Friday, September 04, 2009

From: Rick Green

Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 11:37 AM

To: Jordan Bateman; Bev Dornan; Bob Long; Bob Long (Councillor); Charlie Fox; Grant Ward; Jordan Bateman;
Kim Richter; Kim Richter (Councillor); Mel Kositsky; Rick Green; Steve Ferguson
Cc: 'Rich Coleman (rich.coleman.mla@leg.bc.ca)'; 'Mary Polak'; 'Mayor Peter Fassbender'; Mark Bakken;
'Kimberley Houlind (warawm1@parl.gc.ca)'; 'warawm7@parl.gc.ca'; 'editor@langlyadvance.com'; Aldergrove Star;
Langley Times

Subject: RE: 64th Avenue Overpass

Importance: High

To all members of council:

RE My presentation to the ALC Staff re the Mufford Cresc. Diversion

First I want to be very clear on a few fronts - that I had no intention of making a presentation to the ALC Staff until I
received a copy of the submission made by the Funding Partners answering the 9 conditions by the ALC regarding
their conditional approval - I made the presentation as a private individual (albeit I can't hide from being the mayor)
clearly stating that fact in my letter - as well as specifically stating the fact that my comments in no way reflected the
wishes nor opinion of our council.

The presentation made was not made on Township letterhead. I can tell all members of council that our meeting
with Tony Pellett and Colin Fry was very worthwhile discussing a wide range of issues affecting the ALR. I might
add that any member of council has the same opportunity to make a presentation as I did. As to the suggested
secrecy, that is just not the case. I have told a variety of people that I made the presentation with no interest in hiding
it. From senior staff to members of the community and having exactly that conversation with ALC Staff, nobody
was hiding anything. As to why council was not informed by me? As it was a personal and community member
presentation, which is my right as it is any member of councils, there was no need to do so.

The key reason I decided to make the presentation was some of the content and statements that were made related
specifically to two options. One of the conditions made by the ALC under it's conditional approval was that 216th
Street not be widened between 64th Ave and Fraser Highway, and wanted a guarantee to that end. The Funding
Partners presentation shows under the proposed plan that 216th St would stay two lanes and would affect the least
number of Agricultural Properties.

Their presentation shows under the J Option that 216th Street would need to be widened and would affect the
greatest number of properties. In my opinion, and I stated that fact, this makes absolutely no sense. If you are
transferring that volume of traffic over to 64th and 216th (approx 500 cars an hour) 216th Street would need to be
widened in due course contrary to the statement made which then would affect a far greater number of properties.
Under the J Option there is no reason for 216th Street to be widened, which is suggested in their submission,
therefore affecting the least number of properties.

I want to be clear on another front - as I discussed with ALC Staff I am not, will not nor am I trying to interfere in
their decision making process and will respect any decision they make, I just want them to be made aware of some
facts and decide on that basis. I DID NOT misrepresent who I was talking for or on behalf of nor was I speaking too,
about, or against the decision made by council. The discussion was not in any way against an overpass, just
comments against the chosen option based on statements made in the Funding Partners proposal.

If anyone would like to discuss further I would be pleased to do so.

Sincerely,

W. Rick Green
MAYOR