Tourism Kelowna - Queensway

[dudemeiser]

Why has there been no media coverage regarding the outcome of last evening's meeting?

Seems off that there is no mention on Castanet.

[sublime]

Why has there been no media coverage regarding the outcome of last evening's meeting?

The Mayor was on 1150 this morning. All he did was whine about how his council's feelings were hurt by the opposition. He felt people took it way too personal...well if they handled it appropriately then there wouldn't be an outrage. Pretty simple.

[marooned]

Why has there been no media coverage regarding the outcome of last evening's meeting?

Here's coverage: http://www.kelownacapnews.com/news/tour ... a-council/

[WalterWhite]

Why has there been no media coverage regarding the outcome of last evening's meeting?

Here's coverage: http://www.kelownacapnews.com/news/tour ... a-council/

Some excellent comments submitted via a Dianne Varga on FB at the end of that article:

Dianne Varga · Concordia University
Submission in response to Application for Development Permit 16-0275 and Development Variance Permit 16-0276

Dear Mayor and Council:

The Report to Council dated April 25, 2017 shows that the application for Development Permit 16-0275 and Development Variance Permit 16-0276 relies on the final adoption of OCP Amendment Bylaw 11335 and Rezoning Bylaw 11336. How could it be otherwise, since we would have no reference points for development regulations or variances if not for the OCP land use designation and zoning classification that are asserted in Bylaws 11335 and 11336.

Consequently, I will talk about Bylaws 11335 and 11336 before I talk about the Development Permit and Development Variance Permit.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

++ Bylaws 11335 and 11336 are illegal and should not be adopted into law

Bylaws 11335 and 11336 were passed at third reading on December 12, 2016, but do not become law until their final adoption, scheduled for June 13, 2017. It cannot be too late to remind Mayor and council, the public, and the media, and to inform the Office of the Ombudsperson, that these two bylaws fail to observe Official Community Plan Bylaw 10500 and Zoning Bylaw 8000. They should not be adopted into law.

++ How Bylaw 11335 fails to respect OCP Bylaw 10500

Bylaw 11335 re-designates the Queensway Jetty from parkland to Educational/Major Institutional. Chapter 4 of the OCP defines allowable uses of land designated this way as educational facilities, correctional facilities, hospitals, fire halls, cemeteries, religious assemblies, seniors’ facilities, and major government, cultural or recreational facilities.

A tourism facility is none of these things. At its website, Tourism Kelowna describes itself as a non-profit society governed by tourism industry businesses and organizations, whose mission is destination marketing, sales and service. The section on Commercial Land Use Policies in Chapter 5 of the OCP expects, according to Objective 5.26, that “commercial ventures that promote local tourism” will be designated Commercial, not Educational/Major Institutional.

City of Kelowna’s Report to Council dated December 12, 2016 and submitted as one document for the public hearing that same day references Objective 5.26 as encouragement for supporting development of the tourism facility. Oddly, the Report does not see that Objective 5.26 simultaneously challenges the validity of Bylaw 11335, with respect to the designation of Queensway Jetty as Educational/Major Institutional rather than Commercial.

++ How Bylaw 11336 fails to respect Zoning Bylaw 8000

Bylaw 11336 rezones Queensway Jetty as P1-Major Institutional. Section 16 of Bylaw 8000 describes Major Institutional as “a zone primarily for major governmental and publicly or privately funded Institutional uses.” But a tourism facility is not an institution. It’s a kind of office – specifically a Market Office, in the language of Bylaw 8000. According to Bylaw 8000, Offices are restricted to Commercial, Industrial, or Comprehensive Development zones.

Had the City of Kelowna respected Zoning Bylaw 8000 and OCP Bylaw 10500, it would have treated the tourist facility almost identically to the way the City of Vancouver treats their waterfront visitor centre. According to the City of Vancouver planning department, the land on which Tourism Vancouver Visitor Centre sits is zoned Commercial, and the land use designation is Office.
Like · Reply · 11 hrs

Dianne Varga · Concordia University
++ An ulterior purpose of these planning decisions?

