Regular Council - 02 Jul 2024

1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
7.A: Staff Recommendation:
7.A.i: Special Business Meeting: June 18, 2024
7.A.ii: Committee of the Whole Meeting: June 18, 2024
7.A.iii: Regular Business Meeting: June 18, 2024
7.A.iv: Committee of the Whole Meeting: June 25, 2024
7.A.v: Special Business Meeting: June 25, 2024
7.B: CORRESPONDENCE - Receive for Information
7.B.i: 0603 MP. P. Weiler Re: Local Leadership for Climate Adaptation (LLCA) initiative through the Green Municipal Fund
7.B.ii: 0613 MP. P. Weiler Re: New Co‑operative Housing Development Program
7.B.iii: 0627 Squamish Community Foundation Re: Media Release - Squamish Living Wage
7: CORRESPONDENCE - Referred to Staff
7: Staff Recommendation:
7.C: STAFF UPDATES - For Information
7.C.i: Inclusivity, Diversity, Equality and Accessibility (IDEA) Update
9: Squamish Housing Action Plan – Official Community Plan, Zoning Bylaw and Advisory Design Panel Bylaw Updates
9.A: Squamish Housing Action Plan – Official Community Plan Updates
9.A.i: District of Squamish Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2500, 2017, Amendment Bylaw (DPA 1 Update) No. 3078, 2024
9.A.ii: District of Squamish Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2500, 2017, Amendment Bylaw (Loggers East Update and Corrections) No. 3080, 2024
9.A.iii: District of Squamish Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2500, 2017, Amendment Bylaw (Accessibility Update) No. 3086, 2024
9.A.iv: District of Squamish Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2500, 2017, Amendment Bylaw (Development Permit Area 3 Update) No. 3079, 2024
9.B: Squamish Housing Action Plan – Zoning Bylaw and Advisory Design Panel Bylaw Updates
9.B.i: District of Squamish Advisory Design Panel Bylaw No. 2264, 2013, Amendment Bylaw (Squamish Housing Actions) No. 3082, 2024
9.B.ii: District of Squamish Land Development Procedures Bylaw No. 2632, 2018, Amendment Bylaw (Public Hearing Requirement Clarification) No. 3091, 2024
9.B.iii: District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (Landscape, solid waste and accessibility update) No. 3081, 2024
9.B.iv: District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (R-1 Administrative Amendments) No. 3089, 2024
9.C: Garibaldi Springs Phase 1 (Highline) Non-Market Housing Agreement Bylaw
9.C.i: District of Squamish Housing Agreement Bylaw (Garibaldi Springs P1 Non-Market Housing) No. 3056, 2024
9.D: Agriculture 1 (AGRI-1) Zone
9.D.i: District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (Agriculture 1) No. 3054, 2024
9.D: Zero Carbon Step Code Implementation
9.D.ii: District of Squamish Building Bylaw No. 1822, 2004, Amendment Bylaw (Low Carbon Step Code Building Bylaw Update) No. 3090, 2024
9.D.iii: District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (Low Carbon Step Code Zoning Bylaw Update) No. 3085, 2024
10.A.i: Kingswood/Redbridge Land Development Agreement Amendment 11(b)(v)
10.B.i: Community Resiliency Investment Program Grant - 2024
1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
0:00:00 (0:08:06)

0:00:28 (0:06:52)


Armand Hurford
0:07:21 (0:00:44)

hello everybody Welcome to the regular business meeting for the District of Squamish for Tuesday July 2nd Holland squalen took to much Squamish OK welcome to the Squamish Nation traditional territory please be advis that this council meeting is being live streamed recorded and will be available to the public to view on the District of Squamish website following the meeting if you have concerns please notify the corporate officer present at the meeting in this case Melissa Von Balo how do I did I get it was close Fon Balo sorry I okay on that note could someone please it's already been a long

0:08:06 (0:00:40)

Armand Hurford
0:08:06 (0:00:39)

day could someone please move adoption of the agenda moved by councelor Hamilton seconded by councelor French all in favor motion carries thank you we have no delegations petitions or proclamations this evening is there any so consideration of unscheduled public attendance is next if there's anyone that has a matter that can't wait until the next regular meeting of the district this would be your time to step forward seeing nothing we'll move along we have no public hearings and no timed items

0:08:46 (0:00:37)

Armand Hurford
0:08:46 (0:00:36)

so now we're on to the consent agenda and before we do that I'd like to pull the item B3 which is the Community Foundation media release regarding the living wage is there anyone that would like to pull anything else from the consent agenda seeing none someone like to move the consent agenda moved by councelor French seconded by councelor Anderson all in favor motion carries thank you so next up we have we have nothing under consideration of council committee recommendations

0:09:23 (0:00:01)

Armand Hurford
0:09:23 (0:00:01)

suround to bylaws

Squamish Housing Action Plan – Official Community Plan, Zoning Bylaw and Advisory Design Panel Bylaw Updates
0:09:24 (0:31:16)

Jesse Fletcher, the Manager of Current Planning with the District of Squamish, presented an update on the official community plan, zoning bylaw, land development procedures bylaw, and advisory design panel bylaw. The update included eight bylaw amendments for consideration, stemming from the Squamish Housing Action Plan, accessibility plan deliverables, and administrative amendments related to small-scale multi-unit housing updates. Fletcher highlighted that the majority of these updates were first presented in a special council meeting on May 21st, 2024, with subsequent amendments made based on council feedback and targeted engagement with the development community. Notably, the updates proposed changes to development permit requirements for triplexes and fourplexes, aimed at reducing processing times, and introduced new guidelines for tree retention, waste storage facilities, and landscaping requirements to improve streetscapes and environmental sustainability.

During the discussion, council members raised questions and sought clarifications on various aspects of the proposed updates. Councillor Eric Andersen inquired about the softening of guidelines related to the inclusion of wood and metal in development, seeking to ensure that the language was not overly prescriptive. Councillor Chris Pettingill expressed concerns about the flexibility given to council in the logger East neighborhood plan, questioning the strength of the new language in guiding development decisions. Councillor Andrew Hamilton questioned the feasibility of achieving a 5% target for accessible dwelling units in affordable housing projects, highlighting the challenges in ensuring consistency across developments. Mayor Armand Hurford and other council members also raised issues related to accessibility, employment land use, and the interpretation of guidelines affecting water bodies and dredging activities. The outcome of the discussion was not explicitly detailed in the provided transcript section, but it reflected a thorough examination of the proposed bylaw updates and their implications for the community.

Armand Hurford
0:09:24 (0:00:33)

this is the sish housing action plan officially community plan zoning bylaw and advisory design panel bylaw updates I will turn it over to staff to introduce themselves and the

0:09:58 (0:08:56)

