Regular Council - 21 Nov 2023

1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
7.A: Staff Recommendation:
7.A.i: Special Business Meeting: November 7, 2023
7.A.ii: Regular Business Meeting: November 7, 2023
7.A.iii: Committee of the Whole Meeting: November 14, 2023
7.A.iv: Special Business Meeting: November 14, 2023
7.B: CORRESPONDENCE - Receive for Information
7.B.i: 1109 Minister of Housing Re New Legislation to Support Local Government Housing Initiatives
7.C: STAFF UPDATES - For Information
7.C.i: Brennan Park Energy Study - For Information
8: Recommendations from the Committee of the Whole: November 14, 2023
8.i: Vehicle Residents of Squamish
8.ii: Water Metering Program
9.A.i: Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (40279 Government Rd) No. 3004, 2023
9.A.ii: Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011 Amendment Bylaw (Falcon Crescent Child Care Expansion) No. 3012, 2023, and Priority Policy Update (Child Care)
9.B.i: District of Squamish Building Bylaw No. 1822, 2004 Amendment (Step Code 3 Option) Bylaw No. 3020, 2023
9.B.ii: District of Squamish Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 2911, 2022, Amendment Bylaw (2023 Housekeeping Amendments) No. 3021, 2023
10.A.i: Funding Application to the Labour Market Program
12.i: 1107 N. Fairweather Re The Spot Laundromat and Non Profit
1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
0:00:00 (0:12:59)

Armand Hurford
0:12:44 (0:00:15)

hello and welcome to the regular business meeting for the District of Squamish for Tuesday November 21st and as always we're gathered to do our work today on the traditional and unseated territory of the skish nation and we're extremely privileged to do so

0:12:59 (0:00:35)

Armand Hurford
0:12:59 (0:00:34)

can I have someone move adoption of the agenda move by councelor French second by councelor Stoner all in favor motion carries 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 skish website following the meeting if you have any if you have any concerns please notify the corporate officer present at the meeting which is Miss Arthur's over here so we have no delegation or Proclamation requests this evening so we're on to item

0:13:34 (0:08:46)

Aiden Nickel, a resident of Squamish, presented to the council on behalf of the vehicle residents of Squamish. He requested that the district make an emergency temporary amendment to the bylaws under the visitor and camping management plan. Nickel argued that the matter was urgent due to the current bylaw perpetuating stigma and presenting life safety issues for vehicle residents. He also highlighted the low rental availability in Squamish and the high cost of rent, suggesting that vehicle residents were not going away. Nickel proposed a temporary bylaw amendment as the easiest path forward to legalize sleeping in a vehicle until long-term solutions for vehicle residents are in place.

The council members, including Mayor Armand Hurford and Councillors Jenna Stoner, John French, and Chris Pettingill, discussed the request. Stoner moved to deny the request for unscheduled public attendance, arguing that the issue was not new or emergent and could not be changed in two weeks. She also noted that a temporary amendment to a bylaw was not possible and that the issue required more nuanced discussion. French and Pettingill supported the motion, citing the complexities of amending a bylaw and the need for a more thorough discussion. Hurford also supported the motion, acknowledging the urgency and frustration expressed by Nickel but stating that the strategic plan review was the best place to address such issues. The motion to deny the request was carried unanimously.

Armand Hurford
0:13:34 (0:00:59)

four which will be consideration of unscheduled public attendance if anyone has a matter that feels like they can't wait until the next regular business meeting this would be your opportunity to present to council sir hi there please so just I just want to be I'm going to clarify some procedural but we'll so we'll start with we'll sayate your name and your and your neighborhood or and then where and then this is an opportunity to relay to council why the matter that you would like to discuss can't wait until the next regular business meeting which occurs in two in two weeks time not so much arguing the actual the actual point and then we'll decide on that and if s if you're successful then we have a space for this under item 19 in the in the agenda a little later on just so you know where you're at procedurally but take away the floor is yours

0:14:33 (0:00:33)

sounds good thank you my name is Aiden nickel I live and work here in Squamish I'm here speaking on behalf of the vehicle residents of Squamish we asked to speak to ask that the district make an emergency temporary Amendment to the bylaws under the visitor and camping management plan this cannot wait the 2024 strategic plan is a lengthy and aspirational goal that holds no guarantee and after the loss of the consultant's work we need protection now as you know the bylaw perpetuates stigma

Armand Hurford
0:15:06 (0:00:12)

presents one second I think you're getting into proving your or to the to the point that the what we're looking for is the is the urgency you've needed tonight versus in two weeks or at a at a future meeting

0:15:19 (0:00:06)

I think this is why it's urgent

Armand Hurford
0:15:26 (0:00:03)

tonight okay continue back to you yep back to you

0:15:29 (0:00:05)

just as you

Armand Hurford
0:15:34 (0:00:12)

know it's a matter if well we're still here sorry gentleman's still making the point as to why that it's why it's important that it's heard tonight so if you keep to the urg the urgency

0:15:47 (0:00:37)

absolutely just got just to be clear a couple more sentences sorry yep go ahead as you know the bylaw perpetuates stigma presents life safety issues for vehicle residents and with the Squamish rental availability at 6 % and a one room Squamish rental averaging 17 over $1,700 it is clear that the vehicle residents are not going away we believe that doing a temporary bylaw amendment is the easiest path forward to legalize sleeping in a vehicle until long-term solutions for vehicle residents are in place it is also cost efficient and can happen quickly we have some ideas for amendments if you grant us the time thank you very

Armand Hurford
0:16:24 (0:00:54)

much thank you for your words one thing is just before we I'll remind Council that bylaws require readings to be to be adopted and there's not we don't have the power at this table to amend a bylaw in that in that fashion just as a procedural piece but Council I guess we'd be looking for a motion to allow this unscheduled public attendance to be heard later in the meeting if there's appetite for that so look to counsel councelor Stoner

Jenna Stoner
0:17:18 (0:00:07)

I'll move that we deny the request for unscheduled public attendance at this time and I'll speak to it if it's seconded

Armand Hurford
0:17:25 (0:00:02)

seconded by councelor Hamilton go ahead councelor Stoner

Jenna Stoner
0:17:28 (0:00:52)

yes thank you and thank you for being here this evening I do appreciate that there is an item on the agenda that is relevant following from our discussions that we had last week at Committee of the whole this item is not new it is not emergent and it's not something that going to be able to be changed in two weeks time we can't do a temporary amendment to a bylaw and I really do think that this discussion requires more nuance and more complexity from what we heard from the delegation of the vehicle resident Society last week is that there are different options on the table and so I think that an immediate knjk reaction at this point is would not do anybody well and so I think that we have a measured approach going forward in terms of referring this to our strategic Plan update which will be January or February where we can have a more fome decision on what the impact will going to be and which direction we can take going from there thank

Armand Hurford
0:18:21 (0:00:08)

you thank you anyone else like to make comments on this councelor French

John French
0:18:29 (0:00:21)

thanks mayor and I'd like to thank Mr nickel for attending tonight and making the request generally for unscheduled public attendance I'd like to lean towards hearing from folks in this case I'm supporting the motion on the floor because we do have a process and as we have heard amending a bylaw is not something that can be done in one

