On 30 September 2026, CONC’s Conservation Committee emailed three conservation-related questions to candidates running in Kelowna’s municipal election. The email was sent to two mayoral candidates (Tom Dyas and Ron Cannan) and to 37 persons running for City Council. We indicated we would circulate all answers received by 9 October to our members as well as disseminating them through our website. This email serves to distribute the results to our CONC members. The municipal election is on 17 October.

The three questions were the following:

1) City Council is considering a major long-term development of the North Glenmore area, to include thousands of new homes in a currently pristine natural area. What is your position on this development proposal?

2) What is your stance on the proposed extension of Clement Avenue?

3) The City of Kelowna has recently allowed developments that could compromise some of our most important natural habitats. E.g., the extension of Burtch Road through Munson Pond Park and the rezoning to industrial of half of the Kelowna Springs Golf Course (adjacent to an important natural wetlands complex). How will you facilitate mitigation of anticipated impacts from these development proposals and help ensure that future planning decisions do not compromise the integrity of our green spaces, especially our extremely diminished valley bottom riparian and wetland habitats?

We received a response from Ron Cannan running for mayor and from nine candidates for City Council (DeHart, Dhial, Fraser, Grewal, Kraft, Kyle, Lovegrove, Pinter, and Rathwell). We provide their responses below, in alphabetical order for the City Council candidates. We’d like to thank all the candidates who took the time to respond. All the responses showed that thoughtful consideration had been given to our questions.

In addition to the responses sent to CONC, please check out other sources who could help understand the platforms of the candidates, especially their own websites. A group working against the Clement Extension (https://www.savetherailtrailgreenspace.ca) has done their own survey of the candidates’ positions. You might also find it useful to consult https://vote.oksoundsfun.com/ which provides a helpful overview of all the candidates and of the election itself.

 

Candidate: Ron Cannan (for mayor)

Question 1 on North Glenmore Development: Kelowna needs housing, but where and how we grow matters. Before committing to major development in North Glenmore, I want a clear understanding of the environmental, infrastructure, transportation and financial impacts. Sensitive ecosystems, wildlife corridors and natural areas should be identified and protected early in the planning process, while also considering opportunities for responsible growth within our existing urban areas.

Question 2 on Clement Avenue extension: I recognize the need for improved east-west transportation as Kelowna grows, but the Clement Avenue extension must be evaluated carefully for its environmental, neighbourhood and financial impacts. I support completing the necessary analysis and protecting the Okanagan Rail Trail while determining whether the project provides a clear long-term benefit to residents.

Question 3 on finding the right balance between development and green space conservation: Kelowna’s remaining wetlands, riparian areas and valley-bottom ecosystems are increasingly valuable and difficult to replace once lost. For existing projects, environmental mitigation commitments should be measurable, transparent and monitored. Going forward, I support identifying sensitive habitat early, using strong environmental assessments, appropriate buffers and conservation measures, and listening to environmental experts before development decisions are made. Responsible growth and environmental stewardship should go hand in hand.

 

Candidate: Maxine DeHart (for City Council)

Question 1 on North Glenmore Development: The North Glenmore Sector Study is NOT YET A DEVELOPMENT PLAN. It is a long-term a planning exercise with much more work required on the environmental constraints, parks, transportation, water, sewer, capacity, infrastructure costs and phasing. I recognize the concerns of the Central Okanagan Naturalist Club, and I do also have concerns, and I share the belief that we have a responsibility to protect the natural environment that makes Kelowna such a special place to live.  North Glenmore has been identified in our OCP as an area for long-term study, and I believe it is only appropriate to continue the process. But continuing to plan for growth does not mean approving the development of every acre.  This has been shown as council has had other large development proposals in the city that have not been approved, with thousands of homes that were attached to the Regional District and City called Kelowna Mountain, which was a 640-acre resort/residential development. The project ran into significant opposition and regulatory issues with the RDCO. I did not vote for that project. It stands in bare land today. Development should be concentrated in appropriate areas rather than simply spreading across the landscape. I would not support a blank cheque for development.

