South Vancouver Amenities – Amendment Item C (Seniors' Room)
Motion 9 · Board Committee Meeting – April 13, 2026, April 13, 2026
Vote
Transcript
36 segments
Before I ask for a second, Commissioner Verdi, would you be open to us discussing and voting on C first and then discussing and voting on D after, just to split it into two, just to simplify the process here. I think there might be, they're very different topics. So if it's okay, can we staff just pull D off the screen and we'll just work on C for now? Or it could be added under A and B. Oh, that's OK. We can sever the vote. But just for the debate, I think it'll be a little bit easier if we discuss all of C first. But we will go right to D right after we deal with C. Yeah. So we will need a seconder for C, Commissioner Jensen. Thank you very much. I will second that. We already had Commissioner Jensen seconded that. Thank you, Commissioner Howard.
We will ask questions now to the mover of the amendment. Are there any questions to Commissioner... Oh, actually, before we ask questions, I'd like to just ask a question to staff. If they could just sort of comment. I know there was some confusion about the budget timeline stuff. If staff could just... Final clarification, what the impacts on budget timeline and any usage impacts that they'd like to comment on before we get into debate on this.
Thank you. I'll try to answer this question referring to Amendment C above. So just want to clarify that the turf we are installing, currently proposing to install, would meet these requirements and for the room's benefit as well. What we are proposing to install is actually the same turf that was used in the last Olympics in Paris, which is the best product available. It can be used wet or dry. It's the same as the one that is being installed in Surrey at the Tamanoa site on their field number three. So I hope you appreciate this can be used wet or dry. And to do it wet or dry is an operational approach. And we are... heading into times of severe and getting more severe droughts in the summer. So this gives us the option to have a field that's always playable should we get into extreme watering restrictions, which is a possibility in the future. And we pay for water as well now. There's a water bill that comes with this. So what the staff are currently proposing really protects all of the options for us here. The user group's desire for a wet field and a potential environmental crisis down the road. Who knows? Hope that helps.
So just to clarify, would this amendment actually change anything with staff's approach to the design?
It doesn't change it, but I guess it reconfirms the interests of the board.
In that case, this amendment I'm going to deem out of order. It's redundant in that case.
Can I contest that? Because it's not the same. The report says Category 3, and this is Category 1, and it's Category 2.
I think it's Category 1 or 2, surface, which I think the staff have clarified. It doesn't meet Category 1 or 2 because of the lighting and the orientation, but it does meet Category 1 and 2, surface.
Do you want to clarify? Sorry, one more time.
I might go back to staff if they provide any other information.
Call them back to the table. Thanks.
It's correct that the surface, the turf itself, could meet a category two or potentially a category one, but we wouldn't be able to achieve the FIH certification because of these other infrastructure elements that we've named. So the playability... will be the same as a category two or one, but we wouldn't be able to pass any tests beyond the category three level.
And that's understandable, but it's about allowing international players to come and play on it. So the quality of the turf is what I'm talking about to be a category one or category two.
Yeah.
Yeah, so not the lighting and not the orientation or anything. Correct. So that's the word. And international players don't come to tournaments if they don't care about the orientation, they care about the turf. It's the playability.
Okay, thank you for sharing. Just to clarify with staff one more time before I rule on this. So the proposed, staff have proposed a turf that meets on the turf, the surface itself, meets Category 1 or 2.
That is correct.
Thank you. And then I'll deem this amendment out of order based on staff's response to that.
The surface is already a Category 1 or 2. No, it's a Category 3. That's what staff have said, and I'm going to deem it out of order in that case.
Which is what you say, the Category 1 water-based surface, which is what they said. So I think we're going to move on.
Okay, we're not we're not gonna yet They're not gonna discuss this anymore stuff of care, but if you want to discuss with staff afterwards you're welcome to But a staff have confirmed that the surface that is proposed meets category one or two and thank you We're gonna now move on we're gonna move on to amendment D. Now as you moved Which will now be see but it's now was it was D the other person of Commissioner Verdi's amendment
Yes, he did introduce it. Yes, Commissioner Digby, go ahead.
Could I ask the chair to strike the last sentence, which is prolix and unnecessary for the motion. It is merely descriptive of the foregoing sentence. So strike the last sentence, or rule that last sentence out of order, please.
I'm going to maintain this amendment and overrule Commissioner Digby's point of order. It doesn't necessarily add direction, but we'll leave it for now. I don't think it takes away from anything. Okay, so we are discussing the amendment on the screen. We're doing questions to the mover. We can queue in for questions. Commissioner Howard? Oh, sorry, we'll need a seconder first. Commissioner Jensen, thank you. Commissioner Howard, do you have a question to Commissioner Verity on this amendment on the screen? No.
No, my question was to the previous one, and it was ignored.
Okay, thank you. Commissioner Digby, question on this amendment.
Yeah, so I don't understand this amendment regarding funding. So there's a good chance the funding won't come for five years or more. Let me just see it up there. You want staff to design a facility there that has no chance of implementation until there's future funding? Is that what you intend with this motion? You want them to do the work of designing it when there's no...
I want it just to be open to the possibility. We've seen things get funded all the time, especially when it's something that the community really wants. The community could get behind it and donate some money. And we've seen that happen in the Sikh community. The people that use this, I'm sure they will work their way to get that money. I just want it to be open to the fact that this is a possibility that can happen in the future.
Any further questions?
Okay. We will move on to comments. Do any commissioners would like to comment on this amendment? Please go ahead. Mr. Jensen.
Yeah, I really support this. I think that we are currently in the process of developing our capital plan. And washroom strategy is one of those concerns that we are looking at. And, you know, we met last week to talk about the urgent need of capital investment in our parks. And so I think that if we can ensure that this is front and center for council to understand that funding is needed for not just a washroom facility, but for a gathering meeting place. So I'm going to be supporting this. And I thank the commissioner for moving this amendment.
Commissioner Herr.
I, too, want to thank the Commissioner for moving this amendment, including the fact that this area is also utilized by seniors, and it is a gathering place. It's a safe space. It's a place that they're able to connect with one another, and with everything that's happening in the world, I think this is even more important than ever, and I will be supporting this. Thank you so much.
Commissioner Bastiwanski.
Yeah, I know this field house. I think it's important for the community to have it. There is a lot of good use there. And I think this this leaves it open, but it's obviously subject to council funding So like that's that's the only thing I'm realistic about You know with With limited funds. I don't know how how long it would take to actually get that funding But it'll sit with council now and council can come up with it. So I'll support this
I just wanted to comment that I appreciate the approach of this amendment. Commissioner Reddy, thank you. I appreciate not pulling funding from other projects that we have to make this happen. I think it's smart that we leave the possibility open in the future, but we don't pull from other projects that we have ongoing. So I think that's a fair approach to this problem. So I'll be supporting this. Seeing no further comments, call vote by show of hands. All in favor of the amendment in red? I see Commissioner Verity, Commissioner Baskovansky, Commissioner Christensen, Commissioner Jensen, Commissioner Herr, and Commissioner Howard. All opposed? And abstentions, we have an abstention of Commissioner Digby. So that is carried. So the text in red will now be black. There we go. And we'll be doing comments on the text as amended. Do any commissioners have comments before we call a vote? Commissioner Verity, just a reminder to commissioners, we are coming up to 10.15, and we do have the board meeting after this, so let's try to keep our comments concise. Thank you.