►
From YouTube: Built Heritage Sub-Committee – October 9, 2014
Description
Built Heritage Sub-Committee – October 9, 2014 – Audio Stream
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas
A
A
Okay,
we
are
going
to
have
a
presentation
from
staff
on
the
Innovation
Center
at
Bayview
Road
and
then
there's
one
other
item,
which
is
the
designation
of
66
and
78
Lisgar
Street
under
part
four
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act,
and
they
don't
think
we
have
anyone
to
speak
to
that.
Does
anyone
have
you
want
to
speak
to
this?
A
A
Yeah
we're
just
having
a
presentation
that
so
that's
good,
so
you're
not
here
to
speak
on
either
of
the
Lisgar
properties,
all
right.
Okay!
Does
anyone
have
any
questions
or
comments
for
staff
or
want
a
presentation?
So
is
that
carried?
Thank
you
all
right,
so
we'll
go
back
and
we'll
start
a
presentation
on
the
Innovation
Center
at
Bayview.
B
Designation
was
constructed
in
1941
as
a
city
works,
yard,
maintenance,
yard
storage
sheds
was
used
continuously
by
the
city
up
until
the
1990s
late
1990s,
designed
by
Joseph
Holmes
Irvine,
who
is
the
City
of
Ottawa
design
engineer
at
the
time,
and
it's
a
good
example
of
the
early
modern
style
in
Ottawa
in
an
industrial
building
which
we
don't
see
a
lot
of
in
the
city.
So
it's
a
real
example
as
well,
just
some
interesting
pictures
showing
it
under
construction.
B
The
blueprints
for
the
building-
they
don't
actually
show
up
that
well,
most
live,
but
we
do
have
lots
of
information
about
the
building,
which
is
great
because
it
is
a
city
building.
So
the
archives
has
a
lot
of
information
about
it
in
recent
years
it
has
been
empty
for
the
last
number
of
years
and
this
community
association
did
request
designation
of
the
building
a
number
of
years
ago.
B
The
city
does
intend
to
designated
a
recommendation
to
designate
the
building
and
that
will
be
coming
forward
in
the
next
few
months,
but
as
the
work
is
going
on
the
Innovation
Center,
we
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
the
community
is
up-to-date
and
if
you
had
any
questions
that
could
be
answered,
you'll
see,
I
have
just
circulated
you
a
draft
copy
of
the
statement
of
cultural
heritage,
value
that
we
have
written
for
the
building.
This
document
is
being
used
to
guide
the
work
on
the
Innovation.
B
B
So
in
order
to
accommodate
that
what
the
Innovation
Center
will
be
looking
at
various
options
in
terms
of
screens
or
canopies,
or
something
to
assist
with
that
and
then
likely
a
combination
of
both
restoration
and
replacement
in
kind
of
some
of
the
windows
but
I'll.
Let
Cora
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
that
and
that's
sort
of
all
I
had
about
the
building.
I
just
wanted
to
give
you
a
bit
of
background
as
to
why
we're
here
and
staff
thought
it
was
important
that
the
committee
be
involved
and
be
aware
of
the
project.
B
C
C
Wrestle
before
we
hear
this
presentation,
you
had
mentioned
that
it's
the
intent
of
staff
to
bring
forward
a
report
recommending
designation
under
part
for
the
Heritage
Act.
Like
my
question
is
we
have
just
been
handed
a
one-page
statement
of
heritage
values,
but
I
wondered
if
you
could
just
speak
about
when
the
draft
report
is
expected
to
be
prepared
for
the
designation,
like
the
one
that
we
have
in
front
of
us
for
this
dark.
That's
the
template.
We
use
it
the
city.
When
is
that
actually
going
to
be
forward.
B
A
survey
form
has
already
been
prepared,
as
you
see
in
the
report
in
the
next
item
on
the
agenda,
but
I
haven't
circulated
it
to
the
committee.
The
intention
is
to
bring
forward
a
recommendation
to
designate
likely
early
in
the
new
year,
so
I
don't
have
an
exact
date
rule,
but
I
anticipate.
It
would
be
early
in
the
new
year.
C
For
design
is
going
to
be
going
out,
we
understand
the
RFP
advise
design
builders
that
there
will
be
a
report
recommending
designation
and
that
recommends
destination
which
includes
the
statement
of
cultural
heritage
value.
Is
there
not
a
problem
yet
with
sequencing,
because
how
will
the
design
in
advance
what
will
be
designated
and
how
will
they
manage
to
his
second
place
available
requirement
for
a
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
to
be
made
on
the
basis
of
design
values
design
so
that
it
can
be
evaluated
by
staff
and
subcommittee
and
counsel.
B
So
it's
it's
not
a
secret
that
the
city
intends
to
bring
forward
a
designation
for
this
building
in
terms
of
whether
or
not
a
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
would
be
required
at
this
point
in
time.
I'm,
not
sure
if
I
can
answer
that
question
because
I
haven't
seen
the
prospective
package
at
this
point,
so
the
official
plan
technically
doesn't
require
us
or
ask
us
to
do
a
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
for
non
designated
buildings.
B
But
that
being
said,
there
is
precedent
for
doing
so
where
there
is
the
potential
to
impact
the
cultural
heritage
value,
as
defined
by
the
statement
of
cultural
heritage,
value
that
we
have
in
front
of
us.
So
I
think,
once
we
get
a
little
bit
further
down
the
road
I'll
be
able
to
determine
whether
or
not
that
is
a
potential
for
negative
impact
as
a
result
of
the
project.
