Kirola v. City of San Francisco

CLASS ACTION

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Ivana Kirola (“Kirola” or “Plaintiff’), a mobility-impaired individual, brings the instant disability access class action on behalf of herself and similarly-situated individuals against Defendants City and County of San Francisco, the Mayor of San Francisco, and members of the Board of Supervisors (collectively “the City”). She alleges that the City discriminates against mobility-impaired persons by failing to eliminate all access barriers from or otherwise ensure accessibility to the City’s libraries, swimming pools, parks, and public rights-of-way (i.e., the City’s network of sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, and other outdoor pedestrian walkways). She also complains that the City’s policies and practices for ensuring access, removing access barriers, and handling public access complaints are deficient.

The operative pleading is the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which alleges six claims for relief based on: (1) Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“Title II of the ADA” or “Title II”), 42 U.S.C. § 12131-12165 ; (2) the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Rehabilitation Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 794 ; (3) the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. 1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ; (4) the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51 ; (5) the California Disabled Persons Act (“CDPA”), id. § 54.1; and (6) California Government Code §§ 11135. Dkt. 294. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief only. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , *1198 1343(a)(3)-(4), and supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 . Venue is proper in the Northern District of California, as all Defendants reside and the acts or omissions complained of occurred in this District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(1), (2).

The Court previously granted class certification and appointed Kirola as the sole class representative. Dkt. 285. Thereafter, the parties presented their respective cases to the Court during a court trial. Subsequent to trial, the parties submitted post-trial briefing and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Dkt. 614, 616, 617, 618, 632, 634, 635, 636, 646, 662, 681, 683. Separately, the City filed a Post-Trial Motion for Judgment, focusing primarily on whether Kirola has constitutional standing under Article III to pursue any claims on behalf of herself or the class. Dkt. 666, 672, 675. Alternatively, the City contends that even if Kirola has standing, she has failed to demonstrate the substantive merit of any of her claims.

As will be set forth below in the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Court is persuaded by the City’s arguments, and, based on the evidence and testimony presented at trial, finds that Kirola lacks constitutional standing to pursue any claims on behalf of the class. Alternatively, even if Kirola had standing, she has failed to carry her burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the City has violated the ADA or any of the other federal and state laws and regulations alleged in the FAC.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Title II op the ADA

“Congress enacted the ADA in 1990 to remedy widespread discrimination against disabled individuals.” PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661, 674 , 121 S.Ct. 1879 , 149 L.Ed.2d 904 (2001). The ADA is comprised of five titles: Employment (Title I); Public Services (Title II); Public Accommodations and Services Operated by Private Entities (Title III); Telecommunications (Title IV); and Miscellaneous Provisions (Title V). Zimmerman v. Or. Dep’t of Justice, 170 F.3d 1169, 1172 (9th Cir.1999). The purpose of the ADA’s various provisions is “to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (b)(2).

This action is premised on Title II of the ADA, which became effective on January 26, 1992, and applies to public entities. Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Lab., 135 F.3d 1260 , 1273 (9th Cir.1998) (citing §§ 108, 205, Pub. L. No. 101-336 ). To demonstrate a prima facie case under Section 202 of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show that:

(1) she is an individual with a disability; (2) she is otherwise qualified to participate in or receive the benefit of a public entity’s services, programs or activities; (3) she was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the public entity’s services, programs or activities or was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and (4) such exclusion, denial of benefits or discrimination was by reason of her disability.

Sheehan v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 743 F.3d 1211, 1232 (9th Cir.2014) (discussing requirements of a claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 12132 ). “This prohibition against discrimination is universally understood as a requirement to provide ‘meaningful access.’ ” Lonberg v. City of Riverside, 571 F.3d 846, 851 (9th Cir.2009). “An individual is excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of a public program if ‘a public entity’s facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with disabilities.’ ” Daubert v. Lindsay Unified *1199 School Dist., 760 F.3d 982, 987 (9th Cir.2014) (quoting 28 C.F.R. § 35.149 ).

ADA regulations recognize that “in the case of older facilities, for which structural change is likely to be more difficult, a public entity may comply with Title II by adopting a variety of less costly measures, including relocating services to alternative, accessible sites and assigning aides to assist persons with disabilities in accessing services.” Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 532 , 124 S.Ct. 1978 , 158 L.Ed.2d 820 (2004). Accordingly, the regulations promulgated by the United States Attorney General to implement the requirements of Title II differentiate between structures built before the effective date of the ADA and those built or altered after.

Existing facilities constructed prior to January 26, 1992, are subject to 28 C.F.R. § 35.150 , which requires only “program access.” 760 F.3d at 988 . Program access does not require that each and every facility is equally accessible to disabled persons. Cohen v. City of Culver, 754 F.3d 690 , 694-95 & n. 4 (9th Cir.2014). Rather, it simply requires a public entity to “operate each service, program, and activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.150 (a) (emphasis added). 1 “Title IPs emphasis on ‘program accessibility’ rather than ‘facilities accessibility’ was intended to ensure broad access to public services, while, at the same time, providing public entities with the flexibility to choose how best to make access available.” Daubert, 760 F.3d at 986 (internal quotations and citation omitted). Public entities are directed to develop a “transition plan” to “achieve program accessibility” by “setting forth the steps necessary to complete such changes.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.150 (d)(1); Cohen, 754 F.3d at 696 .

“New construction and alterations” commenced after January 26, 1992, are subject to more exacting requirements. Specifically, under 28 C.F.R. § 35.151 , “[ejach facility or part of a facility constructed by, on behalf of, or for the use of a public entity shall be designed and constructed in such manner that the facility or part of the facility is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, ...” 28 C.F.R. § 35.151 (a)(1) (emphasis added). To be “readily accessible,” the facility “must be constructed in conformance with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG), 28 C.F.R. Pt. 36, App. A, or with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS), 41 C.F.R. Pt. 101-19.6, App. A.” Daubert, 760 F.3d at 986 (emphasis added, citation omitted). “The ADAAG is a comprehensive set of structural guidelines that articulates detailed design requirements to accommodate persons with disabilities.” Id. “[Ojnly facilities that were constructed or altered after January 26, 1992, are subject to the ADAAG’s requirements.” Id. at 987 .

B. Case Overview

The original complaint named three plaintiffs: Kirola; Elizabeth Elftman (“Elftman”); and Michael Kwok (“Kwok”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). Dkt. 1. Three years later on February 9, 2010, Plaintiffs moved for leave to file an amended complaint, requesting, inter alia, to dismiss *1200 Kwok as a named plaintiff and to substitute Linda Pillay (“Pillay”) in his stead. Dkt. 121, 3:6-8. Plaintiffs also sought to refine their class allegations and claims. Id., 3:9-16.

On March 2, 2010 — before the Court ruled on their motion for leave to amend— Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2), which sought to appoint both Kirola and Pillay as class representatives, even though Pillay was not a party to the action. Dkt. 187. Plaintiffs did not seek to have Elftman appointed as a class representative. Id.; Dkt. 1; Dkt. 121, Exh. A.

On April 12, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion for leave to amend. Dkt. 238. The Court allowed Plaintiffs to narrow the class definition alleged in the initial complaint, dismiss Kwok as a named plaintiff, and clarify their allegations concerning the City’s alleged failure to comply with California Government Code § 11135. The Court, however, denied their request to join Pil-lay, finding that Plaintiffs had failed to establish good cause to add her as a party-plaintiff. Id. Consistent with the Court’s ruling, Plaintiffs filed their FAC on June 24,2010. Dkt. 238, 294.

During the interim, on June 7, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and certified the following class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2):

All persons with mobility disabilities who are allegedly being denied access under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, California Government Code Section 11135, et seq., California Civil Code § 51 et seq., and California Civil Code § 54 et seq. due to disability access barriers to the following programs, services, activities and facilities owned, operated and/or maintained by the City and County of San Francisco: parks, libraries, swimming pools, and curb ramps, sidewalks, crosswalks, and any other outdoor designated pedestrian walkways in the City and County of San Francisco.

Dkt. 285, 7:19-25 (emphasis added). Having previously denied Plaintiffs’ request to join Pillay as an additional party-plaintiff, the Court granted their remaining request to appoint Kirola as the class representative. Id., 7:26.

In the course of its briefing on the class certification motion, the City argued, among other things, that Kirola lacked standing to seek injunctive relief with respect to the alleged disability access claims at issue and therefore was not an adequate class representative. Dkt. 245, 20:7:14-21:2. At the motion hearing on May 18, 2010, the City withdrew its challenge to Kirola’s adequacy as a class representative. Dkt. 285, 3:18-20. As such, in its June 7, 2010 Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, the Court did not address Kirola’s standing, and, importantly, made “no finding as to the type or scope of relief [Kirola could] seek or obtain on behalf of the class[.]” Id., 4:21-22. Rather, the Court ruled that “[s]uch determinations [would] be made following trial based upon the evidence presented and the relief requested.” Id., 4:23-24.

The parties presented their respective cases over the course of a five-week court trial. Cumulatively, thirty-six lay and expert witnesses, along with numerous exhibits in support of the parties’ respective positions, were presented. Kirola testified, and presented the testimony of six class members and mothers of class members; several City employees as adverse witnesses; four accessibility experts; and two experts in other areas. The City presented testimony from members of the Mayor’s Office on Disability (“MOD”), em *1201 ployees from various City departments, including the Department of Public Works (“DPW”) and Recreation and Parks Department (“RecPark”); two accessibility experts; and several other individual witnesses.

Subsequent to trial, the Court directed the parties to meet and confer regarding the course of further proceedings, and to thereafter submit a Joint Statement Re Further Proceedings (“Joint Statement”). Dkt. 659, 1:22-26, 2:5-8. In the Joint Statement, Plaintiff alleges that she “had encountered, and was continuing to encounter on a daily, regular or ongoing basis, numerous disability access barriers that significantly limited, interfered with, and obstructed her access to the City’s pedestrian rights of way, parks, pools and libraries in violation of the meaningful access standard.” Dkt. 662, 10:9-13. She also claims to have “a real and immediate threat of repeated injury” stemming from eleven policies and procedures, identified as follows:

(1) the City’s [2007-2008 Fiscal Year (“FY”) Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan for Curb Ramps and Sidewalks (“Curb Ramp and Sidewalk Transition Plan”) which does not comply with the three-year implementation period and January 26, 1995 deadline established by Title II of the ADA ( 28 C.F.R. § 35.150 (c)) for the completion of any barrier removal necessary for program access;

(2) the Sidewalk Inspection Repair Program, which only inspects and repairs access barriers on a 25 year cycle, and which also fails to comply with the January 26, 1995 deadline for program access;

(3) the City’s curb ramp design standard utilized between 1994 and 2004 pursuant to which it constructed curb ramps with a 1/2 inch lip at the base in violation of federal disability access design standards;

(4) the City’s Guidelines for Paving and Accessibility Compliance which permits the City to install curb ramps up to two years after re-paving;

(5) the City’s policy as stated on its website that an “accessible” park need provide only an “accessible entrance” and “at last one recreational opportunity,” and which does not require the provision of accessible routes to the range of recreational opportunities provided within each park;

(6) the City’s UPhAS [Uniform Physical Access Strategy], which adopts a policy of leaving disability access barriers that limit program access in place until major modernizations are performed in violation of the legal duty to remove such barriers by no later than January 26, 1995, which contains no objective definition of “accessible,” and permits City officials to rely upon their “common sense” in determining what is “accessible,” and which sets no deadline for when the City’s parks and or libraries will be readily accessible to persons with mobility disabilities;

(7) the City’s written complaint policies and forms that make no requirement that disability access barriers be removed within any particular time period, but instead permit the City to take up to two years to remove barriers;

(8) the City’s policies and procedures regarding new construction and alterations, which do not require a close-out inspection for compliance with federal disability access design standards or specific sign-off from the relevant City official that a project is in full compliance with those standards as built;

(9) the City’s maintenance policies and procedures which do not set specific and prompt deadlines for the identification *1202 and repair of items that are broken, non-operational or in need of repair; ...

[ 10] the City’s failure to adopt and implement a self-evaluation and transition plan pursuant to California Government Code § 11135 ... and

[ 11] the City’s ongoing failure to adopt any written policy or procedure regarding the identification and removal of safety hazards to persons with mobility disabilities.

Dkt. 662,13:15 — ll. 2

III. FINDINGS OF FACT

The Court now makes the following findings of fact pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(1). These findings are based on the evidence and testimony presented at trial, the Court’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility, and the legal arguments presented by counsel. To the extent that any of the findings of fact are more appropriately construed as conclusions of law, or vice-versa, they shall be deemed as such.

In this section, the Court will assess: (1) the City’s infrastructure to ensure accessibility for disabled persons to its programs, services and activities, as they relate to the public right-of-way system and the library, aquatics and RecPark programs; (2) the accessibility of the aforementioned programs, services and activities; (3) the City’s grievance procedure for making accessibility complaints; and (4) the credibility of Kirola, class members, and the parties’ experts as their testimony relates to the claims alleged in this action. 3

A. Infrastructure To Ensure Accessibility

1.Mayor’s Office On Disability

1. According to the 2000 census, approximately 20% of the City of San Francisco’s population (150,000 people) live with disabilities. The City’s disabled population includes individuals with mobility impairments, cognitive and psychiatric challenges, sensory impairments and self-care challenges. Reporter’s Transcript (“RT”) 1596:6-22, 2489:12-20; DTX H27 [11, 14-15].

2. To ensure that disabled persons have meaningful access to its services and programs consistent with the ADA and state law, the City has created a sophisticated and robust infrastructure, which includes the establishment of various departments, positions, policies, and programs, which are overseen by MOD.

3. The City created MOD to ensure that every program, service, benefit, activity and facility operated or funded by the City is fully accessible to, and usable by, people with disabilities. RT 1561:16-18; 1566:8-1567:9; DTXA35.

4. MOD is charged -with representing the needs of the disabled community. RT 1592:6-22. MOD staff regularly work with and receive input from a variety of organizations devoted to disabled access. RT 1596:24-1597:16.

5. Susan Mizner (“Mizner”) has been Director of MOD since 2003. RT 561:1421. Mizner oversees a staff of seven full-time employees, all of whom have disabilities and many years of experience advocating for the disabled.

*1203 6. Joanna Fraguli (“Fraguli”) is MOD’s Deputy Director for Programmatic Access.

7. John Paul Scott (“Scott”) is MOD’s Deputy Director for Physical Access.

8. Jim Whipple (“Whipple”) and Carla Johnson serve as MOD access compliance officers who conduct plan1 and site reviews, and Ken Stein is MOD’s Program Administrator. RT 1588:13-1592:5.

9. As part of its efforts to promote access for disabled persons, MOD maintains a public website that provides extensive information on various topics, including: (1) new developments; (2) architectural access; (3) the City’s review process for ensuring that publicly-funded facilities comply with access laws; (4) the City’s ADA transition plans; (5) the rights of persons with disabilities under the ADA; and (6) the City’s grievance procedure. RT 1565:14-19, 1567:16-1588:4, 1571:24-1574:6; DTX A35.

10. MOD has also prepared brochures and other materials to publicize its services and to inform the disabled population of their access rights. RT 1575:20-1576:17; 1578:241579:21; see, e.g., DTX A31; DTX E27 [000017],

2.Mayor’s Disability Council

11. Since 1998, the Mayor’s Disability Council (“MDC”) has advised the Mayor on disability issues and worked with MOD on access compliance.

12. MDC consists of between nine to eleven appointed members from the disabled community and serves as an advisory body to the Mayor and MOD.

13. The purpose of the council is to ensure ADA compliance and to provide a public forum to discuss disability issues. RT 1593:10-2; DTX A35 [000003],

14. MDC is MOD’s primary liaison to the City’s disabled community and provides guidance on a variety of disability issues, including website guidelines, transportation, housing, and priorities for ADA transition plan projects. RT 1593:10-17, 1595:14-1596:13.

3.ADA Coordinators

15. Mizner serves as the Citywide ADA Coordinator.

16. Every City department with over fifty employees has a designated ADA Coordinator responsible for investigating disability access complaints and serving as a resource for the department on disability access issues. RT 1583:7-1584:9, 1854:241856:21; see also DTX A35 [000110-113].

17. MOD works closely with the ADA Coordinators for the departments involved in this action; namely, DPW and RecPark, and the San Francisco Public Library (“Library”). RT 1857:21-1859:6, 1861:2-1863:6.

18. MOD provides technical assistance and support to all City departments and employees regarding accommodations necessary to ensure access to City services, programs, and activities.

19. In addition, MOD regularly conducts training for virtually all City departments on matters such as disability rights and access requirements. RT 1852:11854:7, 1584:22-1586:7, 1839:20-1840:19; DTX A31 [000003]; see, e.g., DTX E45. The trainings emphasize, among other things, the importance of maintaining accessible features. RT 1863:9-1865:3; DTX E45 [000022-023]. RT 1849:4-1850:23. MOD also provides specific training for ADA Coordinators. RT 1854:16-1856:3; DTX E27; DTXE47.

