Committee of the Whole - 13 Feb 2024


1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
2: ADOPTION OF AGENDA
3: STAFF REPORTS
3.A: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
3.A.i: Year Three Review of the Short-term Rental Regulatory Program
3.A: TIME 1:00 P.M. - 1:45 P.M.
3.A.ii: District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (38108 Cleveland Ave) No. 3027, 2023
3.A: TIME 1:50 P.M. - 2:50 P.M.
3.A: RECESS 2:50 P.M. - 3:00 P.M.
4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION
4.i: LMLGA Resolutions
4: TIME 3:00 P.M. - 3:45 P.M.
4: RECESS 3:45 P.M. - 4:00 P.M.
5: MOTION TO CLOSE
6: TERMINATION
1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
0:00:00 (0:05:28)


Chris Pettingill
0:04:47 (0:00:40)

do a quick sound check no Echoes hello everyone Howen squalen skish Oho I'm councelor Chris pingel serving as acting mayor for the month of February and as a result I'll be chairing this Committee of the whole for Tuesday February 13th and welcome to the Squam Nation traditional territory please be advised that this council meeting is being live streamed recorded and will be available for the public to view on the district website following the meeting if you have concerns please notify the corporate officer present at the meeting and

ADOPTION OF AGENDA
0:05:28 (0:01:14)

Councillor Chris Pettingill opened the meeting by requesting the adoption of the agenda and reminding the council about the upcoming event, "Coldest Night of the Year", scheduled for February 24th. He encouraged everyone to form a team for the family-friendly walk, which supports local charities aiding individuals experiencing hurt, hunger, and homelessness. Pettingill also mentioned that he had started a team with his partner and suggested the possibility of collaborating with the council on this. He expressed his gratitude to Helping Hands for organizing the event. He also noted that Councillor Jenna Stoner and Mayor Armand Hurfords were absent due to their attendance at a provincial housing summit.

Following the adoption of the agenda, the council members did not voice any opposition. The discussion about the "Coldest Night of the Year" event did not lead to any immediate decisions, with Pettingill suggesting that further discussions could take place offline. The absence of Councillor Stoner and Mayor Hurfords was acknowledged, and their efforts on housing were appreciated. After these initial remarks, Councillor Pettingill handed over the meeting to M Phillip to discuss the short-term rental regulatory.

Chris Pettingill
0:05:28 (0:01:13)

with that I will ask for someone to move adoption of the agenda with one small reminder about coldest night of the year we'll start the meeting with councilor French mov councelor Hamilton seconds anyone opposed motion carries thank you so yeah I just wanted to take a moment to remind folks that coldest night of the year is coming up on February 24th so encourage everyone to sign up a team it's a really great family friend family friendly walk and support of local charities supporting people who are experiencing hurt hunger and homelessness maybe offline Council we can talk if we want to team I've already started one with my H partner but you know maybe I can be convinced to switch or do something there with Council but we can talk about that after and just thanks to Helping Hands it sounds like a fantastic event and I'll just note that counselor Stoner and mayor Herford are at a provincial housing Summit so they will not be joining us today but we appreciate their efforts on housing for us so with that I will turn it over to M Phillip to speak to the short-term rental regulatory

SPEAKER_01
0:06:41 (0:00:01)

program

Year Three Review of the Short-term Rental Regulatory Program
0:06:42 (0:46:34)

Asia Philp, a planner with the Community Development Department, presented the year three short-term rental program review. The review aimed to present key findings from short-term rental (STR) data tracking over the past year, review recent provincial STR legislation and its impact on the district, and discuss program targets and recommendations for 2024, including STR-related bylaw amendments. Philp reported that STR units and listings are still rising, with approximately 300 STR units in the district in Q4 of 2023, a 50% increase from the previous year. She also noted that suites and accessory dwelling units continue to represent a significant portion of the STR inventory in Squamish. On the licensing and compliance side, approximately 48% of all known STR units have acquired a business license. The district issued 146 STR licenses in 2023, an increase of 50 licenses from 2022.

The council members engaged in a discussion about the complaints received, the source of the complaints, and the need for more bylaw enforcement funding. They also discussed the potential impact of increasing fines and the need for more aggressive enforcement. The council members expressed concerns about the challenges of aligning the data provided by the province with the district's needs, especially regarding secondary suites. They also discussed the potential impact of increasing fines to $3,000 per infraction per day and the challenges of issuing such fines. The council members also discussed the need for more nuanced presentation of the types of complaints received and the importance of visitor accommodation for the community's economic development. The council members expressed varying views on the staff recommendations, with some in favor of streamlining the licensing system, increasing fines, and finding more people who aren't in compliance, while others expressed concerns about the potential disproportionate impact of the fines and the challenges of enforcing the prohibition of secondary suites.

SPEAKER_01
0:06:42 (0:06:42)

thanks very much so through the chair good afternoon committee members my name is Asia philp I'm a planner with the Community Development Department and today I'll be presenting the year three short-term rental program review for your input and discussion so the objectives for the program review are to one present the key findings from our Str Data Tracking over the past year two review the recent provincial St Str legislation and how it impacts the district and three discuss the program targets and recommendations for 2024 including St Str related bylaw amendments so I'll go through a quick recap on our Str regulations as a refresher for everyone our regulations were developed through a 2-year planning and public engagement process through which we landed on a more restrictive precautionary approach to regulating only allowing the short-term rental in principal residences and excluding the short-term rental in Suites and Coach houses in order to protect the long-term rental housing Supply in our community to soften the impacts on the tourism sector we created a secondary approval stream and created limited number of non-principal residents licenses and this is enabled through our temporary use permit process so this graphic shows the spectrum of regulatory options considered in the Str program development the more permiss permissive options are to the left the more restrictive options are to the right and the district's chosen principal residence approach is circled by the dotted line here focusing on the principal residence only so the first key finding from last year's Data Tracking is that Str units and listings are still Rising this is a continuation and an acceleration from the trend we saw in 2022 going into 2023 in Q4 of 2023 there were approximately 300 Str units in the district this compares to about 200 seen in Q4 of 2022 which is a 50% increase in one year it's estimated that Suites and accessory dwelling units continue to represent a significant portion of the Str inventory in Squamish staff conducted a search through the descriptions of local Str listings on Airbnb for the term suite and we found a total of 56 results on the licensing in compliance side approximately 48% of all know and St units have acquired a business license this is very similar to the 49% compliance rate we saw in 2022 the district issued 146 Str licenses in 2023 this is an increase of 50 licenses up from 2022 enforcement activity in 2023 was similar to that in 2022 we received 38 public complaints 103 properties were flagged for enforcement 25 warning letters were sent out and 18 fines were issued in the fall of 2023 The Province enacted their short-term rental accommodation act to give local governments stronger tools to enforce St bylaws and to establish a new provincial role in the regulation of short-term rentals Key highlights from the provincial Str legislation include a provincial principal residence requirement which limits Str strs to a host principal residents plus one secondary Suite or accessory dwelling unit the principal the provincial principal residence requirement is intended to be a floor or a minimum standard for regulating Str strs the district's regulations are more restrictive and do not permit St Str of secondary Suites or accessory dwelling units The Province will be setting up their own provincial short-term rental registry and they'll be enforcing their minimum standard through that the province has also increased the maximum Municipal ticketing fund that a local government May set from 1,000 to 3,000 per infraction per day and lastly the province has committed to data sharing and will be requiring Str platforms to share information about Str listings with the province who will then relay this data to the local governments so the critical piece of this data sharing is that if a listing does not include a valid business license number the Str platform must remove the listing at the request of the local government so going into year 4 2024 staff are recommending amending the short-term rental accommodation definitions in our zoning and business license bylaws to align with the province's definition for short-term rentals so this would entail US changing our definition from less than 30 days to less than 90 days some operators in the district currently comply with our St bylaws and they avoid obtaining a license by listing their unit on a platform for a minimum 30-day stay currently we have 65 of these 30-day plus listings in the district changing the St Str definition from less than 30 days to less than 90 days could further disincentivize the short-term rental of these units to strengthen enforcement staff are also recommending increasing our Municipal ticket information bylaw fine from the amount currently set at $500 to $3,000 per infraction per day applying the province's recent St legislation change to increase our fine amount and lastly staff are recommending a review of license categories and fee rates in the fall of 2024 with a consideration towards eliminating the monthly license categories and updating the annual license categories and fee rates to reduce our administrative work and to increasing to increase licensing compliance heading into 2025 so that concludes the presentation portion of the year three program review and I'll pass it back to the chair for questions and discussion thank

Chris Pettingill
0:13:24 (0:00:05)

you thank you Council questions councelor French

John French
0:13:29 (0:00:27)

thanks chair I'm curious to know a little bit about the complaints that are being accepted by the bylaw Department of the complaints that we're Fielding are we getting like 99% of those from two people or is it more spread out and sort of all over town or just restricted to one particular anything you could share about that I think would be

SPEAKER_03
0:13:56 (0:00:16)

helpful through the chair it's different people but if you have a house that's being used as an Airbnb in a certain neighborhood we do get multiple complaints from surrounding

John French
0:14:13 (0:00:17)

houses okay and I'm curious to know the source of the complaints are they sort of a mix of a little bit of everything or you getting a disproportionate number of complaints about noise or parking or other

SPEAKER_03
0:14:31 (0:00:34)

issues through the chair they're mostly about the airnb andb use so they see frequent visitors coming to a home most recently sometimes they'll say well garbage collection isn't or totes aren't being collected and garbage is not being collected from the owners the garbage counts are still out on the street but majority of their complaints are about the flow of people coming into the home

Chris Pettingill
0:15:05 (0:00:36)

thanks okay I'll try a couple of my own and give Council a chance to ponder their own questions when I looked at the numbers it does seem that there is an uptick in I guess violation of our bylaws even relative to the growth of permitted Suites and I'm just wondering do we should we expect a request for more bylaw enforcement funding in the budget or do we feel with the new fines it'll cover that or do we feel we need to ramp up

SPEAKER_01
0:15:42 (0:00:37)

enforcement through the chair I'll start and then I'll pass it to Frank and Megan if they want to add anything we are hopeful that with the province coming on board and setting up this data sharing with Airbnb and other platforms forms and the ability that we'll now have to request Airbnb to delist licenses or listings that are unlicensed that will really help with the enforcement piece so the province is very much getting into the game and stepping

Chris Pettingill
0:16:19 (0:00:03)

up did you like to add would you like to add

SPEAKER_03
0:16:22 (0:00:09)

anything through the chair no interested to see how it'll all play out with the province rooll in it with the D listing

Chris Pettingill
0:16:31 (0:00:20)

so okay thank you and I'm just wondering I mean we we've put a lot of emphasis it seems on education and warnings and so on but it's been a couple years now and given the numbers we're seeing I'm wondering if we think we should maybe start moving to fines more

SPEAKER_03
0:16:51 (0:00:09)

quickly through the chair yeah we normally start off with a friendly letter and then we escalate from the there and go into the

Chris Pettingill
0:17:01 (0:00:08)

tickets and is there any thought that we should maybe you know be a little more aggressive give given the numbers we're

SPEAKER_03
0:17:09 (0:00:23)

seeing through the chair I think we should still do or there is that option to still do the educational letters and then maybe wrap up to enforcement a little bit sooner like provide the homeowner with a letter give them a week to comply and if we're not seeing compliance then start with the ticketing

Chris Pettingill
0:17:33 (0:00:02)

ability Mr

SPEAKER_04
0:17:35 (0:00:19)

vesus thank you just want to add to the previous question around rate of compliance one of the actions we're proposing is to review the fees as well and hopefully that will part of the objective would be to incentivize compliance through you know lower barrier to making the

SPEAKER_06
0:17:55 (0:00:01)

application Miss Phillip

SPEAKER_01
0:17:57 (0:00:26)

yeah coming back to the latest question about enforcement it being able to have the power to request the D listing from the platform should give us like we may not even need to find we'll just get their listing taken down so we can a we can avoid some of that interaction with the host and it's kind of going directly to the

Chris Pettingill
0:18:23 (0:00:02)

platform okay thank you councelor

Lauren Greenlaw
0:18:26 (0:00:14)

Greenlaw yeah thanks through the chair on that note this delisting through the P platform will that be something that becomes automated or is the onus still on our staff to have to comb through the listings and find the ones that don't have business license

SPEAKER_01
0:18:41 (0:00:49)

yeah through the chair so we Frank and I had initial meetings with provincial staff that are tasked with setting up the province's in interactive system and how we will work with the province and they're setting up a system where we'll be able to go in and request the D listing kind of through the province with just a click of a button The Province may be looking for feedback from us in that have you sent them a letter have you had any interactions with the host prior to show that there has been some slight escalation before just automatically jumping to the D listing just so I think they want to know that we've done our due diligence to confirm that they are indeed in non-compliance before we jump to the D

Lauren Greenlaw
0:19:30 (0:00:18)

listing okay so just to be clear like staff will go through find listings that don't have a business license on it and then the property owners will be issued a letter saying hey you're in non-compliance and then following that contacting the province okay yeah thank

Chris Pettingill
0:19:48 (0:00:03)

you councelor

Eric Andersen
0:19:52 (0:00:50)

Anderson thank you the from the staff report data sharing and platform accountability there's a reference to if a listing does not include a valid business license about a year and a half ago a situation came forward I know to staff and to by law enforcement about a coner service a platform being offered on social media that did not have a business license my question is and this I wouldn't wish to name that firm or that business but there may be others to what extent are we monitoring the platforms in addition to the rental units for compliance not least with business licenses and just keeping track of the landscape of what flat platforms are out there including on social

SPEAKER_01
0:20:42 (0:00:46)

media through the chair so we still have host compliance our third party Monitor and they are looking for any and all platforms that if there's a shifting landscape and new ones crop up that people are using then host compliance is active in trying to identify those and they have scraping tools where they are keeping track of all of the units we're expecting that with the data sharing agreement between the different Platforms in the province that will be able to get the data that identifies the addresses and the number of nights that they've been rented and so on and so forth

Eric Andersen
0:21:28 (0:00:57)

thank you the tourism Squamish letter that's been copied to us refers to research showing that units with three four or more BMS are the fastest growing type of Str unit in Squamish might this mean that in as regards this trend that this might mean a look at how we I'm going to again quote from the tourism squish how we are being clear and consistent to all homeowners rather than singling out people who own homes with secondary suits or say those who own mult multiple homes and some of those in the category of three and four bedroom might be in there but are there trends that suggest that we might look at tourism Squam suggestions about definition and consistency going

SPEAKER_01
0:22:26 (0:00:29)

forward through the chair so we're updating our definitions to be consistent with the provinces definition for short-term rental and in terms of attempting to be consistent we've always had the same messaging that it's allowed in your principal residence and that's it not in Suites and Coach houses we we've just had that messaging through the whole thing so I think that we're we have been consistent in the past and we'll continue to deliver on that same message

Eric Andersen
0:22:56 (0:00:00)

thank you thank you

Chris Pettingill
0:22:56 (0:00:04)

chair councelor

Andrew Hamilton
0:23:01 (0:00:59)

Hamilton thanks very much it's indeed in very exciting to see that the province is coming to the table on this particularly in the data sharing side of things I have some concern that if we have if we have a different definition of an Str basically if we are allowing accessory sorry if we're not allowing accessory dwelling while the Province does allow accessory dwellings within the regulation we may find challenges in aligning the data that they can provide with what we need because we seem to be having the biggest challenge with regulating those secondary Suites that seems to be the dominant piece of our challenge in regulation and so are we confident that we're going to be able to use the data that the province is providing to access that secondary Suite non-compliance that we're looking to

SPEAKER_01
0:24:01 (0:00:43)

fix through the chair until we see what the province's data actually is it's hard to directly be like confidently answer that question but right now in absence of the province stepping up we get the data from host compliance and quite often Suite or the description and all of the photos that are listed provide a very clear picture that it is a suite and then we have all of our building permit information that we can cross reference and so quite often we're usually pretty confident and then we've got by law enforcement to go and do on-site inspection if necessary to

Andrew Hamilton
0:24:44 (0:00:20)

confirm and another question about the fine increase to $3,000 is that specific to Str strs or is that a blank blanket change to the Community Charter that allows all Municipal fines to increase to a maximum of

SPEAKER_01
0:25:05 (0:00:20)

$3,000 through the chair my understanding is that it's a blanket to just generally increase so they amended the Community Charter to do that increase our recommendation is only for our short-term rental violations not for other Municipal ticket information

Andrew Hamilton
0:25:26 (0:00:29)

violations and is there any concern that we U because the previous maximum was 1,000 so the maximum fine for anything other than short-term rentals right now would be $11,000 and then we have this short-term rental fine being at 3,000 is there a concern that we may have a disproportionate fine or short short-term rental compared to say our other bylaw

SPEAKER_01
0:25:56 (0:00:29)

infractions through the chair so just to clarify the 3,000 increase was in the Community Charter so that can apply to any type of bylaw violation and we we're recommending focusing only on the short-term rental increase for now so that we can provide a clear message to the community that we're extra serious about this by law violation did you want to add to that Frank

SPEAKER_03
0:26:26 (0:00:51)

or through the chair just so everyone's clear there's actually two different types of ticketing one is the B enforcement notice which has a max of 500 and then there's the municipal ticket information which is through the Community Charter those ones are a little bit more a challenge to issue because unlike the Ben system you have to locate the home owner and personally serve that document do a certificate of service and then go back to the courts and submit your evidence and the courts prefer municipalities to start off with the Ben system because we're not being involved in the court so there's two different levels of

Andrew Hamilton
0:27:17 (0:00:11)

ticketing so from my understanding what's the this $3,000 ticket for one day which level of ticketing does that fit in that fits into the second

SPEAKER_03
0:27:28 (0:00:16)

category yeah the through the chair sorry that would fall within the M Municipal ticketing and information not the bylaw noce enforcement

SPEAKER_01
0:27:44 (0:00:34)

bylaw I can add further clarification so there's the two ticketing streams one is really easy and quick to do that's the bylaw enforcement notice and then the municipal ticket information is lot harder because you got to issue it to the per in person they're regulated at the provincial level by two different Ministries the only one that changed was the M was the municipal ticket information stream the attorney me Ministry of Attorney General does the bylaw enforcement notice and that has not

Andrew Hamilton
0:28:19 (0:00:13)

changed so that one remains at 500 the bylaw enforcement notice okay so we're effectively going to make it more challenging for ourselves to issue a ticket although the ticket's going to be larger

SPEAKER_01
0:28:33 (0:00:09)

correct if we used the municipal ticketing information stream it's harder to issue to the person because you have to give it to them in

Andrew Hamilton
0:28:43 (0:00:07)

person do we currently use the municipal ticketing stream or do we use the easier stream

SPEAKER_03
0:28:51 (0:00:26)

question through the chair we use the easier one the B noce enforcement one and we can use that and if we don't get compliance then we can go to the MTI and go to court and then use that as our evidence the B system but generally we start off with the B system because it's you can put the ticket in the mail you don't need to personally serve it to the person

Andrew Hamilton
0:29:18 (0:00:11)

but the Ben system has a maximum of $500 so we could not have a $3,000 Str fine and use the system am I correct on

SPEAKER_03
0:29:30 (0:00:22)

that just get back up a bit through the chair the province is talking right now about increasing the BS to either 1,00 or 1500 that's ongoing right now we could start off with one ticket of a b and then go right to nmti we can do both essentially

Chris Pettingill
0:29:53 (0:00:05)

yeah so councelor Hamilton before we continue I'm just going to go to miss Glendy

SPEAKER_00
0:29:58 (0:00:26)

yeah thank you the chair appreciate the question around is this disproportionately too high if it's the only one we're going to use the 3,000 threshold for and it's a great question and at the same time it's I would appreciate if Council like that's more of a council call I think appreciate staff's Clarity on how the tickets work but it is a great question but also for Council to discuss

Chris Pettingill
0:30:25 (0:00:03)

yeah councelor French

John French
0:30:28 (0:00:27)

thanks chair so I'm looking at the table that tells us how many fines have been issued 27 in the first year 14 in the next and then 18 in 2023 and I'm wondering if you could share with us some information because I don't see it in any of the reports on the success rate for collecting on those fines

SPEAKER_03
0:30:56 (0:00:18)

issued through the chair if they don't pay those tickets then that goes to the collection agency and then the collection agency will be in contact with the people who receive the ticket for

John French
0:31:14 (0:00:16)

payment okay so from that can you shed any light on percentages of how many of the tickets are going to collections just any further

SPEAKER_03
0:31:31 (0:00:28)

context through the terar I could say is that after 30 days of non-payment it goes to collection agency and then the collection agency will start calling I do get monthly monies that come in from the collection agency so to narrow it down to how many tickets I would't be able to do that just at this point in time

John French
0:32:00 (0:00:03)

okay I'm gonna Ste on that thanks

Chris Pettingill
0:32:03 (0:00:05)

chair okay councelor

Andrew Hamilton
0:32:08 (0:00:27)

Hamilton yeah I'm wheels are turning on the enforcement here so do I understand correctly that the province will be enforcing their standard of limiting short-term rentals to permanent residences and then we would be responsible for enforcing the secondary Suite part of it because that's part of our extension is that

SPEAKER_01
0:32:35 (0:00:04)

correct

Andrew Hamilton
0:32:40 (0:00:16)

exactly so in some ways we're sort of we're going to have two arms of enforcement happening the provincial arm of enforcement happening on principal residences and the municipal arm of enforcement happening on secondary Suites is that correct

SPEAKER_01
0:32:56 (0:00:04)

that is correct

Chris Pettingill
0:33:01 (0:01:20)

yeah so I have a question and I'm wondering about if you can be the timeline to implement this Andor the ability to adjust direction or if staff has given consideration to one of the things that I have some concern about and I guess given the behavior we've seen I appreciate the idea of being a little more aggressive on the fines I think In fairness to the people who didn't start an Str or people who sort of exited the market when we made the changes we made but you know we also have a couple major industrial projects which will compete for housing and in my reading of our ocp and so on our priority is sort of community resident housing and then tourism accommodation and the sort of industrial worker temporary housing would be our last priority we have some temporary use permits we don't know how those are going to fall out but that may impact in my mind how we want to approach at least over the next few years some of these fines and regulations and so on so I'm just wondering about sort of relative timing or if we've thought about how we balance those

SPEAKER_01
0:34:22 (0:00:30)

things through the chair I think what we need to do is just continue to close CL L Monitor and be flexible depending on what we see coming out of the provinces setup and what data they're actually able to get from Airbnb the frequency with which that data is sent to us how the delisting process is going so we need to be just keeping an eye on things and staying fluid and checking in with you guys still on that annual

Chris Pettingill
0:34:52 (0:00:14)

basis okay and am I correct in thinking though if council did feel like oh there's something going on here it's fairly urgent we could in relatively short order make some adjustments to the fines and

SPEAKER_01
0:35:06 (0:00:08)

bylaws through the chair I think that would be at council's decision and direction to tell us what to do

Chris Pettingill
0:35:14 (0:00:40)

yeah okay I just want to make sure there's not some rule that says you can only do this once a year or something and that it would be up to councel if that was our priority then we could do so whether or not it's a good idea is maybe another discussion but okay all right so I'm not seeing any more hands we oh I guess okay so I will we do have a some recommendations before us is someone interested in moving those councelor French counc Anderson seconds councelor French do want speak to them

John French
0:35:55 (0:00:40)

thanks chair recognize and acknowledge that significant amount of work has gone into not just this report that is in front of us now but this entire program over the course of years and I think that the course that we've been on so far has been effective enough and I I'm fully trusting that the work staff have done with the provincial government is sending us in the direction that's we've chosen a direction and we look to be going in a Direction that's most appropriate at this time

Chris Pettingill
0:36:35 (0:00:03)

thanks councilor

Eric Andersen
0:36:39 (0:02:20)

Anderson thank you I wanted to offer a couple of observations my own Choice when we began this short-term rental regulatory program among the three options presented by sta was option C the most constraining if you like and the reason for that was less so a con the issue of long-term rentals encouraging them and protecting them I do have a little bit of skepticism about that and of course that is shared Beyond it was more neighborhood impacts in your presentation you do refer to Neighborhood fit as one of our goals however I would personally appreciate more attention to this for example in the enforcement metrics presentation we have the number of public complaints received but I would I think it might be of value and of interest to the community to have a little bit more nuanced presentation of the types of complaints and their nuances if you like is it is it parking is it traffic or others and Mr rowlings has mentioned some other types I think that picture is important because I think one of the key goals for all of us was to mitigate neighborhood impacts secondly tourism Squamish makes the comment and this is an issue just touched on about I'll quote from them a severe lack of visitor accommodation negatively affects the entire Community not just a tourism industry and further the tourism industry is accommodation problems a problem for all Squamish Industries and I think this is true and that we should be careful about prioritizing or hierarchies within our demand for visitor accommodation it is not just with respect to Industries it's not just large run-of the river Hydro or LNG projects or pipeline projects but all manner of construction or outof Town based service providers and we should keep this in mind it's important for the functioning of our community for our economic development that these types of service providers and employees based elsewhere that they be given due consideration thank you

Chris Pettingill
0:39:00 (0:00:02)

councelor

Andrew Hamilton
0:39:02 (0:02:57)

Hamilton yeah thanks very much so I'm going to try to give you feed feedback as clearly as I can in the areas that you've that in the areas of the recommendation so in the staff recommendation to initiate the zoning and bylaw business license bylaw amendments to align with the definition of short-term rental my understanding is that's applying to the changing 30 to 90 days completely in agreement with that regarding the municipal ticket ability I'm in favor of increasing the fines for bylaw infractions provided we look at I do think it's important that we do look at the level of our findes in the context of other fines for example when looking at our B laws blasting without permission in the district of Squamish is $1,000 compared to a one night stay in an Airbnb seems disproportionate blasting in your backyard seems a little bit more severe than having a one night stay in a in an Airbnb so I not opposed to increasing it but I would like to see it in a greater context regarding the removing the monthly option for licensing I'd prefer to see the monthly option there to allow owners to be more likely to comply with our bylaws but I do recognize that can be an administrative burden so I think that in light of administrative efficiency it is okay for me to see that removed as long as we also ref review the fees because that could be one of the deterrence to compliance I am concerned about our alignment or our lack of alignment with the provincial standards regarding principal residents and secondary sweets I think that by continuing to prohibit secondary Suites while the province allows them we are going to be doing more work than we need to do for a small part of this large puzzle I think that we may end up doing more work than it's worth for eliminating or for adding this the number of secondary Suites to our rental SWAT stock as we know just because a suite comes out of the Str Market doesn't mean it enters the long-term Market so to me it's not clear that the cost of the enforcement of the secondary Suites is going to be worth the addition to our rental stock thanks very

Chris Pettingill
0:42:00 (0:00:03)

much Council

Lauren Greenlaw
0:42:04 (0:00:38)

Greenlaw thanks through the chair I'll speak in favor of the staff recommendations I'm in favor of streamlining the licensing system to have an annual license as opposed to the to the monthly ones just for the administrative burden effectively I'm also in favor of increasing the fines though it sounds like these $3,000 fines AR aren't likely to be frequently issued but it's still nice to have that serve as a deterrent for non-compliance and I am further record I'm also in favor of finding more people who aren't in compliance as a general rule

Chris Pettingill
0:42:43 (0:10:33)

thanks thank you I am also speaking in favor of the motion I do support increasing the fees and becoming more aggressive in our enforcement we've had a couple years with a lot of War warnings a lot of public information education and we've seen compliance rates remain fairly low and I think you know like I mentioned in my comments there were a number of people that decided not to enter the market because they knew it wasn't permitted by our bylaws there was it seems low enforcement and so many people weren't complying until we made the changes and then a lot of people did bring themselves into compliance and there was some significant cost and so on so unfairness to all those folks I think we do have to take this very seriously I take my colleague's comment about the misalignment in fees for different things although the other side of that I guess is maybe we need to look about where there are compliance problems and I don't know that we have a lot of U blasting in unlawful blasting in neighborhoods and so here there is the compliance issue and so maybe the high fees are more appropriate here I appreciate the efforts to reduce the complexity and simplify the licensing and I do think it's acceptable to have a stricter regime in the province The Province gave us that ability knowing that different communities would need different levels so would have different circumstances and so I think it's reasonable to take advantage of that we tourism is really important here and we don't have new hotels yet and I think there are actually a number of benefits to a short-term rental and so I as much as we are regulating quite strictly because of the housing csis I think we do need to be very mindful of the impacts on tourism and you know I did spoke speak to the impacts of large industrial projects to my colleague who had a slightly different opinion I would say we do have areas of focus in our economic development plan and we know if we want to be successful we do need to focus our efforts we also have a community climate action plan and a climate emergency and so there's a lot of things that sort of direct us when we have limited resources for example housing it does make sense to prioritize those things to what makes what brings the most align with our official community plan so you know we may have to come back and have a look once we see what happens with tups and so on and just make sure we are actually achieving the goals we want to have but I support sort of moving forward with this and seeing where we go we may just have to be a little bit Nimble if things on the ground change so with that I will call the question all those favor and motion carries unanimously thank you we will break until 150 that's 1 15 for our next presentation thank you so we're on recess

District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (38108 Cleveland Ave) No. 3027, 2023
0:53:16 (0:40:32)

Brian Dy, a planner with the Community Development Department, presented a rezoning application for 38108 Cleveland Avenue. The application proposed to rezone the property from a gasoline service station (C2) to downtown commercial (C4) to allow for a five-story mixed-use building, including 26 residential units and employment space. The site, which was used as a gas station from the late 1950s to the early 1990s, has been remediated and has obtained a certificate of compliance from the Ministry of the Environment. The proposed building would have frontage on Cleveland Avenue, Winnipeg Street, and Loggers Lane, with employment space at grade, residential and commercial parking on the second story, and residential rental units on the third to fifth stories. All proposed residential units would be secured as rental, including 20 market rental units and three affordable rental units.

Council members Andrew Hamilton, John French, Eric Andersen, and Lauren Greenlaw raised questions about safety regulations for power lines, the potential role of Housing Squamish in managing the affordable units, bike parking, accessible units, and the environmental baseline for the development. The council also discussed the trade-off between public realm view areas and employment space with rental and affordable housing. The staff recommendation was for the committee to provide feedback on the massing and the upper story setbacks and, if satisfied, to direct staff to bring forward the rezoning for consideration of first three readings at a future regular council meeting. The council members provided feedback, with some expressing concerns about the upper level setbacks and the lack of a no gas covenant across the whole building. The motion to move forward with the rezoning application was carried, with Councilor Greenlaw opposing.

Chris Pettingill
0:53:16 (0:00:17)

okay welcome back everyone call the meeting back to order and I will turn it over to Mr daily to speak to 38108 Cleveland

SPEAKER_05
0:53:33 (0:05:11)

Avenue thank you chair good afternoon Committee of the whole my name is Brian Dy planner with the Community Development Department I'm here this afternoon to present a resoning application at 38108 Cleveland Avenue for feedback at the October 5th 2021 regular council meeting a motion to give District of Squamish zoning bylaw number t65 7 2018 second reading failed which defeated the application the application proposed to rezone the property from gasoline service station C2 to downtown commercial C4 to allow for a five-story mixed use building including 26 residential units and employment space this slide shows a rendering of the previous application the subject property is located in downtown Squamish at the northeast corner of Cleveland Avenue and Winnipeg Street the site was used as a gas station from the late 1950s to the early 1990s and has remained vacant since those buildings were removed the site has been remediated and has obtained a certificate of compliance from the ministry of the environment the application proposes to reone the site from to comprehensive development Zone number 112 in as part of The Proposal a fivestory mixed use building is proposed with Frontage on Cleveland Avenue Winnipeg Street and loggers Lane employment space is provided atg grade with residential and commercial parking on the second story and residential rental units located on the third to fifth stories all of the proposed residential units would be secured as rental including 20 Market rental units and three affordable rental units the unit mix includes seven three-bedroom units 13 to bedroom units and three one-bedroom units the three one-bedroom units will be secured as affordable rental housing staff support the proposed 1.86 floor area ratio given that the employment space provided exceeds the typical 25% requirement in the C4 Zone and all of the residential units will be secured as rental the massing of the proposed building is setback 6.8 meters from Cleveland Avenue on the third and fourth stories this set setback increases to 12.3 meters for the fifth Story while these setbacks are less than the 14 meters recommended in the draft downtown Squamish viewscape study staff are supportive of the proposed upper story setbacks from Cleveland Avenue as they exceed the current requirements in the C4 Zone and the residential component of this project is market and affordable rental units staff also note that the important views of Mount geraldi are preserved with the proposed 6.8 meter setback the applicant has advised that a 14 meter setback from Cleveland Avenue would render this lot undevelopable the draft downtown Squamish viewscape study also recommends a 4 meter setback from Winnipeg Street which this project is also not meeting a Zer meter setback from Winnipeg street is proposed to maximize employment space the number of rental units and accommodate required parking stalls the trade-off between public realm view areas and employment space with rental and affordable housing is an important consideration in this location the applicant has Prov provided a massing and viewscape Analysis which shows the massing of the project from the noted viewpoints in the viewscape study staff consider that with the except the exception of the views of mamquam mountain which would likely be lost under any Redevelopment proposal the important public realm view corridors are partially maintained under this proposal while also delivering while ized employment space in a key location and maximizing a crit critical housing form being market and affordable rental this resoning application does not trigger the community amenity contribution policy as all the residential units proposed will be secured as either Market or affordable rental while cac's are not triggered for this application the applicant is proposing to secure three one-bedroom units as affordable rental housing in perpetuity typical Frontage improvements would be Prov will be provided should the applic move forward to a building permit application these would include the construction of a corner Plaza on the northeast corner of Cleveland Avenue in wieg Street the following items will be secured in a Land Development agreement the applicant will enter into a housing agreement to secure the 20 units as Market rental housing and three units as affordable rental housing in perpetuity securing the construction of the enhanced Plaza space at the northeast corner of Winnipeg Street and Cleveland Avenue including the proposed building setback on this corner that the applicant will enter into a no gas Covenant for the residential portion of the building only so that no natural gas will be permitted or provided to the residential portion of the building and a statutory RightWay over the district's existing sanitary line which crosses the property to inform the community per policy the project was posted to the district's development showcase and the development sign has been posted to the site no comments or requests for public information meetings have been received to date so the staff recommendation is that the committee provide feedback on the upper the massing and the upper story setbacks and if the committee is satisfied to direct staff to bring forward the rezoning for consideration of first three readings at a future regular council meeting that concludes my presentation I'm happy to take questions at this

Chris Pettingill
0:58:45 (0:00:14)

time thank you Council questions councelor

SPEAKER_06
0:58:59 (0:00:03)

Hamilton on

Andrew Hamilton
0:59:02 (0:00:30)

the on the drawings there's on the massing drawings and there's actually on one of the architectural drawings there were P there's power lines along logger's Lane and the building's fairly close to the power lines I assume that's all within safety regulations but do we have a plan for the overhead power lines along l Lane to eventually put them underground and would that be part of this development agreement this

SPEAKER_05
0:59:32 (0:00:23)

LDA through the chair I believe at some point in the future the plan is to underground the power lines but that is a significant project and it also requires BC Hydro being willing to do this work at the same time so it's likely that cash and Li for that work would be collected through the servicing agreement process

