Disabled Access Appeals Board Meeting

MINUTES DISABLED ACCESS APPEALS BOARD MEETING Friday, April 7, 2017 10:00 AM MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Board members Present: Stocker, Hawkins, Villalpando, Stevens Absent: Castaneda Board Staff Chief of Inspections Services/Building Official John Kuehl, Assistant Present: City Attorney Karin Salameh and Recording Secretary Alicia Salas CALL TO ORDER Chair Stocker called the meeting to order at 10:02 am CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. November 17, 2016 Board member Villalpando made the motioned to approve minutes; Board member Stevens seconds the motions. Action: Approved as Submitted. AYES: 4 BOARD MEMBERS: Hawkins, Stocker, Villalpando, Stevens NOES: 0 BOARD MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 BOARD MEMBERS: Castaneda ABSTAIN: 0 BOARD MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 BOARD MEMBERS: None PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC HEARING 2. Consider 300 Cannery Row (Applicant: Paul Davis Partnership) Consideration of Equal Facilitation to Install a Disabled Access Parking Space at an Alternate Location Because of an Unreasonable Hardship Action: Board unanimously upholds staff’s recommendation of Option C. and deems this parking space solution for 300 Cannery Row as an equal facilitation. Staff Presentation: John Kuehl presented the Agenda Report and answered Board Member’s questions. Applicant: Paul E Davis, Architect for the project, said this has been a unique project which has had many challenges. He said the final letter from the City said before moving forward with the project, the site had to provide an ADA parking space. Mr. Davis said when he Disabled Access Appeals Board Minutes Friday, April 7, 2017 spoke with Kim Cole last year she said there could be no parking at all for this site. But Mr. Davis said it only made sense to provide parking for a million dollar condominium. Mr. Davis spoke of the staff report wherein the options were discussed. He said he did not favor Option A as it would require backing out of the lot and onto Cannery Row. He also said Option B has its fair share of problems with storm drain issues. Mr. Davis said Option C is what the City wants but he does not want to go that route because the City may not even approve that option. Mr. Davis said the cost to create Option C would be greater than the cost of unit 4 of the building; he said he preferred Option D. Mr. Davis said a “golf cart type” of vehicle could be provided to have access for the disabled. He also added that he likes Option E too which provides a motorized cart to the parking space. Mr. Davis said a little garage would be installed next to the elevator where the cart would be housed and it would be customized to the person who purchased the condo. He went on to say there is another option not mentioned because it is not finalized but they are trying to work with the Monterey Plaza Hotel for use of their valet parking. Public Comments None. Board Member Discussion: Board Member Stevens asked what if someone wants to visit the condos and they are in a wheelchair. Mr. Davis said the Code requires that if you have four or more single family units you have to provide for only 5% or one Disabled Access parking. Board member Stevens asked who would buy the scooter. Mr. Davis said the person who buys the unit will have to buy the scooter; but maybe a fund could be set aside for the purchase. Board member Stevens asked what if I want to visit someone who purchased one of these condos and I don’t have access because I am in a wheelchair. Mr. Davis said that’s an issue wherever you are on Cannery Row. Board member Villalpando asked how many scooters will there be? He asked if there will be space allotted for 10 golf carts; one for each unit? Mr. Davis restated that they are only required to provide 5%, which when rounded up. is one unit. Board member Villalpando asked what about the retail aspect of it: if I want to visit the retail space below I won’t have access to that scooter. Mr. Davis said you would have to access a disabled parking space somewhere else in the Cannery Row District just like you would if you visited any other store there. Ms. Salameh clarified that the parking is not for the retail use but for the use of the condos. She said just like now, if you visit Cannery Row you have to utilize the parking garages or street parking. Board member Villalpando asked how the City would feel about a golf cart running through the City streets since they are not legal on the street or recreation trail. 2 Disabled Access Appeals Board Minutes Friday, April 7, 2017 Mr. Kuehl said the Board cannot break another law to enforce a different one. He said they would have to get a vehicle that would be licensed through DMV. He also said they could get a scooter/wheelchair that could be used on the sidewalk. Mr. Kuehl said the Board would be defining what a scooter is. Chair Stocker asked if they are choosing to provide parking, then they have to supply an accessible spot; but if they choose not to provide parking the developer could tell anyone who purchases the condo, they have to use the parking garages or street spots like everyone else. Ms. Salameh mentioned that Mr. Davis’ company has chosen to provide parking and that is why we are here to determine if the parking that they are providing is accessible and equal. Mr. Kuehl said if the scope of the project changes, then the decision of the department may change as well. Chair Stocker asked what would happen if another person purchased a condo and was in need of an accessible parking spot. Ms. Salameh said there would be no requirement to provide more than one accessible