topic good evening mayor and Council my name is Jesse Fletcher manager of current planning with the District of Squamish and tonight I'm presenting an update to the official community plan zoning bylaw Land Development procedures bylaw and advisory design panel bylaw tonight there will be eight bylaw amendments for consideration this update is made of updates stemming from the scalish housing action plan work plan updates accessibility plan deliverables and sub administrative amendments stemming from the recent smallscale multiun unit housing updates the majority of these updates were first presented to Council on May 21st 2024 at a special council meeting Council requested that staff make small amendments to development permit Area 3 DPA 3 the universal guidelines and development permit Area 1 the environmental guidelines those have been done and are included in the bylaws presented for consideration this evening Council also directed staff to conduct enhanced targeted engagement with the development Community for the changes to development permit Area 3 part of the ocp update staff held in open house at the house and Brew Pub on June 5th 2024 there are two additional bylaw updates proposed as part of this package of amendments which were not presented to council at the May 21st 2024 meeting these are an update to the Land Development procedures bylaw related to the requirement to hold a public hearing and a zoning VI update to clarify the intent and fix an Omission in the new R1 residential Zone which was adopted separately as part of the provincial Bill 44 requirements so the first three bylaw amendments our staff are proposing to update the ocp ADP and Zoning bylaw related to the housing action plan requirement to change under actions three and six of the plan action three of the housing action plan is titled missing middle housing accelerator it includes proposed updates to the ADP byw to remove the requirement for smaller projects to be reviewed by The Advisory design panel these changes include not requiring ADP review for multiunit dwellings up to 6 units not requiring ADP review for multi-unit dwellings offering between 6 and 20 units with discretion for staff to refer an application to advisory design panel if required based on adherence to the development permit guidelines these changes are aligned with the threshold for delegated development permits and will reduce the processing time for development permits by approximately 4 months action six of the Squamish housing action plan is to revise and streamline the development permitting process this includes two action items that are included tonight amending the official Comm plan to remove DP requirements for triplexes and fourplexes and streamlining the development permit Area 3 guidelines removing the requirement to obtain a development permit for triplexes and fourplexes will reduce processing time by 4 to 12 months this action aligns with the bill 44 zoning changes requiring a minimum of four dwellings on a lot items currently regulated through development permit which are important to retain including Solid Waste guidelines and Landscaping requirements will be included in a zoning bot update this zoning bot upd dat includes a minimum tree retention and planting requirements for the new R1 Zone with a focus on planting and retention of trees in the front setback to improve the streetcape minimum requirements for secure waste storage facilities for developments containing more than three dwellings to encourage collocation of solid waste in a common be prooof facility and proposed minimum requirements for Waste rooms to ensure there is adequate space for internal storage of waist bins staff presented the proposed DPA 3 changes to council at the May 21st meeting Council provided feedback on the guidelines which has been incorporated into the proposed bylaw additionally three guidelines have been removed which specifically apply to triplexes and for plexes as they will no longer apply once the development permit requirement is removed guideline 36.4 a has been amended to soften the requirement to include elements of wood and metal in development based on engagement feedback other minor Amendments have been made to correct grammar and improved readability another part of this project is an amendment to the ocp for DPA 1 this will remove guidelines that do not align with the provincial riparian area protection regulation reorganize guidelines and update wording for an easier flow of information separate section 34.7 The Aquatic guidelines into two new sections and update definitions and acronyms a copy of the proposed updates to development permit area one represented as part of the package to council at the May 21st 2024 special council meeting as a result of council feedback guideline 34.6 G has been reinstated related to the protection of old growth forest no other changes are proposed there are proposed amendments to the ocp bylaw and the zoning Amendment bylaw related to accessibility the ocp policy changes include amending text to align with the use of universal adaptable and accessible terms with zoning bylaw definitions and uses strengthening policy recommendations for adaptability and improve accessibility guidelines in DPA 3 the zoning updates include adding a new definition for accessible Universal and adaptable and updating the maximum accessible ramp grades and amending the accessible parking standards there also an update to the ocp proposed for the loggers East neighborhood plan this would permit institutional uses in the plan area and add residential flexibility in employment land areas additional rationale related to the loggers East neighborhood plan has been included in the report to cancel as requested at the May 21st meeting amendments are proposed to the Land Development procedures bylaw this has not previously been presented to council recent changes to the Local Government Act and updates to the Land Development procedures bylaw have created ambiguity around when a public hearing is required currently only amendments to the zoning bylaw for non-residential applications with floor area exceeding 400 sare meters require public hearing this threshold creates UNC with regards to what constitutes an application versus a district initiated Amendment the provisions also unfairly penalize larger employment use applications that are consistent with the official community plan proposed amendments to the Land Development procedures bylaw are to remove the public hearing requirement for rezonings where commercial space exceed 400 square meters not require public hearing for district lead amendments but Council would retain the ability to require public hearing at first reading when non-residential components of the Zone exceed 50% finally amendments are proposed to the new R1 Zone in related amendments during the R1 Amendment staff had intended to remove the upper limit on the number of accessory dwelling units permitted on a lot section 4.38 was not amended to change that at that time so staff are proposing the update now and the R1 Zone restriction on dwelling units is unclear as written so staff are amending it to provide Clarity that up to four stratified units are permitted in any configuration on a lot engagement for the various bylaw amendments has varied engagement highlights are noted on the slide The Local Government Act has spe specific requirements that Council must consider in relation to engagement on updates to the official community plan that is the local government must provide one or more opportunities for consultation with persons organizations and authorities that the local government considers will be affected by the amendment to the ocp additionally the ACT requires consideration by Council of consultation with specific stakeholders for the purpose of the legislative consultation requirements staff recommended at the May 21st meeting that consultation is considered to have occurred and be satisfied by forwarding a copy of the bot as proposed prior to First reading to the Squamish nation and that consultation not be ongoing after receipt of any comments by the first time by the time first reading is held DPA 3 three updates were shown to advisory design panel as well as the development Community for feedback General engagement has been has GED positive feedback those some changes have been made in response to feedback if tonight's resolutions are passed as written the next steps for will be to schedule a public hearing for the four official community plan amending bylaws all other bylaws will be scheduled for adoption at upcoming meetings so tonight's recommendation is and there are multiple slides of recommendations so I won't read them all out but to give first two readings to the ocp bylaws as written and direct staff to schedule a public hearing and then three readings for the two zoning bylaw amendments one advisor design panel bylaw Amendment and the line development procedures bylaw Amendment thank you I will not take any

Armand Hurford
0:18:54 (0:00:12)

questions thank you Council questions at this time coun Anderson

Eric Andersen
0:19:07 (0:00:36)

Miss F to clarify where staff have landed with respect to guideline number 364a and this is context character sighting and orientation there has been some dialogue with the advisory design panel on the inclusion of wood and metal and I believe your remarks just now highlighted that you'd like to soften that where did staff land on that particular guideline

0:19:43 (0:00:10)

item through the mayor would councelor Anderson be able to provide slightly more context on that

Eric Andersen
0:19:53 (0:00:42)

question the copy that we've been dist that has been distributed to us suggest development should strive to authentically integrate elements distinct to the Squamish area such as wood and metal now the comment came from The Advisory design panel meeting in May that a question about metal in fact there was this suggestion not to include issues of Aesthetics to quote the minutes but to keep them well I won't need libate on that for now but is that as it stands then before us such as wood and metal that is what staff for suggesting we keep as the language in the in the proposed Rec in the proposed

0:20:35 (0:00:28)

guideline thank you through the mayor so the similar feedback was garnered at the public engagement event on June 5th where the original guideline had stated that wood and metal should be used the guideline has been softed to identify them as materials that should be considered as included so that we were not being over overly prescriptive but giving examples of what might be considered an appropriate

Eric Andersen
0:21:03 (0:00:10)

embellishment that helps you've got the language should be considered which isn't what we have in the staff report but that's fine I'm satisfied thank you

Armand Hurford
0:21:14 (0:00:03)

thank you other questions CER pill

Chris Pettingill
0:21:17 (0:00:27)

yeah thanks just want to understand the logger East neighborhood plan change from shall to should on 40% a 40% Max of total growth floor area for residential and just trying to understand the force of the old versus the new language am I correct in thinking before it was a hard requirement not just a guideline and now it's effectively a

0:21:45 (0:00:23)

guideline through the mayor that would be a correct assessment in the previous language if a proponent was con proposing a rezoning that did not have that stated amount of commercial space they would also need to pursue an ocp amendment given that the market conditions have changed and the type of employment so I feel that a soften guideline gives Council a bit more discretion to respond to the

Chris Pettingill
0:22:09 (0:00:40)

context okay thanks and I you know I was trying to recall the discussion we had previously I do have some hesitation around this so well I can appreciate giving Council some flexibility sort per application and just trying to wrap my head around the difference between guidelines and so on is there enough strength in here that this could be something where we said it says should you're not making it this application doesn't meet the bar for me or because of the way it's written now we'd still have to sort of entertain the application or not ENT it but approve the application if that was the only piece that was

