(heavy static noise)All right, so we'll call the regular meeting of Township Council for Monday, May 11th to order. Of course, I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples, and in particular, our valued relationships with the ƛ̓əč̓əmət, Kwantlen, Matsqui, and Semiahmoo First Nations. With that, I'm gonna move the m- agenda amended to process item E5 just before item E1. So I'll move that. Seconded by Councilor Pratt. Any discussion? Councilor Martins. Yeah, um, just as always, um, for people that don't have the agenda in front of them, it'd be helpful to know what the information is if they're... if they're, uh, here to, uh, hear about a certain item. So, um, you're saying E5 before E1, so E5 being the culvert infrastructure loan authorization bylaw. Is that correct? Uh, you know what is, yeah. It's right there on the agenda, item E5, yeah. Okay. Right. And that's gonna come ahead of the mixed-use development zoning bylaw parking changes? That... If approved by council, yeah. Okay, thank you. So with that, we'll call the motion, the agenda as amended.That carries unanimously. Gonna motion to adopt the regular meeting minutes of April 27. Moved by Council Ferguson, seconded by Councilor Wren. Any discussions? Then I'll call the question on B1. That carries unanimously. We have two delegations today. First delegation, Ms. Sabtee, please come forward. And thanks for providing the, uh, um, presentation in advance. That was very helpful. So, uh, please go ahead. Thanks. Yeah. Good afternoon, mayor and council. Thank you so much for having me here today. I appreciate your time. Um, I'm here to talk about a very interesting topic we've been seeing quite often on our roads. Um, just quickly touching on e-scooter safety, um, awareness, and hoping to do... To work together for shared responsibility and accountability. Um, we all saw what happened a week ago, um, these pictures are coming on, uh, social media quite often now, it's, it's getting a little bit out of hand. We all have encountered... I myself almost killed two girls, um, on a scooter about... It was almost... Uh, it was in September last year going down 208 turning, going straight across 88 Avenue. No helmets, black clothing, dark, um, it was night, no bells, no nothing, um, and they were young girls. That was quite scary. Um, going on some of the information that I was able to collect, the data we have is quite narrow, the numbers I have between 2022 and 2024, and there is about an increase of 61% of incidents, ages between 5 and 17. We are part of the conversation, which is great. Now, the conversation happened through having a pilot program that started in 2024. The pilot program, when we searched it online is, you know, there are some documents, a lot of reading to do, few links to the provincial government information. The problem with this is that we have basically, we are saying, "It's okay to ride scooters." That is when a city is part of the pilot program, it means that city can have scooters on their roads, and there's testing happening and there's, hopefully data being collected. BC had... Is, is one of the highest percentage in injuries alongside Ontario, Quebec, and Alberta. And I tried to find some information on the codes on injuries in the hospitals, um, the code is not fully formed, I guess. So, the pilot program challenges come with the fact that there's limited, uh, public education, unmatched infrastructure, in my personal opinion, unclear rules, um, youth use, which is increasing quite, uh, dramatically. The length of, of the program is four years. By the time we have something solid from the provincial government, with all due respect, I think we will be dealing with flying scooters. Um, the conversation happens at home, it happened in my personal home as well, birthday gifts. Uh, my twins turn 12, it's been a year that we are arguing that there are rules and regulations for this, which was very hard to find. I connected with Langley RCMP, um, Constable McNutt, who helped me quite a bit, um, community, uh, liaison officer. And we worked hard to try and source some documentation and some, um, resources. So, um, this basically says what should not ha- be happening. Um, riders cannot be under 16. There is a fine of $109. More than one rider, another fine of $109. Riding without helmet, $29 fine. Exceeding speed limit, uh, riding on sidewalks, it is not allowed. It is illegal. Riding dangerously, I'm sure police can define that in many different ways. What are the proper rules? One rider only, helmet, 16 years of age and older, safe speed, the speed limit is, uh, I think 25 kilometers. There are ways to increase these, uh, scooters and make them go faster. Lights and bells, and riding in designating, uh, lanes. This resource is available and is ready to be used by anybody. The, uh, Langley RCMP have been very grateful, um, have been very helpful to me, and I'm very grateful for their support. I did add the township of Langley on there, y- you know, if it's okay or not. Um, my apologies, I did not take permission for that. Um, where can when these flyers go? Town- township notifications, parks, uh, community centers, community events, cranes, and, uh, Langley Event Center and their facilities, clubs, LUSA, ba-baseball, basketball, summer camp, bike shops, bus stations, everywhere. What I'm hoping that we can work together or hopefully will, uh, township be taking on prioriti- prioritizing public education, which is extremely important, and goes hand-in-hand in reviewing infrastructure. When we have these first two items, it will also allow us to empower enforcement because bylaws and, um, Langley RCMP have been working quite hard, at least for the past two months that we are been... Uh, we've been in talks, and it is just getting worse and worse. I do have to find a better gift for these two, um, but definitely not going to be scooters. Thank you for your time. If you have any questions Yeah. Hi, Risha. Thank you very much for, um, delegating, and, um, I hear, I hear the concern you have for the safety of our youth. Um, I... In your research, did you, uh, also look at what the township does have out already on our website? I'm wondering if we can work with that content at all to further message, or what are your... I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. My hope is...The reality is... Thank you so much for your question, council- uh, Councilor Martin. Um, the reality is, we are all very busy. Um, having to link and sift through links and, on websites and emails or newsletters is really unhelpful, and, and sometimes it does not really get us to the point. The point is, we cannot, they cannot be on these streets. They just cannot. So the, uh, resource I got from RCMP Langley would be very helpful if we can implement it somewhere. Visual, easy to understand, everybody can read it. If it goes to schools, that's even better. Children, too, hold us accountable. So when, when kids go, they are quite smart and understand that this is important to follow, and they will follow it, in my opinion. I think we have really smart kids in our schools. Mm-hmm. No, no, thank you. I was just thinking when we entered into the pilot program, um, I know there was an educational component that we had embarked upon, so I was curious if, um, if it... But it's not obviously making the mark if you're not hearing. I did not even hear about it. I loo- I tried to, like, to find information. Mm-hmm. I don't know. I thought it was a bit limited, but again, maybe I just, it, it, it wasn't as busy as it is. Right now, e-scooters are flying everywhere. There is just no limit. Yeah. Yeah. And, and it's tricky because it's a pilot. It's not, um, province-wide. No. Right. Exactly. Right? That just adds another confusing layer. Correct. And it's interesting, and I appreciate the statistics that you provided. Um, I did a little bit of digging knowing you were coming, and, uh, Councilor Bailey has a motion later. (laughs) Um, and what I found, and I, I know like you said, the health yep- data is a little bit limited, but the Canadian Institute of Health, um, they said there's been a 22% increase in hospitalizations Canada-wide due to e-scooter falls between 2022 and 2023, and a 20% increase in BC hospitalizations between 2022 and 2024. That's, um, that's a significant, um, stat. So I do appreciate you showing up today and, um, just highlighting this, and what, how we can do better in the education piece. Thank you. Thanks. Is there questions? Hi. Thank you for bringing this to, uh, to Council. Um, I think we should start a support group for all of us who have almost hit a scooter or- Right. ... seeing these horrifying- Absolutely. ... ki- it's just, the other day I was on 208 Street, we have these be- beautiful new multi-use paths and bike lanes, and the kids are actually in traffic with these, with these scooters. So yeah, i- a- it is a huge issue. Um, I was doing a little research as well, and, uh, the Netherlands actually has some pretty tight regulations around, uh, e-scooter use. And, and, um, they're certainly not taking it lightly. I know it's, uh, um... So I, I think as a, as a province, we definitely need to bring this to the attention of the province, um, and make the rules just across the board so that it's not individual municipalities having to, to deal with this. But thanks for bringing it to us. Pleasure. Thank you. You can also come to, um, 212 and 88, and you'll f- find them zooming on that street, because you can come quite fast. Come to 208 and 44, and, uh, you will also see them. That's excellent. (laughs) You know, kids at school, Brookswood- Appreciate it. ... you know. Anyway. Yeah. (clears throat) Thanks so much for coming today- Sure. ... uh, bringing this issue. You mentioned, um, that a lot of, uh, residents, uh, and students aren't really looking at website and looking up different links for it. Mm-hmm. So what, what are, what is the, what sort of suggestions would you make in terms of the best way to get the message out there to students and families and that sort of thing, about, you know, the, the guidelines that you've presented here and the, and the requirements? How, how do we get that message out if they're not gonna look at websites or links? Are you, do we do a mail outs, or what, what's the way to do it? Thank you for your question, Councilor Whitmarsh. Um, in my opinion, I think, um, the posters that come in collaboration between RCMP, township, school board, uh, and the city becomes a bit of a stronger message. I would like it to go to, uh, parents at home, and not via links or newsletters. Um, I do not open my newsletters. I do not think there is a lot of people that open newsletters. That's just a fact. Um, and maybe if we open it, it will be opened by the end of the year, or when we are trying to wrap up things, um, goes, um, into documents in homes, takes an hour in a classroom or something like that. It, it, it is a realistically, um, high-risk situation we're at. I myself encountered two major incidents. One of them was right before a car, and he, as, as the car was driving out, he fell. The kid fell. The only lucky situation is that the car wasn't driving fast, and the kid fell on the ground, so no helmet, no nothing. Um, it's, it's just getting more and more dangerous, and, and with my conversation with RCMP and Councilman McNutt, he did mention that it is only getting worse. I actually just asked him today, I said, "Is there anything I can add to the conversation?" He said, "It's only getting worse." So... Yeah. Great, great, um, that you brought it forward, and, uh, I recognize the same thing. I've seen a number of them, uh, riding along beside the cycling path, but they're on the road, and not actually using the cycling path. So some form of educational, uh, thing would be great, and it, you know, would be helpful if it was more than just, uh, one or two municipalities, but it was actually province-wide, would be really, really helpful. So thanks for bringing it- Right. ... today. Thank you. Mr. Herse? Yeah. Mrs. Hersey, thank you for coming today. Um, the, it's interesting that, um, you're going through all this, and we're all aware. We read the news. One year, 32%, thousands of people injured over, I guess, the country. Um, I know you're also gonna be meeting with the school district and also- Yes. ... City of Langley, as I understand, as best we can? I will do my best. (laughs) Oh, you'll do your best. Sure. I, I requested here, I requested the school board, and I'm hoping that the school, the school district will be able to support that, and the city as well, 'cause once we have it at the schools, both between township and...... and city, the information will go out. Um, I will forward it to city council as well, if they would like to present it or want me to present, I'll be more than happy to do that. Now, I don't want to give you more work, but- But I don't mind doing it. Thank you. ... I, I think you know what's coming. (laughs) It's, uh, they electrified the scooter. They actually electrified the bikes as well. Right. And the interesting thing when, uh, the electrification of the bikes, there was a big people for normal people just driving, riding their bikes and using it- Right. ... as a, as promotion of their speed uphill, this and that. It was, the response was almost like in riding a mountain bike or even a road bike- Yes. ... and they use it for distance. Right. And it was an accessory. Now, they've got different types of bikes out there and those folks- Correct. ... are really riding. They get those things up to, I guess, um, almost like a hot rod e- e-bike. So- Correct. ... you know, there's many, there's just as many concerns, I think, about these young people riding bikes that are e-bikes on sidewalks, on roads and young. And I'm not sure if you've ever had the opportunity to discuss that with the RT because they, like a parallel situation between bikes and scooters. Correct. There is obviously the same concern. Um, the focus was really on the children that are flying on these e-scooters that are 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 years old. Um, adults, I'm hoping adults who get on e-scooters will have a little bit more understanding of the consequences. Children, we are responsible to educate around the community and be able to basically try to enforce it. Just like when putting kids in swimming pool, we have to teach them before, you know, getting in the pool. Adults, we think that they will be aware that if you get into the water and don't know how to swim, you'll most likely drown. So, um, I'm working with RCMP specifically about that, and I know they're taking that into a very serious, uh, steps in there, with... And they're actually working quite closely with the bylaw officers. Well, I'll talk to, uh, to council when it comes up on, the later on the agenda. But thank you very much for what you do. My pleasure. Yeah. Rasha, thanks for bringing this forward. Uh, I have to watch it when I get on the subject, I can go into a rant very easily, and I'll probably do that later. (laughs) Uh, but, um, you know, a lot of people talk about, uh, near misses. Unfortunately, uh, a lot of first responders don't deal with nu- Right. ... near misses, uh, and I'll give you a, a very personal example. Um, my son is a firefighter has dealt with two fatalities. Right. Two separate fatalities. And I know in Vancouver it's also the same, uh- Right. ... and the, and the stats that are being accumulated are not nearly showing the picture accurately. No. No. No. You talk to the ER people, an awful lot of these things are not biring- being reported. No. Head and wrists apparently are, are leading the pack on this. So thank you very much and, uh, yeah. My pleasure. We'll see if we can deal with this in a little while. Thank you, Councilor Bailey, and you're absolutely correct. I actually spoke to my brother who works in Vancouver Hospital. I asked, "Why do we not h- have code, information?" I wanted to get numbers. There's no proper coded, uh, code for the type of injury and I really don't understand why is it so slow taking this in- into active, proactive measures. These scooters are being changed to become 40 and 50 kilometer per hour. It's only getting worse. And like I said, I won't be surprised to see a flying scooter anytime soon. Thank you. Ms. Sowers? Yeah. Sorry. I, I forgot one question I wanted to ask you. Sure. Um, the school district, have you already, uh, delegated to the school board? I have requested and I, um, hoping to be there on the 26th- Okay. ... ish this month. Yes. Okay. Are... And you, you mentioned, um, in newsletters there's information. Right. So- Is there any other information that- My approach was, my hope was really, um... And, and, and I'm not trying to place any blames anywhere. Mm-hmm. We're all trying to work together and- Yeah. ... making sure that our roads are safety for everybody, are safe for everyone. Um, my approach was to reach out to RCMP first because that's where would be the sort of fastest resources and more accurate and firm information that you can deliver to people. The second step was reaching out to school district, hoping for something to go out before spring break. And, and at that time, there was some information that did go out at some point between March and May, um, or som- around those t- times. Sure. Okay. The one I saw, you know, it's a link going to the provincial, uh, pilot project, which is really about 16 year olds. We don't have 16 year olds in elementary schools. That's just reality. Mm-hmm. Um, so going, that information going to someone who has an 11 or a 9 or a 10, what are the chances of us opening? I, like I said, I myself read through it and I was like, "No, I'd like to see a picture or some information-" Sure. "... that I can..." I'm actually arguing and I'm very serious about this. I'm arguing, I're going, arguing with my boys because they want it for birthday because they have their friends in their classrooms have it. And these kids, you're not gonna be able to sort of get them to open a link and read it. A picture will make sense. And, and when they see RCMP sign on it, that's even stronger and see all the support that's happening from the township and, um, and around us here, and the schools for sure. Mm-hmm. No. I, I, and I hear what you're saying and, and I, and I, I can feel, you know, what you're expressing. Um, and you're, you're, you're entirely correct. A picture is worth a thousand words. Yeah, exactly. So, uh, yeah. I just wanted to check if you had... I, and like Councilor Ferguson, I'm giving you more homework, so I just- (laughs) Yes. ... I just wanted... And I, I believe even with the RCMP, when I connected with them, that picture, um, that I posted up here, it was, um, distributed by another RCMP detachment. Mm-hmm. And we actually had to reach out to them, get their permission and through... You know the process. I sure do. (laughs) Um, and it took a while and, but it was a useful thing to do. Mm-hmm. And, um, I-I think it- it's very valuable, because even speaking to any of the officers I've spoken to, I spoke to about three or four, there was nothing that says, in one document, all these numbers, and all the information that could be helpful for people. Yeah. Yeah. Re- what do they say? Preaching to the choir. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. All right. Thanks for coming here today. Thank you for your time. Thank you. All right. Next delegation is, uh, Mr. Ducharme and Mr. Jackson. Come forward. All right. .......................... go ahead. Hey, please go ahead. Please introduce yourselves to council, and, uh, please go ahead. You've got five minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Just got to find her. Oh, boy. Yeah. Yeah. You- you go for it. I'll start talking. Gonna move this mic up a bit. Uh, good afternoon. Thank you for having us this afternoon. My name is Darryl Ducharme. I'm an owner and resident of the Pepperwood Townhouse Complex, located at 20875 80th Avenue. I've lived there since November of 2020. We also has a sister property next to us, called Arborell Park. I'm joined today by Warren Jackson, who's also a resident and strata president at Pepperwood. While Pepperwood, with the gray roofs in the photo, and Arborell Park, with the brown roofs, are separate strata corporations with distinct rules and entrances, we share a management company and connected internal roadway. Together, our community consists of 239 units with over 400 residents and nearly 60 children under the age of 18, all of whom are directly affected by the changes we're here to discuss. We're here to address the recent modification to the Pepperwood entrance, located on the north side of 80th Avenue, between 208 and 209th Street. Pepperwood was built in 2007, and for 19 years, the only direct access point to our complex has been via 80th Avenue, with full turning capability in both east and westbound directions. During this time, residents have safely made left turns in and out of the complex without significant incident. According to information provided by the township's engineering department, ICBC data from 2020 to 2023 recorded seven motor vehicle incidents, none of which were major or attributable to this acc- access point. However, on or around February the 6th of this year, the township installed a concrete divider along 80th Avenue between 208th and 209th. This change eliminated the left turn access, not, uh, at our only direct entrance and enforces a restrictive covenant established in 2006 between the township and Polygon, the original developer. This change was implemented without proper notification to residents. Although the township staff indicated notice was distributed in June of 2025, no such notice was received. This was later confirmed by email, uh, by the Director of Engineering and Public Works. Additionally, no postings were reserved at our clubhouse, as confirmed by our- both our caretaker, which is Warren's wife, and our property management company. As a result, the residents were unaware of both the existence of the covenant and the township's intention to enforce it. In response, residents organized a community survey and petition that was distributed to all the residents of Pepperwood and Arborell Park. This response demonstrated significant community concern and engagement, with more than 250 signatures collected between- uh, representing 239 households. The survey also included feedback from families representing the nearly 60 children, highlighting the widespread impact of these traffic changes are having on residents both- uh, and through both communities. The sudden restriction to right turn access only has created several concerns. Increased internal traffic and safety risk is number one. Residents who need to travel, uh, east on 80th now must drive through the entirety of Pepperwood and into Arborell Park to exit Field- via 209th Street. This significantly increases traffic within both complexes. Previously, many homes, including my own, were within 100 meters of direct access to 80th Avenue. Now the same trip requires me to travel approximately 750 meters, or three quarters of a kilometer, through the residential roads of Pepperwood and Arborell, populated by nearly 60 children and- and teens. These are active living environments where children regularly play, bike, and walk. This increase in internal traffic raises the risk of accidents, and it's not a question of if an incident will occur, but when. Number two, the spillover traffic and unsafe driving behavior The restriction also increased traffic in surrounding neighborhoods, particularly south of 80th Avenue, including areas around Richard Pulpit Elementary. Additionally, there have been a noticeable rise in illegal U-turns at the intersection of 80th and 209th, further compounding safety risks. Number three, emergency response concerns. Access for emergency services has been negatively impacted. Pepperwood falls within the service area of fire hall number four, located on 202 and 72nd, and fire hall number eight, located on 208 and 96. Due to the median, emergency vehicles approaching from the typical north and south, uh, of us can no longer directly access our entrance on 80th Avenue. Instead, they must either detour through the surrounding neighborhoods, increa- increasing response time, or enter through Arborell Park via the north side of 209th and navigate internal roads and speed bumps. Fire personnel from fire hall number four conducton- conducted an assessment and indicated in current- the current configuration is not ideal and will delay response times. Additional concerns are raised that some apparatus may not be able to safely make the required turn movements due to traffic congestion on 209th. These concerns also extend to the BC Ambulance and the RCMP. Our request to council is this. We respectfully request that the Council consider amending, altering, or releasing the restrictive covenant under section 35 of the Property Law Act. This provision allows for changes when a covenant is- is deemed obsolete or an impediment to reasonable use. We believe both conditions apply for these reasons. The covenant has gone unenforced for 19 years without issue, and its enforcement now creates safety risks and it restricts reasonable and safe access for residents and emergency services. As a solution, we propose the installation of a center median pass-through similar to the design implemented on 264th Street and Fraser Highway, just south of Fraser Highway This would maintain traffic control while restoring safe and practical accessAlternatively, consideration could be given to the controlled left turn points similar to those at 64th and 200th Street, westbound and Canadian Tire, uh, or at 88th and 202, serving the nearby commercial properties there. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. We welcome any questions and look forward to working pro- collaboratively toward a solution that prioritizes safety and accessibil- accessibility to our community. Yeah. Thanks again for coming today, and, uh, appreciate you, uh, bringing this to us after a couple of emails we've received, and appreciate you putting a face to the name as well. Yeah. Very much appreciate that. No problem. And, uh, I'll be advancing the, the process on this, as we discussed. Yep, I appreciate that. So, yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Councilor Bailey, go ahead. Yeah. Good seeing you, uh, Daryl especially. Yeah. Uh, knowing your background, uh, this has a lot of significance and, uh, having come up and seen you guys a couple of times and talked about the finer points and, and some of the issues and, uh, especially dealing with the, um, with the effect on the surrounding, uh, uh, development that, that is in the, also involved in this. So, um, yeah, if, uh, if the mayor's not bringing something forward, I'll, I'll bring something forward after this. But I, I think it'll probably be covered off. So, thanks a lot for coming up and, uh, and talking openly about some of the concerns that, uh, come around because of, uh, either lack of notification or lack of, uh, talking to people how it can affect them. Thanks. I appreciate that, Council Bailey, thank you. And just quickly for the council, uh, my background, I'm a 19 and a half year member of Vancouver Fire and Rescue Services in a role of acting captain. So, when I talk about community safety and access points for fire department, I actually do that job. I was a... For the 19 and a half years, I was a driver, um, apparatus operator for 15 years of them. Uh, nothing's more exciting than getting that, the first alarm tones for a fire, but nothing is more demoralizing or stressful is when you roll up and you don't have access to that area that you're trying to get to, that would deem reasonable to, uh, access with, with your vehicle. Um, and being delayed when you know something horrific is happening to somebody or somebody's family, uh, which was (laughs) my number one concern when this came up, was... I actually talked to the crews and I was probably a little bit more forward than I should have been, but, um, you know, where, how is the fire department going to get in here? And he just went, "What do you mean?" And I said, "Well, they're coming from areas north and south and west of us, so they're going to take the most direct routes, which is 208, which is an arterial route, onto another arterial route, which is 80th, and now they can't make that left-hand turn into our complex. Now they have to go all the way around or come all the way around south of us, which just delays even long response times that the township of Langley has." And I'm not trying to, uh, rag on the department at all. They're a fantastic fire department. Lots of friends, uh, that work for them. Um, but it's just the nature of the beast. There's... It's a very sparsely populated, uh, well, very sparsely, uh, staffed fire department with a large response area. Slightly more staff than it was before. Which is excellent, and I appreciate you guys doing that, which is... Even more staff would be great, uh, and I would love to... I will advocate for that, uh, every, any day of the week. Uh, again, it comes from personal experience. But, I, I'm fortunate in Vancouver that when we have a structured fire, we don't have one or two apparatus showing up. We have a minimum of seven or eight. Uh, so I know as a captain, uh, when I roll up and we have something going, I've got backup coming, uh, quite quickly. Council, Councilor Brady? Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Ducharme and Mr. Jackson for coming out today and telling us about this. Often, we don't hear what it's really like living in the area unless we hear from residents like yourself. You had a picture up there of the layout of the two... It's, uh, Pepperwood and Arbor Hill? Arbor Hill Park, yes. Could you put that back up? So in that, with the gray, gray roofs- Yeah. ... um, is, uh, Pepperwood and Arbor Hill Park have the brown roofs. The entrance we're talking about, if you can see right on the map, uh, where it's got the cursor on it there, is right there on the north side of 80th, right between 208th and 209th. So now, you can only get in and out- If you're- ... on 209th, which is directing Pepperwood traffic through Arbor Hill, right? That's correct. Uh, and what about on 208th higher up? Can you get in and out there? That is, uh, that's gated off at this time. That was designated as a fire entrance only. Okay. Um, when I spoke to Mayor Woodward, uh, this morning, that was brought up as well. That is not something that, as residents, we wanna entertain. We're, we're trying to reduce traffic congestion, uh, traveling throughout our, uh, whole townhouse complex. Um, by opening that up, we just feel like, with, especially with the neighboring homes, you know, people either trying to cut traffic on 80th at 208th and 209th, and just going straight up and traveling through. Uh, in addition, Arbor Hill Park, if you wanna just put the cursor. Yep. Right where he's got the cursor right now, um, shortly after that, uh, center m- uh, divider was put in place, I think it was two or three days actually, uh, they increased their speed bumps along there to deal with, uh, chronic speeding. Yeah. And these speed bumps are quite intrusive. They're double speed bumps. So, um, like I said to Councilor Martins, our Facebook community page is quite funny when it comes to those speed bumps 'cause people are very upset about them. Uh, and rightly so. At the end of the day, they're a minor inconvenience, but they, they do the job, uh, that we want. They just want... We want slower traffic. Um, I have a nine and a seven-year-old that I love to think are the smartest kids in the world, but still run out into traffic, you know. Uh, I have neighbors' kids across the street that do the same thing. Um- So, in terms- Yeah. ... of the percentages of homes that are in there, uh, and I'm just looking at blue roofs versus brown roofs (laughs). Yes. It looks to me like Pepperwood, the blue roofs, is significantly cut off from access. There, that's our only direct-... uh, access to, uh, our town homes is the 80th- Is the 80th. Yeah. And to add numbers to that, I think, if I remember correctly, we're at 156 units, our borough is about 84, if I remember correctly. Okay. So by far and away, the greater proportion of the population- Yeah. Yeah. ... are in the blue roofs, so to speak. Exactly, yeah. Um, you mention emergency response times, and that is critical- (laughs) ... as you both well know. (sighs) Are t- are times delayed now in order to get into Pepperwood? That will 100% delay response times. Okay. Um, just quickly, as I touched on, uh, both the fire halls that are in our res- we're in fall, hall four's response district, which is 202 and 72nd. We also fall just south of hall eight's response district, which is 208 and 96. Um, both of those fire halls are gonna come at us from 208. Okay. Uh, that's their most direct route. If hall eight, for example, is to come around to make a... They'd have to go all the way down to 216th, 216th to 8- which is just adding more time. Okay. Um, and, uh, there are, uh, IAFF, International Association of Fire Fighters, standards of response time for different cities, and based on population and, and, um, uh, layout and structure. Uh, according to the Township of Langley's, um, annual report, uh, the fire department's annual report, their, their s- response times are significantly higher than we have in Vancouver. Mm-hmm. And again, Vancouver, we're, we're, we're fortunate. We have 20 fire halls that span our entire city. Mm-hmm. Right? So we have fire halls that are all very close to each other, so response times are usually within three to four minutes. I think our threshold is maybe five, five minutes at most, where Township of Langley, I think, is around eight or nine minutes. And I might be mistaken, but I'm just going off the annual report. Mm-hmm. Um, so not being able to travel down 208, and, uh, (laughs) ashamedly, I, I have tried to pull a U-turn in all of our fire trucks in various intersections with no success. And I'm not a bad driver. I think after 15 years- (laughs) ... I was, I got, I had it nailed. Uh, but even taking a turn, my rights and try and make a U-turn at 209th, it's just not possible. Not possible. Right? So, um- Okay. Now, with the access that's been cut off on 80th- Mm-hmm. ... if that was put back in there, (grunts) I can see that staff may have a concern about being both left-hand and right-hand turn. If it was just, like, right-hand or left-hand, one or the other, would that be problematic? I can appreciate that. Um, (laughs) the, the facts are that for 19 years, that has been an option for us without any significant motor vehicle accident. I'm not saying that there hasn't been an accident there, but just, uh, from the information that I received from the engineering department was a link to ICBC and the only information they had was from 2020 to 2023, and there were seven motor vehicle incidents in that time. None of them were directly a result of that. And that, I mean, it, any motor vehicle incident to them is a, is a fender bender. Um, like I said to Mayor Woodward this morning, uh, in Vancouver, we... And, um, in Langley, it's while you run the 24-hour fire shifts- Mm-hmm. ... I work roughly 20% of the year. I know it doesn't seem like a lot, but it's, the 24-hour shifts- Those 24 hours are lots, yeah. ... are quite, quite long. But that a- affords me to be at home or around my home 80% of the year. My townhouse, for example, is right on 80th, right in the middle of our main, just right near our main entrance. Not once have I seen or heard of any major accident happening at that location. Hm. So for 19 years, I think is a pretty good track record of having that left-hand turn access in and out, um, without any significant, uh, incident happening. Significant... Mm-hmm. Again, not to say that it hasn't happened and it won't happen, um, but I think 19 years is a pretty good track record. Yeah. Yeah. Well, um, I don't know if you're aware of what the protocol for us is, but when we receive delegations like yours, basically, under our procedure bylaw, we can only refer it to staff for a report. I think you've given staff a lot of good information to be considered, and I'm certainly gonna support a referral motion. I think this does need to be looked into. And I appreciate that. Thank you so much. Mm-hmm. Um, again, as I spoke to Councilor Woodward this morning, um, I, I understand that in 2006 when that was signed between Polygon and the township, that Polygon would've signed anything that the township placed in front of them as conditions to commence building and finish the project and get out. Yeah. Uh, I, I can appreciate that as, as a, a, as a company, they were just wanting to have the path of least resistance. However, in 20 years, things have changed substantially. Plans have changed for Willoughby and Yorkson. Um, that was one of the first townhouse complexes built, uh, in Willoughby. There was a farm across the street for the longest time with horses. Um, I've been there. Um, y- like, even a six-story wood frame condo building was not in the plan in 2006, 'cause that didn't come into existence, I believe, until 2011. So things have changed, which is, a- the same with the restrictive covenant that was put in place, uh, you know, with reasonable access, you know. That's, that's all we're asking for. We're not asking for anything special. We just want to make sure that... Oh, pardon me. We wanna make sure that it's emergency services can access us if we need to. Fair enough. Thank you. I appreciate your question, though. Thank you. You're welcome. All right. Seeing no other questions from council, appreciate that. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you very much, everyone. Thank you. So I think we'll just process C2 right now. I'll move to delegation of C2 be referred to staff for report to consider s- restoration of the left turn, seconded by Councilor Pratt. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call the question on that referral. That carries unanimously. All right. It's item E5, culvert infrastructure loan operation bylaw-Number 6110 reduction. Uh, I'll move it. Is there a seconder? Seconded by Councilor Ferguson. Is there any discussion on E5? Councilor Kunst? Yeah, um, should we have another failure like this, how will we fund another emergency major infrastructure, um, failure? Sure. 'Cause... Uh, oh. Your Worship, to Councilor Kunst, depending on the specific, uh, culvert, we would have to review the funding sources at that time and the cost associated with it and the complexity of it. With respect to the 40th Avenue, due to some of the watercourse items, uh, provincial approvals, uh, that was, uh, required external borrowing. Um, and this is, the reduction is only by, I believe, approximately, uh, two and a half million. There's still, um, approximately 10 million in the actual culvert loan authorization bylaw. Okay. Thank you very much. Seeing no discussion, I'll call the question on E5. That carries unanimously. Item E1, mixed use development zoning bylaw parking changes. I'll move the recommendation. Second. Seconded by Councilor Pratt. Is there any discussion on E1? Councilor Whitmarsh. Yes, thank you, um, I was just, uh, had a question, uh, through Your Worship to, to staff. Um, I noticed in, in the, uh, report, it talked about, um, or it's asking for a $75,000 study plus 20,000 in ongoing monitoring. And my question was around, um, expertise. I, I understand that... I, I guess the question was, do we have the expertise, um, on our staff for this, for this type of, uh, dealing with the zoning bylaw parking changes? And, and if so, is it, is it more of an issue of, um, having the staff but not the time to be able to, uh, monitor this? Through Worship to Councilor Whitmarsh, with respect to monitor, um, the ongoing monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of the provisions in the parking review, uh, that would essentially require, uh, a substantial amount of staff resource, um, to complete the counts in some of these constructed developments. And most of that work would, uh, be outside of normal working hours during peak parking demand. So, it would be more appropriate to essentially, uh, retain an external consultant to complete that work. Uh, it would less to do so with the expertise and competence of staff, more to do so with the resource and work associated with after hours. Okay. And so that applies as well to the cost of the study itself. Is that it? The, we don't have staff to be able to do that at this time, um, because the study itself, would that also be done after hours? Or is that just that we don't have enough staff to be able to complete the study ourselves? Uh, through Worship to Councilor Whitmarsh, the study itself would more be a technical exercise. Uh, that would be a mix of the items you referenced. Uh, there's certain expertise the external consultants would have, but also resources as well. So resource and expertise is what we'd be relying on for, uh, with respect to the urban, I mean, with respect to the external consultants to review, uh, the, uh, mixed-use, um, development parking study. Okay. Thank you. Seeing no discussion, I'll call the question on E1. That carries unanimously. Item E2, Walnut Grove Drive traffic, traffic calming plans. Barbara, if you could please bring up the... Gonna move an amended version of this recommendation. So I'll move that with the changes highlighted in bold. I'll move that as amended. Seconded by Councilor Pratt. And this changes are for these items to commence to design this year for consideration by council in 2027, as opposed to detailed design in 2027, implementation in 2028. This will speed it up by one year. Councilor Pratt. Yeah, thanks for bringing this forward, Your Worship, and I'm pleased that in the first clause there, the speed humps and the traffic calming that we're, uh, like, looking at will be installed prior to the commencement of this coming school year. Once, uh, we're out for summer, and we can expect a safer Walnut Grove Drive when they come back. Councilor Martins. Yeah, thank you. And sorry, was this motion already the amendment seconded? Are we speaking to it now? Yes, we seconded it. Go ahead. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Um, yeah, no, I, I just want to thank staff for the work they've done in this and, um, you know, taking the extra time to speak with our community about it. Um, I can personally attest to being, uh, stuck in that traffic gridlock, taking my kids to and from Walnut Grove Secondary, and, um, watching the students that just keep walking across the road and just keep walking and keep walking, and the traffic gets further and further backed up, and then people start to get really agitated. And that's when near misses and that sort of thing happens. It becomes very unsafe. So I, I really welcome this change. Um, I think it's excellent, and it'll be more clear on when people can walk and when people can drive. Um, and then also, I think, uh, with the traffic calming, uh, that'll be a, a welcome, um, addition as well, particularly to the people using that park after hours when we don't have all the congestion of the school. Um, we have people ripping through there at high speeds, and, um, especially going down a hill. So, um, this is excellent. Um, thank you for your time. Uh, I look forward to the, um, further designs on this and, um, for expediting it. I think this is a great motion.Councilor Whitmarsh? Yeah, thank you, um, just a, a question, uh, through the staff, uh, about the unidirectional protected bike lanes. Um, so I just wanted to confirm that the bike lanes are going to be on both sides of, of the road. And if so, I'm wondering if, if we know what the width of those unidirectional bike lanes are, and if there's enough width that two people could ride side-by-side in the bike lane. Uh, through your worship to Councilor Whitmarsh, just a point of clarification on the question. Um, with respect to the unidirectional, is the question that there can be two bikes in the specific direction or are you talking about more bidirectional, two separate bike lanes? Uh, well, I guess my first question was, and I'm looking at the drawing and I, maybe I just couldn't tell when I looked at it myself, but are there bike lanes on both sides of, of, uh, Walnut Grove Drive or is it b- bike lanes on one side of the road? Uh, through your worship to Councilor Whitmarsh, it would be both, both sides, uh, of the road. Okay. And, and they're meant to be unidirectional, so going in the same direction as traffic, um, is my understanding. Is that what's meant by unidirectional? That, th- that is correct. Okay, so then I guess my question was the, the, the, the bike lane, I don't know how wide they are, but would they be wide enough that two bicycles could ride side-by-side s- particularly since they're unidirectional, we'll have different speeds of riders riding along there and, and, you know, and based on our discussion already today, we'll probably also have kids with e-scooters on the same bike paths. So I was wondering about the width of those, um, or would they be single wide so only one bicycle can ride at, down that lane and be unable to, other people couldn't pass or get by other riders. So I just, I'm trying to wonder and maybe we don't have that information today, but that's a question I'm wondering about, is the width of those bike lanes and are they two bicycles wide? Uh, t- through your worship to Councilor Whitmarsh, we are still going to be working on detailed design, which is going to be funded, but a- a- approximately the width would be 1.7 meters. Um, so they're not technically designed for side-by-side, but, uh, we would have more specifics once we do complete the detailed design. Okay, thank you. I'll look forward to the design. Thank you. Councilor Richter? Uh, yes, and I wanna thank staff very much for the comparative charts. I found those extremely helpful. And it's quite clear from the information in those charts on pages six and seven that the unidirectional, which I guess is part of this, um, all ages and abilities cycling program, are clearly preferable to the bidirectional. So I support the unidirectional. I did wanna go back to a question on e-scooters. And are they gonna be allowed in these bike lanes and should they be allowed in these bike lanes? I, I mean, I'm assuming that kids going to Walnut Grove Secondary would have e-scooters. Uh, through your worship to Councilor Richter, just before answering the question specifically, I just wanted to provide the township's, um, status with respect to the kick scooter, um, pilot project. So Council did, uh, provide direction to participate in the pilot project. That's essentially under the, um, uh, provincial regulation, um, and under the provincial regulation, technically speaking, they would be allowed, uh, on, on the sidewalks. Uh, the, the province regulation essentially sets the main, the rules, the age, um, and some of the requirements, roadway, cycle lane use, and certain sidewalk restrictions, uh, are imposed though. Okay, so are they gonna be in these bike lanes or on the sidewalks? Uh, through your worship to Councilor Richter, the, technically the ability they have, uh, is roadways, cycle lane use, and sidewalks. So they do have access to that. Okay, well, I think that's a good safety question maybe to be forwarding when we get to the part about talking about e-scooters. Okay, thank you. Councilor Bailey? Yeah, having been a bike rider all my life and, and still currently, I would really caution people to talk about riding side-by-side on the roads. When you're on a bike on the road, you're supposed to ride single file, and one of the main reasons on that is if you have a variance with your, especially your front wheel, you can force the other rider out into traffic, or a major concern right now is distractions. So when they're talking, uh, when you're s- uh, talking side-by-side, that becomes a major distraction and you can run into... I'm quite sure everyone here has run into that as you're going down the roads and you're seeing two or three abreast. And when people are, are, uh, in tight situations like this situation, they should only be encouraged to ride single file and, uh, nothing other than that, with maybe exceptions for people w- being able to quickly pass within that lane.Councillor Bray? Thank you, Your Worship, and it's been, I'm sure, uh, the j- (laughs) the j- the j- the joy or ... I was going to say joy, but probably not the joy of staff to have to have many conversations with me about uni versus bidirectional bike lanes and how we could potentially implement bidirectional in more places. But, uh, that was part of the, the reason why in the first place I was asking for bike lanes to be considered on Walnut Grove Drive here was knowing that with the way micro-mobility is growing and it's one of those things where we'd like to be able to make sure that people are using it safely, but they might not be able to be prevented from using it, period, that if they have these bike lanes, whether they're unidirectional or bidirectional, they at least have an option besides the sidewalks which they shouldn't be using, and not being on the road and competing with traffic. So, uh, I think it's a great conversation, but excited to see what this will look like when it's finished and, and make sure that more kids are able to actually get to, to school safely and not have to always depend on, on catching a ride. All right, seeing no other discussion, I'll call the question on E2 as amended. That carries unanimously. Item E3, security and emergency plans for special events. I'll move it. Seconded by Councillor Rent. Any discussion on E3? Councillor Richter? Yeah, I have a question about this and, you know, it's one of those situations where it's come out of a real tragedy in the Lapu-Lapu celebration, and, um, I'm just wondering do staff have an idea of the anticipated impact that this could have on our grant program in terms of the cost of it? Because it would seem to me that the smaller events may not be able to afford excessive or very large amounts of money for additional security measures, and they'll probably be asking us to help finance that in order that they can keep their community event going. And I would much rather see their community events continue than get shut down because the cost is prohibitively high. So I guess the question I'm really asking here is are we gonna put more money into our grants program to make allowances for this? Through your Worship to you, Councillor Richter, um, as you're aware, the township already offers community grant programs annually, um, to all non-profit organizations. Some of the organizers have already applied for and received some of the grants under ... Whether it's the, uh, community grants, major festival grants, or the minor festival grants, um, and we will still be reviewing the item as it's still developing on what the specific costs are associated with some of these security enhancements. Uh, the criteria is different for each event whether it's small event or, uh, medium event, large event, or a major event. So it's still ongoing. There is template guidelines that are attached in the report by the commissioner. So ... And if there's any, um, request made for, uh, additional funding for enhancing security, th- those requests can always be made directly to council, and I think requests historically have been made to council, uh, and there p- potentially could be an opportunity to fund those on a case-by-case basis. Yeah, I guess what I'm concerned about is s- often when those requests come to council, they end up being funded out of council contingency instead of out of the grants program. I can see that we're gonna have to put, or I think that I can see, we're gonna have to put more money into the grants program. So I guess I'd like to have staff anticipate that potential impact going forward to next year's budget and the, um, amount that is allocated for grants because it seems to me our grants programs are always fully subscribed as they are right now. Uh, through your Worship to Councillor Richter, yes, we can definitely review the item as it's still ongoing and consider, uh, a request for additional funding during the 2027 budget process, but also in the report we're asking for council to pass a motion t- for us to advocate to the province to secure any additional fundings for this as well for any security and emergency plans that, uh, are an additional burden on some of the events. Yeah. No, I, I, I'm gonna support the motion. Um, I think we, we don't really have a choice. It's about public safety, uh, but, uh, I do want to be prepared for future financial impacts. That's all I'm saying. Thank you. Councillor Ferguson? Yeah, thank you. I just wanted, if I may, through the chair, I do wanna follow up on some of the oth- other things mentioned, uh, by my colleagues. Um, over the years, our grants program, if I may, through the chair, ha- has increased significantly. Would that be correct, if I may, through the chair? Uh, through your Worship to Councillor Ferguson, y- yes, the grant program has increased, uh, certain years. Okay. And also, so I go back to the fact that, um, you know, April 26th, 25, Lapu-Lapu Day and, uh, in Vancouver, the very, very tragic, and we had, um, uh, the folks from the Philippines, uh, here, I think, I believe we had a, a-... a moment of silence at our chambers, and I also believe that we had a flag, uh, brought by the Filipino community. We have a partnership with San Fernando in the Philippines, so we have a very close relationship and it's a terrible situation. I'm in touch with them on a regular basis and, um, and th- they are going through a, a very tragic situation, and, uh, they're very strong people and, um, it's a terrible thing that's happened with, for them, but, uh, they're doing the best they can, and, um, I wanted to point that out as well. Now, my next, my next question comes out to, um, as you know, we're different than Vancouver. We have less people, Surrey's got more people. So it depends, if I may, through the chair to staff, in the commission's report, um, in Jun- in June 26th, 2025 inquiry, did they look at, uh, the size of communities and, and how different communities, uh, should approach these partip- partic- particular events, if I may? Uh, th- your Worship to Councilor Ferguson, the commissioner report did do engagement with municipalities. Uh, there was a summary of municipalities and regional district questionnaire, which, uh, uh, was provided by, uh, all the way from City of Dawson to Vancouver to, uh, uh, City of Port Moody. So there's a variety of municipalities that provided feedback, but the report itself is more oriented also towards the size and scale of events. So their classification of major events is essentially 30,000 attendees or greater, large events is five to thirty thous- 30,000, and then medium events is 500 to 5,000. Whire- whereas small events is 500 attendees or less. So they're focused on the, um, number of attendees per event and the characterization of the event itself. Uh, thank you very much, and I think there's, uh, lots more for us to do. I think safety's important, and I think it is as you, mister Cooner, has said, it's site-specific in how things happen on, on a year by year. And we've got the, uh, as you know, the FIFA's coming, the World Cup's coming, so things change, uh, as years go by. But I appreciate all the work staff has done. Councilor Kitts. Yeah, it was just a question to staff about, um, would there be any, um, value to having just a separate, uh, grant funding stream specifically for emergency and security plans, um, going forward? Should we get a grant from the province and if we get an ongoing, if we get ongoing funding from the province, that that just becomes something that instead of these organizations applying for all of that, that it's, you know, so they know exactly what the costs are and so do we when it, when it comes to security. Um, through your Worship to Councilor Kitts, ye- yes, that would be a strategic item to do, is to look at the policy if there is funding, uh, received from the province or funding is allocated specifically for security and emergency plans on an annual basis for events. Then we could look at updating the policies for community and capital grants and, uh, include that item there. But I think we still would have to see if the province is able to provide us with the funding, and also the actual cost associated with the security and emergency plans. Right now, it's unknown as each event is different and difficult to estimate. Uh, obviously, as this continues on and staff monitor it and lo- local organizers approach us and provide us additional information as well, we would be able to, with more certainty, provide what the cost is associated with this, um, and then also whether if the province has actually provided us any funding or grants. Okay, thank you. Councilor Martins? Thank you. Um, uh, just following up on the question about the funding from the province. Um, have any municipalities successfully, um, applied for or, um, lobbied for program, uh, program funding for this? Or are we leading the charge? Uh, through your Worship to Councilor Martins, um, to our knowledge, I, I believe other municipalities have considered this, but we don't know the exact status of whether they've made the request or been successful. Okay. Okay. Um, and just a couple of observations. Uh, first of all, I, I, I do wanna thank staff. Um, this is a lot of work here and a lot of, um, coordinating, um, the considerations given from the province and then our, our first responders. Um, and I really appreciate the more holistic approach to this in, from an early on phase, um, in involving people in the conversation who kind of have a different stake in things, um, to weigh in. Um, and I think it's great that we have an electronic RCMP review integration contemplated. That's very important. Um, and a question, if I may, through the chair to staff. Is there some sort of, um, like digital calendar, um, publicly available that, um, lists all the events that are, um, flowing through this process? Um, I'm just wondering, uh, for people's awareness. Uh, through your Worship to Councilor Martins, not to my knowledge, uh, that, uh, I don't believe there's a public, uh, calendar that has every single event. I believe there's major events, uh, but not every single event that's occurring. Okay. All right. I- I'm just thinking that it might also be helpful for, um, seeing what's going on where, um, and sometime- you know, I, and I know staff are really good about this, ensuring there's not too many things happening in the same place. So I'm just thinking just broader or maybe that can be an internal, uh, suggestion. Um, okay. And then I, I guess my final comment, um, having come from the world where, um, w- we relied on this sort of planning happening, um, to, uh, execute, um, safe events, um, having participated in, uh, the 2010 Olympics was probably the biggest one for me. And I know the amount of work and logistics that goes on behind the scenes to make, um, ensure that an event, um, is carried out safely. And I-I think it's important to note that if it looks like, uh, preventative measures were excessive, you know, and nothing happened, so you know, it was overboard, um, it actually means that the safety planning was spot-on. Um, that's what you want, is nothing to happen. So, um, I welcome this change. Um, it's important that we have fun events and great events, but it definitely needs to be balanced with people's safety. Unfortunately, society is changing, and here we are. So, uh, thank you again to staff. Um, this was quite an undertaking and a, and a shift of how, perhaps, work has been done in the past. Seeing no discussion, I'll call the question on E3. That carries unanimously. Item E4, Langley Haney Place bus, Bus Rapid Transit corridor design. Ms. Bauer, if you could please bring up the amended version. I'll be moving an amended version of the recommendation on the screen. Is there a seconder to that? Seconded by Councillor Pratt. Any questions or discussion? Councillor Whitmarsh. Um, (clears throat) yeah, um, this is, uh, uh, certainly something that, uh, I'm, you know, very supportive of us moving forward with and working with TransLink, of course. Um, I think this is great and will be ... improve the transportation network here in the, uh, township of Langley. I just had a question, uh, th- through Worship to staff. Um, well, I had two questions, I guess. Um, in this, in this, in the plan, is there, um, uh, a need for the township to acquire any property along, uh, 200th Street for this? Um, and, and, and a second question would be, is there a, a, an expectation for the Township of Langley to, to provide finance ... uh, financial, um, finances, or, or money to help pay for some of this project? Yeah, I can answer those. Uh, my indications are clearly that, no, there's no expectation for the township to acquire land or fund that. Uh, to the sections that are shown in the slides that you have, with the land that's available, um, at the time of construction, and the contributions, no, no indication of anything at this stage, other than the property taxes the Township of Langley contributes to TransLink. Okay. So may ... Just to add to that, uh, this, you know, we talk about the, the, the BRT coming, having, uh, designated lanes and so on for BRT. So does it require the road to be widened? And are you saying that we have enough, uh, land on either side of the road to widen the road without any additional cost to the Township? Yeah, until the detailed design is complete, which is what this stage is at, they don't have the exact range of what's required where. But, uh, my expectation, my conversations with them prior to this resolution coming to Council, is that they will be pro- uh, be, be proceeding to widen it where necessary to the minimum standard that you see on the slides. But there's more that comes along with development over time, as it does now, then it would be completed at that time. But it would be substantially completed by TransLink. Okay. Thank you. Any other discussion on E4 as amended? Councillor Atkins? Um, I think it's just a typo. Is it "with between"? Does that make sense? Or is it just "between"? Yeah. Ms. Bauer, you can catch that typo for us. There's an additional "with", so it's just "between". Yeah. Actually, that's not a typo. (laughs) Maybe leave that, Ms. Bauer. Uh, "with between" 88th Avenue to 203 designated as PRT within mixed traffic. I think that's, um, maybe a little awkward, but I don't think it's incorrect. Tha- that's it. That's not a typo. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other discussion, I call the question on E4. Councillor Richter, did you wish to speak to it? All right. Councillor Richter, go ahead. Yeah, I was just wondering, um- Ms. Bauer, could you read out the ... Uh, I was c- caught by that. Can you read out the vote results for item E4 as amended, please. It's unanimous. Okay, thank you. Ms. Councillor Richter, go ahead. Okay. I just won- was wondering, relative to E3 or E6, sorry, whether, um, all of Council has had the opportunity to consider whether or not they've ... might have a conflict of interest, relative to this matter. Yeah, so I'm gonna ... Councillor Arment, go ahead. I appreciate your concern, Councillor Richter, but Councillor Arment says- Yeah, I'll have to call a conflict on this, a pecuni- pecuniary, thanks, Councillor Arment. All right, so ... And thank you, Councillor Richter, so much for that. Very appreciative. Uh, Councillor E6, so I'll move the recommendation. Is there a secondor that, seconded by Councillor Pratt? Any discussion? Councillor Martins. Thank you. Um, I do have a question through the chair to staff, if I may. Um, on, I believe it's, uh, page three of the report, um, in the background and history, it says, "According to the applicant," um, there's two, um, indented paragraphs there. And I just would appreciate a bit more clarification. When it says, "The, um, application seeks approval for expanded and refined service areas," um, c- can you just, uh, just solidify what the word "expanded" means? 'Cause we don't have the actual application, as typical, um, in this package. Mr. Carter? Uh, I'll perhaps, uh, through Worship, I'll pick up a, a slide might help here.So these slides show, uh, the evolution of approvals on the site from the slide number one, uh, 1999, 2009, uh, 2011, and then the current application on, indicated as figure number four. So, so, so imprecise allocations of the, the subject areas through one, two, and three, three there. These are the actual attached appliance there. So the current application seeks, as you see number four, to really define those areas, uh, in terms of those areas that have either been captured through those previous, uh, ALC approvals in slides one, two, and three, and provide that precision in slide number four. So there's, um, precision with respect to them, Your Worship. Okay, so then this application is more about just clarifying what's already happened? Uh, two pieces there, Your Worship. Um, one, uh, acknowledges those existing areas that have already been, um, provided for in the ALC applications or subsequent liquor applications, as well as, uh, defining those areas that have been, uh, maybe not been as clear, clear as they have been in the past with respect to that. Yeah. So it does serve those two purposes, Your Worship. Okay. All right, thank you. Uh, thank you. Appreciate the time to explain that. Councilor Richter. Yeah, I had a question too with regards to the diagrams on page 12, and I'm looking at, um, a diagram at the bottom of page 12 that shows a bale and bucket patio. I guess it's a bale and bucket kitchen area. D- do these already exist, or are these gonna be new service areas? Uh, through Your Worship to Councilor Richter, um, the physical areas, uh, exist. Um, the purpose of the application as outlined in the report is to, uh, provide for consistency between the ALC non-farm use approvals and what's, uh, currently, um, provided. Okay. Thank you. All right, seeing no discussion, call the question on E-six. That carries. Councilor Richter opposed. Could we get, uh, Councilor Rent back, please? All right, item E-seven, Agricultural Land Commission application number 100477. And I'll leave it up to any member of Council if they wish to make a motion. Make a recommendation. All right. Are you moving the recommendation? I'll move it. Is there a second? Says not authorized, right? I'll second it. Seconded by Councilor Whitmore. Sure, go ahead. Um, well, staff are quite clear that this should not be authorized, and I think staff have done their due diligence on this. So, I support the staff report. Thank you. Councilor Kunst? Yeah, when I looked at this, um, from like, the Google Earth lens, it said there's a furniture outlet store on this property. There's like, a furniture store there. Is that true? (laughs) Uh, through Your Worship to Councilor Kunst, the Google Earth information may or may not be consistent with our existing licensing information that's provided through a separate source. It could be the result of, uh, individual, uh, self-acknowledgement of that business being there, or it could be the result of a home-based business, Your Worship. Okay, thanks. All right, seeing no discussion, we'll call the question on E7 as in the agenda. That carries the Councilor Bailey acc- Oh, I voted no. I voted no. Okay, so this is to not authorize. So, if you- Yeah. ... support the recommendation, you'd vote in favor. So we'll do that again. Thank you. So everybody clear on that? So, it's the reverse motion. It's a count- it's a reverse. So call the question on that, on the recommendation. Not an author. It's what you moved, Councilor Richter, that's correct. Like, carries the Councilor Bailey opposed. All right, item F1, Brixwood Furnished Community and Neighborhood Plan Updates, file number 6210-6217-6218-6219. I'll move the recommendation, seconded by Councilor Rent. Is there any discussion on F1? Councilor Kunst. So I do have a number of questions about, uh, the Brixwood Community Plan. Um, so I guess we'll just start with, um, some of the, I guess, some of the language, uh, and I'll just... Give me a second here to pull it up. Um, so, uh, A section 9.0, and it's talking about... One sec here. So, so B, the groundwater protection, the signifi- What is the significance of, of saying an unqualified statement? What does an unqualified statement mean versus what it was before? Uh, through Your Worship to Councilor Kunst, so tha- that's the language that would be required for the qualified professional hydrologist or engineer. Uh, the, the, that's a terminology used that they would provide the unqualified statement, essentially stating that there's no adverse impact on the aquifers or existing wells or bodies of terms of water quality and quantity. So essentially, we're tr- turning towards a, um, reliance-based model that, uh, the professionals, qualified professionals would provide us with these statements.Okay. Um, (clears throat) there's also a recommendation by staff that the minimum, uh, c- lot coverage be reverted back to 35%. Um, is that something that is going to happen then through... th- if we adopt the Brookswood Community Plan? Uh, through your worship, to Councilor Kunst, at this stage, uh, council is, uh, providing first and second reading. It would still go to a public hearing- Okay. ... and then be third reading, but in any event, to answer the question, staff are stating that the lot coverage is... that 28.5% is inconsistent with the, the Township of Langley Zoning Bylaw, uh, and the township zoning bylaw establishes a maximum lot coverage of 35%. To ensure it's in line with the zoning bylaw, staff are recommending the increase from 28.5%, which was an amendment made by council, I believe, back, uh, in June 10th, 2024 when the plan was adopted. Okay, great. Thank you. And, um, on F1 page 35, um, so it talks about, uh, the community commercial village, and it used to, um... it- it's called, called the Great Street Design, so it used to, it used to start from, uh, 40th Avenue to 24th, and now we shortened it to 33a and 27, and I'm wondering why we shortened that and didn't keep it the same length as, as before. At least include, uh, 40th Avenue, like the, the Brookswood Village. (paper rustles) It's page, page 35. (whispers) Yeah, I think I got you. Yeah, I'm on the digital copy. You guys should get into the program, you know? (laughs Uh, through your worship, to Councilor Kunst, th- that... I believe that was done to just reflect things that have already been built, uh, as well. What's that? Sorry? It, it was done to reflect some of the, um, c- development that's already been constructed. It's already been constructed? The, the Great Street Design hasn't been constructed yet. Believe me, it's not a great street. (laughs) The, the... f- fire hall, essentially. So that, that's why the- Oh, I see. Okay. ... yes. I guess, I guess w- I guess if this goes to public hearing, we could also make changes to that. 