REPORT TO COUNCIL

SPECIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ISSUES

DECEMBER 20, 1999

File: 3053-1/RTS: 1202
Council: February 15, 2000

RECOMMENDATION

1. Vancouver Building Code

In mid-1999, the Vancouver Building Code was revised in such ways as to make it more consistent with the Provincial Building Code. The Special Advisory Committee on Disability Issues is fully aware of the advantages that accrue from wide-spread uniformity in regulation. On the whole, the Committee supports this step toward uniformity. However, it should not be forgotten that the City of Vancouver has historically been in advance of Provincial regulation in some areas, particularly with regard to accessibility. It is the hope of this Committee that the City will not embrace harmonization to the degree that it will forego appropriate innovation.

This report is intended by the Special Advisory Committee on Disability Issues to bring to the attention of Council and staff that certain parts of the Code--particularly Section 3.8, the portion of the Code concerned with accessibility matters--can and should be improved for the current benefit of the substantial number of Vancouver residents who have disabilities and for future benefit of the inevitably increasing numbers of Vancouver residents of advanced age.

A. Article 3.8.4.5 (This and subsequent article references are to Bylaw 6134) Accessibility for building renovations, and changes of use, are required only if reasonable and practical.

The wording in both clauses of this article should be modified so that accessibility in the first instance is required unless it can be demonstrated to be unreasonable and impractical. The current wording appears to have a bias favouring non-access. This can seriously undermine the upgrading of existing building stock to be accessible. We believe the onus should be on applicants to justify non-accessibility.

B. Article 3.8.4.5 In Clauses a) and b) of Article 3.8.4.5, the terms, “practical” and "reasonable", are undefined.

The terms "practical" and "reasonable" should be defined in order to allow City staff to apply the Bylaw in a uniform manner, consistent with its intent. We further recommend that the definition of “reasonable” as per Vancouver Building Bylaw #6134 be included in the current Bylaw.

Without clear definition of these terms, the intent of the Bylaw appears ambiguous, and may lead to pressure on City staff to apply the Bylaw in variable ways.

C. Article 3.8.2.27 Apartment and condominium buildings are currently required to have access to the lobby and elevator only, not beyond.

The public corridors leading from the elevator to all apartment suites should be accessible, and that all common facilities in an apartment or condominium building should also be accessible.

Many people who use wheelchairs reside in apartments. Considerations relating to location, affordability, low maintenance, and convenient parking are a few of the many reasons that this is so. As well, many visitors to apartments use wheelchairs, too. By ensuring a wheelchair accessible route along public hallways, those who can now get into the elevator, will also be able to reach individual suites. It appears unreasonable to require access to only a small portion of an apartment building.

D. Article 3.7.4.11 Every dwelling unit with a piped water supply must have a toilet.

The required toilet should be located in a 1500 mm by 1500 mm clear space. This area will allow adequate manoeuvring room for helping children, assisting the infirm, transferring from a wheelchair, etc. Since public washrooms are accessible it seems sensible that a similar provision be required for a residential toilet.

E. Article 9.6.3.3 The doorway to at least one bathroom in a dwelling accommodates a 760 mm-wide door.

For the bathroom with a 1500 mm by 1500 mm toilet space, the doorway should accommodate an 860 mm-wide door.

F. Article 3.8.3.8 Where turnstiles, controlled check lanes, or other restricted passage ways are constructed to control the flow of pedestrian traffic, at least one such facility shall be not less than 800 mm wide and clearly marked for use by persons in wheelchairs.

Latch controls should not require tight grasping or twisting of the wrist, similar to those on accessible doors per Article 3.3.1.12.10) c).

Accessing latch controls should not require people in wheelchairs, people with other disabilities or parents with children in strollers to reach over or around a turnstile or gate. Currently, access is often restricted by the difficulty both of reaching and of using the latch mechanism. The intent of the existing regulations is often defeated by awkwardly designed latches. Ideally, the use of turnstiles should be phased out. Turnstiles are a significant barrier to unrestricted access, and the elimination of them in favour of alternate systems such as electronic monitoring gates should be considered as a more contemporary solution.

G. Accessibility Over Time

A mechanism should be developed to ensure the ongoing maintenance of building accessibility with the passage of time.

The Special Advisory Committee on Disability Issues

RECOMMENDS

THAT the foregoing comments be forwarded to concerned City staff members for review and consideration of modifications to the current Building Code or other changes, as may be deemed appropriate.

INFORMATION

2. Consolidation of G.F. Strong and Pearson Centre Facilities

The Special Advisory Committee on Disability Issues has received a presentation from the Health Employees Union regarding the planned consolidation of the G.F. Strong and Pearson Centre sites, operated by Vancouver Hospital. These facilities provide rehabilitation and residential services to people with physical disabilities. These programs, formerly operated autonomously by the B.C. Rehabilitation Society, have been integrated into the acute health care system as part of the overall regionalization of health care.

Based on past experience, disability advocates are concerned that the consolidation of the two sites may erode rehabilitation and residential resources available for people with physical disabilities. The B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities argues that services are currently being eliminated or reduced across the province, and that the planned closure of one of these two facilities will likely result in further reduction and loss of services.

With the consolidation of the G.F. Strong and Pearson Centre sites, one property will be redeveloped. At that time, rezoning or other development issues may arise, giving the City of Vancouver an opportunity to contribute to protecting rehabilitation and residential resources for people with disabilities.

The Special Advisory Committee on Disability Issues recognizes that Vancouver is unique within British Columbia in terms of providing an accessible and "disability friendly" city in which to live, work and be part of the community. Vancouver is also unique because it is the location of specialized provincial resources for the rehabilitation and residential care of people with disabilities, particularly those of G.F. Strong and Pearson Centre.

Therefore, the Special Advisory Committee on Disability Issues encourages Council to consider the positive reputation of the City and the resources that Vancouver offers to those with physical disabilities, and to contribute to ensuring that those resources are protected, preserved and enhanced by considering these issues as conditions of any re-development of the G.F. Strong or Person Centre lands.

(signed) “Ben Ostrander” (signed) “Katherine Taylor”
Co-Chair Co-Chair

CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The City Manager acknowledges the dedicated work of the Special Advisory Committee on Disability Issues in bringing forward these suggested changes to the Vancouver Building Code. In reviewing these considerations put forward by the Committee, staff will review the impact of such recommendations on design, regulation and cost implications. The City Manager will, if Council approves the request of the Committee ask the Chief Building Official to meet with the Committee, the Construction Industry and report back to Council on the implications of such measures.

* * * * *

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver