Transcript: Special Council Meeting - 2026/06/15

Speaker A · Right. And welcome, everyone, to our special counsel agenda for Monday, June 15, 2026. And this is a unique one. We are starting at 6pm because we have some great presentations coming up. Can I call this meeting to order, please? That's me. Can I have our territorial acknowledgment, please? It's very hot in here, folks.

Speaker B · The city of Langford sits upon the traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples of the Wasepam, Tsongis, China nations and the Wasanic people, represented by the Sarlap, Sikkim and Malahat nations. We thank them for sharing this beautiful land.

Speaker A · Thank you very much, Councilor Morley. Can I have an approval of the agenda, please? I'll move.

Speaker C · We approve the agenda as presented.

Speaker D · I'll second.

Speaker A · All right, all those in favor, post that passes. Okay, we are on to presentations. We have three of them today. I'll note that this is expected to take a couple hours between all three. And I will call for a short recess after that just to give everyone a chance and then get on to the rest of the business. So our first 1. 4. 1 Transportation Master Plan, active transportation plan, and this is expected to be approximately one hour.

Speaker E · Thank you, Mayor. I would have the pleasure of introducing Nadine King and Steve Martin from Watt Consulting.

Speaker F · All right, there we go. Thank you, Mayor and Council, for having us.

Speaker G · Can we get the presentation up?

Speaker H · Perfect.

Speaker F · So, yeah, we wanted to say how pleased we are to be here to be presenting the final report draft and to walk you through some of the whole project as well as the last round of engagement that we undertook. So we just also wanted to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territories of the Coast Salish, and we are very honored to be speaking and working on these lands. So very briefly, just a quick overview of our presentation. We'll give you an update of what's happened since we were last here. Then we're going to go into an overview of the plans, talk about what we heard, and part of that will be what we changed or what we updated to respond to that engagement feedback, of which there was significant amounts, which was lovely.

Speaker F · We'll then talk about the road street network, then moving into the ATP or the active transportation plan and talking about the bike, the pedestrian and the transit network that addresses that side of things compared to just the vehicles. And then lastly, we're going to tell you the final step, which is a final step after this. And so with that, I'm going to have Steve walk you through the first part of the presentation.

Speaker I · Perfect. Thank you, Nadine. Yeah. So Going on the project update here. Since we last met, we have convicted round two of our public engagement. That was an ideas Fair conducted on October 18, 2025 as well as an online survey that was online from October to November 2025. We received over 1300 survey responses in that online survey and that leads to kind of the plan's finalization. So taking all that feedback, going back into the plans and making some adjustments based on what we heard. So the draft TMP and ATP are going to be posted for at least two weeks and then the plan adoption in later in the summer 2026 here.

Speaker I · So here's just an overview of kind of where we are in the general five step process. This is a 20 month process now starting off back in December or so 2024. And so here we are at the very end there, drafting a finalization of the TMP and the ATP here in June 2026. So let's go into a quick overview of the plans and kind of talk about what you're going to see online in the next few weeks here. So what are the Transportation Master and Active Transportation plans? Well, they're really plans that guide the planning and implementation of transportation networks. In this case we're planning for 100,000 people, aligning with the OCP goals there. It really benchmarks current conditions, barriers and opportunities for a multimodal transportation network.

Speaker I · Kind of seeing how the current traffic volumes and operations are how the current ATP, the active transportation network looks like. As I mentioned, planning for 100,000 there. It also identifies emerging trends and best practices across the industry, kind of bringing those into Langford and seeing how we can apply them. And then finally kind of a big point as well is it supports financial planning and grant applications. We have a set network and what we're planning and working for and we can use that to apply for some funding to get some of these projects realized. Building on that though, the, the ATP and the TMP are more than just policy documents and I think that's important to get across here today. These are long term communication tools that explain the transportation intentions.

Speaker I · They explain why we're planning our transportation networks the way that we are. It also provides an implementation plan with key projects and high level priorities to guide staff and council as we continue to plan for 100,000 people. But perhaps most importantly, they're also advocacy documents supporting constant, consistent implementation. They help guide future decisions, reinforce accountability to these long term transport goals as we work with our key partners, the crd, BC Transit and neighboring municipalities as well. They are, you know, we have two plans and it's important to highlight kind of how they're different. So it's not to throw any confusion on what's published online here.

Speaker I · So the Transportation Master Plan is really a long term strategy for improving how vehicle drivers focusing on the vehicles here and streets, how goods move around Langford and interact with the active transportation network as well. It addresses transit and transportation challenges, particularly related to things like motor vehicle safety, congestion and network capacity as well. So things like new road connections, proposed intersection upgrades and signals that might need some re timing in the future. For the active transportation plan there. The ATP really a long term strategy for expanding and improving walking, rolling and cycling connections throughout Langford, aligning with some of the goals identified in the ocp.

Speaker I · It also supports safer, healthier and more sustainable mobility choices. So providing more mobility choices to residents of Langford to support vehicle and goods movement as well as we grow to 100,000. And although they focus on different modes, the plans are also quite complementary and that's important to highlight as well. They work together to achieve the overworking transportation goals for Langford. So they are two complementary plans that work together to highlight priorities that support a safe, efficient and connected transportation system. The rationale for separate plans here in this case is to provide more context and detail on the specific needs, challenges and opportunities for vehicles and also for other modes like transit, walking, biking, rolling and providing those residents with mobility choices to help alleviate some of our congestion concerns.

Speaker I · Talking briefly on the five crises in transportation, some may be familiar with this concept, some may not. These are urban crises that are present in most cities, if not all cities across North America and the world. And we just wanted to provide a little bit of context on how the plans and how they tie in with transportation. So first up is the climate crisis. Transportation and land use decisions directly drive greenhouse gas emissions and determine the progress towards those GHG and climate targets. Housing and affordability, a big one here in the CRD as well. Transportation costs alongside housing are key drivers of living and affordability. The equity crisis, having access to safer, liable and affordable transportation really shapes who can reach jobs, services and opportunities.

Speaker I · Public health crisis, city design and transportation systems influence physical activity levels, air quality and just influence overall health outcomes. And then the infrastructure cost crisis, growth patterns and transportation choices determine how efficiently cities can deliver and maintain our infrastructure, such as our transportation roadways and bike paths and citywalks. That leads us to the vision for the ATP and the tnp and that is Langford is a community of evolving mobility choices. Transportation and land use are interwoven and work together to create a connected multimodal transportation system that is climate resilient and accessible to all ages and abilities. Greater mobility choices will result in a more efficient transportation system for all.

Speaker I · And so we have presented this vision here before. Very minor wording tweaks, if not vocab tweaks since last time. So no major changes there. A couple differences in the objectives here though, specifically in number two and number three. So I'll read them all off and we can talk about the changes afterwards. Number one is to integrate land use planning with transportation planning. Number two is to design the transportation network to provide safe mobility options and general accessibility that serve all ages and abilities. Key change from the last time we entities is the inclusion of general accessibility in that goal there making sure that the transportation network is able to be used by all.

Speaker I · Number three, develop a transit network that emphasizes transit ridership and collaboration with our key partners. This one changed because before we were also talking about network coverage for transit and while still important in the engagement that we conducted with residents, some of the key priorities really were to improve ridership, improve service levels. That was what would make me take transit more often. So that kind of allowed us to shift the goal and objective a little bit to really emphasize on that ridership, to really try and make decisions that promote people to take public transit as a mode of transportation and consider it as a mobility choice.

Speaker I · Number four, minimize the climate impact of the transportation network that one's unchanged and then maximize the economic productivity of the transportation system by emphasizing movement and efficiency that one's also unchanged. And so these objectives, some of the extra feedback we heard on the objective from residents and from the public engagement was to kind of have some, you know, how are they measurable? How can we determine if we're hitting these or not? Within the master plans we have set targets that the city can use to kind of help guide progress towards these five objectives. Things like we want to double transit ridership or we want to have zero fatalities for active transportation users or zero road fatalities for vehicles as well, although.

Speaker I · And things like reducing vehicle delays at key intersections, for example on BMP Veterans Memorial Parkway. A couple other comments also said these are pretty broad and they would like to see them more specific. And these kind of objectives for master plans are generally broad for a variety of reasons. But you know, you don't want to get them too specific because it is a long term kind of high level planning document at the end of the day. And so by narrowing us down, kind of making them too Specific it can really limit some of the options that we have in the future as our transportation network grows and evolves.

Speaker I · And that is an overview of the plans. We're going to move on to the engagement round two engagement results, which is pretty interesting here. So yeah, the engagement goals we presented this slide the last time we were here and so seeking input. The rationale for the round two engagement was to seek input in the draft network plans and quarter options. So we presented our draft plans to residents at this open house and on the online survey and we collected feedback and to understand the level of support for the draft vision, the goals that we put out. And so three engagement activities were conducted for that number two or the Ideas Fair was the first one. That was the in person event that we held number two, the online survey number two as well, which was released.

Speaker I · We had over 1300 responses to that. And we also hold held interest holder workshops kind of describing the draft plans and seeing how they align with kind of our key partners with the crd, VC Transit, neighboring municipalities and such. So moving on to some of the round two engagement results here. This is from the Ideas Fair and this similar to the first round of engagement, we had a voting station where we had residents kind of prioritize some of the proposed transportation improvements that we had outlined in the plans. Within that the active transportation overpasses were the most, well, most voted for. We'll talk about what those are, but essentially they're the overpasses we proposed across Highway 1 and across Highway 14, Sook Road to kind of help bridge the gap for some of the active transportation networks around Langford.

Speaker I · The rest of them traffic calming and the peat road transit corridor concept were also very well received with the Jaclyn Road active transportation corridor and sidewalk info projects. Also receiving a good handful of boats there. So nothing too too low, nothing crazy high. A decent boat across a lot of options here. Moving on to what we heard for the traffic, the traffic side of things so specific to the TMP in this case, generally strong support for traffic signal optimization and coordination to reduce congestion within Langford, generally in favor of roundabouts over traffic lights where it makes sense. For example along West Shore Parkway where they're very frequent with the roundabouts instead of traffic signals.

Speaker I · Also an importance of maintaining key alternative routes and improving reliability during incidents and highway delays that's particularly related to new road connections and road closures that may be prevented proposed within the plan. One key concept that you want to talk about here today though is traffic signal coordination because I think that word Gets thrown around a lot. I think it's important to provide some context on why that's not always a one stop solution to fixing congestion in our cities. So signal coordination is really an important tool that can help move key traffic flows when you're commuting to work. And there's closely spaced signals, you can make green, you can hit a green wave, you can kind of feel it as you're going to into town.

Speaker I · This really breaks down when you have variable patterns that go from different directions. So a key one that we heard is oh, let's signal coordinate along Veterans More Parkway and Millstream for the Highway 1 on ramp. Specific to that, the Highway 1 on ramp. The congestion really stems from the merge onto the highway. You're slowing down a little bit, you're checking to make sure you can merge onto the highway. A little bit of slowdown there kind of spills back when everyone's trying to get onto the highway to commute into work. And that leads back to the signals that can't really be fixed by traffic signal coordination because the problem doesn't start from the traffic signal. It starts from too much traffic to merge on to this highway essentially.

Speaker I · And so yeah, once those cues develop, it can't signal coordination alone can't really eliminate them because there's an underlying issue is the volume of vehicles rather than the traffic signal coordination along Millstream and vmp. And so this leads to signal optimization and coordination being viewed as one piece of a larger puzzle. Rather than just saying this is the one stop solution, we can fix it by just timing our signals a little bit better. There's more that has to be done. And that leads us to looking at different options like the Peat road transit corridor that we proposed in the plans along with other road connections and other improvements like that as well on that topic.

Speaker I · So the Veterans Memorial Parkway, Peak Road and Strand intersection, this was one of the major improvements we proposed in the plan. And we worked the ideas fair to collect a lot of feedback on to make sure it was understood what we were planning. With that initial proposed design, there was a lot of concerns on reduced access into the Mill Hill neighborhood gifted congestion rather than solving congestion impacts to emergency response and just questioning the general traffic benefits that were available from the improvement. Just to get an idea on the improvement before I move to our forward is we talked about converting the Peat road into a bus, a bus only, which is dependent on receiving operation on the, on the highway as well.

Speaker I · Because one of the key issues with this intersection is vehicles turn left and they sit in the middle of the intersection because there's so much congestion, they just want to get to that road. Once they're on that road, they're almost there. And so it leads to a lot of, a lot of congestion issues as I'm sure many may be familiar with as well. So we proposed things like removing the southbound left turn, removing the left turn out of the Mill Hill neighborhood and then converting the eastbound from Peat Road to a bus only corridor. And some of the feedback we had we received on that, as we mentioned, the first kind of bullet point there with reduced access and such. So there's also support for staged improvements.

Speaker I · Not just jumping into this final solution, but maybe let's start with a little bit of signal timing, do some time turn restrictions perhaps and then further study before just fully closing everything up. And within the plan we've reflected that exact feedback. So the left turn southbound off of Millstream and Veterans Morrow Parkway coming south down there, that will be retained in, in the design that we've proposed. So keeping that left turn access into the Mill Hill neighborhood, new connections are being proposed to Mill Hill as well to kind of supplement some new access to and from the area down at Larcole is being explored as well.

Speaker I · Connecting into Granger and down to Goldstream to help with that access. We've also added commentary within the plans for the staging of improvements and the prerequisites. As I mentioned, the sun shoulder with the Ministry of Transportation and Transit and BC Transit being extended to the Millstream overpass instead of the six mile there. Also important to note for these improvements here, these are not intended to happen tomorrow. The plan doesn't get implemented and we don't just all of a sudden shift and say, okay, now you have no more access. These are, you know, we have plans to stage improvements. Let's do something to get the improvements better and kind of improve traffic flow here.

Speaker I · And you know, this is going to happen within several years of planning and it's just important that we identify them within the plans here today. Moving on to transit. Transit's generally been seen as improved in the city of Langford, but not keeping pace with the rapid growth. So there's a strong demand for more frequent, reliable and longer service hours with higher capacity on keynotes, which kind of led to us shifting the terminology of that third objective. They're talking about transit ridership instead of focusing on other things like coverage. For example, a need for better connectivity, including direct regional routes, improved neighborhood links and major transit investments like rapid transit.

Speaker I · And very, very, very strong support for light rail transit. LRT connecting to the rest of the CRD there. Moving on to pedestrians in general. Strong support for expanding the sidewalk network and closing some of those key gaps that are currently present around Langford. A desire for safer more accessible pedestrian infrastructure particularly near schools and with crossings. So some of those more vulnerable areas where we have some more vulnerable road users like children. A need for a better neighborhood connections including multi use paths and the role that they play in our pedestrian networks as well as improved access to some of the heavy lifters in our neighborhoods.

Speaker I · The Galloping Goose and the Ann rail trail for example. And then again some more support there for the regional trail overpasses that we described across Highway 1 and Highway 14. From a cyclist perspective. Generally strong support for protected AAA all ages and abilities standard infrastructure. The current painted and unprotected facilities that are around Langford a little bit are just feel a little bit unsafe and uncomfortable to use. There's a priority for safer north south connections which is which was identified by a lot of respondents with the desired focus on some of the major barriers. As you mentioned like Highway 1, it's uncomfortable to cross across Millstream right now. Can we have another option to get across also a need for continuous practical network by closing some of those network gaps?

Speaker I · For example we have a bike lane that goes away. Then you have maybe a little bit of buffered bike lane then it goes away again. Closing those gaps to make a more consistent network would invite people to use their bikes a little bit more. Also improve crossings and then also things like secure bicycle parking are important as well. If you're going to bike somewhere you got to make sure you have a place to keep your bike so you can feasibly get home again and including this as well. Additional comments here within the online survey we kept an open ended final response for any extra feedback and I think it's important to highlight some of the comments that we received from residents here.

Speaker I · So first one is a desire for some recognition that private vehicles remain a key part of Langford's transportation system alongside investments in other travel modes. 100 we have a TMP and an ATP. We're identifying the barriers opportunities. As we said vehicles are continue to be a major player but providing that mobility choices is going to be important as well. As we move forward with more growth. Some repeated concerns for the proposed changes to peat road which we're hopeful to have addressed with some of the changes to designs and the wording within the plans there a strong emphasis on safety including lower speeds, saber crossings and Improved connections to and from North Lankford.

Speaker I · Again, kind of with that, the highway being one of the major barriers in the area, requests for clear implementation details, ongoing public engagement, and phased piloted approaches to major changes. That again, may be more relevant to the PEAT vmp because that goes some of the feedback we heard as well, but can be applicable to general large project rollouts as well. And then again, continued support for high capacity transit solutions. Again, LRT came up a lot in this open end response because great to hear the support for that. And with that we're going to move on to the proposed networks. And first up is the street network. So this is what's going to be available in the tmp, the Transportation Master Plan.

Speaker I · But first I want to talk about one pretty key concept that's one of the big drivers for a lot of the decisions we make as transportation professionals in the industry, and that is induced demand, which may be maybe relevant, maybe you've heard the term before, but essentially it really boils down to a concept of economics. If something is cheaper, you want to consume it a little bit more, you want to go with a cheaper option or maybe the more convenient option, etc. And that kind of boils down to how us humans make decisions as people. And so in the topic of traffic and transportation, the general procedure for this as follows, which is really consistent with how we've designed our roadways for over 70 years and kind of got us to where we are today.

Speaker I · So first up, adding road lanes can reduce congestion at first by creating more space for vehicles. Add a couple lanes, get more vehicles in. Looks pretty nice for us to start. But when driving becomes easier, it also becomes cheaper in the sense that becomes more convenient. And so more people choose to drive, maybe they shift their travel patterns. Now they can travel during the peak hour. Maybe they were staying at home because they knew they just spent 40 hours in 40 minutes in traffic and now they can spend 20. So let's go ahead and consider driving. So they make those trips they previously avoided, and over time that new road space just fills right back up and we kind of see the congestion returning to previous levels or can even become worse with some other implications as well.

Speaker I · And so, you know, making more travel choices kind of helps reduce that traffic demand, giving people more options to walk, cycle, or take transit instead of driving, alleviating the demand from, from induced demand. And so we've prepared a little bit of a graphic here that can hopefully help illustrate the idea a bit better. So here's where we are on the left. You Know, we have some traffic congestion in two lanes. Let's add a little lane. Why not? We'll go right there, we'll add another lane, three lanes each direction Looks great in principle, but, you know, everyone can spread a little bit more. But over time, sometimes years, sometimes even months, depending on the road network, we can reach right back up to those congestion levels. But now with some extra detrimental impacts.

Speaker I · For example, the amount of environmental emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, from that image on the right there. Now, if you want to accommodate pedestrian or active transportation, travel becomes very uncomfortable with all that extra vehicle demand. If you want to cross that road now, you're looking at crossing an extra seven meters. You're exposed. And that vehicle's reach for seven meters can become a big barrier to alternative transportation. There's also things like higher levels of stress when you're in congestion as well, with more vehicles around. And so, you know, we've done it before. We know what happens if we continue to design our roads this way. We're going to just keep adding the capacity, we're going to keep filling it right back up again. It's also, you know, it's not really feasible to widen every road in the network either.

Speaker I · So you may look at this graphic and think, great, let's go do vmp like this. Why not?

Speaker B · Perfect.

Speaker I · And then you look at the grand scheme of things and then, okay, now where's everyone turning? They're turning on a goldstream. We have businesses almost right up to the right of way line there. We can expand. So now we have maybe double, maybe 1. 5 times the vehicles try to turn into there. It just kind of moves the congestion around. And so it doesn't actually solve anything. It really shifts it around a little bit more. And so this also I want to highlight, though this does not mean that vehicles are not a major part of our networks. They'll continue to be key. But we know that we can't just build our way out of it. We've done it before, it doesn't work.

Speaker I · And so that's kind of the guiding principle behind these plans, to provide residents with mobility choices as a feasible solution to addressing our congestion issues. And with that, I will pass it over to Nadine to go through the rest of our presentation.

Speaker F · Thanks, Steve.

Speaker J · All right, so

Speaker F · now that we know that we can't build our way out of it, we did identify some places where we do need some new road connections. So we're proposing about 14km of new roads throughout Langford. These will improve access to and from existing and future Neighborhoods. They will help improve operations at key intersections where we may need to add a turn lane or widen the road slightly at an intersection. And it also helps for improved resiliency for emergency response and evacuation. So Langford is in areas on an interface with forest and we know that with the climate emergency there are more potential fires occurring. And we want to be able to make sure we can not only get people out of the neighborhood, but we can get the firefighters and equipment in to fight those as fast as possible.

Speaker F · And generally we're not proposing any significant road widening. So as Steve outlined, we're not looking at making VMP four lanes or sorry, six lanes. We're not looking at making goldstream back to four lanes. We're looking at more strategic new connections, places where we can connect two or three little dead end roads and maybe improve one intersection and reduce the, or improve the ability to get out of that intersection and that neighborhood. But without a huge amount of extra capacity, we do want to be careful to not add too many new roads because the more connections you make and the more accessible you make areas, as congestion does increase, people will start to try and find ways through neighborhoods and then creates us another problem.

Speaker F · So we're really trying to find the balance of the right amount of connections for vehicles. With that, We've also identified 14 intersections that should be upgraded over the next approximately 20 years. We have implemented what's called a roundabout first policy, which is, where possible, we would like to improve the intersection to a roundabout. They improve traffic flow safety. They also provide some gateway features as well as some indirect traffic calming and slowing of traffic. However, there are places where we just can't get roundabouts in. We're either constrained by space topography. You know, we don't want a roundabout at the top of a hill. So as you're climbing up there, you don't know what's happening. So each intersection needs to be looked at at the time.

Speaker F · And really what we're trying to do with these improved and upgraded intersections is help people turn from the side streets. So again, you know, if you're trying to get off Meridian Avenue right now to West Shore Parkway, you're at a stop sign. It's really hard to find a gap to turn left. That's been identified as a place where we need to improve that. Similar with Orono and Jacqueline, we need another way to get onto Jacqueline Road from each side. Right now they're waiting a really long time and the more time people have to wait in a high volume of them, we start to get People making poor judgments and making a turn when they shouldn't.

Speaker F · So we did identify 18 locations where we do think signal timing is required to be adjusted. It's a fairly cost effective adjustment that can be made as development or patterns change. And part of the signal timing adjustments can be looking at optimization as Steve indicated. But we do need to be careful about expectations about solving everything. I did work in a community and they, they went out, said we're going to have a green wave and it's going to be fantastic. And it was really great. If you were commuting into town on that green wave, people loved it. When you're going the other direction, every signal you got stopped for four seconds. So stop, start, stop, start.

Speaker F · And they were furious because that wasn't, they weren't experienced what they'd been told they were going to experience. So they work really well in that peak direction. When you have peak, peak flows, they work really well on roads like VMP where you have very limited extra driveways coming in. But as soon as there's a busy driveway in between, you're now getting unpredictable flow. There are definitely places where coordination is a good option. And what we did hear from the public was they really wanted VMP and Sook Road. And those are, were also identified by us, but also require a partnership. Those are ministry roads and ministry signals. But the city can advocate and push for those. And we actually already started that push in the interest holders meeting that we had with them.

Speaker F · And the ministry was like, yeah, yeah, no, we, we really should look at those. Let's, let's talk. So we've started, started the ball and we just wanted to keep it, keep it going. So yes, We've identified over 18 for optimization road cross sections. So the city right now has a, a large proliferation of cross sections that kind of going in the same direction, but can be very confusing for developers. So we've tried to clarify that and bring them back down to a standard for cross sections and then empowering your engineering department and your director of engineering that if we don't have enough right of way to meet the standard or we have more right of way than we want to expand elements and so really focusing on these being for the new roads, so not necessarily retrofitting the ones you have today because those will require either balancing what's already there and filling the gap or working with a sort of more constrained environment.

Speaker F · But this is the typical cross section. So the typical cross section includes a nice sidewalk, a nice bicycle lane that are fully separated from the vehicles we get planting in that can get us not only shrubs but trees. So to accommodate parking or flexible space. So flexible space could be bus lane, bus stop, more planting and then two travel lanes and then variations from there. But that gives us all of the elements we need. And then also bumping up the travel lanes to be at least 3. 3 meters. Right now it's 3. 2. 3. 3 allows the bus to travel comfortably in the lane and gets their mirrors in their own lane.

Speaker F · So a bus is slightly less than 3. 3, but when you add its mirrors they're at about 3. 3. And same with heavy troops. So any heavy truck route definitely should be at that 3. 3 as well. So that's sort of the vehicle network and then moving in the ATP. So this network improvement for them. We've identified a complete mapping of where infill is required and follows the current infill policy, which is excellent. We're looking at multi use path improvements. So particularly around the E N rail trail being a critical one, one connecting Latoria to the Galloping Goose and looking at overpasses over Souk Road, which is more in the Ministry of transportation and the CRD's realm.

Speaker F · But again, we can advocate for. And then the big one being that people really felt north and South Langford were disconnected and it was really uncomfortable to get across the highway anywhere. And so we have picked a location that sort of goes between roughly the Jacqueline area and the City Gate area, I'll call it. But that really tries to connect to the core area of the two sides and connects to the regional trails and gets people across the highway without having to interact with a really high volume network as well as those off ramps. Trying to go across all the off ramps at Maelstream is a real challenge. So we want it to be fully separated from it in terms of cycling.

Speaker F · We have presented this before, but we wanted to sort of illustrate the types of existing and the direction we're going with the cycling network. So most of Langford's network right now is painted or painted with a bit of a buffer. Those some areas, those will stay. But really the direction is to try and get to that bottom, bottom row where we're fully protected, ideally fully separated from the vehicle lane. Eventually bidirectional or unidirectional and then quiet neighborhood roads illustrating and highlighting a bikeway which is really trying to get people to realize that bikes are present and there will be bikes there. And so the high volume for high volumes is really what's driving the protected Bike facilities. So as soon as you get over about 2,500 vehicles, you want to start to get some higher level protection.

Speaker F · And then really once we're over the 5,000, which is a lot of the major corridors in Langford, it gets really uncomfortable, comfortable without some physical separation. And as mentioned, Jacqueline Road is going to be sort of that primary north south corridor connecting from Sook Road all the way up to basically highway one and then getting that overpass in that will connect us over to the Callum area and then into the neighborhood, allowing us to connect goldstream, E N rail trail, West Shore, Town Center, Galloping Goose downtown and then that one major corridor north south will be supplemented with east west corridors.

Speaker F · Goldstream that gets you to downtown, Sunford, Mattson, Brock and then a whole series of large multi use paths like the ENN Trail, but also much smaller ones that go along existing roads and then as mentioned, transit. So by providing transit with the vision for Langford's transportation and combination with the OCP provides them with a really strong benchmark to be able to say yes, this is where density is going, this is where transit routes will make sense and really to start to invest in Langford.

Speaker F · And so we want to continue to have the city work with BC Transit to get that service. The one thing that is in the city's control is the bus stop areas. So those are within your control. So improving those, making better waiting areas, better amenities, shelters, lighting, garbage cans, seating all help make it, you know, if you miss that bus and you gotta wait 15 minutes having a seat is a really nice amenity to have. And we're looking at ensuring that the where we identified the bus rapid transit through the Peat Road corridor and advocating for Transit along Highway 1 to Langford More directly and then the role of the in rail corridor that there's a strong desire for that to be used as a transportation corridor.

Speaker F · So that has been identified along with at least two stations so far which is the West Hills and Station exchanges, but also those can potentially grow and be added to. And with that we're on to the last slide which is what's next. So we have now presented to you with the final draft plan. We are in the process of finalizing the draft final plan, final plan. It will be on the website for a two week period. We're hoping to get it late this week, early next week, but maybe we'll promise more next week to get it up there, give people time to review it if they have any final comments.

Speaker F · And then we'll be returning to council this summer for final adoption. And with that, Steve and I are here for questions.

Speaker A · All right, thank you both for this. I know Council has been looking forward to this and you guys have been doing a whack of work. Council, any questions? Right away, I see. Councilor Morley, thank you.

Speaker B · Actually, I have two questions. I'll start because I think we probably want to move around. So the first one, at the very beginning, I heard a statement regarding improvements to Larcol and is that Lark hall

Speaker F · joining Highway 14, joining Veterans Memorial Parkway?

Speaker B · That's right. Okay, so are you going to be. What I'm. What I'm hoping to hear here is that's going to be opened up with a set of street lights to calm traffic on nodding your head, is that correct?

Speaker F · Yes. So the intention would be that we would make a connection there so that we could get full movement. So we would need a traffic light if we're going to allow the left turns on and off. And that would allow us to restrict some of the left turns at heat. And so what it does is it moves at traffic further away from the highway interchange and we'll make it not so congested at the Peat Strand Line intersection.

Speaker A · Well, that's really good to hear because

Speaker B · nice rush hour when that road is just packed full of cars in the evening, it turns into a kind of a race strip. So it's nice to hear that there's going to be an extra set of lights on that to calm traffic. All right, I'll let somebody else have the next question then. I'll ask later. Thank you.

Speaker A · All right, Councilor Wagner's light was on right after Councilor Morley's. And then we got Councilor Gary.

Speaker J · Okay, well, Paige just asked one question, but I'll try. For starters, I heard you talk about lower speeds and I have heard quite a bit of public interest in. I think West Hills is meant to be 30km, but I've also heard from folks up on Bear Mountain or other places, it's windy, it's dark, a Mill Hill area. Are we exploring reduced speed limits in these more residential areas or if there's, you know, limited visibility in those kind of areas?

Speaker F · I will let Kate address that.

Speaker K · Thank you.

Speaker E · Through the chair. We've been following the Transportation association of Canada's guidelines for speeds. Of course, there are many areas in Lankford that are already identified lower speed limits than 50 kilometers an hour. And we do intend to add to that not just for safety purposes, but also for low speed vehicles operating in some of the resort communities. You'll see More comments and commentary on that in the transportation master plan and active transportation plan. So stay tuned.

Speaker A · Okay, and next we're Councilor Garvey.

Speaker C · Welcome back. Thank you for your presentation. My question is about the peak intersection because I know we've heard a lot about that and it's more specific to. Not just like we hear a lot about traffic flow and people, folks hate the traffic. But we also hear updates about some of the worst collision intersections on Vancouver island and all the on and off ramps in that area are highlighted with over 286 collisions since 200 since 2020. So are any of the improvements that are being suggested going to help with some of those high collision intersections in Langford? I don't like having this reputation. I think it's terrible.

Speaker F · Yeah, I think as part of any change to Pete and Strandlin and BMP would be a safety assessment and looking at not just how many collisions, but what type of collisions. So if they are all left turners being sideswiped by a through vehicle or if it's a pedestrian, you know, if we see a high number of pedestrian accidents or cycling accidents, we can tailor some improvements to that. But yes, by reducing the number of like the dual left and getting rid of that dual left, reducing the amount of congestion in the intersection where people are like shing pushing their way in and maybe having their tail stick out, that should.

Speaker F · Those will generally improve or reduce the amount of collisions that happen and reduce the exposure that people will have there as well. So yeah, it's sort of a twofold, yes, generally. But also as we get more into what that would look like, we would recommend doing a collisions analysis as well. I think that's the big thing about the peat road changes is yes, it's not happening today, tomorrow and there'll definitely be much more engagement and much more study of any potential changes and options for the community and council to for it anything happens.

Speaker A · Okay, thank you. And next is Councilor Herter.

Speaker D · Thank you and thank you for the presentation. It's great to hear that there was some general support for the staging of improvements. So kind of getting back to that, you know, not all or nothing all at once. I can completely understand that concern around that rapid change, but I wanted to ask questions about some of the strategies for the street network and particularly some of the proposed road closures. So I noted on the map there that Humpback and Luxton were identified as potentially areas to consider road closure. And I'm just wondering if you could explain what the sequencing or timelines would look like for that, if you have that information

Speaker C · through the chair.

Speaker E · With regards to the Humpback Road crossing of the ICF corridor there, Island Corridor, Foundation Rail corridor, that connection was, was opened when there was a connection that was lost to the Goldstream Meadows neighborhood to the highway there. But ultimately, especially since Humpback Road does go through the CRD lands as well there in the future that will be a active transportation and transit connection only. And also considering that that would be sequenced with the ministry overpass improvements between Highway 1 and West Shore Parkway. So it's another one of those complicated sequencing of road changes. So the plans will detail all of these things. If not, it would require further study. Just know that we're not going to close any roads before all those other factors are met.

Speaker E · With regards to Luxton Road, which is the second part of the question there, we've had many complaints and concerns about cut through traffic. As Nadine had mentioned that some of the local roads can experience cut through traffic to try to avoid congestion. So while the Chidlow Connector was a very important connection for South Lankford, once Finney Road is connected to the highway there, that'll be also another excellent access for South Langford out to the highway. And in order to reduce the amount of cut through traffic that are trying to avoid that Happy Valley signal north, and to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety, we're proposing putting in a multi use path in the northbound lane around that Luxton south corner by the SBI Rangers station that goes around that laurel hedge.

Speaker E · So if you imagine from there to Lippincott Road, so from Luxonut Happy Valley, but west of that, west of the Galloping Goose north around that laurel hedge corner there, we're proposing a multi use path which means that on Luxton past Lippincott, only southbound vehicular traffic will be able to go that way.

Speaker E · So that'll reduce the amount of northbound cut through traffic that's trying to get through to the highway on that direction. That should fix the problems in that neighborhood and improve pedestrian cyclist safety. So it's one of those improvements as we went through all of the options here, that was a win win.

Speaker D · Thank you for that clarity that there's sort of a series of things that would need to happen first before any big changes could be contemplated. That's very helpful.

Speaker A · Okay,

Speaker L · thank you. I heard a lot following the initial consultation on this around the role of enforcement and just hoping you can talk a little bit to the role of enforcement versus the role of design and, and maybe where they complement or maybe where we need to lean more on

Speaker F · one or the other for sure, through the chair. Design is a critical part of it. So if we can create the self enforcing road, then we don't need the enforcement as much. And so really, for example, where traffic calming has come from over the last 25, 30 years was that we designed all our neighborhood roads the same and we're like, hey, they're going to be 50k and we got to move people through these neighborhoods and we want to have them really wide and we think wider is better, wider is safer, give people a lot of time to avoid each other.

Speaker F · And what we found was it just made them comfortable. And if you were comfortable, you just speed and you don't look. You know, when you drive into your neighborhood, you'll probably never look at your odometer. You just drive into your neighborhood and you feel comfortable and you drive. And if you actually looked, you might be going faster than you think you are. So if we can start to design those roads that are self enforcing, that have tighter curves, are narrower, if we want the speeds to be 30, 40, then that helps. Where we need the enforcement is definitely going to be on those more major roads where we do need that space and capacity during peak periods.

Speaker F · But maybe in the off peak periods where you know, we have a four lane road and really at 7pm it's pretty empty, you may need that enforcement. So they are complementary to each other. But I would say based on the limited resources that the RCMP have, you know, focusing them on the more major corridors and trying to work to design and self enforce traffic speeds in the network outside of that would be the most beneficial.

Speaker A · Okay, Councillor Elena and then Councillor Wagner, thank you.

Speaker C · Through you, Mayor. The other question I had, and it was hard to kind of tell from the map and it has to do with the active transportation routes over the highway. There was the one over the bridge that went over around the, the center of Langford and then there was proposed improvements along Millstream. And so my question is specifically around that overpass because it's, it's terrifying. I ride it, I hear folks email me about it as well. And then we're also proposing or planning for the potential where we have also have buses come coming through that route as well. So I was just wondering what do you anticipate that flow, how that would be improved? Is there a potential for another bridge on that side that's closer?

Speaker C · Again, I'm just thinking we do have a lot of folks that commute into Victoria and they look for the shortest route for sure.

Speaker F · Through the chair. I think the. So the intention originally was we looked at several options. So should we improve Millstream or should we do a separate overpass? And really industry is probably going to support one or the other. It would be very difficult to get provenance on both. And so the benefit was felt that it was much safer and easier and less complex and a lot more direct within Langford to do the one to the west. That being said, there's potentially some minor improvements. I don't think we're ever going to get people to be comfortable on the Millstream interchange and also on Millstream Road itself.

Speaker F · That right of way is absolutely maxed out and we're up against large retaining walls now. And so unless we made a drastic change and took lanes out, which I think would be very difficult, we're not really going to be able to get that I think support. People on the north side trying to get into Victoria would be looking at exploring things with partners like this CRD and getting into like Thetis Lake Trail network, making an improvement to some of those trails that are maybe a little bit muddy in the winter, seeing if we can get some sections paved or even just the grades brought up so that the water runs off and doesn't create a messy problem.

Speaker F · So I think that's probably. That's where we have ended up going in that direction. But we definitely, the city can continue to advocate with partners to help with that.

Speaker A · Okay, next is Councillor Wagner, then Councillor Harder.

Speaker J · Thank you. It's kind of a messy question, so do what you will with. But I'm thinking about multiple users and going back in my mind to one of the complicated intersections of Pete Road and the Millstream overpass. And I'm thinking dogs, bikes, mobility devices, what triggers, you know, when there's a bus lane or not and you've made some tweaks there. I think you said you can can turn left now you've left at Mill Hill. That was one of the big things we heard is they really were feeling like they needed to get in and out of that neighborhood. So I'm glad to see that put that feedback to heart.

Speaker J · But I am also thinking about towers coming and if people do move there with 30% of people have dogs. So a bit of a ramble there. But just another layer is the north Langford High School and the catchment will likely include a lot of people on the other side of the highway. And we don't want all those cars going over. So how could we possibly ever get this overpass for pedestrians and cyclists by 2030.

Speaker F · Yeah, through the chair. So yes, this is the one change we did make was that people in Mill Hill were really concerned about having to go all the way sort of deeper into Langford to get into their neighborhood. And so we were able to look at keeping that southbound left that is currently there with an arrow in so they'll still be able to get into that neighborhood. I think I can point and shows up on everybody's screen. Oh yeah, it does. Excellent. So this, this left turn here so they can now make this turn is the big change. The other thing obviously is we can keep the crosswalks so people can go east west. But I would say most of the development and the towers are sort of on the west side of vmp.

Speaker F · And again that's why we're sort of keeping the pedestrian overpass to the west. And so they'd be able to use not Dunford, Brock and that network to walk over and then get over the overpass. And it would take them more directly almost right into City Gate and where the high school is planned to be so that they wouldn't have to be on the super busy corridor. So I think the big thing is have it in the plan is step one and then we start lobbying and advocating with the Ministry for Funding and Opportunities to do that.

Speaker E · And through the chair, if I may add, these intersections that are being proposed to be improved would also include pedestrian rolling cyclist improvements as well. So one of the main considerations when you're considering all ages and ability network is separation of modes. So those vulnerable users are not going to want to be on the highway on the busy traffic corridors. The best way is to find an alternative route and reducing the amount of traffic on Peat Road with this bus lane potentially if the bus on shoulder program comes to the Millstream overpass would mean that those from Mill Hill and those from the core could use Pete and Brock over to Skogstad to take that pedestrian dedicated overpass away from all the traffic, which is what is ideal is to have it totally separated.

Speaker E · That is the most comfortable thing. And that would be central to Langford because as was mentioned, the North Lankford Secondary School would service communities on the other side of of Highway 1 as well west and east of Jacqueline. So having this overpass central and having the AAA corridors separated from the heavy truck traffic corridors and separated from the transit corridors means that it'll be an improved experience for those who wish to travel within Langford using walking, rolling or riding of any kind, including micromobility.

Speaker J · Thank you. And just a Quick follow up. I was kind of going to go to that accessibility piece and thinking about all users again. And so are we. You mentioned the AAA network, but is that something that is even possible in some of these neighborhoods that are. I mean they're already built and I'm not sure how we take over from existing uses. Just sort of feels like sometimes a conundrum.

Speaker E · Through the Chair, I recently had the pleasure of being able to review the draft plans in advance of this. And there are lots of recommendations for accessibility improvements, not just on fully newly constructed roads, also retrofitting a lot of our intersections for accessibility improvements. Understanding that accessibility is most difficult at intersections and all ages and ability infrastructure includes those with accessibility and mobility needs. So the important thing is to make sure that they have an option and they're included in the design. So these AAA corridors means that hopefully for the majority of their trip or if they're going a long distance away that they'll have an option to choose.

Speaker E · So typically, maybe if somebody was using Beet Road previously, they may want to choose to use Jaclyn in the future because of the new AAA corridor, north south corridor. So it might change some of the routes that people travel, but at least they'll have, you know, a more comfortable accessible option now in the future. We are planning for that.

Speaker A · All right, next we have Councilor Harder and then Councilor Morley.

Speaker J · Thank you.

Speaker D · Just quickly I was wondering if you could clarify the right of way acquisition along Sook Road and if that would be with the intent to try to install sidewalks or a bus lane. I saw something about Valley Exchange there too.

Speaker E · Through the Chair, the City of Langford has had the opportunity to participate in the Ministry of Transportation and Transit's Sioux Road corridor study. So while that has not been published, we do have an agreement to acquire right away along Sook Road which is Highway 14 in that pedestrian revitalization development permit area that we have identified to improve make improvements. So what's key about that is that obviously we can take right of way at rezoning subdivision building permit, whichever comes first. And so we are just making sure that we are well positioned to accommodate those improvements in the future. So what I can share is that you will see with the new developments that have gone along Sook Road, we are taking anywhere from 3 to 5 meters of frontage and to get an ultimate 30 meter road cross section corridor in that area.

Speaker E · Sook Road will be a four lane highway in that area with a center left turn lane, not the dual oncoming left turn lane, limited restricted access and they're proposing a new signal light at Anders for the connection to those communities that are between the Galloping Goose and so there's three cul de sacs on the north side there that are being proposed to be connected, as you may have heard in other rezoning applications that was previously mentioned.

Speaker E · So that whole area has been designed so that there is pedestrian and cycling connections that are separated from traffic and connected to the Galloping Goose in that neighborhood.

Speaker D · Planning with foresight. I like it. Thank you.

Speaker A · All right, and next is Councilor Morley.

Speaker B · Thank you. This might be kind of granular, but it's in regards to the maps from earlier where they had the nice little yellow highlight showing where new connectors are going to be going in. And one I noticed in regards to Atkins, where that is becoming more and more popular as a way to get from Colwood View Royal quickly into the downtown, which causes a lot of congestion on Atkins and then Windster and then over onto Hoffman. But I noticed on the map it looks like there's a playground right at the top of Hoffman, which is now yellow. So it looks like that playground be removed, which would relieve congestion off of Atkins. Is that correct?

Speaker F · It's meant. Sorry, through the chair, it was. It's meant to be sort of a bit of a placeholder. So there is a desire to connect Atkins to Goldstream, also to provide a secondary or an additional route in and out of Mill Hill so that they don't have to continuously just use bmp. It doesn't have to be in that exact location. It's just meant to be kind of a fat connector so that we can find the right route as development comes in. And I'll let Kate elaborate on that.

Speaker A · Thank you.

