Committee of the Whole - 09 May 2023


1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
2: ADOPTION OF AGENDA
3: STAFF REPORTS
3.i: Garibaldi Estates Neighbourhood Plan Stage 3 Land Use Scenarios
ii: The Village on Bailey Street Rezoning (RZ000004)
iii: Squamish Wildlife and Habitat Connectivity Project Update
iv: Marine and Estuary Coordination Planning Update and Recommendations
v: North Crumpit Neighbourhood Plan Update - Proposed Phased Plan
4: DELEGATIONS
4.i: North Crumpit Proponent
5: TERMINATION
Welcome, Staff Reports: Garibaldi Estates Neighbourhood Plan Stage 3 Land Use Scenarios
0:00:00 (2:03:31)

No summary available.

Andrew Hamilton
0:00:03 (0:01:26)

get the thumbs up there okay let's get started for the this Committee of the whole meeting on Tuesday May 9th 2023 first item on our agenda welcome to oops this committee the whole meeting being held on the Squamish Nation territory we are very grateful to be here please be advised that this council meeting is being live streamed recorded and will be available to the public to view on the District of Squamish website following the meeting if you have concerns please notify the corporate officer present at the meeting second item in business is the adoption of the agenda I mean counselor Stoner mayor Hereford seconds call the question all those in favor motion passes agenda is adopted the first staff report on our agenda for today is the Garibaldi Estates neighborhood plan stage three land use scenarios and for this we have Matt Gunn presenting the these land use scenarios and the engagement summary thank you

SPEAKER_04
0:01:29 (0:00:07)

good morning mayor and Council as noted my name is Matt Gunn I'm a planner with the District of Squamish

SPEAKER_06
0:01:36 (0:00:03)

good morning and I'm Jonathan's director of community planning

SPEAKER_04
0:01:40 (0:11:54)

today our presentation related to the Garibaldi States neighborhood plan we'll review what has occurred since we lasted discussed the project with Council the engagement results from recent activities in the process and considerations and staff recommendations for moving forward the last time staff presented the project Council was January of this year at that meeting we provided a review of the process to date a summary of Engagement results from previous stages and an overview of what would occur with the presentation of land use scenarios to the community in the second half of stage three we're now at the conclusion of stage three in which we're presenting that summary and talking about recommendations from staff for moving into the next stages following Council Direction on how to consider moving forward stage four will involve drafting a preferred plan a draft plan with policies and land use designations taking that to the community for engagement and then bringing that count back to council for consideration in lead up to the final stage where a bylaw would be drafted and brought to the community for the legislative bylaw adoption process following the last meeting staff completed materials for several proposed plan elements these include a set of guiding principles a series of land use scenarios and a set of emerging ideas that would inform policy development in the plan in February public engagement was initiated the scenarios and emerging ideas were presented on let's talk Squamish and in booklets seven small group conversations were held with 114 participants an online survey was completed by 252 participants and details about these results can be found in the engagement summary which is attached to the staff report and will be highlighted in this presentation there were a few additional engagement inputs in regards to Squamish Nation engagement and archaeological overview assessment has been requested that was completed and provided to the nation and District staff received recommendations from Squamish Nation staff that will be integrated into the planning process in policy development they relate to further engagement with the Squamish nation and policies related to reconciliation are Squamish provided input regarding Place making these have and will continue to inform the process and finally the Squamish Community Housing Society provided input regarding the delivery of housing in Squamish to support a diverse and vibrant population the society did Express concern that the scenario is presented to the public in stage 3 do not address the needs for more diverse housing options and the submission questions whether the current proposal provide the necessary in height and density to ensure viability of critical housing priorities to address this identified Gap the society suggests the policy of supporting additional heightened density for development that does deliver those critical amenities the survey closed on April 14th after which an engagement summary was prepared by staff the summary presented five key themes these were a majority of participants in stage 3 Feel the neighborhood should remain at its current density or see limited increase in the future some participants in stage 3 feel increased housing diversity within the Garibaldi States represents the right vision for the future the majority of survey participants expressed support for the proposed guiding principles survey participants favored proposed land use scenarios that included the least diverse housing options and the lowest Heights however for almost all sub areas the scenarios with the most housing diversity was a close second survey participants were supportive of most emerging ideas proposed in stage three digging into proposed plan elements the first item to discuss are the guiding principles over 50 percent of respondents strongly agreed or agreed with the proposed principles in the survey the topics that were recovered can see on the screen moving forward with development of a draft neighborhood plan staff recommend incorporating all of these principles in addition two new topics are proposed as principles based on the feedback received the first would be a principle related to design encompassing approaches to enhance the Aesthetics and improve integration with existing residences and the second would be related to infrastructure ensuring appropriate services and amenities are available to support the existing and future needs of the community the next component which is the most fundamental consideration at this stage are the sub-area land use scenarios two to three different scenarios were completed for the six sub areas the scenarios represented different land uses building Heights and densities these scenarios were designed based on input received in earlier stages of the process scenario a generally represented limited changes reflecting much of the input heard earlier scenarios BNC added additional housing forms that received the most important stage 2. housing forums that receive less support such as fourplexes Courtyard Apartments and multiplexes were not included Apartments which received the lease support but provide important housing options were only included in specific scenarios and sub-areas where some support had been articulated or where they were already at permitted use for each sub-area participants were asked which scenario they preferred the charts on the screen represent the public response to the proposed land use scenarios for the five residential sub areas in these charts green represents scenario a with the least diverse housing forms lowest Heights and densities yellow is scenario B generally with increased housing diversity height and density and purple represents scenario C generally with the most housing diversity increased Heights in density pink represents I don't like any of the proposed scenarios which in comments generally reflect a desire a desire for the status quo though not in all situations for all but one of the sub areas the most popular option was scenario a the exception was the Estates North where scenario C was the most popular choice scenario C was most often second place aside from the Estates East where I don't like any of the proposed scenarios was the second choice and I don't like any of the proposed scenarios was generally the third most popular option these results were reflected in the key elements of the key themes of the engagement summary which I just noted as noted a majority of participants feel the neighborhood should remain at its current densities or see a limited increase this theme reflects the combination of those who chose scenario a and I don't like any of the proposed scenarios plus input from the small group conversations some participants generally about a quarter fuel increased housing diversity within the Garibaldi Estates represents the right vision for the future which was the second key theme in the engagement summary the commercial sub area was a bit different as it only had two scenarios scenario a in green generally represented the current zoning and was the first choice scenario B in yellow which supports additional height was second and purple which is I do not like any of the scenarios was the third choice foreign one thing that we do need to keep in mind when we're reviewing the results of the survey are the demographics of those who participated 76 Point percent had a household income greater than 100 percent 66.8 percent lived in single-family homes 3.6 percent of participants were under 30 years of age and 90 percent owned their homes so there are segments of the population who are likely not well represented in these results such as the perspectives that were highlighted during small group conversations earlier in stage three those would include non-market housing residents who rely on affordable housing opportunities younger renters facing significant housing challenges and local business Employers in critical Services who identified the lack of attainable most housing as one of the significant challenges they face in addition to public engagement results other considerations inform the staff recommendation for land use scenarios policy alignment was a key factor at the outset of the planned process staff identified ocp and Community climate action plan policies that would play a significant role in the process and in planned development the proposed scenarios were considered in relation to the ability to achieve or enable the intent of relevant policies the scenarios that were best aligned with the selected ocp and CCAP policies or scenario B for the commercial and sub-area and C for all other sub areas key factors in these assessments were the increased housing diversity and the employment space opportunities integrated into those scenarios another key factor informing staff recommendation was the 2023 District of Squamish housing needs report this report provides important context for considering future land uses in our community the report highlighted the need over the next eight years for 2 900 units with three or more bedrooms and 2460 units for low and moderate income households while the Estates is not expected to address all of these needs the land use scenarios vary greatly in their ability to support creation of these units housing needs report highlighted a lack of new townhouse development in Squamish in part due to a lack of available Zone land scenarios which support missing middle housing forms option including townhouse development would be expected to provide the most three-bedroom units by area those include scenario B and Diamond Head South in Estates East and scenario C in a state center and Estates East scenarios that support apartment development offer the best opportunity to produce non-market housing for low and moderate income households these include all scenarios in the Diamond Head North where apartments are currently permitted and scenario C in Diamond Head South ultimately staff needs to balance these considerations and make a recommendation to council regarding scenarios to consider for a draft plan in this consideration the weight of obligation for staff rests in the imperative to address one of the most fundamental human needs housing generally the scenarios recommended represent the best alignment with identified ocp and CCAP policies and provide the most opportunity to support our community housing needs one of the scenarios aligns with the most popular survey choice for a line with the second most popular choice and one in the states east reflects an effort to balance support for policy goals and feedback from the community scenario B is recommended for the commercial sub-area scenario C is recommended for Diamond Head North States north I'm head south and a state center and then a hybrid of scenarios A and B is recommended for Estates East the staff recommendation also includes the Squamish Community Housing Society policy recommendation to support additional heightened density for developments that deliver critical housing priorities finally a series of emerging ideas were proposed that reflect earlier input and existing District policy staff recommend incorporating the bulk of the emerging ideas which were well supported by respondents in the survey these address the transportation Network parks and public spaces Child Care a manquam community garden accessory commercial units tree canopy protection and mid-block connections these ideas will provide a foundation for Concepts from which to draft plan policies thank you for your attention the staff recommendation discussed in this presentation are reflected in the report and on this slide

