Official Community Plan (Schedule "A" to Bylaw No. 2200) — Langford Official Community Plan

Page 5

Official Community Plan BYLAW NO. 2200 Page 5 of 399

Page 6

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP REFRESH/RETHINK|JANUARY 2025 DRAFT Land Acknowledgement The City of Langford acknowledges and honours the traditional territories of the Coast Salish, specifically Xwsepsum (Esquimalt), Lekwungen (Songhees), Sc’ianew (Beecher Bay), and the WSÁNEĆ Peoples represented by the Tsartlip, Pauquachin, Tsawout, Tseycum, and Malahat Nations. We thank them for sharing this beautiful land. The City of Langford acknowledges and honours the importance of listening, understanding, and engaging meaningfully and intentionally with local First Nations. The City is committed to building strong relationships with the local Nations and is committed to ensuring this work is a priority and approached in a good way. While there is much work to do, and will be an ongoing evolving process, the City is going to start by understanding the priorities of all local First Nations on a one-on-one basis. This Plan may be enhanced to honour what we learn and will keep the City accountable to our commitments. This approach to building relationships with local First Nations will be applied to all City projects and initiatives with the commitment of being accountable partners, and strong allies to the Indigenous community. The City will work to implement the actions specific to local government as outlined in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action Page 6 of 399

Page 7

Background on this new Official Community Plan . . . . 2 What We Heard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Targets and Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Emphasizing Urban Infill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Mobility Choice, Not Car Dependency . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy . . . . . 27 Land-Use Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 High Quality City-Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Emphasizing Housing Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Climate Action and Sustainable Infrastructure . . . . 66 Protecting Ecological Systems and Biodiversity . . . . 72 Economic Resilience and Prosperity . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Embracing the Creative City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Food Systems and Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Parks, Places, and Services for People . . . . . . . . . . 95 Appendix A: Development Permit Areas . . . . . . . . 103 Appendix B: Regional Context Statement . . . . . . . . 115 Appendix C: Sand and Gravel Deposits . . . . . . . . . 122 Contents PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 4 PART 5 PART 6 PART 7 PART 8 PART 9 PART 10 PART 11 PART 12 PART 13 PART 14 Page 7 of 399

Page 8

PART 1 Background on this new Official Community Plan Page 8 of 399

Page 9

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 2 Background on this new Official Community Plan Introduction The City of Langford is a rapidly growing community that has been transitioning from a primarily suburban municipality to a vibrant urban destination in the heart of the capital region. With a population increase of nearly 60% over the past two census periods, Langford continues to be one of the fastest growing cities in Canada. Generally, growth and change has been accepted and even embraced by Langford residents, as it brings numerous benefits to the community. For instance, increased tax revenues from new development has been reinvested into enhancing public spaces, improving amenities, and building new facilities. Additionally, new development has created jobs, expanded services, and provided affordable housing options, along with a more diverse housing market. PART 1: Background on this new OCP Throughout this change, Langford has remained one of the most affordable cities in the region. At the same time, many residents have been calling for a more strategic, purposeful and proactive approach to community planning and development. This OCP lays the groundwork for future development by strategically aligning community objectives with best practices in city planning and prioritizing the direction of future growth. This new Plan is intended to address the multiple challenges facing our community while providing greater clarity on the location and nature of new development as Langford enters a new era of growth. Page 9 of 399

Page 10

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 3 An Official Community Plan (OCP) is a long-term land use plan and policy document that guides a municipality’s growth and development. The vision set by an OCP reflects the input of residents, community partners, professionals, and municipal staff who contributed to its creation. It also incorporates best practices in city planning, tailored to the local context. By integrating land use, transportation, economy, environment, urban design, quality of life, community needs, and services, the OCP provides a comprehensive strategy for decision-making and dialogue about the city’s future. An Official Community Plan is a long-term land use plan and policy document that guides a municipality’s growth and development. This OCP outlines how the city will grow to address both current and future challenges while ensuring accountability, transparency, and follow-through on community objectives. Rather than replacing the previous OCP entirely, many of its valuable policies have been retained and enhanced. This “refresh” approach allows the City to build on existing strengths while incorporating bold new ideas. In this way, key sections have been strategically consolidated, reorganized, and refined to make meaningful progress while optimizing public time and resources. A significant shift in this OCP is its emphasis on implementation and outcomes. Rather than planning for a fixed number of years with uncertain outcomes, the refreshed OCP plans for a population of 100,000 residents. This approach offers the key advantage of zeroing in on what Langford needs to support this milestone, no matter how long it takes to get there. It’s an example of “planning for outcomes rather than timeframes;” a best practice that keeps the city’s growth strategies relevant over time with unknown variables. The strategic direction of this OCP is organized around “desired outcomes,” which serve as specific goals for the future. Each desired outcome is supported by a range of policies that guide implementation, resourcing, and strategic planning. By focusing on outcomes, this OCP provides a flexible, forward-thinking framework that adapts to changing conditions while keeping the City on course toward its long-term vision. It is acknowledged that conditions and public priorities can shift as new opportunities and challenges emerge. For this reason, the Local Government Act states that an OCP does not commit or authorize a municipality to implement policies specified in the Plan. However, any new or amended bylaws or works undertaken by a Council must align with the OCP. In this way, an OCP serves as a high- level guide for growth and development, while other municipal plans, bylaws, and policies work in coordination to implement its objectives. The next critical step in achieving the OCP’s desired outcomes is the completion of several key projects, including a Transportation Master Plan, an Active Transportation Plan, a Climate Action Master Plan, a Parks and Trails Master Plan, an Arts and Culture Strategy, and an Economic Development Strategy. These initiatives will outline specific actions to support community-wide objectives, such as updating City Bylaws—including the Zoning Bylaw and the Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw— to shape future development and infrastructure improvements. They will help to establish how new amenities and community benefits are integrated into developments, guide strategic property acquisitions and capital investments, and identify opportunities to enhance transportation networks with active transportation and transit-priority infrastructure. As these implementation measures take shape, the OCP will be updated to ensure a cohesive, integrated plan for Langford’s future. What is an Official Community Plan? PART 1: Background on this new OCP Page 10 of 399

Page 11

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 4 The reference to 100,000 residents in this OCP does not reflect a population goal for Langford, but it isn’t a random number either. Langford has been growing quickly and consistently for the last two decades. In fact, Langford was the third fastest growing city in Canada between 2016 and 2021. Past projections have suggested that Langford could reach 100,000 residents within 15-20 years, but we can’t know with real certainty when we will hit this number. What we do know is that growth is expected to continue. Expectations outlined in the Capital Regional District’s (CRD) Regional Growth Strategy and the new Provincial housing legislation point to the need for Langford to accommodate regional growth expectations. In fact, Provincial housing legislation now requires local governments to calculate the five- and 20- year housing needs for their community using standardized methodology and data sources, and account for the identified number of new homes in both their OCPs and Zoning Bylaws. For Langford, the 20-year housing need is projected to be nearly 17,000 new homes, which will add approximately 42,000 new residents to Langford’s 2024 population of just over 58,000. The projected housing needs of the city must be reviewed and adjusted every five years to account for changing needs and the actual pace of new growth. For the time being, this housing needs projection roughly aligns with the 100,000 residents accounted for in this OCP. To be clear, Langford’s growth isn’t expected to be “finished” when we reach 100,000 people. Rather, that would signify the ending of this Plan’s tenure, and the beginning of the next planning phase for the city. In other words, 100,000 is not a new density decision, but density that is already expected, and required to be planned for through the Provincial housing legislation. The key decisions in this new OCP involve where and how we grow. What do we mean by a Plan for 100,000 residents? PART 1: Background on this new OCP Page 11 of 399

Page 12

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 5 In 2023, the City’s first Five-Year Strategic Plan was adopted. This is different from the OCP in that it is a separate Council Plan that outlines their vision, core values, and key priorities to guide decision making on a range of topics over a five-year period. In the Strategic Plan, Council identified and prioritized many strategic objectives around the “Five Crises” that are Tackling the Five Crises facing all cities, including Langford. These crises are so significant and daunting that they require a shared set of goals and actions if they are to be comprehensively and successfully addressed. The Five Crises, and how the City can address the complex challenges they represent through this OCP, are emphasized in this OCP. THE FIVE CRISES 2 - Housing and Affordability Crises Housing and transportation represent the two biggest costs in determining how affordable or unaffordable our city will be as it grows. The new OCP decisions around density, land-use mix, community completeness, housing types and tenures, and mobility options will either greatly support or hinder our affordability goals. 1 - Climate Crisis The way we plan and build our cities and suburbs will determine a large part of our success or failure in mitigating the climate crisis. How far and how fast we go with the decisions contained in the new OCP, particularly our land-use and transportation decisions, will be the most important step our community will take toward this goal. 5 - Infrastructure Cost Crisis Where and how we grow has a powerful effect on overall urban economics, and particularly the infrastructure, services, amenities, and municipal taxes that residents and the City can or can’t afford. In short, some types and locations of growth cost a lot more public funding, both initially and over the long term, than others. Growth that positively contributes to the local economy, and even subsidizes more expensive growth, both immediately and in the long term, will be emphasized in this OCP. 4 - Public Health Crisis The way we build cities and suburbs dramatically affects our individual health and the overall public health system. This is due to the health implications of designing opportunities for regular activity and environmental quality into our communities. The land-use and transportation policies that guide the new OCP will be the bedrock for a healthier city as we grow. 3 - Equity Crisis The extent to which our city and its opportunities are equitable and accessible for all citizens, now and in the future, is strongly influenced by our city-building practices and policies. Such policies and practices guide decisions that support creating more housing options, the availability of viable transportation choices, and how the community’s many needs are met. The new OCP policy choices seek to enable a more equitable city throughout every part of the Plan. PART 1: Background on this new OCP Page 12 of 399

Page 13

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 6 An effective Official Community Plan (OCP) begins with a strong, community-driven vision for the future. To ensure this vision was accurately captured, community feedback was actively sought and integrated in multiple phases throughout the planning process. In addition to public input, one of the most common best practices in OCP development is to centre the Plan around “Big Ideas.” These Big Ideas, shared with the public during the engagement process, Designing the Plan around Big Ideas are designed to strategically address the needs of a growing population of 100,000, while tackling critical challenges such as climate change, housing affordability, social equity, public health, and rising infrastructure costs—the ‘Five Crises’. Some of these Big Ideas are reflected as distinct policy sections within the OCP, while others serve as the foundational principles that underpin all policies and land-use strategies. PART 1: Background on this new OCP OCP BIG IDEAS The Five Crises All policies put forth in the OCP will either directly or indirectly address one or more of the Five Crises. Measuring Success Use clear and quantifiable measurables wherever possible in the OCP to strengthen accountability, transparency, and follow-through. Quality City-Building Strengthen, clarify, and consolidate our urban design, amenities, mobility, and parks/urban nature policies by creating a new section of the OCP focused entirely on high quality city-building. New City Centre Policy Explore what new or expanded role the City Centre, and a clearly defined downtown within it, will play in accommodating new development. Parks, People-Places, and Urban Nature Coordinate our parks and urban nature policies, while improving our understanding and approaches to urban people-places (including squares, plazas, and transformed streets) that aren’t necessarily parks. Centres, Corridors, and Complete Communities Review how we manage growth, along with the type, number, location, and size of urban centres and corridors. Transportation and Mobility Emphasize more sustainable and equitable transportation options to provide more choice in how we get around, and explore how 42,000 new residents will move around the city without needing a lot more cars. A “Made in Langford” Approach Apply a local lens to ensure we address the new Provincial housing legislation in a way that strategically benefits the future of Langford while addressing the Five Crises. Page 13 of 399

Page 14

PART 2 What We Heard Page 14 of 399

Page 15

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 8 What We Heard Engagement Activities and Reach The public engagement process was divided into two main phases, each involving various consultation methods: Phase 1 (Summer 2024): ӓ Online Survey 404 responses collected. ӓ In-Person Engagement Five community pop-up events reaching 600+ residents. ӓ Social Media & Digital Outreach Over 5,000 views on Facebook and Instagram, advertisements in local newspapers, and digital platforms. ӓ Total Project Website Visits 3,260 visitors. Phase 2 (Fall 2024): ӓ Online Surveys 741 responses collected from 347 individuals across four surveys. ӓ In-Person Engagement Open House event at Ruth King Elementary School, attended by approximately 85 residents. ӓ Social Media & Digital Outreach 25,000+ views across digital campaigns, print ads in Times Colonist and Goldstream Gazette. ӓ Total Project Website Visits 3,691 visitors. PART 2: What We Heard The City of Langford launched a multi-phase engagement process to update its Official Community Plan (OCP), involving extensive public outreach, including online surveys, in- person events, and digital media campaigns, to gather input on key community planning priorities. Engagement efforts focused on themes such as housing, transportation, sustainability, and community livability. Page 15 of 399

Page 16

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 9 Key Themes Across the Public Engagement Process PART 2: What We Heard ӓ Strong preference for higher-density housing near transit corridors and urban centers while minimizing urban sprawl. ӓ Support for mixed-use developments that integrate residential, commercial, and green spaces. ӓ Concerns over rapid development, construction impacts, and the need for more family-sized housing options. ӓ Widespread support for improved public transit. ӓ Calls for enhanced pedestrian and cycling infrastructure to promote active transportation. ӓ Concerns about congestion and inadequate infrastructure to support new development. ӓ Strong support for policies to increase parks, trails, and urban forests. ӓ Demand for vibrant, walkable neighbourhoods with access to local shops, services, and amenities. ӓ Emphasis on community gathering spaces, such as urban plazas and public markets, to foster social interaction. ӓ Calls for development that aligns with infrastructure upgrades, including roads, schools, and healthcare. ӓ Mixed opinions on building height limits, with some favouring mid-rise development (four to six storeys) and others preferring higher density in strategic areas. ӓ Concerns about ensuring new developments contribute to public amenities and community improvements. Housing and Urban Growth Transportation and Mobility Community Livability and Green Spaces Balanced Development and Infrastructure Page 16 of 399

Page 17

PART 3 Targets and Commitments Page 17 of 399

Page 18

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 11 The Commitment Ensure OCP priorities, measurable targets, and implementation actions are included in annual financial, strategic, and legislated decision- making frameworks and reporting processes. Targets and Commitments PART 3: Targets and Commitments A key objective of this OCP is to enhance accountability, transparency, and follow-through to effectively achieve the community’s long-term goals. In support of this commitment, all measurable targets from each section of the OCP are consolidated and tracked to ensure they remain a central focus throughout the Plan’s implementation. The success of the OCP implementation depends on maintaining strong alignment with Corporate (Five- Year) Financial Planning, Council Strategic Plans, departmental work programs, and the availability of funding. To advance the OCP’s objectives, capital planning must be coordinated with the Plan’s priorities to guide investments and resource allocation that support the community’s vision. To uphold accountability and transparency, these targets will be reviewed annually. This review will assess progress on key actions and measurable targets, consider updates to corporate planning documents, and identify any emerging trends, risks, or opportunities. Staff will prepare an annual report to Council summarizing implementation progress, outcomes, and any recommended adjustments to maintain alignment with both corporate priorities and the OCP. Page 18 of 399

Page 19

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 12 PART 3: Targets and Commitments

1. Continue to work with Indigenous partners, celebrate Indigenous culture, and ensure that our work is grounded with the intentional lens of truth and reconciliation.
2. Achieve a multi-modal transportation system that sees 42% of all trips made by walking, rolling, cycling, and/or public transit by 100,000 residents.
3. Work with BC Transit to increase the public transit mode-share target for Langford beyond their current target of 10% by 2050.
4. Ensure all areas of Langford’s City Centre and Urban Centres have a walk score of 70 or higher by the time we reach 100,000 residents (indicating most errands can be accomplished within a short walk, roll, or bike ride).
5. Achieve a minimum of 5,081 new homes by 2030 and 16,942 new homes by 2045.
6. Reduce the number of households experiencing Core Housing Need to below 10% by the 2026 census.
7. Reduce the City’s corporate emissions by 50% (from 2007 levels) by 2030, and achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
8. Decrease community-wide GHG emissions by 61% from 2007 levels by 2038.
9. Ensure an urban forest canopy of at least 40% in
11. Plant at least 300-600 new trees (excluding replacement trees) per year on public and private property.
12. Establish a minimum of one community garden per neighborhood by the time we reach 100,000 residents.
13. Increase the amount City-owned parkland by 50% by the time we reach 100,000 residents.
14. Ensure 95% of residents live within 400m of a usable park or public space by the time we reach 100,000 residents. Targets and Commitments Page 19 of 399

Page 20

PART 4 Emphasizing Urban Infill Page 20 of 399

Page 21

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 14 Emphasizing Urban Infill The Commitment The majority of new growth, except for the completion of existing zoned approvals for greenfield developments, will be through urban multi-modal infill development, with no new car-dependent greenfield rezoning permissions given in the city relative to this OCP to 100,000 residents. PART 4: Emphasizing Urban Infill As noted, about 17,000 new homes will be needed to support a population of 100,000 and meet Langford’s Housing Needs Report requirements. Significantly, approximately 40%-50% of this housing is already accounted for through previous zoning approvals. These zoned lands include considerable areas of lower-density development that are generally car- dependent today, although it is anticipated that new commercial and mixed-use areas will emerge to improve access to shops, services, amenities, and public transit as build-out occurs. To support growth based on the Big Ideas of this OCP and the sustainable vision of the community established through public engagement, the new housing approvals enabled by this OCP focus on denser, multi-modal, multi-family “infill” development in the City Centre, existing and new Urban Centres, Corridors, and Complete Communities (see Part 6 – Land Use and Growth Management Strategy). In the context of this OCP, infill refers to compact urban development generally located within the built-up urban areas that are supported by walking, rolling, biking, and transit. This is distinct from “greenfield” development, which generally refers to lower density, car-dependent sprawl usually (but not always) located on the edge of the built-up area. It is important to note that from a purely location-based perspective, not all infill is beneficial (as it can be single-use, low density and lacking mobility choice), and not all greenfield development is detrimental (as it can be dense, mixed-use, and multi-modal). Thus, the crucial factors are mobility choice, mixed-use spaces, and density. Page 21 of 399

Page 22

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 15 PART 4: Emphasizing Urban Infill Multi-modal infill is a strategic, economically viable, and socially and environmentally responsible approach that is essential to realizing the vision outlined in this OCP. By prioritizing key areas that can accommodate increased residential and commercial land uses while enabling greater choices in housing, jobs, transportation, and services, this approach is a significant way of addressing the Five Crises. It supports critical mode-shift targets by reducing traffic congestion while accommodating a growing number of trips, and promotes high-quality, cost-effective urban development with broad public benefits. These benefits, strongly supported by the community during public engagement, include the efficient use of infrastructure, thoughtful urban design, improved access to a variety of amenities, a diverse mix of housing for all ages and life stages, and convenient access to a range of active transportation options for daily commutes and errands. In this way, multi-modal infill aligns land-use and transportation planning, adding homes, jobs, and services without significantly increasing vehicle congestion in order to support a more sustainable and efficient city that prioritizes quality of life and overall well-being. This OCP identifies ample urban locations for beneficial infill growth near key infrastructure, including anticipated expansions to public transit. Therefore, proposals to develop greenfield locations in a more urban way would not be considered necessary, strategic, or beneficial. Moving forward with this approach is essential. If additional car-dependent greenfield development is enabled through approvals during the life of this Plan beyond the already committed 40-50%, the many stated policy goals and targets of both this OCP, and its predecessor, will not be achievable. Regional-level goals and policy objectives would similarly not be achievable. Aligning planning with action is crucial to realizing the City’s vision effectively and authentically. By ensuring this alignment, the City can avoid significant costs and create a thriving environment for both current and future residents. While this strategy incorporates best practices in city planning, it is also driven by community input. During public engagement, Langford residents strongly supported the BIG Ideas shaping this Plan, including tackling the housing and affordability crisis, enhancing social equity, responding to the climate emergency, promoting active living, and making more efficient land use and infrastructure decisions. Prioritizing multi- modal infill over greenfield development is essential to turning these ideas into action. Page 22 of 399

Page 23

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 16 Langford Lake Glen Lake Florence Lake Mount Wells Regional Park Goldstream Provincial Park Mill Hill Regional Park Thetis Lake Regional Park Finlayson Arm District of Metchosin District of Highlands Town of View Royal City of Colwood Juan de Fuca Electoral Area Millstream Rd L ato ri a R d Happy Valley Rd Veter a ns M e morial Pkwy B e ar M o unt a i n P k w y Trans-Canada Hwy Glen Lake Rd Goldstream Ave Sooke Rd Jacklin Rd Peatt Rd La n gford P kwy West Shore Pkwy Leigh Rd Phipps Rd Se t c h fi eld A v e Treanor Ave McCallum Rd Humpback Reservoir Island Rail Corridor Legend City of Langford Boundary First Nations Reserve Prov/Reg Parks 0 0.5 1 0.25 Kilometers MAP 1: PLANNING AREA PART 4: Emphasizing Urban Infill Page 23 of 399

Page 24

PART 5 Mobility Choice, Not Car Dependency Page 24 of 399

Page 25

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 18 Mobility Choice, Not Car Dependency The Challenge Langford remains highly dependent on automobiles, with the lack of comfortable and accessible infrastructure identified as the top barrier preventing residents from choosing active transportation. How do we support a growing population and increasing numbers of visitors while improving mobility and avoiding greater vehicle congestion and its consequences? Desired Outcomes

1. The city’s multi-modal transportation system will reflect the Modal Hierarchy.
2. Langford will have an integrated multi-modal transportation network that serves all ages and abilities.
3. A balanced policy between ridership and coverage will ensure reliable public transit access for all residents through the City’s strong partnership with BC Transit.
4. All city-building policies and bylaws will contain a clear and strong synergy between smart land use planning and enhanced mobility options. PART 5: Mobility Choice, Not Car Dependency This OCP prioritizes greater mobility choice by reducing reliance on cars and supporting transportation options that lower costs, cut emissions, reduce pollution, use space more efficiently, and improve overall public benefits. Experience from other cities shows that building additional or wider roads does not reduce congestion. Instead, it encourages more driving, leading to increased costs, environmental impacts, and continued traffic issues, an effect known as “induced demand” or the “fundamental law of congestion.” The best solution is a range of reliable and accessible transportation options, combined with smart land-use and safe, connected infrastructure. Success depends on ensuring that homes, shops, services, parks, and amenities are located near multiple transportation choices. A well-planned network benefits everyone, including those who need or prefer to drive, by reducing congestion and offering more flexibility in daily travel. Page 25 of 399

Page 26

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 19 5.1. Direct all transportation infrastructure improvements and guide all aspects of the Active Transportation Plan, Transportation Master Plan, and integrated land-use decisions according to the following Modal Hierarchy: A. Pedestrians and movement with mobility aids. B. Cycling and micro-mobility. C. Public transit. D. Shared vehicles. E. Commercial vehicles. F. Single-occupant vehicles. PART 5: Mobility Choice, Not Car Dependency Pedestrians and movement with mobility aids Cycling and micro-mobility Public transit Shared vehicles Commercial vehicles Desired Outcome #1: The city’s multi-modal transportation system will reflect the Modal Hierarchy. 1 Page 26 of 399

Page 27

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 20 PART 5: Mobility Choice, Not Car Dependency 5.2. Incentivize active transportation modes such as walking, rolling, and cycling by creating a convenient, comfortable, accessible, and attractive experience. 5.3. Support and facilitate multi-modal trips involving more than one mode, such as biking, transit and walking in a single trip. 5.4. Improve bike and active transportation parking/storage and end-user facilities. 5.5. Implement vehicle parking maximums where considered strategic in existing or planned highly urban and multi- modal areas. 5.6. Reduce or remove parking minimums in the City Centre and key Urban Centres and Corridors, while improving bike and active transportation parking/storage and end-user facilities. 5.7. Eliminate minimum parking requirements for affordable housing built or operated by non-market housing providers in the City Centre or other key Centres and Corridors. 5.8. Advocate to other levels of government to prioritize their improvements to the multi-modal network in key growth areas, with a focus on the Modal Hierarchy. 5.9. Work with other levels of government and external agencies, such as BC Transit, the Capital Regional District, the Sooke School District, and the Ministry of Transportation and Transit to align their long-term plans with this OCP, the Transportation Master Plan, and the Active Transportation Plan to collaboratively achieve the mode shift target. 5.10. Assist the CRD in meeting the Regional Growth Strategy’s 2038 target by aligning, where possible, key policies, plans, and bylaws. Multi-modal infrastructure Streets, paths, and public spaces designed to support different ways of getting around—like walking, biking, taking the bus, and driving. Page 27 of 399

Page 28

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 21 PART 5: Mobility Choice, Not Car Dependency 5.11. Create a complete active transportation network of corridors, that are physically separated from vehicular traffic where possible, to link neighbourhoods to Urban Centres and Corridors, transit hubs, and regional active transportation corridors. 5.12. Improve the existing Galloping Goose and E&N Rail Trail corridors by supporting paving initiatives and street crossing visibility improvements at major road network crossings. 5.13. Wherever possible, the principles of AAA (all ages and abilities) infrastructure will be applied to the design of new streets, and when retrofitting existing streets. 5.14. Strategically implement traffic diversion strategies that allow for pedestrian and cycling passage but not vehicles. 5.15. Improve safety measures along streets and intersections by ensuring adequate lighting, incorporating raised crossings where appropriate, ensuring audio and visual signals to indicate safe crossing, and other similar measures where warranted. 5.16. Enhance wayfinding signage across the city to help residents and visitors navigate key areas and landmarks more easily. Desired Outcome #2: Langford will have an integrated multi-modal transportation network that serves all ages and abilities. 2 5.17. Ensure accessible parking and loading spaces are appropriately dimensioned to accommodate different types of accessible vehicles, are located near building entrances, and incorporate ramps or let-downs to ensure safe and convenient access from the parking space to sidewalks and pathways. 5.18. Implement traffic calming strategies consistent with the intended function of the street. 5.19. Where appropriate, implement traffic calming measures that use design techniques to reduce vehicle traffic speeds and discourage through- traffic while improving safe and direct passage for other users. 5.20. Ensure safe interactions between all modes along streets and at intersections. Where volumes and conflicts are high, prioritize physical separations where possible. 5.21. Improve active transportation facilities by such means as reducing unnecessary barriers, increasing convenient and prioritized opportunities for crossing busy roads safely, and providing direct routes where possible. 5.22. Work with neighbouring municipalities and other levels of government to align improvements to the multi-modal network to create a seamless transition for all street users as they cross municipal borders and different jurisdictions. 5.23. Prioritize connectivity for multi-modal transportation between North and South Langford. Page 28 of 399

Page 29

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 22 PART 5: Mobility Choice, Not Car Dependency 5.24. Work with BC Transit to prioritize transit service investment and the installation of new transit-rider amenities along key transit corridors and transit hubs, including bicycle storage facilities, sidewalks, bus stop shelters, and washrooms. 5.25. Support BC Transit in initiatives to improve operational efficiencies and reliability of transit service, particularly along identified Frequent and Rapid Transit corridors. Measures may include queue jumpers, bus priority at traffic signals, and dedicated transit lanes, where appropriate. 5.26. Ensure street design and private development integrates accessible transit stops into or adjacent to the site and provides high quality transit-rider amenities such as street furniture, lighting, shelters, and retail opportunities where appropriate. 5.27. Make provisions for transit rights-of-way where appropriate to support the implementation of planned transit corridors and new transit hubs. 5.28. Ensure the City Centre, Urban Centres, and key Corridors have densities and land-use mixes that specifically support walking, biking, rolling, and public transit, and can become locations for future transit-oriented areas. Desired Outcome #3: A balanced policy between ridership and coverage will ensure reliable public transit access for all residents through the City’s strong partnership with BC Transit. 3 Desired Outcome #4: All city-building policies and bylaws will contain a clear and strong synergy between smart land use planning and enhanced mobility options. 4 Page 29 of 399

Page 30

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 23 To achieve the desired outcomes, Langford will: 5.29. Continue to assess the option of replacing bus rapid transit (BRT) with light rail transit (LRT) during the life of this plan. The growth and land use strategies in this OCP support successful BRT, but also provide the basis for future considerations of LRT. 5.30. Achieve a multi-modal transportation system that sees 42% of all trips made by walking, rolling, cycling, and/or public transit by the time we reach 100,000 residents (2022 data identified the current trip share for these modes at 13%). 5.31. Work with BC Transit to increase the public transit mode-share target for Langford beyond their current target of 10% by 2050. 5.32. Work with BC Transit to consider policy options that address the tension between transit ridership and coverage. Possible policies include ensuring that 50% of residents are within a five-minute walk of frequent transit and 90% of residents are within a five-minute walk of all transit in alignment with the regional targets. 5.33. Ensure all areas of Langford’s City Centre and Urban Centres have a walk score of 70 or higher by the time we reach 100,000 residents (indicating most errands can be accomplished within a short walk, roll, or bike ride). 5.34. Continue to implement safe routes to schools programs and encourage students to walk, roll, and bike to school. 5.35. Establish and maintain a Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and Active Transportation Plan (ATP) to guide upgrades and improvements to Langford’s multi-modal transportation network. These plans will include: 5.35.1. Measures that would achieve the city’s mode-split target of 42% with key partners. 5.35.2. Specific strategies and actions to create a multi- modal transportation network that will significantly improve transportation choices within and through the city and achieve the stated mode shift target and modal hierarchy in a safe, inclusive, and accessible manner. PART 5: Mobility Choice, Not Car Dependency Targets and Commitments Page 30 of 399

Page 31

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 24 5.35.3. A long-term network plan for the City Centre and other designated Urban Centres and Corridors to define a finely-grained and connected multi-modal network that facilitates greater densities and transportation choices in key targeted growth areas. 5.35.4. The location of preferred and viable transit priority corridors for expanded frequent and rapid bus service and future higher-order transit service. 5.35.5. The location of a viable active transportation corridor network that would successfully connect North Langford to the City Centre and connect neighborhoods to Urban Centres and the Galloping Goose or E&N Rail Trail corridors. 5.35.6. A “Complete Streets” strategy that increases transportation choices within planned and current streets, and which: i. Ensures safe, accessible, attractive, and comfortable active transportation facilities that are buffered from vehicular traffic as much as feasible through the use of separated boulevards or bollards, and includes street trees or street furniture. ii. Aligns improvements with neighbouring municipalities as well as regional and provincial standards to create seamless connectivity at borders. iii. Identifies pedestrian priority areas in Urban Centres where pedestrian environments are to be especially encouraged. iv. Ties in best practices of urban design, functionality, place-making, and weather protection into the public realm. 5.35.7. A recommended implementation plan that will include: i. High-level cost estimates and potential funding sources. ii. A phasing strategy for short-, mid-, and long-term priorities. Short- and mid-term priorities will include improvements in the City Centre as well as other Urban Centres and Corridors to ensure a multi-modal network in high density areas. iii. Recommended amendments to other City plans, bylaws, and policies to incorporate Complete Streets principles into mandated road cross- sections. PART 5: Mobility Choice, Not Car Dependency Page 31 of 399

Page 32

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 25 5.36. Develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategy with specific and achievable TDM goals and objectives for new developments as well as existing developed areas, which may include the following: 5.36.1. Require new development proponents to develop site-specific TDM strategies and ensure implementation of agreed TDM measures, such as exceeding minimum bicycle parking standards and providing bike amenities (such as a repair and wash station). 5.36.2. Advocate to implement TDM measures in existing developed areas by working with key partners, such as BC Transit, shared micromobility operators, and car- share operators to expand or establish additional mobility options. 5.36.3. Work with key partners and transit agencies to implement transit pass programs for major workplaces, schools (all levels), and/or existing residential buildings. PART 5: Mobility Choice, Not Car Dependency 5.37. In addition to strategic and proactive action in the context of capital budgets, work collaboratively with key partners to secure public right of way dedications as a condition of rezoning, subdivision, and/or building permit approval to create a multi-modal network in alignment with the TMP and ATP, including: 5.37.1. Road widening to facilitate active transportation infrastructure, dedicated bus lanes, and transit-rider amenities. 5.37.2. Road or right-of-way dedication to establish new transit hubs. 5.37.3. New pathways to shorten distances to walk, roll, or bike to transit, parks, shops and services. 5.38. Continue to discuss opportunities to maximize alignment between the City’s OCP and BC Transit’s Victoria Regional Transit Plan. 5.39. Commit to making the Langford Exchange transit station more comfortable and accessible, so that everyone feels welcome and secure. These may be interim improvements until a permanent station is established, or the current site is fully redesigned. Page 32 of 399

Page 33

PART 6 Land Use and Growth Management Strategy Page 33 of 399

Page 34

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 27 Density Bonusing A system where developers are allowed to build more (like extra floors or units) in exchange for providing public benefits, like parks, affordable housing, libraries, etc. Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy PART 6: Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy The Plan at a Glance The land-use and growth management strategy is the heart of an OCP, as it guides land use decisions and defines where and how the city will grow as we plan to meet the needs of 100,000 residents. The “4Cs” concept of place hierarchy—City Centre, Urban Centres, Corridors, and Complete Communities—is the foundation of this Part. It establishes a hierarchy of designations where different types of development will be enabled in order to direct the desired land-use mix and density into the right areas of the city and support the desired outcomes of the OCP. The remaining urban fabric of the city consists of distinct focal points for employment, parks, agricultural uses, as well as a diversity of existing zoned areas. The following table summarizes the land use and density permitted within the designations covering the intended growth areas of this Plan: Page 34 of 399

Page 35

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 28 LAND-USE DESIGNATION LAND-USE AND DENSITY City Centre - Downtown ӓ Multi-family residential, commercial, and institutional uses are permitted. ӓ Mandatory ground floor commercial uses are required throughout this area. ӓ On Goldstream Avenue and portions of Peatt Road, highly street activating retail/ restaurant/commercial uses are required. ӓ Maximum height of 28 storeys,* including the mandatory ground floor commercial. ӓ An additional two storeys are permitted for additional non-residential floors, to a maximum of 30 storeys.* City Centre – Moderate High-Rise ӓ Multi-family residential, commercial, and institutional uses are permitted. ӓ Maximum height of 12 storeys,* including optional ground floor commercial. City Centre – Mid-Rise ӓ Multi-family residential, commercial, and institutional uses are permitted. ӓ Maximum height of six storeys,* including optional ground floor commercial on corner lots. Urban Centres ӓ Multi-family residential, commercial, and institutional uses are permitted. ӓ Maximum height of 22 storeys,* including mandatory ground floor commercial fronting the street. ӓ An additional two storeys are permitted for additional non-residential floors, to a maximum of 24 storeys.* Corridors ӓ Multi-family residential, commercial, institutional, and compatible light industrial uses are permitted. ӓ Maximum height of six storeys,* including choice of residential and/or non- residential uses. Complete Communities Throughout the designation ӓ Walk-up residential buildings are permitted, including a range of housing types to a maximum height of three storeys. Neighbourhood Villages ӓ Multi-family residential, commercial, and institutional uses are permitted. ӓ Maximum height of six storeys, including mandatory ground floor retail, restaurants/ cafes and street-activating services. ӓ Located at key intersections. Corner Convenience ӓ Multi-family residential, commercial, and institutional uses are permitted. ӓ Maximum height of four storeys, including mandatory ground floor retail, restaurant/ cafe, or neighbourhood services. ӓ Located at intersections. Employment Lands ӓ Limited to light industrial land uses and limited accessory or small-scale retail and office space. ӓ Maximum height of three storeys.* PART Part 6: Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy *This is height subject to continuing density bonusing considerations (see section 7 – High Quality City Building) and thus may not be permissible without additional expectations relating to public benefits. Page 35 of 399

Page 36

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 29 PART Part 6: Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy Jacklin Rd Station Ave Henry Eng Pl Goldstream Ave Peatt Rd West Shore Pkwy Jenkins Ave Glen Lake Rd Sooke Rd Happy Valley Rd Sooke Rd Sooke Rd Luxton Rd Glen Lake Rd C o n ste l lat i on Av e Amy Rd S o o ke L ak e Rd Humpback Rd Langford Pkwy W e st S h or e Pkwy Latoria Rd Atkins Ave McCallum Rd Mc Cal lu m R d City Ga te B lvd Treanor Ave Setch field Ave Echo Valley Dr Phipps Rd Happy V a lle y Rd Trans-Canada Hwy Trans-Canada Hwy Millstream Rd Millstream Rd Trans-Canada Hwy Le igh R d Bear Mountain Pkwy Bear Mountain Pkwy Jacklin Rd Florence Lake Langford Lake Glen Lake Humpback Reservoir Finlayson Arm Thetis Lake Regional Park Mill Hill Regional Park Mount Wells Regional Park Goldstream Provincial Park Veteran s Memo rial Pkw y Kelly Rd Galloping Goose Regional Trail Galloping Goose Regional Trail HIGHLANDS VIEW ROYAL COLWOOD METCHOSIN JUAN DE FUCA ELECTORAL AREA Island Rail Corridor Island Rail Corridor E & N Trail See City Centre Map from Design Guidelines FOR DISCUSSION ONLY Other Features Legend OCP Designations Employment Lands City Centre Agricultural Parks & Green Space Urban Centre Corridor Complete Community Potential Neighbourhood Village Existing Neighbourhood Village Future Policy Area Pre-Committed Growth Area Parcels First Nations Reserve Transit Oriented Area MAP 2: CITY OF LANGFORD – GROWTH MANAGEMENT & LAND USE STRATEGY Page 36 of 399

Page 37

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 30 Desired Outcomes

1. The long-term development pattern of the City Centre will include a vibrant, mixed-use Downtown that supports and is supported by surrounding neighbourhoods.

2. The City Centre will be a well-established regional growth, employment, and transportation hub, serving as the heart of the West Shore.

3. A distinct, people-centered Downtown will provide a safe and inviting environment for all, featuring core shopping and service needs as well as a livable urban neighbourhood with vibrant streets, civic uses, and accessible, well-used public spaces.

