisements have been placed as required by the local government and Mayor. I believe the applicant has a presentation before we enter into the public comments on this one.

Speaker A · All right. I was just quite enthusiastic to do it. I will say before we start, Councillor Wagner is here, but she is online. Can you hear us Councillor Wagner?

Speaker C · Yes, I can hear you. Can you hear me?

Speaker A · Can hear you loud and clear. Thank you.

Speaker C · Thank you.

Speaker A · All right, if the applicant would come forward please. There we are. Is this working? Yep. Good evening Mayor and council. My name is Sebastian Stewart, Development Manager at Strand speaking to you this evening on behalf of Langford Heights Development L. P. which is a partnership between Strand and Bastion. I'm speaking to you regarding our rezoning and associated OCP amendment application for 602 Madrona Place to redesignate a small piece of land from Business Park 9 Zone AP 9 to 1 and 2 Family Residential Part 2602 Madrona Place is approximately the size of two to three single family lots on what is an 80 acre plus master plan site.

Speaker A · Specifically, it is adjacent to the Madrona Ridge neighborhood within the overall master plan site that currently has 54 single family and duplex lots already approved and serviced. As mentioned by staff, this application needs to address a minor mapping error whereby a small piece of land directly adjacent to Madrona Ridge is zoned for business park. Whereas logically it is best suited to be the same residential zoning present on the neighboring lots or two. The overall. If we could go to the. Oh awesome. The overall master plan of the site was approved in 2021 and delivers on a number of key priority areas for the city of Langford.

Speaker A · Namely it creates a complete self contained community that balances business park, employment space, family focused housing and recreational land. As part of that approval we dedicated an 8 acre recreational amenity parcel to the city. We funded and built improvements to Millstream Road such as bike lane, sidewalk and other pedestrian connections that promote a healthy lifestyle. This slide here shows the entirety of the site and then it also highlights in that gold area where the small subject of this rezoning is on. You can see it's directly adjacent to the other R2 areas on the, on the map. This is also another aerial of the site showing the development that has occurred over the past several years.

Speaker A · It also highlights the new road infrastructure that's been created and, and the Madrona Ridge subdivision on the, in the center there. What you can see here is an aerial photograph of the site which shows the rapid development of these duplex and single family homes. This neighborhood has been a resounding success so far with well over half of the subdivision delivered to sold and delivered to happy new homeowners. And with construction being busy and continuing on new homes every single day. Over 10 homes are already complete and have families moving in. Over the next month we expect two more homes to be complete and ready for excited homeowners.

Speaker A · Madrona Ridge has quickly transitioned from builder ready home lots into an established neighborhood by the day. Here's another image of the site here that shows the overall Madrona Ridge site. And then the subject of this application is to the far furthest depths of this road near the, just in front of that tree line. So consistent with, consistent with the initial approval from the master plan, this parcel of land will is proposed to be R2 which directly matches the adjacent zone to the north of it. Approval of this application before you tonight will allow the creation of the last few lots which will be the final planning step required to complete this already flourishing residential family oriented neighborhood.

Speaker A · Thank you for your support and I'm happy to answer any questions. All right, thank you very much. Can council give questions to the proponent right now or wait till after public hearing or after public participation?

Speaker B · Yeah, Mayor, typically we listen to hear comments from the public before council enters into questions or comments.

Speaker A · So they figure. So please have a seat sir and we'll have you on on deck for to answer any questions. Thank you. It's been a while since we've had any public hearings here, never mind two in the same night. So we're just dusting off the cobwebs. So for the first call for public participation, anyone like to come forward, please raise your hand. Okay, we have one online

Speaker B · telephone user number ending 431. Please press star six to unmute yourself. State your first initial last name and municipality of residence. For the record,

Speaker A · Wendy Haas, 3442 Luxton Road. Actually calling in from Montreal as we have West Shore girls representing, representing Langford and Caldwood. So Mayor, I Have a procedural concern. It appears that the agenda contains material that could be viewed as campaign related

Speaker B · information regarding Counselor Harder in your public

Speaker A · agenda regarding this public hearing.

Speaker B · Her campaign article.

Speaker A · All right, so, Ms. Hobbs. No, I said Mayor, can you tell me why that is in a public agenda and it should not be in there and it's construed as. Ms. Hobbs, this is specific about item 3. 1 and specifically 602 Madrona Place.

Speaker B · Mayor, I can clarify the comment. As required by the Local Government act, the city is required to have copies of the notices that ran in the newspaper. And one of our notices happened to be on the same page as Councillor Herter's launch article that was in the same paper on the same day.

Speaker A · So that was just a copy of the page?

Speaker B · Yes, Mayor, it's a copy of the Goldstream Gazette page on which our ad rank.

Speaker A · Yeah. Do you have any other comments regarding item 3. 1?

Speaker B · Miss Hobbs, if you have any additional comments regarding item 3. 1, please unmute yourself in the.

Speaker A · Her hand is up again.

Speaker B · Press star six. You unmute yourself. Ms. Hobbs.

Speaker A · Yes, I would just like to point out that you could have blacked out

Speaker B · that article just like every other foi you do for me. Have a great evening.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Well, for a second time. Anyone like to come forward? I see a hand raiser. Come on. Thanks very much. Fraser Johnson, Langford resident I'm not 100% confident on whether this is the case because I haven't studied the map closely enough. But my understanding is that the lands in this area are benefiting from a revitalization tax exemption. And when that was brought in, the residential lands were explicitly excluded from the lands that were supposed to benefit from a revitalization tax exemption. And if that is the case, and if this particular property that's being carved off and now put into residential, as it probably should have been from the beginning, is part of the land that is benefiting from the exemption.

Speaker A · My hope is that that will get some discussion and that because of the change in use, the revitalization tax exemption would also go away.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you very

Speaker B · much.

Speaker A · Anyone else had to come forward? Okay, I'll call officially for a third time anyone to come forward. Okay, now we have opting for council to ask some questions. I'm just going to ask staff for that.

Speaker A · Do we have any clarification on the residential tax exemption? Sorry, Revitalization tax exemption on that piece

Speaker B · through the chair.

Speaker A · As the member of the public pointed out, the residential portion of that property was excluded from the revitalization tax exemption and the revitalization tax exemption runs with the folios. So as the folios would be carved off potentially if this were be approved the right the exemption would not follow those foils. Great. Council. Councilor. Harder. I see you had a question.

Speaker B · Thank you. I was just going to ask the question from public participation, but you beat me to it. Thanks, Mayor.

Speaker A · All right, anyone else? Okay, seeing there's been no other hands and no other questions, I'm going to close public or the public hearing for item 3. 1 and just going to flip the page. We are now going to call open public hearing for 3. 2. The staff have any comments? I see your lights on right there.

Speaker B · Yes, thank you, Mayor. The purpose of bylaw number 2226, or sorry, pardon me, 2228 is to amend both the zoning bylaw number 300 and Official Community Plan bylaw number 2200 to establish updated form and character design guidelines, updated environmental development permit area guidelines and maps and associated amendments. More Specifically, bylaw number 2268 will delete the existing and design and development permit area guidelines from the zoning bylaw, add the new design guidelines, the new environmental development permit area guidelines, as well as the existing area specific guidelines for Olympic View, Bear Mountain and South Skirt Mountain, as well as the existing hazardous area development permit area guidelines to the ocp.

Speaker B · We'll delete and replace the existing sensitive ecosystems and habitat areas map and the existing maps designating the riparian sensitive ecosystems and potential habitat and biodiversity development permit areas from the ocp add provisions that are currently regulated through existing design guidelines to the zoning bylaw as general regulations, including requirements pertaining to private and common amenity, space and multifamily developments, landscaping and screening requirements and garden and carriage suite regulations and make various housekeeping amendments to existing appendix A development permit areas of the OCP.

Speaker B · Since first reading of bylaw number 2268, staff have made three minor amendments to the new design guidelines to improve clarity and intent. So following the close of this public hearing, Council may wish to proceed with the bylaw as amended. Notifications and advertisements have been placed as required by the Local Government Act.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. All right, once again, I will call now for first time callers. Anyone like to come forward, please raise your hand. Just giving people a chance. All right, second call for item 3. 2.

Speaker A · Anyone like to come forward? And third and final call. Anyone like to come forward, please? All right, I am going to. Oh, no. Before I close, council, do you have any questions? All right, I am going to close the public hearing for item 3. 2, and I am now closing the public hearings that we're on for tonight. And now we are actually going to start the official council meeting.

Speaker A · Let me change the page. All right, I call this council meeting to order. We've already had our territorial acknowledgment meeting conduct rules.

Speaker B · My name is Melissa Miles and I will be the moderator for this evening's meeting. Attendance by the public is in person or via Zoom, either using the Zoom app or telephone. If you are joining us through the Zoom app and wish to ask a question or make a comment, please use the Raise hand function in the app. Keep in mind that you are able to both raise and lower your hand in the app. You will be called on based upon your username and you will need to unmute yourself when it is time for you to speak. If you are joining us via telephone, you must press Star nine to raise your hand.

Speaker B · You should hear a recording that advises you. The moderator will be notified you wish to speak. You will be called upon using the last three digits of your phone number. Please press star6 to unmute your phone. If you are attending in person, please approach the podium one at a time. Once public participation begins. Please begin by providing your first initial last name and municipality of residence. During the public participation period, you may speak to any item on the agenda other than Bylaws 2253, 2254 and 2268 under Items 17. 1 and 17. 2, which were subject to the public hearing that just took place and as Council may not receive any further information in respect to these bylaws specifically pursuant to the legislation, please state the item number of the matter on the agenda that you will be speaking to.

Speaker B · Members of the public may be permitted to speak more than once, but additional comments are limited to those not raised by the person previously and are subject to time limitations. Once everyone has had an opportunity to speak once, there may be an opportunity to speak again depending upon the time. At this time, we remind the public that the City does not tolerate bullying or harassment of city staff, elected officials or members of the public during council meetings. Please keep your comments respectful. For matters not appearing on this evening's agenda, please contact City hall by calling 250-478-7882 during regular business hours. If you experience technical difficulties in getting through today, please contact City hall tomorrow.

Speaker B · The City also expects accepts written submissions and comments. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Can I have an approval of the agenda, please? I move that Council approve the agenda as presented Second, any comments, questions? All those in favor? Opposed? All right, that passes. Hey, public participation. You just as a reminder, we just heard anything that is on the agenda other than what has been in the public participation. So that is what is encompassed by 3. 1, 3. 2 and those are the specific items 17. 1 and 17. 2 in your agenda. So if you'd like to come forward, please raise your hand. Come on up, sir. You got three minutes. And just press the button on the bottom of the microphone there when the light goes on. There you go. Thank you. Good evening. This is in 14. 1, the transportation master plan. So my name is Johnny Sutton.

Speaker A · I live at 504 Hoffman Avenue. I've lived there for 30 years. I'm also the strata president. Some may say that's not a big deal, but you know, over decades it has become a very family oriented community on a dead end street that has a very popular park, multiple hockey games. Yep, you guessed it, road hockey. Other family activities are constant. And with the Atkins 500, you know, Veterans Memorial being so busy, Hoffman Avenue has become a very safe haven for baby stroller walks, dog walks. It's constant. You know, it's, it's been good. This proposal, it brings zero benefit, absolutely zero benefit to any of the surrounding area communities. In fact, it's, it will become extremely dangerous.

Speaker A · That area has never been designed or prepared for such traffic. You know, there's rumors of 7,000 vehicles and whatnot. I mean we're on constant patrol all the time for speed as it is right now. So that is just, it's just not going to work out. We ask that you leave it alone, please. The safety of the children has got to be priority number one. There's other ways that we can do a better plan after this. I have lots of great ideas, Good idea club you could call it. So I'm willing to help out. I'm asking for option two. That's for the council to take zero action at this time. We have a parking lot. So some history is there's a big parking lot, it's actually across the road from my place where the parents drop off the children.

Speaker A · They used to be able to go to a guarded crosswalk up the overpass to the schools. Right now it's still a safe haven passage for the parents to have their kids to go to the couple schools. So that's very important for you guys to be aware of. I don't want to spend needless money on top of obviously the property taxes that have gone up. And as you can tell there's lots of people here. There's people that have actually put their hands in the soil to build that park. I don't know if you've done boots on the ground. I've done a lot of canvassing, I've approached a lot of people and it's just.

Speaker A · It's not going to work to be honest with you. So I really appreciate everyone that's come here. This is a hill that we're willing to die on. So thank you for your time and really put a lot of thought into this one. Thank you very much. I see hand center on my left. Come on forward please. Thank you. Hello mayor and the council members. My name is Emir Onuramanuchlek. I reside at 604 Hoffman Avenue, the very home this road would have right path. So no one on this street has more at stake than I do. Tonight you are not just drawing a line on a map. You are deciding whether cars come true.

Speaker A · Roaring a street where children still ride their bikes, still race their scooters, still play outside the way kids did in 80s and 90s. That magic is almost extinct. And this street is one of the last places it still lives. There's a playground right beside your proposed road. Ask yourselves honestly how fast us traffic have to move before a child pays the price. Don't trade a living neighborhood for a shortcut. Build a Hoffman connection. Protect these kids. Be the council that choose people over pavement. Thank you. Thank you very much. And front center there your hand up and then on my right. Your next afterwards. Oh, just press the button. Here we are. All right.

Speaker B · My name is Colette Miller, 552 Hoffman Avenue and I am speaking to item 14. 1, the Transportation Master plan that is on the agenda. I have previously shared my concerns with council and staff by email but would like to formally address them here in person tonight. I acknowledge that significant work has gone into preparing this master plan. I understand that Langford is growing and I agree that the city does need a long term transportation strategy. My concern is not whether Lankford should have a plan, but whether these specific neighborhood rose connections, particularly Hoffman Avenue have received enough public review. While I appreciate the nearly 20 month engagement process, many directly affected residents were unaware of these opportunities. Everyone I spoke to and I spoke to a lot of people this weekend had no clue.

Speaker B · It is my understanding that less than 5% of the population provided feedback through the surveys and open houses. That is not enough. With three new proposed connections within the Mill Hill area identified in the plan. These should have been included in the survey process as they represent a fundamental change to the character of an established residential street. I understand that these connections are expected not to happen immediately, but plan is

Speaker A · the foundation for all future decisions.

Speaker B · Once adopted, these roads become the framework for future planning and funding. My greatest concern is and always will be the connector you're proposing for Hoffman Avenue today. It is a quiet residential street divided by the Cornerstone park and Playground. And as Johnny noted, it is a park that the residents themselves built back in the day. It's not simply a roadway on a map. It is a neighborhood place. Residents walk the streets, children ride their bikes, and parents feel comfortable allowing their

Speaker A · children not just to play at the

Speaker B · park but on Hoffman Avenue itself. Because that street functions as a safe road traffic area. Opening Hoffman would fundamentally change its purpose. It would introduce non local traffic into the heart of a residential neighborhood directly beside a children's playground. This proposal does the opposite of allowing a safe neighborhood for children to go up in.

Speaker D · I question whether this actually aligns with

Speaker B · the city's own OCP objectives about creating safe walkable neighborhoods and protecting community liability. Livability Traffic calming may address speed, but it does not address increased volume. Shifting traffic from veterans onto the smaller residential streets does not solve congestion. It only allocates it elsewhere to roads that cannot stand it. I respectfully ask the council to either delay adoption until additional neighborhood consultation occurs or commit to the residents here tonight. The three proposed Mill Hill Road connectors and changes will receive meaningful community review before any decisions are made.

Speaker C · Thank you.

Speaker A · So for those that are new here, I understand we don't clap or boo regardless of if you agree with it or not. Hello Mayor and Council. My name is Caleb Crooks, I live in Callwood and I would like to speak to agenda item 14. 1, the TMP and ATP. I want to issue my full support and hope that you all will continue to support option one to adopt the plan as presented. I'm going to try and keep this brief because I've got to get to work in about 15 minutes. But I think the kind of overarching thesis of this council's leadership in the community has been the development of these sort of long scale vision plans that guide the rapidly growing community that we all live in.

Speaker A · And I think these plans, and particularly with the active transportation plan, I think it really hits a lot of the nails on the head as to why walking and micromobility are so challenging for people like myself and many others in this community. I'm really enthused to see that these plans are Very concrete. And while they have lots of big overarching goals in them, they also have lots of very small, very pointed sort of policy decisions in them regarding specific neighborhoods, specific intersections. And I think that that is something that is certainly worth adopting on its own as well. Speaking to the Transportation Master Plan, I myself am Vice president of Better Transit YYJ and we are a local community advocacy group advocating for more and better transit in the region. Shameless plug.

Speaker A · I'm sorry, but we have been speaking lots with BC Transit and we all know that BC Transit is looking to update the Victoria Regional Transit Plan. CRD is working on their own regional transit transportation plan. And this is a really timely time for Langford to have our own transportation master plan to really guide a lot of these big decisions that are going to be coming in the near to medium term future. Particularly the Peat Road bus lane is probably one of the strongest policy points I have seen in any community in the CRD with regards to the sort of gusto and bravado that we want to see to build transit oriented areas that are accessible, walkable and livable.

Speaker A · I would also like to comment that of course that intersection itself is no longer up to Ministry of Transportation and Transit's own guidelines and so it certainly needs review. I would have it be known that of course not only does the Transportation Master Plan also take lots of policy points to improve cycling, walking and transit, but to the traffic modeling that staff have developed over the years has been extremely thorough in also improving the driving conditions in and around Langford, particularly in the long term. And the kinds of change this plan will set into motion are, for lack of a better word, almost essential for this city to continue functioning as it grows.

