BANFF – Parks Canada appears set to overrule the Town of Banff’s plans to continue with the controversial downtown pedestrian zone each summer, arguing sidewalk restaurant patios flout the federally-legislated commercial development cap.
In an 11th hour letter to council on Tuesday (Nov. 9) ahead of the Wednesday (Jan. 10) budget meeting, Banff National Park superintendent Sal Rasheed asked for further talks on the polarizing pedestrian zone on the 100 and 200 block of Banff Avenue “to ensure we remain aligned on our mutual goals.”
While Parks Canada is supportive of the pedestrian-friendly and public space elements of the pedestrian zone, Rasheed said sidewalk restaurant patios and outdoor merchandise displays are against national park laws.
He said the pedestrian zone was first implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic to allow for the required social distancing, which was a reasonable response to unprecedented events taking place globally.
“Now that the unprecedented times are behind us, the proposed ongoing commercial use – e.g. restaurant patios, outdoor merchandise displays – of public space, is contrary to the laws which ensure this special place is protected and that both the Town of Banff and Parks Canada remain committed to,” said Rasheed.
As a result of the letter, mayor and council have put off a decision on the seasonal car-free pedestrian zone until next Wednesday, Jan. 17, so they can meet with Rasheed and discuss the controversial issue in greater depth.
But Mayor Corrie DiManno was clearly not happy, wanting to know if Rasheed’s position is direction or a suggestion and questioning what specific laws and sections of legislation he is referring to in his last-minute letter.
“Are they suggesting a ban on restaurant patios in all areas of town such as Bear Street, Wolf Street, Caribou Street, and elsewhere in Banff National Park, at ski hills, Johnston Canyon, Lake Louise?” said the mayor.
“The letter suggests all commercial use of public space is restricted. What are the implications for commercial transportation, tour operations, commercial events like the Craft Beer Festival, carriage rides and e-bike rentals?”
DiManno also publicly challenged Parks Canada – which has ultimate authority over land use and planning decisions in the national park townsite – questioning what happens if council proceeds with sidewalk patios on the pedestrian zone if the Town of Banff has a differing perspective.
“Basically, we need to learn more to determine the next steps,” she said.
“When we receive clarity, we need to review the governance and finance recommendation to council to determine the impact on a pedestrian zone, which I remind everyone is more than about restaurant patios.”
In response to a specific request from the Town of Banff during consultation of the new management plan, Rasheed said the new 2022 Banff National Park Management Plan provides a definition of commercial development.
For further clarity, he said a 2013 Alberta Court of Appeal Decision over commercial use in public service districts concluded that if there are conflicting or overlapping provisions, the park management plan trumps the Town of Banff’s land use bylaw or other municipal policy.
“The management plan commits to maintaining the longstanding legal restrictions to commercial development that have come to be appreciated by so many Banff residents and leaders, and by so many visitors, for their foresight in protecting and maintaining the character of this amazing place,” he said.
“This plan commitment was supported by the Town of Banff in the consultation process. Simply put, today we are reaping the benefits that have been sustained by successive governments at both the federal and Town of Banff levels.”
In 1998, when there were concerns about rampant development impacting the surrounding national park environment, the federal government capped the amount of commercial development at an additional 350,000-square-feet over what existed at the time.
Since that time, the space has been handed out by way of a random lottery and almost all space has been built. One remaining unbuilt commercial growth allotment is the Banff railway lands.
Rasheed said there was a commitment at the last Intergovernmental Liaison Committee (IGL) meeting of 2023 – a closed-door committee comprised only of the mayor, town manager and superintendent – there would be further discussions between the Town and Parks prior to a decision to proceed the pedestrian zone.
DiManno was quick to shoot back on this.
She said Rasheed expressed his personal opinion on the Banff Avenue pedestrian zone at a Sept. 7 IGL meeting, but indicated he needed time to evaluate Parks Canada’s position through a policy and regulatory lens.
At the next IGL meeting on Oct. 19, DiManno said she informed the superintendent that the pedestrian zone was to be discussed on Dec. 18 and that if Parks Canada wished to provide input then that would be the appropriate time to do so.
In addition, she said Parks Canada consented to commercial development, which included a patio outside of a local business’ commercial development allotment, on Sept. 22.
“With the consent of the patio and with no further comment on the pedestrian zone on Dec. 8 or Dec. 18, we believed the issue related to the pedestrian zone was done,” said DiManno, noting she received a call from Rasheed Jan. 5 to inform her a letter on the ped zone would be sent ahead of Jan. 10.
Long-term resident Leslie Taylor, who was Banff’s first mayor and a former town councillor, has repeatedly brought up the issue of the commercial cap as it pertains to the pedestrian zone’s outdoor restaurant patios.
She said while commercial cap specifically references built space, with walls and a roof, she does not believe it meets the intent of commercial development restrictions.
“We all know perfectly well that the objective was to cap commercial activity, in order to make it possible for the town to provide enough housing within its boundaries,” she said.
“It’s disingenuous to pretend that 900 additional restaurant seats don’t constitute additional commercial activity, contrary to the intent of the cap and the land use bylaw, if not their specific wording.”