Speaker E · Through the chair, we have proposed some additional road connections in Mill Hill, responding to some of the public engagement that we heard. Now, again, all of these road connections are proposed road connections, meaning that we don't have a design yet. We haven't done any specific public engagement on this. And that would be done in the future. And most of these post road connections here that you see in yellow would be done by development, meaning that typically speaking, especially in, you know, the Sook Road area, as I'd mentioned previously, we're not putting roads through people's houses or through playgrounds or anything like that, unless there is a more comprehensive development plan as to how we're going to connect those roads, because it would be all tied to a rather significant amount of traffic.

Speaker E · So we're not proposing that these road connections be built tomorrow. With the existing homes and infrastructure that is there. These are just plans for the future in case we're just showing them as viable potential options.

Speaker B · Okay, it would be good if you punch that one through. So. All right, thank you very much.

Speaker A · Anyone else? I'm just going to ask a question that we sort of know the answer, but it's always good to have the experts say it to the general public in terms of say provincial highways. So a good example would be Veterans from TransCanada down to Sooke and then sooke from veterans to the extent of Lankford. We cannot adjust those. You have to apply to the province and the province does their studying and decides, no, we're not going to change the timing or we're not going to adjust the. The crosswalk. This is not Lankford ability.

Speaker F · Correct. So those are under the Ministry of Transportation and Transit's jurisdiction. So they own not only the intersection and the traffic signals or stop signs, but they tend to own to the end of the curb returns or the radiuses so that the circles that go around the corners, they try and own to the end of those on the side roads. So yes, we can have. The city can advocate, they can ask and they can beg even. But at the end of the day, if the ministry has a different priority for a corridor or an intersection, they may say no. For example, if you said we would like to give more green time to peat road because we really want more vehicles to use that, but we would have to take that from vmp, they would probably come back and say no, VMP is our priority road and you should be happy with what you have.

Speaker F · But they are also willing to be a good partner lots of cases and are open to the discussion and particularly around things like active transportation and safety, those are good ways to approach them. And because they really are looking to get more active transportation into their network and achieve their climate action plans as well as general health improvements. But also the other thing with safety improvements is it actually reduces the cost to ICBC and reduces costs to the government. So they sometimes, if you can make that argument, are willing to support. But at the end of the day they could just say no.

Speaker G · Yes.

Speaker A · And just to follow up on that, for people who are wondering, well, what. How do I know what is a provincial road and not is it true that in general sense if, if you were looking and it's a galvanized steel silver street light, overhead light, anything like that stand that is probably provincial. And then municipalities often have them painted and that's not sentence still in life and death. But if you're going down a road and it's all galvanized steel, then you're on highway control or provincial control generally.

Speaker F · Yeah. So I mean obviously if it's a numbered highway, it's under the Ministry's jurisdiction. If it's going through indigenous reserve, it is owned by the Ministry of Transportation. The other places the ministry owns is routes to high to ferry terminals. So for example, local, like semi local, if you are going to the Brentwood Bay Ferry, you have to be able to get from Highway 17 to the ferry. The ministry actually owns a dedicated corridor that gets you to that ferry. So part of West Saanich Road and Verdier, the little road that goes down to or Verdier that goes down to the ferry that is actually owned by the Ministry of Transportation. And so yes, there is some complex ones.

Speaker F · Another way to tell if you're not driving and you're a bit of a map techno nerd is you can look it up on the government gis. They have an open source GIS map just like the city of Langford does. And you can turn on a layer that says Ministry of Transportation and it will show you that too.

Speaker C · So.

Speaker F · But yes, generally in Langford, if it's bare steel overhead, large lights, Ministry, if there's an intermix or just colored lights, those generally are. You're in the City of lights.

Speaker A · Thank you.

Speaker E · Thank you, Mayor. Yes, that is a fun fact that the city's streetlights are painted or colored and we do have a different color scheme for different neighborhoods. But we do actually own some galvanized infrastructure in industrial parks. So just for clarification, that is not always the case.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Last call for anyone. All right, thank you very, very much for this. This is quite exciting. We recognize this is not changes coming today or tomorrow or next month or even next year necessarily. But planning for the future is awesome. So thank you very much.

Speaker F · Thank you.

Speaker A · Okay, next is 4. 2 Waste Management NRFP score.

Speaker E · Thank you, Mayor. I have the pleasure of introducing Alida Kush and Alyssa Hoog from Dillon Consulting and they're going to give us a presentation on the Waste Management update. And I will speak to this item later on in the staff report section. But please feel free to ask the consultant any, any questions at the end of the presentation. Thank you.

Speaker A · Hello. Welcome.

Speaker M · Hi.

Speaker G · I just want to thank mayor and the members of council and the staff for having us. I hope everybody is staying cool. So I don't know if we're able to pull up the presentation. Kate. Oh, there we go.

Speaker E · Thank you, Eliza. They're working on it.

Speaker G · Oh, perfect. You can go to the next slide. So my name is Alyssa, so I'm the project manager for this project from Dillon Consulting and I'll be joined by my colleague Aliyah. She's a partner at Dhillon and the senior technical advisor for this project. So I'm pleased to present the results of the curbs sideways collections options analysis. So in terms of the agenda for tonight, go to the next slide. So I'll be giving a bit of a project overview in the background and then I'll go into the work that was completed by Dylan. So that includes the jurisdictional scan, public survey results, and then scenario modeling for a municipally contracted model that which also include the financial cost per resident as well as the division of responsibilities.

Speaker G · So how that will look for the city and then the next steps for procurement. So in terms of the project overview. So Langford, as you know, doesn't currently have a municipal residential waste collection service. Instead, residents independently hire private waste collection contractors through a non mandatory private subscription model. And so from previous reports it was noted that this model has been leading to inconsistent service standards as well as overlapping collection routes causing heavy traffic on the roads, as well as environmental impacts such as increased greenhouse gas and grass greenhouse gas emissions, as well as potentially the improper dumping of household waste into public bins.

Speaker G · So in July 2025, council directed the staff to explore options for better waste management in Langford. And then in December 2025, the council directed staff to engage a consultant to explore a transition in service. And this was to be done alongside public engagement on this transition, as well as for staff to draft a supporting solid waste bylaw. So following the council meeting, Dylan was engaged as a third party to assess the the feasibility of transitioning to this unified service and evaluating the financial and operational implications of moving away from the current model. So within this study we had the jurisdictional scan looking at the member municipalities in the crd.

Speaker G · We also had a public survey on let's chat Langford and then modeled the potential costs of three collection scenarios for single family homes and, and properties up to six units. So this is where we are right now and we've completed this portion. So then the desired outcome of this project would be for the city to have standardized waste collection services with the average lower cost residents aligned with the city's environmental goals. So that's increasing waste diversion and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions as well as mitigating nuisances to the community. So next I'll Go into the jurisdictional scan. So that included all 12 of the member municipalities in the CRD as well as the regional district of Nanaimo. We reached out to all of them and all of them responded. So that, that was great.

Speaker G · The questions that we asked them included the, their existing service type model. So whether that's municipal in house service, municipally contracted service, or the open private market subscription. And then you can see that oakpay had the, had the mixed. We also asked them about the level of service that they had, the cost municipality as well as cost to residents and the benefits and challenges of this program. So in this table here I show the level of service and the annual cost for household. The cost data and the service level data was not typically available for those with the private subscription model. So you see those at the bottom that say not tracked or provided. Next slide. Yeah, so there was a couple additional key takeaways.

Speaker G · So typically municipalities with populations over 20 SAP 20,000 residents will manage waste collection through either the in house or the municipally contracted service models. And then for these unified models it was much more common to have the cart collection. So with a, usually a bi weekly garbage or a, and then there was a mix of weekly or bi weekly organics. In terms of costs for these municipal collection services, they typically ranged from about $200. That was, that's what we saw for the RDN, up to 390 per household annually. And then for the municipalities that had a single contractor model, so that's either the in house or the contracted, they saw that this, this typically would remove those overlapping routes that you would see with the private subscription model where you have multiple contractors on the road at the same time and your neighbor may have a different contractor than yourself.

Speaker G · So they suggested that this may lead to a decrease in heavy traffic on the road, which could each congestion and noise and as well as potentially result in reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and roadware in terms of in house versus contracted. So in house will offer the most control over your service standards. The contracted service does allow for more control than the private model, but you don't have the high capital costs of purchasing a fleet. So now onto the survey results. So in conjunction with this jurisdictional scan, Dylan developed a list of survey questions which included satisfaction for residents, which include the sacks of satisfaction with the current system and their provider, the current level of service and the fees that residents are paying residents priorities if the city were to transition as well as service preferences.

Speaker G · So the public survey was hosted on let's Chat langford and received 431 responses. So looking at the current satisfaction with the current model, about 58% are satisfied with their current private haulers. Then looking kind of more at the challenges and frustrations. So 48% of respondents noted they were frustrated with the high fees, 37% noted a lack of added benefits. So that could be extra leaf in yard pickup or bulky item pickup, so pick up for couches and mattresses. And then 28% are frustrated with the negative impacts of overlapping check routes. In terms of service priorities for residents, financial consideration was the primary priority with 50%, 57% of respondents prioritizing minimizing their monthly or annual costs.

Speaker G · So kind of further to that, 65% of respondents indicated that they would support biweekly garbage collection if it resulted in a cheaper service and that would be over say a weekly garbage collection. In terms of the preferred kind of billing, survey respondents preferred a volume based utility fee. So that's where costs to residents varies based on the size of their cart. So they can select a smaller cart for a reduced rate compared to a larger cart and that would be over the flat rate model with a standardized cart. We also included a question regarding preference and cart size. And the preferred sizes were a medium which was 120 liter cart for garbage, and a small which was an 80 liter cart for organics.

Speaker G · So from the results of the jurisdictional scan and the public survey, Dylan worked with the city to develop three service level scenarios for a municipally contracted service to carry forward for the financially modeling portion of this project to get a to model a potential cost annual cost per household.

Speaker G · So I have listed just a couple of the key assumptions here, but there are a number of other assumptions that were included in the model. So, so some of the key ones that we included were universal participation for properties with 6 units or fewer, and so that totaled just over 10,000 service dwellings for the year of 2027. We also included a baseline assumption of a contract term of seven years with options to extend to two additional years at the end of the contract term. And we also assumed that the City would require one new contract position over a 12 month term to manage the initial transition and rollout and oversee contractor compliance for the first year.

Speaker G · So here we have a table showing the scenarios that we kind of landed on. So we developed these in a workshop considering different levels of service that could be provided based on the what residents are currently seeing and what's the standard within the crd. And we use these to do financial modeling that will be in the next slide but these scenarios were determined to best align with the level of service that city would consider for the NRFP process. So the finalized scenarios include scenario one, which is cut on the baseline service. So it's a bi weekly garbage and organics collection with a standard cart, just the ones that were selected in the, the public survey.

Speaker G · And then scenario two is similar. So it's the bi weekly garbage, but the weekly organics, and again the standard cart size. And then for both scenario one and two, it would be no leaf in yard collection. So then the third one we developed was the scenario number three. And so that's bi weekly garbage and bi weekly organics. Except for here you do have the option of a cart size. So I have the two, the two size options here. And then in this scenario, leaf and yard waste would be permitted in the organics cart. Next slide. So, yeah, here we have the estimated annual costs for residents for the projected rollout of 2027. That would be for all edible dwellings across the three scenarios.

Speaker G · So again, these costs we have here are just the preliminary projections and they're intended for, for comparative analysis and shouldn't be considered the actual cost for the residents. Ultimately, that cost for residents and the contract pricing will be subject to the actual competitive RFP process. So as you can see here, there's a bit of a range of results with scenario one being the baseline service with the lowest of about $240 annually per household, and then with the highest of scenario two, which is just over $280 per household, and that's with the weekly service.

Speaker G · And then we see scenario three, which is kind of, kind of in between those two. So based on these model costs, it looks like transitioning to a unified model has the potential to yield cost savings for residents on average, compared to a private model to the private market model right now, which from the public survey results we were seeing that residents are paying up to over $560 annually.

Speaker G · Okay, next slide. So what does this look like for the city in terms of responsibilities? So as we are doing the modeling process, we also had the assumption that the administrative role of the city would be, would be fairly minimal. So in this model we would have the private contractor would be entirely responsible for procuring and distributing and maintaining the collection carts. They would also be managing all of the resident invoicing and billing and addressing resident inquiries as well. So in terms of the city, they would be responsible for overseeing the contract and approving promotional educational materials. And as part of this, this model, it would be expected that the city would hire for a 12 month contracted position for contract oversight during the first year of rollout and then following that for that one year term.

Speaker G · Is it expected that these duties can be absorbed to the existing role? And then. So what are the next steps? So our next steps are to prepare a negotiated RFP and contract scope that will define the level of service. That includes collection frequency, added benefits and eligibility. I would also define the CART management, kind of as we discussed in the previous slide, as well as the reporting and the performance management. As part of this RFP process, the City of Callwood has elected to join the NRFP process on a open, no obligation basis to obtain pricing from a potential contractor. So it is anticipated that this NRFP would be awarded in late summer, early fall.

Speaker G · And it's important that this timing is important because it allows the selected proponent to have lead time to procure their fleet and their carts, as well as deliver the carts ahead of the targeted rollout in 2027 and prepare residents for the transition. So thank you again for having us here and we're happy to answer any questions.

Speaker A · All right, thank you very much. Yeah, this is something new for the city. So we are all interested to see what is going to happen. Council, any of you have any questions on. And then we have Councillor Morley, then Councillor Wagner.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker L · I have a few, but I'll just start off with one. I guess the first one is just looking at the potential partnership with the City of Colwood. That's amazing to hear, the interest in that. Would we expect any additional economies of scale and potential cost savings if that is included in that, or is that already assuming that potential built in?

Speaker G · I'll let Alida answer that one.

Speaker C · Thank you, Alyssa. Through the chair, we did not model with the potential partnership with Colwood. However, we do anticipate that there would be further efficiencies of scale with that partnership.

Speaker A · Okay, next, Council. Merle, thank you.

Speaker B · Thank you very much for the presentation. What I'd like to ask is, I think the high was $284 for a year. Is the estimate now, what happens if the contracted company can't meet that $284 or even $300 a year per family? Do we have an out? Is there a way to cancel the contract? Do we go back to everybody just getting whoever they need?

Speaker E · I can take on that question through the chair process that we are going to continue as a next step is a negotiated rfp. So this is not a contract that we're putting out for tender, for example, so we will be able to see what the different contractors may be able to provide proposed to us. And the lead proponent would be selected through a criteria and valuation based on criteria. And then the evaluation committee, which is composed of staff from Lankford and Callwood, would be able to weigh all those pros and cons and potentially proceed with negotiating with the highest ranking proponent and with the ultimate goal.

Speaker E · As you saw in the, in the presentation, there's a list of desired outcomes. And from the public survey we heard that one of the most desired outcomes is lower costs on average for residents over the lifetime of that contract, which is a potential seven to nine year term, plus all the other factors, of course. But overall, if all of the RFPs come in higher than what we know on average people are paying, then we would report back to council at that point.

Speaker B · Thank you very much.

Speaker D · Thank you.

Speaker A · Next to Councillor Wagner and Councilor Hardner on deck.

Speaker J · Thank you. I think this follows on nicely with what we were just hearing. My question was about sort of the. Not just going with the cheapest option, but the most benefits. And there's a nice list of community benefits and I thought of a couple more already and economies of scale as 1. And waste diversion was probably mentioned, but I know it's in the staff report, but it really sticks out to me because the CRD is putting in a lot of effort to keep money, keep the landfill alive longer. And so I just wonder about some of those hidden costs, yard waste or just generally reducing the amount of garbage and those sort of co benefits. So if we're doing our rfp, would that follow our new procurement policy?

Speaker J · And I know that's kind of like several questions in one, but appreciate your

Speaker E · comments through the chair, this negotiated RFP process would align with our new purchasing policy. To answer the last question first and with regards to all of the goals or desired outcomes mentioned not only in the presentation but in the staff report, that is what the criteria, the evaluation criteria for the RFP would be founded around. Plus all of the evaluation criteria that are in our, that is in our purchasing policy as well. So you will see that reflected in there as well with regards to local businesses and different things of that nature. So staff, Lankford and Callwood staff would agree upon what the, what the criteria is and the weighting that's given to that criteria.

Speaker E · And I always like to include a section for added benefits as well, just to allow the open market to propose to us any additional added benefits that would be provided with the service at no cost, no additional cost to the Contract. So for example, we did that with the shared micromobility service so program E bike, E scooter program, we put that out to market. And one of the added benefits that was proposed by EVOLV was to have an EVO per share home station in Lankford. And so by having the added benefits section as part of the evaluation criteria of the negotiated rfp, we can take into consideration any added benefits.

Speaker E · And for this contract, I could imagine that that could include such things as large item pickup days or other things that you see in other municipalities.

Speaker F · Great.

Speaker J · And sorry, just to clarify, is yardway considered? It was only in that third option. But that to me that seems like a big benefit of reducing waste through the chair.

Speaker E · As you can imagine, properties that are either single family homes, duplexes or stratas, up to six units would typically have some kind of front yard or backyard that produces yard waste. And so as part of the survey results, we could see that residents were definitely interested in being able to include that in their green bin as other residents and other municipalities do. So that will also be taken into consideration. So the results of the public survey and any information that we have available to us, the evaluation committee will take into consideration when evaluating these proposals.

Speaker A · All right, next we've got Councilor Harder and Councilor, thank you.

Speaker D · Through you, great to see that Colwood is interested in this process. I had two questions, I guess just to clarify. We did ask all of the West Shore municipalities if there was interest in

Speaker E · joining on through the chair. That is correct.

Speaker D · Thank you. And then my second question is just with regards to some of the different service levels that we experience in the municipality. So I know Colwood currently provides branch drop off or yard waste services for their residents. Langford doesn't have that benefit. If we were to enter into a partnership for this NRFP process, how would that type of variability in service level be considered between the two municipalities

Speaker E · through the chair? That is something that we will take into consideration. However, there is a benefit with regards to the municipally contracted service being fully contracted, meaning that there's always a cost to those pickup, like those drop off services if they're managed by the municipality. There's always tax implications to that. So, you know, we would be looking to have that potentially included in the fully contracted municipal service. If, for example, we proceed with negotiated RFP and some of those items are not included in the contract for cost reasons, then we could explore other partnerships beyond this contract.

Speaker D · Okay, thank you. I guess I was just looking for clarity that this process wouldn't put Us in a position where in the spirit of good partnership, Colwood wouldn't be able to veto the scenario because, you know, they have yard waste already. If that was something that was the preference of Langford residents.

Speaker E · Thank you for the question through the chair. Another one of the benefits of a negotiated RFP is that through this process, Lankford and Callwood don't necessarily need to have the exact same level of service. It can be negotiated different levels of service with the same contractor to still realize benefits for both municipalities. So that there's. There's a lot of what ifs there. But I know it'll all be fleshed out once we get into actually evaluating these proposals, once we have some real options in front of us.

Speaker D · That's comforting. Thank you. I'm glad I asked because I recognize we're just at the start of this conversation.

Speaker A · Thank you, Councillor Gary. Thanks for waiting.

Speaker H · Thank you.

Speaker C · Through you, Mayor, a question I've been asked by neighbors about the ability to opt out. I know some folks are not using any garbage service and are making their own trips. I would imagine we could run into very similar strains on our municipal garbage systems if folks are just choosing to opt out and then not using any garbage systems and using the municipality garbage receptacles again. So my question is, are there communities that have successfully provided that in a way that doesn't result in more strain on our municipal systems? Like, I'm not too sure how to go about that. I just want to value the fact that some homeowners are really trying to manage their expenses and if there's any possibilities or ways forward in order to have where they could provide their own service and go to either Heartland or

Speaker E · GFL on their own through the chair. I'll remind us all of where we started in this process, which was a noticeable dumping issue not only at public waste receptacles, but in city boulevards. And it was actually surprising to see in the public engagement results that more than 10% of residents do not have a garbage service. It's a significant amount of the population and could potentially explain why we have this dumping issue. So the major downfall of the current system, as was explained explained previously, is that our current private subscription service, you know, that where everybody has their own contract is, is non mandatory. So in order to proceed forward with a successful municipally contracted service that provides lower costs to all residents in the program on average, means that the program will be mandatory and that will be done through a solid waste management bylaw.

Speaker E · So staff would bring that forward prior to contract award to ensure that it aligns not only with the contract that is being proposed, but also ensures that residents will join onto the program and that it'll solve these issues that we're currently experiencing.

Speaker E · However, we did hear from many in our community through the public engagement that they would like to have a choice so if, if they're just single senior living in a home that maybe they would just want a small bin. So there has, we did hear from, from residents that they would like to have options. Of course options sometimes means higher costs, but as you could see in the scenario three, it wasn't a significantly higher annual cost. So that gives us hope there that we would be able to hopefully provide options for residents so that there's not just one set price for all. But that is yet to be determined.

Speaker A · Second.

Speaker L · Of the opposite of Councillor Guyrie's is is there the potential to opt in? I know we've set that limit at six units for strata. I do know some stratas however that are larger than six units. But it is still up to the individual household in that strata to contract their own garbage just the same. Would there be the option in that case there for those individuals to opt into this service rather than just continue to do a private because they live in somewhere over 6?

Speaker E · Through the chair, go ahead.

Speaker G · Oh, I was through the chair. So when we did our jurisdictional scan, we did see that a number of the members pallidies did have varying levels of units. So some of them had just up to four, others had up to six and then others had that kind of opt in service for flexibility even with businesses. So it would have to be that the units that we'd be able to include would have to be able to be serviced in the same manner. So they'd have to be able to have car parts rather than say a front end loan bid like an apartment may have. So that's something that we can look at when we go through the NRFP process as well as when the staff goes through the bylaw is kind of how they want to define what who is eligible for these services.

Speaker L · Thank you. And good for clarification. The ones that I'm talking about, they are the current households that have the front bin part rather than strata bin accounted by. So I think it would fit in that context.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. And next we have Councilor Wagner for a second time.

