About

Q: How many years have you lived in Squamish?
A: 13

Q: Which neighbourhood do you live in?
A: Garibaldi Highlands

Learn more: Squamish Chief's Q&A

Proposed industrial projects

The next elected council will have decision-making authority over several aspects of proposed industrial projects. All of these projects will have social, environmental, and climate impacts. What is your position on:

FortisBC pipeline: oppposed

Why: I will always keep an open mind, but so far everything I've seen tells me this is a bad idea. The existing 10" FortisBC Transmission Line is already unusual in BC according to Fortis in terms of the volume and pressure of gas in close proximity to human activity. They're proposing adding an additional pipeline in the same location, that's nearly six times the size. I've spent 2 years trying to get sufficiently detailed risk information from Fortis, but have not been very successful. This does not inspire great confidence in the actual risks posed by this pipeline.

FortisBC workcamp: opposed

Why: See my response to the Woodfibre LNG floatel. However, as the Fortis workcamp is proposed on land in close proximity to residential neighborhoods, I think the current proposal is much more problematic than the Woodfibre LNG floatel. I will remain open to hearing better solutions from Fortis, but I am skeptical.

Woodfibre LNG: opposed

Why: As Councillors we must keep an open mind prior to voting on a topic. However, while I will be open to having my mind changed, I haven't yet seen compelling evidence on why we should facilitate subsidization of, and dependence on a new fossil fuel project. I believe we need to keep our resources focused on industries that have a viable future. This project is not inevitable despite their PR, and it's important to me that we pursue the best long term future for our community and the next generation.

Woodfibre LNG's "floatel": opposed

Why: Based on the information I've seen so far, It's not an acceptable solution for worker accommodations, but it is less terrible than a work camp in town. Woodfibre LNG needs to come up with something better. However, I will acknowledge it will be hard to find a solution. It's already hard enough to think of a valid justification for a new fossil fuel project, and adding the negative consequences of a work camp (floatel or not) just adds to the reasons not to pursue the project as a whole.

Proposed development projects

The next elected council will determine whether these development projects proceed or not. All of these projects will have social, environmental, and climate impacts. What is your position on:

Cheema Lands: neutral

Why: I don't have any absolute opposition to the eventual development of this land. However, if we want to avoid sprawl and the high amount of infrastructure (and cost) per taxpayer that comes with sprawl, then we should stick with the Growth Management Boundary in the OCP. It's not just an issue of the initial cost of that infrastructure, but also its maintenance and saving for its eventual replacement. There is room for much development of all forms of housing (including detached single family homes) within the Growth Management Boundary, so we don't need to start sprawling yet. We will start reviewing the OCP again in a few years, and we can re-evaluate if we should extend the Growth Management Boundary sooner or later, but at this moment, the guidance in the OCP makes sense. The less taxpayers put towards roads and pipes for sprawl development, the more we have to put into things like a new Library, new rec facilities.

Garibaldi at Squamish: opposed

Why: As always, I'm always open to updated information. However, so far I've seen contradictory plans that don't sufficiently address how existing taxpayers won't get stuck with massive infrastructure bills ... especially if this proposed (ski) resort fails. Maybe there will be a proposal that can work, but I'm not convinced that its apparent winter focus makes sense as the climate crisis accelerates.

North Crumpit: neutral

Why: This land is within the Growth Management Boundary, and is marked for residential uses. I'm open to the idea that some areas might be developable. However, I think there are also key areas that should be protected, and any development needs to be sensitive to walkability, livability, affordability, and climate and environmental impacts. I'm also very concerned about the last proposal and the proximity of residential development to the proposed Woodfibre LNG/Fortis BC High Pressure gas pipeline. This is why I did not support proceeding with the subarea plan presented to Council in July 2022. I think more work needs to be done to address the issues I've raised.

Climate Action commitments = 16/16

• Invest in active transportation networks to make biking and walking safer and more accessible?
• Support higher density infill development along existing and proposed transit networks to promote walkable and livable communities?
• Advocate for regional public transit and invest in local public transit?
• Implement policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in buildings, for example, incentivize fuel switching from gas furnaces to electric heat pumps through rebates for homeowners?
• Advocate for the Provincial Government to enable local governments to ban new gas hookups in buildings?
• Support Neighbourhood Planning to collaborate with citizens, not developers, in the future development of their neighbourhood?
• Make land use decisions that protect and restore natural areas, ensure habitat connectivity, and avoid urban sprawl?
• Protect natural assets (forests, wetlands, shrublands, grasslands, estuary, aquifers, ponds, lakes, creeks, and rivers) identified in the 2022 Natural Asset Management Strategy, which provide ecosystem services valued at more than $1.6 billion?
• Support efforts to implement a Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and use this to inform development guidelines and neighbourhood planning?
• Increase local food security by supporting local agriculture and community gardens?
• Implement zero waste bylaws to divert organic waste from the landfill and support the development of a circular economy as part of a zero waste strategy?
• Review the deconstruction bylaw to ensure it is meeting its goal to eliminate waste from renovation and demolition projects?
• Support further study on local distributed energy systems powered by 100% renewable energy to build community resilience over time?
• Adopt the Doughnut Economic Model as a guiding principle for all District initiatives and planning? (see Nanaimo example)
• Endorse the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty?
• Join the campaign to Sue Big Oil and set aside $1 per person to file a class-action lawsuit to recover a fair share of our climate costs?

Transparency and Accountability

Q: Are there any particular issues where you would have to declare a perceived conflict of interest or recuse yourself from Council discussion on an issue? Please list:
A: I work at a locally-based, fast-growing tech startup. If we end up pursuing different office space that needs permits or approvals, then I would recuse myself from those discussions. Likewise, with a growing staff, I would recuse myself if any coworkers had permits or approvals coming before Council.

List of current donors

My campaign is 100% self-funded which means I can personally donate up to $2500 to my own campaign, but I'm not accepting donations from anyone.

List of past donors in 2018

Data accessed via ElectionsBC:

$1,386.91 from Chris Pettingill (self-funded)

List of past donors in 2014

Data accessed via ElectionsBC:

$1,764.86 from Chris Pettingill
$2,500 from Peter Pettingill
$50 from anonymous contributors (donations less than $100)