Andrew Hamilton
0:59:56 (0:00:07)

and that would be happening after the LDA that's not normally part of an LDA do I is that do I understand your answer correctly

SPEAKER_05
1:00:03 (0:00:18)

yes that's correct it is not uncommon for when certain projects like this or other types of Frontage improvements where the district would take cash and L for that work to complete it at a future time because it's not practical to complete it when the development is

Chris Pettingill
1:00:21 (0:00:03)

happening councelor French

John French
1:00:25 (0:00:22)

thanks chair I'm curious to know it based on the rental component for the residential does that potentially qualify this project to go into our priority stream one of the five I believe is the number that we have going at any one

SPEAKER_05
1:00:47 (0:00:11)

time do the chair yes it would however the PO the that queue is currently full but should one drop out it could go into that

John French
1:00:59 (0:00:22)

stream okay and I'm also curious about the affordable units the 3 one bedrooms is there a potential role for housing Squamish to play in any way whatsoever with regards to those three

SPEAKER_05
1:01:22 (0:00:16)

units through the chair there is like a role to well this discussion has not happened with the applicant at this time but there's likely a role that they would be involved in managing the weight list to get into those units as is typical with other projects where it's developer owned affordable

Chris Pettingill
1:01:38 (0:00:08)

housing okay thank you as a Sur zoning can you remind me what the expectations are around bike parking

SPEAKER_05
1:01:47 (0:00:32)

here through you chair the bicycle parking does meet the requirements in the zone zoning bylaw it is I believe it is detailed on one of the data sheets in the architectural package but they are showing I believe they're showing Bic yeah there's bicycle parking on the first floor and there's also the ability to provide bicycle parking stalls within the units themselves but given this is a rezoning application that level of detail would be seen at the development permit should it go to that

Chris Pettingill
1:02:19 (0:00:13)

stage okay and then possibly a similar question which maybe belongs at DP but accessible units and units convertible to accessible is that something we deal with now or at

SPEAKER_05
1:02:33 (0:00:21)

DP 3D chair should Council want to secure amount above what's required that would be something that we would want to secure at the resoning in the Land Development agreement otherwise the units won't be won't be designed in detail until this project moves to a development permit Mr vesus

SPEAKER_04
1:02:54 (0:00:36)

thank you that's a really good question and it's relevant now because the province is moving through building code changes to increasing the accessible unit standards in the province in general so staff don't recommend that we essentially try to get try to determine what is the appropriate level because that those conversations are happening at the building code level and it will be we're expecting that either this year or next year there will be changes to the codee that will mandate all projects to meet a much higher standard than they need to meet

Chris Pettingill
1:03:31 (0:00:09)

today okay and would that mean though missing that opportunity on this project or because it's building code that would still apply to this project as well

SPEAKER_04
1:03:41 (0:00:09)

that's correct it would be on the day of application for building permit which means they have to get through the resoning development permit servicing agreement and then building

Chris Pettingill
1:03:50 (0:00:32)

permit okay and then final I think similar question we made some changes to our bylaws around the zeroc carbon step code and our expectations around commercial as well as residential units and so I'm trying to understand if because it is for me a concern to not have a no gas Covenant on the commercial side but if that's already covered by the changes we made on that bylaw would that apply here anyways or is this something I need to raise if I'm

SPEAKER_04
1:04:22 (0:00:11)

concerned it would apply here already because it is a part it would be a part three building so those that option that we have for step three would apply

Chris Pettingill
1:04:34 (0:00:16)

here okay so am I correct then in assessing that it's effectively because of that bylaw change a no gas Covenant on the commercial part effectively not a covenant but a no gas restriction

SPEAKER_04
1:04:50 (0:00:19)

effectively yes as an option so somebody could it's still build to step four and not have to commit to the no gas Covenant but we expect that most developments will take up the option for lower step code which then requires no

Chris Pettingill
1:05:10 (0:00:04)

gas okay thank you councelor

Andrew Hamilton
1:05:15 (0:00:22)

Hamilton and in this case would they only need to be doing the commercial portion to step Code 4 and the residential could stay to step code three because there's a no gas Covenant the whole building would need to be step Code 4 because the commercial does not have a no gas

SPEAKER_04
1:05:37 (0:00:10)

Covenant that's correct so to get the option for step three you have to make a commitment for the whole building

Chris Pettingill
1:05:47 (0:00:03)

yeah okay councelor green

Lauren Greenlaw
1:05:51 (0:00:23)

law thanks through the chair I have some concerns about the historical use of this land in that it used to be a gas station right and my geological engineering background tells me that can be problematic and I'm wondering what level of environmental Baseline has to be met in order for this development to

SPEAKER_05
1:06:15 (0:00:23)

continue through the chair while I can't really speak to the specifics of that they have received a certificate of compliance from the ministry of the environment which outlines those specific conditions that they have to meet during construction and post construction so they have met those requirements for their project to be able to proceed if they hadn't had that we probably wouldn't be take bringing resoning forward to council for

Lauren Greenlaw
1:06:38 (0:00:02)

discussion okay thanks

Chris Pettingill
1:06:41 (0:00:04)

councelor

Eric Andersen
1:06:45 (0:00:45)

Anderson I wonder if staff may speak to the issue of a construction management plan how staff might be working with the project proponent to minimize or mitigate the impacts on our downtown from a very large construction projects we have experienced with this over the last couple of years I wonder how staff might give consideration to this what tools we have in saying this however I am aware that the project proponent is experienced in off-site construction methods and has a interesting ideas and techniques to offer but nonetheless for large project like this in the downtown how might we consider mitigating the impacts on the downtown through a construction management

SPEAKER_05
1:07:31 (0:00:18)

plan through the chair construction management plan is required for any servicing agreement and building permit application particularly for larger projects such as this and given that it's on Cleveland Avenue obviously that would be a requirement and a consideration that would have to be dealt with through those two permitting processes before

Eric Andersen
1:07:49 (0:00:07)

construction thank you thank you chair

Chris Pettingill
1:07:56 (0:00:20)

so Council any more questions why don't we go around for a round of feedback before we attempt a resolution then we can check in if staff has what they need for clarity so I'll start with councelor Hamilton if I may go around

Andrew Hamilton
1:08:17 (0:01:25)

clockwise yeah thanks very much I see that the so the primary feedback requested is on Mass in Upper stories I see that this is a challenging lot there's a lot of views to know the view of the M quam I completely agree that's going to be lost in any development happening on that lot and I think that the sort of the lessening of the Restriction from I think it was 7 meters to 4 meters on that on the setback is perfectly appropriate because I think I think this is a very it is a rather constrained lot so I am supportive of the massing and the upper story setbacks for the for the building you want Oh do feedback on other things as well yeah I find it interesting that the proponent is proposing just a no gas Covenant for the residential only we've seen a lot of people committing to no gas covenants across an entire building but I'm relieved to here that our new and I don't I forget the name of it but the carbon the effective carbon step code U bylaw is going to be strongly encouraging some developers to restrict gas in order to get code step code three thanks

Chris Pettingill
1:09:42 (0:00:02)

Council

Eric Andersen
1:09:44 (0:01:30)