Armand Hurford
0:18:50 (0:00:03)

night thank you other comments councelor

Chris Pettingill
0:18:54 (0:01:16)

penel yeah I will support the motion I think I think I feel that there is some council is concerned about the issues being raised but I also think there are some complexities in terms of Staffing and implementing some of these things that require some discussion so I don't think we can have that discussion at the end of the meeting tonight in a constructive way and as we've heard we can't amend a bot tonight amending a bot is a several week process because there has to be multiple readings and then an adoption and so on but I also am hearing and I don't have a way to respond just yet frustration with understanding what the process is and how people can engage with the process and make sure that the voices here are heard and reflected in the decision we make and so I think as a council and maybe individually speaking to some of the folks in the room we need to make sure that process is going to be clear that not just you know discussion sometime in January and February that for the folks that are coming and concerned about this they're clear on how to interact with and influence that

Armand Hurford
0:20:10 (0:02:09)

process thank you any other comments I'll be supporting the motion I really do appreciate when folks come and it's not easy to stand at the podium and ask for something from this group and that I think you've done a great job of articulating the UR the urgency and the frustration that you're that you're feeling so even if this isn't successful this evening and it doesn't feel like it is I think you've been successful in keeping this issue front of mind the Strategic plan review which we'll do in q1 strategic plan is where we provide the broad directions to staff as far as what outcomes we're looking for and that everything flows from that budgets work plans and all of that so this needs to be initiatives like this need to be weigh against everything else in the in the plan and capacity and that's the best place to do that and in between here and there we'll be seeing an update on the visitor management work from our staff as well so there will be some touch points going forward and this is not a in any way a deferral of work on this on this issue and I understand that we're not moving as fast as some folks would like but there is work underway and we haven't we absolutely haven't forgot about you and we do hear your voices but this particular Avenue this evening isn't the path forward at this point for me with that I'll call the question all in favor motion carries unanimously thank you any other consideration of unscheduled public attendance seeing none I'll move forward we have no public hearings tonight no timed items we're on to

0:22:20 (0:00:44)

Armand Hurford
0:22:20 (0:00:10)

consent agenda anyone like to pull anything from consent agenda yeah yes councelor Hamilton go

Andrew Hamilton
0:22:30 (0:00:07)

ahead I'd like to pull item 7 C1 staff updates for information Brennon Park energy study

Armand Hurford
0:22:38 (0:00:25)

sure okay and we'll deal with that in the spot that's labeled correspondence from seeing no others you moveing consent agenda councelor Stoner moves consent agenda seconded by councelor French all in favor any opposed osed motion carries thank you now we're

0:23:04 (0:00:13)

Armand Hurford
0:23:04 (0:00:13)

on to item eight and this goes to recommendations from committee the whole from November 14th 2023 so the first item there is vehicle residents of Squamish that the

Vehicle Residents of Squamish
0:23:17 (0:00:18)

Armand Hurford
0:23:17 (0:00:18)

discussion regarding vehicle residence of Squamish be referred to 2024 strategic plan review moved by counselor French second by councelor Stoner all in favor any opposed motion carries thank you the second recommendation coming from that meeting was regarding

Water Metering Program
0:23:35 (0:00:21)

Armand Hurford
0:23:35 (0:00:20)

water metering program the staff defer the remaining 46 water meter installations described in the water metering program report from the community planning and sustainability division dated November 14 2023 moved by councelor Stoner second by councelor Hamilton all in favor motion carries thank you and now we're

0:23:56 (0:00:01)

Armand Hurford
0:23:56 (0:00:01)

on to bylaws for

0:23:57 (0:00:02)

Armand Hurford
0:23:57 (0:00:01)

first and second reading

Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (40279 Government Rd) No. 3004, 2023
0:23:59 (0:14:53)

Brian Daly, a planner with Community Planning, presented a rezoning application for a property at 4279 Government Road. The property, which was previously developed with a single unit dwelling that was destroyed by fire, is divided into two parcels by the CN rail line. The rezoning application seeks to rezone the parcel on the east side of the rail line from RS2 to RM2 to facilitate the development of 26 townhomes. No changes are proposed for the parcel on the west side of the rail line, which the applicant proposes to dedicate to the district. The proposed development meets the requirements of the RM2 zone, including a building height of 9. 91 meters, a gross floor area of 3,111 square meters, and a floor area ratio of 0. 55. The development also includes 59 parking stalls, common open space, and private open space for each unit. The applicant has also proposed a cash-in-lieu contribution for critical amenities and a dedication of the 1. 5-hectare parcel on the west side of the rail line for active transportation and parks.

Council members asked questions about the proposed development, including the application of the subdivision control bylaw, vehicle flow on Government Road, accessibility of parking units, and the value of the land proposed for dedication. Brian Daly clarified that the detailed design of the frontage would be determined in the future, and that the proposed access was considered sufficient by engineering. He also explained that the accessible parking stalls were intended for visitors, and that there should be sufficient space within a garage to accommodate accessible parking. Regarding the land proposed for dedication, Daly noted that it was environmentally sensitive and best left preserved as is. He also confirmed that the value of the land would be higher than the cash contribution being allocated. Council members expressed support for the rezoning application, noting that it was consistent with other properties in the area and aligned with the district's policies. The council voted unanimously in favor of the motion, and a public hearing was scheduled for January 16th, 2024.

Armand Hurford
0:23:59 (0:00:13)

we've got zoning bylaw number 2200 2011 Amendment bylaw number 3004 2023 and we have staff to present to it sorry yeah go

John French
0:24:12 (0:00:15)

ahead mayor I am declaring a conflict of interest in this matter one of the people connected to the ownership of this property made a financial contribution to my election campaign and to avoid the perception of a conflict of interest I'll remove myself from this particular

Armand Hurford
0:24:27 (0:00:35)

discussion thank you very much for that counselor French we will you'll be in the in the back conference room and we'll come find you okay I will turn the floor over to staff to introduce themselves on the

0:25:03 (0:03:59)

