REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Title
Action to Adopt the Americans with Disabilities Act Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan, Unfreeze 1.0 Associate Engineer position in the Department of Public Works to Support ADA Plan Implementation, and Approve Related Budget Amendments
Report
COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High-Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In order to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City has been working on updating the ADA Self Evaluation and Transition Plan (Plan). The Plan evaluates existing public services, policies, practices, and facilities to identify ADA barriers and includes recommendations to improve them over time. A significant number of accessibility-related improvements to public facilities are also recommended in the Plan, and criteria is included to help guide staff on which efforts should be prioritized. It is important to note that the Plan does not guarantee funding for implementation or that all identified improvements will be constructed, as the City may choose to modify this Plan, including priorities, in the future. Community participation and feedback, including engagement with the City’s ADA Committee, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), Senior Advisory Commission, and City Council was utilized to help provide guidance as the Plan was being developed. Council is being requested to consider adoption of this Plan as well as the approval to unfreeze and fund one Associate Engineer position in the Department of Public Works to implement, monitor, and track progress citywide.
BACKGROUND
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the ADA of 1990 prohibit discrimination by public entities on the basis of disability. Under Title II (Public Transportation, State and Local Government Services) of the ADA, the City is required to evaluate its services, policies, and practices to identify any barriers and to make necessary modifications to eliminate such barriers. If structural changes to facilities are required to address barriers, the City is required to develop a transition plan setting forth the steps necessary to complete the modifications.
The City originally completed a Plan in 1993 as required by ADA legislation. Since the completion of the 1993 Plan, ADA regulations and standards have been updated. The City has acquired and disposed of facilities, performed capital improvement projects, modified organizational structures, and developed and implemented different programs, services, and activities that are accessible to the public but that differ from the original Plan. Therefore, the City is preparing a comprehensive update to the Plan in order to evaluate and ensure that City programs, services, activities, facilities, and public rights-of-way are accessible to the public under current ADA requirements.
Council previously approved a professional services agreement with Moore Iacofano Goldsman, Inc. (MIG) to assist the City with preparing an updated Plan. The City and MIG developed a workplan strategy focused on the following five project phases: 1) Project Initiation, 2) Public Involvement, 3) Self Evaluation, 4) Physical Barriers, and 5) Prioritization. Key outcomes include a summary of recommended modifications to the City’s services, policies, and practices to ensure accessibility, and a summary of physical improvements recommended for the City’s facilities and public rights-of-way including costs, prioritization, and a schedule for implementation.
This effort took several years to complete and was coordinated with various City departments, the City’s ADA Committee, BPAC, Senior Advisory Commission, various organizations, and the public. On October 13, 2023, a draft Plan was released for public review and comment. A public community outreach meeting was held on November 1, 2023 to encourage and facilitate discussion and on April 9, 2024 staff presented the draft Plan during a Council Study Session.
This has been integrated with the City’s Pedestrian Master Plan (PMP) as it incorporates information within the PMP related to curb ramp and sidewalk improvements. Adopting this Plan will ensure the City’s compliance with the ADA and provide the guidance on how to improve accessibility in the City at large. Additionally, potential public improvements, City program and service enhancements required by various departments, and corresponding costs that can be budgeted and monitored over time have been identified.
DISCUSSION
Per Title II of the ADA the City is required to reasonably modify its policies, practices, and procedures to avoid discrimination against people with disabilities. The Plan supports this requirement and assists the City in identifying solutions for updating policies, programs, and physical barriers to accessibility.
The five main chapters include:
Chapter 1, Introduction - provides details on the legislative mandates and information about accessibility, self-evaluation, transition plan, and public involvement.
Chapter 2, Self-Evaluation - describes the self-evaluation process along with the resulting required actions and implementation strategies for various categories of programs, activities, and City provided services.
Chapter 3, Transition Plan - identifies the various categories of ADA barriers to public facilities, removal actions, prioritization criteria, a 10-year draft schedule for barrier removals, and responsibilities. This chapter is further organized into two parts: (1) buildings/park facilities and (2) public rights-of-way.
Chapter 4, Barrier Removal Considerations for Plan Implementation - provides information on requirements for barrier removals such as triggers, alterations versus new construction, safe harbor and undue burden provisions, and historic buildings/facilities.
Chapter 5, ADA Coordinator, Notice Policy, and Grievance Procedure - provides information about roles and responsibilities for an ADA coordinator, noticing requirements, and the ADA grievance procedure.
Highlights from each Chapter include:
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Legislative Mandate: The City is responsible for the provision of accessible programs and facilities that are available without discrimination toward people with disabilities. Consequently, there is a legislative mandate that requires the City to develop an updated Plan.
Self-Evaluation Process: A Self-Evaluation shall be completed to determine which programs and facilities should be included in the Plan. This includes any facility owned and operated by the City (including public rights-of-way), and facilities where City programs, activities, services, or programs are held such as joint-use facilities. As part of this process, a community outreach meeting was held to solicit public feedback on elements to be included in the Self-Evaluation.
Transition Plan Process: The City shall develop a Transition Plan that identifies barriers for people with disabilities and outlines a strategy for progressing towards compliance with the applicable accessibility standards over time.
Members of Public Consulted During the Plan: City staff implemented a robust public outreach effort, including presenting the project at two community meetings, three ADA Committee meetings, one BPAC meeting, one Senior Advisory Commission meeting, and one Council Study Session. The City also opened a formal public feedback period to solicit additional comments which included notifications through various formats such as the project webpage, City website, City Hall News, Nextdoor, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter-X.
Chapter 2 - Self-Evaluation
Staff Questionnaire and Policy Review Summary: A program accessibility questionnaire was distributed to City staff in all service areas to evaluate programs, activities, and services offered to the public. The goal of the questionnaire was to highlight areas where the City is effectively meeting the needs of people with disabilities while also identifying gaps in practices. A complementary evaluation of the City’s services, policies, and practices was done during the same period. This review included the City Code, policies and administrative rules, public documents, forms and applications, as well as a wide range of the City’s programmatic offerings.
The findings of the Self-Evaluation include recommendations in the following program areas:
• Customer Service Practices
• Staff Training
• Contracting, Licensing, or Other Arrangements
• Public Meetings
• Program Participation
• Transportation Services
• Tours and Trips
• Accessible, Adaptive Equipment Used by the Public
• Printed Materials
• Website Accessibility
• Televised and Audiovisual Information
• Telecommunications
• Emergency Planning
• Notice, Grievance, and Complaint Procedure
• Facilities (Buildings and Park Facilities, and Public Right-of-Way)
Chapter 3 - Transition Plan
Facility Evaluations and Findings: Physical audits of public facilities were conducted to identify barriers to access. Public facilities include general government sites, the Convention Center, libraries, parks, trails, historic buildings, cemeteries, and police and fire stations.
For the evaluated facilities, the following barrier categories were developed:
• Main Accessible Routes (parking, walks, entrance doors, etc.)
• Program Use Areas (counters, restrooms, public areas, etc.)
• Amenities (drinking fountains, site furnishings, etc.)
• Not Required to be Modified (no public programs, duplicate features)
• Within Historic Sites (may not be required to fully comply)
With these categories in mind, staff and MIG evaluated these facilities, and a summary of findings is shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1
Summary of Barrier Instances for
Buildings and Park Facilities
|
|
|
Category |
# of Instances |
|
1 - Main Accessible Routes |
1,390 |
|
(parking, walks, entrance doors, etc.) |
|
|
2 - Program Use Areas |
5,530 |
|
(counters, restrooms, public areas, etc.) |
|
|
3 - Amenities |
440 |
|
(drinking fountains, site furnishings, etc.) |
|
|
4 - Not-Required to be Modified |
160 |
|
(no public programs, duplicate features) |
|
|
5 - Within Historic Sites |
190 |
|
(may not be required to fully comply) |
|
Facility Improvement Prioritization: Prioritizing the removal of barriers at City facilities is important, and the following criteria were considered:
• Identified complaints or requests
• Level of use by the public
• Program uniqueness
• Citizen rights and responsibilities
• Geographic distribution
• Recognized user groups
• Planned obsolescence
Facility Improvement Implementation: Not all barriers require the same level of effort to resolve, therefore, the report further categorizes the types of projects based on the required efforts to implement improvements as follows:
• Interim Solutions or Maintenance Projects
• Project types
o Small Capital Projects (costs <$50,000)
o Medium Capital Projects (costs >$50,000)
o Large Capital Projects (significant construction/replacement)
• Ranking for Small, Medium, Large Capital Projects
o Priority 1, 2, 3 facilities
Facilities Cost Estimates: Staff and MIG prepared planning level cost estimates to address the improvements needed at Facilities. Table 2 below provides a summary of costs for Buildings and Park Facilities.
Table 2
Summary of Costs to Address Barriers for
Buildings and Park Facilities
|
Category |
Estimated cost* |
|
Buildings |
$6,420,000 |
|
Parks |
$6,950,000 |
|
Total |
$13,370,000 |
*In 2024 dollars
Public Rights-of-Way Evaluations and Findings: Physical audits of public rights-of-way were conducted to identify barriers to access. Public rights-of-way include public streets, on-street parking, sidewalks, and roadway intersections. For public rights-of-way, the following barrier categories were developed:
• Curb Ramps
• Pedestrian Routes
• Crosswalks
• Rail Crossings
• Pedestrian Signals
With these categories in mind, staff and MIG evaluated public rights-of-way and a summary of findings is shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3
Summary of Barrier Instances for
Public Rights-of-Way
|
Category |
# of Instances |
|
1 - Curb Ramps |
7,400 |
|
2 - Pedestrian Routes |
88,000 |
|
3 - Crosswalks |
630 |
|
4 - Rail Crossings |
42 |
|
5 - Pedestrian Signals |
950 |
Public Rights-of-Way Improvement Prioritization: Prioritizing the removal of barriers in the Public Right-of-Way is important, and the following criteria were considered in the schedule for removing barriers:
• Location of access barrier to specific uses
o Public facilities
o Transportation
o Employers
• Public Requests
• Current quality (e.g., damaged, or not built per current City standards)
Public Rights-of-Way Implementation: Not all barriers require the same level of effort to resolve, therefore, the report further categorizes the types of barriers based on the required efforts to implement improvements as follows:
• Specific approaches for each element (curb ramps, sidewalks, signals)
• High priority barriers - Primary focus
• Medium/Low priority barriers - Address on a project-by-project basis
• Ongoing barrier removals - Tied to other construction/maintenance projects, public requests, funding opportunities
Public Rights-of-Way (PROW) Cost Estimates: MIG prepared planning level cost estimates to address the improvements needed in the PROW. Table 4 below provides a summary of costs for Public Rights-of-Way.
Table 4
Summary of Costs to Address Barriers for
Public Rights-of-Way (PROW)
|
|
|
Category |
High Priority* |
Medium Priority* |
Low Priority* |
Total* |
|
Curb Ramps |
$17,090,000 |
$55,280,000 |
$34,120,000 |
$106,490,000 |
|
Pedestrian Routes |
$99,710,000 |
$264,880,000 |
$216,690,000 |
$581,280,000 |
|
Crosswalks |
$1,810,000 |
$720,000 |
0 |
$2,530,000 |
|
Rail Crossings |
$150,000 |
0 |
0 |
$150,000 |
|
Pedestrian Signals |
$46,860,000 |
$7,820,000 |
0 |
$54,680,000 |
|
Total |
$165,620,000 |
$328,700,000 |
$250,810,000 |
$745,130,000 |
|
|
*In 2024 dollars
Schedule for Facility and PROW Improvements: ADA Title II regulations state that if a transition plan will take more than one-year to fully implement, it must contain interim steps to provide program accessibility. The Plan proposes a strategy of continuing the removal of barriers at facilities and in high priority areas of the public right-of-way for the next 10 years (subject to budget availability and resources), with a re-evaluation after 10-years to guide barrier removals in the subsequent years.
Chapter 4 - Barrier Removal Consideration for Plan Implementation
Staff and MIG conducted several prioritization workshops that included representatives from each City department to assess barriers and prioritize removals based on several factors including level of use by the public, programs held at the identified locations, geographic distribution of facilities and barriers, locations with public gathering/meeting spaces, and previously identified accessibility needs or public complaints.
Chapter 5 - ADA Coordinator, Notice Policy, and Grievance Procedure
ADA Coordinator: Title II of the ADA requires a state or local government agency that employs 50 or more people to designate at least one employee, often referred to as the ADA Coordinator, to coordinate the City’s efforts to implement the Plan and provide contact information to staff and the public, give notice of the ADA’s requirements, and establish a grievance procedure. Additionally, the ADA Coordinator should stay current on ADA regulations and best practices and manage, coordinate, and document ADA complaints.
During the 1993 adoption of the original Plan, the City Manager identified the Public Works Department as the ADA Coordinator. As designated by the City Manager and included in this Plan, the Public Works Department will identify an ADA coordinator. Due to the current workload and priorities, it is expected that additional budget, staffing, and consultant support will be necessary to manage the implementation of the Plan.
Notice Policy: Title II regulations require the City to inform the public of the rights and protections provided by the ADA for access to public programs, activities, and services. Notice should be given on an on-going basis (as needed) and the City should consider the following when providing notice: who the target audience is, what information should be provided, and where and how notice will be given.
Grievance Procedure: An updated grievance procedure is included in this Plan to align with current best practices and address ADA grievances using a consistent and uniform process.
Progress to Date and Upcoming Projects: The City has made progress towards addressing ADA barriers for City facilities since the physical audits of public facilities and public rights-of-way were conducted. For example, ADA improvements were completed at Bowers Park, Machado Park, Agnew Park, Fuller Park, Homeridge Park, Montague Park, Westwood Oaks Park and Harris-Lass Museum. ADA improvements were also completed in the public right-of-way with the ADA Settlement Agreement Phases 1, 2, and 3, Annual ADA Curb Ramps Project, Annual Street Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation Project, Uncontrolled Crosswalks Improvement Project, and Santa Clara School Access Improvement Project. Lastly, ADA improvements are included in upcoming projects such as the Great America Parkway and Mission College Boulevard Intersection Improvements Project, Lick Mill Boulevard Pedestrian Beacon Upgrade and Monroe Street at Los Padres Boulevard Traffic Signal Modification Project, and the Central Santa Clara Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Project.
Next Steps
Upon Council approval of the Plan, staff will begin implementation of the improvements based on available staffing, budget, and priorities. Staff will utilize the identified prioritization strategies when implementing improvements and when appropriate, staff will identify private development project opportunities to implement recommended public improvements. Staff will continue to document completed improvements and manage the ADA grievance process. Additionally, staff will continue to pursue outside funding (e.g., grants, regional funding) to assist with implementation. It is important to note that to implement the plan additional budget, staffing, and consultant support will be necessary.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The actions being considered do not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) in that it is a governmental organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment. Projects to remove physical barriers that may occur as a result of the Plan are subject to future discretionary approvals and environmental review for such projects will be required in the future.
FISCAL IMPACT
Additional budget, staffing, and consultant support will be necessary in the subsequent implementation phases to carry out the recommendations in the Plan.
In summary, the areas identified as high priority in the Plan recommend physical improvements to address ADA instances at Buildings/Parks ($13,370,000 cost estimate in 2024 dollars) and the Public Right-of-Way ($165,620,000 cost estimate in 2024 dollars). Recommendations for budget appropriations will be brought forward for Council’s consideration in future budget processes to implement the Plan.
Consultant support is required to complete the recommended updates to the City-wide practices, policies, and programs, and to provide training to staff. The current professional service agreement with MIG includes staff training and limited funding for support as needed during the implementation of the Plan following its adoption. Additional funding needed for consultant support will be brought for Council’s consideration as necessary in the future.
It is recommended that Council approve the unfreezing of one Associate Engineer in the Department of Public Works to serve as ADA Coordinator and to implement, monitor, and track progress citywide. The total compensation cost for 1.0 Associate Engineer position prorated for a ten-month period is approximately $200,000 to be funded by the General Fund. The total annual cost going forward will be $240,000 annually.
The budget amendment below allocates funding from the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve to fund ten months of the Associate Engineer position in the Design Division in FY 2024/25. Funding in future years will be allocated as part of the annual budget process.
Budget Amendment
FY 2024/25
|
|
Current |
Increase/ (Decrease) |
Revised |
|
General Fund |
|
|
|
|
Expenditure |
|
|
|
|
Department of Public Works |
$26,347,463 |
$200,000 |
$26,547,463 |
|
Ending Fund Balance |
|
|
|
|
Budget Stabilization Reserve |
$53,823,574 |
($200,000) |
$53,623,574 |
|
|
|
|
|
COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Finance Department, Parks & Recreation Department, and the City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
City staff implemented a robust public outreach effort, including presenting the project at two community meetings, three ADA Committee meetings, one BPAC meeting, one Senior Advisory Commission meeting, and one Council Study Session. The City also opened a formal public feedback period to solicit additional comments on the Plan which included notifications through various formats such as the project webpage, City website, City Hall News, Nextdoor, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter-X.
Additional public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email clerk@santaclaraca.gov <mailto:clerk@santaclaraca.gov> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
1. Adopt the Americans with Disabilities Act Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan;
2. Authorize the City Manager to take any and all actions necessary to modify, edit, update, maintain, and implement the Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan;
3. Approve Unfreezing of 1.0 Associate Engineer position in the Department of Public Works; and
4. Approve the FY 2024/25 budget amendment in the General Fund to increase the Department of Public Works budget and decrease the Budget Stabilization Reserve in the amount of $200,000 (five affirmative Council votes required for the use of unused balances).
Staff
Reviewed by: Craig Mobeck, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan