Regular Council - 05 Mar 2024

1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
6.A.i: Development Permit No. DP000566 – 1450 Highway 99
7.A: Staff Recommendation:
7.A.i: Special Business Meeting: February 20, 2024
7.A.ii: Regular Business Meeting: February 20, 2024
7.A.iii: Committee of the Whole Meeting: February 27, 2024
7.B: CORRESPONDENCE - Receive for Information
7.B.i: 0214 MP P. Weiler Re: Constituency Office Open House
7.B.ii: 0216 MP P. Weiler Re: Canada signs $733 million bilateral agreement to help British Columbians age with dignity
7.B.iii: 0223 Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship Re: Local channel maintenance needs and funding gaps for the Mamquam Blind Channel (MBC)
7.B.iv: 0227 BC Energy Regulator Re: FortisBC's Effluent Discharge Approvals
7: CORRESPONDENCE - Referred to Staff
7: Staff Recommendation:
7.C: STAFF UPDATES - For Information
8.i: 2024 Squamish Housing Action Plan Overview
9.A.i: District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (38123 Cleveland Ave), No. 2757, 2023
9.A.ii: District of Squamish Housing Agreement (39541 Queens Way – All Rental) Bylaw No. 3003, 2023
10.A.i: Woodfibre Liquefied Natural Gas and FortisBC/Eagle Mountain Pipeline Projects Update
10.B.i: Appointment of Animal Control Officer and Bylaw Enforcement Officer
1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
0:00:00 (0:10:33)

Armand Hurford
0:10:09 (0:00:23)

hello and welcome to the regular business meeting for the District of Squamish for Tuesday March 5th as always we're gathered to do our work today on the traditional and unseated territory of the skish nation please be advised this council meeting is being live streamed recorded and will be available to the public to view on the District of SCH website following the meeting if you have any concerns please notify the corporate officer present at the

0:10:33 (0:00:18)

Armand Hurford
0:10:33 (0:00:18)

meeting can I have someone move adoption of the agenda move by councelor French second by councelor Green law any opposed motion carries thank you we don't have any delegations petitions proclamations today

0:10:51 (0:00:22)

Armand Hurford
0:10:51 (0:00:21)

next is consideration of unscheduled public attendance this is where a member of the public has a matter that is urgent and would like to be considered by Council before the next scheduled meeting this would be their opportunity to bring that forward seeing none we have no public hearings this evening want

Development Permit No. DP000566 – 1450 Highway 99
0:11:13 (0:28:05)

Brian, a daily planner with Community Development, presented a development permit application for a property at 1450 Highway 99. The property, which is 1. 75 hectares in area, is located on the west side of highway 99, south of the Shell gas station, and currently houses an older industrial building. The application seeks to establish the form and character of light industrial development in five buildings. The site is accessed off M road and the northeast corner of the property is subject to environmental setbacks from a wetland. The proposed building height is 9. 75m, less than the 15m maximum height permitted in the i1 zone. The lot coverage is 39% and the proposal meets the parking requirements of the zoning. A variance is requested to section 33. 5 number of buildings per lot in the i1 zone to allow for more than two principal buildings. The character of the building is tilt-up concrete construction, typical of other light industrial developments.

Council members Jenna Stoner, John French, Eric Andersen, and Chris Pettingill raised questions about the project. Stoner asked about the project's status as a priority project and the issue of continuous covered walkways. French asked about the use of the old school accessible symbol and the consideration given to truck turning radiuses. Andersen raised concerns about viewscapes and the use of sustainable green building materials. Pettingill questioned the lack of bike infrastructure and the use of cool roofs and pavements. After the discussion, the council voted on the staff recommendation to approve DP 566, including the variance request to allow more than two principal buildings. The motion carried, with councillors Pettingill and Greenlaw opposing.

Armand Hurford
0:11:13 (0:00:14)

to on to timed items Community Development we're looking for a discussion on DP 566 I will pass it over to staff to introduce themselves and the

0:11:27 (0:04:06)

topic thank you mayor Herford good evening mayor and Council my name is Brian daily planner with Community Development I'm here tonight to present a development permit application at 1450 Highway 99 subject property is 1.75 hectares in area and located on the west side of highway 99 immediately south of the Shell gas station and is currently developed with an older industrial building at the southern end of the property this DP application seeks to establish the form and character of light Industrial Development in five buildings site is accessed off m road which is located on the west side of highway 99 the northeast corner of the property is subject to environmental setbacks from a wetland that is located par partially on the subject property and partially within the highway 99 rway Building height is 9.75 M Which is less than the 15 M maximum height permitted in the i1 zone lot coverage is 39% and the proposal meets the parking requirements of the zoning bot three wild safe waste enclosures are proposed across the site a variance is requested to section 33.5 number of buildings per lot in the i1 zone to allow for more than two principal buildings staff are supportive of the variance request as it will allow the applicants to maximize the employment space provided on site while also breaking up the buildings to reduce the overall massing the character of the building is tilt up Concrete Construction typical of other light industrial developments the building elevations include five different materials including wood grains profiled metal sheathing pre-cast concrete three glazing types canopies and other projecting surfaces as well as trellises and special features the color choice and materiality reflects the prominent location adjacent to highway99 two silos are proposed to reflect the existing ELO logging Silo on site the Silo acts as cover for proposed Class B bicycle parking stalls four pedestrian amenity spaces are proposed throughout the site to provide Gathering space for customers and employees the space provide provided includes outdoor covered and covered seating DP 566 was presented at the July 8th and November 18th 2021 advisory design panel meetings the panel reviewed the project and passed a motion that the ADP supports the development permit as presented but would like the applicant to resolve the following recommendations shown on the slide and return to present the revised project to the ADP the applicant has prepared a revised design that sufficiently addresses the previous ADP comments and should not require further ADP review as the revised design was a substantial Improvement and adequately addressed all of the comments provided by ADP staff felt it was not required to return to ADP for additional review but rather move forward to council to inform the community per policy the project was posted to the district's development showcase and a development sign has been posted at the site variance notifications were delivered to properties within 100 meters of the site and no comments or requests for public information meetings have been received to date given that the proposal meets the DPA 3 guidelines staff recommend approval of DP 566 including the variance request to allow more than two principal buildings subject to the conditions noted on this slide you will note on this slide that there is an additional condition that was not included in the staff report and that is to provide a revised Landscaping plan to substitute any species that are non-compliant with the Wildfire Landscaping management bylaw it was brought to staff's attention by a member of council that there were a few species proposed that were not compliant with the bylaw this was an oversight by staff given that this application has been in so long it preceded these regulations coming into effect but the applicant has been advised that this would be required and they are in agreement to do this that concludes my presentation I'm happy to take any questions at this

Armand Hurford
0:15:34 (0:00:04)

time Council questions councel

Jenna Stoner
0:15:38 (0:00:07)

Stoner thank you than the chair my first question is whether This falls under our priority projects given us 100% employment

