{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2016-06-08", "page": 1, "text": "COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nWednesday, June 8, 2016 6:30 p.m.\nItem 2-B, October 12, 2016 CDI Meeting\n1.\nROLL CALL\nBeth Kenny: I would like to call the Commission on Disability Issues meeting for June 8th, 2016\nto order.\nKerry Parker: Roll call, Chair Kenny?\nBeth Kenny: Present.\nKerry Parker: Vice Chair Brillinger?\nArnold Brillinger: Present.\nKerry Parker: Commissioner Aghapekian?\nAnto Aghapekian: Present.\nKerry Parker: Commissioner Deutsch?\nSusan Deutsch: Present.\nKerry Parker: Commissioner Franco?\nLa Donna Franco: Present.\nKerry Parker: Commissioner Lewis? Commissioner Linton? Commissioner Tsztoo?\nMichaela Tsztoo: Here.\nKerry Parker: We have a quorum.\nBeth Kenny: Thank you. I wanted to let everybody know that Commissioner Wilkinson has\nresigned from the Commission. She has started working again, and didn't feel she had the time to do\nboth. So we are in the process of looking for another commissioner.\nKerry Parker: That's right. The City Clerk is aware and is putting out the application on the\nwebsite, so that it's available. It's also clickable on our webpage, on the city website. So if you\nwanted to direct your friends, people you think that would be qualified to be a commissioner to the\nCDI website that would help. It says right on there on the form, there's a link.\n08/17/16\nPage 1 of 19", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-06-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2016-06-08", "page": 2, "text": "2.\nMINUTES\nKerry Parker: Before we look into approval of the minutes for last meeting of April 13th, I just\nwant to say a quick note about edits to the minutes. If it's a spelling change, why don't you tell me\nlater, well just tell me offline, and I will change it. But to keep the meeting as short as we can, or as\nconcise\nas we can, let's see if we can If it's substantive change where you say, \"You said I was\nhere and I wasn't here.\" Then that's something we should add to the meeting. So, go ahead.\nBeth Kenny: Does anyone have any content changes to the minutes from our last meeting? Then I\nmove we approve the minutes from Wednesday, April 13th, 2016.\nSusan Deutsch: I second.\nBeth Kenny: Thank you. All in favor?\nS?: Aye.\nBeth Kenny: Anyone opposed? It passes unanimously.\n3.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nBeth Kenny: So our next item is oral communications, non-agenda. Do we have any speakers?\nKerry Parker: We do not.\nBeth Kenny: Tonight, we have a few items on the agenda, but we would like to try and keep this\nmeeting as short as possible. We want to give everything the proper amount of attention, but we\nreally want to try and really focus in on what's being presented and to use our time wisely, and\nsuccinctly.\n4.\nNEW BUSINESS\nBeth Kenny: So given that introduction, let's start with new business. And I'd like to welcome Gail\nPayne up to discuss the expanding transportation options, transit and the TDM plan.\nGail Payne: Good evening, commissioners, I'm Gail Payne, the city's Transportation Coordinator.\nAnd I thought it was funny that you just talked about being succinct, because I was fretting about\nthe number of slides that I have, and not wanting to take too much of your time. So I will do the\nbest I can not to belabor all my points. And I'm here to discuss a new planning effort that we're\nundergoing at the city, it's a city-wide Transit and Transportation Demand Management Plan. And\nwe're just starting out this effort, it's expected to take 18 months. So I'll talk about the background\nof this effort and the purpose of it. And since we're just beginning, we're beginning with existing\ntransportation conditions, so I'll be going over those with you and asking for your input, what more\nyou'd like to see, or less. And then also, we're looking at the preliminary draft goals and objectives\nof this planning effort, and we'd love to get your input on what we have so far on that front.\n08/17/16\nPage 2 of 19", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-06-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2016-06-08", "page": 3, "text": "Gail Payne: So as for the background and purpose, what we're really seeing here in the City of\nAlameda is increased congestion, because of the regional economic boom. And so we really want to\nsustain our high quality of life here in Alameda, given that the region is just growing like crazy. And\nso that's why City Council directed staff to look into updating our transit plan, our city-wide transit\nplan, and also our Transportation Demand Management Plan. And keep in mind, we are not the\nprimary transit operators in town, and so what we can do mostly as a city, is coordinate with the\ntransit operators as much as possible. And also, we own the public right of way, so how can we\nmake transit most efficient? And that's what the bulk of the work is going to be on that plan.\nGail Payne: The second plan, I was told it sounds like a disease, TDM plan. And so what we're\ntrying to do here is provide options, provide strategies that are alternatives to driving alone, to make\nit more attractive to not drive alone and to do things like take the bus, and to bike, to car share, to\nride share, to walk. And so that's what the TDM plan is going to be looking at. TDM measures, they\nare required for new developments. So we're trying to figure out ways that all Alamedans can take\nadvantage of these transportation alternatives in town.\nGail Payne: Project background, we're at the very beginning of the 18-month phase. So this is the\nfirst time I've come to you all, and we're going to all the other boards that are relevant, and the City\nCouncil and Transportation Commission, we've already had a community workshop on the existing\nconditions. I'll come back when we're looking at actual draft ideas and strategies, and that will be in\nthe fall. And then we'll come back again when we actually have a draft plan for you. And we\ncurrently have a web survey that's online, and so just that's a heads up if you haven't already\nreceived a link for it, feel free to fill it out or let me know if you're interested, I could send you a\nlittle blurb about it, and you could feel free to distribute it onto other people, as well.\nGail Payne: So, onto existing transportation conditions. Before that though, if you want to ask\nquestions feel free to. I'm going to try to tailor to Commission on Disability Issues and I don't mind\nif you have questions as I go, or if you want to take your questions at the end, that's fine, too. So,\nlocal trends here in Alameda, we had a little bit of a different story compared to other parts of the\nregion back in the late 1990s because the naval base closed. So we actually had a downturn in the\neconomy while there was the dot-com boom. And now we're seeing this big upswing in the\neconomy, and we've had record Bay Area congestion. So, we're really seeing the effects of that, at\nthe moment. So, I'm going to talk to these existing conditions about six different key concepts. I'm\ngoing to go one through six. The first being congestion is increasing throughout the Bay Area.\nWe've seen the highest amount of delay caused by congestion ever since, surpassed since 2006\nlevels, delay is up 40% since 2010. And we, our island crossings are congestion, we have limited\ncrossings, this is a classic choke point type of situation. We have five ways on and off the island,\nplus, we do have two ferry terminals. And so there's limited ways of getting on and off the island,\nand they can only fit so many cars going on and off the island at any given time.\nGail Payne: The key concept number two is housing and jobs are growing throughout the region,\nand regional job growth has increased 17% since 1990, and there's been an uptick in the number of\nhousing units permitted. And what's interesting, is that there are more multi-family units being\npermitted now than single family units. So, the Bay Area is becoming more densely populated, it\nused to be the family dream was the single family units homes, and now people are much more\nwanting to downsize and live in condos and apartments. And so we're definitely seeing an uptick of\nthose types of dwelling units being built. For Alameda specifically, people say, \"Well, the\ncongestion is happening because there's an increase in housing units and population.