4. Land-Use Designations 6.1. City Centre with a

Defined Downtown Langford’s City Centre is envisioned as a high- density, highly mixed, vibrant, and walkable area with convenient multi-modal connections to a range of transportation options, regional hubs, and other neighbourhoods. The City Centre is divided into a defined Downtown, plus three downtown-supporting sub-areas: Moderate High-Rise, Mid-Rise, and an Industrial Innovation Area. Each area plays a key role in the function and overall success of the larger City Centre and a vibrant, thriving downtown. The Downtown will be the economic, social, arts, cultural, and entertainment core of the city, featuring the highest density and tallest buildings, with mandated mixed-use including a high concentration of active pedestrian-oriented uses along Goldstream Avenue and Peatt Road, which represent the downtown area’s “main streets.” Goldstream Avenue is intended to be the heart of downtown Langford; the “centre of the centre.” Development density will generally extend outward from the Downtown, incorporating urban nature, people-centered spaces, and high-quality urban design. The City Centre areas immediately adjacent to the Downtown shall be highly walkable, interconnected, and architecturally diverse areas with housing that supports and is supported by the Downtown. The City Centre will create community cohesiveness through civic features, mixed-use, and walkable high-density residential developments. PART Part 6: Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy Page 37 of 399

Page 38

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 31 6.1.1. To integrate land-use and transportation priorities, Map 3 (City Centre Map) establishes the long-term development pattern for the City Centre, and includes three main sub- areas, described below, plus an Industrial Innovation Area, described in Section 6.2. All policy areas are subject to the design provisions provided by Part 7 – High Quality City-Building, including podium requirements and other public benefits. Community supporting spaces such as parks, community gardens, and schools are permitted throughout as stand-alone uses. i. Downtown » This is a high density, mixed-use area permitting a range of multi-family residential, commercial, and institutional land uses. » Buildings up to 28 storeys,* including mandatory ground floor commercial uses, are permitted. » An additional two storeys containing non-residential uses are permitted, for a maximum of 30 storeys.* » Buildings fronting Goldstream Avenue or Peatt Road between Brock Avenue and Station Road must incorporate ground floor commercial uses that are highly active and pedestrian-oriented, such as restaurants, retail shops, and personal services (e.g. hair salons). Uses such as financial institutions, office space, and service uses that typically provide blank walls at the street edge should be located on the second floor. ii. Moderate High-Rise Residential » This is a primarily multi-family residential area surrounding the Downtown. PART Part 6: Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy Desired Outcome #1: The long-term development pattern of the City Centre will include a vibrant, mixed-use Downtown that supports and is supported by surrounding neighbourhoods. 1 This is height subject to continuing density bonusing considerations (see section 7 – High Quality City Building) and thus may not be permissible without additional expectations relating to public benefits. » A range of optional commercial and institutional uses are permitted on the ground floor. » Buildings up to 12 storeys are permitted. iii. Mid-Rise Residential » This is a primarily multi-family residential area around the edges of the City Centre. » When buildings are located on a corner, a range of optional commercial and institutional uses are permitted on the ground floor. » Buildings up to 6 storeys* are permitted. iv. Industrial Innovation Area » This distinctive area within the City Centre will blend the existing industrial uses with the added benefit of creative place-making and “third spaces”— public and commercial areas outside of homes and workplaces where people can gather, network, create art, and socialize. 6.1.2. Council may, at their discretion, consider rezoning applications that deviate from the City Centre Map as outlined below: i. Where a land assembly proposes to consolidate parcels within multiple sub- areas of the City Centre, the higher density policies may be applied to the entire land assembly, provided that the design maintains the intent to locate the tallest portion of the building along the street in the higher density sub-area, and provides an appropriate transition to the lower density sub-area. Page 38 of 399

Page 39

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 32 PART Part 6: Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy Why tall buildings? Tall buildings continue to be enabled by this Plan to help Langford achieve a range of important and intentional public policy goals. While high-rise buildings can generate diverse and often strong opinions, decisions in this Plan regarding increased building height and density have been guided by openly discussed and widely supported public interest objectives identified during the planning process. It is important to clearly state that this Plan is primarily a low-rise and mid-rise plan, with towers enabled only in select and strategic locations across the city. It’s also important to note that one of the most significant changes compared to the previous OCP is that building heights are now clarified through specific height limits, which represent a strategic reduction in permissible height from what was previously allowed. Unlike the earlier approach, which did not include height limits, this Plan offers greater clarity and predictability while continuing to support density-related public policy objectives. Examples of mid-rise and tall buildings. The inclusion of tall and dense buildings directly supports the City’s response to all Five Crises that have shaped this Plan, based on strong public support (see Page 5 – Tackling the Five Crises). Enabling higher- density, community-oriented development in well- connected urban areas supports more efficient and sustainable use of land, expands housing choices; reduces car dependency by increasing mobility options such as walking, rolling, biking, and public transit to meet daily needs; supports alignments for future higher-order transit, including light-rail; and contributes to a strong, vibrant, and successful downtown and other urban centres. Beyond policy considerations, there is a clear and growing demand for high-density, multi-family housing in walkable, transit-connected communities, with many people actively choosing these living environments. This Plan emphasizes doing building height and density in the right places, incorporating design and livability elements strategically and successfully. The highest and clearest design expectations in this Plan are applied to tall buildings (see High Quality City Building). Page 39 of 399

Page 40

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 33 Orono Ave Bray Ave C arlow R d Dunford Ave Strathmore Rd Matson Rd Station Ave V eterans M em orial Pkw y Jacklin Rd Brock Ave Goldstream Ave Claude R d Knotty Pine Rd Rita Rd Furber Rd K arr R d Van Isle W ay Scafe Rd Danb rook Ave Bryn M aur R d Phipps Rd Meaford Ave Revilo Pl Sunderland Rd Deville Rd Arncote Ave Peatt Rd Goldstream Ave Jacobson Rd FLORENCE LAKE Trans-Canada Hwy Hockley Ave Peatt Rd Massie Dr CITY OF COLWOOD Island Corridor Island Corridor Jacklin Rd 0 100 200 50 Meters Downtown - 28-30 storey height limit, mandatory commercial Mid-Rise 6 storey height limit, optional commercial on corner lots Industrial Innovation Area Transit Oriented Area Moderate High Rise 12 storey height limit, optional ground floor commercial uses Park MAP 3: CITY CENTRE MAP PART Part 6: Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy Page 40 of 399

Page 41

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 34 6.1.3. Ensure commercial, office, and institutional uses (including community services such as health care, childcare, social service supports, education) are incorporated into new development to improve access to shops, services, and amenities for local residents and the region. 6.1.4. Create and secure through-block walkways, people-places including plazas, squares, and parks, using tools like road dedication, conditions of rezoning, and density benefits bylaws to secure public amenities and better connect Downtown to the surrounding neighbourhoods. 6.1.5. Encourage the use of active and alternative transportation by improving connections to multi-modal infrastructure and promoting higher-density, mixed-use development around Goldstream Avenue, Jacklin Road, Peatt Road, and Station Avenue. Example of a mixed-use development with through-block walkways and people-places. Desired Outcome #2:The City Centre will be a well-established regional growth, employment, and transportation hub, serving as the heart of the West Shore. 2 Page 41 of 399

Page 42

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 35 PART Part 6: Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy 6.1.6. Establish the Downtown as a vibrant community gathering place, with civic, academic, and public buildings acting as prominent landmarks. 6.1.7. Integrate urban nature and people-places in a manner that contributes to the overall livability of the City Centre and all of Langford (see Part 7 – High Quality City Building and Part 14 – Parks, Places, and Services for People). 6.1.8. Require new development to incorporate active building frontages facing the street. This can be in the form of individually accessed shops, services, and/or residential “front doors” with a slight grade change, as required or enabled through Section 6.1.1. 6.1.9. Establish well-designed public space features, including wide, comfortable sidewalks, pedestrian walkways, transformed streets, and frequently spaced street trees. 6.1.10. Ensure developments achieve, where possible and strategic, qualitative factors that improve the design and comfort of sidewalks and bus stops through frontage improvements. 6.1.11. Develop strategies to acquire and create key public spaces, such as urban plazas, squares, and parks throughout the City Centre. 6.1.12. Create animated streetscapes, featuring engaging and interactive public art and thoughtfully designed people- places to celebrate the city’s cultural and natural history. Desired Outcome #3: A distinct, people-centered Downtown will provide a safe and inviting environment for all, featuring core shopping and service needs as well as a livable urban neighbourhood with vibrant streets, civic uses, and accessible, well-used public spaces. 3 Page 42 of 399

Page 43

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 36 PART Part 6: Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy The City Centre Industrial Innovation Area is designed to foster cross-sector collaboration that drives creativity, innovation, research, development, arts, culture, and job creation. This distinctive area within the City Centre will blend the existing industrial uses with the added benefit of creative place-making and “third spaces”—public and commercial areas outside of homes and workplaces where people can gather, network, create art, and socialize. These spaces will serve as hubs for connection, collaboration, and innovation, offering creative individuals and entrepreneurs opportunities to meet, exchange ideas, and work together (refer to Part 12 - Embracing the Creative City). The Industrial Innovation Area will be underpinned by sustainable infrastructure, high-performance buildings, public art/murals, access to rapid transit, and a culture of creativity and innovation. 6.2.1. Explore mechanisms to provide affordable, non-profit arts and cultural spaces within the Industrial Innovation Area. 6.2.2. Establish Van Isle Way as a mid-block walkway connecting Jacklin Road to Orono Avenue. 6.2.3. Where possible, create a pedestrian through-fare linking Van Isle Way to the rapid transit station on Station Avenue. 6.2.4. Prioritize the completion of sidewalks and planting of street trees. 6.2.5. Maintain sufficient truck movement for goods and services, loading, and heavy equipment. 6.2.6. Allow for expanded commercial/light industrial uses, including breweries, brewpubs, coffee roasters, distilleries, and other pseudo-industrial activities, contributing to the vibrancy of the area. 6.2.7. Improve the design of public spaces to foster a more unique and creative urban environment. 6.2.8. Where appropriate, certain housing types that do not significantly increase land values or create land use incompatibilities will be considered. Proposals will be evaluated with attention to access to green space, services, active and public transportation routes, and the suitability of the site in relation to noise and environmental hazards. 6.2.9. Engage business operators that work in the area, as well as local artists, developers, and consultants to establish a specific land-use strategy. 6.2. City Centre Sub-Area:

Industrial Innovation Area Page 43 of 399

Page 44

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 37 Desired Outcomes

1. Urban Centres and Corridors will serve as key transit-supported areas with densities and land-use mixes that actively support walking, biking, rolling, and public transit.
2. Existing auto-oriented commercial sites, including mid- and big-box stores and strip malls, will be redeveloped over time into dense, well-designed, multi-modal, mixed- use residential communities. In the context of planning, Centres are like convergence points and Corridors are like connections. Both can be walkable, bikeable, and transit-supported destinations – places and areas where people meet and spend time amongst street- oriented uses. Taking an Urban Centres and Corridors approach to development provides an effective solution for supporting growth and density while alleviating traffic congestion. This is achieved by redeveloping or “intensifying” key existing areas with mixed land- uses, including housing, offices, retail stores, services, schools, and parks. By prioritizing compact, mixed-use development in these areas, we can lower infrastructure costs and increase housing and mobility choices while fostering more complete communities—places where residents can shop, work, and play within a 15-minute walk, roll, or bike ride from home. Urban Centres are planned to feature the second- highest density levels (after the Downtown) and a diverse mix of land-uses, including a range of employment, services, and housing, supported by multi-modal transportation routes. These areas are mandated mixed-use with a blend of medium and high-rise building types. Urban Centres are connected to the City Centre by Corridors and complete streets (see Part 5 – Mobility Choice, Not Car Dependency), and are ideal locations for future transit hubs. Corridors offer “choice of use” opportunities, meaning development can consist of multi-family residential, commercial, or a mix of both. Typical building forms are low-rise to mid-rise buildings (up to 6-storeys) or standalone commercial. Corridors play a key role in supporting the city’s transit and multi-modal transportation network. Together, the Urban Centres and Corridors will create a critical mass of housing that generates the foot traffic and demand necessary to support employment opportunities, shops, services, amenities, and higher frequency transit—fostering a vibrant and dynamic complete community. PART Part 6: Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy 6.3. Urban Centres and

Corridors Page 44 of 399

Page 45

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 38 6.3.1. Urban Centres permit a range of land uses, including multi-family residential, commercial, and institutional. 6.3.2. Urban Centres are the second-highest growth areas within the City. Buildings up to 22 storeys,* including mandatory ground floor commercial uses fronting the street, are permitted. i. An additional two storeys containing non-residential uses are permitted, for a maximum of 24 storeys.* ii. Design provisions shall be provided in accordance with Part 7 – High Quality City- Building, including podium requirements and other public benefits. 6.3.3. Mandatory ground-floor commercial uses in Urban Centres may be waived for affordable housing buildings, subject to consideration of location/context and incorporation of design outcomes. 6.3.4. Corridors support and/or connect Urban Centres and the City Centre along key arterial streets, collector streets, and transit routes. Corridors permit a range of land uses, including multi-family residential, commercial, institutional, and light industrial uses that are compatible with and appropriate to co-locate with residential uses. 6.3.5. Buildings up to 6 storeys* are permitted, and may include single-use buildings (e.g. multi- PART Part 6: Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy Desired Outcome #1: Urban Centres and Corridors will serve as key transit- supported areas with densities and land-use mixes that actively support walking, biking, rolling, and public transit. 1 family residential only or commercial only) or mixed-use buildings , except that buildings fronting Sooke Road must include mandatory ground floor commercial uses. 6.3.6. Urban Centres and Corridors are ideal locations for new transit hubs. 6.3.7. Strengthen Urban Centres and Corridors by incorporating finely grained and connected multi-modal infrastructure, including sidewalks, mid-block pedestrian connections, and protected bike lanes, a range of parks and people-places (e.g. public squares, plazas, and transformed streets), recreational facilities, and community services (e.g. health care, childcare, community-based social service supports, education). 6.3.8. Ensure new developments enhance new transit initiatives, make provisions for transit rights- of-way where appropriate, and support the implementation of planned transit corridors. 6.3.9. Incorporate additional vegetation and design approaches that mitigate sound and pollution to enhance livability and support a healthy environment in Urban Centres and Corridors. *This is height subject to continuing density bonusing considerations (see section 7 – High Quality City Building) and thus may not be permissible without additional expectations relating to public benefits. Page 45 of 399

Page 46

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 39 6.3.10. Where high-density development within Urban Centres directly abuts lower-density uses across a policy area boundary, strategic tree planting and enhanced landscaping should be used to support appropriate transitions. These measures must not compromise the viability or strategic policy objectives of the Urban Centre. 6.3.11. Light industrial uses that are compatible with residential uses may be considered in the appropriate zoning categories within the Corridors designation. 6.3.12. Existing auto-oriented commercial sites, including mid- and big-box stores and strip malls, will be redeveloped over time into dense, well-designed, multi-modal, mixed-use residential communities. PART Part 6: Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy Desired Outcome #2: Existing auto-oriented commercial sites, including mid- and big-box stores and strip malls, will be redeveloped over time into dense, well-designed, multi-modal, mixed-use residential communities. 2 6.3.13. Support the conversion of surface parking lots associated with existing auto-oriented commercial sites into people-places (see Part 14 – Parks, Places, and Services for People) and/or new high density mixed-use developments. 6.3.14. Require stand-alone retail buildings to incorporate small-scale retail frontages if the user is large-format (i.e. mid- or big-box stores), where possible and strategic. 6.3.15. Consider financial incentives (e.g. revitalization tax exemptions for a period of up to 10 years) for new mixed-use residential development on existing auto-oriented commercial sites. Example of a mixed-use residential development. Page 46 of 399

Page 47

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 40 Desired Outcomes

1. A diverse range of housing options— including various types, sizes, bedroom counts, ownership, and rental choices—will be available in neighbourhoods.
2. Shops, services, and amenities will be easily accessible within a short walk, roll, or bike ride from homes and supported by a well- connected network of streets, pathways, and public spaces. “Complete Community” is a term used to describe neighbourhoods that tick all, or at least most, of the boxes: relatively easy to get around without a car, a diversity of housing types for all ages and stages of life, places to work, places to play, and plenty of shops and services all within a relatively short walk, roll, or bike ride. This combination of housing type diversity and proximity to services and amenities correlates to generally greater density of development, although still significantly lower than those found in Urban Centres and Corridors. Offering a range of housing options within neighbourhoods can provide many important public interest benefits, including supporting the ability of residents to “age-in-place,” encouraging healthy, active transportation choices, maintaining local services and amenities, and enhancing quality of life. Existing and evolving neighbourhoods can play a key role in shaping Langford’s future housing needs. PART Part 6: Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy 6.4. Complete Communities Example of diverse housing options. Page 47 of 399

Page 48

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 41 6.4.1. A range of ground-oriented homes up to three storeys in height are permitted everywhere in this designation, subject to servicing. These include: single-detached homes, duplexes, townhomes (including rowhouses and multi-plexes), and three-storey apartments. Accessory suites in attached and detached forms will be enabled as appropriate in the Zoning Bylaw. 6.4.2. The number of homes achievable with these various permitted housing types will be identified in the Zoning Bylaw, having regard to site design criteria such as setbacks, landscaping, and floor area ratio. Example of a three storey multi-plex. 6.4.3. Neighbourhood Villages are permitted in this designation and can emerge or expand specifically at key intersections as identified on Map 2, or other intersections meeting similar access criteria. 6.4.4. Additional opportunities to create Neighbourhood Villages in South Langford will be considered, where strategically advantageous and based on community needs. 6.4.5. Buildings up to six storeys in height, including mandatory street-activating and neighbourhood-serving retail stores, restaurants/cafés, and local-serving community services on the ground floor, are permitted in Neighbourhood Villages. 6.4.6. Ground floor uses in buildings within Neighbourhood Villages will be individually small-scale, and will wrap around the corner of the building along the side-street frontage, have no or limited on-site parking, and are encouraged to incorporate a patio or plaza at the corner. 6.4.7. Corner Convenience is permitted in this designation and can emerge at any intersection. Example of a corner store in Langford. PART Part 6: Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy Desired Outcome #1: A diverse range of housing options—including various types, sizes, bedroom counts, ownership, and rental choices—will be available in neighbourhoods. 1 Desired Outcome #2: Shops, services, and amenities will be easily accessible within a short walk, roll, or bike ride from homes, and supported by a well- connected network of streets, pathways, and public spaces. 2 Page 48 of 399

Page 49

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 42 6.4.8. Buildings up to four storeys in height, including mandatory street-activating and neighbourhood-serving retail stores, restaurants/cafés, and local-serving community services on the ground floor, are permitted in Corner Convenience. 6.4.9. Ground floor uses in buildings within Corner Convenience will be small-scale, both individually and cumulatively, and have no associated commercial on-site parking. 6.4.10. When Corner Convenience includes homes above, the inclusion of one or more additional lot(s) may be considered. Parking for residential uses must be located behind the building, opposite the commercial frontage. PART Part 6: Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy 6.4.11. Land assemblies for Corner Convenience developments must maintain proximity to the original corner location. Standalone commercial must be on the original corner lot(s). 6.4.12. Create active transportation corridors to link neighborhoods to each other, to Urban Centres, and to public transit routes where appropriate. 6.4.13. Obtain new mid-block pedestrian connections where appropriate. 6.4.14. Integrate community-supporting spaces, such as parks, community gardens, schools, and childcare, into neighborhoods as essential permitted uses. 1 Buildings up to 6-storeys in height 4 No or limited on-site parking for ground floor uses 2 Mandatory ground floor street-activating and neighbourhood-serving commercial and local-serving community services 5 Encouraged patio or plaza on corner 3 Individual small-scale and wrap around commercial 2 4 5 3 1 4 Realizing Neighbourhood Villages Page 49 of 399

Page 50

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 43 Desired Outcomes

1. Employment areas will be protected from the encroachment of and conversion to non- industrial uses.
2. Employment Lands will be well connected, sustainable, and climate resilient. While much of the City’s economic growth can be attributed to commercial, retail, and other sectors, industrial uses also play a crucial role in Langford’s economic prosperity and resilience. The policy intention for this designation is to protect the long- term viability of employment lands for such uses, to attract and retain a diverse range of industries in the city, and to ensure that Langford remains competitive, resilient, and capable of adapting to changing economic conditions. Ensuring a long-term supply of local employment-generating lands also supports the ability of residents to live close to work, thereby enhancing overall quality of life and reducing the need to commute to other parts of the region for employment. Employment Lands are areas in the city that focus on the industrial uses that are critical for job creation. In order to support businesses and employees, a limited amount of stand-alone retail, restaurant, and office uses are also permitted. However, these uses must be small-scale (both individually and cumulatively), and specifically exclude developments that resemble mid- box or big-box retail power centres or general office parks, which can significantly drive up land prices and ultimately pressure, and even push out, industrial uses. PART Part 6: Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy 6.5. Employment Lands

Page 50 of 399

Page 51

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 44 6.5.1. Employment Lands permit a range of industrial land uses, including contractor services, processing and manufacturing of goods, research and technology, warehouse storage and distribution, recycling facilities, wholesaling, and similar uses. 6.5.2. Accessory office or retail space may be incorporated into buildings, provided they are small in relative scale, and directly related and subordinate to the primary industrial use. 6.5.3. Small-scale, stand-alone commercial uses (e.g., coffee shops and restaurants) can be incorporated into multi-tenant developments to specifically serve the local convenience needs of customers and employees. An example of a warehouse and distribution facility. PART Part 6: Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy Desired Outcome #1: Employment areas will be protected from the encroachment of and conversions to non-industrial uses. 1 6.5.4. Multi-storey industrial buildings up to three storeys in height are permitted to meet long- term demand. 6.5.5. Develop and maintain an inventory of industrial floor space and remaining capacity to ensure a long-term supply of Employment Lands. 6.5.6. Protect the needs of region-serving and trade- oriented activities. 6.5.7. Ensure that Employment Lands are accessible by a range of mobility options, including public transit. Page 51 of 399

Page 52

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 45 6.5.8. Incorporate outdoor amenity areas, including parks and landscaped seating areas, to serve customers and employees. 6.5.9. Integrate landscaped areas into parking lots to reduce heat island effect. 6.5.10. Where residential and employment policy area designations meet, opportunities to improve transitions through trees, planting, and other landscaping will be considered. Separation distances may also be applied where appropriate, but should not compromise the reasonable and viable development of industrial or employment uses. 6.5.11. Ensure Employment Lands are connected to the regional truck route network. Example of integrated landscaped areas in a parking lot. PART Part 6: Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy Desired Outcome #2: Employment Lands will be well connected, sustainable, and climate-resilient. 2 6.5.12. Support and encourage high-quality, environmentally responsible, and sustainable development of Employment Lands, including considerations such as alternative rainwater management, green buildings, and renewable and district energy supply systems (see Part 6 – Climate Action and Sustainable Infrastructure). 6.5.13. Consider the importance of environmentally significant features adjacent to Employment Lands to ensure an appropriate interface, sufficient environmental protection, and suitable tree protection (see Part 10 – Protecting Ecological Systems and Biodiversity). Page 52 of 399

Page 53

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 46 Langford contains several large, comprehensively planned neighbourhoods that will continue to emerge over the life of this OCP, including Bear Mountain, South Skirt Mountain, Westhills, Olympic View, and Centre Mountain. They consist of unique zoned areas created through the rezoning of larger sites, and within which land-use, density, and associated amenity contributions have already been determined. Specific registered agreements, known as “Development Agreements,” outline commitments related to urban design, parkland dedication, transit access, energy efficiency, and more. As a result of these previous approvals and associated agreements, many of the principles in this Part are not intended to apply to these areas. 6.6.1. In addition to the conditions provided in each Comprehensive Development Zone and registered Development Agreement, the following will apply: i. Allow Urban Centres and Neighbourhood Villages to emerge in order to improve access to shops, services, and amenities. ii. Ensure new roads incorporate space for new and expanded transit service and multi-modal infrastructure. iii. Retain a minimum 40% of the lands as park or greenspace on an area wide basis. iv. Cluster development on hillside sites to facilitate the protection of all or a significant portion of green space and/or environmentally sensitive areas. v. Integrate public or private green space and/or preserved environmentally sensitive features into ground-oriented housing sites. vi. Permit higher building forms to maximize green space, provided some of the following conditions are achieved: » Parking for residents is structured or covered. » The podium (or base building) contains active uses at grade subject to topography. Acceptable active uses include retail shops, commercial, private amenity space, or ground-oriented dwelling units. vii. Negotiate the amendment of the Comprehensive Development Zones and Development Agreements to implement the outcomes of the underlying Land-Use designation (e.g. Complete Communities or Urban Centre) as part of future rezoning applications. PART Part 6: Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy 6.6. Pre-Committed Growth Areas Page 53 of 399

Page 54

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 47 Parks and greenspaces are vital public amenities, playing a key role in the livability of the city. These designated lands include Provincial, Regional, and City parks and greenspaces to ensure residents retain access to a variety of natural areas, active parks, and recreation spaces that enhance both individual and community well-being, while also supporting the health of our natural and built environments. The outcomes and policies for lands within this designation are guided by Part 14 – Parks, Places, and Services for People and Part 10 – Protecting Ecological Systems and Biodiversity. PART Part 6: Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy 6.7. Parks and Greenspace 6.8. Agricultural Lands designated as Agricultural are currently farmed or part of the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), and have the potential for a wide range of agricultural production. The long-term sustainability of our agricultural lands relies significantly on policies that support farming, safeguard farmlands, and reduce conflicts with other land uses. The outcomes and policies for lands within this designation are guided by Part 13 – Food Systems and Security. Much of Langford’s development has historically extended outward into greenfield lands. While this has resulted in the creation of a significant amount of new housing, jobs, and community amenities, the economic, health, and environmental costs of outward expansion are increasing, as expressed through the Five Crises as a whole, and specifically the Infrastructure Cost Crisis. The additional development enabled through this OCP to guide Langford’s next phase of growth must focus on development that occurs in ways that utilizes existing infrastructure, is located in already built-up areas as much as possible, that positively contributes to the tax base and financial positioning of the City, and that supports the many public interest goals of this OCP. The land-uses and densities enabled in the Complete Communities, Neighbourhood Villages, Urban Centres, Corridors, and City Centre designations are expected to accommodate all or more of the homes needed for 100,000 residents in ways that successfully reflect the goals and policies of this OCP. However, as noted in Part 1, Langford’s growth will not be “finished” when we reach 100,000 residents. The lands identified as Future Policy Areas have various constraints, including appropriate access to roads, transit, and municipal servicing, and have other significant considerations including interface fire hazard risk. While this phase of Langford’s growth focuses on further densifying the existing serviced and built-up areas, as well as completing the growth already enabled in the Pre-Committed Growth Areas, the role that the Future Policy Areas may play in Langford’s future may be considered as part of a future OCP review, if it is deemed strategically necessary to successfully meet the goals of this OCP. 6.9. Future Policy Areas Page 54 of 399

Page 55

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 48 PART Part 6: Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy In order to meet the objectives of this OCP and ensure the right development occurs in the right places at the right time, the following applies: 6.10.1. Subdivision and development must be connected to community sewer and water services. 6.10.2. Work with CRD Water and West Shore Environmental Services to prioritize expansions and upgrades to community water and sewer services to accommodate the growth expected in this Plan, with an emphasis on the City Centre, Urban Centres, and Corridors. 6.10.3. Build other critical infrastructure to support new growth and development in accordance with the desired outcomes and policies as presented throughout the OCP (e.g. Part 9 – Climate Action and Sustainable Infrastructure). 6.10. Utility Services 6.11.1. Sand and gravel deposits suitable for extraction in the City of Langford are shown on Map 19, in Appendix C. 6.11. Sand and Gravel Deposits Page 55 of 399

Page 56

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 49 Langford Lake Glen Lake Florence Lake Mount Wells Regional Park Goldstream Provincial Park Mill Hill Regional Park Thetis Lake Regional Park Finlayson Arm District of Metchosin District of Highlands Town of View Royal City of Colwood Juan de Fuca Electoral Area Millstream Rd L ato ri a R d Happy Valley Rd Veter a ns M e morial Pkwy B e ar M o unt a i n P k w y Trans-Canada Hwy Glen Lake Rd Goldstream Ave Sooke Rd Jacklin Rd Peatt Rd La n gford P kwy West Shore Pkwy Leigh Rd Phipps Rd Se t c h fi eld A v e Treanor Ave McCallum Rd Humpback Reservoir Island Rail Corridor 0 0.5 1 0.25 Kilometers Legend City of Langford Boundary First Nations Reserve Prov/Reg Parks Langford Water System (CRD) 25-250mm 300-600mm

600mm Langford Water System (SSL) MAP 4: WATER INFRASTRUCTURE INVENTORY PART Part 6: Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy Page 56 of 399

Page 57

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 50 Langford Lake Glen Lake Florence Lake Mount Wells Regional Park Goldstream Provincial Park Mill Hill Regional Park Thetis Lake Regional Park Finlayson Arm District of Metchosin District of Highlands Town of View Royal City of Colwood Juan de Fuca Electoral Area Millstream Rd L ato ri a R d Happy Valley Rd Veter a ns M e morial Pkwy B e ar M o unt a i n P k w y Trans-Canada Hwy Glen Lake Rd Goldstream Ave Sooke Rd Jacklin Rd Peatt Rd La n gford P kwy West Shore Pkwy Leigh Rd Phipps Rd Se t c h fi eld A v e Treanor Ave McCallum Rd Humpback Reservoir Island Rail Corridor 0 0.5 1 0.25 Kilometers Legend City of Langford Boundary First Nations Reserve Prov/Reg Parks Langford Sewer Lines Langford Main MAP 5: SANITARY SEWER INVENTORY PART Part 6: Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy Page 57 of 399

Page 58

PART 7 High Quality City-Building Page 58 of 399

Page 59

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 52 High Quality City-Building The Challenge In order to ensure all aspects of “density done well” are achieved as Langford grows and densifies, the following key elements will define high-quality city-building:

1. People-focused urban design, especially as density increases.
2. Multi-modal transportation, with more active mobility options.
3. Stronger integration of urban nature.
4. Well-designed amenities that enhance daily life and create a sense of place. These elements are not just desirable, they are essential. They support sustainability, multi-mobility, equity, urban health, and other public interests outlined in this Plan. Langford must ensure that as the city grows, it remains a model of successful, people-focused urban development. Desired Outcomes
5. Clear and integrated urban design expectations will guide development to achieve “density done well”, ensuring smart, sustainable, and successful urban outcomes.
6. Multi-modal movement with more active mobility choices will provide multiple options for travel within and between neighborhoods.
7. Increased and improved integration of urban nature will make Langford more climate-resilient and beautiful.
8. Every neighborhood will offer amenities that help make them livable and lovable. PART 7: High Quality City-Building Achieving Langford’s vision for high-quality city-building requires a coordinated approach that strengthens and connects the policies and guidelines that make dense urban development successful. Aligning these efforts will support effective decision-making and ensure Langford grows in a way that is livable, sustainable, and well-designed. The densities anticipated and enabled in this OCP are based on the assumption that strategic amenities will be successfully integrated into new development, a variety of mobility options will reduce the need for personal vehicles, and high- quality design will support the success of high- density livability. Embedding these principles into Langford’s OCP requires thoughtful policy alignment and clear implementation strategies. This approach provides consistency in development expectations while advancing the community’s vision for a vibrant and climate-resilient city. Page 59 of 399

Page 60

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 53 PART 7: High Quality City-Building High-Quality City Building To ensure “density done well” as Langford grows, these key elements are essential to high-quality city-building, as they support sustainability, multi-mobility, equity, urban health, and other public interests. 1 People-focused urban design, especially as density increases 3 Stronger integration of urban nature 2 Multi-modal transportation, with more active mobility options 4 Well-designed amenities that enhance daily life and create a sense of place 3 1 2 3 2 4 1 4 Page 60 of 399

Page 61

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 54 PART 7: High Quality City-Building 7.1. Ensure tall buildings over six storeys incorporate a podium and tower design that addresses the following: 7.1.1. Podiums will be a minimum of three storeys and a maximum of six storeys in height. 7.1.2. For affordable housing in the City Centre and Urban Centres, the podium requirement for buildings up to 12 storeys may be waived. 7.1.3. Towers must step back from the podium to incorporate amenity space. 7.1.4. A minimum 24.4m (80 ft) separation must be provided between towers (face to face). Balconies may project into this area. 7.1.5. Towers shall have a maximum floorplate size of 790 m2 (8,500 ft2). 7.1.6. Affordable housing projects in the City Centre and Urban Centres are exempt from the podium requirement for buildings up to 12 storeys. 7.1.7. Other building forms specifically intended to facilitate sustainable building innovations such as mass timber may be considered. 7.2. Development applications should demonstrate how the proposed architectural design contributes to a visually engaging streetscape, particularly in areas with multiple mid-rise buildings or long frontages. 7.3. Activate private amenity spaces through creative design within buildings and on roofs to effectively frame spaces and support/ promote the use of social spaces and lively social connections. Desired Outcome #1: Clear and integrated urban design expectations will guide development to achieve “density done well”, ensuring smart, sustainable, and successful urban outcomes. 1 7.4. Encourage the incorporation of architectural variety—such as changes in materials, massing, or articulation—where it can help reduce visual monotony and enhance the character of the block. It’s recognized that both architectural variety and architectural consistency can have merit, depending on the design quality approach and context. Applicants should show how their design responds thoughtfully to its setting, balancing visual interest with overall cohesion. 7.5. Require active, engaging, and pedestrian- oriented uses on the ground floor facing streets and public places. These uses may include commercial units or individually accessed residential units with slightly raised entrances and other design approaches to support a sense of privacy, as specified in Part 6 – Land Use and Growth Management Strategy. 7.6. Activate the spaces between and in front of buildings with vibrant people-places that reflect a variety of urban roles and intentions, including urban squares, plazas, community gardens, and transformed streets. Such places should be supported and strengthened through the use of strategic architectural massing to frame spaces, along with active edges and uses that can extend into and add life to such spaces. Podium The lower floors of a building that usually sit right at the sidewalk and often includes commercial uses such as shops and restaurants. Taller parts of the building sit above and are set back from this base. Page 61 of 399

Page 62

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 55 PART 7: High Quality City-Building 7.9. Require safe, comfortable and well-designed bicycle parking, and end-of-trip facilities where appropriate, that anticipate and accommodate innovation and changes to bicycle design, function, and size. 7.10. Secure public right-of-way dedications as a condition of rezoning, subdivision, or building permit to implement Complete Streets objectives (See Part 5 – Mobility Choice, Not Car Dependency) and create mid-block pathways where appropriate. 7.11. Ensure all streets are pedestrian-friendly with attractive and comfortable pedestrian facilities buffered from fast-moving vehicles. Desired Outcome #2: Multi-modal movement with more active mobility choices will provide multiple options for travel within and between neighborhoods. 2 7.12. Where increased concentrations of land-use mix and density are proposed, minimize the need for corresponding increases in private vehicle use and ownership through the provision of smart infrastructure networks providing ample and attractive mobility choices, including walking, rolling, biking, public transit, car-share, and shared micro-mobility options. 7.13. Ensure space allocated to private vehicle storage and movement is organized, designed, and managed to provide ample and prioritized opportunity for multi-modal infrastructure and quality public realm design. 7.7. Emphasize a people-oriented placemaking approach, with a focus on flexible rather than single-purpose public spaces that support programmed or spontaneous gatherings, art and activity installations, and play. 7.8. Where possible and strategic, make extensive use of regulatory and non-regulatory tools to ensure that streets in the city are designed to include public and design amenities such as: 7.8.1. Street trees, yard trees, and landscaped areas working together (including potential double rows of street trees on strategic streets). 7.8.2. Sidewalks and/or pedestrian trails with effective widths and designs to successfully achieve all relevant urban functions. 7.8.3. Street furniture such as seating areas, planters, garbage receptacles, and bicycle racks. Page 62 of 399

Page 63

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 56 PART 7: High Quality City-Building 7.14. Integrate green and natural elements into site design, wherever practical and strategic in highly urban and urbanizing contexts by using comfortable, livable architecture and urban design. Examples include street tree canopies, landscaped courtyards and plazas, green roofs and walls, and “green street” infrastructure designs. Such integration shouldn’t be at the expense of well-considered and strategic density, but rather should be a method of supporting the successful realization of such density. Desired Outcome #3: Increased and improved integration of urban nature will make Langford more climate-resilient and beautiful. 3 Example of integrating green and natural elements into developments. 7.15. Ensure public realm design standards accommodate large canopy trees when the private realm cannot. 7.16. Prioritize tree planting in areas of low tree equity identified in the Urban Forest Management Plan. 7.17. Create opportunities for combining amenities with climate resilience and urban nature, such as stormwater capture zones that double as playgrounds or seating areas. Page 63 of 399

Page 64

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 57 PART 7: High Quality City-Building 7.18. Support increases in density with the provision of community amenities and public benefits that successfully enhance livability for diverse populations, including families with children, seniors, and low income individuals. 7.19. Support and enhance local-level livability with community features such as parks, playgrounds, community centres, libraries, schools, daycares as well as local shops, services, grocery stores, and restaurants within a 15-minute walk or roll of all homes. Desired Outcome #4: Every neighborhood will offer amenities that help make them livable and lovable. 4 Example of a rooftop amenity space. 7.20. New multi-family residential developments will include common amenity spaces to support social connections and urban quality of life, which may include rooftop decks, courtyards, community or shared gardens, gyms, BBQ spaces, playgrounds, indoor gathering or entertainment spaces, or similar features. A focus will be placed on ensuring these spaces have access to natural light and are designed to foster social connections between neighbours. 7.21. Capital budgets, urban design regulations, and municipal expectations of development should be strategically used together to ensure the successful realization of urban amenities necessary for higher density urban livability. Page 64 of 399

Page 65

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 58 To achieve the desired outcomes, Langford will: 7.22. Develop a strategy to use various available tools to secure urban amenities and public benefits, including voluntary community amenity contributions, density bonusing, and Amenity Cost Charges (ACCs). 7.23. Amend the Zoning Bylaw to exclude well-designed and strategic common amenity areas from Floor Area Ratio calculations. 7.24. Collaborate with residents and community partners to identify priority amenities and improvements within different areas of Langford. 7.25. Track progress on targets for urban nature, amenities, and multi- modal infrastructure, and regularly update policies based on performance metrics and community feedback. 7.26. Ensure supporting information appropriate to assess development applications is submitted at each stage of the development process to ensure focused and efficient approvals. This should include: 7.26.1. At the rezoning stage: information necessary to confirm that the proposed land use and density can be achieved successfully on the site. This may consist of: a written description outlining how the proposal addresses the four outcomes of this Part and aligns with the City’s Official Community Plan (OCP) objectives; conceptual architectural and site plans; conceptual landscape plans; assessments as may be necessary to determine impact to sensitive ecosystems or the urban forest; reports as may be required to confirm impact to the road network, stormwater management, and site servicing; and other information as deemed necessary. 7.26.2. At the Development Permit stage: information necessary to confirm compliance with the Zoning Bylaw, Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw, and the Development Permit Area Guidelines. This may consist of a full set of dimensioned architectural drawings; a landscape plan prepared by a registered landscape architect; environmental impact assessments, including mitigation and compensation measures; drawings and reports prepared by a registered professional engineer; and other information as deemed necessary. Targets and Commitments PART 7: High Quality City-Building Page 65 of 399

Page 66

PART 8 Emphasizing Housing Action Page 66 of 399

Page 67

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 60 Emphasizing Housing Action The Challenge Similar to the wider Capital Regional District (CRD), Langford has experienced a rapid rise in housing costs. This has made renting and homeownership increasingly unaffordable, placing pressure on residents and limiting options for many. How do we expand housing choices and improve affordability while ensuring homes are located in well-connected areas as Langford grows to 100,000 residents? The challenge is not just to build more housing, but to ensure it contributes to a livable, sustainable, and economically resilient city. Desired Outcomes

1. Langford will offer a diverse range of housing choices that meet the needs of all residents.
2. Homes addressing key areas of housing need will be prioritized, significantly reducing core housing need in the city.
3. All new homes will be well-connected to transportation options, services, and amenities. PART 8: Emphasizing Housing Action Significant progress has been made in increasing housing diversity in Langford, particularly with the rise of purpose-built rental apartments. During the 2016 census period, Langford’s population grew by 31.8%, resulting in the following shifts to the housing mix: ӓ Single-family homes declined from 40% to 35%. ӓ Renter households increased from 30% to 35%. ӓ The number of households experiencing core housing need decreased from 12% to 10.7%. Langford’s Housing Needs Report (created in 2020 and updated in 2024) identifies the key areas of housing need to be addressed and planned for as part of this next phase of growth. Creating additional rental and ownership options in a variety of housing types will continue to improve housing choice and equitable access to housing suitable for residents of all ages, abilities, and life stages. Equally important is ensuring that housing is well- connected to transportation options, services, and amenities. Homes located within walking or cycling distance of daily needs contribute to the viability of local businesses, improve transit service, reduce traffic congestion, lower emissions, and enhance quality of life. Integrating housing with mobility options is crucial for creating a complete and sustainable community. Page 67 of 399

Page 68

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 61 Defining Affordable Housing ӓ Affordable housing costs less than 30% of total before-tax household income. ӓ Adequate housing is reported by their residents as not requiring any major repairs. ӓ Suitable housing has enough bedrooms for the size and makeup of the household. ӓ Core housing need occurs when people live in housing that is not affordable, adequate, or suitable. ӓ Special needs housing is housing for people with disabilities, seniors, or others who may benefit from on-site support services, including social housing. ӓ The housing continuum is the range of housing types and tenures, reflecting that people’s housing needs change throughout their life cycle and through changing circumstances in their lives. ӓ The key areas of housing need identified in the Langford Housing Needs Report includes housing types across the housing continuum, including affordable housing, rental housing, and special needs housing. The Housing Continuum PART 8: Emphasizing Housing Action SOCIAL HOUSING BELOW MARKET HOUSING MARKET HOUSING Page 68 of 399

Page 69

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 62 PART 8: Emphasizing Housing Action 8.1. Continue to increase the diversity of housing types and sizes to ensure housing choice for all ages, abilities, and stages of life across the housing continuum, including social housing, below-market housing, and market housing. 8.2. Support a variety of tenure options, including ownership, rental, non-profit, co-housing, and cooperative housing. 8.3. Increase housing choice in existing low-rise neighbourhoods at a ground-oriented scale, including single-detached dwellings, duplexes, townhomes, and three storey apartments. Accessory suites in attached and detached forms will be enabled as appropriate in the Zoning Bylaw. 8.3.1. Additional density to create Neighbourhood Villages and Corner Convenience is encouraged in the Complete Communities designation in accordance with the associated policies (See Part 6 – The Land Use and Growth Management Strategy). Desired Outcome #1: Langford will offer a diverse range of housing choices that meet the needs of all residents. 1 8.4. Ensure housing for seniors as well as housing that can accommodate larger households (including two or more bedrooms) is integrated into multi- family developments in the City Centre, Urban Centres, and Corridors. Such developments should also incorporate appropriate supporting amenities. 8.5. To create “eyes on the street” and active street presence, multi-family developments with residential uses on the ground floor will incorporate individually accessed, walk-up homes and/or active public spaces fronting onto streets, where possible (see figure below). 8.5.1. Ground floor homes are encouraged to be oriented towards larger households and/or accessible. 8.6. Ensure accessible, adaptable, and universal design features are an important aspect of housing to support the ability of residents to age in place and address mobility challenges. Example of a corner townhouse development. Figure: “Eyes on the Street.” Page 69 of 399

Page 70

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 63 8.7. Integrate new housing that addresses the key areas of housing need, including affordable housing, rental housing, and special needs housing, throughout the city, with an emphasis on integrating such housing into the City Centre, Urban Centres, and Corridors. 8.8. Seek partnerships with other levels of government and non-profit housing providers to access funding and housing programs to deliver affordable housing and special needs housing. 8.9. Prioritize the use of municipal land and/or other resources to deliver housing in key areas of housing need and to maximize opportunities to co-locate such housing with other community spaces. PART 8: Emphasizing Housing Action Desired Outcome #2: Homes addressing key areas of housing need will be prioritized, significantly reducing core housing need in the city. 2 8.10. Continue to support the development of Indigenous-led housing through partnerships and use of other municipal tools and resources, such as permissive tax exemptions and grants. 8.11. Maintain a density benefits strategy to incentivize the inclusion or cash-in-lieu of affordable, rental, and special needs housing in new developments, particularly in the City Centre, Urban Centres, and Corridors. 8.12. Streamline development approval processes, provide financial cost reduction, and/or reduce municipal requirements such as parking for development applications delivering housing in key areas of need. 8.13. Ensure ongoing efficient delivery of development approvals to ensure housing supply can keep pace with housing demand. 8.14. Locate new housing, particularly higher-density housing and housing that addresses the key areas of housing need, near transportation infrastructure that supports walking, rolling, cycling, public transit, and other alternative forms of transportation that provide access to jobs, shops, services, and amenities. 8.15. Prioritize higher density housing in proximity to the Langford Bus Exchange Transit-Oriented Area on Station Avenue, in the City Centre along the bus rapid transit route, and along future transit priority corridors. Desired Outcome #3: All new homes will be well-connected to transportation options, services, and amenities. 3 Page 70 of 399

Page 71

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 64 PART 8: Emphasizing Housing Action To achieve the desired outcomes, Langford will: 8.16. Achieve a minimum of 5,081 new homes by 2030 and 16,942 new homes by 2045. 8.17. Reduce the number of households experiencing Core Housing Need to below 10% by the 2026 census. 8.18. Pre-zone for affordable housing in the City Centre, Corridors and Urban Centres 8.19. Conduct a land capacity analysis and ensure the Zoning Bylaw accommodates the 20-year housing need by 2026. 8.20. Update the Housing Needs Report in 2028. 8.21. Provide annual reporting of the number and type of new homes approved and completed. 8.22. Improve the tracking of Building Permit data to include the tenure and size of new homes. 8.23. Following each Housing Needs Report update, review the policies of this section to ensure the key areas of housing need are prioritized and the targets are updated to reflect any changes to the five-year and 20-year housing need projections. 8.24. Create a Housing Strategy to provide direction on how the City can improve housing choice and affordability; remove barriers to housing in the key areas of housing need; ensure the integration of family-sized housing into multi-unit residential developments consisting of 4 or more storeys in the City Centre, Urban Centres and Corridor Areas of this Plan; and implement measures to achieve the outcomes of this Part. Targets and Commitments Page 71 of 399

Page 72

PART 9 Climate Action and Sustainable Infrastructure Page 72 of 399

Page 73

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 66 Climate Action and Sustainable Infrastructure The Challenge Langford must contribute to global and national climate goals while ensuring local sustainability, resilience, and livability. How can the city align its efforts with federal and provincial targets while meeting community-specific needs? The challenge is twofold: first, reducing emissions through better planning, infrastructure, and energy use; and second, adapting to climate impacts such as extreme weather, heatwaves, and water shortages. Balancing these priorities will be key to building a thriving, future-ready Langford. Desired Outcomes

1. The energy and carbon performance of all new and existing buildings will align with the City’s Climate Action Plan.
2. The City will successfully implement a zero- waste strategy.
3. Resilience to the effects of climate change will be supported by incorporating green infrastructure systems, including trees, soil, and shrubs.
4. Water conservation and sustainable wastewater management practices will be fully integrated into the City’s community and corporate operations.
5. Renewable energy adoption and efficient energy systems will be actively encouraged and widely implemented. PART 9: Climate Action and Sustainable Infrastructure A successful climate action strategy requires careful integration into all aspects of city planning. Some cities include a dedicated climate section in their OCP to highlight its importance, while others embed climate priorities throughout their land-use and transportation policies, recognizing its role as a guiding principle. Langford’s OCP does both. Every section of this Plan is developed with the climate crisis in mind, alongside the four other major challenges expressed by the Five Crises. At the same time, this dedicated section highlights priorities beyond land use and transportation, reinforcing Langford’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, improving energy efficiency, and adapting to climate change. These efforts not only help prevent the severe consequences of inaction but also bring economic, social, and environmental benefits to the community. Canada’s national goal is a 40% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030, with net-zero emissions by 2050. Achieving this requires coordinated action at all levels of government—federal, provincial, regional, and local. British Columbia’s Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act (‘Bill 27’, 2008) mandates local governments to set GHG reduction targets in their OCPs and outline the actions needed to achieve them. Langford is committed to climate action and sustainable infrastructure. By advancing energy-efficient buildings, waste reduction strategies, and adaptive infrastructure, the City will build a low-carbon, resilient future that benefits generations to come. Page 73 of 399

Page 74

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 67 9.1. Promote and support the development of energy-efficient, high-performing, and low-carbon buildings (both new and existing) to meet the City’s climate action targets. 9.2. Lead by example and ensure that the performance of all new and existing municipal and public buildings aligns with the City’s climate action targets. 9.3. Encourage, and where feasible regulate, sustainable building design and construction practices in new developments and retrofits of existing buildings, including but not limited to: low-carbon building materials, reduced water consumption, increased energy-efficiency, renewable energy systems, minimized construction and demolition waste, and elements that contribute to reduced urban heat island effect. 9.4. Require technology and charging stations for electric cars and other electric micro-mobility devices (e.g. scooters, e-bikes, etc.) in new multi-unit residential buildings. Example of a new high-performance and low-carbon building. PART 9: Climate Action and Sustainable Infrastructure 9.5. Implement construction waste diversion targets and incentives for deconstruction and recycling. 9.6. Work with other agencies or businesses to develop a local construction waste recycling and reuse program. 9.7. Support education and community outreach programs to encourage waste reduction, reuse, and recycling. 9.8. Promote and support policies and programs to minimize waste generation and encourage waste diversion from landfills. 9.9. Promote incorporation of circular economy principles in local businesses and industries. 9.10. Promote reduction of kitchen and yard waste through composting programs. Example of a home being deconstructed. Desired Outcome #1: The energy and carbon performance of all new and existing buildings will align with the City’s Climate Action Plan. 1 Desired Outcome #2: The City will successfully implement a zero-waste strategy. 2 Page 74 of 399

Page 75

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 68 9.11. Develop natural asset management policies and rainwater management strategies to maintain and replace aging infrastructure and create a more climate-resilient urban environment. 9.12. Invest in technology and creative design to plant trees in low equity areas and areas particularly subject to the urban heat island effect, as determined through the Urban Forest Management Plan (e.g. convert underutilized road ends, install bump outs, use soil cells, etc). 9.13. Promote sustainable site design strategies that reduce runoff and recharge groundwater (e.g. permeable hardscapes, on-site retention, stormwater infiltration systems, green spaces, rain gardens, bioswales, etc.) in new developments, municipal buildings, and public lands. 9.14. Implement low-impact development and green infrastructure practices in municipal buildings, parks, streets, schools, and parking lots through requirements and/or incentives. 9.15. Maximize opportunities to harvest waste heat, generate energy, and reuse treated wastewater for irrigation. 9.16. Promote rainwater harvesting for non-potable uses (e.g. toilet flushing, irrigation). 9.17. Ensure infrastructure adapts to future demands and a changing climate. 9.18. Provide shading trees in rights-of-way and areas with extensive hard surfaces, and encourage the use of light-coloured materials for paving and roofing in new developments, to reduce urban heat island effect, especially in low tree equity areas as determined through the Urban Forest Management Plan. 9.19. Educate residents about the benefits of keeping stormwater infrastructure (e.g. catch basins) free of sediments and dry leaves to ensure drainage systems function as intended during flood events. Example of a green infrastructure system. PART 9: Climate Action and Sustainable Infrastructure Desired Outcome #3: Resilience to the effects of climate change will be supported by incorporating green infrastructure systems, including trees, soil, and shrubs. 3 Page 75 of 399

Page 76

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 69 9.20. Support reduced water consumption through green building policies. 9.21. Provide incentives for water-efficient fixtures and dual piping systems. 9.22. Encourage selection of low-water or no-water demand plant species for landscaping. 9.23. Promote integrated wastewater management technologies that provide social, economic, and environmental benefits. 9.24. Require site-scale wastewater management systems for private developments. 9.25. Investigate and implement neighborhood-scale wastewater treatment solutions. 9.26. Support education and community outreach programs to encourage water conservation practices. 9.27. Secure commitments for geo-exchange, solar energy, wind systems, and other on-site renewable energy systems as supplemental energy sources in new developments. 9.28. Secure agreements for district energy systems where appropriate. 9.29. Retrofit streetlights, traffic lights, and public infrastructure with energy-efficient technologies. 9.30. Promote the adaptability of site service infrastructure to accommodate future energy system conversions and reduce vulnerabilities to supply disruption (e.g. solar panel installation, wind turbines, smart grids, excess energy storage systems, etc.). PART 9: Climate Action and Sustainable Infrastructure Desired Outcome #4: Water conservation and sustainable wastewater management practices will be fully integrated into the City’s community and corporate operations. 4 Desired Outcome #5 - Renewable energy adoption and efficient energy systems will be actively encouraged and widely implemented. 5 District Energy System Systems that heat or cool many buildings from one shared source—like a central boiler or energy plant. Example of a site-scale wastewater management system. Page 76 of 399

Page 77

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 70 To achieve the desired outcomes, Langford will: 9.31. Analyze and implement, where strategic, incentives that promote climate mitigation strategies, while ensuring alignment with and consideration of all other goals outlined in this Plan, including: 9.31.1. Floor Area Ratio exclusions. 9.31.2. Development Cost Charge reductions. 9.31.3. Density bonusing. 9.32. Reduce the City’s corporate emissions by 50% (from 2007 levels) by 2030, and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. 9.33. Decrease community-wide GHG emissions by 61% from 2007 levels by 2038. 9.34. Implement policies to support all new construction to be net-zero energy ready by 2032 and to reach zero operational emissions from all new construction by 2030. 9.35. Require 100% of residential parking stalls in new developments to be “EV-Ready.” 9.36. Implement policies that support 25% of all vehicles in Langford to be electric by 2030. 9.37. Encourage all new construction projects to lower their embodied carbon emissions (e.g. low carbon materials, design strategies, etc). 9.38. Complete and implement a Climate Action Plan. 9.39. Incorporate equity principles into climate action planning and policy implementation. 9.40. Integrate a climate change mitigation and adaptation lens into all City plans, policies, and projects. 9.41. Monitor and report on the progress towards achieving the City’s community and corporate climate action targets. PART 9: Climate Action and Sustainable Infrastructure Targets and Commitments 9.42. Collaborate with neighbouring municipalities and other external agencies to implement related GHG reduction targets. 9.43. Support knowledge dissemination, capacity- building, and market transformation for climate change mitigation, adaptation, and resilience. 9.44. Regularly update policies, targets, and actions to incorporate the effect of changing climate projections and to strengthen the community’s resilience to climate change impacts. 9.45. Revise contracts with vendors and/or service providers to address fundamental sustainability objectives. 9.46. Regularly update the Stormwater Master Plan to account for the more intense and frequent precipitation that is expected due to climate change. 9.47. Regularly maintain the City’s stormwater infrastructure, and upgrade (where necessary) to ensure excess precipitation is managed during extreme weather events. 9.48. Continue to work with other levels of government for the coordination of climate action planning. 9.49. Establish an integrated utility or enter into agreements with established utilities to develop and deliver services that contribute to sustainability goals. Page 77 of 399

Page 78

PART 10 Protecting Ecological Systems and Biodiversity Page 78 of 399

Page 79

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 72 Protecting Ecological Systems and Biodiversity The Challenge As Langford grows, greenspaces and environmentally sensitive areas face increasing pressure from development and a changing climate. Thoughtful growth management can help protect natural areas while creating new parks and lands for long-term conservation and community trust. At the same time, climate change is amplifying threats such as wildfires, storms, flooding, pests, heatwaves, and drought, placing additional strain on local ecosystems. Addressing these challenges requires careful planning and long-term environmental stewardship. Desired Outcomes

1. Environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs) will be protected and enhanced.
2. The urban forest will be healthy, climate- resilient, and provide equitable access to the ecosystem services and benefits it provides.
3. A thriving culture of collaboration will support ecological conservation and wildfire mitigation efforts.
4. A fully interconnected network of greenspaces and habitat corridors will be cherished and actively used by the community. PART 10: Protecting Ecological Systems and Biodiversity A community’s natural environment, parks, and greenspaces are essential to sustainability and livability. Langford, located within the Coastal Douglas- fir zone in southwestern British Columbia, is home to diverse ecosystems, including mature Douglas fir and Garry oak forests. Major watersheds such as Colwood, Millstream, and Bilston Creek further enrich this unique bio-geoclimatic zone. The city’s striking natural features—its coastline, mountains, lakes, creeks, and parks—shape its identity and enhance residents’ quality of life. Protecting these ecological systems and ensuring continued public access is a key priority. Nearly 90% of Langford’s urban forest canopy (1,739 ha) lies within the city’s forested areas, ranging from small patches to large, contiguous parks and rural lands. Preserving and managing these spaces is crucial to maintaining environmental integrity and supporting biodiversity. Page 79 of 399

Page 80

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 73 10.1. Prioritize placing retained ESAs into public trust or ownership. 10.2. Collaborate with developers to ensure retention, enhancement (e.g. invasive species removal), connectivity, and/or compensation for ESAs in and around development areas. 10.3. Limit access to ESAs through sensitive design. 10.4. Maintain ESAs within the ESA Development Permit Area (see Appendices). 10.5. Ensure mapping of ESA Development Permit Area is updated as new information is obtained. ESAs should include, but not necessarily be limited to: endangered and threatened habitats such as Garry Oak ecosystems and/or wildlife corridors, riparian corridors, wetlands, shoreline habitats, and areas of habitat and biodiversity value. PART 10: Protecting Ecological Systems and Biodiversity Desired Outcome #1: Environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs) will be protected and enhanced. 1 10.6. Ensure ESA Development Permit Area guidelines reflect updated technical and scientific data and best practices. 10.7. Conserve biological diversity and protect threatened and endangered species and ecosystems, in alignment with provincial or regional conservation planning and priority- setting efforts. 10.8. Ensure every resident has equitable access to the many benefits of the urban forest, including: regulating temperatures and heat island effect, mitigating the impact of storms, sequestering carbon and other pollutants, cleaning air and water, supporting wildlife habitats and biodiversity, improving physical and mental health, and contributing to placemaking and economic prosperity. 10.9. Maintain a healthy urban forest that can withstand and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Desired Outcome #2: The urban forest will be healthy, climate-resilient, and provide equitable access to the ecosystem services and benefits it provides. 2 Page 80 of 399

Page 81

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 74 PART 10: Protecting Ecological Systems and Biodiversity 10.10. Pursue collaborative partnerships with local First Nations, community organizations, and other levels of government to enhance ecological resilience and safeguard the natural environment. 10.11. Continue to support and encourage the involvement of individuals and community organizations in managing ESAs, removing invasive species, restoring and enhancing natural habitats, preventing erosion, and installing signs to inform and educate the public. 10.12. Proactively adopt initiatives that effectively support the prevention of wildfires and interface fires through the implementation of Langford’s Community Wildfire Resiliency Plan, FireSmart principles and climate adaptation strategies. Desired Outcome #3: A thriving culture of collaboration will support ecological conservation and wildfire mitigation efforts. 3 10.13. Plan and develop green corridors as networks of connected spaces integrating parks, natural areas, and developed areas with habitat or greenspace value. 10.14. Work with neighbouring municipalities and other agencies to plan and develop a collection of regionally connected greenspaces and green corridors that will include parks, natural areas, ESAs, and trails as well as developed areas that have habitat and/or greenspace value. 10.15. Protect biodiversity and enhance ecosystem functionality by preserving and connecting greenspaces and ESAs. 10.16. Enhance biodiversity within the urban forest, ESAs, and landscaped areas located within private development through the planting of species indigenous to the area, including pollinator-friendly species and climate resilient species. 10.17. Ensure the connectivity of the City’s ESAs is a priority in land use planning while framing the need for protection, restoration, and connectivity across classes of natural and urban features. Desired Outcome #4: A fully interconnected network of greenspaces and habitat corridors will be cherished and actively used by the community. 4 Page 81 of 399

Page 82

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 75 To achieve the desired outcomes, Langford will: 10.18. Ensure an urban forest canopy of at least 40% in 2050. 10.19. Implement the Urban Forest Management Plan, with an emphasis on the quick start and priority actions, including: 10.19.1. Plant at least 300-600 new trees (excluding replacement trees) per year on public and private property. 10.19.2. Enhance maintenance practices to maximize the urban forest benefits of public trees and to reflect sustainable, evidence-based management practices. 10.19.3. Update regulatory bylaws (such as the zoning bylaw, Development Permit Area guidelines, and development servicing bylaw) to improve tree outcomes. 10.19.4. Review and update the City’s “State of the Urban Forest” report every five years to monitor changes and adjust policies as needed to achieve the canopy target. 10.20. Update the ESA Development Permit Area maps and guidelines to ensure, as much as possible, that the maps accurately reflect the extent of ESAs and that the guidelines are achieving desired outcomes. 10.21. Update bylaws to allow discretionary density bonusing, reorganizing density on-site, or other variances in exchange for the retention of important ESA or urban forest features. 10.22. Require lands dedicated as park or greenspace to be treed or otherwise natural ecosystems, as much as possible, unless required for active park uses. 10.23. Develop a biodiversity conservation strategy to support the coordinated acquisition, conservation, and enhancement of the City’s natural ecosystems. PART 10: Protecting Ecological Systems and Biodiversity Targets and Commitments Page 82 of 399

Page 83

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 76 Langford Lake Glen Lake Florence Lake Mount Wells Regional Park Goldstream Provincial Park Mill Hill Regional Park Thetis Lake Regional Park Finlayson Arm District of Metchosin District of Highlands Town of View Royal City of Colwood Juan de Fuca Electoral Area Millstream Rd L ato ri a R d Happy Valley Rd Veter a ns M e morial Pkwy B e ar M o unt a i n P k w y Trans-Canada Hwy Glen Lake Rd Goldstream Ave Sooke Rd Jacklin Rd Peatt Rd La n gford P kwy West Shore Pkwy Leigh Rd Phipps Rd Se t c h fi eld A v e Treanor Ave McCallum Rd Humpback Reservoir Island Rail Corridor Legend First Nations Reserve 0 0.5 1 0.25 Kilometers Prov/Reg Parks City of Langford Boundary Wetland Older Forest Terrestrial Herbaceous Sensitive Ecosystems River / Creeks Woodland Riparian Zones MAP 6: SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEMS & HABITAT AREAS PART 10: Protecting Ecological Systems and Biodiversity Page 83 of 399

Page 84

PART 11 Economic Resilience and Prosperity Page 84 of 399

Page 85

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 78 Economic Resilience and Prosperity The Challenge The COVID-19 pandemic taught us a lot about economic resiliency. The impacts of the pandemic highlighted the essential role of certain businesses, including grocery stores, hardware stores, pet supply shops, home-based businesses, and safety suppliers, in maintaining daily life. At the same time, other businesses proved vital to maintaining local jobs, supporting economic recovery, and enhancing community well-being. As the significant consequences of the climate crisis become more commonly felt and as economic conditions such as long-standing trade relationships become much more difficult to predict and rely on, economic “shocks” become more common. Economic health becomes less about successfully predicting such shocks, and more about embedding resiliency into the fabric of our business community. How can Langford foster a resilient, innovative, and adaptable economy that supports all businesses and ensures the community remains strong in the face of future disruptions? Desired Outcomes

1. Langford will be economically resilient and capable of swiftly adapting to unexpected economic uncertainty.
2. Langford will be a regional destination for the knowledge economy, shopping, and creative-based industries.
3. Langford’s economic activity will encompass a wide range of sectors to maintain a balanced and resilient economy. PART 11: Economic Resilience and Prosperity A strong, resilient economy is essential for a thriving community. Local businesses play a central role not only by providing goods and services but by fostering entrepreneurship, incubating new ventures, and strengthening social connections. As the foundation of the local economy, these businesses contribute to a dynamic, inclusive, and prosperous city. Equally important is expanding local employment opportunities. Fostering a diverse range of jobs within Langford will reduce the need for commuting to other areas, easing traffic congestion and supporting a sustainable transportation network. This approach builds local resiliency, enhances quality of life, shortens commute times, and keeps economic benefits within the community. A resilient economy means having the ability to pivot, adapt to, and recover from external disruptions, whether from natural disasters (including the many consequences of climate change), trade tariffs, global conflicts, supply chain disruptions, pandemics, or economic downturns. By fostering a diverse and adaptable economy, Langford can minimize job losses, protect livelihoods, and sustain community well-being in the face of future challenges, both predictable, and unpredictable. Page 85 of 399

Page 86

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 79 PART 11: Economic Resilience and Prosperity 11.1. Emphasize innovation and collaboration, as it has become a lot harder, if not impossible, to predict the changes, challenges, and turning points our community will face within the life of this Plan. Change is not only harder to predict, but it is also happening faster. Strategies and policies should reflect this reality. 11.2. Assess and identify actions to enhance economic resiliency as part of the Economic Development Strategy. Desired Outcome #1: Langford will be economically resilient and capable of swiftly adapting to unexpected economic uncertainty. 1 11.3. Work to support the expansion of local and regional serving businesses located in the community. 11.4. Ensure the city remains a regionally (and provincially) competitive, attractive, and strategically nimble business destination. 11.5. Ensure land-use policies support and enable a sufficient long-term supply of commercial and industrial floor space capacity to meet local and regional demands. 11.6. Work with development proponents to attract ‘anchor’ business tenants through proactive development partnerships. 11.7. Collaborate with Royal Roads University to establish an Innovation Studio at the West Shore Campus to promote innovation and entrepreneurship, and to connect students with the business community. Desired Outcome #2: Langford will be a regional destination for the knowledge economy, shopping, and creative-based industries. 2 11.8. Create people-places, such as public squares, plazas, and transformed streets, in commercial and mixed-use areas that incorporate seating areas, urban nature, and active design elements to attract people, encourage them to linger, and support local businesses. 11.9. Support and strengthen arts and cultural activities such as festivals and performances that advance economic development objectives. 11.10. Expand local and regional tourism strategies to attract visitors. 11.11. Support public realm infrastructure improvements such as new benches, bus shelters, water fountains, and bicycle racks to expand the use of active and alternate modes of transportation to commercial destinations. 11.12. Explore collaborative relationships with event holders and businesses to expand the use of alternate and active modes of transportation to commercial destinations and events. Page 86 of 399

Page 87

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 80 11.13. Conduct a gaps analysis to determine what businesses and services are missing in Langford. 11.14. Work with key partners to incorporate shopping amenities (grocery stores, etc.) into new and existing commercial and mixed-use buildings to meet the needs of a growing population within a short walk, roll, or bike ride of homes. 11.15. Continue to support opportunities and partnerships for meaningful First Nations tourism and business creation. 11.16. Ensure commercial spaces on the ground floor in the downtown core are active uses that generate footsteps, support urban density, and enhance livability. 11.17. Permit home-based business in all parts of the community in all dwelling units. 11.18. Prioritize and lobby for job-rich industry types. 11.19. Encourage developers to work with downtown businesses to collaborate on providing amenities that may not be possible to include on-site (e.g. discounts for gym memberships or local businesses). 11.20. Support the development of non-profit organizations in the community, recognizing that they are employers and have access to funding (e.g. from senior governments) that bring new resources to the community. Desired Outcome #3: Langford’s economic activity will encompass a wide range of sectors to maintain a balanced and resilient economy. 3 PART 11: Economic Resilience and Prosperity Page 87 of 399

Page 88

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 81 To achieve the desired outcomes, Langford will: 11.21. Adopt an Economic Development Plan that will gather baseline information on Langford’s economic sectors, examine current trends and best practices in the context of Langford’s strengths and opportunities, and include an action plan specifically addressing economic resilience, including (but not limited to): 11.21.1. Development of business continuity programs. 11.21.2. Support for the development of robust business retention and expansion programs. 11.21.3. Support for social enterprises and innovation that focus on social and environmental outcomes (see Part 12 – Embracing the Creative City). 11.21.4. Adoption of a “buy local program” supporting local purchasing and procurement. 11.22. Update the zoning bylaw so that only active, pedestrian- oriented uses are permitted on the ground floor in key parts of the Downtown. 11.23. Establish minimum commercial unit size requirements for mixed-use buildings to ensure new businesses have a viable street presence and floorspace. 11.24. Conduct a downtown parking needs assessment with the lens of economic development to ensure public parking areas set appropriate turn around times to support businesses. 11.25. Ensure Employment Lands (see Part 6 – Land Use and Growth Management Strategy) are maintained to protect the long-term availability and viability of light industrial land uses. 11.26. Consider revitalization tax exemptions to attract investment. 11.27. Work with other communities and key partners to continue promoting and developing Langford and the West Shore as a regional sport tourism, tourism, arts and culture, and recreation destination. Targets and Commitments PART 11: Economic Resilience and Prosperity Page 88 of 399

Page 89

PART 12 Embracing the Creative City Page 89 of 399

Page 90

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 83 Embracing the Creative City The Challenge How does Langford ensure that arts and culture are not just supported, but fully integrated into the City’s planning decisions, economic and social development, and urban design? To develop a creative city, Langford must address challenges such as venue shortages, gaps in arts and culture infrastructure, and the need for equity-driven solutions that enable all residents to access and participate in cultural activities. By prioritizing arts and culture as an essential component of city-building, Langford can reinforce its identity, improve livability, equity, and inclusion, and identify new opportunities for arts, culture, and social connection. Desired Outcomes

1. Local First Nations will be involved in how the City supports their community’s arts and culture needs, by fostering meaningful partnerships.
2. Langford will host a vibrant and diverse array of cultural spaces.
3. Arts and culture will seamlessly integrate into City decision-making, with reduced regulatory barriers that encourage creative expression.
4. Creativity and innovation will thrive and help shape the city. PART 12: Embracing the Creative City Arts and culture, encompassing language, food, music, cinema, visual art, theatre, dance, and more, play an essential role in fostering social and economic prosperity. The cultural sector contributes approximately $60 billion to the Canadian GDP annually. Research indicates that participation in arts and cultural activities is directly associated with enhanced health, happiness, and a sense of community belonging. Additionally, arts and culture attract visitors, strengthen local economic networks, and provide individuals with valuable lifelong experiences. Arts and culture play a significant role in community development and support. Residents have indicated a need for additional cultural infrastructure in Langford, such as a performing arts centre and live music venues of various sizes to encourage creativity and foster social gatherings. By integrating arts and culture into community planning and urban development, Langford is establishing itself as a “creative city”—a city that thrives on the incorporation of innovation, diversity, and creative expression. Page 90 of 399

Page 91

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 84 PART 12: Embracing the Creative City 12.1. Engage with local First Nations and urban Indigenous artists to explore the implementation of art features in public and private development projects. 12.2. Actively involve First Nations and urban Indigenous community members in public celebrations, gatherings, and intercultural events. 12.3. Recognize and honour Indigenous culture, knowledge, and language through public art and community events. 12.4. Ensure widespread public awareness and acknowledgment of the true history of Langford’s territorial lands and the Nations who have stewarded them. Desired Outcome # 1 - Local First Nations will be involved in how the City supports their community’s arts and culture needs, by fostering meaningful partnerships. 1 The Yos Pole: created by Master Carvers Moy Sutherland Jr. from Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation (Tofino) and John Marston from Stz’uminus First Nation (Chemainus) and various Malahat Nation youth. Page 91 of 399

Page 92

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 85 PART 12: Embracing the Creative City 12.5. Develop more outdoor music and performance spaces in parks and other public areas. 12.6. Explore partnerships with private and non-profit arts and culture community groups and other levels of government to review facilities needs to foster cultural expression (e.g. performing arts centres). 12.7. Ensure the availability of affordable venues for artists, arts organizations, and cultural groups. 12.8. Encourage the development of private performance and gallery spaces in new developments. 12.9. Enable public outdoor places for programmed or spontaneous performances and art installations. 12.10. Foster public spaces that are culturally vibrant and support social connection and cultural expression. 12.11. Link arts sector initiatives to beautification, revitalization, and development efforts. 12.12. Provide funding for arts and culture groups, initiatives, and programs for city-focused activities. 12.13. Apply equity, diversity, and inclusion approaches to address barriers to access arts and culture space. Desired Outcome #2 - Langford will host a vibrant and diverse array of cultural spaces. 2 Page 92 of 399

Page 93

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 86 12.22. Encourage the utilization of “third spaces” - public and commercial spaces outside homes and workplaces for gatherings, networking, and socializing. These spaces should serve as hubs for connection, collaboration, and innovation, providing creative individuals, including entrepreneurs, opportunities to meet, share ideas, and work collaboratively. 12.23. Foster, encourage, and support open- mindedness, innovative thinking, competent risk-taking, and appreciation for differences and diverse perspectives in a manner that benefits both local and broader public interests. PART 12: Embracing the Creative City Desired Outcome #4: Creativity and innovation will thrive and help shape the city. 4 12.24. Embrace a corporate culture that is open to well-designed and evidence-based experimentation by using methods such as pilot projects to test new ideas. 12.25. Foster and highlight interculturalism by promoting active engagement and dialogue between diverse cultures, encouraging interaction, mutual understanding, and the development of a shared public culture. 12.14. Integrate arts and culture initiatives and programming as part of new development projects. 12.15. Create culturally vibrant public spaces that promote social connection and cultural expression, integrating them into amenity expectations or capital projects. 12.16. Foster distributed creative-placemaking throughout the city where residents and visitors can experience and enjoy an artful public realm. 12.17. Consider providing municipal properties or resources to assist with the upfront capital costs and/or operating endowment for an arts and culture centre. Desired Outcome #3 - Arts and culture will seamlessly integrate into City decision-making, with reduced regulatory barriers that encourage creative expression. 3 12.18. Enable new or repurposed spaces for professional and community arts and cultural activities in areas well served by public transit and other modes of transportation through zoning amendments. 12.19. Reduce excessive parking minimums that create barriers for entertainment businesses in central locations that are accessible by public transit and active modes of transportation. 12.20. Create opportunities to showcase local artists in public spaces, prioritizing Indigenous artists. 12.21. Support and expand The Langford Station Arts and Cultural District as a public gathering place. Page 93 of 399

Page 94

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 87 To achieve the desired outcomes, Langford will: 12.26. Consult with local First Nations, urban Indigenous peoples, residents, businesses, artists, and other key partners to identify needs and priorities for arts and culture, with a focus on inclusivity, diversity, equity, and accessibility. 12.27. Conduct corporate training on the use of Reconciliation language, paired with decolonial actions. 12.28. Set a target for cultural space per 100,000 residents. 12.29. Create and implement an Arts and Culture Strategy to determine how best to showcase and celebrate the diverse cultures in Langford. 12.30. Work with other West Shore communities and key partners to contribute funding to an arts and culture centre (dedicated use and/or multi-use). Targets and Commitments PART 12: Embracing the Creative City Page 94 of 399

Page 95

PART 13 Food Systems and Security Page 95 of 399

Page 96

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 89 Food Systems and Security The Challenge Currently, only about 10% of the food consumed on Vancouver Island is locally produced, leaving Langford heavily reliant on imports. This dependence contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, increased traffic, food quality concerns, and lost economic opportunities. Supporting a more self-reliant food system can address these challenges while improving sustainability and resilience. While the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) plays a valuable role in protecting land for food production, it offers limited support for promoting active cultivation. How can Langford tackle these challenges and boost local food production and self-reliance amid unpredictable factors, like fluctuating tariffs and climate change, that threaten food systems and supply chains? Desired Outcomes

1. All residents will have consistent access to affordable, healthy, and locally sourced food within walking distance.
2. Agricultural lands will be protected, productive, and harmoniously integrated with urban development. PART 13: Food Systems and Security Access to affordable, healthy food is essential to quality of life. Food systems and local food security are becoming increasingly important, as they are linked to human and environmental health, economic resilience, and the ability to withstand climate change and rising energy costs. The availability, quality, and affordability of local food shapes food choices, making a well- functioning food system a foundation of community well-being. Langford recognizes the importance of localizing food production, processing, and distribution to build a resilient and sustainable food system. As an urban community with limited farmland, Langford’s food system relies on a mix of small-scale farms, co-operatives, food distributors, grocery stores, local restaurants, and a farmers’ market. However, this infrastructure is not enough to support true food self-reliance. Rising food prices, supply chain disruptions, and unpredictable global factors such as climate change, trade tariffs and trade restrictions highlight the urgency of expanding local food security. Langford must take strategic action to strengthen food production and distribution while supporting sustainable agricultural practices to build long-term resilience. Page 96 of 399

Page 97

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 90 PART 13: Food Systems and Security 13.1. Support community and non-profit groups to establish or expand food-growing programs, facilities, and activities. 13.2. Engage with and support local organizations who are working in the areas of food security, food access, and food self-sufficiency. 13.3. Leverage funds from new developments to acquire land and infrastructure for community gardens. 13.4. Identify locations for community gardens as part of the Parks and Trails Master Plan, ensuring at least one per neighborhood, particularly in higher-density areas. Langford Spring 2021 Farmers Market. Desired Outcome #1: All residents will have consistent access to affordable, healthy, and locally sourced food within walking distance. 1 13.5. Incentivize the inclusion of food growing opportunities into new multi-family development. 13.6. Encourage the planting of edible plant species in landscaped areas within new development, parks, and boulevards, where appropriate. 13.7. Encourage the development of locally owned and locally sourced grocery stores, markets, corner convenience stores, cafes, and restaurants in new and existing neighborhoods. 13.8. Actively promote farmer’s markets, food fairs, and celebrations of local food producers. Page 97 of 399

Page 98

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 91 13.9. Acquire farmland for community trust management, ensuring long-term agricultural use. 13.10. Investigate incentives to promote farming as the primary activity on all agricultural land, including underutilized farmland. 13.11. Preserve agricultural land by implementing edge-planning policies to prevent encroachment from development and to minimize potential conflicts. 13.12. Support the inclusion of viable agricultural lands into the Agricultural Land Reserve and consider farm tax exemptions to stimulate local farming. 13.13. Ensure density targets support a sustainable local food economy. 13.14. Support the development of greenhouses, vertical agriculture (indoor growing of crops using stackable shelves), and other advanced agricultural methods. 13.15. Encourage farmland under production to expand production, host community events, and establish farm stands to showcase their products and other locally sourced goods. 13.16. Focus on enhancing food security by encouraging value- added processing, greenhouse operations, and farm-to- table initiatives. 13.17. Facilitate cooperation amongst individuals or groups working towards increasing community agriculture activities. 13.18. Promote innovative and sustainable farming practices on underutilized or city-owned lands. 13.19. Perform cost-benefit analyses to evaluate new initiatives, such as farm tax exemptions. PART 13: Food Systems and Security Desired Outcome #2 – Agricultural lands will be protected, productive, and harmoniously integrated with urban development. 2 Page 98 of 399

Page 99

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 92 To achieve the desired outcomes, Langford will: 13.20. Identify and reduce any municipal barriers to increasing the production of food on agricultural lands and the resilience of the food system. 13.21. Establish a minimum of one community garden per neighborhood by the time we reach 100,000 people. 13.22. Establish targets for local food production. 13.23. Permit community gardens in all commercial, residential, and public zones, including parks and utility corridors. 13.24. Amend the zoning bylaw to permit farmer’s markets on public lands and facilities, including parks and schools. 13.25. Ensure all neighborhoods have access to locally owned food outlets and markets. 13.26. Include allotment gardens in a density benefits strategy to encourage the incorporation of food growing opportunities into new multi-family development. 13.27. Ensure private patios or balconies in new multi-family developments are large enough to place food-growing planter boxes. 13.28. Work with regional partners to promote locally grown food, such as Buy Local initiatives. 13.29. Develop metrics to track progress on objectives, such as the number of community gardens, local food production rates, the number of households within walking distance of a grocery store, and reductions in food-related GHG emissions. 13.30. Continue to develop food security tools and strategies in the context of various applicable work programs. PART 13: Food Systems and Security Targets and Commitments Page 99 of 399

Page 100

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 93 District of Metchosin Sooke Rd W e s t S hore Pkwy Lato r ia Rd Luxton Rd Glen Lake Rd Happy Valley Rd Galloping Goose Regional Trail Legend City of Langford Boundary 0 0.2 0.4 0.1 Kilometers Glen Lake Mount Wells Regional Park Prov/Reg Parks ALR MAP 7: AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE (ALR) INVENTORY PART 13: Food Systems and Security Page 100 of 399

Page 101

PART 14 Parks, Places, and Services for People Page 101 of 399

Page 102

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 95 Parks, Places, and Services for People The Challenge Langford has a shortage of parks and public spaces that serve diverse recreational, cultural, and social needs. Traditional Park planning has not fully addressed the demand for accessible gathering spaces in an increasingly urban city, including public squares, plazas, and streets designed as welcoming places for people. Expanding and reimagining these spaces is key to creating a cohesive and inclusive public realm. Additionally, the growing population requires more space for essential services such as health care, childcare, social services, and education. While many of these fall outside municipal jurisdiction, the City must work with partners to reduce barriers, integrate space for services into new developments, and advocate for support from higher levels of government. Desired Outcomes

1. Langford will have a connected network of parks and people-places, including plazas, squares, and transformed streets.
2. Placemaking will shape vibrant, inclusive parks and people-centered spaces.
3. Accessible, safe, and affordable public spaces and services will be available to all. PART 14: Parks, Places, and Services for People Public spaces—parks, plazas, squares, and well- designed streets—are vital for creating vibrant, healthy, and inclusive communities. In Langford, these spaces promote physical and mental well-being, foster social connections, support cultural expression, and enhance active transportation networks. By prioritizing equitable access and innovative placemaking, the city can transform its public realm into a dynamic network of gathering places that strengthen community life, economic success, and environmental sustainability. Strong social infrastructure is also essential to community well-being. Access to urgent and primary care, social services, childcare, and education must keep pace with Langford’s rapid growth. Currently, many residents must travel outside the city to meet these needs. Ensuring that essential services are available locally is critical to creating the complete community envisioned in this OCP. Page 102 of 399

Page 103

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 96 14.1. Ensure a comprehensive network of parks and people-places is equitably distributed across the city to serve all neighbourhoods, community needs, abilities, and demographics. 14.2. Integrate parks and people-places into broader urban planning initiatives, enhancing connections within and between neighbourhoods. 14.3. Connect parks and people-places with active transportation corridors and greenways. 14.4. Ensure neighbourhoods have access to a range of parks and people-places that serve different functions, including active uses such as playgrounds, sport courts, and passive uses such as natural greenspace and trails. 14.5. Use people-places to enhance and strengthen growing urban areas by activating the space between buildings and creating “magnets” that attract and keep people. PART 14: Parks, Places, and Services for People Desired Outcome #1: Langford will have a connected network of parks and people-places, including plazas, squares, and transformed streets. 1 14.6. Strengthen social connections through the design of transportation networks that prioritize active transportation, equitable mobility, and improved health outcomes for all residents 14.7. Work with adjacent municipalities to plan and develop a “West Shore Greenbelt” that connects greenspaces such as parks, trails, and natural areas throughout the region. 14.8. Maximize public access to waterbodies such as lakes and creeks, ensuring City ownership and limited access to environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs) where appropriate. Page 103 of 399

Page 104

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 97 14.9. Create meaningful and affordable public gathering spaces for community celebration, civic engagement, and contemplation to strengthen sense of place and community. 14.10. Ensure the planning and design of parks and people-places integrate interactive and engaging public art and opportunities for diverse social, cultural, economic, recreational, and celebratory activities. 14.11. Promote temporary and seasonal public realm activations, such as opening streets for people/ closing to vehicles and pop-up events, to enhance vibrancy and engagement. PART 14: Parks, Places, and Services for People Desired Outcome #2: Placemaking will shape vibrant, inclusive parks and people-centered spaces. 2 14.12. Create opportunities for both spontaneous and programmed activities in parks and people- places. 14.13. Encourage community input through surveys, advisory councils, and youth engagement initiatives, ensuring diverse representation in decision-making processes. 14.14. Foster community engagement in the design and programming of public spaces to reflect local needs and identities. Page 104 of 399

Page 105

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 98 PART 14: Parks, Places, and Services for People 14.15. Adopt the 8-to-80 principle to create a network of parks and people-places that are welcoming for residents of all ages and abilities and are connected by accessible active transportation corridors. 14.16. Ensure equitable access to parks and people-places by considering factors such as age, gender, ethnicity, and mobility constraints during planning and design phases. 14.17. Maintain an understanding of community needs for recreation, parks, people-places, and social services by conducting needs assessments and collaborating with community groups, external agencies, and other levels of government. 14.18. Work with recreation providers to: 14.18.1. Optimize existing facilities, such as West Shore Parks & Recreation and the Langford Aquatic Centre, for both social and recreation programming. 14.18.2. Provide a range of recreational programs for all ages, including indoor and outdoor activities that promote physical and mental health. 14.19. Support community groups in the ongoing development and operation of social programs and facilities to serve the needs of residents. 14.20. Work with key partners and developers to incorporate space for community groups, libraries, childcare centres, and/or health care offices and social services into new development. 14.21. Support the expansion of educational facilities, including pre-schools, K-12 schools, and post secondary institutions to ensure lifelong learning opportunities for all residents. 14.22. Encourage new group childcare, public schools, and senior serving facilities to be located in close proximity to each other to foster intergenerational learning opportunities. 14.23. Communicate, collaborate, and advocate to other agencies and levels of government to ensure local needs for education, health care, community safety, and social services are adequately addressed as the city grows. Desired Outcome #3: Accessible, safe, and affordable public spaces and services will be available to all. 3 8-to-80 Principle The 8 to 80 principle recognizes that building a city that is safe and accessible for 8 year olds and 80 year olds will work for everyone. Page 105 of 399

Page 106

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 99 PART 14: Parks, Places, and Services for People To achieve the desired outcomes, Langford will: 14.24. Maintain a Parks and Trails Master Plan in order to guide decisions related to property acquisitions and the planning, design, and delivery of parks and public spaces. 14.25. Require lands dedicated as park or greenspace to be treed or otherwise natural ecosystems, provide public access, enable active or recreational uses, or provide expressed benefit to the community. 14.26. Increase the amount of City-owned parkland by 50% by the time we reach 100,000 residents. 14.27. Ensure that neighbourhoods integrate safe, connected, and nearby natural greenspaces, parks, and play areas for children and youth. 14.28. Ensure 95% of residents live within 400m of a usable park or public space by the time we reach 100,000 residents. 14.29. Prioritize the acquisition of new parkland in under-served and low equity neighbourhoods. 14.30. Universally apply requirements under the Land Title Act that require access to water bodies at the time of subdivision (BC Land Title Act Section 75 (1) (c)). 14.31. Maintain density bonusing strategies to secure parkland dedications and the incorporation of community spaces into new development, with the intent of optimizing all available land acquisition and dedication tools. Targets and Commitments 14.32. Create and implement a Placemaking Strategy to identify locations and programming opportunities for both temporary and permanent activation of public spaces into people-places. 14.33. Support the role of the West Shore Parks & Recreation Society as a major provider of recreational services and programs in the West Shore, while adding local recreational opportunities within Langford. 14.34. Work with partners to define and create multi-use facilities such as community centres, areas for events and festivals, sports groups, community groups, and public gathering places as part of development projects. 14.35. Collaborate with the Sooke School District in identifying opportunities for new K-12 schools in key growth areas, and to develop additional joint-use agreements to ensure efficient use of public lands. 14.36. Ensure maximum potential for the provision of childcare, medical, and school facilities in zoning bylaws. 14.37. Advocate to other levels of government and external groups to establish additional urgent and primary care facilities in Langford. Page 106 of 399

