City of Kelowna Correspondence

Candidates for 2022

Kelowna broad

Good morning, Tom.

It seems that this big pay raise that you have paid yourselves is causing some interest. 10% for now would have generated less interest….maybe that is what you should do in light of the public’s concerns.

Anyway, it was probably a slip of the tongue, but when it was mentioned that there were 32 candidates running for council in the 2022 election, you said that if the pay was better, the candidates would have been better quality. It kind of infers that the 32 who ran weren’t good candidates.

I took that a little personally.

Best regards,

Susan

Proposed Parkinson Rec Centre Council Meeting January 17, 2022

Kelowna council position

Dear Mayor and Councilors,

I read about the proposed new Parkinson Rec Recreation Centre plan in yesterday’s Daily Courier Newspaper and that is coming before you tomorrow. This is a great opportunity to develop the latest in a green, efficient facility. It is an opportunity to get input from the local experts who live in the community who have experience locally and from all over the world…climate change specialists, arborists, soil specialists, social scientists, disability experts, transportation specialists, water management experts, recreational experts, urban watershed experts, bird and wildlife experts, solar specialists, etc. so we will have a recreational centre that serves the internal and external environment so that users can enjoy the outside facilities and green space during our warm summer months and interior facilities during our winter months. The newspaper said the estimated cost is $135 million which is the most expensive project in the City of Kelowna’s history and funding will include long term borrowing and taxation. Apparently, long term borrowing by a municipality requires the support of voters so this is perfect time to pull together a range of experts from the community to work on a plan and ideas that could be put to the public over the summer and then voted on by referendum by putting it on the ballot of the upcoming municipal election nine months from now in mid-October. This will save on a separate referendum which is costly. Good timing! If the public votes to go ahead based on the high level ideas from the community, then more detailed planning can be carried out so we get this just right. I understand that 10% of the voters have to sign a petition to ensure a referendum but it can be put to a referendum without the petition. Such good time to piggy back it onto our fall municipal election ballots.

Best regards,

Susan Ames, PhD, MSc, BSc

Kelowna resident

Proposed Costco Project

KSAN

Dear Mayor and City Councilors,

I know there is a lot of opposition about this project, primarily about excessive traffic. What about the issue of using agricultural land for a big box store or any kind of development? Is this an appropriate use for prime agricultural land? It states in the Daily Courier (Nov 24th, 2020) that the land is zoned agriculture although it is not in the ALR. It can be put in the ALR if you request it. The information presented does not talk about the agricultural capability of this land. This is likely Class 1 agricultural land. This is prime farmland as is all this flat land that was key to Kelowna’s agricultural production. The land that is now covered over with buildings and pavement except this part. It is important to know that even if the land hasn’t been used to grow crops for many years this does not affect its agricultural capability. It’s potential for crop production is not diminished and it could be highly productive for food production if a farmer were to be involved. This is a good time to show leadership and say “No. Let’s keep this for food production”. Agricultural land is a non-renewable resource….once it is gone, it is gone. The city is predicting an increase in population so we will need more food producing land, not less. At the same time, the city is buying agricultural land for infrastructure such as the proposed siting of water treatment infrastructure. If one of the 10 pillars of the 2040 OCP is the protection of agriculture then how can you support these types of projects? Your decisions are permanent. It is time to stand up and say no. You don’t have to say yes. Just say no to this and any other non agricultural projects on farmland.

Best regards,

Susan Ames, PhD, MSc, BSc

Concerned Citizen

Educating the Public re Pandosy

KSAN

Dear Ryan and Mayor Basran,

Ryan, I found your statement in the Castanet article of Nov 18, 2020 very condescending to the KLO Neighbourhood Association ” …the city has spent a significant amount of time trying to educate them about our processes and procedures for development” and “they either choose not to believe, or listen to, or participate in the way the process was built to work, like our OCP process’. Ryan,I heard you at KLONA’s AGM last summer say that “the Planners were willing to sit down with the neighbourhood associations and tell them what the city’s plans are’. Nothing about collaboration, nothing about listening to the neighbourhood associations who represent the people. I think both of you have forgotten it is the citizens who pay the wages of people at city hall and so you are employees of the people. Yet, you are insinuating that your employer, the citizens, are stupid and need to be educated and need to learn to listen. The roles seem to be mixed up here.

We three know the OCP is not being followed or you wouldn’t be approving all these variances for height and surface coverage. Mayor, you stated (Daily Courier November 14, 2020) “I do believe that the Official Community Plan has done a very good job of guiding development in South Pandosy”. Yes, the OCP is written well but it is not being followed so your statement to me sounds like you are trying to “pull the wool’ over the public’s eye. The OCP is not being followed so it is not clear to me why you would make such a statement. All KLONA and the rest of citizens who object to the various projects want is that the OCP be followed. As a guide, every storey is about 10 ft (3 m) high. The allowed zoning for the Pandosy site referred to is 4 storeys or 40 feet. You both supported 9 storeys or over twice the allowable height which will put this building 90 feet into the skyline. Who isn’t following the OCP here? There are numerous other proposed projects you both are supporting with even greater height allowances.

I hope against hope that you will treat KLONA and other concerned citizens who are fairly smart and educated with a bit more respect in terms of their ability to read and process information. Many cities have made mistakes which are hard to undue but today they are trying to put an environmental/sustainable/social lense on what they can affect. We need to learn from them and we need to think out of the box instead of the status quo which is the train the city is currently on and which appears to be out of date or “old fashioned” thinking/planning. We have an opportunity here. Let’s take advantage of it.

Best regards,

Susan Ames, PhD, MSc, BSc

Concerned citizen

Monday November 23 AM Council Meeting OCP Topic Heritage Conservation Areas at Great Risk

KSAN

Dear Mayor and Councillors,

I am asking you to please require the Planning Department on Monday morning remove the Abbott Street and Marshall Street Heritage Conservation Areas from the Core Area Neighbourhood designation on Map3.1 Future Land Use Map which the Planning Department is bringing to you on Monday morning. Only you can stop this. The uses allowed with the Core Area Neighbourhood will result in the development of the Heritage Conservation Areas and their ultimate disintegration. This is the map the Planning Department uses for rezoning applications.

Susan Ames, PhD, MSc

KSAN President

Concerned Citizen

RE: OCP future plans and HCA – Presentation on Monday September 14, 2020

KSAN

Dear Mayor Basran and Members of Council,

It has just come to the KSAN Board’s attention that the Abbott Street and Marshall Street Heritage Conservation Areas (HCAs) are included on Map 3.1 as being part of a larger area designated as “Core Neighbourhood Area” (CNA). CNA is a new land use which includes:

*four plexes

*row housing

*small scale commercial and other complimentary uses

*low rise apartment housing and mixed use along Transit Supportive Corridors

Map 3.1 includes the entire city. The H on the map represents KGH which is on the south edge of the Abbott Street HCA. The HCAs are very small representing roughly one half of one percent of the total city. We are desperately hoping their inclusion in the CNA land use is an oversight. To protect the HCAs as are described in the OCP for present and future generations, it is critical to have a separate land use titled “HCA” which would be consistent with the heritage chapter in the OCP and offer continued recognition of the HCAs. The Abbott and Marshall Streets HCAs bring joy to thousands of residents and visitors; we must protect these gems as part of Kelowna’s heritage.

Best regards,

Susan Ames

President of KSAN

Kelowna South Central Association of Neighbourhoods

374 Park additional information

KSAN

Hello Mayor and City Councillors,

The owners of 374 Park say they want to build a house in their backyard so their family can grow into it. They have 2 -14 year old twins and another child. They have a right to a family home and yes, a coach house would likely be a bit small for a family of 5. One of the councillors thought the footprint of the existing house and proposed house look similar in size and they asked Ms. Decloux the size of the existing house. She stated she didn’t know. I thought it must be a 2 bedroom house. I checked on the real estate listing that was put up by the previous owners in 2016. Its a 5 bedroom house with 3 full bathrooms (one being an ensuite). It also has a family room and den. It is not clear why a 5 bedroom house with 3 baths, a dining room, recreation room, and office is too small for this family of five and hence they need a second house of similar size in the backyard. The front house is 2,643 ft so close in size to the proposed house of 2,800 sq. ft. I know you don’t want to hear this but it seems to me that the owners and Ms. Decloux have misled you. They misled me, too.

