OCDSB Staff's Proposal More Parking On School Property

Just to throw some numbers out there:

The current plan for Devonshire Phase II renovations:

The $2.8 million Phase II project will cover:
i.Elevator construction $600,000
ii. Exterior accessible ramp and parking $385,000
iii. Window replacement (3 phases) $325,000
iv. Flooring replacements $300,000
v. South yard enhancements and staff parking $220,000
vi. Kindergarten renovations $200,000
vii. Painting $80,000
viii. Gymnasium renovations $690,000

Total: $2,800,000

Estimated cost of underground parking:
$70,000 per underground space X 30 parking spaces = $2,100,000
That 2.1million would have to be funded in addition to the above.

There is $1.75million in Capital Reserves which has not been released and there is no indication from the Ministry on a time frame that it will be released. There is a very long waiting list for Capital Priority funded projects (for perspective, Broadview PS rebuild is not even on the top 5 list yet).

Looking at the current numbers and project allocation time, it looks very possible that the Gym renos will happen within the next 3 years. If the underground parking is not currently on the budget/list, I am not sure how the extra money, plan and schedule will be done in time.

Questions for the Board and the Trustees.

(details from here: www.ocdsb.ca/calendar/AGENDA%20DOCS/2013%20DOCS/May%202013/COW%2021%20May%202013/06b%20Report%2013-045%20Devonshire%20PS%20Renovation%20Project.pdf)

Thank you Jennifer! It is great to get your feedback and good to know that we are being heard.

Regarding the provision of parking and renovations at Devonshire, there are several main criteria that come to mind. First that whatever occurs at Devonshire should benefit the students, secondly that whatever occurs should not have a negative impact on the community, and third that it have a minimal environmental impact.

Regarding the play yard, Jennifer McKenzie has said “that we have heard loud and clear from the community that the play yard is not to be used for parking spots”. This would seem to address many of these concerns:
1. That the OCDSB cannot continue to bring the issue of parking on the play yard to the community.
2. That we cannot justify the loss of any play yard space for parking
3. That we have a limited amount of public greenspace in our community, and it needs to be protected where possible. This includes the public greenspace between the laneway and the play yard.
4. That there are safety issues with parking on the play ground.
5. That there are environmental issues with parking on the playground.
6. That parking on the playground would reflect poorly on the staff and students that have repeatedly established Devonshire as an Eco-School.

This to us is a significant improvement in the parking issue between the OCDSB and the Devonshire community, (assuming OCDSB Facilities is so directed). Note there is still however a lack of adequate outdoor play ground space for the children. This situation can be improved on by moving the playground fence line to take advantage of underutilized OCDSB property currently outside of the fence line (as previously proposed by the OCDSB). With the fences in dire need of repair or replacement, the yard renovation is the appropriate time to maximize play yard space.

There is still the issue of OCDSB parking for all school staff. This runs against the mass transit philosophy (of both the City of Ottawa and the Province of Ontario), that is being applied to our community and others. Jennifer has indicated she would be advocating for a minimum number of parking spots to accommodate staff who have accessibility issues or those who cannot access transit or other alternatives, as well as for central staff who visit schools on an emergency or rotational basis. While Jennifer has not indicated exact numbers, this is an improvement on the philosophy of providing parking to all staff, and more in keeping with the policies of higher levels of government, and the expectations of the public. It would still be going beyond the original requirements for Devonshire, as those are currently met by the parking at the rear of the building.

That the parking is free parking is still an issue, as effectively the OCDSB is subsidizing those who use it, while those who find alternative means of transportation are effectively penalized. It seems to go against the higher levels of government are trying to achieve and their philosophy regarding mass transit. The OCDSB needs to have some sort of fee for parking, both as a disincentive, and as a means of cost recovery. It unjustifiable that the OCDSB does not try to recover some of the parking costs from staff, when students and parents are expected to pay fees for supplies, agendas, field trips, special programming in schools, etc.. This issue should be resolved, though it can be done after the fact.

OCDSB staff have now been asked to investigate "underground" or more likely "at current grade of the gym" parking with the gymnasium above it or something along those lines, as it is prudent for them to at least consider this option at this point while they have the opportunity since the gym is to be renovated. This investigation is due to the uncertainty of other options being currently used, or being offered in the future at 1050 Somerset St, and that the OCDSB would like to avoid these uncertainties. This would raise some issues:
1. Will it impact the primary yard space? We would not want underground parking to cause the removal of yard space. If it could be shown that a larger footprint was necessary to provide a suitable gym facility, it may warrant it but parking should not be the driving force. There is a question as to how the construction timeline would impact the school year and the ability of the students to use the primary yard and the gym.
2. What will be the impact on green space and ground water? Would not seem to make the situation worse as the laneway is asphalted to the gym at this time.
3. What is the impact on the parking problem? Underground parking should ultimately resolve this and remove any need to have or pursue any other parking agreements offsite, or on school play yards by OCDSB.
4. What is the impact on the community? This should mean a final end to the parking issue. There will be some increased traffic on the laneway due to the teacher parking, but there will hopefully be a decrease in street parking as a result. Since the OCDSB would be containing parking to their site it would remove the need for the OCDSB to potentially acquire and develop lands for permanent parking offsite at Devonshire. This should mean there would be no need for the parking that the Hintonburg Community Association (HCA) negotiated in 1050 Somerset St. for the OCDSB. HCA should then be allowed to revisit the settlement and remove the OCDSB as the beneficiary of the parking, and potentially exchange the parking for an item that will more broadly benefit the community for the long term.
5. What is the impact on the students? As mentioned there may be an issue of extending the construction timeline into the school year, and if so how will this affect the students use of the primary yard play facilities and the gym. The new construction would be barrier free and potentially more accessible. The OCDSB has repeatedly indicated that students will suffer as Devonshire will lose good teachers and have difficulty getting good teachers to work at the facility without onsite parking, so this may result in better educators working at Devonshire. Given some of what we consider to be the best teachers do use alternative forms of transportation already, we think this is overblown and to a large extent can be addressed through car pooling, and encouraging alternative means of transit. We think that it is important that the students see their school management not only talking about the environment, but that it is actively trying to improve environmentally.
6. What is the environmental impact? Hard to judge. It’s not affecting greenspace locally. It would be using the existing building footprint as opposed to developing new lands. It would be a relatively large amount of new infrastructure for a small benefit. However, one way or the other the staff would have underground parking eventually, either provided by OCDSB or by the community through HCA. We may potentially end up with more underground parking in the community if 1050 Somerset does not scale its parking back as a result of the lack of need for OCDSB’s spaces. In regard to the amount of traffic in the community Jennifer McKenzie has indicated she is advocating for alternative means of transit, so as part of underground parking we should be asking for secure enclosed parking for staff bicycles, to benefit, support and encourage staff to use alternate transportation. Since adding a parking structure would lead to a rebuild of the gym, it would benefit from being built to current energy efficiency standards. We could push for environmental design features that would reflect Devonshire’s EcoSchool status, such as LEED certified construction, greening of the gym roof, etc.. This would help to offset the environmental impact of the parking infrastructure, if done in a cost effective manner.
7. What is the safety impact? As mentioned it will increase traffic on the laneway, but it will reduce parking on the street, so there is a bit of a trade off. There should be no issues of playground contamination or vehicles inadvertently driving through a fence and onto the playground. There should be fewer winter slip and fall hazards for staff as I would expect an inside entry. A major safety issue, to my knowledge yet to be addressed by the OCDSB, is that to both the school and the gym were designed prior to the implementation of the first Ontario Building Code. In the case if the older portion of the school facility, it is significantly before any prominent codes were written. This means that the school facilities may not adequately meet the life – safety requirements of the current Codes in regard to seismic, wind loading, and fire protection. (Note that only a proper evaluation would determine if the original construction meets current life –safety requirements. The OCDSB is not required to do this by the current Code, but it still does not mean it meets the intent of the Code.) By rebuilding the gym the school would benefit from an up-to-date gym structure that would meet all current code requirements, much to the benefit of the students. It may be possible to provide a safe exit route to the primary yard in the event of a significant seismic occurrence, as one of the safety concerns would be from unrestrained masonry falling from the old structure and either injuring students exiting the school building or blocking the exit. Depending on the design it could even incorporate some sort of portico that would as well shield the existing main primary yard exit from falling debris. While the safety of the junior yard and main Breezehill exits would still be questionable, we would have at least one safe evacuation route from the building.
8. Costs? As mentioned the HCA has already forgone broader community benefits in order to provide parking for the Devonshire staff. If as a result of OCDSB underground parking the HCA can recoup or redistribute these benefits to the broader Hintonburg community, the community stands to benefit.

