Loading...
Anholm Bikeway Plan 8-29-20118Ci f August 30, 2018 To: Mayor/Council Candidates Via: Derek Johnson, City Manager From: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works Subject: Request for Information Regarding the Anholm Bikeway Project Question: A Council Candidate has inquired of how the Anholm Bike project is addressing accessible parking and more specifically, have we addressed conclusions stemming from Fortyune v. City of Lomita. Response: The Anholm Plan adopted by Council on April 10th, 2018, included specific recommendations regarding accessible on-street parking on Page 24 of the Plan. We believe that these recommendations are consistent with the decision of Fortyune and also US Access Board Guidelines. In essence, we are maintaining our current practice of addressing, on a case-by-case basis, the best way to address individual needs for accessible parking in the residential area. Regardless of whether a property has, or does not have curb parking in front, we would review and recommend improvements for each request that best fits that location. The important point here is that the Anholm Bike Plan includes other improvements beyond the bikeways in the neighborhood including accessible sidewalk installations and improved corner curbs that can be used to ultimately create a more accessible neighborhood than exists today and will help locate accessible parking as requested. The City is aware of the Fortyune v. City of Lomita decision as well as others that effect the determination that handicap parking is to be provided in the public right of way. We have used this decision as well as others to help inform us in how we implement the provisions of the American with Disabilities Act and more specifically, when and how handicap parking will be provided in public streets. Unfortunately, even with this decision, there continue to be gray areas regarding the specifics on this issue. A copy of the decision can be found here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/09/05/12-56280.pdf The City of Lomita made the argument that it was under no obligation to provide accessible parking in the public right of way. Although the initial suit was for “all” types of parking, the Council Candidate Questions/Responses August 30, 2018 Page 2 plaintiff amended their motion prior to trial to only address angled parking. From Page 4 of the decision: “Fortyune’s complaint alleged that the City did not provide parallel or diagonal stall on-street parking. However, before the district court issued a ruling on the City’s motion to dismiss, Fortyune voluntarily dismissed his claims with respect to parallel on-street parking. Consequently, the district court’s order and this appeal concern only whether Fortyune has stated claims based on the City’s failure to provide accessible diagonal stall on-street parking.” This has some relevance to the Anholm Bike project in that the City cannot draw a one to one correlation between the parallel parking in the neighborhood and the decision under Fortyune. Other cases have determined that parallel parking in residential areas should also be considered by the City when considering accessible parking requests. Fortunately, the City of San Luis Obispo has long identified the need to respond to requests for accessible parking and has addressed that in general and more specifically, in the Anholm Plan. Secondly, the Fortyune decision also provides the City with direction of how an agency is supposed to address accessible requests. On page 8 of the decision the Court specifically states: “Because the provision of public on-street parking is a “service, program, or activity,” 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(a) applies to it. Under the regulation, however, public entities have some flexibility in handling existing inaccessible facilities. For instance, they are not required to make structural changes to all existing onstreet parking facilities if they can make public on-street parking accessible by other means, such as by providing accessible on-street parking at other nearby sites. 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(b)(1); cf. Cohen, 754 F.3d at 697 (noting that in order to comply with 28 C.F.R. § 35.150, a public entity may require disabled individuals to “take a marginally longer route” (internal quotation marks omitted)).” (emphasis added) The court confirmed that jurisdictions have flexibility in how they address accessible parking locations with both proximity and accessible paths playing an important role in locating these spots in each area. Additionally, the City considers and incorporates recommendations made by the US Access Board and their Guidelines on ADA facilities in the Public Right of Way which states: X02.6.1 On-street parking. X02.6.1.1 Minimum number required. (A) Accessible spaces. Where on-street public convenience parking is provided in commercial districts and at civic facilities, accessible on-street parking spaces shall be included in the total provided in the project or project area in accordance with proposed ADAAG Section 208.2 and shall be dispersed within the project area. Discussion: The committee deferred consideration of scoping for the provision of accessible parking in residential neighborhoods, where on-street parking may be permitted but not designated. Accessible parking spaces for individual residents may Council Candidate Questions/Responses August 30, 2018 Page 3 be designated as reserved upon request to the appropriate jurisdiction in order to ensure that convenient accessible curbside parking is available. (emphasis added) Source: https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/streets-sidewalks/public- rights-of-way/background/access-advisory-committee-final-report/x02-6-vehicular-ways-and- facilities The Committee that was reviewing this very important issue deferred a “one size fits all” standard and instead, for residential areas, felt individual requests should dictate where designated spaces should be installed. The Fortyune decision doesn’t speak to this issue; rather it confirms that “how” a jurisdiction satisfies accessible parking is flexible in both design and process. This is consistent with the recommendations made in the Anholm Plan.