Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1994/01/28 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING/WORKSHOP OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Friday, January 28, 1994 Council Conference Room 4:14 p.m. Administration Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Fox, Horton, Moore, Rindone, and Mayor Nader ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk BUSINESS 2. REPORT AND RESOLUTION 17375 ADOPTING THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COMPLIANCE PROGRAM - Title lI of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires local governments to ensure that all programs, services, and activities are readily accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities. The Act requires the City to evaluate all facilities which it owns, operates, or from which it provides services, programs, and activities, to determine what modifications are necessary to ensure accessibility and to develop a "Transition Plan" specifying how and when these modifications will be completed. Staff will provide a report on the status of the program and will request formal adoption of the proposed "Transition Plan ". Staff recommends Council accept the report and approve the resolution. (Director of Building and Housing, Director of Public Works, Director of Personnel, and Director of Parks and Recreation) City Manager Goss stated the purpose of the meeting was informational, staff was not asking Council to pass the resolution. The presentation was on the draft Transition Plan. Staff recommended Council direct staff to conduct public information meetings to solicit comments from the disabled community, and other members of the corrtmunity, regarding the make-up of the plan before coming back for review by Council. Staff had been unable to find any other transition plans in the County and it was his understanding that Chula Vista was ahead of many, if not all, other cities. Staff had begun survey work of all public facilities and were establishing estimates of costs and timing to comply with the ADA. Other cities had not started the survey work, and some of their attitudes were that they would not be able to afford to comply and, therefore, they would take the legal hit in court. Staff did not feel that was responsible and the City was moving ahead and with the survey work and development of the Transition Plan. Because the City was doing more substantive work than other cities, Chula Vista was more of a target for people to look at and comment on. Brad Remp, Assistant Director of Building & Housing, reviewed the background of the Americans with Disabilities Act. He stated the regulation made it clear the City was not required to make each of its existing facilities accessible, the focus was on the program and not the facility. Title II required the City to make it's programs accessible in all eases, except where to do so would result in the fundamental alteration of the nature of the program or an undue financial or administrative burden. Those rules did not apply for new facilities or alterations. Staff was dealing primarily with structures, parks, etc. It was not required that everything in City Hall be accessible, but the programs did have to be accessible. The responsible federal agency for enforcement was the Department of Justice. If a complaint was filed they would investigate and provide findings. If a violation was found they would seek to establish a voluntary agreement with the jurisdiction to make appropriate modifications. If such an agreement could not be reached with the Department they could file to go to Federal District Court. Specific portions of the Implementation Program had been assigned to individual departments. Building & Housing had taken the responsibilities for looking at the facilities, to some extent the parks, and those things on City property. Public Works assumed the responsibilities for street related functions, and the Personnel Department had assumed the responsibilities to make sure the policies and practices were appropriate. Parks & Recreation was also heavily involved due to the size of their projects and the Library due to the volume of people they served. The Transition Plan had not been formally adopted as staff was continually formulating the details of the plan and looking at Minutes January 28, 1994 Page 2 alternative ways the programs could be made accessible without encumbering costs by modifying physical structures in the City. Numerous actions had been taken to provide access to those with disabilities. Building & Housing had surveyed all the public facilities in town, developed cost estimates on the modifications, complied the initial Transition Plan, and managed the first year of the ADA CIP project. The survey notes compiled had been distributed State-wide and had been used by many other jurisdictions throughout the State. The City had also been asked on several occasions to make presentations to local jurisdictions, as well as on a State-wide basis, as Chula Vista's program was looked at as a model program. Clifford Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer, stated that after doing a survey of all the intersections in the City staff determined there were approximately 2,497 ramps that needed to be constructed in locations where barriers currently existed. At an estimated cost of $1,200/ramp, which was a conservative estimate, based on bids received during the time of the survey, the estimated cost to do the replacements was $2,986,000. Councilmember Moore questioned if the City was required to put in ramps on all existing City streets. Mr. Swanson responded that all curbs that did not have a ramp, which presented a barrier to wheelchair users, had to be changed under ADA. However, with very few exceptions, those ramps that were installed prior to regulations met all existing regulations at the time they were installed. Therefore, staff had made a determination that they did not present a barrier. The City had been routinely installing ramps for the past ten years or more. Because of the magnitude of the needs, staff looked at the available funding sources and determined that it was impossible to do all the necessary work within the time period specified in the Act. Staff then attempted to establish a priority listing for the needed ramps under which the City could complete the necessary improvements. Councilmember