Further, the house was in excellent condition when they purchased it as you can see from the attached pictures. It is a beautiful house. The boys have a trampoline in the backyard so it isn’t clear why the parents will be taking that green space away from them for a second house when they already have a big house. The twins will be of university age in three or so years. Please ask yourselves what is the motive of these people. They are planning to build a big, high house in their backyard which will have a negative impact on the neighbours and the neighborhood as you heard at the Public Hearing. Before the neighbors spoke up, the owner said he had ‘worked with the planning department for several years” and the house will add value to the street, the neighbourhood, and the community. After the neighbours spoke up it is quite clear that this is not the right project for the neighbourhood and it will have a negative impact on the neighbours. The public hearing is to hear the public. I know some of the councillors believe that people can do what they want on their own property but this is not true. The neighbours homes and lives will be affected by this huge house. Their homes are the most important investment for them and many have put all their life savings into them and new owners come along and ruin that for them.

Ms. Decloux also stated that the only green space lost will be what you can’t see from Park Ave. She doesn’t seem to appreciate that green space supports trees, shrubs, plants, birds and are important for their environmental services. It seems she thinks it is ok to pave the backyard as long as no one sees it. Some councillors seem to agree with this thinking.

I would like you to reconsider this proposal. As Ms. Halford said who wants to see this neighbourhood turn into a bunch of houses all crowded in a tiny space? There is one last chance for this to be stopped and that is at 4^th reading. Think of the neighbors who are going to be negatively impacted. It was obvious at the public hearing they are already very stressed by this and I am sure it will affect how they sleep at night and how they live their lives and feel about their neighborhood.

Best regards,

Susan Ames

From: Susan Ames <s_ames@telus.net>
Sent: August 26, 2020 2:56 PM
To: ‘Aaron Thibeault’ <AThibeault@kelowna.ca>
Cc: ‘bsieben@kelowna.ca‘ <bsieben@kelowna.ca>; ‘chodge@kelowna.ca‘ <chodge@kelowna.ca>; ‘rdonn@kelowna.ca‘ <rdonn@kelowna.ca>; ‘msingh@kelowna.ca‘ <msingh@kelowna.ca>; ‘mdehart@kelowna.ca‘ <mdehart@kelowna.ca>; ‘lwoolridge@kelowna.ca‘ <lwoolridge@kelowna.ca>; ‘lstack@kelowna.ca‘ <lstack@kelowna.ca>; ‘mayorandcouncil@kelowna.ca‘ <mayorandcouncil@kelowna.ca>
Subject: Public consultation 374 Park

Hi Aaron,

It was good to put a face to a name last evening at the public hearing. I am interested in a few things that I was reminded about last evening. First, just to let you know it is very difficult to find things on the city’s website. It took a lot of sleuthing to find Policy 367 (public consultation). Can you direct me to someone in city hall that uploads such things on the website and I will contact them?

I notice in the planning report related to 374 Park that “public consultation was carried out according to policy 367”:

Click to access public_notification_and_consultation_for_development_applications_-_policy_367.pdf

Last evening one of the councillors said she was quite surprised about the amount of support there was for the above project. We had just heard the neighbor to the west was totally against the project, the owner who has the easement said he didn’t receive notice and was totally against it, as well as the neighbours on Knox (as well as others). The planning report presented to council at first reading and again, last evening said: public consultation was carried out. I have a couple of points I would like to make:

The planning report said the public consultation was carried out…but it didn’t (and never does) state what were the results of the “public consultation”. It is not clear to me if the planning department is supposed to be providing clear information to council why wouldn’t they disclose the results of this “public consultation” – e.g., the adjacent neighbours did not support it or something to that wording.
It really isn’t public consultation….it is really neighbors within 50 m ….this would be helpful to the councillors and public if instead of saying public consultation, it states neighbors within in 50 m were ‘consulted’. I think that would be more helpful and clear as that is what it is.
I have a hard time with the word ‘consultation” . It really isn’t consultation, it is just notice. Consultation, let’s say, meaningful consultation is defined as discussing and coming up with a solution. All these owners have to do is stick a notice in the mailbox. I recently received one.
It was clear last evening that the project owners did not ensure the owners of the properties within 50 m received notification. This was quite shocking as the easement which is one reason the owners have received the green light is because of the owner on which the easement is applied didn’t receive notice (let alone consultation) and he was against this project and he is trying to undo this easement.

To be more helpful, clear and informative to the councillors at first reading and the councillors and public at the public hearing it could have/should have been written as such:

“Written notice was dropped off at the houses within 50 m of the project”.

What would be even more helpful would be at the first reading and the public hearing:

“Written notice was dropped off to the owners of the properties within 50 m and the owners do not support the project. Further, the owner on which the easement is applied, does not support this project and is very concerned about the project’ . I think it would be clear if the planning report provided more information than a statement such “public consultation was carried out’.

One last thing, the planning report states that planning was “tracking’ a variance to decrease the space between the house and garage. It is not clear why the planning report presented to council at first reading and again last evening did not indicate what is the required spacing and what were they seeking. In fact, at no point in the evening was it indicated what the spacing is supposed to be and what they were seeking. Are they going from 5 feet to one foot? If they are, what are the implications of this….is this a fire hazard? This would have been useful information as how can one decide it they don’t know the implications of allowing this. I really don’t know but I am interested in this.

Please get back to me on your thoughts on this and how this can be rectified and clarified for the councillors and the public. I have cc’d the councillors “fyi”.

Sincerely,

Susan Ames

RE: 374 Park Avenue Rezoning Application

KSAN

Dear Mayor and Members of Council,

Please accept this letter from the KSAN Board related to the application to rezone 374 Park Avenue from RU1 to RU6.

Sincerely,

Susan Ames

KSAN President

From: Susan Ames <s_ames@telus.net>
Sent: August 9, 2020 2:32 PM
To: ‘mdehart@kelowna.ca‘ <mdehart@kelowna.ca>; ‘rdonn@kelowna.ca‘ <rdonn@kelowna.ca>; ‘ggiven@kelowna.ca‘ <ggiven@kelowna.ca>; ‘chodge@kelowna.ca‘ <chodge@kelowna.ca>; ‘bsieben@kelowna.ca‘ <bsieben@kelowna.ca>; ‘msingh@kelowna.ca‘ <msingh@kelowna.ca>; ‘lstack@kelowna.ca‘ <lstack@kelowna.ca>; ‘lwoolridge@kelowna.ca‘ <lwoolridge@kelowna.ca>
Cc: ericabl@telus.net; Pat-Peter Munro-Chataway <p2muncha@gmail.com>; ‘Margaret Doyle’ <maggieedoyle@gmail.com>; Dean Muscardin <dean@deanmuscardin.com>; Lovegrove, Gordon <gord.lovegrove@ubc.ca>; azha leskard <azhaleskard@gmail.com>; Marilea Sharpe <marileasharpe@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: 374 Park RU1 to RU6 August 10th 2020
Importance: High

Dear Councillors,

Tomorrow, Monday at your 1:30 pm meeting the application to rezone a RU1 property (374 Park) in the Abbott Heritage Conservation Area to RU6 to allow a second dwelling is coming before you. The planning report states that this is consistent with “compact urban form”. Compact urban form is for the 99.5% of Kelowna not the Heritage Conservation Area which represents 0.5% of the City. These applicants can get a second house on the property going the same route as others in the Heritage Conservation Area and that is, apply for RU1c – coach house. So the infill can occur with the RU1c. RU1c allows more green space and yet allows the infill that they are seeking. The property is surrounded by RU1 and RU1c. The planning report does not offer RU1c as an option – only RU6. We can say no to this. We can tell them to come back with an application for RU1c and if all is in order, they can get their infill house and still retain the green space and other amenities of the neighbourhood and RU1 zoning in the Heritage Conservation Area.

Best regards,

Susan Ames

President, KSAN

RE: 374 Park RU1 to RU6 August 10th 2020

KSAN

Hello Councillors,

I have just left the meeting and I am shocked and dismayed. No one of you asked about RU1c which is meant for an additional house in the Heritage Conservation Area. All of the surrounding blocks are RU1 or RU1c (I have attached the zoning map and marked 374 with a blue dot). How could not one of you not be concerned about this? I guess I do not know how you operate. I guess you made your decision in the morning and your afternoon vote is a formality. How could 100% of you vote the same way?

Perhaps you can explain this to me. It will help me understand things better.

Susan Ames

Dear Councillors,

Best regards,

Susan Ames

President, KSAN

RE: 374 Park RU1 to RU6 August 10th 2020

KSAN

Dear Councillors,

Best regards,

Susan Ames

President, KSAN

Letter re 409 Park Avenue Proposal

KSAN

Dear Mayor and Council,

Please accept this letter from the KSAN Board related to the 409 Park Avenue Proposal that will be considered Monday, July 27^th.

We would appreciate it if you would review it and take it into consideration when deciding on this proposal.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments.

Best regards,

Susan Ames, PhD

KSAN President

Kelowna South Central Association of Neighbourhoods
Knowles House – 865 Bernard Avenue, Kelowna, BC, V1Y 6P6

http://www.ksan-kelowna.ca

Mayor Basran and Council July 26, 2020
City of Kelowna
1435 Water Street
Kelowna BC
V1Y 1J4

Dear Mayor and Council,
Re: 409 Park Avenue Proposal to Subdivide and Rezone
The KSAN Board recommends against this proposal to subdivide and rezone this property to RU2, a
higher density zoning, in the Abbott Street Heritage Conservation Area. This is a threat to the stability
and conservation of the Abbott Street Heritage Conservation Area (ASHCA).
The owners bought a registered heritage house in the ASHCA, stripped it to the rafters, hired an
engineer who deemed it too costly and impractical to repair to accommodate their alterations, had the
house removed from the Heritage Registry and then demolished it. This with the undertaking they
would replace it with a home in keeping with the heritage area guidelines. Council saw value in the
heritage of the house, in the streetscape, and the ASHCA, and regretted not having the proposed plans
for the new home at the time of the Council meeting. There was no mention of subdivision or rezoning.
Now they want to subdivide it and have it changed to a higher density zoning. These people should not
be rewarded for this. They should be required to follow what they told Council they would do to get it
off the Registry in the first place – build a home on the property that respects the zoning (RU1), that
would fit into the neighborhood, and in keeping with the heritage area guidelines. This proposal
undermines the stability and conservation of the Heritage Conservation Area. The KSAN Board requests
that you deny this proposal.

Best regards,
Susan Ames, PhD
KSAN President

2980 Gallagher Road Public Hearing June 23rd 2020

KSAN

Dear Mayor and Council,

This is with regard to an application to remove land out of the ALR for housing. Please accept this email as being opposed to this project:

It is a continuation of urban sprawl which is the opposite of ‘smart growth’ principals
It promotes more vehicle use into the country and agricultural areas
It requires more infrastructure being brought into the area rather using existing infrastructure in the city core
It is a non-sustainable project as people will have to get into their cars to buy simple things like milk and bread
This goes against the city’s support of reducing urban sprawl
This will require cutting access to Gallagher Road which provides access to the farms in the area
It is bringing more housing up against the farmland
It is spreading more hard surfaces and concrete which results in urban runoff
It is paving over land that can be used for agriculture such as grazing
It is introducing more housing into the ALR
It is sending a message that the city supports putting housing in the ALR
It is referring to the ALR as the suburbs
Rural areas are the least populated areas; suburban areas have a larger population than ruralareas. These two living areas are very different from one another.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. I have been to the area. I have noted there is no report from the city’s Agricultural Advisory Committee

Best regards,

Susan Ames

1833 Abbott Street

Kelowna

KSAN’s Request for a Review

KSAN

Dear Mayor and Council,

We know that this pandemic has caused great stress and concern to all of you, your family and friends and we appreciate that. We sent you the email below last weekend in which we discuss irregularities and misinformation related to the Groves House (409 Park) which has resulted in the rapid issuing of the demolition permit. We asked below that you have another look at this project if not to stop this rapid demolition, then to question and review how this was managed so this will not happen again. KSAN feels obligated to bring this to your attention as it affects our community and as well, the reputation of City Hall. We are very interested in your response to our concerns described below and look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,

Susan Ames, MSc, PhD

On behalf of the KSAN Board

RE: Demolition permit issued March 4th, 2019 for 409 Park (Groves house)

KSAN

Dear Mayor Basran and Members of Council,

Thank you, Mayor Basran, for your response to my February 25^th email, sent on behalf of KSAN, the day after Council voted to take the house at 409 Park off the Heritage Register as a first step towards demolition. KSAN’s February 25th email (copied below) was concerned with the statement that Council could not stop the demolition and this would occur within 60 days no matter what.

According to Section 8.5, a review of Bylaw 11185 indicates the HAP required for demolition and the building permit would have to come back to Council. We have confirmed with Planning staff that the 60 days is for homes outside of the Heritage Conservation Area. In fact, Section 8.11 states that if Council refuses the HAP, the applicant would have to wait 6 months before reapplying.

Our response to your email has been delayed as we were reviewing the bylaw in detail and communicating with Planning staff. However, we just found out the authorization for a demolition permit without the HAP, was given on March 2 to the Permitting Department- just five business days following the Council meeting, the same day as your email below. We are shocked as this is contrary to your email below where you state:

“In terms of next steps for 409 Park Avenue, staff are working with the applicant to advance the Heritage Alteration Permit (HAP) for the new build in conjunction with the demolition permit. The Heritage Advisory Committee (HAC) will have an opportunity to review the HAP for new build, as per the standard process. The HAC provides a recommendation to staff on the HAP for the new build. “

You wrote this the same day the Community Planning Department Manager authorized the Demolition Permit without the HAP. (The Demolition Permit was issued two days later on March 4th).

You also quote Section 10.3 in the same email:

“ The Building Inspector may not withhold the issuance of a Building Permit for the demolition or alteration of Protected Heritage Property or a building included in the Heritage Register where the demolition or alteration is reasonably required to mitigate a hazard to public safety.”

and

“In this case, the applicant submitted several technical reports that were authored by registered professionals in the related disciplines that arrived at conclusions deeming the building unsafe and structurally unsound.”

Planning staff have indicated that Section 10.3 related to “a hazard to public safety”, is the reason that on March 2^nd, the Community Planning Department Manager authorized demolition without the HAP and not going through the next steps you describe above. Planning staff at the Council meeting and in their report supported removal from the Heritage Register for a few reasons including the house wasn’t protected and “Moreover, the structural deficiencies that were identified in the reports impedes the long-term functionality of the house”. How did the house go from long term functionality to being “a hazard to public safety” using the same engineering report and letter from the same engineer? How did it go right to demolition without a HAP in 5 business days? (For clarification to the above statement, the applicant submitted only one technical report authored by one engineer).

Further, on February 24^th, a Planner told Council that demolition could not occur before an application was made to the Province to remove the house from the Register so how can a demolition permit be issued without this?

This whole exercise appears to be set in misinformation at the Council meeting and failure to follow the bylaw and other requirements in order to achieve rapid demolition, and without following the next steps you describe. How can we have faith in what you have said below and how the Planning Department has operated after this?

We have reviewed the information on the house and the engineering report and the letter and have concluded this is a travesty to a home in the Abbott Heritage Conservation Area. Please see our comments below.

409 Park Groves House – House Condition

This is what we are losing:

A well maintained heritage house in the Heritage Conservation Area that was sold in December, 2018. At the time of sale, the house had a recent roof (with a $7,500 city grant), furnace, water main and sewer, appliances, and cork and hardwood flooring. It had tiered brick patios and lovely landscaping. (See photos below).

Engineering Report

KSAN has some issues with how the engineering report has been interpreted and the report itself. Yes, the owners hired an engineer, Mr. Anderson. The owners removed all of the lath and plaster in the interior and went down to the studs, as can be seen in the photos below, which allowed Mr. Anderson to examine the structure of home.

Mr. Anderson submitted a report and letter that stated there were issues with the roof and foundation. He summarized this by stating:

“rectification of these defects in neither practical nor fiscally viable” (letter dated November 28^th, 2019). It seems from this statement, these defects can be rectified especially with the open access to the structure. This indicates the push to demolition may not have been necessary.