parking space but an accessible route is another issue. She said the route is not limited to one person and as such the route could be used by anyone who purchased the condos who might also be disabled. Mr. Kuehl said the Code attempt to define a building or structure and it has specific requirements for parking lots. He said because of this project it triggers the requirement for a parking lot. Mr. Kuehl said that for every 25 spaces you have to provide one ADA space. Chair Stocker asked if the route is for everyone to use or is it just for the one person who purchased the condo. Mr. Kuehl said no it is for all to use due to the right-of-way. Board member Villalpando asked if the option Mr. Kuehl chose was the shortest, easiest path. Mr. Kuehl said yes it is the shortest. Board member Hawkins said he likes the parking options on Alvarado Street. He said on the Dickman Street right-of-way an ADA parking spot could go there, one for the building and one for the public. Board member Hawkins said it is much closer and a direct path as well. Mr. Kuehl said the problem with providing ADA parking in the right-of-way, is that it is not designated for private use. He said because it is a privately funded project then it is the responsibility of the owners of the property to provide disabled access parking on the private property. Board member Stevens asked if there would be space on the “vehicle” for a wheelchair and what should be done with the wheelchair until the user came back? Mr. Davis said they would consider a personal garage space for the owner of that condo and the chair or “vehicle” could be left in the garage space. ADA Coordinator John Kuehl stated that the staff’s recommendation is for option III (option C) because 1.) It provide maximum independence or a person with a disability; 3 Disabled Access Appeals Board Minutes Friday, April 7, 2017 2.) It is the closest path to the project and it is not considered a financial hardship according to the valuation of the project; and 3.) It is the same path of travel that everyone else would use. Board member Stevens asked if option C would include a lift. Mr. Kuehl said it would have to meet all the requirements and the best would be lifts with ramps. Board Member Comments Board member Villalpando said he makes his decision based on two factors: 1. the shortest path travel and 2. equal facilitation. He said he feels that Option C (Option III) is the best choice and he agrees with staff’s recommendation. Board member Hawkins said he agrees with Board member Villalpando and reminded the Board that it is also people with strollers, canes, and heart problems as well who would also be using this route. Board member Hawkins agrees with staff’s recommendations as well. Board member Stevens said if a person was disabled and in a wheel chair, they probably would not buy this place if this was your only option. He said it would be too hard to maneuver and/or facilitate but stated that he thought option C was the best of the options. Board member Stevens shared his concerns regarding the lifts and said most often when he encounters a lift it is not working. Chair Stocker said he does not like the option of a scooter; he said he didn’t think it was a feasible option. He went on to say he didn’t like the idea of cutting across the path of travel on the recreation trail either. Chair Stocker said he thought option C was the only and best option. He stated the lift should be placed in the parking garage so it becomes the responsibility of the owners. Board member Villalpando made the motion to support staff’s recommendation of option C. Ms. Salameh asked that the words “equal facilitation” be included in the motion for this project. Board member Hawkins seconded the motion. On a motion made by Board Member Villalpando, seconded by Board member Hawkins, and carried by the following vote, the Disabled Access Appeals Board finds that the installation of a Disabled Access Parking space at an alternate location is of Equal Facilitation as shown in Option C of the staff report. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Stocker, Villalpando, Hawkins, Stevens NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Castaneda ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None. 4 Disabled Access Appeals Board Minutes Friday, April 7, 2017 ADA COORDINATOR REPORT Mr. Kuehl thanked the board for a good hearing. He said there has been lots movement in the Department of Justice world as it relates to the rule making process. Mr. Kuehl said there are guidelines but no requirements when it comes to the right-of-way standards and disabled access parking. He said the City is constantly updating its Transition Plan such as curb ramp and sidewalk improvements. Mr. Kuehl said the City is taking great strides in barrier removal. He said that the City has a very active web designer and she has done a lot to get the City’s website to be more accessible and try stay current. Mr. Kuehl once again thanked the board for their service and reminded them that the board will continue to meet on an as needed bases. Mr. Kuehl also reminded the board of the Capital Project to provide a lift outside of Colton Hall Museum but stated that staff is still working out the path of travel. Board member Hawkins asked Mr. Kuehl if the Board would again discuss disabled access parking downtown. Mr. Kuehl said the Board’s recommendation at that time was that we would do nothing at this time because we did not have clear set of requirements from the Justice Department yet. ADJOURNMENT Chair Stocker called the meeting adjourned at 11:41 am. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Alicia Salas David Stocker Recording Secretary Chair 5