topic thank you mayor Herford can evening May and Council my name is Brian Daly planner with Community planning I'm here tonight to present a resoning application at 4279 government Road for consideration a first and second reading and to schedule a public hearing subject property is vacant lot at 4279 government Road it was formerly developed with a single unit dwelling that was destroyed by fire the property is unique in that it is a hooked part with approximately a 1.5 hectare lot on the west side of the CN rail line and a 58 hect parcel fronting government road on the east side the parcel on the west side of the rail line is zoned rl2 and is in the agricultural land Reserve ctin Reserve is north of the subject property adjacent properties to the South are zoned rs2 and developed with duplexes mamquam Elementary is across government road to the east this resoning application seeks to reone the parcel on the east side of the CN rail line front and government Road from rs2 to rm2 to facilitate the development of 26 Town Homes no development or changes to the existing zoning are proposed for the parcel to the west of the rail line the applicant is proposing to dedicate this land to the district the property is located in a conditional densification area and the applicant has completed flood modeling to confirm that the proposed development footprint and grading plan will not have adverse impact on flood conveyance there are two environmentally sensitive areas located on the portion of the property that is subject three zoning as such they trigger the requirements of development per in area 1 for protection of the environment the applicant is prepared to report establishing the setbacks from these areas that meet the dpa1 guidelines a development permit for the protection of environment will be processed should this rezoning application be successful the applicant is proposing to maintain a number of the existing mature trees on site as part of this application this application would meet the requirements of the rm2 Zone the proposed law coverages 38% Building height is 9.91 M and the gross floor area of all the buildings is 3,111 M for a floor area ratio of 0.55 21 of the units will have three bedrooms and five will have two bedrooms plus a den units will range in size from 111 square meters to 140 sare met the development is accessed off government Road nine of the units provide sidebyside parking within a garage the remaining units provide one stall within a garage and a second surface parking stall in front of the garage seven visitor parking stalls are provided for a total of 59 parking stalls which meets the requirement of the zoning bylaw a shared waist stream is provided as required there's 143 square meters of common open space proposed including a covered Community communal amenity space a toddler play area and an adventure play area 1,80 meters of private open space is provided in the form of grand level yard and Patio space for each unit this application triggers the previous CAC policy the applicant has proposed the following offer which meets the previous policy for a multif family residential or mixed use resoning application proposing less than 50 dwelling units a cash and lo in of for critical amenities in the amount of $2,380 which meets the policy and for the act of transportation and Park's contribution the dedication of the 1.5 hectare parcel on the west side of the CN rail line to the district the applicant is also propos proposing to enter into a no gas Covenant and that all the units will be powered by electricity to inform the community per policy the project was posted to the district's development showcase and a development sign was installed on the property no comments or requests for a public information meeting have been received to date so staff recommend giving bylaw 304 first and second reading and scheduling a public hearing for January 16th 2024 at 6 p.m and that concludes my presentation I'm happy to take

Armand Hurford
0:29:02 (0:00:09)

questions thank you for the presentation Council questions councelor

Jenna Stoner
0:29:12 (0:00:17)

Stoner thank you through the chair I think I know the answer to this but I do want to clarify If This Were to get through rezoning at subdivision or at development permit the subdivision control bylaw would apply in terms of Frontage improvements right so sidewalks that sort of stuff happens at DP

0:29:30 (0:00:01)

through the chair that's

Jenna Stoner
0:29:31 (0:00:14)

correct okay and that question comes from a curiosity in terms of vehicle flow on the government Road into a school zone is that something that is considered now or later in the

0:29:45 (0:00:12)

design through the chair engineering has done a preliminary review of the proposed resoning and considers the proposed access sufficient the detailed design of the frontage will be determined in the

Jenna Stoner
0:29:58 (0:00:27)

future okay my other minor question is just with regards to the parking all the accessible designated accessible parking units are within the visitor spots none are designated within the actual units and I'm just curious 10% of the units will have to be required to be accessible based on our DP guidelines so I'm just curious why none of the spots for parking are considered accessible within the units

0:30:25 (0:00:42)

themselves through the mayor the zoning the requirements for the accessible stalls presently in the zoning bylaw are kind of in addition to the what would be provided in a garage the it's kind of complicated you if you're providing them as visitor parking stalls I think that's the intention so that folks who require those spaces who are visiting the Stalls can use them and then the there should be sufficient space within a garage to accommodate this the actual dimensions of the parking stalls within a garage or a surface parking stall are based on the width of the drive AIS accessing them so there's a bit of nuance there but they should be sufficient to facilitate accessible folks needing to park in the garage

Jenna Stoner
0:31:08 (0:00:01)


Armand Hurford
0:31:10 (0:00:05)

you thank you questions go ahead counc penel

Chris Pettingill
0:31:15 (0:00:12)

the piece of land proposed as Park or in for active trails and parks and so on is that accessible or how would it be accessible if we were to take that

0:31:28 (0:00:43)

on through the mayor it's not presently accessible there's no pedestrian crossing over the CN rail line it is actually an environmentally sensitive area quite environmentally sensitive and it's a mature Forest so ideally it would probably be best suited as just to be preserved as is and maintain it could be used for maintaining flood conveyance as well but it's sort of probably best left alone it's part of the reason why the district felt it would be more appropriate for the district to own it and not estrata it is in the ALR so you could not put any kind of Covenant restricting agriculture use or restricting uses on it but this piece of land is quite environmentally sensitive it's probably best left as

Chris Pettingill
0:32:12 (0:00:26)

is okay and so is this then is consistent with our what we're after in terms of parks and I apologize I the policy is not fresh on my head but in terms of a park dedication or it's maybe not but we see other useful value and so that's why we're considering it sort of instead of what we would normally accept in terms of rep Park

0:32:38 (0:00:11)

through the mayor yes that would be correct it has environmental assets that are considered appropriate and valuable so that is why staff are entertaining accepting the

Armand Hurford
0:32:50 (0:00:03)

dedication Council

Andrew Hamilton
0:32:54 (0:00:15)

Hamilton thanks very much I assume I know the answer to this already but you say the CAC offer is consistent with our previous CAC policy is that because the application was submitted before our change in cic policy

0:33:09 (0:00:02)

through the mayor that's

Armand Hurford
0:33:12 (0:00:32)

correct thank you so I see that this parcel has been treated as two parcels and I just want to be EXT make sure I'm extra clear I think I know the answer to this one too but the when we're talking lot coverage and all and all the rest that's that I hope is obvious we're being we're basing that off in relation to just that parcel not to not the overall parcel including the piece that's hooked and to be dedicated to the municipality so there's are there any special considerations with in that regard

0:33:44 (0:00:06)

no the project is based just on the Eastern parcel and it meets the requirements of the rmt zoning that would be applied just to that

Armand Hurford
0:33:51 (0:00:14)

parcel okay thank you that was the answer I was expecting to get so thank you for that Council any further questions or moving go ahead go ahead councelor Stoner

Jenna Stoner
0:34:05 (0:00:13)

yeah just back to the CAC proposal and the equivalency of the 1.5 hectare parcel relative to what our cash in lie for active Transportation or parks would be do we have a sense of what the actual value of that land

0:34:19 (0:00:10)

is through the mayor not a specific one but it would certainly be higher than the contribution that the cash contri bution that is being allocated to

Jenna Stoner
0:34:29 (0:00:06)

it but it is basically non-developable land because it's so highly sens environmentally

0:34:36 (0:00:21)

sensitive through the chair it there may be portions of it that could be developable you'd need to hire a qualified environmental professional to go out and do all that detailed assessment work but C the applicants have provided other valuations that were higher than this contribution that we're crediting them go ahead Mr biscus

0:34:58 (0:00:26)

just want to add to Mr dy's statements in that it's also ALR so it's agricultural land which complicates the sensitivity or the environmental sensitivity impact on what you can do with the property if you're going to use it for agriculture you know there's certain aspects of environmental law that wouldn't

Armand Hurford
0:35:25 (0:00:04)

apply okay councelor Hamilton go

Andrew Hamilton
0:35:30 (0:00:03)

ahead I I'll move the staff recommendation

Armand Hurford
0:35:33 (0:00:06)

thank you is there a seconder I'll second it would you like to speak to

Andrew Hamilton
0:35:40 (0:00:32)

it thanks very much this seems like a fairly straightforward zoning change I think it's one of the first that I've seen that we have a another Zone to that's already defined to up Zone it to so for me it was quite a bit simpler to go through and think through so I and I think the zoning appears consistent with the other area the other properties in the area so I'll speak in support of this resoning application

