1.
Barriers At The U.S. Embassy On Sussex
Drive And Mackenzie Avenue Barriérs à l'embassade des e.u.
sur le promenade sussex et avenue mackenzie |
Committee Recommendation
That Council receive this report for information.
Recommendation
du comité
Que le Conseil reçoivent ce
rapport à titre d’information.
Documentation
1.
Councillor Alex
Cullen’s report dated 05 November 2002 is immediately attached
(ACS2002-CCS-TTC-0017).
2. An Extract of Minutes of 20 November 2002
immediately follows the report and includes the voting record.
Report to/Rapport au:
Transportation
and Transit Committee/
Comité des transports et des services de transport
en commun
and Council/et au Conseil
5 November 2002 / 5 novembre 2002
Submitted by/Soumis par: Councillor Alex Cullen, Bay Ward/Conseiller Alex Cullen, Quartier
Baie
Contact/Personne-ressource: Alex Cullen
|
Ref N°: ACS2002-CCS-TTC-0017 |
SUBJECT: BARRIERS
AT THE U.S. EMBASSY ON SUSSEX DRIVE AND MACKENZIE AVENUE
OBJET: BarriÉrs à L'Embassade des E.U. sur le
Promenade Sussex et Avenue MacKenzie
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That Transportation and Transit Committee and Council receive this report for information.
Que le Comité des transports et des
services de transport en commun et Conseil reçoit ce rapport pour information.
On November 6, 2001, as a pre-cautionary measure in anticipation of demonstrations expected to occur during the G-20 Summit being held in Ottawa, temporary jersey barricades were installed on Sussex Drive and MacKenzie Avenue surrounding the U.S. Embassy, and Clarence Avenue between Sussex Drive and Parent was changed from two-way operation to one-way eastbound.
On February 6, 2002 Councillor Alex Cullen made an inquiry at Transportation and Transit Committee regarding the concrete barriers at the U.S. Embassy, to which TUPW staff responded (see TTC-25-02 attached in Attachment A). Staff noted in their response that the barriers were there on a temporary basis and that their need was being reviewed by the RCMP on a regular basis.
On May 15, 2002 Councillor Cullen brought forward a motion to Transportation and Transit Committee:
That the concrete barriers blocking traffic on
Sussex Drive and MacKenzie Avenue be removed before the end of June 2002 in
order to accommodate both the citizens of Ottawa and the Canada Day
celebrations on July 1.
Following representations by the Byward Market BIA
and Committee discussion, the following motion was adopted by Transportation
and Transit Committee and subsequently approved by City Council:
That the City of Ottawa request that the RCMP and the Embassy of the United States consult with the City of Ottawa for the speedy removal of the barriers on Sussex Drive and MacKenzie Avenue, and report back to Committee.
And that Clarence Street be restored to its former two-way street
status.
On October 21, 2002 a memo entitled “Jersey Barriers on Sussex Drive and MacKenzie Avenue” from the General Manager TUPW was circulated to members of City Council (see Attachment B). In the memo staff indicated that:
1. An engineering consultant had been retained by the Department and a design concept developed to achieve to re-instate two-way traffic on Clarence Street, using a serpentine configuration involving the use of medians, planters, and a diverter island with bollards. Construction was expected to begin in mid-October and be completed in November 2002.
2. A Class B Environmental Assessment Study for those sections of Sussex Drive and MacKenzie Avenue adjacent to the American Embassy was underway. The study is to review alternatives and provide a preferred solution to the temporary traffic/security/aesthetics issues. An Open House is scheduled for the end of November 2002, to be followed by advertising of the proposed roadway modifications in January/February 2003, to be followed by the filing of the Environmental Study Report for a 30-day review period. Construction is expected to begin in the Spring of 2003.
3. The American Embassy has scheduled the installation of its tree pits and street tree program for October/November 2002.
Following the circulation of the October 21, 2002 TUPW memo, Councillor Cullen requested that this item be placed on the November 20, 2002 agenda of the Transportation and Transit Committee agenda, under Councillors’ Items.
Further, in a subsequent e-mail to TUPW staff in relation to the October 21, 2002 TUPW memo, Councillor Cullen asked the following questions (to form part of this item):
1. Could staff please provide the costs for this so-called “aesthetic” improvement on Sussex Drive, the costs of the proposed re-design of Clarence Street, and out of what budget this will come?
2. Could staff please provide the cost of the Environmental Assessment for the road design, and under whose authority this was commissioned?
N/A
To be determined.
Attachment A: Response to Inquiry TTC-25-02 – TTC Meeting of 6 Feb 02
Attachment B: TUPW Memo “Jersey Barriers on Sussex Drive and MacKenzie Avenue” dated 21 Oct 02
Attachment A
Council Member
Inquiry/Motion Form
Demande
de renseignements d’un membre du Conseil /Formulaire de motion
From/Exp. : Date: File/Dossier :
Rosemary
Nelson, Coord. 7 February 2002 ACM7160/0200
Transportation
and Transit
Committee
To/Dest. :
General Manager,
Transportation,
Utilities and Public Works
cc Councillor Cullen, Bay Ward
Subject/Objet :
Outstanding
Inquiry No. TTC-25-02 – TTC meeting 06 February 2002
Inquiry/Demande
de renseignements :
Councillor Cullen advised that concrete barriers are
blocking traffic lanes on MacKenzie Avenue and on Sussex Drive, on both sides
of the American Embassy. These have
been in place since September 2001.
Normally, changes in public road configurations involve a public process
and a decision by committee and Council, but to his knowledge, this has not
occurred. The councillor asked that
staff inform committee how these barriers were placed on MacKenzie Avenue and
Sussex Drive, what role (if any) the City played in this process and when these
barriers will be removed.
Response/Réponse:
On 30 October 2001, at the
request of the RCMP, staff from TUPW and Police Services met U.S. Embassy
officials to discuss the need for upgraded security measures. At that meeting, officials of the Embassy
requested that all necessary precautions be taken to protect their assets,
including:
1. Installing jersey barrier
along Sussex Drive to close the westerly curb lane between Murray Street and
the northerly crosswalk at York Street;
2. Installing jersey barrier
along MacKenzie Avenue to close the easterly curb lane between Murray Street
and the pedestrian staircase leading to York Street; and,
2.
Changing the most westerly block of Clarence Street
(between Sussex Drive and Parent Street) from two-way to one-way eastbound
operation.
The message heard throughout the meeting was that
these changes were "precautionary" and "temporary" and that
the RCMP would review the need for the barricades on a regular basis. When the security threat diminished, the
barricades would be removed. In
reviewing the request, TUPW staff determined that the changes could be
implemented immediately with minimum impacts on traffic flows in the area. The changes would not compromise pedestrian
safety or mobility as all sidewalks, crosswalks and curb depressions would
still be accessible.
Immediately following the meeting,
Councillor Meilleur and the Chair of the Byward Market BIA were informed of the
request. Both were concerned about
impacts the measures would have on local residents and businesses.
The measures were
installed on Tuesday, 6 November 2001 and since then, TUPW staff has liaised
with Ottawa Police Services, the RCMP and Embassy officials on a regular basis
to monitor the continued need for the temporary measures. In response to the most recent inquiry of 5 April
2001, the RCMP informed Ottawa Police Services that there is still no foreseen
date for removal of the barriers or for reinstating two-way operation on
Clarence Street. The need for barriers
is under constant review based on world events, especially those in the Middle
East and on threat and risk assessments that are continually being updated.
Also, the RCMP meets regularly with U.S. Embassy officials, the local Liberal
MP Caucus, the Byward Market BIA and Councillor Meilleur, to keep them apprised
of the situation.
As noted by Councillor
Cullen, changes in roadway operations or to traffic controls normally follow a
public process. In this case, that
process was not followed because under the Vienna Convention, the protection of
embassies and consulates is a legal obligation of the host country and is
therefore, a federal responsibility.
Further, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the RCMP may unilaterally
impose whatever measures they deem appropriate in carrying out that
responsibility.
Accordingly, on receipt
of such requests, TUPW staff work with Foreign Affairs and the RCMP to find a
balance between security needs for the embassy and the mobility needs of the
travelling public. Staff convey that
information immediately to the affected ward Councillor(s) and then implement
the agreed upon changes as expeditiously as possible.
Attachment B
M E M O / N O T E D E S E R V I C E |
|
To / Destinataire |
Mayor and Members of Council |
|
From / Expéditeur |
General Manager |
|
Subject / Objet |
Jersey Barriers on Sussex Drive and MacKenzie Avenue |
Date: 21 October 2002 |
At its meeting of 15 May 2002, the Transportation and Transit Committee
passed the following motion:
· That the City of Ottawa request that the RCMP and the Embassy of the United States consult with the City of Ottawa for the speedy removal of the barriers on Sussex Drive and MacKenzie Avenue, and report back to committee.
§
And
that Clarence Street be restored to its former two-way street status.
Since this directive was received, the City of Ottawa, in discussion
with the RCMP, Ottawa Police Services, officials of the Embassy of the United
States and the NCC, has taken the lead in addressing the expressed desire to
replace the temporary Jersey barriers with an aesthetic treatment that
continues to meet the traffic and security needs of the community and relevant
agencies.
The City has retained an engineering consultant to
provide planning and design services to create a concept plan for Clarence
Street, Sussex Drive, and MacKenzie Avenue which addresses the traffic issues,
the aesthetic qualities sought by the community, and the security concerns
requested by the authorities.
In view of the significant concerns expressed by
local residents and businesses, the first priority was to develop a concept
design to replace the barriers, which had been placed on Clarence Street. A stakeholders meeting was held on 5
September 2002, at which time a consensus on a preferred alternative was
achieved. The preferred alternative (attached) includes providing for two-way
traffic on Clarence Street; constructing a diverter island with bollards on
Clarence Street at the Sussex Drive intersection; constructing a median on
Clarence Street approximately 50 m east of Sussex Drive, modifying Clarence Street
to form a serpentine shaped roadway; and installing circular planters on the
sidewalk to deter slip around movements past the diverter island. Construction is scheduled to begin in
mid-October and should be completed in November 2002.
The sections of Sussex Drive and MacKenzie Avenue
adjacent to the American Embassy are presently under review. A Class B Environmental Assessment Study is
currently underway. The study will
review alternatives and provide a preferred solution to the temporary traffic /
security / aesthetic issues that have been discussed. An Open House is tentatively scheduled for the end of November
2002. Advertisement of the proposed
roadway modifications is tentatively planned for January/February 2003,
followed by the filing of the Environmental Study Report for a 30-day review
period. Subject to acquisition of all
approvals, construction could begin early in the Spring 2003. (Note:
The American Embassy has scheduled work on its tree pits and street tree
program for October/November 2002. This
is not associated with the replacement of the Jersey barriers.)
Should you require any additional information, please contact John
Buck, Manager, Safety and Traffic Services, at 580-2424 ext. 21693
R. T. Leclair
RTL/mf/db
Attach. 1
cc: Director, Traffic and Parking Operations
Manager, Traffic and Safety Services, Traffic and Parking Operations
Committee Coordinator, Transportation and Transit Committee
BARRIERS
AT THE U.S. EMBASSY ON SUSSEX DRIVE AND MACKENZIE AVENUE / Barriérs
à L'Embassade des E.U. sur le Promenade Sussex et Avenue MacKenzie
ACS2002-CCS-TTC-0014
Nick Scott believed the barricades should be removed no later than six months from today, so that the corresponding streets can be restored to the public for their intended use. He noted that if the intent of the barriers is to prevent and/or protect against assault on the American Embassy and Sussex Drive, it subsequently adds increased risk to the public and to the older, more fragile buildings across the street. He emphasized that the people of this city should not have to deal indefinitely with such unsightly disruptions to their streets because of the remote possibility of a threat, or because of fear stemming from past events. And, while he believes safety should have the highest priority, those in charge of that security should fully explore all the solutions which would protect the Embassy and, at the same time, leave the streets accessible to the public. Mr. Scott suggested that a secure wall be erected on the Embassy property, which would be designed to withstand the effects of a potential blast. However, it should only be constructed if deemed to be an effective solution by a team of security experts, and only if absolutely necessary. He implored those officials now in charge to remove the barriers within the next six months, as he feels this is not just his opinion, but also the concern of many fellow citizens.