Mr. Anderson also stated:

“this house is not an important heritage asset that must be saved” (letter dated November 28^th, 2019). This is open to interpretation.
“In my opinion this roof structure is unsafe and would be vulnerable to serious deformation, or even collapse, under full snow load.” (Structural Report, Sept 6, 2019). (This roof was replaced in 2017 and has not collapsed yet). The house has been standing for 110 years and the old roof never collapsed either with snow or any other condition. An addition was added in 1995 and that was 25 years ago and the roof did not collapse. The roof is certainly not going to receive a full snow load now when we are going into spring.
“The existing foundation system is structurally inadequate and in contravention of the Building Code. The foundation system could not be upgraded to satisfy the code and will therefore need to be completely replaced”. (Structural Report, Sept 6, 2019).

Mr. Anderson stated in his report that he only addressed the older parts of the house leaving out the 1995 addition. The parts he refers to are from 110 years ago, 81 years ago, and 72 years ago. According to the BC Building Code :

Existing buildings: Generally speaking, buildings should conform to the version of the BC Building Code in force when they were constructed. Existing buildings are not automatically required to be upgraded when codes change. (January 2020).

It seems that the foundation does not have to be upgraded to satisfy today’s code.

Mr. Anderson further states: “Although it is technically possible to structurally upgrade the load-bearing walls and 2nd floor structure, it is advised that this is considered impractical in the context that both the foundation system and roof structure need to be replaced in their entireties.” The above information suggests that the foundation and roof do not have to be replaced and, in Mr. Anderson’s own words, can be rectified.

Mr. Anderson uses words such as impractical and not fiscally viable to support demolition. With demolition, the newer roof, newer flooring, lath and plaster, wiring, wood framing, exterior walls, windows and window frames, doors, counter tops, kitchen cabinets, etc. will end in the landfill rather than fixing a well maintained home. This attitude to support demolition of a well maintained house is the kind of generation of waste we are trying to get away from. It goes against preserving and maintaining houses generally and specifically heritage houses in the Heritage Conservation Area rather than tearing them down.

In summary, the bylaws have not been followed and misinformation has been provided which is going to result in the demolition of a well-maintained, well known heritage house in the Heritage Conservation Area and sending it to the landfill in itself wasteful, with a large negative environmental impact. This is an assault on the preservation of heritage. In future, such a travesty should not occur again. In light of this information, the demolition must be stopped until there is a thorough review of the evidence used to support the demolition.

Please do not hesitate to contact or call me (778-688-8077).

Regards,

Susan Ames, MSc, PhD

KSAN Secretary and Board Member

On behalf of KSAN

RE: 409 Park February 24th Council meeting

KSAN

Hello Mayor and Council,

I sat in the afternoon council meeting yesterday afternoon (Monday, January 24^th) related to the application to remove the Groves House (409 Park) from the heritage register as a first step in its demolition.

It was stated by the planner and I believe the Mayor, that no matter if council voted for this deregistering or not, it would make no difference and council could not stop this nor its demolition. Council could stop the deregistering of the house by voting against this which some of you did. Demolition can also be stopped. Demolition and renovations types of activities in the Heritage Conservation Area follow a specific process. These are described in the document: The Abbott Street and Marshall Street Heritage Conservation Areas Development Guidelines. The last paragraph (underlined) is key:

Minor Heritage Alteration Permits

Applicants must obtain a Minor Heritage Alteration Permit, prior to or in conjunction with the

issuance of a Building Permit for the following development activities:

– demolition or removal of a building;

– construction of a new building

– structural changes to the exterior of an existing building.

In addition to the above, applicants must obtain a Building Permit for new construction prior

to or in conjunction with the issuance of a Building Permit for demolition or removal of a

building.

Minor Heritage Alteration Permit applications will be circulated to the Community Heritage

Commission for comments and if there are no items requiring modifications, the Permit may

be issued by the Director of Planning and Development Services.

The Heritage Advisory Committee is part of the process. The demolition can be stopped when the HAP is circulated to the Heritage Advisory Committee and if they do not approve the HAP. If this occurs, the permit is not issued by the Director of Planning and Development Services. Without the permit, the demolition of this house cannot go ahead. This is the process to prevent the demolition of heritage houses at a whim.

I hope this is helpful.

Best regards,

Susan Ames, MSC, PhD

KSAN Secretary

Susan Ames Sustainability Group

Kelowna – Working for a more sustainable community – join me!

