Saturday, September 16, 2006

Welcome to the Accessible Communities Web Log!

Welcome California Communities!
Together and individually we can help California Communities become useable for every person and every ability!

Haven't Removed your BARRIERS? I see
a werry spensive problem in your future!
SmileyCentral.com
On December 30, 2006, six thousand [6000] days will have passed since
the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Just One Dollar [$1.00] a day would have provided over ten thousand dollars
of BARRIER REMOVAL when coupled with Federal Tax Credits and deductions.
What are you waiting for?

Thursday, August 18, 2005

Report SR-949XX

City of San Rafael - Complaint - Access Violations - 3rd and Lootens Parking Garage
8/18/2005
Summary:
As explained in the attached City of San Rafael Complaint Form, recently, when using the walkway to get to my vehicle after leaving San Rafael Joe's Restaurant on 4th Street, I came to an abrupt stop and actually fell out of my wheelchair due to the illegal trench drain at the bottom of the illegally designed walkway (a ramp - the walkway is clearly steeper than 5% - with no interim level landings and no handrails).

Although I understand that the City of San Rafael is under direction from the U.S. Department of Justice to correct violations within that facility by August 5, 2006, that requirement doesn't respond to my complaint and the fact that the City of San Rafael has a very unsafe condition in the non-complying walkway and the connecting gutter at the base of the walkway where the walkway connects to the garage. Additionally, although the U.S. DOJ complaint describes the violations within the garage, apparently the individual who inspected the garage didn't review the walkway that I described in my complaint.
-----------Begin full report--------

Re: City of San Rafael - Complaint - Access Violations - 3rd and Lootens Parking Garage
Date:8/18/2005
From:rmskaff@comcast.net
To:Rod.Gould@ci.san-rafael.ca.us, Eric.Davis@ci.san-rafael.ca.us, Ken.Nordhoff@ci.san-rafael.ca.us
CC:Scott.Schneider@ci.san-rafael.ca.us, Peter.Siggins@GOV.CA.GOV, SHELLEY.CURRAN@SEN.CA.GOV, Kevin.Baker@asm.ca.gov, mazz@ACCESS-BOARD.GOV, janet.l.blizard@usdoj.gov, Alberto.Gonzalez@doj.ca.gov, frederickd.isler@fhwa.dot.gov, Brenda.Armstead@fhwa.dot.gov, Karen.Bobo@fhwa.dot.gov, michael.winter@fta.dot.gov
______________________________
8/18/05

Mr. Ken Nordhoff
Assistant City Manager/ADA Coordinator
City of San Rafael
1400 5th Avenue
San Rafael, California

Mr. Nordhoff,

As you can see, I have copied and pasted your letter to me which responds to my attached complaint regarding the 3rd and Lootens Streets City of San Rafael Parking Garage and public walkway from 4th Street to that garage. As explained in the attached City of San Rafael Complaint Form, recently, when using the walkway to get to my vehicle after leaving San Rafael Joe's Restaurant on 4th Street, I came to an abrupt stop and actually fell out of my wheelchair due to the illegal trench drain at the bottom of the illegally designed walkway (a ramp - the walkway is clearly steeper than 5% - with no interim level landings and no handrails).

Although I understand that the City of San Rafael is under direction from the U.S. Department of Justice to correct violations within that facility by August 5, 2006, that requirement doesn't respond to my complaint and the fact that the City of San Rafael has a very unsafe condition in the non-complying walkway and the connecting gutter at the base of the walkway where the walkway connects to the garage. Additionally, although the U.S. DOJ complaint describes the violations within the garage, apparently the individual who inspected the garage didn't review the walkway that I described in my complaint.

There is no reason for me to meet with you as you suggested. The access violations are very apparent to anyone knowledgeable about state and federal access codes and regulations. Within the next ten days, please provide me with a response as to what the City of San Rafael is going to immediately do to resolve the extremely dangerous condition I have described in this email. If I don't receive a response which indicates that the City of San Rafael will make immediate modifications to correct the dangerous pathway conditions described in my complaint, I will be forced to take immediate legal actions. The City of San Rafael has been put on notice!

Thank you.

Richard Skaff
303 Ashton Lane
Mill Valley, Ca. 94941
Voice & Fax: 415-389-8628Mobile: 415-497-1091
Email: rmskaff@comcast.net
----------------------------------
August 17, 2005
Richard Skaff303 Ashton LaneMill Valley, CA 94941
Re: Accessibility Complaint – 3rd @ Lootens City Owned Structure
Dear Mr. Skaff: Thank you for taking time to point out ADA accessible parking space issues in the 3rd @ Lootens Parking Structure and the adjacent path of travel leading to 4th street. I have asked our City staff to take a look at this location once again in response to your compliant.

Parking spaces at this location were examined by the Department of Justice as part of their Project Civic Access completed last year. Those parking spaces that had ADA accessibility compliance issues are included as items to be resolved in a Settlement Agreement reached with the City and Federal DOJ in August of 2004. Specific findings in the Settlement Agreement related to this 3rd @ Lootens Parking Structure location are as follows:

‘Lootens parking structure, Third and Lootens, date of construction: 1964. Within two years of the effective date of this Agreement, the City shall complete the following modifications:
Parking spaces
N.E. Lower level (#1)
The parking designated as accessible is inaccessible because the space has no access aisle. At each standard accessible space, provide an access aisle at least 60 inches wide. At each van accessible space, provide an access aisles at least 96 inches wide. Ensure that all access aisles are flat and level, with slopes and cross-slopes not exceeding 1:50 in all directions, and that their surfaces are firm, stable, and slip-resistant. Standards §§ 4.1.2(5), 4.6.3, Fig. 9.
The parking designated as accessible is inaccessible because the sign can be obstructed. At each space designated as reserved for persons with disabilities, provide a vertical sign with the International Symbol of Accessibility located such that it cannot be obstructed by vehicles parked in the space. Standards §§ 4.6.4, 4.30.7(1).
There are no parking spaces designated as van accessible. In addition to providing one van accessible space as required by the Standards, the City agrees to install an additional van accessible space at this lot based on the drainage issues at the Lootens and Commercial Lot (914 Lootens Place) and provide directional signage. On the shortest accessible route to the accessible entrance, provide at least two van accessible spaces designated as reserved for people with disabilities. Ensure that van accessible spaces are a minimum of 96 inches wide and served by access aisles at least 96 inches wide. At all spaces designated as reserved for persons with disabilities, provide vertical signs with the International Symbol of Accessibility located such that they cannot be obstructed by parked vehicles. At van accessible spaces, provide an additional Van-Accessible sign located below the International Symbol of Accessibility. Ensure that all spaces and access aisles for persons with disabilities are flat and level, with slopes and cross-slopes not exceeding 1:50 in all directions, and that their surfaces are firm, stable, and slip-resistant. Standards §§ 4.1.2(5), 4.6, 4.30.7(1).
The parking designated as accessible is inaccessible because S.E. #2 space is 87 inches wide, and S.W. #4 space is 86 inches wide. Provide designated accessible parking spaces that are a minimum of 96 inches wide and served by access aisles at least 60 inches wide. Provide van accessible spaces that are a minimum of 96 inches wide and served by access aisles at least 96 inches wide. Standards §§ 4.1.2(5), 4.6.3, Fig.9.’

The two year anniversary date for complying with these DOJ requirements is August 5, 2006. The City fully intends to comply by the due date and provide the remedies as outlined in the above DOJ findings.

As required under the City of San Rafael’s Grievance Procedure, I am required to meet with you within 15 calendar days of receiving the ADA compliant. Based upon your filing of August 9th, I would like to extend an opportunity to meet with you (either in person or by phone, whichever you wish) on August 23rd at 10:00 a.m. If you wish to meet in person, the meeting would occur in the Conference Room on the second floor of City Hall.

Feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience. I can be reached at 415-485-3055 or e-mailed at ken.nordhoff@ci.san-rafael.ca.us. Thank you for taking time to bring this issue to our attention and cooperating with us while we look into this complaint. The City of San Rafael remains committed to serving all members of our community, including those with disabilities.
Sincerely,Ken Nordhoff
Assistant City Manager and ADA CoordinatorCopy: Rod Gould, City ManagerScott Schneider, Senior Civil EngineerEric Davis, Deputy City Attorney
W:\City Managers- WorkFile\Correspondence\Nordhoff\Letters\2005\ADA- Complaints-3rd and Lootens garage- rs.doc
------------------------------
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION
1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901
TEL. (415) 485-3367; FAX (415) 485-3184

COMPLAINT FOR DISABLED ACCESS INVESTIGATION COMPLAINT
LOCATION: 3rd and Lootens City-Owned Garage
COMPLAINANT: APN(s): Name(s): Richard Skaff Owner(s): City of San Rafael
Address: 303 Ashton Lane Mill Valley, Ca. 94941Phone: 415-389-8628
DESCRIPTION OF COMPLAINT: “Accessible” parking spaces aren’t! Paths-of-travel from public right-of-way to and into parking garage to accessible spaces are not accessible and signage is non-complying. This is a heavily used City garage that needs corrections made soon. I actually fell out of my wheelchair attempting to access the garage and my vehicle using the mid-block walkway from 4th Street (next to San Rafael Joe’s Restaurant) to the garage. The walkway is in violation of both state and federal access codes/regulations as is the garage.
cx
Path of travel (CBC 1114B.1.2); location:
Non-complying path-of-travel from public right-of-way to non-complying “accessible” parking spaces x
Parking (CBC 1129B); location:
Non-complying parking spaces and signage
c
Curb ramps (CBC 1127B.5); location:
c
Stairways (CBC 1133B.4); location:
xc
Ramps (CBC 1133B.5); location:
Non-complying mid-block walkway between 4th Street and garage-slope greater than 5% w/no handrails and no mid-landings. Bottom of ramp at garage has “swail” gutter drain which caused my wheelchair to stop and me to fall out of my wheelchair. c
Access to toilets (CBC 1115B.7); location:
cx
Walks & sidewalks (CBC 1133B.7); location:
Since the City of San Rafael probably doesn’t call the mid-block ramp between 4th Street and the City parking garage (behind San Rafael Joe’s Restaurant), even though it’s not next to a roadway and has a much greater slope than 5%, it could be considered a “walk”?
c
Doors (CBC 1133B.2); location:
c
Entrances & exits (CBC 1133B.1); location:
c
Telephones (CBC 1117B.2.1); location:
c
Water fountains (CBC 1117B.1.1); location:
c
Elevators (CBC 1116B.1); location:
c
Signs (CBC 1117B.5); location:
c
Other:
c
Other:
Confidentiality Notice: To the extent permitted by law, the City will not disclose the identify of the complainant to members of the public or in response to Public Records Act requests or subpoenas.
------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Nordhoff
To: Richard Skaff ; Eric Davis ; Rod Gould
Cc: Scott Schneider
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 4:38 PM
Subject: RE: City of San Rafael - Complaint - Access Violations - 3rd and Lootens Parking Garage
Mr. Skaff –
Attached please find my response to your e-mail of last week concerning alleged ADA parking space violations at the 3rd and Lootens Structure and the related walkway that leads to 4th street.

Ken Nordhoff

From: Richard Skaff [mailto:rmskaff@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 3:59 PMTo: Eric Davis; Rod Gould; Ken NordhoffCc: Alberto Gonzalez; Peter Siggins; Kevin E. Davis; Baker, Kevin; SHELLEY.CURRAN@SEN.CA.GOV; norman.mineta@ost.dot.gov; frederickd.isler@fhwa.dot.gov; Brenda.Armstead@fhwa.dot.gov; Bobo, Karen; michael.winter@fta.dot.gov; Janet Blizard; Marsha MazzSubject: City of San Rafael - Complaint - Access Violations - 3rd and Lootens Parking Garage

8/9/05

Mr. Ken Nordhoff
Assistant City Manager/ADA Coordinator
City of San Rafael
1400 5th Avenue
San Rafael, California

Mr. Nordhoff,

Please accept the attached City of San Rafael complaint form as a formal complaint about access violations to and within the City parking garage located behind San Rafael Joe's Restaurant and the mid-block path-of-travel to that lot from 4th Street in San Rafael. What is this sites priority based on the City's Transition/Self-evaluation Plan or the U.S. DOJ settlement agreement? Whatever that priority is, it should immediately be made higher due to the unsafe/dangerous conditions that exist both at the site and the paths of travel to the site's "accessible" parking spaces.