4.Grievance Procedure

20. MOD oversees a citywide grievance procedure for handling public complaints regarding disabled access to its facilities, programs and services. Instructions regarding this procedure are contained on a website operated by MOD which explains *1204 how to submit a complaint, inter alia, by-using the “ADA Complaint and Assistance Form.” RT 1579:23-1580:12-1581:22; DTX A35 [000105-109], MOD chose this title, believing that it would encourage people to submit requests, including persons who did not characterize their requests as “complaints.” RT 1581:11-22.

21. Upon receipt, MOD transmits a copy of the complaint to the appropriate ADA Coordinator. The assigned ADA Coordinator, in turn, conducts an investigation, and, in the course of investigating and responding to the complaint, may seek assistance from MOD or the City Attorney. DTX A35 [000105]; RT 1866:19-25.

22. Within thirty days of receiving a complaint, a written response, approved by MOD and signed by both the ADA Coordinator and the department head, is sent to the complainant. DTX A35 [000105]. The City responds to complaints received “fairly consistently” within thirty days and handles a significant number of complaints through its grievance procedure. RT 1711:18-20-1712:8. However, depending on the complexity of the issue, some complaints take longer to resolve. RT 2001:2-7. MOD monitors the grievances received to identify trends and develop programs to improve access. RT 1869:6-21.

- 23. During the three year period prior to trial, 40 percent of the grievances received by MOD were related to housing issues, 25 to 30 percent were related to public transportation and paratransit, and 20 percent were related to physical access (the majority of which were curb ramp requests). RT 1868:9-1869:5.

24.Fraguli oversees the City’s grievance procedure. RT 1866:11-14. Between the time she joined MOD in 2006 and trial, Fraguli received only one complaint related to a library (pertaining to assistive technology) and a “few” complaints related to physical access in Rec-Park facilities, which were resolved “fairly quickly.” RT 1869:22-1870:13. She has never received a complaint from Kirola or any testifying class member. ' RT 1870:14-1871:9.

25. Aside from Fraguli, ADA Coordinators at the City’s various departments^ also receive and address access complaints and/or requests regarding their respective departments. See, e.g., RT 2253:22-2254:24 (complaints regarding access to libraries), 2306:3-2309:14, 2336:16-18 (complaints regarding access to RecPark activities, facilities, or programs), 1999:12-2001:1 (complaints regarding access to the City’s public right-of-way). MOD receives a monthly report indicating the types of complaints received by the various City departments and whether any departments have been dilatory in issuing responses. RT 1869:6-17.

26. Curb ramp requests or complaints may be submitted through the complaint form on MOD’s website, by telephone, written correspondence, or e-mail, either to MOD or DPW, or through the City’s 3-1-1 system (which is used to request City services). RT 1619:15-23, 2416:23-2417:2, 2727:13-17.

27. Curb ramp requests submitted through the City’s grievance procedure trigger an investigation by DPW. If appropriate, DPW coordinates with other City departments or offices as needed, assigns an engineer to design the individual curb ramp, and works with MOD to prioritize the inquiry list based on the date each request was received and the priorities set forth in the City’s Curb Ramp and Sidewalk Transition Plan, i.e., the ADA transition plan specific to its public right-of-way system at issue in this action. RT 2000:718, 2385:14-2386:22; DTX A15.

28. The City also proactively solicits curb ramp requests. For instance, the City became concerned that it had received a disproportionally low number of *1205 curb ramp requests from certain low-income neighborhoods, despite the fact that those neighborhoods had fairly high rates of disability. The City thus instituted a public outreach program to solicit curb ramp requests from those neighborhoods. RT 1634:5-10, 2417:12-2419:1. The City funded a bus advertisement campaign and sent postcards to paratransit riders explaining the process for making curb ramp requests. RT 1634:11-14; DTX L4. The City also trained its staff to go door-to-door in the poorest neighborhoods to speak with community members about their disability access needs. RT 1634:15-17.

29. At the time of trial, the City’s curb ramp request log contained outstanding curb ramp requests for 124 intersections across the City. RT 2440:3-4. Of those 124 intersections, 44 corresponded to requests from individuals with disabilities and were therefore categorized as “higher priority” requests. RT 2440:4-6. At the time of trial, the City was in either the design or construction phase on fully-funded curb ramp projects at 132 intersections. RT 2440:7-10.

30. William Hecker (“Heeker”), one of the City’s program access experts, opined that the City’s grievance procedure is consistent with the requirements and provisions of the ADA and its regulations. RT 2727:5-19.

5. Funding for Access Improvements

31. Funding for access improvements is governed by the City’s Capital Plan. The Capital Plan for Fiscal Years 2012 to 2021 allocates a total of $177 million in fully-funded capital spending over the 10-year period to disability access improvements, which includes $24 million for facility improvements and $153 million for public right-of-way improvements. RT 1543:2-6; PTX 4057[7]. Considering other categories of spending that would include disability access improvements (such as street repaving projects, earthquake and public safety improvements, facility renewals, and critical deferred maintenance), the City’s Capital Planning department estimated the total amount of planned ADA spending from 2012 to 2021 to be approximately $670 million. RT 1544:6-14, 1543:7-1544:4, 1539:19-1540:19.

B. Public Right-of-way

32. DPW oversees the City’s public right-of-way network, which consists of approximately 2,000 miles of sidewalks, 27,-585 street corners, and roughly 7,200 intersections. RT 2391:23-25, 2447:6-18.

33. DPW’s Disability Access Coordinator is responsible for monitoring access issues related to the public right-of-way; reviewing publicly-funded construction projects designed by or contracted through DPW; training staff on access issues; and serving as the key DPW contact for individuals who seek information regarding accessibility or who submit access complaints or curb ramps requests. RT 1910:18-1911:16, 2443:25-2444:10.

34. Separate from DPW, the City’s Municipal Transportation Agency, provides paratransit services and public transportation as important components of an accessible public right-of-way. RT 1636:4-12. The City operates and subsidizes a paratransit system that offers van and taxi service for persons with disabilities who are unable to use public transportation. RT 1634:18-1635:1,1635:21-1636:3.

35. The City has enacted procedures and policies setting standards for new construction and alterations, as well as ensuring program access with respect to existing pathways, both of which are discussed below.

1. New Curb Ramp Construction and Alterations

36. The City began installing curb ramps in the 1970s, and created formal *1206 design standards for curb ramp construction in the 1980s, prior to the enactment of the ADA. RT 1996:6-1997:6; 2467:21-2468:13; DTX H06 [000959].

37. In 1989, DPW established its Curb Ramp Program and developed priorities for the design and installation of curb ramps based on input from the disabled community. DTX H06 [000959].

38. In 1994, the City revised its curb ramp design standards to provide more detailed specifications. RT 2467:21-2471:20. In particular, new curb ramp standards were developed in order to address conflicting federal and state requirements regarding use of a half-inch curb lip at the point where the ramp meets the street. RT 1994:18-1995:4. At that time, state accessibility standards required a half-inch lip at the base of the curb ramp which could be detected by a visually-impaired person using a cane. Federal law, however, specified flush or smooth transitions. Accordingly, non-federally-funded curb ramps were built with a lip, while federally-funded curb ramps were not. RT 1993:21-1995:22, 1608:13-1609:4; DTX H05. In 2004, the City updated its curb ramp design standards, which eliminated use of the half-inch lip. 4

39. In 1995, DPW issued Order No. 169,270, which memorialized the City’s plan to install curb ramps in compliance with disability access laws, while recognizing that funding constraints might delay full implementation of this policy. DTX G18. DPW prioritizes curb ramp installation as follows: (1) replace existing curb ramps in poor condition; (2) install curb ramps where none exist; (3) provide for a second curb ramp, where feasible, on corners with a single curb ramp; (4) construct or reconstruct curb ramps in locations with physical or other constraints; and (5) reconstruct curb ramps that are safe but •that do not meet the City’s construction standards. RT 1951:8-1952:15; DTX G18.

40. In or about May 2004, DPW issued Order No. 175,387, which adopted the City’s design standards requiring the use of bi-directional curb ramps (i.e., a ramp aligned in parallel to the cross-walk) or at least one curb ramp per corner. RT 1978:12-1980:1, 1981:16-1990:19; DTX G07, DTX H04 [000002, 000004], Although bi-directional curb ramps are not required by the ADA, the City installs them to enhance access for disabled individuals. Bi-directional curb ramps are preferred by the disabled community, including Kirola and testifying class members. RT 552:12-553:20, 542:8-543:13, 875:14-876:9, 1005:4-14, 1007:7-16, 1025:9-18,1384:13-21, 2066:24-2067:22. ,

41. City Procedure No. 10.6.2 requires that: (1) curb ramps shall be designed in accordance with DPW Order No. 175,387; (2) any deviations must be approved; and (3) curb ramp designers must coordinate with other City departments and third parties. RT 2381:4-2385:4; DTXA41.

42. When installing curb ramps, the City evaluates the entire intersection to ensure accessibility. Curb ramps will be constructed to current standards, if necessary, at all corners of the intersection. RT 2376:6-17. The City’s design standards ensure an accessible path of travel in traffic islands, medians, and trackways within the street. RT 1992:11-1993:9; DTX H07.

*1207 43. The City has established Quality Assurance (“QA”) Checklists for the design and construction of curb ramps and sidewalks to ensure they meet the applicable requirements and established quality standards. RT 2377:24-2380:20; DTX A13 [QA Checklist 5.2 [A-13-000050-52]; RT 2376:18-2377:14; DTX H14.

44. Since 1989, the City has required that when roads are paved and the paving extends into an intersection (including the cross-walk), curb ramps are constructed or reconstructed if they do not meet the City’s current curb ramp design standards. RT 2471:22-2472:10; 2473:4-12; 2426:2-2427:4. This practice is memorialized in the DPW’s Guidelines for Paving and Accessibility Compliance (“Paving Guidelines”). DTX N23 [000003]; RT 2426:9-2429:16, 2471:22-2481:8.

45. The Paving Guidelines allow the City to defer curb ramp installation in connection with a street paving project for up to twenty-four months when a preplanned project would demolish the newly constructed curb ramp within that time period. DTX N23 [000003], If the subsequent project is delayed or discontinued, the curb ramps at issue are to be installed immediately. RT 2428:19-2429:16, 2445:11-15; DTX N23 [000003].

46. The City’s Bureau of Sewer and Street Repair (“Bureau”) typically repaves City blocks one block at a time, without affecting the crosswalk. In these cases, the Bureau’s obligation to install curb ramps is not triggered. RT 2480:4-2481:8. No evidence was presented showing that the City has a policy and/or practice of intentionally avoiding crosswalks in order to evade an obligation to construct curb ramps.

2. Transition Plan

47. The City’s first curb ramp transition plan in Fiscal Year (“FY”) 1992/1993 estimated 52,000 curb ramps were needed citywide. RT 1950:3-24; DTX H20 [000959], The City updated its transition plan in 1998 and again in FY 2007/2008. RT 1951:81952:15; DTX H20; PTX 22. The FY 2007/2008 amendments, which are at issue in this action, are set forth in the Curb Ramp and Sidewalk Transition Plan. PTX 22.

a) Curb Ramps

48. One of the goals of the Curb Ramp and Sidewalk Transition Plan is “curb ramp saturation” — that is, to construct a curb ramp compliant with its current design standards at the end of every pedestrian crossing or least one curb ramp per corner. This approach often involves installing bi-directional curb ramps at every corner. RT 2390:1018.

49. The 2008 revisions organized the priorities outlined in DPW Order No. 169,-270 into a “priority matrix.” DTX A35 [000023]. The priority matrix prioritizes— installations/upgrades based on: (1) locations requested by citizens; (2) locations serving government offices and public facilities; (3) locations serving public transportation; (4) locations serving public accommodations, employers, and commercial districts; and (5) warehouse districts and residential areas. RT 1441:11-1442:15, 1617:2-1619:13, 1618:4-1619:13, 1956:6-1958:16, 2416:19-22; DTX A35 [000023].

50. DPW employs a curb ramp grading or evaluation system to prioritize curb ramp repair and replacement. RT 1606:23-1607:22, 1615:10-24. In establishing the curb ramp grading system, the City solicited and incorporated recommendations from the MDC’s Physical Access Committee and the City’s disabled community to establish the grading system. RT 1607:18-22,1608:8-1614:12.

51. Under the curb ramp grading system, each existing curb ramp is assigned a “condition score” based on a 100-point scale. RT 1607:2-13. Each curb ramp begins with a 100 point score, from which a *1208 specific number of points is then deducted, depending on the type of disability access barrier presented. For example, 5 points are deducted for lips greater than a half-inch; 12 points for a running slope between 8.33 percent and 10 percent; 25 points for a running slope greater than 10 percent; and 13 points for lack of a level bottom landing. RT 1607:23-1608:7, 1611:10-13; PTX0023. 5

52. The City presumes that curb ramps with a score greater than 75 are good and usable; curb ramps with a score of between 70 and 75 are low priorities for replacement; and curb ramps with a score of 69 or below are high priorities for replacement. RT 1615:14-24.

53. The City tracks citizen requests, curb ramp attributes, and curb ramp condition scores through a Curb Ramp Information System (“CRIS”) database.

54. The City also uses a geographic information service (“GIS”) to map citywide curb ramp locations by grade based on the data contained within the CRIS database. RT 1621:2-25; DTX Fll. These maps include public transit stops, civic buildings, health facilities, libraries, police stations, cultural centers, and public schools. RT 1621:21622:10; DTX Fll.

55. At the time the current Curb Ramp and Sidewalk Transition Plan was drafted, the City had yet to identify every location where a new or upgraded curb ramp was required to achieve curb ramp saturation. RT 2390:19-2391:11. By January 2011, however, the City had surveyed all potential curb ramp locations and uploaded information about each location into the CRIS database. More specifically, the survey confirmed whether there was an existing curb ramp at the location, the condition of any existing curb ramp, and whether the location actually served a pedestrian crossing and thus warranted installation of a curb ramp. RT 2395:22-2396:23.

56. Based on information in its CRIS database, the City has determined that 23,401 curb ramps are needed to meet the City’s goal of curb ramp saturation. RT 2410:19-2411:21.

57. Consistent with its Curb Ramp and Sidewalk Transition Plan, the City installs approximately 1,200 new curb ramps each year. RT 2785:17-2787:13, 2789:3-2790:18; PTX 0022 [003798].

58. The Curb Ramp and Sidewalk Transition Plan does not include a specific deadline for achieving curb ramp saturation. RT 2015:16-29, 2413:17-2414:1. However, at the time of trial, the City estimated that it would complete construction of the 23,401 curb ramps by Fiscal Year 2028/2029. RT 2410:19-2414:1. That projection, however, was based on an overestimation of the number of curb ramps needed for curb ramp saturation. RT 2396:19-2397:7, 2401:14-16, 2403:12-2404:9. The City now projects that, taking into account accelerated curb ramp installation, curb ramp saturation can be achieved by Fiscal Year 2026/2027. Dkt. 657, 4:12-13.

59. The determination of the particular curb ramps to be constructed in the upcoming fiscal year is based on available and procured funds. RT 1637:4-1638:6, 2027:10-12. The City prioritizes construc *1209 tion consistent with the priorities set forth in the Curb Ramp and Sidewalk Transition Plan. RT 1958:18-1959:2, 2027:4-19. In the process of prioritizing future curb ramp construction, the City also evaluates the information contained within the CRIS database along with information regarding any planned paving projects and outstanding curb ramp requests. RT 1627:16-1633:24.

60. At the time of trial, the Curb Ramp and Sidewalk Transition Plan did not explicitly include the City’s crosswalks. RT 2013:13-22. The City nevertheless has initiated a pilot project pursuant to which City engineers are to evaluate the accessibility of crosswalks when constructing corresponding curb ramps in order to determine whether the crosswalk contains cracks, potholes, or other barriers that adversely impact the crosswalk’s accessibility. RT 2430:13-22. The City plans to incorporate the results of the pilot project into its Curb Ramp and Sidewalk Transition Plan. RT 2430:9-2431:19. The City also has developed a crosswalk assessment checklist for use in the pilot study and implementation into the Curb Ramp and Sidewalk Transition Plan. RT 2431:2-3; DTX Z58.

b) Sidewalks

61. The Curb Ramp and Sidewalk Transition Plan includes a Sidewalk Inspection and Repair Program (“SIRP”), first implemented in FY 2006/2007, which governs the maintenance of the City’s 2,000 miles of sidewalks. RT1974:7-21, 2447:6-18; PTX22.

62. Under SIRP, the City proactively inspects every city block on a twenty-five year cycle, notifies the responsible parties of any access barriers identified, and ensures the remediation of these barriers. RT 1974:7-21, 2447:12-18; PTX 0022 [18-20]. DPW determined that a twenty-five year inspection cycle is reasonable, given the size of San Francisco, the fact that the inspection program operates in tandem with a grievance procedure, fiscal and staffing constraints, and the prioritization of repairs where pedestrian volume is the greatest. RT 1974:3-21, 2453:9-17.

63. Under SIRP, the City prioritizes sidewalk inspection and repair along city blocks with high pedestrian usage as characterized by or based on: (1) commercial districts; (2) public transportation routes; (3) proximity to schools, public facilities, hospitals, or senior centers; and (4) population density. RT 1974:22-1977:9, 2448:11-22; PXT 0022 [18-20]; DTX AA23. Consistent with guidance from the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the City also prioritizes locations based on citizen requests, requiring that requests from the disabled community be given top priority. RT 1974:22-1976:2, 2450:12-24.

64. City policy specifies that private property owners are responsible for the repair and maintenance of sidewalk areas in front of their property. RT 1101:1-4. Once the City identifies a defective sidewalk and sends the property owner a notice to repair, the owner has thirty days to commence repairs. RT 1101:14-17. The City has endeavored to streamline the process by incenting property owners to use a City contractor in exchange for a waiver of permit fees. RT 2451:3-2452:4. If the owner fails to repair the sidewalk after having been duly notified, the City is entitled to perform the repair and invoice the property owner for the cost of inspection and abatement. RT 2451:11-15. The City’s practice at the time of trial was to bill property owners through property liens. RT 2451:1516.

65. The SIRP, which is considered a “proactive” program, operates in conjunction with a “reactive” program known as the Accelerated Sidewalk Abatement Program (“ASAP”), whereby the City responds directly to complaints or requests *1210 submitted by the public. RT 2453:18-2454:12. Under ASAP, issues or problems with sidewalks that impact accessibility are given “high priority” for remediation. RT 2454:1-12. If a high priority complaint is received for a sidewalk that is scheduled for repair within a few months, the City dispatches an inspector typically within one business day to investigate the matter. If the inspector finds a defect, he or she will immediately issue a notice of repair and an abatement order to the property owner. Repairs are generally completed within ninety days. RT 2454:13-2455:22.

66. In addition to the foregoing, the City has adopted various other policies to ensure accessibility of the City’s sidewalks. RT 1959:13-1960:2, 2443:25-2444:10. These policies include: guidelines regarding the placement of barriers at construction sites; guidelines regarding the placement of scaffolding; permit requirements regarding the use of tables and chairs on the sidewalk; requirements regarding temporary occupancy of the public right-of-way; guidelines regarding displaying merchandise on the sidewalk; regulations regarding tree planting and maintenance; and requirements regarding slip-resistant metal covers and grates. RT 1960:7-1971:9; DTX A9; DTX A21; DTX G19; DTX F43; DTX F44; DTX F45; DTX G17; DTX F48; DTX G10.

C. Facilities and Programs

67. Separate and apart from its public right-of-way system, the City operates a number of programs, i.e., aquatic, library and RecPark programs, which are offered through various facilities located throughout San Francisco.

68. The library program is provided through the Main Library and twenty-seven branch libraries located throughout San Francisco. RT 2222:13-15.

69. The aquatic program is provided through nine swimming pools, RT 2763:212765:5.

70. The RecPark program is provided through approximately 220 parks spanning 4,200 acres of park space and 400 structures (i.e., clubhouses, recreation centers, etc.) thereon. RT 2264:13-17, 2302:12-16.

71. The City has enacted procedures and policies to ensure meaningful access, including program access, to its aquatic, library and RecPark programs, as summarized below.

1. Facilities Transition Plan

a) History and Objectives

72. In 2003, MOD hired Logan Hopper (“Hopper”) as a facilities transition plan consultant. RT 1603:12-18. Hopper surveyed approximately 700 facilities across the City and prepared a draft transition plan. The draft transition plan identified the “essential — services” offered by various city departments, including Library and RecPark, and estimated costs and timelines for removing the identified access barriers. RT 1603:22-1604:3, 1603:22-1604:3; PTX 0034 [000470, 000476, 000522-523, 000528-538].

73. Mizner, the Director of MOD, testified that because Hopper was not familiar with construction practices in San Francisco, she felt that he had significantly underestimated both the projected cost and the amount of time necessary to complete a particular project. RT 1603:12-1604:18. Accordingly, Mizner recruited Scott to lead the development of the City’s facilities transition plan. RT 1604:14-18, 1770:10-12, 1777:211779:11. Scott, who had been the ADA Coordinator for the Port of San Francisco, is a licensed architect with more than twenty years of experience working on architectural access issues and is a former member of the U.S. Access Board’s Recreation Access Advisory Com *1211 mittee and Places of Amusement Committee. RT 1771:21-1773:22,1775:911.

b) Uniform Physical Access Strategy or UPhAS

74. In 2007, under Scott’s leadership, the City developed its facilities transition plan known as the Uniform Physical Access Strategy (“UPhAS”). Scott’s plan is based on the extensive work performed by Hopper and Gilda Puente Peters, another access consultant retained by the City, the capital plans of various City departments such as Library and Rec Park, and outreach to the disabled community to understand their priorities. RT 1452:20-23, 1779:12-1780:9; 1784:7-22; DTX B07, PTX 0035.

75. UPhAS governs the City’s libraries and Rec Park facilities. RT 1791:151792:15; 1797:20-1798:5. The plan seeks to provide maximum access for the disabled to each City building and facility, RT 1785:14-1786:22; prioritize physical access solutions and limit the use of a program access approach (which allows a city to move programs to other sites rather than make access improvements), RT 1789:6-19; and offer programs and services in the most integrated setting possible, RT 1789:20-1790:10; DTX B07 [005317]). UPhAS calls for input from the public and MOD, as well as an annual assessment of access priorities. RT 1786:23-17878:4; PTX 0040.

76. UPhAS has no schedule or deadline for the removal of access barriers, but instead, sets funding targets to facilitate their removal. RT 1456:18-1457:15, 123:11-12, 612:2-9; PTX 0040. As such, the City’s plan for implementing UPhAS changes annually, depending on funding. RT 612:2 — 4.

77. The City constantly re-evaluates UPhAS by tracking projects as they are created, built and completed. RT 1791:2-1791:14. Scott uses complex, color-coded spreadsheets and maps to track the status of each facility evaluated as part of the Hopper surveys and to graphically represent the accessibility of City facilities. RT 1798:6-1799:25; 1801:24-1802:2; 1810:6-25; PTX B39. Each color signifies a different status. RT 1799:425. Blue dots “signify a building that had undergone new construction or alterations,” based on a post-2000 capital improvement project. RT 1463:8-1464:12; see, e.g., PTX 0148A. For instance, one of the maps shows all of the City’s swimming pools located in San Francisco. DTX F16. Some pools are identified by a blue dot, while others are denoted with a red dot, which signifies “limited access.” Id.

78. Trial testimony -established that a blue dot was not intended to suggest that every element of the facility was 100 percent compliant with all applicable facilities access regulations; rather, it signifies that the facility was fulfilling the City’s program access intent under UPhAS. RT 1464:14-23. In other words, a blue dot indicates only that the facility offers some accessible program or programs, and not necessarily that every physical element of the facility is compliant with disability access regulations.

79. Through UPhAS, the City seeks to attain a level of access greater than required under law (i.e., more than the legally-mandated program access) with respect to almost all of its various programs, services,, and activities. RT 1785:23-1788:21. For example, the City strives to ensure that all libraries are accessible to disabled individuals, even though Title II does not require that the City make, each library facility accessible. RT 1797:5-19. However, due to the broad, varying and diverse scope of.RecPark facilities, the City aims for program access (as opposed to access greater than legally required) as to Rec-Park programs, services, and activities. RT 1797:20-1798:5.

*1212

2. New Construction and Alterations

80. Federal regulations promulgated to enforce the ADA require that each new facility or part of a facility constructed or altered after January 26, 1992, conform to either (1) the ADAAG (i.e., ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities) or (2) the UFAS, thereby allowing public entities to choose between the two accessibility standards. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.151 .

81. The City has elected to use ADAAG as its standard for ensuring that newly constructed or altered facilities comply with federal access laws. RT 1919:20-24.

82: Since June 22, 1998, the City has required that all projects involving new construction or alterations of a building funded, in whole or in part, by the City, undergo review by City staff to ensure compliance with disability access laws. RT 1568:111569:24; 1914:17-1917:5; 1918:12-22; 1919:6-19; DTX Pll; DTX A35 [000126-141]. To that end, City staff members regularly meet with architectural teams during the planning and design stage, review construction plans before permits are issued, visit sites during the construction process, and conduct post-construction field inspections to ensure access compliance. RT 1744:19-1748:15, 1901:15-1903:22, 1914:17-1917:5, 1918:12-22, 1919:619, 1568:11-1569:24; DTX Pll; DTX A35 [000126-141],

83.The City also requires that sidewalks and curb ramps adjacent to newly constructed or altered City buildings be accessible to persons with disabilities. As a result, whenever a City facility is constructed or altered, the City evaluates the condition of the sidewalk and curb ramps bounding the perimeter of the project site, evaluates the path of travel from the facility to the public right-of-way, nearby parking and public transportation, and corrects any access problems identified. RT 1936:4-1938:11.

84. In January 2010, DPW adopted and implemented Procedure 9.8.24, which is a written accessibility compliance procedure that sets forth the review process for all projects designed by or contracted through DPW to ensure that all construction plans and completed facilities meet applicable access regulations and City standards. RT 1920:241921:24; DTX A14.

85. Procedure 9.8.24 requires DPW Disability Access Coordinator to conduct: (1) accessibility reviews during the planning and design of DPW-managed City projects, which includes the review of construction drawings and plans prior to submission to the Department of Building Inspection; (2) accessibility reviews during construction; and (3) post-construction inspections for disability access compliance before the building is certified for occupancy. DTX A14; RT 1921:25-1935:19; DTX J21; DTX K10. Publicly-funded projects reviewed by MOD undergo similar access reviews. RT 1742:23-1743:6, 1743:16-1748:15, 1901:15-1904:8. The Department of Building Inspection will not issue a building permit, or certify a project as complete, without written approval from MOD’s compliance officers for each stage of design and construction. RT 1747:1-1748:15,1901:15-1904:8.

86. Hecker opined that the City staff members responsible for design and construction review of publicly-funded projects are “well qualified, competent, detail-oriented professionals that really understand the accessibility requirements of the ADA.” RT 2729:17-2730:3. The Court finds Hecker, who serves as a consultant to the DOJ in ADA enforcement actions, to be a credible witness and credits his testimony accordingly. RT 2720:6-2721:15.

*1213 3. Specific Programs

87. In addition to the City’s public right-of-way system, Kirola challenges the City’s compliance with Title II of the ADA with respect to its swimming pools, libraries and parks. These facilities are the means through which the City provides its aquatic program, library program and RecPark program, respectively.

a) Aquatic Program

88. The City’s aquatic program is provided through nine public swimming pools. Six of the nine pools have been renovated and made accessible. RT 2767:8-2769:17; DTX F16.

89. Wood credibly opined that renovated pools have the features necessary to provide program access, namely: (1) an accessible route from the property line to the building; (2) an accessible entry; (3) an accessible check-in counter; (4) accessible signage; (5) accessible ramps or curb ramps, wherever necessary; (6) accessible toilets; (7) accessible showers; (8) accessible locker rooms; and (9) transfer lifts to assist individuals with mobility impairments to get into and out of the pool. RT 2136:7-2137:5.

90. Balboa Pool, Garfield Pool and Ros-si Pool are coded with red dots, meaning that they are “limited access” pools. DTX F16. However, at the time of trial, a barrier removal project was underway at Garfield Pool, RT 1813:13-1814:4, and Ros-si Pool and Balboa Pool have since been scheduled for barrier removal, Dkt. 658-1.

91. Hecker credibly opined that the number and distribution of accessible pools (six out of nine) is sufficient to provide program access for the City’s aquatic program. RT 2767:8-2769:17; DTX F16.

b) Library Program

92. The City’s library program is provided through its Main Library and twenty-seven branch libraries. RT 2222:13-15; DTX 132.

93. In 2000, the City embarked on a $153 million Branch Library Improvement Program (“BLIP”), a program largely funded by a voter-approved $106 million bond measure. RT 2222:16-2223:3; DTX C37; PTX 4057 [000113-114],

94. BLIP’S express priorities are to ensure that twenty-four of the City’s branch libraries are ADA compliant and seismically retrofitted. RT 2222:16-2223:3, 2228:252229:9; DTX C37; DTX Dl; DTX F22; PTX 4057 [00118]; PTX 0045[72]. 6 Athough MOD had previously determined that the City was sufficiently providing program access to its library system through its four ADA-compliant libraries, it nevertheless approved BLIP after determining that the project met UPhAS’s goal of providing a higher level of accessibility than the legally-mandated minimum program access. RT 1797:5-19.

95. As of April 29, 2011, the City had completed construction and/or renovation of seventeen of the twenty-four branch libraries covered under BLIP. The City anticipated completing work at five additional branch libraries between May and September of 2011. As to the two remaining projects, one was under construction at the time of trial and the other was anticipated to conclude in 2014. RT 2227:7-21; DTX 132.

96. Kevin Wesley Jensen (“Jensen”), DPW’s Disability Access 'Coordinator, conducted disability access reviews pursuant to Procedure 9.8.24 for all BLIP projects, *1214 other than the Mission Bay Branch Library (which was reviewed by Whipple). RT 1900:24-1904:8, 1938:20-1939:24, 1939:25-1940:8. Jensen reviewed the projects at various' points, including during design, planning, and construction. RT 2230:6-2233:13. Following the completion of the project, Jensen decided whether the building should be certified for occupancy. Id.

97. On a number of occasions, including one involving the Glen Park Branch Library, Jensen found that the construction work did not meet access requirements. In those instances, he withheld occupancy approval and required the library to correct the deficiencies before opening the branch location in question to the public. RT 2232:82233:13.

98. Jensen also evaluated the path of travel from each branch library to the public right-of-way, nearby parking and public transportation. Where necessary, he implemented access improvements, including the repair or replacement of sidewalks. RT 1943:81945:17.

99. In addition to the above, the City has undertaken additional efforts to ensure accessibility of its libraries. For example, 'the Library employs two dedicated accessibility coordinators — one who specializes in programmatic access and who trains staff on a variety of issues related to accessibility, and another who specializes in ensuring that library facilities are physically accessible. RT 2224:8-23.

100. Library staff use a Daily Facility Checklist to maintain the accessibility of each library facility. Each morning, trained library staff inspect their respective facilities, move furniture (including misplaced/errant step stools and chairs) or other objects that may impede the path of travel, and report any access issues that cannot safely or readily be corrected. Library staff members have various tools, such as door pressure monitors, to conduct these daily inspections. RT 2235:22-2237:13,2252:10-2253:21; DTX A45. Pursuant to the Library’s policy of conducting daily inspections, misplaced furniture impeding an accessible path of travel remains out of place for, at most, twenty-four hours. See DTX A45.

101. The Library also offers a range of non-structural solutions to ensure access to its programs and events, including assis-tive technologies, books by mail, a Library on Wheels, a Library for the Blind and Print Disabled, a Deaf Services Center, and Accessibility Tool Kits, which include simple tools such as magnifying glasses, magnification sheets, book holders, pencil grips, and special rulers. DTX A43; RT 2248:72252:9.

102. At the time of trial, the City had instituted a policy requiring the installation of automatic door openers to increase accessibility in all buildings, even when not required under applicable access regulations. RT 2238:16-2239:6. The City also implemented custom access standards for use when purchasing furniture and equipment for its facilities. RT 1940:9-1942:24, 2233:14-2235:3; DTX Y26; DTX V27; DTXV28.

103. Any public complaints regarding accessibility are handled by the Library’s ADA Coordinator for Programmatic Access. Whenever possible, complaints are handled immediately. Some complaints, however, require investigation and assistance from other City departments, and others require funding and must be budgeted. RT 2253:22-2254:24.

c) RecPark Program

104. RecPark manages approximately 4,200 acres of park land, which includes more than 220 parks and 400 built structures, including pools, recreation centers, clubhouses, and playgrounds. RT 2302:10-23, 2264:13-17.

*1215 105. Due to the scale and geographic distribution of its facilities, the City relies on a program access approach to provide disability access to RecPark programs, services, and activities (as opposed to making each and every RecPark facility individually and fully accessible). RT 1797:20-1798:5.

106. RecPark evaluates all of its recreation programs to ensure that they are accessible to individuals with disabilities, provide a range of accommodations, and maintain an inclusion services department that works with disabled individuals to meet their individualized needs. RT 2304:7-2305:6.

107. RecPark has three employees dedicated to accessibility: an ADA Programmatic Access Coordinator; an ADA Facilities Coordinator; and an Inclusion Services Director. RT 2305:8-2306:2.

108. The ADA Programmatic Access Coordinator serves as a liaison between the public, RecPark and MOD, provides staff training, and works to resolve access complaints. RT 2336:3-18.

109. The ADA Facilities Coordinator focuses on ensuring physical access to Rec-Park facilities via barrier removal and works closely with the City’s Capital Division. RT 2305:22-2306:2.

110. The Inclusion Services Coordinator works with individuals who request custom accommodations, such as aides, wheelchair transportation, and assistive listening devices. RT 2336:24-2340:13.

111. RecPark requires daily inspection of its buildings and facilities for safety hazards or other issues that might impact access before they are opened to the public. RT 2315:15-2317:18; DTX Z60 (Employee Daily Facility Preparation Quick-Sheet).

112. RecPark also undertakes a semiannual accessibility survey whereby it inspects its facilities using a more detailed accessibility checklist and corrects items that may affect physical access. RT 2318:2-2319:18; DTX Z61 (Semi-Annual Facility Accessibility Survey).

113. As mandated by Proposition C, a 2003 voter referendum, RecPark regularly inspects features such as pathways, playgrounds, athletic courts, and trees. These inspections promote accessibility by focusing on path of travel issues, such as surface quality of pathways, the operability of gates and latches, and removal of barriers such as low hanging tree limbs. RT 2320:2-2321:6.

114. RecPark has a written policy that categorizes and prioritizes maintenance requests and complaints as follows: emergencies, which are to be addressed immediately; health, safety and accessibility issues, which are to be addressed within forty-eight hours; and routine issues. 7 RT 2306:3-2309:14; DTX A10.

115. The public may obtain information relating to the department’s programs, services, and activities — including accessibility information — through RecPark’s website. RT 2344:25-2348:19; PTX 3875.

116. The website contains a webpage specifically dedicated to disability access issues, which provides information regarding facility accessibility and programmatic accessibility, as well as contact information for further access inquiries. RT 2347:242348:19; PTX 3875 [075767], It also provides instructions for submitting individualized requests for inclusion services or accommodations, as well as a list of available adaptive recreation classes and activities. RT 2347:24-2348:19, 2354:10-24; PTX 3875 [075768]. The website includes a map function that identifies parks *1216 and recreation facilities as either “accessible” or “limited wheelchair accessibility.” PTX 3875 [075769].

117. The purpose of the website is to provide the public with “shorthand information” regarding City facilities that contain programs accessible to wheelchair users. RT 1502:13-16. As such, the website defines an “accessible” park or outdoor area as one that has a wheelchair accessible entry and “at least one accessible recreational opportunity.” RT 1476:24-1477:14, 2329:11-16; PTX 3875 [075767]. The website advises the public that due to the terrain, age, and natural features of the City’s outdoor areas, “there will be sites labeled ‘accessible’ in which some areas of the site are not accessible to wheelchair users.” PTX 3875 [075767],

118. RecPark makes reasonable efforts to fulfill special accommodation requests made by persons with disabilities. RT 2348:20-2354:3. Although RecPark requests seventy-two hours’ notice for such requests, it nonetheless strives to accommodate requests received less than seventy-two hours in advance, as well. RT 2310:12-2312:24, 2348:202350:1.

119. At trial, RecPark’s ADA Coordinator for Programmatic Access testified that he was unaware of any situation in which RecPark had been unable to fulfill a request for accommodation, and there has been no showing to the contrary. RT 2352:16-19. 8

120. Since 2000, RecPark has spent over $500 million on capital projects to improve the City’s RecPark facilities through its Capital Improvement Program. RT 2265:2-2266:2; DTX C32 [000003].

121. As RecPark renovates each park and facility under its Capital Improvement Program, it makes access improvements as necessary to ensure compliance with access regulations. RT 2274:3-2275:7.

122. In 2008, RecPark estimated its capital need for its entire system to be roughly $1.7 billion. RT 2267:2-12.

123. The majority of funding for Rec-Park improvements derives from voter approved measures, including the 2008 Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks General Obligation Bond (“2008 Bond”), while the remainder came from other sources, such as the City’s General Fund. RT 2266:11-2267:2.

124. In connection with the 2008 Bond, RecPark conducted a year-long community outreach campaign to select the parks to be included in the bond measure. Based on the feedback it received, RecPark selected fourteen neighborhood parks or park facilities for inclusion based on the following four criteria: (1) earthquake safety hazards; (2) physical condition; (3) location in dense urban areas; and (4) the provision of “core park amenities,” such as a play area, green space, recreation facility, athletic field, or athletic court. RT 2267:13-2272:24, DTX 037 [00029-35]. All of the 2008 Bond projects include expenditures for access improvements. Id.

125. At the time of trial, RecPark and MOD were planning a $150 million general obligation bond for further park improvements for inclusion on the November 2012 ballot. RT 2277:3-12,1808:18-1809:23.

126. Pursuant to UPhAS, MOD studies and tracks RecPark’s capital projects. RT 1802:25-1803:3, 1805:1-22. MOD works *1217 closely with RecPark staff and provides guidance on accessibility issues, such as the priorities selected for the 2008 Bond and the accessibility standards to apply. RT 1806:3-18,1808:11-17.

127. DPW’s Disability Access Coordinator and MOD’s Access Compliance Officers perform disability access reviews for RecPark’s capital improvement projects. RT 1945:18-1946:14,1901:3-14.

128. Jensen, DPW’s Disability Access Coordinator, followed Procedure 9.8.24, which sets forth the review process for compliance with accessibility standards, for all RecPark projects he reviewed. RT 1946:15-1947:1. He also evaluated the path of travel from each site evaluated to the corresponding public right-of-way, nearby accessible parking, and public transportation, and he required access improvements where necessary. RT 1948:7-1949:4. In addition, Jensen used the playground and recreation accessibility standards developed by the U.S. Access Board when reviewing RecPark projects, even though they had not yet been adopted by the DOJ. RT 1947:7-1948:6.

D. Lay Witness Testimony

129. Kirola has been a resident of the City since 1993. RT 1389:8-9. She suffers from cerebral palsy and uses a motorized wheel chair for mobility and to travel around San Francisco. RT 1380:12-1381:3.

130. Aside from her own testimony, Ki-rola presented the testimony of three class members and three mothers of class members.

131. Timothy Grant (“Grant”) is a class member with multiple sclerosis who uses a wheelchair for mobility. He resides in Albany, California, and travels to San Francisco four to five times a week. RT 873:8-15, 881:18-23.

132. Margie Cherry (“Cherry”) is a class member with chronic arthritis. She resides in San Francisco. RT 1028:22-23, 1029:18.

133. Elizabeth O’Neil (“O’Neil”) is a class member with cerebral palsy who often uses crutches or a wheelchair for mobility. She resides in San Francisco. RT 537:13-24, 539:18-540:20.

134. Jill Kimbrough (“Kimbrough”) is the mother of a nine-year-old class member with Rett syndrome who requires assistance to walk. RT 822:1:823:4. Kim-brough and her family reside in San Francisco. RT 821:6-8.

135. Audrey DeChadenedes (“De-Chadenedes”) is the mother of a twenty-five year-old class member with Rett syndrome who requires a wheelchair for mobility. RT 1001:14-19. DeChadenedes and her daughter reside in San Francisco. RT 997:24-998:10.

136. Erica Monasterio (“Monasterio”) is the mother of a thirteen year-old class member with cerebral palsy who uses a wheelchair for mobility. Both reside in San Francisco. RT 1226:3-4, 23-24.

1. Public Right-of-Way

137. Upon questioning from Class Counsel at trial, Kirola testified only to a very limited number of specific barriers she encountered while utilizing the City’s public right-of-way. In particular, Kirola noted that while travelling around San Francisco, she encountered bumps and/or uneven surfaces along: (1) the east side of Fulton Street (“Fulton”) between Fillmore Street (“Fillmore”) and Steiner Street (“Steiner”); (2) Steiner between Grove Street (“Grove”) and Fulton; and (3) the east side of 19th Street one block north of Wawona Street. RT 1381:14-21, 1382:4-16,1382:16-18,1386:-1387:18.

138. Kirola claims that the bumps on the east side of Fulton caused her wheelchair to “hesitate,” and that she “got to spend extra time deciding where [she is] *1218 going to go.” RT 1382:8-18. No further information was elicited regarding the nature or extent of the alleged bumps and uneven surfaces. In addition, it is unclear from Kirola’s testimony whether the bumps prevented her from accessing the sidewalk. Indeed, Kirola testified that she is able to travel on the “west” side of Fulton along the sidewalk segment in question. RT 1382:5-9.

139. With respect to the bumps along Steiner, Kirola testified that her wheelchair “refuses to go down that way.” RT 1382:16-18. With respect to the bumps along the east side of 19th Street, Kirola alleges that she “didn’t know where to go to avoid the bumps” and “had to take the bus.” RT 1387:12-13. Again, however, Kirola offered no further details regarding the severity of the alleged bumps and uneven surfaces she encountered, or any alleged burden imposed by having to take an alternative route, if any.

140. Kirola also testified that on one occasion she ran her wheelchair into ah uncovered tree well on McAllister Street (“McAllister”). RT 1383:3-12. The record shows, however, that there was a 48' wide unobstructed path around the tree well. RT 1383:3-12, 431:3-10; PTX 4140Y.

141. Kirola further testified that she encountered a corner with only one curb ramp (as opposed to bi-directional ramps) at the intersection of McAllister and Fillmore, but did not submit a complaint. RT 1384:13-21. She also found no curb ramps at the corner of Hayes Street (“Hayes”) and Fillmore. As a result, Kirola had to make a conscious effort to take a “different route” to her friend’s house. RT 1384:8-10. No testimony was elicited regarding the details of the different or alternate route, such as the additional distance and/or travel time involved, if any. Kirola submitted a curb ramp request for the corner of Hayes and Fillmore, and the City installed the requested curb ramps within twenty months. RT 1383:19-1884:8,1391:18-1392:2.

142. Kirola identified no other specific barriers regarding the City’s sidewalks, and she did not testify regarding any alleged access barriers within the City’s crosswalks. In addition, Kirola testified that she routinely and independently travels across the City, using the City’s public right-of-way, public transportation systems, and paratransit service. RT 1380:12-22,1392:17-23,1393:12-23.

143. O’Neil, Grant, Cherry, Kimbrough and DeChadenedes each testified to having encountered uneven and cracked sidewalks, exposed tree roots and missing curb ramps, all of which impeded their access. E.g., RT 541:14-19, 566:3-8, 541:24-542:5, 546:4-25, 553:21-24, 563:24-564:10, 542:8-543:13, 553:9-20, 867:1-13, 824:13-825:11, 821:17-18,1031:22-1032:17,1039:14-16.

2. Libraries

144. Kirola testified to having used three of the City’s twenty-eight libraries: the Main Library, the Western Addition Branch Library, and the Parkside Branch Library. RT 1385:22-1386:5. At each of those libraries, Kirola encountered misplaced or errant step stools left in the stacks which blocked her access to the particular aisle. RT 1385:221386:5.

145. The Western Edition Branch Library is located in Kirola’s neighborhood. She visits that particular branch about once every two months. She found misplaced stools — apparently left by inconsiderate library patrons — on about 40 percent of those visits, which amounts to about 2.4 times per year. RT 1385:17-1386:8.

146. With respect to the Main Library and Parkside Branch Library, no testimony was offered regarding the frequency of her encounters with misplaced stools.

*1219 147. No testimony was presented showing that the misplaced stools prevented Kirola from utilizing the library or the library program in general.

148. Kirola also did not testify to encountering any other access barriers in the City’s libraries.

149. No class member testified to any access barriers at any of the City’s libraries.

3. Swimming Pools

150. Kirola routinely swims at Hamilton Pool and Martin Luther King Jr (“MLK”) Pool, which were previously renovated and made accessible. RT 1392:17-1393:23.

151. Hamilton Pool is the closest pool to her home. RT 1393:2-3. Kirola’s only complaint regarding that pool is that she cannot use the children’s slide because it lacks a lift. RT 1392:17-1393:23. She acknowledged, however, that the slide at Hamilton Pool is intended for children and was unaware whether adults are allowed to use it. RT 1387:16-18.

152. MLK Pool is her “favorite pool.” RT 1393:1-3, 1392:17-19. Travelling to MLK Pool takes a “long time” on public transit, but is “not hard to get to.” RT 1392:19-21.

153. Kirola found Sava Pool to be accessible, but encountered a cracked sidewalk near the facility on 19th Street. RT 1386:22-1387:13.

154. Kirola testified to experiencing accessibility issues at Balboa Pool, Garfield Pool and Rossi Pool. These pools are classified as “limited access,” as opposed to accessible. DTX F16.

155. At Balboa Pool, Kirola encountered a steep entrance ramp and an inadequate locker room. RT 1388:5-6. She likewise found insufficient clearances in the locker room and restrooms at Garfield Pool. RT 1388:7-17. As for Rossi Pool, Kirola claims that she was deterred from visiting that facility after being informed that it was inaccessible. RT 1386:15-19.

156. Kimbrough testified that the ramp at Balboa Pool is too steep for her daughter to use, and as a result, she cannot watch her sister take swimming lessons or access the pool. RT 838:12-839:19. Although Coffman Pool is only a mile further away than Balboa Pool, Kimbrough prefers not to go there because her eldest daughter’s swimming instructor teaches at Balboa Pool, and she feels that Coffman Pool is not located in a safe neighborhood. RT 849:10-17, 852:19-853:2

157. Monasterio testified that the closest pool to her is Garfield Pool but that “there’s not a safe space for her to sit and shower.” RT 1233:18-24. Although she believed that Garfield is designated as accessible, it is not. See RT 1234:10-12; DTX F16.

158. Cherry testified that she attempted to take a swimming class at MLK Pool but that she had been forced to discontinue the class as a result of the lift being consistently broken for an entire month. RT 1043:15-1045:19.

4. Parks

159. At trial, Kirola testified regarding accessibility issues only with respect to Alamo Square Park. More specifically, Kirola stated that “the accessible entrance is steep to use,” RT 1385:5; that she was “not able to get in the children’s play area,” RT 1385:1415; and that there were “some places where the slope of the paths are steep so it is hard to use those areas of the park,” RT 1385:7-169.

160. Kirola did not offer any testimony or evidence as to when the features of Alamo Square Park about which she complained were constructed. She also acknowledged that the park is located on a steep hill. RT 1394:2.

*1220 161. Aside from Alamo Square Park, Kirola did' not testify or complain about any accessibility issues at any other City park or park facility. 9

162. Cherry stated, without elaboration, that all of the parks in her area “need help” and “haven’t been maintained the way they should.” RT 1041:1-5. She commented that her daughter had difficulty with a bathroom at Golden Gate Park and felt that the disabled stall should be located in the front. RT 1041:19-21.

163. Kimbrough complained that her daughter: (1) could not enter the Tea House at the Japanese Tea Garden (Golden Gate Park) because of the “stepping stones that go over the water,” RT 831:16— 20; (2) could not enter the children’s playground at Golden Gate Park, RT 832:3-833:4; (3) had difficulty going to the duck pond at McLaren Park, RT 834:16-835:11; (4) found the pathway to the play area at the St. Mary’s playground too steep, RT 835:16-8; (5) was unable to access one part of the play area at Balboa Park, though was otherwise able to use almost all of the play structures there, RT 836:17-837:9; and (6) encountered steep paths at Holly Park, which “is on the top of a hill,” RT 837:19838:5.

164. Monasterio testified that her daughter: (1) had difficulty accessing parts of Glen Canyon Park, which is located in a “Eucalyptus forest” that is “very wild,” RT 1234:16-1237:2; (2) could not enter certain parts of the exhibit at the Conservatory of Flowers (Golden Gate Park) because plants were in her way, RT 1237:3-20; and (3) could not enter the Japanese Tea Garden for unspecified.reasons, RT 1237:23-1238:1.

5. Grievance Procedure

165. Fraguli, who is in charge of the grievance procedure operated by MOD, never received any complaints from Kirola or any testifying' class member or parent of a class member. RT 1866:11-14, RT 1870:14-1871:9. She was surprised to have not received any complaints from Ki-rola, whom she knows socially, or O’Neill, who had previously worked at MOD. RT 1870:14-22.

166. Though Kirola did not utilize the City’s grievance procedure, she did contact her district supervisor in July 2006 to complain about the lack of curb ramps at the corner of Hayes and Fillmore. In April 2008, the City installed the curb ramps per Kirola’s request. RT 1383:19-1884:8, 1391:18-1392:2. The City also installed curb ramps at all the locations alleged in the pleadings. RT 1392:3-16. Kirola did not make any other formal access complaints to the City prior to the filing of this lawsuit.

