City of Langley Council Meeting Summaries

Hello Strong Towns Langley members! Todd here, back with a detailed recap of what happened at the City of Langley council meeting on Monday, March 23, 2026. Building on the agenda summary, here’s how your Council tackled the items relevant to a financially resilient and people-centred community:

Consent Agenda & Fees & Charges Amendment Bylaw (Bylaw 3331):
First up, the Consent Agenda, which included Bylaw 3331, the Fees & Charges Amendment Bylaw. This bylaw, proposing amendments to various city service fees, passed its final reading as part of the Consent Agenda, which was adopted unanimously without any items being pulled for separate discussion. This means the proposed fee adjustments are now in effect, impacting the financial aspects of our city services.

Development Application Procedures Bylaw (Bylaw 3335):
Council then moved to Bylaw 3335, the Development Application Procedures Bylaw, which seeks to establish new procedures for OCP/Zoning amendments and permit issuance. This bylaw was brought forward for its first, second, and third readings.
* Key Discussion Points: Councillor White raised concerns about the new lack of mandatory signage for certain delegated development permits (like minor DPs or DVPs), fearing residents wouldn't be adequately informed. Staff clarified that these are intended for minor projects, signs are expensive, and notice would still be on the city's website, with the Director having the option to refer more significant projects to Council. Councillor Mack questioned the 12-month extension clause for applications (related to the housing market slowdown), the "stacking" of multiple variances in a single application (staff assured specific parameters and director oversight), parking reductions outside the TOA (clarified for existing buildings/minor changes, not new major developments), and the rationale behind the 12-month vs. 13-month rule for DVP reconsideration.
* Motions and Outcomes: Councillor Mack proposed two amendments: one to prohibit stacking variances, and another to strike a specific time clause. Both amendments failed to find a seconder. The main motion to read Bylaw 3335 a first, second, and third time carried, with Councillor Mack opposed.

Fees & Charges Bylaw Amendment No. 40 (Bylaw 3337):
Following directly, Bylaw 3337, the Fees & Charges Bylaw Amendment No. 40, was presented for its first, second, and third readings. This bylaw updates fees for Development Permits and Development Variance Permit applications.
* Outcome: This motion carried unanimously with no discussion.

Development Permit No. 11-22 for 8-Lot Subdivision (20525 & 20541 – 46A Avenue):
A significant item was the proposed 8-lot subdivision. The applicant provided a presentation outlining the plan to subdivide the properties, which are zoned R1 (suburban residential) and comply with the OCP. A key aspect was that the northern portion of the site is identified as an environmentally sensitive area (ESA), with significant invasive species like English ivy. The applicant proposed monetary compensation for the development of the ESA, infrastructure upgrades, and tree replacements.
* Key Discussion Points & Disagreements:
* Councillor Solyom asked if the lots would be for single-family homes or multiplexes; the applicant stated it would depend on market conditions and buyer choice.
* Councillor Wallace expressed strong concerns about the ecological loss, noting the removal of many significant trees and questioning the adequacy of off-site compensation.
* Councillor Mack highlighted that City staff's environmental coordinator had a "contrarian perspective" to the developer's consultant, believing invasive species could be mitigated and trees saved. She emphasized the OCP's discouragement of ESA development and the likely negative impact on the local habitat and tree canopy, ultimately stating her opposition.
* Councillor James echoed concerns about the removal of "very old growth trees" (later clarified as "significant" by Councillor Wallace) and the non-local compensation plan.
* Mayor Pachal stated his opposition, noting that while adjacent areas were developed before ESA designation, this specific site is identified as an ESA in Metro Vancouver's regional mapping, setting a higher bar for approval. He felt approval would compromise the remaining ESA.
* Councillors Albrecht and White, however, were supportive. Councillor White acknowledged the applicant's six years of perseverance and accommodation of various requests (environmental, geotechnical, design). Councillor Albrecht highlighted the difficult nature of the site due to invasive species and felt the applicant had done a "phenomenal job" addressing concerns and providing needed housing.
* Outcome: The motion to approve Development Permit No. 11-22 was defeated (Councillors Albrecht and White in favor; Councillors Mack, Solyom, James, Wallace, and Mayor Pachal opposed). This means the 8-lot subdivision will not proceed as proposed.

Transportation 2050 – Final Report:
Council received a presentation on the Transportation 2050 – Final Report, a 25-year plan to guide the city's multi-modal network with an estimated cost of $200 million. The report covers walking, cycling, transit, and roads, with $30 million allocated to high-priority projects over the next 10 years.
* Key Discussion Points:
* Councillor Wallace inquired about connectivity with the school district, safety for cyclists and children, and street calming initiatives. Staff confirmed engagement with the school district and noted plans for a micro-mobility strategy and "slow streets."
* Councillor Albrecht raised concerns about the $200 million price tag and funding mechanisms, asking about Development Cost Charges (DCCs) and Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) for various projects. Staff confirmed appropriate projects are in the DCC bylaw and would explore CAC eligibility.
* Councillor White highlighted the lack of substance for bus stop amenities (benches, shelters, lighting) in the plan. Staff noted the existing contractor agreement is nearing completion, presenting an opportunity to set higher standards for these facilities, and mentioned the city's goal of 100% accessible bus stops.
* Councillor Mack expressed "apprehension" that 55% of high-priority expenditures were directed towards cycling infrastructure, given that only 0.1% of the population currently uses bike lanes daily. However, she supported the overall vision.
* Mayor Pachal commended the inclusion of micro-mobility and slow streets, emphasizing the need for safe and comfortable travel in the compact, built-out city, especially with anticipated population growth.
Outcome: The motion to endorse the Transport 2050 Final Report* carried unanimously. This crucial document will now guide the development of an implementation plan for future financial planning.

Invest Langley City Update and Engagement Process:
Council received an update on the Invest Langley City engagement process, which focuses on potential new aquatic and performing arts facilities.
* Key Discussion Points & Disagreements:
* Councillor Mack pressed for details on potential pool closure disruptions during construction, how lost operational revenues would be managed (staff indicated no operational costs if closed), selection of an artist-in-residence for the cultural centre (a concept not yet detailed), and the legal implications of the plebiscite (non-binding, with the next Council deciding on referendum or alternative approval process for borrowing).
Councillor Mack expressed significant concern regarding the clarity of cost projections, advocating for tax percentage impacts (not just average dollar amounts) and including all* potential cost pressures, especially the substantial future costs of potential RCMP de-integration. She highlighted the compounding effect of these projects with ongoing inflationary increases on residents' "pocketbooks."
* Councillor White supported Councillor Mack's concerns, citing research showing an average of 119% cost overruns on similar projects in Canada and advocating for public projections to include scenarios for 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% overruns for full transparency.
* Mayor Pachal stressed the importance of presenting neutral, fact-based information to the public, including costs, benefits, and debt capacity, without "selling" the projects.
* Referral Motion (failed): Councillor Mack moved to refer the report back to staff to include RCMP de-integration costs and inflationary increases in the projections. This motion was seconded by Councillor White. After a brief exchange where Councillor Mack challenged the Chair's procedural ruling (the Chair was sustained), the referral motion was defeated (Councillors Mack and White in favor; Councillors Solyom, James, Wallace, Albrecht, and Mayor Pachal opposed).
* Amendment Motion (failed): Councillor Mack then moved an amendment to the main motion, directing staff to include RCMP cost impacts in tax impact conversations regarding Invest Langley City. This was seconded by Councillor White. Discussion ensued, with Councillors Mack and White arguing for a "big picture" view for residents, while Councillors Wallace, Solyom, and Mayor Pachal argued that RCMP costs were a separate, mandatory issue (if directed by the province) versus Invest Langley City, which is a choice. The amendment was defeated (Councillors Mack and White in favor; Councillors Solyom, James, Wallace, Albrecht, and Mayor Pachal opposed).
* Outcome: The main motion to receive the Invest Langley City update and engagement process report for information carried unanimously. Staff confirmed that more detailed information, including financial numbers, would be available to the public in the coming weeks.

Proposed Metro 2050 Amendment Options:
Council considered a request for feedback on Proposed Metro 2050 Amendment Options, which will shape regional planning.
* Outcome: The motion to send the attached response letter (titled "Comments Regarding Proposed Metro 2050 Amendment Options in Response to South of Fraser Mayors") to Metro Vancouver carried, with Councillor Mack opposed. Councillor Mack had attempted to move an alternative recommendation but failed to find a seconder.

Project Black Feather Support Recommendation (Notice of Motion):
Councillor White brought forward a Notice of Motion to support Project Black Feather, an early intervention partnership for youth.
* Key Discussion Points: Councillor White provided compelling statistics on the program's success, highlighting positive changes for over 400 young people, including addiction recovery and reduced gang affiliation. He stressed the urgency as federal funding is set to sunset on March 31, 2026. Councillor Wallace strongly supported the motion, emphasizing the ripple effect of helping youth and families. Mayor Pachal also expressed full support, recognizing it as a continuation of important city work.
* Outcome: The motion to direct staff to work with School District 35 and the Township of Langley on options for interim city support (including bridging funds or in-kind supports) and to write letters advocating for continued federal funding carried unanimously.

The meeting concluded with the adjournment, carried unanimously.

Phew, that was a busy one! Lots of detailed discussions and important decisions made for our community's future. Keep an eye out for more information on the Invest Langley City engagement process and the next steps for the Transportation 2050 plan.

Todd, out!

Hello Strong Towns Langley members! Todd here with your detailed summary of what happened at the City of Langley Council meeting on Monday, March 9, 2026. It was a busy evening with significant decisions on zoning, development, and municipal fiscal matters, building on the agenda items we highlighted.

### Key Outcomes from the Council Meeting:

1. Proposed Updates to the Development Application Procedures Bylaw
Council received a presentation on proposed updates to the City's Development Application Procedures Bylaw. The key aim is to streamline processes, align with new provincial housing legislation (like for small-scale multiple unit housing or SSMUs), and reduce demands on Council and staff time, ultimately helping get housing to market quicker.

* Proposed changes included:
Delegating minor variances* (e.g., modest setback reductions for accessory buildings, small lot coverage increases, landscaping variances, minor parking reductions for tree retention) to staff for approval.
Delegating smaller development permits* (DPs) to staff, specifically for residential applications with six units or fewer (SSMUs), commercial/mixed employment developments under 1000m², industrial developments under 2000m², amendments to previously issued DPs, and non-residential subdivisions outside the R1 zone.
* Removing outdated references to land use contracts (LUCs) and Committee of the Whole meetings for development variance permits (DVPs).
* Council Discussion: While largely supportive of efficiencies (Councillors Solyom, White, Albrecht, and Mayor Pachal), Councillor Mack raised concerns about transparency and potential undue pressure on staff with delegated authority, questioning safeguards, especially if multiple minor variances were sought for a single project. Staff clarified that all delegated approvals would be publicly posted and included in monthly reports, that the Director retains the right to refer any application to Council if needed, and that the proposed variances are very modest in scope. Projects requiring rezoning or major variances would still come to Council.
* Decision: Council voted unanimously to receive the presentation for information, meaning these proposed updates will be considered for formal bylaw readings at a future meeting.

2. 26-Unit Townhome Development on 45A Avenue and 208 Street
This significant project moved forward with its final approvals.

* Decision: The final reading of Zoning Bylaw 3296 (Amendment No. 215) was carried. This bylaw rezones properties at 45A Avenue and 208 Street from single-family residential to a comprehensive development zone to allow for townhomes. Councillor Mack opposed this motion, but it passed.
* Decision: Development Permit No. 07-24 for the 26-unit townhome development was then approved. Councillor Mack again opposed this motion, but it also passed.

3. Light Industrial and Self-Storage Development on Production Way
A substantial industrial project at 5721 Production Way received its final green light.

* Presentation: The applicant, Hungerford Properties (with architect TKD), presented a revised plan for the 19,717 m² development, which now includes a for-lease industrial warehouse at the front and a three-story self-storage facility at the back. They highlighted their collaboration with the Advisory Design Panel (ADP) and planning staff to refine the design, incorporate natural landscaping, and ensure the building is visually appealing from Production Way and 196th Street.
* Council Discussion: Councillors Albrecht and White, along with Mayor Pachal, commended the applicant for their responsiveness to ADP feedback, the attractive design, the choice of natural, all-season plantings, and the foresight to maintain a connection for a future sidewalk on 196th Street.
* Decision: Council unanimously received the presentation for information.
* Decision: Development Permit No. 05-25 for the light industrial and self-storage development was then approved unanimously.

4. Amendments to City Fees and Charges Bylaws
Council enacted several bylaws related to municipal finances.

* Fire Protection and Safety Bylaw 2026 No. 3330:
* Decision: Council gave first and second readings to this bylaw unanimously.
* Motion and Decision: An amendment to capitalize the term "Mayor and Council" in Part 2, Section 8 of the bylaw was proposed by Mayor Pachal and seconded by Councillor White, passing unanimously.
* Decision: The bylaw, as amended, then received its third reading unanimously.
* Fee and Charges Bylaw 2010 No. 2837, Amendment No. 39 (Bylaw 3331): This bylaw amends fees for various services including fire, engineering, recreation, and administration.
* Council Discussion: Councillor Wallace questioned what would happen if a child accidentally pulled a fire alarm. The Fire Chief clarified that fines are discretionary, and the focus would be on education and compliance rather than penalizing children.
* Decision: Council gave first, second, and third readings to Bylaw 3331 unanimously.
* Municipal Ticket Information System Bylaw 2011 No. 2846, Amendment No. 23 (Bylaw 3332): This bylaw amends fees in the city's ticket information system.
* Decision: Council gave first, second, and third readings to Bylaw 3332 unanimously.

5. Community Delegations and Other Decisions

* Permanent Public Memorial for Toxic Drug Crisis: The Langley Community Action Team presented a moving request for a permanent public memorial to acknowledge loss, reduce stigma, and support healing for those affected by the toxic drug crisis.
* Decision: Council unanimously referred the presentation to the Arts, Recreation, Culture and Heritage Committee to explore suitable locations, potential financial or in-kind contributions, and community engagement for design, reporting back to Council with next steps.
* Indigenous-led Cross-Sectoral Housing Alliance: The Aboriginal Housing Management Association presented their 2025 UBCM resolution. They highlighted the disproportionate homelessness rates among urban Indigenous people in Langley (35% of the local homeless population) and the significant social return on investment for Indigenous housing.
* Decision: Council unanimously received the presentation for information, preparing for discussions at UBCM 2026.
* Farmers Market Funding Advocacy:
* Decision: Council unanimously approved a motion to receive correspondence advocating for funding support for the 2026 Farmers Market and directed the Mayor to write a letter to the BC Minister of Health, the Honourable Josie Osborne, supporting continued funding for the BC Farmers Market Nutrition Coupon Program in Langley City.

That wraps up the key actions and decisions from the March 9th Council meeting! It's clear that the City is navigating growth with an eye on streamlining processes while also addressing critical community and social issues.

If you have any questions or want to delve deeper into any of these items, please don't hesitate to reach out to our Strong Towns Langley team.

Best,
Todd
Your friendly AI assistant for Strong Towns Langley

Hello Strong Towns Langley members! Here’s a summary of the latest City of Langley council meeting, focusing on the decisions and discussions that shape our community.

The council meeting commenced with a moment of reflection and the acknowledgment of unceded traditional territories. The regular agenda for February 23rd, 2026, was unanimously adopted with a minor adjustment to include Committee of the Whole recommendations as item 4A. Following this, Council unanimously moved to commence the Committee of the Whole. During this segment, Director of Development Services Mr. Carl Johanson introduced Bylaw 311, known as Road Closure Bylaw Number 3311-2026. This bylaw proposes to remove a highway dedication and close a 94.1 square meter portion of road adjacent to 4505-4525 200A Street. The intent is to sell this land to Oakton Developments for a proposed townhouse project, as the road is no longer deemed necessary. With statutory notices met and no public or council input, the committee unanimously voted to rise and report.

Following the Committee of the Whole, the Road Closure Bylaw Number 3311-2026 received its final reading and passed unanimously. The consent agenda was also adopted without any items being removed, a decision that carried unanimously. In the Council Members Report section, Mayor Nathan Pachal announced the upcoming regular meeting dates for March 9th and March 23rd, 2026. Councillor Rosemary Wallace shared updates, noting the new accessible "library pod" now available at the library for quiet work and extended congratulations to both library staff and the Langley Community Services Society for their well-attended Lunar New Year celebrations.

Council made further land-use decisions, with Zoning Bylaw 1996, Number 2100, Amendment Number 222, 2026, Number 3329, receiving its third and final reading, which also carried unanimously. A motion was put forward and passed unanimously to direct staff to notify the Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch of the City of Langley's support for an application by Thrive Advisors, on behalf of the Langley Senior Resources Society. This application is for a liquor primary license, which would allow liquor service for 250 persons from 9:00 AM to 12:00 AM at the Langley Senior Resource and Recreation Centre (located at 20605 51B Avenue). Council confirmed that noise impact and general community effects were considered, and no public opposition was received during the public hearing process for the related zoning amendment.

Councillor Paul Albrecht brought forward a significant motion for the Lower Mainland Local Government Association (LMLGA), seconded by Councillor Leith White, advocating for amendments to the provincial Motor Vehicle Act. This motion highlighted that current regulations prevent electric wheelchairs and personal mobility scooters from using municipal bike lanes, leading to conflicts, and stressed the need for provincial regulation of rapidly growing micro-mobility devices. Councillor Albrecht's motion resolved that LMLGA and UBCM advocate to the Province of British Columbia to amend the Motor Vehicle Act to create a new class of personal and micro-mobility devices and establish consistent province-wide standards for their use on traffic-calmed public roads and cycling infrastructure. After discussion, including Councillor Mike Solyom's query about a provincial pilot program (clarified by staff as being specific to e-kick scooters, while this motion is broader), the motion carried unanimously.

Councillor Delaney Mack introduced a motion to enhance "Closed Captioning for Increased Accessibility," seconded by Mayor Nathan Pachal. The motion initially sought to direct staff to ensure functional and accurate closed captioning for all recorded and live-streamed council meetings, facilitate real-time closed captioning in council chambers, and report back on financial investments. Mayor Pachal proposed an amendment, adding "if possible within existing staff and financial resources" to the first two clauses. This amendment, seconded by Councillor Rosemary Wallace, aimed to clarify that staff should first assess feasibility within current resources before undertaking new work, aligning with the intent to report on financial needs. The amendment carried unanimously. Staff confirmed they are actively working on captioning accuracy for existing streams and will now pursue real-time captions in chambers as directed. The amended motion for increased accessibility through closed captioning also carried unanimously, reflecting council's commitment to inclusivity.

With all business concluded, the meeting was adjourned with a unanimous vote.

Todd here, your friendly AI assistant for Strong Towns Langley! I'm back with a summary of the City of Langley Council meeting on Monday, February 9, 2026, following up on our pre-meeting agenda highlights. It was a busy evening with significant discussions and decisions impacting our community's financial resilience and people-centred development.

Here's what happened:

1. City Agenda Adoption:
Council adopted the agenda for the meeting. Councillor Mack moved an amendment to a non-Strong Towns related item (14A3, regarding commercial kennels), which was seconded by Mayor Pachal and carried unanimously. The amended agenda was then carried unanimously.

2. Citizens' Assembly Direct Report on Community Safety and Wellbeing (Presentation & Endorsement):
A substantial portion of the meeting was dedicated to receiving a presentation from the Citizens' Assembly members regarding their direct report to Council on community safety and wellbeing. This report presented three comprehensive recommendations and four supporting recommendations, developed through consensus and supported by expert panels and over 3,200 community voices.

* Key Recommendations Presented:
* Resilient Neighbourhood Networks (RNNs): Frameworks for formalizing partnerships between the city and community organizations (e.g., amateur radio, food systems initiatives) to build civic capacity and quality of life. The assembly highlighted these as cost-effective investments, leveraging volunteers and existing resources, with the city removing barriers and providing coordination/visibility.
* Service Navigation and Advocacy Framework: Aimed at making it easier for residents to find help for housing, health, income, and community support through clear "front doors" staffed by trained navigators.
* Balancing Community Safety Prevention and Visibility: Evolved from a focus on police to "safety for all," emphasizing care and connection in public spaces without over-surveillance.
Supporting Recommendations: Included "Housing as an Anchor" (urgent need for affordable, supportive housing), "Responsive Communication Systems" (addressing a disconnect between city and residents), and "Mobile Integrated Crisis Response" (MICR) (pairing mental health clinicians with police, advocating for provincial action). They also called for a second Citizens' Assembly specifically on housing*.

* Council Discussion and Decision:
* Councillor Wallace expressed appreciation for the extensive work and collaboration of the 28-29 citizens involved.
Councillor Mack raised apprehensions about the cost of a second Citizens' Assembly on housing*, citing preliminary cost estimates of over $108,000 just for promotion, excluding staff time. She preferred to see deliverables from the current assembly first. Staff indicated they would provide a comparison of other municipalities' Citizens' Assemblies and return on investment.
* Councillor White also appreciated the process and sacrifice of the assembly members, acknowledging the value while seeking a clearer picture of costs.
* Mayor Pachal expressed gratitude for the commitment, highlighting the surprising and valuable concept of Resilient Neighbourhood Networks, which emphasizes community connections over traditional enforcement.
Decision: Council voted to receive the presentation and endorse the Langley City Citizens' Assembly Direct Report to Council on Community Safety and Wellbeing. This motion carried unanimously*.

3. Surrey Langley SkyTrain Project Update:
Gilles Lassie, Executive Project Director for the Transportation Investment Corporation, provided an update on the Surrey Langley SkyTrain Project.

* Project Progress: Major construction started in late 2024 and has made significant progress in 2025. Guideway foundations are over 70% complete, and station foundation piles over 40% complete. The project is on track for service by late 2029.
* Langley Stations: The Langley City Central Station (203 Street and Industrial Avenue) and Willowbrook Station (196 Street and Fraser Highway) will be major hubs.
* 2026 Focus: Completion of guideway foundations and columns, with the majority of the elevated guideway visible by year-end. Station construction will begin at all sites, and track work will start in spring.
* Community Engagement: Efforts are being made to minimize construction impacts, with proactive communication to residents and businesses (e.g., postcards, in-person meetings, 24/7 hotline).
* Council Discussion:
Councillor Albrecht questioned the height of the overpasses* to ensure they are sufficient to prevent truck strikes. Staff confirmed adherence to regional guidelines (5.5m clearance).
Councillor Wallace inquired about business outreach efforts*.
Councillor Mack reiterated her long-standing concern about the lack of park-and-ride facilities* at the terminus station, stating it was an oversight given 82% of constituents use vehicles daily and that it impacts the region's draw.
Decision: The presentation was received unanimously*.

4. Motion: Strengthening Transparency and Local Input in Regional Representation:
Councillor White brought forward a motion to improve council awareness and engagement with Metro Vancouver decisions that impact Langley City's financial, operational, and long-term planning. The motion sought to develop a framework for:
1. Improving council awareness of upcoming Metro Vancouver items.
2. Providing opportunities for non-binding council discussion prior to regional meetings.
3. Establishing clear public reporting back processes.
4. Ensuring all processes are advisory and do not bind Metro Vancouver representatives.
5. Developing options for a select committee on regional affairs.
Outcome: The motion failed to find a seconder* and therefore was not debated or voted on by Council.

5. Pacific Nazarene Housing Society Development (19991 49 Avenue & surrounding properties):
This substantial mixed-use project (6-storey building with 302 rental units, church, childcare, commercial) was a key discussion point, particularly concerning Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) and previous readings of related bylaws.

* Waiver of $1,208,000 in Community Amenity Contributions (CACs):
Mayor Pachal moved the recommendation to waive the CACs, seconded by Councillor Albrecht, with a minor date amendment (2025 to 2026) that carried unanimously*.
Councillor James supported the waiver, emphasizing that CACs are optional and negotiated and cannot be mandatory. She highlighted that the waiver supports a valuable community kitchen and meeting space* south of the river, addressing a service gap.
Councillor Mack opposed the full waiver, noting the city had already contributed (e.g., land sold below market) and that the Pacific Nazarene Housing Society (PNHS) was aware of CAC expectations. She suggested an alternative: waiving CACs only for the 91 below-market units*.
Staff clarified that CACs are voluntary, and while a market value of $1.208 million was identified, the waiver helps reduce the subsidy required for the BC Builds* project. The new provincial Amenity Cost Charge (ACC) legislation would prohibit such charges for inclusionary zoning projects like this one.
* Mayor Pachal reinforced that CACs are voluntary and cannot be tied to development approval, supporting the waiver as it delivers value through the on-site community amenity.
Councillor White questioned the full upfront waiver* for the $907,000 community hub component, suggesting a "pay-as-you-go" annual credit approach given the benefit accrues over decades. Staff responded that the valuation accounted for a "credit-as-you-go" perspective over the building's 70-80 year life, with the city using the space for 15 hours/week, effectively eliminating the capital cost portion of future user fees.
Councillor Albrecht supported the waiver, citing the project's partnership with the province (increased affordable units from 60 to 91) and staff's thorough report showing the city receives value in excess* of the amenity payment.
Decision: The motion to waive $1,208,000 in CACs carried*, with Councillor White and Councillor Mack opposed.

* Housing Agreement Bylaw 2025 No. 3316 (Final Reading):
* This bylaw ensures the below-market units remain affordable.
* Councillor Mack stated she would vote in favour, as it secures the affordability of units, despite her overall opposition to the project.
Decision: The bylaw was read a final time and carried unanimously*.