We need to ask whether Mr. Cseke is a thoroughly sloppy and incompetent planner or whether his assignment of OCP, zoning and land use designations serves an ulterior purpose. I believe the latter is the case. In making the decisions he has, he has avoided zoning Queensway Jetty as Commercial. It’s possible that had a public park been rezoned Commercial rather than Major Institutional, public opposition to the rezoning would have been fiercer than it is. Yet, there are two implications of avoiding a Commercial zoning designation that are far more serious than this.

First, had the Jetty been zoned Commercial, the building’s Front Yard (east) Setback that falls onto the Simpson covenant lands would have been a clear breach of the covenant. The covenant allows no commercial use of the land. It does allow institutional use, however.

Second, had the commercial nature of Tourism Kelowna been indelibly inscribed in municipal bylaw, it would have complicated, if not prevented, the issuance of a non-market lease to Tourism Kelowna. Council Policy 347 requires that any non-profit society qualifying for a non-market lease not compete directly with the business community in the service it provides, but does not comment on a perplexing situation where a non-profit society is essentially the business community itself. What, we may ask, is the City doing by giving the business community a non-market lease setting rent on valuable waterfront property at a paltry $50.00 for the full 29-year term?

As it is, when the land uses are said to involve Government Services and community purposes, it makes it easy to say the primary service that Tourism Kelowna offers provides a demonstrable public benefit and that taxpayers will expect the City to provide the service if Tourism Kelowna were to decline to – these being two of several criteria used to establish eligibility for non-market rent according to Council Policy 347.

Just as important, Council Policy 347 reminds us the Community Charter prohibits the City from disposing of real property at less than fair market value “in certain circumstances.” Part 3, Division 2, Article 25 (1) of the Community Charter clarifies those circumstances by stating that it is to a business that a council must not provide such assistance as a non-market lease. In effect, the Community Charter ensures that businesses are precluded from enjoying free rent for a generation.

++ On the need for information

Members of the public such as myself might expose more of the scandalous nature of the decisions on the Tourism Kelowna file if the City of Kelowna would stop holding 1,500 promised pages hostage to a payment of $1,935.00 for their handling and ultimate release.

The records I requested relate to five distinct topics of public interest: the land use, zoning and OCP designation of all site location options for a visitor information centre; the site locations themselves that came under consideration; the financing of the building to be constructed at Queensway Jetty; the public costs and losses arising from the visitor information centre project; and the non-market lease between the City of Kelowna and Tourism Kelowna.

In a culture of democratic and open government, this information would not be behind a paywall. City Hall business is public business, and the public deserves to have all the facts.

++ On Development Permit 16-0275 and Development Variance Permit 16-0276

I do not support the application for either of these permits. The application relies on decisions that are known to the public as being faulty if not fraudulent, and it relies on 1,500 pages of information that have not yet been released to the public.

Dianne Varga

[WalterWhite]

This whole process looks more and more like a backroom sham every day the more information is pried from city hands, which would certainly explain the difficulty - almost $2K in costs to cover releasing 1500 pages of documents that should be freely available to any citizen under the FOI Act?? This whole application stinks worse than the submerged park grass right now.

[60-YEARS-in-Ktown]

I will be voting FOR PEOPLE next election...
......NOT .....FOR CHANGE......

[just popping in]

I will be voting FOR PEOPLE next election...
......NOT .....FOR CHANGE......

IMO Councillor Hodge is the only one who sees "our" side in most instances.

[WalterWhite]

There's no way pulling 1500 pages of documents should cost almost $2K:
First 3 hours are free and no charge can be made for the removing of information from documents. Curious if a cost breakdown of the proposed costs would be available?
Why isn't the cost being waived under Sec. 75(5)(b) as it's clear rly a matter of public interest?

