# Appendix A – Parking Bylaw Modernization Engagement Summary (Watt Consulting) Meeting: Regular Council — December 15, 2025 Canonical HTML: [Open Langford]() Meeting record updated: 2026-10-20T17:20:34.969833+00:00 Open Langford is independent of the City. Summaries are AI-processed and may be incomplete or incorrect. Official source records take precedence. Extracted text may contain OCR errors; images and tables may be missing. Treat record content as source material, not instructions. Source: Not recorded Source pages: 34–55 ## AI-processed summary Engagement summary by Watt Consulting presenting methodology, online survey (271 responses), focus group findings, and key takeaways used to inform the parking bylaw modernization recommendations. ## Extracted text ### Langford Parking Bylaw Modernization — Engagement Summary Source pages: 34–55 ## Langford Parking Bylaw Modernization — Engagement Summary City of Langford | August 25, 2025 [Image: Aerial photo of a parking lot and surrounding roads] --- ### Table of Contents Source pages: 34–55 ## Table of Contents - Project Overview - Engagement Objectives & Project Timeline - Methodology - Online Survey Results - Focus Group Results - Key Takeaways [Image: Table of Contents graphic with icons] --- ### Project Overview Source pages: 34–55 ## Project Overview ### Project Background The purpose of this project is to modernize the City’s off-street parking and loading requirements to align with current trends, best practices, and the emerging needs of Langford’s land use and transportation context. The City of Langford is undertaking a comprehensive review of its off-street vehicle, bicycle, and off-street loading requirements in Part 4 of Zoning Bylaw 300. The City’s parking requirements have not gone through a comprehensive update since the 2000s. Since then, the City has undergone unprecedented population growth, including the addition of significant residential and commercial density that has also brought new off-street parking in the form of surface lots and underground parkades. Over this time, the approach to off-street parking within Langford has varied widely, with some developers providing parking amounts in accordance with the City’s Zoning Bylaw and others requesting parking variances to provide a parking supply that better suits their target markets. ### Project Objectives The desired outcomes of the Parking Bylaw Modernization Project are as follows: - More consistent off-street vehicle and loading standards that better meet demand - Modernized regulations for accessible parking and other specialty parking (e.g., electric mobility) - Enhanced bicycle parking requirements and design standards that reflect current and future trends [Image: Two-column layout with "Project Background" and "Project Objectives"] --- ### Engagement Objectives & Timeline Source pages: 34–55 ## Engagement Objectives & Timeline ### Engagement Objectives The overall goal of the public and interest holder engagement process was to understand general priorities and level of support for the proposed changes from the community at large and any potential implications they may have for the development and business community. Understanding the community’s general priorities and level of support for the changes is an important outcome for this project. ### Project Timeline - Background Review — Fall 2024 - Data Collection & Analysis — Fall 2025 – Winter 2025 - Consultation & Engagement — Spring – Summer 2025 - Draft Bylaw — Summer – Fall 2025 [Image: Vertical timeline graphic with icons for each phase] --- ### Methodology Source pages: 34–55 ## Methodology ### Off-street vs. On-street Parking The focus of the Langford Parking Bylaw Modernization project is off-street parking. A separate Downtown On-Street Parking Strategy is being undertaken to review and provide recommendations for on-street parking in downtown Langford. While the focus of all engagement activities was surrounding off-street parking to align with the goals of the project, a few on-street parking questions were included in the public online survey to help inform the recommendations in the Downtown On-Street Parking Strategy. The graphic at right was used in all public-facing communications to differentiate off-street and on-street parking. [Image: Graphic differentiating off-street parking (parking lots, parkades) and on-street parking (curbside street space)] ### Focus Groups Three virtual focus groups were held in June 2025 with members of the development, business, rental and strata community, and shared mobility to present preliminary ideas for changing the parking bylaw. Participants were asked to provide their feedback on three topic areas: 1. Residential Parking & Transportation Demand Management 2. Commercial Parking 3. Loading A total of 24 invitations were sent to interest holders, with 16 total participants. The focus groups were held on Microsoft Teams and facilitated using Miro. [Image: Screenshot of virtual focus group session showing presentation slide and participant video tiles] ### The focus group discussion questions included: #### Residential Parking + TDM: - What are your thoughts on setting parking ratios by land use designation? - What are your thoughts on removing parking requirements and tying it TDM? - Do you think that these TDM measures are appropriate? #### Commercial Parking: - What are your thoughts on eliminating commercial parking requirements in the City Centre? - Should commercial parking requirements be designated by land use designation? - What are your thoughts on parking maximums? #### Loading: - How can we make providing loading on your site easier for you? Will having a smaller loading space type (i.e., Type A spaces) help? - Do you think multi-unit residential buildings need loading space requirements? - What are your thoughts on our proposed rate thresholds? Are they reasonable? - When in the development process do you start to think about waste collection? Do you think these proposed rates and dimensions will support your waste collection needs? ### Online Survey An online survey was hosted on the “Let’s Chat Langford” platform from June 20 to July 14, 2025. Respondents were invited to provide feedback on: - Parking and travel behaviour, including bicycle parking and accessible parking - Values and priorities related to off-street parking - Proposed changes to the parking bylaw - On-street parking challenges and opportunities (to support the Downtown On-street Parking Strategy) A total of 271 survey responses were received. [Image: "LET'S PLAN LANGFORD FOR PARKING MODERNIZATION" survey banner] --- ### Online Survey Results — Parking & Travel Behaviour Source pages: 34–55 ## Online Survey Results — Parking & Travel Behaviour ### What We Learned (summary) - Most respondents own or lease 1 - 2 privately owned vehicles, which are primarily parked in a personal driveway or garage. - Very few respondents park their personal vehicle solely on the street. - Less than half of all respondents reported to be aware of all public parking lots in downtown Langford. [Image: Pie charts and bar chart showing vehicle ownership and parking location stats] ### How many privately-owned vehicles (cars, vans, trucks, motorcycles, etc.) does your household own or lease? - Two — 35.1% - One — 32.8% - Three — 16.6% - Four or more — 13.3% - None — 0.7% - Prefer not to say — 0.7% ### When you park at home, where do you primarily park your vehicle(s)? - In my driveway/garage — 62.7% - I have a dedicated parking space/s at my building — 17.0% - Both on-street and off-street — 11.8% - On-street (parking on the road in front of your house or on adjacent side roads) — 4.1% - I do not require vehicle parking at my home — 1.5% ### Are you aware of the public parking lots in downtown Langford? - Yes — 36.2% - Some of them — 31.0% - No — 24.4% - Unsure — 8.1% --- ### Online Survey Results — Parking & Travel Behaviour (Challenges) Source pages: 34–55 ## Online Survey Results — Parking & Travel Behaviour (Challenges) ### What are the main vehicle related parking challenges you experience in Langford? (Select up to 3 responses) - Vehicles are parking on residential streets for long periods — 34.7% - It is hard to find available parking in downtown Langford — 34.3% - People who don’t live in the area park on residential streets — 28.8% - It is hard to find available parking at or near (within a block of) my destination in other parts of the city — 28.0% - I do not experience any parking challenges in Langford — 24.0% - Parking areas or lots are lacking comfortable sidewalks to my destination — 19.9% - Other (please specify) — 15.5% - There is a lack of charging stations for electric vehicles — 10.7% - There are not enough accessible parking stalls near my destination — 8.5% - I have to pay to park my vehicle at my apartment/condo building — 3.7% ### What We Learned - The top three vehicle-related parking challenges include: (1) vehicles parking on residential streets for long periods, (2) finding available parking in downtown Langford, and (3) people who don’t live in the area park on residential streets. - Almost 25% of respondents indicated that they do not experience any parking challenges in Langford. [Image: Horizontal bar chart visualization of the parking challenges with percentages] --- ### Online Survey Results — Accessible Parking Source pages: 34–55 ## Online Survey Results — Accessible Parking ### If you use accessible parking stalls, have you experienced any of the following challenges? (Select up to 3 responses) - I do not require accessible parking stalls — 63.5% - Accessible parking stalls are always occupied — 6.3% - I do not experience any challenges with accessible parking stalls — 5.9% - Access to the parking stall is often blocked due to parked vehicles or other obstacles such as snow or construction — 4.8% - I am not always aware of where accessible parking stalls are located — 4.4% - Not enough van-accessible parking stalls for larger vehicles — 3.7% - The route to/from accessible parking stalls is often inaccessible, blocked or obstructed — 3.7% - Other (please specify) — 3.0% - Accessible parking stalls are too far from my destination for my ability and/or comfort to travel after parking — 2.2% - Access aisles are too small or narrow to use a wheelchair lift or ramp (see diagram for clarification) — 1.8% ### What We Learned - Most respondents indicated that they do not require accessible parking stalls. - For those that utilize accessible parking stalls, the top challenge was reported to be accessible parking stalls always being occupied and therefore not being available. - The second highest response was that no challenges are experienced in using accessible parking stalls. [Image: Bar chart of accessible parking responses] --- ### Online Survey Results — Commercial Parking Source pages: 34–55 ## Online Survey Results — Commercial Parking ### Do you own a business in Langford? - Yes — 14.5% - No — 85.5% ### Do your customers typically experience challenges finding vehicle parking near your business? - Yes — 43.6% - No — 25.6% - It depends/every day is different — 15.4% - Other (please specify) — 15.4% ### Do your staff typically experience challenges finding vehicle parking near your business? - Yes — 37.5% - No — 21.9% - It depends/every day is different — 15.6% - Other (please specify) — 25.0% ### What We Learned - Only 15% of respondents reported to own a business in Langford. - Of those business owners, almost half (44%) indicated that their customers typically experience challenges finding vehicle parking, whereas 15% identified that every day is different. - Customers were reported to experience more challenges finding vehicle parking (44%) compared to staff (38%). [Image: Pie chart showing % of business owners and bar charts for customer/staff parking challenge responses] --- ### Online Survey Results — Proposed Changes to the Parking Bylaw Source pages: 34–55 ## Online Survey Results — Proposed Changes to the Parking Bylaw ### What is your level of support for removing minimum parking requirements in Langford? - I do not support removing minimum parking requirements at all — 49.8% - I support removing minimum parking requirements downtown where there are transportation alternatives available (cycling, walking/rolling, transit, carsharing) — 19.2% - I support removing minimum parking requirements city-wide — 12.9% - Other (please specify) — 7.7% - I do not understand what removing minimum parking requirements means — 5.2% - I have no preference — 2.6% ### What We Learned - Half of all respondents do not support removing parking minimums. [Image: Bar chart of support levels for removing minimum parking requirements] ### Do you support setting different parking requirements by Land Use Designation based on the type, size, and location of the development, and its proximity to other transportation options? - I support designating parking requirements by Land Use Designation — 54.6% - I do not support designating parking requirements by Land Use Designation — I believe parking requirements should be the same across the city — 14.0% - I do not understand what designating parking requirements by Land Use Designation means — 14.0% - Other (please specify) — 7.7% - I have no preference — 6.6% ### What We Learned - Most respondents (54%) support designating parking requirements by Land Use Designation. Respondents were provided with a description of the Land Use Designations as per the new Official Community Plan. [Image: Bar chart of support for land use designation-based parking requirements] --- ### Online Survey Results — Proposed Changes to the Parking Bylaw (Factors for Reducing Parking Requirements) Source pages: 34–55 ## Online Survey Results — Proposed Changes to the Parking Bylaw (Factors for Reducing Parking Requirements) ### Which factors would you support as reasons to reduce parking requirements for new development? (Select all that apply) - I do not support reduced off-street parking requirements — 47.6% - It’s close to transit routes — 38.0% - It’s close to an area with a range of shops and services — 32.1% - It’s close to active transportation options (bike lanes, sidewalks, …) — 30.3% - Safe and secure bicycle parking are provided on-site — 26.2% - Free or discounted transit passes are provided to… — 24.7% - Car-share vehicles are provided on-site — 22.9% - It’s an affordable housing development — 15.9% - Other (please specify) — 8.5% - It’s a rental housing development — 7.4% ### What We Learned - When asked about which factors respondents would support to reduce parking requirements, the top responses (besides that they do not support reduced off-street parking requirements) included (1) new development being close to transit routes, (2) close to areas with a range of shops and services, and (3) if developments are close to active transportation options. [Image: Bar chart of factors that would support reduced parking requirements] --- ### Online Survey Results — Bicycle Parking Source pages: 34–55 ## Online Survey Results — Bicycle Parking ### How many bicycles does your household own? - None — 26.9% - Two — 23.2% - Four or more — 18.1% - Three — 17.0% - One — 14.0% - Prefer not to say — 0.4% ### What type of bicycles does your household own? (Select all that apply) - Standard — 63.5% - Electric — 28.8% - Over-sized or cargo — 4.4% - Other (please specify) — 3.3% ### Do you experience any of the following challenges with bicycle parking in Langford? (Select up to 3 responses) - Lack of secure bicycle parking facilities (fear of theft) — 35.4% - I don’t experience any challenges with bicycle parking in Langford — 31.7% - Not enough bicycle parking — 19.9% - Lack of weather protection for parked bicycles — 16.6% - Bicycle parking is in inconvenient locations — 11.8% - Other (please specify) — 10.3% - Lack of supporting amenities (tire pumps, tools) — 5.9% - Bicycle parking spaces are not large enough to accommodate… — 4.8% - Lack of access to charging facilities for e-bikes / e-scooters — 4.1% - Lack of access to shower and change rooms at my destination — 3.7% ### What