HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1 Universal Design
CITY CLERK
File # 440-10
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 17,2006
SUBJECT:
Universal Design Ordinance
Report by Gregory Shreeve, Building Official
ATTACHMENTS:
1)
City Council Staff Report dated September 5, 2006 (without
attachments) .
Draft Housing Committee Meeting Minutes for September
21,2006.
2)
RECOMMENDATION:
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.l 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:
1) If the current laws and codes are accomplishing the City Council's goals on Universal Design;
and
COPY TO: File
Page 1 of2
ITEM NO. '1, l
G:\Agendas\2006\Universal Design Ord\CC Staff Report 1 O-17-06.doc
2) If not, should Staff work with the Housing Committee to decide if an ordinance should be
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
,,)
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:
.~... ~
I..,..]
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 200612007 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
l'
'-, ! I
Attachment 1
G:\Universal Design Ordinance\CC Staff Report informationaLdoc
Universal design benefits persons of all ages and abilities, including seniors and persons with disabifai:b <g
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 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 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 Ch~~G ~
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 opti~ns 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 of the 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/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 .. +~ <b
In addition to the various universal design features that can be provided in any type of residential urnt,
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.
DRAFT
?t~
DRAFT
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
_n _
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.
WRITIEN 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
Housing Committee
3
September 21, 2006
ATTACHMENT 2
DRAfT
vtJ()<6
DRAfT
accessible 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 identity 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), of the 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,
Housing Committee
4
September 21, 2006
DRAFT
IObc/
DRAFT
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.
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 trom 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 if the 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 if under AB 2787, an entire subdivision could be built based on
market demand, with zero Universal Design units; and Mr. Baker said yes. Cm. Avanzino
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. Avanzino asked if a Universal Design Ordinance would mandate accessible floor
plans only if a buyer requested such, and Mr. Baker said yes.
Housing Committee
5
September 21, 2006
DRAfT
D~~~
Cm. Avanzino 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 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 of the program, the qualification standards, and the
kick-off schedule.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was aqjourned 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 2 L 2006