Regular Council - 17 Oct 2023 AMENDED


1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
2: ADOPTION OF AGENDA
3: DELEGATIONS/PETITIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
3.i: Medical Radiation Technologist Week Proclamation
4: CONSIDERATION OF UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
5: PUBLIC HEARINGS
6: CONSENT AGENDA
6.A: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
6.A: Staff Recommendation:
6.A.i: Special Business Meeting: September 26, 2023
6.A.ii: Special Business Meeting: October 3, 2023
6.A.iii: Regular Business Meeting: October 3, 2023
6.A.iv: Special Business Meeting: October 10, 2023
6.A.v: Committee of the Whole Meeting: October 10, 2023
6.B: CORRESPONDENCE - Receive for Information
6.B.i: 0926 S. Curry, British Columbia Energy Regulator, Re Environmental Management Act
6.B.ii: 0926 M. Leclair, FortisBC, Re FortisBC's Eagle Mountain - Woodfibre Gas Pipeline Project
6.B.iii: 0929 D. Hasselmann, Woodfibre LNG, Re Notice of Public Comment Period Open for Woodfibre LNG Canadian Navigable Waters Act Authorization
6: CORRESPONDENCE - Referred to Staff
6: Staff Recommendation:
6.C: STAFF UPDATES - For Information
6: END OF CONSENT AGENDA
7: CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
7.i: Recommendations from the Committee of the Whole: October 10, 2023 10:45am
8: BYLAWS
8.A: FIRST AND SECOND READING
8.A.i: District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (Affordable Housing & Public Service) No. 3018, 2023
8.B: ADOPTION
8.B.i: District of Squamish 2024 Permissive Tax Exemptions (1 year – Sea to Sky Montessori Society) Bylaw No. 3013, 2023
8.B.ii: District of Squamish 2024 Permissive Tax Exemptions (4 years) Bylaw No. 3015, 2023
8.B.iii: District of Squamish 2024 Permissive Tax Exemptions (1 year – Squamish Helping Hands Society) Bylaw No. 3016, 2023
8.B.iv: District of Squamish 2024 Permissive Tax Exemptions (1 year – Sea to Sky Community Services Society) Bylaw No. 3017, 2023
8.B.v: District of Squamish 2024 Permissive Tax Exemptions (1 year – Squamish Valley Golf and Country Club) Bylaw No. 3014, 2023
8.B.vi: District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (37707 Second Ave) No. 2922, 2022
9: STAFF REPORTS
9.A: CORPORATE SERVICES
9.A.i: 2023 Acting Mayor Schedule
9.B: COMMUNITY PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY
9.B.i: Development Permit No. 000594, 1701 Centennial Way, Phase 2
9.B.ii: Development Permit No. 000575, Waterfront Landing - Lot 4 Amenity Building
9.B.iii: Woodfibre Liquefied Natural Gas and FortisBC/Eagle Mountain Pipeline Projects Update
9.B.iv: Redbridge Land Development Agreement Amendments
10: LATE AGENDA ITEMS
11: CORRESPONDENCE - ACTION REQUESTED
12: CORRESPONDENCE REFERRED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
13: APPROVAL OF MINUTES REFERRED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
14: BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES
15: COMMITTEE MINUTES AND REPORTS
16: NOTICE OF MOTION
17: COUNCIL - STAFF IN CAMERA ANNOUNCEMENTS
18: UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
19: OPEN QUESTION PERIOD - CLARIFICATION RELATED TO AGENDA ITEMS
20: COUNCIL OR STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
21: MOTION TO CLOSE
22: TERMINATION
1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
0:00:00 (0:07:19)


Armand Hurford
0:06:50 (0:00:29)

hello and welcome to the regular business meeting for the distri of Squamish today is Tuesday October 17th 2023 as always we're gathered to do our work today on the traditional unseated territories of the Squamish Nation please be advised this council meeting is being live streamed recorded and will be available to the public to view on the District of scalish website following the meeting if you have concerns please notify the corporate officer present at the meeting

ADOPTION OF AGENDA
0:07:19 (0:00:23)


Armand Hurford
0:07:19 (0:00:22)

Council I'm looking for a motion to ad adopt the amenda as or sorry the agenda as amended thank you moved by councelor French second by councelor Stoner all in favor any opposed motion carries thank you first we have first order of business is

Medical Radiation Technologist Week Proclamation
0:07:42 (0:02:02)

The presentation at the District of Squamish council meeting was centered around a proclamation request for the declaration of a Medical Radiation Technologist Week. This request was included in the council's package, but there was no delegate present to speak on it. The request was moved by Councillor French and seconded by Councillor Hamilton.

Councillor French spoke in favor of the proclamation, highlighting the importance of the work done by medical radiation technologists, especially in the challenging medical settings of today. He mentioned that the request was initiated by a Squamish resident named Natalie, who despite not being fully connected to the community, was able to spearhead this initiative. Councillor French expressed his belief that the declaration of a Medical Radiation Technologist Week was a worthy cause.

Armand Hurford, the council chair, also expressed his support for the proclamation. He mentioned that while the council receives many proclamation requests, he felt this one was particularly relevant given the recent news of a CT scanner being added to the Squamish General Hospital. He believed that this addition made the declaration of a Medical Radiation Technologist Week even more fitting. The motion was then put to a vote and was carried unanimously.

Armand Hurford
0:07:42 (0:00:23)

delegate is a proclamation request for medical radiation technologist week Proclamation this was included in your package and we do not have anyone coming to speak to this would someone like to move this move by councelor French second by councelor Hamilton would you like to speak to it councelor French

John French
0:08:05 (0:00:50)

sure it's great to hear from longtime Squamish residents who are not necessarily fully connected to the community but clearly connected enough to be able to head up an initiative like this one so U Natalie who was the person who corresponded with us requesting this request or requesting this declaration believe she grew up in Squamish and the folks who work in this industry do a fabulous job in our medical settings which are challenging places these days so I think that it's worthy of us to declare medical radiation technologist

Armand Hurford
0:08:55 (0:00:48)

week thank you any other comments on this generally I've been when we get these Proclamation requests I've been looking for organizations that will come and come and speak to the requests because we do get a lot of these but I thought with the addition of the CT the news that the CT scanners coming to the skish General Hospital soon that it was appropriate to put this piece here as this an important piece of technology and feels like it fits in this category and some happy to support so with that I'll call the question all in favor motion carries or any opposed motion carries unanimously thank you next piece

CONSIDERATION OF UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
0:09:44 (0:09:13)

The presentation at the District of Squamish council meeting was initiated by a member of the public, Thomasina Pigeon, who lives in her vehicle in downtown Squamish. She represented the vehicle residents of Squamish and was following up on an open letter sent to the district about a month ago. The letter, which had about 146 signatures, addressed the urgent issue of people being punished for living in their vehicles. She stated that there was no safe place for them to live and they were being stigmatized. She also mentioned that there had been a few violent incidents during the summer. The letter was pushing for an inclusive policy for vehicle residents, which she argued could not wait another four years.

Thomasina Pigeon emphasized the urgency of the issue, stating that it had been four years since they had been waiting for an inclusive policy. She also pointed out that none of the council members had responded to their letters and demands. She mentioned the upcoming budget on December 8th and stressed the importance of their needs as citizens of Squamish being heard.

The council members acknowledged the importance of the issue. They agreed that vehicle residency was a challenging issue with no clear solutions at the moment. However, they decided to move the conversation to a future meeting in two weeks' time, as they believed it required preparation from the staff, council, and community. They also suggested that the issue might be more suitable for a committee of the whole, where longer form conversations could be had. The council members agreed to discuss the issue at the upcoming committee of the whole meeting on November 14th.

