[0:00] Okay, I think we'll get going. It's uh 10:03 by my clock. [clears throat]

[0:05] Um first of all, uh I'd like to

[0:09] respectfully acknowledge that we are meeting today on the traditional

[0:12] territories of the Vasanish people comprising the Saudin

[0:19] and Malahhat First Nations who have lived on a steward of the Sanish

[0:23] Peninsula since time and memorial.

[0:29] First item on the agenda is approval of the agenda.

[0:32] It's been circulated. Can I have a motion to approve it?

[0:37] Councelor Batista. >> Agenda.

[0:41] » Oh, that's right. Yeah. Um, sorry, Councelor Batista. I um I forgot

[0:48] that we're moving uh item number eight up after 4 A. So, it'll be u I guess

[0:55] we'll call it five and move the other ones down. It'll still be the same.

[0:59] » Okay. >> So, so what is it? 8A.

[1:01] » Uh 8A because the uh people who are presenting um would like to leave after

[1:07] the presentation. >> Okay.

[1:11] » Okay. May I entertain a motion uh to approve the agenda as what have I done

[1:16] now? >> Oh, you're doing great. I think

[1:18] » it Okay. Sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead. So, yes.

[1:23] » Oh, I just wanted to uh add to the agenda. um looking for and and

[1:27] discussing the um accessible parking um zoning bylaw at North Sanage just to

[1:33] kind of uh give a a background and looking for an update on that.

[1:40] » Okay. >> Do we um make that

[1:44] » should we just put it in after the Wayne?

[1:48] » Yes, we'll make item 18.

[1:53] » Now we're good. Seeing no more changes, I'll entertain a motion to approve the

[1:57] agenda as uh amended. All Charlene me second.

[2:05] All in favor? Carried.

[2:10] Uh approval of the minutes. I did note one uh spelling error

[2:17] that changes [clears throat] the meaning a little bit. So I'll mention that in

[2:21] 22C um the word accessibly

[2:26] is noted in two places and it should be in both cases accessibility

[2:33] changes >> any other modifications

[2:40] » just um just some comments and I've had a bit of a discussion with staff on this

[2:46] already but um some of the feedback back that I've been getting on on minutes

[2:51] from mayor, CEO, and others is that it needs the recommendations

[2:58] or the motions that were uh putting forward need to be clear so they can

[3:05] understand what it is. um were were kind of

[3:11] so um so instead of saying in the minutes, you know, uh feedback was given

[3:17] to central Senate on this active transportation plan or whatever it is

[3:23] that the following feedback was provided and then just in bullets so that you

[3:28] know council can see what it is is the feedback um that's provided and then

[3:33] also similarly in um in in the uh the motions need to be clear. So the one of

[3:43] the motions that was problematic, it was I think we made a motion about um

[3:49] discussion of uh that that the municipalities would discuss

[3:53] accessibility concerns with the airport. And so the question I got back was what

[3:59] were the concerns? I said, "Oh, I think there was something about this or that."

[4:02] But I had to go replay the the meeting again.

[4:05] Anyways, that's just kind of a >> Yeah, I totally agree. Even by the time

[4:09] I get the minutes, I can't remember the specifics.

[4:13] » Yeah. So, just for us to be uh mindful when we're making the motions and making

[4:19] our points, but that's clear. >> Okay. And I'll make sure I review them

[4:23] because I get them first. >> Okay.

[4:26] » I'll review them with that in mind, too. Good comment. Oh, morning. Sorry, I'm

[4:31] late. You're right on time.

[4:36] Uh any other comments?

[4:41] Entertain a motion for approval of the minutes.

[4:44] » Second and Charlene. All in favor?

[4:51] Um against any carried. Okay. The next item will then be the uh

[4:58] right fit program presentation. I believe. Are they

[5:02] uh prepared? Is Lindsay with us? [clears throat]

[5:05] » Hello. >> Oh, hi Linds.

[5:07] » Can you hear me? Hello. >> Yeah, that was good.

[5:09] » Hi. Um, yeah, my program manager I think is running a minute or two late, but I

[5:15] can go ahead and get started to just make sure you guys are on track for your

[5:20] meeting. Oh, there she is. Perfect timing.

[5:25] » Hi, Isabelle. We're just about to get started on our presentation now. Good

[5:29] every good morning everyone. >> Morning.

[5:34] » Um should I go ahead and share my screen?

[5:37] » Yes please. Yes. >> Okay.

[5:43] [clears throat]

[5:49] » Perfect. >> Okay. See

[5:52] » I can't see the Oh, there we are. Okay. Great. Excellent. Okay. Well, uh good

[5:57] morning everyone. We're very excited to to be here. Thank you for welcome. Oh,

[6:02] somebody waiting in the lobby. Okay, I got a little notification there.

[6:08] Uh we're very excited to to be here and present the right fit program. So, thank

[6:12] you for making uh space in your agenda for us. So, um you can go to to the next

[6:19] slide. U Lindy. >> Oops.

[6:25] Yeah, we'll do a a really quick intro. Oh. Uh, introduction slide back.

[6:31] » Oh, yeah. I think sorry it might be lagging a bit. Is it okay? No worries.

[6:35] Yes. Okay. Yes. So, my name is Isabelle Brock. I'm the rightf program manager

[6:39] for Disability Alliance BC and I'm excited to be joined by Lindseay Simpson

[6:45] who's uh the CRD housing coordinator for for DABC for for the right fed. So, um

[6:51] we're we're pretty very happy to be here with you today. Um, I just want to give

[6:56] you a bit of overview of Disability Alliance BC. I don't know how much you

[7:01] know about DABC um here, but we're uh provincial

[7:06] disability voice since 1977. So, we've been around for a long time. And our

[7:11] organization supports people with all disabilities to live with dignity,

[7:15] independence, and as equal and full participants in the community. Uh, DABC

[7:20] offers a really wide range of programs. So I won't go through that list

[7:24] extensively because we have a limited time. Um but we help we support um

[7:30] people with disabilities with a a number of uh programs, tax aid, we have a

[7:37] disability law clinic uh that provides free legal advice to people with

[7:42] disabilities. Um we have an access advocacy access program which supports

[7:49] um uh people with disabilities with their PWD applications. Uh we have a

[7:54] program also that supports people with disability to access the uh DTC

[7:59] disability tax credit and we also manage the right fit program which is the

[8:04] program that brings us here today. Next. Yeah. Uh okay. So what is the right fit?

[8:11] The right fit is a service that addresses the crisis in accessible

[8:16] housing. And we address this crisis by matching affordable accessible homes and

[8:21] independent living supports with people who need it in the lower mainland and

[8:25] now in the CRD.

[8:30] We we have several goals with this program. We were created in 2017, so

[8:35] we've been around almost for 10 years. We wanted to better utilize the existing

[8:40] supply to make sure that every accessible units go to people who really

[8:45] need those units. We wanted to inventory every available unit to make sure that

[8:50] it's truly accessible, but also to get a better understanding of what's what's

[8:55] available out there, increase housing affordability, uh address the supply

[9:00] gap, and also raise awareness about housing accessibility.

[9:06] So why why why did we um decide to form the right fit program about almost 10

[9:13] years ago? Uh that's because we had come to an understanding that wheelchair

[9:18] users were facing um incredible challenges when it came to finding and

[9:25] securing accessible housing. Uh first of all there's a limited supplies not many

[9:31] accessible affordable housing being u uh available for wheelchair users. Um and

[9:37] then it's it's a time it it takes. So as you know when you're moving into a unit

[9:43] uh it's it's it's quite complex. But when you think about a wheelchair users

[9:48] wanting to move to into an accessible housing unit that's even more uh

[9:53] complicated. you have to have time to arrange home supports, specialized

[9:57] equipment. So what hasn't meant is that generally when is a scarce accessible

[10:03] unit being available then a wheelchair user would not be able to to compete and

[10:08] get this unit just because of the time it takes. So uh being able to um uh to

[10:13] get the the unit was not possible and what that means is that those wear

[10:18] accessible units are going to people who don't need those accessible features. Uh

[10:23] the other uh added challenge with this um uh with wheelchair users accessible

[10:29] and accessible housing is that up to the right fit until the right fit was

[10:34] created there was no centralized inventory of accessible units for

[10:39] listing accessibility features. So that meant that the units are there but

[10:44] nobody really knows where they are, what those units are and what kind of

[10:48] features they have. So uh the right fed really uh looked to address this issue

[10:54] by creating that centralized inventory of accessible units. Next slide please.

[11:00] So um the the right fit is is very much um a partnership model. So we started

[11:07] out in Metro Vancouver 10 years ago and uh DABC oversees and managed the right

[11:13] fit program but we're guided for Metro Vancouver by a steering committee that

[11:18] provides leadership and expertise to everything we do. So we have a number of

[11:22] member organizations. It includes BC housing uh MSDPR, the health

[11:27] authorities, the city of Vancouver, Spinal Cord Injury BC, Spark BC, and

[11:32] VRS, which is a housing provider. And we're now because we're now expanding

[11:36] into the capital regional district, we're currently forming an advisory

[11:40] committee uh for the CRD to help ensure that we we understand and uh response to

[11:46] the unique needs of the of the region. Next slide, please. Thank you.

[11:51] Um, so the the the right fit in the CRD, what does that look like in Metro

[11:57] Vancouver? The DABC has been partnering with a a group called the Individualized

[12:03] Funding Resource Center society, what we call the IFRC. The IFRC is a um an

[12:10] organizations that's led by people with disabilities and and they in in the

[12:15] Vancouver region, they manage the aspect of the peer-led navigation model. and

[12:20] client intakes and housing placement. I will uh uh go back to that uh what that

[12:24] intake process and peer-led navigation model looks like. But then the CRD we

[12:30] have we're very proud to have initiated a partnership with the Victoria

[12:34] Disability Resource Center VDRC. and VDRC will help connect the RightFit

[12:39] program with community resources, housing providers, wheelchair users, and

[12:44] um will also help uh strengthen some of our local referral pathways to to

[12:49] support our peer-led navigation model and uh the VDRC will also co-chair our

[12:56] ad advisory committee in in the CRD. Uh I should also mention that uh uh

[13:01] Lindseay our CRD housing coordinator is her office is housed within the office

[13:07] of uh VDRC. Next slide please.

[13:13] » Uh this is just a bit of a history of our program. Um I I don't need to go in

[13:18] great detail uh into this but we we started in as I mentioned almost 10

[13:23] years ago in 2017. We started as a pilot project to really test the approach of

[13:29] what we wanted to do and then in 2020 we transitioned from being a pilot to uh

[13:34] being the right fit program and since then we have really become the one-stop

[13:41] uh hub for housing providers, tenants, uh service providers, uh everything uh

[13:46] accessible housing related. Um I must say that we we um there was a research

[13:52] study that was done a couple years ago by in u in Ontario by university um

[13:58] there and they surveyed and really took a scan of all services existing for

[14:05] accessible housing in in Canada and they identified that the right fit program

[14:09] was the only program in Canada that does what what we do. So we're we're very

[14:14] proud of uh of being uh the model and the reference but at the same time have

[14:18] mixed feelings about the fact that there's no other program like ours in

[14:22] the rest of uh of the country. Um we also now maintains the only existing

[14:27] centralized inventory of accessible units in the lower mainland with the

[14:31] standardized accessibility checklist tool. I will come back to that. Um and

[14:36] then um I guess our next chapter is 2026. We're now expanding beyond Metro

[14:42] Vancouver and expanding into the capital regional district. So everything that

[14:46] we've done in Metro Vancouver, we're looking to replicate in uh in the CRD,

[14:52] including the development of an inventory of accessible and adaptable

[14:56] housing for for the CRD. Next slide, please.

[15:02] Thank you. So I just wanted to talk about our approach, the right fit

[15:06] approach because it's quite quite unique because we operate both on the supply

[15:10] side and the demand side. So we we match our main goal is to match accessible

[15:16] homes with the right tenants and this is what we call the right fit. We're

[15:20] ensuring the right fit for each unit. Uh we help wheelchair users find homes that

[15:25] meet their accessibility needs. And what I'd like to say about that is that each

[15:31] unit that we um find um is different. Um they they may not have all full

[15:37] accessibility features. Some of the units might be adaptable universal

[15:41] design. Well, we take a look at all of these units. Uh we we don't just look at

[15:46] fully fully accessible units just because you never know what what will be

[15:51] the right fit to our clients. They might all be wheelchair users, but they have

[15:55] very diverse needs. So, so we want to make sure we have um a broad supply of

[16:01] units to be able to match our clients to those units. So, we also help streamline

[16:06] access to home support, services, and equipment. We provide personalized

[16:11] support from intake uh to move in with our dedicated client navigators and we

[16:16] build and maintain that inventory of accessible housing with our checklist.

[16:20] So, we'll go back to that. Next slide, please.

[16:24] uh our eligibility criteria in terms of uh as a client to come into our program.

