Appendix a Ocp Public Hearing

APPENDIX A

OCP PUBLIC HEARING AND REFERRAL COMMENTS REVIEW SUMMARY

The following provides a summary of staff’s review of representations and submissions made to Council at the November 6, 2012 Public Hearing, and referral comments from the SLRD.

BED UNITS

Comments: Comments expressed that the bed unit limit impacts future opportunities and the economic viability and competitiveness of the resort community. Proponents seek preferred approach for “student bed units” related to University development, and for “Earned bed units” in recognition of development of on‐mountain lift facilities and capacity under provincial ski area policy.

 The Bed Unit limit came from the community consultation process; the message was strong and clear that a fixed cap was desired that could be relied on. The planning process had considered doing away with the bed unit measure as a tool for managing growth – this was not supported by the community.

 Whistler International Campus (formerly Whistler U) and Whistler Blackcomb proponents participated in community consultation sessions regarding growth management principles and draft growth management policies. The outcomes of these meetings did not support exceptions to the cap, or special provisions being created to accommodate either party.

 The policy developed supports considering new opportunities, subject to applying a high standard for increasing the cap and subject to significant community engagement. The Council‐ appointed Community Advisory Group recommended a referendum on any increase in the cap. This was not supported. The limited additional allowance of 477 bed units was supported as a means to facilitate opportunities of interest and benefit to the resort community without requiring an OCP amendment.

 The bed unit measure applies to all forms of accommodation, both residential and commercial accommodation, where the accommodation is permitted as a principal use under zoning. The measure is intended to reflect the servicing and facility requirements for one person. This is the same definition that applies within the current OCP. Bed units are allocated based on accommodation type and size. The current and proposed OCP do not grant exemptions from the capacity limit for certain classes of accommodation.

 Whistler Mountain and Blackcomb Mountain were historically allocated 7,500 bed units each for mountain facilities development for a total of 15,000 bed units. These bed units were allocated consistent with municipal growth management and development capacity policies of the day. No further bed unit allocations have been recognized by or provided for in the current or proposed OCP, or any subsequent Council policy. Details on these allocations are established within Council Policy G‐21 adopted in 2005, and attached for reference.

Recommendations:

No change is recommended to the policies related to Bed Units. Any new policy pertaining to Bed Units would be a fundamental and contentious change and would necessitate a new consultation process.

WETLAND AND RIPARIAN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT GUIDELINES

Comments: Comments expressed over clarity of guidelines, as well as application of the 100 metre assessment area for wetlands exceeding 10 hectares in size, Riparian Area Regulation and PAN (Protected Areas Network Network).

 The Whistler Protected Areas Network strategy and associated bylaw was initiated from the Whistler Environmental Strategy (initiated in 1998 and adopted in 2002). The WES was developed with staff and a Steering Committee of community stakeholders. A key element of this was establishing and managing a Protected Areas Network (PAN), an ecologically viable network of Whistler’s remaining critical areas of unique and sensitive ecosystems necessary to support local biodiversity and ecosystems functioning. Subsequently a PAN Task Force was established by Council who worked on the PAN Strategy and associated bylaws for 5 years between 2003 and 2008. Details of this process are presented in the accompanying memorandum from Heather Beresford, Manager Environmental Stewardship.

 Through the OCP update process the PAN strategy has been implemented in a narrower, more focused and simplified approach. Prior policy related dto prohibite and recommended land uses and development for a hierarchy of PAN ecosystems has been removed. The updated OCP establishes the ecosystem‐based management approach as policy (Goal 6.1 Implement an ecosystem –based management approach as a primary element of Whistler’s commitment to the environment.) This policy is implemented through the development permit area designations and associated guidelines. (Objective 6.1.1 Recognize that ecosystems mapping and the development permit area guidelines for protection of the natural environment are the foundation to Whistler’s ecosystem‐based approach to protecting the natural environment during land development).

 Through the OCP update process a decisione was mad to remove all references to PAN – this was a significant shift and of concern to many community members who supported the WES and PAN Strategy. Concerns related to this were expressed at community open houses to present the updated OCP. Staff supported this shift given the desire to have a focused, fair and cost effective approach that continued to maintain an effective tool and guidelines for managing future development consistent with the overall goal of maintaining the ecological viability of Whistler’s remaining areas of sensitive and important ecosystems.