Speaker J · Caller, thank you. I had a similar question about this limit of the units because similarly I know many stratas that are on the smaller side and we're not able to get our economies of scale and sometimes we have poor service and being able to opt in would be big cost savings for us as well and also potentially could add economies to scale for the whole city.

Speaker J · Right. So I wonder, it wasn't clear from the presentation that that would be explored, but is that something that is, would that be something that needs to be brought forward by council or is that something that can just be explored for stratas that are six or over that would be able to use a curbside where it makes sense instead of limiting by unit size, having it be by garbage type of service like Kurt's work for many townhouses, for example, through the chair.

Speaker E · Thank you for the question. We do not need any additional council direction in order to explore the opt in option. I think a lot of it's going to come down to contractor capacity. So with we're going to hear, you know, in the RFPs or the responses to the RFP, their phase in program is in order to purchase equipment and scale up. So there may be a time within the lifetime of the contract where they would be willing to take on opt in and the city would work with the contractor to put out a communication as such. But again, that's just one of the options that is being explored of many.

Speaker E · So we're going to leave that option open in the RFP to be proposed to us to see which contractors could handle an opt in service for more than six units. I believe that the proposal for up to six units in Langford aligns with the Recycle BC or CRD recycling service currently, which is a curbside service. So we start with that as the baseline and then see where the rest leads us.

Speaker A · Okay, again.

Speaker L · Yes, thank you. Last question that I have is just proposed a few times is how the billing of this ultimately works. I've heard fears from some businesses and some multifamily units of oh great, I'm going to be paying for this in my property taxes. When I don't. I'm not even going to be eligible to access possible benefits of this service because I have a large bin or because I'm a business. So just wondering if that can be spoken to a little bit as to proposed billing for for this service.

Speaker E · So through the chair, again, another one of the benefits of having a fully contracted municipal service is that the the contractor would take on all of the billing and directly bill the residents that are participating in the service, meaning that those who are not eligible for the service are not paying for for the service.

Speaker E · And it also means that Our Finance department is not taking on that administrative responsibility because we're not able to take that on with the level of staff that we have right now as well.

Speaker A · All right, seeing no more hands up, I got a question and a half. I was a little surprised, actually. Similar to Council Rener was saying about only option three having mixed yard waste and kitchen scraps. Am I correct on that?

Speaker E · Yes, Mayor. And I will. I will add a little bit here. The modeling of three scenarios was just for comparative and informational purposes only, meaning that your staff report might have been a little bit different. If modeling of all three of those scenarios came in over, you know, 400 or $500 per resident, and if the public engagement results were a little bit different than what they are, then maybe staff would have a different recommendation at this point. But as per council's direction in December, council directed staff to proceed with hiring a consultant to verify staff's recommendations because there was a lot of assumptions in there. And so that's when we proceeded with this.

Speaker E · And the consultant recommended as part of this validation or verification to model at least three scenarios, just almost for a ratio comparison purpose. So it's very likely that the level of service that results out of this is not just one of those three scenarios. We're not just going to pick from one of those three scenarios. We're going to go to the open market and see what the providers have to offer at what varying level of cost. So we're going to ask the contractors to probably, what's the. What's the cost for the baseline level of service? Plus a menu of options that the evaluation committee can weigh and balance and consider against the evaluation criteria.

Speaker E · So just wanted to reemphasize that those three scenarios that were presented tonight were just for comparative purposes.

Speaker A · Okay. And just to Councillor Kyrie, too, for a bit of an answer to your question. It was about 15, 18 years ago, there was a municipality that had a family, wanted to opt out and they had to go extensively prove that they only use, like one garbage bag for every several months because they reduced, they reused, they composted so much, and that was a one off. Pretty much everyone else, it was mandatory. All right, don't see any more hands. So to our online presenters, thank you very, very much. This has garnered a lot more questions than I think we expected. That's awesome. And on to the next steps. Thank you very much.

Speaker C · Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you. Thank you. So we now are on to item 4. 3, amenity cost charge and inclusionary zoning bylaws.

Speaker N · All right.

Speaker O · Thank you, Mayor. So with us today we have Rob Bars, who's the project director and principal with modis, the design firm that we're working with on this project. He's here in chambers today, as you can see, and online from the project team, we've got Jerry Mulholland of Mulholland Parker Land economists, as well as Jeanette Helmore, the project manager and senior planner with modis. So they will be here today to walk council in the public through the project described as the inclusionary zoning and amenity cost charge bylaws, which will essentially, due to updated provincial legislation is proposed that these bylaws replace the city's existing long standing framework of securing amenity contributions and affordable housing contributions as a condition of rezoning through a density bonus framework.

Speaker O · So I will hand it over to Rob to walk you through the project as well as the findings that have happened throughout the process.

Speaker P · Great. Thanks very much, Leah. And good evening, Mayor and council. Thanks very much for the opportunity to address you tonight in person, which makes a nice change. So, yeah, I'm here to talk about the draft inclusionary zoning and amenity cost charge bylaws, as Leah says. So just a quick overview of the presentation and I have to remember to do both things here because I'm trying to read off my computer and advance the slides. So I'll give a brief introduction, talk about some of the background and context of these bylaws, briefly touch on the financial analysis that's a requirement of the work. We did some engagement as part of this project.

Speaker P · So I'll talk about that and then I'll go through the key elements of each of the bylaws and talk then about the next steps. So our team, which includes Jerry Mulholland, who's online from Mulholland park at Land Economists, and Jeanette Elmore of my firm modus, we were engaged to prepare these bylaws to guide how the city collects amenity contributions and cash and lieu contributions and affordable housing as part of the development process.

Speaker P · And this work, including the required financial analysis, needs to follow provincial guidance and align with provincial legislation. So we've been going through roughly an eight month process. Some of this has overlapped with the housing strategy work that MODIS is also working on. We began back in November with background review and market analysis, moved into some financial analysis and then developed approaches to the draft bylaws.

Speaker P · And then we did some engagement with the public and also with some of the interest holders around this topic. So we are hoping to talk to you tonight, obviously about the the draft bylaws and then move into Fourth Reading at the end of June. So just a short recap before launching into the actual bylaw approaches of some of the background and context work that we've done. So In April of 2024, the province introduced new and revised tools that allow local governments to secure affordable housing through the development process. So inclusionary zoning is a new tool that allows local governments to require affordable housing in new market residential development.

Speaker P · And density bonusing, which does exist right now, continues to exist as a framework to allow increased density in exchange for amenities or affordable housing. But these requirements have been clarified by that new legislation, and both of these must be supported by a financial feasibility analysis. So what's affordable housing generally considered affordable when it costs no more than 30% of a household's monthly income? And currently the city's existing policies secure affordable housing for households that are earning approximately the median income in Langford.

Speaker P · The legislation allows the city to define the level of affordability of the units secured through its bylaws. ACC's amenity cost charges are a new tool that allows local governments to collect funds for amenities relating to new residential or employment generating development, and all growth except for affordable housing and places of worship is expected to contribute to those amenities.

Speaker P · And the idea is from the provincial legislation that the bylaws provide clarity and certainty, certainty for proactive planning. And they replace the previous approach that you've been using, which is negotiated cacs or community Amenity Contributions through the rezoning process. So amenities include facilities or features that provide social, cultural, heritage, recreation or environmental benefits to a community.

Speaker P · They're not the same as DCCs, although there are some parallels. And ACCs can't be applied to the same amenities that DCCs are applied to. So the eligible costs for these ACCs are essentially capital costs. So the costs of building these amenities, including the construction, design, consulting fees, interest and land costs. So the city has a current framework of policy and bylaws around these things. You have the attainable home ownership policy, you have the affordable housing and amenities contribution policy, and you also use the zoning bylaw and density bonusing to achieve both amenities and affordable housing. And then of course, you've got the DCCs and your annual budget spending and sometimes are negotiating additional housing and amenities through rezoning.

Speaker P · So the important thing to note here is that the density bonus bylaws which you currently use must align with provincial legislation by June 30th. So at that time your current framework essentially becomes no longer usable. And so the reason we're doing this work is to replace it with an approach that does align with the provincial legislation. So this will allow the city to continue to collect contributions for amenities and affordable housing and provide a transparent framework that applies to all new development. So just quickly, as I mentioned, there is a requirement to do some financial analysis for both of these bylaws to show that they essentially do not deter development.

Speaker P · And so Jerry Mulholland has done that work as part of the team and I'll just quickly summarize the findings. So, as you're probably aware, development in B. C. is very challenging at this time. The real estate market is probably at its lowest point in terms of volume and sales in the last 20 years. So it's a challenging context to be doing this work. Prices have stagnated and are showing signs of regression.

Speaker P · Construction costs have been at an all time high. They have slowed in terms of their increases. And we're actually seeing some signs that construction costs are slightly decreasing, but they're still near record levels. And also conditions driving rental development have changed. So for the last few years there's been a very strong rental market, as you're probably aware, but recently discontinued incentives from senior government, higher interest rates and limited market depth for rental has really affected the rental development market.

Speaker P · So the findings from the work suggest that there's not room for increasing development contributions at that time due to this poor market cycle which has been experienced throughout the province and much of the country. So the recommendation that we're making in developing these bylaws is that we convert the existing fees and contributions that the city, the city charges and align those with the new provincial required bylaw format and that we revisit these contributions either when necessary or in the next three years, hopefully when the market has improved somewhat.

Speaker P · As mentioned, we did some public and interest holder engagement as part of this work to inform the development of the bylaws. So I'll just briefly summarize that. So there was a public feedback survey between April 10 and May 3. There were nine questions, six closed ended, three open ended and we had 192 completed surveys as part of that work. And we also held two online interest holder workshops with local developers, was one group and non profit groups, including non profit developers, was the other, the other group. And essentially there was a presentation and breakout group discussions in each of those workshops. So in terms of results. So we asked in the public survey how should affordable housing be funded?

Speaker P · And the majority, well, the largest response from the public was through senior government funding, but also a significant amount of people identified through market developments as a. As a legitimate way of funding affordable housing. There were another of a number of other responses that suggested use of municipal taxation as an important tool and apologies, Just struggling with my notes here. Here we go. That we could implement municipal policy changes such as reallocating reserve funds, providing incentives to build secondary suites, reducing regulatory barriers for manufactured homes. We also asked how do you think the city should balance contributions from new developments between building affordable housing and community amenities? Because essentially this money comes from the same pot. It comes from the. From the contributions from development.

Speaker P · And so the largest response was actually an equal balance. And we also heard a slight preference for community amenities over affordable housing. But as I say, the kind of strongest response was an equal balance between those two.

Speaker P · We also asked which of the following community amenities do you think should be a priority for Langford? And respondents were allowed to select up to three. And so the largest response was for public realm improvements and transportation transformed streets, recreation centres, public gathering spaces, community centers and park improvements. Through the open ended questions. We also heard support for public trails, public access to lakes, enhancing tree canopy and a broad range of recreational facilities and active transportation infrastructure. So moving on to the the workshops. So we asked about key successes and challenges and one of the nice things to hear was that Langford has a very strong relationship and collaboration with both developers and nonprofits to deliver affordable housing.

Speaker P · It's seen as a leader in housing policy and delivering a diverse selection of housing types. So that was great to hear. Some of the challenges we heard were the high cost of land and construction, of course in the current market. And in some cases it's making it challenging to deliver any units, let alone affordable units. We also heard that changing regulations and policies at different levels of government are causing a lot of complexity and compounding some of the burden to deliver housing specifically to workshop with developers. We heard some suggestions for the inclusionary zoning bylaw development. So try not to increase requirements and complexity. Avoid double dipping and consider incentive based approaches instead of regulatory approaches.

Speaker P · Ensure clarity and simplicity of the requirements while maintaining some flexibility for unique scenarios. Align the definition of support of affordability and other requirements with federal funding programs and senior government programs. Ensure amenities keep pace with the development of housing. So parks and open spaces required to support support livability and adapt the program to future market changes, Recognizing that it's a very dynamic market right now. And developers for amenities suggested that from a sales perspective, when they're trying to sell homes to new customers, things like trails and walkable areas, lighting, daycares, recreation Centers, traffic and transportation infrastructure improvements are all important amenities to make the community more attractive to potential purchases.

Speaker P · In terms of the workshop with nonprofit organizations, they noted that there is, obviously, you probably are aware, severe lack of affordability housing units are needed across the housing housing continuum, including well below market and deeply affordable types of units.

Speaker P · Family friendly housing is also in demand. So they would like to see more three and four bedroom units at rates affordable for families. And both the delivery of units like affordable housing units, but also cash contributions are very useful for nonprofit organizations and can be used in different ways. So some of the suggestions around housing agreements were greater flexibility to accommodate both occupants and the operators. Small examples, in some cases with housing agreements, if a tenant's income increases slightly over the threshold, they then potentially have to move out of that affordable housing accommodation. And it can be very disruptive, even if it's a temporary increase. So a little bit of flexibility around some of the regulations related to housing agreements would be beneficial from the nonprofit organization perspective.

Speaker P · And then don't necessarily require nonprofit management or ownership of the affordable housing units. They can be owned by developers and run and managed by developers through housing agreements with the city as well. And then suggestions for the creation of the amenity cost, the amenity charge contribution bylaws. One of the strongest things we heard through the workshop was the idea of creating a home, not just a place to live, but near a community served by amenities, served by services and transportation and things like daycares.

Speaker P · So really trying to take that into account through the work. Additional comments that we heard were to find other incentives to build affordable housing. So making housing more affordable through things like tax incentives, which could be property tax incentives. And there are a lot of partnership opportunities with nonprofits. So nonprofits can purchase units on behalf of of their clients and manage long term the conditions of ownership. They can manage affordable rental programs. So they see a strong role. Some of these nonprofits see a strong role in the kind of managing management of affordable housing, even if it's secured by the city. By the city. Okay, so that was the overview of the engagement.

Speaker P · Let's take a look at the amenity cost charge bylaw proposals. So key approaches here, trying to provide clear, concise direction through the bylaw. Secure amenities from development across the city and secure those amenities into a separate dedicated reserve fund. Establish rates comparable to the existing policies. So as I mentioned, there isn't much room to increase rates at this time given this market. But what we've tried to do is establish rates using this new format that are quite comparable to the existing policies and then in some cases blending rates across the city. So right now in some cases you have different, different rates for different parts of the city.

Speaker P · The suggestion is to try and create a blended rate that applies citywide and then of course align the rates and requirements with provincial legislation, including the requirement that it does not deter development. So following on from that, do not require amenity cost contributions from affordable or inclusionary housing. So this would just be, these amenities would be collected from market, housing or commercial development. Allow yourselves the ability to consider in kind amenities or land contributions. So if a development can provide an, an on site amenity, maybe a daycare as an example, consider that as part of the contribution, or maybe it's a land contribution. And then in the case of complex developments, and these might be developments that are for instance, going through an OCP amendment, allow yourselves the ability to negotiate those contributions where it's a large, complex projects type of project.

Speaker P · So in terms of the proposed rates, so for new residential units, and so these are units that where contributions haven't already been secured, $3050 for a multiplex, townhouse or apartment unit, $3000 $3300 for a small lot, detached unit or duplex, and 5000 per large lot, single detached.

Speaker P · So those would be the amenity charge contributions that you'd be asking for for each one of those new units. And then for commercial, industrial and employment uses, generally the suggestion is 10. 7 per meter squared of new development.

Speaker P · So if those rates are secured and if development happens roughly at the level that it's predicted to happen through the ocp, and based on kind of the trends we've seen in Langford, the expected revenues over the next 20 years are, are $36.

Speaker P · 9 million. And the proposed amenities that would be funded through those amenity charge contributions are a recreation center which is estimated to cost 28 million dollars, community and arts centre at 7 million, and a transform streets program, so upgrades to two streets at 1 million dollars.

Speaker P · Okay, so now looking at the inclusionary zoning draft bylaw, so again the approach is to provide clear and concise direction through the bylaw, continue to seek affordable housing contribution from all new market residential development. So right now you do collect contributions from all of the new development in different ways. It's quite variable how that, how that happens and at different densities. But you are collecting contributions from all new market development, so continue to do that. And what we've tried to do is smooth out the requirements so that it applies equally to all the residential uses. So, so right now, as I say, the requirements are quite different for different density types. We've tried to smooth out those requirements. So essentially we're converting, updating and simplifying the existing policy approach that you have in the city.

Speaker P · And again, align the rates and requirements to the provincial requirements and ensure the rates do not determine development. Another key part of the approach for the inclusion rezoning is to align affordability levels to measurable benchmarks. And so when we say things like 10% below market, we actually have a benchmark to say what market is, which might be the Victoria Real Estate Board benchmarks, which are published on a regular basis. We also suggest that you do monitor and review these rates at fairly regular intervals, especially as the market is changing so dynamically right now. So the, the suggested required contributions from new residential units, and again, these are developments where contributions have not already been secured through some other means.

Speaker P · So for single detached and duplex, 5% of those units should be attainable at an ownership level. So I'll go through what that means in a minute. For small scale multi unit housing multiplexes, townhouses, or three to four story apartments, there is a 2% attainable ownership target. And then for condo apartments over four stories, 5% attainable ownership. And for rental apartments, 10% affordable rental.

Speaker P · The provincial legislation also allows for cash in lieu contributions and essentially requires the bylaws to establish conditions where cash contributions may be provided in lieu of built affordable units. So the suggestion here is where there are fewer than five affordable rental units, or where there are fewer than 10 attainable units that would be secured, that you allow for cash contributions. And the reason for this is smaller numbers of units are much harder to manage, especially when it's a non profit managing those units or the city managing those units. And so, yeah, small numbers of units are not as desirable. The cash in lieu also gives you a greater flexibility to potentially provide grants to a nonprofit, for instance, to provide deeply affordable housing.

Speaker P · And so it gives you that flexibility to meet the need and market within the city at any particular time. So the units that would be secured through this program would be affordable to households earning roughly the median income in Langford. The ownership units would be at or above median income. The rental units would be around the median income, and as I mentioned, deeper levels of affordability, if that's desired. And it is noted by nonprofits that, you know, there's a big need there to be supported through the grants coming from the cash and lieu that I just mentioned. So now I'll show you a table which has a lot of small text on it. Hopefully you can read that. So this table shows the different types of housing.

Speaker P · It shows in the second column the existing policy approach and requirements that you have in the city. And then in the third column it shows the proposed bylaw approach and the rates for both units and cash in lieu.

Speaker P · So for single detached, currently the city requires $1,000 per large lot, single unit, or for a small lot within the city center. And then $660 per small lot single detached outside of the city center. And for duplexes it's 660 per duplex unit outside of the city center, 1,000 within. And so the proposed approach here, converting it to this kind of requirement under the new legislation, is that 5% of units must be attainable ownership at 10% below the benchmark. The benchmark being basically the market price in Langford at the moment, or if a developer could choose instead of providing the units could provide, could provide cash in lieu at a rate of $1,387 per unit that's been developed for townhouses, multiplexes and low rises up to four storeys.

Speaker P · So you're currently current approach is $610 per dwelling unit outside the city center and 750 within the city center. And so the proposed bylaw approach is 2% of ownership. Units must be affordable at 10% below market or developers would provide a cash in lieu amount of 1,355 per unit. And then for apartments over four stories, and these are ownership units, condos. So currently the requirement is 5% of units must be attainable ownership at a level of no more than 399 to $499,000 per unit. And on top of that a requirement a contribution of $750 per dwelling unit within the city center or 610 outside the city center.

Speaker P · So the streamlined approach is to suggest that 5% of units must be attainable ownership at 10% below the benchmark or a contribution of 3,689 per unit. And then finally for apartment rental. So for apartments overstock four stories, the current approach is 10% of units must be affordable rental at 10% below the benchmark or no more than 30% of median rental income. Rent to income, sorry household rental income and a contribution of 750 and 610. And so the streamline proposed approach is 10% of units must be a affordable rental at 10% below the benchmark or no more than 30% of the median rental income or a cash in lieu contribution of $3,862 per unit.

Speaker P · So as you can see, we're roughly aligning the existing approach with the proposed approach, but also making sure that we're meeting the new requirements of the legislation. So let's just look at a couple of examples here.

Speaker P · So if we look at a 4 unit small scale multi unit housing project at 2% contribution rate, so the 2% would round would, would mean 0. 08 attainable units is part of that project rounded up to one.

Speaker P · So a developer could either provide one unit or provide a cash in lieu contribution of 5,420. You can guess which one they're going to choose in that case. For a 30 unit townhouse project at 2% contribution rate, it would be 0. 6 of an attainable housing unit, which we would round up to to 1. Or a $40,650 cash in lieu contribution for an 80 unit condo building over 4 storeys. So that's the 5% contribution rate. So that would turn into 4 attainable units or $295,000 for 120 unit condo building over 4 stories at the 5% contribution rate, that would be 6 attainable units or $463,000.

Speaker P · And then for 120 unit market rental building over 4 stories, that would be the 10% contribution rate or 12 affordable rental units. And in this case there is no cash in lieu option because it exceeds that threshold that I was talking about. So just very briefly, that's the end of the presentation, except as say that our next steps on this obviously tonight, looking forward to discussion and council's consideration of the proposed bylaws. Potential fourth reading on June 29 and then after that we're going to be also working on the refined housing priorities and actions through the housing strategy. And as I mentioned, it's recommended to review these bylaws in about three years or as needed if the market shifts considerably. Thank you very much.

Speaker A · Thank you very much, sir. I want to apologize for coughing on you. I had a tickle that just did not go away. Hopefully I'm good now. This is fantastic. Staff has been working on this for a while and. And I'm going to open it up to council right away. Anyone have any questions? Councillor Wagner and then Councillor Herter.

Speaker M · Thank you.

Speaker J · Something that I just heard there, you mentioned when you showed your table, you called it, it was streamlined having some units and cash and lieu be separated out. I don't know if we can go back to that table easily, but it looked like instead of having the units and Some cash. We are just now saying it's units or cash, but the units are the same. So it might. At first glance, to me it looked like we were giving up something there. We weren't. I can see there's clarity in this model. But we're doing it now. We're Getting say the 10% of units, 10% below benchmark and some cash. And then on the other proposed bylaw approach, we're only getting the units at the same level or the cash.

Speaker J · So I just wondered how that is streamlined. Isn't it just that we are now not getting the cash?

Speaker P · Well, the streamlining is that you can see for some of the low rise type of projects, you're getting very little right now. So for townhouses, houses or buildings up to four stories, you're getting a very small contribution.

Speaker P · And so as I mentioned, we've tried to smooth out the contributions across a broader range of housing types. So it's not. So you're not penalizing some of the higher density forms or even medium density forms of housing.

Speaker P · Also that the requirements for the apartments over four stories are quite out of date in terms of those benchmark numbers at the 399 to 499 per unit and quite hard to attain, I would say, at this time, given the market.

Speaker P · So we're trying to keep it reasonably the same, but smooth out the contributions and update them based on current financial analysis as well.

Speaker J · Oh, thank you very much. That did tie back to my other question. So now that is very much more clear for me. I also wrote down smoothing out requirements. Are we, you know, in favor one favor over the other. So what you're saying is taking it as a whole, we won't be driving a particular housing type of or favoring a particular housing type. So in that way it's more fair.

Speaker P · It's more fair. It's also more fair because you're applying it citywide as well. So some of these contributions are focused on either the city center or outside the city center. We've tried to smooth out those requirements. So they apply citywide, which seems fairer both for the amenity contributions and for the affordable housing.

Speaker O · And if I may just add to that through the mayor, it's a great explanation. And just further to that, the legislation doesn't require or doesn't allow for just a cash contribution under the new legislation that is geared towards allowing the units or the cash in lieu. And the cash in lieu has to be calculated in a certain way as far as the difference in the value to the developer of those units. So there's a kind of a more specific formula that has to be followed in that financial viability testing that has to occur as well for all those different housing forms. But you know, unlike our current policy, which is more kind of community amenity contribution based where you can have contributions to specific reserve funds, the new legislation around inclusionary zoning, it doesn't allow just a kind of a fee.

Speaker O · It has to be the unit or kind of the comfortable cash in lieu for the lost value, for the difference in value between the market and non market units. So though the kind of inherent structure of what we can do using this tool is different than what we would have done before using our amenity contribution policy in conjunction with the attention sustainable housing policies.

Speaker A · Okay. And next was Councillor Harder. Thank you Councillor Gary.

Speaker D · And thank you Threeu. Thank you so much for the technical presentation. This is wonderful. And I appreciated the point that you made. Just about kind of wrapping our heads around managing, you know, a small number of units in certain buildings and how that might pose a challenge down the line. I hadn't thought about it that way. My question for you though was with regards to some of the numbers that were put out for the amenities that were hoping to establish these reserve funds for. And it's a bit of a silly granular question, but I saw $28 million for a recreation center. I, I've seen unfortunately recreation centers cost more than that.

Speaker D · So I'm just wondering if you can provide some clarity on how those numbers were, how, how we came to those numbers.

Speaker P · Staff did do rough estimates of capital costs. I think it did take into account that some costs could be shared as well. And so yeah, I think it's recognized that it probably wouldn't pay for the full, the full cost, but that would be the contribution towards the cost of a recreation center from this program.

Speaker D · Perfect. That clear clarifies things. Thanks.

Speaker O · If I can just provide a little bit more flesh to the bones through the mayor, we did work with a quantity surveyor to get kind of class D estimates based on certain criteria such as, you know, the size of the facility and the features that it would include and, and such assuming that it would be on city owned land, so there wouldn't be a land acquisition cost, but those numbers are fairly high level still.

Speaker O · So as we move forward and collect funds into the amenity cost charge kind of reserve fund and get closer to the point where we would look to build out any of the facilities in the bylaw, we would pare down or add some additional detail to those estimates. And refine the size and the features so that we can ensure that they're accurately represented in the bylaw. And they're. There could potentially be bylaw updates that come when those estimates are fleshed out a little bit more and we get closer to moving forward with construction on those projects that are listed.

Speaker A · All right, thank you very much, Councillor Garvey.

Speaker I · Next.

Speaker C · Thank you. For you Mayor. Question and this is probably going to build on Councillor Harder's question because it's on the amenity cost charge. I'm just wondering about the priorities that were outside of the three listed and how those became will could become achievable in our community. Like I noticed a library was one but isn't on the list of three. Are we looking for outside funding for those priorities or will we have to readjust the bylaw or how would we work in things that aren't on this list?

Speaker O · Yeah, through the mayor, I think both of those would be opportunities. So we could look for outside funding, work with with partners to advance some of those projects or it could be incorporated in a future bylaw amendment if say an opportunity for a library is identified and council prefers that over a community, you know, community rec center or not a community rec center.

Speaker O · A community center or a library could be part of a community center. So there, there are lots of different ways to address that either within the bylaw or as a bylaw amendment or through alternative funding sources.

Speaker A · Anyone else? Second time caller.

Speaker J · I could probably say this for the report later but I was also interested in those priorities and wondering about just the order of operations. This is a 20 year plan. I believe you're estimating those costs and so perhaps a recreation center for in the future, but trying to realize some of those community benefits earlier on. How does it get decided how the funds are spent? You know, maybe arts is a big priority. We really haven't funded that to the same extent as we have the sports. Can we choose? How do we choose what we pick as our first project, for example, or some quick wins about transform streets because they're small projects, that kind of thing.

Speaker O · Through the mayor any the funds that are collected through the ACC can only be spent on the amenity features that are included in the bylaw. So if there are other opportunities that council wants to explore, that could be again kind of done through a bylaw amendment process or through alternative funding sources. There isn't really any order as far as which project gets funded first or to what degree. All the money goes into one pot or one reserve fund and then it can be expended on any one of those aspects. So if there is a public realm improvement that is desirable, you know, you can direct the funds that are collected from ACCs from development towards that.

Speaker O · You could wait for a while to a little bit more money and use that on a larger project. So there are lots of options about how to move forward. But it is one pot of money that is specifically to be directed towards the costs of constructing those particular amenities that are in the bylaw. So there are projects that are desirable to move forward, they're in advance of, that are kind of amenity related, but are not in the bylaw. There would either need to be an alternative funding source or an bylaw amendment to accommodate that. And again, there has to be, you know, a certain degree of cost estimation done for that to, in order to back up those costs and what the, what the bylaw funds will be, will be directed towards.

Speaker O · So there is some robustness of the analysis and the calculations and the estimates that kind of inform what the bylaw says. So it would be difficult to kind of pivot at this point without doing an additional cost estimate to replace what is in the proposed bylaw. But we did hear very strongly from the community and have identified at the STEM level opportunities to advance those three particular projects. Community rec center, community centers and you know, various public realm improvements and transformed streets. Those would fall within areas that the city has land for and can advance those in a shorter term as fairly low hanging fruit.

Speaker O · Not financially necessarily, but as far as the land goes, those are logical choices that we've heard from the community and just through our own strategic planning that those are, are desirable features that the community would like to see.

Speaker J · Great and super quick follow up because I think that's my understanding is that yes, cost estimates, it wouldn't be easy to change this, but is it an internal process? We don't have to go to the province for this program, whereas we do with DCCs, is that right through the chair?

Speaker O · Yes, that's correct. An ACC bylaw doesn't need inspector of municipality approval, it is internal. Just the bylaw approval and amendment process would be followed to make any changes to the bylaw in accordance with the requirements of the legislation to do that.

Speaker A · All right, last call. Thank you very, very much, sir. This is in depth and there's more coming. So thank you very, very much. All right, I'm just going to ask for like a six minute recess, just let everyone stretch, use the facilities and so on and then we'll get going with the rest of the meeting.

Speaker D · Thank you. I'll move that five minute recess to come back at 8:35.

Speaker J · One second.

Speaker A · Okay, all those in favor? Supposed. See you guys in five. Everyone back with us. All right, Call this meeting back to order.

Speaker A · It's hard to believe it's 8:40 and we are only on item number five, but that was some great conversations we've had. So we are going down to public participation and we're going to get some rules.

Speaker Q · Good evening everyone. My name is Marie Whatmole and I'll be the moderator for the this portion of the meeting. Public participation is in person or via Zoom, either using the Zoom app or telephone. If you're joining us through the Zoom app and wish to make a comment, please use the raise hand function in the app, keeping in mind so you're able to both raise and lower your hand and you'll be called on based upon your username. You'll need to unmute yourself when it's time for you to speak. If you're joining us via telephone, you must press star nine on the telephone keypad to raise your hand. You should hear a recording advising you.

Speaker Q · The moderator will be notified that you wish to speak and you'll be called upon using the last three digits of your phone number. Please press star6 on the telephone keypad to unmute your phone. If you're attending in person, you may approach the podium one at a time. Once the public participation begins, and in all cases, please start by providing us with your first initial, last name, municipality of residence, and item or items on the agenda that you wish to speak to. During public participation, you can speak to any item on the agenda subject to the three minute time limit. There may be more than one opportunity to speak, but additional comments are limited to those not raised by you previously and at this time.

Speaker Q · We remind the public that the city does not tolerate bullying or harassment of city staff, staff, elected officials or members of the public during council and committee meetings. So please keep your comments respectful. For any matters not appearing on tonight's agenda, please contact City hall by calling 250-478-7882. During regular business hours. And if you experience technical difficulties in getting through tonight, please contact City hall tomorrow. As always, the city also accepts written submissions and comments.

Speaker A · All right, thank you very much. So we'll look for the people in the house. If anyone likes to come forward, raise your hand. Come on up. You have three minutes. Please state your name and area of residence.

Speaker N · Good evening, Mayor and Council. Judith Collington, Wonderhuke Performing Arts Centre Society we are based in Colwood, but of course work entirely through the West Shore. We're the group who are working very hard to create a community arts and culture center including a theatre in the West Shore. And of course Langford is part of that through our inter municipal committee joined tonight by David and Fran from our organization and I think some others joining us online too. I'd like to speak to agenda item 9. 1. So this is the arts and culture strategy. Congratulations Langford. This is fantastic to see your arts and culture strategy recognizing this is an important priority for your city.

Speaker N · Recognizing the importance of arts and culture to the economic development of this city as well as the cultural development. There's a lot of good content in there. We did provide comments in the strategy on April 17. I won't touch on those pieces. I've only got a couple of minutes so I want to focus my comments tonight on the recommendation for a theatre co located with the proposed North Langford Secondary School School. We are absolutely supportive of theatres in schools, but I really want to say loud and clear, school theatres do not work for community and professional groups. Schools make extensive use of their theatres but this means that for many groups the space is not available, it's not suitable. There are restrictions that just don't work for them.

Speaker N · So I would encourage Langford to be very careful that if they choose to pursue this option that it is indeed a co location but that it is a theatre owned and operated either by the municipality or a community group and that it is not a school theater. I would also note that a school theater would not qualify for the CRD funding for a regional theatre. In their bylaws they say we don't fund educational facilities. This means that theatre would have to look elsewhere for operational costs. Performers would have access to the theatre access grants. So I'm sure CRD staff would be happy to provide you with more information if you need on that.

Speaker N · I also note that the report identifies a 750 seat theatre. Not quite clear why that number, but I would remind folks that for community groups a 350 seat theater is a much more comfortable size and much more affordable for those groups to use. Size really does matter. Location also matters. I note that your summary says to function successfully the theatre must be centrally located, well supported by surrounding infrastructure. Some of council may be aware that we are looking at options to bring a theatre much closer to downtown Langford and we certainly look forward to exploring that with you. The report speaks to the benefit of community partnerships and PACS is very keen and willing to work collaboratively with you on this shared goal. So, in summary, I would like to suggest a minor modification to the staff.

Speaker C · Okay.

Speaker N · I did provide a proposed recommendation alteration to Ms. Watmer, which hopefully she'll share with you.

Speaker G · Thank you.

Speaker Q · And that's been distributed to all members of council.

Speaker R · No, you didn't. Good evening. Fraser Johnson, Langford resident. Thank you, mayor and council. I'm speaking to Agenda Item 9. 2, which is the 2025 Annual Report. I read the annual reports every year. I think it's a good way to look back on some of the notable achievements or projects within the city. It's a reminder of where our property tax dollars are going and also an insight into some of the work done at city hall for several years. I have been particularly focused on one section near the end of the annual report, which lists the permissive tax exemptions for the year. This is the only place where residents can see the value of these tax exemptions, which are a significant cost shared by all the other property taxpayers in the city. In the 2025 report.

Speaker R · I'm especially pleased to see that the revitalization tax exemptions are included in that section this year for what I believe to be the first time in Lankford. I offered my feedback to council last October when the exemption for the former speedway lands was on the agenda to advocate that these tax exemptions be included in the annual report. And I just wanted to say that I really appreciate seeing that change made for 2025. I don't think this is a topic that gets a lot of attention because the public. From the public, because tax exemptions don't come up at budget time. But the dollars are significant between the permissive and the revitalization tax exemptions. The amount for 2025 is over $1.

Speaker R · 8 million, which is more than what we spend on some entire city departments. I'm happy to see that these are now receiving the transparency that they deserve in the 2025 annual report. Thank you. Thanks to the city staff that contributed to the report for this year, and I encourage people to read it.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Anyone else like to come forward, please? I see Henry's. Come on up. Good evening.

Speaker N · My name is Fran Perkins. I'm a resident of Langford for the past six years and five days. Having moved here, I found that it's a great community in many ways, but the one thing that's missing is the arts and culture. So I commend you on the new initiative that's being enforced, and I would like to add to what Judith talked about. Proposed recommendation from pax, which I joined because Judith sort of scooped me up in a park one day and said,

Speaker A · would you be interested? And I said, yes, I sure would be.

Speaker N · So the recommendation is that council direct staff who work with the school district and community groups to explore opportunities for a performing arts theater owned and operated by the municipality or community group co located with the proposed North Langford Secondary School.

Speaker N · And that staff continue to work with community groups to identify other options for a West Shore community theatre. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Anyone else like to come forward, please raise your hand. Go on up, sir.

Speaker S · Good evening. Malcolm McNaughton, proud to live and work in Langford, here to speak about three items tonight. 9. 3 Waste Service. I am one of the people that would prefer to have private service. I don't use much garbage and I don't really like the idea of having the costs increase. I would also note that in the survey there was only 11. 4% of people that were dissatisfied with their garbage service. So just something to keep in mind. I know we're trying to solve a problem here, but you know, it's a pretty broad brush that we're trying to solve it with. I'm also here to speak on 11.

Speaker S · 1 and 11. 2. 11. 1. I don't really have a lot to say other than it would be really good. Great. If that could be charged at the time of building permit. I know that it is something that is done at rezoning and is generally paid at subdivision. But if it could be done as a covenant and done at building permit, that would be great because the longer that you can not have to pay those fees and not pay interest on it as a developer allows you to actually keep their cost down. So it is one of those carrying costs. It's not just the number that you see there on the screen is the cost that the developers are carrying in their debt to move that forward. So as regards to 11.

Speaker S · 2, kind of near and dear to my heart of affordable housing, as many of you know, it's overall very good. It provides certainty. There are definitely some challenges with the kind of unequal sizes of things in terms of four story versus five story. And there's also some issues with. And that, and that's because of ancillary things like the structural requirements in the new building code that make it more challenging in the core to do six story buildings and that kind of thing. So there's, there's a lot of kind of challenges in there I won't get into all of it because I have a very short period of time.

Speaker S · I, I would say that there is also, I think, an opportunity to not just look at this every three years. I think that's good from a cost standpoint, but I think we need to keep an eye on some of the higher levels of government. It was mentioned about, about following some of that. The provincial government has dried up their money. The federal government is, is probably going to make some changes to their CMHC programs. They, they're kind of happening. So keeping an eye on that and keeping this policy, this bylaw aligned with those is something that I think is very key to be able to help everybody be able to actually be bring this affordable housing forward.

Speaker S · That's so many notes here, and I just have so little time. Oh, the other thing is 25 years is very tough to sell, resell a property so people buy it and then they want to take their equity and go and buy on another thing. And so it's very challenging. I know I'm out of time, but

Speaker A · thank you very much, sir. Next person I'd come forward, raise your hand, please. Okay, we'll see. Anyone, line? No more hands in the house. All right, I'm going to close public participation. Thank you very much for everyone that has stuck around for the first two hours and a bit to get through to this. All right, give us a second to flip the page.

Speaker J · Point of privilege maybe. I saw a hand raise online and I might be too late, but it was while you were saying that and it's come back. So I just want to check with staff. Is it possible to go to the online call?

Speaker A · Is that something we can do? You would have to do a motion.

Speaker J · I move that we reopen public participation. For the caller that I see online.

Speaker L · I'd second that.

Speaker A · All those in favor, post. All right. For the numbered caller,

Speaker Q · telephone user ending in 431, please unmute your phone, provide your first initial, last name, municipality of residence, and indicate which item or items on the agenda you wish to speak to.

Speaker M · Wendy Hobbs, 3442 Luxton Road. Thank you very much. Mary. I literally just turned the other way and I missed that. So thank you. Thank you very much. And everyone else. That's okay. So I'd like to talk about. Well, first of all, I just want to say what a jam packed agenda. It's really hard to be able to just grab one item when it's like this. And I just think that you all, you know, ran on the public engagement and and still four years later, three minutes is not enough, especially when it's an agenda like this. So I'm hoping that when you have agendas like this that you would just automatically add on to it. So I'm talking in 9. 3.

Speaker M · I'm suggesting you do nothing with this item so close to an election to fetter a new council with a decision of this magnitude would not be ethically right as far as I'm concerned. Especially if you're going to do a contract for seven years. For people who don't understand what fettering is, it refers to a current council making commitments that bind or unduly restrict the choices of future council. And being you only had 481 respondents and 58% indicated they they were very satisfied but had some frustrations with it. I am not either way on this because I myself don't feel I have enough information to see if this would be good for the taxpayers or not.

Speaker M · But I just wanted to also say that back in July 21, 2025, I FOI all the records of complaints from the residents regarding garbage in Lankford from October 23, 2022 to July 21, 2025. I was then sent a bill for $930 to get that information. So I'm going to go back to again, two campaign promises, transparency and public engagement. And still, almost four years later, I'm not seeing this. I think that's ridiculous. $930.

Speaker F · It just brings me right back.

Speaker M · Yep.

Speaker A · So just want to make sure you're sticking to item 9. 3.

Speaker M · I sure am, because I wanted the complaints which brought you to this agenda item. And I was told I had to pay $930 to see all the complaints. So I don't know if council is aware of that, but that is absolutely not in what you guys ran on. Transparency. That is not transparent when you want a taxpayer to pay $930 to see the complaints. And again, I hope that you do not do anything with this item, especially that it's four months to an election. Thank you very much for letting me speak. And you all, I hope you don't have to stay too late because you got a long night ahead. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Okay, I really don't see anyone now, so I am going to close public participation. All right, so we are on to item number six, consent agenda.

Speaker A · Are there any changes to the consent agenda prior to a motion?

Speaker D · Thank you, Mayor. I will move that council adopt the recommendations for each item of the consent agenda as presented.

Speaker A · I Have a seconder.

Speaker D · I'll second.

Speaker A · Okay. Call in question. All those in favor, post. All right, that passes. That means item number seven, considerations and matters removed, is no longer in play. We are on to item number 8. Notice of Intent 8.

Speaker A · 1 CBP 260001, 1436 Pinehurst Place.

Speaker J · I will move that Development Variance Permit Number DVP 260001 be issued by council for the city of Langford to Ryan Allman to increase the allowable fence height along the rear property line at 1436 Pinehurst Place, subject to the following terms and conditions. 1 Variance following regulations of zoning bylaw number 300 be varied pursuant to section 498 of the Local Government Act. A Section 3. 2, 1. 034 A1 be varied to increase the allowable height of a fence along the rear lot line from 1. 8 meters 5. 9ft to 3. 4 meters 11. 1ft.

Speaker D · Second,

Speaker J · I think it's really brief just to say we saw a particular instance where a building was right next to a property and this seemed like a reasonable response as a variance. This is the purpose of it to be nuanced about a particular situation where in a master plan community. I guess it wasn't anticipated that these particular housing types would be this close together. And so the residents finding that the fence would be very important feature to continue enjoying their home.

Speaker A · Anything yourself?

Speaker C · No. Just to add that it's quite normal sometimes this goes through the Sustainable Development Advisory committee. However, this came to council at the last minute. And the next step after council debates and supports as we did, is this notice of intent.

Speaker A · Great call to question. All those in favor. Close move that passes. We are on to reports. Item number 9. First 1. 9. 1 Arts and Culture strategy.

Speaker K · Good evening, mayor and council. Tonight we are presenting the final arts and culture cultural development strategy. And the purpose of the report in front of you this evening is is to obviously present the report for you for approval and for consideration of approval. The development of the strategy was noted as a council priority in your strategic plan and it represents Lankford's first comprehensive plan for fostering arts, culture and heritage and as an integral component of the community's identity and quality of life. The strategy before you sets a vision of Langford as a vibrant, inclusive and creative city where everyone can access and participate in the arts and where cultural development enhances social well being and economic resilience.