167. In 2006 or 2007, Monasterio ran into her then supervisor, Tom Ammiano, at the video store and complained to him about having “curb cuts” installed along Cortland Avenue. RT 1228:18-1229:9. In response, DPW consulted with Monasterio to understand her daughter’s needs. RT 2001:8-2002:5. The City constructed all curb ramps requested by Monasterio within a year after the requests were made. RT 2419:13-2420:4; 2001:82002:5;' 1228:18-1229:6. 10

*1221 168. O’Neil testified about three curb requests. First, O’Neil claims that in 1991 she left a message with DPW regarding the curb ramps at Fillmore Street (“Fillmore”) and Beach Street (“Beach”), and thereafter followed up many times, without success. RT 568:6-11, 569:1-572:11. A curb ramp at that location was installed in April 2011, based on the request of a person other than O’Neil. RT 2423:15-2424:5, 573:22-574:1.

169. Second, she called DPW to complain about a curb ramp at the corner of Van Ness Avenue (‘Van Ness”) and Olive Street (“Olive”). RT 589:2-18. She indicated that she made the complaint sometime between 2006 and 2009, and that the curb ramp was fixed in about one year. RT 571:7-8, 589:6-7, 589:21-590:4.

170. Third, O’Neil claims that on March 17, 2011, she submitted a complaint regarding steep curb ramps at the corner of Van Ness and Hickory Street (“Hickory”), a location where the City had received a prior curb ramp request. RT 578:4-24, 2420:182421:2. Initially, the City determined that curb ramps could not be constructed at this location because of a sub-sidewalk basement. RT 2005:2-2006:4; 2421:3-8. The City later identified a significantly more expensive design “bulb-out” solution that extends the sidewalk out into the street, thereby avoiding the sub-sidewalk basement. RT 2006:5-18; 2421:9-22, 2421:20-25. At the time of trial, curb ramps for this location were in the design phase. RT 2006:19-25; 2422:1-6. Approximately twenty new bi-directional curb ramps have been installed in O’Neil’s neighborhood, some at her request. RT 594:15-18.

E. Expert Testimony

171. Kirola offered expert testimony from Peter Margen (“Margen”),' Dr. Edward Steinfeld (“Steinfeld”), Jeffrey Scott Mastín (“Mastín”), Gary Waters (‘Waters”) and David Seaman (“Seaman”).

172. Mastín is a licensed architect and was received by the Court as an expert in architecture, construction, disability access, program access for mobility disabled persons, ADA transition plans, and barrier removal. RT 927:6-931:23.

173. Steinfeld is a professor of architecture, the Director of the Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access (“IDEA Center”), and an advocate for improved disability access standards, and was received by the Court as an expert in architecture, accessibility design, universal design, program access, and transition planning for public entities. RT 606:7-607:9, 767:6-13.

174. Margen, a disability access specialist, was received as an expert on disability access. RT 100:17-101:3.

175. Waters, a licensed architect, certified access specialist, and disability access consultant, was received by the Court as an expert in disability access, program access for persons with mobility disabilities, the preparation and implementation of self-evaluation and transition plans, and policies, procedures and practices regarding disability access barrier removal. RT 1306:23-1310:6.

176. Seaman was qualified as an expert in GIS. RT 489:19-490:5.

177. The City offered expert testimony from Hecker and Larry Wood (“Wood”).

178. Hecker, a licensed architect, was received by the Court as' an expert in architecture and disability access. RT 2037:7-2038:3.

179. Wood, an architect and accessibility consultant with a nation-wide practice, was received by the Court as an expert in architecture, disability access, self-evaluation plans, transition plans, and Title II *1222 program access requirements. RT 2722:25-2723:6.

1. Public Right-of-Way

180. Kirola’s experts offered a variety of testimony regarding their evaluation of the City’s curb ramps and sidewalks.

181. Mastín opined that 1,358 of the 1,432 curb ramps he inspected were inaccessible or non-compliant. RT 1215:12-1218:7; PTX4148.

182. Steinfeld found barriers relating to curb ramp accessibility at thirteen of the fourteen site inspections conducted by his team that involved inspection of the public right-of-way. RT 704:9-12.

183. Margen inspected sidewalks and curb-ramps at ten street intersections and/or street segments, and asserted that there were “major barriers to accessibility” which rendered “the system as a whole not accessible.” RT 330:21-331:1.

184. The Court finds that the opinions offered by Kirola’s experts are unreliable and unpersuasive.

185. As an initial matter, the Court has serious concerns regarding their methodology. For instance, Kirola’s experts failed to consider the height of the curbs or widths of the sidewalks they examined, even though both are critical measurements that may impact the design, construction, and accessibility conclusions of the curb ramps at issue. RT 2073:11-16. The record also shows that they failed to take steps to apply a consistent method of measuring slopes, sidewalks, and curb ramps, and improperly applied ADAAG to the public right-of-way. RT 398:12-399:5, 2055:24-2056:7, 2058:20-2061:6, 800:24-802:21, 2048:9-15.

186. The Court also has concerns regarding the qualifications of the persons conducting the evaluations. Steinfeld conducted his surveys mostly with the help of student interns who were not trained on California accessibility standards and whose work was shown by the City to be unreliable. RT 738:2-739:22, 800:14-801:25, 817:12-819:2, 2065:1-20. Margen is not an architect. According to fellow expert Mastín, only licensed architects are qualified to be experts in disability access standards. RT 1250:19-1251:22.

187. Wood, the City’s accessibility expert, whom the Court finds to be credible, was particularly critical of the methodology utilized by Kirola’s experts, opining that “there was no common way of measuring anything, such as slopes, sidewalks, [and] curb ramps” and that “they all seemed to have a different approach that was somewhat haphazard.” RT 2056:3-7. Notably, the inconsistencies in such measurements led to internal disagreements between Kirola’s experts. Steinfeld’s colleague, Denise Levine, who supervised the site inspections conducted by Steinfeld’s IDEA Center team, viewed her methodology as superior to the methodology employed by Kirola’s other access experts and rejected their inspection protocols in favor of her own. RT 800:24-802:21.

188. Also problematic is Kirola’s experts’ failure to account for dimensional tolerances. Due to variations in workmanship and real-world construction practices, minor variations in the curb ramp or sidewalk construction may occur. 28 C.F.R. part 36, App. D, § 3.2 (“[a]ll dimensions are subject to conventional building industry tolerances for field conditions”). For instance, there may be slight imperfections in a curb ramp surface, or, at different points along the ramp, the slope or grade may not necessarily be uniform. RT 2061:2-2062:62:13. These variations may be the result of using a hand-trowel during the construction process and the natural settlement of concrete. RT 2061:22-2062:2. According to Wood, a dimensional tolerance is a permissible deviation from standards commonly accepted in the con *1223 struction industry and does not impact accessibility under ADA guidelines. RT 2057:2-20, 2062:10-2068:2. Mastín, who conducted the majority of the curb ramp assessments, failed to account for such tolerances. In failing to do so, he inappropriately found trivial and insignificant deviations as access barriers, despite the fact that such deviations are permissible under industry standards. RT 955:5-10, 1272:1-12,1282:4-18, 2055:24-2057:20.

189. In addition, Kirola’s experts measured curb ramp slopes without considering the ramp’s overall “rise in run” and flatness. RT 2056:10-2057:1. Instead, they recorded the maximum localized variation (i.e., the steepest individual point along the slope of the curb ramp), which skewed their results. RT 2056:10-2057:1, 2058:20-2061:6, 771:11772:8. Steinfeld, for instance, acknowledged that the measurements he made regarding the overall slope of each curb ramp were based on the most extreme variation in the ramp’s grade, misleadingly characterizing that measurement as applying to the ramp as a whole. RT 771:23 (“we use the steepest slope as what we record”). In other cases, the measurements taken were erroneous. Mastín admittedly cited dozens of curb ramps with a slope of less than 8.3 percent as non-compliant-when, in actuality, a slope of 8.3 percent or less comports with the ADAAG. RT 1275:5-21. Wood noted this discrepancy in his testimony. RT 2081:5-10. Wood also pointed out that Kirola’s experts routinely cited items such as pot holes or utility grates as access barriers, notwithstanding the fact that there was an ADA compliant (i.e., 48-inch wide) path around the item. RT 2079:102081:10.

190. The Court further discounts the probative value of Kirola’s experts’ opinions and reports based on their misapplication of ADAAG, which applies specifically to post-January 26, 1992, construction. RT 2172:11-14. The ADAAG’s current regulations focus on buildings and facilities, and do not explicitly encompass the public right-of-way (though a public right-of-way section has been reserved). Indeed, on July 26, 2011, the U.S. Access Board published Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way, thus implying that the Board intended the current guidelines to be limited to newly constructed buildings and facilities (and the curb ramps, sidewalks, and loading zones associated with such buildings and facilities). Dkt. 636, Exh. A.

191. Even if the ADAAG were applicable to a public right-of-way, its provisions would apply only to newly constructed or altered elements of the public right-of-way. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.151 . Despite this distinction, Kirola’s experts indiscriminately applied the ADAAG to each curb ramp assessed without taking in account when the curb ramps were constructed or altered. The fact that Kirola’s experts inappropriately applied the ADAAG to every curb ramp assessed without first ascertaining when the curb ramp was constructed or altered and whether the ADAAG therefore applied undermines both their credibility and the probative value of their testimony.

192. As for Margen’s claim that the “the [City’s] system [of curb ramps and sidewalks] as a whole is not accessible,” the Court finds his opinion unpersuasive. RT 330:21-331:1. Margen was not certified as an expert on program access under Title II of the ADA nor is he an architect. RT 100:17-101:3. According to Mastín, only licensed architects are qualified to be experts in disability access standards. RT 1250:19-1251:22. Further, Margen’s lack of knowledge was apparent from his inconsistent testimony regarding his understanding of Title II’s program access re *1224 quirements. RT 100:17:101:3, 105:20-25, 333:9-11. The Court therefore affords Margen’s conclusions regarding program access little weight.

193. The Court also ascribes little weight to the testimony of Kirola’s GIS expert, Seaman, who performed an analysis of the data contained within the CRIS database as of January 21, 2011, and prepared maps, which depict corners lacking curb ramps and curb ramps with low condition scores. RT 494:14-500:13. Seaman’s geographic representations of the CRIS data are misleading in that he failed to show data for accessible curb ramps near the purportedly non-accessible curb ramps, despite the fact that such data was available to him. RT 530:3-5. In addition, testimony presented at trial demonstrates that the CRIS database was not up to date and lacked data for curb ramps installed through departments other than DPW. RT 2396:19-2397:7, 2401:14-16, 2403:12-2404:9.

194. In contrast, the Court finds the opinions of Hecker, the City’s accessibility expert, to be more credible. The DOJ’s “Tool Kit for Title II Entities” advises public entities to create long-range plans to provide curb ramps where needed and to employ a request-based system for installing curb ramps. RT 2811:7-2812:15. Hecker opined that the City’s priorities for curb ramp installation, as set forth in the Curb Ramp and Sidewalk Transition Plan, are consistent with the priorities and recommendations established by the DOJ. RT 2785:17-2787:13, 2789:3-2790:18, 2811:7-2812:15.

195. On cross-examination, Kirola asked Hecker about a December 2009 expert report in which he had stated that the City had not yet installed every curb ramp necessary for program access when the network of City sidewalks was viewed in its entirety, but that the City was making progress toward program access. RT 2795:19-2796:8. However, Hecker acknowledged that at the time he issued the 2009 report, he had not actually determined the total number of curb ramps needed to achieve program access for the purposes of that report. RT 2797:15-2798:6. Hecker provided no updated program access conclusions regarding the City’s public right-of-way. In any event, Hecker’s observations in the 2009 report do not undermine his opinion that the City’s policies and programs for curb ramp installation comport with the ADA. RT 2785:17-2787:13, 2789:3-2790:18, 2795:19-2796:8; PTX 0022 [003798].

196. To summarize, the Court finds that the opinions of Kirola’s experts regarding whether the City provides meaningful access to its public-right-of-way are uncompelling, particularly in light of the persuasive testimony provided by Wood, and affords them little weight. The Court finds Hecker, the City’s access expert, to be credible, and finds the City’s priorities for curb ramp installation, as set forth in the Curb Ramp and Sidewalk Transition Plan, to be consistent with the priorities and recommendations established by the DOJ.

2. Library and RecPark Facilities

197. The Court now addresses the expert testimony regarding whether mobility-impaired individuals have been provided with meaningful access to the City’s Library and RecPark facilities. The following section is divided into two parts. The Court first addresses the opinions offered to support Kirola’s contention that, to comply with its access obligations, the City must make each of its individual libraries, parks, pools, and recreation centers fully accessible because the City has a program of providing “unique” neighborhood facilities. See, e.g., RT 103:6-104:19. Following those findings, the Court will address the opinions and findings of Kirola’s ex *1225 perts that there are significant aceéssibility barriers that preclude program access with respect to the aforementioned facilities.

a) “Neighborhood” Access Theory

198. According to Margen, each individual park or library constitutes a “unique” program because of its status as a “neighborhood” site. RT 104:1-19, 406:25-407:22. Margen opined that program access, “as it relates to San Francisco,” means that all services and activities available at one facility must be made available at every facility. RT 105:2025. He admitted, however, that his opinion was not based on any authoritative publication in his field, but .was simply his personal opinion. RT 407:8-22. In addition, Margen, who was not received as a program access expert, later contradicted himself, stating that the services offered at one park need not be duplicated at every park, “but where services are provided, those services need to be accessible.” RT 338:9-11. The inconsistencies in and apparent arbitrariness of Margen’s opinions raise concerns regarding his actual understanding of the program access requirements. RT 100:17:101:3, 105:20-25, 333:9-11. The Court therefore gives little weight to Margen’s opinion.

199. Like Margen, Steinfeld opined that each City park is “unique,” and therefore, the City’s efforts to offer program access to its park system was not “workable” in light of the length of time it would take to walk from one park to another. RT 615:17-616:4, 619:18-621:8, 629:12-15. Though admitting that every park need not be made accessible, he opined that the City must provide an “equivalent park” within a “reasonable” distance from every non-accessible park, which he posited to be one-half of a mile. RT 624:11-13, 625:8-626:8. He reasoned that certain “very special parks,” such as Mission Dolores Park or Golden Gate Park, have no equivalent, and as such, each of those parks must be fully accessible. RT 629:3-15. Stein-feld also asserted that parks are unique to the particular neighborhood in which they are located and potentially have “neighborhood meaning.” RT 618:21-25.

200. Steinfeld presented no foundation for his opinions, and conceded that he had never visited Mission Dolores Park and knew little about it. RT 797:19-23. He also contradicted himself, testifying that only “a small part” of a particular park must be accessible in order to provide the requisite program access. RT 717:10-21. In addition, the suggestion that the name of a park connotes its unique, neighborhood meaning, is both unfounded and illogical. The mere fact that a park is named after the area in which it is located does not establish that the park has “neighborhood meaning” or that the City is obligated to ensure that each and every “neighborhood” park is accessible. Given the lack of any identifiable bases for Stein-feld’s opinions, it is readily apparent that his testimony was based on his personal views, rather than a professional understanding of a public entity’s Title II obligations. For the reasons discussed, the Court finds Steinfeld’s opinions to be unpersuasive and gives them little weight.

201. The Court also affords little weight to Steinfeld’s opinions that Coffman Pool and MLK Pool (which are designated as accessible pools) are not meaningful alternatives to Balboa Pool for persons with mobility disabilities due to their distance from Balboa Pool. RT 673:4-23. Kimbrough, a mother of a class member, testified that Coffman Pool was only two miles from her home while Balboa Pool was one mile from her home. RT 852:18-853:2, 848:18-24. Given the proximity of Coffman Pool to Balboa Pool, the Court is unpersuaded by Steinfeld’s suggestion that the Coffman Pool is not a meaningful al *1226 ternative. Steinfeld’s conclusion in this regard detracts further from his credibility and program access conclusions. ■

202. Mastín opined that the City must make “each and every” one of its “unique” facilities accessible to satisfy its program access requirements under the ADA. RT 1223:22-1224:4. Mastín testified specifically regarding recreation centers, stating that, in his opinion, the City’s recreational centers are “localized” and that it is “not equivalent to go to someone else’s neighborhood and socialize with people you don’t know.” RT 1172:22-1174:10. Mas-tín failed to cite any authority or identify a factual basis in the record for his opinions, and the Court concludes that, like Stein-feld, his opinions are based on his personal, subjective views as a disability access advocate, rather than a professional understanding of a public entity’s Title II obligations. The Court therefore finds Mas-tin’s opinions to be unpersuasive and gives them little weight.

203. Waters opined that the “uniqueness of a particular facility” is a factor to be taken into account when determining whether or not program access has been afforded. RT 1349:4-15. Again, Waters failed to cite any authority or identify any factual basis in the record for his opinions, which are based on his personal opinions as a disability access advocate rather than on a professional understanding of a public entity’s Title II obligations. The Court therefore finds Waters’ opinions to be unpersuasive and affords them little weight.

