COUNSIL PACKAGE JUNE 2024
Dear Squamish Council,
I have prepared this page for you so you may understand the issues at heart. Please click on the + symbol on the right side of each heading below to open the content. The preamble is what I would say, if I had the opportunity to speak. The summary of events tells you what happened to bring us to where we are today, and the balance of the sections are key documents, such as our Land Development Agreement, our Development Permit Application, Our Flood Study and it’s Peer-Review, key correspondence items between us and the Squamish planning department that you, as elected officials should be aware of, and evidence of public support for our project.
Sincerely,
Michael Goodman
Paradise Trails
-
-
-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IN PDF CLICK HERE
Preamble:You might be wondering why the binder starts off with the most lengthy and boring part of the start of the Paradise Trails story, the contracts. Actually, I was thinking this is what I might say to you, our elected officials, in a short verbal presentation. However, as it turns out no one will be allowed to speak who supports or represents the project. There is actually a legal provision for allowing us to speak but some rule-setter at the DoS has decided to ignore the legalisation which allows it. One more piece in the bizarre story, which unfolds if you care to follow what has happened to the Paradise Trails project.
Fundamental to our society and what we pride ourselves in, or at least most of us, is our democracy and how it supposed to function. The independency of the judiciary, free and fair elections, the division of power between the different levels of government, etc.
Part of what is fundamental to both government and function of our overall society is the notion of written, verbal, and implied contracts. Contracts too are part of what most of us believe is fundamental to how our system of government is supposed to function, how parties are supposed to function, or with one’s life partner. Of course, contracts that are written by lawyers who represent different parties, and where there is monetary exchange, are the strongest level of contract we generally make between business parties. And there is another level of contract, which is renewal base contract by further actions of two parties. And yet another, the good faith efforts of one party to the contract, to meet the terms and conditions of the contract(s). There is another, a moral contract between parties. And while contracts can be broken, there is the moral question to consider. Should one knowingly and deliberately break a contract? Further is that a good way to function in this world be it between individuals, corporations, or municipality bodies.
I am writing to suggest to you, that between the DoS and Paradise Trails there are both strong written contracts and implied ones as well. The first two of course are the Land Development Agreement that DoS signed with the company. The second contract is the zoning. There is a foundational principles of property rights and contract law. These principles suggest that unless there is a compelling and extraordinary reason, such as significant public interest or safety concerns, the council should honor the agreement. Any deviation from this could undermine trust in the legal and contractual commitments made by the city. In this case there was financial consideration given when the contract was signed. This was a notional amount, and the reason it was in the land development agreement and has do with sanctity of contracts.
One might argue the zoning is old, and all the public support upon which some of the consideration of passing the zoning was based is history and citizens today, might not support the project. Therefore, we have no moral or legal obligation to the zoning. However, that line of thinking seems quite problematic when one fast-forwards to Sept of 2021, when the meeting was held between the staff and the project and DoS produced a set of minutes of the meeting which are attached here. It was specific, solve the life safety issues and will not block the project from moving forward. That in our view, is a clear indication the contract was clearly still valid the contract under the zoning and the land development agreement was still valid. And then, all the work that was done and money that was spent after that done by Paradise Trails, was based on that meeting. Had staff said, no way, the contract it to old, we are going to move to down zone you, things would have proceeded very differently. No money would have been spent on by Paradise Trails until things were decided on, by the DoS.
There is also such a thing as frustration of a contract. If one party does everything in their power to frustrate the contract, well that is a serious matter. In our view this has clearly happened. The refusal to meet and review the flood study, the ignoring of the peer review, the statement in writing: “if you apply by this date, you will not be down zoned.” – all of those were attempts at frustrating the contract. More importantly it is immoral in my view.
Even if the meetings had been held, but the whole intent was pay lip service to a contractual obligation, well what is the point? You might say this is done all the time by municipalities, what is the big deal. However, in this case, there was direction from elected officials, no matter how far back it was. Holding meetings is one thing, intent is another. I would suggest in this case, there was an attempt to frustrate the contract by two different methods. No one even bothered to have a meeting to look at the flood studies to find out why it was different than studies done before.
