[0:00] Okay, I think we'll get going. It's uh

[0:02] 10:03 by my clock. [clears throat]

[0:05] Um

[0:08] first of all, uh I'd like to

[0:09] respectfully acknowledge that we are

[0:11] meeting today on the traditional

[0:12] territories of the Vasanish people

[0:15] comprising the Saudin

[0:19] and Malahhat First Nations who have

[0:21] lived on a steward of the Sanish

[0:23] Peninsula since time and memorial.

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

[0:31] the agenda.

[0:32] It's been circulated. Can I have a

[0:34] motion to approve it?

[0:37] Councelor Batista.

[0:40] » Agenda.

[0:41] » Oh, that's right. Yeah. Um,

[0:44] sorry, Councelor Batista. I um I forgot

[0:48] that we're moving uh item number eight

[0:51] up after 4 A. So, it'll be u I guess

[0:55] we'll call it five and move the other

[0:57] ones down. It'll still be the same.

[0:59] » Okay.

[1:00] » So, so what is it? 8A.

[1:01] » Uh 8A because the uh people who are

[1:03] presenting um would like to leave after

[1:07] the presentation.

[1:08] » Okay.

[1:11] » Okay. May I entertain a motion uh to

[1:13] approve the agenda as what have I done

[1:16] now?

[1:16] » Oh, you're doing great. I think

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

[1:22] yes.

[1:23] » Oh, I just wanted to uh add to the

[1:25] agenda. um looking for and and

[1:27] discussing the um accessible parking um

[1:31] zoning bylaw at North Sanage just to

[1:33] kind of uh give a a background and

[1:38] looking for an update on that.

[1:40] » Okay.

[1:42] » Do we um make that

[1:44] » Should we just put it in after the

[1:46] Wayne?

[1:48] » Yes, we'll make item 18.

[1:53] » Now we're good. Seeing no more changes,

[1:55] I'll entertain a motion to approve the

[1:57] agenda as uh amended.

[2:00] All Charlene me second.

[2:05] All in favor?

[2:08] Carried.

[2:10] Uh approval of the minutes. I did note

[2:14] one uh spelling error

[2:17] that changes [clears throat] the meaning

[2:18] a little bit. So I'll mention that in

[2:21] 22C

[2:23] um the word accessibly

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

[2:28] in both cases accessibility

[2:33] changes

[2:35] » Any other modifications

[2:40] » Just um just some comments and I've had

[2:43] a bit of a discussion with staff on this

[2:46] already but um some of the feedback back

[2:49] that I've been getting on on minutes

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

[2:55] needs the recommendations

[2:58] or the motions that were uh putting

[3:01] forward need to be clear so they can

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

[3:09] of

[3:11] so um so instead of saying in the

[3:14] minutes, you know, uh feedback was given

[3:17] to central Senate on this active

[3:21] transportation plan or whatever it is

[3:23] that the following feedback was provided

[3:25] and then just in bullets so that you

[3:28] know council can see what it is is the

[3:31] feedback um that's provided and then

[3:33] also similarly in um in in the uh the

[3:39] motions need to be clear. So the one of

[3:43] the motions that was problematic, it was

[3:45] I think we made a motion about um

[3:49] discussion of uh that that the

[3:51] municipalities would discuss

[3:53] accessibility concerns with the airport.

[3:56] And so the question I got back was what

[3:59] were the concerns? I said, "Oh, I think

[4:01] there was something about this or that."

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

[4:04] again.

[4:05] Anyways, that's just kind of a

[4:08] » Yeah, I totally agree. Even by the time

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

[4:12] specifics.

[4:13] » Yeah. So, just for us to be uh mindful

[4:16] when we're making the motions and making

[4:19] our points, but that's clear.

[4:22] » Okay. And I'll make sure I review them

[4:23] because I get them first.

[4:25] » Okay.

[4:26] » I'll review them with that in mind, too.

[4:28] 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

[4:42] minutes.

[4:44] » Second

[4:46] and Charlene. All in favor?

[4:51] Um against any carried.

[4:56] Okay. The next item will then be the uh

[4:58] right fit program presentation. I

[5:00] believe. Are they

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

[5:05] [clears throat]

[5:05] » Hello.

[5:06] » Oh, hi Linds.

[5:07] » Can you hear me? Hello.

[5:08] » Yeah, that was good.

[5:09] » Hi. Um, yeah, my program manager I think

[5:13] is running a minute or two late, but I

[5:15] can go ahead and get started to just

[5:17] make sure you guys are on track for your

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

[5:22] timing.

[5:25] » Hi, Isabelle. We're just about to get

[5:27] started on our presentation now. Good

[5:29] every good morning everyone.

[5:32] » Morning.

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

[5:36] screen?

[5:37] » Yes please. Yes.

[5:38] » Okay.

[5:43] [clears throat]

[5:49] » Perfect.

[5:50] » Okay. See

[5:52] » I can't see the Oh, there we are. Okay.

[5:54] Great. Excellent. Okay. Well, uh good

[5:57] morning everyone. We're very excited to

[5:59] to be here. Thank you for welcome. Oh,

[6:02] somebody waiting in the lobby.

[6:05] Okay, I got a little notification there.

[6:08] Uh we're very excited to to be here and

[6:10] present the right fit program. So, thank

[6:12] you for making uh space in your agenda

[6:15] for us. So, um you can go to to the next

[6:19] slide. U Lindy.

[6:22] » Oops.

[6:25] Yeah, we'll do a a really quick intro.

[6:28] Oh. Uh, introduction slide back.

[6:31] » Oh, yeah. I think sorry it might be

[6:33] lagging a bit. Is it okay? No worries.

[6:35] Yes. Okay. Yes. So, my name is Isabelle

[6:38] Brock. I'm the rightf program manager

[6:39] for Disability Alliance BC and I'm

[6:42] excited to be joined by Lindseay Simpson

[6:45] who's uh the CRD housing coordinator for

[6:48] for DABC for for the right fed. So, um

[6:51] we're we're pretty very happy to be here

[6:53] with you today. Um, I just want to give

[6:56] you a bit of overview of Disability

[6:59] Alliance BC. I don't know how much you

[7:01] know about DABC

[7:02] um here, but we're uh provincial

[7:06] disability voice since 1977. So, we've

[7:09] been around for a long time. And our

[7:11] organization supports people with all

[7:13] disabilities to live with dignity,

[7:15] independence, and as equal and full

[7:17] participants in the community. Uh, DABC

[7:20] offers a really wide range of programs.

[7:22] So I won't go through that list

[7:24] extensively because we have a limited

[7:26] time. Um but we help we support um

[7:30] people with disabilities with a a number

[7:33] of uh programs, tax aid, we have a

[7:37] disability law clinic uh that provides

[7:40] free legal advice to people with

[7:42] disabilities. Um we have an access

[7:46] advocacy access program which supports

[7:49] um uh people with disabilities with

[7:50] their PWD applications. Uh we have a

[7:54] program also that supports people with

[7:56] disability to access the uh DTC

[7:59] disability tax credit and we also manage

[8:02] the right fit program which is the

[8:04] program that brings us here today. Next.

[8:08] Yeah. Uh okay. So what is the right fit?

[8:11] The right fit is a service that

[8:13] addresses the crisis in accessible

[8:16] housing. And we address this crisis by

[8:19] matching affordable accessible homes and

[8:21] independent living supports with people

[8:23] who need it in the lower mainland and

[8:25] now in the CRD.

[8:30] We we have several goals with this

[8:32] program. We were created in 2017, so

[8:35] we've been around almost for 10 years.

[8:37] We wanted to better utilize the existing

[8:40] supply to make sure that every

[8:42] accessible units go to people who really

[8:45] need those units. We wanted to inventory

[8:48] every available unit to make sure that

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

[8:53] better understanding of what's what's

[8:55] available out there, increase housing

[8:58] affordability, uh address the supply

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

[9:02] housing accessibility.

[9:06] So why why why did we um decide to form

[9:10] the right fit program about almost 10

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

[9:16] to an understanding that wheelchair

[9:18] users were facing um incredible

[9:22] challenges when it came to finding and

[9:25] securing accessible housing. Uh first of

[9:28] all there's a limited supplies not many

[9:31] accessible affordable housing being u uh

[9:34] available for wheelchair users. Um and

[9:37] then it's it's a time it it takes. So as

[9:41] you know when you're moving into a unit

[9:43] uh it's it's it's quite complex. But

[9:45] when you think about a wheelchair users

[9:48] wanting to move to into an accessible

[9:50] housing unit that's even more uh

[9:53] complicated. you have to have time to

[9:55] arrange home supports, specialized

[9:57] equipment. So what hasn't meant is that

[10:00] generally when is a scarce accessible

[10:03] unit being available then a wheelchair

[10:05] user would not be able to to compete and

[10:08] get this unit just because of the time

[10:10] it takes. So uh being able to um uh to

[10:13] get the the unit was not possible and

[10:16] what that means is that those wear

[10:18] accessible units are going to people who

[10:20] don't need those accessible features. Uh

[10:23] the other uh added challenge with this

[10:26] um uh with wheelchair users accessible

[10:29] and accessible housing is that up to the

[10:32] right fit until the right fit was

[10:34] created there was no centralized

[10:36] inventory of accessible units for

[10:39] listing accessibility features. So that

[10:41] meant that the units are there but

[10:44] nobody really knows where they are, what

[10:46] those units are and what kind of

[10:48] features they have. So uh the right fed

[10:51] really uh looked to address this issue

[10:54] by creating that centralized inventory

[10:56] of accessible units. Next slide please.

[11:00] So um the the right fit is is very much

[11:04] um a partnership model. So we started

[11:07] out in Metro Vancouver 10 years ago and

[11:10] uh DABC oversees and managed the right

[11:13] fit program but we're guided for Metro

[11:15] Vancouver by a steering committee that

[11:18] provides leadership and expertise to

[11:20] everything we do. So we have a number of

[11:22] member organizations. It includes BC

[11:24] housing uh MSDPR, the health

[11:27] authorities, the city of Vancouver,

[11:29] Spinal Cord Injury BC, Spark BC, and

[11:32] VRS, which is a housing provider. And

[11:35] we're now because we're now expanding

[11:36] into the capital regional district,

[11:38] we're currently forming an advisory

[11:40] committee uh for the CRD to help ensure

[11:43] that we we understand and uh response to

[11:46] the unique needs of the of the region.

[11:49] Next slide, please. Thank you.

[11:51] Um, so the the the right fit in the CRD,

[11:55] what does that look like in Metro

[11:57] Vancouver? The DABC has been partnering

[12:00] with a a group called the Individualized

[12:03] Funding Resource Center society, what we

[12:06] call the IFRC. The IFRC is a um an

[12:10] organizations that's led by people with

[12:12] disabilities and and they in in the

[12:15] Vancouver region, they manage the aspect

[12:17] of the peer-led navigation model. and

[12:20] client intakes and housing placement. I

[12:22] will uh uh go back to that uh what that

[12:24] intake process and peer-led navigation

[12:26] model looks like. But then the CRD we

[12:30] have we're very proud to have initiated

[12:32] a partnership with the Victoria

[12:34] Disability Resource Center VDRC. and

[12:37] VDRC will help connect the RightFit

[12:39] program with community resources,

[12:41] housing providers, wheelchair users, and

[12:44] um will also help uh strengthen some of

[12:47] our local referral pathways to to

[12:49] support our peer-led navigation model

[12:52] and uh the VDRC will also co-chair our

[12:56] ad advisory committee in in the CRD. Uh

[12:59] I should also mention that uh uh

[13:01] Lindseay our CRD housing coordinator is

[13:05] her office is housed within the office

[13:07] of uh VDRC.

[13:10] Next slide please.

[13:13] » Uh this is just a bit of a history of

[13:16] our program. Um I I don't need to go in

[13:18] great detail uh into this but we we

[13:21] started in as I mentioned almost 10

[13:23] years ago in 2017. We started as a pilot

[13:27] project to really test the approach of

[13:29] what we wanted to do and then in 2020 we

[13:32] transitioned from being a pilot to uh

[13:34] being the right fit program and since

[13:37] then we have really become the one-stop

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

[13:44] uh service providers, uh everything uh

[13:46] accessible housing related. Um I must

[13:49] say that we we um there was a research

[13:52] study that was done a couple years ago

[13:54] by in u in Ontario by university um

[13:58] there and they surveyed and really took

[14:02] a scan of all services existing for

[14:05] accessible housing in in Canada and they

[14:08] identified that the right fit program

[14:09] was the only program in Canada that does

[14:11] what what we do. So we're we're very

[14:14] proud of uh of being uh the model and

[14:17] the reference but at the same time have

[14:18] mixed feelings about the fact that

[14:20] there's no other program like ours in

[14:22] the rest of uh of the country. Um we

[14:25] also now maintains the only existing

[14:27] centralized inventory of accessible

[14:29] units in the lower mainland with the

[14:31] standardized accessibility checklist

[14:33] tool. I will come back to that. Um and

[14:36] then um I guess our next chapter is

[14:39] 2026. We're now expanding beyond Metro

[14:42] Vancouver and expanding into the capital

[14:44] regional district. So everything that

[14:46] we've done in Metro Vancouver, we're

[14:48] looking to replicate in uh in the CRD,

[14:52] including the development of an

[14:54] inventory of accessible and adaptable

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

[14:59] please.

[15:02] Thank you. So I just wanted to talk

[15:04] about our approach, the right fit

[15:06] approach because it's quite quite unique

[15:08] because we operate both on the supply

[15:10] side and the demand side. So we we match

[15:14] our main goal is to match accessible

[15:16] homes with the right tenants and this is

[15:19] what we call the right fit. We're

[15:20] ensuring the right fit for each unit. Uh

[15:23] we help wheelchair users find homes that

[15:25] meet their accessibility needs. And what

[15:28] I'd like to say about that is that each

[15:31] unit that we um find um is different. Um

[15:35] they they may not have all full

[15:37] accessibility features. Some of the

[15:38] units might be adaptable universal

[15:41] design. Well, we take a look at all of

[15:44] these units. Uh we we don't just look at

[15:46] fully fully accessible units just

[15:49] because you never know what what will be

[15:51] the right fit to our clients. They might

[15:53] all be wheelchair users, but they have

[15:55] very diverse needs. So, so we want to

[15:58] make sure we have um a broad supply of

[16:01] units to be able to match our clients to

[16:03] those units. So, we also help streamline

[16:06] access to home support, services, and

[16:08] equipment. We provide personalized

[16:11] support from intake uh to move in with

[16:13] our dedicated client navigators and we

[16:16] build and maintain that inventory of

[16:18] accessible housing with our checklist.

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

[16:22] please.

[16:24] uh our eligibility criteria in terms of

[16:27] uh as a client to come into our program.

[16:29] So applicants for now must be full-time

[16:32] power or manual wheelchair users

[16:34] including using their chair at home

[16:36] where uh in the midst of slightly

[16:39] revising those those criteria but this

[16:41] for now our our criteria and applicants

[16:44] must live in uh uh Vancouver House,

[16:47] Fraser House or now Island Health

[16:48] authorities. So the full CRD uh

[16:51] geographical scope, so the 30

[16:54] municipalities as well as the three EAS

[16:56] electoral areas. We have no age

[16:58] restrictions. We have no income limit or

[17:01] um income requirement and PWD

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

[17:06] program.

[17:11] Um as I mentioned, we have developed

[17:14] over the years a very unique

[17:15] peer-to-peer navigation model. We feel

[17:18] it's very important to provide

[17:20] peer-to-peer support for a person with

[17:22] disability. Um, and the reason for that

[17:24] is the journey to transition into

[17:27] stable, affordable, accessible housing

[17:29] is is very complex and there's a lot of

[17:32] uh challenges. So we we want to make

[17:35] sure we build trust um with our clients

[17:38] and learn about this individual

[17:40] situation so we can successfully help uh

[17:43] wheelchair users living in

[17:45] non-accessible housing make a successful

[17:47] transition into accessible housing. So,

[17:50] we help individuals identify where they

[17:52] want to live, the amenities that are

[17:54] important to them, the social networks,

[17:56] the kind of neighborhoods they want, but

[17:57] also we're going to be learning about

[17:59] their specific disabilities because, as

[18:03] I mentioned, even though they may all be

[18:04] wheelchair users, they have very

[18:07] different needs um and mobility range.

