Final Transcript

	STATE OF CA – DEPT OF GENERAL SERVICES: Access Code Stakeholder Forum #1
	February 22, 2018/9:30 a.m. PST 

SPEAKERS

Ida Claire
Susan Moe
Derek Shaw
Debbie Wong

PRESENTATION
*Due to the use of speakerphone, we could not hear some participants who were farther away.  Also, sound quality was poor from those speaking in Oakland.*

Moderator	Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by.  Welcome to the Access Code Stakeholder Forum #1.  At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode.  Later, we’ll conduct a question and answer session.  Instructions will be given at that time.   [Operator instructions].  As a reminder, today’s call is being recorded.

	Now, I’d like to turn the conference over to your host, Ida Claire.  Please go ahead.

Ida	Hi.  Welcome, all, today to our first public stakeholder meeting regarding our Access Code Development for the 2018 triennial code development cycle.  A few reminders, this meeting is being recorded.  There will be a transcript available, which we will upload to our DSA Access 2019 website once we receive it from the transcript group.  And we also are recording this meeting via camera for those of you who are also in the room.  There are cameras in the back of the room, just so you’re aware.

	A couple things, we are starting our meeting today.  We have a very, very full agenda.  We do have a couple breaks scheduled and lunch.  But because we have a full agenda, we may ask if that break actually needs to happen or if lunch can be shortened depending on how code development goes.  

	A little bit about the meeting rules, everyone will have an opportunity to speak.  We will start first with comments in the room, proceed to the regional offices, if there’s any in attendance at the regional offices, and then defer to comments on the phone.  Those will be done in a queue format and you will see your phone line will be released in order to address your comment by our phone moderator.

	We ask though, because we have a full agenda, if you could please, we obviously want you to voice every comment that you have available, but if your comment is repetitive, and for the sake of time we encourage you to echo someone else’s comment.  You can refer to them by name in the meeting transcript if you agree with someone else’s comment instead of repeating it.  It will be reflected in the transcript and we will be able to go back.  If you say I echo so-and-so, we will be able to read what that comment is, as opposed to taking the time to read it.  We do really want to get through our full agenda.

	Our code proposals, this is our first opportunity to address the code change proposals.  We are only at the beginning of our pre-cycle activities.  This process will continue through May, until we have to submit our package to the Code Advisory Committee of the Building Standards Commission.  That Code Advisory Committee Meeting will be in August, but our formal package and the formal code development process will not occur until September.  So, we are only in February.  We are at the beginning of this process.

Bob	Ida, those days seem new to me.  I thought it was July and August.  You’re saying August, September.

Ida	Well, our Code Advisory Committee Meeting is in August.  So, the package to start the formal process, the 45 days, can’t occur until after that.  We don’t have those dates yet but we have the approximate schedule of when that will occur.

Bob	Sounds good.

Ida	So, prior to that, our pre-cycle activities I’d like to express a little bit about those in advance.  They are modified this year, a little bit new because we do have our Access Code Collaborative in which we worked alongside.  And so, we did have our Access Code Collaborative meeting on January 31st.  We introduced some of those proposals to them and got their feedback.  

	Today is our first public stakeholder meeting.  We will have another ACC meeting, Access Code Collaborative meeting, on March 7th, where we take comments that we received today and bring back to them.  And, we do have another public stakeholder meeting on April 12th.  That will be our second.  Again, as I have stated before, the opportunity to comment at the Code Advisory Committee Meetings, through the 45-day code process, comment period and again at the adoption meeting.  Also, any time during this code development cycle, you’re welcome to reach out to us if you want to have an individual conversation to discuss further any of these issues and your concerns.  We are always open to that.

	I do want to let you know, and apologize that I know for many individuals there was a communication issue in getting these proposals out, specifically to our Adult Changing Facilities Task Force.  That was an internal communications issue.  An email was sent to you, I believe it was late December that acknowledged that if you needed to get on our stakeholder website to enroll because DGS policy does not allow us to put your name directly into a queue for receiving notifications.  Many of you either missed that email or didn’t sign up, and I did not follow-up to ensure that that happened.  And so, I did this week because I knew I hadn’t heard from many of you.  We sent out that information to you just this week.

	And while I know that that is short notice, and I apologize, that was not in any way intentional.  It was just a communication error on our behalf.  We will do better.  But again, this is only the very first opportunity to comment.  These proposals are not set in stone.  These are just a method for us to—based on our investigations—to bring these proposals to you and the rationale behind them to start this point of discussion and receive comments from you to see how we can make these better.

	And so, I do ask you, of course, to be respectful of everyone’s comments, respectful of everyone’s time, and respectful of the process.  Again, like I said, this is new with our ACC and so it is going to be a lot of back and forth.  That being said, we do encourage you to go to our ACC webpage.  If you Google DSA ACC or DSA Access Code Collaborative should come up on the first on the list.  You can click on that.  Our Access Code Collaborative activities, we have the dates posted.  

	You are welcome to listen in on those meetings.  You are not, however, able to offer comment.  It’s really a listening session for those who are not on the Collaborative.  But you can hear their perspective, the Access Code Collaborative are 13 representative stakeholders.  You can hear their perspective and their dialogue, and so stay informed on the comments that are raised regarding these issues as they develop. 

	In addition, the Access Code Collaborative transcript will also be uploaded onto the website so that you can read, if you don’t have an opportunity to participate and listen in on the day that the Access Code Collaborative happens.  As I stated, all the public stakeholder meeting transcripts will also be uploaded to our Access 2019 webpage.

	That being said, I am done with my announcements.  So, we can begin.  Sue?

Susan	One other thing because this is being recorded, and we also have a person who is doing the real-time captioning, and we have our moderator from AT&T, so speak loud and clear.  When you make a comment, state your name before you make the comment because then that helps when we end up with a transcript that they’ll know who made the comment.  Try not to rustle your papers around or have any background conversations because it makes it very difficult for the captioner and then also for the moderator and for AT&T to capture what’s going on in the room.

Ida	And also to facilitate the process, in addition to your name, if you could state the organization you’re with or whether you’re a licensed design professional, or the perspective that you hold so that people can understand the comment in perspective of the person presenting it.

	Derek?

[Off-mic conversation]

Derek	Good morning.  I’m Derek Shaw, Senior Architect with DSA.  I work in writing building codes.  Today we’re going to have our senior architect staff, the three of us, Debbie Wong, Susan Moe, and myself, Derek Shaw, we’re going to be presenting the current draft of the code change proposals.  As Ida had mentioned, these are only drafts.  They’re not set in stone yet, and so a big purpose of this meeting is to solicit public comments on our current draft.  And that’ll help to guide us as proceed along through developing our code change proposals for ultimate submission to the Building Standards Commission.

	Now, in the meeting documents, you probably saw a file that included all of our draft code change proposals.  Each code change proposal looks like this.  We prepare this on the DSA Code Development Forms.  The way this form is organized is we have some identifying tracking information up at the top here.  In the next section, we reflect what the current code language is for this section of code that we’re contemplating amendments.

	The next section then says suggested text of proposed amendments and that’s where we’re going to see strike-out and underlining format, as well as text without any strike-out or underlining.  Now the text without strike-out or underline is current code text.  The text that we see that has a strike-out in it would indicate text to be deleted.  And then the text that we see that has underline is text that we’re proposing to add to that section.  So, this is part of what we’re required under state law as method to prepare our code change proposals.

	Now, for everyone’s benefit, we also provide this next section that says, code text if adopted.  Now, that just simply displays the text as if the proposed amendment was adopted without strike-out and underline.  It’s easier for some people to understand it and to read the final form of it, you will.  Ida?

Ida	I just wanted to add, can you talk a little bit about some of the proposals that are straight-up text and some that are italicized so they understand.

Derek	I can, sure.  

Ida	Thanks.  It’s not shown on this one.

Derek	No, it is not.  There is other text formatting that is included in the California Building Code and we reflect it in our Code Change Development Forms.  And that’s the difference between italic text, that’s the leaning text, or straight-up text, Roman text.  The straight-up text, Roman text, indicates text from the model code.  Now, for DSA, DSA had to utilize the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design as our model code for Chapter 11B.  And so, where within Chapter 11B, you see straight-up text, that language is right from the federal requirements, ADA standards.

	The italic text indicates California amendments and so you’ll see with the Roman text, the straight-up text, you’ll see interspersed italic text.  The italic text is the California amendments and those are within Chapter 11B adopted by DSA.

	With that, I’ll go ahead and get started.  First, we’re going to start out with a few that are smaller, more discrete and hopefully simpler items.  But the first item is looking at the definition of riser.  And, if you could take a look at the current code language, we really have three definitions that impact an issue that came to our attention this last year about stairs.

	Let me go ahead and explain what the issue is first of all.  But, risers, steps and treads, these are all components of a stair.  The issue that came to our attention had to do with required handrails at stairs.  Now, what came to our attention was that because of the existing definition of riser that it created an unintended consequence in the code language which had the consequence of not requiring handrails at stairs with only one riser.  

	Now, why is that?  Well, commonly we think a riser tis the vertical part of a stair, of a step.  But, we see here in the definition that the current definition of riser says the upright part between two adjacent stair treads.  So far, so good, except there are two other horizontal portions of a stair that need to be considered and that’s the landing at the top of the stairs and the landing at the bottom of the stairs.  So, if our definition for riser says only that it’s the upright part between two stair treads, that leaves a big question as to what about the upright part between a landing and the next tread up or between the upper landing and the next tread down.  By definition, those are not included as risers.

	So, what we’re proposing is to make some alterations to the code to change the definition of riser to instead read, “The upright part between two adjacent stair treads or between a stair tread and an upper or lower landing.”  So, we think that’s going to close the loophole that’s in there right now.

	In addition to this, we’re looking to strike the definition for step and for tread.  These were California definitions that were added and they can easily be understood by the common language definitions of steps and treads.  So, really having a specific California Building Code definition in this case is not really necessary.  

	That’s what we’re proposing at this point.  That’s what our draft says, and I think right now if I can open it up to any comments.  First of all, we’ll go here in the room and then we’ll proceed to our remote video links.

Bob	Bob Raymer with CBIA.  I kind of like where you’re going with this.  Just some administrative questions, are you coordinating with HCD and does the fire marshal use this code?  Do they use the existing step and tread definitions?

Derek	Those are DSA AC definitions.

Bob	Yes, but do other agencies at all reference them at all?  

Derek	I don’t believe so.  Stoyan do you reference these?

Stoyan	Yes, we pull from these three.  We can pull from either in our package.  I still don’t know the difference of tread [ph] we need to evaluate that. If it goes well we can [indiscernible]  

Bob	Like I said, we like where you’re headed.  There’s some clarity that could be used here to coordinate with other agencies that adopt it.

Stoyan	[Indiscernible] I don’t think that will be an issue [indiscernible] So we’ll see what happens.

Derek	Okay, great, thanks for that.  Any other comments?

Frank	Frank [indiscernible], CASp.  I feel riser of what I consider a stair.  So, this definition could be confused on that.

Derek	Well, for the purposes of requiring a handrail, we certainly do.  Our intent all along was to require the handrail at cases even with a single riser.  And, the back up for that is just simply that any time you have a step that people who have a little bit of balance issues do need the benefit of a handrail.

Frank	So, that step is not defined as a stair in Chapter 10.

Derek	Chapter 10 may take a different approach to the requirements.  Now, where Chapter 10 requirements apply and Chapter 11B requirements apply, you have to comply with both at the same time.  Yes, Chapter 10 does provide some exceptions for the single riser admission.

Frank	Then some just clarity as to that requirement for the handrails at that particular location.  That’ll get argued a lot, I can see that.

Derek	We don’t have authority to propose building code in Chapter 10 typically.

Frank	Just an issue here, maybe the definition between a stair—right now a stair tread between the upper and lower landing, we’re talking about a stair tread but we’re talking about a riser between two landings is what I’m saying.  You want a handrail or riser between two landings.

Derek	That’s a good point.  Good, thank you.  Any other comments?

Bill	Yes, just real quick, Bill Zellmer with Sutter Health.  I support your proposal.

Derek	Good, thank you for your [indiscernible] on that.  We are running really tight on time, as Ida mentioned.  So, we’d really appreciate brief and to the point comments.  Let’s go ahead and see if we have any comments from our video links.  Mark, any comments there in Oakland?

Mark	Yes, Mark Smith Senior Architect over here at DSA in Oakland.  I share the same concern about how to handle the situation we have with a riser between two landings. [indiscernible].  

Derek	Okay, good.  Thanks for your [indiscernible].  

Susan	I don’t think we have any—

[Off-mic conversation]

Derek	We don’t have anybody in Los Angeles, and we don’t have anybody in our San Diego office that’s attending.  Let’s go ahead and go to the phone lines now.  Does anybody have any comments on this item?

Moderator	[Operator instructions].  We have a comment from the line of Terry McLean.  Please go ahead.

Terry	Hi, this is Terry McLean, Architect and CASp.  First off, it’s very difficult to hear anybody other than Derek.  Everyone else tends to get a little muffled.  So, if I repeat myself because someone else has said it, it’s because I can’t hear them.

	The comment on the stair tread is because if you have a single step up, if you will, between a landing and a landing, I think you want a handrail on that.  And when you say between a tread and an upper landing, that tends to make me think it’s a stair tread and like a 10” wide stair tread and a landing at the top.  And then at the same 10” stair tread and a landing at the bottom, which would require basically two steps up, would be the first part to require a handrail.  So that’s really not clear to me.

Derek	Terry, that’s exactly what a couple of our other commenters have just said.  So, thanks for echoing that.

Moderator	Thank you.  We have a comment from the line of Gene Lozano.  Please go ahead.

Gene	This is Gene Lozano with the California Council of the Blind.  I’ve been having the same problem as Terry just stated.  I want to echo what had been said.  The concern was whether this definition would cover a riser between a lower and upper landing.  Thank you.

Derek	Thanks, Gene.

Moderator	Thank you.

Derek	Any other comments on the telephone?

Moderator	Yes.  We have a question coming from the line of Rick Halloran.  Please go ahead.

Rick	Yes, this is Rick Halloran, Retired Senior Building Inspector, City of San Francisco, Certified Access Specialist.  I applaud the effort to get rid of the confusion on this.  It does create a lot of confusion.

	However, in the definitions, you have three definitions in a row: stair, stairs plural, and stairway.  Stairs plural refers to steps and this is adopted by the Building Standards Commission and Public Health.  So, I’m not sure if you realized that.  If you eliminate steps, you eliminate the definition that Public Health and Building Standards use.

	Also, the definition of stairway is one or more flights of stairs, plural, which again goes back to—to me the confusion is in these three definitions.  And, I’ve had multiple occasions where people come in and stakeholders talk to me about using this definition versus that definition.  I think this needs to be—I applaud the effort but I think we need to clarify it further and take into consideration those three definitions.  Thank you.

Derek	That’s real good.  Thank you, Rick.  As I mentioned earlier, this is just simply our first draft of these items and we will be taking these comments into consideration and making further progress on these as we go along.

Ida	I just wanted to clarify the first few—Frank’s comment is that we have not presented the definition of stair, which DSA adopts [ph] and it is a change in elevation consisting of one or more risers.  So, when we’re addressing the stair in this section, it’s in context that it does take into consideration one or more risers, even though I think there’s validity about the risers between two landings, which we need to address.

	To Rick Halloran’s comment, we do not adopt the definition of stairs, which sets a series of two or more steps.  

Derek	The Public Health I take it adopts that.

Ida	There is a definition in adoption from what DSA AC adopts and these are the codes.

Derek	Yes.  The Department of Public Health adopts their definition of stairs for the purpose of swimming pool construction.  And so, that’s where it occurs in the code under Public Health adoption in that sense.  

	That’s great.  I think if there are no more comments let’s go ahead and move on to the next item.

Susan	We are not done with phone lines.

Moderator	I have a couple more.  Hollynn D’Lil please, go ahead.

Hollynn	Hello.  Thank you for the opportunity.  I have a couple of questions first.  One, I’m wondering why there’s such urgency to do this so quickly.  We received 31 code change proposals, and we really only had about 9 days to review them.  And today at the hearing, I’m hearing we must move quickly, move quickly, and keep your comments short, move quickly, move quickly.  And, I’m wondering why are we in such a rush to do this.  I don’t understand.

Ida	Can I address that comment?  We are not in a rush to do this.  We want to make sure that everyone has the time to comment.  We just want to make sure that we get through at least introducing all proposals today so that we can introduce them and everyone has an understanding of the objectives that we’re trying to accomplish so that moving forward in the future as this develops forward we actually have the foundation that is established today.

Hollynn	I appreciate that, thank you.  But the problem is I didn’t—I only had nine days to analyze.  I did not have an opportunity to send this out to various disability organizations and several hundred people that have asked me to keep them posted on changes and get back their feedback within nine days.  So, I can’t say I’m here representing those people because I couldn’t get to them and they’re relying upon me within a nine-day period.

Ida	Thank you for the comment and I appreciate it.  As I explained earlier, with early development we have every two weeks our exchange right now between ACC and our public stakeholder meetings.  We need the comments that we get from both to move forward.  Today is the very first day that we’re presenting these proposals.  They are not firm.  They are not in place.  This is our ability to introduce them to get the discussion after we introduce them.  And so, this is just the beginning.  

	I thank you for your comment with regards to time.  I understand that time is critical to review this information but today is really an introductory meeting of where we can present these proposals and start the discussion.  We will have a little bit more time moving forward, but early on because we want to make sure that we actually have every proposal that we’re putting forward considered and discussed is the reason we are requesting that comments be related to the proposal.  If there is an—

Hollynn	And I appreciate that, I really do.  It’s just that a second ago somebody said this is setting the foundation for the future work.  And if you’re setting the foundation for the future work then it’s critical that we have everybody have an opportunity to provide input and we don’t have that at this point.

Ida	You have this opportunity today to provide input and also future co-development.  Now, if we can get back to—

Hollynn	Yes, but not the hundreds of people that rely on me to get them information.  Also, I’d like to note that the strike-out and underline format was not provided in a way that people with visual impairments can note it.

Ida	I appreciate these issues.  I am really sorry to cut you short.  That’s not my intent.  I would really appreciate that you call me or I can reach out to you tomorrow.  We can discuss these issues more thoroughly moving forward.  But today, we really need to introduce the pertinent code change proposals so that we can get effective comments and conduct an effective meeting.  So, if we can get to the topics that’s great.  I will address your concerns, let’s talk one on one offline and see how we can move forward after today to make this process better.  But I really need to get to the topics that are discussed today for the benefit of everyone here that’s present today.  They really need to understand these proposals.

Hollynn	I appreciate that.  I would welcome an opportunity to discuss it with you.  Thank you.

	And I’d just like to say that I support the comments of Gene Lozano.

Ida	Thank you.

Moderator	Thank you.  We have a question or comment from the line of Tim Thimesch.  Please go ahead.

Tim	Can you hear me?

Derek	Yes, please go ahead.

Tim	Good morning.  Thank you for taking my comments.  I generally support the change.  I see that it might have a silver lining if properly addressed in the regulations or perhaps in the DSA advisories.  And that is this that the definition of riser seems to go hand in hand with treads and I presume you folks are carefully considering the impact of the change of the definition of treads to the definition of risers, or vice versa, excuse me.

	An important consideration for persons using wheelchairs is that top tread and unfortunately it’s often referred to as a tread when to persons who use wheelchairs it’s a drop off.  They’re missed all the time.  

	That’s the end of my comments.  I’d just like you folks to consider perhaps addressing that issue or make clear that the importance of providing of a contrasting stripe on that top tread is part of this code change.  Thanks.

Moderator	Thank you.  We have a question or a comment from the line Connie Arnold.  Please go ahead.

Connie	Thank you very much.  I’m 100% in support of the comments by Hollynn D’Lil.  In relation to this code change, I would support it, her comments and support this proposal and that of Gene Lozano.

	I’m not sure who was speaking before or speaking with Hollynn.  And I want to just state that if the information was to get out and give everybody a chance to comment on this and rush through these proposals, as a member of the Adult Changing Tables Task Force, I find it pretty sad that our community of stakeholders did not get the code change proposals sent directly to us so that many members who can’t be on the phone call could have reviewed this and submitted comments ahead of time on the proposal change.

Ida	Connie, I emailed you last night.  My apologies for the confusion, and I started the meeting today also apologizing for the confusion in communication.  I tried to remedy that this week as quickly as possible.  Again, I reiterate, moving forward, we will do better but today right now, we need to stick to the topics of the proposals that are on the table.

Connie	I’m sorry, but who is—

Ida	—in a discussion outside of this meeting on how we can make the process better of notification.  I will call you tomorrow.

Connie	I’m sorry—

Ida	—meeting and stick to the meeting agenda so we can have our proposals addressed.

Connie	I’m sorry.  I’m on the phone line and I’m not sure who is talking.  Is this Ida?

Ida	Yes, I said it was Ida.

Connie	Okay.  I didn’t hear that.  And also, I did get your email but I got it this morning before the meeting.  I’ve already said my comments on that.  I have major concerns and thank you very much.

Ida	I will call you tomorrow to address these issues.

Moderator	Thank you.  Then we do have one final follow-up question from Terry McLean.  Terry, your line is open.

Terry	Thank you.  Just a comment, maybe we can change the definition to say any change in level that’s over 0.5”, which now starts to require either ramps or gets considered a stair.  Just a suggestion, thank you.

Moderator	Thank you.  And we have no further questions or comments in queue.

Derek	Good, thank you.  I think with that, let’s go ahead and then move on to the next item.  We’re going to be taking a look at the code Section 11B-248.  This occurs on page 37 of the meeting documents.  So, I’ll give you just a moment to locate that page.

	Now, a little bit of background on this item, new for the 2013 California Building Code, DSA utilized for the Federal 2010 ADA Standard for Accessible Design as our model code.  Inherent in the way the ADA standards is understood and applied is to utilize the ADA standards and similarly, Chapter 11B requirements in the California Building Code in a methodical manner—is to utilize Chapter 11B in a methodical manner.  Now in doing so, it’s very important to utilize the scoping section of Chapter 11B.  That’s Division II.  Right up at the top of Division II in Section 11B-201.1, and this is on background, that section indicates that all areas are to comply with the applicable requirements in Chapter 11B.  All areas, very big, very broad.  

	Now, as we proceed from that initial broad statement in scoping, we go through the Division II and there are exceptions that are provided for certain types of areas or facilities.  There are specific requirements that are applicable to alterations or additions.  And so following through methodically through Division II of Chapter 11B, you reach then what the requirements are for a particular area in new construction or different types of alterations.

	And so at the time when we were preparing the regulations that ultimately became Chapter 11B of the 2013 Building Code, at that time we did not feel that it was necessary to address explicitly scoping for common use areas and for employee work areas.  These were sections that had been addressed previously in the 2010 and prior Chapter 11B of the Building Code.  But, it was thought at that time that the all-encompassing statement in 11B-201.1, which indicted all areas shall comply, was adequate and that we didn’t need to bring forward the explicit identification of common use areas and employee work areas.  