Armand Hurford
0:09:44 (0:00:42)

the next item on our agenda is consideration of unscheduled public attendance this is where if a member of the public had a matter that couldn't wait until the next council meeting to be heard you could raise that at this point yes go ahead you can approach the podium and just to be clear on process before we get before we get underway you start by stating your name and which neighborhood and all you're from and also if this is your opportunity to address Council as to why your matter is urgent and can't wait until the next the next council meeting not so much engaging on the issue itself that opportunity is later on in the agenda just to be clear but

SPEAKER_00
0:10:26 (0:00:00)

the is

Armand Hurford
0:10:27 (0:00:08)

yours go away my name is take it away is what I meant to say I'm so sorry Thomasina okay yes go ahead

SPEAKER_00
0:10:35 (0:00:48)

my name is Thomasina pigeon I live downtown Squamish in my vehicle and I'm here as a member of the vehicle residence of Squamish I'm here to follow up on an open letter to the district of Squamish that we had sent out to you guys about a month ago there was about 146 signatures that you should have received and we have not heard back from anybody aside from Lauren Greenhall green law sorry and so it's is an urgent issue as the letter stated people are being punished for living in their vehicles we have no place safe place to live and it's basically being stigmatized and as you know there's been a few violent is incidents this summer and we're following up on the push for inclusive policy for V residents that's why it cannot wait another four years like it's already

Armand Hurford
0:11:23 (0:00:24)

been okay the you still have some time on the CL I just want to coach you that the matter that we'd be wanting to consider is whether it's Ur urgent enough to be discussed this evening or if adding it if scheduling a time to discuss this as it sort of fits in with

SPEAKER_00
0:11:48 (0:00:21)

it's ENT enough to speak of this evening because it's been four years since we've been waiting for inclusive policy no one of you guys have responded to our letters and our demands and also the budget is coming up on December 8th I believe and it's pertinent that our needs as citizens of Squamish and also the visitors here are listened

Armand Hurford
0:12:09 (0:00:57)

to okay thank you so Council the we've heard from Miss pigeon the matter and that she'd like to discuss and again this that portion for un for consideration of unscheduled public attendance does happen later on in the agenda so our decision here is at this point is whether it's meets the threshold of an urgent matter that needs to be discussed he here tonight versus being brought forward at the next count next regular council meeting in which would be in two weeks or some other time that we deem appropriate so it would be take a motion to we would take I'd be looking for a motion from Council on this go ahead councelor Hamilton

Andrew Hamilton
0:13:06 (0:00:12)

I would move that we hear the issue in two weeks time at the next council meeting that it is scheduled at a time for the next council meeting to have a

Armand Hurford
0:13:18 (0:00:08)

discussion okay is there a seconder for that seconded by councelor Stoner thank you U would you like to speak to this

Andrew Hamilton
0:13:27 (0:00:26)

motion I absolutely agree sorry I was looking for thomasa there I absolutely agree that vehicle residency is an important issue in our town a challenging issue one that has no Clear Solutions at this time that I can see and I definitely that recognize and I definitely think it is very important for us to have the discussion have a conversation and try to find Solutions thanks

Armand Hurford
0:13:54 (0:00:01)

thank you gouner stoner

Jenna Stoner
0:13:56 (0:00:34)

yeah I'm supporting the motion to move this conversation to a future meeting in two weeks time because I think it requires our staff to be prepared for it and for Council to be prepared for it and for our community to be prepared for it it's not a simple solution that we're going to be able to solve tonight so appreciate showing up appreciate the ongoing correspondence but it requires more than what I think we have available on our agenda and I don't think we're going to be able to solve it this evening and it's I don't see the matter as pressing in terms of finding the solution today or two weeks time thank

Armand Hurford
0:14:30 (0:00:17)

you thank you I just wanted to add a point of clarity here it's the next regular business meeting and which is actually the 7th of November just to is that fits the intent of the Mover and the seconder okay go ahead councelor French

John French
0:14:48 (0:00:22)

thanks mayor and speaking in favor of the motion I was going to point out that slight technicality October has five Tuesdays so we do not meet on the 31st which means the next opportunity for us to discuss this in a regular meeting is as you point out the 7th of November I look forward to having the conversation at that time coun greenl

Lauren Greenlaw
0:15:11 (0:00:28)

I'd also like to speak in favor of the motion but I'd also like to point out that both mayor Herford and I will be absent from the November 7th meeting and I do wonder if this is a topic that is more suitable for a committee of the whole I don't know if that is accurate or not but I would I would like to see this expedited I would like to see a staff presentation on it and I would like it to be a full some

Armand Hurford
0:15:39 (0:01:14)

conversation thank you the any other comments on this before I menure my own I do think that rightly the committee of the whole is likely the place for this and for those in the audience that aren't familiar with our process that's where longer form conversations can be had and it strikes me this particular issue is incredibly complex and to handle and I think that that's likely to reach an outcome where we've arrive at sort of a useful place by engaging with this I do think committee the whole is the is the appropriate place for this so I think that and as to who who's attending I think that generally the business of the missp needs to keep moving and that's why we have Quorum rules and so on but I do think that committee the whole is the best place for this so I'd look to the Mover to maybe yeah do you have a yeah the motion to say a an upcoming committee that upcoming committee the whole

Lauren Greenlaw
0:16:54 (0:00:11)

meeting can I amend to November 12th that Committee of the whole so that it has a date that it's coming back sorry November 14th

Armand Hurford
0:17:05 (0:00:23)

yeah November 14th so yeah to November 14th commit the whole to be specific about it which I like that that's fine so how about that's my motion and you seconded it how's that is that okay sounds good and so on the amendment all in favor of the amendment carries thank you we're back to the main motion as amended sorry councelor pingal I see your I see your hand

Chris Pettingill
0:17:29 (0:00:22)

yeah sorry thank you now one of my colleagues mentioned a staff report my understanding that the current resolution is for sort of a discussion I assume that to direct staff to do a report and so on we expect a little bit more I just want to make sure we're sort of getting what we expect on the

Armand Hurford
0:17:51 (0:01:05)

14th well no that's an that's an excellent point and I think that I think that at that point in time we'll have to go with the information that we have that we have available to us and perhaps an outcome is of that meeting is to send staff off to do to do some work so I'm if there's an expectation of an in-depth report then that isn't something that's going to happen by that time and I think that speaks to the urgency that we that we've heard from Miss pigeon today and I think we need to start somewhere so it that's the proposed starting point for that discussion at this point any other comments on this motion as amended seeing none I'll call a question all in favor motion carries thank you very much next we have no we have no public hearings we do have some

CONSENT AGENDA
0:18:57 (0:01:18)


Armand Hurford
0:18:57 (0:00:09)

we have do have we're on to the consent agenda if anyone would like to pull anything from the consent agenda councelor

Chris Pettingill
0:19:06 (0:00:10)

peningo yeah I wanted to pull six B2 and B3 that's the BC energy regulator and foris

Armand Hurford
0:19:16 (0:00:05)

letters okay yeah go ahead

Jenna Stoner
0:19:22 (0:00:07)

sorry can I just clarify councelor penil was that B1 is the energy regul B2 is

Armand Hurford
0:19:30 (0:00:05)

Fortis and B3 is wood fiber LNG

Chris Pettingill
0:19:35 (0:00:11)

okay not the wood Fiber One sorry my intent was the energy regulator and the foris okay email so that's B1

Armand Hurford
0:19:47 (0:00:27)

and two okay my apologies item B1 and two is someone can I have someone move the consent agenda with those items removed moved by councelor Hamilton second by councelor Stoner all in favor any opposed motion carries thank you so councelor Peno we'll get to see those correspondence pieces a little bit a little

Recommendations from the Committee of the Whole: October 10, 2023 10:45am
0:20:15 (0:06:29)

In the District of Squamish council meeting, a presentation was given by Carrie Hamilton, a planner at the District of Squamish, regarding an update on the Land Development Agreement (LDA) amendment that was discussed at the October 10th Committee of the Whole meeting. The LDA amendment pertains to the Redbridge LDA, a development project in the district. Hamilton reported that they were able to discuss the requested changes with the developer and have revised the LDA accordingly.

The revised LDA now includes the removal of the strata-only language for the car share and an increase in the Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) amount from $60,000 to $175,000. The increase in the CAC is due to the fact that the kayak launch, a part of the development project, requires the Crownland tenure and will be impacted by the timeline requests. The developer was unable to meet the timeline for phase four of the project.

The council members raised concerns about the security of the bridge construction, which has been moved to phase five of the project. Hamilton explained that while there were discussions about securing a cash advance for the bridge, the developer agreed to the terms set by the council in the motion. She noted that there is a specific date for the delivery of the bridge and if the developer fails to meet this deadline, they would be in non-compliance with the LDA, giving the council some authority to enforce the construction. However, further changes to the LDA would be required to ensure cash security for the bridge.

Armand Hurford
0:20:15 (0:01:36)

bit later now we've got recommendations from Committee of the whole of October 10th first is the circular economy road map update moved by C Stoner second by councelor Hamilton any comments nope all in favor any opposed Castor Pettingill I just want to make sure your timing on it's a lag you were you opposed to that or no okay motion carries thank you next is the 2023 Transit threeyear expansion uhou moved by counselor French and seconded by councelor Stoner all in favor motion carries unanimously thank you next order business is the cemetery master plan endorsement councelor Anderson moved by councelor Anderson seconded by councelor Greenlaw I see no hands for comments I'll call a question all in favor motion carries unanimously thank you next up we have the Redbridge L LDA and I did have it does appear later in the agenda but I thought this might be an opportunity to provide some staff to provide a little bit of update on this item as it's as it's here and carts and horses feel a bit different with feel strange to approve something here that happens later in the agenda as well so what would you like to speak

SPEAKER_08
0:21:51 (0:00:50)

to good evening mayor and Council my name is Carrie Hamilton planner at the District of Squamish and I'm just here today to give you a quick verbal update on the LD amendment that was discussed at the October 10th Committee of a whole meeting so we were able to go back to the developer and discuss the two changes that the committee had requested so before you today is a revised LDA that includes the removal of the strata only language for the car share and it includes an increase to the CAC amount from 60,000 to 175,000 and that is because the kayak launch does actually require the crownland tenure and so we'll be impacted by that those timeline requests and they weren't able to achieve the phase four timeline that was

Armand Hurford
0:22:41 (0:00:08)

requested okay thank you Council I have you have question on this go

Andrew Hamilton
0:22:49 (0:00:11)

ahead I recognize that the third item is referred to a Committee of the whole was there any conversation with the developer about the third

SPEAKER_08
0:23:01 (0:00:10)

item through the mayor the third item will be coming back to a committee of the whole at a at a future

Armand Hurford
0:23:12 (0:00:04)

date okay councelor Stoner

Jenna Stoner
0:23:16 (0:00:06)

clarification on where we're at in the agenda this item does come up later are we voting on

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

I have a yeah we'll get we're getting there any other questions for staff on this item y go

Jenna Stoner
0:23:36 (0:00:24)

ahead appreciate the conversations that have happened to date one outstanding item that I mentioned to be fair not in my motion but in my comments was trying to find some level of security for the bridge given that it's being moved to phase five was that part of your discussion with the developer in terms of securing a cash security in advance of the bridge being

SPEAKER_08
0:24:01 (0:00:36)

delivered so through the mayor there were some discussions of those options however we were directed based on the motion and the applicant decided to agree to the terms that Council set in that motion one of the things to note is that there is a date for the delivery of that bridge it's not just attached to the phase five and so should they not meet that date of construction then they would be not in compliance with the LDA and we would have some authority to try and Achieve that

Jenna Stoner
0:24:37 (0:00:11)

construction what Authority do we have to actually force them to build the bridge if they don't do so by the time that's allotted in the

SPEAKER_08
0:24:48 (0:00:08)

LDA through the mayor they wouldn't be they would be not in compliant with the Land Development

Jenna Stoner
0:24:56 (0:00:16)

agreement but if for some reason at that point they have no interest in building phase five and six then they won't really care is that true is there anything else with if they're not in compliance with the LDA then so

SPEAKER_17
0:25:13 (0:00:43)

what through the mayor my name is yishis senior director of Community Development I we expect a number of amendments as this development goes through the process in the LDA they have security currently tied up in the current offsite works that they have a servicing agreement for we're going to be coming back on another item to a committee meeting to discuss changes in the LDA so I think we're just delaying that to a future date we will get a security for it before phase four is finished so I think we don't have any concern that you know it was a valid point and we will address it just not at this point we had to rush to get these changes

Armand Hurford
0:25:56 (0:00:05)

done okay so oh councelor greenl

Lauren Greenlaw
0:26:02 (0:00:19)

do we have any ability to say that if it's not if it doesn't commence construction before phase five or after phase five for whatever the timing is that we can just get cash in L for this bridge is it possible to put that wording in as some sort of security to make sure that we do receive the asset that we've been

SPEAKER_08
0:26:21 (0:00:10)

promised through the mayor that would require further U changes to the Land Development agreement to allow for that

SPEAKER_17
0:26:31 (0:00:07)

if I can just add we will be getting a security or this bridge when the servicing agreement gets done for

Armand Hurford
0:26:38 (0:00:05)

it okay so that's coming at a later point in the in the process so Council just to be

Redbridge Land Development Agreement Amendments
0:26:44 (0:15:41)

The council meeting focused on the Land Development Agreement (LDA) for the Redbridge development. Armand Hurford, the council member, proposed a motion to authorize the mayor and corporate officer to execute the park option to purchase state amendments only to the LDA for Redbridge development. The motion also included the authorization for the mayor and corporate officer to execute the LDA for Redbridge development as amended per the direction of the committee of the whole meeting on October 10th, 2023. The amendments included the use of the car share program not being limited to strata only, the delivery of a kayak launch at the occupation of phase four, and if not possible, the cash contribution amenity should be updated to current policy targets.

The motion was further clarified to include the Land Development agreement Clause 11 B5 to be referred to a future Committee of the whole for further consideration. However, Jenna Stoner, another council member, expressed concerns about the security from the developer with respect to the bridge. She suggested that the motion be severed and voted on the park component separate from the LDA, as one was time sensitive and the other could put the council at risk if moved forward too quickly. This amendment was approved.

Despite the approval of the amendment, there were still concerns about the security of the bridge construction. Stoner expressed her discomfort with moving the bridge to phase five without a clear identification of the date that the securities from the developer would be received. She feared that this could lead to the risk of four phases being built out with no bridge and no future phase five and six. However, the council was assured by the staff that there was a date secured for the construction of the bridge by October 17, 2025. Despite the concerns, the motion was carried with Stoner, Greenlaw, and Pettingill opposed.

Armand Hurford
0:26:44 (0:01:03)

extra transparent what I'm going to do is suspend the order of the of the agenda to reflect that we're on effectively item 9 B4 and I do have a recommend I do have a motion here so that so this is that Council authorized the May and corporate officer to execute the park option to purchase date amendments only to the Land Development agreement for Redbridge development as prepared in attachment one of the Redbridge LDA agreement and Council authorized the mayor and corporate officer to execute the Land Development agreement for Redbridge development as amended to include the following use of the car share program should not be limited to strata only kayak launch to be delivered at occupation of phase four and if not possible the cash contribution amenity should be car's nodding her head or shaking her head okay

SPEAKER_08
0:27:47 (0:00:28)

sorry apologies I just wanted to add that because the motion was split out for the park option we also need a motion that approves all the other amend M ments that were proposed in the committee meeting on October 10th as well as these changes so just if the wording could speak to those two things that would be

Armand Hurford
0:28:15 (0:00:10)

helpful the staff recommendation is

SPEAKER_10
0:28:26 (0:00:03)

evolving okay

Armand Hurford
0:28:29 (0:01:25)

all right I'm going to go back sorry I have to go back to the beginning if you could point me to where that so just give me one second we're going to get this is happening in real time folks okay here we go I'm going to start from the beginning so we stand a chance of following Council authorize the mar corporate officer to execute the park option to purchase State amendments only to the Land Development agreement for Redbridge development as has prepared in attachment one of the Red Bridge Land Development agreement and Council authorized the mayor and corporate officer to execute the Land Development agreement for Redbridge developments as amended per direction of the committee of the whole meeting on October 10th 2023 and as presented to council today on October 17 2023 to reflect to include use of the car share program should not be limited to strata only kayak launch to be delivered at occupation of Fai for and if not possible the cash contribution amenity should be updated to current policy targets and then the final item is the Land Development agreement Clause 11 B5 be referred to Future committee the whole for future consideration everyone yeah go ahead see councelor

