Disabled Access Appeals Board Meeting

MINUTES DISABLED ACCESS APPEALS BOARD MEETING Thursday, January 29, 2015 10:00 AM COUNCIL CHAMBER, FEW MEMORIAL HALL OF RECORDS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Board members Present: Hawkins, Stocker, Villalpando, Castaneda, Stevens Absent: None Board Staff ADA Coordinator John Kuehl, Assistant City Attorney Karin K. Salameh, Present: Recording Secretary Rosalia Lopez CALL TO ORDER 10:03 AM CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. November 6, 2014 (City Attorney - 701-09) Villalpando made a motion to approve minutes. Castaneda seconded. Minutes approved. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Stocker opened public comment. Sharon Dwight: Stated she hopes the committee will look at the arrangement for public comment and makes a change. Said sitting is not comfortable and people cannot read what they have in front of them and talk to Board/Council. Said it makes sense to have somewhere the public can stand. Chair Stocker closed public comment. PUBLIC HEARING 2. Provide a Recommendation to the City Council for an ADA Compliance Review Policy for City Projects. (Plans & Public Works - 202-18) 1. Kuehl: Thanked the Board for attending. The first item is to provide a recommendation to the City Council to for City projects. Mentioned that when the City had ADA review from Caltrans last August, one of the questions asked was whether the City had a current policy for ADA review for City projects. The City does not which is why this item was brought to the Board. Staff tried to do is create a generic policy where everything that the City does will go through a formal approval process. Created an application. Mentioned the application has a time frame of 20 days for ADA coordinator/City staff will get back to the applicant. Said the intent is to take this policy to the City Council for final approval. Mr. Kuehl asked for questions. Stocker: Asked whether there was also a draft resolution. Salameh: Responded that there was. Disabled Access Appeals Board Minutes Thursday, January 29, 2015 Hawkins: Stated that both Public works and building projects both covered under this policy and he believes Public Works is different that Building. Kuehl: Responded that Public Works is the lead in 95% of all construction projects within the City. Some projects include buildings that are not in the public right of way. Traditionally, PW is work in the City’s right of way but the City does more projects. The City has a lot of buildings that it does work on. Said we are looking at this as ADA perspective and they would still be required to get the proper approval. Hawkins: asked if it was different from the plan check review. Kuehl: Stated that it is currently bundled. The plans come in and it’s reviewed and given permits. This will pull ADA and review it separately. Hawkins: Asked if is anyone is reviewing public works outside the public works department? Kuehl: Replied that what he understood from the questions is whether the division within our department that is scoping a project gets it reviewed by the ADA coordinator. The answer is yes. Hawkins: this formalized that this needs to take place. Kuehl: Stated that this is an important step and hopes the Board endorses it and it is embraced by the City Council. Chair Stocker opened public comment: Sharon Dwight: Stated that speaking as an individual, having been involved with NIP for twenty years and being familiar with what the city is doing, she would suggest that in the first paragraph were it states that the City’s ADA coordinator will review all projects, there is language added saying ADA Coordinator or designee, in the event work load increases. Also, asked whether the 20-days begin after ARC review, since otherwise if it is 20-days from application date there is no time for ARC review. The form has to be there before the building process begins. It makes sense that it would be after ARC review. Closed public comment. Stocker: Asked Mr. Kuehl to reply to the question regarding the 20-day timeline. Kuehl: The city’s process to review is based on scope of project. Some require boards and commissions review while others do not. This is only for City projects. Stocker: Stated Sharon has a point. Asked if this would be a response form and whether there could be something stating we do not accept project applications until after ARC review. Kuehl: Said this will be an application form. Stated normally we do not accept a form that will require review. 2  Disabled Access Appeals Board Minutes Thursday, January 29, 2015 Stocker: Said he suggest adding language stating there is a specific form. Also asked whether it is necessary to add the language ADA Coordinator or designee or whether it is implied. Kuehl: Commented it can say the Office of the ADA Coordinator. Kuehl: Explained that he has met with building maintenance staff and let them know to be aware that moving things around can make a difference. The general intent is not for building maintenance. Villalpando: Asked about parking lot maintenance and commented on litigation on a construction that did not go through ADA Coordinator review. Salameh: Responded that parking lot maintenance would require approval. Said this policy is a reaction to these issues. Mentioned part of the situation involves training for staff to recognize whether a project is maintenance or construction. Hawkins made motion to approve with discussed adjustments of the City’s ADA Coordinator Office and on the 2nd paragraph Applications for ADA compliance review shall be submitted to the ADA Coordinator on an improved form. Villalpando seconded. Approved unanimously. Stocker: Asked whether this item will be heard next be City Council. Kuehl: Responded yes on March 3, 2015. 3. Provide a Recommendation to the City Council for an ADA Curb Ramp and Sidewalk Design Exception Policy. (Plans & Public Works - 202-18) 1. Kuehl: we have another policy procedure. Staff wanted to create this quickly because we have Measure P funds that will be coming into the city. An allocated amount will go to upgrade streets which will trigger sidewalk and curb ramp upgrade requirements. We know that the city is not flat and we cannot get total conformance with every curb ramp. We have a consultant that is designing the first phase of projects as part of Measure P; it is the same civil engineer that did projects for the City of San Francisco. We borrowed the exemption policy from the City of San Francisco to use as a template. Stated he wanted to modify this policy so staff does not have to come back to this board with every exemption. The DOJ says requires 100% compliance. Said the City’s intent is to make all components of the curb ramps in the public right of way comply but sometimes there are projects that are technically infeasible. We created this application to have a process that shows the project has been reviewed and it was determined that it is technically infeasible. Stocker: Stated the City’s goal is to maximize access and asked whether the exemptions listed are real exemptions that the city needs and are not there only because they are too expensive. 3 Disabled Access Appeals Board Minutes Thursday, January 29, 2015 Kuehl: Stated that financial thresholds were discussed to try to determine how much is too much. In that discussion the DOJ looks at the City’s budget to determine whether a project is technically infeasible due to cost. Stocker: Commented that he did not see that the form was related to money. Mentioned it looked more practical side than financial. Asked whether the exceptions for financial would be separate. Salameh: Responded that with money you could fix a lot of these. Mentioned that the City of San Francisco did not put money on this and that is not what she would not advise either. It’s too easy for people to simply say it’s too expensive. We still make it as accessible as possible. Stocker: The overall goal it to upgrade as many curb ramps. It will not always be feasible. These are the tools to make a determination. Stocker: Asked whether this form should this say request for exemptions or modification to accessibility design standards. Salameh: replied she is OK with adding modification. Chair Stocker opened public comment: Sharon Dwight: Mentioned she thinks it should be the ADA Coordinators office as opposed to one person that can review. Asked whether there was a need for a time frame. Commented she recalls projects concerning a retaining wall and tree encroached into right of way. Mentioned there are no exemptions for tree or retaining walls. Said in the city we frequently make exceptions because of trees. Also commented that she read the additional reason for exception and then the additional description for the description of exception and in reading it seems that that there are no other reasons except what is already listed and does not know whether that was the intention. Suggested modification to include other additional reasons. Stocker: Asked about trees. Requested that staff add a couple of points concerning trees and retaining walls. Also commented on the additional reasons section and said there should be a section for additional reasons. Kuehl: Mentioned that this was an example and staff will correct. Commented including trees in is a good line item. Stocker: Confirmed that staff will modify and this item will not come back to this Board. Castaneda: Made a motion to approve. Stevens seconded. Approved unanimously. Kuehl: Mentioned this will go to Council on March 3rd. 4 Disabled Access Appeals Board Minutes Thursday, January 29, 2015 BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None ADA COORDINATOR REPORT Stated Staff is continuing to work on the technology for when a person cannot attend a meeting. Mentioned there are new cameras in the council chambers. Stated there is broadcast delay and that this creates a challenge for Go-to-meeting. Also mentioned that there are meetings all over the City and there needs to be criteria established for meeting locations to ensure access. Stated staff is exploring and trying to create a good policy that is not too restrictive. ADJOURNMENT 11:14 AM Approved, _____________________________ David Stocker Chair 5