Disabled Access Appeals Board Meeting

MINUTES Disabled Access Appeals Board Meeting Tuesday, June 23, 2015 9:00 AM FEW MEMORIAL HALL OF RECORDS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Board members Present: Hawkins, Stocker, Villalpando, Stevens Absent: Castaneda Board Staff: ADA Coordinator, John Kuehl, City Attorney Christine Davi, Recording Present: Secretary Rosalia Lopez CALL TO ORDER: 9:00 AM CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. 1. January 29, 2015 (City Attorney - 701-09) Hawkins made motion to approve. Villalpando seconded. Minutes Approved. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC HEARING 2. 2. Consider City of Monterey Neighborhood Improvement Program’s Appeal of Building Official’s Decision to Deny Request to Phase ADA Improvements to Dennis the Menace Park’s Walkway (666 Pearl Street) (Plans & Public Works - 202-18) Davi: Stated she wanted to make a brief statement; said primarily we have an appeal from NIP of the Building Official decision pertaining to ADA improvements required to Denis the Menace Park. The Building Official is not recommending phasing. She asked that the board deny the appeal on procedural grounds as the NIP does not have standing or the ability to independently appeal the Building Official’s determination. Added that staff fully supports Building Official and it is not a decision we would seek an appeal on. City staff does not appeal its own decision makers. Said that the NIP has certain powers under the City’s charter to make recommendations on neighborhood improvement program projects but the City Council is the final decision maker with regard to those projects and what is being discussed here is a project funded by the NIP but it is still a City project and the City does not take issue with the Building Official’s determination. She explained that the NIP is not a separate entity from staff and as the City’s legal advisor she strongly recommends that the appeal is denied. Chair Stocker Opened Public Comment: Sharon Dwight: She said there is nothing to in the law that says access needs to be provided from both directions. She mentioned she attended the last meeting and an appeal process was discussed for City projects and she does not understand how there are now two different processes. In one meeting it’s ok to bring something to this board and now we are making two different rules. Stated that her understanding is that we have an official that is trying his best to interpret government guidelines and no one questions his authority and intention but she believes sometimes there can be different interpretation. Her understanding was that this is  Disabled Access Appeals Board Minutes Tuesday, June 23, 2015 where you can come talk about these issues. This was a project supported by a number of people. Nothing says we have to provide access from both directions. We have a long park. Is it better to not do anything? Isn’t it preferable to provide some access? Said she believes this needs to be discussed. Jeff Krebs: Introduced himself as the NIP coordinator for the City and commented that this project has been in the books for a number of years. Said he brought the staff report to the Building Official because he has limited funding and cannot do the entire project at this time. Said he was available for questions. Explained that there are multiple projects in that area and there would be no guarantees that the City would return next year to complete the next step of phasing. Chair Stocker Closed Public Comment. Stocker: Stated that generally when the City Attorney says something needs to be done then that is what needs to be done and the Board has clear direction. Hawkins: Made motion to deny appeal per City Attorney’s direction. Seconded by Villalpando. Motion approved. 3. 3. Consider Sandbar and Grill, 59 Wharf #2 (Applicant: Wald, Ruhnke & Dost Architects LLP) Appeal of Building Official’s Decision Requiring Upgrade of the Entry Stairs to Meet 2015 California Code Requirements (Plans & Public Works - 202-18) Kuehl: Said this project was submitted about two months ago with various accessibility improvements to the entire structure. Kuehl displayed a satellite view of Sand Bar and Grill restaurant. Said the restaurant is about 5ft below the driving surface of Wharf Two. He said the restaurant owners are proposing to make modifications to one of the restrooms; create some accessible restaurant seating areas; have a call box and place a menu up on top; and some other miscellaneous projects. Said the issue is the entry stairs. What was presented in the plans is to remove the existing hand rail and re-install it in a compliant height, location and configuration. However, after a site visit, it was determined that the stairs were out of compliance. Explained that typically, when checking for compliance he goes back to the code under which the building was constructed, in this case it would be the 1955 code and in reviewing the requirements for rise and run and variance the stairs do not comply. Added that in his review the hand rail is tied to the stairs and treated as a unit. Said his determination is that the handrail works with the stairs so both need to comply with current standards. The applicant is asking to separate the two and to only change the hand rail. Stocker: determination that you would allow the stairs to comply with the 1955 code? Kuehl: Responded that he would allow that. Stocker: Asked whether what is being requested of the applicant is that the stairs comply with the 1955 code and that the hand rail comply with the current ADA standards. Kuehl: Replied that that is what the City was asking and that in correspondence with the applicant he explained that the stairs were a unit and requested that they comply with code. Applicant decided he wanted to appeal this determination. Stevens: Asked why a lift was not discussed. 