'Cause I'd like to see maybe that design carry from, um, 33A all the way to, to 40th is, I guess, my point. 'Cause it changed f- in the document. Um, the last one, uh, F1 page 51, and it talks about identifying significant tree stands and considering the use of amenity charges. Um, so my question is, are we doing that anywhere else in the township, and how can we identify these tree stands? Because they're, they're kinda disappearing right now. Yeah. No, and I, I appreciate the concern. I'd like to get an answer to that too. They're disappearing because of the approvals under the previous council. Yes. No, I... Well, yeah, on the previous plan. Special 13 under the- Yeah. ... previous plan, 1987 plan- Yeah. ... that was approved last term by council. Right. Yeah. Yeah. As long as we're clear on that, Mr. Kunert- Okay. Thanks for that, Mayor Woodward. Yeah. Mr. Kunert, go ahead. S- sorry, I'm just catching up here. The... that was page 51. Was that trail, parks, and open spaces? Um, (clears throat) f-one page 51? Okay. So I'm just going off my notes here, but... so it, it's basically identifying significant tree stands and considering the use of amenity charges. Are we doing that anywhere else in the township at the moment? Uh, through your worship, to Councilor Kunst, I believe it was s- uh, specific to the Brookswood, uh, Neighborhood Plan. Okay. Yeah, that was, uh, brought in by this council, as I understand it. Right. Yeah. So, awesome. (laughs) Okay. So do we do this anywhere else? Okay. So thank you. That's... oh, I did have actually one more. Sorry. Flipped the page. Uh, F1 page five. Um, housekeeping. It's about, uh, community amenity, uh, contributions, and all the reference, um, all the references to those, uh, have been deleted. So what are the applicable bylaws and policies, uh, that we are referring to? Uh, through your worship, to Councilor Kunst, the applicable bylaws and policy, I believe, are noted in the neighborhood plan, but those would essentially range from the Brookswood Fernridge Greenway Amenity, um, the Brookswood Fernridge, uh, uh, um, Brookswood Fernridge Greenway Amenity, I believe, is an arterial, um, policy as well. Uh, the am- uh, the ACCs and the Interim Voluntary Community Contribution Policy as well. So, it'd be referring to all the bylaws and policies they're updating the language. Okay. So, at the moment, we're gonna take out the CAC and, and continue with the voluntary amenity charges, including with all the other ones? Th- those would be the applicable bylaws and policy depending on the stage of the application, um, and if there's any additional, uh, bonus density being sought. So, these... it may be applicable, it may not, just depending on the development application. Okay. So, at some point, we are going to adopt the ACC, and then will that just be across the board? Uh, the ACC bylaw has already been adopted. Okay. So, then we'll... Okay. Great. All right. Councilor Witham, yes, go ahead. Yeah. Thank you. Um, just a couple of, uh, questions as well, um, around, uh, this. Um, on the 35%, um, minimum, uh, lot coverage, and going back to that, is that, is that 35% the standard in the rest of Brookswood, including developed Brookswood, or is that actually a standard that's throughout the township, the 35% maximum lot coverage?Do Your Worship to Councilor Whitmarsh, that's, uh, the Township of Langley Zoning Bylaw, so that would apply to the entire township. Uh, that establishes a maximum lot coverage of 35% for residential zones. Okay, so this is recommending going back to that, uh, for the Brookswood area? Do Your Worship to Councilor Whitmarsh, that is correct. Mr. Coon, can you expand on the rationale being potentially the impacts of Bill 44 and some of the issues we're having with the province challenging that? Yeah, so, uh, Do Your Worship to Councilor, or Do Your Worship, specifically to that question, if we, um, go back, the, the maximum lot coverage, there was an amendment made, uh, in June, in June 2024 and the amendment was essentially made to have a maximum lot coverage of 28.5% of all new developments. That was intended to essentially reduce the lot coverage. However, that wasn't... That is not specifically aligned with the zoning bylaw which states a maximum lot coverage of 35%. We also have to take into consideration SCHMUS now, and we do have DP and design guidelines associated with them, so this would, uh, just allow more flexibility and ensure that we're not, uh, we're in line with, um, the, the provincial guidelines as well and ensuring we're not trying to reduce any density that's been updated by legislation. Okay, thank you. That's helpful. Um, I had a question around, um, wildfire, uh, DPA deletion. And I see that we are wanting to, uh, remove that, and I'm just wondering if maybe further explanation as to why we would choose to do that in a place like Brookswood, particularly with so much tree coverage in Brookswood. Uh, Do Your Worship to Councilor Whitmarsh, the staff's position essentially is that it's not necessary and recommended for, uh, deletation because of the fact that it's, it's redundant. We do have a Community Wildfire Resilience Plan, that was completed in 2023. Uh, we've also sought concurrences from the fire department, um, and several, uh, sought recommendations and review by the fire department who concluded that they do have a FireSmart coordinator, um, that has led the implementation of the Community Wildfire Resilience Plan. Um, there's also, uh, additional career suppression firefighters, uh, there's structure protection equipment that has been purchased for land of wildland firefighting, and then essentially also the new Fire Hall 5 in Brookswood, uh, is expected to be completed in tw- late 2026. Uh, that would essentially be a staffed full composite model there, one full-time crew, so that would negate the fact of having a neighborhood forest fire hazard reduction DP area, which essentially would just create further, um, processes in, uh, trying, uh, uh, with respect to development applications. Okay, thanks. Um, my, my last, uh, question I have is around, uh, securing park and school sites. And, uh, as I read th- the document, I'm just wanting to get clarification on how, how that happens in the Brookswood, um, neighborhood plan. Uh, community plan, sorry. How does that... How do we obtain school and park sites? Is that something that the township has to, uh, the way that it's here, the township itself would secure those sites and, um, purchase or fund the land for those sites for future school and park sites in Brookswood? Uh, Do Your Worship to Councilor Whitmarsh, so specifically here council gave direction that there was a general prerequisite in the plan, um, about securing school park sites, but we're now basing on council direction proposing that be amended and deleted since the requirement of provision school park sites as a prerequisite is not required due to the fact that they, there's been specifically identified, um, the school and park sites themselves. So essentially now, uh, we know exactly the size and the location of the school park sites, so it now would be up to the school district or the township to either, um, purchase them at the time that it would be appropriate, um, so that rather than historically there was just asterisks or floating symbols that would generally identify where a school or park might be located here, it just, it clearly identifies which can then be considered as securing, uh, and, uh, securing the school park sites and therefore meeting the development prerequisite. Okay, so we currently identified those school and park sites. They're identified now. And do we then, uh, the future is, uh, is that they're owned by, they're privately owned at the current time and then at the time when we need them, we, when we either move or the school board moves to purchasing that property, is that sort of how we would have, uh, actually own the land or the town or the school board would own the land? Uh, Through Your Worship to Councilor Whitmarsh, generally speaking, that i- that is correct, that when a school board, um, identifies a need to acquire a school in the specific neighborhood, it is identified, they would then approach the owner, uh, a private owner to essentially structure a deal, have an option to purchase potentially registered on the site to purchase that site and then construct the school. Okay, thank you. Um, yeah, I wanted to go back to a point that Councilor Kunstadt raised with regards to item D on page five, and the fact that any reference to CACs have been deleted, but it's now being replaced with applicable bylaws and policies. Now, um, M- Mr. Ko- uh, Kuhner just confirmed that one of the applicable bylaws and policies is the voluntary, uh, amenity contribution or VAC, right?Uh, through Your Worship to Councilor Richter, that is correct. Okay. But we have endorsed the ACC, so why don't we just leave it at the ACC? Why do we have to include this VAC? Uh, through Your Worship to Councilor Richter, there's several development applications in-stream, or applications out of council recently approved that are not, uh, or provide in-stream protection to the ACC bylaw. They would not be, um, they would not be covered under the ACC bylaw. Okay. But are we absolutely confident that this VAC is legally sound? Are we... Can you clarify? Did you say V-A-C? What are- Yeah. What is a VAC? It's a voluntary amenity contribution. So I think it... Yeah, the voluntary community amenity contributions. But Mr. Kanute, do you wish to speak to that or is that a closed item? With respect to a- any legal advice, that would be an item that we'd have to discuss in closed. Oh, okay. Um, I guess what I'm concerned about is that we may, if we continue the use, uh, of something like this VAC, that we may end up in another, um, court situation. Is that a possibility? Uh, through Your Worship to Councilor Richter, hypothetical scenario. It would be hard to determine whether there is a lawsuit. And any items with respect to legal analysis of specific policies would be discussed in closed meeting. Okay. Well, I am prepared to support these going to public hearing, uh, so I'm gonna support first and second. Uh, I do wanna make notice now that I don't think including this VAC as an applicable bylaw and policy is something that should remain. But I'll take that out at third reading. Thank you. And, and, and why should it not remain? Well, because I don't know if it's legally sound. And why is it not legally sound? Well, the first one wasn't. In what way? Why are we sitting here amending this today to remove any reference to a CAC? I think my understanding is that because the province came along with an amenity cost charge facility, and then all the community plans have to be updated, it's, it's more general to say, "Applicable policies and bylaws." So if more facilities are created or our legislation changes, community plans don't have to be continually tweaked. That's what I see as generalizing to point other legislation or policy so that as things evolve and change over time, uh, these kinds of housekeeping amendments are now required. But I am curious to learn more- It's not a housekeeping matter. It's- ... curious to learn more- ... potential liability for the township. Yeah, no, if I could finish, I'd be curious to learn more why you believe CACs are problematic. Uh, because I believe there was a ruling that they're beyond our statutory abilities, and the only thing within our statutory ability is an ACC. And how do you suggest that the item around CAC-funded capital projects be addressed? By simply stating, "ACCs." That's how it should be addressed. Putting in anything else- Just want to confirm that you're suggesting that CAC projects- No, you're putting words in my mouth. That's not what I'm saying. I'm asking questions. I've told you what I'm gonna do with this. I will come back to it on third reading. Thank you. I'm just curious about funding CAC projects with ACAs, if you could clarify. We can't fund ACC pro... or C- CAC projects with ACC funding 'cause CACs are not legal. Can you rep-... Can you please repeat that? CACs are not legal? Not in... Not for us anymore. So how would you suggest that CAC capital projects be funded? Well, that's... I- I wasn't the one that came up with the CAC idea, so I'm gonna throw that question right back at ya. How do you think we should d- deal with it? All right, I think we'll leave it there. Thank you very much. Councilor Martins, go ahead. Uh, thank you. Um, and sorry to belabor this, but I just ha-... uh, it struck me. I have a general question about CACs. Go ahead. Um, are we gonna be receiving other plans like this, um, with the... these, uh, housekeeping amendments? Just curious 'cause maybe I, I should follow, uh, Councilor Kanute's advice and not kill the tree every time. (laughs) So, yeah, are there other ones coming forward? Uh, through Your Worship to Councilor, uh, Martins, specifically the Brookswood Fernridge Community Neighborhood Plans was actually... There was council direction given, uh, several meetings ago, uh, to update, uh, the bylaw amendments to the... those neighborhood plans, remove any duplication of Semyanow Trail. There was also other directions to make sure that the open designation of school park sites was secured. And then based on that, any other housekeeping items were then, uh... The opportunity now when we're amending the plan allowed us to then make any other housekeeping changes and amendments. Um, and then we also, on the agenda, have the Willoughby Transit Corridor, which deals with several neighborhood plans. Um, that's not a housekeeping item, but that's two large neighborhood plans before council. We don't anticipate any other unless there's council directions. Okay. No, thank you. Um, I appreciate that. All right, seeing no other discussion, we'll call the question on F1. That carries unanimously. Item F2, Willoughby Community and Neighborhood Plan Updates, Bylaws 6201, 6202, 6203, 6226 all move that recommendations that are seconded are seconded by Councilor Pratt. Any discussion on F2?Yeah. Councilor Rickard? Yeah, I wanna go back to basically the same question that I had before with regards to the fine print, and I'd like to divide this motion, because I have no problem giving first and second reading. Uh, I do have a problem with giving third reading, uh, to this, uh, bylaw 6226. So I'd like to divide. Yeah, Mr. Kanter, before we take that, can you explain w- why staff have proceeded to provide s- first and second reading to some bylaws, and then first, second, and third to that bylaw? Uh, uh, t- to your worship, to, uh... To Your Worship directly, uh, are you specifically talking about the fees and charges bylaw? Yes. That's just to update the fees and charges associated with the fees for, um, rezoning applications in the plan. That bylaw does not require a public hearing, um, and therefore, that bylaw, the staff are recommending all three readings. Now, this is... Is there any assumptions built in that, uh, the other bylaws proceed that are built into 626, or did you... They brought forward the same time for convenience? Uh... So I guess maybe I'll reword my question. Is the final adoption for 6226 gonna come back to council at the same time this final adoption for the others may come to council? Yes, that is correct. That's correct. So I think, uh, rather than division, I'll, uh, I'll move an amendment. I think it's a good point. I'll move an amendment that, uh, 6226 be granted, uh, only first and second reading, and then we'll consider that when the... If the others are granted thirds. So I'll move that amendment. Is there a seconder to that? Seconded by Councilor Rent. Any discussion, questions on that amendment? Call the question on that. Uh, carries unanimously. So Councilor, we could go back to you, but I think that hopefully that addresses the concern that you had. Yes, that does address my concern. Thank you very much. Really glad- Although I did have another question- Yep, go ahead. ... about, uh, 6226, and I see that it's in our package, uh, the F2 package on page 359 through to 362. Uh, and all I see in there is Schedule 14. Um, I don't see any reference in Schedule 14 to VACs or voluntary amenity contributions. Uh, to your worship, to Councilor Victor, this, this... I believe what you're r- referring to, if I'm not mistaken, that's just the fees and charges. These are, um, planning administration fees, fees associated with the general fees and charges bylaw. Okay. But is a voluntary amenity contribution a fee or a charge? Um, what you're referring to is the voluntary amenity cost charges, which is a policy. Policies are not in the fees and charges bylaw. The specifically fees and charges bylaw are, are separate items, um, that take into consideration, uh, ch- charges for permits, rezonings, uh, general development variance application fees, um, and initial fees. Okay. Well, if that's the case, I would like to see, um, the full version of bylaw number 4616 that's being amended by bylaw 6226 come to council for a third reading when it returns to council. And I'd like to see it, uh, flagged, any changes. Mr. Kanter, are you... Do you have any concerns? With red ink like you did with the Brookswood ones. Do you have any concerns with that, Mr. Kanter? Yes, that's... So for... Point of clarification to Your Worship, to Councilor Victor, are you seeking the consolidated bylaw with respect to bylaw number, uh, 6226? Mm-hmm. I, I want to make sure if there's any wording in this bylaw relative to voluntary amenity contributions. Mr. Kanter, I think you can address that right now. There, there's not in there right now. N- No, there is no wording- There is not. There- That's a separate policy, not in this bylaw. And I'm looking... I'm trying to understand why would you want them listed there, Councilor Victor? Because I'd like to read them before I vote on something as important as this. So you would like to see a sp- payment schedule for potential voluntary community amenity contributions added to the fees and charges bylaw? No, I don't wanna see it there, I just wanna make sure it's not there. Do... Would you like us to send you the current bylaw to, to show you that it's not there? That would be very helpful. I, I can send you the link where you can download it, if that's helpful. Well, it would be nice to get it with the package that we're voting on today. Okay. So let me clarify again, though, your position is that CACs should be listed in the fees and charges bylaw? No, CAC should not be there. Should not be there. Okay. 'Cause they're not a fee in charge? No. Voluntary amenity contributions, are they a fee or a charge? Mr. Kanter, are, are VA- Are voluntary amenity community amenity contributions is a fee or a charge? Uh, no. No. They're, they're neither, I think, Councilor Victor. Oh, okay. Would you like us to... Do you want to just get some more clarification, 'cause it looks like- Yes, I would like to see the full bylaw at third reading before I vote to give it third reading. Okay. I'll let it go to first and second and let it go to public hearing. I'm okay with that. And the concern is potentially, you would like to see voluntary community amenity contributions itemized for you in some way? Uh, yes. Okay. Well, we'll certainly consider that. Uh, Councilor Pratt, go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. I just wanna clarify that the fees and charges bylaw includes the fees regarding, like, when you apply for a dog permit, uh, when you... Like, the cemetery fees, parks and rec fees. That's what's included in the fees and charges bylaw. And neither development cost charges nor ACCs nor VACs or the Greenway Amenity Contribution Schedule or anything like that would be included in the fees and by- fees and charges bylaw.That's correct. That's correct. Yes, that's correct. Yeah, okay. Thank you. Yeah. Seeing no other discussion, I'm gonna move deferral of F2 to May 25th, sir. Seconded, seconded by Councilor Pratt. Any discussion on deferral? Councilor Richter? Why are we deferring this to May 27th, was it? Uh, I think May 25th. Mr. Cooners, is that the next council meeting? I- it- May 25th is the next meeting. May 25th, yeah, the intention is for this to be deferred till May 25th. Okay. Any other discussion on deferral to May 25th? Seeing none. I'll call the question on deferral. Want to get personal privilege? Councilor, yes, I will take care of that right now, Councilor Patterson, though that carries with Councilor Richter opposed. And, uh, we'll come back to item G1 here at, uh, 3:25. Yeah, 10 minutes.All right, get back underway. Bylaws for first, second, and third reading, Rezoning Application Number 100657, Bylaw Number 62-1-2. I'll move it. Seconded by Councilor Pratt. Uh, Councilor Pratt, go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. I was hoping to clarify through yourself to staff, uh, in CPP that the previous version of the Williams Neighborhood Plan that was approved, I believe almost now a decade ago, 2017 I think was the approval date, that this p- uh, property specifically was at the time designated for townhouse and not, uh, greenway buffer or some other use, that it was townhouse adjacent to industrial. And I noticed as I look up that CPP is... Elvis has left the building. Uh, from my recollection, uh, through your, Sir Councilor Pratt, yes. It was designated townhouse? It was townhouse with a freeway buffer. Great, thank you. And the greenway buffer was along the eastern edge of the townhouse designation separating the industrial and the- the townhouse site that we're currently discussing now. Not a- as opposed to a greenway buffer between this property that we're discussing today and then the residential neighborhood that was built out to the west in Yorkson. Uh, through you, Sir Councilor Pratt, you th- the freeway buffer being at the northern edge of the c- the current property and the residential destination staying the same. Great. Thank you very much.All right, uh, Ms. Bauer, if you could please bring up that amendment to item two. So, this is an amendment to prerequisite item two, to add the words "or fulfillment of the provisions of an approved interim onsite detention limited pilot program." Move that. Is there a second? Seconded by Councilor Wrenth. Is there any discussion on that amendment? Council Richter? What is an approved interim onsite detention limited pilot program? Yeah, Mr. Clerk? Um, through Your Worship to, uh, Councilor Richter, there was a council direction given, uh, previously to explore the potential option of an interim onsite detention, uh, specifically in this neighborhood catchment area. So, this would essentially, um, clarify one of the development prerequisite conditions that essentially state, uh, that there needs to be compliance with the township's subdivision development service bylaw. But, it would give some flexibility to ensure that if the pilot program is approved when, it, that report comes forward for council's consideration, that this project would have the flexibility of potentially, uh, being able to, uh, participate in the pilot pro-... Uh, pilot project itself. Have we ever used these before, pilot projects for detention? Uh, through Your Worship to Councilor Richter, not to my knowledge. But, we still are in the process of drafting the report for the pilot project for the interim onsite detention. Okay, but if we're approving this now, we're giving it first, second and third. Um, the, the language there would say, "Or." So, that would be if council in the future does approve an interim onsite detention pond. If council does not approve that, then the development prerequisite would stand as compliance with the Subdivision Development Service Bylaw. Okay, I had another question on this with regards to the access to this development in and out. Can we d- dispose of the amendment first- Oh, okay. ... and we can come back to that? Is there any other discussion on the amendment? Seeing none. Call to question on that amendment. That carries. Council Richter opposed. Uh, Council Richter, go ahead on the G1 as amended. Um, G1 as amended, okay. With regards to the diagram that's on page 11 showing the access points- Yep. ... in and out. Just, just, just, uh, Ms., Ms. Bauer, if you could please bring down the amendment, please. Thank you. Go ahead, Council Member. Um, I just want to confirm that the access in and out for this subdivision will be strictly through 83rd Avenue, and not go through the existing subdivision that's in there? To the west? Uh, through Your Worship, Council Richter, that's correct. I'm just trying to bring a graphic to indicate that. So, you can see here, Your Worship, the, the access is shown off of an extension of 83rd Avenue. Okay, thank you. All right, seeing no other discussion, I'll call the question on G1 as amended. (paper rustles) That carries. Council Richter opposed. Uh, bylaws for final adoption 2026, Langley Annual Rates and Tax Collection Bylaw for Universal Services, Bylaw number 6213. I'll move it. Seconded by Councilor Ferguson. Any discussion on I1? Seeing no, call a question on I1. That carries. Council Richter opposed. J1, it's a delegation referral. It's back on the floor. Moved by Councilor Richter, seconded by Councilor Pratt. Ms. Bauer, if you could bring up my amendment, please. I'd like to move that we add, to ref- be referred to staff for a report with consideration of potential spay and neuter and identification requirements. Seconded by Councilor Pratt. Any discussion on that amendment? Councilor Richter? Okay, what exactly does it mean? Is it gonna cost something? Mr. Clerk? Uh, through your, through Your Worship to Councilor Richter, this would essentially expand the scope of the report to take into consideration the sp- spay and neuter, uh, identification requirements and program. So, if there's any costs associated or complexity with this, we would highlight that in the report. So, what you're suggesting is whatever staff comes back should include the requirement for, uh, all cats to be either spayed or neutered, plus with a microchip? Uh, staff's understanding would be essentially we review it. We just take it into consideration and provide options potentially for council. So, we would review what a spay and neuter and identification requirements would be, any costs associated with it, and if there's, uh, any pros and cons associated with it as well. Thank you. Councilor Whitmers? Yeah, I was just wondering if, um, this statement here is, uh, spay and neuter and identification requirements, is, is currently part of the animal control bylaws as, as it applies to dogs and other animals? Yeah, so I just wanted to highlight that the delegation was specific to requests regarding cats. Yeah. So, this amendment would be specific to cats, not dogs or other animals. Yeah, I guess my question was though, that it, the delegation asked council to add cats to the animal control bylaw. If the animal control bylaw already includes these factors, then we would not need to include it-So what I'm clarifying is that it doesn't include this for dogs, so the motion, the, the amendment here is to add it specifically for cats if we were to add them to the animal control bylaw. Yeah. Dogs would not be part of this. Yeah, Mr. Peter, maybe, maybe we need to get council a copy of the animal control bylaw, but if you could go ahead and answer the question. Uh, your Worship, I would actually probably have to review the animal control bylaw myself. Off the top of my head, my, my understanding is that it does include it for dogs, but I would have to... We would review the bylaw and bring the bylaw forward as well, um, when we do bring the report to council. Okay, so I guess that was just my comment. If it already includes it for the other, for dogs in there, then it's kind of a redundant statement, that's all. Uh, not, it's specific to potentially considering this addition for cats, so it's not redundant, in my interpretation. Okay, yeah. Councilor Richter? Well, what if you're a cat breeder? You don't wanna spay or neuter your cats. Yeah, so I think that, uh, there are some that advocated in the community that there would be potentially an exclusion for those that are licensed to cat breed. Thank you. All right, any other discussion or questions regarding that amendment? No, call the question on that amendment. That carries, Councilor Richter opposed. And back to J1 as amended. Seeing none, call the question on J1 as amended. That carries unanimously. Uh, mayor and council a report. Uh, first of all, uh, Ms. Barby, if you could bring that down again, please. Yeah, great. Um, first of all, I'm gonna congratulate the staff on a great event, York, opening of York's Community Park on Saturday. It was finally great to see that finished with the Spray Park turned on, just in time for summer, uh, to get that Spray Park finished, which I think is great. And, uh, what a great addition fin- finally finishing that portion of York's Community Park with a bit more to go. I want to thank everyone again who had a, had a part in getting that finished, uh, funded this term and, and finished, uh, and now, now proceeding to finish the south side as well. So it's, uh, great to see York's Community Park finally finishing. And, uh, present was, uh, Councilor Pratt, who I, uh, understand, uh, is now engaged as of that afternoon. So I want to congratulate Councilor Pratt on that. He went from opening the park to becoming engaged. So congratulations, Councilor Pratt. Very good And I believe you're next up, Councilor Pratt. Go ahead. (laughs Yeah, thank you. (laughs) That's a hard act to follow. Uh, yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And it was a busy week even before that. And, uh, I wanna commend the, the organizers at the lower Fraser Valley Aboriginal Society for another fantastic, uh, walk to commemorate the missing and murdered indigenous women, and specifically shout-out Cecilia Rieke for, uh, doing a great job shepherding in that organization as well as the E.D. there. And I also wanted to, uh, thank, uh, the staff at the Murrayville McDonald's for, uh, humoring me for an hour at the drive-through window. I, uh, I got, I got a good time. It wasn't overly busy, let's put it that way. So I appreciate the staff, uh, doing what they do there, and always make, always look forward to McHappy Day. And then, of course, the Yorkson Community Park opening, and, uh, the, the Langley Walk on the preceding Sunday, uh, was incredibly well attended, and congratulations to the Parks and, uh, Recreation staff and the event staff for putting on, uh, once again a fantastic Langley Walk. Now, Mr. Kunterer, can you confirm that everyone who didn't get a badge that, uh, completed the walk, because of the high registration, staff will be following up and ensuring that everybody who finished the walk that wants a badge will be getting one? Uh, y- yes, we will follow on that. Yes, okay, good. 'Cause I did get a few emails about that. So the registration was so significant that I believe they ran out of badges, so, um, staff ran out of badges. So, um, we can definitely follow up on that. I also neglected to mention that today is Councilor Ferguson's birthday, uh, so happy birthday. Happy birthday, everyone Uh, he's told me that he's 58 today. So congratulations ... on turning 58, Councilor Ferguson Yeah, 58 and a half. Um- And, uh, happy birthday. 58 and a half, yeah. Councilor Martins, go ahead Thank you. And it's happy birthday, Councilor Ferguson, and congratulations, Councilor Pratt. Those are big milestones, 58. Um, yeah, so, uh, this past week, um, I joined, um, fellow Rotarians on a site visit to Cedar Haven in South Langley, a Union Gospel Mission Women's Recovery Center set on a rural property providing safe live-in support for women rebuilding their lives after hardship. Uh, seven, $7500 was raised at, at our Rotary Clubs of Langley International Women's Day event held earlier this spring at the Murrayville Hall. And I want to thank, um, my council colleagues and, and the mayor who all atten- uh, m- I think majority attended that event, and, um, I appreciate your pre- you, you had a part in this donation. Um, also it was, um, again, fun to participate in the Langley Walk held this year at Bedford Landing in Fort Langley. The 64th annual Langley Walk, a longstanding t- uh, township tradition that began in 1963 to encourage community health and active living. Uh, it was a warm one, uh, but as was stated already, the turnout was excellent, and, uh, kudos to our staff for, um, executing an excellent event. Uh, finally, I was fortunate to attend the Lower Mainland Local Government Association Annual Conference, which gave me the opportunity to connect with colleagues from across the region. During the resolutions portion of the conference, Mayor Paul Horn from Mission, uh, brought forward a motion calling on the province to consult with municipalities in the Fraser Valley before making any changes to South Coast Highway Patrol Services. I was pleased to enter a friendly amendment to li- to ensure the resolution also included lower mainland municipalities like Langley.Police resources at the municipal level are already stretched thin without taking on provincial highway enforcement. The discussion highlighted the value of municipalities working together to advocate, uh, collectively. And at the conference, uh, we heard from various speakers and panels discussing topics including public engagement and governance and changing voter expectations. Uh, the sessions reinforced the importance of clear communication, transparency, and collaboration in local government. And I'll continue to apply what I learned and had reinforced in my role as a councilor for the Township of Langley as we work to serve our residents thoughtfully and responsibly. Counselor Durec. Yes. Um, uh, I attended a, um, a very interesting, uh, wind-up, uh, annual, uh, report on extreme weather, uh, w- at the Gateway of Hope the other day, and it, uh, it's trying to look at, um, the balance of how to deal with extreme weather versus, uh, warming and cooling centers and, uh, respites. So, um, it's a very, uh, complicated subject and, and very much affected by, by the, um, the provincial government and when they're gonna fund and when they don't fund and when you get those days that are not quite qualifying, what you do with people who are stranded out in, uh, above zero weather, uh, but the wind is blowing and, uh, and it's raining and that. So it's, it's very, uh, a very interesting subject, uh, uh, dealing with the extreme weather. Also like to say, uh, a day late, but congratulations to the moms. Uh, I, I have this strange, um, strange, uh, position in society where for a while I had to also try to think like a mom as I was a single parent. So, uh, for a while my, my two, uh, sons used to celebrate, um, both Mother's and Father's Day with me and, uh, it's really nice having, having, uh, moms around me on that day like I did yesterday with my family, but, um, pretty strange it's one of the f- uh, first ones without my mom. So, uh, so, uh, congratulations to you guys and the Langley Walk is a little different. When I first did it in 1967, the fifth, sixth, and seventh, and eighth walks, they weren't the same. They used to walk from Fort Langley to Four- to, uh, Aldergrove and it was a, uh, a much different walk and I was also much different and a lot younger with better legs in those days, and it's a great event, and it's good seeing how it's changed and, uh, what? Over 1,300 people attended, uh, on that beautiful day in Fort Langley. So yeah, a great event and, uh, glad to see it's more inclusive now than it used to be. Yeah. Boy, everybody's pretty busy. Um, it's been a busy couple of weeks. Um, a couple of things, not in all the order, but I did attend the Yorkton Community Park and, um, it was fantastic to see all the families and kids just hanging around the park and, and, um, and that spray park is going to be well used, but I would recommend if you have kids, I did take my grandkids up there once, and you should probably put a little Apple AirTag on them, um, because it's, uh, it's really busy and if you, um, you know, if you're like me and you have maybe two or three, um, I w- uh, anyway. So, um, I also participated in the Langley Christian Schools, uh, Speech Festival and there was probably, uh, let's see, 12 kids that all delivered an- amazing speeches and, uh, so it was really fun to, to be a judge at that. Um, I think one of my, uh, most exciting things in the past week was actually the FIFA soccer pitch. Um, we can't forget that that happened and even that happened a couple weeks ago, but, um, so that was really cool to see, um, that, um, we have the very first soccer pitch, uh, by FIFA. Um, you know, so we'll... Hopefully it lasts and, uh, people... I- it will be well used. But, um, also, um, elem- LMLGA was, was really great to sort of, um, meet with other, uh, councils and councillors across the, uh, lower mainland and hear, uh, their concerns and some of the things that they want changed, um, at the provincial level. So, uh, thank you and congratulations to, um, Michael Pratt, um, on your engagement. Uh, that's super exciting and, uh, happy birthday to, uh, Counselor Ferguson. Counselor Frugerson. Well, we got a lot covered today, uh, you know, with the... Good to see Council, really, really and th- and thank you f- for everybody and congratulation to Counselor Pratt as well. Number one, of course, the Langley Walk. See a lot of friends and neighbors and new people and youth and the fact that, uh, there were so many people that, um, I handed out all the badges I could and then I tried to get more and handed those out as well. So hopefully those who didn't get a badge will be provided one. Uh, that was a great, great... I like that. I love the Langley Walk. Necond thing, next thing is that, um, we, Mr. Mayor, we had the opening of the RTMP gym, that, uh, there's an awful lot of discussion for that and the, uh, RTMP are very, very happy with it. We have facility that they can work out, exercise, and keep healthy in their own building. And, um, that was an interesting because, uh, it goes back a few years, my, my name on that building. But anyway, the third thing is, uh, UBC, uh, LMLGA that I attended as well as other members of council and, um, the one thing, uh, there's a number of things that happened, of course, but, uh, I had an opportunity to meet with the, uh, also LMLGA people, but, uh, it..... uh, the president of the UBCM union, ... Union of British Columbia Municipality Association, she attended as well. And we had a discussion on a number of issues. Number one was, uh, the DRIPA legislation and how the UBCM is going to be handling that. Uh, I wanted to make sure I kept in loop with her with my role and responsibility at the, at the Metro Vancouver and also as being a, a person on a treaty table within the region. It's important that, uh, I- I and other members of council stay on, in touch with that. And so I'm gonna be working with her and, and her team on working on DRIPA and working to help other universi- uh, other municipalities in the province are handling that. Okay, and, um, there was also the just much discussion at the LMGA about the code of conduct that the Province of BC is gonna be coming, gonna be bringing out for municipal, um, elected officials. And I think that's important. I think that's im- well, well-received, and I think it's something that we're looking forward to them, the province coming forward and, and the next particular election, hopefully we put that in place. And the Yorkson Community Park opening, Sprague Park, two bubbles, huge slide, climbing up per- apparatus. And when we pushed that button, we had a little guy push that button to open up that Sprague. I went for a run around that park, that water park, and just as I rounded the corner, I got it, and I'm not gonna get wet 'cause I was going way too fast. One of those heavy buckets, it went and landed on me as I hit the corner, and I was totally soaked. So I've got my bugs buggy tie on today. So I, I had a good time at the Yorkson Community Park opening, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. (laughs) Councilor Franks? Yeah, thank you, Your Worship, and I appreciate my colleagues bringing up LMGA. I was remiss to, to not mention that, especially since the Township of Langley did have a resolution on the floor regarding provincial, uh, requests, sorry, a request to UBCM to begin the process of discussing with the provincial government legislation changes, policy changes around R- RV tenancy. And I just want to appreciate and thank all of our council colleagues who were in attendance who voted in support, and, uh, it passed with near-unanimous support. And I won't mention which Fraser Valley municipality seemed to not be in support of it, but, um, it starts with chill and ends with... Well, we'll leave it at that. Anybody else wish to make a report or a regional report? Councilor Bailey. Yeah, it's interesting. I sit on the Air Quality Committee at, uh, Metro, and, uh, one of the things they've added, uh, not, uh, not that long ago is flood resiliency. And, uh, we had a very extensive, uh, discussion about it, and some frightening facts, uh, come out of it. They're looking at the integrated, um, flood management program because 97% of the dikes are not meeting standards right now, and there is a major problem with orphan dikes that, uh, never did meet standards because they were done privately, and they're getting in worse shape. But getting back to the integrated dike, um, uh, uh, flood management program, uh, I brought up, uh, are you talking to Washington? Because Washington was mentioned as a, uh, as an example of this integrated flood management. And I said, uh, "Have you talked to them about the Nooksack River that seems to cause an awful lot of problems for us on this side of the border?" And, uh, everyone went pretty quiet on that one. It doesn't seem like there are a lot of talks, and I, uh, encourage both the federal and the provincial (clears throat) ministries that they should get on this, because without, uh, solving the Nooksack, uh, flooding, we're not gonna solve flooding here. Councilor Peterson. Thank you. I was at Parks Committee re- and Regional, and, uh, they are, um, they're moving forward on, uh, Derby Beach Park, and they're making some improvement on campsites. And to much everybody's happiness, Campbell Valley Park is finally finished, and you'll be able to walk through there on, that's the circus that everybody usually walks around. So very exciting things happening in regional parks for Langley. All right, we're gonna move on to items N1 through 5. Is there any questions or discussion on any item N, N through 5? Councilor Kunst? Yeah, so, um, just wanna thank staff about, um, the providing the, um, the funding for the BC Farm... Well, he didn't provide the funding, but the information about the funding for the BC Farm