BANFF – Two Banff mayoral candidates appear to be opposed to including an aerial gondola base in any redevelopment plans for the train station lands while another seems to be holding her cards a little closer to her chest.
Approval of a gondola base in an area redevelopment plan (ARP) being prepared by Liricon would pave the way for the company’s hopes to have a gondola from the townsite to the base of Mount Norquay ski resort as part of its vision for a multi-modal transit hub.
Councillor Brian Standish, who is hoping to upset Mayor Corrie DiManno for the top job in the Oct. 18 municipal election after serving 11 years as a councillor, has now made his position crystal clear.
“I would be against an ARP that included a Mt. Norquay gondola base station because I don’t believe that it would meet the requirements of the National Parks Act,” he said.
“Another reason I wouldn’t support it is that the majority of the people who stop me on the street, tell me they don’t want to see a gondola built.”
Acknowledging every lessee in the park has a right to submit development proposals that would amend how their lease is used, Standish said the contents, however, must conform with the terms and conditions of their lease.
“Proposals that do not meet the requirements of the Canada National Parks Act can’t be approved,” he said.
Standish said residents’ concerns are numerous and varied.
Topping the list is loss of sight lines, safety, commercial cap limitations, urban design, integration into the surrounding neighbourhoods, congestion and parking, economic benefits and constraints and environmental concerns, he said.
“These concerns are real,” he said.
“Unless the applicant can address these concerns as well as be consistent with the Banff National Park Management Plan, the Banff Community Plan and the Town of Banff Land Use Bylaw, I would not support an ARP that had a gondola base station in it.”
Mayor Corrie DiManno, who took over as mayor in August after Karen Sorensen was appointed to the Canadian Senate, kept her cards a little closer, saying she wanted to keep an open mind before a potential public hearing on the controversial issue.
However, she said the developer will have to overcome significant statutory and regulatory challenges to receive approval from Parks Canada for a gondola.
She said the federal agency has asked to review the draft ARP it goes out for public input.
“This is where I see Parks Canada providing absolute clarity on its position regarding the gondola,” she said.
Only after Parks Canada determines whether the ARP conforms with all applicable federal statutes and regulations would council proceed with its review of the draft plan, DiManno said.
If a draft ARP goes to first reading, she said council is duty bound to have an open mind during the public hearing to ensure that decisions are not made before the meeting.
“Council is obligated to follow the legislated process for the review and adoption of any statutory planning document,” she said.
“As such, it is premature for me to comment on whether I support, or not support, any elements of an ARP council has not yet seen.”
Garry Gilmour, who is seeking election as mayor, did not respond by press time, but mayoral contender Karen Thomas said she would not support a gondola terminus being included in any ARP.
She said Parks Canada clarified its position in two letters to town council.
“To be seen in any way as in favour of the ‘scope of work document’ could be injurious to our relationship with our landlord,” she said.
“The processes of the Town’s input and decisions should begin once an actual ARP for development within the town boundaries is presented to council.”
In February 2019, council endorsed the terms of reference for the proposed ARP for the train station lands, however councillors Peter Poole and Ted Christensen were in opposition at the time.
The following January, the governance and finance committee unanimously asked administration – though Coun. Standish was absent – to bring back a briefing for review of the scope of work for the ARP.
When that briefing happened this summer, Coun. Poole sought to remove a gondola terminus from being included in any ARP because Parks Canada had already rejected two gondola proposals since the terms of reference were endorsed.
In a letter to the Town of Banff on Aug. 20, Parks Canada indicated in no uncertain terms that an aerial gondola from the townsite to Mount Norquay flies in the face of existing federal legislation, policies and commercial development limits.
At the request of Liricon, a subsequent Sept. 10 letter from Parks clarified that any leaseholder has the right to submit a development proposal for changes to their lease. However, the agency indicated a gondola would be unlikely to get approval based on existing policies and legislation.
“We have a duty to present something honestly to the residents of Banff, and if Parks Canada says, ‘no, you shouldn’t have it in there’, then we should be telling the residents of Banff that the decision has been made,” said Coun. Poole.
After the Oct. 18 municipal election, the next council will be responsible for approving any ARP that comes forward for the train station lands; however, the federal environment and climate change minister, whose portfolio includes Parks Canada, has the final say.
Council contender Mark Walker said the most daunting challenge facing the Banff community going forward is how to manage increasing numbers of visitors while striving to lead the way on environmental, social, and economic sustainability.
He said Liricon claims that a train station-to-Norquay base gondola could have a net positive impact on the environment by reducing the number of vehicles travelling on the Norquay road, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions and human impacts on an important wildlife corridor.
“Parks Canada has requested the opportunity to review the draft ARP before it proceeds for public consultation, which means there will be a lot more analysis and discussion before a final decision on the ARP needs to be made,” he said.
