- 58 -

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

MINUTES

Present: Mayor Green

Councillors J. Bateman, B. Dornan, S. Ferguson, M. Kositsky, B. Long, K. Richter

and G. Ward

M. Bakken, P. Catlin, C. Corfe, R. Seifi and C. Wright

D. Hyde, S. Palmer

A. PUBLIC MEETING

1. Mufford/64 Avenue Road/Rail Overpass

C. Wright, General Manager, Engineering, provided an explanation relative to the

Mufford/64 Avenue Road/Rail Overpass and noted that there are long delays at rail
crossings which result in increased costs and environmental impacts. He continued
that CTA warrants already exceeded for grade separation and that there is a need
for the overpass to deal with community safety, growth in road and rail traffic, Port
Metro Vancouver expansion needs, and increasing gridlock.

D. Hyde, Project Manager, provided an update on the project and noted that
DeltaPort rail traffic will be diverted through the South Fraser Perimeter Road. He
continued that consideration will be given to improvements to the intersection of
Glover Road, 72 Avenue, and Crush Crescent, whereby they would induce traffic to
come from the new facility and head to Glover Road, as well as providing directional
signage at 216/64 to Highway 1.

He then referred to Option J, noting that the pros include the separation of
trains/vehicles and a small initial impact to ALR lands; the cons include failure to
improve network connectivity, higher environmental impact, requires longer
structure, and further widening of bypass. He spoke to other issues such as the
project not including the closing of farm accesses that cross railway; that the
Township of Langley share is $9.3M – the overall project funding is $51M; that there
are no plans to double track CP Rail or widen Highway10 (Glover Road) in this area;
and that the province and the ALC have no plans to exclude ALR lands.
February 9, 2009
Special Council Meeting
For The Purpose of Mufford/64 Avenue Road/Rail Overpass Minutes - 59 -

A. PUBLIC MEETING

The following submissions were provided regarding Mufford/64 Avenue Road/Rail

Overpass from the public.

1. Roy Mufford, Box 114, Milner, was in attendance and commented that Option J
would cost less than the Township’s preliminary plan; would provide additional
usable land to Kwantlen Polytechnic University (KPU) for agriculture use; provide
a site for foot traffic from light rail transit to the KPU, and use less ALR land. He
expressed concerns relative to public safety, emergency response, increased
gridlock, and increased expense regarding the overpass proposal. He noted that
the Hon. John Cummins, MP, provided a letter to be read aloud noting that
Council should demand that heavy rail traffic be re-routed.
2. Pam Omelaniec, 23712 – 56 Avenue, was in attendance and commented that
she had expressed concerns regarding the destruction of Royal Hudson Bay
lands to the Prince of Wales.
3. Harvey Schultz, 27007 – 26 Avenue, Aldergrove, was in attendance and
commented that the two Langley’s should only be facilitators of the CP Rail. He
indicated his opposition to the project.
4. Sam Omelaniec, 23712 – 56 Avenue, was in attendance and commented that
the main consideration is to remove heavy rail traffic from Langley. He
continued that if an overpass is developed, he would suggest a reverse “J”;
straighten Hog valley road, and connect to 64 Avenue.
5. Cyanna Mufford and Earl Mufford, 21499 Crush Crescent, were in attendance
and commented that they disagreed with the proposed extension through
historical Hudson Bay land. She continued that they were opposed to the project
due to decreased access to their farmland; the new road would destroy prime
farmland; increased traffic; public safety concerns; lack of analysis of impact on
farmland; road design is incomplete without access roads to farms; no direct
access to Glover Road; and missing details on gas pipelines crossings.
pipelines.
6. Terry Lyster, 602, 32440 Simon Avenue, Abbotsford, was in attendance and
commented that constructing the overpass will confirm the cores of both
Langley’s as a heavy rail route in perpetuity. He noted that from safety,
planning, property value, sustainability and livability perspectives having
permanent heavy rail traffic is bad. He stated that local concerns have to be
reflected and part of the overall consideration, only Council and staff can provide
that local perspective. He added that if the overpass does not proceed, the Port
will still be there; the need to move ever-increasing amounts of freight traffic will
be there and opportunities for better integrated plans for heavy and light rail
traffic, use of river, and light rail transportation will still be there. He noted that
the overpass is perceived as a solution for municipalities and highways – there
are 7 other crossings that should be fixed. He continued that nothing should
happen on Township of Langley intersections unless other crossings are funded;
none of the solutions work for local interests.
7. John Klabde, 19961 – 36 Avenue, was in attendance and commented that he
supported Option J. He noted that close off Mufford Crescent could be closed off
and funds spent on 204 Street expansion and upgrading 72 Avenue to Glover or
204 Street to the freeway.
8. Garry Vanderveen, 21670 Maxwell Crescent, was in attendance and commented
that he did not support the proposal.
February 9, 2009
Special Council Meeting
For The Purpose of Mufford/64 Avenue Road/Rail Overpass Minutes - 60 -

A. PUBLIC MEETING

9. Don Nundal, 23727 – 62A Avenue, was in attendance and commented that he
did not support the proposal.
10. Ken Cannon, 21682 Maxwell, was in attendance and commented that he was
opposed to an overpass proposal. He cited concerns relative to taxes, whistle
blowing, environmental impact, and train length and frequency.

Councillor Dornan left the meeting at 8:35 p.m. and rejoined the meeting at
8:38 p.m.