Anderson thank you the matter of loggers Lane has been arrested U raised by my colleague it is a truck route of course and it is a puzzle to improve the Aesthetics and functionality of our loggers Lane we have more work to do we don't know exactly what measures might be in store or available to us but I do not think that we should add this as a as an owner's expectation to be placed on this project I am aware and Council has been apprised of over the last couple of years that staff and the developer have given this consideration along the journey so I'm satisfied with the facing to loggers Lane for this particular project and the efforts that have been made in community secondly in community discussion the issue of tradeoffs between aesthetic planning requirements and affordable housing delivery has been raised and this of course relates to the massing I think that we must keep in mind that for this location there's a balance of values to be considered and more than or in addition to housing affordability viewscapes and our goals for the downtown High Street mil if you like and the functions of this downtown location so I'm satisfied with the efforts on massing and viewscape consideration thank you

John French
1:11:14 (0:01:43)

Council French thanks chair I'm generally supportive of the massing that we're seeing for this project and I do want to point out one thing that is more looking into the future this particular project has got significant challenges with that loggers Lane back wall if we want to call it that because of the utility Corridor that was discovered late in the process kind of surprised everybody involved so I think for this particular project the avoiding what kind of amounts to a pretty significant vertical wall on logger's Lane is difficult but as we see other projects coming for redevelopment on Cleveland Avenue that have got access to loggers Lane I would like to see a little more personality on those loggers Lane walls so that we don't end up with a total vertical wall along that side of logger's Lane as we see redevelopments coming and then as far as the upper story setbacks for this project I think what we're seeing here is the best possible solution for this particular iconic lot in our downtown and it provides I think an excellent balance between view preservation while also maximizing the square footage for residential at this block

Chris Pettingill
1:12:58 (0:00:04)

thanks councelor

Lauren Greenlaw
1:13:02 (0:00:58)

greenla sure sorry I just lost my notes one second yeah the massing and upper story setback seem reasonable for this slot I would prefer to see that the affordable housing units be a three bedroom unit as opposed to three single bedroom units as that's where we're seeing our greatest needs but in general I'm just I'm having a hard time supporting all of these developments that are coming through because I feel as though we're reaching a point where we're struggling as a community to keep up with this level of population growth and I find that aspect does not often make its way into these conversations and I really struggle with that so in general I do I do think this is probably pretty close to the best that we can do on this lot but I don't think I'm going to support it coming for

Chris Pettingill
1:14:01 (0:02:20)

rezoning okay thank you so I appreciate the developer has been fairly receptive to a lot of council feedback over the years and you know there's been a fair bit of back and forth and changes so thank everyone for working so hard on getting to something supportable I do have some concerns about the upper level setbacks especially on Winnipeg you know we are in a housing crisis and so there does need to be a priority on providing housing but we need to make sure that we're finding ways to make that density livable and you know personally I would rather compromise given the location on some parking we are focusing on making a walkable pedestrian friendly downtown and so I think that is where I would feel more comfortable providing some flexibility and maintaining some of the setbacks but I know that is a bit more of a council discussion and so far I haven't been able to sway I don't think a majority of counsil to that perspective but if I am going to compromise on those setbacks you know we're also facing a climate crisis as well as the housing crisis and for me a no gas Covenant is probably across the whole building a bit of a deal breaker you know I have some comfort in the bylaw changes in the trade-off between step four and step three which pushes people but I would feel much more comfortable and be easier to support this when it comes for first reading if we just had that no gas Covenant across the whole building you know there's some trade-offs there and I think that gets me to the point where I could make the trade-offs for some of the upper level setbacks and so I hope the developer takes note of that and gives that some serious consideration and I would say to and I understand this is more for the DPA stage I believe but we do need to pay attention to loggers Lane I think we've talked about a lot of things we'd like to see to improve loggers Lane and so the impact of that loggers Lane facing part of the building is something that we will need to pay attention to so with that I guess I'll ask staff is there any more is there any Clarity or any more feedback you would like

SPEAKER_05
1:16:21 (0:00:02)

no thanks chair I think that's

Chris Pettingill
1:16:24 (0:00:21)

clear okay so Council we have a couple of motions one or recommendations does someone want to move those councelor Hamilton councelor Anderson seconds any further comments councelor

Eric Andersen
1:16:45 (0:01:58)

Anderson the staff report cites the fact that on October 5th 2021 council did not offer a second reading for this development proposal and I recall this meeting that or my own rationale for that I note that in the attachments if you look at the massing and viewscape Analysis and the architectural drawing details there isn't a lot of detail in fact earlier we were provided with more that's not a concern of mine in hindsight I think that the discussion should have better been focused on not been focused on the development permit stage details my own vote last time and I recall being allied with former mayor Elliot we were concerned about forign character and what we did was collectively we sent this development applicant on a 2 and a half year Journey an onerous one perhaps stressful with unclear expectations and I think that we need to all learn some lessons from this I know all of us including Council where do we come in on development permit stage details and anyway I'm pleased to with the presentation that we've seen today with respect to development perit details that's later and that we just need to have our guidelines appropriate enough and serving us well enough so that staff can work with the development on those details so that's my in hindsight Mia kulpa if you like I think it's important for us in our relations with people who want to invest in our downtown and invest in housing supply for Squamish that this process be one that's clear to all of us and working well for all of us thank

John French
1:18:44 (0:01:06)

you councilor French thanks chair I support this iteration of the building massing and the setbacks feel that it's time to let this patient developer get moving on this project and I say patient hesitantly because this has been a really long process for this particular property and I agree with councelor Anderson that the lack of detail in this report is totally appropriate at this time and I think that it's helped to keep us focused on the massing and the setbacks which is what is needed at this point in the process so the and I'll note that the challenges with the utility right of way look to have been addressed which is great news because it was a significant challenge to work around that utility Corridor the amount of commercial space has increased the residential units are going to be rentals which are needed so I'm ready to see some action at this long-suffering empty lot in this key downtown

Chris Pettingill
1:19:51 (0:13:56)

intersection okay with that I will call the question all those in favor all those opposed Council green law opposes motion carries and we are a little bit ahead of time we don't need anyone for the llj discussion okay I'm gonna call a short recess hi folks just to any anyone watching online to let you know we are coming back to the meeting at 2:30 to discuss El Lower Mainland local government Association resolution so we'll see you at 2:30 thanks

LMLGA Resolutions
1:33:48 (0:46:42)

Councillor Chris Pettingill opened the discussion on Lower Mainland local government Association resolutions, indicating that the goal was to address any concerns about these resolutions before they are brought back for approval. Councillor Eric Andersen then presented his resolution, which seeks to amend The Local Government Act to give the Land Title and Survey Authority statutory authority to accept notices of excessive or extended services agreements, also known as latecomer agreements, to be registered on property title. Andersen explained that without the clarity and security offered by registration of the latecomer agreement on property title, there are potential risks and increased transaction costs for local governments and property developers.