0:15:46 (0:00:02)

through the chat yes it does

Jenna Stoner
0:15:49 (0:00:07)

and so it's currently in that lineup or has the priority project list been full and this is just following our regular application

0:15:57 (0:00:11)

process three the mayor I believe it was and then t a significant amount of time passed while they were revising the design so the project Q is likely filled back up

Jenna Stoner
0:16:08 (0:00:21)

again got it thank you just for clarity in terms of referring back to ADP my other question is one of the I think one of the only ones that I saw from the ADP comments that I feel like haven't been addressed is the issue of continuous covered walkways I'm just wondering if staff can speak to why we're moving this forward given it doesn't adhere to that DPA guideline

0:16:29 (0:00:14)

through the mayor in discussions with the applicants it was noted that this was not possible given that it was an industrial development and there needed to be Brakes in the overhead walkway to allow for the overhead bay doors and for you know loading and things like that given the industrial

Jenna Stoner
0:16:44 (0:00:15)

uses all right that makes good sense my last question was just whether we require active Transportation trip end facilities in industrial buildings and if so where are those located in this development I didn't see those

0:16:59 (0:00:21)

through the chair I believe that those are only required in the business park particularly on this site it would be challenging because there is not really active transportation to get there though I do believe that there are a few trip and Facilities proposed in some in the buildings their specific location I cannot recollect off the top of my

Armand Hurford
0:17:21 (0:00:02)

head thank you I have councelor

John French
0:17:23 (0:00:23)

French thank you mayor and thanks for getting ahead of the curve on my question about Cedars and junipers that question is answered I also wanted to ask about the accessible symbol that's throughout the architectural documentation it's h the old school symbol instead of the more modern active symbol so I'm wondering if staff will convey to the proponent that we prefer the use of that modern

0:17:47 (0:00:04)

symbol through the Merit staff will convey that to the

Armand Hurford
0:17:51 (0:00:04)

applicant thank you I've got councelor Anderson and then

Eric Andersen
0:17:56 (0:00:45)

penel thank you in the staff report there's reference to the issue raised by the during the advisory design panel discussions of truck turning radiuses the discussion seems to add refer to tractor trailer units which as the applicant the developer has pointed out is not really relevant to this site however five ton trucks are five ton trucks are the typical delivery and shipping mode for velopments like this so I just wanted to ask if the consideration given to the to Turning radiuses for five ton trucks which can be Vehicles between four and six meters in length through the

0:18:42 (0:00:18)

mayor I believe that the applicants did provide truck turning radiuses on the site plan if they're not shown on the development permit drawings they were likely shown on the Civil drawings and this likely would have been a request that was made by the Ministry of Transportation and infrastructure as well as they are responsible for approving the site plan for this

Eric Andersen
0:19:00 (0:00:41)

thank you my second question concerns U viewscapes Our concern with Impressions from the highway but we also have the Laurelwood road which will be an important arterial route in and out of downtown Squamish to what extent have we or should we well that's speculation examine the Laurel Wood Corridor for Aesthetics of the building that will be very prominent along that major arterial gate Gateway in Squamish has that been given some consideration as we consider yeah DPA 3 guidelines and how they might apply to that facade

0:19:42 (0:00:28)

through the mayor yes that has been given consideration it's been shown in the renderings and I the staff feel that this material selection provided by this proponent is of a higher standard than would be typically required for this type of development elsewhere in the district you know this is a quite a high form in character for a light industrial building that would be higher than what you might see in certain areas of the business park and staff were pleased with the applicants response to adp's comments thank you thank

Armand Hurford
0:20:11 (0:00:03)

you chair thank you councelor penel

Chris Pettingill
0:20:14 (0:00:07)

yeah a few things just wondering if we know what step code this is adhering to and building Energy

0:20:22 (0:00:11)

Systems through the mayor I do not but I do not think that there is a step code for industrial buildings I don't think they're subject to that I'm not oh they are

Chris Pettingill
0:20:34 (0:00:22)

not okay and then so I'm just actually curious I had a question about the overhead the overhangs and you know it wasn't obvious to me why you wouldn't just have the overhangs higher over the bay doors and so we just sort of assume that if there's bay doors there's no overhangs or why wouldn't we sort of ask for overhangs that are just a little higher

0:20:56 (0:00:22)

up through the Merit staff thought the applicants rationale for not providing those was reasonable they might not provide the same function if they're located quite a bit higher you know if it's raining sideways or quite windy it could if it's up quite High it might not provide the same function and in that case it is not the most efficient use of materials so staff were pleased with the applicant's

Chris Pettingill
0:21:18 (0:00:48)

rationale okay and then there's a number of things you know in the DPA 3 guidelines about bicycle related infrastructure about bike pass where they're located how they interact with parking areas and then bike parking and I see there's little bits of parking bike parking throughout the site but it look like only eight were covered I think four and four under the silos and you know in the report we the staff assessment was they were compliant with the guidelines but I guess I'm having a bit of a struggle sort of seeing and maybe I misunderstanding what level of bike infrastructure and bike pass and trails around a site like this we expect but I'm just wondering if you can speak to maybe our expectation or why this would be compliant with what we've asked

0:22:07 (0:00:46)

for through the mayor the form and character guidelines are meant to be guidelines that guide you know provide staff with guidance on the review the for the review of the site plan obviously these guidelines are gener like those specific guidelines are general for various types of development including you know residential and Commercial and light industrial so often it's not always appropriate to apply the same standard perhaps that you would you know for one a commercial development located in downtown Squamish where there is a lot of active Transportation infrastructure to and from the site staff felt that the proposal was appropriate and met the guidelines in the context of the site's location the uses that are going to be provided and the existing active Transportation infrastructure to the

Chris Pettingill
0:22:54 (0:00:56)

site okay not quite sure you sold me there because I'm still thinking we're trying to get people and make it easier for people to ride their bike everywhere to their job and so on and so for me a lot of that infrastructure seems to be missing here and I would expect it to do a little more in terms of the guidelines but so one of the other guidelines is 3612 building materials and colors it's guideline a the use of sustainable Green Building Materials including low carbon recycled recyclable locally sourced blah whereas this is tilt up concrete and we had written in our report that this is consistent but again I'm having a trouble to make that like with the DPA guidelines Would we not sort of be looking more for Mass Timber and would we maybe say this isn't compliant overall we recommend it still but or where's the where's the Gap that I'm having

0:23:50 (0:00:47)

there through the mayor again these are guidelines and staff did suggest looking at other alternatives for construction methods this site has very challenging geotechnical conditions because it is on an old Mill site so the soils are quite poor and it's going to take in my discussions with the applicant it's going to be quite costly to develop on this site and using mass Timber and other uncommon types of construction types for this form of development might make the project not economically viable so staff thought that what has been proposed that the in mentions of the DPA guidelines and was providing a higher form than you than you typically see with your typical tilt up concrete light industrial