Page 107

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 100 Langford Lake Glen Lake Florence Lake Mount Wells Regional Park Goldstream Provincial Park Mill Hill Regional Park Thetis Lake Regional Park Finlayson Arm District of Metchosin District of Highlands Town of View Royal City of Colwood Juan de Fuca Electoral Area Millstream Rd L ato ri a R d Happy Valley Rd Veter a ns M e morial Pkwy B e ar M o unt a i n P k w y Trans-Canada Hwy Glen Lake Rd Goldstream Ave Sooke Rd Jacklin Rd Peatt Rd La n gford P kwy West Shore Pkwy Leigh Rd Phipps Rd Se t c h fi eld A v e Treanor Ave McCallum Rd Humpback Reservoir Island Rail Corridor Legend City of Langford Boundary First Nations Reserve Prov/Reg Parks Municipal Parks & Open Space 0 0.45 0.9 0.225 Kilometers MAP 8: PARK AND GREENSPACE INVENTORY PART 14: Parks, Places, and Services for People Page 107 of 399

Page 108

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 101 Langford Lake Glen Lake Florence Lake Mount Wells Regional Park Goldstream Provincial Park Mill Hill Regional Park Thetis Lake Regional Park Finlayson Arm District of Metchosin District of Highlands Town of View Royal City of Colwood Juan de Fuca Electoral Area Millstream Rd L ato ri a R d Happy Valley Rd Veter a ns M e morial Pkwy B e ar M o unt a i n P k w y Trans-Canada Hwy Glen Lake Rd Goldstream Ave Sooke Rd Jacklin Rd Peatt Rd La n gford P kwy West Shore Pkwy Leigh Rd Phipps Rd Se t c h fi eld A v e Treanor Ave McCallum Rd Lakewood Elementary School Millstream Elementary School Crystalview Elementary School Savory Elementary School Happy Valley Elementary School Lighthouse Christian Academy Willway Elementary School Belmont Secondary School School District 62 Offices Spencer Middle School Ruth King Elementary School University Lellum Middle School Pexsisen Elementary School Grace Baptist Church Humpback Reservoir City Centre Island Rail Corridor YMCA- YWCA Future School Future School Future School #3 #1 #2 Western Community Baptist Church Lutheran Church Gordon United Church Jehova Witness Hall Legend Community Centre Religious Iinstitutions Schools Fire Halls City of Langford Boundary Prov/Reg Parks 0 0.5 1 0.25 Kilometers First Nations Reserve MAP 9: INSTITUTIONAL USES & INSTITUTIONS INVENTORY PART 14: Parks, Places, and Services for People Page 108 of 399

Page 109

APPENDIX A Development Permit Areas Page 109 of 399

Page 110

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 103 APPENDIX A: Development Permit Areas Appendix A: Development Permit Areas Development Permit and Development Approval Information Areas – General Designations, Objectives and Justifications. In order to establish objectives for the form and character of new development, the City of Langford designates the following as development permit areas pursuant to Section 488(1)(e) and (f) of the Local Government Act: a. All Industrial land; b. All Commercial land; c. All Multi-Family Residential land; d. All Two-Family (Duplex) Multi-Family Residential land; e. All Intensive Residential land, which is defined as all land within subdivision plans that include more than three lots under 550 m2 in area; and f. All land containing a Garden Suite or Carriage Suite. As these areas will be the location of most major development in Langford during the period covered by the official community plan, it is important that the form and character of development be of a high-quality design and a consistent design theme (see High-Quality City Building). The guidelines created pursuant to this section ensure that development incorporates good site planning, safe and convenient multi-modal transportation, articulated and attractive building facades, aesthetically pleasing and usable public/private open space areas, and efficient servicing. The City of Langford designates all areas identified on Maps 10 - 12 as Development Permit Areas for the purpose of protecting the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity from development pursuant to Section 488(1)(a) of the Local Government Act. These are areas of environmental sensitivity. Notwithstanding the areas shown on Map 10, the Riparian Development Permit Area includes all areas within 43m (141ft) of the high water mark of any watercourse. In relation to any areas shown on Map 10 comprising or connected to a ravine, the Riparian Development Permit Area includes, despite the appearance of the area on Map 10, an area defined by the following criteria, and for that purpose a “ravine” is a narrow valley with an average grade on either side greater than 3:1 measured between the high water mark of the water body contained in the valley and the top of the valley bank, and the top of the valley bank is the point nearest the water body beyond which the average grade is less than 3:1 over a horizontal distance of at least 15 meters measured perpendicularly to the water body: Applicants are required to provide a checklist or statement indicating how their proposal complies with the development permit area guidelines applicable to their development. Where some element of the proposal or design does not comply with a guideline, a justification identifying the divergence and the reason shall be provided. Council may diverge from any particular development permit guideline where a compelling rationale that preserves the qualitative intent of the guidelines is supplied. Page 110 of 399

Page 111

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 104 APPENDIX A: Development Permit Areas a. For a ravine less than 60 meters wide, an area on both sides of the water body measured from the natural boundary of the water body to a point that is 30 meters beyond the top of the ravine bank; and b. For a ravine 60 meters wide or greater, an area on both sides of the water body measured from the natural boundary of the water body to a point that is 10 meters beyond the top of the ravine bank. The City of Langford designates all areas identified on Maps 13, 14, and 15 as a Development Permit Area for purpose of protecting development from natural hazards, pursuant to Section 488(1)(b) of the Local Government Act. These areas include floodplains, steep slopes, and areas of poor drainage. The City of Langford designates all lands shown as extreme or high hazard on Map 16 as a Development Permit Area for the protection of development from wildfire hazard, pursuant to Section 488(1)(b) of the Local Government Act, for the purpose of ensuring that development within high and extreme wildfire hazard risk areas occurs in a way that minimizes the risk to persons and property associated with these hazards. The City of Langford designates all lands identified on Map 17 as the Sooke Road Commercial Revitalization Development Permit Area, and all lands identified on Map 18 as the City Centre Development Permit Area as commercial revitalization development permit areas pursuant to Section 488(1)(d) of the Local Government Act. The form and character of development in these areas is of particular importance to the City’s image. The City has particular objectives to encourage revitalization of older commercial premises to ensure that new development incorporates pedestrian-oriented site planning, articulated and attractive building design, site amenities, and high quality public and private realm landscaping. The City further designates all of the lands designated as development permit areas as areas for which development approval information may be required under Section 484 of the Local Government Act. The justification for these designations is to ensure that Council has the ability to secure necessary information for considering development applications in order that: ӓ Traffic and storm water runoff resulting from development are well-managed; ӓ Rare, endangered, or sensitive ecosystems, plants, and animals are identified and protected and development impacts mitigated; ӓ Development is protected from hazardous conditions; and ӓ The density, public realm, and form and character of new development are of high quality and best suited to both the surrounding properties and the vision of community established in the OCP. Development permit objectives and guidelines relating to site planning, building form & character, environmental protection and protecting development from hazardous conditions for the development permit areas defined in this section are located in a series of Appendices to the City of Langford Zoning Bylaw. Council has the authority to issue a Development Permit which may be used to vary bylaw provisions other than the use or density of land or floodplain specifications. Council may consider requests for relief of bylaw specifications (e.g., height, siting of buildings and parking requirements) where such change is appropriate from an environmental perspective or represents a community benefit. Page 111 of 399

Page 112

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 105 Langford Lake Glen Lake Florence Lake Mount Wells Regional Park Goldstream Provincial Park Mill Hill Regional Park Thetis Lake Regional Park Finlayson Arm District of Metchosin District of Highlands Town of View Royal City of Colwood Juan de Fuca Electoral Area Millstream Rd L ato ri a R d Happy Valley Rd Veter a ns M e morial Pkwy B e ar M o unt a i n P k w y Trans-Canada Hwy Glen Lake Rd Goldstream Ave Sooke Rd Jacklin Rd Peatt Rd La n gford P kwy West Shore Pkwy Leigh Rd Phipps Rd Se t c h fi eld A v e Treanor Ave McCallum Rd Humpback Reservoir Island Rail Corridor Legend City of Langford Boundary First Nations Reserve Prov/Reg Parks 0 0.5 1 0.25 Kilometers Riparian Zones MAP 10: RIPARIAN ZONES APPENDIX A: Development Permit Areas Page 112 of 399

Page 113

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 106 Langford Lake Glen Lake Florence Lake Mount Wells Regional Park Goldstream Provincial Park Mill Hill Regional Park Thetis Lake Regional Park Finlayson Arm District of Metchosin District of Highlands Town of View Royal City of Colwood Juan de Fuca Electoral Area Millstream Rd L ato ri a R d Happy Valley Rd Veter a ns M e morial Pkwy B e ar M o unt a i n P k w y Trans-Canada Hwy Glen Lake Rd Goldstream Ave Sooke Rd Jacklin Rd Peatt Rd La n gford P kwy West Shore Pkwy Leigh Rd Phipps Rd Se t c h fi eld A v e Treanor Ave McCallum Rd Humpback Reservoir Island Rail Corridor Legend First Nations Reserve 0 0.5 1 0.25 Kilometers Prov/Reg Parks City of Langford Boundary Wetland Older Forest Terrestrial Herbaceous Sensitive Ecosystems River / Creeks Woodland Riparian Zones MAP 11: SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEMS APPENDIX A: Development Permit Areas Page 113 of 399

Page 114

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 107 Langford Lake Glen Lake Florence Lake Mount Wells Regional Park Goldstream Provincial Park Mill Hill Regional Park Thetis Lake Regional Park Finlayson Arm District of Metchosin District of Highlands Town of View Royal City of Colwood Juan de Fuca Electoral Area Millstream Rd L ato ri a R d Happy Valley Rd Veter a ns M e morial Pkwy B e ar M o unt a i n P k w y Trans-Canada Hwy Glen Lake Rd Goldstream Ave Sooke Rd Jacklin Rd Peatt Rd La n gford P kwy West Shore Pkwy Leigh Rd Phipps Rd Se t c h fi eld A v e Treanor Ave McCallum Rd Humpback Reservoir Island Rail Corridor Legend City of Langford Boundary First Nations Reserve Prov/Reg Parks 0 0.5 1 0.25 Kilometers

• Includes Garry Oak & associated ecosystem inventory data from 2007. Please note that this inventory data has not been verified and will be confirmed by an appropriate qualified consultant through the DP process as per guidelines in Bylaw 1201 Areas With Potential Habitat and Biodiversity * MAP 12: AREAS WITH POTENTIAL HABITAT AND BIODIVERSITY VALUES APPENDIX A: Development Permit Areas Page 114 of 399

Page 115

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 108 Langford Lake Glen Lake Florence Lake Mount Wells Regional Park Goldstream Provincial Park Mill Hill Regional Park Thetis Lake Regional Park Finlayson Arm District of Metchosin District of Highlands Town of View Royal City of Colwood Juan de Fuca Electoral Area Millstream Rd L ato ri a R d Happy Valley Rd Veter a ns M e morial Pkwy B e ar M o unt a i n P k w y Trans-Canada Hwy Glen Lake Rd Goldstream Ave Sooke Rd Jacklin Rd Peatt Rd La n gford P kwy West Shore Pkwy Leigh Rd Phipps Rd Se t c h fi eld A v e Treanor Ave McCallum Rd Humpback Reservoir Island Rail Corridor Legend City of Langford Boundary First Nations Reserve 0 0.5 1 0.25 Kilometers Prov/Reg Parks 200 Year Floodplain MAP 13: 200 YEAR FLOODPLAIN APPENDIX A: Development Permit Areas Page 115 of 399

Page 116

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 109 Langford Lake Glen Lake Florence Lake Mount Wells Regional Park Goldstream Provincial Park Mill Hill Regional Park Thetis Lake Regional Park Finlayson Arm District of Metchosin District of Highlands Town of View Royal City of Colwood Juan de Fuca Electoral Area Millstream Rd L ato ri a R d Happy Valley Rd Veter a ns M e morial Pkwy B e ar M o unt a i n P k w y Trans-Canada Hwy Glen Lake Rd Goldstream Ave Sooke Rd Jacklin Rd Peatt Rd La n gford P kwy West Shore Pkwy Leigh Rd Phipps Rd Se t c h fi eld A v e Treanor Ave McCallum Rd Humpback Reservoir Island Rail Corridor #2 Legend City of Langford Boundary First Nations Reserve Prov/Reg Parks Areas with slope gradient greater than 30% 0 0.5 1 0.25 Kilometers MAP 14: STEEP SLOPES APPENDIX A: Development Permit Areas Page 116 of 399

Page 117

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 110 Langford Lake Glen Lake Florence Lake Mount Wells Regional Park Goldstream Provincial Park Mill Hill Regional Park Thetis Lake Regional Park Finlayson Arm District of Metchosin District of Highlands Town of View Royal City of Colwood Juan de Fuca Electoral Area Millstream Rd L ato ri a R d Happy Valley Rd Veter a ns M e morial Pkwy B e ar M o unt a i n P k w y Trans-Canada Hwy Glen Lake Rd Goldstream Ave Sooke Rd Jacklin Rd Peatt Rd La n gford P kwy West Shore Pkwy Leigh Rd Phipps Rd Se t c h fi eld A v e Treanor Ave McCallum Rd Humpback Reservoir Island Rail Corridor Legend City of Langford Boundary First Nations Reserve 0 0.5 1 0.25 Kilometers Prov/Reg Parks Drainage Concern MAP 15: DRAINAGE CONCERNS APPENDIX A: Development Permit Areas Page 117 of 399

Page 118

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 111 Langford Lake Glen Lake Florence Lake Mount Wells Regional Park Goldstream Provincial Park Mill Hill Regional Park Thetis Lake Regional Park Finlayson Arm District of Metchosin District of Highlands Town of View Royal City of Colwood Juan de Fuca Electoral Area Millstream Rd L ato ri a R d Happy Valley Rd Veter a ns M e morial Pkwy B e ar M o unt a i n P k w y Trans-Canada Hwy Glen Lake Rd Goldstream Ave Sooke Rd Jacklin Rd Peatt Rd La n gford P kwy West Shore Pkwy Leigh Rd Phipps Rd Se t c h fi eld A v e Treanor Ave McCallum Rd Humpback Reservoir Island Corridor 0 0.5 1 0.25 Kilometers Legend City of Langford Boundary First Nations Reserve Interface Fire Hazard Extreme High Moderate Low MAP 16: INTERFACE FIRE HAZARD AREAS APPENDIX A: Development Permit Areas Page 118 of 399

Page 119

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 112 Glen Lake Sooke Rd Walfr ed Rd Happy Valley Rd Glen La ke Rd G len Lake Rd Lo ch Glen Pl H a sl a m Ave Glennan Rd Mo n n i n g ton Pl W illshire Dr Lod mell Rd L o d mell Rd Ayton Pl A nde r s R d Rowils Cres Southglen D r Ernhill D r Jacklin Rd Peace K e epin g C r e s Myles Ma nsell R d W a lf red Rd City of Colwood City of Colwood Galloping Goose Regional Trail Legend City of Langford Boundary 0 100 200 50 Meters Prov/Reg Parks Sooke Road Commercial Revitalization Development Permit Area MAP 17: SOOKE ROAD DPA APPENDIX A: Development Permit Areas Page 119 of 399

Page 120

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 113 ALDWYND RD AVE RD AZALEA LN ARNCOTE AVE CAVALCADE TERR CORNERSTONE CL DUNCAN LN IVORY COVE PLAT ATTICUS CRT KELLY RD ATTREE AVE ARNCOTE PL CAVALCADE TERR BULLEN CRT FERGUS CRT VIOLA PL SCAFE RD PL SAVORY RD SPENCER RD SYBRONDEN RD 1 RODNEY RD KINGSGATE DR LEQUESNE AVE RD JACOBSON RD PRESTON WAY RAYCROFT PL MATSON RD SKOGSTAD JACKLIN RD STRATHMORE RD CITATION RD SECRE BROCK AVE WAY FLORENCE LAKE RD TARIAT WAY RHAPSODY PL WREN GOLDSTREAM AVE T R A N S AFFIRMED PL McCALLUM RD AVE SHAW DAWN LN MAIN ENTRANCE SLEEPY HOLLOW SUNSET GLEN JUTTA GDNS LAKESIDE PL FLORENCE TERR FLORENCE LAKE RD MARTIN RIDGE SETCHFIELD AVE EARLS PROSPECTOR WAY FLEETWOOD AVE LER TONE DR MILLS DEVILLE MILLSTREAM RD MILLSTREAM RD V E T E R A N S M E M O R I A L P K W Y TACON PL BELLAMY SU MOCHA TERR WHITEHORN PL McCALLUM RD RED RD TERR SUNSHINE SKEDANS SKEDANS PL RD INGTON AVE C A N A D A H W Y 1 DR SUNRISE VALLEY STATION AVE MEAFORD AVE ARBOUR LN CO AVE WINDMAN CRT WINDMAN LANE V E T E R A N S M E M O R I A L P K W Y DAYMEER PL WENTWICH RD WENTWICH RD STRANDLUND TOTH PL ALDWYND RD FAIRWAY AVE VETERANS MEMORIAL PKWY APRELL PL BRYN MAUR RD WAGAR AVE WINSTER RD LARKHALL RD DR WINSTER RD GRANDERSON RD HOFFMAN AVE ATKINS GOLDSTREAM AVE AVE MASSIE DANBROOK BRITTANY DR HENRY ENG PL R A I L W A Y N A N A I M O STOCKEY PL AVE PERCY PL RD PEATT RD ARNCOTE AVE SUNDERLAND RD ROCKINGHAM MARLISA PL CHARMAR CRES CARTMEL CL BELLBARBIE CRES DINAN PL MALTBY PL CLAUDE RD PEATT RD FAIRWAY WENTWICH RAINVILLE RD AVE DUNCAN PL JODRELL CRT AVE RITA KARR RD FURBER RD LEIGH RD AVE DUNFORD RD LINDA LN COSTIN AVE RD CARLOW BRAY TENNIS MAURICE LANE COURT LANE RD ORONO AVE ORONO AVE HOCKLEY AVE HOCKLEY AVE JACKLIN VAN ISLE WAY REVILO PL KNOTTY PINE RD PEATT RD HOCKLEY AVE RD AVRILL AVE GLEN WILL GLEN LAKE RD PL GLENNAN RD TERLANE JACKLIN RD REX RD HULL RD CHURCHWOOD PL PL OW AVE JENKINS AVE LANGFORD PKWY PHIPPS RD ACKLIN RD GOLDSTREAM MILLSTREAM RD PHIPPS RD CLAUDE RD MARTIN RIDGE BAMBOO PL HASLAM AVE BRANT PL BRANT PL EILEEN ANDERSON DR PROGRESS PL AQUA CRT MCMURDO TERR FLINT AVE REUNION AVE STATION AVE GOLDSTREAM AVE MOONSTONE LOOP MASSIE CL SELWYN RD GATEWAY RD CITY GATE BLVD SPRINGBOARD PL McCALLUM RD McCALLUM RD WHIRLAWAY CRES PHAROAH MEWS JUSTIFY PL MASSIE DR BRICKSHIRE DR CITY GATE BLVD STONEBROOK LN WISTERIA RIDGE RD FLORENCE LAKE CITY OF COLWOOD CITY OF COLWOOD 0 250 500 125 Meters Legend City Centre Development Permit Area MAP 18: CITY CENTRE DPA APPENDIX A: Development Permit Areas Page 120 of 399

Page 121

APPENDIX B Regional Context Statement Page 121 of 399

Page 122

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 115 APPENDIX B: Regional Context Statement

1. Managing and Balancing Growth 1.1 Keep Urban Settlement Compact The City of Langford’s municipal boundary is coincident with the Urban Containment Boundary designated on Map 3a (Growth Management Concept Plan) of the RGS. Part 6 (the Growth Management & Land Use Strategy) of this OCP designates areas where growth is intended, controlled, or limited so as to ensure a compact urban settlement. Intended growth areas include a range of land use designations that enable mid- to higher density development, including City Centre, Urban Centres, and Corridors. The City Centre is identified as one of five “sub-regional nodes” in the RGS Map 3b (Settlement Concept - Detail) in Langford. The density and land-use mix enabled and/ or mandated within the City Centre supports the RGS intention for sub-regional nodes, which states: scale and intensity of development supports the area as a sub-regional employment, commercial and community destination and serves as a commuter destination from within the sub-region. Surrounding areas feature a mix of uses and higher density residential development. The Westhills Urban Centre is further identified as one of 15 “nodes” in the RGS Map 3b (Settlement Concept - Detail) in Langford. Nodes are intended to enable the following: scale and intensity of development supports local-serving employment, commercial and community services and serves as a destination for residents proximate to the node. Surrounding areas feature residential uses of varying densities. The policies and intent for lands within the Urban Centres designation of this OCP aligns with the objectives of the node designation within the RGS. A Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) is a regional planning framework developed in partnership by the regional district and member municipalities in order to promote human settlement that is socially, economically, and environmentally healthy and that makes efficient use of public facilities and services, land, and other resources (Section 428 of the Local Government Act). The current RGS that applies within the Capital Regional District (CRD) was approved by the CRD Board in March 2018, and amended in 2021. A regional context statement (RCS) must be incorporated in the OCP of all local governments included within a RGS in order to identify the policy links that exist between an OCP and a RGS. This acknowledges that local planning and land use policies are expected to align with and work towards the goals and objectives established in the RGS. The RGS contains a series of objectives related to managing and balancing growth, environment and infrastructure, housing and community, transportation, economic development, food systems, and climate action. The City of Langford’s OCP aligns with and supports these objectives, and contributes significantly to the implementation of this regionally coordinated approach to a successful and sustainable Capital Region. The following sections identify the OCP policies that relate to each objective and demonstrate this alignment. Appendix B: Regional Context Statement Page 122 of 399

Page 123

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 116 APPENDIX B: Regional Context Statement While the role of the City Centre and Westhills Urban Centre within the region is specifically acknowledged by the RGS, the development of additional nodes in Langford is not precluded. Langford’s OCP does include (and has included in past OCPs) several additional Urban Centres that function at the RGS “node” level in order to enable such destinations in proximity to a wider range of neighbourhoods. Other intended growth areas include Employment Lands, where industrial uses are protected and further enabled; and Corridors, where mid-rise buildings and a mix of land uses are permitted. These primary intended growth areas are supported by lands within the Complete Communities designation, the policy intent of which is to enable a range of ground- oriented housing types. This designation also enables mid-rise, mandated mixed-use Neighbourhood Villages and Corner Convenience buildings at locations meeting certain criteria to incentive the incorporation of new shops, services, and amenities within neighbourhoods. The Pre-Committed Growth Area designation acknowledges where previous approvals for significant, longer-term, master-planned communities have already been granted; and the Future Policy Areas designation identifies those lands where development is not expected to occur in this planning phase due to various constraints such as lack of access to roads, transportation options, and municipal services, and other factors such as interface fire hazard risk. This OCP further aligns with and supports the 2038 employment and population projections for the West Shore, as stated in Table 1 of the RGS. Part 8 (Emphasizing Housing Action) includes the five- and 20-year housing needs targets from the Langford Housing Needs Report, as well as policies and actions to support these targets. Part 6 (Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy) identifies the areas of Langford where this population growth will occur, as well as the areas where industrial and commercial development is mandated or enabled to support the creation of additional employment opportunities. Part 11 (Economic Resilience and Prosperity), Part 12 (Embracing the Creative City), and Part 14 (Parks, Places, and Services for People) further outline policies and actions to support a robust local economy in a diverse range of sectors. These policies act together to support local resilience, enhance quality of life, shorten commute times, and keep economic benefits within the community. This OCP is highly focused on implementing RGS Objective 1.1 by focusing new development approvals on urban infill development, further densifying existing serviced and built-up areas, and completing the build-out of the Pre-Committed Growth Areas. This OCP supports Langford’s ongoing alignment with the RGS target to accommodate a minimum of 95% of the region’s new dwelling units within the Urban Containment Policy Area. 1.2 Protect the Integrity of Rural Communities Rural/Rural Residential policies of the RGS do not apply to the City of Langford, as the City is entirely within the Urban Containment Boundary identified on Map 3a of the RGS. The policies of this OCP with respect to patterns of compact urban settlement within the Urban Containment Boundary should alleviate the pressure to develop areas designated Rural/Rural Residential in the RGS that occur within other municipalities within the region. Page 123 of 399

Page 124

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 117 APPENDIX B: Regional Context Statement 2.Environment and Infrastructure 2.1 Protect, Conserve and Manage Ecosystem Health Areas in the City included in the Capital Green Lands Policy Area include local, regional, and provincially managed park and recreational spaces. Part 14 (Parks, Places, and Services for People) reinforces the recreational and environmental value of connected parks and greenspaces within and beyond the City. The City of Langford contains numerous significant Regional and Provincial Parks, including Goldstream Provincial Park, Mount Wells Regional Park, Sooke Hills Wilderness Regional Park, Thetis Lake Regional Park, and Mill Hill Regional Park. Adding to this are many regionally significant local parks, including, but not limited to, Centennial Park, Veterans Memorial Park, Langford Lake Park, Glen Lake Park, as well as the Jordie Lunn Bike Park and Langford Gravity Zone. The protection and acquisition of additional parkland to support Langford’s growing population remains a top priority. The creation and implementation of a Parks and Trail Master Plan is a key action identified within this OCP, and this process will consider and support the expansion of regionally connected parks and trail networks, including the sea- to-sea green/blue belt and the completion of the Regional Trail Network. Part 10 (Protecting Ecological Systems and Biodiversity) recognizes the value of the urban forest, natural areas, and environmentally sensitive areas. This Part includes policies and actions to ensure these areas continue to provide important community benefits as Langford continues to grow, including mitigating the effects of climate change, and by providing ecosystem services, health benefits, placemaking opportunities, and economic benefits. The City has development permit area guidelines in place to protect environmental features on public and private property, including wetlands, watercourses, lakes, sensitive plant communities, and natural habitat and biodiversity features. Part 10 includes policies to review and update these guidelines to ensure they are successfully achieving desired outcomes, and to explore other tools to incentivize the retention of natural ecosystems, environmentally sensitive areas, and urban forests. Part 9 (Climate Action and Sustainable Infrastructure) includes policies that support waste reduction, water conversation, sustainable wastewater management practices, renewable and efficient energy systems, and the expanded use of green infrastructure practices to support sustainable site design strategies. 2.2 Manage Regional Infrastructure Services Sustainably The City of Langford is entirely within the Urban Containment Policy Area, so all lands within Langford can be connected to the regional water system in line with this Objective. Section 6.10 of this OCP requires all growth and development to be connected to both water and sewer systems, and that the City work with service providers to prioritize any expansions and upgrades to these existing systems to accommodate growth within the intended growth areas, as outlined in Part 6 (Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy). This will support the intention of this objective to promote settlement patterns that are cost effective and efficient to service, and further identifies the priority lands for service expansions. Page 124 of 399

Page 125

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 118 APPENDIX B: Regional Context Statement 3. Housing and Community 3.1 Create Safe and Complete Communities The central framework of this OCP is to create a compact, mixed-use community that offers diverse housing and transportation choices throughout, and enables a variety of shops, services, amenities, and parks within a short walk/bike/roll of where people live. The maps and policies in Part 6 (Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy) set out how and where this will be achieved at different scales throughout the intended growth areas enabled by this OCP. Part 5 (Mobility Choice, Not Car Dependency), Part 7 (High Quality City-Building), Part 8 (Emphasizing Housing Action), and Part 14 (Parks, Places, and Services for People) provide further policy support and implementation details regarding the City’s commitment to the principles of RGS Objective 3.1 and the associated target to increase the number of people living with complete communities. This OCP designates lands with natural hazards, including the 200-year floodplain and areas of drainage concern, high and extreme interface fire hazard, and steep slopes as development permit areas. The identified hazard must be assessed by a qualified professional and a development permit may identify areas where development may not occur and/or measures to mitigate risk of the hazard to both the development and surrounding lands. Part 9 (Climate Action and Sustainable Infrastructure) includes support to update the City’s policies to integrate a climate adaptation and mitigation lens, which will be applied to the development permit area guidelines 3.2 Improve Housing Affordability Policies in Part 8 (Emphasizing Housing Action) of this OCP incorporate the findings of Langford’s Housing Needs Report and support the development of a range of housing choices along the housing continuum to accommodate the needs of all ages, abilities, household sizes, and stages of life. The key areas of housing need identified in the Housing Needs Report, including affordable housing, rental housing, and special needs housing, are enabled throughout the city. This Part also includes policies that emphasize and incentivize the incorporation of these housing types in key growth areas, including the City Centre and Urban Centres. The five-year and 20-year housing need projections are included in this OCP and will be monitored over time. These policies of this Part align with RGS objective 3.2 and will support the associated targets to increase the supply of affordable housing and reduce the number of people in core housing need or experiencing homelessness within the region. Page 125 of 399

Page 126

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 119 APPENDIX B: Regional Context Statement 4. Transportation 4.1 Improve Multi-Modal Connectivity and Mobility Part 6 (Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy) of this OCP integrates transportation planning and land use planning by directing density to the areas of the City with current or planned multi-modal transportation choices, and where shops, services and amenities can be accessed within a short walk, bike, or roll from homes. This multi-modal transportation network will link neighbourhoods to the City Centre, Urban Centres, Corridors, transit hubs, and active transportation corridors including the E&N Rail Trail and the Galloping Goose Regional Trail. Part 5 (Mobility Choice, Not Car Dependency) and Part 7 (High Quality City-Building) also emphasize the alignment of the OCP with RGS objective 4.1 through policies that identify how the City, community partners such as BC Transit, other levels of government, and new development can coordinate and support improvements to the multi-modal network such that the mode-share of all trips made by walking, rolling, cycling, and/or public transit increases to 42% by the time Langford reaches 100,000 residents. This mode-share target for Langford aligns with the associated target of the RGS. These policies prioritize infrastructure improvements according to the modal hierarchy, incorporate “complete streets” and all ages and abilities design objectives, support transportation demand management, and highlight the critical role of collaborative advocacy and regional coordination to improve public transit ridership and coverage. 5. Economic Development 5.1 Realize the Region’s Economic Potential The RGS goal of strengthening the regional economy is supported by multiple sections of this OCP, including Part 6 (Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy), Part 11 (Economic Resilience and Prosperity), and Part 12 (Embracing the Creative City). Part 6 aligns with this objective by designating and protecting employment lands for industrial activities and by enabling, mandating, and incentivizing commercial land uses in the intended growth areas of the city. The OCP supports a variety of economic uses that add to the interesting and dynamic fabric of the community, from home-based businesses to large scale mixed-use Centres. An important objective of this OCP is to provide suitable land areas for industrial, commercial, and business activities to provide local job opportunities and strengthen the City’s tax base. Part 11 emphasizes the City’s commitment to supporting and expanding Langford’s role as a regional shopping and tourism destination, fostering a diverse and adaptable economy that includes a wide range of sectors, and supporting innovation and entrepreneurship. Part 12 acknowledges that arts and culture are an important economic driver, and an essential component of city-building that promotes social connections and cultural expression. The Renewable Resource Lands identified in the RGS include areas that are within the Agricultural Land Reserve and privately held forested lands. Through Part 6, the ALR lands are designated for agricultural use (see additional alignment below) and the forested lands are within a block of lands designated as Future Policy Areas that will be further assessed in the future, and act as a buffer between more rural areas and existing or intended settled areas in the meantime. Through these policies, this OCP will help achieve this RGS objective and the associated jobs/population ratio target. Page 126 of 399

Page 127

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 120 6. Food Systems 6.1 Foster a Resilient Food and Agriculture System Policies in Part 13 (Food Systems and Security) of this OCP align with this objective of the RGS by promoting and supporting food production and access to locally sourced food. This Part highlights the City’s intention to protect and encourage the active farming of agricultural lands, including through innovative and sustainable methods. Policies also incentivize the inclusion of food growing opportunities into new developments, enable community gardens in all neighbourhoods, and support the expansion and celebration of a local food economy. The Agricultural land-use designation of Part 6 (Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy) reinforces the protection of agricultural lands, while Part 7 (High Quality City-Building) further supports the incorporation of community or private gardens into the design of new developments. These policies aim to increase the amount of agricultural land in food production and support urban agriculture throughout the city. While the OCP doesn’t include a municipal target for increasing agricultural land in food production, it does include a target to establish one community garden in each Langford neighbourhood as well as a commitment to establish a local food production target. 7. Climate Action 7.1 Significantly Reduce Community Based Greenhouse Gas Emissions Part 9 (Climate Action and Sustainable Infrastructure) aligns with RGS objective 7.1 through policies that promote the development of energy-efficient, high-performance, and low-carbon buildings, including both new buildings and retrofits to existing buildings. Policies further support incorporating climate resilience considerations into asset management and infrastructure practices and seek opportunities to increase use of renewable, efficient, and clean energy sources. The development of a climate action plan to identify climate-related risks and a strategy to adapt to and mitigate the effects of these changes and risks is identified as an action to implement components of this OCP. The central framework of this OCP is to create a compact, mixed-use city that offers diverse housing and transportation choices throughout, protects local employment lands, and enables a variety of shops, services, amenities, and parks within a short walk/bike/ roll of where people live. In addition to many other public benefits, the integration of land-use and transportation decisions in conjunction with the policies of Part 9 provide a solid foundation from which the City can make progress towards reducing GHG emissions locally and regionally. The OCP supports the policies of this objective and aligns with the RGS target to reduce GHG emissions within the region by 61% (from 2007 levels) by 2038. Page 127 of 399

Page 128

APPENDIX C Sand and Gravel Deposits Page 128 of 399

Page 129

CITY OF LANGFORD OCP | BYLAW NO. 2200 122 Appendix C: Sand and Gravel Deposits Langford Lake Glen Lake Florence Lake Mount Wells Regional Park Goldstream Provincial Park Mill Hill Regional Park Thetis Lake Regional Park Finlayson Arm District of Metchosin District of Highlands Town of View Royal City of Colwood Juan de Fuca Electoral Area Millstream Rd L ato ri a R d Happy Valley Rd Veter a ns M e morial Pkwy B e ar M o unt a i n P k w y Trans-Canada Hwy Glen Lake Rd Goldstream Ave Sooke Rd Jacklin Rd Peatt Rd La n gford P kwy West Shore Pkwy Leigh Rd Phipps Rd Se t c h fi eld A v e Treanor Ave McCallum Rd Humpback Reservoir Island Rail Corridor Legend City of Langford Boundary First Nations Reserve Prov/Reg Parks 0 0.5 1 0.25 Kilometers Sand and Gravel Deposits MAP 19: SAND AND GRAVEL DEPOSITS APPENDIX C: Sand and Gravel Deposits Page 129 of 399

Page 130

Official Community Plan BYLAW NO. 2200 Page 130 of 399

Page 131

t 250.478.7882 e administration@langford ca 2nd Floor, 877 Goldstream Avenue Langford, BC V9B 2X8 Staff Report to Council DATE: Monday, May 20, 2025 DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In October 2023, Council directed staff to undertake a comprehensive “refresh” of Langford’s 2008 Official Community Plan (OCP) to reflect emerging community priorities and to respond to evolving Provincial legislation. The resulting refreshed and reimagined OCP is the product of a multi-phase planning process shaped by three rounds of meaningful public engagement, input from subject matter experts, and a strong commitment to inclusive, transparent policy development. The purpose of this report is to outline this process, key findings, and present the proposed OCP Bylaw for Council’s consideration. The refresh process unfolded over four key phases, each designed to progressively build on public feedback and technical analysis to deliver a plan that is both visionary and grounded in community values. At every stage of the planning process, public engagement was not just a component—it was the foundation. The resulting proposed OCP captures input from thousands of voices, ranging from casual conversations at pop-up events to formal submissions from community partners. It connects what matters most to residents with the policies that will guide how Langford grows and prospers. The refreshed plan is action-oriented, measurable, and reflective of a shared vision for a sustainable, equitable, and thriving city. These four phases included: • Phase 1: Community Vision and Priorities (Summer 2024) • Phase 2: From Big Ideas to Initially Preferred Options (Fall 2024) • Phase 3: Building the Draft OCP (Winter 2024/2025) • Phase 4: Preparing the OCP Bylaw (Spring 2025) Throughout this process, the conversation has been built around developing an OCP for 100,000 residents that strategically meets their needs while addressing the challenges of affordability, housing, Page 131 of 399

Page 132

Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2200 20250520 - Council Report Page 2 of 10 climate change, social equity, rising infrastructure costs, and improved transportation options (referred to as the Big Ideas and the Five Crises). Council is now presented with a plan that represents the best of collaborative planning: one rooted in community, guided by evidence, and prepared to meet the challenges of the future. BACKGROUND: In October 2023, Council adopted Langford’s first Council Strategic Plan, which identified the “refresh” of the City’s Official Community Plan (OCP) as a priority initiative. The purpose of this project was to respond to evolving community priorities and meet new legislative requirements from the Province. City staff led the development of the project with valuable input from external planning experts and extensive community engagement. Public consultation was a cornerstone of the process, ensuring community voices were consistently and meaningfully incorporated at every step. Through a mix of in- person events and online surveys hosted on Let's Chat Langford, residents played a vital role in shaping the proposed OCP. This inclusive approach helped build trust, reflect a diversity of perspectives, and directly informed both the vision and detailed policy directions. The process was carefully paced to avoid being too lengthy—risking public and key partner burnout—or too brief, which could leave participants feeling unheard. The following section outlines the extent of this process and the steps taken to move the process from defining a vision to testing ideas, refining policies, and, ultimately, drafting the proposed OCP. COMMENTARY: Phase 1: Community Vision and Priorities (July–September 2024) This first phase invited residents to share their vision for Langford’s future and their priorities and values around key planning and growth management issues. Community input during this phase was essential in shaping the overall direction of the plan. Engagement levels were strong, with residents participating via in-person events, online surveys, and social media, including: • Over 600 in-person interactions at five different pop-up events • 404 survey responses • 3,260 visits to the project webpage on Let’s Chat Langford Page 132 of 399

Page 133

Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2200 20250520 - Council Report Page 3 of 10 This phase also introduced several key concepts, including building the OCP around a population outcome of 100,000 residents rather than a timeframe, and a series of “Big Ideas” that could be used to strategically meet the needs of these residents. Planning for a population of 100,000 does not represent a population target for Langford, but it isn’t an arbitrary number either. Langford has experienced steady growth for more than two decades, with population projections suggesting that the city could reach 100,000 residents within 15 to 20 years, although the exact timing remains uncertain. What is certain is that growth will continue. The Langford Housing Needs Report also identifies that approximately 17,000 new homes will be needed to address Langford’s projected housing needs. Rather than planning for the next 5, 10, or 20 years, this OCP plans for the kind of city Langford will be when it reaches 100,000 residents. Planning for outcomes, rather than fixed timeframes, is considered a best practice in smart, successful plan making. The key decisions in this OCP focus on where and how Langford will grow. The Big Ideas introduced in this Phase include strategies for enhancing urban design and amenity expectations, establishing a vibrant downtown, improving mobility options, developing a “made-in- Langford” approach to new Provincial housing requirements, and addressing the challenges expressed by the Five Crises (the Climate Crisis, Housing and Affordability Crises, Equity Crisis, Public Health Crisis, and Infrastructure Cost Crisis). The feedback gathered through this Phase provided critical insight into the community’s aspirations and concerns, and laid the foundation for the next stage of policy development. See Phase I Engagement Report for additional details. Phase 2: From Big Ideas to Initially Preferred Options (October–December 2024) The second phase involved integrating the feedback from Phase 1 with city-building best practices, technical expertise, and considerations specific to the Langford context to develop the Ideas Paper. This paper discussed and proposed a series of Initially Preferred Options - policy ideas that could be further developed and incorporated into the Draft OCP to achieve the vision and priorities identified by the community. The public’s continued participation was key to shaping these directions, and included: • 737 survey submissions from 347 individuals across four surveys • Attendance by approximately 85 people at an open house Page 133 of 399

Page 134

Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2200 20250520 - Council Report Page 4 of 10 • 3,690 visits to the project webpage on Let’s Chat Langford What did we learn in Phases 1 and 2? Through these first two phases, the community expressed strong support for several priorities: • Directing growth to already built-up areas • Expanding transportation options • Establishing clear urban design expectations to support livable urban density • Creating broader public space policies, including urban plazas and transformed streets • Bringing local amenities like shops, cafés, and green spaces closer to where people live • Providing more clarity around building densities and heights See Phase 2 Engagement Report for additional details. Phase 3: Building the Draft OCP (December 2024-April 2025) The third phase involved building the Draft OCP from the strong foundation of the 2008 Plan and the extensive community input gathered in Phases 1 and 2. While retaining much of the original policy intent, the Draft OCP consolidated, reorganized, and clarified previously overlapping or ambiguous policies. More specifically, several key policies from the 2008 Plan have been retained: • A sustainable and complete community vision underpins all policies • The mode-share goal of 42% of trips made by walking, rolling, cycling, and transit was retained and aligned with the population outcome of 100,000 residents, rather than a date • A modal hierarchy prioritizing: 1) Pedestrians and mobility aid users 2) Cyclists and micro- mobility 3) Public transit 4) Shared vehicles 5) Commercial vehicles and 6) Single-occupant vehicles • Social community uses (parks, gardens, daycares) permitted city-wide on public and private lands • A wide range of housing types, sizes, and tenures are permitted in residential and mixed-use areas Page 134 of 399