Richard Skaff
303 Ashton Lane
Mill Valley, Ca. 94941
Voice & Fax: 415-389-8628Mobile: 415-497-1091
Email: rmskaff@comcast.net

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Report-S-954XX

City of Sebastopol ADA and California Civil Code Violations
HolLynn D’Lil
3027 Arroyo Court, P. O. Box 160, Graton, CA 95444
(707) 829 9440 - land, (707) 829 9021 - fax,
hdlil@comcast.net
August 9, 2005

City Manager: David D. Brennan City Administration
7120 Bodega Avenue Sebastopol CA 95472

Dear Mr. Brennan:
Thank you for your letter of June 23.
I appreciate that Sebastopol has made efforts to comply with the ADA. However a Transition Plan is a requirement of the law. By your letter, you acknowledge that the City has not complied with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requiring the development of a Transition Plan. A Self Evaluation of all city programs and services is also required. Has the City of Sebastopol failed to complete a Self Evaluation, also? This should be of concern to you as the City Manager, responsible for assisting the City to comply with all applicable laws and regulations.
Furthermore, regarding the barrier removal you have undertaken, I am very concerned about the quality. For example, you mention the library as a city facility that has received the City’s barrier removal attention. The ramp approach to the library has a severe cross slope. It does not comply with either Federal or state code, and is very difficult to traverse.
In addition, I have tried to park in the City parking lot on the East side of High Street south of Bodega Avenue. The designated accessible spaces do not have access loading aisles, making them unusable. In addition, the parking lot does not have a tow away sign. Furthermore, there are between 50 and 75 total spaces and only two accessible spaces. For that number there should be three total accessible spaces, including one van accessible space. The path of travel from one of the inaccessible spaces (erroneously designated as accessible) requires the occupant of the vehicle to travel behind another parked car to access the side walk. This is a violation of California Building Code. In addition, there is no accessible route from the designated inaccessible parking spaces to the businesses fronting Petaluma Avenue, which the parking lot serves.
The on-street parking provided for persons with disabilities and marked by blue curbs on Bodega Avenue and High Street are adjacent to benches and trees, making them unusable by not provided a clear loading space as required by Federal and state codes.
The dangerous curb ramps I mentioned in my previous letter are on North Main Street. If they are under the jurisdiction of CalTrans, please let me know. I will file a formal complaint with the appropriate state and Federal agencies.
In addition, I am enclosing a letter written to the Sebastopol Building Official, under your oversight, dated June 23, 2005 to which I have received no response. I am very concerned that this letter has not received a response from the person whom you stated in your letter has responsibility for ADA compliance and "new situations that come to our attention." I would appreciate your attention to this issue, and the soonest response to my letter.
As you do not have a Transition Plan, please provide for the a copy of the "barrier inventory" completed in 1992. Please provide the budget details describing what monies have been spent since 1993 to resolve ADA, California Civil Code and California Government Code compliance issues.
I look forward to your response. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
HolLynn D’Lil

Attachments: Copy of letter sent to City of Sebatopol June 5, 2005, and
letters sent to City of Sebastopol Building Office, Mr. Gleen Schainblatt,
June 23, 2005 and June 5, 2005
cc: California Deputy Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
Peter Siggins, California Counsel for Governor
Sebastopol City Council Members: Mayor Larry Robinson, Mayor Pro Tem Sarah Glade Gurney, Linda Kelley, Craig Litwin, Sam Pierce
and other
representatives of state and Federal government
as well as parties in the need to know of broad spread and chronic lack of compliance with Disability Civil Rights Laws and Regulations
frederickd.isler@fhwa.dot.gov [frederickd.isler@fhwa.dot.gov]; norman.mineta@ost.dot.gov [norman.mineta@ost.dot.gov]; Bobo, Karen [karen.bobo@fhwa.dot.gov]; Alberto.Gonzalez@doj.ca.gov [alberto.gonzalez@doj.ca.gov]; okabel@cacities.org [okabel@cacities.org]; debi.hobson@calchamber.com [debi.hobson@calchamber.com]; jeanne.cain@calchamber.com [jeanne.cain@calchamber.com]; dominic.dimare@calchamber.com [dominic.dimare@calchamber.com]; JeffreyH@hellermanus.com [jeffreyh@hellermanus.com]; Pete Guisasola (E-mail) [peteg@rocklin.ca.gov]; O'Neill, Kevin [kevin.o'neill@asm.ca.gov]; SHELLEY.CURRAN@SEN.CA.GOV [shelley.curran@sen.ca.gov]; Baker, Kevin [kevin.baker@asm.ca.gov]; Marsha Mazz [mazz@access-board.gov]; Janet Blizard [janet.l.blizard@usdoj.gov]; Peter Siggins [peter.siggins@gov.ca.gov]; Steve Castellanos [scastellanos@chongpartners.com]; Jim Abrams [jabrams@chlaonline.com]; david.thorman@dgs.ca.gov [david.thorman@dgs.ca.gov]; michael.winter@fta.dot.gov [michael.winter@fta.dot.gov]; Conrad, Richard Richard.Conrad@dgs.ca.gov
===============April================
HolLynn D’Lil
3027 Arroyo Court
P. O. Box 160
Graton, CA 95444

April13, 2005

Owner
R. S. Basso
186 N. Main
Sebastopol, CA 95472

Dear Owner:

I have had the pleasure of shopping in your store on Main Street in Sebastopol. Consequently, I was much interested in shopping at your Outlet store on Depot Street. However, as someone who is wheelchair mobile, I was appalled to see that it is impossible for me to shop at the Outlet because there is no accessible parking and there is a step before the door.

I am forwarding a copy of this letter to the Sebastopol Building Department. The Building Department is responsible for enforcing state laws requiring accessibility for persons with disabilities. I ask that you seek the guidance of the Building Department and provide the required accessible parking and entrance as soon as possible.

In addition to your obligations under state law, the Americans with Disabilities Act also requires your facility to be accessible. Please respond to me within three weeks of the date of this letter as to the progress you have made.

Information on how to comply with state regulations for accessibility is available at theweb site of the California State Architect at www.dsa.ca.gov. Information on how to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act is available at http://www.access‑board.gov/adaag/html/adaag.htm and http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm .

There is a substantial tax credit available to business for barrier removal. If you need assistance in finding out about these tax incentives, you may visit the U.S. Access Board’s web site: http://www.access‑board.gov/ .
Sincerely,




HolLynn D’Lil

cc: Deputy Building Official: Glenn Schainblatt
Alberto Gonzales, California Deputy Attorney General
=========================June==========
HolLynn D’Lil
3027 Arroyo Court
P. O. Box 160
Graton, CA 95444
(707) 829 9440 - land, (707) 829 9021 - fax, hdlil@comcast.net


June 5, 2005




City Manager: David D. Brennan City Administration
7120 Bodega Avenue Sebastopol CA 95472

Dear Mr. Brennan:

As a wheelchair user and a newcomer to the Sebastopol area, I am finding it very difficult to travel about Sebastopol. Most of curb ramps in downtown Sebastopol are too steep. Some are so excessively steep that I cannot use them without going over backwards. In addition, I have noticed that the city parking lots do not provide compliance accessible parking spaces.

Please provide a copy of your Transition Plan for barrier removal to your programs and services as required by the ADA to be developed by local governments in 1992. Have you updated your plan since 1992? Do you have an advisory committee working with the City to bring it into compliance?

If you have 50 or more city employees, you should have an ADA Coordinator. I could not find such a person on your web site. If you have an ADA Coordinator, is that person empowered to make vital decisions to bring the City into compliance with the ADA and California disability civil rights laws? Would you please forward to the me name and number of your ADA Coordinator, if the City has one.

I would be pleased to provide for you any information that will assist you in address the issues I am bringing to your attention. As a former accessibility consultant for the State of California, I have provided many trainings and seminars on how to write a transition plan and how to bring buildings and facilities into compliance with Federal and state accessibility laws and regulations.

I look forward to your response. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,




HolLynn D’Lil

cc: California Deputy Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
Sebastopol City Council Members: Mayor Larry Robinson, Mayor Pro Tem Sarah Glade Gurney, Linda Kelley, Craig Litwin, Sam Pierce
===========June====================

HolLynn D’Lil
3027 Arroyo Court
P. O. Box 160
Graton, CA 95444
(707) 829 9440 - land, (707) 829 9021 - fax, hdlil@comcast.net

June 5, 2005


Mr. Glenn Schainblatt
Deputy Building Official
Building and Safety
7425 Bodega Avenue
Sebastopol, CA 95472

Dear Mr. Schainblatt:

April 13, 2005, I forwarded to you a copy of a letter to the owner of R.S. Basso Furniture Store. R.S. Basso Stores have newly opened an outlet store on Depot Street which is totally inaccessible to persons with disabilities. Specifically, there is no accessible parking provided, and there is a step to the entrance. I do not know what other building code violations may exist there.

California Health and Safety Code, Section 19958, and the California Government Code, Section 4450 state, "It is the intent of the Legislature that the Building Standards, published in the State Building Standards Code relating to access by the physically handicapped and the other regulations adopted by the State Architect, pursuant to Section 4450, shall be used as minimum requirements to ensure that buildings, structures and related facilities covered by this chapter are accessible to, and functional for, the physically handicapped to, through, and within their doors, without loss of function, space or facility where the general public is concerned. Any unauthorized deviation from such regulations or building standards shall be rectified by full compliance within 90 days after discovery of the deviation"

It has been about 42 days or so since you have received notification of the violations at the R.S. Basso Outlet Store. The store remains inaccessible. Please respond within two weeks as to the steps you are taking to bring the store into compliance. The 90-day period will expire by July 13.

Please see the enclosed letter dated April 13, 2005. This is the second time I have forwarded this letter to you.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,




HolLynn D’Lil

cc: Alberto Gonzales, Deputy California Attorney General
=============June===============
HolLynn D’Lil
3027 Arroyo Court
P. O. Box 160
Graton, CA 95444
(707) 829 9440 - land, (707) 829 9021 - fax, hdlil@comcast.net

June 23, 2005





Mr. Glenn Schainblatt
Deputy Building Official
Building and Safety
7425 Bodega Avenue
Sebastopol, CA 95472

Dear Mr. Schainblatt:

Thank you for your letter of June 26. I would like to bring to your attention building code requirements which cover alterations. A change of occupancy is an "alteration" under UBC 402 (n) which defines an alteration as "any change addition or modification in construction or occupancy." In Chapter 11B of the California Code of Regulations Title 24, a change in occupancy or change in primary function is "alteration" for purposes of triggering the California Building code and is included in the definition for alteration as follows: SECTION 202 - A “[For DSA/AC] ALTER or ALTERATION is any change, addition or modification in construction or occupancy or structural repair or change in primary function to an existing structure other than repair or addition.”

If the building where the Basso Furniture Outlet store is located on Depot Street has undergone a change of occupancy since 1982, it is covered by California Building Code requirements for accessibility to alterations. Please forward to me a copy of the building records for 6828 Depot Street.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,




HolLynn D’Lil

cc: Alberto Gonzales, Deputy California Attorney General
==================end========

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Report - Yosemite National Park

SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO MARCH 17, 2005 LETTER REGARDING RESOLUTION OF ACCESS VIOLATIONS AT YOSEMITE PARK-Reference #A3615(YOSE)

3/22/05

Mr Michael L. Tollefson, SuperintendentYosemite National ParkP.O. Box 577Yosemite, California 95389

Mr. Tollefson,

I am writing to you to inform you of my disappointment and anger with the most recent response I received from you (your letter dated March 17, 2005, Reference #A3615(YOSE). Your letter contained only minimal information and had no bearing to the telephone conversation you and I had approximately a week ago.

During that conversation, I went over the many existing and newly created access violations I have found while visiting Yosemite Park and the frustration I have had with the lack of response by either National Parks or the Concessionaire, Deleware North Company as to how those violations will be corrected and by when. As you are painfully aware, my original complaint is approximately three years old and covered access violations at both Park and Concessionaire sites.

When I was in Yosemite recently, giving an access training to the California Building Officials Association (CALBO) a few weeks ago, I found additional major access violations within a newly refurbished horseshoe shaped trail to Yosemite Falls and recently remodeled bathrooms at both the Ahwanee Hotel and Yosemite Lodge where I stayed during the CALBO conference. You and I discussed these newly found violations and the fact that although some of your staff and DNC staff believe that there are accessible parking spaces in the Yosemite Park Valley areas, I couldn't find one that complied with federal access regulations. Additionally, we talked about the timing for immediately correcting some access violations while finalizing the Parks Transition/Self-evaluation Plan.

I have never agreed with what appears to be your decision that no corrective work will take place until the Plan is completed in November of this year as your letter suggest. You apparently haven't taken my complaint seriously because your March 17th letter doesn't respond to most of the issues I raised during our discussion.

By this email, I am informing you that unless I receive a written (email would be preferred) response from you indicating, in detail, the immediate actions that will be taken by you and the concessionaire to correct at least some of the more egregious access violations, including the newly built path to Yosemite Falls and the entrance and bathroom at the Ahwanee Hotel and the bathroom at the Yosemite Lodge and parking throughout the Park, I will be filing a lawsuit against both National Parks and Deleware North Company. I'm sorry it has come to this, but after waiting all this time for a reasonable response from National Parks and Deleware North Company, and then getting a letter from you informing me that I can wait longer isn't acceptable. I'm not prepared to wait any longer.

Richard Skaff303 Ashton LaneMill Valley, Ca. 94941Voice & Fax: 415-389-8628Mobile: 415-497-1091Email: http://www.blogger.com/
=========================================================

Tuesday, April 05, 2005 11:56 AM

Subject: News Article-San Francisco Chronicle-Yosemite Falls4/5/05

Mr Michael L. Tollefson, SuperintendentYosemite National Park P.O. Box 577Yosemite, California 95389

Mr. Tollefson,

I am again sending this email through my email service to assure that you have received it. The first was sent via the SF Chronicle on-line system. It is very disturbing to me (and will be to the rest of the disability community) that you and National Parks management are attempting to "gloss over" your failure to assure that National Park facilities are really accessible to persons with disabilities. Having a picture of a woman with a smile on her face, sitting in a scooter, certainly indicates to me that you are attempting to market this $13 million dollar failure of an accessibility project as one that is really accessible and serves the disability community.

You should be ashamed of yourself! I am still expecting a response to my last email to you which was sent (sent March 22nd) as a formal 504 complaint.

Richard Skaff303 Ashton LaneMill Valley, Ca. 94941Voice & Fax: 415-389-8628Mobile: 415-497-1091Email: rmskaff@comcast.net

From: Richard Skaff To: Jack_Andre@nps.gov ; Dianne_Spriggs@nps.gov ; Michael_Tollefson@nps.gov Cc: David C. Park Sent:

====================================

Your message was sent on Tue, 05 Apr 2005 at 11:28 AM PDT

Subject: YOSEMITE / Finishing touch on nature / New paths, markers highlight waterfalls, former Indian village

To: Name Michael Tollefson, Superintendent Email Dianne_Spriggs@nps.gov; Michael_Tollefson@nps.gov, Don_Fox@nps.gov, David_Park@nps.gov

From: Name Richard Skaff Email rmskaff@comcast.net

Comments: It is amazing to me that you are attempting to "sell" the Yosemite Trail as accessible when it violates federal access regulations. I have not as yet heard from you regarding my last email to you.

===============================================

Fw: News Article-San Francisco Chronicle-Yosemite Falls

Date: 4/14/2005 2:04:59 PM Pacific Standard Time

From: rmskaff@comcast.net To: cnolte@sfchronicle.com

Mr. Carl NolteStaff WriterSan Francisco Chronicle

Mr. Nolte, I have attached my recent email to Mr. Michael Tollefson, Superintendent at Yosemite National Park. Although I left a phone message for you after reading your article on the new Yosemite Falls Trail project, I have not heard from you. If you have the opportunity and read my comments to Superintendent Tollefson about this project and next week's opening ceremony, I would appreciate being given the opportunity to talk with you about the access violations in the Trail project and throughout Yosemite National Park. I would hope that you would be interested in hearing both sides of the Yosemite access issues, including mine. Thank you for your consideration of my request.

Richard Skaff303 Ashton LaneMill Valley, Ca. 94941Voice & Fax: 415-389-8628Mobile: 415-497-1091Email: rmskaff@comcast.net

====================================

United States Department ofthe Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Yosemite National Park P. O. Box 577IN REPLY REFER TO: Yosemite, California 95389A3615(YOSE)

April 15, 2005Mr. Richard Skaff303 Ashton LaneMill Valley, California 94941

Dear Mr. Skaff:

We want to thank you for meeting with Jerry Ernest, Accessibility Coordinator for DNC, and Marty Nielson, NPS Chief, Division of Business and Revenue Management during your most recent visit to the park and expressing your concerns about accessibility to park programs and facilities. We hope this correspondence will be helpful in describing the corrective measures we have taken thus far and outlining our future plans for removing barriers and increasing accessibility in Yosemite National Park.

The following is a list of some of the issues you raised from the abovementioned meeting on March 3, 2005 with Mr. Ernest and Mr. Nielson, in your email to Don Fox, Park Accessibility Coordinator dated March 7, 2005, and also those subjects in your email to me dated March 22, 2005. We are providing an update to Ms. Dianne Spriggs of the Washington Office of Equal Opportunity regarding your concerns identified in the formal allegation of discrimination subsequent to your October 2001 visit. Ms.Spriggs will then forward a response to you.

Yosemite Falls pathway –You referenced the ‘newly refurbished horseshoe-shaped trail at YosemiteFalls’. We are uncertain if the trail to which you are referring is the new circular walk to the interpretive exhibits on the western approach or if you are concerned about the accessibility of the entire loop up to the base of Lower Yosemite Fall. Although we feel this construction project,funded by the Yosemite Fund, neither inhibits nor prohibits a person usinga mobility device from reaching the base of Yosemite Falls from the eastern access route, we will have it evaluated by a third party for any potential inconsistencies.

Accessible parking at Yosemite Lodge, Curry Village, and the Ahwahnee -You are right; there are still some discrepancies in the layout of some of the accessible parking spaces at Yosemite Lodge, Curry Village and the Ahwahnee. We will re-examine the requirements for accessible parking and correct some of the discrepancies when we re-stripe the parking lots this spring. However, the more extensive alterations to the parking areas will be part of the prioritization process that will be addressed in the Transition Plan.

Men’s room at the Ahwahnee –You commented ‘the lavatory counter is too high in the men’s room’.Lowering the counter by 1” to 34” above the finished floor, in compliance with accessibility guidelines, was determined to be a lower priority given the extent of need for accessibility alterations and the limited availability of funding to accomplish these corrective actions.The grab bars in the stall are 34” from the floor. According to ADAAG4.17.6 (Figure30 (c) (d)), grab bars can be positioned 33”to 36”above the floor. There are no handles on the stall door. Although according to both ADAAGand UFAS there is no specific requirement to provide handles, handles will be installed this spring on the accessible stall in the Ahwahnee men’s room.Bathroom at Yosemite Lodge You reported the flush handle is on the wall side of the toilet and should be on the open side in the family-friendly restroom. A replacement tank with the flush valve on the correct side has been ordered as of March 25,2005.

The force to open the door to the family-friendly restroom exceeds 5 pounds of pressure to open. The door closer was out of adjustment and has been corrected since your visit.The soap dispenser requires more than 5 pounds of pressure to operate. The soap dispenser was clogged with dry soap causing the need for excessive force and has since been corrected.Path of travel from major facilities– uneven surfaces, puddles We concur with you that uneven surfaces and puddles are often present on some of the access routes. The pathways through the Ahwahnee complex were scheduled to be repaved this past fall, but inclement weather postponed this project. We will endeavor to correct uneven surfaces and eliminate puddling as we replace travel surfaces throughout developed areas. Signing is confusing, not helpful - no site map available indicating where accessible features are and how to access them. We are not certain to which specific signs you are referring. Many directional signs have been added to direct visitors with disabilities to the services and facilities. Accessibility maps have been developed and are now available at each hotel registration desk. Additional directional signs will be added as needed and identified. A comprehensive sign plan will be completed for each of the locations: the Ahwahnee, Curry Village,Yosemite Lodge etc. linking interior and exterior way finding to and through the properties. The door hold-open devices provide an obstacle for persons using awheelchair.These devices are not included in ADAAG, but we realize there are some instances in which their presence could restrict access. This is will be addressed in areas where there is a known interface with wheelchairs and the door hold open devises will be removed.At the Ahwahnee the red carpet is not compliant.Because this is a national historic landmark, the solution to this deficiency will be combined with others at the Ahwahnee in a request for approval to the State Historic Protection Office (SHPO).The horsehair mat at the entrance door to the Ahwahnee makes wheelchairs slip sideways.The accessibility guidelines require a maximum ½’ pile and the mat at this location is only ¼” thick. The mat will be removed, the sand base under the mat leveled with more sand added if necessary. The mat will be replaced insuring there is no abrupt grade change between the mat and the concrete approach on one side and the threshold on the other. The fire alarm pull stations are too high This matter is being addressed as a component of the Ahwahnee Fire and Life Safety project. Regarding to your concerns on the park’s mandate to develop a Self Evaluation and Transition Plan that covers” public program” access within the park A scoping document will be available to the public at the end of this month describing the range and complexity of programs offered here. The goal is to obtain public comment on how to improve the quality of a park experiencef or persons with hearing, visual, mobility and cognitive impairments. This document will summarize the structural and nonstructural barriers and describe the comprehensive Self-Evaluation process for each NPS organizational branch as well as all park partners including: DelawareNorth Companies Parks and Resorts at Yosemite (DNC), Best Studio AnselAdams Gallery, Yosemite Medical Group, Yosemite Dental Clinic, YosemiteAssociation, Yosemite Institute, El Portal Food Market, and El Portal FuelStation. Based on the public response, the Self-Evaluation will be finalized,deficiencies will be prioritized, completion dates established, and the agency unit or park partner responsible for correcting the deficiency will be identified; this document also will be available to the public. We will examine the policies and practices that govern the administration of each of the NPS and park partner’s programs and activities to insure discrimination does not occur and those findings will be incorporated with the Self-Evaluation in developing the Transition Plan. This will be the foundation in preparing future budget requests to eliminate accessibility barriers and correct deficiencies.

We sincerely appreciate your genuine interest to insure that persons with hearing, visual, mobility and cognitive impairments are provided the same opportunities and benefits of a visit to this world-class national park.

Sincerely,/s/Michael J. Tollefson

Michael J. TollefsonSuperintendent

================================

5/18/05

Subject: Public Document Request - Yosemite Park "Scoping" Document

Mr Michael L. Tollefson, Superintendent
Yosemite National Park
P.O. Box 577
Yosemite, California 95389

Mr. Tollefson,

Why is it that in your April 15, 2005 email to me, you indicated that ". . .A scoping document document will be available to the public at the end of this month (April) describing the range and complexity of programs offered here. The goal is to obtain public comment on how to improve the quality of a park experience for persons with hearing, visual, mobility and cognitive impairments. This document will summarize the structural and nonstructural barriers and describe the comprehensive Self-Evaluation process for each NPS organizational branch as well as all park partners including: Delaware North Companies Parks and Resorts at Yosemite (DNC), Best Studio Ansel Adams Gallery, Yosemite Medical Group, Yosemite Dental Clinic, Yosemite Association, Yosemite Institute, El Portal Food Market, and El Portal Fuel Station. . ." Where is that promised document and why, over 18 days past the promised date, have I not received a copy?

By this email, I am making a public document request and demanding that I be sent a copy of the promised "scoping" document immediately. Additionally, please inform me as to the name and background of the "access" consultant that you had informed me the Park was going to hire and use to review my complaint regarding the access violations within the recently completed Yosemite Falls trail. Additionally, please indicate when I should expect that review to be completed. Please also be aware that I will expect to receive a complete copy of that report.

I look forward to your timely response.
Richard Skaff303 Ashton LaneMill Valley, Ca. 94941Voice & Fax: 415-389-8628Mobile: 415-497-1091Email: rmskaff@comcast.net

From: Richard Skaff
To: Michael_Tollefson@nps.gov ; yose_superintendent@nps.gov
Cc: Dianne_Spriggs@nps.gov ; Jack_Andre@nps.gov ; David C. Park ; Don_Fox@nps.gov ; Janet Blizard ; Marsha Mazz
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 10:42 PM
=========================

From: Richard Skaff
To: Michael_Tollefson@nps.gov ; yose_superintendent@nps.gov ; Don_Fox@nps.gov ; Janet Blizard ; Marsha Mazz ; Sharon_Eller@nps.gov ; fran.mainella@nps.gov ; Dianne_Spriggs@nps.gov
Cc: Guy Wallace ; Sidney Cohen
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 1:27 PM
Subject: Fw: Public Document Request - Yosemite Park "Scoping" Document
6/2/05

Mr Michael L. Tollefson, Superintendent
Yosemite National Park
P.O. Box 577
Yosemite, California 95389

Mr. Tollefson,

I understood from your 5/19/05 automatic email response to my 5/18/05 email (see below) that you would be out of your office between 5/16/05 and 6/01/05. That would appear to mean that you are now back in your office today.

Based on that information, if I don't receive an email response from you to my 5/18/05 email (see below again!), I will be contacting my attorney and filing a formal legal complaint (the term "lawsuit" you might understand!) against Yosemite National Park and it's Concessionaire, Delaware North Companies Parks and Resorts at Yosemite (DNC) for the many 504/ADA violations within the Park, such as the newly built, 13 million dollar Yosemite Falls Trail and the concession-operated facilities such as the Ahwanee Hotel and Yosemite Lodge.

I find your lack of responsiveness to me, a member of the public you are supposed to be serving, to be totally unacceptable and it will no longer be tolerated! Please understand that I am putting you on notice - you have until 5pm, Friday, June 4, 2005 to respond with the information I have requested or the next contact you will have will be from my attorney.

Richard Skaff303 Ashton LaneMill Valley, Ca. 94941Voice & Fax: 415-389-8628Mobile: 415-497-1091Email: rmskaff@comcast.net

==================================


Fw: Public Document Request - Yosemite Park "Scoping" Document
Date: 6/2/2005 3:17:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: rmskaff@comcast.net
To: russ_whitlock@nps.gov
CC: Jack_Andre@nps.gov, Dianne_Spriggs@nps.gov, David_Park@nps.gov
6/2/05

Mr. Russ Whitlock
Chief of Staff to the Director
NPS
Washington, D.C.

Mr. Whitlock,

Thank you for taking the time to call me today. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss my experiences at Yosemite National Park with you. I would appreciate it if you would pass this information on to the Director of NPS.

The attached are some of the emails that have gone back and forth between me and NPS over the last couple of years. I'm sure that Mr. Park, Mr. Fox, Ms. Spriggs and others within NPS have a more complete file on this ongoing interaction.

I look forward to receiving an email from you or Mr. Tollefson tomorrow, hopefully describing the many access violations I found that were included in my formal "504-ADA" complaint and what will be done to correct those and other violations that have been found and by when (a reasonable time period is acceptable).

Thank you.

Richard Skaff303 Ashton LaneMill Valley, Ca. 94941Voice & Fax: 415-389-8628Mobile: 415-497-1091Email: rmskaff@comcast.net

========================

Fw: Public Document Request - Yosemite Park "Scoping" Document
Date:6/9/2005 11:33:26 AM Pacific Standard Time
From:rmskaff@comcast.net
To:russ_whitlock@nps.gov
CC:mazz@ACCESS-BOARD.GOV, janet.l.blizard@usdoj.gov, David_Park@nps.gov, Dianne_Spriggs@nps.gov, Jack_Andre@nps.gov, John.L.Wodatch@usdoj.gov, Michael_Tollefson@nps.gov
6/9/05

Mr. Russ Whitlock
Chief of Staff to the Director
NPS
Washington, D.C.

Mr. Whitlock,

During our telephone conversation last Friday, June 3rd, you promised to call me on Monday, June 6th that would be in response to my June 2, 2005 email (see below). I never did received that promised call from you. Did you forget or simply decide that the call wasn't necessary? You had indicated that I would be hearing from Dianne Spriggs, the NPS Equal Opportunity Program Manager. I have not received any call or correspondence from her since our conversation last week.

The lack of action and responsiveness on the part of the U.S. National Park Service with regard to complaints about disability access violations you have received is truly astounding and a real insult to the public the National Park Service is supposed to be serving.