Councillor Cullen noted that security features of the Embassy include bombproof windows and exterior walls as well as an elevated fence and posts embedded in the sidewalks, which prevent large vehicles from driving up to the building. He made further note of the concerns conveyed to him by some citizens regarding the visual impact the barriers pose on the Byward Market, a popular tourist attraction.
Jean-Marie Leduc suggested that if they are obligated
to keep the barriers, they should at least change them by taking them off the
road and adding superior protection to the existing post. He produced an illustration of how he
thought this would work and which, he added, was favourably received by the
RCMP. He was concerned to learn that
some merchants on Sussex Drive directly opposite the Embassy plan to move their
businesses because they feel threatened.
If he had the choice, he would take the barriers down and replace it
with what he proposed and give the street back to the citizens of Ottawa.
Chair Meilleur advised that his
suggestions were forwarded to staff and will be revised during the
Environmental Study.
In considering the item and following up on the most recent memo from the General Manager dated 12 November 2002, Councillor Cullen questioned on whose authority staff decided to spend $300,000 on the re-design of Clarence Street. Ms. Leclair explained that the funds were spent on the basis of the direction given by the Committee previously and subsequently approved by Council. She reminded committee that at the time that approval had been given, staff had clearly conveyed to the committee that the barricades could not simply be removed or the street simply returned to its original status on direction from the committee. The committee was also advised at that time that the responsibility for security measures rested with the RCMP and External Affairs/Foreign Affairs and that reimbursement for any associated costs would be sought from the Federal government and the U.S. Embassy. She further explained that the Department expedited the process because of the concerns relayed by the public, and as such, used an interim funding source, which authority was approved by the Department’s Finance Division and the authority under the By-Laws.
When asked why staff did not come to committee for the approval for the transfer of funds and for the modifications to Clarence Street, the General Manager indicated that the Department had the authority to use the interim funds, as mentioned previously. In the case of Clarence Street, she explained that the road was not designed under an environmental assessment (EA) process, and there was no public hearing process and so the normal process would not have included presenting a report on the design to committee. Councillor Cullen posited, however, that the work done deviated from what committee originally approved, which was to restore the street to its original status.
Councillor Cullen expressed further concern that $30,000 was being spent on the Class B EA without the Department having first come to the committee for approval and he questioned under what authority staff began the EA. Ms. Leclair responded by stating that EA’s, which have in past come to committee, are those pertaining to new works being undertaken. Under the Legislation, staff has to undertake EA’s on various types of rehabilitative works and the Terms of Reference for those issues are not brought forward to committee, but are worked on with the local councillor. The Director of Parking and Traffic Operations, Mike Flainek, added that the roadway itself is intended for similar use to that of it’s previous state and an EA for that situation might not be required.
In response for further questions posed by the councillor, staff advised that the directive from committee last May was that staff consult with the RCMP and other agencies for the speedy removal of the barricades. The consultation led to the conclusion that there would be no speedy removal of the barriers. She added however, that the degree of risk at the U.S. Embassy is regularly re-evaluated by the RCMP and it is known that the existing solution is not satisfactory and a consensus must be reached on how to re-instate the roadway to best benefit the community and still meet security concerns. The EA that has been initiated is intended to be a means up gaining public input to ascertain the preferred alternative to reach the original objectives put forth by the committee and the community. The Department has the authority to undertake these kinds of initiatives without the approval of the committee and in this case, the Department will not undertake any work unless the a design is brought forward and approved through the public hearing process to the Transportation and Transit Committee.
When questioned why a report had not been brought back to committee pursuing the EA approach, so it could examine the Terms of Reference and Workplan and decide whether to approve the budget, the General Manager explained that the Department had followed normal procedure and had informed the committee of the work being done, via memorandum, and had worked closely with the ward councillor on the outline and the community impacted. Since there is currently no preferred solution or funding estimate, staff felt there was no need to report back to committee until the next step has been taken. This step is now well underway and the Department hopes to conclude the work and bring forward the full report within the next few weeks. Councillor Cullen reiterated his concern however, that an issue which deals with a major area of public interest, should have come through the committee so the public could have been informed accordingly.
In response to a concern about the tree pits being scheduled by the Embassy, Ned Lathrop, General Manager for Development Services, advised that the tree pits are on the Embassy’s property, and the discussion regarding the replacement of the barriers with flower boxes, stems from ideas raised by members of the community as possible solutions. He went on to clarify that any media reports stating that these flower boxes will be installed by the end of the month are inaccurate.
Councillor Bloess indicated that he too was concerned about the expenditure of the $300,000 for the roadway modifications and noted that no reply pertaining to reimbursement of this money is yet forth-coming from the Solicitor General or the Embassy. Ms. Leclair advised that although the Department has no confirmation of reimbursement yet, there have been discussions between the parties and staff is hopeful the monies will be forthcoming.
Councillor Cullen proposed the following Motion:
Whereas the installation of
barricades at the U.S. Embassy last November 6, 2001 was on a 'temporary
basis';
Whereas the City of Ottawa
desires the removal of these barricades and the restoration of normal traffic
on Sussex Drive and Mackenzie Avenue;
Therefore the Class B
Environmental Assessment for the barricades on Sussex Drive and Mackenzie
Avenue by the American Embassy be stopped;
And that the City of Ottawa
request the assistance of its federal elected representatives (Members of
Parliament) to facilitate the speedy removal of these barricades.
In speaking to the Motion, the councillor reiterated his opinion that the barriers should not become a permanent fixture, as he believes the security features of the Embassy are adequate protection. Furthermore, the visual presence of the barricades create a heightened sense of menace in the minds of the community.
Councillor Doucet stated that while he did not approve of the barriers, he could not support the Motion because he believed it is in the best interest of Ottawa to comply with the Embassy’s wishes and not be seen as being lenient where security is concerned.
As the ward councillor, Chair Meilleur stated that the barricades have to stay in place in some form. In this regard and as part of the EA, more aesthetically pleasing structures, such as flower boxes, might be a better option than jersey barriers.
Moved by A. Cullen
Whereas the installation of
barricades at the U.S. Embassy last November 6, 2001 was on a 'temporary
basis';
Whereas the City of Ottawa
desires the removal of these barricades and the restoration of normal traffic
on Sussex Drive and Mackenzie Avenue;
Therefore the Class B
Environmental Assessment for the barricades on Sussex Drive and Mackenzie
Avenue by the American Embassy be stopped;
And that the City of Ottawa
request the assistance of its federal elected representatives (Members of
Parliament) to facilitate the speedy removal of these barricades.
LOST
YEAS (2) R. Bloess, A. Cullen
NAYS (5) E. Arnold, C. Doucet, P. Hume, P. McNeely, M. Meilleur
Councillor Cullen the proposed the following
That no
further work be done on the Class B Environmental Assessment on the barricades
on Sussex Drive and Mackenzie Avenue by the U.S. Embassy until the terms of
reference, workplan and budget has been presented to the Transportation and
Transit Committee and Council for approval.
Ms. Leclair commented that it would be extremely time-consuming to comply with this direction for every EA the Department undertakes. She reiterated the fact the Department already has the authority to proceed with these types of work similar to this EA, without the approval of committee. She advised that the first public meeting in this EA process is scheduled for 26 November 2002 and that to delay that meeting in order to bring forward the Terms of Reference would mean that the public process could not begin until after Christmas, further slowing down the project. Councillor Cullen emphasized however, that this is an important public policy issue, which involves a significant city street and the U.S. Embassy, and that it is good public business to have the issue dealt with before committee to be as accountable to the public as possible.
Moved by A. Cullen
That no further work be done on
the Class B Environmental Assessment on the barricades on Sussex Drive and
Mackenzie Avenue by the U.S. Embassy until the terms of reference, workplan and
budget has been presented to the Transportation and Transit Committee and
Council for approval.
LOST
YEAS (1) A. Cullen
NAYS (5) E. Arnold, C. Doucet, P. Hume, P. McNeely, M. Meilleur
That
Transportation and Transit Committee and Council receive this report for
information.
RECEIVED