 Throughout the many years of study, analysis and policy development concerning protection of Whistler’s natural environment, Whistler’s remaining wetland areas have consistently been recognized as the most important and sensitive ecosystem type requiring the highest levels of protection. The best available science as reviewed through the PAN process, recommended that in most cases a 30 metre buffer area is appropriate to address wetland water quality functions, whereas protection of wetland habitat and ecosystem connectivity, as well as wetland hydrology, typically require a larger area of consideration. The 100 metre assessment area was established for the 2 largest remaining wetland complexes in the Whistler Valley, taking into consideration the importance of these wetlands relative to ecosystem connectivity and supporting local biodiversity.

 The DPA guidelines do not prevent development ine th 100 metre assessment area. They are written to ensure development is located and designed to maintain wetland hydrologic systems, protect water quality, maintain habitat and protect connectivity. The Development Permit requirements for this designation also cannot take away development rights under existing zoning including permitted uses and density.

Recommendations:

The guidelines contained in the OCP bylaw giving 1st and 2nd reading and considered at Public Hearing contained erroneous text that is proposed to be corrected.

Text within the Regional Context Statement in Chapter 1 contained references to “protected areas network” that were to have been removed along with all other references to PAN. These references are are within the text addressing Goal 5. And Goal 6. of the Regional Growth Strategy. These references are recommended to be removed and replaced with the words “ecosystem based management”.

Text pertaining to the 100 metre assessment area for wetlands was erroneously included under guideline g. for Riparian Ecosystems (pg. 9) and should have been under guideline g. for Wetland Ecosystems (pg. 9). This text reads “Site buildings, structures, and impervious surfaces between 30 and 100 metres from wetlands with and area greater than 10 hectares in such a manner as to minimize detrimental impacts on the wetland.” This text clearly applies to wetlands and will be moved. It is also written recognizing development may be located within this area.

Guideline h. under Wetland Ecosystems (pg. 9) as written erroneously used the word “prevent” relative to loss of habitat within the 30 to 100 metre assessment area. For clarification the intent was to “minimize” loss of habitat in this area. Staff recommends correcting the policy as follows: “Consider variance of applicable zoning or parking regulations, including lot line setbacks and building height restrictions, to prevent the loss of habitat within 30 metres of the wetland and minimize the loss of habitat between 30 and 100 metres from wetlands with an area greater than 10 hectares” Staff have also conducted a review of the parcels of land that are subject to the 100 metre assessment area as established by Schedule “K”. In total there are 477 properties, many of which have been developed and include strata lots within stratified multiple residential developments. It is not the intent of the guidelines to apply in cases where there is no significant potential impact to the wetland. To do so would be inconsistent with the initial objectives of PAN, to be applied in a fair, consistent and cost effective manner. To address this staff recommends an exemption be added as for Protection of Other Ecosystems (paragraph l. pg. 12) for alteration of land or construction of a building or a structure affecting an aggregate land area of less than 1,000 square metres. This exemption was established to accommodate typical land disturbance associated with a maximum single family dwelling size of 5,000 square feet and is considered acceptable. Staff recommends that developments with larger areas of disturbance should continue to be subject to the guidelines applicable to the 100 metre assessment area.

ASPHALT PLANT

Comment: The OCP should give specific direction for removing the asphalt plant from the vicinity of the Cheakamus Crossing neighbourhood.

 The OCP contains policy that reflects the communities concerns and desires relative to this use. The Whistler Land Use Map does not show any locations supported for asphalt processing and manufacturing anywhere within the municipality. Policy 3.1.2.5 states: “Do not support land use and development proposals that will have unacceptable negative environmental, social, health, or economic impacts.”  Resource extraction is addressed in the plan on the Land Use Map and in Chapter 4 Land Use Resource Extraction. The Land Use Map Resource Extraction designation is defined as “lands that are designated for aggregate (rock, gravel and sand) extraction.” It does not include manufacturing and processing activities. The area shown on the Land Use Map for Resource Extraction adjacent to the Cheakamus Crossing neighbourhood is limited to the existing licensed area. It does not support any expanded area. The Chapter 4 Land Use policies further seek to limit and avoid impacts of such activities on adjacent uses and residential neighbourhoods. Policy 4.11.1.1 states “to the greatest extent possible work with Provincial agencies to limit rock and mineral extraction in the vicinity of residential neighbourhoods.” Policy 4.11.1.2 states “Discourage new rock and mineral extraction operations that may adversely affect existing land uses and development from locating near them.”

