Transcript: Council Meeting - 2026/05/19

All right, and hello and welcome everyone to today's council meeting for Tuesday, May 19, 2026. Thank you all for being here or online at this point. I call this meeting to order. Councillor Harder, can I have our territorial acknowledgment, please?

Thank you, Mayor. The city of Langford sits upon the traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples of the Wasopsam, Sanghees and Chena nations, and the Masonic peoples represented by the Sartlip, Bocachin, Seyote, Sachem and Malahat First Nations. We thank them for sharing this beautiful land.

Thank you very much.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Marie Watmol and I will be the moderator for tonight's meeting. Participation by the public is in person or via Zoom, either using the Zoom app or telephone. If you're joining us through the Zoom app and wish to make a comment, please use the raise hand function in the app, keeping in mind that you're able to both raise and lower your hand, and you'll be called upon based on 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 the moderator will be notified that you wish to speak and you'll be called on using the last three digits of your phone number. Please press star6 on the telephone keypad to unmute your phone. If you're attending in person, you can approach the podium one at a time. Once the public input portion of the meeting begins, and in all cases, please start by providing us with your first initial, last name and municipality of residence. During public participation, you may speak to any item on the agenda subject to the three minute time limit. There may be more than one opportunity to speak, but additional comments are limited to those not raised by you previously and at this time.

We remind the public that the City doesn't tolerate bullying or harassment of city staff, elected officials or members of the public during council and committee meetings. So please keep your comments respectful. For any matters not appearing on tonight's agenda, please contact City hall by calling 250-478-7882. During regular business 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.

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

I move that Council approve the agenda as amended by adding section 14, new business and item 14. 1, waiver of city of Lankford by Election before adjournment and renumbering the remainder of the agenda accordingly.

Thank you very much. I'll second all those in favor post that passes. All right, we are already on to item number five presentations today. We is 5. 1 RCMP Policing Priorities and we have our new Superintendent Gillespie who is going to give us a presentation.

Thank you very much. So I think I did mention last time that I was here that obviously the RCMP is on a federal fiscal year, so we go April to April. So we're now a month and a half into our new fiscal year. And so I'm looking to confirm the policing priorities from Langford for the West Shore RCMP detachment for the 2026, 2027 fiscal year.

Perfect.

Have a handy PowerPoint here for you. So just a quick recap on 2025. We had reducing organized crime and drug trafficking, enhancing road safety, focus on distracted driving and speeding. Reducing property crime with a focus on theft and shoplifting. We had mental health and crisis response teams and deterring youth crime and fostering youth and indigenous community relations. So those were the priorities last year. We at the detachment have done community engagement to kind of get a feeling of what the sense in the community was as far as what policing priorities should be. But we do need the official city of Langford priorities for our annual performance plan. So we have come up with some recommendations for you to hopefully make your lives a little easier.

But of course we're open to any suggestions or anything that you think really needs to be the focus of the detachment in the coming fiscal year. Largely the same as last year, we tried to make them a little bit of more streamlined names, but it's basically the exact same priorities with a little bit of window dressing on them. So we have property crime with a focus on repeat offenders and retail theft. We have our road safety, we have disrupt organized crime and drug trafficking. And then we have our mental health related calls priority and again our youth crime and community based engagement, which includes indigenous engagement.

So we would recommend, but again, this is definitely community led and up to you guys, but that you pick three main priorities. In my experience, if we go larger than three, the focus is kind of too wide and we can't really concentrate on what you guys want the priority to be. So my recommendation is you pick your top three and then maybe you can give us a couple others that aren't your top three but that you're also interested in. That way we can be really focused on, you know, kind of the top three ones that you think are the Biggest issues in your community

did include

some statistics on kind of why we at the detachment thought moving in this direction is probably a good idea. So for property crime, we do have an increase of 37% in the first quarter of 2026. So it's definitely something we're seeing as a issue in the community and should probably be a focus for the coming year. Had 133 collisions in the first quarter of 2026. So we're up 11 collisions, not a huge amount, but obviously still a pressing concern in the community. Additionally, 18 impaired drivers in the first quarter that we caught and some of those were actually impaired collisions as well. So definitely something we could see at the detachment as still being a priority for organized crime and drug trafficking.

Again, we want to continue to focus on the top offenders in the community, the repeat offenders, the people that are really doing a lot of harm in the community. And we do have some statistics there as far as the prevalence of some of the controlled substances in the community. As far as files for the detachment. Mental health related calls continue to be a concern for members. 277 mental health related calls for service in the first quarter of 2026. So again, it's another file type that is really prevalent at the detachments and something we do focus a lot of time on and something we again would like to focus on internally at the detachment in improving service times and service delivery for mental health calls.

And then prevention of youth crime and supporting community based engagement. Again, I think I've told you this before, but I've been really impressed since arriving at the detachment with the engagement of our officers and particularly our youth and Community policing and indigenous policing sections. They're doing really, really good work out there. They're extremely proactive, extremely busy. And we're seeing again a lot of call volume with youth and with

our

community kind of based engagement. So again, they did 110 reports last year, so they've been extremely busy. And again, something we think that would be a good focus for the detachment in the coming year. And that's all I have. So I'm happy to answer any questions on what you guys think are the priorities should be. And then I do have a meeting with the mayor coming up. So I'd ask that you present your opinion to the mayor. And then I'm going to officially ask the mayor for the priorities which he will sign off on with me.

All right, thank you very much, sir. Counsel, here's your chance. Do you have any questions? Councillor Harder than Councillor Wagner.

Thank you. Through the Mayor. So just clarifying, you're not seeking an immediate response from council tonight, but rather some deliberation on our own parts and then to provide that response to the mayor for the future.

Yes, but post haste, because we're a month and a half into our new fiscal year, so we. We do need them as soon as possible.

Thank you. That ties in nicely to my next question, which is just with regards to the work of the working groups that council has discussed previously and how our priorities might filter out to the work that they're doing, and vice versa.

Yeah.

So we've had a meeting on the working groups already and we've kind of established which each working group is going to be and what the representation from the attachment will be on those, as well as the representation from other community groups. That whole timeline will be significantly longer than when I need the priorities for this year by. And I would suggest that those working groups could inform next year's policing priorities because then they will have had the time to kind of run their course and actually go through all the information.

Thank you. And then just last question. With regards to the statistics that we were presented, are those just looking at Langford individually or is that for the entire West Shore?

That's for the entire West Shore detachment. I think a couple of them were Langford specific, but most of them are just the kind of overall stats of what the West Shore is looking at. That being said, when we did kind of drill down into each community, we did find that the distribution of poll volume in each community is actually very similar, so makes my job easier. I was kind of surprised to see that. But there's no, like, huge incidences of one type of prime in just one community. It actually seems to be spread out fairly nicely. I mean, there's a couple dips and peaks, but it's pretty close.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And Councilor Wagner, thank you. Thanks for the presentation. Wonder well, I guess we'll see the slides later, but you've got the five priorities. Are they in order of importance to the department or.

No, they're not. No, they are randomly.

They're distributed.

Okay.

And so, yeah, I was thinking, how do we prioritize something that maybe is really common, like shoplifting or a car accident versus something that's really significant, like an assault. Like, the impact is greater, but it's rare. It's hard to think about that sometimes, and I wondered how you think about that.

Yeah, honestly, we use a worksheet that has exactly that on it. So it's the frequency of the event occurring, you know, 1 to 10. So if it's a 10, it occurs all the time and then the impact of that event, event occurring, a 1 to 10. So you know, if it happens all the time, but it's a one for severity because it doesn't really make that big of an impact, then you would have 10 plus one and it would score 11 out of 20 versus you have something that happens all the time, a 10. And its impact is also very severe, which would be a 10. Well then that would score a 20 out of 20 for, you know, whether it should be a focus or not.

So you could really, if you wanted to, you could take all those and you could rate how often it happens and you could rate the impact on your community as you perceive it. And then you could come up with an actual ordered number of what's your priority.

Thank you for that. And I wondered too how the sort of public perception based on the community survey, how well that matches with the reality is you see it of what is the most important priority for several of what's your top three compared to the community's top three.

Yeah, they're largely aligned. I come from kind of a different background as far as communities go, like, so one of the things I do here in the community all the time is traffic, traffic, traffic. Being more of a street cop, I'm more kind of attuned to violent crime, property crime, kind of criminal code offenses. But that just has to do basically with my background and my 20 years in policing. And it's not necessarily right or wrong, but I would definitely say the five that we've come up with, I mean, obviously I've vetted as well and I think they're all issues that we're hearing in the community, but that I'm also hearing from the officers within the detachment.

And I think the stats support that. You know, those five in my mind are the top five. And then hopefully you guys can help narrow it down or if there's something I haven't considered that's way out there that you think needs to be in there, then you can let me know that as well.

And if I might ask one more,

can I let Councillor Gary and then we'll come back to second hand caller. Councillor Gary, thank you.

Thank you for your presentation, Superintendent. I'm just wondering if you can expand a little bit or any of the priorities have unintended positive or negative consequences on other levels of service. Like if we are investing in a certain priority, does it free up resources in other areas or perhaps require a lot more resources than perhaps we might not understand as non police officers.

Yeah, indirectly, yes. Like we have finite resources. That's kind of one of the reasons I say let's narrow it down to three, because let's say traffic's a priority and I'm going to move bodies into the traffic unit and make that a staffing priority. And I'm also going to tell you the members on the road, hey, I want you out stopping cars, I want you to go do traffic enforcement. Then that means potentially they're not going to have time to go do the curfew checks at night or vice versa. So I guess yes, but nothing that would drastically affect service delivery. And I, of course I'm going to make sure that we're hitting all areas no matter what, but we're really just going to focus and put extra effort and when we have that extra free time where maybe there's not a call for service coming in and we can get out there and do some proactive policing, we're going to focus on one of those three things.

So just, just to clarify, there isn't one particular priority of the ones you listed that is a lot more resource heavy than the others. That would perhaps weight it differently?

Yes and no. Yeah. I mean different type of investigations are more resource heavy. So for instance, the drug and organized crime priority, those investigations are a lot more resource heavy and take a lot more work and man hours to get a charge versus going out and writing a traffic ticket, for instance. And again, like I'm going to balance all that no matter what. But just looking to see, you know, basically what your top three are because I'm going to lean towards those and put extra effort into making sure that we're meeting those objectives.

Thank you.

Second time caller. We'll go with Councilor Wagner and Councilor Harder.

Thank you. I wanted to follow up on something you talked about. The mental health calls. We know that that's quite a, an area and then yet maybe that's not necessarily a crime, it's just something that the police are attending to. I recall the province was rolling out a new tool for assisting officers with mental health supports. The acronym is not coming to my mind right at this moment. But is that deployed in Lankford yet? This tool and gather, it's a resource you access through computer. It helps with mental health calls. But if you could just comment on that a little bit.

