The Board heard from the
following delegations:
Ms. Emilie Taman,
Bookmark the Core, Citizens for a Central Library in Downtown Ottawa expressed concerns with
the weighting criteria vis-à-vis public input, and the Central Area
definition being combined with “downtown.” Ms. Taman said the PACE report
mentioned that the Central Library needed to be located in a densely-populated
or frequented Central Area, as being ‘in the heart of the city’, ‘where
people work and play’. She questioned the higher weighting referencing the
Nanos Report with respect to “Easy to get to by public transit” versus “Easy
to get to by walking.” She said the staff report suggests that greater
weight will be given to sites that are near a new Light Rail Transit (LRT)
station, and asked that greater weight be given to walkability. Ms. Taman expressed
concern that the project would become a Public Private Partnership and
mentioned that Bookmark the Core would be contacting local Members of
Parliament to voice their concerns. Ms. Taman concluded by saying the
project is a critical piece of infrastructure that should not be influenced
by development appeal.
Bruce Morgan* expressed interest in a
robust and inclusive process that leads to a new Central Library that meets
the needs of its constituency. He stated that for the most part, the site
selection criteria is subjective, placing faith in the Site Evaluation
Committee to apply those criteria to candidate sites. He observed that the
screening criteria had 60% of the weight placed on accessibility and a
location in the Central Area, and 40% to site physical attributes. Mr.
Morgan was concerned with the point allocation of ‘Accessible by walking and
cycling’ compared to ‘Accessible by public transit.’ He indicated this was
at odds with the research conducted by Nanos in December 2015. He suggested
that the weighting for accessibility between walking and transit be equal, if
not greater for walkers. Mr. Morgan touched on the detailed assessment
criteria, saying that the primary user interests (accessibility and location)
are only captured in the screening factors and then carried forward if a site
passes the screening. As such, the proposed weighting places too much
emphasis on city planning, building, and contextual suitability at the
expense of greater consideration of accessibility and location.
Yves Potvin* spoke to location as being
one of the most important criteria in a Central Library, after the size and
quality of that library’s resources. He questioned the Board’s definition of
Central Area, and proposed that it be redefined to include the northern part
of Centretown, bounded by Bronson Avenue, Somerset Street West, Elgin Street,
and Gloucester Street. He provided personal examples of ideal sites, acknowledging
the best sites may not be for the rest of the city, but for those likely to
access the facility on foot.
[*Individuals / groups marked with
an asterisk above either provided comments in writing or by email; all
submissions are held on file with the CEO.]
Questions from the Board were
then put to staff.
In response to a question
from Trustee McKenney regarding the weighting allocated for ‘S-5 –
Accessibility by public transit’ versus ‘S-6 – Accessibility by walking and
by cycling,’ Mr. Pickering advised that accessibility encompasses more than
just walking and the considerations behind weighting had several inputs into
the process: public engagement, city policies, city-wide resources, local
branch, etc. He said the multi-million dollar LRT project is the City’s
biggest priority and according to Board direction, the Central Library had to
be in close proximity to it. Mr. Pickering noted that Bookmark the Core
referenced the PACE and Nanos reports where the emphasis is on all forms of
access, looking at transit and LRT combined to provide accessibility. He
said walking was also encompassed in ‘S-7 – Proximity to the cultural and
administrative centre of the City.’
Dr. David Gordon, Director,
School of Urban and Regional Planning, Queen’s University [a member of the
Site Evaluation Committee] added that best practices may be considered,
looking at users of tomorrow versus today. He noted that the city has a
transit service where citizens are underserved. He pointed out that the
citizens of Ottawa may not recognize the impact of good transit; that is, having
a high-quality transit service brings more people into a catchment area than
walking or cycling would. He mentioned that a high-quality LRT system would
be a game changer. Dr. Gordon wasn’t surprised by the Nanos report regarding
transit facts, citing the significant increase in library use in Montreal at
the Bibliothèque et archives nationales du Québec (BanQ), by co-locating the
library with a transit station with high LRT usage in a location that was considered to be peripheral of
the downtown, and yet attracts people worldwide. He indicated that the three
million visitors a year at BanQ was far higher than anything imagined. Dr.