As part of the action I will now take, I am forwarding a copy of this email to the U.S. Department of Justice as a formal 504/ADA complaint with a demand for investigation by that federal agency. I am also forwarding copies of this email to my attorneys for their review and action.

I'm sorry that it has come to having to resolve the Yosemite/Delaware North violations legally. The funds the National Parks Service will now have to expend to pay the legal expenses on this case should have gone to correcting the many access violations within Yosemite, including the newly remodeled Yosemite Falls Trail.

Richard Skaff303 Ashton LaneMill Valley, Ca. 94941Voice & Fax: 415-389-8628Mobile: 415-497-1091Email: rmskaff@comcast.net

==========================

Re: Public Document Request - Yosemite Park "Scoping" Document
Date:6/10/2005 10:28:26 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: rmskaff@comcast.net
To: Michael_Tollefson@nps.gov, Russ_Whitlock@nps.gov
CC: Jack_Andre@nps.gov, Dianne_Spriggs@nps.gov, David_Park@nps.gov, janet.l.blizard@usdoj.gov, mazz@ACCESS-BOARD.GOV
6/9/05

Mr. Russ Whitlock
Chief of Staff to the Director
NPS
Washington, D.C.

Mr. Whitlock,

I just received the most inane and unresponsive letter (see attached) from Mr. Tollefson, the Superintendent of Yosemite National Park that I have ever received from any bureaucrat in "response" to my May 18, 2005 email to him (see my 5/18/05 email below). If Mr. Tollefson had taken the time to read my May 18 email, he would have understood that I expected more than the excuses his June 3, 2005 letter, received today, provides. In my May 18th email, I not only asked for a copy of the "scoping" document that his April 15th email said would be available by the end of April, but also asked, ". . . please inform me as to the name and background of the "access" consultant that you had informed me the Park was going to hire and use to review my complaint regarding the access violations within the recently completed Yosemite Falls trail. Additionally, please indicate when I should expect that review to be completed. Please also be aware that I will expect to receive a complete copy of that report. . ." Of course, Mr. Tollefson's letter didn't provide that requested information. Apparently, neither Mr. Tollefson or the Washington office of the National Park Service intends to respond to my complaint or my request for information unless I take legal action.

Additionally, a number of the comments in Mr. Tollefson's April 15th email to me (see below) were unsatisfactory and didn't respond to the apparent violations I found during visits to Yosemite. Two examples of his inadequate response included his comments regarding the fire alarm pull stations which aren't considered accessible because they don't meet the "operating mechanism" requirements of the ADA Guidelines and the non-accessible horsehair matt at the entrance to the Ahwanee Hotel, to name two. Now, it seems, as a reaction to my pursuit of resolution to my three year old complaint, Mr. Tollefson has decided to negotiate with an outside contractor to review my complaints and the apparent access violations. Interestingly enough, ever since filing my complaint, the Park Service has used the excuse of lack of funds as one of the reasons the access violations I brought to it's attention almost three years ago haven't been fixed. Now, instead of using the professional staff who are fully cognoscente of the Parks access mandates to determine whether the apparent violations exist or not, the Park management has decided to go "outside" and hire a consultant. This can only be construed to mean that the Park Service is "shopping" for the answers it wants instead of accepting it's failures and correcting the clear and present access violations.

The course of action taken by the National Park Service on the many access violations that exist in Yosemite Park is apparently not unusual and occurs at other National Parks sites, based on the case you informed me about - a woman who's child is deaf. You indicated that the child had attended an NPS "program" at one of it's parks, but was not provided a sign language interpreter. Apparently, none were available. As a public record request, please provide me with the contact information for that parent and child so I may contact them and get the details of their experience, which I'm sure, is not unusual for visitors with disabilities visiting our Country's National Parks. It's really a shame that the federal agency, created to protect our national parks and assure public access, doesn't!

I look forward to your response.

Richard Skaff303 Ashton LaneMill Valley, Ca. 94941Voice & Fax: 415-389-8628Mobile: 415-497-1091Email: rmskaff@comcast.net

========================================

From: "Richard Skaff" To: , , , , Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:08:35 -0700

Subject: ABA Complaint - Yosemite National Park - Numerous Access Violations
6/13/05

Mr. Larry Roffee, Director
U.S. Access Board
1331 F Street N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20004-1111

Mr. Roffee,

I am sending this email to you as a formal ABA complaint due to the massive number of physical and programmatic access violations that have not been resolved at the Yosemite National Park in California even though that Park's management has known about the violations for the last three years. New construction, subsequent to my initial 504 complaint filed three or so years ago, including one of the most recent project, the new access route to the base of Yosemite Falls, also has major access regulatory violations. Additionally, after almost fifteen years, this park as well as most other National Parks (if not all) throughout the Country does not have a completed Transition/Self-evaluation Plan.

Because of the lack of a National Parks policy that should be holding each park manager (Superintendent) accountable for access failures like those at Yosemite National Park, these individuals face no consequence or accountability for their park's lack of compliance with federal accessibility laws and the lack of park specific compliance policies including standard operating procedures and protocols for the Park staff and concessionaires' interaction with the disability community (e.g. call-in reservations at National Park campgrounds - no TTY available at the main campground reservation number).

Please respond via email to this formal complaint (as well as in writing, if you feel the need). I look forward to a detailed description of how the U.S. Access Board will investigate my complaint and if my allegations are found to be correct, what Yosemite National Park will be required to do to bring the Park into compliance and by when. Additionally, please verify that you have received this email.

Thank you.


Richard Skaff303 Ashton LaneMill Valley, Ca. 94941Voice & Fax: 415-389-8628Mobile: 415-497-1091Email: rmskaff@comcast.net

====================

From: Jeffery Hill
To: Richard Skaff
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 2:28 PM
Subject: ABA complaint re Yosemite NP
Mr. Skaff - This is just a reminder, per telephone conversation yesterday, that you indicated you would provide a report with additional issues for inclusion in your Architectural Barriers Act complaint.

Jeffery Hill Senior Compliance Specialist U.S. Access Board 1331 F Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004-1111 (800) 272-2253, ext. 0044 or (202) 272-0044 (voice) (202) 272-0082 or (800) 993-2822 (tty) (202) 272-0081 (fax)
http://www.access-boad.gov/
=======================

Re: ABA complaint re Yosemite NP
Date: 6/23/2005 8:04:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: rmskaff@comcast.net
To: hill@ACCESS-BOARD.GOV
CC: David_Park@nps.gov, Russ_Whitlock@nps.gov, Jack_Andre@nps.gov, Dianne_Spriggs@nps.gov, janet.l.blizard@usdoj.gov, mazz@ACCESS-BOARD.GOV
6/23/06

Jeffery Hill Senior Compliance Specialist U.S. Access Board 1331 F Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004-1111

Mr. Hill,

I have attached a copy of the access violation report from the Washington, D.C. office NPS. Please call me if you have any questions. I'm sure that I'm not the only individual with a disability that has found unacceptable and numerous barriers at Yosemite and other National Parks throughout the Country. In the near future, I will be forwarding you additional NPS sites with similar ABA violations for your review and response.

Thank you for your help with this matter.

Richard Skaff303 Ashton LaneMill Valley, Ca. 94941Voice & Fax: 415-389-8628Mobile: 415-497-1091Email: rmskaff@comcast.net
-----------attachment - please note the word doc does not have html coding - I will add as I get time-----

http://www.geocities.com/le3293/YosemiteReport.html

=================

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

Cal OSHA Elevator - Issue-Backing out of a Wheelchair Lift

========January 25 2005=========
Re: Cal OSHA Elevator, Ride and Tramway Approved Wheelchair lifts-Access Issue-Backing out of a Wheelchair Lift
Date: 1/25/2005 6:26:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: rmskaff@comcast.net
To: Richard.Conrad@dgs.ca.gov
CC: Robin.Baker@dgs.ca.gov, Michael.Mankin@dgs.ca.gov, Aaron.Noble@dgs.ca.gov, Alberto.Gonzalez@doj.ca.gov, scohn@cityofsacramento.org, janet.l.blizard@usdoj.gov, mazz@ACCESS-BOARD.GOV

1/25/04

Richard T. Conrad, FAIA
Acting State Architect
Division of the State Architect
1102 Q Street, Suite 5100
Sacramento, CA 95814

Mr. Conrad,

Although I appreciate receiving your reply, I am somewhat surprised that your response didn't include any more information than it did. For example, if this issue is to be addressed in the rulemaking associated with the ADA certification process, when will that process occur? From what I understand from talking with DSA staff is that DSA has received information from the U.S. Access Board that there are not a great number of areas within the California access codes that remain a barrier to the Department of Justice certification of the California Building Code. DSA has been aware of the Department of Justice position on California certification for some time now, but DSA doesn't appear to be moving forward to have our code certified. Because of the delay in certification, is DSA suggesting that individuals using these approved lifts (by local building departments and Cal OSHA) continue being stuck (trapped is a more correct description) in lifts because they must back out but can't? Is there a specific time frame that this issue will be resolved? I would suggest that the existing lift regulations that allow the user to back out of a wheelchair lift should be considered a dangerous condition an emergency code modification issue, and probably a violation of state and federal access codes/regulations. DSA doesn't see it that way? Will this be discussed at tomorrow's DSA Access Code Advisory Committee meeting?

I look forward to your reply.

Richard Skaff
303 Ashton Lane
Mill Valley, Ca. 94941
Voice & Fax: 415-389-8628
Mobile: 415-497-1091
Email: rmskaff@comcast.net

----- REPLY JAN 25---Original Message -----

From: Conrad, Richard
To: 'Richard Skaff'
Cc: Noble, Aaron ; Mankin, Michael ; Baker, Robin E.
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 5:09 PM
Subject: RE: Cal OSHA Elevator, Ride and Tramway Approved Wheelchair lifts-Access Issue-Backing out of a Wheelchair Lift


Richard

I have discussed this issue with Aaron Noble. This will be addressed in the rulemaking associated with the ADA certification.

Thank you,

Richard

Richard T. Conrad, FAIA
Acting State Architect
Division of the State Architect
1102 Q Street, Suite 5100
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 445-4167 V
(916) 324-0207 F
Richard.Conrad@dgs.ca.gov

=============January 22 2005==========
Fw: Cal OSHA Elevator, Ride and Tramway Approved Wheelchair lifts-Access Issue-Backing out of a Wheelchair Lift
Date: 1/22/2005 4:28:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: rmskaff@comcast.net
To: michael.mankin@dgs.ca.gov, Richard.Conrad@dgs.ca.gov, Rita.Brandes@dgs.ca.gov, jmeyer@hq.dir.ca.gov
CC: mazz@ACCESS-BOARD.GOV, janet.l.blizard@usdoj.gov, steve.coony@doj.ca.gov, Alberto.Gonzalez@doj.ca.gov

1/22/05

Mr. Richard Conrad
Acting State Architect
Department of General Services-Division of the State Architect
Sacramento, Ca. 95814

Mr. Jim Meyer
Chief Executive Administrator -
Cal OSHA Elevator, Ride and Tramway Unit
2424 Arden Way, Suite 300
Sacramento, Ca. 95825

Mr. Conrad and Mr. Meyer,

I haven't received a reply from either of you as yet and didn't get a "return receipt" notice when I sent it to you that would have indicated your receipt of my attached email. Please inform me as to whether you did receive the 1/17/05 emails and when you will be able to respond to the issue raised in it.

Thank you.

Richard Skaff
303 Ashton Lane
Mill Valley, Ca. 94941
Voice & Fax: 415-389-8628
Mobile: 415-497-1091
Email: rmskaff@comcast.net

=========January 17 2005========
Fw: Cal OSHA Elevator, Ride and Tramway Approved Wheelchair lifts-Access Issue-Backing out of a Wheelchair Lift
Date: 1/17/2005 10:20:17 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: rmskaff@comcast.net
To: jmeyer@hq.dir.ca.gov, Rita.Brandes@dgs.ca.gov, Richard.Conrad@dgs.ca.gov, michael.mankin@dgs.ca.gov
CC: mazz@ACCESS-BOARD.GOV, janet.l.blizard@usdoj.gov, Peter.Siggins@GOV.CA.GOV, steve.coony@doj.ca.gov, Alberto.Gonzalez@doj.ca.gov

1/17/05

Mr. Richard Conrad
Acting State Architect
Department of General Services-Division of the State Architect
Sacramento, Ca. 95814

Mr. Jim Meyer
Chief Executive Administrator -
Cal OSHA Elevator, Ride and Tramway Unit
2424 Arden Way, Suite 300
Sacramento, Ca. 95825

Mr. Conrad and Mr. Meyer,

I have attached an almost 2 year old email that was sent to the former State Architect, Steve Castellanos, in May of 2003. I have never received a response and I don't believe that either DSA or Cal OSHA have done anything to correct the failure of the present lift regulations which allows the dangerous condition I described in the attached email to still be designed, built and approved.

Please respond within the next week with an indication of what you can do to correct this unacceptable condition that creates a trap for users of wheelchairs who are required to back out of wheelchair lifts.

Thank you.

