HomeMy WebLinkAbout20- facilities Management 6ki 4
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: James W. Sharer Subject: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL IN CONCEPT OF
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
Dept: Facilities Management IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Date: January 2, 1996
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
NONE
Recommended motion: That the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Improvement Plan for the City
Hall Council Chambers be approved and the Facilities Manager be directed
to coordinate the implementation of said plan.
j
Signature
Contact person: James W. Sharer Phone:_ 384-5244
Supporting data attached:Yes Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: $ 10,000.00
Source: (Acct. No.) 001-322-5706
Acct. Description) Capital Outlay
— Finance:
Council Notes:
Id
-- �, 9n
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
On March 28, 1995,the State Attorney General's Office contacted the City with regards to
Handicap Accessibility at City Council Meetings. Specifically, the Brown Act requires that a
place where public meetings are held must be accessible to all. The current configuration of the
Council Chamber does not give "equal" access to those individuals who have disabilities.
On April 13, 1995, Peter Margen of Access Specialists, Inc., was brought in to evaluate the needs
of the existing Council Chamber. In his report (attached), Mr. Margen identifies the following
deficiencies that should be addressed:
Accessible route from parking areas
City Hall entrance
Council Chamber entrances
Ramp in the Chamber to access podium
Aisle in rear of Chamber for wheelchairs
Based on Mr. Margen's report, an implementation plan has been developed to address the above
items. On December 13, 1995, the plan was taken to the Access Appeals Board of the City, who
passed the plan unanimously. The plan is as follows:
12/31/95 Signage at Parking Structure and Main Entrance
02/01/96 Repaint handicapped parking stalls on level 3 of parking structure
03/01/96 Council Auto Doors and Seat Removal
04/01/96 Curb cut at entry circle and ramp at level 3 of parking structure
Architect plans completed for ramp, restrooms and exterior handrails
08/01/96 Project bids received and funded through CDBG
11/01/96 Project completed
The costs for this year are estimated to be $10,000. Funding has been included in the Facilities
Management Division 95/96 budget to cover this expenditure. The remaining costs will be
submitted for a Community Development Block Grant, during the 96/97 funding cycle. The
total project cost is estimated to be $72,000.
To start this project, Council is asked to approve, in concept, the action plan proposed. The plan
will then be submitted to the State Attorney General's Office for finalizing of a settlement
agreement on this investigation.
Staff recommends approval of this plan.
75-0264
OFRNARD�tiO
5 y C I T Y O F
�... C
Bernardino
OG�D£D LN�
O F F I C E O F T H E C I T Y A T T O R N E Y
J A M E S F P E N M A N
C I T Y A T T O R N E Y
June 22, 1995
Patricia Barbosa
State of California, Department of Justice
300 S. Spring Street, Ste. 5212
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Re: Accessibility Evaluation of City Council Chambers
Dear Ms . Barbosa:
As you know, the City retained the services of Pete Margen to
provide expert consultation services relative to the accessibility
issues you raised regarding the City Council Chambers . Mr. Margen
has provided us with his report (attached for your review) , and the
City is currently exploring the options set forth in his report.
The involved staff members have met and would like to make the
following recommendations to the Mayor and Common Council . In the
spirit of cooperation, we would like to provide you the opportunity
to review these recommendations prior to presentation to the Mayor
and Council .
Following the order of the issues set forth in Mr. Margen's report:
Parkin
It would be staff' s position that the City accept Mr. Margen's
recommendation.
r
' 1st
t-0 ' ` ' ,n
XA
PLR/aLCCounciLCh.Ltr1
♦ey
JUN 2 NIPROE NOSS
3 0 0 N O R T H D S T R E E T S A N BE R N A R D I N O �
C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 4 1 8 - 0 0 0 1 ( 9 0 9 3 B ♦ - 5 3 5 5
Patricia Barbosa
Re: Accessibility Evaluation of City Council Chambers
Page 2
Accessible Route from Public Way/Passenger Loading Zone
It would be staff's position that the City accept Mr. Margen' s
recommendation.
City Hall Entrance
It would be staff' s position that the City accept Mr. Margen's
recommendation.
Council Chamber Entrances
It would be staff ' s position that the City retrofit one set of
doors located on the "right" side only. This position would be, in
light of staff ' s further recommendation to remove those seats in
the last row which restrict the rear aisle accessibility.