[16:29] So applicants for now must be full-time power or manual wheelchair users

[16:34] including using their chair at home where uh in the midst of slightly

[16:39] revising those those criteria but this for now our our criteria and applicants

[16:44] must live in uh uh Vancouver House, Fraser House or now Island Health

[16:48] authorities. So the full CRD uh geographical scope, so the 30

[16:54] municipalities as well as the three EAS electoral areas. We have no age

[16:58] restrictions. We have no income limit or um income requirement and PWD

[17:04] eligibility is not required for for our program.

[17:11] Um as I mentioned, we have developed over the years a very unique

[17:15] peer-to-peer navigation model. We feel it's very important to provide

[17:20] peer-to-peer support for a person with disability. Um, and the reason for that

[17:24] is the journey to transition into stable, affordable, accessible housing

[17:29] is is very complex and there's a lot of uh challenges. So we we want to make

[17:35] sure we build trust um with our clients and learn about this individual

[17:40] situation so we can successfully help uh wheelchair users living in

[17:45] non-accessible housing make a successful transition into accessible housing. So,

[17:50] we help individuals identify where they want to live, the amenities that are

[17:54] important to them, the social networks, the kind of neighborhoods they want, but

[17:57] also we're going to be learning about their specific disabilities because, as

[18:03] I mentioned, even though they may all be wheelchair users, they have very

[18:07] different needs um and mobility range. Um, so it's important for us to to

[18:13] capture that. So uh one of the uh clientele we're serving where we have a

[18:19] um in Vancouver at least uh a large number of uh uh families so where the

[18:25] wheelchair user is a child um a young child so the support the supporting

[18:30] individuals are not wheelchair users. So when we look at placing the specific

[18:34] clients into units uh they may not require the full range of accessible uh

[18:40] features but they might prioritize certain features and the size of the

[18:44] units over the accessibility features. This is why it's so important to have a

[18:48] a variety of units to uh uh in our inventory to to be able to match our

[18:53] clients. Uh next slide please. So a little bit more on that navigation

[18:59] uh model. We uh we we assist Wilshshire users in completing application forms

[19:04] and navigating BC housing applications and all these complicated uh paperwork

[19:09] that they have to uh to go through. We review these available units that we

[19:14] have in our inventory and we match applicants with homes that suits their

[19:18] specific accessibly needs. We help them uh um gather required documents for

[19:23] housing providers. We accompani clients through housing interviews and we

[19:28] provide support uh to the client from the initial intake to the final move in.

[19:36] We also help facilitate home supports uh to in securing traditional home supports

[19:43] and we also refer clients to uh what we call the CEO program choices in support

[19:49] for independent um living program through the IFRC

[19:54] and we also help with equipment support. So um often wheelchair users will need

[20:01] uh electric beds, grab bars, some uh uh track ceiling lifts. all sorts of uh

[20:06] specific equipment needs. And so we we and that they need to have in place when

[20:12] they move in, which is why before they can't act couldn't accessible units

[20:16] because the time it takes to to align get everything aligned at the same time.

[20:21] So we help with fasttracking with those processes and we also help facilitate

[20:26] installation of um environmental controls um as well as door openers as

[20:32] well. So a number of of uh additional assistive technology.

[20:40] So what have we accomplished so far? So we've been in existence since 2017. So

[20:45] we uh we um uh we um we've updated those numbers. Sorry, there was a note there,

[20:51] [laughter] but we made 214 successful housing

[20:55] matches since we existed. That's these are the lower mainland uh numbers. And

[21:00] uh we will um we'll hope to to just starting now in the CRD. So uh so we'll

[21:06] be starting matching clients and finding accessible housing now. Um and what I

[21:12] will just say on this slide is that we're very proud to have uh made that

[21:16] many matches so far. Um but we also have uh prevented a significant numbers of

[21:24] individuals from becoming homeless. So homeless uh prevention is a um very much

[21:30] a focus of our work and so we uh we really uh are very proactive and and

[21:35] work with u uh the homelessness sector to to really support individuals um uh

[21:41] that are on the ver at imminent risk of homeless or being homeless to transition

[21:46] into accessible housing. Uh next slide please.

[21:51] » Yeah. So, and now I'm going to pass it on to Lindsay who's going to tell you a

[21:56] bit more about the what we do on the housing provider side. Thank you.

[22:00] » Yeah. So, in addition to supporting the clients, we also support local housing

[22:05] providers. So, we work directly with housing providers to help um identify

[22:11] suitable tenants for them by comparing their accessible unit against our client

[22:16] intake, which allows us to simplify the matching process for them and and take a

[22:21] little bit of work off their hands. So when we a housing provider reaches out

[22:26] to us or we reach out to them and they mention that they have an accessible

[22:30] unit, we'll coordinate completing our DAPC accessibility checklist and

[22:35] maintain an inventory of those units. So we overall off uh serve as a resource

[22:40] for housing providers by both um helping them learn a little bit more about

[22:46] accessibility through our checklist and then also helping them find the right

[22:50] tenant for them and support them through the process of that tenant application.

[22:56] So I'll go a little bit into our checklist, but the ultimate goal is to

[23:00] better understand the supply and create a more detailed inventory of the

[23:04] accessible unit supply. So when we go to a unit that may look like the one in

[23:10] this picture, we create a detailed account of the unit. So we'll measure

[23:15] the turning radius and counter heights, uh the space for kitchen knee or uh knee

[23:21] cutouts under kitchen sinks and stoves where um outlets are located. It will

[23:27] also list the building amenities and neighborhood amenities and then also

[23:31] track more standard uh apartment things such as pet policies and smoking

[23:39] policies.

[23:42] And then so the checklist ultimately yeah provides a detailed account of the

[23:47] unit and its accessibility features. And then we can go through our client

[23:50] database and find the right fit um client for that unit because we have

[23:55] detailed intake of both the unit and the client. And then once we have identified

[24:01] a match, we will pass the client information to the housing provider

[24:04] because that allows them to retain full control over uh selecting their tenant

[24:09] um and still giving them uh agency in doing that as well. But we do still

[24:14] support through the application process. And overall, yeah, the tool the

[24:20] checklist acts as a tool for improving accessibility. I've already found from

[24:23] doing a few of these checklists in the CRD, uh, completing the checklist allows

[24:28] myself and the housing provider to have a more detailed conversation about

[24:31] accessibility. And I learn things based on their experience and they learn

[24:36] things based on our experience. And I think it uh just creates a good

[24:40] conversation around what true accessibility looks like within a part

[24:43] in an apartment or a home. And yeah, we can also work with them to

[24:48] adapt and modify units. And then hopefully like in the Lower Mainland,

[24:52] the CRD, we can create a centralized inventory of accessible units for for

[24:56] wheelchair users

[25:02] and I'll pass it back to Isabelle. >> Uh thank you, Lind. Yes. So overall

[25:09] really I mean this the RightFair program is very much a multi-dimensional

[25:13] uh program, but we we're also looking to really build knowledge uh on accessible

[25:18] housing. there's a so much different definitions out there and it's an

[25:22] evolving uh um conversation. So we uh we we feel that beyond matching uh clients

[25:30] to uh to accessible units, we we feel it's within our mandate to educate

[25:35] stakeholders on the importance of accessible housing, inclusive design and

[25:39] the impact. Um, we also want to build awareness and partnerships by really

[25:45] showcasing the program's benefits and encouraing encouraging collaboration

[25:50] around the housing sector. Um, promote accessible housing solutions and also

[25:55] gain insights to inform program improvements. Um, next I I should

[26:01] mention as well that we as part of our uh learning and and and sharing what

[26:08] what we um uh the work we do and the gaps in accessible housing and and

[26:14] informing that conversation. We undertake um a survey of our place

[26:19] clients. So after a client is placed after 6 months 6 months mark we will go

[26:24] in and visit them into the home where we've placed them and we will uh uh do

[26:30] an inerson survey about uh the the impact of the program uh but also we

[26:36] will uh uh look at better understanding uh whether what what what has changed in

[26:42] their in their lives after they've been placed. So, has their physical health

[26:47] improved? Has their sense of independence improved? Um, has their

[26:52] community integration better? So, we're looking at those key quality of life

[26:56] indicators, but we're also looking at how well the unit we've been placed them

[27:03] into is is doing. Are there are they able to now navigate their new home

[27:09] safely or are do they still have some challenges? And what are those

[27:13] challenges? And that is incredibly useful information for us because that

[27:19] ultimately will allow us to take that back to uh the housing sector and

[27:25] planning departments and and just say hey we we find that all new buildings uh

[27:30] uh accessible units within those buildings say um half of those don't

[27:34] have door openers and and we see that as a gap for example. So we can make

[27:39] further recommendations on on to how to improve accessibility features within uh

[27:44] within those units and the buildings where we place uh wheelchair users. Uh

[27:50] next slide. Yes. So I mean that was a bit of a

[27:54] really short version there of uh everything we do. There's a lot more. So

[27:59] what I want to say though is that we're we're very excited to finally be

[28:02] expanding into the CRD. We know there's a huge need there and and we're really

[28:08] looking forward to to working with with you all in in terms of building our

[28:12] inventory of accessible and adaptable units uh connecting with um with

[28:18] organizations and overall really forming uh local uh relationships and

[28:24] partnerships to to really support wheelchair users uh transition into into

[28:29] um units that that meet their needs. So, we'll we'll have you have our contact

[28:33] information there. Um um if you want to learn more, we have a website and uh

[28:38] social media. We're in the process of updating our website now with all the

[28:42] information about what we're doing in the CRD. Uh so, I'll stop here and if

[28:47] you have questions for us, we we'd love to have a conversation.

[28:52] Thank you very much. >> Thank you.

[28:55] » Presentation, we're we're thrilled that you've come across the pond to uh

[28:59] Vancouver Island. That's great. Any questions from committee members?

[29:02] Councelor O'Keefe. >> Yes. Um, councelor uh, Cherry O'Keefe,

[29:07] thank you for the presentation. I'm really excited that you're here on the

[29:11] island. I had talked to um, the folks running your program in Vancouver a

[29:17] couple years ago and I think we had a discussion at this committee about that

[29:21] and how we could uh, get an inventory. So, great to have you here. Um, what I'm

[29:26] wondering is, so in town of Sydney anyways, I'm not sure about other

[29:32] municipalities, we uh require developers of new buildings to make 20% of the

[29:40] units adaptable. And the thing that I've kind of

[29:46] struggled with is that we haven't we they make these adaptable but as you

[29:51] said uh I don't think very many of them go to people who actually need them. So,

[29:58] how have have you had any discussion or any ideas about how um we would be

[30:06] whether it would be you or the town communicating with the the builders of

[30:12] these new units um to get them into your inventory? Any

[30:17] ideas how you you might see that working?

[30:22] It's such a great question and I do remember us connecting um two or three

[30:27] years ago and having this conversation. Yeah, it was with me. So I'm really

[30:31] thrilled actually to pursue this conversation because we had such a

[30:35] productive conversation and you had shared back then with us that you know

[30:40] exactly what you just said the challenge of of a having these units being built

[30:46] but having no handle over what what's happening after they being built. Are

[30:51] they actually going to uh to the people who need them the most? And and this is

[30:57] really a gap that we're have identified. It's true of the lower mainland as well

[31:03] is that you know we have these grid units that are coming onto the market

[31:08] now. Uh but we have no way of knowing whether those units are going to the

[31:12] people who need them. And as a result, you sort of if they don't, you're sort

[31:16] of self perpetuating the the problem there because our weight lists of people

[31:22] waiting for accessible units continue to grow and the accessible units are being

[31:27] built, but they invariably goes to people who just don't need those

[31:31] features and and sadly will once they're in the unit, they will actually revert.

[31:36] they will convert those features into something that fit their needs that are

[31:41] have nothing to do with accessibility. So um the way to address that I mean of

[31:47] course I mean our advocacy part is to really would would be great to require

[31:53] more um accountability [clears throat] on the post occupancy on

[31:58] the occupancy of these units so that it goes to the people who need that you

[32:01] know so there's some bit of accountability on on how these units are

[32:06] being filled but the best way is to work with these housing providers or

[32:10] developers and and get them to connect with us really and and I don't know I

[32:17] mean in terms of requirements and whether you're able to require them to

[32:21] to do this but the the ideal scenario is that they reach out to the right fit and

[32:27] say okay we have all these units can you help us fill them with with people who

[32:32] need uh those units and we'll do that we'll do the the matching I mean we'll

[32:36] we'll help with that um or we can um you can give us a list as well of these

[32:43] units and who build them and we can um contact the developers the housing

[32:48] providers ourselves and uh and LIN say will do that she'll she'll go and visit

[32:52] the units she'll uh she'll take notes of all the accessibility feature or

[32:56] adaptable features that'll make it to the our inventory and then we can start

[33:01] the process of matching. So uh so either way it can be uh initiated by the

[33:05] housing providers themselves or if you give them all the the lists we can uh

[33:10] initiate contacts ourselves with the housing providers.

[33:15] Have you had any discussions with the real estate associations or of the urban

[33:21] development institution or or institute um in ter which represents developers or

[33:28] or people selling or these kind of units um or rental agencies to

[33:37] you know have some sort of designation on the listings um for accessibility.

[33:44] Is that something that's being considered?

[33:47] » Yes. Yes, we're Yeah, we have had we we've reached out to the U UDI, I think.

[33:53] Is it? Yeah. The Yeah. And then uh the the real estate association. We we're

[33:58] look we're we're in the rental market more than um than units that are meant

[34:04] to be sold. Uh but certainly we uh yeah we we support renters um rather than um

[34:12] uh people who are looking to to to to purchase units. Uh but yes, we've had

[34:17] this conversation that's part of the odd ridge. So in Vancouver we have um an

[34:22] accessible housing coordinator and she'll contact um the all the groups uh

[34:28] including the the co-ops as well association. We actually did a

[34:31] presentation in the CRD with a a co-op um a me a group um a number of members

[34:37] of of co-ops as well to let them know about our program. So we'll really

[34:41] encourage um all these players, the developers, the housing providers, the

[34:47] nonprofit association of um housing providers, all of these to to connect

[34:52] with us and let us know about the units they have um so we can educate them

[34:57] about that. Yeah, absolutely. >> Okay. Thank you. [clears throat]

[35:02] And I presume property management companies would be part of that list.

[35:06] » Absolutely. Yeah. >> Yeah.

[35:09] » So we're really looking to build those connection in the CR because this is

[35:12] what we've done in the in the lower mainland but in the CR we're just

[35:16] building that. So it will be fantastic if you know um uh offline lean sick can

[35:22] have a further conversation with you on how you can facilitate those those

[35:26] contacts uh with those developers that do um that are required to build those

[35:33] uh 20% of adaptable units. So we we get our hands on this unit and can follow

[35:37] through. [clears throat]

[35:41] » Councelor Newton, you had a question. >> Uh yeah, thank you chair.

[35:45] I think you might have answered my question with that last comment, but I

[35:50] guess um when when the applications come forward

[35:56] to the municipalities, uh how is it like obviously

[36:02] they're identified in the building plans when it comes forward for the

[36:05] application, but is there a flag or something to follow through to that

[36:09] follow-up about which specific units have the features that are

[36:14] required and How is that related? I've been super excited about this inventory

[36:18] being coming on stream for the CRD and you know I know councelor O'Keefe talked

[36:22] about this before but >> um I guess how how is the follow through

[36:26] about once communities require accessible or adaptable units how are

[36:32] they identified and does that then get to you for that information purposes?

[36:36] » Yeah. Yeah. Well, this is so I guess what you're describing is that when

[36:41] you're you're doing the application review, if I understand you correctly,

[36:45] you review this application and then you ask those developers to say 20% of these

[36:50] units need to be adoptable, right? So, is that what you're you're doing? And

[36:55] then okay, so what's what's your process? I mean, I'm sorry I'm answering

[37:01] your question by asking you a question, but how what what happens from that

[37:06] point? Do you do you just um uh they say okay yeah we'll be the 20%. Do you have

[37:12] any kind of followup or you have nothing at that point or you just Yeah. How what

[37:17] happens on your end of things? >> Sure. That's probably a a gap.

[37:21] » I think I'm gonna throw our director of planning on the spot here and give him a

[37:26] moment to collect his thought. Uh but it's I should have identified a score

[37:31] » with the district of central sanage and our requirements are a bit different

[37:34] than Sydney's but >> we still do have some uh so I guess I'd

[37:38] be curious about how going forward to identify the specific units within an

[37:43] application to come forward and then my follow-up question is around the changes

[37:48] to the VC building code >> um does that improve things to make all

[37:52] of them accessible or adaptable or not but the first question is just how to

[37:57] identify once the units are prescribed. Where's the follow through to identify

[38:04] them >> to the public?

[38:06] » Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, this is the the gap would been exactly trying to address

[38:10] in in the lower mainland is that there is this allocated number of units. And

[38:17] then what we want to do is is really um uh get in touch early on with um the

[38:27] developer the and then know okay we and get in touch with them directly and then

[38:32] let us know okay we have these 20 units coming up will you help them fill them

[38:37] with with um wheelchair users essentially so so we we're getting some

[38:43] lists from municipalities essentially the individual municipalities

[38:47] They let us know, okay, we we know we have this developer, we have this

[38:51] building coming up, this new building. Um we have allocated that many units and

[38:57] then they pass on the information for the um the contact person essentially

[39:04] and then we follow up directly with um with the the the the housing

[39:09] representative there uh and then ask them about their their available units

[39:13] and then um and then we visit them. sometimes they're still under

[39:17] construction somehow and then that's when they those units make it to our

[39:21] inventory. So, so we're we're the ones trying to to get a handle of of those

[39:27] actual units, know what building which buildings they are, know the square

[39:31] footage, how many and then um get this information all collected in our

[39:37] inventory so that we can we can match essentially uh those units to to people

[39:42] who need them. So uh so essentially it will um uh it'll come but it has to be a

[39:48] collaboration. So that's why we're doing exactly this presentation today is with

[39:52] the hope that we can work together and NI will follow up but you you can help

[39:57] us identify uh these um these projects essentially early on so we can we can

[40:02] make that happen. >> Okay. So then there's a followup and I'm

[40:06] going to now go to the director of planning for central Sanch and say is

[40:09] there a way to liaz with an organization like this about once we get the

[40:14] application come forward and say we've got you know 32 units or 11 units or

[40:19] whatever it happens to be um to share that information with as part of sort of

[40:24] building the inventory. >> Exactly. Yeah. There there there is

[40:29] certainly that would be we could build that into our um application sort of

[40:34] completionism. Um one thing we do is we share something

[40:38] with the CRD. We share a lot of housing data all the CRD. So a CRD could

[40:44] potentially be an avenue if every municipality has a similar um structure

[40:48] because they do set housing

[40:53] and

[40:57] the thought occurred to me as we're as we're having this conversation. So

[41:00] everyone is valid in the province housing information to the province. You

[41:06] have to do your housing targets and reporting that every year our course

[41:09] council next week >> that would be an ideal avenue if the

[41:14] province wanted to take a role. But um you take a role and that being a

[41:18] component of that how many access

[41:28] the entire profits for this it's not on their radar that's not something they

[41:33] collect affordable housing supporting number of rental units number of number

[41:38] of units overall guess the level of bedrooms but it

[41:43] doesn't touch on adaptability or accessibility

[41:46] MI could easily be added and wide and very accessible

[41:53] but that's that's just that thought it's not in place so I think there would need

[41:57] to be quite a bit of work done individually I think the challenge with

[41:59] doing it individually though is it's at I guess it is at there's no requirement

[42:04] for municipalities to report that information right now so the province

[42:08] could put that in place and second report it differently some could do it

[42:12] some couldn't so see it be really challenging

[42:16] um to be comprehensive on it. You might get some municipalities doing it, some

[42:21] not. So that's a challenge. >> Sure.

[42:24] » That seems to be something that could be advocated at UBCM for something like

[42:28] that. But um in the meantime for the local governments and certainly the the

[42:35] great work that's being done on the peninsula, uh it would be relatively

[42:39] easy to share that information. And I think your point to the CRD is and we

[42:44] have a representative um here about that. So to collect that data centrally

[42:50] and try to minimize like you know maybe all of the work that's done locally but

[42:54] to to coordinate that centrally at least from the CRD perspective if this is also

[42:58] a CRD initiative >> that makes the most

[43:02] » yeah we are um >> we are working or in communication with

[43:07] the CRD at the moment too to do a similar presentation at their next A uh

[43:13] meeting which I believe is in the fall. So maybe I'll just make a note to sort

[43:17] of circle back to that idea when when we do get the chance to speak with their

[43:21] committee.

[43:24] » Yeah. I mean to your point to um I mean you were cutting out on that uh previous

[43:29] uh point uh so I didn't get the full gist but I think there's a point there

[43:34] for systematic advocacy there you know for sure for having these requirements.

[43:40] Um right now we um we we really very much

[43:46] rely on these local collaborations you know. So for Vancouver for the Metro

[43:50] Vancouver we go to the city of Vancouver we have a partnership where they will

[43:55] give us the access to this information and so we we we collect the data we meet

[43:59] with the housing providers we visit the units and we have this inventory. Uh

[44:03] same we go that for each municipality Richmond Kquidlam and all of this. So

[44:08] it's really at those individual municipality level and there's no

[44:12] requirements. Uh but it's much needed to have something more comprehensive

[44:17] consistent and and I think pro provincewide uh for for have capturing

[44:22] this data but but I yeah so you noted and I think engaging in systematic

[44:29] advocacy to make those changes is really needed. So yeah

[44:35] » Mr. Nukem >> thank you. Um, Cory Nukem, I'm the

[44:39] director of community planning for the Town Sydney. Um, I was just thinking

[44:43] about our internal processes.

[44:49] » Yeah. >> Um, thinking about our internal

[44:53] processes. So when we get a set of plans that has 20% of the units identified as

[44:59] adaptable, I mean sometimes they don't and we have to go back to the developer

[45:02] and inform them that they're missing something, but uh generally we get those

[45:07] plans, we confirm that it meets the requirements for adaptable housing and

[45:11] our zoning bylaw and then it goes on process. Um, initially when we get those

[45:17] plans, quite often the the units have a bit of like an interim

[45:22] identification like they might just be labeled 1 2 3 4 5 uh or maybe 101 102 or

[45:27] ABCD. Um later on in the process after the

[45:32] building has been approved by council, we go through a Canada Post addressing

[45:37] process that applies the actual unit official unit numbers and address that

[45:44] Canada Post would use and that the building that itself would use. Um so

[45:48] unit 101 102 or whatever it might be. There's a bit of a gap because the that

[45:54] addressing process doesn't happen until much later in the process. And so

[45:59] getting those numbers correct uh can be a bit tricky sometimes because they do

[46:03] change between the initial plan submission and the addressing. Um, my

[46:09] question for you is, does the right fit program have its own form

[46:15] to collect information on these potential buildings? And is that

[46:19] something that you could provide to municipalities?

[46:22] So, you're collecting a standardized set of information that you know works for

[46:26] you. And again thinking about our own processes, we have uh tasks that we you

[46:32] know check off as completed in our system and we could potentially make a

[46:36] task that is you know fill out the right fit information form on the adaptable

[46:41] units or whatever information you want on the building and send that off to an

[46:45] email that could include the developer contact info. Um, so you can see what

[46:50] provided, what the tenure is, whether it's rental or ownership, and then you

[46:53] could contact that builder directly and say, you know, we've got

[46:57] » we see you've got these units and it's rental building and we're we're

[47:00] interested in in matching up before you put it out to market. So, uh, a form

[47:05] like would be very helpful so that we could sort of rather than guessing at

[47:09] the information that's required, we could just fill it out, send it off, and

[47:13] you could add it to your database. So, just a thought there. Thanks. Uh yeah

[47:17] and thank you for um outlining your process. So just a followup to that is

[47:23] and I'm mindful of your time. I know you have a lot to discuss on your agenda and

[47:27] I think almost deserves its own meeting really to really discuss about how how

[47:32] we can make that work in in practice. Um but so when you you receive this do you

[47:38] um when you have let's say six units that are adaptable for a specific

[47:43] building um do you you do you don't collect any further information you have

[47:50] the addresses and then that's it right that's all there is in your system

[47:54] essentially at this point right correct >> uh as far as the adaptable information

[48:00] adaptable unit specific information goes We don't even know right now. We don't

[48:06] know the units that adaptable units are going to be within the building.

[48:10] » We just make sure plan for each unit meets the zone by requirement or space

[48:17] the whatever. >> So we don't we don't actually record

[48:20] where they are in the building >> where they are in the building. Okay.

[48:23] Okay. But you know there's a Yeah. Um, and the form that you're thinking

[48:28] for for the right fit is that um, essentially requiring the the developers

[48:32] to fill out the the form. So, and then it's added to our inventory. That that's

[48:37] what you're thinking about, right? >> Uh, yeah. Yeah, I mean I honestly I

[48:42] think >> municipal might be better positioned to

[48:45] fill that out because if we're assigning addresses and you want to know what the

[48:50] official address of that unit is with the building, um asking the developer to

[48:55] provide that information might be a bit of a tall task and it also doesn't

[49:00] happen until much later in the process. And also staff, municipal staff are the

[49:05] ones that coordinate that addressing. So it it might just be easier to have a

[49:09] planner who's reviewing the file fill that stuff out if it's not too complex.

[49:14] » Yeah. So right now the way we we we work when we get um word of um a new a new

[49:21] building or units becoming available um early on uh our accessibility um

[49:28] coordinator will will make contact um with the developer and then we'll go do

[49:33] an site a site visit an actual uh in-person site visit uh with a

[49:38] standardized uh accessibility checklist essentially. So, so this is something

[49:44] that we we fill out uh and we sort of um we have measured the like Alin say

[49:52] mentioned the turning radius and all these things. So, it's it's gives us a

[49:57] really a good um detailed information of what what this unit has to offer and

[50:03] this this is where it makes it to our inventory. So, so ideally, uh, we we

[50:10] would want those developers to, um, to be, you know, as part of your process to

[50:15] be required to, um, to essentially make contact with us or and so and to be open

[50:21] to having us visit the unit and record all that information. Is that is that

[50:26] something that we could do perhaps, you think?

