[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.