The
phase
one
of
this
project
right
now
is
an
adaptive
reuse
of
the
existing
building.
There
aren't
really
any
proposed
major
additions
or
anything
like
that.
B
There
is
a
phase
two
down
the
road
which
would
be
at
our
component
potentially,
and
that,
of
course,
would
happen
after
the
designation
and
any
application.
Any
any
future
proposal
would
require
an
application
of
the
hair
jacked
and
likely
a
cultural
heritage
impact
statement.
So
the
answer
to
your
question-
I
guess,
is
I'm
not
sure
at
this
point
whether
a
cultural
heritage
impacts
will
be
required
just.
C
It's
fantastic,
because
it
really
means
that
this
building
is
going
to
be
conservative,
but
I
think
that
the
city
is
trying
to
educate
developers,
educate
communities
about
the
procedures
and
the
values
of
the
historic
places
in
this
region
and
I
think
that
the
city
should
be
prepared
to
be
exemplary
in
this
case,
to
show
that
there's
nothing
to
fear,
nothing
to
fear
from
heritage
impact
statements,
and
so
I
think
that
this
is
just
my
view
on
this.
But
I'm
sure
others
will
have
comments
on
that.
C
The
cities
should
be
demonstrating
to
the
private
sector
demonstrating
to
communities
that
city
itself
will
follow
best
practices
in
heritage
in
New,
York
use
reviews
so
on
the
court
to
the
presentation.
But
I
I
just
want
to
ask
those
questions
to
understand
where
we're
going,
because
it's
quite
varied.
B
Yeah
and
I
think
your
point
is
well-taken
and
and
I
think
the
city
and
the
Innovation
Center
intend
for
this
to
be
an
exemplary
project
and
I
will
say
that
in
my
experience
in
working
with
the
group
they've
entirely
embraced
the
building
as
an
important
historic
place
and
and
that
it,
the
building,
is
one
of
the
assets
to
the
project.
So
I
think
you
will
see
this
turn
out
to
be
an
exemplary
project
in
the
end.
B
D
D
D
So
it's
an
arm's-length
organization
and
there
has
been
some
stakeholder
engagement
as
I
understand
it
in
the
past
already
to
create
the
vision
and
the
design
concept
that
was
prepared
by
the
architectural
vision
was
prepared
by
prototype,
D
and
I.
Believe
that
was
presented
to
you
as
background
material
and
but
I
was
engaged
at
the
beginning
of
August.
D
As
the
owner's
representative
for
the
Innovation
Center
at
Bayview
Yards,
and
just
a
real,
quick
background,
myself,
I'm
trained
as
an
architect
as
well,
but
for
the
last
20
years,
pretty
much
I've
been
acting
as
owner's
representative
and
project
manager
on
numerous
design-build
type
projects.
But
I
was
also
involved
in
the
dockside
green
project
in
Victoria
BC
as
the
developer,
but
also
working
as
the
city's
rep,
initially
prior
to
the
issuance
of
the
RFP.
So
I've
got
background
on
municipal
experience,
as
well
as
on
the
developers
side
and
with
design-build
projects.
D
We
one
of
the
first
decisions
that
was
made
by
the
the
building
subcommittee
and
the
board
was
to
proceed
with
this
project
on
a
design-build
procurement
method
and
I
think.
The
main
reason
for
that
is,
quite
frankly,
the
timelines,
but
also
because
we
will
then
have
you
know
if
we
do
a
well-prepared
request
for
proposals.
We'll
have
a
lot
of
control
about
what
the
building
is
going
to
look
like
in
the
end.
D
D
Quite
frankly,
so
we've
we're
actually
just
now
today,
actually
will
be
notifying
consultants
that
we've
selected
to
act
as
our
adviser
team
or
advocate
team
and
they'll
be
working
with
us
over
the
next
couple
of
months,
putting
together
the
terms
of
reference
for
the
request
for
proposals,
so
that
will
include
functional
requirements
as
well
as
performance,
specifications
or
performance
requirements.
And
what
we'll
be
doing
is
quite
a
bit
of
testing
on
the
envelope.
D
What's
the
capacity
of
the
envelope
for
for
heat
transfer
and
all
those
sort
of
things
and
how
we
insulate
so
it'll
be
quite
an
interesting
exercise
to
come
up
with
the
best
solution
to
improve
the
performance
of
the
envelope
while
at
the
same
time
retaining
the
important
heritage
features
of
the
building
and
their
building
massing
and
circulation.
Obviously,
the
functions
that
are
going
to
be
happening
in
the
building
that
needs
to
be
recognized
and
acknowledged
in
how
the
the
building
is
reconfigured
and
adapted
for
its
new
use.
D
So
the
design
vision
just
quickly
and
I
know
you've
all
probably
looked
at
the
package
briefly,
but
it
takes
into
consideration
the
Heritage
character
of
the
building.
The
general
configuration
of
the
building
is
that
sort
of
a
you
form
at
the
end,
the
stages
of
the
development
for
entrepreneurs,
and
we
want
it
to
support
the
services
and
the
infrastructure
required
to
support
the,
and
also
we
want
to
have
a
public
engagement
component.
This
is
a
building
that
is
ultimately
for
the
City
of
Ottawa
as
well,
and
the
community
nearby
the
heritage
features
of
interest.
D
So
the
intended
approach
is
to
confirm
the
heritage
features
of
the
building
that
are
of
interest
and
to
ensure
that
the
requirements
with
respect
to
these
elements
are
carefully
captured
in
the
terms
of
reference
for
the
design-build
team
and
integrated
with
the
other
priorities
for
the
buildings,
such
as
the
envelope
performance
and
the
building
program.
This
may
include
looking
at
restoration,
adaptive,
reuse
or,
and
the
integration
of
new
design
elements
so
currently
just
an
overview
on
the
project
plan.
D
Right
now,
we're
finalizing
the
selection
of
the
owner,
advocate,
consultant
team
and
actually,
as
of
last
night,
I
I
got
permission
to
advise
them
of
who
the
successful
proponents
were.
So
I
can
tell
you
today
that
we
will
be
engaging
Richard
Mille
as
the
advocate
architect,
and
he
has
Robert
Martin
on
his
team
as
the
heritage
consultant,
so
I
think
we're
going
to
be
very
well
served
by
them
as
an
architectural
consultant.
D
We're
also
preparing
a
designated
substances
report
right
now
we're
carrying
out
some
destructive
testing,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
know
as
much
as
we
possibly
can
about
the
building
before
the
design-build
team
actually
even
starts
working
on
it.
The
more
we
removed
unknowns
and
the
risks
the
better.
D
More
cost-effective
proposals
will
get
and
also
probably
expedite
the
process,
and
that's
another
issue
is
a
obviously.
We
have
a
fairly
aggressive
timeline
with
the
project.
Also
right
now
we
are
finalizing,
or
the
city
actually
is,
are
finalizing
a
record
of
site
condition
as
the
owners
of
the
property,
something
that
they've
decided
to
do.
D
We're
just
currently
actually
decommissioning
some
monitoring
wells
that
were
in
place
there
and
removing
an
old
oil
tank.
That's
in
the
basement,
so
we're
trying
to
deal
with
a
lot
of
this
stuff
up
front,
so
we're
hoping
to
have
the
designated
substances
removed
before
Christmas,
so
that
the
building
will
be
effectively
as
clean
as
as
reasonable
by
the
time.
We
turn
it
over
to
the
design-builder.
B
C
I
think
that
what
the
heaviest
community
will
be
interested
in
is
to
ensure
that
when
the
RFP
for
the
design-build
goes
out
that
the
design
the
teams
know
exactly
what
the
the
heritage
attributes
are
and
that
they
have
a
draft
copy,
if
nothing
else
of
the
proposed
designation
report
and
that
the
work
that
has
been
done
to
date
in
the
vision
exercise,
it's
not
clear.
Yet
whether
or
not
those
ideas
reflect
the
heritage
attributes
or
not.
C
So
it's
all
about
you
know
the
vision
takes
into
consideration
heritage
features,
but
what
the
city
asks
of
private
developers
is
to
be
quite
specific
and
sets
out
really
clear.
Guidelines
and
I
would
hope
that
when
you
submit
the
RFP
for
the
design
builders,
that
there's
no
ambiguity
there,
that
developers
that
are
developing
other
properties
and
that
the
community
can
see
that
the
city
follows
its
own,
recommended
procedures
and
doesn't
excuse
it,
because
we
are
the
city
and
therefore
we
know
what
we're
doing,
and
so
we
don't
have
to
follow
our
own
procedures.
C
D
Yes,
no
exactly
and
and
I
think
that
when
we
interviewed
the
architectural
proponents
during
the
the
RFP
we
ran
for
the
Advocate
consultants.
It's
definitely
something
that
we
talked
about
and-
and
we
looked
for
is-
is
there
sort
of
sensitivity
to
those
issues
and
their
willingness
to
work
with
the
city
and
I
mean
we
also
I,
think
all
will
be
of
the
mindset
that
we
work
together
as
a
team
with
the
city
and
the
staff
of
the
city,
and
we
want
to
build
strong
relationships
with
them
and
work
all
the
way
along.
D
And
that's
a
part
of
the
reason
why
we're
here
today
is
because
we
want
to
bring
everybody
along
and
make
sure
that
everybody
understands
and
even
sometimes
I
mean
there
may
be
some
hard
decisions
that
need
to
be
made.
But
at
least
if
people
understand
the
basis
for
those
decisions.
I've
found
in
the
past
that
that
generally
helps
you
know
with.
D
Maybe
you
might
say
grudging
acceptance
in
some
cases,
but
I
think
we'll
be
working
very
closely
with
Leslie
and
and
her
team,
and
definitely
the
RFP
will
be
very
clear
about
what
the
performance
requirements
are
and
what
the
design
requirements
are.
The
the
non-negotiable
items
will
be
very
clearly
set
out
so
in
the
process
over
the
next
two
months
of
assessing
the
capacity
of
the
building
to
you
know
withstand
certain
changes.
A
C
More
question
and
I
think
that
it's
mostly
as
a
way
of
making
sure
that
the
city
does
it
here
to
best
practices,
and
that
is
I
understand
from
Leslie
that
once
you
award
the
contract
to
the
design-builder,
you
don't
need
any
planning
approvals,
so
it
doesn't
have
to
come
to
the
planning
committee
for
site
plan.
That's
right!
If
that's
the
case.
C
B
I
think
we
haven't
completely
determine
the
exact
timeline
for
when
the
designation
report
will
come
forward.
I
think
that's
a
very
good
idea
and
I
think
we're
just
gonna
have
to
take
it
back
and
chat
about
it
in
terms
of
the
project
overall
and
how
it
fits.
How
that
would
fit
into
the
grand
scheme
of
things.
So
I,
don't
I,
think
it's
a
good
idea
and
we
can
take
it
back
and
and
and
talk
about
it.
