Title
Summary of Current Universal Design Ordinance Discussion
Body
Commission on Disability Issues
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
Review/Discussion
Item 5-A
Summary of Current Universal Design Ordinance Discussion
Written by Universal Design Ordinance Workgroup, Commission on Disability Issues
Please contact Commission Chair Kenny with questions.
Discussion:
Establishing a Universal Design Ordinance in Alameda:
• Ensures that all new housing moving forward is accessible to a majority of its residents by being designed with consideration of all ages and abilities;
• Recognizes and addresses the current shortage of accessible housing; and
• Be proactive and prepared for the growing population, including those with disabilities and seniors.
WHY:
The Need for Accessible Units
Research shows that over the lifespan of a new, typical housing unit, that 25-60% of those units will house a disabled person. Additionally, 53-91% will have a disabled visitor over the course of the unit’s lifetime (Smith et.al, 2008). Those numbers do not include people with temporary disabilities, such as broken leg or healing from surgery, which would greatly increase the numbers.
Furthermore, it is expected that the population of Alameda will grow 8.8% (2015-2023 Alameda Housing Element Background Report). In addition to a growing senior population, people with disabilities are now living longer and aging in larger numbers than previously experienced, resulting in overlapping categories. In 2002, it was estimated that 52% of Americans with disabilities were age 65+ (Kaup, 2009).
Current Lack of Accessible Units
Currently only 10% of multi-family buildings (of 4+ units) need to be accessible, as defined by the Fair Housing Act Guidelines according to 7 guidelines. Additionally, housing units that receive federal funding (such as those developed by Mercy Housing, BRIDGE, and other affordable developers) are required to build according to accessibility guidelines.
Alameda is facing a housing shortage: only 61% of Alameda’s anticipated housing needs were met between 2001-2006. And between 2007-2014, Alameda only met 8% of their housing requirements
With the increased pressure, residents with specific housing requirements (such as accessibility and affordability) are those most adversely affected by a housing crisis.
Renovations are Cost Prohibitive for Residents
Not only are renovations cost prohibitive, but residents have very little support when modifications become critical. For example, accessibility modifications are not considered an eligible deductible medical expense per US IRS rules; health and long-term care insurance do not cover necessary aging in place modifications; and studies have shown that individuals who made no home modifications spent almost four times as much on health care services (Kaup, 2009).
Universal Design (UD) VS. Visitability
UD principles can be applied to many things (public park, house, vegetable peeler, etc.) whereas visitability arose separately from UD and focuses solely on houses. There are quite a few cities that have passed ordinances aimed at visitability
History of Visitability
The “visitability” movement grew in the US in the 1980’s, initiated in US by Concrete Change (Atlanta, GA). Have partnered with local Habitat for Humanity to built more than 800 visitable homes in Atlanta. A visitable home is one that is accessible to visitors with mobility impairments and is based on 3 fundamental principles: accessibility is a civil right that improves the quality of life; accessibility for new housing units can be achieved at minimal cost if good design practices are followed; and focusing on a limited number of features will speed their adoption. (Smith et.al., 2008, p.292)
Examples of Visitability Requirements:
In 1992, Atlanta passed the first local ordinance requiring visitability features in private single-family homes built with any type of financial benefit disbursed by the city. Similar legislation has passed in: San Antonio, TX; Chicago, IL; Lafayette, CO; Georgia, Texas, and Kansas. (Smith et.al., 2008)
• Austin, TX - see article HERE <http://www.examiner.com/article/austin-city-council-approves-new-housing-visitability-requirements?cid=rss>
• Vancouver, BC - see article HERE <http://sci-bc.ca/housing-2/letter-to-city-of-vancouver-thank-you-for-making-housing-more-accessible/> (including link to actual document)
The following used legislation that applies to all new housing, including units built solely with private funds: Bolingbrook, IL; Tucson, AZ
By the end of 2007, 57 state and local governments had mandatory or voluntary visitability programs in place (see Maisel et al)
Mandatory vs. Voluntary Programs
Research consistently shows that mandatory requirements are the most likely to have an impact and the desired outcome. For example, as of 2008, there were an estimated 33 mandatory and 24 voluntary programs that have been established in the US. To date, 30,000 visitable homes have been built with mandatory programs vs. less than 1,300 visitable homes with voluntary programs (Smith et.al., 2008).
NEXT STEPS:
Once a Draft Universal Design Ordinance is approved by CDI it will be presented to the Planning Board again. After Planning Board approval, the Universal Design Ordinance will be presented to City Council. Once the Universal Design Ordinance is adopted, City planners and building inspectors will then be required to inspect buildings to ensure, among other things, that the requirements of the Universal Design Ordinance have been met.
CDI NEEDS:
A. A list of items we believe need to be included in 100% of new residential units. Accessibility features currently being considered:
1. At least one zero-step entrance on an accessible route leading from a driveway or public sidewalk into unit
2. All interior doors providing at least 31 3⁄4 inches (81 cm) of unobstructed passage space
3. At least one bathroom <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathroom> on the accessible route of primary floor
4. Reinforcements for grab bars at toilet, shower, along bathtub
5. Reinforcements for railings along accessible route
6. Kitchen facilities on accessible route of primary floor
7. Laundry hook-ups on accessible route of primary floor
8. Installation of receptacle outlets, lighting control and environ controls at specific heights (conducive for those with disabilities)
9. If there is an interior stairway it must be wide enough to accommodate future installation of chair lift and include an outlet at the top or bottom of the stairway.
Items considered: must be applicable for ALL housing types, should prioritize modifications that are cost prohibitive for residents to renovate, and would benefit the greatest number of potential residents
B. Determine a percentage of all new residential units (either by building type or in projects with 5+ units) need to meet all of the elements of the Universal Design Ordinance. Building types include: single-family homes, townhomes and condominiums, and multi-family housing. Options include establishing different percentages of UD by the building type (ie 30% of townhomes) or by minimum number of units (buildings with 5+ units).
What we expect the planning department to propose:
- UDO requirements apply to projects with 5+ units.
- 20% of all new units in multi-unit dwellings and single family homes meet UDO requirements (with 5+units)
- 10% of all townhomes meet UDO requirements
- 100% of bathrooms have reinforced walls in bathrooms for future installation of grab bars
What does the commission want the UDO to require? Here are some ideas:
-UDO requirements apply to projects with 4+ units?
-35% of all new multi-unit dwellings, single family homes and townhomes meet the UDO requirements
-100% list as listed in item A
C. Educate the Public about UD:
Many people hear Universal Designed homes and think it is the same as an ADA home. We need to think of ways to communicate with the citizens of Alameda what Universal Design actually is and why it is needed in Alameda.
How to get this done:
- Letters to the Editor
- Speaking about UDO at our assigned commissions/boards
- Speaking about UDO at city council and planning board meetings
Potential arguments against UD requirements:
• “Disabled population is small” - the proportion of households with at least one disabled resident is substantially higher than the proportion of persons with disabilities + the fact that most housing units are occupied by several households over their lifetimes = 25%-60% chance a disabled person will live in a new unit and 53%-91% that a household will have a disabled visitor over the course of the units lifetime (Smith et.al., 2008)
• “Prefer voluntary program over mandatory program” - there are (as of 2008) an estimated 33 mandatory and 24 voluntary visibility programs that have been established in the US. To date, 30,000 visitable homes have been built with mandatory programs vs. less than 1,300 visitable homes with voluntary programs (Smith et.al., 2008)
• “Costs are too high” - If incorporated in the construction of new units, accessibility features typically cost very little, assuming unit is designed with at least a half bath on entry level. Concrete slab (no step entrance) and wider doors range from $100-$600 (Concrete Change, HERE <http://concretechange.org/construction/cost/cost-of-basic-access-for-new-houses/>). In fact, renovating existing homes are considerably more costly, from $10-50,000 and more.
o A public funding/economic argument could be made for the costs associated with folks having to move to nursing homes b/c of inability to implement home modifications.
§ 2005 nursing home care was $122billion, with Medicaid/Medicare accounting for 60% of those costs. Ave annual costs of nursing home care is $74,000