Moore questioned if the City should put a special notice in the Quarterly newsletter requesting anyone that needed wheelchair access contact the City and use that information to help prioritize the projects. City Manager Goss responded stated staff was aware of those wheelchair users that used HandyTrans. Mr. Swanson stated that based on the priorities, the first priority of streets to be done were those that met all three criteria. Based on that, there were four intersections identified with nine ramps needed. After the first, second, and third priorities were met, staff would go into the neighborhoods where ADA did not specify priorities. Staff was recommending that Council find that an undue burden existed relative to completing the wheelchair ramps and that the ramps be installed in accordance with the priority ranking suggested. Staff also indicated that the program would be augmented with the installation of ramps on any and all other street improvement projects where ramps were not already existing. Since the list was prepared at the beginning of last fiscal year, over forty-five ramps had been installed on regular CIP projects and another forty on last year's wheelchair ramp project. Staff had just received bids on the current year ramp project and fifty more ramps would be installed under that funding. Staff had also been reviewing all standards for compliance and were making changes accordingly. Staff did appreciate Mr. Tierney's efforts in calling to staffs attention where exactly some of the requirements existed because they did vary and were difficult at times to find. APWA would be holding a seminar on what the ADA standards would require. Councilmember Moore questioned if the law required that the City retro-fit driveways and establish a plan with scheduled timetables. He stated there was only so much money to go around. Just because it was a federal law it did not mean that it should not be appealed. He questioned the traffic signal regulations. Mr. Swanson stated it was staffs interpretation that it did not, unless construction was being done in the area. The only thing the law said the City had to go back and do was the wheelchair ramps. Staff did not find a requirement for the ped-buttons to be in braille. The requirement for signage was for a yellow-band above the ped-button. The positions for the traffic signals were not mandated; the City did need to have a minimum three foot clearance and a preferred four foot clearance for the wheelchair to get through. Councilmember Rindone stated there were areas in the City without curbs and sidewalks and areas with curbs and without sidewalks and questioned if they needed to be retrofitted. Minutes January 28, 1994 Page 3 Mr. Swanson stated if there was no sidewalk, curb and gutter, clearly no barrier existed and there was no need to install a ramp at the present time. Councilmember Rindone stated that he did not necessarily agree with that. He felt the majority of those that did not receive ranking were probably in the Montgomery area and would be greater than the number on the list. Mr. Swanson stated in that case there needed to be a sidewalk installed the ramp would be installed with it. Those were not on the list. The areas where there were curbs, but no sidewalks, staff ranked as a lower priority and were not on the listing. Those would be installed at the time the sidewalk was installed. City Manager Goss stated that was part of the liability the City accepted when annexing Montgomery. Staff also realized that if the vacant area along the street was next to vacant property, as development occurred it would be required that the developer would have to put in the sidewalk and curb. Mayor Nader questioned if staff built in compliance monitoring in the RFP's or design specifications for new construction projects that were not triggered by the new ADA. He wanted to avoid a situation where there was a sidewalk improvement or new street and the City would then be required to put in additional improvements. Mr. Swanson responded that staff was currently designing all the CIP projects and were making every attempt to be aware of the ADA standards to make sure that projects were in full compliance. William Gustafson, Transit Director, stated the ADA had operations and specifications requirements for public transportation and fixed route services. The basic requirement for CVT buses was that all new buses had to have at least two wheelchair tie-down positions and be accessible by wheelchair or ramp. The State had required for many years that all buses bought with TDA funds be wheelchair accessible. The four new buses purchased one year ago did have wheelchair tie-downs and complied with other ADA specifications standards which included height of the entrance door, wheelchair ramp width, etc. Councilmember Moore questioned if the department kept user data. Mr. Gustafson responded that on an average month they carried about five to six wheelchair passengers a day on CVT. The other requirements for CVT were basically operational, i.e. drivers were required to announce major intersections which CVT had been doing for approximately one year, and drivers must assist wheelchair passengers in boarding and deboarding the buses if requested by the passenger. The drivers had not done that in the past due to insurance requirements, but it was now part of the law and the City had been complying with the requirement since January 1992. When going out for bids, a statement was included which required that the manufacturer was responsible for ensuring compliance with ADA. Therefore, the burden was placed with the manufacturer to make sure all the minor specification requirements tbr the vehicle were met. The next component was more complicated and perhaps more difficult to meet in the future. The law stated that every fixed-route system must have comparable para-transit service for ADA certified individuals. That requirement had to be met by 1997. A comparable para- transit service plan was required to be submitted to the federal government in January 1992 and in the fall of 1991, Council approved MTDB submittal of a Regional Comparable Para-Transit Plan and an update had been done annually. He then reviewed the requirements of the Para-Transit Plan. The funding for the comparable service was a real issue in the region. SANDAG had contracted with Crane & Assoc. to do a regional