Yeah, for sure.

So, yes, we did roll out, it's called healthim and it's an app for our Work phones. So every officer now has this application and when they do a mental health apprehension, they put all the data into the app and that is sent to the hospital ahead of time as or before the officer starts driving there so that the hospital can in theory be prepared and hopefully get us in sooner. So we are currently working with the health authority, we being the area chiefs. So also Victoria pd, Saanich, pd, Central Saanich, Oak Bay, and the RCMP working with the health authority to hopefully come up with a set of service standards now that this has been implemented to reduce the amount of time we're waiting at the hospital right now, hospital wait times are all over the map.

We've had really good ones that have been like an hour and a half, but within the last month there's also been a really bad one that was 18 hour wait. So, yeah, I think it's improving, but it's kind of up and down right now. Once, once we have a few more months of data to work with, we'll have a good idea of what direction is trending.

Yeah, that's really helpful because I recall there was a, a push to have less officer time in the hospital because it's taking so many off the street. So that's good to hear. I have other questions, but I guess it'll. It'll end up being quite a bit if I keep going along this line, so I'll stop there.

All right. Councilor Harder.

Thank you. Through you, just one more appreciate the collaborative nature of this approach and I just want to make sure that we're providing feedback in a way that's helpful for you. So just looking for some guidance on how granular you want us to go. Like, for instance, if we're concerned about traffic, do you want us to point out Veterans Memorial Parkway intersection or specific locations that we're hearing challenges are occurring?

Yeah, I would like to know where the specific challenges that are occurring are. But when you list a priority, I would prefer it to be more generalized. Just if we really narrow it down to only Veterans Parkway, it would remove the opportunities, you know, for other locations that may be also of interest, but not as high.

So I appreciate that. Thank you, Superintendent.

Yeah. Anyone else? Councilor Morley, thank you.

At the beginning of your presentation, you stated that there is looks like there's some increases to statistics that you're providing. So I'm not sure if you're being briefed on the population growth between when these numbers were provided to you and now you're here today. So are we actually seeing an Increase in crime rates or in the first quarter or is this just happening because we have more of a population? And of course with more population comes the increase in crime.

Normally, yeah, we don't correlate the stats to population until the end of the year. So this is just what's happening with no correlation, let's say, to population increases. So your crime rate could be staying the same. Potentially. Yeah. I generally, I'm not familiar with, you know, kind of a real time. I have the population projections, I guess, but I don't know if those are accurate or not until usually the end of the year when we get the figures from the province to correlate with

the,

the crime that we run at the end of the year.

So.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Councilor Wagner, if I could sneak in one more. I was wondering about our, the interplay of our city staff such as the fire department or bylaw officers or you know, or bike patrol in the summer, that kind of thing. Just wondering about resourcing and how we make sure we're maybe being as cost effective as possible and that sort of ties in with the working groups as well. So that's a nebulous question. But yeah, again thinking about the priorities and how to best resource this complex city.

For sure. Yeah. And that's something I look at basically every day. Okay. Which, you know, where do we need to put the people? Obviously we have a finite number of people and we do have vacancies at the detachments and so, you know, when I know what the priorities are, I can better pick which units need to be staffed or, you know, whether GD needs more staffing and kind of. Yeah, where to put the resources and where to focus our efforts.

Do you have a follow up?

I think that's a good start.

I think it would just be.

No, end of questions. It's very interesting and hoping to make an evidence based decision and, and I will look over other reports you've made to council and you've come to the community advisory committee as well to present. So appreciate that.

Absolutely. The more data the better for sure.

All right, sir, thank you very much for that. We will be meeting soon. Have a good conversation and I will confer with council. In the meantime, thank you for the information and you have a great night.

Thank you very much. Have a good night.

All right, we are next on to item number six, public participation. If you'd like to speak to anything on the agenda, raise your hand. I see a hand there. Come on forward, sir.

Hello, good evening, mayor and council. My name is John Bourcet. I'm here tonight representing Woodsmere holdings, the developer of the project at 3088 Jacqueline Road that is being considered tonight for rezoning. I wanted to start by thanking staff for their diligent work on this application. We appreciate and empathize with the challenges staff face in assessing projects while policy is changing. At the same time, we have reviewed the staff reports and I am here to informally confirm our support for the recommendations. Specifically, I'd like to speak to our commitment as noted by staff, to work collaboratively to maximize bike storage within the areas already allocated for the purpose to meet the upcoming off street parking bylaw.

Our original intent for this site has always been to provide high quality housing that fits the urban fabric of Langford, being located on a major corridor across some commercial amenities. As we move forward, we recognize that the way that people move through a city is changing. We have heard the message from council clearly that we need to make active transportation a realistic, convenient choice for residents. To that end, Woodsmere holdings is fully committed to optimizing the internal spaces we originally set aside for cycling infrastructure to ensure that these spaces are as efficient and user friendly as possible, as prescribed in the upcoming bylaw. We see the direction Langford is heading and we want 3088 Jacqueline to be a leader in that transition.

By maximizing our bike storage capacity to meet the new bylaw, we are aligning this project with the city's goals of reducing car dependency and supporting the long term vision of the ocp. While this might mean a reduction in the total number of bikes in storage, we appreciate that the focus of the bylaw is not solely on quantity, but also on quality. We have a long history of working with your staff to solve technical challenges and we view this as another opportunity to refine a great project into an even better one for the future residents of Jacqueline Road. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak.

Thank you very much. Next person like to speak, please raise your hand. See a hand there on the right? Come on forward. Just press the button to turn the microphone on. Yep.

All right. I'm Jay Harris, 939 Kahani. I am speaking on 11. 2. We're actually not overly sure why we're exactly at this meeting. As of a couple weeks ago, we were asked to present in front of the SDAC meeting and then something on a Friday had changed and we were invited to come here instead. Over the last two years we've been working on a second application to the city to rezone our Property. We've done everything that the councils have wanted us to do, engineering wanted us to do, we obtained sewer, we got all the provincial approvals that the city has asked us to do. We got all the biology reports, everything you can imagine. We have, we have since gotten again and again in that process.

We had a meeting with what we have now known, a fire member of city staff, Matt Baldwin, to which we asked if we could build a pool change room on a new pool that we built. And the answer was as long as it's small, it's not a problem. It was on an existing already developed accessory building of the past and we just moved on and we've been putting away with it as at home projects do. In that time in February, we called out a city inspector to come and do a pressure test on our new sewer system. At that time we walked up and down the sewer system right by our brand new pool house with nothing hidden, fully inviting to this, to which time we received a inspection notice.

Later that afternoon a couple weeks later, we received a letter in the mail that said we need to contact the city. So we contacted the city and we have done everything they've asked since we've applied for development permit. We have got new biology reports, we've got new engineering drawings, we've submitted absolutely

everything

in, in March of this year we, we started asking about the, when's the next meeting that we get to go to for our subdivision application. And we have now gotten all of our documents in and the city staff have told us that it takes a couple weeks to get a development permit in which we are a week and a bit into that process. So we're hoping that in a week's time we have everything that we're, we're needed to, to continue that building as well as continue on with our project, which both options tonight are. Well, we're hoping to go to the June SDAC meeting and we should, unless there's a delay in Citi giving us the permits for whatever reason that should be. Both options should have the same timeline.

So that's what I have to say. Thank you very much, sir. Next person like to speak, please raise your hand. Okay, I see we have someone online

app user Jay Strauss. Please unmute yourself in the app. Provide your first initial, last name, municipality of residence and indicate which item or items on the agenda you wish to speak to.

Yeah, Jayden Strauss, Lankford resident. Just on item 11. 2. Just reading the staff report, seeing that

yeah, the property isn't in compliance with,

with permitting as per the staff report,

I just don't think it's appropriate to consider rezoning applications that are not in compliance.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. I see one more hand online app

user L Plomp Please unmute yourself in the app. Provide your first initial, last name, municipality of residence and indicate which item or items on the agenda you wish to speak to.

Hi, I lost track of what the renumbering was, so I'll just go ahead and see what I can do. I'm happy to see the RCMP presentation on priorities and particularly happy to see one of the areas that may be focused on is safety on the street. Seeing police officers on patrol, enforcing traffic laws and being proactive in addressing other neighborhood concerns will go a long way, in my view, to helping reassure residents and visitors that Langford is a safe community. Regarding the application for 939klahani, I have to say that it's discouraging to see yet another resident who has decided that the city's bylaws and policies don't apply to them.

I hope that city staff can offer some reassurance that extending sewer and gas lines without proper permits is not something occurring on a regular basis here in Langford and that every effort is being made to ensure that that work was done safely. I'm astounded that that kind of work could be done by any professional without the permits and I'm hoping staff offer some clarification. I'm concerned that the staff report makes no mention of steps intended to discourage these particular property owners and anyone else so inclined from taking such actions in the future. Please don't reward this disregard by approving the illegal building that was constructed. A reasonable consequence should be the demolition of any unpermitted structure at the property owner's expense.

And that may serve to drive home the message that this sort of behavior won't be tolerated or excused. And finally, for the good neighbor policy, I'm grateful to staff for all of their work in creating this policy. For many of us who have been negatively impacted by construction, the goals outlined offer some hope that we'll see an improvement in our day to day lives. I hope council consider passing this at the earliest possible opportunity. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in house here, please raise your hand. Come on forward.

I have new glasses and they're the

these kind, so I hope this works.

Okay, Tanya Sunshine, Lankford residents speaking to 9. 11 and 11. 2 which may have changed 9. 11. I want to start by saying I think this policy is a positive and overdue step. Bringing together all these bylaws, expectations and best practices into one accessible document is helpful not only for residents, but also for developers, contractors and staff. There are some genuinely strong additions in here around signage, contact information, dust mitigation, site cleanliness, noise expectations and protection of public infrastructure. That said, I think it's important to recognize that this policy functions more as a guidance and accountability framework than a major new enforcement regime. A lot of the content summarizes existing bylaws, so the real opportunity now is strengthening consistency, transparency and communication without creating major new staffing costs or tax impacts.

I'm going to skip a whole section and just go to I think there's room for stronger escalation language for repeat offenders and for annual reporting back to Council on complaints, enforcement trends and whether the policy is achieving its intended outcomes. I had a neighbor who had a construction done by her and her biggest complaint was garbage being grown into her property and I don't really see language specifically about just personal garbage like Tim Horton cups and wrappers and such, so I was hoping that maybe that could be added.

Overall, I think this is a strong foundation. The challenge now is making sure it evolves into something that not only outlines expectations, consistently improves lived experience of residents in neighborhoods experiencing significant growth and construction activity. 11. 2 this application raises a serious process concern. Construction requiring permits in environmentally sensitive development permit areas was undertaken without approval and that non compliance is still unresolved. Although it sounds like in process, so that's good. While still outstanding, the applicants are now seeking a rezoning that would increase development potential on the same property. The issue is not just timing, it's the integrity of the process. These rules exist so environmental servicing and neighborhood impacts are reviewed before work happens, not after the site has already been altered.