2 Disabled Access Appeals Board Minutes Tuesday, June 23, 2015 Kuehl: Responded that this item was before the board because it is an accessibility item for the stairs. Stocker: Confirmed that nothing that they are doing is requiring the next step of access. Kuehl: Responded that in this application a lift is not being asked. Villalpando: Asked about the valuation. Kuehl: Responded that the submitted valuation is $30K. He added that the Disabled Access section of the building code requires that 20% of tenant improvements need to go to ADA, however that rule does not apply if the work being done is only for ADA. Stocker: Asked whether the work done to the restroom would make it fully wheelchair compliant and commented that without a lift a person in a wheelchair would not be able to get downstairs. Kuehl: Responded that the improvements would make the restroom fully compliant and that the amount of work required does not a trigger for a lift. Mentioned that if the restaurant owners were they doing a bigger remodel then lift would be required. Added that if a lift were ever installed the restroom would be fully compliant. Chair Stocker Opened Public Comment: Henry Ruhnke: Introduced himself and said that the reason the owners were looking at ADA improvements is that a lawsuit was recently filed against the Sand Bar and Grill restaurant. He explained that the lawsuit is primarily focused on accessibility and he has been working with the plaintiff in the matter in trying to resolve the issues on behalf of the owner of the Sand Bar and Grill. Plaintiff produced an accessibility report and one of the things he is trying to do is to satisfy as many of the issues identified in the report to avoid future potential litigation. The problem he has encountered is that as he understands it, the lease area is only the restaurant exterior walls and the stairs, landing and outside areas belong to the City. Added that the owners of the Sand Bar and Grill did consider the idea of installing a lift by the entry stairs but there was not enough clearance. Added that to be able to accommodate the required clearance would be too costly. A lift by the back entrance was also considered but the request was denied because there is a boat hoist on that side of the restaurant and the City did not feel comfortable directing people to the back due to safety reasons. The Plaintiff’s attorney agreed not to require a lift but they are requiring that the handrail on the stairs be fixed. Added that they can address the handrail but the stairs are not compliant so even if they fix the handrails they still do not have the required runs and extensions and would not be 100% compliant. Said they want a resolution. Kuehl: The stairway does not look like it has been modified since it was built so it appears the stairs where never in compliance. Villalpando. Are you allowing that they at least comply with 55 code? Kuehl: Stated that he made determination that since the scope of the work was not to replace the stairs but only to make a modification, we could allow the stairs to comply with the code they were built under. Said he believes it is within the Board’s purview to allow an alternate saying if the stairs can comply with time of construction and handrail can comply to the maximum extent feasible then that could be considered an acceptable alternative. 3  Disabled Access Appeals Board Minutes Tuesday, June 23, 2015 Stocker: Stated that now that the City is aware the stairs are not legal they cannot stay. The stairs need to be in compliance. The best step would be to get them to comply with current code but is there enough space? Kuehl: Commented that if were required to comply with current then you need more run. The landing on top would be too small. Stocker: Asked whether the lease space was only the building and whether if it is determined that tenant had to comply with current code and they needed to expand their lease space to adjust landing would the City work with the tenant? Davi: Said that if necessary the City could work with tenant to adjust lease space, however, she was not aware that those were City stairs. Her understanding is that there is a ground lease. Tenant is stating that the stairs are outside the ground lease. Said the analysis changes if they are City stairs, if they are City stairs they should fully comply. Stocker: Agreed that if they are City stairs they need to comply with current code. Stocker: Motion that if these are City stairs they comply with current code and if not then they comply at least with 1955 code. Seconded by Stevens. Motion passed. 4. 4. Consider 406 Alvarado Street (Applicant: Paul Davis Partnership) Appeal of Building Official’s Decision to Deny Request to Install a Disabled Access Parking Space at an Alternate Location Because of an Unreasonable Hardship (Plans & Public Works - 202-18) Kuehl: Started by saying 406 Alvarado is a complicated project. It is the Monterey Hotel. The original project is considered a new building but it is really an addition to the building. It is privately owned with commercial units and some affordable housing units. The building has underground parking. The building was approved for construction under 2001 California building code. The requirement underground parking for head room is 8ft 2in and one disabled access parking space in the garage. Kuehl displayed pictures of garage. Said the issue that was identified was that with the piping the disabled access space got about 7ft 5in clearance. Kuehl: Said that the applicant has requested to move disabled access parking space to Calle Principal. This would be on-street parking with loading and unloading encroaching on the City ride of way. From a grade perspective, the code requires that when you do covered parking you are required to do van parking. The contractor did not build it correctly and did not account for the lowering of utilities. Now we are faced with a project that is not in compliance with code. Stocker: we need to hear all other options. Kuehl: the reason for the location of the parking is that you need place it as close to building as possible. Street parking is not considered equal facilitation. Deal: Introduced himself as Traffic…said on street parking would involve reconstructing sidewal and would leave a 4ft wide sidewalk. Paul E. Davis: Introduced himself and said he was filling in for Paul W. Davis. Said the original concept was that there would only be valet parking. Originally there was no handicap parking because valet would park cars. However, if a person wanted to park their own vehicle disabled parking would be necessary. Stated they have not looked at relocating all the pipes because it would be very difficult. Would like this to be considered equal facilitation because there is valet. 4 Disabled Access Appeals Board Minutes Tuesday, June 23, 2015 Kuehl: Said the code requires that if there is covered parking then you are required to have accessible parking. Also stated that regarding equal facilitation, once parking is moved to street then it is no longer intended for the building, it is public. The building then has not disabled parking. Said there is no flexibility as this is what the code requires. Hawkins: Asked whether all the pipes would need to be relocated. Stocker: Stated the hardship was created because the building was constructed wrong. Villalpando: Said building owner needs to look at relocating the handicap parking, or relocating pipes. Stocker: Made motion to table with instructions to provide more information on why it cannot be relocated and costs. Hawkins seconded. Motion passed. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None ADA COORDINATOR REPORT ADA coordinator report: appreciate constructive feedback from board. Explained what happened with Building and Housing Appeals Board. ADJOURNMENT 11:09 AM Approved, Enter Chair presiding at this meeting Chair 5