Annual General Meeting (AGM) Minutes

Monday April 26, Shenkman Arts Centre, Centrum Blvd

7pm - Meeting called to order.
Attendees: 12 on sign in sheet plus approximately 6 who did not sign in.
Note: If you missed the AGM due to lack of notice – jump to the end of these minutes to see how you can still get involved – it’s not too late!!

Topics discussed:

What the Group has been up to since last summer

Short summary of activities that the group has been invovled in since August 2009, including:

• 4 members participated for 2 days at the “Future of Greenbelt” NCC summit. (Nov 2009) Gave brief summary of some key points of these meetings.
• Securing a place as the Community Representative for Convent Glen North - co-sponsor of trial Community Value Plan meeting for Convent Glen, and an eastern focussed public session at the Shenkman.
• Participants in NCC’s Public Consulation Group members for Phase 2A. Including submission of extensive written briefs providing feedback to the EA process, and Phase 2A draft reports.
• Meeting/briefing many, many politicians and mayoral candidates and community groups on the Option 6/7 bridge corridor. Special mention made of the work of Louis Caron, Hugh Carter, and Alexa Brewer in these areas.
• Meeting with Transport Minister John Baird to discuss the issues with a Greenbelt Bridge.
• Production of written briefs for city councillors, EA feedback.
• Pamphlet production, duplication and delivery to ensure community turn out at various public consultations
• Production and posting of signage/pamphlets on the Ottawa River bike trail near Fairwinds (and future plans in this area).
• Keynote speaker at local political riding AGM summarizing the bridge issue for Royal Galipeau’s riding.
• Updating and upgrading of the CSC website.
• Creation of “Facebook” group “Don’t put a bridge in Ottawa’s Greenbelt”

Special thanks given to many of the key volunteers of the past year, by name, for their assistance and generousity in giving of their time, expertise, and passion in the pursuit of a common sense solution to the KE truck problem. Without duplicating all details here, we called out Keith, Ray, Louis, Hugh, Lorna, Louise, Anneliese, Doug, Brian, and especially Alexa.

Financial Status: At August 2009 with about $2100 in our account.

Expenses since August 2009

Web Hosting - $75

Pamphlet duplication - $55

Shenkman Room Rental - $110

Bank fees- $24

We are currently at around $1850 from a bank balance perspective. No group funds have been spent supporting attendance, or covering parking, etc at any briefings, meetings or conferences that members/directors have attended.

Key things coming up for CSC:

Mention was made of the alternative solution around the King Edward corridor that’s being worked independently by Louis Caron & Hugh Carter and agreement being sought by other eastern communities and politicos. This option will be introduced over coming weeks.

We discussed the need to expand the engagement from just a Convent Glen to better include the east end as a whole (traffic issues) and the NCR (loss of Greenbelt). Corridor signage along the 174 was a common theme here. Also suggested was the notion of doing a meet/greet along the Rockcliffe Parkway when the Bike Days begin.

CSC is holding a fundraiser in early June at Rideau Carleton Raceway – details to follow. During this we may hold a silent auction for various donated items (signed copy of Charter of Rights, etc) that have been donated to the group.

The Delcom report for Phase 2A will be issued in mid-late May, and then presented around to various project stakeholders, including the NCC, City of Ottawa, etc.

In late May and early June, CSC will need to analyse this report, write letters to involved agencys and stakeholders, attend these presentation meetings, and provide our feedback.

Election of Directors:

A summary was given around typical director duties, with the emphasis that it’s a volunteer commitment, and can be as big or small as you wish. Meetings will be held about once per month, on a weeknight. Typical duties might include: monitoring incoming email, updating website, developing strategy, flyer distribution, technical analysis of reports, etc.

These 9 directors were acclaimed:

Pat Boule, Alexa Brewer, Lorna Lyttle, Fern Lalonde, Linda Fitzgibbon, Don Templeton, Ron Doyle, Heather Burke, Bob Presland.

Addendum to minutes:

After the meeting, the Directors were made aware of some problems with the email distribution of notices for the AGM. Although the AGM notice was on our website on April 15, some email notices did not go out until the day before, and some members did not get email notices of the meeting AT ALL. This was due to some technical problems with the email system of a volunteer.

CSC sincerely apologizes for this technical problem. We are taking steps immediately to put in place a automated email announcement system to solve this problem, and to allow for more timely, efficient announcement of upcoming bridge related information to our entire community. Once again – sorry.

For members who missed the AGM and wanted to become directors (or just get their name on a volunteer list), please contact info@commonsensecrossings.com and we’ll do our best to accommodate you.

 

---

Response to our PCG Protest Letter from the NCC's CEO (See Bottom of this page):

Dear Mr. Boule:

 

Thank you for your letter of February 12, 2010, regarding the consultation program for Phase 2A of the Interprovincial Crossings Study. I would like to take this opportunity to address the concerns that you raise by clarifying aspects of this program, notably the confusion around community consultations.

 

I would like to assure you that the project’s three Study Partners, the National Capital Commission (NCC), the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and the ministère des Transports du Québec (MTQ) are committed to meaningful consultation. The engagement program that has been developed for Phase 2A is fully inclusive and great efforts are being devoted to being proactive in reaching out to all who might be interested in participating, especially residents from eastern Ottawa and Gatineau .