Armand Hurford
0:36:12 (0:00:04)

thank you other comments go ahead councelor Stoner

Jenna Stoner
0:36:16 (0:00:36)

yeah I to will support the motion on the floor I think that this is an interesting proposal that as Council Hamilton mentioned does meet all the requirements under the rm2 right and I do think that generally as per our ocp policy this is an area that we tend to encourage densification it is walking distance to some critical amenities it's on it's on a key Transit line and across the street from an elementary school so I think that generally in line with our ocp policy and look forward to hearing what the community has to say at an open house or at the public Hearing in January

Armand Hurford
0:36:53 (0:01:59)

thanks thank you any other comments speaking support of the motion I think this is a nice addition to the neighborhood and it aligns with a lot of our policies I do have some concerns that I know will be addressed The Next Step but I want to speak to them now the that I've had some very challenging times at that corner more than more than once and I know that driveway as much as a driveway existed I don't know the last time a vehicle came out of that driveway and we are adding you know some residents to that area I know that the road design will need to will need to change to accommodate and I'm sure that there is a safe design there but I want to highlight the challenges there and I know that that'll be addressed at Future steps not this one it's not something to hold up this process but I'm really curious to see what can happen there and I think when we reach an acceptable design there it will increase overall safety of everyone moving through that through that area that's my expectation so but I'm happy to support it at this point in time and hear what the community has to say about this in January and I'll call the question all in favor motion carries unanimously and was that did we capture do we need a separate motion for scheduling the public hearing or was the intent of the Mover that we did we just vote on both okay so make sure everyone's on the same page great can someone get counselor French back I think he's should just be in meeting room one okay next we have

Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011 Amendment Bylaw (Falcon Crescent Child Care Expansion) No. 3012, 2023, and Priority Policy Update (Child Care)
0:38:52 (0:25:51)

Jesse Fletcher, a planner with the Community Planning and Sustainability Department, presented two minor regulatory updates to the district's policies and regulations in support of the district's childcare action plan and childcare needs assessment and strategy. The first proposed change is an update to the priority development application review policy that would prioritize development files for standalone childcare facilities. The second proposed change is an adjustment to the zoning of 39319 Falcon Crescent, a residential home that was rezoned to a commercial childcare facility in 2020. The proposed regulations would remove the regulation from the comprehensive development 38 Zone, allowing the number of children in a childcare facility to be regulated by the BC building code and childcare licensing regulations exclusively.

Council members, including Andrew Hamilton and Jenna Stoner, asked questions about the priority table, the potential to review the priority policy more broadly, and the traffic safety concerns related to the Falcon Crescent Child Care expansion. The council also discussed the possibility of expanding the geographic area of the Covenant or the catchment area of childcare. After the discussion, the council agreed to move forward with the staff recommendations, including the proposed changes to the priority development application review policy and the zoning adjustment for 39319 Falcon Crescent. The council also agreed to explore the potential to expand the geographic area of the Covenant or the catchment area of childcare, with a public hearing scheduled for December 5th.

Armand Hurford
0:38:52 (0:00:44)

zoning B number 2221 Amendment bylaw number 3012 2023 Falcon Crescent Child Care expansion and a discussion around priority policy update regarding childcare back over to staff

0:39:37 (0:04:24)

good evening mayor and Council my name is Jesse Fletcher planner with the community planning and sustainability Department with me this evening is senior director of Community Development yonas V nkas and Sarah mcjannet senior planner who's joining us virtually tonight I'm here to present two minor regulatory updates to the district's policies and regulations in support of meeting the direction in the district's ocp child care action plan and childcare needs assessment and strategy staff conduct regular review of regulations in alignment with policy this year staff have identified several items relating to child care and are presenting these two tonight for Council consideration tonight we will present a district Le zoning Amendment for an existing commercial Child Care Facility in the Ravenswood subdivision and consideration of a policy Amendment that would prioritize development files for Standalone Child Care Facilities this zoning amendment was originally identified for inclusion within the 2023 Omnibus but has been separated out demand for child care in the district has continued to grow the district has a target of a 30% access rate which would mean that 30% of children have access to group Child Care the district currently has a 20.8% access rate which is a decrease from the 2019 rate to reach the 30% access rate by 2026 the district would need to add 118 new spaces a year project play the facility that is subject to the district Le rezoning this evening has communicated that their current weight list is 172 children long looking for spaces within the next 3 years so our first proposed set of changes is a minor update to the priority development application review policy that would state that Standalone Child Care Facilities that require rezonings dvps tups or building permits be prioritized in terms of Staff workflow based on availability within that program these files tend to require less overall staff time as they are typically minor in nature it should be noted here that its inclusion aligns with the district's definition of a critical amenity this policy helps incentivize the development of projects that support Council and community objectives such as affordable housing market rental employment space and Energy Efficiency the second proposed change is an adjustment to the zoning of 39319 Falcon Crescent this is a residential home that was rezoned to a commercial Child Care Facility in 2020 and has undergone significant renovations to meet then assembly use meaning higher fire separation ratings accessibility requirements and occupant safety ratings or requirements I'm sorry staff complete several site visits annually to childcare facilities when opportunities arise to learn about what is working and what is not working as it relates to regulations upon visit to this facility this year it appeared as though a large section of floor area was unused through further research it became evident that a narrow interpretation of the BC building code had previously been applied and led to a condition of use within the zone that limited the use of the area and therefore led to a cap on the size of a childcare facility in the zoning given policy to reduce regulatory hurdles in the child care action plan staff suggest removing this condition of use and allowing the number of children in a child care facility to be regulated by the BC building code and child care licensing regulations exclusively this would allow up to an additional eight children if the daycare wish to pursue this the zoning BYO would continue to regulate the density of the building the floor area ratio and the use child care this slide highlights the regulatory context within which this child care and all child carees operate so the childcare licensing regulations a subset of the community care and assisted living Act is a provintial regulation that dictates the space required so indoor and outdoor space per child specifics around what that space looks like requirements for number of Educators ratios of Educators per child education for those Educators a number of hours per day permitted for care amongst many other things this is a primary document that determines what the maximum group size of a child care facility can be

0:44:01 (0:00:00)

0:44:01 (0:00:04)

the BC building code regulates fire protection occum safety and accessibility

0:44:06 (0:00:00)