\" Whereas\n08/17/16\nPage 3 of 19", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-06-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2016-06-08", "page": 4, "text": "that's not really true. Because of the base closing, we've actually been very stable with population,\nand we're had a slight increase in housing units recently, but actually, it was a downturn after the\nbase closure. And we've actually had a significant number of jobs increase in the past decade.\nGail Payne: And when you compare it to other East Bay communities, we're on the low side when\npermitting housing units, and we're on the medium size when we look at density. And the reason\nwhy we really care about density is that if you're trying to get a really robust bus system, say in\ntown, it actually runs better if you have more people around a bus station, because you can get more\npeople on the bus within that quarter mile radius of what people really want to walk. And so we're a\nmedium sized density community, and so we can probably support a medium sized bus system,\nwhich is really what we have, we're actually quite fortunate with what we have. The regional\nagencies, they have policies out there that say where they want to focus their development in the\nregion, and these are called priority development areas. And we have two of these areas in the City\nof Alameda, one is the Northern waterfront area, which is along Clement Avenue by the Estuary,\nand the other area is Alameda Landing and Alameda Point in West Alameda. And that's indeed\nwhere the development is occurring, and expected to occur over the next 10 years. So, we're\nexpected to have an increase of over 2,000 housing units and over, or almost 8,000 more jobs here\nin Alameda.\nGail Payne: Most of the jobs will be going to Alameda Point, and the job growth is actually much\nhigher at 30% than the Bay Area, over the next 10 years it's expected at only 11%. So, the third key\nconcept out of the six is regional commute patterns are changing. We're having fewer auto\ncommuters, and more people are commuting by transit in the region. And one of the factors is that\nmillennials, folks who are younger, tend to be less apt to own cars, less apt to even get a driver's\nlicense. Young people, there's one study that said that 22% of young people never even plan on\ngetting their driver's license. So this was, when I was a teenager, unheard of, we all got our driver's\nlicenses the day after we turned, what was it? 16. So it's really different, it's a different generation.\nAnd we're seeing that they are expecting better bus systems, they are taking Ubers, and Lyfts, and\ndoing bicycling, walking more so than any generation.\nGail Payne: In Alameda, as I said, our population hasn't really grown that much, our housing units\nreally haven't grown that much, but we are having the people who are here who have moved here\nare more apt to commute off island, 5,000 more off island commuters since 2005, there's a 20%\nincrease. So that's one reason why we're seeing congestion. Also, there's more people, more\ncommuters from Alameda going to San Francisco. In 2005, there were less than 5,000, now there's\nmore than 7,000 going to San Francisco to work. And they're more apt to be working in San Mateo\nCounty, and Santa Clara County. So those are harder, more difficult commutes more people are\ntaking from Alameda. And most people The two top destinations for where people work is\nOakland, 8,000 people, and then 7,000 people going to San Francisco. The majority of people who\nwork in Oakland drive alone, they get there by driving alone. The majority of people who work in\nSan Francisco, they are less apt to drive alone, and only one out of five people commute to San\nFrancisco by driving alone.\nGail Payne: The fourth key concept out of the six, Alameda is a multimodal city. We actually\noutperform a lot of cities in the Bay Area, and around the country, when it comes to being\nmultimodal. And we even outperform the Bay Area. And Berkeley and Oakland do actually much\nbetter than we do, especially with transit and bicycling for Berkeley. Some of the factors,\nopportunities, is that we have great geography, weather, we're flat, we have strong policies in place,\n08/17/16\nPage 4 of 19", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-06-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2016-06-08", "page": 5, "text": "we're working hard to improve our bus system, walking and bicycling. Some of the challenges are\nthat we still have gaps, especially in the bicycling system. We're trying to adapt to new technologies\nand it's changing daily, it's evolving, so that's hard to figure out.\nGail Payne: More people in Alameda are using alternatives to driving than they ever did before.\nMore people are taking the bus, more people are bicycling and walking, and more people are\ntelecommuting from home. So, people are definitely open, more Alamedans are open to commuting\nin these different ways. Within Alameda, most homes and jobs are located close to a bus stop,\nthere's a 37% increase in bicycle commuting over the past four years. And what's really difficult\nwithin Alameda is if you need to get around at about 8:00 AM, before or after, we really have a lot\nof students here, we have about 1,500 more students than we did a decade ago. And not only that,\nwe have fewer neighborhood schools, we have more magnet schools than we've ever had, more\ncharter schools. And these schools have a city wide enrollment. The neighborhood schools tend to\nhave that catchment area around the neighborhood, around the school. Whereas the magnet schools,\ncharter schools, they get students from all over the city, SO they're more apt to be driven to the\nschool. They even get students from other jurisdictions as well, and more apt too, than local\nschools. So if you're trying to get around a town around 8:00 AM, you'll notice a difference, it's\ntough.\nGail Payne: Bicycle facilities, we are going to be updating the bike plan soon. We're going to be\nconstructing the Cross Alameda trail next year. And we are currently looking at the potential to have\nbike share here, like you probably see in other jurisdictions like San Francisco, East Bay is getting it\nlater this year, I think. For transit ridership, most commuters take AC Transit. My favorite is the AC\nTransit Transbay, they are the work horses of it all, and they don't get enough attention. And the\npeople also take BART, and they also take Ferry. So we're very fortunate we have close access to\nferries, BART, and the buses. It's unusual for such a small jurisdiction to have all those options.\nGranted, we don't have BART nearby, or right in town yet, we have, I think, within about a mile or\nso radius maybe, I think it's five BART stations. We have two ferry terminals, and shuttle systems,\nwe also have some tech shuttles coming in now, like Google and Facebook. And we're expanding,\nwe recently had improvements to Line 51 A, we're going to be restoring Line 19, along the Northern\nWaterfront, Buena Vista Avenue. And we're hoping to get a new ferry terminal in Alameda Point, in\nthe Seaplane Lagoon area coming 2019-2020.\nGail Payne: AC Transit ridership is on the rise, especially Transbay buses. We had an increase in\nridership of 27% since 2010. A lot of that has to do with the BART strikes that happened in 2013.\nAnd this next slide shows that BART ridership from Alameda is down. Because after the BART\nstrikes, these commuters discovered the Transbay buses, they discovered the ferries. And ferry\nridership is also up, and unfortunately for BART, Alamedans are less apt to take BART, although\nBART is packed so I don't think they're really missing us. For Paratransit, we are fortunate to have\nEast Bay Paratransit, which is funded by BART and AC Transit, they really carry the bulk of\nParatransit riders. They carry 13,000 annually, riders from home base from Alameda. And we also\nhave an Alameda Paratransit shuttle. And we have, because of Measure BB that recently got passed,\nwe're planning on increasing the frequency to run every 30 minutes, and hopeful to Fruitvale BART.