Schedule “A” – Planning Committee Report – Judy Forrest Briefing note for CCCA Board on OMB appeal 20 November 2013 The CCCA filed an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) opposing certain aspects of OPA 117 (the Official Plan amendment which accompanied the Community Design Plan) which City Council approved in May 2013. The grounds for our appeal were: 1. ‘Residential  Mixed  Use’

A primary goal for this study was to determine how to accommodate an additional 10,000 residents, not jobs.

Changing the zoning for a significant section of the Mid-Centretown area to mixed use will diminish the likelihood of further residential development.

New commercial growth should be focused on the existing commercial areas where it will strengthen the Traditional Mainstreets such as Bank Street and Elgin Street, and the Secondary Mainstreets such as parts of Somerset Street and Gladstone Avenue. Diffusing commercial uses throughout the residential side streets will undermine the viability of the existing commercial streets which are already struggling in some areas.

The Official Plan policies state that new employment growth should be directed to the major employment centres such as the Central Area north of Gloucester Street.

Centretown is unlike any other Ottawa residential neighbhourhood as it abuts the Central Area, which is comprised primarily of office and commercial uses. No one living in the proposed Residential Mixed Use (RMU) zone is more than a five minute walk from a large business district and major employment node for the whole City.

Although there are already many non-conforming non-residential uses on the streets in the RMU zone, they primarily date from prior to the passage of the original Centretown Secondary Plan. There has been little market interest in the past few decades in non-residential development in this area.

All of the streets within the proposed RMU zone are located within no more than 1.5 blocks of existing commercial areas - Bank and Elgin Streets, and therefore more than adequately served by a wide range of nearby commercial amenities.

2.  ‘Tall  Landmark  Buildings’

Very tall buildings are already permitted within the Northern and Southern Character Areas (as specified on

Centretown Secondary Plan Schedule H1 Building Heights) where there is capacity for considerable intensification.

Very tall buildings are undesirable and out of context in the mid-rise areas where Tall Landmark Buildings are proposed to be permitted on certain street frontages, because they would visually overwhelm the abutting low and medium profile streetscapes.

Additionally the mid-rise areas where Tall Landmark Buildings are to be permitted have the greatest number of ranked Category 1 and 2 heritage building clusters, and their historic character and architectural significance could be irrevocably harmed by the intrusion of disproportional Tall Landmark Buildings.

Building Heights in the mid-rise areas should be limited to 9 stories. (CCCA supported the former 7 storey which the consultants proposed)

2. Secondary  Mainstreet  for  Somerset  between  O’Connor and Elgin

These two blocks have been zoned residential for decades and are primarily residential. Changing the zoning to incorporate commercial will encourage the redevelopment of these blocks into

commercial uses and jeopardize the viability of the existing residential uses.

As indicated in the points regarding the RMU, there is no need for additional opportunities for commercial development. Our existing commercial streets need support, not competition.

There are eight other appellants – 2 individuals, the CCOC, and 5 developers and/or individual property owners. On 17 October 2013, there was a meeting to sort out procedural matters regarding the hearing. (Judy Forrest represented the CCCA at this meeting which was attended by other CCCA members as well.) To our surprise, we learned that the City was asking for the hearing to be in September 2014, far beyond a date that we would have anticipated. This was approved except for one of the appellants (the bus station property) who requested a separate and earlier hearing which was granted. (separate report on this appeal) The city then issued a Procedure Order which was distributed to the Board in draft. The final has now been issued and is attached. You will note that the City identified two areas where there was not consensus and that the OMB has asked all parties to try to resolve these issues by 6 December 2013. JF is trying to sort out what actions, if any, are required by CCCA at this point. As was  done  for  the  CCCA’s  appeal  on  96  Nepean,  it  is  recommended  that  an  appeal  committee  be  established and that it report directly to the Board rather than through the PC. Several CCCA members have expressed an interest in being involved in this committee but it would be good to have additional board members involved. JF is willing to coordinate a meeting of the committee in late December/early January to begin planning our preparation for the September hearing. MOTION: That the CCCA establish an OPA 117 appeal committee which will report directly to the Board for the purpose of preparing for and participating in the September 2014 OMB hearing. Judy Forrest Co-Chair CCCA PC

Schedule “B” – Planning Committee – Rob Dekker CCCA Planning Committee Meeting Report Monday November 4 2013 Casey Craig from the CCOC joined us for the CCCA PC meeting in November.

1. Committee Chair(s) Selection was deferred to December as notice of the Planning Committee meeting was not posted. There was discussion that perhaps the email distribution list had not been updated since the AGM.

2. OPA Appeal Committee There are several appellants. There will be one appeal heard in the Spring of 2014 from the owner of the Bus Station and the others are expected to be heard in Fall 2014. The PC agreed that an Appeal Committee be struck from the Board as was done for the 96 Nepean OMB Appeal.

3. Official Plan meeting at City Hall. The CCCA submitted comments, and Joan attended the meeting hoping to speak. (See Document 7 of the Link # i. for responses)

4. City of Ottawa Infill Study

Clarity from the City is needed on this issue. The OMB has given the City until the end of 2013 to have an infill policy in place. The CCCA does not have specific guideline in place for infill developments

5. WEP Theatre Update: A brief update was given; the CCCA passed a motion in September to support a group seeking to keep the theatres open. Landmark Theatres is now operating the theatres, but the lease expires December 31st. Supporters are asked to contact FEDCO to deny a request from the World Exchange Plaza to change the designation of the movie theatre that would see the theatres closed. Landmark is prepared to operate the theatres long term, provided the WEP will offer them a lease.

6. Museum of Nature Parking Lot Update The Planning Committee felt that the CCCA should send letters to the Minister of Heritage and the Minister responsible for the National Capital Region outlining our desire to see the parking reduced and possibly placed underground as planned as soon as possible. MOTION: Whereas the Museum of Nature has deferred the construction of the underground parking and

Whereas the Museum of Nature has decided to reduce the number of parking spaces on the West Lawn and Whereas the CCCA has stated on numerous occasions that the use of the West Lawn should be dedicated to green space The CCCA should send letters supporting our positions to both the Minister of Heritage and the Minister responsible for the National Capital Region. MOVED SECONDED

7. Section 37 Sub-Committee Update: Anyone interested in working with Lauren or Rob on this file was asked to contact them.

8. 625-627-629 MacLaren and Committee of Adjustment Hearing (CoA) According to the application, the applicant sought a reduction in parking from 9

spaces to zero. The CofA had approved a previous application in 2012 for converting a rooming house to apartments. Currently, the site accommodates the 3 row houses with 18 rooms and 6 bachelor units. 9 parking spaces are required with none being provided at the moment. The applicant is proposing 15 bachelor and 3 one-bedroom units. The targeted tenants are single graduate students and / or young professionals. Only the parking reduction was at issue.

Based on past CCCA policy statements in relation both to the CDP and several CofA applications, it was agreed that we should oppose the reduction in parking. Co-Chair Rob Dekker sent an e-mail on November 5 to the Committee and Planning Committee member Daniel Mulally presented on behalf of the CCCA at the hearing on November 6. The Committee members appeared to be sympathetic to the CCCA concerns about parking (as they had been in August on a similar application which we opposed).

The 5 member committee deliberated for almost 10 minutes and on a divided 3-2 vote approved the application mainly on the grounds that they had already approved the proposed development there is in fact no room for parking on the site, there being no rear access.

Proposed Motion

Based on past PC discussions and taking into account the discussions at both the August and November 6 hearings, it is proposed that the CCCA write to the Committee of Adjustment and the City Planning Department on the following issues:

the need for the CCCA (and other CAs) to receive CofA, zoning amendment applications and development applications by e-mail as soon as they are ready rather than getting them only by post

the importance of having essential information related to the application included in the CofA notice of Public Hearing; notices do not provide adequate information and the owners at both the August and November hearings corrected or changes significant elements of their applications proposals during the hearing itself

the  flaws  in  the  City’s  assumption  that  Centretowners  will  not  own  cars  because they prefer in larger numbers than in other parts of the City to walk, cycle or take public transportation to work and other destinations.

the rationale for a comprehensive parking study (as called for in our CDP) to be initiated as soon as possible

8. Provincial review of Municipal Planning. Members of the Committee were encouraged to sign up on line to be a part of the review. This document is important to what municipalities can allow to be developments.

Following the CCCA-PC Meeting a coalition of Community Associations met to discuss Conversions and Student Housing. Separate report to be given at meeting.

Schedule “C” – Engagement with Other Organizations (Formal)

1. Centretown Buzz (www.centretownbuzz.com) The Centretown Buzz is co-owned by the CCCA and the Dalhousie Community Association. The

CCCA can send two representatives to serve on the Board of Directors of the Centretown

Buzz, plus the President, who serves ex-officio. The CCCA has an agreement with the CCOC to

rent office space with the DCA for the Centretown Buzz office at 101-210 Gloucester Street.

2. Federation of Citizens' Associations (www.fca-fac.ca/)

The Federation of Citizens' Associations is a federation of Ottawa community associations that

deals with issues affecting neighbourhoods citywide. As a member association of the FCA, the

CCCA can send up to two representatives to each meeting. The annual fee is $30.

