Regular Council - 16 Apr 2024


1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
2: ADOPTION OF AGENDA
3: DELEGATIONS/PETITIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
4: CONSIDERATION OF UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
5: PUBLIC HEARINGS
6: SCHEDULED (TIMED) ITEMS
7: CONSENT AGENDA
7.A: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
7.A: Staff Recommendation:
7.A.i: Committee of the Whole Meeting: March 26, 2024
7.A.ii: Committee of the Whole Meeting: April 9, 2024
7.A.iii: Special Business Meeting: April 9, 2024
7.B: CORRESPONDENCE - Receive for Information
7.B.i: 0328 MP P. Weiler Re: March 2024 MP Newsletter
7: CORRESPONDENCE - Referred to Staff
7.C: STAFF UPDATES - For Information
7.C.i: WLNG Traffic Impact Assessment - Memo
7: END OF CONSENT AGENDA
8: CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
8.i: Valleycliffe Daycare Budget Amendment
9: BYLAWS
9.A: FIRST THREE READINGS
9.A.i: District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (38108 Cleveland Ave) No. 3027, 2023
9.A.ii: District of Squamish 2024-2028 Five Year Financial Plan Bylaw No. 3025, 2023, Amendment Bylaw (Spring) No. 3038, 2024
9.A.iii: District of Squamish Tax Rate Bylaw No. 3039, 2024
10: STAFF REPORTS
10.A: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
10.A.i: Development Permit No. DP000613 – 38029, 38035, 38045 Third Avenue
11: LATE AGENDA ITEMS
12: CORRESPONDENCE - ACTION REQUESTED
13: CORRESPONDENCE REFERRED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
14: APPROVAL OF MINUTES REFERRED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
15: BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES
16: COMMITTEE MINUTES AND REPORTS
17: NOTICE OF MOTION
18: COUNCIL - STAFF IN CAMERA ANNOUNCEMENTS
18: Motions from the closed portion of the April 9, 2024 Special Business Meeting
18.i: Recycle Depot Options
18.ii: WLNG Tax Rate
19: UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
20: OPEN QUESTION PERIOD - CLARIFICATION RELATED TO AGENDA ITEMS
21: COUNCIL OR STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
22: MOTION TO CLOSE
23: TERMINATION
1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
0:00:00 (0:08:19)


SPEAKER_-1
0:00:28 (0:07:24)

e

Armand Hurford
0:07:53 (0:00:25)

hello everybody and welcome to the regular business meeting for the District of Squamish for Tuesday April 16th 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 skish website following the meeting if you have any concerns please notify the corporate officer president present at the

ADOPTION OF AGENDA
0:08:19 (0:00:16)


Armand Hurford
0:08:19 (0:00:16)

meeting can I have someone move adoption of the agenda please move by councelor French second by councelor Hamilton all in favor any opposed motion carries thank you we don't have any delegations or petitions proclamations this evening

CONSIDERATION OF UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
0:08:35 (0:13:36)

D. Dre Ples approached the council to discuss the urgency of addressing traffic calming measures on behalf of West Winds on Third Avenue. Ples highlighted that an application to appear before the council had been previously denied, emphasizing the need for immediate consideration due to ongoing concerns since West Winds opened. The discussion revolved around the traffic situation from Bailey's Avenue past West Winds and Shannon retirement home, affecting the safety of children and parents walking towards local schools.

Council members, including Jenna Stoner and Andrew Hamilton, engaged in clarifying the context of Ples's concerns, particularly in relation to recent developments and ongoing traffic calming measures. The council debated the urgency and appropriateness of addressing the issue within the meeting's framework, ultimately deciding to schedule a future date for Ples to present the concerns in a more relevant context. Despite some reservations about the motion's specificity and the broader strategic planning for traffic calming, the motion was carried with the intention of incorporating Ples's input into the larger discussion on traffic safety measures in the community.

Armand Hurford
0:08:35 (0:00:59)

item four is consideration of unscheduled public attendance so if anyone has a matter okay thank you I'll invite you to approach the mic and I will give you some quick instructions so how this works is you'll have two minutes to address Council as to why your topic is how it why it's important that your topic is considered this we is heard this evening versus coming in through our normal processes for the next regular business meeting in two weeks and then Council will vote on whether we hear about the topic tonight which that happens later in the meeting I know it's but those are the steps so right now if you could start by with your full name and your neighborhood and then we're looking for to understand the urgency of the of the matter as to why it should be considered this evening the floor is yours

SPEAKER_00
0:09:35 (0:00:29)

thank you good afternoon or good evening mayor and counselors my name is D Dre ples and I'm here on behalf of West Winds on Third Avenue regarding the traffic calming measures and I have applied for to appear in front of council but was denied so I feel it's urgent for me to be able to speak the next time that you that I'm available to be able to speak to

Armand Hurford
0:10:04 (0:00:31)

you okay the for council's context here we did have an application to appear and there was with the traffic calming work that was happening it felt I felt the most appropriate place to hear the concerns was through that work that we're that's underway to address concerns such as this that was the logic at the time so but I'll turn to yeah go

Jenna Stoner
0:10:36 (0:00:12)

ahead thank you just a question of clarification is this with respect to the proposed development of the Seven Summits at the end of Third Avenue near West Winds or is

SPEAKER_00
0:10:49 (0:00:12)

it directly across from West Winds the section from Bailey's Avenue to pass West Winds and Shannon retirement home

Armand Hurford
0:11:02 (0:00:40)

I see where you're going there counselor Stoner we're in an interesting position where I'd look to staff where there was a development that has received third reading but not adoption I think is where that hits or has it been adopted so make sure we stay on the right side with the on the next down the road I believe it was adopted actually it was a DP Okay so we're not we don't have a risk there so it was at DP sorry just trying to understand that procedurally that we're that we're okay think we're okay sorry thank you I think you were trying to catch the same thing I was pondering there for a second or similar

Jenna Stoner
0:11:42 (0:00:08)

no I was just trying to understand the context of the request in terms of urgency so if it was related to a specific development or ongoing traffic calming measures

SPEAKER_00
0:11:51 (0:00:32)

this has been going on since West Winds basically opened up to 2022 an article was written in the chief regarding what we had a petition with West Winds and with Shannon Falls where we felt that the area that we're in has no has no speed limits has no school zone where we have schools where we have children walking children and parents walking past West Winds and Shannon retirement home walking towards Squamish Elementary and house out secondary

Armand Hurford
0:12:23 (0:00:07)

I think we're getting a little a little off I know it's a challenging process let's just make sure that we go ahead councelor

Andrew Hamilton
0:12:31 (0:00:43)

Hamilton it seems to me what's happened here is that the proponent hasn't understood the per the reason for the denial of the request that this is simply something we want to hear about but within the context of the speed limit reduction so if folks are ready I'd be willing to entertain a motion to hear he the speaker at some future date at a meeting that is relevant to the speed limit reduction so that we can be sure that we hear the speed limit reduction concerns at the time that we need to make those

Armand Hurford
0:13:14 (0:00:26)

decisions okay could you be your motion when it yeah I understand what you're I understand what you're what you're saying there we'll need Council any other qu questions or comments on this I'm giving councelor Hamilton time to craft a craft a

