Citizens for Responsible Community Planning wishes to publicly comment on the redevelopment plan for the Lawrence and Leon Avenue part of the downtown and the public participation process being followed.
CRCP believes that the downtown redevelopment plan proposed by Westcorp of Edmonton poses a serious threat to Kelowna’s historic small-city character and will conflict with our beautiful natural setting. Furthermore, it will create additional problems as a result of the many high-rise, high density structures being proposed therein. If approved, this plan will become the template for a big city downtown such as those found in Vancouver, Calgary, and Toronto -- cities that many residents have moved here to escape. In those cities and others, high rises have resulted in increased traffic congestion, crowding, obstructed views, dark streets, and impersonal neighourhoods. Once built, high rises will not be confined to this redevelopment area but will quickly spread to other parts of the downtown and elsewhere in our city permanently altering its livability.
Although most want to see the Lawrence and Leon Avenue area of the downtown revitalized, there is a better way of doing this that enhances the downtown while still retaining our city character and not creating undesirable side-effects. The major obstacle to the redevelopment of this part of the downtown has been the presence of the Gospel Mission. Despite a 2005 study that recommended that the Mission be relocated, city council has been negligent in failing to take timely and decisive action. Now they are hoping that an Alberta developer will clean up the mess left as a result of their neglect. City council should take meaningful steps now to move the Mission and this area could be revitalized without having to resort to high rises.
Citizens for Responsible Community Planning recommends that the downtown be redeveloped using human-scale buildings with heights no greater than six storeys, but under no condition should building heights exceed the present limit of 14 storeys specified in the Zoning Bylaw. We also feel that if there are buildings as tall as 14 storeys in this area that they should be limited to a small number. This would ensure that the downtown becomes a livable neighbourhood rather than just another soulless concrete jungle.
CRCP also has serious concerns with the public participation process that has been announced for this project. On July 23, 2007 Kelowna city council voted to create a new downtown plan, work on which will commence in 2008. In attempting to rush the downtown redevelopment proposal to city council for approval by year end, the city is circumventing the usual public process that allows careful and reflective input into a downtown plan. CRCP feels that this is most improper, and it denies the public an opportunity to meaningfully participate in the formulation of a downtown plan the outcome of which has not yet been determined beforehand. We believe that the downtown redevelopment proposal should be considered only within the context of a new downtown plan which requires more public scrutiny than is possible in the three months allotted to the downtown redevelopment proposal.
Specific to the redevelopment plan, CRCP believes that the public should have been involved earlier in the design stage of this project and that this stage of the process should not have been dominated by developer and business groups, which continues to be the case throughout the process. This matter notwithstanding, CRCP would still encourage the public to make their views known on the downtown redevelopment proposal by attending the open house at the Rotary Centre for the Arts on Sept. 27 between 3:30 and 7:00 pm or by completing the survey questionnaire on the city’s website at www.kelowna.ca.
CRCP is unhappy with the scant publicity that the city has given the open house and with the structure of the survey questionnaire, the latter asking a series of leading questions designed to gain agreement with the concept of tall buildings and high densities. In that regard, we wish to caution the public regarding survey question #4 which we view as an attempt to wring concessions out of the public by tempting them with an array of amenities such as a pier. CRCP advises the public to only ask for those amenities that it deems to be very important as they come at the expense of taller buildings and higher densities.
In regards to question #5 we suggest that respondents answer by saying that they would like to see buildings in this project at heights of “less than 14 storeys.” To question #6, we recommend that respondents answer that their support for this project would be affected by the “number of high rise towers proposed.” Lastly, to question #8 which asks for additional comments, CRCP recommends that respondents answer that they want a downtown built to “human scale” and that 20% of all units be set aside for affordable housing as a condition of approval and not as an amenity to be paid for by taller buildings and greater density.
Lawson Landing - March 21, 2007
Citizens for Responsible Community Planning (CRCP) is pleased with the ruling of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that there be no significant filling of the lake as part of the Lawson Landing project proposal. CRCP has always maintained that significant filling of the lake at this site would have negative environmental impacts. This ruling effectively ends the current Lawson Landing project concept.