Page 135

Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2200 20250520 - Council Report Page 5 of 10 The Draft OCP also resolved uncertainty around the location and extent of permitted development. The 2008 Plan was developed to maximize flexibility, deferring the determination of land-use, height, and density to the rezoning stage. While the general policy intent for land use and density was expressed, there were no real limits to height or density within any of the land-use designations. This has posed challenges for staff to administer, for residents trying to understand potential changes to their neighbourhoods, and for the development community in determining what may be supportable. The Draft OCP combined the policy intent of the 2008 Plan with the Initially Preferred Options tested through the Ideas Paper into a new Land Use and Growth Management Strategy with specific, geographically defined height and density limits. The resulting Draft OCP is primarily a mid-rise plan, with heights of three to six storeys permitted throughout the majority of the City, and targeted, strategically important areas designated for buildings over six storeys. In fact, approximately 88% of the intended growth areas specifically enabled by this Plan are now limited to buildings of six storeys or less. This reflects Langford’s identity as a predominantly mid-rise community, while ensuring the integration of vibrant, transit-supportive, mixed- use centres in strategically important areas, particularly downtown Langford. To ensure this successful integration, taller buildings are subject to heightened design and amenity expectations and have been enabled in locations that are strategically aligned with current and future transit corridors, including potential higher-order transit routes (such as light rail) and hubs. These new policies will direct density to areas that successfully contribute to community goals and priorities, while enhancing quality-of-life for both new and existing residents. Further to this, the following represent the most significant changes or additions in the Draft OCP: • Clearly defined building heights and permitted land uses • Focus on infill development in already zoned and built-up areas with transit access • Defined uses for Employment Lands that protect industrial lands • Identification of Future Policy Areas, to be revisited as part of a future OCP review • New City Centre boundaries and policies that include: o A reduced City Centre footprint, redefined Downtown, Moderate High-Rise Residential, Mid-Rise Residential, and Industrial Innovation Area o Inclusion of the City Centre map in the OCP (instead of the Design Guidelines) • New Heights are as follows: o City Centre – Downtown: 28–30 storeys, mandatory ground-floor commercial Page 135 of 399

Page 136

Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2200 20250520 - Council Report Page 6 of 10 o City Centre – Moderate High-Rise: 12 storeys, optional ground-floor commercial o City Centre – Mid-Rise: 6 storeys, optional ground-floor commercial on corners o Urban Centres: 22–24 storeys, mandatory street-facing commercial o Corridors: 6 storeys, optional mixed uses o Complete Communities: 3 storeys residential, with: ▪ Neighbourhood Villages (6 storeys, mandatory ground-floor activation) ▪ Corner Convenience (4 storeys, mandatory ground-floor commercial) o Employment Lands: 3 storeys Additional updates include: • Design expectations for taller buildings: massing, floor plate size, tower separation, and amenities • Expanded public space policies: courtyards, plazas, transformed streets, and integrated urban nature • Enhanced arts, culture, and economic development policies Phase 3 engagement included an online survey to assess how well feedback from the first two phases had been integrated into the Draft Plan, as well as to gather input on any suggested revisions. The Draft Plan was also reviewed as part of key partner workshops and meetings, which included representatives from Island Health, BC Transit, School District 62, active transportation and placemaking advocates, developers, and affordable housing providers. As part of this process, the City received: • 144 survey responses • Over 2,100 visits to the project webpage on Let’s Chat Langford The key results and suggestions for revisions from this phase included (but were not limited to): • General to strong support for the draft plan • Concerns about building height, mobility options, and greenspace protection • Requests for greater transparency, accountability, and implementation • Suggestions for stronger policies on public health, affordable housing, and climate resilience Page 136 of 399

Page 137

Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2200 20250520 - Council Report Page 7 of 10 See Phase 3 Engagement Analysis for additional details. Phase 4: Preparing the OCP Bylaw (April–May 2025) Transforming the draft into its final form involved a detailed review of Phase 3 feedback from the public and key partners. Notable policy updates include: • Inserting reporting measures to improve implementation and transparency • Changing a portion of the land-use designation for Sooke Road from Urban Centre to Corridor, with required mixed-use fronting Sooke Road • Exempting affordable housing from podium requirements in certain zones/conditions • Adding commitments to pre-zone and eliminate minimum off-street parking requirements for affordable housing in key locations, and to develop a future housing strategy • Inserting clarified rationale for tall buildings, including linkages to public benefit goals • Strengthening policies for transitions between density levels (tree planting, landscaping) • Adding new vegetation and sound mitigation standards for homes near busy roads to improve health outcomes • Inserting additional support for new neighbourhood villages in South Langford • Clarifying connections between climate resilience and design (urban heat island mitigation) • Strengthening commitments to child and youth-friendly spaces within walkable, active neighbourhoods • Improving support for local food systems, including value-added processing and farm-to-table initiatives Bylaw No. 2229 The Proposed OCP integrates updated City Centre policies that are currently contained in the Design Guidelines. As such, Bylaw No. 2229 has been drafted to delete the redundant and outdated policy language from the Guidelines concurrently with the OCP Bylaw. Should Council proceed with First Reading of OCP Bylaw No. 2220 at this meeting, they may also wish to direct staff to prepare the necessary notifications for Bylaw No. 2229, such that it can receive consideration of 1st, 2nd and 3rd readings at the same meeting that the OCP Bylaw will receive consideration of 2nd and 3rd readings. Page 137 of 399

Page 138

Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2200 20250520 - Council Report Page 8 of 10 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Implementing the OCP depends on full integration with strategic, organizational, budgeting, and work planning processes. As such, this OCP includes a commitment to ensure OCP priorities, measurable targets, and implementation actions are incorporated into annual, financial, strategic, and legislated decision-making frameworks and reporting processes. As a result, Council will be able to assess progress, consider new initiatives in the context of OCP implementation, and provide direction to staff accordingly. This will ensure ongoing accountability and transparency in the City’s actions toward the goals and commitments set out in the OCP. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS: The statutory steps for OCP adoption are set out in Division 4 of the Local Government Act. Final approval remains subject to a Public Hearing and further input. If Council directs any changes to the OCP Bylaw with respect to land use or density after the Public Hearing, a new public hearing is required. First reading of the bylaw formally announces Council’s intention to proceed with the new Plan. This triggers referrals to the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC), the Capital Regional District (CRD), and a review of potential conflicts with financial and waste management plans. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: 1a -Refresh the Official Community Plan (OCP) OPTIONS: Option 1 THAT Council: 1. Proceed with consideration of “Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2200, 2025” and give First reading as drafted; AND 2. Direct staff to refer “Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2200, 2025” to the: a. Provincial Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) for comment; and Page 138 of 399

Page 139

Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2200 20250520 - Council Report Page 9 of 10 b. Capital Regional District (CRD) Board for the purpose of accepting the Regional Context Statement; AND 3. Direct staff to provide public notification that Council will consider 1st, 2nd, and 3rd readings of “Langford Zoning Bylaw, 1999, Amendment No. 749 (Text Amendment to Update Appendix J), Bylaw No. 2229, 2025. OR Option 2 THAT Council: 1. Proceed with consideration of “Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2200, 2025” and give First Reading with the following amendments: a. ________________; b. ________________; c. _______________. AND 2. Direct staff to refer “Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2200, 2025” to the: a. Provincial Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) for comment; and b. Capital Regional District (CRD) Board for the purpose of accepting the Regional Context Statement; AND 3. Direct staff to provide public notification that Council will consider 1st, 2nd, and 3rd readings of “Langford Zoning Bylaw, 1999, Amendment No. 749 (Text Amendment to Update Appendix J), Bylaw No. 2229, 2025. SUBMITTED BY: David Sametz, RPP, MCIP, Senior Planner Concurrence: Leah Stohmann, RPP, MCIP, Director of Community Planning and Climate Change Concurrence: Melisa Miles, Manager of Legislative Services Concurrence: Donna Petrie, Senior Manager of Communications & Economic Development Concurrence: Yari Nielsen, Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities Concurrence: Matthew Baldwin, RPP, MCIP, Director of Development Services Concurrence: Katelyn Balzer, P.Eng., Director of Engineering and Public Works Page 139 of 399

Page 140

Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2200 20250520 - Council Report Page 10 of 10 Concurrence: Michael Dillabaugh, CPA, CA, Director of Finance Concurrence: Marie Watmough, Director of Legislative & Protective Services Concurrence: Braden Hutchins, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Concurrence: Darren Kiedyk, Chief Administrative Officer Attachments: 1. OCP Bylaw No. 2200 2. Bylaw No. 2229 3. Phase 1 Engagement Report 4. Phase 2 Engagement Report 5. Phase 3 Engagement Report Page 140 of 399

Page 141

Phase 1 Engagement Summary

• Langford’s Official Community Plan Refresh - OCTOBER 2024 Page 141 of 399

Page 142

Engagement Results at a Glance Vision Respondents envision a transformed Langford characterized by enhanced parks, green spaces, and urban forests, alongside diverse housing options and community amenities. They prioritize a vibrant local economy and a well-defined downtown, as well as improved traffic conditions and public transportation to Victoria. Key land use and building priorities include increasing community amenities, expanding green spaces, adding more parks and shade trees, promoting higher density throughout the city, ensuring better quality developments, and minimizing urban sprawl. “Encourage mixed-use development that combines residential, commercial, and recreational spaces. Dedicate land for parks, green spaces. Community centres and youth clubs to provide residents with recreational, educational, and social opportunities” Addressing the ‘Crises’ Respondents largely supported addressing the ‘crises’ with most support for:

• Land-use planning that supports improved public health, including supporting active living, reducing pollution, providing access to green spaces, and more.

• Policies to ensure housing, amenities (greenspaces, parks), and services (recreation and community facilities) are available to everyone in a fair and equitable way.

• Growth strategies that help to mitigate rising infrastruc- ture costs, both now and in the future (infrastructure includes “hard infrastructure” such as streets, pipes, and sidewalks, and “soft infrastructure” such as libraries and schools). “Please focus on housing density. Clear cutting entire mountainsides to build monstrously large homes is helping nobody in the housing crisis. Build more 3- and 4-bedroom purpose built rentals and less luxury condos.” Housing Respondents advocate for increased housing near major transit corridors and urban centres, emphasizing the need for active transportation infrastructure, amenities, and green spaces. Concerns about urban sprawl were frequently raised, with a strong desire to enhance density in already-developed areas rather than expanding outward. Respondents expressed a need for a diverse range of housing options, particularly family-sized units. Additionally, some respondents voiced frustration over excessive construction and the ongoing development in the city. “Wherever we have strong bus service. The 95 is amazing, and growth should happen along its entire route, including if it expands to belmont or westhills.” Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report | September 2024 Page 142 of 399

Page 143

Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report | October 2024 C Urban Centres Results on the location of urban centres are unclear. Under half (43%) of the respondents indicated that urban centres are currently in the right place with a large proportion (32%) unsure. There is a strong desire for a centre in South Langford, particularly in Happy Valley, and a preference for small, walkable urban centres distributed throughout the city. Respondents emphasize the need to redevelop existing urban areas, such as downtown Langford, while expressing concerns about high-density, tall buildings being developed in locations lacking adequate infrastructure, green space, and connectivity. Additionally, there is a preference for supporting local businesses in urban centres over chain stores and strip malls. “The Village and Neighbourhood Centres are located within car dependent nodes that are uncomfortable for cyclists and pedestrians. We need more centres that are pedestrian-oriented.” Transportation + Mobility Most trips by respondents were made by car, followed by walking, biking, and public transit. Respondents identified several barriers to active transportation, including unsafe sidewalks and bike lanes, inconsistent public transit services, and limited access to transit options, particularly in hilly areas. To promote walking, biking, and public transit use, respondents suggested improving sidewalks and developing more mixed-use neighborhoods. There is a strong desire for increased walkability and better accessibility, with calls for more green spaces, benches, and safer pedestrian routes. Safety concerns are prominent, as many respondents feel that current conditions make walking, cycling, and using public transit unsafe. “My children take the bus. And the bus system in Langford is not conducive to relying on the bus.” Engagement Results at a Glance Page 143 of 399

Page 144

Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report | October 2024 D Livability and a Sense of Place Respondents identified key elements for enhancing livability and fostering a strong sense of place, including local parks, green spaces, walkable neighborhoods, diverse shops, and community safety. To create more people-friendly streets and encourage gatherings, they expressed a desire to transform underutilized spaces into community hubs, hosting events and markets, while also improving lighting for safety and ambiance. There is a strong preference for having amenities such as parks, grocery stores, restaurants, and trails close to home, alongside a call for more community-oriented spaces and events. Additionally, concerns were raised about affordable housing diversity and homelessness, with a strong emphasis on the need for thoughtful urban design that balances density with livability. Notably, 76% of respondents supported policies allowing small-scale, locally-oriented convenience stores and cafes in neighborhood corners. “The only park in a walkable distance from my house doesn’t have any benches and only recently developed a small walking path. More safe trail options for those who just want gentle, easy walking options with plenty of places to sit. Final Thoughts Respondents called for a well-structured plan that emphasizes sustainable growth, effective traffic management, and strict adherence to zoning regulations to prevent haphazard development. There is a strong desire for increased green spaces, parks, and community gardens, along with meaningful engagement with residents to ensure their input is considered in planning decisions. Additionally, they advocate for promoting small, locally-owned businesses and services, suggesting a shift away from large commercial developments in favor of cultivating a vibrant, neighborhood-focused economy. “I can see my future in Langford. I don’t want to just live in an area, I want to feel connected to its community and call it home. Langford is on the right path, and I have high hopes for future improvements for safety, accessibility, and quality of life.” Engagement Results at a Glance Page 144 of 399

Page 145

Barefoot Planning + Design | Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report | September 2024

1. Report Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1. Report Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2. Project Overview Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. Consultation Overview. . . . . . . . . . 2 2.1. Online Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.2. In-person Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.3. Social, Print, and Digital Media. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.4. Consultation at a Glance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Who We Heard From . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Representation in the Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Other Demographic and Information Request Responses. . 6 4. Engagement Results . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2. Engagement Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Page 145 of 399

Page 146

Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report | October 2024 1 How long will the refresh take? About 18 months. Staff began compiling data and resources in October 2023 and we expect it to be ready around June 2025. *tentative completion date Oct 2023 - Jan 2024 Staff compile OCP- related data and resources. January 2024 Public Information and Q&A Session. February - June 2024 Staff prepare background material for public engagement. Fall 2024 PHASE 2 Public Engagement commences, including an open-house and opportunity for the public to comment on potential policy options. July 2024 PHASE 1 Public Engagement commences, including an online survey and community pop-up events. Winter 2024/2025 PHASE 3 Public Engagement commences, including release of draft OCP policy recommendations for public input. Spring 2025 Final OCP policy presented to Council. June 2025 W E

A R E

H E R E OCP completion date. * 1.2. Project Overview Timeline

1. Report Overview 1.1. Report Structure

This report provides an overview of the engagement results for Phase 1 on Langford’s OCP refresh project. The Report is structured as follows: Section 2 Provides an overview of the consultation activities to date, including online and in-person opportunities. Section 3 Provides an overview of survey demographics, including which groups were over and under-represented in the survey results. Section 4 Provides an overview of engagement results including a synthesis of both online and in-person engagement, broken down by OCP topics. Page 146 of 399

Page 147

Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report | October 2024 2 2. Consultation Overview Generally, this phase of engagement focused on various OCP topics, including:

• Langford’s Vision

• Transportation and Mobility

• Housing

• Responding to Crises (e.g., infrastructure, housing)

• Urban Centres (e.g., locations of retail, services, and housing)

• Livability and a Sense of Place Respondents were asked multiple qualitative (e.g., open-ended) and quantitative (e.g., multiple-choice) questions for online and in-person engagement. 2.1. Online Engagement Survey 404 individuals completed the online survey (“A Shared Vision for 100,000”). An overview of the demographics of respondents is in Section 3, including a comparison of the respondents’ statistics compared to the population of Langford in order to determine over- and under- represented groups. Mapping As part of online engagement and the OCP Update Survey, respondents to: A. “Place a pin on the location for new housing” B. “Place a pin on the location for centres” 2.2. In-person Engagement In summer 2024, staff conducted four in-person “pop-up” engagement events at various times and locations in Langford, including:

• July 18th – Community Fun Day at Ruth King Elementary: 11 a.m. – 7 p.m., over 200 peo- ple engaged directly on OCP content

• July 19th – Fridays at the Station: 4 p.m. – 8 p.m.: approx. 75 people engaged directly on OCP content

• July 20th – Goldstream Farmers’ Market: 10 a.m. – 2 p.m.: approx. 125 engaged directly on OCP content

• July 21st – Music in the Park: 2 p.m. – 5 p.m.: approx. 25 people engaged directly on OCP content

• Aug 21st – August Community Fun Day at Happy Valley School approx. 175+ people engaged directly on OCP content Page 147 of 399

Page 148

Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report | October 2024 3 An extensive social, print, and digital media campaign was conducted to promote the OCP update process and direct community members to the project webpage and survey. A high-level overview of the campaign is presented below. Facebook and Instagram

• Platforms were used to advertise in-person events and advertise the project/process, driving individuals to the project webpage and survey.

• Posts to these platforms were highly successful, and viewed by over 5,000 individuals on certain days. Times Colonist

• Let's Plan Langford ads ran in the paper on July 17th, 18th, 23rd, and 24th

• Paper Readership: 68,500 readers per day for print edition and e-edition Black Press Media

• Online advertisements ran from Jul 16th to September 6th, 2024

• Clicks on the advertisement: 29

• Total month page views: 121,670 Island Social Trends

• Three Langford ads during August 1st to September 15th, 2024

• Ads for public engagement: OCP, Population 100K, Urban Forest Management Plan

• Total visitors to the site in August: 14,840 2.3. Social, Print, and Digital Media Page 148 of 399

Page 149

Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report | October 2024 4 2.4. Consultation at a Glance 3,260 total visits to the Project Website

404 total survey respondents

423 total mapped points by participants

410 total online “engaged” visitors

5 total in-person engagement events LetsChatLangford.ca/OCP 600+ over 600 meaningful interactions with citizens at five different in-person events Page 149 of 399

Page 150

Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report | October 2024 5 3. Who We Heard From This section provides an overview of survey demographics, including which groups were over and under-represented in the survey results and other demographic or response characteristics questions. 3.1. Representation in the Survey Results The online survey collected demographic and household data. The project team compared the results with Langford’s most recent census information (2021) to determine what groups were over and under-represented in the survey results. Category Metric Langford OCP Refresh Phase 1 Survey Participants Langford Population Statistics (2021) Analysis Age Under 18 years 1.0% **

• Children and youth were likely underrepresented in the survey

• Those aged 35 - 64 were over- represented in the survey results

• Those aged 25-34 and older than 64 were accurately represented 18 to 24 years 1.7% ** 25 to 34 years 17.9% 16.2% 35 to 44 years 30.1% 16.6% 45 to 54 years 19.2% 13.2% 55 to 64 years 16.7% 12.2% 65 and older 11.7% 13.7% Structure Type Single detached house or duplex 63.7% 41.5%

• Households living in single detached houses and duplexes and townhouse / row House were over- represented

• Those living in apartments/condos and suites in a house were under- represented in the survey results. Townhouse / Row House 15.0% 5.4% Apartment / Condo 15.5% 27.7% Suite in a house 3.0% 25.3% Laneway Home 0.3% ** Other 2.5% ** Owner vs. Renter Occupied Own 81.7% 64.8%

• Owners of their homes were over- represented in the survey results

• Renters of their homes were under- represented in the survey results Rent 14.7% 35.2% Gender Identification Man 48.0% 48.7%

• Those who identify as men and women are accurately represented in the survey results. Woman 52.0% 51.3% **Direct comparisons could not be obtained as the OCP Refresh Survey question were structured differently than census questions. Page 150 of 399

Page 151

Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report | October 2024 6 3.2. Other Demographic and Information Request Responses Relationship to Langford The vast majority of respondents indicated they live, work, shop, or attend school in Langford. Few respondents indicated ‘Other’ or ‘None of the above’. Respondents by Neighbourhood Most respondents were from South Langford, the City Centre, and Langford Lake and Glen Lake. Fewer respondents were from Bear Mountain, Westhills, North Langford, and Goldstream Meadows. Age Most respondents were in the 35 to 44 year age category, followed by the 45 to 55 years and 25 to 34 year age categories. Income Most households total annual income was $150,000 or over, followed by $100,000 to $149,000 and $75,000 to $99,999. Note: percentages above reflect the response rate for each option. Page 151 of 399

Page 152

Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report | October 2024 7 Gender Identity / Other Identities Most respondents identified themselves as woman or man. Other notable identities included caregivers of children, new to Langford, persons with a disability and 2SLGBTQIA+. Notably, few individuals identifying as new Canadians, gender non-binary, and Indigenous individuals completed the survey. How Respondents Heard About the Project Many of the respondents learned about the project through social media and the Let’s Chat Langford Newsletter. Fewer respondents learned from local newspapers or digital media. Page 152 of 399

Page 153

Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report | October 2024 8 4. Engagement Results This section provides an in-depth overview of engagement analysis methodology and results including a synthesis of both online and in-person engagement, broken down by OCP topics. 4.1. Methodology The engagement results were organized by OCP Topics (e.g., housing, transportation and mobility) and then were analyzed as followed: Quantitative Analysis

• Descriptive Statistics: » Frequency counts for categorical data (e.g., rank order) presented in percentages of selection (e.g., response rate). Qualitative Analysis

• Thematic Analysis: » Identify and categorize themes or patterns in open-ended responses which were then ranked by most common to least common. » Select quotes are presented that most accurately reflect the themes heard. Finally, validation through a review of the results between peers (e.g., peer review) was undertaken to ensure the reliability and validity of the analysis. Page 153 of 399

Page 154

Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report | October 2024 9 Vision For Langford and Top land Use Priorities Top themes from comments:

1. Sustainable Planning and Infrastructure Many respondents expressed the need for well-planned infrastructure to support population growth, including better transportation systems, more parks and green spaces, and adequate public services like schools and healthcare. Reducing traffic congestion, improving transit options, and creating walkable neighborhoods are key priorities.
2. Balanced Growth and Development A desire for a balanced approach to development, ensuring that commercial, industrial, and residential areas coexist harmoniously. Many are concerned about maintaining green spaces and preserving the environment while also addressing housing needs and preventing overdevelopment.
3. Community Livability and Accessibility A common goal from respondents is to create a thriving, livable community where residents can access jobs, recreational facilities, shopping, and services easily. Emphasis is placed on creating a community that is welcoming, walkable, and provides various transit and transportation options to reduce reliance on cars. Top themes from comments:
4. Green Spaces and Parks There was a strong emphasis on maintaining and increasing green spaces, parks, and recreational areas. Many suggestions focus on incorporating green areas into new developments, preserving existing parks, and ensuring that all neighborhoods have access to nature.
5. Mixed-Use Development A recurring theme was the need for more mixed-use developments that combine residential, commercial, and recreational spaces to create vibrant, walkable neighborhoods where people can live, work, and play in close proximity.
6. Transportation and Infrastructure The need for improved transportation infrastructure was frequently mentioned. This includes expanding transit options, creating bike lanes, sidewalks, and pedestrian overpasses, and addressing traffic management issues to support the growing population and reduce congestion. Note: responses include both survey and in-person (e.g., pop-up) engagement. What is your vision for Langford when 100,000 residents live here? Describe how a thriving, livable, and sustainable Langford works and looks to you. What are the top land-use and city-building priorities you believe the City should focus on to achieve your vision for Langford? 4.2. Engagement Results Vision For Langford Key Takeaways

• Respondents envision a Langford with more parks, green space, and urban forest, supporting residents through various housing forms and community ameni- ties, a strong local economy and a proper downtown, and better traffic, improved public transportation to Victoria.

• Top Land use and building priorities include commu- nity amenities, green space, parks, and shade trees, additional density across the city, better quality devel- opments, and reducing sprawl. Page 154 of 399

Page 155

Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report | October 2024 10 Key Takeaways

• Respondents largely supported addressing the ‘crises’ with most support for: » Land-use planning that supports improved public health, including supporting active living, reducing pollution, providing access to green spaces, and more. » Policies to ensure housing, amenities (greenspac- es, parks), and services (recreation and community facilities) are available to everyone in a fair and equitable way. » Growth strategies that help to mitigate rising infrastructure costs, both now and in the future (infrastructure includes "hard infrastructure" such as streets, pipes, and sidewalks, and "soft infra- structure" such as libraries and schools). Crises Housing Key Takeaways

• Respondents support more housing around major transit corridors, active transportation infrastructure, urban centres, amenities and services, and parks and green space.

• Sprawl was often cited as an issue by respondents, in- cluding a desire to reduce sprawl and provide density in already-developed areas.

• A variety of housing was desired by residents including more family-sized units.

• Some respondents cited undesired overconstruction and constant construction. Note: support for addressing the ‘crises’ was ranked by the greatest proportion of ‘Strongly agree’ and ‘Agree’ responses. Page 155 of 399

Page 156

Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report | October 2024 11 Mapping Excercise Results: Housing Where Should New Homes in Langford be located? Housing Locations and Big Ideas Top themes from comments:

1. Transit-Oriented Development There was strong emphasis on locating new housing and developments near existing or planned transit routes. Key areas for this include major traffic corridors and near transit hubs.
2. Infill and Redevelopment Respondents advocate for increasing density in already developed areas rather than expanding into green spaces. Ideas included redeveloping underutilized commercial spaces like shopping malls into mixed-use areas and converting existing single-family homes into multi-family units.
3. Sustainable Growth and Infrastructure There was a focus on managing growth sustainably by integrating new housing with existing infrastructure. Ideas included careful planning to avoid overloading current road systems and ensuring that new developments are well-serviced by amenities and transportation.
4. Concerns About Overdevelopment There was a heightened concern about overdevelopment and its impact on current residents, infrastructure, and the environment. Some respondents advocate for a slowdown or moratorium on new developments until current issues are resolved.
5. Diverse Housing Needs The responses also addressed a variety of housing needs, including affordable options, smaller units, and mixed-income developments. There was a call for more diverse housing types to cater to different demographics, including families, individuals, and the elderly. Do you have any other thoughts on where the City should support more housing? [Housing] What’s important to you? [Housing] What’s your big Idea? How can we accomplish it? Note: responses include both survey and in-person (e.g., pop-up) engagement. Note: results are based on clusters of 4 or more responses Page 156 of 399

Page 157

Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report | October 2024 12 Key Takeaways

• Less than 50% of respondents believed they are currently in the right places while 32% were unsure.

• Desire for a centre in areas of South Langford including Happy Valley.

• Preference for small, walkable urban centres spread throughout Langford.

• Focus on redeveloping existing urban areas like downtown Langford.

• Feedback expresses concern over the development of high-density, tall buildings in areas that lack sufficient infrastructure, green space, and connectivity.

• Preference for fostering local businesses in urban centres, rather than relying on chain stores and strip malls. Mapping Excercise Results: Urban Centres Where Should New Urban Centres in Langford be located? Urban Centres Note: results are based on clusters of 4 or more responses Page 157 of 399

Page 158

Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report | October 2024 13 Urban Centre Locations Are Urban Centres in the right locations? (please choose one) Top themes from comments:

1. Desired Areas and Services for Centres Multiple comments emphasized the lack of amenities in certain areas like Happy Valley, South Langford, and Bear Mountain, particularly calling for more grocery stores, health care, and recreational facilities.
2. Distributed Urban Centres for Walkability There was a clear preference for small, walkable urban centres spread throughout Langford. Multiple respondents suggest creating areas that are within walking distance of residential neighborhoods to reduce car dependency. Some notable mentions include Happy Valley, South Langford, and areas near Millstream, where residents feel underserved by existing amenities.
3. Sustainability and Development of Existing Areas Several comments push for focusing on redeveloping existing urban areas like downtown Langford. Suggestions include replacing outdated shopping malls with mixed-use developments that combine retail spaces with residential units above. Some respondents call for denser, more sustainable urban centres, with parks, transit access, and high-density living to accommodate growth without expanding into undeveloped areas.
4. Concerns Over High-rise Towers and Infrastructure Some feedback expresses concern over the development of high-density, tall buildings (such as 25-story towers) in areas that lack sufficient infrastructure, green space, and connectivity. Respondents felt that development should align with the available infrastructure and avoid overwhelming local streets and services.
5. Local Businesses Over Chain Stores There was a preference for fostering local businesses in urban centres, rather than relying on chain stores and strip malls. Do you have any other thoughts on where Urban Centres should be located? Page 158 of 399

Page 159

Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report | October 2024 14 Key Takeaways

• Most trips in Langford are taken by driving, followed by walking, biking, and public transit.

• The main barriers for choosing active transportation included a lack of safe sidewalks and bike lanes, inconsistent or infrequent public transit, and limited access to public transit.

• Geography is a significant barrier to active transportation in areas with steep hills.

• To make it easier and/or more appealing to walk/roll, bike, use public transit or choose other forms of active transportation, the City should improve sidewalks, and develop more mixed-use neighbourhoods.

• Desire for increased walkability and improved accessibility and mentions of the need for more green spaces, benches, and safer pedestrian routes.

• Strong emphasis on safety, with many respondents expressing that current conditions make walking, cycling, and using public transit unsafe. How do you usually travel around Langford? (Select all that apply) Top themes from comments:

1. Transportation Infrastructure and Efficiency There was significant concerns about the current state of transportation infrastructure. Issues include poor traffic management, inefficient public transit, and a lack of safe biking and walking routes. Respondents called for improvements like better traffic light coordination, more reliable public transit, dedicated bike lanes, and safer pedestrian paths.
2. Walkability and Accessibility Many respondents expressed a desire for increased walkability and improved accessibility. There were mentions of the need for more green spaces, benches, and safer pedestrian routes. Additionally, the lack of sidewalks and the challenges faced by those with mobility issues are highlighted as major concerns.
3. Safety Concerns There was a strong emphasis on safety, with many respondents expressing that current conditions make walking, cycling, and using public transit unsafe. Concerns about interactions with unhoused individuals, inadequate bike lanes, and incomplete sidewalks are prevalent. There is a desire for more protected bike lanes and safer pedestrian crossings from respondents.
4. Public Transit Issues The current state of public transit was frequently criticized. Many respondents find it unreliable, infrequent, or poorly connected. Improvements in service frequency, reliability, and route coverage were major requests by respondents. Ideas included more direct routes, smaller buses for narrower streets, and potential solutions like light rail or ferries are frequently mentioned.
5. Active Transportation Challenges The difficulty of using active transportation (walking and cycling) was highlighted, particularly due to traffic congestion, lack of bike infrastructure, and incomplete sidewalks. Many respondents felt that the city’s design is too car-centric, making biking and walking less feasible and less safe. Do you have any other thoughts to share on how you move around the City? Transportation + Mobility Note: percentages above reflect the response rate for each option. Page 159 of 399

Page 160

Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report | October 2024 15 Barriers to Active Transportation What are the main barriers preventing you from choosing to walk, bike, use transit, or other forms of active transportation more often in your daily life? (Select all that apply) Top themes from comments:

1. Lack of Infrastructure Respondents indicated that they believe there is a lack of safe cycling infrastructure, such as bike lanes, bike racks on transit, and public bike share programs. Additionally, the state of the roads with debris and aggressive traffic further discourages cycling was mentioned.
2. Topography and Physical Challenges Respondents indicated that hills and steep terrain make walking or biking difficult, particularly when carrying groceries or other items.
3. Convenience and Practicality Respondents highlighted the need for a vehicle to manage daily tasks like grocery shopping, transporting children, and carrying equipment outweighs the perceived benefits of alternative modes of transport. Respondents felt that vehicles provide greater convenience, storage capacity, and flexibility compared to biking or public transit. Do you have any other thoughts to share on barriers to active transportation? Note: percentages above reflect the response rate for each option. Page 160 of 399

Page 161

Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report | October 2024 16 Making Active Transportation Easier and/or More Appealing How do you think the City could make it easier and/or more appealing to walk/roll, bike, use public transit, or choose other forms of active transportation? (Select all that apply) Note: percentages above reflect the response rate for each option. Page 161 of 399

Page 162

Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report | October 2024 17 Livability and a Sense of Place Key Takeaways

• The most important elements for improving livability and a ‘sense of place’ included local parks and green spaces, easily walkable neighbourhoods, diverse local shops and businesses, and community safety.

• To create more people-friendly streets and encourage community gathering, respondents desired transformation of underutilized spaces into gathering spots, creating spaces for community events and markets, and improved lighting for safety and ambiance.

• Respondents indicated that they desire amenities close to their homes including parks, green spaces, and people places, grocery stores and local shops, restaurants and cafes, and trails and pathways.

• Strong emphasis on the need for more community-oriented spaces and events.

• Concerns about affordable housing diversity and addressing homelessness.

• Comments stress the need for thoughtful urban design that balances density with livability.

• 76% of respondents support policies that allow more small-scale, locally-orientated convenience stores, coffee shops, and services on corners in neighbourhoods. Improving Livability and a Sense of Place What are the most important elements for improving livability and a ‘sense of place’ in the community? (Select all that apply) Note: percentages above reflect the response rate for each option. Page 162 of 399

Page 163

Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report | October 2024 18 Top themes from comments:

1. Lack of Recreational and Green Spaces Many comments expressed concern about the insufficient recreational facilities, green spaces, and community gathering areas. There are mentions of few pickleball or tennis courts, inadequate parks, and the need for more green and dog-friendly spaces.
2. Traffic and Accessibility Issues Traffic congestion and the lack of pedestrian-friendly infrastructure were cited as recurring issues. Comments highlight the need for improved sidewalks, traffic calming measures, and better public transit to alleviate these problems and enhance accessibility.
3. Community and Social Spaces There was a strong emphasis on the need for more community-oriented spaces and events. Suggestions include creating third spaces for social interaction, improving public areas for gatherings, and integrating more arts and cultural elements into the community.
4. Affordable Housing and Homelessness Concerns about affordable housing diversity and addressing homelessness. There were calls for a variety of housing options and specific accommodations for the homeless, reflecting a desire for comprehensive solutions to these issues.
5. Urban Design and Development Comments stress the need for thoughtful urban design that balances density with livability. There is concern about maintaining aesthetic and functional quality in high-density areas and ensuring that development does not overwhelm existing neighborhoods. Do you have any other thoughts to share about livability and sense of place? People-friendly Streets and Community Gathering Spaces How should the City create more people-friendly streets and encourage residents to spend more time in community gathering spaces in Langford? (Select all that apply) Note: percentages above reflect the response rate for each option. Page 163 of 399

Page 164

Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report | October 2024 19 Top themes from comments:

1. Green Space and Nature There was a strong emphasis on the need for more green spaces, including parks, trees, and water features. Respondents frequently mention the importance of shade, tree canopies, and natural elements to enhance public spaces and improve quality of life.
2. Community Amenities and Accessibility Many responses highlight the need for better community amenities like bathrooms, picnic tables, and playgrounds. There was also a focus on making spaces accessible for all, including those with mobility challenges and families with young children. Ensuring spaces are pet- friendly and inclusive is also a recurring theme.
3. Public Space Design and Utilization Respondents express a desire for well-designed public spaces that are people-friendly, including wider sidewalks, outdoor cafes, and gathering areas. Concerns about traffic, parking, and noise are also mentioned, along with suggestions for improving street design to encourage walking and reduce vehicle dependence. Do you have any other thoughts to share on people-friendly streets and gathering spaces? Amenities to Support a Better Quality of Life What amenities would you most like to see within a walkable distance from your home in order to support a better quality of life? (Select all that apply) Note: percentages above reflect the response rate for each option. Page 164 of 399

Page 165

Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report | October 2024 20 Top themes from comments:

1. Green Spaces and Nature Integration Many responses highlight the need for more parks, green spaces, trails, and natural areas. This includes preserving existing green spaces, creating new ones, and ensuring that urban development includes ample green elements.
2. Community and Social Spaces There was a strong emphasis on the need for community centres, meeting spaces, and third places where people can gather and engage with one another. This also included affordable or free community activities and amenities.
3. Walkability and Accessibility Numerous suggestions focused on improving walkability and accessibility, such as better sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and safe transit options. This also includes making sure amenities and services are within walking distance and connected by easy-to-navigate routes. Do you have any other thoughts to share about neighbourhood- based amenities that could support a better quality of life? Page 165 of 399

Page 166

Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report | October 2024 21 Support for Corner Stores in Neighbourhoods Should the City consider policies that allow more small-scale, locally- orientated convenience stores, coffee shops, and services on corners in neighbourhoods? (Please choose one) Top themes from comments: Recreational Facilities Pools, skating rinks, gyms, playgrounds, running tracks. Green Spaces Parks, trails, off-leash dog parks. Local Amenities Grocery stores, cafes, restaurants, corner stores. Transportation Sidewalks, bike lanes, crosswalks, bus services, parking solutions. Arts & Culture Libraries, public arts centres, live theater. Healthcare Clinics, hospitals. Community Spaces Gathering plazas, community centres, farmers markets. Safety Street lighting, security cameras. Miscellaneous Public washrooms, garbage/recycling services, post offices. What amenities or services do you feel are currently missing or need improvement in your neighbourhood? Page 166 of 399

Page 167

Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report | October 2024 22 Key Takeaways

• Respondents advocate for a well-structured urban plan that prioritizes sustainable growth, effective traffic management, and adherence to zoning regulations to avoid haphazard development.

• Strong desire for more green spaces, parks, and community gardens, alongside meaning- ful engagement with residents to ensure their voices are heard in planning decisions.

• Interested in promoting small, locally-owned businesses and services, suggesting a shift away from large commercial developments in favor of fostering a vibrant, neighbor- hood-focused economy. Top themes from comments

1. Planning and Infrastructure This theme encompasses discussions about the need for proper planning, traffic management, zoning, and overall urban design (e.g., “Get a plan,” “Quit spending money and get the traffic moving better,” “Narrow residential streets,” “Over-building concerns”).
2. Community and Green Spaces Many comments emphasized the importance of community engagement, green spaces, and amenities like parks and community gardens (e.g., “Add community gardens and trees,” “Ensure nature has an equal voice,” “Safer walking and biking”).
3. Support for Local Businesses There was a recurring calls for fostering local businesses and services, including small shops and cafes (e.g., “More small corner stores,” “Support small business by quick, flexible zoning”) Do you have any additional comments you’d like to share with the OCP project team? Final Thoughts Page 167 of 399

Page 168

Phase 1 Engagement Summary Langford’s Official Community Plan Refresh October 2024 Page 168 of 399

Page 169

Phase 2 Engagement Summary

• City of Langford’s Official Community Plan Refresh/Rethink - DECEMBER 2024 Page 169 of 399

Page 170

Engagement Results at a Glance Support for Various OCP Refresh/Rethink Ideas Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 Key Takeaways

• The City of Langford received 737 survey submissions from 347 individuals across four surveys.

• Most OCP Refresh Ideas received high levels of support with the most support for: » Allowing corner convenience uses with clear design and parking approaches, with or without one to two storeys of residential above (88%); and » Developing broader public space policies that also include urban plazas, squares, people-oriented streets, courtyards, rooftop gardens, and more (88%); and » High quality city building by strengthening and clarifying the City’s approaches to urban design by better incorporating the elements (87%). Growth Through Urban Infill and Mobility Choice High Quality City- Building & New City Centre Policy Mixed Use and Choice of Use Centres, The “4Cs” of Growth Management, New Urban Hierarchy of Places & Urban Employment Lands Achieving Complete Communities, Realizing Neighbourhood Scale Villages, Corner Convenience Note: the percentages in the chart below reflect the percentage of respondents who indicated ‘Strongly Support’ and ‘Support’ TOPICS Page 170 of 399

Page 171

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 C Engagement Results at a Glance Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 Transit, Infrastructure, and Accessibility

• Strong support for improving public transit (light rail, buses), active transportation (bike lanes, sidewalks), and walkable communities.

• Concerns about existing infrastructure’s ability to handle growth, with calls for upgrades to roads, schools, and healthcare facilities.

• Emphasis on accessible and safe transportation for all, including mobility- challenged residents, seniors, and families. “What we need is a rapid transit system but that doesn’t seem to be on the books. Walking on sidewalks here is also dangerous because people on bikes don’t use the bike lanes because they fear getting hit by a car.” Themes from the written responses: “We are all over- crowded with not enough infrastructure to support additional growth in the downtown core. Adding more buildings, just because there are more transportation options, will bring more problems.” Balanced Development and Growth Management

• Preference for densification in urban areas over greenfield development to preserve natural spaces.

• A desire for strategic growth tied to infrastructure upgrades and amenities to avoid congestion and strain on resources.

• Support for mixed-use, mid-rise developments (up to 4–6 storeys) in appropriate locations while respecting neighbourhood character. “Urban sprawl should be greatly reduced if allowed at all or only on “brownfields” so as to protect existing forests. Population growth should be encouraged in the core and in previously developed areas making sure the tree canopy is increased at the same time.” “We don’t need more limits on development. At the same time don’t want to see a 50 story tower sticking up in the middle of Langford.” Page 171 of 399

Page 172

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 D Engagement Results at a Glance Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 Community Integration and Livability

• Support for complete communities with mixed-use spaces offering walkable access to shops, parks, and community services.

• Advocacy for sustainable designs incorporating green spaces, rooftop gardens, and climate-resilient features.