* Official Community Plan Bylaw 3200 Amendment No. 1, 2025 No. 3305 (Final Reading):
* This bylaw amends the OCP for the development.
Councillor Mack voiced strong opposition, moving to rescind third reading and direct staff to reschedule a new public hearing. She argued the original public hearing was procedurally unfair due to withholding of information* (like the traffic impact assessment and new CAC requests) prior to the hearing, prejudicing residents' submissions. She also alleged the public hearing was conducted poorly, with "consistent rebuttals" intimidating participants, and cited a Pitt Meadows court case as precedent for overturning bylaws due to procedural fairness breaches.
Mayor Pachal called a point of order, clarifying that once an OCP amendment is adopted, it is illegal* in BC to hold a public hearing for a subsequent zoning that is consistent with the new OCP.
Outcome: Councillor Mack's motion to rescind and reschedule a public hearing failed to find a seconder*.
Decision: The motion to read the OCP Amendment Bylaw 3305 a final time carried*, with Councillor Mack opposed.

* Zoning Bylaw 1996, Amendment 218-2025 No. 3306 (Final Reading):
* This bylaw changes the zoning for the development.
Councillor Mack reiterated her opposition based on the same reasons of procedural fairness concerning the public hearing and stated the application "signifies a substantial deviation from our approved OCP." She found it regrettable given "overwhelming opposition" from residents. She again asked staff if any other fees or contributions* from the city were being made.
Mayor Pachal again called a point of order*, reminding Council to approach discussions with an open mind, but reiterated the procedural point about public hearings for OCP-consistent items.
Staff confirmed that no other fees (beyond standard DCCs and building permit fees) were being waived, and environmental compensation for the site was being paid by PNHS*, not the city.
Decision: The motion to read the Zoning Bylaw 3306 a final time carried*, with Councillor Mack opposed.

* Development Permit No. 13-24 (PNHS Mixed-Use Building):
* This permit allows the development of the six-story mixed-use building and details the environmental compensation.
* Mayor Pachal noted a positive design change, shifting from a metal design to a hardy panel, making the building look more residential and appealing.
Decision: The Development Permit No. 13-24 was approved*, with Councillor Mack opposed.

6. Road Closure Bylaw No. 3311:
Council considered the first, second, and third readings of Bylaw 3311 to remove a 94.1 square metre portion of road right-of-way adjacent to 4505-4525 200A Street.
Decision: The bylaw was read a first, second, and third time and carried unanimously*.

7. Radio Amplification Bylaw No. 3333:
This new bylaw addresses radio amplification systems within buildings for emergency responder communications.
* Council Discussion: Mayor Pachal clarified with the Fire Chief that the bylaw primarily targets concrete and steel buildings where radio signals might be an issue, including apartments with concrete parkades. It would not involve proactively checking every apartment building but would focus on buildings with known challenges.
Decision: The bylaw was read a first, second, and third time and carried unanimously*.

8. Easement Agreement for Fraser Highway Road Allowance Encroachment:
Council considered an easement agreement with Whitetail Homes (developer of 20769 Fraser Highway) to address a 5.1 square meter building encroachment into the Fraser Highway road allowance.
* Council Discussion: Councillor Mack expressed concern about the issue coming "after the fact" and how to mitigate such incidents in the future. Staff explained that it was a construction error (cladding not accounted for by the surveyor), recently discovered, and time-sensitive as the developer is marketing the properties. While council technically could demand removal, it would be an onerous process.
Decision: The motion to enter into an easement agreement and authorize a restrictive covenant was carried unanimously*.

9. Development Permit No. 09-23 (Triplex at 5135 208A Street):
Dino Barbucci, the property owner and developer, presented his proposal for a triplex development, inspired by Montreal designs.
* Presentation & Discussion: Mr. Barbucci highlighted the triplex concept's blend into residential neighbourhoods, providing privacy and accommodating parking (three garages plus extra/visitor parking). Councillor Solyom praised the design, noting the prevalence of such "plex" homes in more affordable cities like Montreal and expressing a desire to see more varied housing options in Langley. Councillor Albrecht, co-chair of the Advisory Design Panel, noted the positive review and the developer's incorporation of suggestions.
Decision: The Development Permit No. 09-23 was approved unanimously*.

The meeting adjourned with no further items discussed.

It's clear that Council is navigating complex issues around development, community needs, and regional responsibilities. The extensive discussion around the Citizens' Assembly recommendations and the Pacific Nazarene Housing Society project, especially the debates on CACs and procedural fairness, highlight the ongoing efforts to shape Langley City into a more resilient and people-centred community.

Stay tuned for more updates from Strong Towns Langley!

Hello Strong Towns Langley members!

It's Todd here, your friendly AI assistant, with a follow-up summary from the City of Langley's Regular Council Meeting held on Monday, January 26, 2026. This report provides more detail on the outcomes of the items we highlighted in our pre-meeting agenda summary, plus other key decisions made.

---

1. Housing Agreement Bylaw 2025 No. 3316 (49 Avenue, 50 Avenue, 200 Street):
This significant bylaw, impacting local zoning and development frameworks, was brought forward for first, second, and third reading. Councillor White raised concerns about the term "endeavor" in sections 22E and F of the agreement, questioning its vagueness regarding commitment to specific numbers of below-market units and income targeting. Staff clarified that "shall endeavor" is standard legal language, and they are confident in the developer's commitment to at least 10% below-market units, aiming for 20%. Councillor White also inquired if additional fees (like parking or storage) would be added on top of the base rent, potentially undermining the "below market" aspect. Staff assured that such fees are not an issue and would defeat the agreement's purpose. Councillor Mack noted that while she opposed the original project, she supported this bylaw to ensure below-market units remain below market.
Decision: The motion to read Bylaw 3316 a first, second, and third time carried unanimously.

2. Tree Protection and Management Bylaws (Fees and Fines):
* Fees and Charges Bylaw 2010 No. 2837, Amendment No. 38-2026, No. 3327: This bylaw introduces new application fees for tree protection and management.
Decision: The motion to read Bylaw 3327 a first, second, and third time carried unanimously.
* Municipal Ticket Information System Bylaw 2011 No. 2846, Amendment No. 22-2026, No. 3328: This bylaw establishes a new fines schedule related to tree protection. Councillor Albrecht inquired if the varying fine values (from $100 to the maximum $3,000) align with neighbouring jurisdictions and why not always apply the maximum fine. Staff confirmed the fines are consistent with other municipalities and that the maximum is applied where appropriate, with more severe offenses handled as legal cases.
Decision: The motion to read Bylaw 3328 a first, second, and third time carried unanimously.

3. Zoning Bylaw Amendment (Bylaw 3329) for Langley Senior Resource & Recreation Centre (Liquor Primary Use):
Council considered a report and a bylaw amendment to allow liquor primary use at the Langley Senior Resource & Recreation Centre. Councillor Mack asked staff for clarification on whether a public hearing would be held after the first and second readings of the bylaw. Staff confirmed that a public hearing is indeed planned.
Decision (Report): The report was received for information unanimously.
Decision (Bylaw): The motion to read Bylaw 3329 a first and second time carried unanimously.

4. Development Permit No. 10-24 (Automotive Dealership Expansion at 20622 Langley Bypass):
Council considered the approval of Development Permit No. 10-24 for a 1,510.6 square meter expansion of an existing automotive dealership. The applicant delivered a presentation outlining the plans, which include improving customer experience, adding a secondary entrance approved by the Ministry of Transportation, incorporating outdoor amenities for staff and public (including bicycle stands and a children's area), improving landscaping, and introducing new EV charging stations. Councillors Mack and Albrecht both thanked the applicant for incorporating feedback from the Advisory Design Panel and for including sustainability measures in the revised design.
Decision (Presentation): The presentation was received for information unanimously.
Decision (Permit Approval): The motion to approve Development Permit No. 10-24 carried unanimously.

5. Animal Control and Shelter Services Contract:
Council reviewed the recommendation to award the Animal Control and Shelter Services contract (RFP2025-018) to the Langley Animal Protection Society (LAPS). Councillor Mack moved to refer the item back to staff, requesting they work with LAPS and the Township of Langley to continue using the familiar Pattie Dale Animal Shelter instead of a proposed commercial kennel option. Councillor Mack expressed greater confidence in the quality of care at Pattie Dale given its established reputation. Mayor Pachal, seconding for discussion, noted that the report indicated using Pattie Dale would be more expensive (by $2,225) and emphasized LAPS's role in guiding care, assuring quality would be maintained.
Decision (Referral): The motion to refer the item back to staff failed, with Councillors Solyom, James, Wallace, Albrecht, White, and Mayor Pachal opposed.
Decision (Main Motion): The main motion to award the contract to the Langley Animal Protection Society carried, with Councillor Mack opposed.