Speaker K · The strategy identifies four strategic objectives ranging from improving arts accessibility for all residents to supporting the growth of Langford's Creative Economy with each objective accompanied by strategies and immediate action steps to guide implementation over the next five years. The strategy was developed throughout 2025 and earlier this year with extensive engagement with the community, a working group and key partners. Hundreds of residents and representatives from local arts and cultural organizations contributed through surveys around discussions, a community Ideas fair and a dedicated, passionate community working group. The process ensured that the strategy reflects local needs aspirations including voices of youth, seniors, artists, BIPOC and two SLGBTQ communities, indigenous partners and arts professionals.

Speaker K · The strategy aligns with best practices practices for cultural planning in growing diverse cities and will provide a clear framework to support arts and cultural development in Lankford and ensure that future decisions and investments in this sector are equitable, strategic, inclusive and aligned with Council's vision and aligns very closely with the official community plan.

Speaker K · And this evening with us we have Tricia Huntsman, the community consultant that helped us with the strategy and either of us are happy to take your questions.

Speaker A · All right, thank you very much and welcome Council. Do you have any questions? Go ahead. Thank you.

Speaker C · Thank you.

Speaker J · Through the chair I had a question about the resolution and just looking at the way it's listed here, all, all in one shot. So I might just pick apart a couple of things here. So one of the things I was going to ask about was how we will work with the Sook School District and explore opportunities in the resolution. It isn't clear that we'll be working with community groups and I was also concerned about how we would secure funding with the new CRD art facilities service that is just been created. And so it's not clear to me I want to keep all our options open for funding sources. So if you could clarify that.

Speaker H · Thanks.

Speaker K · Thank you. Through the chair. Yeah, that's a great question. The city at this point, this is very early days but we know that the costs of building a standalone theater are significant in the 60 million plus. We also know that theater size does matter as it was mentioned this evening, and there are already a couple of 300 seat theaters in this area. We know that the Mary Winspier Centre, which is just over 300 seats, is well beyond capacity for a much smaller community. So the numbers that we're looking at are more in the 750 plus range for seats. But that being said, we see an opportunity to have discussions with the school district. It certainly is very early days. Staff will report back.

Speaker K · So I think at this point it would be getting too in the weeds to talk about future funding from CRD to Support theatre until a

Speaker C · more work

Speaker K · is done, specifically with the school district. And of course, the city always works with partners where, you know, that's really the DNA of the city of Langford is partnership. So that is something that's always on the table. And lots more discussions to have with SD62 on this. But it certainly is worth a discussion because not only would it benefit residents, visitors, but also the students that attend schools in Lankford for many reasons, including the fact they could graduate in the city that they were educated and live in.

Speaker J · So if I could follow up on that. In the report, it does talk about working with in the West Shore Performing Arts Theater section of the staff report talks about working with fair use models, potential partnerships, and other, you know, feasible options. So I just wanted to, I guess, flesh out a little bit further because we received some wording from the community that they felt was important, that they were clearly specified as being included in the conversations, because we know so many school theaters are not working well as community theaters.

Speaker J · So I just wonder about, I guess, an opportunity to add that intention of having the shared conversation with community groups to make sure that it's a theater that meets the variety of needs.

Speaker G · Yeah.

Speaker A · Thank you.

Speaker I · Through your worship, I think we have to remember that this is a school facility and they have invited the city to explore the possibility of. Of turning this theater into a community theater. But again, it's very early days. We need to have a couple of initial conversations to see if it's even possible, because they are constrained with size and location and all those kinds of things. And if we report back to council and we determine that there is a possibility this could be, in fact, a community theater, then I think that would be the time that we invited other groups into. Into the conversation. But at this time, because of our great partnership with SD62, they have agreed to allow us to start the conversation and see what could be done.

Speaker J · Thank you. That is helpful. And I see there's other questions, so perhaps I can go for a second time later.

Speaker B · Yep.

Speaker A · Councilor Morley, thank you.

Speaker B · After reading through the strategy, it did come across as very much a Lankford first policy, which makes complete sense to start this program. But what I wanted to ask is, does the staff envision the transition from Langford first approach initially to potential future regional participation? Is there any milestones that would indicate that Langford would be ready to join

Speaker E · the CRD through the chair?

Speaker K · That, you know, certainly is a really important question. And while we do want to see a Langford forward approach, ultimately we'd like to see a reconnected West Shore approach. Right now, we have multiple groups and artists and creators just operating in silos, and there's so much more work to do. The strategies, just the beginning. And it determined that we need to bring everybody back together. We know residents don't seem to pull boundaries, visitors certainly don't, and performers and consumers of the arts don't see it that way. And this strategy, clearly determined, and, you know, we've seen it over the years that people are working in silos, and it's not. Doesn't work.

Speaker K · So we'd like to start with looking at bringing everyone back together from a West Shore regional perspective, getting that great work done. We have heard from the community and all the folks at the working group, and a lot of them are creators, and they want to see a really grassroots West Shore approach. As another person mentioned this evening, we've done really well in sports and recreation over the years and events, certainly. However, there's so much more. More work to do. When you think about arts and cultural development, so much more than sculptures and murals, it's so much deeper, and it goes so much wider than that.

Speaker K · And we need to start by bringing everybody back to the table at the West Shore. Once we get that great work done, I think that is when we start to look beyond the West Shore and reach out to other, you know, that would be an appropriate time to reach back out to crd. And in the meantime, of course, we are always collaborating. We have great relationships with the CRD and all of the communities in the entire region. So it's not that we won't be working with them. It's just we want to focus first on the West Shore.

Speaker B · All right, thank you. Sounds like it's going to be very, very challenging for you.

Speaker A · Next online is Councillor Harder.

Speaker J · Thank you.

Speaker D · Through you, Yeah, I think those are great points, the balance of arts and sports. I'll just point this weekend at Langford United, it was great to see a blend of both. I saw the Brazilian Association, Community association out on Station Avenue, and there was tons of song and dance in celebration of sports. So I love that cultural. That cultural connection and that interweaving of, you know, just community. My question, though, was with regards to a couple of things in the report, namely, I love the idea to create an inventory of spaces. That's something we hear is challenging. People don't know where to go or what spaces are available. And so I'm wondering if staff could provide maybe a loose timeline on when an objective like that might be able to be accomplished.

Speaker K · Tricia, do you want to start with that one?

Speaker A · Thank you.

Speaker H · Through the chair to council. Thank you for the questions and the other questions that were raised by council members. We do see often in the early implementation stages of a cultural plan, there's sort of two things you want to get working on out of the gate and we. One would be that inventory and mapping function, which should be work that is often done by planning on a regular cycle, just as the suggestion of three years was made earlier in terms of ACC and inclusionary zoning. It's a similar thing for cultural mapping and this cultural spaces inventory because you want to see if there's displacement of cultural space use for production, presentation and participation on a regular basis.

Speaker H · So that is our creatives getting pushed out of spaces and is there an affordability consideration in that? So that's usually a first item that it's a precursor to developing. I think these Items are in strategy 4 of your plan or objective 4 of your plan and that's a precursor step to doing a cultural facilities framework, which would be the next items that you probably want to see in the implementation. And of course, implementation items are something that we would be working with the community working group and establishing those priorities as long as well as to bring that back to council.

Speaker K · Just to add on to that, one of the objectives in the plan or one of the strategies is that we need to look at underutilized existing spaces and not just your theaters that we know we have at Royal Roads and Belmont and other locations, but also businesses that transform and can transform at night. We need to really dig into that and see where folks are currently finding each other to meet up and have these performances and, you know, spoken poetry nights and jam sessions. And there's so much happening in our community that we still need to find out about. So that's part of the work.

Speaker K · And also we know that audiences are changing and often you see these theaters, like these amazing shows come to the Royal Theatre and folks are priced out of opportunity. And that's something that we really need to consider as well. Those tickets that maybe used to be $75 are now 200 plus to attend. So we do need to consider evolving audiences when we look at spaces and Flat Floor has come up on from one example, when you talk about theatres, it's not your traditional theaters all the time. So a lot of work needs to go in, especially when you're looking at the costs associated with a purpose built theatre.

Speaker K · So there's a lot of investigative work to do, but some things we do need to be mindful about at the same time and opportunities that are right in our community already in terms of underutilized third spaces as well.

Speaker D · Oh, thank you. That's a great point. I was was chatting with a DJ over the weekend actually and they, you know, mentioned that need for spaces knowing where they could potentially rent out venues. And I don't think they were necessarily referring to the traditional venue I had in mind, but really those community spaces to activate. So I appreciate that point. I had one more question just with regards to potential funding opportunities and I see the linkage between economic development and arts and culture and tourism and I'm wondering if it possible potentially to maybe lean into some of the MRDT funding that we collect through hotel tax to accomplish some of these objectives

Speaker K · through the chair. Certainly some of them. There are restrictions on the use of MRDT funds, like building physical buildings, for example, is not permitted use. However, we do already use a significant amount of MRDT funding for events. The BC Lions was a great example. A lot of the global soccer event that's happening at Station right now. A lot of that is funded by mrdt. So certainly as we put together a work plan to look at the immediate actions coming out of the arts and culture strategy once approved, we will also be looking at the budgeting side of things that was noted in the report as some there is a little bit of funding think we need to see what else could come out of MRDT and other grants that are available.

Speaker A · Okay.

Speaker J · Dr. Wagner, if no one else. For the first time, I wanted to flesh out a little more about just because this resolution is before us. There's a lot of things in the strategy that are really strong. So I'm unfortunately I'm picking on things that maybe I'm just not clear on. So I sound like I'm less excited, which I think that's unfortunate. So I'll save my comments for later, but just bear with me as I work through some of this just to make sure I'm comfortable with the resolution because we've talked a little bit about steps to maybe join the Arts Funding Service at some other time, but it specifically mentions the West Shore Arts Council very directly and that we're going to work with them and then again that we're going to work with Callwood v.

Speaker J · Royal, Just Highlands but Chosen SOUK and others with the West Shore Arts Council and the Culture Collins Society. So there's a couple specifically named groups, but there's many other groups. So we know there's the Juan de FUCA Performing Arts Council Society or JDF pacs, whatever those letters are for. Juan de Fika Performing Arts Center Society. Lily Pad Pavian Art Society is another new one I've heard of. And the Colored Art Society is, is in at that Goldfinch Gallery location. But I know many Langford residents go there because they got going and it's a cool place, so they go over there. So, yeah, just wondering how we're going to be fair and equitable in our approach, how we're going to include groups that maybe we don't even know about. It's a complex landscape, as you said, people in silos.

Speaker J · But because the resolution specifically talks about the West Shore Regional Arts Council or Western Arts Council, I just, I found that a little confusing. If you could clarify

Speaker G · if you want

Speaker K · to start, and then I could add

Speaker H · some comments as well through the chair to council. Thank you for the question. I think it's important for council to remember that this is a progressive. You could think of it as a continuum. The first piece we need to look at in terms of arts and cultural development is actually within here in City Hall. What's the shared response responsibilities of arts and culture around. Around the senior table and within different functions of City Hall. So that is one piece in terms of your arts and culture development. The next is to look at organizations like the arts council that is existing, that does receive money from provincial levels of government and other local municipalities.

Speaker H · Each municipality needs an arts development function happening out in its community and it takes a while to build that capacity out in the community. Sometimes you can start with one organization, such as the arts council to assess their readiness and their ability and their capacity to be able to do that work. And in some cases you then have to go further and bring in a number of different organizations to help fulfill that function. So it would be a progressive process to build out that arts development function. So if there's an ability, I believe council may remember. I know council. Council receives a lot of information and it's going back all the way to December. But there was a workshop specifically on the challenges that B. C.

Speaker H · municipalities are having with their arts councils and the need for an arts development function out in their community. So going back to those notes, important to realize that this is the function that a lot of cities are helping to cultivate out in their community, helping to build capacity. These organizations are going through a lot of change, particularly generational shifts, and they need to shift from being membership focused to being community impact focus and aligning with their city's cultural plans. So think of it as a progression, I guess, a continual process.

Speaker K · Thanks.

Speaker J · So, yeah, to be clear, then, we're just starting with this. This is a first step of this resolution with specific groups, but of course, we're open to all groups is what I'm hoping and what I'm hearing. It'll be an iterative process, but even to make sure we're not leaving anyone out right at the start. So, yeah, I'm not sure how we communicate that out, but.

Speaker K · And through the chair, just to add to Patricia's remarks, is, and it's noted in the report, is the West Shore Arts Council has been an established organization for many, many years, and the city of Langford has always been a supportive partner and continues to be. However, over the years, the West Shore Arts Council, which used to be funded by all of West Shore municipalities, isn't. That's no longer the situation. So why they're named in this report. It's something we have to dig into, and it's uncomfortable, perhaps, but we. We need to address that and look to finding out why. We need to ask important questions, and that is part of this building back.

Speaker K · And we can't just keep going forward hoping for new outcomes. So as much as it is potentially an uncomfortable conversation at this point, the city of Langford and The Highlands, at $500 annually, are the only local governments that are funding the Shore Arts Council. The program is happening in all of the municipalities. So there's an equity gap there. And we need to have those conversations to find out how can the city help? Patricia's been doing a lot of work with many arts councils across the province and beyond. So it's not just a problem. Not a problem. It's not just an opportunity and a challenge that we're seeing here in Langford, but it is one that we need to look at the best.

Speaker K · Support all different artists and performers and creators to make sure that what we are funding is keeping up with cultural change, demographic change, generational change, and that's why that work is detailed in the report. Specifically,

Speaker A · I think Patricia has a comment there. Make sure.

Speaker J · Yeah, I forgot one.

Speaker C · Thank you.

Speaker H · Through the chair. I did forget one important, important point to share with you. At the bottom of page 16 of your arts and culture development strategy is the mention of the formation of a cultural roundtable. And a community Cultural Roundtable would be an initial and important first step that would bring those specific groups that you're mentioning that were mentioned earlier this evening together, and that is one of the first steps in building the capacity out in the community and to keep those organizations involved in the process and the implementation of the of the plan.

Speaker H · So that's sort of inherently built in through the community cultural roundtable step.

Speaker A · Okay. Does anyone else have a question?

Speaker J · Okay, Councillor Wagner, I could make a motion and then that would probably be easier for everyone because then when I stray into comments and then it doesn't preclude any questions that might come up.

Speaker C · So

Speaker J · as challenging as I might find this, I will move Option one, that council approve the arts and culture development strategy as presented. And that council direct staff to advise the CRD and the city of Lankford will not be joining the CRD arts funding service at this time. And that the council direct staff to advise the Westshore Arts council that the 2026 funding amount will be maintained at 10,000 while the City reviews the service delivery model provided by the Westshore Arts Council. And the council direct staff to work to hire a consultant says work and the council directs staff to work with work with a consultant to guide conversations with City of Colwood District of U Royal District of Highlands District of my chosen District of Souk Westshore Artists Performers Westshore Arts Council and Arts and Culture College Society to discuss a refreshed long term vision for Westshore Regional Arts Council Council and that council direct staff to work with the Sioux School District to explore opportunities Farming Arts Theater co located with the proposed North Langford Secondary School.

Speaker P · I'll second that.

Speaker A · Okay. Motivation.

Speaker J · So, yeah, that was a bit of a mouthful and I think. I don't want to make myself sad, but I feel like I'm channeling counselor Spock here and saying best is the enemy of the good is that we need to start somewhere. So here's a plan, here's a strategy. We haven't had the arts and culture strategy. I'm very passionate about it and I want to do more faster, but I could probably ask questions all day and never feel satisfied. But I have read the report and I know there's a lot in there. And then we had presentations. It was actually quite a while ago now.

Speaker J · So unfortunately there's a bit of a gap of when this report is coming and. And the presentation that, you know, presented this material. I just know there's a lot of energy in the community right now and I just wanted to honor that and recognize all the groups that are excited about doing all their work and how I think we need everyone to come together. So thank you for highlighting this convening function that it needs to happen early and I would say early and often. And again and again. So I really want to see us resource this and, and get it going and appreciating that as much as I might have my own opinions. That's why we have experts on these things.

Speaker J · Staff and consultants are indicating that things are changing. We need different models, we need different approaches, we need to respond in an equitable way. So there's a lot to do here. And so I think being supportive of getting started is my reason for supporting this plan. And the motion that was recommended by

Speaker A · staff and Councillor Morley, any motivations?

Speaker B · Thank you. Well, I've always been a proponent of the arts, so. But in my opinion, that the arts and culture, they're at the heart of a strong, connected community. And I'm really proud of this strategy that staff has developed and it invests in creativity, it supports local talent and ensures that our arts will continue to inspire, unite and define Langford's future.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Next is Council Garvey.

Speaker C · Thank you. I think one of the biggest gifts about us growing so fast is that we are now an incredibly diverse community. We have a lot of folks in Lankford and. And unfortunately, I think there's a lot of invisible folks in Langford. I've seen, you know, just recently, having attended the Langford United, how international our community is. And while I love gathering around sport, and as Councilor Harder said, there's no rules to say that you can't be sporty and artsy at the same time. I do think that there's missing opportunities to celebrate that diversity, to show visibility, to, you know, create an identity for our community that is more than just a bedroom community for Victoria, more than a place of big box stores and traffic.

Speaker C · We are, we are a very vibrant community. We have a lot of amazing folks that live here. And I think this is like a great way to show connection, to show that this is where we live and who we are. So I'm really excited about those opportunities in general. And then just to speak to the motion about the second part, about to advise the CRD that the City of Langford will not be joining the CRD Arts funding at this time, it's worth highlighting. Councillor Wagner and I were just at the CRD talking about the CRD Arts Service and how challenging it is once you're in, to start negotiating, if it's still a good fit.

Speaker C · And we had a lot of directors that were very blunt and that this is something you should really strongly consider. And so what I see the benefit of waiting and going through the priorities of this, of this arts and culture strategy is having a good understanding of, like I said, who we are, but not also what joining the CRD would actually mean and what our expectations are so we know if it's working for us or not.

Speaker C · Because we would have two years to decide whether or not we wanted to opt out before going up to the next tier. And we should have a pretty good understanding of what we would see in those two years so that we could know whether or not it's working. Right now, I don't feel like I understand what that would help us in a very direct way to know if we're succeeding or failing or. And whether or not we should be pursuing with the next tier of the service. And so I just want to say, having just had a very looking at Councilor Wagner, I think we talked about it for was over an hour

Speaker K · about

Speaker C · what being part of that service is and the commitment. I'm just happy that we're pausing and we're just taking. We were doing some self reflection about who we are as a community and what we'd get out of it before proceeding. And I do, I am excited about, hopefully that's in our future. But we do need to know what that looks like and what we expect because good boundaries are good relationships.

Speaker A · Anyone else? Councilor Harder, thank you.

Speaker D · Through you great comments by my colleagues, I think I just want to point to actually first a friendly amendment if I might. I believe that the district of Eroyal is actually the town of V. Royal. So if we could change that in the resolution. But on that point, I think this is a really great opportunity to take that pause and try to look at the West Shore as a whole. Coming into this position four years ago, I did find that there was this disjointed network of artists and creatives on the West Shore working in silos. And I don't know if that stems from this identity crisis crisis that we had in the West Shore of, you know, Collwood being the arts community and Langford being the sports community.

Speaker D · But I think if we do want to achieve anything and really work towards accomplishing the vision that we've set out in this plan, we have to work together. So I appreciate that this, this motion really does speak to that need to discuss the refreshed long term vision because I think we are at that crossroads moment as a community and I won't repeat what has been said already. I do want to acknowledge and appreciate all of the work that is going on in our community around trying to get a more formal performing arts studio or center, rather, going in the West Shore. Because it's been heartening to hear that it is identified at the regional level that the West Shore is a gap when it comes to performing arts spaces.

Speaker D · And there's been decades of work by community members to really make sure that that message is not lost and to make sure that the work that does move forward does suit the community needs. So I appreciate the proposal to, you know, be the squeaky wheel at this point with the school district and make sure that we are really putting that message out there that we want to see creative spaces put into school spaces as well. But I do hear the comments made by staff, perhaps about having this is maybe crude, but too many cooks in the kitchen at the beginning of the process, just recognizing the fiscal constraints that are happening at the province and the real constraints of that site as well.

Speaker D · So I appreciated the comments during the public participation, but I do support the motion that was presented for the floor. Thank you.

Speaker A · Anyone else? All right, I'll just say, and I don't think my opinion is a mystery to those that have heard me speak on this before, I look at sports and arts as two equal sides. One can't be more than the other for any amount of time. Often, especially in smaller communities, as they grow, they stay grow around the sports because you have the school field, the school track, they grow there. But you don't get that that same center for arts. So arts has to grow outside of that, say the education center. And it's much harder. So I started with sports and then as a young adult got far more into arts. I mean, I always was, but. And they are both needed in a growing city.

Speaker A · And it's great to the fact that that is at that point where we have got that solid side now on the sports. And now we need to equalize that on the arts and not choose one over the other. And the fact that where we are in this process and what you guys have done this has given us that nucleus to get that going and spread out into the West Shore and go from there. So I'm going to call the question. All those in favor? Opposed that passes. We are on to 9. 2 the 2025 annual report.

Speaker E · Thank you, Chair.

Speaker Q · Through you, Section 98 of the Community charter requires a municipality to prepare an annual report based on the previous year, which includes, among other things, the audited financial statements, a report of the tax exemptions, a report on municipal services and operations, a progress report on objectives set the previous year and objectives for the current year.

Speaker Q · This report is required to be available to the public two weeks prior to council consideration, which consideration must be prior to June 30th of the current year. Advertisements were placed in accordance with the community charter and the report has been publicly available since June 2 as required. All required information is also included in the report. Staff note that there is an error in the draft report in that the 2024 bylaw statistics were included instead of the 2025. The correct information has been distributed to council on table and will be updated in the report before it's finalized. Staff would therefore be seeking a motion that the annual report be approved as amended and staff are available to answer any, any questions that you may have.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. So as part of the annual report, the mayor often gives a message and I'm not going to read all of that out, but I would like to point out a couple things. We had some great initiatives start this year in terms of daycares, art center, foundry and more. But we had some that finish that, that that has been the work from the people before us and just us to now. So I mean for myself one of the most important ones is the, the new doctors. You know, we got a 10 doctor clinic using an amazing partnership between the city, the what is now the South Iron Primary Care Society and the Goldstream Masons.