Question 2 on Clement Avenue extension: I feel we need to take another very serious look at the Clement Avenue extension. This project was envisioned many years ago, when development patterns, traffic demands and financial circumstances of our community were very different, even in 2011 when I was first elected. Today the estimated cost of the Spall Road to Highway 33 portion is approx. $210M and that is way to a significant investment for taxpayers. I am not dismissed the benefits of this extension, but when a project of this magnitude has increased so significantly in cost, I believe Council has a responsibility to step back and ask: Is this still the best investment for Kelowna today? I am not prepared to proceed because it was planned years ago.

Question 3 on finding the right balance between development and green space conservation: I take the protection of Kelowna’s natural areas very seriously, particularly our remaining valley-bottom, riparian and wetland habitats. These are irreplaceable asset, and once they are lost, we cannot simply create them somewhere else.

I cannot comment on Kelowna Springs as I have consistently excused myself from this item in Council.  The owners of the Ramada Hotel where I am employed own two other major golf courses in Kelowna that I am very involved in. They own land abutting the Kelowna Springs Golf Course.

With respect to Munson Pond, which I frequent regularly, and also was involved in a friend who has a significant foundation that wanted to invest in the pond area, it is important to recognize that the city has taken significant environments steps. The Burtch Road project went through an environments impact assessment (that is a provincial law). The road was designed more than 100 meters from the pond, and mitigation measure have been incorporated to protect wildlife and enhance habitat. Some of those suggestions came directly from the public, and the city incorporated those great suggestions. I always support rigorous environmental assessments, appropriate setback and buffers (that is always a question of mine at council), protection of riparian and wetland area and a strong “not net loss” approach to environmentally sensitive habitat.

On another note, my father-in-law Victor DeHart was a long-time orchardist on DeHart Road.  He and our family were always very protective of land in the area, especially down Swamp Road. I learned much from him.

 

Candidate: Indy Dhial (for City Council)

Question 1 on North Glenmore Development: I support responsible growth, but I would not support large scale development in North Glenmore without clear evidence that it is the right long term decision for our city. We need to prioritize growth within our existing areas first, while protecting environmentally sensitive and agricultural areas. Before supporting expansion, I would need to see the environmental impact, water availability, transportation plan, infrastructure costs, and who would pay for them.

Kelowna needs housing, but growth has to be responsible, well planned, and protect what makes the Okanagan special.

Question 2 on Clement Avenue extension: I support the Clement Avenue extension in principle because Kelowna needs better east to west connectivity and an alternative to Highway 97 as our city grows. However, I would expect the final design to protect the Okanagan Rail Trail and minimize impacts on Mill Creek and surrounding natural areas. Major infrastructure projects need to protect the environmental and ensure tax payer dollars are spent wisely.

If we are going to build it, we need to build it thoughtfully and make sure it provides long-term value for the community.

Question 3 on finding the right balance between development and green space conservation: Kelowna needs to grow, but we must be careful not to lose the natural spaces that make our community special. For projects near wetlands, creeks and parks, I would support early environmental reviews, meaningful input from local conservation groups, strong natural buffers and practical measures such as native planting, wildlife crossings and protection of natural drainage. Where impacts cannot be avoided, there should be a clear restoration plan and follow-up monitoring to ensure the commitments are actually met.

 

Candidate: Julia Fraser (for City Council)

Question 1 on North Glenmore Development: I have significant concerns about opening a large new area of North Glenmore to development without first understanding the full environmental, infrastructure and financial consequences. The City’s own Official Community Plan has emphasized concentrating growth within the existing growth boundary in part to protect agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands and reduce costly urban sprawl.

The North Glenmore area is currently being studied for potential long-term growth, and the City-led planning process is expected to continue in 2027.  Before I could support development there, I would want comprehensive environmental mapping, protection of wildlife corridors, wetlands and sensitive ecosystems, a clear infrastructure and transportation plan, and meaningful public consultation. Growth should not come at the expense of irreplaceable natural areas.