E
Think
what's
been
brought
up
is
important
in
the
sense
that
we
designate
it.
Then
we
follow
the
rules.
Then
we
have
it
as
an
example,
and
there
are
many
places
I've
visited
where
factories
and
mills
and
everything
else
have
been
preserved
and,
in
fact
become
a
tourist
attraction.
I
would
think
that
it
would
be,
as
vice-chair
Podolski
has
suggested,
that
we
proceed
with
the
report
on
designation
so
that
it's
quite
clear
what
our
intent,
sir.
F
Quinn.
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
just
to
support
what
both
my
mr.
Podolski
and
mr.
Clark
have
said.
I
think
that
the
designation
of
this
property
really
should
begin
as
a
priority
for
this
site
and
rather
not
something
that
will
be
looked
at
in
terms
of
how
it
fits
into
the
grand
scheme
of
things.
So,
just
for
the
not
to
reiterate
what
Barry
has
said,
but
just
to
support
it
completely.
This
property
should
definitely
be
designated
so
that
it's,
the
the
sequence
of
interventions
come
come
before
this
committee
in
the
future.
F
B
I,
don't
necessarily
think
that
it
cannot
happen.
It
was
at
this
point.
We
don't.
We
didn't
have
a
date
sort
of
selected.
We
had
been
working
very
closely
if
it's
the
wish
of
the
committee
to
direct
staff
to
bring
forward
that
report.
Then
we
can
do
so
so
there's
no
real
reason
that
we
hadn't
brought
it
forward.
So
we.
B
This
point
in
time,
I
do
not
perceive
any
threat
at
all
to
this
building,
which
is
not
what
I
can
say
for
the
last
four
or
five
years
about
this
building.
So
I
have
visited
this
site
many
times
and
I
actually
said
to
Cola
and
some
of
the
other
members
of
the
team.
The
last
time
we
were
there
I
said
it's
so
great
to
be
here
with
people
who
actually
like
this
building,
because
normally
I'm
there
with
people
who
are
just
saying
what
is
wrong
with
you.
E
E
A
E
F
In
fact,
I
just
came
back
from
the
Heritage
Canada's
National
Trust
Conference
in
Charlottetown,
and
our
keynote
speaker
was
Tanya
sermon
from
the
Center
for
Social
Innovation
in
Toronto,
where
they
have
three
sites
for
Social
Innovation,
as
well
as
one
in
New,
York
City,
and
she
completely
wowed
us
with
the
wonderful
things
that
are
going
on
and
I'm
personally
really
excited
to
think
that
something
similar
is
underway
in
in
Ottawa.
But
just
as
a
final
note
that
I'm
not
trying
to
be
negative
about
it,
the
concept
and
what's
happening,
yeah.
D
G
You
very
much
and
good
morning,
I'm
here,
representing
both
the
Hintonburg
community
association,
who
has
requested
the
designation
of
this
building
since
I
believe
it
was
1996.
Mr.
Lathrop
was
head
of
planning
when
we
first
requested
designation
of
this
building
and
also
representing
heritage
Ottawa,
who
obviously
has
an
interest
in
this
building
and
I
have
to
admit
that
vice-chair
Podolski
took
the
roads.
Most
of
the
words
right
out
of
my
mouth
I
came
to
ask
you
to
ask
the
city
why
this
building
cannot
be
designated.
G
We
understand
that
the
Heritage
report
been
ready
for
months,
if
not
years,
and
that
there
is
something
in
the
city
structure
preventing
that
from
being
brought
forward
from
selecting
the
date
as
as
Moscone's
has
pointed
out.
I
do
want
to
thank
the
heritage
planners
for
all
of
their
work
on
this
they've
been
keeping
the
watching
beef
MO
and
I
really
appreciate
it.
I
must
say
neither
heritage
are
aware.
The
Hintonburg
community
association
is
opposed
to
the
innovation
center.
We
supported
it's
an
adaptive,
reuse
have
been
important.
G
Building
the
building
needs
to
be
designated
needs
to
be
designated
as
soon
as
possible
on
an
urgent
basis.
The
city
is
setting
a
terrible
example,
as
I
have
pointed
out
on
several
occasions
to
the
to
febc
o
and
possibly
the
planning
committee
I,
can't
remember
how
many
times
I've
made
this
speech.
I,
don't
believe.
I've
made
it
to
you
before
it's
essential.
G
I,
don't
see
any
immediate
danger,
but
the
city
should
be
following
its
own
procedures,
as
posture
Podesta's
pointed
out,
and
that
the
orderly
procession
of
approvals
I
think,
would
be
helped
because
we
were
getting
that
close.
It
should
come
to
you
as
soon
as
possible
so
that
you
can
consider
the
designation
report
and
everyone
involved
is
then
very
clear
about
where
the
city
stands
and
what
the
city
expects
in
respect
to
heritage.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
A
You
anyone
have
any
questions
thanks
for
coming.
Okay,
so
we've
got
I
guess
what
four
or
five
people
now
have
spoken
to
the
fear
of
the
concern
about
the
heritage,
designation
and
the
possible
slip-up
of
it
not
happening,
but
that's
not
the
Senate
sense
I'm
getting
from
you,
miss
Collins
I'm,
getting
the
sense
that
you.
B
A
Just
just
a
bit
also,
let's
remember
one
thing:
we
have
an
election
in
thank
God
just
a
little
more
than
two
weeks.
Okay
and
then
we
will
be
choosing
all
of
our
new
committees
or
standing
committees
or
subcommittees
or
corporations,
etc.