Lawson Landing project developer Westcorp has stated that it intends to revise the concept and make another proposal at a future date. In that regard CRCP wishes to state that it would not oppose a boutique hotel on the current Willow Inn site provided that the building height is not greater than six storeys. We also suggest that the following guidelines be adhered to in any future project concept:
- that there be no significant infill of the lake
- that there be no structures within close proximity of the lakeshore/li>
- that any concept not involve the sale of city owned parkland/li>
- that any concept not violate the spirit and intent of the Simpson Covenant/li>
- that any concept be of an architectural style and physical scale that is compatible with both our natural environment and the historical character of the downtown/li>
- that no structures obscure residents’ views of the lake or mountains/li>
Mandatory Inclusionary Housing - October 31, 2006
Inclusionary zoning requires or encourages developers of market residential projects to contribute some proportion of units, generally from 10 percent to 25 percent, as affordable housing. Inclusionary zoning has the advantage that it can produce hundreds of affordable units annually at no cost to taxpayers, can create all types of housing including single-family detached, and helps to promote diverse communities where households of a wide range of incomes can live. Inclusionary zoning can be either mandatory or voluntary. In mandatory programs developers are required to contribute some affordable housing as a condition of development or rezoning approval. In voluntary inclusionary zoning, developers are offered density bonuses and other incentives as inducements to contribute affordable housing. According to CMHC “incentive-based programs produce much less affordable housing than mandatory ones” and “the most successful inclusionary programs have been mandatory.”
Inclusionary zoning has created tens of thousands of affordable units in the United States since 1974 and is the fastest growing method for producing new affordable housing there. It has more recently been introduced in Canada in BC and Ontario. As of the year 2000, 15 BC municipalities were using inclusionary zoning including Vancouver, Langford and Ucluelet. Vancouver has a policy that large private residential developments in the downtown provide 20% of units for non-market housing as part of any rezoning application. Langford requires all rezoning applications of 10 or more single family lots to include 10 percent of all units as small lot units to be sold at a price not to exceed $150,000 to qualified purchasers. Ucluelet’s Official Community Plan contains the objective “to zone land inclusionary and to require that anywhere from 15% to 20% be deemed for affordable housing in multi-family developments.”
Although the Task Force on Affordable and Special Needs Housing has stated that “According to the Local Government Act the City has no power to force developers to include affordable housing in their developments unless they are requesting an increase in density,” this is not entirely correct. According to a BC Government publication, municipalities such as Kelowna already possess many tools needed to implement mandatory inclusionary zoning. These include forms of inclusionary zoning where developers are required to include an amenity such as affordable housing as a condition for approving an application for a rezoning or comprehensive plan zoning.
In spite of its obvious advantages and wide-spread use, mandatory inclusionary zoning was not included among the Task Force’s recommendations because it is opposed by some local developers. Instead of mandatory inclusionary zoning, the Task Force has offered density bonusing (recommendations 2 and 7). As the allowable densities in some areas of the City are already too high, increasing them further will over-burden our infrastructure resulting in crowding, increased traffic congestion, and a need for more costly park space. Citizens for Responsible Community Planning, your community watchdog, (www.saveparadise.com) recommends that residents oppose Recommendations 2 and 7 and that they write “I support mandatory inclusionary zoning” under “Comments” on the Task Force survey.
Statement on the Mission Aquatic Center Alternative Approval Process - October 12, 2006
Although we did not get the required number of signatures of 8,208 which represents the ten percent of registered voters required in order to trigger a referendum under the Community Charter, CRCP considers this result to be a strong statement sent by the voters telling Kelowna city council that a referendum should still be held on the Mission Aquatic Centre.
Requiring the signatures of ten percent of registered voters in a city where less that one-third of the electorate is active in the political process is an extreme and near-impossible standard to meet. This amounts to requiring the signatures of one-third of the voter turnout in the last civic election. The bar has been set much too high by the provincial government and this situation was cynically exploited by an arrogant city council jealously guarding its power.
The number of signatures tallied by the City Clerk at 4,521 constitutes 5.5% of the electorate which would have been sufficient to trigger a referendum under the previous Local Government Act that was replaced by the Community Charter in 2004, the latter increasing the requirement from 5% to 10%. It also constitutes 17.5% of the number of actual electors in the last civic election. The National Civic League of the U.S. recommends that municipalities there require a referendum to be held on a measure passed by a municipal council if a threshold of the signatures of 10% of the voter turnout is surpassed. This is the case here. CRCP will be recommending to the Province that the standard set by the National Civic League be incorporated into the Community Charter.
The voters of this city have sent a strong message that proceeding with the Mission Aquatic Centre without their consent through a fair and proper referendum is not acceptable. It is not too late for city council to carry out such a referendum which we feel that council while not legally bound is still morally and ethically obligated to do. The failure to do so will risk a sharp rebuke from the electorate in the 2008 civic election.
News Release - September 11, 2006
Citizens for Responsible Community Planning (CRCP) wishes to announce that it is supporting the effort to bring the issue of the Mission Aquatic Centre to a public referendum.
Citizens for Responsible Community Planning (CRCP) is not in principle against a future 50 metre pool in Kelowna but rather is opposed to the Alternative Approval Process (AAP) as the method of getting public assent for the current proposal. CRCP feels that the AAP is a violation of the democratic rights of the electorate to participate in a decision on a matter that will result in a significant increase in property taxes. We feel that it would have been more appropriate for city council to have sent this matter to a public referendum and are urging residents to sign the AAP forms in order to allow a fair and democratic process to occur. By using the AAP city council has put a tremendous onus on one side of this argument to advance their objective which is neither fair nor democratic.
CRCP is mindful of the fact that in September 2004 when this project initially came before council there was a feeling on council that if the project should exceed the costs estimated then resulting in a tax increase in excess of four percent on assessed property values at that time then council would send the matter to a public referendum. As the cost of the project has exceed this amount and council chose instead to use the AAP, we feel that council has reneged on its word.
Although most of CRCP's objections are with the process, we also have some concerns about the project. One of these is the wave pool component of the pool which we feel is redundant as the area has sufficient natural water features. We are also concerned about the fiscal situation that the city finds itself in as the entire source of funds to pay for the Central Okanagan Connector has not yet been found.
CRCP is offering its resources to provide an organizational structure for those who are interested in seeing the Mission Aquatic Centre issue brought to a public referendum. Persons who are in agreement and who would like to help are invited to an organizational meeting to be held on Thurs., Sept. 14 at 7pm in the second floor meeting room of the Rotary Centre for the Arts, or to contact CRCP by e-mail at saveparadise@yahoo.ca
News Release - April 17, 2006
The City of Kelowna recently made public the expenses and campaign contributions of candidates running in the 2005 civic election. Having reviewed the amounts spent by the candidates and the contributions that were made to their campaigns, Citizens for Responsible Community Planning (CRCP) is of the opinion that several candidates spent excessive sums and that a potential for conflict of interest presently exists in regards to contributions received by certain council members. CRCP further believes that the legislation currently in place does not provide any safeguards to prevent excessive campaign spending by candidates or eliminate the potential for conflicts of interest arising as a result of parties contributing to a candidate’s campaign in order to gain political favours. CRCP is therefore making certain recommendations to city council to remedy this situation. These recommendations have been taken from practices that are currently in place in other North American cities.
CRCP recommends that a maximum amount of campaign expenditures for candidates be established which is equal to the sum of fifteen cents per registered elector times the total number of registered electors for councillor candidates and thirty cents per registered elector times the number of registered electors for mayoralty candidates. We further recommend that the acceptance or receipt by any candidate for city council of anything of value in excess of $100 from any person or organization shall be deemed to create a conflict of interest with regard to that council member’s vote on any issue or matter coming before council involving a benefit to the contributing person or organization. We are making these recommendations in order to further the following objectives that:
- excessive campaign costs and large contributions do not cause corruption or the appearance of corruption in the election process;
- large campaign contributions will not be used to buy political access or to influence governmental actions; and
- access to large amounts of money will not be a prime requirement for participation in the political process.
Citizens for Responsible Community Planning (CRCP) wishes to express its disappointment with the newly created Affordable and Special Needs Housing Task Force in regards to its size and the fact that its voting membership is comprised only of two sitting city councillors and no members from the community.
CRCP believes that the lack of affordable housing in Kelowna is a serious issue with a present deficiency in affordable housing here of over 6000 units. We feel that the seriousness of this matter warrants more attention through a wider community membership than exists on this task force. By comparison the recent Roads Task Force had nine community members and the current St. Paul Street Site Review Task Force has 13 members, nine of which are from the public. We believe that the Affordable and Special Needs Housing Task Force should have a similar composition with wide community representation.
When the plans for this new task force were announced, it held great promise of increased public participation on this important issue. We regret that this promise has not come to fruition and what is billed as a task force is little more than a sub-committee of city council. In that regard we fear that the recommendations of this task force will reiterate the previously ineffective solutions proposed by the planning department and the Social Planning and Housing Needs Committee while reflecting the pre-existing biases of the two city councillors who sit on it.