Jenna Stoner
0:29:55 (0:00:10)

Stoner can I just clarify with st when do we actually secure a security from the developer with respect to the

SPEAKER_08
0:30:05 (0:00:07)

bridge so through the mayor we would secure a security at servicing agreement so this will be after development permit agreement

Jenna Stoner
0:30:13 (0:00:01)

or which

SPEAKER_08
0:30:14 (0:00:33)

phase there's no timey attached to that

Armand Hurford
0:30:48 (0:00:48)

Council Anderson seconds the motion and I'll speak to this briefly I think I really appreciate the update and the work and the work's been that's happened to date I think this LDA is going to have acknowledge this LDA is going to have more work performed on it and I think it has a ways to go before it's before it's all the way there and as I've heard some of the concerns on the table but there'll be another touch point so for this one I'm happy that it's moved as far as it has at this point in time I think that's as far as it could practically go I'll go to councelor Hamilton and then councelor St go to councelor Stoner

Jenna Stoner
0:31:36 (0:00:03)

can you please repeat the

Armand Hurford
0:31:39 (0:00:10)

motion last time I did that it killed the mic so I'm going to go to the to the record taker to make sure that it's

SPEAKER_10
0:31:50 (0:00:53)

read the motion that I have is that Council authorize the mayor and corporate officer to execute the park option to purchase date amendments only to the Land Development agreement for Redbridge development as prepared in attachment one of the Redbridge Land Development agreement and two that Council authorized the mayor and corporate officer to execute the Land Development agreement for Redbridge development as amended for the direction of the committee of the whole meeting on October 10th and as presented to council here today and also to include the use of the car share program should not be limited to strata only and the kayak lanch to be delivered at o occupation of phase four and if not possible the cash contribution amenity should be updated to current policy targets and three the Land Development agreement Clause 11 B5 be referred to a future Committee of the whole for further consideration

Jenna Stoner
0:32:43 (0:00:09)

thank you for that Clarity I'd like to move that we sever the motion and vote on the part component separate from the LDA

Armand Hurford
0:32:53 (0:00:07)

Amendment okay do are you're seconding that do you want to speak to it counc

Jenna Stoner
0:33:00 (0:00:12)

s yeah I think that it's important that we sever these because one is time sensitive and the other one puts us at risk if we move it forward too

Armand Hurford
0:33:13 (0:00:56)

quickly okay so on the amendment I'll call the question all in favor any opposed motion carries so now so now that we've severed them we're going to deal with the first the first question which is the par the park motion and I don't see any hands for comments on this so I'll call the question all in favor motion carries unanimously and now we're on to the second part which is essentially the rest of the of the motion it was broken into two pieces with that Amendment just so yeah so the rest of the rest of the motion and I'll be looking for comments on the pieces that are left councelor

Jenna Stoner
0:34:09 (0:00:54)

Stoner yeah thank you through the chair I won't be supporting this at this time and I'm regretting that my motion at Committee of the whole wasn't more clear and that I just made it in comments that I don't feel comfortable moving the bridge to phase five without having a clear identification of date that we would actually be receiving the Securities from the developer on it I think that puts us at risk of not securing the funds that we need to be able to provide this or that this amenity gets provided to our community as expected and we potentially have the risk of four phases that get built out and no bridge and then no future phase five and six and so I just don't see the security here that I think I need to be able to support the changes that have been made to date I appreciate the work that staff and the developer have done in the past week to get this to where it is I appreciate that was some quick conversation but there's still a big gap there for me thanks

Armand Hurford
0:35:03 (0:00:05)

thank you I just want to recognize staff here there's a motion on the floor but for clarity please

SPEAKER_08
0:35:09 (0:00:34)

to the may I just want to clarify one element that the Land Development agreement does secure a date that this would have to be constructed by and this that's October 17 2025 so there is a security to have it constructed however it doesn't speak to a security to hold the servicing at that servicing agreement bonding but in order to start construction you would have to go through a servicing agreement to do that so essentially it's kind of like a date but it's not exactly for what Council Stoner is looking

Jenna Stoner
0:35:44 (0:00:10)

for I think I appreciate the clarification it still doesn't actually require there's no consequence if the developer doesn't actually build the

SPEAKER_17
0:35:54 (0:00:21)

bridge we like any Department from the Land Development agreement we have legal recourse to make the developer meet their

Armand Hurford
0:36:15 (0:00:10)

commitments I'll let you ponder that councelor Stoner and any other comments on this on this topic oh councelor pill go ahead

Chris Pettingill
0:36:26 (0:00:39)

well I'm hoping I ask a clarifying question I missed earlier the I heard staff say I think that the servicing agreement is required to move forward with a DP and but a DP for what stage because it sounds like that is a point where this has to be resolved or security acquired attached to a servicing agreement attached to a DP so are we talking about Phase 5 DP or before the next DP for any phase or what are we talking about here or am I misunderstanding

SPEAKER_08
0:37:06 (0:00:31)

something so through the mayor and the Land Development agreement I believe it's in section 13 and 14 they provide a number of language that specifies conditions on how they can move forward and that includes the date in that discussion as well as not being able to not being able to get a building permit for phase five if construction of the bridge is not

Armand Hurford
0:37:38 (0:00:07)

commenced he Council any other comments on this go ahead councelor

Andrew Hamilton
0:37:45 (0:01:00)

Hamilton yeah thanks I'm just seeking clarification on Mr valin's comment that the developer can be held accountable to the Land Development agreement and from Miss Hamilton's comment of this falling in section 13 section 13 reads for the de development of phase 1 to phase six lands as applicable the developer further covenants and agrees with the district that AB which one am I looking for the bridge the bridge section D that they commence construction of the bridge is that the piece that legally binds the developer to build the bridge independent of whether they commence with phase

SPEAKER_17
0:38:45 (0:00:05)

five we we're just trying to find the section you're referring to could you mention the section

Andrew Hamilton
0:38:50 (0:01:01)

again 13d

SPEAKER_08
0:39:51 (0:00:47)

through the mayor I just want to confirm that is one of the sections that speaks to this particular one in 13 is trying to speak to the Clauses on if the crownland tenure if there's some delays there are some contingency built into that but that we wanted to assure that they are moving diligently on the construction and the permitting process so that's what that particular language is speaking to that you're referring to I believe there's section 14 and 16 were noted as changes in the LDA to speak to this date again but it is one of the locations in which the date is

Armand Hurford
0:40:39 (0:00:42)

noted okay Council we do have a question before us I spoke to this when they were all grouped and I'll Venture some opinion here we're hearing from our from our staff that there's a level of comfort that they can address our concerns through the processes as it's laid out I'd also remind Council that LDA is a negotiated agreement and both parties need to agree to so I think and I have a level of comfort that this is something that will happen and I know that we're going to need to touch this LDA again so I think this is as far as I'm comfortable with it at this point so I'll be I'll be supporting the motion councelor French

John French
0:41:22 (0:00:04)

thanks mayor Herford I share your level of comfort and I'll be voting in

Armand Hurford
0:41:27 (0:00:58)

support thank you I'm going to call the question all in favor and opposed we've got councelor Stoner green law Pettingill opposed motion carries thank you next up we have another the final recommendation from committee the whole is the Community amenity contribution policy review update which I'll which I will move if there's a seconder second by councelor Hamilton thank you any comments on this not seeing any I'll call the question all in favor any opposed motion carries unanimously thank you and now we're on to section 8A

FIRST AND SECOND READING
0:42:25 (0:00:45)


Armand Hurford
0:42:25 (0:00:45)

by laws first and second reading I'll pass it over to Mr Dy

District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (Affordable Housing & Public Service) No. 3018, 2023
0:43:10 (0:21:45)

Brian Dy, a planner with Community Planning, presented a revised bylaw related to affordable housing and public service zoning bylaw amendments to the District of Squamish council. The bylaws were initially presented for first and second reading at a previous council meeting, but were postponed due to concerns raised by staff about the level of flood hazard on properties in debris flow hazard areas or controlled densification areas. These issues have now been addressed in the bylaw amendment being presented.