Chris Pettingill
0:24:38 (0:00:22)

building okay and there's you know another comment about or guideline around shading and I didn't see a lot of shading of the parking areas and then a piece about public art installation creative embellishments there we said not applicable I'm wondering why that would be not

0:25:00 (0:00:32)

applicable through the mayor because it was not proposed and it's not typical that we try and secure public art on light industrial projects staff are really pushing the applicants on trying to provide a higher level of form and character in the material selections given that it's a prominent location adjacent to Highway 99 and staff felt that the applicants did a good job of setting a higher bar and meeting the majority of the comment provided by ADP so staff did not apply that guideline in this

Chris Pettingill
0:25:33 (0:00:23)

instance okay and then the final one we said they were consistent but the cool roofs and Pavements made of Highly reflective and emissive materials blah wasn't clear what was being done there in terms of you know reflective cool roofs all that kind of thing

0:25:56 (0:00:47)

and through the mayor I will pull up the architectural drawings so I'm not misrepresenting this but my understanding was an ashalt roof and it was in a color of blue and the architect noted that this would meet that guideline I'm not an expert on cool roofs so I typically defer to The Architects to confirm their compliance with those more technical design related guidelines my apologies it's a very large drawing package so it will take a minute to load

Armand Hurford
0:26:44 (0:02:46)

okay while you load that up I do have a bit of a script to read Around the public participation in this process so I'll do that I'll read that out and then hopefully that'll buy you some time to get that up so the proponent and members of the public will be given an opportunity to be heard electronically or in person with respect to the proposed variances to the zoning bylaw please ensure your remarks are relevant to the matters contained in the proposed bylaw please note that this is not an opportunity for members of the public to have their questions answered by staff or by council is here to listen and will not debate the merits of The Proposal of the proposed bylaw with the public members of council may ask clarifying questions follow following any submissions from the public we are trying to make this a safe space for everyone to voice their opinion without interference from others therefore I ask that members of the public maintain order and quiet please do not applaud or interrupt any speech by the public or a member of council the there is one proposed variance to the zoning bylaw and the proposed variance is outlined in the staff report members of the public are reminded that you may only speak to the specific variance during the process and those that proposed variance is section 33.5 buildings per lot be varied from except as otherwise permitted through Section 4.2 no more than two principal buildings shall be located on a lot and it that will is proposed to be varied to except otherwise permitted through Section 4.2 no more than five principal buildings shall be located on the lot all speakers will be given a maximum 5 minutes to address Council I will first call on speakers participating in person please ra your raise your hand to be recognized details to participate by telephone or on the WebEx platform are displayed on the screen for those who have logged in from a computer or are watching the live stream of the meeting and are included in the district's website if you're participating by phone and wish to be added to the speakers list press star three on your telephone to raise your hand if you're participating via the webx podast platform add your name to the speaker list by opening the participant panel and clicking on the hand icon when it is your turn to speak you will receive a voice prompt via telephone or a dialogue box via WebEx If you experience technical difficulties please use the chat function to send the host a message or email hearing at Squamish doca for all speakers please start your remarks by clearly stating your name and neighborhood did I buy you enough time okay let's start with the answer to this question and we'll go to the public comments if there are

0:29:30 (0:00:13)

any so the proposed roof material is a Blue Torch on Roofing shown

Armand Hurford
0:29:44 (0:00:41)

here does that fully answer your question counselor as fome as we can okay any other questions from Council before I go to see if the public has any input submissions not seeing any hands this is an opportunity for the proponent or the public to speak to the matter is there anyone that would like to speak to this in council chambers seeing shaking of heads is there I'll just go to our online our moderator is there anyone online that has raised their hand either by pushing star three on the phone or using the hand icon in the WebEx platform

0:30:25 (0:00:01)

there's nobody online at the

Armand Hurford
0:30:26 (0:00:24)

moment okay all right well thank you for that so Council we have we have a staff recommendation before us do we need any do we need additional Clarity or we'd be I'd entertain a motion if there's one

Eric Andersen
0:30:50 (0:00:04)

councelor Anderson I wish to move the staff

Armand Hurford
0:30:55 (0:00:04)

recommendation okay move by councel Anderson second by councelor French would you like to speak to it councel

Eric Andersen
0:31:00 (0:03:43)

Anderson yes please I'll make some general observations firstly the there is reference under policies in the report to council under prepared for the future that the dppp 566 would increase the amount of employment space on an underutilized parcel in fact there's a trade-off here we are a gaining in light industrial space and this will be a gain in net employment but we're losing medium Industrial space and the former tenant there is now inhabiting a tent on temporary premises and one of the largest employers in the regional Forest industry is working under tents so we need to think holistically on this topic of industrial Land employment lands secondly I think that I think that the staff together working with the with the applicant have done a good job on a tilt up concrete structure probably the best i' I've seen it's really a good effort however I think that we need to look more generally and I am in purposely addressing General comments concerning our ongoing policy and policy Development I've spoken to this in the past regarding colors the DPA guidelines specify warm or natural colors found in the local Maritime or temperate Force rain rainforest environment why we have 160 to 180 days of rain or over overcast weather maybe we should be looking at addressing this policy secondly regarding the silos The Silo on the site was used by reichold Industries not eloho logging it was used for storage of Hemlock bark for processing into a dent products for about 20 years and that just a bit of historical background that with the effort that we're making I think we should we should try to recover that information and not be misguided in our in our efforts to satisfy other DPA guidelines DPA guidelines and the report to council address identity character and Squamish brand I think it's important that we I see in the project design brief we're addressing quote historic feel quote paying homage to a 20th century style and quot history of original buildings why do we need to think so narrowly in our efforts in the built environment so again my comment's very general so I think that what we can do is provide tools for the architect for developers in providing historical context statements that will give them some if they wish and we wish to use the history of the area as something that we'd wish to build on we need to provide tools and information do better job of this finally let's free The Architects let's offer not only offer that historical context but free The Architects with new in future development permit area guidelines that can freshen up our perspective on what we'd like to see in the built environment and also what is authenticity for Squamish I think this is an important question with the development that we're seeing that we will see what is it we wish for a built environment with respect to Aesthetics and authenticity I'll leave our my remarks for that to come back to the beginning though I think that the team the staff and the developers have done a good job under the circumstances that and opportunities that they're addressing thank