[18:11] Um, so it's important for us to to

[18:13] capture that. So uh one of the uh

[18:17] clientele we're serving where we have a

[18:19] um in Vancouver at least uh a large

[18:22] number of uh uh families so where the

[18:25] wheelchair user is a child um a young

[18:28] child so the support the supporting

[18:30] individuals are not wheelchair users. So

[18:32] when we look at placing the specific

[18:34] clients into units uh they may not

[18:37] require the full range of accessible uh

[18:40] features but they might prioritize

[18:42] certain features and the size of the

[18:44] units over the accessibility features.

[18:46] This is why it's so important to have a

[18:48] a variety of units to uh uh in our

[18:51] inventory to to be able to match our

[18:53] clients. Uh next slide please.

[18:57] So a little bit more on that navigation

[18:59] uh model. We uh we we assist Wilshshire

[19:02] users in completing application forms

[19:04] and navigating BC housing applications

[19:07] and all these complicated uh paperwork

[19:09] that they have to uh to go through. We

[19:12] review these available units that we

[19:14] have in our inventory and we match

[19:16] applicants with homes that suits their

[19:18] specific accessibly needs. We help them

[19:20] uh um gather required documents for

[19:23] housing providers. We accompani clients

[19:26] through housing interviews and we

[19:28] provide support uh to the client from

[19:30] the initial intake to the final move in.

[19:36] We also help facilitate home supports uh

[19:40] to in securing traditional home supports

[19:43] and we also refer clients to uh what we

[19:47] call the CEO program choices in support

[19:49] for independent um living program

[19:52] through the IFRC

[19:54] and we also help with equipment support.

[19:57] So um often wheelchair users will need

[20:01] uh electric beds, grab bars, some uh uh

[20:04] track ceiling lifts. all sorts of uh

[20:06] specific equipment needs. And so we we

[20:09] and that they need to have in place when

[20:12] they move in, which is why before they

[20:14] can't act couldn't accessible units

[20:16] because the time it takes to to align

[20:19] get everything aligned at the same time.

[20:21] So we help with fasttracking with those

[20:23] processes and we also help facilitate

[20:26] installation of um environmental

[20:29] controls um as well as door openers as

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

[20:35] assistive technology.

[20:40] So what have we accomplished so far? So

[20:42] we've been in existence since 2017. So

[20:45] we uh we um uh we um we've updated those

[20:50] numbers. Sorry, there was a note there,

[20:51] [laughter]

[20:52] but we made 214 successful housing

[20:55] matches since we existed. That's these

[20:57] are the lower mainland uh numbers. And

[21:00] uh we will um we'll hope to to just

[21:04] starting now in the CRD. So uh so we'll

[21:06] be starting matching clients and finding

[21:09] accessible housing now. Um and what I

[21:12] will just say on this slide is that

[21:14] we're very proud to have uh made that

[21:16] many matches so far. Um but we also have

[21:21] uh prevented a significant numbers of

[21:24] individuals from becoming homeless. So

[21:26] homeless uh prevention is a um very much

[21:30] a focus of our work and so we uh we

[21:33] really uh are very proactive and and

[21:35] work with u uh the homelessness sector

[21:38] to to really support individuals um uh

[21:41] that are on the ver at imminent risk of

[21:44] homeless or being homeless to transition

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

[21:49] please.

[21:51] » Yeah. So, and now I'm going to pass it

[21:53] on to Lindsay who's going to tell you a

[21:56] bit more about the what we do on the

[21:58] housing provider side. Thank you.

[22:00] » Yeah. So, in addition to supporting the

[22:03] clients, we also support local housing

[22:05] providers. So, we work directly with

[22:08] housing providers to help um identify

[22:11] suitable tenants for them by comparing

[22:14] their accessible unit against our client

[22:16] intake, which allows us to simplify the

[22:19] matching process for them and and take a

[22:21] little bit of work off their hands. So

[22:23] when we a housing provider reaches out

[22:26] to us or we reach out to them and they

[22:28] mention that they have an accessible

[22:30] unit, we'll coordinate completing our

[22:32] DAPC accessibility checklist and

[22:35] maintain an inventory of those units. So

[22:38] we overall off uh serve as a resource

[22:40] for housing providers by both um helping

[22:44] them learn a little bit more about

[22:46] accessibility through our checklist and

[22:47] then also helping them find the right

[22:50] tenant for them and support them through

[22:52] the process of that tenant application.

[22:56] So I'll go a little bit into our

[22:58] checklist, but the ultimate goal is to

[23:00] better understand the supply and create

[23:02] a more detailed inventory of the

[23:04] accessible unit supply. So when we go to

[23:07] a unit that may look like the one in

[23:10] this picture, we create a detailed

[23:13] account of the unit. So we'll measure

[23:15] the turning radius and counter heights,

[23:18] uh the space for kitchen knee or uh knee

[23:21] cutouts under kitchen sinks and stoves

[23:24] where um outlets are located. It will

[23:27] also list the building amenities and

[23:29] neighborhood amenities and then also

[23:31] track more standard uh apartment things

[23:36] such as pet policies and smoking

[23:39] policies.

[23:42] And then so the checklist ultimately

[23:44] yeah provides a detailed account of the

[23:47] unit and its accessibility features. And

[23:49] then we can go through our client

[23:50] database and find the right fit um

[23:54] client for that unit because we have

[23:55] detailed intake of both the unit and the

[23:58] client. And then once we have identified

[24:01] a match, we will pass the client

[24:02] information to the housing provider

[24:04] because that allows them to retain full

[24:06] control over uh selecting their tenant

[24:09] um and still giving them uh agency in

[24:12] doing that as well. But we do still

[24:14] support through the application process.

[24:18] And overall, yeah, the tool the

[24:20] checklist acts as a tool for improving

[24:21] accessibility. I've already found from

[24:23] doing a few of these checklists in the

[24:25] CRD, uh, completing the checklist allows

[24:28] myself and the housing provider to have

[24:30] a more detailed conversation about

[24:31] accessibility. And I learn things based

[24:34] on their experience and they learn

[24:36] things based on our experience. And I

[24:38] think it uh just creates a good

[24:40] conversation around what true

[24:42] accessibility looks like within a part

[24:43] in an apartment or a home.

[24:46] And yeah, we can also work with them to

[24:48] adapt and modify units. And then

[24:50] hopefully like in the Lower Mainland,

[24:52] the CRD, we can create a centralized

[24:54] inventory of accessible units for for

[24:56] wheelchair users

[25:02] and I'll pass it back to Isabelle.

[25:06] » Uh thank you, Lind. Yes. So overall

[25:09] really I mean this the RightFair program

[25:11] is very much a multi-dimensional

[25:13] uh program, but we we're also looking to

[25:16] really build knowledge uh on accessible

[25:18] housing. there's a so much different

[25:21] definitions out there and it's an

[25:22] evolving uh um conversation. So we uh we

[25:26] we feel that beyond matching uh clients

[25:30] to uh to accessible units, we we feel

[25:34] it's within our mandate to educate

[25:35] stakeholders on the importance of

[25:37] accessible housing, inclusive design and

[25:39] the impact. Um, we also want to build

[25:43] awareness and partnerships by really

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

[25:47] encouraing encouraging collaboration

[25:50] around the housing sector. Um, promote

[25:53] accessible housing solutions and also

[25:55] gain insights to inform program

[25:57] improvements. Um, next I I should

[26:01] mention as well that we as part of our

[26:05] uh learning and and and sharing what

[26:08] what we um uh the work we do and the

[26:11] gaps in accessible housing and and

[26:14] informing that conversation. We

[26:16] undertake um a survey of our place

[26:19] clients. So after a client is placed

[26:21] after 6 months 6 months mark we will go

[26:24] in and visit them into the home where

[26:27] we've placed them and we will uh uh do

[26:30] an inerson survey about uh the the

[26:33] impact of the program uh but also we

[26:36] will uh uh look at better understanding

[26:39] uh whether what what what has changed in

[26:42] their in their lives after they've been

[26:45] placed. So, has their physical health

[26:47] improved? Has their sense of

[26:48] independence improved? Um, has their

[26:52] community integration better? So, we're

[26:54] looking at those key quality of life

[26:56] indicators, but we're also looking at

[27:00] how well the unit we've been placed them

[27:03] into is is doing. Are there are they

[27:06] able to now navigate their new home

[27:09] safely or are do they still have some

[27:11] challenges? And what are those

[27:13] challenges? And that is incredibly

[27:16] useful information for us because that

[27:19] ultimately will allow us to take that

[27:22] back to uh the housing sector and

[27:25] planning departments and and just say

[27:27] hey we we find that all new buildings uh

[27:30] uh accessible units within those

[27:32] buildings say um half of those don't

[27:34] have door openers and and we see that as

[27:37] a gap for example. So we can make

[27:39] further recommendations on on to how to

[27:42] improve accessibility features within uh

[27:44] within those units and the buildings

[27:46] where we place uh wheelchair users. Uh

[27:50] next slide.

[27:53] Yes. So I mean that was a bit of a

[27:54] really short version there of uh

[27:57] everything we do. There's a lot more. So

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

[28:00] we're very excited to finally be

[28:02] expanding into the CRD. We know there's

[28:05] a huge need there and and we're really

[28:08] looking forward to to working with with

[28:10] you all in in terms of building our

[28:12] inventory of accessible and adaptable

[28:15] units uh connecting with um with

[28:18] organizations and overall really forming

[28:21] uh local uh relationships and

[28:24] partnerships to to really support

[28:26] wheelchair users uh transition into into

[28:29] um units that that meet their needs. So,

[28:31] we'll we'll have you have our contact

[28:33] information there. Um um if you want to

[28:36] learn more, we have a website and uh

[28:38] social media. We're in the process of

[28:40] updating our website now with all the

[28:42] information about what we're doing in

[28:43] the CRD. Uh so, I'll stop here and if

[28:47] you have questions for us, we we'd love

[28:49] to have a conversation.

[28:52] Thank you very much.

[28:53] » Thank you.

[28:55] » Presentation, we're we're thrilled that

[28:56] you've come across the pond to uh

[28:59] Vancouver Island. That's great. Any

[29:01] questions from committee members?

[29:02] Councelor O'Keefe.

[29:04] » Yes. Um, councelor uh, Cherry O'Keefe,

[29:07] thank you for the presentation. I'm

[29:09] really excited that you're here on the

[29:11] island. I had talked to um, the folks

[29:14] running your program in Vancouver a

[29:17] couple years ago and I think we had a

[29:18] discussion at this committee about that

[29:21] and how we could uh, get an inventory.

[29:23] So, great to have you here. Um, what I'm

[29:26] wondering is, so in town of Sydney

[29:30] anyways, I'm not sure about other

[29:32] municipalities, we uh require developers

[29:36] of new buildings to make 20% of the

[29:40] units adaptable.

[29:42] And the thing that I've kind of

[29:46] struggled with is that we haven't we

[29:49] they make these adaptable but as you

[29:51] said uh I don't think very many of them

[29:54] go to people who actually need them. So,

[29:58] how have have you had any discussion or

[30:01] any ideas about how um we would be

[30:06] whether it would be you or the town

[30:09] communicating with the the builders of

[30:12] these new units

[30:14] um to get them into your inventory? Any

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

[30:20] working?

[30:22] It's such a great question and I do

[30:24] remember us connecting um two or three

[30:27] years ago and having this conversation.

[30:29] Yeah, it was with me. So I'm really

[30:31] thrilled actually to pursue this

[30:33] conversation because we had such a

[30:35] productive conversation and you had

[30:36] shared back then with us that you know

[30:40] exactly what you just said the challenge

[30:42] of of a having these units being built

[30:46] but having no handle over what what's

[30:49] happening after they being built. Are

[30:51] they actually going to uh to the people

[30:54] who need them the most? And and this is

[30:57] really a gap that we're have identified.

[31:00] It's true of the lower mainland as well

[31:03] is that you know we have these grid

[31:06] units that are coming onto the market

[31:08] now. Uh but we have no way of knowing

[31:10] whether those units are going to the

[31:12] people who need them. And as a result,

[31:14] you sort of if they don't, you're sort

[31:16] of self perpetuating the the problem

[31:19] there because our weight lists of people

[31:22] waiting for accessible units continue to

[31:25] grow and the accessible units are being

[31:27] built, but they invariably goes to

[31:29] people who just don't need those

[31:31] features and and sadly will once they're

[31:34] in the unit, they will actually revert.

[31:36] they will convert those features into

[31:39] something that fit their needs that are

[31:41] have nothing to do with accessibility.

[31:43] So um the way to address that I mean of

[31:47] course I mean our advocacy part is to

[31:50] really would would be great to require

[31:53] more um accountability

[31:56] [clears throat] on the post occupancy on

[31:58] the occupancy of these units so that it

[32:00] goes to the people who need that you

[32:01] know so there's some bit of

[32:02] accountability on on how these units are

[32:06] being filled but the best way is to work

[32:08] with these housing providers or

[32:10] developers and and get them to connect

[32:14] with us really and and I don't know I

[32:17] mean in terms of requirements and

[32:18] whether you're able to require them to

[32:21] to do this but the the ideal scenario is

[32:24] that they reach out to the right fit and

[32:27] say okay we have all these units can you

[32:30] help us fill them with with people who

[32:32] need uh those units and we'll do that

[32:35] we'll do the the matching I mean we'll

[32:36] we'll help with that um or we can um you

[32:40] can give us a list as well of these

[32:43] units and who build them and we can um

[32:46] contact the developers the housing

[32:48] providers ourselves and uh and LIN say

[32:51] will do that she'll she'll go and visit

[32:52] the units she'll uh she'll take notes of

[32:55] all the accessibility feature or

[32:56] adaptable features that'll make it to

[32:58] the our inventory and then we can start

[33:01] the process of matching. So uh so either

[33:03] way it can be uh initiated by the

[33:05] housing providers themselves or if you

[33:08] give them all the the lists we can uh

[33:10] initiate contacts ourselves with the

[33:13] housing providers.

[33:15] Have you had any discussions with the

[33:17] real estate associations or of the urban

[33:21] development institution or or institute

[33:24] um in ter which represents developers or

[33:28] or people selling or these kind of units

[33:33] um or rental agencies to

[33:37] you know have some sort of designation

[33:39] on the listings um for accessibility.

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

[33:46] considered?

[33:47] » Yes. Yes, we're Yeah, we have had we

[33:49] we've reached out to the U UDI, I think.

[33:53] Is it? Yeah. The Yeah. And then uh the

[33:56] the real estate association. We we're

[33:58] look we're we're in the rental market

[34:01] more than um than units that are meant

[34:04] to be sold. Uh but certainly we uh yeah

[34:09] we we support renters um rather than um

[34:12] uh people who are looking to to to to

[34:15] purchase units. Uh but yes, we've had

[34:17] this conversation that's part of the odd

[34:20] ridge. So in Vancouver we have um an

[34:22] accessible housing coordinator and

[34:24] she'll contact um the all the groups uh

[34:28] including the the co-ops as well

[34:30] association. We actually did a

[34:31] presentation in the CRD with a a co-op

[34:34] um a me a group um a number of members

[34:37] of of co-ops as well to let them know

[34:39] about our program. So we'll really

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

[34:44] developers, the housing providers, the

[34:47] nonprofit association of um housing

[34:50] providers, all of these to to connect

[34:52] with us and let us know about the units

[34:54] they have um so we can educate them

[34:57] about that. Yeah, absolutely.

[34:59] » Okay. Thank you. [clears throat]

[35:02] And I presume property management

[35:04] companies would be part of that list.

[35:06] » Absolutely. Yeah.

[35:07] » Yeah.

[35:09] » So we're really looking to build those

[35:11] connection in the CR because this is

[35:12] what we've done in the in the lower

[35:14] mainland but in the CR we're just

[35:16] building that. So it will be fantastic

[35:19] if you know um uh offline lean sick can

[35:22] have a further conversation with you on

[35:25] how you can facilitate those those

[35:26] contacts uh with those developers that

[35:29] do um that are required to build those

[35:33] uh 20% of adaptable units. So we we get

[35:36] our hands on this unit and can follow

[35:37] through.

[35:39] [clears throat]

[35:41] » Councelor Newton, you had a question.

[35:42] » Uh yeah, thank you chair.

[35:45] I think you might have answered my

[35:47] question with that last comment, but I

[35:50] guess um

[35:53] when when the applications come forward

[35:56] to the municipalities,

[35:58] uh how is it like obviously

[36:02] they're identified in the building plans

[36:04] when it comes forward for the

[36:05] application, but is there a flag or

[36:07] something to follow through to that

[36:09] follow-up about which specific

[36:12] units have the features that are

[36:14] required and How is that related? I've

[36:16] been super excited about this inventory

[36:18] being coming on stream for the CRD and

[36:21] you know I know councelor O'Keefe talked

[36:22] about this before but

[36:24] » Um I guess how how is the follow through

[36:26] about once communities require

[36:29] accessible or adaptable units how are

[36:32] they identified and does that then get

[36:34] to you for that information purposes?

[36:36] » Yeah. Yeah. Well, this is so I guess

[36:39] what you're describing is that when

[36:41] you're you're doing the application

[36:43] review, if I understand you correctly,

[36:45] you review this application and then you

[36:47] ask those developers to say 20% of these

[36:50] units need to be adoptable, right? So,

[36:53] is that what you're you're doing? And

[36:55] then okay, so what's what's your

[36:58] process? I mean, I'm sorry I'm answering

[37:01] your question by asking you a question,

[37:03] but how what what happens from that

[37:06] point? Do you do you just um uh they say

[37:10] okay yeah we'll be the 20%. Do you have

[37:12] any kind of followup or you have nothing

[37:14] at that point or you just Yeah. How what

[37:17] happens on your end of things?

[37:19] » Sure. That's probably a a gap.

[37:21] » I think I'm gonna throw our director of

[37:24] planning on the spot here and give him a

[37:26] moment to collect his thought. Uh but

[37:29] it's I should have identified a score

[37:31] » With the district of central sanage and

[37:33] our requirements are a bit different

[37:34] than Sydney's but

[37:36] » We still do have some uh so I guess I'd

[37:38] be curious about how going forward to

[37:41] identify the specific units within an

[37:43] application to come forward and then my

[37:45] follow-up question is around the changes

[37:48] to the VC building code

[37:50] » Um does that improve things to make all

[37:52] of them accessible or adaptable or not

[37:55] but the first question is just how to

[37:57] identify once the units are prescribed.

[38:02] Where's the follow through to identify

[38:04] them

[38:04] » To the public?

[38:06] » Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, this is the the

[38:08] gap would been exactly trying to address

[38:10] in in the lower mainland is that there

[38:14] is this allocated number of units. And

[38:17] then what we want to do is is really um

[38:22] uh get in touch early on with um the

[38:27] developer the and then know okay we and

[38:30] get in touch with them directly and then

[38:32] let us know okay we have these 20 units

[38:34] coming up will you help them fill them

[38:37] with with um wheelchair users

[38:40] essentially so so we we're getting some

[38:43] lists from municipalities essentially

[38:45] the individual municipalities

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

[38:50] have this developer, we have this

[38:51] building coming up, this new building.

[38:54] Um we have allocated that many units and

[38:57] then they pass on the information for

[39:01] the um the contact person essentially

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

[39:07] with the the the the housing

[39:09] representative there uh and then ask

[39:11] them about their their available units

[39:13] and then um and then we visit them.

[39:16] sometimes they're still under

[39:17] construction somehow and then that's

[39:19] when they those units make it to our

[39:21] inventory. So, so we're we're the ones

[39:23] trying to to get a handle of of those

[39:27] actual units, know what building which

[39:29] buildings they are, know the square

[39:31] footage, how many and then um get this

[39:35] information all collected in our

[39:37] inventory so that we can we can match

[39:40] essentially uh those units to to people

[39:42] who need them. So uh so essentially it

[39:45] will um uh it'll come but it has to be a

[39:48] collaboration. So that's why we're doing

[39:50] exactly this presentation today is with

[39:52] the hope that we can work together and

[39:55] NI will follow up but you you can help

[39:57] us identify uh these um these projects

[40:00] essentially early on so we can we can

[40:02] make that happen.

[40:04] » Okay. So then there's a followup and I'm

[40:06] going to now go to the director of

[40:08] planning for central Sanch and say is

[40:09] there a way to liaz with an organization

[40:12] like this about once we get the

[40:14] application come forward and say we've

[40:16] got you know 32 units or 11 units or

[40:19] whatever it happens to be um to share

[40:22] that information with as part of sort of

[40:24] building the inventory.

[40:25] » Exactly. Yeah. There there there is

[40:29] certainly that would be we could build

[40:30] that into our um application sort of

[40:34] completionism.

[40:36] Um one thing we do is we share something

[40:38] with the CRD. We share a lot of housing

[40:40] data all the CRD. So a CRD could

[40:44] potentially be an avenue if every

[40:46] municipality has a similar um structure

[40:48] because they do set

[40:51] housing

[40:53] and

[40:57] the thought occurred to me as we're as

[40:58] we're having this conversation. So

[41:00] everyone is valid in the province

[41:03] housing information to the province. You

[41:06] have to do your housing targets and

[41:07] reporting that every year our course

[41:09] council next week

[41:11] » That would be an ideal avenue if the

[41:14] province wanted to take a role. But um

[41:17] you take a role and that being a

[41:18] component of that

[41:21] how many access

[41:28] the entire profits for this it's not on

[41:31] their radar that's not something they

[41:33] collect affordable housing supporting

[41:35] number of rental units number of number

[41:38] of units overall

[41:41] guess the level of bedrooms but it

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

[41:44] accessibility

[41:46] MI could easily be added and

[41:49] wide and very accessible

[41:53] but that's that's just that thought it's

[41:55] not in place so I think there would need

[41:57] to be quite a bit of work done

[41:58] individually I think the challenge with

[41:59] doing it individually though is it's at

[42:02] I guess it is at there's no requirement

[42:04] for municipalities to report that

[42:06] information right now so the province

[42:08] could put that in place and second

[42:10] report it differently some could do it

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

[42:14] challenging

[42:16] um to be comprehensive on it. You might

[42:20] get some municipalities doing it, some

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

[42:23] » Sure.

[42:24] » That seems to be something that could be

[42:26] advocated at UBCM for something like

[42:28] that. But um in the meantime for the

[42:33] local governments and certainly the the

[42:35] great work that's being done on the

[42:37] peninsula, uh it would be relatively

[42:39] easy to share that information. And I

[42:42] think your point to the CRD is and we

[42:44] have a representative um here about

[42:47] that. So to collect that data centrally

[42:50] and try to minimize like you know maybe

[42:52] all of the work that's done locally but

[42:54] to to coordinate that centrally at least

[42:56] from the CRD perspective if this is also

[42:58] a CRD initiative

[42:59] » That makes the most

[43:02] » Yeah we are um

[43:04] » We are working or in communication with

[43:07] the CRD at the moment too to do a

[43:09] similar presentation at their next A uh

[43:13] meeting which I believe is in the fall.

[43:15] So maybe I'll just make a note to sort

[43:17] of circle back to that idea when when we

[43:19] do get the chance to speak with their

[43:21] committee.

[43:24] » Yeah. I mean to your point to um I mean

[43:27] you were cutting out on that uh previous

[43:29] uh point uh so I didn't get the full

[43:31] gist but I think there's a point there

[43:34] for systematic advocacy there you know

[43:38] for sure for having these requirements.

[43:40] Um

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

[43:46] rely on these local collaborations you

[43:48] know. So for Vancouver for the Metro

[43:50] Vancouver we go to the city of Vancouver

[43:53] we have a partnership where they will

[43:55] give us the access to this information

[43:57] and so we we we collect the data we meet

[43:59] with the housing providers we visit the

[44:01] units and we have this inventory. Uh

[44:03] same we go that for each municipality

[44:06] Richmond Kquidlam and all of this. So

[44:08] it's really at those individual

[44:09] municipality level and there's no

[44:12] requirements. Uh but it's much needed to

[44:14] have something more comprehensive

[44:17] consistent and and I think pro

[44:19] provincewide uh for for have capturing

[44:22] this data but but I yeah so you noted

[44:27] and I think engaging in systematic

[44:29] advocacy to make those changes is really

[44:31] needed. So yeah

[44:35] » Mr. Nukem

[44:36] » Thank you. Um, Cory Nukem, I'm the

[44:39] director of community planning for the

[44:40] Town Sydney. Um, I was just thinking

[44:43] about our internal processes.

[44:49] » Yeah.

[44:51] » Um, thinking about our internal

[44:53] processes. So when we get a set of plans

[44:56] that has 20% of the units identified as

[44:59] adaptable, I mean sometimes they don't

[45:01] and we have to go back to the developer

[45:02] and inform them that they're missing

[45:04] something, but uh generally we get those

[45:07] plans, we confirm that it meets the

[45:09] requirements for adaptable housing and

[45:11] our zoning bylaw and then it goes on

[45:14] process. Um, initially when we get those

[45:17] plans, quite often the the units have a

[45:19] bit of like an interim

[45:22] identification like they might just be

[45:23] labeled 1 2 3 4 5 uh or maybe 101 102 or

[45:27] ABCD.

[45:29] Um later on in the process after the

[45:32] building has been approved by council,

[45:34] we go through a Canada Post addressing

[45:37] process that applies the actual unit

[45:41] official unit numbers and address that

[45:44] Canada Post would use and that the

[45:45] building that itself would use. Um so

[45:48] unit 101 102 or whatever it might be.

[45:51] There's a bit of a gap because the that

[45:54] addressing process doesn't happen until

[45:56] much later in the process. And so

[45:59] getting those numbers correct uh can be

[46:02] a bit tricky sometimes because they do

[46:03] change between the initial plan

[46:05] submission and the addressing. Um, my

[46:09] question for you is, does the right fit

[46:12] program have its own form

[46:15] to collect information on these

[46:17] potential buildings? And is that

[46:19] something that you could provide to

[46:20] municipalities?

[46:22] So, you're collecting a standardized set

[46:24] of information that you know works for

[46:26] you. And again thinking about our own

[46:29] processes, we have uh tasks that we you

[46:32] know check off as completed in our

[46:34] system and we could potentially make a

[46:36] task that is you know fill out the right

[46:38] fit information form on the adaptable

[46:41] units or whatever information you want

[46:43] on the building and send that off to an

[46:45] email that could include the developer

[46:46] contact info. Um, so you can see what

[46:50] provided, what the tenure is, whether

[46:51] it's rental or ownership, and then you

[46:53] could contact that builder directly and

[46:55] say, you know, we've got

[46:57] » We see you've got these units and it's

[46:58] rental building and we're we're

[47:00] interested in in matching up before you

[47:02] put it out to market. So, uh, a form

[47:05] like would be very helpful so that we

[47:07] could sort of rather than guessing at

[47:09] the information that's required, we

[47:10] could just fill it out, send it off, and

[47:13] you could add it to your database. So,

[47:14] just a thought there. Thanks. Uh yeah

[47:17] and thank you for um outlining your

[47:20] process. So just a followup to that is

[47:23] and I'm mindful of your time. I know you

[47:25] have a lot to discuss on your agenda and

[47:27] I think almost deserves its own meeting

[47:30] really to really discuss about how how

[47:32] we can make that work in in practice. Um

[47:35] but so when you you receive this do you

[47:38] um when you have let's say six units

[47:41] that are adaptable for a specific

[47:43] building um do you you do you don't

[47:48] collect any further information you have

[47:50] the addresses and then that's it right

[47:52] that's all there is in your system

[47:54] essentially at this point right correct

[47:57] » Uh as far as the adaptable information

[48:00] adaptable unit specific information goes

[48:04] We don't even know right now. We don't

[48:06] know the units that adaptable units are

[48:09] going to be within the building.

[48:10] » We just make sure plan for each unit

[48:14] meets the zone by requirement or space

[48:17] the whatever.

[48:18] » So we don't we don't actually record

[48:20] where they are in the building

[48:21] » Where they are in the building. Okay.

[48:23] Okay. But you know there's a Yeah.

[48:26] Um, and the form that you're thinking

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

[48:30] essentially requiring the the developers

[48:32] to fill out the the form. So, and then

[48:35] it's added to our inventory. That that's

[48:37] what you're thinking about, right?

[48:40] » Uh, yeah. Yeah, I mean I honestly I

[48:42] think

[48:43] » Municipal might be better positioned to

[48:45] fill that out because if we're assigning

[48:48] addresses and you want to know what the

[48:50] official address of that unit is with

[48:52] the building, um asking the developer to

[48:55] provide that information might be a bit

[48:58] of a tall task and it also doesn't

[49:00] happen until much later in the process.

[49:02] And also staff, municipal staff are the

[49:05] ones that coordinate that addressing. So

[49:07] it it might just be easier to have a

[49:09] planner who's reviewing the file fill

[49:11] that stuff out if it's not too complex.

[49:14] » Yeah. So right now the way we we we work

[49:17] when we get um word of um a new a new

[49:21] building or units becoming available um

[49:24] early on uh our accessibility um

[49:28] coordinator will will make contact um

[49:30] with the developer and then we'll go do

[49:33] an site a site visit an actual uh

[49:36] in-person site visit uh with a

[49:38] standardized uh accessibility checklist

[49:41] essentially. So, so this is something

[49:44] that we we fill out uh and we sort of um

[49:49] we have measured the like Alin say

[49:52] mentioned the turning radius and all

[49:54] these things. So, it's it's gives us a

[49:57] really a good um detailed information of

[50:00] what what this unit has to offer and

[50:03] this this is where it makes it to our

[50:05] inventory. So, so ideally, uh, we we

[50:10] would want those developers to, um, to

[50:13] be, you know, as part of your process to

[50:15] be required to, um, to essentially make

[50:18] contact with us or and so and to be open

[50:21] to having us visit the unit and record

[50:24] all that information. Is that is that

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

[50:29] think?

[50:30] » Well, we could certainly provide you

[50:31] with the developers contact. Sure.

[50:34] Um and then we can circle back and give

[50:38] you access. One of the thing we want to

[50:40] do is right now the our inventory of

[50:42] units is uh is really in nature more

[50:46] internal. It allows us to match clients

[50:48] according to their preferences and

[50:50] number of criteria but eventually we'd

[50:52] want to add a functionality which allows

[50:56] to provide reports of all the

[50:58] accessibility features of the units and

[51:00] what what we're discovering. So uh um so

[51:03] and share that back with the

[51:04] municipalities and on on the building

[51:06] information and all that. So um so yeah

[51:10] » U got a couple more questions from the

[51:13] community. So if we can go to those.

[51:16] » Yeah. No [laughter] lots of question.

[51:19] » Hi I'm Charlene. I'm member of the

[51:21] committee. Uh I don't know whether this

[51:23] is you're talking about rental units. Is

[51:25] there any way of of having um like

[51:28] private homes that may be rental homes

[51:31] in there? Because one of the things I've

[51:33] come up against with people that I know

[51:35] is a lot of these adaptable units that

[51:37] are being planned in in uh apartment

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

[51:42] one-bedroom

[51:44] places. So, they they accommodate one

[51:46] person. Um people with disabilities have

[51:50] families, so they sometimes live in an

[51:52] apartment building. They want a home.