The Tommie Awards and Affordable Housing -- January 17, 2005
The Tommie ( short for Thompson Okanagan ) housing awards were handed out on January 15 for the best housing developments in 2004. The Tommies are like the Academy Awards of the housing industry where developers congratulate one another for their accomplishments. Awards were given for numerous categories but conspicuously absent this year was the award for best affordable housing project because, as reported by CHBC television, there were no entries in that category. What an incredible statement about the lack of affordable housing in our region that makes! And what an embarrassment to Kelowna's city council this is as they have done virtually nothing to improve this situation. CRCP reaffirms its position that a bylaw be developed requiring developers to allocate 20% of all housing units in any residential project as affordable housing.
"Smart Growth" in Kelowna - January 10, 2005
The year 2004 saw an unprecedented amount of development pressures and controversies in Kelowna. One of these controversies was the significant increase in the number of highrise buildings built or approved for construction. The construction of highrises in our city is not accidental but rather is part of a deliberate city policy for managing growth.
The philosophy of growth behind this policy is called "smart growth." "It's better to grow up than out" is a catch-phrase that captures the essence of "smart growth" and is mindlessly bandied about by certain members of our city council who refuse to or simply cannot comprehend all the ramifications of this approach to planning.
"Smart growth" is a reaction to decades of urban sprawl which has consumed hectares of farmland, natural habitats, and open space. The alternative that "smart growth" offers is to direct growth to high density urban centres and is embraced by many as the responsible solution to our environmental problems. But is it? Although on the surface it seems like a laudable approach, is "smart growth" really environmentally friendly or sustainable in the long run?
In order to answer this question we must understand the concept of carrying capacity. This refers to the number of individuals who can be supported in a given area without degrading the natural, social, and cultural environment for present and future generations. Upon analysis it becomes evident that guiding urban development from a pattern of sprawl to that of higher densities only alters where the strains of a growing population are felt the most but not the overall negative impact on carrying capacity. Merely concentrating people and their built environment into higher densities does not change the fact that an ever-increasing number of people ultimately require an ever-increasing amount of natural resources while placing an ever-increasing burden on the environment's pollution absorbing capacity and the urban infrastructure. Thus the view that "smart growth" is environmentally friendly is illusory as the environment is increasingly stressed by the demands of a growing population. Furthermore, the reality of high density urban living does not match the goals of "smart growth" as the reality of high density living is traffic congestion, crime, crowding, pollution, and a decline in the overall quality of life.
In the long-run "smart growth" alone will not provide for sustainable communities. In light of the carrying capacity criteria, the only viable solution to the urban growth problem is to slow the rate of population growth with the eventual goal of population stabilization.
Ron Mattiussi's speech to the Home Builders Association - January 6, 2005
As reported in the Daily Courier, Director of Corporate Services Ron Mattiussi spoke to the Kelowna chapter of the Canadian Home Builder's Association on Jan. 6, 2005. From reading his comments there can be no doubt of the role of urban planners in the local growth machine which also includes builders, the chamber of commerce, and our city council. Mattiussi told the home builders exactly what they wanted to hear from their boy that the present housing boom will continue for a long time. Mattiussi didn't appear alarmed that the bulk of new housing is high end i.e., high priced, and that it is being pitched to retiring baby boomers who migrate to Kelowna from elsewhere. But then the planning department and our city council have approved one luxury condo project after another in the past year with narry a thought being given to creating more affordable housing which is desperately needed. Kelowna is becoming a city where only the wealthy can afford to live and neither Mattiussi or city council could give a fig. Mattiussi also doesn't appear concerned that the bulk of new housing created is multiple unit. If the present trend continues within 20 years there will be more multiple unit than single family dwellings in Kelowna and the family will give way to the retired couple as the dominant household type. The family has always been the corner stone of every viable community. The dominant position of the family ensures that residents have a long term personal investment in their community to see that it is not only a good place for the present generation to live but for future generations as well. The demise of the family in Kelowna will spell the end of our community and instead we will have a city of endless waves of single generation retirees with no roots here and no interest in anything other than what b benefits they can get from the few years they spend here. As Mr. Mattiussi is the one responsible for this incredible lack of social vision and advises an equally myopic city council, I believe it would be in the city's best interests if he were replaced.