\nGail Payne: Like I said, ferry ridership has been increasing from the two ferry terminals. And the\nlast of key points, of the key concept is these transportation demand-management strategies\nimprove transportation options, and I had mentioned them before but the idea here is we're trying to\nmake the transportation system more efficient. There's limited space, so let's try to get as many\n08/17/16\nPage 5 of 19", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-06-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2016-06-08", "page": 6, "text": "people fit in the street as possible, to get where they need to go. So I had mentioned carpooling and\ncar-sharing, there's bike sharing. And we're trying to make TDM work for all residents and\nemployees. Right now, it's only required in the three key development areas. And so we're working\non making that work as a consolidated group and so that they can form a single non-profit entity\nthat would implement the TDM strategies for those new developments.\nGail Payne: Best practices and new technologies, and then I'll get to the goals and objectives. For\nbest practices, you've probably seen Webster Street, the bus queue-jump lane that's there, that\nsomewhat has been extended recently by the tubes, that's a great example of a best practice, because\nwhen it's all congested, you see the buses flying by. And I was, just once, I must admit, stuck in my\ncar towards the tube in the morning, and I actually felt myself getting mad at all the buses going by\nso quickly, which is I was ashamed that that was my reaction, but it really does work. And so,\nthat's something in this plan we're really going to be looking at is other ways of having those\ndedicated bus lanes, where the bus riders aren't getting penalized with all this congestion coming\nup.\nGail Payne: Parking management, how can we price parking so that there's always one or two\nspaces available per block? You don't have to circle the block, and you don't have people there who\nshouldn't be parked there who could be parked at the off-street parking spaces. And SO there's ways\nof doing a better job of strategizing about parking that we could perfect a little bit. On demand car-\nsharing and ride-sharing, that's where you get the Uber and Lyft. And when it comes to Commission\non Disability Issues, what we're really struggling with as a city is how do we These are private\nsector companies, and it's a little bit like the Wild West, they're not quite regulated yet as much as it\nprobably will be. So how is it evolving? Where is it going? And how does a city form relationships\nwith them contractually, if we do ever? I know some jurisdictions are doing that, and do we want\nto? And does that provide accessible ways for people to get around? So that's what we're grappling\nwith when it comes to these entities.\nGail Payne: Other new technologies, you have these driverless vehicles that, from a disabilities\nperspective, could really increase freedom for people who are blind, or people who have physical\nimpairments and can't drive. And so that can really open some great doors. It is coming, we think,\nand how does that change our streets? Because this one image is showing how they can be bunched\nup when parked, so maybe we won't need as much parking. Maybe we won't have so many parking\nissues. They also won't, if they're programmed, they won't take up as much space on the road, so\nmaybe we don't need as many wide lanes, and maybe there won't be as much congestion.\nGail Payne: So, the very last part of this presentation is on the preliminary goals and objectives that\nwe have. And so we have just two goals, one pertains to improving transportation on the island\ncrossings, and the other goal is improving transportation within Alameda. So it's about the island\ncrossings as one goal, and the second goal being within Alameda. And the objectives really are the\nsame for each goal, they just repeat. And I can just summarize real quickly, it's really a lot of\nverbiage, but is that the transit goals or objectives for both goals have to do with improving transit\nfrequency, reliability, access, awareness of the transit and ensuring that we have positive\npartnerships with the providers. And for these transportation options, is we're looking at providing\nprograms and strategies to reduce drive alone trips and integrating land use changes with\ntransportation improvements, prioritizing these transportation alternatives, and again, increasing\nawareness of them.\n08/17/16\nPage 6 of 19", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-06-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2016-06-08", "page": 7, "text": "Gail Payne: Now we did also add some goals that didn't get into this version, but there was a\nrequest to add not a goal, but a safety objective, so we added that. We also added an objective\npertaining to new technologies, and another one that pertains to equity. And I'll just read you the\nlatest version that we have on the new equity goal that's not in your packet, but it's in for the\nPlanning Board packet and the City Council, because I really like how it's shaping up, and it\npertains to you all. \"Ensure transportation improvements are applied equitably for all users,\nincluding senior, low income and minority populations, and are compliant with ADA requirements.\nGail Payne: And with that, I think I really would love to hear your comments on the discussion\ntopics. Are there areas where we need to investigate further, pertaining to existing conditions? Did\nwe miss some topics? What do you think about the goals and objectives? And are there other areas\nthat we should be covering? Thank you for your time.\nBeth Kenny: Thank you very much.\nGail Payne: I hope I wasn't too long.\nBeth Kenny: You did a great job. I have a couple of questions. First, I'm wondering, are there plans\nto create another island crossing? And if so, have we thought about making it specific for public\ntransportation options, and bike and pedestrian options? And because of the amount of development\ngoing on, are we getting money from the developers to build this type of infrastructure that we're\ngoing to need?\nGail Payne: So for the first question about the additional island crossing, we don't expect to have\nmore capacity in terms of another island crossing, like another bridge or tunnel. And the main\nreason is that Oakland just doesn't want it, they're just not interested in having it touch down on\ntheir property, and that's where it would have to be. And so we really have to work within the\nconstraints that we have. And we did study a bike pedestrian bridge over in the West End, and we\nfound out that it was really infeasible, because of the Coast Guard Island, and that the need for the\nboats to get in and out 24/7 because they're for emergency purposes. And so the bridge would have\nto be so incredibly high, and not be a draw bridge, that bicyclists and pedestrians just wouldn't use\nit. And so we're not expecting another crossing on this. However, BART is looking at a second tube,\na Transbay tube going between the East Bay and San Francisco. And if they do that, they possibly\ncould add a station, either in Alameda or in the Estuary, or closer to Alameda than what we have\nnow. That potentially, the one idea is if it were in the Estuary, then that would be a way for\nbicyclists and pedestrians to go under, either use the BART station or get to Oakland 24/7 or I don't\nknow, 24/7 but\nGail Payne: So, there are ideas out there, another idea is that at some point, we're going to have to\nimprove the tubes, because they won't last forever. And so, when it needs to be upgraded, that it\nwould be a complete street type of tube, whereas maybe it would have a dedicated bus lane, maybe\nit would have a real bike path, and a real way for pedestrians to go on it and through it. So, those are\nsome long, long-term solutions, yet there's nothing in the short-term idea out there. For the second\nquestion about developer money, SO yes they are required, developers are required to both\ncontribute to when they're developing their units to also pay for the streets adjacent to them and\nanything related to their development. We call it a nexus, there has to be a nexus about it, so as to a\nlegal way for us to require them to pay, because we can't just say, \"Oh, well we want you to pay for\nsome other. Everything because we don't have any money.