... by the end of the year. So, we're gonna work on that. Now, I also wanna talk about something else, and that is the fact that we have a lot of students who are taking our courses and passing them, but then they're not completing the degree. Right? There's a big gap between those who pass the course and those who actually complete the degree. And we wanna make sure that we're getting the maximum amount of value out of our students who are doing the online programs. So, one of the things that we're gonna be working on very closely with our business partners is to make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, one of the things that we're gonna be working on very closely with our business partners is to make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, we're gonna be working on that. We're also gonna be working on making sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, we're gonna be working on that. We're also gonna be working on making sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, we're gonna be working on that. We're also gonna be working on making sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, we're gonna be working on that. We're also gonna be working on making sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, we're gonna be working on that. We're also gonna be working on making sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, we're gonna be working on that. We're also gonna be working on making sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, we're gonna be working on that. We're also gonna be working on making sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, we're gonna be working on that. We're also gonna be working on making sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, we're gonna be working on that. We're also gonna be working on making sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, we're gonna be working on that. We're also gonna be working on making sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, we're gonna be working on that. We're also gonna be working on making sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, we're gonna be working on that. We're also gonna be working on making sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, we're gonna be working on that. We're also gonna be working on making sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, we're gonna be working on that. We're also gonna be working on making sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, we're gonna be working on that. We're also gonna be working on making sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, we're gonna be working on that. We're also gonna be working on making sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, we're gonna be working on that. We're also gonna be working on making sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, we're gonna be working on that. We're also gonna be working on making sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, we're gonna be working on that. We're also gonna be working on making sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, we're gonna be working on that. We're also gonna be working on making sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, we're gonna be working on that. We're also gonna be working on making sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, we're gonna be working on that. We're also gonna be working on making sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, we're gonna be working on that. We're also gonna be working on making sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, we're gonna be working on that. We're also gonna be working on making sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, we're gonna be working on that. We're also gonna be working on making sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, we're gonna be working on that. We're also gonna be working on making sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, we're gonna be working on that. We're also gonna be working on making sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. We also wanna make sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the program, but also so that they can still get their degree. So, we're gonna be working on that. We're also gonna be working on making sure that we have a program that's flexible enough so that people can work their regular jobs and still be able to complete the programAll right. Good afternoon, everyone. We'll call the regular meeting of the Township Council for Monday, July 13th to order. Of course, I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples and, in particular, acknowledge our valued relationships with the Katzie, Kwantlen, Matsquet, and Semiahmoo First Nations. Uh, with that, can I get a motion to adopt the agenda, please? So moved. Moved by Councilor Ferguson, seconded by Councilor Wrinton. Any discussion? Seeing none. I'll call the question on A1. That carries unanimously. Your motion to adopt the regular council meeting minutes from June 29th, moved by Councilor Wrinton, seconded by Councilor Bailey. Any discussion on B1? Seeing none. I'll call the question on B1. That carries unanimously. Here we have, uh, some, uh, four delegations today. We'll start with the first one. Laurel Battistel, please come forward. Great, thanks for coming, and, uh, go ahead. Thank you. So my name is Laurel Battistel, and I've been living, working, and raising my family in the township of Langley for the last 25 years, and I'm speaking about my concerns with the commercial vehicle truck parking on our RU-zoned lands. First, I want to acknowledge the importance of the trucking industry. The truck operators are truly struggling with a lack of proper truck parking for their operations. They're being forced to find their own solutions, which is increasing- w- increasingly to purchase and use small ALR lands. The ALC clearly prohibits this type of use as a non-permitted use of ALR land, as over the long term, it destroys our farmland. Our RU zoning bylaw 2500 allows three commercial vehicles on properties greater than two acres. This is more than Surrey and Abbotsford, and it does not provide enough language that clarifies the boundaries and the restrictions and activities that occur on those properties. Our neighboring communities have bylaws that provide more clarity. Bylaw 2500 was created in 1987, and it's outdated given the frustrations expressed from both the farming community and the truck operators. It needs to be amended. Langley allows more trucks on smaller parcels, which puts a target on each parcel of our ALR lands. The real estate company called BC Farm and Ranch Realty Corp actually advertises our property on many of their postings as a great place to park your rigs. One of my own neighbors, uh, runs refrigeration trucks, which requires the constant running of motors all day and all night, sometimes all weekend long. Uh, refrigeration trucks have to keep contents cool, and when it spans over several days, nobody in our house gets sleep. I did not purchase property in a commercial or an industrial zone, yet it sounds like it most days. Langley has to support the truck operators at the same time as supporting our agriculture, which Langley has become known for. We have to protect the equestrian community, the farm gate sales, the U-pick produce farms, wineries, food production. We can be different and special here in Langley. Development of designated truck parking facilities needs to be a priority. Council should be working on this as a priority and collaborating with our neighboring municipalities and provincial government. We already have the Gloster industrial lands off Highway 1, so expansion with ample truck parking would be the most logical solution from a layperson's standpoint. (laughs) This will likely require a request to remove ALR lands, but it can be in an organized and defined area close to the highway, and not on private lands. Um, I know I'm running out of time. Uh, I would like to see a task force created with public involvement to come up with a solution. The City of Surrey has already done this, so by working with them, we can expedite the process here in Langley to find a solution. Please consider reviewing the City of Surrey and Abbotsford bylaws, and consider updating our bylaws to include clear boundaries and restrictions on activities that align closer with what the ALC wants for these properties. Many of the, uh, the bylaws in Surrey and Abbotsford define things that need to be defined so that we can restrict some of the activities. For example, the refrigeration activity, that's not parking, that's actually running a motor that's interfering with my paramedic son getting up in the morning and trying to function the next day. So I'm really upset about it, and I'm not gonna let this go, and you'll probably see me again and again. All I'm asking for is a review of that bylaw 2500. It's 40 years old now. It makes no sense that we're still running with that, and we absolutely should not be offering more parking than our neighbors in Surrey and Abbotsford. All that does is it, it ensures the destruction of our smaller ALR parcels. That's it. Thank you. I have a question from council. Sorry. Can you walk yes, thank you very much. So the area that you're in- Yes. ... are they the smaller parcels that- Yes, so I'm on a, a very, a smaller, five-acre parcel. We've lived, uh, in the South Langley area the whole time. I watched, uh, Councilor Pratt grow up there. Um, I am concerned because my property is actually a sloped five acres, and it borders the Little Campbell River. Okay. And this property in question is one over from me, basically at the top of that slope. So the fact that all the trees were ripped down, and these trucks have been parked, I actually have photographs of seven different colored cabs operating off that property. They have figured out that you only need to park three vehicles at a time, and then there's nothing that we do about it. So, you know, I can take all the pictures I want, but unless the bylaws actually... ... really explain in detail what these restrictions are. There's nothing, I call bylaws and they say, "Well, they're allowed to have three trucks there." It's like, "Okay, but it's a different three than there were here yesterday." So this is, you know, when you look at Surrey and Abbotsford, they actually say that these trucks have to be owned by the people residing on the property. There's little, there's limits like that that can be introduced. I'm not saying that we have to get rid of these trucks completely because they have nowhere to go. I recognize that. But a lot of work could be done, like Surrey did, to try and designate a specific organized section of land that could go for this purpose, where, you know, they're not parking on private property. Because what's happening is it's a piecemeal breakup of our, of our rural land instead of just having an organized parcel where they can go. So- And the other properties that are around you- Yes. ... uh, roughly- Active farms. ... active, they're all active farms, so there's only- Yeah. ... one property that's causing this. So I can't, I can't, in all honesty, I can't say for sure, right? Yeah. I know that, uh, several of our neighbors have goats and, and, uh, lambs. That's what they're running with. Um, we ourselves, as a hobby farm, we produce four to five cows. We have chickens and eggs. We grow vegetables on probably (laughs) the most non-viable farmland you could have. So in British Columbia, I, I, I can't buy the argument that we have non-viable land that can just be removed from the ALR. Right. That's not true 'cause at my house, we do it all and we do it on really yucky (laughs) land. So, uh, the surrounding neighbors, um, are, sometimes, uh, some of them are hobby farmers. Some of them are true, like they're industry farmers. They're selling the meat, uh, for, for the public consumption. Um, but it's, it's becoming more and more frequent. As I drive through the area, there's, the land is purchased. The trees are completely cleared. Gravel goes in and then the trucks start cycling through. And if we're not paying attention, I'm not saying that, like, there's a lot of very, very rural-minded truck operators who are doing it the right way, and they are paying huge fees to park in the actual designated commercial truck areas. And that's not really fair that these smaller properties are getting away with running their own side business and offering parking for, for, you know, the local truckers. Mm-hmm. It's just, we have a problem, and I'm not saying that one side should win over the other. It's gonna take a compromise between both sides, but we can still preserve the way L- South Langley and North Langley, all of our ALR lands look. It's, it's just an ongoing problem with a lot of people that I talk to. Yeah. Okay. And my last question is- Mm-hmm. ... have you had an opportunity to put a request for investigation- Yes. ... into township staff? Yes, so I, I did, and, um, I did hold off on that. So I, as a, you know, I like to think that Langley, we're neighbors who try really hard to get along with each other. And so my approach with this property was to write, I've written two letters now- Mm-hmm. ... to them respectfully requesting, you know, just pull the behavior back a bit. Let's meet in the middle somewhere, um, because that's what I think good neighbors do. I understand that someone may need to get in their vehicle and drive to work every day (laughs) and come back and park their truck at the end of the day. That's something a good neighbor can tolerate. But no, no change in behavior has happened, so it was actually just, I think, two weeks ago that I filed an official complaint with both the Township of Langley and the Agriculture Land Commission because I just can't watch it anymore. And when no behavior changes, um, it's a pretty obvious sign that they don't care. Yeah. To me, I take that very personally (laughs) 'cause I tried to meet in the middle, in the middle, right? So these refrigeration trucks will, it's not 24/7 all day, every day. It, it's piecemeal. Like, it's, you know, it'll run usually on a weekend because someone's parking their truck and holding things in a refrigeration truck all weekend long that has to stay cold and frozen. Um, and those motors are, they're a nuisance, and you can't sit out and have your morning coffee anymore, but I'm not on industrial and commercial land. I should not be faced with this, you know? If I was beside a farming community where they've gotta run their tractors, I mean, that's, that would be another noise, but it's a noise you expect to have in the area, and it's for growing food. It's not something that I'm ever gonna be opposed to. Right. Yeah. Well, (clears throat) as a delegation here today- Mm-hmm. ... under our procedure bylaw, the only thing that we can do today is hear you out- Mm-hmm. ... and refer your delegation to staff. And Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to make notice here that I'm, I'd like to make that referral notice to staff to look into this. Thank you. And do I have... Can I do it now, Mr. Mayor, or should I wait and so- No, there's other speakers, so we'll come back. Councilor Whitmarsh, you are next. Go ahead. Yeah, thank you for, uh, coming today. Appreciate you being here and, uh, appreciate you, uh, trying to find a win-win solution- Mm-hmm. ... uh, for this. I think, uh, that would be, uh, critical as we go forward on this type of issue. Um, I just wanted to clarify that I heard, uh, correctly what, what things you're asking for, so I kinda wrote them down. Okay. Uh, one was, um, that you were loo- would like us to look at updating our bylaw, which you said was over 40 years old- Mm-hmm. ... since the last update around- Mm-hmm. ... truck parking. Correct. Now, that's the first. The second was, um, once we do that and maybe even before, but is to have a stronger enforcement of the bylaw and, um, being able to identify situations where people are not following the bylaw. Yes. Is that correct? Mm-hmm. Um, and then the third one I heard was a task force. And I was just wondering around the concept of the task force, if in your mind, that was more related to the bylaw or was that more related to trying to find a long-term solution for truck parking- Yes. ... in the Township of Langley? Long-term solution because that's what the City of Surrey has done. So they've got a full document that's readily available if- ... anybody wanted to consult with them. It would probably expedite the process for Langley. Um, you know, you could move faster, maybe, through the process, but there was a lot of community engagement there, and what came out of that was some truck parking, a truck parking facility that was created that created 150 spots. Again, nowhere near what is required for these truck, these truck operators. So, I do feel for the truck operators. What else are they gonna do if they can't find parking anywhere? I, I get that. But if a taskforce would be specifically to come up with a middle ground solution, and with most of our property in the township in ALR, it... unfortunately, it would require pulling some out in order to probably make those spaces. But it, it needs to be in an organized way, where there's a designated spot because what's happening is it's just getting torn up in little spots all over the place. There's no... there's no organization to this. There's no regulations. There's no, uh, oversight of any kind, really. You know, when I, when I called the township of Langley to talk to them about the complaint, m- their response was, "Well, there's nothing we can do if all they have is three trucks parked there." Well, they're cycling seven different trucks through there, but they're wise enough to keep only three at a time. Do I blame them for that? They don't have space for the seven that are cycling through. So, I- I'm not, I'm not really angry at anybody. I'm just angry that there hasn't been a solution yet for this, that we haven't come together and worked with the prov- the provincial government and our other municipalities to really make an effort to find proper parking for the, for the trucks. It's a valuable industry. I'm... Like, we've got agriculture, which is huge, and we've got the trucking industry, which is huge. Right, right. And they're both equally important, but, you know, we d- we can't just look away anymore- Right. ... 