Regular Council - 04 Jul 2023


1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
2: ADOPTION OF AGENDA
3: DELEGATIONS/PETITIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
3.i: Delegation Request: Sea to Sky British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
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: Special Business Meeting: June 20, 2023
7.A.ii: Regular Business Meeting: June 20, 2023
7.A.iii: Committee of the Whole 9:00am: June 27, 2023
7.A.iv: Committee of the Whole 11:30am: June 27, 2023
7.B: CORRESPONDENCE - Receive for Information
7.B.i: 0620 R. Bishop, Program Officer, Re 2021 CRI FireSmart Community Funding
7: CORRESPONDENCE - Referred to Staff
7: Staff Recommendation:
7.C: STAFF UPDATES - For Information
7: END OF CONSENT AGENDA
8: CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
8.i: Recommendations from the Committee of the Whole: June 27, 2023 11:30am
9: BYLAWS
9.A: FIRST AND SECOND READING
9.A.i: District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (The Village on Bailey Street) No. 2671, 2023
9.B: ADOPTION
9.B.i: District of Squamish 2023-2027 Five Year Financial Plan Bylaw No. 2941, 2022 Amendment Bylaw No. 2995, 2023
10: STAFF REPORTS
10.A: CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION
10.A.i: Shimizu, Japan Travel Cost Estimate Memo
10.B: COMMUNITY PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY
10.B.i: Land Development Agreement Amendment Upper Finch Drive Rezoning
10.B.ii: Development Permit No. 000597 Hop Creek Farms Brewery
10.C: COMMUNITY SERVICES
10.C.i: Appointment of Animal Control Officer and Bylaw Enforcement Officers
11: LATE AGENDA ITEMS
12: CORRESPONDENCE - ACTION REQUESTED
12.i: Pigeon Racing in Squamish
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
19: UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
20: OPEN QUESTION PERIOD - CLARIFICATION RELATED TO AGENDA ITEMS
21: COUNCIL OR STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
22: MOTION TO CLOSE
23: TERMINATION
Welcome, Adoption of Agenda, Delegation Request: Sea to Sky British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
0:00:00 (0:15:57)

Krista Larson, the manager of the CD Sky BC SPCA in Squamish, presented to the council about the issue of sporting pigeons, specifically Indian High Flyers, being lost and abandoned in the Squamish district. She explained that these domestic pigeons, often dyed in various colors, are not equipped to survive in the wild and may suffer and die from starvation or predation. The BC SPCA and the district are expected to care for these birds, which has become a significant challenge. The BC SPCA cannot accept pigeons due to space restrictions and avian flu concerns. Furthermore, even when owners can be traced through leg bands, they often do not want the birds back if they are injured or sick.

Larson also highlighted the animal welfare and public health concerns associated with pigeon sports. Pigeons can experience stress and fatigue during competitions and transportation, and lost pigeons may die of dehydration or starvation. She also mentioned a cruel practice of attracting lost birds using another pigeon tied to a pole. Additionally, these birds can transmit pathogens and diseases to wild and domestic birds, and even humans. Pigeons that do not perform well in competitions are often abandoned or culled by the owners.

Larson suggested that the council consider implementing restrictions on domestic pigeons through their bylaws, similar to what other municipalities in BC have done. She believes that the issue is not with local residents, but with people from the Fraser Valley bringing their birds to Squamish for sports. She also offered to provide the council with more information on the different bylaws that have been passed in other districts.

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

hello and welcome to the regular business meeting for the District of Squamish for Tuesday July 4th 2023. um and as always we're gathered to do this work on the traditional unseated territory of the Squamish Nation please be advised that this council meeting is being live streamed recorded and will be available to the public to view on the district squamishes website following the meeting if you have concerns please notify the corporate officer present at the meeting can I have someone move adoption of the agenda moved by counselor French second by councilor Anderson all in favor motion theories thank you first order of businesses we have a delegation who is participating remotely it's my understanding is that Miss Lars and oh there we go hello

SPEAKER_09
0:01:06 (0:00:02)

hello

Armand Hurford
0:01:08 (0:00:07)

so thank you thank you for joining us you have you have five minutes to address Council and the floor is yours

SPEAKER_09
0:01:16 (0:07:10)

all right thank you thank you to the Marion Council first of all for allowing me to speak today on behalf of the BC SPCA my name is Krista Larson I am the manager of the CD sky bcspci here in Squamish and the reason I'm here this evening is because for the last three years there's been a significant amount of sporting pigeons that have been coming up into our district into our area and it has become a bit of a problem so in this case we've been seeing a lot of what are called Indian High Flyers I don't know if any of you have seen any of the birds around they basically are domestic pigeon and they're often dyed different colors pink blue green and red for the most part so our concern is that sporting pigeons are being lost and abandoned in Squamish and they're not being claimed by their owners sporting pigeons obviously are a domestic bird but they are not and because of that they are not equipped to survive in the wild when they're lost and abandoned they may suffer and die from starvation or predation due to Hogs Eagles or other wild animals in Squamish they basically do not know how to forage find their own food water so often they die horrible lingering deaths community members who find these pigeons obviously they expect either the bcspca or the district to care for the birds which has become a huge challenge at the city Sky SPCA we cannot accept pigeons we do take in stray domestic Birds but housing a large bird like a pigeon in general is very challenging because they need a lot of space to be able to provide their proper welfare and we have a fairly strict restrictions right now in place because of the avian flu so in order for us to take in a domestic bird we have to be able to isolate it in a room on its own for 14 days or until it's picked up by the owner with multiple pigeons that is absolutely impossible for us to do and depending on how many animals we have at the center at one time we not we may not even have an isolation room in order to hold a bird garibaldivette um this last month actually had to triage a sicken injure bird that did come into them and it did have to be euthanized due to critical distress we took on the invoice for that bird as there was no owner that came forward and so not only are these birds owned by somebody else but now the community is basically having to take on the responsibility of these birds and in some cases that's even monetary sometimes domestic pigeons will have leg bands and the leg bands are supposed to be registered to the owner it will give you information like the birth of the when the animal was born or the bird was born where it's from and it connects them to an owner if they are registered through one of the clubs unfortunately sometimes these birds are not properly registered so even if they have a leg band on we are unable to trace the owner and one of the very sad things about this is that often if these birds are injured or sick and we are able to find an owner the owner does not want the animal or the bird back because of they're of no use to them at this point so as far as the position for the bcspca goes whenever an animal are on display or made to perform they face risks for their physical and psychological well-being and these risks concern how their bread house trained and transported as well as the activities themselves we are obviously opposed to the killing over and the infliction of pain or suffering upon any companion Farm or wild animal for recreation sport or entertainment there are animal welfare and public health safeties also concerns associated with pigeon Sports so obviously the pigeons can express stress and fatigue during these competitions during transportation to and from events and for training and lost pigeons may be killed like I said by birds of prayer other animals or die of dehydration or starvation one of the things too that was witnessed by several people within the community and I have seen a video and one of the ways they try to attract the birds to come back to them is they have a very large poll about probably seven or eight feet long it has a small platform on the top of it and on that small platform they literally tie a pigeon to the top of it and they hold the pole and they move the pole up and down and from side to side making the bird on the platform basically jump and flap its wings but it has absolutely no control and they do this in order to attract the other birds to come and land on the platform and then I guess the ideas and they will then catch the birds that have gone missing so not only you know can these birds die horrible deaths or become injured there's also the big concern obviously that they can transmit pathogens and disease to Wild and domestic birds so salmonella E coli avian flu and that also includes humans as well and pigeons that do not perform well in competitions like I said are often abandoned or they can be called by the owners because they are of no use to them I just wanted to just briefly mention a few possible solutions for the council and mayor to think about so other municipalities throughout BC have placed restrictions on domestic pigeons through their bylaws the city of Delta has one of the most comprehensive and we would recommend a similar approach for Squamish as it would cover people who don't live in Squamish bringing pigeons into the community for competitions we believe that this is what is happening these aren't necessarily people who live locally these are people who live within the Fraser Valley and they are bringing their Birds up to Squamish to do their Sports so the District of North End also has pitch and regulation bylaws and Whistler Pemberton and the District of West Bend and the city of North Bend all prohibit the keeping up pigeons and have bylaws in place and that is pretty much what I have to any