Andrew Hamilton
0:13:35 (0:00:31)

thank you very much Mr Gunn now on to council for questions I'd like to remind everybody that we have a total of 90 minutes for this presentation for this item so let's please try to keep ourselves focused on the decisions at hand mayor Herford

Armand Hurford
0:14:06 (0:00:57)

thank you I was wondering if particularly the in the pie charts presented both in the presentation in the report you could speak to the more in depth to the I don't like any options it seems to represent a larger portion than I than it seems to be a large portion and um you know I did hear feedback that some of those in the small group discussions that some of those respondents were you know meant I like where it is and I did hear albeit a minority I feel say that well where's option efgh you know down the line and how is that captured in the in the in the engagement

SPEAKER_04
0:15:04 (0:01:02)

the engagement summary so any respondent in the survey that's selected I don't like any of the proposed scenarios was immediately given an additional question that asked respondents why they did not like any of the scenarios the information from those questions was coded and tabulated in the engagement summary there were individuals that felt the that the scenarios didn't provide you know appropriate housing opportunities given the magnitude of the housing challenges we face but I would say that the majority fell into categories of leave the estate Zone I would say the probably the most common response in that was leave the states as is but there was some diversity across that category

Armand Hurford
0:16:06 (0:00:43)

okay thank you the statistics around who participated in those surveys I found really interesting and was there a maybe a tar some form of Target to the diversity of the opinions there the 90 homeowners I thought was really jumped off the page other pieces you know are sort of to be expected but that one I felt was sort of way off the charts and had you were there some assumptions going or do we have some other um data to compare that against as to the current makeup of the community or some other I'm trying to put that in con context I suppose

SPEAKER_04
0:16:50 (0:01:07)

yeah you know what I don't have the comparison of those stats to our community I certainly could bring that back at a future point if that was ever requested it certainly a skewed towards a particular demographic ideally we would have a broader representation you know particularly you know the less than 3.6 percent of participants being under 30 is concerning the challenge is that it is for these types of Engagement activities it is it is very they tend to be responded to by the type of demographic that we've seen people who feel most impacted by land use decisions in their neighborhood in their backyard and so this is not an atypical outcome for this type of process it is not an ideal outcome but it is one that we have to use as context in interpreting the results

Armand Hurford
0:17:57 (0:00:09)

okay thank you I'll leave it there for now while at the

Andrew Hamilton
0:18:06 (0:00:01)

counselor petting kill

Chris Pettingill
0:18:08 (0:01:06)

yeah thanks so the Housing Society suggested that even scenario C wasn't going to meet our needs the housing needs assessment speaks to and the numbers quoted that's just to maintain the current level of availability and affordability if we actually want to improve that we need even more the provinces homes for people action plan seems to have high expectations for more development and I heard you speak a little bit about trying to balance what's in the ocp and some of these things but it seems to me that even with scenario C we're sort of falling short of housing availability and for affordability for the future so I'm just wondering if you can speak to how big you think that Gap is and I guess I'm just trying to wrap my head around you know understanding is scenario C getting us where we need to be in the majority of the zones