3. City Centre Coalition (https://sites.google.com/site/citycentrecoalition/)

The City Centre Coalition is a coalition of community associations and other organizations

interested in transportation that focuses on transportation issues that affect downtown

neighbourhoods. The CCC also collaborates though an e-mail list.

4. Community Association Forum on Environmental Sustainability (CAFES)

This organization deals with environmental issues affecting Ottawa’s communities and finds opportunities for collaboration on environmental initiatives and strategies.

Schedule “D” – Engagement with Other Organizations (Informal)

1. Dalhousie Community Association (DCA) (http://www.ottawadalhousie.ca/) The Dalhousie Community Association represents the western part of Somerset Ward (from Bay Street to the O-Train tracks) and co-owns the Centretown Buzz with the CCCA.

2. McNabb Neighbourhood Improvement Bunch (McNIB)

The McNabb Neighbourhood Improvement Bunch is a group of residents, coordinated through Diane Holmes' office, who live near the McNabb Recreation Centre (180 Percy Street). Members discuss issues of relevance to the area and are involved in gardening and improvements at McNabb Park.

3. Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corporation (CCOC) (www.ccochousing.org)

The CCOC is a non-profit housing corporation founded in 1974 that came out of the Centretown Plan and the predecessor to the CCCA. The group is now one of the largest non-profit housing corporations in Canada and is headquartered in Centretown.

4. Centretown Community Health Centre (CCHC) (www.centretownchc.org)

For 40 years, CCHC has helped ensure all Ottawa residents have access to adequate income, employment, health services, education, food, shelter and transportation. A registered charity founded in 1969, CCHC provides numerous programs and services aimed to improve the health and wellbeing of Ottawa-area communities.

5. Central West Community Safety Committee

Formerly the Somerset Ward Community Safety Committee: meets to discuss safety issues in Somerset Ward, with representatives from Councillor Holmes' office, the Ottawa Police Service, and various safety groups in the ward.

6. Jack Purcell Recreation Association (JPRA) (www.jpra.ca/)

The JPRA's mandate is to create and deliver leisure and recreation programs. The volunteer Board takes an active role in hiring staff and managing programs.

7. Council of Heritage Organizations of Ottawa (CHOO-COPO) (www.choocopo.ca,

ottawagraphy.ca) CHOO-COPO is an umbrella group that provides active networking and training opportunities to heritage groups in Ottawa.

8. Minto Park Sale

Councillor Holmes' office organizes an annual community yard sale in Minto Park in mid-June, with proceeds going to a deserving group in the ward. The CCCA hosts various events at the sale, including a barbecue, bake sale and plant sale.

9. Jane's Walk Ottawa (www.janeswalkottawa.ca)

Jane's Walk Ottawa is a series of walking tours organized each year in neighbourhoods across Ottawa, named in honour of Jane Jacobs.

10. Ecology Ottawa (http://ecologyottawa.ca/)

From the website: “The organization was created based on the belief that the City of Ottawa needs to become an environmental leader among Canadian cities. By increasing citizen participation in decisions that shape Ottawa’s environment, we can engage city council and

encourage its improved environmental performance. Together we can bring our nation’s capital to the forefront of efforts to foster healthy communities and develop sustainable solutions.”

11. Bank Street BIA (http://www.bankstreet.ca/en/) 12. Sparks St. BIA (http://www.sparksstreetmall.com/) 13. Elgin St. BIA – Current iteration is defunct. 14. Friends of James and Bay

15. Citizens for Safe Cycling Ottawa (http://www.safecycling.ca/)

16. Friends of Dundonald Park

17. Friends of Arlington Park

18. Elgin Street Walkability Study

This study is nearly completed. 19. Bank Street Walkability Study

The annotations for the study are being completed.

Schedule “E” – Ongoing Initiatives

1. Centretown Community Garden The Centretown Community Garden was established in 2010 at the intersection of Lyon and Lisgar.

2. Centretown Community Design Plan (http://www.ottawa.ca/midcentretown, blog http://midcentretown.wordpress.com/) This CDP is being undertaken in response to development proposals and a need to review and update the Centretown Secondary Plan in keeping with City of Ottawa Official Plan intensification policies as well as its compatibility and urban design objectives. After over three years of work, the CDP development process is nearing its end, with an expected completion date in 2014. Currently under appeal to the OMB, and we are parties to the appeal

3. NCC Horizon 2067 (http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/planning/horizon2067) Through Horizon 2067: The 50-Year Plan for Canada’s Capital, the NCC intends to chart the future of Canada’s Capital Region to 2067, the nation’s 200th anniversary. The new Horizon 2067 plan will update the current Plan for Canada’s Capital (1999). The mission is to review the lead planning document used by the NCC and the federal government to guide the development of Canada’s Capital Region over the next 50 years. The Plan will be completed in 2013. To get there, the review process is divided into 5 steps: (i) The Capital's Challenges Research and Analysis, (ii) The Vision: A Capital for the 21st Century, (iii) The Plan: Capital Concept and Principles, (iv)The Plan: Policies and the National Interest Land Mass and (v) The Plan: Consolidation and Approval.

