Disabled Access Appeals Board Meeting

MINUTES DISABLED ACCESS APPEALS BOARD MEETING Thursday, August 21, 2014 10:00 AM COUNCIL CHAMBER, FEW MEMORIAL HALL OF RECORDS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Board members Present: Chair David Stocker, Boardmember Daryl Hawkins, Boardmember John Villalpando, Boardmember Dan Stevens, Boardmember Michael Castaneda Absent: None Board Staff Senior Building Inspector John Kuehl, Assistant City Attorney Karin K. Present: Salameh, Recording Secretary Rosalia Lopez CALL TO ORDER Chair Stocker called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. January 29, 2014 (City Attorney's Office - 701-09) Tabled until next meeting. PRESENTATION 2. Receive Report on Cal Trans Review of City ADA Policy, Practices and Procedures. (Plans & Public Works - 202-18) John Kuehl introduced himself and welcomed the Board. He stated that the City of Monterey was notified by the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) of a review of the City's Title II responsibilities. He said CalTrans conducted the audit per the Federal Highway Administration. Because the City has received federal funding, the Federal highways administration, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Federal Government need to ensure that if funds are given to local jurisdictions, these jurisdictions follow Title II requirements as they relate to ADA. Kuehl explained that the main reason behind the review is that is that CalTrans received a lawsuit regarding the policies, procedures and practices because they were not complying with certain provisions of the Federal ADA requirements. One of the settlement agreements to this lawsuit was to formulate ADA infrastructure programs, which now go to local jurisdictions and review their policies, procedures and practices as they relate to Title II requirements. He said CalTrans initially came to the City of Monterey and conducted field surveys, then held introductory meetings with executive staff letting the City know what they were planning to do. CalTrans also interviewed specific staff members to find out how the City was embracing the information they knew and they also reviewed the ADA transition plan to make sure the City was in compliance with what it said it would do. Kuehl stated that the audit went well and he views this review as a learning tool to better learn how to direct the City in more productive ways as it relates to ADA responsibilities. He mentioned that the City will receive a draft report of the overall review from CalTrans in 30 days. The draft report will detail areas that need to be corrected and CalTrans typically allows 30 days for corrections. The City will then finalize the report and that will go to the Federal Highway Administration and then to the Department of Justice. Kuehl said once the report is finalized, he will share it with the Board. He mentioned that Ca/Trans loved the City's transition plan and that they said it was the best one they had seen.  Disabled Access Appeals Board Minutes Thursday, August 21, 2014 Stocker: Asked Board members if they had any questions. Villalpando: Asked whether this was an annual review. Kuehl: Responded that he is not sure yet. But mentioned he asked CaITrans staff whether they were conducting reviews of every jurisdiction in the state of CA and their answer was yes. Villalpando: Asked whether this review was similar to the ISO ratings. Kuehl: Said it was the same basic concept as ISO however, unlike ISO this was not voluntary and the results of the audit are utilized for a different purpose. He said in response to whether or not CalTrans will return to the City of Monterey, that the goal is that if their preliminary report finds that things need to be corrected, the City corrects them so that the final report from CalTrans states that they do not need to return. Kuehl added that the City will get a better sense of what CalTrans plans to do when the report comes in. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Stocker opened public comment. John Kuehl introduced Ms. Nina Beety. He said she was a member of the public who was requesting an accommodation to make comments in public meetings. The current accommodation for Ms. Beety is that she remains outside and is then called in during public comment. Nina Beety: Introduced herself and said she was here to speak about an emerging health crisis; injury from electromagnetic radiation and Wireless radiation from cell towers, phones, wireless internet, smart meters and baby monitors. Said this is known as electro sensitivity, electro hypersensitivity or radio frequency sickness. Sweden lists it as a functional impairment, if an individual experiences skin flushing, ears hurting or getting hot while on a cell phone, fingers or hands hurt or numb while scrolling on a mouse they are displaying symptoms of electro hypersensitivity. Rouleaux formation is one of the signs of injury from RF and EMF. Ms. Beety displayed a slide showing healthy red blood cells and what red blood cells look like after exposure to a cell phone call or was after a person was within 1.7 meters from a someone using a cell phone. She said that this was one form of injury from wireless radiation. She mentioned various symptoms and effects of exposure to wireless radiation such as; ringing in the ears, nausea and vomiting, migraines and headaches, insomnia, fainting heart rhythm disturbance, seizures, memory loss and cognitive difficulties. Hidden damage include; sperm damage, DNA damage, cancer promotion, blood brain barrier bridges, fertility impacts, brain wave damage Said children are especially vulnerable to wireless radiation. Ms. Beety named several medical associations and experts that have studies and articles that consider electro sensitivity to be a health crisis, such as The Austrian Medical Association and The American Academy of Pediatrics. She also talked about several books and reports and said this damage is happening from all of the wireless devices in use around us. PUBLIC HEARING 3. Hear Unreasonable Hardship Application for 851 Munras Ave. to Install a Limited Access Elevator and Adopt an Administrative Order Ratifying the Building Official's Decision! to Grant Application (Tabled from last meeting on January 29, 2014). (Plans & Public Works - 202-18) 2 Disabled Access Appeals Board Minutes Thursday, August 21, 2014 John Kuehl reminded the Board that this item was tabled at the last meeting. The Board requested additional information for this project. He said that since the last meeting, the City has received two applications for this building. The first application is to complete tenant improvement on the second floor, including disabled access restrooms. The second permit was for the limited use elevator. Included in the agenda report preliminary floor plans. In the past meeting, one of the main concerns was that the elevator opened up to the sidewalk creating unsafe conditions. Said the architect to the project had revised the floor plan so that the elevator is now completely inside of the building. The proposed elevator is a two sided elevator, where a person can enter on one side and exit on the back side. Mr. Kuehl displayed a slide of the existing floor plan and proposed floor plan. He said that at the last meeting the Board also requested more specific cost information regarding the cost of a limited use elevator versus a the cost of full service elevator and that this information had been provided in the packet. He said a full service elevator costs roughly $170K more that limited use elevator. The second concern was the size of the car. Said the car will have a clear opening of 36 inches, however it will not have the full depth of 50 inches. But the two doors will allow a person to go through rather than having to turn around. Mr. Kuehl said that as ADA coordinator he was in support of this plan. Stocker: Mentioned that in the Planning Commission, Board members are not allowed to make decisions based on costs. Asked whether this Board was allowed to consider cost, Salameh: Replied that because applicant had submitted a hardship application the Board was able to consider cost. Chair Stocker opened public comment: David Elliot: Introduced himself as the project architect. This project fits into the criteria for the hardship conditions. The estimate was $30K for the tenant improvements, normally only 25 percent of that is required. He said the building owner and tenant are trying to do what he can to provide access and that installing a full service elevator would require extensive correction to the building. He said a limited access elevator easily gets a wheelchair to the second floor of the building. Mr. Elliot said that there is also a slight problem with the street level and the sidewalk street level, does not meet the 2% side and 5% slope and the owner will also correct that will comply with providing disabled accessible restrooms. He said that they hope the Board will abide by the recommendation of the building official. John McCormack: Introduced himself as leasing agent and representative of the owner. Said he has been involved with the building for over 25 years and he has repeatedly tried to solve this problem with the former owner and now with the new owner. He thinks this is a great solution for the building and for the City. He said he is happy that the city is considering this opportunity because he finds that other Cities are not as flexible as city of Monterey is to listening to alternative items. Chair Stocker closed public comment. Hawkins: Mentioned that he knows the space well and think it is a good solution as it meets the need. He said he appreciates the work and he is in favor of the project. Stevens: Said he also thinks this will work and is glad restrooms were included. Castaneda: Said he would like to echo the feeling and that having accessible restrooms and access to a building is very important. Hopes they address other accessibility issues such as lower counters and seating areas. 3  Disabled Access Appeals Board Minutes Thursday, August 21, 2014 Hawkins: Made a motion to approve the decision of the building official. Villalpando: Seconded Motion. Motion passed unanimously. Stocker: Asked whether this was an appealable item, Salameh: Responded that this item could be appealed to the superior court. 4. Provide Policy Direction for Alternatives When a Member of the Public is Not Able to Attend a Board or Commission Meeting Because of a Disability. (Plans & Public Works - 202-18) Stocker: Introduced this item and said this item was not only concerning a disability but could possibly also be due to an illness. He clarified that the Board is not here to debate whether the City uses wireless or the medical effects of wireless. The board is here to discuss how the City allows a member of the public to access public hearing when they feel they can't get to the room or be in the room. Salameh: Said this item is not to discuss any one disability or request for accommodation but what the City's policy will be in terms of providing an accommodation. Kuehl: Noted that it is important for the City to set policies, procedures and practices that are adopted and made official in order to make a formal policy that is uniformly applied. Said that as the Board comes up with policies for different items there will be different ground rules and he wanted to clarify that the policy the Board comes up with cannot violate another section of government code. He added that the policy should also be within the parameter of what is considered reasonable. Kuehl said what he is looking for from the Board is policy direction on when a member of the public cannot attend any public meeting of the City of Monterey and once this policy is formalized it will be added to the ADA transition plan. Salameh: Added that the Board is here to provide policy recommendation to City Council, the City Council will be the entity that sets the policy. They can adopt your recommendation or reject it and send it back to the Disabled Access Appeals Board. Kuehl: Listed the three options City staff is suggesting. Kuehl also stated that included in any of the above referenced options is the requirement that the member of the public make an application for this accommodation and provide a brief statement about why the accommodation is required. Kuehl: Option #1: The applicant may watch the item on the television or other electronic device and place a telephone call to the City Council Chamber or other meeting location during the public comment period and make their comments that will be entered into the formal record. If the meeting is not telecasted, the chair or other designated person may place a telephone call to the person so they may make a public comment. Stocker: Commented that there are only three public meetings for the City that are televised, therefore somebody trying to follow meetings that are not televised would difficult; asked whether staff would have to call the person so they could listen to the entire item. Salameh: Said that would be an option but staff is still working out how this would work with speakers and microphones. 4 Disabled Access Appeals Board Minutes Thursday, August 21, 2014 Stocker: Asked how it would really work as far as interface with the public and whether the telephone call be heard by everyone in the chamber. Kuehl: Responded that yes, the member of the public could be heard. Phone access that is wired into the public address system so they can be heard by everyone Stocker: Asked if then except for the meetings that aren't televised a person could see the presentation and follow the hearing and make a comment that would be heard by everyone in the chamber. He also asked whether the Board or Commission would have the ability to ask the person questions as well. Kuehl: Responded that yes that would be possible. Kuehl: Option #2: The applicant may provide a written comment that would be read out loud at the meeting and entered into the formal record. Stocker: So they could make comments. Kuehl: Option #3: Leave the decision regarding accommodations to the ADA Coordinator to make on a case-by-case basis. Stocker: Asked whether option number 3 was really an option. Kuehl: Responded that it was an option. The Department of Transportation leaves their policy decision to the ADA coordinator and those decisions are final. This is an option and if you want to delegate these decisions to the ADA coordinator the Board can do that. Chair Stocker: Opened public comment on this item: Nina Beety: Said the City is responsible for its facilities and that has to include everything. Said she has no access to most City facilities. She said she cannot use the Library. She has corresponded with the Library Director and that only option given is to receive books by mail or go to the mobile library but that doesn't allow her to access maferials or resources of the Library. Said City Hall is no longer available either. She said that as wireless use expands her access to public facilities becomes more limited. She said she would like to be able to use these facilities and make comments. Ms. Beety said she believes the options given are discriminatory. Asked that the Board reject these options and that the City investigates better option and that it provides access. Chair Stocker: Closed public comment. Stocker: Technology good or bad has changed public access to hearings. What would be reasonable accommodation to allow individuals to participate with as little impediment? Option one could work on televised meetings but difficult on non televised meetings. Said he would like to see research on a go to meeting type program where you can see the individual and ask questions. However he believes that for the moment, if an individual cannot attend a meeting the City should at least utilize the telephone option, he does not believe applicant written comment is not enough. Also, does not believe leaving the decision to the ADA Coordinator is appropriate. Said he would like to recommend option number one with the addition that the City investigate technology that would allow better public participation. Hawkins: Suggested Skype interviews. 5  'Disabled Access Appeals Board Minutes Thursday, August 21, 2014 Castaneda: Suggested more research to be sure what the City is dealing with. Stevens: Suggested the individual wanted to make a comment sending a representative that could communicate for them. Villalpando: Agrees with the option one with added research. Stocker: Made a motion that Option one is the least the City should be doing, with the ADA Coordinator to decide whether the individual really needs the accommodation and in addition investigate Skype time meeting. Stevens: Seconded motion. Hawkins: Added that to get handicap parking or to get dismissed from jury an individual need a doctor's approval. He also asked whether the City would require a medical approval to ensure that the accommodation request is necessary. This would be a form of control. Stocker: Said that part would be up to the ADA Coordinator. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Provide Policy Direction for On Street Disabled Access Parking. (Plans & Public Works - 202- 18) Kuehl: The City received a request from an individual for a disabled parking space on the street in front of his building. This item is regulated under title II item which falls under right of way. The intent of right of way is that all public access to the same level of ability to get somewhere. Explained that these types of requests go to the Traffic Engineer, who then goes to the location and determines whether or not the City can accommodate the request When the City cannot accommodate the request, the City's practice has been to provide a 12 Minute space. While it is a timed space a disabled person can park there for an unlimited amount of time. However this does not have an unloading zone along side it. The Department of Justice or Federal Highway Administration have not given local authority permission to install a disabled access parking space