Armand Hurford
0:08:26 (0:00:10)

questions thank you thank you thank you for that there's a lot a lot to this council do you have any questions for our delegation while we will we have them with us counselor

John French
0:08:37 (0:00:17)

French thanks chair and I my first question is do you know of anyone breeding or keeping racing pigeons in Squamish is that an activity that we're seeing here I certainly haven't seen

SPEAKER_09
0:08:55 (0:00:50)

it I am not aware of anybody racing pigeons I do know in the last three years with the pigeons that we have been seeing the first year three years ago an owner did come forward and we are we're actually able to get him six of his pigeons back and they did come from the Fraser Valley they did not live locally last year there were multiple pigeons that were lost none of them were banded so there was absolutely no way for anybody to be able to figure out where the birds had come from and then this year there was one owner that did come forward and he was from Delta but again he never did take any of his pigeons back

John French
0:09:45 (0:00:43)

okay and that horrendous practice that you described and that the videos that are out there I've seen two videos of this it looks horrendous for the birds and I'm wondering if you as an SPCA representative have any advice for any of our residents who see this practice I like I wouldn't recommend confronting anybody but maybe you have some thoughts on for people who feel compelled to do something what might be the best thing for them to do if they see that activity or anything else that looks cruel for Birds

SPEAKER_09
0:10:29 (0:00:46)

right well we do have an animal call center so if anybody 's any sort of concern to do with the welfare of any domestic wild animal we do have them call our helpline and in this case we did have we did have an officer try to make contact with the owner it became very difficult it became very challenging because we didn't even have an address we had a name and a telephone number but definitely if anybody sees anything video is an absolutely amazing way to get some sort of evidence and they can call our animal helpline and they'll be held that way

John French
0:11:16 (0:00:13)

great those are my questions and I wanted to thank you and the SPCA volunteers not just for this good work on this topic and issue that you do but just globally and generally for animals in our community thank you

SPEAKER_09
0:11:30 (0:00:01)

thank you

Armand Hurford
0:11:31 (0:00:02)

thank you I've got counselor pettingell

Chris Pettingill
0:11:34 (0:00:33)

yeah thanks for all the information and all the work you're doing I just want to make sure I understand and maybe we don't fully know but is it that Squamish is being used as a start and or finish of races and the owners just happen to be in Fraser Valley but the actual racing again starter finishes here or is it that people are coming here to recover birds that are being you know the start and finish of the official race is sort of Elsewhere and we're just a recovery site

SPEAKER_09
0:12:07 (0:01:17)

no they are bringing the birds here so with these particular Birds it's they're like I said they're called India High Flyers so they're not actually even a racing pigeon and they're not a homing pigeon so that makes things even more difficult or more challenging for these birds so basically what they do is they dive in the different colors and then they basically throw them up in the air and it's a competition to see whose birds can fly the highest so they don't really go any distance it all has to do with basically vertically how high they can go unfortunately what happens is these birds don't come back necessarily and they get lost and they get dispersed so they really have no control once they let these Birds Go they really have no control of getting them back like you would with a homing pigeon or in most cases most racing pigeons do find their way home unless they do become injured or lost we do see that but over the last three years it's definitely been more with these High Flyers so they come out they come up they do the release and then they try and then they try to then get them back so that they can go back home so yeah

Armand Hurford
0:13:25 (0:00:03)

thank you counselor stoner

Jenna Stoner
0:13:29 (0:00:39)

yeah thank you through the chair thank you so much for joining us this evening and for sharing your insights and knowledge on this topic I'm just trying to understand levels of jurisdiction here and responsibility and I appreciate the example that you've provided for Delta but the there's provincial legislation around the prevention of cruelty to animals act and the BC SPCA Works closely in terms of trying to recommend charges under that act so I am just curious about the municipal role here and versus like alerting this to provincial authorities in the bcspca if you can just speak to that a little bit

SPEAKER_09
0:14:08 (0:01:10)

please well I mean it's is as far as we go it would have to be what we would basically have to do is we would have to ban all Pigeon Racing Sports within BC we can't just pick certain districts or cities that's why it would need to come under a bylaw with a certain District or city I can send you if you are interested I can actually send Council mayor I have some background research um and some of the information on the different bylaws that have been passed if that is something that is interesting to you like I said it the cruelty investigation part gets really difficult unless we have a an owner name an address it's it makes it really difficult for our officers to be able to follow through and in this last case it was a telephone number and a name and so it basically went no they were unable to get a hold of any owners

Armand Hurford
0:15:18 (0:00:22)

thank you thank you very much for joining us and highlighting the this issue we did receive it did come on the back of quite a lot of Correspondence that we saw from the community so it was great to hear your experts perspective on this topic thank you thank you very much thank you very much

SPEAKER_09
0:15:41 (0:00:04)

good thank you

SPEAKER_08
0:15:45 (0:00:02)

okay

Consent Agenda, Consideration of Council Committee Recommendations
0:15:57 (0:16:46)

The council meeting began with the consideration of unscheduled public attendance, but no one came forward. The council then moved on to the consent agenda, which was moved by Councilor Stoner and seconded by Councilor Hamilton. The motion was carried unanimously.

The first item on the agenda was the Squamish Public Library annual report and update, which was received for information. This was moved by Councilor French and seconded by Councilor Pettingell. The motion was carried unanimously. The next item was the recommendation from the financial plan workshops and public engagement. The council was asked to endorse the proposed schedule for the 2024-2028 financial plan workshops, endorse the plan for public engagement schedule and activities to support the 2024-2028 financial plan process, and direct staff to prepare a plan for a Budget public information event that includes a town hall style presentation and an opportunity for questions from the public.

The council then discussed the proposal for a town hall style presentation for the budget. Councilor Hamilton supported the idea, emphasizing the importance of presenting the budget to the public and answering their questions in person. However, Councilor French opposed the motion, citing a workshop he attended that suggested town hall style presentations were not the best practice for public engagement. Councilor Andersen supported the motion, arguing that a town hall setting could open up communications in a small town. Councilor Stoner sought clarification on whether the proposal was different from the previous year's online forum. Councilor Hamilton clarified that the town hall style presentation would be in person. Councilor Pettingill and Councilor Greenlaw expressed reservations about the town hall style presentation, suggesting that other forms of engagement might be more effective. The council eventually agreed to amend the motion to direct staff to plan a budget public information event that includes a presentation and opportunity for questions from the public. The motion was carried, with Councilors Stoner, Hamilton, and Pettingill opposed.