Richard Skaff
303 Ashton Lane
Mill Valley, Ca. 94941
Voice & Fax: 415-389-8628
Mobile: 415-497-1091
Email: rmskaff@comcast.net
========December 2004=======
Fw: Cal OSHA Elevator, Ride and Tramway Approved Wheelchair lifts-Access Issue-Backing out of a Wheelchair Lift
Date: 12/15/2004 11:47:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: rmskaff@comcast.net
To: Peter.Siggins@GOV.CA.GOV, steve.coony@doj.ca.gov, Alberto.Gonzalez@doj.ca.gov, jmeyer@hq.dir.ca.gov, michael.mankin@dgs.ca.gov, Rita.Brandes@dgs.ca.gov, Richard.Conrad@dgs.ca.gov
CC: mazz@ACCESS-BOARD.GOV, janet.l.blizard@usdoj.gov

12/14/04

Richard Conrad
Acting State Architect
Department of General Services
Division of the State Architect
Sacramento, Ca. 95812

Dear Mr. Conrad,

Attached is an email describing a wheelchair lift design issue that DSA/Cal OSHA have never resolved. The fact that our State building code fails to resolve this design issue and the dangerous condition it creates makes immediate action necessary. As you can see by the attached emails, the Chair of the DSA Universal Design Advisory Committee also recognized the importance of correcting this problem, but apparently never followed through with the State Architect.

I look forward to hearing from you with regard to a proposal as to how and when DSA/Cal OSHA will schedule meetings to discuss/develop solutions with regard to this wheelchair lift design problem. I am sending a copy of this email to Mr. Jim Meyer, Chief Executive Administrator - Elevator, Ride and Tramway Unit, Cal OSHA for his review and response.

Thank you.

Richard Skaff

======May 2003=======
From: Richard Skaff [mailto:rmskaff@attbi.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 10:52 PM
To: Stephan Castellanos; Michael Mankin
Cc: Alberto Gonzalez; Steve Coony; William Brieger; Richard Figueroa; Marsha Mazz; Janet Blizard; info@dir.ca.gov; John Paul Scott; Jonathan Adler; Barry Atwood; Patricia Barbosa; Rocky Burks; Christine Calabrese; Paul Church; HolLynn D'Lil; Jason Hagin; Logan Hopper; Kevin Jensen; Peter Margen; Joe Marsh; Walter Park; Richard Skaff; Jim Whipple; armstrong@icbo.org
Subject: Fw: Cal OSHA Elevator, Ride and Tramway Approved Wheelchair lifts-Access Issue-Backing out of a Wheelchair Lift


Stephan and Michael,

This is an emergency issue! I recently completed a site review of a new lift which was permitted and after installation, approved by the Cal OSHA local inspector and the local building official. The lift is in a shaft and travels between the main floor and a mezzanine to provide persons with disabilities who are not ambulatory access to the public bathrooms which are on the mezzanine level. If you are using a wheelchair and entering the lift on the main floor, the user enters the lift by opening the full-size fire doors (with the required view panel), and rolling forward onto the lift. When you arrive at the mezzanine level, you BACK OUT! of a second full-sized fire door. These are both manually operated doors, not power operated doors. Although the door locks electrically unlock when the lift arrives at a level, the approved design is difficult if not impossible to use even when entering the lift in the forward direction because the doors are rated as fire doors which, by code, are allowed to have a force to open of up to 15lbf. When you are using a manual wheelchair for mobility and are going forward into the lift, that operation is extremely difficult, but if you are in that same manual wheelchair and trying to back out of the lift while attempting to open the door, the process is impossible. The user is trapped.

The intent of the "code" is to assure accessibility. The Unruh Civil Rights Act, modified in the late 90's to assure that all codes/regulations in California meet the ADA at a minimum, mandates accessibility. The ADA states, and the California Government Code and Health and Safety Code imply, that access must be provided in public accommodations and public facilities and that even if you design and construct a project using the appropriate codes and regulations, when completed, if the project isn't accessible, you haven't met the intent of the regulation and the project is in violation of those codes and regulations. The wheelchair lift design I have described in this email specifically assures access WILL NOT be provided for those individuals in wheelchairs who are unable to twist in their chair to push the shaft door open while maneuvering their wheelchairs backwards out of the lift. Try it sometime!

When I contacted Jim Meyers, Chief Executive Administrator-Manager of Engineering Services at Cal OSHA Elevator, Ride and Tramway Unit, the State agency that inspects and permits the installation of all lifts in California, he informed me that this type of installation has been permitted all over the State and he is unaware of any complaints. Further, he stated that his agency doesn't inspect for access, just safety! The local building official hasn't signed off the project yet but has stated that he will, as soon as the project manager/architect can get a disabled person to use the lift and agree that the lift is accessible! What a process!

As you can see from the attached email, I contacted John Paul Scott, the newly appointed chair of the DSA Advisory Board Universal Design Standing Committee. Because of his work on design standards in this area, it seemed appropriate to ask for his thoughts on these issues. His response clearly seems to support my concerns. This unacceptable design is apparently being repeated throughout California even though it creates a dangerous condition for the lift user, and must be stopped. The problem must be acted on by the appropriate State regulatory agencies immediately. What options do we have?

Between now and next week when I will be in Sacramento for the DSA Advisory Board meeting, I would appreciate DSA staff contacting Jim Meyers at Cal OSHA. Together, both agencies must look into this design problem and have some options available that we can discuss. Also, whatever is done to correct the problem, a DSA or Cal OSHA bulletin should be developed and sent to all building departments throughout California informing them of both the problem and solution. I would also appreciate your suggestions as to what to tell the local building official on the particular project I described in this email. Should he permit the lift?

Please call me if you have any questions. I can be reached at:work-415-554-6786/home-415-389-8628.

Richard Skaff
rmskaff@attbi.com

----- Original Message -----
From: John Scott
To: Skaff Richard
Sent: 5/6/2003 1:53:29 PM
Subject: Wheelchair lifts



Richard I received the ASME 18.1 platform wheelchair lift standard. The standard does not address the door opening force - so Marsha Mazz and Brian Black put it into the ICC/ANSI A117.1 standard which is then referenced by the International Building Code. I include a copy of the proposed final section of the ICC ANSI A117.1 -2003 version. Basically it would require the doors on a lift to be powered doors, and then there is an exception for when the lift is a drive through one with doors on opposite sides.

This does apply to the doors that are provided by the building and not necessarily on the lift machinery itself.

So what would be required here is for Title 24 or DOSH to adopt the same requirement on power operated doors as which occurs in ICC ANSI A117.1. A clear statement is necessary that when manual the platform (wheelchair lift doors in series must operate at 5 pound pressure as well. If they are fire doors they are exempt under Title 24 and ADAAG to 15 pounds or more.

So that hole needs to be plugged as well in California Building Code.

"All platform (wheelchair) lift doors or gates shall be low energy powered doors or gates complying with ANSI/BHMA A156.19. Exception: where a lift is serving a maximum of two landings and has doors or gates on opposite sides of the platform, it shall be permitted to have self opening and closing doors or gates complying with 1133B.2.5 and have a maximum opening force of 5 pounds."

"Controls for powered doors or gates shall comply with 1117B.6A, and the clear floor area shall be located outside of the door or gate clear floor area. The clear floor area of the control shall be centered on the control. Controls shall be located 48 inches maximum from the floor or ground level."

"Where platform (wheelchair) platform lifts are provided in vertical shafts, all doors providing access into and out of the lift shall be operated with 5 pounds maximum opening pressure or they shall be power operated doors complying with ANSI/BHMA A156.10 for full powered automatic doors or gates or ANSI/BHMA A156.19 for low powered doors or gates"

The AMSE A18.1 standard states that the lift shall be operable with up and down switches at all stations and on the platform itself. Now the original A117.1 requirement was for key operated, and operable from all stations. So the stairway platform lift that you saw that was left open, and thus not operable from the bottom station was not compliant to California DOSH .

John Paul Scott, AIA
CREATE Access, Architects/Consultants
818-244-3150 tel 818-244-1954

Monday, January 10, 2005

REPORT-J-916XX

Joseph Abbott
To:
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 1:07 PM
Subject: Plumas County


It was good to talk to you Friday last after so many months. I have been
pursuing ADA issues both in my un-incorporated town (Johnsville) and the
County of Plumas. This may all seem like a-long-winded story but at least
it will let you know I've been busy.

The problem: Can the local agency (special district) have Public meetings
(town meetings) in a building with ADA access problems? Specifically, an
unpaved parking area, a problematic access ramp, and no disability rest
room hardware, etc.

The local agency: The local Public Utility District (PUD) is a "special
district" exempt from State or County oversight and regulations and as such
is not very interested in ADA issues. The entire town has membership in
this group because we are all water users which the PUD (an elective
office-the elections are organized (secrete ballot) and performed (by mail)
by the Plumas County Election Clerk's office "as a favor" to the PUD. The
PUD plans to use a structure in the town for its meeting which up to now
have been held in private homes. Reference: see response of California
Public Utility Commission: "Districts are formed by the County Bd. Of Sups
if they are within a single county or by state law if they exist in
multiple counties (like EBMUD). The CPUC does not have any jurisdiction
over districts. You need to contact your county attorney or ombudsman".

The structure: Some of the locals (incorporated as the Johnsville
Historical Society) have organized to rescue (rebuilt it) a dilapidated
building known as the Johnsville Church and are in the process of renting
it out for social events and use by the PUD. They originally neglected to
get a certificate of occupancy or use permit, and that process has now been
playing out with the Board of Supervisors and the Plumas Planning
(so-called) Department. In this process the Planning department has placed
a sign in the building which states that the structure will only hold 49
persons. Often the building has more than this number because no one
enforces the restriction. This was done to avoid compliance with State Fire
codes and disability access.

PS. The PUD never held another meeting in their fire building (which they
own) likely because I made such bad noises over their venue i.e., no
chairs, my pain etc. Thus, I never filed my complaint against them. That's
the last time we made contact.

From our conversation of yesterday it seems that my target for remedial
ADA action is with the Johnsville PUD since (as a California Special
District) they (PUD) are exempt from all State and County oversight.


Plumas County:
Problem list: (see my letter which is attached as #1)
Specific issues in Plumas County.
1. Plumas County Disability coordinator: There was none until I called
the County Counsel and then the Director of Facility Services
(grounds-keeper) was appointed as such. But his office building has no
sign, disability parking area, no access ramp and he states he only is
responsible for County Buildings not those like the Johnsville PUD will
use. I have been working with a member of the local Grand Jury to see it
they (GJ) will address this issues (sign, parking, access, etc.) and if
they will not, I have offered to file a formal complaint against the County
regards the disability coordinator officer's non-compliance.
2. Parking on Quincy Main Street (As the result of my above referenced
letter, I was contacted the local CalTrans Supervisor: Her response "I had
spoken to the CalTrans paint crew supervisor earlier, he is the person who
told me that it was the (Plumas) County's responsibility. Since John Kolb
(County Works Department, who told me in was a CalTrans issue) does not
agree, I am now following up with our traffic department in Redding to get
more definitive information. I will get more information to you, hopefully
by the end of next week. Sincerely, Kathy Coots, Caltrans Area
Superintendent" . Note: I have yet to hear an definitive answer after
several months of waiting for CalTrans intervention.
3. I have been successful in getting the Community Care Council (see
attached email #2) to place my above referenced letter on their agenda for
their January 13, 2005 meeting . My goal is to involve a broader group
including Seniors and others with physical limitations to become involved
in this issue rather than attempt to carry the entire burden myself i.e.
consensus building.

Finally I have not been able to locate a Michel Adams of CalTrans in the
State phone directory. Do you have more contact information on her so I can
make contact?
I am eager to attend the meeting in mid-January that you mentioned but I
need a topic, time, place, etc. so I know where to go in Sacramento.
I look forward to your direction in my attempts to bring Plumas County up
to date regarding ADA requirements.

Joe Abbott
Joseph A. Abbott, MD.
1870 Jackson, St. # 502
San Francisco, CA. 94109

===========REPLY ===========
Re: Plumas County
Date: 1/10/2005 4:18:24 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: rmskaff@comcast.net
To: jabbottmd@mindspring.com
CC: LE3293@aol.com, barnonhill@aol.com, cfilc@cfilc.org, mcollins@calsilc.org, longmore@sfsu.edu, wheelchair-access-now-today@cox.net

1/10/05

Mr. Abbott,

It was good talking to you the other day.

The simple answer to the question in the second paragraph of your email is NO. A public agency would be a violation of the California Brown Act which says that public agencies, holding public meetings MUST hold those meetings in a fashion that is open to the public. [SEE LINK] If the facility the meeting is held at is not accessible by state or federal access codes/regulations, then it's not open and available to a segment of the population, those of us with disabilities. Recently, the Town of Corte Madera, in Marin County California, held a Town Council meeting at a site that wasn't accessible. They received a letter from Mr. Lockyer's Office warning them that they were in violation of the Brown Act. I have attached two letters from the AG's Office (I'm sorry, they are both "pdf" files), one, a letter sent to the Mayor of Adelanto, California about this same issue. I would copy both to your computer and forward them, along with your complaint to the agency in question. Remember, these are state as well as federal violations (not just federal ADA issues). I would strongly suggest that you do this by sending an email to the special district Board and manager with "cc's" to:

1. State Attorney General Bill Lockyer: email - PIU@doj.ca.gov
2. Steve Coony-Chief Deputy Attorney General for Administration & Policy: email - steve.coony@doj.ca.gov
3. Alberto Gonzalez, Special Assistant Attorney General: email - Alberto.Gonzalez@doj.ca.gov . Mr. Gonzalez can also be reached by phone: 916-324-5369
4. Peter Siggins, Chief Legal Affairs Secretary to the Governor: email - peter.siggins@gov.ca.gov
4. Janet Blizard, Janet Blizard, Supervising Attorney-Public Access: email - janet.l.blizard@usdoj.gov
5. Laura Williams, President - Californians for Disability Rights, Inc (CDR): email: LE3293@aol.com . Ms. Williams has developed a web "blog" in which she lists complaints that individuals have filed. I believe that Ms. Williams is doing this in an effort to show; 1. how many building sites exist with access violations throughout the state, and; 2. the effort and time it takes for our community to get the access that the state and federal laws have required for years that aren't being enforced.

