Q - Question R - Recommendation

Traffic and Safety

We were told several years ago by the Mayor (on public record) that :

• Safe pedestrian access around the lake on Goldstream was in the pipeline. - ​ No action taken.
• Large vehicles parked on Goldstream outside private residences,impeding traffic and forcing vehicles pedestrians into the middle of the road were known about and would be addressed. ​- No action taken.

Instead, the amount of traffic, particularly heavy industrial trucks and vehicles have steadily increased.

Q1 - Will the council take action to safeguard pedestrians on Goldstream before someone else is killed or injured due to increased traffic and huge increase in heavy industrial vehicles ?.

R1

There is no safe pedestrian access along Goldstream at all and the situation is getting worse. No future development must be allowed which uses Goldstream for heavy industrial vehicles until this is rectified.

Livability - Noise, dust, air, water quality

For over 5 years, developers have used industrial equipment to drill, blast and crush rock from 7 am to 7pm almost year round. The work starts at 0700, however, vehicles and their reversing warning devices can be heard up to 2 hours earlier on a regular basis.

This does not include the work on the highway which took place overnight for many months without any consideration for residents. That area is now used regularly by trucks to test their air brakes before they head up the Malahat. The noise is shocking, sudden and greatly reduces quality of life.

Q2 - How many more years of noise, dust and inconsiderate building practices are acceptable?

R2

No more development should be allowed until sensible hours of operation, time limits for construction (i.e heavy industrial work not during mornings and evenings/weekends), have been implemented.

Sympathetic Developments

Plans for developments are approved at public hearings, then amended privately allowing developments near areas of outstanding natural beauty to be done in a way that is totally unsympathetic with the environment.

Large, monolithic concrete structures now border walking trails and overshadow lakeside areas.

No ridgelines or views from the lake have been considered and in fact, every possible area that can feasibly overlook the water is being developed at an alarming rate, which only seems to be increasing.

Q3 - Can the council state which “ ridgelines, peaks, rocky outcrops, shorelines and environmentally sensitive areas” have been earmarked for preservation and where this is documented ?

R3

No further development should be allowed that can easily be seen, or heard from walking paths or the lakeside.

Sensitive Areas

An extensive survey of the wetlands around the north and west sides of the lake was undertaken. If these areas have been designated as requiring protection and/or preservation then these areas need to be rezoned and this reflected in CRD Atlas.

R4

Before any further development (or associated rezoning) can be considered, these areas must be formally documented and removed from any potential future development. (They currently are included in the proposed area to be re-zoned.)

Lack of Transparency Regarding Building Developments and Spending of Public Monies

There is a perception that deals are being made and public money is being spent based not on the needs of the residents and community, but the financial interests of developers.

If not, then why would the council recommend another 30 townhomes on the site of a single residence if it were not to make money for that individual. To help clarify the community need, the following questions need to be answered (without the need to request the information from an Freedom Of Information inquiry as demanded by the head of Langford’s Planning department).

• Q4 - How many homes are currently under construction in Langford ?
• Q5 - How many more have been approved ?
• Q6 - How many more have been proposed and are under consideration ?
• Q7 - How many of those homes are low cost apartments which can be purchased rather than being investments for large corporations who rent them whilst the housing market climbs?

Additional Questions

Q8

If we cannot afford safe pedestrian walkways or sidewalks along Goldstream then can the council confirm if and why almost $500,000 was spent rehousing residents from a privately owned development in Langford (just off Goldstream) last year ?

Q9

What is the requirement for a 4 acre hotel (no details of plans released) next to a water meadow and who stands to benefit financially ?

Summary

There are 9 specific questions to the council, the answers to which are in the interests of the community and helping them evaluate this re-zoning. Can the council please respond to each, giving their perspectives or simply proving the information requested.

• Q1 - Will the council take action to safeguard pedestrians on Goldstream before someone else is killed or injured due to increased traffic and huge increase in heavy industrial vehicles ?.
• Q2 - How many more years of noise, dust and inconsiderate building practices are acceptable?
• Q3 - Can the council state which “ ridgelines, peaks, rocky outcrops, shorelines and environmentally sensitive areas” have been earmarked for preservation and where this is documented ?
• Q4 - How many homes are currently under construction in Langford ?
• Q5 - How many more have been approved ?
• Q6 - How many more have been proposed and are under consideration ?
• Q7 - How many of those homes are low cost apartments which can be purchased rather than being investments for large corporations who rent them whilst the housing market climbs?
• Q8 - If we cannot afford safe pedestrian walkways or sidewalks along Goldstream then can the council confirm if and why almost $500,000 was spent rehousing residents from a privately owned development in Langford (just off Goldstream) last year ?
• Q9 - What is the requirement for a 4 acre hotel (no details of plans released) next to a water meadow and who stands to benefit financially ?

There are also 4 recommendations for both the council and the public’s consideration. Can the council respond to each :

• R1 There is no safe pedestrian access along Goldstream at all and the situation is getting worse. No future development must be allowed which uses Goldstream for heavy industrial vehicles until this is rectified.

• R2 No more development should be allowed until sensible hours of operation, time limits for construction (i.e heavy industrial work not during mornings and evenings/weekends), have been implemented.

• R3 No further development should be allowed that can easily be seen, or heard (i.e. from walking paths or the lakeside.(in compliance with the OCP aims to..​ ​maintain views of key landscape features such as ridgelines, peaks, rocky outcrops, shorelines and environmentally sensitive areas.)

• R4 Before any further development (or associated rezoning) can be considered, these areas must be formally documented and removed from any potential future development. (They currently are included in the proposed area to be re-zoned.)