Andrew Hamilton
0:13:40 (0:00:25)

motion all right then I'll put a motion forward that we find the next available date for the speaker to appear in front of counil with any concerns relating to traffic cing

Armand Hurford
0:14:06 (0:00:02)

are you are you seconding that

SPEAKER_09
0:14:09 (0:00:00)

okay

Armand Hurford
0:14:10 (0:00:02)

go ahead you like to speak to

Andrew Hamilton
0:14:12 (0:00:43)

it this seems to be a case where the proponent has tried to go through the regular path which is submit an application but failed to have a success in that path and so has come through the next available opport which is an unscheduled public appearance unscheduled public appearances are for M matters that are Urgent in time I think this is an important matter and I think we need to hear what folks what folks concerns are about it but I think it's important that we hear it at the right time so I'd like to propose that we work with the proponent the applicant to find the right time to have this conversation so that we can have a positive outcome

John French
0:14:56 (0:00:33)

thank you councelor French thanks mayor and I agree with my colleague that this doesn't quite meet my urgency test to be heard tonight and I also agree it is important and it is something that I want to hear about from someone who lives in the area and sees every day what's actually happening in that section of road I think that this motion gives us the best possible alternative to ultimately hear what the issue is but in a time frame that works for us

Armand Hurford
0:15:30 (0:00:00)

thank you

Chris Pettingill
0:15:31 (0:00:09)

c penil yeah I'm just wondering if I can have the motion

Armand Hurford
0:15:40 (0:00:04)

repeated oh sorry we need your here I'll end you

SPEAKER_04
0:15:45 (0:00:17)

mic that Council will entertain a delegation from the speaker which I'll name it on the next available agenda as a delegation

Andrew Hamilton
0:16:03 (0:00:07)

on the next available agenda related to Traffic

Armand Hurford
0:16:10 (0:00:02)

coming go ahead councelor penel

Chris Pettingill
0:16:13 (0:01:24)

okay I guess I'm struggling a little bit with the motion as proposed I agree it is a very important topic I've talked to other constituents and other locations which is why I think it's important but it's also why I think we have identified our strategic planning that traffic calming in general is an issue in many places and I guess it's not clear to me why to single out one particular voice I think there are a number of voices that I want to hear from I was sort of assuming I don't think incorrectly that as part of our process and part of what we've included in our budget is to do this further engagement work so we can address these issues and I guess I would suggest that's work we're already doing if we want to sort of mandate a public engagement on the topic not sure I want to do that on the Fly tonight but if we were I I'm not sure I'd want it to be exclusive because I think you know again I'm having meetings with other constituents and I'm happy to meet with the speaker as well and here and for now I guess that would be my preferred approach is to sit down and have a coffee with folks and then let the staff process unfold which I am expecting will include I know there's already been a survey gone out but that there will be further engagement on the on the

Armand Hurford
0:17:37 (0:01:43)

topic thank you other comments here I when I think about the types of decisions we make in this in this room and we have a community group that comes forward and with an issue that's important and traffic calming in front of the building in this case we've identified that as a as an initi as an important piece of work and we've directed staff to do that which would be the strongest action that we would could take in the in the room we don't direct where specific you know pieces of traffic calming measures or traffic or so on happen it's more that broader context in the in the community so my challenge with the motion is that the I like that voice to these this to be heard by the folks doing that work so when we get the next update it incorporates this so I think this is where I would be more comfortable directing staff to doing that project to make sure this group is identified as a as a stakeholder in this work and that those comments can be captured in the in the work so I I'm yeah I don't think I can the motion doesn't quite sit right with me where it is but I think that's where the best and then some options can come forward with in the bigger context we know this is a big piece of work so I don't know where that leaves me on the specific motion that we have in front of us right now but it's yeah it's moved and seconded but I just I don't know quite what I do with that from a voting perspective councelor

Jenna Stoner
0:19:20 (0:01:05)

Stoner yeah thank you through the chair I will support the motion appreciate you coming down this evening and I know that this can be a cumbersome process as we're working through this even on this side of the table but for me the threshold for unscheduled public attendance is really that the matter is urgent must be heard within the two the next two weeks in terms of decision- making and or it relates to an item that is on the agenda for this evening which the item that you're bringing forward is neither of those from my perspective we hear about traffic cing concerns across the community on a daily basis and I don't want to downplay the experience that you have or the potential risk that is presented I would urge you to email our staff who maintain a list of prioritizations for areas that need to be okay great and then also that when the next available discussion around traffic calming does come forward to council then I appreciate the motion that's been put on the floor in order to bring your voice in to that particular conversation but I think it were challenged here this evening given the agenda that we have and the structure that we have around unscheduled public attendance

SPEAKER_00
0:20:25 (0:00:04)

I understand that which is why I did because as I said I did apply for it and thank you very

Armand Hurford
0:20:30 (0:00:09)

much we Sorry at this point it's just we can't have in the procedure we can't have a back

Jenna Stoner
0:20:39 (0:00:09)

yeah and so also as other council members have said happy to chat with you offline as well but I'll leave my comments there thank

Armand Hurford
0:20:48 (0:00:32)

you thank you okay so we have a we have a motion that's been moved in second we've got comments to that to that effect I'll support I'm going to support the motion for that future date but I my expectation between here and there is that there's been some other some other pieces of work happening so I'll but I'll take that leap and support the motion so with that I'll call a question all in favor and any opposed Council penil opposes motion carries thank you Council

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

penil I'm just wondering because we're all sitting here if it would be possible to ask a member of Staff or someone to just grab our business card s for the guests just so our contact info is available I would be very happy to sit down have a coffee and yeah

Armand Hurford
0:21:39 (0:00:32)

thanks yeah we'll get we'll make sure that happens and thank you to my Council colleagues for making that commitment I Shar in that I see some credit some credit cards some business cards coming out so are there any anyone else for unscheduled public consideration of unscheduled public attendance seeing none we have no public hearings no timed items

CONSENT AGENDA
0:22:11 (0:00:55)


Armand Hurford
0:22:11 (0:00:06)

we have the consent agenda would anyone like to pull anything from the consent agenda y councel penil

Chris Pettingill
0:22:18 (0:00:15)

7 A1 it's the March 26th Committee of the whole and 7 C1 the wlng traffic impact assessment

Armand Hurford
0:22:33 (0:00:32)

okay would you like to move it with those or is there anyone else that wants to pull anything from the consent agenda no so with those two items removed is there a mover for the consent agenda move by councelor Anderson second by U I'm losing my and thank you counselor Hamilton sorry I'm already rattled today for some reason all in favor motion carries thank you we'll deal with those two items at an appropriate time

Valleycliffe Daycare Budget Amendment
0:23:06 (0:01:21)


Armand Hurford
0:23:06 (0:00:12)

we're on to item 81 and we have a request from staff as to the timing of this so miss GL would you like to speak to where we are on this particular

SPEAKER_03
0:23:18 (0:00:45)

item thank you through the mayor staff would like to point out that the committee last week passed this motion and as a result in anticipation of this evening spring Amendment staff have put the $230,000 item or amount that's in this motion into the amendment for Council to consider at the time of the amendment so what staff are asking is if council could delay ratifying this motion until after you have had the discussion and give us Direction during the Spring Amendment m after which if we delay this item you can then revisit this

Armand Hurford
0:24:03 (0:00:23)

motion okay so with that context I'd move that we suspend the order of the agenda so that item 81 be deferred for consideration until after item 10 A2 second by Council French all in favor motion carries unanimously thank you thank you for that

District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (38108 Cleveland Ave) No. 3027, 2023
0:24:27 (0:34:21)

Brian Dy, a planner with Community Planning, presented a rezoning application for 38108 Cleveland Avenue to the District of Squamish Council. The application sought to rezone the site to a comprehensive development zone (CD12) to allow for the construction of a five-story mixed-use building. This building would feature employment space at grade, residential and commercial parking on the second story, and residential rental units on the third to fifth stories. The proposal included 20 market rental units and three affordable rental units, with a mix of one to three-bedroom options. The site, previously a gas station from the late 1950s to the early 1990s, has been remediated and received a certificate of compliance from the Ministry of the Environment. Staff supported the proposed 1. 86 floor area ratio and the massing of the building, noting that the setbacks from Cleveland Avenue exceeded current requirements and that the residential units would be secured as rental.