Armand Hurford
0:15:47 (0:01:54)

so next on our next on our agenda is the consideration of unscheduled public attendance so if anyone has a matter that can't wait until our next regular business meeting this would be your opportunity to have that addressed and seeing no one leafing out of their seats we'll move on we have no public hearings tonight we don't have any timed items so moving on now to the consent agenda before we consider moving the consent agendas anyone like to pull any anything from it seeing Nana looking for someone to move the consent agenda counselor Stoner second my counselor Hamilton all in favor any opposed motion carries thank you next up we have consideration of council committee recommendations so and we need to move these individually is that correct okay so the first piece is the Squamish Public Library annual report and update that to be received for information moved by councilor French against second by counselor pettingell all in favor motion carries thank you next we have the recommendation from the financial plan workshops and public engagement that Council endorsed the proposed schedule for the 2024-2028 financial plan workshops and that Council endorsed to plan public engagement schedule and activities to support the 2024-2028 financial plan process and that Council directs staff to prepare a plan for Budget public information event that includes a town hall style presentation and an opportunity for questions from the public

John French
0:17:42 (0:00:07)

I'm just requesting that we split these so that the final motion is a standalone

Armand Hurford
0:17:49 (0:00:36)

on its own okay thank you so would you like to move the first yes please okay counselor French moves the first two is there a second or second by counselor Stoner all in favor any opposed counselor Pettingill opposed no is this a lag when you're on online we could get away with calling that a leg but okay yeah so motion passes unanimously thank you and then Council French did you want to speak to you requested this being dealt with separately would you like to speak to it or

John French
0:18:26 (0:00:05)

I'll speak to it if it's moved and

Armand Hurford
0:18:31 (0:00:25)

seconded okay fair enough counselor Hamilton moves is there a is there a secondary there is no secondary for counselor Stoner seconds would you like to speak to your motion counselor Hamilton

Andrew Hamilton
0:18:56 (0:00:48)

thanks very much following up on our the community the whole meeting my perspective on this presentation to the community on the budget the budget is an extraordinarily important part of what we do every year and I think that having presented in person to public to the public and be able being able to answer their questions in person in an open Forum I think is a valuable piece of public engagement which is whose objective is about confidence in people's confidence in local government

Armand Hurford
0:19:45 (0:00:02)

thank you councilor French

John French
0:19:47 (0:00:59)

thanks mayor I won't be supporting this motion earlier today I was in a workshop that was focused on public engagement and one of the things I heard today in that Workshop was something that was consistent with a hesitation that I expressed on this motion when we originally tackled it in their Committee of the whole and what I heard today was that this motion is not best practice in how government bodies should be going about planning for public engagement and I also heard from our facilitator that townhouse style presentations are also not best practice in consultation so for those Reasons I'm not going to be supporting this motion tonight

Armand Hurford
0:20:47 (0:00:02)

thank you counselor Anderson

Eric Andersen
0:20:50 (0:01:13)

thank you I will be supporting the motion I attended the same Workshop councilor French describes I didn't hear the cautions or descriptions of town hall formats quite in those that language the presenter today came from a big city different environment in my opinion the hybrid or the ability to offer more of a town hall setting at Open session with within the audience able to ask questions in the open has the advantage that other people in the audience can learn from those speakers and say hey I'm interested in that too or I didn't know that I'm going to talk to that person later so that in fact it does open up communications we are a small town I think that our democratic practice we have its nuances and I believe that it would be no issue at all really I think we should be encouraged to try a hybrid since it's been proposed test and see how it goes and I do think that it would benefit to use both methods in the as envisioned in the hybrid approach I think they will balance each other and work with each other thank you

Armand Hurford
0:22:04 (0:00:01)

thank you counselor stoner

Jenna Stoner
0:22:06 (0:00:29)

thank you to the chair apologies I wasn't here last week for committee the whole so I did miss the discussion um I'm just seeking clarification from the Mover of this motion whether it is intended to be different than what we did last year in terms of the online Forum where there was a presentation of the budget an open question period granted it was a virtual event but is that is the proposal behind this motion different than what we've done in the past

Andrew Hamilton
0:22:35 (0:00:23)

for the spirit of the Town Hall style presentation is different from what I've been what we did last year it would be something in person where mayor and Council presents the core aspects of the budget to any public who want to attend and listen to a presentation on the budget

Armand Hurford
0:22:58 (0:00:01)

councilor bingo

Chris Pettingill
0:23:00 (0:01:32)

yeah I was considering whether or not there's an amendment that could get me there coming out of the learning we had today and just looking through there's a design piece where you don't consider yet the methodologies for example at Town stall public hearing and then after you've gone through that which includes the scoping you know determining context these sorts of things that's kind of the first step which I don't think we've done yet and then you get into the mechanisms and I think there's some question that we had I believe as a group about whether you know where that decision for the mechanism best lies and so I don't want to rule out Town Hall per se at this point but I think for my perspective this resolution is jumping ahead of where we should be if we're following the iap2 process we went through today and I would also suggest that the trainer did give some pretty specific recommendations against the townhouse style but also spoke to how you can still have alternate more constructive mechanisms where the public the whole public can hear all the questions and so I think some of the concerns my colleague raised there are apparently other mechanisms to address some of those concerns while avoiding some of the challenges and so I don't want to presume a methodology just yet but from what I've heard I think this resolution is not consistent with what we learned today in my mind and so that's why I'm hesitant to support this at this point

Armand Hurford
0:24:33 (0:00:04)

thank you any other comments on this Council Greenland

Lauren Greenlaw
0:24:37 (0:00:34)

thank you I certainly see the value of increasing the engagement with public with regards to the budget and I agree with counselor Pettingill that perhaps requesting a town hall style meeting is kind of putting the horse before the cart before the horse and perhaps we should take a minute to consider what would be the best form for engagement I also got the impression that a town hall will not be the most effective and productive way of addressing comments from the public thanks

Armand Hurford
0:25:12 (0:02:52)

thank you I'm I'm torn on this one I'm all for increased dialogue with our with our community and I think at a certain size it's really number of people it's really hard to hear all those voices and if the outcome we're looking for here is increased transparency and thus trust in our decision in our decisions and governance I think that we're being a little prescriptive with Town Hall with this particular piece and I frankly think that there's a high likelihood that everyone in this room has a slightly different vision of exactly what a town hall is and my preference I think would be to work with some wording here in this motion to reflect that um you know we'd like to hear I've heard why in the in the rationale behind this motion I've heard that we'd like an opportunity for questions to be answered or asked and answered in an open format and some other pieces like that and I think that um we could look at those outcomes and put here and put them here and see what kind of event communication staff come up with that would achieve those goals rather than being this prescriptive with the outcome because I do I have the same end goals it's just this mechanism piece that I'm that I'm struggling with so I'm going to mull that for a second and see if I can come up with a suggested amendment that very well in my intent my thought process is it very well could get to something that would be considered by to be a town hall style event it's just as a large catch-all and I don't know that it's specific to the outcomes that we're looking to achieve okay I'm gonna I'm gonna try an amendment here so I'd move that the council direct staff from FAIR Plan for Budget public information event that includes a presentation and opportunity for questions from the public to be both asked and answered councilor Hamilton are you seconding this motion because I'm looking for a secondary is what I'm looking for before we go to comments on the amendment

SPEAKER_04
0:28:04 (0:00:02)

look in the spirit

Armand Hurford
0:28:06 (0:00:19)

are you counselor Greenlaw seconds so um I think I've said my why I think this is this is appropriate I hope it captures some of the concerns on both sides of this in the room is there anyone else that would like to speak to this amendment councilor Finch

John French
0:28:25 (0:00:48)

thanks Sharon I'll support this amendment and as someone who has moderated Town Hall style public consultation events and had both success and failure in varying levels of Effectiveness in moderating those events I really feel that just taking out the words Town Hall style allows our professional communication staff to come up with a plan that is going to best serve the needs of both the District of Squamish and our residents who are interested in the contents of our budget

Armand Hurford
0:29:13 (0:00:20)

thank you anyone else on the amendment with that I'll call the question all in favor opposed counselor Stoner and Hamilton opposed back to the motion as amended any comments no oh go ahead Council spinning out

Chris Pettingill
0:29:34 (0:00:53)

yeah I'm still mulling this over I guess I feel like and again my gut is that what you are proposing is very likely where we will end up but when I look at the process that was recommended to us today it feels like with this resolution where you're sort of jumping ahead of a bunch of stuff that I feel like is you know with belongs with some of our IAP to experts in-house and I think I would prefer to articulate what the outcomes are going to be and the specific scope and you know what questions we want answered and then sort of let the IAT to experts and our staff sort of say here's the format and very likely it will be exactly what you're saying but I just feel uncomfortable requiring that in sort of getting ahead of the process from what I learned today

Armand Hurford
0:30:28 (0:00:01)

yep thank you councilor

Andrew Hamilton
0:30:30 (0:00:18)

Hamilton I'd just like to remind Council that this was a request from staff that this was that the request was they wanted feedback on the style of presentation and that's where this originated

Armand Hurford
0:30:48 (0:02:04)

thank you that was my recollection as well that's how we got here okay so seeing no other hands I'll call the question all in favor and opposed that's your pettingell Hamilton Stoner opposed motion carries thank you for working through that everybody next we have the District of Squamish accessibility sorry next we have the District of Squamish accessibility plan that the district Squamish endorsed the District of islamish accessibility plan as attached to the report from the public state from Public Safety as presented at the June 27th committee the whole meeting I'll move that seconded by councilor French all in favor opposed if any motion carries thank you next we have the Squamish municipal airport Don Patrick field strategic plan interim recommendations from Spring 2023 update for endorsement moved by councilor Hamilton second by counselor Stoner all in favor any opposed motion carries thank you next up we are on to bylaws and we have staff presenting on this is regarding the village on Bailey Street

Bylaws: First & Second Reading - District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (The Village on Bailey Street) No. 2671, 2023
0:32:43 (1:15:28)

Carrie Hamilton, a planner with the District of Squamish, presented Amendment bylaw 2671 2023 for first and second reading for rezoning file zero four for one three one two five one in a portion of 1100 Bailey Street and 38261 Cleveland Avenue, collectively called The Village on Bailey Street. The application was first presented at the September 14, 2021 Committee of the whole meeting and presented again at the May 09, 2023 committee meeting. The project has hosted two public information meetings and a hybrid theater meeting with relevant Community stakeholders. The subject site is located in downtown Squamish CD 107 and is divided into three lots a, b, and c. A total of 224 residential units and roughly 9,000 meters squared of employment commercial space is proposed. Lot a is proposing four separate structures to support 33 Market rental units and 8,670 meters squared of commercial and employment uses including a child care and a hybrid theater space. Lots B and C are proposing 191 residential units, 23 of which are proposed to be dedicated under the affordable home ownership model. Lot B also includes a small area for ground floor commercial use.

The subject properties are located between Bailey Street and an active rail line. Lot B and C are adjacent to townhouse and apartment-style multi-family residential use while lot a is adjacent to the mixed-use Jumar building to the north which has a height of 21. 5 meters and the Chieftain Plaza mall area to the South. The subject site is predominantly zoned rail Transportation I6 with a portion of the land fronting Cleveland Avenue zoned downtown commercial C4 and a portion of the land to the West zoned resource. The application seeks to rezone the lands highlighted in purple below to a CD Zone 107 and the three polygons highlighted on the screen in green to the west to P for Ecological Reserve.

The rezoning Proposal is divided into three sites so a, b, and c. Lot A is proposing four separate buildings including a five-story commercial office building, a four-story market rental building with 33 units and ground four commercial space, a 325 seat hybrid theater at the first two levels privately owned to offer both Cinema commercial uses and a community event theater space and the third and fourth story for an up to 149 children Child Care space with a rooftop outdoor space and lastly building four a four level Parkade. Lot B is proposing one mixed-use five-story building with a continuous ground floor Parkade four stories of residential above for a total of 89 units and 328 meters squared of ground floor commercial. Lot C is proposing a similar billing form to Lot B, a five-story building with a continuous Parkade and four stories of residential above for a total of 102 residential units. No commercial is proposed for this lot. The West End of the site is proposing to protect existing environmental habitat and includes a new pedestrian Crossing at the West End of Bailey Street to connect the development's multi-use pathway with the existing Town dike Trail.

SPEAKER_11
0:32:53 (0:12:23)

good evening good evening mayor and Council my name is Carrie Hamilton planner with the District of Squamish and I'll be presenting to you today Amendment bylaw 2671 2023 for first and second reading for rezoning file zero four for one three one two five one in a portion of 1100 Bailey Street and 38261 Cleveland Avenue collectively called The Village on Bailey Street so the application was first presented at the September 14 2021 Committee of the whole meeting and presented again at the May 09 2023 committee meeting the project was hosted has hosted two public information meetings one in between the two committee meetings and another following the last committee meeting they have also recently hosted a hybrid theater meeting with relevant Community stakeholders the subject site is located in downtown Squamish CD 107 is divided into three lots a b and c a total of 224 residential units and roughly 9 000 meters squared of employment commercial space is proposed lot a is proposing four separate structures to support 33 Market rental units and 8 670 meters squared of commercial and employment uses including a child care and a hybrid theater space what B and C are proposing 191 residential units 23 of which are proposed to be dedicated under the affordable home ownership model plot B also includes a small area for ground floor commercial use the subject properties are located between Bailey Street and active rail line Lot B and C are adjacent to townhouse and apartment-style multi-family residential use while lot a is adjacent to the mixed-use jumar building to the north which has a height of 21.5 meters and the chieftain Plaza mall area to the South the subject site is predominantly zoned rail Transportation I6 with a portion of the land fronting Cleveland Avenue zoned downtown commercial C4 and a portion of the land to the West zoned resource the application seeks to rezone the lands highlighted in purple below to a CD Zone 107 and the three polygons highlighted on the screen in green to the west to P for Ecological Reserve The rezoning Proposal is divided into three sites so a b and c and I'll take a few brief slides to describe each lot along the along with relevant regulation which is attached to each lot and secured in the bylaw Amendment lot A is for posing four separate buildings building one a five-story commercial office building two a four-story market rental building with 33 units and ground four commercial space building three a 325 seat hybrid theater at the first two levels privately owned to offer both Cinema commercial uses and a community event theater space and the third and fourth story for an up to 149 children Child Care space with a rooftop outdoor space and lastly building four a four level Parkade the site is within the Downtown parking exemption area and requires a total of 192 stalls project is proposing to exceed the requirement with a proposal of 208 stalls including designated public bike parking stalls within building 4 Parkade the theater and child care area are secured in the cd-107 zone through a minimum area in section 40 quadruple u12. the ground floor uses are restricted to activated uses such as restaurant and retail in building one three and five there has been a few changes to the bylaw and they've been made to clarify that parking area use cannot be located in building one two and three the changes have been highlighted in your blue sheet attached this evening there has also been one other change to section 40 triple quadruple u4 which is to highlight the height of the building there was a typo in number three the It should read four and not five in that as it refers the number is four Lot B is proposing one mixed-use five-story building with a continuous ground floor Parkade four stories of residential above for a total of 89 units and 328 meters squared of ground floor commercial the residential building is broken into two distinct massing blocks with a 22.6 meter building separation to preserve viewscapes at Vigo wind Boulevard Lot B offers a mix of two and three bedroom residential units with the fif with 15 three-story townhouses renting Bailey Street with ground floor entrances two-story permanent Frontier rear Courtyard and two-story and one-story apartment units on upper floors 13.6 of the units will be secured as affordable housing Lot B is subject to regular parking regulations which require 1.75 stalls per two bedroom and two stalls per each three bedroom cd-107 will propose a requirement of 0.1 visitor stalls per unit in keeping with recent Redbridge and Waterfront Landing visitor parking regulations in total the development requires 180 parking stalls with a proposal to exceed the requirement with 193 stalls Lot C is proposing a similar billing form to Lot B a five-story building with a continuous Parkade and four stories of residential above for a total of 102 residential units no commercial is proposed for this lot the residential building is broken into two distinct massing blocks with a 10 meter building separation Lot C offers a mix of Studio one two and three bedroom units and again 13.6 of the units will be secured as affordable housing the West End of the site is proposing to protect existing environmental habitat and includes a new pedestrian Crossing at the West End of Bailey Street to connect the development's multi-use pathway with the existing Town dike Trail Lot C is subject to regular parking regulations which require at a minimum of one stall per Studio unit up to two stalls for three bedrooms in total the development requires 121 parking spaces and is proposing to exceed the requirement with 147. in total Lot B and C are proposing 20 one bedrooms and 42 three bedrooms with 23 of those being townhouses at a 13 and 28 apartments at 28 this exceeds rocp policy this application triggers the community amenity contribution policy CAC for short which is currently under review at the May 9 2023 Cal meeting the committee expressed a desire to see phasing attach the amenity delivery which is now provided phase one is Lot C phase two Lot B and phase 3 lot a phasing is secured in the Land Development agreement and is still under review under review for initial discussion and Council recommendations phasing is recommended to be finalized by public hearing the committee also expressed interest in hearing from the Squamish community housing Society regarding the affordable home ownership housing proposal the proposal has been presented to the society and feedback will be incorporated prior to public hearing The Proposal now includes some percentage changes and an increase of 11 rental units for a new total of 33 units affordable housing will be secured through the Land Development agreement and is recommended to be finalized by public hearing affordable housing will be delivered with occupancy of buildings in phase one and two and Market rental with occupancy of building 2 and phase 3. critical amenities are paid at adoption while active transportation and park contributions will be delivered in phase one prior to any occupancy of the site the project also includes several additional amenities summarized in this table with a number of them being required in phase one as part of the servicing agreement and roadworks the committee also recommended child care to be reconsidered as an additional amenity as a result building 3 in lot a has been increased from two to four stories to accommodate a two-story Child Care Facility without outdoor rooftop play area the hybrid theater space has added a mezzanine area to achieve a total of 325 seats the added seats and availability to book the theater space during school hours make this makes this amenity a benefit to the community and addresses some of the major Community challenges with the existing Eagle Eye theater both the child care and theater space are proposed to be delivered in phase three to avoid construction noise impacting these uses there are several technical details and reports to review with this project with a list and Status summarized in the report and in this slide staff have recommended a number of conditions in the motion to ensure a number of these technical details and reports are finalized and approved prior to moving forward with public hearing this development touches on three Council strategic priorities connected and livable Community as it provides increased diversity of housing types improves active Transportation connections and increases opportunities for arts and culture through the creation of the hybrid theater space it also touches on resilient people and relationships as the project applicants have hosted and dedicated an evening further the community stakeholders to give feedback on the hybrid theater the evening was informative and helped to build stronger trust in relationships in the art arts and culture Community within the development process prepared for the future flood modeling require is required for the project to ensure flood conveyance is considered in the development of the project solar panels and green roofs are being explored for any usable roof space on the project as well so the project has been posted to District development showcase 54 comments have been received so far and Main comments received voice concern with parking traffic impact traffic impact and loss of existing trees and too much density two developer-led public information meetings were held for the project almost a year apart and a total of 20 comments were received at these meetings the main concerns voiced at the recent public information meeting were around parking and traffic especially regarding the Cleveland and Bailey intersection other concerns voice regard other concerns voiced for regarding the height of buildings impacting views construction phasing and noise and the need to preserve some vegetation in the area as well as exist the existing pedestrian connection through the site during construction a number of the comments did voice support for the project all comments are included in attachment 5 of this report so staff is recommending that the District of Squamish Amendment bylaw The Village on Bailey Street number 2671 2023 be given first and second reading and that prior to public hearing being scheduled the following items be resolved they include the Bailey Street to Buckley Avenue Third Avenue Road and intersection design the Bailey and Cleveland intersection Improvement designed in draft traffic impact assessment approved conditional densificationary of flood modeling report approved environmental review reports approved CN development guideline compliance established Squamish Community Housing Society comments addressed and development phasing plan confirmed alternatively council could only give first reading to amendment by law 2671 2023 and provide staff with a list of items to resolve prior to Second hearing second reading that concludes my presentation for this evening and welcome council's feedback thank you

Armand Hurford
0:45:17 (0:00:08)

thank you for the presentation Council who wants to get us started counselor Hamilton

Andrew Hamilton
0:45:25 (0:00:44)

thanks very much and I'm very impressed to see the child care being added as well as the theater being increased to 325 seats I think that makes a significant change to the to the usefulness the actual amenity this provides to our community I've got a question about the road dedication the connection from Third Ave to Buckley what would be the if so first who takes it would it be the district building the road this is a dedicate this is a road dedication and then the district has the responsibility to build the road or does the building of the actual Road and the pathways is that happening with the developer

SPEAKER_11
0:46:09 (0:00:42)

so through the mayor the 20 meter Road dedication will be given to the district at adoption and legal agreements would be finalized prior to adoption to do that we the commitment that we have negotiated right now which will be written into the Land Development agreement is that the developer will build the multi-use pathway and pedestrian connection through that site and that there will be a time limit to their development and if they do not proceed within that time limit they would be subject to having to build the road as well in a certain time frame

Armand Hurford
0:46:51 (0:00:03)

thank you Council other questions councilor pettingell

Chris Pettingill
0:46:55 (0:00:56)

yeah so we typically at the appropriate place in the process would enter a housing agreement to secure below market and Market rental and those sorts of things and some of the feedback I've had about the theaters is a fair bit of optimism but concerns that without the appropriate operating model and specific facilities it may not have the desired benefit or some concern about that and so I'm wondering would we similarly expect or want to have a an operating agreement much like a housing agreement for the theater piece or is that you know the proposal is just to cut the line at what's in this sort of zoning and how do we sort of manage well I guess I'll start with that