The amendments proposed as part of bylaw 3000 could allow for higher residential density in debris flow hazard areas and controlled densification areas than what is supported in the hazard lands policies in section 11 of the official community plan. To address this discrepancy, staff are proposing to add conditions of use clarifying that affordable housing use, including affordable housing that falls under the definition of public service and public service use, is not permitted at densities higher than existing zoning if the property is located in a debris flow hazard area, a restricted densification area, or a limited densification area. An additional condition is included to clarify that affordable housing use and public service use on a property located in a conditional densification area is permitted if specific conditions identified in the official community plan are met.

Bylaw 3018 proposes to replace section 4. 49 with new general regulations related to affordable housing. These regulations would allow affordable housing in any zone where residential is a principal use, allow the height of a principal building where all the units are secured as affordable housing to increase to 23 meters or six stories, exempt affordable housing buildings from lot coverage, apply a parking requirement of one space per dwelling unit for affordable housing units, and exempt gross floor area associated with affordable housing from the gross floor area calculations. The amendments intend to help remove barriers and facilitate affordable housing in any zone where residential is a principal use. The planning staff held an open house on the proposed affordable housing amendments that were previously presented and received feedback from the public. The staff are recommending that bylaw 3018 be given first and second reading and that a public hearing be scheduled for November 7th.

SPEAKER_15
0:43:11 (0:07:50)

thank you mayor Herford good evening mayor and Council my name is Brian Dy planner with Community planning I'm here tonight to present a revised bylaw related to affordable housing and public service zoning bylaw amendments that were recently presented to council the bylaws presented tonight are for consideration of first and second reading at the July 18th 2023 regular council meeting Council C bylaw 3000 first and second reading and scheduled a public hearing for October 3rd due to additional considerations surfaced by staff prior to the public hearing the hearing scheduled for bylaw 3000 on October 3rd was cancelled additional considerations raised by staff relate to the level of flood Hazard on properties in a debris flow Hazard area or a controlled densification area this issue is also relevant to the public service use amendments proposed in bylaw 2976 which was given third reading at September 12th at the September 12th 2023 regular council meeting the issues with both these bylaws have now been addressed in the bylaw Amendment that's being presented this evening so staff have identified that the Amendments proposed as part of bylaw 3000 could allow for higher residential density in De brief flow Hazard areas in control densification areas than what is supported in the hazard lands policies in section 11 of the official community plan to address this discrepancy staff are proposing to add conditions of use clarifying that affordable housing use including affordable housing that falls under the definition of public service and public service use is not permitted at densities higher than existing zoning if the property is located in a debris flow Hazard area a restricted densification area or a limited densification area an additional condition is included to clarify that affordable housing use and public service use on a property located in a conditional densification area is permitted if specific conditions identified in the ocp are met these conditions have been brought into the zoning bylaw Amendment for clarity the Amendments proposed as part of bylaw 2976 the P2 Amendments have also been included as part of this bylaw these include a revised definition of Public Service two include Services provided by the provincial or federal government and includes affordable housing provided by a government agency or nonprofit and the amendment also proposes to add neighborhood commercial as an accessory use in the PT Down based on provincial targets identified in the district of Squamish 2023 housing needs report 9600 new housing units will be required and Squamish by 2036 6,840 of these will be required by 2031 of the 6840 42% will need to be affordable to households earning below $70,000 per year one way to increase Supply is to remove density limitations for affordable housing projects from the zoning bylaw so they could more viably be established across the community the Amendments intend to help remove barriers and facilitate affordable housing in any Zone where residential is a principal use bylaw 3018 proposes to replace section 4.49 with new general regulations related to affordable housing these General regulations would allow affordable housing in any Zone where residential is a principle use allow the height of a principal building where all the units are secured as affordable housing to increase to 23 M or six stories exempt affordable housing buildings from loot coverage apply a parking requirement of one space per dwelling unit for affordable housing units exempt gross floor area associated with affordable housing from the gross floor area calculations as previously mentioned it also has stipulations related to not allowing use this use to exceed the permitted densities in a debris flow Hazard area or a restricted densification area and finally there is an amendment to section 4.10 height of buildings and structures to apply a maximum Building height of 26.5 M or eight stories whichever is less in any Zone that may permit a taller Building height as this is currently the tallest building height that the district's fire department can safely fight a fire in there are a few zones that allow for a building height taller than this including uc1 uh1 cd37 cd61 and cd99 so the last time this was brought the when the affordable housing amendments were originally brought for consideration of first and second reading to Council requested some visualizations to get an idea of what these amendments might look like on a typical rs1 lot so staff did some highlevel calculations and it would require upwards of six typical rs1 lots to be accommodated or to be Consolidated to accommodate the required parking for a 40 unit building a building with fewer than 40 units would not likely require the 23 M height in discussions with the Squamish Community Housing Society affordable housing developments under six stories do not typically receive financing as they do not contain enough units to make a project viable the spirit Creek affordable housing building which opened in 2023 had 76 units and is five stories in height this was constructed on a 533 square meter parcel which would be roughly the equivalent area of eight rs1 Lots given the current market value of rs1 Zone properties it is unlikely that an affordable rental housing project would be acquiring multiple rs1 lots and taking advantage of the relaxations proposed in this zoning bylaw Amendment the attention behind the amendments in this bylaw are to remove density limitations in the zoning bylaw and eliminate the resoning process that is often required for these projects this could save six months to a year in the development process and allow for affordable rental projects to be delivered to the market faster the blanket resoning for residential property to allow for a viable affordable housing projects will provide a significant advantage to nonprofits and government agencies in delivering affordable housing in any Squamish neighborhood so planning staff held an open house on the proposed affordable housing amendments that were previously presented the event was well attended with approximately 20 members of the public in attendance staff outlined the proposed amendments and Associated rationale to clarifying questions from the public and then allowed for an open discussion the majority of those in attendance were property owners who agreed there's a need for affordable housing but were concerned about the neighborhood impacts associated with allowing buildings up to six stories with a reduced parking standard in all zones overall the conversation was productive and informative for staff and attendees staff clarified that the amendments were targeting publicly funded non-market rental projects and are relying on the district's Partnerships with community housing providers to resolve location and massing issues rather than restricting development through zoning attendees highlighted the need for clarity in communicating with the public to highlight the objectives of the amendment there were a number of concerns that the public highlighted the impact of six-story buildings on adjacent properties including shade effect on neighborhood character effect on property values and setting a precedent for Building height in lowdensity neighborhoods where excess parking will go from residents of a future building whether existing infrastructure has the capacity for this type of development blanket zoning amendments as opposed to spot zoning in certain locations to try out the regulations first to see if there are unintended consequences there were a few attendees who were supportive of the Amendments including one resident who thought that the relaxations particularly related to parking stalls should be further reduced to try and make affordable rental housing projects as viable as possible so staff are recommending that bylaw 3018 be given first and second reading and that a public hearing be scheduled for November 7th that concludes my presentation I'm happy to take questions at this time

Armand Hurford
0:51:02 (0:00:13)

thank you for the presentation Council questions on what we've heard we've essentially seen this once before with a new layer added councelor Pettingill then

Chris Pettingill
0:51:16 (0:00:37)

Stoner yeah just reviewing some of the feedback from the Housing Society did we look at further reduction and parking requirements for when these units are placed on Transit routes or Core Transit RS because it seems we're still you know someone needs an affordable unit you're going to have to pay for a parking spot whether or not you're trying not to have a car as part of managing your affordability and just wondering if there's it seems if I understand this for an affordable unit to U building to consider that sort of thing they still have to come for a rezoning given this what we're proposing is that

SPEAKER_15
0:51:53 (0:00:19)

correct through the May no parking could be varied through a development variance permit which these projects would still be required to do for form and character and depending on what Land Development procedures bylaw amendments come forward in the near future that may be delegated to staff so that would not require rezoning

