The City of Somerville hired an outside consultant to deal with curb cut and sidewalk accessibility complaints. The Community Access Project, an all-volunteer group of disAbility rights experts, responds to that document, pointing out gaps and problems with 2011 "remediations". We also remind the Architectural Access Board why they should enforce the code that prohibits apex curb cuts where perpendicular or parallel curb cuts are feasible to construct. Curb cuts need to be adequately oriented to the crosswalks; and, the crosswalks need to be perpendicular to the curb line. It's a public safety issue in addition to a human rights issue. We deserve safe, accessible and integrated Complete Streets.

1. CAPS' Response to City of Somerville 2012 14 location mitigation plan to AAB, dated May 2, 2012 page 1 of 10
May 29, 2012
FROM: Community Access Project, Somerville
P.O. Box 434, Somerville, MA 02143
TO; Architectural Access Board
One Ashburton Place, Room 1310
Boston MA 02108
RE: Response to Ciy of Somerville's AAB 14-location mitigation plan for 2012 construction season,
Dear Chairperson Lang and AAB Members,
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the City of Somerville's plan to remediate 14 locations
during the 2012 Construction season.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Review of three dockets where substantive design questions arise..... pages 2 and 3
II. Review of why it is so important to the Blind community for the AAB to enforce the 2006 521
CMR 21.2.1 code for pedestrian safety, wherever feasible...... page 4
III. Review of certain locations that the City claims were remediated in 2011. Out of the 10
street locations claimed to be remediated, the City's documentation leaves questions regarding at
least 6 locations. ..... pages 5 and 6
IV. We note 3 dockets where the original complainant's citations are omitted in City's
remediation plan. (Although this will probably not affect the achievement of compliance per AAB
jurisdiction, we mention these here to prevent potential confusion.)..... pages 7 and 8
V. Copy of email sent by CAPS to City Solicitor Shapiro on February 9, 2012. (Although
Transition planning, per Federal requirements, is not under the State AAB's jursidiction, we include
a copy of this February 9, 2012 email in this document because the City refers to it on page 2.) .....
pages 8 - 10.
Thank you for your timely and careful review of these issues.
Sincerely,
and
Eileen Feldman and Thomas Gilbert, Director and Assistant Director
Community Access Project, Somerville
CAPSom@verizon.net

2. CAPS' Response to City of Somerville 2012 14 location mitigation plan to AAB, dated May 2, 2012 page 2 of 10
I. Review of three dockets where substantive design questions arise
• AAB #C10-206 Cedar St & Warwick St Somerville, MA 02145
The City proposes to only mitigate one ramp at this busy pedestrian location (one block from the
Somerville Community Path Recreational facility).
We do not understand why "catch basins 10 feet from the apex curb cuts" would be considered
significant infeasibility considerations; and, we do not find that trees or utility poles would interfere
with mitigating 2 of these three apex curb cuts.
. We ask the AAB to question the City why the two apex ramps noted in below image (green
arrows) are infeasible to mitigate. Our concerns include: these apex curb cuts are unsafe, and
align rolling pedestrians out of the general path of travel and potentially into moving traffic; and,
these apex locations do not provide adequate directional cues for visually impaired pedestrians to
safely cross and enjoy continuous, safe and accessible walking routes.

3. CAPS' Response to City of Somerville 2012 14 location mitigation plan to AAB, dated May 2, 2012 page 3 of 10
• AAB Docket #C10-180 Central St & Berkeley St Somerville, MA 02143
The City's response only provides a remediation design for the Southern curb cut; and omits a design to
remediate the cross slope of the Northern curb cut,
which was reported in the original complaint, to
Northern curb cut at cut, Central
C10-180 Northern curb measure 3.8%. (A photo was not taken of that
Berkeley & Central Streets
St. & Berkeley St. measurement in 2009 due to children crossing while we
has a cross-slope of 3.8%
3.8% cross-slope measured in center were there.)
of this curb cut We ask that the AAB order the City to remediate
both curb cuts, not just the southern one.
• AAB Docket #C10-178 Central St & Albion St Somerville, MA 02143
The City submitted a Variance application to eliminate remediation of Apex curb cut on corner of Central
St.(west sidewalk) & Albion St. (north sidewalk). AAB staff will do a site visit on June 7, 2012 at 1:30 p.m.
While we understand why the City is reluctant to tear up the sidewalk in front of the large residential
building at 108 Central Street, we request that the AAB ask why it is not feasible to add a perpendicular
curb cut on Albion Street's north sidewalk, reciprocal to the (compliant) curb cut on the south sidewalk?

4. CAPS' Response to City of Somerville 2012 14 location mitigation plan to AAB, dated May 2, 2012 page 4 of 10
II. Review of why it is so important to the Blind community for the AAB
to enforce the 2006 521 CMR 21.2.1 code for pedestrian safety, wherever feasible.
On February 6, 2012, two CAPS' members who are both nearly blind, testified at an AAB Hearing
regarding the difficulties we experience when apex curb cuts are newly or re-constructed at
locations where it appears structurally feasible to construct separate curb ramps for each direction
instead. We discussed why it is necessary to have curb cuts oriented directly into the crosswalk's
directional path of travel. It is also an important public safety issue to ensure that the crosswalks
are straight, and perpendicular to the crossing street's curb line wherever possible. Skewed
crosswalks pose danger to people with mobility disabilities as well as visual disabilities.
We were informed that mitigating apex curb cuts are not considered necessary or important issues,
because, "Blind people use the sound of the traffic for directional cues."
Although it is somewhat correct that pedestrians who are blind do use hearing for directionality at
times, it is no longer a sufficiently adequate cue to cross a street safely. In fact, our hearing is often
not even useful depending on intersection design, or if traffic lights are actuated or not.
Apex curb cuts cause many safety issues to blind or low vision pedestrians.
Guide dogs are trained to go to curb cuts (which should be within the crosswalk areas); but, if
these are on a diagonal or are apex, one cannot reliably take a direction to cross the street safely.
Due to the now complex design of intersections, (even at a simple side street crossing) just using
traffic flow is not a dependable method anymore.
Some of the reasons for this include:
-too loud traffic,
-too soft traffic,
-quiet cars,
-rounded curbs, etc.
Curb cuts should be designed to directly lead one to the crosswalk & directly to the next corner.
This is a very important pedestrian safety issue for people with visual disabilities.
If you have any doubts or questions about the validity of this testimony, please contact the
Massachusetts Commission for the Blind's Orientation & Mobility Department, 600 Washington
Street, Boston, MA 02111.1
1
Director Meg Robertson, MCB Orientation & Mobility Department, can be reached at 617-626-
7581.

5. CAPS' Response to City of Somerville 2012 14 location mitigation plan to AAB, dated May 2, 2012 page 5 of 10
III. Review of six locations that the City claims were remediated in 2011.
On page 3 of the City's 2012 remediation plan for 14 locations, the City notes that 10 locations
have also been remediated in 2011. (.pdf image scan follows)
"
CAPS has not received documentation proving that adequate remediation has been accomplished
for at least six of the these 10 locations, as follows:
1. C10 181 Central St. & Browning Road
The City's response measures the landing instead of the curb cut and only for the northern curb
cut. The original complaint showed that the cross-slope of curb cut center slope exceeds 2%
(Section 21.3) as follows:
Northern curb cut: cross-slope measured 5.6%
Southern curb cut: cross slope measured 3.9%
2. C10-184. Central Street & Forster St.
The City provides photos showing measurements for the curb cut landing cross slope; and the
curb cut landing run slope.
However, the original complaint is only regarding the landing width, which was 20.5 inches. The
City provides no information showing that this has been remediated.
3. C10-185. Central/Oxford Street. The City provides a photo of a 2% run slope for this curb
cut. However, the code violation cited is that the landing is only 31 inches instead of 48 inches
(21.6.1). The City provides no information showing that this has been remediated.
4. C10 182 Central & Cambria.
The City's response (dated Fall, 2011) states that they have remediated "this portion of the original
complaint." The enclosed photo shows only a small portion of the bottom landing for the Southern
curb cut with no measurements; and not enough information to see whether the bottom landing is