SPEAKER_11
0:47:52 (0:00:25)

through the mayor the current proposal is to write some conditions around the theater use in the Land Development agreement and we are currently discussing having a reporting model similar to the Housing Authority model that they would report back to the arts and culture staff member here at the district yearly on to meet to ensure they're Meeting those conditions

Chris Pettingill
0:48:17 (0:00:24)

okay thank you and just was I thinking about cooling as the waters got gotten hotter um my understanding is we don't currently have requirements for building cooling is that something that I hope this isn't too far off topic but that we would start to put in our DPA guidelines is that where that sort of thing if we wish to address it we would start addressing that sort of

SPEAKER_03
0:48:42 (0:00:43)

thing through you mayor I can address this question we are relying on the building code which is changing when it comes to building cooling so my understanding is that the recent changes that both don't already require that buildings maintain a certain maximum temperature um so I think at this point we're not looking at any measures that would be additional to the building code we're relying on the province making the changes for code related issues this wouldn't be something that we can do as it is internal operation of the billing through development permanent areas guidelines

Armand Hurford
0:49:25 (0:00:04)

thank you also other questions counselor stoner

Jenna Stoner
0:49:30 (0:00:14)

thank you through the chair a number of the comments that we've received today are around the height of the building I'm just wondering if staff can speak to what the surrounding Heights of what the heights are of the surrounding building and in particular jumar across the street

SPEAKER_11
0:49:45 (0:00:53)

through the mayor the heights of the townhouse I don't have the exact meters but they are a three-story townhouse the park house is a five-story building and to note that the lot C building is actually 17 meters which is relatively closer to a five-story building that you're typically used to seeing some of their five-story buildings in lot a are proposing to be as high as 20 meters which is usually a typical six-story building and the reason for that is because they are trying to propose some Higher Ground Floor ceiling Heights at the lot a building so that's why those numbers are a little bit higher than what you're usually seeing for five-story buildings the gymbore our building was approved at 21.5 meters so this the lot a building the highest building that's allowed in this zone is 20 meters so it's below the Jamar building

Jenna Stoner
0:50:39 (0:00:31)

thank you for that context that's helpful my other question is with this level of increase in density in this area do we anticipate that this will accelerate the timeline of the Laurelwood Bridge there were lots of comments in terms of egress to from downtown I'm just curious if this would change the priority of like so this development would pay for part of that through development cost charges but with the phasing of that project potentially shift depending on whether this project goes ahead or not

SPEAKER_11
0:51:10 (0:00:17)

so through the mayor questions like that are definitely being explored through the traffic impact assessment currently the Laurelwood Bridge hasn't been flagged in the draft Tia that was briefly reviewed but this is something that we can definitely take back and make sure we have an answer to

Jenna Stoner
0:51:28 (0:00:20)

okay and then also a lot of the comments were around Wildlife Corridor and the use of that space particularly by bears I note that the staff recommendation says that they're still the environmental review report to be approved will that consider Wildlife corridors or is that just riparian and ditch area

SPEAKER_11
0:51:48 (0:00:21)

through the mayor I am not certain it would include Wildlife corridors I don't I would have to look oh do you believe we have a guideline in DPA one that speaks to something of that but I don't know if it corresponds to this particular area so something I can definitely take back and we can have clarification prior to public hearing

Jenna Stoner
0:52:10 (0:00:28)

okay that'd be helpful and then finally just a question in terms of the affordable housing component I see that we've dropped down from 15 to 13.6 between the last time we've seen this and today I'm just curious to see what's or if I could hear from staff what's driving that decrease in percentage and just to confirm that the proposal is still for affordable home ownership not rental

SPEAKER_11
0:52:38 (0:00:02)

so through the mayor sorry what was the original percent that you would quote in

Jenna Stoner
0:52:41 (0:00:07)

there originally I saw 15 and now we're down to 13.6

SPEAKER_11
0:52:48 (0:00:19)

so through the mayor the original proposal was 10 for affordable housing and 15 for Market rental the new revised proposal is 13.6 for affordable and 19 for Market rental foreign

Armand Hurford
0:53:07 (0:00:04)

Anderson

Eric Andersen
0:53:12 (0:00:35)

my question concerns is CN rail review that is the railway proximity guidelines and compliance with them it's fairly straightforward in the report to how the crash wall breaks and the removal of a portion of the rail berm may affect the railway proximity guidelines however I'm not clear on the how the Forum and character review is impacted by the railway proximity guidelines would you be able to elaborate on that for me thank you

SPEAKER_11
0:53:47 (0:00:26)

so should certainly through the mayor the form and character guidelines in the Gateway speak to not having fencing along that entrance way so that is the particular item that I'm highlighting too so currently the CN guidelines require that there is a berm and chain link fencing at our entrance way and so we're trying to find a balance with that requirement and our development permit guidelines currently

SPEAKER_08
0:54:14 (0:00:02)

thank you

Armand Hurford
0:54:17 (0:00:04)

hey customer Hamilton

Andrew Hamilton
0:54:21 (0:00:32)

thanks I have a question about the parking building and the maximum height of the parking building so the parking building is um behind I forget which number building it is building number three I believe between that and the railway and I notice it's lower than the building is there a reason why the parking height the maximum height for the parking should be limited to 11 meters as opposed to being allowed to be higher should it be chosen to be built higher

SPEAKER_11
0:54:54 (0:00:25)

to the mayor that is a great question as the Parkade is actually an open Parkade on the top floor so typically when we take our building height regulations we take it from the top of the structure and that top of the structure will be less than what a four-story building was because they don't actually have a ceiling on it it's that answer your question

Andrew Hamilton
0:55:19 (0:00:31)

I don't think so in the parking lot can we have the maximum height why is the maximum height of the parking lot lower than the maximum height of the building because even if you put an 11 meter parking lot and then a two meter car person you're 13ish meters is there a reason to not allow the parking lot to go to five or six stories

SPEAKER_11
0:55:50 (0:00:14)

through the mayor at this time The Proposal exceeds the parking regulations so it hasn't been discussed to increase that parking garage height

Armand Hurford
0:56:04 (0:00:04)

thank you councilor Greenland and then I'll have some questions myself

Lauren Greenlaw
0:56:09 (0:00:13)

through thanks the chair I was just wondering if staff could speak to any noise concerns given the proximity of the train tracks for the Housing Development and the theater space

SPEAKER_11
0:56:23 (0:00:54)

to the mayor sir just to confirm is it train noise or the construction noise train noise so through the mayor they this was actually discussed at the stakeholder meeting and it was discussed that you know a building can accommodate some of the regular train noise but that a horn would probably still have an impact on a building so that was discussed at the meeting however there is also a report that was done which is required per the CN development permit guidelines to do with noise and they did highlight that the amount of train honking noises that happen in our community has reduced over the years and that there is not a future plan to increase that at this time and that is the conclusion of that study