Museum. So I guess my question would be, um, it kind of looks like the, um, BC Farm Museum would have to apply directly to the Township of Langley. Would that be the right assessment? To Your Worship, to Councilor Kunst, um, the report itself indicates that the specific fund that was referenced is specifically for munici- municipalities, and there's certain eligible project categories which include essentially roads, bridge, active transportation et cetera. Um, and although the community works fund does not include an application intake process, as it's specifically to municipalities, there potentially would be an opportunity to transfer some of that funds if there was eligible category, eligible project categories that they met. But there's other grant funding opportunities which we have identified, um, specifically for the BC Farm Museum, uh, and we'll provide those details to them directly. That's the Canada Culture Space Fund, Canada Heritage Legacy Fund, and, uh, the Community Gaming Grants, and the Heritage Museum Assistance Program. Okay, so from what I understand, some of them, they don't, um, yeah, they don't qualify. So I guess you're, you'll be providing this to the BC Farm Museum. I was gonna ask, what, what, what do you recommend their next steps be? But maybe the next step would be to just to provide them with a report? Uh, that is correct. Okay, thank you. Any other item N1 through 5?Seeing none, move on to other business, P1. I'll move that, seconded by Councilor Pratt, and I'm gonna read it that, uh, "Council directs staff to report to council on potential additional locations throughout the Township of Langley for up to five new s- or substantially improved existing playgrounds similar or close to the quality and scope of Yorkson Community Park. And that council directs staff to report to council on the potential expansion in scope and funding of the planned playground for Smith Athletic Park to be similar or close to the quality and scope of Yorkson Community Park." I think we've seen the r- dramatic response to Yorkson Community Park, which indicates cr- clearly to me the need to do more, not less, especially for free outdoor destinations for all the township's families to go to from Walnut Grove to Aldergrove to Brookswood, yeah, you know, to including Willoughby. And I think it's great to, uh, see the response, but also, you know, be proactive and see what more we can do for families within the Township of Langley to have a place and go and be. Any questions or discussion on that motion? Councilor Pratt. Yeah. Thank you, Your Worship. I'm really pleased to see this because, at the end of the day, the more free spaces we can provide, the more accessible spaces we can provide, the better, especially in away and in neighborhoods where you don't have to rely on getting a ride, or you a- don't have to rely on getting there in a car. Uh, because if we can build more of these across the township, especially in our rapidly growing areas, the more people can actually walk to them, the more people can enjoy them. We hear challenges with parking at Yorkson, and we hear challenges with parking across our townships. The more spaces that we can provide closer to home, the better. Really pleased to support this. Thank you. Okay. Councilor Martins. Thank you. Um, yeah. I'd, I'd like to move, um, an amendment, if I can. I've provided that to staff. Okay. Okay. Um, d- do you want me to read the amendment first and then third, Third? No, you can... Okay, you can read it. Go ahead and do... You've moved it. I'll give you some time to digest. Like to move that amendment. Is there a seconder to that amendment? I'll second. Seconded by Councilor Kerins. Yeah, go ahead. Okay. Um, I know it's lengthy, so I just wanted to give some time. Yeah, go ahead. Okay. Thank you. So, um, I agree we need more great playgrounds. Let me start with that. Um, and I appreciate the initiative. Um, uh, this asks if, um, perhaps we can get more value by improving existing school playgrounds that are already spread evenly through our neighborhoods. Um, by using a community grant approach and relying on parent advisory committees for local input, we could make targeted upgrades where families know they're needed most without having to buy land or build new facilities. Uh, there are other municipalities in our region who use a similar funding stream, uh, for our parent advisory, uh, committees or councils' p- pacs through community grant programs. These playgrounds are walkable, used every day, including during school hours, and I... and don't create the same parking and traffic pressures. I often see children from, uh, nearby daycare centers, um, in their pinnies walking like ducklings, um, to the local school playground to play while school is in session. So, uh, the reason I brought this forward, I think it's, um, you know, fiscally responsible to have staff explore this option as well and include it in their report, uh, so council could compare costs and benefits before making, uh, future investment decisions. Sorry. Councilor Richardson. Um, my comment was relative to the main motion. Okay. Yeah, so this is very similar to direction that we've already given to work with the school district on, um, looking for partnerships around expanding, uh, you know, the use of school property and improving those playgrounds in partnership with the school district in a PAC-LIT grant program. Unfortunately, we haven't seen a lot of uptake from the school district on that initiative. So I view this as, uh, largely redundant of something council's already working on and initiated. And the second phrase is pretty much captured in the intent to geographically distribute these, so I view a lot of this to be redundant. And, you know, the way you fund and expand playgrounds is you vote for the budget that funds and expands playgrounds. So with that, I'm gonna call the question on this amendment. I've called the question. Councilor Martins. On the amendment, you have called the question. Aye. Yeah, per the council procedure, by law, I've called the question. Five, four... No, I've, I've determined there's been sufficient debate. I've called the question. And that's defeated. Councilor Bailey, Councilor Ferguson, Councilor Pratt, Councilor Rent, Mayor Woodward opposed. Councilor Ferguson. Go ahead. Oh, I ju- I hit the button. I, I was gonna speak to the motion that was- Yeah. Councilor Martins, go ahead. Yeah. So, um, the, the amendment that failed is actually intended for us to do work, not off-loading it to the school district. It was to review our own community grants program. Um, and I feel that to not consider all options is fiscally irresponsible. We can always build great grand things, but perhaps we just need to talk to the people in the neighborhoods, in the PACs, who, um, who know what's needed there that they can walk to and keep it simple. So, um, uh, you know, uh, but that's the way it goes, so on, on we go. Um, I, like I said, I do support more playgrounds. And, um, hopefully eventually we'll be able to have a better partnership with the school district that we can have these conversations.Yeah, so I would refer you to The Motion where this council initiated a program where we wouldn't be off-loading the responsibility onto PAX to fundraise at the expense of other things that they're asked to fundraise for. So, I think that's why I also don't support the amendment to put more work onto parents to do more fundraising when they're already under so much pressure to do so in an era of affordability. So, I think it's, it's going in the wrong direction. And I, I'll reiterate again that the way you build playgrounds for families is to actually fund and vote for budgets that actually build playgrounds. Councillor Whitmarsh. Yes, um, this, I wanted to ask if this motion is intended to, uh, find a, uh, five additional or new locations, or does it also consider the, uh, ability to improve some current, uh, playgrounds? Yeah, it's a mixture of both. So, I've, uh, talked to staff a bit about some options prior to moving this and, uh, there's no contemplation of additional land acquisitions under this motion. So, there's no co- There's no contemplation of additional land acquisitions. As was mentioned by the other councillor, there's no contemplation of additional land acquisitions. So these would be okay? Yeah. So, these would be, uh, new playgrounds? Or existing undeveloped park assets. Okay. Um, yeah, I'm wondering if, if, if we could, um, just get a, um, a, the cost, what the cost was of the Yorkson Community Park? Yeah, so there was quite substantial site works, washrooms, the rugby field, I believe, was the largest component of the budget. The playground item- Yeah, I'm thinking more of the playground. ... yeah, the playground item- The playing washroom conversation. ... from what I remember was approximately two million, but I can have staff confirm. Uh, Your Worship, correct. You're correct in terms of the overall project. Doesn't necessarily break out in different components. So, an example would break out concrete and rubber, but it's spread all throughout the, the site. So, I don't think we have that specifically broken out. Um, traditional playgrounds at schools, um, are easily, you know, half or a quarter of a million dollars. Um, and I think we would take a look at, uh, all the different options as we consider, uh, when this motion's passed what we could do. Okay, 'cause I, this, this, um, Yorkson, the, the park, uh, the playground, I guess, uh, component that we saw on the weekend is spectacular. It's a beautiful, uh, playground. Um, great facility, great spray park, all that's amazing. And I'm just trying to get a sense of what the cost of that is, 'cause this motion is suggesting building something similar to that in up to five locations. So, um, if the number is two million dollars to do that, then this motion is a motion of around 10 million dollars. I'm sure we'll find out costs as we go along but that's, um- Yeah, so I think that would- ... how we're standing it. ... potentially be the top end. I think we would look to have it be some options that wouldn't be that expensive. So, I think similar to is, or close to. You know, you know how close and similar to, right? And, uh, talking to staff about that project over the last number of years, I do think there is some options that, you know, would need to be particularly, you know, to that ex-scope, but I think that it's sending the message here, if this were to be approved, that looking for a little bit more for a little bit better depending on the location, the size, the proximity to families, you know, where it'd potentially be located. So, I think the intent here is to see the response this has generated and to, as Councillor Pratt identified, you know, looking to have it be closer to home for more residents. Yeah, makes that, that makes sense to me as well. Um, this also has a second motion around Smith Athletic Park. So, is this, um, is the suggestion here that we're... This would be a sixth, uh, um, location? So, five plus the Smith Athletic Park, is that what the two motions together- Yeah, I would say that... And good clarification, I'd say be determined. I think it's, uh, it, it is possible that Smith Athletic Park has reached a certain stage, but council could potentially look at that, or adding to it after in a different phase potentially. You know, even though I speak against those very often, if it's already being con... You know, tendered or it's at a certain stage, you know, potentially it could be looked at to be expanded in the future. Thank you. Yeah. Councillor Kirst Yeah, um, so yeah, I'm, I'm, of course will support this, but I guess the, the scope, the quality and the scope... So, I get the quality, but the scale of the park is, is very large, and if you are a mom with little kids, um, you're literally running after them the whole time. So, if there were pa... Were... If we're gonna do this, I hope that we'll get some public feedback about the size of the park, and that maybe we would do, um, something similar, but make sure that it's, um... You know, I don't know that we need to have five Yorkson Parks in Langley, um, but maybe something similar but a little smaller. Yeah, so I agree. So, what I've talked to staff a bit about is, where there's a smaller footprint that could potentially be renovated such as some park projects that are already in the queue, that, uh, potentially the climbing structures and other amenities added are, are larger and more interesting and more fun. It doesn't necessarily have to mean that the park becomes the same geographic size of Yorkson Community Park, but generally send a message that, given the response, "Is council supportive of, of seeing a slightly larger investment in these facilities given the response?" I don't, uh, I don't think we necessarily have the land for Yorkson Community Park at every location that would be contemplated, but looking, I think, to review this, uh, you know, where the township exists and, and hopefully to continue, uh, to potentially have a, a school district in the future be more open to ideas around this. Okay, thanks. Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Bailey. Yeah, I'm, I'm glad to, uh, support this. And one of the reasons I really love Yorkson Park is because of the aspects of the accessibility. You know, uh, there are a lot of kids who are in... Are, uh, are normally left out of being able to participate in playgrounds. Uh, a lot of times because of the, the, um-... the base that is there. And, uh, one of the reasons I believe that this Yorkson Park is not only big and spectacular, it's that everyone can use it. Uh, kids in wheelchairs, uh, kids with all sorts of disabilities. I gotta, uh, give a shout-out to Andrea for her sign board, uh, that, uh, includes other disabilities that, uh, many times, and, um, doesn't include kids with, uh, invisible disabilities. So I'm really hopeful that as we go forward with, uh, with these, we also include the ability to make sure that all kids everywhere can ha- have, be just as included, uh, in playgrounds where they have historically been excluded, not purposely, but, uh, just by design and, uh, the way things were. Uh, uh, there's an awful lot of kids out there that, that, um, are struggling with, with what they've been dealt with in life already, and they don't need to be excluded when it comes to being able to, uh, laugh and enjoy themselves just like every other kid. Councilor Frison. Yeah, thank you. Oh, I'm still, uh, chuckling on that AirTag comment. (laughs) Got through, that was a good... That's about true. Is it, uh, you know, it's, it's funny. We have, uh, a, a comment earlier on. We have an excellent working relationship with the school district, and, um, you know, we kind of, in a way, might be a bit of an envy to other communities i- in the whole province because a number of years ago, we put parks beside every single school that was built. And, uh, within those parks were, and other amenities, and, um, some bigger or different than others. Another thing I, I still can't get over in my mind that I am so shocked by, that we were able to put together RE Mountain School, and it's probably a beautiful, it's a beautiful school, I've been in it several time, and how we did that was next to impossible. I wouldn't actually ask Mayor West from Port Moody to come over, Port, pardon me, Port Coquitlam to come over- Yes, there you go, right. Yep. ... and see... I got it right, Port, Port Moody to come over and see what we've accomplished there at, uh, RE Mountain because, uh, you, we actually provided, the Township of Langley provided the, um, the space for them to have the, to use our, our fields, to use our facilities, and then they could build a school for kids, and that's so important. It's a beautiful... If you haven't had time to see that, go, uh, ask the principal for a tour. Okay, the next thing, we had a, uh, we had a liaison meeting a few, uh, weeks ago, excellent meeting with staff. A number of things are proceeding with the, the new... It's, uh, it's so exciting. Uh, the new high school and middle school, and I, I keep saying, about 45 acres. How many communities in this province have that much land? Uh, certainly not Vancouver. (laughs) And, um, it's gonna be, uh, be great. We're gonna be finding a park beside, for thousands of kids. So again, another great partnership with, with the, th- school district. So it's exciting things. We've always had a good working re- relationship with the, the school district. And back to these parks, they're exciting. I know it's, don't know exactly what each and every one's gonna look like. I think they're all gonna be a little bit different. But it's a, the kids need these parks. Families need these parks, and parks are exciting and important. Thank you. Councilor Richter. Um, yeah, I was just wondering if staff will be including in the report that comes back to us a, uh, preliminary cost estimate for each prioritization criteria and a phased timeline. Staff will d- uh, definitely consider each of those things. I think, um, in addition to that, you know, there's a discussion about scale and, and size. You know, we have different size of parks. We have community-level parks. We have neighborhood-level parks. We have, uh, ta- lots that you'll see. We have linear parks. We have passive parks. So I think staff will do our best to kind of go through the different levels of parks as well as locations in each of the communities. Um, timeline definitely is important because these things don't happen as fast as we would all, uh, enjoy them. Um, um, I can't help but think as council's been talking about Belle Park where we're adding, uh, an accessible playground that should be open here in the next, in the near future. It's under construction, but it does take time from when council passes the resolutions to when they open, unfortunately. So we can consider each of those things, timeline, budget, location, level of park, um, scale of playground within that scale of park. Great. Thank you. Yeah, and just for council's information, on February 24th, 2025, a motion was endorsed by council titled Playground Partnerships with Parent Advisory Councils. Be it resolved, the council directs staff to report to council with a review of the merits lack thereof of establishing a new annual grant program for parent advisory councils with matching funds to apply to the Township of Langley for school playground renovation, expansion, and/or replacement that also provides an overall additional community benefit. Of course, that was, that was passed. So for everybody's information, this is underway already. And, uh, you know, we're certainly hopeful that, uh, we see, you know, some response from the school district on that very soon. Call the question on that, amend- the motion P1. And that carries unanimously. Councilor Richter, go ahead, P2. Yeah, it's a fairly long motion, so I'm not gonna read the whole thing. I'll, I will move it and speak to it if it's seconded. So therefore, be it resolved that Langley Township Council send a strong advocacy letter to the Federal Minister of Fisheries, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries.... and all MPs and MLAs in Langley Township in support of preserving the importance of river conservation and stewardship and the common property asset of the public's right to fish, relative to any proposed changes to the existing 1999 Salmon Allocation Policy, as well as the need for continued public management interest for all Canadians of this crucial natural resource by the government of Canada. I so move. Second. Seconded by Councilor Kunst. Go ahead, Councilor Richter. Yeah. This, uh, came out, and I, uh, addressed it at the last council meeting. Uh, there was a town hall meeting held in one of the, uh, churches in Murrayville back on April 18th, I think it was, and it was jointly hosted by the BC, uh, Fishers Society as well as the BC Federation of Wildlife. And essentially, uh, the federal government made the decision back in December of 2025 to review the existing 1999 Salmon Allocation Policy and to allow public consultation, which is still ongoing. I'm not sure when it's going to be shut down, but it has been ongoing since then. And the, uh, m- maintaining the public's right to fish as a, a common law priority or, uh, property is part of the, um, case law or precedent law that came to Canada when Canada was, uh, formed as a nation way back in 1867, and it's been upheld by the courts, the public's right to fish. And right now what happens, in BC anyway, is that about 6% of all the fish that are harvested, uh, in, uh, BC, only 6% are harvested by sport fishermen or private citizens out fishing during the open window. Yet the vast majority of conservation efforts towards maintaining viable salmon habitat, riparian areas along the streams, is coming, uh, with the support of this private or, or this small group of the public fisheries. So, not only are we benefiting in our communities, because here in Langley, we have benefited with our, uh, stewardship groups like the, uh, Salmon River Enhancement Society. We've also benefited from, um, the hatchery, like the Nicomekl Hatchery, uh, all the kids' education programs that go through there. So kids are taught the importance of salmon and salmon habitat, and it would be a shame to jeopardize that or lose that by removing the public's right to fish. Also, when you look at it on a more personal level, and I know that I learned to fish because my father loved fishing and he took all five of his kids out and taught us how to fish, and it's a great, uh, family experience that I think needs to be preserved for all Canadians to enjoy in the years ahead. So that's why the motion is here. I did ask at that, uh, town hall what municipal government could do, and the very resounding answer I got back was, "Please send a letter of advocacy, and this is who you send it to." So that's why the motion is here today. Councilor Bailey. Uh, Councilor Kunst. Yeah. Yeah, thank you, uh, Councilor Richter for bringing this to, uh, Council. And, um, you know, in my family growing up too, is like, is s- fishing was just something that, um, I loved to do and my family loves to do. And now I see that, um, you know, hopefully that they will, you know, continue to be able to do that. So anything that we can do to support, um, w- by way of a letter, I think is a small, a small, uh, effort on our part, but maybe it'll mean a lot. So I'm happy to support it. Councilor Bailey. Yeah, looking to support this. Um, I think if I didn't, uh, my deceased father, who was a maniac fisherman, would come and haunt me. And, uh, my youngest son would, uh, do more than haunt me, uh, because he is an avid fisherman. Uh, I, for some strange reason, he doesn't kill fish, he just plays with 'em. And, uh, I know there's one factor that is