\"\n08/17/16\nPage 7 of 19", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-06-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2016-06-08", "page": 8, "text": "Gail Payne: So we do always, for example, Alameda Landing with Target, they paid to have\nMitchell and that whole upgraded Fifth Street, and all that area, and including the bike lanes and\nbus stops, and all that. And also that Alameda Landing is required to pay on an ongoing basis, these\nTDM plan monies that they're required to implement, they're required to implement, for example, a\nshuttle bus that goes between Alameda Landing, Target Area and downtown Oakland on every\nweekday. So they have all these different requirements they're supposed to meet, and yes.\nBeth Kenny: Thank you.\nLa Donna Franco: I'm actually wondering, with the increase and currently problematic issue of\nhandicap parking, what are some of the ways are you looking at supporting existing parking issues\nfor handicap parking? Increasing that, what are the plans for that, and what are some plans for\nincreasing safer crosswalks, and lighted crosswalks?\nGail Payne: Increase the lighted crosswalks, okay. Yes, we can look at those. So for the lighted\ncrosswalks, the ones that are seen as best practices, there's one that's on Otis at Mound that's this\nstrobe light. Okay, so that's the kind that we would in the future add.\nLa Donna Franco: Could you speak to more specifically about the areas and plans for that.\nGail Payne: So for both these, we right now are just beginning this planning effort, so right now\nI'm coming to you on existing transportation conditions. And next time I come to you, we'll be\nlooking at trying to get input on the draft strategies. So this is good now for me, because now I will\nknow to have it, to talk more in depth with you for next time. Yet we're not at that stage at this\npoint, yes.\nBeth Kenny: And is AC Transit going to be going out to the current ferry?\nGail Payne: So AC Transit, the question is this the AC Transit going to go out to the ferry? So they\ncurrently operate at the ferry terminal at Harbor Bay, Line 21. And what we're working with them is\nto try to get money from the regional bodies, to get bus access to the Main Street ferry terminal. So\nwe're in negotiations, trying to make that happen. Yes, yes. So we'll see, we're just trying to find\nmoney, because we know that's a very high complaint we have, is lack of bus access out to that\nferry terminal, yes.\nBeth Kenny: Yes. And I like some of the things that you were thinking about in the reports, about\ndiscounted rates for people who take AC Transit to the ferry building.\nGail Payne: Actually, that's true, and that's a good reminder. And right now, if you take the bus to\nthe Harbor Bay ferry terminal, it's free and then when you go home on the bus, it's free. The bus\nride is free and a lot of people don't realize that, is that that's the system that the ferry operators and\nthe bus operators has already worked out. So it already operates like a shuttle, and yes.\nBeth Kenny: Great, thank you.\n08/17/16\nPage 8 of 19", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-06-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2016-06-08", "page": 9, "text": "Susan Deutsch: I was just wondering if there's enough ridership on that Harbor Bay ferry to\nincrease the number of ferries. It seems like really limited ferry service over there. So, you do have\nto drive through Harbor Bay, and through Alameda if you want to get a ferry, or you just have to\ndrive to get to your destination, because ferry service is being limited.\nGail Payne: I know that the ferry operators are looking at wanting to increase the ferry services at\nboth Harbor Bay and Main Street. The issues that we're having are accessing the ferries, especially\nwe just had a big City Council meeting last night on that topic for Harbor Bay, and that it's really\nimpacting the adjacent neighborhood, neighbors living right next to the Harbor Bay ferry terminal,\nthat people are parking in front of their homes. So we have some of the issues to work out with that.\nFortunately Harbor Bay, it's really easy to walk around Harbor Bay, crime rate's low, it's easy to\nbike, there's a great San Francisco bike trail right there. And they do have the Harbor Bay, the Line\n21 that goes there. So, slowly, we're trying to work out the kinks, and make it a We're trying not to\ndo it slowly, but we're working out the kinks and trying to make it better work for everybody.\nAnto Aghapekian: And I have, I don't know if it's a question. What I find missing in here is what\nthe expectations are for people who are going to be 60, 70, 80 years old, how many of these people\nwe expect to have in Alameda, and how are we going to help them move around? I don't see\nanything in this or that, and I'd like to see something.\nGail Payne: Okay.\nAnto Aghapekian: And there is a very small comment about the ADA, which seems to be\nconsistent with every other presentation that I have gone to, and I'd like that to be more visible, to\nbe part of every report that we put out. And the more information we have specially, because from\nwhat I have gathered, we're going to have more retired people on this island, and they're going to\nneed probably more better transit, more personalized public transit and parking spaces. Those are\nthe items that I'd like to see in the report, projections in five years, 10 years, 20 years from now.\nThank you.\nGail Payne: Okay, thank you.\nBeth Kenny: Do any of the other commissioners have questions at this time? Great, do we have\nany public comment on this? Well, thank you very much, Gail.\n5.\nOLD BUSINESS\nBeth Kenny: I'm going to start out by doing a summary of the current Universal Design Ordinance\ndiscussion. Kerry and I thought that this would be good to do, because not everybody is familiar\nwith Universal Design, it is an issue that the Commission has been working on for quite some time,\nand we're hopeful that it will be going in front of City Council in the fall. So, if you were able to\nread the document that I sent out about it Yes, and if you don't, Kerry has copies. Universal\nDesign is a concept that can be applied to many different things. We are looking at it in the housing\ncontext. And so, the basic idea of Universal Design is that things should be made in a way that they\nare accessible to the most number of people; people who are disabled, people who aren't disabled,\npeople who are old, and people who are young, short and tall.\n08/17/16\nPage 9 of 19", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-06-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2016-06-08", "page": 10, "text": "Beth Kenny: And it's to be done in a way that using design to do things in an intelligent way that\ntakes into consideration the wide range of humans. So, why we need this in Alameda, is we have,\nAlameda, along with pretty much every place in this country, has a shortage of accessible housing\nstock. And we have a growing senior population, and many disabled people are living much longer.\nSo we have a growing disabled population. So in order for people to be able to stay in the\ncommunity, or age in place, somebody who buys a universally designed place can stay in their\nhouse and not have to face moving out as they become older because it's inaccessible to them. So\nthis all started because of a joint meeting between the Planning Board and the Commission on\nDisability Issues. And I'm going to ask Susan to talk a little bit about that, because she was one of\nthe participants in that.