[50:30] » Well, we could certainly provide you with the developers contact. Sure.

[50:34] Um and then we can circle back and give you access. One of the thing we want to

[50:40] do is right now the our inventory of units is uh is really in nature more

[50:46] internal. It allows us to match clients according to their preferences and

[50:50] number of criteria but eventually we'd want to add a functionality which allows

[50:56] to provide reports of all the accessibility features of the units and

[51:00] what what we're discovering. So uh um so and share that back with the

[51:04] municipalities and on on the building information and all that. So um so yeah

[51:10] » u got a couple more questions from the community. So if we can go to those.

[51:16] » Yeah. No [laughter] lots of question. >> Hi I'm Charlene. I'm member of the

[51:21] committee. Uh I don't know whether this is you're talking about rental units. Is

[51:25] there any way of of having um like private homes that may be rental homes

[51:31] in there? Because one of the things I've come up against with people that I know

[51:35] is a lot of these adaptable units that are being planned in in uh apartment

[51:40] buildings or condos, they typically are one-bedroom

[51:44] places. So, they they accommodate one person. Um people with disabilities have

[51:50] families, so they sometimes live in an apartment building. They want a home.

[51:54] want a suite. Is there any way of inventorying or or does this just become

[51:59] too cumbersome to to say we want um some people want homes, they don't

[52:05] necessarily want um condominiums or any is there any any recourse on that?

[52:11] » Um rental. Oh, that is such a great question. I love it. Um thank you for

[52:17] absolutely one of the thing we find is that we have will you're so right in

[52:22] saying wheelchair users have uh families and don't just require onebedroom unit.

[52:27] This is one of our points of ad systematic uh advocacy is that we find

[52:32] in those um uh buildings, new buildings, there's an disproportionate number of

[52:38] one-bedroom accessible units which means that we're unable to place um wheelchair

[52:45] users with family and household size where they have two, three, four

[52:49] children and they require twobedroom, threebedroom, fourbedroom. Sometimes

[52:53] they maybe one person or two people they require two-bedroom unit to to have a

[52:58] living caregiver all sorts of things situations. So larger units is

[53:02] definitely something we're we're after. And in terms of housing type, um,

[53:07] interestingly enough, a lot what we found from our surveys is a lot of our

[53:11] wheelchair users, uh, that we place, they were previously coming from

[53:16] nonaccessible homes with stairs and everything, but

[53:21] they were often like single family housing, basement suites, um, and then

[53:26] we move them into this um, high-rise building. Uh, but it's it not doesn't

[53:33] always work. And so we're really looking to include and diversify the the housing

[53:39] types that that we have. So we'd be definitely looking at rental homes or

[53:44] garden suites or um private owners wanting to rent out an adapt something

[53:51] that they've retrofitted to make it adaptable. Um absolutely. So uh is there

[53:58] it's it's not easy to identify that supply to be honest. Uh but if there's

[54:03] any way to work together to add that that would be very helpful because we we

[54:08] know that by doing this we'll be able to find units that are larger in size and

[54:14] also we'll in terms of the housing type that will perhaps match better what what

[54:19] our clients want actually in terms of living situations.

[54:24] » Thank you. >> Hey councelor O'Keefe.

[54:26] » Um so just a couple on this last topic. So in terms of number of onebedroom, two

[54:31] bedrooms, three bedrooms, that's something within the municipality's

[54:35] perview that we can uh we we can do that. So um we can we we say that they

[54:43] have to provide 20% and we could say that that 20% has to be allocated

[54:49] equally or on a prata basis one, two and threebedroom units. So, um, but in the

[54:55] interest of moving this along, I know we we could spend a lot of time on this,

[55:00] um, that I would I'm going to try a motion here, um, which is that, uh, the

[55:08] committee recommends that the three the planning departments of the three

[55:13] municipalities work together

[55:17] to develop a process to identify adaptable and accessible

[55:23] units to forward to the right fit program.

[55:29] » Great. >> Uh yeah, I'll second. I was just saying

[55:33] » Oh, okay. >> I'll second

[55:35] » and I looking to our our planning folks. Uh just kind of listening to some of I

[55:43] think what Mr. Nukem was saying in terms of what I would just see the simplest

[55:51] process possible would be we would could perhaps add a step into our process. um

[56:00] where we give the developer the contact information to the right fit people and

[56:06] say we'd like you as part of the process to contact them and and uh tell them

[56:13] about your adaptable units and kind of like hand it off to them rather than

[56:19] staff having to have any significant role in that. So

[56:25] if that's if if you think that makes sense or if you think that um uh

[56:34] » yeah I mean uh it could go either way. We could provide uh the developer

[56:38] contact info to right fit right contact info to the developer. I would think the

[56:43] former would probably be more successful.

[56:47] Yeah. >> Busy. So,

[56:50] » okay. >> I guess it gives you both.

[56:55] » Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. So,

[56:59] » can I ask a quick Can I ask a quick question? Sorry to interrupt.

[57:05] » Sorry.

[57:09] » Sorry. Question. >> Yeah. And then I think we've talked a

[57:13] lot about the rental side of it, but I think this is also like the market side

[57:17] of it. And so I'm assuming when this would come forward and for consideration

[57:22] that it would be for any sort of applicant that would whether it's a a

[57:26] car or >> multif family or a town home that

[57:30] whatever component is required whether it's rental or that this is what would

[57:36] be reported out on so that it >> in in Sydney's case we only require

[57:41] adaptable units on uh multi-unit residential buildings so like carriage

[57:46] homes don't they're not to provide those

[57:50] features. Uh that's something we could consider in the future, but in Sydney's

[57:54] case, >> the code's the same. It only applies to

[57:56] those larger multif family buildings, not not individual units like a

[58:01] » right. >> But if it was a development that came

[58:04] forward and I could think of one in central Sanage where there was one like

[58:10] a single family that was required to have I think

[58:14] moment but for market that that could be identified in the future.

[58:22] » Okay. What sort of council through a variance process requires some adaptable

[58:26] future? >> Yeah, sure. And I would echo councelor

[58:30] O'Keefe's comment that this hopefully is not a main work project for staff and I

[58:35] think hearing from the two individuals that this is relatively simple, but I'm

[58:39] trying to download this onto municipal staff is not really what I'm interested

[58:44] in doing. >> Yeah, same.

[58:46] » It's not it's it's more of a systems advice than just value.

[58:51] I I do believe that absolutely what I mentioned earlier having it at the

[58:54] provincial level is the best case scenario because it's a requirement

[58:59] right so it's it's just the longevity of it system

[59:05] » a robust system in place is it going to continue that way that's that's the

[59:09] challenge unless it's required legislation by law it's required

[59:17] okay any other discussion on the motion

[59:21] If not, um, entertain a a vote then. All in favor of the motion.

[59:29] Carried. So, do you have one more comment before

[59:32] you go, Isabelle? >> Oh, yeah. The the question and thank you

[59:36] for for supporting this and this very incredibly useful conversation and also

[59:41] thoughtful questions. Really appreciate it and very inspired by the level of

[59:45] interest. So, thank you for for having us and uh giving this opportunity to

[59:49] work together. So, two quick questions. I'm I'm just curious about the makeup on

[59:53] the onebedroom, two bedroom, threebedroom in your 20% allocation. Do

[59:58] you actually go to the level of Yeah, >> I think the the we've we forwarded the

[1:00:04] motion. I think if there's specific questions on the I think getting into

[1:00:08] those details, we could discuss when our staff get the opportunity to this.

[1:00:13] » Sure. Yeah. because I got a number of questions on on you know allocation and

[1:00:17] things like that but I agree and so would that be okay for us to to to

[1:00:22] contact you back and then have this maybe a separate conversation because I

[1:00:26] think we'll need to do that >> based program be more fully developed

[1:00:31] later on we certainly invite you back u you know when you've got that ready to

[1:00:35] go >> okay perfect

[1:00:39] » thank you and yeah please don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions Z

[1:00:44] want to just set up a time to chat. >> Great.

[1:00:48] » Thank you. >> Okay, next item on the agenda is

[1:00:53] accessibility plan. Has there been any uh changes to anybody's accessibility

[1:00:57] plans since last meeting? Seeing none,

[1:01:03] um council referrals.

[1:01:07] I don't see anything specific under there. No.

[1:01:12] Council [clears throat] updates. uh the tracking sheet

[1:01:16] I think. Um yes, councelor O'Keefe. >> Oh, I have some updates from Sydney. Um

[1:01:23] so on the the tracking sheet talks about recommendations that have been put

[1:01:28] forward. So just some of the things that's being dealt with. Um there was

[1:01:32] the um the committee had a resolution about tactile markings at the at

[1:01:38] intersections and um staff So we brought that to to staff's attention and they

[1:01:45] note that they do conform to the master municipal construction documents for

[1:01:51] tactile markings and they could provide a copy of that just back if we wish. Um,

[1:01:56] subsequent to that, in regard to the tactile markings at Beacon and Highway

[1:02:01] 17, which was discussed at the committee, council made a resolution to

[1:02:05] send a letter to the Ministry of Transportation and Transit expressing

[1:02:09] concern about the misalignment of the tactile markings. That was sent about I

[1:02:14] think a month ago and we still have had not any response. However, I understand

[1:02:20] from the community member who brought that forward that MOOTT is coming out in

[1:02:25] August 6th um to review the intersection in more detail with a representative

[1:02:31] from the CNIB. So, we hope to hear more after that. Um, in regards to the

[1:02:37] recommendation about the municipalities um, communicating to the airport

[1:02:43] authority about accessibility concerns, um, I think there's a letter you can see

[1:02:48] in the agenda package. So, um, that's been covered off as well. Um, accessible

[1:02:55] parking awareness. uh we asked our staff to highlight an information campaign

[1:03:03] onto the business community regarding best practices for accessible parking.

[1:03:07] So that will happen in November. And then I'll just also report that on

[1:03:12] Canada Days um in response to recommendations by this committee uh the

[1:03:18] uh viewing areas for the fireworks [clears throat] and the Canada Day

[1:03:23] parade were expanded accessible viewing areas and additional parking um as as

[1:03:30] well. So I think that all went well, but if there's members of the committee who

[1:03:36] participated in Canada Day in Sydney and used those accessible uh areas, um we'd

[1:03:43] be receptive to comments on that. >> Charlene, did you have a

[1:03:46] » Yeah, I just wanted to say I I didn't attend the events. I broke my leg so I

[1:03:50] did not go anywhere. Um, but I have heard from multiple community people

[1:03:56] that they were extremely pleased with the ex extra accessible viewing uh the

[1:04:02] accessible parking. I've talked to many people who are thrilled about the

[1:04:05] accessible parking spot that was added by the the band shell down there. Like

[1:04:10] so I'm getting I'm starting to get a lot of feedback from other community members

[1:04:14] coming to me. They're noticing the the differences and the changes and they're

[1:04:19] they're really pleased with it. Um, Gar Homer is bringing people down regularly.

[1:04:24] Um, so I just want to say kudos to to Sydney. Like it's it is being noticed.

[1:04:30] So, and I'm planning on coming to some of the Central Sanage stuff this summer.

[1:04:34] So, I'm checking it out too. >> Anyways, so thank you.

[1:04:38] » It's coming up pretty fast. >> Yeah.

[1:04:39] » Which is a nice segue. Councelor Newton, do you have anything from Central Sage

[1:04:44] » specific on the the tracking sheet? No. They'll say that

[1:04:52] wasn't a council or anything. So, uh I'll take this

[1:04:58] opportunity then for the chair to briefly say central Sanage's 75th

[1:05:02] celebration this weekend. Hopefully, we do a good job from an

[1:05:06] accessibility standpoint. It will be a very busy weekend. It will be a lot of

[1:05:10] fun. Um and uh yeah, I look forward to seeing people out walking, rolling,

[1:05:16] striding uh into the community. So >> I did notice that their their form out

[1:05:22] there says that the shuttle bus is accessible.

[1:05:24] » Good. >> So so that the we're getting out there

[1:05:27] like this is becoming standard to to put this stuff out there and let us be aware

[1:05:31] of it. So yeah, great. >> Look forward to feedback.

[1:05:36] » Pastor Batista, anything from North Sanash? I know you've been busy with

[1:05:40] other things out there. >> Uh yeah, you know, we've been busy with

[1:05:43] other things. um our zoning bylaws a little bit longer. So when it comes to

[1:05:49] some of those components

[1:05:54] later in the fall

[1:05:58] is off

[1:06:07] but um I know it's on later the agenda some

[1:06:11] comments about that. Okay, great. >> Thank you. And that's a good point you

[1:06:15] made about no council report. I wonder if I don't even understand

[1:06:19] [clears throat] what council referrals means. Is that the opportunity when

[1:06:22] council should be reporting or is it just poorly worded? Should we change it?