'cause it's causing a lot of damage, and more importantly, it's actually causing damage between relationships in our community (laughs). Langley should be people getting along, compromising, trying to help each other out, and all it's doing is creating tensions between, between groups of people, which is not good. Right, just a f- fin- do, do you happen to know when, um, approximately Surrey did this report in- So, Surrey- ... the taskforce? ... I'm guessing, again, I think it was about 2018, 2019- Okay. ... that they started, uh, looking at this as a... like a... created their taskforce with an agenda, the first steps. You know, there were different stages and steps involved. Um, I don't know exactly when it was concluded. I wanna say 2023, 2024, which is a crazy long period of time to allow it to... That's why I'm saying we need to expedite it. We need to consult with people who have done this before so that we can skip the messy parts and the slow parts and actually come up with a solution. Right, okay. Yeah. That's really great. Okay. Thank you very much. Last one- Thank you. ... just to make sure it's included. Oh, no, it's, it's- Yeah, you were next in line to hear the assistant. I helped her. Oh, okay (laughs). All right, um, yeah, thanks for delegating, and I, I know this is a really huge issue and especially when it affects someone that lives right beside the trucks that are noisy and, and parking. Um, do you know if the property owner... Uh, does he own the trucks, and he just cycles them through, or is the property owner using his property as a, sort of, to, you know, generate revenue for- Yeah, I have... That I have no idea because, I mean, I wouldn't approach, uh, the property because he's got some big, loud dogs (laughs), so it's not... That's why we have to involve bylaws in this, right, to give proper notice, and, you know, to, to actually deal with the issue, and I would, I would assume either he does own them all, and he's desperately trying to follow the rules of only having three at a time on the property while he's trying to make his living. Um, you know, it could be that situation, or it could be that he set up to allow other refrigeration truck companies to park there cheaper- Right. ... than they would have to pay at the commercial, the commercial areas where it's gonna cost more. Ho- how long has the reefer trucks been, sort of, on the property? Is that a new thing now that- So, we, we moved there four years ago. Okay. And everything was fine. We had no, no problems. Uh, the neighbo- the property that sits between us and them, uh, sold, and it was almost immediately upon the sale of that property- It's crazy. ... when that lady moved out, that that neighboring... I don't know why they chose their time. They thought- Yeah. ... maybe it wouldn't get noticed. It was almost immediate. So, two years ago, it started. I sent a letter after about six or seven months 'cause, as a good neighbor, again, you start thinking, "Okay, maybe it's a temporary thing. Maybe, maybe something's happened," and, you know, you don't, you don't jump. I don't jump on, on my neighbors. Yeah. Um, so I sent the first letter one year in, and the second letter was May of this year, and there was no changes. Okay. Interestingly enough, it's been dead quiet there for the last two weeks after I spoke to my MLA, Harmon Bangu. Awesome. And he didn't ask for my exact address, but he did ask approximately where I was located. (laughs) So, I, I don't know if that has anything to do with the truck noise suddenly stopping and not being active at all for the last couple of weeks. Um- Maybe he heard you were delegating (laughs). (laughs) Honestly, I just wanted to add, I think, really, we need our provincial partners to help us with this issue. Absolutely. It's a huge issue- Mm-hmm. ... uh, all across the lower mainland, and we have h- highways and corridors that, you know, we need to get transportation, uh, we need to get thes- these products from, you know, point A to point B, and, um, we n- we definitely t- need help with that from people like Harmon and, and other MLAs, but, um, thanks for delegating, and I'll be supporting, uh, Council Richter's motion. Perfect. Thank you. No smart-Thank you. Um, hi. Good- Hi. ... to see you today. Thank you for coming to delegate. Um, I, I just wanted to reiterate what was said earlier. Uh, I really appreciate that you came here with a problem, but you came with solutions. Mm-hmm. And you've done your research, um, and I think it's excellent. And some ... I, I saw four key takeaways that I think Councilor Whitmarsh has already outlined. Um, and so, I, I, I just wanted to say excellent, well done. I will be supporting Councilor Richter's motion to, uh, defer it to staff for, um, a report and, uh, see what we can accomplish. And I ... Yeah, it is a big problem- Mm-hmm. ... as Councilor Koontz said. So, um, yeah. Well done. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much for your delegation. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. All right, so we're gonna move on. We'll do all the motions at the end, since there's four delegations today, so we'll get those done. Co- Mr. Baines, are you here today? Yeah. Yeah, please come forward. But I, I made a note to whoever wants to move these motions. No problem at all. So Mr. Baines, go ahead. Thank you. Right. Uh, thank you, Mayor, uh, Woodward and respected councilors for giving me the few minutes to present my, um, request. Uh, I own a property in the Glenwood area. Um, it doesn't have an address. It's land only. It's, uh, on the southeast corner of 24 Avenue and 206 Street, um, a couple of blocks away from the elementary school at the corner of 208 and 24. Uh, I purchased that property, um, off a senior couple back in 2017. Um, at that time, there was, or still is, a no-build covenant on the parcel that I bought. Um, I won't go into why that no-build covenant was put on. It was with the previous owner. Um, it was something to do with a subdivision of a larger parcel into smaller ones. Um, but like I said, I bought it in 2017, um, with a plan to either move my family out there ... I live in South Delta. Uh, my parents live a block away from this property on 22nd. Um, but things changed. Our kids are ... I had to put my son through law school, and my daughter's currently in medical school, so our plans were to stay closer to UBC for a while. But what's happened, um ... So I bought it in 2017, in October, um, and with my luck, I think two to three weeks after I bought it, the new Brooks Wood OCP, uh, was adopted. And in that adoption, uh, Glenwood was left out of future development for the time being. Um, as you know, the other three areas have their OCPs. They're moving forward. Um, but Glenwood is like a ... There's no plan for it at the moment. So that's where my property is, um, located. And then, in 2019, um, two years after this new OCP, I thought the best idea would be to move onto this property with my family. Um, I asked at that time, council, uh, to allow me to build a house on it and move on there. And they said okay. I think you guys have a copy of that email from, um ... At that time it was, um, Jack Frose, Mr. Frose and, uh, Mark Backin. So they allowed me to build a home on there and move on, uh, but again, due to certain financial situations at home with the kids going abroad for school, we decided to hold onto it and wait 'til they finish, and then we can decide. So what's happened since then, it's been 10 years. Time flew right by us. Um, the amount of debt on that property has doubled for me. Um, so for me to build a house on it and add more debt to it, it doesn't make sense, so I tried to sell that property, um, uh, to help finance my kids' educations. But both buyers kind of want to build on that property and live on it until some future development does happen in the area. And like I said, Glenwood is, from what I understand, at least seven, eight, maybe even 10 years away of any kind of development. So anyone looking to purchase this land wants to live on it, just like I did. Um, the property has city water on it r- already. It's fully serviced. Uh, it's two blocks away from a, an elementary school. Um, all around it, there's single family ho- ... I'm sorry, it's not a single family. There's roughly SR2 zoning all around it, um, so people are living in the neighborhood, um, on all four sides. So my request, um, is to expand that, um, or remove that no-build covenant so that somebody can live on that property, um, over the next decade or so, um, rather than leaving it empty as it is. 'Cause right now, it's, like I said, a financial hardship for me, and nobody's buying it, saying that, "What are we gonna do with a land that we have no idea about? We'd rather live on it." Um, so that's my request. Uh, like I said, right now, I'm allowed to build on it and move onto it, according to that last email. I haven't got an update from the current council and, and mayor. Um, I did ask, and they told me to bring it on as a delegation today. Um, that's all I have to say. Uh, I think it's in the b- ... I don't really see the reason for the no-build covenant. It's a neighborhood full of families. Um, everyone's living on their property, two and a half acres, they're farming it. My parcel is sitting there, turning into a jungle two blocks away from an elementary school. Um, so that's all I have to present. Um, so my request is to remove the no-build covenant, uh, at least somebody can live on there and I can sell it. Yeah. Do you know what the reason for the no-build covenant w- was for? And you bought it with that on it, right? That's right, yeah. I bought it with the knowledge that it's on there. Um, but like I said, two weeks after I bought it, the OCP changed. It, it, it got passed where they said, "We're gonna leave Glenwood out of it for now. We're gonna focus on the other th-" sorry, three areas. That was a shock to me, because I wasn't planning on holding this that long. Um, so if my memory holds me correct, the No Build Covenant was put on there, um, because the whole corner was a five-acre parcel owned by a senior couple, um, the Crutchleys. They're a pretty long-term family there, and the mister was diagnosed with cancer. So, they owned the five-acre parcel and had an option on that land that we want to, um, subdivide it and sell the home and the two and a half acres somebody and keep three acres for themselves, for their retirement. That 25 acre- sorry, that 25-year period for that piece of paper was about to expire, um, a, a year before... It was, it was in year number 24 when I purchased it. So, they approached the city saying that they, they were relying on this, uh, piece of land as their retirement. Uh, we need to sell it, and the city said, after some debate with them, that, "Okay, we'll divide the two parcels in, in half." The two and a half and the three, and you can sell it to somebody, which that's when I came in. Then I bought that. So that, that... Because at that time, you have to service... With the OCP, you have to service the properties. Although it had water, it didn't have sewer. Okay. So, bringing sewer from 200th Street was about a $2 million cost for those seniors. And so, I think the, the council, the staff at that time were understanding, uh, empathy that this gentleman's, you know, sick, so we'll do what we... And at that time, they slapped on the No Build Covenant. Um, but in my, in my view, being a neighborhood, I don't know the reasoning for that No Build Covenant. Uh, I mean, that- that's how it got put on. Okay. But you, you did buy it with it on it, right? For sure, yes. Okay. But- That's all I wanted to know. Yeah, two weeks after that, the whole OCP changed. OCP changed? Okay. And- And you said it's serviced now? Sorry? It is serviced? It's for... Water's there. City water is there, fully paid for over the last 25 years. Right. Okay. Uh, so a potential, uh, occupant, if someone was to build a home on it, they would have to put a, uh, septic. Yeah. Okay, that's all my questions. Thank you. Okay. All right. Uh, (clears throat) yeah, thank you. Um, so thank you to Councilor, uh, Kunst that got the information about whether it was needing a septic field or not, and, and you verified that it would need a septic field. So, uh, just confirming that your request is to be able to extend the, the grace that was given for you to be able to build a home on there to someone else who buys the property, so they could build a home as well. Otherwise, it's almost impossible for you to sell your land. Is that correct? That's, that's correct. And at the end of the day, it's just being treated like the neighbors are. I mean, everyone's living on their two and a half acres. They're living on there. So, it's not something that's gonna be outside the ordinary. If somebody or myself was to build a home and live on it, we'll just... You can't develop it until there's an NCP or some future plan or some motion by the city. So, it's not... I, I really don't... I'm having a hard time kind of understanding why the No Build Covenant was put on, but I understand why they did it, because the bylaw stated otherwise at that time. Right. Okay, that's, that's helpful. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, I'm just gonna just double check here that, so you, you said you can... I just wanna, 'cause I don't think that's accurate information. So, my understanding is that you are also not able to proceed to construct a building at this time, because the No Build Restrictive Covenant prevents the construction of any structure. Is that correct? Um, if I go by the email that you guys have, which is before you came, uh, from the last council, they already have said to me that you can go ahead and build a home for myself only and live on it and sign some piece of paper that I'll stay on there for five years. This was back in 2019. But I never came across to, to, to exercise that. So, I'm under the assumption that I'm still allowed to, to build on it. But I guess, to make it clear, um, you can confirm that that will still be honored. Um, but I think the bigger picture for me is to have the No Build removed so somebody can occupy that land until, um, the long-term picture of Glenwood is, is straightened out. Right now, I've had it for 10 years thinking it was gonna be two years. It's gonna be another 10, I think, anyways, 'cause the other areas are so... Land development is so slow right now, um, and I can't afford to move on there. I've got two homes in South Delta that I've put on sale. The market's just not really good. Um, even this Langley property, uh, the buyers are getting a good deal, but they, they stop when they say that, "If we can't build a house on it, why would we..." Yeah, so my, my understanding is... I've looked into that email. My understanding is that there- there's no council approval that, uh, that, that substantiates that email. So, I think it was something that needs to get clarified for a council as well as yourself. Okay. And second of all, too, if I recall, the subdivision was approved... Was applied for at that time, and approved under the condition that the second property would not be developed for a second single-family dwelling. So, 'cause subdivisions at that time, uh, were not permitted. So- Right. ... I just wanna be clear that that's the information. The No Build Restrictive Covenant was put on the title as a condition of the subdivision- That's correct. ... to allow the subdivision to proceed. That's right. Right. Councilor Bailey, go ahead. Yeah, and Mr. Baines, I, I see, um, on that email that you've got, uh, a con- uh, condition number four is that, uh, you would have to provide a guarantee and a bond that you would own it and live on it for, uh, seven years. Correct? That's right. And you, you never did that? Well, we never applied for a building permit. I mean, that, that email, the, the stipulations on there were based on the fact that if I had built, that would be one of the requirements. But I never pursued... I never applied for a building permit. To a- And- Yeah, so I think that... ... m- from my understanding, that means that if you build, we give you a building permit, you build a home on there, you have to give us some kind of guarantee you're not going to move for five years, financially, some kind of bond or something. But we never got to that step. Yeah, and the same, uh, you never applied for a septic, uh, septic system also then. At that time, no. That's another provision, right? No. Okay, thank you. Like I said, I had other obligations with my kids that, uh, prevented me from building a house at that time. Okay, thank you. And I think that it'd be good to clarify that that email may have been suggested to you as an option to pursue for council to consider, as opposed to informing you of a council decision. Well, if I look at that email, it kind of s- uh, it says in there that you can go ahead and begin the application process to bui- build a home. Yeah, I think the key words, "begin the application process to be approved by council." Councilor Ferguson. Oh, thank you, m- Mr. Baines, for coming. I do remember you appearing before council, um, in 2019 to discuss this issue. Right. And I know that it was important at the time, b- between yourself and the council that they, to be empathetic of the situation you're in- Mm-hmm. ... and you wanted to build. And I think... I can't see the... I can't th- see the exact minutes. Correct. But I do see the email provided for us today. So number one, I guess it'd be good to get the minutes, but number two, it's important for you to build immediately because I know that at, at that time, you wanted to proceed. Now, seven years is a long time. Mm-hmm. But at the time, the empathy of the council was for you to be helped during that time, not seven years later. And that's the difficulty for us today. But I don't have the minutes in front of me, so I don't know what the vote is on that- Mm-hmm. ... even though there are four important conditions to address for any land order. Yeah, no, I can't, you know, explain the l- last seven years of my life. But as you know, the y- example I gave you, within two weeks, city changed their plan of what they're going to do with this area. And I'm not... You know, that, that's the city's decision. Uh, that's why I'm still holding onto it. Otherwise, it would have been dealt with back then. Um, but I don't see the benefit either of how the city, uh, staff, or yourself, what the benefit to, to the city is that you can't live on your property. Although it's something that was done 10 years ago, what I'm trying to talk about today, like, what benefit is there? There's an elementary school there. There's services on the property, all right? Um, I understand that the last council made that deal because they wanted it to be serviced, but that option's not even available anymore. You can't do nothing to this land until the city decides to do an NCP, which could be 10 years away. So they're telling you you can't live on it either? I think it, it doesn't make sense from the city's perspective. Paying taxes just like everybody else, right? The city water's there. We paid for the water. Water services are right at the property. So what is the benefit? If there was some kind of benefit to the city, um, I would understand it. But there's no benefit to the city. There's nothing really negative of a person living on their property. I think the neighbors would be happy, rather than living next to a jungle. Uh, what's... Th- the biggest thing for me is the elementary school. I don't think it's safe. You know, a, a, a property that someone's living on gives more of a community feeling, right? Okay, ?????? Those are just my arguments, right? I did remember you saying those exact same things seven years ago when it was important for you to build at that time. Yeah, and they, they still are important. Well- Don't get me wrong. They still are important. I, I don't want to interrupt you when you're speaking, but that was important at the time. As I say, seven years later, I don't have the motion in front of me. Mm-hmm. And Mr. Backen is not on staff anymore, so I'd have to double-check with him. But thank you very much for coming today. No problem. Councilor Cumming? Yeah, um, the comment was made earlier, Mr. Baines, that we probably need to refer your delegation today to staff to get clarification on it, because the email that's been included here is quite clear. Council's approval of your request was made subject to the following conditions, um, that the no-build registered on the property be removed if, one, there's a septic system; two, a water supply; home to be situated to fit within a future lot; and confirmation that you would inhabit the property for seven years. So if that was a motion of council, then the corporation is, um... That motion hasn't been rescinded or reversed or revised or removed, so it's still in effect. But I agree that, and I believe it was the mayor that made the comment that we probably do need to refer this to staff now to get clarification on it. So I would support a motion as we can for delegations to refer for- to staff for a follow-up report. Thank you. I appreciate that. All I'm asking is that email, just to have another line on there that any o- any owner of that property can live on it, not just me. 'Cause I can't sell it to, to anybody that no one wants to live on it. Well, I, yeah, and that's part of the clarification that we'd have to seek from staff now, is was it restricted to you or was it restricted to the property? 'Cause if it's on the property, it's the property. It's not you. Mm-hmm. You can still sell the property, but whoever buys it from you has to come in and meet the four conditions. Yeah, um, I'm not sure about that. I, I... My understanding was that that email applies just to me, that I can go through with that, um, and not to a new buyer. So the clarification that I'm looking for is, is this email still valid, and secondly, can we expand it to anybody building a single-family home on there and living on it, not just me? Well, and that's why we need to seek clarification on what the motion actually said back then, 'cause it's clear to me there was a motion passed. Yeah, okay. Back in, looks like 2019. 