When that sequence is reversed, it effectively weakens the system and risks normalizing unpermitted work as part of how approvals are achieved. This is not isolated. At a council meeting late last year, council authorized a Section 57 notice on a title for construction of two large buildings with residential suites with no permits. That is a formal enforcement action confirming significant non compliance. When issues like this are already occurring, it becomes even more important to maintain a clear standard. For that reason I support option one, but this application should not proceed.

There was more.

I'm sorry I missed out of time. Thank you very much. Next person I'd like to speak, raise your hand. Okay, don't see any hands, no one online. I will close public participation. Thank you very much Everyone. All right, we are on to item number seven, Consent agenda. Are there any changes to the consent agenda prior to a motion?

Thank you, Mayor. I will move that council adopt the recommendations for each item of the consent agendas presented.

You have a second?

I'll second

all the question. All those in favor? Opposed, not passes. So we're going to turn the page. Item number eight is no longer in play. So we are now on to item number nine, committee resolutions. First one we have is 9. 1. Community Advisory Committee meeting resolutions, April 28, 2026.

I move that council adopt a proposed Good Neighbor Policy. Policy 0186 admin. As presented.

Second, any motivation, commentary? Yes.

Thank you. So during the CAC, there was a clear recognition that this policy is less about introducing new rules and more about bringing clarity, consistency and expectations together in one place. The conversation focused on how we can better support residents and builders as Langford continues to grow, particularly in areas experiencing ongoing infill development committee members discussed the value of having something that is accessible and practical, not just regulatory, and that helps set the tone of how construction activity fits with established neighborhoods. There is also acknowledgement that many of the challenges we hear about are not always due to lack of rules, but rather lack of awareness, coordination or communication.

Thank you.

I think that was well summed up

by the Vice Chair.

I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank staff for the plain language policy because I've heard similar remarks that it's just really great to get everyone on the same page from the get go so that neighbors and members of the development industry can understand what to reasonably expect through development on both ends. And there was a lot of recognition and appreciation, I think, from the committee as well, knowing that this will help us be more proactive with enforcement by setting out that education and awareness from, from the beginning. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? Councilor Wagner, thank you.

Before I have a comment, I'll just ask a couple questions, if I might. I did have an opportunity to watch the meeting, the community Advisory committee meeting. Some helpful discussion there. I was wondering though, through the chair to staff, I could ask about the mitigation plan and just how broad that may be. Something like blasting creates maybe dust and rock, debris and noise and other nuisance potentially. Is that just covered generally in that mitigation plan

through the chair? That's correct. So under clarifying common requirements, which is section 5 of the policy, there is reference to the mitigation plan approval being required prior to any land alteration. You'll see in there that it touches on many things, but it refers back to section 2. 5 of Bylaw 1000, which council earlier, in a previous omnibus amendment to Bylaw 1000, made mitigation planning a requirement rather than something that could just be required on an as needed basis. So this is something that already applies to all developments, but because it was recently added to Bylaw 1000 as a requirement, we highlight it here in the common, commonly missed clarifying common requirements section. And it is quite broad.

So the purpose of the mitigation plan is we've always required erosion and sediment control, but that is typically only in rain events, whereas dust is also like a release of material into the atmosphere. So the purpose of the mitigation plan is essentially to ensure that all materials, not just toxic or hazardous materials, but natural materials as well, are identified and controlled within the limits of that property and the airspace of that property as well.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. And just to follow up on that, so it's. It was coming through new zonings as you have to provide a mitigation plan. But does this apply to all construction at all times, any site, whenever it was rezoned, whether it's an active site or an inactive site?

Through the chair, a mitigation plan is required as per bylaw 1000, section 2. 5. It applies to all new developments. So at the earliest stage of any subdivision or development where their requirement for a mitigation plan applies, that's when we obtain the mitigation plan. It does need to be reviewed and approved before we can do enforcement of that, but we've been doing that for a few years now.

Thank you. And I did have one other question. So about some of the other aspects of this really comprehensive policy, I believe it applies not just to construction, but to businesses potentially industry or other loading, unloading, delivery. There was quite a bit in here, and I just wondered how we're going

to be

reaching the different businesses, because there's a declaration that is more for. If you go to a permit, you'll have to have a declaration. And that's an easy way to capture a lot of proactive learning. But for existing businesses, they're not coming back for a permit, necessarily. Maybe they don't even need a permit. How will we be able to inform those types of businesses?

So through the chair, you'll see that the majority of the policy just refers to language that's in the community Standards bylaw and the Streets and Traffics bylaw, which applies to all properties in Lankford. So regardless of whether or not one specific company or another has signed the declaration. It doesn't. It doesn't mean that the policy or those bylaws don't apply to them. It just might mean that they might get a warning in advance of enforcement because they have not signed the declaration.

Thank you.

Yeah, that does clarify. So I'll just ask put a few comments because I think many of us have been waiting for this for a couple of years now. It's actually quite exciting and to see it in plain language really helps. And the companion to the bylaws that we saw come forward already. This refers to the bylaws, which is really quite helpful. You can see everything from protecting trees to this dust and other things I was talking about. And, you know, noise is in here as well. And the fact that there's a component for communication to the public, I think that's really important. I hope this is effective.

I think it's a big step forward to do this proactive step and say, look, development's going to happen, businesses need to operate, but we also need to be good neighbors. And I really liked what I heard from the community advisory committee. One of the members said they liked how it was a proactive, positive umbrella. So the way this is a good neighbor policy, it's not a punishment, it's an education tool. It's a comprehensive report for directing everyone to the bylaws that might apply to them. And to have that declaration be kind of serve as a first warning, but in a nice way, it's your educational opportunity.

And so then we could just get right to the, oh, if you didn't do what would be considered a good neighbor activity, well, then maybe you need to have the next step of bylaw enforcement. So, yeah, I really like to see how this is working together and guess I could go on, but maybe I shouldn't. I think it's really important to have this clarity for staff, for council, for our bylaw enforcement, for the public, for the developers, for the businesses. So I just think it's a really important document.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Councillor Gary.

Thank you. And thank you for those questions. I just had one question just that came through public participation about when and how this would be reviewed to see how effective it is. Through the mayor.

Yeah, through the chair. Our bylaws and policies are being reviewed on a regular basis now, so it is flagged for review by staff and then of course, at council's direction as well. If we see an increase in complaints or anything of that nature, we can always be provided with that.

Direction as well.

And if I can just add to that, by law enforcement does track all of the complaints that it receives. And so we would. We have access to that information and it's something that we monitor on a regular basis.

No more comments. I think that's. That's a great point to bring up as well as we have the community standards bylaw coming up later. And a lot of that work came out of tracking, you know, what was working and what wasn't working and how can we do better. And so just seeing how effective that was and just improving how we. How we are doing business as a city is great. And it's great to kind of just be reminded of how we're updating our policies on a regular basis. Now, as far as the good neighbor policy, I'm highly supporting part of the policy. It was a great conversation at committee.

I love how it outlines in clear language a comprehensive overview of what the city means when it wants developers to be good neighbors. Which seems kind of like, maybe most folks seem like it should be intuitive, like what it means to be a good neighbor, but it's actually not. People have different experiences about what it means to be a kind friend or a good relationship with someone else. And having very clear expectations actually leads to better outcomes. Where we're starting from the same page about what that definition is. This policy has, as the director of engineering mentioned, makes very clear references to the bylaws that are supporting it. So it's not a suggestion.

It comes from a place of a bylaw that has enforcement that came through, also a process of review and update. And so it is as strong as the bylaws that are upholding it, which is, I think, also why there's been, you know, we've been waiting a while for this. And that's because it's taken a lot of work to get here in order to be effective, in order to have something that would promote a better outcome for both developers and for the residents, and then have the rigor to say that this is actually a bylaw that is enforceable that we actually expect you to follow because there are fines involved if you don't.

So it's not a kind request. It is part of a city's expectations. I hear a lot from different people working in our community, not just developers, but other folks that, you know. 13 different municipalities with 13 different expectations about how to engage with the community is a lot. And it's a lot of extra time and effort, and there's fatigue with, like, how do we do business? In so many different communities. And so what I think the strength of this is is it's really very clear when you're in Langford, this is what we expect. This is what our communities expect. And when we do this together, you should have a positive experience or the best, most likely, best outcome for a positive experience when you're developing in a community, because this is what the community has said that works for them.

And then developers will feel welcome to build in Lankford. Thanks.

Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Post. That passes. We are on a 9. 1. 2 statutory officers bylaw.

Remove that council consider giving first, second and third readings to test statutory officers in delegation of Authority bylaw number 22602026 as presented.

Second motivation, sir.

Thank you. The committee reviewed the staff report and discussed the intent of the bylaw, which is to strengthen good governance by clarifying the roles and responsibility of statutory officers, consolidating multiple existing delegation bylaws and updating authorities in alignment with the current legislation and city practices. Members noticed that the bylaw would repeal outdated bylaws, incorporate several existing delegation bylaws into a single, more comprehensive framework, and provide clearer direction regarding signing authority for contracts, agreements and other municipal documents. The committee also recognized that the consolidation is intended to improve administrative efficiency, enhance transparency and ensure that the delegated authority is exercised consistently and in accordance with the council's policies and financial plan.

Following the discussion, the community advisory committee resolved to recommend that council proceed with consideration of the bylaw.

Microphone is not on. Call the question. All those in favor? Post. All right, that passes. We are on to item number 10, Notices of Intent 10. 1 PUP 260004101977 Langford Parkway.

If there's no staff report, I'll just move that the temporary use permit number TUP26003 be issued by the council for the city of Langford to flight cannabis co to operate a non medical cannabis retail store at 101977 Lankford Parkway subject to the following terms and conditions and notwithstanding section 302025 of zoning bylaw number 300 as described conditions 1, 3 through.

All the way to. And two, there's quite a bit here. And three,

you're lucky you didn't have to read those all out.

I'd be happy to, but we have done a similar application before.

Do we have a seconder?

I'll second.

Okay. Any motivation.

I think this had a good discussion at committee as often we do have that extra time to go over, you know, why there are so many conditions and the historical situation we find ourselves in with in particular the cannabis stores. But this had no issues. It was in fact highly regarded. And it just shows that the. The system we have is working so as though some from the public had suggested maybe we'd want to look at this in terms of not having quite so many conditions and restrictions because it is just another. However, we are looking at our zoning bylaw at the staff level and it makes sense to just proceed in my mind with this. It's a system that's working and this business can carry on as it has been doing.

Thank you, Councilor Gary.

Thank you. Councillor Wagner, as chair of the committee has done a good job kind of outlining most of what is happening with this tup. I would just like for the folks that haven't been following along every step of the way when legalized cannabis was something that municipalities had to decide how they were going to manage and take on. The way that Langford approached this was through a temporary use permit and those have three year with renewals and then eventually they have to be revisited again, which is as Councillor Wagner great because we get to see how well that it is working. And so what we're seeing here is this being rolled around again, that it's working well in the community and that the discussion that happened and has happened as these applications have come through is that it would be a significant body of work to figure out what would work best for Langford if we weren't doing this.

And given that conflict is. We haven't heard about any conflict. There's no urgency to doing that work in the near future. So that is. That's kind of where we're at today.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? All right, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Passes. We're going to turn the page. Couple of them now. And we are on to item number 11 reports.

First one we have is 1113-084308-83094 and 3096 Jacqueline Road rezoning application. Steph? Yeah.

Thank you, Mayor. The purpose of this addendum report is to bring new information forward for council's consideration with respect to the condition added at the April 20 council meeting for the rezoning application at 3084-3096 Jacqueline Road. As noted by the mayor for the reference, this condition that was added stated that when 165 bike stalls or 2. 12 bike stalls per unit and the proposed car share be required. At the same meeting on April 20, council gave the first three readings to bylaw number 2272, which proposes to implement the parking bylaw modernization project, which has been ongoing for some time and now at the bylaw approval stage.

If adopted, the revised standards set out in this bylaw for vehicle and bicycle parking will apply to the proposed development. While the stated condition that came out of that meeting for this application is consistent with the proposal as presented at the Sustainable Development Advisory Committee meeting the previous week, the applicant has since been able to review the proposed new parking regulations set out in the bylaw. In the context of this development as well as the condition following this review, the applicant indicated that the building can meet the upcoming upcoming bike parking standards both in terms of numbers and design. However, due to the new design standards set out in the bylaw, the specific number of bike parking stalls referenced in the condition can no longer fit within the areas allocated for bike parking.

The design drawings so as noted earlier by the applicant, the developer does commit to work with staff to maximize on site bike parking to the greatest extent possible beyond those minimum requirements set out in the bylaw, while also meeting the design standards which are an important step forward for functional bike parking in Langford.

The applicant has also confirmed their commitment to maintaining the areas currently designated for bike parking on the plans so those areas won't be repurposed to another use during a future any future redesign through the development permit stage. They've also reconfirmed their commitment to the car share as stated in the condition and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Does council have any questions? Councillor Wagner, thank you.

Through the chair I I know you just presented about it, but I am still kind of wondering is it the the width of the bike stalls or the fact that we've said we want certain number of cargo bikes or what exactly is the design standard? We do want quality bike parking, but it's somewhat disappointing that it doesn't fit

through the chair. There's a number of factors including kind of the aisle width between the bike kind of parking spaces, the spaces themselves, how the stack spaces on the walls fit. So it's kind of a combination of all the aspects aspects of the design that makes it challenging to kind of fit the quantity that was originally proposed, but while also meeting those kind of accessibility and design standards that are typically kind of a best practice as set out in the BC Active Transportation Guide.

So it sounds like we're sort of caught in a transition here. But is there any technology that can help us? Where? I don't know. You see in photos sometimes there's the fancy push up, there's stacks of bikes. There's ways to really fit more in. In certain countries, they do seem to be able to have a sort of a tech fix.

Yeah. Through the chair there. The bylaw does account for those types of design scenarios.

So we have provided those options and it's still just okay, I guess I had one other question just about the impact on the application, sort of the appropriateness of sending something back to committee. I think, just to clarify for me, you said this was a condition that came forward at the council resolution stage rather than the committee stage. So that makes it a little bit challenging to, you know, we didn't have the opportunity to look at this at the committee level and really dwell on it. So I'm just taking my time for a second to think about it.

All right, anyone else? Councilor Gary, thank you.

So you've said quite specifically that, and it's in the report, but I just want to hold space for the fact that the bike parking versus car parking is a bit of a challenging conversation for folks. This is not resulting in more parking for vehicles. This is. We're working within the same area for the bike parking. It just means because of the new design standards, not as many bikes fit through the chair.

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else? Anyone take a shot of the motion?

If I could just have one more clarifying question. When we say through the chair, maximized on site, so the applicant will work with staff. And so with that word maximized in there, that covers our bases to say we're really going to do our best to get the trade off right when we consider the application, it was quite much. A lot of the discussion was around the proximity to bike corridors and this location. And wouldn't this be a great location for additional bike stalls? That just was a really important part of our consideration at the time. So just not having a number in there, just saying maximize doesn't quite give us that comfort, is that we just can't come up with a number at this point.

Through the chair. I believe once the bylaw specifications were released, the developer did work with their architectural team to do kind of a rough review of, you know, what would fit into the bike rooms as they had originally laid it out in the design drawings. So there would be more detailed work that would occur during the development permit stage stage. While everything is, you know, specifically laid out and measured and all of That I think enough work was done that there's comfort that they will at the very least meet the bylaw. And you know, with some creative work at the development permit stage we will staff are more than willing to work with the developer to ensure that all the possibilities of design are looked at to meet or meet and exceed the bylaw to the greatest extent possible.

But that is detailed design work that will occur through the DP stage.

Okay, anyone else, does anyone like to make a motion?

Thank you Mayor. I will move that Council amend the resolution of 4-20-2026 for item 9. 1. 4 Rezoning Application 3084 38H 30943096 Jacqueline Road by deleting from 1. C Point X that's 165 bike stalls or 2. 12 bike stalls per unit and replacing it with the following that the bicycle parking will be maximized on site to the greatest extent possible within the parameters of the design standards as set out in bylaw number 2272 within the areas designated for bikes parking as shown on the plans presented to council on 4-20-2026.

I'll second.

Okay. Any motivation?

Thank you. This was tough, I think and I think when I saw this this was kind of flagged for me and when I was thinking about my comments for when this came to Council on April 20th and I believe I recall saying something about, you know, saying how great it was this, that this project was self aware of its proximity to the galloping booths and setting up a community for sex success so that they were removing barriers for having alternative modes for transportation.

I know it's a bit of a gamble when an application is coming in alongside a new bylaw and that sometimes there's risks being taken. However, when very specific amounts are promised and I do consider that when it comes in front of the Sustainable Development Advisory Committee and it comes in front of the problem in front of the public with a very specific promise, what's an expectation that that project should follow through on? It was generous, which is great. But Council, as far as I remember we've never asked for anything over 1. 5 and I'm just looking for a quick knock and I don't think we have.

So it was quite a bit more than anything that this council had signaled would be a requirement for us to that would make or break a decision on a project. And so far and above that is something that I consider would be bonus for the community and such. I would think that the community would expect that, so it's hard when we have something come back that doesn't even have numbers that can promise to go along with that. So what compromises is that the applicant is going to work with staff. Amazing. And we heard the words about, you know, designing, well, I think that's great, but there's, there's not a promise attached to that.

And when it comes on the heels of saying that we actually couldn't deliver on the thing that's what we promised, it's hard to hold the same value to what's being, being promised again. So I know our staff are great and we'll work within the intentions of what's being proposed to council here. And the. Finally, and I've signaled to this in my question, just what a triggering conversation it is with not just Lankford residents, but across Canada. We see about the challenge of the dynamics between car vehicular traffic and bicycle traffic. And I don't know why there's a particular threat around bicycles and not around pedestrians. And it's kind of weird, but it's upsetting for people.

And when we talk about it at the council table, we have to carry that and we have to own it. And so when there's a specific number that's far and above and people are saying why so few cars and why so many bikes, you know, that's, that's a challenge. And so I know that this is important to get this for the process of this application and where we are in other points of, of discussions in our city and, and I know that sometimes people just make mistakes and so that's kind of where I'm at. I'm not willing to hold up an application for what I'm hoping was just an honest mistake. And so I'll be voting to support

and that's why I put it forward.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you Seconding for discussion. I'm still thinking about my disappointment and the reality of this location and a six story building and thinking of the promises that, you know, we hope can be fulfilled. But we do know that each site is specifically, you know, unique. It has whatever shape it has, it has whatever trees on site, it has whatever trail nearby. And so when we try to take that all into account, it does feel like we have lost something. And I'm not super comfortable with not having any reassurance about the number, but it does have this word in here that I'm kind of leaning on right now is that it says maximized on site.

So I believe the intent is to make sure that the applicant would still work with staff and that they would do whatever they could. There's a bit of reassurance that it would be they're not using any of the land for another use. It's just that it simply hasn't fit. And it's. The whole parking conversation has been challenging as it's gone along the off street and on street parking studies and the conversations around that and the bylaw coming forward. So we're sort of caught in this transition again. So I'll just maybe sit with my disappointment a little bit. And I'm not sure that it's. If this project is not feasible with this amount of bike stalls, that's what we're being told, because they've really looked at it, then perhaps it does make sense to, to carry this forward and move ahead with the project if it's otherwise, you know, a project that fits with, you know, Jacqueline is a busy corridor and a six story building with a car share and still

meeting our

bike standards that are the new standards. There's a lot of things here that do make sense. So trying not to think as much about what we could have had but didn't and think about what is still there. So a little bit of stalling on my part, but those are my comments.

Thank you, Councillor Carter.

Thank you, Mayor. Appreciate the comments from my colleagues. I think in this instance how I'm approaching this is perfect is the enemy of good. And when I look at the site, I do see a lot of potential for improvement. I think that this is a good location in general for greater density and the unit mix that's being proposed. And ultimately I do think that this is going to be a location where a lot of residents will want to. Want to bite. But I also recognize that this particular applicant is taking an approach to look at transportation demand management more broadly. And I understand that successful car share programs have been working really well in other applications around Langford from this particular proponent. And you know, I, I'm down this corridor all the time.

I'm hopeful that we'll see some improvements come out through the transportation master plan for Jaclyn Road. But it is really close. It is located really close to existing transit lines with decent service and there's. I think that there's enough alternatives here that I can accept the frankly disappointment of the circumstances that we find ourselves in. I really, I really appreciate the approach that council and city is taking in trying to improve the quality of our bank working spaces because I can look around Langford and see example of bike parking that I would never store my bike on or never be able to store my bike on, and bike rooms that I could never fit a cargo bike in if I ever wanted to purchase one.

And so I'm trying to think about this and about the future of our city and the future choices and opportunities that we're presenting to residents, both current and future as well. So appreciate the comments, appreciate the information being provided to us from staff tonight. And while I'm a little bit disappointed, I'm comfortable moving forward in this case. Thank you.