[1:06:26] » No, that would have been I didn't mean to jump in, but I think anything that

[1:06:30] came from the three councils as a referral to the

[1:06:34] » Oh, I see. >> Shouldn't we regularly have a

[1:06:38] opportunity for a council report though? Well, that's kind of what I saw number

[1:06:45] seven as like council updates. Oh, >> including tracking,

[1:06:50] » but but council referral would be something specific.

[1:06:54] » Okay. >> So, if council said we we want the

[1:06:58] committee to review the new active transportation plan, that would be a a

[1:07:04] specific sort of item that council asks the committee.

[1:07:09] » Good. I'll be up up to speed just about the time I get ready to kick get kicked

[1:07:13] out of here. [laughter] Okay. Um, anything else on the tracking

[1:07:18] sheet? I think we covered them all. Uh, right program we did uh Wayne Road

[1:07:25] Park update. Um, Mr. Martin, you just want to go

[1:07:29] ahead and cover that off or >> Yeah, I'd love to. Hi everybody. Um, Ben

[1:07:34] Martin, director of construction North Sanage. Apologize if I haven't said hi

[1:07:39] to some new faces. Um >> oh this do I need a speaker? Is there a

[1:07:46] speaker? >> You need to pass some time back.

[1:07:49] » Um so I've thanks Charlene for the um request.

[1:07:55] » Um I did provide this email summary that I see on the agenda.

[1:08:00] » Um so what does everybody know about Wayne Park the process? Did everybody go

[1:08:05] through the web page and does everybody understand how we got to where we are?

[1:08:09] » I did. >> I went through it.

[1:08:12] » I drove out there and had a look. >> It's good. There's some relevance with

[1:08:16] that. So, we did have a quite a robust process and we um we were at the initial

[1:08:22] stages of reporting back a collection of interests in the park. That was at the

[1:08:27] council meeting that was referenced in the email. And at that council meeting,

[1:08:31] uh council gave direction to simply proceed with that. the entire collection

[1:08:36] and to initiate it by May 2026 >> um in short order a certain section.

[1:08:45] So staff [snorts] um as you can for those of you who have gone to the park,

[1:08:49] you'll see a large concrete foundation [clears throat] and a steel structure

[1:08:53] off to the side for for a gathering place

[1:08:57] and staff will uh due to cost capacity and or due to labor capacity and costs,

[1:09:04] staff will be um completing the re the remainder of the section identified on

[1:09:10] the project page in the fall after our growing season.

[1:09:14] Um I did I did provide one error in my email about the paving lot for the

[1:09:22] parking lot. Um the plan as accepted by council did indicate that um future

[1:09:28] parking lot improvements will be provided. So I did speak with our

[1:09:34] utilities public works staff and we are it's now going to be paved where I

[1:09:38] indicated it's not going to be paid. There'll be a pathway to gathering place

[1:09:42] structure. It was a real problem for me. >> Yeah, me too.

[1:09:45] » So >> instead of a community gathering place,

[1:09:47] if you can't >> can't gather.

[1:09:49] » Yeah, considering >> it's actually one of our community

[1:09:52] parks. So before the peninsula soccer happened at Memorial Park, that was

[1:09:57] actually quite a node for the [clears throat] community. We had

[1:10:00] » two baseball fields, >> baseball diamonds.

[1:10:03] » We we actually bought an adjacent property, unknown to most people, bought

[1:10:07] a decent property because we thought we'd had more of that coming. This is

[1:10:10] well before my time. Um, so we thought we'd have to expand

[1:10:14] tennis facilities and whatnot. And since that time, it's really transitioned. So,

[1:10:19] it is still a community park, but it's really more of a neighborhood. However,

[1:10:22] with this new vision, it's turning back into a community park. So, there's going

[1:10:27] to be so many amenities there because council approved all all the options.

[1:10:31] So, we're going to have uh a trail connector small like a younger age kids

[1:10:37] natural play structure >> water feature a water sorry a water

[1:10:42] feature a water misser um the gathering place uh we're going to

[1:10:48] place about 20 plus trees in that area around gathering place to make it more

[1:10:55] I suppose kind of a disc golf um so it will be place where families

[1:11:02] will come and [clears throat] there'll be something for everybody. And so, um,

[1:11:07] we'll pave the the parking lot is as per direction

[1:11:11] yesterday, the parking lot. It's planned to be paved with

[1:11:15] » That's fantastic. >> Charlene,

[1:11:17] » yeah, I've got questions. So, my my concern with this is that it's going to

[1:11:21] be an area for everybody. Um, without going into the detail and coming

[1:11:26] to us, will there be picnic tables that are accessible to everybody?

[1:11:30] Um, will there be parts of this part as we go on that will be accessible to

[1:11:35] everybody? Like, are we are we paying attention to what the pathways are made

[1:11:39] of? Are we paying attention to um how how do I get to that picnic table? Um,

[1:11:45] and and I bring this up in in some respect because of my disappointment

[1:11:49] with Wolf Orchard. Um, I checked it out and there's a lovely little picnic table

[1:11:54] and there's a lovely little bench on cement pads that is not accessible to

[1:11:59] somebody in a wheelchair. So, it broke my heart thinking of the the kids that

[1:12:03] go to Deep Coast School because I know this was done in conjunction to be part

[1:12:07] of the school being able to access it. There's absolutely no access for a a

[1:12:12] child in a wheelchair to be able to sit at a picnic table or sit next to

[1:12:16] somebody on a bench. So, I just want to make sure that these things are not

[1:12:20] forgotten as we go forward. Um that that we do pay attention to the detail in

[1:12:27] these parks cuz like I say, I was I was pretty disappointed in seeing that. And

[1:12:32] um without it coming again, this this is what we're we're going to make this

[1:12:37] we're going to make it a a a play area, but are these areas going to consider

[1:12:42] accessibility? So that that was my concern in asking questions about this

[1:12:47] is uh you know I I don't want to see it go to the level that it's completed and

[1:12:52] it's like oh we didn't make it accessible because we missed we missed

[1:12:57] an opportunity here. So I just hope along the way I mean I can I I follow

[1:13:02] council meetings as best as I can. I read what's going on as best as I can.

[1:13:07] But um as as it's been pointed out to me before that sometimes when you see these

[1:13:11] plans that come up, they're placekeepers. They're they're

[1:13:16] abstract plans, but it is in the details that things get missed. So I just want

[1:13:22] to make sure that that is is considered going forward on this

[1:13:27] » interesting discussion. Maybe you can discuss how that can be considered.

[1:13:31] » Yeah. and >> and and provide other incentives to the

[1:13:34] council motion that provided direction for staff.

[1:13:37] » Yeah, I mean the council motion itself I was pretty rush and and was not

[1:13:42] anticipated to happen the way it did. That's at least my perspective. Um, you

[1:13:47] know, my only real comment is I'm quite thankful to our staff that they're

[1:13:51] always thinking about that stuff and they're always considering it and and

[1:13:55] this was one of those pivots that happened um partly because these

[1:13:59] communications that happened, but um yeah, the you know, the way I saw this

[1:14:05] originally playing out after this presentation was that it was going to be

[1:14:08] coming to SP. These were the things that were going to be happening. Um you know,

[1:14:12] the the council decision is what it is. I certainly can't unwind

[1:14:16] those things now. Um, but yeah, I'm I'm personally trying to be much more on top

[1:14:22] of making sure our council is considering those things before they

[1:14:27] rush decisions because that's what happened to me.

[1:14:30] » Yeah, >> I took a screenshot of what you had on

[1:14:32] the website. looked [clears throat] to me that if the parking lot got paved,

[1:14:37] there would be accessibility to the trail and the community gathering place

[1:14:41] » um over the uh trail service that you're providing, which is pretty standard

[1:14:47] stuff, I think. Compacted gravel is relatively firm and wheelchair

[1:14:52] accessible, right? >> Compacted fines. So, it's like a gravel

[1:14:55] base with compact six mill fines. That's what that's what's intended in design in

[1:15:00] the plan. The trail network. Yeah, I think that's what we see elsewhere in

[1:15:04] the peninsula, don't we? >> I'm not familiar with the terms. So, to

[1:15:09] me, all I need to know is it wheelchair accessible. Can a person in a wheelchair

[1:15:14] or a walker easily traverse the surface? Yes or no?

[1:15:18] » I would say that a compact, for those of you who've been around trails, it's a

[1:15:22] CRD standard. I believe it's a central standard. It's quite a a compacted

[1:15:26] surface and it's crowned supposed to be crowned to to shed. Um,

[1:15:32] it's I would say it's better than loose gravel. It's better than beach. It's not

[1:15:36] as good as ashalt for like a wheel surface. Like you couldn't run a scooter

[1:15:40] down it, but you could run a larger a larger wheeled.

[1:15:46] » Uh, councelor Newton I think was an accident. Councelor Keith.

[1:15:51] » Thank you. Um,

[1:15:55] weighing in and other people's jurisdictions. The only comment I'll

[1:15:58] have is previous member many you know commented

[1:16:03] about how good the gravel surface trail was that

[1:16:08] central sage had along ste and again like you chair I'm not

[1:16:13] familiar with this but a six mill aggregate is that's the standard then

[1:16:19] that's great I would yeah for whatever voice this committee has to say that you

[1:16:24] know at minimum so that that is able to be

[1:16:27] I think is essential. I'll leave it at that.

[1:16:32] » That's O'Keefe. >> Uh thanks. So I think the thought the

[1:16:36] way I thought things were going in the municipalities is that when things were

[1:16:42] being considered like you know this that the first thing would be come to spec

[1:16:49] and like for example I really appreciated like central central Sanage

[1:16:54] when they were doing their they're redoing their parks and so they came to

[1:16:59] the committee first of all and said hey we're doing our big parks

[1:17:04] uh you know thing and we want to get some general comments on things we we we

[1:17:10] need to think about and then the commitment from them that they will come

[1:17:14] back every time that they're looking at a park to say this is what we plan for

[1:17:18] the park you know same with Sydney when we did our active transportation plan

[1:17:23] there was certainly a lot of community engagement on that and there's lots of

[1:17:27] opportunities to participate but the the point of spa is that councils and staff

[1:17:36] make a concerted effort not to just depend on that general sort of

[1:17:41] engagement, but that we we we factor into our engagement process reaching out

[1:17:48] to spat specifically. So, and what I'm hearing from a couple members here is

[1:17:53] that, you know, maybe more could have been done that way and and hearing from

[1:17:58] councelor De Batista, um, you know, he thought it was coming just back. In

[1:18:04] staff's defense, you know, staff, you know, presents something and unless

[1:18:08] council directs them to do anything else, they're going to go and and do

[1:18:13] whatever sta or council directs them to do. So I, you know, if committee members

[1:18:20] thought that they want to have a better look at this plan, you have the option

[1:18:25] to make a recommendation to North Sanage Council that the plans for Wayne Road

[1:18:31] Park be presented to SPAC for review and comment. Um, and so then you could make

[1:18:39] whatever formal suggestions you have that could go back. And sometimes

[1:18:43] there's cost implications, you know, and in defense of staff, you know, uh

[1:18:48] whether it's a gravel trail or or whatever or there's no accessible

[1:18:54] playground features, those are things that cost a lot more money.

[1:18:58] » And so um you know, staff are always looking at what's the most cost

[1:19:02] effective way of doing things. But if the committee puts forward certain

[1:19:07] things, they say this is important and then staff can say, "Well, we could do

[1:19:11] that, but it's going to cost an extra $100,000." And that's what happened in

[1:19:15] Sydney with Breather Park. Um, is that initially there wasn't going to be a lot

[1:19:20] of accessibility there. And the committee said, "No, we want that." And

[1:19:24] so it ended up costing I think it was another $100,000

[1:19:28] to include uh the the the playground surface and some other things. But at

[1:19:34] least it gives council >> for your donation.

[1:19:39] » At least it gives council the the opportunity to uh you know weigh in on

[1:19:46] that. So that's an option you have if you want to make a motion to North

[1:19:51] Stanage to um you know ask staff to review the the the plans with SPAC and

[1:19:59] ask for their review. >> I think we have I think we have time now

[1:20:02] right just to the point that's actually what happened with Jubilee Park prior to

[1:20:06] Breath of Park. >> Right.

[1:20:07] » Right. That's exactly how that played out. um this did not play out that way

[1:20:11] and I'll keep my personal comments rationale for that probably to myself to

[1:20:15] say >> and basically we want to be partners not

[1:20:17] policemen right >> yeah and so it was uh yeah there was

[1:20:22] certain motivations for this to be rushed the way it was so it's

[1:20:26] » highly unfortunate um that it played out this way because it didn't previously

[1:20:30] » so it seems like there's time to bring it back one more time before you get

[1:20:35] » blind in the call no >> well

[1:20:38] I mean It's it it's already been approved by council

[1:20:43] » as is. >> So yeah, a portion is being completed as

[1:20:48] per the image on the page. >> The remainder of the park staff couldn't

[1:20:52] conceivably completed the top.