Question 2 on Clement Avenue extension: I recognize the need to address Kelowna’s growing transportation challenges, but I would not give the Clement Avenue extension a blank cheque. The first segment, from Spall Road to Highway 33, is currently in the functional-design stage.

Before supporting construction, I would want to see the environmental impacts, costs, route alternatives and mitigation measures clearly presented to Council and the public. Transportation planning should include transit, cycling and pedestrian infrastructure rather than simply adding vehicle capacity. Where a transportation corridor could affect wetlands, wildlife habitat or other sensitive areas, those impacts need to be identified early and avoiding them should be the first priority.

Question 3 on finding the right balance between development and green space conservation: Once a wetland, riparian corridor or important wildlife habitat is lost, it can be extremely difficult—sometimes impossible—to recreate. Munson Pond illustrates why this matters: the City itself identifies its black cottonwood/water birch ecological community as endangered and among the rarest ecological communities in British Columbia.

I would support stronger environmental assessment early in the planning process, clearly identified no-development or protected areas, meaningful buffers around wetlands and riparian habitats, wildlife corridors, and independent environmental expertise where warranted. The hierarchy should be to avoid environmental damage first, minimize unavoidable impacts second, and mitigate or restore only when impacts truly cannot be avoided.

I also believe Council needs to look at the cumulative impact of its decisions. One development may appear manageable in isolation, but successive losses of wetlands, mature trees, wildlife corridors and natural areas can fundamentally change our valley.

Regarding Kelowna Springs, I would not have supported the recent redesignation and rezoning of a portion of the property for industrial development. Council advanced that rezoning in March 2026.  Economic development is important, but so is recognizing the ecological value of land adjacent to wetlands and ensuring that environmental protection is given meaningful weight when Council makes land-use decisions.

Kelowna will continue to grow. Our responsibility is to ensure that we do not look back 20 years from now and realize that, in accommodating that growth, we lost the very natural assets that made our community worth protecting.

 

Candidate: Bal Grewal (for City Council)

Question 1 on North Glenmore Development: I am against major suburban sprawl into pristine natural areas in North Glenmore. With that stated, I do see development increasing in North Glenmore as demand increases and density constricts our infrastructure.

Currently, Glenmore Road and surrounding infrastructure are already heavily congested. Adding thousands of homes without pre-funded, expanded roads, transit, and schools will create severe gridlock.  In my opinion, growth should be directed toward infill along established transit corridors and existing town centers, rather than expanding suburban sprawl into pristine natural areas.

Question 2 on Clement Avenue extension: I support the Clement Avenue extension in principle, provided it includes strong environmental and neighborhood protections.  It needs to incorporate vital traffic relief, protect agriculture and sensitive lands, and neighborhood protection (ie. Noise pollution, bike crossings, traffic calming measures).

Question 3 on finding the right balance between development and green space conservation: I will prioritize ecological protection, mandatory buffers, and a “no-net-loss” policy for sensitive habitats:

• Wetland & Riparian Buffers: Establish non-negotiable, expanded setback buffers around critical valley-bottom wetlands and riparian areas like Munson Pond and Kelowna Springs to protect biodiversity and natural drainage.
• Promote a “No-Net-Loss” Environmental Standard: Require any municipal or private project near sensitive habitats to adhere to a strict no-net-loss policy—mandating habitat restoration, land offsets, and replacement wetlands before development proceeds.
• Protect Green Spaces from Industrial Rezoning: Oppose converting key green spaces, golf courses, and agricultural buffers adjacent to wetlands into heavy industrial zones, prioritizing ecological integrity over short-term land conversion.
• Strengthen OCP Environmental Designations: Seek to update the Official Community Plan (OCP) to permanently classify remaining valley-bottom wetlands and natural corridors as protected conservation areas.