Speaker A · I don't have too much more to comment on at this time.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Okay, I see Han dead center there and then next you on the right. Come on up.

Speaker D · Good evening Mayor and council.

Speaker B · My name is Claire Bortolati and I

Speaker A · live on Hoffman Avenue as well.

Speaker D · I'm here tonight to strongly oppose the proposal to open Hoffman Avenue as a through road.

Speaker B · Right now, the very well used park in the middle of Hoffman creates a

Speaker D · safe break in traffic. People can walk and cycle through, but vehicles can't. That is exactly why so many residents use it. As someone who commutes by bicycle every day and uses Hoffman, it can tell

Speaker B · you firsthand that the street functions more like a multi use pathway than a typical residential road. Children walk to Savory Elementary School, basically

Speaker D · at the end of the street.

Speaker B · Older students walk to catch their buses at the end of the road, Families

Speaker D · walk their dogs, and many people use it as a cycling route. The level of pedestrian and bicycle traffic,

Speaker B · particularly during the school year, is comparable

Speaker D · to what we see on the nearby section of the E and N rail trail.

Speaker B · Transportation planners have a name for what happens when a residential street is opened

Speaker D · as a shortcut through traffic or rat running.

Speaker B · Cities across North America and Europe spend millions of dollars on traffic calming measures specifically to discourage drivers from using local

Speaker D · neighborhood streets as through routes.

Speaker B · Because increased traffic volumes are associated with

Speaker D · higher vehicle speeds, more conflict points with

Speaker B · pedestrians and cyclists, increased noise, and a

Speaker A · significant decline in neighborhood livability.

Speaker B · Hoffman has no sidewalks and no street lighting. Asking children, cyclists and pedestrians to share

Speaker D · that space with additional traffic is not a reasonable safety trade off. This proposal is also inconsistent with the direction the city has already set.

Speaker B · Langford is investing in public transportation and alternatives to driving.

Speaker D · The city is not budgeting for major

Speaker B · new road infrastructure in this area yet.

Speaker D · This proposal would encourage more vehicle traffic.

Speaker B · Pardon me.

Speaker A · Sorry, give me one moment.

Speaker B · The city is now budgeting for a major new infrastructure.

Speaker D · This proposal would encourage more vehicle traffic

Speaker B · on a street that residents currently choose

Speaker D · because it is safer to walk and cycle on than Atkins Road. Atkins already exists to carry through traffic.

Speaker B · It is parallel to Hoffman and is

Speaker A · designed for that purpose.

Speaker B · Hoffman is not. I asked council to prioritize the safety of children, pedestrians and cyclists to respect the overwhelming opposition from residents and to

Speaker D · keep Hoffman Avenue as the safe walking and cycling corridor that our community relies on every day.

Speaker B · Thank you for your time.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. And come on forward. Just press the button on the bottom there. Hi, my name is Kelly Rimmer and I live on 2684 Leggett Lane. I also am opposed to putting Hoffman through, so just be careful. You're talking at 14. 1. Yes. Good. I have three dogs that I walk

Speaker B · every day along Hoffman.

Speaker A · It's a safe place to walk. We see a neighborhood cab that's always in the middle of the road. We see kids playing. We see sidewalk chalk all the time.

Speaker B · Kids are out and they're doing what they should be doing. They're outside.

Speaker A · If this were to go through, there are no sidewalks. As the previous speaker said.

Speaker B · Based on what's happened with closing the

Speaker A · bridge to the school, it. There's not a lot of spots really to walk three geriatric dogs safely. Hoffman is one of those places that I can walk. I'm.

Speaker B · It's just.

Speaker A · It's important that we're heard. It really is.

Speaker B · Thank you for your time.

Speaker A · Thank you and all right red center and then left hand side. And generally left and right is my left and right Sorry. Good evening Mayor and council. I'm here to also speak about 14. 1.

Speaker B · Can you please state your first initial last name?

Speaker A · Yes, Maxim Jim. I also live on Hoffman Avenue. Thank you for the opportunity to be to speak this evening. I'm here to oppose the proposed Hoffman Avenue through road connection. My concern extend beyond a single street or neighborhood. Concerns howling for response to rapid growth and how public funds are invested in transportation system our city will depend on for decades. Making Hoffman Avenue a true road will not reduce dependence on private vehicle. It will only redistribute a marginal amount of traffic onto a residential road not designed to function as a major connection. Hoffman Avenue lacks the pedestrian infrastructure, lighting and roadway design required to safely accommodate increased traffic.

Speaker A · This proposal would move congestion, noise and risk from one area to another without addressing the underlying cause. A fast growing city cannot resolve congestion by repeatedly adding road capacity or creating new vehicle routes. That approach may offer temporary relief in one location, but it encourages continued car dependence and generates additional infrastructure, maintenance and safety costs. The result is not less traffic, it is larger and more expensive road network carrying an increasing number of vehicles. Linkford repeatedly states a desire to invest in practical alternative that reduces the number of cars on the road. That means reliable and frequent public transit, connected side sidewalks, protected cycling routes, safe pedestrian crossings and land use planning that allow residents to reach employment services and recreation without needing a vehicle for every trip.

Speaker A · Public funds are limited in infrastructure decisions create long term consequences. The Huffman connection represents a narrow response to a systemic problem. I invite council to think beyond today's immediate pressure and consider the Langford residents who will inherit this city 20, 30 years from now. Many fast growing cities have responded to congestion by continually expanding roads only to become increasingly congested, costly and car dependent. Lankford has the opportunity to not repeat those mistakes. This administration is uniquely positioned to lead an intelligent, forward looking city designed by building a transportation system that is safe, efficient, sustainable and resilient. I respectfully urge council to reject the Hoffman Avenue through rural connection and invest instead in a city where driving is an option rather than a necessity. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you very much.

Speaker A · And then come on back up. Good evening once again. Fraser Johnson, Langford Resident thank you Mayor and Council. I'm Speaking to Item 16. 1. I notice a motion for advocacy to the BC Ministry of Education and Child Care to reinstate funding to ARC Foundation. At this point it is only a notice of motion But I don't know whether or not I'll have an opportunity to speak to it when it comes before council properly. Council's strategic plan highlights collaborative advocacy as being a critical part in guiding Langford's future. I agree with that. The strategic plan specifically touches on advocacy in the areas of both education as well as compassion for all residents.

Speaker A · I learned last week that ARC foundation, the organization responsible for the development of SOGI 123 resources in B. C. schools has been forced to lay off its long term staff as a result of having lost its funding. It's been discontinued by the province of bc. I was really shocked and disappointed by this news and I have written to the Minister of Education and Child Care and to our local MLA asking for this mistake to be fixed. I want you to do the same thing as government to government. Advocacy speaks a lot louder than individual residents. I'm happy to see that there is a notice of motion on tonight's agenda calling for advocacy from the city on this issue.

Speaker A · I think the Langford has taken some big steps forward when it comes to inclusion of its two SLGQIA community. From participating in the Victoria Pride Parade to hosting pride events at Station Avenue and to supporting local queer groups through grants and aid funding. The city can also be an advocate on behalf of some of our youngest and most vulnerable residents. When this motion ultimately comes before council for consideration. Please continue this momentum by advocating for the reinstatement of SOGI 123 funding for ARC foundation by the provincial government in order for that spirit of inclusion to continue to be fostered at early ages in halls and classrooms of the city schools.

Speaker A · Thank you. Thank you very much. I see a hand raised there, sir. Come on up. And then after this speaker we've got a number online and then I'll come back into the gallery. Oh no. It was on, sir. There we go. David Burton live in Mill Hill. I tried to speak about this last November and was shut down. This is a transportation study. I had the pleasure last November to walk the area with Darren. And I guess this is the reason why the Hoffman connection is on the plans now is because when I walked with Darren and I pointed out that Wentwich is not a plausible idea because it's not even a road, it's not even a country lane.

Speaker A · It's so narrow and twisted and windy and has no sidewalks and apparently you can fit one car down the road. So that's Hoffman now on the agenda for making a connection which was never meant to be. It was always planned to be Stopped there. And the park was supposed to be always in there. I know that promise was made that that grown would never be a made a collection. So I disagree with that idea as well. The strand idea to appease us, to have us allowed to turn left from veterans to come back into Stranland. That's a part appeasement. I still disagree with it. To make a connection at Lark Hill is a joke because there's no place to stand to turn or cross veterans at that point. So there's no way you can make a road there. That's just farcical.

Speaker A · So my plan is if you go ahead with this, I have nothing better to do with my life. I will go to the crosswalk with my dog every single rush hour and I will hit that crosswalk button and I will go across and forth for two hours every morning and every evening because I will just mess with it. Because I did the exact same thing when it came the light that the transportation study was going on last November. And I went to all the stratas on the mill hillside and we went from 375 people to 1600 people in your study and we trashed it. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir.

Speaker A · All right, we're going to just pause there and I'll talk to the people online and then we'll come back into the gallery. So I see we have what, six hands up.

Speaker B · Yes. Thank you Mayor. And just after this next speaker, we'll just need a resolution from council to extend public participation to accommodate the remainder of the speakers. Telephone user number ending in 43 1. Please press star 6 to unmute yourself and state your first initial last name and municipality of residence. For the record, Wendy Hobbs, 3442 Luxton Road.

Speaker A · I am asking council to carefully consider the timing and scope of adopting a long term plan of this significance. This plan will influence transportation priorities, infrastructure investments and budget decisions for many years.

Speaker B · With a municipal election approaching, I believe

Speaker A · the next council should have the opportunity

Speaker B · to review these priorities and determine whether they continue to reflect the community.

Speaker A · After hearing the speakers tonight already, I

Speaker B · would have to say it's not reflecting

Speaker A · what the community wants. And the last gentleman, I'll come there with him, I'll help him with that crosswalk. I mean this is ridiculous.

Speaker B · 1600 residents. I understood that out of that 1600

Speaker A · residents, 67% said no. Many residents have expressed elements of this plan and you should not be passing this plan.

Speaker B · You should be doing more engagement, which was one of all of your campaign promises in 2022.

Speaker A · I'd like to remind you of that.

Speaker B · Good governance, transparency, public engagement. You need to go back to the

Speaker A · drawing board and you need to have a public, a community public hall meeting with all the Mill Hill residents. You are also putting children at danger now with that Hoffman, it's time you start thinking about the residents. Not all your plans, not all your campaign promises and not all your pep projects. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Speaker B · User Steven Please unmute yourself in the app. State your first initial, last name and municipality of residence.

Speaker A · Yes, hello, can you hear me?

Speaker B · We can.

Speaker A · Wonderful. My name is Steven Zelster. I live at 631 Hoffman Ave. And I'd just like to talk about the proposed throughway through the park there. So I'm going to paint a little picture for you. I was currently down there with my 9 month old about 10 minutes ago enjoying the park along with a few other families with small children. Since then I've walked back home. While walking home, I was passed by many kids riding bikes. Actually whole family of three just walked by. And since there is no sidewalks in this area, they had to take the roadway. And since the traffic is local right now, people slow down, people wave. We know who's walking around here.

Speaker A · We often see the bicycles come down this road because from the main road you can get through the pass the park down and you can jump back onto an area where to get on the main trail for biking. So it's a safe alternative rather than going down Atkins. It's just, it's asinine to try to think that we can open that back up for through traffic. It's going to be detrimental to the area, to the families. Communities here is, I just couldn't envision people wanting to save a couple of minutes and not turning to go down Atkins when that's already available for them to bypass the area here.

Speaker A · We just have people speeding down here like crazy. And like I said, I've got a nine month old. The park there is important. We go visit it often, as do the other families. And just to see people blast down our road to save a minute or two because they don't want to, you know, go down Atkins instead. And as we already know, Atkins, I don't even want to walk down there. When we walk down the bike lanes on Atkins, I actually take the stroller and move it down completely off the bike path and into almost the ditch because people drive so quick there. So don't do that to our community here. Don't do that to our road or neighborhood, especially the families that enjoy the park, the families that just enjoy walking down the street, you know, playing games, having fun.

Speaker A · It just doesn't make sense, guys. So I appreciate you hearing me out and let's just use a little common sense. It'll go a long way here. And let's just prevent this mistake from even happening and let us continue to enjoy this, this neighborhood without the hustle and bustle of all the cars trying to shave a minute or two off their commute and just leave us in peace, please. All right, thank you very much. Before we continue, council, can I have a motion to extend?

Speaker B · Thank you, Mayor. I will move that council extend public participation for first time speakers.

Speaker A · Okay. Do we have someone else? I'll second. All right. Any comments? Call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? All right, so what that means is we will keep going for anyone that wants to speak for that first time. Those who aren't aware we Normally have a 30 minute limit, but we have the ability to extend like we've just done. So there still is four online. So let's continue with them and then we'll come back to the gallery.

Speaker B · App user Alice Haberlin. Please unmute yourself in the app. State your first initial and last name, municipality of residence for the record. Hi there. My name is Alice Haberland. I have lived at 2727 Cornerstone Terrace for 21 years. And that's the house right beside the park. When we bought our house, we were

Speaker C · told that a park was going to be built in the lot next to our house and that Hoffman would not

Speaker B · be a through road.

Speaker C · Two years later, I made a phone call to the city of Langford to find out when the park was going to be built. I was then told that the city of Langford was planning to make Hoffman a through road at that time. Well, I started a petition and I

Speaker B · got close to 300 signatures and brought it to the Langford city Hall. My family and neighbors on Cornerstone helped

Speaker C · build that park with our hands. We planted the trees and the flowers

Speaker B · that you see there.

Speaker A · Now,

Speaker B · making Hoffman a through road is a very bad idea.

Speaker C · And as all these people have stated

Speaker B · before me, there's so many children and people with their walking their dogs and riding their bikes and on scooters. Why would you even consider this?

Speaker C · That's all I have to say.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you very much.

Speaker B · App user Scott Didman. Please unmute yourself in the app. State your first initial, last name and municipality of residence for the record.

Speaker A · Not me. Yeah, this for 416. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. What item? Yeah, 1416.

Speaker B · Which item are you speaking to on the agenda?

Speaker A · The hoffman issue. Yeah, 14. 1. Sorry. Thank you. Yeah, I just want to comment on what John said at the very start of this whole topic. We live on 2675 Horler Place, the cul de sac that is just down there in the left corner, very close to the playground. We've raised three children and have a wonderful cat that is a welcoming kind of Walmart greeter to many of these people that are online right now with their dogs and, and our kids have let their friends play with all their friends and they draw chalks and they do bike lanes with chalk and it's a very special place and to have a park just ruined is very tough for us.

Speaker A · So we just encourage everybody in the area to continue to do what they're doing and the safety is the biggest thing. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Speaker B · App user Johnson. Please unmute yourself in the app. State your first initial, last name and municipality of residence. Thank you. My name is Dusty Johnston. I'm speaking to 14. 1 Hoffman Avenue. As a resident of 520 Hoffman Avenue. I'm here to speak on behalf of my road as well as a mother of two young children who attend the school down the street. I'm very concerned when it comes to school drop offs and school pickups. The road is already busy with cars and families and people who are walking to grab their children. I couldn't imagine how our road would be able to accommodate two way traffic.

Speaker B · What kind of infrastructure you would have to put in place just to make that safe for our families as well. I sit here and I know that my kids are playing on the street. We trust them to go on the street and this street will no longer become that safe haven that we've enjoyed for the last eight years as well. I get really worked up I guess because I have animals that are in the neighborhood and now my animals are at risk of being hit and I get that's on me as an owner. But I'm just saying that the amount of risks that I'm seeing are growing and growing every time I think about it.

Speaker B · I can tell you the amount of times I've seen cars speed bus the buses when the stop signs open. Thankfully we have the police down the road to stop them. The amount of near misses that happen on Atkins, I really don't want to bring that to a neighborhood that already has so many families and so many kids because the volume down the street is so much higher than Atkins, because Atkins is already not safe and to see the number of near misses. I could not begin to fathom thinking my children and I could be in that situation because we're allowing traffic through. And I just want to say that I'm very much opposed to this happening and it's really for the kids, it's for the animals, it's for the families that are here and have been here.

Speaker B · And I just really encourage you to put a stop to this or put a hold on this, allow us more time to think and find alternative measures because it's just not the right decision for all the families right now. So thank you for your time.

Speaker A · Thank you very much.

Speaker B · App user Josh Zabder. Please unmute yourself in the app. State your first initial, last name and municipality of residence please.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. My name is Joshua Zabdir. I live at 548 Hoffman Avenue. I'm speaking to item 14. 1 and the strategic plan as a whole. I, I do applaud council for putting together a long term strategy. I think that's critically important to be for a community to be able to grow with a long term vision and I also understand the drive to try to get it through and fully adopt it before going into a vote where you the council may not be remaining.

Speaker A · I think the work that was done was quite good on planning some of the things and if the council believes in how it was all put together then it should survive. Anything that was well thought out, well planned will survive and be implemented by the re elected council or, or the following one. But to the public engagement. I understand that there was very, very few respondents and I would say that a lot of that has to do with the way in which people are notified that they need to speak up that there is a large plan and development that they need to contribute onto as well as how the online services survey was conducted.

Speaker A · I don't know if any of the council members tried to fill out that survey themselves but it was an incredibly lengthy project. So for people that are busy, have families, children, work, things that they're trying to do, trying to piece together an hour to try to complete a survey that had so many questions on it that were, were non consequential, you know, do you agree with, with this idea or this, you know, this, this practice or something like there was so many details, so many questions, so many things you had to type in that I think of probably a large number of people even that would start going through it would never have completed it because they would have been worn out.

