Committee of the Whole - 13 Jun 2023


1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
2: ADOPTION OF AGENDA
3: STAFF REPORTS
3.i: Union of British Columbia Municipalities 2023 Convention Minister Meeting Requests
3.ii: North Crumpit Update
iii: Community Planning Workshop 101: Rezoning and Development Permits
iv: Squamish Marine Access Review Update and Discussion Draft
v: Q2 2023: Real Estate and Facilities Master Plan (REFMP) and General Projects Update
4: MOTION TO CLOSE
5: TERMINATION
Welcome, Staff Reports: Union of British Columbia Municipalities 2023 Convention Minister Meeting Requests
0:00:00 (0:34:05)

In the District of Squamish council meeting, Terry Murray, an executive assistant at the District of Squamish, presented an overview of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) Minister meeting process. The UBCM convention provides an opportunity for municipal governments to meet with provincial ministers on topics important to them. All minister meeting requests are due by June 30th, and staff-to-staff meeting requests must be in place by August 30th. Ministers will consider meeting on three topics per meeting, but the time allotted is limited to 15 minutes.

Throughout the year, staff have taken note of any minister meetings that council has requested. Two requests were on file: one regarding the lack of provincial funding for transit expansions and another regarding speed enforcement on Highway 99. Council was asked to consider if additional minister meetings were required, determine which staff and councilors would attend each specific meeting, and prioritize the topics.

Various council members suggested additional topics for minister meetings, such as recreation sites and camping, environment and climate change, energy, transportation, childcare, and housing. The council agreed to assign council members to lead on each topic and reconvene on June 20th to finalize the list and discuss further.

Jenna Stoner
0:00:04 (0:01:53)

all right good morning everybody there we go thank you today is June 13th and we are here at the District of Squamish Committee of the whole my name is Jenna Stoner as acting mayor this month I'll be chairing this meeting hot Squall increase we are recognizing that we are meeting and doing our work today on this traditional unseated territorial lands of the Squamish people today in particular June is an indigenous National indigenous history month and so I want to take some time in our land acknowledgment to recognize really just the long history complex history that the Squamish nation has in the lands that we are working on today I've been doing a fair bit of reading but um in particular really just recognizing their oldest archaeological site is 8 600 years old and that's at Porto Cove and just really thinking about the length of time that really spans we often say time immemorial but that is a really long time and so as we advance our work today just keeping in mind that really long history that the Squamish nation has on these lands is particularly important especially in National indigenous History Month stress want to reflect on that can I ask for a motion for adoption of the agenda today please move by councilor green law secondary by counselor French any opposed motion carries we will start off our meeting today with a series of Staff reports but first up is Miss Murray on the union of BC municipalities 2023 convention Minister meeting requests and I believe she has a few slides for us and then we'll get into Council discussion thank you just a reminder to use your microphone when you're ready no rush

SPEAKER_14
0:01:58 (0:01:18)

I'll pull up my PowerPoint sorry for the delay good morning Council I am Terry Murray I'm an executive assistant here at the District of Squamish and I would just like to go through a few slides summarizing the ubcm Minister meeting process for those of you who are new to council I'm just going to give a few present a few slides on the process and how it works and what we're going to ask of council today

Jenna Stoner
0:03:16 (0:00:07)

sorry jay can I just get you to reorient your microphone a little bit just so it's sure yeah that'd be great thank you so much

SPEAKER_14
0:03:24 (0:03:32)

so the ubcm convention provides an opportunity for municipal governments to um meet with provincial ministers on topics that are important to them this process happens the minister meeting process happens through the ubcm online portal and it's important to note that all Minister meeting requests are due by June 30th of this year so that is why we're in front of council today the staff to staff meetings or District staff to Ministry staff those meeting requests must be in place by August 30th and just as a side note ministers will consider meeting with you on three topics per meeting however I have since realized that you don't get any more than 15 minutes no matter how many topics you have for a minister so even though you have three topics you're gonna fit them all into that 15 min minute Minister meeting so if you do have multiple requests for one minister they do ask that you rank your requests in order of importance and most likely you're not going to get all three so it's important to let them know which one is most important to you in the request to the minister we need to let them know which staff will be in attendance and which counselor will be in attendance so that's something we're going to ask you to decide today and a just a little bit of process the minister meeting requests like I said are all forms so we can't provide them with a bunch of background reports or too much information they're not going to read it so this is just a little bit of a summary of the characters per topic that we're allowed to ask for so we have to be very succinct in our request to the ministers so throughout the year staff have taken note of any Minister meetings that Council has requested throughout the year these are the two that we have on file so the first one was a council motion from March of this year and it is regarding the lack of provincial funding for Transit expansions so that is one we have on the books and the second just happened just shortly ago at the June 6th meeting where we are asking for a ministerial meeting regarding speed enforcement on Highway 99 and what we're asking Council for today is to consider if there's additional Minister meetings required to for Council to determine which staff and counselors will be at each specific Minister meeting prioritize the topics and just so you know we do have set some time aside on June 20th to further this discussion if need be so a chance to discuss it today and we can finalize it on the 20th if need be and I'm happy to answer any questions and I'll let you to it

Jenna Stoner
0:06:56 (0:00:08)

wonderful thanks so much for the overview that's really helpful both for reminding Council as well as the community as to how this process works I saw counselor petting Guild's hand go ahead

Chris Pettingill
0:07:05 (0:00:20)

yeah thanks we have some resolutions going forward from lmlga through to ubcm and my recollection is we often try and meet on those topics with ministers as well is that something we would want to do I guess that's a question to everyone

Jenna Stoner
0:07:25 (0:00:25)

We've definitely had a varied approach in the past if there's ones that are particularly important and time sensitive I think we often Elevate them to a minister meeting we also balance that with other requests or needs that I think we've identified over the year so if there's one or two that you feel particularly strong about definitely feel free to bring it to the table mayor Harvard go ahead

Armand Hurford
0:07:50 (0:00:44)

thank you I think I'm going to ponder that one through throughout the rest of the discussion and just look at it on balance as we do have some motions that have advanced through the lmlga process but I'm just thinking about the timeliness you know in the urgency of those versus the longer just where they where they fit but so if it's okay we set those aside for now and then we can kind of come back to them after the rest unless someone feels strongly about those we could Elevate one of them or all of them now but I'm just gonna sort of see where we see where we land and how our list is shaping up

Jenna Stoner
0:08:35 (0:00:20)

so in addition to the two resolutions that we have from previous Council meetings which I think are both probably targeted to moti are there other items that people would like to bring forward that they think are necessary for Minister meetings at this time Council French go ahead