\nSusan Deutsch: It was just such a long time ago, [chuckle] I don't remember that much about it.\nBut I do remember going to the City Council meeting, talking about Universal Design, and feeling\nthat we did have support. And I felt that they were very supportive of what we wanted. Really, all I\nremember about the meeting because it was four years ago.\nBeth Kenny: Yes, it was indeed over four years ago. But since after that meeting, Commissioner\nDeutsch, former Commissioner Lord-Hausman, and former Commissioner Harp got together and\ndrafted a sample Universal Design Ordinance. And that was submitted about four years ago, and\nwe've now come to the point where the Planning Department, they have a draft that they expect to\nget to us in the next week, or so, and the schedule of events is that we will meet, we have a work\ngroup from CDI that is working on this, and the Planning Board Work Group will meet together to\ngo over the draft, and make any changes that we think are necessary, possibly have one more\nmeeting. And then in September, we'd like to hold a joint meeting between the Planning Board and\nthe Commission on Disability to vote on the Universal Design Ordinance. This September meeting\nworks for us because in August, we are scheduled to have an August meeting, but the City of\nAlameda goes dark in the month of August, there are no City Council meetings. And so we've been\nasked to reschedule our August meeting, which having this joint meeting in September with the\nPlanning Board, I think is a good way to reschedule that meeting.\nBeth Kenny: So let me throw some statistics out at you guys for the need for accessible units.\nResearch shows that over the span of a typical housing unit that 25% to 60% of those units will\nhouse a disabled person. Additionally, 53% to 91% will have a disabled visitor over the course of a\nunit's lifetime. Those numbers do not include people with temporary disabilities from surgery, or\nbroken legs, and it does not include people who might have mobility impairments, but not\nnecessarily identified as disabled, which is a common phenomenon in the senior population.\nBeth Kenny: So it is expected that population of Alameda will grow 8.8%, according to the\nAlameda Housing Element Background Report. In addition to a growing senior population, people\nwith disabilities are now living longer, and aging in larger numbers than previous experience,\nresulting in overlapping categories. In 2002, it was estimated that 52% of Americans with\ndisabilities were 65 plus. It's gone up significantly since 2002. Apparently, only 10% of multifamily\nbuildings of four units or more need to be designed excessively, and those are the type of units that\nwe normally think of as ADA units, where they have the grab bars installed, they have the clearings.\nBeth Kenny: So there's a difference between an ADA unit and a universally designed unit. The\nuniversally designed unit would have the accessible pathways, accessible entrance that an ADA unit\nwould have, but you don't necessarily need to have the grab bars up if the person doesn't need them\n08/17/16\nPage 10 of 19", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-06-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2016-06-08", "page": 11, "text": "at the time. What we want is to make sure that the walls are reinforced to be able to put the grab\nbars in without having to rip out the wall, and we want to be able to make sure that the electrical\noutlets are at an accessible level. But it doesn't mean that you can't have outlets along the baseboard\nalso. Things like having accessible counters can be easily achieved by putting in a breadboard, it\ndoesn't mean that the whole counter has to be at the level of somebody. That would work for\nsomebody in a wheelchair, it means that there has to be some amount of counter that that can be, but\nalso there can be a standard or a higher level cabinet, depending on your preference.\nBeth Kenny: There have been some Universal Design ordinances, one of the things that's had a\nlittle bit more movement is the visitability movement, which happened in the '80s. And there are\nquite a few areas that have visitability statutes including Austin, Texas, Chicago, Lafayette,\nColorado, Georgia, Texas and Kansas. So they all have a variety of whether it's a mandatory\nprogram, or a voluntary program, or parts, or a combination of where some things are mandatory,\nand some things are voluntary. And they've learned through visitability that they said to-date that\n30,000 visitability homes have been built with mandatory programs, versus less than 1,300\nvisitability homes have been built with voluntary programs. So we want to be sure that I would\nrecommend we make sure we get the important parts voluntary, and not mandatory to offer. I mean\nmandatory to have, and not mandatory to offer.\nBeth Kenny: How it has worked out with where we're at in the negotiations, it seems like there's\ngoing to be a few different parts of the ordinance. One part would be something that applies to\n100% of new residential units. So, that would be any new residential units would have to have these\naccessibility features. I know one that we've talked about with Andrew quite a bit is reinforcement\nin the walls or be able to install grab bars in the bathroom and along the hallways. Some other ones\nthat we've talked about as a group is at least one zero-step entrance on an accessible route leading\nfrom the driveway, or public sidewalk into the unit. That one, I'll just read the list.\nBeth Kenny: Another one is all interior doors providing at least 31 and three quarter inches, or 81\ncentimeters of unobstructed passage space. So, basically, that you can get through the door. At least\none bathroom on an accessible route on the primary floor. The idea is to have living space on the\nprimary floor, and if you're going to be able to live on the primary floor, you're going to need a\nbathroom. Reinforcements for the railings and grab bars, kitchen facilities on an accessible route on\nthe primary floor. And in there I did leave out that the kitchen facilities themselves would have to be\naccessible. So, that would include leaving space for a wheelchair to be able to maneuver, and turn in\nthe kitchen. That would include having a cabinet or a counter that you could use, whether it be a\nbreadboard or not, at the height of a wheelchair. And I think there was one other element.\nSusan Deutsch: Sink?\nBeth Kenny: Yes. The sink that you can\nSusan Deutsch: Well, there's the faucet issue, but also if the sink is too high\nBeth Kenny: Yes, okay.\nSusan Deutsch: And there's also the faucet, maybe levers. One lever.\n08/17/16\nPage 11 of 19", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-06-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2016-06-08", "page": 12, "text": "Beth Kenny: Yes. So, yes, putting in accessible fixtures. And I think yes, it was something about\nclearing out under the sink so that you could get to the sink. Number seven is one that I put in\nbecause every time we've talked about this with the mayor, she's thought that this was necessary,\nand I think it's a good idea, to have laundry hook ups on an accessible route on the primary floor.\nBecause if you're going to live on that one floor, you're going to need to do your laundry. So, we\ndon't need the actual laundry machines themselves, but the hook ups to be able to install laundry.\nInstallation of receptacle outlets, lighting controls, environmental controls at specific heights,\nconducive for those with disabilities. And I don't know the full spectrum of what that would be, but\nI would love to hear more if anybody has ideas on what environmental controls and lighting\ncontrols would be important.\nBeth Kenny: And then finally, if there is an interior stairway, it must be wide enough to\naccommodate future installation of a chairlift, and include an outlet at the top or bottom of the\nstairway. And this would only pertain to a home that had interior stairway. So, those are some of the\nthings that we've been considering asking for to be applied 100% for every new housing unit built\nthat would be under the Universal Design Ordinance. There is another layer to this ordinance where\nthere's a certain percentage of units that would have to meet all the universally designed ordinance\nelements.