All right, anyone else? All right, I'll just be quick. This is an example of transition. When we are making new plans, we are bringing in new guidelines, and there are going to be properties that are in the middle of that process. And this is where staff and the applicant are willing to work together. And I've got full confidence that the staff is going to work to the their best to have council's wishes and still making something viable for the applicant. And when we've asked for partnerships, to me, this is a prime example of a partnership, both sides coming together to make the best project possible. Okay, gonna call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? All right, that passes.

We are on now to 11. 29. 39 Kalani Drive. Rezoning application staff.

Thank you.

Mayor Jesse and Cindy Harris have applied to rezone 939 Klahani Drive from the rural residential 2 RR2 zone to the rural residential 5 RR5 zone in order to facilitate the subdivision of the property into two lots that would each be approximately 0. 4 hectares or one acre in size. As council may recall, an application was considered by Council in 2023 to rezone this property along with associated variances in order to facilitate a very similar two lot subdivision without connection to municipal sewer. That application was put on hold pending the OCP refreshment process. When the new OCP was adopted, it did reconfirm that municipal sewer would be required as part of any subdivision or development and this file was subsequently closed.

Since that time and as noted by the applicant earlier, they were able to establish an easement on a neighboring property to the south and have since installed the sewer service from Blake on place to the subject property. During the inspections of the new service to the site through this easement, staff noticed that a building had been constructed behind the existing dwelling. Given the size of the building and the services installed to it, permits would have been required but were not applied for. Staff subsequently issued an inspection slip that no more work could occur on site until the situation was resolved. The applicant has started the process of obtaining the necessary permits, including a development permit and a building permit, but those processes are ongoing.

Due to these ongoing compliance issues and the applicant's desire to move this rezoning application forward, staff are seeking council direction as to whether they wish for this application or for the applicant rather, to bring the property into compliance with all applicable bylaws and regulations through these permitting processes prior to any consideration of the proposed rezoning application.

Thank you very much, Councilor Wagner.

Thank you.

I'll move option one, that Council directs staff to not bring forward the proposed rezoning of 939 Klahani Drive to the Sustainable Development Advisory Committee until the building that was constructed on this property without any permits has been brought into compliance with all city bylaws and provincial regulations.

Do you have a seconder? I'll second, Councilor Gary. Okay. Councillor Wagner, motivation.

Thank you.

I went ahead and made the motion because I think my questions might stray right into comments. And so having the motion on the floor is helpful for me. I feel like the timing here is it's important to do good governance and that if we are aware that a building has been constructed without permits, that we should not be moving forward until that is resolved. And so that leads me to my question is, can this building be brought into compliance, noting it's in the riparian area and it may have impacted habitat and biodiversity? There's more than just a building permit here noted. A plumbing permit, electrical permit, environmental development permit, and possibly foreign character development permit. So just wondering about the possibility of it being brought into compliance and how

that might occur through the mayor. As mentioned, those processes are kind of ongoing still, so we can't really comment on that until those processes do come to completion. But, you know, staff are working with. With the applicant and any of the necessary environmental professionals, for example, to get the information that we need to make that determination.

So just following up on that, are there provincial approvals required for this being in a riparian area through the mayor?

Yeah, the provincial riparian.

The rapper.

The riparian Area Protection Regulation. Sometimes I forget the acronym. It does apply here. So we will be ensuring that those regulations are complied with as part of the development permit process.

Right. So, yeah, that kind of, to me, seems like there's enough things that are unresolved with an unknown time of being resolved that it makes sense to just let that resolution take its course. And my other question is, are there any. Is there a possibility of remediation requirements or other things imposed by the city or the province if it is determined that the riparent area or habitat and biodiversity was impacted.

Through the mayor. Again, it's hard to comment on that until the permit processes are complete, but if any such requirements are identified, they would be worked into the permitting process.

Is that something that will be seen if this application does come to the Sustainable Development Advisory Committee in the future through the mayor?

Copies of permits are not typically kind of part of staff reports, but there would certainly be some commentary around the completion of those processes and that all applicable requirements have been met when and if that comes forward.

Thank you.

And yeah, that satisfies me that until we've seen a staff report that does indicate that things have been resolved, I think this is the best course of action.

Councillor Garvey, thank you. I'm going to start with some questions as well. It came up during public participation and I had a similar question about if an applicant gets sewer access through an easement, what is the actual potential now? Like what can that connection do? Is there potential for townhouses now? How can I just. I'm just kind of wondering, yeah, if. What's the capacity of that connection? If and if the public can kind of understand that

through the chair. Anytime anyone wants to extend sewer to their property, we always get them to reach out to our sewer contractor first. So West Shore Environmental Services, and they typically would receive. Excuse me, a letter. And it's my understanding with regards to this sewer extension through an easement that it's only enough capacity to service the existing house and one additional unit. So with regards to servicing a, a townhouse development, the answer would be no.

Thank you. And then a further question through you, Mayor. Just what would signal needing a permit? I think I mentioned you meant there was mention of being serviced with a certain amount of services and that's kind of what would trigger that, regardless of the intention of the building.

Thank you.

Through the mayor, the both the development permit area guidelines and building bylaw have exemptions for very small buildings. For example, less than a 10 by 10 so 100 square foot building would not need a building permit and would potentially need a development permit. Depending on which development permit areas it was located in. There aren't those types of exemptions for the riparian area, for example, but small accessory buildings that don't cause any, you know, trees or vegetation to be disturbed could be exempted in like habitat and biodiversity area. So yes, very small buildings in certain circumstances can be exempted. That would just be for the building permit and the development permit. The installation of services would still like sewer and water would still require a plumbing permit.

Thank you for that. That's. I know this was a complicated, complicated discussion the first time it was considered at committee and council. And so we're just kind of revisiting all the, the ins and outs of, of subdivision versus rezoning versus, you know, what, what, what it means to have your property serviced as well. So thank you for the clarification and

I just want to clarify just for my own clarification that specifically this motion is not making a commentary on, on future rezoning or development. This is purely on can rezoning come forward or does the building that is been created need to be brought up before.

Thank you, Mayor. Yes, that's correct. It's not a decision on the actual application, just the process involved with respect to the application and the ongoing issues that were described.

So while I recognize we have a, a, a lot of interest in this, let's keep it to the motion itself. Councilor, harder.

Thank you. Through you, just a question on clarify clarifying the timelines for obtaining a development permit. If staff can provide sort of a general sense of how long it typically takes an applicant to obtain that permit.

Thank you.

Through the Mayor. I mean our typical timeline, but this is for a wide range of application types, is usually four to six weeks. But you know, for an application that is not, you know, a multi story building, for example, a small accessory building and some environmentally sensitive areas can be done faster. I do believe that staff have a lot of the information that is required at this point, so they're just going through that. So hopefully it won't be too much longer. But before we have all the information we need to put together and then the building permit process would go on from there. So of course the building permit can only go so far while there's an outstanding issue like a development permit that would authorize the siting of the building in that particular area.

If the development permit required the building to be moved, for example, you know, the staff would waste time kind of going through a detailed review of a building permit application that can't proceed in that form. So those two processes, you know, one does not necessarily happen at the same time as the other.

Thank you, that's helpful. I asked the question just because we don't typically talk about development permits at that level at this council given a lot of that authority is delegated to staff. But development permits are really important. They protect the natural environment in its ecosystems, they keep the development safe from hazards, they help protect farm areas and ultimately building Permits help protect, you know, life and safety. So they are very, very important processes to go through. And I, I do support seeking compliance from the property owners before we do proceed any further. Just recognizing that there are a lot of residents in Langford who do work very hard to seek permission and make sure that they're taking all of the appropriate steps to seek and obtain permits as they are required.

And I think the expectation is to do our utmost to seek permission rather than ask for forgiveness. And I have every confidence that staff will do their best to make sure that the solutions moving forward are reasonable and in compliance with all of the legislation and regulations that we must abide by.

Thank you very much. Is there any further questions? All right, I'll call the question. All those in favor, post. All right, that passes, we are on to 11. 3.

Thank you your worship. Through you, Ecom911 provides 911- call- Answer and Police dispatch services within the province, including throughout Lankford in the West Shore. Since 2019, the province has been funding the police dispatch service after it was transferred from the Langford Dispatch center to E com. However, effective April 1, 2025, 10 municipalities on Southern Vancouver island, including Langford, were required to assume their respective costs for this service. Langford's share of the levy is approximately $2 million for 2026. In 2025, the province undertook a review of E COM911 which resulted in a number of recommendations to ECOM for governance reforms. Once the recommendations have been implemented, the city will have a better idea of whether to continue with E Com or explore other more cost effective options.

So we were in a one year contract or nine month contract with E Com for 2025 and what's been proposed is just an extension to that for the 2026 fiscal year which will give E Com time to complete their review and make make any changes to their governance.

Thank you very much Council. Do you have any questions? Does anyone want to make a stab at a motion then?

Thank you Mayor. I will move that council authorize the mayor and CAO or corporate officer to enter into an agreement with Ecom911 for the provision of police dispatch services on the terms of as substantially attached with such amendments as may be negotiated and that council direct staff to report back to council and that council direct staff to report back to council with further options once the governance and finance recommendations have been implemented by ecom.

I'll second any motivation.

Appreciate the update from staff. This is one of those issues that we've dealt with through the term and unfortunately that taxpayers have had downloaded from the province. In conversations that I've had with colleagues in other municipalities who are facing similar challenges, I think there is a shared anticipation for a new model and greater certainty on how we're going to manage these costs at the local level. For Lankford, as it states in the report, you know, $2 million is a significant burden for taxpayers to have to pay and essentially pay twice just to obtain the services that we had previously

been

receiving prior to this change. So I don't want to remove 911 services from our residents, of course, but I do hope to see a more equitable and cost effective solution coming to either this council or the next in the future.

Thank you, Councilor Wagner.

Thank you. If I could just through the chair, just clarify quickly. I think you somewhat covered this, but just the staff. You said the contract would just go through 2026. And then so this council hearing back with further options when the recommendations have been implemented, is there an expectation that they're implementing those? Is ECOM implementing recommendations by the province generally in 2026? Is there like guidelines from the province for what they need to do?

Thank you through the chair. Thank you for the question. It's really going to depend on the extent of the changes and whether or not they can make them all in 2026. We do know that they've received the results and that they are actively working on them. It's our whole hope that they would be resolved this year. But without an update from E. Com, I can't give an answer that's 100% certain at this point.

Thank you.

Yeah, it is really frustrating. So I'll just make a couple comments here. I mean, obviously we're going to want to keep having 911 service because it's essential safety service, but there's a sort of unfair situation here where some of these municipalities in the Southern Ireland are paying and others around the province are not paying for 911 service, which I find very strange. And we don't have an invoice really for what, what we are even paying for. It's kind of this mystery why we got handed the $2 million bill. So that's really frustrating. As a taxpayer, I find that is not really acceptable. So I, I'm happy to see that they're actively working on it. I just wanted to express some frustration there. The recommendations report that came out was, was pretty intense.

There's a lot that maybe needs to be improved and I'm, I'm actually not that optimistic that they can do it in a year. I feel like they have a long way to go in terms of improvements. There's several recommendations that don't seem that easy to comply with. So I think we're stuck. I'm glad that they're part of this resolution is that council is directing a report back because I think that this conversation needs to continue and that there should be further oversight.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? Okay. This is something that I've been fairly intimately involved with over the last little bit. It is very frustrating to me that municipalities like Prince George and Kelowna don't pay for 911 service, just the municipalities on the southern island and the lower mainland. And we've never been given any real reason why. It's very frustrating. So if we can come up with some new solutions, I think that's a positive thing for everyone in the region. So I'll call the question. All those in favor? Opposed and passes. We are on to 11. 4 cri program 2026 fire smart community funding and supports.

Thank you, Mayor.

The purpose of this report is to seek a council resolution to support the application of the UBCM Fire Smart Community funding supports Grant Operation Opportunity. If successful, the city seeks to further develop and expand the Fire Smart PC program will continue to promote community engagement, education and collaboration with key partners across the region to mitigate wildfire risks. The program aims to raise awareness and preparedness against wildfires and to ensure ongoing educational opportunities are available to Lanford residents. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Any council? Any questions? Councillor Wagner.

Oh, sorry.

I got excited by this right off the bat. I'll move. Option one. That council supports an application to the Community Resiliency Investment Program, our Smart community funding and supports and that council and city are supportive of the proposed activities and will provide overall grant management.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Hey, Councilor Garvey. Hey, Councilor Mary. Any motivation? Sorry, Councillor Wagner. My beholdies.

Thank you.

Yeah. It's so important that we do seek the grant funding and I'm really grateful that ubcm, the Union of BC Municipalities, is stepping up here. We know that fire risk is quite high here because of our proximity to the forest and just, you know, general risk is high, you know, across the province.

But we do.

We have been identified as a high risk area in Lankford. There are some of our best areas that we love so much, like Thetis and Goldstream and over by West Hills and so many other areas that are beautiful forests, but we are very close to nature.

Here.

So the Fire Smart activities that I've been able to participate in were really fantastic. And so kudos to fire department, the Fire Langford Fire and the Langford Volunteer firefighters, as well as our fire smart coordinator, both waste and present, and then all the community groups that work with them. So had the pleasure of working with Reimagine Westshore, the Langford Residents Association Society in the past, as well as other, I believe just a community group got together out at Thetis Thetis Heights area that wasn't a specific organization, but they did a neighborhood effort. It was fantastic. So these, these Fire Smart activities really raise awareness and they're just such great community builders as well as doing the job of increasing awareness and actually fire smarting. You know, we reduce fuel load.

You can see just the amount of debris that can be removed. West Hills park, for example, just loads and loads of woody debris and invasive species have been removed. So it's a great program, but it needs funding. So let's get that.

Thank you, Councilor Gary.

Councillor Wagner covered a lot of the really amazing things about the Fire Smart program. And so just to add to that, I think it's a really. One of the really great things I love about it is it kind of encourages property owners to be good stewards of being in a wildfire urban interface area. So it sets property owners and homeowners up with success, with funding, with tools, with education how to better protect their property from wildfires. But it also, you know, Lankford, we are on this cusp of a lot of beautiful wild forest area which is just on our, our doorstep. And it's a great asset to the community.

But we're also kind of taking care of, of how that interface happens and how we make sure that how we live on the edge also protects the forests and protects the areas that the whole region depends on whether it's for transportation or for, you know, our water and just the recreational use of these forests.

So it's, it's, there's great tools, there's the funding, there's the education as Councillor Wagner outlined. And then it's just, there's, there's things that remove barriers for homeowners for taking care of their property, like the wood chipping and being able to remove debris from your property if you, you know, you don't have a truck to make regular trips to take debris off your property, or you don't have like the large, the large pieces that don't go in your green bend.

So there's just.

It, it kind of looks at where the problems are and, and sets up our community for success. So happy to support.

Thank you. Anyone else? Councillor Harder.

Thank you.

Threeo.

I actually have two questions to the chief and the first would just be if you could comment on the level of impact that we're seeing with regards to the yard waste drop off activities that we've been pursuing recently through the fire. Is it through the Fire Smarting program or is that funded through another program and perhaps facilitated through our Fire Smart

coordinator through the chair? Yes. Now, the Fire Smart grant has done community updates, usually one in the fall, one in the spring. It's the intact grant that we received on top of this that have done the weekend debris drop offs, which has been hugely successful. So that grant is continuing into 2027. It will likely be renewed after that. But whereas this is, this grant will be working on our general overall Fire smart mitigation programs.

Thank you. And then a separate question. Just looking at the reports, some of the proposed collaborative initiatives internally within the city. One of them just speaks to integrating wildfire hazard considerations into development permits. Wondering if you could maybe give an example of what that would look like.

Yeah, we've been working with a consultant to update some of our, you know, FHIR interface mapping and design guidelines. That's not really part of this particular grant. It was more part of the community wildfire resiliency plan. So that'll be still ongoing regardless if we get the the grant application or not. However, the collaboration is more working with the other Fire Smart coordinators in the Greater Victoria area, specifically in the West West Shore, and to make sure that our initiatives are aligned with each other with things such as the Fire Smart plant program. There's another one that they're working on right now with like, it's like lumber for fire safe building materials. And that's being done jointly with viewroyal for the Slug Lumber and View Royal and Slug Lumber here.

So that's those type of initiatives that we'd be working on collaboratively with the rest of the region.

I appreciate, I'm glad I asked the question. That actually clarifies a lot for me. So thank you, Chief. Yeah. Certainly supportive of us pursuing this grant activity. I can't hear or I can't say how much I hear from residents how grateful they are for the fire spotting activities that the city is facilitating and supporting. And I just personally think it's such a great way to engage our residents in helping people feel like they are able to make a difference and a positive contribution, especially with the levels of Climate anxiety and just the increased risk that we're seeing with wildfire. I think that that that goes a long way and we don't necessarily always reflect on that. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? Okay, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? That passes. And just as a side note, it was referenced about the Thetis Heights Power Smart event which is at Millstream School. I believe this year it is May 30th. Hey. We are on now to item number 12. Correspondence 12. 1 West Shore Parks and Recreation Facility master's plan update.

I will move that council receive the West Shore Parks and Recreation Facility master plan Progress report for Q1 2026 for information.

I'll second any motivation.

I think these reports are great. So I'm happy our CAO at West Shore Parks and Recreation is providing them to councils regularly. It's part of how we are working on a collaborative plan between live communities which isn't insignificant the challenges of working with so many communities. And I'm happy to share that this master plan will be coming to the public for feedback very soon.

Thank you. Counter harder. Okay. Call to question. All those in favor? Opposed. That passes. We are on to item number 13 bylaws. First one is 13. 1. Bylaw number 2211.

I will move that council give Langford zoning bylaw amendment number 740-2609 Sucrose bylaw number 2211, 2026 first, second and third readings.

Second in a motivation.

Just give me one second because my computer froze. But I have a workaround over here. Well, I guess I can remember

the

application here we did discuss at the committee resolution stage. So this I believe is the. The I went into very interested in this pork chop and other features of how do we get traffic to move where we need it to go. Because the Souk corridor is. Is quite challenging for people and we know those in Happy Valley really struggle. So I always appreciate when an application comes forward that is trying to work with the site that is in this case it was a fairly small site and it had to be quite specific and how it could meet the commercial requirement and also have the safety of traffic getting in and out, including the loading and unloading and moving vehicles at garbage trucks, larger vehicles.

So there's a lot of discussion about this which I thought was helpful for bringing out the details of. You know, the fire chief does look at these applications as well. So even if it looks to the untrained eye as a like, how do we see this working? Well, our staff walked us through how it can fit and the the applicant would describe in in fairly robust detail how it does all come together. So I was quite comfortable with this. I found it a unique application and

I will be supporting.

Thank you.

Councillor Wagner covered a lot without notes that was pretty good to do from memory. So I don't have anything too additional to add other than I just appreciated the forming character of this building being a kind of a good contrast and a dynamic and between the what's existing there and and the street presence that would be created and there's a lovely like small little commercial space that would provide something different than what we've seen along that area as well.

Thank you. Through you just a clarifying question to staff. I believe that when I first reviewed this application, parking for bicycles was going to be proposed to be in unit. Can you just clarify if that will need to change with the forthcoming off street parking bylaw?

Yes, both the vehicle and bike parking will be reviewed per the new bylaw as part of the development permit stage. So those bike rules, rooms and design standards will apply.

Thank you. I'm supportive of the application with that and recognizing that the existing site probably could be used to a higher and better use. And I agree with Councillor Gyri's comments just regarding the architectural diversity that's coming through with this application. It's different, it's unique, but it's eye catching. And I think it's something that we've heard a lot of from Langford residents that there is a desire for some diversity in how we're building our city in that regard. And I'm really excited. I think the more development that we see along the Sioux Road corridor, the faster we're going to see a connected sidewalk along the Sioux Road corridor. And running that section is not fun right now.

So I look forward to hopefully seeing this project move forward.

Thanks very much. Anyone else? Okay, call the question. All those in favor post that passes. We are on to 13. 2. Bylaw number 2235. Lankford zoning bylaw amendment number 74897 Walford Road. Bylaw number 2235. 2025.

This is for adoption.

I'll move that council adopt Lankford Zoning Bylaw amendment number 744897 Walford Road. Bylaw number 22352025 as presented.

I'll second.

Yeah, it's adoption, but it's been a while. It's just an interesting property. Again, this one is allowing for a two lot subdivision on Walford and there's as usual there's many conditions associated. I don't have a lot to add here because it is at the adoption stage. But I do think it's important to note how much thought goes into you know, low concrete vegetation allowed it to be retained non disturbance covenant. There's a large area that is the amount of green space here is interesting. So there's, you know, things in the application that when we get to adoption stage we often don't revisit. But I still think it's important to acknowledge.

Thank you very much. Okay. Call to question. All those in favor. Opposed that passes. We are on to 13. 3 bylaw number 2246 road closure bylaw number 2246. 2026 and a portion of Aldwin Road. Again, this is for adoption.

Thank you. I'll move that council adopt road closure bylaw number 224-62026 is presented.

I'll second.

Yeah, we've had previous discussions on this one, so I won't venture too far. But I do actually have a question to staff. With the forthcoming construction of Veterans Memorial park and now this road closure in front of council, is the public able to view the site designs for the proposed construction for Veterans Memorial park anywhere

through the chair.

We have do have sign boards on the corner of Baldwin and Goldstream and Fairway and Baldwin that has rendering of the site. That's the easiest way and I believe there's it's up on our website and if not I'll confirm that for tomorrow morning. Yeah, the renderings are the best way to view it obviously because the rest of the plans are pretty technical.