• Concerns about affordability, with a focus on diverse, family-friendly housing options and maintaining Langford’s character. “We need a lot more parks and infrastructure to make it more livable as we get more crowded, and development needs to pay their share or taxpayers get stuck with huge costs.” “Urban plazas are a great idea that does not get enough support. The ‘makeshift’ plaza on Peatt/ Hockley was a great example of how a space could become something greater.” Developer Accountability and Economic Considerations

• Broad agreement on holding developers accountable for including public amenities and contributing to community needs.

• Mixed opinions on balancing development costs with affordability, ensuring housing remains accessible while avoiding overburdening taxpayers. “Make it crystal clear on what is required so developers actually do it.” “In general I support this but would be good to understand how much that would cost residents as I may not support if that means that property taxes will continue to have large % increases each year” Page 172 of 399

Page 173

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 E Engagement Results at a Glance Public Engagement and Thoughtful Planning

• Strong support for transparent, inclusive planning processes that reflect diverse community needs.

• Emphasis on clear zoning rules, strategic placement of high-density developments, and community- driven decisions to avoid over-densification and protect neighbourhood character. “We need a downtown that is inclusive to all and attracts businesses, development, and people into the downtown core.” “Clear zoning for densification is needed to address some of the resentment that has developed as a result of poorly sited apartments. Density bonusing and focused amenity cost charges have not been used under the past administration to benefit the residents of Langford. Planning for more people places, such as open performance spaces, has been a major benefit to both residents and visitors- Lonsdale Quay development in North Vancouver is a shining example!” Page 173 of 399

Page 174

Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024

1. Report Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1. Report Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2. Project Overview Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Consultation Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.1. Online Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2.2. In-person Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.3. Social, Print, and Digital Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.4. Traffic to the Project Webpage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.5. Consultation at a Glance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Who We Heard From . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Over-and-Under Representation in the Survey Results . . 4 3.2. Other Demographic and Information Request Responses 5 4. Engagement Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. Engagement Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Page 174 of 399

Page 175

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 1 How long will the refresh take? About 18 months. Staff began compiling data and resources in October 2023 and we expect it to be ready around June 2025. *Tentative completion date Oct 2023 - Jan 2024 Staff compile OCP-related data and resources. January 2024 Public Information and Q&A Session. February

• June 2024 Staff prepare background material for public engagement. Fall 2024 PHASE 2 Public Engagement commences, including an open-house and opportunity for the public to comment on potential policy options. July 2024 PHASE 1 Public Engagement commences, including an online survey and community pop-up events. Winter 2024/2025 PHASE 3 Public Engagement commences, including release of draft OCP policy recommendations for public input. Spring 2025 Final OCP policy presented to Council. June 2025 W E

A R E

H E R E OCP completion date. * 1.2. Project Overview Timeline

1. Report Overview 1.1. Report Structure

This report provides an overview of the engagement results for phase 2 of Langford’s OCP refresh project. The Report is structured as follows: Section 2 Provides an overview of the consultation activities to date, including online and in-person opportunities. Section 3 Provides an overview of survey demographics, including which groups were over and under- represented in the survey results. Section 4 Provides an overview of engagement results including a synthesis of both online and in-person engagement, broken down by OCP topics. Page 175 of 399

Page 176

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 2 2. Consultation Overview Generally, this phase of engagement focused on various OCP Ideas organized around topics, including:

• Growth Through Urban Infill and Mobility Choice

• High Quality City-Building & New City Centre Policy

• Mixed Use and Choice of Use Centres, The “4Cs” of Growth Management, New Urban Hierarchy of Places & Urban Employment Lands

• Achieving Complete Communities, Realizing Neighbourhood Scale Villages, Corner Convenience Respondents were asked multiple qualitative and quantitative questions during online and in-person engagement. 2.1. Online Engagement Survey The City of Langford received 737 survey submissions across four surveys from 347 individuals. An overview of the demographics of respondents is in Section 3, including a comparison of the respondents’ age compared to the population of Langford to determine over- and under-represented of age groups. 2.2. In-person Engagement On November 2nd, 2024, staff conducted an in-person Open House event at Ruth King Elementary School. The event was widely publicized through social media posts, the City of Langford website, media releases (e.g., Times Colonist, Goldstream Gazette), and digital signs. Approximately 85 people attended the Open House. 2.3. Social, Print, and Digital Media An extensive social media, print, and digital media campaign was conducted to promote the OCP update process and direct community members to the project webpage and survey. A high-level overview of the campaign is presented below. Facebook and Instagram

• Platforms were used to advertise in-person events and advertise the project/process, driving individuals to the project webpage and survey.

• Posts to these platforms were highly successful, and viewed by over 1,000 individuals on certain days and approximately 25,000 throughout the campaign. Times Colonist:

• Print ads ran on November 1st and 8th, 2024 Goldstream Gazette

• Online advertisements ran on October 30th, November 6th, 15th, and 20th, 2024 Island Social Trends:

• Online advertisements ran from October 31st to November 20th, 2024. Page 176 of 399

Page 177

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 3

347 Survey respondents

737 Survey submissions

720 Downloads of the IDEAS Paper

85 Individuals at in-person engagement events 2.4. Traffic to the Project Webpage Between October 22nd and November 21st, 3,691 individuals visited the project page. An overview of visitors and their level of engagement with the project page broken down by sources is presented below. Traffic Channel Aware Visits* Informed Visits** Engaged Visits*** Direct 1300 587 97 Referrals - from another platform (e.g., LinkedIn, Digital advertisements) 377 266 39 Search Engines (e.g., Google, Bing) 218 126 15 Email (e.g., newsletters) 899 655 164 Social (e.g., Facebook, Instagram) 897 309 32 Total 3,691 1,943 347 *Visited the project page. ** Downloaded project material or engaged with a tool (e.g., survey). *** Submitted responses to an engagement tool. 2.5. Consultation at a Glance 3,691 Visits to the Project Website Page 177 of 399

Page 178

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 4 3. Who We Heard From This section provides an overview of survey demographics, including age groups that were over and under-represented in the survey results and other demographic or response characteristics questions. 3.1. Over-and-Under Representation in the Survey Results Age

• Children and youth were underrepresented in the survey

• Those aged 35 - 64 were over-represented in the survey results

• Those aged 25-34 and older than 64 were accurately represented

• Most respondents were in the 35 to 44 year age category, followed by the 45 to 55 years and 25 to 34 year age categories. *Direct comparisons could not be obtained as the OCP Refresh Survey question were structured differently than census questions. Page 178 of 399

Page 179

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 5 3.2. Other Demographic and Information Request Responses Respondents by Neighbourhood Most respondents were from the City Centre, and South Langford. Fewer respondents were from Mill Hill, Westhills, North Langford, and Goldstream Meadows. Page 179 of 399

Page 180

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 6 4. Engagement Results This section provides an in-depth overview of engagement analysis methodology and engagement results including a synthesis of both online and in-person engagement, broken down by OCP topics. 4.1. Methodology The engagement results were organized by OCP Survey Topics (e.g., ‘Growth Through Urban Infill and Mobility Choice’) and then were analyzed as follows: Quantitative Analysis

• Descriptive Statistics: » Frequency counts for categorical data (e.g., rank order) presented in percentages. Qualitative Analysis

• Thematic Analysis: » Identify and categorize themes or patterns in open-ended responses (e.g., survey, open house boards) which were then ranked by most common to least common. » Select quotes are presented that most accurately reflect the themes heard. Finally, validation through a thorough review of the results between peers (e.g., peer review) was undertaken to ensure the reliability and validity of the analysis. Page 180 of 399

Page 181

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 7 4.2. Engagement Results Note: the percentages in the chart above reflect the percentage of respondents who indicated ‘Strongly Support’ and ‘Support’ Topic 1 Growth Through Urban Infill and Mobility Choice All Ideas received high levels of support from respondents with the most support for ‘Specifically directing population growth into areas that support more transportation choices.’ Page 181 of 399

Page 182

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 8 Idea 1: Focusing new rezoning approvals on urban multi-modal infill development rather than additional car-dependent greenfield development Qualitative Results - Comment Themes

1. Improved Transit and Active Transportation Many respondents support enhancing public transit, including light rapid transit to Victoria, and improving infrastructure for walking, biking, and rolling.
2. Walkable, Mixed-Use Communities There is strong interest in creating walkable neighbourhoods with accessible amenities, such as shops, cafes, and green spaces, while ensuring minimal parking requirements to discourage car dependency.
3. Balanced Development with Infill Priority Respondents prefer focusing on densification in existing urban areas (brownfields) rather than expanding into undeveloped greenfield sites.
4. Parking and Car Infrastructure Concerns Many express skepticism about the feasibility of a car-free future, citing the current transit system's limitations and the need for parking in new developments to prevent overflow onto neighbourhood streets.
5. Community and Environmental Preservation Emphasis on protecting Langford’s character through thoughtful urban planning, maintaining green spaces, incorporating trees into new developments, and limiting high-rise buildings to designated areas to avoid over-densification and congestion. Quantitative Results - Survey Responses Page 182 of 399

Page 183

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 9 Idea 2: Fully integrating and implementing land-use and transportation decision-making processes Qualitative Results - Comment Themes

1. Balanced Approach to Transportation There is strong demand for alternative transit options such as rail, ferries, and improved bus services, alongside recognition of the practical need for cars in certain situations.
2. Investment in Walking and Biking Infrastructure Respondents highlighted safer sidewalks, consistent lighting, protected bike lanes, and bike storage as high priorities to encourage non-car transportation methods.
3. Addressing Practical and Logistical Challenges Respondents highlighted concerns about car dependency in less dense areas, public transit reliability, and the feasibility of car-free lifestyles, emphasizing the need for practical solutions tailored to diverse community needs.
4. Environmental and Community Integration Respondents emphasized the importance of sustainability, integrating transportation and land use planning, and supporting 15-minute communities, aligning these priorities with climate goals and improved livability.
5. Consultation and Transparency Respondents noted inclusive and transparent planning processes, alongside careful execution to avoid replicating issues seen in other areas, are seen as essential for public trust and policy success. Quantitative Results - Survey Responses Page 183 of 399

Page 184

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 10 Idea 3: Specifically directing population growth into areas that support more transportation choices Qualitative Results - Comment Themes

1. Transportation Infrastructure Needs Improvement Respondents highlighted that current transportation options, including buses, are often unreliable and inconvenient.
2. Density and Growth Management There are concerns about overcrowding, traffic congestion, and infrastructure strain. Respondents noted that strategic planning for higher density should focus on areas with existing transit corridors and be balanced with sufficient infrastructure upgrades.
3. Public and Active Transportation Solutions A shift toward walkable, bikeable communities is supported for health and environmental benefits, but respondents noted challenges in making biking and walking viable for everyone, particularly in harsh weather or where car use is essential for daily tasks like grocery shopping.
4. Balance Between Development and Green Space There’s a desire from respondents to balance development with the preservation of green spaces, particularly in areas in and around Bear Mountain and Dewdney Flats.
5. Community-Specific Needs Respondents highlighted that different neighbourhoods have unique transportation needs, with some areas requiring better transit service (e.g., Latoria Road and Goldstream Meadows). Quantitative Results - Survey Responses Page 184 of 399

Page 185

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 11 Idea 4: Clarifying and strengthening accessibility policies in order to support universal access to a variety of transportation options Qualitative Results - Comment Themes

1. Support for Accessible Transportation There is broad support for improving accessibility in transportation infrastructure, such as better sidewalks, bike lanes, and transit options that accommodate people with mobility challenges, seniors, and parents with strollers.
2. Concerns About Infrastructure and Traffic Many respondents called for better roads, more lanes, and dedicated bus lanes to address traffic congestion and support public transit. Widening roads and improving connections to key areas were frequently mentioned.
3. Accessibility and Safety Issues in Langford The need for improved accessibility in Langford was highlighted, with concerns about unsafe sidewalks, snow removal, and inadequate access for people with disabilities in certain areas, particularly during winter months.
4. Cost and Impact on Housing Several respondents voiced concerns about the cost of implementing accessibility measures, particularly the potential increase in housing prices due to stricter building codes, and the financial burden these could place on homeowners and developers.
5. Clarification and Specificity Needed Respondents expressed confusion about vague or ambiguous survey questions, emphasizing the need for clear, detailed explanations before forming opinions or offering support. Quantitative Results - Survey Responses Page 185 of 399

Page 186

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 12 Topic 2 High Quality City- Building & New City Centre Policy All Ideas received high levels of support from respondents with the most support for ‘Developing broader public space policies that also include urban plazas, squares, people- oriented streets, courtyards, rooftop gardens, and more.’ Note: the percentages in the chart above reflect the percentage of respondents who indicated ‘Strongly Support’ and ‘Support’ Page 186 of 399

Page 187

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 13 Idea #1: Strengthening and clarifying the City’s approach to urban design to achieve higher quality city building Qualitative Results - Comment Themes

1. Community Infrastructure Concerns Many respondents expressed frustration with the lack of basic amenities and green spaces in Langford, especially in newer areas like Whirlaway Crescent.
2. Sustainability and Development Priorities There is a strong desire from respondents for more environmentally sustainable practices in new developments, including better insulation, solar and wind energy options, and the incorporation of green roofs and community gardens.
3. Support for Public Spaces and Gathering Areas Respondents highlighted the need for more public spaces such as urban plazas, pedestrian-friendly streets, and community hubs (e.g., a multi- functional library or community center).
4. Importance of Green Spaces and Nature Integration There is a clear demand for more natural areas within urban development, including parks, trees, and green infrastructure like pocket parks and green roofs.
5. Calls for Better Planning and Zoning There is concern from respondents about poorly planned density increases, especially in already crowded areas. Some respondents want clearer zoning regulations, focused amenity charges, and more thoughtful integration of amenities in new developments. Quantitative Results - Survey Responses Page 187 of 399

Page 188

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 14 Idea #2: Keeping up with the need for/prioritizing amenities (e.g. through new tools like capital budgeting, regulations, density bonusing, and amenity cost charges) Qualitative Results - Comment Themes

1. Development and Amenities Respondents emphasized the importance of tying development to useful public amenities, such as green spaces and recreation centers, while respecting private neighbourhoods and ensuring that growth is sustainable.
2. Funding and Cost Sharing Many felt developers should contribute more to amenity costs, but caution was expressed that excessive charges could discourage development. Respondents also voiced concerns about rising taxes and wanted costs to be managed carefully.
3. Strong Governance and Community-wide Amenities There was strong support for stronger regulations and clearer policies. Respondents agreed that amenities should be planned to serve the entire community, not just new developments.
4. Growth Management While respondents recognized the need for more amenities, they raised concerns about the speed of development, potential tax hikes, and the impact on homeownership costs. There was a call for more thoughtful and sustainable growth.
5. Private Sector Role Several respondents advocated for greater involvement of private enterprises in providing amenities, suggesting that this could reduce the financial burden on taxpayers and lower government costs. Quantitative Results - Survey Responses Page 188 of 399

Page 189

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 15 Idea #3: Developing broader public space policies that also include urban plazas, squares, people-oriented streets, courtyards, rooftop gardens, and more Qualitative Results - Comment Themes

1. Support for Public Spaces and Community-Building Respondents expressed strong support for creating people-oriented streets, urban plazas, and gathering spaces to enhance community connection.
2. Emphasis on Safety and Accessibility There was a consistent call for designing public spaces with safety and accessibility in mind, including features like wider sidewalks, seating, and shade from trees.
3. Integration with Nature and Climate Resilience Respondents stressed the need for more green spaces, including tree planting and nature-based designs, to enhance the city’s resilience to climate change.
4. Concern About Costs and Taxes While respondents supported these ideas, many expressed concern about the financial implications, particularly in terms of rising property taxes.
5. Diverse Ideas for Urban Spaces A range of suggestions were made for enhancing public spaces, from arts and cultural hubs to interactive features like splash parks, public pools, and community centers. Some respondents also recommended involving local Indigenous communities in the design and naming of public spaces to reflect a broader, inclusive vision. Quantitative Results - Survey Responses Page 189 of 399

Page 190

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 16 Idea #4: Creating a specific height limit in the areas that currently don’t have a building height limit Qualitative Results - Comment Themes

1. Development and Building Heights There’s a debate about whether to impose height limits, with some advocating for taller buildings in key areas (like the city center) and others calling for more moderate height restrictions to preserve community character, sunlight, and green spaces.
2. Density and Housing Needs Many support higher-density development, including mid-rise buildings, to address housing shortages, but emphasize the importance of infrastructure (water, sewer, transit) and amenities to support growth.
3. Community Impact and Design The design and quality of buildings matter more than height alone, with a focus on creating vibrant, walkable communities with mixed-use developments and adequate greenspace.
4. Economic Considerations Some argue against limiting development in an economic downturn, believing that more flexible zoning could attract investment, lower property taxes, and meet housing demands.
5. Parking and Infrastructure Concerns about traffic and parking lead to suggestions for minimizing surface parking and incorporating multi-level parking structures, with the goal of keeping downtown areas pedestrian-friendly. Quantitative Results - Survey Responses Page 190 of 399

Page 191

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 17 Idea #5: Raising the allowable height of buildings in the current six-storey area to 10 to 12 storeys Qualitative Results - Comment Themes

1. Height and Density Preferences Some respondents support allowing taller buildings in downtown areas, suggesting limits of 30-40 stories to attract people to the core. However, others argue that 6-12 stories are more appropriate, emphasizing the importance of a gradual transition in building height from the core outward.
2. Infrastructure and Services A significant number of respondents are concerned that Langford’s current infrastructure (roads, schools, healthcare) cannot accommodate rapid growth. They advocate for infrastructure upgrades before allowing higher density development.
3. Impact on Neighborhoods Many respondents express concern about the potential impact of taller buildings on existing neighborhoods, particularly single-family homes. Issues raised include loss of sunlight, increased traffic congestion, and the potential for the area to lose its current character.
4. Affordable Housing and Livability Respondents generally agree on the need for more affordable housing but emphasize that new developments should include green spaces, social amenities, and be pet-friendly. Some stress that affordability should be a top priority alongside increased density.
5. Design and Environmental Concerns Some respondents support taller buildings as a means to reduce urban sprawl but insist that these buildings should be well-designed with green spaces and high-quality construction. Others are concerned about environmental impacts, such as wind tunnels, heat sinks, and increased energy consumption. Quantitative Results - Survey Responses Page 191 of 399

Page 192

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 18 Idea #6: Raising the allowable height of buildings in the current four-storey area to six storeys Qualitative Results - Comment Themes

1. Building Height Preferences Some respondents prefer a 4-story limit to maintain a neighborhood feel, with some open to 5-6 stories. Concerns arise over taller buildings (6+ stories) impacting community culture, light, and livability, with some advocating for taller buildings only in central areas.
2. Infrastructure and Traffic Concerns Respondents worry that Langford’s infrastructure (roads, parking, services) can’t support higher density. There’s a strong call for infrastructure upgrades before further development to avoid traffic and service overload.
3. Need for Housing and Affordable Options While there’s agreement on the need for more housing, many stress the importance of providing affordable, family-friendly options, such as townhouses, and ensuring development is well-planned.
4. Impact on Community and Neighborhoods Tall buildings near single-family homes are seen as disruptive. Respondents favour lower heights in suburban areas, with taller buildings concentrated in the downtown core to maintain neighbourhood balance.
5. Development Strategy and Economic Impact Some support taller buildings to attract developers and reduce taxes but highlight the need for density bonuses and financial incentives. Others caution about the environmental and social impacts, advocating for balanced urban growth. Quantitative Results - Survey Responses Page 192 of 399

Page 193

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 19 Comments on opportunities for boundary adjustments between the three City Centre areas. Qualitative Results - Comment Themes

1. Transition Zones to Mitigate Impacts on Existing Neighborhoods Respondents raised concerns about abrupt zoning transitions, such as CC2 areas being surrounded by taller CC1 or CCP zones. They suggested that zoning transitions should be gradual, with heights stepping down from the City Centre core to better integrate with existing neighborhoods and reduce adverse impacts on residents.
2. Adjustments to Peatt Road for Increased Commercial Focus Several respondents highlighted Peatt Road as a growing commercial and transit corridor that could benefit from inclusion in higher-density zones like CCP. They suggested expanding the “pink” City Centre 1 (CC1) category north and south along Peatt Road to accommodate commercial development and pedestrian-oriented spaces.
3. Reducing Overly Large City Centre Boundaries Respondents questioned the current extent of the City Centre boundaries, suggesting they are too broad and include areas unsuitable for high-density development. For example, Leigh Road was identified as a location that should be reclassified to CC2 or removed from City Centre designation altogether due to its distance from the downtown core and existing traffic issues.
4. Protecting Residential Stability in Established Areas Respondents expressed concerns about boundary adjustments affecting established neighborhoods with recently developed or updated homes. For example, Phipps Road and Revilo Place were noted as areas where respondents felt higher-density zoning, such as CCP or CC1, would be unfair to existing homeowners. They recommended maintaining lower- density classifications to preserve neighborhood character.
5. Expanding City Centre Designations in Strategic Locations Respondents suggested adding more density in areas with high transit accessibility or commercial potential. For instance, portions of Jacklin Road, Belmont Market, and the area surrounding Westshore Mall were identified as prime candidates for higher-density designations like CCP. Respondents highlighted the proximity to rapid transit, shopping, and other amenities as factors supporting these changes. Page 193 of 399

Page 194

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 20 Topic 3 Mixed Use and Choice of Use Centres, The “4Cs” of Growth Management, New Urban Hierarchy of Places & Urban Employment Lands All Ideas received high levels of support from respondents with the most support for ‘changing the City’s policy approach to “mixed-use areas” by differentiating between “choice of use” and “mandated mixed-use” areas’ and ‘reorganizing the City of Langford’s growth management model using the “4Cs” approach.’ Note: the percentages in the chart above reflect the percentage of respondents who indicated ‘Strongly Support’ and ‘Support’ Page 194 of 399

Page 195

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 21 Idea #1: Changing the City’s policy approach to “mixed-use areas” by differentiating between “choice of use” and “mandated mixed-use” areas Qualitative Results - Comment Themes

1. Balanced Development Feedback emphasizes the need for a deliberate balance in planning to ensure green spaces, recreational facilities, and community amenities are included alongside residential and commercial developments. Incentives for these non-residential elements are recommended to encourage developers to contribute to complete communities.
2. Mixed-Use and Community Integration Mandating mixed-use developments is broadly supported to prevent developer-driven decisions that prioritize profits over community needs. The inclusion of essential amenities like grocery stores, community centers, and recreational areas within walking distance is seen as critical to fostering livable neighbourhoods.
3. Design and Accessibility Several contributors advocate for child- and family-friendly designs, such as walkable paths, shared green spaces, and car-free interiors in housing developments, which support safety, social interaction, and ecological integration.
4. Tailored Approaches Respondents suggest flexibility in implementing mixed-use mandates, recognizing that not all areas are suitable for this model. They advocate for context-sensitive planning, clear guidelines for developers, and public input to ensure long-term benefits for the community.
5. Developer Accountability Concerns are raised about developers prioritizing profit over community needs, with calls for city planning to define clear expectations and mandates. Suggestions include bonus incentives for mixed-use projects and stricter oversight to ensure alignment with the city’s vision. Page 195 of 399

Page 196

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 22 Idea #2: Reorganizing the City of Langford’s growth management model using the “4Cs” approach. Qualitative Results - Comment Themes

1. Support for Complete Communities Many respondents support the idea of complete communities with mixed-use spaces that allow residents to live, work, and access amenities without heavy reliance on cars. However, the success of these communities depends on critical population mass, strategic planning, and transit connections to surrounding areas.
2. Flexibility and Accessibility Suggestions include permitting small businesses in non-corner locations, providing better support for mobility-challenged residents, and incorporating public transit and parking to ensure broader accessibility. Walkable neighbourhoods are widely supported, but realistic execution is necessary, considering human nature and logistical challenges.
3. Concerns About Density and Infrastructure While some support increased density, others express concerns about excessive building heights, sprawl, and poorly planned industrial-residential mixes. Respondents emphasize the need for green spaces, libraries, and infrastructure upgrades to accommodate growth effectively.
4. Developer Mandates and Incentives There’s a strong call for clear mandates to ensure developers include community- focused amenities. Suggestions include density bonuses for mixed-use developments and limiting commercial/industrial uses like car dealerships in residential areas.
5. Equity and Community Integration Respondents highlight potential challenges such as homelessness, affordability, and community equity. Some fear these plans could prioritize aesthetics and idealism over inclusivity and practical needs, risking exclusion and long-term sustainability. Quantitative Results - Survey Responses Page 196 of 399

Page 197

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 23 Idea #3: New Employment Lands designation that protects industrial land while allowing a limited amount of small-scale retail and office use. Qualitative Results - Comment Themes

1. Balance and Strategic Zoning Respondents highlight the importance of protecting industrial land while balancing it with residential and commercial development. Mixed-use zoning, such as light industrial with residential or retail components, is proposed as a way to optimize land use, improve efficiency, and create dynamic communities.
2. Infrastructure and Planning Respondents stress the need for sidewalks, proper traffic accommodations, and ensuring that industrial areas are situated away from residential neighborhoods to avoid conflicts such as noise and safety concerns.
3. Preserving Industrial Land Many emphasize the importance of preserving industrial land to support long-term employment opportunities and reduce commuter traffic to other cities. Examples from Vancouver and elsewhere are cited as cautionary tales of losing industrial land to residential use.
4. Integration and Livability Suggestions include “jazzing up” industrial areas with greenery, retail, and small-scale amenities to make them more appealing and functional for workers and nearby residents. Proximity to transit and residential density near employment areas are also seen as critical to reducing car dependency and fostering livability.
5. Flexibility and Future-Proofing Respondents call for forward-thinking strategies that allow industrial lands to evolve with the city’s growth. Ideas include adding vertical density to industrial zones, rethinking urban containment boundaries, and incorporating office space and science-related employment hubs. There’s caution, however, about over-prioritizing industrial land at the expense of green spaces and other community needs. Quantitative Results - Survey Responses Page 197 of 399

Page 198

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 24 Topic 4 Achieving Complete Communities, Realizing Neighbourhood Scale Villages, Corner Convenience All Ideas received high levels of support from respondents with the most support for ‘Allowing corner convenience uses with clear design and parking approaches, with one or two storeys of residential above’. Note: the percentages in the chart above reflect the percentage of respondents who indicated ‘Strongly Support’ and ‘Support’ Page 198 of 399

Page 199

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 25 Idea #1: Allowing three-storey apartment buildings in the Complete Communities designation Qualitative Results - Comment Themes

1. Balanced Density Respondents emphasized the importance of balancing housing types, and supporting options like single-family homes, townhouses, and apartments. Many felt that 3-4 storey buildings could work if they fit the neighbourhood’s character and offered more affordable housing options.
2. Infrastructure Alignment Many noted that infrastructure like schools, daycare, roads, and transit must keep pace with increased density to avoid traffic issues and maintain community accessibility.
3. Community Integration Participants highlighted the need for thoughtful design elements, such as setbacks, rooftop gardens, storage spaces, and green buffers, to ensure new developments blend with existing neighbourhoods and enhance livability.
4. Flexibility in Zoning Respondents supported flexible zoning to allow diverse housing forms, including micro-units and mixed-use developments, while ensuring changes respect the context of existing neighbourhoods.
5. Sustainable Growth Feedback emphasized urban densification over sprawl, with suggestions to include medical facilities, urban food-growing spaces, and traffic calming measures in new developments to create complete, sustainable communities. Quantitative Results - Survey Responses Page 199 of 399

Page 200

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 26 Idea #2: Allowing four-storey apartment buildings in certain locations in the Complete Communities designation, such as along arterial streets and certain collector streets Qualitative Results - Comment Themes

1. Support for Moderate Height Increases Respondents generally supported up to four-storey buildings in appropriate areas, provided there are sufficient setbacks, green buffers, and privacy considerations. Some suggested stepped designs or integrating taller buildings into less intrusive locations.
2. Community Engagement and Infrastructure Many emphasized the need to engage with neighbourhoods and ensure infrastructure like schools, daycare, sidewalks, and bike lanes are in place to support higher-density housing.
3. Flexibility in Design Respondents called for zoning flexibility to allow a mix of building heights and types, such as townhomes, condos, and rentals. Ideas like ground-floor commercial spaces, rooftop gardens, and shared courtyards were popular to enhance livability.
4. Affordability and Housing Options A significant focus was on creating more affordable rental and ownership options, particularly family-friendly units like three-bedroom condos and townhomes, to meet diverse needs.
5. Consistency and Clarity Respondents urged Langford to create clear and consistent zoning rules to manage density effectively while preserving community character, avoiding “all high-rise” development, and incorporating thoughtful urban design. Quantitative Results - Survey Responses Page 200 of 399

Page 201

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 27 Idea #3: Allowing “neighbourhood villages” with up to six-storey buildings containing ground floor shops and services in certain locations Qualitative Results - Comment Themes

1. Support for Mixed-Use Villages Respondents widely supported the idea of neighbourhood villages with ground-floor shops and services to enhance walkability and community vibrancy. Many emphasized the need for locally-owned businesses, outdoor café seating, and spaces for community gatherings.
2. Height Limit Preferences Most respondents favoured limiting buildings to four storeys in neighbourhood villages, citing concerns about six-storey buildings overwhelming residential areas, blocking sunlight, and altering neighbourhood character.
3. Strategic Placement Respondents highlighted the importance of carefully selecting locations for denser development, such as along arterial roads or intersections, while avoiding inappropriate sites like small residential streets.
4. Infrastructure and Accessibility Concerns were raised about ensuring sufficient parking, road safety, and transport options alongside walking and cycling infrastructure. Respondents also noted the need for green spaces, rooftop gardens, and thoughtful urban design to maintain livability.
5. Diverse Housing and Services Many supported a mix of housing and commercial options, including mid- rise buildings with ground-floor retail, to meet various community needs while preserving Langford’s unique character and fostering a more self- sufficient lifestyle. Quantitative Results - Survey Responses Page 201 of 399

Page 202

City of Langford OCP Refresh Engagement Summary Report #2 | December 2024 28 Idea #4: Allowing corner convenience uses with clear design and parking approaches, with or without one to two storeys of residential above Qualitative Results - Comment Themes

1. Strong Support for Mixed-Use Development Respondents widely favoured corner stores and mixed-use spaces, emphasizing the benefits of walkability, local services, and community connections, especially in underserved areas like Bear Mountain and Happy Valley.
2. Incorporating Residential Above Retail Many supported combining commercial spaces with residential units above, ideally up to two to four storeys, to create vibrant, integrated neighbourhoods and maximize land use.
3. Parking and Accessibility Opinions were split on parking; some wanted parking to accommodate Langford’s car reliance, while others argued walkable stores shouldn’t require parking, pushing for pedestrian-friendly infrastructure instead.
4. Thoughtful Planning and Design Respondents highlighted the need for careful location selection, attractive designs, and limits on building heights to fit neighbourhood character, while also encouraging green spaces and sidewalks.
5. Economic Feasibility and Community Needs Concerns were raised about the economic viability of small commercial spaces, ensuring commercial spaces meet local needs, and avoiding vacant or underused storefronts. Quantitative Results - Survey Responses Page 202 of 399

Page 203

Phase 2 Engagement Summary Langford’s Official Community Plan Refresh December 2024 Page 203 of 399

Page 204

OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE​ PHASE 3 ENGAGEMENT ANALYSIS City of Langford

May 14, 2025

Page 204 of 399

Page 205

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION​ 1 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY​ 1 ENGAGEMENT ANALYSIS​ 2 DEMOGRAPHICS​ 2 WHETHER WE GOT THE DRAFT OCP RIGHT​ 5 MOBILITY CHOICE, NOT CAR DEPENDENCY​ 7 LAND-USE AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY​ 9 HIGH-QUALITY CITY-BUILDING​ 11 EMPHASIZING HOUSING ACTION​ 13 CLIMATE ACTION & SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE​ 14 PROTECTING ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS & BIODIVERSITY​ 15 ECONOMIC RESILIENCE & PROSPERITY​ 16 EMBRACING THE CREATIVE CITY​ 18 FOOD SYSTEMS & SECURITY​ 19 PARKS, PLACES, & SERVICES FOR PEOPLE​ 20 LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE OVERALL DESIGN OF THE OCP DOCUMENT​ 21

Barefoot Planning + Design | barefootplanning.com Page 205 of 399

Page 206

INTRODUCTION The Langford OCP Phase 3 survey was conducted online from March 20 to April 6, 2025. A total of 144 individuals completed the survey. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The engagement results were organized by question and then analyzed as follows: Quantitative Analysis Descriptive Statistics ●​ Frequency counts for categorical data are presented in percentages. Qualitative Analysis Thematic Analysis 1.​ Each survey response was treated as an individual unit of analysis. 2.​ Responses were systematically reviewed to identify recurring themes using a keyword-driven thematic coding process. 3.​ Themes were developed based on commonly mentioned topics (e.g., building heights, environmental protection, traffic concerns) and were assigned through manual keyword matching and qualitative interpretation. 4.​ Each response was coded against one or more themes depending on its content. 5.​ The final themes were ranked by frequency of mention, allowing for a representation of the most to least commonly cited issues. 6.​ Themes that had few frequencies (e.g., under 2) were generally not included. 7.​ Responses that did not align with commonly identified themes were categorized as "Uncoded." 8.​ Finally, validation through a thorough review of the results between peers (e.g., peer review) was undertaken to ensure the reliability and validity of the analysis.

Barefoot Planning + Design | barefootplanning.com | 1 Page 206 of 399

Page 207

ENGAGEMENT ANALYSIS The following section presents an analysis of the engagement results by survey questions. DEMOGRAPHICS What neighbourhood do you live in? Key Takeaway

●​ The largest proportion of survey respondents resided in the City Centre (34%), followed by South Langford (16%), Langford Lake and Glen Lake (11%) and Mill Hill (11%).

Total Responses: 140

Barefoot Planning + Design | barefootplanning.com | 2 Page 207 of 399

Page 208

Please indicate your age group Key Takeaways

●​ Children and youth (under 14 years old and up to 19 years old) and those aged 20-29 were under-represented in the survey responses. ●​ Those aged 30-69 years of age were over-represented in the survey results. ●​ Those aged 70 years and older were accurately represented.

Total Responses: 137

Barefoot Planning + Design | barefootplanning.com | 3 Page 208 of 399

Page 209

Do you own or rent your home? Key Takeaway

●​ Owners were over-represented in the survey results, while renters were under-represented.

Total Responses: 133

Barefoot Planning + Design | barefootplanning.com | 4 Page 209 of 399

Page 210

WHETHER WE GOT THE DRAFT OCP RIGHT Survey Question: ●​ Please provide your comments on whether or not you believe we got the draft Official Community Plan right, and if there is anything you would change? Top themes from the responses included: 1.​ General and Strong Support for the Plan (37 Mentions)​ A significant number of respondents expressed general and strong support, stating the draft OCP represents a positive vision for Langford’s future and is moving in the right direction. 2.​ Building Heights and Density (34 Mentions)​ Many responses raised concerns about excessive building heights, density, and towers. Some called for lower height limits either generally or in specific areas, such as the downtown, urban centres including Sooke Road, or near established neighbourhoods and lakes. 3.​ Community Character and Identity (27 Mentions)​ Respondents emphasized preserving Langford’s unique character and identity, with calls for more thoughtful integration of new developments into existing neighbourhoods and ensuring growth feels community-oriented. 4.​ Environmental Protection and Green Spaces (25 Mentions)​ Many respondents stressed the need to protect lakes, trees, and green spaces. Concerns were raised about environmental degradation from overdevelopment and land clearing.​ ​ Transportation and Traffic Concerns (25 Mentions)​ Traffic congestion, road network limitations, and insufficient active transportation options (walking, biking) were frequent concerns. Many highlighted the need for better infrastructure to support current and future populations. 5.​ Affordable Housing (20 Mentions)​ Affordability remained a strong theme, with many respondents urging the City to prioritize affordable, accessible housing options over luxury condos or high-end developments. 6.​ Managing Growth and Development (19 Mentions)​ Comments reflected tensions around rapid growth and urban sprawl. Some respondents called for more controlled, phased, and thoughtful expansion rather than unchecked development. 7.​ Climate Action (14 Mentions)​ Several respondents mentioned climate change and carbon reduction, asking the City to align land use decisions with stronger environmental and sustainability goals.​ ​ Economic Development and Commercial Areas (14 Mentions)​ There were mixed views about commercial development: some called for expanded commercial hubs to create local jobs and services, while others feared over-commercialization could erode community character. Barefoot Planning + Design | barefootplanning.com | 5 Page 210 of 399

Page 211

WHETHER WE GOT THE DRAFT OCP RIGHT: MENTIONS PER THEME Total Responses: 117

Barefoot Planning + Design | barefootplanning.com | 6 Page 211 of 399

Page 212

MOBILITY CHOICE, NOT CAR DEPENDENCY Survey Question: ●​ Share your thoughts on how chapter 'Mobility Choice, Not Car Dependency' covers the topic and prepares the city for the future. Include any suggested revisions for the final version. Top themes from the responses included: 1.​ Support for Transit and Shared Mobility (24 Mentions)​ Many respondents emphasized the importance of expanding transit options and car/ride-share programs. This includes calls for better public transit, first/last-mile connections, and mobility options beyond private vehicles. 2.​ Support for Bike Infrastructure (19 Mentions)​ Strong support was expressed for protected bike lanes and safer cycling infrastructure. Many view cycling as a key part of reducing car dependency and improving mobility for all ages and abilities. 3.​ Traffic and Congestion Concerns (18 Mentions)​ Residents voiced concerns about existing traffic issues and congestion. Some felt the plan does not adequately address the current state of road network capacity or peak-hour bottlenecks. 4.​ Car Dependency and Realistic Needs (17 Mentions)​ Several respondents highlighted the reality that many people still rely on cars, due to commuting patterns, family needs, or limited alternatives. Some viewed the plan as overly optimistic or impractical without stronger infrastructure in place. 5.​ Support for Long-Term Planning (16 Mentions)​ Respondents appreciated the future-oriented vision, particularly efforts to move away from car-centric development. However, some cautioned that implementation must be phased and responsive to real community needs.​ ​ Pedestrian Infrastructure and Walkability (16 Mentions)​ Support was also strong for better sidewalks, crossings, and walkable community design. Many emphasized the value of complete streets and walkability for health, safety, and equity. 6.​ Desire for Regional or Rapid Transit (12 Mentions)​ Some respondents called for investment in high-capacity, regional options like rail or rapid transit. These were seen as necessary to truly shift mobility patterns at scale.

Barefoot Planning + Design | barefootplanning.com | 7 Page 212 of 399

Page 213

MOBILITY CHOICE, NOT CAR DEPENDENCY: MENTIONS PER THEME Total Responses: 64

Barefoot Planning + Design | barefootplanning.com | 8 Page 213 of 399

Page 214

LAND-USE AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY Survey Question: ●​ Share your thoughts on how chapter 'Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy' covers the topic and prepares the city for the future. Include any suggested revisions for the final version. Top themes from the responses included: 1.​ Building Heights and Density (21 Mentions)​ Many respondents expressed concern or strong opinions about proposed building heights and densities. Several comments suggested height limits or careful transitions to protect community character. 2.​ Environmental Protection and Green Spaces (18 Mentions)​ There was significant emphasis on protecting natural areas, lakes, trees, and overall environmental health while managing new growth. 3.​ Public Engagement and Clarity of Plan (16 Mentions)​ Respondents called for clearer communication of the growth strategy, more transparent engagement, and a plan that is easier for the public to understand and trust. 4.​ Affordable Housing (11 Mentions)​ Affordability emerged as a key issue, with requests for more diverse and attainable housing types across all neighbourhoods, not just high-end units. 5.​ Community Character and Identity (9 Mentions)​ There was a consistent theme of protecting the identity, feel, and distinctiveness of existing neighbourhoods amid new growth and development. 6.​ Managing Growth and Preventing Sprawl (6 Mentions)​ Respondents supported thoughtful growth management strategies that limit urban sprawl and promote compact, walkable forms of development.​ ​ Support for Future-Oriented Planning (6 Mentions)​ Some responses supported the idea of a visionary, long-term plan, but emphasized that it needs to be realistically phased and community-sensitive.

Barefoot Planning + Design | barefootplanning.com | 9 Page 214 of 399

Page 215

LAND-USE & GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY: MENTIONS PER THEME

Total Responses: 59

Barefoot Planning + Design | barefootplanning.com | 10 Page 215 of 399

Page 216

HIGH-QUALITY CITY-BUILDING Survey Question: ●​ Share your thoughts on how chapter 'High Quality City-Building' covers the topic and prepares the city for the future. Include any suggested revisions for the final version. Top themes from the responses included: 1.​ Support for High-Quality Urban Design and Architecture (12 Mentions)​ Respondents frequently emphasized the importance of requiring high-quality materials, thoughtful architectural design, and a focus on creating beautiful, enduring buildings. 2.​ Preserving Community Character (9 Mentions)​ Many respondents expressed the need to ensure new development complements and preserves the existing character of Langford’s neighbourhoods.​ ​ Affordable and Inclusive Housing (9 Mentions)​ There was strong support for integrating more affordable and diverse housing types to ensure new development benefits a wide range of residents. 3.​ Green Spaces and Public Realm (7 Mentions)​ Respondents highlighted the need for more parks, trees, and public gathering spaces alongside new development to enhance livability and promote community life. 4.​ Concerns About Building Heights (6 Mentions)​ Concerns were raised about overly tall buildings, with some requesting limits on height to maintain a human-scaled, community-friendly feel. 5.​ Support for Densification (4 Mentions)​ Several respondents supported the idea of more compact, efficient urban growth, provided it is balanced with quality design and community amenities.