In our minds, the advantages to allowing the OCDSB to consider onsite underground parking can significantly outweigh it disadvantages –if done right, and leveraging the investment where possible to achieve other significant benefits . If the OCDSB can be encouraged to leverage their investment in parking to provide environmental and safety benefits we think the addition of parking can be done to the benefit of all parties involved.

Jamie and Ellen

[/font][/font][/font]

Can the OCDSB use its expropriation powers to take part of the Canadian Bank Note property for parking instead of trying to squeeze in parking onto the current site? Surely a small part of that property is worth less than 2 million needed to build parking under the gym.

Hi Nicholas, the site plan that the OCDSB did for one of previous parking go arounds showed that the fence on the West and South sides was at the OCDSB property line. The existing fence on the East side (Breezehill) is shown as being 3.1m in from the actual property line. In I believe it was the next iteration where the city offered to allow the fence line to be moved further onto city property (not sure if this was to be an actual variance or what). I personally think that moving to the edge of the sidewalk is a bad idea as it will crowd pedestrians too much, and interfere with the existing trees. Keeping the fence more inboard allows people to pass without stepping out onto the street -a significant issue with kids given the number of double strollers you see in the morning.

For the Claridge deal, there are probably ways around it -HCA would have a better idea in the matter as it was their contract and their negotiation. I doubt Claridge would give HCA a benefit worth the full retail value (probably around $600k retail making a guess) for the spots, since if I remember correctly it was for a term of 25 years. Given Claridge could probably sell them easily I can't see why they would not want to consider opening the agreement. They are in the business of developing and selling properties so I do not see a lot of advantage of them saying no just for spite, especially if OCDSB is willing to give up its interest in the spots.

Important information on Devonshire renos & parking have been posted by OCDSB

www.ocdsb.ca/calendar/AGENDA%20DOCS/2013%20DOCS/June%202013/COW%2018%20June%202013/06e%20Report%2013-090%20Devonshire%20PS%20Renovation%20Project.pdf

It appears the parking ideas put out by Jennifer McKenzie will not be investigated further due to the cost and fact only 8 spots would be found. The PDF has some drawings showing parking options in both yards. Further investigation will go on by board staff and there will be public consultations. Still looking for a parent volunteer to take this on.

FYI this is more or less the response we are sending:

Regarding Report 13-090 item 4, we are concerned that in it, OCDSB Facilities is potentially tying Devonshire school south yard improvements to parking. While the implementation of Devonshire yard improvements and parking are interrelated to the extent they involve the same site, they are 2 separate issues that need to be judged on their own merits. We are worried that the language in item 4 is implying that we can’t have the needed yard improvements unless we accept the parking on the playground. If in fact this is OCDSB’s intent we are very concerned of the precedent this sets not only for Devonshire, but for other inner city schools as well. If this is not what OCDSB trustees are intending we would like it clarified, so that neither Facilities or the school community mistakenly interprets the intent of the OCDSB trustees in this matter. It is important that clear direction be given, and that it be on the record. Regarding parking we have previously indicated our opposition to it to the OCDSB so we do not see the purpose in fully reiterating it at this point.