Recommendations: No change is recommended to policies pertaining to the asphalt plant.

VISITOR ACCOMMODATION

Comments: Comments express concern over policies relating to utilization of visitor accommodations which seek to enhance utilization and maintain an economically viable visitor accommodation base. The concern is thate th policy statements suggest active management by the municipality/public sector that precludes consumer preferences and market forces to drive accommodation product innovation, supply and policy. A concern was also expressed about illegal nightly rentals in residential neighborhoods requesting a new policy be added related to enforcement. Correspondence received regarding visitor accommodation in the early stages of the OCP planning process were largely related to the proposed visitor amenity hub and taxation issues which have been deleted from the OCP.

 Through the OCP consultation process a key concern expressed was relative to the economic viability of Whistler’s visitor accommodation base. There were inquires and submittals requesting consideration of changes to existing covenants and uses to address market conditions. The viability of this sector, and ability to maintain reinvestment in existing properties, is considered an important issue.  The policies contained in the plan do not suggest or presume any specific courses of action or policy changes. The language proposes that a review be conducted and policy be developed as considered appropriate for the benefit of the resort community. This is supported by an action within the RMOW Corporate Plan to “Investigate a potential visitor accommodation policy on rental pool covenants”. This would involve a significant public and stakeholder engagement process.  On‐going enforcement of illegal nightly rentals contrary to zoning does not require a policy statement.

Recommendations: No change is recommended to policies pertaining to visitor accommodation.

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

Comments: Comments included concerns related to 1) solid waste incineration, 2) operation of centralized drop off facilities and 3) transportation of solid waste on the local transit system.

1) Comment expresses concern that there has been a change to the policy language concerning solid waste incineration and that itt does no as strongly indicate that this should not be supported, as it impacts air quality and moves away from waste reduction/elimination goal.

 Policy 9.6.1.6 and related policy text box are written generally but clearly do not support incineration. “Until our resort community achieves our Zero Waste goal, select solid waste disposal technologies that will minimize the local environmental impact, specifically the air quality in our region.” Policy Text Box: Incineration (including gasification and plasmafication) of solid waste is utilized in other jurisdictions. In some cases it also generates energy. The negative trade‐offs include impacts on air quality and, when energy is being produced, creation of a disincentive to divert waste from the incineration stream. This would move our resort community away from our Zero waste Goal. This type of facility is not compatible with a healthy resort community environment.”

2) Comment expresses concern over policy 9.6.1.7 and relation to extended producer responsibility programs and that as worded it commits the municipality to the operation of centralized community drop‐off facilities. This concern also appears to apply to policy 9.6.1.8 3) The third comment seeks clarification on prohibition on transporting solid waste on transit related to the text in the Policy Text Box under policy 9.6.1.8.

Recommendations:

1) No change is recommended to policy 9.6.1.6 – staff recommends it is adequately addressed.

2) Change the word “operate” to “provide for” within policy 9.6.1.7. Change the word “implement” to “support implementation of” within policy 9.6.1.8.

3) Amend wording in text box related to 9.6.1.8 to clarify limitations on transporting solid waste on transit.

CLEAN ENERGY PROJECTS

Comments: Comments express concerns that the OCP does not adequately give direction for evaluating and guiding decisions on alternative clean energy proposals and that it is not discussed or defined at all in Chapter 8 – Climate Action and Energy.

 Chapter 8 of the plan does specifically address clean energy with a specific objective and related policies, but uses the term “low carbon energy” instead of clean energy”. The objective reads “Support local and regional low‐carbon energy production that includes a careful assessment of potential negative impacts on ecosystem function, air quality, community character and visual aesthetics.

Recommendations: No change recommended; adequately addressed in Plan.

REGIONAL CONTEXT STATEMENT

Comments: Referral to SLRD has identified inconsistencies between Whistler Urban Development Containment Area boundary and RGS Mapping of designated Urban Areas. These inconsistencies are due to definitional differences and housekeeping errors in SLRD mapping.