Armand Hurford
0:34:43 (0:00:06)

you thank you councelor other comments go ahead councelor penal

Chris Pettingill
0:34:49 (0:01:38)

yeah I'm a little bit torn here to be honest I you know understand this went through our can't remember the term but our expedited process or Q but I do see a number of things which to my mind are not consistent with the DPA 3 guidelines I think I touched on most of them when I read through the preamble to DPA 3 it says it doesn't speak to different standards for industrial commercial or residential except where it's specifically called out it says if we have different standard we will explicitly identify that but none of the guidelines I spoke to were specific to multif family like they are as I read the policy inclusive to Industrial and so I'm not sure if I mean to me these guidelines make sense for an industrial and other developments if our intent is to provide a lower standard for industrial maybe that's some clarity we need to include in our policy because it doesn't read to me like that so you know having worked until very recently at a medium or sorry light industrial site I was not the only cyclist to and from work every day and it was a challenging site to navigate and as we really have a priority for mode shift I think some of these things which in the grand scheme of a development like this I think should be smaller things to accomplish and so I would like to see a little better from my perspective of compliance with the DPA 3 guideline on some of these things so see if my colleagues have anything else to add but I'm still stewing on this one a little bit thank you

Armand Hurford
0:36:28 (0:01:38)

Council any other comments I'm speaking in favor of the motion I think the to the item that we're varying which is the number of buildings on the site I think that makes total sense for the site I'm happy to this is why we have a process that allows for the requirements to be varied and I'm happy to support that I think that's a totally appropriate use I do think the I have some concerns around the active Transportation piece we have seen the uses of these light industrial buildings when these actually get tenanted it looks different now we may you know it's meeting our minimum requirements but I think that the Peron will be well served in finding ways to exceed those as they look to attract and retain businesses in there and going forward so I think that so I think this can this can move forward but I think as things sort of develop and evolve there and become tenanted you may find that there's a pinch on the on the bike on the bike parking it is centrally located this is walking distance from downtown a lot of folks that be working there will be living downtown it's a short bike ride short walk to the to the site and there are some access challenges from active Transportation perspective but I think a lot of people will be looking to get to work that way and to do business in this area that way but I don't think that those concerns are enough to hold up this at this point in time so I'm happy to see this proceed that oh councelor

Jenna Stoner
0:38:07 (0:00:56)

Stoner thank you the chair I will be supporting the motion that's on the floor I think that the variances that are being requested are reasonable in terms of switching from two buildings to five principal buildings that's really the request that's before us appreciate some of the concerns that my colleagues have raised in terms of active Transportation access and of trip facilities I think as I think through where the site actually is the bigger challenge is how you'd get there by bike in a safe and comfortable Manner and I think that work falls on us as Government not as on this particular development proposal so I think that that's something that we can continue to work towards as that particular area develops but I think that what is before us and the request for variance of principal buildings from 2 to five is reason able and appreciate my colleague's catch on the use of Cedar Juniper that's a great change thank you very

Armand Hurford
0:39:04 (0:00:13)

much thank you with that I'll call the question all in favor any oppose councelor Pettingill opposes motion carries oh and councel green law oppos motion carries thank you hey

0:39:18 (0:00:22)

Armand Hurford
0:39:18 (0:00:22)

Council we're now on to the consent agenda so if anyone would like to pull an item this would be the time if not someone would like to move the consent agenda move by councelor Stoner second by councelor French all in favor motion carries unanimously thank you

2024 Squamish Housing Action Plan Overview
0:39:40 (0:00:26)

Armand Hurford
0:39:40 (0:00:25)

next up we have consideration of council committee recommendations this is the skish housing action plan overview and the funding that involves funding mechanisms for the Squamish Housing Society moved by councelor Stoner I'll second that all in favor motion carries thank you next we're on to bylaws

District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (38123 Cleveland Ave), No. 2757, 2023
0:40:06 (0:47:31)

Jesse Fletcher, the manager of current planning with the District of Squamish, presented a rezoning application for the property located at 38123 Cleveland Avenue. The application was received in March 2020 and has been subject to the district's ongoing viewscape study. The site, located in downtown Squamish, currently contains a retail operation and a large private parking area. The proposed rezoning includes changes to the existing zoning, with the site designated as a downtown commercial center in the official community plan (OCP). The proposal includes a mix of uses and a floor area ratio that largely fits the OCP designation. The application also includes changes made in response to council's comments in November, such as a reduction in the setback from Winnipeg for upper stories, an increase in the number of commercial parking stalls, and the inclusion of affordable housing units.

During the discussion, council members raised questions about the proposed bylaw, the future intersection design, the relaxation of the loading zone, and the proposed parking. Council member Chris Pettingill expressed concerns about the interplay between the proposed bylaw and the future corner guidelines. Council member Jenna Stoner questioned the parking provisions and the alternative recommendation to defeat the proposal rather than refer it back to staff. Council member Eric Andersen asked about the maintenance requirements for public art and whether there was flexibility in this matter. Council member Andrew Hamilton sought clarification on the removal of parking spaces for affordable housing units and the impact on the cost of these units. In response to the questions, Fletcher provided explanations and clarified that the proposal was in line with district policies. The council did not reach a final decision during the meeting, with some members expressing support for the proposal and others suggesting further consideration.

Armand Hurford
0:40:06 (0:00:19)

first three readings and back over to staff to introd introduce the topic this is zoning Amendment bylaw for 38123 Cleveland

0:40:25 (0:00:48)

Avenue good evening mayor and Council my name is Jesse Fletcher manager of current planning with the District of Squamish and tonight I presenting a rezoning application for Council consideration of three readings for property located at 38123 Cleveland Avenue am I on the screen

Armand Hurford
0:41:13 (0:00:01)

we are not on the screen

0:41:15 (0:00:09)


Armand Hurford
0:41:24 (0:00:03)

okay feel like we're going to the right there we go take it away

0:41:28 (0:08:10)

