So what's new?

On Tuesday February 7 (yesterday as I write this), a standing-room-only crowd assembled at Ottawa City Hall for a presentation on the Lansdowne redevelopment proposals as revised through deliberations with the Lansdowne Design Review Panel. Apparently some thought that plans for Lansdowne had made great strides through the revision process. The Citizen ran a headline in Wednesday's edition "Modernist vision unveiled for a renovated Lansdowne". [What was the previous design -- baroque?] Metro was less enthusiastic with coverage on page 3 under the lead "City raises curtain on new Lansdowne design plans".
But in reality there was little new in the material released. The location of the various buildings has not changed for over a year. The elimination of the taller buildings along Holmwood Ave. was the product of the negotiated settlement before the Ontario Municipal Board which was completed some 10 months earlier.
The only new development was the decision to slice a chunk off the Horticulture Building prior to moving it eastward to facilitate the digging for the underground parking.
No doubt the the Design Panel had lengthy discussions about design features and quite possibly they did an excellent job in getting improvements in details of the proposal. However it would have been interesting to inform the public as to what those improvements are.
At the briefing everyone congratulated everyone else on the work they had done. But it was not obvious what (apart from the changes for the Horticulture Building) was achieved.
Once again we had new "eye candy" -- pretty pictures presented for the public -- but we were given no idea of the nature of the refinements introduced through interaction with the review panel.
Plans for the park are as understood months ago. The only new detail, and this is a troubling one, is that the "art feature" to the west of the "great lawn" will consist of vertical beams with LED images. The troubing aspect is that such LED arrays can just as readily become advertising billboards as they can be abstract art.
Plans for the stadium seem to present no surprise. We have known about the wooden "veil" around the stadium for more than a year. The really outstanding aspect to me was that the presentation failed to mention the arena buried under the northside stands. Fixing up the arena, known to most people as the Civic Centre, once had some importance. Now it seems to have been forgotten. It is not clear how you will get into the arena in the new plan because shops will fill the north side of the buildiing and there is to be an office complex to the west.
When it comes to the "urban village", a quaint name for the shopping centre, nothing has changed. Yes it is intended to have shops, restaurants etc. on the second floor of the buildings. We have always known that is required because the plans call for vast amounts of retail space. If the second floors were not to be used, the footprint of the commercial buildings would have needed to be much greater.
In the commercial complex the one  design feature is that there would be increasing use of wood in the exterior of the buildings, the further those buildings are from Bank Street. Big deal!
So I can only call Tuesday's event a bust. We learned virtually nothing we did not know already.
And all the visual presentations coyly showed all the tower structures as transparent outlines. The justification for such an approach was that the detailed design for those buildings has yet to be determined. Conveniently it also removed from the presentation some of the more egregious aspects of the overall development plan. Out of sight is out of mind.
Tomorrow (Thursday Feb. 9) the second shoe drops. According to oral interventions by the City Manager, a staff report is to be released on the Lansdowne project for consideration at the meeting of Finance and Economic Development Committee (FEDCO) the following week.
Items to look for in the staff report include:
- update on the finances for the project
- report on the competition for air rights and for project construction
- what can go ahead regardless of legal proceedings underway
- what happens if the Court of Appeal fails to support the City.
As always the French-language press seems to be the only source for investigative journalism. Francois Pierre Dufault asks in today's (Wednesday's) Le Droit "The municipal adminstration seems not to be concerned about other approaches, stating even they have no plan B" (my personal translation).
As Maggie Muggins used to say "You never know what is going to happen tomorrow, do you Mr. McGarity."

Aid to Councillors engaged in debate

In my previous post, I presented the text of my "virulent" oral submission delivered to Council on November 12. I had submitted my text in advance (and changed only a few words in oral delivery). I also provided Councillors with a series of questions which they might wish to use in their debate on the Lansdowne Partnership Plan [LPP].

For your interest and entertainment, here are the questions:

-In the staff report for the Sept. 2 meeting of Council, it is noted that "The proposal also included the development of complementary commercial space, the revenue streams from which were identified as necessary to offset the operational costs of the stadium and civic centre functions." Do such offsets represent a subsidy to tenants and users of the stadium and civic centre, the principal users being the professional sports tenants? As such does this represent a subsidy to professional sports teams as forbidden in motion of Council of April 22?
　
- In the motions adopted at the meeting of Council of April 22, it was resolved that "the City’s contribution to the revitalization of Lansdowne Park be limited to a dollar amount to be established during the negotiations, to be based on not increasing the overall cost to the taxpayer." It is proposed that the budget allocation for capital costs in the future be increased from the present level of less than $2 million to approximately $3.8 million. Does this represent an increase in overall cost to the taxpayer?

- The staff report to the Sept. 2 meeting of Council stated "The financial due diligence carried out by the City and its consultants on the OSEG proposal has demonstrated, among other things, that the City would be receiving fair value under the Plan." Because there was an absence of competitive bidding, the usual assurance of fair value was not available. What other procedures to demonstrate fair value were employed? Are those studies available for scrutiny?

- It is proposed that Council await a review of the financial assumptions and projections of the partnership proposal. Should the Auditor General be required to prepare such a report using his office’s resources or should he be provided with resources to retain outside expertise to prepare such a report? Is Council prepared to wait until May 2010 for such a report?

- In the staff report for the Nov. 12 meeting of Council it is noted that the proposed Stage Three would involve "...construction of the retail and parking components. Subsequent to this, would be the Civic Centre and Frank Clair stadium rehabilitation...". Why does the rehabilitation of the civic centre and stadium need to await completion of the retail and parking construction?

- In view of the fact that there is no zoning or like issue which could be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, is there any reason that the rehabilitation of the civic centre and stadium could not be initiated immediately?

- It is proposed that the Implementation Plan include a "detailed assessment of the forecasted property tax revenues to be paid by retail and commercial development proposed by the LPP with the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation...". Will this examination reveal whether the land value under the retail development will be subject to property tax or will remain exempt from tax as City property?

- It is proposed that a termination agreement form part of the final project agreement for the LPP. Can the City terminate the process now without incurring additional cost?

- It is intended that the partners of the LPP provide "programming that suits Council’s objectives for the site". Is there at present a document setting forth Council’s objectives for the site or is this document yet to be written?

- It is indicated that a Municipal Service Corporation could be created under the provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001 and its regulation 599/06 which forbids the creation of subsidiaries. There is also reference to the Ontario Business Corporations Act and the creation of Hydro Ottawa (which clearly does have subsidiary companies). What exactly is the recommendation for creation of a corporation? Which legislation is applicable to the LLP?

- It is indicated in the staff report that the requirement for public consultation regarding the establishment of a Municipal Service Corporation has been fulfilled as part of the LPP featured in the six public consultations held in September and October. How did the prospect of an MSC feature in those consultations?

- It is proposed that shuttle services be instituted to bring patrons to events at Lansdowne from satellite parking locations. Is it envisaged that by-laws protecting the monopoly over transit service enjoyed by OC Transpo will need to be altered to allow such shuttle service?

- Parks Canada is reported as having a "willingness to work with the City to achieve Council’s objectives for the site". Has an outline of Council’s objectives for the site been conveyed to Parks Canada? Is this document available for examination?

- It is proposed that the City’s property of 59 acres adjacent to the Albion Road site of the Central Canada Exhibition Association (CCEA) be transferred to the CCEA for use as parking. Is the property to be sold or granted to the CCEA? What is the value of the property in question?

- How was it determined that the requirement of the trade and consumer show industry "...would create significant conflicts to achieving the other goals set out by Council for Lansdowne...". Which specific goals create conflicts?

- It is indicated that "...purpose built trade and consumer show facilities in most cities are usually located outside the central areas of thos cities..." How was this determined? Is there a list of cities studied to produce this statement?

- Why should the search for an alternative site for trade and consumer shows be initiated with Shenkman Corporation particularly? Are there no other landowners in Ottawa who could have property which could be used for this purpose? Why is it not intended to issue a general request for proposals?

- If no alternative site for the trade and consumer show industry is identified, does this render void the LPP and require that show space be provided at Lansdowne?
　
- It is proposed that the lease for the stadium be a "net net lease". What is this exactly and why is it proposed? Are similar arrangements proposed for the civic centre?

- At the public consultations held in September and October, "city staff and other subject matter experts were available to receive input from residents...". Was any report prepared about the input received at those events by staff and experts?

- In the motion of Council adopted on September 2 authorizing public consultations reference is made to "...public consultation plan included in the Lansdowne Partnership Plan". In the plan document appears the the text "The format would be a series of open houses, with the opportunity to ask questions of City staff and the private sector principals. Similar to the Official Plan Review’s ‘City Café approach, these sessions would allow for a comprehensive discussion of the proposed redevelopment...". Did the public consultations conducted in September and October follow the procedures set out in the Plan and subject to Council motion?

I will be following the debate with interest to see if any of these questions arise. If nothing else, it would be a way for a Councillor to give the impression that he/she had actually read some of the documentation.