A developer wants Squamish council to approve 85 homes on a forested Northyards lot at the cost of quality of life for both new and surrounding residents. The application asks for an 81% cut to visitor parking (4 stalls for 85 homes), a 35% cut to resident parking, and a 58% cut to required green space — three major relaxations at once, all to fit more density onto a site that was never sized for it. To clear the way, the developer also proposes removing all 106 trees on the property, including a 180 cm-wide Sitka spruce that the applicant's own arborist confirms is healthy, with no alternative to full clear-cutting ever studied. We support new housing in Northyards. We don't support council granting sweeping relaxations to parking and green space requirements while permanently clearing a forest — and a landmark tree — that current residents and wildlife depend on. Tell Squamish council to hold the line on this application by signing this petition.

The following letter will be submitted for the review and consideration of the Mayor and Council, District of Squamish:

 

Mayor and Council
District of Squamish
37955 Second Avenue
Squamish, BC V8B 0A3

Re: Development Folder RZ000069 (Project PRJ-000264) — 39773 and 39777 Government Road
Request for tree retention conditions and reconsideration of requested variances

Dear Mayor Armand Hurford and Members of Council,

We are residents of the Breeze development at 39767, 39771, and 39769 Government Road and the wider Northyards neighbourhood. We are writing jointly regarding the rezoning application at 39773 and 39777 Government Road.

We want to be clear at the outset: we support new housing in the Northyards, including purpose-built rental. We are not asking council to reject this application, we are asking council to use the discretion it holds at rezoning to secure one thing the current proposal gives up entirely, and which cannot be recovered later: the mature forest edge on this site.  We are also asking the council to direct closer review of the site planning decisions that compound these impacts — traffic circulation, waste collection access, and privacy for adjacent homes.

In particular the relaxations deviating from what’s required, seen listed in the table below, will impact the surrounding neighborhood greatly.

3 RELAXATIONS REQUESTED & THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS

The application seeks significant relief in three directions simultaneously:

Common outdoor space
Required 36,596 sf
Proposed 15,470 sf
Reduction -58%

Resident parking
Required 149 spaces
Proposed 97 spaces
Reduction -35%

Visitor parking
Required 21 spaces
Proposed 4 spaces
Reduction -81%

On-site trees retained
Required 106 present
Proposed 0 retained
Reduction -100%

Taken individually, each might be defensible. Taken together, they describe a project that meets its density targets by transferring its open space, parking, and canopy obligations onto the surrounding neighbourhood.

The tree loss is a design choice, not a site constraint

The arboricultural assessment submitted with this application identifies 106 trees on site and proposes every one of them for removal. The stated justification is a single note repeated throughout the plans: the site is “within a designated flood hazard area, requires grade raising to meet flood construction levels, and the extent of fill is not compatible with tree retention.”

This reasoning treats site-wide fill as a given. It is not. Flood construction levels can be met through localized fill under building footprints, elevated or piled foundations, and retained grade within designated tree protection zones. None of these approaches is exotic, and all are in use elsewhere in the Sea to Sky corridor on flood-constrained sites.

Per the Tree Management Bylaw 3229, 2026, We ask that the Manager of Environment requests a report demonstrating that all reasonable development design efforts have been explored to avoid impacting Significant Trees. (Section 4.1 (a) (i))

It is important to note that existing trees are green space. Removing the existing and natural entire urban canopy while also seeking a 58% reduction in required common outdoor area compounds a single loss twice over.

The assessment does not present a retention option that was considered and rejected on engineering grounds. It presents total clearance as the only outcome. Our community is asking that before the council accepts the permanent loss of a mature stand, we believe that analysis should be required.

 

TREE #59

One tree on this site is genuinely exceptional. Tree #59 is a Sitka spruce measured at 180 cm DBH (diameter at breast height), 23 metres tall, with a 15-metre crown spread. This qualifies it as a “significant tree”by more than double the requirement under the District of Squamish Tree Management Bylaw - Tree Management Bylaw 3229, 2026,  it is the largest tree on the property. Even where a property already meets its Tree Density Target, removal of a Significant Tree is not exempt from the permit requirement. (Section 4.1 (a) (i))

The applicant's arborist found that Tree #59 displayed no indication of poor health or lacking in structural integrity. As such, there is no significant lean, cavities, open seams, basal defects, stem cracking, root plate disturbance, signs of recent failure or decline. The tree is described as mature, structurally intact, and healthy.

We respectfully ask council to confirm, on the public record, which bylaw this application has been assessed against, how many significant trees are present under the current definition, and what the resulting replacement obligation is. We encourage the council to ensure that the applicant is directed to use the current bylaw especially where no building permit or development permit has been completed. 