I thought I did it the right way there we go so rezoning application for 38123 Cleveland Avenue was received in March of 2020 the files review has been subject to the district's ongoing viewscape study the proposal was presented to Committee of the whole on November 14th 2024 this presentation will give a brief overview of the project and outline changes made in response to council's comments in November the subject site is located in downtown Squamish at the northern corner of Cleveland Avenue Winnipeg Street the site contains an existing retail operation a course of cycles and a large private parking area with access from Winnipeg street that is currently available to the public this table shows the existing zoning and proposed zoning as well as the ocp land use and development permit areas which would continue to apply if this rezoning is successful the site is designated downtown commercial center in the ocp which provides policy guidance and suggests that a Flor area ratio of 2.3 not be exceeded on the site the applicants proposal largely fits the designation with its proposed use mix and floor area ratio development permit areas for flood and Wildfire will apply as well development permit areas for form and character DPA 3 for the universal guidelines and downtown commercial guidelines if the project is successful this is a highle overview of the key metrics of the bylaw under consideration this evening I'll note the following the height exceeds the maximum ma imum C4 Zone height by 3 m which is the current zoning on the site though it does not exceed the maximum six stories this allows for consistently higher floor to ceiling Heights which when applied to the employment use facilitates more usable employment space at the committee meeting the sitb back from Winnipeg for upper stories was 14 MERS so that's the fifth and sixth story the applicant has request a reduction from 14 to 12.5 M after further review it appears that this is a minimal intrusion into the view corridor and is supportable at the committee meeting in November Council indicated that a higher proportion of stalls should be provided as parking Andor cash inl the applicant has reviewed their application and are increasing the number of commercial stalls to 13 available by proposing no parking for affordable housing the applicant would provide a cash and lo equivalent of 10 STS or $300,000 the applicant proposes 44 residential units six of which would be affordable so this slide highlights the intrusion into the Winnipeg View Corridor by decreasing or decreasing the setback from Winnipeg for the fifth and sixth St from 14 met to 12.5 M this application triggers the community amenity contribution policy the applicant has proposed the following offer which exceeds the policy staff note that the majority of the land lift can be attributed to the affordable housing units Council had several comments for the applicant after presentation to Committee in November the following slides highlight those comments and changes the applicant made in response in response to the request to consider a gathering type space in the building the applicant has not changed anything at the committee meeting staff suggested that this item be considered as part of a general review of the C4 zoning and downtown in the future Council had requested a no gas Covenant for the commercial space the report noted that a ghgi of one which is consistent with the building B bonus for step two would be achieved but the applicant has since clarified that they will enter into a no gas Covenant for the entire building residential and Commercial uses the motion has been amended to reflect this staff note that based on our best understanding a gsgi 1 is very unlikely to include the use of gas fixtures in a part three building however to improve certainty the applicant is willing to enter into a no gas Covenant Council requested larger two and three-bedroom mix including a three-bedroom for affordable housing the applicant has reduced the number of affordable housing units from 7 to six and included one three-bedroom unit the applicant has also increased a proportion of two and two plus den and three bedrooms in the project overall bringing that mix to 29% of the overall unit count ocp policy advises that 20% of the new residential projects be three-bedroom however given this Project's location staff are supportive of a slightly lower unit mix the applicant will make a contribution of $30,000 to the public art fund current policy requires a maintenance contribution to accept public art installations staff believe that given the proposed amount maintenance will fall on the district and it would be a better use of to direct the funds to the public art fund rather than install art at this time as the district does not have capacity or budget to maintain it into the future at this time Council expressed concern at the proposed parking and encourag the applicant to find new commerci stalls the applicant proposes removing parking for affordable housing increasing the cash and lose stalls from 9 to 10 which would thereby increase the amount of commercial parking provided to 13 stalls staff are supportive of this approach the location is well served by transit and is walkable to services and employment space reducing or eliminating parking requirements is consistent with provincial policy guidance for housing construction Council had concerns regarding the forming character of the building staff advised that this is a rezoning and that level of detail is not required at this time Council was concerned regarding the amenity space and coverage for outdoor space and how that interacts with the view study the applicant has proposed to install shade sales over a portion of the space the view study was updated to show The Limited impact this would have on the prevailing view highlight in the view study this will be secured in the Land Development agreement kencel had concerns about storage for gear in the building the applicant has proposed removing one residential unit and turning it into storage lockers for building users staff recommend an amended motion which includes securing this in the Land Development agreement Council requested to see more unit diversity in affordable housing to which the applicant has removed one affordable housing unit and replaced it with one three-bedroom unit and finally Council requested additional Class B bike parking stalls the applicant is proposing 25 Class B parking stalls 13 of which would be covered and provide 30% access to EV charging for bike parking this is the view study that c captures the area where the shade sales are included you can see the minimal impact they have on the overall viewscape so apologies the slide is quite wordy the items to be captured in the landine development agreement include the CAC contribution the unit mix and unit size public art contribution the covered outdoor amenity space enhanced Plaza space including a statutary RightWay contribution of $300,000 to the district's Act of Transportation or parking structure fund based on Council Direction at DP no gas Covenant and residential storage space in advance of council a question was received from Council regarding the future intersection design the applicant contributed $24,000 at council's direction to fund a review of the future intersection this is an example from the guidelines of the proposed intersection the guidelines are still in draft form but they seek to include Plaza space for seaing at tree and additional plantings and potential public C in the future staff note that the ground floor of the building largely complies with this however the Second Story does project into the space that would limit the size of the tree canopy at this location to meet the streetcap guidelines the applicant would need to remove or largely reduce the size of the Second Story affordable housing units given the streetcape designs are guidelines staff for support of the application as proposed in relation to the streetcape especially given the ongoing affordability crisis St recommend that Council approve the resolution as amended you can see the amendment in red including the residential storage use and no gas Covenant for all uses alternatively council could choose to defeat the bya happy to take any

Armand Hurford
0:49:38 (0:00:07)

questions thank you questions Council yeah go ahead councilor penel

Chris Pettingill
0:49:45 (0:00:46)

yeah thanks I appreciate the updates and the clarifications the if we approve this proposed bylaw that talks about maximum densities and minimum setbacks and so on and then when these Corner guidelines come into Force what is the interplane what does that happen at DP are we able to say well yeah you in theory have this density but we're actually want we want to hold hard to the corner guidelines so you'll have to build your building around that and that may mean a bit of a loss of density is that something we can a conversation we can have at DP stage or we sort of we need to make that call or that decision now at the

0:50:32 (0:00:32)

rezoning through the mayor that's a good question the I think the flexibility that you're seeking is not always available at DP development permit is largely review of the for character against the guidelines the streetcape review is also a guideline so there's an interplay between all those forces typically when projects change or vary from what was proposed at rezoning in that they're reducing their setbacks it's largely because they're also seeking additional variances and therefore that's an opportunity to negotiate with the

Chris Pettingill
0:51:04 (0:00:09)

applicant yeah go ahead so do we do we have a sense of when the a final draft of the street corner is

0:51:14 (0:00:14)

expected through the mayor I believe it needs to be adopted through the subdivision and development control bylaw and that would be dep dependent on staff capacity I don't believe there's one update scheduled for this year that I'm aware of but there may

Armand Hurford
0:51:29 (0:00:01)


John French
0:51:30 (0:00:37)

councelor French thank you mayor there's a reference in the staff report to relaxation of loading zone when I looked through the architectural drawings I only saw one loading zone so I'm wondering do our guidelines require more than

0:52:07 (0:00:19)

one through the mayor the project as proposed the bylaw does conf form with our zoning bylaw I believe we have amended the zoning B so that it would only require one loading space at this time that may have been my error in the staff report

John French
0:52:26 (0:00:01)

okay yeah

Armand Hurford
0:52:28 (0:00:02)

thanks thank you councelor

Jenna Stoner
0:52:31 (0:00:37)

stoner thank you through the chair appreciate the detail and the Amendments that have been made since this came to Committee of the whole the parking I think still Falls a bit short from where I think our conversation landed as I heard it in Committee of the whole particularly in terms of the number of stalls that were being bought out in terms of cash and Li so I'm just wondering if you can illuminate that conversation a little bit and where it landed and also appreciate that your alternative recommendation is to defeat and not to refer back or give second reading and refer back to staff and so I'm just wondering if you can also speak to that

