The District of Squamish council is not quite ready to hold a public hearing for the Garibaldi Estates Neighbourhood Official Community Plan.
At the Dec. 17 regular council meeting, staff recommended that the Official Community Plan Bylaw Update be given first and second reading in order to move it along to a public hearing.
Following a presentation from District planner Matt Gunn on the updated report, councillors moved to give the plan only one reading in order to obtain more information.
The updated plan
The Garibaldi Estates Neighbourhood planning process started back in 2021, and is part of the municipality's ongoing efforts to create blueprints for future development in each major neighbourhood in Squamish.
According to the District, the plan includes; the supported increase of residential densification between Mamquam Road and Diamond Road, employment and services in multi-storey buildings within the Garibaldi Village and throughout the neighborhood as accessory commercial units, and additional public open spaces.
Following a committee of the whole meeting in September 2024, the plan was updated to address councillor feedback.
“The neighbourhood plan outlines a vision for the future of the Garibaldi Estate, which aligns with guiding principles that were developed during the planning process,” Gunn said.
“Following the Sept. 24, 2024, committee of the whole meeting … staff made several changes to the plan, and as noted, these were almost exclusively based on the feedback from Council.”
Included in the updates were; the heights for the mixed-use residential areas increased to six storeys, supported density on Diamond Head Road increased from a floor area ratio of 1.6 to 2.0, and support for tiny houses to be added to the plan.
The active transportation network plan was also amended to support bikes along Diamond Head Road as well as bike share and car share programs, including support for car share parking near future transit exchange.
Gunn said there were also a number of policies updated within the plan including one to “support frontage improvements along the proposed Mamquam Greenway.”
“These include support for higher densities and reductions in common open space for townhouse developments that make frontage improvements on Mamquam Road,” Gunn said.
“This was specific to comments about the desire to understand how we could ensure those frontage improvements could be supported financially.”
During the presentation, Gunn also shared that the School District 48, the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District and BC Transit, noted that “in past years, student enrolment has remained flat despite the increase in housing units within the district of Squamish.”
“So they don't anticipate challenges associated with the proposed growth that's outlined in this plan,” he said.
Councillor comments
Council opted to amend the staff recommendation to move ahead with the first and second readings, as some members felt that it was too soon to move to a public hearing.
They also had concerns around staff having not completed the Mashiter Creek Hazard Assessment—a report that would help determine the look of Diamond Head Road—and included a second amendment to reflect this.
Council voted in favour of giving the plan its first reading, as well as directing staff to receive the Mashiter Creek Hazard Assessment results and include the outcomes of the assessment in the plan prior to Council consideration of second reading.
“I am absolutely in agreement with the overarching vision of this neighbourhood plan, there's no question about that. The question for me here is what is the right level of information ... for the flood control level,” Coun. Andrew Hamilton said when speaking about the Mashiter Creek Hazard Assessment.
“This, to me, fundamentally changes what Diamond Head Road is going to look like, what it's going to function like, and it's going to be tens of millions of dollars difference for the developers along that way.
"It seems like with a few months ... of consultancy work, we can bring this document to public hearing in a much cleaner way, with a lot less uncertainty.”
Coun. Jenna Stoner, Eric Andersen, John French and Mayor Armand Hurford were all initially supportive of moving ahead with two readings of the plan, but instead opted to support Coun. Chris Pettingill’s amendment to move ahead with just the first reading.
“I was supportive of two readings. But I do think that having as broad as possible Council support for an initiative of this size is important,” Hurford said.
“In some earlier discussions on this topic, I made some comments about taking into consideration the people that aren't living in this neighbourhood as we make plans for our community, and that holds broadly across the community.
“What I mean by that, I want to clarify, is that it is also our children and grandchildren that aren't here yet. It's also the doctor I don't have, and it's also the future public safety people that we need to have in our community to meet our community's needs.
“If we're not taking into consideration the needs of the community, which do include folks that aren't here yet—but we really wish they were here to provide some of these services that we really need to function as a community—then we're not doing our job.”
Pettingill said he was glad both council and Staff were “dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s” on the plan.
“There's been different perspectives on whether or not this reflects the community's wishes. I think the challenge is there are different needs, different wants, and a lot of things we have to accommodate,” Pettingill said.
“I think we actually have listened and tried to accommodate as much as we can. It's just a challenge when people have different perspectives.”
Coun. Lauren Greenlaw opposed the motion.
Controversial proposal
From the start of the process years ago, some residents in the area have vigorously objected to the proposed plan to densify the area.
The District’s own engagement on the project showed this clearly.
“A majority of participants in Stage 3 feel the neighbourhood should remains at its current density or see limited increase in the future. Participants expressed mistrust in the planning process and feel that the proposed scenarios do not reflect input the neighbourhood has provide in earlier stages,” reads the District’s engagement summary from back in 2023.
“Participants believe development will have negative impacts on issues such as neighbourhood character, environmental values, transportation, parking, infrastructure, and amenities.”
For its part, in response to opposition to the plan District has repeatedly pointed to the need for the plan as a way to address the housing crunch in town.
According to the Squamish Interim Housing Needs Report, published in December of 2024, in the next five years, 1,586 housing units would have to be built to meet local needs.
In the next 20 years, the report identifies a need for 6,300 housing units.
More recently, this opposition has shown up in court.
As first noted in the Vancouver Sun, some Garibaldi Estates residents are doing their utmost to ensure the “character” of the neighbourhood remains intact.
Some neighbours who live next door to a proposed development are petitioning the courts for an injunction to halt the project based on the argument that a number of homes in the estates are bound by decades-old statutory building schemes or restrictive covenants on their land titles that don’t allow more than one dwelling per lot.
The Squamish Chief will follow this story as it weaves through the Supreme Court.
For more information on the Garibaldi Estates Neighbourhood Plan, visit the District of Squamish website.
