The Failure of Handicapped Parking Regulation in the City of San Diego

At two comparable large home building supply stores in Mission Valley and Mira Mesa, all of the handicapped parking is clustered in a line directly across from one entrance to the store. However, this Grand Jury has determined that there are three entrances to these stores that are generally used by the public: the main entrance; the entrance to the garden supply area; and the entrance to the lumber and building supply area. With three entrances it appears that the handicapped parking should have been distributed among the entrances. Because of the clustered location of the handicapped parking, it was observed that the handicapped parking was seldom used at these locations. However, in the Cities of Santee and El Cajon where the parking spaces are distributed among the entrances, the handicapped parking spaces are almost always in use at similar stores.

At a large retail discount store in Mission Valley, the handicapped parking was lined up against the side of the building in keeping with the preference of avoiding having to cross a lane of traffic to reach an entrance. However, the handicapped parking was lined up on only one side of the building with the last space at a great distance from the entrance. Closer parking was available along the other side of the entrance, yet only two of these parking spots were used for handicapped parking, 3. At a large retail store at College Grove there is no handicapped parking at the entrance. The handicapped parking is two parking lanes away from the entrance, while the parking across from the entrance is used for regular parking. All parking at this location requires crossing a lane of traffic.

At another large discount store in College Grove, parking is lined up on the side of the store, again applying the preference for the handicapped not having to cross a lane of traffic, although there were regular parking places closer to the entrance. However, in this case it was determined that the last space was 279 feet from the entrance or nearly the length of a football field. At this inordinate distance, the distance itself becomes a barrier. The preference not to cross traffic lanes should have been overridden and some of the other parking spaces across from the entrance should have been used. It must be remembered the users of these parking spaces are handicapped. Most have been certified by their physician as having difficulty walking long distances. 4 , 2004) Report 2003/4-10 5. At another location in Mission Valley, an office supply store has the handicapped parking placed as far from the entrance as is physically possible even though parking is available at the front entrance of the store. However, it was determined that the parking lot was recently repaved at which time the handicapped parking was required to be brought into conformance with the Code, but was not brought into conformance. These foregoing apparent errors were found after only a cursory examination of the approved plans and were the motive for further investigation. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT The management of the Development Services Department was interviewed and testimony was taken to obtain an overview of the procedure used in the approval of plans. From this testimony, it was determined that when an owner or developer submits plans to the Development Services Department for approval they are given to a Plan Checker who checks the plans for compliance with the Code. This includes checking for compliance with the handicapped parking regulations. After approval by the Development Services Department, the project is then built by the owner or developer and is inspected for compliance with the approved plans for conformity with the Code by building inspectors who issue a certificate of occupancy as final approval. Development Services Department management was furnished with a list of the selected locations to provide members of the department with the locations in question so that when their testimony was taken the witnesses could more easily testify about the specific locations they were to be questioned about. This Grand Jury then ascertained which Plan Checker had approved the plans at each of the locations being investigated and which inspector gave final approval to the project. Each Plan Checker was interviewed separately. The plans were reviewed to determine the appropriateness of the location of the handicapped parking places. The review consisted of determining whether the handicapped parking places were placed on the shortest route to the entrance; whether the locations were distributed among all entrances; and if not, on the shortest route to the entrance or evenly distributed. We also questioned whether there were extenuating circumstances or hardships that made it appropriate to place them farther away. What the Grand Jury learned from this testimony was interesting. In no case were there any extenuating circumstances involved in the location of the parking spaces discussed. Everyone interviewed at the Development Services Department was familiar with the Code requirements regarding the location of handicapped parking spaces. Testimony revealed that in several cases they were approved for that location because the architect must have had a good reason for putting them there. In other cases the testimony was it slipped by me. In one case after the Plan Checker had required a change in the plans to correct the placement of the parking spaces, the architect then submitted a new set of plans with unrelated changes and put the parking places back where they had been 5 , 2004) Report 2003/4-10 originally. The Plan Checker missed the change. The general tenor, which was actually articulated, by some of the Plan Checkers was that the placement of handicapped parking places was not considered