KIROLA v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

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 105:20-25. 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 333:9-11. 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. Steinfeld 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 Steinfeld'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 alternative. Steinfeld's conclusion in this regard detracts further from his credibility and program access conclusions.

202. Mastin 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. Mastin 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. Mastin failed to cite any authority or identify a factual basis in the record for his opinions, and the Court concludes that, like Steinfeld, 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 Mastin'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 advocates. 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.