It should be noted by OCDSB trustees that OCDSB Facilities is correct in saying that the playground renovations and upgrades are needed since:
- the existing fencing needs to be replaced as it is a state of disrepair.
-the paved surface needs repaving as the surface no longer drains correctly, resulting in severe pooling which impairs the children’s use of the facilities and creates a slip and fall hazard in winter.
-that the play yard is overused and is in need of new sod or durable field resurfacing, such as artificial turf. Currently the runoff carries the bare soil off the upper field onto the paved yard surface below, creating a second muddy surface that is exacerbated by the drainage issues mentioned above. It is also questionable if the OCDSB is even allowed to allow this uncontrolled drainage of soil to enter the City of Ottawa storm water system.
-that the yard needs to be expanded since the playground is overcrowded and will become more so in the future due to planned community intensification, and that the OCDSB has 3.1m of unused property along the Breezehill Ave fence line that can easily be incorporated into the yard at the time of replacing the fencing that can help address this. OCDSB Facilities has also correctly identified this unutilized property on their drawing as the appropriate location for the required accessible sloped access to the junior field. It is close to the exterior access ramp and parking, does not interfere with the current functioning of the play environment, and better provides the disabled users shade and rain protection under the tree canopy.

We would like to point out (yet again) that we are concerned that the accompanying drawings to the report do not reflect the actual site conditions, since we assume the individual trustees and committee of the whole may be relying on them in determining their opinions. Significant in our viewpoint is that the Junior play structure graphic depiction shown does not accurately represent the actual structure or its size and placement. In fact it is much larger, covering much more of the sand area, and is much closer to the edge of the sand next to the proposed parking than shown and therefore has much less circulation space than is implied by the drawings. The existing tether ball posts between the sand area and the laneway fence line have also been omitted. The existing Junior yard catch basin and drainage pattern have been omitted as well. On the City of Ottawa’s side of the Junior yard laneway fence, the City of Ottawa’s grass boulevard running between the fence and the asphalt laneway has also been omitted from the drawings.

Note that this grass boulevard, in the opinion of our professional engineering consultant, plays a significant role in how the runoff is currently affected in this section of the laneway. Also missing from the drawings are any elevations or grade levels, which if present would show the significant elevation difference along the laneway from Laurel down to the school as well as the elevation differences between the laneway and the Junior yard. These elevational differences create an issue with how the proposed parking will actually be drained and where that drainage will go. The simplistic sloping of parking shown on the drawing is not that representative of the actual site and it fails to show where the runoff will go as there is no catch basin present in the proposed parking or the existing OCDSB parking further down the laneway.

Assuming the City of Ottawa would allow the OCDSB an exemption to its by-law requirements that property owners deal with their runoff onsite, the only place the proposed parking runoff can go is towards the existing parking, which already has significant pooling issues due to the lack of a catch basin. This pooling will be exacerbated by the additional proposed parking runoff and we do not see how it is helpful in doing this. In the winter this will just create a greater slip and fall hazard to staff and the general public.

It is interesting to note that our professional engineering consultant’s opinion was that for the proposed parking runoff to be handled properly it would require the installation of a catch basin for the proposed parking. This was the same sentiment we received in discussions with a senior city planner regarding the matter.

As previously mentioned we assume OCDSB trustees in coming to their decisions are actually relying on the factuality of materials prepared and presented by OCDSB Facilities. It is possible that Facilities feels these discrepancies mentioned are beyond the grasp of trustees (which is doubtful), or inconsequential to the process, but we would suggest that on a small inner city site these discrepancies are actually quite important and reflects a lack of due diligence which seems in our opinion to tilt the argument in favour of Facilities’ preferred scenario. Given that it has been previously pointed out to the OCDSB that their drawings did not reflect the site conditions, I find it quite disrespectful and questionable that Facilities feels comfortable presenting them as part of Report 13-090 to the committee of the whole.

Please note that it is unfortunate we have to be suspect of the OCDSB’s intent and due diligence, but as you must be aware the OCDSB has previously annexed part of the Junior yards basketball court with no consultation, and has previously attempted to implement the Junior yard parking by just showing up on site and attempting to remove playground equipment. The OCDSB has to recognize that in order to regain the trust and goodwill of the community it has to start by clearly communicating its intentions.

As it is unlikely we will be able to attend the meeting of June 18, 2013 regarding Report 13-090 we would request that this communication be officially recognized and entered as part of the minutes.