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

process okay thanks and just sorry is there a reason that we didn't sort of consider a transit route exception out of the box other than maybe Council didn't raise that earlier

SPEAKER_15
0:52:26 (0:00:19)

staff thought it was reasonable to start with a parking reduction to one stall per unit across the entire Community for affordable rental housing if a project were to as previously mentioned if a project were to come forward that was close to Transit and had solid rationale to further reduce the parking requirement there is the ability to do that through the development VAR permit variance permit

SPEAKER_17
0:52:46 (0:00:29)

process I could just add one consideration that we do have is the grant with the cmhc for housing accelerator fund includes a number of projects and one of those projects would be looking at well serviced areas for infrastructure and Transit and seeing if we can improve density or increase density there and reduce some of the requirements like parking so that's a future

Armand Hurford
0:53:16 (0:00:04)

project are you good councelor penil yep councelor Stoner

Jenna Stoner
0:53:20 (0:00:26)

thank you through the chair my first question is I'm still unclear as whether these amendments would apply to a building that was built under the community housing fund so that CHF fund requires that 20% of the units are Market rental so not defined as affordable and everything that we have here is 100% affordable so have we overlooked a piece of the funding puzzle here for affordable housing

SPEAKER_15
0:53:47 (0:00:34)

through the mayor so there's two separate definitions there's the definition of affordable housing and there's the defin definition of Public Service which includes affordable housing use provided by a nonprofit or government agency I would interpret this definition to include also Market rental housing provided by a nonprofit or government agency as under the public service use the affordable housing the separate affordable housing General regulations would apply to buildings that are 100% secured as affordable rental housing if that makes sense so it's kind of two separate General

Jenna Stoner
0:54:21 (0:00:15)

regulations so the Amendments on the affordable housing component per se not the public service lands but the affordable housing blanket rezoning wouldn't enable the CHF funded

SPEAKER_15
0:54:37 (0:00:35)

proposals not to no it would not the public service one would which is typically what we're seeing there is language that speaks to affordable housing securing item or having entered into a housing agreement with the District of Squamish that has some sort of NC limitations and Rental restrictions so there could be open to interpretation that if it if this is negotiated through a housing agreement that a project would be able to still take advantage of those affordable housing amendment

SPEAKER_17
0:55:12 (0:00:43)

relaxations I could just also add all the projects that include affordable housing have to go through a housing agreement process which is a bylaw and we didn't want to design the blanket amendment to fit a specific funding program so if there if we do run into issues such as that where we need to have a mix of market and affordable I think we would run that process through the housing agreement bylaw and with the new public hearing rules you know it's a very straightforward spot zoning amendment to fit the application for funding to the zoning in place and we could do that through the housing agreement so that's the Russ now why we didn't try to fit it in a certain box

Jenna Stoner
0:55:56 (0:00:48)

okay that's helpful thank you my second question is appreciate the high level calculations and the visualization of how many rs1 Lots it would typically actually take to consolidate to make a project work I think that helps put a bit of a realistic lens on what might happen here the other elements of this bylaw speak about gross floor area exemptions and lot coverage exemptions and I'm unclear how those might impact the design of these buildings and neighboring interactions I'm just wondering if you can speak to how we can maybe think about those my understanding is that setbacks would still apply but how would like a GFA or lot coverage exemption shift how a building might relate to its neighboring

SPEAKER_15
0:56:45 (0:00:33)

buildings so through the mayor it obviously if you're exempting lot coverage in Gross floor area you are allowing more massing on a lot than would Ty typically be allowed there is still a form and character development permit process to go through so obviously that's where staff would try and work with an applicant to address concerns related to massing and negative impacts on adjacent properties but the idea here was to try and make it as flexible as possible and not require rezoning process or multiple

SPEAKER_17
0:57:18 (0:00:34)

variances if I could just add also the other issue is the because we're doing a blanket Amendment the each Zone has sort of different lot coverage and gross Flor area limits so that's why it wouldn't work if we try to do this under existing zoning or exist existing limitations with less parking you know that's when like our regulations right now exclude parking from gross floor area calculations so with less parking then we can do more gross floor area in the same box

Jenna Stoner
0:57:53 (0:00:26)

essentially okay and then my last question is around the height of buildings and structures component of the amendment appreciate you including in one of your slides the zones that it currently applies to I can think of where three of those are but can you actually identify where the other ones are so the uh1 or UC ones are up in the University lands cd69 is the ocean front where are the other CD Parcels

SPEAKER_15
0:58:19 (0:00:19)

through the mayor they're all downtown there's one downtown South I think they're is one of them I believe is Hunter place but it's written in a way that it's six stories or a building height that is higher than 27.6 met so that's a bit unique but they're pretty much all

Jenna Stoner
0:58:39 (0:00:14)

downtown okay and so are there any implications in terms of think of the ocean front in particular which is in a phase development agreement the zoning has been established to us then changing that for specific CD

SPEAKER_15
0:58:53 (0:00:35)

zones through the it won't apply to the ocean front they have their own version of the zoning bylaw but I believe in discussions with developers once you go over six stories in Building height the costs of construction are quite a bit higher and it has been an issue on certain projects that have been getting worked on so we're not seeing too many buildings exceeding that height and we just wanted to clarify that in the zoning bylaw for folks who are looking to potentially develop in these zones that allow this higher Building height that it's clear that currently the fire Department can only fight a fire in a building this

Jenna Stoner
0:59:28 (0:00:16)

tall okay and then my other follow on to that is appreciate that you just said that building above six stories is much more expensive but our general height limitation you're proposing is eight stories but we're limiting the affordable housing buildings to six stories so why wouldn't we just give them the maximum

SPEAKER_15
0:59:45 (0:00:31)

height through the mayor this was just recognizing that this is a blanket zoning bylaw Amendment across all zones that permit residential and that eight stories would be a lot in certain low density neighborhoods and also for the same reason that the cost of construction is so much higher for to go above a six-story building that in discussions with the Housing Society we aren't you're not really seeing projects go that high for affordable rental because the margins are so slim

Armand Hurford
1:00:16 (0:00:18)

currently thank you Council other questions seeing none we do have a staff recommendation are you moving the staff recommendation yep in its entirety is seconded by councelor French would you like to speak to

Andrew Hamilton
1:00:35 (0:00:41)

it I think that this kind of blanket move to open up our zoning I think is a really powerful step towards finding Solutions without having very challenging discussions with the immediately impacted neighbors there's going to be immediately impacted Neighbors on every project that happens every time there's a there's an advancement or a change in our building zoning and so I think this is a way that we can all accept that when a project is viable and affordable it can move forward so thanks very much

John French
1:01:16 (0:00:27)

thank you go ahead councelor French thanks mayor my support of this motion is summed up in a thought that was provided to us by Sarah Ellis the exec Ive director of the Squamish Community Housing Society and I'll paraphrase here to make below Market housing happen heightened density is needed for financial viability even when senior levels of government are helping with the funding proceeding with a rezoning is an important element to make making these needed developments happen

Armand Hurford
1:01:44 (0:00:05)

thanks thank you other comments on this go ahead councelor

Jenna Stoner
1:01:49 (0:00:50)

Stoner yeah I will be supporting this moving through first and second reading as for my numerous questions I still have a few hesitations that well I think that this is the right step that we may be missing a few pieces and I think this is where I'm wrestling with moving fast and getting it right or taking a little bit more time but I think that appreciate the initial public engagement that staff went back out and did as well as dotting our eyes and crossing our tees with the restricted densification areas and our flood Hazard management I don't think anybody wants be putting affordable housing in high-risk areas so that is critical and I think that this is ready to go out to public or sorry to public hearing on November 7th and look forward to hearing from the public on it and moving this forward thanks

Armand Hurford
1:02:40 (0:00:02)

thank you councelor pill

Chris Pettingill
1:02:42 (0:00:56)

yeah I'm going to be supporting this there are a few questions that I still have and I'm still wondering if we've gone far enough in a few places I guess the benefit there is in not going far enough we have the opportunity to go further without large regrets whereas if we went too far we might get some things that we can't pull back on until it's too late and so well I think there's a couple things where maybe we could consider going a bit further I think this is supportable I do still have some hesitation I brought it up a while ago about the blanket removal of the restrictions on where some of the appliances outdoor appliances go I see that as an opportunity to pull back on gas appliances I'm hoping that we will deal with that soon though with the zero carbon or low carbon step code in a more blanket way though so that's telling myself that's okay to move forward on this one as it is and so yeah happy to support this

Armand Hurford
1:03:39 (0:01:15)

thanks thank you Council any other comments see none speaking in support of the motion I think that we know that affordable housing is a is a critical need in our in our community and this is us effectively getting out of the way as much as practical with our regulations to facilitate that construction in that in that area and I'm happy to look forward to a time where we're working inside of this framework and if projects come forward where this framework hasn't pushed far enough is at least move the starting point for us to a much better to much better place and we can see what has to happen on the specific projects through a development variance permit or whatever other actions needed to actually get them across the line but this effectively moves affordable housing forward in our community and I think in a in a very meaningful way so I'm happy to support and thank you for your work on this and yeah I'll call the question all in favor motion carries unanimously thank you so much okay Council

ADOPTION
1:04:55 (0:00:13)


Armand Hurford
1:04:55 (0:00:12)

next we're on to adoption we have no as per normal we have no presentations with this so but we do need to do them individually and there's a few of them these are we start with

District of Squamish 2024 Permissive Tax Exemptions (1 year – Sea to Sky Montessori Society) Bylaw No. 3013, 2023
1:05:08 (0:00:31)


Armand Hurford
1:05:08 (0:00:31)

the permissive tax exemption this is the onee for cisk monor society bylaw 3013 2023 moved by counselor French move and second by councelor Anderson all in favor and opposed councelor Stoner Hamilton and Pettingill oppose motion carries thank you

District of Squamish 2024 Permissive Tax Exemptions (4 years) Bylaw No. 3015, 2023
1:05:39 (0:00:56)


Armand Hurford
1:05:39 (0:00:22)

next is District Squamish 2024 permissive task exemption four years the fouryear exemptions which is bylaw number 3015 2023 and there are four sorry six items there and we'll do those all together is there a mover move by counselor French and

Andrew Hamilton
1:06:01 (0:00:00)

sorry

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

we're

SPEAKER_16
1:06:10 (0:00:01)

moving

Armand Hurford
1:06:11 (0:00:24)

oh I'm moving sorry that was 3015 the four the foure exemption this is just item two oh sorry just item two sorry I thought they were all grouped right just item just item two moved by count by councelor French second by councelor Hamilton sorry I got ahead of myself there all in favor motion carries unanimously thank you

District of Squamish 2024 Permissive Tax Exemptions (1 year – Squamish Helping Hands Society) Bylaw No. 3016, 2023
1:06:35 (0:00:18)


Armand Hurford
1:06:35 (0:00:17)

now we're on to District squish permissive tax exemption the oneye for Squamish heling hand society which is bylaw number 3016 2023 moved by councelor Stoner second by councelor Hamilton all in favor any opposed motion carries thank you

District of Squamish 2024 Permissive Tax Exemptions (1 year – Sea to Sky Community Services Society) Bylaw No. 3017, 2023
1:06:53 (0:00:19)


Armand Hurford
1:06:53 (0:00:19)

next we have t Squamish 2024 permissive tax exemption this is a one-ear for C Sky Community Services B number 3017 2023 moved by councelor Green LW second by councelor Anderson all in favor any opposed motion carries thank you

District of Squamish 2024 Permissive Tax Exemptions (1 year – Squamish Valley Golf and Country Club) Bylaw No. 3014, 2023
1:07:12 (0:00:59)


Armand Hurford
1:07:12 (0:00:12)

next is distri of sish 2024 permissive tax exemption one year sish Valley golfing Country Club bylaw number 3014 2023 moveed by counselor oh sorry go ahead counc

Eric Andersen
1:07:24 (0:00:11)

Anderson May Herford I wish to declare a conflict on this item as a curling club member my fees can be affected by the fate of the application of the Affiliated Golf Club so I'll step out of the room until I'm

Armand Hurford
1:07:36 (0:00:34)

called thank you councelor Anderson okay I'm looking for a mover move by councelor Stoner second by councelor French all in favor any opposed councelor Hamilton opposes motion carries thank you yeah do you want to grab counc Anderson back hopefully you didn't go too far so next we're on to item six District

District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (37707 Second Ave) No. 2922, 2022
1:08:11 (0:00:27)


Armand Hurford
1:08:11 (0:00:26)

sish zoning bylaw number 20 22 sorry 2200 2011 Amendment bylaw this pertains to 37707 2 Avenue and is bylaw number 29 22 2022 I move by councelor Hamilton and I'll second that all in favor any opposed motion carries thank you

STAFF REPORTS
1:08:38 (0:00:43)


Armand Hurford
1:08:38 (0:00:43)

next we have staff reports we have from corporate services we have a change to 2023 acting mayor schedule and the recommendation is that Council amend the 2023 acting mayor schedule as follows councelor stoner to November 2023 and this and councel green law to December 2023 and this is just to for very practical reasons as Council green law will be traveling for a big chunk of November on Municipal business so it makes sense to switch it this way in my opinion moved by councelor Stoner second by councelor Greenlaw all in favor motion carries unanimously thank you next we're on

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY
1:09:21 (0:00:04)


Armand Hurford
1:09:21 (0:00:04)

to item 9B community plan and sustainability

Development Permit No. 000594, 1701 Centennial Way, Phase 2
1:09:25 (0:31:21)

Jesse Abraham, a planning consultant, presented a development permit application for Centennial Way Phase 2 on behalf of the Community Planning and Sustainability Department. The property, located at 1701 Centennial Way, underwent a rezoning process in 2018 and a development permit for Phase 1 was issued in September 2022. The Phase 2 development permit application is now being considered by the council. The property is bordered by the Mamquam River and Dyke to the north and Logger's Lane to the west. The Phase 2 proposal consists of seven buildings, including a six-story mixed-use building with commercial retail on the ground floor, office space on the second floor, and 79 condos on the upper stories. There is also a one-story building for commercial retail and five buildings consisting of 32 townhouses.

The development permit application was reviewed against DP Area 3 forming character guidelines. The site is in a flood hazard area and a flood hazard assessment was received and a covenant registered on title. The site is also in a wildfire hazard area and a wildfire hazard covenant was registered on title as part of the rezoning process. The Phase 2 site design provides pedestrian permeability between buildings and access to the public D Trail. The development features a shared central open courtyard space between the buildings, a small children's play area, and a larger playground located between the development and the Dyke. Condos include private patios or balconies for each unit and there is a 1,000 ft² indoor amenity space for residents that connects to the central open courtyard.

The development includes construction and long-term maintenance of a public pavilion adjacent to the Dyke Trail. The public pavilion includes six parking spaces, a covered shelter with an accessible picnic table, bike parking, an accessible path, and a bear-proof waste bin. Public access will be secured by a statutory right of way and long-term maintenance will be secured by a maintenance agreement registered on title. The building's form and character is considered West Coast contemporary, featuring flat roof lines and a mixture of fiber cement lap siding and corrugated metal panel. The design includes wood and timber accents and the color palette draws on the nearby environmental features. The proposal meets DP Area 3 guidelines for forming character and staff recommend the approval of DP 594.

