FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION
FLORIDA ACCESSIBILITY CODE WORKGROUP
October
12, 2009—Meeting IV
Embassy Suites Hotel; 3705 Spectrum Boulevard, Tampa Florida 33612; 1.813.977.7066
Meeting Objectives
ü
To Approve
Regular Procedural Topics (Agenda and Summary Report)
ü
To Review Proposed
Integration of Florida Specific Requirements
ü
To Discuss
and Evaluate Level of Acceptability of Proposed Integration into SAD
ü
To Adopt
Integration Recommendations for Submittal to Commission
ü
To Consider
Public Comment
ü
To Identify
Needed Next Steps and Agenda Items for Next Meeting
All
Agenda Times—Including Public Comment and Adjournment—Are Subject to Change
Meeting Agenda
1:00 Welcome
and Opening
Agenda Review and Approval
August 10, 2009 Facilitator’s
Summary Report Approval
Review
and Discussion of Integration of Florida Specific Requirements into SAD
Discussion on
integration of vertical accessibility, s.553.509, into the 2004 ADAAG
Review of integration of any other
Florida Specific Requirements into the 2004 ADAAG
General
Public Comment
Adoption of Recommendations for
Integration of FL Specific Requirements into SAD
Review of Workgroup
Delivery and Meeting Schedule
Next Steps: Agenda
Items, Needed Information, Assignments, Date and Location
Adjourn
Contact Information and Project Webpage
Jeff Blair: jblair@fsu.edu ; http://consensus.fsu.edu/FBC/accessibility-code.html
Florida
Accessibility Code Workgroup
Donald Dawkins, Bemmie
Eustace, Kiko Franco, Skip Gregory, Jeff Gross, Jon Hamrick,
Jack Humburg, Diana
Ibarra, Julia Kates, Chris Masal, Sharon Mignardi, John O'Conner, Barbara Page,
Catherine Powell, Ben Ritter, Larry Schneider, Jim Schock, Shelly Siegal, Julie
Shaw, Randy Vann,
Steve Watson, and Phillip
Wisely.
Meeting Schedule for 2009:
February 2, April 6, August
10, and October 12, 2009.
OVERVIEW AND PROJECT SCOPE
The scope of the Workgroup is to develop
recommendations for amending the Florida Accessibility Code for Building
Construction once the US Department of Justice completes its adoption of the
next generation of the ADA Accessibility Standards. The task is to
integrate the relevant Florida standards in ss. 553.501-553.513, F.S., into the
2004 ADAAG as adopted by 28 CFR 36 (prospective). Although DOJ's process is not
complete, the Workgroup will begin with the 2004 ADAAG and modify the new draft
FACBC to reflect DOJ's amendments when those are available.
The process for developing the new
Accessibility Code will be divided into major tasks as follows:
Task 1:
Integration of Florida standards located in the
current Florida Accessibility Code into sections of the 2004 ADAAG that have a
one for one parallel section.
Task 2:
Deciding what to do with Florida standards that
are in sections/subsections of 1994 SAD that do not have a one for one parallel
section in the 2004 ADAAG.
Task 3:
Integration of Florida standards into new
sections in the 2004 ADAAG that have no parallel in the Florida Accessibility
Code (e.g., recreational facilities).
Task 4:
Revising the draft Florida Accessibility Code
based on the 2004 ADAAG for changes made by DOJ in its rule making.
Workgroup Adopted Project Strategy Consistent with Project Scope
The Workgroup voted
unanimously, 18 - 0 in favor, to integrate all current Florida Specific
requirements into the Proposed DOJ SAD (Standards for Accessible Design), June
2008, and concurrently identify issues that should be discussed for possible
recommendations regarding Florida Specific requirements and ancillary topics, to
be forwarded to the Legislature.
Project Documents
DOJ SAD, June 2008,
“Proposed ADA Standards for Accessible Design”.
FACBC 2009, “Florida
Accessibility Code for Building Construction”.
ACCESSIBILITY CODE FLORIDA SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
INTEGRATION PAGE INDEX
LOCATION
OF COMMENTS IN DRAFT INTEGRATED ADAAG/FLORIDA
PARKING
Section 101.4 Code construction P.2
Section 202.3 Parking scope P.
17
Section 208.1.1 Parking P.