Armand Hurford
0:57:17 (0:00:30)

thanks thank you just to follow up on that other considerations in the building the buildings themselves to the noise Beyond I know there's a noise Covenant attached to this but is that taking into cons into consideration in the style of construction or in some in some other way to address this or is this a standard build that's leaning next to the train tracks it's relying on a noise government as the mitigation as the risk mitigation piece exclusively

SPEAKER_11
0:57:48 (0:01:02)

so through the noise Covenant will it really be for residents and will just highlight that there will be noise in this building the CN guidelines also require that the building is designed for certain standards to reduce noise impacts so like where they Place their windows and how far set back there and there are different ratings for their Windows as well this is in the recommendation list so there will be some recommendations into building materials for the residential buildings we can we have not updated that report since the hybrid that since the theater and child care proposal and it will have to be updated so we can see if that report speaks to any type of building elements that can be considered with the theater and child care as well but the Covenant will be that any tenants or residents be notified of the noise and at this point if there's other components of it we would have to secure that through a Land Development agreement

Armand Hurford
0:58:50 (0:00:46)

so thank you that addresses my concern I was that the CN regulation piece addresses what I was trying to get at we had some comments sort of throughout this process about the about the theater and there's a lot of excitement in the um theater Community but there were some concerns around the space sort of the sort of supporting space green rooms like backstage things and can you tell me how where we're at in that process I understand that those comments may have come Midstream are they are they still relevant were they addressed where are we now in that other we heard about the seats but there's that other sort of important functionality Peace can you speak to that

SPEAKER_11
0:59:37 (0:00:50)

certainly so at the after this the stakeholder meeting was just held at the end of June and so our next step is to accumulate all that information that we collected and prepare a list of conditions to put in the Land Development agreement that we would want to secure so we would secure certain minimum spaces for say a green room some different considerations to access has been another comment that came up accessibility so those are the seating choices there was a number of different comments that came through and we're going to have to look at this internally with staff to ensure that we can actually legally secure the LDA and legally secure them in the LDA and also that make sure that they're flexible enough that a developer has some flexibility to still develop this

Armand Hurford
1:00:27 (0:00:29)

okay and thank you for that and in your perspective in the bottle that we're considering right now the setbacks and space allotted to that building can achieve its level of functionality that we're looking for I get there's more details coming but I feel like there was a sticking point or potential sticking point somewhere around those types of things which are incredibly important to the function that we're looking to do today

SPEAKER_11
1:00:57 (0:00:07)

certainly yes we've reviewed that we don't expect any changes to this bylaw as a result of those changes

Armand Hurford
1:01:05 (0:00:36)

okay thank you my other question would be given that there's a list of items to be resolved why the recommendation for second reading versus first reading and then having these addressed at or having yeah breaking up the reading the readings to ensure that those pieces are the answers are adequate and Council feels comfortable enough to take it forward to the public hearing at that point just seems like a longer list than I'm a custom seeing although it is a big project so try to reconcile

SPEAKER_11
1:01:42 (0:00:42)

definitely a lot of the conditions that you have in this list require the developer to forward a lot of money for those reports especially the flood hazard assessment review so you know we just the um recommendation this evening is to address that there's not any bylaw changes with those components that we believe or sorry there's no bylaw changes proposed with those conditions and that they are a number of reports and a lot of work has to get put into Meeting those conditions Prior to coming to public hearing

Armand Hurford
1:02:24 (0:00:19)

thank you I think I'll just Venture the comment that I'm having a hard time with the affordable housing piece without the context from the affordable housing or from the Squamish Housing Society which I yeah so that that's just a sticking piece but all anyways I'll continue done let's sorry counselor storage icrm

Jenna Stoner
1:02:44 (0:00:13)

yeah thank you through the chair I'm just wondering if staff can clarify again which lots are connected to which phase so phase one equivalent to which lot

SPEAKER_11
1:02:57 (0:00:11)

yeah so phase one Lot C that's the Western Law phase two is the middle lot B and phase three is lot a the Eastern lot

Jenna Stoner
1:03:08 (0:00:16)

thank you and then also clarifying in my head for lot a the public parking so it says it's required to have 192 parking stalls and it's providing 208 are those 208 stalls in the parking garage

SPEAKER_11
1:03:24 (0:00:06)

to the mayor a majority of them are in the parking garage there are some surface parking proposed on that lot

Jenna Stoner
1:03:31 (0:00:11)

okay so there it is listed in the amenity package that there's public parking how many actual public parking stalls are being provided

SPEAKER_11
1:03:43 (0:00:27)

through the mayor I don't have that exact number the public parking is for the Parkade so would be that significant building for amount of public parking I believe there's a few surface parking at behind building one on the north side of building one as well I just don't know the exact number for you

Armand Hurford
1:04:10 (0:00:03)

very good for now Counselor Center counselor French

John French
1:04:14 (0:00:20)

thanks chair and I'm wondering if staff could give us some idea of how long it's expected to take to resolve the eight issues are we looking at two or three weeks two or three months and any idea

SPEAKER_11
1:04:34 (0:00:20)

through the mayor given the amount of work that still needs to be done with these reports in the amount of different reports I am not expecting this to come back to council for or for to the public until the end of this year

Armand Hurford
1:04:55 (0:00:01)

thank you

Chris Pettingill
1:04:56 (0:00:15)

yeah just want to be cautious and make sure we're all on the same page when we speak about public parking this will be privately owned possibly for fee parking open to the public but it's not a district-owned free public parking in The Proposal

SPEAKER_11
1:05:12 (0:00:05)

through the mayor that is correct

Chris Pettingill
1:05:18 (0:00:42)

and just in terms of the outstanding items is it I assume it's possible to split the list of things we would like to see before our second reading and then other things like some of the more expensive reports that we'd be comfortable leaving sort of as is sort of as a condition of public hearing and we could split it apart that way so we could have some of the you know the Housing Society things and the you know maybe some of the theater operating model and any other concerns like that addressed when if it came back to a second reading but then the other sort of more expensive reports you mentioned we could leave that sort of as per the recommendation to be resolved prior to public hearing so we could split them apart

SPEAKER_11
1:06:00 (0:00:04)

through the mayor certainly it's up to you

Armand Hurford
1:06:04 (0:00:04)

thank you Council any other questions before we consider a motion

SPEAKER_08
1:06:08 (0:00:04)

here

Armand Hurford
1:06:13 (0:00:02)

you have a motion go ahead

Jenna Stoner
1:06:15 (0:00:34)

yeah thank you through the chair I'll put the following motion on the floor that the District of Squamish zoning bylaw two zero Amendment bylaw number 2671 be given first reading and that the following items be resolved prior to coming back for second reading the Squamish Community Housing Society comments are addressed and there's Clarity on the affordable housing community amenity contribution the development phasing plan is confirmed and that there's Clarity on the ownership and business model of the theater

Armand Hurford
1:06:49 (0:00:07)

thank you is there a second or for the motion counselor Pentagon Jake speak to your motion counselor Stoner