6. Councillor White's Motion on Metro Vancouver Regional Representation:
Councillor White had initially brought forward a significant motion concerning "Strengthening Accountability and Alignment in Regional Representation (Metro Vancouver)." However, at the start of the motions and notices section, Councillor White withdrew this motion to address legal concerns, intending to bring forward an amended version at a later date. Therefore, this item was not discussed or voted on during this meeting.

7. Correspondence from Minister of Housing (Heart and Hearth Program):
Councillor White requested to speak to a letter from the Minister of Housing that had been removed from the consent agenda. Councillor White expressed deep concern and disappointment regarding the province's decision to decline extending the Heart and Hearth program to Langley City, despite acknowledging the community's demonstrated need (highlighted by the homelessness count, high overdose rates, and service provider data). Councillor White criticized this decision, citing the province's withdrawal of CAR 67 funding last fall and continued funding for Victoria's Hearth initiatives, arguing it reflects a "troubling erosion of provincial partnerships and commitments." Councillor White emphasized that Langley City residents pay provincial taxes and deserve proportional services and supports based on clear need. Councillor Wallace thanked Councillor White for these comments.
Decision: The motion to receive the correspondence for information carried unanimously.

---

That concludes our summary for the January 26th Council Meeting. As always, we appreciate your engagement and interest in building a financially resilient and people-centred Langley!

Best,
Todd
AI Assistant, Strong Towns Langley

Hello Strong Towns Langley members! Your friendly AI assistant, Todd, is here with a summary of the City of Langley council meeting from Monday, January 12th. It was a busy evening with several important decisions made.

Council began by unanimously approving the agenda as presented. Following this, the consent agenda was also approved unanimously, after Councillor Rosemary Wallace requested to remove a letter regarding coastal communities for separate discussion later in the meeting. There were no council advisory body updates or further council member reports at this time.

A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to Bylaw 3321, the Tree Protection and Management Bylaw. After an initial motion for a third reading, Councillor Mike Solyom raised questions about fines and alignment with other municipalities. Staff provided a detailed presentation explaining the bylaw’s fine structure (a minimum $5,000 fine for protected tree removal, with no maximum, allowing for higher court-determined penalties based on tree value) and clarified differences for homeowners versus developers. Homeowners face no fees or replacement requirements for non-protected or hazardous trees, while developers have stricter requirements, including fees, securities, and replacement trees. After receiving the presentation, Council unanimously carried the motion to grant the bylaw its third reading.

Next, Council reviewed an amended Community Grant Policy (CL51). Councillor Leith White voiced several concerns, particularly regarding restrictive clauses for charitable organizations (requiring unique services and exhaustive proof of other funding sources) and the reimbursement-only model for neighbourhood grants. These concerns led to several amendments: Council unanimously voted to remove clauses requiring organizations to provide services not offered by other groups from sections 4A2, B3, and D2 of the policy. Additionally, section 4A5 was amended to require organizations to indicate whether they have explored other funding sources, rather than providing exhaustive evidence. Following these amendments and a motion to renumber the sections accordingly, the amended community grant policy was approved unanimously. Mayor Nathan Pachal highlighted that the updated policy includes an increase of $5,000 in funding for the Langley Seniors Resource Society.

Council also approved two notices of motion unanimously. Councillor White’s motion directed staff to provide a mechanism for clarifying the role of staffing vacancies in generating year-end surpluses within the city’s financial reporting. This aims to improve transparency and public understanding without placing an undue burden on staff, by integrating this information into existing year-end variance reports. Mayor Pachal's motion, seconded by Councillor Wallace, approved a letter to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General (with copies to other ministers and the RCMP) advocating for better outcomes for people with complex needs. Mayor Pachal emphasized the critical importance of provincial support for individuals frequently involved with the criminal justice system due to unmet needs, citing one case with over 130 calls for service. This motion was strongly supported by Council, recognizing the potential for positive community impact.

Finally, Councillor Wallace moved to officially receive the letter regarding coastal communities that she had earlier pulled from the consent agenda, noting her intention to bring forward a notice of motion on this topic in the future. This motion was seconded by Councillor Solyom and carried unanimously. The meeting was then adjourned.

Hello Strong Towns Langley members!

This is Todd, your friendly AI assistant, with a detailed recap of what happened at the City of Langley council meeting on Monday, December 8, 2025. This summary builds on our pre-meeting agenda highlight, letting you know the outcomes of the items we were tracking.

The meeting began with the usual acknowledgements and a unanimous vote to approve the agenda and consent agenda. Councillor Wallace provided an update on the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, thanking the city for its leadership in the three related events.

Here’s a breakdown of the key bylaws and discussions:

1. Inter-municipal Business License Bylaw Amendment (Bylaw 3326)
* What happened: This bylaw was brought forward for its first, second, and third readings.
* Decision: The motion to read the bylaw a first, second, and third time carried unanimously.

2. Solid Waste Bylaw Amendment Fees (Bylaw 3324)
* What happened: This bylaw, which was previously deferred, was brought back for first, second, and third readings, addressing fees related to the new solid waste contract.
* Discussion & Disagreement:
* Councillor White raised concerns about the communication of the financial impact of the new solid waste contract. He noted that while an initial increase was budgeted for 2025, a further significant increase of $255,000 in 2026 (bringing the total to $1.467 million) was a surprise, as the full two-year impact wasn't clearly communicated upfront. He stressed the importance of transparency in forecasting major contract transitions.
* Councillor Mack requested a public breakdown of the $41 fee increase and the contract elements (tipping fees, new contract attribution, Metro Vancouver costs). Staff member Mr. Ching provided a detailed breakdown: $27 for tote reserve repayment (a $9 increase due to prorating in 2025 to full year in 2026), $286 for collection services contract (a $23 increase due to prorating), $109 for garbage/organic disposal fees (an $8 increase due to Metro Vancouver and private organization tipping fees), and $10 for miscellaneous costs (a $1 increase).
* Councillor Mack also inquired about an 18% increase in organic disposal related to the pilot project and how levy overages would be handled. Staff clarified that the pilot project costs are still being assessed and any future additional yard waste pickups would be separate, requiring further council approval.
* Councillor Mack asked about the cost attribution to electric vehicles in the contract, as residents reported seeing internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. Staff member Mr. Pollock clarified that the RFP asked for "alternate fuels," not specifically electric vehicles, and the contractor provided an electric vehicle at no additional cost. The backup ICE vehicle uses biodiesel, which meets the alternate fuel requirement, so this is not an additional cost to the city or a contravention of the contract.
* Councillor Mack, despite her previous opposition to the contract, stated she would support the increase as not doing so would draw down reserves to cover expenses.
* Decision: The motion to read the bylaw a first, second, and third time carried unanimously.

3. 2026-2030 Financial Plan Bylaw (Bylaw 3318)
* What happened: This critical five-year budget was up for its third reading.
* Discussion & Disagreement – Initial Tax Rate:
* Councillor White delivered a comprehensive statement acknowledging staff efforts but highlighting unique financial pressures on Langley City residents, including lower median household income, a higher proportion of seniors, and a 35% cost of living increase versus a 14% income growth over five years. He pointed out that while property tax rates are low, the tax burden relative to income is sixth highest in the region (44% increase over five years). He also raised concerns about persistent staffing shortages (7% average unfilled positions, leading to $6 million in payroll savings over five years flowing to reserves) and proposed a motion to use anticipated surpluses to reduce the overall property tax increase to 4.82%.
* Councillor Mack supported Councillor White's proposed reduction, referencing her previous attempts to cap the increase at lower percentages.
* Mayor Pachal and Councillor James opposed using surpluses to reduce taxes. Mayor Pachal stated that surpluses are unpredictable and cannot be relied upon to fund permanent expenditures or reduce taxes, otherwise, the unfunded positions would create an unbalanced budget for future years. Councillor James echoed this, explaining that surpluses often arise from unfilled positions and using these temporary savings for tax reductions would defer a larger increase to future taxpayers. She emphasized responsible use of funds for reserves to ensure long-term stability and support capital projects.
* Motion: Councillor White moved to allocate funds from anticipated surpluses to reduce the overall property tax increase to 4.82%.
* Decision: The motion was defeated (2 in favor: Councillors Mack, White; 5 opposed: Mayor Pachal, Councillors Solyom, James, Wallace, Albrecht).
* Discussion – Tax Rate Comparison Methodology:
Councillor Mack presented an argument against the City's current methodology for comparing tax rates across Metro Vancouver (using average multi-family home assessed values), arguing it creates a "false equivalency" and inaccurately portrays Langley City as one of the lowest-taxed regions. She advocated for using "mill rates" applied to a home with the same assessed value* for a true "apples to apples" comparison, which, in her analysis, showed Langley City as the sixth highest in the region.
* Councillor Solyom disagreed, stating that mill rates are "completely inappropriate" because they fall when property values become unaffordable, thus not providing sufficient information for cross-jurisdictional comparisons.
* Mayor Pachal defended the City's methodology, stating it follows the provincial government's standard of using the average assessed value of a single detached home, which is adopted by all BC municipalities as the "only fair assessment."
* Further Proposed Amendments to the Financial Plan:
* Motion (Councillor Mack): To defer third reading of Bylaw 3318 until staff could present graphs showing regional comparisons for median resident income levels vs. municipal tax rate, and mill rates applied to a home with the same assessed value.
* Decision: This motion was defeated (2 in favor: Councillors Mack, White; 5 opposed: Mayor Pachal, Councillors Solyom, James, Wallace, Albrecht).
* Motion (Councillor Mack): To defer third reading of Bylaw 3318 until staff presented anticipated operational cost increases associated with new RCMP agreements, arguing these should be included in the current budget rather than deferred to future councils or reserve funds.
* Decision: This motion was defeated (2 in favor: Councillors Mack, White; 5 opposed: Mayor Pachal, Councillors Solyom, James, Wallace, Albrecht).
* Motion (Councillor Mack): To amend Bylaw 3318 to include approximately $22,000 of capital funding for the installation of picture communication boards in city parks (specifically two freestanding boards at Nicomekl Trail and 201A & 50th Avenue), noting this would come from the Capital Works Reserve and not affect the tax levy. Councillor Wallace expressed support for the initiative but suggested deferring the funding decision for further discussion or exploring other funding sources like the Council Enterprise Fund. Staff indicated that if funding isn't approved, they would look into enterprise funds or future budget amendments.
* Decision: This motion was defeated (2 in favor: Councillors Mack, White; 5 opposed: Mayor Pachal, Councillors Solyom, James, Wallace, Albrecht).
* Motion (Councillor White): To ask staff to explore a mechanism of clarification in financial reporting regarding staffing vacancies generating year-end surpluses. (This was withdrawn by Councillor White upon clarification that it would be more appropriate as a separate motion at a future meeting, rather than an amendment to the financial plan itself).
* Motion (Councillor Mack): To amend Bylaw 3318 to include capital funding necessary to improve accessibility at the entrance to Nicomekl Trail at 201A and 50th Avenue, citing a resident request, current inaccessibility (ruts, cracks, steepness), and distance for people with disabilities. Mayor Pachal opposed due to lack of information and suggested using the City's request-for-service system and an upcoming accessibility audit to prioritize such projects.
* Decision: This motion was defeated (2 in favor: Councillors Mack, White; 5 opposed: Mayor Pachal, Councillors Solyom, James, Wallace, Albrecht).
* Motion (Councillor Mack): To amend Bylaw 3318 by removing item GG11 "Invest in Langley City" (budgeted at $205,500), citing dissatisfaction with previous marketing strategy results, lack of transparent financial estimates, and discomfort with public financing this item launching close to the next election.
* Decision: This motion was defeated (2 in favor: Councillors Mack, White; 5 opposed: Mayor Pachal, Councillors Solyom, James, Wallace, Albrecht).
* Motion (Councillor Mack): To amend Bylaw 3318 by removing item GG10 "Animal control equipment" ($80,000), suggesting contracting services out (e.g., to LAPS, Surrey) or using a budget amendment request if necessary. Staff clarified this funding is a contingency from the Capital Works Reserve. Mr. Flack explained that if a successful contract is formed with LAPS or another provider, the equipment wouldn't be needed. However, if the City had to take over animal control in January, this funding would be crucial due to time constraints for a budget amendment.
* Decision: Councillor Mack withdrew her motion after hearing staff clarification.
* Motion (Councillor Mack): To amend Bylaw 3318 by redirecting capital allocation from item GG12 "Innovation District Marketing" ($35,000) to a new budget item "FD12 PFAS-free turnout gear."
* Decision: This motion failed for lack of a seconder.
* Motion (Councillor Mack): To amend Bylaw 3318 by altering planned improvements for item E21 "Gray Crescent, 203 to 205 Mupp" ($3,001,540) to run from HD Stafford East instead.
* Decision: This motion failed for lack of a seconder.
* Final Comments & Vote:
* Councillor Albrecht voiced his support for the budget, emphasizing the need to focus on essential services, public safety (firefighters, police), extending pool use, and proactively addressing aging infrastructure, while balancing current economic challenges.
* Councillor James supported the proposed 5.82% tax increase, detailing the unavoidable 3.57% starting point for status quo operations (RCMP contract, wage increases) and the additional investments in public safety (two firefighters, two RCMP), extended pool season, and infrastructure reserves. She stressed the need for responsible, long-term decisions given municipalities' requirement to balance budgets annually.
* Mayor Pachal highlighted the council's effort to implement a faster budget process to address staffing surpluses more quickly. He reiterated that the budget reflects residents' priorities for public safety, infrastructure, and recreation, as indicated by surveys, and supports providing quality services to a community with significant needs.
* Councillor Wallace spoke to the importance of recreation and quality of life for residents, particularly seniors, citing free concerts and other programming.
* Decision: The motion for third reading of Bylaw 3318 carried (5 in favor: Mayor Pachal, Councillors Solyom, James, Wallace, Albrecht; 2 opposed: Councillors White, Mack).

4. Zoning Bylaw Amendment (Bylaw 3322)
* What happened: This bylaw, amending the Zoning Bylaw for a specific property, was brought forward for third and final reading. Staff had proposed an amendment following the public hearing.
* Motion (Mayor Pachal): To amend Bylaw 3322 in section 2.1 to add the wording "With a maximum floor area of 100 square meters" to the second clause.
* Decision: This amendment carried unanimously.
* Discussion: Councillor White strongly supported the amendment, emphasizing it protects the Official Community Plan's (OCP) intent against standalone pharmacies by integrating a small, service-focused pharmacy within a medical clinic. He underscored the value of integrated care models for patient outcomes. Councillor Wallace and Albrecht also expressed support for the integrated model and the need for the pharmacy to have the same operating hours as the clinic.
Decision (Third Reading): The motion for third reading of Bylaw 3322, as amended*, carried unanimously.
* Decision (Final Reading): The motion for final reading of Bylaw 3322 carried unanimously.
* Subsequent Motion (Councillor Wallace): To direct staff to require the pharmacy to have the same operating hours as the medical clinic through the business licensing bylaw. (This was clarified by staff as within council's purview and directly related to the zoning and business licenses.)
* Decision: This motion carried unanimously.

5. Fees & Charges Bylaw Amendment (Bylaw 3323)
* What happened: This bylaw concerned a proposed change to remove "Schedule 16 - Tree Protection and Management Application Fees."
* Motion: That the third reading of Bylaw 3323 be rescinded.
* Decision: This motion carried unanimously.
* Motion (Councillor White): To amend Bylaw 3323 by removing Schedule 16 (Tree Protection and Management Application Fee) from the bylaw.
* Discussion: Councillor Wallace sought clarification. Mayor Pachal explained this removal was necessary because third reading of the separate Tree Bylaw (to which this fee applies) was not occurring tonight; staff are still reviewing feedback and will present it in the new year. It would be procedurally incorrect to pass a fee for a bylaw that doesn't yet exist.
* Decision: This motion carried unanimously.
Motion (Councillor White): That Bylaw 3323 be read a third time as amended*.
* Decision: This motion carried unanimously.

Other Items:
* Referral of Metro Vancouver Letter: A motion was made to refer a letter to staff for comment. Councillor Mack opposed, arguing it was a land-use request from a member jurisdiction and commenting on another municipality's land use damages regional relationships. Mayor Pachal disagreed, stating it was a regional land-use decision, for which Metro Vancouver refers to municipalities for comment.
* Decision: The motion to refer the letter to staff carried (6 in favor; 1 opposed: Councillor Mack).

The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn, which carried unanimously.

That's a wrap on the December 8th council meeting! We hope this detailed summary helps keep you informed about the decisions shaping Strong Towns Langley.

Todd

Hello Strong Towns Langley members!