\nBeth Kenny: And for multi-unit dwellings, and single family homes, what we've been hearing from\nthe Planning Department, they're looking at about 20% of those new units with five plus units. And\nthen, 10% were town homes, because they said that town homes, space wise, are going to be very\ndifficult. So, some of the questions that we had thought about around here is, they're asking for, first\nof all, to start with five plus units. I think the federal regulations start with four plus units, so I think\nI'd like to see it down to four. Any development with four plus units, rather than five plus units.\nAnd I think that the 20% is very low, because we do have such a shortage of stock. And as Andrew\nsaid himself, that the units that they've already built have not had any trouble selling, and they're not\nselling to people who necessarily have a mobility concern, they're selling to people who like not\nhaving stairs.\nBeth Kenny: So, I think 30-35% would be much more in line with what I would like to see. And\nthen, I would also like to see in that, that percentage is applied to town homes, and that town homes\naren't given a specific carve-out. And I admit I don't know about building, and maybe it's\nunrealistic, but I feel like, A, the city is saying. I don't know, the town homes, it's not the way\nthat\nthe city wants to be developing the city anyways, because they're just not very appealing way to\ndevelop, and I don't know why we should carve out a special exception for them, because I really\ndo believe that the elements of the Universal Design can be met in a very small square footage, just\ndesigned thoughtfully. So, those are the things that I was hoping for, and to kind of give you a little\nbit of background.\nBeth Kenny: The other things I wanted to talk about is that we're going to have to do some\neducating the public around Universal Design, and I already started talking to people when I'm in\nthe line at the Warriors game, or here, just because people don't know what Universal Design is, and\nI've seen a lot of people fear that we're going to change their houses into an ADA unit and I think\nwe really need to help people understand what Universal Design is.\nKerry Parker: So, kind of the beauty of the agenda building for this meeting is that it kind of\nforced the work group to create the more concise document that you see, it's three pages, and kind\n08/17/16\nPage 12 of 19", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-06-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2016-06-08", "page": 13, "text": "of abbreviates what all the Commission would really like to see Universal Design Ordinance. And\nwe were able to submit this to Andrew Thomas last week when we were building this agenda. So\nthey have it right, Planning Department has this document. And as they develop the draft that they\nwant to give you in about a week for you to consider for the work group, they are incorporating\nsuggestions into that document, so that when a subcommittee between the Planning Board and the\nCommission on Disability Issues meets, you guys will probably have some good ordinance\nlanguage to work with, the draft language will be more developed than the last time you saw it.\nKerry Parker: And the other thing to note is that they are scheduling the subcommittee meetings\nfor early July, for the first one right one. That'll be a subcommittee between the Planning Board and\nCDI regarding this, there will probably be a notice. Anyway, just so you know that this is now in\na\nlot more development than it was at only our last meeting, because this has now been submitted to\nthe Planning Board.\nAnto Aghapekian: And now one of the things I find, myself, I forget to even talk with you about, is\nfacilities for, or accommodations for people who are hearing or visual impaired. And I think they\ncan be achieved very economically, they're not very expensive. It's just said it has to be thought out\nand installed, taken care of.\nBeth Kenny: Yes. Again, I said, I don't know much about building and what sort of accessibility\ndevices that are out there, but I was wondering if lighting control and environmental controls,\nmaybe I was thinking that that might be what we were talking about in that. I was trying to\ncapture that by saying. But I don't know what is out there and what is important, so certainly if you\nhave experience with something that you know is important, or you have seen somebody else find\nimportant, please, please, please let us know as soon as possible, because we want to capture as\nmuch in this as possible.\nSusan Deutsch: I do think there are environmental roles, and I think right now, they're probably\nchanging, the technology is getting more high tech, but there are ways that people can control, they\ncan wirelessly turn the heat on, lights, having touch pads. My guess is that And also voice, talking\nto something. I know Google is coming out with something. I haven't really looked into what,\nGoogle home thing, but when I get But there are a lot of environmental control\nBeth Kenny: Yes. So the idea is to have those things there available or even just to be able to easily\nadd them without having to rewire the house or take on a major project, because modifications to a\nhouse because of a disability is not something you can write off on your taxes, the average home\nmodification is extremely expensive, and if you don't do it, you're also putting the caregivers at risk.\nAnd we're paying a huge amount to keep people in nursing homes who could live in their home if it\nwas accessible.\nAnto Aghapekian: My last comment is the model, we talked about the model. And more than\nanything, I think that an accessible model, a real actual life-sized model is much more important\nthan a regular model, because the people that need an accessible model, they need to walk in there,\nor they need to wheel themselves in there to experience the space, and to find out where the\ndoorbells are, to find out how the smoke detector works, for them to experience the spaces. And\nthat's not going to happen with a virtual reality thing that people are visualizing. So a real model, I\nthink, is a must for this universal.\n08/17/16\nPage 13 of 19", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-06-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2016-06-08", "page": 14, "text": "Beth Kenny: Yes. And so, what Anto's speaking about is an issue that I forgot to put on this\ndocument, and that is that CDI would definitely like to see a model home available that is designed\nuniversal, so that when you're looking at the model homes, you can go in and experience it. What\nhas been proposed is a brochure to a virtual reality experience of the home. But certainly if there's\ngoing to be model homes available, we feel that they should have a universal designed home as one\nof the model homes.\nSusan Deutsch: I don't think we can expect somebody to visualize it without actually feeling their\nwheelchair going through a doorway through.\nBeth Kenny: Yes, Arnold?\nArnold Brillinger: Yes. Beth, I've been in a wheelchair for four years, but I've only found out about\nUniversal Design being on the Commission here. And so I have done a lot of research, and I have\ngone into some of the new housing developments. I went into Marina Shores, and I went up and\ndown the streets and I started crying because each of them had a block of concrete at the front door\nthat kept me from going inside. So, not even thinking do I want to buy one, but if my friends buy\none, I can't go to visit them. If they want me to come over and see their new big screen TV, and\nwatch the game, they're going to have to rip the TV of the wall and haul it out to the garage, because\nthat's the only place that I can get into with my wheel chair.