Speaker A · It's the same sort of tactic that lawyers use by pummeling opposing counsel with so much paperwork that they're never going to find the one thing they need. So I really do think that that needs to be re looked at and give opportunity to the residents, let them know about it and use more more means to reach out to them rather than just your typical channels that you need to have to meet your minimum legal requirement.

Speaker A · And for the record, I do very much oppose the Hoffman through connector.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. We still have three more

Speaker B · App User Claire Lang Please unmute yourself in the app. State your first initial, last name and municipality of residence.

Speaker C · Foreign.

Speaker A · My name is Johnny Lang. I live at 5:36 Hoffman Ave. I just want to voice my concerns on is it 14. 1 opening up Hoffman Ave? I would like to maybe if we can get some answers on the logic behind this idea of how opening up Hoffman Ave. A parallel road to Atkins is going to be calming traffic. Because if, if you do this all traffic coming from the Selwyn Road area, they're not going to be taking Atkins. All those vehicles will be going down Hoffman Ave and they're going to be reaching the same four way stop that you reach from Atkins. I just want to know if maybe as soon I know you probably won't answer me now, but if this can be in the discussions and make sure that the logic behind this idea is presented adequately to the residents.

Speaker A · Thank you very much.

Speaker B · App user Samsung SMG973W please unmute yourself in the app. State your first initial last name and municipality of residence. If this is a phone number, you may need to press Star six to unmute yourself.

Speaker A · Hi, can you hear me?

Speaker B · Can hi, this is regarding section 14. 1.

Speaker A · My name is Jay Claes, a resident of 548 Hoffman Ave. Blankford. I second all all of the people

Speaker D · who chose to speak regarding the Hoffman Ave connections. It is not meant to take on vehicle traffic.

Speaker C · It is used as a multipurpose pathway

Speaker B · as well as used by young children on the road and at Cornerstone Park.

Speaker D · As a parent of two young children,

Speaker A · I am opposed to the Hoffman becoming a through road.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you very much.

Speaker B · Telephone user ending in 2. 07Please unmute yourself. Press star 6 to unmute yourself. State your first initial, last name and municipality of residence. Need to press Star six to unmute yourself in the app.

Speaker B · Telephone user ending2:07 Please press star 6. Mayor I believe that so we'll we'll

Speaker A · give them a chance if they want to come back and we'll come back to the gallery. Now, if I remember right, there's a hand way back on my right at the very back there. You can come on forward.

Speaker B · Good evening, Mayor and council. I'm Jennifer Dannett. I'm a Lankford resident and I am speaking to Agenda Item 14. 1, the Transportation Master Plan. I appreciate the work that has gone into developing this plan. However, as someone who lives in Lankford and is running for Lankford Council, I've heard from many residents who share concerns about the balance of the proposed changes. I'm curious as to why this is being rushed through in the final months of this council's term when there are still important concerns being raised by residents. A transportation plan needs to work for everyone and we need safe options for all users. While recognizing that many residents rely on their vehicles every day, we should take the time to continue engaging with residents, hear their concerns and ensure we move forward with a balanced plan that reflects the needs of our growing community.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Next person I'd come forward, please raise your hand. Okay, come on up and then after him. I see you there on my right. Yeah. Good evening. My name is.

Speaker B · Good evening.

Speaker A · My name is Aaron Miller. I live at 552 Hoffman Avenue. I am speaking in regards to 14. 1, the Master of Transportation Plan. I, in addition to support to all of those behind me that spoke against this connector being established on Hoffman, I also wanted to speak directly of the impact of the actual work that would be required to widen that space at the playground on the right hand side of the road. If you're looking towards Veterans Memorial on the, on this side of the playground there is. On the right hand side there is a large section of bedrock that would have to be excavated in order to make enough roadway for vehicles to pass through that property.

Speaker A · That is that rock is part of was 556 and the property beside it, which is 602556 and our property also share a driveway. In order to excavate out that bedrock to make that room, you would end up creating what would probably be a 12 to 13 foot vertical face on that rock which would then border right on the edge of the front yard of the home that is there. That home has over the years had many times have had children there. And I can just imagine building something like that and having this, this high spot that kids could fall off of. So along with all the traffic, I think just the work alone to widen that space would have huge impact on the on the homes that are directly right beside it.

Speaker A · I think the blasting would also have a lot of impact on our home and the home beside us as we are also on a lot of bedrock and we have a lot of large rock up our driveway. And I can see a lot of that shifting with that sort of work happening around it. And so I have obviously am opposed to that thorough way through Hoffman as well. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. And then. Yep. Come on for.

Speaker B · I'm Lisa Foxhall. I'm going to speak to 14. 1. I understand a lot of work has gone into the transportation plan. I acknowledge and appreciate that today we have about 13% of trips in Langford are made by walking, cycling or transit. This plan sets a goal of increasing that to 42%, which is very important. A very ambitious target means a large number of Langford residents will need to give up their vehicles to switch to walking, cycling and or transit. I don't believe at this time that that's a realistic expectation and that our Langford residents are aware of that target. Also, I've noticed that the proposed Highway 1 overpasses.

Speaker B · They seem like a great idea in principle, but projects like that of that scale will almost certainly come with a significant cost. Before moving too far down that road, I think residents deserve to know what the city's share of those costs could be, how much funding has actually been secured from senior governments and what the impact on taxpayers might be. Many homeowners, renters, seniors and families are already feeling stretched financially, especially with the massive 57% tax increase we faced the last four years with this council.

Speaker C · And

Speaker B · lastly, I feel this plan appears to place more emphasis on reducing reliance on private vehicles. It has traffic calming, road diets rather than improving road capacity. We should be designing a transportation network where drivers, transit users, cyclists and pedestrians can all move safely and efficiently and a balance for all modes of transportation. I also feel that council really needs to engage more with our Mill Hill residents and about the Hoffman Connector, especially with for kids and safety. And council should especially engage more about before they make long term decisions that could shape how people move around Langford for decades to come. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. See a hand raise there. Come on up. Oh, it's on. Hi, Mike Morton, Lankford resident. I don't live on Hoffman Avenue, but I certainly sympathize with their plate that they're facing and hopefully council tonight will clearly recognize the issue that they're potentially dealing with. I think we've lived in Langford for on Vancouver island since 1980 and in Lankford specifically since 1998. So it's almost 30 years. And I look back 30 years ago and think of the dramatic changes that have taken place since then. And while I clearly recognize that the motives for the transportation plan that you've undertaken, I'm trying to think ahead 30 or 40 years from now when most of us will not be here.

Speaker A · And I think that what we don't recognize, we, we fail to recognize is the fact that Lankford is going to change once again. And we can talk about percentages, about how many people are on bikes or whatever else, but the reality is from not just Langford but all of Victoria, right to probably Port McNeil will all be development. Given what we've seen in the past 40 years, any land that is developable will be developed on Vancouver island at Langford is just the start of probably what I've witnessed in the past 30 years. So I think that what you should be doing this evening is giving at least full recognition to the issues of the people that live on or near Hoffman Avenue.

Speaker A · And as the mayor has said recently too that this is a long term plan. So if it's a long term plan, why not give it some time? Why not give it some time? It's not going to hurt to have some more public engagement. I just think it's fair to the residents that haven't didn't know about the public awareness this past fall. I just think it's the right thing to do. So we'll leave it with you.

Speaker B · Thanks.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Next person come forward. I see saw this hand up front. Left first and then the one way in the back here. Next. That button. Okay. My name is Howie Schultz and I live in Langford. Also in Hoffman Avenue. I want to speak to 40. 1. I just want to add that I agree with everyone who spoke against the Hoffman connection tonight. But I have one question for all of you. Has anybody ever been on Hoffman? The ones who do the plans, do they ever look at this before they put lines on a plan? What's involved? This is what's important. You know, there's so many houses that have a very steep driveway. When you put a road through there, I don't even know how they get down. Put stop tight everywhere in every house. You know, I just don't know.

Speaker A · I can't add much more. But you got to look at it once if you have the time. Go and study it. Study what you're doing and don't just put it on paper. Because that's the easiest thing to do, to put something on paper. But to fulfill it, to do it the right way, that's a hard way. Thank you. Thank you very much. Just want to clarify, sir. Have you spoken already yet? Yes. So this is just our first time right now. We've extended. Okay. May I submit my petition? You can. Thank you. All right. Next person would like to come forward, please raise your hand.

Speaker A · All right, dead center here. And then I saw one, two rows back on the left or my right.

Speaker D · Yeah.

Speaker A · Thank you very much for the petition. Good evening. I'm Mark Burfind. I live on Hoffman Avenue. I'm the president of the strata there. I'm opposed to the approval of 14. 1 a transportation plan. I've been trained as an environmental design and traffic control. A traffic collision analyst, which includes analyzing traffic patterns and designs. I've analyzed the two roads of is a non truth through residential street which has a small cornerstone playground separating old Hoffman Avenue with new Hoffman Avenue. Hoffman is not level with the grade that crests over a hill. It is not straight and has both major and minor curves and bends. The park is partially hidden by the crest of the hill and curves in a roadway and by trees and shrubs.

Speaker A · Kids ride their bikes, play soccer, hockey, basketball on a street. They are safe and protected from vehicle traffic that is bypassing them on a busy Atkins Avenue. Hoffman is also a quiet and safe route used by children walking to both Savory and Crystal View schools. By making Hoffman Avenue a thoroughfare, you're moving a safe, quiet residential street that local residents use as a safe place to exercise, walk with friends, pets, push strollers with small children, cycle transit to and from the Lankford core and from going to work and school. Lankford is also creating a potentially dangerous motor vehicle accident with all the intersection and driveways that access hoffman. There are 32 houses with direct access driveways to Hoffman. 154 homes that access Hoffman Avenue.

Speaker A · There are five streets that intersect Hoffman, giving another 122 homes direct access to Hoffman. Plus an additional 95 homes that feed from Rainville Road onto Hoffman for a minimum of 249 homes. And now you want to put a major road through there. How are these people going to safely enter and leave their driveways with the under 7000 cars per day that the Langford transportation plan shows? Using Atkins Road compared to Atkins Avenue. On Atkins between Selwyn and Winster, there's only two marked streets with 14 homes. At Axis Atkins, you have another 38 residents on Atkins. So a total of 52 homes that access onto Atkins. All these homes are on the north side of Atkins Avenue, a wide straight and level roadway with no site obstructions.

Speaker A · There already are bicycle lanes on both sides of Atkins Avenue and several access points for the E and N railroad or E train trail. The south side of Atkins is open, is wide open and there are presently sidewalks that could be extended for potential users. Also, your proposal to move the left turn lane from Strandland to Hoffman VMP intersection is just diverting traffic issue from one busy intersection and just making another busy intersection extra busy and congested. You're not solving anything, just adding to the problem. What is the thing about traffic calming which I read about and is program Langford traffic plan will now force the majority of residents of 2of 2761 Mill Hill area homes to use the only intersection of Hoffman and VMP to go straight or turn left to access Langford businesses.

Speaker A · Does this not add to congestion and safety issues? Thank you. Thank you very much. And there was another person right there. Yep.

Speaker B · Mayor, just one more speaker and then we'll need a another motion.

Speaker A · Okay. Is that on? Evan Mills, I live in Mill Hill. I'd like to speak to the Transportation Plan 14. 1. I also echo many of the past speakers about the concerns within Mill Hill. I believe the survey that we did, which I thank you for a lot of good interaction there, but I think it needs more time. Like some of the speakers already said, Mill Hill isn't without its issues. We do have problems accessing Veterans Memorial Parkway and the highway. However the connected to Hoffman I don't believe solves any issue there. I don't believe there was an issue one end Hoffman to the other. So just like those people, I don't think that that solves one of our issues. I think with the expenses growing in the past few years, I think all of our tax bills have grown significantly.

Speaker A · I know mine has and I think we're just looking for a good use of tax dollars. So I think we just if we could focus on getting better access to Veterans Memorial and the highway Goldstream from that area, I think that would do a lot to solve the traffic issues in that area. You know, my kids tend savory and they love that Northland area. So I'd like to see that maintained just like it is. I think back a dozen or so years living on Lee Road and when Lee Road was pushed through, we were also told that it wasn't designed to be a high traffic area.

Speaker A · And yet here we are two more cheat lights going in on Lee Road. So it doesn't take long. The scope increases and I just, I feel for the residents of Hoffman what this may become. That's all. Thanks. Thank you very much. All right, can I have a motion hopefully to extend to finish the first time speakers? We have some online and there was a few more hands. Thank you. I'd like to move that we continue to extend public participation for first time speakers.

Speaker B · I'll second that.

Speaker A · Council Ragnar, was that an attempt at a second?

Speaker C · Yes, thank you.

Speaker A · All right, all those in favor? Opposed? Okay, again, we will continue to first time. It kind of comes in these 30 minute segments, I guess the way to word it. So we have two online. Let's go online and then we'll come back to the gallery.

Speaker B · Help user Alex Johnston. Please unmute yourself in the app. State your first initial, last name and municipality of residence for the record.

Speaker A · Hi, my name is Alex Johnston. I'm another owner of 520 Hoffman Avenue and I'd like to speak to 14. 1 as well. To start, thank you very much for investing all of the time and effort into building the master transportation plan. I think we're going in the right direction with a lot of great ideas in there, particularly with the bike paths, the sidewalks being built and the changes to the roadways that are coming. So we're going in a very good direction there. I would like to say that I strongly oppose the 14. 1 changes specific to Hoffman Avenue through road. I completely agree with all the concerns that everybody else has raised on the cost for the potential projects that would need to be put in place to blast through that rock and put enough safety in all the way down the road so the pedestrians could still continue to use that road.

Speaker A · To some extent, I completely agree with the comparisons between Hoffman and Akins Road. When you compare the number of houses on each side, the number of people that use that as a walking area. If you're picking between the two roads, Atkins, which is currently used as the main through fair, is the safer of the two roads. From that perspective, ultimately you're just going to increase the dangers in an area that's used for school drop offs for kids every single day. The main issue that I find is that the quoted intent of traffic calming will not be achieved. Instead, cars will just go every direction that they desire through the area.

Speaker A · They'll go down through Akin still, they'll go down Hoffman, whichever is the faster and whichever is the easiest way to get through without regard for any of the pedestrians. Or people in the area in order to bring up a couple of quick new points. The only thing that I would really add into it is the infrastructure that's going to have to go in there is going to drastically change the road. You're talking making the road smaller in order to put sidewalks in. Parking areas will be lost. The BlackBerry bushes that pedestrians pick from as they walk up and down the road will cease to exist. Those sorts of things that create a community will be removed. And that's the part.

Speaker A · Those are some of the little parts that, although small in detail, have a high impact to the community overall. Ultimately, I'd really ask to consider removing this portion of the master plan or ultimately I do agree with a reconsulting for the public to look for more options. Unfortunately, I'm one of those residents that although I try and keep up to date with the initiatives that are out there, I missed this one and missed the details of this and I would have really appreciated the opportunity to share what I feel about it and share some options to increase.

Speaker A · You are out of time. Sorry about that. I do have to be fair to everyone and I will ask in the gallery. I know you guys are are quite concerned about this, but believe it or not, your whispering makes it sometimes hard for us to hear the speakers. Not trying to to cull people's enthusiasm, but just please keep the the talking down to minimum because everyone here wants to be able to hear exactly what a resident's saying.

Speaker B · Continue on app user L Plomp Please unmute yourself in the app. State your first initial, last name and municipality of residence. Hi, it's L Plump Langford resident. I wasn't intending on speaking tonight, so this is off the cuff and a little rough, but first of all I wanted to express my thanks to staff, the consultants and to council for the work that's gone into creating this draft plan over the past 20 months. It's been really hard to listen to the people speaking tonight against the changes that are proposed in their neighborhood. What they are concerned about is real and it is causing them great distress.

Speaker B · But it's something that's been experienced by hundreds of people throughout Langford over the past 15 years or so where culdesacs are changed to through roads, cliffs are blasted, the safety of children playing is at best at risk and an increase in traffic makes life louder and more unsafe. I also understand that there's some urgency to getting this plan approved. As part of the planning that this council has been working on over their term. I'd assume that funding for infrastructure changes might be contingent on having a transportation master plan. And so adopting a plan sooner rather than later is probably seen as essentially from what I understood in my review of the plan, Many of the changes, including those for Hoffman, are not intended to be looked at for 10 years.

Speaker B · And there obviously are concerns about how the city is communicating and reaching residents in order to get effective and responsive input from them about what's happening. So I'd like to make a suggestion that if council does consider that it's essential that this plan get approved, that they make a promise to not only the Mill Hill residents, but all of the residents throughout Lankford whose neighborhoods are going to be affected in one way or another by the plans that are intended in this plan to have really effective one on one sessions with them before any of these changes are contemplated.

Speaker B · I know that that's going to be an expense to do those seminars and workshops and all the rest of that. And there are going to still be some people who choose not to comply. But you're hearing from a large number of people that are saying we need more than what's on here and we're scared about what you're planning. So thank you very much.

Speaker A · Thank you.

Speaker B · Telephone user ending in three seven three. Please press star six to unmute yourself and state your first initial last name and municipality of residence.