Council Chambers
It would be staff' s position that the City hire a design expert
(architect or engineer) to design a ramp to allow access to the
front of the Council Chambers (staff believes there is sufficient
space available to construct a ramp) .
Restrooms Adjacent to Council Chambers
It would be staff' s position that the City hire a design expert
(architect or engineer) to modify these restrooms so as to meet
accessibility standards .
Telephones
These telephones have already been converted by the phone company.
Elevator
It would be staff' s position that the City modify the first floor
restrooms . Elevator modifications would, therefore, not be
required.
FLR/alCCouncilCh.Ltr]
Patricia Barbosa
Re: Accessibility Evaluation of City Council Chambers
Page 3
Men' s Restroom/Women's Restroom (Second Flood
woulds . staff ' s Modifications t to these restroom the first floor
s would,
re stroom therefore, not
re
be required.
As I am sure you are aware, the City ( like many others) is in the
middle a ements will need therefore the
the city Council the
las
above imp rov
well .
We would appreciate your comments .
Si ere ly,
Frank L. Rhemrev
Deputy City Attorney
Attachment
FLR/aL[CouncilCh.Ltr]
6-0'
0
tl
in
ACCESS SPECIALISTS
INCORPORATED
45 Bret Harte Road
Berkeley,CA 94708
510-548-5752
May 3, 1995
Ernest Wilson, Affirmative Action Officer
Office of the Mayor
City of San Bernardino
301 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Re: Accessibility Evaluation of City Council Chambers
Dear Mr. Wilson:
Your office has retained Access Specialists Inc. (ASI) to conduct an accessibility
evaluation of the above referenced facility and to make recommendations to
The City of San Bernardino regarding measures necessary to improve access
for persons with disabilities. The following report reflects the findings of our
survey of April 13, 1995.
Our review paid close attention to the Council Chambers. We however also
examined the associated support facilities including; parking, restrooms,
drinking fountains, telephones, etc. that serve to make the facility "usable by"
disabled persons consistent with state and federal statutes.
Construction History/ Applicable Standards
Based on its original date of construction, San Bernardino City Hall should
have been built to the 1961 American Standards Association (ASA) A117.1
accessibility standards. This would seem consistent with the as-built
conditions we observed at many locations in the building. Staff informs us
that a certain areas of this facility have undergone structural alteration,
repairs or additions (post July 1, 1982) which would have been subject to
requirements under parts 2, 3 & 5 of Title 24 of the California Code of
Regulations. For the purposes of this report we did not believe it necessary to
review in detail the building's construction history or permit record. Instead,
1 Council Chambers Evaluation
we have concentrated on identifying the impediments to accessibility and
have suggested strategies for correcting the problems identified.
Besides "construction driven"requirements, the City of San Bernardino is
also covered by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Both of these laws and affiliated
regulations require the removal of architectural barriers that are structural in
nature, if a particular program or activity cannot be made accessible through
programmatic changes.
Finally, The revised Brown Act requires that public meetings must be held in
an accessible location.
Accessibility Issues
We have identified the following accessibility issues at this site. Please refer to
the corresponding photographs in the Appendix.
Parking
Accessibility Issue(s)
The Council Chamber is served by a multilevel parking garage on the south
side and an open parking lot on the north side of the building. There are 2
designated accessible spaces provided on Level 3 of the parking structure. The
structure does not have the required vertical clearances W-21. The
configuration of the spaces do not include access aisles adjacent to the spaces
and require patrons to wheel or walk behind parked cars other than their own
vehicle. There is a small built-up ramp from the parking structure to the City
Hall entry level. The ramp slope averages 10-11.5% (8.33% max allowed)
with a 3/4" lip at the bottom. The lot on the north side of the building has
conforming accessible spaces and is connected to the City Hall entrance via a
short ramp. The slope of the ramp averages 5.9 to 6% and their are no
handrails (see: Photo #1). Based on the construction date (post January 26,
1992), handrails are required if the slope of the ramp exceeds 5%.
Recommendation:
Signage should be installed at the parking garage directing people with
vehicles over T-0" high, or lift equipped vans to the north lot. The spaces on
Level 3 should be re stripped to provide an access aisle. The curb ramp
serving Level 3 of the parking garage should be removed and replaced.