0:22:50 (0:00:22)

off thank you for that question through the mayor with a rezoning well the policies aren't necessarily guidelines as they are with the development progam area guideline there's less flexibility with development permanent area guidelines because there's more there's more discussion with a rezoning council has full discretion to make a decision based on any

Armand Hurford
0:23:12 (0:00:11)

application okay any other questions I'll go to counselor Hamilton then my and then myself will go back for SEC for second round if

Andrew Hamilton
0:23:24 (0:01:29)

needed S I had to find my mic and now I need to find oh I lost my page sorry so in the accessibility update we have a hopefully we'll load in a second so I'll try to paraphrase we have a suggest so an amendment replacing section 12.4b with the following encourage 5% of secured affordable housing to be built as accessible dwelling units as defined in the zoning bylaw my question here is more about how we actually do this more than a concern about the change or the number it seems to me like very few developments would be large enough to have 20 accessible units and so or to have 20 affordable units and so to have one to have 5% of those to have one of those dedicated to accessible how do we so that it seems strange to me it seems difficult to me to ensure that we've got 5% accessible dwelling units how do we do that like how do we encourage one developer to do it when we might not require another developer to do it in order that we can get achieve 5%

0:24:54 (0:00:53)

overall through the mayor I'm going to attempt an answer here so it really is on a project by project basis there are other guidelines in the bylaw or policies pertaining to unit mixes that staff will negotiate on developments for so in on a case-by Case basis a development might strive to hit 20% of the three-bedroom requirement for example but there are some situations where that might not be feasible based on the land or the unit type and staff will assess the application based on those policies and present to council for consideration in terms of securing the unit again the policy is somewhat aspirational but also in an idealized world this is what we would get it would be secured in the Land Development agreement occupancy would like or sorry occupancy would be a condition or provision of the unit as accessible would be a provision of occupancy and then also secured through a housing

Andrew Hamilton
0:25:48 (0:00:25)

agreement okay so as I understand it staff try to sort of balance all the applications that are coming in and anybody that sort of can feasibly put in an affordable accessible dwelling unit is encouraged to so that we can meet this 5% because there will be a lot of applications that for example maybe can't because they're townhouse developments is that what I'm hearing

0:26:13 (0:00:02)

through the mayor that would be a good way of summarizing it

Andrew Hamilton
0:26:15 (0:00:02)


Armand Hurford
0:26:18 (0:00:34)

thanks thank you I had a question around I heard from some folks about the accessibility or lack there of their waist room and we're touching in both of these things but didn't immediately jump out at me if we were addressing issues around the accessibility of the waist rooms themselves is that something that this aims to capture I didn't see it necessarily but I acknowledge that does necessarily mean that it's not it's not accomplishing that through language or

0:26:52 (0:00:53)

otherwise through the mirror that's a good question that I'm not sure that I have a great answer for but we'll try so waist rooms typically are gu are regulated through our technical guidelines to development permit area it's an area that local governments have only recently been given some ability to regulate through building Perman exemptions accessibil specifically for the waste room should be achieved if they hit all the parameters in the zoning bylaw because there would be enough space for bins in circulation which are typically larger than you would see existing waste rooms have not been subject to regulations historically so they would not have been designed accessibly access to and from the waste room should be sufficient for a loading truck to get in and out and for bins to roll in and out from that perspective they should be some level accessibility but from the units to the waist room is something that staff won't be able to regulate through the zoning

Armand Hurford
0:27:46 (0:00:36)

bylaw okay I think and the feedback came from a Community member that isn't that I don't know how the age of the of the room that they're that they're having challenges with but I just wanted to surface that I've heard this challenge in the in the community so if this doesn't speak specifically to that if you know I wanted it to be on all of our all of our Radars for if there is an opportunity to regulate for something like that did anyone else have I'll go back to councelor Anderson he's for your second round go ahead councelor Anderson

Eric Andersen
0:28:22 (0:01:37)

thank you I note under the loggers East neighborhood plan section where there's disc discussion of the mixed use development Zone the mud Zone and the proposal is to introduce more flexibility in favoring housing uses and there's a report that concerning the office Market in recent years and the unknown and changing nature of work with remote options leading to uncertainty around office utilization of course there are other employment space types that we would take into account under the Strategic plan section I don't see a reference to being prepared for the future with respect to employment land so my question is as staff deliberates these proposals what are you using as a guiding document for modeling or predicting employment space demand it we talked about year and a half ago a model 2.0 that had been elaborated from the original one and we've since been talking about doing some further work under the acronym split new project to do that modeling but what does what do staff refer to what are we referring to these days with respect to assessing the need and demand for employment space as you make these decisions for example in loggers Lane East neighborhood

0:29:59 (0:01:25)

through the mayor really great question and it's not you know that is sort of work in progress it's not advancing as fast as staff initially thought we are now sort of focusing on this split model which is our a project that's underway now and it's really assessing what we've got in terms of employment space and employment lands and residential lands so we don't have clear answers at this point what we what we use at this point is the current market situation and the fact that we have we have some policies and we have secured office space in certain developments that what we're hearing back from developers and what we know about what's happening with office spacing generally is the conditions have really changed since Co so we're this is the current set of recommendations are coming based on current market conditions and I think the modeling work is still probably a few years away from us having a clear picture of how much employment lands we need having a clear picture of what our population projections are going to look like so we don't we don't have a clear picture of the moment thank

Armand Hurford
0:31:25 (0:00:03)

you thank you ccor penil

Chris Pettingill
0:31:28 (0:00:38)

yeah and I'll try not to get us too far off track but I want to follow up on my colleague's question because it ties into where I was concerned are we seeing the same market conditions in neighboring communities and I guess you know I understand there's work being done but my concern is that we don't end up in a place where Squamish is providing all the housing and all the employment is another community so if everyone is finding you need a higher percentage of residential and it's the same across the board then maybe we don't have to worry but if it's sort of different here than other places as it becomes a concern so do we have a sense of what the market is doing in our neighbors versus

0:32:07 (0:01:21)

here through the mayor another great question yes we have a good sense of what's happening in Metro Vancouver with respect to demand for office space I would say the one thing that we are also hearing in the community through our various engagement activities is employer who are struggling to find employees because of the housing shortage so I think that's what that is a new consideration that we haven't had before and so staff have been prioritizing affordable housing and Market rental as those are the two biggest gaps in our housing Continuum but I would say you know employment land and employment space is still really important we just are proposing a more prac itical approach during this time when it comes to office space specifically and specifically Second Story and above office space as what we're seeing is development that basically cannot find financing because they can't find tenants before they actually build a building and we're seeing struggles for people that have built buildings with Second Story office Bas and are having difficulty finding tenants

Armand Hurford
0:33:28 (0:00:12)

okay thank you for that other questions Council we do have quite a few pieces sort of lumped together here so I'm happy to indulge if we need to understand further yeah go ahead councel Anderson thank you

Eric Andersen
0:33:40 (0:02:12)

chair I do have two related questions they come under the same section and they're not new additions or amendments but they they're under the section of 34 34.7 aquatic guidelines and 34.9 I I'll go one at a time here so my query is there enough flexibility or room for site specific interpretation in the two items I will read out for us to for us to not be too constrained in our interpretation so I'll read out the first one This concerns it's 34.7 C Reserve Ravines water courses repairing areas and wetlands in their natural state and maintain natural Channel alignments wherever possible unless significant environmental benefit can be gained through alteration well this is becomes topical for the upper mamom blind Channel and for the Carson place slooh and the Wilson Crescent slooh and for some of the ditches in loggers Lane East area because the lay person might come along to these bodies of water and assume they're in a natural condition and they are not they're in need of restoration or to sight site the loggers Lane East we have a ditch that people have moved in the 1970s but we've decided to leave it where it is and so the question comes up of interpretation and making judgments is there sufficient room in that guideline as it's worded for our professionals to make those sight specific judgments because we have a lot of water bodies that have been fooled around with and filled with dredg spoil and whatnot do we have that kind of leeway in making an interpretation of a guideline like that as to what is a natural condition or I'll leave it at that may me I'm clear enough thank