very important that people often overlook, and that is the economic factor of, uh, of sports fishing. They add a huge chunk of money to the economy because fishing equipment is not cheap, and if you go on, uh... L- the people that do kill fish, uh, if you go on how much per pound it costs, and when you, uh, factor in b- boats, motors, e- very expensive fishing equipment, I am, uh, I'm really glad that we can, in this way, also support some businesses who are, uh, are, um, supporting the fishermen. And, uh, God knows that the, uh, the three main people who, uh, deal with the fish, the Indigenous, the sports, and the commercial, let's not forget the allocation to the commercial fishers. Uh, yeah, no, I, I agree that we should be sending this letter off. Councilor Ferguson. Yeah, I think we all have to support this motion because looking at our murals of the back done by Phyllis Atkins, uh, one of a salmon, the other one of a sturgeon, and I, myself and our family, uh, I had the privilege of catching a couple of sturgeon on a bit of a sport trip.... a fishing tour. Of course, it's catch and relief... uh, release, and I think it was, uh, not exciting to catch one of the biggest fishes you can catch and then release it, of course. So I'm certainly going to support this. Um, I'm not that great a fisherman. I, I, uh, keep t- taking what they call spitting out my, uh, my hook there. Anyway, I'm going to support this. Thank you. All right. Seeing those questions, I'll call the question, P2. Motion carries unanimously. Councilor Pratt. Yeah. So Councilor Pratt's not on the floor yet, but go ahead, Councilor Pratt. Uh, I have to call a potential conflict of interest on P5. Yep. All right. Thank you. Councilor Pratt, just give me a minute. Yeah. Thank you, Your, uh, uh, sweet minute. I'll move it as directed once I get out of the room. Yeah. So it's moved by Councilor Pratt, seconded by Councilor Ferguson. Go ahead, Councilor Pratt. Yeah. Thank you, Your Worship. These are some items that have risen from conversation at the AAC, and, uh, positive conversations. And we'd like to see the process of bringing any potential amendments forward for the first section, uh, brought forward. And I would love for staff to bring to council some more information on the second item so that we can poten- potentially look at, uh, possible changes to our own township bylaws and policies. Yeah. I'm very, uh, supportive of this motion. Uh, anything that we can do that can make signage easier for our, uh, farming community so they can promote their farms and sell their products, um, I'm fully supportive of. So I, I appreciate this coming forward. Councilor Kunst? Yeah. So, um, yeah, I appreciate this as well. Um, I was talking to... A farmer who approached me this week about, um, how does he get a, a sign for slow-moving vehicle, 'cause in Glen Valley, I think there's one at the very beginning, but, um, they're really concerned because there's... People are not, um... They're passing and they're... It's, it's quite dangerous. So what would be the process for that? And, and does this sign, by law, does that... Would that help? Would that fit in there somewhere? Or do I need to make a motion specifically to get a new sign or a, another sign in Glen Valley? Uh, through Your Worship to Councilor Kunst, we'd probably have to address that just separately. Separately? Okay. Yeah. Okay. I'll, I'll make a motion and I'll send it to you, um, this week. Thanks. Councilor Pratt? Yeah. Thank you, Your Worship. And I just wanted to, to kind of echo Councilor Whitmar's comments, and I appreciate, uh, his support, especially since now being on the, the committee, uh, together. It's, uh, been a productive few week, or I guess few months now. And, and these, these amendments, these motions here, uh, we, we wanna move forward with not punishing people for doing the right thing, and that's specifically what the first clause is about, uh, when people get tied up in, in red tape for just trying to do the right thing, whereas other people might be, uh, you know, circumventing the rules and not get caught. We don't want to be able to... We don't want to be punishing the people trying to do the right thing. And so really appreciate the support. And, uh, on the second one, again, in this economy, especially for those who are, uh, actively farming, they know how tight the margins are. So anything that we could potentially do to support our agri-tourism industry is really exciting, and look forward to seeing what these potential amendments could look like from the township. Seeing no other discussion, I call the question on P3. Carries unanimously. Councilor Rand absent. Can we get Councilor Rand back, please? Yes, I'd like to, uh, move E4. I'll second that. Yeah. Uh, Ms. Bauer, if I could get you to, um, put that, uh, chart up on the... So this is, uh, being put out by the Coquitlam RCMP, and I, I loved it as soon as I saw it, because it very clearly articulates the rules that are around all of them, e-bikes, e-scooters, mopeds, everything like this, because they're, they all fall into the same category. Uh, when, when I'm talking to people in the emergency rooms and, uh, first responders, they all are unanimous that something has to be done about this. And I, uh, I don't believe that only educational is the way to fix this. I believe that it also has to be enforcement. And a major thing that I can see as I... One principal in the, uh, school district has already banned, um, scooters, e-scooters from her elementary school. I, um, have already spoken to some, uh, trustees and some staff about the possibility that the school district would ban e-scooters from minimum, uh, elementary schools and middle schools, as every child in those schools is illegal. They're not 16 years of age. And I think, uh, one way to drive a point home is, uh, through this. And we looked first at other municipalities, what are they doing not only in regards to s- interacting with schools, but what are they doing, because this is a problem that crosses all of the boundaries. I want to, uh, I have further more formal talks with School District 35 about doing both joint e- education and actions, like I just mentioned, and a cooperative action, uh, to make sure that children are safe.You know, we were all earlier talking about how we've all seen minors, minors without hats, minors doubling, uh, that are illegally reading, uh, ri- um, riding. And it has to be driven home to the parents one way or the other, and I believe both enforcement and education, that when you buy a e- e-mobility thing for their children, they're breaking the law. You're encouraging breaking the law. And if it takes looking your kid, like I've done with my grandchild, uh, in the eye and say, "No, it's not happening. Not buying. Go and buy a b- I'll, I'll buy you a bike." And now that we're looking at children, uh, you know, if you look at the child obesity rates, and, uh, people say, "Well, you know, d- kids gotta go a fair distance to get to a school, so don't give them a scooter." Or, "Give them a bike." You get a lot better exercise, it can help towards childhood obesity. And these are some of the things that we can do. You'll see that on, in part three, I've also included the parent advisories because I think they are, uh, very important since you're, you're really talking to the parents in this. And, uh, also involving the RCMP about not only educational, which it will be a huge component, but enforcement. Because the bylaws cannot, uh, deal with this. These are moving violations, and the RCMP have to be, uh, enforced. So driving things like this chart and giving the parents the, the l- legalities and, and the, the awful reality of what's going on out there. I said earlier in the meeting that my son has worked on two fatalities, and that is just one firefighter on one shift. The, and the emergency wards are getting hammered with this kind of stuff, and especially when it's head injuries are, are one of the leading ones. I, I cannot stress hard enough that, uh, we have to, um, do everything that we possibly can in making sure that, uh, especially the children, uh, under 16 years of age are not put at risk. Councilperson? Yeah, I was wondering, Mr. Mayor, if you would entertain a, a amendment? We have to, if it's seconded, Councilor Peterson. (laughs) If it's seconded, mine is item, it would be item number five. It's simply, discuss alternatives of, of enforcement with the RCMP regarding, regarding e-bikes. That would be item number five. Yeah, so wanna add e-bikes to the scope of the motion? Yes. Yeah, all right. So is there a seconder then? Seconded by Councilor Rin. Go ahead, Councilor Patterson. Uh, it's self-explanatory. Thank you. Is there any discussion on that amendment? Ms. Power, do you have that amendment? Mr. Mayor, I believe the amendment was to discuss alternatives with... I, and you said e-bikes? Yes. Yes, with the RCMP. Councilor Rintjema, is there any discussion on the amendment? Councilor Richter? No, I had a question for me, Mayor. Yeah, so anybody who wants to discuss the amendment, please j- if you don't want to discuss the amendment, you need to uncheck your microphone. So Councilor Martins, on the amendment. Nope, no, I was, uh- Oh, yeah. ... waiting in the queue. All right, so Councilor Kunst on the amendment. Yeah, um, so with e-bi- if you throw in e-bikes there, that's a hu- bigger thing. Um, would it be a little bit... I mean, this is gonna be a pretty big undertaking for staff when we're talking about e-scooters. I'd prefer maybe just to, like, uh... To me, e-scooters are, seem to be the most, um, dangerous thing that I've seen on the road. And my kids did skateboards, and they did rollerblades, and they did all that. Um, but these e-scooter things are just, uh, they're pretty crazy. So I think I'm just gonna stick with the e-scooters. Councilor Dabbs? Yeah, I don't know if I can support this actually, because, one, the different age limit would, uh, would affect the, um, uh, talking to the school board about, about middle schools. But also bikes have, uh, a- an awful lot more stability than these e-scooters. Um, you know, I, I realize some of these e-bikes, you know, especially, um, everyone knows now how to bypass the, the, uh, governors on it. And th- and they are, um, a problem. Uh, I, I don't know. It's, um, it, it's a tricky one, because of the different age and the different stability of bikes. Uh, I, (laughs) you've, you've, you've caught me on cold on this one. I don't know if I can support it or not. Councilor Woodward? Yeah, I, I, I would prefer to keep it, um, simple and just focus simply on the e-scooter, um, and deal with the other in a different motion if we need to. But I think we're focusing on e-scooter, and I think we should stay with that. Yeah, anyone- (whispers) (laughs) Nope, Councilor Watson? Nope, Mr.- (speaks faintly) We'll go to the speaking order. Councilor Martin? Yeah, um, I, I just, I concur with what my, uh, colleagues here have said about perhaps this is a different issue to be dealt with differently. Um, I do want to acknowledge that I have had some input from, um, people in the community, um, with regards to the use of e-bikes on paths and trails and multi-use paths, and, um, the worryingly different-... speeds at which people are traveling that are sharing those paths, and it is a problem, um, with the conflict there. But I think that's, um, a topic for another day. So I- I think at this point, I don't want to, uh, generalize the motion too much that it bogs it down. Councilor Ferguson. Okay. I- I know it's been moved and seconded, Mr. Mayor, but I- I- I think we'll just dispose of it and- We could dispose of the motion, and I would say- ... vote how we wish. ... I could bring back a- a separate motion, and that maybe do a little bit more research on it. Um, in speaking, uh, it's interesting to note that just, uh, just the other day, my wife (laughs) and I were driving down the road and two, uh, e-bikes came right in front of traffic. Um, so if that's not a concern, I don't know what is. And I see it, they're on sidewalks, they're everywhere. But it- I- I think I have to do more research, which is important, and, uh, provide a different type of motion, and maybe get a little bit of help from, uh, the RCMP as well. Well, they were included on that slide from the conclusion of the motion - Yeah. ... for a reason, so... You know, Councilor Maclaren's made a good point that you were having some similar types of issues with the speeds at which these, uh, these vehicles can travel. So, I mean, all in favor of it, but if people want to just leave the e-scooters, I totally respect that as well. So with that, I'll call the question on that amendment. That is defeated with Councilor Bailey, Councilor Okkeron's, Councilor Martin's, Councilor Richardson's, and Councilor Whitmar's opposed. So Councilor Ferguson, if you wish to do a bit more research in advance of motion-specific e-bikes- Yeah, sure. ... that seems to be Council's, uh, wish for you to do that. Councilor Kokest or anyone else on the main motion as it's been filed? Yeah, so be f- On amended, Councilor Kokest. Yeah, so before, I mean, I'm hoping this goes through, I just wanted to note that, um, at LMLGA, um, there was a motion, and I'll just read the therefore. "Be it resolved that UBCM call on the government of BC to conclude the Electric Kickstarter Pilot Program and establish province-wide regulations and data-informed education programs governing the safe use of electric s- kick scooters on public highways across BC." So, we know how, um, the government works. It's like, you know, way too long. So, um, I just wanted to highlight that because that will be coming to UBCM, hopefully. Um, and, um, I, th- but I support this motion 'cause, you know, we need to get on with it and highlight that this continues to be an issue in all of our municipalities. Councilor Richter? Yeah, thank you, uh, thank you Councilor Kokest for that update. I- I'm glad they're gonna be addressing it. It is important. Uh, I had a question and perhaps an amendment for number three in the resolutions, uh, where it says, and basically, "Therefore be it resolved that Township of Langley staff, three, meet with the t- Langley Township Parent Advisory Committee as may be applicable regarding education and enforcement of e-scooter requirements and dangers." Now, I believe that the Parent Advisory Committees are the responsibility of the school board and were created under legislation pertinent to school boards. And if that's the case, do we have the right to send our staff to talk to parent advisory committees that exist because the school board exists? So I would feel more comfortable if we either, A, delete this number three, or B, amend it to read, "With School District 35's permission, meet with..." I just don't want to overstep our... I mean, it's not like Township has a parent advisory committee. We don't. The school board does. I think I'll put an amendment forward. I don't know if you want me to do it now or to hang onto it. No, go ahead. Okay. I'll- I'll amend number three by adding the phrase at the beginning, "With School District 35's permission." Is there a seconder to that? Second Seconded by Councilor Whitmarsh, yeah. Anybody wish to... Go ahead, Councilor Richter, or we can move on to the next one Yeah, I just, I, you know, Councilor Ferguson did mention that we've had a long relationship working, uh, proactively and productively with the school board because I think we have historically always respected the, um, boundaries between the two jurisdictions. And I would like to see us continue to make it very clear we're not trying to step into areas without them being aware of and in agreement with it. So, that's the reason for it. Okay. Anybody wish to speak to the amendment? If you don't, you are unchecked. Okay. Councilor Martin's, go ahead on the amendment. Yeah, and, and I do apologize. First, can you just re- um, repeat the wording there of the amendment? Miss Farr. Uh, the amendment would be to add, "with approval of School District 35 partner," no, "with School District 35 permission" prior to the start of the motion. Okay. Um, so my question perhaps about this, and I don't know, and I know I can't amend an amendment, um, the motion says, "Meet with the Langley Township Parent Advisory Committee." Um, is that different than the DPAC?I took that to mean that parent advisory committees within the town, for schools within the township. So, oh, okay. So the, not, not the, the lead entity, but the ones isolated within each school is what you're saying? I'm not really sure. Maybe I have to go back to Council Bailey for that. Yeah. Yeah. But I understood that to mean that, you know, there's, there's be some, be some clarification required, um, around that, because, yeah, do we mean the PAC, which includes the City of Langley, or do we need some individual PACs? I'm, I'm really not sure. Okay. So Councillor Bailey, do you wish to clarify that? You bet. I, I, I, I'm not in favor of this amendment, because it's covered off in number two. When you sit there and say, "Discuss with school board 35, the possibility of joint education and actions," it's already covered off. We're gonna... This is part of, uh, talking to the school board and, uh, and talking to them about, how do we go and approach the, uh, parent advisory committee? And I think this is key may, because, uh, it's the parents that have got to get educated more than the kids. So, uh, I, I don't like this, uh, "with the permission of, of the Langley School Board" because, uh, number two is not asking permission. It's cooperatively- And just, and just- ... working with. ... we can come back to you to speak to the amendment, but, uh, you could clarify Council Martins' point- Yeah. ... that it, you know, what is your intent behind who, who would the staff be meeting with? The, uh, district, um- District. ... district, uh, parent advisory committees. Yeah. All right. We'll, we'll leave it at that. Councillor Martins, I think, you know, there would be some, some work to do from staff's point of view to probably figure out who they would be looking to meet with, either the PAC representatives or coordinating with the district to do that, or coordinating with the chair to do that. It's clear here that staff are just being directed to collect some community feedback from representatives of schools. Yeah. No, and I appreciate that clarification. I just want- Also, I confirm that, you know, the PACs are independent entities, despite efforts to always have someone from the district in the room when you meet with them. But go ahead. Are they not allowed to be in the room? Uh, well, it'd be interesting conversation for another day, but specific- Okay. ... to here, do you have anything else on the amendment? Yeah, yeah. Sorry, the reason I'm asking that question, I just want to be clear on the rules. Um, Councillor Richter had mentioned that, um, it's legislated that there's some official, um, rules around this. I'm just wondering if perhaps we could ask the, uh, staff to weigh in on... That's a, that's a good question. I've never heard of that, Mr. Poonar. Maybe it's the, it's the culture of each district, depending on how they try to interact and control the PACs. Y- Your Worship, we'd have to review the matter and get back to council. Yeah. Okay. No, thank you for that. Um, okay, 'cause I just wouldn't want to misstep if, if in fact it's something we're unaware of. Yeah. Councillor Richter, go ahead. On the amendment still. On the amendment and the comment that Councillor Bailey meant, made, made relative to the proposed amendment, is number two absolutely 100% going to occur before number three? Because if it is, then it's covered perhaps, although it could be a little clearer, but I still think we need to show the courtesy and respect to the school district to let them know that we'd like to do this, and to make sure it's okay with them that we're doing it. And that needs to occur first. Councillor Bailey, still on the amendment still, so maybe- Yep, I'm on the amendment. ... we can just, just try and get to a vote here. Let's see if we can get to the amendment. You know, I have to really watch how I word this, because I can't believe, you know, when we're talking about the school board right in, right before it, and it's included in a cooperative and, uh, action, that we would go and subvert anything. And then also I, I get, I can't understand the fact that, that, um, we would have to go and ask permission to go and talk to parents of children in our jurisdiction. Why? Okay, I understand that the parent advisory committees are, uh, interact with the school board and are formed under legislation. But, uh, does that say that we are excluded from going and, and being able to interact with parent advisory committees? There are also other, uh, um, issues that I believe that the township should be talking to par- parent advisory committees, like, uh, in general, the safety of their children on the roads, going to school. If you drive by Willoughby Elementary, uh, as the kids are going to school on the corner of 80th and 208, they're not on school board property yet, but it's damn dangerous. And I can't believe that anyone would sit there and say that the township should not be able to go and talk to parents about the safety of school children. And it, uh, yeah, unbelievable. Uh, Councillor Pratt. Yeah. Thank you, Worship. And, and I look forward to the, further research by staff and potentially the, the advice they can give moving forward. But if, if I'm not mistaken, I believe PACs are governed by the School Act, which sets them up as autonomous bodies that elect their own representatives, their own executive, uh, that they don't have outside control on these organizations. And so, as the township, and I was, I was gonna ask to staff, in clause three here, when it talks about enforcement of e-scooter requirements, my imagination goes to enforcement on township roads, on sidewalks, on bike lanes. And I would imagine that it would be the township's responsibility to do the enforcement alongside our first respond, uh, first responders, be it police, uh, bylaw. So, uh, I appreciate what Councillor Bailey's trying to do with this motion, and I read it as something that is actually proactively trying to get a, a, a foot in the door with the district and collaborate with them and move something forward that, uh, obviously with our delegate today, uh, highlighted as a pretty important issue. Yeah. So...Yeah, I agree, and I respect all opinions, because I think I wanna key in on the word staff. So this isn't sort of politicians looking to meet with residents in the community to understand their concerns. This is asking staff to meet with them. So maybe appropriate to, for staff to coordinate those meetings and, and let them... be known about them. I think