Sad news about a large retail sprawl development for the Salmon River floodplain…

SmartCentres approved in 5-2 vote by council
Salmon Arm Observer
By Lachlan Labere
July 26, 2010

City council has approved the necessary amendments for the SmartCentres proposal to proceed.

The final vote was five two, with Mayor Marty Bootsma in favour along with Couns. Kevin Flynn, Chad Eliason, Debbie Cannon and Alan Harrison. Opposed were Couns. Ivan Idzan and Ken Jamieson. Only for an amendment to an amendment, to limit the footprint of the anchor tenant to 116,000 square-feet, did council vote in favour.

After hearing from more than 350 presenters (excluding letters written on people’s behalf) in four public hearings last week, tonight (Monday) it was council’s turn to make a decision. With the bar raised so high by so many who spoke in favour or against, council did not cheat audience with a simple yea or nay.

Bootsma spoke first, stating up front that he would support the proposed amendment to the official community plan, various zoning amendments and the phased development agreement. He said the debate boiled down to location and economics. Regarding location, he credited the developer for getting approval prior to third reading from the Ministry of Environment (MOE) and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), which was not the case when the developer’s previous proposal went before council in 2008. As for economics, he said the downtown would not be hurt by the development, and though it would have a negative impact on some businesses, it would have a positive impact on others while providing the city with substantial tax revenue to help pay for services desired by Salmon Arm residents.

Speaking to the perceived division the developer has created in the community, Flynn said that SmartCentres cannot divide the community, but actions and reactions do. And, after stating his intention to vote yes, he went on to explain why. He referenced words that came up throughout the hearings such as ‘pristine’ and ‘paradise,’ and said the part of the SmartCentres property that’s to be developed is neither. He said the location, at 30th and 30th, would help prevent highway commercial sprawl. He also corrected the repeated reference to the property as developable land. Instead, he said it is technically called brownfield redevelopment, referring to property that once was the home of past activities but now sits abandoned, vacant, derelict or underutilized.

Cannon thanked the Wetland Alliance: The Ecological Response (WA:TER) for their persistence, and for revealing the high water mark in the developer’s original qualified environmental professional’s report to be flawed. She admitted she was wrong to vote in favour of the development in 2008. But this time she was in favour. She said her decision, and council’s, was not about lakeshore development or wetlands, or the potential tenant and how much their employees will be paid, but about land use, and was supportive of the 30 acres that the developer will be preserving as agricultural land.

Eliason championed Salmon Arm, and stated that no matter the financial engine of the community, people will continue to move to the city. He credited the pro-development group for forming and the various groups on the no side for the education they provided. He later argued that council, or future councils, need address density options for development in the downtown core, look at making land available in the downtown area for Okanagan College, and work towards attracting clean, green industry to the community. However, he said the city does need revenue to support the various programs citizens want and that commercial growth is how the city funds these initiatives.

With Eliason sealing the deal in favour, about a quarter of the audience upped and left. Harrison was not deterred, however, and proceeded with his speech in favour of the amendments. He began by stating that he did not support the development in 2008 and felt it was a prudent decision. This time around, however, he said the new proposal has been highly scrutinized by MOE and DFO, and that it will not have the same impact. He challenged other suggested locations, stating they would not fit (referring to the Jackson property), or do significant environmental damage. As for economics, the typically prudent councillor said the development may not be a saviour in itself, but would serve as a catalyst.

Idzan revealed how difficult the debate has been for him. He credited presentations made by both sides, stating it’s a sign of how Salmon Arm is maturing as a community. He questioned foreseeable infrastructure costs related to the highway that Salmon Arm residents might eventually be on the hook for, and expressed his concern for past mistakes made on the property, and the developer benefitting from those mistakes.

Like Eliason, Ken Jamieson argued that Salmon Arm is a town that’s growing, and provided StatsCanada figures to advance this case. He listed all the various elements he and council have had to consider from the public hearings, ranging from the relationship between the city and its neighbouring First Nations bands, to hiring practices to Chinese cockroaches. And while he agreed with comments from presenters of both the yes and no persuasion, he could not vote in favour. For one reason, he stated the city’s relationship with First Nations is already strained, and that apart from meeting the minimum requirements of an OCP process, the city has had no discussion of substance with either the Neskonlith or Adam’s Lake bands. Jamieson then cited portions of the city’s official community plan, and concluded that voting against the proposal in no way represents a moratorium on development, but that it does not meet with the guidelines of the OCP.