0:35:53 (0:00:31)

you hello Jordan Foster I'm the manager of the environmental services department through the mayor yes in short there is there is ability for qualified environmental professionals as well as District staff to be able to interpret that certainly yeah the term natural water course or natural stream is relevant when we're talking about development and when we're talking about setbacks and of course the end of that statement unless significant environmental benefit can be gained through alteration those are all considered

Eric Andersen
0:36:24 (0:01:06)

yes thank you if I may I'll have a follow-up example and This concerns dredging 34.9 dredging activities for new or maintenance of existing facilities in compliance with senior agency requirements and authorized by the district should be limited to the minimum area necessary to maintain the existing facility so I skip quickly through that but the issue are the wording new and existing I'm going to give an example at the foot of Main Street was a fairy terminal until 2002 we may have forgotten that and it may need dredging again is that a new facility or an existing one is there enough again the same question is there enough scope for the professional on our staff or otherwise to make that assessment as to whether this is a new or an existing facility do we do we return to M it may be again used for Ferry I I'm wondering if we may get caught up in the language here and be

0:37:31 (0:00:26)

strained through the mayor I think that history of a site is always considered certainly it's good practice for a qualified environmental professional to be considering yeah past dredging or past U maintenance or other yeah activities that occur on a site I would expect them to be looking into the history of the site and considering that as a part of their recommendations certainly

Eric Andersen
0:37:57 (0:00:12)

satisfies me thank you because the foot of Main Street was dredged specifically for fairies in 1986 but we may have forgotten that it may be used for that again and it may need dredging again thank you I'm satisfied with your

Armand Hurford
0:38:10 (0:00:04)

answer thank you I have councelor green law

Lauren Greenlaw
0:38:14 (0:00:39)

next thanks through the chair my questions are a bit tangential to con to the conversation at hand but I'm hoping staff can indulge me I was wondering if staff could speak to some of the questions that I've been getting from community about details around the new R1 zoning and could staff speak to the reason behind there being no base maximum floor area ratio or maximum floor area ratio with the second suite for the multi-unit flex and or Accel accessory dwelling units for the multiple residential three and four unit dwellings and what effectively that means to the R1 are areas to people living in those

0:38:54 (0:00:52)

areas through the mayor so the R1 Zone was drafted without a maximum f for three and four unit dwellings and to not consider the adus with that as well each unit is constrained to 220 square meters as a maximum based on the average size of new homes the site's also constrained by height and setbacks effectively these same box would be able to be built within those constraints overall the floor area ratio was becoming an indicator of what the maximum DS state was that was achievable but there were other several other constraints to that so it was another control of density that felt unnecessary and it didn't align with the provincial regulations either so by just putting a maximum unit size per dwelling unit it gave a bit more flexibility but didn't necessarily increase the massing overall that could be possible on each site

Lauren Greenlaw
0:39:47 (0:00:14)

okay so it's effectively still being captured by the other restrictions there and then just a follow-up question that I've been receiving from the public just for clarity could staff speak to how these ch this change in zoning is applied to Brack

0:40:02 (0:00:30)

Andale through the mayor thank you for that question the district has applied for an exemption to Brack Andale based on our flood mapping and report from a our Consultants which state that the hazard level in areas that are conditional restricted or limited densification so that's the southern half of brackendale and areas within zones one through four of the chai fan are too high Hazard to increase density so pursuant to an approval by the province we are not at this time applying that zoning to brackendale

Lauren Greenlaw
0:40:32 (0:00:03)

so they remain on their pre-existing zoning then

0:40:35 (0:00:03)

through the mayor that is correct okay thank

Armand Hurford
0:40:39 (0:00:01)


District of Squamish Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2500, 2017, Amendment Bylaw (DPA 1 Update) No. 3078, 2024
0:40:40 (0:03:12)

A discussion took place regarding the District of Squamish's official community plan, specifically focusing on the DP1 DPA1 update. The conversation was initiated by Councillor French, who moved to address the update in segments for clarity and thorough examination. Mayor Armand Hurford acknowledged the need to dissect the update into individual components, despite initially hoping for a more streamlined discussion. This approach was agreed upon to ensure all council members had a clear understanding of the motions being considered, particularly the first section which encompassed all five points of the DP1 DPA1 update.

During the discussion, Councillor Eric Andersen provided insights based on the advisory design panel minutes from May 16th, emphasizing the recommendation for guidelines to remain technical and avoid aesthetic issues. Andersen highlighted the importance of balancing housing priorities with the strategic plan's focus on economic development and employment space. This perspective underscored the council's commitment to a disciplined review process that aligns with strategic objectives. The council, after considering Andersen's comments and without further discussion, unanimously approved the motion related to the DP1 DPA1 update, demonstrating a collective agreement on the proposed direction.

Armand Hurford
0:40:40 (0:00:09)

okay Council I'll be looking for I'm not seeing anyone looking for more questions are you go ahead councelor French yeah

John French
0:40:50 (0:00:02)

I'll move the stff

Armand Hurford
0:40:52 (0:01:17)

recommendation okay could you take us could we put them up just so we all have the same visual thank you for that side the first time we saw it was a bit much but now we need to break it into those pieces and we'll move through them that way if that's okay councelor just so we're all clear on what everyone's moving and moving through our list okay I was a bit optimistic we could get through it this way but we're going to do it this way so this was lumping them all together but we need to do them individually which is what so I agree councelor French but thank you for moving the first the first one so just to be clear with what we're looking at here this the first one is the section around District Squamish official community plan the dp1 dpa1 update all Five Points together yes which is what councelor French moved correct yes and that's what councelor Anderson seconded any comments on this particular piece counc

Eric Andersen
0:42:10 (0:01:31)

Anderson two brief comments I reviewed the advisory design panel minutes from May 16th when they were discussing the DPA 3 guideline review and I'll just quote a sentence from those minutes recommend that the guidelines remain Technical and stay away from issues of Aesthetics I think as we move on and consider or the outcomes of our recent changes including what we're considering here tonight and more recent a little bit further back regarding colors and the dp3 guidelines that we should consider this a an evolving conversation but I am very sympathetic to that point of view that was expressed in those minutes by the ADP member and I would wonder whether that is a l way to go another comment I would make we can we of course have housing as a as a huge priority for this Council but we have to be considering things in Balance so I would suggest that we be disciplined in reviewing our and relating to our strategic plan that we do make effort to site the prepared for the future Economic Development employment space that we try to look at through look through that lens often I mean in this case because we are dealing with employment space in this report that we do make an effort to cover that pie that pillar of our strategic plan that's it thank

Armand Hurford
0:43:41 (0:00:10)

you thank you any other comments seeing none I'll call the question all in favor motion carries unanimously thank you councelor

District of Squamish Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2500, 2017, Amendment Bylaw (Loggers East Update and Corrections) No. 3080, 2024
0:43:52 (0:02:27)

Chris Pettingill introduced a motion regarding the second bundle of amendments to the District of Squamish Official Community Plan Bylaw 2500 2017, specifically the Amendment Bylaw Loggers East update and Corrections number 3080 2024, which included a section of five items. His presentation highlighted the importance of balancing employment opportunities with residential housing needs within the community. Pettingill expressed a cautious optimism about moving forward with the amendments, acknowledging the need for flexibility while maintaining a focus on ensuring that employment growth matches housing development. He also appreciated the staff's efforts in incorporating feedback from the committee as a whole, indicating that the amendments reflected the council's requests and concerns effectively.

During the discussion, Mayor Armand Hurford and other council members echoed Pettingill's sentiments, particularly emphasizing the critical need to address housing for the workforce as a major constraint for current and future businesses in the district. The council expressed a collective concern about the potential impact on employment space but showed support for the staff's rationale and the proposed approach to the amendments. Mayor Hurford appreciated the steps being taken to address these issues in the current context, highlighting the importance of a longer-term perspective on employment space. The motion was eventually put to a vote and carried unanimously, indicating full council support for the amendments as presented.