SPEAKER_04
0:19:14 (0:02:00)

thank you through the chair yeah so to understand how much of a contribution this would make towards the overall housing needs of the community would require a an assessment across the entire community of all the opportunities and assumptions around the rate at which those would be produced um that's not a project that we have undertaken the housing needs report is a new contextual piece of information for us and we haven't had an opportunity to do that level analysis um so I can't answer your question as to the proportion of the need that IT addresses um in response to your comment about the plan falling short in terms of its comparison to what the housing needs assessment outlines what I can say is that and you know I tried to articulate this earlier in creating the scenarios we recognize that high need for housing in the community but we had um significant input from the community over earlier stages of this process that highlighted which housing forms had support and which didn't and so there's this significant tension in this project and trying to understand what is supported by the community and segments of the community and what the needs are and so the housing forms that were selected may not provide the number of units that you know you're referring to but they were trying to balance input on housing forms that were had some level of acceptance from the community so broader the assessment across the community hasn't been completed so I can't answer that piece and in terms of you know how the ones were chosen it was it was it reflects input that we had earlier in the process to try and balance these the tension

Andrew Hamilton
0:21:14 (0:00:01)

thank you Mr menescus

SPEAKER_06
0:21:15 (0:00:30)

thank you if I could just add to the answer I think once we get direction from Council in terms of which scenarios to move forward with we will be doing some modeling and looking at okay what you know in this scenario in this location or in this area what is the likely outcome for affordable housing or Market rental housing in terms you know comparing it to our CAC policy and our ocp policies which generate those units

Chris Pettingill
0:21:46 (0:00:45)

okay thank you so just reading the homes for people action plan again last night I see the provinces planning to introduce legislation in the fall to enable fourplexes in single-family zones anywhere single families allowed and I see in Garibaldi Estates east and north for example we only propose a line up to triplexes in scenario c unless and some of the other scenarios what I want to understand is if we sort of do all our plans around something less than four plexes being allowed do the plans become invalid then when the province introduces this legislation or is fourplex close enough to what's already proposed in some of the scenarios that it doesn't really change things

SPEAKER_04
0:22:31 (0:02:12)

there's a few things I'll highlight in response to that question um first off at this point we don't know what the Nuance of the provincial plan will be um they've highlighted Triplex and fourplex I don't know yet what you know where those will be applied what the criteria will be so there's a lot of uncertainty about the proposal it does have to be a doctor in legislation things get adopted passed and the legislation has to be passed there's there's uncertainty and um unknowns in that piece and then you know the assumption is that municipalities will be given some time to implement in which we can consider how those impacts and how those elements would be put into legislation or bylaws in the district but there are probably some challenges even if many of those properties like the in the Estates north were given outright by right Zoning for four plexes there are likely going to be some challenges with parking requirements for those to be achieved and so over time to your I think the other point you made you know what are the implications on these what are the implications of these changes potentially it's hard to know in some of those areas what the uptake would be over what time period and so I suspect there is going to be time to contemplate those changes it is quite possible that if the promise moves as they've indicated many of the AAA scenarios will be no longer relevant because the provincial legislation would supersede them but there's too many unknowns at this point to understand what that would look like and how the uptake would be based on viability and time of change I suspect would be quite a lengthy process where we'd see significant change of you know like the whole neighborhood changing to

Andrew Hamilton
0:24:44 (0:00:07)

flexes councilor pettingell is it a follow-up

Chris Pettingill
0:24:51 (0:00:27)

yeah okay go ahead just sort of related I think just for some clarification with what the province is proposing and what we have proposed for the most part their proposals to enable or allow for more forms but not require them so in general single family or duplex are still permitted it's not no one provincial is proposing to remove that it's just adding some additional choices that accurate

SPEAKER_04
0:25:18 (0:00:21)

yes the understanding that we have is that the promise is most likely to say any zoning that only permits single-family will no longer be permitted um every Zone will have to at a minimum permit up to tripods or fourplex um unknown in terms of what that distinction is

Andrew Hamilton
0:25:40 (0:00:02)

thanks very much councilor Greenlaw

Lauren Greenlaw
0:25:43 (0:00:19)

thanks through the chair I just I'd like to get a better sense of the engagement in the community so I was wondering we have about 108 residents from Garibaldi Estates who responded in the survey and about 114 people engaged in the in-person meetings and I was just wondering if we have an estimate of what the current population of Garibaldi Estates

SPEAKER_04
0:26:03 (0:01:17)

is um I I don't have that off the top of my head apologies something again if something we can bring back at another meeting yeah I don't have that off top of my head thanks actually one more thing to add to that the census divisions the way the census information is created um they create small sub blocks of the neighborhood of the community and those don't align with our current neighborhood boundaries but we have requested census information that has been specifically crafted to our neighborhood boundaries stats Canada is taking the census information and reconfiguring it so that we will get a set of information that uses the boundaries that we use for this planning process for example and that information will arrive we're expected to get it sometime in July and so we would have very accurate information about the broad range of attributes of the population at that time thanks

Andrew Hamilton
0:27:20 (0:00:02)

to the French

John French
0:27:22 (0:00:13)

thanks chair and I'm wondering if staff could talk a little bit about how many of the online surveys were started and then left incomplete is this a stat that that's available to

SPEAKER_04
0:27:36 (0:02:39)

us yeah I'll just take a look here so we do have some information from the survey Tool that I can highlight just one second here and there are some outputs from the survey tool which I did capture here this is one of them this reflects I know this is the level of Engagement there were we did have a it may take a second to find it visitors here we go yeah I've got it yeah so we did have visitors to The Landing survey there were 900 visitors to the survey and 252 contributions to the survey one thing I would highlight in terms of the numbers of the surveys the 252 while it does not seem like a large number in comparison to other survey surveys that the district has run it is typically hard to get a large portion of the community to engage in surveys that do require detailed knowledge to complete the survey for example in our ocp engagement we had we hired a team Modis to help us do staff and or to do public engagement we had a team of people out in the community for the ocp we had the first round we had 700 survey responses which required no prior knowledge in our phase two we only had 35 survey responses and in our final we had 500. another survey the transportation which required no knowledge and had we had team people promoting we got about 600 survey responses so well 252 is not as large as those given that it's a specific area and required knowledge about the scenarios staff consider it a fairly successful survey response

John French
0:30:15 (0:00:44)

okay thank you and just before I ask my follow-up question chair like to acknowledge Mr Gunn's hard work under very difficult conditions with this file thank you and I know it's been difficult thank you and I appreciate that you're still on this file and you're putting the work into it so I wonder if you could just clarify what contributors means those 252 people what did they do to become contributors is it does it include leaving a comment in let's talk Squamish or is it just people who completed the survey online