During the discussion, Council members raised questions about the lack of a public hearing due to new provincial regulations, details of the proposed crosswalk upgrades, and the design and responsibility for the enhanced public plaza space. Concerns were also voiced about the viewscape impact of the building's design and the need for acoustic signaling at crosswalks for visually impaired individuals. The council expressed overall support for the project, highlighting the balance between preserving views and enabling development, the inclusion of affordable housing units, and the contribution to the community through the enhanced plaza space and frontage improvements. The motion to give the bylaw its first three readings was carried, with Councillor Greenlaw opposing.

Armand Hurford
0:24:27 (0:00:44)

so next we are on to bylaws consideration first three readings we have District sish zoning bylaw 2200 2011 Amendment bylaw for 38108 Cleveland Avenue number 3027 2023 and I will turn it over to staff to introduce themselves and the topic thank you

SPEAKER_05
0:25:11 (0:02:10)

thank you mayor Herford good evening mayor and Council my name is Brian Dy planner with Community planning I'm here tonight to present an a resoning application at 38108 Cleveland Avenue for consideration of first three readings this resoning application was presented to the February 13th 2024 Committee of the whole meeting where Council was supported of the proposed massing and osor setbacks as such no changes to the resoning application have been made since the committee of the whole meeting the subject property is located in downtown Squamish at the northeast corner of clevand Avenue and Winnipeg Street I'm not sure why my slide hasn't changed oh thanks the site was used as a gas station from the late 1950s to the early 1990s and has remained vacant since those buildings were removed the site has been remediated and has obtained a certificate of compliance from the Ministry of the environment the application proposes to reone the site to comprehensive development Zone cd12 the application proposes a five-story mixed use building with Frontage on Cleveland Avenue Winnipeg Street and loggers Lane employment space is provided at grade with residential and commercial parking on the Second Story and residential R rental units located on the third to fifth stories all the proposed residential units would be secured as rental including 20 Market rental units and three aord rental units the unit mix includes seven three-bedroom units 13 two-bedroom units and three one-bedroom units the 31 bedroom units will be secured as affordable rental housing staff support the proposed 1.86 floor area ratio given that employment space provided exceeds the typical 25% requirement in the C4 Zone and all the residential units will be secured as rental the massing of the proposed building is set back 6.8 M from Cleveland Avenue on the third and fourth stories this set setback increases to 12.3 M for the fifth Story while these setbacks are less than the 14 meters recommended in the draft downtown Squamish view Escape study staff are supportive of the proposed osor setbacks from Cleveland Avenue as they exceed the current requirements in the C4 Zone and the residential component of the project is market and affordable rental units

Armand Hurford
0:27:21 (0:14:45)

sorry just one second we're having a technical issue with I believe this was it the stream as well as the slides the slides okay so to get you enough time how much time would you like to address that you need like a two minutes we can sit in awkward silence for two minutes I'm going to say we recess for two minutes and we'll reconvene just to in case it takes five so we're in recess e thank you we're having a technical issue in council chambers but we have addressed that so thank you to our staff for looking after that and we will resume the Pres the presentation maybe back one slide from where you where we think we left off and the floor is

SPEAKER_05
0:42:07 (0:03:28)

yours thank you mayor Herford again this is a resoning application at 38108 Cleveland Avenue the application proposes to rezone the site to a comprehensive development Zone CD number 112 the application proposes a five-story mixed use building with Frontage on Cleveland Avenue Winnipeg Street and loggers Lane m space is provided at grade with residential and commercial parking on the Second Story and residential rental units on the third to fifth stories all proposed residential units would be secured as rental including 20 Market rental units and three affordable rental units the unit mix includes 7 three-bedroom units 13 two-bedroom units and three one-bedroom units three one-bedroom units will be secured as affordable rental housing staff support the proposed 1.86 floor area ratio given that the employment space provided exceeds the typical 20 5% requirement in the C4 Zone and all the residential units will be secured as rental the massing of the proposed building is setback 6.8 M from Cleveland Avenue on the third and fourth Stories the setback increases to 12.3 M for the fifth Story while these setbacks are less than the 14 meters recommended in the draft downtown Squamish viewscape study staff are supportive of the proposed upper story setbacks from Cleveland Avenue as they exceed the current requirement in the C4 Zone and the residential component of the project is market and affordable able rental units staff also note that the important views of enai are preserved with the proposed 6.8 me setback the applicant has advised that a 14 meter setback from Cleveland Avenue would render this lot undevelopable this resoning application does not trigger the community amenity contribution policy as all of the residential units proposed will be secured as either Market or affordable rental while cic's are not triggered for this application the applicant is still proposing to secure three one-bedroom units as affordable rental housing and perpet Dy typical Frontage improvements will be provided should the application move forward to a building permit application these would include construction of a corner Plaza on the northeast corner of Cleveland Avenue and Winnipeg Street the design of which would be secured in the Land Development agreement the following items noted on the slide will be secured in a Land Development agreement that the applicant will enter into a housing agreement to secure 20 units as Market rental housing and three units as affordable rental housing in perpetuity construction of the enhanced Plaza space on the northeast corner of Winnipeg Street and Cleveland Avenue including the building setback on this corner and a statutory right of way for public access over this area Frontage improvements along Cleveland Avenue and Winnipeg Street in accordance with the applicable design guidelines and downtown streetcape standards a crosswalk on loggers Lane upgraded with hardwired rapid flashing Beacon synced to the South crosswalk that the applicant will enter into a no gas Covenant for the entire building so that no natural gas will be provided be provided or permitted to the building and providing a statutory rate of way over the District's existing sanitary Line crossing the property including Public Access over this area to inform the community per policy the project was posted to the district's development showcase and a development sign has been posted to the site one comment was received that was supportive of the rental component of the project but was not supportive of the upper story setbacks given that this would impact the number of rental units that can be provided so with that staff recommend that bylaw 3027 be given first three readings and that prior to adoption the applicant enter into a Land Development agreement to secure the items noted on the slide that were just previously mentioned that concludes my presentation I'm happy to take

Armand Hurford
0:45:35 (0:00:06)

questions thank you for the presentation Council questions Council

John French
0:45:42 (0:00:16)

French thanks mayor this project is moving ahead without a public hearing I'm presuming due to the new provincial regulations governing resoning applications for housing projects can you just talk a little bit about that am I correct

SPEAKER_05
0:45:58 (0:00:07)

yes that is correct more than 50% of the floor area is residential so no public hearing can be held for this

SPEAKER_13
0:46:06 (0:00:01)

application

John French
0:46:07 (0:00:20)

yep go ahead and one of the Land Development agreement items is a crosswalk on loggers Lane upgraded with hardwired rapid flashing beacons and synced to the South crosswalk is the South crosswalk a reference to the flashing loggers Lane crosswalk at Main Street

SPEAKER_05
0:46:28 (0:00:10)

through the through the chair it is the existing one right across from the sraco buildings there so it's just so that both sides of the intersection have this infrastructure in

John French
0:46:39 (0:00:13)

place okay so I'm just curious to know what does it mean to synchronize those lights what does that actually look like between like interacting with each other impacting traffic

SPEAKER_05
0:46:52 (0:00:17)

flow through the chair I'm not sure I could give you a detailed answer to that but my understanding is if you hit the button on one of the crosswalks it's going to light up all of them so it's very clear that there's a pedestrian going through this intersection and it will cause traffic to see this and slow

John French
0:47:10 (0:00:09)

down okay right I'm thinking there there's already two existing flashing crosswalks on loggers Lane is that

SPEAKER_05
0:47:19 (0:00:02)

correct yes that's correct

John French
0:47:21 (0:00:07)

okay I had it that there's only one and it's much further south so this is making a lot more sense now than when I was reading it

Armand Hurford
0:47:28 (0:00:05)

thanks and that's why we're here is to make sense of these things so thank you for that keler

Jenna Stoner
0:47:34 (0:00:34)

Stoner yeah thank you through the chair a few questions you mentioned that the enhanced public Plaza space as per the staff recommendation will be secured through the Land Development agreement this was a fairly substantial component of the conversation in previous iterations of this proposal and so I'm just wondering if we have any level of certainty as to what that enhanced public Plaza space will look like or if that's something that comes to us at adoption through the

SPEAKER_05
0:48:08 (0:00:34)

LDA through the mayor I can show a draft design so the design has been finalized for the my apologies the Cleveland Winnipeg intersection design guidelines have been finalized and these have been passed along to the proponent these will form a schedule of the Land Development agreement so when this comes forward to servicing agreement following the development permit this will inform the that future design this is just the one section from that showing that kind of

Jenna Stoner
0:48:42 (0:00:31)

detail thank you sorry if I missed that in the package my second question was around the crosswalk as well in terms of hardwired Rapid flashing Beacon we recently had a tour with folks who were visually impaired and they spoke about the importance of acoustic signaling across our crosswalks in particular and I'm just wondering if that's something that's been considered as we start to upgrade our crosswalks is to include acoustic signaling for those who are visually

SPEAKER_05
0:49:14 (0:00:18)

impaired through the chair I am not able to answer that question this was the this was kind of a general requirement noted through the engineering department through the referral process to be secured through the Land Development agreement so that could be something that could be explored through the ultimate design of what is eventually installed

Jenna Stoner
0:49:32 (0:00:24)

there all right and then my last question was just curious what additional viewscapes if any are being preserved with the fifth Story being set back to 12.8 MERS it seems like the greatest impact both positive and negative in is being achieved by like the setback of the lower stories and so what addition is that fifth Story setback providing

SPEAKER_05
0:49:57 (0:00:15)

through the chair I'll let my manager answer that question I just have one note that in order to achieve the required outdoor amenity space the setback is required on that fifth Story so that they can provide that but I'll also I'll pass it to

SPEAKER_18
0:50:12 (0:00:38)

Jesse thank you through the mayor so the viewscape study would have recommended that the above the second story that the full building be set back the 14 meters preserve the entirety of the viewscape the viewscape study preserves not just at well Peak but all of inai as a Horizon View so there is a small intrusion into part of the Horizon but not the most critical part of the view from the public spaces that the view is taken so by further setting back those upper stories you are preserving more of that Horizon especially given that the viewscape study doesn't contemplated a fifth Story on developments on

Armand Hurford
0:50:50 (0:00:32)

Cleveland okay Council additional questions on this I'll dis Venture one on my own and thank you to councelor Stoner for getting us there the corner Plaza piece so that entire buildout is a responsibility of will occur is a responsibility of this of this development not that we're creating this space where like who's building who's building it out to that to that standard is that and what responsibility does the municipality play in that

SPEAKER_05
0:51:22 (0:00:15)

the municipality is responsible for providing the design the developer will be responsible for constructing it and then there'll be a statutory right of way for public access for any area that's located on private property ultimately maintenance would be the responsibility of the district okay

Armand Hurford
0:51:38 (0:00:14)

thank you Council we have a recommendation before us we have our staff here to address any questions where are we counselor Hamilton I see you reaching for your mic

Andrew Hamilton
0:51:52 (0:00:00)

I will move the

Armand Hurford
0:51:53 (0:00:06)

staff recommendation are second that councelor Stoner I would like to speak to

Andrew Hamilton
0:52:00 (0:00:41)

it thanks very much yeah I think this application it's a tight lot on a in an important place and I think that the balance that staff have found between the in the viewscapes speaks to the importance of our this intersection from a view point of view and The Importance of Being making this lot this plot developable I think that the consideration of signalization of crosswalks is very forward thinking so thank you for doing that forward thinking so in I'm supportive of this application

Armand Hurford
0:52:42 (0:00:00)

counc

Jenna Stoner
0:52:42 (0:01:28)

Stoner thank you through the mayor I too will be supporting the recommendation on the floor in third reading of this rezoning application as I mentioned in my previous questions there have been multiple iterations of this project that have been before for Council and I think by far this one does the best in terms of trying to achieve the multiple objectives that we have through our policies in ocp in particular the move towards the market rental and the donation of or inclusion of three affordable housing units are very welcome at this point while still being able to maintain the enhanced Plaza space which is really critical for where this location is and the frontage improvements I do think that I continue to be challenged as we start to see the roll out of the draft viewscape study that we have this is I think the second application that we've seen where that 14 meter setback just really makes most Lots undevelopable and so we're seeing requests for changes of that so I am curious about how we move that work forward in a way that it will actually be functional and not just result in multiple requests for differing variances from the guidelines that are included in that draft decape study but I think that this balances it well in terms of trying to preserve that key view of enai from the corner Plaza while also providing some really necessary housing for our community so happy to support

Armand Hurford
0:54:11 (0:00:05)

it thank you other comments CER pill

Chris Pettingill
0:54:16 (0:01:42)

yeah I'll also be supporting this has been before us since last term so it's gone through many iterations a lot of work and a lot of change in response to coun feedback has occurred I want to acknowledge that I you know sometimes when I hear counselors speak about that I get worried though that there's an idea that as long as you make a lot of changes you'll just eventually you know all right you've made a lot of changes I think there is a threshold it doesn't matter if you've made a lot of changes or not you have to ultimately meet the threshold and for me I think this has met the threshold I think you know like I've said with other developments I do worry that we're putting a bit too high of our requirement on parking given where we need to go worry that we are or wonder whether or not we're matching our employment to the sorts of employment where people can afford to live where the jobs are so there are some Bal there's some balancing here I think the viewscapes that my colleagues have commented on is an important consideration you know there is a reason why people want to live in Squamish and so those viewscapes are important but I also keep in mind that when we are able to find a bit more height and a bit more density downtown it keeps us all within 15 minutes of the true out outdoor space where we can have full views and that is a really important consideration I think for me when I'm talking about viewscapes it's not just at this site but in general in our access to the mountains and the forest and the water and so I think you know speaking of tradeoffs this gets us there as a whole package and I'm glad to see this moving forward thank you

