HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.2 Universal Design Ord
CITY CLERK
File # D[I][~J~-~~
Lf Lj 0 - 2... c)
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 18,2007
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing: Universal Design Ordinance
Report prepared by Gregory Shreeve, Building Official
ATTACHMENTS:
RECOMMENDATION:
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Proposed Ordinance A: Universal Design Ordinance (100%
applicability)
Proposed Ordinance B: Universal Design Ordinance (13%
applicability)
Excerpts from City of Dublin Housing Element
Staff and Developer Meeting Minutes dated May 30, and
July 10, 2007
City Council and Housing Committee Joint Study Session
Staff Report with Minutes dated February 20, 2007
City Council Staff Report with Minutes dated October 17,
2006
Housing Committee Staff Report with Minutes dated
September 19,2006 (without Attachments)
City Council Staff Report with Minutes dated September 5,
2006 (without Attachments)
HCD's 2007 New Home Universal Design Checklist
(AB1400)
1) Receive Staff Presentation;
2) Open Public Hearing;
3) Take testimony from the public;
4) Close the public hearing;
5) Deliberate; and
6) Waive reading and introduce either Ordinance A or B and direct
Staff to amend the valuation table of the City's Fee Schedule.
An Ordinance on Universal Design will have a financial impact on
the City due to the increased Staff time required to plan check,
permit and inspect the dwellings. This impact can be offset if the
City's valuation table in the City's Fee Schedule is amended to
achieve cost recovery of plan check, permit and inspection costs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COpy TO: Development Meeting Attendees
Page 1 of6
(ala
J: IAgendasl2007\ Universal DesignlCCSR Universal Design Ordinance 9-18-07.DOC
ITEM NO.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background:
The City of Dublin adopted the Housing Element of the General Plan in 2003. The Housing Element was
certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development, and contains a number of
policies aimed at promoting equal housing opportunities for Dublin residents.
Program E.2.1 of the Housing Element states that "the City will evaluate the feasibility of a Universal
Design Ordinance that provides for greater adaptability and accessibility of housing for persons with
disabilities." Universal Design is defined as the design of products and residential environments to be
usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized
modifications. Universal Design benefits persons of all ages and abilities, including seniors and persons
with disabilities.
The concept behind universal design is that, if desired, a new residence can be built with certain design
features that will make living in that home easier for someone with limited mobility, strength, or
functionality. Such features include door handles that are easier to grasp, doorways that are wider and
easier to navigate through, electrical outlets that are located higher on the wall and easier to reach, and
grab bars in baths and showers to provide stability and support.
The guiding principles behind Universal Design are that the features should be useful to people with
diverse abilities, are easy to understand and utilize, require limited physical effort, and provide appropriate
space and size regardless ofthe user's body size, posture, or mobility.
In an effort to implement this program of the Housing Element, the City Council listed . as a high priority
goal in the 2006-2007 Goals and Objectives, the preparation of a Universal Design Ordinance for
adoption as an amendment to the California Building Code requirements.
State Model Ordinance:
The current State law requires that the builder/developer provide a checklist of universal design features to
the purchaser of a new home, but there is no requirement that the builder either includes the feature or
allows the buyer to select a feature and pay for the installation. The State-mandated list is known as the
"State Universal Design Checklist." (Attachment 9)
In 2005, the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) certified a
Model Universal Design Ordinance that can be adopted voluntarily by cities and counties
The State requires that if a jurisdiction desires to adopt an Ordinance on Universal Design the State Model
Ordinance must be used as the template.
The State Model Ordinance identifies universal design features that must be offered by a builder in
residential units that are being newly constructed or substantially rehabilitated. Such features must only
be installed if requested by the buyer/owner and which would not cause an unreasonable delay or
significant un-reimbursable costs to the developer or builder.
In general, the State Model Ordinance:
Page 2 of6
. Provides an allowable framework for the ordinance;
· Provides standard definitions for critical terms related to Universal Design;
· Provides for allowed exceptions, for example, due to site impracticality or undue hardship; and
· Allows for certain customizations for local jurisdictions.
It is important to note that under the State Model Ordinance, it is not required that the developer/builder
installs any feature, nor is it required that the developer/builder would be responsible for paying the cost
of installing the feature. The State Model Ordinance augments the State's Universal Design Checklist
(referenced above) by allowing jurisdictions the ability to select what items on the checklist shall be
offered for installation by the developer/builder. The State Model Ordinance is silent on how the builder
charges for the installation of the feature.
City Council and Housing Committee Meetings on Universal Design:
At the City Council meeting of September 5, 2006 (Attachment 8), Staff presented a report on Universal
Design. The City Council directed Staff to work with the Housing Committee to decide if an ordinance
should be prepared. If the Housing Committee determined that an ordinance should be prepared, Staff
would work with the Committee to prepare the ordinance, meet with the development community and
return to the City Council with the draft Ordinance.
The Housing Committee held a public meeting on September 19, 2006 (Attachment 7), to discuss
Universal Design. During the meeting, the Housing Committee received a presentation from Staff and
input from a representative of Community Resources for Independent Living (CRIL). Following the
presentation and public input, the Committee discussed the topic and concluded that at the present time,
State laws on what should be included in developments in relation to Universal Design were sufficient. In
addition, the Housing Committee recommended that Staff should re-examine this important issue during
the preparation of the next Housing Element for the General Plan. This item was referred back to the City
Council.
At the City Council meeting of October 17, 2006 (Attachment 6), Staff presented the recommendation
from the Housing Committee. In addition, the Council received a presentation from Community
Resources for Independent Living (CRIL). The City Council directed Staff to create a draft Universal
Design Ordinance that would be discussed at a future joint City Council/Housing Committee Workshop.
At the joint City Council I Housing Committee Workshop on February 20, 2007 (Attachment 5, Staff
presented two draft Universal Design Ordinances based on the State Model Ordinance described above.
Alternative A, required the developer to offer pre-selected options to each buy.er of a single-family
dwelling for purchase; Alternative B, required the developer to install certain basic universal design
features and offer additional features. Both alternatives required the developer to install the options
selected and purchased by the buyer.
At the workshop, Staff asked for direction from the Council regarding the following items:
· Should Staff continue work on an Ordinance that required the developers to offer Universal
Design features or an Ordinance that would require the installation of certain features and to offer
other features;
Page 3 of6
. Should the Universal Design Ordinance apply to all the homes in a subdivision or some percentage
thereof?
. Should the Universal Design Ordinance apply to subdivisions of 20 units or more?; and
. Should a project with existing and approved building plan check be exempt from the Ordinance?
The Housing Committee and City Council discussed alternative ordinance options, as well as the State
required checklist of universal design features and the State Model Ordinance. The City Council directed
Staff to work with the development community to modify the Draft Universal Design Ordinance that has
mandatory installation requirements (Alternative B, referenced above). Additionally, the City Council
requested that as part of the Ordinance revision, Staff should review and possibly include certain items as
follows:
1. A zero step entry should be mandatory-to-offer, but the complying entry need not be the front
door to the dwelling.
2. Projects for which a building plan check is in process or completed should be exempt from the
new Ordinance.
3. Possibility that a percentage of units be allowed for full compliance with the Ordinance.
4. Staff should take into account the marketability of a Universal Designed home.
5. The Ordinance should be limited to projects of20 units or more.
6. Buyer should have the ability to op-out of any mandatory, to install features.
7. Determine what impact Development Agreements would have on the enforcement of this
Ordinance.
Following the Joint Study Session, Staff revised the Draft Universal Design Ordinance to address
concerns and directions brought up at the meeting.
Meetings with the Development Community:
Staff presented the modified draft Ordinance, which required mandatory installation of certain features
and an alternative that would allow the applicability of the Ordinance to a percentage of the units rather
than 100 percent of the units, to the development community. Staff held two meetings with the
development community, the first was held on May 30, 2007, representatives of Braddock & Logan,
Mackay & Somps, Community Resources for Independent Living ("CRIL"), Mikiten Architecture, and a
citizen from the City of Livermore attended. The second meeting held on July 10, 2007 had
representatives of Braddock & Logan, Mackay & Somps, Toll Brothers, CRIL, and a Dublin landowner in
attendance.
The majority of the questions at the meetings were related to "how the proposed ordinance would affect
the developer's projects?" and "what did a particular section mean to a particular project?" (Attachment
4) The development community requested no substantive changes.
Some developers may assert that their projects are exempt from the new Ordinance based on their
Development Agreement with the City. The City Attorney has indicated that this exemption would be
Page 4 of6
determined on a case-by-case basis. Staff estimates there are approximately 2400 units affected by this
exemption review.
In other discussions with developers, the issue of marketability of units was addressed. From the
development viewpoint, Universal Design standards will limit the number of floor plans a project will be
able to offer in the City. The developer will need to use floor plans that can accommodate the Universal
Design requirements that may be selected by homebuyer.
Proposed Ordinances:
Staff has prepared two proposed Ordinances for consideration, Ordinance A (attachment I) and Ordinance
B (attachment 2).
Ordinance A
Ordinance A requires projects in excess of 20 residential dwelling units (including duplex and triplex
units) to meet the Universal Design Requirements. The Ordinance mandates that certain base universal
design features be installed and mandates that other universal design features be offered. The mandatory
to install items are as follows:
· An accessible doorbell must be installed for an installed accessible entrance
· Grab bar reinforcements must be installed in powder rooms or bathrooms located on the primary
entry level
· Faucets and handles not requiring tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist must be
installed in powder rooms or bathrooms located on the primary entry level
· Sink controls not requiring tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist must installed when a
kitchen is located on the primary entry level
· Hand-activated door hardware not requiring tight grasping, pinching, or twisting ofthe wrist
· Rocker light switches and controls or light switches and controls meeting ANSI A117.1 or the
CBC chapter 11A
· Receptacle outlets, lighting controls and environmental controls throughout the dwelling unit must
comply with CBC Chapter 11A or applicable provisions ofthe California Electrical Code
With regard to the mandatory-to-offer items, homebuyers would have the ability to purchase those items
as an option from the developer/builder.
Ordinance A applies to 100% of the units in residential development projects in excess of 20 residential
dwelling units.
Ordinance B
To address the issue of applicability of the Ordinance to a percentage of units, as opposed to 100% of the
units, Staff prepared an alternative ordinance (Ordinance B, Attachment 2). This Ordinance B is the same
as Ordinance A, except, Ordinance B would apply the Universal Design requirements to only 13 percent
of the dwellings in anyone project. The percentage is based on the City of Dublin's Housing Element.
The Housing Element notes that approximately 13 percent of the City's non-institutionalized residents
have physical conditions that affect their abilities to live independently in conventional residential settings
(Attachment 4). In addition, Ordinance B would require the Universal Design units be dispersed
throughout the project and be built concurrently with the other units in the Project. By contrast,
Ordinance A would apply the Universal Design requirements to 100% of the units in the project.
Page 5 of6
Both Ordinance A and Ordinance B would require projects in excess of 20 residential dwelling units
(including duplex and triplex units) to meet the Universal Design Requirements. Both Ordinances
mandate that certain base universal design features be installed and mandate that other universal design
features be offered. With regard to the mandatory-to-offer items, homebuyers would have the ability to
purchase those items as an option from the developer/builder. Both Ordinances have an "opt out clause".
The "opt-out" clause permits the buyer of a unit to forgo any or all of the mandatory installation features.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff Presentation; 2) Open the public hearing; 3)
Take testimony from the public; 4) Close the public hearing; 5) Deliberate; and 6) Waive reading and
introduce either Ordinance A or B and direct Staff to amend the valuation table of the City's Fee
Schedule.
Page 6 of6
It LRS-
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
......................'................................................................
ADDING CHAPTER 7.90 TO THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO UNIVERSAL DESIGN
The City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. Addition 'a/Chapter 7.90: Chapter 7.90 is hereby added to the Dublin Municipal Code
to read as follows:
CHAPTER 7.90
UNIVERSAL DESIGN
7.90.010
Purpose
A. The purpose of the design guidelines established by this chapter is to enhance the full life cycle use of
housing without regard to the physical abilities or disabilities of a home's occupants or guests in order to
accommodate a wide range of individual preferences or physical abilities.
B. The promotion and preservation ofthe public health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the
City and the property situated therein have made necessary the adoption of a Universal Design Standard
for dwellings in order to adequately safeguard life, health, property, and general welfare.
C. The purpose of this chapter is not to create or otherwise establish or designate any particular class or
groups of persons who will or should be especially protected or benefited by the terms of this chapter.
7.90.020
Findings.
A. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17959, the City Council ofthe City of Dublin hereby finds
that the provisions of this Chapter are reasonably necessary because according to the City's Certified
Housing Element, approximately 13 percent of the City's non-institutionalized residents have physical
conditions that affect their abilities to live independently in conventional residential settings. Individuals
with mobility difficulties may require special accommodations to their homes to allow for continued
independent living.
B. The City Council ofthe City of Dublin hereby finds that the provisions of this Chapter are reasonably
to enhance the full life cycle use of housing without regard to the physical abilities or disabilities of a
home's occupants or guest in order to accommodate a wide range of individual preferences and functional
abilities.
C. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17959, the City Council ofthe City of Dublin hereby finds
that the provisions of this Chapter are substantially the same as the Model Universal Design Local
Ordinance adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development.
Page 1 of 10
t:q -,.~ -07 ~. ~
Attachment 1
7.90.030
Definitions
~ 1J (p$
For the purpose ofthis Chapter, the following terms shall have the following definitions:
Accessible: Consistent with or as defined by the California Building Code, Chapter11A.
ANSI A1l7.1: The most current version ofthe "Standard on Accessible and Usable Buildings and
Facilities", commonly known as "ICC/ANSI A117.1", published by the International Code Council and
American National Standards Institute, Inc.
Bathroom: A room containing a water closet (toilet), lavatory (sink), and either a shower, bathtub,
combination bathtub/shower, or both a shower and bathtub. It includes a compartmented bathroom in
which the fixtures are distributed among interconnected rooms.
CBC, Chapter llA: Chapter 11A ofthe California Building Code (located in Part 2, Title 24, California
Code of Regulations), or its successor provisions.
Common Use Room: A room commonly used by residents or guests to congregate.
Condominium: As defined by the California Building Code.
Custom-built home: A single family detached dwelling that is built to the owner's specifications and not
part of a master plan check.
Dwelling Unit: As defined by the California Building Code.
Owner-Occupied: Any residential dwelling unit not intended, at the time of application for the building
permit, to be occupied as a rental dwelling.
Powder Room: A room containing a water closet (toilet) and lavatory (sink), but no bathtub or shower.
It includes a compartmented powder room in which the fixtures are distributed among interconnected
rooms.
Primary Entry: The principal entrance used to enter a building or residential unit, as designated by the
Building Official for purposes of compliance with this chapter.
Rental: Any residential dwelling unit not intended, at the time of application for a building permit, to be
occupied by the owner.
Single-Family Residential Dwelling: Consistent with or as defined by the California Building Code.
Substantial Rehabilitation: The reconstruction of the primary entry, hallway, or one bathroom or
powder room on the route from the primary entry, when that reconstruction is required to be consistent
with the most current version of the California Building Standards Code.
Visit-able Residential Dwelling: A residential unit subject to the requirements ofthis chapter by virtue of
being within the scope ofthis chapter as defined in section 7.90.040.
Page 2 of 10
7.90.040
Scope and Application
31Jta~
A. Unit Coverage. All residential dwellings units that are a part of a residential development project in
excess of 20 residential dwelling units for which an application for a new construction-building permit is
submitted to the Building Division after the effective date ofthis chapter shall be Visit-able Residential
Dwellings.
B. Unit Types. New construction of all single-family, duplex, and triplex residential dwellings for which
an application for a building permit is submitted to the Building Division after the effective date of this
chapter, shall be subject to this chapter.
C. Conditions of Approval. Any tentative map, conditional use permit, site development review or
building permit master plan check subject to this chapter shall contain conditions sufficient to ensure
compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
7.90.050
Exemptions
A. When the applicant adequately demonstrates and the Building Official determines that compliance
with any portion of any regulation under this chapter would create an undue hardship, or that equivalent
facilitation is not available, an exception to that portion ofthe regulation may be granted.
B. When the applicant adequately demonstrates and the Building Official determines that compliance
with any portion of any regulation under this chapter would create an undue hardship due to topographical
conditions of the site and/or due to the size ofthe site and/or other site constraints and/or legal constraints
and that no equivalent facilitation is available, an exemption to that portion of the regulation may be
granted.
C. When the applicant adequately demonstrates and the Building Official determines that a residential
dwelling unit is being reconstructed as a result of a disaster, an exemption to all or any portion ofthis
chapter may be granted.
D. This ordinance shall not be applicable to any residential structure constructed if the primary entry of
that structure is above grade because the primary entry is located over subterranean or grade-level
parking.
7.90.060
Standards: Primary Entrance:
A. New Construction-Mandatory to Install: The following items for the accessible entrance on the
primary entry level shall be installed.
1. Where at least one doorbell is provided for the accessible entry door, one that is between forty-two
inches (42") and forty-eight inches (48") from the finished floor must be installed.
B. New Construction-Mandatory to Offer: The following options for the accessible entrance on the
primary entry level shall be offered and, if accepted, installed at the request and cost ofthe
purchaser/owner, if requested when installation is consistent with section 7.90.140.
1. An exterior accessible route that is either: Consistent with the requirements of CBC Chapter 11A;
or li.)t be less than forty inches (40") wide and not have a skpe greater than one (1) unit vertical in
twenty ~20) units horizontal.
Page 3 of 10
Lit {p~
2. The accessible primary entrance that is consistent with the requirements of CBC Chapter 11A.
3. The floor or landing at and on the exterior and interior side of the accessible entrance door that is
either of the following: Consistent with the requirements ofCBC Chapter 11A; or the width of the
level area on the side to which the accessible entrance door swings shall extend twenty-four inches
(24") past the strike edge of the door.
4. The exterior accessible entry door that is either: Consistent with the requirements of CBC Chapter
11A, or has a thirty-four inch (34") net clear opening.
5. A second exterior door that is installed in a manner so that it is accessible as provided in this
section with a thirty-two inch (32") net clear opening.