204. In sum, although each library, park, pool, and recreational center arguably may have some “unique” features, that does not, in turn, support the conclusion that each individual library, park, pool, and recreational center must be fully accessible in each neighborhood. The opinions • of Kirola’s experts are not grounded on any industry standards or understanding. Instead, they are based on their personal beliefs as disability access advo'cates. For these reasons and those discussed above, the Court finds the conclusions of Kirola’s experts regarding the neighborhood theory of access to be suspect and lacking in credibility.

b) Accessibility

205. Aside from offering opinions regarding Kirola’s neighborhood theory of accessibility, her experts also discussed purported accessibility barriers in relation to the City’s Library and RecPark facilities. These experts testified, to varying degrees, that they encountered multiple access barriers at the libraries, pools, parks, and recreation centers which they inspected.

206. Kirola’s experts inspected eighteen of the City’s twenty-eight libraries, including the Main Library. RT 164:5-165:21, 384:14-385:13, 651:14-653:1; PTX 4148. Margen, Steinfeld and Mastín opined that those libraries had narrow aisles, inadequate turnaround space at the end of aisles, inaccessible restrooms, inaccessible seating, and excessive door pressure. RT 293:5-295:3, 296:6-298:5, 334:8-16, 378:23-379:5, 741:20743:18 1213:12-22. Margen opined that the City’s libraries suffered from accessibility issues that must be addressed in order to make the library system, on the whole, accessible. RT 334:8-16.

207. Kirola’s experts inspected seven of the City’s nine pools. Three of the pools they inspected, i.e., Garfield, Balboa, and Rossi Pools, are designated as “limited access” — meaning that they are not intended to provide program access. RT 164:4-165:11, 408:1114, 651:14-652:6, 1312:1-1313:2, 1813:10-23; PTX 4147; PTX 4149; DTX F16. Steinfeld, in particular, claimed to have found numerous access barriers at the pools, including inaccessible paths of travel, inaccessible parking, inadequate signage, missing *1227 handrails, inaccessible handrails, heavy doors, drinking fountains lacking inadequate knee clearance, and non-detachable shower heads. RT 657:15-657:24, 664:5-664:24, 670:10-670:19, 672:7-19, 748:22-749:8, 812:19-813:14, 728:20-729:13, 736:8-22, 743:25-744:14, 755:19756:19, 813:20-814:24, 694:12-19, 728:20-729:13.

208. With respect to the City’s park program, Kirola’s experts inspected 13 parks, 7 mini-parks, and 16 playgrounds of the City’s network of approximately 220 parks. They also visited multiple sites within Golden Gate Park. RT 164:4-165:21, 651:23-652:6, 1312:17-19; PTX 4149; PTX 4147. Based on their inspections, Kirola’s experts identified various access barriers, including an inaccessible entrance ramp at Balboa Park, a cracked sidewalk at Jefferson Square Park, limited accessible paths of travel at Golden Gate Park’s Japanese Tea Garden and Rose Garden, inaccessible paths connecting the main facilities at Glen Canyon Park, and placement of flora and fauna signage at Glen Canyon Park too far from accessible trails. RT 670:10-671:12, 712:12-17, 757:5-6, 1316:22-1313:9, 1317:221318:8, 1327:5-1330:15-17, 1331:13-23, 1333:8-21.

209. Finally, the experts conducted site inspections of thirteen of the City’s seventy-three recreation centers and clubhouses. PTX 4147; PTX 4149. Mastín cited access barriers at the recreation centers he inspected, such as inadequate signage, an excessive cross-slope leading to accessible features in a restroom, a broken elevator, and an inaccessible tennis court. RT 1121:8-1124:5, 1141:5-1142:5, 1150:21-1152:4, 1155:201158:6, 1158:19-1160:22, 1162:12-1164:15. Mastín concluded that, based on the barriers he observed, four of the eleven recreation centers he inspected were not accessible. RT 1121:11-15, 1141:5-9,1162:6-10.

210. The Court is unpersuaded by the opinions of Kirola’s experts regarding the purported access barriers they encountered at the City’s libraries and RecPark facilities.

211. As an initial matter, Kirola’s experts routinely applied inconsistent methodologies and inspection protocols. RT 398:12-399:5, 800:17-801:25, 2055:242056:7. Two experts, in particular, inappropriately focused on minor construction variations and ignored dimensional tolerances, which resulted in otherwise trivial and insignificant deviations being characterized as access barriers-despite the fact that such deviations were permissible under industry accessibility standards. RT 955:5-10, 1273:410, 1342:6-13, 1358:19-1359:3, 2055:24-2057:20, 2065:8-20. For example, at the Kimball Playground, Margen’s team used a very short level to measure slopes, notwithstanding Margen’s assurance that his team always used a two-foot level. RT 2058:20-25. Use of a short level is problematic because it “gives exaggerated readings because it’s so short [that] it picks up minor fluctuations.” RT 2059:1-4. Similarly, at St. Mary’s Playground, Kirola’s inspection team recorded the maximum localized variation as the overall slope of the curb ramp rather than the curb ramp’s overall “rise in run” and flatness, which is the appropriate measure of accessibility compliance. RT 2059:9-2061:6.

212. Kirola’s experts also repeatedly applied erroneous access requirements. At the time of trial, there were no set standards for parks and playground facilities, though federal guidelines for outdoor facilities had been proposed. RT 2063:19-2064:25. The proposed guidelines recognize that such facilities are located in topographies that vary, and as such, set different and more forgiving slope requirements than compared to those applicable to a building. Id. Yet, Kirola’s experts applied the more stringent but inapplicable *1228 ADAAG standard to park and playground facilities. Id.

213. With regard to buildings, they inappropriately failed to differentiate between new construction and alteration standards, applying the latest version of the California Building Code as opposed to the version in effect when the structure was built. RT 2046:15-2047:5, 2052:7-2053:20. 11 Kirola’s experts similarly failed to take into account the existence of conflicts between state and federal law relating to the placement of items such as the location of toilet paper and grab bars and door pressure, requiring the City to decide which standard is more. restrictive. RT 2048:16-2049:8. Moreover, no showing was made that these minor variations fell outside accepted construction variances or otherwise rendered the particular facility inaccessible or unusable. RT 2045:6-19.

214. With regard to libraries, Kirola’s experts opined that they had narrow aisles and inadequate turnaround space at the end of aisles. RT 293:5-295:3, 296:6-298:5, 334:816, 378:23-379:5, 741:20-743:18 1213:12-22. Under both state and federal law, end aisles at library stacks may be 36" wide. RT 2091:15-18. The 48" width requirement cited by Kirola’s experts applies only to restricted U-turn areas. RT 2091:13-2093:8, 2094:10-17, 2194:14-2197:11, 2202:7-08; Cal. Bldg. Code § 1133B.6.2; ADAAG 4.3.3; PTX 4153, 204. Margen and Mastín also cited excessive door pressures at some of the libraries they inspected. RT 373:5-12, 377:15-378:14, 1272:14-16. However, for safety reasons, many of those doors had a greater opening pressure because fire doors are permitted to have a greater amount of pressure. RT 2098:11-16. Mastín also admitted that door pressures may vary daily due to wind or other factors. RT 1272:14-16.

215. Another flaw in Kirola’s experts’ analyses is their citation to barriers that, in fact, did not impede meaningful access. RT 2057:21-2058:9, 2081:8-10. The survey prepared by Kirola’s experts frequently cited issues such as a door being difficult to open when there was an automatic door opener, thereby obviating the need to manually open the door. RT 2057:24-2058:12. In another instance, the report cited the lack of handrails for stairs when a new elevator system providing full access had been installed. ' Id. The experts criticized the lack of an ambulatory stall (which can be used by persons with crutches or a walker) in a library bathroom, when, in fact, the City had provided two accessible stalls, providing greater access than required by law. RT 2098:18-2099:13. Steinfeld criticized the Richmond Branch Library as having an inaccessible ramp, despite the fact that there was a second accessible ramp leading to the same front entrance which complies with ADAAG. RT 738:16-18, 755:7-10. Instead of focusing on overall accessibility, Kirola’s experts dwelled on minor variations that were no longer required, while overlooking “obvious features of a significant expense” undertaken to make the facility accessible. RT 2058:6-12. These are but a few examples of the flaws that permeate Kirola’s experts’ testimony.

216. In contrast to the unreliable testimony offered by Plaintiff, the Court is persuaded by Wood’s independent findings regarding the City’s libraries, pools, and recreation centers that he inspected as part of his work on this case. Wood and his staff reviewed a total of sixty-nine facil *1229 ities comprised of libraries, pools, recreation centers, and playgrounds. RT 2041:20-25. Wood’s team reviewed each alleged barrier listed in the reports prepared by Kirola’s experts, inspected each of the sites visited, and categorized Kiro-la’s experts’ findings into four categories: (1) “technically correct” and “affects usability”; (2) “technically correct” but with “little or no effect on usability”; (3) “maintenance of accessible feature”; and (4) “misinterpretation or error in use of ADAAG or Code.” RT 2038:15-2039:22, 2159:3-22. To ensure the veracity of his team’s findings, Wood held daily meetings to discuss methodology and equipment. RT 2039:1922.

217. With respect to the City’s libraries, Wood and his team reviewed each of the libraries evaluated by Kirola’s access experts, with the exception of the Visitation Valley Branch Library (which was under construction for accessibility improvements at the time of his evaluations) and the Ocean View Branch Library. RT 2132:23-2134:10. Wood opined that each of the sixteen “blue dot” libraries he visited has the features necessary to facilitate accessibility, including: (1) an accessible route from the entrance to the public sidewalk; (2) an accessible entrance; (3) automatic door openers; (4) elevators within multi-story buildings; (5) access to all library levels; (6) accessible checkout counters; (7) accessible tables; (8) accessible doors along all accessible routes; (9) accessible copy machines; (10) accessible toilet rooms for men and women; (11) accessible drinking fountains; and (12) accessible book stacks. RT 2132:23-2135:19.

218. Wood and his team also visited the three “blue dot” pools evaluated by Kirola’s access experts, along with the two additional “blue dot” pools not visited by Kirola’s experts (i.e., Sava Pool and North Beach Pool). Of the five pools he evaluated, Wood opined that each has the features necessary to facilitate accessibility, including: (1) an accessible route from the property line to the building; (2) an accessible entry; (3) an accessible check-in counter; (4) accessible signage; (5) accessible ramps or curb ramps where necessary; (6) accessible toilets; (7) accessible showers; (8) accessible locker rooms; and (9) transfer lifts to assist individuals with mobility impairments in getting into and out of the pool. RT 2136:7-2137:5.

219. Wood and his team also reviewed the recreation centers evaluated by Kiro-la’s access experts. Wood opined that each of the newly renovated recreation centers evaluated has all the features necessary to facilitate accessibility, including: (1) an accessible route from the property line to the building; (2) an accessible entry; (3) accessible community rooms; (4) accessible ramps or curb ramps where necessary; (5) accessible elevators within mul-ti-story buildings; (6) an accessible gym with accessible bleacher facilities (with the exception of the Golden Gate Senior Center, which lacked a gym); (7) an accessible weight room in facilities where a weight room was provided; (8) accessible doors; (9) an attendant for special requests; (10) accessible bathrooms for men and women; and (11) accessible drinking fountains. RT 2138:4-2140:12.

220. Based on Wood’s thorough analysis of Kirola’s experts’ findings, combined with his own independent analysis, MOD advised the Library of approximately three or four access barriers that it believed should be addressed, along with a few maintenance issues that it concluded should be attended to as part of its regular facility maintenance. RT 1652:16-1653:4. At the time of trial, the City had made or was in the process of completing the requested repairs. RT 2255:8-2256:6, 2257:17-2258:10.

*1230 221. MOD also recommended that Rec-Park remediate roughly 400 access barriers identified, some of which were minor and could therefore be handled by operations staff, and others of which required funding from the department’s capital division. RT 2321:112322:22, 1652:16-1653:20. At the time of trial, RecPark had no deadline or schedule for completing the list of barriers received from MOD. RT 2333:23-25, 2334:5-16. RecPark had, however, worked with MOD to prioritize the listed recommendations and was in the process of addressing them. RT 2321:16-2322:22.

222. Wood found that only 1.6 percent of the access barriers cited by Kirola’s experts at City libraries and recreation facilities actually needed modification. RT 2038:152039:22, 2044:9-2046:12, 1649:10-25,1625:7-10.

223. The Court finds Wood to be well-qualified and credible, and credits his opinions regarding the existence of the alleged accessibility problems with the City’s libraries and RecPark facilities over those of Kirola’s experts.

224. The Court is likewise persuaded by Hecker, who provided testimony regarding program access to the City’s library program and RecPark programs. As of December 2009, nineteen of the City’s libraries were designated as “blue dot” accessible. Hecker opined that the number and distribution of accessible libraries across San Francisco was sufficient to provide program access to the City’s library system, considering the City’s “compact” size (forty-nine square miles) and effective public transportation and paratransit systems. RT 2763:21-2765:5; DTX 132.

225. Hecker credibly opined that: (1) six of the City’s nine swimming pools were designated as “blue dot” accessible, and the number and distribution of accessible pools across San Francisco was sufficient to provide program access to the City’s aquatic program, RT 2767:8-2769:17; DTX F16; (2) forty-three of the City’s seventy-three recreation centers and clubhouses were designated as “blue dot” accessible, and the number and distribution of accessible recreation centers and clubhouses across San Francisco was sufficient to provide program access to the RecPark programs offered at those locations, RT 2771:3-2772:12; DTX F40; and (3) twenty of the City’s forty-five athletic fields were designated as “blue dot” accessible, and the number and distribution of accessible athletic fields across San Francisco was sufficient to provide program access to the City’s athletic field program. RT 2769:18-2771:2; DTXF34.

226. In forming his program access opinions, Hecker relied exclusively on the determinations of Scott (i.e., MOD’s Deputy Director of Physical Access) as to which facilities offered accessible programs and services, i.e., the “blue dot” designations. RT 2768:4-23. Scott is a licensed architect with more than twenty years of experience working on architectural access issues and a former member of the U.S. Access Board’s Recreation Access Advisory Committee and Places of Amusement Committee. RT 1771:21-1773:22, 1775:9-11. Hecker stated that he had a high degree of confidence in the reliability of Scott’s designations as a result of Scott’s knowledge of accessibility issues and the process employed by the City to ensure the design and construction of accessible City facilities. RT 2762:17-2763:12, 2769:2-15.

227. Furthermore, as of December 2009, 77 of the City’s 133 children’s playgrounds (58 percent) were designated as “blue dot” accessible, and an additional 15 playgrounds were slated for renovation pursuant to funded RecPark capital projects. RT 1815:9-20; PTX 0148A. As Kirola has made no showing to the con *1231 trary, the Court finds the number and distribution of accessible playgrounds to be sufficient to provide program access to the City’s network of children’s playgrounds. PTX 0148A.

228. Notably, Kirola failed to provide a program access analysis that refutes the conclusion that the City offers program access through its “blue dot” libraries, pools, recreation centers, clubhouses, athletic fields, and playgrounds. Specifically, Kirola has not shown that each of the designated “blue dot” facilities (designations on which Hecker’s program access conclusions rely) fails to fulfill the City’s program access intent. See, e.g., RT 726:5-727:11, 1344:7-1345:13, 1357:15-15. Kirola’s experts instead emphasized that not all of the “blue dot” facilities were 100 percent compliant with disability access regulations. The flaw in that conclusion is that it misapprehends the significance of the “blue dot” designations. Trial testimony establishes that such designation is intended to represent that the site is fulfilling the City’s obligations under UPhAS, not that every element of the facility was “completely accessible” pursuant to applicable access regulations. RT 1463:8-1464:23.

3. Grievance Procedure

229. On behalf of the City, Hecker credibly opined that the City’s grievance procedure is consistent with the requirements of ADA regulations. RT 2727:5-19. In particular, he found significant that the grievance procedure allows members of the public to submit complaints in any manner they wished to communicate and requires the City to issue a response within thirty days. RT 2727:5-19. The Court affords significant weight to his opinion regarding the sufficiency of the City’s grievance procedure.

230. The Court is unpersuaded by Margen’s opinion that the City’s grievance procedure is flawed due to its failure to specify a definitive timeline for resolution of each access complaint received. RT 219:23-220:18. The DOJ’s model- grievance policy does not mandate a specific deadline for resolving each access complaint. See ADA Best Practices Tool Kit for State and Local Gov’ts, Ch. 2, p. 10-11. The Court therefore affords little weight to Margen’s opinion regarding the adequacy of the City’s grievance procedure.

IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Legal Overview

1. Claims

1. Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132 . Under the ADA’s implementing regulations, “no qualified individual with a disability shall, because a public entity’s facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with disabilities, be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any public entity.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.149 .

2. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicap in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. 29 U.S.C. § 794 . A “program” or “activity” means, in part, “all of the operations” of a state or local agency. Id. § 794(b). “There is no significant difference in the analysis of the rights and obligations created by the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.” Zukle v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 166 F.3d 1041 , 1045 n. 11 (9th Cir.1999); accord Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 862 (9th Cir.2001), abrogated on other *1232 grounds by Johnson v. Cal., 543 U.S. 499, 504-505 , 125 S.Ct. 1141 , 160 L.Ed.2d 949 (2005).

3. Title 42, United States Code, section 1983 , “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 , 110 S.Ct. 2510 , 110 L.Ed.2d 455 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ). Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 , 109 S.Ct. 1865 , 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989).

4. The Unruh Act provides that persons with disabilities have equal access to streets, highways, public places, public conveyances, places of public accommodation, and housing. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51 , 54(a). A violation of the ADA constitutes a violation of the Unruh Act. Id. § 51(f).

5. The CDPA provides that “individuals with disabilities shall be entitled to full and equal access ... to ... places of public accommodation.” Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1 . “A violation of the right of an individual under the [ADA] also constitutes a violation [of the CDPA].” Id. § 54.1(d).

6. California Government Code § 11135 provides that no person in the State of California shall, on the basis of disability, “be unlawfully denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by the state or by any state agency, is funded directly by the state, or receives any financial assistance from the state.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 11135.

7. Aside from the ADA and Section 11135 claims, the parties do not specifically discuss or analyze any of the other claims, all of which rely on the City’s alleged violation of the ADA. Accordingly, the Court’s analysis of Kirola’s ADA claim applies with equal force to the Rehabilitation Act, Unruh Act and CDPA claims.

8. The decision of whether to grant or deny permanent injunctive relief under Title II of the ADA is a matter of the district court’s discretion. Midgett v. Tri-Cnty. Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or., 254 F.3d 846, 851 (9th Cir.2001) (affirming denial of permanent injunction where the plaintiff failed to “present facts showing a threat of immediate, irreparable harm”).

2. Standing

9. The City contends that Kirola, the sole class representative, lacks standing to sue for the alleged denial of meaningful access with respect to the City’s programs, services and activities, or to challenge any of the various policies which allegedly show that her injury is likely to recur. Dkt. 666. The defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, and the court is under a continuing duty to examine its jurisdiction. Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir.1983).

10. “[T]hose who seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts must satisfy the threshold requirement imposed by Article III of the Constitution by alleging an actual case or controversy.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 , 103 S.Ct. 1660 , 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). To satisfy the “case or controversy” requirement, a plaintiff must establish standing under Article III. Human Life of Wash., Inc. v. Brumsickle, 624 F.3d 990, 1000 (9th Cir.2010).

11. “[I]n order to have Article III standing, a plaintiff must adequately establish: (1) an injury in fact (i.e„ a concrete and particularized invasion of a legally protected interest); (2) causation *1233 (i.e., a fairly traceable connection between the alleged injury in fact and the alleged conduct of the defendant); and (3) redress-ability (i.e., it is likely and not merely speculative that the plaintiffs injury will be remedied by the relief plaintiff seeks in bringing suit).” Sprint Commc’n Co., L.P. v. APCC Servs., Inc., 554 U.S. 269, 273-74 , 128 S.Ct. 2531 , 171 L.Ed.2d 424 (2008) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 , 112 S.Ct. 2130 , 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)) (emphasis added). “This triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article Ill’s case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-104 , 118 S.Ct. 1003 , 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998).

12. Where, as here, a plaintiff seeks only declaratory and injunctive relief, she must additionally show “a very significant possibility of future harm.” Montana Shooting Sports Ass’n v. Holder, 727 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir.2013); Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 1147 , 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013) (noting that standing may be based on threatened injury only if it is “certainly impending to constitute injury in fact, and that allegations of possible future injury are not sufficient”) (citations, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted). “To have standing to assert a claim for prospective injunctive relief, a plaintiff must demonstrate ‘that he is realistically threatened by a repetition of [the injury].’ ” Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir.2012) (quoting City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 109 , 103 S.Ct. 1660 , 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983)).

13. The standing requirement applies to class representatives, who must, in addition to being a member of the class they purport to represent, establish the existence of a case or controversy. O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494 , 94 S.Ct. 669 , 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974). “A plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim he or she seeks to press and for each form of relief sought.” Wash. Envtl. Council v. Bellon, 732 F.3d 1131, 1139 (9th Cir.2013) (citing DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 352 , 126 S.Ct. 1854 , 164 L.Ed.2d 589 (2006)).

B. Preliminary Issues

14. Before reaching the question of whether Kirola has Article III standing, the Court addresses four preliminary contentions concerning the constellation of evidence which may be considered in analyzing her standing: (1) whether standing may be established by evidence that was not presented at trial; (2) whether Kirola’s experience with barriers in her neighborhood is sufficient to confer standing to sue for barriers she did not encounter; (3) whether standing may be established based on the experiences of class members; and (4) whether Kirola has standing to challenge the City’s alleged “overarching policy” of discrimination.

1. Scope of the Evidence

15. The City contends that Kirola’s standing is to be evaluated based solely on the evidence presented at trial; namely, her in-court testimony. In contrast, Kiro-la argues that the Court is not limited to the trial record, and that the Court should consider evidence obtained or produced during discovery — irrespective of whether such evidence was previously presented to the Court. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that Kirola’s standing is to be determined based on the trial record.

16. Standing is a core component of Article Ill’s case or controversy requirement, and as such, it must be established “through all stages of federal proceedings.” Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 , 110 S.Ct. 1249 , 108 *1234 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990). “Since they are not mere pleading requirements but rather an indispensable part of the plaintiffs case, each element [of standing] must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561 , 112 S.Ct. 2130 . For instance, general factual allegations of injury resulting from a defendant’s conduct may suffice at the pleading stage; but in response to a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff cannot rely on “‘mere allegations,’ but must ‘set forth’ by affidavit or other evidence ‘specific facts,’ ... which for purposes of the summary judgment motion will be taken to be true.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). “At the final stage, those facts (if controverted) must be ‘supported adequately by the evidence adduced at trial.’ ” Id. (citing Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91 , 115 n. 31, 99 S.Ct. 1601 , 60 L.Ed.2d 66 (1979)).

17. An assessment of standing based on the trial record is both permissible and appropriate, particularly where, as here, the plaintiffs standing is disputed. See Maine People’s Alliance And Natural Res. Def. Council v. Mallinckrodt, Inc., 471 F.3d 277, 283 (1st Cir.2006) (“When, as now, standing is reviewed after trial, the facts establishing standing ‘must be supported adequately by the evidence adduced at trial.’ ”) (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561 , 112 S.Ct. 2130 ); Perry v. Vill. of Arlington Heights, 186 F.3d 826, 829 (7th Cir.1999) (“ ‘[Wjhere standing is challenged as a factual matter, the plaintiff bears the burden of supporting the allegations necessary for standing with “competent proof.” “Competent proof’ requires a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that standing exists.’ ”) (citations omitted); Biopolymer Eng’g, Inc. v. Immudyne, Inc., No. 05-2972 (JNE/JJG), 2009 WL 2916847 , *3 (D.Minn. Sept. 4, 2009) (“Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing their standing. The Court will determine whether they have satisfied that burden based on the evidence received at trial.”); see also Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir.1983) (“The defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, and the court is under a continuing duty to dismiss an action whenever it appears that the court lacks jurisdiction.”).

18. Here, Kirola has long been on notice that the City disputes whether she has standing and that such determination would be adjudicated at trial. Although the City chose not to pursue the standing issue in connection with Plaintiffs class certification motion, the Court’s order on that motion expressly stated that Kirola’s standing “[would] be made following trial based upon the evidence presented and the relief requested.” Dkt. 285, 3:23-24. Despite this awareness, Kirola offered only minimal testimony at trial to establish that she suffered an injury in fact. Specifically, Class Counsel only elicited testimony from Kirola regarding: (1) three stretches of sidewalk containing “bumps”; (2) one corner that lacked curb ramps; (3) one corner that provided only a single curb ramp; (4) errant step stools at three of the City’s libraries; (5) three inaccessible pools; and (6) steep paths at one park. RT 1384:13-21, 1382:4-18, 1387:2-4, 1385:3-1386:8,1386:1519,1388:5-7.

19. Apparently recognizing the insufficiency of her trial testimony, Kirola now argues in her post-trial briefing that the Court must also consider evidence that was not presented at trial. Dkt. 672, 13:22-14:3, 17:16-18:4, 18:15-26, 19:12-25. More specifically, Kirola points to certain portions of her deposition testimony and the declaration she submitted in support of her motion for class certification to establish that she encountered barriers in addi *1235 tion to those to which she testified at trial. Kirola’s post hoc effort to supplement the trial record is unavailing. The Supreme Court has made it clear that when standing is disputed at “the final stage” of a case, standing must be established by “evidence adduced at trial." See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561 , 112 S.Ct. 2130 ; Maine People’s Alliance, 471 F.3d at 283 ; Perry, 186 F.3d at 829 .

20. Limiting the evidence of Kirola’s standing to the trial record is necessary and appropriate as a matter of due process. Both Kirola’s deposition testimony and her declaration constitute inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c); Orr v. Bank of Am., NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 779 (9th Cir.2002) (“Deposition testimony, irrespective of its contents, is ordinarily hearsay when submitted at trial”); but see Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(4) (providing an exception to the hearsay rule for deposition testimony where the witness is unavailable). Namely, both documents consist of out-of-court statements offered to establish the truth of the matter asserted — to wit, that Kirola did, in fact, encounter access barriers as described and consequently suffered an injury in fact. Kirola has not shown that these statements are subject to any hearsay exception, and otherwise provides no authority suggesting that it would be fair or appropriate for the Court to consider her out-of-court statements, which were not subject to cross-examination by the City at trial. 12

21.In sum, the Court finds that Kiro-la’s standing must be evaluated based on the trial record. Consequently, Kirola cannot rely on her deposition testimony or statements presented in a declaration previously filed in support of her class certification motion to bolster the trial record for the purpose of establishing her standing. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561 , 112 S.Ct. 2130 ; cf. Simon v. Shearson Lehman Bros., 895 F.2d 1304, 1323 (11th Cir.1990) (when a party chooses not to present evidence at trial for strategic or tactical reasons, it is not an abuse of discretion to deny the party’s request to re-open the record before entry of judgment).

2. Neighborhood Access

22. Kirola avers that she suffered an actual injury as a result of encountering access barriers in and around her neighborhood. While recognizing that accessible programs, services and facilities may be available elsewhere in the City, Kirola contends that the City is obligated to ensure that its programs and services are accessible on a neighborhood basis. E.g., Dkt. 604, 20:8-9, 25:2-4. By extension, Kirola contends that she has standing to sue for access barriers in other areas of San Francisco that she did not actually encounter.

23. As support for her position, Kirola relies principally on Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 943 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc) (“Chapman I"). In that case, a mobility-impaired individual brought an individual Title III public accommodations action against a retailer, Pier 1, claiming that he encountered barriers at a particular location of a national retailer that impeded his access. The court held that when a plaintiff “has suffered an injury in fact by encountering a barrier that deprives him of full and equal *1236 enjoyment of the facility due to his particular disability,” he has standing to sue for injunctive relief, “either by demonstrating deterrence, or by demonstrating injury-in-fact coupled with an intent to return to a noncompliant facility.” Chapman I, 681 F.3d at 944. Additionally, the court held that “an ADA plaintiff who establishes standing as to encountered barriers may also sue for injunctive relief as to unen-countered barriers related to his disability.” Id.

24. Kirola argues that like the plaintiff in Chapman I, it is unnecessary for purposes of standing that she actually encountered the barriers which she seeks to address, and that standing may be established based solely on her experience with facilities in her neighborhood. Chapman I, however, is distinguishable in at least two critical respects. First, Chapman I was an individual lawsuit and thus did not address the standards for evaluating standing in a class action. Second, the claims in Chapman■ I were premised on Title III of the ADA, as opposed to Title II, which does not require that each individual site at which a public service is offered be accessible, so long as the program, activity or service, “when viewed in its entirety,” is readily accessible. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.150 (a) & (a)(1) (“This paragraph does not ... [njecessarily require a public entity to make each of its existing facilities accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.”). “In contrast, Title III of the ADA, which governs places of public accommodation, imposes more stringent requirements aimed at ensuring that every facility is equally accessible to disabled persons.” Cohen, 754 F.3d at 695 n. 4 (citing Disabled Rights Action Comm. v. Las Vegas Events, Inc., 375 F.3d 861 , 882 (9th Cir.2004)) (emphasis added); see also Cary LaCheen, Using Title II of the Americans with Disability Act on Behalf of Clients in TANF Programs, 8 Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol’y 1, 119-20 (2001) (“Given ... the fact that the unit of analysis for determining accessibility is different under Title II and Title III, Title III will often be a more stringent access standard for a particular program site than Title II.”). 13

25. Because the proper unit of analysis under Title II of the ADA is programs and services — not the individual sites at which they are offered — it is possible for a program, when viewed in its entirety, to be in compliance with the ADA, even if some aspects of facilities where the programs are offered are inaccessible. E.g., Daubert, 760 F.3d at 987-988 (holding that the mere fact that some of the bleachers in the football stadium were not accessible did not result in the denial of program access to the school district’s football program); Bird v. Lewis & Clark College, 303 F.3d 1015, 1022 (9th Cir.2002) (“Accessibility is not location-dependent; rather, as we have explained, the essential inquiry is whether the program overall is accessible”). Accordingly, a Title II plaintiff cannot establish standing by merely pointing to a few isolated access barriers in her neighborhood. Rather, to establish standing, a Title II plaintiff must *1237 show that the barriers she encountered amounted to a wholesale denial of “meaningful access” to the challenged program, service, or activity, when viewed in its entirety. See Armstrong, 275 F.Sd at 861 (citing Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 295 , 105 S.Ct. 712 , 88 L.Ed.2d 661 (1985)).

26. The two out-of-circuit district court cases cited by Kirola are likewise unavaill-ing. See Kerrigan v. Philadelphia Bd. of Elections, No. 07-687, 2008 WL 3562521 , *17-18 (E.D.Pa.2008); Westchester Disabled on the Move, Inc. v. Cnty. of Westchester, 346 F.Supp.2d 473, 478 (S.D.N.Y.2004). Both of those cases involved the provision of accessible polling places on a neighborhood basis, and presented issues including the threat of voter disenfranchisement and the fact that registered voters are specifically assigned to polling places near their registered addresses so as to encourage and facilitate voting. See, e.g., Kerrigan, 2008 WL 3562521 , *1 (noting that the Philadelphia Board of Elections and the Commissioners of the City of Philadelphia “assign each registered voter to a specific division near his or her home” and estimating there to be between 1,000 and 1,200 polling places in the City of Philadelphia). The issues relating to the location of polling places and whether voters have access to a public entity’s “program of voting” are separate and distinct from whether disabled persons have program access to the City’s facilities and public right-of-way. Accordingly, the Court finds these cases to be inapposite.

27. In sum, the Court finds no merit to Kirola’s contention that she need only establish that she encountered barriers within her neighborhood in order to have standing to seek injunctive relief with respect to the City’s programs, services and activities at issue. She must instead prove that she was denied access to the foregoing in their entirety. 14

3. Testimony of Class Members

28. Kirola argues that she may satisfy her burden of demonstrating standing based on the experiences of persons other than herself; to wit, class members. Dkt. 672, 13:22-14:3. This contention also lacks merit. “[I]n class actions, the named representatives must allege and show that they personally have been injured, not that injury has been suffered by other, unidentified members of the class to which they belong and which they purport to represent.” Pence v. Andrus, 586 F.2d 733, 736-37 (9th Cir.1978) (internal citations omitted); see also Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 734-35 , 92 S.Ct. 1361 , 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972) (holding that “the ‘injury in fact’ test requires more than an injury to a cognizable interest. It requires that the party seeking review be himself among the injured.”). As such, “if none of the named plaintiffs purporting to represent a class establishes the requisite of a case or controversy with the defendants, none may seek relief on behalf of himself or any other member of the class.” O’Shea, 414 U.S. at 494 , 94 S.Ct. 669 ; Cornett v. Donovan, 51 F.3d 894 , 897 n. 2 (9th Cir.1995) (“if the representative parties do not have standing, the class does not have standing.”).

29. Kirola cites Armstrong for the proposition that the experiences of other class members may be considered in assessing whether she has standing. Dkt. 672, 13:28. In Armstrong, a class of disabled prisoners and parolees brought a class action alleging that policies and practices related to parole and parole revoca *1238 tion hearings violated the ADA. 275 F.3d at 854-55 . The Ninth Circuit held that when prospective injunctive relief is sought, the plaintiff must show not only that he suffered an actual injury, but also that he is “realistically threatened” with a repetition of the violation which led to that injury. Id. at 861-62 . A likelihood of recurrence may be shown where the injury stems from a written policy or the harm is part of a pattern of officially sanctioned conduct. Id. at 861 . In discussing the latter theory of recurrence, the court explained that “[wjhen a named plaintiff asserts injuries that have been inflicted upon a class of plaintiffs, [the court] may consider those injuries in the context of the harm asserted by the class as a whole, to determine whether a credible threat that the named plaintiffs injury will recur has been established.” Id.

