Dissent on city council is healthy

In breaking with the majority on city council over the Simpson Covenant court appeal, Mayor Sharon Shepherd has provoked a reaction from some members of council. One such member is Councillor Brian Given who in a recent public statement urged a resolution to this matter so that everyone can return to solve the city’s many problems which, in his words, “will require council, staff and our citizens to be focused and free of dissention.”  This is not the first time that Given has expressed his displeasure with dissent on city council having in the 2005 civic election urged voters to fill the vacant seats on council at that time with candidates who would contribute to it working as a “team,” which presumably means councillors agreeing with him on everything and sharing all of his goals for Kelowna.

 

In fact, it is the notion that city council should operate on a consensus basis, being for the most part free of controversy and dissent, which to me is one of the greatest problems with our present city council. Dissent is healthy for democracy and there is precious little of it there. Dissent causes people to reflect on their views and to take other views into consideration. When all views are heard, then hopefully the best ideas will be chosen and acted upon. But when all nine members of city council basically think alike to begin with, the intellectual atmosphere on council becomes sterile and creative thinking is discouraged. The result is the same trite and tired solutions to problems, a pattern that have been characteristic of our city council for a long time now.

 

Instead of dissent being viewed as something undesirable, it should be encouraged and embraced. This city needs new ideas and new solutions as the old ones haven’t served us very well. And instead of most major council decisions being made unanimously as a result of the absence of different thinkers there, it would be sufficient that they be made in the time tested and democratic manner – majority rule.

 

The City should drop the appeal on the Simpson Covenant court ruling

 

Yesterday Mayor Sharon Shepherd personally committed to reversing the decision of Kelowna city council at Monday’s meeting at which time the majority of council voted in favour of appealing the decision of Justice Catherine Bruce to uphold the Simpson Covenant. In her statement Mayor Shepherd stated that it would take a new city council to change the decision of the present council. As a declared candidate for city councillor, I pledge that if elected I would support Mayor Shepherd in revisiting council’s decision to appeal Justice Bruce’s ruling and that I would vote to drop the appeal.

 

Unlike some present members of city council, I have consistently maintained that the city should respect the Simpson Covenant and took such a position when I previously ran for city council in 2005. I believe the Simpson Covenant is an important part of the history and heritage of the city having been put in place more than 60 years ago through a democratic referendum. It is regrettable the present city council continues to attempt to ride roughshod over our heritage and community character on this and other important issues. In that regard, I think it would be in the interests of preserving our heritage and community character if there were some significant changes on city council in the civic election this November. I also think that the present City Solicitor should be replaced as he has given the city bad advice on this and other matters such as the Mission Greenway.

 

I believe that any further legal action on the part of the city to challenge the decision of Justice Bruce would be a waste of taxpayer’s money. It is noteworthy that our city council was reluctant to have a referendum on the Mission Aquatic Centre having instead used the Alternative Approval Process citing the cost of a referendum. This same city council is now willing to squander taxpayer dollars on a legal appeal of the court decision on the Simpson Covenant. I would urge the voters of Kelowna to end this irrationality by electing an all new city council.

LEED is a long way from sustainability

 

 I would like to commend Jennifer Smith and the Capital News for the excellent article “The higher cost of building green” (Aug. 3, 2008), which dealt with some of the challenges of constructing environmentally responsible buildings. The article suggested that LEED Gold is quickly becoming the standard for buildings and will likely be made a requirement for all new structures by the new B.C. Building Code.

 

But LEED is not without its critics who say that although well-intentioned, it has many shortcomings in its execution such as that the LEED point system motivates developers to look for the easiest and most inexpensive way to accumulate enough points to get a certification for public relations purposes rather than to build structures that are genuinely best for the environment. Some other criticisms of LEED that have been made are that the benefits that come with LEED certification remain uncertain and that buildings that earn more LEED points than other buildings do not necessarily provide more environmental benefits.

 

Yet perhaps the most compelling criticism of LEED is that it does not contribute to the goal of environmental sustainability because LEED certified buildings are merely less harmful to the environment than non-LEED buildings and, for example, still result in a net increase in energy use at a time when we should be reducing our energy demand altogether. Despite these shortcomings, some local bodies such as the Advisory Planning Commission unquestioningly accept that LEED buildings are good for the environment, and thereby are regularly hoodwinked by developers into voting for some pretty dubious projects because they come with LEED certification.