that does not comply with all of the other requirements, such as cross slope, signage and loading and unloading zone. The City cannot have a policy that breaks the law. The City needs to follow the standard parking requirements for installing new disabled access parking but how can all requirements be met on street parking? What we are looking for is a recommendation for our right of way disabled access parking to take to council for a formal policy. Gave options. Option #1: The City shall install a disabled access parking stall when all of the following conditions are established prior to approval: 1. There is no on-property parking available; 2. There is enough available space in the right-of-way to accommodate the 2013 California Building Code section 11B-502's required seventeen (17) feet in width and eighteen (18) feet in depth; 3. The slope in any direction is a maximum of 2%; 4. There is a direct, code-compliant path of travel from the parking space to the entrance to the applicant's building; 5. The path of travel may not direct the person into the street or traffic lane; 6. The parking space is located in a residential neighborhood; and 7. The applicant has a current disabled access parking license plate issued by the 6 Disabled Access Appeals Board Minutes Thursday, August 21, 2014 Department of Motor Vehicles. If the above criteria have been met and verified by the ADA Coordinator, the total cost of any improvements or construction, including the required stripping and signage, will be paid by the applicant. The city will not reconstruct the street in order to comply with the requirements as listed above. The applicant will also agree that the disabled access parking space is open to the general public and is not an assigned space. Kuehl: Said that part of the benefits of having a policy is that it will be a uniform policy. Some nuances are what if the space met all the requirements but needed some construction work such as sidewalk alteration or path of travel alteration, who be responsible to pay for this. Additionally, it would be a public parking space and there would be no guarantee that it would be available for the requesting party. Option #2: Instead of providing a designated disabled access space, stripe and identify one parking space as a twelve (12) minute space. Option #3: Adopt Cal-Trans' on-street guidelines; however, where Federal standards are more restrictive, the Federal standards will control. Option #4: Adopt no policy at this time and instead wait until the Federal Access Board adopts Right-of-Way installation standards. We have to provide a path of travel. Salameh: Clarified that this is addressing situations in the right-of-way where the City is not otherwise doing road construction or other things that might trigger the City to adjust the slope. This only when a resident request a disabled access parking space be painted outside their building. We are not talking about when other requirements under ADA trigger the City's obligation to make improvements. Kuehl: The Federal Access Board Right-of-Way installations standards written 2008/2009 have not been formally adopted. The Federal Access Board expects to adopt these standards by December of 2014. Villalpando: Asked what other jurisdictions are doing. Kuehl: Said he had researched and there are not a lot of formal policies. Basically they mostly follow option number one. Hawkins: Commented that many apartment buildings in Monterey where the parking is underneath the building. With the parking down below the building it would be difficult for a person in a wheelchair to get up the driveway. Believes if an apartment owner needs to provide access the apartment owner should pay for it. Chair Stocker: Opened public comment. Sharon Dougherty: Said she was visiting the City and walking down Alvarado Street and saw a person pressure washing the sidewalk. Said she was concerned about water usage and the City allowing the use of potable water on concrete when the State is in a drought. Chair Stocker: Closed public comment. 7 bisabled Access Appeals Board Minutes Thursday, August 21, 2014 Castaneda: Commented that it is difficult finding parking that is not dangerous and said that street parking does not make much sense for a person in a wheelchair. He also added that adding accessible parking will trigger other things for the City such as whether or not the building is accessible. Stevens: Agreed that with Castaneda and added he does not park there. Stocker: If a person moves into a building that does not have parking. Should it be City policy to provide them with parking and if the City cannot provide a legal disabled access parking space should we bother providing one? Boardmembers agreed that it is not the responsibility of the City to provide parking for private residential areas. Kuehl: We could have a policy that there is no policy and wait for the Federal Highway Administration to formally adopt the Right-of-Way standards. Stocker: We can wait for the Federal Highway Administration. Castaneda: Motion to select option number four. Stevens: Second motion Motion passed unanimously. Boardmember comments: Stocker: Said this is a brand new board and should formally elect a chair and vice chair at the next meeting. Requested that this be on the agenda for the next meeting. Castaneda: Commented that he travels a lot and an issue he has had to dealing with is that well designed ADA compliant hotel the beds are very high. There are no regulations in the ADA for beds. There are advocates in certain areas. He would like to educate about in Monterey with the Visitor Center to make the City friendlier to people with disabilities. Kuehl: Has a tentative item for November agenda but feel free to contact me if you have any items you would like on the agenda. Meeting Adjourned at 12:04. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT 8 ' Disabled Access Appeals Board Minutes Thursday, August 21, 2014 Respectfully Submitted, Rosalia Lopez David St¢cker Recording Secretary Chair / I ,_,/ / 9