Speaker A · Hey there, it's Andrew Ward just calling in. I live at 2741 Cornerstone Terrace. And so like we've been here for five years. One of the big issues I'm seeing right now is the, the, the traffic on, on Atkins is, is huge. You see it every morning. People are trying to find a way to get around. So obviously I'm talking about the Hoffman interchange. The minute you make that a road that people can drive up and down, it's a blind, you know, it'll be a blind corner with a, with, with, with a bit of a hill there, like has been previously said. And as you cross that hill, I don't see people slowing down. I don't even see people stopping at Winston and Hoffman. There was a cop the other day.

Speaker A · I threw my hands up, as you know, the second person through the intersection blew the stop sign. So if we can't expect that people are going to act reasonably when they're already racing down the street towards the, towards the cop shop. You know, don't pass go, don't collect $200. I'm not sure where the expectation is, is that, you know, like we have a park there right now, Our kids are safe. It's a dead end road. It's not used for, for, you know, like it's not everybody's hot lap or their, their drag strip. As been has been said before, there's no sidewalks. You have people coming up and down.

Speaker A · And I can tell you that every single person that lives in this neighborhood, they, they know who everybody is. So we all slow down, you know, like we're all doing 30k or less, especially when there's kids and bikes and, and we all respect each other. I think if you open it up, we're going to see the same thing that we see with Atkins every single day and has been getting worse over the years where traffic is, is ripping through Atkins and they're coming down Atkins from other, other areas, which is fine, but they're exceeding the speed limit. I was actually sitting here, you know, listening to this meeting and I can see the, the study speed sign on Atkins from my balcony. And it was red. Every single time a car went by, it was red.

Speaker A · There was one, one vehicle that went by and it was green for, and it was a bicycle. I don't think that it's reasonable for council to expect that any person driving down, if you open it up, are going to be doing the speed limit. And that puts our kids, you know, it puts our kids in danger. So I'm, I'm really hoping that you guys reconsider opening up that, that connector there. Thank you very much.

Speaker B · App user Joanne, Please unmute yourself in the app. State your first initial, last name and municipality of residence.

Speaker A · Hello, this is Dax Ryan, husband of Hedgewan. Using our computer. I'm on 2732 Cornerstone Terrace, just off of Hoffman. Everybody said some great arguments and, but really I just like to State for 14 1. Like what is the point of a parallel road? That's going to change nothing. You still have to have an intersection present at Selwyn in Hoffman, like literally a few feet away from the other intersection that it. I assume it's still going to be there. That actually kind of sounds like it's great. Problems being so close and the cost of putting in. What's the point really? There's no point putting in all that money for no advantage. I just want to restate that and thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. See no other people online. Let's go back to the gallery.

Speaker A · Next person come forward, raise your hand. We'll give you guys a second. I don't see anything online. Is there one? Okay, come on forward.

Speaker B · Thanks.

Speaker A · Thank you. My name is Rick Joel. I live at

Speaker B · 512.

Speaker A · Hoffman. It's kind of ironic. Ironic that your master plan affects me in two ways. I am one of the oldest residents of Hoffman Avenue, where I built my home in 1993. And you know, we got to back out of our driveways and stuff and you're gonna have cars coming through there. I really don't want to go into the part of that part. I think my neighbors have said enough. This is a bad plan to use Hoffman Avenue. What I do see from the years of living, I've lived in Langford all my life. We had two lanes of traffic that used to exit south Lankford going towards Victoria.

Speaker A · And the province took that away from us. I think we need to ask for them to put that. I agree. That we need our buses. I agree. But when we look at our bus system as it is today, our station road exchange is facing west. How is it that we're going to take buses from that to Joplin Road, up Joplin Road, back down Goldstream, then to Pete to make a bus lane on Peat Road? Because the reason you're wanting to come through Hoffman is because you want Stranolin Avenue to be right in and right out. So we can't access that, access our neighborhood when we come from town.

Speaker A · So how many people in your studies have you found that actually access that area between 3 and 5 o'? Clock? Have we thought of it that way? The one thing about the bus exchange, if it goes out Dunford to Lee Road to the Lee Road extension or overpass that our former council did for us years ago with forward thinking, that is the way that an express bus should run to Victoria.

Speaker A · And why is it that we're building bus lanes and not HOV lanes? So on that I've got short time. But you guys know that my family owned 1119 Finney Road. We're in negotiations since 19 or 2016 and we're trying to get something accomplished with it. You guys are at this point in time trespassing on our property? No, this is just about 14 the item on the agenda. Not something else. No. Your. Your Finney Road is part of your. Of your master plan, is it not? All right, I'll give you a few seconds there. Okay. So we've been trying to. To be reasonable with the city to get my family's property, but you're trying to take about three quarters of an acre of land.

Speaker A · I know you've given me some leeway here and I appreciate that, but we would like for the city to come to the table. We've already had the. Sorry about the pointing, but we've already had that meeting and that was over two years with yourself and Braden. And we're still dealing with it. But you put it on your master plan. Sure, I understand that, sir, and I'm not trying to, to pull away from that. But, well, over the time and I, I do have to give everyone the same amount of time. But I can ask if you can contact Braden tomorrow and we can see where we are on that. Okay. Ask my phone number. He can phone me. Okay. Thank you. All right, next person like to come forward, please.

Speaker A · All right.

Speaker B · Well, I see one more online app user, Glenn Sawyer. Please unmute yourself in the app. State your first initial last name and municipality of residence.

Speaker A · Go ahead.

Speaker B · Glenn's. Yep, there you go.

Speaker A · Good evening, mayor and council. My name is Glenn Sauer. I reside at 2679 Hoarder Place, just runs off the 500 block of Hoffman. I'm strongly opposed to your Traffic planned under 14. 1 for the following reasons. I've lived in this neighborhood for 32 years. I've seen families come and go, raise young children. They play on the road. People walk their dogs down the road. And as you know, children are very unpredictable. Dogs are unpredictable. If you happen to open up Hoffman, the traffic diversion from feeders from like Goldstream down through Massey will go directly down Hoffman. And I've noticed a substantial increase of traffic on Atkins Road in the mornings. Travel that frequently.

Speaker A · And according to your master traffic plan, you indicate that 3,000 vehicles travel down Southern per day, 7,000 travel down Atkins. If this project goes through where there is a playground and people children playing on the streets and stuff, it'll likely increase the traffic down Hoffman substantially to that degree of 7,000 vehicles or more per day to avoid going down Winster and then hooking onto Atkins Avenue going down that way.

Speaker A · And it's sooner or later some child will probably get hit. As you know, children are unpredictable. They don't have a traffic sense

Speaker C · and

Speaker A · animals also when a lot of people walk their dogs down Hoffman and it's been a quiet neighborhood for raising children for 30 some years. And so I strongly oppose opening up that section of the road. And thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Anyone else that come forward, raise your hand, please. I'm going to go once this first time. Caller twice. All right. I'm going to close public participation for this. I want to thank everyone for the very respectful dialogue. I Sir, I don't speakers any. No, it was just expo extended for first time. I Want to thank everyone for the respectful dialogue.

Speaker A · This is obviously an important issue to you all and everyone spoke clearly, gave their opinions and very respectfully and thank you very much. So with that, we are now going to go to item number 10, consent agenda.

Speaker A · We have a motion on that.

Speaker B · Thank you, Mayor. I'll move that council adopt the recommendations for each item of the consent agenda as presented. I'll second.

Speaker A · Okay. Does anyone, anything removed from the consent agenda? Okay, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Opposed. And once again, Councillor Wagner will assume you're in favor unless I hear very specific opposed on the opposed.

Speaker C · Thank you. I'll make sure I speak up if I need to.

Speaker A · All right, so that means item number 11, considerations and matters removed, is no longer in play. So we are going automatically to item number 12, committee resolutions. First one is 12. 1 special community advisory committee meetings. Resolutions. 12-7-2026 12. 1. 1 permissive tax exemption. Thank you. I'll move that council grant a one year permissive tax exemption to the following properties. 2775 Spencer Road. The Construction foundation of BC 202, 2800 Bryn Mawr Road. The Sook Family Resource Center, 2506 Selwyn Road. Mount Finlayson Congregation of Jehovah's Witness and grant a 10 year permissive tax exemption to 550 Goldstream Avenue. McColla Housing Society and direct staff to amend bylaw number 2249 in order to continue the permissive tax exemption provided to 1319 West Hills Drive, Victoria Conservatory of Music.

Speaker A · Then direct staff to draft the necessary bylaws to enact the permissive tax exemptions as described in the report dated July 7, 2026. Thank you. Do we have a second? I'll second. No. Okay. Yes. This came through the community advisory committee just at the end of the last month. Actually, I just take a look at the date and realizing how the summer is flying by. Some great discussion around the permissive tax exemptions. As always, many of these are standard rolling through for some amazing societies and organizations that continue to do great work in our community. Okay, Councilor Morley. Thanks, Mayor. So, having reviewed the applications and attended the discussion at the community advisory committee, I'm happy to support the staff recommendations the this organization.

Speaker A · The organizations provide meaningful benefits to our community through affordable housing, mental health and addiction support, supports, family and developmental services, and places of worship that serve Langford residents. The proposed permissive tax exemptions recognize the important community value they deliver while supporting organizations that help improve the well being and quality of our residents. I'm also supportive of the administrative amendment required to ensure the Victoria Conservatory Music continues to receive its previously approved exemption. Thank you very much. Anyone else? Councillor Wagner?

Speaker C · I'm okay, thanks.

Speaker A · All right. And I'm just going to clarify with staff, just for those that are seeing. 2775 Spencer Road, while the name is the Construction Foundation ABC, that is location of the forge.

Speaker B · Yes, Mayor, that's correct.

Speaker A · All right. Seeing the other hands are called a question. All those in favor? Opposed? All right, that passes. We are on to Item 12. 2. Sustainable Development Advisory Committee Meeting Resolutions July 13, 2020 06:12. Application for a temporary use permit at 890 Goldstream Avenue.

Speaker C · I'll move that council direct staff to provide notice that council will consider using issuing a temporary use permit for a computer programming school for children at 890 Goldstrom Avenue subject to the following terms and conditions. A, that the temporary use permit be issued only to Jesse Brownis doing business at Code Ninjas Westshore and not to be transferred to any subsequent business or business owner should Code Ninjas Westshore cease to operate and B, that the temporary use permit is issued for a period of three years from time of issuance.

Speaker A · We have a second.

Speaker B · I'll second.

Speaker A · Okay. Councillor Wagner, any motivation, just briefly, that

Speaker C · this business has been operating already for many years successfully. It's a popular spot. It's located near the school. It seems to be working well. Lots of kids go there. And I didn't hear any concerns raised during the discussion at committee, so it was just a lot of positive comments. So I'm happy to support this application.

Speaker A · Thank you very much.

Speaker B · Thank you, Mary. It was well covered by Councilor Wagner, who's the chair of that committee.

Speaker A · Anyone else? Just for in case those that don't know, it's the building directly across from us. All right, I'll call the question. All those in favor posed that passes. We are to Item 12, application for a temporary use permit at 4373 West Shore Parkway.

Speaker C · Mayor, thank you. I will move that council direct staff to provide notice that council will consider issuing a temporary use permit to allow the property 4373 Westshore Parkway to be used for receiving, preparing and storage recreational vehicles for sale at the applicant's RV dealership on the adjacent Lot 4377 Westshore Parkway without building a structure that meets the 10% minimum lot coverage subject to the following terms and conditions.

Speaker C · No razor wire fencing, at least 10 pound dry chemical fire extinguisher must be available on site at all Times address for the site to be posted as per city of Myford bylaw and maintain an access lane on site for the fire suppression for the duration.

Speaker A · All right. Any motivation?

Speaker C · Councillor Wagner, again just briefly to the temporary use permits are they're seen quite common when we have an existing business when things are functioning well as is and because it is not quite conforming to what could be potentially on the site at this time, it is functioning under the temporary use permit.

Speaker C · So this is again continuing an existing use. And again at the committee there were no particular concerns raised.

Speaker A · Councilor Garage.

Speaker B · Thank you. The only thing I'll add in addition to that is the use is essentially the same as what's happening around it. It's just there isn't a building request there to meet the minimum required coverage and in this case the temporary use is functioning well and there isn't any pressures in order to for council to considering going forward with the timber use permit.

Speaker A · Thank you. Anyone else? I'll just say I was surprised, happy but surprised to see the no razor wire fencing. It's not something that was on the top of my mind that was needed, but I'll call the question. All those in favor?

Speaker D · Opposed?

Speaker A · That passes. There's some fun noises out there. Okay, we are now at first 12 bylaw number 2236 application to rezone 709, 711, 715, 719 and 721 Massey Drive.

Speaker C · I'll move that council consider bringing Forward bylaw number 2236 for first, second and third readings at a future council meeting in order to amend the zoning designation of the properties located at 709-711-71571 9 and 721 Massey Drive from the 1 and 2 family residential R2 zone to the medium density residential RM6 zone subject to the following terms and conditions as outlined in the report in the resolution.

Speaker C · Is that acceptable? There's quite a few. I could read them out if you prefer.

Speaker B · In option 1 as outlined as outlined in the option provided.

Speaker C · As outlined in the option provided.

Speaker A · Thank you.

Speaker B · And I'll second.

Speaker A · All right. Councillor Wagner, any motivation?

Speaker C · Yes, a bit more motivation here. This is a building that is being proposed near the Danbrook park area and the applicant had proposed to retain quite a few trees adjacent to the park site, which was appreciated by me and there was a thoughtful amendment I felt at the committee to have the attainable homes be 50% of a two bedroom be a requirement because that would be in line with our the direction that we're going with our new Inclusionary zoning bylaw, which wouldn't necessarily have to apply here, but it could and I think it's a good fit for, for this application.

Speaker C · So there's, you know, quite a bit of change in this area. It's a downtown area. It's. This building is proposed to be six story. With the current official community plan, it's possible that it could have been a 12 story. So although there was a lot of discussion about parking and I do appreciate everyone that came out to the meeting, really interesting and informative and sometimes emotional discussion about the impact on the neighborhood of this change and just how much density coming here is going to be.

Speaker C · It is a big change. So that was very much appreciated to hear from everyone. Yet this does seem to fit in my mind. So I am making the motion.

Speaker B · Dr. Gary, thank you. Chancellor Wagner, I think covered a lot of what the discussion entailed. This did take the bulk of the Sustainable Development Advisory Committee meeting as there was a lot of engagement, particularly about traffic. And it did draw attention to the need for the conversation that we're having later in the agenda today, folks are stressed about how we're getting around. There was conversation around buses and the impact of our growing community on our roads and bus systems and active transportation uses. So like Councillor Wagner, I did appreciate having that local lens. Anytime the community comes up to share what's going on in their community, it's deeply appreciated, particularly at the community level where we have more time to talk.

Speaker B · However, when it comes to what's expected in this area, this application checked all the boxes, provided all the opportunities in order to have other ways of getting around. And as Councillor Wagner noted, there was concerns about parking. And just at least in between place where we have a new parking bylaw that is giving more leeway to, for developers to decide the necessary parking, which, which is what council has expected.

Speaker A · Anyone else questions Council harder?

Speaker B · Thank you. You know, I don't think I have a question at this time. It's okay.

Speaker A · Thank you. Yeah, actually happy to see this motion come forward here. Really taking a look at this, I was pretty impressed with the application. One of the big things we were going for with the OCP wasn't a yes in my backyard, wasn't a no in my backyard. It really was that quality in my backyard. And taking a look at this application, they really aim to hit all the points that we put out for expectations and where they could even surpass those. So while it is definitely a change, as we are in a changing process for that part of the community, for sure I think that this is an application that has shown their commitment to that quality, and I think it'll be a great, great site as a result.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Anyone else? Yeah, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Most now pass. Okay, we are on to item number 13, notices of intent 13. 1 DBP 26 0005. 1320 West Hills Drive. Anyone like to comment on this?

Speaker B · Thank you. I will move that development variance permit number dvp. Sorry, my screen just refreshed as I started.

Speaker C · Thank you.

Speaker B · I will move that development variance permit number DVP 260005 be issued by council for the city of Langford to Westhills Land Corp. To allow a subdivision at 1320 W. Hills Dr. Subject to the following terms and conditions. One, Variances A. That the following regulations of subdivision and development servicing bylaw number 1000 be varied pursuant to section 498 of the Local Government Act I. In two conditions, the following requirements are imposed pursuant to section 498 of the local Government Act. A, that the applicant registers a no build Section 219, Covenant on Title prior to 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 · B, that the applicant registers 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 are any restrictions to building on the site prior to the issuance of a building permit and see that the site be subdivided in accordance with figure one of June 20th.

Speaker B · Sorry, June 29th, 2026. DAP report.

Speaker C · Second.

Speaker A · All right. Any motivation.

Speaker B · Thank you. This is a notice of intent which we don't commonly see here at this council. We have had pretty robust discussion on this item before, so I won't add too much more. I'm just happy to see that we're following all of the process as laid out through the Local Government Act. So I have no further comments.

Speaker A · Thanks. Thank you. Councillor Begnor?

Speaker C · Yes. I think this was fairly straightforward. It was a way to be able to. To get things moving, to have this be. There's a park in the area, but it's a master planned community with West Hills. And so with the, you know, plans for a restaurant and there's already a dock and other things. Just. Things are kind of already moving along. And then there's the timing that's uncertain of when the next steps will happen. So this is a way to allow the public access to the park but to make sure that there is measures in place so that there will be no building without, you know, proper frontage and other expectations for our bylaw 1000 and other requirements.

Speaker C · So just sort of housekeeping. But it's is a good news in a way to be able to move forward with the the park in the area. Thank you.