Also see: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/13/CMGA7PCMDH1.DTL

ImagineKelowna website creates false image of future downtown

They say that marketing is more about the packaging than it is about the product, and that is certainly the case with marketing expert Tony Payton’s glitzy ImagineKelowna website which is designed to promote the proposed downtown Comprehensive Development Zone. And as with many marketing efforts, this one also is somewhat misleading as to what you will actually get once you open the box.

 

Billing the CD Zone as “the changing face of downtown Kelowna ,” this website attempts to give the impression that the plan will make the downtown a more youthful place with countless images of young adults and children on its home page. But will this project actually deliver on that promise? Not likely.

 

As only about five percent of its units will be designated as affordable housing and the remainder likely to be luxury condos, who will actually be living there? Well, it certainly won’t be the average working family as they won’t be able to afford the hefty price tag of these units. And there may be very few families with children there at all, as how many people would want to raise their children in a highrise? I wouldn’t.

 

No, these units will likely be occupied by childless professionals, empty nesters, retirees, and seasonal residents. So where will all the young people and children come from? They won’t. They are just part of the glossy image that Peyton is trying to create of the CD Zone, but they will be mostly absent from the reality of it.

 

A similar thing happened to Portland, Oregon in its attempts at revitalization by building lots of highrises there, which have earned Portland the dubious distinction of being a “childless city”. In a 2005 article in the New York Times, Timothy Egan described how dense vertical housing and fashionable shops were driving young families out of the downtown by making it too expensive for young families to live there. A similar thing also happened in San Francisco.

 

Does Kelowna have the sense to avoid making the same mistake that these two cities made in their revitalization efforts? Perhaps. But only if we come to grips with the real facts instead of being deceived by the image-making marketers.

No four year terms for city council

The Union of B.C. Municipalities is in favour of increasing the term of city councils in the province to four years from the current three and has requested that individual municipalities consider this proposal. The Union of B.C. Municipalities is comprised of mayors and councillors from all B.C. cities, towns, and villages who, as incumbents, would naturally like to see their terms extended. As a candidate for city council, I am personally opposed to this proposal and would favour retaining the current three year term for municipal representatives.

I am taking this position because I believe it is important to keep municipal representatives accountable, which is more easily accomplished by keeping terms of office short. At present mayors and councils tend to become detached from public sentiment, and this will only become more pronounced if terms are extended. I would go further and suggest that in order to keep civic governments in line with public sentiment that more frequent public referendums be held on important issues as is done in the State of California and that the B.C. Community Charter be amended to allow for citizen originated initiatives to be placed on the ballot as is done in that state.

I would urge Kelowna City Council to reject the UBCM proposal at its August 5th meeting, but if they do cede to this request then council should send the matter to a public referendum as suggested by the Province.

My presentation to the APC on the downtown CD Zone proposal

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission:

I would like to make some general remarks about the CD Zone proposal and then spend the remaining time addressing the issue of environmental sustainability as it relates to the proposal. If implemented this proposal will result in a dramatic change in our present city character of being a friendly, livable small to mid-size city to that of becoming a big-city overnight with the introduction of a big city downtown. The major factors that would lead to this change are the excessive building heights and densities found in the CD Zone which are far beyond what is presently found in the downtown.

Thank you.

Our Downtown Plan which is the basis of the C-7 zone allows for building heights in the four block area under consideration of 6 storeys along the periphery of the area with a smaller portion along Lawrence and Leon Avenues at 12 storeys. The C-7 Zone allows a building height of 44 metres or between 12 and 14 storeys and a maximum density of 9.0 FAR. In a report on the Doyle Avenue highrise presented to the Commission last week, the Planning Department acknowledged “The FAR [in this zone] was intentionally set high with the expectation that no development would ever approach this upper limit.” In other words, it was never intended that any proposal be built out to an FAR of 9.0. The City and its consultant have shown you diagrams comparing the appearance of the proposed CD Zone to a representation of what the C-7 Zone would look like built to a density of 9.0 FAR. Given, what I have just reported, I would like the Commission to disregard this comparison because it is based on the faulty assumption of an unrealistically high density that was never intended for zone.