Armand Hurford
0:55:59 (0:00:02)

thank you councelor French

John French
0:56:02 (0:00:22)

thanks mayor I'll be voting in support of the motion as we've heard from my colleagues lots of time and energy has definitely gone into this project on this key downtown property and we're Paving the way for more much needed housing units in our community with the approval of this

Armand Hurford
0:56:24 (0:02:23)

project thank you other comments seeing none I'm speaking in support of the motion I think as some of my Council colleagues have said this is a project that we've seen last term as well or I suppose initiatives on this on this property I think this is this is a great example of the way things can move forward I'm really excited about the build out of the plat the Plaza space and when I think about we're here contemplating land use and that was a fuel filling station and just if we could do I'm looking forward to the historical images of what that was and what this building is going to be and how that piece of property can really serve contribute positively to our community both in the F by the folks that are going to live there in the rental units and particularly in the voluntary below Market units this is a great news and that piece of Cleveland is that piece of property is sat for a long time not providing employment space of any sort or adding to the streetscape so this is a big piece I'm really happy to see this move forward and I this is done this is more than evolved this is this is to a very good very supportable place and also the sort of the attention paid to how folks will move through the community namely the crosswalk and getting over to the to the o to the ocean which will have access to the bridge over to sea and sky and just thinking about how this whole Precinct will people want to move through it I was happy to see that piece as well as the we haven't really discussed it much in this presentation today but the right of way for the existing sanitary line across the rear of the property isn't is really great to resolve those issues as the property develops so happy to happy to support with that I'll call the question all in favor any opposed councelor green law opposes motion carries thank you very much okay

District of Squamish 2024-2028 Five Year Financial Plan Bylaw No. 3025, 2023, Amendment Bylaw (Spring) No. 3038, 2024
0:58:48 (2:06:54)

Heather Boxw, the General Manager of Financial IT and Procurement Services, along with Roland Russell, Senior Financial Analyst, presented an amendment to the District of Squamish's 2024 to 2028 Financial Plan. The amendment was necessitated by extraordinary circumstances that required budget adjustments within the current fiscal year, notably for two capital projects: the Hunic Park SE and the Valley Cliff daycare. Additionally, the ratification of the QP 3-year agreement in January necessitated a budget amendment for wages, and a compensation review indicated that exempt staff wages were below the district's endorsed wage market comparison percentile target. Operational items with taxation implications and several grant adjustments were also discussed, alongside adjustments made due to the confirmation of the CMHC housing accelerator grant.

During the discussion, council members raised concerns and sought clarification on various aspects of the financial plan amendment. Questions focused on seeking additional funding opportunities from different government levels, understanding the district's borrowing capacity, and the implications of cost escalations on major projects like the Hunic Park SE. The council also inquired about the potential for reallocating funds to cover cost increases and the impact of delaying projects. The conversation highlighted the council's concern over managing the budget effectively while addressing the need for critical infrastructure projects and operational adjustments. The outcome was a decision to proceed with the financial plan amendment, with specific attention to the discussed projects and operational changes, reflecting the council's commitment to addressing the district's immediate financial planning needs while considering long-term implications.

Armand Hurford
0:58:48 (0:01:17)

so next up we have District of Squamish 2024 to 2028 5-year financial plan bylaw number 30252 23 this is the amendment bylaw for our spring update number 3038 2024 and we'll give staff a second to get themselves situated e the floor is yours take it

SPEAKER_19
1:00:05 (0:01:57)

away great thank you good evening mayor and Council my name is Heather boxw general manager of financial it and procurement Services my pronouns are she her and I can be addressed accordingly I'm joined here today by Roland Russell senior financial analyst staff are here to present to you the amendment for the 2024 to 2028 Financial plan a financial plan is a mechanism or tool provided in to municipalities under the Community Charter the district uses the amendment tool only in extraordinary circumstances whereby initiative is scheduled for the current year has budget implications whereby it cannot continue with a budget amendment and or direction from Council and therefore cannot wait until the financial planning cycle the next financial planning cycle to adjust so the focus of the amendment today is on the current IE 2024 fiscal year I do want to bring to your attention there are two capital projects of significant importance in the Amendments that require council's discussion and direction to proceed which are the H hunic Park SE and the valley Cliff daycare staff are present to provide council with technical information to support the conversation tonight as well the QP 3year agreement ratification occurred in January which requires a budget amendment to the wages a compensation review was conducted in 2023 which showed that the exempt staff wages fell be well be below the district's endorsed wage Market comparison percentile Target of p50 or the 50th percentile finally there are three operational items that will have taxation implications and several Grant adjustments to proceed within the financial plan as well staff have received confirmation of the cmhc housing accelerator Grant and have therefore made adjustments the overall budget with that I'll hand it over to Mr Russell to walk you through all the

SPEAKER_14
1:02:03 (0:00:01)

details good evening

SPEAKER_15
1:02:04 (0:00:07)

mayor members of council members of the public who may be joining us

SPEAKER_14
1:02:12 (0:00:06)

today get this stuff put in the right order and I will

SPEAKER_15
1:02:19 (0:03:10)

commence so we have before us a council resolution and that is the council provides three readings to the district of Squamish five-year financial plan bylaw amendment number 3038 2024 we'll briefly go over some of the highlights slightly more detail than Miss box rot with respect to the amendment budget amendment process I think the first B bullet is of Cru is crucial for both Council and members of the public to understand that all district spending must be included in a council authorized financial plan and if there are changes there can be changes to projects and in some instances they will result in a financial plan and Amendment and we have listed a number there so excuse me changes in timelines over multiple fiscals as Ur of cmhc funding source changes we didn't really have a lot of scope changes which increase total budgets such as Juan redik cost excuse me cost escalation increases over the increases to the total budget such as Valley Cliff Childcare Center and budget approv for Grants which have been received subsequent to the previous financial plan approval and we have a number of those which we will outline today the other item would be emergency expenditures and at this point we don't have any and may that continue in 2024 we want to speak about two major capital projects the first being harac Park seity D and we're looking at a an increase of $6.3 million in costs and this will be funded from debt $5 million and approximately $1.3 million from the CAC provision so there's a slight typo there seeing 6.5 on the first line the second item is Valley Cliff child care facility and at this point we are showing an increase of $230,000 and this funding will also be from cac's I'm going to continue driving with respect to this presentation and we will be having guest speakers join us to address some of the slides that they have included so if Mr Ron would be kind enough to join us at this point I'll let you explain this rather than me