Thank you. And then just for my own clarification, staff be able to comment on the timelines for that road closure if this bylaw is adopted.

The construction has begun on the park. The the company that won the bid is mobilized and fenced off the existing Veterans park for safety. They are operating right now under a bylaw 2233 permit so they could start working in because this bylaw was delayed for a couple of weeks. So I would anticipate that they they will be. They're working within their permit as it is now the road is not closed at this time, but I would expect it to be closed imminently.

Thank you.

Okay, I'll call the question. All those in favor posed. That passes. We're on a 13. 4 bylaw number 2252 Lankford voting. Not voting. Langford zoning bylaw number 300amendment number 756 R2 text amendment to allow a daycare bylaw number 2252, 2026. This is for first, second and third reading.

I'll move that council give Lankford Zoning bylaw number 300, amendment number 756-R-2-Text Amendment to allow daycare bylaw number 2252 2026. First, second and third readings second.

Yep. Any motivation?

Yeah, I think this is a great location for, for the daycare and it's I think nice to see that they've moved from a temporary use permit to this rezoning application. So I'm quite supportive. I've seen this daycare in operation and I walk by there daily and see, you know, the little kids are having a good time. It really actually adds something to the neighborhood. I notice others walking around that appreciate that the area is well maintained and thriving and it's. We just, we know we're in a child care desert and we really need to support childcare in Langford.

Anyone else?

Yeah, just quickly that it's. This application's in line with our ocp, particularly language around multi generational living and where the, where the daycare is in relationship to the school and in our downtown core. These are all things that place play well into our community and where Langford is going.

Thank you. I also support this application. I think commercial spaces are hard to come by in the downtown core by Langford, which is a blessing and a curse at this moment and we do need more daycare spaces. I'm somebody who went to daycare in a residential building and I had a lovely experience growing up. So I think, think that this is an appropriate use for this site recognizing some of the other challenges in our communities context.

All right, I'm just going to. You know, I was quite happy that we went through the TUP and then the applicant's like, yep, we want to do this. It's working. And they worked with the city and this is just a great example of the process going through. So I'm going to call a question. All those in favor opposed that passes. We are now 13. 5. Bylaw number 2255 and 2262 Community Standards, bylaw number 2255, 2026 for adoption and community standards, miscellaneous, amending, bylaw number 2262 and 2026 as well for adoption.

I'd like to move that council adopt community standards by Law Number 2255, 2026 and Community Standards Miscellaneous Amending Bylaw Number 2262, 2026.

I'll second any motivation.

I'M gonna wax poetic here a little bit, and it's a significant bylaw, so my apologies. A few months ago, I met with a resident living in Florence Lake McCallum neighborhood, and we walked together. We toured his college sac and the surrounding North Langford neighborhood. And we spoke candidly about the pace of growth, recent speculation, market conditions, and how all of this has taken shape over the last decade. And it was really great to hear his perspective on how his neighborhood has changed. He appreciated the new services and housing that was coming through development and how his local neighborhood was becoming a lot easier to access all of the things that he needed in his daily life.

I didn't necessarily hear an anti development, you know, perception coming from our conversation, but instead he asked to meet with me because he was generally frustrated by a lack of regulation on construction and development. And he just wanted to know that his counselor or one of his counselors was able to hear him out and listen and really make sure that elected leaders in our community understand the impacts of development and change as our community continues to grow. We spoke about the general annoyances related to site management, some of which were shared during public participation tonight. Trades, parking, garbage. He spoke about some of the real disruptions that this change in our community has imposed on his life, including being unable to work from home against the sounds of rock crushing and loud, heavy equipment.

And ultimately, he shared that while he was still proud to be a Langford resident, he was witnessing a general, slow, steady decline for the pride of his neighborhood, both within himself and with his neighbors. And this was just coming through years of dealing with construction fatigue and a pathwork of bylaws that couldn't effectively be enforced. So with that conversation in mind and the countless others that I've had from Langford residents over the past four years, I'm just. I'm so delighted to see the culmination of three years of hard work coming together tonight. We're a community that embraces change, and Langford has seen and felt the impacts of a lack of community planning and rapid development and a laissez faire approach to bylaw modernization.

So I'm just very grateful that this bylaw is going to allow us to take some tangible action against some of the greatest sources of complaints by giving the city new abilities to regulate and hopefully mitigate some of the ongoing impacts as our neighborhoods continue to densify and change and welcome new people, businesses and ideas into our city.

And I do want to note, just because I'm a downtown resident and a taxpayer, I'm particularly Grateful that this bylaw is going to give the city the ability to recuperate some of our enforcement costs for the more frequent flyer properties that we have, particularly in the downtown core that have been abandoned for where development has slowed.

Because this is something that is straining and draining on our city. And I think the people of Langford really don't deserve to be left holding the bag for what I would perceive personally to be irresponsible actions. So I just wanted to take a moment to highlight and thank staff for the multi year consultation process that we've taken to get here. I really appreciated that we worked collaboratively with the development in industry and with residents and with businesses to understand the different perspectives and to really try to define what is reasonable for our community. Recognizing that there will always be some degree of disturbance as a community changes and we will continue to change. I think I'll leave it there. My gratitude again to staff.

I'm looking forward to seeing this new tool come into Langford.

Councillor Wagner, I'll defer to the second or first, but I do want these comments.

Councillor. Morning. Hi. My apologies, sir. That's okay.

I'm used to it.

Sorry. Thank you,

Councilor Herder. That's a. That's going to be a fact to follow here, but well said. This is a strong and much needed update that brings together property maintenance news, nuisance and noise regulations into a clear, modern framework. It sets fair expectations for residents and developers while giving the city effective tools to address ongoing issues like unsightly properties, construction impacts and repeat nuisances. Overall, this bylaw will help protect neighborhood livability and ensure our community remains safe, clean and well managed as we continue to grow. So I am pleased to support this for adoption.

And my apologies again.

Now, Councillor Wagner, I don't want to be repetitive, but this is huge. We've been waiting for this a long time. It's very dear to my heart. I am in the city center and there's a lot of impacts there, but I've noticed they're everywhere throughout Langford. Unfortunately, we sort of have a reputation for being the Wild west and I think we need to change that. I think we need to modernize our processes. I think that's part of good governance, is just to set a community standard and say we know that not all developers are bad. And in fact, this is such a great set of bylaws. It's not just about development. There's something in here for everyone. You cannot throw items, you have to have. Street occupancy needs to be regulated.

Many of us have suffered years of not being able to use our sidewalk, and you never know if it's going to be open or closed or safe or not safe. My daughter rides to Belmont on her scooter, and every day she's going down Lee Road, and I fear for her safety because they sometimes don't close the road and sometimes they do. And the sidewalk, sometimes there's no fence and there's a pit and they're excavating. And it's just one example of just what we don't want to see. And that's not in my neighborhood. But my, you know, family member goes there and it's not safe. That's just one example. There's many good neighbors out there. So this ties back to our good neighbor policy.

And these are all of the bylaws that we need to be able to enforce to have that good neighbor policy come to life. And, yeah, I'd love to go on, but there's a. Just a huge mental health impact of the derelict properties and the years of unsightliness and abandonment. And I just really feel for so many of my neighbors. And even if they're not my neighbors throughout Langford, people don't want to go outside. They don't want to look out their window, they don't want to live in their homes anymore, and their property values have gone down, and it's really upsetting. So we need to move past this and have good bylaws that we can enforce and really have this community standard that is again, the framing of this.

It's setting, it's being set by the community residents or whoever it is. Maybe you're a business owner and you don't like what's going on, you can make a complaint. And if there's something in the bylaw that's being infringed upon, if there's a problem, then we now have a tool to take that on and so much clarity here in what needs to happen.

Again, there's everything from weeds to,

you know, just. It's amazing what's in here. Noise is a big one. So I think that the discussion we had about this and, and I wanted to tweak it more. It's never going to be perfect. So I look forward to the tracking of the data, understanding how this is going to impact our community and, and revisiting this and making sure that it's working really well and doing what it needs to do for supporting our residents and their quality of life.

Thank you, Councilor Gary.

Thank you. I feel like We've probably, each of us have had a very deep and probably long and extended conversation with residents in Lankford about the way that they felt the growth in this community has impacted them and on very deeply personal levels and sometimes also financial levels as well.

And you know, what hasn't been appreciated is this to be brushed off as growing pains for this to be something that they just have to endure as part of growth. We've talked about this earlier tonight, but I do really respect the amount of time that went into putting thought into what was going on, working and what wasn't working. What language prevented a response that was meaningful for Lankford's of residents and what language actually empowered our bylaw officers to have good conversations. As someone that's had like a long experience in the traits, I've, I've always wanted this to be a path towards peaceful coexistence where we have,

you know,

the trade off of having the impact or having a visitor in your community that is bringing new houses, new homes isn't impacting your mental health and well being and your ability to live in your, in your community. I lived in a community that had rock crushing and I remember very distinctly about having, you know, receiving a phone call and my kiddos were loud because they're kids and they play and I step outside to take the phone call and I can't hear anything because it's persistent crushing like the, the rat. It was impossible and it's overwhelming to feel like you have no place to go to have a conversation for or you can't receive an important phone call. So.

And I know there's, there's just different levels of, of impact and stories and they're all unique and I know council has heard a lot of them over the past few years. So I share in the excitement that council has about getting to be among moment of adoption where we have something that is such a large body of work that our staff have put into working with the development community, working with the public, working with our bylaw. It's, it's great to have something which has the potential for so much efficacy and to see it over the finish line. So I'm happy to support. There's a lot of great things on the agenda tonight and this is a special one, I think.

All right, thank you very much. Okay, I'm going to call the question. All those in favor post and that passes. Thanks for everyone who's still here. We are on 13. 6 bylaw number 2260 statutory, statutory officers and delegation of authority bylaw number 2260, 2026. And this is first, second and third reading.

I move the council give statutory officers and delegation of Authority bylaw number 2260, 2026. First, second and third readings.

I'll second.

Any motivation, Councilor? Morally,

this bylaw is a timely modernization of the city's governance framework. It consolidates and replaces several older bylaws, governing officers and delegated authorities, reflecting the city's growth and increasing complexity of municipal operations over time. By clearly defining statutory officer roles and updating delegated authorities in alignment with the community charter, this bylaw improves administrative efficiency while preserving council's ultimate authority. It ensures decisions can be made more responsibly and consistently while maintaining accountability and transparency for the community.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Councilor Morley. Well said. I have nothing else to add.

Anyone else? Follow the question. All those in favor? That passes now to 13. 7 bylaw number 2267. Elections bylaw. Nope. Okay. Elections bylaw number 1819. Amendment number 2, bylaw number 2267. 2026. This is for adoption.