	However in the last few years, we’ve received a number of comments both from designers and building officials as to whether the accessibility requirements apply to common use and employee work areas because those two types of areas are not explicitly scoped in 11B.  So, while we still hold that Section 11B-201.1, which says all areas, does include that, DSA has a proposal now to explicitly scope accessibility requirements for common use areas and employee work areas.  

	It’s actually quite a simple statement in 11B-248.1.  General, we simply say, common use areas and employee work areas shall comply with this chapter.  It’s kind of what our prior supervisor here used to say is belt and suspenders.  So, we just want to make sure that’s very, very clear to the code users, the accessibility provisions do apply to common use areas and employee work areas.

	With that, I’d like to open it up for comments on this item.  We’ll start here in the room in Sacramento.  Any comments or questions?

Bill	Bill Zellmer with Sutter Health.  I’m processing this for the first time.  How is that going to relate to the exception 11B-203.9 for employee work areas?

Derek	That’s a great question.  I’m happy to address to it.  It harmonizes perfectly because here we say common use areas and employee work areas shall comply with this chapter.  Now, the 11B-203.9 is part of the long list of general exceptions.  And in that section that Bill references it says that employee work stations are only required to comply with—and then there’s a discrete list of requirements that’s required for those areas.

	It actually reinforces it and harmonizes quite well because that would be a requirement, or in that case an exception, a limitation on the requirements for employee work station.  And so, it doesn’t conflict; it actually reinforces.

Bill	Okay, thank you.

Derek	Any other questions here in the room?  Seeing none, any questions in Oakland?

Mark	Yes Mark Smith again.  I have a lot of concern about the way the provision is worded right now because at first read it sounds like employee work areas are required to comply with [audio disruption].  I understand what you’re saying about 11B-203.9.  But I think there should be a reference back to 203.9 to indicate that the employee work areas are not [audio disruption].  It looks like in the first read that full compliance is required.

Derek	Okay, thank you.  Any other questions there or comments in Oakland?  John?  No?  Any questions or comments on the teleconference line?  

Sue	No.

Derek	No questions or comments.  Okay, real good.  Well, we’ll take these comments into account as we go forward with this item.

	The next item that we want to look at is Section 11B-604.8.1.2, and that’ll be found on page 53 of the meeting documents.  Now this item is concerning toilet compartment doors.  Now, typically the toilet compartment doors are required to comply with all of the other requirements that would apply to any other doors, to rooms or spaces.  

	There are few, however, unique requirements that we have in the code right now about the toilet compartment doors.  And one of them has to do with the location of the compartment doors.  Currently, in Section 11B-604.8.1.2, we have language that says, “The door shall be located in the front partition or in the side wall or partition farthest from the water closet.”  And then it says, “Where located in the front partition the door opening shall be 4” maximum from the side wall or partition farthest from the water closet.”  These first two sentences are provided to lead the designs so that the doors are located in essence diagonally away from the water closet location, which helps to facilitate maneuvering for people who use wheelchairs, maneuvering while they’re within the compartment.  

	Now, it’s the third sentence that we’re focused on today.  And that third sentence says, “Where located in the side wall or partition, the door opening shall be 4” maximum from the front partition.”  With this proposal, we’re proposing to strike that requirement.  What we find, and we’ve researched this with the US Access Board, is that this provision is sometimes misunderstood and is sometimes misunderstood to require the door opening to be 4” from a front wall location.  

	So, what we see a lot of times in the California accessible toilet compartment is that it’s often located at the end of a series of toilet compartments and it spans all the way from the plumbing wall, the back wall behind the toilet fixture, all the way to the opposite wall of the room.  Usually, they’re quite large and they well exceed the state requirements and the ADA standards.

	But one of the things that the Access Board was able to clarify for us was that their requirements on this are most pertinent when in other states when a minimum size accessible toilet compartment is being designed.  And in that case, where you have a partition at the front end of the toilet compartment that the existing language works just fine because it would be required to be located within 4” of that front partition.  But, a partition is not a wall, as clarified by the US Access Board.  

	And so, a situation that we’ve commonly run into is where we have maybe a countertop that’s associated with a lavatory that are also on the opposite wall.  And that the countertop might extend out 20” or 24” or so.  And that the location of that countertop then conflicts with the placement of a door 4” from that front wall.  Based on some comments that we’ve received, as well as clarification from the US Access Board, DSA is proposing to strike the requirement in the third sentence there so that it would facilitate the installation of that compartment door at a location other than 4” away from that front partition.

	Now some of the concerns that we’ve discussed in prior meetings is well, what about the maneuvering space within the toilet compartment.  And then something that is already provided for in the generously-sized requirements for accessible toilet compartments.  So, we have that issue of maneuvering space within the compartment; we have that addressed just simply by nature of the larger California accessible compartments.

	So, I think with that, let’s go ahead and open this up for questions and comments, first of all, here in the room in Sacramento.  Sir?

Eric	It’s Eric Sifuentes, CASp, with Knact and Lewis Architects and we fully support the change because it really opens up design opportunities in existing restroom facilities that may not otherwise be available that 4” requirement still in place and, while still meeting all of the other maneuvering clearance [audio disruption] California code.  We’re fully supporting of this.

Derek	Thank you, Eric.  Any other questions?

Michelle	Michelle Davis, I’m also an architect and a CASp.  My firm Lionakis also supports this change in the code.

Derek	Thank you.  

John	John Reismann, With Harbor Manufacture’s Association.  Suport or not, but just a drawing showing what you’re changing would be helpful.  

Derek	Okay.  

John	Just because [indiscernible].

Derek	Thank you.  Any other questions or comments here in Sacramento?  Not any.  Let’s go ahead then and turn to the video conference.  Oakland, any questions or comments?

Mark	No, none from us Thank you.

Derek	Great, thank you.  I think now we’ll go to the teleconference line.  Just as a reminder to all of our teleconference participants, if you have comments, please state your name and if you’d like, any affiliation or organization prior to your comments so that we can make sure that we attribute the comment to the right person.

	Please, if we have any comments on the teleconference line.

Moderator	Thank you.  [Operator instructions].  We have a question or comment from the line of Rick Halloran.  Please go ahead.

Rick 	It’s Rick Halloran.  I’m not crazy about this.  I remember we went through it, a large transition when that actually first came into the code, I believe it was in either 2010 or 2013.  Prior to that, we were continually battling people with side-opening doors, having doors open into the clear floor space in the toilet.  And I know people who read the code closely will know that’s not allowed.  I would recommend rather than strike that, which also is included in 2010, I would recommend you add an exception where if you can open the door into a maneuvering space that does not encroach on the clear floor space then it does not have to be.  

	So, I would consider making that an exception rather than striking the language because I think you’re just going to create more confusion.  Because, it was very confusing when it first came in and I know in the 2007 code it wasn’t there and people were arguing back and forth all over the place on it.  So, rather than avoid the confusion, I would recommend you rewrite that as an exception.  Thank you.

Derek	Good.  Thanks for your recommendation, Rick.

Moderator	Thank you.  And then we have a question or comment from the line of Tim Thimesch.  Please go ahead.

Tim	Yes, hi, Tim Thimesch.  I would echo those last comments, except for the part about providing an exception.  I think the requirement should stay.  Rather, it seems part of the argument for changing is that the definition says it shall be 4” from the front of the partition.  Why not just add 4” from the front of the partition or wall?  Just add those two words and that fixes the problem.  

	And, as the last comment pointed out, this was in the 2010 code, so this isn’t an animal or a function of us trying to conform to ADAAG, the 2010 code says it shall be 4” from the front of the stya [ph], which is very clean language.  So, I oppose.  Thank you.

Moderator	Thank you.  And we have a question or comment from the line of Hollynn D’Lil.  Please go ahead.

Hollynn	Hello.  Thank you for this opportunity.  I support the comments of the previous two speakers.  I also want to ask if you’ve considered whether or not this code change violates government code 4459, which says you cannot increase or decrease the access standards.  That’s very important to be considered.

	Also, I would like to ask and I’m sorry this is a procedural question, but it’s really important.  You state in your notice and on your website that we can mail in comments soon after this public hearing.  And as I’m trying to get this information out to several hundred people who rely on me, what timeline do they have to get their comments in, in writing?

Ida	They can submit comments at any time.

Hollynn	I’m sorry, what did she say?

Ida	They can submit comments at any time between now and May.

Hollynn	Okay, thank you.  May is when you submit it to the Building Center Commission?

Ida	Before the Code Advisory Committee.

Hollynn	Okay, thank you.

Moderator	Thank you.  And, we have no further questions or comments in queue.  Please go ahead.

Ida	Derek, can I add to this?

Derek	Please.

Ida	So, in doing our homework, this is Ida, with regarding this requirement, I just want to note that there has always been a lot of confusion as to the 4” requirement.  The 1990 standards did not require it for end partitions.  When they moved to the 2010 standards, the end condition location graphic was not shown and so it was implied that the requirement applied to all toilet compartments.  The A117 [ph] addition of the most current approval of the 2017 Ansi117, I’m getting my numbers confused.  They have clarified this requirement in their graphic.  They say in the minimum condition the 4” is applied but anything greater technically doesn’t. 

	 So, when we saw that, that’s why we researched this question further with the US Access Board because we have received a lot of questions as to why the 4” is required and that’s when they had clarified as well, and we also have the Department of Justice commentary for the 2010 standards that state that the conditions that applied in 1990 still apply and that’s the 4” condition only applies in the minimum condition requirement for the toilet compartment and not for an end compartment where there is much more space.  That’s the requirement for not encroaching in clear floor area and requirements for having the clearance in front of the toilet [indiscernible] that the 4” is not necessary.  

	So, really what we’re doing is clarifying the requirement instead of decreasing the requirement.  I just wanted to get that on the record.

Derek	Great.  Thank you, Ida.  I think with that, let’s go ahead and go on to the next item that we have today.  This next one is going to be on adult changing facilities.  I think you’ll find that in your package on page 39 of 72.  This item is a new requirement for DSA to propose for Chapter 11B.

	DSA is proposing this in response to legislation that was passed by the California Legislature and signed into law requiring that commercial places of public amusement provide at least one facility for use by persons with disability who need help with diapering.  What we have here is our proposal is all new language, nothing is reflected currently in the California Building Code.  We have three parts of this that we have drafted right now.

	The first portion is a series of three definitions.  The second portion is scoping requirements for adult changing facilities.  And then the third portion are the technical requirements for the adult changing facilities.  So, we’ll go ahead and take those section by section and then we’ll open it up for questions and comments after I’ve presented the entire item here.

	The first portion of that are the definitions that would be applicable to adult changing facilities.  Here the Legislature told us that they were to be installed in commercial places of public amusement.  So, we’ve drafted a definition which sticks very closely to the legislation and the definition that’s provided in the legislation for this.  The definition for commercial place in public amusement would read as follows.  “An auditorium, convention center, cultural complex, exhibition hall, permanent amusement park, sports arena, or theater or movie house for which the maximum occupancy is determined to be 2,500 or more people.  Example of cultural complexes include but are not limited to art galleries, symphony, concert halls and museums.  A commercial place of public amusement does not include any public or private higher education facilities or district agricultural associations.”

	Well, that language is almost verbatim from the legislation.  Of course one of the questions that we had right off the bat was, what are district agricultural associations?  Well, they would include some facilities such as county fairs or the state fair.  These are associations that are regulated by the California Food and Agricultural Code and we’d included a definition to refer people back to the California Food and Agricultural Code, Division III, Part III in our definition there.

	And then the third definition that we have here is just simply to describe what an adult changing facility is.  As I mentioned earlier, it’s a facility that is for use by persons with disabilities who need help with diapering.

	Now for scoping, remember scoping is where we’re telling people how many of an item and under what condition they would be required to provide an item, a facility in this case.  For scoping, we go down to the next portion under 11B-249, in the proposal, and here we would—we first of all start out saying that adult changing facilities shall comply with Section 11B-249.  This is a self-referencing requirement and it establishes the applicability of all the sections that follow.  

	We also have provided an exception, which is in line with the legislation.  The exception says an existing commercial place of public amusement with an existing adult changing facility in compliance with Section 11B-813 shall not be required to comply with Sections 11B-249.1.2 or 11B-249.1.3.  What that essentially says is that if you are a commercial place of public amusement and you already have a compliant adult changing facility then you need not provide additional ones.

	The next subsection down is 11B-249.1.1 and here we provide a general scoping statement that says where adult changing facilities are provided each adult changing facility shall comply with Section 11B-813.  By the way, I’m going to be referring to 11B-813 and you’ll see subsequently that that’s where our technical requirements for the adult changing facilities are located.

	The first scoping is where they’re provided that each of them shall comply with 11B-813.  This is going to apply anywhere where adult changing facilities are provided.  It may be within a place of public amusement; it may be in other locations.  But the concept here is that DSA wants to make sure that wherever adult changing facilities are provided that they comply, that they’re usable, and that they’re helpful for the people to which they’re intended. 

	That’s one of our general scoping requirements there.  One of the more specific scoping requirements is in 11B-249.1.2, and here we say where a commercial place of public amusement is newly-constructed on or after January 1, 2020, an adult changing facility shall be provided in compliance of Section 11B-813.  Then the next—well that scoping language is very much reflecting what is in the legislation, or in state law right now on the scoping for new construction.  

	The next subsection down, 11B-249.1.3, that tells us that where a commercial place of pubic amusement is altered on or after January 1, 2025, and either requires a building permit or the cost of alterations is $10,000 or more an adult changing facility shall be provided in compliance with Section 11B-813.  Again, this scoping section sticks very closely with the scoping that we see in the state law.  

	Now we have convened an Adult Changing Facility Task Force for this effort, and we went through I think five public meetings with that group.  We also have presented this item and discussed it with DSA’s Access Code Collaborative.  We’ve received some input previously.  

	Some of that input included the suggestion that we coordinate the effective dates for the new construction requirements; that we coordinate those with the effective dates of a code addition.  Secondly, there was a comment that suggested that our scoping for the alterations—because the effective date of that under state law is not until January 1, 2025—the suggestion was that we withhold that scoping provision until the code addition that would be effective at that time.  Okay, so these are some comments that we’re still considering and discussing in our development of this item.  

	Okay, with that, let’s go ahead and go to the next page.  The next page is our proposal for Section 11B-813.  As I mentioned, these are the technical requirements for adult changing facilities, and so where in scoping it says you have to provide an adult changing facility that complies with Section 11B-813, then these are the requirements that they would have to comply with.  I’ll just go through these and I’ll try to pick out the most pertinent ones while being as brief as possible so that we can make sure that we get ample opportunity for comments.  

	The location, this language reflects the state law on the matter.  Adult changing facilities shall be provided within an enclosed unisex toilet room or other similar private room.  Okay, now we have a series of mandatory elements that we would require for adult changing facilities, followed by a section which address optional elements.  

	Of the mandatory elements we would require an adult changing table, and this adult changing table would be required to be fixed to the floor or wall, and is required to comply with this section.  This section tells us that the adult changing tables have a changing surface of 70” minimum in length, and 30” minimum in width, so minimum size of 70” by 30”.  Of course, providing changing surfaces in excess of that would be just fine, and code compliant.  

	Clearance, we have indicated 30” minimum width of clearance along the entire length of one side of the adult changing table and at both ends of the changing table, providing 36” clearance away from the ends of the table, and then the width being the width of the table plus the width of the side clearance which was referenced just in the sentence before.  Now the height of the adult changing table needs to be adjustable.  The lowest point would have to be no higher than 17” above the floor or ground, and the high height could be no less than 38” above the floor or ground.  

	Now, this is going to provide assistance where a person is transferring from a wheel chair or other mobility device onto the table.  That’s why we need it to go down at most 17” above the floor, and then the concept here is that then the table would be powered or otherwise adjustable so that the changing surface could be raised to a working height for the attendants who are providing assistance with diapering and that height being 38” minimum above the floor.  We have identified a minimum weight capacity of 300 pounds, and we’ve also identified that when deployed, changing tables shall not obstructed the required width of the accessible route except as allowed by Section 11B-307.2.  

	Additionally, mandatory elements provided within the room would be a water closet, and that would have to comply with the accessibility requirements; a lavatory for hand-washing also has to comply with the existing accessibility requirements in Chapter 11B; a waste receptacle in compliance with the access requirements; and then provided within the room, a turning space, and that’s typically your 60” turnaround circle or the T-shaped space which fits in a 60” by 60” square.  We do address the issue of overlap, and we say the required clear floor spaces, clearance at fixtures, and turning space shall be permitted to overlap.  Now, that’s quite similar to what the requirements that we already have within toilet rooms, those are allowed.  

	We also address the swing of the door.  We say the door shall not swing into the clear floor space or clearance required for any fixture.  That again is also like what we already have in the building code for toilet rooms.  Okay, consistent with the legislation, we have identified that doors to the adult changing facilities shall have privacy latches, and that a room identification sign complying with the accessibility requirements in 11B be provided at entrances to the adult changing facility and also that if the commercial place of public amusement has a central directory, that the central directory shall include the location of adult changing facilities.  

	Those are the mandatory elements that we’ve identified in this draft.  We also have some optional elements which we address, and those are proposed for Section 11B-813.3.  These elements would not be required to be provided; however, if they are provided we want to make sure that they are accessible and usable.  We’ve identified a shelf, and we say if provided, no fewer than one shelf in compliance with Section 11B-603.4 shall be located adjacent to the adult changing table.  Then we have a general requirement here for accessories that says if provided, no fewer than one of each accessory shall comply with Section 11B-603.5.  And that again is the same as what we see within the requirements within toilet rooms for accessories. 

	Okay, so I think with that, I’d like to open it up for discussion, comments, and questions.  Bob?  

Bob	Thank you, Derek.  This is Bob Raymer with the California Building Industry Association, and I’m also speaking on behalf of the California Business Properties Association.  Right now, I’d like to focus solely on the application provisions, particularly where you’re referencing the retrofit in the existing facility.  

	For those of you that may not be aware, I was one of those on the ACC who was suggesting that we bifurcate the issue.  That we move forward, as you obviously plan to do, with construction specifications and application provisions for newly-constructed amusement facilities that meet your minimum specs here, but that that in and of itself is a major undertaking for DSA staff, given that you also have 40 or 50 other code changes that you’re also going to be looking at.  

	Here’s the specific issue.  If we look at the administrative proceedings that are going to be available to us in the coming years, in addition to the triennial one we’re dealing with right now, stuff that will take effect in January 2020, there are also three more regulatory proceedings that will occur prior to the effective date of January of 2025.  There’s one that will take effect in July of 2021, one that will take effect on January of 2023, and finally one that will take effect in July of 2024.  I am not suggesting that we wait until the proceeding to take effect on July 1, 2024.  

	I am thinking that there are an enormous number of issues that are going to have to be dealt with, with regards to the retrofit of existing facilities if they don’t already have one of these that in particular the cost issues—but also space constraints and other things—that are going to take up a whole lot of time and effort that you’re probably going to want to seek a lot of input from the disabled community, from the private sector, etc., who may not have been as involved thus far.  I’m thinking right now focus on new construction for this rule-making and it would make a lot of sense to keep everything rocking and rolling perhaps for just the next update.  I’m obviously not suggesting that you wait three updates and do it six months before the effective date’s supposed to take effect.  

	With that, that’s the first comment.  As was also mentioned in the ACC, it would be wonderful to see some drawings.  I kind of suspect that as you develop the guidebook or whatever else that you’re going to do plenty of those, but I think having the drawings in front are also going to be very helpful for those who are going to want to comment on transplanting these into the existing facilities.  Once have a good handle of the minimum specs, probably the four or five examples on how to position that table, the different options that you have, some of the fears or concerns may be allayed; others may be realized.  So once again, by having those drawings available and compliant applications for the new construction that is really going to help the later discussion with the existing facilities.  

	Right now, those are my comments.  Thank you.  

Derek	Great.  Thanks, Bob.  Any other questions or comments?  Please.  

Frank	Frank [indiscernible].  Two items I’m seeing, one is the table itself.  Is a pull down table acceptable?  

Derek	Yes.  

Frank	Okay, so that would be [indiscernible].  Second one is the height; I’m thinking the wording there is maybe the minimums to maximums are not in the right order, because when you read it, it sounds like the low height should be from 17” to the floor, and the high height should be from 34” to the ceiling.  

Derek	Yes.  

Frank	That’s what’s intended?

Derek	Yes.  That the high height could be anywhere from 34” on up, and that the low height goes down at most 17” above the ground; 16” above the ground would be okay, 15” above the ground is okay, too.  

Frank	Okay.  

Derek	The wording is a little strange, because usually we think of maximums and minimums, but in this case because we’re defining a range and we want to address each end of the range separately, there we say that the low end is no higher than 17”, so that’s why I say 16” is okay, 15” is okay and that the high end is no lower than 38”.  

Ida	Wait, Derek?  If the adjustable height goes like this, how do you get it lower than one end and higher than another end?  There’s nothing in the middle that’s acceptable?  I think you’re explanation—

Derek	No.  We are saying that the adjustability has to cover a range.  The low point of that range has to be no higher than 17” above the ground, and the high point of the range has to be no lower than 38”.  

Ida	No, I think you’re opposite.  

Derek	No.  

Ida	You’re missing the range.  It’s opposite—

M	You can’t have a 12 foot, I think is what—

Ida	Right.

M	It has to be a 12”.  

Derek	You could.  

Ida	Okay, so then explain this, because—

Derek	It’s an adjustable height, okay, that would have adjustability within the range.  When it’s at its lowest position it has to be 17” or lower, okay?  

Ida	No, the minimum.  The floor is 17”.  

M	Above the floor.  

Derek	Above the floor, yes.  

Ida	Above the floor, right.  So, 12” above the floor is not acceptable, because the range is occurring from 17” to 38”.  There’s the adjustability.  

Derek	The required range is 17” to 38”.  But you can provide it outside of that, and exceed the code requirements by providing a range that would go below 17”.  

M	Let me give you an example that I think would be extreme from what I can see.  What if the table was laying on the ground?  You’re saying that would be legal?  

Derek	If it was a fully-adjustable table that went from the ground all the way up to at least 38” above the floor, yes.  

M	Wow.  

Derek	Because you adjust it, you bring it up to the height that you need it—remember 17” to 19” is your transfer height from a wheelchair—so you bring it up to the height you need it.  That’s the adjustability there.  It doesn’t mean that you have to—

Ida	Then why state—I’m sorry, it’s because I’m confused, too—why state a lower range?  If the range is going all the way to the floor, why state a 17” minimum?  

Derek	We don’t require it to go to the floor.  We require it to go to 17”.  If your product has a lowest portion of their range at 16”, that would be okay.  That’s why we say a low height of 17” maximum.  

Ida	Okay.  

Bob	Isn’t the intent here to get this thing to set between 17” and 38”?  Right, so you can have a safe transfer to start things off, to move it up to where you have a good working position, and then to lower back down so you have a safe transfer.  That’s what the range is, and I don’t see a safe transfer if it’s down on the floor initially.  

Derek	If it’s adjustable, Bob, then people are going to adjust it to where it suits them best.  If 17” is where they need it that would be included within the range, and they’re not obligated to have it down at zero.  

Bob	Okay.  I need to revisit this.  