Speaker A · That would not have happened if we did not have both the push from council and the hard work from staff who were pulling their hair out trying to figure out how we can make this happen. All three of us work together and we now have a clinic that has already hired all 10 of their doctors and you're looking at 12,500 plus new patients to be attached in our area. You know, the second would be the John Horgan campus. This is something that started before us and you've heard me talk about that continuity of council. We're not like the upper levels of government. When there's an election, everything stops. Staff has keep kept working on this as a new council came in and give staff all the credit.

Speaker A · You know, they upboarded us on it, gave us all the information that we didn't know and what was something that was started by the previous council. We got to see basically all the construction and opening and you know, it's testament to that partnerships because the whole concept of this university is, you know, Royal Roads and UVic and the Justice Institute of BC and School District 62 and any others that could come along are all in this one spot which is fairly unique.

Speaker A · And if we want to Talk about another thing that is just in this term. It is the refresh of the ocp. It was not an easy feat by any means and staff did a ton of work that we're not aware of other than we just know how long it was taken for updates and talking with them. And correct me if I'm wrong, to our planner. We received an award for it.

Speaker O · Thank you, Mayor.

Speaker D · Yes.

Speaker O · I was presented with a silver award from the Planning Institute of B. C. at the annual conference last week, which is a. An accomplishment that I think the whole city council staff and the project team can be very proud of.

Speaker A · Awesome. So there is much more work done in the city, but this is just some examples of working together, partnerships, projects that are already under underway, projects that come to us planning. And I want to thank everyone involved for everything that's been done. This is just something that is to be approved as presented. Does anyone have a motion?

Speaker D · Thank you. I will move that council approve the 2025 annual reports as amended.

Speaker A · I'll second that. Any motivation?

Speaker D · I think you did a great job motivating, Mayor. The only comment that I was going to add was raised during public participation that I think it's great to see all of the financial information presented in this document for transparency and clarity. And I just want to give a quick shout out to the improvement of the annual report over this term. You know, I cast my mind back to four years ago and it's just wonderful to see you. The 2025 annual report really does provide a roadmap to residents if they want to get a sense of what's been accomplished in the past year or if they want to look forward and see what some of the objectives are for the.

Speaker D · The year to come. So, you know, these are the small things that maybe don't go noticed by regular residents, but I think this is a really great example of the modernization and improved governance of the City Hall. So I, I don't want to take that lightly because it is so something that we set out to do as a council and we are. We are killing it.

Speaker M · Yeah.

Speaker L · Thank you. Just to briefly add to that, it's. I really appreciate you can see the impact that the strategic plan that we adopted early in this term has and how it influences its way through everything happening at City hall here, including in the way that it's being reported out in the annual report.

Speaker R · Exactly.

Speaker L · As you mentioned there, Mayor, it covers some amazing big ticket items that have happened in the city, but also for residents that are interested, gets into a lot more of the nuance and the nitty gritty 67,000 kilometers traveled on the evolve E bikes and E scooters over that first six months.

Speaker B · Right.

Speaker L · It's amazing uptake and amazing usage and it's that kind of information across all departments that can be found and provided in here as to what's happening in our city. So thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you.

Speaker J · I'll be brief but I love this good report here. I think everyone should read it. Thanks for the public participation comment about what a thorough job it is. If you look at just one page here it's got highlights of the E scooter, E bike share program, littoria road improvements, sidewalk infill projects. Some things I actually had forgotten about. I was like oh yeah that happened happened last year. Super informative. And there's the looking ahead section. We are now going to be able to reduce construction impact because we got that over the finish line. The community standards bylaws. That was something very near and dear to my heart. That was two years delayed.

Speaker J · It's a little bit hard on me and really wanted that one earlier in the term but now it's in and we can see how it plays out. And then is Councillor Yakuta pointed out the fun facts here. I just was like really interested to see that 497 stormwater devices were cleaned and maintained. So things that we don't necessarily realize this is what the tax dollars are going for. The storm drains must be cleaned. That's important. So there's just so many nuts and bolts in here and you could look at the park section and you'd be very impressed with everything going on there. Veterans Memorial expansion is coming on.

Speaker J · So just amazing things each year and so I do think people should check it out.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Anyone else? Hey, I'll call the question. All those in favor post that passes. Just let me turn the page. We are now on to 9. 3 Waste Management NRFP.

Speaker E · Thank you, Mayor. Purpose of this report is to provide counsel with an update on a municipal residential curbside garbage collection service. Currently, garbage collection for residents of six units or less in Lankford is typically done by multiple companies contracting directly with homeowners and participation is voluntary with a portion of residents indicating they do not subscribe to any garbage collection service. This report responds to council's motion from Dec. 15 where council directed staff to engage a consultant to review and verify the staff recommendation to proceed with a municipally contracted residential curbside garbage collection service. Advise and support the the public survey and key partner engagement conducted by staff and if verified, prepare and present the proposed scope for the municipal garbage service contract to council for information prior to going to tender.

Speaker E · Public survey and key partner engagement is complete as well as the review and verification of the staff recommendation to proceed with a municipally contracted residential curbside garbage collection service, which included cost modeling for three potential scenarios for comparative and information purposes only. Projections show that transitioning to unified municipally contracted model will likely provide cost savings for residents on average when compared to the current open market private subscription model. It would also increase waste diversion, align with environmental goals by reducing GHG emissions and infrastructure impacts, and mitigate the nuisances the community is currently experiencing, such as illegal dumping and traffic congestion. Following council receipt of this report, staff would issue a negotiated request for proposals jointly with the City of Colwood, who are also interested in exploring a municipally contracted residential curbside garbage collection service.

Speaker E · Staff would also bring forward a bylaw to regulate the storage, collection and disposal of garbage organic waste for council's consideration and target contract award in late summer early fall 2026 with a phased rollout of the service by the contractor in 2027. Happy to answer any questions and I believe our consultants are still online as well.

Speaker A · All right, anyone have any comments or questions? Councilor Kucha, thank you.

Speaker L · I'd be prepared to move option one council receive this reminder report for information.

Speaker D · Second that.

Speaker L · Yeah, thank you. Definitely this, this came after significant amount of public participation and just hearing from the community as we were out there regarding the overflowing traffic bin or not traffic bins, my goodness, it's late already. Crash bins that were out there in the community and the rest. And it was through a lot of this organic conversation and complaints that came forward just individually through word of mouth and through own observation being in the community that really stemmed for this to come forward. So while I recognize that there may have been an FYI sent in asking about these complaints, most of these complaints personally I heard here in these chambers through public participation as well as from members of the community and through new own observation which is what initially started this investigation into options.

Speaker L · I'm excited to see this come forward. Biggest regret honestly is that we weren't able to look at this earlier. Taking a look at the potential cost savings. These are, these are massive. These just based off of early estimates, nearly erase the tax tax increase that we've had this year for a representative home. So that is massive savings for our households. That provides a massive boost to affordability in being able to provide those savings. We'll see what the NRF The NRFP comes back at. Of course that is going to be the final determinant, but the early works definitely, definitely seem to be massive savings to our residents. So thank you staff and to our consultants for your work on this so far.

Speaker A · All right, thank you very much.

Speaker D · Thank you. Well said by Councelor Yakucha. I, I think that this is a really important question to ask at this point in time as we continue to grow as a community. And I, I really appreciate the in depth work that's been done to date to help council wrap our heads around, you know, the process of establishing a new service like this and some of the challenges that we're experiencing, perhaps indirectly. You know, I do, I do find that statistic that was gathered through the survey of approximately 10% of survey respondents not currently having a garbage service being something that is insightful because I do hear from community members and organizations that there is certainly a need to coordinate and regulate garbage collection across the community, whether it's to mitigate some of the wildlife attractants or just to mitigate the wear and tear on the roads and the amount of traffic that we have on residential streets.

Speaker D · And you know, I agree with Councillor

Speaker G · Yakuta, I think it would have been

Speaker D · lovely to explore this a little bit earlier in the term. So we weren't coming up along the lines of an election, but as a community we've stewed over this question long enough and I think for me it was at the beginning of the year when we had a lot of emails come in from residents quite angry about the cost of their garbage collection rising with the new year.

Speaker D · And this was the first time that this happened over the term. So I do think we've reached a tipping point. There's so many great, great metaphor or great, great jokes to be made there, no pun intended. But yeah, all the trash talk. This term has been wonderful and I am looking forward to seeing the results of this NF or nrfp. I'm committed to council and just really happy to hear that we were able to bring on some partners with the West Shore as well because I think again that's, that's what, that's the direction that we need to be moving forward, is working together.

Speaker A · So thank you, thank you very much. And next online is Councillor Wegner.

Speaker J · Thank you. Yeah, this is quite a big deal. It's funny to me that this has received this report for information because here we are. It's. I know there's another step, but this actually was really interesting how it came forward. We didn't identify it as a priority in the strategic plan. It wasn't something that I was necessarily thinking was even possible. And the way this emerged over time and we saw those bins filling up and I heard about it a lot and it was in the news and then I saw it with my own eyes and then people saw their costs rising. And so it really, I think came from the community. And I think it was important that that was recognized. And appreciate that that Councillor Yakucha and Councillor Harder brought this forward.

Speaker J · At the time I was nervous about filing more work on our staff and look where we are now. Think that it is late in the term and that's okay. We're going to keep working until the end of term. And I appreciate when people call in with feedback or come to speak to us in person as well. And that's one piece of evidence that I'll take with me. But I did hear so many people talk about their quality of life and just the amount of, of garbage trucks that would come in and out of a small neighborhood and all the different uncoordinated approaches and that noise and the backup beepers and the whole thing.

Speaker J · So there's other aspects that aren't about garbage. There is a lot about noise and wear and tear on the roads. And I just want to double down on the cost of the landfill. If we don't reduce our waste, we will have massive costs in the future and a big fight of trying to figure out where are you going to site another landfill. So I really want to encourage us all to consider that waste diversion is worth an increased cost. And luckily we saw it wasn't really an increased cost. It's a convenience. I love putting my yard waste in my bin. I'm in a strata, so we have that service compost, yard waste and garbage. It's fantastic. I have very little garbage and I hope that for others as well. So I'd be really looking forward to.

Speaker J · Hopefully the costs are, will bear that out. But it's very satisfying to put your things in a yard waste bin and it takes, it's taken away and it's not a particularly a big cost and it's a lot cheaper than driving your stuff to heartland yourself too. So there's things that are hard to factor in as costs. But I just wanted to highlight some of those hidden costs and those hidden values as part of the conversation.

Speaker A · Thank you very much, Councilor G. Thank you.

Speaker C · A lot's been said, so I'm not going to, to repeat what my colleagues have said. I, I will note That I just want to acknowledge that this is a big transition for our community. This is a big change. And that, you know, sort of becoming a bigger city, a more complex city is that we need them kind of the grown up services to go with the grown up city. Like we, we need to be able to address the complexity of our city in a way that is, is more equitable. We have targets in our OCP as far as decreasing community wide GHG emissions by 61% from 2007 levels to 2038.

Speaker C · So we have commitments that we've made and this is kind of the pathway, one of the ways that we can help achieve those goals. And then finally I'll just add I've been a renter and a place

Speaker M · not

Speaker C · in this community but in another community where it was optional to participate and you know, buy your own service and my landlord did not. And so my partner and I needed to figure out what to do with our garbage. And as a renter it was really stressful. As a renter with a baby it was incredibly stressful because we also had diapers. So these things like probably have like while there's folks that are really struggling and trying to figure out the cost, there's also renters that might be getting the services that need, that they need as part of living in Lankford. And so I just want to acknowledge that there's a lot of different lived experiences that are going to have to experience this in different ways.

Speaker C · But I do believe that this is the correct path forward for a city of our size.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Let's see any more hands. I'm going to call a question. All those in favor post that passes on to 9. 4 Development Variance Permit Application 698678 and 674 Atkins Ave. And 27922788 Winster Road.

Speaker O · Thank you Mayor Stantec Architecture is applied on behalf of the city of Colwood, the town of Utah Royal and the city of Lankford for a development variance permit to facilitate the expansion of the West Shore RCMP detachment at the noted addresses. As noted by the Mayor, these variances encompass a variety of setback, landscaping and off street parking requirements of zoning bylaw 300 which have been proposed in order to optimize the overall usage of the site and to allow for the construction of a new building in approximately the same same footprint as an older existing portion of the detachment is to be demolished.

Speaker O · The proposed variances should have minimal to no impact on surrounding neighbors and roadways. The setback variances have been reviewed to ensure sight lines for vehicles entering and exiting the property are maintained. The setback variance along Highway 14 or Betterman's Memorial Parkway has been approved by the Ministry of Transportation and Transit, and staff are available to answer questions.

Speaker A · Thank you very much, Councillor Garvey.

Speaker C · Thanks. So through you, Mayor, Orientation is really important when we're talking about setbacks. And we have a site that faces three different roads, and so it's hard to know where the front and where the back is. So I was just wondering if I could get some clarity as to how this particular site is oriented so we can have a better understanding of. Of the setbacks and to further expand on that, perhaps why we have certain setbacks and why they're different based on that orientation.

Speaker O · Yes, thank you for the question. It's kind of a technical answer. The link for zoning bylaw and most zoning bylaws define a front lot line based on the shortest lot line adjoining a road. So it's not necessarily a kind of common sense in that the front lot line is where the building access is. It's based on the length of the lot line. And then from the determination of the front lot line, all of the other lot lines are determined. So the rear lot line is opposite the front, and if there happens to be another roadway that would be an exterior side and then interior side adjoins another property, typically speaking.

Speaker O · So it's based on the location of the lot line and the length of. Of the lot line, and not necessarily kind of a logical determination with regards to the actual building itself. So in, in this particular case, Winster Road is the front lot line, Veterans Memorial Park M is the rear, Atkins is the exterior side, and then the northerly lot line adjoining of the Boston Pizza complex is an interior side setback. So normally both a front and an exterior side a lot line, there would be factors around, you know, the relationship between the building and the road. In a residential zone, there's often kind of additional setback, like one type of setback for the primary portion of the building, and then a different setback for a garage, for example, to make sure that there's an appropriate length of a garage.

Speaker O · But the, the cefacts are generally intended to kind of create a certain look and feel with regards to the. Between the building and the road, that interaction between the site and the public realm, and then to respect larger setbacks, especially in. In the rear yard area, where it often abuts upon another rear yard. So just to provide for some kind of usable open, open space and such, this Particular site is bound on three sides by a road. So it's. It's a bit of a different situation than one would normally see when you're looking at lot lines and setbacks. And then when you look at the building itself for this particular site, there are the.

Speaker O · The intention was to utilize the, you know, the existing footprint of the building, but make a larger building. That can mean the needs of the detachment over the next 20 years. And the prominent kind of corner was designed to be that Atkins and Veterans Memorial Parkway corner. That's where the primary building entrance is. There are some public realm features there. So the intention was to kind of make the best optimized use of the site, reusing that existing foot footprint, creating that connection to the portion of the building that will remain in place, and then making the most optimized use of the land that is outside of those areas for kind of parking and other needs of the detachment in that location.

Speaker A · Okay, Councillor Wagner, thank you.

Speaker J · Through the chair to staff, I was wondering about sort of any, any financial implications. In the report it stated that variance requests, if they're not approved, there would be financial implications, but there's no cost estimates for any other options. I'm just wondering if there are any other viable options for setbacks or vegetation. For example, I think you just clarified that the existing park and tree area at that corner with Goldstream and vets, that would remain. But just commenting about maybe frontage improvements or other things that we might see that it's not entirely clear what, what it's going to look like. But there's no landscape plan for institutional properties. For example.

Speaker C · Thanks

Speaker E · through the chair, when the validation report was presented to council, there was only one option that was presented that was validated by the IPD team. So when signing on to this process, it's called integrated project delivery. There are many options that are reviewed, but the overall goal was to deliver on the conditions of satisfaction that are set by the. By the owners, but also to deliver it for that under that base target cost of 87. 5 million. And the sighting of this addition along the Veterans Memorial Parkway frontage was the only way to achieve all of that. So when council assigned on to, you know, approved the validation report, in essence we're approving the sighting of the, the addition of this building in this location.

Speaker E · And this is essentially housekeeping after the fact, making sure that we have all of the proper permits in place. So we went and got approval from the Ministry of Transportation and Transit first and now we are coming to council

Speaker J · today just to Clarify the frontage aspect of it. Will there be sidewalk and other like I walked down Winster and it's a bit sketchy. So if I'm thinking of safety and more cars and a bigger building. So are there still frontage improvements? Even though it is an institutional building that would have RCMP requirements, that would basically be the most important thing is what works for that use.

Speaker E · But what are we able to do through the chair? Frontage improvements on all three sides up to centerline are still a part of this process and they need to meet the requirements of bylaw 1000. So to answer your question directly, yes, there will be sidewalk on all three sides of this property. You'll notice that the development down the street north of of the RCMP building on Winster, the new development there built sidewalk on the west side of Winster. So we will continue that down all the way to Watkins and then connect across the front of the building and along Veterans Memorial Parkway as well.

Speaker A · Okay. Councillor Hunter, do you have a question?

Speaker D · No seeing time. I would like to move that council extend the meeting to 11pm I'll second. Hopefully we won't need it.

Speaker A · All those in favor? Most. Okay. No question. Councillor Garvey, thank you.

Speaker C · Through you, Mayor, just additional question about the review of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit. What lens would MOTT use to apply to that question? Like what are they looking for when they approve or not approve

Speaker K · through the

Speaker E · chair, I cannot speak on behalf of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit. However, a reason why they might not approve a setback variance would be because they have plans of expanding future plans of expanding within the lifetime of this building. In this case, the section of Veterans Memorial Parkway is already four lanes and they do not have. It's my understanding that they do not have plans to expand a widened Veterans Memorial Parkway beyond that currently. So we have permission to construct within the 4. 5 meter setback from the highway with a bunch of terms and conditions.

Speaker C · And sorry, just to be more specific, they wouldn't be looking outside of the flow and of Veterans Memorial Parkway like their their primary concern is how the traffic is flowing on that road through the chair.

Speaker E · That is correct. Their. Their main concern is with regards to the vehicle lanes and the other features. Sidewalks, bike lanes are maintained by the municipality. And so while they recognize that that's an important part of our overall transportation goals for the future, now they recognize that active transportation is a key goal for the province. It is the municipality municipality that currently maintains those sidewalks and bike lanes. Yes.

Speaker A · Just for clarification, they do also as want to make sure I heard right, they are looking forward. So if they had a plan to make the six lanes, they probably would have said no?

Speaker E · That is correct, Mr. Mayor. And so if they don't have, you know, necessarily have anything on the horizon, again within the lifetime of this building, then there's no concern from there. And so it was a quick approval from the ministry on that side, which we're very grateful for. And a lot of it had to do with the fact as well that it's generally in the same location of the existing building. So they would also take into consideration sight lines. And that was something that we had already taken into consideration on their behalf due to the public safety factor.

Speaker A · Councilor Wagner, I could go for a

Speaker J · motion just to get us going here.

Speaker G · I'll move.

Speaker A · Option one.

Speaker J · The council directs staff to provide notice that council will consider issuing a development variance permit for the properties 698678, 674 Atkins Avenue and 27922788 Winster Road with the following variances to setback and landscaping requirements. A. That section 6. 81051 of zoning bylaw number 300 be varied to reduce the exterior side lot line setback from 7. 5 meters to 2. 9 meters B that section 6. 8 1. 053 of zoning bylaw number 300 be varied to reduce the rear lot line setback from 10 to 1. 1 meters see that section 3. 05025, zoning bylaw number 300 be varied to reduce the exterior side lot line setback for accessory buildings and structures from 6 meters to 2 meters. D that section 3.

Speaker J · 05025 zoning bylaw number 300 be varied to reduce the side lot line setback for accessory buildings and structures from 1 meter to 0. 5 meters. E that section 3. 2 1. 011 of zoning bylaw number 300 be varied to eliminate the requirement of a 1 meter width landscaping and screening area F that section 6. 81. 06 of zoning by law number 300 be varied to eliminate the REQUIREMENT for a 3 meter landscape screening area G that section 3. 2 1. 023 of zoning bylaw number 300 be VARIED to eliminate the requirement for a shrub or hedge at a minimum height of 1. 2 meters between vehicle parking areas and highways and 2.

Speaker J · Part 4 of the zoning bylaw number 300 at the date of development variance permit application submission shall be applicable to the development subject to the following variants.

Speaker G · A.

Speaker J · That section 4. 0101. Table 1 of zoning bylaw number 300 be varied to reduce the amount of off street parking to 101 stalls.

Speaker L · I'll second that.

Speaker A · Hey, motivation.

Speaker J · Yeah. I had other questions and I feel that the constraints of this site and the point that we are in this process, this was clearly indicated that this was the one viable project that came forward through the validation report. And I do recall at the time of the validation report that the presentation was quite thorough. This was, I think it was January. It's been some time. But at that time I was, you know, supportive of the project and I have been supporting the project all the way along. The RCMP expansion is needed, in my opinion, for our growing community. We've worked with our partners and the integrated project development process. You know, they wanted to deliver on time and on budget and this was what they could do to achieve that.

Speaker J · I had hoped there'd be fewer variances because when you see it down in black and white, it's a lot. So thinking of what we can do with sidewalks all the way around, keeping the park. But there is an existing fence. It's of course an RCMP building. So it has specific requirements that are out of our, you know, scope of our work. So I think it is what it is and I have been supporting it all along. So I'm supporting this project to continue.