[51:54] want a suite. Is there any way of

[51:57] inventorying or or does this just become

[51:59] too cumbersome to to say we want um some

[52:03] people want homes, they don't

[52:05] necessarily want um condominiums or any

[52:08] is there any any recourse on that?

[52:11] » Um rental. Oh, that is such a great

[52:14] question. I love it. Um thank you for

[52:17] absolutely one of the thing we find is

[52:19] that we have will you're so right in

[52:22] saying wheelchair users have uh families

[52:24] and don't just require onebedroom unit.

[52:27] This is one of our points of ad

[52:29] systematic uh advocacy is that we find

[52:32] in those um uh buildings, new buildings,

[52:35] there's an disproportionate number of

[52:38] one-bedroom accessible units which means

[52:41] that we're unable to place um wheelchair

[52:45] users with family and household size

[52:47] where they have two, three, four

[52:49] children and they require twobedroom,

[52:51] threebedroom, fourbedroom. Sometimes

[52:53] they maybe one person or two people they

[52:55] require two-bedroom unit to to have a

[52:58] living caregiver all sorts of things

[53:00] situations. So larger units is

[53:02] definitely something we're we're after.

[53:05] And in terms of housing type, um,

[53:07] interestingly enough, a lot what we

[53:09] found from our surveys is a lot of our

[53:11] wheelchair users, uh, that we place,

[53:14] they were previously coming from

[53:16] nonaccessible

[53:18] homes with stairs and everything, but

[53:21] they were often like single family

[53:23] housing, basement suites, um, and then

[53:26] we move them into this um, high-rise

[53:30] building. Uh, but it's it not doesn't

[53:33] always work. And so we're really looking

[53:35] to include and diversify the the housing

[53:39] types that that we have. So we'd be

[53:41] definitely looking at rental homes or

[53:44] garden suites or um private owners

[53:48] wanting to rent out an adapt something

[53:51] that they've retrofitted to make it

[53:52] adaptable. Um absolutely. So uh is there

[53:58] it's it's not easy to identify that

[54:00] supply to be honest. Uh but if there's

[54:03] any way to work together to add that

[54:05] that would be very helpful because we we

[54:08] know that by doing this we'll be able to

[54:11] find units that are larger in size and

[54:14] also we'll in terms of the housing type

[54:17] that will perhaps match better what what

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

[54:22] living situations.

[54:24] » Thank you.

[54:25] » Hey councelor O'Keefe.

[54:26] » Um so just a couple on this last topic.

[54:29] So in terms of number of onebedroom, two

[54:31] bedrooms, three bedrooms, that's

[54:33] something within the municipality's

[54:35] perview that we can uh we we can do

[54:38] that. So um we can we we say that they

[54:43] have to provide 20% and we could say

[54:46] that that 20% has to be allocated

[54:49] equally or on a prata basis one, two and

[54:53] threebedroom units. So, um, but in the

[54:55] interest of moving this along, I know we

[54:57] we could spend a lot of time on this,

[55:00] um, that I would I'm going to try a

[55:03] motion here, um, which is that, uh, the

[55:08] committee recommends that the three the

[55:11] planning departments of the three

[55:13] municipalities

[55:15] work together

[55:17] to develop a process

[55:20] to identify adaptable and accessible

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

[55:26] program.

[55:29] » Great.

[55:30] » Uh yeah, I'll second. I was just saying

[55:33] » Oh, okay.

[55:34] » I'll second

[55:35] » And I looking to our our planning folks.

[55:39] Uh just kind of listening to some of I

[55:43] think what Mr. Nukem was saying in terms

[55:46] of what I would just see the simplest

[55:51] process possible would be we would could

[55:54] perhaps add a step into our process. um

[56:00] where we give the developer the contact

[56:04] information to the right fit people and

[56:06] say we'd like you as part of the process

[56:09] to contact them and and uh tell them

[56:13] about your adaptable units and kind of

[56:16] like hand it off to them rather than

[56:19] staff having to have any significant

[56:22] role in that. So

[56:25] if that's if if you think that makes

[56:28] sense or if you think that um uh

[56:34] » Yeah I mean uh it could go either way.

[56:36] We could provide uh the developer

[56:38] contact info to right fit right contact

[56:41] info to the developer. I would think the

[56:43] former would probably be more

[56:46] successful.

[56:47] Yeah.

[56:49] » Busy. So,

[56:50] » Okay.

[56:53] » I guess it gives you both.

[56:55] » Yeah.

[56:56] » Okay. Okay. So,

[56:59] » Can I ask a quick Can I ask a quick

[57:01] question? Sorry to interrupt.

[57:05] » Sorry.

[57:09] » Sorry. Question.

[57:10] » Yeah. And then I think we've talked a

[57:13] lot about the rental side of it, but I

[57:15] think this is also like the market side

[57:17] of it. And so I'm assuming when this

[57:19] would come forward and for consideration

[57:22] that it would be for any sort of

[57:24] applicant that would whether it's a a

[57:26] car or

[57:29] » Multif family or a town home that

[57:30] whatever component is required whether

[57:32] it's rental or that this is what would

[57:36] be reported out on so that it

[57:39] » In in Sydney's case we only require

[57:41] adaptable units on uh multi-unit

[57:44] residential buildings so like carriage

[57:46] homes

[57:47] don't they're not to provide those

[57:50] features. Uh that's something we could

[57:51] consider in the future, but in Sydney's

[57:54] case,

[57:55] » The code's the same. It only applies to

[57:56] those larger multif family buildings,

[57:58] not not individual units like a

[58:01] » Right.

[58:02] » But if it was a development that came

[58:04] forward and I could think of one in

[58:07] central Sanage where there was one like

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

[58:11] have I think

[58:14] moment but for market that that could be

[58:19] identified in the future.

[58:22] » Okay. What sort of council through a

[58:23] variance process requires some adaptable

[58:26] future?

[58:27] » Yeah, sure. And I would echo councelor

[58:30] O'Keefe's comment that this hopefully is

[58:33] not a main work project for staff and I

[58:35] think hearing from the two individuals

[58:37] that this is relatively simple, but I'm

[58:39] trying to download this onto municipal

[58:42] staff is not really what I'm interested

[58:44] in doing.

[58:45] » Yeah, same.

[58:46] » It's not it's it's more of a systems

[58:48] advice than just value.

[58:51] I I do believe that absolutely what I

[58:53] mentioned earlier having it at the

[58:54] provincial level is the best case

[58:56] scenario because it's a requirement

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

[59:01] it system

[59:05] » A robust system in place is it going to

[59:08] continue that way that's that's the

[59:09] challenge unless it's required

[59:11] 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

[59:24] in favor of the motion.

[59:29] Carried.

[59:31] So, do you have one more comment before

[59:32] you go, Isabelle?

[59:34] » Oh, yeah. The the question and thank you

[59:36] for for supporting this and this very

[59:38] incredibly useful conversation and also

[59:41] thoughtful questions. Really appreciate

[59:43] it and very inspired by the level of

[59:45] interest. So, thank you for for having

[59:46] us and uh giving this opportunity to

[59:49] work together. So, two quick questions.

[59:51] I'm I'm just curious about the makeup on

[59:53] the onebedroom, two bedroom,

[59:54] threebedroom in your 20% allocation. Do

[59:58] you actually go to the level of Yeah,

[1:00:00] » I think the the we've we forwarded the

[1:00:04] motion. I think if there's specific

[1:00:05] questions on the I think getting into

[1:00:08] those details, we could discuss when our

[1:00:10] staff get the opportunity to this.

[1:00:13] » Sure. Yeah. because I got a number of

[1:00:15] questions on on you know allocation and

[1:00:17] things like that but I agree and so

[1:00:19] would that be okay for us to to to

[1:00:22] contact you back and then have this

[1:00:24] maybe a separate conversation because I

[1:00:26] think we'll need to do that

[1:00:29] » Based program be more fully developed

[1:00:31] later on we certainly invite you back u

[1:00:33] you know when you've got that ready to

[1:00:35] go

[1:00:36] » Okay perfect

[1:00:39] » Thank you and yeah please don't hesitate

[1:00:41] to reach out if you have any questions Z

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

[1:00:47] » Great.

[1:00:48] » Thank you.

[1:00:51] » Okay, next item on the agenda is

[1:00:53] accessibility plan. Has there been any

[1:00:55] uh changes to anybody's accessibility

[1:00:57] plans since last meeting?

[1:01:01] Seeing none,

[1:01:03] um council referrals.

[1:01:07] I don't see anything specific under

[1:01:09] there. No.

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

[1:01:14] tracking sheet

[1:01:16] I think. Um yes, councelor O'Keefe.

[1:01:19] » Oh, I have some updates from Sydney. Um

[1:01:23] so on the the tracking sheet talks about

[1:01:27] recommendations that have been put

[1:01:28] forward. So just some of the things

[1:01:30] that's being dealt with. Um there was

[1:01:32] the um the committee had a resolution

[1:01:36] about tactile markings at the at

[1:01:38] intersections and um staff So we brought

[1:01:43] that to to staff's attention and they

[1:01:45] note that they do conform to the master

[1:01:48] municipal construction documents for

[1:01:51] tactile markings and they could provide

[1:01:53] a copy of that just back if we wish. Um,

[1:01:56] subsequent to that, in regard to the

[1:01:58] tactile markings at Beacon and Highway

[1:02:01] 17, which was discussed at the

[1:02:03] committee, council made a resolution to

[1:02:05] send a letter to the Ministry of

[1:02:07] Transportation and Transit expressing

[1:02:09] concern about the misalignment of the

[1:02:11] tactile markings. That was sent about I

[1:02:14] think a month ago and we still have had

[1:02:17] not any response. However, I understand

[1:02:20] from the community member who brought

[1:02:22] that forward that MOOTT is coming out in

[1:02:25] August 6th um to review the intersection

[1:02:29] in more detail with a representative

[1:02:31] from the CNIB. So, we hope to hear more

[1:02:34] after that. Um, in regards to the

[1:02:37] recommendation about the municipalities

[1:02:40] um, communicating to the airport

[1:02:43] authority about accessibility concerns,

[1:02:46] um, I think there's a letter you can see

[1:02:48] in the agenda package. So, um, that's

[1:02:51] been covered off as well. Um, accessible

[1:02:55] parking awareness. uh we asked our staff

[1:03:00] to highlight an information campaign

[1:03:03] onto the business community regarding

[1:03:05] best practices for accessible parking.

[1:03:07] So that will happen in November. And

[1:03:10] then I'll just also report that on

[1:03:12] Canada Days um in response to

[1:03:15] recommendations by this committee uh the

[1:03:18] uh viewing areas for the fireworks

[1:03:22] [clears throat] and the Canada Day

[1:03:23] parade were expanded accessible viewing

[1:03:26] areas and additional parking um as as

[1:03:30] well. So I think that all went well, but

[1:03:33] if there's members of the committee who

[1:03:36] participated in Canada Day in Sydney and

[1:03:39] used those accessible uh areas, um we'd

[1:03:43] be receptive to comments on that.

[1:03:45] » Charlene, did you have a

[1:03:46] » Yeah, I just wanted to say I I didn't

[1:03:48] attend the events. I broke my leg so I

[1:03:50] did not go anywhere. Um, but I have

[1:03:53] heard from multiple community people

[1:03:56] that they were extremely pleased with

[1:03:58] the ex extra accessible viewing uh the

[1:04:02] accessible parking. I've talked to many

[1:04:04] people who are thrilled about the

[1:04:05] accessible parking spot that was added

[1:04:08] by the the band shell down there. Like

[1:04:10] so I'm getting I'm starting to get a lot

[1:04:12] of feedback from other community members

[1:04:14] coming to me. They're noticing the the

[1:04:17] differences and the changes and they're

[1:04:19] they're really pleased with it. Um, Gar

[1:04:21] Homer is bringing people down regularly.

[1:04:24] Um, so I just want to say kudos to to

[1:04:26] Sydney. Like it's it is being noticed.

[1:04:30] So, and I'm planning on coming to some

[1:04:32] of the Central Sanage stuff this summer.

[1:04:34] So, I'm checking it out too.

[1:04:36] » Anyways, so thank you.

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

[1:04:39] » Yeah.

[1:04:39] » Which is a nice segue. Councelor Newton,

[1:04:41] do you have anything from Central Sage

[1:04:44] » Specific on the the tracking sheet? No.

[1:04:49] They'll say that

[1:04:52] wasn't a council

[1:04:56] or anything. So, uh I'll take this

[1:04:58] opportunity then for the chair to

[1:04:59] briefly say central Sanage's 75th

[1:05:02] celebration this weekend.

[1:05:05] Hopefully, we do a good job from an

[1:05:06] accessibility standpoint. It will be a

[1:05:08] very busy weekend. It will be a lot of

[1:05:10] fun. Um and uh yeah, I look forward to

[1:05:13] seeing people out walking, rolling,

[1:05:16] striding uh into the community. So

[1:05:20] » I did notice that their their form out

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

[1:05:24] accessible.

[1:05:24] » Good.

[1:05:25] » So so that the we're getting out there

[1:05:27] like this is becoming standard to to put

[1:05:30] this stuff out there and let us be aware

[1:05:31] of it. So yeah, great.

[1:05:34] » Look forward to feedback.

[1:05:36] » Pastor Batista, anything from North

[1:05:38] Sanash? I know you've been busy with

[1:05:40] other things out there.

[1:05:41] » Uh yeah, you know, we've been busy with

[1:05:43] other things. um our zoning bylaws

[1:05:47] 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

[1:06:09] I know it's on later the agenda some

[1:06:11] comments about that. Okay, great.

[1:06:13] » Thank you. And that's a good point you

[1:06:15] made about no council report. I wonder

[1:06:17] if I don't even understand

[1:06:19] [clears throat] what council referrals

[1:06:20] means. Is that the opportunity when

[1:06:22] council should be reporting or is it

[1:06:24] just poorly worded? Should we change it?

[1:06:26] » No, that would have been I didn't mean

[1:06:28] to jump in, but I think anything that

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

[1:06:32] referral to the

[1:06:34] » Oh, I see.

[1:06:37] » Shouldn't we regularly have a

[1:06:38] opportunity for a council report though?

[1:06:42] Well, that's kind of what I saw number

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

[1:06:48] » Including tracking,

[1:06:50] » But but council referral would be

[1:06:52] something specific.

[1:06:54] » Okay.

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

[1:06:58] committee to review the new active

[1:07:01] transportation plan, that would be a a

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

[1:07:07] the committee.

[1:07:09] » Good. I'll be up up to speed just about

[1:07:11] the time I get ready to kick get kicked

[1:07:13] out of here. [laughter]

[1:07:15] Okay. Um, anything else on the tracking

[1:07:18] sheet? I think we covered them all.

[1:07:22] Uh, right program we did uh Wayne Road

[1:07:25] Park update.

[1:07:28] Um, Mr. Martin, you just want to go

[1:07:29] ahead and cover that off or

[1:07:31] » Yeah, I'd love to. Hi everybody. Um, Ben

[1:07:34] Martin, director of construction North

[1:07:36] Sanage. Apologize if I haven't said hi

[1:07:39] to some new faces. Um

[1:07:44] » Oh this do I need a speaker? Is there a

[1:07:46] speaker?

[1:07:46] » You need to pass some time back.

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

[1:07:54] request.

[1:07:55] » Um I did provide this email summary that

[1:07:58] I see on the agenda.

[1:08:00] » Um so what does everybody know about

[1:08:02] Wayne Park the process? Did everybody go

[1:08:05] through the web page and does everybody

[1:08:07] understand how we got to where we are?

[1:08:09] » I did.

[1:08:10] » I went through it.

[1:08:12] » I drove out there and had a look.