“I can’t really say I’m for or against a gondola terminal until the consultation process with Parks and our community has been completed, but I am open to discussing any project that claims to be committed to sustainability.”
Jessia Arsenio said he’s against a gondola terminus being included in an ARP.
If elected, he said he would consider it a complete abdication of his responsibilities to let Adam and Jan Waterous turn the town into a “cartoon of itself”.
“Ceding the public engagement process for the draft ARP to the developer has enabled Liricon to flimsily manufacture consent for a gondola that makes a mockery of existing legislation,” he said. “That is a mistake we would be foolish to repeat.”
Based on Banff National Park superintendent Dave McDonough’s letter to the Town of Banff, Kerry-Lee Schultheis said it appears not to matter whether the gondola terminus is included or not in the ARP, noting Parks stated the two previous proposals did not conform.
“And unless future proposals address these issues, it would likely result in the same result,” she said.
Kaylee Ram said her understanding is the agency’s feedback to Liricon primarily focuses on the concerns regarding compliances that would not align with the Canada National Parks Act.
“From this alone, if Liricon were to submit a proposal including a gondola that followed Parks Canada’s primary concerns – that would constitute a fair feasibility study,” said Ram.
“Until then, I would support Parks Canada and their fair answer noting their policies that are presently in place.”
Stephanie Ferracuti said there’s still significant steps that need to be undertaken in this process before the ARP reaches council for final approval, adding she needs that information before making a decision.
She said Parks Canada identified areas of concern on the two prior gondola proposals, which seem significant enough that another gondola proposal seems unlikely to result in a different response.
“If another gondola proposal is rejected by Parks Canada, I believe Liricon themselves mentioned as part of a past council meeting that they would remove the gondola terminus from the ARP themselves,” she said.
If another gondola proposal does happen to pass regulations and impact assessments and nod of approval by Parks Canada, Ferracuti said council then must listen to what residents have to say about the entire ARP through a public hearing.
“What residents have to say about the entire scope of this project is really important to me and will be a key piece of the information I would need to consider,” she said.
A member of Banff’s Municipal Planning Commission, Dana Humbert said he believes it is important that all developers and stakeholders have access to a fair process and fair opportunity to present to council.
“I believe it is too soon for me to comment on whether I support, or not support, any ARP or document that Parks Canada and even our current council has not seen,” he said.
Council hopeful Hugh Pettigrew said he believes the letters by Parks Canada are a warning to all that the whole ARP may not go forward with the gondola piece in it as currently proposed.
“I will always align with my community first and this ARP can only be approved when a plan acceptable to the community is reached,” he said. “The devil’s in the details.”
Coun. Ted Christensen isn’t in favour of including the gondola base station in the plans.
“Parks Canada does not support the gondola project, and further such a project would increase our tourism footprint, which is nearing a critical balance,” he said.
“Our mandate from Parks Canada is to look after our visitors and ourselves. Sustainability is the goal, all within our fixed boundary.”
Coun. Chip Olver, who voted alongside Poole and Christensen last month for council to reconsider its decision to approve the terms of reference for the ARP, said it’s challenging to see how a gondola could meet all the requirements of relevant federal statutes and legislation.
She said she can’t speculate what the final contents of the draft plan might look like, but Parks Canada made it very clear they would like to conduct a review of the plan – along with an opportunity to offer input into the public engagement process – before it is made public to determine conformance with key laws and regulations.
“All of us would then have the benefit of understanding Parks Canada’s position on the ARP before proceeding any further,” she said.
Coun. Grant Canning said he believes council should not be making policy decisions based upon media reports or individual and somewhat contradictory letters from Parks Canada.
He said good governance and public policy for the Town should be based upon applicable statutes and policies, and most importantly the park management plan, Incorporation Agreement and Banff community plan.
“If Parks Canada, through policy direction in the management plan and other key statutes, determines that no further consideration will be given to an aerial tramway system, then I would absolutely support removing the gondola terminus concept from the ARP,” he said.
Some councillors believed the issue was moot because there is not a current proposal before Parks Canada, while others skirted around the question.
Council hopeful Shawn Rapley said this seems to be a bit of “red herring" until such time as the lessee reaches an agreement with Parks Canada, particularly given the vast majority of the gondola project is located on lands outside of the municipality’s control.
“The gondola would have to be green lit by Parks Canada for me to assess the impacts of the project and consider an ARP with the terminus included,” Rapley said.
Candidate Barb Pelham said the public will have significant opportunities for feedback if Parks Canada approves a gondola before council makes a decision, while Allan Buckingham said he assumes Parks Canada will remove any contents of the plan they take issue with.
“Until then, speculating on what may or may not be in a document, and how people feel about it, seems like a poor use of time,” he said.
“When and if an ARP comes to council with a gondola base in it, I will deal with the full scope of the project at that point. Until then it feels like speculation for speculation’s sake.”
Council candidate Les Young did not respond by press time.