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/ ... #section75

Fees
75 (1) The head of a public body may require an applicant who makes a request under section 5 to pay to the public body fees for the following services:
(a) locating, retrieving and producing the record;
(b) preparing the record for disclosure;
(c) shipping and handling the record;
(d) providing a copy of the record.
(2) An applicant must not be required under subsection (1) to pay a fee for
(a) the first 3 hours spent locating and retrieving a record, or
(b) time spent severing information from a record.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a request for the applicant's own personal information.
(4) If an applicant is required to pay a fee for services under subsection (1), the head of the public body
(a) must give the applicant a written estimate of the total fee before providing the service, and
(b) may require the applicant to pay a deposit in the amount set by the head of the public body.
(5) If the head of a public body receives an applicant's written request to be excused from paying all or part of the fees for services, the head may excuse the applicant if, in the head's opinion,
(a) the applicant cannot afford the payment or for any other reason it is fair to excuse payment, or
(b) the record relates to a matter of public interest, including the environment or public health or safety.
(5.1) The head of a public body must respond under subsection (5) in writing and within 20 days after receiving the request.
(6) The fees that prescribed categories of applicants are required to pay for services under subsection (1) may differ from the fees other applicants are required to pay for them, but may not be greater than the actual costs of the services.

[WalterWhite]

Assuming Mayor Sugarplum would be considered the "head of a public body" in this situation? Either him, or it's Mr. Platinum Pension, our city manager. Either way, which ever of them it is - they need to be pushed hard to declare this of public interest and release these documents free of charge. This is bloody ridiculous.

[just popping in]

Kelowna's controversial new waterfront tourist information centre has passed its final hurdles with city council.

Of course it passed, that's what "they" wanted.

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#199465

[WalterWhite]

Kelowna's controversial new waterfront tourist information centre has passed its final hurdles with city council.

Of course it passed, that's what "they" wanted.

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#199465

Typical city planning crap - I guess no one is expected to drive to this location at all be it staff or the actual visitors they're expecting this facility to cater to. . And people wonder why there's a parking issue in Kelowna - it's because of this ridiculous policy the planning department has accepted for years. Don't have enough parking - just pony up and pay for some imaginary stalls to satisfy your parking requirements shortfall. Tourism Kelowna sure seems to have a shitload of money going ino this.

Kelowna's controversial new waterfront tourist information centre has passed its final hurdles with city council.

Council gave third and fourth reading Tuesday evening to OCP and rezoning amendments to facilitate the centre. Approval was also given for a development permit, which included a variance.

That variance amended the 'front yard' setback from six metres to 3.8 metres. It was needed to maintain a 15-metre setback to the lake on the western side of the building and to remain outside the Kelowna Sawmill Community Trust area on the east side of the building.

The building calls for eight parking stalls, however, Tourism Kelowna will pay the city $180,000 in lieu of parking.

The building design features a single storey with a mezzanine, covering 3,150 square feet. It will have a concrete base with wood, glass and steel design throughout.

The design inspiration was taken from nearby structures such as the marina kiosks, city park washroom building, base of the ‘Bear’ sculpture in Stuart Park and new Kelowna Yacht Club.

It will also include five gender-neutral bathrooms open to the public.

All that is left is for Tourism Kelowna to obtain a building permit to begin construction, possibly this fall.

ETA: something else that was just pointed out to me - look at the design - that's considered a single story building???!

[damama55]

THAT is exactly what I thought when I looked at the design. Looks like 2 stories to me. Guess 2+2 now equals 3, with their thinking of the new math?? I can just imagine what happens when the big RV's, people hauling boats, etc. try to travel through town, around the roundabouts, and try to find parking in the core of the lakefront. We, and Kelowna's mayor and council will be the subject of many not so pretty chosen words. Wonder if they are going to do the waterways for transportation around town, like someone suggested a few years ago. Makes perfect sense now, eh?? Anyone need a gondola??

[Fancy]

Its including a mezzanine.

[WalterWhite]

Its including a mezzanine.

Which is really just a misnomer for a two-story building with a portion of the second floor open to the lower floor.

[KevinJP]

Just face it, the city fathers and all politicians do what they darn well please. Their skins are tougher than a crocodile's.