Derek	Okay.  Yes, admittedly it is wording that is a little different from most of what we see in the code, but we had some discussion about this in prior meetings, and it actually is—once you parse the words it does accurately reflect a minimum range of 17” to 38”.  But, if you go outside of that and provide something that goes further up or goes further down, that’s okay, too, as long as it’s adjustable.  

Bob	One last comment, have you looked into availability of something that can do this and still be usable by the public or a disabled person?  

Derek	Yes, we have.  There are manufactured items that comply with these requirements right now on the market, and if you wanted to go out and design something using these as good guidelines you’d be able to comply.  

Bob	Yes.  Okay, thank you. 

Derek	Eric?

Eric	Yes, thank you.  Under the definitions of adult changing facilities was there a reason why we had to—chose to add diapering as a definition rather than just saying need help with changing?  It seems to me like two different terms for the same definition.  

Derek	The reference to the language about diapering, and needing help with diapering, that comes from the legislation, so we’ll find that similar phrasing in state law.  

Eric	I also recommend adding mirrors to optional elements, because the [audio disruption], and I don’t think there would be room into that 813.3 provide mirrors there.  I believe that the wording under 813.3 where elements listed in the section, they shall comply, I think where elements listed are provided they shall comply, I think is the—the sentence is not correct.  

Derek	Okay, good.  We’ll take another look at that, thank you.  Please.  

Michelle	I’m Michelle Davis.  I have several questions.  First, if these adult changing tables are deployed, would they be allowed to overlap the clear floor space required for the toilet, specifically the 48” in front of the toilet, or would that have to be a separate space?  I think that needs to be clarified.  

Derek	The clearances and clear floor spaces are allowed to overlap, but any—

M	Providing that you still have---

Derek	—clearances or clear floor spaces that are required, like the clearance around the toilet, is not permitted to be obstructed.  

Michelle	Okay, well I think that needs to be clarified, what is allowed to overlap, and what isn’t.  

Derek	Okay.  We have said what is permitted to overlap, and I think that if we go back to the clearance for water closets, I think we defined the prohibition of overlapping that clearance.  

Michelle	Okay.  And then, in the proposed Section 813.2.7 for the door swing, would you also allow the exception in single-user toilet rooms for the door to overlap where a 30” by 48” space is provided to allow a user to enter the room and shut the door behind them?  

Derek	No, certainly not.  The adult changing facilities, just by nature of having a 6’ by 2.5’ table in there is going to guarantee that you’re not going to be providing these within the same square footage that you would have in a typical single-user toilet room.  The allowance that’s allowed in the single-user toilet room for the door swing to overlap the clearances when a 38” by 48” space is provided beyond the door swing is just not practical or applicable in this kind of a room.  

Michelle	Well I disagree, because if there are conditions where we sometimes have a lavatory that is facing the door, and if we have the exception where we can swing that door over the clear space for the lavatory, we may end up with a space—especially in remodel conditions—where we have a very long, narrow room, a very linear space and we may end up with—the lavatory especially—overlapping, and we might have room for the other clear floor space so that’s why I asked the question.  

Derek	Sure.  We can study it a little bit more, and thank you for commenting on that.  I think that it definitely helps.  Okay, any others?  

Michelle	That’s it for me.  

Derek	Okay, good.  Thank you.  

John	Yes, hi.  John Robinson of the California Attractions and Parks Association, who represents the state’s theme amusement water park industry.  

Derek	John, could you speak up a little bit please, so that our guests on the phone can hear?  Thank you.  

John	Sure.  John Robinson, with the California Attractions and Parks Association.  We’re a trade association that represents the state’s amusement, theme, and water park industry.  I have some general comments, less specific; I’m not a code expert.  I’m not an architect, but we’re very concerned about where this is going and what this will require for our theme and amusement parks in the future.  I’d first like to thank the division, the state architect for working with us and being so accessible to our questions, and for trying to understand all of this.  

	Our members represent $112 [ph] billion a year in revenue.  We have about 40 million visitors per year visit our parks.  We provide a safe and very diverse experience of excitement and fun that are remembered by our visitors for their entire lifetime.  We bring people together.  The members of CAPA have always been at the forefront of accommodating all people, including disabled and those with special needs.  It’s good for our business, it’s who we are, and it’s the right thing to do, and we do it well.  

	We’ve really set the standards for public entertainment for accessibility and accommodation; it’s something we’re very committed to.  When it comes to adult changing facilities, we’ve worked closely with Assembly Member Susan Gonea [ph] on AB-662 to provide for the needs of our visitors.  We agreed that each park with a capacity of 2,500 or more should provide at least one ACF.  After analysis, we agreed that an ACF could be an equivalent facility, including an existing first aid station.  This has worked very well and served our visitors’ needs; we think it still does.  We think that should be considered in whatever code adoption bids you have.  

	First aid stations provide the personnel help, the medical help, the sanitary conditions.  It doesn’t necessarily have to be a standalone facility.  We’re concerned that DSA is vastly expanding the mandate of AB-662 through the tri-annual [ph] code adaption cycle.  We have a number of concerns, and seek some clarity on the building code.  

	I’m a little bit unclear on what would trigger the need for a new AFC in permitting construction.  As it is right now we complied with the legislation as it was written, as it was intended, but we think that this is moving far beyond that.  

	Many of our park—well, I think also a distinction needs to be made between the pubic accessible areas and the employee work areas, the back-of-house areas, such as the footprints under rides, which are not accessible to the public, which you will often have permitting construction of over $10,000, but it has really nothing to do with provision of an ACF, nor should it in our mind, because these are not publicly-accessible areas.  We think we comply with this and we provide for our guests.  It’s something we have done and will do.  We’re going to make much more detailed comments in writing that are more specific to the code language.  

Derek	That’s alright.  Thank you, John.  What I might ask is that when in your detailed comments if you could address those areas where you think we’ve gone well beyond the legislation that would be very helpful to us in our analysis.  There’s certainly some, I think, room for changes here in the proposed amendment as we go forward.  We’ve definitely tried to capture the language and the requirements of state law in this.  If we can get that from you, that would be great.  

John	Yes.  Our intent is to provide for the needs of our guests, and we do, but we also want to comply with the—

Derek	Yes.  

Ida	My question.  This is Ida, and my question is, and what I heard was said in your comments.  Are you saying there is a distinct difference between a first aid facility and a rest room, and that it was your first aid facilities may not provide for the restroom, and that’s where the conflict is?  

John	No, no, no.  The first aid facilities have restrooms, they have staff there, so the legislation said that you’d have an adult changing facility or equivalent, which could be a first aid station.  We want to make sure that that is still considered to be complying with what you’re doing in terms of building codes.  When we have a first aid station that’s staffed by medical personnel that has hygienic capabilities, sanitary capabilities, we think that’s a very good solution to providing for the needs for an adult changing facility.  It’s much better than a standalone facility that’s not staffed.  We want to make sure that that is still compliant.   

Derek	How does the park staffing play into this?  Our understanding of the issue is that an individual who may need to avail themselves of the adult changing facility typically travels with one or two attendants to provide assistance, and so additional staffing—I’m not sure where the staffing from the park comes into play here. 

John	Yes, we don’t—I can’t speak for every individual in the park, and we aren’t providing or suggesting we should provide staffing for ACFs, but we would have a first aid facility that is typically staffed by a medical trained personnel.  You have staff there that can deal with situations of some complexity, whereas we just want to make sure that that still satisfies compliance for providing an ACF.  That if you have an equivalent facility which is a first aid station it should be considered as compliant.  

Ida	To address—

Derek	It seems that at least in this draft of it if the first aid station has an accessible toilet, has an accessible lavatory, has waste disposal, waste receptacle, as well as a table which would comply with the technical requirements here.  

John	I would assume they do.  I can’t answer for every park, but what we want to clearly define is whether new facilities have to be built and provided in the future, or do our current facilities offer compliance.  I think that’s something we need to have some clarity on.  

Derek	Sure, and we’ve tried to address this in the exception to 11B-249.1. 

John	And that’s the question I have is if we’re in compliance with the first aid facility, then we don’t have to necessarily provide new construction for an ACF.  I’m a little unclear on that; that’s maybe just my ignorance on building codes.  

Derek	Yes.  Well the building code and that exception in 11B-249.1 is intended to address the circumstance where a facility already has an adult changing facility.  If it complies with the requirements that we’re listing out here—the technical requirements—which are minimal usable requirements.  

John	My question would be the legislation said you must offer one or more adult changing facilities, so my question would be is this moving towards requiring many more facilities at a theme park or amusement park site?  

Derek	No.  Right now, the draft of the code requires a single adult changing facility for each of the three scoping sections we’ve identified.  

John	When we have new construction, permanent construction we won’t trigger the need to provide additional [indiscernible]?  

Derek	The way it’s drafted right now, yes.  That’s correct.  We have received other public comments which have encouraged DSA to include scoping that would be broader than the minimum requirements in Bonea’s Bill but would be still consistent with the bill.  So saying one or more leaves open the idea that scoping might be enhanced above one only.  All right?  

	Let’s—Bill, I see you have a question or comment?   

Bill	Bill Zellmer with Sutter Health.  I don’t have a horse in this race, but my curiosity has gotten the better of me.  It’s occurred to me the adult changing table may or may not be considered an accessibility thing, but it’s being scoped in 11B.  Is that appropriate?  

Derek	Yes.  I think that’s a real good question, and it comes down to the basic theory and analysis that DSA used when we were studying the new bill.  Where an individual needs assistance diapering that is typically as a result of what would be classified as a disability.  We see that at least in part it is appropriate for DSA to address regulations to make sure that the facilities that are provided are accessible to and usable by the population group for which they’re intended. 

Bill	Thank you.  

Derek	You’re welcome.  Any other questions or comments here in the room?  No?  Okay, let’s go ahead and go to our other offices.  Any questions or comments there in Oakland? 

John Paul	Yes.  John Paul Scott here.  I have a number of questions, but I don’t necessarily think they need to be answered in this forum, because they might be too complex.  I’d simply just like to march through them and see what you think.  

Derek	Okay. 

John Paul	First off, I’m not certain about these trigger dates, why they are not tied to administrative code Section 1.1.9 that would make the building code change into [indiscernible] applicable to the application for building permits submitted on the date after that particular code cycle, or is that something that would [indiscernible]?  

	You could have an amusement park that has been under design for construction for three, four years prior to any of these dates, whether it’s January 1, 2021, or 2020, and all of a sudden they have to one of these.  We’re not triggering—we’re not linking this to a building permit application like we do with everything else, so this actually admits an exception to paragraph 1.1.9.  That’s my first question.  

	My second question is why are these no different than a single-user toilet room as defined by state law, which is a single-user toilet room for family use or assisted use, otherwise called “all gender,” with the exception that all it has is an adult changing table and another sign?  What makes it different from a single-user toilet room?  

	Then third, do these fixtures, the sink and this toilet, are these in addition to what’s already required under the plumbing code when I calculate the occupancy, or can I essentially [indiscernible] fixtures off of what is required under the public building [ph] for the particular occupancy for that building or facility?  

	Third would be something that links back to what the gentleman from CAPA said, is I have a site that has multiple places of amusement.  Does this mean every time I do a renovation in each one of these individual places, like change the sets out on the theatre, does that mean that building now has to have new adult changing facility if that theatre doesn’t even have toilets—the toilets are out in the middle of the amusement park?  That would be the same thing with a cultural center that has multiple venues [indiscernible].  

	Another one, let’s see—also concerned about the weight capacity in 11B-813.2.1.4, and why we’re not linking or parroting the language that we use for grab bars and other devices that are weight-sensitive, and say that [audio disruption] support by anywhere on that device?  Right now, as this stands, I could plan that 300 pounds to be at the hinge of that fold-down table, but not at the outboard edge, so I think there’s a gap there about where is the weight applied, because that directly derives what sort of backing and supports I would put in the walls, especially for something that rises in this height range.  

	I just do want to note that the waste receptacles in 813.2.4 is toward the toilet, and certainly would not accommodate the needs for a diaper and other wipes and things that would be necessary for changing an adult.  

	Signs, if this is really just a single-user toilet room with a changing table, then why would it not have a geometric sign on the door of a circle and a triangle, since it could be used by all genders, but it’s not gender-specific?  

	There was another issue I had in here I think, and that is on height; 11B-813.2.1.3 when it’s talking about maximum height, are we talking about the top of the device, not the underside of the device, not the center line of the device, but really the top of it—just like we talk about seats.  We’re talking about the top of the seat, we’re talking about the top of the counter.  This is not linked into the same way that we would describe these other objects that are covered under 11B.   

	I agree that there is something funky with this 17” maximum to a high height of 38” minimum.  If I have a high height of 38” minimum, then couldn’t I make it at 60”, and 72”, and 80”?  I think the minimum and maximum are backwards.  You’ll have to stop and think about that.  

	If had to put this in common language terms to one of my staff and I’d probably get that same comment of scratching their head.  What do you mean 38” minimum, because that means it has to be higher?  Just like 27” minimum to the underside of the apron of a sink, or 29” minimum to the underside of the apron of a lavatory.  It has to be higher, not lower.  

	Then I just do want to point out that we’ve had another look at those redundant things that we don’t have elsewhere in 11B, and that is 11B-813.3 optional elements.  Well, they’re already optional if the language on the next two paragraphs says, if provided.  We’ll, if they’re not provided, then it doesn’t apply.  But if this is provided yes, it’s optional from [indiscernible] comply with a particular sink, so I think that sink is really unnecessary.  

	I still think there’s some work to be done on this, some [indiscernible], but I really do have some heartache as to why this difference in trigger date.  I know the law states those dates, states those words, but why is that different than what we already have in the building code under Chapter 1.1.9?  Thank you.  

Derek	Good.  Thanks, John.  Thanks a lot.  Your comments and everybody else’s will help us to refine these as we proceed through the code development of these items, and as Ida mentioned, right at the outset here, I’m not sure if you were in attendance to hear it, but this is the first step along the way.  We’re going to be having a couple more Access Code Collaborative meetings and additional public meetings to roll out our further refinements of all of our code amendment proposals.  It’s certainly not—well, it’s the right time to be including and responding to the comments.  Thank you.  

	Okay, Bob?  

Bob	Yes.  Thank you, Derek.  In response to the first issue that was raised, the statute isn’t really in conflict with other existing statute and regulation regarding effective date.  Health and Safety Code 18938.5 passed back in 1985, and modified in 1992, effectively said the building codes that are in effect on the date you submit your permit application to the building department are the codes that you comply with.  The fact that the language in 662 basically said altered after such-and-such a date, all building standards have this statutory guidance on how to implement, which is why at the last ACC meeting I indicated that if we’re going to keep existing facilities, the retrofit requirement in there, that the language—if you could scroll back to page 39—

Derek	Actually, Bob, do you mind if I interject here?  

Bob	Sure.  

Derek	We are very mindful of your comments at the ACC meeting, and I brought those up in the presentation of this item.  John has addressed them, too, and I know you’re very keen to these items.  We have not amended this since the ACC meeting with the intent of rolling it out to the public and getting additional comments before we make our next series of amendments.  

Bob	Okay.  

Ida	And before—

Derek	Just in the interest of time, I’ve tried not to go over it again.  

Ida	Yes.  Before we take anymore here in the room, we have two people on the phone that we haven’t—

Bob	Okay.  

Derek	Okay, so if we have any other comments here in the room, please be brief.  We do have a lot of other items on our agenda.  

Michelle	I have one additional question on the definition of commercial place of public amusement.  The last sentence says, “Does not include any public or private higher education facility.”  Does this mean that it does include elementary schools or high schools that are not higher education?

Derek	That’s our understanding, yes.  

Michelle	So schools would be included?

Derek	Yes.  The language, for what it doesn’t include, comes right from the bill, and so we’ve incorporated it here I think verbatim.  

Michelle	Okay, thank you.  

Derek	Anyone else? 

Ida	Sorry—just to clarify that it still needs to be at that school, a commercial place of public amusement, that triggers a maximum 2,500 or more.  

Derek	Okay good.  Let’s go ahead and go to any questions or comments that might be on the teleconference line, please?  

Moderator	[Operator instructions].  We have a question coming from the line of Connie Arnold.  Please go ahead.  Connie, your line is open.  

Connie	Thank you, sorry.  Thank you, I had it on mute.  Yes, first off, I want to say that I was on the task force for the adult changing tables facility stakeholder group, and that I wasn’t on the phone at the beginning of this call so I don’t know what took place the first five or so minutes into this comment section.  

	In relation to this, I just—I never received information except through Hollynn about the current information asking me for feedback.  I didn’t know the proposed code changes were actually available online.  I had asked ahead of time Ida some questions about it, so I knew there was a meeting coming up but because I’m not a code expert this information refers back to a number of codes I haven’t been able to thoroughly analyze the entire code section, but I’m also appalled that members of the stakeholder group weren’t even notified until a copy of this—Yes?  

Ida	Connie, we can discuss this, I’m welcome to discuss this tomorrow.  The DSA will try to do better—

Connie	I understand that, Ida, but I want to make my public comments, and I want it on the record that I think—

Derek	Can you please limit your comments to the actual content of the proposal?  

Connie	I’m getting to that, Derek.  

Derek	[Indiscernible].  

Connie	I understand that you guys don’t want this public comment on the record; you want to hide it behind the scenes.  

Ida	No.  We acknowledged it; we’re not hiding it behind the scenes.  At the beginning of this meeting we acknowledged our lapse in communication, and we have corrected that measure.  Moving forward, I would like to discuss with you opportunities of how we can better that communication.  We just have in respect of everyone in attendance today, we need to have all these issues addressed.  We have already admitted that there was a lapse in communication with the adult changing facilities.  We acknowledged that.  

	I will call you tomorrow.  We will talk about methods to get that communication out better.  I have already stated that I encourage everyone to sign up for the Access 2019 Supplements on our website, but please, Connie, in the interest of time and out of respect for everyone participating today and in the interest of getting actually good regulations moving forward, we need to hear everyone’s comments.  So we—

Connie	I understand that.  By the time you got done finishing that comment of yours you took up my time—which would’ve been shorter to answer the question about your apologies for the mistake—and I’m not the only one that’s upset about this.  

	However, I do want to state that in hearing some of the existing comments that have already been stated in the room, and having been to places like Disneyland, which with no disrespect, I like Disneyland, but I like it a lot more now with the improved accessibility than it was over 30-something years ago, or over 40-something years ago when I was a kid and had to be carried to get—to even go to the Tiki Hut show.  I understand what is being stated by representatives of the industry; that they would like to see that for existing facilities like Disneyland that all they have to do is provide a first aid room and therefore they comply with the standard of putting in a table.  I think that’s a little bit of a problem.  

	Also, I think I don’t want to see this bifurcated and send off the 2025 provision of what accessibility should mean, so that people that are in the building industry can build up the momentum to deny access to members of the disability community who pushed for this bill and wanted to have access to bathrooms.  

	Also, because the language in Health and Safety codes states a minimum of one facility, I didn’t see anywhere in the wording of the code proposal mentioning a minimum.  There’s no word that; it implies one facility is all that’s required, not a minimum of.  Think of places like Disneyland, for instance, where it’s a large venue, members of the general public have access to bathrooms all over the entire theme park.  Although we’re not saying that they—going beyond and requiring more access, the code does say a minimum.  It doesn’t say only one, which is implied by what one facility and in the regulations that you’re proposing.  

	The other thing is people are debating about the weight.  Well, we had those discussions in the task force meeting, including from people that use those facilities, and I think the weight—I’d have to revisit all of the teleconference meetings—whatever was stated at those meetings—to see whether 300 pounds is a decent minimum standard, or if it should be higher than that.  For wheelchair lifts on vans, it’s like 600 pounds.  When it comes to the accessibility of the table, whether 36” is enough clearance, well our community hasn’t had enough time to comment on it.  

	Also, when it comes to the issue of—hold on, I’m losing my train of thought here—the tables being electric, I think something needs to be stated that they should be automatic electric tables, because they are available.  They’re on the website of what is existing out there, and should more of this come forward, more will be available.  

	I think this is too many codes to have to review in ten days, but that is basically my comments at the moment and looking at the adult changing facilities.  The code, it says right now, a commercial place of public amusement shall install and maintain at least one adult changing station, at least one doesn’t imply only one.  

Derek	Connie, you have already made that comment, okay.  We thank you for it, and it’s very helpful to us.  We are going to be revising these items as we go forward, and we’ll be rolling them out to the public again for comments on the revised edition.  If you have additional comments about this item—I understand that you feel that it was too short of a time period for you to review and comment, so you’re more than welcome to send in an email with your comments, or by US post, so we’re happy to receive your comments.  Please, don’t repeat your comments, and allow some time for the remainder of the entire day’s agenda if you would.  

Connie	Well, I appreciate the disrespect, so thank you very much, Derek.  I really do feel that our community has been disrespected in this process, and I won’t take up further time of yours from taking away access for people with disabilities who need these adult changing facilities.  

	Just one thing I haven’t stated, although the word diapering was in the bill, so it got passed because of the fact that the advocates involved, the Legislature was unable to get across what the meaning was of an adult changing table or facility meant without using that word.  But individuals use the toilet in many different ways, and they use adult briefs, which aren’t all in the same sense.  They look the same as underwear, they aren’t all diapers—some that do, no disrespect intended—but the requirement is much broader than that to provide access to a full facility.  

	When it comes to unisex, you wrote the word unisex in there.  The code said, “For men and women,” it didn’t say necessarily for unisex, although if that complies by providing one facility then of course you would say unisex.  Thank you very much, that’s the end of my comments.  

Derek	Thank you for your comments.  

Moderator	Thank you.  Our next question comes from the line of Terry McLean.  Please go ahead.  

Terry	Yes, a couple of comments.  One, it sounded like someone wanted to remove the dates for the alterations.  I think whether—depending on how you scope it, and when it actually starts, I think the dates should still be in there so that it’s clear that if you are remodeling you don’t have to do it until such time.  

	Next comment is on the 30” side width, it seems like that would not be enough.  If you think about it, if you got land-locked between two walls and the table was on one side and you only have 30”, I don’t think that gives enough room for someone to pull a wheelchair in and out; on top of that, they would not be able to turn around.  I think maybe we should look at how we do the turning space on that.  

	Next item is the door into the clear space.  Those rooms seem to me like they’re going to get fairly large in size, and I also would advocate that we do allow that clearance if we still have the 30” by 48” space that the door could encroach into some of the other clear spaces.  Maybe we need to look at exactly which spaces those may or may not be. 

	The number required, I also think that should be something that’s clarified, which other people have noted.  There should be some mention of operable parts, because there are obviously requirements for heights and operability, etc., and I don’t see anything in there right now.  

	My last comment was just clarifying that if you had an existing one, and you do make a remodel in the park, that that existing one still says the same, or does that one need to be remodeled, just to clarify that.  Those were my comments, thank you.  

Derek	Thank you, Terry.  

Ida	Thank you, Terry.  

Moderator	Thank you.  

Derek	Any other questions or comments on the telephone?  

Moderator	Yes, we have a question coming from the line of Suzanne Kusik.  Please go ahead.

Suzanne	Hi, this is Suzanne Kusik, I’m a certified building official, and also a member of the Adult Changing Facilities Task Force.  I have two comments here, and then I’ll send in some code-writing editorials.  But yes, on the definition of adult changing facility that does seem to be rather exclusive and should state something more along the lines of persons who need assistance with personal sanitary needs.  During the task force forums there was discussion about some sites in the past trying to enforce whether or not you were disabled enough to utilize the facilities being provided, and by being specific and using the words from the original congressional verbiage it would provide that opportunity to have misuse again.  

	Going down to the 2025 valuation for alterations in 11B-249.1.3, the valuation at $10,000, I believe that’s not realistic in that the installation of such a facility could cost $10,000 or more, so you’re doubling the price.  Projects currently less than $154,000 are eligible for a hardship—well there’s another term for it, but in the industry we refer to it as a hardship—application where they would only have to provide additional accessibility upgrades up to 20% of their project value.  I should think that the $10,000 would be more appropriate in the $100,000 to $200,000 range.  I’ll provide some additional background for the $200,000 in that it matches a similar requirement for green building, so it would already be a trigger that the building industry is used to seeing.  

	My last comment here is the comment in 11B-813.2.1.5, when deployed, the table should not obstruct any fixture clearances, needs to be adjusted in there.  In other words, there was discussion that right now, the baby changing tables, when installed in accessible restrooms often are left in the down position, and then precludes someone who needs that space for turning the wheelchair, and so forth.  If the table is left in a down position, then someone who’s coming into the space may not be able to actually get in there to use the toilet or other facilities in that space.  

	As I said, that’s all for now.  I’ll send you guys a written comment.  I didn’t catch where we’re supposed to send that to, though.   

Derek	You could send that to our email address at DSAAccess2019@dgs.ca.gov.  

Moderator	Thank you.  We have a question from the line of Rick Halloran.  Please go ahead. 

Rick	Yes, this is Rick Halloran.  Thank you, I want to first of all congratulate you on doing a really good job starting on a very difficult subject.  I think what you came up with was pretty good; however, I think there are a number of things that need to be addressed.  I would mimic the last caller’s statement on the $10,000, but if I’m correct, I think that’s actually in the legislation, so I don’t think that’s changeable.  But, I think we need to take great care in how we facilitate alterations, and I would have some suggestions on that; I will talk about that in a second.  

	The first problem that I see is in the scoping where it says, “Facilities shall be provided within an enclosed unisex toilet room,” a couple of things there.  One, that all sounds like you’re adding a separate entity within unisex restrooms, which would include a water closet and lavatory, therefore making it not a unisex restroom.  I think that needs to be clarified, maybe use the term incorporated.  I’m looking specifically at an alteration at this point.  In a new construction, but in an alteration if they’re going to incorporate it into a unisex restroom, I think it needs to be clear that you don’t have to add a second water closet or lavatory.  

	The second thing is on unisex.  If the intent is to make these single-users, why not add the language—I think was 11B-213.2.1 (single user or family).  I would incorporate that if that is the intent.  Also, I would question—I would also look at having come from a jurisdiction that is a little different, in San Francisco they do have requirements for unisex restrooms and multi-facility establishments.  I would maybe work the language to incorporate such things in the future, and not tie yourself into a corner at this point.  

	The next thing that I’d look at is the height.  I would just make a recommendation.  The way it’s written, I think it’s going to be hugely confusing.  I think a lot of people are going to not know what to do with that.  I think it’s very simple if you just put something like, “A low height of 17” or less to a maximum height of 38”.”  I think that would clarify it.  

	The other thing that I would ask about is signage.  If the intent—you have a room identification sign; signage is probably the most misunderstood section of the building code, as far as I can tell.  And then you reference the general section 16, I would maybe specifically—if your intent is to have the tactile signage as a room identification then I would go with 11B-216.2, so that they know what you’re talking about, and will look at that, rather than just thinking that as a regular sign.  

	Then the last comment I would have is having a shelf as an option, I understand, but I do remember there’s a lot of concern about where do we put the bag that we use to do these changings, and a coat hook is a rather innocuous and very inexpensive addition.  Why not incorporate a coat hook as mandatory, and a shelf as an option?  

	That’s it.  Thank you.  Good job.  

Moderator	Thank you.  

Derek	Thanks a lot, Rick.  

Moderator	Then we have a question or comment from the line of Gene Lozano.  Please go ahead. 

Gene	First a procedural question, some of the—being a member of the ACC, I was wondering if the comments received at the last ACC meeting and today, will they be integrated into a next draft that we will have an opportunity to see on March 7th?  

Derek	Yes.  What we will be doing, it was our intent not to make any changes to the proposals between the last ACC meeting and today’s meeting—

Gene	Understood.  

Derek	—until we had a chance to get public comments while we’re all looking at the same draft.  Yes, DSA will be considering and reviewing all of the comments provided at the ACC as well as at this meeting.  We very likely will be making revisions prior to the next ACC meeting, and prior to the next public meeting.  

Gene	Okay.  Therefore, I don’t want to repeat those comments and other ACC members made at the last meeting.  However, I would like to amend those comments I made.  That is I had asked—when it came to the signage having some specific text as to what to identify that room, I would like to amend that to include, and/or a symbol that could be developed that’d be tactile.  So that if you do have a single-user or family restroom that’s being used—and I’m not trying to add more signs, but the permanent sign on the lap side of the door should have, as I said, the text that identifies that room having the table changing but also maybe a smaller symbol that would fit in with a sign like that.  

	Two, is the—I want to be certain that yes, I want to reflect that as I had previously about being hard-wired, and Connie Arnold had mentioned that, that it be electric, and that it be self-operable, too, that it’s just not—and I’ve heard comments today that the idea is that anyone who’s needing these tables is always going to be accompanied with somebody.  And I can say from when I was employed at a state university, students who needed these tables were not always accompanied by somebody.  They did not want these tables—which we did not have—they were not looking for them necessarily for diapering reasons, but it was if they needed to change their clothing.  

	Let’s say that they were going to go into from a lecture or to exercise course where they were going to do some physical exertion, things like that, they wanted to change their clothing, so it could be the reverse there.  They went in, and they self-operated—wanted a device they could operate the adjustment of the table, and that they could use it for changing.  In other words, I’m trying to stress is let’s not just look at this in terms that somebody’s going to be needing or having a personal care attendant assisting them.  Sometimes they’d be totally on their own, independent, being able to use the facility.  

	The other thing is Rick’s comment about the hook, I think that should be mandatory.  I think at least in these rooms that a shelf should be mandatory, not just an optional thing because there are needs at times there.  The articles you might be using, clothing, changes, devices, and so forth that you do want to have something that’s in very close vicinity.  Thank you very much.  

Derek	Thank you, Gene.  

Moderator	Thank you.  We have one final question from the line of Hollynn D’Lil.  Please go ahead.  

Hollynn	Thank you.  I just want to support all the comments that Gene and Connie, pointing out the greater need for more thought to be given to the independent use of these adult changing tables, and certainly to the fact that there should be as much opportunity for people to use restrooms, to use adult changing tables as they have to use restrooms.  

	I was going to express a concern that I have seen some discrepancies between what the ACC is working on and what’s on the website.  I’m a little concerned that ACC might have even approved some code changes you have proposed that are different from what is being presented on the public hearing today.  

	I’d like to—one further comment, I’d like to urge the DSA to maybe change their standards for getting task forces together.  I participated on the EVV task force, and what we ended up with was not what we thought we had agreed to at the end of the sessions, and it looks like that could be the same thing going on there that you have some proposals out there for adult changing tables that are different from what the task force thought they had agreed to.  You could simply this and encourage a lot less unhappiness with the process if you would send what your final draft is, what you’re going to be sending out for public hearing, submit it to your task force first for their review and comments before you send it out for a public hearing.  Thank you.  

Moderator	Thank you.  We have no further questions or comments.  

Derek	Okay, good.  Thank you for that information.  

Ida	Thank you, Hollynn, for that comment.  We will look in future task forces perhaps to do that.  I appreciate that comment.  I do want to clarify, however, that for our task forces there are no agreements that are made.  We just have the task force as investigatory to receive information from the users, so I do want to clarify that, that there are no agreements made in the task force meeting.  And because we can’t make those agreements, we have to proceed through the public process and address the comments as they move forward.  

	It’s the same as with the ACC meetings.  Again, the ACC meetings are for stakeholder feedback and input, and the information that we receive also is not an approval to more ahead or not; it’s really again to have a smaller meeting with every stakeholder representative providing input so that we can move forward.  This processes there are no agreements that are made until we actually submit for a formal process, and have the 45-day comment period, and submit it for approval to BSC.  I just want to make that clear to all stakeholders with regard to your comments.  

	Right now, it’s quarter-to twelve, it’s about 16 minutes prior to when we had scheduled to take lunch, but we’re actually going to elect to take lunch now, if at all possible, because it gives the people in the room the ability to go out to a local restaurant and get a jump start over everyone else, and that means we can return in a more timely manner.  We had originally scheduled that our meeting would start up again at 1:30.  I would like to propose that instead we start at 1:00 if at all possible.  We’re going to take our break now, and return and resume the teleconference at 1:00.  Thank you, all.   

Susan	Ariana, we’ll see you again at 1:00.  Sean, we’ll be back at 1:00.  

Moderator 	Thank you.  

[Break until 217:19]

Ida	Hello, Sean, are you back?  

Moderator	Hi, this is Carey, I’m sitting in for Sean.  

Ida	Okay.  

[Off-mic conversation]

Ida	Hi, Carey.  The lines are open now?  

Moderator	We are.  We are live.  

Ida	All right, thank you.  Welcome back, everyone, thank you for your prompt return from lunch.  We are proceeding with code amendments.  According to our schedule, we have Debbie Wong, who’s here to present our next amendment.  Debbie?

Debbie	Hi, good afternoon.  I will be presenting four code amendment proposals from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or CDCR.  They are a state agency, and what’s really important to highlight is that these provisions, or these requests for proposal amendments only pertain to facilities within their secure perimeter, so this is not—it’s limited to a secure perimeter, and does not cover any public areas.  These code proposals are very specific to detention and correctional facilities.  Following the reading of each code amendment proposal, I will open up the floor for general public comments and questions.  

	I will start with the first proposal, which is found on page 35 of your meeting documents.  This is a scoping section, 11B-247.1.1 for detectable warnings.  A little background information, detectable warnings are provided for the benefit of persons with visual impairments to indicate transitions to potential hazardous areas.  The proposing agency is proposing an exception to detectable warning scoping requirements.  Their comment is that detectable warnings are not needed as both pedestrian and vehicular circulation inside correctional facility is highly restricted, and the roads within them have controlled vehicular movement.  

	The code text, if adopted would read such, “11B-247.1.1 Detectable warnings shall be provided in accordance with 11B-247.1, and shall comply with 11B-705.1.  Exceptions:  Detectable warnings are not required in detention and correctional facilities where the movement of vehicles or pedestrians is continuously controlled within an enclosed, secure area.” 

	Okay, are there any comments or questions in our headquarter conference room?  Great.  How about our regional offices?  Hi, thank you.  And how about on the phone lines?  

Moderator	[Operator instructions].  We have a question from Hollynn D’Lil.  Please go ahead.

Hollynn 	Thank you, that’s Hollynn D’Lil.  I just want to point out that there is a law in California called government code 4459 which states you cannot increase or decrease the access standards in this state.  I’m afraid that this proposed code change is in violation of that law, so I think you should withdraw it.  Thank you.  

Debbie	Oh, thank you so much, Ms. D’Lil.  Is there anything else?  

Moderator	Thank you.  We do have a question from Gene Lozano.  Please go ahead.

Debbie	Hi, Gene.  

Gene	Hi.  This is Gene Lozano, representing the California Council of the Blind.  We do understand how the restrictions that they do have at the correction facilities.  What we don’t understand or know, the degree of supervision.  We are opposed to this exception, and feel that there needs to be more information, which then may have us come to a neutral or in a support position.  

	Based on previous issues with corrections on way-finding, signs, and so forth, it’s been pointed out to us that how some of these adaptive aids/devices/improvements can be used as weapons.  

Ida	Gene, I need to apologize and interrupt you.  We are having a—the fire alarm has been pulled in our building, which means we need to evacuate the building.

Gene	Okay. 

Ida	I’m so sorry.  We will keep the phone line active.  We’re hoping that this is a false alarm, but we must evacuate.  

Gene	Thank you.  We’ll talk to you later.  

Ida	We request [audio disruption] everyone on the phone and in the regional offices.  

Moderator	Thank you.  Ladies and gentlemen, please continue to hold.  We will just stand by.  

[Off-mic conversation]
 
Ida	Alright, we are assembling back into the room.  I’m not sure if it was a false alarm or a real alarm, but it’s not on our floor and we were cleared to come back in.

 [Off-mic conversation]

Ida	Yes.  Bob is not here, Sue is not here.  How about one more minute to give people an opportunity to come in?  

[Off-mic conversation]

Ida	Carey?

Moderator	Yes.

Ida	Go ahead and release the lines please.

Moderator	Okay.  We are live.

Ida	Thank you, everyone.  Thank you everyone for your patience.  Was it a false alarm?  All I know is we were cleared to come back into the building so we can resume our meeting.  I apologize for the inconvenience, not that I could have prevented it.  But, Debbie, I think we were taking comment on the phone.  Gene, would you mind restating your position, please, just because I want to make sure that it gets completely captured?

Moderator	[Operator instructions.] 

Debbie	Oh, he’s not on the line.

Ida	Gene is not on the line?

Moderator 	One moment.  Mr. Lozano, you’re line is open.

Gene	Okay.  This is Gene Lozano representing the California Council of the Blind.  At this time the organization is in opposition to the deletion, well rather opposition to this proposal.  The position can change with more information.

	First to acknowledge that we heard, or I heard that this is not a public area, this is within the secured perimeter and that’s—sometimes the arguments have been given that they’re concerned about inmates using access improvement devices as weapons.  In a situation like this since DSA does work with some areas that deal with employee areas we feel this would fit in and I think the thought is just inmates but there are staff, those who are civilians who are working in there, it could be teachers, medical professionals, so forth, that are working in those areas that don’t necessarily are required to have full vision.  They could have low vision or could be potentially, unlikely, but totally blind.

	What this area sounds like, these areas would be where there’d be hazardous vehicular areas more than even curb ramps, but we feel that the exception should be on, the exception as to the requirement that there be a sound difference which is use or resiliency which would then eliminate those products, detectable warning products that are made of plastics and other ones that might be possible to break and, therefore, be used as a weapon.  There are products out there that are made of concrete pavers, a solid concrete paver that some do or some don’t make a sound difference and that there are those that are made of granite, too, rock, that can be put in place there and still provide a warning for fully-sighted and those with visual impairments, staff as well as inmates.

	Inmates, we have heard at times, yes, they’re always accompanied, supervised.  There’s a guard always that can see in distance, but we’ve also heard like when it came to the adjustable examination table, last code cycle when it was brought up about having portable hoist to transfer patients, it was mentioned that staff could be out of the room and somebody—one of the inmates could use that as a way of either using it as a device to commit suicide, or injure someone who comes in.

	Our position is that there needs to be more information to find out more of how to stay within the requirements of the detectable warnings and that might be just specifying that the only products that can be used are those that are made of a concrete-like or rock material so that that warning is still available to somebody and it provides safety regardless of their status as an inmate or a staff person.  Thank you.  

Debbie	Thank you.  If this is helpful, I do know that basically because of the very high security measure that’s taken within the secure perimeter that CDCR believes that because of that high security level that does not create a danger or a hazardous vehicular area.  So, I thank you so much for your comment.

Gene 	Just a last little part and I will let the—I’m not trying to get into a debate with you, Ida.  The fact is it’s reliant on the human element that is not 100% fool-proof.  There may be an exception and we can—anecdotal things, I don’t have anything to point to, but it could, there’s always a possibility that you have a situation that there isn’t that close supervision, and again, for staff that are going through and I don’t know, I’ve never heard of them being always accompanied by another staff person when they’re walking through the yard.  Thank you.

Debbie	Thank you, Gene.  This is Debbie, not Ida.  Okay.  Was there any other questions?

Ida	There might be somebody else on the line.  

Moderator	We do have two more questions in queue.  The first one comes from Hollynn D’Lil.  Please go ahead.

Hollynn	Hi.  Thank you.  I just wanted to support the concerns and comments by Gene.  I know you’ll probably shut me down, but I think this needs to be said.  I’m hoping that we can someway bridge this hostility, this gap of hostility we have between DSA and some of us in the disability community.  I’m breaking a confidence here, but Connie called me after the break and was in tears and she’s just—

Ida	You know what, we’re going to move forward—

Hollynn	Okay, you’re going to shut me down.

Ida	—continue this discussion offline.  We are talking tomorrow and I will really love to discuss this with you tomorrow.  I agree.  I think we should work as collaboratively as possible.  We just can’t solve this today in this meeting.  We’ve had an extremely productive meeting sticking to the requirements of these code provisions today and so, I’d really like to continue.  

	If you have a comment, I know you said you echoed with Gene, please state any additional comments regarding this provision and tomorrow we will engage.  We will have unlimited time to engage in a discussion on how we can get these proposals to you on a more timely manner and how if you have any of these other issues that you want to raise regarding our relationship that’s the manner to do it.  It just can’t be today.  I apologize.  So, if you have any other comments, do proceed.

Hollynn	Thank you for that, Ida.  I just want to say that I wish that other people could hear this about how people with disabilities are not seasoned bureaucrats or lobbyists.  We’re real people speaking from a place of duress and everybody needs to hear that.  Thank you.  

Moderator	Thank you.  And now to the line of Terry McLean.  Please go ahead.

Terry	 Just a comment where it says vehicles or pedestrians, I’m wondering if it should say vehicles and pedestrians.  That could go either way on it, but that was my comment.  Thank you.

Debbie	Thank you, Terry.

Moderator	Thank you.  We have no one else in queue.

Debbie	Okay, I’ll move on to the second CDCR proposal.  The effective code section is 11B-404.2.9 Door and Gate Opening Force.  The maximum five ton opening force applies to all accessible doors and gates except for fire and exterior hinged doors.  The max pressure is 15 pounds for fire and exterior hinged doors.

	CDCR is proposing a 15 pound maximum limit, and this increase, again, is limited only to detention—let me start over.  The increase is limited to detention-grade doors and not to commercial doors inside their facilities.  So, what I mean by detention grade doors is they are very heavy.  Correctional facility detention doors are usually 12 to 14 gauge metal, heavy gauge metal.  They are fire and bulletproof glazing with door widths up to 48”.  The large dimension and weight increase these doors’ opening force.  

	So, CDCR is requesting a code amendment for—which would read, “Detention grade doors and gates in detention and correctional facilities, the minimum opening force allowable by the appropriate administrative authority is not to exceed 15 pounds or 66.7 newton,” or another language for this provision is—or no, this proposed code amendment would read, “Detention grade doors and gates for detention and correctional facilities, 15 pounds, 66.7 newtons maximum.”

	I will open up the floor for questions and comments.  Any in our conference room?  No?  How about our regional offices?  No.  Phone lines?

Moderate	We do have a question from Eric Sifuntes.  Please go ahead.

Eric	Sorry, I tried to actually get in the queue for the last one, and I think I got in the queue for this one.  But, my comment on the last topic was that there are areas for the tactile warning that are also secure, not just detention and correctional facilities, but educational facilities that have auto shop, enclosed yards within a classroom setting, I think also would qualify for the same type of a non-hazardous condition.  So, I would offer that as an addition to that exemption.

Debbie	Thank you, Eric.  Any other questions related to the second proposal for CDCR related to door opening pressure?

Moderator 	We have no one in queue.

Debbie	Excellent.  We’ll move on to the third proposal and this is code 11B-404.2.11, Vision Lights.  Doors, gates, and—yes?

Derek	Do you want to give a page number for that one?

Debbie	Yes, page 47 in your meeting packet.  So, 11B-404.2.11 Vision Lights.  The provision reads, “Doors, gates, and side lights adjacent to doors or gates, containing one or more glazing panels that permit viewing through the panels shall have the bottom of at least one glazed panel located 43” maximum above the finish floor.”

	The exception, “Glazing panels with the lowest part more than 66” from the finish floor or ground shall not be required to comply with Section 404.2.11.”

	The proposer’s comments are that vision panels are used for security personnel to view into the space, and they’re not designed for individuals to see out of.  So, the copy text if adopted would read—the code amendment proposal would become an exception under exception one it would read, “Number 2, in detention and correctional facilitates vision lights designed to be used only by security personnel.”

	Are there any questions in the room?  Are there any questions in the regional offices related to the third proposal?  Thank you.  And phone lines?  

Moderator	A question from Hollynn D’Lil.  Please go ahead.

Hollynn	Thank you.  I meant to comment on the previous one also.  I’m concerned that it’s in violation of government code 4459, and I’d like to ask if that is a concern of yours.

Ida	We evaluate all proposals as to whether they provide the additional clarity and access for the—if access is maintained and provided.  So, we have provided that analysis and that’s why this has moved forward.  

Hollynn	I see.  So, you’re not considering—

Ida	We’re not getting in a debate about this.  It’s not about specific to the provision.  If you want to discuss this with me tomorrow, we can.

Hollynn	Well no, this is about an issue of law.  You’re saying it’s—

Ida	We’re not stating the law right now.  We’re making a provision; a provision is not at—

Hollynn	[Audio disruption] but what about government code 4459 which says you can’t decrease access.

Ida	Well, we’re not debating that today.  The provision is not a debate about government code 4459.  That is a law that requires interpretation by many parties.  We can take that conversation offline and have it, but it is not discussing the proposal that is at hand.

Moderator	Thank you.  We have no one else in queue.  

Debbie	Thank you.  So, this is the last proposal by CDCR and contrary to what I initially stated, this proposal actually could be applied anywhere really.  It’s 11B, page 63 in your meeting packet, the effective code Section 11B-608.5, Controls.  The existing code reads, “Controls, faucets, and shower spray units shall comply with Section 11B-309.4, control and faucets shall be of a single-lever design.”

	The CDCR comments that the current code limits the use of just one design of shower control and eliminates the use of other types of control, for example, buttons or automatic sensors.  In certain cases when CDCR is considering design features as an option for their plumbing facilities and equipment and furnishing, CDCR has a suicide prevention program and one of the features that they look for are ligature resistant products, and the lever design is a ligature point.  

	So, this made—the change to a button or an automatic sensor would aid in their meeting that requirement for their program to suicide prevention.  Additionally, they state that the use of motion control sensors and buttons would allow more manufacturers and designs to be used.  So, the code if adopted would read, “Controls, faucets, and shower spray units shall comply with 11B-309.4; controls and faucets shall be able to be operated by one hand or electronically controlled or activated.”  

	Or an alternative verbiage for language would read, “11B-608.5 Controls.  Controls, faucets, and shower spray units shall comply with Section 11B-309.4.  Controls and faucets shall be operable with one hand and of a single-lever design, or where tempered water is provided of a push type of an electronically controlled.  Hand operated meter controls and faucets shall remain open for 45 seconds minimum.”