[1:20:57] » So there's a structure going, trees being planted and the parking lot being

[1:21:01] paved, some split rail fencing, irrigation for the trees, and the start

[1:21:05] of that trail network. If there's um a motion from this committee to consider

[1:21:11] paving the trail, start adding or consider coming back the the remainder

[1:21:16] of the park will be constructed 2027. That's in the capital fund. So

[1:21:21] there is an opportunity to bring you know obviously

[1:21:27] what's already set set in motion is is is happening. But there's nothing to say

[1:21:33] that uh we couldn't come back and say okay 2027 remainder of the parks being

[1:21:37] done. >> Um we're interested in these some

[1:21:40] additional features >> also always have opportunity to revisit

[1:21:48] past decisions if they so choose as well.

[1:21:51] » Do you want to make a motion sir? So yeah, I think we make a motion to have

[1:21:55] uh the next planning phase of of Wayne Road to be presented to SPAC

[1:22:02] » might be assuming that it makes it into the capital list. Sometimes things are

[1:22:06] moved if the cap if it remains in the capital plan for 2027 and it should then

[1:22:12] it would come before this committee >> first.

[1:22:16] » So >> so I think the motion

[1:22:17] » is there you're waiting to say something >> there's a motion on the floor. as well.

[1:22:22] Sorry. >> And just just to help out, I think the

[1:22:25] recommendation would be that SPACK recommends the district

[1:22:29] present to SPACK um the remainder of the work plan for balance works be done away

[1:22:37] at a future meeting and I think that's the opportunity to you know provide some

[1:22:43] input and provide some thought because that the rest of that work isn't going

[1:22:47] to be done yet and it gives them an opportunity to come back albeit the

[1:22:50] first half is a little too late. Um, but at least the second

[1:22:53] » you okay with that wording? >> Yeah, I'm okay with that wording. Did

[1:22:56] you catch that for me?

[1:23:07] » Anybody on u anybody attending virtually?

[1:23:12] » We need a seconder, right? Or do we have one? We need a seconder, I think.

[1:23:16] » Can I second? >> Okay. Yeah, I'll second it. Well, I I

[1:23:20] was just hoping with some words. >> Okay. So, I'm I'm Okay. So, I'm doing

[1:23:28] » I'll happily second. >> Okay. Yeah.

[1:23:30] » Okay. Great. >> Thank you.

[1:23:32] » Multiple sectors. Um any discussion um from all you quiet folks on the on the

[1:23:37] screen there that I'm looking at? >> Janelle and company.

[1:23:42] » Nope. >> No. I I just really appreciate this and

[1:23:45] I'll just make a comment. I appreciate Charlene bringing up about children uh

[1:23:49] because this is one thing that it's difficult for our family is we see

[1:23:53] accessible places for children but that doesn't mean that the activities that

[1:23:57] are included are accessible. So I appreciate opportunity to hear this and

[1:24:01] yeah >> counc

[1:24:05] and you know it's an opportunity for you

[1:24:09] know the member of council that's going to bring this motion forward to their

[1:24:14] council to as just a reminder of maybe previous process you know your normal

[1:24:20] process of what you did at Jubilee Park which seemed to be really good and I

[1:24:24] think what the committee members of the committee were pointing

[1:24:28] out today is disappointment that there wasn't that uh consultation

[1:24:36] for Wayne Road Park um as there had been in the past though

[1:24:43] and councelor Newton then I think we should bring the questions

[1:24:49] she was still around the process on this about how so I

[1:24:55] um weighing into each local government's

[1:25:00] sort of governance and their processes. I struggle with this being outside. I

[1:25:05] appreciate the advocacy side of what this committee is, you know, jumping up

[1:25:09] and down and doing um how this is coming. I mean through the process I

[1:25:14] struggle with a little bit just from what's involved.

[1:25:20] I absolutely agree that this should have come forward as council efforts. You

[1:25:26] know what you guys did in Jubilee Park was great.

[1:25:31] » Yeah. I I >> Do you have another suggestion on how we

[1:25:35] can uh get it on board? >> No, I don't have another suggestion

[1:25:38] because I think this committee should review it, but I just my problem is with

[1:25:44] how it how it's coming back forward through the process.

[1:25:47] » Yeah, understood. Okay, I'll call the question. All in

[1:25:50] favor of the motion. Uh

[1:25:54] » against period.

[1:26:01] » Thanks guys. >> Thank you for your help with that.

[1:26:05] » Can I just say >> yes?

[1:26:07] » Is it Are we able to do the accessible parking before Ben goes?

[1:26:13] » Oh, just because Yeah,

[1:26:15] » sure. >> That's okay with you.

[1:26:18] » Yes. >> Or I mean, sorry, I was going to say

[1:26:20] that there's a reason for my departure. I'd love to stay. I've got

[1:26:24] » if the accessible park is related to bylaw, so I'll be able to

[1:26:27] » Okay. >> Okay.

[1:26:29] » Off you go. It's nice to see everybody. >> Thank you, too.

[1:26:38] » Okay. Accessibility at Mary Whitespear Center.

[1:26:41] » Yes, that's coming to me again. Um quite some time ago it it was brought up that

[1:26:47] Mary Windspar would like uh input from the committee on accessibility issues at

[1:26:52] Mary Windsor. Somehow that got dropped and nothing ever happened. Um I have

[1:26:57] been talking with Denny Warner from Mary Winspair and she's very interested in

[1:27:02] our committee um helping with any kind of accessibility

[1:27:06] um information notes. Um she did say um this didn't print out very well that she

[1:27:13] was um looking for some uh assistance regarding accessibility for the center

[1:27:20] um accessibility with washrooms, signage, parking or any other um sensory

[1:27:26] issues, any kind of issues that we could do. um she was not able to make this

[1:27:31] meeting today, but wanted to know if our committee would be um in a position that

[1:27:36] we could maybe help out, do an audit, meet with her, whatever. And I just

[1:27:40] wanted to I I certainly have got my ideas of what I'd like to see at Mary

[1:27:47] laughing at me because he can figure those out. Um, but I think we all bring

[1:27:52] our our expertise on this committee to that and to see uh Mary Winspair and the

[1:27:58] community tackle some of these accessibility issues. So, I just wanted

[1:28:03] to know whether that's something that other members of the committee would be

[1:28:06] willing to to work on with us. >> Certainly, I would. I I know I certif.

[1:28:14] » So I my suggestion would be to for Miss Warner to make a formal request to SP

[1:28:20] back either you know to appear um at at a meeting in the future. she wasn't

[1:28:26] available today. Um, you know, to to, you know, maybe send some questions in

[1:28:31] advance or if she's looking for an on-site sort of thing to send, you know,

[1:28:37] a formal request to SPAC outlining what are the things they want feedback on and

[1:28:42] then SPAC can respond at that time. >> Okay. Are you comfortable writing that?

[1:28:47] » Yeah. So would that would the formal request come to SPACK or does it have to

[1:28:52] go through council to come to SPACK process?

[1:28:58] » I want to know what the process is. >> I think that's where we have a gray area

[1:29:03] what this committee's role is and without a doubt

[1:29:07] » providing some guidance and input. Um, but I be curious what our terms of

[1:29:12] reference state about who we can invite in to request input from uh from the

[1:29:21] wealth of knowledge in this room about how that works. And not to say that I

[1:29:25] don't think that there's some great input that could be provided, but it's

[1:29:30] just um I think this role the committee is still from the local government side

[1:29:35] of things on how that comes forward. Keep

[1:29:40] » I guess what what I would say I think the terms of reference talk about you

[1:29:44] know education sort of of the broader community certainly there's a role in

[1:29:49] providing direct um feedback to the local governments but I'm recollecting

[1:29:56] although I can't remember who other organizations that have come here for

[1:30:01] feedback on different uh different things that haven't necessarily gone

[1:30:07] through our ours. >> Yeah. The airport and the panorama.

[1:30:12] » Oh, yeah. Right. Yeah. So, >> peninsula f festivities.

[1:30:17] » Oh, yeah. Peninsula celebrations. Um, you know, they're a community group that

[1:30:23] provides >> maybe I'll have to refer refresh my

[1:30:26] memory about make sure that

[1:30:29] » that Yeah, that's fine. Well, and that was my question with this. Is is this

[1:30:34] something that comes formally to us or do we just individually say, "Okay,

[1:30:39] we're we're meeting with you, Denny." >> Oh, well, that's another way of

[1:30:43] » of doing it. Al although I think I think it would be good to have kind of an

[1:30:49] official spa uh presence because Sydney and North

[1:30:54] Sanage anyways contribute significantly to Mary Winspear Center and I think we

[1:31:00] have kind of a real interest I would think of ensuring that the municipal

[1:31:08] facilities that we we support financially

[1:31:12] um you know that there's some concern about accessibility there and it would

[1:31:18] be of interest. >> Plus, we have a breadth of experience on

[1:31:22] the committee that would be different than just Charlene and I going for

[1:31:26] example. We want to consider all of the u

[1:31:32] the whole community not just the mobility challenge community.

[1:31:39] So looking at this from the reference does say that uh committee identified

[1:31:42] barriers for persons with disabilities in the community and recommends

[1:31:45] solutions for consideration by the San Mins local governments as well as

[1:31:52] sharing committees and organizations.

[1:32:02] So, um [clears throat] maybe we can co-write a letter, send it off, and

[1:32:06] we'll get some feedback. >> Okay.

[1:32:08] » Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay, that works. Thank you.

[1:32:14] » All right. Now, we're on to um item D. Sydney wave f wayfinding markings. We

[1:32:20] talked about this a couple of meetings ago, and I think uh Mr. Wellland was

[1:32:24] kind enough to offer his observations. So, thank you.

[1:32:29] Yeah, go ahead.

[1:32:33] Uh yeah, thank you. Uh all right. So the uh

[1:32:40] I've used the term wayfinding and and in other conversations people have talked

[1:32:46] about tactile markings. Um they're the same thing. Um

[1:32:52] and uh whether that whether the tactile feature be grooves in the concrete or uh

[1:32:59] twizzies. Um that's that's really what I was looking

[1:33:04] at. And so um I I uh conducted an audit um between

[1:33:13] April 25th and May 7th of this year. Um

[1:33:20] both uh

[1:33:24] on my own and uh with my partner who is uh totally blind. Um

[1:33:31] and uh what we did is uh took kind of a grid approach and went from um Highway

[1:33:39] 17 and Beacon Avenue um all the way over to uh First Street

[1:33:45] and the waterfront uh the pier um from Beavenon

[1:33:53] Beacon uh James White and uh Sydney

[1:33:59] Um and then went a little bit beyond that to Henry Avenue as well. Uh and

[1:34:05] also to Mill Road and Rest Haven. Um

[1:34:10] so uh I I made notes of uh what I was

[1:34:16] seeing there and I also took photographs of uh many of the the features um on the

[1:34:22] on the concrete. Um so the briefly the findings were um that

[1:34:31] uh so in terms of the way that I I did this I I looked at a corner as being

[1:34:37] four corners right so an intersection has four corners so I looked at what's

[1:34:42] going on in the northeast the northwest southeast southwest whatever um and so

[1:34:49] in terms of the the numbering that's that's where that's coming from So there

[1:34:53] are 54 corners in that grid that I just described that

[1:35:01] have no markings at all. Um anywhere that there's cobblestone, at

[1:35:06] least that's what I'm calling it, the cobblestones, uh there are no marks of

[1:35:11] any sort.

[1:35:15] Um the other feature that I notice is that where there are grooves in the

[1:35:21] concrete that are meant to be um tactile markings,

[1:35:26] uh there is little consistency in the way that those markings are

[1:35:32] displayed. So I found that there were 20 corners where the grooves parallel the

[1:35:38] road and there are 19 corners where it's the opposite way.

[1:35:47] There are also at least five corners uh which are newer and uh have grooves at

[1:35:56] right angles, right?

[1:36:01] And so,

[1:36:08] excuse me just a moment.

[1:36:14] Yeah. Uh, so one of the features that I noticed uh was that there are corners

[1:36:21] where uh there are maybe three sections to

[1:36:26] grooves. Uh so that there is a a a section that

[1:36:30] has grooves that are um parallel to to say the this road u the one that's going

[1:36:38] north north south and then grooves that are parallel to the uh east west road

[1:36:45] but then there's another set that are in between that.

[1:36:50] So although we have

[1:36:55] Sydney Council who have uh you know reached out to the Ministry of

[1:37:00] Transportation uh with concerns about the Highway 17

[1:37:05] and Beacon Avenue intersection where these uh grooves and Twizzies are

[1:37:11] misaligned. Uh, Sydney has its own problems

[1:37:17] in the sense that wherever these arcs or um three section grooves are, you have

[1:37:26] the potential to lead someone who is blind right into the middle of traffic

[1:37:32] going basically kitty corner. Um, so

[1:37:37] although I agree that the Ministry of Transportation needs to get its act

[1:37:41] together, so does Sydney. Um, the only corners with twizzies,

[1:37:48] which are the tactile markings, the yellow plastic ones,

[1:37:53] um, is at that Highway 17 and Beacon intersection. I'm not saying that's the

[1:37:59] only ones. That's not necessarily the only ones in all of Sydney, but within

[1:38:04] the large grid that I talked about, there are no other ones.