John French
0:08:56 (0:00:13)

I would like to hear from staff any thoughts around whether or not it would be productive helpful Advanced things if we were to meet with the advanced education Minister on the quest

Jenna Stoner
0:09:10 (0:00:12)

situation

SPEAKER_11
0:09:23 (0:00:18)

thank you through the chair that's a great question and I don't actually have the answer but if there's an opportunity for staff to I believe council's coming back again to talk about this we can bring you more fulsome information

John French
0:09:41 (0:00:16)

and maybe the mayor has some thoughts on this as well as I think there have been some meetings in the background with some movers and shakers that are concerned about the future of the University lines

Armand Hurford
0:09:58 (0:00:38)

I think I think things are developing there and I'm thinking of the time frame that we have for this meeting between the gap between our ask and the meeting and what the landscape is so I think I'll I think for this I'll get that staff perspective is important and moving on sort of the things moving pieces but do seem to be moving there I just wonder if the how much the discussion will have evolved by the time we get to the September the September date so um by welcome conversation in the next meeting

Jenna Stoner
0:10:37 (0:00:42)

I'll just make a few comments and I'll go back to you counselor pettingell so I did have putting some thought into this a few additions I wanted to make for consideration by Council for additional meetings one would be a joint meeting with environment and climate change and the energy Minds low carbon Innovation Ministries as we have done in the past to again touch base on our challenges with the EA process with respect to Wood fiber and Fortis BC I think this continues to be timely it's something that we have continued to do provincial advocacy on but I think it's important that we remain at the table and continue to elevate that issue so that's one that I would like Council to consider go ahead Council French

John French
0:11:19 (0:00:23)

on that previously at ubcm meetings on this particular topic and mayor Elliott was particularly good about this we had the tradition of having balanced representation in such meetings I'd like to see that continued

Jenna Stoner
0:11:43 (0:01:05)

thank you for the note um the other topics that I would like to add or for consideration to a meeting with moti and I think we'll have to do some prioritization here but we have consistently can continue to bring to the table some of the highway intersection issues in particular I think we continue to hear about mamcom Road and Alice Lake are two that raised the top for me but there may be others that may be better suited in a staff to staff meeting but I do think it's something that we should be addressing with moti at ebcm and then the other one that is relevant to a topic that is later on our agenda today is public access at Daryl Bay and I think that will continue to be an important topic to raise with the province as well and that might warrant some time with the minister at ubcm given the timing of the discussion and the needs that are identified in the Marine access review study for our community so I'll put those out there for consideration by Council but that makes a long list for moti so we'll have to take something off the table go ahead counselor green

Lauren Greenlaw
0:12:49 (0:00:20)

law I'd just like to add to do your comment about speaking to the energy minds and low carbon Invasion I would really like to see some modifications for the public engagement process so I'd like to have some conversations around that it really needs to be modified and modernized

Jenna Stoner
0:13:09 (0:00:02)

okay so you cancel Anderson go ahead

Eric Andersen
0:13:11 (0:00:58)

yes I'm looking at the suggested recommend the council member meeting request to date to slide from staff and the second item was that the issue of automated speed enforcement on Highway 99 be added to the list of topics for discussion suggestions follows from our discussion last week that there is more to bring up regarding Highway 99 namely when an accident does happen we have had a correspondent point out Communications issues lack of U-turn issues and the fact that when we have an accident more accidents happen because of the lack of procedure and Facilities on the highway to respond to cases of accident and so I would suggest that the it is not only the automated speed enforcement but additional highway safety issues to prevent and to respond to accidents

Jenna Stoner
0:14:09 (0:00:01)

go ahead

Chris Pettingill
0:14:11 (0:00:55)

yeah thanks actually counselor Stoner you took most of my meeting ideas the one and it's not fully fledged but we do hear a lot of concern as we look to address our housing crisis with that you know provincial like schools and hospitals and all that provincial infrastructure isn't keeping up and I wonder if there's a conversation there about you know the province making more clear what they're bringing to the table how they're making sure those things are aligned because it feels like we're sort of trying to deal with that provincial information to the public to make the public understand that which makes our jobs more challenging and so I don't know if that's the one we I fight to the death to bring to the meetings but it does it is something that comes up a fair bit so just want to put that on the table

Jenna Stoner
0:15:06 (0:00:05)

thank you for that councilor Hamilton I see your hand so we'll go to you next and we'll go to Mary Hereford

Andrew Hamilton
0:15:12 (0:00:31)

yeah thanks another thing and I don't know the status of this from a staff perspective or where this where these conversations might be with the with the province so it might not be quite appropriate but is the recreation sites around Squamish having additional provincial camping sites managing things like brome Lake and Cat Lake finding ways to more effectively use those resources

Jenna Stoner
0:15:43 (0:00:31)

yeah that's a great flag that is one that we have previously brought up with the province as well but given that we have our ongoing work at the round table the visitor management Roundtable and there are some additional sites that have happened this year but definitely not enough to address the overall demand so we can Circle back with staff and just see if and raising this to the ministerial level would be helpful on an ongoing basis thank you for flagging that I have mayor Hereford and then I have counselor French go ahead counselor French

John French
0:16:15 (0:00:29)

I just want to point out on that topic that councilor Hamilton has brought up parliamentary secretary for environment Kelly Green wrote the mayor for sure and possibly Council a few months ago on this issue indicating she would be happy to meet and discuss in detail so I think the this particular topic with this particular minister is probably a no-brainer in light of the fact that she indicated she wants to talk to us about it

Jenna Stoner
0:16:44 (0:00:02)

great thank you mayor Harper go ahead

Armand Hurford
0:16:47 (0:04:23)