Boards,
and
so
that's
at
play
here
as
well,
and
so
yes
Mazetti.
Madam.
F
A
Right
Sherpa
da
skate
right
well
just
but
let's
get
coming
from
staff
so
which
we
change.
The
motion,
no
to
say
issuing
those
who
intend
to
designate
the
building
known
as
City
of
Ottawa
workshops
at
seven
daily
Road
under
part,
four
of
the
Interior
Heritage
Act
within
q1
2015,
a
strip
and
asking
just.
C
A
D
D
So
if
there's
any
significant
changes
that
need
to
happen,
we
can
do
that,
but
also
there
may
be
some
merit
in
seeing
the
concepts
that
come
forward.
So
I
don't
know.
I
may
be
the
other
way
to
do.
It
is
to
present
the
draft
request
for
proposal
to
the
committee
and
to
see
that
you
know
whether
the
components
are
captured
in
there
to
their
satisfaction,
something
like
that.
I
don't
know
so.
A
C
We've
discovered
here
is
that
there
is
a
period
of
let's
call
it
an
interregnum.
That
is
between
the
time
that
you
go
to
the
private
sector
for
the
RFP,
which
is
before
Christmas.
When
you
wrote
for
the
they
will
not
know
that.
There's
any
document
that
indicates
that
the
city's
intention
to
designate
or
why
so.
C
I
think
that
if
it
is
going
to
be
in
the
first
quarter,
that
means
that
it
could
come.
The
report
could
come
to
the
bell
chair,
the
subcommittee
in
March
and
then
go
to
planning
committee
and
council.
That's
after
the
design-build
submissions
are
in
so
clearly
there's
a
problem
here
that
there's
no
way
to
help
the
private
sector
understand
that
they
need
to
provide.
You
know,
submission
that
reflects
the
designation.
I
I'm
sure
you
understand
sort
of
where
the
committee
is
sort
of
that
yeah
of
concern,
and
maybe
I'm
just
gonna.
Take
you
back
a
little
bit
and
cite
the
Horticulture
building
as
an
example
that,
with
a
d'
designation
to
allow
for
the
relocation,
it
was
not
redesignated
until
after
the
relocation.
After
the
adaptive,
reuse
plans
were
basically
developed
and
and
when
we
went
through
extensively
with
our
heritage
staff
in
terms
of
making
sure
that
it
responded
appropriately
to
ensuring
that
the
heritage
attributes
were
being
respected.
I
I
I
This
allows
us
sort
of
that
collaborative
working
relationship
to
continue
to
move
forward
and,
in
my
mind,
that
might
make
some
sense.
In
this
case,
we
do
have
a
lot
of
involvement
in
this
project.
There's
a
lot
of
discussion,
that's
been
going
on
and
that
will
continue.
That's
not
going
to
stop
so.
A
B
Suggestion
would
be
to
include
the
statement
of
the
draft
statement
of
cultural
heritage
value
in
the
RFP
and
that
would
have
that
would
clearly
illustrate
that
we
intend
to
designate
the
building,
and
these
are
the
attributes
that
are
important
and
must
be
protected
in
any
future
alterations
to
the
building.
Okay,.
F
I
I'm
not
suggesting
that
at
all
I'm
suggesting
that
we've
had
a
very
collaborative
working
relationship,
I'm,
not
suggesting
that
that
can't
continue
with
the
designation,
but
I
think
we've
been
moving
forward
on
the
basis
of
firming
out
what
the
design
program
is
in
terms
of
the
adaptive
reuse
and
how
that
would
be
achieved.
We
clearly
have
done
work
to
identify
the
heritage
on
tributes
of
the
property
and
miss
Collins
has
spoken
to
that
I
mean
the
bottom
line.
Is
this
building
will
not
be
coming
down?
I
Whatever
happens
on
this
building
will
be
very
sensitive
and
I.
Think
the
objective
here
in
part
is
to
craft
the
designation
that
is
responsive
to
what
the
proposal
might
be,
but
that
proposal
will
have
been
developed
with
full
consideration
or
regard
to
insuring
incorporation,
maintenance,
integration,
rehabilitation
of
the
Heritage
attributes
of
the
property,
but
I
think
part
of
the
response
to
the
RFP
and
and
I
mean
this
is
not
dissimilar
to
exams.
Landsdowne
again
I
mean
that
was
my
life.
For
four
years
we
also
lansdowne
with
the
entire
Heritage
Trust
and
miss
small.
Mr.
I
Smallwood
is
somewhat
familiar
with
this,
where
we
actually
developed
an
enhanced
easement
agreement
and
within
that
framework
the
OHT
agreed
that
we
would
continue
to
move
forward
on
the
land
style
project
in
accordance
with
the
approvals
that
they
were
part
of
sort
of
reviewing
and
being
involved
in.
As
we
went
forward,
the
enhanced
easement
agreement
was
put
in
place
if
we
now
deviate
or
doing
things
that
now
need
approval,
we're
back
to
the
entire
Heritage
Trust.
For
those
approvals,
it
allows
things
to
proceed
with
a
full
understanding
and
recognition
of
what
the
expectations
are
on.
I
All
fronts
and
Heritage
clearly
is
front
and
center,
as
it
relates
the
Seven
Bayview.
But
we
also
know
that
there
is
an
intention
for
the
the
possibility
of
an
addition
to
the
7
Bayview
building.
The
messaging
has
always
been
if
it's
in
the
back
and
it's
and
it's
appropriate
degraded.
It's
something
that
can't
happen.