SPEAKER_11
1:05:29 (0:09:45)

good evening mayor and Council my name is David rson I'm the senior manager of infrastructure planning and here today to give some background on the proposed financial plan Amendment for hanic Park seed so quickly some project history for this project the district acquired the land from BC rail properties in 2014 with a provincial Grant and at the time of purchase there was a reverter put on the property that limited the use of that land so that if were sold or used for commercial proper purposes the land would revert back to BC rail in 2017 the district completed an integrated flood Hazard management plan which included a coastal flood protection strategy and important within that plan was a plan to build a sea diak surrounding downtown Squamish to provide Coastal flood protection and part of that was to use a sheet pile type of dyke located along the foreshore on the west side of the mamin blind channel in 2019 the district secured a $4 million Grant for the seik project and received Council endorsement of the design concept which again included a sheet pile Dyke at the high water mark of the of the foreshore in 2020 the district completed a detailed design using that design concept endorsed by Council and in 2021 permitting applications were submitted under the Canadian navigable Waters act the Dyke maintenance Act and the Fisheries act in 2023 the district received approvals for the Dy maintenance act and Canadian navigable Waters act and Fisheries act authorization is still ongoing and we're in the First Nations consultation phase we expect to be able to receive a DFO permit within the next few months so we're hopeful we're that we're close and that we'll be ready to begin construction pending resolution of funding issues in the 20124 fish window which opens up on August 16th of this year and extends to January 31st so that's the window for completing inwater works and then following construction of the project there would be a 10-year habitat compensation monitoring period where we the district would be required to demonstrate that habitat compensation that has been built is performing as intended next slide please a quick overview of the project is that it includes a 200 meter long steel sheet pile Wall located at the high water mark there's a 70 M long accessible water access ramp and dock there are habitat benches along the full length of the sheep pile wall shown on the bottom right of the screen there so there's several intertial habitat benches as well as a riparian planting Plateau at the immediately adjacent to the Sheep pile wall and those are all retained with natural Boulders and would be planted with Native species there's Landscaping on the Dy top which would include a cycling path and pedestrian path as well as lighting planting areas Street furniture and Street trees and there's also improvements at the Main Street Road end which includes Paving line marking sidewalks stairs up to the Dyke as well as a ramp up to the Dyke and also important to note that the existing Squamish paddling Club storage facility and the canoe restoration shelter would both be retained through this design so in terms of the cost escalation The Current financial plan includes a budget of $1.7 million in March of this year we received a class a cost estimate of 15.4 million and when we add in a 15% contingency as well as an allowance for engineering that brings the total cost that we would need to proceed with up to $18 million which would result in a $6.3 million increase if all goes well that 15% contingency wouldn't be required and perhaps tender prices may come in below but at this point we in order to proceed with a tendering process we would request that the budget be $18 million and those cost increases are due to increased requirements that have been required through the Fisheries act authorization process as well as the Dyke maintenance act they primarily relate to Habitat compensation which has grown significantly through the permitting process to include the habitat benches that were shown on the last slide as well as environmental monitoring and management measures during the construction phase and there's also been const cons significant construction cost inflation over the three plus year permitting period so that includes materials like steel and concrete which have increased by over 30% since permanent applications were submitted in March of 2021 and then there's also inflation on other items like labor that's in the 15 to 20% range and the cost for ground Improvement which is a dyke maintenance act requirements has also increased significantly there there's one there should be one more yeah so staff have looked at various options to move ahead one the first option is to just yeah that's okay the first option is to compl a major redesign which would include potentially Shifting the Dyke landward or shifting away from using a sheet pile type of dke Staff feel that the opportunity to reduce costs would be limited and it would come at significant impact so both of those would result in a loss of usable land so there's an opportunity cost that there would be less opportunity for municipal uses of HC Park if the Dyke were to be shifted landward there' also be significant public realm impacts in terms of Waterfront Trail significant deviations and a lack of consistency along the west side of the mcom blind Channel which is proposed to be composed of sheet pile throughout private land Parcels as well on either end of hanic park there would also be significant project delays from a major redesign and of course ongoing construction cost inflation while those delays were occurring and presumably we would need to restart our permitting processes if there's a significant change you click please the next option is to amend the financial plan and to remove non-essential items so those are shown in green here so that includes site development and Landscaping so all of the things on top of the Dyke those are quite a small cost less than $800,000 of the overall cost so there's not a significant cost savings associated with that the Water Access is estimated at about $1.6 million but removing that would also have significant Community impact because the sheet pile wall will cut off existing access to the water next the third option is to defer the project which would presumably be done with intent to try and secure additional grant funding to cover additional costs again a risk of this is that there's going to be further cost escalation and there's no guarantee that future grant funding would be available it could also potentially compromise the existing grant that we have for $4 million and at the same time there is ongoing flood risk which is shown in these pictures here this is from December 2022 when we had a coastal flood event that impacted businesses and private residents in the south portion of downtown last please and the final option is to amend the financial plan and proceed with the full project this would entail pursuing minor design changes we think that there are opportunities to cut cost by up to a million and a half dollars without having to restart permitting processes or without causing significant delays so we would be pursuing that this would also include those non-essential items as optional items within the tender which would give the district discretion as to whether to proceed with those or not and the final note on this is that if we proceed with this project that there will be future Public Works efforts to maintain the park and Dyke and so that would be submitted as part of the upcoming financial planning process so option four is recommended because again the major redesign we feel there's limited opportunity for costs reduction and there would be significant impacts U removing non-essential items is also relatively small cost savings and would significantly improve the final product and differing the project PO is going to result in ongoing cost escalation with no certainty of securing additional funds that's

SPEAKER_13
1:15:14 (0:00:01)

it

Armand Hurford
1:15:15 (0:00:23)

thank you I think I'll check with staff I it feels like after we have each person speak to their topic might be the time to do to deal with was does that fit with how you saw your presentation going this evening or yeah okay so on this on this particular topic do we have do we have questions will we have the appropriate staff before us go ahead councelor

Lauren Greenlaw
1:15:38 (0:00:13)

greenw thanks through the chair I'm pretty sure I already know the answer to this question but it's worth asking I assume that staff has explored all opportunities for increased funding from different levels of

SPEAKER_11
1:15:52 (0:00:21)

government through the mayor we have been engaging in discussions and discussions are ongoing to try and secure additional grant funding and also to potentially repurpose other grant funding so those discussions are ongoing but there's been nothing certain or really nothing promising in that regard to

Lauren Greenlaw
1:16:13 (0:00:02)

date thank you

Armand Hurford
1:16:16 (0:00:02)

councel penil and then Anderson

Chris Pettingill
1:16:18 (0:00:45)

yeah just building on that last question and maybe this is just tempering my expectations or for some reason and this is pre-co I had it in my head that although dying was a municipal responsibility The Province would typically fund communities to some degree or the province or feds and I had it in my head that we typically received about $4 million a year towards dking and then that was sort of and then I don't recall seeing that amount for the last few years and I don't recall hearing about any escalation to that amount so did I imagine that or has something changed or what should our expectation or rough expectation be going

SPEAKER_11
1:17:04 (0:00:58)

forward through the chair within our the district's financial plan we have a total annual flood protection budget of $4 million which is assumed to include $2 million of Municipal funding and an assumed $2 million in Grants I think if we look at the grants that we've received over the past 10 years it probably has averaged out to about $2 million a year for flood protection it comes in bursts I suppose like this $4 million grant for h Parks so that's it's sort of an assumption we haven't completed significant flood Protection work over the past several years because we have been working on this project and so this would effectively roll up the budget that we have not been spending over the past several years and put all of those dollars into a single U big project