0:53:08 (0:01:06)

thanks thank you through the mayor so at the previous council meeting Council was clear that the number of cash and lo needed to be in a larger amount than what was provided at that time through multiple conversations with the applicant this is as much as they can do given Project's constraints so from an economic perspective they're unable to offer more staff recommendation for the parking amount is within our policy in terms of mode shift and moving towards other forms of transportation and following provincial guidance as it comes to parking and housing and not setting minimums so that's the basis of Staff recommendation given what the applicant has communicated to us about being able to deliver more in terms of parking and understanding the sensitivity issue for council at the last committee staff would recommend that there likely isn't more room to move there and therefore if Council does not want to entertain further like the parking as proposed at this time that defeat might be a more suitable alternative rather than referring back and continue to work on the

Armand Hurford
0:54:14 (0:00:04)

zoning C

Eric Andersen
0:54:19 (0:00:49)

Anderson I should apologize that I should have read the public art policy prior to the meeting in advance of my asking this question but the staff report refers to maintenance requirements for public art and a the public art policy requiring a maintenance contribution I was wondering if you might be able to elaborate if there's any flexibility in this matter because public car can take a variety of forms and there's a lot of experience around the Lower Mainland of for example inlays in a concrete sidewalk where there is very little if any maintenance required unless there's some drainage issue or design issue is this can you elaborate on whether this is a fixed policy that at this time we're we there isn't a work around thank

0:55:08 (0:00:53)

you through the May that's a very good question to that in conversations with and I'm spacing on her title Sarah Morris who is The Keeper of the policy we are in the works of developing a new policy and that maintenance piece will continue onwards there is a struggle to continue maintaining the art that we have there's quite a lot of Maintenance that goes into it the public art is quite do not want to take on more public art pieces that they can't maintain and to get a public art piece that would fit with the location would likely require the full $30,000 give plus maintenance on top of that which again likely exceeds what this project can contribute at this

Eric Andersen
0:56:02 (0:00:28)

time thank you the background for my asking is our probably Community interest if you like in an enhanced Plaza corner at the northwest corner of that intersection where a some kind of a sidewalk feature inlay a horizontal piece might be of interest so perhaps we might that might be something that we'll deliber in future or staff will deliberate as it looks at the maintenance contribution provision thank

Armand Hurford
0:56:31 (0:00:01)

you yep go ahead

0:56:33 (0:00:27)

so I just add on to that if the if the applicant is successful in that money does go towards the fund through the intersection upgrade it could be chosen to use that if conversations progress staff and the intersection guidelines you have an appetite of putting public art there but again at this time we wouldn't want to commit to a piece being delivered as part of this appli application until all departments were able to take on the maintenance and were comfortable with it

Eric Andersen
0:57:00 (0:00:03)

and not least public works thank you very

Armand Hurford
0:57:03 (0:00:02)

much y councelor

Chris Pettingill
0:57:05 (0:00:24)

penil I just want to make sure I understand are we sort of what's our degree of certainty that I think I heard that to fully realize what we anticipate for our Corner guidelines we would possibly lose one non-market unit is that a an accurate

0:57:30 (0:00:21)

statement through the mayor based on staff review of the project almost the entire CAC is the almost the entire land lift is dedicated to the affordable housing units to reduce any more of the massing there are the structural costs of then doing an additional corner cut on the second story that would come most likely at the expense of an affordable housing

Chris Pettingill
0:57:51 (0:00:26)

unit so just to be clear then that is the trade-off it's sort of full realization of the corner or with a loss of one non-market unit is the sort of or to sort of you know not hold to the likely Corner outcome and then we gain that one non-market unit but it's one non as opposed to three stories of non-market

0:58:18 (0:00:11)

units through the mayor all the non-market unit are on that second story so yes in staff's assessment you'd be losing a minimum one non-market

Armand Hurford
0:58:29 (0:00:04)

unit okay are you good for now councelor

Andrew Hamilton
0:58:33 (0:00:49)

Hamilton thanks very thanks very much through the chair feel a bit scattershot going back and forth between topics back to the parking I just want to make sure that I understand what is being provided what is being required what is being cash in Li and what is being buried so do I understand correctly that we have 35 required parking stalls on this site commercial parking 13 are being provided 10 are cash in Li and that leaves 12 being under the variance which is effectively not provided with no cash inl do I understand that

0:59:23 (0:01:04)

correctly through the mayor I might need to get you to repeat that but if I so we are the building is required to provide 35 parking stalls we would require 13 dedicated commercial stalls and the 38 residential stalls and I'm not going to do that math in my head right now because it won't work then instead of where we would normally use the cash andl calculation the bot it wouldn't work in this scenario because they would be short cash andl stalls we would secure the contribution of cash andl in the Land Development agreement and ignore the Stalls that they're not meeting as per the bylaw which I believe is 4ish at this point or eight for the affordable housing don't quote me on that one but basically they won't meet the full cash and Li so we are proposing a workaround

Andrew Hamilton
1:00:27 (0:00:26)

and do I understand your comment about the proponent position on the parking that requiring them that they require this variance in the parking requirement because they are unable to pay the $30,000 any additional $30,000 per parking stall and that would drive their development off the financial viability Spectrum

1:00:54 (0:00:14)

through the mayor that is staff's understanding of the project that an additional cash and lo contribution would make the project no longer

Armand Hurford
1:01:09 (0:01:01)

viable any other questions Council yeah councelor no almost councelor soner okay I'll just take this opportunity to highlight the staff recommendation that appears in the in our agenda package didn't have the language around the storage space in the in the L in the LDA so if anyone to move a staff recommendation we need to include that there's an updated staff recommendation is that more up to date than the one that I have in front of me presential storage use there it is good thing we double checked as a as a group on that on that one so it includes that did I go ahead coun

Andrew Hamilton
1:02:10 (0:00:28)

hon I've got another question about this is the removal of the parking spaces for the affordable housing units and I don't need an exact number here this would have been a great thing to have asked ahead of time so you can get the numbers but roughly what is the what would be the difference in price for an affordable unit with a parking stall versus without a parking stall I don't recall seeing those numbers in previous discussions of affordable housing

1:02:38 (0:00:44)

units through the mayor good question I definitely do not have an answer for that the Covenant and I perhaps I'm misunderstanding your question so the cost to construct the unit with a parking stall is significantly higher 5 years ago that number was about $30,000 What are cash and Le is it's likely more now the way that a Perpetual affordable housing policy and the Covenant that would get registered on title is 80% of Market rents based on a formula so it doesn't include the consideration of parking and there is no obligation for the operator of those units to offer the parking so the parking would get constructed but in theory that doesn't necessarily mean that comes with a parking stall as with most rental

Andrew Hamilton
1:03:23 (0:00:24)

units okay thanks I guess I was just a little confused by so staff's comment on page three of the staff report regarding the reduced parking requirements given the cost of constructing parking stalls is large and passed on to the end users a lack of parking associated with affordable units May encourage greater