thank you I had a camping again or still in question mark for my list and exactly which direction to push on that I think is worth is worth exploring I do think that our child care needs we just went through a process where we were successful in getting those spots funded in Valley cliff and that construction underway but we need we need more and I think this is an area where we've been picking up some of the slack through our CAC policy in the province really needs to come continue to push there so we can focus our efforts in other areas that are directly our responsibility so I think the child care discussion is Warren say some some attention here um and Vancouver Coastal Health has taken on the and certain next topic is Vancouver Coastal Health is started this master planning process for our health care in our region but I think that some advocacy to the Ministry of Health around our community needs so when they come out of that Pro so hopefully those needs are reflected in the master planning process but they're not they're not a surprise so that's the regional nature of our of our Hospital facilities and the challenge is that happen minister of Transportation has been discussed earlier around highway closures and so on when I think about Community resiliency um having our Hospital facilities here at the highest level possible I think is something worth elevating and hopefully that'll be backed up by the outcome of the master planning process but you know as we look at these pieces or all the areas of interest for us we'll have to weigh out which make the cut and perhaps that Master planning process that's underway is enough but I feel like he's some sort of sustained pressure there and sustained advocacy is would be worthwhile we already have the transit piece in there and this ties to the how I've been thinking about how about housing well I mean I think we all spend a lot of time thinking about housing a fair bit and I wonder where for me as the province is moving forward with these plans around housing with targets and so on it makes me I'm concerned that we're the other pieces aren't keeping up trans it's a great example like yes pushed it push for density in units and plan around Transit but then the expanded Transit service isn't flowing so sort of keeping all those pieces moving and I don't know if that's a so that we're not exasperating or driving a wedge in current problems or pressures we have in our community so I don't know if that's a pro sorry a premier meeting because it's outside all these silos sort of they all need to move together or if that's a hop or if that's inside the other pieces that we think need to need to move but it's not Health Care is absolutely part of that transits part transit's part of that the child care is part of that and as we look at just sort of pull the stops out and let's and let's do more housing units these other pieces need to come along as well and I was curious to get council's opinion on how we address that issue sort of more holistically so that to get that to get that point across because that is a piece that I think is really important and yes it exists in all these silos but it's kind of maybe bigger than that or requires potentially some higher level Direction than just inside those Ministries so when we look at an all we've heard of an all-government response to housing crisis but I'm not really seeing it and that's something that I'd like to explore so I'd love to get council's thoughts on that sort of Suite of issues that are intertwined

Jenna Stoner
0:21:10 (0:02:54)

yeah thanks for that there's no shortage of things that definitely we require collaborative support with the province in order to effectively move forward on some of our biggest challenges in our community I think one of the challenges with ubcm meetings is that they're 15 minutes in nature and so we want to be very clear in what our ask is and what we're trying to get out of the meeting there are also other opportunities the UBC and many of the ministers spend a day or two there's opportunities to chat with staff and so there's other ways to have some of those broader conversations so appreciate wanting to highlight them and there may be a particular ask there I think from my perspective it would probably be directed to the ministry of housing it would be specifically around the housing targets that they're setting and I do think that there's a real issue with them initiating the first pilot of the set the first 10 municipalities they're managing the housing targets with are all fairly large municipalities and it's going to be really impactful when they try and use that same methodology for smaller communities I think that is a real issue that we want to be cognizant of and could be one way to start to frame that conversation but I do think with eight minutes left in this conversation for on today's agenda we want to really narrow down from Council on what it is that we want to be asking for and who we want to be meeting with so I'm just going to reflect back what I've heard from folks so we have Rec sites and camping directed to parliamentary secretary green I can't remember what her Kelly Green yet but what her portfolio is actually called but probably manufactory green specifically around additional camping sites in the area and managing visitor management a joint meeting with environment and climate change and the ministry of energy Minds low carbon Innovation on wood fiber LNG and Fortis challenges with the process there and public engagement and the expectations of our community moti the list is growing long but highway intersection issues Daryl Bay Public Access safety improvements and Transit my recommendation there is that we would potentially suggest moving highway intersection issues and safety improvements to a staff meeting and then keeping the other two items to a minister meeting um we have a suggestion around meeting with health child care but I wasn't clear what the asks were there and then a potential meeting with housing so going back to Council on anything that they would like to take off the table because I think that's a pretty long list that we need to start walking back from go ahead counselor French

John French
0:24:05 (0:00:40)

I want to put one on so from our most recent motion regarding the highway and ubcm Minister meetings specifically automated speed enforcement I've been conversing with Carl Burr the former mayor of Lions Bay on this and he has suggested that Mike farnworth's solicitor general and he's got another portfolio in there is the person to talk to about this so I would suggest that Minister farnworth on automated speed

Jenna Stoner
0:24:46 (0:00:01)

go ahead cancel Greenland

Lauren Greenlaw
0:24:47 (0:01:12)

through the chair I don't have reductions for you but I have additions okay I get I've never gone through the ubcm process so I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile to talk to Citizen Services about like chat gbt and job protection for AI and advocate for that kind of stuff because there is a huge concern that increasingly increasing use of AI is going to basically get rid of a lot of jobs the children and family development and education talk about child care and increased support for families so more 10 a day spaces I'm assuming that's going to come as part of the ask and more funding for recreational facilities as well energy wines and low carbon and Innovations as well as the environment and climate change strategy that you're talking about talking to them as well I would like to have a conversation about at least reducing subsidies for oil and gas if not eliminating them and discuss the absurdity of pushing forward oil and gas projects in a time when we are experiencing unprecedented impacts from climate change given that 3.3 million hectares of Canadian Wildland have been burned down so far this year that's what I got

Jenna Stoner
0:26:00 (0:00:53)

thank you and while I appreciate the additions we also want to make sure that they are in line with existing policy that we have within the district and direction that Council has given and so that's also the fine line of doing advocacy on behalf of our community on behalf of this council is that we're trying to keep things in line with critical issues that we have identified within this Council table so yes there are big issues around subsidizing fossil fuel industry and it has direct impacts on our community climate action plans but we really want to keep it as tangible to some of the immediacy in our community instead of some of those like really broader topics my perspective that may others may have differing opinions but I think we'd also have a split vote on whether we could actually go to a minister with that level of advocacy around this table go ahead counselor pengill

Chris Pettingill
0:26:54 (0:01:01)

yeah thanks I mean my experience thus far is more broadly applicable things like that we would push through an lmlj ubcm resolution and discuss what the whole body was with the minister it's on you know a campsite at Alice Lake sort of a very local issue it tends to be how we've done it I'm not necessarily opposed to thinking about advocating on broader topics one-on-one but you know that's sort of our practice has been I just want to point out that it's Amman Singh is the Minister of parks now so Kelly Green went to Fisheries she's no longer there so I don't know if that impacts anything um just counselor Stoner when you were speaking you know I wonder if we want to consider asking to be one of the 10 Pilots as a small community and with the thought that we would have a little more control of what that looks like and you know that might be appealing to the province is just um maybe something worth considering

Jenna Stoner
0:27:55 (0:02:17)

