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

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