1:03:47 (0:00:24)

affordability through the mayor the lowering the cost of construction by reducing the requirement for affordable housing parking stalls has been proven out through other projects and other municipalities Edmonton for example and that was where that comment was coming from obviously staff can't control the end price Beyond The Covenant but reducing the costs associated with affordable housing encourages the construction of affordable

Andrew Hamilton
1:04:12 (0:00:14)

housing okay thanks I understand so that's a comment in general if we don't if housing doesn't come with parking it's cheaper but it doesn't make these units cheaper for the people who are going to be renting

1:04:26 (0:00:11)

them through the mayor we have no control over that it may it may not that would be an end user decision based on the cost of developing the

Armand Hurford
1:04:38 (0:00:07)

units okay councelor Stoner I can see the wheels turning over there you were close councelor

Chris Pettingill
1:04:46 (0:00:27)

penal yeah so a bit of a process so you we've heard the alternate is to defeat rather than refer back to staff but another thing that because this is proposed for three readings is a reason why we wouldn't give just first or second reading to give us a little more time to chew on this so not send it back to staff but or is it sort of it's three readings or deat and that's all the proponent is interested

1:05:13 (0:00:30)

in staff would typically through the mayor recommend a lower number of readings if there were still things that didn't meet District policy when staff are assessing the resoning they'll reone it against District policies this project from staff's assessment does meet policies so from a staff perspective there would be no reason on our end to delay readings if council did want to amend a motion and recommend changes prior to bring it back for readings that would be council's prerogative

Armand Hurford
1:05:43 (0:00:48)

yeah and thank you for that and from my perspective if there's conditions for future readings that need to be addressed before we get to that point that would be a reason to provide one reading and allow that to be to be addressed so that is a possibility but just to the concept of having it with no guidance to make an adjustment and just provide one for it to come back to us from a council agenda perspective and from a use of use of time like unless there's something to happen in that time I don't I don't see the benefit of doing of doing that and generally wouldn't be supportive of that but councelor

Jenna Stoner
1:06:31 (0:00:07)

Stoner yeah can St also just clarify why there's no proposal for this to go to public

1:06:39 (0:00:17)

hearing through the mayor as per the new provincial guidance because the project consists of more than 50% residential there's no requirement for or we're prohibited from holding a public hearing for this because it does comply with the official community plan

Armand Hurford
1:06:57 (0:00:15)

plan thank you take Council any additional any additional questions we have a staff recommendation up on the screen including the updated language yeah go ahead C

Chris Pettingill
1:07:12 (0:00:15)

I would like to test the resolution as amended by staff but for two readings rather than three and I will speak to it if seconded

Armand Hurford
1:07:27 (0:00:10)

I don't see a seconder presenting themselves so I will move on are you seconding that councel okay councelor go ahead

Chris Pettingill
1:07:38 (0:01:37)

yeah so my rationale here is I actually am quite supportive of this I think the proposals around parking and so on Mak sense I appreciate the things that the developer has done I am concerned though about the interaction with the corner and what our guidelines will be I my recollection is even in our last term we really wanted to get this corner right and it is a significant public space for I think all sort of demographics and that is a very high priority and as we sort of densify and so on I think the livability of an area is key and we had seen I think this corner as is critical to that and I know the development on the North West corner has part of their struggles and going back and forth has been our sort of uncertainty wanting to make sure this corner is right and so to sort of say oh well no it's fine you can stick into that corner I I'm not completely comfortable with that trade-off so I would like to send it to Second reading with a request that something that allows us a little more flexibility to see our Corner guidelines come to fruition and for me even in this particular unusual case giving up one non-market unit might make sense given the importance of that corner and so that is the one piece that I'm concerned about with this and I hope that we could see this addressed and approve it at third reading

Armand Hurford
1:09:15 (0:00:37)

afterwards councelor I just like to point out that the motion that you made like comments while speaking to the to the motion don't direct that work so if you'd like to add a condition to third reading to receiving third reading which is what I heard you in your comment say but what the actual motion doesn't capture feedback from Council of any variety never mind specifically yours I'll let you mle on that as others would like to speak to us others on this ccor

Andrew Hamilton
1:09:52 (0:00:15)

Hamilton is that clar procedural clarification if the motion if counc the pettingill's motion for two readings is defeated can a motion for three readings be

Armand Hurford
1:10:08 (0:00:50)

proposed so how I would like this to go because it is thank you for highlighting the how precarious that part of this is in this conversation is I think it's really important we go around and get everyone's opinion on what's being proposed and if this motion isn't supportable I will be proposing an amendment to give it three readings and we'll debate it we'll debate it that way because if it fails if this vote fails we're not it fails it's not that we get to discuss having it go for three readings without making a specific Amendment and I'm hearing nods from all the folks that Keep Us online procedurally so that's where that is so would you like to speak to the motion as

Andrew Hamilton
1:10:58 (0:00:17)

presented I think that I'd like to give councelor Pettingill a moment to think about the actual require the actual meet of the motion that the piece that he would like to see for a third reading

Chris Pettingill
1:11:15 (0:00:46)

C pel so I'm actually not inclined to change my motion just because I don't want to be prescriptive of what the solution is I want to highlight that is the only area of concern remaining in that third reading there will be a proposal for a change or not and we will vote on it and make those choices but I wanted to call out that one piece which I hope there is a resolution for which is to see the you know us able to realize that corner but I don't feel comfortable prescribing what that is and you know if everyone sort of is we get to third reading and says no it's take it or leave it this is what it is then so be it but I don't want to be

Armand Hurford
1:12:01 (0:00:03)

prescriptive councelor Stoner do you want

Jenna Stoner
1:12:04 (0:00:03)

us I think I'll speak to the motion if that's okay

Armand Hurford
1:12:08 (0:00:00)

yeah speak to the

Jenna Stoner
1:12:08 (0:01:17)

motion I'd be challenged to support it from the perspective that I've heard staff say that this is this is the point of take it or leave it from their negotiations with the developer and how they feel like it is lines with policy so I think it is up to us to make a decision at this point as to whether that is good enough for us and whether it weighs all of the different components the reality is we're trying to fit a lot into a relatively small site we're trying we're asking a lot they've exceeded the employment space we also have the viewscape component and the affordable housing component in the parking and so I think what I've heard from staff and why I probably wouldn't support the motion on the floor is that this is what is being presented if it's not supportable then the decision needs to be made that doesn't it's always up to council's discretion as to whether we want to give one two or three readings but I feel like I've heard that pretty loud and clear from staff at this point so that's why I'm hesitant without a more specific component to your motion councelor Pettingill I'd have a hard time supporting it at this point