Barefoot Planning + Design | barefootplanning.com | 11 Page 216 of 399

Page 217

HIGH-QUALITY CITY-BUILDING: MENTIONS PER THEME

Total Responses: 43

Barefoot Planning + Design | barefootplanning.com | 12 Page 217 of 399

Page 218

EMPHASIZING HOUSING ACTION Survey Question: ●​ Share your thoughts on how chapter 'Emphasizing Housing Action' covers the topic and prepares the city for the future. Include any suggested revisions for the final version. Top themes from the responses included: 1.​ Affordable Housing Emphasis (12 Mentions)​ The dominant theme was the need for greater emphasis on genuinely affordable housing, not just market-rate developments. 2.​ Support for Future Housing Strategy (6 Mentions)​ Several respondents expressed general support for the City's proactive focus on housing action and long-term housing strategies. 3.​ Concerns About Market Housing Focus (5 Mentions)​ There were concerns that too much attention is still being placed on market-priced housing, rather than delivering a wider mix that meets community needs. 4.​ Distribution of Housing Across Neighbourhoods (4 Mentions)​ Some respondents stressed the importance of spreading new housing across different parts of the city, not just concentrating it downtown or in specific corridors.​ ​ Concerns About High-Rise Development (4 Mentions)​ Concerns were raised about the reliance on high-rise forms, with some questioning whether they align with Langford's character or affordability goals.

EMPHASIZING HOUSING ACTION: MENTIONS PER THEME

Total Responses: 34

Barefoot Planning + Design | barefootplanning.com | 13 Page 218 of 399

Page 219

CLIMATE ACTION & SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE Survey Question: ●​ Share your thoughts on how chapter 'Climate Action and Sustainable Infrastructure' covers the topic and prepares the city for the future. Include any suggested revisions for the final version. Top themes from the responses included: 1.​ Green Buildings and Infrastructure (10 Mentions)​ The most common theme was the importance of sustainable buildings and infrastructure, including energy-efficient construction and climate-adaptive design. 2.​ Support for Climate Action (5 Mentions)​ Several respondents affirmed the importance of bold climate action and long-term planning to ensure resilience and sustainability. 3.​ Low-Carbon Transportation (4 Mentions)​ Respondents advocated for reductions in vehicle emissions and stronger investment in transit and active transportation as part of the climate solution. 4.​ Nature-Based Solutions (3 Mentions)​ Some responses emphasized the importance of preserving trees, green infrastructure, and natural systems in climate planning.

CLIMATE ACTION & SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE: MENTIONS PER THEME

Total Responses: 36

Barefoot Planning + Design | barefootplanning.com | 14 Page 219 of 399

Page 220

PROTECTING ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS & BIODIVERSITY Survey Question: ●​ Share your thoughts on how chapter 'Protecting Ecological Systems and Biodiversity' covers the topic and prepares the city for the future. Include any suggested revisions for the final version. Top themes from the responses included: 1.​ Natural Areas and Tree Protection (9 Mentions)​ Many respondents emphasized the importance of protecting forests, natural spaces, and mature trees within the city to preserve ecological health and community livability. 2.​ Protection of Water Bodies and Riparian Areas (7 Mentions)​ There was strong support for protecting lakes, creeks, and riparian ecosystems, which are viewed as vital ecological and recreational assets. 3.​ Biodiversity and Wildlife Habitat (6 Mentions)​ Respondents highlighted the need to protect habitats that support biodiversity and sustain a variety of species, especially in light of development pressure. 4.​ Concerns About Ecological Loss from Development (5 Mentions)​ Numerous comments reflected concern that recent or future development may damage or destroy important ecological features and systems. 5.​ Habitat Connectivity and Green Corridors (3 Mentions)​ Some respondents stressed the importance of connected green corridors and wildlife movement routes to ensure ecological resilience.

PROTECTING ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS & BIODIVERSITY: MENTIONS PER THEME

Total Responses: 33

Barefoot Planning + Design | barefootplanning.com | 15 Page 220 of 399

Page 221

ECONOMIC RESILIENCE & PROSPERITY Survey Question: ●​ Share your thoughts on how chapter 'Economic Resilience and Prosperity' covers the topic and prepares the city for the future. Include any suggested revisions for the final version. Top themes from the responses included: 1.​ Need for Diverse Employment and Industry (7 Mentions)​ Respondents expressed concern about Langford's lack of industrial and job diversity, calling for more employment options to strengthen the local economy.​ ​ Support for Local Business (7 Mentions)​ There was strong support for investing in and promoting local businesses as a way to boost economic self-reliance and community prosperity. 2.​ Affordability and Income Equity (4 Mentions)​ Several comments pointed to rising living costs and the need to support lower and middle-income households to maintain economic balance.​ ​ Support for Economic Resilience Strategy (4 Mentions)​ Some respondents appreciated the City's focus on long-term economic resilience and planning for future prosperity. 3.​ Need for Regional Coordination (2 Mentions)​ A few respondents highlighted the importance of regional collaboration in economic development and planning.​ ​ Economic Inequality (2 Mentions)​ Concerns were raised about growing economic disparity, with a few comments critiquing wealth concentration and inequitable growth. ECONOMIC RESILIENCE & PROSPERITY: MENTIONS PER THEME

Total Responses: 29 Barefoot Planning + Design | barefootplanning.com | 16 Page 221 of 399

Page 222

EMBRACING THE CREATIVE CITY Survey Question: ●​ Share your thoughts on how chapter 'Embracing the Creating City' covers the topic and prepares the city for the future. Include any suggested revisions for the final version. Top themes from the responses included: 1.​ Support for Arts and Culture (16 Mentions)​ The most common theme was strong support for public investment in arts, culture, and creative expression as essential to community vibrancy and identity. 2.​ Recreation and Community Amenities (4 Mentions)​ Several responses emphasized the importance of recreational spaces like sports fields and community centers as complementary components of a creative, livable city. 3.​ Need for Regional Collaboration (2 Mentions)​ Some respondents suggested that creative infrastructure would be more effective if planned and delivered at a regional scale, not solely within Langford.

EMBRACING THE CREATIVE CITY: MENTIONS PER THEME

Total Responses: 31

Barefoot Planning + Design | barefootplanning.com | 17 Page 222 of 399

Page 223

FOOD SYSTEMS & SECURITY Survey Question: ●​ Share your thoughts on how chapter 'Food Systems and Security' covers the topic and prepares the city for the future. Include any suggested revisions for the final version. Top themes from the responses included: 1.​ Support for Food Security and Resilience (7 Mentions)​ Many respondents voiced support for long-term food security efforts and resilience planning in the face of global and local uncertainties. 2.​ Local Food Access and Community Gardens (3 Mentions)​ Several comments emphasized the importance of neighbourhood-based food solutions such as community gardens and accessible produce. 3.​ Skepticism or Opposition to Investment (2 Mentions)​ A few respondents questioned the need for municipal investment in food systems, considering it outside the city’s core responsibilities.​ ​ Support for Urban and Innovative Agriculture (2 Mentions)​ Some respondents supported vertical farming and new technologies as tools to enhance local food production in limited urban space.

FOOD SYSTEMS & SECURITY: MENTIONS PER THEME

Total Responses: 35 Barefoot Planning + Design | barefootplanning.com | 18 Page 223 of 399

Page 224

PARKS, PLACES, & SERVICES FOR PEOPLE Survey Question: ●​ Share your thoughts on how chapter 'Parks, Places, and Services for People' covers the topic and prepares the city for the future. Include any suggested revisions for the final version. Top themes from the responses included: 1.​ Protection and Expansion of Green Spaces (24 Mentions)​ The most frequent theme was a strong emphasis on protecting existing green spaces and adding more parks and open spaces to serve a growing population. 2.​ Need for More Recreation Facilities (8 Mentions)​ Several comments called for additional recreation centers, ball fields, and sports facilities to meet community demand. 3.​ Access to Parks and Active Transportation (3 Mentions)​ Respondents mentioned the importance of accessible parks connected by walkable, bike-friendly networks and trails. 4.​ Community Services and Facilities (2 Mentions)​ Some respondents emphasized the need for expanding broader community services and facilities beyond parks alone.​ ​ Support for Long-Term Parks Planning (2 Mentions)​ A few comments recognized and supported the City's long-term planning for future parks, amenities, and recreation investments. PARKS, PLACES, & SERVICES FOR PEOPLE: MENTIONS PER THEME

Total Responses: 44

Barefoot Planning + Design | barefootplanning.com | 19 Page 224 of 399

Page 225

LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE OVERALL DESIGN OF THE OCP DOCUMENT Please rate the following aspects: Visually Accessible & Understandable Key Takeaways

●​ Most respondents found the OCP document visually accessible and understandable.

Total Responses: 144

​

Barefoot Planning + Design | barefootplanning.com | 20 Page 225 of 399

Page 226

  

 

  

          ! "      #! "$ $#!   

$$ "  #%$  "  &'()',-../0123(45&6)*&'()'67-85959:!;%!  < 
%=$= 

?  $ $ $  "

   "#%@AA 

?   $ "  "" "B #%@AA C$  $  $ $ $    $ %@AA D  "$C$    "B    $  E$ 

   

  

          ! "      #! "$ $#!   

$$ "  #%$  "  &'()'*,-../012FG2HIJ-KL MNO%P@=EQ?RMB$ STUVWXYZ[^YY_`_VabZccdW_efgaVWhfaVijZkllmmnlmlopqrstuvtwxysjz{%@A|UVWXYZ[}ZW_WXhfaVinxcW\cWejZk€qv‚excW\cWeeZƒ„\Vex„„~W_‚…{nM @?†
=‡>AMN ;%ˆA>ˆE>=@A>A N%‰;%Page 226 of 399

Page 227

  

  "#$%# &'()%+,-.&/0112(%34/&(53/&67*899::;9:9<=6%>%> ??   

@@A?BCDEA A F G? F A? ?H IF CAFAA AJAKA?AA?AA  L D98M# .%$%&""%# " #+,"".&/0112(%34/&(53/&67*899::;9:9<=%*%> NLAH A A P?FFQPR AFFS?KI T UAQTURVA? A IAI I T WXFSYUZUA IAH?IK    @

?A A??%>#'# &'()$"+[&()"#'*(()53/&6;]]]F?FYC]QWF?FJI?II?W^RV @Y]_abdbebfgahi`jdabfbkdlimjafmbdabfnopifhpifd
qrEUVstuYETXEqYUEU
qTPEs ?A ??  

@L ZZ+A ?AAIAH??? ?AFI FFA H F  IA=

AtA@ ?A@ 
@ F AF 
qrEUVsTUETXEqYUEUsJ K  F  Ambdabfeovvwxyz
qrEUVsTUETXEqYUEUtuYET W? F IFmbdabfeovvwxyz
qrEUVstuYETXEqYUEUTUET KA 
K{  APage 227 of 399

Page 228

  

 !"#$%%&'(%)*+(),-('-(.
/01234.567819:1/8212.7;<94=>?=ABCDEFGHFIJEKLKMNKBMHHKOJPBGGBQFDRMLSBGFETUVWVXYZKBEBDKFDCJKBHJ[JGBS \] \] ^ _]`` a b]c`]]def !"#

]:g`c\4 ``\f$%%&'(%)*+(),-('-(.
/01234.7;<94:1/8212.567819hi6h \] ]d_  

bb]\j  ]`/  ddk l\ b  bmf !"#n+())&-('(',hi6h .UWoF[JPFILKIJMHFDRKBlpqEFMGABrrCDFKTsGMDtTGMQuBWvvXXwvXvxmQFKOKOJ\   

bb]\fj.e1] ] d g
d ]\ \_ d j]d]] ];]a]\]]\]6]  k efvWyFIJEKLKMPPKBIJPJIlpPPFEFMGABrrCDFKTsGMDtTGMQuBWvvXXwvXvxmKBKOJYfk]_ 6] ] {\dd|6{} ]dd~\af 9 2]|92}3]\ ] ]  9 ^:d~682f2] ]_\`a    b

\] ]\\KOFIHIJMHFDRLBPl€MDRPBIHBDFDR3 b‚ƒƒƒ6d\d8f„jƒ|h^6d\d;\6``\^…}3 b8fƒf682jf=>?=ABCDEFGHFIJEKLKMNKBMHHKOJPBGGBQFDRMLSBGFETUVWVXYZKBEBDKFDCJKBHJ[JGBS \] \] ^ _]`` a b]c]]defPage 228 of 399

Page 229

  

     

!!"#  ""$  % & !  !'()+),./0012345 6789$5:;6<" =>8 ?6 !@#;$AB@CDE%  ?6 !:=6 !5:>;$%F$=
$EG67HIJFK7LG$GHL?%M  "8 ?6 !@#;$AB@CDE%  ?6 !:=6 !5:()+),./0012345: 6789$:;6<" =&NOPQSTUVWXTSYZ[S]OWX^XY__`_WPabcdeYVQ^f_W_geQhVijSkllmnolnlp'kaqrstuoLG$FKKGFIL=
$EG67HIJFK7LG$GHL?%M   8 ;#v6 =6 !:  ()*+),./001234ww4x2yz{|1x2||555 J6
K 5555 K 
$EG67H9IGKLG$GH7J9GKGL}    

    A "A  A  ;  ! =  "  "         "}   A  }"" ~9GKGL I       

! 

    L;5=}   A    A  ~Page 229 of 399

Page 230

Notice of Public Hearing OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN NOTICE of Public Hearing on Bylaw No. 2200, being a Bylaw to repeal existing Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1200 and replace it with a new Official Community Plan for the Municipality, is hereby given pursuant to Section 466 of the Local Government Act. All persons who believe that their interest in property is affected by the proposed Bylaw will be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard or to present written submissions respecting matters contained in the Bylaw at the PUBLIC HEARING to be held in the CITY OF LANGFORD COUNCIL CHAMBERS, Third Floor, 877 Goldstream Avenue, Langford, BC, on June 25, 2025, at 7:00 pm. Please note no further submissions will be accepted after the close of the public hearing. The purpose of Bylaw No. 2200 is to adopt a new Official Community Plan for the City of Langford. This new plan provides a clear framework to guide future growth and land use changes as Langford grows to 100,000 residents. Every parcel of land within the City of Langford is affected by Bylaw No. 2200.

Please note this meeting will be held electronically and in person at the above address. Information about how to connect to this meeting is indicated in the table. Council will not answer questions about the proposed bylaw except to provide clarification. Please have all your questions answered in advance of the Council Meeting by contacting the Community Planning and Climate Change Department as noted below. COPIES of the complete proposed bylaw and other related material may be viewed in person during office hours 8:30 am to 4:30 pm, Monday to Friday (holidays excluded), from June 11th to June 25th, 2025, inclusive, at the Langford City Hall, Planning Counter, Second Floor, 877 Goldstream Avenue, Langford, BC, V9B 2X8. The Agenda, including material that Council may consider in relation to the bylaw, will be posted to the City’s website: https://www.langford.ca/city-hall/agendas-and-minutes/ no later than the Monday before the Council Meeting. Correspondence may be submitted by emailing planning@langford.ca or by writing to Langford City Hall, 2nd Floor, 877 Goldstream Avenue, Langford, BC, V9B 2X8. Please contact the Community Planning and Climate Change Department at 250.478.7882 with any questions on this Bylaw. Marie Watmough Corporate Officer Teleconference # 1-855-703-8985 (Canada Toll Free) OR 1-778-907-2071 (long distance charges may apply) Meeting ID # 850 1163 1608 – Zoom.us or Zoom app on your mobile device Page 230 of 399

Page 231

Goldstream Gazette www.goldstreamgazette.com A8 Wednesday, June 11, 2025 LANGFORD PRINCE EDWARD BRANCH #91 Father’s Day Brunch Sunday June 15, 2025 BUFFET Eggs, Eggs Benedict, Steak & Eggs, Hashbrowns, Bacon, Sausage, Muffins, Croissants, Fresh Fruit and more! Adults: $25 Kids 10 & under: $15 761 Station Ave rcl91.ca Housing targets highs and lows found in Greater Victoria Evan Lindsay The provincial quest to add more homes has made success stories out of several Greater Victoria mu- nicipalities. Others, meanwhile, could find themselves in the cross hairs of the B.C. Housing Ministry. The province imple- mented the Housing Supply Act in 2023, establishing housing targets for commu- nities based on areas of greatest need and highest projected growth. So far, the province reports it has delivered 16,130 net new homes across the first 30 priority municipalities. Some Greater Vic- toria municipalities are exceeding targets, while others feel side- lined by what they say are rigid targets and timelines that ignore their community’s re- ality. The first group of 10 communities, which included Vic- toria, Saanich and Oak Bay, has report- ed more than 8,300 homes built in their first year of targets, while six-month re- ports from the second and third groups show more than 7,800 net new homes have been constructed. Among the second and third groups are Central Saanich and Esquimalt, which have both demolished their first-year housing tar- gets. Central Saanich contributed 304 units, surpassing its target of 77 by 395 per cent. Es- quimalt followed suit, adding 224 units and exceeding its target of 81 by 277 per cent. These two municipal- ities lead all 20 com- munities included in the second and third priority groups. Esquimalt Mayor Barbara Desjardins credited the success of development to the community’s amenities, walkability and proximity to core municipalities, which make it an attractive place to live and build. Other contributing factors include proac- tive planning dating back to Esquimalt’s 2014 Economic De- velopment Strategy, which engaged the real estate sector. “The target was ex- ceeded because devel- opers were willing to invest in Esquimalt,” said Desjardins. She also credited an effi- cient approval process and a council eager to build housing. “We understand that housing is a priority in our region and have been putting process- es in place for several years to arrive at the positive numbers you see today. Adding new homes bolsters our community’s vitality and supports local businesses – we’re thrilled to welcome new residents to the township.” While Esquimalt and Central Saanich are making signifi- cant contributions to the province’s hous- ing goals, other mu- nicipalities have seen different results. Esquimalt has surpassed the province’s one-year housing targets after just six months. (Evan Lindsay / Black Press Media) Continued on A9 https://car-corral.com/ THE WORKIN’ FOLKS CAR AND TRUCK STORE Family owned since 1996 1658 ISLAND HIGHWAY D#10234 • INSPECTIONS • BRAKES • A/C • SUSPENSION • TUNE-UP • OIL CHANGE • DIAGNOSTICS INSPECTIONS • BRAKES • A/C • SUSPENSION • TUNE-UP • OIL CHANGE • DIAGNOSTICS 250-478-1128 D#10234 D#10234 Sales & Ser 2013 Ford Escape S 4 Cylinder, Automatic, FWD, Air Cond, Pwr Group $9900* ervice Centre 2019 Chrysler 300S 3.6L V6, Automatic, Wow! Only 42,000 Kms $22,900* 2019 Chevrolet Express 2500 Cargo Van 4.3L V6, Automatic, Air Cond $24,900* 2018 GMC Sierra 1500 W/T 4.3L V6, Automatic, Air Cond, 8’ Bed $22,900* *plus $495 documentation fee and taxes. Notice of Public Hearing OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN NOTICE of Public Hearing on Bylaw No. 2200, being a Bylaw to repeal existing Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1200 and replace it with a new Official Community Plan for the Municipality, is hereby given pursuant to Section 466 of the Local Government Act. All persons who believe that their interest in property is affected by the proposed Bylaw will be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard or to present written submissions respecting matters contained in the Bylaw at the PUBLIC HEARING to be held in the CITY OF LANGFORD COUNCIL CHAMBERS, Third Floor, 877 Goldstream Avenue, Langford, BC, on June 25, 2025, at 7:00 pm. Please note no further submissions will be accepted after the close of the public hearing. The purpose of Bylaw No. 2200 is to adopt a new Official Community Plan for the City of Langford. This new plan provides a clear framework to guide future growth and land use changes as Langford grows to 100,000 residents. Every parcel of land within the City of Langford is affected by Bylaw No. 2200. Teleconference # 1-855-703-8985 (Canada Toll Free) OR 1-778-907-2071 (long distance charges may apply) Meeting ID # 850 1163 1608 – Zoom.us or Zoom app on your mobile device Please note this meeting will be held electronically and in person at the above address. Information about how to connect to this meeting is indicated in the table. Councilwillnotanswerquestionsabouttheproposedbylawexcepttoprovideclarification. Please have all your questions answered in advance of the Council Meeting by contacting the Community Planning and Climate Change Department as noted below. COPIES of the complete proposed bylaw and other related material may be viewed in person during office hours 8:30 am to 4:30 pm, Monday to Friday (holidays excluded), from June 11th to June 25th, 2025, inclusive, at the Langford City Hall, Planning Counter, Second Floor, 877 Goldstream Avenue, Langford, BC, V9B 2X8. The Agenda, including material that Council may consider in relation to the bylaw, will be posted to the City’s website: https://www.langford.ca/city-hall/agendas-and-minutes/ no later than the Monday before the Council Meeting. Correspondence may be submitted by emailing planning@langford.ca or by writing to Langford City Hall, 2nd Floor, 877 Goldstream Avenue, Langford, BC, V9B 2X8. Please contact the Community Planning and Climate Change Department at 250.478.7882 with any questions on this Bylaw. Marie Watmough Corporate Officer Page 231 of 399

Page 232

Goldstream Gazette www.goldstreamgazette.com A16 Wednesday, June 18, 2025 Notice of Public Hearing OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN NOTICE of Public Hearing on Bylaw No. 2200, being a Bylaw to repeal existing Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1200 and replace it with a new Official Community Plan for the Municipality, is hereby given pursuant to Section 466 of the Local Government Act. All persons who believe that their interest in property is affected by the proposed Bylaw will be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard or to present written submissions respecting matters contained in the Bylaw at the PUBLIC HEARING to be held in the CITY OF LANGFORD COUNCIL CHAMBERS, Third Floor, 877 Goldstream Avenue, Langford, BC, on June 25, 2025, at 7:00 pm. Please note no further submissions will be accepted after the close of the public hearing. The purpose of Bylaw No. 2200 is to adopt a new Official Community Plan for the City of Langford. This new plan provides a clear framework to guide future growth and land use changes as Langford grows to 100,000 residents. Every parcel of land within the City of Langford is affected by Bylaw No. 2200. Teleconference # 1-855-703-8985 (Canada Toll Free) OR 1-778-907-2071 (long distance charges may apply) Meeting ID # 850 1163 1608 – Zoom.us or Zoom app on your mobile device Please note this meeting will be held electronically and in person at the above address. Information about how to connect to this meeting is indicated in the table. Councilwillnotanswerquestionsabouttheproposedbylawexcepttoprovideclarification. Please have all your questions answered in advance of the Council Meeting by contacting the Community Planning and Climate Change Department as noted below. COPIES of the complete proposed bylaw and other related material may be viewed in person during office hours 8:30 am to 4:30 pm, Monday to Friday (holidays excluded), from June 11th to June 25th, 2025, inclusive, at the Langford City Hall, Planning Counter, Second Floor, 877 Goldstream Avenue, Langford, BC, V9B 2X8. The Agenda, including material that Council may consider in relation to the bylaw, will be posted to the City’s website: https://www.langford.ca/city-hall/agendas-and-minutes/ no later than the Monday before the Council Meeting. Correspondence may be submitted by emailing planning@langford.ca or by writing to Langford City Hall, 2nd Floor, 877 Goldstream Avenue, Langford, BC, V9B 2X8. Please contact the Community Planning and Climate Change Department at 250.478.7882 with any questions on this Bylaw. Marie Watmough Corporate Officer NOTICE OF AMENDING BYLAW Colwood Land Use Bylaw No. 151, 1989, Amendment No. 221 (HAH1 – 546 Windthrop Rd), Bylaw No. 2055, 2025 NOTICE IS GIVEN that Council of the City of Colwood will consider First, Second and Third Reading on Monday, June 23, 2025, at 6:30pm in relation to the proposed “Colwood Land Use Bylaw No. 151, 1989, Amendment No. 221 (HAH1 – 546 Windthrop Rd), Bylaw No. 2055, 2025”. PURPOSE: This application proposes a rezoning from A1 to a new Hillside Attached Housing 1 (HAH1) Zone to enable a 34-unit townhouse development. SUBJECT PROPERTY: This Bylaw applies to the lands legally described as “LOT A, SECTION 62, ESQUIMALT LAND DISTRICT, PLAN VIP20691” (546 WINDTHROP RD). INSPECTION OF MATERIALS: Copies of the proposed bylaw and related materials can be viewed at https://www.colwood.ca/news. SPEAK TO COUNCIL In Person: The public is welcome to provide comments in person during the public participation portion of the meeting. Electronically: To pre-register to speak please contact corporateservices@colwood.ca up until noon on the day of the meeting. MEETING: Regular Meeting of Council DATE and TIME: Monday, June 23, 2025, 6:30pm PLACE: Council Chambers, 3300 Wishart Road, Colwood BC NEED MORE INFORMATION? Contact Planning at (250) 294-8153 or planning@colwood.ca. We want to hear from you! WRITE TO US The deadline for written submissions is 12:00 pm on the day of the meeting and must include your name and civic address. • Email corporateservices@colwood.ca • Mail/Drop-off: City of Colwood, 3300 Wishart Road, Colwood, BC V9C 1R1 Season of Pride is something worth celebrating I love June. It’s the time when school starts to wind down and everyone can tell that summer vacation is just around the corner. Yes, soon we will be free from homework and tests, pre- sentations and book reports. (I’ve been sleeping till noon on the weekends just to practice. It’s important to put in the work now, so we’re ready when the glorious time does arrive.) But there’s another reason this month is im- portant: June marks the beginning of Pride season across Canada. As an ally, I think it’s important to write about queer issues for many reasons, but espe- cially because I am a straight cisgender young man. Some guys with those attributes still find it acceptable to sling the f-slur at each other and use “gay” as a pejorative. They don’t rep- resent all of us here in Straight Guys R US, but they’re a loud minority. That’s not how we should be, and that’s defi- nitely not how I want to be. It’s a disservice to my community, my queer friends and family, to not treat LGBTQIA2S+ issues with the same respect I’d accord anything else I write about. And let’s be honest here, Pride season is awesome! Oh, Pride season. A joyous time indeed. A time of parades and fun and celebration. Celebration of the right to be who you are and love whomever you choose. Isn’t that wonderful? This is something we’re so lucky to have as youth in Canada. I can’t remember a time when Pride parades didn’t flood the streets with colour and music every summer – but my parents and grandparents certainly can. To not have the kind of societal acceptance that queer Canadians enjoy today seems so foreign and strange to me. I mean, certain- ly that acceptance isn’t universal, but legally, protections exist for queer people to be able to live and love freely. To not have something as basic as that is downright strange. And yet, that is the reality for far too many people around the world. And the thing is, our rights here aren’t guaranteed either. As we’ve seen in the United States, equality rights can be stripped away in an instant. We have to understand how lucky we are to live in a country like this, especially during Pride season. It’s important to take an active role in our communities, because the stronger they are, the easier it is to defend against hate. That said, let’s see what’s going on in the community. What sorts of queer shenanigans can everyone get up to this summer? There’s not a lot happening in Langford, but if you’re willing to shlep out to Victoria, there are some interesting events with your name on them. Go to the website for Victoria Pride, victo- riapridesociety.org, to find all the great events you can participate in and maybe even vol- unteer. And it’s not just Victoria. There’s Pride cele- brations all over the Island, in Campbell River and Ladysmith and Duncan, oh my! It’s exciting and fun to get involved with Pride events, and if you need community, now is a really good time to find it. Or maybe these events aren’t for you. That’s OK. There’s no wrong way to Pride. (Oh yes, it’s a verb now.) Pride is important for all of us. We all know and love at least one person who is queer, trans, or questioning in our lives. If you’re an ally like myself, the best thing you can do is offer support to those who are struggling, and be kind, supportive, and non-judgmental. Life can be hard, let’s not make it harder. Let’s not be that guy. Plus, let’s be honest here. Who doesn’t like parades and rainbows? No one, that’s who. Happy Pride! Gabriel Mackintosh is a student at Royal Bay Secondary School. Gabriel Mackintosh Gabriel Mackintosh Student Voice Student Voice We are your online news source for the West Shore! www.GoldstreamGazette.com #GoldstreamGazette 24/7 24/7 Page 232 of 399

Page 233

April 4, 2025

Mayor and Council, City of Langford c/o dsametz@langford.ca

Re: DRAFT OCP

With over 30 years of experience of advising on, and advocating for the benefits of active transportation, Capital Bike is pleased to see the ambitious goals in the City of Langford’s Draft OCP. Transportation infrastructure should be built for the benefit of all people (rather than cars), with safety and comfort as top considerations. The Draft OCP recognizes that transit, coupled with cycling, walking, and rolling infrastructure is more efficient at moving people, especially in a growing city. In particular, we are encouraged by Part 5 of the Draft OCP titled “Mobility Choice, Not Car Dependency.” This section aligns with Capital Bike’s Roadmap for Cycling Success, shared with City of Langford in 2022. Our Roadmap advocated for establishing a long- term All Ages and Abilities network including protected bike lanes on all major roads and the busiest of residential streets, connecting to the front door of every school, and addressing gaps in moving between Langford and neighbouring municipalities. We were impressed with the significant public engagement demonstrating support for bold targets, as people of all ages are looking for mobility options that make sense. We believe Capital Bike can be a valuable partner in helping Langford achieve its Draft OCP target of a transportation system that sees 42% of all trips made by walking, rolling, cycling, and public transit. Our education programs reach into many schools and organizations, and our popular Go By Bike Week events have celebrated bike riding as a normal everyday activity for over 30 years. Active transportation projects are vital for climate action, public health, and equitable and affordable access to safe transportation. Moreover, they enhance quality of life and community well-being. Congratulations on the bold and forward-looking Draft Official Community Plan that recognizes that investments in community infrastructure yield long-term benefits and a stronger, more resilient City of Langford. Sincerely, Colleen Sparks, Executive Director Capital Bike (Bike Victoria Society)

cc. Tori, Klassen Jeffery, Chair West Shore Local Committee, Capital Bike Doug Baer and Joel Satre, Co-Chairs, Advocacy Committee, Capital Bike Page 233 of 399

Page 234

1 216-852 FORT STREET, VICTORIA, BC V8W 1H8 www.communitycouncil.ca | Tel: 250-383-6166 | admin@CommunityCouncil.ca

We recognize and acknowledge the Coast Salish Nations on whose homelands we live and work.

May 6th, 2025

Dear City of Langford Planning,

The City of Langford’s OCP update presents a visionary and divergent approach to planning for equitable, prosperous, and sustainable development. The milestone of 100,000, as opposed to year, places population—the people—at the centre of the plan rather than a quantitative, linear, and colonially- oriented measure.

The Community Social Planning Council of Greater Victoria supports the OCP’s focus of complete communities and planning neighbourhoods which are inclusive and equitable. This means planning for residents of diverse age ranges, diverse priorities, and diverse modes of accessible transit (among other examples). The Land-Use and Growth Management Strategy provides an aspirational, yet realistic, approach to conceptualizing the development of complete communities. The “4Cs” concept of place hierarchy—City Centre, Urban Centres, Corridors, and Complete Communities (p. 27)— is a model that considers development for different uses and priorities. This model, improving connecting corridors between centres and promoting a more localized lifestyle, is the state of art trajectory related to planning not only in the Greater Victoria Region, but across the Province of British Columbia. Furthermore, the OCP’s call for a “coordinated approach that strengthens and connects the policies and guidelines that make dense urban development successful” (p. 52) demonstrates the responsibility of city planning to be accountable to the desires and needs of citizens which are represented through council policy decisions. Additionally, it is important to value a coordinated approach that weaves together urban infill, transportation, land use, housing affordability, climate sustainability, and arts and culture—not as separate elements, but as interconnected and mutually reinforcing components of a vibrant and prosperous city. While consultation with local Indigenous Nations is outlined in the Desired Outcomes of Embracing the Creative City (p. 86), it would be to the benefit of all residents for the City to consult with Indigenous Nations in more of the Targeted Commitments. For example, a challenge related to Protecting Ecological Systems and Biodiversity is planning for long-term environmental stewardship. The Lekwungen-speaking Peoples are the original stewards of this land and until traditional Indigenous knowledge is meaningfully incorporated into planning processes, there remains a risk of perpetuating settler-centric approaches to land stewardship and the care of all its inhabitants.

The devotion of community engagement, reciprocal dialogue, and multi-modal avenues of feedback related to Langford’s OCP update is exemplary and sets an important precedent in planning projects moving forward. All in all, the City of Langford’s OCP update is a valuable advancement for Langford and its people, as well as the Greater Victoria Region as a whole.

King regards,

Olivia Brodowski (she/her) Research Project Manager - Complete Communities Project Community Social Planning Council of Greater Victoria Suite #216 – 852 Fort Street, The Joseph Building

Page 234 of 399

Page 235

From: To: Langford Planning General Mailbox Subject: Langford OCP Update Date: June 2, 2025 5:10:05 AM Hi Langford Planning,  I have two very specific points of feedback/questions regarding the new draft OCP. 

1. In transportation, one of the action items says to continue to assess replacing BRT with LRT. This is good, however, I would love to see a little more ambition and have it expanded to say LRT or automated light metro akin to SkyTrain. Obviously the OCP is a minor element in planning a regional project, but considering the 95 in it's current mediocre state manages to get over 11,000 daily riders (and this does not account for rush hour only routes like the 61 or 47/48) and Langley justified getting a metro, we as a region should at least seriously consider the possibility. I think Langford is uniquely suited to lead that push. 
2. Point 11.23 in economic resilience talks about establishing minimum commercial unit sizes. Have you done any analysis here about the negative impacts this could have on small local business? Bigger units mean higher commercial rents, and high commercial rents both kill existing small business, and make it harder for new businesses to begin. I am worried that by mandating minimum units Langford is going to inadvertently harm small business instead of encouraging them. Someone dreaming of starting a restaurant for example might only be able to afford a takeout window type of unit (See Mom's Kitchen and Ayo Eat in Market Square for examples of the format). I actually found a really nice bakery in Wuhan that was just a walk up counter to the sidewalk. It would be a shame if Langford prevented businesses like them from ever having the chance to begin. I recognize amendments at this point may need to be may by council, but I figured I'd send this quickly anyway.  Thank you! Cord Corcese.  Page 235 of 399

Page 236

From: To: Langford Planning General Mailbox Subject: Opposition to the Proposed Official Community Plan (OCP) – Bylaw No. 2200 Date: May 28, 2025 10:17:24 PM Attachments: Opposition Letter OCP Langford.pdf.pdf Dear Mayor and Council, I am writing to formally express my opposition to the proposed Official Community Plan (OCP) currently under review by the City of Langford. While I recognize the need for long-term planning to accommodate growth, I have significant concerns regarding both the direction and implications of the current proposal. 1. Overconcentration of High-Rise Development The allowance of buildings up to 30 storeys in the City Centre and up to 24 storeys in Urban Centres represents a dramatic shift in density. These high-rise developments may: Strain local infrastructure (sewer, water, roads, emergency services). Alter the character of existing neighbourhoods without adequate transition zones. Create shadows and wind tunnels, reducing livability and comfort at street level. This scale of vertical growth seems disconnected from the preferences of many residents who value human-scale development and green spaces. 2. Insufficient Road Infrastructure and Traffic Planning Despite ambitious modal shift goals, Langford remains largely car-dependent. The OCP sets a target of 42% non-vehicle trips, yet lacks a clear, funded implementation timeline for: Expanding transit service levels. Building separated bike infrastructure city-wide. Addressing current traffic bottlenecks on roads like Jacklin, Sooke, and Goldstream. Without serious upgrades in transit and road infrastructure, this plan risks compounding congestion, not relieving it. 3. Weak Protections for Established Neighbourhoods The infill strategy, while framed as sustainable, could lead to: Increased densification in stable, single-family areas. Page 236 of 399

Page 237

Displacement of long-term residents. Loss of mature trees, green space, and neighbourhood identity. Planning for “Complete Communities” should be more localized and tailored — not top-down overlays that prioritize density over stability. 4. Lack of Binding Commitments While the OCP sets broad targets on climate action, equity, and housing, it lacks: Clear timelines and accountability mechanisms. Legally binding guarantees for affordable housing, not just density. Public engagement on key implementation tools (e.g. zoning bylaw changes, density bonusing rules). This leaves too much up to future policy decisions, creating uncertainty for residents. 5. Healthcare and Community Services Lag Behind The plan mentions population growth up to 100,000 residents, yet it does not adequately account for: New health care facilities and service expansion. School capacity. Local food access and resilience planning. Growth should not outpace essential public services — especially in a city already facing healthcare accessibility issues. Conclusion I urge Council to reconsider the scale, speed, and structure of this OCP. While I support planning for a better future, we must do so cautiously, equitably, and with deeper public engagement. I request that this proposal be sent back for revision with further community input and stronger safeguards for infrastructure, affordability, and quality of life. Sincerely, Hossein Reyhani Page 237 of 399

Page 238

HRS Protecting the environment is a respect for the future. Page 238 of 399

Page 239

Island Health Medical Health Officers Chief MHO: Dr. Réka Gustafson 250-519-3406; North Island: Dr. Charmaine Enns 250-331-8591 Central Island: 250-739-6304; Cowichan Region: Dr. Stéphane Trépanier 250-737-2020 South Island: Dr. Murray Fyfe, Dr. Dee Hoyano, Dr. Christina Kay, Dr. Mark Cachia, Dr. Mike Benusic 250-519-3406 islandhealth.ca/about-us/medical-health-officers

Excellent health and care, for everyone, everywhere, every time.

April 30, 2025

City of Langford 2nd Floor, 877 Goldstream Ave Langford, B.C. V9B 2X8

                  by email: planning@langford.ca

Re: City of Langford - Official Community Plan Refresh

Thank-you for the opportunity to review the City of Langford’s draft Official Community Plan (OCP) from a population health perspective. Through collaboration with communities, Island Health’s Population and Public Health teams seek to support the creation of adaptive and vibrant communities to improve population health outcomes and reduce health inequities. The update to Langford’s OCP presents a key opportunity to set the foundation to support better health and well-being for current and future residents as the community grows. The Healthy Built Environment Linkages Toolkit1 provides an evidence based framework which links community design, planning principles and health outcomes across key built environment features. The draft OCP integrates key planning principles which are aligned with creating healthy built environments and would be expected to positively influence a number of social and environmental determinants of health. These include:

Complete, compact, connected neighbourhood design – The plan’s emphasis on mixed land use with compact urban form, through multi-modal infill development, and increased connectivity promotes active modes of travel and supports access to key destinations (e.g. schools, employment, recreation, services) by reducing travel distance. This type of design promotes physical activity, reduces reliance on vehicles and provides opportunity for social connection.

Prioritizing active and public transportation through safe, accessible, attractive networks – Separated transportation networks that protect the safety of the most vulnerable road users (those outside the automobile) are critical to reduce serious trauma and death. Active transportation infrastructure also promotes health through increased physical activity, improved Page 239 of 399

Page 240

Island Health Medical Health Officers

Page 2

mental health, and increased opportunities for social connection. Additionally, transportation networks which prioritize active and public transportation are critical to improving equity and access to key destinations and daily needs for those who may not own vehicles or be able to drive and rely of these modes of travel.

Enhancing nearby access to green spaces and integration of nature – Access to parks, greenspace and natural environments has been associated with reduced stress, improved mental well-being and increased social well-being. The protection and expansion of parks and natural areas are particularly important with increased density as the community grows and to support climate resilience. Health equity is supported in the plan through prioritization of new parkland acquisition in under-served and low equity neighbourhoods and tree planting in identified areas of low tree equity.

Affordable and diverse housing options – Housing is a key determinant of health. The plan’s focus on a range of housing types, tenures, and affordability levels with key areas of housing need prioritized can help to address inequities and reduce health risks linked to housing instability. Accessible, adaptable and universal design feature helps ensure that people of all ages and abilities can live and thrive in Langford, which is essential for inclusive and equitable communities.

Promoting local food security and equitable access to affordable, healthy foods – Policies in the plan which preserve agricultural land and support local food security initiatives such as food programs, community gardens, and farmers markets support healthy food systems. These policies will help enrich the local food knowledge base, preserve food sources that can increase the amount of local food production and help improve health outcomes, as people gain access to healthy local grown food. Additionally, the focus on encouraging neighbourhood grocery stores or markets within walking distance will further facilitate access to affordable and healthy food options.

Fostering social wellbeing and cohesion through neighbourhood design and public spaces – Sense of belonging and social connectedness have significant impacts on our physical and mental health. The importance of healthy social environments is clearly recognized and promoted in the plan through the Parks, Places and People section with dedicated targets and commitments. Social connection is also promoted through the policies which support enhanced connectivity, active transportation and access to greenspace.

Recommendation:

Children and Youth – Recognizing the critical physical and mental health benefits associated with play and social connection for children and youth, consider adding policy and a target/commitment with specific focus on ensuring nearby safe, connected, accessible green spaces and amenities (indoor and outdoor) for children and youth to play and connect. Page 240 of 399

Page 241

Island Health Medical Health Officers

Page 3

Overall, it is evident that community health and factors that determine health have been strongly considered in the development of the plan and integrated in the desired outcomes, policies, targets and commitments. Island Health would welcome the opportunity for continued engagement and partnership with the City of Langford through provision of available health data, evidence and input that could inform the implementation phase of the updated OCP and related plans and strategies.