31
Section 208.2.3 Residential parking P. 32
Section 208.3.1 Parking spaces P.
33
Section 208.3.3 Parking P.
34
Section 208.3.4 Parking P.
34
Section 208.3.3.1 P.
34
Section 209.2.1.1 Parking
and loading zones P.
35
Section 502.1.1 Parking P.
101
Section 502.2 Alternate Van Space Width P.
101
Figure 502.2 Parking space P.
102
Section 502.2.1 Parallel parking P.
101
Section 502.2.4 Curb ramps P.
101
Section 502.3 Access aisle P.
103
Figure 502.3 Parking space P.
102
Figure 9(a) Parking (agrees
fig is ok) P.
103
Section 502.3.5 Parking space P. 104
Section 502.8 Parking P. 104
OTHER
Section 101.2 Barrier Removal P.
2
Section 201.1 Dates P.
16
Section 202.1.1 Churches P. 16
Section 202.1.1 Conflict
with law P.
17
Section 206.2.5 4. Renumbering P.
25
Section 207.1 Accessible means of egress P.
30
Section 207.2 Platform lifts P.
31
Section 217.1 Public telephones P.
41
Section 226.1.3 Seating in assembly areas P.
50
Table 224.2 Hotel guest rooms P.
48
Section 227.2 Check out aisles P. 50
Section 233.3.6 Toilet room door width P. 55
Section 303.4 Ramps P.
62
Section 404.1 Door width P.
73
Section 406.1.2 Numbering P.
84
Section 406.3 Sides of Curb Ramps P. 84
Section 505.10.1.1 Ramp extensions P. 110
Section 1001 Amusement rides and parks P.
170
VERTICAL ACCESS
Section 202.1 Vertical accessibility P. 16
Section 202.3 Alterations P.
17
Section 202.3 Vertical accessibility P. 17
Section 202.4 Vertical accessibility P. 17
Section 203.1 Construction sites P.
18
Section 203.3 Vertical
accessibility P.
18
Section 203.4 Vertical accessibility P. 18
Section 203.5 Vertical accessibility P. 18
Section 203.6 Vertical accessibility P. 19
Section 203.7 Vertical accessibility P. 19
Section 203.8 Vertical accessibility P. 19
Section 203.9 Vertical accessibility P. 19
Section 203.10 Vertical accessibility P.
19
Section 203.11 Vertical accessibility P. 20
Section 203.12 Vertical accessibility P. 20
Section 203.13 Vertical accessibility P. 20
Section 203.14 Vertical accessibility P. 20
Section 203.15 Vertical accessibility P. 20
Section 206.1.1 Residential elevators P. 21
Section 206.2.3 Accessible route P.
22
Section 206.2.7 Accessible route P.
23
Section 207.2.7 Accessible route P.
23
Section 206.2.4 Vertical accessibility P. 25
Section
206.4.5 Tenant spaces-Vertical Access P.
28
Section 240.1 Play equipment P. 59
Section
405.7.3 Ramp landing length P. 82
NOT APPLICABLE
EXISTING 28 CFR 36, SUBPARTS A & D
106.5 Defined terms
Commerce P.
7
Commercial Facility P.
8
Disabilities P.
8
Path of Travel P.
10
Place of Public
Accommodation P.
10
Primary Function P.
11
Professional Office of
Health Care Provider P.
12
Shopping Center and
Shopping Mall P.
13
CHANGES TO 28 CFR 36, SUBPARTS A & D, PER DOJ
2008 NPRM
106.5 Defined terms
Existing facility P. 9
Place of Lodging P.
10
Qualified small business P.
12
202.1 Existing Building.
General P.
16
202.1.1 Path of Travel upgrade P.
16
221.1 Assembly areas P.
44
228.1 Medical Care Facilities P. 46
224.1 Transient Lodging Guest Rooms P.
47
233.1 Residential Facility P.
53
ACCESSIBILITY CODE WORKGROUP PROCEDURAL
GUIDELINES
PARTICIPANTS’ ROLE
ü
The Workgroup
process is an opportunity to explore possibilities. Offering or exploring an
idea does not necessarily imply support for it.
ü
Listen to
understand. Seek a shared understanding even if you don’t agree.
ü
Be focused
and concise—balance participation & minimize repetition. Share the airtime.
ü
Look to the
facilitator(s) to be recognized. Please raise your hand to speak.
ü
Speak one
person at a time. Please don’t interrupt each other.
ü
Focus on
issues, not personalities. Avoid stereotyping or personal attacks.
ü
To the extent
possible, offer options to address other’s concerns, as well as your own.
ü
Participate
fully in discussions, and complete meeting assignments as requested.
ü
Serve as an
accessible liaison, and represent and communicate with member’s constituent
group(s).
FACILITATORS’ ROLE (FCRC Consensus Center @ FSU)
ü
Design and
facilitate a participatory workgroup process.
ü
Assist the
Workgroup to build consensus on a package of recommendations for delivery to
the Florida Building Commission.
ü
Provide process
design and procedural recommendations to staff and the Workgroup.
ü
Assist
participants to stay focused and on task.
ü
Assure that
participants follow ground rules.
ü
Prepare and
post agenda packets, worksheets and meeting summary reports.
GUIDELINES FOR BRAINSTORMING
ü
Speak when
recognized by the Facilitator(s).
ü
Offer one
idea per person without explanation.
ü
No comments,
criticism, or discussion of other's ideas.
ü
Listen
respectively to other's ideas and opinions.
ü
Seek
understanding and not agreement at this point in the discussion.
THE NAME STACKING PROCESS
ü
Determines
the speaking order.
ü
Participant
raises hand to speak. Facilitator(s) will call on participants in turn.
ü
Facilitator(s)
may interrupt the stack (change the speaking order) in order to promote discussion
on a specific issue or, to balance participation and allow those who have not
spoken on an issue an opportunity to do so before others on the list who have
already spoken on the issue.
ACCEPTABILITY RANKING SCALE
During the meetings,
members will be asked to develop and rank options, and following
discussions and
refinements, may be asked to do additional rankings of the options if requested
by members and staff. Please be prepared to offer specific refinements or
changes to address your reservations. The following scale will be utilized for
the ranking exercises:
WORKGROUP’S CONSENSUS PROCESS
The Workgroup will seek
to develop a package of consensus-based recommendations for submittal to the
Florida Building Commission. General
consensus is a participatory process whereby, on matters of substance, the members
strive for agreements which all of the members can accept, support, live with
or agree not to oppose. In instances where, after vigorously
exploring possible ways to enhance the members’ support for the final decision
on a recommendation, and the Workgroup finds that 100% acceptance or support is
not achievable, final decisions will require at least 75% favorable vote of all
members present and voting. This
super majority decision rule underscores the importance of actively developing
consensus throughout the process on substantive issues with the participation
of all members and which all can live with.
In instances where the Workgroup finds that even 75% acceptance or
support is not achievable, publication of recommendations will include
documentation of the differences and the options that were considered for which
there is more than 50% support from the Workgroup.
The Workgroup will
develop its recommendations using consensus-building techniques with the
assistance of the facilitator.
Techniques such as brainstorming, ranking and prioritizing approaches
will be utilized. Where differences
exist that prevent the Workgroup from reaching a final consensus decision (i.e.
with support of at least 75% of the members) on a recommendation, the Workgroup
will outline the differences in its documentation.
The Workgroup’s consensus
process will be conducted as an open process consistent with applicable
law. Workgroup members, staff, and
facilitator will be the only participants seated at the table. Only Workgroup
members may participate in discussions and vote on proposals and
recommendations. The facilitator, or a Workgroup member through the
facilitator, may request specific clarification from a member of the public in
order to assist the Workgroup in understanding an issue. Observers/members of the public are welcome to speak during the
public comment period provided at each meeting, and all comments submitted on
the public comment forms provided in the agenda packets will be included in the
facilitator’ summary reports.
Facilitator will work
with staff and Workgroup members to design agendas and worksheets that will be
both efficient and effective. The staff
will help the Workgroup with information and meeting logistics.
To enhance the
possibility of constructive discussions as members educate themselves on the
issues and engage in consensus-building, members agree to refrain from public
statements that may prejudge the outcome of the Workgroup’s consensus
process. In discussing the Workgroup
process with the media, members agree to be careful to present only their own
views and not the views or statements of other participants. In addition, in
order to provide balance to the Workgroup process, members agree to represent
and consult with their stakeholder interest groups.