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