[1:38:10] Um, the other thing about those twizzies is

[1:38:15] that they're not directional twizzies. They're only warning twizzies.

[1:38:21] So they can't necessarily uh direct the user in any particular direction. Uh the

[1:38:28] grooves can. Um and what I discovered as a cited person is that it's very easy to

[1:38:36] uh to to basically as a sighted person to kind

[1:38:42] of line up the grooves. If you're looking at the ones that are going to um

[1:38:48] uh be parallel to the walkway, to the crosswalk lines,

[1:38:55] uh you can basically line those up by your eye and go, "Oh, yeah, okay, that

[1:38:59] works." But the problem is that if you're blind, you're not using your eyes

[1:39:05] to line up to crosswalk. You're going by whatever direction those those grooves

[1:39:10] are are directing you. uh to to basically for for you to they're

[1:39:17] directing you to go in a certain direction. Um and

[1:39:22] » [clears throat] >> uh and as I've said in some cases that

[1:39:26] is directing person into the flow of traffic. Um the other thing that I

[1:39:31] noticed is that both the on and off ramps to Highway 17

[1:39:39] uh have crosswalks. Um

[1:39:45] but there's no uh there's no control of of traffic there. Uh so somebody who's

[1:39:51] blind who goes wants to go across this let's say the offramp

[1:39:58] um they are not going to be able to know

[1:40:02] whether there's traffic coming uh to go on the beacon.

[1:40:08] Um the other thing is that that is also true of all of the crosswalks that are

[1:40:15] on Beacon that go across Beacon. Uh there's no traffic control there.

[1:40:20] There's no um and and in addition there are no markings um for those particular

[1:40:26] crosswalks and the same is true of the traffic circle at uh first and beacon.

[1:40:34] There were no markings and there's no traffic control there.

[1:40:39] Um,

[1:40:51] now when you look at uh oh um yeah, let me say this first. Uh when you look at

[1:40:58] the uh two traffic control uh crosswalks that I looked at, um

[1:41:07] they have warning lights for traffic, but they don't have sound.

[1:41:14] So the one that's most concerning, I think, is the one at Mill Road and Rest

[1:41:19] Haven, where it's just south of that intersection. Uh so it's at the Shaw

[1:41:23] Center.

[1:41:31] Um

[1:41:38] the other thing about that particular crosswalk is that

[1:41:44] the traffic does not always heed the um crosswalk warning lights. Um, this has

[1:41:51] been reported to me, but I also observed it when I was doing my audit and

[1:41:57] standing there. Um, there were a number of vehicles that just went right through

[1:42:01] there. Um, and that's particularly concerning.

[1:42:09] Uh, another feature that I looked at was the directional posts on Beacon Avenue.

[1:42:15] These are the ones that um direct people to where businesses are.

[1:42:21] Uh none of those posts are accessible to the blind or people with low vision. Uh

[1:42:27] what they would probably need is raised lettering and braille. They have none.

[1:42:39] Um, I also looked at access through glass beach

[1:42:44] which is not particularly accessible to blind for people with low. In fact, it

[1:42:50] could be potentially quite dangerous for them. Um there are railings that go down

[1:42:56] the stairs that

[1:43:02] there is a concrete platform at the end of those stairs with no railing. So if

[1:43:08] person who's blind was able to manage to get down that far, they would quite

[1:43:13] easily walk off of the concrete and onto the rocks or the sand.

[1:43:19] Um and that goes a little bit beyond you know, it might need markings, but um

[1:43:27] in terms of the railings and such. Um but there also are no

[1:43:32] tactile markings anywhere around those stairs to warn someone that there are

[1:43:37] indeed stairs there.

[1:43:43] And uh I think that's about it. >> Great. Thanks very much. That was a

[1:43:50] pretty comprehensive tour around Sydney. Um,

[1:43:55] any questions of Mr. Willen? >> Charlie,

[1:43:58] » I just thanks for doing that, Richard. I I've certainly since being on this

[1:44:02] committee and having had Vanessa on the committee, I've paid more attention to

[1:44:06] to crosswalks than ever I did because I only looked at could I get on them with

[1:44:10] my wheelchair and now I'm looking at them in a whole different light. like

[1:44:14] when so those rounded ones that you're talking about that sends them into any

[1:44:18] any direction >> they work great for me but they are a

[1:44:22] nightmare for a low vision and blind person um and and I bring this up

[1:44:27] because you did a a great comprehensive study of Sydney um North Sanage is

[1:44:32] looking at uh I know they brought up redoing uh the walkway along uh East

[1:44:37] Sanich Road between McTavish and the roundabout at the airport. Um, and they

[1:44:42] also put in a crosswalk on the top of Dean Park Road and they put one of those

[1:44:46] cord corners in. It's a nightmare for a low vision person. Um, so again, I think

[1:44:52] it's it's that we start paying attention as we're we're we're doing some of these

[1:44:57] changes and developments that there's got to be more consistency and in how

[1:45:01] we're doing it. And um so I am I am now finding that I'm driving around looking

[1:45:07] at crosswalks and and curb cuts and and you're right there's and this this is

[1:45:13] part of progressing as we learn more and do more um that we're we are getting

[1:45:18] better with directional ones. So I think we need to to find a consistency so that

[1:45:23] people know and again as a tri municipal committee

[1:45:29] and and I'm I'm somebody who very rarely leaves the peninsula. So to have a

[1:45:34] standard that works central Sanage, North Sanage and Sydney so that we have

[1:45:39] got a a standard um just makes it easier for everybody who's trying to to

[1:45:46] navigate their world. Um, so thank you for doing all of that. I It's something

[1:45:51] I've been paying more attention to as well.

[1:45:53] » Yes, you're new. Yeah, certainly. I think all of these students

[1:46:00] known about where their deficiencies are from work is fully done. I think going

[1:46:04] forward is what we're really trying to look at. So I guess my question

[1:46:10] the controlled intersections whether it's walk signals or crosswalks do we

[1:46:17] have focus probably the wrong persons are here with

[1:46:21] engineering but is there like a difference between a controlled signal

[1:46:26] and then a signal with the auditory component to it that would be a standard

[1:46:32] to use when we look at going forward but there cost perspective

[1:46:37] probably much different. >> Yeah, [clears throat]

[1:46:46] » picking up on that theme, if you don't mind. Um, so the ones that were rec more

[1:46:51] recently done at Sydney, it's a new standard, I presume. Um they as a as a

[1:46:57] lay person, they seem to be appropriately done with the markings

[1:47:01] heading into the crosswalk. Uh irregardless of the the [clears throat]

[1:47:05] controlled crossing, they seem to be uh appropriate because I think I think what

[1:47:09] happens is you're supposed to be able to put your cane in the groove and and

[1:47:12] follow that groove to the path of travel, right?

[1:47:16] » That was that's my impression as to the way it's supposed to work. Um there are

[1:47:21] certainly uh problems inherent in that in that system which I'd be happy to

[1:47:26] talk about. Um I I think um for a a cane user who is not used to that uh and

[1:47:37] particularly if you're using your cane uh and going about Sydney.

[1:47:42] » Yeah. Right. and running into the inconsistencies.

[1:47:46] Um you you then I think become unclear as to what you know which direction am I

[1:47:53] supposed to be following here. Um but I think from a [clears throat] structural

[1:47:58] point of view the problem with the grooving in the sidewalks is um that

[1:48:07] they they fill with debris. Um, they also are more

[1:48:14] expensive, I would think, to change. Uh, whereas if you put down the Twizzy,

[1:48:20] you can unscrew it and move it somewhere else or rearrange it or whatever. Um,

[1:48:27] you can't do that with concrete grooves. You have to break up the concrete and

[1:48:31] redo the whole thing. That's got to be more costly.

[1:48:38] And it said if the grooves are filling with debris then then they lose their

[1:48:43] their use. That's

[1:48:45] » key. Uh thank you. Um I'm also thinking about you know how how we move forward

[1:48:53] on this. I mean I know it's something that's come up in the past. Um,

[1:49:01] but what I don't know is whether there's a plan to address these things. Like for

[1:49:08] example, I know that we, you know, when Vanessa was here, we had discussions

[1:49:13] about the scoring lines and that and that's and initially staff's response

[1:49:17] was there's a standard that we follow. um what we ended up finding out is that

[1:49:23] yeah, there's a standard, but how it was actually being constructed was being

[1:49:28] misunderstood. And so I think there is now that

[1:49:33] understanding. And so the ones the intersections on Beacon, the new ones

[1:49:38] that they've done, all seem good, but there's these ones throughout the

[1:49:42] community that are and I see them. You know, there's a lot of them and I don't

[1:49:48] know whether staff are aware of those and I don't know

[1:49:54] that there's a plan to correct those. So,

[1:49:58] » I'm also interested in Charlene's comment about standardization because I

[1:50:02] know that Central Sanders is going to make a heck of a lot of improvements to

[1:50:05] along Mount Newton, etc. And they'll want to be incorporating some of those

[1:50:10] ideas, I'm sure. >> Yeah. Well, and from what I understand

[1:50:14] previously from staff is there there is that municipal standard for

[1:50:18] accessibility that they follow. But you know where we sometimes miss the mark

[1:50:24] and that's where they missed the mark with Ministry of Transportation is that

[1:50:28] you know you get contractors in to do the work that don't necessarily are very

[1:50:33] familiar with it and so they don't implement the standard accurately. So,

[1:50:39] what I'm I guess what I'm struggling with is

[1:50:43] you know how we whether there's a way to return to uh you know put all of what

[1:50:51] you've got there into like a kind of a report or in writing with the pictures

[1:50:57] so that we could whether that would be useful for staff

[1:51:02] and Mr. uh newcome or any thoughts he might have on best ways.

[1:51:09] » I'm I'm just drafting an email for director of engineering just highlight

[1:51:13] this discussion with him and uh he was the uh

[1:51:20] engineering tech who designed our current standard for those coordinates.

[1:51:24] uh they can listen to this discussion and give us some thought in terms of

[1:51:31] maybe taking a second look at those that standard some of the concerns that you

[1:51:36] raised or uh I mean it's also come up at the highway intersection obviously and

[1:51:42] some of the drawbacks of that approach uh there's no solution um anyway I I

[1:51:49] will raise it with them say that can't make

[1:51:56] Yeah. So I I like I think there should I'm feeling there should be some sort of

[1:52:02] resolution but I'm just struggling about what the

[1:52:07] recommendation might be. Um >> other option might be gather more

[1:52:12] information for staff on having you know maybe someone from engineering come

[1:52:18] present on what our approach has been to date. We'll know that that's done.

[1:52:26] » You know what? I you know what? I kind of I like that idea because um then at

[1:52:32] least engineering can tell us what they actually are doing and maybe they do

[1:52:36] have a plan rather than the committee making a recommendation and it's kind of

[1:52:42] you know moot because staff already know. So maybe the motion could be that

[1:52:50] uh we we ask engineering staff from the municipalities to attend the next back

[1:52:57] meeting to talk about accessibility at intersections.

[1:53:03] You're asking.

[1:53:08] » Sorry. You're asking the council that said they're

[1:53:19] » Oh, okay. >> Okay.

[1:53:25] » Yeah. Okay. Good.

[1:53:30] » Thanks again, Richard. >> Thank you. Welcome. I think we had a

[1:53:33] letter to the uh airport authority which seems self

[1:53:38] explanatory. >> Yeah.

[1:53:40] » Um I just wanted to mention that the uh and it's posted here the island de and

[1:53:46] harden of hearing center was closed uh rather suddenly. They ran out of money

[1:53:52] and um their government's contract expired a couple years ago but they ran

[1:53:56] out of money like at June 30th and there was very little notice given to anybody.

[1:54:01] So that the uh deaf and heart of hearing community are really struggling because

[1:54:04] that was their their go-to spot for all things, you know, for for uh social

[1:54:11] activity, for getting uformational resources, for u um figuring out what to

[1:54:17] do with their children's education, [clears throat] all those things. And uh

[1:54:22] so I'm I just raise it so people can think about what we might be able to do

[1:54:26] for our deaf and heart heart of hearing people in our community perhaps. um um

[1:54:32] beacon community services where the Shaw Center could be at least a meeting place

[1:54:36] for people. You might want to um run that up the flag pole and see where it

[1:54:41] goes. >> Yes. So, I'm going to uh unfortunately

[1:54:45] those people from the disability um alliance of BC had to leave, but I'll

[1:54:51] follow up with them as well to see if they can offer some assistance.

[1:54:57] Okay. Any more thoughts on that? >> Yeah,

[1:55:03] » I'll work on the Shaw Center, but I think that that's

[1:55:07] probably considered anyways

[1:55:11] resource maybe states.

[1:55:15] » Yeah. Much much like the White Cane Club, at least if people had a chance to

[1:55:18] go there, I I think they go there and they they play cards or they exchange

[1:55:22] stories or information. Um much like I'm sure the White Gang Club does. So it' be

[1:55:28] would be ideal I think. >> Okay. And then we have uh one letter

[1:55:33] which um I don't think was really accessibility oriented but it's there

[1:55:36] for information. >> Can we do my parking?

[1:55:41] » Yes. Did I fly by that? >> Yeah.

[1:55:45] » Oh yeah. Are you going to counselor GPD is gonna

[1:55:50] » Yes. Go ahead. >> Yeah. So I just wanted to bring up the

[1:55:53] and again I I realize that North Sanage is busy. They're they've got all sorts

[1:55:57] of stuff going on. Part of the just a bit of a background in 2018 the province

[1:56:03] took accessible parking out of the building code and it was up to every

[1:56:07] municipality, city, whatever to come up with their own accessible parking

[1:56:10] standards. Um we started working with Sydney, North Sanich and and um central

[1:56:16] Sanich and came up with accessibility plans that were kind of the best case

[1:56:21] scenario. at the time Nor Sanich put one through that they followed the FCA B651

[1:56:29] which was the the Canadian standard which we then found out was not optimal

[1:56:36] but at that time North Sanage was putting it through with other bylaw

[1:56:40] changes and they they were going to said no problem we'll just push this through

[1:56:45] when we do the OCP we will improve on that

[1:56:50] was 2019 So, we hit the pandemic, we hit new council, we hit new planners. Um,

[1:56:57] nothing got changed. Um, we now have

[1:57:04] we're we're going into another election cycle. There's this draft zoning bylaw

[1:57:09] has been put forward and I did see that in it in um

[1:57:14] the the draft zoning bylaw the accessible parking is under 404 in the

[1:57:19] bylaw and they have just said that they are going to use the the SCAB 651

[1:57:25] standard again which again is not the acceptable standard. Last July at the

[1:57:31] SPACK meeting, we were told that North Sanage would harmonize with Central

[1:57:35] Sanage and Sydney's accessible parking. So, the reason I bring this up now is

[1:57:42] because like the the expediency that Wayne Rogue was put through uh the

[1:57:46] neglect to bring Wolf Orchard to us, I want to make sure that this draft zoning

[1:57:52] bylaw doesn't get approved with this accessible parking standard. So I don't

[1:57:58] know whether it's something that do I bring a a a recommendation that this

[1:58:03] accessibility zoning bylaw is not accepted without

[1:58:08] bringing it to SPAC for our input. Um because I as things stand right now

[1:58:16] North Sanage does not have an accessible parking standard that allows me to park

[1:58:20] anywhere with my Side Wrap van. Um, Sandown Center was a missed opportunity.

[1:58:27] I don't go there because there's no parking for me. Um, the Roost just redid

[1:58:32] their accessible parking at their place. Does not have parking for me. So, we've

[1:58:37] missed an opportunity in this eight years that we've been not doing anything

[1:58:41] with the accessible parking at North Sanage. We've missed opportunities. And

[1:58:46] as we all know, once they've been done according to whatever the bylaw was when

[1:58:50] they built it, that's what stands. So I just wanted to do I don't know

[1:58:55] going forward I want to make sure we don't miss an opportunity with North

[1:58:59] Sage. >> So councelor DBT what what is it you

[1:59:02] need from us to make that happen? >> I mean I think I think like other things

[1:59:07] that you know I think we were getting to a really good place where we were just

[1:59:11] expecting you know like central sage where they just automatically come. Uh

[1:59:15] that hasn't been happening from us. So I think uh you know if Spack makes a

[1:59:19] recommendation requesting that the zoning bylaw be presented and even in

[1:59:26] that motion at a you know and I missed writing down the exact

[1:59:31] » and that it be harmonized with the other two municipalities

[1:59:34] » right and that can either come up out of that presentation and conversation or

[1:59:38] that can just come up as part of the recommendation either of those are

[1:59:43] a okay >> uh councelor O'Keefe Um just looking to

[1:59:47] Mr. Nukem and from Central Sandwich. So have I think we have harmonized like

[1:59:55] between does Sydney and Central Sanage have have we harmonized our accessible

[2:00:00] parking? Is it >> I believe it's similar.

[2:00:06] » Okay.

[2:00:10] » Place council made a change or two that was

[2:00:14] adopted. Okay. >> Okay. So, I guess one way of going at

[2:00:19] So, there's something specific that you've identified. So you could we could

[2:00:25] make a motion that Norah Sanage change the zoning bylaw or section blah blah

[2:00:33] blah of the zoning bylaw related to whatever that se you know that standard

[2:00:39] was or or just say that in instead of adopting that standard that North Sanich

[2:00:46] adopt the accessible parking standards uh or or harmonize their accessible

[2:00:53] parking standards with Sydney and Central Sanage.

[2:00:58] » What what was mentioned to me is I think where North Sanich was having a bit of a

[2:01:02] problem and it was told to me that they're different because they're rural.

[2:01:07] I think where they didn't want to harmonize with Sydney and Central Sanage

[2:01:11] was in the ratio of parking spaces and accessible

[2:01:17] spaces, which to me, figure out figure out your ratios for your building,

[2:01:22] whatever with your parking, but don't skimp on the actual size of

[2:01:29] your parking. Right? >> So, I'm not sure why that would be. I

[2:01:34] mean, if you're going to have a grocery store, whether it's in a rural area or

[2:01:40] » Exactly. >> like sand down is like a shopping and

[2:01:44] » so I just again uh so I don't know how my my impetus in bringing this is I just

[2:01:51] wanted to make sure that this wouldn't progress any further in without it being

[2:01:56] looked at and made sure that we're doing it in the best possible way. Um, so to

[2:02:00] make a recommendation uh that SPACK recommends that North Sanage not proceed

[2:02:05] with their um with the draft zoning bylaw accessible parking portion until

[2:02:10] they present it to to SPACK for >> it might be short it might be a shorter

[2:02:16] route to do what councelor >> so so what I so what I was just to

[2:02:21] finish my thought that kind of ran >> it must have been good because Anna

[2:02:24] actually typed it >> to to make the specific recommendations

[2:02:28] to harmonize their accessible parking with Sydney and Central Sanage. Make

[2:02:36] that one. And then if you thought that there was other elements of the zoning

[2:02:40] bylaw that were relevant, there's a whole pile of stuff in the zoning bylaw,

[2:02:45] you don't want to be bothered. But if there was parts of that that you thought

[2:02:50] should come to SPACK, then you could make a second recommendation that

[2:02:54] sections, you know, that the the rest of the bylaw be referred to back for

[2:02:59] additional review and comment from an accessibility perspective.

[2:03:04] So, but I don't know what is in their zoning bylaw and whether you have

[2:03:08] something. >> I mean, I just it was all I could do to

[2:03:12] zone in on the the draft bylaw and find the accessible parking.

[2:03:17] Yeah. Or sorry

[2:03:28] BC1 that we think is uh preferred or superior.

[2:03:33] You're shaking your head. No, >> we don't have a BC1.

[2:03:36] » We That's what this whole the discussion came about a few years ago because there

[2:03:41] used to be a provincial standard, right? And then the province said, "We're not

[2:03:45] going to do that anymore. You municipalities decide what's best for

[2:03:48] you." And so that's why there was all this kuffles in past meetings about,

[2:03:54] okay, we were all doing different standards and had different ideas in our

[2:03:58] minist. And so hence the desire for you know, Sydney and Central Sage did that.

[2:04:06] [clears throat] >> And do you mind do you mind reading back

[2:04:07] what councelor Keefe said initially and maybe it's good enough for it? Yes.

[2:04:13] » North was there accessible park

[2:04:19] » and should we add um before considering passing the the U

[2:04:24] » well I I think there's there's two separate things. One is very specific to

[2:04:28] parking but the other is accessibility as it pertains to the entire zoning.

[2:04:33] » Yes. >> Accessibility is not just limited to

[2:04:35] » Yes. Yeah. And so that's why I would suggest that a motion not be I mean the

[2:04:42] recommendation council can >> Yeah.

[2:04:45] Gotcha. >> Um but I think if the motion is to

[2:04:50] request that the zoning bylaw be presented just like the other

[2:04:54] municipalities have so that we can provide feedback so that SPAC can

[2:04:59] provide feedback on all accessibility components within the zoning bylaw.

[2:05:05] Then the report is not the entire zoning bylaw. It's everything that's related to

[2:05:09] accessibility. And that way the report can present the powerpoint to be done up

[2:05:13] and then it comes. Now I don't even have a timeline from staff yet as to when

[2:05:18] we're going to see zoning by yet. So based on that I can suspect that it's

[2:05:24] going to be a little while but we've all seen what's happened previously. So if

[2:05:28] if there wants to be something a little more specific

[2:05:31] as far as not to go to second reading until it's come back that can certainly

[2:05:36] be done but I just don't know what the timeline

[2:05:40] is. I think it's important that [clears throat]

[2:05:42] » just like what Central Sage did with theirs, it actually comes from

[2:05:46] accessibility like just those components comes back

[2:05:54] » to add a little staff perspective on that motion. It's very wrong.

[2:05:58] » Um there was a comment earlier about uh the the

[2:06:03] number of spaces versus you know maybe the geometric considerations. So you

[2:06:08] might want to think about specificity of it because I agree that you know the the

[2:06:12] number of spaces required might be very different in no sanage in context than

[2:06:17] it would be in Sydney for example >> and so are you asking for

[2:06:22] the number of required spaces >> the motion by that it's very

[2:06:30] » yeah again my thinking on that was again I I know the my only perspective I had

[2:06:37] with North Sanich and the numbers was Sandown and they did ask for a variance

[2:06:41] to change the numbers. Um I think both Central Sanich and um

[2:06:48] and Sydney both say that no matter what the what the figuring out number was,

[2:06:52] they couldn't adapt the accessible ones. They couldn't change the accessible ones

[2:06:57] according to plan. So I don't I I mean I know for myself, yes, they might be

[2:07:02] smaller numbers or whatever. So, I don't I don't necessarily know that it get

[2:07:06] into the into the weeds of how many spaces there have to be, but I

[2:07:10] definitely think we need to make sure that we're we're putting in accessible

[2:07:14] spaces that work for >> We need to get to the motion and get it

[2:07:17] done or we're going to miss >> get done. Is the standard that you

[2:07:21] talked about was that this because was that the standard my recollection it was

[2:07:26] in regards to what the spaces looked like?

[2:07:29] » Yes. >> Right. and so how wide they would be

[2:07:32] accessible aisles that sort of thing. So I think maybe that's what you want to to

[2:07:38] Mr. point that spec specificity

[2:07:43] » I was just worried about. >> Yeah, that's know it's too broad. Um,

[2:07:50] » so the way to get about that might be am I going to have I'm really going to have

[2:07:54] to leave because I got somebody showing up in my house at 10 minutes. Um but

[2:07:59] would be to adjust the motion to say um uh for North Sanage to

[2:08:07] amend or in in consideration of their zoning bylaw instead of using standard

[2:08:15] blah blah blah >> the standard uh harmonize that with uh

[2:08:23] Sydney and North Sanish because that doesn't get into the number of spaces.

[2:08:27] is that only relates to the width of the space, the accessible aisles, how

[2:08:34] they're marked and identified. >> So maybe that's the way around that. And

[2:08:39] then the number of spots, that's a whole other other thing.

[2:08:43] » Can you read off the uh the uh standard number again for

[2:08:47] » CSA B651?

[2:08:57] Okay, we have a motion seconder. Mr. Wellland,

[2:09:02] any discussion? All the question all in favor?

[2:09:09] Carried. >> Good. We lost all of our people here.

[2:09:14] » I think just I know everybody's got to go the last minute, but I think

[2:09:19] Batista's comment about having the zoning bylaw back.

[2:09:23] » Oh, yeah. Another motion. That's a good idea. lost somewhere on that whether

[2:09:31] » make the motion. >> Sure, I'll make the motion.

[2:09:33] » I'll second. >> Yeah. No, fair enough.

[2:09:37] » SPAC recommends that the district of North Sanage present the accessibility

[2:09:42] portions of the zoning bylaw to SPACK prior to adoption

[2:09:45] » or just say refer the zoning bylaw. Don't say the accessibility because

[2:09:54] » that's why you say the accessibility component because you don't want to sit

[2:09:56] here and read 400 pages of a zoning bylaw.

[2:09:59] » I think one the components that are related to accessibility

[2:10:04] » and referent. >> Yeah.

[2:10:06] » Referred. Yeah. >> Yeah.

[2:10:09] » Okay. >> Okay.

[2:10:11] » Seconder I guess. Okay. Charlie discussion

[2:10:17] all in favor

[2:10:21] carried and u motion for adjournment.

[2:10:25] [clears throat] >> Lots of people.

[2:10:28] » We got to go. We're >> out of here.

[2:10:30] » Thank you everybody. >> Thank you.

Saanich Peninsula Accessibility Advisory Committee - 23 Jul 2026

Transcript