Chris Pettingill
0:43:52 (0:00:13)

penil moving the second bundle District of Squam official community plan bylaw 2500 2017 Amendment bylaw loggers East update and Corrections number 3080 2024 that section of five items

Armand Hurford
0:44:06 (0:00:03)

okay thank you councelor Hamilton seconds Jak to speak to

Chris Pettingill
0:44:10 (0:01:15)

it yeah I think just building on my colleagues comments a second ago I appreciate staff's you know rationale for providing a bit of flexibility I'm a little bit hesitant but comfortable moving forward because of the discretion we still have to pay attention to this and what I'm speaking about here is my concern that we are matching employment to residential housing is a is a critical need and we want to be moving forward on that but we can't do that in isolation of the employment and maybe second floor office isn't where we need to focus but somehow we need to match employment to housing and I understand some more workers there coming and so again what's getting me to approve this is the fact that we do still have the discretion to consider that but it will be an important consideration for me as applications come forward the other thing I just want to note just take the opportunity now there was a lot of feedback at our committee the whole and I really appreciate the way that staff has captured all of the many things we asked for and so really was glad to read through this and see everything reflected so thank

Armand Hurford
0:45:25 (0:00:54)

you thank you any other comments on this piece speaking in support and just on the topic of the employment space the reason that we would pay attention to this is to ensure that our businesses both here and Futures can be successful and I really appreciate the staff rationale around what we're hearing right now is that housing for the workforce is one of the main constraints of all of our businesses and I would imagine that's a constraint for those that are aspiring to be here as well so I appreciate that approach at this time but I fully agree with the comments I've heard my colleagues around having concern around employment space in general in that sort of longer lens but for where we are today I appreciate the steps we're taking here and I'll call the question all in favor motion carries unanimously thank you

District of Squamish Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2500, 2017, Amendment Bylaw (Accessibility Update) No. 3086, 2024
0:46:19 (0:00:38)

Armand Hurford
0:46:19 (0:00:37)

so next up will be the district sish official community plan bylaw number 2500 2017 Amendment bylaw this is the accessibility update which I will move is there a seconder second by councelor Hamilton I'll just say this is really important work and I appreciate the changes here I think they're very thoughtful and fully appropriate any other comments on this I'll call a question all in favor motion carries unanimously thank you and that was all five of those by the way so next

District of Squamish Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2500, 2017, Amendment Bylaw (Development Permit Area 3 Update) No. 3079, 2024
0:46:57 (0:00:36)

Armand Hurford
0:46:57 (0:00:36)

next piece is the district Squamish official community plan bylaw number 2500 2017 Amendment bylaw this is the DPA 3 update do I have a mover councelor French second by councelor Hamilton any comments DPA 3 seeing none I'll call the question all in favor motion carries unanimously thank you okay the that was well now we're on to

Squamish Housing Action Plan – Zoning Bylaw and Advisory Design Panel Bylaw Updates
0:47:33 (0:00:18)

Armand Hurford
0:47:33 (0:00:17)

the ADP byw updates it's okay we can yeah okay and do we need to do these individually just okay so we need to do these all individually

District of Squamish Advisory Design Panel Bylaw No. 2264, 2013, Amendment Bylaw (Squamish Housing Actions) No. 3082, 2024
0:47:51 (0:02:01)

The Squamish Housing Actions Amendment was introduced to the District of Squamish Council, with Councillor Andrew Hamilton moving the item and Councillor John French seconding it. This amendment pertains to the District Advisory Design Panel (ADP), suggesting modifications to how the panel operates or interacts with housing actions. The discussion was initiated by Mayor Armand Hurford, who outlined the proposal and invited comments from the council members.

During the discussion, Councillor Chris Pettingill expressed support for the amendment, albeit with some reservations about reducing the input from the Advisory Design Panel, highlighting the value of feedback received from the panel. Councillor John French echoed Pettingill's sentiments, emphasizing the importance of the ADP's work and the valuable, uncompensated contributions of its members. Mayor Armand Hurford also spoke in favor of the motion, viewing it as a means to optimize the ADP's focus on more significant issues, effectively delegating authority and ensuring the panel's efforts are directed towards matters of appropriate scale. The motion was eventually put to a vote and carried unanimously, indicating full council support for the amendment.

Armand Hurford
0:47:51 (0:00:19)

so District advisory design panel by number 20 or 2264 2013 this is the Squamish housing actions Amendment so the item one moved by councelor Hamilton second by counselor French you have comment comments go ahead

Chris Pettingill
0:48:10 (0:00:27)

yeah I guess I'm supporting these as a bit of an experiment I do really appreciate the input and feedback we get from The Advisory design panel so I'm a little bit hesitant to be removing some of some of that I understand why and so willing to test it out but yeah I just want to acknowledge I'm you know feel a little bit uncertain about this piece because I do really appreciate the feedback we get from the

Armand Hurford
0:48:38 (0:00:02)

panel yeah thank you councelor French

John French
0:48:41 (0:00:31)

thanks mayor and I just will take the opportunity to emphasize what counselor Pettingill just shared with us the work of the ADP is important and the folks who serve on the advisory design panel do so without compensation it's valuable work that they contribute they do a fine job and I appreciate the work that they do and this is just a good opportunity to express that in supporting this

Armand Hurford
0:49:13 (0:00:38)

motion thank you I'm speaking support of the motion I think I agree with the value of the advisory design panel I think this keeps them working on things that are appropriate for them so it's I think of it sort of as a layer of delegated authority in this case we're going to delegate it to us on the you know the ADP and then the ADP can look at the bigger the bigger pieces which I think is more appropriate use of their of their time so and when I say delegating it to us it means leaning on our other policies and sending U the bigger pieces to ADP so be supporting the motion I'll call a question all in favor motion carries unanimously thank

District of Squamish Land Development Procedures Bylaw No. 2632, 2018, Amendment Bylaw (Public Hearing Requirement Clarification) No. 3091, 2024
0:49:52 (0:00:32)

Armand Hurford
0:49:52 (0:00:32)

you so the next piece is the amendment number two on our list is the public hearing requirement clarification Amendment which I will move second by councelor Hamilton any comments on this I think anything that has a title of clarification is appreciated in this in this space so thank you for finding a way to iron this wrinkle out I'll call a question all in favor motion carries unanimously thank you

District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (Landscape, solid waste and accessibility update) No. 3081, 2024
0:50:24 (0:00:21)

Armand Hurford
0:50:24 (0:00:20)

next up is number three on the list which is the landscape solid waste and accessibility update moved by councelor French second by councelor Hamilton any comments on this I'll call question all in favor any opposed motion carries unanimously thank you now we're on

District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (R-1 Administrative Amendments) No. 3089, 2024
0:50:45 (0:00:30)

Armand Hurford
0:50:45 (0:00:30)

to the R1 administrative amendments moved by councelor French executed by councelor Hamilton thank you any comments okay all in favor any opposed motion carries thank you all right thank you for getting us through that so next up

District of Squamish Housing Agreement Bylaw (Garibaldi Springs P1 Non-Market Housing) No. 3056, 2024
0:51:15 (0:15:50)

Jesse Abraham, a planning consultant, presented on behalf of the Community Development Department regarding the housing agreement bylaw number 3056 2024 for Garibaldi Springs Phase 1 non-market rental housing. This presentation was for the first three readings as per the Land Development agreement for the four-phase master-planned Garibaldi Springs development. Eight non-market housing units, delivered in Phase 1 and known as Highline, had a previous housing agreement adopted in October 2023. The applicant negotiated a sale of these units to BC Housing, who requested changes to the housing agreement to align with their policies and guidelines. A new housing agreement bylaw was brought forward for council consideration. Additionally, standardized templates for non-market housing agreements for both privately owned and publicly owned units were presented, aiming to maintain consistent requirements in alignment with the district's perpetually affordable housing policy approved in 2020.