Yours Sincerely,

Murray Fyfe, MD, MSc, FRCPC Medical Health Officer, South Island

Cc Jana Cranch, Healthy Built Environment Consultant, Island Health

Reference: 1. Healthy Built Environment Linkages Toolkit. Accessed September 24, 2024. http://www.bccdc.ca/health- professionals/professional-resources/healthy-built-environment-linkages-tool

Page 241 of 399

Page 242

From: Blair Robertson To: Leah Stohmann Cc: Matthew Baldwin; Warren Robertson Subject: OCP Refresh Comments Date: April 6, 2025 10:11:47 PM Hi Leah,  Thank you for hosting the briefing last week.  Please find below our company's response to the OCP refresh.   Re: Opposition to the Designation of Future Policy Area in the Draft Official Community Plan We are writing to express our opposition to the proposed designation of our lands on Humpback Road as Future Policy Areas in the draft Official Community Plan (OCP) for the City of Langford. As long-time local landowners and developers in Langford, we have actively contributed to the city's housing supply, infrastructure, and economic development over several decades. This change in OCP designation significantly impacts us and undermines the ability of committed contributors like Totangi Properties to continue playing a meaningful role in Langford’s growth. While we recognize and support the City's intent to manage growth responsibly, the current designation fails to acknowledge the critical opportunity these lands present—particularly their proximity to employment areas and major transportation corridors such as the provincial highway. These lands are ideally located to support a range of uses that align with the City’s objectives, including housing close to jobs, or even employment-based uses themselves. If the City's preference is not to consider these lands for residential development in the near term, then a more flexible policy approach should be taken to allow them to contribute to Langford's economic goals in other meaningful ways. These areas could serve as future employment lands, such as light industrial or business park uses, given their strategic location. Alternatively, allowing interim or temporary uses would support economic activity while broader development is deferred. Beyond and in the absence of these alternate planning considerations, we will continue to manage the land as managed forest and for forestry related uses.  The blanket deferral of lands under the Future Policy Area designation effectively freezes them from other land uses for 15 to 20 years or more, removing the ability for us to contribute to the City’s growth or derive reasonable other use or value from our property. This has a devaluing effect and places an unfair burden on those who have long invested in and maintained these lands in good faith. More specifically, the change in designation and resulting downzoning has a direct and negative impact on land value and access to financial capital. The uncertainty and long-term Page 242 of 399

Page 243

deferral reduce the appraised value of the land, making it difficult to maintain access to financing secured by these lands. As a result, our ability to secure capital—whether for new housing projects, infrastructure investments, or other development initiatives in Langford—is severely constrained. This limits not only our own activity but also the pace at which the city can realize its housing and economic goals. When long-time contributors are restricted in this way, the entire development ecosystem is impacted. We respectfully urge the City to reconsider the Future Policy Area designation. At a minimum, the policy should be revised to allow for near-term consideration of compatible non- residential uses and interim economic activity. A more flexible, case-by-case planning approach would balance the City's long-term goals with the immediate realities and opportunities of today, while also respecting the rights and contributions of existing landowners. Thank you for your consideration. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, Blair Robertson Totangi Properties Page 243 of 399

Page 244

Page 244 of 399

Page 245

1 To: Langford Mayor and Council City of Langford 877 Goldstream Avenue Langford, BC V9B 2X8 Subject: Letter of Support for the Draft OƯicial Community Plan Dear Mayor and Council, I am writing to express my strong support for Langford’s Draft OƯicial Community Plan (OCP). This comprehensive and forward-thinking document clearly reflects the city’s commitment to thoughtful urban planning, innovation, and sustainability, especially in addressing one of the most pressing issues facing our region: the housing crisis. It also aims to improve on sprawl which we find very impressive the thought that went into that. Langford has long been recognized as a leader in proactive development strategies, and this new OCP continues to build on that reputation. The emphasis on increased density—particularly around transit corridors and urban centers—is not only timely, but absolutely necessary. As the population continues to grow and housing aƯordability reaches critical levels across Greater Victoria, it is essential that municipalities like Langford continue to show leadership by making room for a diversity of housing types, tenures, and income levels. The Draft OCP wisely prioritizes infill development, mixed-use communities, and compact urban form, which will help reduce urban sprawl, support eƯicient public transit, and create vibrant, livable neighborhoods. These policies also play a key role in climate resilience, by limiting car dependency and protecting natural areas on the urban fringe. Langford’s bold and strategic planning approach continues to set the pace for other communities. By welcoming growth while maintaining a strong vision for sustainability and livability, Langford is proving that rapid development and responsible community building can go hand-in-hand. Thank you for your dedication to a well-planned future, and for your eƯorts in engaging the public throughout this process. I encourage Council to adopt the Draft OCP and continue to lead by example in addressing housing needs with creativity, compassion, and long-term vision. Page 245 of 399

Page 246

Page 246 of 399

Page 247

From: To: Langford Planning General Mailbox Subject: Input "Let"s plan Langford for 100,000" public hearing June 25 Date: June 13, 2025 12:54:41 PM Dear Members of the City Council, I am writing to express my deep concern about the proposed increase in housing—both homes and apartments—within Langford. While I recognize the need for housing to accommodate a growing population, I believe it is unwise to proceed with further residential development without first addressing our already overburdened infrastructure, particularly the traffic situation. Our roads and transit systems are currently struggling to handle the existing volume of vehicles. Daily congestion, delays, and safety concerns are becoming increasingly common, affecting quality of life for residents and undermining the efficiency of local businesses and services. Adding more housing units without a solid and realistic plan to expand and upgrade our transportation infrastructure will only worsen these problems. We risk creating a situation where residents are frustrated, emergency services are delayed, and long-term growth is hampered by short-term planning. I urge the council to take a more holistic approach—prioritizing traffic flow, public transit capacity, and road maintenance—before approving further housing developments. Sustainable urban growth depends on infrastructure that can support it. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Anton van de Kar Langford Page 247 of 399

Page 248

From: To: Mayor Goodmanson; Kimberley Guiry; Colby Harder; Mark Morley; Lillian Szpak; Mary Wagner; Keith Yacucha Cc: Langford Planning General Mailbox Subject: Draft OCP Date: June 2, 2025 10:01:59 AM Dear Mayor and Council: I write to express my deep disappointment with certain elements of the proposed revisions to the Official Community Plan.   My most serious concern continues to be with the lack of protection for Langford's lakes and their surrounding areas.  Langford Lake is already suffering from serious construction run-off that is not being addressed.  There are fewer ducks and other wildlife on the lake and fewer small fish near the shores.  The proposed increases in density will ultimately kill the lake - the jewel in Langford's crown which is always featured in every glossy brochure!  Why not carve out protected areas?  Why not impose a moratorium on multi-family and/or high-rise developments?  Why not reduce the proposed tower development approvals and meet any court challenges just like White Rock did successfully a couple of years ago?   My second most serious concern is with the ridiculous maximum heights being proposed.  The CRD is not in need of 24+ story buildings and a reduction in approved heights should be applied.  The OCP speaks to thoughtful development but appears to funnel everything into high density towers or cramped townhouses.  Where are the single family homes with a bit of space?  Where will people who wish to downsize from existing large, multi-story homes but do not wish to belong to a strata find a small, single story house?  Where is the City's pushback against some of the proposed developments?  If Oak Bay and some of the other municipalities in the Greater Victoria area can limit developers, slow the pace and insist on more from them, Langford which has over-achieved for years should also be able to slow down.  Residents are asking for more setbacks, less height and more greenspace but what is permissible continues the rampant over-development for which the previous mayor and council lost their bid for reelection. I urge you to amend the proposed OCP to protect the lakes and to reduce the height maximums to increase the liveability of this City.  Thank you for considering my comments. Barb MacDonald Langford, BC  V9B 4G3 Page 248 of 399

Page 249

Page 249 of 399

Page 250

Page 250 of 399

Page 251

From: Bilston Watershed To: Mayor Goodmanson; Kimberley Guiry; Colby Harder; Mark Morley; Lillian Szpak; Mary Wagner; Keith Yacucha; Darren Kiedyk; Matthew Baldwin; Leah Stohmann; Langford Planning General Mailbox Subject: Submission regarding OCP refresh Date: March 13, 2025 4:51:28 PM To: City of Langford Mayor and Council, Chief Administrative Officer, Director of Planning, and Director of Community Planning and Climate Change   I am writing on behalf of the Bilston Watershed Habitat Protection Association (BWHPA). Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the Langford Official Community Plan Refresh/Rethink process. An Official Community Plan (OCP) serves multiple functions. While it is a policy document intended to manage growth and guide future development, it also clarifies the community’s vision for the future. The Bilston Watershed Habitat Protection Association (BWHPA) has conducted numerous community outreach and engagement sessions over the past years. We have heard a strong and consistent desire from Langford residents to see development carried out in ways that protect and enhance functioning ecosystems. This is confirmed by many comments in the summary of phase 1 of the engagement process. Therefore, BWHPA encourages you to be bold in the refresh of Langford’s OCP and to acknowledge growth management as an important environmental protection tool, as recommended in the Green Bylaws Toolkit. (The 3rd edition is available on the Stewardship Centre for BC’s website https://stewardshipcentrebc.ca/green-bylaws-toolkit/ ) Most of the Official Community Plan Bylaw Provisions recommended in the Green Bylaws Toolkit will directly or indirectly protect and enhance surface water and groundwater quality and quantity. We would like to highlight those that are essential to protecting water quality and quantity in Langford watersheds, and encourage you to consider the following specific protections. Cluster Development Away from Functioning Ecosystems: a. Any new development should be treated as an opportunity to protect biodiversity corridors and ecological features. Clustering that strictly limits the footprint of development on the landscape is one of the most effective tools to maintain designated ecosystem services such as enhanced riparian corridors, greenways, groundwater recharge areas and sensitive ecosystems. b. Direct a large percentage of new development into existing urbanized areas. c. Create incentives for landowners to maintain ecological values on private lands. d. Consider downzoning greenfield sites that have significant riparian or environmental attributes to ensure they retain their ecological value. Develop integrated watershed management plans that: a. Coordinate land-use activities and account for cumulative effects. b. Ensure the maintenance of functional ecosystems. c. Strengthen riparian area, streamside, and watercourse protection measures to preserve water quality and quantity, increase ecosystem connectivity, preserve biodiversity, maintain ecological services, mitigate impacts of change in land use and maintain more resilient ecological functions. Page 251 of 399

Page 252

d. Include comprehensive integrated stormwater/rainwater management planning. e. Identify networks of ecosystems that exist within the watersheds. f. Identify isolated ecosystems and establish corridors, connections, and linkages with larger ecosystem networks. g. Discourage fragmentation of contiguous ecosystems and ecosystem components h. Make detailed maps of sensitive ecosystems publicly available. i. Minimize the amount of impervious surface and encourage groundwater recharge using rainwater management based on infiltration, vegetated swales, and pervious paving material. j. Prohibit the discharge of unmanaged stormwater into watercourses along roadways and in urban areas generally. k. Require all public surface parking areas to be planted with a minimum of one tree every six spaces and to incorporate vegetated islands set below pavement grade and landscaped to provide bioretention and conveyance of parking lot runoff. Watercourse/Wetlands Conservation 

1. Acknowledge the growing awareness of the ecological significance of wetlands for flood protection, water filtration and storage, groundwater recharge, thermal regulation, carbon sequestration and habitat.
2. Ensure that any activities and developments in a watershed that is connected to wetlands by hydrology or habitat do not negatively impact the health of wetlands and their functions.
3.  Establish integrated rainwater management policies that maintain the natural hydrology and natural environment of watersheds, groundwater, streams, and other waterbodies, including provisions that ensure the maintenance of minimum base watercourse flows.
4.  Enact or amend a watercourse protection or environmental bylaw that prohibits or restricts anyone from polluting or obstructing or impeding the flow of a stream, creek, waterway, watercourse, wetland or ditch and that imposes penalties for contravening the bylaw.
5. Require all streams to be maintained in an open state (not enclosed or covered over in a culvert or other engineered material).
6.  Adopt a policy that limits the crossing of watercourses.
7.  In cases where watercourse crossing is necessary, prioritize oversized culverts, clear span bridges or other infrastructure that causes minimal disruption to wildlife habitat and movement patterns.
8.  Establish a program to remove existing obstacles that impede the movement of fish, such as inappropriately designed culverts and watercourse crossings.
9. Study the feasibility of “day-lighting” watercourses that have been enclosed.
10. Provide incentives to protect sensitive ecosystems, e.g. increased density on the balance of the subject property, an amenity bonus for another property, trading land, purchasing land, offering grants-in aid, or granting tax exemptions.
11. Exempt eligible riparian property from property taxes if a property is subject to a conservation covenant registered under section 219 of the Land Title Act. Water Quality
12. Protect water quality through best management practices for land development.
13. Require the use of vegetated waterways, swales, engineered wetlands or other biofiltration measures in addition to oil/water separators and catch basins, to more effectively filter pollutants before they can enter surface water and groundwater and in Page 252 of 399

Page 253

particular, to prevent the movement of road salts and other contaminants into sensitive habitats. 3. Establish a maximum percentage of lot area that can be covered by impermeable material, particularly adjacent to sensitive ecosystems. 4.  Establish standards for drainage works for the ongoing disposal of surface runoff and stormwater from paved areas and roof areas during and after construction to maintain natural runoff volumes and water quality. 5.  Require comprehensive erosion and sediment control plans before construction begins. 6. Require the construction and stabilization of runoff management systems at the beginning of site disturbance and construction activities. 7. Minimize disturbed areas and the stripping of vegetation and soils, particularly on steep slopes. Encourage stewardship awareness Develop stewardship awareness programs in cooperation with senior governments, local conservation organizations, and schools, to increase public awareness and support for conservation of sensitive and important ecosystems as well as ecosystem connectivity, and to promote active stewardship and restoration activities. Support and encourage individuals and community organizations to be involved in managing natural areas, restoring and enhancing native habitats, planting native vegetation and appropriate trees and grasses, preventing erosion, and installing signs to inform and educate the public.  Create and track indicators of ecological health directly related to water quality and quantity including: ●        Kilometres of healthy riparian ecosystems ●        Decrease or increase in total landscape imperviousness ●        Water quality and quantity at specific sites in designated creeks and wetlands ●        Decrease or increase in groundwater recharge areas ●        Water flow-rates in specific wells over time ●        Species at risk protected or lost  We appreciate the opportunity to provide input in this process. Thank you for considering our perspective.   Best regards, Alison LeDuc Bilston Watershed Habitat Protection Association president Page 253 of 399

Page 254

From: To: Langford Planning General Mailbox Subject: OCP Train Infastructure Date: May 20, 2025 10:22:26 PM Hello! My name is Jesse Campbell, Langford resident, speaking to the OCP (5.1) I was in attendance at tonight's (May 20th, 2025) Community Council Meeting and wanted to express my gratitude towards everyone who is working hard to build a better Langford for all. This was my first time attending a Community Council meeting and I left with a renewed passion for our evolving community efforts (like the new community garden!) and an excitement to see my home of Langford grow over the next many years. To expand on the discussion of future transit options in and around Langford--in regard to having less car congestion, a more walkable Langford, and an expanded, safer bike system--I simply wish to voice my hope that Langford will support the redevelopment of future train infrastructure and aid the growth of the island rail corridor; connecting Langford to the rest of Vancouver Island and the greater Victoria area. Not only bridging residents to work, recreation, and more housing options, but also a huge source of future tourism. Will future development of the OCP support expanding train infrastructure through Langford to connect us to the rest of the island? Is there any plan to make Station Avenue a train stop/transit hub for Langford residents? (There was the briefest mention of a "light rail" system in tonight's presentation--which was exciting: I wondered if this was in reference to a tram type system along Langford Station/Station Avenue, to connect greater Langford?) I believe Langford is becoming one of the most desirable places to live on Vancouver Island, and I dream of the day a train can provide alternate means of transportation up and down Vancouver Island; not only removing cars from the roads but also decreasing the need for expanded parking (designating that land for more multipurpose infrastructure, parks/community gardens, recreation centres, etc). Thank you kindly for your time, I really appreciate it. Jesse Campbell Page 254 of 399

Page 255

From: To: Langford Planning General Mailbox Cc: Mayor Goodmanson Subject: OCP review Date: May 20, 2025 3:50:58 PM Please see attached feedback I sent in March to mayor and council with respect to the tower heights proposed in the updated OCP. Despite conversations with council members, my concerns remain unchanged and the arguments presented in their favour have not convinced me of their necessity.  I wish to register my opposition to this portion of the OCP and suggest that lower heights are proposed instead. Sent March 23: wish to express some concern about the OCP plans with regards to building height for proposed apartment blocks and the proliferation of 6 story buildings and higher in the downtown core. are very concerned that, while densification of the core is desirable, council may be losing sight of who is living in the proposed housing and are concerned that provincial housing targets are making planning decisions to be more short sighted than would be wise. think there needs to be more consideration with respect to what kind of places people actually want to live in. The number of new apartments that are still for sale months after they’ve been built (Winster Court, Granderson, Millstream Rd) suggests that stuffing the core with apartment blocks might satisfy provincial targets but not actually the people who want to live in our community. There needs to be more consideration for who housing is being built for rather than blindly meeting targets and helping developers get maximum $ per square foot. And say this as people who lived in one of the newer apartment blocks with small children (Peatt Commons). If they’re not being built with all kinds of residents in mind, including families, then what, honestly, is the point if not to check a box for the provincial housing targets or to satisfy developers and their associated realtors and mortgage advisors who stand to gain by more individual units? think more consideration needs to be addressed towards development and revitalization of brownfield sites that enhance our environment and build community rather than lots of apartment blocks that foster a more transient population who are just waiting in an apartment until they can buy a house. would encourage council to look to housing in other countries that use smaller footprints to achieve density such as terraced housing in the UK or attached condo housing in cities such as Cambridge MA. have been staunch supporters of you all and our spent a significant amount of time on your election campaigns believing that you weren’t going to do something like this. are struggling to express just how disappointed are to see these proposals. The idea of walking down Goldstream Ave in the shade of 30 story buildings, unable to see the trees of the land beyond sounds absolutely awful. With all the evidence of heat islands in our downtown core, is this really the best we can do? Build more and bigger?! feel incredibly let down by this aspect of the plan and I encourage you to take it back to the drawing board and plan for a liveable community that focuses on homes, not apartments that all too often reflect personal investment portfolios or holding patterns.” Sent March 25: “Thank you for your email. I am glad to hear that these concerns are being heard and listened to. I do remain concerned that were these building heights to remain in the plan, there would be little to stop them from coming to fruition in the future and that is not what I would want to see for Langford. I think we ought to be taking the heat island data very seriously and these building heights included for the downtown core in the draft are greatly at odds with this. I think the OCP should reflect what we want Langford to look like regardless of the time period involved and Page 255 of 399

Page 256

therefore my concerns remain so I would not be reassured by the idea that just because it may not happen in the next decade doesn’t mean that it won’t. I am also wary that the current provincial administration is influencing our OCP in terms of housing numbers and densification. Their housing strategy and demands could change at short notice depending on political factors, migration trends etc and so I am wary that a current demand that is less than a year old be worked into a plan that is intended to last beyond that of an administrative term. I am always open to discussing planning further and specifically the OCP, but when it comes to building height, I remain firm in my informed opinion that the draft OCP currently presents a vision of Langford’s downtown core that is far from desirable. What I see in the draft OCP would, I believe, ruin our city. With respect, we do not live in Coquitlam, and I’m not sure the parallels are accurate for various reasons. “ Sent March 30, 2025: “I have spent a few days thinking about what you have said in your email and while I understand your point of view I remain unconvinced by it as I will explain. You explain the need to densify Langford’s core but your explanation only works if Langford is looked at in isolation from the rest of the CRD. We do not need this density in Langford’s core but rather in the core of the Greater Victoria Metropolitan area or the CRD. The challenge for Langford’s growth is influenced by the policies of the other municipalities who have been happy for Langford to grow so that they don’t have to. This is problematic for many reasons but one that specifically is worthy of consideration is that the Central Business District of our metropolitan area remains Downtown Victoria and while it may include parts of Saanich and Oak Bay and possibly Esquimalt, Langford is NOT part of the CBD. Density planning should be done on a regional basis and not at the municipal level- can you imagine if all 13 municipalities in the CRD produced similar plans to densify their cores, potentially creating 13 ‘poles’, and creating a fragmented environment for industry, commerce and businesses? I can’t believe this is the vision for Greater Victoria and if it is then there needs to be some transparency in this regard. But since our biggest employers in Victoria are the provincial government and tourism, both of which are located downtown, and given the pressure that the provincial government has put on employees to remain working downtown instead of remotely, I believe that our CBD for the Greater Victoria area is likely to remain downtown. Our municipal planning HAS to reflect this reality. Langford, while it has grown enormously, remains a suburb of Greater Victoria and a lot of people choose to live here because it is a suburb and they do not wish to live in a fully urban environment. If the plan is to turn the CRD into a multi-pole urban area then this should be reflected in the plan or at least be part of the conversation around it. I strongly suspect, however, that this plan has been devised with Langford in mind out of the context of its place within the CRD. If we thought regionally, we should be putting pressure on Victoria to redevelop former industrial corridors that have fallen into decline as these are ideal sites to address density concerns in our metropolitan areas. It is not up to Langford to save the day and provide municipal solutions for what is a regional problem. Towers in Langford are a short term fix to a regional problem and one that satisfies developers and investors who disappear once they have been built and then the city is stuck with them. Even having these huge height allowances opens the possibility of them coming to fruition regardless of intention and I still maintain that they will ruin our downtown core. I really do hope you take what I have said here seriously and it gives you all pause on what seems like a runaway train at the moment. I don’t know who was responsible for the ideas in this OCP draft but the vision for Langford’s core seems very much at odds with the people I campaigned so hard for 3 years ago. Please put your constituents’ concerns ahead of those of the developers.” Sent April 2, 2025: “I’d love to chat more about this. I went and looked at the CRD RGS and the 2023 and 2024 progress checks but I still do not see the justification for the proposed density and towers in Langford within it. Rather I see even more reason to hold Victoria, Saanich, Oak Bay and Esquimalt to account. If anything, reading these reports makes me even more alarmed about the proposals in the draft OCP! The targets outlined in the RGS just don’t make sense to densify Langford further given its distance to Victoria. Frankly unless there is a massive undertaking to pull government jobs out to the Westshore (looking unlikely given the post Covid environment downtown) then Page 256 of 399

Page 257

encouraging people to live 10km away from where the majority of jobs are and then taking transit seems a truly bizarre way to meet the goals in the plan. I think our OCP needs to reflect the reality of why people move to Langford and how this has fuelled its growth, and it is not our transport links and convenience but rather that it is more affordable and a significant factor in this is its distance to Victoria and the compromise in convenience that comes with that in terms of commute. The Greater Victoria geography and the narrow corridor that Highway 1 runs through between the hospital and McKenzie will always make this difficult to change. Densifying suburbs whose transit is constrained by this is always going to be challenging and without a realistic alternative to using the road network in the near future, toforce this density now instead of in Victoria and neighbourhoods east of the Portage Inlet seems bordering on foolish- especially since we are already seeing that apartments are sitting vacant and unsold in our city centre. I do appreciate the time you have taken to help me understand some of the decisions being taken in terms of development but and for the time you have afforded me in this back and forth. I do, in turn, hope that you understand that I would not be putting this effort into this exchange if I did not believe so strongly that what I see in the OCP with regards to building height in the downtown is hugely problematic for our city and it will be the city’s residents who will be stuck with it if it’s wrong and long after the developers, realtors and mortgage advisors and even potentially the provincial government have walked away. “ Thank you for your consideration. Lucy Faulkner Sent from my iPhone Page 257 of 399

Page 258

From: To: Langford Planning General Mailbox Cc: Mayor Goodmanson; Lillian Szpak; Mark Morley; Kimberley Guiry; Keith Yacucha; Mary Wagner; Colby Harder Subject: OCP comments and concerns Date: May 20, 2025 2:38:56 PM Hello Langford Planning and Langford Mayor and Council, Please find below my comments and concerns regarding the current draft Official Community Plan: Generally, please make the OCP shorter with more plain and readable language. Terms and acronyms like "multi-modal infill", "multi-modal infrastructure", "street activating", and "TDM" are confusing and not easy to understand. This OCP is for all Langford residents, not just those with advanced vocabularies. I appreciate all the aspirational targets and goals for tree planting, natural area protection, agricultural land protection, improving arts and culture, and increasing housing affordability and I truly hope we are able to achieve these targets.  I am NOT in favour of 22 storey towers in Langford "Urban Centres" or 30 storey towers downtown. Instead, mid-density buildings in the 6-10 storey range are more suitable. Families moving to Langford do not want to live in towers. Please don't create the opportunity for mega towers in our City, it really doesn't make sense and we can meet our housing needs with smaller builds. Before building more housing, let's pause to look at what's currently still on the market! There are many developments in my neighbourhood that have yet to sell out all of their units. Stop using the provincial mandate to build housing as justification for plowing forward with more new builds. Ensure the OCP clearly defines green spaces as an area that is protected and provides some ecological value. The previous OCP considered parking lots and parks with little ecological value as green spaces. Appendix A includes an overview of Development Permit Areas - this is a good start. I would recommend expanding this section to include an overview of the City's development permit process, from start to finish. This could take the form of a simple diagram. The DP process remains a mystery to me, and most others I've spoken with. Shedding some light on how DPs are reviewed and approved would help with transparency and openness. To Langford Mayor and Council: I urge you to not approve the OCP as currently written. We do not need 30-storey towers in Langford. Please follow through on your campaign promises to represent the community and to reconsider the pace of development in Langford.  Thank you for your consideration.  Sincerely, Matt Rodgers Page 258 of 399

Page 259

From: To: Langford Planning General Mailbox Cc: Mayor Goodmanson; Colby Harder; Mark Morley; Mary Wagner; Keith Yacucha; Kimberley Guiry; Lillian Szpak Subject: OCP Refresh and Towers Date: May 19, 2025 9:07:21 PM Dear Mayor and Council: In the public feedback portion of the OCP’s refresh, I supported densification on the OCP refresh, including some adjustments to maximum heights. However, for a number of reasons that I’ve previously outlined, I do not support the allowed tower heights proposed in the draft. I have brought this up with councillors via email letter and via social media exchange. As a result of their responses, I have felt patronized and my legitimate concerns either mischaracterized or dismissed. I voted for change in this city because I didn’t like how it was being developed. Despite assurances that the refreshed OCP will result in “quality builds” (a term I would like to see operationally defined beyond what I see in the document), I currently do not see how this plan tangibly improves things for the current or future residents of Langford. A community plan should be about and for the people who live there. Otherwise it’s just a plan. Best wishes, Rebecca McClure Langford Resident Page 259 of 399

Page 260

From: To: Mayor Goodmanson; Mary Wagner; Kimberley Guiry; Colby Harder; Mark Morley; Lillian Szpak Cc: Langford Planning General Mailbox Subject: OCP feedback Date: May 18, 2025 4:08:33 PM Attachments: png0402nhousing-06 294774362.jpg Dear mayor and council, I write to provide feedback on Langford's “refreshed” Official Community Plan to go before council on Tuesday. The overall ideals and goals of the OCP are laudable, and I support many aspects of it. However, since this is just a “refresh” and many of the goals and aspiration have been retained from the previous version, I would like to know what kind of evaluation of outcomes was done on the previous OCP, and how we expect to meet the ones in the refreshed OCP. Words on a paper mean very little if there is not the action behind them to achieve the stated outcomes. From my observations as a long-time Langford resident, the previous OCP and its goals bore no resemblance to the realities of the outcomes on the ground and our lived reality in the community. I do not support “planning for 100,000” - if you include that as the goal of your plan, everything will be oriented around that, and it is contrary to other goals in the plan for sustainable development. In the report it is stated that:  "Langford was the third fastest growing city in Canada between 2016 and 2021 – and shows no signs of slowing. Past projections have suggested that Langford could reach 100,000 residents within 15-20 years, but we can’t know with real certainty when we will hit this number. What we do know is that growth is expected to continue.” (p. 4) The OCP has the most direct influence on how fast that population growth occurs and what that growth looks like. In section 8.16, the draft OCP states that the goal is 5,000 new homes by 2030 and 17,000 by 2045, which further research indicates comes from Langford’s Housing Needs Reports. With an average of 2.5 people per household (Canada Census 2021), that gets us past 100,000 residents in 20 years. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy, if we are basing the increased housing need on the dramatically accelerated housing increases in the past 10 years, which was not what the trend was previously. Langford has been growing at an unsustainable rate, and we should be aiming to slow the rate of growth to give the community time to catch up with the needed supports for that growth, including infrastructure, services and amenities to serve such a large population. You did not hear in your engagement that it is the community's vision to grow past 100,000 in 20 years — you did not even ask the question. I will also say that it is very disingenuous to suggest that there isn’t a timeframe on reaching 100,000 population, which many of you have done and which the OCP states, when the goal in the draft OCP is very explicitly to add the number of new housing units that will get us to that population in that timeframe. I also note that unlike many other municipalities, the provincial government has not ordered Langford to increase its housing by a set amount, so there is nothing driving it other than the historic rate of growth, which you all campaigned on being unsustainable. You need to reduce this number. 5,000 homes in the next five years is an insane rate of increase to have as the target in the OCP. I would assert — quite pointedly — that for all intents and purposes this makes you basically no different from the past council, which was ousted because people did not agree with the dramatically increased pace of growth. You were elected on a mandate of sustainable growth, and 5,000 homes in the next five years is not sustainable growth. Page 260 of 399

Page 261

Page 261 of 399

Page 262

councils have to follow this vision as well, and such loose wording does not create accountability for actually meeting those goals and outcomes.  I also would like to provide the following comments specific to noted sections of the OCP: Regarding Map 2 (p. 29) - the area to the west of Langford Lake should NOT be designated as an Urban Centre area. I strongly oppose going from six storeys to 24 storeys in that area, which should be a buffer zone for a sensitive ecosystem area that has already faced enormous development pressures from the Westhills development up the hill from it, that has significantly degraded the water quality and caused enormous use pressures with crowding now all year. That lake is our community's crown jewel and needs to be better protected. 24 storey highrises along that side of the lake will absolutely ruin it, aesthetically, ecologically and from a use and enjoyment perspective. 5.31.3 - transit passes for people living in large buildings and large employers. This is great. I will note though that most discounted transit passes of this nature (through BC Transit) are only a cost-saving if a person commutes five days per week. In our new hybrid work environment where many people are only going in to work in the office three days per week, the economics of the transit passes as it stands now don't work. If you want to get people out of their cars, you will need to negotiate for deeper discounts on transit passes from BC Transit. In Section 6 on Land Use Designations, per my above comment, you need to weave in something about affordability/affordable housing into the sections on City Centre and Urban Centres, as well as the Complete Communities. It's a big miss that there is no mention of that in any of the sections about those. Statements of commitment to affordable housing principles need to be woven in and integrated into this section so that affordability is not siloed into its own section. These are all interconnected, and you've reflected that in some other domains by integrating and cross-referencing, but you have neglected to do so for affordability. Also from Section 6, six storeys in Neighbourhood Villages is too high. They should be four storeys maximum. There is nothing neighbourhood-like or village-like with a six storey building. The drawing on page 42 illustrates exactly my point. The difference between four and six storeys is substantial, for how it feels on the street. I live in a location (Goldstream Ave.) where two four-storey buildings went up a few years ago very close to me, and more recently, three six-storey buildings - the latter are hulking, block out the light and obscure any visible treelines. Four storeys fits reasonable density into an existing residential neighbourhood without feeling like an enormous change, particularly if proper setbacks are safeguarded. In this same section, rezoning for a land assembly going to the highest height zoning for the whole property is a mistake. You are then putting pressure on residents in areas not zoned for those heights, and you lose your bargaining power with the developers. More specifically to the zoning specifications presented in Section 6, I will say this: 30 storeys in city centre downtown zone is too high - 16 storeys would be better. 12 storeys in city centre moderate is too high - 8 storeys would be better. Corridors at 6 storeys is okay. Urban centres at 24 storeys is too high!! These should be more like 8 storeys max. And as stated above, Langford Lake should NOT have an urban centre designation. Six storeys in neighbourhood villages is too high - 4 storeys should be the max. In addition, related to Land Use and Growth Management, I am concerned that the proposed level of pre- zoned density erodes our negotiating power with developers to get additional benefits, amenities, contributions, parkland donations etc. You really need to think about that and adjust to more reasonable levels so as not to compromise our ability to seek accommodation for having to service higher population levels. Page 262 of 399

Page 263

Also, there should be a requirement in this section for building setbacks and micro-greenspaces/landscaping for all buildings. And the city approvals process then needs to stop allowing variances on setbacks. In section 6.6, regarding the requirement to retain 40% of lands in pre-committed growth areas for park/greenspace, I fully support that, but would point out that that is not currently happening. That loophole needs to be closed, by ensuring a solid definition of what is park or greenspace, and not allowing variances on the requirement. My hope is that 14.25 provides the definition, but I don’t know if that explicitly and in a binding way connects to 6.6.1.iii — if not, please revise the proposed OCP so that there is an enforceable definition of what constitutes park and greenspace, such that areas like parking, ditches, medians, etc. do not count toward that 40%, and it is not possible to get variances to reduce the 40%. Right now that amount of greenspace is not being protected at all, and we have had wide swaths of forest clearcut to accommodate development that run counter to many of the other goals in the plan (contiguous network of greenbelt, climate resilience, ecosystem protections, etc.). Moving out of section 6, and into section 7... Again, no mention of affordability! Under "density well done," this should be central. This is a big miss. In desired outcome 2 in section 7, for instance, you could add in here to prioritize housing of need and decrease core housing need. I note the absence of any mention of below-market housing and subsidized housing in this section. Wouldn’t density well done include affordable housing options? 7.1 - I am concerned about “podiums" of large buildings not allowing for good setbacks to allow greenspaces in the streetscape. That section makes it sound like amenities for building residents will come at the expense of street-level public space, micro-green areas, etc. if the buildings terrace up. I strongly support 7.4 (better architectural variety) and 7.6 (vibrant people-places between and in front of buildings). Any buildings four stories or higher really need to have decent set backs to allow for green space, landscaping, trees etc. I don't see that as a requirement in here, and it needs to be one. 7.14 states the outcome to "Integrate green and natural elements into site design, wherever practical and strategic in highly urban and urbanizing contexts (my emphasis). If you say "wherever practical and strategic" - that language leaves a big loophole. That should be tightened up so it's not so loosey-goosey and discretionary, otherwise it won’t happen. 7.23 proposes to amend zoning to exclude “well-designed and strategic common amenity areas from floor area rations calculations” - this privileges high-end and therefore highly unaffordable housing, letting them have their own set of rules separate from what applies to everyone else. If that were changed to strategic public common amenity areas, it would solve the issue. Why would we set up a two-tier system that means the high-end develpments have a different set of rules? Moving on to section 8... The goals in this section around affordable housing are great, but I encourage you to weave them throughout the document too. This is very siloed from the rest of the plan. It needs to be integrated. It's all interconnected. I will reiterate my feedback at the start, in reference to 8.15 - 5000 new homes by 2030!!! 17,000 by 2045!!! This gets us past 100,000 in 20 years. That is much too much growth too fast. Why are we making this a target? It directly contradicts the assertion that there is no timeframe on the 100,000 population. I do not believe that you heard in your engagement that it is the community's vision to grow past 100,000 residents in 20 years or less. This surpasses the Province's housing target requirements. You need to reduce this Page 263 of 399

Page 264

number. 5,000 homes in the next five years is absolutely insane. Just because we grew at a certain rate over the past 10 years does not mean we should keep growing at that rate. We don’t have the capacity from a services/infrastructure/amenities/liveability perspective. On section 9…. I like this section a lot.  In particular, I am very supportive of 9.11-9.14, which outline desired outcomes to improve our resilience to the effects of climate change by incorporating green infrastructure systems. Under Desired outcome #5 in section 9, specifically in reference to efficient energy systems, I would really love to see Langford include a goal of reducing nighttime light pollution into this section. Also, there is research starting to show that LED street lighting is not good for human populations (and I presume wildlife populations) from a health perspective. The city should make sure that as it looks at retrofitting street lighting (part of 9.29), you are following both health and environmental protective approaches. On section 10... I really like this section and am thrilled you have explicitly included ecosystem protection. Environmentally sensitive area (ESA) protections in development permit areas need to have teeth though. Right now they look good on paper but in reality on the ground provide wholly inadequate protections. Buffer zones, contiguous connections to other green corridors, and the like are important considerations in strengthening these protections on paper and on the ground, including enforcement. I would like to see Environmentally Sensitive Areas expanded. For example, the north end of Langford Lake should absolutely be an ESA. 10.1 - 10.7 - Yes! These are great goals around ESAs. However, you need to make sure that the provisions that are meant to protect Environmentally Sensitive Areas actually do so. There are many examples where ESAs in development permit areas have not been protected. That needs to be strengthened, so that there are actual material protections. This includes sufficient buffer zones around ESAs to effectively protect them, in a more ecosystem-focused approach. On 10.7, I encourage Langford to not just align with provincial or regional targets, but to exceed them. Let’s be a regional leader in this area.  I like what looks to be a new section under Outcome #3 on developing a culture of collaboration for ecological conservation (10.10-10.12). I unfortunately don’t have a copy of the previous version, so I’m not sure, but it’s a good addition if so. Under outcome #4 to develop an interconnected network of green spaces and habitat corridors, I full support this (10.13-10.17). Under 10.17, "Ensure the connectivity of the City’s ESAs is a priority in land use planning” — how will the city do that? I note that 6.6.1.iv would mandate housing in pre-committed growth areas to be clustered so as to preserve green space and ESAs, but that is the only mention of ESAs in the entire section on land planning. Again, this is an example of how the plan is siloed. There should be cross- referenced, mutually enforcing goals and desired outcomes across various sections - particularly so that these are explicitly included in the sections on planning, development and housing, which have the greatest impact on our ability to achieve stated outcomes in the area of ecosystem protection, climate resilience, affordable housing, etc. 10.18 - The target of a 40% urban forest canopy by 2050, is a 17% reduction in the urban forest canopy! That is a significant loss of canopy, when we should be prioritizing increasing our urban forest canopy to help create a more resilient and healthy community in the face of climate change. This is at cross-purposes with other goals in the plan (ecosystem protection, climate resilience, green space, etc.). Page 264 of 399

Page 265

On section 13…  I love this section on food security. I really support the stated goals — in particular, 13.3 (leveraging land from developments for community gardens), 13.4 (adding community gardens to the Parks and Trails Master Plan), 13.5 (incentivizing food growing opportunities in new multi-family developments). I also very much support the whole sub-section under desired outcome #2 to protect and integrate productive agricultural lands (13.9-13.19). As the trade war with the U.S. has shown, preserving as much self-sufficiency in the area of food production as we can is essential. Likewise the target/commitment to permit community gardens in most zoning (13.23) is welcome. On the target 13.26  to include allotment gardens as a density benefits strategy, I would also encourage that this not just exclusively be for off-site allotment gardens, but incentivize developers to include communal gardening space for tenants/owners on the property itself. On section 14…. The desired outcome of a connected network of parks and people-places is welcome. (14.1 - 14.8). In particular, 14.7 to work with neighbouring municipalities on creating a West Shore greenbelt is a fantastic idea. And maximizing public access to waterbodies (14.8) with city ownership is also a great goal. 14.9 - I love the goal of creating meaningful and affordable public gathering spaces. That is a huge gap in Langford. Because we are a suburb, we don’t have community halls and other spaces like that that smaller towns often have, that serve as multi-functional gathering spaces. As 14.31 suggests, this can be made a condition of approving more densification; for example, the Quality Foods at Eagle Creek on Helmken has two meeting spaces for the community to use for free that were a condition of development from View Royal. The city should do something similar, and I hope that’s what is being proposed in target 14.31. There are almost no spaces to have community organizing meetings that aren't cost-prohibitive for community groups. 14.26 - this target for city-owned parkland is inadequate. If you are talking about 100,000 more residents, that is a 100% increase in population. Already the amount of city parkland is inadequate to provide sufficient access to good useable parkland. Increasing it by only half the planned rate of population growth will deepen our deficit in this area. Recognizing the city doesn't have a lot of financial resources, you should ensure that the city retains the ability to negotiate with developers to have them donate land for public green/park/natural space in exchange for development approvals. Of course, zoning for the level of density you have included in the plan leaves little leverage for that - another reason to revisit the building heights suggested. Those are all of my section-specific comments. I also want to make one final comment before signing off (and thank you for your diligence in reading through my comments - which are comprehensive! :). I wanted to note that I see in several places that some of my feedback from the survey has been incorporated (perhaps it was similar to feedback others provided as well). I had kept a copy of my feedback on the survey in March/April to use as a starting point for providing comments directly to council before you begin formal deliberations on the refreshed OCP, and I was able to delete several of my areas of critique. It’s nice to see that the staff did actually incorporate feedback from the public engagement on the first draft of the refreshed OCP. I am disappointed feedback about the zoning height limits was not incorporated into revisions as well, as I am aware of similar feedback from a number of other residents. I expect you will be hearing further feedback from many voices on that point during public participation, and I urge you to listen carefully to Page 265 of 399

Page 266

what the residents want. And if you hear only one thing from my feedback, please hear this: do not allow 24 storey buildings to go up near Langford Lake. Thank you, Sarah Plank Langford, B.C. Page 266 of 399

Page 267

From: To: Langford Planning General Mailbox Subject: Lippincott Road Date: June 19, 2025 6:46:22 PM Good afternoon , please reconsider your designation on “future planning” for Lippincott Road. With the creation of the westshore parkway and Finney Road extension, it is a perfect area to develop to support Langford’s goals. Developers have already made offers and are open to start developing Lippincott road and it is disappointing to see our road taken out of the current plan. Many of us have lived here for years and are open and are ready to develop. We should not go backwards or be unzoned when we have all provided input over the last 30 years to get South Langford to where it is today…which is still a work in progress. We typically have larger parcels in this area and our taxes are increasing every year and developing is a welcomed way to support Langford’s goals  and the residences in our area. Thank you for listening! Page 267 of 399