In your letter, describe the apparent access violations (unless you are a known "code" expert that has a background of acting in that position in court cases) and that you expect a written response within thirty days with details as to the outcome of their investigation of your complaint, the details that were found that are violations and when they propose to correct the violations. Then, follow up within thirty days if they don't respond with a second email, cc'ing the same people and add a "cc" to a disability rights attorney (I can provide you some names at that time, if you are interested).

I hope you don't mind. I'm "cc'ing" your email to others (activists) in the disability community in California. They may have additional suggestions for you.

Good luck.

Richard Skaff
303 Ashton Lane
Mill Valley, Ca. 94941
Voice & Fax: 415-389-8628
Mobile: 415-497-1091
Email: rmskaff@comcast.net

REPORT-SF-941XX

From: Richard Skaff
To: Kevin Jensen ; Newsom, Gavin ; Board of Supervisors ; edwin_M_Lee@sfdpw.org
Cc: Alberto Gonzalez ; Steve Coony ; frederickd.isler@fhwa.dot.gov ; Bobo, Karen ; Jose.Caedo@sfgov.org ; Marsha Mazz ; Janet Blizard
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 12:54 PM
Subject: Fw: Complaint-San Francisco Department of Public Works-Non-Complying Construction Barricades

1/10/05


Mr. Edwin M. Lee, Director
San Francisco Department of Public Works
San Francisco City Hall
San Francisco, Ca. 94103

Mr. Lee,


I have attached emails to this email I am now sending you because I have yet to receive a response from the San Francisco Department of Public Works about the complaints I have filed with your department. Just last week, I was in the City and went past the Franklin/Clay intersection and found that nothing had changed, even though I first informed your department about the violations at this site last year on 5/14/04, almost 8 months ago!. 2 blocks of Clay Street and the intersection of Clay at Franklin Streets were completely resurfaced after a P.G.&E. utility undergrounding project was completed, triggering the installation of curb ramps in the "remodeled" intersections. Two curb returns in the Clay/Franklin intersection still don't have the required curb ramps that should have been installed during that project! Additionally, I have heard nothing from your department with regard to my complaint about the use of DPW manufactured bucket/chain barricades being used at various locations around the City. Are those barricades that don't comply with the Department's Barricade Order still being used and if so, why?

Although you may not be aware of California regulations that require access violations must be corrected within 90 days of determining their validity, that doesn't excuse your department's non-responsiveness to my complaints and correction of the violations.

If I don't hear from you or your staff by the end of this week with the outcome of your department's investigation of ALL of my complaints and a schedule for correction of the violations that I have brought to your department's attention, I will be forced to take more drastic and aggressive action. It is quite clear that there are some bureau chiefs within your department who are either uninterested or unwilling to assure that their bureau is in compliance with state and federal access codes/regulations or even the Department's own Orders. Could this be because there is no clear direction from their Director on the issue of accessibility for persons with disabilities?

Richard Skaff
303 Ashton Lane
Mill Valley, Ca. 94941
Voice & Fax: 415-389-8628
Mobile: 415-497-1091
Email: rmskaff@comcast.net

=============
11/07/04
Mr. Ed Lee, Director
San Francisco Department of Public WorksCity Hall
San Francisco, Ca. 940102
SUBJECT: VARIOUS ACCESS VIOLATIONS - PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY - NON-COMPLYING CONSTRUCTION BARRICADE SYSTEMS
Mr. Lee,
The attached photos describe the numerous access violations by P.G. & E and their subcontractors on Haight Street last week. The a frame "barricades" being used certainly wouldn't protect anyone, especially a blind/low visioned pedestrian. The second set of photos visually describes the chaos on the sidewalk on Page Street at the Urban School construction project. The project supervisor representing Plant Construction told me that the City inspector (sidewalk or DBI?) had been by the site just days prior and hadn't been concerned. In June, I had forwarded photos of a previous barricade violation by P.G.&E. at the same location in front of the San Francisco Urban School site. I will re-send those if requested. The P.G.&E. sub-contractor, Annuzi, has had ongoing violations in most of their projects throughout the City and even when fined, don't seem to take this issue seriously. None of the barricades at either project appeared to comply with the San Francisco Department of Public Works Barricade Order even though the DPW ADA Coordinator has apparently provided training to P.G.& E. staff and to DPW sidewalk inspectors. I will be sending three emails on the same complaints due to the number of digital photos being included.
Richard Skaff
-------------August 2004--------
8/7/04

Mr. Kevin Jensen, ADA/Disability Access Coordinator
San Francisco Department of Public Works
Mr. Jensen,

The attached pictures visually describe three construction sites located on the North sidewalk of McAllister Street in San Francisco. The first and second show the same excavation on the North sidewalk on McAllister Street in front of Hasting Law School at an accessible parking space just East of Hyde Street (which, of course, makes the accessible parking space unusable by many individuals). The second two photos show two excavation sites, one on the West sidewalk on Hyde Street and the second, at the corner of Hyde Street and McAllister Street. All three construction sites have multiple sheets of plywood laying presumably laying over an excavation. None of the plywood sheets have "cut-back" to assure that the plywood sheet edges don't create a tripping hazard. Presently, all three sites don't comply with either State or federal access code/regulatory requirements and don't comply with the Department of Public Works own Construction Barricade Order and all three sites are heavily traveled by pedestrians, including those who are blind or other types of disabilities.

Please inform me, at your earliest convenience, when DPW sidewalk inspectors will be investigating these three sites and, if the sites are violations as I have suggested, what DPW will do to have the violations corrected. I would also like to know if DPW will be holding the contractor or City department responsible for these violations and what that will entail.

Additionally, the following is a description of an additional public right-of-way complaint that I am formally filing with your office. Although I don't have photos or specific addresses of the sites in question, they will be easily found. While using the North side of Market Street yesterday, between McAllister Street and Grant Street, I found two locations with the same "barricade" being used. It can be described as a number of plastic buckets filled with cement with a plastic pipe imbedded vertically in the concrete-filled buckets, holding three levels of horizontally strung yellow chain between the vertical pipes, similar to the one apparently DPW Operations installed at the United Nations Plaza fountain near City Hall. Although I have contacted Mohammed Nuru-Deputy Director of DPW Operations and informed him that this "barricade" design does not meet the intent of local, state or federal barricade guidelines and doesn't meet either the intent or function of the design described in the U.S. Access Board's Pedestrian Right-of-Way Access Committee's Guidelines, he has apparently continued to allow their use. In fact, although I have called and left messages for him about this issue, he has only returned my original call but has never returned any of my other calls about this issue. The reason for my repeated calls to Mr. Nuru were due to his lack of response to me and lack of action in removing/replacing the non-complying barricade system at the U.N. Fountain (his apparent lack of interest in responding to complaints such as those described in this email is not acceptable). Again, I want to reiterate that the barricade system I have described in this email doesn't even meet the requirements in the SF Department of Public Works Barricade Order which Mr. Nuru has known about since his appointment as Deputy Director!

Within the next thirty days, please inform me as to the outcome of DPW's investigation of my complaints and, based on the outcome of that investigation, what DPW staff have done to correct the violations. Additionally, I want to be informed as to what efforts are being made by DPW and the City to assure that similar violations will be resolved more effectively in the future and not be allowed to occur on such a frequent and regular basis. I'm sure one solution will have to be the addition of more street inspectors (and utility inspectors) with ongoing training and auditing to assure their knowledge and competency. Please inform me if that solution is being considered and if so, when will the additional inspection staff be available?

Thank you.

Richard Skaff

---------------------May 2004--------
5/14/04

Mr. Kevin Jensen, ADA/Disability Access Coordinator
San Francisco Department of Public Works
30 Van Ness Avenue, 5th floor
San Francisco, Ca. 94102

Mr. Jensen,

The attached photos visually describe the numerous non-complying barricades being used around the City by contractors and utility companies like P.G.&E. I will send you multiple emails with attachments because there are so many photos. When I stopped and talked to one of the project supervisors on Oak Street between Stanyan and Divisidero, he informed me that the inspector had been to the site that morning and said everything was fine. The supervisor was quite concerned that he was getting different messages about what the City required as an appropriate design for a construction barricade.

Additionally, at the intersection of Franklin and Clay, another location where I believe a utility did undergrounding, part of the work within the public right-of-way (sidewalk) triggered the installation of a curb ramp, which was never installed. It's obvious by the markings on the sidewalk, that someone knew about the requirement to install a curb ramp because there are lines depicting the location of the required installation of a curb ramp on the South East corner of Franklin at Clay.

It's obvious to me that there is a real problem with how DPW communicates what it expects from utilities and contractors with regard to safe and accessible barricade systems and the installation of curb ramps in utility projects. At your earliest convenience, please inform me as to what DPW will do in the very near future to correct the problem of inadequate, incorrect and inconsistent (or no) information on this subject. I would also like to hear from you with regard to what DPW requires as far as construction plans for projects proposed by utilities. From every indication I have seen, detailed (including access triggered by the project) approved project plans which also include proposed barricade design and necessary curb ramp installations, both triggered by the project, are none existent. I hope that I'm wrong on that assumption.

Thanks.

Richard Skaff

Thursday, December 02, 2004

REPORT-SF-941XX

12/02/2004
Subj: Re: Complaint - Various Violations on Hayes Street (From Stanyan, East) and various other sites in that neighborhood
Date: 12/2/2004
From: rmskaff@comcast.net
To: Grace.Moore@sfdpw.org,Board.of.Supervisors@sfgov.org, michelle_adams@dot.ca.gov, michael.winter@fta.dot.gov

12/02/04

Mr. Kevin Jensen
ADA/Disability Access Coordinator
San Francisco Department of Public Works
30 Van Ness Avenue, 5th Floor
San Francisco, Ca. 94103

Mr. Jensen,

Once again, I am filing a public right-of-way complaint with you regarding
non-complying construction in the public right-of-way. In this case, the
violation is once again created by P.G.&E undergrounding crews. This has
been an issue with P.G.&E. for a number of years and throughout the City.

I am unwilling to continue spending my time attempting to protect my rights
and those of others in the disability community by acting as an enforcement
individual for the City because the City of San Francisco and the Department
of Public Works is unwilling or unable to enforce it's own Orders, in this
case, Order No. 167,840, titled guidelines pertaining to the placement of
barricades at construction sites. You must recognize that the City's lack
of enforcement of that Order doesn't even take into account the fact that
the City of San Francisco is not in compliance with state and federal
codes/regulations that require the City and it's department responsible for
the public sidewalks to assure that the public right-of-way is both safe and
accessible for the public to use, including those of us with disabilities.

If there isn't a dramatic and immediate change in the way the City takes
it's responsibilities with regard to the enforcement of access
codes/regulations and local City Orders to protect the rights of persons
with disabilities in the public right-of-way, I will take the only other
option apparently available to me and take legal action against the City for
it's pattern and practice of discriminating against my rights to safe and
functional access to the public sidewalks under the City's control.

Within the next thirty days, I expect a written response indicating what the
City proposes to do to assure that the kind of violations shown in the
attached photos don't continue to occur.

Thank you for your help with this matter.

Richard Skaff
Email: rmskaff@comcast.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Santos, Edelmira" Edelmira.Santos@sfdpw.org
To: "Chono, Cynthia" Cynthia.Chono@sfdpw.org, rmskaff@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004
Subject: Complaint - Various Violations @ Hayes Street (From Stanyan) -
Richard Skaff


Dear Ms. Chono/Ms. Moore:

May we refer to you the following complaint phoned in today by Mr. Richard
Skaff for consideration and response? Mr. Skaff claimed that there are PG&E
crews working on both sides along Hayes Street, from Stanyan going East. He
observed that the utility company's crews are repeatedly in violations of
the DPW (Order No. 167,840) Guidelines pertaining to the placement of
barricades at construction sites, & the federal/state codes as well. In
above-mentioned location, he noted that -

* There are vehicles parked on the sidewalk blocking pedestrian's path of
travel.
* The excavated areas are covered with plywood without cutback.
* Some sections of the sidewalk excavated areas are improperly barricaded
or no barricade at all.
* There are also open trenches.
* A safety/tripping hazard not only for persons who are blind or visually
impaired but also for other pedestrians as well.

The Disability Access Coordinator's (DAC) Office requests that -
* An inspector visits the site to investigate, assess the condition and take
appropriate action, if necessary.
* The Disability Access Coordinator be informed of any noted violations and
what measures DPW takes to address them.
* What actions the utility's forces or their contractors have taken to
correct current violations and prevent future violations.

Please respond ASAP, so we may inform the complainant of our findings and
actions taken before December 31.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this request.
Emy C. Santos
DPW Disability Access Coordinator's Office
Tel. No. (415) 558-4526
Email Address: Edelmira.Santos@sfdpw.org

REPORT-CalTrans-Ca

12/02/2004
Subj: Cal Trans Disability Access Violations - Various Locations
Date: 12/2/2004
From: rmskaff@comcast.net
To: michael.winter@fta.dot.gov,Brenda.Armstead@fhwa.dot.gov, frederickd.isler@fhwa.dot.gov, michelle.adams@dot.ca.gov,
CC: Alberto.Gonzalez@doj.ca.gov, Peter.Siggins@GOV.CA.GOV

12/02/04

Ms. Michelle Adams
ADA Statewide Coordinator
California Department of Transportation
Sacramento, Ca.

SUBJECT: FORMAL COMPLAINT - VARIOUS LOCATIONS - CAL TRANS FACILITIES

Ms. Adams,

I have attached a formal access complaint originally sent to you on 11/23/04. I look forward to an immediate response with correction dates and a listing of the access violations I have brought to your attention and how they will corrected. I also expect that other previously sent access complaints will finally be responded to and resolved, including the meeting locations that I have been to throughout the State used by the Cal Trans Traffic Control Device Committee which did not have the required physical or program access. It is apparent to me, from Cal Trans projects I have encountered throughout the State, that there is obviously no oversight and enforcement to assure compliance with state and federal access codes/regulations, and no quality assurance program to keep project management aware of their staff's quality of work.

It is quite obvious that Cal Trans has not made a commitment to access for persons with disabilities within their programs and facilities. As part of my complaint, please provide me with a flow chart of where your office sits within the Cal Trans administration and what authority and staffing you have. Based on the size of the Cal Trans agency, unless you, as the ADA/Disability Access Coordinator, have the Director's authority and staff to support your efforts, physical and program access violations like the ones I have filed with you, will not be resolved, and Cal Trans will continue to respond to their responsibilities in this area reactively instead of proactively. I can assure you that this will eventually lead to legal action against Cal Trans by the disability community as the only way we can assure our civil rights within Cal Trans programs and facilities.

As part of this complaint, I am also sending copies to Mr. Richard Conrad, the Acting State Architect, because that office approved the plans for at least the Brower Vista Point project. Based on our site review together (you and other Cal Trans staff and a representative from the State Architect's Office), it was obvious that the plan review left much to be desired with regard to access requirements. I look forward to a timely response from DSA.

Richard Skaff
Email: rmskaff@comcast.net
________________________________________
11/23/04

Ms. Michelle Adams
ADA Statewide Coordinator
Department of Transportation

Ms. Adams,

Although I appreciate your efforts to assure that the violations at Brower's
Vista Point are resolved, I am very concerned that Cal Trans has been aware
of the state and federal access code/regulatory violations since 2003 when I
first filed my complaint. The time and effort it has taken me personally to
get Cal Trans and the State Architect's Office to respond is completely
unacceptable.

Wednesday, December 01, 2004

REPORT-N-949XX

12/01/2004
Subj: Re: Accessibility Complaint
Date: 12/1/2004
From: rmskaff@comcast.net
To: raveriet@ci.novato.ca.us, karen.panian@target.com

12/1/04

Mr. Averiette
Chief Building Official
City of Novato

Mr. Averiette,

I'm so please to read that you now recognize that there are, in fact, access code violations in the Target store in the Vintage Oaks Shopping Center. I didn't make a list the last time I visited the store, but know that the items you have listed are, at the very minimum, existing violations.

My question to you at this point is why you are asking the store to provide you with a time frame for the correction of the violations? I have always understood that it was the responsibility of the building official to make that decision, especially when we have State regulations that require correction of access violations within 90 days of the determination that access code violations exist.

In one of my most recent emails, I also raised the question about the need for detectable warning materials (truncated domes) at the entrance sidewalk area to Target. I have never received a response from you about that. Didn't Target modify the sidewalk when the building remodel was done in the last year or two? Is the store responsible or the shopping center owner?



----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Averiette
To: karen.panian@target.com
Cc: rmskaff@comcast.net ; ddenaut@cbre.com ; Robert Geno
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 1:07 PM
Subject: Accessibility Complaint

Ms. Karen Panian

Hope you had a nice holiday. As a follow up to our phone conversation, a review of the interior of the Targe store at the Vintage Oaks Shopping Center in Novato, CA was completed and the following violations of the California Building Code (CBC) were observed:

1. Checkstands: The required three accessible checkstands ( regular check stands exceed nine so three are required to be accessible) do not have required symbol and signage, including the wording "This checkstand to be open at all times for customers with disabilities" (Section 1110B1.3 CBC) This would include the express or quick checkstand.

2. In the mens restroom, the flush handle on the accessible water closet in the bathroom is not on the wide side of the toilet. (Section 1115B.2.1.2 CBC) Please note the womens restroom was not checked due to the volume of customers at the time of the inspection, so there may be a similar violation in the women's accessible stall.

3. The bottom edge of the mirror (not frame) on the wall in the men's restroom above the accessible lavatory fixture, exceeds the maximum height of 40 inches from the floor. (Section 1115B.9.1 CBC) See note above regarding the women's restroom.

4. The signage on both restrooms doors do not meet code requirements of a triangle sign for the men's and a circle for the women's (Section 1115B.5 CBC) and the required wall signs on the latch side of the doors (Section 1117B.5.7 CBC)

5. The color of the symbol on the existing signs is not white on blue (blue to be equal to Color No. 15090 in Federal Standard 595b) and I can not locate in our records a request by Target to have the white on red approved for use. (Section 1117B.5.8.1.1 CBC)
If you wish to use the white on red for purposes of maintaining the white and red decor, please make a formal request so we may review and approve your request under the exception portion of the above code section and have such approval in both our records.


Please provide a reasonable time frame on having the above violations corrected,but in no case later than 90 days from todays date so we can be in compliance with California Govenment Code Section 4452.

If you have any questions please contact me by email or at 415 897-4335.

Thank you
Ron Averiette
Chief Building Official
City of Novato

Monday, November 22, 2004

REPORT-R-949XX

11/22/2004 Ross
U.S. FHWA/DOT - Final Request for Response to Complaint - Path of Travel Access Violations - Town of Ross, Marin County, California

From:
rmskaff@comcast.net
To:
Brenda.Armstead@fhwa.dot.gov


Ms. Brenda Armstead
Director of Investigations and Adjudications
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
Office of Civil Rights
Washington, D.C

Ms. Armstead,

Based on Mr. Isler's suggestion, I forwarded the attached public right-of-way complaint to you for resolution. I have been out of the country speaking at the 14th Biennial of Architecture Conference in Quito, Ecuador. It was quite an experience. I was asked to participate in a 6 person panel of mayors (including the Mayor from Quito, Paris and a number of South and Central American cities) about city planning issues. I also presented a 2 1/2 hour PowerPoint presentation on state and federal access requirements in the United States to approximately 500 architects and government officials, much of the presentation having to do with the federal requirements for public entities to provide physical access within and through the public right-of-way. As the former Deputy Director of the Mayor's Office on Disability and prior to that, the Disability Access Coordinator for the San Francisco Department of Public Works since 1989, I have had a great amount of experience in the area of design within the public right-of-way. As further personal history, I have also been a member of the U.S. Access Board's Pedestrian Right-of-Way Access Advisory Committee during my tenure with San Francisco. I am not providing you this personal information to impress you, but to inform you of my expertise in the area of access and the public right-of-way.

You can see by the attached emails, the complaint I filed with the U.S. Department of Transportation is quite old and there has been no resolution/correction of the public right-of-way access violations that continue to exist in the Town of Ross, Marin County, California. In fact, the Ross Town Council sent a letter to the FHWA/DOT staff in the Sacramento Office asking for reconsideration of DOT's decision (the U.S. FHWA/DOT staff from Sacramento, with California DOT staff did a site review of the pedestrian facility in question and determined that the Town of Ross was in violation of federal accessibility regulations. A letter stating that position was sent to the Town of Ross with specific demands for correction of the Town's many right-of-way violations). At that point, I had hoped that by contacting Mr. Isler, FHWA's newly appointed Associate Administrator for Civil Rights, the complaint would be resolved in a timely fashion. To date, no resolution has occurred.

By the end of the week of November 29th, please inform me what, if anything, FHWA/DOT will be doing to enforce it's demand of compliance that was made to the Town of Ross and by what date FHWA/DOT will require the violations to be corrected. At this point, I'm not sure what my next step can be with FHWA/DOT in getting this complaint resolved. I do know, however, that if the agency won't take action, my next step will be legal action against the Town of Ross. If that becomes necessary, I will also be looking into what my legal options are with regard to FHWA/DOT.

Taking almost four years to get a complaint of this nature resolved is not acceptable!

Thank you.

Richard Skaff email: rmskaff@comcast.net
11/05/04

Mr. Isler,

I am re-sending the attached email to you directly. As you can see, I had originally sent it to the Civil Rights Division, FHWA.

Richard Skaff Email: rmskaff@comcast.net

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Skaff
To: CivilRights.FHWA@fhwa.dot.gov
Cc: michael.winter@fta.dot.gov ; Mel Jarjoura
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 7:52 PM
Subject: Fw: Lack of Access on Shady Lane and Other Access Complaints

October 31, 2004

Mr. Frederick D. Isler
Associate Administrator for Civil Rights
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
Office of Civil Rights
Washington, D.C

SUBJECT: ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL ACCESS REGULATIONS TO PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY BY FHWA/DOT

Mr. Isler,

I would first like to congratulate you on your appointment as Associate Administrator for Civil Rights in the Federal Highway Administration. As a newly retired public official who has spent the last fifteen years with the City of San Francisco as the Deputy Director of the Mayor's Office on Disability, I know something of the challenges and interesting experiences you will have in your new position. I wish you success in your new job.

I am writing to you to ask for your help in assuring that FHWA/DOT finally takes action to get an acceptable resolution on one of many public right-of-way accessibility complaints I have filed with your agency. The one complaint that I am forwarding to you is almost three years old and is still not resolved! As you can see by my email correspondence that I've attached below, one of my many correspondence to the Town of Ross in Marin County, California about the Shady Lane right-of-way complaint was sent in 2002. The original correspondence was in November, 2001. In April, 2003, I was contacted by a Ms. Rosalind McDaniel, California Department of Transportation, Civil Rights Investigator/Special Asst. to EEO Program Manager, Civil Rights - Office of Equal Opportunity, Discrimination Complaint Investigation Unit-1823 14th Street - MS79, Sacramento CA 95814 - Office Telephone (916) 324-8378, who indicated that the California Department of Transportation would be investigating my complaint. The email I have attached below, dated December 3, 2003, that went to the FHWA/DOT California office, was sent by me on December 3, 2003 after receiving a letter from Ms. McDaniel about the outcome of the Cal Trans Town of Ross investigation.

The latest response regarding my complaint came from FHWA/DOT which demanded that the Town of Ross not only update it's incomplete American's with Disabilities Act Transition and Self-evaluation plans to include Town controlled right-of-way accessibility issues such as curb ramps, ped signals, sidewalks, etc., but also demanded that a plan to correct the lack of pedestrian access in the Town of Ross for persons with disabilities be corrected. I'm sure your office has a copy of that letter. After receiving the letter from your office, the Ross Town Council decided to appeal the FHWA/DOT mandates (see the first attachment above which describes and summerizes 3 articles from the Marin County Independent Journal, a local newspaper) and since that time, no further actions by FHWA/DOT have taken place and the Shady Lane public pathway is still inaccessible.

Although I am bringing this particular case to your attention and asking for your help in getting resolution of it, I am also asking your help in getting resolution to the many other access complaints that I know have been sent by me and others with disabilities from across the Country to FHWA/DOT. It is quite clear, from those many unresolved cases, that the problems I have had in getting FHWA/DOT to take action in the Ross case are symptomatic of a larger problem-FHWA/DOT is apparently unable to protect our rights. I do hope that with the authority that goes with your new position, you can help assure that the disability community across America won't have to continue facing a lack of accessibility in the public right-of-way.

Please call me if you have any questions regarding this email.

Thank you.

Richard Skaff Email: rmskaff@comcast.net
_______________________________________
December 3, 2003

Federal Highway Administration
EOS Office
980 Ninth Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, California
I am sure that you are already aware of the findings by Cal Trans regardingthe complaint I filed about the lack of access for persons with disabilitiesalong the public right-of-way on Shady Lane in the Town of Ross, MarinCounty. Rosalind McDaniel, Civil Rights Investigator/Special Asst. to EEO Program Mgr.,
Civil Rights Office of Equal Opportunity, Discrimination Complaint, Investigation Unit,Cal Trans, called me to ask if I would agree to "sign-off" on what I believeshe called a settlement agreement. I was amazed to learn that the agreementhas nothing to do with my complaint, but deals with the lack of appropriateand accessible public notification of Town of Ross public meetings! Ms.McDaniel also informed me when asked that if I would not agree to sign thesettlement, Cal Trans would not provide me with any information about theirinvestigation of my complaint! So, it seems that almost a year has gone byand Cal Trans, based on information given them by the Town of Ross, that thenon-accessible dirt path parallel to Shady Lane and the only path-of-travelfor pedestrians, is the responsibility of the fronting property owners andnot the responsibility of the Town of Ross to make and maintain in anaccessible manner. Their investigation has determined that there is noviolation! That right-of-way is Town of Ross property which the Town has,by local ordinance, required the fronting property owners to maintain. Thatlocal policy doesn't remove the legal responsibility of maintaining thatpathway in an accessible fashion or liability if it isn't maintained by theTown of Ross. This investigation appears to indicate that Cal Transbelieves that the Town of Ross has no responsibility in assuring thatpersons with disabilities can either use the pathway along Shady Lane orcross Shady Lane at any of the cross streets that dead-end into Shady Lane.Nothing was said by Ms. McDaniel about the fact that the entire length ofShady Lane was resurfaced by the Town of Ross in the late '90s. I would greatly appreciate hearing from you at your earliest convenience asto what my next step with FHWA is with regard to this complaint. Do I haveany recourse or is this Cal Trans determination the final step FHWA will
take with regard to my complaint? Can you provide me with any of theinvestigation information or is that information confidential?

Richard Skaff

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Skaff
To: lthomas@townofross.org
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 12:28 PM
Subject: Lack of Access on Shady Lane and Other Access Complaints
TO: Town of Ross, Mayor and Town Council and Mel Jarjoura, Director of Public Works

In November, 2001, I sent an email to you about the lack of an accessible route along Shady Lane in the Town of Ross. On January 11, 2002, I received a letter responding to my complaint from a Mr. Hadden Roth, apparently the Town Attorney, informing me that he had both driven and walked the length of Shady Lane and stated that the pathway along the side of Shady Lane is privately maintained by the adjacent property owners. I assume by Mr. Roth's statement that he is indicating that the Town of Ross holds no responsibility in assuring that Shady Lane is accessible for persons with disabilities.

It is my understanding that the Town of Ross, in the mid 90's, completely resurfaced the Shady Lane roadway, including the intersections crossing this roadway. It was at this time that the Shady Lane pathway and the pedestrian crossings at each intersection within the length of Shady Lane, should have been made accessible. Although the Town of Ross may require property owners to maintain the Shady Lane pathway in front of their properties, the Town of Ross must still take the underlying responsibility to assure that this Lane and the intersections crossing the Lane, are accessible to and useable by the public, including those of us with disabilities.

In April of 1999, after the settlement of a lawsuit that I brought against the Town of Ross, a contractor completed what the Town of Ross claims is their Federally mandated Transition/Self-evaluation Plan. After reviewing this Plan, it is apparent that not only has the Town of Ross failed to make those modifications to facilities and programs proposed by the Plan, but a number of Ross "public programs" such as sidewalks, walks (like Shady Lane), curb ramps, accessible on-street parking, pedestrian traffic signals and policies, including public rights-of-way policies were apparently not included as part of the Plan. Also, nowhere in the Plan am I able to determine the dates by which the Town of Ross public programs and facilities that are described in the Plan will become accessible (page 53 of the Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan, Section 5.3.1 Phasing Schedule, only provides a list project priorities). Additionally, as the original complainant against the Town of Ross, I have never been provided any information as to whether the Town of Ross has actually followed through with any of the suggestion made by the contractor who prepared the Town's Self-evaluation/Transition Plan. In my opinion, the Town's Plan has not only not been complied with, but is incomplete and does not meet the criteria laid out in the American's with Disabilities Act. As an example of the Town of Ross' failure to even comply with the suggestions in their Self-evaluation/Transition Plan, the following is a copy of the Town's web site. As you can see, there is no listing for a TTY which would allow a person who is deaf to call the Ross Town Hall. There is also no indication that the Town Hall is accessible nor does the web site provide the Plan-proposed "Public Meeting Notice" as described on page 17 of the Plan. Has the Town of Ross appointed anyone to act as the Town's ADA Compliance Coordinator as required by the ADA? Again, no one having that responsibility is listed on the Town's web site even though page 20 of the Plan states; "General Publicity and Advertising - Increased outreach to persons with disabilities is needed to inform the public of the possible modifications the Town is prepared to provide to make its services, programs and activities accessible." This page of the Plan goes on to say; "Recommendations - Improve communication and outreach to increase the participation of community members with disabilities/Ensure that all announcements and applications include: The notice of nondiscrimination, Information regarding site accessibility, the Town's text telephone (TDD/TTY) number, A notice that program information is available in multiple formats, The accessible bus route serving the program, and The phone number (and I presume TTY number) of the program person who can provide assistance in meeting special needs..."

At your earliest convenience, please have Town staff forward the Town's response to the Self-evaluation/Transition Plan proposed policies and indicate when the Plan will be corrected to include all necessary facilities and programs and schedule for each projects completion. For your information, by this email, I will be sending a copy of this email to the U.S. Department of Justice and the California Department of Justice as a formal complaint against the Town of Ross for it's lack of compliance with federal and state access codes/laws and regulations.

I look forward to your timely response. Please respond to my email address: rmskaff@attbi.com

Richard Skaff

Town of Ross
Address:
Town Hall 31 Sir Francis Drake BoulevardRoss, CA 94957-0320 Phone: (415) 453-1453Fax: (415) 453-1950Hours: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Legal Status: General Law TownIncorporated: 8/20/1908
DEMOGRAPHICS1995 Estimated Population: 2,281

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

REPORT-SR-949XX

11/10/2004
From: rmskaff@comcast.net

Thought you might be interested in the response I just received to some of my coomplaints from the City of San Rafael, Marin County. Their document doesn't indicate when I filed the complaints.

Thanks for your efforts. If we can let enough of our community know about what you are doing, and cases come to you from across the Country, just think the effect that would have during the public hearings in Sacramento at the Capitol or in Washington during Congressional hearings on the 90 day legislation!

Richard Skaff
Email: rmskaff@comcast.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
November 10, 2004



Richard Skaff
Mill Valley, CA 94941

Re: Follow up on various ADA Complaints

Dear Mr. Skaff:

Thank you for your patience while the City of San Rafael could take the time to investigate and respond to a number of alleged ADA violations that you have raised over the past months. My latest correspondence denotes specific locations and the steps being taken to bring alleged ADA violations into compliance for some of the sites you have identified in previous e-mails. The table below summarizes the site location, the alleged violations, and our actions taken as of this writing.

Location
Alleged Violation(s)
Violation(s) identified by City
Property owner notification
Expected Compliance Date

Home Depot - 111 Shoreline Parkway
Restrooms in buildings being open; portable restrooms being full compliant, detectable warnings surfaces incomplete; non accessible parking spaces, no loading zones and non-compliant signage (tow info and telephone #); no van accessible spaces
Accessible spaces, cross slope, signage, detectable warning surfaces, Braille in restrooms
Letter sent to owner 11/5/2004
February 4, 2005

Sizzler - 3725 Redwood Hwy
Non-compliant signage (tow info and telephone #)
Signage, repainting accessible space
Letter sent to owner 11/5/2004
February 4, 2005

Grand Avenue Center - 777 Grand
No required van accessible parking or tow-away signage
Accessible spaces, space slopes, signage
Letter sent to owner 11/5/2004
February 4, 2005

Java Detour - 836 Second Street
New driveways don't have proper 2% cross slope; pedestrian walkway crosses vehicular lanes without detectable warning materials; tow away signs; accessible counters and workspace for employees and customers
Sidewalk slope; path of travel to walk up windows; landings; detectable devices; accessible space and signage; walk-up counter, exit door
Letter sent to owner 11/5/2004
February 4, 2005

CompUSA/Staples Center - 655 Irwin
Did not have required "van accessible" parking spaces/loading zones/signage, nor required phone number/address included on the "tow away" signs located at the entrance to each facility's parking lots.
Signage
Letter sent to owner 11/5/2004;

E-mail to Hattie Johnson at California Architects Board
February 4, 2005

Land Rover Site - Irwin Street
Did not have required "van accessible" parking spaces/loading zones/signage, nor required phone number/address included on the "tow away" signs located at the entrance to each facility's parking lots.
None - property is currently vacant
None to owner; e-mail to Hattie Johnson at California Architects Board
When new tenant application is approved

KFC - 555 Second Street
Kentucky Fried Chicken - next to 777 Grand Avenue - No tow-away sign and accessible parking space not properly marked
Signage
Letter sent to owner 11/5/2004
February 4, 2005

United Market and Gardens - 513 third Avenue
United Market and United Market garden store, between 3rd and Grand Streets - no van accessible parking spaces/signage as required
Accessible space, signage
Letter sent to owner 11/5/2004
February 4, 2005




Property owners are expected to have noted violations remedied by February 4, 2005 as noted above. Out Building Division staff is ready to assist any of these owners in achieving compliance remedies and barrier removal. Inspection of each site will be conducted to verify full ADA compliance.

Some of the other violations you have alleged (A& W Restaurant, Avance) are still under review. As our staff and ADA consultant compete their investigations, I will provide you the City's response and identify actions to be taken by said owners, if so warranted.

Thank you for your patience while other City staff and I looked into this matter. Please know that our response time has been delayed due to the unexpected death of our Chief Building Official last month. This position is currently vacant, and will likely remain so through the end of the calendar year while we complete a recruitment process.

Should you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me directly at 485-3055.

Sincerely,

Ken Nordhoff
Assistant City Manager
ADA Coordinator
Copy: Rod Gould, City Manager
Bob Brown, Community Development Director
Joe Curley, Supervising Building Inspector
Eric Davis, Deputy City Attorney

W:\City Managers- WorkFile\Correspondence\Nordhoff\Letters\2004\ADA-Access Complaints-rs #5.doc


Sunday, November 07, 2004

REPORT-MV-949XX

11/07/04
Mr. Hunter, City Manager
City of Mill Valley
Mill Valley, Ca. 94941
Mr. Hunter,
To date, I haven't heard from you with regard to our recent phone conversation during which we discussed the remodel project at the Mill Valley Safeway located on Miller and Camino Alto. Yesterday, I did receive a letter from Mr. Aherns, the Mill Valley Building Official, along with my written complaint (written on your REQUIRED complaint form) indicating that the information I had provided on the form about my complaint regarding the Safeway was inadequate and incomplete. I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss Mr. Ahrens letter with you at your earliest possible convenience.As I explained in an earlier email sent to you today, I will be out of the Country from the 12th to the 22nd of November and would appreciate being able to discuss this complaint with you as I had been promised. As you will recall, I had contacted you a few weeks ago because during my review of the project permit documents at the Mill Valley City Hall, I found that the public bathrooms on the main floor had been closed for plumbing repair work but the general public was being allowed to use staff bathrooms on an inaccessible floor of the building while persons with mobility disabilities were provided an "accessible" portable toilet and sink at the front of the store (as you know, neither was accessible). There is still a problem with the fact that the general public has flush toilets and running water sinks to use while those of us with mobility disabilities have to use portable equipment that is certainly not "equivalent". This condition could possibly be acceptable for a VERY short time, but it seems that the plumbing repair project has now turned into a complete store remodel that has been in process for months and may take months more to complete! To assure that persons with disabilities would have sanitary facilities during the plumbing repair, I had to work with both Safeway and the portable toilet rental company to assure that a truly accessible portable toilet and sink were provided. Why did your Building Official approve the store remodel project permit without the necessary temporary facilities being included in the store's permit? Additionally, a new "accessible" parking space has recently been installed (with no accessible path-of-travel from that space to the store or the temporary store pharmacy in a trailer in the store parking lot) and although the entry to both the temporary trailer and store are "blended" with the vehicle way that pedestrians must be cross, to date, no detectable warning surface has been installed, probably because it wasn't required as part of the permit work. This is not only unsafe for Safeway's blind and low-visioned customers (many of whom live at the Redwoods retirement facility and come from across Camino Alto to the Safeway site) but, I believe, a violation of state building code (I also believe that Safeway's architect should have included that feature based on federal access regulations). I will be home most of the day tomorrow, Monday, November 8th, and can be reached at my home or mobile phone numbers which are listed below.
For your information, I have attached a copy of a letter from Mr. Lockyer, California Attorney General.
I have also copied into this email a recent Marin Independent Journal Newspaper article which discusses the public and business community's apparent image of how small businesses are being unfairly "attacked" by the disability community with inappropriate and unreasonable lawsuits. The access violations in the Safeway case and others access violation cases that I have brought to the attention of the City of Mill Valley and California Department of Justice are typical of the kind of access violation cases individuals with disabilities must face when in their communities. I believe that they are filing these lawsuits because it's appears to be the only way that they can gain their legally mandated access to these businesses. The effort that is required of the disability community to gain those rights includes using the difficult and non-functioning process cities like Mill Valley have developed and apparently use to discourage the filing of access violation cases. The access violations that are and will be found when individuals with disabilities attempt to function in public facilities are created by the lack of knowledge and effort on the part of public permit agencies (building departments) to assure that permitted projects within their jurisdiction meet access codes and when built and are accessible. There is also a glaring lack of professionalism and code knowledge on the part of architects and contractors when they design and build those projects. These are the State licensed professionals whose license requires them to design and build these projects with all of the code requirements, including accessibility code requirements. Obviously, they don't! For a person with a disability to make this "broken" system work for them makes getting the access that is needed and required a daunting task. These are individuals who are already having to live with their disabilities yet they also have to "deal" with these violations and the people who created and permitted them. In other words, the whole system that is, by law, supposed to protect those of us with disabilities, not only doesn't work, but also demands that we be code experts and the "enforcer". Something is wrong with this picture! Two examples of how bad the problem is was indicated by the recent action taken by the California Attorney General's Office against the City of Mill Valley and the County of Marin. These actions weren't brought because the two public entities were doing their job correctly. Are more cases like those by the AG's Office required before the problem

Tuesday, July 20, 2004

REPORT-G -917XX

Report on Community G-917 Date Approx July 20th, 2004
Wheeling down the village - the construction for the new transit plaza has added fencing across the construction site and across the only curb cut to that side of the village. The only H/C parking being on this side - I roll into the city planning to file a complaint.
REF:1102.3 Alternate Circulation Path. An alternate circulation path complying with 1111 shall be provided whenever the existing pedestrian access route is blocked by construction, alteration, maintenance, or other temporary conditions.

Met D. And J., they asked to meet with me in the accessible meeting room next door. I go the w/c way to meet them over there. I can't get in as there is a sitting bench placed against the wall blocking the doorway to w/c. Staff comes to move the bench - which was put back in place as I was leaving.

I asked if the city had received the Lockyer letter of April 2002. [see links- Lockyer letter]

D. Said he had it in his desk drawer and had advised the city that due to the unfunded mandates reform, the city was not required to conform to the letter requirements. [see links - unfunded mandates do not apply to the ADA]

We had long conversations, not all of which I will reference here, but will keep in my notes and post as applicable.

My concern is that it appears there is more effort to AVOID compliance than to PROVIDE compliance to access barrier removal.

D. Said he would get with the construction manager and try to get an alternate path to replace the blocked curb cut. [NOTE: the only other crossing is a two short blocks trip one way - four blocks round trip] No time frame but I accepted his word that he would work to fix the crossing.
posted LW