permission is probably a word that... Think it goes a little too far. So leave it at that, but, uh, you know, I think we generally get the idea that staff can hear these comments and understand that, you know, maybe if staff are gonna meet with parents that there might be... wanna be a structure to that to collect some feedback in a, in a, in a good, positive way. You know, I've, I've done the same with, uh, reaching out to some regarding traffic calming in front of their schools and gotten lots of great suggestions around, uh, some, some traffic calming that we've gone and done this term. And I've heard some, some rather concerning stories about communication that's been directed to those people by the district for meeting with me. So I, I get both sides of the issue, and definitely have concerns about the culture of the district that would communicate those things. Um, but, you know, that's what we're dealing with and that'll be up for the public to sort out. I'm gonna call the question. Council Whitmarsh on the amendment. I think we've debated this sufficiently. This is the amendment? This, oh, I'm sorry, the amendment. That's correct. Sir, we're, we're voting on the amendment? The amendment, yeah. Sorry about that confusion. That is defeated. Councilor Bealey, Councilor Ferguson, Councilor Pratt, Councilor Rint, Councilor Whitmarsh, Mayor Woodward opposed. So now back to the motion P4 as unamended. Uh, Councilor Martins. Thank you. Um, I just want to speak first to, um, enforcement. Um, I, speaking from my enforcement lens, uh, our bylaw officers, I do not believe, are, uh, have peace officer status. Is, is that still correct or have we b- 'cause I think it would be great if they did. I'm just wondering if that's happened. Uh, through your Worship, to Councilor Martins, no, not peace officer status. Okay. Um, the, and the reason I ask that is they are not able to, um, enforce, um, moving violations if they're not, don't have the peace officer status. So unfortunately, um, we will not be able to rely on our township resources for enforcement of, um, these e-scooters. Uh, so enforcement does fall to the RCMP. Um, I'm mindful of, uh, uh, following up on my comments earlier about Highway Patrol, um, they are stretched, um, thin, and I, um, I do remember when we first were contemplating joining the pilot, we did speak to them in the, um, standing committee on police priorities, and it was made clear by the RCMP management at the time that, um, while they, um, recognize the issues and the concerns and I, and I, I want to acknowledge that, um, and, and miss ab- Miss Abdi's, um, concerns. They are legitimate. No question. The concern is, um, finding resources to enforce something that's new legislation. Um, and I think that's something we might need to contemplate and, and come to terms with, is, um, we might need to look at increasing our resources there, um, as some of these newer, um, legislations come along. So that, those are just my thoughts. Um, no, um, no motion on that, but I do have an amendment, um, and if I could ask staff to put that amendment up. Uh, so I, I, I fully support this motion. This is just another piece I would like to add, and that is the advocacy piece to higher levels of government. Um, and I can speak to that once it's on the floor. Is there a seconder to that? I'll second. Seconded by Councilor Kearse. Go ahead. Yeah. So to be clear, um, absolutely we need education. We need enforcement. Um, uh, the, it, it's gotten out of control on the roads. I too have, um, nearly hit people, um, you know, going on the wrong side of the road, the wrong direction at high speeds, no helmet, multiple people on the scooters. It's, it's absolutely frightening. So, um, I appreciate the, the, um, severity of the situation. The reason for this motion is, um, uh, education and local enforcement alone will not solve the issue, and I think through, um, resolutions and discussions at the recent, uh, Lower Mainland Local Government Association Conference, um, it's clear that municipalities across the region are facing the same challenges related to e-scooter safety, age compliance, and enforcement. Um, the provincial pilot framework is no longer sufficient and municipalities, uh, across our region have been calling for permanent streamline changes to the Motor Vehicle Act with clear provincial guardrails. That's province-wide. That's not piecemeal in some communities and not others. This amendment ensures that the township adds its voice to the collective advocacy, um, a- as well as addressing it locally. Um, so it, I, I, I just wanna mention that it's to, meant to strengthen the motion by, uh, by pairing local action with provincial leadership, um, and hopefully some long-term clarity, um, will come from our provincial leaders and including, um, education at a provincial level across the province, um, similar to things like- (beep) Oh. S- uh, similar to things like, you know, anti s- uh, I don't know what that was. (laughs) Not mine. Oh, oh, sorry. We heard a strange noise up here. Um, I thought it was an emergency alert. Anyways, I will leave it there, um, but I, I just want the mover to be assured that I f- fully support the intent of this and, um, we, we, we have a lot of work to do on it.That's good. No, I like this. Um, uh, the reason I didn't include further action initially, and this is ’cause I thought it might complicate the motion itself. But, uh, anything that we can do to make sure that these e-scooters get dealt with, uh, you know, if, if we can, uh, take our own action here and, uh, push for more, um, uh, more action from higher levels of government. And I'm glad it says the Province of BC, including Minister of Transportation. I wouldn't want it just to be the... It would be the whole, uh, the Premier's office, everyone that if we're going to hit the province, someone hit them all. And, uh, e- everything and anything we can do to make these e-scooters, which are a menace, uh, uh, a lot safer for people, um, I'm fully s- in, in support. Because one thing that a lot of people don't talk about these e-scooters is how, how it affects disabled persons, uh, wha- especially when they're on the sidewalks and they can't hear or some people can't see them. So no, I s- I support this. Councilor Pratt. Yeah, thank you, Worship. I appreciate Council Martin's bringing it forward and just a question of clarification regarding what, uh, the intent or the hope out of this clause is, in addition to what the resolution that was passed at LMLGA, uh, requesting further re- uh, advocacy to the province would be, just in, in terms of what additional sort of aspects of enforcement or education or compliance are you, are looking to advocate for it? Yeah. Councilor Martins, go ahead. Yeah, thank you. A great question. Um, so the advocacy is, um, number one, education. Before we can get there though, we need province-wide legislation. Um, the pilot right now is piecemeal and there's different rules in different communities. Some who put bylaws in place, some who didn't, depending on when they joined the pilot. Um, so it, it's sufficiently confusing and vague. So, eh, the e-scooters are here. They're not going away. So let's move on and get province-wide legislation with definitions and offenses and all the rest embedded in the Motor Vehicle Act rather than in the regulations. So that's one piece of it. The other piece is then public education on that across the province, by the province. Um, like I said, similar to other, uh, campaigns like anti-smoking and, you know, drugs, what have you, um, it needs the... It needs to be amped up. And I appreciate the local efforts right now, and I, I applaud the delegate, um, for her comments and the work she's done on it and I applaud Councilor Bailey on bringing this forward. Um, it's just one further thing we need to do. And other municipalities have already advocated to the province for this. Um, the City of New Westminster as an example, and they've done it co- uh, coordinated with the, um, New Westminster Police Department, which I appreciate. It's municipal, a little different, but exactly that. Yeah, I- Yeah, Councilor Pratt Yeah, I appreciate that. I just... I guess my confusion is because in the resolution that was passed from the LMLGA that will be going to UBCM for the entire province and the, the municipalities that are a part of UBCM, uh, it is calling specifically for establishment of province-wide regulations as well as, as education programs. So I, I worry about the nature of, of disjointed advocacy and not being able to actually go through the proper mechanism. But I appreciate the intent, um, and, uh, yeah. Thank you. All right. Any other discussion on the amendment? Being none, call the question on the amendment. Now it carries with Councilor Ferguson, Councilor Rint, Mayor Woodward opposed, back to the main motion as amended. Is there anything else on the main motion as amended? Ms. Power, if you could please bring that down again. Yeah. Great. Is there anything else? Nope. Seeing none, call the question on P4 as amended. Now it carries unanimously. Ms. Power, I have one other business item, if you could please bring that up. So I'll move that, seconded by Councilor Rint. This is to, uh, start the restoration works for the damage caused by the fire at Aldergrove Athletic Work- Athletic Park. Is there any other questions or discussion on this? All right. Seeing none, any other questions or need more time? No? So now I'll call the question on that item. That carries unanimously. So Councilor Richter, other business. Um, yes, uh, it came to my attention this week earlier that, um, there was a report that went to the metro board, I believe on April 24th, 2026, with regards to the Fraser Highway Employment Lands Area being designated a special study area. Uh, so I went and I looked up that report and it- Councilor Richter, I'm going to just ask Ms. Power again to please take down the previous motion. Yeah. And that particular meeting date- Move that. ... was actually, um, it was the April 24th, but it had originally come through the Metro Committee system on April 2nd to the Regional Planning Committee, where there was a, a fairly detailed, like a 21-page detailed report-... about these special study areas. Anyhow, in the course of reading that report, it looks like, uh, Langley Township identified the Fraser Highway employment lands, uh, as a potential study area where significant local planning is already completed, and requested that the area be brought forward for regional consideration. Uh, and that's fine, uh, but it also says, "The township is proposing the removal of two existing special study areas." Uh, these are in recommendations A through G, plus there's a map one on... I forget what page it is here. Looks like it's probably about page five. Oh, no, page six. And I don't recall council ever passing a resolution to remove those two special study areas in order to get this one special study area. Um, maybe I missed that meeting. I also don't recall council ever passing an endorsement to make the Fraser Highway employment lands as a special study area. So, I was wondering if staff could clarify that for me, and the other thing is that it says that written feedback is still being accepted until June 2nd. So, we essentially have only one more council meeting, uh, to discuss the special study area and pass a council resolution. Or s- was staff planning to do that on, at the May 25th meeting? Uh, through your Worship to Councilor Richards, it's, w- staff would have to review that in detail to get you some of the specific information, but I do recall, uh, off the top of my head that, uh, council did give us s- specific direction, uh, at previous meetings. I'm just trying to remember. I think it might've been during the endorsement of the Willoughby Transit Corridor a few meetings ago. I believe it was during consideration of the, of the, um, Regional Context Statement. Yes, yes, that's what it was. The Regional Context Statement specific direction was provided with respect to special study areas. There's, uh, for Fraser Highway and, uh, um, the existing study areas, I believe, in Milner, and there's another s- study area. Okay. Uh, the feedback that metro's requesting is from the public, not the Township of Langley, so, uh, Township of Langley, uh, provided direction via council, and staff provided the information they've requested. Well, okay, except that, did council provide direction to eliminate two special study areas? 'Cause I don't remember that as part of any direction that was given by council resolution to staff. Yeah, it was. Okay. So, staff can follow up and get that to you. Well, I would still like then to put forward a notice of motion that we request, uh, staff presentation at an open council meeting on the elimination of these two SSAs in favor of creation of one larger SSA. Uh, and that, uh, this be done at the May 2nd meeting, or the May 25th meeting. Make that motion if you wish. The, the item's been considered and approved by council, however. So, you moved, you moved the motion- Uh, what the Metro report says, "We're the only jurisdiction-" ... continually cut me off. If I could please answer your question. Could I proceed? Uh, Mr. Mayor, I think it's not me cutting you off, but go ahead. Can I proceed? Is it okay for me to proceed? No, you're the chair. Okay. So, the process was, when the terms of reference, and I believe the city, um, not just terms of reference, but to the Regional Context Statement item, was considered that this direction was given to staff. So, I think the appropriate process here would be for you to move reconsideration of that direction that's already been given to staff. A presentation on the decision of council, the time would've been when it was considered by council. (laughs) All right. I'll put a motion to reconsider- Okay. ... that whole decision to remove two SSAs in favor of one SSA, and I'd like it to have a staff presentation on it at the May 25th meeting- If you would like a pres- ... before the reconsideration motion. Yeah. If you would like a presentation on that item that would prob- for the next meeting, I think you have to make that motion now. Okay. I'll make that motion now. So, can you be, can you make it clear what the motion is, though, please? I make a motion that staff provide a presentation on the SSA areas in the township that have been eliminated in favor of the Fraser, uh, Highway Employment Lands SSA area, and that council consider, or that reconsideration be cons- be brought forward after that presentation. And I'll ask the clerk, if I can, if the wording is accurate or not. (papers rustle)Uh, the issue we have currently, through Your Worship to Councilor Richter, is if there's a reconsideration motion, we need a specific motion for reconsideration of the specific item that's being reconsidered to then put that on the agenda for the next meeting. Yes, and I will put that on the agenda for the next meeting before the deadline. I'm, I'm not even sure what motion it was part of, 'cause I don't recall eliminating two SSAs. I think the problem, the challenge was that the motion you moved included, I believe, the discussion, the contemplation of reconsideration. So, it would have to be done maybe by two separate processes if you- Okay, so let's just have one motion now for a presentation at the May 25th meeting. If you could please clarify what you're, what presentation you're looking for. So, if you could put that- On why we're eliminating two SSAs. If you could move a motion that can be done- Okay. ... permitted and seconded, please. I'm giving notice of notices of motion. How's that? If you were to move a notice of motion to have a presentation on the 25th that, that would mean that the presentation would be in the, in June, past the deadline of Metro Vancouver. Are you saying that I can do a motion to have a presentation on May 25th? I think that I, I've said that that... If, if you wish it to be on the 25th, that would be a time-sensitive item and I would take that motion, but I just need you to be clear- Okay. ... on what you're looking- Then, uh, that's my motion- Councilor Richter, would you like to please finish talking before you start talking over me. I'm trying to be helpful. Can I, can I please proceed? So, I'm looking for a motion that, that can be moved and seconded, and if you could make it clear what you're asking council to provide a presentation for, 'cause it's not clear that... The previous version had all kinds of things and elements in it. If you could make it clear what presentation you're looking for, that, that would be a motion that I think would be in order. Okay. On the... It's a presentation on the SSA areas that were included in the Metro Vancouver report that was adopted on April 24th, 2026. That 21-page report. Mr. Kunert, is that sufficient for, for staff... If were to be approved by council, would that be sufficient direction to prepare a presentation? Mr. Bauer, do you have that motion? Yeah. If... That, that would be sufficient if it's . Right. So, is there, is there a seconder to that? Seconded by Councilor Martins. So, M- Councilor Richter, do you wish to speak further to that? No, I'd like to have a presentation on March, or May 25th. All right. So, for those that may be, I don't know, following along, that, uh, that bylaw's already been granted. I think it's b- it's already been granted t- a full three readings by Metro Vancouver, so it's well advanced in the process, and this was considered by council some time ago. I believe a number of, I think, multiple months. So, certainly remove reconsideration and have the Town of Chippalangley no longer support that, but it's well past, I believe, the point of no return. A presentation, you know, you can simply just go read the reports if you're interested in those reports. Staff can maybe provide those if you can't find them. Uh, this is in regards to special study areas that were part of Metro 2050 that were overlaying agricultural land, reserve land. So, if, uh, four members of this council are in support of reinstituting special study areas over farmland, I look forward to make, them making that motion. Councilor Martins? Thank you. Uh, yeah. The, um, the reason I seconded this motion is, um, I, I actually was wanting to speak to it, um, finding somewhere in the middle here. Um, and I'm wondering if perhaps I could, uh, move an amendment. Um, I'm wondering if maybe we could request a memo from staff, just, like, a refresher on those points you were just saying about when these, uh, motions were... Just, just, I think, to answer those questions, just so there's clarity, um, and that... To be, uh, added to the, uh, ame- next agenda. So, I think, uh, an amendment to change it from presentation to memo would be very substantial and sort of undermine the desire for staff to be at the microphone. So, if this were to not be successful, I would come back to you to accept that as a separate item. Okay. Okay? Yeah. All right. So, is there any other discussion on the desire for a presentation to potentially reinstate special study areas over agricultural farmland, reserve farmland? No? We'll call the question on that request for a presentation. Sorry. I'm gonna call that again. Uh, call that again, please. Yeah. I'm gonna call it again. Sorry about that confusion. That's defeated. Councilor Bailey, Councilor Ferguson, Councilor Kinz, Councilor Martins, Councilor Pratt, Councilor Rent, Councilor Whitmarsh, and Mayor Woodward, opposed. Councilor Martins, is there any other business, but we can, can dispose of this? Councilor Martins, if you wish to, go ahead. Yeah, and I, I, I'm just trying to keep it general. Um, if, um... Move that staff provide a brief memo detailing, um... No, that's... Sorry. Provide a brief menu, me- memo. Uh, it's been a long day. Um, on the special study areas and changes. Um, I don't know. I, I, I don't want to get too into the weeds. I'm just wondering if, just maybe, some, uh, uh, references to reports and that sort of thing... Is there... Is it not just an op- I mean, I... If you wish to move that motion, I'll speak to it in a moment. Is there a seconder to that, a memo on the item? Seconded by Councilor Richter. Wish to speak to it furtherUh, yeah. I just ... It seems to me, um, there, there are some questions that have arisen here at the table, so I just thought perhaps if we can ... And I'm just formalizing it, um, if, as a memo, um, as opposed to individuals, um, using up more staff time in asking the questions and trying to be directed to the correct information. So I was just trying to streamline it. That was all. Is there some reason that you just can't go read the Metro Vancouver report? I, I, I, it, I ... You know what? I just thought maybe a brief memo would be helpful. 'Cause I don't believe, um, I've seen, uh ... I don't think we get the inf- what communications are going to, um, Metro when they do go, so I'm, I'm, we're not, I'm not present there. Um- The only communication I'm aware of is the resolution that was passed by Council. Yeah. Uh, so anyways. Or perhaps the representatives at Metro would, would be willing to, uh, uh ... You know, our representatives at the table would let us know what's going on. That's all. That would be great too, either way. I'm just- Yeah. I think that was done when Council endorsed the motion to proceed with that direction. It was debated and approved, so I- I'm just trying to be helpful. So I would just refer you- (coughs) ... to the Metro Vancouver report. Um, Councilor Richter, go ahead. Uh, yeah. I'm gonna support this idea of a memo, but I had a question, um, that maybe the clerk could answer. Uh, when would we ... Uh, well, or Mr. Kuhner, sorry. When would we get this memo? And second of all, when is the deadline to move reconsideration of a motion for the May 25th meeting? Yeah. So the deadline for moving reconsideration is the same as filing a notice of motion. It would be 12 noon on the prior Wednesday. 'Kay. And then, Mr. Kuhner, on the ... What would be the timeline for this information? I think essentially attaching the Metro Vancouver report. Yes, the memo would ... We ... Staff would anticipate the next meeting, that would be May 25th. All right. Is there any other questions or discussion on that request for a memo to attach the Metro report? No? Call the question on that request. That's defeated. Councilor Bailey, Councilor Ferguson, Councilor Pratt, Councilor Rint, Councilor Whitmarsh, Mayor Woodward, opposed. Is there any other business? No? To ... Okay. So does anybody have any items for closed? Seeing none, do I get a motion to resolve into closed? Moved by Councilor Rint, seconded by Councilor Whitmarsh. Any those in favor? Opposed? Then that's carried. Do I get a motion to terminate? Moved by Councilor Bailey, seconded by Councilor Rint. All those in favor? Opposed? Then that's carried. Great.