A quiet public hearing for the Oceanfront Squamish development has seen the project move one step closer to being finalized.
At the regular council meeting on May 6, councillors heard from one member of the public, as well as the developer behind the Oceanfront Squamish project, before giving it its third reading.
The development is seeking three amendments for a portion of The Works neighbourhood in the southwest portion of the site.
If approved, it would permit a mixed-use development consisting of primarily light industrial uses and residential rentals, and a dedicated child care facility and arts centre on Lot O of the Oceanfront Peninsula.
What is the project?
The bylaw amendments are to allow a mixed-use development with 207 rental units, 20% of which would be three-bedroom units, and 20% would be adaptable housing.
The employment uses would be primarily light industrial uses with a dedicated child care facility and centre for Squamish Arts.
Last year, developer Matthews West had proposed a climbing gym be built above the child care facility, but have since decided to construct the sporting facility in another location.
The proposed child care facility could accommodate approximately 12 infant/toddler spaces (aged between 0 and 2 years) and 25 spaces for older children (ages 3 to 5).
Squamish Arts would secure the space at the oceanfront for a $1 lease rate plus triple net for a minimum term of 25 years.
Developer comments
Speaking on behalf of the proponent of the project, Matthews West director of development, Carlos Zavarce, took the opportunity to address some of the concerns about the changes to the proposal.
“We think this is a tremendous opportunity for the oceanfront lands and for our community to bring online additional rental housing, much needed daycare space, space for [Squamish Arts], importantly, a viable and attractive light industrial space at the ground floor that will allow for a number of new and existing businesses to take root and grow at the oceanfront,” he said.
“With my time, I'm hoping to address some of the comments expressed by council at the previous first and second reading. And so the first is the wind.
“Yes, we know it is windy down on our site, and so …I will point out within the master plan … you can see that our two beaches are directly perpendicular to the predominant wind and wave direction, and our streets aren't exactly 45 degrees, but they're pretty close.
“That sets us up for success on the site and then from there, we investigate our building design, our awning design at the ground, plane vegetation, and a number of ways that we can hope to mitigate the wind, understanding that it is typically windy during certain times of the day.”
Another concern Zavarce addressed was how the developers were planning for the future of the site without knowing who would be living there and how the space would be used.
“I'll just say, I would love to know exactly who's going to be in that space when we're designing these buildings. And if I had my druthers, I could fill that building right now, but we don't really know who's going to be in there until it's done,” he said.
“And so, not knowing exactly who's going to take that space produces a number of challenges. It produces a number of challenges at the initial development permit stage, it produces a number of challenges at the building permit stage, and then we have this tenant improvement stage, where we really find out how well we did or how much we screwed up, by the amount of modifications that have to happen to this building in order to accommodate those future tenants.”
Zavarce said that it was the “unfortunate reality of the situation,” however, they plan on doing the best they can to make the site an ideal space for tenants.
Another issue with the proposal that council raised at an earlier meeting was the bylaw amendment to reduce the amount of parking provided at the site.
In response to this, Zavarce said that as the oceanfront site evolves, he thinks they will find “greater clarity” around parking uses and how people will use the peninsula.
“[We will see] the balance between the office space, the commercial, the tourist space and the residents, and seeing where those parking spaces can serve more than one user,” he said.
“We also have underground parking proposed for almost the entirety of the site, and so we will have to habituate people in Squamish to park underground for when they're visiting the site or when they're using commercial spaces.
“That's going to be something that we're going to have to learn, and we're thinking about parking mechanisms to really facilitate that use and ensure it's being used properly.”
While the proposal does not include a no-gas covenant, Zacarce said the developers were committed to finding low-carbon solutions on site.
“We will be looking to provide heat and cooling through electric sources, and for domestic hot water,” he said.
“We really recognize the importance of the energy transition, and we are really working on our site to meet a variety of sustainability goals.”
Public comment
Only one Squamish resident provided public comment on the proposal amendments.
The resident said that he was opposed to the changes as they reduce marine employment to mostly residential with light industrial uses.
“I think as we try and create a waterfront community, it's pretty important to accommodate the marine industrial or marine employment. If it's all residential, then it's not a community,” he said.
“There are a lot of viable marine businesses that are existing in town and within the Lower Mainland that are looking for waterfront space. Waterfront space is rare. If we give this away to additional residential, whether it be rental, it's valuable real estate that we won't have again.
“There's very little oceanfront in Squamish, we're just getting access to it and to give it away to residential and eliminate the opportunity to have this marine employment and eliminate those businesses from the community that could potentially come, I think, is a big loss.”
District manager of current planning, Jessie Fletcher, said that the reason staff supported the change of direction away from marine employment is because the site itself “doesn’t accommodate” it.
“Because of where it's sited … there's no access to the water from it because of the bathymetry of the cattermole,” Fletcher said.
“You can't access the water from the site with a boat launch based on several limiting factors. Light marine employment uses are not excluded from the light industrial use in the zoning. So if there were users that could utilize the site for marine employment uses they could continue there.”
Council comments
Mayor Armand Hurford said he was in support of the amendments because the development was “very important” for the community.
”There was an aspiration to have direct water access on that site from the early days of this project, and for a lengthy number of reasons, mostly to do with the environmental considerations, that's not possible on the site,” he said.
“So I see that this is an opportunity to add some rental housing and some daycare, but also to protect the employment space that's there. I think this is a reasonable response to the reality of where we are, as we advance through the lengthy process of realizing the development on this very important site for the community.
“So I think what we have before us is very responsive to the needs of the community today, and speaking in support of all three changes that we need to make.”
Coun. Eric Andersen also supported the proposal, but said finding a space marine employment should be front of mind for councillors moving forward.
“The mayor referred to ‘aspirations’ regarding waterfront access in the original plan. They were more than aspirations,” Andersen said.
“The community demanded attention to waterfront employment, and in fact, the original vision was one-third of waterfront employment. Later, that got watered down to employment, now it's later gotten watered down even further, and now we're in a bit of a pickle.
“So we should keep that in mind and make sure that we address this in plans forthcoming.”
Coun. Jenna Stoner echoed Andersen's comments but said that this space simply wouldn’t be the place for marine employment.
“I agree that it is disappointing that the water access that the community had once demanded, as per my council colleagues comments, can't be realised in this site, and I think that is a result of a disservice of many years ago where we had ambitions to provide that water access,” she said.
“Here we are trying to actually make it happen, and we simply can't, with the level of the site and the bathymetry of the cattermole slough, it's actually near impossible to actually put a boat access or water ramp there.
“So maybe we set ourselves up incorrectly when we did the larger negotiations on this property, but I do think it's important that we remain responsive now that we know what is actually feasible on that site and as the communities' needs have evolved.”
Stoner said that the proposal would help to solve “some of the issues at hand” with the creation of rental units, a daycare and the Squamish Arts facility.
Coun. Chris Pettingill said he would not be able to support the proposal due to the site not having a no-gas covenant.
“In general, I am supportive of what's being done here, and I think given the constraints on marine access, the marine use change makes sense. However, I am still hung up on the gas piece,” he said.
“The fact that we have figured out two fire halls and a public works [facility] with bay doors and how to make that work [with no gas], I think it can be done.
“I think this is an important point to start pushing on and to hopefully result in changing our policy, if not tonight, to work on that shift.”
Council voted 5-2 in favour of giving the bylaw amendments their third reading, with councillors Chris Pettingill and Lauren Greenlaw opposed.
The project will return to council at a later date for adoption.
