Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports·Decided March 31, 1988·No. 87-702·Published

Opinion

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

State of California

JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP

Attorney General

------------------------------ : OPINION : : of : : JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP : No. 87-702 Attorney General : : MARCH 31, 1988 RODNEY O. LILYQUIST : Deputy Attorney General : : -----------------------------------------------------------------

THE HONORABLE JOHN VASCONCELLOS, MEMBER, CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY, has requested an opinion on the following question:

Does state law require public buildings to contain assistive listening systems for use by hearing-impaired persons?

CONCLUSION

State law does not now require public buildings to contain assistive listening systems for use by hearing impaired persons but does authorize the State Architect to promulgate regulations which would require assistive listening systems in new public buildings and those to which alteration, repairs or additions are to be made.

ANALYSIS

The term "assistive listening system" refers to a type of sound reinforcement equipment that allows a person with a severe hearing impairment to hear what is being spoken into a microphone normally used in a large room or auditorium. Such a system eliminates the acoustical space between the sound source and the listener, thereby avoiding background noise while amplifying the desired sound for the individual. The most common system transmits an FM broadcast frequency which the listener receives on an individual receiver. The question presented for analysis is whether state law requires public buildings to contain assistive listening systems for use by hearing-impaired persons. We conclude that such systems are not presently required under state law.

In 1984 the Legislature found "that over 1.5 million persons in California are deaf or suffer from significant hearing impairment." (Unemp. Ins. Code, § 11000; Stats. 1984, ch. 1157, § 1; see Welf. & Inst. Code, § 10620.) Without calculating precise figures, it is apparent that a number of Californians would benefit from the installation of assistive listening systems in public buildings.

Beginning in 1968 the Legislature enacted several statutory schemes designed to grant disabled persons "the same right as the able-bodied to the full and free use of . . . public places." (Civ. Code, § 54; see City and County of San Francisco v. Grant Co. (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1085, 1089-1090; Martin v. City of Los Angeles (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 559, 561- 562; People ex rel. Deukmejian v. CHE, Inc. (1983) 150 Cal.App.3d 123, 131-132; Marsh v. Edwards Theatres Circuit, Inc. (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 881, 886-887.) As the Supreme Court noted in In re Marriage of Carney (1979) 24 Cal.3d 725, 740, these various statutes "pursue the commendable goal of total integration of handicapped persons into the mainstream of society . . . ."

Unlike other statutory schemes in which the Legislature has defined "physically disabled persons" or "handicapped persons" with some particularity (see, e.g., Bus. & Prof. Code, § 125.6; Ed. Code, § 78600; Gov. Code, §§ 12926, 19231, 19702; Health & Saf. Code, §§ 250.5, 50072, 50685; Ins. Code, § 11628.5; Pen. Code, § 1203.09; Pub. Util. Code, § 99206.5, Rev. & Tax. Code, § 17262; Veh. Code, § 22511.5; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 19151.), the statutes dealing with the access and use of public buildings by disabled persons do not clearly define the group of persons coming within their scope.

The principal statutory scheme regarding access to and use of public buildings by disabled persons is Government Code sections 4450-4458.1 Section 4450 states:

"It is the purpose of this chapter to insure that all buildings, structures, sidewalks, curbs, and related facilities, constructed in this state by the use of state, county, or municipal funds, or the funds of any political subdivision of the state shall be accessible to and usable by the physically handicapped. The State Architect shall adopt and submit proposed building standards for approval pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 18935) of Part 2.5 of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code and shall adopt other regulations for making buildings, structures, sidewalks, curbs, and related facilities accessible to and

1 All references hereafter to the Government Code are by section number only.

2. 87-702

usable by the physically handicapped. The regulations and building standards relating to access for the physically handicapped shall be consistent with the standards for buildings and structures which are contained in pertinent provisions of the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the International Conference of Building Officials, and such regulations and building standards shall contain such additional requirements relating to buildings, structures, sidewalks, curbs, and other related facilities as the State Architect determines are necessary to assure access and usability for the physically handicapped. In developing and revising such additional requirements, the State Architect shall consult with the State Department of Rehabilitation, the League of California Cities, the County Supervisors Association of California, and at least one private organization representing and comprised of physically handicapped persons."

Not all public buildings constructed with public funds are subject to this legislative scheme. Generally, the requirements for access and use are applicable only to "buildings and facilities stated in Section 4450 intended for use by the public, which have any reasonable availability to, or usage by, physically handicapped persons." (§ 4451, subd. (a).) Physical changes in existing buildings are not required by this statutory scheme, only new construction and alterations, structural repairs or additions to existing buildings made after November 13, 1968 come within the scope of the legislation. (§ 4456; Martin v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 162 Cal.App.3d 559, 564, fn. 1; Marsh v. Edwards Theatres Circuit, Inc. supra, 64 Cal.App.3d 881, 888.)

In 59 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 324 (1976) we concluded that a person with a hearing impairment was a "physically handicapped" person as that term was used in section 4450. (Id. at p. 328.) We stated:

" . . . pursuant to Government Code section 4450 the State Architect has the authority to adopt standards for making publicly funded buildings, structures, curbs, sidewalks and related facilities accessible to and usable by all physically handicapped persons, including those with visual or auditory handicaps, . . ." (Ibid.)

We reaffirm our prior conclusion; it effectuates the evident intent of the Legislature and is supported by recent case authority. (See §§ 12940, 19702; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 125.6; Ins. Code, § 11628.5; Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 22, §§ 98250, 98253; People ex rel. Deukmejian v. CHE, Inc., supra, 150 Cal.App.3d 123, 133-135; Marsh v. Edwards Theatres, Circuit Inc., supra, 64 Cal.Ap.3d 881, 887-890; Webster's New Internat. Dict. (3d ed. 1967) pp. 642, 1027.)

Returning, then, to section 4450, we find that it specifies the adoption of two different types of access and use regulations by the State Architect -- those that are "building

3. 87-702

standards" and those that are not. The basic definition of a "building standard" is contained in Health and Safety Code section 18909, subdivision (a):

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion, (Cal. 1988).

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion (Untitled California Attorney General Opinion) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Estate of Banerjee
580 P.2d 657 (California Supreme Court, 1978)
In Re Marriage of Carney
598 P.2d 36 (California Supreme Court, 1979)
Peninsula Corporation v. United States
60 F. Supp. 174 (District of Columbia, 1945)
People Ex Rel. Deukmejian v. CHE, Inc.
150 Cal. App. 3d 123 (California Court of Appeal, 1983)
City and County of San Francisco v. Grant Co.
181 Cal. App. 3d 1085 (California Court of Appeal, 1986)
Romak Iron Works v. Prudential Insurance of America
104 Cal. App. 3d 767 (California Court of Appeal, 1980)
Eckis v. Sea World Corp.
64 Cal. App. 3d 1 (California Court of Appeal, 1976)
Marsh v. Edwards Theatres Circuit, Inc.
64 Cal. App. 3d 881 (California Court of Appeal, 1976)
Martin v. City of Los Angeles
162 Cal. App. 3d 559 (California Court of Appeal, 1984)
People v. Levinson
155 Cal. App. Supp. 3d 13 (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, 1984)