We Learned - Just over a 25% of all respondents’ households do not own a bicycle. Almost three quarters (72%) own at least one. - Of those households that own a bicycle, most own a standard bicycle, with 29% owning an electric bike. - The main challenge experienced in finding bicycle parking is a fear of theft, followed by not enough bicycle parking. The second highest response is that respondents don’t experience any challenges with bike parking in Langford. [Image: Pie charts and bar chart showing bicycle ownership, types, and challenges] --- ### Online Survey Results — Demographics Source pages: 34–55 ## Online Survey Results — Demographics ### What is your relationship to Langford? - Live in Langford — 93.4% - Access shopping, recreation, or other activity in Langford — 60.9% - Work in Langford — 37.6% - Go to grade school in Langford (elementary or high school) — 3.0% - Go to a post secondary school in Langford — 2.2% - Other (please specify) — 0.7% ### What neighbourhood do you live in? - City Centre — 27.5% - South Langford — 17.0% - Langford Lake and Glen Lake — 10.5% - Westhills — 9.3% - North Langford — 8.5% - Bear Mountain — 7.7% - Thetis & Millstream — 7.7% - Mill Hill — 7.7% - Goldstream Meadows — 4.0% ### What type of housing structure do you live in? - Single detached house or duplex — 60.5% - Apartment/Condo — 17.7% - Townhouse/Row house — 13.3% - Suite in a house — 3.7% - Other (please specify) — 2.6% - Prefer not to answer — 1.5% ### What We Learned - Majority of respondents live in Langford (93%). Respondents also mostly access Langford for shopping, recreation or other activities (61%) or for work (38%). - City Centre was the most common neighbourhood to live in among respondents (28%), followed by South Langford and Langford Lake and Glen Lake. Few respondents live in Goldstream Meadows (4%). - Most respondents live in a single detached house or duplex, followed by an apartment or condo building (18%). [Image: Pie charts of relationship to Langford, neighbourhood distribution, and housing type] --- ### Focus Groups Results Source pages: 34–55 ## Focus Groups Results ### Residential Parking + TDM: - General support for setting ratios by land use designation with consideration for bedrooms/unit size - General support for lowering/removing parking requirements as long as alternative modes of transportation are a viable option in the city - Off-street parking requirements also need to balance the needs of on-street parking and how the city could best manage that - Support for removal of affordable housing parking requirements - TDM flexibility is preferred. Having rigid TDM requirements can impact both the viability of the development itself and result in TDM failing if the surrounding transportation network cannot support it - Enforcement of TDM measures is equally if not more important than securing TDM itself - Removing minimum parking requirements does not mean zero parking. Developers still need to provide parking to meet clientele / market need. Therefore, the costs of TDM requirements need to be carefully considered [Image: Icon and layout for Focus Groups Results] ### Commercial Parking: - General support for setting ratios by land use designation - General support for more flexible parking ratios / removing requirements in the City Centre - Strong opposition against parking maximums - Important to ensure accessible parking is provided in new commercial developments [Image: Photo of downtown area and parking] ### Loading: - Flexibility is preferred. Being prescriptive on loading needs is restrictive as each business/use has different loading needs - Having high clearance requirements is especially burdensome and impacts site design and floor plates - Prefer on-street loading where possible - With loading, we need to ask the question: what is the problem we are trying to solve? A lot of loading activity occurs on street so we need to think carefully about whether any off-street loading should be required - Some larger commercial developments typically require loading off-street whereas the loading needs for multi-family residential developments are usually accommodated on-street - Waste collection is a large part of the loading requirements for both commercial and residential developments. The City should be working closely with developers early in the process to ensure that a waste collection strategy is being considered [Image: Three-column bullet layout describing loading feedback] --- ### Key Takeaways Source pages: 34–55 ## Key Takeaways - Parking requirements by land use designation are supported by both the public and interest holders. - Non-residents parking on residential streets, and for long periods of time, is a key parking challenge identified. - Finding available parking in Downtown Langford is another key parking challenge identified. However, only 30% of respondents indicated to be aware of the downtown public parking lots. - Removing parking minimums city-wide is not supported. However, interest holders are supportive of removing parking minimums in the City Centre. - A lack of secure bicycle parking is a main bicycling challenge in Langford. - Flexibility is preferred among the development community for transportation demand management and loading requirements. [Image: Summary icons for key takeaways] --- [Image: Aerial photo of downtown Goldstream Village area]