The present Downtown Plan remains in force until it is revised which has not yet been done. Accordingly, the public has every right to expect the proposed CD Zone to conform to the present Downtown Plan until City Council decides to revise it which it has not yet done. Therefore, it does not follow proper planning procedures to consider this CD Zone which is inconsistent with the existing DT Plan until the latter is revised with the full participation of the public. I would urge the Commission to instruct City Council to revise the Downtown Plan prior to considering the CD Zone.

Because of the time restriction that I am under, I would like to use the remaining time to address the issue of whether or not this project is environmentally sustainable particularly from the perspective of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. The City claims that the proposed CD Zone is sustainable because it is near shopping and transit, is of high density, and incorporates green construction and technology. Let’s look at the claim that being of high density contributes to sustainability.

A recent study by CMHC revealed that a typical high rise apartment unit consumes more energy than any other type of housing unit including mid-rise apartments and single family homes. A study by the Australian national government showed similar results. Furthermore, the Australian study showed that highrises were responsible for 40% more greenhouse gas emissions than mid-rise units, 60% more than low-rise units, and about twice that of townhouses and villas.

The City claims that this project is sustainable in terms of energy because it is incorporating green building techniques and that the project is to a LEED gold standard. But how much does this mean in practical terms? The reasons given for why highrises use so much energy are because of the extraordinary heating and cooling needs of these buildings due to their unprotected exposure to cold winds in the winter and the hot sun in the summer. Many LEED points are given for things such as the fact that the project is near employment and shopping, but this will not by itself reduce the energy consumption of the building.

Montreal-based planning consultant Martin Laplante has said of LEED, “More and more architects are coming out and saying out loud what a lot of people have thought all along. Getting LEED certification is good PR but not necessarily a good way to preserve the environment. … The fact that the building is of a form that wastes huge amounts of energy is not a big deal as long as you have a long list of things that save energy, like bicycle racks. Having solar panels is a huge publicity boost and LEED points getter, even though it makes less impact to energy use than, say, the design of windows. Building two ordinary four story buildings is a lot more environmentally friendly than one 8 storey one, but it doesn’t get you LEED certification. You get that by building the inefficient building then adding gimmicks until you collect enough points.”

As an average highrise unit uses more energy and is responsible for more GHG emissions than low-rise or mid-rise buildings and if we dramatically increase densities as is proposed in the CD plan, that would then allow more of these inefficient units to be located in a given area. For example, this project with its approximately 1900 residential units would emit twice the GHG emissions as a project of one half the density and three times the emissions as a project of one-third the density. So with get hit with a double whammy of energy inefficient units and lots of them.

The City is applauding itself for its “smart growth” design and the fact that energy is being saved as residents are closer to shopping and employment. But what is the relative contribution of residences and transportation to overall energy consumption and GHG emissions? For 2005, Natural Resources Canada reported that the total energy used in that year for space heating in homes was greater than all the energy used by cars in the country and that doesn’t even include the energy used for water heating, appliances, lighting and space cooling. In a presentation to Kelowna City Council on April 7 of this year, Sustainability Action Plan committee member Randy Cleveland reported that buildings are responsible for 50% of all energy consumed in North America and estimated that here in Kelowna buildings are responsible for almost double the GHG emissions from transportation fuels. Therefore, it is apparent that we should be paying at least as much attention to the type of structures that we build as to their spatial organization.

And I haven’t even begun to address the topic of the urban heat island effect which is caused by packed concentrations of concrete, asphalt, steel and glass, concentrations such as found in highrise structures. The heat island effect has been said to be a contributor to global warming. Considering their impact on energy use, GHG emissions, and the urban heat island effect, can highrise structures be said to be sustainable? Definitely not!

The environmental problems posed by highrises have caused environmentalist James Howard Kunster and world-renown architects Susan Roaf and Nikos Salingaros to become harsh critics of highrises and high density cities and advocates that building height be kept to a maximum of between 6 and 8 storeys. But I don’t want the Commission to just take my word for it. I would like to ask the APC to request that the City commission a study on the energy consumption and GHG emissions of the proposed CD Zone and to compare that to the energy consumed and GHG emitted by buildings of between 6 and 8 storeys height. Last week the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research for the State of California issued a technical advisory instructing approving authorities in that state to quantify or estimate GHG emissions for all proposed plans and projects and to identify project alternatives or impose mitigation measures. California’s environmental policies have become a model for those of the Campbell government in British Columbia and it’s just a matter of time before the same requirements will be found here. I ask the Commission to be proactive and recommend that such a study be done now.