6. CAPS' Response to City of Somerville 2012 14 location mitigation plan to AAB, dated May 2, 2012 page 6 of 10
now a level and smooth transition at the gutter line.
The City omits any mention of the Northern curb cut (which had a bottom landing/transition
measuring 12.1%); and provides no information about whether this N curb cut has been
remediated; or will be remediated in the future.
5. C10-197 Morrison & Clifton Street. Although the AAB allowed this as remediation2, CAPS
notes that all the City did was to repaint the crosswalk so it would connect the 2 cited curb cuts.
These curb cuts were constructed entirely outside of the general public's path of travel even
though there are no apparent site limitations to have prevented two T-intersection curb ramps (MA
DOT's E 107.6.4 design). These two curb ramps are sometimes not available, because residents
park in front of them; and one of them still has a landing that only measures 34.5." The City did
not address the landing issue at all.
6. C10-278. Central Street & Summer Street, SW. This location was the subject of a recent
adjudicatory hearing. The AAB continued the matter, providing the City another opportunity to
choose another consultant to defend this "remediated" intersection design. The City's additional
consultation is due by July 1, 2012. (below image of C10-278 location includes some CAPS
survey information)
2
Although the State jursidiction may allow for certain details to be overlooked, CAPS reminds the City, that because it
receives millions in Federal funding every year, it is obligated to use the most stringent regulations to ensure that
pedestrian rights of ways allow safe, accessible and integrated facilities for persons with disabilities. The Federal
scoping regulations are currently more stringent than the State requirements; and the DOJ 2010 Standards. which are
triggered for the 2012 construction season, includes some technical details that are not yet included or enforced via
the State regulations. In addition, the ADA and FHA consider structural infeasibility to be a very high standard to
prove; and, there is no variance application at the Federal level. See:
http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAstandards.htm

7. CAPS' Response to City of Somerville 2012 14 location mitigation plan to AAB, dated May 2, 2012 page 7 of 10
IV
OMISSIONS in the City's citations of violations:
Although the three location's omitted issues noted below should not affect the achievement of
compliance, they are noted here to avoid potential confusion.
AAB Docket #C10-188 26 Central St Somerville, MA 02143
CAPS notes that the City's document omits mention of the cross slope issues adjacent to the
curb cut that will be remediated opposite CHA's entrance. This driveway crossing is at a Church
parking lot (where the City held its Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee meetings); and, we
assume that the State AAB does not consider this to be under the City's jurisdiction or scope of
work at this time.
AAB Docket #s C10-202, 203 and 204 Kidder Ave & Prichard Ave Somerville, MA 02144
We note that, while the City's document names other legitimate pedestrian barrier issues at this 4-point
intersection, the City's 2012 remediation plan omits mention of three issues included in the original
complaints. Although this is probably just an oversight, we include mention of them here:
1. below, left: lack of any reciprocal curb ramp,
2. below, center: the 15% curb ramp run slope and
3. below, right: 10.6% bottom landing transition (photos below).

8. CAPS' Response to City of Somerville 2012 14 location mitigation plan to AAB, dated May 2, 2012 page 8 of 10
AAB Docket #C10-248 Washington Street & Merriam Street
The City's document names "pooling
of water" as the only violation at this
location. However, the original
complaint does not mention pooling
of water at all; and, instead, cites
cross and run slope violations.
(These omissions should not affect
the achievement of compliance at
this location since the City's
remediation design looks fine;
nevertheless, we mention them here
to avoid potential confusion):
Section 21. 3: run-slope of eastern curb cut is 10.8% (photo at left)
Section 21. 3 cross-slope of western curb cut, at foot of cut, is 3.7% (photo at right)
V.
Copy of email sent by CAPS to City Solicitor Shapiro and others
on February 9, 2012.3
From: Community Access project <CAPSom@verizon.net>
Date: February 9, 2012 3:38:02 AM EST
To: David Shapiro <DSHAPIRO@somervillema.gov>
Cc: "Thomas (DPS) Hopkins" <Thomas.Hopkins@state.ma.us>, Myra Berloff <Myra.Berloff@state.ma.us>, william
white <william.a.white@verizon.net>
Subject: f/u, February 6 2012 AAB hearing
February 9, 2012
TO: David P. Shapiro, Assistant City Solicitor, City of Somerville
FROM: Eileen Feldman, Director, Community Access Project, Somerville
RE: Follow-Up, Architectural Access Board Hearing regarding #V11-201 February 6, 2012, 1 pm
Dear Assistant City Solicitor David Shapiro,
It was a pleasure to meet you this past Monday at the Architectural Access Board Hearing on the City's Variance
application, AAB Docket #V11-201, regarding 50 pedestrian facility locations that are next on the list for remediation
during the next several construction seasons, due to 521CMR violations.
In the interests of advancing the best possible scenario for the City of Somerville to succeed in responding to these
matters, I would like to offer the following three (3) points to guide the City's response.
3
Although Transition Planning and municipal streetscape policies are outside of the AAB's jursidictions, we
are including a copy of this February 9, 2012 email to the City Solicitor in this document because the City
quotes its language (but ignores its meaning).