[1:08:14] » It's good. There's some relevance with

[1:08:16] that. So, we did have a quite a robust

[1:08:18] process and we um we were at the initial

[1:08:22] stages of reporting back a collection of

[1:08:25] interests in the park. That was at the

[1:08:27] council meeting that was referenced in

[1:08:28] the email. And at that council meeting,

[1:08:31] uh council gave direction to simply

[1:08:32] proceed with that. the entire collection

[1:08:36] and to initiate it by May 2026

[1:08:41] » Um in short order a certain section.

[1:08:45] So staff [snorts] um as you can for

[1:08:47] those of you who have gone to the park,

[1:08:49] you'll see a large concrete foundation

[1:08:51] [clears throat] and a steel structure

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

[1:08:55] place

[1:08:57] and staff will uh due to cost capacity

[1:09:01] and or due to labor capacity and costs,

[1:09:04] staff will be um completing the re the

[1:09:07] remainder of the section identified on

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

[1:09:12] growing season.

[1:09:14] Um I did I did provide one error in my

[1:09:18] email about the paving lot for the

[1:09:22] parking lot. Um the plan as accepted by

[1:09:25] council did indicate that um future

[1:09:28] parking lot improvements will be

[1:09:30] provided. So I did speak with our

[1:09:34] utilities public works staff and we are

[1:09:37] it's now going to be paved where I

[1:09:38] indicated it's not going to be paid.

[1:09:40] There'll be a pathway to gathering place

[1:09:42] structure. It was a real problem for me.

[1:09:44] » Yeah, me too.

[1:09:45] » So

[1:09:45] » Instead of a community gathering place,

[1:09:47] if you can't

[1:09:48] » Can't gather.

[1:09:49] » Yeah, considering

[1:09:51] » It's actually one of our community

[1:09:52] parks. So before the peninsula soccer

[1:09:55] happened at Memorial Park, that was

[1:09:57] actually quite a node for the

[1:09:59] [clears throat] community. We had

[1:10:00] » Two baseball fields,

[1:10:02] » Baseball diamonds.

[1:10:03] » We we actually bought an adjacent

[1:10:05] property, unknown to most people, bought

[1:10:07] a decent property because we thought

[1:10:08] we'd had more of that coming. This is

[1:10:10] well before my time.

[1:10:12] Um, so we thought we'd have to expand

[1:10:14] tennis facilities and whatnot. And since

[1:10:16] that time, it's really transitioned. So,

[1:10:19] it is still a community park, but it's

[1:10:20] really more of a neighborhood. However,

[1:10:22] with this new vision, it's turning back

[1:10:25] into a community park. So, there's going

[1:10:27] to be so many amenities there because

[1:10:28] council approved all all the options.

[1:10:31] So, we're going to have uh a trail

[1:10:35] connector small like a younger age kids

[1:10:37] natural play structure

[1:10:39] » Water feature a water sorry a water

[1:10:42] feature a water misser

[1:10:46] um the gathering place uh we're going to

[1:10:48] place about 20 plus trees in that area

[1:10:51] around gathering place to make it more

[1:10:55] I suppose kind of a disc golf

[1:10:59] um so it will be place where families

[1:11:02] will come and [clears throat] there'll

[1:11:03] be something for everybody. And so, um,

[1:11:07] we'll pave the the parking lot is as per

[1:11:10] direction

[1:11:11] yesterday, the parking lot. It's planned

[1:11:13] to be paved with

[1:11:15] » That's fantastic.

[1:11:16] » Charlene,

[1:11:17] » Yeah, I've got questions. So, my my

[1:11:19] concern with this is that it's going to

[1:11:21] be an area for everybody. Um,

[1:11:24] without going into the detail and coming

[1:11:26] to us, will there be picnic tables that

[1:11:28] are accessible to everybody?

[1:11:30] Um, will there be parts of this part as

[1:11:33] we go on that will be accessible to

[1:11:35] everybody? Like, are we are we paying

[1:11:37] attention to what the pathways are made

[1:11:39] of? Are we paying attention to um how

[1:11:42] how do I get to that picnic table? Um,

[1:11:45] and and I bring this up in in some

[1:11:47] respect because of my disappointment

[1:11:49] with Wolf Orchard. Um, I checked it out

[1:11:52] and there's a lovely little picnic table

[1:11:54] and there's a lovely little bench on

[1:11:56] cement pads that is not accessible to

[1:11:59] somebody in a wheelchair. So, it broke

[1:12:01] my heart thinking of the the kids that

[1:12:03] go to Deep Coast School because I know

[1:12:04] this was done in conjunction to be part

[1:12:07] of the school being able to access it.

[1:12:09] There's absolutely no access for a a

[1:12:12] child in a wheelchair to be able to sit

[1:12:14] at a picnic table or sit next to

[1:12:16] somebody on a bench. So, I just want to

[1:12:18] make sure that these things are not

[1:12:20] forgotten as we go forward. Um that that

[1:12:24] we do pay attention to the detail in

[1:12:27] these parks cuz like I say, I was I was

[1:12:29] pretty disappointed in seeing that. And

[1:12:32] um without it coming again, this this is

[1:12:35] what we're we're going to make this

[1:12:37] we're going to make it a a a play area,

[1:12:40] but are these areas going to consider

[1:12:42] accessibility? So that that was my

[1:12:45] concern in asking questions about this

[1:12:47] is uh you know I I don't want to see it

[1:12:50] go to the level that it's completed and

[1:12:52] it's like oh we didn't make it

[1:12:54] accessible because we missed we missed

[1:12:57] an opportunity here. So I just hope

[1:12:59] along the way I mean I can I I follow

[1:13:02] council meetings as best as I can. I

[1:13:04] read what's going on as best as I can.

[1:13:07] But um as as it's been pointed out to me

[1:13:09] before that sometimes when you see these

[1:13:11] plans that come up, they're

[1:13:13] placekeepers. They're they're

[1:13:16] abstract plans, but it is in the details

[1:13:19] that things get missed. So I just want

[1:13:22] to make sure that that is is considered

[1:13:25] going forward on this

[1:13:27] » Interesting discussion. Maybe you can

[1:13:29] discuss how that can be considered.

[1:13:31] » Yeah. and

[1:13:32] » And and provide other incentives to the

[1:13:34] council motion that provided direction

[1:13:36] for staff.

[1:13:37] » Yeah, I mean the council motion itself I

[1:13:39] was pretty rush and and was not

[1:13:42] anticipated to happen the way it did.

[1:13:44] That's at least my perspective. Um, you

[1:13:47] know, my only real comment is I'm quite

[1:13:49] thankful to our staff that they're

[1:13:51] always thinking about that stuff and

[1:13:53] they're always considering it and and

[1:13:55] this was one of those pivots that

[1:13:56] happened um partly because these

[1:13:59] communications that happened, but um

[1:14:03] yeah, the you know, the way I saw this

[1:14:05] originally playing out after this

[1:14:06] presentation was that it was going to be

[1:14:08] coming to SP. These were the things that

[1:14:10] were going to be happening. Um you know,

[1:14:12] the the council decision

[1:14:14] is what it is. I certainly can't unwind

[1:14:16] those things now. Um, but yeah, I'm I'm

[1:14:19] personally trying to be much more on top

[1:14:22] of making sure our council is

[1:14:24] considering those things before they

[1:14:27] rush decisions because that's what

[1:14:29] happened to me.

[1:14:30] » Yeah,

[1:14:31] » I took a screenshot of what you had on

[1:14:32] the website. looked [clears throat] to

[1:14:34] me that if the parking lot got paved,

[1:14:37] there would be accessibility to the

[1:14:38] trail and the community gathering place

[1:14:41] » Um over the uh trail service that you're

[1:14:45] providing, which is pretty standard

[1:14:47] stuff, I think. Compacted gravel is

[1:14:49] relatively firm and wheelchair

[1:14:52] accessible, right?

[1:14:53] » Compacted fines. So, it's like a gravel

[1:14:55] base with compact six mill fines. That's

[1:14:57] what that's what's intended in design in

[1:15:00] the plan. The trail network. Yeah, I

[1:15:03] think that's what we see elsewhere in

[1:15:04] the peninsula, don't we?

[1:15:07] » I'm not familiar with the terms. So, to

[1:15:09] me, all I need to know is it wheelchair

[1:15:12] accessible. Can a person in a wheelchair

[1:15:14] or a walker easily traverse the surface?

[1:15:17] Yes or no?

[1:15:18] » I would say that a compact, for those of

[1:15:20] you who've been around trails, it's a

[1:15:22] CRD standard. I believe it's a central

[1:15:23] standard. It's quite a a compacted

[1:15:26] surface and it's crowned

[1:15:29] supposed to be crowned to to shed. Um,

[1:15:32] it's I would say it's better than loose

[1:15:34] gravel. It's better than beach. It's not

[1:15:36] as good as ashalt for like a wheel

[1:15:38] surface. Like you couldn't run a scooter

[1:15:40] down it, but you could run a larger a

[1:15:43] larger wheeled.

[1:15:46] » Uh, councelor Newton I think was an

[1:15:48] accident. Councelor Keith.

[1:15:51] » Thank you. Um,

[1:15:55] weighing in and other people's

[1:15:56] jurisdictions. The only comment I'll

[1:15:58] have is

[1:16:00] previous member many you know commented

[1:16:03] about how

[1:16:05] good the gravel surface trail was that

[1:16:08] central sage had along ste

[1:16:11] and again like you chair I'm not

[1:16:13] familiar with this but a six mill

[1:16:16] aggregate is that's the standard then

[1:16:19] that's great I would yeah for whatever

[1:16:21] voice this committee has to say that you

[1:16:24] know at minimum so that that is able to

[1:16:26] be

[1:16:27] I think is essential. I'll leave it at

[1:16:29] that.

[1:16:32] » That's O'Keefe.

[1:16:33] » Uh thanks. So I think the thought the

[1:16:36] way I thought things were going in the

[1:16:39] municipalities is that when things were

[1:16:42] being considered like you know this that

[1:16:46] the first thing would be come to spec

[1:16:49] and like for example I really

[1:16:51] appreciated like central central Sanage

[1:16:54] when they were doing their they're

[1:16:56] redoing their parks and so they came to

[1:16:59] the committee first of all and said hey

[1:17:02] we're doing our big parks

[1:17:04] uh you know thing and we want to get

[1:17:07] some general comments on things we we we

[1:17:10] need to think about and then the

[1:17:12] commitment from them that they will come

[1:17:14] back every time that they're looking at

[1:17:16] a park to say this is what we plan for

[1:17:18] the park you know same with Sydney when

[1:17:21] we did our active transportation plan

[1:17:23] there was certainly a lot of community

[1:17:25] engagement on that and there's lots of

[1:17:27] opportunities to participate but the the

[1:17:30] point of spa is that councils and staff

[1:17:36] make a concerted effort not to just

[1:17:38] depend on that general sort of

[1:17:41] engagement, but that we we we factor

[1:17:46] into our engagement process reaching out

[1:17:48] to spat specifically. So, and what I'm

[1:17:51] hearing from a couple members here is

[1:17:53] that, you know, maybe more could have

[1:17:56] been done that way and and hearing from

[1:17:58] councelor De Batista, um, you know, he

[1:18:01] thought it was coming just back. In

[1:18:04] staff's defense, you know, staff, you

[1:18:06] know, presents something and unless

[1:18:08] council directs them to do anything

[1:18:10] else, they're going to go and and do

[1:18:13] whatever sta or council directs them to

[1:18:16] do. So I, you know, if committee members

[1:18:20] thought that they want to have a better

[1:18:22] look at this plan, you have the option

[1:18:25] to make a recommendation to North Sanage

[1:18:28] Council that the plans for Wayne Road

[1:18:31] Park be presented to SPAC for review and

[1:18:35] comment. Um, and so then you could make

[1:18:39] whatever formal suggestions you have

[1:18:42] that could go back. And sometimes

[1:18:43] there's cost implications, you know, and

[1:18:46] in defense of staff, you know, uh

[1:18:48] whether it's a gravel trail or or

[1:18:51] whatever or there's no accessible

[1:18:54] playground features, those are things

[1:18:56] that cost a lot more money.

[1:18:58] » And so um you know, staff are always

[1:19:01] looking at what's the most cost

[1:19:02] effective way of doing things. But if

[1:19:05] the committee puts forward certain

[1:19:07] things, they say this is important and

[1:19:09] then staff can say, "Well, we could do

[1:19:11] that, but it's going to cost an extra

[1:19:13] $100,000." And that's what happened in

[1:19:15] Sydney with Breather Park. Um, is that

[1:19:18] initially there wasn't going to be a lot

[1:19:20] of accessibility there. And the

[1:19:23] committee said, "No, we want that." And

[1:19:24] so it ended up costing I think it was

[1:19:27] another $100,000

[1:19:28] to include uh the the the playground

[1:19:32] surface and some other things. But at

[1:19:34] least it gives council

[1:19:36] » For your donation.

[1:19:39] » At least it gives council the the

[1:19:42] opportunity to uh you know weigh in on

[1:19:46] that. So that's an option you have if

[1:19:48] you want to make a motion to North

[1:19:51] Stanage to um you know ask staff to

[1:19:55] review the the the plans with SPAC and

[1:19:59] ask for their review.

[1:20:00] » I think we have I think we have time now

[1:20:02] right just to the point that's actually

[1:20:04] what happened with Jubilee Park prior to

[1:20:06] Breath of Park.

[1:20:06] » Right.

[1:20:07] » Right. That's exactly how that played

[1:20:09] out. um this did not play out that way

[1:20:11] and I'll keep my personal comments

[1:20:13] rationale for that probably to myself to

[1:20:15] say

[1:20:15] » And basically we want to be partners not

[1:20:17] policemen right

[1:20:19] » Yeah and so it was uh yeah there was

[1:20:22] certain motivations for this to be

[1:20:24] rushed the way it was so it's

[1:20:26] » Highly unfortunate um that it played out

[1:20:28] this way because it didn't previously

[1:20:30] » So it seems like there's time to bring

[1:20:32] it back one more time before you get

[1:20:35] » Blind in the call no

[1:20:36] » Well

[1:20:38] I mean It's it it's already been

[1:20:41] approved by council

[1:20:43] » As is.

[1:20:44] » So yeah, a portion is being completed as

[1:20:48] per the image on the page.

[1:20:50] » The remainder of the park staff couldn't

[1:20:52] conceivably

[1:20:54] completed the top.

[1:20:57] » So there's a structure going, trees

[1:20:59] being planted and the parking lot being

[1:21:01] paved, some split rail fencing,

[1:21:03] irrigation for the trees, and the start

[1:21:05] of that trail network. If there's um a

[1:21:09] motion from this committee to consider

[1:21:11] paving the trail, start adding or

[1:21:14] consider coming back the the remainder

[1:21:16] of the park will be constructed

[1:21:18] 2027. That's in the capital fund. So

[1:21:21] there is an opportunity to

[1:21:24] bring you know obviously

[1:21:27] what's already set set in motion is is

[1:21:29] is happening. But there's nothing to say

[1:21:33] that uh we couldn't come back and say

[1:21:34] okay 2027 remainder of the parks being

[1:21:37] done.

[1:21:38] » Um we're interested in these some

[1:21:40] additional features

[1:21:44] » Also always have opportunity to revisit

[1:21:48] past decisions if they so choose as

[1:21:51] well.

[1:21:51] » Do you want to make a motion sir? So

[1:21:53] yeah, I think we make a motion to have

[1:21:55] uh the next planning phase of of Wayne

[1:21:59] Road to be presented to SPAC

[1:22:02] » Might be assuming that it makes it into

[1:22:04] the capital list. Sometimes things are

[1:22:06] moved if the cap if it remains in the

[1:22:08] capital plan for 2027 and it should then

[1:22:12] it would come before this committee

[1:22:15] » First.

[1:22:16] » So

[1:22:16] » So I think the motion

[1:22:17] » Is there you're waiting to say something

[1:22:20] » There's a motion on the floor. as well.