0:44:06 (0:02:25)

zoning regulates the density and the use so can a child care facility go here and what the density of the building can be built to typically measured in Gross Flor area so the proposed regulations would remove this regulation from the comprehensive development 38 Zone the regulation of the group side would fall Direct ly to the BC building code and the cclr while the zoning would continue to regulate the floor area ratio of the building in terms of public engagement the childcare project page was updated to reflect these proposed changes in October of 2023 for the resoning staff began by reviewing the 2020 public information meeting and public hearing feedback given that this is a district l rezoning no public information meeting was required and none was held given how recent the previous pin was staff compared concerns from the re from the pin and B complaints in the subsequent period only one B complaint could be traced back potentially to the operation of the child care facility staff researched ways in which negative externalities including sound and traffic could be attributable to an increase of a children but found no policy guidance or methods staff then sent a mail out to Residents within 100 meters of the facility asking for feedback to gauge whether significant issues that could be traced back to the bylaw existed staff also conducted several site visits staff received three letters containing feedback regarding the change feedback received echoed much of the feedback received previously in terms of concerns about traffic safety and road safety staff also received a letter of support noting that the addition of eight children would unlikely add much if any negative impacts as noted only one BW complaint could be linked back to the letter and it was about a vehicle blocking a driveway during pickup hours the emphasis on supporting the creation of new child care spaces is policy-driven starting with the official community plan the child care needs assessment and strategy and child care action plan built on the policy within the ocp and support the district in seeking ways to help reduce regulation and barriers to the construction of new facilities staff recommend a first and second reading of the BW Amendment and scheduling of the public hearing for December 5th and the move to amend the priority development application review policy thank

Armand Hurford
0:46:32 (0:00:09)

you thank you for the presentation Council questions go ahead councelor

Andrew Hamilton
0:46:41 (0:00:31)

Hamilton hi there thanks very much for the for the report for the proposal here I have a question about the priority area table we obviously have a several priorities within the within the community and I just like to understand how where this would fit in the priority table does it go ahead of some things or below some

0:47:12 (0:00:03)

things through you may

0:47:16 (0:00:16)

the all of the items listed in the priority table have the same weight essentially so it wouldn't be you know one over the other it would be in addition to all the priorities in

Andrew Hamilton
0:47:32 (0:00:22)

there and now this is not for this topic here but in for my general understanding how often is our priority Q full for example how often are we working on the priority roughly how often are we working on the priority q and not accessing the normal

0:47:54 (0:00:35)

queue three M the que is mostly full I mean as soon as something comes out of the queue something else goes into it because there's things sitting in que waiting to get in on the priority queue it's not that we are not working on everything else it's that these projects get priority you know in placement on Council agendas referral and response from other departments so they essentially slow down everything else but we're still working on those other things it just it slows it

Armand Hurford
0:48:30 (0:00:03)

down thank you councelor

Jenna Stoner
0:48:33 (0:00:08)

Stoner and there are maximum number of projects that fit in the p is it five that we have going at any one time is that

0:48:41 (0:00:02)

correct through the mayor that is

Jenna Stoner
0:48:43 (0:00:35)

correct and in fear of opening up a whole broader discussion we have heard feedback that the priority queue is a little bit challenging because there's actually so much demand to be in the priority Q that for some projects it's actually not been beneficial so I'm just wondering if staff can speak to an option to review the priority policy more broadly recognizing that there's identified policy that should direct in my opinion Child Care within this queue but there's perhaps a broader conversation that should happen at some point around the priority policy

0:49:19 (0:00:02)

areas through the mayor

0:49:22 (0:00:34)

we will be we are planning to do that conversation next year some of it depends on our success with the cmhc grant funding if we get that grant funding one of the components of how we use that money is a housing unit so that would obviously would have some impact on the priority applications we'll be able to have more people working on more applications essentially so I think if we are successful with that grant funding we could expand the number of projects in the prior

Jenna Stoner
0:49:56 (0:00:33)

que okay that's helpful thank you and then with respect to the specific Falcon Crescent Child Care expansion one of the things that we heard at the initial resoning in 2020 and has come up in some of the feedback is the traffic piece and I'm just curious if there's an opportunity to include 30 km an hour signage going into the neighborhood there is one within the internal Circle but there isn't anything as you go in to Falcon Crescent so I wondering if there's an opportunity to do that at any point and if that would fall on us or on the

0:50:29 (0:00:34)

applicant through the mayor so portions of the fal Falcon Crescent neighborhood or Ravenswood neighborhood are 30k but 50k does apply elsewhere the district is currently undergoing a review of tra traffic speeds throughout the district and then my understanding through speaking with a Transportation planner was that work is coming forward to councel in 2024 and that would be included in that in the interim though if residents did have concerns about traffic calming they can always email the engineering department with their concerns and we do have an inventory where we track those

Armand Hurford
0:51:04 (0:00:48)

requests thank you Council other questions I'll Venture one of my own the direction to have the maximum size governed by arguably the more appropriate entities that decision would impact other Child Care spaces I would I would imagine do we have any idea of if this would increase capacity more broadly across the community with this change I understand that each facility has its own has its own story to tell and nuances but do we have any idea of sort of other impacts besides this specific one that we're instigated the conversation

0:51:53 (0:00:27)

today through the mayor this is actually would only affect this specific property it's unusual to have a cap to the childcare size within a zone so it was a condition of use of this facility specifically to reflect the understanding of the building code at the time generally speaking it is the child care licensing regulations and the BC building code that on their own would regulate that and wouldn't be entrenched in the

Armand Hurford
0:52:20 (0:00:10)

zoning okay so this was a this really is a oneoff and not in its way not something that's systemic that we've been doing systemically

0:52:31 (0:00:01)

yeah through the May that's

Armand Hurford
0:52:32 (0:00:56)

correct okay thank you that's helpful in the report it St U speaks about the Covenant that gives priority to families that live within sort of the neighborhood and I wondered if that I know it's a covenants aren't aren need to change I just wonder if that to me this predates logger e discussions and just given the new development occurring in the in the area if there's an opportunity whether it's now or now feels like probably the most likely time to broaden that to capture that little bit larger geographic area I think is what this the Covenant intended to do but I think the context is about to change there as far as the density and the developments coming in the in the adjacent neighborhood that's sort of talked about in that Covenant is there an opportunity there

0:53:28 (0:00:11)

through the Maria we could negotiate that with the owner of the daycare although it is a district L resoning so it would be unusual to that at this

Armand Hurford
0:53:40 (0:00:44)

point yeah I think it's broadening the reach of it though rather than being more prescriptive it's aims to be a little bit more open so perhaps that's not a i' I'd like to hear from my Council colleagues if this is something that's of any of any interest but I do think that in my mind this the initial reone and the Covenant that went that went with it was sort of predated a bunch of additional planning work that's happened in that area and opening up that definition could be beneficial to the how that Community fun piece of our community functions I'll contemplate a motion to that effect but I'd love to hear if anyone else wants to chime in on that or anything else councelor peningo

Chris Pettingill
0:54:24 (0:00:42)

yeah I'm just as I recall this was a single family home it was a conversion to a daycare as opposed to purpose built do we know I'm just trying to get some context in terms of conversions and that as opposed to so we're not talking about purpose built we're talking about repurposing existing structures is it typical to just rely on the VCH regulations and so on for numbers and all those things or is there typically a little more sort of Municipal constraint I

0:55:07 (0:01:00)

guess through the mayor so the for a commercial Child Care Facility we exclusively rely on our densities of the gross for area allowable for the size of the building and then the child care licensing regulations would determine based on the amount of indoor and outdoor space available and how that's arranged what their maximum group size would be so we would typically not be involved with that for commercial facility for residential facilities where you have group CARE within a home or group Child Care within a home that is capped within the zoning bylaw at 16 and that's because it allows and not to go down the regulations too much but two group sizes so the maximum Residential Group size by the regulations in a home in a residence is eight but we allow two groups so 16 so that is a increase beyond what the regulations would allow but typically we would rely exclusively on the provincial regulations to determine the group