Recommendations: Add paragraph and necessary details to give guidance to changes that need to be made within the RGS mapping to insure consistency. No changes required to WUDCA or Land Use Map designations. Also note that references to “protected areas network” are recommended to be removed and replaced with “ecosystem based management” as discussed above.

COUNCIL POLICY

POLICY NUMBER: G-21 DATE OF RESOLUTION: AUGUST 2, 2005 REVISED ON: JUNE 5, 2007

RESIDUAL BED UNITS & GROWTH MANAGEMENT

1. SCOPE OF POLICY

The following Council Policy establishes a framework for the treatment of residual bed units and consideration of future development applications relative to Whistler’s growth management policies and approved development capacity. Residual bed units represent bed units1 that have been allocated within the municipality’s 1993 OCP approved development capacity but have not been utilized.

This policy applies to the municipality’s existing inventory of residual bed units associated with Council-recognized Whistler Mountain and Blackcomb Mountain bed units, Crown bed units, as well as bed units allocated to properties developed by the Whistler Housing Authority, and those designated as municipal parkland but zoned to permit residential use. The policy also specifically addresses future potential residual bed units that may result from requested and approved changes to the zoning of a property.

2. OBJECTIVES

This Council Policy contains residual bed unit policy recommendations, which are framed by a series of accompanying growth management policies. The residual bed unit policy recommendations are intended to provide clarity around the status, treatment and use of existing residual bed units and to guide the consideration of future development applications within the context of the resort municipality’s current OCP/CDP growth management framework, which will be reviewed and updated as part of the comprehensive OCP update to be undertaken in 2005/06. As an interim response, the growth management policy recommendations under this Council Policy will provide direction for Council, staff and applicants concerning the approval of additional development capacity based on the prioritization of projects that provide the greatest benefit to the resort community.

3. GUIDING PRINCIPLES It is recognized that the resort community is reaching build out of its remaining approved development capacity. While there is a strong growth management desire to stay within this capacity, at the same time, the resort community has established priorities to achieve

1 As defined by Whistler’s Official Community Plan (OCP), a bed unit means a measure of development intended to reflect servicing and facility requirements for one person, calculated according to accommodation type. G-21 Residual Bed Units & Growth Management August 2, 2005 – Revised on June 5, 2007 Page 2

needed resident housing and other community amenities that are not currently provided for within the existing approved development capacity. Development of this Council Policy has therefore been informed by the need to establish a policy response that is aligned with and reinforces the resort municipality’s existing growth management policies under the 1993 OCP, while reconciling the resort community’s future development priorities and actions under Whistler 2020.

Policies for the treatment and consideration of residual bed units and future development applications are fundamentally guided by: a. Whistler’s 1993 OCP/CDP growth management policies; b. Whistler 2020 priorities, strategies and actions that will inform future amendments to the OCP; and, c. Previous Council approvals and resolutions.

4. PROCEDURES

The following procedures apply to the treatment and future consideration of OCP amendments, rezonings and development approvals:

(1) The use and development of any given property within the municipality is governed by its zoning and any further land use regulations, restrictive covenants or other development controls that may specifically apply to the property. Bed unit allocations for a property, tracked within the municipality’s Accommodation Land Use Inventory, are simply an estimate of the actual or potential development capacity of the property; they do not constitute enforceable or transferable property rights. (2) Create and maintain a separate accounting of bed units that have previously been allocated within the approved development capacity of the municipality, but have not and will not be utilized – refer to these bed units as “Surplus Bed Units Available for Reallocation”. (3) Add the six WHA bed units to the initial inventory of “Surplus Bed Units Available for Reallocation”. (4) Add the ten municipal Alpha Creek wetlands bed units to the inventory of “Surplus Bed Units Available for Reallocation”. (5) Rezone all municipal parkland properties that currently have zoning that permits accommodation use to an appropriate park zone. Remove the permitted accommodation use and allocate the corresponding number of bed units to the inventory of “Surplus Bed Units Available for Reallocation”, estimated at 78 bed units. (6) Additions to the “Surplus Bed Units Available for Reallocation” may only occur when there is a decrease in the number of bed units allocated to a property as a result of a rezoning. (7) Property owners seeking rezonings are not entitled to a density transfer or transfer of the existing estimated bed unit allocation to alternate sites except as may be approved by Council at its sole discretion as part of the rezoning proposal.