 

Candidate: Kevin Kraft (for City Council)

Question 1 on North Glenmore Development: I am supportive of the plan, provided it prioritizes the right types of attainable housing and responsible community development. I want to see communities, neighbourhoods and families putting down long-term roots here in the Valley, supported by the infrastructure needed to accommodate growth. Development should also respect surrounding environmental areas and include strong fire-smart planning, mitigation and emergency access. Thoughtful planning can help us provide more housing opportunities while protecting the natural environment and building a safe, livable community for the future.

Question 2 on Clement Avenue extension: I support improving Kelowna’s roadway network to better serve vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians, but major infrastructure projects need to demonstrate that they will achieve the desired outcomes. With the proposed Clement Avenue extension, I would want to understand whether this is the right location, the costs involved, and how it will improve overall traffic flow and connectivity. It will take some convincing and clear evidence that the project provides value for taxpayers and meaningfully improves transportation in the area

Question 3 on finding the right balance between development and green space conservation: I support the Munson Pond roadway expansion, but I am opposed to the Kelowna Springs rezoning and associated land-swap decision. I believe future planning decisions need to carefully balance growth with protecting our remaining green spaces, wetlands and riparian areas. I would also support exploring opportunities to acquire lands that could allow the Mission Creek wetlands to re-establish. As a member of the OBWB, I take wetland protection, environmental planning and responsible development very seriously.

 

Candidate: Davis Kyle (for City Council)

Question 1 on North Glenmore Development: As the former vice-chair of the Planning Advisory Committee for the RDCO, a co-founder of the Strong Towns Kelowna group, and longtime friend of organizations like the Kelowna Climate Coalition and Kelowna Tree Protectors, I take this issue very seriously. I think there is a substantial difference between the North Glenmore study, which I support, and the Thompson Flats and other low-density suburban sprawl in the Mission, which I oppose.

I am supportive of concentric, high-density, mixed-use and transit-oriented development clusters on the North Glenmore lands with strong transit connectivity to downtown and the airport via signal-prioritized BRT (bus rapid transit) buses, bus lanes, and ATC connections. These concentric zones with strong containment boundaries should facilitate lower housing costs and better commutes for many Kelowna residents. I think of them as urban centres with strict growth rings and a perimeter park buffer to wild lands, not as low-density car-centric development.

Kelowna is continuing to expand employment opportunities at YLW with new investment in the east lands. Creating high-density, walkable development patterns that are entirely dissimilar from the existing McKinley lands will service major employment hubs and provide connectivity to nature in the area.

I am not in favour of development of most of the lands, and have expectations for greenways, parkways and paths in order to make this development different from what has been offered in the rest of Kelowna.

Refusing any new housing in these areas will create leapfrog single-family sprawl opportunities for Lake Country and Vernon. We also need to be mindful of the commutes that people will have if they are forced to live in less transit oriented communities, or further from the airport and university.

Question 2 on Clement Avenue extension: As a Procurement & Contract Management professional who has built infrastructure projects like road improvements, the cost of the Clement extension is staggering. $210 million for 2.1 kilometres of road is an unacceptably high price to pay.

The role of city council is to think of opportunity costs, that a dollar spent on one project cannot be spent elsewhere. 25 high-quality roundabouts similar to the new Rutland/Springfield and KLO roundabouts could be built for $100 million. The remaining portion should be placed into street urbanizations, including sidewalks, curb, gutter, and street trees, in core area neighbourhoods, along with transit signal priority on all key routes and protected bike lane projects along key corridors.

The #1 transportation infrastructure lobbying project for Kelowna should be the new transit yard. We cannot run any more buses than we currently do, or expand HandyDart as we should, without a new facility. That should be the focus of our transportation lobbying, along with alternate municipal funding models for infrastructure that do not drive up the cost of housing, and which could defray the interest costs of infrastructure borrowing through bonded infrastructure financing. I am bewildered that we still don’t have a direct bus from downtown to the airport, and I will work to lobby on higher-order transit (BRT/LRT) between Westbank town centre and the university/airport.