In the final analysis, our municipal system is set up in a particular kind of way because it would be nearly impossible for any developer to engage in a difficult long term arduous process, if the system was not set up like it is. The zoning is of course key. And connected to that, is what the municipality says to the proponent as things move along. So, ask yourself this: is moral to cut the feet out from under a developer after officially telling him, he can proceed in writing? Is it moral for staff not to treat each applicant in a fair, even handed and helpful manner? Or do you want to govern, in way that allows the contracts to be easily broken, because a planner does not like what two democratically elected councils voted in favor of? Further in Sept of 2021, and many dates there after, told the developer proceed. How can our society actually function well and in way we are proud of, if this is allowed to happen by elected officials? In closing, let me say, I am sorry I was not allowed to speak to you in a council meeting. Its amazing Council is having two public hearings for the TUW for the flotel, which I am told are not required, and inthis matter, we are not allowed to even address Council. On behalf of myself and the 52 investors who put faith our legal agreements, we urge you not to remove the zoning and allow us to go on performing. As mentioned, the flora and fauna study is complete as are the civil drawings.
Squamish states it wants reconciliation with local First Nations peoples. This is a project which is supported by local Squamish First Nations citizens on a grass roots level. Why? they want someone to partner with others, in organizing a wildfire fighting brigade which we are in the process of doing based on our original commitments. If you allow us to retain the zoning, we will go on doing that work. I am certain it will be successful. Chief Harry and the Lewis Family are 100% behind initiative. Chief Harry, in particular, has substantial business connections who will likely come through with major donations to get a significant facility built at Cheekye. Paul Lewis has asked the Band for the land to site the building on.
-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IN PDF CLICK HERE
Summary of Events
1. In Nov 2008 Council gives the project third reading against the advice of its planners. Councillors asked us to propose a development that could do something significant to advance Squamish as being the recreational capital of Canada. Based on our proposal to build an indoor riding ring, and ten acres of land, plus trails, they stated they would support the housing project to go with.
2. At that time most of the horse barns in Squamish are being demolished and redeveloped as other purposes.
3. A ten-acre reading center is incorporated in the plan along with an indoor equestrian center, barns, and related shops. 6.5 k of public trails are also incorporated into the concept.
4. Planners spin the project in the back room for nearly three years. Public pressure mounts from the horse community and those wanting the wildfire effort the project promises. Substantial pressure grows in favor of the project. At the public hearing about 50 citizens show up to support the project. Council decides to bring the project out of the back room, and it is rezoned by new council in 2012.
5. At that time, a contract was signed by the developer and the District, a Land Use Agreement that is extensive and specific which details the phasing, bonding, and community benefits.
6. From the time of rezoning, I decide to sell the land, figuring it was just too difficult a process and there was not enough money in the world which would make trying to bring the project to a fruition.
7. We write the DoS and tell them we have hired Ebbwater Consultants, who are specialized hydrologists and engineers to do peer review.
8. Ebbwater have recently studied the Cheekumus river right to our site boundary on behalf of the SLRD.
9. Instead on around 20 Feb, 24 we receive and email, and told we have 3 weeks to apply for the DP-2, for the flood study, or you will be down zoned.
10. On round 4 of March another email arrives which says, even if you apply re our last email, you will down zoned anyway. (this is after we called up to try and pay electronically and planning realize we were actually going to apply).
11. After doing $250,000 of flood engineering study which proves the site does not flood plus a peer review by a completely independent firm who obviously have significant expertise, DoS attacks the author, who is practising engineer of 40 years, John Orr of Orr and Sons Engineers.
12. The peer review for the study confirms the accuracy of the Orr and Sons study. Ebbwater Consultants are specialized hydrologists and worked for the SLRD as the author of the SLRD Cheakamus River Flood Hazard study.