Gordon said OPL’s timing couldn’t be better, noting Calgary and Vancouver came
to the conclusion that people use LRT as a horizontal elevator.
Trustee McKenney cautioned that with
the increase in transit fares, many people will not take the train for three
stops. She asked staff to explain the rationale of the point allocation for S-5
in comparison to S-6, in particular to the sites east of Bronson. Mr. Robin Souchen,
Manager, Realty Initiatives and Development, Real Estate Partnership and Development
Office (REPDO) indicated that public transit scale is weighted by distance. Zones
are established to reflect proximity.
Trustee McKenney indicated agreement
with the proposed weighting, however, found it difficult to not find a site
on the map that isn’t walkable or cyclable. She asked if a site on top of an
LRT station would get higher rating than that of a site a block away. Mr.
Souchen said those further would score slightly lower.
Trustee Wilkinson had questions regarding
‘S-5, S-6, and S7, on the nuance of the criteria, how they will be used, the
use of judgement, and whether transit is segregated out of walking and
cycling. Ms. Elaine Condos, Division Manager, Central Library Development
Project said that transit is not segregated; S-7 includes transit, walking,
and cycling.
Trustee Wilkinson had concerns with
LRT ridership and how the four LRT stations would differ from one another. Mr.
Souchen indicated that a walkability test will be done with the detailed
mapping of candidate sites relative to the LRT stations. Trustee Wilkinson
asked how that will be determined or measured for walking. Dr. Gordon
pointed out that city geographic information system (GIS) provides actual
walking distances as well as how many people work and live in the area.
Trustee Wilkinson said the weighting
for those criteria is a contentious decision, and inquired whether S-5 and S-6
criteria could be analyzed at a 20/20 split. Mr. Peter Woods, the Fairness
Commissioner, commented that there were no issues doing that analysis. Mr.
Souchen added that a mathematical sensitivity analysis for information
purposes could be done.
Ms. McDonald asked if this direction
would impact the process timelines. Ms. Wang advised that as part of the
evaluation process, if the weighting is changed during the sensitivity
analysis, they will look at it on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Pickering added
that 20/20 spilt proposal is not a critical part for the timelines; however,
if the ranking changes, each would have to be looked at.
Direction to staff:
That the Site Evaluation
Committee undertake a sensitivity analysis for information purposes on
Screening Assessment Criteria S-5 – Accessibility by public transit (25
points), and S-6 – Accessibility by walking and by cycling (15 points), using
adjusted weightings of 20 points for each criterion for this purpose, for
both an OPL stand-alone facility, and an OPL-LAC joint facility.
Vice-Chair Bergeron asked
to confirm that the
Board is to approve the 25/15 proposal and that the 20/20 split direction
would only be for information. Chair Tierney confirmed.
Trustee Sweet asked why the current boundary
is important (i.e. going to Gloucester and not further south) and the
importance of LRT in this decision. Mr. John Smit, Manager, Policy
Development and Urban Design, Planning and Growth Management Department
pointed out that the Central Area is the boundary that the Board approved.
He noted that a Secondary Plan is in development, which will re-look at the
Central Area boundary, with the intention to broaden it. This will occur as
part of the next Official Plan exercise. As for the LRT importance, he
indicated that with mixed-use centres, and more residential areas in
surrounding communities, people will be investing in the city because of
transit. Mr. Smit added that Lebreton Flats was always seen as part of
downtown, which is on the horizon and will allow the city to refocus
streets. Downtown Moves is working on downtown being more pedestrian
friendly with less congestion, and as planning evolves it will recapture
downtown streets to enhance life in the city, keeping downtown engaged. He said
he can see Little Italy and Chinatown being part of downtown.