G-21 Residual Bed Units & Growth Management August 2, 2005 – Revised on June 5, 2007 Page 3

(8) Any future OCP amendments or rezoning proposals that seek to add to the development capacity of the municipality shall be evaluated based on existing criteria specified by the municipality’s Official Community Plan, and future criteria that will be informed by Whistler 2020. (9) The inventory of “Surplus Bed Units Available for Reallocation” shall be considered as part of the review of any future rezoning proposal that requires market bed units that did not previously exist within the municipality’s existing approved development capacity. However, approval of any such proposals shall not be dependant upon the availability of any remaining positive inventory of “Surplus Bed Units Available for Reallocation”. (10) Subtractions from the inventory of “Surplus Bed Units Available for Reallocation” shall occur when new market bed units are allocated to an approved rezoning that did not previously have existing approved development capacity. (11) A total of 146 64 bed units currently remains within the Whistler Mountain approved bed unit allocation, and are available for future development subject to Amended on: rezoning and all applicable municipal approvals. June 5, 2007 That 82 bed units in Intrawest’s 146 bed unit inventory arising from lot 5 only be available to Intrawest subject to satisfactory participation by Intrawest in affordable housing at the Whistler Athlete Village and the resolution of affordable housing at Cedar Glen. (12) A t0tal of 214 bed units currently remains within the inventory of undeveloped bed units for Taluswood, with 190 bed units assigned to Parcel “M” (At Nature’s Door) and 24 assigned to Parcel “D”. These bed units shall be available for any future redevelopment of these parcels and shall not be available for transfer to any other parcel. (13) A t0tal of 151 bed units currently remains within the inventory of undeveloped bed units for Blackcomb Lot “5” (Four Seasons Residences). These bed units shall be available for any future redevelopment of these parcels and shall not be available for transfer to any other parcel. (14) A total of 228 bed units units currently remains within the approved and recognized Crown bed unit allocation, and are available for future development subject to rezoning and all applicable municipal approvals.

Growth Management Policy Recommendation:

(15) A formal annual review process shall be reinstituted and adhered to in order to establish the municipality’s development priorities. This process will involve a review of community needs based on annual monitoring and the prioritization of development projects to focus the municipality’s resources on development that achieves the greatest potential benefit to the resort community:

G-21 Residual Bed Units & Growth Management August 2, 2005 – Revised on June 5, 2007 Page 4

“Any proposals that add to the development capacity of the resort community shall be reviewed and considered by Council for approval on a priority basis, determined annually. Priority shall be established based on the degree to which the proposal achieves the policies of the OCP and Whistler 2020 and satisfies the development needs of the community as identified by the municipality’s annual resort monitoring and community consultation program.”

Certified Correct:

Shannon Story, Manager of Legislative Services

MEMO

DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 2012

ATTENTION: MIKE KIRKEGAARD, MANAGER OF PLANNING

FROM: HEATHER BERESFORD, ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP MANAGER

A Protected Areas Network strategy was first identified in the Whistler Environmental Strategy (WES) as a key Land Use Direction for Sustainable Ecosystem Management. The WES initiated with RMOW staff and community stakeholders involvement in summer 1998 through the Whistler 2002 community engagement process which led to the WES first draft in September 1998, and Council adoption in March 2002 as a guiding, strategic document.

To move forward on the WES framework which identified that the PAN must be an ecosystem management approach based on science, the RMOW enlisted the guidance of Dr. Kristina Rothley from the Simon Fraser University School of Resource and Environmental Management. Her area of expertise was developing connected networks of sensitive habitats using GIS mapping. The RMOW also convened the PAN Steering Committee which held its first meeting on December 11, 2002. Participants were invited from a range of backgrounds in order to capture diverse views and opinions.

PAN Steering Committee members: Bob Brett, Marla Zucht, Carson Hamm, Michael D’Artois, Tina Symko, Karina Andrus, Graham Lee, Ethan Askey, Wendy Horan, Mike Cole, Garry Watson.