[1:22:22] Sorry.

[1:22:22] » And just just to help out, I think the

[1:22:25] recommendation would be that SPACK

[1:22:27] recommends the district

[1:22:29] present to SPACK um the remainder of the

[1:22:33] work plan for balance works be done away

[1:22:37] at a future meeting and I think that's

[1:22:40] the opportunity to you know provide some

[1:22:43] input and provide some thought because

[1:22:45] that the rest of that work isn't going

[1:22:47] to be done yet and it gives them an

[1:22:49] opportunity to come back albeit the

[1:22:50] first half is a little too late. Um, but

[1:22:52] at least the second

[1:22:53] » You okay with that wording?

[1:22:55] » Yeah, I'm okay with that wording. Did

[1:22:56] you catch that for me?

[1:23:07] » Anybody on u anybody attending

[1:23:10] virtually?

[1:23:12] » We need a seconder, right? Or do we have

[1:23:14] one? We need a seconder, I think.

[1:23:16] » Can I second?

[1:23:17] » Okay. Yeah, I'll second it. Well, I I

[1:23:20] was just hoping with some words.

[1:23:22] » Okay. So, I'm I'm Okay. So, I'm doing

[1:23:28] » I'll happily second.

[1:23:29] » Okay. Yeah.

[1:23:30] » Okay. Great.

[1:23:30] » Thank you.

[1:23:32] » Multiple sectors. Um any discussion um

[1:23:35] from all you quiet folks on the on the

[1:23:37] screen there that I'm looking at?

[1:23:39] » Janelle and company.

[1:23:42] » Nope.

[1:23:42] » No. I I just really appreciate this and

[1:23:45] I'll just make a comment. I appreciate

[1:23:46] Charlene bringing up about children uh

[1:23:49] because this is one thing that it's

[1:23:51] difficult for our family is we see

[1:23:53] accessible places for children but that

[1:23:55] doesn't mean that the activities that

[1:23:57] are included are accessible. So I

[1:23:59] appreciate opportunity to hear this and

[1:24:01] yeah

[1:24:04] » Counc

[1:24:05] and

[1:24:07] you know it's an opportunity for you

[1:24:09] know the member of council that's going

[1:24:11] to bring this motion forward to their

[1:24:14] council to as just a reminder of maybe

[1:24:18] previous process you know your normal

[1:24:20] process of what you did at Jubilee Park

[1:24:22] which seemed to be really good and I

[1:24:24] think what the committee members of the

[1:24:27] committee were pointing

[1:24:28] out today is disappointment

[1:24:32] that there wasn't that uh consultation

[1:24:36] for Wayne Road Park um as there had been

[1:24:40] in the past though

[1:24:43] and councelor Newton then I think we

[1:24:45] should bring the questions

[1:24:49] she was still around the process on this

[1:24:51] about how so I

[1:24:55] um

[1:24:57] weighing into each local government's

[1:25:00] sort of governance and their processes.

[1:25:02] I struggle with this being outside. I

[1:25:05] appreciate the advocacy side of what

[1:25:07] this committee is, you know, jumping up

[1:25:09] and down and doing um how this is

[1:25:12] coming. I mean through the process I

[1:25:14] struggle with a little bit just from

[1:25:18] what's involved.

[1:25:20] I absolutely agree that this should have

[1:25:23] come forward as council efforts. You

[1:25:26] know what you guys did in Jubilee Park

[1:25:28] was great.

[1:25:31] » Yeah. I I

[1:25:33] » Do you have another suggestion on how we

[1:25:35] can uh get it on board?

[1:25:37] » No, I don't have another suggestion

[1:25:38] because I think this committee should

[1:25:41] review it, but I just my problem is with

[1:25:44] how it how it's coming back forward

[1:25:46] through the process.

[1:25:47] » Yeah, understood.

[1:25:49] Okay, I'll call the question. All in

[1:25:50] favor of the motion.

[1:25:53] Uh

[1:25:54] » Against

[1:25:56] period.

[1:26:01] » Thanks guys.

[1:26:03] » Thank you for your help with that.

[1:26:05] » Can I just say

[1:26:06] » Yes?

[1:26:07] » Is it Are we able to do the accessible

[1:26:09] parking before Ben goes?

[1:26:13] » Oh, just because

[1:26:15] Yeah,

[1:26:15] » Sure.

[1:26:17] » That's okay with you.

[1:26:18] » Yes.

[1:26:18] » Or I mean, sorry, I was going to say

[1:26:20] that there's a reason for my departure.

[1:26:22] I'd love to stay. I've got

[1:26:24] » If the accessible park is related to

[1:26:26] bylaw, so I'll be able to

[1:26:27] » Okay.

[1:26:28] » Okay.

[1:26:29] » Off you go. It's nice to see everybody.

[1:26:32] » Thank you, too.

[1:26:38] » Okay. Accessibility at Mary Whitespear

[1:26:40] Center.

[1:26:41] » Yes, that's coming to me again. Um quite

[1:26:44] some time ago it it was brought up that

[1:26:47] Mary Windspar would like uh input from

[1:26:50] the committee on accessibility issues at

[1:26:52] Mary Windsor. Somehow that got dropped

[1:26:54] and nothing ever happened. Um I have

[1:26:57] been talking with Denny Warner from Mary

[1:26:59] Winspair and she's very interested in

[1:27:02] our committee um helping with any kind

[1:27:05] of accessibility

[1:27:06] um information notes. Um she did say um

[1:27:11] this didn't print out very well that she

[1:27:13] was um looking for some uh assistance

[1:27:17] regarding accessibility for the center

[1:27:20] um accessibility with washrooms,

[1:27:22] signage, parking or any other um sensory

[1:27:26] issues, any kind of issues that we could

[1:27:29] do. um she was not able to make this

[1:27:31] meeting today, but wanted to know if our

[1:27:33] committee would be um in a position that

[1:27:36] we could maybe help out, do an audit,

[1:27:38] meet with her, whatever. And I just

[1:27:40] wanted to I I certainly have got my

[1:27:43] ideas of what I'd like to see at Mary

[1:27:47] laughing at me because he can figure

[1:27:49] those out. Um, but I think we all bring

[1:27:52] our our expertise on this committee to

[1:27:56] that and to see uh Mary Winspair and the

[1:27:58] community tackle some of these

[1:28:00] accessibility issues. So, I just wanted

[1:28:03] to know whether that's something that

[1:28:05] other members of the committee would be

[1:28:06] willing to to work on with us.

[1:28:09] » Certainly, I would. I I know I certif.

[1:28:14] » So I my suggestion would be to for Miss

[1:28:17] Warner to make a formal request to SP

[1:28:20] back either you know to appear um at at

[1:28:24] a meeting in the future. she wasn't

[1:28:26] available today. Um, you know, to to,

[1:28:30] you know, maybe send some questions in

[1:28:31] advance or if she's looking for an

[1:28:33] on-site sort of thing to send, you know,

[1:28:37] a formal request to SPAC outlining what

[1:28:39] are the things they want feedback on and

[1:28:42] then SPAC can respond at that time.

[1:28:45] » Okay. Are you comfortable writing that?

[1:28:47] » Yeah. So would that would the formal

[1:28:49] request come to SPACK or does it have to

[1:28:52] go through council to come to SPACK

[1:28:57] process?

[1:28:58] » I want to know what the process is.

[1:29:00] » I think that's where we have a gray area

[1:29:03] what this committee's role is and

[1:29:05] without a doubt

[1:29:07] » Providing some guidance and input. Um,

[1:29:10] but I be curious what our terms of

[1:29:12] reference state about who we can invite

[1:29:16] in to request input from uh from the

[1:29:21] wealth of knowledge in this room about

[1:29:23] how that works. And not to say that I

[1:29:25] don't think that there's some great

[1:29:28] input that could be provided, but it's

[1:29:30] just um I think this role the committee

[1:29:33] is still from the local government side

[1:29:35] of things on how that comes forward.

[1:29:39] Keep

[1:29:40] » I guess what what I would say I think

[1:29:42] the terms of reference talk about you

[1:29:44] know education sort of of the broader

[1:29:47] community certainly there's a role in

[1:29:49] providing direct um feedback to the

[1:29:52] local governments but I'm recollecting

[1:29:56] although I can't remember who other

[1:29:59] organizations that have come here for

[1:30:01] feedback on different uh different

[1:30:04] things that haven't necessarily gone

[1:30:07] through our ours.

[1:30:09] » Yeah. The airport and the panorama.

[1:30:12] » Oh, yeah. Right. Yeah. So,

[1:30:14] » Peninsula f festivities.

[1:30:17] » Oh, yeah. Peninsula celebrations. Um,

[1:30:20] you know, they're a community group that

[1:30:23] provides

[1:30:24] » Maybe I'll have to refer refresh my

[1:30:26] memory about

[1:30:28] make sure that

[1:30:29] » That Yeah, that's fine. Well, and that

[1:30:32] was my question with this. Is is this

[1:30:34] something that comes formally to us or

[1:30:36] do we just individually say, "Okay,

[1:30:39] we're we're meeting with you, Denny."

[1:30:41] » Oh, well, that's another way of

[1:30:43] » Of doing it. Al although I think I think

[1:30:46] it would be good to have kind of an

[1:30:49] official spa

[1:30:52] uh presence because Sydney and North

[1:30:54] Sanage anyways contribute significantly

[1:30:58] to Mary Winspear Center and I think we

[1:31:00] have kind of a real interest I would

[1:31:04] think of ensuring that the municipal

[1:31:08] facilities that we we support

[1:31:10] financially

[1:31:12] um you know that there's some concern

[1:31:15] about accessibility there and it would

[1:31:18] be of interest.

[1:31:20] » Plus, we have a breadth of experience on

[1:31:22] the committee that would be different

[1:31:25] than just Charlene and I going for

[1:31:26] example. We want to consider all of the

[1:31:30] u

[1:31:32] the whole community not just the

[1:31:34] mobility challenge community.

[1:31:39] So looking at this from the reference

[1:31:40] does say that uh committee identified

[1:31:42] barriers for persons with disabilities

[1:31:44] in the community and recommends

[1:31:45] solutions for consideration by the San

[1:31:48] Mins local governments as well as

[1:31:52] sharing

[1:31:54] committees and organizations.

[1:32:02] So, um [clears throat] maybe we can

[1:32:04] co-write a letter, send it off, and

[1:32:06] we'll get some feedback.

[1:32:07] » Okay.

[1:32:08] » Yeah. Yeah.

[1:32:10] » Okay, that works. Thank you.

[1:32:14] » All right. Now, we're on to um item D.

[1:32:17] Sydney wave f wayfinding markings. We

[1:32:20] talked about this a couple of meetings

[1:32:21] ago, and I think uh Mr. Wellland was

[1:32:24] kind enough to offer his observations.

[1:32:26] So, thank you.

[1:32:29] Yeah, go ahead.

[1:32:33] Uh yeah, thank you.

[1:32:36] Uh all right. So the uh

[1:32:40] I've used the term wayfinding and and in

[1:32:44] other conversations people have talked

[1:32:46] about tactile markings. Um they're the

[1:32:49] same thing. Um

[1:32:52] and uh whether that whether the tactile

[1:32:55] feature be grooves in the concrete or uh

[1:32:59] twizzies. Um

[1:33:02] that's that's really what I was looking

[1:33:04] at. And so um

[1:33:09] I I uh conducted an audit um between

[1:33:13] April 25th and May 7th of this year.

[1:33:18] Um

[1:33:20] both

[1:33:22] uh

[1:33:24] on my own and uh with my partner who is

[1:33:27] uh totally blind. Um

[1:33:31] and uh what we did is uh took kind of a

[1:33:35] grid approach and went from um Highway

[1:33:39] 17 and Beacon Avenue

[1:33:42] um all the way over to uh First Street

[1:33:45] and the waterfront uh the pier um

[1:33:51] from Beavenon

[1:33:53] Beacon

[1:33:55] uh James White and uh Sydney

[1:33:59] Um and then went a little bit beyond

[1:34:02] that to Henry Avenue as well. Uh and

[1:34:05] also to Mill Road and Rest Haven.

[1:34:09] Um

[1:34:10] so

[1:34:13] uh I I made notes of uh what I was

[1:34:16] seeing there and I also took photographs

[1:34:18] of uh many of the the features um on the

[1:34:22] on the concrete. Um so the briefly the

[1:34:27] findings were um that

[1:34:31] uh so in terms of the way that I I did

[1:34:34] this I I looked at a corner as being

[1:34:37] four corners right so an intersection

[1:34:40] has four corners so I looked at what's

[1:34:42] going on in the northeast the northwest

[1:34:45] southeast southwest whatever um and so

[1:34:49] in terms of the the numbering that's

[1:34:51] that's where that's coming from So there

[1:34:53] are 54 corners

[1:34:56] in that grid that I just described that

[1:35:01] have no markings at all.

[1:35:03] Um anywhere that there's cobblestone, at

[1:35:06] least that's what I'm calling it, the

[1:35:08] cobblestones, uh there are no marks of

[1:35:11] any sort.

[1:35:15] Um the other feature that I notice is

[1:35:18] that where there are grooves in the

[1:35:21] concrete that are meant to be um tactile

[1:35:24] markings,

[1:35:26] uh there is little consistency

[1:35:29] in the way that those markings are

[1:35:32] displayed. So I found that there were 20

[1:35:35] corners where the grooves parallel the

[1:35:38] road and there are 19 corners

[1:35:43] where it's the opposite way.

[1:35:47] There are also at least five corners uh

[1:35:52] which are newer and uh have grooves at

[1:35:56] right angles,

[1:35:58] right?

[1:36:01] And

[1:36:04] so,

[1:36:08] excuse me just a moment.

[1:36:14] Yeah. Uh, so one of the features that I

[1:36:18] noticed uh was that there are corners

[1:36:21] where

[1:36:23] uh there are maybe three sections to

[1:36:26] grooves.

[1:36:27] Uh so that there is a a a section that

[1:36:30] has grooves that are um parallel to to

[1:36:35] say the this road u the one that's going

[1:36:38] north north south and then grooves that

[1:36:41] are parallel to the uh east west road

[1:36:45] but then there's another set that are in

[1:36:48] between that.

[1:36:50] So although

[1:36:52] we have

[1:36:55] Sydney Council who have uh you know

[1:36:58] reached out to the Ministry of

[1:37:00] Transportation

[1:37:01] uh with concerns about the Highway 17

[1:37:05] and Beacon Avenue intersection where

[1:37:08] these uh grooves and Twizzies are

[1:37:11] misaligned.

[1:37:13] Uh, Sydney has its own problems

[1:37:17] in the sense that wherever these arcs or

[1:37:22] um three section grooves are, you have

[1:37:26] the potential to lead someone who is

[1:37:28] blind right into the middle of traffic

[1:37:32] going basically kitty corner. Um,

[1:37:35] so

[1:37:37] although I agree that the Ministry of

[1:37:39] Transportation needs to get its act

[1:37:41] together, so does Sydney.

[1:37:45] Um, the only corners with twizzies,

[1:37:48] which are the tactile markings, the

[1:37:50] yellow plastic ones,

[1:37:53] um, is at that Highway 17 and Beacon

[1:37:57] intersection. I'm not saying that's the

[1:37:59] only ones. That's not necessarily the

[1:38:02] only ones in all of Sydney, but within

[1:38:04] the large grid that I talked about,

[1:38:06] there are no other ones.

[1:38:10] Um,

[1:38:11] the other thing about those twizzies is

[1:38:15] that they're not directional twizzies.

[1:38:19] They're only warning twizzies.