6. Where at least one eyehole is provided in the accessible entry door, one shall be at standard height
and a second one that is between forty-two inches (42") and forty-four inches (44") from the
finished floor.
7.90.070
Standards: Interior Routes:
A. New Construction-Mandatory to Install: There are no mandatory installations related to Interior
Routes in a Visit-able Residential Dwelling.
B. New Construction-Mandatory to Offer: The following options for accessible interior routes on the
primary entry level shall be offered and, if accepted, installed at the request and cost of the
purchaser/owner, if requested when installation is consistent with section 7.90.140.
I. At least one accessible route through the hallways consistent with the requirements of CBC
Chapter 11A from the accessible entrance ofthe dwelling unit to the primary entry level powder
room or bathroom, a common use room, and the kitchen iflocated on the primary entry level.
2. No sunken or raised area in the bathroom or powder room, the common use room, and the kitchen,
if on the primary entry level, on an accessible route.
3. Handrails installed in a manner consistent with CBC Chapter 11A on one or both sides ofthe
accessible route, at the option of the purchaser/owner.
4. Handrail reinforcement installed on one or both sides ofthe accessible route.
5. An accessible route with a minimum width of forty-two inches (42"). A thirty-nine inch (39")
hallway width may be provided when all doors leading to any bathroom, powder room, common
use room, or kitchen, if on the primary entry level, that must be accessible have a minimum clear
door opening of thirty-four inches (34"), and a thirty-six inch (36") hallway width may be
provided when all doors leading to any bathroom, powder room, common use room, or kitchen on
the primary entry level that must be accessible have a minimum clear door opening of thirty-six
inches (36").
Page 4 of 10
7.90.080
Standards: Primary Floor Powder Room/Bathroom Entry and Facilities
5~ltJ~
A. New Construction-Mandatory to Install: When a powder room or bathroom is located on the
primary entry level the following item(s) shall be installed in a Visit-able Residential Dwelling.
I. Grab bar reinforcement consistent with CBC Chapter 11A for the water closet (toilet) and shower
or bathtub.
2. Faucets and handles not requiring tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist and consistent
with the requirements of CBC Chapter 11A.
B. New Construction-Mandatory to Offer: The following options for the accessible bathroom or powder
room on the route from the primary entrance shall be offered and, if accepted, installed at the request and
cost ofthe purchaser/owner, if requested when installation is consistent with section 7.90.140.
1. At least one powder room or bathroom, at the option of the purchaser/owner, on the primary entry
level ofa Visit-able Residential Dwelling, which complies, with the requirements ofCBC Chapter
11A.
2. Clear space in the bathroom or powder room that is either: Consistent with the requirements of
CBC Chapter 11A; or outside ofthe swing of the door and either a forty-eight inch circle, forty-
eight-inches by sixty inches (48" x 60") or a sixty-inch (60") diameter circle, at the option of the
purchaser/owner.
3. A bathtub or shower meeting the requirements of ANSI Al17.!.
4. Grab bars installed in a manner consistent with CBC Chapter 11A for the water closet (toilet),
shower/bath, or lavatory, or any combination thereof, at the option of the purchaser/owner.
5. A lavatory or sink installed consistent with CBC Chapter 11A.
6. A water closet (toilet) installed consistent with CBC Chapter 11A.
7. Removable cabinets under the lavatory/sink.
8. Where mirrors and towel fixtures are provided in the accessible bathroom or powder room,
installation consistent with the requirements of CBC Chapter 11A.
7.90.090
Standards: Kitchen and Facilities
A. New Construction-Mandatory to Install. When a kitchen is located on the primary entry level the
following item(s) shall be installed in a Visit-able Residential Dwelling.
1. Sink controls not requiring tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist and consistent
with the requirements of CBC Chapter 11A
B. New Construction-Mandatory to Offer: If there is a kitchen on the primary entry level, the following
options shall be offered and, if accepted, installed at the request and cost of the purchaser/owner, if
requested when installation is ~onsistent with section 7.90.140.
Page 5 of 10
La rtJ foe
1. An accessible route to the kitchen, with a pathway through the kitchen to the stove, oven, or
combination stove-oven consistent with the requirements of CBC Chapter11A.
2. One or more ofthe following, at the purchaser/owner's option: At least a forty-eight inch by
sixty-inch (48" x 60") clear space in front of a stove at the base of a U-shaped kitchen; or At
least a thirty-inch by forty-eight inch (30" x 48") clear space in front ofthe sink (counting
open access underneath, if available); or At least one eighteen-inch (18") wide breadboard
and/or at least eighteen inches (18") in counter space at a thirty-four inch (34") height, or any
combination thereof, at the option of the purchaser/owner.
3. Adjustable sink and/or removable under-sink cabinets consistent with Chapter 11A.
4. Hood fan controls at light switch level or lower level.
7.90.100
Standards: Common Use Room:
A. New Construction-Mandatory to Install: There are no mandatory installations related to a common
use room in a Visit-able Residential Dwelling
B New Construction-Mandatory to Offer: The following options for the common use room on the
primary entry level shall be offered and, if accepted, installed at the request and cost ofthe
purchaser/owner, if requested when installation is consistent with section 7.90.140.
1. At least one common use room, such as a dining room or living room, on the accessible route.
Sunken or raised areas not exceeding fifty percent (50%) ofthe area ofthe room's floor space
shall be permitted as an option of the purchaser/owner in a common use room on the
accessible route when an accessible route connects a usable portion of the common use room
to the accessible bathroom or powder room and the accessible exterior entrance door.
2. No sunken areas in a common use room on an accessible route.
3. Standards related to access to and flatness of any other common area room on the primary
entry level.
7.90.110
Standards: Bedroom
A. New Construction-Mandatory to Install: There are no mandatory installations related to a bedroom
in a Visit-able Residential Dwelling.
B. New Construction-Mandatory to Offer: If there is a bedroom on the primary entry level, the
following options shall be offered and, if accepted, installed at the request and cost of the
purchaser/owner, if requested when installation is consistent with section 7.90.140:
At least one bedroom on the accessible route of travel with all components meeting the requirements of
section 7.90.130. A closet shall have at least a thirty-two inch (32") net opening and adjustable closet
rods and shelving. A family room or den may satisfy this bedroom requirement if a sleeping structure
(such as a bed, futon, hide-away, or Murphy bed) can be placed in the room and ifthe room complies with
provisions for emergency escape and rescue and smoke alarms in the California Building Code.
Page 6 of 10
7~l6
7.90.120
Standards: Miscellaneous Areas
A. New Construction-Mandatory to Install: There are no mandatory installations related to
miscellaneous areas of a Visit-able Residential Dwelling.
B. New Construction-Mandatory to Offer: The following options shall be offered, and if accepted,
installed at the request and cost of the purchaser/owner, if requested when installation is consistent with
section 7.90.140.
If on the primary entry level, miscellaneous areas or facilities (such as a patio or yard, laundry room, or
storage area) for the dwelling must have an accessible route to and from the accessible entrance, either
through the dwelling unit or around the dwelling unit.
7.90.130
Standards: General Components
A. New Construction-Mandatory to Install. The following item(s) shall be installed in all Visit-able
Residential Dwelling
1. Hand-activated door hardware not requiring tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist and
consistent with the requirements ofCBC Chapter 11A.
2. Rocker light switches and controls or light switches and controls meeting the requirements of
ANSI Al17.1 or the CBC Chapter 11A.
3. The installation of all receptacle outlets, lighting controls and environmental controls throughout
the residential dwelling unit must comply with CBC Chapter 11A or applicable provisions of the
California Electrical Code.
B. New Construction-Mandatory to Offer: The following options shall be offered, and if accepted,
installed at the request and cost of the purchaser/owner, if requested when installation is consistent with
7.90.140.
1. An accessible route in an interior room or hallway, interior doors or openings for rooms and routes
oftravel required to be accessible consistent with CBC Chapter 11A.
2. EXCEPTIONS: A thirty-four inch (34") clear doorway width may be requested from a hallway
with a thirty-nine inch (39") width, and a thirty-six inch (36") clear doorway width may be
requested from a hallway with a thirty-six inch (36") width.
3. The width ofthe level area on the side toward which an accessible door swings consistent with
CBC Chapter 11A.
4. If the Building Official or owner/purchaser determines that the accessible route and doorway
width options prescribed by Chapter 11A are not feasible and that a less wide accessible route is
necessary, a functional alternative to ensure that all entries into rooms required to be accessible
may be approved by the Building Official 01: purchaser/owner if it meets at least one of the
following requirements and if the hallway is not less than thirty-six (36") inches in width:
Page 7 of 10
<6 Db (,~
a. The entry door to the room must be at the end of a hallway or passageway, or open directly
from another room on an accessible route of travel, so that no turn of ninety degrees (900) or more is
necessary to enter the room. .
b. The hallway wall opposite the room must be inset enough to allow an area of at least eight
inches (8") deep with at least a sixty-inch (60") run centered on the center ofthe entry door opening
[e.g., an 8" by 60" notch or alcove.]
c. The hallway wall on the same side as the room must be inset enough to allow an area of at
least eight inches (8") deep with at least a sixty.,inch (60") run centered on the center of the entry door
opening [e.g., an 8" by 60" notch or alcove.]
d. The hallway wall directly opposite the room door must open to another room with at least a
sixty-inch (60") opening on a level with the accessible passageway or hallway.
NOTE: Doors or openings to the rooms required to be accessible may be wider and the notch or alcove
smaller if equivalent access is not impeded. In addition, for a doorway at the end of a hallway or in other
circumstances, the notch or alcove need not be centered on the doorway if equivalent access is not
impeded.
1. Flooring throughout the residential dwelling unit consistent with CBC Chapter 11A
2. Standards pertaining to residential structures from ANSI Al17.1 may be used throughout this
chapter when CBC Chapter 11A does not contain specific standards or when the ANSI Standards
are equivalent to the Chapter 11A standards.
7.90.140
Standards: New Construction-Permissive Options
A. The developer or builder of a Visit-able Residential Dwelling must offer an opportunity to select any
the features listed in this chapter to an owner or prospective owner of a Visit-able Residential Dwelling at
the earliest feasible time after the owner, purchaser, or prospective purchaser is identified.
B. The developer or builder of a Visit-able Residential Dwelling shall construct or install any requested
features identified in this chapter unless it would result in an unreasonable delay in the construction or
significant un-reimbursable costs to the developer or builder.
C. The developer or builder of a Visit-able Residential Dwelling, at his or her option, may offer or utilize
standards for structural or design features, components or appliances and facilities, including but not
limited ANSI Standards, which meet or exceed Chapter 11A and which offer greater availability, access
or usability, and these are deemed to be in compliance with this chapter.
7.90.150
Enforcement:
A. It is unlawful for any person or entity to fail to comply with the requirements of this chapter.
B. Violation of any provision of this chapter may be enforced by civil action including an action for
injunctive relief. In any civil enforcement action, administrative or judicial, the city shall be entitled to
recover its attorneys' fees and costs from a person who is. determined by a court of competent jurisdiction
to have violated this chapter.
Page 8 of 10
qDb~~
c. Any violation ofthe provisions of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punished as
such in accordance with Section 1.04.030.
D. Enforcement pursuant to this section shall be undertaken by the city through its Community
Development Director and the City Attorney.
E. Remedies under this section are in addition to and do not supersede or limit any and all other
remedies, civil, criminal, or administrative. The remedies provided herein shall be cumulative and not
exclusive.
F. Whenever the Building Official or designee re-inspects or otherwise takes any enforcement action
against a residential dwelling unit, which is governed by this chapter to determine compliance with this
chapter, the Building Official may assess fees against the owner to recover the costs to the city according
to a fee schedule established by the city. The assessment and collection of these fees shall not preclude
the imposition of any administrative or judicial penalty or fine for violations ofthis chapter or applicable
state laws or regulations.
7.90.160
Purchaser op-out option.
The purchaser(s) may file a letter with the City of Dublin and the Developer, their desire to forgo any or
all of the mandatory installation features required under this ordnance. Such letter shall relieve the
Developer of only those mandatory features listed in the purchaser(s) letter; all other mandatory items
shall be installed.
Section 2. Application of Ordinance to Existing and Approved Plans: This ordinance shall
not apply to residential dwelling units for which a complete building plan check, application and
applicable fees have been submitted to the Building Division as of the effective date of this ordinance.
Section 3. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA ''): The City
Council declares that this ordinance is exempt from CEQA based on the following findings: This
ordinance is not a "project" within the meaning of Section 15378 ofthe State CEQA Guidelines, because
it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately. The
adoption ofthis ordinance does not, in itself, allow the construction of any building or structure. The
adoption of this ordinance, therefore, has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment,
directly or ultimately. Notwithstanding the adoption ofthis ordinance, individual projects shall not be
exempt from compliance with CEQA. .
Section 4. Severability: In the event, any section or portion of this ordinance shall be
determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other
sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 5. Savings Clause: All code provisions, ordinances, and parts of ordinances in
conflict with the provisions of this chapter are repealed. The provisions of this chapter, insofar as they are
substantially the same as existing code provisions relating to the same subject ma,tter shall be construed as
restatements and continuations thereof and not as new enactments. With respect, however, to violations,
rights accrued, liabilities accrued, or appeals taken, prior to the effective date ofthis ordinance, under any
chapter, ordinance, or part of an ordinance shall be deemed to remain in full force for the purpose of
sustaining any proper suit, action, or other proceedings, with respect to any such violation, right, liability
or appeal.
Page 9 of 10
IO~ lot;
Section 6. Effective Date and Posting of Ordinance: This ordinance shall take effect and be in
force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage, provided that a copy ofthe ordinance has first
been filed with the California Department of Housing and Community Development in accordance with
Health and Safety Code section 19759(b)(2). The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause the
Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section
36933 of the Government Code of the State of California.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this _ day of_
2007, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Janet Lockhart, Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
991969_1.DOC; 114.1001
Page 10 of 10
ORDINANCE NO.
llff/) C4~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*************************************************************************************
ADDING CHAPTER 7.90 TO THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO UNIVERSAL DESIGN
The City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. Addition of Chapter 7.90: Chapter 7.90 is hereby added to the Dublin Municipal Code
to read as follows:
CHAPTER 7.90
UNIVERSAL DESIGN
7.90.010
Purpose
A. The purpose of the design guidelines established by this chapter is to enhance the full life cycle use of
housing without regard to the physical abilities or disabilities of a home's occupants or guests in order to
accommodate a wide range of individual preferences or physical abilities.
B. The promotion and preservation ofthe public health, safety, and general welfare ofthe people ofthe
City and the property situated therein have made necessary the adoption of a Universal Design Standard
for dwellings in order to adequately safeguard life, health, property, and general welfare.
C. The purpose of this chapter is not to create or otherwise establish or designate any particular class or
groups of persons who will or should be especially protected or benefited by the terms of this chapter.
7.90.020
Findings.
A. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17959, the City Council of the City of Dublin hereby finds
that the provisions ofthis Chapter are reasonably necessary because according to the City's Certified
Housing Element, approximately 13 percent of the City's non-institutionalized residents have physical
conditions that affect their abilities to live independently in conventional residential settings. Individuals
with mobility difficulties may require special accommodations to their homes to allow for continued
independent living.
B. The City Council ofthe City of Dublin hereby finds that the provisions of this Chapter are reasonably
to enhance the full life cycle use of housing without regard to the physical abilities or disabilities of a
home's occupants or guest in order to accommodate a wide range of individual preferences and functional
abilities.
C. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17959, the City Council ofthe City of Dublin hereby finds
that the provisions of this Chapter are substantially the same as the Model Universal Design Local
Ordinance adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development.
Page 1 of 10
Attachment 2
7.90.030
Definitions
\t6'b(P~-
For the purpose of this Chapter, the following terms shall have the following definitions:
Accessible: Consistent with or as defined by the California Building Code, Chapter11A.
ANSI A1l7.1: The most current version ofthe "Standard on Accessible and Usable Buildings and
Facilities", commonly known as "ICC/ ANSI Al17.1", published by the International Code Council and
American National Standards Institute, Inc.
Bathroom: A room containing a water closet (toilet), lavatory (sink), and either a shower, bathtub,
combination bathtub/shower, or both a shower and bathtub. It includes a compartmented bathroom in
which the fixtures are distributed among interconnected rooms.
CBC, Chapter llA: Chapter 11A of the California Building Code (located in Part 2, Title 24, California
Code of Regulations), or its successor provisions.
Common Use Room: A room commonly used by residents or guests to congregate.
Condominium: As defined by the California Building Code.
Custom-built home: A single family detached dwelling that is built to the owner's specifications and not
part of a master plan check.
Dwelling Unit: As defined by the California Building Code.
Owner-Occupied: Any residential dwelling unit not intended, at the time of application for the building
permit, to be occupied as a rental dwelling.
Powder Room: A room containing a water closet (toilet) and lavatory (sink), but no bathtub or shower.
It includes a compartmented powder room in which the fixtures are distributed among interconnected
rooms.
Primary Entry: The principal entrance used to enter a building or residential unit, as designated by the
Building Official for purposes of compliance with this chapter.
Rental: Any residential dwelling unit not intended, at the time of application for a building permit, to be
occupied by the owner.
Single-Family Residential Dwelling: Consistent with or as defined by the California Building Code.
Substantial Rehabilitation: The reconstruction of the primary entry, hallway, or one bathroom or
powder room on the route from the primary entry, when that reconstruction is required to be consistent
with the most current version of the California Building Standards Code.
Visit-able Residential Dwelling: A residential unit subject to the requirements of this chapter by virtue of
being within the scope of this chapter as defined in section 7.90.040.
Page 2 of 10
7.90.040
Scope and Application
13JfJ ~~
A. Unit Coverage. Thirteen percent (13%) of residential dwelling units that are a part of a residential
development project in excess of20 residential dwelling units for which an application for a new
construction building permit is submitted to the Building Division after the effective date of this chapter
shall be Visit-able Residential Dwellings.
B. Unit Types. New construction of all single-family, duplex, and triplex residential dwellings for which
an application for a building permit is submitted to the Building Division after the effective date of this
chapter, shall be subject to this chapter.
C. Conditions of Approval. Any tentative map, conditional use permit, site development review or
building permit master plan check subject to this chapter shall contain conditions sufficient to ensure
compliance with the provisions of this chapter. Such conditions shall detail the number of universal
design units required, specify the schedule of construction of universal design units, and set for the
applicant's manner of compliance with this chapter.
D. Distribution of Universal Design Dwellings. All universal design dwellings shall be reasonably
dispersed throughout the project.
E. Concurrent Construction. All universal design dwelling units in a project or phase shall be
constructed concurrently with the standard units, unless the City Manager determines in writing that
extenuating circumstances exist that make concurrent construction infeasible or impractical.
7.90.050
Exemptions
A. When the applicant adequately demonstrates and the Building Official determines that compliance
with any portion of any regulation under this chapter would create an undue hardship, or that equivalent
facilitation is not available, an exception to that portion of the regulation may be granted.
B. When the applicant adequately demonstrates and the Building Official determines that compliance
with any portion of any regulation under this chapter would create an undue hardship due to topographical
conditions ofthe site and/or due to the size ofthe site and/or other site constraints and/or legal constraints
and that no equivalent facilitation is available, an exemption to that portion of the regulation may be
granted.
C. When the applicant adequately demonstrates and the Building Official determines that a residential
dwelling unit is being reconstructed as a result of a disaster, an exemption to all or any portion of this
chapter may be granted.
D. This ordinance shall not be applicable to any residential structure constructed ifthe primary entry of
that structure is above grade because the primary entry is located over subterranean or grade-level
parking.
7.90.060
Standards: Primary Entrance:
A. New Construction-Mandatory to Install: The following items for the accessible entrance on the
primary entry level shall be installed.
Page 3 of 10
I ~1J f.t;~.
1. Where at least one doorbell is provided for the accessible entry door, one that is between forty-two
inches (42") and forty-eight inches (48") from the finished floor must be installed.
B. New Construction-Mandatory to Offer: The following options for the accessible entrance on the
primary entry level shall be offered and, if accepted, installed at the request and cost of the
purchaser/owner, if requested when installation is consistent with section 7.90.140.
1. An exterior accessible route that is either: Consistent with the requirements of CBC Chapter 11A;
or not be less than forty inches (40") wide and not have a slope greater than one (1) unit vertical in
twenty (20) units horizontal.
2. The accessible primary entrance that is consistent with the requirements of CBC Chapter 11A.
3. The floor or landing at and on the exterior and interior side ofthe accessible entrance door that is
either ofthe following: Consistent with the requirements ofCBC Chapter 11A; or the width of the
level area on the side to which the accessible entrance door swings shall extend twenty-four inches
(24") past the strike edge of the door.
4. The exterior accessible entry door that is either: Consistent with the requirements of CBC Chapter
11A, or has a thirty-four inch (34") net clear opening.
5. A second exterior door that is installed in a manner so that it is accessible as provided in this
section with a thirty-two inch (32") net clear opening.
6. Where at least one eyehole is provided in the accessible entry door, one shall be at standard height
and a second one that is between forty-two inches (42") and forty-four inches (44") from the
finished floor.
7.90.070
Standards: Interior Routes:
A. New Construction-Mandatory to Install: There are no mandatory installations related to Interior
Routes in a Visit-able Residential Dwelling.
B. New Construction-Mandatory to Offer: The following options for accessible interior routes on the
primary entry level shall be offered and, if accepted, installed at the request and cost of the
purchaser/owner, if requested when installation is consistent with section 7.90.140.
1. At least one accessible route through the hallways consistent with the requirements of CBC
Chapter 11A from the accessible entrance of the dwelling unit to the primary entry level powder
room or bathroom, a common use room, and the kitchen if located on the primary entry level.
2. No sunken or raised area in the bathroom or powder room, the common use room, and the kitchen,
if on the primary entry level, on an accessible route.
3. Handrails installed in a manner consistent with CBC Chapter 11A on one or both sides ofthe
accessible route, at the option of the purchaser/owner.
4. Handrail reinforcement installed on one or both sides of the accessible route.
Page 4 of 10
16'1:> ~
5. An accessible route with a minimum width of forty-two inches (42"). A thirty-nine inch (39")
hallway width may be provided when all doors leading to any bathroom, powder room, common
use room, or kitchen, if on the primary entry level, that must be accessible have a minimum clear
door opening ofthirty-four inches (34"), and a thirty-six inch (36") hallway width may be
provided when all doors leading to any bathroom, powder room, common use room, or kitchen on
the primary entry level that must be accessible have a minimum clear door opening of thirty-six
inches (36").
7.90.080
Standards: Primary Floor Powder Room/Bathroom Entry and Facilities
A. New Construction-Mandatory to Install: When a powder room or bathroom is located on the
primary entry level the following item(s) shall be installed in a Visit-able Residential Dwelling.
1. Grab bar reinforcement consistent with CBC Chapter 11 A for the water closet (toilet) and shower
or bathtub.
2. Faucets and handles not requiring tight grasping, pinching, or twisting ofthe wrist and consistent
with the requirements of CBC Chapter 11A.
. B. New Construction-Mandatory to Offer: The following options for the accessible bathroom or powder
room on the route from the primary entrance shall be offered and, if accepted, installed at the request and
cost of the purchaser/owner, if requested when installation is consistent with section 7.90.140.
1. At least one powder room or bathroom, at the option of the purchaser/owner, on the primary entry
level of a Visit-able Residential Dwelling, which complies, with the requirements of CBC Chapter
11A.
2. Clear space in the bathroom or powder room that is either: Consistent with the requirements of
CBC Chapter 11A; or outside ofthe swing of the door and either a forty-eight inch circle, forty-
eight-inches by sixty inches (48" x 60") or a sixty-inch (60") diameter circle, at the option ofthe
purchaser/owner.
3. A bathtub or shower meeting the requirements of ANSI Al17.1.
4. Grab bars installed in a manner consistent with CBC Chapter 11A for the water closet (toilet),
shower/bath, or lavatory, or any combination thereof, at the option ofthe purchaser/owner.
5. A lavatory or sink installed consistent with CBC Chapter 11A.
6. A water closet (toilet) installed consistent with CBC Chapter 11A.
7. Removable cabinets under the lavatory/sink.
8. Where mirrors and towel fixtures are provided in the accessible bathroom or powder room,
installation consistent with the requirements of CBC Chapter 11 A.
Page 5 of 10
7.90.090
Standards: Kitchen and Facilities
110 tf:J rh'
A. New Construction-Mandatory to Install. When a kitchen is located on the primary entry level the
following item(s) shall be installed in a Visit-able Residential Dwelling.
1. Sink controls not requiring tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist and consistent with the
requirements of CBC Chapter 11A.
B. New Construction-Mandatory to Offer: If there is a kitchen on the primary entry level, the following
options shall be offered and, if accepted, installed at the request and cost of the purchaser/owner, if
requested when installation is consistent with section 7.90.140.
1. An accessible route to the kitchen, with a pathway through the kitchen to the stove, oven, or
combination stove-oven consistent with the requirements of CBC Chapter .
2. 11A.
3. One or more ofthe following, at the purchaser/owner's option: At least a forty-eight inch by sixty-
inch (48" x 60") clear space in front of a stove at the base of a U-shaped kitchen; or At least a
thirty-inch by forty-eight inch (30" x 48") clear space in front ofthe sink (counting open access
underneath, if available); or At least one eighteen-inch (18") wide breadboard and/or at least
eighteen inches (18") in counter space at a thirty-four inch (34") height, or any combination
thereof, at the option of the purchaser/owner.
4. Adjustable sink and/or removable under-sink cabinets consistent with Chapter 11A.
5. Hood fan controls at light switch level or lower level.
7.90.100
Standards: Common Use Room:
A. New Construction-Mandatory to Install: There are no mandatory installations related to a common
use room in a Visit-able Residential Dwelling
B New Construction-Mandatory to Offer: The following options for the common use room on the
primary entry level shall be offered and, if accepted, installed at the request and cost ofthe
purchaser/owner, if requested when installation is consistent with section 7.90.140.
1. At least one common use room, such as a dining room or living room, on the accessible route.
Sunken or raised areas not exceeding fifty percent (50%) ofthe area of the room's floor space
shall be permitted as an option ofthe purchaser/owner in a common use room on the accessible
route when an accessible route connects a usable portion of the common use room to the
accessible bathroom or powder room and the accessible exterior entrance door.
2. No sunken areas in a common use room on an accessible route.
3. Standards related to access to and flatness of any other common area room on the primary entry
level.
Page 6 of 10
nO{) CI~
7.90.110
Standards: Bedroom
A. New Construction-Mandatory to Install: There are no mandatory installations related to a bedroom
in a Visit-able Residential Dwelling.
B. New Construction-Mandatory to Offer: Ifthere is a bedroom on the primary entry level, the
following options shall be offered and, if accepted, installed at the request and cost of the
purchaser/owner, if requested when installation is consistent with section 7.90.140:
At least one bedroom on the accessible route of travel with all components meeting the requirements of
section 7.90.130. A closet shall have at least a thirty-two inch (32") net opening and adjustable closet
rods and shelving. A family room or den may satisfy this bedroom requirement if a sleeping structure
(such as a bed, futon, hide-away, or Murphy bed) can be placed in the room and ifthe room complies with
provisions for emergency escape and rescue and smoke alarms in the California Building Code.
7.90.120
Standards: Miscellaneous Areas
A. New Construction-Mandatory to Install: There are no mandatory installations related to
miscellaneous areas of a Visit-able Residential Dwelling.
B. New Construction-Mandatory to Offer: The following options shall be offered, and if accepted,
installed at the request and cost of the purchaser/owner, if requested when installation is consistent with
section 7.90.140.
If on the primary entry level, miscellaneous areas or facilities (such as a patio or yard, laundry room, or
storage area) for the dwelling must have an accessible route to and from the accessible entrance, either
through the dwelling unit or around the dwelling unit.
7.90.130
Standards: General Components
A. New Construction-Mandatory to Install. The following item(s) shall be installed in all Visit-able
Residential Dwelling
1. Hand-activated door hardware not requiring tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist and
consistent with the requirements of CBC Chapter 11A.
2. Rocker light switches and controls or light switches and controls meeting the requirements of
ANSI Al17.1 or the CBC Chapter 11A.
3. The installation of all receptacle outlets, lighting controls and environmental controls throughout
the residential dwelling unit must comply with CBC Chapter 11A or applicable provisions of the
California Electrical Code.
B. New Construction-Mandatory to Offer: The following options shall be offered, and if accepted,
installed at the request and cost of the purchaser/owner, if requested when installation is consistent with
7.90.140.
1. An accessible route in an interior room or hallway, interior doors or openings for rooms and routes
of travel required to be accessible consistent with CBC Chapter 11A.
Page 7 of 10
, ~ lib eoS""
1. EXCEPTIONS: A thirty-four inch (34") clear doorway width may be requested from a hallway
with a thirty-nine inch (39") width, and a thirty-six inch (36") clear doorway width may be
requested from a hallway with a thirty-six inch (36") width.
2. The width of the level area on the side toward which an accessible door swings consistent with
CBC Chapter 11A.
3. If the Building Official or owner/purchaser determines that the accessible route and doorway
width options prescribed by Chapter 11A are not feasible and that a less wide accessible route is
necessary, a functional alternative to ensure that all entries into rooms required to be accessible
may be approved by the Building Official or purchaser/owner if it meets at least one of the
following requirements and if the hallway is not less than thirty-six (36") inches in width:
a. The entry door to the room must be at the end of a hallway or passageway, or open directly
from another room on an accessible route of travel, so that no turn of ninety degrees (900) or
more is necessary to enter the room.
b. The hallway wall opposite the room must be inset enough to allow an area of at least eight
inches (8") deep with at least a sixty-inch (60") run centered on the center ofthe entry door
opening [e.g., an 8" by 60" notch or alcove.]
c. The hallway wall on the same side as the room must be inset enough to allow an area of at
least eight inches (8") deep with at least a sixty-inch (60") run centered on the center ofthe
entry door opening [e.g., an 8" by 60" notch or alcove.]
d. The hallway wall directly opposite the room door must open to another room with at least a
sixty-inch (60") opening on a level with the accessible passageway or hallway.
NOTE: Doors or openings to the rooms required to be accessible may be wider and the notch or
alcove smaller if equivalent access is not impeded. In addition, for a doorway at the end of a
hallway or in other circumstances, the notch or alcove need not be centered on the doorway if
equivalent access is not impeded.
4. Flooring throughout the residential dwelling unit consistent with CBC Chapter 11A
5. Standards pertaining to residential structures from ANSI All 7.1 may be used throughout this
chapter when CBC Chapter 11A does not contain specific standards or when the ANSI Standards
are equivalent to the Chapter 11A standards.
7.90.140
Standards: New Construction-Permissive Options
A. The developer or builder of a Visit-able Residential Dwelling must offer an opportunity to select any
the features listed in this chapter to an owner or prospective owner of a Visit-able Residential Dwelling at
the earliest feasible time after the owner, purchaser, or prospective purchaser is identified.
B. The developer or builder of a Visit-able Residential Dwelling shall construct or install any requested
features identified in this chapter unless it would result in an unreasonable delay in the construction or
significant un-reimbursable costs to the developer or builder.
Page 8 of 10
lqtJb~
C. The developer or builder of a Visit-able Residential Dwelling, at his or her option, may offer or utilize
standards for structural or design features, components or appliances and facilities, including but not
limited ANSI Standards, which meet or exceed Chapter 11A and which offer greater availability, access
or usability, and these are deemed to be in compliance with this chapter.
7.90.150
Enforcement:
A. It is unlawful for any person or entity to fail to comply with the requirements of this chapter.
B. Violation of any provision of this chapter may be enforced by civil action including an action for
injunctive relief. In any civil enforcement action, administrative or judicial, the city shall be entitled to
recover its attorneys' fees and costs from a person who is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction
to have violated this chapter.
C. Any violation ofthe provisions ofthis chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punished as
such in accordance with Section 1.04.030.
D. Enforcement pursuant to this section shall be undertaken by the city through ,its Community
Development Director and the City Attorney.
E. Remedies under this section are in addition to and do not supersede or limit any and all other
remedies, civil, criminal, or administrative. The remedies provided herein shall be cumulative and not
exclusive.
F. Whenever the Building Official or designee re..;inspects or otherwise takes any enforcement action
against a residential dwelling unit, which is governed by this chapter to determine compliance with this
chapter, the Building Official may assess fees against the owner to recover the costs to the city according
to a fee schedule established by the city. The assessment and collection of these fees shall not preclude
the imposition of any administrative or judicial penalty or fine for violations ofthis chapter or applicable
state laws or regulations.
7.90.160
Purchaser op-out option.
The purchaser(s) may file a letter with the City of Dublin and the Developer, their desire to forgo any or
all of the mandatory installation features required under this ordnance. Such letter shall relieve the
Developer of only those mandatory features listed in the purchaser(s) letter; all other mandatory items
shall be installed.
Section 2. Application of Ordinance to Existing and Approved Plans: This ordinance shall
not apply to residential dwelling units for which a complete building plan check, application and
applicable fees have been submitted to the Building Division as ofthe effective date ofthis ordinance..
Section 3. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA "): The City
Council declares that this ordinance is exempt from CEQA based on the following findings: This
ordinance is not a "project" within the meaning of Section 15378 ofthe State CEQA Guidelines, because
it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately. The
adoption ofthis ordinance does not, in itself, allow the construction of any building or structure. The
adoption ofthis ordinance, therefore, has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment,
Page 9 of 10
a'ilif.> ~
directly or ultimately. Notwithstanding the adoption ofthis ordinance, individual projects shall not be
exempt from compliance with CEQA.
Section 4. Severability: In the event, any section or portion of this ordinance shall be
determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other
sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 5. Savings Clause: All code provisions, ordinances, and parts of ordinances in
conflict with the provisions of this chapter are repealed. The provisions of this chapter, insofar as they are
substantially the same as existing code provisions relating to the same subject matter shall be construed as
restatements and continuations thereof and not as new enactments. With respect, however, to violations,
rights accrued, liabilities accrued, or appeals taken, prior to the effective date of this ordinance, under any
chapter, ordinance, or part of an ordinance shall be deemed to remain in full force for the purpose of
sustaining any proper suit, action, or other proceedings, with respect to any such violation, right, liability
or appeal.
Section 6. Effective Date and Posting of Ordinance: This ordinance shall take effect and be in
force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage, provided that a copy of the ordinance has first
been filed with the California Department of Housing and Community Development in accordance with
Health and Safety Code section 19759(b)(2). The City Clerk ofthe City of Dublin shall cause the
Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section
36933 of the Government Code of the State of California.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council ofthe City of Dublin, on this _ day of _
2007, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
Janet Lockhart, Mayor
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Page 10 of 10
CITy2J~u~~
HOUSING ELEMENT 1999-2006
~
.
-
I
I
I
Table 15
State Department of Social Services Licensed Elderly Care Facilities
Type of Facility Name Address License Status Number of Beds
Residential Care C&M Guest Home 8474 Wicklow Licensed 6
Home Lane
Residential Care C&M Guest Home 8217 Locust Place Licensed 6
Home #2
Residential Care God Sent Care 7628 Ironwood Licensed 6
Home Center II Drive
Residential Care Shamrock 8757 Shamrock Licensed 6
Home Residential Care Place
Home
SoUrce: California Care Network, 2001.
I
I
I
The facilities listed above are primarily institutional care facilities. Many of the seniors who might
consider selling their homes are younger, active seniors who do not yet require institutional nursing
care. There is a need in the community to provide high-quality independent-living senior housing
that provides on-site nursing care and individual living units. Because many seniors desire to
"downsize" when they move, these senior housing developments will necessarily be higher-density
projects with on-site supportive services. An increase in this type of available housing for seniors
makes it possible for them to sell their homes and remain in the community,
Persons with Disabilities
I
Approximately 13 percent of the City's non-institutionalized residents have physical conditions that
affect their abilities to live independently in conventional residential settings in 2000. These
individuals have mobility impairments, self-care limitations, or other conditions that may 'require
special housing accommodations or financial assistance. Individuals with such disabilities can have a
number of special needs that distinguish them from the population at large. .