4. Gladstone Public Advisory Committee Gladstone Avenue between Bank Street and Cartier Street is being completely reconstructed by the City; a PAC was formed of community stakeholders to provide input into the project. We should follow up and make sure that they live up to what was promised. Scott Gorry has served as the CCCA representative to this point.

5. Parking Stakeholders Consultation Group City Council approved a comprehensive parking management strategy, covering program principles and objectives, guidelines for parking pricing, a funding model and an implementation plan. Council approved measures to ensure the requirements of residents, BIAs and other stakeholders are addressed in the implementation process through the establishment of a stakeholders group and local area parking studies beginning with the Byward Market in 2009. The Terms of Reference for a Parking Stakeholders Consultation Group will include three BIA and three community association representatives and representation from places of worship, tourism, building owner / manager, and transportation demand management. In addition to moving forward on the Strategy, additional measures to establish a parking reserve fund and to direct annual grants up to $5,000 to BIAs that have metered parking were also approved. Denis Schryburt is our liaison on this

Schedule “F” – Appendices for Email Motions APPENDIX I: The Centretown Citizens Community Association (CCCA) would like to commend the City of Ottawa for many of the forward-looking elements contained in the draft transportation master plan, pedestrian plan and cycling plan. The City’s choice of an accelerated expansion of public transit, the emphasis on better serving pedestrians and on building a more interconnected cycling network, as well as the interest in adopting a “Complete Streets” planning approach, all of these correspond to the thinking of our association. Among the many elements of the City’s “Transportation Vision” (﴾section 1.4 of the draft TMP)﴿ are the following: * Give priority to public transit in accommodating future travel demand * Make walking and cycling more attractive than driving for short trips * Provide an integrated system of multimodal facilities and services * Aim to provide an acceptable standard of service for each mode of travel * Build walkable communities * Support active living by promoting walking, cycling and transit for daily travel * Foster transit-oriented development in transit nodes and corridors * Foster a vibrant downtown by improving transit, walking and cycling access * Identify transportation performance objectives and indicators * Regularly measure and evaluate performance This is very close to how the CCCA has always envisioned how our neighbourhood’s streets should be planned. In fact, the CCCA’s Transportation Committee has as its official objectives that: * travel in Centretown is safe, convenient and enjoyable; * walking, cycling, and the use of public transit are the preferred modes of travel in Centretown; * connections with nearby neighbourhoods are accessible and safe; and * traffic from other parts of the City respects the primarily residential character of the community These objectives provide the focus of our work and inform our comments and suggestions regarding the planning process when it comes to transportation issues.

There is obviously a lot to digest in the documents released by the City in early October. After a few brief comments about public transit and cycling, we will focus most of our recommendations on pedestrian issues. 1) public transit We are quite excited about the building of the Confederation Line of the LRT and the opportunities this affords for the redesign of the streetscapes along Queen, Albert and Slater in the downtown core. We applaud in particular the Downtown Moves study that looked into the implications of light-rail transit and how the LRT project can be leveraged to transform Queen, Albert and Slater into “boulevard-like” or “showcase” streets with wider sidewalks, trees, art, and other amenities that make for an enjoyable urban walking experience. Our concerns are related to how the downtown LRT stations will be connected to the residential sections of Centretown.. We have not yet seen how the stations will be serviced by existing north-south bus lines, nor whether they will be able to accommodate a sufficient number of cyclists in terms of safe parking facilities. The TMP does refer to elements to make bus transit more efficient, such as dedicated bus lanes and bus priority features such as queue jumps and priority signals. We strongly encourage the adoption of such measures where appropriate in the inner urban core. 2) cycling The CCCA has been a supporter of the Laurier segregated bike lane pilot project and was pleased to see that Council has decided to make it a permanent feature. We are encouraged by the City’s intention to expand the cycling network, including the completion of a continuous East-West route and the addition during the 2014-2019 phase of a new bicycle route along O’Connor from Wellington to Holmwood. The City draft plans are not clear whether an O’Connor route would be in the form of a segregated lane, a shared lane or a multi-use pathway. For safety reasons, the CCCA’s preference would be for a segregated cycle track with physical separation from other vehicular traffic and from sidewalks. More broadly, anywhere the City installs segregated cycling facilities in the right-of-way, the cycle track should be physically separated from

sidewalks. It is not clear that the standards to be used by City transportation engineers include this

safety feature.