Council members, including John French and Chris Pettingill, engaged in a discussion with questions focused on the removal of language referencing national occupancy standards due to potential discrimination, the flexibility of the standardized templates, and the process for changing housing agreements if a developer sells to a public entity. The council was interested in understanding how BC Housing's requests for more flexible language would affect the district and whether these changes were consistent across the province. The discussion also touched on the operational aspects of the housing agreements, including tenant removal processes and the distinction between ownership and operation in determining which template to use. The outcome was a unanimous vote in favor of moving forward with the staff recommendation to adopt the new housing agreement bylaw and standardized templates, highlighting the council's support for standardized approaches to facilitate more affordable housing in the community.

Armand Hurford
0:51:15 (0:00:50)

we have a galdi Springs P1 non-market housing discussion around the housing agreements let's give staff a second to get switched over e

0:52:05 (0:05:01)

thank you good evening mayor and Council my name is Jesse Abraham planning consultant presenting on behalf of the Community Development Department I am presenting housing agreement bylaw number 3056 2024 for galdi Springs Phase 1 non-market rental housing for first three readings as per the Land Development agreement for the four-phase master planned galdi Springs development eight non-market housing units were delivered in phase one called Highline a previous housing agreement bylaw number 30009 2023 for the non-market units was adopted in October 2023 occupancy of these units was received last month in June the applicant has negotiated a sale of the units to BC housing who have requested changes to the housing agreement to better align with BC housing policies and guidelines a new housing agreement bylaw is now being brought forward for Council consideration these new negotiated terms indicated the need for standardized housing agreements for both privately owned and publicly owned non-market housing units further to this the district has been securing developer owned non-market affordable housing units since 2018 since that time there have been a number of different housing agreements approved with varying terms and conditions resulting in some inconsistencies in an effort to maintain cons consistent housing agreement requirements in alignment with the district's perpetually affordable housing policy that was approved in 2020 staff are presenting two standardized templates for one a non-market housing agreement template for development owned units and a non-market housing agreement template for publicly owned units which is government or nonprofit housing provider the table here summarizes the standardized terms in the developer owned non-market housing agreement template first income limits the standardized term now clarifies that income limits shall be verified at movein only and are based on 80% of median income by Family type rent rates and hydro allowances the terms now clarify that rent rates shall align with the perpetually affordable housing policy and previously approved housing agreements and includes a provision for a hydro allowance a full list of prescribed rents is included in Schedule C of attachment one to the report employment eligibility the terms now clarify that employment must be verified and mannually on an ongoing basis tenant selection the terms now clarify that the district May assign a person or entity to select tenants for the affordable units an example of an entity would be the Squamish Community Housing Society extra charges the terms now include allowable extra charges such as additional parking spaces above and beyond those required as per zoning may be rented at an additional fee to tenants an allowable $25 per month charge is also permitted for inite laundry if functioning washer dryers provided the terms now include explicit language that the units may not be sub Leed and lastly units appropriate to household size so there is removal of all language that references the national occupancy standards which or sorry as they can be caused for discrimination and the updated language specifies that tenants shall be placed in a unit appropriate to their household size as determined by BC housing or cmhc public sector housing agreements will include all the previous terms and the ones outlined in the slides here so further to the income limits the terms of the public sector agreement template have been replaced with the BC housing definition of low to moderate income as this allows more flexibility for the housing provider in addition prescriptive rent rates have been removed and new language is included to state that the housing provider is to charge below average Market rent which will be reviewed and approved by the district again this provides more flexibility for the housing provider the tenant selection provision is removed it will not be up to the district to assign an entity to select tenants as this would be the role and responsibility of the housing provider and lastly a new definition of provider is added which is defined as a housing operator approved by the district to operate and manage the affordable housing units the gabaly Springs Phase 1 non-market housing agreement uses the new standardized housing agreement template for public sector units and includes all terms as outlined in the previous slides the sale and transfer of the units from the developer to BC housing is in progress BC housing is in discussion with the Squamish Community Housing Society to enter in into a long-term operating agreement the housing agreement bylaw presented today is for first three readings it will return for adoption once the transfer of the units is complete staff recommend that the District of Squamish housing agreement bylaw number 30 056 2024 for the non-market housing units at garabaldi Springs Phase 1 be given first three readings and that concludes my presentation thank you

Armand Hurford
0:57:06 (0:00:04)

thank you very much questions go ahead councelor French

John French
0:57:11 (0:00:29)

thank you mayor the report recommends removal of all language that references the national occupancy standards because the language apparently in those standards can be discriminatory so I'm wondering how so who is discriminated against in the language that's in there is this universally agreed upon in the planning industry across BC in Canada and so just will'll staff expand on how this language is considered

0:57:40 (0:00:26)

discriminatory thank you and good question so the national occupancy standards specify certain ages for children and certain genders that can live in certain bedrooms together and how many people can live in a bedroom it was a request by BC housing that this language be removed and that more flexible language be included that households are appropriately housed in a unit of sorry of a unit of an appropriate

John French
0:58:07 (0:00:11)

size okay and so is BC housing making this request across the province or are we being singled out in some way for

0:58:19 (0:00:06)

this no it's through all of their operating agreements and housing agreements they've asked for the removal of this language

John French
0:58:25 (0:00:01)

great thank you

Armand Hurford
0:58:27 (0:00:02)

mayor thank you for that councelor

Chris Pettingill
0:58:30 (0:00:32)

penal yeah I'll start with a clarification on this point so as I understood this the NA national occupancy standard is fairly rigid and I had understood what we were trying to say is you know it set some guidelines about ideal size and so on but we wouldn't if you weren't the ideal size we had something available that you're willing to go into we would then be able to put you in that unit and we just didn't want to have something so rigid that we say this unit that you want that you could technically have we're not going to let you have it is

0:59:02 (0:00:09)

that yes so the national occupancy standards are intended to just be guidelines and so they could still be followed but they're just not meant to be

Chris Pettingill
0:59:11 (0:00:26)

regulated okay thank you and then a couple questions because this is a template is it restrictive like we will always have to abide by the specifics of the template or is there any flexibility should we wish to have it I'm not saying we want to go down that sort of goes against the point of a template but U just how rigid is this if we adopt

0:59:38 (0:00:27)

this so the intention of the templates is so that it can be easily managed and monitored over time and so we're starting to see some of the units come online that have housing agreements from five plus years ago and maybe have different terms that can make it difficult to manage or monitor longterm so the intention is that all privately owned units use that template and all publicly owned units use that template going

1:00:06 (0:00:10)

forward through the mayor but I'll add for clarification there is always room to modify a template there's the starting point for a negotiation with a privately owned unit with

Chris Pettingill
1:00:16 (0:00:31)

developer okay thank you and then the last piece that I was just sort of wondering as I read through this it I didn't see much detail about if a tenant needs to be remove D this isn't Supportive Housing and you know presumably we don't aim for it but once in a while there can be a problem where you need to remove a tenant we are responsible or our delegate as I read this for placing tenants does that mean it falls on us or we have the sole authority to remove a tenant or could a private operator do that or how does that piece

1:00:48 (0:00:13)

work so the housing agreement does specify that the manager owner would need to follow the residential tency Act in terms of managing the tenant which would include removals or

Armand Hurford
1:01:02 (0:00:39)

evictions okay you're good any other questions on this I had a qu the templates piece I think is really interesting thank you for the bringing this forward and so in a case is it about who has ownership of it not who's operating it I could think of a scenario where a developer you know wishes to retain ownership but would like someone to manage or operate the units so is it is the ownership of it which dictate which template it is or who's operating

1:01:41 (0:00:11)

it so the templates are intended to be for ownership so a public sector template would require government or nonprofit