2019, yeah. Yeah. Thank you.All right, great. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. Right, third delegation is, uh, Ms. Lee, please come forth. You have about five minutes, and thanks again, and, uh, go ahead. Um, thank you for coming, letting me to come in here today. I be,　before I'm asking for to report for my tree penalty, because I cut in, in the event, trees without the permit. And the first thing here, I will say, um, by 2026 January, um, probably about 4th, I'm my husband, we come home then we go to the backyard. We lucky to come to the backyard, because I'm, I'm my husband, we usually out, um, outside walking. We really day to come home. Usually when we home, it's already dark. On the wintertime, we have a really ch- last chance to go to our backyard. By the last day, I don't know why, my husband go to backyard. He saw the falling down trees lying on, on the other trees. They, they lying down probably about 45 degrees, and that is right on top of my house. And I have the rental house, 1,500 square foot on the property. And if my husband is not go to out, go to the backyard, I believe, I cannot stand here to talking with an- anybody else, because the tree is dry falling down on the house. That is a cottonwood. I believe it's this big. We never thinking about we want to cutting that trees. By the, by naturally, the ground is too soft, and the tree roots is all pop out. And that's why that, that cottonwood is falling down on the, the other big tree branch. And we are so lucky the branch is, is, is stop the tree keep on falling down. And finally, I have really emergency to call some tree-cutting company to give me the cut to cutting out that tree, that falling down trees. But when they come in, they tell me, "That tree, that tree size is too big. I need to go to the City, get the tree-cutting permit." So at the next day, probably about 8:30, I already in the City Hall to the Tree Department. I ask him to cutting the... I ask him to have the tree-cutting permit. They give to me that permit, and then they tell me to pay the permit fees. Then I'm got a, I'm got a permit, I go home, I call the company to come cut the trees. They say they cannot do it. It's because the tree is already 45 degrees lying down on the tree branch. They cannot climb up, because that's too danger for them. And also have, the tree is already... Because they have two separate trees. One side is completely rotten. If they climb up, they can be s- like a falling down in somewhere else. So they tell me they need to wait until the ground is harder, the machine can drive in, then they can cut the trees. So I've been sleeping under the trees from January to June, and until the ground is harder, then they can drive in the machine in. But, uh, they, they still keep the schedule back until I and my husband, we finally find out we cannot wait anymore. It's enough. So I go rent a machine, like a dip up machine, by myself. And I and my husband, we just use the machine to cut the tree by ourself. And finally, I'm so angry about it, so that's why I cut two cedar tree right beside the house in five foot from my house. And I also cut in, uh, one rotten cottonwood without the permit. I also cut seven cottonwood right beside me and my hou- my neighbor's house. And why I cut in that seven trees? It's because anyone, any tree, if falling down, either way, it's on my house, all gone, or my neighbor's house, or any of the branch drop, will be right on the kids' swimming pool. The kids is playing all day long in that swimming pool. So this is my reason I'm here, because my guilty is I cut in this 11 trees without the permit, but I also sleep in that lying tree six months for my scare. And also the other things is, when I own this property, it's on 2010. And then the first thing is I want to cut the front yard, probably about 20 trees. That is so ugly and dying. And I went to the department, for Tree Department, I ask him, "Did I need to any permit to cut the big trees?" And then the Tree Department say, "I cannot cut that front trees, because that tree is belong the... It's, it's planting on the City Hall, on the City's property. That is the City's trees. I cannot cut. Only the trees on my property, I don't need to have any of the permit to cut the tree. I can cut any size, any trees." That is on 2010, when I am first have this land. Then, I have no choice, then I discuss, I tell the, um, the department, I say, "Can I, can you please allow me to cut this dying tree, like almost dying? Can you allow me to cut these trees? And I promise I will plant in the tree back. And then you can come to inspect." If I have no plant back, then you can, you can, you can ask me. So I, I guarantee, like, I can sign and guarantee. You like me to cut this fun trees, I will plant him back. But they say, "No, the tree is right on the city's property. I cannot cut." And finally, many years later, um, probably about 2017 or 2016, the trees all die. It's underneath the power line. So I email the city. I say, "This tree is all die. It's underneath the power line. So you guys need to come to remove." And they finally, really quick, they tell me, "The tree is on your property. You don't need to let us know. You can cut whatever you... You need to clean up yourself. That's your tree. It's not city's trees." Okay. And finally, until today, I cut that 11 trees. Then my guilty is I don't have the permit. That I cut the tree first. But on the first l- on the first letter from the city, I know we change the rule. We change the r- tree cutting rule by 2019. That's a city bylaw. But I'm sorry about, I don't know that. Even the tree company tell me, say, "Your tree is oversize. You need to have the permit." I thinking, that permit, I can cut the tree for my property. Okay. Then the first thing I'm coming, I asked them, say, I got a fine. They f- they fine me 5,000 something. I tell them, I say, "Okay." I, I say, "Okay, if I don't have the permit, I cut the trees, I can pay the permit fee because you already allow me to pay the higher, like a higher, higher permit for each trees. But for the penalty," I say, "Can I reprise tree back?" They say, "No." I say, "Why? Let me to reprise tree back." They say, "My property have too many trees. We don't allow you to reprise tree back. Only give us a fine. Only give me a fine." Then I say, "Okay, in this 10 years, in this property, I planting more than 200 trees on my property. I have a 70 red cedar planting on left-hand side, on my right-hand side. Then I have a maple, I have gingo, and that's all oversize of trees. I have magnolia, I have pines on my right-hand side. Then I have, my left-hand side, I have a 110 yew over six foot. Right now, it's over 12 foot. Then I have ten maple on my left-hand side. And I have a, I have two pine on my left-hand side. I have a fruit trees. I have many where in my property is trees and the trees. I only have one driveway. I only have one driveway from my side, from my side of the house to the back. So many where are tree. I still have 200 cottonwood on my backyard. So I mean, I'm here, I asking for, give me the excuse for resolve the permit cutting the trees. I like land. I like trees. So that's why I say, "Give me a chance. Don't give, con- don't give me this much of the fine for first, uh, 49,000 for my fine, for my fine. And I have many of the trees, and you don't allow me to reprise the tree in my property. Why you give me this much of a fine? And in this 10 years, I grow myself this much of the tree. So my guilty is I don't have the permit." Are there other questions? Yes, thank you very much, Ms. Lee- Yes. ... for coming and talking to us and for explaining your situation. Mm-hmm. And on our, um, table today, we got an additional package of information. Yes. I've, I'm thinking this is the same issue as the other people who have spoken to us may have, which is we need to refer this to staff for a report. Hmm. Now, in the information you gave us today, it said, um, you received a tree permit from the city. Mm-hmm. Uh, when did you get the permit and for how many trees? Was it for one tree or was it for more than one tree? Oh, um, for that permit, they write down falling trees. Fallen trees. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So you thought it was for all the fallen trees? I thought it's for all the... I saw that permit, it's for my tree, for the falling tree, for the danger trees. That's my thought. But this is my guilty, because finally, from the first f- first la- uh, first mail I saw, I s- I know we have the change- we have a bylaw change on 2019. Yeah. So- But when... But the permit, did that happen before 2019 or after 2019? After 2019. That wa- that is on 2000... It's on this year, 2026 January. Okay. Yeah. All right. So, um, the bylaw did change in, I- 2019. ... 2019. Yeah. I think it changed again, uh, this term as well. (laughs) Well, so- But '22, yeah. (laughs) Yeah. Well- 2022. (laughs) You know, the, the things here is like a... Why I'm here is because, okay, I buy the land on 2010. Yeah. The first time I already come to ask him, but the bylaw change- I don't know. E- even right now, see the first, the first mail they give me, they tell me, "2019-" Oh, okay. "... we have the city bylaw change." Okay. Okay? And the information here, the second mail they give to me is, the fine is from 2007, that bylaw. So the, the by... The, the fine is they follow the 20- okay. The fine they fine me is they follow bylaw 2007. Mm-hmm. And our bylaw change is on 2019. Okay. And from right now, like you said, probably we have a bylaw change on 2022. Like, i- I'm the owner, I never received the information, and I'm working every day for my daily life. Yeah. I'm not every day by city bylaw. Yeah. W- that's a- (laughs) ... that's fair point. (laughs) Very fair. Wha- wha- I believe, for me, like, I'm busy for my daily life, even I'm home, it's already dark, like I say. That day, I'm, my husband, I don't know why my husband go to the backyard. Otherwise, this already dark. We come home... Like, we working 9:00 to 5:00, and at the wintertime, 5:00, it's already dark. We never come to our backyard. And that day, I don't know why my husband go to the backyard. (laughs) Okay. Maybe he's lucky. (laughs) Okay. Well, I just- Yeah. ... wanted you to know that I, I do think that council should be asking staff to look into this and give us a report back. So, thank you for your time today explaining it. Yeah. Is any other questions? Yeah. Councillor Cummings? Yeah. So how I understand your story is that the first tree fell over from the roots, and was there more than one tree that did that? Or was it- Uh, sorry, again? Was there more than one tree that fell over from the roots? I believe there is a one bigger one. Okay. Only one bigger one. And then, then you were concerned because there was no, um... No one could cut down the other trees, but were you worried that the other trees were also gonna fall over, so you were conc- My concern... Yeah. You were concerned about- My concern is ta- ... more dangerous trees falling on your property or falling on yourself when you're gardening or whatever? Yeah. Yeah. Well, I have a... I have... Because on my file, you also can see, even without the permit- Yeah. ... they still have a, the rotten one. Like, the, the roots is already- Yeah. ... rotten. Like, even... Okay, the... Okay, the... One funny story in here too. Like, I'm keep on waiting until June, until I'm no patient at all. I renting a machine to cut the trees. The one CT of the bylaw from the tree department, the gentleman tell me, uh, someone... Or, or did they tell... Or, he tell me, "I come to city, apply the permit to cut the died trees." I say, "Me? On Janu... On, on June?" He said, "Yes." Because he come on Monday, and then he say, he say that they receive someone to come to try to, try to apply the permit- Yeah. ... for my house number. And I say, "Who apply that?" He said, "Me." My name, my legal name. And he said, "The other, the other two people on the file too, on the a- apply file too." Okay. I tell, I tell the gentleman, I say, "Excuse me, this then is only me and my husband is title on that, and we both is Asian." Yeah. "We both is... Our legal name, the whole street, nobody know my last, my legal name. The whole street, nobody know my husband's legal name. Who can use my name to apply my things?" Right. Okay. And that's why he come to my home on Monday, and then I, I tell hi- I tell him- Yeah. ... I say, "See? Take a look. I cut it without the permit, it's my guilty. But see? This is already rotten." Right, yeah. He said, "No. You cut it, you cut it. You have no permit, you cut it, you cut it." And even have one, is I pick up from somebody's garden for the, um, for the palm trees. I try to save the trees, because I love it. Yeah. Okay. So I, I don't... I'm... I think you told your story, and I think e- oh, you agree that, you know, maybe we can get some more clarity on that. Um, so did you physically, like, use a, um, a, um... What do you guy- call those things? (laughs) (laughs) Thank you. (laughs) A chainsaw? Yourself? Yeah, the chainsaw. Wow, okay. No, my husband. You're a fighter lady. Nu- not me. My husband. (laughs) Okay, okay. My husband cut it. Okay. I'll, I'll just, um, I'll leave it for the rest of Council to- Yeah. ... uh, deliberate that. So, if any issues- All right. We don't have any more questions from Council. Thank you very much. Yeah, thank you so much. Yeah. Yep. Thank you. Fourth delegation is Lina Aziz from the Lower Fraser Floodplains Coalition. All right, thank you for coming here today. Hi, there. You have five minutes, and, uh- Um, do I- ... it's great to get your presentation in advance as well, so, uh- Yes. ... if you wanna bring it up, uh, please go ahead. That's just me here? Cool. Oh. All right. Okay. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Lina Aziz. I'm the Habitat Programs Director at Watershed Watch Salmon Society. We're a salmon conservation charity based in Port Coquitlam, and our work goes where the salmon goes, so we're province-wide. Many years ago, I actually started my career at the Langley Environmental Partner Societies. I have a lot of fun memories of walking the creeks of the township of Langley. So today, I'm speaking as a member of the Lower Fraser Floodplains Coalition. The coalition is a group of organizations, experts, and advocates working toward integrated, fish-friendly, and climate-resilient floodplain management across the lower mainland. Our vision is simple, that the people and the non-human relatives of the low mainland are healthy, safe, and resilient to flooding.I'm here with a request that the Township of Langley join other communities in becoming a signatory to the regional joint statement on action for floodplain resilience in the lower mainland. All right. We actually came together in October 2021, just a few weeks before the, uh, November 21 floods, an atmospheric river that I'm sure many of us remember. But we started, uh, gathering as a region in, in 2022. Uh, we've been convening local government and First Nation leaders and experts from across the region to build the relationships, the knowledge foundation, and momentum needed to ready our region for flood resilience. Over the seven dialogues that we have hosted, themes around coordinated regional actions, sustained funding sources and advocacy to the feds and the province keep coming to the surface, and those seven dialogues are represented by our seven reports that you see there. Something else that has emerged from the regional discussion is that it's time for multi-benefit flight management in the region. We are stuck with an approach to flood control infrastructure that was devel- developed rather hastily in 1948/'49, and that combined with provincial downloading of flood management to local governments leaves us confined to piecemeal approaches. But it doesn't have to be this way. Um, unfortunately, despite the goodwill demonstrated within our region and the good ideas that are out there, we must acknowledge that we are in a crisis situation. Flood risks are escalating. In the low mainland alone, we have lived through major events (clears throat) in '21, '24 and '25. Aging infrastructure, development in floodplains and a changing climate are all converging. Um, I also wanna note that the BC flood strategy was released back in 2024, but it has $0 to its implementation. So, that's something that we are advocating for as well. Um, the flood resilience is not simply discretionary spending. It is prudent financial management. Every time we kick the can down the road, we are gambling with the lives, the homes, food security, infrastructure and ecosystems of the lower mainland. In fact, a single major flood in the region could wipe out over $350 billion in economic value. The Close to Home report by the Canadian Climate Institute makes clear that BC will be the province hit hardest by escalating flood and wildfire-related disaster costs. And yet we continue to build in high-risk zones, locking in future losses. Of note, there has been no significant federal or provincial investments in flood safety in our region since the Fraser River Flood Control Program ended in 1995. It ran for 20 years, 1975 to '95. Okay, but we... There are opportunities ahead of us. The federal government has a clear interest in a resilient Low Fraser, as mentioned in recent announcements. It's an opportunity to channel investments that deliver regional solutions that work with nature and the economy. It's worth noting that the 150 to $164-ish million awarded through DMAP, the Disaster Mitigation... DMAP, no, I forget what it stands for, um, Adaptation Fund, has been scattered amongst individual projects without any coordinated regional program in place. And that is why it l- it's... It keeps our ris-... Our region... Uh, it doesn't make our region flood resilient. A real investment program means sequencing the right tools in the right order, build local capacity, fund applied research, create jobs and prioritize the most vulnerable communities and areas of our region first. The Fraser River Flood Control Program was that kind of program. It was a model. So, that brings me to why I'm here today, the joint statement. The aim is to express a unified regional voice across local governments and First Nations and support advocacy to federal and provincial governments for stable, long-term investments in flood resilience that protects people, communities and ecosystems fl- from flood risk. It is an opportunity for the city as leaders to send a clear message to Ottawa and Victoria letting them know that we are ready to work together as a region to build flood resilience for our communities. We know what we need, and federal and provincial governments must step up to protect this region of national significance with a program that reflects the magnitude of the task at hand. So, the calls on the joint statement are for a dedicated long-term resilience program for the region, stable committed funding, not piecemeal, not project by project, regional coordination, investment in critical infrastructure, the f-... And the use of the full flood redu- risk reduction toolbox, and capacity to support local governments and First Nations leadership. So, in... Um, m- on March 29th, we took this ask to Metro Vancouver's board of directors, um, where they endorsed the joint statement. Um, it was encouraging to hear the, the board spe- um, members of the board speak to the importance of... In the region of calling on... Uh, for the federal and provincial governments to step up and sustain floodplain resilience. Since then, we have also presented to the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District, and they've given us their endorsement. The City of Port Coquitlam and the City of Delta as well. As, uh, you can see here, uh, just last week, I presented to Coquitlam, uh, Maple Ridge and, um, and... Uh, didn't sp- present to Vancouver, but they did, via email say they'd be sending us a letter of support. So we're awaiting, um, endorsement from those three municipalities. We are also presenting later this month to Metro Vancouver Regional District and as you can see, there's a list of, uh, some of the other communities we are eh- uh, presenting to, taking delegations forward. All right. Oop. So, I can start to