We refer you to the May 27, 2013 Final Report of the Commuter Attitudes Survey prepared for the

City by R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd

(http://ottawa.ca/sites/ottawa.ca/files/commuter_survey_en.pdf).

In Figure 4.2.1 (p. 17), you can see that there is a large contingent of people interested in cycling but

who have safety concerns that could be allayed by providing separate lanes. Of “Inner City” people surveyed (﴾this includes Centretown for the purposes of the study)﴿, 26% said they were “Interested in cycling more but concerned about traffic and safety, waiting for more bike lanes or off-road paths”, and 42% were “Comfortable in traffic but prefer bike lanes and like using segregated facilities“. If the City is to boost active transportation modes in the inner urban core, including cycling, segregated

lanes, separate from car traffic but also from pedestrians, are the option preferred by citizens.

On the other hand, the CCCA Seniors Committee has pointed out that within 15-20 years time one

quarter of Ottawa's population will be 65 and over. Many developers expect more seniors will

downsize into the city centre, and those of us who are here now want to stay in the city centre.

Seniors above a certain age will not be using their bicycles but will want to get out to the corner

store, the NAC, and the Rideau Centre as well as to medical appointments, the hairdressers, the

grocery store and the LCBO, etc. What appears to be missing is any consideration that many seniors

between 65 and 85 will want to use their cars for some of these errands when they are afraid to go

out on winter sidewalks. Has any consideration been given to a public parking garage in Centretown

if street parking or car lanes are eliminated for bike lanes?

3) pedestrian issues

Pedestrians in residential Centretown face the challenge of high volumes of vehicle traffic on their

roads. The four road arterials which transport commuters between

District and Highway 417 (The Queensway) transect residential areas. At the AM weekday peak,

around 900 cars per hour travel north on Metcalfe Street with a lesser number later in the day. Traffic

on O’Connor Street is even heavier with around 1,600 vehicles per hour at the afternoon peak.

In the latest Community Design Plan for Centretown, the community’s population is expected to grow by 10,000 residents over the next 20 years as development is targetted for areas within 600

metres of the Confederation LRT Line. Population growth will entail a significant increase in the

number of travellers on the streets of Centretown. If problems in the pedestrian realm remain

unresolved, those who would ordinarily travel by foot will seek out alternative and less active modes

of transportation.

a) upkeep of existing infrastructure Our most general comment has to do with the lack of upkeep of our pedestrian infrastructure. The draft Pedestrian Plan foresees an expansion of the pedestrian infrastructure network and the filling in of so-called “missing gaps” mostly outside the inner urban area[Exhibits 3.2 and 3.3.] This is all well and good but the CCCA believes that the City has been failing to maintain and repair what we already have, especially here in Centretown. In August, the CCCA, in collaboration with Ecology Ottawa, undertook a “walkability audit” in and around Elgin St (see http://www.centretownbuzz.com/2013/08/16/grading-centretowns-streets-on-safety-active-transportation-audit-looks-at-walking-cycling-conditions/). A similar audit took place on Bank St. in early October. Final reports are being prepared for presentation to Centretowners, Council and City staff. In a walkability audit, a group of volunteers from a number of organizations, from different age groups and with different levels of physical ability roams through the community according to a predetermined route to identify obstacles to walking, bicycling and wheelchair use, as well as to comment on any positive elements that make the streets friendly and conducive to “hanging out”. An audit looks at the condition of sidewalks and intersections, as well as a number of other factors that influence the friendliness of the environment and the comfort and safety of people moving around in the street. Some of the preliminary results for the Elgin audit include the following: * there is a surprisingly large number of places where sidewalks are cracked, sunken, or have holes - people in wheelchairs, with canes or with walkers pointed out numerous obstacles to their mobility * on many side streets, there are problems of water accumulation after storms, including very deep puddles that in some locations reach halfway across the street * sidewalk space restrictions due to restaurant patios on Elgin Street can cause difficulties in busy pedestrian traffic, forcing people into the street (and into oncoming traffic) * the intersection of Argyle and Metcalfe, where the road swoops around the Canadian Museum of Nature, has been identified as particularly dangerous

We are quite concerned about the lack of proper funding for maintenance. In June 2013, a member of the CCCA Transportation Committee received an e-mail from a city safety official that explained to us that: The pedestrian safety improvement program has zero funding. This program was designed solely for “piggybacking” on larger reconstruction projects which might happen to be scheduled for locations which include pedestrian safety concerns. The original plan for this program was to address 23 locations (with an attempt to do 1 per ward) over the course of 3 years. This is difficult because again, more issues exist within the core, and secondly, planned construction project locations do not always correspond with high priority pedestrian safety concern locations. As well, suggested treatments cannot be implemented unless the scope of work for the planned construction project is suited to the recommended pedestrian safety improvements (...) In our contacts with city staff, this reality has also been explained to us verbally on a number of occasions and this leads us to believe that the City does not spend the money to keep sidewalks or intersections in the proper state of repair we should be entitled to expect as residents of the growing inner urban core of Canada’s national capital. This is not a new concern. In the past, there have been many complaints about lack of investment in the upkeep of what we already have: “Budget leaves pedestrians out in cold: Holmes”, Centretown News (March 25, 2011) http://www.centretownnewsonline.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2261&Itemid=124 Excerpt: A lack of funds, personnel and a unified lobbying group are three factors leading Ottawa pedestrians down cracked and bumpy sidewalks, says Somerset Ward Coun. Diane Holmes. Holmes's critical observation comes after the March 8 budget allocated $150,000 for curb and sidewalk rehabilitation. “For a city of our size, this piddly amount is laughable,” she says (﴾...)﴿ Mayor Jim Watson says the city would repair sidewalks concurrently with road construction. But, due to the high cost of building roads, Holmes says this could leave residents waiting for their sidewalks to be fixed. “People are going to have to wait 50 to 100 years to get a cracked sidewalk fixed, which is absolutely ridiculous,” she added. “City council allocates $4 million for sidewalk work”, Centretown News (﴾December 9, 2011) http://www.centretownnews.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2805&Itemid=94 Excerpt:

Somerset Coun. Diane Holmes explained that the money will be available over a period of three years, about $1.3 million per year, adding that it’s “only to repair existing sidewalks.” (﴾...)﴿ Holmes said that because of the many kilometres of sidewalks that need repair in the city, $1.3-million a year amounts to “a drop in the bucket.” In addition to the $4 million, the budget also allocates $750,000 to build two new sidewalks, neither in Centretown. Holmes, who has been very vocal about pedestrian issues, held a “sidewalk summit” on Nov. 8, where she said that the city had been making plans to repair sidewalks for years. “This is a good beginning,” Holmes said, but added that much more funding will be required in the future to fully address all of the city’s growing sidewalk problems. Maintenance of existing pedestrian infrastructure must be given a much higher level of political and financial priority in Centretown. b) pedestrian safety We are very encouraged by the language in the draft Pedestrian Plan that is aimed at increasing pedestrian safety. We strongly believe that the easiest way to achieve all of the safety-oriented goals is by reducing the real speed of car traffic wherever possible through traffic calming. Many of our residential streets have benefitted from such measures. They can also be adopted on arterials. Arterials may have speed limits of 50km/h but people often exceed that limit due to the design cues of wide multi-laned one-way roads, like Kent northbound, or O'Connor southbound. Design features such as speed bumps have been used to successfully calm North-South streets like Lyon. Design elements (speed bumps, bulb outs, differently textured crosswalks, more signalized intersections) that send cues to drivers to drive more slowly and more carefully should be implemented to reduce the speed at which cars often travel for real on Bronson, Kent and O’Connor. As part of the “Complete Streets” philosophy, the CCCA calls on the City of Ottawa to examine all of these design features when rebuilding or repairing any streets and intersections in Centretown. At any particular location, when there is a conflict between levels of service for vehicular traffic and levels of service for pedestrians, the interests of pedestrians should be considered more important. The City should also commit itself to justifying why any of the possible design features to reduce speeds and improve pedestrian safety at any given intersection have been rejected as unfeasible.

We also have some concerns about cycling on sidewalks. These concerns prompted two groups of

Centretown residents to action this past summer. In July, the CCCA Seniors Committee tagged

bicycles in the neighbourhood with reminders that City by-laws prohibit riding a bicycle on City

sidewalks. Then in September, a group of residents from Beaver Barracks/Argyle Street, assisted by

the Ottawa Police Service, conducted a safety blitz to remind cyclists to walk their bicycles on

sidewalks (see Centretown News September 27, "Argyle Avenue residents want cycling off their

sidewalks" -

http://www.centretownnews.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3995&Itemid=94 ).

Greater educational efforts as well as enforcement of by-laws about cycling on sidewalks are

required.

In section 6.2 “Pedestrian Safety and Evaluation” of the draft Pedestrian Plan, the document states:

Annual Road Safety Report – The purpose of this report is to monitor road safety and provide a

variety of statistics. Statistics include the number of collisions, fatalities and injuries, top 10 signalized

intersection collision locations, collisions by hour of day, collisions by day of week, collisions by road

surface condition.

The CCCA would strongly prefer that this report be on a quarterly basis.

APPENDIX II :

City Centre Coalition: Response to TMP 2013

The City Centre Coalition (CCC) is composed of representatives from several downtown

Ottawa community associations as well as a students' association and a safe cycling

group. We are focused on transportation planning issues in Ottawa and advocate for

a greater expansions of walking, cycling, and transit as the most effective solutions to

growing transportation needs.

We have met and networked amongst our member groups and would like to provide

the following comments to the 2013 TMP final draft. These ideas are representative of

common themes that repeat across the downtown community association network.

Summarized these concerns are focused on the following topics: 1. Interprovincial Transit Improvements 2. Interprovincial Truck Route Effects Mitigation 3. A Too Un-ambitious Cycling Plan 4. Greater Recognition of Pedestrian Needs and Safety 5. More Transparency into Infrastructure Investment Decision Making 1. More focus needed on improved Interprovincial Transit. The central communities disproportionately bear the burden of very high volumes of commuter cars, STO buses, and interprovincial heavy trucks travelling through our The TMP as currently drafted conveys the impression that none of these issues are on the priority list of the City of Ottawa for mitigation anywhere in the 18 yr time window of Improved interprovincal transit can contribute to a reduction in the pressure to commute by car through our communities in both interprovincial directions and a reduction in the heavy volume of STO buses on Rideau and Wellington streets. The recently released Interprovincial Transit Strategy describes numerous initiatives in the short, medium, and longer term which could be taken to improve interprovincial transit. The TMP should provide more direction regarding how the City of Ottawa will take steps towards the realization of this strategy. 2. More focus needed on reduction of the impact of Interprovincial Truck Movements on the downtown. Past TMPs have been written to state that relief of the interprovincial truck problems on the downtown would be addressed upon the completion of an east end interprovincial bridge. Now that this project has been indefinitely postponed again, the City should

explore other options to reduce the impact of trucks on Waller, Rideau, and King Edward both short term and longer term. The plan does mention the potential exploration of a potential downtown tunnel but this is clearly a long term proposition. In the shorter term the City should make a promise to review the current downtown truck routes to bring the network more in conformity with the City's own policies to provide a diversity of routes in order to reduce the impact on any one community and to seek to avoid routes which are heavily populated. 3. Extending the Affordability Envelope to include a more Ambitious Cycling Plan All of the downtown communities represented in the CCC have individually noted that the current cycling plan proposes a fairly conservative roll out plan for the cycling network over the next 18 years that still leaves considerable gaps in what planning staff have called the UNC (Ultimate Cycling Network) even by 2031. The current TMP stands out as a bold and visionary document for investing in the future of transit in Ottawa. It relies on accelerated borrowing of money in order to more quickly roll out a more ambitious program than envisioned in previous TMPs. This is considered in the plan as a once per lifetime game changing investment in the City's future. Our communities would like to see a similarly ambitious approach to making Cycling a more important component of Ottawa's transportation system. This is all the more reasonable a request when one considers that this 'Game changing Cycling Plan' requires considerably less investment than what is contemplated for transit and could also be positioned as a once per lifetime bold initiative. We do not understand why the 'Affordability Envelope' allows for the borrowing of City's own funds of 1.5B$ for Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the transit roll-out yet does not consider

that such accelerated borrowing is an option for cycling investment. The TMP's background document on Transit explores the options for improved Transit to Orleans which seems to indicate that the 500m$ investment to bring LRT to Orleans would result in the incremental capture of approximately 2000 more morning peak period transit riders. That represents an investment of 250,000$ to capture each incremental In comparison, the plan envisions increasing the peak period cyclists by 18,000 (from today's 12,000 to 25,000) by 2031 yet is willing to only make 70m$ available to try to achieve this goal....an investment of 3,900$ per incremental cyclist. Given that the majority of these new cyclists are most likely to be in the inner areas of the City and (for example) Orleans commuters are outside the Greenbelt this dichotomy of the level of investment in the various areas of the City appears to lend more evidence to the oft repeated claim that the downtown is subsidizing life in the remote suburbs. 4. Pedestrian Conditions/Safety For the downtown communities walking will continue to be an ever increasing part of everyday life as well as a major mode of travel during the peak period. One of our major concerns is to increase the safety of walking in our areas. Although the City is running a pedestrian safety evaluation program we would like to see more focus on expanding the scope and focus of this program to make walking safer. The Ontario's Coroner report on pedestrian safety makes the point that vehicular speeds are one of the biggest factors in pedestrian safety. To that end we would like the City to make a commitment to explore the possibility of lowering speed limits to 40 km/h in certain core areas of the city where walking is most common. We need to reset the expectation of drivers that they cannot expect to move at the same speed as suburban

