Background 5.jpg

 

SHOW YOUR SUPPORT!

Fill out this form and we’ll email it to the Superintendent of Banff National Park - Sheila Luey, the Parks Canada CEO - Daniel Watson, the Federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change - Katherine McKenna, and Prime Minister - Justin Trudeau

Form letters don’t work well. Say why and how the draft site guidelines should be changed for the better. Please include specific details as suggested below. We know you care about Sunshine Village so be specific about the ask but tell your personal story too. We appreciate your interest and support and please feel free to contact us at sunshinesiteguidelines@skibanff.com if you have any questions.

Name *
Name

Suggested Talking Points:

  • Adequate parking should be provided within a reasonable distance to balance to the 8,500 PAOT. Sunshine Village’s proposal of a modestly sized parkade of 280 stalls plus a 750-stall surface satellite lot on the access road is the best and most reasonable solution to provide balanced parking. I don’t want to see a 1,030 -stall parkade at Sunshine. That would be too big and ugly and not what I would expect to find in a national park ski area. Sunshine’s parking plan is better for the environment. The $30 million dollar price tag would not be reasonable for a facility that will sit empty for over 300 days out of the year.
  • A secondary access lift from the base area is important. Sunshine’s proposed tram or gondola from the base area to upper Goat’s Eye is much better environmentally and for the visitor experience. Parks Canada’s proposal to parallel the existing gondola with another lift system is far less desirable for the environment. Parks proposal causes thousands of additional trees to be cut and dozens of additional towers to be excavated compared to Sunshine’s proposal.  Sunshine’s location is better than Parks Canada’s location as there is less impact on wildlife as it travels over steep terrain and cliffs.
  • Parks Canada should allow the new lifts, glades and trails within the existing leasehold boundary that Sunshine has proposed. Specifically, Goat’s Eye II, Wildside (Goat’s Eye III), Hayes Hill, Bye Bye Bowl, Meadow Park, and Lookout. It would be unfair that Parks allowed Lake Louise and Marmot Basin to expand outside of their boundary while at Sunshine shrinking the existing boundary at the expense of these lifts, glades and trails.
  • Commercial square meters should balance to 8,500 PAOT. Sunshine should be allowed the industry standard of 1.4 square meters per person. Sunshine should be allowed to expand by 5,050 square meters to balance to 8,500 PAOT. Adequate administrative, operations and maintenance space should also be provided.
  • Summer use should be allowed to include sightseeing at the top of the new lift from the base area to upper Goat’s Eye, while closing the gondola, Standish lift, and hotel in the summer. That plan will relocate much of the summer use to an area that is low quality wildlife habitat which is a substantial environmental gain.
  • The 2006 Parks Canada Ski Area Management Guidelines requires that Parks Canada works collaboratively with the ski area lessee. Parks Canada should work in good faith with Sunshine Village to achieve agreement / concurrence on the site guidelines before they are finalized, like they did with Norquay, Lake Louise, and Marmot Basin. Don’t treat Sunshine unfairly and differently than the other mountain park ski areas.