Question 3 on finding the right balance between development and green space conservation: At this point, these decisions are made and cannot be undone by any mayor and council.

I am focused on transportation projects that will not fail from induced demand, mitigation through careful planning based on lot coverage and the expansion of Kelowna’s urban tree canopy, and protection of riparian zones through improved park access along Okanagan Lake and various creeks in our community. While council cannot bind future councils from undoing decisions, designated park spaces, refusing to rezone any other golf courses for non-golf use, and careful implementation of Kelowna’s urban forestry strategy can help us move forward.

In the future, I would like to take inspiration from the “Superblocks” of Barcelona, Parklet and Park reclamations in Paris for urban greening and Dutch multimodal infrastructure designs. Building out our tree canopy, improving our zoning and OCP, all while improving housing affordability and lowering unemployment through careful tax and permitting policies, are all simultaneously possible if done correctly.

 

Candidate: Gordon Lovegrove (for City Council)

Question 1 on North Glenmore Development: AS A SITTING INCUMBENT COUNCILLOR, I OPPOSED IT FROM THE START.

Question 2 on Clement Avenue extension: A WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY.  OVER $100 MILLION/KM – 10 TIMES THE COST OF TYPICAL ARTERIAL ROAD.  ROAD TO NO WHERE.  THINK OF THE OPPORTUNITY COST – WE COULD USE THAT MONEY TO DOUBLE OUR TRANSIT FLEET FOR THE ENTIRE CITY.  OR USE IT TO BUILD A DEMONSTRATION SECTOR OF THE VALLEY RAIL TO STIMULATE & DIVERSIFY THE LOCAL ECONOMY.  A COUNCIL PRIORITY IS TO LOOK AT IMPROVED DOWNTOWN TO AIRPORT TRANSPORT SERVICE, WHICH THIS DEMONSTRATION WOULD DO.  THE CLEMENT CONNECTOR DOES NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH BENEFIT.  IT IMPACTS OUR CEMETARY, OUR MILL CREEK, AND NEW DILWORTH HOUSING.  WHAT A SHAME.

Question 3 on finding the right balance between development and green space conservation: ENSURE IS TOO STRONG A WORD; I AM ONLY 1 OF 9 VOICES ON COUNCIL.  BUT I WILL CONTINUE TO PUSH AS I DID IN OPPOSTING BOTH OF THESE BURTCH ROAD AND KELOWNA SPRINGS DEVELOPMENTS.  YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT WHILE MY OPPOSITION DID NOT RESULT IN STOPPING BURTCH ROAD, I WAS SUCCESSFUL IN GET IT LOWERED A BIT AND THE EXCAVATED MATERIALS USED TO CREATE EARTH BERMS ON BOTH SIDES TO REDUCE NOISE INTRUSION INTO THE MUNSON POND ESA AND HOUSING. I WILL CONTINUE TO PUSH FOR STRONGER ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS ON CAPITAL PROJECTS, AND MUCH MORE, MUCH EARLIER RESIDENT INPUT INTO THE CAPITAL PLANNING & DESIGN PROCESS.   ALSO, WE ARE DUE TO AN OCP UPDATE SO GET READY AND SHOW UP PLEASE!!!!!!

 

Candidate: Brian Pinter (for City Council)

Question 1 on North Glenmore Development: While accommodating inevitable growth in Kelowna is essential, it must be done responsibly and with respect for our natural environment and agricultural lands.

I believe any proposed development in North Glenmore must explicitly integrate environmental stewardship from the start – specifically ensuring that key wildlife migration routes and critical wintering grounds are mapped, respected, and protected within the planning process. The protection of critical wildlife corridors and wintering grounds (just look at the development in the Upper Mission) is explicitly addressed in my campaign platform.