Armand Hurford
1:09:25 (0:00:52)

we've got a development permit and I will turn it over to staff to introduce themselves in the topic

SPEAKER_06
1:10:18 (0:04:20)

all right thank you good evening mayor and Council my name is Jesse Abraham planning consultant presenting on behalf of the community planning and sustainability Department I'm here tonight to present a development permit application for Centennial Way phase to the subject property underwent a resoning process in 2018 the District of Squamish adopted zoning Amendment bylaw number 2529 and approved a Land Development agreement for Centennial Way on July 20th 2021 development permit for phase one was issued in September 2022 The Phase 2 development permit application is now brought forward for Council consideration the subject property is located at 1701 Centennial Way at the north side of Centennial if you can see site one labeled on the site plan shown here the mamquam river and Dyke border the property to the north and logger logger's Lane runs to the west of the property Phase 2 is accessed off Centennial Way and is about 3.6 AC in size The Phase 2 proposal consists of seven buildings one six-story mixed use building with 1,8 squ me of commercial retail on the ground floor 539 M of office space on the second floor and 79 condos on the upper stories a one-story Building located near the corner of Centennial Way and loggers Lane is 200 square met in size for commercial retail in add addition there are five buildings consisting of 32 tow houses over three stories vehicle and bicycle parking meet bylaw requirements vehicle parking is provided via outg grade access to a covered partially sunken parcade this development permit application was reviewed against DP Area 3 forming character guidelines a separate sitewide delegated development permit addressing Environmental Protection under DP Area 1 was issued in February of this year the site is in a flood Hazard area a flood hazard assessment was received and a covenant registered on title in addition the site is in a wildfire Hazard area and a wildfire Hazard Covenant was registered on title as part of the rezoning process the phase 2 site design provides pedestrian permeability between buildings and access to the public D Trail all common open spaces and pedestrian connections are secured through a public access statutory right away the development features a shared Central open courtyard space between the buildings activated with several seating and open lawn areas a small children's play area and a larger playground located between the development and the Dyke condos include private patios or balconies for each unit and there is a 1,000 ft² indoor manity space for residents that connects to the central open courtyard there is an outdoor patio and Plaza space fronting Centennial away adjacent to the one-story commercial retail building that will enable addition activation at the corner of loggers Lane landscape plantings throughout the site use a diverse mix of shrubs ground covers and grasses in accordance with the Wildfire Hazard guidelines as per the Land Development agreement the development includes construction and long-term maintenance of a public Pavilion adjacent the Dyke Trail the public Pavilion includes six parking spaces including one accessible stall a covered shelter with accessible picnic table bike parking accessible path and bear prooof waistband Public Access will be secured by statutory RightWay and long-term maintenance will be secured by maintenance agreement registered on title the building's form and character is considered West Coast contemporary featuring flat roof lines and a mixture of fiber cement lap siding and corrugated metal panel the design includes wood and Timber accents including wood columns beams and sophs the color palette draws on the nearby environmental features with accents at entryways given that the proposal meets DP Area 3 guidelines for forming character staff recommend the approval of DP 594 subject to the conditions noted on this slide and that concludes my presentation thank

Armand Hurford
1:14:39 (0:00:04)

you thank you Council questions go ahead councelor

John French
1:14:43 (0:00:22)

French thanks mayor one of the advisory design panel comments called for more trees and more native species for this project and I'm wondering did that recommend Commendation actually lead to more trees being added to the landscape plan and has there been a shift to more native species in that

SPEAKER_06
1:15:05 (0:00:19)

plan through the mayor yes there was a tree replacement plan that was reviewed and was part of the tree permit that was issued for this site so tree species do have to meet Wildfire Hazard guidelines but do include conifers as well as deciduous trees

John French
1:15:25 (0:00:05)

and how about Native plant

SPEAKER_06
1:15:31 (0:00:09)

species through the mayor yes the Landscaping plan was reviewed against native plant species and are encouraged through the development permit area

John French
1:15:41 (0:00:10)

guidelines okay and the advisory design panel also called for a review of fir Tru access were any changes made to better accommodate emergency

SPEAKER_06
1:15:51 (0:00:13)

vehicles through the mayor since the original submission the one change they made to the fire lane was to pave it the initial submission included a gravel fire lane and so it was updated to include

John French
1:16:04 (0:00:22)

pavement okay I have one more if you'll indulge me okay the new pickle ball courts are being built across Centennial Way from this site has any consideration been given to potential noise concerns for the future residents living in the units at the western edge of the property

SPEAKER_06
1:16:26 (0:00:24)

through the mayor so there is a noise Covenant on site due to the proximity to the gun range and so prior to building permit issuance they will be required to provide a memo from a qualified professional that it meets the cical requirements as per the Covenant the tree buffer on the west side of the property along loggers Lane will be maintained as well

John French
1:16:51 (0:00:00)

great thanks

Armand Hurford
1:16:52 (0:00:09)

mayor thank you Council other questions oh thank you councelor pingal go ahead

Chris Pettingill
1:17:01 (0:00:41)

yeah thanks and it's a bit of an opportun question opportunistic question given that fire Hazard Covenant and flooding Covenant were mentioned here I don't actually need the answer to make this decision but I am curious with the natural disasters we've seen and so on is a concern for insurance and residents getting insurance that we are requiring these covenants and not suggesting we shouldn't require them it's just something that I was wondering my ears perked up when I heard those conditions so just something maybe do follow up on later thank

Armand Hurford
1:17:43 (0:00:09)

you I'm going to take that as something to follow up on later by staff's response to your question do you have question councelor Hamilton go ahead

Andrew Hamilton
1:17:52 (0:00:49)

than thanks very much I was struck by the amounts of the Securities $440,000 for the Dyke Pavilion 50,000 for a bus shelter if my recollection serves for projects similar to these that we have done have cost considerably more we recently saw a pavilion similar to this whose budget is about 100,000 how do we decide on these security amounts and are we sure that these security amounts are sufficient if the if for some reason the project doesn't go

SPEAKER_17
1:18:41 (0:00:44)

ahead through the mayor so the all of these monetary Securities were included in the Land Development agreement those were the estimates at that time so we don't have any actual flexibility it is all wrapped into the development permit and again delivering the development permit as approved is a responsibility of the applicant so this I don't I don't recall a case where we've ever had to use a landscape security to deliver amenities on site you know there are other legal recourses that we can take if development doesn't meet the development permit conditions

Armand Hurford
1:19:26 (0:00:02)

okay councelor Stoner

Jenna Stoner
1:19:28 (0:00:22)

thank you through the chair in the breakdown of the number of bed units and the bedrooms of those units it's showing that only 23% of the condos I believe are coming in his three bedroom our policy aims to get us at 30% so I'm just curious why we're falling short

SPEAKER_06
1:19:50 (0:00:16)

there yes thank you through the mayor that unit mix table is just for building one which is for the condo buildings so when we include the tow houses there is 45% of the project is three Beds which exceeds the

Jenna Stoner
1:20:06 (0:00:48)

policy I think it was a Miss missed opportunity in the rezoning process where we try and get a diversity of using unit mixes in different housing forms so they've all ended up as three bed not all of them majority have ended up as three-bedroom Town Homes and not as many in the apartments which I think is a Miss but I think we're too late in this part of the process the other piece that jumped out at me was only providing two bike parking stalls for the public Pavilion which seems really low and that they're also uncovered so I don't think we actually secured covered bike parking through the LDA but did we secure the number of bike stalls that would be required in the public area or is this just kind of a generosity of the develop Vel ER at this

SPEAKER_06
1:20:55 (0:00:18)

point through the mayor so the Land Development agreement did not specify number of bike parking stalls the LDA did call for a minimum 200 foot shelter and six vehicle parking

Armand Hurford
1:21:13 (0:00:49)

stalls okay I've got a couple questions of my own in the T in the report there were only a few pieces that stood out to me as the ones that are somewhat met guidelines and the one in particular was the loading areas should be at the rear of the building and access from the lane and the staff communist somewhat meets guideline loading at front no rear access and I wondered if this if this reflects a change in approach or is this a site specific issue and why just yeah if you could speak to that particular Point page 110 of 166 for those of you following

SPEAKER_06
1:22:03 (0:00:21)

along through the mayor so that's right so one of the guidelines ask that loading area should be at the rear of the building and accessed from a lane for this site there is no Lane the rear of the site also is along the mcram river Dyke and so there's no way to access it the commercial retail area from the rear

Armand Hurford
1:22:24 (0:00:16)

so with that in mind does it have a particular spot to allow this to happen there's a there's a front loading zone specifically not just that it will occur from the front is that a set aside on the roadway or wherever that access point

SPEAKER_06
1:22:41 (0:00:13)

is yes so there's two vehicle accesses from Centennial Way and there is designated three designated loading zones that meet the zoning BW requirements for loading

Armand Hurford
1:22:54