The council members engaged in a discussion about the resolution, with Councillor Andrew Hamilton asking why the latecomer agreement was removed and if the request was to put it back. Andersen clarified that the Land Title Office had stopped registering latecomer agreements because they did not have statutory authority to do so. Councillor John French asked if other communities were looking for similar solutions, to which Andersen confirmed that there was an audience for this problem around BC. The council members agreed that there was good support for the resolution. Councillor John French then presented his resolution on updating the Assessment Act to reduce drastically under-assessed properties. The council members discussed the resolution, with Councillor Chris Pettingill suggesting that the resolution could be stronger if it was clear about the magnitude of error in property assessment. The council agreed to retool the resolution based on the feedback.

Chris Pettingill
1:33:48 (0:00:51)

okay welcome back folks we are back to the committee of the whole and we are discussing Lower Mainland local government Association resolutions I think we will start with councelor Anderson if there's anything you feel oh and just to set the context of this I think our goal here is to dig with any dig into any sort of concerns and so on about these resolutions we will look to approve final drafts as a council either next week or the following week so this is more of a almost a bit of a workshop are there questions or concerns that we want to try getting addressed before these come back to us for approval in a in a week or two so with that councelor Anderson I'll let you address your resolution and maybe just speak to what you're trying to achieve and why it's important

Eric Andersen
1:34:40 (0:00:08)

certainly shall I read it out we have the public paying attention three do three Clauses chair or shall I just jump to General

Chris Pettingill
1:34:48 (0:00:08)

observations why don't we follow the ubca practice a little bit and read just the resolved piece and then we can sort of discuss around that very good

Eric Andersen
1:34:57 (0:02:48)

the final U I forget what the label is enacting enabling Clause is therefore be it resolved that the union ABC municipalities request amendment of The Local Government Act to give the land title and Survey Authority statutory authority to accept notices of excessive or extended services agreements that's a term used but it can also these can also be referred to as latecomer agreements to be registered on property title so registration on property title is what we want to achieve through an amendment of The Local Government Act now I'll go down to the last two sentences in my backgrounder here as follows without the clarity and security offered by registration of the latecomer agreement on property title there are potential risks and increased transaction costs for local governments and property developers risks Financial for the municipality or on surprises for the property owner or developer and by transaction costs I refer to well the extra Communications and negotiations that happens when we're confused about what's what on property title or what is not on property title The Last Sentence here looking into the future secure latecomer agreement instruments will be increasingly necessary and important for local governments in developing or ensuring development of advanced infrastructure to cope with Community growth our engineering department is projecting that we're going to get into these situations where latecomer agreements the need for them is going to become more common The Local Government Act spells out all manner of circumstances where local governments can or must register covenants and other types of agreements with the land title office latecomer Agreements are overlooked they're a missing piece so this picture of all the expectations that are in the Local Government Act is also reflected in the land titled and Survey authorities help guide manual it's very detailed it's constantly being updated but again what is missing is this anomaly or Gap is latecomer agreements finally I'll note that just as this resolution draft resolution was being put together the engineering department did receive a reply from a request for information from the land title and Survey Authority which said yes we need it in the Local Government Act statutory authority to register latecomer agreements on title so it was nice to have that confirmation about what is needed from the land title

Chris Pettingill
1:37:45 (0:00:13)

office okay thank you and I just wonder for folks that aren't aware or have forgotten not mentioning any names such as my own can you clarify what exactly a latecomer agreement is

Eric Andersen
1:37:59 (0:00:33)

that is these are in our the two whereas Clauses we spell out where it's found in legislation but otherwise the latecomer agreement is an agreement between the local government and a land owner who subsidized and develops land and is required to provide excess or extended services and now these are Road water sanitary or storm Drainage Systems this these are specifically the types of services that are that are involved in the latecomer agreements that are in consideration here

Chris Pettingill
1:38:33 (0:00:33)

and so for clarity if I'm doing a development I need a road for my property but to make that road functional and useful it extends past several properties so I pay for it but as part of the latecomer agreement subsequent developers will essentially pay me or the municipality back for that extended piece of road that I've built as part of my development is that correct in general yes that captures it okay Council any comments or questions or concerns about this resolution Council

Andrew Hamilton
1:39:06 (0:00:30)

Hamilton I initially had one question which you answered in your introduction which was why was it removed and are we just requesting them to put it back but it seems to me when you're in your in your introduction there that the survey office wants it there just probably in a different way than it was there before it looked to me like before it was sort of a comment we put and they want us to have the regulatory authority to implement it onto the title so that makes much more sense to me thanks our

Eric Andersen
1:39:37 (0:01:05)

engineering department has related that over the past few years they have made inquiries or sought to use what's called a form 17 notice to register a late com agreement and been receiving these supplies we don't accept these any longer so doing further research it has turned out there's various law firms that work on this and they have clarified that they in fact have stopped doing it because they realized they the land title office that is do not have statutory authority to do this whereas they do have statutory to do all manner of things in terms of registration just not latecomer agreements so the land title office presumably is just trying to be square and up to speed and keeping in alignment with legislation so this has been anomaly and it was noticed by the land title office or acknowledged by them now a few years back now hopefully through this resolution we can help the land title office and our own situation

Chris Pettingill
1:40:42 (0:00:00)

councilor

John French
1:40:43 (0:00:29)

French thanks chair councelor Anderson I'm just thinking ahead to when this potentially hits the floor at LM LGA in your maneuvering around various touch points with folks from around the province are other communities looking for this looking for something along this lines for Solutions in their own town

Eric Andersen
1:41:12 (0:00:28)

yes it seems so and we make this observation from looking at various law firms and then there they put out these blogs or newsletters and there are a number of references to this problem so presumably there's an audience for this problem around BC with different municipalities that are tied into legal advice on late C

Chris Pettingill
1:41:40 (0:00:12)

agreements okay so I'm not seeing any concerns it seems like there's good agreement support for that resolution so I think we'll move on to BC assessment resolution from councelor

John French
1:41:53 (0:04:44)

French okay thanks chair and the action clause in mind is therefore be it resolved the province of BC update the Assessment Act and the rules guiding the appeal board such that the number of drastically under assessed properties year-over-year are significantly reduced now in getting into the background on this I'll just refresh the memory of Council that I emailed a numbers document out to everybody because what I'm about to go through is pre number intensive so I thought it would be helpful to just send out my example numbers ahead of time but here goes so basically this is a fair taxation discussion issue the current system allows large valuable industrial commercial institutional we shorten that up to ICI those Property Owners or some of them to pay substantially less tax than Market valuations suggests they should be paying so when large IC Property Owners pay less than Market valuation suggests it means all other property owners are paying more than their fair share in property taxes to make up for the undervalued ICI properties and the best way to explain this is to take a look at examples and there are many all across the province so the com commercial properties I'll just identify them as being in the gabalia Estates area of Squamish with an assessed 2024 value of $15.5 million in 2023 those same properties were valued at 15.9 million the properties were sold in 2022 at a price of 22.1 million so two years after the property sold the assessed value still $7 million below the sale price over on the BCR yards or beside the BCR yards property on Government Road the 2020 assessed value was $56,000 then the assessment dropped in 2021 can you believe that it dropped the next year to $52,000 5200000 so the 2022 assessed value was 1.6 million so it did increase and then in 2023 the assess value was 2.5 million the property was sold in 2023 at a price of 3.5 million so the 2024 assess value now is 3.1 million still $400,000 below what the market says it's valued at this is happening all over B 8636 Oak Street in Vancouver the assessed value in