I think the ship has sailed on that option they have already been announced and they're underway on a fairly tight timeline to get and there's reasons why they expect the pick those 10 municipalities but I think just elevating the issue to the province about the ten that they picked and the applicability of the methodology that then they'll create okay so looking at the time and where we're at I think it's great that we may have some agenda time on June 20th I don't think we're going to wrap it up here today but I think I'm going to go down the list that I have what we need is actually Council to Champion some of these and so we need what we're going to do is we're going to go through the list and if you're interested in participating in that topic you're going to be responsible with coming up with a short summary of what the ask is going to be and then we'll bring it back to the June 20th meeting we can connect you with staff if you do need some feedback they can help potentially support but this is really Council LED initiative with some count with some staff support so do I'm just going to this by like show of hands of who wants to lead on the various pieces so Rec sites and camping with parliamentary Secretary of parks I see Andrew Hamilton thank you counselor Hamilton great environment and climate change energy Minds low carbon innovation I will lead on that one if that's all right with folks moti mayor Herford thank you very much everybody don't see hands I'm going to start volunteering people and if you really do have objections let me know child care councilor Greenlaw thank you very much minister of Health mayor herford's also going to take that one I'll also just flag that we should probably Circle back with the squamishalot regional district in the Regional Health let's see the sky Regional Hospital District on that one

Armand Hurford
0:30:13 (0:00:11)

I think that and that might be an appropriate place for this Minister meeting to actually happen but I just wanted to I wanted to raise it here to ensure that it happened somewhere if it didn't happen through that channel

Jenna Stoner
0:30:25 (0:00:07)

that's great thank you very much housing I will yeah go ahead cancel is

Chris Pettingill
0:30:32 (0:00:11)

that where we're sort of trying to link together like Transit and all these pieces all the provincial pieces that need to fit to make that work is that the ask here is

Jenna Stoner
0:30:44 (0:00:01)

go ahead mayor Harper

Armand Hurford
0:30:45 (0:00:53)

oh yeah I think that I think that it's important to mention but the focus could be on as counselor Stoner suggested that methodology around the pilot I also think that our housing needs studies showing all the large amount of affordable housing units that we that we require going forward as a community um needs to be there so it's kind of there's at least three things but I don't think that overall piece should really be the is appropriate to be the focus in that in that meeting and you know when I think about the provincial areas the child care and the affordable housing are things that our CAC policies are really picking up the slack on and I think it's really important that we keep that we maintain the efficacy role which is really the role that we belong into that in those issues in forums such as this or whenever they present

Jenna Stoner
0:31:38 (0:00:23)

themselves how about we work on that one together does that work okay and then I have Mike farnworth counselor French thank you very much that's on Highway 99 safety improvements and speed over distance have I missed anything counselor Anderson

Eric Andersen
0:32:02 (0:00:17)

I just wondered whether we might recall that we suggested that some of the moti components might be farmed up to staff we can of course discuss this next time around and that might include the highway speed I'll also just put my name forward for moti liaison thank

Jenna Stoner
0:32:20 (0:00:03)

you

Chris Pettingill
0:32:24 (0:00:32)

yeah two things one Daryl Bay and I don't know if we want to wait until we see this afternoon's presentation and decide on that maybe ask staff to take that one I'm not sure I did have one other one actually and maybe we'll just have to discuss it next time which I'd highlighted it's the one I didn't mention but the whole idea of getting access to pipeline risk information because we have to decide our zoning around that it's been a constant struggle so you know talking to the province about what does it take for us to get the information we need to make our local zoning decisions

Jenna Stoner
0:32:56 (0:00:11)

yeah I think that's something that we can fold into the joint Minister request for environment climate change if you think that's the appropriate two Ministries to address it to or is there somebody else that you would like that to go to

Chris Pettingill
0:33:07 (0:00:07)

the The Mining and energy and blah that one yeah

Staff Reports: North Crumpit Update
0:34:05 (1:05:22)

In the District of Squamish council meeting, Matt Gunn, a planner with the District of Squamish, provided an update on the response to a submission for a scope change from the applicant regarding the North Crumpet landowner and project team. The applicant had submitted a request to council for specific direction on several topics, which were considered at the May 9 Committee of the Whole meeting. Staff provided 10 recommendations in response to these requests for Council Direction. At the May 16th regular council meeting, five motions were carried by Council that addressed various aspects of the project, including road connection, designating the Western rise future planning area, limiting development below 200 meters, designating appropriate areas of commercial, and engaging on Esa and Trail preservation.

The two questions still waiting for direction from the council are the cohesive planning approach for Eastern and Western rise together and the motion around resolutions that limit opportunities to ensure preservation and trails and esas. The applicant has requested that the council resolve that if the Western rise lands do not achieve development rights, esas and trails are not required to be dedicated to the district. Staff has highlighted that there is an expectation from the community that these values be considered in the planning process and that there is no specific reason that the applicant's request to fully separate that consideration into a future discussion should be the case.

The council discussed the challenges of the parcel, the need for a cohesive neighborhood plan, and the importance of balancing the realities of the challenges with the expectations of the community. The motion put forward by Councilor Stoner aims to provide a balanced approach, considering the whole area together while acknowledging the realistic constraints in terms of road and impacts. The motion also suggests developing higher-level policy sooner rather than later to help shape the project and address current concerns.

Jenna Stoner
0:33:14 (0:01:44)

okay we will fold that into the joint Minister meeting request for environment climate change energy Minds low carbon innovation it's helpful all right thank you very much everybody I think that gets us a plan at least to get to a June 20th meeting so that if you have been identified as a lead please come with two sentence summary of the request for the minister meeting for the June 20th meeting all right thank you very much Miss Marie for getting us all set up and on track and for Council for the discussion and continued interest in provincial advocacy to make sure that all of these issues come to the Forefront next up on our agenda we have a North Crumpet update so Mr Gunn is here I think he has a few short slides just to kick us off but Council you'll remember that sections of the north Crumpet neighborhood Plan update were previously referred from our special business meeting to a future Committee of the whole for further discussion there seemed to be a fair bit of confusion around the table as we were parsing out portions of the motion so that is why we're here today there hasn't been any additional information shared with Council staff haven't done any further analysis this is really just trying to clarify where we're at and give staff and the proponent clearer Direction than I think what we left with last time whenever you're ready Mr Gunn thanks for being here