\nArnold Brillinger: So when we talk about visitability, we need to have it 100% on all of the things\nthat are built in Alameda. We love the homes that we have now, but with stairs of eight to 18, there's\nno way I'm going to get into one of those things. We don't need to keep on building homes on slabs\nwith a barricade in front of the front door. At Marina Shores they say, \"Everything is included.\" I\nwent over there and checked it out. Now I could get up into the office, when I asked for, \"Well, can\nI go and check out some of the models, because I want to see if I can turn around in a bathroom, or\nin the kitchen?\" I couldn't even get in. They didn't have a one that was accessible to a person with a\nwheelchair.\nArnold Brillinger: And I asked them for some information, they have a real nice, slick brochure\nabout their houses. And I said, \"What about the UDO items?\" Well, they gave me six sheets of kind\nof a boring. You know, it's not a pamphlet or anything, it's just six sheets of paper with some X\nmarks in front of things that they would put in if you wanted it. No pictures, no nothing. And I\nthought, \"Well, this is not going to sell a lot of UDO homes. This is going to just\n\"Everybody likes\nwhat they can see. So I didn't see anything. And I realize that Marina Shores was planned and built\na couple of years ago and stuff. But I went out to Alameda Point, and I've got to go again, because I\nwasn't sure that I was at the right area for finding the models, but there again, there's a lot of houses\nwith They don't necessarily have the step right in front of the threshold, but they've got it about\ntwo feet out. There's the step. So you're not even going to let me get to the door to ring the doorbell.\nIt just doesn't make sense, and Alameda needs to make sure that 100% of the Well, first of\nall,\nthere are only so many places to build homes in Alameda, and most of it is a flat area out there, and\nat the Point and so forth.\nArnold Brillinger: We need to make sure that all of those are built with Universal Design things\nincluded. We need to make sure, first of all, that they are all accessible through the front door, that\nit's wide enough so that people can drive in. It's not only for people in wheel chairs, it's also for\nmothers and their baby strollers, baby buggies and all that kind of thing. It's for people who are\n08/17/16\nPage 14 of 19", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-06-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2016-06-08", "page": 15, "text": "starting to feel a little wobbly when they walk. There are so many different reasons for having these\nthings. I mean, I've asked to be in on these kinds of things, because I will surely push for getting\nmore and more. Now when we talk about 20% or 25% or 30%, my question is on some of these\nthings, should we just follow the pack, or should we make Alameda stand out? And one day people\nwill look and they'll say, \"Look at Alameda, they've got this really great UDO.\" And, \"Let's even\nsurpass them, or get up to them.'\nArnold Brillinger: No reason for us to follow the pack, we don't have that many places. It's not like\nwe're in the Midwest where we just keep on spreading out over farmland or something. We only\nhave so many places, we need to say, \"Hey, we know that you want to build housing, but if you're\ngoing to do it in Alameda, you're going to have to do it in this way.\"\nBeth Kenny: Thank you, Arnold. I really appreciate what you had to say. Do any of the other\ncommissioners what to speak?\nAnto Aghapekian: I really liked the last part that you said, Arnold. Because I've seen some samples\nof what other cities are doing and what we should do, and I think that Alameda can do better than\nwhat other people are doing, or other counties and cities are doing. So I really appreciate what you\njust said.\nArnold Brillinger: We need to be leaders, people ought to say, \"Oh, there's a group there that could\nstick to their guns, and look what they've got. They've got a city where they've got a lot of units now\nthat have visitability. They've got a lot of units that are adaptable for whatever kind of people live in\nthose homes.\" Because if you buy yourself a place out there at Marina Shores for what, $1.2\nmillion, right? And it's not a real big footprint, but I'm sure they're real nice houses, but I'd like to\nget inside and see what they look like, and how innovative they are, but I can't get in there.\nBeth Kenny: Thank you, well said. Do we have any comment on this item?\nAudrey Lord-Hausman: Hi, my name is Audrey Lord-Hausman, past commissioner of this\nesteemed Commission. And the UDO has been top of my list for, let's see, since 2012. And I think\nthis is a great information sheet, and a lot of interesting items in here. I think through all of this\nsince 2012, the Commission has educated the community on a number of levels, I will say that.\nI\nknow more people talk about it now, and there's more interest out there from the general public, but\nhow do we reach them to get them sitting here, getting them to come to the planning meeting, the\nPlanning Board, whatever gatherings in order to speak to this. And I also think people still don't\nunderstand it exactly, in terms of it's not just persons with disabilities, it's the aging process, and\nissues that happen to all ages throughout our lives that are unexpected and change our lives\ndramatically.\nAudrey Lord-Hausman: And I think in the design area, that adaptability is key in the discussion,\nbecause people will say, \"Well, not everybody has a disability, so why do we have to put all of that\nstuff in there to start?\" Well, you don't have to do everything, but it has to be built with adaptability\nin mind. And so I think that's something that I would encourage the Commission as you're\ncontinuing the conversation, don't let some roadblocks come up from developers about, \"Well, we\ncan't do this, we can't do that.\" \"Well, wait a minute, why can't you built something with an\nadaptable design that a young healthy family can move in, and then either something happens or\nthey want to move a parent, or a grandparent in, or they sell it, and I want to move in, and I need to\n08/17/16\nPage 15 of 19", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-06-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2016-06-08", "page": 16, "text": "adapt it to meet my needs?\" So that is something that I think would be worth including in the\nconversation.\nAudrey Lord-Hausman: But yes, I commend you to keep the battle going, I hate to say battle, but\nit's time that this city stand up, become a leader, I absolutely agree, I would love to see Alameda\nheld up as an example of a city who said, \"You know, we're taking this seriously, and we are an\naging population here, and we want to keep people here.\" And if we don't take that seriously, the\ncity, the City Council, Planning Board, everybody doesn't stand up and say, \"This is important, and\nwe want to make it special, and we want to make sure that our people can stay here\", then that's to\neverybody's credit. So I would keep working hard, and keep pursuing this. And I think that we can\nget people to support this as it comes together, and then for the final kind of overview with the\nPlanning Board. Thank you.\nBeth Kenny: Thank you very much, Audrey. Alright, unless anyone else has anything to state on\nthat item I'd like to move onto staff communications.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nKerry Parker: Okay. So to say it again, we're going to cancel the August meeting in order to make\nroom for this meeting in September. Because right now we have six meetings a year, plus the\nretreats. And we used to have just four meetings a year, even though sometimes those would be\ncancelled. So, trying to be frugal with how we use our meetings. So, we imagine that the joint\nmeeting between the Planning Board and the CDI to be on September 26th, we'd normally schedule\nthe Planning Board meeting. And that the Planning Board will probably sit up here, and the\nCommission on Disability Issues would sit out here. And that we would do a presentation of a final\ndraft of the Universal Design Ordinance, that's our hope. And that there would be a vote up here, a\nvote over here. And that after that moment, it could go to Council. So, that's how we're kind of\nimagining, just so you are all aware.