para-transit compliance study and it was currently in a draft form. The objective of the study was to look at options for meeting the para-transit service requirements by 1997 for the region as a whole, look at how the 4.5 services were currently operating, and see if there were ways to meet the requirements in a more efficient cost effective manner. When that study was completed it would be brought to Council for review and possible action. The study indicated that to meet the requirements by 1997 there would be a potential $5 million shortfall in funding regionally. There were approximately 80 - 90 individuals in Chula Vista that were ADA certified for the comparable para-transit service and so far, the system had been able to meet all the trip demands. Councilmember Rindone requested an explanation of an ADA certified person. Minutes January 28, 1994 Page 4 Mr. Gustafson responded there were three or four criteria: 1) an individual that could not ride fixed-route; 2) an individual that could not access a fixed-route system, but once they accessed the system could ride it; and 3) an individual that could not ride a fixed-route system due to weather or other special conditions. MTDB had contracted with the American Red Cross and in conjunction with the other 4.5 operators developed a criteria for certification. If a person wanted to become certified they would call the City or the Red Cross and then would be sent a form to fill out tracking the ADA requirements. Upon receipt there was usually a telephone interview and then the ADA certification was given by the Red Cross. Councilmember Moore questioned how the word would get out to the general public. Mr. Gustafson responded there were workshops held approximately one and one-half years ago. The social services agencies were also contacted. When certification was first started he believed a notice was also put into the Quarterly. Councilmember Moore felt the information should be updated and sent out in the Quarterly again. Martin Schmidt, Landscape Architect, stated that within the City there were thirty-four existing parks. During the course of new projects or renovations, staff made sure they had addressed all of the pertinent State Title 24 requirements. The recent projects also addressed the ADA requirements. The primary components staff looked at within the parks themselves were the parking issues, restrooms, drinking fountains, phones, playgrounds, and walkways. Projects recently completed were Marina View Park, Chula Vista Community Park, Rohr Park Phase I, Terra Nova Park, and Memorial Park. Projects currently being implemented were Lauderbach Park playground improvements and Hilltop Park improvements. Future projects were Greg Rogers Park, Otay Park, and Hillcrest Park. Playground accessibility had been included in the Transitional Plan to analyze the City. Parks that had already received upgrades or were scheduled to receive upgrades for the playgrounds were Memorial Park, Marina View Park, Chula Vista Community Park, Greg Rogers Park, Hilltop Park, Loma Verde, Rohr Park, and Lauderbach Park. Of those, two had been completed, two were under construction, and the remaining four were in the design phase. Staff felt if those eight locations were provided it would initially address the need to provide access for playground areas. As renovations were done for existing parks, or new parks were designed, they would be in conformance with the ADA requirements. Councilmember Moore questioned if people with disabilities were involved when parks were being designed. Mr. Schmidt responded that to his knowledge they did not solicit individuals for that purpose. Mayor Nader felt the inclusion of organizations in the community with disabled people should be automatically included in the workshops for the master plans. He also felt those parks that had usage beyond the immediate neighborhood should have notice beyond the neighborhood. Sunny Shy, Recreation Superintendent, stated they dealt with challenged individuals on a daily basis and did that well before Title 24 was approved. They also dealt with social services as well as day to day recreation. The Parks & Recreation brochure included information on the disabled community and included information on how the City could accommodate them and work with them on an individual basis. Their focus was to mainstream the patrons with disabilities into regular programming whenever possible and deal with each accommodation on an individual basis. The City did have a specific program focused on therapeutic recreation and was one of the few cities in the County with that program. Staff was being taught to be sensitive in dealing with individuals with disabilities. There was a major CIP project for the complete renovation of Parkway Complex which had major ADA modifications, i.e. dressing room facilities, shower facilities, and would serve the athletic population in the gymnasium. Councilmember Moore questioned what program had to be designed in order to accommodate the handicapped in recreation programs. Ms. Shy responded that main streaming individuals into the regular programs where it was safe for the patrons that were not disabled, but allowed the disabled patron to be involved in the activity. Staff needed to be proactive and ready when the individuals came in and needed accommodations. Minutes January 28, 1994 Page 5 David Palmer, Library Director, stated Library Services and Construction Act funds were made available last year to develop model programs to improve services to the disabled. The model programs were not designed for facilities accessibility but for services specifically. Using the City's Quality of Life program, they utilized staff from all divisions and levels to do an assessment of the Library's services as required by the State Library. That work to develop a grant application to the State Library. The City was awarded a $29,950 grant to put together a model service center which was in the process of being implemented at the reference desk at the library. The model center included a machine that would read text aloud in both english and spanish, a twenty inch monitor with a voice speech synthesizer on the on-line public access catalog, a TDD (telephone for the deaf) was purchased for use at the reference desk, a sound enhancement system was purchased for the auditorium, and funds provided staff awareness training from Easter Seals, Childrens Hospital, American Sign Language, and the Deaf Community Services. The model center was augmented by a donation from the Eye Physicians Group in Chula Vista of a monitor enlarger valued at over $5,000. Staff also looked at all the service elements including retrieval of items. Councilmember Moore questioned if there was any reason the Library should put an article in the Quarterly regarding their programs and the ADA. Mr. Palmet stated when the Library received the grant, an article was placed in the Quarterly and the newspapers. Staff was also in the process of developing audio brochures and trying to be as creative as possible. Melody Kessler, Assistant Director of Personnel, stated training had been provided for all employees on ADA. Supervisors received separate training and a handbook was published in 1992. Staff purchased video tapes to show employees what the laws were and how to provide customer service for people with disabilities. A slide presentation was also developed using disabled people at City facilities showing employees how they could provide services. Staff was trying to meet the requirements under the ADA without having to incur a lot of costs. Many times it was just common sense using a different approach than what had been done in the past. Job announcements had been modified to include information for people applying for jobs that were disabled under the Act and needed special accommodation. The brochures on employment also included at statement to that effect. Applications had been modified and included information for anyone needing accommodation during the testing process. The General Sexual Harassment Policy had been amended to reflect ADA requirements and was included as a protected class under that policy. An Interview Handbook included interview etiquette for conducting an interview with a disabled person and cited the ADA as the legal guideline when interviewing. Departments had been instructed on proper advertising of meetings, locations, and accommodations that could be made. A new brochure was being drafted about ADA and the community and would be printed in several formats, i.e. somewhat larger than normal print format and large print format. The City was in the process of it's self evaluation where each department evaluated their programs to make sure they complied. Staff would also be looking further at the personnel policies for compliance. City Manager Goss stated that primary leadership had been through Ms. Kessler and Mr. Remp. In terms of public information, it would go out through the Public Information Coordinator. Meetings would be set up by the staff directly involved. The City had utilized a team approach on the whole ADA issue as it was a very comprehensive and broad act and had major impacts on the community. Staff was recommending Council direct staff to conduct the public information meetings to solicit comments from the disabled community and other parts of the community regarding the make-up of the plan. As the meetings occurred, if staff missed anything, or if there was a difference on the approach the City was taking, that would be the appropriate forum to provide that input. Councilmember Hotton questioned if the City had a policy regarding wheelchair accessibility in the new homes that were being built in the City. Mr. Remp responded there was no policy unless it was a multi-family dwelling. City Manger Goss questioned what State or ADA regulations required for single family residences. Mr. Remp responded there were no requirements for single family residents. The developers were not making the multi-family homes accessible, they were making them adaptable. Minutes January 28, 1994 Page 6 Councilmember Horton stated she would never make accessories a requirement, but was concerned with door widths, etc. She felt the City should lookat the larger developments. Staffcould meet with some of the developers to obtain their input. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS · A. Robert Tierney, 466 'D" Avenue, Coronado, CA, Senior Accessibility Consultant/Code Specialist, stated he brought a copy of the Appellate decision on Yerusalim vs. Kinney and recommended staff distribute copies. He had the pleasure of working with the Library Director and recommended the City strongly look toward Mr. Palmer and his staff to do the City's sensitivity and awareness training and that they be utilized as an example to all departments within the City. There were funds available at State and Federal levels for access standards. HandyTrans was specifically addressed, i.e. transit tile and detectible tile was required to be located in certain locations. Loading and unloading stations were never discussed for CVT. Enforcement was not just the Department of Justice, it depended on the areas being covered and could be many other agencies. In Title II, there was no grandfathering in any part of the ADA. The City needed to get on with it, do it properly, and with the least amount of cost. Priorities were suggested only by the ADA and not mandated. One of the specific points of the law was to avoid discrimination, therefore, the City could not solicit a wheelchair user to find out what they need. They could be reached through public ways, but the City had to be extremely careful. The City could also not set its own Undue Burden Standard; no one could give the City that under Title II except the federal government. He felt the City was going to spend more money in trying to get out of the work than in trying to get the work done. He questioned how many of the ramps installed were legal and noted there was a project on Broadway that would have to be redone. The information he presented at the meeting reflected that situation and he t~lt the information presented by the Street Department was not true. The City would have to address every park and they would have _ to be retrofitted, i.e. only a percentage of the equipment in the parks, not a percentage of the parks. Water fountains, ponds, etc. had to be retrofitted with tactile or detectable warning where required. He felt the City's Plan would not hold water. ADJOURNMENT AT 5:40 P.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting on Tuesday, February 1, 1994 at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, ~. BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk Vicki C. Soderquist, Deputy L4'i~Clerk