J
I
II.. '.
\ .
. Individuals with mobility difficulties (such as those confined to wheelchairs) may require
special accommodations or modifications to their homes to allow for continued independent
living. Such modifications are often called "handicapped access."
. Individuals with self-care limitations (which can include persons with mobility difficulties)
may require residential environments that include in-home or on-site support services,
ranging from congregate to convalescent care. Support services can include medical therapy,
daily living assistance, congregate dining, and related services.
. Individuals with developmental disabilities and other physical and mental conditions that
prevent them from functioning independently may require assisted care or group home
environments.
. Individuals with disabilities may require [mancial assistance to meet their housing needs
because a higher percentage have lower income than the population at large, and their special
housing needs are often more costly than conventional housing.
11
tl
'I.
I
i
An objective for most persons with disabilities is to live independently. This objective may not be
possible for many individuals due to financial, physical, or other reasons. Some people with mobility
and/or self-care limitations are able to live with their families to assist in meeting housing and daily
living needs. A segment of the disabled population, particularly low-income and retired individuals,
II
.~
" I
'I
f
I
l
u
Attachment 3
11
A-14
.
.................
>,-.c.,.... .
.\
.
.:
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
II
,
I
I
I
I
I
CITY o/~~c,~
HOUSING ELEMENT 1999-2006
may not have the financial capacity to pay for needed accommodations or modifications to their
homes. In addition, even those able to pay for special housing accommodations may find them
unavailable in the City. Although Census data on income by disability is not specifically available,
the presence of various types of physical and developmental conditions often creates challenges to
achieving full employment in higher-paying careers.
Disabled persons often require special housing features to accommodate physical limitations. Some
disabled persons may have financial difficulty due to the cost of having their special needs met, or
due to difficulty in finding appropriate employment. Although California Administrative Code Title
24 requires all public buildings be accessible to the public through .architectural standards such as
ramps, large doors, and restroom modifications to enable handicap access, not all available housing
units have these features. According to 1990 Census data, there were approximately 510 non-
institutionalized disabled persons over age 16 in Dublin.
According to the 2000 Census, 2,023 (12 percent) persons between the ages of 21 and 64 had
mobility and/or self-care limitations in Dublin. Many persons with disabilities can benefit from a
residential environment that provides supportive services in a group setting.
Families with Female Heads of Households
Most female-headed households are either single elderly women or single mothers. Traditionally,
these two groups have been considered special-needs groups because their incomes tend to be lower,
making it difficult to obtain affordable housing or because they have specific physical needs related to
housing (such as child care or assisted living support). Single mothers in particular tend to have
difficulty obtaining suitable, affordable housing. ~uch households also have a greater need for
housing with convenient access to child-care facilities, public transportation, and other public
facilities and services.
The 2000 Census results state that of the 9,325 households in the City, 852 are female-headed
households, or 9 percent of the total households in Dublin. According to the 1990 Census, there were
489 female-headed households, of which 36 were classified as living below the poverty level. These
36 households account for 7 percent of the total female householders. It may be assumed that most of
these households are overpaying for housing (i.e., more than 30 percent of their income), or are
experiencing other unmet housing needs. As a result of poverty, female heads of households often
spend more on immediate needs, such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care, than they
do on home maintenance, which results in living units falling into disrepair.
Large Families
Large families are defined as households of five or more related individuals. In Dublin, there were
873 households of five or more persons in 1990 (1990 Census). Large families comprised
approximately 98 percent of these households, while non-families represented 2 percent (1990
Census). There were 539 (67 percent) owner-occupied households of five or more persons and 271
(33 percent) renter-occupied households of five or more persons in 1990 (1990 Census). According
to the Claritas report, five or more persons occupied approximately 10 percent of the households in
2001. Large families often face special challenges in the housing market because they need to find
housing of sufficient size (three or more bedrooms) and do not always have sufficient income to
purchase or rent such housing. No specific information was available on the income of large families
relative to housing payments to determine if there is a significant problem of overpayment of housing
costs by low-income large families. However, the 1990 Census reported 176 overcrowded
households who could potentially be large families based on the definition of overcrowding (See
"Overcrowding" section below).
A-15
..
Building
ComtnUnl Meeting Minutes
May 30, 007
" " ..
lV1Slon
2. 3Vf:> {P;-
CALL TO ORDER
A community meeting of the City of Dublin Building & Safety Division was held on
Wednesday, May 30, 2007, in the Regional Meeting Room at City Hall located at 100 Civic Plaza.
The meeting began at 3:00 p.m.
ATTENDEES
Present: Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Gregory Shreeve, Building Official;
Members of the Public; and Rhonda Franklin, Recording Secretary.
Meeting Topic:
Solicitation of Input from the Development Community on the City of
Dublin draft Universal Design Ordinance.
A community member requested that a follow-up meeting be held to give those attending the
PCBC 2007 a chance to attend the community meeting and provide feedback. Ms. Jeri Ram,
Community Development Director and Mr. Gregory Shreeve, Building Official, stated that they
would schedule a follow-up meeting. Mr. Shreeve asked all community members in attendance
to sign the meeting attendance roster so that Staff could notify them of the date and time of the
follow-up meeting.
Mr. Shreeve gave a brief background of the draft Universal Design Ordinance and the purpose
of the meeting.
Mr. Neal Pann, with Braddock & Logan, asked how the Ordinance would be enforced on
projects that have received Building Permits. Mr. Shreeve explained that the draft Ordinance
provides that the" ordinance shall not apply to residential dwelling units for which building
plan checks have been submitted to the Building & Safety Division as of the effective date of the
ordinance." Mr. Shreeve added that Development Agreements may also exempt or require a
developer to comply with the Ordinance.
Mr. Pann asked how projects that have already been master planned, but not submitted for
Building Permits, would be affected by the accessibility requirements for driveways and/ or
path of travel to the front doors. Mr. Shreeve explained that the City Council directed Staff to
include a section in the proposed Ordinance that would allow alternative entrances, other than
the front door, to be the primary entrance. He also explained that exemptions could be granted
based on topographical conditions of the site. Mr. Pann expressed concern that decisions for
exemptions are based on interpretation.
Ms. Jessica Layman, with CRIL, explained that there are many accessible solutions to
topographical challenges.
1)ivision
I
:May 30,2007
Attachment .4:f
\
2tkt~5'
Mr. Shreeve stated that the City Council would like Staff to determine what percentage of
homes should be required to meet the Universal Design Standard. Mr. Parm explained that a
percentage could be difficult to distribute based on home sales and features requested, andthe
resulting homes that are available to accommodate such features.
Mr. Shreeve explained that the Universal Design Ordinance would require some accessibility
features that are currently 'optional to offer' to be 'mandatory to offer', in addition to standard
'mandatory to install' features.
Mr. Parm expressed concerns about how a percentage of homes constructed could be held back
in order to be compliant with the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Shreeve explained that the intent of
the proposed Ordinance would be to pre-determine the location of the homes that would
comply with the proposed Ordinance.
Ms. Ram stated that Staff would consider whether certain features should be incorporated into
all homes, and whether requirements for paths of access into a home should be handled
differently. She stated that Staff would try to find solutions that work for everyone, and that the
intent of the proposed Ordinance is to be beneficial to the community.
Mr. Parm asked about Section 7.90.080 of the draft Ordinance. Mr. Shreeve explained the
features that are 'mandatory to install' and 'mandatory to offer'. Mr. Parm expressed concerns
that the bathrooms in a current project may not be able to accommodate the option for clear
space. Mr. Shreeve explained that a Master Plan Check would not be approved unless a
bathroom can accommodate the option for clear space.
Ms. Layman stated that a bathroom or powder room on the first floor should be mandatory to
install.
Mr. Erick Mikiten, Architect, discussed the feasibility of providing various accessibility features.
He stated that clear space requirements should be mandatory to install.
Mr. Parm stated that designing a bathroom to accommodate future requests for clear space is
doable; however, designing a hallway to accommodate future requests for additional width
would present challenges. He stated that wider hallways should be requested during the home
design phase. He further explained that developers prefer to reuse design plans and would be
unable to do so when home designs vary. Ms. Ram asked if he would prefer all or a percentage
of homes to comply with the Universal Design Standard. Mr. Parm explained that the answer
could differ based on the viewpoint of an architect, developer, or buyer. Ms. Ram stated that it
is likely that each model would have an accessible version. Mr. Parm stated that such language
should be included in the proposed Ordinance for clarity.
Mr. Mikiten stated that from his experience in working with developers, it is better for the
developer if the number of options is limited and the number of mandatory features is
increased.
(j)i'visiiJ7l
2
30, ZOO?
. 2~~
Mr. Pann discussed the parts of a house that are difficult to amend once the house is built; Sbth
as hallway and door widths. He stated that it would be easier to require specific accessible
widths for every home. He stated that the option for clear space in front of the stove would
have to be evaluated for each home plan to determine if it is feasible. He questioned the option
of clear space in front of a stove, as well as the kitchen shape in which it is required. Mr.
Shreeve stated that he could clarify the language used in the proposed Ordinance.
Ms. Layman stated that accessibility features installed in a home may be used perpetually by
future owners of the home.
A resident stated that he became disabled after purchasing his home. He stated that having a
home without accessible features is a struggle. He explained the difficulties in installing
accessible features in his home.
Mr. Shreeve asked if requirements such as hallway and door widths, and cabinet sizes should
be mandatory to install due to the difficulties in amending such items after the home is built,
and Mr. Pann agreed.
Mr. Pann stated that steps to the primary entry could also be difficult to retrofit after the house
is constructed. Mr. Shreeve explained that this is why the City Council decided that the front
door does not have to be the primary entry to the home.
Mr. Pann questioned how the entrance to the garage would be accessible in order to serve as the
primary entry. Mr. Shreeve stated that Staff is working on this issue. Mr. Mikiten pointed out
that a side door could also serve as the primary entry.
Mr. Shreeve reiterated City Council's direction to Staff regarding the proposed Ordinance.
Ms. Layman asked for clarification on whether an accessible entrance is 'mandatory to offer' or
'mandatory to install'. Mr. Shreeve stated that an accessible entrance is 'mandatory to offer'.
Mr. Mikiten pointed out that a threshold ramp could be installed over the steps to create an
accessible entry. Mr. Shreeve pointed out that the proposed Ordinance allows for exemptions
when accessible features can not be installed due to undue hardship or absence of equivalent
facilitation as determined by the Building Official.
Mr. Pann expressed concern about home plans that do not include a bedroom or full bathroom
downstairs. Mr. Shreeve clarified that these 'mandatory to offer' features should be treated as
visitable features and not livable features.
Mr. Mikiten stated that records of the accessible features installed in a home should be
maintained and passed on to future owners of the home. Mr. Shreeve stated that the proposed
Ordinance and the California Building Code, which are permanent records maintained at City
Hall, could identify the 'mandatory to install' features that should have been installed in a
home.
Mr. Pann reiterated his concerns about 'mandatory to offer' features such as wider hallway and
(fjuififintJ ~: Si1fe~y ([)h;isiou
3
ZOO?
.
, ~ LUJrJQ ~
door widths. He stated that an approach similar to the Inclusionary Ordinance could be
beneficial for this proposed Ordinance. Mr. Shreeve explained that this pre-determination
approach would be a combined effort among Staff and the development team.
Ms. Layman sought clarification on why only residential developments of 20residential
dwellings or more would have to comply with the proposed Ordinance. Ms. Ram and Mr.
Shreeve explained the reason behind this minimum number. Ms. Layman stated that she would
like to see the threshold number reduced.
Ms. Layman expressed concern about the exemption for primary entries located above parking.
Mr. Shreeve explained that carriage units are already exempted under the California Building
Code. Ms. Layman stated that such structures could also benefit from accessibility features and
should not be exempted from the proposed Ordinance.
Ms. Layman expressed concern about exempting residential dwellings being reconstructed as a
result of a disaster. Mr. Shreeve clarified that such an exemption is not automatic, but can be
granted based on the determination of the Building Official.
Mr. Mikiten suggested that peepholes be mandatory to offer, that the option of cabinets
installed at lower heights be mandatory to offer, and that optional kitchen desks have a 27-,inch
clearance underneath for knee space.
Ms. Ram and Mr. Shreeve reminded everyone in attendance to sign the meeting attendance
roster so that Staff could notify them of the date and time of the follow-up meeting.
Staff thanked everyone for attending the meeting and providing comments.
The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
4
30, 200?
l
Btlilding Sa
Co 111111ll11ity
Ju
ty ivision
eting Minutes
10, 200
:;, 111{) (, ~
CALL TO ORDER
A community meeting of the City of Dublin Building & Safety Division was held on Tuesday,
July 10, 2007, in the Library Community Room located at 200 Civic Plaza. The meeting began at
3:05 p.m.
ATTENDEES
Present: Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Gregory Shreeve, Building Official;
Members of the public; and Rhonda Franklin, Recording Secretary.
Meeting Topic:
Follow-up Meeting for Solicitation of Input from the Development
Community on the City of Dublin draft Universal Design Ordinance.
Mr. Gregory Shreeve, Building Official, gave a brief background and review of the draft
Universal Design Ordinance, and explained the purpose of the meeting. He stated that this
meeting is a follow-up to the May 30, 2007 meeting at the request of the meeting participants.
Mr. Neal Pann, with Braddock & Logan, asked if the issue of access to the primary entry
location had been discussed further. Mr. Shreeve explained that discussions on the issue would
take place after Staff makes its recommendations to the City Council.
Mr. Michael Galvan, with Community Resources for Independent Living (CRIL), asked why the
primary entry would not be the front door. Mr. Shreeve explained that due to topographical
and other constraints, it may not be practical to locate the primary entrance at the front door.
Mr. Galvan asked for clarification on the overall meaning of the proposed ordinance. Mr.
Shreeve gave an overview of the purpose of the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Galvan asked about the development communities' concerns regarding the proposed
ordinance. Mr. Shreeve explained the developers' concerns as outlined in the minutes for the
May 30, 2007 meeting.
Ms. Jessica Melton, with CRIL, asked if a homebuyer could choose which entrance of the home
would be accessible. Mr. Shreeve explained that such a request would be at the discretion of the
individual developer. He further explained that the proposed ordinance requires the developer
to offer one door that is accessible.
Mr. Jeff Schnurr, with Toll Brothers, asked if a developer could comply with the proposed
ordinance by placing homes with Universal Design features/ options in one community. Mr.
Shreeve explained that the proposed ordinance does not specify how the homes have to be
(fJuifAiJlliJ and Safety iJ)ivisiOll 1 july Hi, 2007
I a80b t4('
distributed; however, such a guideline would be developed at a later date. Mr. Shreeve asked
Mr. Schnurr if he would prefer to meet the required number of Universal Design homes by a
percentage or a flat quantity based on the number of homes in a development. Mr. Schnurr
stated that the requirement should be flexible based on the topography of the development and
other potential constraining factors. Mr. Shreeve explained that the proposed ordinance allows
for exemptions as outlined in section 7.90.050 of the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Pann asked what would happen when homes selected to comply with Universal Design
features were sold out. Mr. Shreeve stated that, should that occur, the developer would be
eligible to build more homes with Universal Design features. However, if the required
percentage or quantity is met, the developer would not have to offer more homes with
Universal Design feahues.
Mr. Pann stated that issues could arise when a homebuyer chooses a home to have Universal
Design options and that home is not a part of the homes selected for compliance with the
proposed ordinance. Mr. Shreeve explained that Staff would work with the developers on
meeting the requirements of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Pann expressed concern about the
time it would take to make modifications to approved plans. Ms. Ram explained that Staff has
procedures in place that would allow such requests to be processed quickly.
Mr. Schnurr commented that homes with Universal Design features should be evenly
distributed to blend into the community and not stand out as a separate community. Mr.
Shreeve concurred.
Mr. Schnurr asked if a cost analysis has been prepared to estimate the additional costs for
developers associated with complying with the proposed ordinance. Mr. Shreeve stated that
Staff has received information from CRIL that estimates costs to increase by 1 % - 3%. Mr.
Schnurr stated that his homes are priced based on what the area market will bear, and as a
result, takes his business to areas where his financial models show that the market prices can be
realized. He stated that this is a bad time in the housing cycle to start adding to the
development costs. Mr. Shreeve asked if he could provide an estimate of the cost increases, and
Mr. Schnurr said yes. Mr. Schnurr stated that 1 % - 3% is a significant amount and expressed
concerns about the prospect of the increase.
Mr. Shreeve stated that the City Council has also asked Staff to review Developer Agreements
to determine whether they can exempt developers from the proposed ordinance. He explained
that Staff continues to review the issue.
Ms. Ram asked the developers to provide input on how they would like the quantity of homes
required to comply with the proposed ordinance to be determined. The developers agreed that
they would like a percentage of homes to be required and some features to be mandatory to
install.
A participant asked if the proposed ordinance applied only to single family developments. Mr.
Shreeve explained that the proposed ordinance would apply to single family units, duplexes
and triplexes only.
(jJuiuil1'tg arufSajety l./:rhisio1't
2
10, lOG?
,
Mr. Shreeve went through each section of the proposed ordinance.
2ct'b~.~'
Mr. Parm asked if a hall closet could be used to provide closet space in a family room that
doubles as a bedroom on the primary entry level, and Mr. Shreeve said yes. Mr. Parm asked if
the construction drawings would have to show the family room with the option to double as a
bedroom, and Mr. Shreeve said yes. Mr. Pan asked, if the family room was optioned to be a
bedroom, how a modified window placement, if necessary, would be shown on the
construction drawings. Ms. Ram stated that the modified window placement would need to be
shown as an option on the Site Development Review (SDR). Mr. Parm clarified that although'
some items are mandatory to offer, it is mandatory for the developer to show the options on the
plans, and Mr. Shreeve said yes. Mr. Shreeve added that the plans could not be approved until
the mandatory-to-offer and mandatory-to-install features are shown on the plans.
Ms. Ram stated that Staff could send the meeting minutes, City Council public hearing notice
and the Staff Report on this item to those who have signed the meeting attendance roster.