Handrails should be installed on both sides of the ramp serving the north lot.
Accessible Route from Public Way/ Passenger Loading Zone
Accessibility Issue(s)
The pedestrian route from D street to the facility entrance poses difficulties for
persons with mobility impairments. There is a passenger loading zone
2 Council Chambers Evaluation
served by a curb ramp at one end (see: Photo #2). The slope of the curb ramp
is 20% (8.33% max allowed) with a 3/4" lip at the bottom 0/2"allowed
beveled at a 1:2 slope) and the ramp is 40" wide (48" min required). There is a
+/- 125 ft. long ramp from the loading zone to the City Hall entry level (see:
Photo #3). The ramp slope averages 8.33%, however the slope of the ramp is
continual with no intermediate landings (5'-0" level landing required every
30' @ 8.33%). Finally, there is a handrail only on one side of the ramp (both
sides required).
Recommendation:
The curb ramp serving the loading zone should be removed and replaced. A
passenger loading zone should be developed in accordance with Title 24,
preferably with the location of the curb ramp at the rear of the loading zone in
order to accommodate rear loading vans. Handrails should be provided on
both sides of the 125 ft. ramp. Staff should explore the feasibility of
developing a loading zone at an alternate location or post signage indicating
location of the more accessible entrances (north lot or parking structure).
City Hall Entrance
Accessibility Issue(s)
The primary building entrances are not identified by the international symbol
of accessibility.
Recommendation
Signage should be installed according to the Title 24 standards..
Council Chamber Entrances
Accessibility Issue(s)
There are two public entrances to the Council Chambers on the north and
south sides. The north council doors are double doors that provide 29-3/4" of
clear width per leaf (32" -lear required) (see: Photo #4). The south council
double doors open to a vestibule which also serves a drinking fountain,
telephones and sanitary facilities (see: Photo #5). The outer doors provide 28"
of clear width per leaf and the interior doors provide 26-1/2" dear width per
leaf. These clearances are too narrow for many mobility impaired persons
using adaptive equipment.
Recommendation
At least one set of doors on each side should be retrofitted to provide 32" of
clear width, or a power door opener should be installed. Modification of both
doors is necessary because of restricted clearances (34 1/2") at the rear aisle
behind the fixed seats in the Chamber. These doors should be identified with
the international symbol of accessibility
3 Council Chambers Evaluation
Council Chambers
Accessibility Issue(s)
There is no accessible route to the podium which serves the general public,
(see: Photo #6) or to the staff and council seating at the front of the room.
Disabled public are currently served via a small table and microphone at the
rear of the room (see: Photo #7). There is an area at the back of the room that
several seats have been removed, presumably to accommodate wheelchair
users. The diameter of the handrails (4" across) exceed the maximum
diameter of 1-1/2" in cross-sectional dimension for a gripping surface. There
is no contrast stripping on the inte_ z stairs. There is no evidence of an
assistive listening device for the hearing impaired (ALD).
Recommendation
The conditions described above, particularly the relegation of wheelchair
users to one location at the rear of the chambers would be considered by many
disabled individuals as unequal treatment. An accessible route should be
developed to the public podium and staff seating areas. Wheelchair and
companion seating should also be developed. This could be accomplished
most easily by installing a vertical wheelchair lift (48" elevation change on
the north side of the room) to the staff/public level (see: Photo #8). A portion
of the well (12" depressed area) could be leveled and some seats removed
from the front row to provide disabled seating at this location (see: Photo #9).
Access to the Council seating area would only need to be addressed if there
were future alterations to this area, or to accommodate a mobility impaired
elected official. An ALD should be provided along with signage at the
reception area indicating the availability of the system.
Restrooms (Adjacent to the Council Chambers)
Accessibility Issue(s)
The restrooms adjacent to the council chambers are not accessible to current
standards. The major barriers include, constricted clearances and front
transfer toilet stalls which are not usable by many wheelchair users (see:
Photo #10). There is no signage at these restrooms indicating the location of
accessible restrooms.
Recommendation
Explore the feasibility of modifying these restrooms for accessibility, or
provide signage indicating the location of accessible restrooms, possibly on
the second floor (see: discussion of second floor restrooms).
4 Council Chambers Evaluation
Telephones
Accessibility Issue(s)
There are two pay telephones directly outside the Council Chambers. Both
telephones exceed the maximum side reach range of 54" to the controls/ coin
slot.