Armand Hurford
1:01:52 (0:00:48)

ownership okay and given that this sort of came about probably from you folks interacting with a few of these and recognizing the need for standardization but being one piece but the other piece here is that we had a developer owned one sell to a public entity is that contemplated it really didn't any mechanisms for that or didn't really jump out at me in the templates but was this going to help in this situation so if a developer runs it for a period of time and decides that they would prefer to move it over to be S to someone that operates in that space does it contemplate in some way the change

1:02:41 (0:00:21)

there so in that case the private developer would enter into the private ownership template housing agreement and the same process would need to be followed so that housing agreement would have to be approved and registered or adopted and registered on title and then a new housing agreement would that housing agreement need to be repealed and a new one

Armand Hurford
1:03:02 (0:00:09)

approved yeah okay thank you okay Council we have a recommendation before us I don't see any other questions yeah go ahead

Chris Pettingill
1:03:12 (0:00:17)

sorry I just want to follow up on that so if a private developer sold a property so there's no need for permits or anything like that they would the new buyer or the seller would have to come to council for us to repeal an agreement and then sign a new

1:03:30 (0:00:21)

one yes thank you good question if it was still in private ownership it can use the same housing agreement but if they were selling from a private owner or developer to a government entity or nonprofit housing provider then it' be in the benefit of the nonprofit housing provider to have a more flexible housing agreement and so they would come to get a new housing agreement

Chris Pettingill
1:03:51 (0:00:07)

approved and if they didn't do that they'd just continue on under the original agreement is that

Armand Hurford
1:03:59 (0:00:19)

correct y thank you for following my thought process to the end of the to the end of the questions councelor do we have any other any other questions we have a recommendation before us Council moving the staff recommendation councelor Hamilton moves councelor French seconds any comments on this yeah go

Andrew Hamilton
1:04:19 (0:00:44)

ahead thank you for bringing this forward I'm a very big I'm a big fan of standardized templates so that we can have simple ways to move forward there is a cost to standardized templates and that sometimes you're not optimized for a particular situation but I think we see we're seeing here two clear bodies of affordable housing coming up ones that are publicly owned and ones that are privately owned and I see these two trains being very having very different challenges associated with them so I think this is a very reasonable way to move forward and I look forward to seeing how this actually starts to roll out more and more affordable housing in our community thanks

Armand Hurford
1:05:04 (0:00:02)

thank you councelor

John French
1:05:06 (0:00:53)

French thanks mayor Herford and I support the staff recommendation I want it to move forward and in reading through this work the word demolition really jumped out at me moving forward I'll be watching for that word demolition because for most people it conjures up traditional methods of getting rid of unwanted buildings so for me I see that as a bit of an outdated term which would be better replaced by deconstruction because that conjures up images of mindful separation and collection of reusable materials for reuse recyclable materials being processed and recycled and then anything that can't get into either of those categories being sent to landfill or disposed in some other way but only getting to that landfill stage if there's no other option thank

Armand Hurford
1:06:00 (0:01:05)

you thank you speaking support of the motion I really one I'm excited about additional provincial investment in the in affordable housing in the community I think that's great and I think the template piece of the discussion today I think is really important to help facilitate that and not have obstacles in the way of this happening more frequently so thank you very much for the work on that and as others have said I'm looking forward to being better acquainted with these templates as we move through securing more and more affordable housing in the community going forward so thank you I'll call a question all in favor motion carries unanimously thank you so we have a few adoptions to do before we get to the next staff piece I'll give you that'll buy you some time to get set up there

1:07:05 (0:00:20)

Armand Hurford
1:07:05 (0:00:19)

so Council we have as per normal with adoptions we do not have any presentations we have a list to go through here and these have been approved previously or given readings previously and now the eyes are dotted and the t's are crossed and they're ready for adoption so

District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (Agriculture 1) No. 3054, 2024
1:07:25 (0:00:14)

Armand Hurford
1:07:25 (0:00:13)

who would like to get us started with the agriculture one Amendment councilor French I'll second that all in favor motion carries unanimously thank you the next

District of Squamish Building Bylaw No. 1822, 2004, Amendment Bylaw (Low Carbon Step Code Building Bylaw Update) No. 3090, 2024
1:07:39 (0:00:12)

Armand Hurford
1:07:39 (0:00:11)

is the low carbon step code building bylaw update moved by councelor Hamilton second by councelor French all in favor motion carries thank you and

District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (Low Carbon Step Code Zoning Bylaw Update) No. 3085, 2024
1:07:51 (0:00:15)

Armand Hurford
1:07:51 (0:00:15)

then the next piece is the low carbon step code zoning bylaw update moved by Council French second by councel Hamilton all in favor any opposed motion carries thank you and now

1:08:06 (0:00:02)

Armand Hurford
1:08:06 (0:00:01)

we're on to staff reports under

Kingswood/Redbridge Land Development Agreement Amendment 11(b)(v)
1:08:08 (0:17:09)

Carrie Hamilton, a planner for the District of Squamish, presented an amendment to the Kingswood Redbridge Land Development Agreement (LDA) specifically targeting Clause 11 BV. This amendment was in response to a request from the owners of 1595 Scott Crescent and a subsequent motion by the council to review these amendments for further consideration. The original clause was designed to ensure both a public pathway across the 1595 Scott Crescent foreshore property, to support a trail loop, and secured driveway access over the Redbridge development lands. Hamilton outlined the clause's four sections, emphasizing the interconnectedness of the driveway and pathway provisions and the conditions under which they could be modified or removed. The staff's recommendation was to remove the pathway RightWay condition from the clause to secure driveway access for the property owners without conditions, suggesting that future discussions about the pathway be part of a larger Smoke Bluff Trail Network review.

The council's discussion following the presentation revolved around clarifications, implications, and the broader context of the amendment. Mayor Armand Hurford inquired about the timeline for the Smoke Bluff Park Trail review, emphasizing the importance of resolving related issues. Council members Andrew Hamilton, Eric Andersen, and Chris Pettingill raised questions about the consultation process with Kingswood Redbridge, the scope of the larger trail network review, and the valuation of the driveway access in relation to potential future pathway discussions. The council acknowledged the complexity of balancing public access with private property rights and the importance of securing access to residential properties. The discussion highlighted a shared understanding of the need for thoughtful engagement with residents and stakeholders in planning trail networks and infrastructure developments. Ultimately, the council unanimously supported the staff's recommendation to amend the LDA by removing the pathway condition, recognizing the importance of resolving the matter while remaining open to future discussions about trail access and community priorities.

Armand Hurford
1:08:08 (0:00:14)

Community Development this is the Redbridge Land Development agreement amendment I will turn over to

1:08:22 (0:03:29)

staff okay good evening mayor and Council my name is Carrie Hamilton planner for the District of Squamish presenting to you today with an amendment to the Kingswood Redbridge Land Development agreement for Clause 11 BV so on October 10th 2023 staff presented a suite of proposed amendments to the Kingswood Redbridge LDA to council and at that council meeting an additional LDA amendment was requested by the owners of 1595 Scott Crescent to Clause 11 BV in response Council passed the mo the following motion to review 11 BV amendments for further consideration so during the 2014 cd77 resoning Recreation stakeholders expressed a desire for a public pathway across 1595 Scott Crescent foreshore property to support a trail loope the owners of 1595 Scott Crescent expressed a desire for a secured driveway access over the Redbridge development lands and expressed written support for discussing a public pathway but not formally requiring one so given the driveway and the pathway desires were both connected to 1595 Scott Crescent Clause 11 BV was drafted to provide assurances for both as a result Clause 11 BV can be broken into the following four sections the driveway access agreement in purple followed by the survey agreement once the Northlands develop in teal the clause also includes a caveat that the driveway access AG agent can be removed in red if a formal pathway RightWay is not secured over the 1595 foreshore which is in blue so as written if the owners do not provide the pathway right away to the district by the time Kingswood was prepared to develop the Northlands then Kingswood could discharge the driveway easement and would not need to provide the final survey and thus removing secure driveway access for 1595 Scott Crescent so following council's 2023 motion staff Revisited the history of the LDA clause and intent and re-engaged with the stakeholders that were engaged back in 2014 the owners provided more context to the importance of the driveway access and recommended the pathway discussion be separated from the driveway clause and be part of a larger discussion around Trail Network needs in the area given that there is a new bridge alignment in consideration and given foreshore protection considerations staff also presented this option to the smokes fff's advisory committee and they unanimous unanimously supported removing the pathway from the condition and agreed that it should be part of a larger discussion as a result staff are recommending the removal of the red and blue sections highlighted in Clause 11 BV to secure the driveway access for 1595 Property Owners without any conditions staff recommend a future pathway connection across 1595 Scott Crescent to be discussed as part of a larger smoke Bluff Trail Network review staff's recommendation is for Council to authorize amendments to the Kingswood Redbridge Land Development agreement Clause 11 BV by removing the pathway RightWay condition to the 1595 Scott Crescent driveway access agreement that concludes the