Staff thanked everyone for attending the meeting and providing comments.
The meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
(BuiffirlfJ aru[Sa:!i:ty 'Division
3
W, 200?
CITY CLERK
File # Dmff][Q]-[]D]
3&tt.~
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL & HOUSING COMMITTEE
JOINT STUDY SESSION
MEETING DATE: February 20,2007
SUBJECT:
Universal Design Ordinance
Report prepared by Gregory Shreeve, Building Official I~.'r
ATTACHMENTS:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Draft Universal Design Ordinance (Ordinance A) with
mandatory options requirements.
Draft Universal Design Ordinance (Ordinance B) with
mandatory installation requirements.
City Council Staff Report dated September 5,2006 (with
Attachments).
Housing Committee Staff Report dated September 21,2006
(without attachments).
Housing Committee Meeting Minutes dated September 21,
2006.
City Council Staff Report dated October 17,2006.
City Council Meeting Minutes dated October 17, 2006.
Photographs of Universal Design Features (to be presented at
the Study Session).
6)
7)
8)
Ovlfi~-
,j/ ~
'i:C Receive Staff Presentation and Provide Direction.
\,
RECOMMENDATION:
An Ordinance on Universal Design will have a financial impact on
the City. The level of impact will be dependent on the final design
of the Ordinance. Adoption of an Ordinance would also create the
need to modify the valuation table ofthe City's Fee Schedule to
achieve cost recovery of plan check and permit costs. The options
proposed for City Council consideration in this report discusses
financial impact.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background:
The City of Dublin adopted the Housing Element ofthe General Plan in 2003. The Housing Element was
certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development, and contains a number of
policies aimed at promoting equal housing opportunities for Dublin residents.
COPY TO:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J:\Agendas\2007\CCSS UnivDesign 2.20.07.doc
Page 1 of8
Attachment 5
Program E.2.1 ofthe Housing Element states that "the City will evaluate the feasibility of a Universal 31Ob(o~
Design Ordinance that provides for greater adaptability and accessibility of housing for persons with
disabilities." In an effort to implement this program ofthe Housing Element, the City Council listed as a
high priority goal in the 2006-2007 Goals and Objectives, the preparation of a Universal Design
Ordinance for adoption as an amendment to the California Building Code requirements.
Since the adoption of the Housing Element, the State of California has adopted changes to current laws
that require elements related to Universal Design be incorporated into the construction of new multifamily
dwellings and a checklist provided to potential buyers of all dwellings.
At the City Council meeting of September 5, 2006 (Attachment 3), Staff presented a report on Universal
Design. The City Council directed Staffto work with the Housing Committee to decide if an ordinance
should be prepared. If the Housing Committee determined that an ordinance should be prepared, Staff
would work with the Committee to prepare the ordinance, meet with the development community and
return to the City Council with the draft Ordinance.
The Housing Committee held a public meeting on September 21, 2006 (Attachments 4 and 5), to discuss
Universal Design. During the meeting, the Housing Committee received a presentation from Staff and
received input from a representative of the Community Resources for Independent Living (CRIL).
Following the presentation and public input, the Committee discussed the topic and concluded that at the
present time, State laws on what should be included in developments in relation to Universal Design were
sufficient. In addition, the Housing Committee recommended that Staff should re-examine this important
issue during the preparation of the next Housing Element for the General Plan.
At the City Council meeting of October 17,2006 (Attachments 6 and 7), Staff presented the
recommendation from the Housing Committee. In addition, the Council received a presentation from the
Community Resources for Independent Living (CRIL). The City Council directed Staff to create a draft
Universal Design Ordinance that would be discussed at a future joint City Council/Housing Committee
Workshop.
Background Research on Universal Design Ordinances:
As part of the development of a Universal Design Ordinance, Staff researched current State laws. In
addition, Staff researched what policies other jurisdictions in the Tri Valley have adopted on Universal
Design.
Current State requirements regarding Universal Design:
The State separates the regulations on Universal Design by type of unit as follows:
1. Single Family Dwellings, including duplex and triples units:
Single-family dwellings, which include duplex and triplex units (referred to herein as "single-family
dwellings") are the least regulated in relation to Universal Design under the current codes. For the most
part, the decision on whether to incorporate Universal Design principals into the design ofthese types of
dwellings is market based. The State does require that California builders constructing new for-sale
residential units provide a "checklist" of universal accessibility features to potential purchasers of a home
(attachments listed in Attachment 3). While this checklist is required to be distributed to potential buyers,
there is no requirement that the developer/builder offer the buyer the choice of having the items on the
checklist installed, with or without additional cost to the homebuyer.
Page 2 of8
2.
Multifamily Dwellings:
32."6 ~~.
State requirements relating to Universal Design on multi-family units is fairly comprehensive. The
California Building Code regulates both the accessibility and adaptability of multi-family dwellings that
consist of apartment buildings with three or more dwelling units or condominiums with four or more
dwelling units.
The State regulations allow for people with special needs to find housing in all new multi-family
developments. All single floor units at grade or in elevatored buildings are required to have zero step
entries. In addition, the features internal to the unit are constructed to allow for a wide range of
modifications to allow for special needs.
Developments are also required to address Universal Design in multi-story units within a multi-story
building. In this instance, there are requirements for powder rooms and gathering areas on the entry level.
In buildings without elevators, at least ten percent ofthe multi-story units are required to have zero step
entries and many other features in the dwelling must be adaptable for special needs. Staffwill be
prepared to answer any questions on this topic at the Study Session.
The Universal Design checklist that is required for single-family dwellings is also required on multi-
family projects (attachments listed in Attachment 3). Through the City's plan check process, the City
does verify that the developer/builder has a checklist to provide to potential buyers.
Universal Design in the Tri-Valley:
Staff contacted the Cities of Livermore, Pleasanton. Danville, and San Ramon to determine what
Universal Design policies had been adopted by jurisdictions in the Tri-Valley area. Livermore indicated
that through their Housing Implementation Plan, if a Developer incorporates Universal Design into their
plans, the Developer would receive special preference points. Pleasanton and San Ramon reported that
their City's are beginning to look into a program similar to the Livermore program. Danville has not
taken a position on Universal Design at this time. The City of Dublin currently does not use a preference
point system to allocate building permits for development and, therefore, the type of policy adopted by
Livermore is not feasible.
ANALYSIS:
State Model Ordinance:
In 2005, the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) certified a
Model Universal Design Ordinance that can be adopted voluntarily by cities and counties (attachments
listed in Attachment 3).
The State Model Ordinance identifies features that must be offered by a builder in residential units that are
being newly constructed or substantially rehabilitated. Such features must only be installed if requested
by the buyer/owner and which would not cause an unreasonable delay or significant un-reimbursable costs
to the developer or builder. As noted above, this varies from the existing State law that only requires that
a list be offered to the buyer.
Page 3 of8
In general, the State Model Ordinance:
. Provides an allowable framework for the ordinance;
?3 Cbf.tJ~
. Provides standard definitions for critical terms related to Universal Design;
. Provides for allowed exceptions, for example, due to site impracticality or undue hardship; and
. Allows for certain customizations for local jurisdictions.
It is important to note that under the State Model Ordinance, it is not required that the developer/builder
install any feature, nor is it required that the developer/builder is responsible for paying the cost of
installing the feature. The State Model Ordinance can be customized to require installation by the
developer/builder; however, it is likely that the cost will be passed on to the homebuyer. The State Model
Ordinance augments the State's Universal Design Checklist (referenced above) by providing what items
on the checklist shall be offered for installation by the developer/builder.
As noted above, State mandated requirements ensure that multi-family projects include features that often
exceed the suggestions in the State's Model Universal Design Ordinance. Therefore, Staffhas
concentrated the draft Dublin Ordinances below on Single-Family Dwelling Units.
City of Dublin Draft Ordinances:
The State requires that if a jurisdiction desires to adopt an Ordinance on Universal Design the State Model
Ordinance must be used as the template. Therefore, based on the State Model Ordinance, Staff has
customized two draft Universal Design Ordinances for the City Council to review:
Ordinance A: This Ordinance would require that developer/builders offer universal design features to
buyers of single-family dwellings (includes duplexes and triplexes) without mandatory installation of
those features. The Ordinance also requires that the developer/builder offer to install certain options on
the checklist while the home is under construction. The homebuyer would have the ability to purchase
those items as options from the developer/builder.
This Ordinance goes beyond current State law that only requires that the future homeowner be provided a
checklist of features that could be added to the home, with no requirement that the developer/builder must
have the ability to install the features. In addition, this Ordinance would require that the
developer/builder provide the checklist with the options that the homebuyer selected for the City's
permanent file.
Benefits:
The installation of certain Universal Design items are less expensive to install during the construction of a
new home compared to putting these features in a dwelling at a later time. This Ordinance would allow a
buyer to customize the home to the buyer's particular need at the time of purchase. Additionally,
maintaining the checklist at the City will allow for buyers of the home at resale to learn what Universal
Design items already exist that are not readily visible (for example, blocking behind the tile for grab bars
in the shower). Ordinance A would require developer/builders to offer and install features (as options) in
single-family homes that multi-family homes are currently required to install.
Page 4 of8
Concerns:
'3 L} rJb ~~
Under this Ordinance, only items purchased by the buyer would be installed by the developer/builder.
While this allows for customization and containment of costs for the buyer, this option may not provide an
overall increase in homes designed for special needs. Additionally, in order to customize a home, many
of the Universal Design elements must be installed early in the construction process. Therefore, if a
buyer requests certain items (like blocking behind walls or moving electrical receptacles) after the home is
completed; it would not be possible to install them.
Financial impact:
There will be a financial impact under Ordinance A to the City, the developer/builder and the future
homebuyer as follows:
. The Staffhours for the Master Plan Check for subdivisions will increase and therefore, the City
will need to amend the valuation table ofthe fee schedule. This will result in a one-time cost of
Staff time to prepare the amendment;
· The developer/builder will have costs in training staff, tracking selected options, and supplying
verification paperwork to the City. The primary cost to the developer/builder will be the increase
in overall permit fees to pay for the City's increased time to review the plans. However, the
developer/builder has the ability to determine how to charge the buyer for installing the options;
and
· The prospective homebuyer will have to pay for each option.
Ordinance B: This Ordinance would require that developer/builders install certain base universal design
features as well as offer for purchase additional options. For example, a base option would be blocking
behind tiles in bathrooms, faucets and doorknobs would be lever type rather than standard knobs. These
base options are extrapolated from the State's Checklist referred in Ordinance A.
This Ordinance also goes beyond current State law that only requires that the future homeowner be
provided a checklist of features that could be added to the home, with no requirement that the
developer/builder must have the ability to install the features. Ordinance B would require
developer/builders to install base features and offer and install additional features (as options) in single-
family homes that multi-family homes are currently required to install.
Benefits:
The installation of certain Universal Design items are less expensive to install during the construction of a
new home compared to putting these features in a dwelling at a later time. This has several benefits:
· Ensures a certain level of Universal Design features are installed in all homes;
· A buyer can add to the base features from the checklist with a possible options charge;
· Many homes are sold after construction has begun and under Ordinance A, above, certain features
may no longer be possible to install. Under Ordinance B, the base features are required to be
installed;
Page 5 of8
· The developer/builder may find it easier to incorporate these base features into their construction
process rather than having so many customizations; ?::>5C5b~
· Maintaining the checklist at the City will allow for buyers of the home at resale to learn what
Universal Design items already exist that are not readily visible (for example, blocking behind the
tile for grab bars in the shower); and
· Another reason for requiring the installation of certain features is that with all of the other choices
and options that a buyer already is required to make, there could be a possibility that the owner
may overlook these options.
Concerns:
The installation of certain Universal Design items are less expensive to install during the construction of a
new home compared to putting these features in a dwelling at a later time. However, there are some
concerns with this approach:
· The homeowner may not like some of the features such as lever hardware instead of knobs on
doors, or rocker switches instead of standard light switches;
· The developer/builder may not appreciate the additional regulations because it will remo~e the
developer/builder's ability to tailor the home to the market; and
· Homes will be required to have at least one zero entry unless there are hardships or site
difficulties, this requirement may affect the look ofthe house.
Financial impact:
There will be a financial impact under Ordinance B to the City, the developer/builder and the future
homebuyer as follows:
· The Staff hours for the Master Plan Check for subdivisions will increase and therefore, the City
will need to amend the valuation table of the fee schedule. This will result in a one-time cost of
Staff time to prepare the amendment;
· The Staff hours for inspection under Ordinance Bwill increase; therefore, the valuation table will
be amended to a higher rate over the required amendment for Ordinance A, above;
· The developerlbuilder will have costs in training staff, tracking selected options, and supplying
verification paperwork to the City. The primary cost to the developer/builder will be the increase
in overall permit fees to pay for the City's increased time to review the plans. However, the
developer/builder has the ability to determine how to charge the buyer for installing the options;
and
· The prospective homebuyer will have to pay for each option over the base.
Direction Requested:
Staff recommends that the City Council consider Ordinance A and B and direct Staff on which Ordinance
to finalize.
Page 6 of8
Policy Issues:
3LRDb ~~.
Following the City Council's decision on Ordinance A or B. policy direction is requested in two
additional areas. Each ofthe following policy questions are applicable to either Ordinance A or B.
Question 1. Should the Universal Design Ordinance be limited to subdivisions of 20 or greater
(excluding custom homes)?
While the majority of the City's development projects are comprised of more than 20 dwelling units, on
occasion the City receives applications for smaller projects that are either infill or custom. Typically,
these homes are located on a site where there are limitations. Three recent examples are the homes at
Starward, Black Mountain and Aura by Taylor Woodrow. All of these projects had constraints in relation
to either size or site features.
Benefits:
The City's Ordinances regulating Public Art and Inclusionary Zoning exempt projects that are less than
20. Therefore, exempting small projects from this Ordinance would be consistent with other City
policies.
On small infill projects, it is likely that the homes will be built and then sold. Therefore, it would be
difficult for the developerlbuilder to offer options. Custom homes are designed by the future owner and
generally, those owners prefer to make their own choices in relation to Universal Design and other
features.
Concerns:
The City Council may wish to have all projects comply with this Ordinance.
Financial impact:
There is no financial impact by exempting small and custom projects.
Direction Requested:
Staff is recommending that the City Council direct Staff on whether the Universal Design Ordinance
should be limited to subdivisions of20 or greater (excluding custom homes).
Question 2. Should projects with existing and approved Building Master Plan Checks be exempt at the
time the new Ordinance is effective?
Should this Ordinance be approved it is likely that there will be projects that have already submitted for
building plan check and are under construction. The determination of when te apply this Ordinance to
projects that are already underway and in City process is a policy question.
The City Council has the ability to apply the Ordinance to those projects that have approved building
master plan checks, but have not received all of their building permits. It is not possible under State law
to apply the Ordinance to homes that have building permits. Should the Ordinance apply to projects that
are under construction, but do not have all of their permits, some homes will have the Ordinance
provisions applied and other homes in the same subdivision will not.
Page 7 of8
Benefits:
37rJb eo?
Exempting projects that have an approved Building Master Plan Check would allow these projects to
continue without delay. If the Ordinance were applied to those projects with approved Master Plan
Checks, those projects may be required to be redesigned to comply with the Ordinance, adding time and
additional developer/builder costs to the process. Additionally, exempting these projects will allow for
consistency within the subdivision.
If the Universal Design Ordinance were implemented on projects that have already started construction,
neighboring dwellings would then have been built under different standards. Therefore, construction and
inspections would become more difficult. If projects with approved Building Master Plans are not
exempted; then plans may need to' be redesigned which will be costly and time consuming for the
developer/builder.
Concerns:
Ifprojects with approved Building Master Plans are exempted, there may be less homes with options
offered and/or installed (Ordinance A) or, base features and options offered/installed (Ordinance B).
Financial impact:
There would not be a fiscal impact to exempting projects that have an approved Building Master Plan
Check.
Direction Requested:
Staff is recommending that the City Council direct Staff on whether projects with existing and approved
Building Master Plan Checks be exempt at the time the new Ordinance is effective.
NEXT STEPS:
Following the City Council direction on the items in this Staff Report, Staff recommends that the
following occur:
· Finalize the draft Ordinance pursuant to the direction at the meeting;
· Meet with the development community to receive input;
· Agendize the draft Ordinance for City Council approval; and
· ModifY the Valuation Table ofthe Fee Schedule and bring that revision to City Council for
approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive Staff presentation and provide direction.
Page 8 of8
38~~C
MINUTES OF THE cm COUNCIL
OF THE cm OF DUBLIN
SPECIAL MEETIN6 - FEBRUARY 20. 200'7
A special meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, February 20, 2007,
in the Regional Meeting Room of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to
order at 6:00 p.m., by Mayor lockhart.
.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Hildenbrand, Oravetz, Sbranti and Scholz, and Mayor
Lockhart.
Housing Committee Members Avanzino, DeDiemar, Garren, Kaehuaea,
locke, Murdock, and Parkman and Planning Commission Liaison Biddle
ABSENT: None
.
UNIVERSAL DESIGN ORDINANCE
6:00 p.m. (440-10)
Mayor lockhart welcomed all in attendance and stated that the City Council would hold
a Study Session with the Housing Committee to consider elements of a draft Universal
Design Ordinance.
Senior Building Official Gregory Shreeve presented the Staff Report and advised that the
City of Dublin adopted the Housing Element of the General Plan in 2003. The Housing
Element was certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development,
and contained a number of policies aimed at promoting equal housing opportunities for
Dublin residents.
Program E.2.1 of the Housing Element stated that ''the City will evaluate the feasibility of
a Universal Design Ordinance that provides for greater adaptability and accessibility of
housing for persons with disabilities." In an effort to implement this program of the
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
February 20, 2007
PAGE 42
3qJf)l.PS~
Housing Element, the City Council listed as a high priority goal in the 2006-2007 Goals
& Objectives, the preparation of a Universal Design Ordinance for adoption as an
amendment to the California Building Code requirements.
Staff asked for direction from the Committee and Council regarding:
· Whether Staff should continue work on Ordinance Option A which would make it
mandatory for developers to offer items on the State Model Ordinance checklist, or
Ordinance Option B which would make it mandatory for developers to offer and
install items on the checklist, once selected by the buyer;
· Should the Universal Design Ordinance apply to 100% of, or some percentage
thereof, all development or be limited to subdivisions of 20 units or greater; and
· Should projects with existing and approved master plan checks be exempt from the
Ordinance. Current City policy was that a project was built under all ordinances and
laws in effective at the time the developer actually obtained their permits, not when
they received approval of their plans.
The Committee, Council and Staff discussed Ordinance Options A and B, as well as the
State required checklist of universal accessibility features in the Model Ordinance. The
Ordinance would apply to all single-family, duplex, or triplex unit developments. With
Ordinance Option A, buyers would be able to select the items from the checklist that
they wanted in their homes. With Ordinance Option B, some items would be mandatory
for installation by the developer and others would have to be offered and installed by the
developer if requested by the buyer.
Committee member Avanzino asked if Staff knew how many developments or units
would be exempt from this Ordinance, if adopted.
Senior Building Official Shreeve advised that, of those developments that had permits or
plan checks already, there were approximately 100 units at Schaefer Ranch that had not
submitted for plan check at this time, but they could get approval before this item was
approved. This would mean approximately 305 units could get an exemption. In the
eastern portion of the City there were 70-90 units that did not have approval at this
time.
Council and Staff discussed Ordinance Option B and the possibility of allowing the
buyer of a unit to request not to have certain Universal Ordinance items placed in their
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
February 20, 2007
PAGE 43
Y-DiJb ~ S
unit, or the buyer could choose to change the required item(s) once they had purchased
the home. It was noted that some of the items in Ordinance Option B were already
installed in new developments because they were aesthetically pleasing and easy to
acquire.
Mayor Lockhart asked if the zero step entry requirement could apply to a secondary
entrance as opposed to the primary entrance. It might be less cumbersome for a buyer
that did not need it now, but it could be beneficial for a future owner.
Senior Building Official Shreeve advised that under the draft ordinance, it was a
requirement for the primary entrance unless there was a site impracticality that did not
allow for it.
Mayor Lockhart remarked that it was cheaper to have some of these requirements put in
during the construction of the home, and they could benefit future residents' needs.
Public Comment:
Rebecca Cox, Dublin resident, commented she would like to see Dublin be forward
thinking and require this of developers.
Aretha Green, Hayward resident, indicated that she was in favor of Dublin adopting an
ordinance regarding Universal Design.
Matt Jensen, Oakley resident, stated he was pleased the City was discussing Universal
Design and that the associated bill did not read all or nothing; there could be a
designated percentage of complying homes.
J. Michael Galvan, Tri-Valley Coordinator for Community Resources for Independent
Living, stated that most of the questions raised were style items. It was more expensive
to redesign entrances to homes and bathrooms after the fact. The City needed to prepare
for the future.
Jessica Lehman, Community Resources for Independent Living, remarked that this issue
dealt with designing homes in a way that worked for everyone. These items made
accessibility easy for all ages. Developers estimated that the Universal Design items cost
between 2-4 percent of total cost to install. Fresno and Murrieta were two cities that
had adopted Universal Design Ordinances.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
February 20, 2007
PAGE 44
.
~
Lit 'V~~
Mayor Lockhart asked the Housing Committee members and Council for their input as
to their preference of either Ordinance Option A or B.
Committee member Biddle stated he was interested in going forward with Ordinance
Option B.
Committee member Parkman stated she preferred Ordinance Option B.
Committee member Avanzino stated she preferred Ordinance Option B.
Committee member DeDiemar stated he preferred Ordinance Option B.
Committee member Garren stated that complying with entry requirements in Ordinance
Option B would be tough and problematic for developers, but noted the benefit of both
options.
Committee member Locke stated she preferred Ordinance Option B.
Committee member Kaehuaea stated she preferred Ordinance Option B.
Cm. Sbranti stated his support for Ordinance Option B, and also concurred with the
possibility of the complying entrance being a secondary entrance.
Vm. Hildenbrand supported Ordinance Option B, and also agreed with: the option of a
secondary entrance to meet requirements; giving exceptions to the projects that have
already been approved; and, deciding on a percentage for number of units. She stated
her concern for marketability of a completely Universal Ordinance home and buyers not
wanting all options.
Cm. Oravetz stated he preferred Ordinance Option B, and urged Staff to meet with
developers to discuss the Ordinance.
Cm. Scholz stated she also preferred Ordinance Option B.
Mayor Lockhart stated it was important to send the right message to the residents and
building community that the City understood that Universal Design was important.
Having some of the basics of the Ordinance built into the house would be great, but she
would not want the City to burden developers or citizens that had already been through
plan checks. The Ordinance should be limited to projects of 20 units or more. She
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
February 20, 2007
PAGE 45
4\~ ~~
would like to see more single story homes and/or homes with first floor master
bedrooms in developments because these were in demand.
Mayor l.ockhart asked that, when Staff came back with a sample ordinance, they have
studied and included options using different percentages of required units.
Committee member Kaehuaea asked if incentives for developers could be built into the
Ordinance as was done in the City of Livermore.
City Manager Ambrose responded that since the City. of Dublin did not have the same
restrictions in number of units built a year, as did Livermore, that kind of incentive was
not necessary.
Committee member Parkman asked if the City could at least require blocking in the bath
walls to allow for installation of handrails by owners later on.
City Manager Ambrose stated that this would be a legal question because the City had
development agreements with all the builders so Staff would have to review each
agreement to see if they were or were not subject to new fees or requirements.
Mayor l.ockhart stated that the City could at least discuss that option with the developer.
Vm. Hildenbrand reiterated her concern for the marketability of new homes if the
requirements were included before they were purchased.
Mayor l.ockhart agreed that Staff should also study this concern.
. . 'IT
ADJOURNMENf
11.1
ATIT$T: ~u. \\ fJ
City Clerk
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned
at 7:03 p.~. to the next regular Council meetin,,$ of February 20, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers. ! I . J..I:1. ..
";t.r7.AI iX ~ /'6U'- tlY
{/ Mayor
~
~
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
SPECIAL MEETING
February 20, 2007
PAGE 46
.
CITY CLERK
File # Dffiffi[Q]-[]~
1f26fJ &6
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 17, 2006
SUBJECT:
Universal Design Ordinance
Report by Gregory Shreeve, Building Official (~/
ATTACHMENTS:
I)
2)
City Council Staff Report dated September 5, 2006 (without
attachments).
Draft Housing Committee Meeting Minutes for September
21,2006.
RECOMMENDATION: r;}II1 1)
cfr ~ 2)
Receive Staff presentation; and
Direct Staff to revisit the desirability and feasibility of
adopting a Universal Design Ordinance at the time the
Housing Element of the General Plan is prepared.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
None at this time.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background
The City of Dublin adopted the Housing Element of the General Plan in 2003. This Housing Element was
certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development, and contains a number of
policies aimed at promoting equal housing opportunities for Dublin residents.
Program E.2.1 of the Housing Element states that ''the City will evaluate the feasibility of a Universal
Design Ordinance that provides for greater adaptability and accessibility of housing for persons with
disabilities." In an effort to implement this program of the Housing Element, the City Council listed as a
high priority goal in the 2006/2007 Goals and Objectives the preparation of a Universal Design Ordinance
for adoption as an amendment to California Building Code requirements.
Since the adoption of the Housing Element, the State of California has adopted several changes to current
laws that require elements related to Universal Design be incorporated into new construction.
At the City Council meeting of September 5, 2006, Staff prepared an informational report on Universal
Design and asked the City Council:
I) If the current laws and codes are accomplishing the City Council's goals on Universal Design;
and
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPY TO: File
Page 1 of2
IT
G:\Agendas\2006\Universal Design Ord\CC Staff Reportl O-17-06.doc
Attachment &:,
2)
If not, should Staff work with the Housing Committee to decide if an ordinance ';t~u9l:t~5
prepared.
The City Council directed Staff to work with the Housing Committee to decide if an ordinance should be
prepared. If the Housing Committee decided that an ordinance should be prepared, Staff would work with
the Committee to prepare the ordinance, meet with the development community and return to the City
Council with the draft ordinance.
The Housing Committee held a public meeting on September 21, 2006 to discuss Universal Design.
During the meeting, the Housing Committee received a presentation from Staff and received input from a
representative of the Community Resources for Independent Living. Following the presentation and
public input, the Committee discussed the topic and concluded that at the present time, State laws on what
should be included in developments in relation to Universal Design were sufficient. In addition, the
Housing Committee recommended that Staff should re-examine this important issue during the
preparation of the next Housing Element for the General Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; and 2) Direct Staff to revisit the
desirability and feasibility of adopting a Universal Design Ordinance at the time the Housing Element of
the General Plan is prepared.
2
c.+4l5b~
The Council discussed the importance of neighbors communicating with each other
about neighborhood disputes and attempting to work issues out, if possible, before
utilizing Staff's time and bringing issues before the Council. Required mediation on these
types of issues might be advisable.
City Attorney Elizabeth Silver stated that she did not believe that the City could require
someone to participate in mediation and make them to pay for the costs of the
remediation. If the City paid for the remediation, it could be required.
The Council concurred that any required remediation should be at no charge to the
resident.
City Manager Ambrose advised that Dublin had a mediation service it used on occasion,
and both parties had to agree to be mediated. Staff could prepare a report for Council
consideration as to whether mediation could be required of disputing neighbors, as well
as discuss other issues involved.
The Council concurred that a report on the issue would be beneficial.
On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Cm. Zika and by unanimous vote, the
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 203 - 06
REPEALING RESOLUTION 168-06,
RESCINDING 20-MINUTE PARKING ZONE ON CYPRESS COUR.T
...
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Report Regarding Universal Design Ordinance
8:11 p.m. 7.1 (440-10)
Building Official Gregory Shreeve presented the Staff Report and advised that, at its
September 5,2006 Council meeting, the Council directed Staff to work with the Housing
Committee to decide if a local Universal Design Ordinance for new homes should be
prepared. The Housing Committee concluded that, at present time, State laws were
sufficient; however, recommended that Staff re-examine the issue during the preparation
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 25
REGULAR MEETING
October 17, 2006
PAGE 343
q.eJ~~
of the next Housing Element for the General Plan. One of the Housing Committee's
recommendations was for Staff to develop a handout regarding the process.
The Council and Staff engaged in a question and answer session about the State's
guidelines on universal design and the checklist that the Developer provides to the
homebuyers so they can chose the options they would like included in their home. The
checklist included items that the Developer was mandated to offer, but not mandatory for
them to install.
Jessica Layman, representing Community Resources for Independent Living (CRIL),
applauded the Council for bringing up the Universal Design Ordinance and urged them
to keep the discussion open with Staff and community members before it was delayed for
a couple of years. Universal Design was not just for the disabled or seniors; it worked for
families with children, as well. It also allowed for aging in place. When the work was
done right, it looked good.
The Council expressed concern that the issue had not been studied in enough detail by
the Housing Committee and discussed the pros and cons of a Design Ordinance. If the
model Ordinance were adopted, developers would not be forced to build anything; it
would identify what adaptable features must be offered by a builder in residential units
subject to the Ordinance that were being newly constructed.
Mayor Lockhart suggested that Staff to create a draft Local Universal Design Ordinance
based on the State's Model Ordinance and provide it to the Housing Committee for re-
evaluation and recommendations on what percentage of adaptable units should be
required, before it came back to the Council for re-consideration.
Cm. Hildenbrand agreed that a model ordinance should be crafted by Staff and suggested
a joint Council/Housing Committee Workshop, open to the public, this discuss the issue
so everyone had the same vision for the ordinance. It would provide everyone with a
good idea what a local ordinance would look like in our community.
On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Cm. Zika (Cm. Oravetz abstained) and by
majority vote, the City Council directed Staff to create a draft Local Universal Design
Ordinance to be discussed at a future Joint City Council/Housing Committee Workshop.
..
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 25
REGULAR MEETING
October 17, 2006
PAGE 344
L.f-&; t5fJ ~ ~
AGENDA STATEMENT
HOUSING COMMITTEE
MEETING DATE: September 19,2006
SUBJECT:
Universal Design Ordinance
Report by Gaylene Burkett, Housing Assistant
ATTACHMENTS:
1)
Sample State of California New Home Universal Design
Checklist.
State-certified Model Universal Design Ordinance.
2)
RECOMMENDATION:
1)
Provide direction to Staff on whether a Universal Design
Ordinance should:
a) be prepared
b) or whether the Housing Commission is satisfied
with the current State law requirements related to
universal design.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
None at this time. However, if the Council determines at a later date
that a local universal design ordinance should be implemented, there
may be additional costs associated with plan checking and
inspections.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background
Adopted by the City Council and certified by the State in 2003, Dublin's Housing Element contains a
number of policies aimed at promoting equal housing opportunities for Dublin residents. Program E.2.1
of the Housing Element states that "the City will evaluate the feasibility of a universal design ordinance
that provides for greater adaptability and accessibility of housing for persons with disabilities." In an
effort to implement this program of the Housing Element, the City Council listed as a high priority goal in
the 2006/2007 Goals and Objectives, the preparation of a universal design ordinance for adoption as an
amendment to California Building Code requirements.
In an effort to assist the City Council in determining the feasibility and desirability of adopting a universal
design ordinance, Staff has prepared some background information to describe the current universal
design requirements that are dictated by State law, and also information on the limitations that are now in
place for the text of any local ordinance related to universal design.
Universal design is defined as the design of products and residential environments to be usable by all
people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized modifications.
Universal design benefits persons of all ages and abilities, including seniors and persons with disabilities.
COPY TO: File
Page 1 of 4
C:\Documents and Settings\Gregorys\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4A\CC SR Universal Design.doc
ITEM NO.
Attachment 7
. Y.1tlh(e>~
The concept behind universal design is that, if desired, a new residence can be built with certain a~gn
features that will make living in that home easier for someone with limited mobility, strength, or
functionality. Such features include door handles that are easier to grasp, doorways that are wider and
easier to navigate through, electrical outlets that are located higher on the wall and easier to reach, and
grab bars in baths and showers to provide stability and support.
The guiding principles behind universal design are that the features should be useful to people with
diverse abilities, are easy to understand and utilize, require limited physical effort, and provide appropriate
space and size regardless of the user's body size, posture, or mobility.
Current State requirements regarding universal design
In 2003, the California State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill AB 1400, which requires a builder of
new, for sale residential units, to provide potential buyers with a checklist of universal design features that
could be included in their new home (Attachment 1). AB 1400, which later became Section 17959.6 of
the California State Health and Safety Code, requires the builder to offer the checklist and inform the
consumer of the status of availability of these universal design features, but it does not require the builder
to actually offeror install any particular feature.
The State-certified checklist, which must be provided to the potential buyer, is divided into 3 sections, as
follows:
Part I includes those features related to exterior adaptations, doors and openings, interior
adaptations, kitchens, and bathrooms or powder rooms. .
Part II includes features that apply to other parts of the house and are commonly requested or
considered universal design features.
Part III provides space for details, or for any other external or internal feature that may be
requested, if it is requested at a reasonable time by the buyer, is reasonably available, is reasonably
feasible to install or construct, and makes the home more usable and safer for a person with any
type of activity limitation or disability.
For each of the universal design features on the checklist, the builder is required to identify the four
following categories:
1. Status: Whether the feature is standard, limited, an option, or not available, as determined by the
builder.
2. Timing: By what stage in construction the feature must be requested (such as "any time", "before
foundation", "before framing", or "before internal wall covering"), with actual times selected by
the builder.
3. Details: Whether or not there are additional details or specified modifications from the Building
Code.
4. Cost: Optional labor and materials costs (estimated by the builder).
Not every feature listed on the checklist must actually be available or offered by the builder. In addition,
certain items must be requested prior to certain phases of construction, as specified by the builder. The
builder may also provide estimated costs for the special features. A builder is not required to install the
listed features unless the builder offers them and both of the following occur: (1) the buyer requests them
with the specified phase of construction, and (2) the buyer agrees to provide payment for the features.
Ll'6 rf,.l~ 5'.
Attachment 1 to this Staff Report is a sample State of California New Home Universal Design Checl~st
for one of the multi-story residential projects currently under construction in Dublin. As the checklist
indicates, many of the universal design features on the checklist are already offered as a standard feature
in this development. Also, there are a number of features that are offered as options that the future buyer
could choose to have installed, and there are few features that are not offered at all. This sample checklist
indicates that although builders are not required to offer the features (they are only required to provide the
checklist), many ofthe features are being offered as required by other State laws and market demands.
Under the State Law requirements, the City of Dublin plays no role in enforcing whether the checklist is
actually provided to each new homebuyer, and it is up to the builder to comply with State Law. However,
through the City's plan check process, the City Building Division does verify that the builder has a
checklist to provide to future homeowners in compliance with Section 17959.6 of the California State
Health and Safety Code.
ANALYSIS:
OpuonalLocalOrdinance
Some jurisdictions in the State of California have adopted local ordinances requiring universal design
features in new homes. In 2005, the State of California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) certified a model Universal Design Ordinance that can be adopted voluntarily by
cities and counties (Attachment 2).
The model ordinance has been drafted and certified by the State of California Department of Housing and
Community Development as required by another State Assembly Bill, AB 2787, so if a city chooses to
adopt a local ordinance to address universal design requirements, the ordinance must be adopted in
substantially the same form as the model ordinance, which does not allow for much deviation to tailor the
ordinance to local conditions.
The model ordinance identifies rooms and denotes features which must be offered by a builder in
residential units subject to the ordinance that are being newly-constructed or substantially rehabilitated.
Such features must only be installed if requested by the buyer/owner and which would not cause an
unreasonable delay or significant un-reimbursable costs to the developer or builder. Because the model
ordinance states which universal design features must be offered to homeowners (but not installed unless
chosen), the requirements are above and beyond the current State law, which'simply requires that the
checklist of universal design features and their availability be provided to future homeowners.
In general, the model ordinance provides definitions for critical terms related to universal design, local
options as to types and number of units (owner-occupied and/or rental) to which the ordinance will be
applied, and specific exemptions and enforcement mechanisms. The model ordinance also contains
examples of rooms and areas in covered units for which it is mandatory to offer certain design features,
such as an accessible path of travel to dwelling, at least one bathroom or powder room on the primary
entry level, handrail and handrail reinforcement in hallways, and entry door high/low peep hole viewer.
Under the model ordinance, it is not required that the builder install any feature nor is it required that the
builder is responsible for paying the cost of installing the feature.
If a local ordinance is adopted, the City will then be in the role of enforcing whether or not the ordinance
is complied with through the building permit process.
Other California Building Code requirements related to adaptability/accessibility L..lq rIb &;S
In addition to the various universal design features that can be provided in any type of residential unit,
there are other State mandates that also provide accessible features in certain types of homes.
In multi-family developments where there are more than 4 units and there is an elevator (i.e The Terraces
at Dublin Ranch), California Building Code requires that all single-level units be adaptably-designed.
This requirement exceeds universal design requirements in that features such as handrail reinforcement
inside the walls not only need to be offered, but they need to be installed by the builder. This would allow
the unit to be adapted at a later date to be disabled-accessible.
Another requirement of the California Building Code for multi-family developments where there are more
than 4 units that are designed as a townhouse (multi-level) style (i.e. The Willows project by Braddock
and Logan), is at least 10% of the units in the development must provide an accessible entrance to the
ground floor, an accessible room on the ground floor, and an accessible bathroom on the ground floor
(unless exempted by site impracticality). Additionally, all other rooms on the primary entry level in these
units shall also be accessible.
These State-mandated requirements ensure that multi-family projects (more than 4 units in size), include
features that often exceed the universal design standards and provide accessibility for future residents.
Options for City Council consideration
Staff is seeking direction from the City Council as to whether a local universal design ordinance should be
prepared.
If a local ordinance is prepared, State law requires that the local ordinance be substantially the same as the
State model ordinance. If the City Council determines that a local universal design ordinance will not
offer a community benefit that is not already being met by the State requirements explained in this Staff
report, a local ordinance will not be prepared. In this case, the State requirements to provide notification
to future homeowners of the availability of universal design features (through the existing checklist
process) in combination with the other State requirements to provide accessible and adaptable units and
features in multi-family residential buildings, will continue to address the need for accessible and
adaptable units.
If the City Council directs Staff to prepare a local ordinance, Staff proposes to bring the draft ordinance to
the Housing Committee for their review and input, and Staff will also schedule a meeting with developers
and building industry professionals to solicit their input. After feedback is received from these two
groups, Staff will finalize the draft ordinance for City Council review and approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction to Staff on whether a Universal Design
Ordinance should be drafted or whether the City Council is satisfied with the current State law
requirements related to universal design.
_c
50 rJfJt.G ~
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Mary Rose Parkman; Vice Chair Lynn Locke; Committee Members Christine Kaehuaea,
Kathy Avanzino, Don Biddle, and Dale Garren; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; John
Lucero, Housing Consultant; Michael Baker, Sr. Building Inspector; and Rhonda Franklin, Recording
Secretary.
Absent: Committee Members Steve Murdock and Ronald De Diemar.
ORAL COMMUNICATION - None
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS
The June 29, 2006 minutes were approved as submitted.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None
NEW BUINESS
6.1 Universal Design Ordinance
Chair Parkman asked for the Staff Report. Mr. Michael Baker, Sr. Building Inspector, presented
the specifics of the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm. Avanzino asked if AB 1400 applies to new and existing ownership and/or rental units. Mr.
Baker explained that AB 1400 applies to all new ownership and rental developments.
Vice Chair Locke asked if AB 1400 compliance is the responsibility of the developer, and Mr.
Baker said yes.
Ms. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, pointed out that State Laws pertaining to
accessibility overlap and augment each other. Cm. Garren added that the ADA (Americans with
Disabilities Act) has specific requirements for rental units. Mr. Baker stated that the enforcement
of ADA requirements is not under the City's jurisdiction.
Vice Chair Locke asked about SB 1025. Mr. Baker explained that SB 1025 requires that a
minimum of 10% of multi-story developments with 4 or more multi-family units have accessible
Housing Committee
3
September 21, 2006
c
51 r1b {p..,
entry levels that include either a bathroom or powder room. He also explained that there are
exceptions to this requirement.
Cm. Biddle asked if the State Law accessibility standards are consistent or constantly changing.
Mr. Baker explained that some laws are consistent, and the laws that change frequently are
becoming more conservative and require more access toward accessible features.
Chair Parkman sought clarification on the Housing Committee's role in a Universal Design
Ordinance. Ms. Ram explained that the City Council requested the Housing Committee to give
input on whether the City should move forward with a Universal Design Ordinance.
Chair Parkman pointed out that if a Universal Design Ordinance was implemented, it would need
to be updated as necessary to maintain consistency with evolving State Laws. Ms. Ram explained
that State Laws on accessibility can not be modified and will override a city's Universal Design
Ordinance. She further explained that there is a Model Ordinance that contains options for
customization. Mr. Baker explained that AB 2787 allows a city to identify the percentage of
accessible units that the builder must offer to potential buyers.
Ms. Ram and Mr. Baker discussed the process of implementing a Universal Design Ordinance.
Mr. Baker explained that AB 2787 requires the developer to provide the options to the
homeowner. Ms. Ram explained that AB 1400 requires only a list of accessibility options while
AB 2787 requires the developer to have the ability to construct the accessibility features.
Vice Chair Locke asked about the benefits of a Universal Design Ordinance to a homeowner. Mr.
Baker explained that AB 2787 requires the developer to be able to construct accessibility features
at the request of the homeowner, should the homeowner decide to purchase accessibility options.
Cm. Kaehuaea stated that she would prefer the security of having the homebuilder install
accessibility features. Mr. Baker explained that it would be the homeowner's choice to purchase
from a developer that could or could not install the accessibility features.
Cm. Garren stated that AB 1400 is an effective tool for homebuyers who would like to have
accessibility features in their home. He explained that developers are likely to install accessibility
features based on the homebuilding criteria provided by the homebuyer. He stated that making
ordinances for the sake of making ordinances places burdens on everyone involved. He stated that
developers are motivated to provide these features for homebuyers.
Chair Parkman pointed out Attachment 2, the HCD Model Universal Design Local Ordinance
(AB 2787), ofthe Staff Report. Mr. Baker stated that that there are not many areas in which AB
2787 could be customized and pointed out the areas that could be customized.
Chair Parkman stated that she would like to get input from developers on this issue. Ms. Ram
explained that if the Housing Committee decided to implement a Model Ordinance, Staff would
work with the Committee to develop a draft ordinance, meet with the development community to
get their input on the draft ordinance, and then present the draft ordinance before the City Council.
Cm. Garren expressed concerns about the potential negative implications the ordinance could
have on developers and development.
Housing Committee
4
September 21, 2006
62l5f:; "5"
Chair Parkman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Jessica Lehman, with Community Resources for Independent Living, stated her reasons for
having the Housing Committee recommend to the City Council that a local ordinance should be
adopted. She explained that Universal Design is better for everyone, not only persons with
disabilities. She explained that with an aging population, it is important to build homes that one
can comfortably age in. She stated that it would be less expensive to construct accessible features
during the building phase of a home, than to remodel the home after the building phase has
completed. Chair Parkman concurred that in her experience, it is less expensive to make a house
accessible while it is being built rather than years later.
Hearing no further comments, Chair Parkman closed the public hearing.
Cm. Kaehuaea stated that she would like to hear from the development community. Ms. Ram
indicated that the City Council appointed a member of the development community, to the
Housing Committee so that the Committee would have a developer's viewpoint represented. Ms.
Ram asked Cm. Garren, a developer, to discuss his thoughts. Cm. Garren explained that
developers try to build homes that can be sold. He explained that the market should drive
whatever the market-place needs, and legislating such needs can be a very difficult task. He
explained that a developer will build wherever there is an opportunity; unless there are constraints
that make it unattractive to build. He stated that AB 1400 is an effective tool for educating buyers
about accessible options.
Cm. Kaehuaea asked ifthe City is strict about enforcing AB 1400. Mr. Baker explained that the
City is not required to enforce AB 1400; however, the City does ask the developer to provide the
list in the plan-checking stage of the permit process.
Cm. Kaehuaea stated that she is satisfied with the requirements of AB 1400.
Cm. Avanzino asked ifunder AB 2787, an entire subdivision could be built, based on market
demand, with zero Universal Design units; and Mr. Baker said yes. Cm. A vanzino stated that
homeowners are probably in a better financial position to install Universal Design features;
however, renters are probably more likely in need of Universal Design features since they are, in
most cases, unable to alter their units and are limited to the number of Universal Design units that
may be available.
Cm. A vanzino asked if a Universal Design Ordinance would mandate accessible floor plans only
if a buyer requested such, and Mr. Baker said yes.
Cm. A vanzino added that the City to participate in educating the public on available Universal
Design options. Ms Ram stated that Staff would work towards creating an informational
pamphlet on Universal Design.
On a motion by Vice Chair Locke and seconded by Chair Parkman, and by a vote of 5-0-2 with
Cms. Murdock and De Diemar absent, the Housing Committee voted to recommend to the City
Council that a local Universal Design Ordinance will not offer a community benefit that is not
Housing Committee
5
September 21, 2006
~"b(o~
already being met by the State Requirements, with a request that this item be revisited when the
Housing Element is reviewed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
OTHER BUSINESS - None
8.1.1 Staff Updates
Mr. John Lucero, Housing Consultant, discussed the launch of the First Time Home Buyer
Program. He discussed the specifics ofthe program, the qualification standards, and the kick-off
schedule.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Housing Committee Chair
ATTESTED:
Community Development Director
K: \ Housing Committee \ Minutes\ 9-21-06.doc
Housing Committee
6
September 21, 2006
CITY CLERK
File # D[ij[9jiOJ-[[]o]
64:-f1bIoC
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 5, 2006
SUBJECT:
Universal Design Ordinance
Report by Gregory Shreeve, Building Official and
Kristi Bascom, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1)
Sample State of California New Home Universal Design
Checklist.
State-certified Model Universal Design Ordinance.
2)
RECOMMENDATION:
~., ~
L...)
1)
2)
Receive Staff Report; and
Provide direction to Staff on whether a Universal Design
Ordinance should be prepared or whether the City Council is
satisfied with the current State law requirements related to
universal design.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
. None at this time. However, if the Council determines at a later date
that a local universal design ordinance should be implemented, there
may be additional costs associated with plan checking and
inspections.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background
Adopted by the City Council and certified by the State in 2003, Dublin's Housing Element contains a
number of policies aimed at promoting equal housing opportunities for Dublin residents. Program E.2.1
of the Housing Element states that "the City will evaluate the feasibility of a universal design ordinance
that provides for greater adaptability and accessibility of housing for persons with disabilities." In an
effort to implement this program of the Housing Element, the City Council listed as a high priority goal in
the 2006/2007 Goals and Objectives, the preparation of a universal design ordinance for adoption as an
amendment to California Building Code requirements.
In an effort to assist the City Council in determining the feasibility and desirability of adopting a universal
design ordinance, Staff has prepared some background information to describe the current universal
design requirements that are dictated by State law, and also information on the limitations that are now in
place for the text of any local ordinance related to universal design.
Universal design is defined as the design of products and residential environments to be usable by all
people, to the greatest extent possible, without .the need for adaptation or specialized modifications.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COpy TO: File
Page 1 of 4
G:\Universal Design Ordinance\CC Staff Report infonnational.doc
ITEM NO. __
Attachment g
. I d 0 b fi . . d 0 h?do5bt5h ~
Umversa eSIgn ene Its persons of all ages and abilities, includmg semors an persons WIt Isa )ifit(es.
The concept behind universal design is that, if desired, a new residence can be built with certain design
features that will make living in that home easier for someone with limited mobility, strength, or
functionality. Such features include door handles that are easier to grasp, doorways that are wider and
easier to navigate through, electrical outlets that are located higher on the wall and easier to reach, and
grab bars in baths and showers to provide stability and support.
The guiding principles behind universal design are that the features should be useful to people with
diverse abilities, are easy to understand and utilize, require limited physical effort, and provide appropriate
space and size regardless ofthe user's body size, posture, or mobility.
Current State requirements regarding universal design
In 2003, the California State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill AB 1400, which requires a builder of
new, for sale residential units, to provide potential buyers with a checklist of universal design features that
could be included in their new home (Attachment 1). AB 1400, which later became Section 17959.6 of
the California State Health and Safety Code, requires the builder to offer the checklist and inform the
consumer of the status of availability of these universal design features, but it does not require the builder
to actually offer or install any particular feature.
The State-certified checklist, which must be provided to the potential buyer, is divided into 3 sections, as
follows:
Part I includes those features related to exterior adaptations, doors and openings, interior
adaptations, kitchens, and bathrooms or powder rooms.
Part II includes features that apply to other parts of the house and are commonly requested or
considered universal design features.
Part III provides space for details, or for any other external or internal feature that may be
requested, if it is requested at a reasonable time by the buyer, is reasonably available, is reasonably
feasible to install or construct, and makes the home more usable and safer for a person with any
type of activity limitation or disability.
For each of the universal design features on the checklist, the builder is required to identify the four
following categories:
1. Status: Whether the feature is standard, limited, an option, or not available, as determined by the
builder.
2. Timing: By what stage in construction the feature must be requested (such as "any time", "before
foundation", "before framing", or "before internal wall covering"), with actual times selected by
the builder.
3. Details: Whether or not there are additional details or specified modifications from the Building
Code.
4. Cost: Optional labor and materials costs (estimated by the builder).
Not every feature listed on the checklist must actually be available or offered by the builder. In addition,
certain items must be requested prior to certain phases of construction, as specified by the builder. The
builder may also provide estimated costs for the special features. A builder is not required to install the
listed features unless the builder offers them and both of the following occur: (1) the buyer requests them
with the specified phase of construction, and (2) the buyer agrees to provide payment for the features.
Attachment 1 to this Staff Report is a sample State of California New Home Universal Design che~ffs~
for one of the multi-story residential projects currently under construction in Dublin. As the checklist
indicates, many of the universal design features on the checklist are already offered as a standard feature
in this development. Also, there are a number of features that are offered as options that the future buyer
could choose to have installed, and there are few features that are not offered at all. This sample checklist
indicates that although builders are not required to offer the features (they are only required to provide the
checklist), many ofthe features are being offered as required by other State laws and market demands.
Under the State Law requirements, the City of Dublin plays no role in enforcing whether the checklist is
actually provided to each new homebuyer, and it is up to the builder to comply with State Law. However,
through the City's plan check process, the City Building Division does verify that the builder has a
checklist to provide to future homeowners in compliance with Section 17959.6 of the California State
Health and Safety Code.
ANALYSIS:
Optional Local Ordinance
Some jurisdictions in the State of California have adopted local ordinances requiring universal design
features in new homes. In 2005, the State of California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) certified a model Universal Design Ordinance that can be adopted voluntarily by
cities and counties (Attachment 2).
The model ordinance has been drafted and certified by the State of California Department of Housing and
Community Development as required by another State Assembly Bill, AB 2787, so if a city chooses to
adopt a local ordinance to address universal design requirements, the ordinance must be adopted in
substantially the same form as the model ordinance, which does not allow for much deviation to tailor the
ordinance to local conditions.
The model ordinance identifies rooms and denotes features which must be offered by a builder in
residential units subject to the ordinance that are being newly-constructed or substantially rehabilitated.
Such features must only be installed if requested by the buyer/owner and which would not cause an
unreasonable delay or significant un-reimbursable costs to the developer or builder. Because the model
ordinance states which universal design features must be offered to homeowners (but not installed unless
chosen), the requirements are above and beyond the current State law, which simply requires that the
checklist of universal design features and their availability be provided to future homeowners.
In general, the model ordinance provides definitions for critical terms related to universal design, local
options as to types and number of units (owner-occupied and/or rental) to which the ordinance will be
applied, and specific exemptions and enforcement mechanisms. The model ordinance also contains
examples of rooms and areas in covered units for which it is mandatory to offer certain design features,
such as an accessible path of travel to dwelling, at least one bathroom or powder room on the primary
entry level, handrail and handrail reinforcement in hallways, and entry door high/1ow peep hole viewer.
Under the model ordinance, it is not required that the builder install any feature nor is it required that the
builder is responsible for paying the cost of installing the feature.
If a local ordinance is adopted, the City will then be in the role of enforcing whether or not the ordinance
is complied with through the building permit process.
Other California Building Code requiremellts related to adaptability/accessibility 57l11-.lo~
In addition to the various universal design features that can be provided in any type of residential- th1i.t,
there are other State mandates that also provide accessible features in certain types of homes.
In multi-family developments where there are more than 4 units and there is an elevator (i.e The Terraces
at Dublin Ranch), California Building Code requires that all single-level units be adaptably-designed.
This requirement exceeds universal design requirements in that features such as handrail reinforcement
inside the walls not only need to be offered, but they need to be installed by the builder. This would allow
the unit to be adapted at a later date to be disabled-accessible.
Another requirement of the California Building Code for multi-family developments where there are more
than 4 units that are designed as a townhouse (multi-level) style (i.e. The Willows project by Braddock.
and Logan), is at least 10% of the units in the development must provide an accessible entrance to the
ground floor, an accessible room on the ground floor, and an accessible bathroom on the ground floor
(unless exempted by site impracticality). Additionally, all other rooms on the primary entry level in these
units shall also be accessible.
These State-mandated requirements ensure that multi-family projects (more than 4 units in size), include
features that often exceed the universal design standards and provide accessibility for future residents.
Options for City Council consideration
Staff is seeking direction from the City Council as to whether a local universal design ordinance should be
prepared.
If a local ordinance is prepared, State law requires that the local ordinance be substantially the same as the
State model ordinance. If the City Council determines that a local universal design ordinance will not
offer a community benefit that is not already being met by the State requirements explained in this Staff
report, a local ordinance will not be prepared. In this case, the State requirements to provide notification
to future homeowners of the availability of universal design features (through the existing checklist
process) in combination with the other State requirements to provide accessible and adaptable units and
features in multi-family residential buildings, will continue to address the need for accessible and
adaptable units.
If the City Council directs Staff to prepare a local ordinance, Staff proposes to bring the draft ordinance to
the Housing Committee for their review and input, and Staff will also schedule a meeting with developers
and building industry professionals to solicit their input. After feedback is received from these two
groups, Staff will finalize the draft ordinance for City Council review and approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction to Staff on whether a Universal Design
Ordinance should be drafted or whether the City Council is satisfied with the current State law
requirements related to universal design.
5~ CJb f.r;~
City Manager Ambrose clarified that the Council wanted the descriptor plaque included
in the Council's approval.
The Council concurred.
..
Approval of Consultant Services Agreement for the Union Pacific
Right of Way/Alameda County Property General Plan Amendment Study
12:04 a.m. 8.2 (600-30)
Senior Planner Kristi Bascom presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council
would consider approving a Consultant Services Agreement with RBF Consulting/Urban
Design Studio to conduct a community outreach process and develop three conceptual
land use plans for consideration on the Union Pacific/Alameda County property located
to the north and south of Amador Valley Boulevard.
On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Vm. Oravetz and by unanimous vote, the
City Council adopted
RESOLt'TION NQ. 171 ,- 06
APPROVING AN AGREE.\'lENT DET\VEEN TIlE CITY or I1t.:BLTN AND RBI'
L'("\NSt'LTING/PRBAN DESIGNSTl'DIO (RBF/CDS) AND AlTTHORIZINC THE CITY
l\1ANAGER TO SIGN TI IE AGREE~V1ENT
-+
Universal Design Ordinance
12:05 a.m. 8.3 (440-10)
Building Official Gregory Shreeve presented the Staff Report and advised that Staff was
seeking direction from the City Council as to whether a local Universal Design
Ordinance for new homes should be prepared, understanding all of the other State laws
and codes which already addressed housing accessibility and adaptability for people with
limited mobility, strength, or functionality.
. ... t. I Ki'~. ~:'\. l .~. "r'l. ,- ~--.~. !I. '. :f..' ,I T, ,\it! ''''l.. T~.:-.""
~; ,..'~ !$"'~; l ~ '....... i. l. # ;~ '1~_ t.lt:\. l~ 1'1$. ~ ~ "&~- ,.
VOLl11\tIE 25
REGULAR MEETING
September 5, 2006
PAG f. .,fi6
J?q ~fo~
Council and Staff engaged ina question and answer session regarding the necessary
paperwork involved and data that would need to be maintained by the property owner if
a local Ordinance were adopted.
Mayor Lockhart recommended that this issue be studied by the Housing Committee prior
to Council decision.
On motion of Mayor Lockhart, seconded by Cm. McCormick and by unanimous vote, the
City Council directed Staff to give the same presentation to the Housing Committee, with
the request to the Housing Committee to make a recommendation to the Council as to
whether the existing State law served Dublin's needs or if a City Ordinance should be
adopted.
Mr. Shreeve asked for permission for Staff to take the Housing Committee's
recommendation to the Developers and Builders for comment prior to returning before
the Council.
The Council concurred.
..
Selection of Red Ribbon Week Banner Design
12:20 a.m. 8.4 (950-40)
Community Safety Assistant Val Guzman presented the Staff Report and advised that, as
part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for FY 2006-07, funding was approved
for the acquisition of 40 banners supporting Red Ribbon Week during the month of
October each year. Red Ribbon Week was part of a nationwide anti-drug campaign, and
took place officially every October 23-31. The City of Dublin had participated in Red
Ribbon Week for the last 15 years. The banners would be displayed from October 7 -
October 31 st of each year.
On motion of Mayor Lockhart, seconded by Cm. McCormick and by unanimous vote, the
City Council selected Option #2 and the logo "Our Pledge to be a Drug Free Dublin.".
..
,:~pl tiLl'," {- fl '\' ('O~ "\( '~L \l'~)\~i -1'E';';
VO L lJ1\IE 25
REGULAR l\fEETING
September 5, 2006
PAGE. JO""
I.t;DtJfJtlS'
2007 NEW HOME UNIVERSAL DESIGN OPTION CHECKLIST (AB 1400)
Name of Development, if applicable
Home/Lot Address/lD
Developer (Contact) Name
Phone #
Address
Fax
California law, section 17959.6 of the Health and Safety Code, requires a builder of new for-sale
residential units to provide buyers with a list of specific "universal design features" which make a
home safer and easier to use for persons who are aging or frail, or who have certain temporary or
permanent activity limitations or disabilities. A developer is not required to provide the listed features
during construction or at any other time, unless the developer has offered to provide a feature and the
buyer has requested it and agreed to provide payment.
Part I is a summary of which features, if any are available or offered.
Part II is an explanation of the law s governing the Checkli st and use of the Checklist
Part III includes those features related to exterior adaptations, doors and openings, interior
adaptations, kitchens, and bathrooms or powder rooms.
Part IV includes features which apply to other parts of the house and are commonly requested or
considered universal design features.
Part V provides space for details, or for any other external or internal feature that may be requested,
if it is requested at a reasonable time by the buyer, is reasonably available, is reasonably feasible to
install or construct, and makes the home more usable and safer for a person with any type of activity
limitation or disability.
PART I: SUMMARY OF FEATURES AVAILABLE OR OFFERED
(If "available". see Parts III. IV. andlor V)
Feature Available
III. 1. Exterior Features (accessible route to door)
III. 2. Exterior Doors, Openings, and Entries Features
III. 3. General Interior Features
III. 4. Kitchen Features
III. 5. Bathroom/Powder Room Features
IV. 6. Common Room Features (Dining and Living)
IV. 7. Bedroom Features
IV. 8. Laundry Area Features
V. Other Features
Not Available
PART II: EXPLANATION OF LAWS GOVERNING CHECKLIST AND USE OF THE LIST
All features covered by "Chapter 11A" of the California Building Code (Title 24, California Code of
Regulations, Part 2) are identified by an asterisk (*) and must comply with that Chapter unless
otherwise specifically provided. All features not in Chapter 11A must be selected and installed in a
workmanlike manner by the builder unless they a re further described in Part V.
Features listed may not actually be available or offered by the builder. In addition, certain items must
be requested prior to certain phases of construction, as specified by the builder. The builder may
provide estimated costs for the special features. The features must be installed and comply with
Chapter 11 A, unless the builder and buyer agree in writing to different standards than those in
Chapter 11 A and the differences are clearly disclosed in Part V. A builder is not required to install
the listed features unless the buil der offers them and both of the following occur: (1) the buyer
requests them with the specified phase of construction, and (2) the buyer agrees to provide payment
Attachment 9
1.41 tJ() Io~
Model Universal Design Checklist (1/2007)
Page 2
for the features. Any violation of this law is enforced by the local building department and local public
prosecutors, and is punishable by civi I penalties.
The attached chart lists the specific features which must be disclosed, as well as others commonly
requested but not required by law. There are four categories for each feature:
· "Status": whether it is standard ("S"), limited ("L "), an option ("0"), or not available ("NA"), all as
determined by the builder.
· 'Timing": by what stage in construction it must be requested (such as "any time", "before
foundation", "before framing", or "before internal wall covering"), with actual times selected by
the builder.
· "Details": whether or not there are additional details or specified modifications from the Building
Code listed in the "Additional Details" section, Part V (e.g., "Yes" or "No").
· Cost": optional labor and materials costs which may be estimated by the builder.
PART III: General Exterior and Interior Components and Features
Feature
Status Timinq Details Cost
1. Exterior Features
Accessible route of travel to dwelling from public sidewalk or
thoroughfare to primary entrance .
Graded path*
Ramp*
Driveway to graded path
No-step entry (1/2" or less threshold)*
Accessible landscaping of at least one side yard
and rear yard
Accessible route from garage/parking to home's primary entry*
Accessible route from garage/parking to secondary entry
Other options offered by builder [List in Part V]
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
2. Exterior Doors, Openings, and Entries Features:
Minimum 32" clear primary entry doorway*
Minimum 32" clear secondary entry doorway*
Primary entry accessible internal/external maneuvering
clearances, hardware, thresholds, and strike edge clearances* _
Secondary entry accessible internal/external maneuvering
clearances, hardware, thresholds, and strike edge c1earances* _
Primary entry accessible/dual peephole and doorbell
Primary entry door sidelighVwindow
Accessible sliding glass door and threshold height*
Weather-sheltered entry area
Other options offered by builder [List in Part V]
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
3. General Interior Features
Accessible route of travel to at least one bathroom/powder room,
kitchen, and common room*
Accessible route of travel: other areas*
42" wide hallways/maneuvering clearances with 32" clear
doorways on accessible route*
$-
$-
$-
Abbreviation Meanings: Standards in CA Bldg Code (Chapter 11A), ("*"); Status: Standard ("S"), Limited ("L"),
Option ("a"), or Not Available ("NA"); Timinq: Any Time ("AT), Before Foundation ("BFo"), Before Framing ("BFr") ,
Before Internal Wall COVF~ring ("BIW"); Details: See Part V ("Y" or "Yes"), None ("N" or "No").
~2-"b (g~
Model Universal Design Checklist (1/2007)
Page 3
Feature
Status Timina Details Cost
39" wide hallways/maneuvering clearances with 34" clear
doorways on accessible route*
Accessible hallway and doorway widths: other areas*
Accessible hardware, strike edge clearance, and thresholds for
accessible doorways*
Light switches, electric receptacles, and environmental and alarm
controls at accessible heights on accessible route/rooms*
Light switches, electric receptacles, and environmental and
alarm controls at accessible heights on primary f1oor*
Light switches, electric receptacles, and environmental and
alarm controls at accessible locations when over barriers*
Rocker light switches/controls on accessible route/rooms
Rocker light switches/controls on primary floor
Visual smoke/fire/carbon monoxide alarm
Audio and visual doorbell
Audio and visual security alarm
Closets on accessible route: adjustable (36"-60") rods/shelves
Nonslip carpet/floor for accessible route
Handrail reinforcement (1 side) provided in all accessible
routes of travel/rooms over 4 feet long
Handrails (1 side) provided in all accessible routes of
travel/rooms over 4 feet in length
Handrail reinforcement (2 sides) provided in all accessible
routes of travel/rooms over 4 feet in length
Handrails (2 sides) provided in all accessible routes of
travel/rooms over 4 feet in length
Handrail reinforcement or handrails installed in other areas
Interior lifts/elevators:
Interior stairway lift
Interior elevator
Electrical and reinforcement for future lift
Electrical and location for future elevator
Laundry Area, if provided:
Accessible route of travel
Accessible workspace
Accessible cabinets
Accessible appliances
Other options offered by builder [List in Part V]
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$
$=
$-
4. Kitchen Features
At least one kitchen on accessible route of travel
Adequate work/floor space in front of:
Stove (specify 30"x48" or greater)*
Refrigerator (specify 30"x48" or greater)*
Dishwasher (specify 30"x48" or greater)*
Sink (specify 30"x48" or greater)*
Oven (if separate) (specify 30"x48" or greater)*
U-shaped kitchen space requirements*
Other (specify 30"x48" or greater)*
Accessible appliances (doors, controls, etc.)
Stove
Refrigerator
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Abbreviation Meanings: Standards in CA Bldg Code (Chapter 11A), ("*"); Status: Standard ("S"). Limited ("L"),
Option ("0"), or Not Available ("NA"); Timina: Any Time ("Ar), Before Foundation ("BFo"), Before Framing ("BFr") ,
Before Internal Wall Covering ("BIW"); Details: See Part V ("Y" or "Yes"). None (UN" or "No").
(P3Vb"~
Model Universal Design Checklist (1/2007)
Page 4
Feature
Status Timinq Details Cost
$-
$-
$-
$-
Dishwasher
Sink
Oven (if not part of stove)
Microwave/receptacle at countertop height
Other appliances
Accessible countertops
All or a specified portion repositionable*
One or more breadboards at 15" wide* and 28"-32" high _
One or more counter areas at 30" wide* and 28"-32" high_
One or more workspaces at 30" wide with knee/toe space _
Other features
Cabinets:
Base cabinets: pull-out and/or Lazy Susan shelves
Wall cabinets: pull-out and/or Lazy Susan shelves
Additional interior lighting
Additional under-cabinet lighting
Accessible handles//touch latches for doors/drawers
Under-cabinet roll-out carts
Other features
$-
$-
$
$=
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Sink:
Repositionable height*
Removable base cabinets under sink*
Single-handle lever faucet*
Hose/sprayer feature
Anti-scald device
Other features
Contrasting Colors:
Edge border of cabinets/counters
Flooring: in front of appliances
Flooring: on route of travel
Other features
Other options offered by builder [List in Part V]
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
5. Bathroom/Powder Room Features
At least one full bathroom on accessible route of travel
Maneuvering Space (For bathrooms and powder room)
Maneuvering space diameter
30" x 48" turning area*
60" diameter turning area
Clear space for toilet and sink
36" x 36" clear use area
30" x 48" clear use area*
Bathtub and/or shower (For bathrooms only)
Standard bathtub with grab bar reinforcement*
Standard bathtub with grab bars*
Accessible bathtub (size* and handles)
Standard shower with grab bar reinforcement*
Standard shower with grab bars*
Accessible (roll-in) shower*
Single-handle lever faucets*
Offset controls for exterior use
Toilet (For bathrooms or powder room)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Abbreviation Meanings: Standards in CA Bldg Code (Chapter 11A), ("*"); Status: Standard ("S"), Limited ("L"),
Option ("0"), or Not Available ("NA"); Timinq: Any Time ("AT"), Before Foundation ("BFo"), Before Framing ("BFr") ,
Before Internal Wall Covering ("BIW'); Details: See Part V ("Y" or "Yes"), None ("N" or "No").
~ ~Ob toe-
Model Universal Design Checklist (1/2007)
Page 5
Feature
Status Timina Details Cost
Standard toilet with grab bar reinforcement*
Standard toilet with grab bars*
Accessible toilet with grab bars*
Sink/Lavatory (For bathrooms or powder room)
Standard with undersink cabinets
Standard with removable base cabinets*
Pedestal or open front*
Accessories (For bathroom or powder room)
Lower/accessible medicine chest
Accessible counter space near sink
Single-handle lever faucets*
Anti-scald devices for sink
Accessible handles//touch latches for doors/drawers
Lower towel rack{s)
Lower/tilted mirror{s)
Contrasting floor color
Fold-down/fixed shower seat{s)
Accessible toilet tissue holder
Hand-held adjustable shower spray unit{s)
Other options offered by builder [List in Part V]
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$
$=
$-
$-
$-
$
$=
$-
$-
7. Bedroom Features
One bedroom on accessible route of travel
Two or more bedrooms on accessible route of travel
Closets have minimum 32" clear opening*
Larger "walk-in" closets
Closets have adjustable (36"-60") shelves and bars
Other options offered by builder [List in Part V]
$-
$
$-
$
$=
8. Laundry Area Features
Laundry area on accessible bath of travel
Accessories:
Accessible workspace
Accessible cabinets
Accessible handles//touch latches for doors/drawers
Accessible appliances
Other options offered by builder [List in Part V]
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Abbreviation Meanings: Standards in CA Bldg Code (Chapter 11A), ("*"); Status: Standard ("S"), Limited ("L"),
Option ("O"), or Not Available ("NA"); Timina: Any Time ("AT"), Before Foundation ("BFo"), Before Framing ("BFr") ,
Before Internal Wall Covering ("BIW"); Details: See Part V ("Y" or "Yes"), None ("N" or "No").
,.--
t.J; 5 Ub {p?
Model Universal Design Checklist (1/2007)
Page 6
Part V: Additional Details. Comoonents. or Features
A. External Features: Buyer Request (Any other additional external feature requested at a
reasonable time by the buyer that is reasonably available and reasonably feasible to install or
construct and makes the residence more usable for a person with activity limitations or
disabilities in order to accommodate them). These may include features such as high-visibility
address numbers, electronic garage door openers, additional lights, door bench or package
shelf, oversize garage, zero-step house/garage entry, etc. (Attached as Part III. A: _Yes _No)
B. External Features: Builder Offer (Any other additional external feature offered to the buyer
by the builder that makes the residence more usable for a person with disabilities or activity
limitations in order to accommodate then). (Attached as Part III.B: _Yes _No)
C. Internal Features: Buyer Request (Any other additional internal feature requested at a
reasonable time by the buyer that is reasonably available and reasonably feasible to install or
construct and makes the residence more usable for a person with activity limitations or
disabilities in order to accommodate them). These may include features such as lowered
window sills (under 36"), additional lighting, "touch" luminous light switches, automatic internal
lights, additional wiring for electronic features, lighted closets, air filtration systems, larger/more
automatic thermostats, pocket doors, etc. (Attached as Part IIl.e: _Yes _N)
D. Internal Features: Builder Offer (Any other additional internal feature offered to the buyer
by the builder that makes the residence more usable for a person with activity limitations or
disabilities in order to accommodate them). (Attached as Part 111.0: _Yes _No)
E. Variation from State Chapter 11A Standards: (Any mutually agreed-upon features with
standards different than Chapter 11A of the California Building Code, including clearly identified
deviations from those standards). (Attached as Part III.E: _Yes _No)
F. Additional features or requirements: (Any mutually agreed-upon features not covered by
Chapter 11 A of the California Building Code for which additional detail would be helpful to the
builder and buyer, including clearly identified standards.) (Attached as Part III.F: _Yes _No)
Form Provided by Builder to Buyer:
Builder Initials/Date
Buyer Initials/Date
No Universal Design Features Requested:
Buyer Signature/Date
Universal Design Features Identified
And Agreed To By Builder and Buyer:
Buyer Signature/Date
Builder Signature/Date
Abbreviation Meanings: Standards in CA Bldg Code (Chapter 11A), ("*"); Status: Standard ("S"), Limited ("L"),
Option ("0"), or Not Available ("NA"); Timino: Any Time ("Ar), Before Foundation ("BFo"), Before Framing ("BFr") ,
Before Internal Wall Covering ("BIW"); Details: See Part V ("Y" or "Yes"), None ("N" or "No").