[1:38:21] So they can't necessarily uh direct the

[1:38:25] user in any particular direction. Uh the

[1:38:28] grooves can. Um and what I discovered as

[1:38:32] a cited person is that it's very easy to

[1:38:36] uh to

[1:38:39] to basically as a sighted person to kind

[1:38:42] of line up the grooves. If you're

[1:38:44] looking at the ones that are going to um

[1:38:48] uh be parallel

[1:38:50] to the walkway, to the crosswalk lines,

[1:38:55] uh you can basically line those up by

[1:38:57] your eye and go, "Oh, yeah, okay, that

[1:38:59] works." But the problem is that if

[1:39:02] you're blind, you're not using your eyes

[1:39:05] to line up to crosswalk. You're going by

[1:39:08] whatever direction those those grooves

[1:39:10] are are directing you. uh to to

[1:39:15] basically for for you to they're

[1:39:17] directing you to go in a certain

[1:39:19] direction. Um and

[1:39:22] » [clears throat]

[1:39:22] » Uh and as I've said in some cases that

[1:39:26] is directing person into the flow of

[1:39:29] traffic. Um the other thing that I

[1:39:31] noticed is that both the on and off

[1:39:35] ramps to Highway 17

[1:39:39] uh have crosswalks.

[1:39:42] Um

[1:39:45] but there's no uh there's no control of

[1:39:48] of traffic there. Uh so somebody who's

[1:39:51] blind who goes wants to go across this

[1:39:55] let's say the offramp

[1:39:58] um

[1:40:00] they are not going to be able to know

[1:40:02] whether there's traffic coming uh to go

[1:40:04] on the beacon.

[1:40:08] Um the other thing is that that is also

[1:40:12] true of all of the crosswalks that are

[1:40:15] on Beacon that go across Beacon. Uh

[1:40:18] there's no traffic control there.

[1:40:20] There's no um and and in addition there

[1:40:23] are no markings um for those particular

[1:40:26] crosswalks and the same is true of the

[1:40:29] traffic circle at uh first and beacon.

[1:40:34] There were no markings

[1:40:36] and there's no traffic control there.

[1:40:39] Um,

[1:40:51] now when you look at uh oh um yeah, let

[1:40:56] me say this first. Uh when you look at

[1:40:58] the uh two traffic control uh crosswalks

[1:41:03] that I looked at, um

[1:41:07] they have warning lights for traffic,

[1:41:11] but they don't have sound.

[1:41:14] So the one that's most concerning, I

[1:41:16] think, is the one at Mill Road and Rest

[1:41:19] Haven, where it's just south of that

[1:41:21] 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

[1:41:40] crosswalk is that

[1:41:44] the traffic does not always heed the um

[1:41:47] crosswalk warning lights. Um, this has

[1:41:51] been reported to me, but I also observed

[1:41:54] it when I was doing my audit and

[1:41:57] standing there. Um, there were a number

[1:41:59] of vehicles that just went right through

[1:42:01] there. Um, and that's particularly

[1:42:05] concerning.

[1:42:09] Uh, another feature that I looked at was

[1:42:11] the directional posts on Beacon Avenue.

[1:42:15] These are the ones that um direct people

[1:42:18] to where businesses are.

[1:42:21] Uh none of those posts are accessible to

[1:42:24] the blind or people with low vision. Uh

[1:42:27] what they would probably need is raised

[1:42:29] lettering and braille. They have none.

[1:42:39] Um, I also looked at access through

[1:42:41] glass beach

[1:42:44] which is not particularly accessible to

[1:42:46] blind for people with low. In fact, it

[1:42:50] could be potentially quite dangerous for

[1:42:52] 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

[1:43:04] of those stairs with no railing. So if

[1:43:08] person who's blind was able to manage to

[1:43:11] get down that far, they would quite

[1:43:13] easily walk off of the concrete and onto

[1:43:16] the rocks or the sand.

[1:43:19] Um and that goes a little bit beyond

[1:43:23] you know, it might need markings, but um

[1:43:27] in terms of the railings and such. Um

[1:43:30] but there also are no

[1:43:32] tactile markings anywhere around those

[1:43:35] stairs to warn someone that there are

[1:43:37] indeed stairs there.

[1:43:43] And uh I think that's about it.

[1:43:48] » Great. Thanks very much. That was a

[1:43:50] pretty comprehensive tour around Sydney.

[1:43:53] Um,

[1:43:55] any questions of Mr. Willen?

[1:43:57] » Charlie,

[1:43:58] » I just thanks for doing that, Richard. I

[1:44:00] I've certainly since being on this

[1:44:02] committee and having had Vanessa on the

[1:44:04] committee, I've paid more attention to

[1:44:06] to crosswalks than ever I did because I

[1:44:09] only looked at could I get on them with

[1:44:10] my wheelchair and now I'm looking at

[1:44:13] them in a whole different light. like

[1:44:14] when so those rounded ones that you're

[1:44:16] talking about that sends them into any

[1:44:18] any direction

[1:44:21] » They work great for me but they are a

[1:44:22] nightmare for a low vision and blind

[1:44:24] person um and and I bring this up

[1:44:27] because you did a a great comprehensive

[1:44:29] study of Sydney um North Sanage is

[1:44:32] looking at uh I know they brought up

[1:44:34] redoing uh the walkway along uh East

[1:44:37] Sanich Road between McTavish and the

[1:44:39] roundabout at the airport. Um, and they

[1:44:42] also put in a crosswalk on the top of

[1:44:44] Dean Park Road and they put one of those

[1:44:46] cord corners in. It's a nightmare for a

[1:44:49] low vision person. Um, so again, I think

[1:44:52] it's it's that we start paying attention

[1:44:54] as we're we're we're doing some of these

[1:44:57] changes and developments that there's

[1:44:58] got to be more consistency and in how

[1:45:01] we're doing it. And um so I am I am now

[1:45:05] finding that I'm driving around looking

[1:45:07] at crosswalks and and curb cuts and and

[1:45:10] you're right there's and this this is

[1:45:13] part of progressing as we learn more and

[1:45:15] do more um that we're we are getting

[1:45:18] better with directional ones. So I think

[1:45:19] we need to to find a consistency so that

[1:45:23] people know

[1:45:25] and again as a tri municipal committee

[1:45:29] and and I'm I'm somebody who very rarely

[1:45:32] leaves the peninsula. So to have a

[1:45:34] standard that works central Sanage,

[1:45:37] North Sanage and Sydney so that we have

[1:45:39] got a a standard um just makes it easier

[1:45:43] for everybody who's trying to to

[1:45:46] navigate their world. Um, so thank you

[1:45:49] for doing all of that. I It's something

[1:45:51] I've been paying more attention to as

[1:45:53] well.

[1:45:53] » Yes, you're new. Yeah, certainly. I

[1:45:56] think all of these students

[1:46:00] known about where their deficiencies are

[1:46:02] from work is fully done. I think going

[1:46:04] forward is what we're really trying to

[1:46:06] look at. So I guess my question

[1:46:10] the controlled intersections whether

[1:46:14] it's walk signals or crosswalks do we

[1:46:17] have focus

[1:46:20] probably the wrong persons are here with

[1:46:21] engineering but is there like a

[1:46:23] difference between a controlled signal

[1:46:26] and then a signal with the auditory

[1:46:29] component to it that would be a standard

[1:46:32] to use when we look at going forward but

[1:46:34] there cost perspective

[1:46:37] probably much different.

[1:46:41] » Yeah, [clears throat]

[1:46:46] » Picking up on that theme, if you don't

[1:46:48] mind. Um, so the ones that were rec more

[1:46:51] recently done at Sydney, it's a new

[1:46:52] standard, I presume. Um they as a as a

[1:46:57] lay person, they seem to be

[1:46:58] appropriately done with the markings

[1:47:01] heading into the crosswalk. Uh

[1:47:03] irregardless of the the [clears throat]

[1:47:05] controlled crossing, they seem to be uh

[1:47:07] appropriate because I think I think what

[1:47:09] happens is you're supposed to be able to

[1:47:10] put your cane in the groove and and

[1:47:12] follow that groove to the path of

[1:47:14] travel, right?

[1:47:16] » That was that's my impression as to the

[1:47:18] way it's supposed to work. Um there are

[1:47:21] certainly uh problems inherent in that

[1:47:24] in that system which I'd be happy to

[1:47:26] talk about. Um I I think um for a a cane

[1:47:33] user who is not used to that uh and

[1:47:37] particularly if you're using your cane

[1:47:40] uh and going about Sydney.

[1:47:42] » Yeah. Right. and running into the

[1:47:44] inconsistencies.

[1:47:46] Um you you then I think become unclear

[1:47:50] as to what you know which direction am I

[1:47:53] supposed to be following here. Um but I

[1:47:57] think from a [clears throat] structural

[1:47:58] point of view the problem with the

[1:48:01] grooving in the sidewalks is um that

[1:48:07] they they fill with

[1:48:10] debris. Um, they also are more

[1:48:14] expensive, I would think, to change.

[1:48:17] Uh, whereas if you put down the Twizzy,

[1:48:20] you can unscrew it and move it somewhere

[1:48:22] else or rearrange it or whatever. Um,

[1:48:27] you can't do that with concrete grooves.

[1:48:29] You have to break up the concrete and

[1:48:31] redo the whole thing.

[1:48:33] That's got to be more costly.

[1:48:38] And it said if the grooves are filling

[1:48:40] with debris then then they lose their

[1:48:43] their use.

[1:48:45] That's

[1:48:45] » Key. Uh thank you. Um I'm also thinking

[1:48:50] about you know how how we move forward

[1:48:53] on this. I mean I know it's something

[1:48:56] that's come up in the past. Um,

[1:49:01] but what I don't know is whether there's

[1:49:05] a plan to address these things. Like for

[1:49:08] example, I know that we, you know, when

[1:49:11] Vanessa was here, we had discussions

[1:49:13] about the scoring lines and that and

[1:49:15] that's and initially staff's response

[1:49:17] was there's a standard that we follow.

[1:49:21] um what we ended up finding out is that

[1:49:23] yeah, there's a standard, but how it was

[1:49:25] actually being constructed was being

[1:49:28] misunderstood.

[1:49:30] And so I think there is now that

[1:49:33] understanding. And so the ones the

[1:49:36] intersections on Beacon, the new ones

[1:49:38] that they've done, all seem good, but

[1:49:41] there's these ones throughout the

[1:49:42] community that are and I see them. You

[1:49:45] know, there's a lot of them and I don't

[1:49:48] know whether staff are aware of those

[1:49:51] and I don't know

[1:49:54] that there's a plan to correct those.

[1:49:58] So,

[1:49:58] » I'm also interested in Charlene's

[1:50:00] comment about standardization because I

[1:50:02] know that Central Sanders is going to

[1:50:03] make a heck of a lot of improvements to

[1:50:05] along Mount Newton, etc. And they'll

[1:50:08] want to be incorporating some of those

[1:50:10] ideas, I'm sure.

[1:50:12] » Yeah. Well, and from what I understand

[1:50:14] previously from staff is there there is

[1:50:16] that municipal standard for

[1:50:18] accessibility that they follow. But you

[1:50:21] know where we sometimes miss the mark

[1:50:24] and that's where they missed the mark

[1:50:25] with Ministry of Transportation is that

[1:50:28] you know you get contractors in to do

[1:50:30] the work that don't necessarily are very

[1:50:33] familiar with it and so they don't

[1:50:36] implement the standard accurately. So,

[1:50:39] what I'm I guess what I'm struggling

[1:50:41] with is

[1:50:43] you know how we whether there's a way to

[1:50:47] return to uh you know put all of what

[1:50:51] you've got there into like a kind of a

[1:50:55] report or in writing with the pictures

[1:50:57] so that we could whether that would be

[1:51:00] useful for staff

[1:51:02] and Mr. uh newcome or any thoughts he

[1:51:06] might have on best ways.

[1:51:09] » I'm I'm just drafting an email for

[1:51:11] director of engineering just highlight

[1:51:13] this discussion

[1:51:15] with him and uh he was the uh

[1:51:20] engineering tech who designed our

[1:51:21] current standard for those coordinates.

[1:51:24] uh they can listen to this discussion

[1:51:26] and give us some thought in terms of

[1:51:31] maybe taking a second look at those that

[1:51:34] standard some of the concerns that you

[1:51:36] raised or uh I mean it's also come up at

[1:51:40] the highway intersection obviously and

[1:51:42] some of the drawbacks of that approach

[1:51:45] uh there's no solution um anyway I I

[1:51:49] will raise it with them say that can't

[1:51:53] make

[1:51:56] Yeah. So I I like I think there should

[1:51:59] I'm feeling there should be some sort of

[1:52:02] resolution

[1:52:04] but I'm just struggling about what the

[1:52:07] recommendation might be. Um

[1:52:10] » Other option might be gather more

[1:52:12] information for staff on having you know

[1:52:16] maybe someone from engineering come

[1:52:18] present on what our approach has been to

[1:52:22] date. We'll know that that's done.

[1:52:26] » You know what? I you know what? I kind

[1:52:28] of I like that idea because um then at

[1:52:32] least engineering can tell us what they

[1:52:35] actually are doing and maybe they do

[1:52:36] have a plan rather than the committee

[1:52:39] making a recommendation and it's kind of

[1:52:42] you know moot because staff already

[1:52:45] know. So maybe the motion could be that

[1:52:50] uh we we ask engineering staff from the

[1:52:54] municipalities to attend the next back

[1:52:57] meeting to talk about accessibility at

[1:53:01] intersections.

[1:53:03] You're asking.

[1:53:08] » Sorry. You're asking the council that

[1:53:10] said they're

[1:53:19] » Oh, okay.

[1:53:22] » Okay.

[1:53:25] » Yeah. Okay.

[1:53:28] Good.

[1:53:30] » Thanks again, Richard.

[1:53:31] » Thank you. Welcome. I think we had a

[1:53:33] letter to the uh airport authority which

[1:53:37] seems self

[1:53:38] explanatory.

[1:53:39] » Yeah.

[1:53:40] » Um I just wanted to mention that the uh

[1:53:44] and it's posted here the island de and

[1:53:46] harden of hearing center was closed uh

[1:53:50] rather suddenly. They ran out of money

[1:53:52] and um their government's contract

[1:53:55] expired a couple years ago but they ran

[1:53:56] out of money like at June 30th and there

[1:53:59] was very little notice given to anybody.

[1:54:01] So that the uh deaf and heart of hearing

[1:54:03] community are really struggling because

[1:54:04] that was their their go-to spot for all

[1:54:08] things, you know, for for uh social

[1:54:11] activity, for getting uformational

[1:54:13] resources, for u um figuring out what to

[1:54:17] do with their children's education,

[1:54:19] [clears throat] all those things. And uh

[1:54:22] so I'm I just raise it so people can

[1:54:24] think about what we might be able to do

[1:54:26] for our deaf and heart heart of hearing

[1:54:28] people in our community perhaps. um um

[1:54:32] beacon community services where the Shaw

[1:54:34] Center could be at least a meeting place

[1:54:36] for people. You might want to um run

[1:54:38] that up the flag pole and see where it

[1:54:41] goes.

[1:54:43] » Yes. So, I'm going to uh unfortunately

[1:54:45] those people from the disability

[1:54:48] um alliance of BC had to leave, but I'll

[1:54:51] follow up with them as well to see if

[1:54:53] they can offer some assistance.

[1:54:57] Okay. Any more thoughts on that?

[1:55:01] » Yeah,

[1:55:03] » I'll work on the Shaw Center, but I

[1:55:05] think that that's

[1:55:07] probably

[1:55:08] considered anyways

[1:55:11] resource

[1:55:13] maybe states.

[1:55:15] » Yeah. Much much like the White Cane

[1:55:16] Club, at least if people had a chance to

[1:55:18] go there, I I think they go there and

[1:55:20] they they play cards or they exchange

[1:55:22] stories or information. Um much like I'm

[1:55:26] sure the White Gang Club does. So it' be

[1:55:28] would be ideal I think.

[1:55:31] » Okay. And then we have uh one letter

[1:55:33] which um I don't think was really

[1:55:34] accessibility oriented but it's there

[1:55:36] for information.