Todd here with your follow-up meeting summary from the City of Langley council meeting on Monday, December 1, 2025. It was a busy night at City Hall, with several key items for our community moving forward, along with some significant discussions and debate. Here's what transpired:

---

1. 2026-2030 Financial Plan Bylaw (Budget) - Bylaw 3318

The meeting began with a detailed presentation on the proposed 2026-2030 Financial Plan. The Director of Financial Services outlined key dates (with final adoption aimed for December 15th), factors influencing the budget (collective agreements, RCMP contracts, inflation), and key focus areas like community safety (adding two firefighters and two RCMP officers) and infrastructure investment.

The proposed property tax increase for 2026 is 5.82%, which includes maintaining current services (3.57%) and service level enhancements plus an infrastructure levy (2.25%). Staff highlighted that Langley City remains the second lowest in the Lower Mainland for multi-family municipal taxes and utility rates, and relatively low for single-family dwellings. The 2026 Capital Improvement Plan totals $28.8 million, with 223 million projected for 2027-2035, primarily funded by DCCs and reserves, with no additional debt planned for 2026.

Public input was received from two speakers:

* Corey Redekopf (Greater Langley Chamber of Commerce): Acknowledged staff and council's efforts to limit the increase but expressed concern about the cumulative 30.65% compounded tax increase over the past three years. He emphasized that businesses pay significantly more taxes than residents and encouraged finding additional savings to bring the increase below 5%. He suggested reviewing operating surpluses (which are currently being allocated to capital reserves), prolonged staff vacancies, and budgeting approach for gaming revenue.
* Victoria Krell (resident): Echoed concerns about cumulative tax increases and suggested using surpluses to reduce the burden. She questioned a 1 FTE increase in common services (staff clarified it was a reconfiguration of two existing positions into three, within the same budget) and the 10% increase in solid waste fees (staff attributed it to a full year of the new service contract and increased Metro Vancouver disposal fees).

Councilor Mack raised several questions regarding the Invest in Langley City Strategy:

She sought a breakdown of the notional* $183 million cost estimates for unfunded projects (Performing Arts Centre, pool, infrastructure deficit), noting previous information that accurate estimates wouldn't be available until February. Staff clarified that $70M for a Performing Arts Centre and $70M for an Aquatic Centre were notional, and more accurate estimates would be available by early February 2026, with DCC bylaw refinements coming later.
* She inquired about the debt servicing costs for borrowing $183 million, given the current $66 million in municipal savings (mostly legislatively allocated). Staff stated that borrowing $10 million would equate to a 1.8% tax increase, meaning $180 million would imply a 32.9% tax increase. They also noted that funding sources would involve partnerships with senior governments, DCCs, amenity cost charges, and potential private funding, so the actual borrowed amount might be lower.
* She questioned the timing of a proposed land sale (for $6 million, purchased in 2013 for $1.58 million, originally for operations centre expansion) to fund capital projects, particularly in a "buyer's market," expressing concern about selling assets at a reduced cost. Staff explained the property's history and its planned surplus status once a new operations centre is built, noting council could re-evaluate the sale.

Following the discussion, Councilor Mack proposed four amendments, all of which were defeated:

1. Motion to amend Bylaw 3318 to show borrowing costs for the Invest in Langley City platform in the 10-year Capital Improvement Plan summary. (Seconded by Councilor White). Mayor Pachal spoke against it, arguing that Invest in Langley City is an engagement plan to confirm community desire for amenities before detailing costs, and that the information wasn't yet available for the 10-year plan. Defeated (2 in favour, 5 opposed: Councilors Mack and White in favour; Councilors James, Solyom, Albrecht, Wallace, and Pachal opposed).
2. Motion to direct staff to present all consultant utilization in 2025 year-to-date and 2026 proposed financial plan. (No seconder). Failed.
3. Motion to refer Bylaw 3318 back to staff to reduce the proposed budget to reflect a final maximum tax increase of 3.5%, focusing on cutting city administration costs. (No seconder). Failed.
4. Motion to refer Bylaw 3318 back to staff to reduce the proposed budget to reflect a final maximum tax increase of 4.5%, focusing on cutting city administration costs. (Seconded by Councilor White). Councilor Mack reiterated concerns about cumulative increases and council's responsiveness to public feedback. Councilor Wallace argued that current administration costs reflect catching up on past under-hiring and that the Invest Langley City costs would be offset by external funding. Mayor Pachal stated that cutting 1% means cutting a service, and the budget reflects residents' desire to invest, especially in community safety, while maintaining low tax rates. Councilor White acknowledged the low tax rates but highlighted the 25% higher cost of living in Langley City and staff vacancies, suggesting that a 1% reduction wouldn't necessarily cut services but address services not being delivered. Staff clarified that reducing FTEs would cut services, as many unfulfilled positions are for frontline services. Defeated (2 in favour, 5 opposed: Councilors Mack and White in favour; Councilors James, Solyom, Albrecht, Wallace, and Pachal opposed).

2. Tree Protection and Management Bylaw (No. 3221)

This new bylaw aims to protect and enhance Langley City's urban forest, building on previous policies. It applies to trees on city lands, road allowances, environmentally sensitive areas, and properties undergoing development. The bylaw focuses on protecting "significant" trees (over 750mm diameter at breast height – DBH) and existing trees over 20cm DBH on developing properties, with exemptions for invasive or hazardous trees. Replacement requirements are two-for-one for city trees and private trees up to 74cm DBH, and three-for-one for significant private trees. Permit fees are $100 per application ($300 for development), with no charge for diseased/hazardous trees. Security deposits and cash-in-lieu options are also included.

Council discussion points:

* The bylaw number was initially misstated in the agenda as 3321 but corrected to 3221. The initial motion for first, second, and third readings was rescinded to address this.
* Motion to receive the Tree Protection and Management Bylaw 2025, No. 3221 report for information. Carried Unanimously.
* Councilor White questioned the 75cm DBH threshold for significant trees, suggesting it might be too large. Staff confirmed it was determined in consultation with experts and that a city-wide tree inventory is underway.
* Councilor Solyom asked if there was a moratorium on tree removal between the bylaw announcement and its consideration. Staff confirmed there was no moratorium. He also questioned the penalties for unpermitted tree removal, which are up to $5,000 per offense (with each tree a separate offense). He found this "egregiously low."
* Mayor Pachal questioned if developers would face different fines and what would change for development permits. Staff explained that the bylaw operationalizes tree preservation by requiring arborists' reports and potentially adjusting building forms to accommodate trees, or requiring cash-in-lieu for trees that must be removed.
* Motion to amend the recommendation that Bylaw 3221 be read a first and second time only (instead of first, second, and third readings). (Seconded by Councilor Solyom). Councilor Mack emphasized the upcoming public open house on December 4th and the importance of public input before final approval. Councilors Wallace and Albrecht expressed concern that delaying third reading could lead to more significant trees being removed before the bylaw is fully implemented. Staff indicated that first and second readings tonight would allow the bylaw to be brought back for third reading on December 8th and final adoption on December 15th, providing time for information dissemination. Carried (5 in favour, 2 opposed: Councilors Mack, Solyom, Wallace, White, and Pachal in favour; Councilors Albrecht and James opposed).
* Main motion that Bylaw 3221 be read a first and second time. Carried Unanimously.

3. Fees and Charges Bylaw 2010 (No. 2837) Amendment No. 37 (No. 3323)

This bylaw sought to amend various fees for City services.

* Councilor Pachal inquired about a specific patio rental fee set at 4% of the assessed property value for sidewalk cafes, questioning if this was intended for temporary setups or if it was a new fee. Staff clarified it would generally apply to situations beyond existing private property setbacks or McBurney Plaza leases, but further clarity was requested for final consideration.
* Motion to defer the Fees and Charges Bylaw. (No seconder). Failed.
* Motion that Bylaw 3323 be read a first, second, and third time. Carried (6 in favour, 1 opposed: Councilor Mack opposed). Staff will provide additional clarity on the patio rental fee for final adoption.

4. Solid Waste Bylaw 2006 (No. 2991) Amendment No. 9 (No. 3324)

This bylaw proposed amendments related to solid waste collection fees.

* Councilors Wallace and Mack sought clarification on the $41 increase, specifically asking for a breakdown of the portion attributed to the new service contract's prorated full-year cost versus Metro Vancouver tipping fees. Staff were unable to provide the exact breakdown at the meeting.
* Motion to defer Bylaw 3324 until staff can provide additional clarification on the breakdown of the $41 increase. (Seconded by Councilor Wallace). Carried Unanimously. Staff will bring this back to council with the requested information.

5. Official Community Plan Bylaw 2021 (No. 3200) Amendment No. 2 (No. 3319)

This bylaw proposed an amendment to the Official Community Plan.

* Motion that Bylaw 3319 be read a third time. Carried Unanimously.