Thank you, Maria. Thank you, Mayor. I will move council adopt Elections bylaw number 1819. Amendment number two, bylaw number 2267, 2026.

I will second.

We've had good discussion on this, but I do just want to remind everybody that we have an election coming, in case you didn't know, this October. And one of the big changes coming through this bylaw that I'm very grateful for is the additional polling stations just to ensure that we are creating opportunities for everyone to exercise their democratic right. So I said it last time, but, yeah, bring your, bring a friend, bring a neighbor, bring someone you don't like and get out and vote. Thank you.

I'll just add, too, that we're adding mail in voting this time, which is new for us and an important way to try to include more voters. Many people do find that, you know, they don't have child care or they're busy working or, you know, they work, shift work. Many people don't want to make the drive in. If they're elderly, for example, they don't feel comfortable and maybe they don't know who to vote for. This might really encourage more people to vote because there's another option. They might feel like, okay, voting is for me and I'm going to look into it and I'm going to get excited about my local government. I think we have a lot to offer.

We always say that we're the closest to the people, this level of government. And so we really do want everyone to vote. It's extremely important. We make the most difference in your daily lives. So do learn about the election and your voting opportunities and take advantage of those.

Thank you very much. Call to question. All those in favor? Opposed that passes. 13. 8. Bylaw number 2272, Lankford zoning bylaw number 300. Amendment number 759 off street parking bylaw number 2272. 2026. And again, this is for adoption.

Thank you, Mayor. I will move that council give. Oh, pardon me, wrong item. I'll move that council adopt. City of Langford zoning bylaw number 300. Amendment number 759 off street parking I number 2279 to 2026.

Do we have a seconder?

I'll second.

Yeah.

I don't have a big story for this one. I'm just very appreciative of this bylaw and I think that it's going to pay dividends in the decades to come with regards to modernizing the opportunities that we provide to residents with how they get around Lankford with regards to the climate action plan that is going to be forthcoming to. I think that this is, is going to be an area of increasing significance when it, when we look to where we can take steps as a city to reduce our climate emissions and make the greatest impact in climate action. Transportation emissions are one of the greatest sources of emissions for Langford residents.

And I know a lot of residents who share their experiences of moving from areas closer into town and coming out to Lankford for greater efforts, affordability or a little bit more space to live, only to have those affordability savings clawed back when they realize that they can no longer live as a one car household. And they, you know, previously may have been able to get by by biking or using the bus and now have to take on the costs of an additional vehicle for their household. So I just, I really appreciate all of the work that's gone into this bylaw say so much more, but I'll leave it.

Thank you. I will just add that I appreciate the work that was put in by our consultant along with our staff about looking as to what is functioning well in other communities as far as the traffic demand measures. And you know what, if we're moving away from something, how are we also providing tools and removing barriers for folks to get around in a way that works for them in a way that's cost effective for them and being effective with, as we talked about earlier tonight with bike storage and making sure that that's actually something that's functional and not just a gesture as to, you know, this is something that, that space that's needed.

There's actually ways that we understand now that we can set up parking whether it's for vehicles or for bikes. For success. Yeah, I'll leave it there. There's. It's. I'm excited to get this one over the finish line as well.

Okay, Councilor Wagner, thank you. I actually struggled with this a bit. I found it really hard to get my head around the off street parking when we hadn't seen the on street parking option alongside. We had presentations about both in December and then when the off street parking bylaw came forward, kind of balked at the scope and it felt pretty drastic to me. So I know that's why we have a council and there were many good discussion points about this is forward looking and that the new parking requirements, we're not going to see their effects for several years because it takes so much time for new applications, new zonings to happen.

Depends on the market, all kinds of things. So I'm actually looking forward to having this reviewed in the future and seeing how it's working. I think that there's. It's hard to understand the impacts of this when we know that on the one hand we know that the parking demand, there's numbers that show that this is evidence based decision making right here, that this is what is the parking that will meet our needs. And yet many residents don't feel that way. So if they have a second vehicle, they're in trouble. If they're in the city center and what are they going to do with their vehicle if they need it for work or they have two working parents, they have to go different directions.

So I just think it is a really important bylaw and it does change a lot for people and we are trying to do that mode shift. It aligns with our official community plan. But having that conversation around the, the on street parking, the public parking and how we're going to enforce that is something I'm really looking forward to. There's a lot of parking that if you have less off street parking, there'll be more demand on the street and that's going to create some conflict. But there's positives in here of course, with the accessible parking standards, the loading and unloading. So I did want to touch on just some of the community conversation that I've had around this, but that there's some big wins in here. Accessibility standards were really important and I'm really Happy to see that come forward.

And then we know there's lots of people that move and unload and all these things all the time. So having that standard is really important. So I'll just want to touch on those few points. Thanks.

Okay. Anyone else follow the question. All those in favor? Opposed? That passes. 13. 9. Bylaw number 2278 Lankford zoning bylaw number 300, amendment number 7623-084308-83094 and 3096 Jackson Road bylaw number 2278 2026. First, second and third reading,

I'll move

that council give Lankford zoning bylaw number 300amendment number 763 084-308-83094 Jack Road bylaw number 2278 2026. First, second and third readings. I'll second motivation just that we call back to earlier in the meeting.

This relates to the change in the bike working.

So

it was an interesting conversation we had. And so just to connect those dots for people is that we've we're going forward with this given that we're going to maximize the bike parking to the best of our ability with the applicant working with staff. So after that discussion, I feel that this is a reasonable path forward.

Thank you.

Just further, because we did have a great discussion at committee. We talked about or unit composition. We talked about like how the building functions and about the car share and I know we were talking a lot about this, the commitment for the bike parking. But there was a lot of great strengths to this application that was worth supporting at committee and when we received it from the committee. And so I'm happy to to continue to support it for those reasons.

Anyone else? Okay. Call to question. All those in favor? Opposed that passes. We're 13. 10. Bylaw number 2283. The Lankford Building bylaw number 1160. Amendment number 18 Energy Conservation and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction bylaw number 2283 2026.

And again, this is first, second and third reading.

Move that council give Lankford Building bylaw number 11 60amendment number 180 Carbon Step Code Implementation bylaw number 2283 2026. First, second and third readings.

I'll second.

Any motivation? Sir. Yes, sir. Yes.

So this is a clear and necessary step towards a more sustainable and resilient Lankford. By aligning the with the step code and zero Carbon step code, it establishes a practical phase path to lower emissions while improving building performance across Our community. Importantly, this isn't just about climate policy. It delivers real benefits for residents. More efficient buildings mean lower energy bills, greater year round comfort and healthier indoor environments, while helping homeowners avoid costly retrofits in the future. This is a strong, forward looking leadership that supports affordability over time, reduces environmental impact and ensures Langford continues to build high quality, future ready homes for our community.

Sorry Council, just before we continue, if I could just ask for a correction. My apologies. The bylaw was renamed. It should be the Langford building bylaw number 1160, amendment number 18, energy conservation and greenhouse gas emission reduction bylaw number 2283.

2026.

Does that have to be read in

or just you're good enough if there's no objections?

No objections.

So stated.

Thank you.

Okay, Councilor Wagner, thank you. You're next.

Yes, thank you. This is another one that I think is really important. I'm so happy to see it come forward. We've already had heat pumps in buildings for quite some time as through the Sustainable Development Advisory Committee we've been saying we want these in almost multi unit buildings. So the new builds are already doing this. So it's not a far step for us to go down this road. Zero carbon step code and I think it provides a lot of clarity for developers and the community. It aligns with the region. Most of the municipalities in the CRD are moving in this direction and as Councillor Morley stated, it does actually provide quite a bit of quality of life benefit, affordability, improved health outcomes, just even comfort heating and cooling in your own home.

But it can be really important during heat events that you're able to cool your home. And we've seen a move in this direction across Canada that in particular renters and others that often don't have as much ability to control their environment. It can be a real problem where they're in these really hot hours, for example. So having ability for cooling could actually save lives. And there's so many other great aspects of this project that came through with the staff report and they really laid out the cost benefit analysis and I just thought it was a very important presentation. So really thank you to staff for making that so clear for us what the best path forward is and that, you know, making really hard requirements on say building code is harder for those to be, it's costly for the developer.

Whereas this pathway, there can be choice in how they find their way to the zero carbon outcome. So it's a really important step and it will align with our climate action plan as it comes forward as well. So I'm very happy to see this come forward.

Forward. Thank you very much. Anyone else?

Council Gary, thank you again. I'll just state again because I think it's important that this council had our early guidance for development back in 2023, which did look for green design opportunities relative to architectural design and sustainable energy sources over and above city requirements. And so this is in line with the direction that we've been hoping we would go. Every time we've talked about a development, we talk about a new building as a 50 year commitment. We are now making a 50 year commitment to more sustainable buildings and a more sustainable city. And now that we're online with, you know, almost all of the rest of the region, this is a, this is something we should be celebrating that we are leaders in the south island for, for coming together and supporting the zero carbon subcode.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? Hey, I'll call the question. All those in favor Opposed that passes. We are on to item number 14, new business 14. 1 waiver of the city of Lankford by election and staff.

Thank you, your worship. Through you, in accordance with the local government act, the council may decide where there is a vacancy on council that a by by election doesn't have to be held in certain circumstances where that vacancy occurs after January 1, but before June 1 in the year of a general local election, the city of Langford meets all of the requirements for council being able to waive that by election, including that the vacancy is not in an office elected on the basis of a neighborhood constituency and that the number of remaining council members is at least 1 greater than the quorum for the council as set out under section 129sub1 of the Community charter.

As these criteria have been met and given the cost of a potential by election and the short time that that person would be in office, staff are recommending that council pass the resolution and set out on the report that was handed out to you today that council resolved that city of Langford will not be holding a by election to fill the vacancy of the late Lillian Spock.

Thank you, Councilor Herter.

I'll move that council resolve that the city of Lankford will not be holding by election to fill the vacancy of Lillian Spock.

I'll second.

Do we need motivation?

Certainly a motion I wish I didn't have to make. So I'll leave it there.

I think it's just an opportunity to acknowledge

this.

This vacancy will this Councilor Spock and what she contributed to the community and the by election, I mean the issue here is to fill a vacancy. And it's so close to an election, it's hard to have to make this formal step in a public meeting. So it's sort of a technicality, but I still wanted to acknowledge that. But this is hard. Sort of brings the reality of the situation home, that we are missing one of our council members and a valued member of our community. And I'll just leave it there. Thank you.

I'll call the question. All those in favor? Most that passes. Can I have a motion to adjourn?

Thank you, Mayor. I will move that. Counselor, during the meeting.

I'll second. All those in favor? Closed. That passes. Thank you. Everyone that has stuck out to the very end and those online with you all, a good night. And we'll see you next meeting.