\nBeth Kenny: And I just want to point out, before that meeting, the work groups will have met with\na draft of the ordinance.\nKerry Parker: Yes. It will developed before that time, and you will probably be aware, either from\nemails from me, or an email from the group that would be publicly out there, that I guess the results\nof the subcommittee. You're going to be seeing that ordinance as it is being developed. So there's\nthat. That was one item that I had, the other item that I had was an email that I sent to you regarding\nForm 700, and the Sunshine Ordinance Declaration. I brought extra copies tonight, so please, if you\nhaven't submitted it to the City Clerk's office, come by, grab another form, and you can fill it out\nand hand it back to me, or you can mail it tomorrow, or whatever you'd like to do. But I tried to\nmake it a little more convenient by bringing it in today. And the sooner we can get those back, the\nbetter.\nKerry Parker: And then Oh, the luncheon that I forwarded to you, that I received from Jim Franz\nregarding the City of Alameda's Social Service Human Relations Board having a luncheon on June\n22nd at the Alameda Free Library. I sent you an email about it, if you want more information, go\nahead and email me or call me in Public Works and I can get you more information. They do\nrequest RSVP, but it's not required\n08/17/16\nPage 16 of 19", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-06-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2016-06-08", "page": 17, "text": "Beth Kenny: Great. Thank you, Kerry.\n7.\nANNOUNCEMENTS\nBeth Kenny: Now we move on to announcements. I know that the event work group has been\nmeeting, and I believe you have..\nLa Donna Franco: Well, [chuckle] Okay, so the work group consist of myself and Arnold, and\nTony with us. And so we have been planning to be present for the next Park Street Festival. And the\nvision is to, for example, be more visible as a Commission, and to offer information to the public,\nsuch as video information, and be more visible on an ongoing basis through events like this, and\nalso developing partnerships with other Commission boards. And we're in the planning process of\nthat, and we've each agreed to have Fulfill some roles, and so, we should have some more\ninformation shortly, and it would be wonderful From UDO, and a short brochure or kind of\na\npamphlet offering that.\nBeth Kenny: Yes, that would definitely be a great way to get some information out there about\nwhat Universal Design is, and what the city is considering. I really like that idea, and I would be\nwilling to come and work at that at any point.\nLa Donna Franco: You want to add anything, Arnold?\nArnold Brillinger: I just wanted to add, I've been to places like ADA Pacific. First, I contacted\nthem and had them mail me some things, some information on what they do and so forth. Then I\nwent in there one day when I And I just kind of raided their publications closet. I got some stuff\non the service animals, I got some stuff on other items, I even got some pens. I gave them all to\nKerry. I got like 80 of those pens, they're advertisement for ADA Pacific, but they're still things that\nwe can hand out, and probably, maybe we'll even get something that has CDI on it, and the phone\nnumber for Kerry's office, and the web pages and all that kind of stuff. And I think that this would\nbe a great time for us to hand out and they sent me some electronic files on visitability. Well, they've\ngot two pages and four pages, and I thought we'll get a two pager, put it on both sides of one piece\nof paper, have big stacks of these available on the table. And people can read them on the way\nhome, or take them home and read them there. And we need to be able to get out those things that\nwe are interested in, or that concern us. We ought to get them out so that everyone knows. And\nsomewhere I saw. Was it in your thing here, Beth? About writing letters to the editor?\nBeth Kenny: Yes.\nArnold Brillinger: Right? Well, I started a letter a couple of weeks ago after I went out to the\nhousing. And starting writing, and it turned into not really a letter, it turned into more like a novel.\nSo I've got to cut it down. But it is a way for people to get that information.\nBeth Kenny: Great, thank you. And I really appreciate it. I know this group has been working hard,\nbecause I've been in on your emails. So thank you for all of the work that you guys are doing. And\nplease let the group know anytime that we can help you out, I know you'll probably need people to\nhelp staff the table in July.\n08/17/16\nPage 17 of 19", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-06-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2016-06-08", "page": 18, "text": "La Donna Franco: So, yes. Thank you for bringing that up. We'll be looking at considering some\nrotations for the day, for the two day event. So we haven't finalized anything, we know that we will\nneed some help with that, to rotate, or volunteers.\nArnold Brillinger: And we're hoping to spread it among maybe the planning, or the Transportation\nCommission, or to Mastick, anybody that wants to make themselves known in the community also.\nBeth Kenny: Do you have the dates of that event in July?\nLa Donna Franco: So, let's see, July 30th and 31st on Park Street.\nArnold Brillinger: When is the Neptune thing? Is that coming up in June?\nKerry Parker: 18th and 19th of June. So, yes, Father's Day weekend.\nArnold Brillinger: Yes. So maybe we need to kind of do a preliminary, and then see what kind of\nproblems we come up with\nLa Donna Franco: A dry run?\nKerry Parker: It's worth calling them and finding out what a booth might cost.\nArnold Brillinger: Because that's WABA, right?\nKerry Parker: Yes.\nArnold Brillinger: Yes, okay.\nKerry Parker: Actually sorry, no, it's the Chamber of Commerce.\nArnold Brillinger: Oh, okay.\nBeth Kenny: Alright.\nKerry Parker: And we kind of talked about those sorts of logistics. But yes, we've been talking\nabout it a little bit, but I have some thoughts on it, and so does Beth.\nArnold Brillinger: Okay.\nBeth Kenny: Does anyone else have any announcements?\nSusan Deutsch: I just want to let everyone know, I went to a library board meeting. I was just\nimpressed with what they offer for people with print disabilities, people with literacy challenges.\nThey have a lot of screen readers, they have a lot of groups for children. They're not planning any\nbig changes in the future, but they sent me an email inviting me to the meeting, to get to know me.\nAnd they just shared a lot, the technology that they have and the programs that they have for\nliteracy and discipline. I've been also invited to the park rec, but it was on the same night as the\nlibrary, so I couldn't go to that one. And then they have another meeting tomorrow, which is going\n08/17/16\nPage 18 of 19", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-06-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2016-06-08", "page": 19, "text": "to be difficult to have two meetings in a row, but if anybody wants to go to that meeting, park and\nrec tomorrow night.\nBeth Kenny: I think I can take that.\nSusan Deutsch: I will come too.\nBeth Kenny: Okay.\nLa Donna Franco: When is the next library board meeting?\nSusan Deutsch: I don't know.\nLa Donna Franco: Do you think I can find it online?\nSusan Deutsch: I just connected with them and I will let you know when I get something.\nBeth Kenny: Alright, so are there any other announcements? Well, then I think we're ready to\nadjourn. And I want to say that this was a very good meeting, thank you, everybody.\nLa Donna Franco: Thank you.\nKerry Parker: Concise! Good work!\nBeth Kenny: Thank you.\n8.\nADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 8:08 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nKerry Parker\nCity Staff Liaison\nCommission on Disability Issues\n08/17/16\nPage 19 of 19", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-06-08.pdf"}