As per the Tree Management Bylaw 3229, 2026 “Trees provide a variety of individual and community wide benefits such as stormwater management, carbon absorption, air quality improvement, temperature and climate regulation, aesthetics, and physical and mental wellbeing. They further support processes critical to maintaining the ecological function and integrity of the local and regional environment including providing wildlife habitat and supporting biodiversity."

 

ADDITIONAL CONCERNS

We ask that council direct staff to closely assess the following before this application proceeds further:

A. MASSING AND TRANSITION
B. TRAFFIC AND NOISE
C. WASTE COLLECTION ACCESS
D. PARKING

Beyond these site-planning concerns, the mature trees on this property provide services that cannot be replicated by young replacement plantings, including:

E. WILDLIFE HABITAT
F. CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION
G. QUALITY OF LIFE AND HEALTH BENEFITS
H. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

A. MASSING AND TRANSITION
The proposed six-storey building fronting Government Road sits directly beside an established three-storey townhome form, which is a significant jump in scale. We respectfully ask that the design demonstrate how it steps down or otherwise transitions to its lower-scale neighbours so that the character of the surrounding neighbourhood is maintained.
Privacy also deserves careful attention. Adjacent homes, including those at the Breeze, have rooftop patios that function as extensions of their living space. We ask that the design team show how overlooking these outdoor areas has been addressed, for example: through building setbacks, upper-storey stepbacks, window placement, screening, or landscaping.
We ask that Council evaluate the proposed height and transition against the District of Squamish OCP policies on neighbourhood fit and compatibility with adjacent development.

B. TRAFFIC AND NOISE
Eighty-five additional homes on Government Road will increase vehicle movements and ambient noise. With visitor parking at the proposed site decreased to just 19% of the required supply, much of that traffic will be residents and visitors circling for on-street parking — increasing conflict points with pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles already on Government Road. We request a traffic vehicle study be completed by a Traffic Consultant for this area which includes key intersections east and west of the proposed area. This study should  account for the impact of a reduced parking supply (resident and visitor), and the resulting on-street displacement, including its effect on road safety.

C. WASTE COLLECTION ACCESS
We ask staff to confirm that the proposed site circulation accommodates collection vehicle turning movements without reversing onto Government Road or relying on adjacent private property.

D. RESIDENT AND VISITOR PARKING
On parking, the District of Squamish has requirements for parking of visitors and residents based on District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011.
The applicant is proposing that due to proximity to existing transit and connection to walking and cycling infrastructure there is justification to reduce overall parking to encourage use of other infrastructure. We would ask the council to weigh that against how Squamish households actually live. Many bike routes are not illuminated or lack a dedicated bike lane, and transit service in the area is limited. A majority of residents own and use personal vehicles as their primary mode of transportation. Not only is transit service limited, access to recreation requires vehicles, with many households owning multiple trucks, bikes, boards, and boats. 
Furthermore, the applicant has reduced the requirements for visitor stalls by over 80%, what we have seen is that where there is a lack of visitor stalls and parking for residents, our neighbourhood streets serve as additional parking. With numerous small businesses in the neighbourhood and parking already at a premium, we believe the proposed parking reduction is unrealistic and fails to reflect the existing constraints within the community.

E. WILDLIFE HABITAT
The existing mature trees provide bird habitat protection in alignment with Squamish achieving Bird Friendly City certification, a national initiative run by Nature Canada in concert with Nature Squamish.
A key pillar of this certification by Nature Canada is to conserve food and nesting habitat by protecting established trees on public and private land.
Squamish sits directly on a major migratory route, the Pacific Flyway, hosting over 240 species of local and traveling birds.
There has been verified sightings and documentation of the following species in tree #59.  The tree is home to: Great Horned Owls, Bald Eagles, Great Blue Herons, Merlins, Nighthawks, Golden Crowned Kinglet, Northern Flicker, Chestnut -backed Chickadees, American Robins, Common Ravens, Racons, Black-capped Chickadee, Song Sparrow.

F. CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION
Carbon absorption is a crucial ecosystem service provided by mature trees, that is not replicable through replacement plantings, because the interdependent fungal associations involved in carbon sequestration take time to arise. (Simard, S.W., Perry, D.A., Jones, M.D., Myrold, D.D., Durall, D.M., & Molina, R. (1997). Net transfer of carbon between ectomycorrhizal tree species in the field. Nature, 388, 579–582.)
Mature trees provide microclimates through shading and transpiration, these cooling services are much needed in any new housing development in Squamish as our temperatures continue to rise.  Tree size, canopy volume, and leaf area drive cooling capacity.  (Rahman, M.A., Stratopoulos, L.M.F., Moser-Reischl, A., Zölch, T., Häberle, K.-H., Rötzer, T., Pretzsch, H., & Pauleit, S. (2020). Traits of trees for cooling urban heat islands: A meta-analysis. Building and Environment, 170, 106606.)
Mature trees have such large biomass that they are serving to clean the air we breathe as well as the water table.  A service we are all reliant on and should not be valued at ZERO.

G. QUALITY OF LIFE AND HEALTH BENEFITS
These mature trees qualify as green space.  Green space is shown to improve mental health and the variance proposed to decrease it by 50% is not prioritizing the quality of life for residents. Integrate these mature trees into the overall site planning and landscape design.
Since Squamish has high dog ownership per capita, we at the Breeze are concerned that by not providing adequate green space we will experience more dog feces on our grounds and on public sidewalks.
These trees provide a privacy barrier between our exposed windows and also our roof top balconies.  They also provide noise mitigation between the two developments.

H. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Ecosystem goods and services (natural capital) are an integral part of the municipality's infrastructure system. They provide quantifiable value to the community, including climate regulation and carbon storage, air and stormwater infiltration and purification, nutrient cycling and crop pollination, as well as potable water." (OCP Bylaw 2500, 2017, Section 10 (Natural Environment) 
Canopy interception (the mechanism by which trees intercept, store, and slow rainfall before it becomes runoff), and it demonstrates that interception capacity scales with canopy size and leaf area — meaning mature, large-canopy trees like an old Sitka spruce provide disproportionately more stormwater attenuation than young trees. (Berland, A., Shiflett, S.A., Shuster, W.D., Garmestani, A.S., Goddard, H.C., Herrmann, D.L., & Hopton, M.E. (2017). The role of trees in urban stormwater management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 162, 167–177.

Which bylaw is this application being assessed under?

The District of Squamish adopted the Tree Management Bylaw No. 3229, 2026 on May 19, 2026. The significance of this Bylaw is to encourage preservation and healthy management of forested areas and tree stands, including within neighborhoods. The DOS has outlined this as being an important objective to support the Official Community Plan (OCP), and helps to protect and maintain the integrity of our green infrastructure, natural assets and sensitive ecosystems. 

Within this Bylaw, a particular revision to the tree diameters decreased the threshold of a tree diameter from 80 cm to 60 cm DBH and expanded the definition to include wildlife habitat trees and selected rare native species.

This is important to highlight as it has been shown where the former 80cm DBH was used a total of 8 trees would fall under this requirement, however, were the applicant to follow the current bylaw using the current 60 cm threshold, that number appears to be substantially higher.

Retention benefits the applicant as well

We want to be constructive here. A retained mature conifer edge is not purely a cost. It provides immediate screening and shade for the property — an amenity that takes generations to grow, cannot be replicated by a cash-in-lieu payment, and should not be dismissed as insignificant to the site's value.

It reduces the stormwater management burden on a flood-constrained site. It is a marketable feature. And under the Tree Management Bylaw, retained significant trees generate credits against replacement obligations.

We believe a retention scheme exists that serves both the applicant and this neighbourhood. We encourage that the applicant do their due diligence and look for solutions.

WHAT WE ARE ASKING COUNCIL TO DO

1. Require a tree retention alternative  prepared jointly by a qualified Arborist, Landscape Architect and a Geotechnical Engineer demonstrating whether the significant tree stand along the eastern and shared boundaries can be retained under any feasible flood mitigation design.
2. Make retention of tree #59 a condition of rezoning, with a tree protection zone established to arboricultural standards and secured by covenant.
3. Confirm on public record that this application has been assessed under Tree Management Bylaw No. 3229, 2026, and publish the significant tree count and replacement obligation under the current 60 cm threshold.
4. Decline the common outdoor space variance, or condition any relaxation on retained on-site canopy rather than cash-in-lieu. Green space that already exists and already functions should not be traded for a payment.

 

CLOSING

Council holds full discretion at rezoning. There is no entitlement to a site-specific CD zone, and no obligation to grant relaxations. The applicant is asking this community for three significant concessions. We are asking for one thing in return, and it is the only one on the list that cannot be undone.

We understand a public information meeting has been requested and confirmed for this application, and we intend to participate. We would welcome the opportunity to meet with staff or with members of council in advance, and we are prepared to speak at the public hearing.

Thank you for your consideration.