Chris Pettingill
0:56:08 (0:00:10)

size so although this is a conversion we are treating this one as a sort of purpose-built commercial effectively in terms of the how we propose it to be

0:56:18 (0:00:15)

regulated through the mayor it is it is a commercial Child Care Facility so through the previous rezoning it was rezoned from a childcare residential use to a child care use so it is a commercial use

Armand Hurford
0:56:34 (0:00:00)

go ahead councelor

Jenna Stoner
0:56:35 (0:00:35)

Stoner yeah I am just curious following up on the mayor's questions about the Covenant for geographic location there are also existing in addition to loggers East there's also the new build that's happening across the street from Seven Peaks I can't remember what they're calling it so I am curious given that the proposal hear is for a December 5th public hearing I don't think that changes land use or density with the discussion around the Covenant but is that something that staff could explore and come back to third reading in the same timeline that we have in our

0:57:10 (0:00:07)

agenda through the mayor staff can do that

Armand Hurford
0:57:18 (0:00:26)

yes thank you and on this same question in that development at right by brenon park across from I should know that was it Mountain Village thank you Centennial Way and loggers Lane area I know that there's child care as part of that was there a similar Covenant with that

0:57:44 (0:00:01)


0:57:45 (0:00:06)

I don't believe so but you know to give a confirm answer we have to check but I don't I don't think so

Armand Hurford
0:57:51 (0:00:27)

okay thank you okay my brain's still working on this other questions on this okay we have some staff we do have some staff recommendations before us go ahead councelor Stoner are you moving all together

Jenna Stoner
0:58:19 (0:00:21)

I'll move the staff recommendations with the addition that staff pursue the potential to expand the geographic area of the Covenant or the catchment area of child care that clear

Armand Hurford
0:58:41 (0:00:04)

enough I think I think we understand what you're what you're saying I don't know you

Jenna Stoner
0:58:45 (0:00:01)

can try again but

Armand Hurford
0:58:47 (0:00:07)

no I think that's I think that's okay and I'll second it and would you like to speak to it

Jenna Stoner
0:58:54 (0:00:57)

I will speak to this thanks to staff for their work on this and both the priority area sorry the priority development application review policy amendment I think that this makes good sense relative to the existing policies that we have in place and the direction of and the need in our community with respect to creating more child care spaces I think that this makes good sense and with respect to the zoning Amendment I do think that it is important I feel like maybe we've overstepped here a little bit in terms of trying to regulate group size within the Zone zoning really is about land use and density and not the group size of a child care facility I think we need to leave that up to the province so appreciate I think some of the rational is to why it was in there in the first place but I think it's an important step forward and if folks feel differently we'll hear about that in on December 5th thank you very

Armand Hurford
0:59:52 (0:00:02)

much thank you Council

Chris Pettingill
0:59:55 (0:01:18)

pil yeah I'm going to support this and overall I think it makes sense a couple things I do have some hesitation about a little bit and so it'll be interesting to hear the public dialogue I think from an equity perspective broadening the sort of who has Priority Access makes sense but you know my recollection is that this was put in to sort of offset some perceived impacts on the community for the benefit of the community and so you know I do I guess Wonder to what degree the community should be part of that conversation and maybe that's the public hearing when we when we hear that piece as a general principle it's not completely offside to me that the municipality would add some regulation above what the province puts on but as we look to build sort of a walkable livable community services are close and so on you know we may have some restrictions that are working against us and so that's why you know I think there's some nuance and some things to think about there but overall what's proposed Mak sense going forward with I

Armand Hurford
1:01:13 (0:00:04)

think thank you councelor

Eric Andersen
1:01:18 (0:00:50)

Anderson thank you chair I'll support the motion and just pass on that I will hope to learn more about potential initiatives that could be considered to alleviate or mitigate the concerns raised by two of our correspondents I find that the concerns and observations that they presented in two letters to be credible and some of these concerns do affect the entire neighborhood because the traffic patterns are involving the entire the concerns are involving the entire neighborhood to some extent so we'll be interested to learn more about potential mitigation or considerations regarding these concerns and hopefully we'll hear from the neighborhood at the at the public event thank

Armand Hurford
1:02:08 (0:02:35)

you thank you I'll be speaking in I'm speaking support of the motion I think having the province regulate the size and functionality of child care spaces and the Nuance associate with that is makes a ton of sense the I agree with the priority piece of this I think that as outlined in our we know we have needs in the community around child care and as and we've attempted to respond to that with policies like our CAC policy that has been ensuring that we get creation of Child Care spaces so this prioritization to me aligns with a lot of that work and I'm happy to see that my goal with speaking about expanding the catchman area is really taking into consideration some of the concerns that we've heard from the neighborhood around vehicle movements having the highest percentage possible of the space there occupied by families that can walk there makes just a ton of sense and is another way to and I think the appropriate way to address concerns around traffic so our planning processes have added density in that in that area and with more sitting in sort of in the plan and that's my interest there is to is to ensure that and I believe that was the intent of the of the Covenant at that time and it's just change the context has changed just a little bit and I think it'd be a good discussion to have but the it's certainly not to limit their business it's to ensure that we have the max amount of people that can walk cycle stroll whatever to their child care in their neighborhood so I look forward to seeing the outcome of those discussions and seeing what the community has to say about this coming up in December seeing no other hands I'll call a question all in favor motion carries unanimously thank you so now

District of Squamish Building Bylaw No. 1822, 2004 Amendment (Step Code 3 Option) Bylaw No. 3020, 2023
1:04:43 (0:34:37)

Colin McCarthy, the manager of Building Services at the District of Squamish, presented the step code option for development related to restrictive options on meeting the step code for development. He provided a brief history of the energy step code, which was adopted by the district in 2018. The energy step code is an optional and incremental approach to regulate the energy efficiency of buildings by setting target dates of implementation of the five steps. The presentation focused on part three buildings of wood frame construction, which represents the majority of new dwelling units constructed in Squamish recently. McCarthy also discussed the BC building code part three and part nine buildings, and the energy step code's impact on the cost of construction.

The council members engaged in a discussion about the step code option. Councillor Chris Pettingill questioned the proposal's impact on no gas covenants and the el4 piece. In response, a staff member clarified that the proposal is an interim measure to provide a pressure relief valve to high construction costs in the industry until a longer-term solution is found. Mayor Armand Hurford pointed out that the opportunity to secure a no gas covenant is at rezoning versus pre-zoned. Councillor John French raised concerns about BC Hydro's local distribution capacity constraints in Squamish. After further discussion, the council unanimously agreed to support the staff recommendation with an addition at the end of 174b, which effectively requires low emissions energy source in the whole residential or commercial parts of a building if they want to build at step three instead of step four.

Armand Hurford
1:04:43 (0:01:03)

we're on to first three readings dist goish building bylaw number 1822 2024 Amendment this is the step code three option and is byla number 3020 2023 I'll turn over to staff to introduce themselves on the topic take it away when you're ready

1:05:46 (0:02:16)

thank you thank you Council my name is Colin McCarthy I'm the manager of Building Services at the District of Squamish I'm going to apologize in advance I've been a little horse for the last few days I'll do what I can to be understood I'm here to present to you step code option for development related to restrictive and options on meeting the step code for development back up a little bit sorry about that a brief history of the energy step code in 2018 the district schmer adopted the bcbc energy step code the energy step code is intended to be an optional and incremental approach to regulate the energy efficience of buildings by setting Target dates of implementation of the five steps for the intent of this presentation we'll be discussing part three buildings of woodf frame construction this represents the majority of new dwelling units constructed in squish recently you have to forgive me I'm having difficulty with this

Armand Hurford
1:08:03 (0:00:09)

presentation we're happy to take a quick timeout if you want to if it needs to be reloaded or rebooted or unplugged and plugged back in or whatever

1:08:12 (0:00:03)

I would appreciate five minutes to do that let's do that wasn't looking like this when

Armand Hurford
1:08:15 (0:07:13)

I put it on the Zip drive a minute ago yeah no that's fine so Council we'll take we'll come back at we'll come back at about 702 we'll give you a few give you five minutes to get started thank you okay we are back and I will turn it back over to staff to discuss energy code energy step code three with zero carbon

1:15:29 (0:08:34)

over to you thank you very much you don't know how much rely on your notes until they disappear yes to discuss a step code option for building at the District of Squamish thank you very much I wanted to begin this time with a brief description of the type of buildings we're talking about the BC building code part three and part nine buildings part three of the BC building code applies to the construction of any new building a change of occupancy class of any existing building as well as any alteration or addition or demolition of any building while part nine of the BC building Cloe applies to buildings that are three stories are less in Building height and have a building area of less than 600 square meters that are used for major occupancy classes of residential business mertile medium and lwh Hazard industrial and while it sounds like it contradicts itself I prefer to think of it that in short bcbc part 3 applies to all buildings but we look for exemptions in part nine so that part nine allows relaxations and exemptions in smaller buildings associated with lower risk activities it's a simple way of describing how they are classed a brief history of the energy step code in 2018 squala should adopted the bcbc energy step code energy step code is intended to be an optional and incremental approach to increasing Energy Efficiency as of January 2021 Squamish building bylaw requires that all part three residential buildings must meet step four of the bcbc energy step code this has had a significant impact on the cost of construction the difference in Energy Efficiency overtime as high performance designs materials and systems become increasingly available and cost effective the billing industry will integrate new techniques into all new buildings by 2032 the BC building code will move toward the higher steps of the BC energy step code as a minimum requirement and prescriptive requirement the National Building Code of Canada is similarly moving towards this outcome by 2030 the District of Squamish has set High targets and now has some of the highest and most restrictive energy requirements in British Columbia our neighbors with similar buildings just some interesting points in Whistler in January of 2024 they will adopt a requirement for step three with strong carbon performance for these similar buildings the city of North Vancouver currently requires part three residential occupancies to meet step three there's an update to the step code requirements inspected this month but I don't have an update on that West Vancouver as of November 2023 this month will require step two of the energy step code with emission level three under the new carbon step code or a step four so they could meet the current step that we require here in Squamish or go to a step two with an emission level three Burnaby requires step two of the energy step code since May 1st of 2023 and as I understand they do currently Sur requires step three or step two if meeting the city of Sur low carbon energy requirements since April of 2019 and we're expecting an update in Siri and Langford has adopted step two for part three buildings in May 2023 so this just is an example of how here in Squamish currently we have the most restrictive energy conservation requirements the difficulties with step four and these were these were I Came Upon these with a meeting with one of the larger local developers who have done quite a little lot of research in this and looking at how they can how they can build effectively in this economy with these requirements Builders have recently started receiving completed surveys of projected costs for buildings that will be required to meet step four and those numbers are approximately up to 25% higher than buildings constructed under step three it is presumed by our industry contacts that it will be extremely difficult for Builders to meet the airtightness requirements required by step four Builders cannot use their typical suppliers to purchase standard products newer and alternative products related to meeting the required energy efficiency must be sourced and availability varies contractors we are told are quoting very high to cover complications with installing non-typical product using non-typical process this means that it's hard to find people who are familiar with these processes and thereby more time and more expense roofing systems require approximately 2% of additional cladding to cover larger attic areas required for additional in installation Windows which fiberglass and triple glaze are what are required to meet these step four requirements are approximately 5% higher cladding systems are approximately 7% higher and the mechanical systems with variable refrigerant flow has added up to 11% to the cost of mechanical systems what can we do the building department is proposing a bylaw amendment that would provide an option for Builders to meet step four of the BC energy step code AS is the current requirement or meet step three of the BC energy step code and meet emission level four of the zeroc carbon step code in May of 2023 the BC building code was revised once again this revision is to allow for municipalities to implement a zeroc carbon step code this regulation if adopted into the District of scalmer building bylaw would again set dates and specific targets that must be met in the design and construction of specific building types for this would regulate the emission levels of carbon there are four levels that range from a requirement at level one to measure and record greenhouse gas emission levels this was similar to the energy step code at level one there was only a requirement to record and this is this demonstrates the stepping up and so it goes from Simply needing to record to a level four that requires a maximum ghgi as you can see what those maximum levels are in the table the building department would again be relying on reports from certified Consultants to determine compliance clients these are these are especially in the large buildings these are complicated formulas we do have ways of verifying this we look for red flags but we essentially rely on these Consultants to provide these calculations more on the zeroc carbon step code zeroc carbon step code is new within the BC building code and our intent is to look at the implementation of the zeroc carbon step code in the district of Squamish in 2024 what it would take to do this is that we need to collaborate between the building and sustainability departments consult and find out what might be the appropriate step to begin with consult with stakeholders design an incremental approach and bring forward another bylaw amendment to council therefore this is a an interim step what we're considering with the combination of the step code and or the energy step code and the zero card carbon step code and that is the end of our presentation on this and I'm happy to field any

Armand Hurford
1:24:03 (0:00:08)

questions thank you for the presentation Council questions counc

Chris Pettingill
1:24:12 (0:00:43)

pill so we've typically I would argue in the last while been pushing for nog gas covenants on part three buildings including for the most part the commercial portions which and maybe I've been thinking about it incorrectly but I've been equating that to el4 and maybe the noggas Covenant is stronger arguably but I guess is the proposal that we would keep pushing for the no gas covenants on a sort of one-off basis and tackle the el4 piece later or are you suggesting is the suggestion that we back off no gas covenants and not do el4 at this

1:24:55 (0:00:38)

point through the mayor because this is an inter measure you know this we're not suggesting any change to the process we're using now with no gas covenants it's essentially just to provide a pressure relief valve to high construction costs in the industry until we get to the longer term solution which hopefully will eliminate the need for no gas covenants everyone's going to be you know building to the same standard when it comes to energy source or Energy Efficiency whether you're resoning or going straight to a building permit so no changes proposed at the