I
This
gives
us
the
ability
to
have
that
better
understanding
as
we
go
through
and
allow
us
to
see
what
comes
back
in
response
to
the
RFP,
and
then
we
can
move
forward
with
the
designation
understanding
sort
of
what
those
interventions
will
be
and
if
they
start
deviating
from
what
the
expectations
are,
then
we're
clearly
into
a
formal
heritage,
alteration
approval
process.
It's
just
a
matter
of
like
I
said
it's
not
that
the
collaboration
will
not
continue.
That
will
absolutely
continue.
There's
no
question
about
it.
I
F
You
very
much
that
was
for
elaborating
on
your
position.
I
appreciate
it,
but
I
still
have
to
say
that
I
can't
help
feeling
a
little
bit
concerned
that
the
designation
will
be
shaped
according
to
responses
to
the
RFP
and
the
project.
That's
going
to
evolve
to
me,
it's
it's!
The
sort
of
cart,
cart
before
the
horse
situation.
A
little
bit
here,
Mike.
A
Said
remember
small
after
somebody
said
here
and
them
actually
I
think
Leslie
said
it,
and
somebody
on
the
committee.
This
place
has
just
been
sitting
there
for
a
very
long
time,
and
so
we
have
to
ask
ourselves
the
investment
we're
going
to
make.
We've
got
to
protect
the
important
features
of
it,
but
I
think
that
I'm
hearing
from
staff
is.
We
cannot
limit
it
to
the
degree
that
they're
not
going
to
be
able
to
make
it
work.
A
Visa
V,
one
of
the
things
that
miss
Collins
was
talking
about,
was
the
amount
of
heat
coming
of
light
coming
in
and
the
way
that
that
will
be
managed.
I,
don't
want
to
be
I
want
to
contribute
to
this
place,
sustaining
itself
for
the
next
century
and
being
a
viable,
vibrant
place
where
people
are
going
and
understanding
what
it
is
and
not
being
so
restrictive
that
we
end
up
with
no
one
being
able
to
make
it
work
either
and
I.
Think
that
that's
a
concern
of
mine
anyway,
remember
small.
H
Just
one
said
to
John
I
guess
you're.
What
you're
saying
does
is
is
that,
from
your
perspective
and
stars
perspective,
this
your
interest
is
seeing
this
building
preserved,
and
you
feel
that
this
is
the
best
way
of
moving
it
forward
and
that
if
we
were
to
push
designation
in
advance
of
this
of
the
RFP
coming
in
that
the
the
building
is
one
that's
going
to
perhaps
those
out
in
the
end
on
this.
It's
it
I
mean
I
get
the
sense.
H
I,
certainly
trust
that
staffs
got
the
best
interests
of
this
building
at
heart
and
therefore
I
think
we
should
be
doing
everything
we
can
to
to
facilitate
that
and
I
I,
don't
personally
see
an
immediate
threat,
because
I
think
it's
been
made
very
clear.
I
would
be
hard-pressed
to
understand
how
somebody
could
come
forward
in
the
RFP
and
not
be
made
very
aware
of
what
the
intentions
are.
A
Don't
know
that
that's
what
they're
saying
that
we'd
be
seeing
the
full
one
ofp
before
it
goes
out.
What
I
am
hearing
them
say
is
that
the
statement
of
cultural
heritage
value
would
be
included
in
the
RFP
and
the
intention
of
the
city
at
this
committee
through
the
city
to
have
it
designated.
And
then
we
ties
into
the
motion
from
our
city
solicitor
that
talks
about
that.
What
happened
in
queue
2015
comments
on
that
mr.
Smith.
I
Right
I
mean
in
terms
of
the
RFP
coming
forth.
I
think
what
we
can
do
is
make
it
very
clear,
the
elements
that
are
going
to
be
included
or
that
will
be
included
in
the
RFP
dealing
with
the
heritage,
the
heritage
and
Trust
the
the
statement
of
cultural
heritage
value,
the
things
that
need
to
be
considered
and
retained
that
are
important
to
the
defining
elements
of
seven
Bayview
I,
think
the
other
thing
I
would
point
out
and
and
that
we
can
also
sort
of
bring
forward
to
committee
as
an
information
piece.
I
The
evaluation
of
the
responses
to
the
RFP
will
very
much
be
based
on
how
sensitive
and
response
of
the
various
proponents
are
to
the
hair
ties,
which
we
all
know
that
that
is
the
one
driving
thing
associated
with
seven
Bayview
is
its
heritage,
value
and
its
heritage
in
trust,
and
that's
been
something
that's
been
been
communicated
to
to
innovation,
auto
lab.
They
know
that
they
get
that
and,
like
a
mr.
collins
indicated
I
mean
we've
been
working
a
hand
in
step
together
and
moving
this
thing
forward.
I
We
will
continue
to
do
that
and,
like
I
said,
the
RFP
will
be
very
much
driven
around
preservation
retention,
restoration,
adaptive,
reuse
done
in
a
very
sensitive
way
that
respects
the
heritage
attributes.
The
evaluation
of
the
responses
to
the
RFP
will
very
much
be
weighted
heavily
I
would
I
would
suggest
to
pause
the
response
to
those
things
so.
A
A
Anyways
note
to
resent:
oh:
can
you
flag
that
for
a
missed
on
way?
Please,
because
I
shall
have
to
be
aware
of
that,
it's
different
with
our
community,
because
we
do
have
the
time
lines
that
we
are.