Armand Hurford
1:11:52 (0:00:29)

presentation thank you any questions on this Council I just have a timing question around the I get the breaking the issues apart and appreciate that and generally supportive of that but this larger smoke Bluff Park Trail review piece where is do you have any idea where that do we have where that sits in Timeline so we can sort of resolve this B potentially resolve this bundle of

1:12:22 (0:00:28)

things certainly so we did recently go to the Smoke Bloods committee with this Amendment and as discussed they showed support and they also we do have a staff lead who manages that committee and the intention is that it would be brought to the committee to discuss as when what timeline when it would she should be looked at and that should be something that the committee should be looking at in the next couple of

Armand Hurford
1:12:51 (0:00:19)

meetings okay thank you I'd love to just hear more about that as those discussions progress as not knowing what's involved in that in the scope of that work but appreciate that are you moving this councelor or question yeah go ahead question counc do you have a question next yeah okay

Andrew Hamilton
1:13:10 (0:00:14)

I assume Kingswood Redbridge was also consulted on this I don't imagine that they would have any issues so they were consulted and were they consulted and did they have any issues or challenges or complaints with it

1:13:24 (0:00:13)

did the mayor the changes to this LDA do not impact the development's ability to develop on the Northlands so they were not opposed to any of the changes here and they were consulted correct

Armand Hurford
1:13:37 (0:00:04)

okay thank you I've got councelor Anderson and then

Eric Andersen
1:13:42 (0:01:44)

pill the Kingswood Scott Cresent development conversation started in 2005 and U ever since 2005 engagement has been a major concern because of the scale of the development and because of the all kinds of overlapping interests including trails and vehicle accd so on there's two sets of Trail issues there are recreational access Trails the desire for a waterfront Trail desire to improve access into the formal Park but there are also commuter Trail issues the hospital Hill Val to this day do not have a safe convenient pedestrian route to three schools and the downtown so my question is staff have suggested that there will be a larger Smoke Plus Trail Network review what would be the scope of this review is the proposed larger Trail Network review intended to Encompass commuter Trail route issues affecting Hospital H valleycliffe and if so how will engagement with neighborhood residents and commuter Trail users take place in the background of this question is nearly 20 years of frustration we can understand that Developers and their employees and contractors come from the city and who do they know to talk to well the smoke plub advisory committee the trail Society these are easily recognizable people to talk to the residents aren't and the residents I've got other concerns regarding vehicle access big topic so how do we sort out engagement for commuter Trail issues that affect and run through this the Kingswood development site thank you

1:15:27 (0:01:08)

so through the mayor I'll just confirm that the commuter Trail Network that was proposed and approved in 2014 and was modified in 2018 there are no changes to that proposal there are still commitments in the amenity package in the Land devel Development agreement for a commuter Trail access from Hospital Hill Valley Cliff all the way down to the Waterfront pathway that will connect to a bridge access so this amendment has no impact to that commuter Trail aspect the trail component the pathway that was being discussed was along the foreshore of 1595 Scott Crescent and that was for a more of a recreational Trail through the smoke Bluffs Park and that is the conversation that smoke Bluffs committee and our staff are going to have a larger conversation about where the appropriate connections and netw work for the for the smoke Bluffs park recreational trail access where those should be I hope that clarifies to answer the

Eric Andersen
1:16:35 (0:00:09)

question thankful thank you my purpose is merely to race it so we're all aware of this topic and it is important to a lot of residents of Valley Clifton Hospital Hill thank

Armand Hurford
1:16:45 (0:00:03)

you thank you councelor

Chris Pettingill
1:16:48 (0:00:33)

penal yeah I sort of understand splitting the conversations as has there been any talk about you know if it becomes relevant how we might value the securing of the driveway access you know in terms of what we may wish to do in terms of Pathways or is this sort of is there an implicit assumption that we put no value on the driveway piece we're securing

1:17:22 (0:00:07)

now Toth mayor do you mind councelor P would you mind rephrasing that for me so I can help better answer

Chris Pettingill
1:17:29 (0:00:56)

that yeah I guess so as I understand at one point you know there's something of value to the district which is the pathway something of value to the property owner which was the driveway AIS you know somehow we got all the relevant parties together and made an exchange happen on paper a bunch of time pass people weren't happy with that exchange we're still moving ahead with the driveway piece don't have a resolution yet on the pathway piece and we may decide we want a pathway elsewhere but you know if we do end up you know the pathway makes sense in this area do we have a way or has there any talk about how we might value the driveway piece as we're figuring about you know what's fair in terms of because there's always pros and cons and trade-offs with everything and so has there been any talk or consideration about how we would manage that or think about that

Armand Hurford
1:18:25 (0:00:04)

I see a few people yeah go ahead Mr vnus do you want to take this one

1:18:30 (0:00:42)

yes please through the mayor we have had those considerations and I think the point where we arrived at is that it's in the public interest to provide the driveway access to a property that doesn't have one and so from that perspective the benefit is you know making sure the properties within the district as much as possible are serviced and the district never really had the real leverage of mandating access across the property so we're closing that chapter and we're moving on to the next chapter of you know planning what is appropriate in terms of Trail

Armand Hurford
1:19:12 (0:00:04)

access okay does that address your questions for now okay go to councelor

Andrew Hamilton
1:19:17 (0:00:04)

Hamilton I'd like to move the staff recommendation if there are no further questions

Armand Hurford
1:19:22 (0:00:04)

are you seconding that councelor green last seconds yep would like to speak to

Andrew Hamilton
1:19:26 (0:01:08)

it thank you very much and thank you very much for bringing this back thank you very much for bringing you know this 10-year-old agreement back into consideration I think this is a case where as Mr vincus puts out put forward having public having access to Residential Properties is absolutely in the public good and I hope that the residents at 1595 Scott Crescent can now see that the district is willing to engage in a on a confidence basis and say that here's driveway access that can be secured for you and I sincerely hope that they follow through with the with honest and meaningful negotiation on right of way across their property I understand how big an impact that has on somebody's property I also understand how big an impact that can have on our community to be able to have walking trails through that really beautiful area so with that I'll absolutely support this

Armand Hurford
1:20:34 (0:00:05)

motion thank you councelor Anderson and then

Eric Andersen
1:20:40 (0:01:59)

penil I'm pleased to see this matter come to a resolution a workable resolution and however we've got a lot of loose end still around this project it's still un holding and one of them is 1800 Scott Crescent and that property owner has really lost a practical driveway to a very significant a property with significant development potential I guess where I'd really like to go is we have to learn from this lesson of Kingswood Scott Crescent at 20 years or since 2008 at least in informal process with the district and sometimes one of my colleagues councelor Stoner brings up the topic of sunset Clauses where we can pause and revisit some of these things some of these very complicated aspects of a very large scale proposal the reference is made to the upper mcom blind Channel land use study of 2011 2012 it had some unclear terms