 

In response to the correspondence we received from you and from other community leaders, as well as to comments received at the Public Consultation Group (PCG) meeting of February 22, we have asked the Consultant Team to review the approach to consultation that was outlined in the Consultation Plan for Phase 2A.

 

Following discussions with the NCC and some of the key stakeholders involved, the consultants have since proposed a number of modifications to the Phase 2A Consultation Plan. We have approved these as we believe that they will go a long way to addressing the legitimate concerns that have been raised.

 

Firstly, as you know, the consultants have invited COMMON SENSE CROSSINGS (CSC) to participate in a Community Consultation Group (CCG) meeting given its mandate to represent its members in consultations on this Study. The letter of understanding between CSC and several community associations in the east end helped to resolve any misunderstanding that the Consultant team may have had about CSC’s mandate. A meeting date has been set by CSC for March 24.

 

Secondly, a customized consultation activity will be organized in Ottawa ’s east end, in partnership with an established and respected umbrella community organization such as the East End Presidents Council. This consultation activity would take place at the location of their choice and would be structured in a manner that would allow more than 100 community members to work together to review the Draft Study Design and provide community-specific insights. We anticipate that such a meeting could take place in the first half of April.

 

In addition to the new meetings outlined above, the consultation program for Phase 2A includes a number of other opportunities that are well suited for east end representatives to be involved and to share their comments on the Study, notably:

 

· Three meetings with the Public Consultation Group will be held. The PCG is comprised of over 100 members, representing interest groups and community associations from across the National Capital Region. It includes Convent Glen, COMMON SENSE CROSSINGS, Heart of Orléans BIA, Orléans Chamber of Commerce and many other eastern organizations. We thank the leaders of COMMON SENSE CROSSINGS for their help in bolstering the east end representation at the PCG. The PCG allows us to obtain a region-wide perspective. As you note there are communities that are not necessarily adjacent to the physical corridors but that stand to be impacted nonetheless. We want to ensure that these communities have an opportunity to be heard and the PCG provides an essential forum for that.

 

· Two public events will be held, one on March 30, in Ottawa , and one on March 31, in Gatineau . They will be open to everyone and will provide an additional opportunity for all those interested to be involved in a meaningful way.

 

· A dedicated project website with periodic updates, providing opportunity for input online and at their convenience during the consultation period.

 

Rest assured that we are making every effort to include the east end community associations in this Study, since their views are important to us. Thanks to the efforts of COMMON SENSE CROSSINGS, and of others, we invited over a dozen additional community organizations from Ottawa ’s east end to participate in our last PCG meeting.

 

Once again, I hope that the responsive and transparent nature of the proposed changes to the Consultation Plan help reinforce that the Study Partners are committed to a meaningful consultation process and to engaging members of the community in the decision-making process for this Study.

 

We would be pleased to consider any recommendations that you may have to improve the process. As you know, Phase 2A is about getting people involved to provide input on the process that will be used in Phase 2B to assess and select a recommended crossing location. We believe that it is therefore imperative, that as many voices as possible are heard.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Marie Lemay, P.Eng., ing.

Chief Executive Officer

---

Conditions for a collaborative consultation

Document to confirm points made at the Public Consultation Group meeting

February 22, 2010

As a member of the Public Consulting Group, Common Sense Crossings supports PACE’s objective to develop a consultation process that will help identify and understand concerns and issues early in the EA Study and document all issues and concerns.[1]

The objective of the Community Consulting Group “is to discuss the values that are characteristic of those communities in a corridor.” However, at this time, there are specific questions to which communities want answers, if they are to be effectively engaged in such a discussion.

This document outlines some of the community concerns and issues that we believe PACE and its client, the NCC, will need to address during the upcoming community consultations if productive and collaborative consultations are to occur.

1. WHERE IS THE COMPREHENSIVE, INTEGRATED REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN THAT SHOULD BE IN PLACE BEFOREHAND SO AS TO PROVIDE THE CONTEXT FOR THE PROPOSED BRIDGE?

There is already a great deal of suspicion and scepticism following Phase 1 about the lack of a logic and context for an east end bridge and the required infrastructure. There are many who question building a bridge before addressing more pressing transportation needs of the region. What is the logic in moving forward on this specific proposal when the conclusions of other studies of critical importance to the project have not yet been completed? The commercial vehicle study which was voted on by the NCC Board of Directors at the February 13, 2009 meeting has yet to be initiated. Autoroute 50 between Montréal and Gatineau will be completed in October 2012. Other studies, including the Truck Origin and Destination study (2012 completion), the Interprovincial Crossings study, City of Ottawa Downtown Transportation study, and City of Ottawa Transit and Transportation Planning, including Light Rail, will provide critical data for developing a regional context for discussion of the bridge. Any informed consultation must take place within this broader context. In short, the sequencing of activities appears to be out of sync.

2. HAS THE PROJECT RATIONALE AS ORIGINALLY PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC NOW SHIFTED?

During Phase 1, one of the explicitly expressed rationales for a bridge was that it would alleviate the truck traffic problem on King Edward Avenue. In the Notice of Commencement (NOC) for the environmental assessment, the only expressed rationale is to provide a link between Highway 417 in Ottawa and Autoroute 50 in Gatineau. There are already reservations about the traffic forecasts used as justification for a bridge and whether a bridge would solve the truck problem on King Edward Avenue. Does this mean that truck traffic on King Edward is no longer an issue as it relates to the proposed project, and that the project’s sole purpose in now to provide “interconnectivity” of the Quebec and Ontario provincial highway systems? This is a critically important consideration. Any new link between the two cities will significantly affect commercial traffic patterns both on major roads and in neighbourhoods. This is a real concern for all communities. If there is to be a meaningful public consultation process we must know what we are being consulted on and why, and the appropriate publics must be invited.

3. WHY ARE “NEIGHBOURHOODS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE NEW CORRIDOR” SO NARROWLY DEFINED?

The Notice of Commencement suggests that the communities impacted by the three options under consideration are limited to those (Convent Glen, Hiawatha Park, Manor Park and Beacon Hill North) lying adjacent to the three potential corridors. This effectively ignores the traffic, environmental, economic and social impacts that will be imposed on all communities east of the Highway 417-174 “split”, extending to the Village of Cumberland and beyond. The process of consultation needs to include all communities that will be impacted even though they do not lie within the immediate proximity of the corridors. Taking a broader “National Capital Region” perspective, how will the highway system west of the split be able to accommodate bridge traffic and what will be the effect on the volume of car traffic entering and leaving downtown Ottawa and its neighbourhoods? Finally the proposal encourages greater reliance on automobiles and has the potential to set back for many years, plans for providing light rail service to regions east of the Greenbelt.

4. WHY DOES THE NCC’S DIRECTION APPEAR SO CONTRADICTORY?

Currently the Review of the 1996 Greenbelt Master Plan is underway. All indications are that there is a strong will on the part of the public and those conducting the review to continue to protect and in certain cases enhance the Greenbelt. At the same time the NCC is reviewing an option to build a bridge over the north-eastern edge of the Greenbelt, thus destroying the existence of a Greenbelt “necklace”. Such a review is also out of step with another joint NCC, Gatineau and Ottawa venture “Choosing Our Future”. Overall, these apparently contradictory actions are undermining the credibility of the NCC as the federal organization that should be leading the development of a long-term vision and direction for the National Capital.

5. IS THIS COMMUNITY CONSULTATION PROCESS NOT SIMPLY A REPETITION OF MANY “CONSULTATIONS” THAT HAVE GONE BEFORE?

Communities have already expressed their values throughout Phase 2A with little perceived effect on the outcomes to date. As one example, the recent consultation on the 1996 Review of the Greenbelt Master Plan demonstrated clearly that the communities in the east end value highly the Greenbelt and are not willing to see it destroyed. There are also questions related to some of the underlying assumptions[2] that have driven this proposal forward. These have been previously raised throughout Phase 1 but are still not addressed.

6. IS IT REALISTIC TO ASSUME THAT THE IMPACTS OF ANY OF THE THREE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS CAN BE EFFECTIVELY MITIGATED?

All potentially affected communities have grave doubts that mitigation is simple or in some cases, even possible. An assumption that “identified values from the CCG will be used to identify and tailor mitigation measures for any impacts that a new bridge crossing might have on a specific community” will be perceived as simplistic and inappropriate. Consultations must clearly be broader than a single community. This is a complex project with far-reaching implications involving many sectors and constituencies. Failure to acknowledge and honestly deal, at a broad level, with these doubts will only further increase the public concern and hostility to this project.

7. WHY HASN’T THE NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION REFERRED THE PROJECT TO A REVIEW PANEL?

It seems clear that the type of project being proposed would undoubtedly cause significant environmental effects. Moreover, there has been an exceptional level of public concern about the proposals that have been put forward, which continues to increase. This strongly suggests that the proposal meets criteria outlined in section 25 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act[3] for the responsible authority (the National Capital Commission) to recommend to the Minister of the Environment that he refer the project to a review panel. Given the previously discussed lack of resolution of numerous key issues related to the purpose of the project; the need for it; the best methods of meeting that need; the appropriateness of the alternatives now being proposed; and the objectiveness and transparency of the process, it would seem that the project must inevitably be referred to an independent review panel. An independent panel would be able to comprehensively address the many unresolved issues and would be perceived by the public as being more transparent and objective than the proponent of the project. An independent review panel would establish guidelines for the assessment and a framework and process for public participation. It would submit

an independent report to which the National Capital Commission, with Cabinet approval, would have to respond. This would be a more satisfactory approach from the standpoint of the public, as the public consultation process currently being proposed appears to be too limited in scope and audience.

If the National Capital Commission and its consultants are sincere in wanting to have “productive and collaborative” consultations with communities, these issues and concerns must be incorporated into the process.

Respectfully submitted

Pat Boulé

President “Common Sense Crossings”

March 1, 2010

---

Our PCG Protest Letter