SPEAKER_01
0:34:58 (0:03:49)

thank you my name is Matt Gunn I'm a planner with the District of Squamish I do want to highlight that although not in attendance in person we have planned to have two other staff available in case any relevant questions come up so David Rolston manager of infrastructure I believe is online as is Leslie Douglas for any there is Leslie right behind me there we go so any questions um related to particularly the 200 meter elevation topic that those would go to David in the site by inventory would go to Leslie thank you so I am here to as discussed provide a brief update of What's occurred so far in the response to a submission for a scope change from the applicant as a quick background in response to a number of challenges that had Arisen the north Crumpet landowner and project team submitted a request to council for a specific Direction on several topics this was considered at the May 9 Committee of the whole meeting where staff provided 10 recommendations in response to these requests for Council Direction and so this is just the as you just for your awareness it was in the RTC application package these are the requests that the applicant I made won't go into detail on them but we're responding to those requests at that May 9th meeting six motions were carried by Council that addressed supporting a phased approach to the land use planning process consideration of a Road between Valley cliff and lager's East designating the Western rise a future planning area establishing a maximum unit range limiting development to below 200 meters designating an appropriate area of commercial in the landing Pro area ensuring consistency between residential and commercial land uses over time engaging on Esa and Trail preservation to address Community expectations that might not be met in a phased approach and rejecting requests for Council resolutions that limited opportunities to ensure Trail and esea limitations yeah in the I was supposed to click those as we went through but I didn't anyway sorry so those Council committee recommendations were discussed again at the May 16th regular council meeting at the May 16th meeting five motions were carried by Council that addressed the road connection designating the Western rise future planning area limiting development below 200 meters designating appropriate areas of commercial ensuring consistency between residential and Commercial and engaging on Esa and Trail preservation these were aligned with outcomes of the May 9 2023 meeting two resolutions um referring motions to a future committee the whole were passed which is today the first is to support a cohesive planning approach and the second is that Council reject requests for any resolution that limits opportunities to ensure preservation of trails and terrestrial and repairing Esa areas on the western rise should those lands not achieve any development rights as part of the current neighborhood planning process so from a staff perspective the two questions that um we're still waiting for direction on are these the phased the cohesive planning approach for Eastern Western rise together which was discussed at the last meeting and this motion around resolutions that limit opportunities to ensure preservation and trails and esas that is my presentation

Jenna Stoner
0:38:47 (0:00:56)

wonderful thank you Mr Garden for orienting us to this conversation um so we do have an hour for this discussion as Mr Gunn mentioned we have ratified through the special business meeting a number of the resolutions I don't necessarily want to reopen debate on things like the 200 meter Mark we can if Council feels really necessary to but those have been voted on what we're here is to discuss the two motions that were referred to this future committee the whole discussion and to try and get clarity I think mostly on the proposed of this phase or cohesive approach to planning for the for the entire unit versus severing off the Western rise and this second motion here around rejecting the request for any resolution that limits opportunities to ensure preservation of trails so on and so forth so Council over to you for questions clarification that you might need from Mr Gunn in order to inform your decision going forward go ahead counselor Pettingill

Chris Pettingill
0:39:44 (0:00:10)

it seems to me that depending on where we land on the first resolution the second one may not be so relevant so I'm wondering if it's worth just sort of working through this first

Jenna Stoner
0:39:55 (0:00:29)

one that's a fair point they are definitely connected so yeah any questions that you have or comments that you'd like to make around the table around trying to better understand what the risks and opportunities are around a cohesive planning approach versus suffering off the Western rise and the impacts of doing so councilor Hamilton go ahead

Andrew Hamilton
0:40:24 (0:01:53)

thanks through the chair this is obviously this is a neighborhood planning a really complex process and we're talking about very large pieces of land and so I've tried to figure out what are the cruxes and maybe I'd like to say explain what I understand to be the Crux of the issue and see what if staff agrees that that's the Crux of the issue of the issues or if I'm missing something so it seems to me like number one there's a limit to the number of dwelling units that can be put into the north Crumpet space in the absence of an additional Road connecting Valley Cliff out to loggers East so that's the first issue the and in my mind that's driving many of the difficulties that are arising from in this conversation in the absence of that road I don't see how North Crumpet would be able to put a substantial number a full neighbor I would be able to develop the whole Space anyways because of the number of dwelling units that we that they would be limited to and so to me the core if that road is uncertain then it's unclear to me how they can how the whole thing can be planned together in the absence of a plan for that road so if staff could comment maybe on my thinking is that road the Crux of where this neighborhood planning is going

Jenna Stoner
0:42:18 (0:00:02)

go ahead Mr Gunn

SPEAKER_01
0:42:20 (0:00:53)

yeah I would say through the chair that the road the constraint on the capacity to access the site through the road from the south is one of the key concerns that has led to this discussion around severing without the additional capacity I mean from the north the development potential is the ability to develop in the western Rise is limited as non-existent and so the applicant is concerned about the effort and expense required to do that planning when there is uncertainty whether it will be realized

Jenna Stoner
0:43:14 (0:00:01)

do you have a follow-up counselor Hamilton

Andrew Hamilton
0:43:15 (0:00:59)

yeah thank you and because the like that road connection is outside that developer's control I completely understand the hesitancy to plan the whole neighborhood with a piece that's completely outside their control so that's where I under I absolutely understand why the why the proponent has requested a division of the eastern western rise I do see the limitations I do think it's better to plan the whole neighborhood all at once it's just unfortunate we don't have certainty on this road is there anything we can do to facilitate certainty on that or progress on the existence of that connecting Road

Jenna Stoner
0:44:15 (0:00:02)

go ahead Mr Gunn

SPEAKER_01
0:44:17 (0:01:47)

thank you through the chair so there has been discussion with the applicant about the challenge establishing that road and the perspective at this time from the dis from District staff is that the cost of pursuing completion of that road is significant enough it with initial kind of examination that it is not something the district sees appropriate to pursue to facilitate a new development in light of the fact that there are very significant infrastructure requirements in existing neighborhoods that need to be addressed in advance of doing pursuing construction of a road to a new neighborhood the DCC program is one potential option that has been discussed around a method of getting the funding to take on that project but from discussion with engineering our DCC program is heavily subscribed for the foreseeable future and even using the DCC program it is unlikely that we would see funds available in the foreseeable future to take on that project consequently the perspective from staff is that because that road would be necessary to support new development it should be something taken on as part of that development project does that answer your question

Andrew Hamilton
0:46:05 (0:00:45)

yeah thank you it does to a certain extent because the development of that road is not just a money question because there's landowners it would affect landowners other than the proponent they are not in control and that's where the district would need to would need to be involved in having conversations with landowners or right the district has would have a role in that road beside which is not just Financial okay my so thank you very much for your response that clarifies I have one more question if I have time

Jenna Stoner
0:46:50 (0:00:01)

yeah go ahead counsel Hamilton

Andrew Hamilton
0:46:51 (0:00:29)

thanks I've asked this question before and I'm hoping that hoping we can we can somehow we can maybe get to an understanding of it our housing needs report is it's been presented many times do you have any sort of estimate on how many affordable housing units we might be able to acquire in this development from the CAC process