a matter of high priority. This attitude was also sensed in later interviews with Development Services Department management. The Grand Jury then interviewed the Field Inspectors regarding the selected locations. The Jury heard the same explanations for the location of the handicapped parking as was heard from the Plan Checkers i.e. It’s a low priority item and The architect must have had a good reason for putting them there. Only one of the Inspectors saw any problem with the location of the handicapped parking spaces. When questioned further it was determined that the training of the Inspectors had not included specific information regarding the proper location of handicapped parking places. Although the low priority given to handicapped parking does not appear to be willful, it has led to neglect in approving construction. In later interviews with the Development Services Department management admitted that training of both Plan Checkers and Inspectors needed more emphasis on priorities of handicapped parking and the location of handicapped parking. NEIGHBORHOOD CODE COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT The last line of defense provided by the City in enforcement of the Building Code is the Neighborhood Code Compliance Department. The San Diego City Council has described the purpose of the Neighborhood Code Compliance Department to be an important public service, and vital to the protection of the public’s health, safety and quality of life.8 To carry out this purpose the City Council has given the department wide powers of enforcement.9 Management of Neighborhood Code Compliance was interviewed and testimony taken twice. Testimony was also taken from the Accessibility Specialist for the Department. At the first interview, the addresses of the locations were requested. These were provided to the Department to enable more responsive answers to our questions. The testimony of the Accessibility Specialist indicated a well-trained and knowledgeable person who was dedicated to the job. At a few of the locations Neighborhood Code Compliance agreed that the handicapped parking was not in compliance with the Code. However, at the two building supply stores mentioned before, the solution of Neighborhood Code Compliance was to have the entrance sign removed from the building at the building materials entrance. Even with 8 San Diego Municipal Code §12.0101 9 San Diego Municipal Code §12.0102 et.seq. 6 , 2004) Report 2003/4-10 this questionable interpretation of the Code, this solution does not address why there is no handicapped parking at the entrance to the Garden Shop. At another location, the office supply store in Mission Valley, it was determined by Code Compliance that the slope of the parking places in front of the door were in excess of 2 percent, thereby, according to the Code, making them unfit for use as handicapped parking spaces. It was also pointed out by Neighborhood Code Compliance that the parking lot was recently repaved. While the Grand Jury questions whether the existing slope is in excess of 2 percent, the mere fact that the parking lot was repaved creates a need for a new permit that should have required compliance with the Code provisions regarding handicapped parking spaces10. This did not concern Code Compliance; Code Compliance actually used the repaving as the reason that the parking spaces could not be placed at the entrance to the store, and that they were placed as far as physically possible from the entrance while remaining alongside the building. At a third location, the large discount store at College Grove where some handicapped parking was located almost the length of a football field away from the entrance, Neighborhood Code Compliance could not understand why the distance was an issue. It appears that Neighborhood Code Compliance may not fully understand problems the handicapped have walking or wheeling a wheelchair great distances. The managers of Code Compliance vehemently denied that the Department relies on the Development Services Department evaluations regarding the location of handicapped parking. Neighborhood Code Compliance claims they make an independent evaluation of the location of handicapped parking. The testimony of Neighborhood Code Compliance management has led this Grand Jury to believe otherwise. FACTS & FINDINGS Facts Testimony of both the Plan Checkers and Inspectors revealed that the placement of handicapped parking was a low priority item. Testimony revealed that in many of the examined locations both the Plan Checkers and Inspectors gave great weight to the location of the handicapped parking locations chosen by the architects/developers/owners without further inquiry. Testimony revealed that the Neighborhood Code Compliance department would bend over backwards to find a handicapped parking place in compliance, including suggesting the removal of an entrance sign from an entrance commonly used by the public. 10 28 CFR 36 §4.1.6 7 , 2004) Report 2003/4-10 Findings This Grand Jury finds that the Development Services Department has been giving low priority to enforcement of codes regarding the location of accessible parking for the handicapped. The procedures of both Plan Checkers and Inspectors need to be changed to provide them with the tools to do their job. This Jury further finds that training of Plan Checkers and Inspectors by the Development Services Department is inadequate. This Jury further finds that the attitude of the Neighborhood Code Compliance Department management does not well serve the citizens in the City of San Diego. Testimony suggested that management of Neighborhood Code Compliance is more interested in making excuses for the existing handicapped parking locations than in correcting them. This Jury further finds that Neighborhood Code Compliance management needs indoctrination as to the purpose of the Department.