arterials in the heavily pedestrianized downtown core (at any time of the day). This should be part of an overall initiative to communicate the pre-eminence of active transportation modes in certain defined areas of the city. The Study process should evaluate what area this zone should encompass and the process to be used to change public attitudes to the priority of the automobile in this zone. Some examples of other changes that could be part of assisting to induce this mindset - creation of a pedestrian priority zone with associated signage - better snow clearing operations in this zone - higher requirements on keeping satisfactory sidewalks in operation during construction projects 5. Transportation Infrastructure Investment Process: Visibility into Decision Making Process The background documents to the TMP do not provide adequate visibility to the public of how the City has prioritized certain infrastructure investments over others. This applies to transit, road, and cycling projects. Transit: The City has not provided what metrics were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the various options for transit investments. The only exception was the brief analysis to differentiate between the options for transit to Orleans. Yet even these only provided visibility into additional riders in the morning peak. We do not know how these options performed against other metrics such as operational costs/rider, time savings per rider, or overall aggregate time savings across the full morning peak to name just a few. Roads: Although a chart was provided evaluating potential roads investments against 5 different criteria in a points based system, we are not provided any visibility into how

these points were assigned to individual projects or how these roads projects performed against quantifiable value metrics. Cycling: Similarly, although the current plan provides much needed detail into the total list of cycling projects and a basic assignment into 3 different priority levels, the public is given no details on what criteria were used to assign these priorities or how each project scored against quantifiable metrics Critical Reflections on Changes from Past Plans As can be expected, the list of prioritized projects can change from plan to plan. These changes present a learning opportunity and each plan should have a section which provides some explanation of the changes from the previous plan along with a discussion of the reasons behind the changes. This process adds credibility to the current plan and planning process. The CCC notes in particular how 2 different 100m$+ road projects (the AVTC phases 2 + 3 and Prince of Wales Drive widening) have both been delayed by 15yrs (effectively dropped?) compared to the 2008 TMP. Changes of this magnitude require some explanation. In fact the 2013 Roads Background Document devotes a whole chapter to explaining why the AVTC will still be needed 'someday' yet somehow overlooks the glaring need to explain why the projection for the necessity of this road was 'out' by more than 15 years in the 2008 plan, and this despite the fact that the 2013 plan explains that there are only minor changes to the population and employment projections of 2008. John Verbaas Chair: City Centre Coalition www.ccc-ottawa.ca PARTICIPANTS IN CITY CENTRE COALITION: Old Ottawa East Community Association

Action Sandy Hill Glebe Community Association Centretown Citizens Community Association Dow's Lake Residents' Association Dalhousie Community Association Old Ottawa South Community Association Hintonburg Community Association Carleton University Students' Association Westboro Communtity Association Citizens for Safe Cycling Appendix III: 6. Lack of Vision on Transportation Cost Sharing Overall, the TMP ought to provide some vision of how the City of Ottawa will begin to move in the direction of reflecting the cost of travel in its approach to revenue collection and cost sharing for its transportation system. This will be a gradual process and will involve coordination with other levels of government, however the TMP is lacking in that it avoids to even address this topic. This user pay approach is an accepted norm in other areas of City business such as water or electricity where great effort has been expended in putting into place the infrastructure required to make these rate based approaches possible. It is accepted that the cost of the maintenance and growth of this infrastructure should be borne in proportion to the amount that they are consumed and that this scheme will lead to a more efficient use of those limited resources. We would like to see the City of Ottawa show more leadership among its peers and in its relations with senior levels of government to seek means to distribute the costs of the transportation network more fairly among its heaviest users. In addition to this, there remain some areas in which the City could move in this direction on its own. For example the Confederation Line with its controlled access stations opens the possibility of a differential transit fare system between short trips between limited stations along the line vs lengthy trips that originate beyond the Greenbelt and destined for stops along the LRT. The TMP, being an 18 year vision document ought to contain some commitments to studying this topic and providing some visibility to citizens of how various alternatives could lead to changes to the City's and user's finances which introduce a greater degree of fairness into how the City's transportation costs are financed.

Schedule “G” – Accountability Letter At the AGM a motion was passed: To approve writing a letter to Mayor Watson and all Councillors asking the Mayor to install in Council's regular decision-making processes for an issue coming before council that would affect Ottawa citizens in important ways, that

1. Council develop its answers to the two basic public accountability questions for

what is proposed as Council action, and do so before a vote is taken, making the answers public on the City's website in a City public accountability section to allow fair citizen challenge. Where there is disagreement among councillors on what should be Council's answers, the public statement on the website will include councillors' answers significantly at variance from Council's answers,

2. and that the City website state the answers to the basic public accountability

questions developed by the staff responsible for supplying to Council their action proposal on the issue in question.