SPEAKER_04
0:31:00 (0:01:30)

those are people who completed the survey and one thing and since this question has come up through the Tariff you don't mind me expanding on my response you know there is recognition that the survey took a fair bit of effort to complete I think that is something we part way through I realized and recognized there could be a challenge for the process we did come up with a few strategies to try and address it through extending the timeline trying to highlight that respondents only needed to complete the questions they were interested in and providing opportunities to engage with staff on any questions they had however we did get of those 252 most of them were fairly complete we had a good set of responses across all questions in the survey in the first phase we did actually break the survey up into three components in Prior stages so we had something about housing something about employment and there was a third one and what I will say is that the housing survey got a lot of responses and the other components got almost no responses so the survey you know there's a balance in the attempt I think in a future situation we probably would have broken it up to ease the time burden but we did manage to get a lot of responses across all the questions so there is some benefit it's yeah that was I think a challenging learning from this process yeah

John French
0:32:30 (0:00:13)

okay so that answer has me now thinking a little bit about whether or not we have statistics on how much time people took to complete the survey is that a statistic that was tracked through

SPEAKER_04
0:32:44 (0:00:14)

I don't have that information I'm not sure that it's tracked it from my review of the survey tool it's not something I've seen but I suspected took more time than anticipated by staff

Andrew Hamilton
0:32:58 (0:00:03)

thanks Joe counselor stoner

Jenna Stoner
0:33:02 (0:00:47)

thank you through the chair thank you for the presentation Mr Gunn a few questions the submission from the Squamish Community Housing Society speaks to the suggested policy and direction to include additional height and density for developments to deliver on critical housing priorities and then the staff recommendation is to focus that specifically on the Diamond Head North and the South areas I'm just curious why staff are proposing to narrow that policy Focus to those specific geographies especially given their other components or particularly other Lots within the Estates that May benefit from height and density bonuses if it means that we're trying to get affordable housing units at the end of the day

SPEAKER_04
0:33:49 (0:01:34)

think you through the chair the recommendation to include that for those specific areas reflected the consideration of land uses that were proposed in those various scenarios and areas the the expectation would be that policy would be most relevant in Apartments scenarios where were supported and we only have Apartments supported in a few locations in the proposed scenarios those being Diamond Head North and South and so the expectation was that those would be most relevant in that situation there are other locations that should they have opportunity for larger multi-family developments that policy could be quite relevant but the scenarios proposed didn't go as far as might be useful for that policy um but you know it I think the townhouse which is maybe the other multi-family that were closed in other areas perhaps there are some opportunities to that for that policy to be supportive but I think the nature of that housing product makes additional heightened density less likely to take advantage of the policy that was the staff thinking but you know open to suggestions or comments from Council on how better to consider that option

Jenna Stoner
0:35:24 (0:00:37)

yeah thanks for the feedback and I'll hold my comments till the end a few additional questions encouraging to see the amount of support for the emerging ideas across the board one that I didn't see or that I think I saw some variable feedback on was the 30 land for food production in particular and I'm just wondering if staff can elaborate on what the suggestion is if it's whether to pursue that or are we are we shelving that given the number of priorities that are being identified within the plan at this

SPEAKER_04
0:36:01 (0:01:20)

point the 30 land allocation for farmland or for open space Park agriculture was specific to the estate's east location that location and and that actually wasn't part of the emerging ideas the emerging ideas included a commercial Farm Hub which is a bit of a different thing and didn't receive as much support so we haven't proposed that moving forward but if there is more support for that it could be reintegrated without problem the farmland or open space in the states east was relevant to the townhouse scenarios and um those still are attached to scenario B which is a potential um but is not attached to scenario C and scenario C is not bit or it is attached to NFC and that has not been recommended you and there's also know that we did receive concern highlighted from stakeholders that it would come at a trade-off with affordable housing so I think that one is it is a bit of a consideration depending on what scenarios Council suggests staff move forward or direct staff to move forward with

Jenna Stoner
0:37:22 (0:00:23)

okay and then just one final question in terms of Next Step so this is one step in the ongoing process and the scenarios make up just one component of an overall neighborhood plan so I'm just wondering if you can speak to what happens after this meeting and what the ideal or what the vision for the for the overall plan looks like at the end of the day

SPEAKER_04
0:37:46 (0:01:13)

yeah thank you through the chair so ultimately staff are seeking Council Direction on the the recommendations we've made is there support for the guiding principles and that are proposed and the new ones suggested is there support for the emerging ideas and is there support for a specific set of land uses when we get that direction we will then begin drafting a plan the actual moving into the next stage the land use plan is one of the less significant components of what needs to be produced neighborhood plans have a range of policies across a range of topic areas and that will be the bulk of the work moving forward those policies will be informed by the engagement that we have the inputs that we've gotten to the various phases including this phase we'll create a set of land use maps that reflect the direction from Council and a new set of policies across various topic areas that will be as it'll essentially be a document that has those elements and those will be brought back to the community and Council

Andrew Hamilton
0:38:59 (0:00:05)

councilor Anderson and then count to the pettingham

Eric Andersen
0:39:04 (0:01:50)

thank you chair I have two questions that might be considered as relating to stage four upcoming engagement and perhaps research first of all co-housing is one of two topics two emerging ideas that staff in reviewing the obtained feedback are suggesting that maybe we don't recommend incorporating these policies into a draft plan now regarding co-housing I have to wonder whether there is an issue of interpretation and orientation for the public and perhaps for ourselves we're all learning about this New Concept it's not it's maybe new here but it's not elsewhere in fact local co-housing projects draw extensively from work done experience in other countries and that's kind of unique experience that certain local people have we have other neighborhood plans upcoming for which this concept may be relevant other initiatives on our part for which this concept may be relevant I note that the Housing Society input to my knowledge did not touch on the outcome for co-housing in our engagement results so my question is for stage four might we consider further efforts to orient our public and ourselves about the concept to it seems to me that it should have Merit if not here elsewhere and in future and that might be an important consideration can this be undertaken during stage four to hang with the possibility of explaining it better perhaps do you have some observations as to whether that might be a factor in the results obtained