Recommendation
At least one telephone should be lowered to within the maximum reach
ranges. Additionally, the City should consider purchasing a text telephone
(Public Pay TDD phone) or providing an auxiliary shelf adjacent to the phone
for placement of a portable TDD.
Elevator
Accessibility Issue(s)
The elevator control buttons are not raised 1/8" from the surrounding
surface. The location of the raised Arabic numerals is on the right, rather
than to the left of the buttons. The location of the braille symbols is to the
right, rather than below the button. There are no raised floor identification
numbers on the door jamb at the second floor. The floor designation
numbers on the first floor are 44" a.f.f., rather than the 60" specified. There
are no braille symbols provided.
Recommendation
In terms of the council chambers, the issues with the elevator would need to
be addressed only if a decision is made to designate the restrooms on this
floor as the public restrooms serving the chamber, rather than the restrooms
on the first level. Additionally, staff informs us that ADA related upgrades to
the elevator have already been approved in the City's CIP budget.
Men's Restroom (Second Floor)
Accessibility Issue(s)
The signage on the restrooms does not conform to Title 24/ADAAG. The
clearance at the pull side of the entry door and interior vestibule door is
obstructed 44 1/2" back (60" dear required). The urinal is 24" a.f.f. (17' max
allowed) to the top of the front lip and does not have an elongated rim. The
clearance under the lavatory counter does not provide knee space to a height
of 29" a.f.f., 8" back from the face (3" back provided). There s no lever
hardware on the lavatory. The hot water supply and drain lines are not
insulated. The soap dispensers exceed 40" a.f.f. The stall door provides 30" of
clearance (32" required). The stall itself is too small and hence the dear space
to the front and side of the water closet (w.c.) does not provide the required
clearances. The w.c. seat exceeds 19" a.f.f. The seat cover and toilet tissue
dispenser exceed maximum reach ranges.
5 Council Chambers Evaluation
Recommendation
The restroom should be modified to correct these issues, or as an alternative
modify the restrooms on the first floor.
Women's Restroom (Second Floor)
Accessibility Issue(s)
The signage on the restrooms does not conform to Title 24/ADAAG. The
clearance at the pull side of the entry door is obstructed 45" back (60" clear
required). The threshold at the interior vestibule door exceeds 1/2" in height
and is not beveled at a 1:2 slope. The clearance under the lavatory counter
does not provide knee space to a height of 29" a.f.f., 8" back from the face (3"
back provided). There s no lever hardware on the lavatory. The hot water
supply and drain lines are not insulated. The sanitary napkin dispenser
exceeds 40" a.f.f. The stall door provides 30" of clearance (32" required). The
stall itself is too small and hence the clear space to the front and side of the
water closet (w.c.) does not provide the required clearances. The grab bars are
mounted 36" a.f.f. (33" maximum allowed). The w.c. seat exceeds 19" a.f.f. The
seat cover and toilet tissue dispenser exceed maximum reach ranges.
Recommendation
The restroom should be modified to correct these issues, or as an alternative
modify the restrooms on the first floor.
Conclusion
As currently configured, the Council Chambers and support facilities provide
limited access to persons with disabilities. Major problems include; paths of
travel to the facility from the public way and/or parking, entry doors to the
chambers and lack of integrated seating and public speaking areas. In our
opinion there are a number of upgrades which could be undertaken to and
make this facility significantly more user friendly.
Respectfully,
�z -
ACCESS SPECIALISTS, INC.
Peter Margen, Principal
6 Council Chambers Evaluation
APPENDIX
Photo #1• Ramp From Nnrth Park;rg�
Photo #2: Passenger Loading Zone @ "D" Street
•■■■■■■�������1 111
E
L
7 Council Chambers Evaluation
Photo #3: Ramy? From "D" Street
If ►_�+ .
Photo #4: North Council Entry Doors
i �
X11
Council Chambers Evaluation
• • 15; South Council D• •
i�■mss
Photo . • • •
w Council Chambers �1
■
i
1
A
i
•
Photo
1
Photo • Location
10 Council 1
r,
Chambers Evaluation
• • #9: 5uggested Ucation for Accessible Seatine
Photo #10: Typical Restroom Condition
•
I _
1
-.may
t 7
�a.
� i
i
r
r r:