DJ 202-PL-00188 JUL 29 1992 Ms. Elizabeth A. Lunday Assistant City Attorney City of Mesquite Texas Post Office Box 850137 Mesquite, Texas 75185-0137 Dear Ms. Lunday: This is in response to your letter, and your subsequent telephone conversation with Ruth Lusher of my staff, about the requirements of title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Your letter asked several questions about the ADA requirements for the installation of curb ramps. The ADA authorizes the Department of Justice to provide technical assistance to individuals and entities that have rights and responsibilities under the Act. This letter provides informal guidance to assist you in understanding how the ADA may apply to public entities. This technical assistance, however, does not constitute a determination by the Department of Justice of the City of Mesquite's rights or responsibilities under the ADA and it is not binding on the Department. Section 35.149 of the Department's regulation implementing title II (enclosed) provides that a public entity must not deny the benefits of its programs and services to individuals with disabilities because its facilities are inaccessible. A public entity's services, programs, or activities, when viewed in their entirety, must be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. However, a public entity is not necessarily required to make each of its existing facilities accessible or to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its program or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens (S35.150(a)). Section 35.150(d)(2) of the title II rule states that public entities with 50 or more employees and with responsibility for or authority over streets, roads, or walkways must prepare a schedule for providing curb ramps or other sloped areas where existing pedestrian walks cross curbs. Priority must be given to walkways serving State and local government offices and facilities, transportation, places of public accommodation, and employers, followed by walkways serving other areas. This cc: Records; Chrono; Wodatch; Bowen; Library; FOIA. :udd:bowen:ada.interpretation.lunday 01-01070 - 2 - schedule must be included as part of the required transition plan. However, section 35.150 does not necessarily require a curb ramp at every existing intersection. Alternative routes to buildings that make use of existing curb ramps may be acceptable under the concept of program accessibility, even if an individual with disabilities may need to travel a longer route to reach a particular building than would a nondisabled individual. Moreover, the fundamental alteration and undue burdens defenses may limit the number of curb ramps required. In the case of new construction and alterations (as opposed to situations in which a public entity modifies existing walkways solely to provide access), the rule requires that curb ramps be provided at any intersection having curbs or other barriers to entry from a street level pedestrian walkway (S 35.151(e)). You asked if the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (Guidelines) are mandatory standards. Please note that section 35.151 of the title II regulation requires that all newly constructed or altered facilities comply with one of two Federal accessibility standards. A public entity may choose to follow either the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (Uniform Standards) or the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (except for the title III elevator exemption). A copy of each of these standards is enclosed. The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Board), which developed the ADA Accessibility Guidelines, is currently developing specific title II guidelines, which are expected to be proposed for public comment later this summer. At such time as the Board issues final guidelines, this Department will consider adopting them as the standards that must be followed under title II. In the meantime, when a public entity chooses either the Uniform Standard or the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for a building, facility, or project, it must follow that standard completely. While these standards are similar in most respects, there are differences between the two standards in several areas, which may affect a public entity's choice between them. The Department's Title II Technical Assistance Manual (at pp. 23-32) sets out the major distinctions between the two standards. For example, one of the areas in which the two standards differ relates to the requirements for detectable warnings on curb ramps, which your letter specifically addressed. The Uniform Standards do not require detectable warnings; the Guidelines require the use of a specific pattern of truncated domes. 01-01071 - 3 - Section 4.7.7 of the Guidelines provides that "a curb ramp shall have a detectable warning complying with 4.29.2" Section 4.29.2 requires the use of a specific pattern of detectable truncated domes. Therefore, if the City decides to follow the Guidelines for its curb ramp program, it must comply with the provisions of section 4.7.7. However, as discussed above, the City may choose to follow the Uniform Standards, which do not require detectable warnings on curb ramps. You also expressed concern in your letter and in the telephone conversation about problems with drainage if curb ramps are constructed to comply with section 4.8.4 of the Guidelines. Section 4.8.4 ("Landings") does not apply to curb ramps. The requirements for curb ramps, which are somewhat different from those for ramps, are set out in sections 4.7.1 through 4.7.11. In lieu of the provision for the level landings required at ramps, section 4.7.5 of the Guidelines ("Sides of Curb