[1:55:37] » Can we do my parking?

[1:55:41] » Yes. Did I fly by that?

[1:55:43] » Yeah.

[1:55:45] » Oh yeah. Are you going to counselor GPD

[1:55:48] is gonna

[1:55:50] » Yes. Go ahead.

[1:55:50] » Yeah. So I just wanted to bring up the

[1:55:53] and again I I realize that North Sanage

[1:55:55] is busy. They're they've got all sorts

[1:55:57] of stuff going on. Part of the just a

[1:56:00] bit of a background in 2018 the province

[1:56:03] took accessible parking out of the

[1:56:04] building code and it was up to every

[1:56:07] municipality, city, whatever to come up

[1:56:08] with their own accessible parking

[1:56:10] standards. Um we started working with

[1:56:12] Sydney, North Sanich and and um central

[1:56:16] Sanich and came up with accessibility

[1:56:19] plans that were kind of the best case

[1:56:21] scenario. at the time Nor Sanich put one

[1:56:25] through that they followed the FCA B651

[1:56:29] which was the the Canadian standard

[1:56:32] which we then found out was not optimal

[1:56:36] but at that time North Sanage was

[1:56:38] putting it through with other bylaw

[1:56:40] changes and they they were going to said

[1:56:43] no problem we'll just push this through

[1:56:45] when we do the OCP we will improve on

[1:56:48] that

[1:56:50] was 2019 So, we hit the pandemic, we hit

[1:56:54] new council, we hit new planners. Um,

[1:56:57] nothing

[1:56:59] got changed. Um, we now have

[1:57:04] we're we're going into another election

[1:57:05] cycle. There's this draft zoning bylaw

[1:57:09] has been put forward and I did see that

[1:57:11] in it in um

[1:57:14] the the draft zoning bylaw the

[1:57:16] accessible parking is under 404 in the

[1:57:19] bylaw and they have just said that they

[1:57:21] are going to use the the SCAB 651

[1:57:25] standard again which again is not the

[1:57:27] acceptable standard. Last July at the

[1:57:31] SPACK meeting, we were told that North

[1:57:33] Sanage would harmonize with Central

[1:57:35] Sanage and Sydney's accessible parking.

[1:57:39] So, the reason I bring this up now is

[1:57:42] because like the the expediency that

[1:57:44] Wayne Rogue was put through uh the

[1:57:46] neglect to bring Wolf Orchard to us, I

[1:57:50] want to make sure that this draft zoning

[1:57:52] bylaw doesn't get approved with this

[1:57:55] accessible parking standard. So I don't

[1:57:58] know whether it's something that do I

[1:57:59] bring a a a recommendation that this

[1:58:03] accessibility

[1:58:06] zoning bylaw is not accepted without

[1:58:08] bringing it to SPAC for our input. Um

[1:58:12] because I as things stand right now

[1:58:16] North Sanage does not have an accessible

[1:58:18] parking standard that allows me to park

[1:58:20] anywhere with my Side Wrap van. Um,

[1:58:24] Sandown Center was a missed opportunity.

[1:58:27] I don't go there because there's no

[1:58:28] parking for me. Um, the Roost just redid

[1:58:32] their accessible parking at their place.

[1:58:35] Does not have parking for me. So, we've

[1:58:37] missed an opportunity in this eight

[1:58:39] years that we've been not doing anything

[1:58:41] with the accessible parking at North

[1:58:43] Sanage. We've missed opportunities. And

[1:58:46] as we all know, once they've been done

[1:58:48] according to whatever the bylaw was when

[1:58:50] they built it, that's what stands.

[1:58:53] So I just wanted to do I don't know

[1:58:55] going forward I want to make sure we

[1:58:57] don't miss an opportunity with North

[1:58:59] Sage.

[1:59:00] » So councelor DBT what what is it you

[1:59:02] need from us to make that happen?

[1:59:05] » I mean I think I think like other things

[1:59:07] that you know I think we were getting to

[1:59:09] a really good place where we were just

[1:59:11] expecting you know like central sage

[1:59:13] where they just automatically come. Uh

[1:59:15] that hasn't been happening from us. So I

[1:59:18] think uh you know if Spack makes a

[1:59:19] recommendation requesting that the

[1:59:22] zoning bylaw be presented and even in

[1:59:26] that motion at a you know and I missed

[1:59:30] writing down the exact

[1:59:31] » And that it be harmonized with the other

[1:59:33] two municipalities

[1:59:34] » Right and that can either come up out of

[1:59:36] that presentation and conversation or

[1:59:38] that can just come up as part of the

[1:59:39] recommendation either of those are

[1:59:43] a okay

[1:59:45] » Uh councelor O'Keefe Um just looking to

[1:59:47] Mr. Nukem and from Central Sandwich. So

[1:59:52] have I think we have harmonized like

[1:59:55] between does Sydney and Central Sanage

[1:59:57] have have we harmonized our accessible

[2:00:00] parking? Is it

[2:00:03] » I believe it's similar.

[2:00:06] » Okay.

[2:00:10] » Place

[2:00:12] council made a change or two that was

[2:00:14] adopted. Okay.

[2:00:17] » Okay. So, I guess one way of going at

[2:00:19] So, there's something specific that

[2:00:21] you've identified. So you could we could

[2:00:25] make a motion that Norah Sanage change

[2:00:30] the zoning bylaw or section blah blah

[2:00:33] blah of the zoning bylaw related to

[2:00:36] whatever that se you know that standard

[2:00:39] was or or just say that in instead of

[2:00:42] adopting that standard that North Sanich

[2:00:46] adopt the accessible parking standards

[2:00:50] uh or or harmonize their accessible

[2:00:53] parking standards with Sydney and

[2:00:56] Central Sanage.

[2:00:58] » What what was mentioned to me is I think

[2:01:00] where North Sanich was having a bit of a

[2:01:02] problem and it was told to me that

[2:01:04] they're different because they're rural.

[2:01:07] I think where they didn't want to

[2:01:08] harmonize with Sydney and Central Sanage

[2:01:11] was in the

[2:01:13] ratio of parking spaces and accessible

[2:01:17] spaces, which to me, figure out figure

[2:01:20] out your ratios for your building,

[2:01:22] whatever with your parking,

[2:01:25] but don't skimp on the actual size of

[2:01:29] your parking. Right?

[2:01:31] » So, I'm not sure why that would be. I

[2:01:34] mean, if you're going to have a grocery

[2:01:36] store, whether it's in a rural area or

[2:01:40] » Exactly.

[2:01:40] » Like sand down is like a shopping and

[2:01:44] » So I just again uh so I don't know how

[2:01:48] my my impetus in bringing this is I just

[2:01:51] wanted to make sure that this wouldn't

[2:01:53] progress any further in without it being

[2:01:56] looked at and made sure that we're doing

[2:01:57] it in the best possible way. Um, so to

[2:02:00] make a recommendation uh that SPACK

[2:02:03] recommends that North Sanage not proceed

[2:02:05] with their um with the draft zoning

[2:02:08] bylaw accessible parking portion until

[2:02:10] they present it to to SPACK for

[2:02:14] » It might be short it might be a shorter

[2:02:16] route to do what councelor

[2:02:18] » So so what I so what I was just to

[2:02:21] finish my thought that kind of ran

[2:02:23] » It must have been good because Anna

[2:02:24] actually typed it

[2:02:25] » To to make the specific recommendations

[2:02:28] to harmonize their accessible parking

[2:02:31] with Sydney and Central Sanage. Make

[2:02:36] that one. And then if you thought that

[2:02:38] there was other elements of the zoning

[2:02:40] bylaw that were relevant, there's a

[2:02:43] whole pile of stuff in the zoning bylaw,

[2:02:45] you don't want to be bothered. But if

[2:02:47] there was parts of that that you thought

[2:02:50] should come to SPACK, then you could

[2:02:52] make a second recommendation that

[2:02:54] sections, you know, that the the rest of

[2:02:57] the bylaw be referred to back for

[2:02:59] additional review and comment from an

[2:03:01] accessibility perspective.

[2:03:04] So, but I don't know what is in their

[2:03:06] zoning bylaw and whether you have

[2:03:08] something.

[2:03:10] » I mean, I just it was all I could do to

[2:03:12] zone in on the the draft bylaw and find

[2:03:14] the accessible parking.

[2:03:17] Yeah. Or sorry

[2:03:28] BC1 that we think is uh preferred or

[2:03:32] superior.

[2:03:33] You're shaking your head. No,

[2:03:35] » We don't have a BC1.

[2:03:36] » We That's what this whole the discussion

[2:03:39] came about a few years ago because there

[2:03:41] used to be a provincial standard, right?

[2:03:43] And then the province said, "We're not

[2:03:45] going to do that anymore. You

[2:03:46] municipalities decide what's best for

[2:03:48] you." And so that's why there was all

[2:03:51] this kuffles in past meetings about,

[2:03:54] okay, we were all doing different

[2:03:56] standards and had different ideas in our

[2:03:58] minist. And so hence the desire for you

[2:04:02] know, Sydney and Central Sage did that.

[2:04:06] [clears throat]

[2:04:06] » And do you mind do you mind reading back

[2:04:07] what councelor Keefe said initially and

[2:04:10] 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

[2:04:22] passing the the U

[2:04:24] » Well I I think there's there's two

[2:04:26] separate things. One is very specific to

[2:04:28] parking but the other is accessibility

[2:04:30] as it pertains to the entire zoning.

[2:04:33] » Yes.

[2:04:34] » Accessibility is not just limited to

[2:04:35] » Yes. Yeah. And so that's why I would

[2:04:38] suggest that a motion not be I mean the

[2:04:42] recommendation council can

[2:04:43] » Yeah.

[2:04:45] Gotcha.

[2:04:47] » Um but I think if the motion is to

[2:04:50] request that the zoning bylaw be

[2:04:53] presented just like the other

[2:04:54] municipalities have so that we can

[2:04:57] provide feedback so that SPAC can

[2:04:59] provide feedback on all accessibility

[2:05:01] components within the zoning bylaw.

[2:05:05] Then the report is not the entire zoning

[2:05:07] bylaw. It's everything that's related to

[2:05:09] accessibility. And that way the report

[2:05:11] can present the powerpoint to be done up

[2:05:13] and then it comes. Now I don't even have

[2:05:16] a timeline from staff yet as to when

[2:05:18] we're going to see zoning by yet.

[2:05:21] So based on that I can suspect that it's

[2:05:24] going to be a little while but we've all

[2:05:26] seen what's happened previously. So if

[2:05:28] if there wants to be something a little

[2:05:29] more specific

[2:05:31] as far as not to go to second reading

[2:05:33] until it's come back that can certainly

[2:05:36] be done

[2:05:38] but I just don't know what the timeline

[2:05:40] is. I think it's important that

[2:05:41] [clears throat]

[2:05:42] » Just like what Central Sage did with

[2:05:44] theirs, it actually comes from

[2:05:46] accessibility like just those components

[2:05:49] comes back

[2:05:54] » To add a little staff perspective on

[2:05:56] that motion. It's very wrong.

[2:05:58] » Um there was a comment earlier about uh

[2:06:01] the the

[2:06:03] number of spaces versus you know maybe

[2:06:05] the geometric considerations. So you

[2:06:08] might want to think about specificity of

[2:06:10] it because I agree that you know the the

[2:06:12] number of spaces required might be very

[2:06:14] different in no sanage in context than

[2:06:17] it would be in Sydney for example

[2:06:19] » And so are you asking for

[2:06:22] the number of required spaces

[2:06:25] » The motion by that it's very

[2:06:30] » Yeah again my thinking on that was again

[2:06:34] I I know the my only perspective I had

[2:06:37] with North Sanich and the numbers was

[2:06:39] Sandown and they did ask for a variance

[2:06:41] to change the numbers. Um I think both

[2:06:45] Central Sanich and um

[2:06:48] and Sydney both say that no matter what

[2:06:51] the what the figuring out number was,

[2:06:52] they couldn't adapt the accessible ones.

[2:06:55] They couldn't change the accessible ones

[2:06:57] according to plan. So I don't I I mean I

[2:07:00] know for myself, yes, they might be

[2:07:02] smaller numbers or whatever. So, I don't

[2:07:04] I don't necessarily know that it get

[2:07:06] into the into the weeds of how many

[2:07:08] spaces there have to be, but I

[2:07:10] definitely think we need to make sure

[2:07:11] that we're we're putting in accessible

[2:07:14] spaces that work for

[2:07:16] » We need to get to the motion and get it

[2:07:17] done or we're going to miss

[2:07:18] » Get done. Is the standard that you

[2:07:21] talked about was that this because was

[2:07:23] that the standard my recollection it was

[2:07:26] in regards to what the spaces looked

[2:07:28] like?

[2:07:29] » Yes.

[2:07:29] » Right. and so how wide they would be

[2:07:32] accessible aisles that sort of thing. So

[2:07:35] I think maybe that's what you want to to

[2:07:38] Mr.

[2:07:39] point that spec specificity

[2:07:43] » I was just worried about.

[2:07:46] » Yeah, that's know it's too broad. Um,

[2:07:50] » So the way to get about that might be am

[2:07:53] I going to have I'm really going to have

[2:07:54] to leave because I got somebody showing

[2:07:56] up in my house at 10 minutes. Um but

[2:07:59] would be to adjust the motion to say um

[2:08:03] uh for North Sanage to

[2:08:07] amend or in in consideration of their

[2:08:11] zoning bylaw instead of using standard

[2:08:15] blah blah blah

[2:08:18] » The standard uh harmonize that with uh

[2:08:23] Sydney and North Sanish because that

[2:08:26] doesn't get into the number of spaces.

[2:08:27] is that only relates to the width of the

[2:08:31] space, the accessible aisles, how

[2:08:34] they're marked and identified.

[2:08:36] » So maybe that's the way around that. And

[2:08:39] then the number of spots, that's a whole

[2:08:42] other other thing.

[2:08:43] » Can you read off the uh the uh standard

[2:08:46] number again for

[2:08:47] » CSA B651?

[2:08:57] Okay, we have a motion seconder.

[2:09:00] Mr. Wellland,

[2:09:02] any discussion?

[2:09:05] All the question all in favor?

[2:09:09] Carried.

[2:09:10] » Good. We lost all of our people here.

[2:09:14] » I think just I know everybody's got to

[2:09:17] go the last minute, but I think

[2:09:19] Batista's comment about having the

[2:09:21] zoning bylaw back.

[2:09:23] » Oh, yeah. Another motion. That's a good

[2:09:24] idea. lost somewhere on that whether

[2:09:31] » Make the motion.

[2:09:32] » Sure, I'll make the motion.

[2:09:33] » I'll second.

[2:09:36] » Yeah. No, fair enough.

[2:09:37] » SPAC recommends that the district of

[2:09:39] North Sanage present the accessibility

[2:09:42] portions of the zoning bylaw to SPACK

[2:09:44] prior to adoption

[2:09:45] » Or just say refer the zoning bylaw.

[2:09:48] Don't say the accessibility because

[2:09:54] » That's why you say the accessibility

[2:09:55] component because you don't want to sit

[2:09:56] here and read 400 pages of a zoning

[2:09:58] bylaw.

[2:09:59] » I think one the components that are

[2:10:02] related to accessibility

[2:10:04] » And referent.

[2:10:05] » Yeah.

[2:10:06] » Referred. Yeah.

[2:10:07] » Yeah.

[2:10:09] » Okay.

[2:10:11] » Seconder

[2:10:13] I guess. Okay. Charlie discussion

[2:10:17] all in favor

[2:10:21] carried

[2:10:22] and u motion for adjournment.

[2:10:25] [clears throat]

[2:10:26] » Lots of people.

[2:10:28] » We got to go. We're

[2:10:29] » Out of here.

[2:10:30] » Thank you everybody.

[2:10:32] » Thank you.

Saanich Peninsula Accessibility Advisory Committee - 23 Jul 2026

Transcript