Speaker A · Anyone else? I'm just going to clarification. I'm pretty sure I got this but I've been asked by a couple people thinking this is a subdivision going in. And I know it's not like, you know, is in the newer houses. This is subdivision in the removal of a piece of property from the larger piece of property.

Speaker B · Thank you, Mary. Yes, that's correct. There's one existing parcel that will be subdivided in that most of it will be dedicated as park, but a portion of the lot will remain as a building lot which is zoned for kind of the restroom abuse.

Speaker A · Okay, I'll call it a question. All those in favor post that passes. All right, we are on to item 14 reports. Our first one is 14. 1 Transportation Master Plan active transportation plan strategy.

Speaker D · Thank you, Mayor. The purpose of this report is to present council with the final transportation master plan and active transportation plan for consideration of adoption. Since the fall of 2024, city staff have been working closely with the professional consultants as well as gathering feedback and input from the public. Multiple rounds of community engagement with this information including best practices models of the existing and proposed future street, pedestrian, cycling and transportation networks, which we refer to as the networks were developed for the whole city. These models help us understand how the networks are currently operating and where targeted modifications could create significant improvements to the network's efficiency to meet the mode shift targets in the official community plan.

Speaker D · The transportation master plan and active transportation plan will guide future decisions and investments in Langford street and active transportation connections to build out the networks and manage the city's roads, paths, sidewalks and other transportation facilities as Langford grows towards a population of 100,000.

Speaker D · And I'm here to answer any questions. We also have Nadine King online with a Lott consulting group if there are any technical questions and happy to answer. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. I'm assuming there's going to be many questions here. I'm going to be sort of the rare and start off the questions with two. One is a process question, one is a timing question. So on a Process question. This is new to us bringing a master plan together like this first master transportation plan that's come to the city. This is an overall plan and we've heard some fantastic comments from a region of it. And so if the plan was to be passed, is there still allowances to have further discussion about specific areas or as I think some people are afraid if the plan is passed, this is set and.

Speaker D · And then thank you for the question, Mayor. This is a plan to what traffic improvements will be needed once we potentially reach 100,000 people, which could be, you know, based on our current growth projections in the next 10 to 20 years. In the back of the plan there's an implementation plan which states what are recommended as short, medium or long term improvements and some real potential costs associated with that. Now those are considered, you know, class D level, meaning that all of these improvements, if they're not already underway in certain areas, require further investigation, notification, look engagement and design prior to proceeding towards any kind of budget approval.

Speaker D · So any of the cities, anything that moves towards potentially becoming a city capital project will be coming up in that five year financial plan. But there are some development related projects that are required through rezoning that are covenanted on title or are through our development cost charge program that may be already under design or underway. And so there's a wide range of variety of timing and the stage at which projects occur.

Speaker A · All right, thank you. And when we say, you know, it could be 10, 20 years, that's fairly abstract, we know the time. But Suddenly is it 10 years and one day type thing? Correct me if I'm wrong, we're basically looking that not solely but for if this was to go through this plan and the action on Hoffman, there'd be numerous other steps in the city building and construction have to be there first, such as probably a higher density on Peat Road BC Transit, which we have no say on deciding there'd be a rapid bus up there, new improvements on that intersection that would be needed to trigger possibly expanding on Hoffman.

Speaker A · And I recognize that it is not exact that way, but just trying to give an idea of what level of infrastructure and development would be needed before we went this way.

Speaker D · Thank you for the question again. So regarding Mill Hill Hoffman, the different connections there, as we know through our official community plan, a majority of high density growth we expect in our downtown core. And through our public engagement we only attested key concepts and one of them was the the Pete Strandland VMP intersection. And that brought forward a lot of great commentary from public and we heard from the residents of Mill Hill that additional connections are required. So post public engagement, we added the potential LARPAL VMP intersection connection and the Atkins to Granger connection across the ICF corridor, which has the CRD trail as well, and a couple connections internal to Mill Hill, which include Jodrell to Marlissa and Hoffman av.

Speaker D · This was based on what we heard from public engagement. These are at the most preliminary stage. So these are not improvements that have even reached design stage at all at this point. Meaning that for these connections in particular, especially the intersection connections, because they are in other jurisdictions, meaning that the Larkhall intersection would require engagement with the ministry of transportation and transit and the Atkins to Granger potential connection would require engagement with the CRD and the island corridor foundation.

Speaker D · All of these are just potential options, and we would like to keep them as potential options, understanding that they do warrant further investigation. There would be further engagement on these because they are at the most preliminary stage as just being included in the transportation master plan as potential options in the active transportation plan. Hoffman has proposed sidewalks and neighborhood bikeway, and so that could happen with or without the potential vehicle lane connection. And so again, all of these warrant further investigation.

Speaker A · All right, I started off rarely, so open up the council. Councilor Murley, I see your hand. And then councillor Harder and council Regner, make sure you get your hand up and shout out if you have a question. Thanks, mayor. This is a question for staff. So we've had a lot of discussion from the public regarding the coffin connector, which we know is something that's proposed and may never happen. But in keeping with that, this park was originally obtained through the subdivision park dedication under the local government act, in which case it may already have protected park status prior to the April 15th or, sorry, the April 2026 Park Dedication Bylaw where we protected 209 acres of parkland here in Langford.

Speaker A · So could staff please confirm whether the cornerstone Harris park or Cornerstone park is legally dedicated parkland as part of the April 26 dedication bylaw or from the subdivision park dedication in approximately 2015 through the chair? It is bylaw dedicated, yes.

Speaker D · And through the chair, if I may add, there's more than 20 meters of road dedication adjacent to that park. So while it may not look like that in. In reality, there. There's more than 20 meters of road dedication adjacent to that dedicated park. So in a potential future where any type of road cross section may be proposed there in the future, it's not that it would need any park removal.

Speaker A · Okay, thank you for that clarification. I was going to ask if you could clarify that. That's great.

Speaker C · Thank you.

Speaker B · Councillor Harder, thank you three you. Thank you so much for this body of work. This is amazing. And I echo comments that have been made about just the amazing public engagement that we've had tonight. I wanted to start questions off just around what I see to be probably the most contentious part of this plan, which is the road connections or potential road closures. There are a couple in here that I've heard concerns about from residents. Questions just about timelines, what some of the triggers might look like for these proposals to actually start to take shape. Specifically, I've heard about the humpback closure, questions about the Lexton Road closure. Certainly tonight, Hoffman Road, as well, as well as the West Shore Parkway connection that's being proposed.

Speaker B · And so I'm just wondering if perhaps you could provide some clarity on what the process would look like for the city to initiate this work. Because I recognize that a lot of residents who have lived here for a long time are pretty used to work this kind of happening without them having any notification. And I know that that's not the intent moving forward. So just a bit of clarity on the process would be great.

Speaker D · Thank you for the question through the chair. The great thing about doing these master plans is now we have a complete and up to date traffic model. So while staff and our professional consultants do our best to incorporate all of the best data that we have available to us, all the traffic counts, all of the feedback from public engagement and everything into these models, none of us truly have a crystal ball as to when and where development might occur.

Speaker D · And there are just too many potential scenarios to try to predict those triggers on a city wide scale. But this means that every time there is a development that could have a potential, a significant impact, or there might be a combined impact of multiple developments in a row, we can always go back to that model and check. So we can go back as many times as we want to this model, check in, put that in and see does that trigger any of the improvements, the necessary either road connections or intersections that are required and then we can add that onto their rezoning requirements. So part of the process is now that we have this handy tool that we can use to check in every, almost every time if we need to, for every rezoning, does this trigger any of those requirements?

Speaker D · Because we can never predict where the land assemblies are going to occur, when they're going to occur, what order they're going to occur in. So we'll always be able to go back and check. But also over the past three years staff have taken training through the International association of Public Participation and there's a lot of tools and resources through what is referred to as IAP2. It's a model of public engagement that is international as the name alludes to. But it's something that our other CRD municipalities refer to when it comes to what level of public engagement is recommended for those types of improvements. Because we may not do a full blown survey and media campaign for a smaller sidewalk project that may only be necessary for these larger connections that we know require that level of engagement.

Speaker D · So we refer back to standard that has been set and is being used across the region.

Speaker B · Thank you. So just for clarity, I suppose like a bigger project there would be more of a duty to consult rather than just inform or notify. It really is that back and forth conversation or that deeper level of engagement

Speaker D · through the chair that is correct for again where it's appropriate for the type of project location, impact to the public. There are a lot of factors that can be taken into consideration, including what we may know from previous public support or lack of public support.

Speaker B · Thank you. And I did have a follow up question about this may be directed to Ms. King Nadine, there there was a question during public participation. Just seeking clarification on the actual, I guess nuts and bolts of the modeling and how that data collection actually took place on the ground. I know a few residents mentioned or referred to some of the estimated traffic volumes and so I'm just wondering if you can provide a bit of color commentary on how we obtained those numbers

Speaker A · certainly through the chair. For those who don't know.

Speaker B · Nadine King Watt Consulting yeah, so we started with a large data collection process during the a. m. and p. m. peak hours.

Speaker A · So sort of that 7 to 9

Speaker B · and 4 to 6, 4 3, 34 o' clock to 5, 36 o' clock period at approximately 54 intersections.

Speaker A · I believe it ended up being across the city.

Speaker B · So that started as our foundation of here's where the volumes are today, here's

Speaker A · what it looks like in those rush periods.

Speaker B · We then calibrated a regional model or regional for the city.

Speaker A · So citywide model using those to make

Speaker B · sure that the land use we were

Speaker A · using which was the existing land use

Speaker B · and the trip generation for it matched what is actually occurring today. So we didn't. We started with standard numbers for trip generation and and then we calibrated to actually get Langford specific numbers and then that was used to look at sort

Speaker A · of like what are the short term

Speaker B · capacity issues or challenges that the city faces. And then we looked at okay, where, where's the land use going and at what density for that hundred thousand people and applied the same. If everyone continued to travel today, here's what the traffic would look like in Langford. And so that, that's sort of the foundation of the modeling. And then from that sort of big citywide model we do drill down into

Speaker A · the intersection level and as Kate alluded to it's, it is a, it is a model, it does the best it

Speaker B · can looking at it sort of very high level and, and you know, 60,000ft.

Speaker A · And sometimes the model, you know, is

Speaker B · a little bit high here, a little

Speaker A · bit low there in the end.

Speaker B · So you know, as we would look at something like the Millhale area and say okay, we'll get, do they need changes? We're seeing density in that area.

Speaker A · All of a sudden it would get

Speaker B · refined, that modeling would get more refined and then that's where we would start to talk with the neighborhood as well on you know, sort of what are the options? What are the implications of the different options? Because you know, as someone alluded to, it's, it's partly about balance and it's partly about trade offs and you know, sometimes there isn't the best option so

Speaker A · you have to pick the best of.

Speaker B · But we would definitely work with the neighbors and the that local community, whichever area it is, whether it's humpback, West Hills, Mill Hill, to get a better picture of that. And by us I mean the city and city staff, not me as Watt.

Speaker A · So hopefully that helped.

Speaker B · Thank you. I have more questions but I can hold off for other colleagues.

Speaker A · So Regner has been waiting. So we'll go for Councillor Wagner and then councillor Kuja on Decker.

Speaker C · Sorry, is that unmuted? Okay, we can hear you. We heard so much about the Hoffman connector. I think that might be the best example of. So we can just flush that out a little more. When it was the draft plan came to us, that connector wasn't proposed. And I don't know that we're planning a lot of density for that area. And yet there is the small scale multi unit housing legislation that does allow more housing per lot even in these sort of quieter neighborhoods. I just wonder though what would be the impact of taking that Hoffman connector back out. You know, there's, we heard from the Mill Hill residents that they wanted solutions and so this seems like this is a proposed solution, but is, I guess I'm wondering about what is the impact of just removing that One connector, for example.

Speaker C · Like what would be the impact on the larger plan if we could see a whole traffic model, what would we see

Speaker D · through the chair? Maybe I'll pass this over to Nadine.

Speaker B · Yeah, I was gonna say maybe I could take this one.

Speaker A · So through the chair. Yeah. So Mill Hill is an older neighborhood

Speaker B · and which makes it a lovely neighborhood as well. Just because it's older doesn't mean it's not a great neighborhood. It is lovely. You know, it has been impacted by VMP coming through now about 25 years

Speaker A · ago, which semi isolated the neighborhood a little bit or just made the transportation

Speaker B · a little more challenging I guess in and out of the neighborhood. And we see a lot of pressure on the Strandland Peat intersection today. Its proximity to the interchange is challenging and difficult.

Speaker A · And so what we heard from the

Speaker B · public when we looked at maybe changing Strandland was well, we need other options. So we can provide other options like Larcol that connect to vmp, which we've illustrated. But Hoffman is the other existing connection. And so then we start, we look at that to say like okay, well could we look at connecting the neighborhood

Speaker A · better to Hoffman and more directly to Hoffman.

Speaker B · So yes, you can get to Hoffman

Speaker A · right now via Atkins and looping around

Speaker B · and then looping back on Winster.

Speaker A · But then we end up at Winster

Speaker B · and Hoffman in that very constrained four way stop.

Speaker C · And

Speaker A · there's really not a lot of

Speaker B · room to do anything different there. If we start to force a lot more traffic on to Atkins so you know, you can take it out. It just means that it may, the neighborhood may get more challenging to connect to vmp. It may get a little more challenging to get out of the neighborhood depending on where things are at. It's, yeah, it's just a more direct connection to Hoffman and the existing signal there. Again, you can come back around Winster, but we've got the expansion of the RCMP

Speaker A · and it's just putting a lot

Speaker B · of pressure on Winster as that alternate kind of option to the Hoffman connection.

Speaker A · So hopefully that's.

Speaker C · Yeah, that's somewhat helpful and I can just follow up though on that is because we're looking at both the transportation plan, which is somewhat of a road network, and the active transportation plan. So I'm thinking about all of our options here and we did hear from quite a few residents about, well, we're using this for walking and cycling and it's safe right now and we're enjoying it as a. Not just a little park green space, but that whole area. It's a Sort of a special route that is almost like a safe route to school. Like it's because it's not as busy. So it just feels like we might be losing something.

Speaker C · And so I just wonder how do we factor in the benefits of the active transportation uses that might actually be be negatively impacted with this if there is a connector.

Speaker D · So through the chair, this Hoffman is proposed to be a neighborhood bikeway and include sidewalks in the future. And how, how we balance it. Again, thinking back to all of our previous presentations from Watt, there are always trade offs and we do try to find a balance. We don't want to lose, you know, necessarily the charm of any neighborhood. But as one of the residents pointed out, typically speaking, when we build things like sidewalks, you end up losing parking. Or if we want to include more trees within the road right of way as our urban forest management plan recommends, there may be other things that are lost.

Speaker D · There's a limited amount of road right of way and it is very costly unless it's through rezoning along an entire street to gain more consistent road right of way. So typically speaking, in order to make these changes as feasible as possible for the future, especially in established neighborhoods where we're not expecting a lot of growth, we need to work within those existing road right of ways. And this plan is all about providing options for the future. And certain options, especially this one, do need further investigation and consultation in the future. But we've definitely heard the public loud and clear tonight and we've also heard through public engagement, can't speak enough or thank the public enough for all of the responses that we received from not just round one, but round two of engagement.

Speaker D · Usually we see a decline from round one to round two. And we saw a massive increase as we brought forward more details and also at the ideas fair and all of the other engagement opportunities that we provided, and this is our path forward, is to continue to do more engagement on all road connections in Lankford. I will mention that as you might see in the plan, there may not have been folks that came out and spoke to it here tonight. There are road connections in other areas of the city that show road connections through people's homes and through other things. Those are in again in the future where there are potential towers or land assemblies, condo buildings and things of that nature that would then warrant additional road connections.

Speaker A · All right, thank you very.

Speaker C · Can I just clarify because it's just on this, it's the same topic. Would the sequencing be, you know, it could be a neighborhood bikeway or sidewalks developed before the road goes through or it may happen all at once or just the timing because the two plans are different and could get resourced completely differently or there could be a grant, I don't know, maybe that's a whole other question.

Speaker C · But just thinking of the timing of not having the road connection before we have the sidewalk, for example.

Speaker D · So through the chair, I'll refer to the financial implications section of the plan as there is an implementation in plan in the actual master plans themselves. All of these are subject to the city's established budgeting and council decision making processes which occur on an annual basis. So the timing of these improvements are either development related, which you know, we don't necessarily have control over. We only have control of the, of the rezoning of those properties and the projects that are attached to those. But if it's any city capital project, any grant application process, that will all occur through the city's established budgeting and decision making process, including some of the other policies that we have in place, like our sidewalk infill matrix policy.

Speaker D · There might be funds available for sidewalk infill projects in established neighborhoods such as this. So yes, yes, there could be portions of projects that come forward before road connections or intersection upgrades. There could be transportations improvements prior to transportation improvements and vice versa.

Speaker A · All right, Councillor Waggoner, we're going to hold you there and go to Councilor Cucha, but similar to Councilor Harder. We'll catch you, come back for a second call. Thank you very much. I guess to preface my question, just really spent the last week actually running through this neighborhood a lot to get an idea of it. And my God, although it's called Mill Hill, it's really Mill Hills. It's a good hilly running route. Yes, I really share a lot of the residents concerns and that's my question there is seeing the way that this is laid out today, I see the potential opening of it quite similar to what happened with Alouette, quite similar to, as it was mentioned, along the lines of Lee Road.