Jenna Stoner
1:06:57 (0:01:50)

yeah happy to speak to this motion and thank my Council colleagues for considering it I don't feel comfortable at the moment providing first and second reading because I think that there are still a number of outstanding issues particularly around the community amenity contribution that is being put forth and I think it's important that we get that right before we move this too far forward because I think without Clarity there we risk getting to third reading and public hearing and then being kind of getting ourselves in a bit of a corner with not being able to address those challenges at public hearing and so I think it's important that from my perspective really appreciate how far this proposal has come especially in terms of including the child care space and working with the stakeholders on the theater component but I think that there's still just a few pieces that are missing for me in particular that is where is the affordable housing component at the fact that we're still talking about affordable home ownership is concerning to me we've are just kind of getting our feet under us with respect to perpetually affordable housing for rental units and I think adding in home ownership is going to be a really big stretch for us as an organization and so I do have concerns about the model that's being proposed and I would like to hear from the Housing Society on if they think that they can manage that at this point or not and the reality is that yes there are a lot of people who are looking to own homes but really there's a lot of people who just want to put a home over their roof over their head and I think affordable rental units do that more quickly for more people and the clarity on the ownership in the business model for the theater I think is also really critical to make sure that that's going to be an effective space in the long term for our community so thanks for staff and the proponent for continuing to forward this discussion I look forward to seeing it back for second reading

Armand Hurford
1:08:47 (0:00:01)

thank you councilor pentagill

Chris Pettingill
1:08:49 (0:01:23)

yeah thanks just building on my colleagues comments um there are a couple of additional concerns for me and I'm debating whether or not to consider Amendment though I'm leaning towards just letting them be addressed when it comes back to us and hoping to see it at second reading if it wants my support but for me there needs to be no gas Covenant for the whole the whole shebang we've been asking that from other developments we're in a climate crisis and I think for me that's a pretty hard requirement and together with that I am really uncomfortable with the level of parking here and I know a lot of that is even though they're succeeding our requirements that's driven by us and I think again everything I see is the more parking you add the worse you make all the parking and traffic challenges that people complain about and so if we're serious about addressing the challenges we don't do it by bringing more and more and more cars downtown I know people intuitively think if you add a parking spot it'll make it easier for me to park my car but in practice that's not what happens and so I suspect this is not an argument that I will win and so I you know I may be okay to live with the parking as proposed but that makes it really all the harder for me to accept not having a no gas Covenant on the whole thing so I think just sort of as a heads up that's going to be something that I expect to see addressed for my support at second reading

Armand Hurford
1:10:13 (0:00:04)

thank you counselor Anderson

Eric Andersen
1:10:17 (0:02:50)

I have three comments on the on the staff report first of all I will continue to encourage I like the phrasing hybrid theater I'd like to continue to encourage a consideration of a flexible design to accommodate space use and space programming that may evolve in the future secondly there is reference to visitor parking standards and two other developments at Waterfront landing and at Red Bridge I'd like to express some caution on this I think each of these sites will be unique and that visitor parking will always be unique to the site at Redbridge there's good skepticism among the part of some folks at the visitor parking there is not adequate as the smoke fluffs Park constituency is advocating that site as a new gateway to the some of the climbing areas and in fact the developers so each situation is unique and I don't I think we should be cautious about drawing parallels to those other developments for visitor parking finally the P4 zoning proposed for the strip on the west side which is adjacent to the former Municipal landfill BCR properties I would be more comfortable I would like to I will I would like to see a vision for that landfill what's the long-term use we last discussed it in connection with the last Council that is in connection with the growth management boundary and it was simply wasn't discussed at all it was part of a more or less an Omnibus list of parcels for us to consider excluding or including within the growth management boundary that site under the Estuary management plan is included as a Development Area and that was part of the bargain to create the Wildlife Management Area we wouldn't have a Wildlife Management Area unless we were able to make these trade-offs no I'm not expressing one review over another here but I think we have to remind ourselves of the planning context of that site and the question of what is its status technically as a as a as a Brownfield site if you like we have some indication that there's leachate there but what's the vision and so what's what is I'd like to see the broader context next for that P4 zoning and what's next for the landfill site what is our plan there we are after all scarce of public agency or district-owned lands for development for housing in particular so I just I would just like to down the road revisit that landfill and figure out what are we going to do with it that's strategically located property with all kinds of handicaps what are they anyway thank you

Armand Hurford
1:13:07 (0:00:03)

thank you for that counselor Hamilton

Andrew Hamilton
1:13:11 (0:01:57)

thanks very much through the chair I'd like to acknowledge all the work the developer is doing and being responsive to council comments and feedback from earlier meetings and I hope that continues and acknowledge the work in the with of the developer and working with CN I can imagine that that's a challenging a challenging thing to do I do have some reservations regarding the phasing of the road connection between Bailey and Buckley Bailey to Buckley I eagerly await the traffic impact assessment because I can imagine that intersection at Bailey and Cleveland can be It's tricky to navigate even now regarding the parking I'd like to I'd like it to be considered that the maximum height be increased and I recognize my colleagues reservations regarding parking and please let me assure you my I do not believe the solution to parking problem is more free parking a lot of My Philosophy is coming from the work of David Shupe the high cost of free parking is his work and I think a lot of our parking problems challenges here in Squamish come from the high availability of free parking and if we can have residents park somewhere other like if you live in a condo or an apartment and you can pay for parking somewhere other than a condo resident you can decouple the availability of parking the requirement on the developer to provide that parking with some other parking facility anyways so I've I would like to see the height restriction on the Parkade increased thank you

Armand Hurford
1:15:09 (0:00:02)

thank you counselor French

John French
1:15:11 (0:01:38)

thanks mayor and I'm speaking in support of the motion and in doing so recognize that this is a complicated site with a number of complexities and I too acknowledge the developer in working through those complications and the complex nature of this property in conjunction with our staff who I think have over many years found a way to work together to get through some of the complicated things we're dealing with on this property and what I'm hearing at this point is a few of our communities wants are look like they're going to be delivered through this project and some Community issues potentially resolved through this project and well I kind of wish we were moving a little quicker on this because we need the housing I recognize that there are some important things for us to get really clear on particularly the theater ownership structure situation so I think where we're at with this motion is likely the best place for us to be so I'm speaking in favor of the motion

Armand Hurford
1:16:49 (0:00:03)

thank you Professor Greenwood

Lauren Greenlaw
1:16:53 (0:00:39)

yeah I'll be speaking in favor of the motion as well I think this development shows a lot of promise I'm hopeful that we can do the heavy lift of contemplating home ownership as part of our photo affordable housing model as home ownership is an important part of financial stability especially in marginalized communities and I'm also eager to see some much needed contributions to our Arts community and child care so I am hopeful that the that the applicant will be able to meet all the requests that we've made today yeah and I look forward to seeing this coming back thanks

Armand Hurford
1:17:33 (0:01:21)

thank speaking you in support of the motion I think I had reservations around this long list being left out until public to be addressed till public hearing so I appreciate the motion that parses off the pieces that we I do agree we should have a handle on before we move we move forward and I get that it's totally appropriate to have um some of these more technical pieces address addressed later but I think these ones are important and in practical sense shouldn't add I would hope they'd be able to be Incorporated and resolved or addressed in a in a timely fashion and I know I would do my part to get this onto to get when this comes back to get it onto an agenda as soon as possible so this in practical sense this delay is can be as short as possible to give the runway to have the other pieces addressed so um speaking in support of the motion and I'm quite excited about what this could be and I think that this motion reflects us really understanding what it what it could be going forward so counselor penango yeah can I just get the motion reread yes we can do that one second

SPEAKER_01
1:18:54 (0:00:22)

debt the bylaw is given first reading and that prior to Second reading the following items be resolved squamous Community Housing Society comments