Armand Hurford
1:18:02 (0:00:01)

year yep go ahead

Chris Pettingill
1:18:04 (0:00:18)

okay so I was maybe had double assume double the provincial contribution but be that as it may if we assume the $2 million a year average are we on track for that or we're still completely blowing even that amount with the amounts we're talking

SPEAKER_11
1:18:23 (0:00:20)

here through the chair since the district completed the integrated flood Hazard management plan in 2017 we've secured about $10 million in grant funding from The Province so yeah that it works out to pretty close to 2 million per year in terms of grant

Chris Pettingill
1:18:44 (0:00:13)

funding okay and then even with that and our putting aside two million we're still six short or 6.8 short

SPEAKER_11
1:18:57 (0:00:11)

I believe that's correct we have created a unique budget for the hunic parks which doesn't necessarily add up to all of the $4 million I think there have been revisions over that time period

Chris Pettingill
1:19:09 (0:00:22)

so okay and is there you know you talked about the challenges of cutting out some of the public access pieces but are those things that could be added in later or if we want to do it we really have to do it now or substantial additional cost to do some of the public access pieces

SPEAKER_11
1:19:32 (0:00:30)

later through the chair there would be additional costs in terms of mobilization and demobilization and potentially with construction methodology as well to construct that water access after the Dyke had been built that hasn't been Quantified but there would be additional costs and if was not built at the time there would just be Community impacts in terms of loss of water access in the interim until the water access is

Chris Pettingill
1:20:03 (0:00:11)

built last question then where would this put us in terms of our borrowing

SPEAKER_14
1:20:14 (0:00:03)

limit through the mayor our

SPEAKER_15
1:20:17 (0:00:12)

borrowing limit would be approximately $15 million including the additional $5 million for W Mark

SPEAKER_19
1:20:29 (0:00:10)

seik through the chair in terms of the borrowing capacity over the entire 24 to 28 financial plan it'll put us at

Armand Hurford
1:20:40 (0:00:04)

17% thank you I've got councelor

Eric Andersen
1:20:45 (0:00:48)

Anderson thank you with respect to the ground Improvement costs as part of the projected cost increases I'll read from the staff report the construction methodology in order to meet provincial Dyke design requirements has changed from Timber piles to stone columns through the DFO permitting process now there's two agencies mentioned there if it's DFO or are there new recommended best practices or is it a case of new Provisions in the Dyke maintenance Act and the reason why I'm asking is are there implications then for future Westside Dyke construction for whoever may be under taking it this seems to be a significant new issue for Dyke construction generally is that correct Mr

SPEAKER_11
1:21:33 (0:00:47)

Rolston through the chair the Dyke manance act has performance standards for ground Improvement so they're not too specific in terms of what methodology has to be used but they do specify performance standard so the actual requirements of ground Improvement will depend on what the ground conditions are at the site so for instance further north in the M blind Channel previous D construction was not required to do ground Improvement but they had better ground conditions there than what we have at heric Park so it is site specific and in terms of the methodology that's used I think that's also specific to projects and to Fisheries

Armand Hurford
1:22:21 (0:00:01)

review

Eric Andersen
1:22:22 (0:00:01)

thank you that's

Armand Hurford
1:22:23 (0:00:03)

helpful thank you I have counselor

Jenna Stoner
1:22:27 (0:00:22)

Stoner thank you through the chair I want to pick up on some of counselor pettingill's questions in terms of our budgeting for this over previous years it was my understanding that we actually took the formula we basically haven't been taxing for dking for the last three at least since back to 2022 is that

SPEAKER_14
1:22:49 (0:00:02)

correct we've

SPEAKER_15
1:22:52 (0:00:50)

not had to tax in from the standpoint that we've not issued debt and we've not issued debt due to excuse me due to the delay in this specific project had this project proceeded in accordance with our original plans we probably would have issued debt already and therefore would have taxed for it that being said we are making space for that within with in our Revenue requirements as in if we know we're not going to go to debt then we're not going to include the cost of debt servicing when we're coming to council with the financial plan so I would not suggest that we have pre-taxed for

Jenna Stoner
1:23:42 (0:00:25)

this yeah I'm just trying to wrap my head around the mechanism for which we potentially cover the cost escalation and the proposal to use Community amenity contributions and I'm just wondering if staff can speak to why they're proposing to use any Co Community many contributions to cover this cost at this point as opposed to Simply

SPEAKER_15
1:24:08 (0:01:25)

taxation there will be two reasons Community amenity contributions have been set aside for specific purposes and the general purposes that they are used for our Recreation child care and then also General amenities and we believe that water access falls into the recreation under the recreation envelope so we think that this is an appropriate use of community amenity grants contributions I should say we received a significant Community amenity contribution in 2023 of approximately $1.3 million and so that's allowed us to stabilize the value in our community amenity contribution pool and so we felt that with this cost escalation and the combination that a specific portion of this is directly related to water access that would be an appropriate methodology the other aspect being we want to be judicious in our use of additional taxation where

Jenna Stoner
1:25:33 (0:00:37)

possible I appreciate that rationale my other question is around going back to the funer and appreciate that those are ongoing conversations I'm just wondering if you can provide some more context there I think it was an infrastructure Canada Grant and in relation to that I know that we get the annual Canadian community building fund and I'm just wondering what we tend to allocate that annual Grant to and if there's the opportunity to redirect that

SPEAKER_11
1:26:11 (0:00:58)

funding so through the mayor some of the initial discussions that we have had is the district was successful in receiving a grant under the green artom Grant it's the adaptation resilience and disaster management for Squamish River Dyke upgrades in North brackendale to upgrade beyond the provincial standard so an option would be to potentially repurpose those funds which is $4 million so that's a very exploratory discussion at this point to see if that's even possible and the district has also applied for grant funding under the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund to build interim sea dking in the downtown we're still waiting to hear if we're successful with that but the question is if we are successful whether some portion of that grant funding could be used to help subsidize this project there's a lot of uncertainty with both of those

Jenna Stoner
1:27:10 (0:00:32)

options okay thanks for that additional context and my last question is just around the ongoing flood risk and staff point to the flooding that we experienced in 2022 I'm just wondering how much like m putting in this portion of the sea di still leaves a significant portion of downtown at risk and so I'm just wondering does this actually potentially amplify that risk because you constrain the flooding to a more specific area and or like how much risk is left

SPEAKER_11
1:27:42 (0:00:47)

over through the mayor there's approximately 550 meter stretch from the sraco development to the North End of Catal SLO that is a low or Miss portion of our sea di right now so the hunic park would address roughly onethird or a little bit more than a third of that distance the remaining land is all private land so this would address the municipally owned portion it wouldn't increase flood risk it would it would address a portion of it water that would over top the other areas would continue to over top there as it did in the December 2022 flood without making it worse it would just be the same until some form of dking is constru constructed

Armand Hurford
1:28:30 (0:00:05)

there okay thank you for that I've got councelor

Andrew Hamilton
1:28:35 (0:00:46)