Speaker A · Also trying to keep in mind that we're thinking 10, 20 years out and we're not building, we're not proposing this for the neighborhood as the neighborhood looks today. We're proposing this for what the neighborhood may look like in 10, 20 years. And I guess to understand that, I'm curious, what are the triggers that would necessitate this? What would have to be the changes in the neighborhood that would require this punch through in order to make this realistic? Because as the neighborhood stands currently, I do really struggle to See why this would be a net benefit at all.

Speaker D · So through the chair, determining the exact triggers for any project does require further study. The transportation master plan and active transportation plan does not get down to that level of detail of analyzing the triggers of every road connection and every single intersection improvement or even the type of intersection recommendation. As you see in there, it says intersection improvements or signal timing but the intersection improvements themselves could be. It could either be a signalized intersection or potentially a roundabout or something like that. And that all requires further study. So the trigger points only developed as there's potential density in the area that would warrant a further study of that.

Speaker D · So for example, and I don't ever like to lean and predict, but say potentially we got the Hopkins to Granger connection across the icf, then that might mean that that connection on Hoffman is no longer necessary. But if we got the Larcol VMP connection and we didn't get that Kinston Granger, then maybe it is necessary in order to alleviate Winster. Those are the types of trade offs again that would require further analysis in the future. It's dependent on a lot of factors and jurisdictions and economic investments that we have no control over.

Speaker A · Do you have a follow up? I do, but I'll sit on it for a minute. So I'll yield the floor at this time. Hey, anyone else? Counselor Gary.

Speaker B · Thank you. I had questions around Hoffman. We've had a lot of folks come to the meeting tonight and really grateful for whenever a community feels like they can come to council and share their concerns and. And I've been to Cornerstone park and my kids have played there and so I get it. And so my lack of questions around this particular subject area isn't because I don't care. It's because my colleagues have asked a lot of questions and we have a big plan in front of us. So I'm going to pivot a little bit because I'm concerned a bit about what the next steps are or so my question has to do with how we're advocating to the CRD about trail improvements for folks to get out of Theta sites.

Speaker B · That's my neighborhood. I hear about folks trying to cycle to get into Victoria. Their choices are a check route over stream overpass which I've cycled is very challenging or going through Thetis Lakes Trail which is great for my kids that can mountain bike but is not always safe. And whenever it's stormy there's always the danger of trees falling. And then unfortunately we had one of my neighbors pass by trying to get out of the neighborhood going the wrong way down the highway. And so the CRD is having a conversation right now about transportation. And so I'm feeling some urgency about where this advocacy and how we show up in this moment to make sure that we have plan going forward.

Speaker B · Because I don't want, you know, already we've had one person plus trying to get out of the neighborhood. I don't want it to be how many does it take before we do something? So how do we show up to the crd? What does that look like in the next little while? How can we advocate for some better access through Thetis Lake so it's more accessible for all ages and abilities, which is what we're talking about for the whole city.

Speaker D · So through the chair, thank you for the detailed question and for the benefit of the public. I know council may be aware, but the CRD recently went through the transportation governance evaluation and actually created a transportation service for the first time. And that is focused on, first of all, reclassifying what were rails in the apartment. That's referring to the ENN rail trail and the Galloping Goose to actual active transportation classified corridors. And so through that transportation governance engagement process, which we are just in, you know, the first stages of, really, there's going to be more opportunity, not just for council, but also for staff to engage.

Speaker D · So the crd, the region and their advisors have recognized that we have 13 municipalities that all have different plans and it needs to be all brought together. So there's an awesome opportunity right now because we all recently had to update our official community plans. So the regional growth strategy will need to be updated. The regional transportation plan is going to be updated in accordance with our plan. So our plans will be used as an advocacy tool to be incorporated into those larger regional plans. We've never had a document like this that we can actually physically pass on to another organization. And so this is a massive advocacy tool for, not just for grant applications, but also for aligning transit with density that is proposed in our OCEP when it comes to transit planning across 13 municipalities, it does take a coordinated effort and we do need one voice in order to get funding for those.

Speaker D · And so staff and members of council that sit on the various transportation committees, commissions, working groups, those nature could all use this as an advocacy tool moving forward to get those key connections that would be most meaningful for our community for safety improvements. And so through the public engagement process that we did at a local level, we heard from the public what was most meaningful for them when it comes to especially crossing These larger highway corridors. And so there is an overpass proposed what is specifically dedicated as an active transportation overpass over Highway 1 between the two overpasses and another one that's proposed over Happy Valley and Sook Road intersection there.

Speaker D · For the galloping goose again in the funding section of that you'll see that it is an advocacy meaning that it would be a partnership with the Ministry of Transportation and Transit and the CRD and we would expect the costs to be shared of that as well.

Speaker D · But there is a lot of advocacy work that needs to go into that in order to even get to that stage.

Speaker B · Just a follow up Mayor through you because there was a question about how much funding we have secured for overpasses. And my understanding is like unless we can show the province that we have a need, we won't have a partnership or a plan or any funding. Is that the experience from the staff level as well through the chair?

Speaker D · That's correct. Because these overpasses are a significant investment in public infrastructure and would be owned by potentially the Ministry of Transportation and Transit. They want to know that prior to us asking for anything like that that it is a key required connection not just at a local level but at a regional level as well. They want to see, see that study has been done in advance. And as other overpasses are being built in the region you can see that even the municipality's share of those could be paid for by a gas tax or other funding sources that are non tax funding sources. So there's multiple options to be evaluated again in. In the future. But if we don't, if we don't have a plan then it's. It's very difficult to start a conversation and been taking seriously.

Speaker A · I'll just say a side note as vice chair of the CRD's transportation committee we. We know we are actively looking in needing for all this input from all the other municipalities that. So we have a fulsome transportation plan coming up. Councillor Harder.

Speaker B · Thank you. Councillor Guy Re asked my question about the overpasses because that's an area that I'm quite concerned about given we have a new high school that's going to be coming over at Junior Flankford and not many ways for a lot of students to currently get to that area. So thank you. I will change to my next question which was with regards to sucroad. Right now I believe that Sioux Road is actually, actually classified as Highway 14. So it's under provincial jurisdiction. And we do have a proposed right of way acquisition noted in the Transportation plan. So I'm just wondering if staff can

Speaker D · provide some comments on that through the chair. Regarding. Regarding the Sucroad Corridor, Staff have been fortunate to be invited to participate in the Sucroad Corridor study that was being commissioned by the Ministry of Transportation and Transit some time ago. While it has not been necessarily published publicly, we do have the results of that and we did incorporate it into the plan. Meaning that we know for certain that the Ministry of Transportation and Transit is looking for 30 meters of road right of way. And through the referral process, the Ministry of Transportation and Transit is always forwarded all of our applications along that road. And so we're on the same page with them.

Speaker D · Meaning that it is intended for that section of Sook Road between Jacqueline and Happy Valley, which we've commonly referred to as a pedestrian revitalization area, is to be four lanes in the future with a center turn lane, meaning it would be more like Veterans Memorial Parkway where it'd be limited access control.

Speaker D · And therefore there's other signal lights that are proposed in that area. And how our relationship with the Ministry of Transportation and Transit works is that they establish the lanes that move vehicles and everything behind the curb would be kind of at the discretion of the municipality because we're the ones that maintain it. So in this case, what is proposed is to have the sidewalk and bike lane up behind the separated boulevard, so that truly from curb to curb in. In between would just be the Ministry's traffic lanes.

Speaker A · I'm just going to ask a clarification. I mean, I think we know this, but just for everyone, veterans from TCH to Souk Road is provincial highway and then turning right Sook Road to. To basically Port Renfrew is provincial highway. And we have virtually no say on what happens on those. We have to ask and hopefully they get back to us.

Speaker D · Thank you, Mayor. Yes. So staff work very closely with the staff at the Ministry of Transportation and Transit, understanding that they have a much larger scoping the provincial body. But we are grateful for our relationship, relationships that we do have with the staff there to work closely. As you know, as you've alluded to that these two highways trisect Langford and everything within 800 meters of the highway requires Mott approval. We're also trying to balance that with the housing targets that we've been provided from province. We sometimes find that challenging, but we always reach out to staff if we have any questions or concerns and about the direction, what the direction is from the province.

Speaker D · And then we take that and apply it to future projects along that corridor so that we keep things consistent so we can keep the investment moving and keep people moving. Yes, that is the Ministry of Transportation and Transit's jurisdiction. We do need their approval to do any work in that corridor. But in many cases it is a partnership.

Speaker A · The Councillor Wagner's hands up Chance Wagner.

Speaker C · Oh, thank you. I was wondering about some of the funding opportunities with the Rhodes DCC program and some of it sounds like advocacy, some of it's really out of our control. So yeah, it is. It is hard to put this all together. So are there going to be specific projects that are added to the roads DCC based on this plan that would help fund the development cost charge program

Speaker D · through the chair. The next steps would be if the plan is adopted to bring Forward amendments to Bylaw 1000 to align with the transportation Master plan and active transportation plan. As you can, you can see there's a lot of different road cross sections in there and different active transportation standards that we would like to incorporate into Bylaw 1000, which is our subdivision and development servicing Bylaw. And then of course the roads DCC bylaw would also be brought forward to be updated in accordance with this plan. In the implementation plans for these two plans, the implementation strategy, there are funding sources listed there and you'll see that several of them are development related.

Speaker D · Some of those might be DCC projects that you see will be included in the update to the DCC bylaw which will be being brought forward in the coming months. And some of them might be related to rezonings and covenanted on title that will be directly built by those developments and are not regionally beneficial development cost charge projects.

Speaker C · Right. Yeah. So there has to be that benefit has to be more broadly applicable, I guess. And then a follow up on the question about the highway overpass was sort of answered a little bit. And the, the peat road bus lane. I hear a lot about that idea being very hard for people to digest because these triggers are potentially very far the future and we don't have control over them. So is it necessary to put them in the plan because of the advocacy piece or to even just get started about thinking about it? For example, like if the, if the density doesn't come, we don't need some of these changes and if it does well or the new school is already coming, we're not going to get the overpass in time anyway.

Speaker C · So the, the timing is quite tricky and when we think about the different triggers, it's just hard to imagine if I know you do have the table with the short, medium and long term kind of planning. But it's I guess a little bit more information about some of these big moves I guess you saw in the traffic modeling and the consultants and staff you have that insight is that that the traffic flow does require these changes. I guess it's just we haven't seen it the same way because we see the static map, we don't see the moving traffic flow. So I just wonder if you could add a little bit there for me.

Speaker D · For sure. So through the chair I'll start with the VMP Stradland intersection. So in a. In a future where there are potentially towers down Peat Road. Goldstream and Jacqueline as is proposed as a potential in our official community plan the dedicated bus lane going north is contingent on two major projects being completed first. So one would be the bus on shoulder program along Highway 1 coming to the Millstream overpass and not stopping at Colwood. So it is essential to show these types of big moves in the plan so that we can do those advocacy pieces and show that we're were serious. And the second major project would be that in addition of an additional intersection either at VMP and Larpal or Atkins and Grangers I have mentioned before would be required.

Speaker D · And these projects take years if not decades of planning and funding approval from senior levels of government, crown corporations. We also would need BC Transit to potentially shift as well. Those are some of the things that are contingent on that move being made. But if we don't show it in our plan then there's. There's nothing to necessarily use as an advocacy tool or to get those trade offs with. And so it is recommended that we we show these things in the plan so that we can have those serious conversations again. Council has control over where land use and density goes and if we take enough road dedication in the right places and offer dedicated bus lanes then that alone can shift transportation system like BC Transit.

Speaker D · So we again work very closely with BC Transit staff and advisors and they understand the key role the municipality municipality plays in this. Especially since it's the municipal roads, municipal infrastructure and we're the ones maintaining it. That actually gives us quite a bit of control over where potential transit oriented areas of the future will be.

Speaker C · Well that's reassuring. There's a bit more control there. I did have a different question about the mobility targets. If I could quickly put that out there. It was brought up during the public participation but my understanding with the mobility targets were actually for mode shift were predating even our OCP refresh and Were those from trying to meet the province, the provincial goals, this idea of shifting to, you know, from cars to other modes of transportation, those targets are not because of this plan.

Speaker C · We're not setting them as this plan. Right. They were already, they're in the ocp, but I believe they were already in the previous ocp. Can you just refresh my memory, maybe flesh that out as it did come up from the public as well?

Speaker B · I can answer that through the chair. You're correct that those targets do predate the current ocp as well as this transportation planning process that we've been going through. It was actually added to the previous OCP in the spring of 2022 and those numbers were borrowed from the regional growth strategy target.

Speaker A · So in order to align our previous

Speaker B · OCP and then carry that forward to our current ocp, it was important to keep in mind alignment with the regional growth strategy. So that is where that number originally came from. And through the process of adopting the current ocp, that number was carried forward and then incorporated into the transportation plans.

Speaker C · Oh, thank you. So not the province, but more the CRD number aligning?

Speaker B · That's correct.

Speaker A · All right, don't see any lights. In a moment I'm going to call for a motion, but I've got two questions. One, just to clarify you, you mentioned something that sparked me about the 800 meters. So that portion on Hoffman that we are talking about, the push through that is roughly 495 meters from, from Veterans and even all the way to Selwyn is just on the napkin math. Just about 800. That would have to have MOTT or whatever the then generation approval.

Speaker D · Thank you for the question, Mayor. Referring to that piece of legislation, when referring to getting approvals from the ministry, it is for rezoning bylaws and anything that is attached to them. So what the city does necessarily with our own streets within that corridor doesn't necessarily require direct approval from the Ministry of Transportation and Transit. But if it is tied to a rezoning, then it would be.

Speaker A · And that section that is closed off, that is still considered a road allowance?

Speaker D · That is correct. There is more than 20 meters of road dedication there currently. And we do recognize that currently it is gravel and it would be nice to make that accessible for all ages and abilities through there in the future as well. So there's a lot of consideration for phased improvements in that area.

Speaker A · And then just for clarification for council, for anyone that's making a motion, we have options here because we've been talking about this one. But for any Piece of it is council have the latitude to remove a portion and still pass the remaining or is it really for this to be effective? It is pass it all as has been designed and then when we go from the high level down to the low level, that's where the real work is both in design and consultation.

Speaker D · Again, thank you for the question, Mayor. So this truly is a living document and plan that will grow, grow with the city, but it is at wholly at council's discretion. Whatever direction council wants to give to staff at this time will be. We'll be open to thank you and we can answer any further questions that clarifying questions that could lead to any decisions.

Speaker A · Councilor Kucha is here. L on yes, thank you. I'd like to bring us wrapped back around to Hoffman again. I'm really comfortable with the years and the decisions around the Strandland intersection that's very clearly defined and fleshed out. It's throughout the Mill Hill neighborhood that it's less clear and as such I really understand the apprehension and still personally a little uncomfortable with the push through at Hoffman. While our direction and staff have done an amazing job with taking up public participation and bringing this to the forefront, I also recognize as was brought up, it's been a lot of learning trial by fire. As we've said, we need to do this and we need to do this now and not necessarily with the plan but in getting public participation on the road and getting that level of engagement which is largely something new to the city.

Speaker A · I guess what I'm getting at with my question is given that this is new to the city, given that this is new to a lot of the residents, in what ways can we is there a way to entertain emotion, to bring in a level to ensure that these future changes aren't blindsided, that there is actually a triggers that are met, there is actually significant community consultation that happens before I, I, I understand the benefit of having this in the plan to say hey, this is potential given xyz maybe last case trigger but ensuring that those steps are actually taken and that is explicitly laid out so that you know, these residents aren't just on the edge of their seat going or all of a sudden bigger is going to show up.

Speaker A · And that was promised but Dustin wasn't writing and now here it is and I just really share that concern.

Speaker D · So through the chair, the answer to your question is yes, there could be caveats and things put in now at council's direction or there could be contingencies put on the authority of the director of that is delegated to the director of engineering in the amendments to bylaw 1000.

Speaker D · So you could, the council could direct staff to incorporate changes to that in Bylaw 1000 or could direct staff to include such wording into the transportation master plan, active transportation plan themselves. But as I've stated previously, the plans and policies that we have are only as good as the bylaws that back them. And so whatever, again, whatever direction council would like to provide staff today either to make amendments to these plans or to the bylaw that's going to be brought forward after this, we'd be open to any direction that you'd like to provide us at this time.

Speaker A · And if there were amendments to the bylaw, they would theoretically cover anything that's been brought up to us and then some issue that comes up between now and when the bylaw is approved. And I'm not trying to say to nickel and dime things, but theoretically it's seeing the whole plan, not just one region. If you bring up amendments to the bylaw.

Speaker D · Yeah. So there would be like, of course, anybody can email engineering for CA at any time. And as we bring forward my law amendments that would go through committee and council, there'll be additional public participation opportunities at that time. But would be helpful to receive some direction from council if, if you would like to see something different than what is. Is being presented in the plans tonight so that when we bring forward the bylaw amendments, that it's in line with what your expectations are.

Speaker A · Hey, Councilor Kuches here, late is on. Thank you. Just as I would be interested in potentially bringing forward an amendment that's different than what is being suggested here as the main option, I would just like to look to staff as to if it would be best to have a short recess to have that discussion around wording or what, what thoughts might be on that

Speaker D · through you?

Speaker A · Chair, I'm, I'm torn because I, I don't yet know if the conversations advanced enough and there's consensus amongst council members on if it's wordsmithing a motion yet or if council has yet discussed what the, what the thrust of it would want if there was an amendment. Stepping back a little bit from the wording in this plan or an Amendment to bylaw 1000. I think the public's really well aware, Council's really well aware that any significant change that the city entertains, be it in a transportation plan or other or other such capital work of this nature, you know, that typically goes through the financial plan process where there's significant amounts of public Engagement.