Speaker A · Thank you, Councilor Gucco.

Speaker L · Yeah, I'll just briefly add that honestly, taking a look at this, a lot of it seems administrative to me. We've been having these conversations for a few years now. Everything about this site is the most cost effective for our residents and the best way to be able to deliver this project on time and not ever going to be perfect in every way. But as we said earlier tonight, that's perfect's the enemy of good. And I think in a lot of ways this serves our community in the best way that it can and that the cheapest cost that we can deliver it. So I'm happy to see this come forward and continue to see this project move forward.

Speaker A · Thank you. Anyone else? Oh, Councilor Gary, thank you.

Speaker C · I have also been supportive of this project. In fact, just recently as it came to the CRD when it came to funding, I also voted in favor of that as well. The one exception where I've struggled is with how this building potentially relates to the street. And I will continue to struggle today. It probably won't be a surprise and it's not an easy decision. Like I worry and fret over this and I ask the questions so I Could be very sure of where I am with my vote because it's, you know, where we, this is, this is the one thing we do with this job is, is, is say thanks with our vote.

Speaker C · Langford hasn't had an evolving conversation when it comes to street presence and what we want our streets to feel like, particularly in our city center. This is a publicly funded building with tax dollars. I believe it should celebrate and emulate what we want to see in our city center. And these variances are not something that we would look and accept from a new development. And so I don't want to have a double standard to say, you know, do as I say and not what I do. I've looked at how I voted in the past because I do acknowledge that, you know, we're talking about a corner of the building and I have voted for small portions of buildings to have those variances, but not variances this big.

Speaker C · Even looking at the reduction and if we're not considering 10 meters for that property line on Veterans Memorial and it's the more 3 meters going down to 1 meters is still a big variance. And then finally, just to the fact that this is a 50 year commitment at least because we're looking at the life of the building, probably more because this is going to be a very robust building. That's what sits with me, that's what keeps me up at night, is these decisions that will have an impact for generations. And so I can't support the setbacks and it's in line with how I've voted before.

Speaker C · So I imagine that's what's expected today. But again, every other aspect of this project I've been incredibly supportive. I do want a new building for RCMP and I do want it to function well. I just want a building that also, you know, builds on the relationship with the community from that interaction on the street level.

Speaker A · Okay, anyone else? All the question, all those in favor post. We have one opposition Councilor Gary, but that passes. All right, we are now on to items number 10, notice of motion. So the first one is 10. 1 local government climate Action Program funding.

Speaker J · I'll just read in the motion today. Whereas the Local Government Climate Action Program LG CAP provides crucial external grant funding that Langford has used for climate staff emission reductions and resilience initiatives, with many of these initiatives directly supporting the goals of the provincial CLEAN BC roadmap and the Climate Preparedness and Adaptation strategy. And whereas for more than 15 years the province has provided consistent annual climate action funding to local governments, recognizing our essential role in meeting provincial greenhouse gas reduction targets and climate adaptation goals and whereas the Provincial government released the 2026, 27, 2028, 29 service plan for the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions does not appear to include funding for the renewal of the LG cap.

Speaker J · Therefore, be it resolved that Council direct the Mayor to send a letter to the province and local MLAs outlining the need for a continued local government Climate Action program LG CAP funding and share this letter with the Capital, Regional District Board of Directors, other bc, DC Municipal elected officials and Chief Administrative Officers.

Speaker A · Thank you. Okay, we're on a 10. 2 establishing a scholarship award for the late Councilor Lillian Spock.

Speaker D · Thank you. Whereas the family of the late Councilor Lillian Spock has expressed an interest to the City of Lankford in establishing a scholarship award at Royal Rhodes University to honor the legacy of Councelor Spock's leadership. Therefore, be it resolved that Council direct staff to provide a one time $10,000 financial contribution from the Council Contingency fund towards the creation of an endowment fund for Councillor Lillian Spock's Scholarship Award at Railroads University.

Speaker A · Thank you. And finally 10. 3 community mailboxes and Placemaking

Speaker C · Whereas Canada posts a standardizing mail delivery through the UN installation of community mailbox service in those neighborhoods and those neighborhoods in Lankford not currently served by the by these boxes with implementation to begin in 2027 and whereas the installation of these community mailboxes presents an opportunity for the City to participate through place making, creating connection points within the community.

Speaker C · Therefore, be it resolved that the City of Lankford Council direct staff to work with Canada Post to ensure that using community mailboxes as community hubs and integrating place making opportunities including for notice boards, seating and other neighborhood specific initiatives.

Speaker A · Okay, thank you very much everyone and we are now onto Items. Number Section 11 Bylaws First 1 11. 1 Bylaw Number 2275, 2270 and 2271 the Background Port attached City of Lankford Amenity cost charge bylaw number 2275, 2026 first, second and third readings and city of Lankford inclusionary zone zoning bylaw number 2270, 2026 first, second and third readings and city of Lankford reserve funds establishment bylaw amendment number three bylaw number 2271, 2026 first, second and third readings.

Speaker O · Thank you Mayor. We had a comprehensive presentation earlier tonight which I will not re litigate or rediscuss. Just very briefly, the staff report at this stage in the agenda tonight introduces the full bylaws 2270 and 2275 to create an amenity cost charge program and an inclusionary zoning program and associated bylaw 2271 will create the reserve funds that are necessary to collect funds for those two bylaws, as well as for the parking cash in lieu that was established through the updates to the parking bylaw earlier about a month ago.

Speaker O · So those are important steps to collect the funds that are required under those bylaws. So just briefly, these bylaws represent a shift away from the city's existing density bonusing framework, under which affordable housing and community amenities have been secured historically in exchange for increases in allowable density as a condition of rezoning. So together, these bylaws modernize this existing approach to securing these important, important community benefits, and they also align existing policies with provincial legislation and provide greater clarity and transparency in the development process. So our consultant team is still online and in the room if there are any additional questions that we can address at this time.

Speaker A · All right, thank you very much. Does anyone have a question or a motion? Councilor Yakucho. Thank you.

Speaker L · Thank you. I'd be happy to move that council give first, second and third readings to amenity cost charge bylaw number 22752026, and give for second, third readings to inclusionary zoning bylaw number 22702026 and direct staff to bring forward any necessary Corresponding amendments to POL0011 Plan Affordable housing and community Amenity Policy, as well as Pol 0166 Plan Attainable Home Ownership Policy program.

Speaker L · And give first, second and third readings to City of Langford Reserve Fund Establishment, bylaw 2004, bylaw number 857, amendment number three, bylaw number 22712026.

Speaker J · I'll second.

Speaker A · Okay, thank you very much. Motivations are.

Speaker L · Yes, thank you. Really is a long time coming. It was, I want to say two, but it could have been three years ago during budget discussions when we had the amenity contributions and talking about the impact that this provincial change was going to have on amenity contributions. And it was largely knowing that this was coming that led to the difficult decision, as was brought forward by Councillor Guyre, but supported by all of council, to begin to use those amenity contributions from the tax subsidization towards actually providing community amenities, knowing that in the future, as this new amenity cost charge program came out, we would be mandated.

Speaker L · We'd be forced to make that transition anyways. By doing so, yes, we did end up increasing a bit of that not increasing. Sorry, pulling that tax increase forward rather than having it in this year to cover this. But as a result, we've been able to build kilometers of sidewalk infill that have drastically benefited our community and mostly in the most vulnerable infill, safe routes to school. So that's the preamble into this. Beyond this, honestly, just amazing work done by our consultants. A lot of work being looked at with this, A lot of the land economics. I know I had a lot of questions around, around whether or not when we were offering the choices for the developers for the inclusionary zoning, whether they were legitimate choices or just a false choice.

Speaker L · And I appreciate the mass amount of work and justification that the consultants did to show the benefits between the two and why the two options were shown to talk about. Nope, sorry, that is the next one. So I do have more to say, but I will just leave it there for now.

Speaker A · Councilor Wagner?

Speaker J · Yeah, I was just checking my notes too. You're talking about amenity cost charge and inclusionary zoning. So I think it's important to acknowledge where we've come. And I had some uneasiness with, you know, putting all our eggs in one basket with recreation Center. But I also felt that that question was answered very clearly, that that was a priority from the community, of course, and that it's a long term plan and that those costs can be shared with the West Shore Parks and Rec. Potentially you're working on a facilities master plan right now. And so I was feeling uneasy about where things are falling. But this is a provincial deadline and it's a hard deadline that we need to meet.

Speaker J · So I had some comfort when it was discussed that we'll review in three years. It will take some effort to do that, but it'll be in these challenging economic times. We hope that that will improve in the future and we could revisit this policy or maybe we'll find that it's working very well. One of the things about the inclusionary zoning, where initially I thought Passion Lieu was not favorable because I wanted those units, I came to see that the cash in lieu could be quite beneficial for particularly the nonprofit housing to get to the deeply affordable units. And that is something I would really like to see. So I'm hoping that we can tie that in with our housing strategy.

Speaker J · And another item that I was excited to see spelled out was that 50% of the units would be two bedroom or more. So we're looking for those family sized units. And that was really important to me. That's what I've heard as a demand in the community and it's harder for those to get built. So if we make it part of, of the affordable housing program that we're offering, then we'll get those kind of units. Hoping that some of the things I was looking for, park improvements or community gardens, was popular. Other things that people were interested in. Well, there's still a Parks DC to come.

Speaker J · So trying to hold on to my different ideas, housing strategies coming. There's so many things that are still to come that will sort of COVID our bases. So I did want to really support that. The arts center or other public spaces and community center, those kind of amenities had been under resourced. But we, we, that was clearly spelled out as well is that we can choose and be opportunistic and maybe the recreation facility will come first because there's a partnership and we'll get a grant. So being flexible is important. And I felt that this policy was well explained so that I'm comfortable moving ahead.

Speaker A · Okay. Anyone else? Councilor Garvey.

Speaker C · I'll just add, I think I was humbled just by how expensive everything is and how important it is that we are intentional with what we are doing with energy from development, with energy from City Hall. This, you know, while it's a provincial direction, it provides a lot of certain, a lot of equitable access to, you know, understanding what finances are for development. But it also tells the community what, what we're saving for. And the fact that it's secured through bylaw means like, yes, we can amend the bylaw, but that's, that's something that takes multiple meetings to do. So there's some certainty in the direction that we're going that, that we are trying to achieve some very specific goals with very limited resources. And I don't think we could do that without being so intentional.

Speaker C · So that's, that's the part that I'm, I'm going to celebrate. That hasn't been mentioned yet because I, I do think our community feels like we need those things. And as I mentioned, I was, you know, I mentioned the library. I think it did come up and I know that we're going to have to make sacrifices and, and choices. And I'm hoping that there are other opportunities that grants come from senior levels of government, maybe not the province, but maybe the federal government has more money, I don't know. But libraries are great. We could use another expanded library in our city center.

Speaker A · Anyone else has a herder?

Speaker C · Thank you.

Speaker D · Just briefly, I won't repeat what's been said But I appreciate that this is still, there's still a degree of flexibility around this, just responding to changing market conditions over the years. And so I'm supportive of what's in front of us. And I would agree with Councillor Gyrie that it's wonderful to really lay out the expectations of what your community is saving for. I hear a lot from residents who, you know, are really dismayed or confused with the fact that we are, you know, we don't have the most robust reserve funds because of the amount of growth that we've seen and really having to explain that, you know, we didn't, you know, pay for growth, was not paying for growth with the way that we were managing our finances before.

Speaker D · And I think that this does set us on the right path, recognizing that there are a lot of fiscal challenges still to come.

Speaker A · All right, anyone else? Call the question. All Those in favor? 11. 1 passes. Let us turn the page two, two more for those who are playing along at home. 7. 2 bylaw number 2274 and 2273 background port attached Frankford zoning bylaw number 300amendment number 761 omnibus number 68 new residential zones bylaw number 2274, 2026. This is first, second and third reading.

Speaker A · And Lankford zoning bylaw number 300, amendment number 760, small scale multi unit housing, otherwise known AS bylaw number 2273, 2026 first, second and third reading.

Speaker O · Thank you, Mayor. So the purpose of this separate but related report to our last item is to introduce bylaw numbers 2274 and 2273 which will amend the zoning bylaw to ensure ensure consistency with recent provincial legislation. As outlined in the previous report as well as the presentation earlier, the province has amended the Local Government act with an intent of separating land use regulation from development financing mechanisms. Really with the ultimate goal of shifting municipalities away from negotiated site by site rezoning practices towards more standardized systems established through standalone bylaw which we have just discussed. In Lankford's case, this means shifting away from that long standing practice of using council policies, including the affordable housing amenity contribution policy and the attainable housing policy to secure those amenity contributions and affordable housing as a condition of rezoning.

Speaker O · These contributions have typically been secured in the zoning bylaw using a density bonus framework. And this has been the primary way that the city has collected funds into the General Amenity Reserve Fund and the affordable Housing Reserve fund over the last 20 plus years. Generally a density bonus framework just for a Few technical points for the benefit of those still with us tonight. A density bonus framework establishes a base density that outlines how much development can occur as of right without meeting any conditions, as well as how much additional bonus density can be permitted at the developer's option if specified conditions are met. In Lankford's case, the current framework generally sets out a very low base density that essentially doesn't allow any development to occur unless certain conditions are met, such as the provision of amenity contributions and affordable housing reserve fund contributions.

Speaker O · This framework effectively treats all development as bonus density. Under the updated provincial legislation, zoning bylaws that utilize a density density bonus framework must now establish a base density that allows a reasonable and viable amount of development to occur as of right without meeting any conditions. While existing density bonus conditions that apply to specific properties or development sites, in our case, you know, comprehensive development zones, they can remain in place. The legislative changes mean that the approach Langford has been taking to secure community amendment and affordable housing contributions can no longer be applied moving forward. In addition, density bonus conditions that apply generally as opposed to applying only to specific sites or developments must be removed. So as outlined previously, staff have recommended replacing this existing approach with new ACC and IZED bylaws.

Speaker O · All of that said, several amendments to the zoning bylaw are required to ensure compliance with the updated provincial legislation that relates to the density bonus provisions. Bylaw number 2274 has been drafted to include those amendments which include removing general density bonus provisions from several existing zones, deleting several other zones, creating four new zones to replace some of these kind of obsolete zones that can be now used moving forward to regulate the most common land uses in conjunction with the ACC and IZ bylaws.

Speaker O · These include kind of ground oriented infill townhouse, six story residential and six story mixed use developments. This bylaw also includes related housekeeping amendments and introduces updated landscaping requirements to advance some objectives of the Urban Forest Management plan. So in addition to this body of work, the City is also required to amend the zoning bylaw to comply with updated provincial requirements related to small scale multi unit housing. So these updates have been included in bylaw number 2273 and they consist of amendments and clarifications to several zones that permit those that ground oriented housing, single family dwellings, duplexes and small all townhome projects. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Speaker A · Thank you very very much. That was a lot of reading there Council. Does anyone have any questions or would like to make a motion?

Speaker J · Councillor Regner, I did have one question still remaining through the chair to staff. I was interested in this landscape section here and it states in the report that we're improving the requirements here to meet our objectives for zones that we most commonly use for new development proposals as a pilot project. I just wanted to be clear on which zones we're going to have these new landscaping regulations and which ones will not have them.

Speaker O · Yes, thank you for the question through the chair. Those live landscaping requirements are incorporated into the four zones that will be created through bylaw 2274. So that ground oriented infill zone, the townhouse zone, the six story residential zone and the six story mixed use zone. So when properties come in to rezone for any of these land uses, they will be subject to the ACC and inclusionary zoning bylaws. So these zones don't have a density bonus framework. It's just straightforward regulations of use to the full density in the zone. So they've been designed in that way

Speaker F · so that it's a kind of a

Speaker O · simplified zone that incorporates kind of the things that were working well in the, the old zones that we can't use anymore. They've been reviewed in conjunction with our draft design guidelines that just closed for kind of a final round of public engagement before council sees those bylaws to make sure that they are supporting those design outcomes. And then this live landscaping is a new kind of requirement that works with the design guidelines and also implements a specific action of the Urban Forest Management Plan to update our regulatory bylaws to improve tree outcomes. So it is a pilot, it has been kind of tested to some degree with our design guideline consultants to make sure that they are kind of reasonable requirements.

Speaker O · But staff recommend working with that particular new requirement for a period of time as we see development applications come in to use these new zones to make sure that we're hitting the right mark with those requirements. They're not, you know, too onerous or too lax that, you know, they're, they're, they're leading towards the outcomes that we're looking for through all of the work that has been done. And not just the design guidelines in the urban forest management plan, but also, you know, all those important high quality city building objectives of the official community plan. So it's a, it is a test that we would recommend kind of be approached as a pilot project, open to tweaks and changes as we work through it with kind of real development proposals that come in over, over the next period of time.

Speaker O · And, you know, if council is happy with what they see coming in and feel like that it's hitting the right mark, then that could be considered to just be added globally into kind of the general landscaping sections in the zoning bylaw instead of just as a specific line item in these four zones.

Speaker J · Thank you. Yeah, I thought it did sound promising, but I appreciate you want to start with the pilot project and see how it works out. Are you saying though that larger projects don't have this apply like it's over? If it's a higher Dead Sea project than a six story, that'd be a different zone.

Speaker O · Thanks for the question. Through the chair, we haven't added that zone as part of bylaw 2274. So it's not something that we need to. Those types of zones are not those that we will need to remove from the zoning bylaw. So for example, the six story mixed use zone could be kind of what would be kind of a base to create a higher density zone. So if we do get another, you know, 12 story building or a tower project come in for in downtown Lankford, for example, we would create a new zone for that project. The CCP zone is that we have typically used for those tower projects and taller buildings is an example of a zone that we can't use anymore because it's based on that kind of now defunct density bonusing framework that we, we can no longer incorporate.

Speaker O · So the next time one of those projects comes in for rezoning, we would create a zone kind of very similar to the four that are being created here and, and apply that type of requirement into that zone so it would be applicable to that development.

Speaker J · Okay, thank you. That really ties things together for me with. I knew density bonusing was not really going to continue. So I was a bit un.

Speaker O · Clear there.

Speaker J · Thank you. I did have one more question about the maps here. Just to be clear. Would this be considered pre zoning or you use the word rezoning here? I guess there's already buildings on these properties, is that right?

Speaker O · Yeah, through the chair, the, the properties identified in the maps are within the zones that are being deleted. So they have been kind of matched up with the best fit out of those four zones that I described. It really just accommodates what's there today. It doesn't accommodate kind of, you know, redevelopment unless they want to just work within the bounds of, you know, those, those zones. But you know, typically when, you know, there are newer projects that are, you know, newer six story buildings or townhouses, and in some cases they're a bit older. So if they, you know, demolish the whole townhouse project and Want to rebuild under that zone?

Speaker O · It would be possible, but, you know, typically when you see, you know, existing density removed, it would be in favor of a higher density, which would trigger a rezoning application.

Speaker A · Okay.

Speaker J · Does someone have a. I can make a motion. I'm satisfied that council one, give first, second and third reading to omnibus bylaw number 68, new residential zones bylaw number 2, 27 4, 2026 as drafted. And two, give first, second and third reading to small scale multi unit housing bylaw number 2273, 2026 as drafted.

Speaker A · I'll second motivation.

Speaker J · I don't think I need to motivate. I think staff did a great job in the report. I just. There was a lot in here, so I had some questions. It could be considered housekeeping because there's a provincial requirement, but I just wanted to make sure I understood because before I go motivate for something or vote for it.

Speaker A · Councilor Morley,

Speaker R · thank you.

Speaker B · So, yeah, I'll be supporting this bylaw, 227-422-73. And it's a. It's driven by a package of provincial housing legislation from 2023 to 2025, which includes Bill 46, which a lot of this is encapsulated in. And these updates bring our zoning into alignment with, with the provincial legislation and moves us forward in a more transparent, predictable system for delivering housing.

Speaker A · Thank you. Anyone else? Call it a question. All those in favor? Opposed? That passes. And our last item before adjournment, we have item 11. 3, bylaw number 2253 and 2254. Lankford Official Community Plan bylaw number 2200.

Speaker A · Amendment number number 1 602, Madrona Place, bylaw number 2253, 2026, first reading and Lankford zoning bylaw number 300. Amendment number 757602. Madrona Place, bylaw Number 2254, 2026, first reading.

Speaker J · I could just go for it. Option one, the council give first reading to Langford of fits all community Plan byline number 2200. Amendment number 1 602, Madonna Place bylaw number 2253, 2026. And the council give first reading to Langford zoning bylaw number 300. Amendment number 757602, Madonna Place, bylaw number 2254, 2026, second.

Speaker A · Okay, motivation.

Speaker J · So this property already has quite a bit of housing on it. It's just had a boundary adjustment. There's an undisturbed area that was part of this application. So just casting our minds back to a previous conversation about this I believe there'll be a public hearing because it's an OCP amendment so we have no questions I thought we would move it along to the public hearing process Dr. Garvey.

Speaker C · Yeah I'll just I did a walkthrough of this area just yesterday and just to kind of refresh with where where this development is at so as Councillor Wagner suggested moving it on to public hearing is the next step and it seems like I'm happy to support that Anyone else?

Speaker A · Okay I'm going to call the question all those in favor Opposed that passes so before German I mean we could order pizza and hang out no the looks from faces we will thank the soul remember that has stayed in the gallery and the two online thank you for sticking it out for a full 4 hours and 35 minutes give or take can I have a motion to

Speaker D · adjourn you sure can I will move that council adjourn the meeting second I

Speaker A · don't know who that was but that was favor post that passes thank you very much everyone that has stuck it out to the end that.