30. Kirola’s analysis of Armstrong mixes apples with oranges. Armstrong discusses two separate components to standing: First, the named plaintiffs actual injury ; and second, the realistic threat of repetition,, i.e., whether the plaintiffs injury is likely to recur, which applies where injunctive relief is sought. Id. at 860-61. The court found that in connection with the latter, injuries suffered by class members may be pertinent. Id. at 861. Significantly, nowhere in its opinion did the Armstrong court state that the threshold inquiry of whether the named plaintiff suffered an injury in fact may be analyzed based on evidence of harm sustained by the class. Armstrong thus provides no support for Kirola’s claim that the Court must consider the experiences of class members in determining whether the named plaintiff suffered an actual injury. The Court therefore declines to consider the testimony of other class members in assessing whether Kirola satisfied her burden of establishing that she “personally” has been injured as a result of the policies and practices at issue in this case. See Pence, 586 F.2d at 736-37 (holding that a named class representative’s standing must be based on the injury he sustained, as opposed to those suffered by class members).

4. “Overarching Policy”

38. Finally, Kirola argues that she need not demonstrate her standing to challenge each of the eleven policies and procedures she identified in post-trial briefing. Rather, Kirola now asserts that the City has an “overarching policy of leaving disability access barriers in place,” and that she has standing to challenge this “official” policy. Dkt. 672, 1:16-28, 5:6-20:4, 25:18-19. She denies that this is a newly-asserted theory of liability, and claims that the Court characterized the case in this manner in its order granting her motion for class certification. Dkt. 681, 2:24-3:4.

39. As an initial matter, Kirola’s contention directly contradicts her pri- or representation to the Court that she is specifically challenging the eleven policies and practices identified in her prior post-trial briefing. Dkt. 662,13:12-14:17. That aside, Kirola’s “overarching policy” argument makes no sense. The mere fact that an access barrier is left “in place” does not automatically demonstrate a violation of Title II of the ADA. Title II emphasizes “program access,” which entails reviewing the program or service in its entirety, as opposed to whether every element of a facility through which a program or service is presented is fully accessible. See Daubert, 760 F.3d at 986 . Consequently, a barrier may be left in place without necessarily violating Title II.

40. Kirola cites Arreola v. Godinez, 546 F.3d 788, 795 (7th Cir.2008), for the proposition that this Court, in determining standing, must look at the “case as a whole, rather than picking apart its various components to separate the claims for which the plaintiff will be entitled to relief *1239 from those for which he will not.” Dkt. 672, 3:9-12. Arreola involved an interlocutory review of a class certification order, and as such, the court focused on the allegations in the plaintiffs complaint to determine if he had satisfied his burden to establish standing at the pleading stage. 546 F.3d at 795 . Arreola is inapposite, where, as here, the issue of standing is being evaluated based on evidence presented at trial. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561 , 112 S.Ct. 2130 .

41. Irrespective of whether Kirola frames her challenge as one to an “overarching” policy or to eleven specific policies and practices, Kirola lacks standing in either instance. As will be established in the sections that follow, Kirola has not shown that she has suffered an injury in fact resulting from any access barrier she testified to having encountered. Having failed to make this showing, she cannot, by extension, demonstrate any injury resulting from any allegedly impermissible policy or practice.

5. Summary

42. Kirola must demonstrate that she has standing based upon her personal experience as set forth in her trial testimony, and not upon the experiences of class members or any extra record evidence. In addition, Kirola must establish that she was personally denied meaningful access to the challenged programs, services and activities in their entirety, as opposed to specific facilities. The Court now addresses whether Kirola has met her burden of establish standing within the meaning of Article III.

C. Article III Standing

43. The City challenges Kirola’s standing, arguing that she has failed to demonstrate that she suffered an injury in fact or demonstrated that her injuries will be redressed by a favorable decision in this action. 15 In addition, the City argues that Kirola has not established a likelihood of recurrence — an additional standing requirement in cases where prospective injunctive relief is sought.

44. The Court agrees that Kirola has failed to carry her burden of establishing standing by a preponderance of evidence with respect to the challenged programs, services and activities. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561 , 112 S.Ct. 2130 ; Perry, 186 F.3d at 829 .

1. Injury in Fact

45. To establish injury in fact under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that she has been deprived of “meaningful access” to a challenged service, program, or activity in its entirety. Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 861 (citing Choate, 469 U.S. at 295 , 105 S.Ct. 712 ); Fortyune v. City of Lomita, 766 F.3d 1098, 1102 (9th Cir.2014) (holding that program access requires that “the city’s system of sidewalks and pedestrian walkways,” when viewed in their entirety, “be ‘readily accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities.’”); 28 C.F.R. § 150 (a). Whether program access is being provided “is necessarily fact specific.” Pierce v. Orange Cnty., 526 F.3d 1190 ; 1222 (9th Cir.2008).

46. Kirola alleges that she encountered “numerous access barriers that denied, limited or interfered with her abili *1240 ty to access the City’s pedestrian right of way.” Dkt. 672, 17;4-5. However, Kirola, who testified only briefly, offered minimal testimony at trial to establish that she suffered an injury in fact. Specifically, Kirola only briefly discussed: (1) three stretches of sidewalk containing “bumps,” (2) a sidewalk where her wheelchair became stuck in a tree well; (3) one street corner that lacked curb ramps, (4) one street corner that provided only a single curb ramp, (5) errant step stools at three of the City’s libraries, (6) three inaccessible pools, and (7) steep paths at one park. See RT 1384:13-21, 1382:4-18, 1387:2-4, 1385:3-1386:8,1386:15-19,1388:5-7.

47. Starting first with the City’s system of sidewalks and pedestrian walkways, the Court finds that Kirola has failed to show that it is inaccessible and unusable in its entirety. The City’s public right-of-way consists of approximately 2,000 miles of sidewalks, 27,585 street corners, and 7,200 intersections. RT 2391:23-25, 2447:6-18. Yet, Kirola only testified regarding accessibility issues she experienced with three sidewalks, a tree well, and a single street corner lacking curb ramps. RT 1381:14-21, 1384:13, 1386:221387:18. Even then, little, if any, testimony was offered or elicited as to the nature and extent of the uneven sidewalks from which the Court could ascertain whether the purported defect constitutes an access barrier within the purview of the ADA. 16

48. Although Kirola testified that, on occasion, she “had to make a conscious effort to take a different route” due to uneven sidewalks or missing curb ramps, RT 1384:810, 1382:8-9, the probative value of such testimony is undermined by the complete lack of any facts or details regarding any alternate route that she was required to take. See Cohen, 754 F.3d at 697 (“The ADA allowed [the city of] Carlsbad to compel disabled persons to travel a ‘marginally longer route’ under some ‘limited circumstances,’ as long as its programs were still accessible as a whole. The mere fact that some city sidewalks did not have curb ramps was therefore insufficient to create a triable issue as to whether Carlsbad violated Title II.”) (citing Schonfeld v. City of Carlsbad, 978 F.Supp. 1329, 1341 (S.D.Cal.1997)); ADA Title II Technical Assistance Manual, II-5.3000 Curb Ramps (“Alternative routes ... may be acceptable under the concept of program accessibility in the limited circumstances where individuals with disabilities need only travel a marginally longer route.”); c.f. Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 236 (5th Cir.2011) (noting that standing was shown at the pleading stage where “the plaintiffs have alleged in detail how specific inaccessible sidewalks negatively affect their day-to-day lives by forcing them to take longer and more dangerous routes to their destinations.”) (emphasis added).

49. With regard to the City’s RecPark program, which consists of approximately 220 parks spanning 4,200 acres of park space and 400 structures (i.e., clubhouses, recreation centers, etc.), Kirola complained of accessibility issues at only one park: Alamo Square Park. RT 2264:13-17, 2302:12-16, 1385:3-16, 1394:2-

*1241 4. Kirola testified only that the entrance “is steep to use” and that she was unable to enter the children’s play area, ostensibly attributable to steep paths. RT 1385:3-16, 1394:2-4. The fact that Kirola was unable to access one area of the park does not establish an ADA injury. Indeed, one of her experts (Steiner) testified that “even just [access to] a small part of the park would be sufficient to provide program access.” RT 717:10-21. In any event, Kirola offered no specific information regarding measurements, dimensions, or slopes of the paths at Aamo Square Park, which she admits is located on a steep hill. RT 1394:2-3. Although Kirola is not expected or permitted to offer expert testimony regarding whether the entrance and paths at Alamo Square Park are ADA-compliant, her testimony is too general to persuade the Court that she was denied meaningful access to the park, let alone meaningful access to the City’s RecPark program in its entirety.

50. Equally uncompelling is Kirola’s testimony regarding her experiences at Balboa Pool, Garfield Pool and Rossi Pool. She alleges that Balboa Pool is inaccessible due to its steep entrance ramp and inadequate locker rooms, and that Garfield Pool lacks sufficient clearance in the locker room and restrooms. Though Kirola has not used Rossi Pool, she was deterred from going there based on the comments of others. RT 1388:5-6, 388:7-17, 1386:12-19. The fact that Kirola may have experienced accessibility issues with these three pools is insufficient to demonstrate that she suffered an actual injury resulting from the denial of meaningful access to the City’s aquatic program. None of these three pools has been designated as a fully-accessible pool, and the City does not rely on them to provide program access. DTX F16. 17 In contrast, the Court is persuaded that the City’s aquatic program, when viewed in its entirety, provides program access. Kirola’s ability to meaningfully access the City’s aquatic program is underscored by the fact that she regularly uses Hamilton and MLK Pools, which were previously renovated and designated by the City as accessible. RT 1392:17-1393:23.

51. Finally, Kirola has not shown an injury in fact resulting from the lack of program access to the City’s library program. The only “barriers” she encountered were the occasionally misplaced step stools at three libraries (the Main Library and the Western Addition and Parkside Branch Libraries) which impeded her aisle access. RT 1386:1-2. However, the ADA applies to architectural barriers, not temporary or removable obstructions. See Sharp v. Island Restaurant-Carlsbad, 900 F.Supp.2d 1114, 1126-27 (S.D.Cal.2012) (misplaced chairs blocking the path of travel to a restroom were not architectural barriers under the ADA); see also Cal. Council of the Blind v. Cnty. of Alameda, 985 F.Supp.2d 1229, 1240 (N.D.Cal.2013) (noting that 28 C.F.R. '§ 35.133 does not prohibit isolated or temporary interruptions in service or access due to maintenance’ or repairs). Whether a barrier is temporary’ or removable presents a question of fact. See Cal. Council of the Blind, 985 F.Supp.2d at 1240 (noting that “the duration of, frequency of, and reason for the failure of accessible voting machines to operate properly is a question of fact.”).

52. Based on the record developed at trial, the Court is persuaded that the misplaced step stools encountered by Kirola are not architectural barriers. On a daily basis, the City requires its library staff to use a Daily Facility Checklist to *1242 inspect for any obstructions and to maintain the accessibility of each library facility. RT 2235:222287:13, 2252:10-2253:21; DTX -A45. Thus, even if library staff only checked for misplaced stools once a day— which Kirola has not shown — such “barrier” would temporarily exist for no more than twenty four hours. Moreover, Kirola testified that she did not encounter misplaced stools the majority of times she used these three libraries, RT 1386:6-12, and there is no evidence that she experienced any inability or difficulty in utilizing the services at these particular libraries, or with respect to the City’s library program in its entirety.

53. Citing Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports, 870 F.Supp.2d 995 (E.D.Cal.2012) (“Chapman II”), Kirola argues that misplaced stools, in fact, may qualify as an accessibility barrier under the ADA. In Chapman II, the plaintiff brought an action against a retail store known as Pier 1 Imports (“Pier 1”), claiming, inter alia, that the store aisles were blocked by merchandise, which, in turn, impeded his access in violation of Title III of the ADA. In its summary judgment motion, Pier 1 argued that the obstructions were “only temporary,” and that regulations promulgated under the Title III of ADA do not impose liability for “isolated or temporary” interruptions to accessibility. Id. (citing 28 C.F.R. § 36.211 (b)). 18 In addressing this argument, the court explained that a “temporary” maintenance barrier is “an object that is unavoidably placed in the aisle, but with the intention of removing it as soon as possible.” Id. The court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that there was a factual dispute regarding whether the blockages were isolated or temporary, and that the plaintiff had presented evidence that the barriers were recurring and prevented him from accessing store merchandise. Id. at 1009 .

54. Kirola' argues that, like the merchandise in Chapman II, the stools are not merely “temporary” barriers because library staff only conduct a full inspection of facilities once per day, and therefore, the stools are not removed “as soon as possible.” Chapman II is distinguishable. Whereas the merchandise in the Pier 1 store aisles was intentionally placed there by store employees, there is no evidence that the step stools were placed in the stacks as a routine matter by library staff. To the contrary, the limited testimony presented by Kirola on this issue suggests that the stools were placed in the aisle by other library patrons. In addition, unlike the plaintiff in Chapman II Kirola has made no showing that the occasional misplaced stools interfered with her ability to access library services at a particular library, let alone precluded her access to the City’s network of libraries in its entirety. 28 C.F.R. § 35.150 (a).

55. In sum, the Court finds that Kirola has failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she has constitutional standing to bring any of the claims alleged in her FAC. Accordingly, she lacks standing to pursue this action individually or on behalf of the class she was appointed to represent.

2. Redressability

56. Even if Kirola had suffered an actual ADA injury, she has not shown redressability, as required under Lujan . In order to demonstrate redressability, a plaintiff must show that plaintiff “personally would benefit in a tangible way from the court’s intervention.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 , 103 n. 5, *1243 118 S.Ct. 1003 , 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998) (citing Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 508 , 95 S.Ct. 2197 , 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975)). Furthermore, any “remedy must of course be limited to the inadequacy that produced the injury in fact that the plaintiff has established.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 357 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996).

57. Kirola seeks a broad permanent injunction relating to virtually every aspect of the City’s operation and management of its facilities, programs and services. Dkt. 635. However, the nexus between Kirola’s injury and the relief sought is lacking.

58. With regard to curb ramps, Kirola seeks an injunction requiring the City to, within ten years of judgment, construct an accessible curb ramp at every existing or potential curb ramp, location, except for those locations where the City is able to document that a curb ramp is not required. Dkt. 632, 2:24 — 3:10. 19 But curb ramp saturation — which is not required under the ADA — is already part of the Curb Ramp and Sidewalk Transition Plan. Although the City’s curb ramp transition plan does not contain a specific deadline for completion, the City anticipates achieving curb ramp saturation within approximately twelve years. Dkt. 657, 4:12-13. There is no evidence that the marginally expedited deadline (ten vs. twelve years) proposed by Kirola would redress any supposed injury she suffered due to missing curb ramps. In fact, Kirola’s sole curb ramp request (for the corner of McAllister and Fillmore) was fulfilled in less than two years and would not have been constructed any sooner under her proposed injunction. RT 1383:19-1884:8, 1391:18-1392:2. As such, Kirola’s proposed remedy would not have resulted in a more expeditious response to her request. 20

59. Redressability also is absent with respect to Kirola’s accessibility complaints pertaining to the City’s sidewalks. Kirola proposes an injunction requiring the City to inspect and repair all sidewalk-related barriers along its 2,000 miles of sidewalk in 10 years, and thereafter implement a 15-year inspection cycle — rather than the current 25-year cycle under SIRP (the City’s current sidewalk inspection plan). Dkt. 635, 5:1-5. She also insists that, within ninety days of judgment, the City identify alternative, accessible routes wherever the City contends that removal of a sidewalk barrier is unnecessary for program access. Dkt. 635, 4:6-27.

60. Underlying Kirola’s proposal for a shorter inspection cycle is her failure to recognize that SIRP operates in tandem with ASAP (i.e., Accelerated Sidewalk Abatement Program). Whereas the SIRP is a “proactive” program in which the City seeks out sidewalks in need of repair, the ASAP is a “reactive” program in which the City repairs sidewalks in response to pub- *1244 lie complaints. RT 2453:18-2454:12. Accessibility complaints regarding sidewalks are given high priority and responded to immediately, and are typically resolved in ninety days. RT 2454:1-12. Here, Kirola never complained to the City about the three stretches of sidewalk she testified about. Had she done so, the trial record establishes that her complaints would likely have been addressed within a matter of months. The Court is thus unpersuaded that the remedy of requiring the repair of all sidewalks within ten years is necessary or would redress the harm allegedly caused by the three sidewalks about which Kirola testified.

61. With regard to the City’s RecPark facilities and pools, Kirola seeks an injunction directing the City to: (1) conduct a survey of e

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.