11. Ray Lewis, 5708 – 208 Street, was in attendance and commented that he was
opposed to the proposal.
12. Marianne Smith, 21352 Smith Crescent, was in attendance and commented that
she opposed the proposed overpass and cited concerns relative to increasing rail
traffic.
13. Glenn Smith, 21352 Smith Crescent, was in attendance and commented that he
opposed to the Mufford Crescent/64 Avenue overpass as it is currently proposed.
He added that rail crossing protection measures should be undertaken
immediately.
14. Lynn Whitehouse, 20513 – 51A Avenue, was in attendance and commented that
she is the Executive Director of the Greater Langley Chamber of Commerce and
serves on the Lower Mainland Chamber Transportation Panel. She continued
that she had concerns relative to costly delays to movement of people, goods
and services; environmental impact; and increased traffic congestion. She
stated that the Township of Langley Master Transportation Plan recognized the
need for east-west traffic corridors, and the north-south overpass on
204 Street is a vital connection and provides smooth movement of traffic, She
stated that on behalf of the Greater Langley Chamber of Commerce she
requested Council move forward with the best solution concerning the safe and
efficient movement of people, goods and services now and into the future.
15. Eric Bysouth, 5212 – 201A Street, was in attendance and commented that the
intersection of Glover Road and Mufford Crescent needs to be repaired. He
continued that he had concerns relative to the destruction of farmland and the
lack of a proper long-range transportation plan. He expressed opposition to the
proposal.
16. Michael Robson, PO Box 10, Milner, was in attendance and expressed his
opposition to the proposal. He advised that he would like to see more
communication with the City of Langley and other political organizations on this
issue.
17. Karl Iberg, 22965 – 64 Avenue, was in attendance and commented that he was
opposed to the proposed Mufford Street/64 Avenue overpass, citing concerns
relative to public safety and loss of farmland. He noted that VALTAC’s Option J
may be a better solution.

The meeting recessed at 9:20 p.m. and reconvened at 9:31 p.m.

18. Taylor Swift, 21876 – 64 Avenue, was in attendance and commented that she
had concerns relative to public safety, lack of sidewalks, and increased traffic.
19. Harold Swift, 21886 – 64 Avenue, was in attendance and commented that he
had concerns relative to impact on neighbourhood. He advised that he was
February 9, 2009
Special Council Meeting
For The Purpose of Mufford/64 Avenue Road/Rail Overpass Minutes - 61 -

A. PUBLIC MEETING

opposed to the proposal.

20. Dave Ormrod, 5910 – 216 Street, was in attendance and commented that he had
concerns relative to increased traffic, snow removal, and bicycle/pedestrian
safety. He advised that he opposed the proposal and that Glover Road should
be the only road that is four laned.
21. Peter Holt, 13427 Marie, Surrey, was in attendance and commented that the
proposal will result in increased revenues for Port Metro Vancouver and
DeltaPort and increased trade opportunities for Canada. He stated that Council
must have the vision, courage, and belief to do what’s best for Langley.
22. Elisabeth Robson, 21837 – 61 Avenue, was in attendance and commented that
she had concerns relative to increased traffic, congestion, and emergency
vehicle response. She indicated that she was opposed to the project.

Councillor Kositsky left the meeting at 9:45 p.m. and rejoined the meeting at
9:49 p.m.

23. Shirley Collins, 6144 – 228 Street, was in attendance and commented that the
solution is “no trains” and indicated opposition to the proposed project.
24. Dean Holcombe, 21685 – 64 Avenue, was in attendance and commented that he
had concerns relative to increased traffic, transport of hazardous materials by
rail, and safe use of farm vehicles on roads. He suggested the removal of the
trains and advised that he was opposed to the proposal.
25. Robert Moats, 6672 – 240 Street, was in attendance and commented that he
lives next to Brown’s Pit. He continued that he opposed the proposal and that
rail traffic should be re-routed.
26. Bruce M. Anderson, 21836 – 64 Avenue, was in attendance and commented that
he opposed the proposal.
27. Martin Robson, 25988 – 36 Avenue, was in attendance and commented that he
opposed the proposed project. He requested Council seek further outside
professional advice on the project and consider building an overpass at Highway
10, cut off Mufford Crescent, provide six lanes on Highway 10, and protect
farmland.
28. Esther Lindberg, 202, 20645 Eastleigh Crescent, was in attendance and
commented that Mufford Crescent should be closed off on the west side of the
tracks. She continued that Langley needs other thoroughfares and sidewalks
and the area of Glover Road south of Trinity Western University is unsafe. She
expressed opposition to the proposal.
29. Joseph Comeau, 21225 Crush Crescent, was in attendance and commented that
the survey recently undertaken was biased and constructed to support the
proposal. He continued that the survey only presented one option and was
carried out prior to the letter from Minister Kevin Falcon.
30. Josef Oakes, 21510 – 64 Avenue, was in attendance and commented that he
had concerns relative to access to his property. He stated that he was opposed
to the proposal.
31. Hugh Davis, 21660 – 76B Avenue, was in attendance and commented that he
had concerns relative to loss of good farmland. He suggested Glover Road be
widened.
February 9, 2009
Special Council Meeting
For The Purpose of Mufford/64 Avenue Road/Rail Overpass Minutes - 62 -

A. PUBLIC MEETING

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

MOTION

Moved by Councillor Long,

Seconded by Councillor Richter,
That the meeting be extended by five minutes to hear the delegations.
CARRIED

B. TERMINATE
Moved by Councillor Bateman,
Seconded by Councillor Dornan,
That the meeting terminate at 11:02 p.m.
CARRIED
February 9, 2009
Special Council Meeting
For The Purpose of Mufford/64 Avenue Road/Rail Overpass Minutes - 63 -

CERTIFIED CORRECT:

Mayor

Deputy Township Clerk