In response to Trustee Sweet’s
question on the analysis of current and future populations, and time span of
the projections, Mr. Smit said they have numbers to support the work. He
mentioned that with the federal government leaving the core, private sector
development will occur and transform downtown. Dr. Gordon pointed out that
the timeframe should depend on how long you think the new Central Library
should last.
Trustee Begg asked how
the percentage in scoring for each criteria was going to work; specifically, will
the weighting be scaled back depending on first rank, second rank, etc. Ms.
Condos explained that the percentages regarding sufficient site area will accommodate
the functional building program and will be converted from percentages into
points. Mr. Pickering added that they are developing an evaluation framework
to ensure consistency.
Further to a question
from Trustee Begg regarding denying a site if it had encumbrances, Ms. Condos
stated that a certain judgement would be used in the evaluation, and
remediation can be considered for a site if it is the best value for money. Mr.
Souchen added that a range of factors are required for demolishing a
building. Trustee Begg asked how cyclability would be factored into S-6
criterion, Ms. Condos said that details will be developed by Deloitte for
safe cycling, for dedicated cycling paths, for multi-use paths, and that
National Capital Commission properties protecting cycling will score higher.
Vice-Chair Bergeron said
it is recommended that three sites be on the short-list, however, if there
was an additional fourth site, would the Evaluation Committee consider it in
the mix. Ms. Condos responded in the affirmative, saying that there will be
guidelines to move forward but also will need flexibility, hence to check in
with the Board in August.
In response to a question
from Vice-Chair Bergeron regarding comments from the Fairness Commissioner on
the composition of the Evaluation Committee, Mr. Woods expressed the utmost
confidence in the group, indicating he was impressed by the committee’s experience
and breadth of knowledge.
As the scoring will be an
important element in the evaluation framework, Trustee Fisher asked the team
to provide some views as to what will be measured in the scoring
considerations to determine the economic impact. Mr. Pickering advised that
some will be binary, objective, and subjective. He said that overall
guidelines will be provided for the subjective scoring and prescriptive
scoring would rely on members’ judgement. Mr. Pickering advised that everyone
will have a say but a consensus will be taken.
In response to a question
from Trustee Higdon on whether options will be presented to the Board at the
August meeting, Ms. Condos said that staff will present site rankings with up
to six possible sites, three for an OPL stand-alone facility and three for an
OPL-LAC joint facility.
Trustee McKenney asked
how the criterion ‘D5-Contextual Suitability’ in the Detailed Assessment Criteria Summary
will be compared, asking if it will include how many residents and employees are
in the area today versus 25 years from now. Mr. Smit mentioned that they will
look at existing and future numbers, and what the character and image of the
area may look like into the future. He said there will be a lens for each,
which will have a degree of value. He noted that it will be discussed during
the Evaluation Criteria Framework. Ms. Condos added that demographic data
will also be provided to the Evaluation Committee.
In response to a question posed by
Trustee McKenney as to what ‘D6 – Proximity to existing or planned government
institutional facilities that are complementary in terms of function and use’
will look like and what the catalyst economic driver outcome for the library
will be, Mr. Smit pointed out that the site should allow for significant City-building
to be realized. Looking at the history of central libraries, they can bring
positive changes in parts of the city where this would not happen if the
library wasn’t there.
In response to a comment from
Trustee McKenney that the economic driver is not LRT because the library
would enhance any area it may be in, Mr. Smit said the driver is looking to attract
other investment opportunities. Ms. Condos added that this has been evident
in other cities, citing the regeneration of an area or development (e.g.
Vancouver, Halifax, Salt Lake City). She noted that developers may want to
build residences, retailers like being where people are, and central
libraries are seen as desirable neighbours.
Chair Tierney closed the questions
to staff by recognizinig
the Board for reaching this milestone, with commitment and dedication in
ensuring the best possible process is undertaken to bring a new Central
Library to the city. He thanked OPL staff, the employees of the partners at
the City, as well as the consultants and committee members who worked on this
step of the process.
Chair Tierney said that
the City is making a significant investment in LRT and recognized the Mayor
for his support.
Trustee Sweet then asked
to move an amendment to the recommendation.
|