Ramps") and Figure 12(a) provide that where the landing at the top of the ramp is less than 48 inches, the slope of the side flares shall not exceed 1:12. This allows the side flares to be used in traversing the curb ramp as shown in Figure 12(a) of the Guidelines. It appears that the City of Mesquite's specifications, which you enclosed with your letter, were developed with the intention of complying with section 4.8.4 of the Guidelines, which is not required. In complying with the provisions of section 4.7.1 through 4.7.11, the City of Mesquite should be able to develop simplified specifications and drawings that more closely resemble the examples shown in Figures 12 and 13 of the Guidelines. Please note, however, that a 5/8 inch curb height or lip where the ramp meets the street, shown in the City's drawings, is not allowed by either standard. See SS 4.5 and 4.7.4 of the Uniform Standards and the Guidelines. I am enclosing copies of the two standards, the title II regulation, and the title II technical assistance manual for your use. I hope that you find this information helpful. Sincerely, John L. Wodatch Director Office on the Americans with Disabilities Enclosures (4) cc: Congressman John Bryant Senator Phil Gramm Senator Lloyd Bentsen 01-01072 May 15, 1992 Office on the Americans with Disabilities Act U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 66118 Washington, D.C. 20035-6118 Re; Handicapped ramp construction. Dear Sir or Madam: I have been requested to make inquiry to your office on behalf of the Planning and Engineering divisions of the City of Mesquite, Texas regarding handicapped ramp construction. As with all aspects of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Mesquite is establishing plans and procedures to comply with the requirements of the Act. In doing so, the City is following the guidelines set out in the American with Disabilities Act Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities. Due to the manner in which streets in Mesquite are constructed to allow for drainage, certain of the ramp requirements set out in the American with Disabilities Act for Buildings and Facilities have come into question. Enclosed is a detailed drawing of the current specifications for the construction of wheel chair ramps within the City of Mesquite. These ramps are required to be constructed at all drive approaches, alley intersections and street intersections. If the ramps are constructed to meet the Guideline standards set forth in section 4.8.4 assuming the standards can be met, major reconstruction of City streets would be required. This reconstruction would at a minimum result in diversion of drainage, and in many instances severe drainage problems would occur. It is my understanding that at the present time approximately 1500 handicapped ramps will need to be constructed in the City of Mesquite, therefore the concerns expressed herein have an enormous effect on the City of Mesquite and its infrastructure. The resulting question is, are the guideline standards mandatory, or as suggested by their title, guidelines from which there may be other options or alternatives. If alternative standards may be used, do the City of Mesquite specifications for constructing ramps, as shown in the enclosed drawing, constitute an acceptable alternative? If the Mesquite specifications are not sufficient, are there alternatives that have been approved that may be utilized by the City of Mesquite? The City of Mesquite also requests interpretation of 4.29.5 and the related section 4.29.2. Section 4.29.5 reads as follows: 4.29.5 Detectable Warnings at Hazardous Vehicular Areas. If a walk crosses or adjoins a vehicular way, and the walking surfaces are not separated by curbs, railings or other elements between the pedestrian areas and the vehicular areas, the boundary between the areas shall be defined by a continuous detectable warning which is 36 in (915mm) wide, complying with 4.29.2. As I read this section, it does not apply to intersections where the curb wraps around either side of a handicapped wrap such as in the design of the ramps constructed in Mesquite (per the enclosed diagram), or in figure 12 of the Guidelines. A copy of figure 12 is enclosed for your convenience. I request you let me know if this interpretation is incorrect. In instances where detectable warnings are required, where this is no curb, railing, etc., are there acceptable alternatives to the truncated domes described in Guidelines S 4.29.2 which reads in part: B.J. Smith City Attorney Elizabeth A. Lunday J. Michael Ferrin Attorneys MAIL ADDRESS PO BOX 850137 MESQUITE TEXAS 75185-0137 01-01073 4.29.2 Detectable Warnings on Walking Surfaces. Detectable warnings shall consist of raised truncated domes with a diameter of nominal 0,.9 in (23mm), a height of nominal 0.2 in (5mm and a center to center spacing of nominal 2.35 in (60mm) and shall contrast visually with adjoining surfaces, either light-on-dark, or dark-on-light. An example of an alternative warning proposed by the City of Mesquite is scored concrete with the scoring at least 1/2 inch deep and spaced no more than 1/2 inch apart. Is this an acceptable alternative to the use of truncate domes in concreted areas? Are there alternatives which have been approved on concrete and other surfaces. If so, please provide descriptions of acceptable alternatives to the City of Mesquite. Thank you for your attention and consideration to the questions and issues raised herein. I look forward to your written response. Yours truly, Elizabeth A. Lunday Assistant City Attorney City of Mesquite, Texas enclosures cc. John Bryant Phil Gramm Lloyd Bentsen 01-01074 (Form) TYPICAL WHEELCHAIR RAMP 01-01075 (Form) B-30 APPENDIX B 01-01076