SPEAKER_04
0:40:55 (0:01:18)

yeah so first off just on the go housing concept the level of support while not as high as some of the other emerging ideas was not insignificant there was I think it was above 40 percent Greer strongly agree or support and then there was a you know component that was in the neutral section I don't think it would be inappropriate if staff if Council feels that this would be a urgent idea that we should bring forward then certainly staff are more than happy to integrate it co-housing is largely a choice made by the individuals that live in a in a development on how they are going to run their Community they're some elements that we can do to support but they're largely around offering some additional density in exchange for amenities that are better aligned with co-housing and so you know I suspect that's where some of the sensitivity may have come for that product but it's certainly something that staff if directed by Council would be more than happy to bring forward and um provide further engagement on you know just Target in a in conversation with the community

Eric Andersen
0:42:14 (0:01:35)

thank you Mr Gunn my next question concerns a topic a theme that I feel is a bit missing and I wonder whether it might be something that we can take up as we proceed further in a stage four and that is cultural programming cultural and recreational programming facilities it's not one of our emerging ideas that described as such we have however two facilities a few churches that are extensively or intensively used a percultural programming we also have had a letter from eight performing arts groups concerning a future fire hall opportunity or pointing to this priest part of our Valley that maybe could use such facility and one that is going to need some parking and I don't find that this is covered under Place making these our Squamish has referred to arts and culture but I don't find that the facilities versus programming are addressed I also note that the squamous Community Housing Society has mentioned the church Properties or institutional properties as future venues for housing and I question this while we haven't addressed explicitly what these facilities or what the needs for these cultural and institutional facilities might be is it something that we can give targeted attention to in stage four thank you

SPEAKER_04
0:43:49 (0:00:32)

through the chair absolutely we actually have a meeting we we've engaged with our District staff our arts and culture staff and they a have referred us to representative stakeholder in the community so we do have a meeting that's coming up with that group to talk about integration of arts and culture into the plan and so that is something that's on the radar and you know certainly something in the drafting of those policies which is the major piece of the next stage that we can consider and we'll look towards

Eric Andersen
0:44:22 (0:00:03)

sure

Andrew Hamilton
0:44:25 (0:00:31)

and just before I go around for a second round of questions oh take one myself if possible thank you so for the Estates East that was the only scenario where the staff recommendation was suggesting a lower density than scenario C suggesting a mix between a and b could you speak for a little bit in more depth on what motivated you for the staff to do the lower density in the Estates East area

SPEAKER_04
0:44:57 (0:01:13)

yeah through the chair yeah that was the scenario that found the lowest level of support for the more diverse housing forms and so you know public input in that Subaru was certainly an important consideration and stakeholder input we received a number of emails that also informed some of the considerations there in that area you know opportunities for um missing middle housing forms that spanned the entire range seemed like an appropriate consideration which was why the hybrid was suggested that incorporated A and B and you know those areas certainly do have the opportunity to contribute to the to the you know housing needs even using the A and B scenario and so you know in some those were the different characteristics that informed that decision or that recommendation

Andrew Hamilton
0:46:10 (0:00:03)

thanks very much counselor pettingell

Chris Pettingill
0:46:14 (0:00:44)

thanks I have a couple of I think related questions so one of the desired outcomes from my perspective is that we see more housing forms and availability and over time affordability and so there may be some Redevelopment and in particular in this case I'm thinking of some of the apartments that exist now that are relatively speaking lower rental rates at what point do we need to consider policy or incentives to avoid Renovations and deal with that sort of thing and you know do we need to finish that or before we approve the neighborhood plan or can you just speak to the timing of that sort of

SPEAKER_06
0:46:59 (0:00:40)

thing through your channel I'll speak to that um so it is something that we would contemplate in the policies of the plan how we deal with potential displacement when there are multiple rental units on properties it's not widespread in the Garibaldi Estates neighborhood but it's certainly something we would be considering once we have direction from Council in terms of what scenarios we are drafting the policies to so it will be part of the plan and it will be the right time to consider it before adopting the plan

Chris Pettingill
0:47:39 (0:00:37)

okay thank you and then the other piece you know we have seen in you know in many places when you enable some more dense options you can see an increase in land prices and then that goes to the person sort of selling now doesn't go to the developer doesn't help keep prices down how do we avoid that because you know if affordability is one of our goals how do we avoid sort of a sudden land price increase that gets in the way of affordability and when or how would we you know does staff need some direction to think about addressing this or how does that get tackled

SPEAKER_06
0:48:17 (0:01:50)

again I'll I will tackle this question so what we generally see and this is a really good question and it's very relevant in Squamish because we've seen this happen in different neighborhoods but what we normally see in terms of land speculation is at the outset of the planning process there is speculation and speculation has been taking place in this neighborhood I think the speculators are often betting on density being higher than what it ends up being and I think this is going to be the case with the Estates as well so I think if anything given the construction costs and the lower densities than I think some people have expected in the in the neighborhood we might see an actual price correction land in terms of prices as there's more and more clarity because speculation has already happened and now we're bringing more clarity in terms of what the develop and potential actually may be and then the other factor to consider is that land prices for single family estate lots are already very high so I think the risk of this plan further increasing land prices in the neighborhood is fairly low because they're already high and we see that speculation early on in the process not at the at a later stage what we've seen in lager's East neighborhood you know there's a few recent examples where people have paid too much money before the plan was adopted and feasibility is just no longer there so I think people are learning that you know it's risky to buy properties in Squamish when you don't know what the end result is

Chris Pettingill
0:50:07 (0:00:20)

so just to follow up on that rather than sort of rely solely on the market is there are there steps we can take to do more to ensure that we don't see sudden lifts in because it's already I would suggest inflated prices and so you know to prevent more inflation can we take explicit steps to avoid

SPEAKER_06
0:50:28 (0:00:54)

that I think it's very challenging for local governments to impact land prices um I think the only scenario where that's possible is if you kind of keep things status quo and there's no expectation that um you know there's going to be growth in the area because like I said land prices often happen early on in the process so developers are smart and they try to think like municipalities okay where is the municipality going to want to put more density or grow and they try to get there before anybody else does so that's why by the time we get to this point you know speculation is already happening or has happened and now it's about bringing more clarity and hopefully adjusting the land prices based on the plan

SPEAKER_04
0:51:23 (0:00:52)

may I add one thing to that the one piece that um we may be able to provide Clarity on is to ensure that there is Clarity in the plan about expectations for amenities or affordable housing components to um to keep clear what the CAC or amenity wouldn't be um that could impact that property so that there isn't speculation that expects a lack of that and thus inflates beyond what the amenity would be able to do that's probably where some of the challenges we're facing a lot is used where um you know there's still a expectation for if amenities and that hasn't been Incorporated properly that could be challenging so Clarity on that would help obviously you know it's a minor component compared to what the Jonas was speaking to but it is something that we should add no

Chris Pettingill
0:52:15 (0:00:11)

clarify sure so does that mean as part of this process or later we would consider amenity zoning versus cacs or these sorts of things

SPEAKER_04
0:52:27 (0:00:22)

yeah through the chair so we haven't gone down the road of contemplating those elements in the plan yet because we still don't know if they're going to be housing forms and densities that are contemplated that warranted it's certainly something we would consider as we move into this stage depending on when land use scenarios are supported by Council

Andrew Hamilton
0:52:49 (0:00:26)

all right thank you very much I'm going to remind everybody we've got less than 10 minutes remaining for this item so if we could focus on our questions and we still need to so everybody start thinking about their comments Council pardon 10 45 oh my goodness I'm way ahead of schedule here yeah all right councilor Greenlaw thank you

Lauren Greenlaw
0:53:16 (0:00:19)

thanks so throughout this process I've heard a lot of concern about the intersections and traffic control at the manquem and Garibaldi in 99 intersections and I'm wondering when if how infrastructure upgrades and including traffic modifications are Incorporated in the neighborhood planning

SPEAKER_04
0:53:35 (0:00:53)

process so there are two elements that we've used to try and address those elements those questions we've conducted a study largely around the intersection on the highway to understand what upgrades may be appropriate at what time and you know what the costs would be and then we are doing another traffic study now for the area looking at the road Network around the commercial area and if there are you know more significant changes or approaches that could be utilized to address the internal Road Network and the functioning of those intersections you know I think your main question is when might these occur and you know what upgrades and when is that correct

Lauren Greenlaw
0:54:29 (0:00:12)

yeah like how you know if there is an increase in population how are we going to deal with like when are we going to deal with as well the infrastructure and traffic modifications that we'll need to come with it

SPEAKER_04
0:54:41 (0:02:49)

yeah okay and so in the in the consideration of the upgrades to the highway those would likely require you know some discussion with The Province around who pays for it how it's funded when it occurs I would say from our standpoint the most significant opportunities to support that type of change you know upgrading components of those intersections to allow better traffic flow would likely occur when a larger development occurred summary on the periphery of the Estates area so for example if the development above Garibaldi Estates sorry I'm Garibaldi Springs which is the Thunderbird lands kind of below Jay Crescent it's that land moved ahead for development that would be a time when you know they would consider the traffic impacts and there may be a larger amount of money available to do some changes to the highway intersections maybe if something happened to parcel a up at the University that's another some larger developments offer opportunity to look at it in one moment of time consider those impacts and create some upgrades so that's probably one of the easiest ones the high or Ministry of Transportation has indicated openness to those types of considerations and some of them that maybe more viable like or easier to achieve like the left-hand turn Lanes out of Garibaldi Wayne may be something that can occur earlier but it's not something we've talked about in terms of timing we've done more initial considerations now the internal Network changes to how traffic flows around the commercial area those changes would be more likely to occur through property Redevelopment in those areas so for example around Tantalus if there is something more significant that comes out of the study that we're doing now at the tanalis and Garibaldi way intersection that might be the type of thing that would be addressed at a time when the Garibaldi Garden Court's development if that which it is likely that will see some Redevelopment in the future those units are getting old they're my understanding is their units they're not even occupying at this point because of the condition of units and so that is likely to see some Redevelopment sometime in the future at that point that would likely be an opportunity to be informed of the study we're doing now on how that area might change more significantly so larger developments probably and for things that relate to the highway or when critical thresholds meet and we can discuss with the province and then when smaller developments occur within the neighborhood for changes on the internal Road

SPEAKER_06
0:57:31 (0:00:42)

Network to the answer the other thing to consider is once we know what the plan is and what the densities we're looking at here this will inform our infrastructure planning so if there's any bigger projects that you know you can put on one or two developments those would likely make it into our development cost charge bylaw as future projects that we collect money for and then once the money is there from all the developments in Squamish they get executed by the district and I think what are the chances of some of these projects being large enough in the area Matt could you speak to

SPEAKER_04
0:58:14 (0:00:28)

that even across the whole neighborhood yeah it really depends on the scenarios like if there are more scenarios that are at the you know the sea level then there's going to be more projects that will be providing funds to the DCC bylaw or to the DCC fund

Lauren Greenlaw
0:58:43 (0:00:25)

it's a separate question is that in the in a previous Committee of the whole from May 2022 Council requested staff to be supportive of diverse housing including tiny hounds and tiny I homes and auxiliary dwellings and don't recall seeing anything about tiny homes in the scenarios and I was just wondering if staff could speak to whether or not the district would still be supportive of that in this neighborhood

SPEAKER_04
0:59:08 (0:01:47)

plan um through the chair you know I think the housing Forum that aligns more closely with tiny homes is the cottage clusters I probably would need some clarification on the tiny home definition that you're asking about I sometimes when I hear people talk about tiny homes they are referencing um small structures built on trailers that can be moved from location to location and that is a you know I think what we have seen in town is that type of housing tends to run in challenges with financial viability because when if we're trying to take a piece of land and set it up for the use by tiny homes to free to buy the land and put in the servicing infrastructure and then address in the flood plain the challenges with having homes built at below the fcl I think there's a range of challenges that make it quite hard to find properties with those are viable and economically feasible and so it's not something that essentially if they're on trailers I think there are some challenges in the practicality of it the if we're looking at just smaller dwelling units The Cottage cluster is a form that we've seen quite a bit of support through for the engagement and is incorp into a number of the scenarios but those are structures that are built on the ground you know at the permanent structure so maybe I need some clarification on what aspect of tiny homes you're contemplating

Lauren Greenlaw
1:00:56 (0:00:14)

I was more meaning the ones on Wheels like and potentially used as an auxiliary dwelling in some of these larger Lots right because it's a fairly temporary impermanent way of having affordable housing

SPEAKER_04
1:01:11 (0:00:00)

yeah

SPEAKER_06
1:01:11 (0:00:58)

yeah if maybe I'll just add some more clarity so the sort of use occurs quite regularly in Squamish and in BC it's kind of unofficial there's not a good way of Permitting it or an easy way of Permitting these types of Duong units we've always been open to someone coming forward and spearheading you know a project where we could work with somebody and find a way to see if there is a legitimate way of implementing that type of housing on a larger scale especially and I think the plan I don't see why the plan wouldn't be open to those sort of opportunities in here like I said we've been very open generally across the community to explore those but somebody has to take on that challenge essentially from land ownership perspective and development

SPEAKER_17
1:02:09 (0:00:01)

thanks

Andrew Hamilton
1:02:11 (0:00:03)

and next we have mayor Hereford

Armand Hurford
1:02:15 (0:01:12)

thank you in looking at the staff recommendation I was what seems to be missing is in the report and if you could just tell me with this in the report there's mention of things that could be considered while doing the work like sorry I had the I have too many tabs open on my computer here to get to the right note so in Estates East for instance there's in developing the preferred plan the following options could be considered to address Community input received during engagement and each area has these pieces that could be and I'll use this one as the example because it involves consideration of moving one of the lines so um how would you like us to provide counselor provided feedback on those specific pieces or those pieces that by being included in the report and thus the staff recommendation are going to be explored just the could has me just asking the question

SPEAKER_04
1:03:27 (0:01:15)

yeah through the chair thank you yeah that is an appropriate question for sure the nature of many of those well several of those potential changes reliable um on what sub-areas scenarios are con are supported by Council for example some of them will be more relevant under different scenarios than others and so if for example the council recommendation is to create a plan with a across the board a bunch of those may not be relevant those considerations you know it really depends on what we get out of this and so those are elements that at this point staff have identified as things that we need to think about as we go into the next stage which is drafting the a draft plan with direction from Council if there are any that council is particularly interested in say hey that should be implemented then was certainly interested in that feedback but we haven't brought it up to the staff recommendation or ask for specific feedback on that because there are larger questions that need to be addressed at this point in terms of the broad Direction the plan will go

Armand Hurford
1:04:42 (0:01:28)

okay thank you I think the in this particular piece there's the question around limit townhouse land use to properties currently over 0.3 hectare to prevent consolidation more significant changes to character across the sub-area and I quite like that um that particular concept along with but I and I would like to discuss and to me the first bit is utilize DPA guidelines and setbacks to mitigate the impact of townhouse development to adjacent properties I think all of our setbacks are meant to do that so this feels very intuitive to me the third piece consider including properties along the west side of Garibaldi way in the in the Estates East sub-area I thought was interesting because it it's a sort of a two-step adjustment because of where those lines are drawn and it made me think about initially after the first round of consultation um it was highlighted the sort of the different characteristics and different values that were represented or were highlighted during that engagement it resulted in the in the sub areas being pulled out and just I hadn't seen any of the lines move throughout that process I was curious if you speak more broadly to the to where those lines are and how or if there's still movement there this seems to be the only note that really speaks to the movement of those lines

SPEAKER_04
1:06:11 (0:00:34)

yeah through the chair actually and I do want to say I do apologize but that East was supposed to be a sorry it says West it was supposed to be East and that was a mistake that I made in drafting that one that so there were there are also a few more around the diamond head north separate where they're discussion around boundary movements but I do apologize that was one error that has been identified and that I'll pull up a map right now

Armand Hurford
1:06:46 (0:00:19)

and while we're doing that I'll just comment that a inclusion of the map in the in this would have been good I had to go to a couple places to or reorient myself and I'm sure anyone else apologies consuming this would have done the same

SPEAKER_04
1:07:05 (0:02:21)

well I just need to okay so um what we had in a in a few areas Diamond Head North and Estates East in particular and the states North were comments from individuals around the boundary line and how it related to their property the common theme was that for individuals who were interested in additional housing diversity and density there was a desire to be included often if they were along a road and the boundary ran down the road those individuals expressed desire to be included in the adjacent property and move the boundary to their backyard so they and they would say things like well we're right across the street from what could be development we feel we should be included please shift the boundary to my backyard line and then other individuals highlighted that if they did not have a desire to see change they often had said hey the line is in my backyard and it would be more appropriate to be along the street so that I have the street of separation from change and so though it's hard because some of those ran counter especially in the Diamond Head North Area there are some concerns that I think highlighted a shift off of the road but would likely then create some challenges for the people in the um resident the single family area in the States north and so We've highlighted these that these could be considerations but how we move forward is going to depend on the scenarios that are identified by Council and I think it's going to need some more nuanced consideration and then it's going to have to come out in the discussion when we do create a plan and there will be feedback at that point that we may need to modify again I think we have to go through an iteration where we know where the broad direction is that we're going and then look at some of those more nuanced changes

Armand Hurford
1:09:26 (0:00:14)

okay thank you so then so then all of the could be can could be considered can be considered are still there you're not looking for that at this point those live past where artists session today

SPEAKER_04
1:09:40 (0:00:17)

yeah we really need to have a for example again if we're selecting a scenarios across the board a lot of them aren't going to be questions that are relevant it really depends on what direction Council gives to staff and then we'll have to do some more consideration okay

Andrew Hamilton
1:09:58 (0:00:04)

thank you counselor stoner

Jenna Stoner
1:10:02 (0:00:35)

thank you through the chair just one final question and something that has come up both in comments has come up around the council table and was thoroughly addressed in the loggers East neighborhood plan which is limitations on lot consolidation I'm just wondering if staff are considering I think this also probably goes to looking for Council Direction on the densities going forward but how do we start to consider can we consider in the development of this plan addressing concerns around multiple lot consolidation and how do we manage that going forward

SPEAKER_04
1:10:38 (0:02:48)

yeah thank you yeah so those are certain certainly topics that we can delve into and we can use um conditions of permitted uses to control law consolidation we have a few of the scenarios already contemplate them so for example in the estate Center we talk about Consolidated subdivision and Townhomes up to a 0.5 hectares which is essentially two lots consolidating or possibly three if they're some of the smaller versions and so they were built in and then as the mayor highlighted based on some of the feedback from Estates East we we've suggested that some control be put in around what might achieve the um the townhouse if a higher scenario is chosen I think 0.3 was a threshold that was identified and some of the input was hey maybe teacher that's locked in and that could be done the one so as it stands we have some that we could build in the one comment I would have to that is that some of the feedback we got for if for areas like the state center if we are I'm going to support a scenario C where there could be townhouses the current threshold which is 0.5 hectares which assumes two lots being Consolidated feedback we got from home builders was that likely would leave a very limited amount of land for while it is a feasible or a viable approach and you know could meet the regulations in our bylaws there probably would be very limited open space or communal space and so it may be worth considering creating a threshold that is slightly higher than originally anticipated to increase the size of communal space but if Council has any direction about thresholds I think that we've assumed thresholds or barriers on how much consolidation can occur and you know certainly we can we take any input Council has there is one other piece I would say to that if a scenario that involves Apartments is contemplated allowing law consolidation would allow larger projects that may have more opportunity of providing affordable housing because they're affordable housing typically revolves around a certain number of units if they are smaller increments of Apartments then we don't get a large number that would provide us much for amenities or housing

Jenna Stoner
1:13:27 (0:00:30)

amenities well thank you and then finally on the commercial piece appreciate staff's comparison to the Squamish employment space principles but we did receive a fair bit of feedback from stakeholders that the pro forma on basically commercial or office exclusively is really challenging and some suggestions for a fifth floor in height and I'm just wondering if we can speak to if that was considered at all in terms of adding that fifth floor if that's Direction you're looking for from Council

SPEAKER_04
1:13:57 (0:01:38)

yeah through the chair thank you yeah I so I think broadly speaking for the commercial area I do want to highlight that in the current market the likelihood of having retail at grade with multiple stories of office is low the intention of maintaining that area without Apartments is to provide for future opportunities where viability may change if office becomes a higher demand product if it generates more Revenue I think there are many scenarios that are hard to anticipate this point but over decades I think it's a really important place to maintain for employment in the future um the one area where we did get input that we could achieve a viable project given additional height for office at the this time was on the west side of the highway and so certainly we think that's inappropriate I think it's one of the items mentioned as a as a consideration and I think that would be appropriate for that area we haven't heard in fact we have reached out to the owners of the um Garibaldi village properties and had no real feedback from them or response we've made multiple attempts to engage them but you know I don't think we'd be opposed to providing additional height there we just haven't had much input I think right now we see that as a reserve an employment space Reserve and if and the future there is demand for higher office which I think would be much longer down the line that could be discussed then

SPEAKER_17
1:15:35 (0:00:02)

what follow-up

Andrew Hamilton
1:15:38 (0:00:19)

okay so we've got 15 minutes remaining so I'll ask counselors to focus their questions on things they need to give staff to direct staff with some feedback and to start thinking about the feedback they're going to give counselor Pettingill your next on the speaker's list

Chris Pettingill
1:15:58 (0:00:33)

thanks in I believe as loggers East a few places we've considered some higher development along a slope because it's less impactful and I'm wondering if staff considered I'm not familiar enough with the property lines to know if it's even feasible but along the Eastern sort of side of Estates East and North is that something that we did or could consider like a little extra height just on that edge that Eastern Edge against

SPEAKER_04
1:16:31 (0:01:23)

the slope through the chair that feedback actually did come into this process as well earlier in the in the um in an earlier stage and it was contemplated there's a couple challenges one that area as we saw in the results there's I would say a high level of sensitivity to that um you know to change in that area um maybe more so than others and so I think you know in trying to balance the input and propose scenarios we shied away from that the other problem there is that um well there are some larger properties that might be suitable for in that location there is a line of very small properties that sit between those larger properties and the slope and so impact on those individual properties would be quite significant it essentially to Canyon them and so we shied away from using that approach in that area especially because we were we were limiting the end we've gotten more feedback about limiting the opportunity for consolidation along those so I certainly understand the question and the rationale for it but it given the feedback that we'd received in the input from the community over the process it did not seem like a tool that would be appropriate for that area but open the direction for Council

Andrew Hamilton
1:17:55 (0:00:04)

thanks very much counselor Greenlaw

Lauren Greenlaw
1:17:59 (0:00:28)

thanks I I was surprised to see how many scenario sees were recommended as a result of this iap2 spectrum level involvement from the community and if you compile the I don't like any scenarios which has been strongly associated with the sentiment of no desire for Change and scenario a those two numbers together represent about half of the responses and I was wondering if staff could speak to how we got to a scenario C from that

SPEAKER_02
1:18:28 (0:00:04)

thanks thank you

SPEAKER_04
1:18:32 (0:01:34)

yeah I think that is very relevant question and something that many people have concerns about ultimately in trying to come up with a set of recommendations staff was contemplating a range of inputs they're certainly the there is a clear preference for lower change and you know lower densities in the community over time the challenge is that in trying to address the needs of the community for housing into the future and you know the opportunities for addressing those needs the a choice to retain the current densities would compromise our abilities to in this part of the community achieve some of the housing that we need both in terms of units that are appropriate for families on a you know a larger number of those and affordable housing opportunities and in that consideration it's very challenging from our perspective to ignore that reality and so that weighed heavily on the consideration and the recommendation

Lauren Greenlaw
1:20:07 (0:00:02)

thanks

Andrew Hamilton
1:20:10 (0:00:18)

thanks very much I'll just remind the audience please refrain from clapping these are very challenging discussions and very challenging decisions ahead of us and it is very important that we keep our composure mayor Hereford thank you

Armand Hurford
1:20:28 (0:01:08)

thank you I was wondering if you could speak to in the Diamond Head South area the differences between scenario B and C which is recommended the main difference seems to be the commercial the commercial use and sort of what the end up the street ends up being its main uses rather than an increase in unit type is what I was sort of extrapolating from or as far as a hot from a housing perspective can you sort of take me through the differences between beans and C there and I feel like that's sort of one of the key questions here we're being asked is whether Diamond Head Road particularly in the South area is you know a future Edgemont Village type thing or something like that is what I see in scenario c and to get that this additional height and sort of lot coverage and so on but what's the housing impact of that and how in from a housing perspective how different is scenario B and C

SPEAKER_04
1:21:37 (0:02:50)

I'm just gonna put up a table here one second okay so through the chair the change you highlighted or the difference you highlighted isn't indeed true there is a significant difference in the character of the street fronting uses the retail at grade but I think a more significant consideration in terms of the difference between the land uses is that in scenario C where you're talking about apartments in scenario B we're proposing a set of missing middle housing forms that are largely ground oriented and the most significant difference between those two is that the apartments provide more opportunity for achieving affordable housing options if we um you know Implement the Squamish Community Housing Society recommendation and use these areas to con to try to achieve critical housing priorities the apartments are where we have more opportunity to get affordable housing and that there are in the in the neighborhood right now the only area that we do have apartment supported are is in the Estates North it's a very small area to you know to rely on to provide affordable housing you know especially non-market rental units that we might achieve through apartment buildings and to use an area or to look at the area across the Estates and have only the Estates North as a as an opportunity to provide those non-market housing options is um I think From staff's perspective um doesn't address some of our fundamental needs in