Hamilton thanks very much I'm trying to understand what we mean when we talk about estimates you've referred to a class A estimate that you're going to go out for tender on in the conversation that's going to happen next we spoke about we're speaking about class a estimates at the point of tender at like after receiving the response so I'm trying to gauge I'm trying to understand what level of comfort we should have in this being a reasonable final number or are we should we be expecting escalations after we've gone out for tender as has been the case many times in the

SPEAKER_11
1:29:22 (0:00:51)

past through the Merit so this was a class a cost estimate which generally is considered to be plus or minus 15% accuracy so that class a cost estimate was $15.4 million and the financial proposed financial plan Amendment includes a 15% contingency on top of that so that even if tender prices were on the high end of that the proposed financial plan Amendment would cover the cost of that the district consultant who completed the cost estimate engaged with experts in the field of marine construction so we have a high level of confidence that it's as good of a cost estimate as we can have without actually going to Tender and receiving tender

SPEAKER_13
1:30:14 (0:00:02)

prices

Andrew Hamilton
1:30:17 (0:00:22)

and in the in another discussion Class A has referred to plus or minus 5% uncertainty and I know we're talking you know five or 15% does it matter well it's $2 million in this case roughly right so is a class A estimate 5% is it 15% is it just illd

SPEAKER_11
1:30:39 (0:00:44)

defined the mayor I think that cost estimates vary when it comes to building construction versus civil construction I think there are differences in that and perhaps there are more unknowns in things like civil construction with in terms of ground conditions or things of that nature so perhaps civil projects have a higher degree of uncertainty and therefore a higher yeah I guess suppose contingency associated with it but that's that 15% is in accordance with engineers and geoscientists of British Columbia guidelines

Armand Hurford
1:31:24 (0:00:41)

thank you I'm curious about the pursue minor design changes and I just want to make sure I understand the scope of this project what are you what's considered there I know we've had around this table we've had different discussions around maintaining the little feature the Nook and so on just what are we talking about there and I'm just having a hard time with the let's wrap my head around the where was one of the other quote pieces there is sort of that major redesign versus minor design change is this what does that look

SPEAKER_11
1:32:05 (0:00:46)

like the Merit the minor design change that we're looking into is so what's happened is through the Fisheries act process we've built up these large habitat benches in front of the sheep pile wall so previously the Sheep pile wall was extending a large distance above the existing grve and now because we have something in front of the wall That's supporting that that's providing an opportunity and essentially additional structural support that could allow for reducing the actual length of the sheet piles that extend into the Earth as well as the tieback supports that hold the sheet pile up so it's essentially reducing steel and structure that would be associated with the wall because the habitat benches are providing some form of structural

Armand Hurford
1:32:52 (0:00:28)

support okay that's yeah thank you for that explanation that makes that makes good sense and okay I understand that category of changes and that seems reasonable Council other questions on this on this topic and we'll deal with the actual discussion on the or the fin the vote on the financial pieces kind of all together seems like the appropriate way to go oh yep go ahead ccer

Chris Pettingill
1:33:20 (0:00:35)

P so I guess I want to sort of understand what the actual question or sort of movable element of this is so unless we just sort of throw out our flood Hazard management plan is it really comes down to some of the public access pieces and hence the CAC portion that's kind of the movable piece of this is that a fair assessment

SPEAKER_11
1:33:56 (0:00:06)

through the mayor th those are elements that could be removed without compromising flood

Armand Hurford
1:34:02 (0:00:02)

protection yeah go ahead councelor s

Jenna Stoner
1:34:05 (0:00:27)

yeah thanks I just want to clarify another line that's in the staff report it says the cac's received 1.3 million in contribution 2023 which leaves approximately 1.7 million in the CAC reserve and includes all projects that are funded in the current 5-year financial plan do I read that correct that there's after the like list of things that we funded in 2024 there's still 1.7 million left in the CAC

SPEAKER_14
1:34:33 (0:00:01)

Reserve through the mayor

SPEAKER_15
1:34:34 (0:00:05)

yes you are understanding that comment

SPEAKER_13
1:34:40 (0:00:02)

correctly

Armand Hurford
1:34:42 (0:00:24)

okay all right and if we have no further questions on this topic we can move on and then we'll address the financial pieces in the main in the main motion thank you sorry we need your mic Mr

SPEAKER_15
1:35:07 (0:00:16)

Right we're gonna to the mayor we're going to continue on with our slide presentation and the next topic of discussion will be the valley Cliff daycare

Armand Hurford
1:35:24 (0:00:03)

okay we're going to start that portion of our conversation with Miss

SPEAKER_03
1:35:28 (0:01:54)

glenday thank you very much through the mayor council did receive quite a fome presentation last week from staff on this project that said Shane is here to provide more information or answer questions again if you like but similar to what I sorry in terms of Council direction as mentioned the proposed spring Amendment at this time has the increase at $230,000 since Council or sorry committee passed that motion last week staff did look into potential risks that would be associated with rendering which is what the direction is and waiting for Council ratification and there are four risks primarily that we would like Council to consider and in the memo that's attached to your report and respectfully with those risks in mind that Council either move forward with the project with the $410,000 increase or stop the project but a middle ground of rendering creates risks that Council caution or sorry staff caution Council about primarily reputational with contractors with the grantor so the province in this case another is the perception of bid shopping and that's because we are further along in the process than like an initial tender where we're just getting quotes we're quite a ways into the process and then of course project delays and the risk that the tenders would come back more expensive thank you

Armand Hurford
1:37:22 (0:00:24)

okay thank you so and I have councelor green law i s i sorry I was going to venture a question to make sure we have Clarity where we're starting from here so as staff is Staff presenting with the full amount included in the budget or the amount that was discussed at Committee just so understand we understand our starting point for our conversation

SPEAKER_03
1:37:47 (0:00:14)

today in the presentation today staff have Incorporated the $230,000 amount that committee directed last week and so that is in the current Amendment for your

Armand Hurford
1:38:01 (0:00:04)

consideration okay thank you so councelor greenl do you have a question

Lauren Greenlaw
1:38:06 (0:00:27)

yeah I do I just wanted to seek some clarification in terms of kind of the financial risks involved my understanding is also that if we do cancel the project we've effectively already lost $300,000 yes okay and then further to that clarification is that cost also lost if we if we were to attempt to

SPEAKER_09
1:38:34 (0:00:28)

reter through the chair you're asking about the already committed costs of 300 I think it was 380,000 was in the report if that would that be lost if we go on render I believe so I'm not entirely sure if it would incorporate all of it because it would depend on some of those vendors that we could maybe maintain throughout but we would not be it would it would still large portion of it would be would be lost as well yes

Lauren Greenlaw
1:39:02 (0:00:18)

and then in our last conversation around this if you could refresh my memory I believe you quoted a per spot cost in I think it was West Vancouver for daycare and I was wondering if you could repeat

SPEAKER_09
1:39:20 (0:00:11)

that through the chair I ask Sarah MC Janet she had those numbers from me that's right with you

SPEAKER_00
1:39:32 (0:00:03)

thanks

SPEAKER_01
1:39:36 (0:00:39)

Sarah hi through the chair Sarah mcjannet Community planning the child care project example in the city of North Vancouver we were looking at the cost per space was definitely upwards of $100,000 I believe I would need to