Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Davies, associate director and architect within PVA; from NAHB, Charles Field, staff vice president; Rhonda Daniels, staff attorney; from OMB, John Morral and Wendy Sherwin; from the Council on Competitiveness, Allan Hubbard and John Howard.

The meeting lasted approximately 1 hour. We discussed the proposed guidelines and focused on issues that we felt were still unresolved with HUD. OMB officials and Council staff indicated that our analysis was singular in its comprehensiveness and documentation of facts on the issue of housing accessibility. We explained how the changes we were seeking provided better accessibility for persons with disabilities at less cost. This meeting was the first and only time PVA met with or spoke to someone on the Council.

A summary of the recommended changes are as follows: One, site impracticality tests: The HUD site impracticality test was unworkable. It simply didn't make sense. Moreover, it could be easily manipulated to avoid compliance.

In contrast, the NCCSCI-NAHB impracticality test was simple and objective. It responded to unique regional differences throughout the United States. Site development costs due to excessive grading were minimized. It guaranteed that every multifamily housing project covered under the act had a reasonable number of accessible units. And, in no case, on the worst site, would there be less than 20 percent of the ground floor units accessible.

Two, bathrooms: HUD guidelines for accessible bathrooms did not require sufficient maneuvering space for someone in a wheelchair. Recognizing that additional maneuvering space would increase the size of a typical bathroom, the NCCSCI-NAHB recommendation called for a minimum of one bathroom in each covered dwelling unit to meet a more stringent standard.

Dwelling unit interior doors, point three: HUD's requirement for 32-inch doorway widths meant that 36-inch-wide_doors would be required. NCCSCI-NAHB recommended a more flexible standard that considered maneuvering space in addition to door width.

Four, floor level changes: A strict interpretation of the HUD rule would result in the effective elimination of multifamily dwelling units with design features such as lofts and sunken living rooms. In addition, a low curb or step at doors to balconies or terraces would be prohibited, even though some building codes allow the step to control water penetration.

NCCSCI-NAHB recommended that where balcony or terrace surfaces were made of impervious material, such as concrete or brick, a maximum 4-inch step is permitted to protect the physical integrity of the unit. A small wood ramp or laydown deck could be provided for the occupant to create the wheelchair access to the balcony on an as-needed basis.

The significance of those changes are as follows: One, the site impracticality tests were substantially improved and guaranteed a minimum of 20 percent of the ground floor units to be accessible regardless of site constraints. More accessible units were guaranteed under the NCCSCI test than under the HUD test.

No. 2, larger bathrooms are encouraged by the revised guidelines. Persons with disabilities are more interested in one bathroom that works than two that don't.

No. 3, HUD clarified the requirement for 32-inch doorways_by specifying that a 34-inch door will satisfy the requirement. The NCCSCI-NAHB recommendation to consider maneuvering space was rejected.

Four, HUD clarified that it was not the intent of Congress to eliminate popular design features from multifamily housing; specifically, lofts and sunken living rooms. It should be noted that only a fraction of a percentage of multifamily housing each year contains such features. Regarding the limited use of the 4-inch maximum step at balconies and patios, the level change can be overcome with a portable ramp or wood deck on an as-needed basis.

There were other NAHB recommendations that were rejected by HUD that we believe improved accessibility. They include: A requirement for 1 foot, 6-inch clearance on the latch side of the dwelling unit entry door and in at least one bedroom and one bathroom. This requirement would have significantly improved accessibility within the dwelling unit.

Two, they rejected the requirement for accessibility into swimming pools, not just to the swimming pool. Three, they rejected the requirement for accessible van parking when structured parking is the only parking facility provided. All those points improved accessibility, and they were rejected.

Changes to the guidelines sought by the Paralyzed Veterans of America were intended to provide quality accessibility for persons with disabilities at a cost that is still affordable. For persons with disabilities, the economic barriers are just as real as the physical barriers. Removing physical barriers in a way that adversely affects housing affordability runs contrary to the intent of the act and the interest of the act.

In our view, changes were responsible actions based on our experience in addressing the needs of PVA's members and other persons with disabilities and other individuals who have had catastrophic disability due to spinal cord injury or dysfunction.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be happy to try and respond to any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beasley follows:]

PVA

PARALYZED VETERANS

OF AMERICA

Chartered by the Congress of the United States

STATEMENT OF

KIM BEASLEY, DIRECTOR OF ARCHITECTURE AND BARRIER FREE DESIGN

PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION AND NATIONAL SECURITY

OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

CONCERNING THE

ROLE OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

AND THE

COUNCIL ON COMPETITIVENESS

AND THE

FAIR HOUSING ACT ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES

JUNE 30, 1992

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the members of
Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), I want to thank you for the opportunity to give

801 Eighteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) USA-1300 Fax: (202) 785-4452

testimony regarding the role of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Council on Competitiveness (the Council) and PVA's involvement in the development

and promulgation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines.

My name is Kim Allen Beasley, Director of Architecture and Barrier Free Design for the Paralyzed Veterans of America and I am accompanied today by Douglas K. Vollmer, Associate Executive Director for Government Relations. PVA is a Congressionally charted veterans service organization with over 15,000 members all of whom have experienced catastrophic spinal cord injury or dysfunction and all are individuals with disabilities as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Mr. Chairman, throughout the forty-six year history of PVA we have advocated on behalf of our members, all disabled veterans and all citizens with disabilities in an effort to achieve a truly barrier free environment and to maximize the independence of all Americans.

As requested by the Subcommittee, I am pleased to present testimony today regarding the role of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Council on Competitiveness relative to the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. And, in response to your questions I will convey the significance to persons with disabilities of changes made in the

proposed final Guidelines. In addition, I will describe the meeting PVA had with the Council on Competitiveness.

Before I address these specific points, PVA feels that it is important for this committee to understand the events that led up the meeting with the Council.

In March, 1989, shortly after promulgation of final HUD regulations in January, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) requested a meeting with PVA to discuss the final rule. Both organizations agreed that the regulatory language was vague, and lacked sufficient guidance to the housing industry while not ensuring the availability of accessible, affordable housing for PVA's members and other persons with disabilities.

PVA working within the framework of the National Coordinating Council on Spinal Cord Injury (NCCSCI), agreed to work with NAHB, and offer technical assistance to HUD in developing the final Guidelines. NCCSCI is comprised of 14 organizations who represent a significant number of Americans with severely impaired mobility. A sixmember task force was assembled from representatives of both NCCSCI and NAHB. Our purpose was to bring together the perspective of both provider and consumer, develop and recommend a mutually satisfactory set of draft guidelines, and forward the recommendations to HUD for consideration. PVA, because of our technical staff

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »