Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-09-138 - Municipal Response to Province's Proposed Accessible Built Environment StandardsREPORT REPORT TO: Chair Councillor B. Vrbanovic and Members of the Finance and Corporate Services Committee DATE OF MEETING: September 14, 2009 SUBMITTED BY: Michael Seiling, Director of Building (741-2669) PREPARED BY: Craig Waller, Manager of Building (741-2428) Kelly Steiss, Inclusion Coordinator (741-2226) WARD(S) INVOLVED: All DATE OF REPORT: September 9, 2009 REPORT NO.: DTS 09-138 SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL RESPONSE TO PROVINCE'S PROPOSED ACCESSIBLE BUILT ENVIRONMENT STANDARD RECOMMENDATION: That the summary of response to the Government of Ontario's Proposed Accessible Built , as attached to DTS 09-138, be endorsed; and further, Environment Standard That staff be directed to submit a formal written response to the province by its deadline of October 16, 2009 . BACKGROUND: The Government of Ontario has drafted and circulated for public review its Proposed Accessible Built Environment Standard. This new standard is the last of five standards the province is planning to implement under its Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. The first standard is the Customer Service Standard, which became law Jan. 1, 2008. The second is the Transportation Accessibility Standard. The third, is the Accessible Information and Communication Standard, and the fourth is the Employment Standard. This last Standard is extensive and covers buildings, site development, public ways and public parks, trails and playgrounds. The Province of Ontario is asking for a written response before the deadline of October 16, 2009. This is an important standard as it aims to remove and prevent barriers that limit the participation of Ontarians with a disability in the life of our communities. Improving the accessibility of our communities is not only the right thing to do, but additionally makes good sense economically and socially. It is estimated that in twenty years, 20 per cent of the people living in Ontario will have a disability. This standard aims to remove barriers now and in the future so people with disabilities can participate fully in society. ç ó ï Summary of Proposed Standard Scope new constructionretrofitsrenovations This Standard has requirements for as well as and and covers numerous elements that exist in the Built Environment and places them into the following categories: Common access and circulation (both interior and exterior) Interior accessible routes Exterior spaces Communication elements and facilities Building performance and maintenance Special rooms Spaces and other elements Transient residential Recreation elements and facilities Transportation elements Housing Additionally, the Standard sets out requirements for a compliance plan as well as training for staff. Date of compliance The City of Kitchener generally falls under the category of Assembly Type Buildings (Group A). For existing barriers and retrofits, the compliance date is 5 years from filing the regulation. For Compliance Plans, they are required within 2 years of the filing of the regulation. And, for new construction, within 12 months after the regulation comes into force. Staff must receive training within 3 years of the passage of the legislation. Note: While the Standard makes reference to not requiring retrofits in the first five years of the Standard, to “allow Ontario to adapt to the Initial Proposed Built Environment Standard for new construction and renovation”, staff have taken the opportunity to review and provide feedback on the impact of that requirement on behalf of the Corporation. REPORT: In preparing its response to the province's proposed standard, input was received from staff in Planning, Engineering, Legal Services, Community Services and Building. Potential impacts were discussed and input was received to ensure all internal stakeholders were informed of and provided input into the City of Kitchener’s response to the proposed legislation. Attached to DTS 09-138 is a summary of the response that incorporates internal feedback received regarding the proposed legislation. Should council endorse the content contained within that summary, staff will submit a response directly to the province. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: IBI Group performed a cost impact assessment on behalf of the Government of Ontario and estimates that the cost for compliance for the proposed standard for new construction will ç ó î average 4% to the total construction cost and cost premiums for most retrofit requirements are in the high and medium categories and could add about 45% -100% to the usual investments. Until the proposed standard is further clarified and finalized, a detailed financial impact study by the City of Kitchener would be ineffective. CONCLUSION: While, the City of Kitchener supports the proposed standard’s aim to remove and prevent barriers that limit the participation of Ontarians with a disability, a few concerns as outlined in the attached summary cannot be ignored. ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Jeff Willmer, Interim General Manager Development and Technical Services Department ç ó í Summary of City of Kitchener’s Response of the Initial Proposed Accessibility Built Environment Standard The City of Kitchener is pleased to provide comments on the proposed Accessible Built Environment Standard. The City of Kitchener is supportive of the spirit of the document and that the Standard is well intended. The introduction of the Standard will bring forward a consistency of design and construction elements as well as demonstrate the importance regarding the need for barrier free accessibility. While the City is supportive of the spirit of the draft Standard, there are some general concerns/considerations to be raised: 1) Existing Legislation Many of the elements being proposed under this Standard would result in wider right-of-way widths which can create design issues for higher densities. This appears to present conflicts with the Provincial land use planning objectives as set out in the Planning Act, The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), Places to Grow and supporting documents that promote compact development and "alternative" developments standards (which is usually described as narrower and more compact public spaces and utility corridors). It is our recommendation that these potential conflicts be resolved or clarified prior to and/or within the legislation. 2) Enforcement At present, municipalities are legislated to enforce specific elements with respect to applicable law related to the Building Code Act and the Planning Act. Within this Standard, there is concern as to the enforcement of the Accessible Built Environment standard in terms of issuing approvals, applicable law related to the Building Code Act, inspections and enforcement on site, maintenance inspections, approval of compliance plans and approval of alternative solutions. This additional element for enforcement will impact the time required for approvals on planning applications such as site plan or building permit applications. These applications currently have a prescribed timeline for issuance. It is our recommendation that this Standard allow for increased timelines for issuance so as to be able to accommodate the review of these additional elements. If however the standard is to be enforced at a municipal level, existing staff structures and workloads would not easily permit the added responsibility. It is our recommendation that the legislation clearly define the enforcement responsibilities under this legislation. Should municipalities be required to provide the enforcement, additional time and resources will be required to implement these processes. 3) New Construction In general the document is very comprehensive and implementation of these requirements for new construction is easily achievable. The level of detail associated with the requirements will impact all parties involved such as professional designers, and regulatory bodies. Therefore we offer two suggestions: 1) An appropriate transition time to accommodate training and development of the requirements and 2) Training resources are developed prior to enactment of the standard. ç ó ì 4) Exemptions – New Construction and Change of Use/Extensive Renovation With regards to the reference to undue hardship, if the administration of the Standard is to define the concept of undue hardship differently than the definition under the Human Rights Code, the City of Kitchener requests the ability to provide further comment on any alternative definition of undue hardship prior to its application and prior to the Standard being enacted. As the committee has commented, the definition is too broad and a municipality such as ours may not be able to use this exemption. This in turn has the potential to impose significant financial strain on a municipality. 5) Alternative Solutions The concept of Alternative Solutions is in keeping with the revised Building and Fire Codes, however the concept requires further development to ensure measurable standards and objectives are maintained and not abused. 6) Existing Barriers and Retrofit In 2007 the City of Kitchener under took an accessibility audit, which compared our municipal buildings to a prescribed guideline to create a direction that our City would take in achieving a barrier free municipality. The reference to compliance plans in the standard is an added strength. From our initial audit, a budget and a timeline was also created. This represents several million dollars of work, but does not include any of our outdoor facilities such as portables, playing fields or trails. Although the corporation is committed to improving public spaces through barrier free accessibility, in the current economic market the added costs associated with these requirements may place an added expense to our constituents. In a few cases, the costs to rehabilitate a site may far exceed the actual value of the building or outdoor facility. It is our recommendation that this type of consideration be incorporated into the proposed standard. ç ó ë