summarize here. Uh, we are, uh, calling on the provincial and federal governments to recognize that collaboration, not competition, for piecemeal funding is the foundation for resilience in the region, and that enabling First Nations and local governments to work together to meet responsibilities to the communities that flow from title and rights and jurisdiction is part of that foundation. And we call on them to develop a f- sustained, long-term investment program for the Lower Fraser adequate to support collaborative work across federal, provincial, and local governments, First Nations, and the private sector to achieve regional floodplain resilience that works with nature, not against us. We've seen time and again that no community can do this alone. And so, we hope that, uh, you join us, um, in this cause. Thank you. Mr. Richardson. Oh, yes. T- thank you, Farmina, for coming. And it's almost nice to know that you worked with LEPS for a while- Yes. ... and see you in person moving forward. I have ac- met you before, and I've also... I think in the picture, I think, there's a... myself and, um, Council Bailey were at, uh, one of your presentations- Mm-hmm. ... with Lower Mainland, uh, flood, floodplain resilience. And, and I did wanna say to you, um, Mr. Mayor, I do have a motion later on when the time comes. The joint statement you just read, is that the correct wording in case we'd have a motion from council, the one you just put on your screen? I think it's... c- can you go back to it, or can the staff go back to it? This one? Is this the joint statement that- Well, it's a summary of what we're asking for- Okay. ... in the joint statement. So, what we- You should have received a package. Mm-hmm. With the joint statement. I've got a package here- Yes, okay. ... right here, and, um, I can look for the staff to look at it, um, to get the ex- exact wording. Um, you went to Metro Vancouver, and you got their support, and you've been to a number of other communities, and you're going around. I know, certainly, flooding in the area, in the province, certainly since our atmospheric river was very, very, uh, you know, challenging for the community, and I know that Abbotsford and others have been asking for money. I think working with ourselves and I- Indigenous Relations Committee, and also your bands and other people as well, that it's important to move forward. So, Mr. Mayor, I do have something when you've had other speakers as well. So, thank you for coming. Thank you. Councilor Spies. Yeah. Thanks for coming. Um, in one of your slides, it mentions the State of Washington and the Netherlands examples demonstrate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hybrid regional-scale approaches that combine planning, infrastructure, and ecosystem restoration. Um, have, have you had conversations with the State of Washington, especial- and are, are they willing to come to the table because isn't it the Nooksack that... I've heard that they don't really wanna do anything about, about that portion, and it's really Abbotsford's problem? (laughs) But maybe I got that wrong. There's... it's been... it's moving. It's... there's a lot of things happening. Actually, um, there's a, there's a... what do you call them? A program, I guess, a program of funding in Washington state called Floodplains by Design. Mm-hmm. And our work through the Lower Fraser Floodplains Coalition is l- loosely based on that. They've actually been mentors supporting us. They have an excellent program in Washington state where they, um, they get this immense amount of funding in the multimillion d- d- dollar budgets, uh, from the province and a little bit from, from... sorry, from the state, and a little bit from the federal government as well, that then they can use to support, um, I guess they call them, um, uh, counties? Mm-hmm. At the county level in Washington state. Uh, w- our coalition has not directly been in conversation with, uh, people in Whatcom County about what's going on there, so no, I couldn't say we have been doing it, but I understand that the intergovernmental... like, there is... there are conversations going on. I was at the Abbotsford... so the Sumas River Watershed, um, they have a massive plan they've been working on the last few years, and I was at their open house a couple of weeks ago, and people had come up from Wat- Whatcom County to under... learn what, uh, what Abbotsford and the province were planning to d- are, are planning to do. They wanted to see what the plans were. Okay. And during those conversations, I learned that, uh, they are actually planning in Whatcom County to, uh, expand some, uh, pressure points along their river over there so that water wouldn't be diverted almost immediately across the border. Right. So I know there's some work happening. Okay. I know there's conversation going on. Okay. Thank you. Yes. So I've attended, uh, a few of the... your presentations, and, uh, also at Metro, uh, dealing with this, and I, I, I really worry, uh, that you don't mention specifically negotiations with Whatcom County and, uh, the State of Washington, uh, because that... every time, uh, we discuss this subject, it comes up that the Nooksack has not been controlled, and, uh, there is no, uh, ongoing discussions about that kind of stuff. And without, uh, dealing with the Nooksack, uh, the... especially the Upper Fraser Valley there is very vulnerable, and you won't be able to stop it. So, why have you not mentioned, uh, specifically, uh, in this statement dealing with either the, uh, Whatcom County or the State of Washington? Because, um, time after time, I'm hearing that without, uh, them improving the situation on the Nooksack, uh, we are still vuln- uh, vulnerable. Mm-hmm. A couple of different reasons. So the, the wording of the joint statement has come after multiple rounds of, uh, feedback and review from local government and First Nations leadership, and we have not been hearing that as something that's, um, of high... enough of a priority putting to this joint statement. There is, as I mentioned earlier, the, the tripartite and... don't know what it's called when it's four different groups, er, parties, uh, working on the inter- uh, on the trans-boundary work already, so that's happening b- between the feds, the province, uh, the First Nations of, uh, in the Sumas area, as well as the cities of Abbotsford and Chilliwack. So, those conversations are already happening. So, we wanna look at this as a r- at, at a larger region. We're looking at this roughly from Hope to the Salish Sea, up to... as far as the Squamish/Lillooet Regional District. So our, our scope is different, and what we're asking for is directed to the province and the feds, and less so to what's going on across the border. ... those conversations- Yes, I would- ... are happening. I would be a little more comfortable if you would, maybe even when you're talking about the federal government- Mm-hmm. ... uh, say that, include that you would engage, uh, across the border at- Yeah. ... uh, uh, state, county, and, uh, federal governments, but- So the, the, this joint- this, uh, I mean, that's a really valid point, and I think we- I can take that back to my colleagues and see what we can do. But if we're making any change to the, changes to the statement now, it means going back to ... It means going back to get, seek endorsement again from everybody else. They all have to understand what that looks like moving forward. Okay, thank you very much. Yeah, thank you. Counselor Braybrook. Hey, are you familiar with the 2023 study from UBC on, um, I think it was, uh, clear cutting, like the, the tremendous runoff that is from clear cutting because the logging industry, I guess, they're not- Mm-hmm. ... planting enough trees or- Yeah, pro- from Professor Yunus Aliyillah at UBC? I believe so. It's been a minute since I read it. Yeah, I think he studied the, uh, the watershed up in the, um, in the... Yes. Yeah, some of the rivers are- Yeah. ... in, uh, high-rainy seasons, they go up by 30, 38% up to 50% increase in water flow. Mm-hmm. Um... Yes. We're aware that, um, everything that happens downstream is impacted by what goes on upstream. So definitely, when we have flooding, and if we're having, uh, uh... Our upper, upper watersheds are clear-cut, that's, we, we know, we understand that that's gonna make a huge impact in the Lower Fraser. What we're asking for is, how do we make our communities resilient to all of that? So, we know that there are, there are already provincial logging conversations happening. We understand that. We, we're looking at, like, if you look at, um, the Chilliwack, up the upper wash, the Chilliwack, there's a lot of disruption up there that's now impacting the l- like, downstream. So, how do we make sure that our downstream communities are working together and putting in the right kind of infrastructure to make sure we can bounce back quicker and build back better after, um, these, these massive- Yeah, well after living- ... these massive floods. ... living through it, um- Yeah. ... with our Abbotsford location going through the flood and everything was pretty much lost, uh, it seems like every time there's a election cycle, um, every level seems to be beating, beating a drum saying, "Yeah, we gotta do something." But then when it actually time to man up and fork out some money for new pump stations or dredging or what, uh, what have you, they, uh, fall short and you, uh, they disappear essentially. So, I would like to see something happen, and talks with the, our neighboring, uh, US, uh, neighbors here would be a big help, because that was one of the main reasons why, uh, the dikes burst, is the, uh, flow-back from our US neighbors. Mm-hmm. I live in, um, the city of Port Coquitlam, and in the '21 atmospheric river, we lost a couple of people because, not because of what happened in Sumas, but because we had incredibly high water levels that the Coquitlam River kind of overflowed and people got washed away. So, you know, that's right, now '21 in 2024. So yes, what you're talking about in terms of the trans-boundary is important, but we also have, in our local communities, areas that are impacted by massive floods, uh, be it atmo- like, overland flooding, or rivers o- o- overflowing their banks that are putting all of us at risk. We've continued to develop and build in a way in, into the floodplain so much so that now we're kind of locked in, and we need to figure out how to unwind that a little bit. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Counselor Pearson, did you wish to ask a question? Yes, one last question before I go to, uh, Linnéa. Uh, you've, you've got two, um, requests here. The first one is to call on both the federal and provincial governments both times, one to develop, one starts off to develop a sustained long-term investment program, and the other one s- uh, starts off with, recognize the Lower Frase- Fraser's resilience as a matter. Those are two separa- separate, uh, requests. Sorry, I am, recognize, uh, the l- the col- collaboration, not competition. Is this what you mean, this one? Uh, you... We can't see it from here. That's the, that's the one. The, it's the short one. There's other ones, quite long. Um, uh... The short one. That can develop an issue. Which- The short one. Okay, I can do the short one as well. Yep, that's the one. Okay. Um, it, well, yes, we're calling on, on the local governments. Again, I'm just summarizing the largest statement. I don't have the entire statement in the pr- Okay, well, I can certainly do the shorter one, and we can work on that- Okay, yeah. ... with the staff. Yeah. Oh, here it is. That's right. Yes. Sorry, I should have just kept clicking. That's the one, your one? That is the one, yeah. That is the one. Well, maybe we can, if you may, may- maybe we can leave this up through the clerk, and if we get to a motion, Mr. Mayor, that would work. Yeah, there's no other speakers, so... Yeah. Yeah, there's no other speakers. Sounds like Councilor Pearson wants to get this done for you. So, uh, really appreciate the delegation today. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. So Councilor Pearson, just over to you, go ahead. I would so move, Mr. Mayor, that this particular item being approved by staff and supported by staff and council. Is there a seconder of that? Seconded by Councilor Pratt. Do you wish to speak to it? Self-explanatory. She spoke along. Excellent presentation. Councilor Richardson? Yeah, I'm gonna support this motion because I sat on the very first, um, flood resilience committee created by Metro. And one of the things that came very clear to us during that first committee's tenure- ... Was the need to pull all the partners in the lower mainland of BC together in order that we could lobby collectively, both Ottawa and Victoria. And it's Ottawa and Victoria who need to start going and talking south of the border. So I'm very much in support of this. I think we should sign on. Uh, we need the coalition in order to make the political dialogues at higher levels of government happen. So thank you for your delegation. Counselor Pratt. Yeah, thank you, Worship, and thank you very much for the delegation. Uh, I live in a, an apartment that's a few thousand meters from the Nicomekl River, and- and both atmospheric rivers, the parkade completely flooded, so this being a significant issue, anything that our municipality can do help, and obviously it's a long road ahead, uh, it's gonna be a lot of work, but really pleased to second this motion from Counselor Ferguson. And again, thank you for the presentation. Mr. Newman? Yeah, I'm gonna support this motion, that- that was the one thing that I wanna see if we can make sure that, uh, keeps coming up more and more is, uh, when you're dealing with, uh- uh, floods, you also have to mention, uh, the issue of, uh, problems dealing with dredging because as the floods get greater, uh, as we know in, uh, just off McMillan Island, uh, we have buildup of the silt that is coming as a result of those floods. So, um, I- I really believe that when we're dealing with flood resiliency, we also have to stay on, uh, dredging as does, uh, Steveston, as does Maple Ridge, and, uh, as do other communities, uh, and we're- we're feeling the- the very severe effects of what these floods are doing to, uh, our interior waterways, uh, r- right down to affecting the- the Indigenous, uh, folks on McMillan Island, uh, can't even park their boats anymore. No, I agree as well, and I thank you for, um, advocating for, you know, uh, this because, um, we need to make sure that Whatcom County comes to the table. And if our, um, federal and, um, provincial, um, you know, representatives can help make that happen, then that's gonna make a really big difference. So yeah, I'll be supporting it. Thank you. All right, seeing no discussion, I'll call the question on approval of the item requested by C4. That carries unanimously. Counselor McKercher, I believe you had a couple questions? Um, yes, Mr. Mayor, and if it's okay, I'd like to move all three of the previous delegations, C1, C2, or, yeah, C1, C2, and C3. Do you want to do each one individually? You want to do each one individually? That's correct. Okay. I'd like to start with the first delegation, C1, uh, by Ms. Battistel, uh, with regards to truck parking. I think, uh, a lot of comments were made, uh, uh, through the questions, or a lot of good information (laughs) was revealed in both the delegation as well as the questions from council, so I'd like to refer that to staff for a report. And I'm wondering, under the procedure bylaw, if I can request that we get a report back on that from staff for the July 29th meeting simply because that's the last scheduled meeting for this particular council term. I'll second that, Ms. Bauer. Um, Mr. Kercher, do you have any, do you have any challenges with that timeline for this one? To your worship- Lay out some options for counsel maybe? Ye- yes, so the... It depends on the complexity and the depth of the report, and the, um, ability for the departments to concur. Uh, just on a preliminary review of it, it would require not only, uh, community planning and policy, but, uh, bylaw enforcement as well, and potentially engineering. Um, uh, th- th- and with other competing priorities, to be frank, it- it may not be achievable to have a rep- in-depth report with respect to truck parking, a bylaw review, looking at the City of Surrey's strategy and seeing what strategy might be applicable to the Township of Langley. Counselor McKercher, go ahead. Um, okay, so if we don't put a timeline on it, it won't be this council that deals with it. It won't be coming back to a council to deal with until after, what's the inaugural date, November 2nd of this year? Th- th- that is correct. Okay, well, uh, some of those will have to carry over, like a review of the bylaw, and an update of the bylaw, and the creation of a task force, but I think the immediate concern in that particular neighborhood could be undertaken (coughs) by staff, at least on a preliminary basis, uh, for the next meeting. Is it possible to work that into the wording of the motion? Uh, Mr. Kercher, what I might suggest is best efforts, if you could lay out, I guess, the- some options for council to endorse to come back in November, and potentially one of them is to get an update on the, uh, the item referred to in regards to the bylaw enforcement. But again, it, the deadline would be Friday, and concurrence challenges, so it, I- I understand the issues, and is wh- what would be achievable by the next meeting. Uh, to Your Worship, we- we could potentially do, um, either a report or a high-level memo just to kind of outline the current status and potential options that staff may be able to explore, um, a- and provide more in-depth analysis and review later on in the year. Okay. All right. Counselor Pratt?Yeah, thank you, re- uh, your Worship. Uh, my recollection, uh, I believe it was April of 2024 that Council passed a motion, uh, exploring the- the potential addition for more truck parking across the township, and there were three items in that motion. One was to increase the quantity of truck parking on non-ALR lands. One was to do a review of the City of Surrey's parking strategy, and if there were any applicable policies or bylaws that might be applied in the township. And then, the third one was what ended up being the Gloucester Commercial Truck Pilot Project, which we endorsed in, I believe, June or December of that year. I can't remember which one. So potentially, at the end of this term in July, could we maybe have a- a item for information detailing what staff looked at there and whether or not ... 'Cause I know there was a letter that was intended to be sent to the ministry as well, asking for greater enforcement and things like that. Can we maybe potentially get an update on that as part of this? Uh, through your Worship to Councilor Per-... I- I believe that was the intent of my previous answer, was to provide a- a status update on what's been done to date and what potential options there would be available to Council. Awesome. Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor, just point of clarification here. Is there a seconder to my motion to... I guess it's going to read now, defer the delegation, delegation C1 to staff for a preliminary report. Yeah, I second it. ... by July 2nd- Mm-hmm. ... or by July 29th- Yep, 22nd. ... 27th, sorry. All right. So that'll call the question on referral of C1. (pause) That carries unanimously. Councilor Richter, C2? Um, yes, I'd like to refer item C2, the delegation by Mr. Baines, um, to staff, uh, for a clarification report. Sure. I guess I'd have to ask staff if they'd be able to go back and clarify the bylaw or the motion of council that was cited in the materials provided to council dating back to 2019. Is that feasible to get it done for the next meeting? Through your Worship to Councilor Richter- (sighs) ... uh, with respect to this specific item, uh, staff would be of the position that, eh, it be referred to staff for an item for information, and I believe staff would be able to provide the minutes, um, and the restrictive covenant that, uh, was discussed to council by the next meeting. Okay. Then that's na-... More f-... Oh, am I allowed to make- Yeah, move it ahead. ... a move to... Yeah, okay, that's the motion I'll make then. Does anybody wish to second that? Second. Yeah, seconded by Councilor Cummings. Yeah, go ahead. Anything else, Councilor Richter, on that? No, I think we covered it, but I think the big thing is, is that bylaw still... or is that motion of council still in effect? And does it attach to the property or to the owner? Uh, being Mr. Baines, it's clear to me, felt that it was only him that could do that. I'm looking to see, well, if it's with the property, he should still be able to sell the property, and the property owner should s-... the next property owner should still be able to function under whatever the resolution was that was passed back in 2019. (coughs) Councilor Beiley? Yeah, some points that, that, um, come up on this. One is, one, a restrictive covenant runs with the title. It doesn't run with the person. Uh, believe it or not, that is my, my training with real estate appraisal. And by changing this res-... uh, this restrictive covenant, um, that is on the property title, uh, what you're gonna do is you're going to significantly change the value of this property. This property was, was bought an-... with this restrictive covenant on it, and by removing it, you will very significantly improve the value of the property. So I have, uh, uh, uh, some, some concerns on this with that, uh, there is no ro-... no, there is no reason a person cannot buy this property with the restrictive covenant still on it. And it would be similar as to how the, um, the presenter, uh, purchased the property. So I think this has to really be taken into account, that, um, changing this restrictive covenant, uh, will very significantly, uh, increase the value of this property. Councilor Whitmar. (clicks tongue) Yeah, thank you, uh, Your Worship. I, I, um, certainly I'll be, uh, supporting, uh, the motion to get a clarifying, uh, report, but I think there is, um, you know, some other ch- challenge to this, um, that would be helpful to know. And maybe that can't be provided in the next four days in a report from staff, but, um, you know, we, w- we have a, a resident who owns a, a property owner who owns a piece of property in Brookswood, uh, has had it for 10 years, and is really un- unable to sell it or very difficult to sell it. Um, his understanding was he could build a home, things changed after he bought it. Now it's difficult to sell. And so, um, the clarification is really helpful and important, but the, the, the challenge still remains. And we as, as a council, had agreed, um, many years ago that we would not move forward with a, an NCP for, uh, the Glenwood, um, a- area. And, and so now, it could be as, as was stated, maybe 10 or 15 years. Who knows? And so, um, it would be nice t- for us to be able to work with the property owner to try and find a, uh- ... helpful solution that both fits for what, uh, fits the re- requirements the council has for the property, but also helps the property owner to, um, navigate this j- challenge of a piece of property that he's un- unable to sell or difficult to sell. So, um, c- certainly I'll support a clarifying report, but I think there's more to it in a way that we as a council can be helpful and try and work with a, a property owner to try and resolve something that might be a 15-year problem, maybe we can help them. Councilor Pratt. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. I just wanted to ask a clarification to staff on the timing of when the Glenwood plan was phased or kind of held in a, in a position where we weren't finalizing the plan compared to the Booth, Wren, and Fernridge neighborhood. Because in my recollection, when we started this term, we were undergoing another process for the Brookside Fernridge OCP, which included all four NPs, and then we finalized in 2024, I believe, three of the four, but not Glenwood. Is that correct, in 2024? Through your worship to Councilor Pratt, I believe specific direction was given in 2023 to update the neighborhood plan specifically for Booth, Fernridge, and Wren. And pursuant to those direction, I believe, fina- um, we did receive, uh, I believe in 2024, final adoption of those neighborhood plan. There was never specific council direction to update the Glenwood neighborhood plan. However, obviously, the community plan in the OCP was updated, um, for the Brookside area. Right, so the Brookside OCP as a whole contained land use designations for the whole area at a high level, but there was no subsequent land use designations at the NP level for Glenwood. Is that correct? Th- that- that's correct. So the... At a OCP level and a community plan level, the land uses were updated specifically for Glenwood. However, at a neighborhood planning level, they were not updated, nor was, uh, direction given by council to update those neighborhood plan. Thank you. Councilor Ferguson? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I'm, I'm not really certain w- how this is going to be helpful, this motion, um. When, when a resident comes before us and asks for, uh, some challenges, we as a council look at that, and, uh, that's what I believe the council that day did a number of years ago. And usually when we ask a citizen to do some things, they immediately go through it, whether it's to put in a septic tank, whether it's to drill a well, whether it's provide and improve their property so they can in- indeed build a house, because you can't even build a house without, uh, those particular items done. I don't know what happened over that seven-year period, but had the applicant, um, under duress, and they explained that at the time, uh, proceeded, then perhaps that person wouldn't be here today. So I'm not sure what's different or new or what we could provide in the future, but, um, I- you know, I guess I would be disappointed that the, uh, resident didn't proceed accordingly. Thank you. Seeing no discussion, we'll call the question on the referral of C2. That's defeated. Councilor Bailey, Councilor Ferguson, Councilor Pratt, Councilor Ritmer, Woodward opposed, Councilor Richter, you had n- no, I think that was it. Did you want to do C3 as well, Councilor Richter? Yep. All right. C3 too. Go ahead. Yeah. I'd like to, um, refer item C3 to staff for a, um, report. Seconded by Councilor Finch for that. And, uh, yes, I mean, it's clear there was a permit issued, uh, and the question becomes, uh, what- how many trees were covered and, um, th- the understanding, so it's gonna require some time for staff, I think, to meet with, uh, the resident in question, who did the delegation, and her husband, and figure it out, and then bring a report back to council. At that point. I'm not sure we can have, with the timelines involved, that we can have a report back, but if we could have even an information item, that would be sufficient. Any other discussion on referral of C3? Seeing none, call the question on that referral. If not carries, Councilor Bailey opposed. All right, we'll move on to item... Reports for council, item E1 is back on the floor, 16th Avenue corridor intersection study, moved by myself, seconded by Councilor Pratt. Is there any discussion on E1? Uh, seeing none, I'm gonna move deferral for one more meeting to July 27th, seconded by Councilor Rin. Any questions or discussion on referral, Councilor Richter? Um, why are we deferring for one more meeting? The- it's the la- it's the last meeting of council, the next meeting of this term. Yeah, I haven't had a chance to meet with staff on it yet. Scheduling issues. All right, so seeing no other discussion, we'll call the question on that deferral. If carries, Councilor Richter, Councilor Whitmarsh opposed, item E2 also deferred back on the floor, moved by myself, seconded by Councilor Pratt. Is there any discussion on E2? Councilor Whitmarsh. Uh, yes, I had, um, questions with regards to, um, it mentions in here to be funded through the unused 2026 budget for social sustainability strategy. I'm wondering, um, my question is, what's- is there- what is the budget that's, um, unused and carried forward, and is it unused because... Uh, we completed the work at, uh, less of a cost than we initially expected, or is it that we have not yet completed the work in this budget year and, uh, and we'll be moving forward later with a need for more money in 2027 for a social sustainability strategy? It's a question through, uh, Your Worship to staff. Uh, through Your Worship to, uh, Councilor Widmarsh, uh, we do already have an existing fund established, which you mentioned is a social sustainability strategy. There's approximately, I believe, $50,000, um, uh, remaining in the fund, and some of the work is still outstanding, and therefore, we are requesting council to carry forward that fund. So, so in, in, in, in future years, we'll, will we have other money for social sustainability? Is that a, a replenished annual budget item for social sustainability strategy? Through Your Worship to Councilor Widmarsh, the, the purpose of the fund would probably be used for training and services. Um, moving forward, we would obviously strategically pursue and leverage any external funding and grants and incentive from other levels of government. Uh, as we are aware, there's several, um, opportunities and avenues available for accessibility goals, so we would be pursuing a lot of grant funding as well for this. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate those questions, but I, I think, uh, yeah, I think I'm, I think I'm satisfied with those answers. So I think, uh, seeing no discussion on E2, so now I'll call the question on E2. That carries unanimously. Item E3, Highway 13, potential pedestrian improvements. I'll move the recommendations. They're seconded, seconded by Councilor Rent. Any discussion on E3? All right, seeing none, I'm gonna move referral back to staff to consult with the Ministry of Transportation on their position on the proposed detailed design, on the proposed conceptual design, seconded by Councilor Pratt. Is there any discussion on that referral? Oops, seeing none, I'll call the question on the referral of E3. That carries. Councilor Richter opposed. Item E4, transportation and mobility strategy. I'll move the recommendation, seconded by Councilor Pratt. Is there any questions or discussion on E4? Councilor Pratt. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. Uh, it's a pretty extensive document, and I just wanna thank staff for all the time and effort that went into making it. I did notice, uh, in two of, or, there, there's a slight inconsistency in map one to two, uh, in regards to the BRT corridor. And I would just have a referral motion once this is all dealt with, if there's no other speakers to- No other speakers, go ahead. Uh, so I would make a referral back to staff, uh, to have alignment between the map one and map two, uh, showing not potential stations, but only the stations that were shown, uh, in the TransLink public engagement process. All right, I'll second that. Yep. Any discussion inside? That's it. All right. Any other discussion on that? Seeing none, I'll call the question on that referral of E4. That carries. Councilor Richter opposed. E5, New Horizons for Seniors program grant application. Moved by Councilor Rent, seconded by Councilor Ferguson. Any discussion on E5? Councilor Widmarsh. Yes, and I thank you. Um, I just was, uh, wondering, question through worship to staff. In the report, it, um, talks about, uh, a tw- this twelve, uh, what the Seniors Come Together project is. Um, talks about it being a 12-month project in there, and in this, in that, in that same paragraph on, uh, I think it's really the first page, second paragraph, first page, it says that this initiative will create a seniors community hub where participants can access recreation opportunities, community meals, educational workshops, social activities, and community outings. Um, I'm wondering what is meant by a senior's community hub, um, and, and how that's linked to the cost. It, it, obviously we're not getting a, a hub like this for $50,000. So is this like an online hub where they can, where seniors can have access to services provided and get online connection to those services? Or is this an actual, meant to be a physical space where participants recreate, have community meals, and so on? I'm trying to understand what that's really meant by that paragraph. Through Your Worship to Councilor Widmarsh, um, the overall purpose of this report is to apply for a grant and to create a program. And, and the intent is essentially that staff are looking at a pilot program that will create, um, that will assist seniors. And where we're looking at creating it is initially is at the Walnut, um, Walnut Grove Community Center. So we would create a program where they can have access to some of the recreation opportunities there, community meals, educational workshop. So it wouldn't be an online, it would be in person, and it'd be specifically at Walnut Grove to start off with as a pilot program. And then as we review it, and if we are successful with a grant and looking forward, then we would look at expanding potentially this program. So the $50,000 is to run the program or to look into whether we can do a program? Uh, through Your Worship to Councilor Widmarsh, what we're estimating is $44,000 to cover, uh, the project cost. So for all components of that, that would be the educational workshop, social activities, community meals, and etcetera. Oh, okay. That seems very good deal. Thank you.Yeah, thank you. Um, my question was similar, but just, um, adding to that. Do we already have, um, programs like this running through the township, anything similar, or is this, uh, the first of its kind? Uh, through your worship to Council Martins, um, not to this extent. There's some, um, that are available, but not to the extent that this is proposing, uh, and specifically oriented towards, uh, seniors. Okay, and this is an initiative of staff? I, I... Or, I'm trying to recall if this was something that came through council that I might have missed. Um, through your worship to Councilor Martins, I believe this is... This grant application was available, and the staff proposing to just apply for this grant application, as, uh, this program would benefit overall some of, uh, the, uh, strategies and policies, um, that we have existing. Thank you. Yeah, I, I appreciate the initiative. Um, I'm surprised by the, the cost factor is lower than I would expect, but that... I'm not gonna complain about that, so thank you. Councilor Bealey? Yeah, I'm glad to see this. Uh, at some of the tables that I, uh, I attend, uh, increasingly, the issue of, uh, s- special social, uh, social isolation and participation, uh, regarding seniors is, uh, becoming a, a greater concern all the time, especially, uh, the seniors actually older than myself, especially have, uh, problems, uh, dealing with, uh, online stuff and that. So anything that can, uh, that can increase, uh, the ability of seniors to participate in what's going on, uh, it's greatly needed. Councilor Whitmar. S- yeah, thank you. Sorry, just an- another question. Um, a- any event that, um, that we're not successful in the grant application, uh, is there, uh, still an intention to move forward, or does that put the program on hold? Um, through your worship to Councilor Whitmar, if we're not successful in the grant, uh, application, we'll review it and see if we're able to still proceed with the program with the current operational budget. If not, we might... Uh, we would then look at options of potentially including it in the budget process. Um, a- and, uh, with respect to the cost, um, there's also a lot of volunteers that would be... Who are seeking to support the project, hence why, uh, the, the cost is lower than anticipated. But, uh, in the event we're not successful, we'll look at some options to potentially still, uh, see if we're able to implement the pilot program. Okay, great news. Thank you. Mr. Herdson. Uh, yeah, thank you. I know that Mr. Dents has left the room, but I'm not sure, Mr. Cooner, if you'll be... Able to answer this. I know that we are working on a questionnaire for the Langley seniors for the, the township of Langley, and also working with, uh, uh, the Langley Sery- Seniors Resources Center and oth- and other groups and organization. And as, um, Councilor Bealey's indicated, the social isolat- social isolation, social participation, and meaningful opportunities for older adults is something that we in the township are working on already. This is something that we c- continue with, and, uh, I know it's important, um, to... Actually for the Seniors Committee and also for the staff involved to proceed with this, as it piggybacks on the study that we're already doing. I just... A comment, Mr. Mayor. All right, seeing no discussion, I'll move to question 95. Call the question. That carries unanimously. Item E6, just direct council's attention, there are one, two, three, four, five separate paragraphs in the resolution. I'm gonna move it amended without the last one, Ms. Parr. Is that seconded? Seconded by Councilor Rin. Councilor Richter. Okay, so you're just moving paragraphs one, two, and three, then? Uh, yes. So let me see here. There is four, so I moved it without the last one. Without the- So it's the first three, that's correct. So- So thank you for that. ... not moved. Um, yes, I have a question about this. Yeah, go ahead. All right, so we're applying for a cost-sharing application on Fraser Highway, um, for 88.9 million. Is that correct? Or a cost share on 88.9 million? Uh, through your worship to Councilor Richter, tha- that's correct. We're applying for 88... 88... Uh, approximately 88 million of cost sharing for completion of Fraser Highway. Okay. And we're lining up in the second paragraph that we have 55.92 million. Is that correct? So is that now 88.9 million less, 55.2 million? So in other words, the difference, or 32.17 million, or is the whole cost of this gonna be 88.9 million plus 55.92 million? Uh, through your worship to Councilor Richter, um, specifically what we're applying for is the completion of Fraser Highway from 23400 block to about 26400 block. The total cost of that project is 182.5 million. The application itself is for cost sharing, so the application was approximately 88 million. Uh, the t- And then, in the event we're successful, for transit funding that's available, then the contribution from the township would be approximately 68... Uh, approximately 68 million. Okay, so when the 88 million... Like, how much of this 88.9 million are we likely to get? Uh, we would be applying for the entire 88.9 million. Um, likelihood of success is we, we are meeting some of the criterias in their application, stream two and stream three, which is unlocking new opportunities and connectivity and then supporting regional growth. Uh, however, obviously, it's hard to determine whether, uh, there's a high chance or low chance of likelihood, but we think that, uh, there is some chance, um. And, but there are obviously, we have to see how many applications there are, whether there's other, uh, if the fund is oversubscribed, et cetera, et cetera. So w- we would be able to obviously report back to council as it stated in the motion in the event we are successful. All right. I've got nothing against applying for money. I think that's a great thing. What I'm concerned about is the third paragraph that said if we get a successful grant, that we get a report with financing off- o- options. So I specifically wanna know, would more debt be part of those financing options? Uh, through Your Worship to Councilor Richter, potentially. And so, the more debt, how much more debt? Do we know? Uh, through Your Worship to Councilor Richter, we wouldn't know at this time 'cause we would see if we are successful, what years the projects would take, how many years it would take, and what years we would need th- the money. So we would provide those options to council, advise whether the DCCs covers it, whether we need to borrow, and whether the repayments are by DCC payments or other funding source. But we would review all those and bring it forward to council in the event we are successful with this grant application. Okay. And I, I don't disagree with applying for the grant. I do disagree with taking on new debt. But what you're telling me is it's not gonna be this council that's gonna have to deal with paragraph three. It's gonna be the next council. I, I believe more than likely it would be the next council, as the applications are due by July 31st, so we won't have an answer until I... It would be actually hard to determine. When the next council sworn in, in November. Okay, well that's a flag for the next council. Watch the financing options. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Um, (clears throat) just some questions, maybe, uh, some along the same lines, just trying to understand. Um, when I read through the document, it talks about a contribution from the township of $68.25 million, uh, made up of various reserves and DCC funds. Is that, is that correct? Uh, through Your Worship to Councilor Whitmarsh, what we're proposing as a funding source is all DCC reserves. Um, that would be our proposal, but obviously we would have to s- know at the time what the DCC balances are, whether, uh, there's enough DCCs available to cover the project, uh, or if we're going borrowing to cover the DCC payments, or if we need to look at other funding sources. But right now, we'd, we'd be looking at only at DCC as a proposed funding source. Right. Okay. And, and only financing if we were... If they were short. Th- th- that's correct. Okay. So, um, what I was wondering is in, in here it talks about that this fund that we'd b- be applying to, uh, contribute up to 50% of the project. So, m- I'm just not... I'm trying to find where the gap is from there. Uh, we're asking for 88. We're gonna contribute 68, which is... So we're missing something to get to the total. So what... There's about a 70, uh, sorry, $24 million gap there. Is that, um, projected TransLink funding or what, what makes up that 24 million that, um, we're missing? Uh, through Your Worship to Councilor Whitmarsh, that, that's specifically TransLink funding we'd be applying for to cover that remaining shortfall. Okay, and so we also don't know at this point whether or not we're gonna get that. That's also something that we'll be applying for. Is that correct? Uh, through Your Worship, uh, to Councilor Whitmarsh, uh, that, that's correct. Okay. Thank you. All right, seeing no discussion, I'll call the question on E6 as amended. That carries unanimously. Bylaw... Uh, we'll do a couple more and then we'll go to 3:30. Yeah, thanks, Councilor Richards. F1, due bylaws for first and second reading. Official Community Plan Amendment, rezoning application number 100324, bylaw number 6247, 6248. I'll move the recommendation. Is there a seconder? Seconded by Councilor Rint. Yeah. Uh, Councilor Richter. Um, so this is for 211 seniors housing units, which I think is great. Um, I'm disappointed to see we are gonna be losing, uh, 20 significant trees. I guess I'd like a question of clarification on two things. Number one, uh, is this... Does this fall under the new legislation that the provincial government's put in place? Or will we definitely be sending it to go to public hearing? Uh, through Your Worship to Councilor Richter, uh, since the proponent is seeking a plan amendment, uh, the plan amendment, uh, therefore it would be only for first and second reading. And we will have a public hearing scheduled at the next council meeting, which is July 27th. Okay. And the second thing I'd like to ask about is I notice that there is a community amenity fee, uh, or a voluntary contribution or whatever we're calling it now, 1.346631. ... dollars. So that's one point, roughly, three-five million. Is it possible, and would the proponent possibly consider, instead of paying that money, to have some of those units available to the community at below market as their community contribution? Like, is that something we could ask? And I won't ask it today. If it's coming back for a third, I'll raise it again then. Uh, to Your Worship, to Councilor Richter, so, um, currently we have the interim policy regarding community amenity contributions. Um, obviously these are items that the developer proposes voluntarily and negotiated. Uh, and here, as, uh, indicated in the report, there's a financial contribution that is volunteered. Um, in the event the proponent wants to volunteer a, a different amemen- amenity, uh, staff would look at that and, and potentially, uh, review it and have discussions with the proponent. However, at this time, the only, um, um, item that's been volunteered pursuant to the interim policy regarding community amenity contribution has been a financial component. Financial. Okay. But these, these units, these a h- two hundred and eleven seniors units are basically at market, right? Or do we know? Yes. I guess. To Your Worship, to Councilor Richter, y- yes, they are. Okay. So it would be a very valuable community contribution if they had a few units in there anyway that are below market. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Um, yeah, I had s- similar questions about whether these were, uh, any affordable units, um, in there. Um, so that's fine with that. Uh, number... Now, the second question I had was in the document on page six. It talks about, um, seniors housing not, seniors housing not requiring visitor parking spaces. And I was wondering, um, I mean, I, yeah, I, how that works for when visitors want to visit seniors. What do they... Where do they park? How does that work? Through Your Worship, uh, to Council Whitmarsh, so with recent, uh, zoning bylaw updates, and there's a specificity item here in the zone. Our P-1 Zone, our Institutional Zone, do require the visitor parking, but as the proponent has requested specifically seniors housing, that specific use doesn't have a visitor component assigned to it. So there's the, the difference there. Okay, so on a practical level when visitors come to visit seniors, and we want them to, we just talked about isolation, uh, where do they park? Through Your Worship, there would be, um, as a component of that overall parking count that could be allocated, uh, for visitor parking, Your Worship. I see, okay. Um, all right, and the last question, we were talking about amenity, uh, charges. And I saw that, um, in, near the end of the document, it talks about the ACC Bylaw, as well as the interim policy together creating a total contribution of 2.375. So we are, in this item, um, charging ACCs and community amenity and the, uh, voluntary community amenity charge. Is that correct? We're doing both? To Your Worship, to Councilor Whitmarsh, as I indicated before, this was a plan amendment. Uh, the reason there's a plan amendment being sought is there's additional density being, uh, sought. Um, the, with respect to the, uh, base density, the ACC Bylaw is applicable, as this application, um, is, uh, uh, was submitted, uh, once the ACC Bylaw was adopted. And with respect to the bonus density, that's where, uh, there's the interim policy regarding community amenity contribution that would be applicable. Yeah, okay. So, uh, that's helpful. I'm just, I guess, connected to this, but also other applications, is the in- is the intent, um, I mean, ACCs don't have a bonus density clause in them, so is the intent that we would always need to have this interim community amenity charge in order to deal with any density, uh, bonus kinda situations? Or is it such that, you know, I know we just, uh, adopted the ACC, but we could, uh, we could down the road, uh, change the ACC to include some level of bonus density? Uh, to Your Worship, to Councilor Whitmarsh, there's a separate bylaw that would be required with respect to a density bonus bylaw, which staff are still reviewing, uh, and looking at the, um, provincial best practices and guidelines. And then staff would be exploring that option of potentially bringing that, uh, bylaw forward. But at this time, uh, the bylaw, we don't have a bylaw with respect to bonus density. Okay, thank you. All right, seeing no other discussion, I'll call the question on F1. That carries unanimously. Uh, let's take that break till we proceed to G1 till 3:35. Thank you.(buzzing sound)(paper rustles) Okay, we'll get back underway with bylaws for first, second, and third reading, Item G1, rezoning Application Number 100681, Bylaw Number 6231. This was deferred, so it's back on the floor. Does anybody wish to... Any discussion or questions? Councilor Richter. Um, yes. I notice in today's items distributed to council, there were one, two, three, four, five, uh, five letters that came in concerning this application. I'm just wondering is... if we pass this today, we can't i- include, or is there a way we could include that staff review the comments that have come in on these letters? Through your worship, to Councilor Richter, the rezoning application before you is seeking all three readings. In the event that council wants staff to review the letters or provide further feedback, then e- e- either there is an option of deferring this further or, um, a referral back to staff to review the specific submissions. Um, okay. And if I made a referral like that so staff could review the submissions, could we get this application back on the July 27th meeting agenda, or would that be pushing it? Uh, through your worship, to Councilor Richter, I believe some of the submissions you're referring to came over the weekend and as of this morning. So we'd have to review some of the submissions to see if they're, uh, quite technical in nature. Um, there's a potential that we could be able to either summarize... I- if the direction is to summarize those submissions and provide a memo to council, and then council considers this application or to address that, then there might be... then that might trigger, uh, further revisions of the plan or further development prerequisites. So it would depend. Okay. Is it possible for staff to put in items, um, on items distributed or in for... for information in the next package if there's anything in these letters that would, uh, should be considered prior to final, if we go ahead with first, second, and third today? I guess what I'm saying is, I, I, I, I just basically got them today. I've looked at them, but I haven't absorbed what they're saying. Some of them look like they're all saying the same thing, but does it materially affect the application? And I think that's a staff call. Through your worship, to Councilor Richter, tha- that's correct. The, the issue we'd be faced with is if you grant all three readings, and it... if it's an item that council... it's a material item or item that might be a further development prerequisites, but you granted three readings, the three readings include all the development prerequisites. So, uh, the proponent would be proceeding to final adoption with the pre-... development prerequisites that are in place. So that would... Either then council would have to potentially, uh, re- rescind that third reading, add further conditions. So, uh, if the intent is to review the submissions or get further information, then, uh, staff's recommendation would be to refer it back to staff or defer the item and then have an item for information from staff just, uh, highlighting or reviewing some of the submissions. Okay. My last question is, was it staff's intent to bring this forward for final at the July 27th meeting? Uh, through your worship, to Councilor Richter, w- we don't believe this... th- the development prerequisites would be satisfied by next meeting. Okay. There's still, uh, devel- servicing agreements and several other items that need to be addressed prior to this proceeding to final adoption, which usually does take, on a standard, uh, several months. Okay, then I'd... Uh, well, m- Mr. Mayor, after everyone's had a chance to speak, I'd like to make a, uh... ... referral of this back to staff so they have time to review the contents that came in, in the letters from the public today, and advise counsel via a, an information item, with the intent that s- first, second, and third will come back at the July 27th meeting. I, I know that sounds very complicated. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. Uh, just a question through yourself to staff in regard to the 215 Street portion that, uh, extends to the north end of the property. Is my understanding correct from looking at the proposal that 215th will not be finished and completed to the 46A avenue cul-de-sac to its north? It will remain a, i- it will be finished up until the northern boundary of the subject property before us today, but then there will be a remainder, a catwalk between that finished portion of the road and then the cul-de-sac to the north. So this will not be a through road. It will still dead-end with a catwalk connecting to the cul-de-sac to the north. Is that a correct understanding? Through your worship, to Council Pratt, that is correct. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, yeah, I have a question to staff, um, with regards to, uh, what we had in our distribution list today. Um, I'm just seeing some kinda conflicting information between the communications we have received, and I'm, would appreciate, um, the staff to weigh in, um, to clarify it. Um, there's one communication that says, um, that four units per lot would be permitted as per, uh, required provincial legislation, and then I believe it's the letter from the proponent that says, um, "In my preamble to township staff, I made it very clear that I was registering a restrictive covenant on the titles to these lots, which would include a full set of building guidelines that would allow one single-family home per lot and one suite." Um, so I'm just wondering if I could get clarification on which is, uh, correct. Through your worship, to Council Martins, so the application before you is a rezoning application and a development variance permit. The rezoning application is to rezone, um, specifically the site, uh, to an R1E zone. Um, and the R1E zone, uh, currently as it stands, and, and the amended zone pursuant to the provincial, or the update to the, uh, acts pursuant to the provincial direction allows, um, a- allows up to four units, uh, due to the location of this and servicing, uh, so that there isn't a- automatic right to that. Um, with respect to, uh, restrictive covenants, there are development prerequisites as I'm reviewing a- as we're speaking here. There's no specific res- uh, restrictive covenant in the development prerequisites limiting, uh, or them volunteering, um, uh, l- l- less units or a specific amount of units, um, for this, uh, zone or application. Okay, so, um, could the builder put a restrictive covenant restricting it to only, um, one residence plus suite per lot or what does the provincial, um, legislation override the opportunity for the builder to ha- register that restrictive covenant? T- to your worship, to Council Martins, if, if the proponent is proposing that, then we would look at potentially, through the development prerequisite, registering restrictive covenants and, uh, I, I believe that that has been done before. Um, but, but it is, we would, we would have to review that again, but, uh, that, that is a potential option that we can look at a- as a part of the development prerequisites. Okay. So, um, does this, uh, need to be referred back to staff in order to, uh, do that? Uh, through your worship, to Council Martin, tha- that's correct. Council can impose the condition, but we'd prefer dealing with the proponent and having the correct language in the restrictive covenant drafted prior to, uh, bringing it before council. Okay, thank you. So, um, I, I th- that's it for my questions, um, but if I can make that referral unless somebody else is doing that. Yeah, no, I wanted to refer back to that, um, that letter as well, um, out, and I believe it's the proponent, Mr. Cameron Gair, that, um, in item two, he outlines the project and the fact that he's lived there for 20 years, has a great relationship with the neighbors and the neighborhood and wants to ensure that subdivision and the development respects the area in which he lives. Uh, so that's a big one for me, so, um, anyway, and as it relates to the SMU and I think we just talked about that, that a restrictive covenant on title and that they would include i- uh, that and the building guidelines allowing for only one fou- single family per lot and a suite. So, um, if it's just for two weeks, I would be happy to support a referral but otherwise, I think, for me, that, um, I would, I would just vote in favor at this point, so. Yeah, so I went out and visited, uh, the site and the, uh, had a extensive talk to the, uh, the developer that is proposing this and, uh, and we talked about these things and, uh, I notice in his letter to us in the dist- in the, uh, distribution package, you know, he's been doing this for 40 years. ... or plus. And, uh, and he knows, uh, what he can, uh, can and can't do. And he assured me that this will be for single family, uh, units. Plus, uh, one thing that I really like about this is the extensive, uh, uh, spiel land that is in the back there and protecting s- a very significant stand of trees. So, um, you know, with this letter in mind that's in the, um, distribution package, uh, I'm ready to, uh, support this development. Mr. Frison. No, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, I'm very familiar with this area having lived there some 10 years or so ago and, uh, have spoken to some of the neighbors and also the person that purchased my house, uh, wrote a letter t- in support. I also, um, uh, am happy with the explanation from the proponent as to o- oppositional concerns. And, um, I don't know if there's really a need for a deferral, so I'm supporting it. Thank you. Yeah, I, I, um, I s- you know, support this project. I think the restrictive covenant that's put in really protects the neighborhood and, uh, ensures that there'll be single family homes. It could be something different. So this ensures that. I, I appreciate it. So I, I will actually be supporting it today. Does anybody wish to move a motion? Please indicate that by... In the speaker's button. Councilor Richter? Um, yeah, I'd like to (clears throat) move, uh, I guess, it's a ref- I don't know. Perhaps the clerk could help me out with this. Is it a referral to staff for an information report to come back to council so that first, second, and third can be given on July 27th? Or is it just a deferral to July 27th? Your Worship to Councilor Richter, um, the language appropriate would be that, uh, the item be referred back to staff for staff to review the, uh, recent submissions and provide an item for information, uh, a- and the, um, rezoning application, development variance application be brought back forward by July 27, 2026. Is that the intent? That's the intent. So I like that wording. Thank you very much, Mr. Kuner. I'll move that referral motion. Uh, can I get, can I get that referral motion read back, please? Th- the, the item be referred back to staff to review the recent submissions with respect to the development application and provide an item for information, and that the rezoning application development variance permit application be brought forward, uh, for the July 27, 2026 meeting. Thank you. Any discussion on that? Is there a seconder to that? Seconded by Councilor Whitmar. Yep. Does anybody wish to speak to that referral? Okay, seeing none. A call for question on that referral? That's defeated. Councilor Bailey. Councilor Perkins. Councilor Cranese. Councilor Martins. Councilor Pratt. Councilor Warren. Councilor Woodward opposed. Is there any other discussion on G1? Councilor Pratt? Yes, thank you, Your Worship. I do note that one of the restrictive covenants that is already in this, uh, report that we're reading today restricts development until a development permit is issued for the site. And just, I want to confirm through yourself to staff, the development permit addresses form and character of whatever project, whatever homes are proposed on the site. At that time, if the form and character of the proposal as, that's associated with the development permit is for a small scale multiunit housing project as opposed to a single family project with a suite, council would have discretion or no discretion to reject the proposal. Uh, to your Worship to Councilor Pratt. So, so development permits do deal with form, character, and sitting of the site. So rezonings deal with density. Um, so therefore if the, they, they would have an automatic right pursuing to their zone if the zone's been adopted. And then, uh, if they are subject to SCHMU, they'd be only subject to the SCHMU DP guidelines if they're applicable. Uh, and therefore, um, th- the rights associated o- for the development, sorry, for the owner are, are a lot greater in a development permit situation than in a rezoning. So the options available and conditions being opposed in a development permit are very limited. And, and I appreciate that the proponent's willing to enter into this restricted covenant. I- is there a reason why it wasn't included in this first, second, and third, or was it just a matter of the timing? Can it be... I'm just curious if we approve it today with no restrictive covenant and the proponent comes forward in the next period of time before final and offers that restrictive covenant to be added as a condition of final, is that something that the proponent has the ability to do? Well, council itself would be giving the bylaw readings for the rezoning, and council has unfettered discretion. So therefore, all the development prerequisites are attached here. If after you grant three readings and you want to change the development prerequisites, I know it would have to come back to council. W- we, we would recommend essentially if they are volunteering that it would be done now. But my understanding, a- and I may be wrong in this, is I believe after the submissions is wh- when it was volunteered or proposed that they are open to this option. Understood. Thank you. Is there any other deferrals or referrals? All right. So I just have one question, or I think maybe, maybe two. Uh, Mr. Kuner, if this is approved and goes to final with the variance permit application-And the subdivision is created with the restrictive covenants that are being contemplated directly, and then these lots are sold to new owners. Are those restrictive covenants enforceable, given provincial legislation? Uh, do your ... We'd have to review it wi- with legal, but there's risk, and we are, there's p- potential, uh, of it being ultra vires. So, it, it's very limited, uh, options potentially available to the municipality if they were to be challenged, potentially. So, that's lawyer for no. Um, so I appreciate that n- no life is not certain, but that's lawyer for no. So, with that, I'll call the question on G1. That carries. Councilor Wren, Mayor Woodward opposed. G2, rezoning application number 100790, bylaw number 6246. I'm just gonna move the recommendation under G2 without condition one. Seconded by Councilor Wren. Ms. Bauer, do you have that? Just wanna get a nod from Ms. Bauer that she has it moved as amended. All right, great. So, is there any seconder to that? I think that was seconded by Councilor Wren. Yep, any discussion on that? Uh, Councilor Richter. Um, this is G2, so I'm sorry I didn't get it marked down quick enough on my notes here. So, we're moving the first paragraph. Paragraphs are deleted as well. Yeah, w- w- what, what have we deleted here? Uh, through your Worship to Councilor Richter, the rezoning application before Council G2 has been moved without the, uh, first development prerequisite. The one about the schools? Th- th- that's correct. The, the development prerequisite number one is that, uh, in accordance with the Smith Neighborhood Plan as amended, and that they secure a joint elementary and neighborhood park site, including road dedications, construction of all associated works. Um, as you may recall, there was a previous, uh, deve- uh, application in the Smith East plan that where council gave specific direction to amend, uh, uh, the Smith Neighborhood Plan bylaw to say that the, as, to c- that the joint elementary school and neighborhood parkland site has been secured. Uh, staff have processed that, but however, it is linked to a development application that has not received final adoption yet. So, that's, um, still in the progress. Um, and from the staff's perspective, the joint elementary school and neighborhood park site has been secured, but it's a matter of now getting that by a lot of final adoption, and then no longer including, uh, this requirement in any of the future development prerequisites for the Smith, uh, East Neighborhood Plan. Okay. So, this is approximately 10 acres of township-owned land, which means it's publicly owned land. Uh, a public hearing doesn't have to be held on this, or can we require it 'cause it's publicly owned land? Uh, through your Worship to Councilor Richter, there's no exemptions in the, uh, community charter w- with respect to the ownership of a, of pro- specific parcel because it's plan compliant and it's for residential, uh, uh, residential density. Therefore, it, it, uh, council must not, um, send it for a public hearing or public input opportunity. And this is under that provincial legislation that came through on housing? Uh, through your Worship to Councilor Richter, that is correct. Okay. Uh, the other thing is, um, on page six, it says that, uh, the proponent has only applied to rezone the lands and has not submitted a development permit application d- detailing potential tree retention opportunities. So, um, when I look at the picture on page six, seems to me three-quarters of the lots or three-quarters of the area is treed. So, why is there no tree report here? Like, do we have an, a- any kind of an idea how many trees are gonna be lost? Uh, through your Worship to Councilor Richter, this is specifically focused just on the rezoning, um, and just the zone of the land. The, the specific details and form and character and sitting and a s- uh, a specific, uh, townhouse site plan or an apartment site plan will be addressed during the development permit stage. Uh, the development permit would be before council? Um, a- and council would approve the development permit. A- and during that time, there would be a tree management plan and specific details as well. Yeah, but the rezoning's done, so we can't require it. Okay, thank you very much. Yeah, do we have any other discussion under G2? Seeing none, final question on G2. That carries. Councilor Richter, opposed. Item G3, rezoning application number 100711, bylaw number 6232. Moved by Councilor Pratt, seconded by Councilor Rent. Is there any questions or discussion on G3? Councilor Pratt. Thank you, Your Worship. I just wanna note that included in this apa- application is 133-room hotel, which I think in that proximity to the, like, events center, a- and knowing just how much the, uh, the current shortage i- exists out there, I think this is a great addition to the, uh, the neighborhood, and a great spot for it.Counselor Richter? Um, yes, I had a question about the terminology on page two. Under executive summary, the third paragraph there, it said, "The application is eligible to proceed under the superseded version of the Willoughby Community Plan." Now, what is the exact intent and meaning of that? Your Worship to Counselor Richter's, I'm just, uh, that was in the executive summary? Yes, it was. Third paragraph down. Yes, um, your Worship to Counselor Richter. As you may recall, we updated the neighborhood plans for the Willoughby area. The Willoughby Transit Quarter Plan was adopted. There's in-stream protection with respect to applications that preceded, uh, or were submitted and that were preceding prior to the plan adoption. Therefore, specifically with this application, uh, the, it, uh, the app- application was submitted and is eligible to proceed under the previous Willoughby Community Plan and the Jericho Neighborhood Plan. Um, should it not receive final adoption by, I believe, J- 2028, then they would be subject to the new Willoughby Transit Corridor Plan. Okay, so this is going through under the old plan that was replaced. Through Your Worship to Counselor Ri- that's correct. Okay. And is the old plan that was replaced one of those plans that is subject to provincial legislation about no public hearing required? Uh, through Your Worship to Counselor Richter, the provincial legislation, uh, that acts specifically with respect to public hearings was Amends to the Community Charter, I believe, and that essentially would apply to all applications. So does this one fall under that? Uh, through Your Worship to Counselor Richter, yes, if it's deemed to be plan compliant, then therefore, it would, uh, is for specifically for residential, um, density, then it would not be subject to a public hearing. Okay, but this is not being more dense than anything else. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Um, yeah, I, I'm really happy to see this application, um, uh, particularly the hotel rooms. Uh, we are, uh, that's a, a real need in this community, so I'm really happy that the proponent has, um, offered that up. Um, I just wonder if I can through staff, uh, through the chair to staff, if, uh, there is the opportunity for meeting space on site in the commercial area, or is this strictly, um, a place to stay or live, um, and any meetings would have to be at the LEC? I'm just thinking large group, um, conference space, that sort of thing. Um, if you have, if they've, um, indicated... Uh, through your Worship to, uh, Counselor Martins, I, I believe specifically this application is primarily focused on rezoning, and we do have general, uh, drawings attached. Mm-hmm. I believe that, uh, uh, a- as the attachment, uh, we do have some site plans, but I believe they're still evolving and, uh, there would be a development permit and a building permit, so, um, we can review some of these items to see what the layout of the hotel is and specific conference, uh, spaces, et cetera. But I'll just defer to Mitch- Mr. Richardson as well if we've had any of those discussions. To supplement Mr. Koerner's comments, that's correct. So to this stage, we have the, uh, drawings are associated with the plans, the specific development permit drawings and more detailed, uh, floor plans for the hotel and associated uses would be detailed out further, so we don't have specifics about it at this time. Typically those, the staff's, um, understanding of hotel uses and that type of uses, they have some associated, uh, conference space. Uh, thank you. And if I can just put a plug in then, um, that it would be helpful, um, having planned, um, conferences locally in the past. Um, w- we really need some more meeting space for conferences, so if that can happen, that would be great. But I'll just leave my thoughts there. Mr. Phillips? Yeah, on that, um, the hotel... So I, I, we don't see hotels coming to Langley very often, so everyone's really excited. But, um, how does it work? Does the developer reach out to a hotel chain and then they come and take over the hotel portion of it? Or, 'cause I'm just wondering what happens if the hotel doesn't come to fruition. Because we've seen that before where plans ha- have been made and then, um, it doesn't work out the way that we'd hoped. So what happens to then the, the, the plan because right now, we're, we've got voluntary amenities tied to residential, but obviously not to hotel rooms. Through Your Worship to Counselor Kuntz. So, uh, the, the specific application is a rezoning application, so what they're seeking is specifically is, is, uh, a rezoning application for, uh, what the plan allows for. Um, apartment use and hotel use, and they're proposing that. At this time, we are not aware at a staffing level what the, who the end user would be and whether they will be developing it specifically, um, for that purpose. We, that, the market would dictate that and the ownership group ha- has the rights and liberty to decide what they would like to do with their property. So at this time, we're going through the regulatory process and the rezoning process, and then, eh, there's obviously several elements that the owner would have to take into consideration, uh, prior to, uh, development permit and building permit. And then I believe as that progresses, we would have more information to potentially advise council of. Okay. Yeah, thanks.Yeah, I'm getting a little confused, uh, with these questions. Uh, am I reading this right or wrong under "Development Permits," bullet number three? It says, "Staff note the current site plan is conceptual, and resolution of the above mentioned items may result in changes to the site layout, proposed number of units, hotel rooms, and commercial space." This is a real rough draft, and, and it's subject to all kinds of changes. Am I reading that right? Uh, th- that's correct. Thank you. Mr. Brett. Don't know why that came up again. Sorry. Seeing no discussion, call the question on G3. That carries unanimously. Item G4, zoning bylaw amendments off-street loading space and accessible parking. I'll move the recommendation seconded by Councilor Pratt. Councilor Pratt. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. I know in previous instances where we've had bylaw changes like this, there has been some provision for in-stream protection on certain matters, and I'm wondering, through yourself to staff, if we were looking at potentially offering at least a one-year in-stream protection on this item, how we might go about that today. Uh, through Your Worship to Councilor Pratt, um, there, there is specific in-stream protection with respect to this bylaw. Okay. Um, the language already is included in the bylaw. I believe it's, uh, the last page of the bylaw, which states that the bylaw comes into force in effect... Um, sorry, the effect of the bylaw is suspended for 12 months from the date this bylaw comes into force for a development permit application or a building permit application made prior to the bylaw. Perfect. Thank you. All right, seeing no discussion, Council Rector. Yeah. Um, G4 is, again, giving first, second and third, but there's no public hearing, and then it's got a paragraph in it that says that staff, uh, directs staff to consult, uh, on the street accessibility parking requirements with the public, stakeholders, businesses and other affected parties. How, how does this eliminate the need for a public hearing, or replace the need for a public hearing? 'Cause basically, you're, you're getting the public input after we've approved it in principle. And then not just that, but we're gonna give it final reading tonight too. Under I, whatever, I4, I think it is. Through Your Worship to Council Rector, so specifically, the zoning bylaw amendments are just zoning bylaw amendments. So you can do all four readings at one meeting. We've separated the readings. Three readings at G4, and then you can, council can do final adoption, I believe at I2 or I3, or I1. Uh, in any event, that specific bylaw, zoning bylaw amendment that's brought forward is only with respect to off-street loading spaces and accessible parking. The subsequent motions are related to on-street. Essentially, staff are not proposing any amendments to the bylaw for on-street. They're saying that w- c- council direct us to do consultation on on-street. And then, once we've done consultation on on-street, and we receive funding for, uh, looking at options, then we would come forward with a bylaw for on-street parking. Uh, a- and then we're doing consultation prior to even bringing that bylaw, zoning bylaw amendments forward. Okay, so you're collecting public information for another bylaw that's eventually gonna come to council. Th- that's correct. Not this council. It'll be the next council. Uh, th- that's correct. So the, the bi... The readings we're seeking today are s- specific to off-street, and what we're seeking is that we get direction to a consultation for on-street- Okay. ... and bringing that bylaw forward later on. Great. Thank you for clarifying that. All right, seeing no discussion, call the question on G4. That carries unanimously. Item G5, 2026 subdivision and development servicing bylaw update, bylaw number 62116255. I'll move it. Seconded by Councilor Pratt. Is there any discussion on G5, Council Rector? Um, yes, this is a huge (laughs) servicing bylaw. I mean, the report itself is basically f- 460-odd pages. Uh, I'm just curious why we wouldn't have had a staff presentation on this. Th- th- th- uh, through Your Worship to Council Rector, if council, uh, would like a presentation on it, uh, council can give direction for staff to provide a presentation at the next council meeting. Okay, but we're given it first, second and third. Are we bringing this back for final at the last council meeting of this term, July 27th? Uh, yes, that's correct. Okay, it's coming back for final then. Uh, and is this a bylaw that we can change to allow public input? Th- through Your Worship to Council Rector, it's a... This is a subdivision development service bylaw, therefore if council directs a public input opportunity, I believe they, they have a right to do so, and there's, uh, uh, the legislation does, does not prevent that. Okay, so... How do I make sure that the public's getting to have input on this? I know that in the report, the draft bylaw was circulated to UDI, the Urban Development Institute, for review, and, um, it does comment on their response, but there's no public or resident consultation named anywhere in the report, and yet there are a number of people who I think would want to have input on this simply because it deals with, with water, and servicing, and a- potentially aquifers. So, how do, uh, do I a- ask to do a motion now to change this from first, second, and third to first and second, and allow for a public input opportunity? We've had UDI input, but there might be other stakeholders out there that wanna say something. Through your worship, to Councilor Richter, there, there's a few options available, if that's the intent. One of the options is the item can get referred back to staff to do public consultation, and then staff can do public consultation and potentially open the house if that's what council's desire is. A second option is to do, uh, a, ref- refer it for a public input opportunity, and then the public input opportunity can proceed, and then the readings can occur subsequent to that. So that, those are the options potentially- Oh. ... available for council, if that's the desire. Yeah, but if this is coming back next meeting, that's in two weeks. Is that time to get public input? Uh... Through your worship, to Councilor Richter, if, if the directions given, we would, it'd be very tight, but we could get the ad out and have the public input opportunity at the next meeting. But if it's public consultation, then we would be setting up a, we're doing advertisements, setting up potentially open houses, if that's the direction. So it depends on the method, uh, that, and, and some of the timelines are quite tight in nature. Okay, well, I, the way you worded the first one makes sense to me. What was the wording on that again? What, I just, trying to remember myself. Was that the public consultation one? They refer back to staff for public consultation. So refer back to staff for public consultation, and, um, I'd like to get a staff presentation on it in the next meeting. Okay. The, yeah, so it'd be a referral back to staff for, uh, re- public consultation and a staff presentation. Okay. I would like to make that referral motion. Is there a second of that? Second. Second by Councilor Finch. Go ahead. Any other discussion on this? Oh, I- Okay. I, I just think that that's, like I say, this is, the size of this report is huge. The potential for downstream impact is huge. I think we're missing the public having a say piece of it, which in my mind is a, is a big thing. Uh, it's giving a 12 month grandfathering window in it. It's creating a new delegated authority. So I would really like to hear what the public has to say about this. All right, seeing no discussion, I'll call the question on the referral of G5. That's defeated. Councilor Bailey, Council Ferguson, Councilor Pratt, Councilor Rintjema, Woodward, opposed. Is there any other discussion on G4? G5, sorry. Councilor Martins. Yeah. Thank you. Um, can I, um, make, make another referral motion, um, refer back to staff for public, like the first half of the last motion. Can I do that? Um, I think it was refer back to staff for public consultation. We, we defer to the chair on that ruling to see if that's in line with the previous motion. Referral back to staff for a public consultation and staff presentation. So I'm, I'm looking at