	Are there any questions, comments in our conference room?  No.  How about regional offices?  Any comments or questions?  Thank you.  Phone lines?

Moderator	We have no one in queue.  We do have a question from Rick Halloran.  Please go ahead.  

Debbie	Hi, Rick.

Rick	Hi.  How are you?  I hope everybody’s alright with your little fire alarm.  We have had many proposals to do these, to use electronically controlled faucets.  The problems that we saw, first of all, operated by one hand is vague.  Does that include having to hold the device?  Because often they have separate devices from the actual faucet itself that you would have to hold in one hand, but it could be operated by another hand, by a single hand if you maybe stabilized it or something.  So, I think that needs to be looked at.

	Also, when these get lost and get broken they’re expensive to replace and they often will not be replaced.  So, now we’re left with what is the actual faucet.  In many cases they’re using the hand controlled device in lieu of putting the faucet in an accessible location or making the actual faucet itself.  So, I think that needs to be clarified.  If this device is broken or lost, is the actual faucet still operable by a person with a disability?  So, that’s the concerns we’ve had with them.

Ida	Are you referring to a handheld wand?

Rick	There are faucets out there that are controlled by a hand-held control mechanism to adjust the temperature, it turns the water on and off and everything.  We’ve had proposals that we allow those in lieu of locating the faucet in an accessible location, etc.  There’s a lot of electronic stuff coming out, Kohler has a whole bunch of things out there right now, and they’re really questionable.  So, I’d be careful on this one.

Ida	Thank you.  That’s very helpful.

Derrek	Rick, This is Derek Shaw.  It would be great if you had some product information on the types of products that you’re referring to here.  I think with this item we were contemplating some of it sounds a little different from what you’re describing , but we want to make sure that if this does go forward, that the language is real specific and doesn’t [audio disruption] other types.
Rick	I should be able to find it and I’ll send it to you.  This came up in 11A question where they wanted to put the faucet mount at the foot of the tub.  But, I think I have that in the file somewhere.  I’ll look it up and send you what I can find.

Ida	Thank you.  

Moderator	Thank you.  Now to the line of Terry McLean.  Please go ahead.

Terry	My comment is I just prefer the second option over the first option for the code language.  Thank you.

Ida	Thank you, Terry.

Moderator	Thank you.

Ida	Then, Derek Shaw will introduce our next code amendment proposal.  Thank you.

Derek	Okay.  The next item we’d like to take a look at is regarding Section 11B-703.7.2.7.  You’ll find that on page 69 of your meeting packet.  

	This is a section that currently in the code provides a technical requirement for pedestrian traffic control buttons.  DSA has received information and we’ve consulted with our legal advisors that indicates that DSA does not have the authority to put forth regulations for traffic control devices in the public right of way.  So, DSA is proposing to strike this section in its entirety and without any replacement.

	Now, I’ve been in conversation with Mr. Lozano about this as he represents the California Council of the Blind, and I understand that he is establishing contact with the California Department of Transportation who does have the authority to write requirements for traffic control devices in the public right of way.  So, while that is a separate track and is not really associated with DSA, we just wanted to convey that so that everybody has a fuller understanding.

	Any questions here in the room?

Bob	Yes.  Bob Raymer with CBIA.  This may be sort of similar to what we experienced with landscape efficiency and wells.  The model—the Department of Water Resources, took a long time in another code, developed a sort of rules and specs for handling water conservation on the outside of the house.  While, of course, DSA, BSC, and ACD ultimately adopted it at the request of a governor’s executive order and they did that on an emergency basis, and they’ve since been updating it.  

	This is similar to that and it might be useful if DSA doesn’t have the authority to deal with this, if it’s the Department of Transportation, to find out what specifically is done there and then as we see in our green building code making reference to DOT’s regs over there so that architects understand that you have rules over here.  It’s not necessarily adopted by DSA.  But that’s something that can be taken care of down the road.

Derek	Thank you, Bob.  Any other questions or comments here in the room?  None.  Let’s take a look at our regional office in Oakland.  Any questions or comments?  No.  Thank you, guys.  How about on the phone?  Do we have any callers who’d like to comment?

Moderator	We have a question from Hollynn D’Lil.  Please go ahead.

Hollynn	Thank you.  It’s my understanding that government code 4500 states that—it’s quite lengthy, I don’t know if you’ll give me the time to read it to you, I hope you would.  States that basically, “(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of any statute, rule, regulation, decision, or pronouncement to the contrary other than subdivision (b), every state agency, board, and department, every local subdivision, every district, every public and quasi-public corporation, every public agency and public service corporation, every city, county city, and county municipal corporation whether incorporated or not and whether chartered or not and awarding contract for the operations, equipment, or structures shall be obligated to require that all fixed routes, transit equipment, and public fixed structures shall be so built that individual disabilities shall have ready access to, from in such equipment and structures.”

	And Item B says, “Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, public transit facilities and operations whether operated by or under contract with a public entity shall meet the applicable standards in Title II and Title III of the ADA, subject to the exceptions provided in that act.  However, if the laws of this state in effect on December 31, 1992 prescribe higher standards than the ADA and federal regulations adopted pursuant thereto, then those public transit facilities and operations shall meet the higher standard.”

	I think it makes it clear that you can’t eliminate what’s needed by the visually impaired on those pedestrian traffic control button poles.

Derek	Thank you.  Do we have any other comments or questions on the line?

Moderator	We do have a question from Gene Lozano.  Please go ahead.  

Gene	Just for the organization to go on record it is in opposition to the deletion of this section at this time.  A brief explanation is yes, we do understand the legality the Department of General Services does not have the authority to regulate traffic control devices and that this is considered a traffic control device.  However, that has been in place for the yellow stripe since at least 1982 and for the mounting height of the pedestrian push button of a maximum of 48” at least since 1999.

	If this goes through, which I expect it will, and passed by the Building Standards Commission, there’s going to be a vacuum which is assuming Caltrans will address this.  It’s out of your area—and just for the record, I have been trying for six weeks, I’ve talked to staff and they keep on promising having a discussion, a meeting, but they won’t return calls to do that.  We will lose access on the pedestrian push button height to ensure that pedestrians who use mobility devices, particularly wheelchairs, can reach the button, and for the striping which is another indicator for people with visual impairments and little or no hearing to be able to identify the location of a pedestrian push button with or without an acceptable pedestrian signal.

	Our feeling is that no action should be taken on this until Caltrans will take some action, hopefully, grandfather these requirements without having to go through the regulatory process because there will be a reduction in access, state access and safety by there being a vacuum between the two entities.  I acknowledge DSA and General Services has no control over what Caltrans does or does not do, however, there is this in effect and I think that the state has to honor what it has in place.  Thank you.

Derek	Thank you, Gene.  Any other questions or comments on the telephone?

Moderator	And, to the line of Hollynn D’Lil.  Please go ahead.

Hollynn	I still am mystified as to why you’re not acting under government code 4459, but I will repeat and say that since it deletes access and certainly because it deletes safety for people with disabilities that this code change proposal is in violation of government code 4459.  

Derek	Thank you.  Any other questions or comments on the telephone?

Moderator	We have no one else in queue.  

Derek	Great.  Thank you.  With that, let’s go ahead to the next item.  This next item also is about pedestrian street crossings.  Here we don’t have any—you’ll find that on page 12 of your package.  Currently we don’t have any code language which addresses this particular issue.  Miss D’Lil brought this to our attention during the last code cycle and DSA had, at that time, included it within our list of items to address during this code cycle.  

	That was that during the code cycle that led to the 2013 California Building Code that the existing scoping language for pedestrian, for curb ramps at street crossings was omitted or left out of the code as we moved to the 2013 CBC Chapter 11B.  So, DSA went ahead and researched that, confirmed that that is the case, and is coming back today with a proposal with updated language, but in essence, the same effect as the language that was in the 2010 and prior CBC Chapter 11B.

	Here we would propose the language which said that a curb ramp, blended transition or a combination of curb ramps and blended transition complying with Section 11B-406 shall connect the pedestrian access routes at each pedestrian street crossing.  The curb ramp, excluding any flared sides, or blended transition shall be contained wholly within the width of a pedestrian street crossing served.

	Now, this language is by and large included in the Federal Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines; it was published in 2011.  Those guidelines have not been adopted as standards, so they are not technically enforceable at the federal level.  However, the US Department of Transportation as well as many transportation offices throughout California look to the Public Right of Way accessibility guidelines as model for their accessibility requirements within their programs.

	So, with that, I’d like to open it up to any questions here in the room.  No questions?  Okay.  Very good.  How about at our regional office in Oakland?  No questions.  Okay.  Thanks, guys.  Any questions or comments on the telephone line?

Moderator	To the line of Hollynn D’Lil.  Please go ahead.

Hollynn	If Gene Lozano is on the queue after me, I’d rather he speak first.  

Derek	Is Gene Lozano on the queue?

Sue	No, he’s not.  Terry McLean is right now.

Moderator	Thank you.

Sue	Now he is.

Gene	I’ll try to be brief.  We are wanting to see that this proposal be amended further.  We feel that it needs to be expanded on to include the applications as to what is an accessible route through a pedestrian crossing such as in the intersection, alley way, so forth.  That there be at each segment of an accessible route, that there be a guarantee that when you put in a curb ramp or a blended transition that the opposite end of that segment have a curb ramp or a blended transition.

	And the last thing is that looking at the directionality of these ramps or blended transitions.  So, we will be discussing this with DSA staff and these are just areas which we don’t want to get any more specific at this time except that we just feel this needs to be amended further.  Thank you.

Derek	Thank you, Gene.  Any other questions or comments on the telephone line?

Moderator	Now to the line of Terry McLean.  Please go ahead.

Terry	Just a quick question.  Is that under your purview if it’s actually in the public right of way?

[Multiple parties speaking at once]

Terry	Well, on the private, but is there an issue with it being in the public right of way and meeting Caltrans’ requirements?

Derek	DSA’s authority in governance code 4450 tells us that it includes curbs and sidewalks.  So, DSA, consistent with our legal advice, views that DSA has the authority to write regulations for sidewalks, curbs, curb ramps that are in the public right of way or on a site.  So, we believe that yes, it is within our authority.

Terry	Thank you much.

Derek	You’re welcome.

Moderator	Thank you.  We have no one else in queue.

Derek	Alright, real good.  With that I’ll turn—

Mark	This is Mark in Oakland.  I just came across [audio disruption].  It seems like this provision is already covered in the CBC.  If you look at Section 11B406.5 requirement for curb ramps, 406.5.1 says, “Curb ramps at marked crossings shall be wholly contained within the markings, excluding any flared sides.”  So, it seems like it is getting through [indiscernible] location.  

	There’s also the provision 406.5.9, clear space at diagonal curb ramps.  It talks about how the bottom landing of a curb ramp has [audio disruption].  So, [audio disruption] as well.  I think [audio disruption] those two sections.

Derek	Sure.  We have, Mark, and just to let you know we are aware that those technical requirements are in Division IV, but we lack any scoping requirements within Division II and that’s what this proposal is trying to, to make all the parts and pieces work together.

Mark	Okay.

Derek	Alright.  Thank you.  With that, I’ll turn the presentation over to Susan Moe.

Susan	This is Susan Moe, Senior Architect here at DSA.  Before we jump into what everybody is waiting for, the housing provision, we’re going to take a look at page 14 in your documents.  And, what we found as we were taking a look at the existing building code and the 2018 IBCs, when you take a look in Chapter 10 there is a provision in there that states that accessible means of egress are not required in existing buildings.

	So, what we realized is the Division of the State Architect, we don’t adopt the existing building code, and, specifically, we don’t adopt the provision where this particular item was moved to.  Basically, what happened, the International Code Council, when they wrote the existing building code, there were some of these provisions that they took out of the IBC and they moved it over into the IEBC’s existing building codes.

	What we realized is that we really needed to incorporate this into Chapter 11B.  So, in Section 11B-207.1 under Means of Egress, it says that it shall comply with Chapter 10, Section 1009.  What exception number three would read, “Accessible means of the egress required by Chapter 10 are not required to be provided in existing facilities.”  So, basically what this will do is maintain a provision that we already adopt.  

	With that, if we have any questions from anybody here in the room?

Frank	Frank [indiscernible], CASp.  I would just ask that maybe some consideration be given to trying to—we have a project that is currently under review and it is an existing one-story building, used as a bank.  The front door is accessible.  It meets all the requirements of 11B-302.4 [ph].  But they have a lot of money to spend on a [audio disruption].  

	In this particular case the back door is not accessible.  It would be nice to have some kind of a trigger to remove barriers that exist in the building.  I know that we can always fall back on the ADA repair [ph] removal, but it seems like we are putting the possibility on the building owner of an ADA complaint that we might be able to address.  I’m just asking for maybe some consideration.

Susan	We could take a look at that, but I don’t know that that, the readily achievable barrier removal, I don’t know that that would apply in an existing building when you’re looking at that access, that means of egress.

Frank	It becomes a life safety issue and multiple billions [ph], but basically it requires multiple [indiscernible].

Ida	Frank, thank you for your comment.  I think that we need to be clear that what we’re doing here is preserving, already, the existing provisions that’s been included.  We have not done a study as to requiring a fee [ph] on that.  So, we’ll have to see, moving forward, if we have enough information to accommodate that because that’s an entirely different provision than what we’re talking.  But, I thank you for the comment.  

Susan	Anybody else here in the room?  How about in Oakland?  No?  How about on the phone line?

Moderator	We have a question from Hollynn D’Lil.  Please go ahead.

Hollynn	Thank you.  A couple of things.  It appears that I’m having a hard time understanding the language as it’s written.  But, it’s my understanding that the model code is written by a private organization and cannot take precedence over state law.  So, if this is driven by model code I think that’s something you should look at.  In addition, of course, this change endangers people with disabilities in times of emergencies and puts us at great risk.

	Although existing buildings do not require architectural egress, a programmatic evacuation plan is required by the ADA and adopting this proposed language without modification exposes businesses everywhere to tremendous liability.  So, I am definitely speaking on behalf of the people that want me to speak for them, several hundred people in organizations, we oppose this.

Susan	Actually, again, Hollynn, this is not a new provision.  This is just a provision that we are carrying forward in Chapter 11B because it will no longer be in the International Building Code, it’s in the existing building code.  So, this is not a new provision, it’s just a provision that we’re carrying forward.

Derek	Is there any net difference if this exception is adopted?

Susan	Yes, because if we don’t include this language in Chapter 11B because we don’t adopt that provision [audio disruption] when that code becomes effective we don’t adopt that provision because it’s moved into the existing building code.  So, there will be, if we don’t include this in our language, an issue because what we have adopted for I don’t know how long this has been in the code, for quite some time, we will no longer be adopting that because it’s in a different—it’s in the existing building code that we don’t adopt.

Derek	And that’s really helpful, but I think more to my point was if we fail to adopt this—I’m sorry, if we do adopt this is there any net difference between the current building code requirements all inclusive in Chapter 10, versus what this will provide if it’s adopted as an exception in 11B?  Is there any net difference or is it the same even across the board?

Susan	There’s no difference.  It’s just that now it’s going to be included in Chapter 11B which I think it seems like it’s where it should be under accessible means of egress.  

Derek	Thank you.   

Susan	Any other comments?  Questions?  Anybody else on the phone line?

Moderator	We do have a few people in queue.  The next question comes from Eric Sifuntes.  Please go ahead.

Eric	I was just trying to clarify if it’s DSA’s position that if it’s not carried forward into 11B if it would really make any difference because for existing facilities 11B-202.4 kind of limits the scope of alterations in existing facilities.  And, the language isn’t already in the Chapter 11.  So, is this really a necessity to carry forward and if we don’t carry it forward would it then imply that you’re required to provide accessible means of egress in an existing facilities?  Is that the danger that you see in not carrying it forward?

Susan	Yes.  That’s exactly, when we took a look at this and we realized what happened with this provision being moved out of the International Building Code into the existing building code, and again, because we don’t adopt the section in the existing building code where this provision is located, then it will no longer be applicable because we don’t adopt that provision.

Eric	My point is, isn’t it not applicable anyway because 11B-202.4 limits the scope to not include that, to not include egress?

Susan	This is very specific though, a very specific provision for existing buildings.  So, we just want to be sure that we carry that provision forward, that we already adopt from Chapter 10, what was in Chapter 10.

Ida	I think it’s important not realize that in the general under 11B-207.1, “Means of egress shall comply with Chapter 10 Section 1009.”  So, all the requirements for egress, including accessible means of egress, are in Chapter 10 because that’s the egress chapter.  This provision that provides this exception will no longer be in that chapter because it’s an existing building provision so it will be moved to the existing building code.  Therefore, we need to address it here.  Because once they refer to means of egress and that provision’s gone, we lose this provision that exists now.  

Eric	Okay.  Thank you.

Moderator	Thank you.  Now to the line of Rick Halloran.  Please go ahead.

Rick	Thank you.  I want to apologize for the noise.  I have a commission meeting I’m driving to.  I wanted to say that this, I agree with carrying it forward.  I think it’s a good idea.  This is probably a good opportunity, however, to clear up one of the problems that we’ve faced in the past, the definition of existing building.  Unlike the ADA where they have a date attached, an existing building in the building code is a building that received [ph] CFC yesterday or the day before, sometime in the past.

	This does apply to some existing buildings.  It applies to any building that was built after January 1, 2008.  I believe it was a 2007 code that brought in the accessible means of egress.  That should be clarified I think because we’ve had people come in and say I have an existing building, I no longer need to maintain my accessible means of egress.  So, I think maybe you want to consider that and possibly just add something that could help with that.  Thanks.  

Moderator	Thank you.  Now to the line of Tim Thimesch.  Please go ahead.

Tim	Hi.  Thank you.  I would echo those last comments.  The definition of an existing building at a Title 24 is meddled and conflicts with the ADA.  The ADA it uses existing buildings, as we all know, strictly for considering programmatic changes, barrier removals.

	Here looking at the definition of an existing building under the 2016 Title XXIV it’s a facility in existence on any given date, and here’s the part I’m focusing on, without regard to whether the facility may also be considered newly constructed or altered under those codes.  

	So, my concern is this.  I have a building that’s in existence, I am altering it.  The exit is in the area of alteration.  Isn’t what you’re adopting here, isn’t what you’re putting in here exempting that means of egress from being brought up to current codes?  And, I would ask this is going to take some time for everyone to look at this, what’s the definition of an existing building under the IBC?  Is it conflicting with what we have here and does the IBC have the same type of scoping requirements that we have here in California?

	So, I think you get the gist of what I’m saying.  I might be echoing what the last caller expressed, but I think this requires further study.  Thank you.

Susan	Anyone else?

Moderator	Now to the line of Charles Pick.  Please go ahead.

Charles	I think it’s terribly important to include this language in one way or another such as what’s proposed because it is important that clarification be made that existing facilities, however they’re defined, are exempt from the need to upgrade the egress paths of travel.  Because, we actually had a project last year stopped dead in its tracks, rehabilitation of some senior housing due to the lack of clarity in the existing code on this very subject.  

	This was a hillside construction, the primary entrance was accessible and perfectly accessible as a means of egress, but the rear exits onto this hillside had a sharply sloped walkway, existing walkway that was part of the original construction and there was simply no feasible way to achieve this egress.  

	So, a multi-month negotiation with the building official was necessary to allow the project important rehabilitation of an existing affordable senior project to even proceed.  It was just hung up for months on this subject.  So, the adjacency of the language, the inclusion of the language in 11B is terribly important.  

Susan	Thank you.  Anyone else on this particular item?

Moderator	Thank you.  Now to the line of Terry McLean.  Please go ahead.

Terry	I just wanted to address Eric’s comment which was the scoping requirements.  Although it sort of is in that part of it, it’s actually very convoluted and trying to make that case with building officials and stuff in the past was very difficult.  When they actually added it in as its own line in Chapter 10 it made it so much easier for all of those architects out there.  

	But, also, I just want to echo the same comments on existing building comments because I’ve seen existing buildings that are newer and then they try and remodel and they don’t wind up fixing it or making it right.  So, same comment.  Thank you.  

Susan	Okay.

Moderator	Thank you.  Now to the line of Hollynn D’Lil.  Please go ahead.

Hollynn	Thank you and I want to thank all the commenters who are concerned about the technicalities of this wording.  As a person with disabilities, a major disability, I’m stuck in a burning building and I can’t get out, so I’m wondering if there’s any concern about that safety issue for people with disabilities.  And, I also need clarification as to that the IBC eliminated this exception, if they did it seems to me they were doing the moral and right thing or did I mishear that?

Susan	Actually you misheard that.  They did not eliminate the exception.  When the International Code Council developed the existing building code if there were provisions that were specific to existing buildings they moved those out of the IBC and moved it into the IEBC.  So, the provision is still there, it just got moved and where it got moved to is a portion of the existing building code that the Division of the State Architect does not adopt.  So, it will just go away.

Hollynn	Okay, that’s clear as mud.  Thank you.  I’m just a person out here trying to represent other people who can’t do this because it’s really punitive.  What about our safety?  Where does that play in?  Does it?

Susan	Actually, yes it does, and if you go to the NFPA website there are certain things regarding safety, and evacuation, and how you get people out of the building safely in the case of a fire or other emergencies.  And, there is also a very specific document and it’s recently been updated, I think, as of last year.  Like I said, it’s on the NFPA website and it goes into great detail about how you help people get out of a—evacuate, and it isn’t only for persons with mobility impairments, it’s also persons who might have cognitive issues.  Those are certain things, operational procedures that we can’t address in the building code.

Ida	Also, to address that for most existing buildings access to the building is required, which it is also the de facto egress from the building.  So, it’s not that once you’re in you can’t get out, you got in.  So, there is always one, generally, and that’s the method in which is what the access code allows for.  Accessible means of egress does take into consideration other means, areas of refuge, exterior areas of assisted rescue that would not be considered completely acceptable in the terms of the access code.  It is a complementary provision that doesn’t say you can’t get out of a building, it just leads you in different code sections to determine how you do that.

Ida	And, you might want to take a look, Hollynn, go to NFPA and—

Hollynn	I work on the NFPA committee.  I’m familiar with it.  Thank you.  Whether you can get out the same way you got in depends upon the location of the fire.

Ida	You might want to look at their e-access website but we’re getting off topic so I think we’ve covered this particular item.  Is there anyone else on the phone?

Moderator	We have no one else in queue.  Please continue.

Ida	Okay.  Next item up.  

Susan	This is actually on page 3 of your document and what we’re going to take a look at here and there are several provisions that we’re going to take a look at that’s related to housing that compliment and work with other portions of what we’re looking at here for the change to the definition of public housing.

	So, what we’re looking at here, and the reason behind this is because what we were hearing from code users when they read the opening sentence in this particular definition they would look at that then they would go down to the first item there that said publicly-owned and/or operated one or two family dwelling units.  They didn’t bear in mind what they’d already read in that opening sentence that it says housing facilities owned, operated, or constructed by, for, or on behalf of a public entity.  

	What we are also finding is people don’t understand the program access of what’s involved if you take a look at public housing.  So, what we’re proposing, a change in our definitions.  The opening sentence would read, “Housing facilities owned, operated, constructed, or altered by, for, or on behalf of a public entity or as part of a public entity’s housing program including but not limited to,”  and then you can see as you read down through this definition we’re getting rid of redundant language.  

	So, we don’t need to say publicly-owned or operated anymore because we’ve already covered that in the opening sentence.  So, instead it’s going to say one or two family dwelling units or congregate residences, buildings or complexes with three or more residential dwelling units.  What was Item 4 will now become Item 3 and that includes homeless shelters, group homes, half-way houses, and similar, social service center establishments.  Item 4 would be transient lodging such as hotels, motels, hostels, and other facilities providing accommodations of a short-term nature of not more than 30 days duration.

	And then the last item would be housing at a place of education.  That’s just housing on or serving a public school, public college, or public university.  In that particular provision we got rid of campus because the housing doesn’t need to necessarily be built on a university campus.  It could be housing, student housing that’s built off campus that is specific for the use of a university.

	Then, we had in there Item 7, privately-owned housing made available for public use as housing.  Well, if you have privately-owned housing and it’s going to be made available for public use as housing, that is already covered in other provisions of the definition for a place of public accommodation.  Because, you could have a privately-owned house that is going to be used as a social service center establishment, so we realized that that really doesn’t have any place in this definition.  Really, what we’re doing with this definition, what we’re pulling from is terminology in the 2010 ADA Standards, and then the terminology from the ADA itself because we’re looking at a public entity’s housing program.  

	Let’s look at one other item, it’s on page 5, and it’s another change that we’re proposing to a definition, and that’s in the definition of public use because these two definitions sort of go together.  What we’re looking there in the definition of public use is ending that definition to repeal that last sentence that says, “In the context of public housing, public use as a provision of housing programs by, for, or on behalf of a public entity.”  So, we don’t really need to state that public use in that definition because we’ve already covered thoroughly on the definition of public housing what we intend and what that entails.  

	So, with that, we’ll open this up to questions.  Do we have any questions from Oakland?  No?  How about questions here in the room?

Bob 	Yes, thank you.  This is Bob Raymer representing California Building Industry Association.  First as a preface to this I recognize that, I note only recently but dating back to the late 1980s this has been an area of confusion, of often conflict going back and forth between DSA and ACD, the code change, etc.  So, there’s a long and lively history to this and we certainly are cognizant about the fact that to the extent that you can make clarity, that’s a good idea with any provisional code including access right.

	Having said that one of the things that I need to do with your rather numerous proposals, just not with this one, but you probably have about a half dozen related to public housing and what I need to do is basically go back and over the next two weekends and get back to you by probably March 5th.  That’s a Monday, I believe.  I’ll have more detailed comments.

	But, I need to look at all of these in their entirety together.  That’s the smart way to do this and because of all the bills that just got introduced the ability to focus the amount of time on this hasn’t been there.  So, I commit to doing that before the next ACC meeting and I’ll be simply providing those written comments before ACC over concerns and questions that I have.

	Having said that, there are some, what I think are some good changes here, but [audio disruption].  We have items we can support and items that we’re very confused and concerned about.  First off where you’re deleting repetitive language, that’s a common thing in code and we can definitely warm up to that.  

	Given this issue, we’ve never really had a problem with these, but you cited that it can lead to confusion and just like with other provisions in the fire code and the building code, if you stated in the introductory provision and then you have subsequent subsections under that, the introducing provision covers everything below that, so why would you necessarily have to completely repeat publicly-owned and/or operated, etc., again and again.

	So, that’s something that we can work for, love to, and I think the building officials will probably feel similarly on that.  Having said that, the addition of the new language to a lesser degree or altered and particularly the addition of the language, or as part of a public entity’s housing program is very concerning to us.  

	I’ve done some research.  Thank you for providing me some references here and let me be clear as far as CBIA’s direct concern.  We’re only concerned right now, only, with the potential impact or the inadvertent impact this would have on production style, single-family dwelling construction.  So, we’re definitely not looking into things that we know have to comply and have had to comply for a long time, half-way homes for prisoners to return to society, homes for recovering addicts, homes for disabled veterans, homes used for housing the homeless, the dorm style suite approach that you use a single-family home for.  

	So, in doing some of the research based on some of the things you provided me, clearly when DOJ provided a guidance document to go along with the regulations they made it clear, and I’ll read specifically from it, “Facilities with residential dwellings for sale to individual owners.”  They have two caveats on when the ADA provisions would apply, the public housing provisions would apply.

	Number one, it’s residential dwelling units designed and constructed or altered by a public entity, etc.  So, there’s two things going on.  The first one is it has to be designed by the public entity.  Secondly, that designed dwelling unit is either constructed and/or altered by a public entity.  So, that right there, production style single-family homes would not fall into that classification.

	The second blurb, the requirements of Paragraph 1 also apply to housing programs that are operated by public entities.  Well, we’ve known that for a long time and it’s very understandable.  So, in a recent discussion that I had with you, you provided some very useful clarifications on some confusion that I had based on meeting a while ago.  There was one thing that remained and that was the potential application of DSA’s rates to inclusionary zoning where a density bonus is offered.

	I went back, because that gets out of my wheelhouse, we have legal counsel in our office that spend a lot of time with inclusionary zoning and density bonuses, so he sat down and gave me a bit of an education.  The provision, the minimum specs for density bonuses are spelled out in the statute, but more importantly, it’s not something that a local jurisdiction offers.  

	It’s basically something that a builder can basically make use of at their option providing certain things have happened at the local level.  Maybe they want to encourage above reach codes for energy rates.  Maybe they want to encourage the construction housing, narrow transportation corridor, etc., all things to help reduce greenhouse gas production and you’re able to trigger the use of a density bonus.

	The point here is it is a private sector entity building the product that is sold to a private sector citizen and it’s not made available for public use in any shape or form.  So, even though it is a program related to housing implemented by a public entity, it’s not public housing.  So, what I need to do is I need to go back and look at all of this together which I should have done weeks ago, but the legislature [indiscernible].  So, I promise to do that over the weekend and we’ll get back to you probably within less than two weeks.  

Susan	After we had that meeting and I sent that e-mail, I actually had further conversations with housing experts back in Alabama, and then my contact at the Department of Justice because I specifically asked them a question.  I said if you have a zoning ordinance like this density bonus, if you have something like that, does that trigger—does that mean that that’s a housing program?  

	And he said that is a really good question, and he said there is actually an attorney back in Massachusetts, because Massachusetts, their law is very much like California, and he said what this attorney in very detailed and very much experience in looking at the ADA and what program access means, he said no, that’s a zoning ordinance.  But, he said what you’d have to take a look at, and he said this is really up to the counsel at every city and county when they take a look at this, do they have a housing program.

	Now, if they have a housing program what could they use to move that housing program forward?  Do they do loans, do they do grants, do they use a density bonus?  So, that’s really what you take a look at when you take a look at program access under the concept of the ADA, and what we’ve now incorporated into our definition.  

	Because, what we’re hearing in some of these training sessions that we give, people are very confused about housing, so what our goal is, at least for public housing, that somebody can take a look at Chapter 11B and they can say okay, now we’re going to comply with what the ADA requires, what the standards require, and we’ll also be in compliance and actually beyond what the Fair Housing Act requires.

Bob	I appreciate that, and quite frankly, I think I agree with just about everything you said.  Here’s the specific issue.  I was surprised to find out that when a local jurisdiction adopts an inclusionary zoning ordinance, they do not necessarily adopt the density bonus.  The density bonus is a side issue that a builder has the ability to voluntarily apply to this.  So, that is something totally out of the scope of the ordinance that the local—this is something a builder, if he or she so chooses, could implement.

	So, that part of it is sort of out of the equation per se.  But, I get where you’re getting at and here’s the 30,000-foot level, the concerns that I have.  All of these proposed changes are being made in the context of attempting to make, to provide additional clarity to something that, as other people have said today, is clear as mud.  

	The fact here is we support the efforts to do that, it’s just given the explanation that you just gave me can you imagine the difficulty it is for either a building official, or a builder, or a designer to hear that those who are basically writing the code and working on the code adoption don’t have clarity on this stuff because there’s national discussions going on.  What we need is something that’s black and white.

Susan	You’re not going to get something that’s black and white.

Bob	And I get you.  That’s why when I take a look at this I’ll be focusing on whether or not this, indeed, provides that enhanced clarity.  So, with that, taking advice away, we really appreciate the time that you spend trying to give us a clarity, and you did provide some clarity for us.

Susan	It’s the favorite term that I hear from the people at Department of Justice, and specifically John Wodatch, you ask him a question, we ask him a question like this, do you know what he would say?  It depends.

Ida	I just wanted to also add clarity that any of the provisions that we provide, when we do need that additional clarity, we do have our advisory manual we can start to elaborate a little on the clarity which may not always be appropriate for code.  Because if you try to take every consideration—if we take every consideration and try to put it to code then others think that everything that’s not included is eliminated, whereas in an advisory manual we can start having a little bit more of a discussion.

Susan	So, we didn’t have any questions in Oakland.  Oh, Stoyan [ph].

Stoyan	Very often I get the same question about this housing program and I don’t know the answer, and I take [indiscernible].  If you guys can provide a little bit more clarity in your guys’ advisory manual it [indiscernible].

Susan	And it’s even like we’ve already determined that a Title II entity could have a program where they say you can do asbestos abatement on a housing project.  Well, that’s not a housing program, that’s a program to assess the abatement on an existing multi-family housing or whatever.  So, we’re constantly pushing that, and asking questions, and looking for more, and going deeper, and the more that we can find the more we can put in advisory manuals and in our training.

	Anybody on the phone?

Moderator	We do have a question from Charles Pick.  Please go ahead.

Charles	Yes.  It’s a comment and a question.  First of all, I think this is a great start, or effort, or perhaps even finished product for clarifying this really important definition.  My question is related to the DOJ you were just mentioning and the whole issue of Title II ADA.  Perhaps this isn’t the correct forum but is the thinking by doing this and clarifying that all housing, all public entity’s housing programs, is this intended to make 11B a Safe Harbor for ADAS generally and Title II requirements?

Susan	We already use the 2010 ADA Standards as our model code.  I don’t know that we’d necessarily call it a Safe Harbor.

Ida	Charlie, we are required by law to submit our code to the Department of Justice for certification.  If that happens, technically yes, then 11B would be considered, I guess if Safe Harbor is the word you want to use, or necessarily an equivalent of rebuttable evidence to the 2010 ADAS.  

	We have submitted it to the Department of Justice, but that was three years ago.  They have not gotten to it yet, so until then you do need to meet the requirements of the ADA or the 2010 ADAS and the CBC in order to ensure.  But, because we use the 2010 ADAS as the basis of our model code we do bring in that provision and that clarity where we can.

Susan	Then, realize that building officials only have the authority to do plan review and approval to the building code.  They can’t do plan review and approvals to the ADA or to the 2010 Standards.  So, at least this is giving something to building officials that when they do their plan review and approval that they can look at that and be in compliance with the 2010 Standards.

Ida	And for us, because we use the 2010 ADAS as model code, the regulatory part of it which is the preamble for Title II and Title III, the regulations, the Department of Justice regulations that occurred outside of the actual accessibility guidelines, we have the opportunity to bring that into the building code, which is what we’re doing here, bringing those regulations into our regulations.  

Charlie	It’s been a real dilemma because you have to certify these projects comply with all these laws and regulations, so there has been some question, okay, if we meet 11B are we also meeting our Title II and ADAS requirements.

Ida	Not until the Department of Justice says you are.

Charlie	Gee, thanks.

Susan	Any other questions on the phone line?

Moderator	We have no one else in queue.

Susan	Excellent.  Well, let’s move on then.  Let’s take a look at page 7 and page 9 of the document because these go together as well, these two portions.

M	Page 7 and 9?

Bob	Yes, page 7, page 8, and page 9.  What we look at there, when we take a look at, in Chapter 1, and we’re looking at—the other thing we realized was causing confusion for folks who were looking at the code and they looked at this particular section, they were looking at publicly-funded buildings and we were hearing from people and they said we want you to put in your definition of housing, we wanted to make it clear that it’s publicly-funded.

	Well, as part of a program it doesn’t necessarily have to get receipts of public funds.  It could be other methods that a Title II entity uses to implement their housing program and a private homeowner could be getting public funds for some other purpose and that is not going to trigger compliance with Chapter 11B.

	Then, the other thing that we took a look at, we looked at the decision in Berkley v. Coyle where in the past there was a definition in the California Building Code and it did specifically talk about housing and it talked about publicly-funded.  Basically, what that decision came down to, they said that housing isn’t really open to the public and they said in that aspect, then, government code Section 4450 really is not the section that we should be citing as our authority to write regulations for public housing.

	So, what we’re looking at here in Section 1.9.1.1, we want to make it clear, and we’re stating that this section does not apply to public housing facilities.  For public housing facilities see Section 1.9.1.3.  Then, if you take a look at Section 1.9.1.2, you see there that, again, it says for housing for public housing see Section 1.9.1.3.  

	Then, we’re doing some renumbering here because what we’re going to get rid of, 1.9—or what we’re proposing to repeal is 1.9.1.3 all publicly-funded buildings used for congregate residences or for one or two family dwelling units purposes shall conform to the provisions applicable to living accommodations.  Well, that really doesn’t apply with our definition of public housing.

	So then, when we take a look at 1.9.1.1.3 [ph], then the change that we’re looking at there, you’ll see what we’re proposing is a sentence that says, “This section does not apply to public housing facilities for public housing.  See Section 1.9.1.3.”

	Then, like I said, when you look at these various sections together, on page 9, if you take a look at that and you look at applications, you see there 1.9.1.3 and what we’re saying there, public housing, and again we’re getting rid of that, and private housing for available for public use because that’s no longer in our definition of public housing.  Then it says see government code Section 12955.1 (c) and the definition for public housing in Chapter 2, because that section of the government code is where we get the authority to write regulations for public housing.

	So, any questions in the room on those two items?  

Bob	Yes.  Once again, I need to look at all this in its entirety, but I kind of take exception to the reference of 4450.  In regards to the Berkley court case, and I’ll read very quickly, two passages out of that.  “The problem with the building code regulation at issue is that it does not address the language of section 4451 and imports a notion not contained in that statute.”

	So, His Honor went on to basically say you have to look at both 4450 and 4451 in its entirety.  “The challenged regulation is not necessary to protect private homeowners receiving public financing from the necessity of complying with the accessibility standards.”  And, most importantly, “Section 4451 makes clear that the provisions of Chapter 7 apply only to buildings and facilities ‘intended for use by the public’.”

	So, there are public housing that’s intended for public use and by and large, the items that I read off earlier, the half-way houses, etc., and those are all very well-needed things where basically it’s intended for use by the public.  It’s just the public may not be passing in through it every day, but the guy returning from war that has a disability may be in there for three months, so on, and so on, so it’s a public use.

	So, we don’t take any issue with that, but in our comments we’ll be indicating that in addition to the Health and Safety code provision you need to be looking at both 4450 plus 4451 and the establishment of the overriding language.

Susan	Yes.  Really, as we look at this and actually going back to some of the notes because our prior supervisor, Dennis Perallis [ph] worked with Doug Hensel [ph] and they came up with this definition.  What they looked at when they looked at that particular section was it’s available for public use.  They pretty much came to the conclusion that if you take a look at the social service center establishments and the type of housing that’s covered under a place for public accommodation, so that could be just strictly owned by a private entity, no public involvement in that at all.  

	Or, you can take a look at is it public housing, which is it could be a private homeowner, but maybe they enter into a contract, it’s a Title II entity and part of that contract is operating [audio disruption].  So, that’s what when we looked at this and we said okay, now we have it covered both ways.  So, we get rid of that available for public use.

Bob	I guess what I’m trying to say is that you need to look at all three statutory provisions in its entirety or being in conjunction with each other.  The Health and Safety code by itself doesn’t negate the fact that code 4451 says, verbatim, “Intended for use by the public.”

Susan	Right, and that’s what we did.  We looked at all of those together and that’s why we’ve just starting thinking this through and we said okay, if we’re going to take a look at specifically those things like social service center establishments, they’re already covered both ways and like you said, they are for public use.

	Any other—yes?

Stoyan	Again, I’m sure we don’t need to discuss it here, but I [indiscernible] once we did [indiscernible] specifically with this proposal.  So, I’m still waiting for our [indiscernible].  I get my [indiscernible].  So we can talk about it later.

Susan	Okay.  Okay, I don’t think there’s anybody in Oakland anymore.  How about anybody on the phone line?

Moderator	We do have a question from Rick Halloran.  Please go ahead.

Rick	Thank you.  I actually tried to get in on the last queue and I wasn’t accepted for some reason.  I wanted to comment just on the general, overall, picture of changing these definitions.

	I think it’s absolutely critical.  We’re missing a lot.  I’ve talked to numerous building officials and when I teach a class for CALBO on housing and I also teach at College of San Mateo and in the course of discussing this I find that most building officials think that the only time 11B applies is if it’s publicly-funded, if there’s actually a money transfer from a Title II entity.  

	So, it’s critical that we get this into the code because a lot of these buildings that should be under 1 B are being plan checked exclusively under 11A and, as a result, we are excluding the 5% units with mobility features.  So, I also agree that we need to maybe the advisory manual maybe has to devote a page or two to clarification of this.  There’s a lot to be clarified, but getting that definition changed is absolutely essential.  Thanks.  That’s it.  Thank you.

Susan	Anybody else on the phone line?

Moderator	We have no one else in queue.

Susan	Alright.  Let’s see, we did those, let’s go on to page number—there’s some of these that we’re not going to spend a whole lot of time on because if we take a look at page 11, really the only thing that we’re doing in that particular provision, we’re just striking in public housing residential facilities because we’ve already—we’re not—it’s redundant language.  We want to be consistent with the language throughout so we’re just proposing that we strike that language in Item 11.

	So, let’s move on to page 19 and this one, what we’re looking at here—so, if we take a look at this particular provision, again, it has the public housing facilities with residential units available for public use shall comply with Section 11B-233.  Again, what we’re doing there is just cleaning out some of that redundant language.  So, that’s the only code change there.  

Bob	Could you explain why you’re doing—removing the language, “Available for public use” again?

Susan	We’re not—all we’re taking out of there is—oh, I see what you’re saying.  “Available for public use,” again, we’re taking that out because we’ve removed it from that other definition.  We’ve removed it from the definition for public housing.  So, it’s already in that definition.  We don’t need to—

Bob	Okay.  I’m not hearing you correctly.  You just said you removed it here, and you also removed it elsewhere.

Susan	You’re correct.  Yes, we removed it in the definition.  We removed it in the definition, if I’m not mistaken, and I’ll have to look back at that for the definition for public use.  So, we’re going to remove it here as well.

Bob	But where is it in its new place?

Susan	We don’t need it in its new place.

Bob	Even though it’s right out of 4451 and—

Susan	Remember, we just talked about how that housing that’s available for public use is already covered either under a place of public accommodation in the definition there or if we’re looking, again, at social service center establishments and homeless shelters, that item is already in the definition for public housing.

Bob	I think, back at the 30,000-foot level if I’m having difficulty understanding the new clarity that’s being provided there may be similar difficulties out there.  If all I did was provide clarity, once again, I need to look at this in its entirety, but you seem to be deleting the key provision out of 4451 and I need to—we don’t need to discuss it today, but I need to kind of understand how that clarity is going to be provided elsewhere in this proposal and it’s not quite sinking in yet.  

Susan	Okay.  

Bob	Although, I’ll talk to you afterwards. 

Derek	I think, real briefly, you can maybe understand it better if you realize that 4450 and all of the subsequent sections just simply don’t apply to housing.  

Susan	Yes.

Derek	It’s about a 12955.1 (c) that applies.

Susan	Yes, that’s really the authority and the section that you want to take a look at.

Stoyan	This is the part that we want [indiscernible]

Derek	Yes, which is consistent with the Coyle statement that you made earlier.  

Bob	[Indiscernible] that basically says there is housing that is covered.  That is made available for public use.  That’s stated in there.

Susan	Right.  And you know what you said, I mean, go ahead finish.

Bob	The court case in the statute, because the statute existed before the [audio disruption] got passed back in ’92.  That statute, basically was sort of—saying the definition he had there for publicly-funded which basically is the definition that was provided, but what was publicly-funded?  It listed a bunch of stuff.  And his honor said, it’s not important to understand where the money comes from, is it for public use?  If you’ve got housing that’s made available for public use, it’s got to comply under 4451, that’s where the public use.  

	And that’s what His Honor was saying, the proponents of the court case—and this is where you’ve got to be careful what you ask for.  They were basically saying we want to get rid of this definition because it’s a bad definition and His Honor said, you’re right.  It is a bad definition but not for the reasons you think it is.  Because, when you get to 4451, you’ll see that that has to work in conjunction with 4450 and the bottom line here is it’s not where the money comes from, it’s is it made available for public use.  And indeed, there’s some housing that’s out there that’s made available for public use like the stuff we just talked about.

Susan	Exactly.  Which is already—like we said, that housing, and I think what I saw when reading through that and seeing that decision and what His Honor said, okay, understanding made available for public use.  What we’re looking at is what does that mean?  What does that mean in the context of the 2010 ADA Standards?  What does that mean in the context of the ADA, which is the language that we can rely on?  

	And then looking at that and saying, okay, housing made available for public use.  Again, I’m a private homeowner, I enter into an agreement with a Title II entity, I still have private housing.  It’s going to be available for public use because I’m entering into an agreement with this public entity and I’m going to run the social service center establishment down there.

Bob	I agree with you, what I’m saying here is you’ve got an existing statute in a court case, above and beyond what’s in 12945 or whatever, that’s very clear and you’re scrubbing the existing building code of the references to 4450 and the language that came out of 4451 and the court case and it concerns me.  

	And so, that’s what I’m trying to get across.  I’m nervous.  So, if we’re supposed to be providing clarity, I think putting in provisions, [audio disruption] can be the statute of—and the court case is very useful but we’re getting rid of those right here.  So that’s what kind of concerns me here.

Susan	Well, really what we’re looking at is the statute and the authority that we’re given to write regulations for public housing.  So you have to take a look at—

Bob	And, 4450 and 4451 is exactly that.

Susan	No.  You have to look at 12955.  

Stoyan	[Indiscernible].  The main issue here is 4450 and 4451 were enacted prior to 1991 and then this court case is 1996 and 12955.1 was enacted in 1991.  So the court case was issued in 1996 and it didn’t say anything about 12955.  

Susan	Yes.

Stoyan	So, it needs a little bit more evaluation is why I wanted more because [indiscernible].  If this 1991 and 12955 was already available, why the judge didn’t say anything.

Susan	Who knows.  Maybe this case was specific and all he looked at was 4450.  

Stoyan	Specific to housing and they didn’t mention at all 12955

Susan	I don’t know.

Bob	I’ll be getting back to you and we’ll chat real quick.

John	John Weissman, Looking at the term facility, as it says here, and in the context of [audio disruption], I don’t know that I see facility as defined.  It seems like [indiscernible].  

Susan	I think in Chapter 2, isn’t it Building for Facility, I believe.

John	The IBC or the CBD [ph] use the term facility as something other than a building or a subset of a building.  [Indiscernible]  But in here, the facility seems to be the whole thing.  I’m just wondering if that term is being used and perhaps needs to be clearly understood as to what it encompasses.

Susan	Yes, Derek.  

Derek	Just for everybody’s reference, the definition of facility adopted by DSA in Chapter 2 says, “All or any portion of buildings, structures, side improvements, elements, and pedestrian routes or vehicular ways located on the side [ph].”  

John	Okay, I apologize.  I was looking for the definition.  Thank you.

Susan	So on this particular item, did we have anybody on the phone that had a comment on that?

Moderator	We have no one in queue.

Susan	Thank you.

Ida	Mark is back.

Susan			Mark, did you have any comment?

Mark	Yes, I’d like to—this might be unlikely but if I could just get it out.  With regard to those sections, beginning with the facilities with [audio disruption], if you can just strike that entire phrase and just pick up where it leaves off?  Like, for example, at 3.1.1, it says at least 5% [audio disruption] total number of residents [audio disruption].  You don’t really need this phrases at the beginning of that sentence.  The facility with residential units, well–

Susan	Actually what we’re looking at there is if you look at which residential dwelling units, that’s language that’s taken right from the standards.  So we’re not going to strike language that is from the standards.

Mark	Oh, you mean from the ADA standards.

Susan	Right, yes.

Mark	Okay, I have no comment.

Susan	Okay, any other comments?  No.  Okay.  

	Next one up, let’s move on to page 21.  In this particular item, the only thing that we are looking at here, if we take a look at page 21, and this is Section 233.3.1.1 and 233.3.1.2.  Again, in the first item, we’re going to strike public housing because it’s just in facilities with residential dwelling units.  Same thing in 233.3.1.2.  We are striking that and we’re just saying in facilities with residential dwelling units.  

	And then, what we are picking up is something that we missed, and it’s an editorial change from our last code change.  Instead of saying, 11B-233.3.1.2.5, we need to take that all the way to 11B-233.3.1.2.6.  Like I said, that was something that we missed when we went to our last code change.  

	Any comments on this particular item from anybody?  Mark, any comments?    No?  You might be speaking but it’s on mute.  

Mark	Sorry, yes, I was just [audio disruption].  In that section, 1.2.6., we’re not   [audio disruption].

Susan	Yes, and actually we’re showing this was a coaching we have—233.1.2.6 is a section that already exists and we just needed to pick that up, that reference.  
	
	Anybody on the phone line?

Moderator	We have no one in queue.

Susan	Thank you.  Next one up.  Page 25, so on this particular one, if you take a look at this section, and it says, “Where an addition to an existing public housing facility results in an increase in the number of residential dwelling units.”  Well there’s an issue with that.  What if it’s an existing building and it meets the definition of public housing and you’re going to add an addition to that, but that existing building isn’t currently a public housing facility?  Then we’ve got an issue because by incorporating this language into our section, we are excluding buildings that would be covered under the 2010 ADA Standards.  

	So what we’re looking at there is we wanted to state where in addition to an existing building results in an increase in the number of residential dwelling units.  So it’s another situation where I think we got a little free with that terminology of public housing facilities when we were going through that rule-making process in 2012.  So that’s what we’re looking at there.  

	So, any comments on that particular item?  Any comments in Oakland?  No?  Anybody on the phone line?

Moderator	[Operator instructions].  We have no one queuing up.

Susan	Okay.

Stoyan	I would like to say something.

Susan	Sure.

Stoyan	I understand what you’re doing.  I don’t know a better way but [indiscernible]. With your proposal, it does say to an existing building.

Susan	Right.

Stoyan	Again, I get the intent but—

Susan	And it isn’t just our intent by doing this.  Now we are consistent with what the 2010 ADA Standards say.  Because, if we leave public housing facility in there, that’s our addition–

Stoyan	I’m not saying it’s wrong.  It may trigger different enforcement.  So if you can clarify here [indiscernible].  

Susan	Yes.  Because it could be, a Title II entity might have a housing program.   They might do something like CADA did with this big warehouse building over here.  Maybe it’s their program, that’s an existing building and they’re going to do an addition on to that and put in some more housing units.  

Derek	And it wasn’t previously a public housing facility.

Susan	Correct.

Stoyan	No, no, I understand that.  

Susan	Okay, okay.

Bob	Here’s a specific example.  When the economy tanked in 2009 and ’10, in addition to losing 80% of the workforce, the building departments lost a whole bunch of people.  They shared [ph] 80% of that, and so they’re now trying to get back up to normal.  They’re about 65% of normal these days, and there’s a lot of new people coming on to the scene.

	The problem here is having that language there, instead of getting rid of it you may want to add a clarifying language for the case that you just mentioned, where you’re taking a warehouse, or something like that, and turning it, as opposed to getting that [ph] because you’re going to have a lot of young and new people coming on board and like, Stoyan just said, or in addition to an existing building resulting in an increase—boom.  Okay, it may not have any application at all for DSA and I know that’s not your intent, but you’re going to both you and the HCD staff are going to spend a whole lot of time on the phone with people who don’t quite understand that all of a sudden you’ve got to kind of educate them on the basics of the code.  

	I realize you have to do that a lot.

Susan	Welcome to the life of Stoyan and myself.

Bob	And so, once again, all of this is intended to provide clarity keeping in context with some of us that have been with this for a long time and others may have been with it for a couple of months.  So, that’s a concern.

Susan	Sure.   

John	John [Indiscernible].  Modification could be more of an addition to an existing building [indiscernible] and the conversion to or an increase in the number of residential—

Susan	But our issue is, guys, we want to be really careful with that.  Because, what we’re looking at here is going back to the model language, which is the 2010 ADA Standards.  The more consistent that we can be with the 2010 ADA Standards, the more we need to be.

	So, we can offer advisory.  We can make available more training, but we don’t want to muddy the waters and we don’t want to stray too far from what the standards are.  

Bob	But, I guess along to where he’s going, when you pick up the ADA regs, you’ve got the —it’s just here’s the ADA regs and that’s all you’re looking at.  It’s not intermixed with fire safety, it’s not intermixed with certain other things that’s in Part 2.  

	So, here you can easily, unfortunately, I just came from Chapter 10 and now I’m in Chapter 11B.  Oh boy.  So once again, to a seasoned code veteran, you’re going to understand I’m in 11B and 11B applies to very specific things and to the extent that it can provide as much clarity, the fact here is the ADA is kind of a book by itself, unlike our building codes.  

Susan	The standards, yes.

Bob	So there’s reasons why you might want to have a little bit more clarity or getting rid of it there.  But kind of like where he was headed, once again, for certification.  But I got to tell you the truth is, Richard Conrad submitted DSA’s regs for certification back at the end of the 1990s and it basically sat there for years and years—

Susan	And it got resubmitted in 20—and right now—

Bob	[Audio disruption] half dozen times where you tried to get certified, I’d given up hope.

Susan	And discussions with the Department of Justice, they’re not certifying anybody’s code right now.  I think Texas is ahead of us in line, and they’re not touching anybody.

Bob	You just made my point for me.  And that’s why having some additional clarifying language in the California code may be useful.  

Susan	It may, but we want to be careful with that.  And again, we can do advisories.  We can put more in our advisory manual but I think the closer that we can stay to the standards and the more consistent that we can be with that the better off we’re going to be.  

	But we can, like I said, at the very least, look at adding to our advisory manual.  

Susan	Thank you for your comments, Bob.  This is just the beginning so let’s look at the language and we’ll look at it further.  

	Any comments on the phone line?

Moderator	We have no one in queue.

Susan	Okay.  Next up.  Page 27.  What we’re looking at here in the 2010 edition of the code, we had—it was really muddy when you looked at what the requirements were for housing and some of the other provisions and at that point we had adopted all of Chapter 11A and at that edition of the code we also adopted the trigger date of March 13, 1991.  

	And what’s important to understand when you take a look at Chapter 11B there are actually three different types of housing units that are covered under Chapter 11B.  There’s the units with mobility features; units with communication features; and then there’s also what we call the units with adaptable features. 

	So, let’s say you are a public entity and you have a housing program, at the very least what you would have to do—let’s say you have a building that was constructed prior to March 13, 1991, at the very least if you were doing alterations to that facility you would have to bring 5% of the units into compliance with the mobility features and 2% of the units in compliance with the units with communication features.  The way Chapter 11B is written right now, we don’t have that trigger date incorporated into Chapter 11B of March 13, 1991.  

	So if you were to look at the California Building Code right now, if you had that same building that was public housing, you would be required to also take a look at the ground floor unit even though that building was constructed prior to March 13, 1991.  

	So, we’re looking at a couple of things here.  One of the things we’re looking at, you see that there is an exception there under Section 11B-233.3.4 where it says, where compliance with Section 11B-809.2, 11B-809.3, or 11B-809.4 for units with mobility features or Chapter 11A Division IV for units with adaptable features, if that’s technically infeasible, that instead you can do a single-story unit as long as they have the same amenities.  

	Basically, that section or Chapter 11A Division IV for units with adaptable features doesn’t belong there.  It shouldn’t be there.  Because, if you have a unit that has mobility features, then what you need to do—if that’s the only unit that you have that are multi-story units and you need to provide a percentage of those units with mobility features, either you provide a single-story unit with the same amenities or you put a residential elevator in those multi-story residential dwelling units that are required to have mobility features.

	Now, the units from Chapter 11A and Division IV, the units with adaptable features—if you have a multi-story unit, and this is a unit that is in a building with an elevator, or what 10% of the units if it’s in a building without an elevator, so if you have that multi-story dwelling unit, you don’t have to provide an elevator in that unit.  You have to have a kitchen, and either a powder room or a bathroom on the primary entry level.  So you can see that that doesn’t really belong there.  

	So what we’re proposing is to get rid of for units with mobility features or Chapter 11A Division IV for units with adaptable features.  That needs to go away and all those other references to that, in that particular section.  So, that’s what we’re proposing there.  

	Now, if we move on a little bit further, and we go to alterations to vacate a building.  What we’re looking at there again, getting rid of for use of public housing.  And then what we’re saying the residential dwelling units with adaptable features, we’re striking that from this particular section and see where that exception, we’re striking that exception.  But as we scroll down a little bit further, and then we look at the alterations to the individual residential dwelling units, you can see that we get rid of the reference to the scoping for the units with the adaptable features.

	And now as we move a little bit further, you can see now what we’re saying here, if alterations to residential dwelling units with adaptable features, it doesn’t apply, for those ground floor units, it wouldn’t apply if that building was constructed for first occupancy, prior to March 13, 1991.  But if you do have those dwelling units and you are doing any sort of work on a building that was constructed after March 13, 1991, you still need to maintain those in compliance with the accessibility standards in effect at the time of construction.

	And then what we’ve done, we’ve moved this exception down and we basically are pulling this from Chapter 11A or we’re taking that exception that we pulled from Chapter 11A and now we’re moving it under this particular section because now we’re talking to the alterations to residential dwelling units with adaptable features.  So now we’re going to be in compliance with, and we’re reinstating what we had adopted previously, that trigger date of March 13, 1991.  This is going to align us with what is required in Chapter 11A.  

	So, Comments, questions? Yes. 

Stoyan	[Indiscernible].

Susan	Excellent.  Bob Raymer?

Bob	No comment.

Susan	No comment.  Oakland?  No comment.  How about anyone on the phone lines?

Moderator		You have a question from Charles Pick.  Please go ahead.

Susan			Hello, Charles?

Moderator		Sir, is your phone on mute?

Charles		Oops, hello, can you hear me?

Ida			Yes, we can hear you now.

Charles		Very good, thanks.  I’m a little confused by the language.  It appears to say, “With adaptable features constructed for first occupancy prior to March 13, 1991.”  Do we have—is there such a beast?  I mean is the intention of this language to do what 1102A does, and simply exempt alterations in property—being required in properties that were constructed prior to 1991?

Susan			That’s a good point.  

Ida			I can see how that language starts to make that confusing.

Susan	Yes, that’s a really good point.  Thank you.  Because really you’re right.  What we should probably say is rehabilitation or maintenance of residential dwelling units constructed for first occupancy prior to March 13, 1991.  Yes, you’re right.  I think we need to tweak that a little bit.  Make it cleaner.

Ida	Yes.

Stoyan	[Indiscernible].  

Ida	No, because it’s a residential dwelling requirement.

Stoyan	Yes, with that, it’s still confusing but at the same time there were accessibility requirements [Indiscernible].

Ida	Yes right.  We do still have the provision that they still need to comply with the accessibility standard at the time of construction. So if there were some that were applied then they would apply.  

Susan	Yes, you’re right though.  I think we need to take a second look at that particular terminology there.  We just want to be sure to incorporate in that March 13, 1991 trigger date.

Ida	Do you have any other comments, Charlie with regard to this?

Charles	Yes, I need to affirm for the sake of this conversation and the record how important this edit is because the net effect of having no trigger date has been that hundreds and hundreds of affordable units have been lost to the state of California’s residents.  The low-income housing tax credit program has definitely had complexes drop out of the program and go market rate due to the lack of feasibility and the high costs associated with meeting these regulations.

	Now, our more sophisticated owners and developers in the affordable arena have worked very hard with us in the architectural and construction community to preserve housing.  I mean, this is their mission and our mission, and we do whatever it takes but we have seen some operators who are more like private equity funds and whatnot, who are more peripheral operators in the tax credit arena, who simply look at all of this and say forget about it.  I’m going market rate.

	This single edit will make a huge difference in our ability to preserve affordable housing. 

Susan 	Thank you for that.

Moderator	Thank you.  We have no one else in queue.

Susan 	There’s another one in your packet, it’s on page 31 but actually, I think what we can do is really get rid of this particular— because this is exactly what we’ve already covered under the dispersion and we looked at the changes that we’re proposing starting on page 27.

Derek	[Audio disruption].  I think this was the item that was found represented [Multiple people speaking at once].

Susan 	Yes, because we’ve already covered that one.

M	[Audio disruption].

Mark	Susan, I’m sorry but I'm not even sure what page we are on. If we go to page 30 [Indiscernible]. I can’t find those.

Susan 	That’s an error on my part, Mark.  I need to get rid of that.  Yes.  That’s a correction that I need to make on our rationale.

Mark	Okay.  [Audio disruption].

Susan 	No, no.  Thank you for that and I’ll make that correction.  Alright, so we already covered 223.3.5 and we’ve actually gotten that answer more than once so we took care of that one.  That was the dispersion.  We doubled up on that one.  Yes.

	Let’s see, the last—anything else on any of the housing provisions?  Yes?  Okay.  Transfer type shower.  What we’re looking at here, and let’s start on page 55.  What we are proposing—actually let’s go back a bit because let’s go back to page 16.  We need to start there first.

	Okay, so what we’re looking at is in coding the transfer type shower is actually a dimension of 36” by 36” into Chapter 11B.  We’ve gotten a lot of questions on this table when people take a look at it because they can’t figure out if you have the total number of rooms with mobility features and they look at that and they say okay, well do I have to?  What do I provide if I don’t provide a roll-in shower?

	Well, then, the only option that you have in Chapter 11B if you don’t—if you get up to 26 to 50 rooms, you need 2 rooms with mobility features.  One of those is going to have a transfer type shower so the other room is going to be one without showers or the only other option you have in California is the bathtub.

	We’ve heard from code users and they say somebody thought they were just doing a wonderful thing.  The only thing that they’re putting throughout their hotel in all the rooms with mobility features are roll-in showers.  They didn’t put any bathtubs in.

	What we’re looking at— can you scroll down a little bit, Jessica?  Thank you.  We’re looking at adding some footnotes.  You can see there we have footnote 3 and 1 and 2, and if you scroll down a little bit further, what we want for people to understand when they look through this table—if you look at Item 1, then you could provide either a bathtub or a transfer type shower.

	Then, Item 2, you’re going to provide either a standard roll-in type shower or an ultra-head type roll-in shower.  What would happen in a room where you have to have one of them, or I’m sorry, you have 8 rooms that wouldn’t have to have a roll-in shower, you could do a tub or a transfer shower, but you’re still going to have 4 rooms that will have roll-in showers.

	Basically, when you get into these larger hotels and you have more rooms, you’re going to give people the option of a transfer shower, a bathtub or a roll-in shower when they want to book an accessible room.  That’s what we’re doing.  We’re providing those footnotes, so we can just clarify that for people when they work their way through that table.

	Any questions on that?  Any questions in Oakland?  No.  Any questions on the phone line?

Moderator	We have no one in queue on the phone.  We do have a question from Tim Thimesch.  Please go ahead.

Tim	Yes, I wrote a letter this morning covering some of my concerns.  Hopefully, you’ll have a chance to look at that, and reading this now I have some additional concerns.  The first concern of my letter concerns process, some of these changes, in particular footnote 3, were not in the initial drafts.  Hopefully, you’ll take a look at my letter and address those concerns.  Ida, I’d be happy to talk with you offline about that.  It does seem to be a continuing problem.

	With regard to this, we’re going to end up diminishing access, particularly for hotels with 1 to 25 rooms, but also for the other categories.  Here’s why.  Many people who use wheelchairs can’t make a transfer.  They lack the upper body strength or they’re not bilaterally capable and therefore they need the roll-in, or if they desire to make a roll-in and because they’re not bilaterally capable, they might need to approach that bench from the front and swing around, if you can imagine the strong arm crossing the body and making a swing.  I think, we all understand in the profession what we’re talking about here, side and front transfers.

	Here, footnote 3, which again, I understand was not in the initial drafts and now is in here, would permit hotels, smaller hotels with 1 to 25 rooms, to make a choice.  They’re going to either put in a transfer type shower or a roll-in, not both.  We’re not increasing the scoping to require both.  We’re not increasing the options here.  We’re allowing the option of a smaller transfer at the expense of people who need roll-ins, so this is not an increase in access.  Earlier, Ida, I was confused when you said that 4459 is subject to debate.  If so, I’d like to get that on the record from the DSA.  I don’t think anybody needs to debate that.  I don’t think it’s subject to legal interpretation.  

	The DSA cannot diminish the code, cannot diminish access.  You’d have to freeze what’s better in California law that exceeds with the ADA, or you’d have to bring California law up to the ADA, but you can’t bring California law down to the ADA.  It’s not subject to interpretation, and that’s what we’re doing here.

	We’re offering the choice.  I understand that one is—based on the comments here that there’s some unnamed people who find roll-ins more difficult to use than transfers, and I don’t think that’s the type of scientific evidence that we’ve carefully built the code upon over the years, but let’s look at that.  I don’t think it holds up to scrutiny.

	The roll-in shower is designed for two options: rolling in and transfer.  If you look at the code, it provides that you shall have a fold-down seat immediately adjacent to the door.  You’ll have grab bars over that seat, you’ll have controls immediately adjacent to the seat and therefore you have the ability to transfer from, in the existing roll-ins, you have the ability to transfer over to the seat.  Then, if you don’t want to get your chair wet, that’s a whole discussion what persons who use wheelchairs do to keep their chair dry if they stay in it but set that aside.

	If you want to keep your chair dry, you simply pull the curtain between you and the chair.  These are the same two actions you would be required, by the way, to do if you were using a transfer shower.  It’s the same exposure for your chair unless you close that curtain.  It’s not a matter of increasing capabilities here so you have the two options with roll-ins.  You can roll-in or transfer.  

	Let’s look at transfer showers.  There, you only have one option.  You have to transfer because it’s smaller.  Because it’s the shape of a small closet, it provides that option to transfer out of your chair onto the bench, but because there’s no room for your chair, you’re not going to get anywhere near to rolling in.  Therefore on its face, this proposal decreases access and violates 4459.  The DSA simply does not have authority to make submissions such as this to the building department, no matter what its desire to increase access for some other group.  You can’t decrease the access for the existing groups.

	If you think more people are going to benefit by one or the other, you need to do a scientific study.  I don’t know if you can get around 4459 but at least have a scientific study such as they did in North Carolina and evaluate the user groups and their needs.  

Ida	 Can I—

Tim	That’s, at least, the starting point.  I’m almost done.

Ida	No, no, I’m not interrupting you.  I want to ask you a question.

Tim	Sure.

Ida	In listening to your comments and I just want to clarify, are you opposed to for rooms less than 25 having the option or are you opposed to introducing the transfer shower as a comparable option for when bathtubs are also permitted?  Those are two current issues that I’m trying to determine which your position is.

Tim	I see that.  Well, if you look at 1 to 25 rooms, you end up with a total of 1 accessible shower unit.  That’s the existing cable, 24.2.  You get one shower unit.  By offering the transfer type as an alternative, you aren’t increasing the options available to the disabled unless you also increase scoping to require two shower units.

Ida	Okay.  What about like we introduce the transfer shower for rooms greater than 26 where a bathtub can be used?  Are you opposed to having the option of a 36” by 36” shower or a bathtub where that’s permitted?

Tim	CODAP is not opposed to my understanding, I shouldn’t speak.  To my understanding, transfer showers would provide greater access over tubs so long—and maybe someone needs to carefully study the table and decide where that should fit in.  I think, persons with disabilities, if tubs are offered, they want tubs.  They like transfer showers in lieu of tubs, sometimes, and they don’t want to lose roll-in showers.  Maybe somewhere mid to the lower part of the table where the rooms increase, that makes sense.  At the beginning, where this is focused, it does not. 

Ida 	Okay.  Thank you for your comments.

Tim	To finish, I don’t think this holds up to scrutiny.  We aren’t increasing the options here.  What we’re doing here is adding something for people who might prefer the transfer at the expense of people who can’t use the transfer, who need the roll-in type, so that diminishes access and shouldn’t be allowed.  

	I had one other point and that is that you’re not increasing the choices here for these smaller hotels, you’re only increasing the choices for the hotels themselves and the disabled user isn’t going to know that choice until they show up to rent the room.  Here, that’s when they find out that during their stay, however long, they’re not going to be able to bathe, so obviously, that’s something that goes way beyond what the DSA is empowered to do.

	I have other comments concerning the transfer shower, particularly on the folding seat issue, or even allowing transfer showers in lieu of roll-ins, the later things.  I’ll hold those comments until they come up.  Thank you.

Susan	Thank you, Tim.  Any other comments on the line? 

Moderator	We have no one else in queue.

Susan	Okay.  Any comments in Oakland?  No.  No comments in the room?  Alright.  Well, with that, let’s move on.

Ida	Frank has a comment.

Susan	Go ahead.

Frank	Real quick.  In the table, I mean, it seems to me if you just got rid of footnote number 3, you’d solve the issue, wouldn’t you?

Ida	Right.  I think, that’s what I was trying to clarify that Tim wanted to remove footnote number 3.  Yes.

Susan	Okay.  With that, let’s move on and let’s take a look at page number—well, actually, if we take a look at—we have page 55, page 56, page 57, page 58, page 59 through 60, page 61, page 63, page 65 and page 67, so basically pages 55 through page 68.  What we’ve heard from various users of mobility devices is a preference for using a transfer type shower.  What we’ve heard from the users is they would prefer to transfer into their shower and leave their mobility device out of the wet area.

	One of the users that we spoke with said she had an issue with a shower stall that was too large, and she actually reached forward to reach to the control and slipped off the shower seat and ended up having to take a towel and wrap it up over the grab bar to pull herself back up onto the shower seat.  We’ve heard comments from more than one person who uses a mobility device that they actually prefer the transfer type shower over a roll-in shower, either one of the alternate type roll-in showers.

	Hearing from those users of mobility devices and realizing that this type of shower is basically available to people nationwide, and not available in California, we were actually removing an option that some users of mobility devices prefer.  In hearing from those folks, we decided to bring this forward and what we’re looking at is taking the language from the 2010 standards, including all the figures that they’ve used in the 2010 standards, for the grab bars, for the seats, and incorporating that into Chapter 11B.  What we’re looking at is providing another option for those users of mobility devices. 

	With that, I’ll open up the floor to comments.  Anybody here in the room?

Stoyan	[Indiscernible].  We think it’s a good idea, at least to be evaluated and explored.

Susan 	Yes, and what we’re hearing, like I said from the person who slipped off the seat, you can see there’s also a safety issue for someone.  They want to be able to be on that seat and be able to reach forward and remain fully seated but still get to the controls. 

	Any comments in Oakland?  Mark has left the room.  Any comments on the phone line?

Moderator 	We have a question from Tim Thimesch.  Please go ahead.

Susan	Okay.

Tim	Okay.  I think we’re back to the earlier discussion, and I’ll not repeat all those comments I made about adopting this transfer type in lieu of roll-in showers.  I think, the portion of the code requiring a specific number of roll-in showers must stand and remain in place and that to submit a proposal otherwise to building standards exceeds the mandate.

	With that said, I just want to examine the anecdotal evidence, which that’s not part of DSA’s public submission.  Nobody’s seen who these are coming from, whether they’re coming from industry or from actual users.  We’d, of course, all like to see that.  Are they just oral?  Once again, I think this type of far-reaching change would have to—if it was in lieu of roll-ins, would have to come through a scientific survey and show that it actually increases access.  

	Part of it just doesn’t seem to hold up to scrutiny here.  The code, and I’m looking at 11B-608.5.2, it requires the controls to be immediately adjacent to the seat.  That person who fell off, which she [indiscernible] a non-compliant shower, and didn’t have the controls in the correct location, so a non-compliant shower shouldn’t be used to justify strain from the protections of our existing roll-ins.  Again, I understand Ida’s point that perhaps, in certain situations, transfers might be preferable to tubs.  I’ll have to check-in and survey the people in our group and get back to you on where that would fit into the table.

	In listing off the pages and I’m sorry, I forgot the moderator’s name, but you listed off a whole bunch of pages that are under discussion right now.  I presume you mentioned the one concerning shower seats.

Susan	Yes.

Tim	The proposal, actually, would diminish California law below the ADA, which is a strange point of discussion here.  I haven’t seen too much of that, but roll-in showers are required to have a folding seat.  I think that allowing of changing California’s code, which also now currently requires a folding seat, to require a folding or non-folding seat would diminish the code and would certainly be below the ADA which requires that.

	Of course, the folding seat gets out of the way to allow other functions by all ranges of disability, including the persons who can leave the chair and stand and pivot and can do various things in the bathing process, so I think you have to keep the folding seat.  The other concern is what is a non-folding seat?  Are we talking about these dangerous, spindly little things with rubber feet that fall over with their users and are just an extreme hazard?

	By changing this language, I think you’re exposing code interpreters to thinking those are allowed.  So those are my comments.  Thank you very much.

Susan	Tim, to answer your question, the reason for proposing this did not come from industry or from any—it came solely from users of these types of shower compartments.

Moderator	We have no one else in queue.

Susan	Okay.  So, no other comments on the transfer type showers?  Alright.  I think that’s all I have for today.

Ida	Derek, do you want to [audio disruption]?

Derek	Thanks, Sue.  Thanks a lot.  Next, we’re going to take a look at three more items before we close this out, and the first item is going to be in Section 11B-405.  You’ll find that on page 49 of the meeting package and it’s up on the screen as well.

	In this case, DSA had incorporated some language that we had in the 2010 California Building Code Chapter 11B and merged it with language from the 2010 ADA Standards when we incorporated the ADA Standards as our model code for the 2013 CBC.  The intent there was to make sure that we were maintaining existing California language that provided greater accessibility or clarity when we were incorporating the ADA Standards. 

	However, there are some interpretations of the resulting language that can lead to a great deal of confusion.  In Section 11B-405.9.2, the ADA language would say a curb or barrier shall be provided that prevents the passage of a 4” diameter sphere.  When DSA merged that language with the existing CBC requirement, and you see that in italics here, the resulting phrase then turned out to be a curb, 2” high minimum, or a barrier shall be provided that prevents the passage of a 4” diameter sphere.

	Now, if we can scroll down just a little bit further in this, we’ve included some figures that help to illustrate my next point here.  When in the California language we specifically state 2” minimum curb height, we leave open to interpretation the possibility that that 4” diameter sphere may pass directly above a 2” high curb.  That would put us in violation of the ADA Standards because as you can see, a portion of the sphere has been within 4” of the ground surface below it.  

	What we’re proposing to do is strike the California language of 2” high minimum and instead rely on the ADA Standards language that is more performance based and the language there tells us that a curb or barrier shall be provided that prevents the passage of a 4”diameter sphere where any portion of the sphere is within 4” of the finished floor or ground surface.

	Now, what that will result in is if the designers choose to provide only a curb, then that curb is going to need to be 4” high.  If the designers choose to provide only a rail as a barrier, then that barrier, that rail would need to be down low enough so that that 4” diameter sphere could not pass within 4” of the finished floor or ground surface.  

	We’re still going to be able to maintain the accessibility that we have in the code under both interpretations, but we’ll be able to eliminate some of the other alternative interpretations that can lead to non-federally compliant results.

	With that, I would open it up for any questions or comments on this item, first of all, here in Sacramento.  Questions or comments?

Ida	Nobody’s in Oakland.

Derek	Nobody’s in Oakland.  Okay.  Then, let’s go to the phones, if anybody is queued up, please.

Moderator	Okay.  We have Terry McLean.  Go ahead, please.

Terry	I’d say I fully support this one.  Thank you.

Derek	Thank you for your support.

Moderator	Okay.  Next up is Tim Thimesch.

Tim	Yes, I support the higher 4” curb, as do I think CODAP would.  However, I don’t think the ADA’s language or DSA’s adoption of it is solving anything because the sentence is awkward to suggest passage would be passing underneath it.  A 1” curb keeps that 4” ball from passing over the barrier, so it would be cleaner if we wanted better language that also complied with the ADA to say a 4” curb or a barrier passage that prevents passage of the 4” diameter sphere.

	The last part of the sentence makes just no sense at all in trying to accomplish either of those objectives.  Thank you.

Moderator	Next up we have Gene Lozano.

Gene	This is Gene Lozano.  I wanted to find out, again, and I missed it, why a 4”, basically a 4” curb rather than a 6” curb, just using that figure since curbs or vertical curbs at sidewalks and separating with the roadway are 6” high so that you have a solid barrier there.  I was just wondering why not, if you came up with an arbitrary number, why not 6” rather than 4” so at least being consistent with other curb requirements.

Derek	Sure, sure.  The 6” curb that you see that separates the roadway from the sidewalk is designed to keep cars off the sidewalk or to give them clear indication that they’re overlapping the sidewalk in the case of a rolled curb.  The curb here, at ramps, has a much lighter duty application.  Here, we’re seeking to provide indication to people with visual disabilities or provide protection for people who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices from either getting their wheels hung up on the posts that support the handrails and guardrails at these ramps or to provide an indication at the edge of the ramp.

	The 4” height is a federal requirement, it’s not really an arbitrary decision on our part.  It was incorporated from the ADA Standards, and it really provides the same level of protection that we would have if we were providing a barrier, such as a rail down in that lower position.

	Now, the idea here is that the 4” sphere cannot pass within 4” of the ground surface or ramp surface.  If we were to use something like a 1” curb, and a 4” sphere passed immediately above the 1” curb, you could see that 3” out of that 4” sphere are going to pass within 4” of the ground or ramp surface here. 

	It provides a great deal of protection and really, we’re not diminishing the protection that’s provided here.  We’re not really diminishing the requirements.  In fact, what we’re doing is we’re striking language that can be interpreted to the effect of providing less protection.

Gene	I understand that and actually what I’m arguing for is rather than reducing the height from the wide cane user, I could tell you a 6” is better than a 4” one.  It’s less likely that the cane, when you’re doing the proper tap, swing, tap it’s less likely that it’s going to get hung up with the railing, with the pickets that come up, the 4” apart.

	Also, it would ensure that if you have a motorized mobility device that’s maybe a little out of control, maybe going too fast there and bumping, at least the 6”, those additional 2”, may then ensure that the lead wheels don’t hop up and go as far as actually going and hitting the railing that’s above it.  I’m not asking or suggesting reducing the 4”, I was just suggesting why not just if 6”, but I’ve come in from a person with a cane, wide cane rather than somebody using the wheelchair and I’ve just heard anecdotal things from people using mobility devices, so I don’t feel that I’m qualified to say much about that.

	But, I could tell you from a cane user perspective, the 6” would be much better than the 4”.  Thank you.

Derek	Okay.  Thank you, Gene.

Moderator	Okay.  We now have Tim Thimesch.

Tim	Following up that concern I expressed earlier, if you weren’t going to change the language of the proposal to say a 4” curb, would you include these drawings and their captions in the code or at least as an advisory so that courts understand that curbs, even though they may be short and will prevent that 4” ball from rolling over, they still need to be 4” high under the language that you have here?

	Because, all of us are looking at these drawings and saying yes, that’s reasonable but as we all know, that might not be how they’re read later without these drawings and captions.  Would you guys be willing to include these?

Derek	We hadn’t contemplated that before, so I think it’s a good idea for us to contemplate.  The figures that we have here are sourced from some technical assistance materials from the Access Board website, and so it might be that within our advisory manual that would provide additional clarity, roughly, parallel to the technical assistance that Access Board can provide.

Tim	Thank you.

Derek	Okay, good.  Thanks.

Moderator	Okay.  We have no further questions from the phone.

Derek	Okay.  Great.  Well, let’s go ahead to the next item, then.  The next item is concerning Section 11B-502.5 and you’ll find that on page 51 of the meeting materials.  Here, what this draft indicates is an additional exception to Section 11B-502.5.  Now, currently the language of 11B-502.5, this is regarding vertical clearance at parking spaces.

	The basic requirement is parking spaces, access aisles, and vehicular routes serving then shall provide a vertical clearance of 98” minimum, and the exception that we’re proposing reads as follows.  In existing multi-story parking facilities, car parking spaces, access aisles and vehicular routes serving them shall provide a vertical clearance of 80” minimum.  

	Now, this is an exception that we had initially proposed a couple of years ago and we received a few questions at the California Building Standards Commission, Code Advisory Committee Meeting and they were asking about whether this exception would apply to all facilities or just existing facilities.  At the time, the exception was a little bit different and it would have applied to all facilities.  We refined the exception a bit here with the current proposal, and it’s limited to only applying to existing multi-story parking facilities and so clearly, we recognize the technical infeasibility of altering the vertical clearance height in an existing multi-story parking facility.

	We feel that this is a good provision to provide appropriate vertical clearance for car parking spaces, but I wanted to bring the attention of everyone to that language and the exception as drafted.  We do say car parking spaces, accessible car parking spaces.  There is no intent for this exception to be applied to van accessible parking, which requires the whole height clearance of 98”.  That’s the proposal that’s on the table and the rationale behind it.

	Ida?

Ida	Just in acknowledgement, thank you, Derek.  In acknowledgement of comments made before regarding existing multi-story parking facilities, I just want to clarify that our intent is not that if a clearance is provided in an existing facility at 98”, that it can be reduced, to kind of tie into, we might have to look at that.  I’m looking at language now based on a previous comment made today that maybe it should say in existing multi-story parking facilities where 98” is not provided, it can go down to 80”.  Do you see what I’m saying?  No, yes?

Derek	I still, again, I find a strong technical infeasibility with changing the vertical clearance in an existing multi-story parking facility.

Ida	No, no, no.  What I’m saying is that in an existing facility, if they already provide 98”, I don’t want this exception to think that they can drop it down to 80” based on what a previous comment was made before regarding existing.   

Derek	Including like the incorporation of duct work that would drop the height down?  Because I’m pretty sure slab to slab we’re not going to drop.

Ida	Right, slab to slab, but I’m just saying I’m thinking based on a comment made earlier today that, obviously, I’m not opposed to [indiscernible] but clarify that in terms of provided it doesn’t mean it can drop. 

Derek	Okay, sure.  Frank?

Frank	If you go this way, do you think that’s a good idea to oppose height high inches in these locations? People are used to 98 driving in [audio disruption]?

Derek	Yes, I’m finding that just about all of the multi-story garages that I go to anymore, they all have heights posted.  I think that’s become just a generally accepted practice in the industry.  Are you suggesting anything [audio disruption] with that?

Frank	I’m suggesting to maybe make that a part of the exception [audio disruption].

Derek	Okay.  I see.  Alright, good.  Thanks.  Any other questions or comments here in the room?  No.  Nobody at the regional offices right now.  Let’s open up the phone lines, if you would.

Moderator	Okay.  We have Bill Zellmer.

Bill	Yes, Bill Zellmer with Sutter Health.  I wanted to speak in support of this amendment or this change that’s proposed.  We’ve found ourselves in a position where we have some existing facilities and just cannot make it work with an existing parking structure because it’s made out of concrete and you can’t change that, so I’m in support of this.  Thank you.

Derek	Okay.  Thank you, Bill.  Any more on the phone line?

Moderator	Yes.  We have Tim Thimesch again.

Derek	Great.

Tim	Yes, hi, I’m addressing Ida’s concern which is my concern exactly.  Your intent by this code section might mean very little in later proceedings because your intent is not stated anywhere, so that’s a problem.  The code needs to be clear, more to the point, though, you need to work on your definitions of existing buildings.  

	Back in 2010, which I think should have frozen the definition of an existing building, it’s a building adopted prior to the code, so in other words whatever the code required in 1993, I think that’s when this came into existence, you had to meet that standard when built.  It’s built within that code period.  That’s the way the code read back in 2010.  A building erected prior to adoption of this code or before a permit has been issued. 

	But, now, somebody has, perhaps, inadvertently changed in the haste to sound like our code conforms to the ADA to say a building that exists without the regard to whether it’s new or altered.  So I’m doing an area of alteration, areas of alteration need to be brought up to code.  But the way you guys have existing buildings defined, it’s subject to interpretation that my area of alteration no longer needs to comply.

	Now, existing buildings, how they define in the ADA makes sense because they use that to trigger programmatic changes, but here and under California law where it’s all permit-driven, work-driven, I think our definition of existing buildings is below the ADA now.

	To make this work, if it’s a good idea to have 80”, I think I had a van a while back that was 82”.  I’m not sure this is a good idea, all structural problems aside.  But, to make any exception like this work, you need to fix that definition of existing building, at least drag it back to where it should be, back in the 2010 code.  Please take a look at that.  Alright, thanks.

Derek	Tim, if you wanted to provide a more detailed comment on this, we’d welcome that, certainly, and [audio disruption].

Tim	I think I should.  Again, I think we’ve only had nine days, that’s been addressed on ad nauseum.  But I also understood you to say that although someone said today’s the foundation, that’s not necessarily true of what’s going to happen in March and April that we’ll all have a chance to have better articulated positions later that maybe, perhaps, had code sections and analysis.  Is that true?

Derek	Yes, you’re welcome to submit comments going forward.  There’s no obligation that your comments must be presented herein today.  If you think of something else that you didn’t address today, great.  Please submit it, send to our email address, DSAaccess2019@dgs.ca.gov.  We’re really almost begging for comments to come in so please do, Tim.

Tim	On that note, are comments available for review?  For instance, I did submit a letter this morning, I relayed it earlier, on the shower issue, but I think it would be helpful for all of us when addressing these, instead of addressing two lines in the DSA comments that we’ve heard from disabled users that these transfer showers are better, it would be helpful if we all could read that and if necessary, provide a rebuttal.

	As it is now, we’re getting the distillation and I don’t think that’s quite as helpful.  Is there any way to post these?  I think the DOJ, for instance, does that.

Ida	Tim, in the formal comment process, we are required to post—this is our pre-cycle activities and we post our transcripts.  We post our transcripts for the AAC and we post our comments in the public meeting.  We don’t practice—I mean, we can investigate it—post anything in the pre-cycle because none of that is—that’s all work in progress.  But we do, like if you are able to make your comments today or perhaps if you wanted a comment addressed, we’ll look at how we can make it even more transparent.

	But, we’re still in pre-cycle and so that’s kind of a little bit more flexible and it’s not something that is, I guess, still in discussion mode is what it is.  The proposals are malleable at this point based on your comments.

Tim	Just to clarify, Ida, pre-cycle runs through August?

Ida	Pre-cycle runs through May.  We have to submit our package to the BSC Code Advisory Committee in May and the hearing is in August.

Derek	Yes, the Building Standards Commission hearing?

Ida	Yes, sorry, the Code Advisory Committee Meeting is in August and we get comments from them and you’re welcome to present comments at the Code Advisory Committee Meeting.  That will also be— a record of a transcript will be provided there, and then after that, whatever tweaks we make, then we submit for formal process around September.

	The final meeting, the adoption hearing is in December.

Tim	Okay.  I just, again, getting back to process and I understood everything you said, but I think that description basically silences everything you’ve heard in opposition until people reshow up again in August, if they reshow up again, and put it back on the record again.  What I’ve seen with the Department of Justice and I think you guys should follow a similar process is as described, they say we have this comment and they describe it and you have access to it and we received these opposing comments and they describe it and you have access to it.  It just provides a greater level of sunshine, so I think you guys should aim for that.

Derek	Good, well thank you.

Ida	There’s one more person on the—

Derek	Alright.  I understand we have one more queued up?

Moderator	We do.  We now have Terry McLean.

Derek	Thank you.  Terry, go ahead.

Terry	How the heck did I get on mute?  Anyway, Ida made the comment about if it’s an existing and it’s 98”, I’d just probably make sure that’s even if it’s between 80” and 98”, that they still don’t reduce the height of that.  The other comment is where it says car parking spaces, I can pretty much guarantee most people are going to not even see that word car, so it wouldn’t hurt to make a comment on there that said this does not apply to van accessible spaces, just so it’s really clear.

Derek	Well said, thank you.

Moderator	We now have Eric Sifuntes.

Derek	Okay, good. 

Eric	—their parking garages had this exact problem.  Although, I think, perhaps we should raise the signage and directional signage might be necessary if it’s only standard car parking available on one level and not van.  I’m not sure how a user is supposed to know that before they start to ascend to the multi-stories in the parking facility.  Has that been brought up in terms of providing directional wayfinding to let the user know that that’s occurring on another floor?

Derek	Not so much about providing directional way finding signage but about providing notice of vertical clearance signage.  Yours is related, your comment is related to that, but it sounds like you’re bringing up a slightly different aspect.

Eric	Yes, it’s a little bit more upfront information rather than having to deduce that I can’t take my van up there because of the posted heights.

Derek	Okay.  Alright, good.  Thanks, Eric.  Any other comments on this?

Moderator	Okay.  We do have Tim again.

Tim	I’m sorry.  I’ll make this really, really brief.  I won’t repeat myself, but getting back to that muddled definition of existing building.  It is a problem.  I went back to the ’95 code just now and parking structures back then built within that code period had to be 96” and that would also include altered facilities unless you had the hardship or the appeal exemption.

	I’m concerned that the muddled definition of existing as it stands now would reach back and exempt structures built in violation of that standard.  I’m looking at the ’95 Title 24 and 3107A Sub D.  Thank you.

	I presume you guys heard me end?

Derek	Yes.

Ida	Yes. 

Derek	Can you clarify, Tim?  Did you say 3107A?

Ida	Forty-one zero seven A.

Derek	Okay.

Tim	No, 31.  I apologize.

Ida	Thirty-one?

Derek	Thirty-one?

Tim	Thirty-one zero seven A, and I think back then A included both public housing and private facilities.  They had an odd coding system back then.  Yes, 3107A, that’s part of the code section, then Sub D.

Derek	Sub D, like delta?

Tim	Correct.

Derek	Okay, good.  I understand, then.  Thanks.  Our captioner had captured that as a P like problem, so I just wanted to check on that.

Tim	Alright.

Derek	Okay, good.  Thank you.

Moderator	Okay.  We have no one in queue now.

Derek	Alright.  Okay.  We are now starting to run a little bit short on time.  I’m going to go through our last item here, it’s actually really straightforward.  If you look to page 71 of your code package, or of your meeting package, here we’re looking at the requirement for electrical vehicle charging station signage and here, there is a—the second to last sentence says, “Signs located within an accessible route shall be 80” minimum above the finished floor or ground surface measured to the bottom of the sign.”

	We’re proposing that to, instead of saying, an acceptable route, saying a circulation route.  The language would read, “Signs located within a circulation route shall be 80”, and then above the finished floor or ground surface measured to the bottom of the sign.”  And that’s consistent with the protruding objects, hazards prohibition that we have in other parts of the code.

	This is just something to correct was an error in our drafting when the electrical vehicle charging station requirements were put out originally.  

	Any questions here in the room or comments about this one?  No.  We don’t have anybody in our regional offices.  Anybody on the phones that might have questions or comments?

Moderator	We have Terry McLean.

Terry	I just wanted to support the change.  Thank you.

Derek	Terry, was this one yours?

Terry	It might have been.

Derek	Okay.  I think it might have been.  I’d have to go back and research it though, but thank you.

Derek	Anyone else in the queue?

Moderator	No one.

Derek	Okay.  With that, that is the conclusion of the items that we had to review today which is good.  I think Ida has maybe a few—

Ida 	I do.   Thank you, Derek.  For everyone who participated today, really good comments.  We will take them back, study further, but I was pleased that we were able to get through all the comments today on our agenda.  I appreciate that accommodating my pledge to table items to a personal discussion at another time.  We will follow up with those individuals tomorrow regarding addressing those individual items.  

	Again, as Derek mentioned, we are taking comments ongoing from now until May.  We will have an ACC meeting on March 7th and you are welcome to listen in.  There is a teleconference number.  Again, for those who are not on the committee, will not have accessibility to comment because we need to do the work with our ACC, however you’re always welcome to send an email after if you need to address an issue that arose and provide further comments.

	We encourage you to continue participating.  We encourage you to continue voicing comments in support and in opposition.  We continue looking for your collaboration in this process.  We will see you again at another public meeting on April 12th and the documentation, we have been told that nine days isn’t sufficient.  I will be discussing with Miss D’Lil to determine what a good advanced notice is provided we can get our work done in the meantime, so we’ll be discussing that tomorrow.

	Thank you, all, and until later.

Susan	Thank you, everyone.  Thank you.  Thank you, Carey.

Moderator	You’re welcome.  Thank you.  Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude our conference for today.  Thank for your participation and using AT&T Executive TeleConferencing.  You may now disconnect.