Speaker A · You know, this plan significantly speaks to the need to development, develop road cross sections for enhancements like these. I would then expect, and we've heard this multiple times tonight, that then based on those road cross sections, cross section designs, we would then have specific public consultation based on the nature of the road cross section, the traffic calming measures suggested. We've already known through Kate's tenure here how she's responded to significant public feedback that she's received on imposed enhancements, and then that's been incorporated into the design. And so we have a really robust process in place that kind of walks us through how we do capital improvements in this nature.

Speaker A · And I can't envision a circumstance at all where shovels would be in the ground and there wouldn't be ample lead time to the residents in any neighborhood not fully informed and having an opportunity to speak well in advance. And so as council contemplates an amendment, I'm not, I'm not sure if the thrust, and I don't want to comment on this, but thrust could be on council's direction to amend the map to potentially remove a connection. That's a very specific technical thing. Or it could be a clarifying page, for example, in the, in the transportation plan that outlines the city's typical process that we've been talking about tonight so that there's clarity for when people look at this, the document going forward on what they might expect.

Speaker A · And so I guess, I guess when council thinks about when, if we are having a recess or what to words with it, I'm going to get the point here. It's important to know what you're wanting. Are you wanting a technical resolution? Are you wanting something prescriptive in a bylaw, or are you wanting further messaging to the public to provide reassurances and knowing what resolve you might want to. Might that help if we have a recess? Definitely. And if I may, I can provide some of that thought process there, recognizing that the way that the plan's coming forward now is again, our current best site as to where things are going.

Speaker A · And I'm going to pick something that they can look at. This may look ridiculous as we go into the future as development changes. It may actually be that in the future we go, hey, you know what? We need to, to punch Rainville through to sell when looking. That seems absolutely ridiculous to me, but, you know, in 20 years, maybe that's how development shapes out in the city. What I'm getting at is because of rightfully so, a bit of history that we've Seen with development patterns and the rest, there's a lot of uncertainty around well this isn't the plan, this is what's going to happen. Rather than it being that advocacy document and and being told hey this was in the plan, you should have expected it to happen, I guess to where I'm getting at with this.

Speaker A · My hope is that we can build into the plan and Then into bylaw 1000 the dedicated explicit assurance to engage in that genuine public participation. And not just for informing you. But it's getting late. I'm completely eluding what that higher level is, but where it's not the informant, it's actually the going back and forth and with the residents within say 100, 300 meters of that site. Does this actually work for the neighborhood? What are the pros? What are the cons? Can we come to a collaborative outcome together in that way? Something along those lines is what I'm really looking at is ways that we can ensure this and it's not just going to be pop. There we go, it's done. So we've got Councilor Harder's light on.

Speaker A · Councilor Harder, thank you.

Speaker B · I just am noting the time and just for conversation's sake, I'd like to move that council extend the meeting to

Speaker A · 11pm Second, all those in favor? Councilor Wagner, your late was on.

Speaker C · Oh yes. I had a question about the process here of being would a motion that has moving ahead with the transportation plan but adding a section on expected public engagement. Would that be the step that would happen now and then in the the future there'd be a bylaw 1000 update that would come to council and then there'd be the other opportunity to add that second layer of direction. I guess the, the additional question there is right now does the director of engineering or otherwise staff have the authority to go ahead with proposing plans without public engagement? So we do want to put something in the that's explicit

Speaker D · through the chair. The current direction that we have or staff have from council is to do public engagement. And we've been trained in accordance with the IEP 2 guidelines accordingly. But there can always be further clarification or even a communication that's posted on our website, for example, where we post post these plans. We could post up like hey, what's, what's the typical. What are the next steps? What does this look like? We could post a communication with those plans on our website as well option.

Speaker A · Oh, Brayden,

Speaker C · I just had a follow up there. Just about the level of involving as opposed to just informing is that the other level, I'm just looking for the terminology there. If we wanted to have public participant be more robust, it would be to the level of involvement, I think. Is that right?

Speaker D · Yeah. And even up to the level of consultation with the neighborhood. So another great example was the turnout that we saw at Mount Wells when we were proposing the sidewalks and bike lanes there as well. That did not proceed because of the engagement from the community at that time. We decided it warranted a higher level of engagement on that scale again because of the potential impact to that community. So that's another good example,

Speaker A · Mr. Hutchinson there. Nope, I'm having trouble finding. Finding the. The right words now. Just be voice down in a gallery, please. Sorry. Just everyone can hear there. This is a really great conversation, but I'm also mindful of that we're risking going down a path of potentially setting ourselves up for making false promises or things that a future council can't live up to or staff might not be able to support in a future recommendation.

Speaker A · Every municipality has expropriation powers through provincial legislation. And both elected officials and staff are hired to make very tough decisions sometime and sometimes it's impossible to make every resident happy in that decision.

Speaker A · And we have in camera meetings dictated by the province for a whole host of really, really good reasons. And I'm. We have such good protections in place through the one employee model like that council has by any council has by hiring cao, by relying that on that CAO to hire competent staff to have really good reporting relationships and performance reviews.

Speaker A · And the whole bit going up that I. I just want to be mindful of putting some blanket clauses in. In. In this document or in a bylaw that might make our current process is A in effect ineffective or B create a situation that can't be very well stick handled in.

Speaker C · In.

Speaker A · I think it's really important for the residents. It's when a resident, when somebody hears a. Or sees a proposal especially I think it's on page 89, that's the map that talks about the proposed networks. It talks about existing roads, proposed roads, proposed roads and lane closures. This is the one page in the document that refers to the potential opening of this road. But there's no, there's no language around that. And so when you, when you see a map like that without the context, I think it's really easy to go what does this mean? And there's no footnotes, there's no caveat, doesn't direct you to a page somewhere else for more explanation, that kind of thing. And so without any of that it's leading to the conversation we're having now.

Speaker A · But the reality is all local governments inherently have so many checks and balances built in place, including elections for that matter, that, that I think I would encourage the council that this is more of a communications issue than perhaps I need to regulate more. And I think we really do have some really good checks and balances in place and I do think the public has an opportunity to hold most and council to account. And we've seen it really well done tonight to the point where we're really wrestling. Council is really wrestling with how to, how to solve that. But I, but I wanted to draw council's attention to the map that's in the document and then think about.

Speaker A · That's the start of the conversation tonight was people looking at that map and not understanding what, what came next, when, when does it happen, what does engagement look like, when does budgeting happen, that kind of thing. And how does that get then articulated to eat people's concerns? Because I think once they understand how we do business those concerns actually would be mitigated. We're at a, we're at a point and can ask our head engineer if I'm wrong on this. We're, we're not at the, the end. We're at the beginning the very first steps of a 20 year document that is at the 60,000 foot level.

Speaker A · And yet we have heard from the residents, we have heard from the public and we're now talking to the granularity of 5, 10 meters. And it's hard to do both in that same document. One document is for the entire city. It is a document we need to get funding. It's a document that developers need. On the other hand, we have heard that initial bit. There is concerns and it is hard for us because we have to make one decision. We can't at this point make five decisions at all different levels. Am I reading that right?

Speaker D · That's correct, Mayor. And as the city grows and changes it is proposed that like our other plans, policies and bylaws that this would be reviewed at maximum every five years, if not sooner. So that's truly a living document that would be updated and continue to be brought forward to council.

Speaker A · There's been lights on and on. Councillor Harder's late has been on for a while. Do you have a comment or a question, A motion? Okay, thank you.

Speaker B · I would like to move that council direct staff to remove the proposed road connection on Hoffman Avenue from schedule A feaker street network in the transport in the proposed transportation master plan until further information about future intersections or potential road connections in and out of the Mill Hill neighbourhood is available. And that council adopt the City of Langford's transportation master plan and active transportation plan as otherwise proposed.

Speaker A · I'll second that motivation just a little bit.

Speaker B · Thank you. First off, thank you, Council for a really robust discussion. This has been an item that has I personally been looking forward to for a very long time when I realized that Langford was among the largest, if not the largest, municipality in B. C. without an active transportation plan by population. So I think it's far past time that we have a solid plan in place. I want to begin my comments just by acknowledging the residents that came out from the Mill Hill neighborhood. Thank you. Your comments tonight were really important for me to understand what this neighborhood currently looks like and what it means to you all as well.

Speaker B · I love that there are so many neighbors that know each other and care about each other and helped others understand about what's happening in our community because I frequently hear from residents who are frustrated that they don't know what's happening until something's already happening. And I know that the city is working really hard to try to change that by creating plans like this one. It was really great to hear about how important street safety is and I appreciated that this discussion allowed us to talk about how changes actually happen, what some of the trigger points might be. You know, it wouldn't just from the sounds of it, be an open road.

Speaker B · It would be, you know, the conversation about sidewalks and other traffic calming and safety improvements would happen in concert with any proposed changes down the line whenever those triggers do come. So it was just really helpful for me to get a sense of sort of what's driving these plans and what, what drives change at a broader city level. And shout out to the cat, because he's a great, great neighbor that I like to see when I go for runs in the neighborhood as well. Speaking more to the master transportation plan and the active transportation plan, I think there are a couple of key goals that people can all agree about as challenges that we're trying to solve in the city.

Speaker B · We are trying to avoid complete and total gridlock, which at some points we're already experiencing in our city. We're trying to make our roads safer, which I think should always be an objective of any council. And at the end of the day, we're trying to create more options to connect people in places, which I think was probably one of the biggest concerns during the last election. It's probably going to be another Top comment that residents want to talk to about leading up to October this time. And so I'm just really, really grateful that we have a talking point to start from if this plan is adopted tonight.

Speaker B · A couple of key points that I'm really grateful for that I think represent a bit of a status or a bit of a paradigm shift for how we do governance at the City of Langford. I love that having a master plan in place is going to allow us to collect the appropriate amount of land dedication or road frontages from development from the get go. It's been great that we've been able to get sidewalks in place along developments, but it's really frustrating for neighborhoods when there's so many developments happening all at once and these changes are just kind of happening right in front of the development and not taking into, not taking the broader neighborhood inputs into consideration.

Speaker B · I love that it's going to improve the strength of our grant funding applications because I also agree the taxes are not sustainable, the tax increases are not sustainable, and we really do need to have these plans in place in order to have any shot at getting some funding or getting a serious look from the province or federal government for that matter. I do want to talk about climate change as well because while it may not be the top concern for a lot of people right now, just given the affordability challenges, it is one of the biggest concerns and biggest problems that we're facing as a society and my generation, especially cities.

Speaker B · We don't necessarily have a lot of or all of the tools or solutions at hand to deal with climate change. But a lot of our emissions in Langford come from on road transportation. In fact, I believe it's over 50%, if not just about half. So this is one of the best tools that we have to try to create a more connected road network that encourages that mode shift to help more people have more options. You know, they may not be getting rid of their car, but they may may be able to let their kids walk to school or they may be able to walk to the park when they may have may have previously driven.

Speaker B · So I'm really looking forward to cleaner air, safer streets, quieter streets and just a more active and attractive community all around. And then I think I'll just finally say that I'm most grateful for the potential clarity and heads up that these plans will offer to the neighborhoods, especially after tonight. Over the past two years, really since we've been doing this public engagement, it's been really great to have hard conversations with residents. I know that we can't continue to do nothing. And so as hard as some of the conversations have been, I'm really grateful for the opportunity opportunity to have them and for the opportunity to continue having them if these plans are adopted. Thanks.

Speaker A · Thank you Councilor Co. Thank you. I mean don't really have much to add honestly was going to make some variation of nearly that same motion. So definitely on board with what came forward there. Given what I heard about how the transportation plan is that that long term plan and is up for review and the rest. I see how this really provides that peace of mind to the residents on Hoffman and in the Mill Hill area as well that they can sleep easy without this hanging over them but that we are still relooking at our entire network. We are updating this as was said, this is a living document. And as that neighborhood changes these routes may need to change then but it will be a very different neighborhood from that time than it is now.

Speaker A · And we're resetting those trigger points to that. And that's the big part that I'm really excited to see. And with that I guess it kind of ties into. There was the question come up several times about the fear of rushing through this document and I really want to iterate that. If anything we took a bit of a pause on this. I believe this is when one of our longest plans to see through from start to finish just due to the dedication, due to the amount of engagement that we receive and to update, bring in that feedback, update again, come back again. And so this isn't a rush through. This has been 20 months of engagement even longer from the get go.

Speaker A · I'm saying this is I feel in my mind like it's close to three years altogether from inception to end but it might be a little bit under that. So this has been a long work project. Not. Not something to see rushed through at the end. And definitely want to give a huge shout out to all the residents who did come continually with engagement because as was said Soft2 had that intake that up in engagement which rarely, rarely seen. And I also do want to again just really address we are learning as we're going and amazing shout out to staff. We've really taken in this pillar of continuous learning of failing forward and public participation.

Speaker A · This level of engagement has been new with this council on that request to staff. And I have to say every survey, every master plan we've gone through has been a marked increase, marked improvement. And when we do better we always can and that's something that we will continue to aim for so staff us on council, hear that, feedback on that and something we are always trying to do better on. And we'll continue to move forward on this one. All right, next hand up is Councilor Wagner. Thank you.

Speaker C · Oh, thank you very much. Great comments by my colleagues. I just had a couple things to add. Because this is a massive undertaking, this transportation plan and something that many of us did run on. We thought we would like to see thoughtful planning for our future. There was a lot of development happening. We went through a rapid growth phase for, you know, 15 years or more where we didn't have a comprehensive look the city as a whole. And it's not to say that there was no planning and it's not to say there weren't a lot of great things happening in Lankford in the past, but to take this look as a whole, these maps are fantastic.

Speaker C · And it's just a start of the conversation. I was really feeling anxious about that Hoffman intersection. So we don't want to dwell on one little micro point here. But I'm glad that the amendment came forward. So appreciate the community really speaking up loud and clearly there because that was something that was added after we had some of the, the public engagement. So to just, just flesh that out a little further. I think that was really an important thing we came to tonight. But to not, you know, throw the baby out with the bath water, moving forward with this plan is absolutely necessary. This advocacy needs to start right now.

Speaker C · While the CRT is doing their transportation planning, while BC Transit is doing their transportation planning, all the 13 municipalities had OCP refreshes recently. So we're in a unique opportunity here and we really need to get on with this and to tie the land use with transportation through our official community plan. We don't want to have a plan that sits on the shelf. We want to actually implement the plan. So I'm really looking forward to bylaw 1000 coming forward because those bylaws are how we can really bring out the, the details of the plans and make sure that, you know, we will have other opportunities for public engagement.

Speaker C · We know neighborhoods all over Langford have dead ends, increased traffic, lots of development. There's just so much going on in Lankford. So this, this planning is really important. And, and one more point. I did appreciate Councillor Hutter bringing up climate change and I was thinking about youth and anybody with kids. So of course there's the younger generation, but there's even younger generations and so planning ahead with the kids in mind. A lot of them want to bike or bus or walk, and so that livability and affordability, so that we, maybe some people don't need a car if they're in a location where it's that easy to get around, that's more affordable.

Speaker C · So just having all these options, I think is really important. And the fact that it's the living document, we can take comfort in knowing every five years, if not sooner, this needs to be looked at and it will always need to have a lot of public engagement around it. It's one of our most important plans. So thank you to everybody and I'll just leave that there. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you, Councilor Gary.

Speaker B · Thank you. I know we have a lot to say on this, but these are very monumentous plans that we are considering this evening. So I appreciate what my colleagues have said so far and I appreciate the motion that's come forward and that on a Monday evening in the middle of the summer, we've had a large turnout of a community that is very passionate about where they live and about sharing that with council. And as much as I trust our staff and I believe in our staff do the best by their community and work that they do every day, I think it's important that when you show up with this type of intention and focus that you come away with something.

Speaker B · And so I think what we have in front of us is something to come away with, that we are listening. We appreciate having that feedback. We want to value that feedback and value your energy and the stories and just your deep connection to community on the broader scale. I do want to speak to just the power of having an active transportation plan and also a transportation plan. And I do have a bit of a personal story coming from before I was on council. I had a close friend who left a relationship in Victoria and was struggling to single parent with two small children. And I was driving back and forth to Victoria and I encouraged her to think about moving to Lankford because the housing was more affordable, I could support her in this transition.

Speaker B · And the response I got kind of gutted me because she said, kim, I don't drive. If I was in Langford, I would be as dependent on you as I was in the relationship I just left. So that's really hard to hear about your community, that someone doesn't feel like that they could exist and thrive and raise a family here because they don't have qualifier of being able to drive. So it's important that we are looking not just at the. We talk about mode shift and how to reduce traffic, which. Which is all true. But I also want to value the residents that do live here still and don't drive, whether they're youth, whether they're new Canadians that haven't got their license yet or maybe won't ever. We have seniors that don't have license.

Speaker B · We have people that just can't afford a car. And I don't want a qualifier to be happy and thriving in Langford, to be someone that can, A, have a license and B, afford a car. That's not the inclusive future community that I'm hoping that we are building. The fact that we have an active transportation plan means that we have a path forward for all folks that live in Blankford, regardless of their income levels. It's a level of us meeting people and providing more opportunities for, for affordability. It's choices. It's, you know, when council supports partnerships with Foundry and our. And our core, I want youth to be able to get there.