13. We send their peer review to the DoS. Orr writes the Planning and Engineering, and offers two full weeks of meeting time, a week apart to review the studies.
14. The Planning Department and the Engineer departments, refuses to hold a meeting to look at the work.
15. There is 2D model which goes with the study, no one from DoS has ever looked it.
16. Nor have they ever had a meeting with the engineers who did the original study or Ebbwater’s Peer Review.
17. Then planning tells us the application does not meet the DP2 requirements.
18. We hire Graham Farstad, Arlington Group to try and figure out why this might be.
19. DoS literature says present a draft.
20. Graham has been a professional planner of 35 years and is the co author of the districts current flood study. He is flabbergasted at the stance of the Planning Department as is Keith Funk, New Town Architects and Planners. they two are mystified at the process in Squamish.
21. Orr and Sons, New Town and Arlington Group go through the DPA 2 literature and trying do their best to figure out why the documents submitted does not deal with meet the DPA 2 requirements. They make specific reference to paragraph in Squamish literature, where it says documents should be submitted in draft.
22. The study is revised in accordance with the direction of our professional planner, with Orr and Sons, as per the request of planning.
23. Planning writes and tells us they will not provide any feed back as to why the application does not meet the requirements after Farstad and Orr revised the report extensively.
24. After being told continually the only issue with the project was it may have flood issues, and one day after we submitted our revised flood study, we are told the planning is going to move to down zone the project on June 18, with only 10 business days notice.
25. We are told we will not able to speak to the matter at the down zoning hearing. We are not told we can ask to be a special delegation. We have to resort to finding that out from a specialist.
26. On 12 of June, Manager of Legislative Services from DoS writes to tell us, no delegation will be allowed to speak. We may only address the council by way of written submission.
27. Four days before the Council meeting, we still have no staff report nor are we told why the project is being down zoned.
28. On 12 of June at about 4 pm, we are told the project is being down zoned because of flood risk, yet no one has seen the flood model or spoken to the engineer who wrote. All attempts to set up a meeting are rebuffed.
29. In summary it seems very clear, there was, and is no intent to deal with the application fairly or in a good faith manner. More than 10 million has been spent on the process to date. Below are set of email and documents which lay out in detail the summary above.
30. Given the down zoning initiative is now 4 business days in front of us, we request the threat to down zone be delayed while we discuss the matter. What is the rush anyway? Our flaura and fauna study is complete as well as the civil drawings. No one has even looked at the flood study.
-
-
2024
3. Draft DPA2 & Orr & Sons Draft Flood Study-March 11 2024, Revised in June
4. Ebbwater Peer Review of Flood Study by Orr-April 19, 2024
2023
3. Discussion on KWL acting as a peer reviewer, rejected by Dos -August 2023 District of Squamish
4. Terms of Reference for Natural Hazards and Risk Assessment Memo
-
-
1. Downzoning Formal Notice email (Important Document)
2.Response from Valeskis, "Your Application Does Not Meet DPA Deadline"
4. Revised Application Transmittal Letter of Discussion
6. Refusal by DoS to comment on DPA 2-June 6, 2024 (Important Document)
8. Newtown Letter RE Notification of Proactively Re-Zone from CD052 to Resource-June 12, 2024
-
Community Benefits Document
(Important Document) -
Letters from Chief Gibby to Paradise Trails – 2008 (Important Document)
First Nations Support For Paradise Trails Fire Brigade Contribution, 63 Letters, 2024 (Important Document)
North Squamish Volunteer Fire Brigade Press Release -June 13, 2024 (Important Document)
Letter from Paul Lewis to Squamish Council Supporting the Fire Brigade and Paradise Trails Contribution- March 14, 2024 (Important Document)
Letter from Paul Lewis to Band asking for land for fire hall
North Squamish Volunteer Fire Brigade Brochure
Neighbors Letter of Support 2023 to 2024 (Important Document)
Community & Neighborhood Letters of Support 2011 to 2012