A proposed rezoning for 4500 Northlands Boulevard that could bring more than 300 new homes to a prominent site near Whistler Village is moving forward to public consultation this fall—though not without hesitation from council over the developer’s $47-million Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) offer and the potential long-term risk to community benefits.
“I think the most important part coming out of today is that the decision that’s in front of us right now is not whether $58 million is the right number, or if $35 million is the right number,” said Councillor Jen Ford during the May 27 committee of the whole meeting. “Let’s go and talk to the community and decide how the money gets spent.”
Disagreement over community contributions
The dollar amounts refer to the estimated value of public benefits the Resort Municipality of Whistler (RMOW) expects from Beedie Living, the Vancouver-based developer behind the proposal. Based on a detailed land lift analysis, RMOW staff and consultants calculated a CAC of $57.8 million—representing 75 per cent of the $77.1 million land value increase the project would generate through rezoning. A land lift is a financial analysis which determines the additional value a property gains when its zoning changes.
Beedie’s proposal falls short compared to the RMOW’s. The developer's offer—valued between $38.6 and $47.1 million depending on how specific assets are assessed—includes a mix of cash, employee housing, a childcare facility, small-scale commercial space, and other public uses. However, it also includes contributions staff say don’t meet municipal policy or accounting standards.
The developer proposed donating its sales and marketing centre to Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH) for use as a health-care facility after pre-sales are wrapped.
“The donation of the sales centre maybe is not an appropriate component of a CAC,” said planning manager John Chapman. “That isn't directly a municipal issue, local government issue.”
Then, there is a proposal by Beedie to donate 4700 Blackcomb Way, a flood-prone wetland adjacent to Fitzsimmons Creek, to the RMOW as part of the CAC.
Beedie assessed it at $4 million, while BC Assessment pegs the land’s value closer to $941,000. Staff support the idea of the municipality owning the land for conservation and maintenance purposes, but questioned the inflated valuation.
“We just do see that there's some value of having it under municipal control,” Chapman said. “[But]we don’t think that there’s development potential for that land.”
Concerns over timing and risk
Council also pressed staff on the timing of CAC delivery. Beedie’s proposal ties many of the high-value items—like 70 units of employee housing and a childcare facility—to the final phase of a five-phase, 10- to 20-year construction timeline.
“Backloading also adds some risk to the RMOW should the project slow down or cease altogether,” Chapman noted, with the RMOW likely facing challenges collecting the amenity or cash value.
Coun. Cathy Jewett commented that under a phased development agreement, CACs would be tied to key project milestones through building permits. Staff confirmed that approach is standard and would be used to mitigate delivery risk.
Coun. Jeff Murl asked whether value-in-kind items would be indexed to inflation if delivered decades from now.
“Cash payments should be indexed to inflation,” Chapman replied. “For value-in-kind components… It's just how much it costs to build the facility at that date.”
Murl responded that "at the scale we’re operating—$50 million—even a two-per-cent [inflation difference] adds up quick. So, time is of the essence I guess.”
Could density close the gap?
Council was also curious whether increasing the site’s density might close the gap between the offered and expected CAC values. Staff noted Beedie has not requested more density—and likely wouldn’t.
“More density isn’t always a good thing,” Mikkelsen said. “It might not actually help their pro forma. It’s just more product, a longer development timeline, and more challenges with a saturated market.”
In the end, the difference between each party's evaluation of CAC came down to risk tolerance, according to Mikkelsen. “In today's dollars, today's construction cost environment, and today's level of risk, they're applying a factor to that that is different than we've specifically agreed on in the book end,” he said.
From the RMOW’s consultant’s perspective, they’re taking a long-term forecast approach to risk evaluation. “It is a 10- to 20-year project. The economics will ebb and flow over the course of the project, and so to minimize our consideration of the CAC based on today's construction environment is not advisable,” Mikkelsen said.
Tennis facility’s future uncertain
The rezoning would replace the current TA10 zoning, which allows for a 367-room hotel and holds the existing tennis facility. While that scenario technically remains viable, Beedie is instead proposing 64 townhomes, 253 low- to mid-rise apartments, and 12,000 square feet of commercial space that would allow both long-term residential and short-term tourist use.
The tennis facility itself has become a flashpoint in community conversations, with many residents questioning whether Whistler’s only indoor tennis courts will be preserved or replaced. The current facility, built in the 1990s, would be demolished under the proposed plan, and while staff have flagged a potential “right-sized” replacement as a use for community amenity funding, there is no confirmed commitment to rebuild on-site.
A robust contingent of tennis facility supporters was in attendance for the meeting, many of them concerned there is still no commitment for tennis and pickleball courts.
Beedie Living has proposed a $10-million contribution toward off-site recreation facilities as part of its CAC package, but that amount would be split into five instalments tied to separate phases of development. The final phase—where the bulk of that contribution would be delivered—may not occur for 10 to 20 years.
Preliminary cost estimates suggest a new four-court indoor tennis facility could cost between $12.6 and $18.1 million, not including land costs. Without additional funding or a shift in CAC priorities, construction of a new facility would likely be delayed until the latter stages of the project. That means Whistler could be left without an indoor tennis facility for a decade or longer if the redevelopment proceeds as proposed.
Fall engagement
Staff agreed the September engagement will focus not only on the proposed CAC value, but how the community would prefer to see that money spent.
The fall engagement is expected to include in-person open houses, pop-up booths, and an online component using the RMOW’s Social Pinpoint platform, and a month-long education campaign is planned in advance.
Council voted to endorse staff’s recommendation to proceed to engagement—but left the door open to revisit CAC values or rezoning terms after that feedback is received.