RMOW Staff: Bill Barratt, Mike Kirkegaard, Heather Beresford

Municipal PAN Objectives: Create a defensible protected area network based on science, ecology, legal and community values. (Source: TOR for the Critical Review of the Draft PAN, November 2004).

To support the ecosystem management approach based in science, in summer 2003, the RMOW engaged B.A. Blackwell and Associates to complete Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping within the entire RMOW boundary to provide objective data regarding the ecosystems. The ecosystems to be included in PAN were then identified by the steering committee based on knowledge at the table and research provided by Dr. Rothley. In addition, staff connected with the Ministry of Environment, and closely reviewed and drew upon the provincial Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory policy and rationale approach used in various locations including the Okanagan and Vancouver Island. The PAN maps were developed over the next two years with a final PAN Steering Committee meeting on April 28, 2005, finalizing the ecosystems, rationale and levels of protection. Concurrently, staff developed the supporting policies. A draft PAN strategy was released for public review in October 2005.

Rationale and background to origin of 100m assessment area for wetlands larger than 10 hectares

The 100 m assessment area was identified by Dr. Kristina Rothley and the PAN Steering Committee through research when developing the PAN strategy. The PAN Summary Report authored by Professor Kristina Rothley, Simon Fraser University, dated September 2004 stated that:

Wetland ecosystems provide habitat for a diverse and unique set of species assemblages, and all wetlands, both large and small, are of significant biological importance for their role in maintaining local biodiversity (Semlitsch & Bodie 1998; British Columbia Ministry of Forests Research Program 2000). When adjacent to stream channels, wetlands maintain local microclimate conditions and contribute to shoreline stabilization. They also contribute to filtration that supports drinking water quality. Wetlands typically occur in the valley bottoms and lowlands where development pressure is highest (British Columbia Ministry of Forests Research Program 2000). In the lower mainland of British Columbia there has been significant alteration or destruction of wetlands (Voller 1998), and in the Resort Municipality of Whistler (RMOW), wetland ecosystems are rare comprising only 1.1% of the total municipal area.

Field studies have shown that to properly safeguard wetland species and function, it is necessary to protect a buffer zone around the wetlands as well as wetland themselves (Burke & Gibbons 1995), as organisms that inhabit the wetlands may require use of the surrounding upland habitats (British Columbia Ministry of Forests Research Program 2000). Also, buffers can ameliorate the edge effects that may otherwise deteriorate conditions within the wetlands. While some management practices recommend a fixed buffer size for wetlands (British Columbia Ministry of Forests 1995), the appropriate buffer size and type may depend on the characteristics of the wetland or wetland species in question, or the type of disturbance that is anticipated (British Columbia Ministry of Forests Research Program 2000). The RMOW PAN uses a variable-sized buffer where the PAN level is a function of distance from the wetland edge and wetland size1. To be consistent with the Streamside Protection Regulation (Government of British Columbia 2004), all wetlands have a 30m PAN1 buffer. To provide for their wildlife habitat and water quality protection functions, all wetlands also have a 100m PAN2 buffer (Environmental Law Institute 2003). PAN3 buffers are assigned to the wetlands based on their size (Figure 1): the largest wetlands (area > 80 ha; 1 wetland total) are given a 300m PAN3 buffer, the mid-size wetland (10 ha > area ≥ 80 ha; 3 wetlands total) are given a 200m PAN3 buffer, and the smallest wetlands ( area ≤ 10 ha; 59 wetlands total) have no PAN3 buffer.

As stated in the original intent, the recommendations were buffers where no development was to take place. Further review by RMOW staff determined that the 100m would be an assessment area requiring study to ensure that proposed development did not create negative impacts to wetlands greater than 10 hectares. Interestingly, the PAN Summary Report also suggested giving the largest wetlands in the valley an additional 300m PAN 3 buffer. That recommendation was not adopted.

Also, Lindsay McBlane completed her Master of Resource Management thesis at Simon Fraser University in Spring 2007 titled “Connectivity Assessment of Changes in Wetland Ecosystems from 1946 to 2003 in the Resort Municipality of Whistler, BC.” Her research reached the conclusion that 71.88% of wetland

connectivity has been lost in the RMOW since 1946 due to urban development (page 70) with a loss of average patch size of 60.7%. Given this specific information regarding wetlands in Whistler and the general scientific evidence of the importance of wetlands to biodiversity, habitat, and flood management, emphasis was placed in PAN on protecting the remaining wetlands in the RMOW.

