R B 3 Min Pub Input Feb 9, 2009 Public_mufford_64_ave

- 58 -

SPECIAL MEETING OF TOWNSHIP COUNCIL FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUBLIC INPUT AS TO MUFFORD/64 AVENUE ROAD/RAIL OVERPASS Monday, February 9, 2009, at 7:06 p.m. Fraser River Presentation Theatre 4th Floor, 20338 – 65 Avenue, Langley, BC

MINUTES

Present: Mayor Green Councillors J. Bateman, B. Dornan, S. Ferguson, M. Kositsky, B. Long, K. Richter and G. Ward M. Bakken, P. Catlin, C. Corfe, R. Seifi and C. Wright D. Hyde, S. Palmer A.

PUBLIC MEETING 1.

Mufford/64 Avenue Road/Rail Overpass C. Wright, General Manager, Engineering, provided an explanation relative to the Mufford/64 Avenue Road/Rail Overpass and noted that there are long delays at rail crossings which result in increased costs and environmental impacts. He continued that CTA warrants already exceeded for grade separation and that there is a need for the overpass to deal with community safety, growth in road and rail traffic, Port Metro Vancouver expansion needs, and increasing gridlock. D. Hyde, Project Manager, provided an update on the project and noted that DeltaPort rail traffic will be diverted through the South Fraser Perimeter Road. He continued that consideration will be given to improvements to the intersection of Glover Road, 72 Avenue, and Crush Crescent, whereby they would induce traffic to come from the new facility and head to Glover Road, as well as providing directional signage at 216/64 to Highway 1. He then referred to Option J, noting that the pros include the separation of trains/vehicles and a small initial impact to ALR lands; the cons include failure to improve network connectivity, higher environmental impact, requires longer structure, and further widening of bypass. He spoke to other issues such as the project not including the closing of farm accesses that cross railway; that the Township of Langley share is $9.3M – the overall project funding is $51M; that there are no plans to double track CP Rail or widen Highway10 (Glover Road) in this area; and that the province and the ALC have no plans to exclude ALR lands.

February 9, 2009 Special Council Meeting For The Purpose of Mufford/64 Avenue Road/Rail Overpass Minutes A.

- 59 -

PUBLIC MEETING The following submissions were provided regarding Mufford/64 Avenue Road/Rail Overpass from the public. 1. Roy Mufford, Box 114, Milner, was in attendance and commented that Option J would cost less than the Township’s preliminary plan; would provide additional usable land to Kwantlen Polytechnic University (KPU) for agriculture use; provide a site for foot traffic from light rail transit to the KPU, and use less ALR land. He expressed concerns relative to public safety, emergency response, increased gridlock, and increased expense regarding the overpass proposal. He noted that the Hon. John Cummins, MP, provided a letter to be read aloud noting that Council should demand that heavy rail traffic be re-routed. 2. Pam Omelaniec, 23712 – 56 Avenue, was in attendance and commented that she had expressed concerns regarding the destruction of Royal Hudson Bay lands to the Prince of Wales. 3. Harvey Schultz, 27007 – 26 Avenue, Aldergrove, was in attendance and commented that the two Langley’s should only be facilitators of the CP Rail. He indicated his opposition to the project. 4. Sam Omelaniec, 23712 – 56 Avenue, was in attendance and commented that the main consideration is to remove heavy rail traffic from Langley. He continued that if an overpass is developed, he would suggest a reverse “J”; straighten Hog valley road, and connect to 64 Avenue. 5. Cyanna Mufford and Earl Mufford, 21499 Crush Crescent, were in attendance and commented that they disagreed with the proposed extension through historical Hudson Bay land. She continued that they were opposed to the project due to decreased access to their farmland; the new road would destroy prime farmland; increased traffic; public safety concerns; lack of analysis of impact on farmland; road design is incomplete without access roads to farms; no direct access to Glover Road; and missing details on gas pipelines crossings. pipelines. 6. Terry Lyster, 602, 32440 Simon Avenue, Abbotsford, was in attendance and commented that constructing the overpass will confirm the cores of both Langley’s as a heavy rail route in perpetuity. He noted that from safety, planning, property value, sustainability and livability perspectives having permanent heavy rail traffic is bad. He stated that local concerns have to be reflected and part of the overall consideration, only Council and staff can provide that local perspective. He added that if the overpass does not proceed, the Port will still be there; the need to move ever-increasing amounts of freight traffic will be there and opportunities for better integrated plans for heavy and light rail traffic, use of river, and light rail transportation will still be there. He noted that the overpass is perceived as a solution for municipalities and highways – there are 7 other crossings that should be fixed. He continued that nothing should happen on Township of Langley intersections unless other crossings are funded; none of the solutions work for local interests. 7. John Klabde, 19961 – 36 Avenue, was in attendance and commented that he supported Option J. He noted that close off Mufford Crescent could be closed off and funds spent on 204 Street expansion and upgrading 72 Avenue to Glover or 204 Street to the freeway. 8. Garry Vanderveen, 21670 Maxwell Crescent, was in attendance and commented that he did not support the proposal.

February 9, 2009 Special Council Meeting For The Purpose of Mufford/64 Avenue Road/Rail Overpass Minutes A.

- 60 -

PUBLIC MEETING 9. Don Nundal, 23727 – 62A Avenue, was in attendance and commented that he did not support the proposal. 10. Ken Cannon, 21682 Maxwell, was in attendance and commented that he was opposed to an overpass proposal. He cited concerns relative to taxes, whistle blowing, environmental impact, and train length and frequency. Councillor Dornan left the meeting at 8:35 p.m. and rejoined the meeting at 8:38 p.m. 11. Ray Lewis, 5708 – 208 Street, was in attendance and commented that he was opposed to the proposal. 12. Marianne Smith, 21352 Smith Crescent, was in attendance and commented that she opposed the proposed overpass and cited concerns relative to increasing rail traffic. 13. Glenn Smith, 21352 Smith Crescent, was in attendance and commented that he opposed to the Mufford Crescent/64 Avenue overpass as it is currently proposed. He added that rail crossing protection measures should be undertaken immediately. 14. Lynn Whitehouse, 20513 – 51A Avenue, was in attendance and commented that she is the Executive Director of the Greater Langley Chamber of Commerce and serves on the Lower Mainland Chamber Transportation Panel. She continued that she had concerns relative to costly delays to movement of people, goods and services; environmental impact; and increased traffic congestion. She stated that the Township of Langley Master Transportation Plan recognized the need for east-west traffic corridors, and the north-south overpass on 204 Street is a vital connection and provides smooth movement of traffic, She stated that on behalf of the Greater Langley Chamber of Commerce she requested Council move forward with the best solution concerning the safe and efficient movement of people, goods and services now and into the future. 15. Eric Bysouth, 5212 – 201A Street, was in attendance and commented that the intersection of Glover Road and Mufford Crescent needs to be repaired. He continued that he had concerns relative to the destruction of farmland and the lack of a proper long-range transportation plan. He expressed opposition to the proposal. 16. Michael Robson, PO Box 10, Milner, was in attendance and expressed his opposition to the proposal. He advised that he would like to see more communication with the City of Langley and other political organizations on this issue. 17. Karl Iberg, 22965 – 64 Avenue, was in attendance and commented that he was opposed to the proposed Mufford Street/64 Avenue overpass, citing concerns relative to public safety and loss of farmland. He noted that VALTAC’s Option J may be a better solution. The meeting recessed at 9:20 p.m. and reconvened at 9:31 p.m. 18. Taylor Swift, 21876 – 64 Avenue, was in attendance and commented that she had concerns relative to public safety, lack of sidewalks, and increased traffic. 19. Harold Swift, 21886 – 64 Avenue, was in attendance and commented that he had concerns relative to impact on neighbourhood. He advised that he was

February 9, 2009 Special Council Meeting For The Purpose of Mufford/64 Avenue Road/Rail Overpass Minutes A.