Chris Pettingill
1:25:33 (0:00:45)

moment so but effectively like if we're pushing for a nog gas Covenant doesn't that effectively give someone el4 so if we're doing that anyways I guess I'm trying to say you know with this change might we just take that opportunity take the E nog guas Covenant discussion off the table but it's el4 you can have your step through three sort of and then we'll keep the step three until it's time to put it back up to step four or is there I guess that's why I'm trying to wrap my head around why we it seems the suggestion is to still push for noggas covenants and then the el3 el4 thing or the el4 on commercial is sort of an nonissue because we've got the nogas

1:26:18 (0:01:09)

Covenant because it is the you know if we apply this more broadly the for instance the G no gas covenants appli to all kinds of buildings not just U part three there could be part nine buildings sometimes smaller town homes developments or developments that include duplexes you know we'll have part nine buildings so this wouldn't apply to those structures we'll still use the no gas governance this is really to address the urgency of construction cost is creating in the industry to move forward with all kinds of projects but the biggest issue we're hearing about is in those bigger buildings where costs are magnified and the technology to meet Step for is not readily or widely available and the labor to do to implement them so we like I said we will still continue to use the no gas covenants until we get to next year and we do this larger wider update to the building

Armand Hurford
1:27:28 (0:00:18)

bylaw thank you for that and on that point the no gas Covenant the opportunity to secure one of those is at rezoning versus pre- zoned when people move something forward that doesn't require a reone then this would be would come into play there and there's not an opportunity to have that layer of no gas Covenant is that that's is that

1:27:46 (0:00:01)

correct yeah

Armand Hurford
1:27:47 (0:00:11)

that's correct thank you sorry did I see any other hands on this yeah go ahead coun

John French
1:27:59 (0:00:21)

French thanks mayor the I saw that the Udi claims or the Urban Development Institute claims that BC Hydro has local distribution capacity constraints in Squamish so I'm wondering do District of Squamish staff share that Udi

1:28:20 (0:00:36)

concern not exactly there's I think it's a two-fold issue one is some projects that go fully electric have to build their own substation essentially into the building and that takes up valuable floor space and something like a substation probably has to be elevated out of the flood Construction level as well so there's additional costs for building large buildings that fully depend on electricity you know because of the vehicle charging that has to happen in the buildings and everything else okay thanks

Armand Hurford
1:28:57 (0:00:04)

CH okay Council we have oh go ahead Council Prill

Chris Pettingill
1:29:02 (0:00:18)

so if I understand and from some of the prior claims that the it's the step code has the larger impact on cost right now as opposed to the emissions level like el3 el4 in general is that

1:29:20 (0:00:41)

accurate what we have heard so far from the industry is the Energy Efficiency the energy step code are what are causing the hold up or the stall in starts presently and that's due to costs we I haven't heard anything similar related to the zero carbon step code and changing the energy source from Electric to gas this isn't I haven't heard of this I have spoken about this proposal with a couple of the larger developers and have not heard any feedback regarding similar problems

Armand Hurford
1:30:02 (0:00:02)

I've got councelor Stoner

Jenna Stoner
1:30:04 (0:00:22)

thank you through the chair also just to clarify step four currently only applies to part three residential buildings wood frame and part nine residential buildings which are smaller over 1,00 square foot in Gross Flor area that's correct right it doesn't apply to the part three commercial buildings that's still at step

1:30:26 (0:00:11)

three I believe that is correct I'm in the habit of when someone asks me a bylaw question I make sure it's open in front of me but I'm I believe that's correct and my partner's whispering in my ear it

1:30:38 (0:00:04)

is yes I have the B

Armand Hurford
1:30:42 (0:00:04)

open okay we all have the understanding of that that's

Jenna Stoner
1:30:47 (0:00:13)

just to follow just to follow up on that we're not hearing the same concerns about the part nine Residential Building achieving step four so this bylaw amendment is really only focused on those larger part three residential woodf frame buildings

1:31:00 (0:00:24)

correct yes we have not heard a larger concern nor have we seen as big a Slowdown and hearing the complaints from the industry regarding the part nine hasn't been hasn't been the same at all we always hear about concerns about how expensive things are getting but it hasn't been the same

Armand Hurford
1:31:25 (0:00:04)

anyway okay Council we've got oh yep go ahead Council pring out

Chris Pettingill
1:31:29 (0:00:02)

I was going to try a motion if

Armand Hurford
1:31:32 (0:00:02)

I feels like time for that take it away

Chris Pettingill
1:31:35 (0:00:26)

okay so I was going to try to move the staff recommendation with an addition at the end of 174b so it finishes specified in el4 of the zero carbon step code provided where business personal service and or mertile occupancies are proposed the entire building meets minimum performance requirements of el4 and I'll speak to that if

Armand Hurford
1:32:01 (0:00:04)

seconded are you seconding that councelor Greenlaw y go ahead okay councelor

Chris Pettingill
1:32:06 (0:02:02)

penal yeah thanks and the I would like to credit staff with the wording here didn't feel comfortable trying to do this on my own the my thinking here I had been considering just holding off on oneoff no gas covenants but the what tweaked it for me is when the mayor mentioned that that's only when we get rezonings that we have that opportunity and just hearing the most recent data like we're on target for three degrees and like it's pretty dire out there and so having buildings even if it's for a few months buildings that are going to last 60 years with gas INF infastructure you know it just doesn't make sense to me I can understand stepping back on the building efficiency which it sounds like that's where the complaints are where the real cost is so if we need to step back to step three and recognizing that cmhc and BC housing are still going to build a step four even with this change so this is really for the private for-profit developers but taking that step back on that cost and that impact I'm fine as long as we can deal with that emissions piece which is the real critical emergency piece and so I feel in my mind like this is a reasonable Middle Ground to deal with these two things and I think this is a good step for the industry would just also like to add that you know we understood I think or at least I did that there would be some cost in going first but it establishes the market the market doesn't change the contractors aren't trained and so on until people start requiring this and so we are driving the market and there there's some impacts to that it also means that our contractors and suppliers that are operating here are going to be ahead and have an advantage I think over everyone else when they start to come along because they're all going to have to come along and so you know I can live with stepping back to step three but I think there for me there I'd like to be a bit of a trade-off and go to el4 across the board thank

Armand Hurford
1:34:08 (0:01:15)

you thank you Council any other comments on this speak in FA in favor of the of the motion I think this when I as I started dealing with the step code really the to me the motivator is the is the not just the efficiencies of the building but the reason we want to have efficiencies of building is to push on the on the emission front so I think this and I think this is a totally prudent step at this point and sometimes you know have to take a half step back to go three step steps forward and I think that's where we are that's what the markets Market's telling us and I appreciate the extra language around provided by councelor penil I don't find I think that meets objectives that we've been working towards using other mechanisms like no gas covenants in resoning so I'm happy to support with this point any other comments councelor stoner

Jenna Stoner
1:35:23 (0:00:07)

sorry I'm just wondering if the Mover can clarify what the additional language intends to

Chris Pettingill
1:35:31 (0:00:56)

do so the intent is that if you are a part three building and you'd like to build a step three instead of step four then any residential or commercial parts of that building need to comply with the el4 emission so effectively that means low emissions energy source in the whole residential or commercial the step the step code three piece you still get that reduction in the residential the commercial already has a lower step code so it's basically instead of saying okay if you want step three for residential it's no gas for residential it's