Armand Hurford
1:13:26 (0:02:11)

yeah I I'm going to keep going around and I'll come back to you before any anyone else on this on this motion I think that my inclination would be for us to vote on three readings because this is a this and that would give the I think that's the direct the Direction here I think at that point really referring this to essentially referring this to a future meeting when we've heard that there's an there's an impass like this is as far as it's as the Project's going to going to evolve then I think we should consider the three readings and if it needs to be defeated it's defeated I'm in favor of actually moving forward with this I think developing in our downtown is incredibly challenging this is a small lot we're trying to get lots out of but it's also one of the largest Lots on Cleveland it's exceptionally hard to De to develop with all the guidelines that we that we have and all the things we're trying to solve for in our public spaces around viewscapes and active activated public spaces on corners and all those all those things and I think that the proponent been quite responsive to the to the viewscape work and all the pieces that we've been trying to achieve here so I'm supportive of this moving of this moving forward and without and particularly with this motion without clearly communicating by way of motion which is how we direct work why we're only doing two instead of three I can't support that so I'm going to move that we amend the motion to be through to be three readings if there's a second or second by councelor French thank you I think I just spoke to the motion so is anyone else on this particular piece Council French

John French
1:15:38 (0:00:51)

thanks mayor this project at this important intersection I think is a great example of how it is possible for projects to move quote unquote quickly through District Squamish processes and new and changing processes thanks to our provincial government so Council first saw this proposal in November the developer and the architect came to us with a proposal that was pretty close to the collective Vision that many people had for what I consider to be the Georgia and Granville intersection of Squamish the development team clearly heard council's concerns from the committee of the whole meeting and here we are just a few months later considering three readings of a resoning bylaw for me this development proposal at this time is as perfect as we're going to get it for this site and for Cleveland

Armand Hurford
1:16:30 (0:00:13)

Avenue thank you so again we're speaking to why we're amending the motion to just so everyone this is going to be a little bit interesting we're talking about the amendment itself not go ahead counc

Chris Pettingill
1:16:43 (0:00:52)

yeah and not sure I'll see what everyone else has to say but I'm not inclined to support this at the moment and what I did hear is that there's no movement on parking but that I thought I heard from staff that we could fully realize the corner guidelines if we willing to give up one non-market unit and for me that is a reasonable trade-off I wanted to again not be prescriptive of that but to give that opportunity and to sort of hear from my colleagues and test the room on that I think going to two readings gives us that opportunity to have to hear from all of you and then to you know see if the develop wants to entertain that and so that's sort of why I'm looking still for two and I think not supporting this unless I my colleagues convince me

Armand Hurford
1:17:35 (0:00:07)

otherwise thank you other comments go ahead councilor

Andrew Hamilton
1:17:43 (0:00:45)

Hamilton I am going to speak in support of the amendment thinking hard about this sort of thing I think this is a case where we may be attempting to put perfection in front of progress and I think that while this while this development there are many great things about this development there's one or two things the corner the parking variants reducing the cash inl contribution are not ideal in my mind but I think that the cost of delay may be greater than the benefit we gain from making

Armand Hurford
1:18:29 (0:00:31)

progress thank you for that other comments on the amendment okay so we're going to vote on the amendment all in favor any opposed C Pettingill and green law oppos motion carries so now we're back to the main the main motion as amended has everyone spoken to this or anyone like to make an additional comment go ahead councelor

Eric Andersen
1:19:00 (0:02:43)

Anderson to quote from the staff report form and character at this stage is largely conceptual and will be refined and reviewed at development permit stage if this application is successful I do recognize this and that the rendering offered is quote a propos building massing that is the intention in with the illustration however in I'm going to now look at the design rationale in the package before us architectural concept form and massing there's reference to vibrant colors I do not see vibrant colors in this rendering and I do hope that this is in a Evolution and that consideration will be given to vibrant colors or a different approach rather than a beige building for this place in downtown I would won't repeat my comments from earlier this evening secondly regarding public art I think that the I hope that the enhanced Plaza space that is desired and referred to at the corner of Winnipeg in Cleveland might be an opportunity for a mosaic there are spectacular examples of TI or Pebble Mosaic insulations in Vancouver North Vancouver and Su in plazas and public realm spaces I am pleased to note that staff is monitoring actively the issue of affordable housing parking demand in other municipalities however here I'm more concerned with park with commercial parking needs in the downtown and the implications from this project I the ocp is cited section 16.2 D and it's really our vision for downtown well this vision for downtown inherently involves demand need for visitor and commercial parking and we need to keep this in mind so that I do welcome the opportunity which I trust we will have that Council will review at development permit stage where the CAC monies the $300,000 will be directed whether to active Transportation or parking facility in my view this is an important consideration especially a consideration arising from this project and that we should in fact be considering on the north side of pton Avenue a parking facility or if you like Mobility Hub to address these General downtown commercial and visitor parking issues that are going to be with us for some time I'll leave my comments at that speaking in favor of the of the resolution staff

Armand Hurford
1:21:43 (0:00:06)

recommendation thank you councelor other comments councelor

Lauren Greenlaw
1:21:50 (0:01:56)

greenlot thanks through the chair I'll be speaking in opposition of the motion though there is an urgency in the in terms of housing needs in our community we've reached a point where it has become difficult to support more new housing developments that are predominantly that are not predominantly affordable we've had a shortage of doctors for years there's a serious lack of child care teachers are difficult to find and retain and we long ago outgrew our Hospital not to mention the infrastructure wear that growth brings which I know our staff Works diligently to stay on top of or the failing intersections on Highway 99 as the province strongly encourages densification and facilitates population growth our community needs the province to provide us with more financial support for the costs that fall under provincial jurisdictions such as affordable housing Child Care Highway upgrades and health care as a community needs more than just Roes over our heads to be livable the population of people in the sea to- Sky Corridor who rely on the Squamish General Hospital has just about doubled since its last major upgrade though building new residences helps with our housing supplies in terms of addressing the affordability crisis I have yet to see any evidence that an increase of housing Supply will lead to a decrease in housing cost furthermore as bu building costs have escalated to $400 a square foot it is not possible to make new builds affordable in a community that has a median household income of approximately $90,000 a year without heavy subsidization this is me explicitly asking our federal and provincial governments for significantly more money to secure meaningful affordable housing further to government sponsorship I believe our district housing solution needs to be more inclusive of a housing spectrum that includes vehicle residency and encourages densification through tiny homes and other non-traditional living modalities which can give individuals more autonomy have smaller environmental Footprints and require less infrastructure and I'd like to Second my colleagues comments about color and

Armand Hurford
1:23:46 (0:00:03)

Art thank you councelor penel yeah

Chris Pettingill
1:23:50 (0:01:00)

I will be supporting this the for me the one outstanding thing was the this corner which has been a priority since last term and I fear that where we're headed I know this is not the form and character phase but I fear that we're painting ourselves into a bit of a corner and will make the DP discussions I think a lot more difficult because I'm not yet prepared to give up on I feel those guidelines are really quite important and so you know I guess we may have to have that tussle then but overall I appreciate what's being proposed here I think it does make sense given the challenges that fa we're facing the commitments we've made with our