SPEAKER_01
0:47:21 (0:01:13)

three chair so the if we were to secure affordable housing on this site it would be through CAC discussions and at this point there has been no specific discussions around cacs that might be offered as part of this neighborhood planning process or as part of future development within this neighborhood staff has in a previous meeting highlighted some of the priorities that staff feel would represent Community interests and interested those in the neighborhood from what we've heard in the development process or in the application process but the applicant hasn't at any point said you know what we see is this number of units being offered or you know other amenities there was one point where they did highlights a piece of land that might be offered in some discussion but very limited in no specific unit numbers have been discussed

Jenna Stoner
0:48:34 (0:00:40)

thank you for that on that point I'm just curious if you can speak a little bit like we're at a neighborhood planning phase we aren't at a rezoning and typically CAC discussions happen at rezoning and so I'm just curious about what our level of expectation is to get that sort of detail from the proponent at this point versus what we've done in the loggers East plan for example is put in policy that the intent is to get to 20 affordable units built out on that particular neighbor in that particular neighborhood in order to support existing policies within the ocp within current Council policy so when do we actually expect to get numbers around cacs

SPEAKER_01
0:49:14 (0:01:10)

we absolutely would want to have policy in the neighborhood plan that identifies the intended outcome of cacs and that would likely consider what the mix of cacs that might be of interest in the report to council previously we did highlight that one you know a priority might involve some of the land that could become either protected for esas or have Public Access not necessarily getting into what the ownership of that land would be but those are things that have come up through the process that we would likely want to including policy that the esa protection and access to um to land for the public but then in addition we would like to have policy relevant to affordable housing and when we have a land use plan that's been identified as the preferred plan we would have unit numbers and be able to get involved in a discussion around what number of units would be highlighted as a goal in the policy but those would still be up for discussion when actual resonance were brought forward

Jenna Stoner
0:50:25 (0:00:03)

thank you for that I have counselor pettingell and then I'll put mayor Hereford on the list

Chris Pettingill
0:50:28 (0:00:30)

yeah and I think this has been asked before but I just want to ask Ian make sure I'm clear so you know I understand a road may be an obstacle for development of some of the site but why what is what's the obstacle to doing a plan for the whole site with an understanding that a road may or may not happen in the future and so the plan would need some flexibility to accommodate that but we sort of have that plan that works in either scenario

SPEAKER_01
0:50:59 (0:01:58)

through the chair so that was the original intent there was recognition at the outset of the process that um the access from the south would be the primary access and easier to achieve and that at some point in the future access from the north would likely become possible and that would unlock additional opportunity for development over the course it became clear that the northern access was more challenging and the challenge I think for the applicant gets into the investigation that is required the level of Investigation detail that is required From staff's perspective to be confident in identifying development nodes and numbers of units that can go in those areas because the terrain is has significant topography and environmental values it is not an easy parcel to identify development opportunities on so staff has is staff is reluctant to um have a plan with nodes and unit numbers identified without confidence that the road Network in an appropriate Road Network can provide access to those units and the servicing is appropriate and clarifying those elements that the access and the servicing will require has is has been a question around how much investigation and time effort and money is required to clarify those and that is what the that is one of the risks for the applicant to spend the time and money to clarify those questions and to know that we can adequately service and access those Parcels of land so that we can say that these are appropriate for X and Y land uses that investment is a concern for the applicant with the uncertainty of whether they will be able to actually take advantage of those development options

SPEAKER_14
0:52:58 (0:00:01)

go ahead counselor Daniel

Chris Pettingill
0:52:59 (0:00:37)

thanks for understanding that is there a path where the plan sort of has more detail on the Eastern side and you know the policy in whatever plan maybe speaks to those difficulties in the environmental sensitivity and so on so there's less detail but sort of clear policy that maybe the expectations around protecting environmental areas and so on are going to be higher and so when we work through that detail at least that policy framework and expectations are set like is there is that a sort of a reasonable Middle Ground to get us further

SPEAKER_01
0:53:36 (0:00:54)

through the chair yeah I think that is what we are trying to do with the set of recommendations one the request that the applicants have made this set of I think it's 11 requests for Resolutions from Council and then the recommendations from staff are attempting to do that Balancing Act we are trying to say let's identify that there are some development opportunities on the Eastern Area that can be taken advantage of now with the access and then let's try and identify what needs to be taken care of and considered in the future without doing that investment and identifying the exact nodes and Road Network so I think we're trying to do what you're saying but perhaps I'm missing the question if I'm off base but I think we are trying to find that middle ground

Chris Pettingill
0:54:31 (0:00:34)

okay thank you and so maybe there is something there and I guess some of the concern I you know I've heard from people is that if we completely separate off and don't think about the western side at all you know in terms of adequate compensation and protection like maybe there's more we want to protect in the western side we're able to do that in consideration of what we're allowing in the Eastern side and so not losing those opportunities is that something that is still possible in this sort of balanced framework

SPEAKER_01
0:55:05 (0:01:28)

that is a very good question and that is what the nature of that final point in the list of recommendations the applicant's perspective as stated to staff is that if the property is divided into the two sections to the East and the Western rise then any discussion around protection of environmental values or Public Access Trails on the access to those in the western rise should be a separate conversation and should be only addressed at a time when those properties in the western area are considered for development from the perspective of Staff the public has highlighted how important esas and access to the trail network are throughout the process and um staff believe that there is a expectation from the community that those values be considered in the planning process and that and there is no specific reason that the applicants request to fully separate that consideration into a future discussion there's no need for that to be the case it would not be unreasonable to have a discussion around those values that are considered important to the community as part of this process

Jenna Stoner
0:56:33 (0:00:03)

go ahead

Armand Hurford
0:56:37 (0:01:07)

thank you I'm with this phase the phased approach I think the phasing that future planning sort of wording is interesting just how and I think might mean different things to different people because knowledge has and knowledge has been accumulated throughout this process already as much as there's a um you know outstanding questions so how do we capture the in a phased plan or version of a phase plan how do we capture the work that's already been done and ensure that and communicate that out to the to the community around the identified areas environmental sensitive areas to the level that they're identified currently or about to be is there some outstanding questions that are going to become answered questions hopefully shortly so how do we capture that piece of work so that we can communicate it out and that it doesn't need to be replicated in some other potentially replicated in another future process

SPEAKER_01
0:57:45 (0:00:46)

to the chair so that is a good question we do not want to lose the that valuable work and information that's been gathered so the intention is to incorporate all of the mapping work which is the primary reflection of that work in the plan for the entire parcel so there for example the environmental work that's being completed as part of the site bioinventory all the mapping would be included even though in the approach that's being proposed we would only be looking at land uses on the Eastern portion of the property so we would bring forward that technical information in the plan