Rather than relying so heavily on expansion into sensitive habitat, our primary focus should be gently increasing density along existing transportation corridors where municipal infrastructure is already in place. Growth and conservation do not have to be mutually exclusive; with thoughtful planning, we can address housing needs while keeping the protection of critical natural habitats and agricultural land at the heart of the proposal.

Question 2 on Clement Avenue extension: Honestly, this is one of the most complex infrastructure decisions facing Kelowna, and it’s one I struggle with deeply.

On one hand, gridlock isn’t just an inconvenience – it’s a major economic and quality-of-life issue. Congestion hits families trying to get home for dinner, small businesses delivering goods (that’s me), and emergency responders navigating our streets. The need for real, tangible traffic relief in Kelowna is undeniable.

On the other hand, a price tag exceeding $210 million for Segment 1 alone presents an immense financial risk to local taxpayers, especially when paired with the permanent loss of sensitive wildlands along Mill Creek.

My concerns are two-fold:

1. The Cost of Action: Spending this level of municipal capital on a single two-lane corridor risks locking up our transportation budget while degrading natural habitats and key green spaces like the Okanagan Rail Trail corridor.
2. The Risk of Inaction: Lower-cost alternatives – like signal timing, localized intersection fixes, or incremental transit upgrades – might simply prove to be band-aids that fail to have meaningful impact, leaving us right back where we started five years down the road when the cost of the project have increased even more.

I cannot support committing $210 million of taxpayer money to this extension unless senior levels of government step up with substantial funding partnerships, and unless strict environmental guarantees protect the Mill Creek ecosystem.

Until those guarantees exist, our priority must be maximizing traffic flow on the infrastructure we already have – pushing for grade separations on Highway 97 bottlenecks, optimizing major east-west arterials like Enterprise and Springfield, and delivering rapid transit options that actually give commuters a viable choice.

Question 3 on finding the right balance between development and green space conservation: We need a pragmatic approach that balances city growth with protecting the natural spaces we can’t afford to lose.

For active projects near Burtch Road and Kelowna Springs, my focus is on strict mitigation: mandating real buffer zones, shielding runoff, and ensuring critical wildlife migration routes are actively protected during and after development.

Looking ahead, critical natural habitats – especially our vulnerable valley-bottom wetlands – must be accounted for at the very start of the planning process. Future development should gently increase density along existing transportation corridors where infrastructure already exists, ensuring protection of critical natural habitat is a core requirement of any new proposal, period.

 

Candidate: J. C. Rathwell (for City Council)

Question 1 on North Glenmore Development: I recognize that Kelowna needs more housing, including single-family and other ground-oriented homes suitable for families. However, I do not support giving final approval to development in North Glenmore until the City completes a much more detailed, transparent and genuinely public planning process.

The current concept could eventually accommodate approximately 13,000 homes and 30,000 residents across six neighbourhoods. The area covers roughly 4,000 acres and is presently outside Kelowna’s permanent growth boundary. City staff have also emphasized that studying the area does not mean the development itself has been approved.

This would represent a generational change to Kelowna. Before Council considers moving the growth boundary or approving neighbourhood plans, residents must receive clear information about:

• Environmentally sensitive areas, wetlands and wildlife corridors.
• Water, wastewater and stormwater capacity.
• Wildfire risk and evacuation planning.
• Agricultural and Indigenous interests.
• Transportation and traffic consequences.
• Infrastructure costs and the potential burden on taxpayers.
• The amount and location of permanently protected park and conservation land.
• Whether existing neighbourhoods and growth areas could accommodate more housing with less environmental damage.

I would require meaningful public consultation throughout the process, with organizations such as CONC participating from the beginning. The environmental work must be independently reviewed, made public and used to establish firm no-development areas before developers design neighbourhoods around them.

My position is not “no housing.” My position is no blank cheque and no predetermined outcome. We need homes, but we must build them in the right locations and ensure that the natural features making Kelowna desirable are not destroyed in the process.

Question 2 on Clement Avenue extension: I am not prepared to support construction of the Clement Avenue extension in its current stage without substantially more environmental review, public discussion and examination of alternatives.

The City is currently developing a preliminary design for a 2.4-kilometre arterial road from Spall Road to Highway 33. The proposed corridor could contain between two and four lanes, would run beside the Okanagan Rail Trail and may require portions of the trail to be realigned. The corridor also involves Mill Creek, environmentally sensitive areas, First Nations interests, nearby residents and businesses.

I understand the transportation argument. Kelowna needs better east-west connectivity, and the City believes the extension could reduce pressure on Enterprise Way, Highway 97 and Springfield Road. However, transportation benefits cannot be considered separately from impacts on Mill Creek, wildlife habitat, the Rail Trail and the quality of one of Kelowna’s most important active-transportation corridors. Previous public engagement received roughly equal numbers of comments for and against the extension, with concerns focused on the Rail Trail and the natural areas around Mill Creek.kelowna+1

Before supporting construction, I would require:

• A comprehensive and publicly available environmental assessment.
• An independent examination of alternative routes and transportation solutions.
• Meaningful consultation with CONC, Indigenous communities, Rail Trail users, residents and affected businesses.
• Clear information about the complete cost and how it would be funded.
• A plan that protects Mill Creek and avoids fragmentation of riparian and wildlife habitat.
• A commitment that the Rail Trail will remain safe, attractive and separated from road traffic.
• Enforceable mitigation, habitat-restoration and long-term monitoring requirements.

If the City cannot demonstrate that the transportation benefits clearly outweigh the environmental, financial and community costs—or that the damage can be prevented rather than merely explained after the fact—I would not support proceeding with construction.

Question 3 on finding the right balance between development and green space conservation: Kelowna cannot continue treating wetlands, riparian areas and wildlife habitat as obstacles to be managed after a development decision has already been made.

Regarding the Burtch Road extension, the City states that the road is more than 100 metres from Munson Pond and has committed to measures including wildlife surveys, turtle protection, owl and bat boxes, native planting and riparian restoration at a three-to-one ratio. Those commitments must be independently monitored and publicly reported. It is not enough to approve mitigation on paper; Council must ensure that it works over the long term.

Kelowna Springs raises equally serious concerns. Council approved industrial rezoning for part of the property while retaining part as a nine-hole golf course. During the public process, naturalists, farmers and other residents raised concerns about Simpson Pond, migratory birds, floodplain conditions, stormwater and the effects of surrounding wetlands with industrial development.cbc+1

As a councillor, I would work to establish the following requirements for developments affecting sensitive natural areas:

• Independent environmental, hydrogeological and flood-risk assessments completed before rezoning or final approval.
• Full public access to technical studies, staff recommendations and mitigation plans before Council votes.
• Early consultation with conservation groups, Indigenous communities and affected residents.
• Legally protected buffers around wetlands, creeks and riparian areas.
• Strong stormwater treatment and water-quality monitoring.
• Bird-safe building standards near migratory habitat.
• Protection and restoration of connected wildlife corridors.
• Financial security from developers so taxpayers are not responsible if mitigation fails.
• Publicly reported environmental monitoring during and after construction.
• Stop-work and corrective-action provisions when environmental conditions are violated.
• A cumulative-impact assessment that considers the combined effects of multiple projects, rather than reviewing every project in isolation.

Kelowna’s existing environmental planning process recognizes wetlands, creeks and rare habitats as environmentally significant features that may require environmental, hydrogeological and stormwater assessments. Council must strengthen those protections, enforce them consistently and involve the public before irreversible decisions are made.

Development and environmental stewardship do not have to be enemies. Kelowna needs housing, transportation infrastructure and employment land, but it also needs clean water, functioning wetlands, wildlife habitat and accessible green spaces.

If elected, I will be a voice inside City Hall for open discussion, independent evidence and meaningful public participation. Residents and organizations such as CONC should not have to fight simply for the right to be heard.