You
know
the
define
when
we
have
to
have
things
come
for,
and
so
what
I'm
asking
is
that
with
built
heritage,
it's
a
committee
that
should
be
come
together
and
formalize
so
that
we
can,
if
we
have
a
meeting
in
December.
Yes,.
A
I
Madam
chair,
just
we
definitely
can
do
clearly.
The
RFP
is
not
going
to
be
issued
until
it's
finalized,
so
the
RFP
needs
to
be
developed
as
soon
as
it's
developed
and
it's
basically
doing
what
it
needs
to
do,
and
the
Heritage
pieces
are
clearly
understood
how
that's
going
to
be
articulated
in
the
RFP.
We
can
definitely
send
a
memo
to
the
built
heritage
advisory
committee
indicating
what
it
is,
and
if
you
want
you
can
have
it
discuss
that
out
a
meeting
or
call
a
special
meeting
or
whatever
the
case
might
be.
I
But
what
we
can
do
is
make
it
available
to
you
as
soon
as
we
can
make
it
available.
It
doesn't
necessarily
have
to
be
in
the
context
of
a
formal
meeting.
We
can
definitely
communicate
that
to
you
by
way
of
a
memo
so
that
you
have
the
information
of
there's,
there's
the
awareness
and
knowledge
of
what
it
is
that
that's
going
to
be
included.
That's.
A
Good
and
then
I
also
and
then,
and
then,
if
you
feel
if
they
build
heritage
committee
members
at
that
point,
have
alarm
bells
going
off,
etc.
Then
we'll
deal
with
it,
I
mean
right
now
we're
just
guessing
that
there
may
be
a
problem.
I
have
confidence
and
listening
to
them,
plus
we're
going
to
have
the
motion
that
speaks.
You
do
know
that
the
cultural
impact
statement
is
going
to
be
part
of
it
and
have
the
motion
that
says
in
q1
of
2015
we're
going
to
be
designating
cancer
Clark.
We.
E
Have
to
it's
not
about
alarm
bells,
it's
about
commitment
to
the
process
and
the
commitment
of
the
process
is
that
we
would
like
to
have
a
motion
from
this
committee
asking
for
a
report
on
the
intention
to
designate
and
that's
doesn't
follow
up
the
RFP.
It
doesn't
complicate
the
RSP.
In
my
view,
it
merely
states
at
a
point
clearly
in
with.
A
This
motion
that
says
the
staff
undertake
the
necessary
steps
to
bring
forward
a
report
with
respect
to
issuing
a
notice
of
intent
to
designate
the
building
known
as
either
city
of
audio
workshop
or
what
we
have.
No
city
works,
building
number
four,
seven
baby,
a
road
under
part,
four
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
within
q1
2015.
H
A
A
C
C
That
builds
no
confidence
to
the
community.
I
think
that
we
really
should
not
be
saying
to
the
private
developers
on
their
own
lands
or
communities
that,
when
the
city
does
something
on
its
own
property,
trust
us
I
think
that
we
need
to
be
able
to
be
transparent
about
it
and
one
of
the
ways
in
which
we
can
be
transparent
about.
C
It
is,
for
instance,
to
require
the
design-build
teams
to
submit
a
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
that
is
associated
with
their
proposal
so
that
it
can
be
evaluated
in
the
criteria
that
are
set
out
for
evaluating
design
builders.
That
would
be
one
tool
that
we,
this
city
uses
to
recommend
to
all
others
and
I
think
that
if
that
was
added
to
the
RFP,
then
I
think
that
that
would
give
some
assurance
to
those
that
the
cultural
heritage
in
my
statement
will
be
as
part
of
the
evaluation
and
I
would
suggest.
C
Also
that,
because
there
no
planning,
no
planning
approvals
required
that
the
next
movers
to
bring
to
get
a
building
permit
first
I,
guess
fedko
and
council
approval
of
the
winning
design
builder.
But
it
would
probably
be
a
good
idea
to
seek
planning
staff
report
on
the
design-build
proposal
bringing
that
to
the
built
heritage
subcommittee
and
planning
committee,
so
that
there's
a
trail
that
demonstrates
that
the
city's
heritage
policies
and
it's
procedures
are
being
followed
by
the
city.
I
The
the
introduction
of
a
requirement
for
a
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
within
a
sort
of
the
the
RFP
I
think
is
definitely
something
that's
that's
a
good
suggestion,
and
definitely
we
can
look
to
include
that
in
there,
because,
basically,
what
you're
doing
that
is
treating
it
as
recognizing
the
heritage
value
recognizing
normal
process
that
would
be
gone
through.
What
I
was
discussing
was
again
mr.
I
The
important
thing
is
we
will
and
we're
prepared
to
continue
to
keep
built
heritage
advised
as
we're
moving
through
the
process
and
as
the
different
milestones
are
met
and
as
Miss
Collins
indicated,
we
do
have
a
draft
designation
report
that
has
been
prepared
or
draft
intention
to
designation.
The
designated
report
has
been
prepared,
I
mean
in
my
mind,
I
mean
once
the
successful
proponent
is
selected.
I
That
might
be
the
timing
or
not
would
seem
to
me
to
be
an
appropriate
timing
to
put
in
the
designation,
because
now
you
understand
what
it
is
that's
going
on
and
once
you
start
deviating
away
from
what
the
understandings
in
the
and
the
expectations
are,
which
would
then
be
crafted
and
defined.
In
that
report
we
have
a
framework
on
which
we
can
start
moving
forward
on,
but
I
think
the
important
thing
from
our
perspective
is
making
sure
that
this
committee
is
continually
kept
appraised
of
how
this
is
moving
through
a
process
and
I
think
mr.
I
Podolski.
This
is
where
this
differs
very
much
from
the
private
sector
and,
in
fact,
just
a
comment.
It's
we
have
in
the
past,
though,
not
often
but
from
time
to
time,
where
there's
an
interest
to
designate
a
building,
and
we
know
there's
a
development
interest
at
play
on
a
piece
of
property.
We
have
been
involved
in
a
similar
collaborative
process
before
initially
the
designation
to
understand
how
that
might
play
itself
out
again
when
there's
cooperation
and
a
willingness
to
work
together.
It
changes
the
thing
oftentimes.
I
What
we're
dealing
with
is
properties
that
have
already
been
designated
that
are
now
coming
in,
but
I
think.
The
the
ability
that
we
have
in
terms
of
continually
reporting
back
is
very
were
very
much
involved
in
this
process
makes
it
very
different
from
what
you
would
be
dealing
with
on
a
private
sector
initiative.
F
A
A
So
my
question
is,
then:
if
is
there
a
oh,
this
would
be
you
miss
then
I
mean
I
think
we
have
the
motion
that
talks
about
when
the
designation
comes
back
in
q1
2015
you've,
given
us
a
statement
of
cultural
heritage
value
today,
I've
heard
that
there
is
no
reason
why
that
can't
be
part
of
the
RFP
and
so
I
guess.
My
question
to
you
is:
if
is
there
anything
in
what
we're
deciding
that's,
what
forced
us
back
to
a.
A
F
Madam
chair,
with
respect
to
this
rising
to
a
standing
committee,
the
direction
to
staff
and
the
time
line
that
has
been
provided,
I,
don't
think
it
gets
pushed
to
a
standing
committee.
Secondly,
this
motion
is
certainly
a
motion.
That's
been
made
by
a
subcommittee
at
a
public
meeting
and
so
I
would
suspect
that
the
intent
of
the
intent
to
designate
is
very
clear
within
the
motion
to
anyone
who
may
be
evaluating
this
property.
So
to
answer
your
question,
I
I,
don't
believe
that
anything
further
is
required
at
this
time.
Madam
chair,
that's.
A
Good
to
know,
because
I
wouldn't
want
to
have
be
like
a
little
gerbil
on
the
treadmill
and
bouncing
around
all
over
the
place,
and
we
and
in
the
end
not
achieving
what
it
is,
we're
trying
to
achieve.
So
that's
good.
So
we
have
anybody
else,
have
anything
else
to
say.
We
have
the
motion
that
we
know
well.
C
F
C
Are
two
things
one
is
the
stylus
screen
yeah
there?
The
statement
of
cultural
heritage
values,
which
is
this
document,
that
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
is
a
different
document
and
that's
what
we're
asking
for
each
of
the
proponents
to
submit
as
part
of
their
proposal
and
if
the
motion
includes
that
now,
okay,.
A
F
A
A
E
A
Or
does
amazing
job
again
that
staff
undertake
the
necessary
I've
said
this
to
you've.
Heard
this,
though,
probably
eight
times
yeah,
you
know
so.
Public
Works
city
works
building
whatever
the
other
word
was
on
the
front
workshop
to
designate
the
building
known
as
city,
our
intent
to
designate
that's
going
to
come
into
q1
2015
and
that
the
statement
of
cultural
heritage
value,
let's
be
included
in
the
RFP,
and
that
all
design-build
submissions
include
a
cultural
heritage
statement.
Okay
impact
statement,
I'm.
A
Right:
okay,
okay,
so
one
more
time
with
feeling
that
staff
undertake
the
necessary
steps
to
bring
forward
a
report
with
respect
to
issuing
a
notice
of
intent
to
designate
the
building
known
as
City
of
Ottawa
workshops
or
city
works.
Building.
Number
four:
seven
baby
Road
under
part
for
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
within
q1
2015,
and
that
the
statement
of
cultural
heritage
value
be
included
in
the
RFP
and
that
all
responses
to
the
RFP
include
a
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
that
carried
thank.
G
A
This
is
hey,
no
any
notices
of
motion
for
consideration
at
a
subsequent
meeting
and
he
inquiries.
How
about
other
business?
I'll
just
tell
you
that
the
next
meeting
is
we're
going
to
have
a
little
bit
of
a
video
on
our
trip
on
a
road
trip
that
we
end
that
we
took,
and
the
trip
was
excuse
me.
Excuse
me,
the
trip.
The
trip
was
very
good.
Those
of
us
that
were
on
it
really
enjoyed
ourselves
and
learned
a
lot
and
we
had
a
large
group.
A
So
we've
made
a
commitment
to
go
back
likely
later
in
the
spring
to
do
the
northern
part
of
Lower
Town,
because
we
finished
at
about
st.
Andrews.
We
had
no
free
air
st.
Andrew
to
do
the
more
northern
part
towards
there
in
the
river
and
and
at
and
one
likely
reto
Goulburn
rural
area
and
perhaps
West
pearl.
But
I
want
to
thank
our
on
the
committee
tour
guide.
A
Sandy
Smallwood
for
an
excellent
trip
through
Rock
Lafitte
was
very
good
and
perhaps
the
next
time
we
get
a
smaller
bus
to
make
it
a
bit
easier
in
these
heritage
districts.
So
that's
on
the
agenda
for
on
November
and
I.
Look
forward
to
it
thanks,
everybody
and
and
I
think
that's
it
we're
adjourned.
Okay,
thank
you.