just- Staff presentation (inaudible) consultation. I think it's really important to have the public consultation. Different if you don't want the presentation but you want (inaudible). Yeah. So I, I would move that referral. Is there a second there? By Councilor Lamach, yeah, go ahead. Uh, that's all. I, I, uh, I think the re- um, public consultation is really important. This is a, a pretty big document here, uh, and a lot to it, so. All right, with that, I'll call the question on that referral. And that's defeated. Councilor Bailey, Councilor Ferguson, Councilor Pratt, Councilor Rintjema, Woodward, opposed. Is there any other discussion on G5? Seeing none, call the question on G5. That carries with Councilor Richter opposed. G6, proposed green building permit rebate program increases, bylaw number 6386239. Moved by Councilor Pratt, seconded by Councilor Bailey. Is any discussion on G6? Nope, seeing none, call the question on G6. That carries unanimously. Bylaws for final adoption, uh, I-1, highway closure and dedication removal bylaw 61326133. I'll move it. Seconded by Councilor Wrenth. Is there any discussion on I-1? Seeing none. I'll call the question on I-1. Carries unanimously. I-2, highway closure and dedication removal. Bylaw number 6220. I'll move it. Seconded by Councilor Wrenth. Is there a discussion on I-2? Seeing none. I'll call the question on I-2. Carries unanimously. I-3, 2027 permissive tax exemptions. I'll move it. Seconded by Councilor Wrenth. Is there any discussion on I-3? Seeing none. I'll call the question on I-3. All right. So we'll go back. Councilor Wood Marsh, go ahead. Yeah, just the question was, uh, in, in the, in there, it says it replaces schedule and B and C with a new schedule B and C, and I'm just wondering what the difference is between the old B and C and the new B and C schedules. I, I believe it's just a change in the properties. Sorry, say that again. Through Your Worship to Councilor Wood Marsh, I believe it was a change in the properties. Oh, okay. Okay, thank you. That carries unanimously. I-4. Zoning bylaw amendments, uh, for final adoption, bylaw number 6235. I'll move it. Seconded by Councilor Pratt. Any discussion on final adoption of I-4? Seeing none. I'll call the question on I-4. That carries unanimously. Mayor and council for reports. Anybody wish to make a report? Councilor Pratt. Thank you, Your Worship. Uh, sure, every member of council has lots to report, but I just wanted to highlight one thing in particular and give a huge shout-out to the township staff who were behind the summer concert series kicked off this past Thursday with a tremendous crowd for the Dueling Pianos. Absolutely fantastic to be out there at the Langley Event Center, watching all of the people come out and enjoy the concert, the market, the pickleball courts, the FIFA field, the basketball courts, the volleyball court. Uh, Willoughby Community Park there has really turned into a pretty fantastic destination. That's why I want to commend all the staff who've had anything to do with designing that park, planning that park, but also programming it with the summer concert series in the past and well, as well this year moving forward. Councilor Wrenth. Yeah, pretty, uh, pretty busy, uh, time, uh, dealing with, uh, things like, uh, Canada Day at MacLeod Park was, uh, was, I think, an example of how to run it because the traffic that was around that, uh, especially for the evening, was incredible. Uh, the BC Farm Museum Canada Day was, uh, was just a, a really nice community event, and it was, uh, great to see some other ones out there, like the, uh, Gateway of Hope, uh, Community Care Day where, uh, my, my RCMP partner and my, uh, uh, community partner, uh, again, flipped hot dogs for a, a few hours. But also, it's a great event because it gives, uh, things like free haircuts, uh, hep C, um, testing, uh, uh, pediatric care, and all kinds of other really needed, uh, things for the population that's on the street. Uh, the local 455, uh, Zero golf tournament was, uh, a success again. I have to say, I'm a little, uh, a little off today because I just finished with the MS ride that used to be in Langley that's now in, in Chilliwack. Uh, a little over 100 Ks in two days, for this old body, it's not, uh, the best thing to do. And, uh, finally, the watch party, uh, at, uh, at the, uh, stadium. Just highlighted a few things. One, the community event. I had some people saying, "Why aren't you charging five bucks a head?" And I'm going, "Because it's great to have some great free community events," and it was, uh, supported, I believe, by the amount of families that were there. And, uh, and lastly, uh, what a great facility LEC is, and I, I, I, I mention again, uh, what Councilor Pratt said, is that, uh, that facility, I went and watched half the Langley Thunder Senior A game, and then I, I walked over and watched the last half of, uh, Vancouver Foot, uh, Football Club, uh, play against Montreal. And I don't know if very many other venues that can support that kind of, uh, community events, uh, in one location. Councilor Brines. Yeah, um, echoing, um, all of these same, uh, sentiments, especially, um, you know, I was at the Canada Day at MacLeod Athletic Park, out in Aldergrove at the Legion and, uh, BC, uh, Farm Museum. And of course, everyone's, um, super hyped up on, uh, on FIFA World Cup, and it's just so great to see. You know, different countries, different people cheering for their countries, uh, come together and, uh, and try to out-cheer each other. Um, but yeah, no, it's, uh... Up at the LEC too, I, I mean, their... That facility, um, you know, I, I think it was a really great decision, um, you know, making sure that that, uh, facility happened. And that was, um, of course, a previous council decision. So, um, just wanted to throw that in there. Um, but anyway, to all our staff at the township, um, you know, the Canada Day went to the fireworks, and there were so many people. And you know what? At the end of the day, people don't care about politics on Canada Day. They just want to watch the fireworks and have a good time. So, um, I was just really happy to be there and listen to the, the, the Dueling Pianos. And, um, yeah, thank you to our staff. You guys do an incredible job of organizing, uh, our community.Yeah, thank you. Um, yeah, um, as others have said, I too attended the Canada Day celebrations in, uh, Fort Langley and in Aldergrove at the Legion and at MacLeod Athletic Park. Um, I was honored t- um, as acting mayor to raise the, um, flag at the BC Farm Museum, um, alongside former councilor Bob Long. Um, residents, uh, shared positive feedback about the event and... eh, about all these events, and appreciated seeing council members, uh, present and engaged in the community. Um, and these celebrations build community pride and provide valuable opportunities to connect. Um, I also toured, uh, Windsong Cohousing, a unique neighborhood in Walnut Grove, um, focused on shared resources, sustainability, and strong neighbor connections. I spoke with the residents about the benefits of community living, including affordability, support networks, and reduced social isolation, uh, something that's come up at this table today. Uh, and this is an example of innovative housing models, uh, that support diverse and resilient neighborhoods, and, uh, Windsong is celebrating their 30th anniversary this year. And finally, GlobalFest at Douglas Park, uh, celebrated many cultures that contribute to our community through food and music and cultural performances, and attendees expressed appreciation for opportunities to celebrate their heritage and to connect with their neighbors from different backgrounds. Uh, GlobalFest fosters inclusion, belonging, and a stronger sense of community for all residents. Thank you. Council Ferguson? Yeah, thank you. What else can I say other than a big shout-out to staff again, for all the events. We'll set the FIFA events and, uh, obviously MacLeod Athletic Park and, uh, Canada Day. Thousands of people were involved and, uh, it was a great event and, uh, many, many happy people and young families and, uh, people of all ages, both young and old. I also wanted to point out, I also attended the BT Farm Machinery as well. Uh, years back I, uh, helped out with that particular museum, and it was a great event, and also family event. One other thing, a very important thing, the citizenship at the Fort Langley National Historic Park. Many new citizens, new Canadians coming forward. We w- we at the township were able to handle flags and shake a lot of hands and, uh, it was a great event. Um, yes, I did go to the golf tournament as well that Councilor Bailey pointed out. The firefighters, and it's a great charity. My golf game wasn't all that good, but we had a lot of fun, and I was very happy to see m- the sponsors from anywhere from ball hockey to the Giants to the, uh, other facility people that are involved with our community. It was a great event. And that's pretty well it. It was a great, great opportunity for many of our councilor. Thank you. Yes, I'd like to also echo all the shout-outs and congratulations to our township staff for, uh, really the amazing work they do on these public events. Canada Day in particular was one that I was at, and, um, I saw nothing but happy faces, happy families, happy people everywhere. So thank you, staff. Um, I'd also like to sh- send a shout-out to a local business here in Langley who I think has put Langley tourism and the township on the map for a Renaissance festival, of all things. And I had the opportunity to attend, um, on Saturday. I was just amazed by the number of people there. Uh, I'm sure it was well over a thousand people, and everybody had these amazing costumes on, and they were just having a great time. So thank you, Festina Lente, for putting Langley Township on the map for an incredible new tourism event. Council Woodburn? Yeah, um, you know, I think this time of year is, uh, an amazing time of year. It's a busy time of year for, for, um, all members of council attending events. Um, and certainly, as has been mentioned, our staff here in the township do an amazing job, um, so really appreciate them and wanna support them in all they do. They do such great work for our community. And, uh, without mentioning any specific events, um, I would say the other thing that is really noticeable, particularly in the summer, even though you notice it all year round, is the number of, uh, people in our community who volunteer their time for all the different events that we attend and go to. It's just incredible. Um, I think Langley maybe is the volunteer capital of Canada, and if it's not, I think it should be named that. And I just, you know, really appreciate that because it really creates, uh, a- an amazing place for, um, families and individuals and people in Langley to enjoy, um, and attend all kinds of different events, uh, that are interesting to them. And so I just wanna give a great big thanks to all those that really volunteer in our community and, and give so much back. And you don't always get appreciated for it, but, uh, without you, uh, we wouldn't have this dynamic community that we have today. So thank you. All right. Any other mayor and council report? Any... Oh, Council Brent. Think I put... made a mistake. Any other mayor and council report? Any Metro Vancouver Regional report? Oh, any uh, Councilor Ferguson, go ahead. Yeah. If I may, c- can I get the c- clerk to, or staff to put up a... Uh, this is information item that, um, that w-Metro Vancouver is returning to stage two water restrictions effective July 16th. And I won't read it out other than the key changes are sprinklers, soakers, soakers and others are able to be permitted and, uh, and another number of other uses, and it's good to know that we're no longer. And the reason for that is the, um, Stanley Park, uh, water main was... uh, and connection system was repaired. So good news going from stage three to stage two. Thank you. Thank you. Any other move-on items for information, anything with M1 through 4? Councilor Richter. Yeah, I'd just like to, um, extend a, a sincere thanks to staff. I believe, uh, it's Mr. Cooner and, um, and Ms. Bauer for the work that they've done on setting up the local general election for 2026. This, uh, two-page document is a wealth of information for anyone who's contemplating running for council in that municipal election or for school board. And I really recommend it that you print it out and stick it up on your bulletin board. Any other discussion on items one, one through four? No? Seeing none, we'll move on to Councilor Pratt. Go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. Uh, in response to a couple of... Well, I'd say more than a couple, actually. Multiple instances of, uh, residents reaching out, I would move the motion as written. Thank you. Is there a second for that? Second by Councilor Wynn. Go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. These streets in particular are seeing, uh, pretty high levels of volume of traffic in areas that I don't know if these residents anticipated experiencing that, whether it's due to construction ongoing on roads surrounding them, uh, whatnot, but safety is becoming a significant issue in these areas. And the traffic calming measures here would go a long way to help alleviate those concerns. Right. Seeing no discussion, I'll call the question on 01. Carries unanimously. Councilor Bailey? Yeah, I'd like to move this. Yeah, the reason I'm bringing it forward partially is for awareness, because over the last little while I've had some, uh, uh, replies about, uh, saying, "Let's have some veterans crosswalks and, uh, other ones." And I, I thought, "You know what? Here's a community speaking in that there are three veterans crosswalks that, that, um, were brought forward and actually moved by Councilor Martins." And, uh, I think it would be interesting to see if the, if the residents would like to, uh, look at other forms of, of, uh, actually public art. And, uh, some of the things that could be included in here are, um, are all kinds of creative designs that would recognize things. And I, I put in there some things like veterans' interest, Indigenous interests, historical, whatever. And I think it would be, uh, very interesting to see how the res- uh, the public would respond. Uh, we get the guidelines and costs, uh, put in by, uh, by staff. And one thing that, uh, would, you know, it comes to mind is that we already have money, uh, budgeted annually for the rainbow crosswalk, and it could cost even less if people would, uh, quit marking up, uh, things like, uh, public property like the, uh, cro- the rainbow crosswalk in, in Fort Langley. And then that money, uh, that would not be used for, for, um, repairing that crosswalk could be used for newer crosswalks. And this would not apply because it can't apply to major roads. It can only be, uh, to off-traffic roads and to things exactly like the veterans crosswalks, uh, at the Legion in Aldergrove and, um, the rainbow crosswalks are also like at the RCMP detachment. So, uh, yeah, just like to see what the public has to say about, uh, possibly having some creative public art on our streets. Councilor Richter? Yeah. Um, I think the intent is good here, but I'm a little worried about the effect. Uh, and in particular, the, um, therefore be it resolved that staff create an annual public input process. Is that in our policy right now? And if it is in our policy right now, how do we ensure that the charter rights of all Canadians are protected in going for or inviting submissions from the public relative to crosswalks? Dear Worship, to Councilor Richter, it's not currently in the policy right now. We would review this and before we proceed, we'd, uh, advise council. Uh, we would essentially r- report, do a report to council, review what an annual public input process would look like, any risks, uh, legal or of other nature of concerns prior to actually proceeding. So Mr. Cooner, is that... Is, i- i- is staff interpreting this as we need to bring a report on this back to council, or do you need a motion that we refer this to staff for a report?Un- unless the- the mover themselves, uh, can provide further, um, clarification, but, uh, currently, a- as it reads, our interpretation would be that would be bringing a report forward, um, a- as also that they're seeking guidelines and cost. So then we would- we would, uh, provide that as well. So it reads as a report back to council, but unless there's further clarification that the mover can provide. Okay. Well, I think I'd like to move a referral on this to staff for a- a report to consider how the policy could be amended by council prior to implementing anything. Could you repeat that, please? Okay. I'd like to move a referral to staff for a report on how, I believe it's policy number 05-101, uh, needs to be amended and brought back to council for approval. If I can hear that, Council? It says, "Signed and marked crosswalks." I... What I'm really concerned about is respecting people's charter rights, and that means if we're gonna have a process inviting submissions, how do we ensure that that process recognizes and respects the charter rights in both BC and Canada? Is there a second to that? That's... Somebody seconding that or no? I'm seconding it. Okay, seconded by Councillor Widmar. Councillor Richter, go ahead. This is ******* I- I think I said why I think a referral is necessary. I think we need a report from staff coming back to council before we action this motion. Councillor Dabollis? Yeah, uh, that, uh... I- I agree with that. Uh, I, (laughs) I was a little sloppy in- in, uh, in wording this, and, uh, the idea is that the- the, uh, staff would bring this back with the information dealing with this. I- I would not want anyone to, uh, be offended, and there are certain things that, uh, that I would like to make sure. Like, I wouldn't like to see any flags, uh, national flags on the, on the ground because, uh, that would go against policy of- of, uh, how you handle a flag. So, uh, no, I completely agree with this. Uh, I should have put that in the wording. Thank you. Seeing no... Seeing no other discussion, I'll call the question on that referral. That carries. Councillor Frison, Councillor Ritson, Mayor Woodward, opposed? All right, we'll move on to 03. Councillor Ritson? Uh, I'm gonna move 03 as, uh, written. I think it's pretty clear and it speaks for itself. Oh, 03. Councillor Richter? Okay. Um, I'm just wondering why we're actioning this now. Given that we've only got one council meeting left on this term, and I'm not sure staff is gonna have enough time with everything else on their plates to develop a report on it. Senator? Maybe I can ask for clarification through you to Mr. Kuhner. Uh, is it staff's understanding that this would be added to the staff work list and would come back to council whenever, so not necessarily the next meeting? To Your Worship to Councillor Richter, that's correct. That's a fair characterization. Okay. So you don't need a- a motion on that. That's the way you're gonna interpret it. Uh, that is correct. Okay. Thank you. Seeing no discussion, I'll call the question on 03. That carries unanimously. Item 04, Councillor Ritson, go ahead. Uh, I'm moving 04 as worded, and it speaks for itself again. I'll second that. Discussion on 04, Councillor Richter? Uh, I'm gonna ask the same question that I asked, just asked Mr. Kuhner on 03. Uh, is it staff's interpretation that this will be added to the work list and will come back to council again? I'm not sure you can get a report on this done by July 27th, which is two weeks away. That, that is correct. Okay. Thank you. All right. Seeing no other discussion, I'll call the question on 04. That carries unanimously. Is there any other business? Nope? Seeing none, does anybody have an item for closed, Councillor Richter? Uh, yes, I'd like to add labor relations to closed, please. All right. Uh, Ms. Bauer, I have a legal item to add. Is everything good there? All right. Let's get a motion to resolve into closed as amended. Mo- moved by Councilor Rent, seconded by Councilor Bailey. All those in favor? Anyone opposed? That carries unanimously. Mis- motion to terminate. Moved by Councilor Rent, seconded by Councilor Bailey. All those in favor? Opposed? And that carries. Thank you.