Technical Reviews Aqua-Tex Scientific, November 2004 Aqua-Tex review Terms of Reference: 1. Ensure that the overall approach and foundation is defensible and science based, particularly as discussed in relation to connectivity and empirical data requirement. 2. Do areas outside of the existing RMOW boundary affect PAN? Should certain areas be included? How are these areas best incorporated (watershed approach)? 3. Ensure that the objectives of PAN are captured through the PAN definitions. 4. How to map ecosystem function and process. 5. Address hydrology and also organisms. Address issue of fragmentation. 6. Ensure a strong case for the flipped version of protected areas (all of Whistler protected with areas designated as suitable for development). 7. Determination of appropriate buffers for wetland protection. How to identify what is important for protection (e.g. small areas or big areas). 8. Ensure document is explicit in that the data is not locally empirical, but is based on universal patterns from the scientific community. Ensure that the patterns are regionally appropriate.

Aqua-Tex recommended that a literature review be conducted to determine appropriate wetlands buffers. This was done by Dr. Kristina Rothley as well as staff during its review of relevant research and other planning processes such as the provincial Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory method.

AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. (AXYS) was contracted by the RMOW in spring 2006 to develop a framework for assisting the RMOW to determine the components of old-growth forest, mature forest, early succession ecosystems, and connectivity to include in the Whistler Protected Areas Network (PAN) Land Use Policy to meet the purpose, objectives, and guiding principles of that policy. The goals of this task were to: • Provide generally accepted conservation guidelines for old-growth forest, mature forest, and early succession ecosystems with the Municipality. • Provide generally accepted conservation guidelines for connectivity to ensure wildlife habitat and ecosystem/landscape connectivity with the Municipality.

Public Open Houses November 29, 2005 March 16, 2006 October 2, 2007

AWARE Presentation July 6, 2005. AWARE supports PAN.

Public Comment Opportunities

Draft PAN October 3, 2005 – Some comments that 100m assessment area for wetlands >10 hectares seemed arbitrary and requests for scientific basis.

The comments were reviewed and a revised draft sent to PAN Steering Committee for review on February 27, 2006 in preparation for the March 16, 2006 open house.

Legal Review Bill Buholzer, Young Anderson. Recognized expert in municipal law.

Deborah Curran of Deborah Curran & Company, Victoria BC. Well known BC lawyer specializing in environmental law and local government regulations.

Provincial Staff Review Carmen Cadrin, BC Conservation Data Centre, Environmental Stewardship Division, Ministry of Environment. She was very supportive, saying in an October 28, 2005 email, “You have the best of TEM and SEI mapping, standards, regulations, management, etc. and added enhancements to make this a highly valuable resource management tool for local government. It's the best and most detailed I've seen yet. Having community partners at initial stages and throughout must have been invaluable as well. The language around environmental management, permitting, compensation, etc. is strong and I wish you luck in achieving your goals.”

Andy MacKinnon, RP Bio., RP Forester, Research Ecologist, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations From November 14, 2005 email: “This is overall a well-thought-out, useful review of available information, and seems a reasonable way to proceed.”

Council Presentations  Council Presentation, March 15, 2004 Update  Council Presentation, May 16, 2005 Update  Council presented with draft PAN for review September 19, 2005  Council presentation November 7, 2005. Discussion of process and implementation.  Council presentation January 7, 2008. Requested endorsement of draft and to direct staff to prepare OCP bylaw amendments.  Council presentation October 20, 2008 requesting second reading  Public Hearing November 3, 2008 o Public hearings comments: no comments specifically citing the 100 m wetland assessment area but one comment from a representative of the Alpha Creek Alliance that the map being proposed at the time needed to be completely accurate as it affected many properties. (see Robert Anderson comments)

Do Protected Area Networks exist elsewhere?

Large Scale: See United Nations Environment Programme & World Conservation Monitoring Centre website http://www.unep-wcmc.org/protected-area-networks_467.html Descriptions of large scale PAN projects.

See Environment Canada’s Protected Area Network http://www.hww.ca/en/issues-and-topics/environment-canadas.html

See Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Greenbelt Plan http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page189.aspx#1.2