Armand Hurford
0:58:32 (0:01:21)

so as that relates to the specific motions the first motion is around that severing and making it a phased approach what I've just heard there is that there's work that's happened sorry broadly across the landscape that will be included in the outcome so I don't think that wording quite aligns with expectations so I'm thinking a lower level of detail on the west or a plan that would that would allow for a lower level detail in the west at this point and some trigger for that future and layout sort of that path forward for you know when the access issues if the access issues ever get resolved or when the access issues get resolved then it triggers this deep this deeper layer and to me it's necessarily a future planning area that's planned it just has you know it acknowledges the outstanding pieces so that full level of planning that may not be appropriate to do at this time and may not be appropriate to do ever if that access issue isn't solved is accounted for in there and it's still planning for the for the whole is that is that adding too many variables and what-ifs and triggers it to what we're trying to do here is that was that what I'm hearing

SPEAKER_01
0:59:53 (0:00:24)

through the chair I have a question and then a comment and in that less detailed level of information that you're speaking to on the western rise are you contemplating development nodes identified with land uses because that is the key question from planning staff and I just want to understand your question are you thinking about having nodes identified

Armand Hurford
1:00:18 (0:00:44)

well I suppose defining where the level of detail to go to so is it stopping shorts and nodes or and what is it that lift to get to identified nodes that's the that's the Crux so I'm not I'm not clear exactly where that is I get I understand that going to the nodes level requires that road that road work and I can see some other planning pieces in that being so is there a threshold below that that's worth that could still have value or is it really or in your opinion is it is it really best to fully separate and set it set it aside and not get into those triggers and when that other work would need to be accomplished and those types of things

SPEAKER_01
1:01:02 (0:01:24)

through the chair from the staff perspective it's the identification of land use nodes and the yeah the land uses in those nodes that are a really key component once that becomes part of the ocp it does create um an expectation which in it for a future council at a future time May be harder to choose an outcome other than we have to find a way to allow those uses in those lands regardless of whether the servicing or Road Network can be completed within our regulations and policies um it creates the conservative status is that it establishes an expected outcome so staff are very reluctant to go to that level that is the key Point we want to make sure that the road that the road Network and the servicing can be done in an appropriate manner before we say yes those land uses are appropriate in those locations so below that which is the technical background information which is being worked on happy to have that included in the neighborhood plan establishing the nodes that's where there is a level of detail that we really want to be confident in which does take the investment

Armand Hurford
1:02:27 (0:00:52)

I wonder if that motion that we're work that we're discussing can better reflect that because it doesn't sort of identify where that line is and the amount of work to me severing it as a future planning area really sounds very much like we're setting aside the work that's been done in the engagement that's happened with the community in that in that area and we'll deal with that in the future versus something that is a threshold that's below identifying the nodes but accounting for all that work that has happened and I think that might be one of the drivers for the tension that um in in the group here around what it is and what it isn't so I'm going to reflect on that and see if I can help with the emotion that better captures that but no anyways thank you

Jenna Stoner
1:03:19 (0:00:54)

I'll put myself on the list and then if anybody else otherwise I'll go back to counselor pettingell um thanks for the further discussion and clarification of some of these points I definitely hear that staff have a are reluctant to identify the nodes and the number of units I was wondering if you can elaborate on like so where what is the level of information that we need to be able to effectively do that so I'm thinking of like the Waterfront and I appreciate that there are some unique characteristics to this land by thinking of like the Waterfront sub-area plan the oceanfront Siberia plan they have high level percentages is that kind of the challenge that we're having is identifying like the pers like the percentage of the land that could be used for different uses so that the information that we need to make that alignment for percentages is that where the challenge is in terms of having the accurate information be able to do

SPEAKER_01
1:04:14 (0:02:01)

that I just want to see is Sarah Billy I did talk to Sarah yeah I'll bring Square Bailey up I might ask Sarah to join me I'll take a stab at it first and then maybe ask if Sarah can speak following but the in a landscape that has the topography that this landscape has the road Network becomes a really defining factor in where development can occur and going through that process and identifying that road network is very important to being confident in the ultimate land use plan the applicant is part of their proposal in their initial neighborhood plan proposal did offer to help the district develop some Hillside Road standards which we don't currently have and which would be a beneficial part of this process for the district and they are now they've made a proposal to the district about how that process would work and we are we have receptive to that and are interested in engaging on that project which would help us more broadly but also help Define that road Network and where those nodes could be so we're certainly interested in that but it is a really key part to I understand that road Network to know it's really the location of the nodes and the size and extended those nodes that we need that certainty on the road Network and servicing as well we need to know that if we're going to say these Parcels of land can be developed for these uses at this level of density that the infrastructure can be built in accordance with our regulatory framework that is those are key questions that need to be addressed and there is work that needs to be done to identify that I might pass it to you if you want to speak to that

SPEAKER_08
1:06:15 (0:00:55)

hello through the chair I'm Sarah Bailey director of engineering yamats articulated that way well the road network is the basis for Hillside development to determine how you access these properties and having the density numbers is what determines your servicing requirements so you need a density to see what you need for water sanitary um and obviously your size to help with your storm so the road network is the key piece and as Matt said the applicants offered to help work through Hillside standards with us which will be a comprehensive process with the applicant and internal for us to have those wholesome discussions as the municipality what we want for Hillside Road standards and it's a very important part of that process to have that criteria laid out at the start and once we develop those standards then we know the steepness of roads and you know where you can access and that's where you can build

SPEAKER_01
1:07:11 (0:00:36)

maybe just as a follow-up on a flat parcel of land there is more opportunity to be less specific so in other areas where you might do a neighborhood plan for a for a less complicated piece of land you could do less detailed work but because we want certainty that those Parcels can be accessed and serviced properly and we don't want to be in a position where we have said we'll we're you know supportive of these land uses here and then we have to make compromises on our servicing access we are very reluctant to do it without the knowledge

Jenna Stoner
1:07:47 (0:00:05)

thank you for that clarification that's helpful councilor pettinghill back to you

Chris Pettingill
1:07:52 (0:00:11)

thanks so one question originally I think this was meant to be a sub-area now plan we're calling it a neighborhood plan is there a technical difference or it's the same

SPEAKER_01
1:08:03 (0:00:23)

thing so in the ocp we use the term sub area plan for all of the reference to this type of planning process at some point along the way Sabria plan was considered not a very user-friendly or publicly approachable name and so we've started using neighborhood plan for the exact same process

Chris Pettingill
1:08:27 (0:01:25)

okay thanks and so just on just trying to understand the granularity we need on some or all of the site and I guess in my mind when I've listened to the conversation and some of the evolving policy and recommendations and work around contiguous Green Space for large animals and so on you know I guess I'm hesitant east or west side to have what nodes conjures in my mind where there's you know a wide networks spread all over the place and little cul-de-sacs with three or four homes that are maybe technically developable but you need to really fragment the site to achieve that in my mind again East or West I'm looking for the two spots maybe per side or whatever that that's where the development goes and you're not fragmenting it you're not doing cul-de-sacs it's very you know walkable friendly Transit friendly close to existing development all that sort of stuff and so if we're focused on that as our starting point does that allow us to sort of rule in or out sort of large areas and then we don't have to do as much detailed work on some of those things because when I saw some of the preliminary Maps it does look like you're having to deal with a very fragmented you know like small roads and small cul-de-sacs all over the place if that sort of as a starter is not what we want does that sort of help us get to something more achievable for the site

SPEAKER_01
1:09:52 (0:02:16)

through the chair this is a good question I think I'll just step back for a minute this property was rezoned from rs1 to rm5 some time ago and in that process ocp policy was established relevant to the potential future development of the land and that OCB policy said something to the effect I'm you know off the top of my head I won't have it exactly right but something to the effect that you know a significant increase in density would be considered in the event that it was for a walkable neighborhood or Community with access to Services something along those lines so that we have ocp policy that um considerate of this increase in density that's proposed for a walkable Community um and in discussion with the applicant the um long extending roads to developments has been highlighted as something that may not be aligned with that as part of the process of passing that staff have developed a index or a some a way to evaluate walkability which this has been something developed by our sustainability team that we could apply to development proposals over time across the community so it's the first time we've created and tried to use this and we have provided it to the applicant as something to try to assess the walkability of the neighborhood but with all of the complications in the process and you know that have led to this discussion around the severing that we haven't had follow-up from the team about that about how that their development proposal is assessed against that lockability but I do think that is another significant policy question about the proposed development and we haven't gone down the road of that discussion because there have been these more primary questions around is this project going to be severed or not but it's a very relevant question and ocp policy does indicate that it should be a walkable neighborhood if we're going to increase the density and the long stretches may not be considered blockable

Chris Pettingill
1:12:08 (0:00:32)

so just apart then if we were to I mean sounds like we've already got the policy I don't know if we need to confirm it or underscore it or if and if we got to that place would that make the splitting discussion moot because there would only be sort of with what we have we know there's only a one or two sort of larger developable sites that make it walkable and so on and therefore the splitting is isn't so much you know we can more adequately phase it at a less detailed level and this all makes sense then we can just kind of go

SPEAKER_01
1:12:41 (0:01:38)

through the chair I no I believe it's a more Nuance than that for a couple of reasons one the what maybe the most important piece is that where the line has been drawn for the distinction between the eastern and western SEC halves um there is still the development lands on the western rise that are quite close to what would be a commercial and um uh neighborhood node Hub in the Eastern Area so even if you know there was a decision or directional Council to only support you know development within a certain radius of a commercial node there's still land on the western rise that may well fall within that area and it's quite likely that you know that the reason that may be is that given the road capacity of around 350 to 450 I'm not 100 clear but somewhere around there from the southern access only a portion of what could be developed in the Eastern Area close to the neighborhood node is possible at this time so there's if a road to the north was developed there is more development that could be possible even on the western NASA Western rise that could be quite close to the node does that answer that question

Chris Pettingill
1:14:19 (0:00:32)

I think so but if that is the sort of constraint if that is the way we wish to go in our policy is that a sufficient enough direction that it's no longer onerous to sort of plan out the east and west side and understand it would be phased in terms of construction or build out and dependent on the road but you know we're not having to plan out in the neighborhood plan nodes spread out all over the whole thing it's a much more sort of understandable area and then the cohesive plan makes sense

SPEAKER_01
1:14:52 (0:00:42)

through the chair so the applicant has brought forward an application that does um I think attempt to utilize all of the development opportunity which includes roads that are longer and go to more distant locations and if the applicant were to change their approach and say hey we just want to do this location that's close to the node then that might be a possibility along the lines of what you're saying but the applicant does have the right to bring forward the application that they're interested in and that is in the application they've brought in does have longer roads to the different areas of the property and so staff have to work with that application and respond to that

Jenna Stoner
1:15:35 (0:00:16)

thank you very much it is we have 15 minutes left in this discussion just so folks know I would like to try and get us towards emotion I have counselor Hamilton and then mayor Herford and then we'll entertain a motion if somebody has something they might want to put on the table go ahead counselor Hamilton

Andrew Hamilton
1:15:52 (0:00:21)

thanks very much through the chair one simple question I'm sure it's in the document somewhere but are there any development questions or opportunities above 200 meters in the Central and Eastern Area

SPEAKER_01
1:16:13 (0:00:25)

through the chair I believe not I believe they're all in the western rise I'm pretty sure about that actually I have a map here two seconds I'm just going to turn around yeah the answer is no

Andrew Hamilton
1:16:39 (0:01:04)

okay so the reason I asked that question is that the proponents questions about 200 meters become moot in the short term if we go with a phased plan the second question I have is the you said that one of the disadvantages of going to a phased plan is that you wanted to make sure that you had utilities and infrastructure built sufficiently large to accommodate whatever might happen in the western rise is it possible to just insist that infrastructure is you know I assume this is sort of the diameter of water pipes the diameter of sewer pipes that kind of thing just insist that those things are all as big as they might ever need to be for whatever might happen in the western rise as slowing opposed to the whole process so that we can get it right just oversize it that doesn't seem like a big development cost but maybe I'm misunderstanding

Jenna Stoner
1:17:44 (0:00:01)

go ahead Mr again

SPEAKER_01
1:17:45 (0:00:53)

through the chair I do want to clarify I may not have articulated accurately the Crux is to make sure that in the western rise there is the possibility when developed for um the road and servicing infrastructure to be built in accordance with our regulations and policies it the size certainly can be accommodated it's more is it is there given the terrain esas and steepness can we actually do the network in accordance with our regulations so and the size wasn't as much of the issue that always can be accommodated later it's more is there the possibility physically to reach the locations that are proposed in alignment with our regulations and policies I'll pass it over to Sarah who had a point she wanted to make

SPEAKER_08
1:18:39 (0:00:40)

to the chair I just wanted to comment on the oversizing of infrastructure it's not something we prefer to do there's risks in having your infrastructure oversized you have to keep an eye on it it's increased maintenance potentially so when sizing infrastructure you do want to have a really good idea on the density you're proposing similarly you don't want to put it in and have to come back and size it later so estimations would have to be made but I would have concerns about being left with oversized infrastructure that wasn't required

Jenna Stoner