- 61 -

PUBLIC MEETING opposed to the proposal. 20. Dave Ormrod, 5910 – 216 Street, was in attendance and commented that he had concerns relative to increased traffic, snow removal, and bicycle/pedestrian safety. He advised that he opposed the proposal and that Glover Road should be the only road that is four laned. 21. Peter Holt, 13427 Marie, Surrey, was in attendance and commented that the proposal will result in increased revenues for Port Metro Vancouver and DeltaPort and increased trade opportunities for Canada. He stated that Council must have the vision, courage, and belief to do what’s best for Langley. 22. Elisabeth Robson, 21837 – 61 Avenue, was in attendance and commented that she had concerns relative to increased traffic, congestion, and emergency vehicle response. She indicated that she was opposed to the project. Councillor Kositsky left the meeting at 9:45 p.m. and rejoined the meeting at 9:49 p.m. 23. Shirley Collins, 6144 – 228 Street, was in attendance and commented that the solution is “no trains” and indicated opposition to the proposed project. 24. Dean Holcombe, 21685 – 64 Avenue, was in attendance and commented that he had concerns relative to increased traffic, transport of hazardous materials by rail, and safe use of farm vehicles on roads. He suggested the removal of the trains and advised that he was opposed to the proposal. 25. Robert Moats, 6672 – 240 Street, was in attendance and commented that he lives next to Brown’s Pit. He continued that he opposed the proposal and that rail traffic should be re-routed. 26. Bruce M. Anderson, 21836 – 64 Avenue, was in attendance and commented that he opposed the proposal. 27. Martin Robson, 25988 – 36 Avenue, was in attendance and commented that he opposed the proposed project. He requested Council seek further outside professional advice on the project and consider building an overpass at Highway 10, cut off Mufford Crescent, provide six lanes on Highway 10, and protect farmland. 28. Esther Lindberg, 202, 20645 Eastleigh Crescent, was in attendance and commented that Mufford Crescent should be closed off on the west side of the tracks. She continued that Langley needs other thoroughfares and sidewalks and the area of Glover Road south of Trinity Western University is unsafe. She expressed opposition to the proposal. 29. Joseph Comeau, 21225 Crush Crescent, was in attendance and commented that the survey recently undertaken was biased and constructed to support the proposal. He continued that the survey only presented one option and was carried out prior to the letter from Minister Kevin Falcon. 30. Josef Oakes, 21510 – 64 Avenue, was in attendance and commented that he had concerns relative to access to his property. He stated that he was opposed to the proposal. 31. Hugh Davis, 21660 – 76B Avenue, was in attendance and commented that he had concerns relative to loss of good farmland. He suggested Glover Road be widened.

February 9, 2009 Special Council Meeting For The Purpose of Mufford/64 Avenue Road/Rail Overpass Minutes A.

- 62 -

PUBLIC MEETING 32. Mike Scholtens, 22274 – 64 Avenue, was in attendance and commented that he was opposed to the proposed project. He cited concerns relative to property devaluation, lack of sidewalks, quality of life, and increased traffic. He suggested 64 Avenue be widened and sidewalks added. 33. Guntram Zell, 9043 Mackie Street, Fort Langley, was in attendance and commented that he supports VALTAC’s Option J and protecting farmland. 34. Dan Mooney, 2084 – 198 Street, was in attendance and commented that he attended the recent open houses and found it very informative. He added that local government has little control over rail traffic and urged Council to seize the opportunity to partner with the stakeholders and be leaders and proceed with the project. He noted that Option J is feasible, however, does not offer the benefits in terms of grade separation as the consultant-encouraged option does. 35. Robert Harvey, 22314 - 64 Avenue, was in attendance and commented that he had concerns relative to lack of sidewalks, increased traffic, loss of productive farmland, and property devaluation. He stated that he is opposed the proposed Mufford/64 Avenue Road/Rail Overpass project and that he supports Option J. 36. Garry Tingley, 6285 – 226 Street, was in attendance and commented that he supported the proposal. 37. Roger Benoit, 216 - 61 Avenue, was in attendance and commented that he runs a small nursery and he had concerns relative to loss of good farmland. 38. Ms. Jamieson, 216 and 96 Avenue, was in attendance and commented that she was opposed to the proposal. 39. Marianne Edberg, 22065 - 264 Avenue, was in attendance and commented that she was opposed to the proposal. 40. Doug Preddy, 8915 – 204 Street, Fort Langley, was in attendance and stated that a major overpass should not be built on a minor road. 41. David Davis, 21660 – 76B Avenue, was in attendance and commented that he was opposed to the project and cited concerns relative to loss of good farmland. He advised that he supported Option J. MOTION Moved by Councillor Long, Seconded by Councillor Richter, That the meeting be extended by five minutes to hear the delegations. CARRIED

B.

TERMINATE Moved by Councillor Bateman, Seconded by Councillor Dornan, That the meeting terminate at 11:02 p.m. CARRIED

February 9, 2009 Special Council Meeting For The Purpose of Mufford/64 Avenue Road/Rail Overpass Minutes CERTIFIED CORRECT:

Mayor

Deputy Township Clerk

- 63 -