District of Squamish councillors have given first reading to an Official Community Plan (OCP) Amendment bylaw to meet provincial requirements for local housing.
The bylaw was described by District staff at the regular council meeting on May 6 as a “legislatively required implementation action” to meet provincial requirements that would “align the OCP with the housing needs identified in the Squamish Interim Housing Needs report.”
According to the report to council, the new legislation requires OCPs to include statements and map designations that provide the 20-year total number of housing units identified in the most recent housing needs report.
It also requires municipalities to prepare housing needs reports every five years.
District senior planner Matt Gunn said that between 2021 and 2041, a total of 6,300 units were identified as being needed in Squamish, as generated by a provincial tool.
“[The] tool automatically generates the prescribed housing needs for Squamish across a bunch of different categories, including extreme core housing, homelessness, suppressed household formation, anticipated growth rental vacancy and additional local demand,” he said.
“So [6,300 units] is the target that we have to show we can meet in our zoning in the OCP. So our amendment includes a policy that outlines the location and how these housing units will be accommodated in the community.”
To align with Bill 44—a provincial law which increased the minimum density standards in municipalities by allowing more small-scale, multi-unit housing options in land use zones that are otherwise restricted to single-family dwellings or duplexes— the District adopted R1-R5 zones in June 2024.
This permitted the development of multiplexes on properties in Squamish that were previously restricted to single and two units.
Gunn said District staff looked at all the properties within these zones as part of this new bylaw amendment.
“We looked at all those properties, counted them all up, counted up the total number of units that could be built on all those, and we found that you could build 16,200 units, if every one of those built out to the maximum,” he said.
“And then we counted up how many units were built across all those, and there were 5,000 units. So there's a lot of significant additional capacity.
“Now, we call it theoretical headroom, or even false headroom at times, because will all of that get built out to full capacity? Probably not, but we're going through an exercise that the province has asked us to check a box on, and that's what we're doing.
“So the OCP amendment includes a community wide breakdown of the unbuilt capacity in a brief table. It highlights a remaining capacity of 11,318 units across the community.”
The report shows the neighbourhood with the biggest unbuilt capacity is Garibaldi Highlands, with 5,300 units, followed by Valleycliffe with a total of 3,200 units.
“This is the total capacity that could be built if every single one of those properties was built out to its max,” Gunn said.
Within the bylaw amendment is the inclusion of a map which identifies the R1-R5 zones with the unbuilt growth capacity.
“So that mapping, in combination with a table of unbuilt capacity, satisfies the provincial requirement to identify where the housing need, identified by the housing needs report, can be easily accommodated within the community on land zoned under the Bill 44 mandate,” Gunn said.
Council comment
In response to the OCP bylaw amendment, councillors said the changes felt more like a “make-work project” rather than something that would offer any financial benefit to the District.
“I do think this is a make-work project and sort of dotting the i's and crossing the t's on something that … we've been legislated to do,” Mayor Armand Hurford said.
“The community's already been re-zoned to meet these [changes]. We're just realigning the OCP with the zoning that we have now. So I don't think we should spend our time engaging deeper on this particular piece.”
Coun. Jenna Stoner echoed the mayor’s comments and said presenting these numbers is a “disservice” to the District.
“I think they're false expectations in a lot of ways,” Stoner said, “given that we know that many of those units won't be built out in that way.”
“So what I would actually request is, as we move this forward, that my council colleagues consider bringing this forward at a minister meeting at UBCM [Union of BC Municipalities] to reflect some of the challenges that we're experiencing here,” she added.
The Official Community Plan amendment bylaw will be brought to council for consideration of second reading and scheduling of a public hearing in fall later this year.