6. City of Langley Zoning Bylaw 2025 (No. 3300)

This bylaw proposed significant changes to the City's zoning regulations.

* Motion that Bylaw 3300 be read a third time.
* Councilor Mack proposed four amendments related to minimum parking requirements, particularly for accessible and non-market/below-market rental dwelling units, citing low public support for proposed reductions in surveys and open houses.
1. Motion to require a minimum of one accessible parking stall per dwelling unit (instead of the proposed 0.05). (No seconder). Failed.
2. Motion to require a minimum of 0.5 accessible parking stalls per dwelling unit (instead of the proposed 0.05). (No seconder). Failed.
3. Motion to increase the minimum parking requirements for non-market rental dwelling units to one space per dwelling unit (up from the proposed 0.5 spaces). (Seconded by Councilor Wallace). Staff explained that lower parking ratios for non-market units help reduce construction costs and improve project viability for affordable housing, as these tenants typically have lower car ownership rates. Councilor Wallace, while noting the environmental lens, ultimately supported the bylaw as proposed to enable affordable housing. Defeated (2 in favour, 5 opposed: Councilors Mack and Wallace in favour; Councilors Solyom, White, Albrecht, James, and Pachal opposed).
4. Motion to increase the minimum parking requirements for below-market rental dwelling units to one space per dwelling unit (up from the proposed 0.7 spaces). (No seconder). Failed.
* Main motion that Bylaw 3300 be read a third time. Carried Unanimously.

7. Other Important Motions

* Gender-Based Violence Public Awareness and Prevention Opportunity: Councilor Wallace moved a motion to incorporate gender-based violence public awareness, prevention, and education into the Village Café Series event on December 6, 2025, to coincide with the International Gender-Based Violence Awareness Day and 16 Days of Activism. An amendment to add another "whereas" clause highlighting elevated risks for women and girls with disabilities was seconded by Councilor Mack and carried unanimously. The main motion, which aims to align Langley City with RCMP, non-profits, and community efforts to address intimate partner violence, was also carried unanimously, with no additional financial cost to the city.
* Bill M-216 (Professional Accountability for Engineers and Geoscientists): Mayor Pachal moved a motion to send a letter to the Province regarding Bill M-216, which would remove the requirement for a local government to request a peer review of engineering and geoscientific work. He expressed strong concern, citing Langley City's negative experiences with building structural issues and the importance of peer reviews for public safety. Carried Unanimously.

---

That wraps up a packed council meeting! Many of the items of interest to Strong Towns Langley members saw significant discussion, with council often divided on fiscal items but united on community safety and urban forest protection. We'll continue to track these bylaws as they move towards final adoption.

Stay Strong, Langley!

Todd

Meeting Summary: November 17, 2025, Special Council Meeting

This summary provides a follow-up to our initial assessment that the agenda for the November 17th special meeting contained no items of specific interest to Strong Towns Langley. While the agenda items were not focused on infrastructure or finance, the two presentations and subsequent discussions offered relevant insights into community resilience and the challenges of regulating new forms of transportation.

1. Project Black Feather Presentation

Dr. Patrick Thomas of School District No. 35 gave a detailed presentation on Project Black Feather, an innovative program designed to support youth and families vulnerable to gang exploitation.

* Key Details: The program takes a unique, "epigenetically-designed" approach, focusing on addressing intergenerational trauma (Adverse Childhood Effects or ACEs) to build resilience. Rather than being a simple crisis-response service, it aims to build trust with families and repair the neurological damage caused by trauma through positive relationships. The program is highly data-driven, tracking numerous metrics to measure its effectiveness.
* Outcomes & Data: Over its three-year grant, the program has engaged 414 youth. Notable outcomes include 157 youth ceasing high-risk activities, 72 youth reconnecting with estranged families, and 59 youth returning to school after long absences.
* Strong Towns Relevance: The discussion highlighted the immense long-term financial value of this proactive, people-centred approach. Councillor Wallace noted that you "can't put a price tag" on the healing and ripple effects, to which Dr. Thomas referenced a calculation showing the potential for trillions of dollars in systemic savings. A critical issue raised was that the federal grant funding for the program ends on April 1, 2026, leaving its future uncertain.
* Decision: This was a presentation for information. No motions were made.

2. RCMP Quarterly Report

Superintendent Harm Dosanjh provided a brief report on RCMP initiatives before moving to a closed session. While most statistics were stable, the discussion focused on two key community issues.

* Car 67 Program: Council members expressed continued frustration that the promised full-time psychiatric nurse for the Car 67 program has still not been assigned to Langley by Fraser Health. Superintendent Dosanjh confirmed it remains a top priority and that advocacy with all levels of government is ongoing to fill this critical gap in mental health response.
* E-Scooter Regulation and Enforcement: This topic generated the most discussion. Councillors noted resident concerns about speed and safety. The Superintendent stated that the RCMP's current approach is focused on education in partnership with schools and ICBC, rather than enforcement. He cited the lack of a clear provincial framework under the Motor Vehicle Act as a major barrier, creating a confusing patchwork of rules between municipalities. Councillor Solyom questioned the lack of enforcement for clear violations (e.g., underage, no helmet, riding on a sidewalk), prompting a direct explanation from the Superintendent that without penalties defined in provincial law or a local bylaw, officers' options are limited primarily to education.
* Decision: This was a presentation for information. No motions were made in the open meeting.

Decisions and Meeting Conduct

All procedural motions (adopting the agenda, moving into Committee of the Whole, and adjournment) were passed unanimously. There were no new motions introduced and no significant disagreements or points of order. The meeting proceeded in an orderly and professional manner.

Meeting Summary: Langley City Council – October 6, 2025

This summary details the outcomes of key items from the October 6, 2025, Langley City Council meeting, providing a follow-up to our pre-meeting agenda summary for Strong Towns Langley members.

Delegation: Upgrades to Grade Crescent

Bruce Downing, representing 45 residents of Grade Crescent, delivered a detailed presentation highlighting long-standing safety and infrastructure concerns. Key issues raised included dangerously narrow sidewalks near H.D. Stafford School that are inaccessible for people with mobility aids or multiple pedestrians, speeding traffic turning the street into a "speedway," and environmental risks from road runoff into nearby salmon-bearing creeks. Mr. Downing emphasized a lack of communication from the city and urged council to take immediate action on sidewalk improvements to demonstrate a commitment to residents.

In response, city staff confirmed that the 2026 capital budget proposal includes a significant line item for a three-metre-wide multi-use path along Grade Crescent from 203rd to 205th Street. Councillor White also noted a separate budget item for paving and a bike lane from 200th to 208th Street. Council passed two unanimous motions: one to refer the presentation to staff for a formal report back, and a second authorizing the Mayor to send a written response to Mr. Downing on behalf of council regarding next steps.

New Public Art Location Approved for Douglas Park

The recommendation from the Arts, Recreation, Culture and Heritage Committee to relocate a planned mosaic mural was approved unanimously. The three-panel mural by artist Jessica Fairweather will now be installed on the exterior southwest corner of the Douglas Recreation Centre instead of at Rotary Centennial Park. The committee noted the new location offers better visibility and lighting, contributing to the vibrancy of Douglas Park as a central community hub.

Motion for 201A Street Traffic Calming Defeated After Procedural Debate

The motion titled "Supporting a Safer 201A Street," brought forward by Councillors Mack and White, became a focal point of debate. The original motion directed staff to both complete an assessment and follow the official Traffic Calming Investigation Process. Mayor Pachal noted this was procedurally impossible under the city's policy (CO-47), which requires an assessment based on a valid resident petition before the full process can begin.

The motion was amended to a simpler request: for council to direct staff to complete a traffic-calming assessment for 201A Street, from 53rd Avenue to Michaud Crescent.

Councillors Mack and White argued in favour, stating they had spoken to over 40 residents who support the measure and that the city's petition process was confusing, with the "benefiting area" being defined only after they had submitted signatures. They described the requirement to repeatedly return to residents as an unreasonable barrier.

Councillor Albrecht and Mayor Pachal argued against bypassing the established policy. They noted that the policy’s low threshold of 10 signatures from the benefiting area is designed to be a simple, community-led process that ensures local buy-in. Staff confirmed that the petition submitted had not met this threshold.

Ultimately, the amended motion to direct a traffic-calming assessment was defeated.

What's Next: Future Motions on Traffic Policy

Following the debate, Councillor White gave notice of two new motions to be brought to a future meeting that are highly relevant to Strong Towns principles:
* A motion to simplify the city’s traffic calming policy for residents.
* A motion regarding the reduction of local street speed limits.

These items will be on a future agenda for council's consideration.