Speaker B · And having an active transportation plan is a way for us to move forward. Where I can feel confident that when services are here and when they're growing, in order to meet the community, everybody can and meet them. As far as the. We've all heard about traffic, and I hear from people outside of Langford that they don't want to come to Langford because of the traffic. So we have people that are not visiting our local businesses, not taking advantage of the beautiful community that we have because of our reputation for traffic. We can't continue to go forward, growing this beautiful city without acknowledging the fact that we need to have a plan about how to deal with that, about how to make sure that we're not adding to the volume of our roads in a way that doesn't function.

Speaker B · Because I want people to visit Lankford. I want to share this beautiful city with others, and I want them to visit our local businesses. I want them to participate. And, you know, when we have families that live in Langford and live in other parts of the crd, that they can still feel welcome here and feel like this is a desired place to. Desirable place to come to, to live and to visit. So that's probably the crux of why I think that this is so important to get on with today. Why I don't think we can keep pushing it off down the road. Because we have people that need these solutions.

Speaker B · We have residents that live here already that need to know that they're included in the future of the city. Thanks.

Speaker A · Okay, Councilor Morley. Thanks, Mayor. Well, it's. It's getting late and I'm Sure. A lot of people sitting in the gallery and still online are just waiting to see what we're going to say about this master plan. I'll just echo what my, my other counsel, the other counselors here said that, you know, thank you to all the staff and the hard work and to the consultants and the effort that was put into this master plan. And I really hope that the public, our residents feel assured that this document, when adopted, and it will eventually be adopted, whether it's tonight or next week or the week after that, nothing is going to happen in your neighborhood unless you know about it.

Speaker A · And I, like I said, I'll say it again. I want you to be assured that that is what's going to happen. As Councillor Yakucha said, no shovels in the ground without you knowing about it. And as the director of engineering said, Wells Mountain, the community in Mulls Mountain said, we don't want to, I think it was bike lanes happening here and it didn't happen because they spoke up and they were a very cohesive community and they, they just put their foot down. So look, we don't want that here. It's not going to happen. So as a community, you do have that strength. So I will let you head out the door now and then we'll move on with our, with a, with a vote on this and, but I'm just going to leave it right there. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you very much, sir. So I will be fairly quick because a lot has been said. I am very appreciative of what has happened tonight. We have bringing to the end of the beginning of that plan coming forward to council to the public a long process that has involved many people, many groups and at the same time, when we do that, seeing the public come forward and that initial conversation going, hey, how about this? This is an issue. And, and melding those two points together for one vote, that's going to come in. This is not the end. This is the beginning of the conversations. This is just like we do in our normal lives. You have a plan. Plan is not set in stone. A plan is. Hey, what do you think about this? Now we're going to go forward at some point.

Speaker A · So I'm going to call the question. All those in favor post that passes. All right, I'm going to call for a quick three minute recess because people have been sitting for well over three hours and they may use the facilities and then come back. Can I have a motion please? Quick three, four minutes.

Speaker B · I'll move a three minute recess.

Speaker A · Okay. Second, all Those in favor, we'll be back in three minutes.

Speaker B · Thank you, Have a good night.

Speaker A · Good night. Okay, is all the council here? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Councilor Wagner, you back?

Speaker C · Yes, I am.

Speaker A · Okay, we're short a couple staff, but we can get going. All right, thank you everyone that has come back to the meeting. We are now on to item 14. 2, council policies for rescission.

Speaker B · Thank you, your worship. As directed by council staff have been reviewing city policies in order to identify those requiring updating. To provide clarity and align with current processes where necessary. Staff have reviewed all current council policies and have determined 15 obsolete policies that may be rescinded. Rescinding obsolete council policies enhance good governance by ensuring that the city's policy framework remains current, relevant, transparent and effective. Repealing these policies makes it clear which policies apply and reduces potential conflicts between city policies and bylaws. Over time, policies may become incorporated into bylaws or become obsolete due to new process. While these policies remain in force, they are currently not being applied under the policy, rather actioned based on the bylaw they have been incorporated into or are now being managed by a different process.

Speaker B · Within the staff report presented is a table outlining the policy number, name and reason for the recommended policy revision. And staff are available to answer any questions if council has any.

Speaker A · Thank you very much.

Speaker B · You're welcome.

Speaker A · Council. Do you have any councelor Kucha see your lights on, I'd be ready to make a motion. Sounds good. I'll move that council rescind the following policies and is A through O sufficient or would you like me to.

Speaker B · It's sufficient. Thank you. Second motivation.

Speaker A · Yeah, thank you. I'm really excited to see. I mean maybe excited isn't the right word, but honestly.

Speaker D · Yeah.

Speaker A · To see this come forward know from at other times when I've been on non profit boards and the rest trying to deal with some government policies is it can be convoluted. When you come come across language in one bylaw and then you come across an old policy that's still in place and it's saying something different and from the outside to try to figure this out is a nightmare. So cleaning this up really is just removing a lot of what feels like red tape and uncertainty around how to do business with the city and just makes it a lot easier altogether for governance. So thank you for the work being done here. Thank you very much, councilor. Harder motivation?

Speaker B · Nope, just thank you for the clear staff report. There was nothing that stood out to me as concerning or confusing and appreciate that we have staff that are doing this work to make sure that we're running a good government.

Speaker A · Anyone else? Okay, I'll call the question. All those in favor? That passes. Okay, we are on to item number 1515. Correspondence 15. 1. Elect respect request for support Lake County.

Speaker B · Thank you, Mayor. I have a motion arising from this correspondence. If I could put it on the table for council to consider. So I move that the city of Langford supports the Elect Respect pledge and commits to treat others with respect in all spaces, public, private and online. Reject and call out harassment, abuse and personal attacks. Focus debate on ideas and policies, not personal attacks. Help build a supportive culture where people of all backgrounds feel safe to run and hold office. Call on relevant authorities to ensure the protection of elected officials who face abuse or threats and model integrity and respect by holding one another, holding one another to the highest standards of conduct.

Speaker B · And the city of Lankford calls on elected officials, organizations and community members members to support the Elect Respect campaign and sign the online pledge@electrespect. ca.

Speaker C · second.

Speaker A · Okay. Is this something we have to vote on for today's business or do you want to clarify that?

Speaker B · Please.

Speaker A · So bring it on. And is it. We need 100% or 60?

Speaker B · Just majority this majority.

Speaker A · Okay. So those like to discuss this today?

Speaker C · I seconded

Speaker A · all those in favor. This is just to discuss it. Yeah, we have to vote on that before we can actually talk about it. So in favor of talking about it? Opposed? Nope. Sorry. So, Chancellor G, the floor is yours.

Speaker B · Thank you. I want to thank the town of Lake Cowichan for their leadership on this and kind of sharing this initiative that that came out of this letter. I know the electrospect comes out of the dialogue that is happening in Ontario. I've been following the. The challenges that some Ontario municipalities have had with having civil discourse and even keeping elected officials in their job, particularly women feeling vulnerable in their work. There's a city that's had to go to completely online meetings for most of the term because they didn't feel safe for their staff for their council to come to work and have council meetings in person.

Speaker B · So we have an election coming up. I know that this is a good time to visit a discourse that we believe as a council should be reflect the council that we'd like to see in all futures of Langford, where we can have debates and respectfully disagree without being abusive, where we can provide safe working environments for staff and where we can expect leadership to be respectful, inclusive.

Speaker B · You know, a lot of it's laid out. I've signed the pledge Already I knew that coming into the meeting, so I've signed that already and I'm hopeful more folks on council in B. C. will as well.

Speaker A · Councilor Regner, thank you.

Speaker C · Yes, I also signed the pledge already and it has come forward through our conference as well. So at the association of Vancouver Island Coastal Communities conference that many of us attended, it was a good time for a conversation about, well, an election is coming and it's been a tough time with the last term across not just Canada, but across the world. Civil discourse is, is a problem and people are not wanting to step up. So I've been encouraging people to run for council and they have told me flat out no, they do not want to put themselves in this position and it's because of what they feel is a toxic environment.

Speaker C · So I think we all need to do our part to really have that respectful conversation. It is completely fine to disagree. And usually when I have a one on con, basically every single one on one conversation I've ever had has been okay, even if there's a disagreement. But sometimes, you know, when we get into these situations, there's a heated debate or there's a mob mentality or social media can be. Be really hard and it's not helpful. So we need to have that civil discourse to be able to have those disagreements and look at things from different perspectives. It's really important to consider everyone's point of view.

Speaker C · We all have different experiences, we all have different ideas. And so to be able to do that respectfully is absolutely critical. And this is a great time to be part of a campaign to really stand up for, for all elected officials and just generally for public discourse. Thanks.

Speaker A · Anyone else? I will just say I was very excited to see this letter come in. At avicc when they were at a table, I had numerous conversations with the people running the table because it aligns with other organizations that are trying to promote the same civilization. Nice civility in politics. I will say I've been wearing this pin pretty much every day since this is the Elect Respect pin and their symbol and it changes jackets and blazers as I wear them. And I hope all council and actually all people that are running for election, all candidates signed a pledge. This is how we have good, solid civil correspondence and dialogue. All right, anyone else? I'll call the favor. All those.

Speaker A · Call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? All right, that passes. Item 16, Notice a Motion 16. 1. Advocacy for the D. C. ministry of Education and Child Care to reinstate funding to the ARC Foundation.

Speaker B · Thank you. So I'll be reading this in for consideration at the next Council meeting. Whereas the ahrq foundation developed SOGI 123 in collaboration with the BC Ministry of Education, BC Teachers Federation, the University of British Columbia's Faculty of Education out in schools, nine school districts throughout BC and local, national and international LGBTQ community organizations and SOGI 123 has been used in BC schools since 2016 and whereas the AHRQ foundation works with school districts to provide SOGI 123 resources, which are a set of tools that teachers can use to ensure their classrooms are accepting and rooting and rooted in respect and belonging and Whereas the AHRQ foundation has had to address a significant funding gap by reducing staffing levels as of July 2026 due to the recent discontinuation of funding by the of beginning BC Ministry of Education and Child Care Therefore, be it resolved that the City of Lankford Mayor and Council direct staff to write a letter to the Minister of Education and Child Care and MLA Ravi Palmer asking that the Ministry reinstate funding to the AHRQ foundation and confirm the importance of SOGI 123 program so that school districts will continue to work with the ahrqham foundation to access resources to create safe and inclusive learning environments for all students regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity or the diversity in their own families.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Okay, we are on to item number 17 bylaws first one. 17. 1 bylaw number 2253 and 2254 Lankford Official Community Plan bylaw 2200amendment number 1602 Madrona Place bylaw number 2253 2026.

Speaker A · It's a second and third readings and Lankford zoning bylaw number 300amendment number 757602 Madrona Place by law number 2254 2026. This is again second and third reading.

Speaker C · I'll move option one that council gives second and third reading to the Lanford Official Committee Plan bylaw number 2200amendment number 1602 madrona place bylaw number 22532026 and that council give second and third readings to the Lanford zoning bylaw number 300amendment Number 757602 Madrona Place bylaw number 2254 2026.

Speaker A · I'll second okay. Any motivation? I'll be brief.

Speaker C · We had the public hearing on this and and the application was to have additional housing where it was previously basically a mapping error that was not making a lot of sense where you wouldn't necessarily want a business park zone in that particular area when there's already residential nearby.

Speaker C · So happy to support.

Speaker A · Thank you.

Speaker B · Thank you, Mayor. So, council cannot receive new information at this point, so I won't be making any comments, but I will just comment that both this item and the next item have been debated by council. So even though we're not probably very conversational at this point in the decision, we have said our piece about this decision and the next. And so I won't say anything further. Thank you.

Speaker A · Hey, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? 17. 1. Passes. We are on to now 17. 2. Bylaw number 2268 and 2269. Lankford Official Community Plan bylaw number 2200. Amendment number two, former character designed guidelines and Lankford's only bylaw number 300. Amendment number 767. Bylaw number 2268. 2026. This is for second and third readings and adoption. And city of Lankford tree Protection bylaw number 2269. 2026.

Speaker A · This is for adoption.

Speaker B · Thank you, Mayor. I will move that. Council one, give second and third readings to Lankford Official Community Plan bylaw number 2200, amendment number two, form and character guidelines and Lankford zoning bylaw number 300. Amendment number 767. Bylaw number number 2268, 2026, as amended. And to adopt Lankford official community Plan bylaw number 2200. Amendment number two, form and character design guidelines and Lankford zoning bylaw number 300. Amendment number 767. Bylaw number 2268, 2026 and three, adopt City of Langford Tree Protection bylaw number 2269. 2020, 26th.

Speaker A · Do we have a seconder? Happy to. Second. Can't really have too much other than the tree protection bylaw was not in the public hearing, so if you want to motivate on that, you can. Otherwise we will just go to the vote.

Speaker B · No, I had a. I had a lot to say when this came to council the last time, so I'm happy to leave it at that. And I'm happy to have been the one to put the score at accountable.

Speaker A · Okay, Call the question. All those in favor? Close. That passes. Let us move the page. We are now on to item 17. 3. Bylaw number 2288. City of Lankford park dedication bylaw number 2288 in 2026.

Speaker A · First, second and third readings. Council gift.

Speaker C · Go ahead.

Speaker A · Councillor Morley Beach. You? Yep, very Distracting. I move that council give first, second and third readings to the proposed city of Langford park dedication bylaw number 228-820-26. I'll second any motivation. Certainly. Yeah, I'm happy to support the park dedication bylaw. I find this bylaw will permanently protect nine additional park parcels, including the Sarah Beckett Memorial Park, McCollum Road green space and the expanded Veterans Memorial park. Ensuring these valuable community green spaces remain preserved for current future generations. Dedicating these lands as part advances the city's parks and trails master plan, strengthens the environmental stewardship and provides long term certainty that these public access cannot be removed without the approval of Lankford voters.

Speaker C · Councilor Wagner, the well said by Councilor Morley. I think this is an excellent example of good governance. The parks should be dedicated as forever park so that they are protected and that provides certainty for everyone.

Speaker A · Called a question. All those in favor?

Speaker D · Opposed?

Speaker A · That passes and we're on 17. 4. Bylaw number 2291. Parks and Development cross charges bylaw number 2291. 2026, first, second and third readings. Thank you. Happy to move that. Council give city of Langford parks development cross charge bylaw number 229-12-2026 for second and third readings. Second motivation. Don't think much is needed at this time. Okay, Council harder.

Speaker B · I'm just happy to see that the city is working well with the YMCA and specifically that this agreement responds to a changing financial picture for the organization as well. Happy to see that the money, if there is any surplus, will be dedicated to come back into Lankford and supporting the operations at this facility.

Speaker A · Councilor Wagner. Oh, what am I missing here? Councilor Kucha. Councilor Wagner.

Speaker C · Sorry, I had a question about are we on the parks development cost charge bylaw?

Speaker A · I. I didn't want to apologies ahead of myself.

Speaker C · Sorry. I just wanted to be clear. What?

Speaker A · Yeah, we are still on 17. 4.

Speaker C · So regarding the parks DCCs, I just. Just wanted to check as I'm looking through the bylaw, I believe there was a move to make sure that the bulk of the development cost charges were going towards land acquisition. Is that correct?

Speaker A · Through the chair, yeah. As for the parks master plan and the goals in that, about 70, 60, 70% of the monies allocated is going towards acquisition.

Speaker C · So that I didn't see that necessarily reflected in the bylaw as I was reading it over, but that comes through because of the parks master plan. Is that how it would be if

Speaker A · I could jump in through you, Mayor? The bylaw is not requirement in the bylaw to define the list of projects. Rather, the Biola just has to set the rates and the rates are backed up by the list of projects that has been gone through by staff, by our consultants and whatnot.

Speaker C · Thank you. Just wanted to be clear.

Speaker A · All right. Anyone else? All the question. All those in favor? Passes. And finally we are on. 17. 5. Bylaw number 2294. City of Lankford Reserve Funds Establishment Bylaw 2011. Bylaw number 857. Amendment number 4. Bylaw number 2294. 2026.

Speaker A · First, second and third readings. Councillor Harder.

Speaker B · Thank you. Now that I've embarrassed myself, I will move that council give first, second and third readings to the city of Lankford reserve fund establishment bylaw 2004. Bylaw number 8, 5, 7. Amendment number 4. Bylaw number 2294. 2026.

Speaker A · I'll second motivation.

Speaker B · I think I made my point in the item before. My apologies again. I'm just happy to see this coming forward and I'll leave it for the rest of council to debate.

Speaker A · Councillor Morgan, I'm also happy to see this one come forward. Considering the revenues generated by the Langford Aquatic center now reinvested directly back into the facility for maintenance, upgrades and future improvements. This establishes a dedicated reserve fund promoting that transparency, fiscal responsibility and helps protect this important community access asset for few oh my current and future residents. Anyone else? Follow the question. All those in favor? Both that passes. Can I have a motion to go in camera, please? Thank you. I'll move that council close the meeting to the public pursuant to section 91 CE, I, K and Q B of the community charter to consider.

Speaker A · I need all of that considering. Yes. Okay. Labor relations or other relation or other employee relations. The acquisition, disposition or appropriation of land or improvements if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality. The receipt or advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. Negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at their preliminary stages and that in the view of council could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality if they were held in public. The consideration of information received and held in confidence relating the negotiations between the municipality and a provincial government or the federal government or both, or between the provincial government, federal government or both in a third party.

Speaker B · Second.

Speaker A · All those in favor that passes. Thank you everyone that is still online. We still have a handful that have been watching all night. The gallery is empty. But everyone have a great night. Thank you for coming out. And we'll see you soon, right?