City of Kelowna Correspondence

Candidates for 2022

Proposed Parkinson Rec Centre Council Meeting January 17, 2022

Proposed Costco Project

Educating the Public re Pandosy

Monday November 23 AM Council Meeting OCP Topic Heritage Conservation Areas at Great Risk

RE: OCP future plans and HCA – Presentation on Monday September 14, 2020

374 Park additional information

RE: 374 Park Avenue Rezoning Application

RE: 374 Park RU1 to RU6 August 10th 2020

RE: 374 Park RU1 to RU6 August 10th 2020

Letter re 409 Park Avenue Proposal

2980 Gallagher Road Public Hearing June 23rd 2020

KSAN’s Request for a Review

RE: Demolition permit issued March 4th, 2019 for 409 Park (Groves house)

RE: 409 Park February 24th Council meeting

Susan Ames <s_ames@telus.net>	Wed, Mar 27, 2024, 9:18 AM
to Tom

Susan Ames <s_ames@telus.net>	Jan 16, 2022, 8:28 PM
to Mayor, Brad, Charlie, Ryan, Luke, Gail, Maxine, Mohini, Loyal, bcc: Dean, bcc: Jan, bcc: Garth, bcc: Pat, bcc: Terra, bcc: Christopher, bcc: Ralph, bcc: Mark, bcc: Carol, bcc: VALERIE, bcc: Richard

Susan Ames <s_ames@telus.net>	Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 7:27 PM
to mayorandcouncil

Susan Ames <s_ames@telus.net>	Sat, Nov 21, 2020, 10:46 AM
to Ryan, Mayor, bcc: Paul

Susan Ames <s_ames@telus.net>	Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 9:02 AM
to mdehart, rdonn, ggiven, chodge, bsieben, msingh, woolridge, cbasran, bcc: Don, bcc: P, bcc: VALERIE, bcc: Erica, bcc: Gordon, bcc: Dean, bcc: WAYNE, bcc: Marilea, bcc: Azha, bcc: Ian

Susan Ames <s_ames@telus.net>	Sun, Sep 13, 2020, 2:44 PM
to 9790187@mailid.telus.net, azha, Dean, ericabl, Gordon, Margaret, Pat-Peter, me

Susan Ames <s_ames@telus.net>	Sat, Aug 29, 2020, 11:21 PM
to chodge, msingh, lwoolridge, lstack, mayorandcouncil, mdehart, bsieben, rdonn

Susan Ames <s_ames@telus.net>	Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 2:12 PM
to mdehart, rdonn, ggiven, chodge, bsieben, msingh, lstack, lwoolridge, mayorandcouncil, Pat-Peter, Margaret, Gordon, ericabl, Dean, Marilea, azha

Susan Ames <s_ames@telus.net>	Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 2:26 PM
to mdehart, rdonn, ggiven, chodge, bsieben, msingh, lstack, lwoolridge

Susan Ames <s_ames@telus.net>	Sun, Aug 9, 2020, 2:31 PM
to mdehart, rdonn, ggiven, chodge, bsieben, msingh, lstack, lwoolridge, ericabl, Pat-Peter, Margaret, Dean, Gordon, azha, Marilea

Susan Ames <s_ames@telus.net>	Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 9:19 AM
to cityclerk

Susan Ames <s_ames@telus.net>	Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 12:29 PM
to mdehart, rdonn, ggiven, chodge, bsieben, msingh, lstack, lwoolridge, mayorandcouncil, Dean, ericabl, Margaret, Pat-Peter, azha, Marilea, Gordon

s_ames@telus.net <s_ames@telus.net>	Sat, Mar 21, 2020, 12:47 PM
to mdehart, rdonn, ggiven, chodge, bsieben, msingh, lstack, lwoolridge, mayorandcouncil, Dean, ericabl, joanne, Gordon, Margaret, Pat-Peter

s_ames@telus.net <s_ames@telus.net>	Sun, Mar 15, 2020, 10:26 AM
to mdehart, rdonn, ggiven, chodge, bsieben, msingh, lstack, lwoolridge, mayorandcouncil, Laurie, Dean, ericabl, joanne, Gordon, Margaret, Pat-Peter, me

s_ames@telus.net <s_ames@telus.net>	Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 1:27 PM
to mayorandcouncil, mdehart, rdonn, ggiven, chodge, bsieben, msingh, lstack, lwoolridge, ericabl, Dean, Pat, joanne, Margaret, Carol, Lauren