9. CAPS' Response to City of Somerville 2012 14 location mitigation plan to AAB, dated May 2, 2012 page 9 of 10
Copy of email sent by CAPS to City Solicitor Shapiro and others on February 9, 2012, cont.:
In addition, below my signature, I am including online links to selected Public Comment and other documents that I
provided to the City of Somerville, since November, 2005, in efforts to help guide and work with Mayor Curtatone and
City Staff colleagues, towards mitigation of citywide streetscape and transportation facility issues.
1. In prioritizing locations, the Community Access Project suggests the following order of priorities:
By proximity to:
a. government offices, facilities and services;
b. public transportation facilities;
c. places of public accommodations, including employment opportunities;
d. health-related facilities and elderly/disabled housing; and
e. density of residential streets;
in addition to:
utilizing checklists and surveys that coordinate the 521CMR standards with the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible
Design- and choosing the most stringent requirements, the City should prioritize the most unsafe
(inaccessible) conditions first.
These priorities are based on ADA regulations found at 28 CFR §35.150(d)(2) and 28 CFR §35.150(d)(3).
2. If the City will also be using some CDBG funding to accomplish these corrections, please be aware that CDBG
funding needs to be used to supplement- and not supplant- the City's overall efforts to accomplish the development of
viable communities by the provision of decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic
opportunities, principally for persons of low- and moderate- income.
3. I heard you state, towards the end of the Hearing, that, "none of these are public safety issues." Please be aware
that each of these code violations is, by definition, a public safety issue. If the City of Somerville is unable to
acknowledge the serious and continuing negative impact that systemic and citywide 521CMR violations have on the
daily lives of residents, and especially residents with disAbilities, this will indeed be a very long, grueling process of
prosecution.
The hoped-for alternative is that these State Board processes will eventually result in the recognition, by all parties in
front of the Board, that a meaningful series of meetings and other mutually beneficial projects between disAbility and
other human rights advocates , City staff, and other interested individuals is possible and necessary-- and that we all
desire the development of mutually beneficial trust, goals and a practical action plan that will enable the City of
Somerville to grow into a city of opportunity for all.
I would appreciate your acknowledgement of this email and welcome any questions or remarks that you would like to
share with me.
I am forwarding a copy of this email to Thomas Hopkins, Executive Director, Architectural Access Board; Myra Berloff,
Executive Director, Massachusetts Office on Disability; and Alderman at Large Bill White, Board of Alderman Vice-
President and Chairperson, Public Health and Public Safety Committee.
Very best wishes,
Eileen Feldman, director
Community Access Project, Somerville
[email copy continued on next page]

10. CAPS' Response to City of Somerville 2012 14 location mitigation plan to AAB, dated May 2, 2012 page 10 of 10
Copy of email sent by CAPS to City Solicitor Shapiro and others on February 9, 2012, cont.:
The 5 documents listed below are just a small selection out of thousands of volunteer hours spent since 2005, in
efforts to develop good faith processes, using the skills and knowledge of disAbility rights advocates working as and
alongside City staff and Mayor Curtatone, with the goal of systematically mitigating citywide pedestrian public safety
issues:
A. On how residents with disabilities perceive streetscape conditions to be the number one barrier to their comfort
and inclusion:
Disability Access report. Submitted November, 2007 to Mayor Curtatone, ADA Coordinator Campbell, and all
Department Heads. See pages 17, 35, 36, and especially 43-49:
http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/eilily/somerville-ma-access-report-fy07
B. On how CDBG funding can be used, along with local and other funding, for city-wide streetscape and
transportation infrastructure improvements plus Transition Planning:
1. CDBG Recommendations PY06. submitted November 15, 2005. see pages 10, 12:
http://www.slideshare.net/eilily/cdbg-recommendations-fy06-still-relevant-2009-presentation
2. CDBG Recommendations PY07/08. submitted January 1, 2007. see pages 11, 12:
http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/eilily/cdbg-home-recommendations-py0708-city-of-somerville-ma-
200720082009eileen-feldman
3. CDBG Five-year Recommendations PY08-13 "Create A City of Opportunity For All" submitted November 2007.
see pages 4, 5:
http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/eilily/cdbg-recommendations-somerville-ma-from-disabilities-rights-advocate
C. On how Somerville residents with disabilities can be engaged, using available local funding, to provide a
Community Needs Assessment to City Staff:
submitted May, 2006. Disability Commission Budget Request. http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/eilily/somerville-
disabilities-comm-budget-request-march06-for-web
-end of copy of February 9, 2012 email from Eileen Feldman to City Solicitor David Shapiro-