2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998
Gavin Newsom
Mayor
Susan Mizner
Director
Jack Fagan
Jul Lynn Parsons
Co-Chairs
Norma Block
Elizabeth Grigsby
Tatiana Kostanian
Richard Ow
Denise Senhaux
Amy Wishnie
Mayor’s Disability Council
Minutes
19 January 2007
1 ROLL CALL
Mayor’s Disability Council Members Present: Norma Block, Jack Fagan, Elizabeth Grigsby, Richard Ow, Tatiana Kostanian, Jul Lynn Parsons and Denise Senhaux.
Excused Absent: Amy Wishnie
Mayor’s Office on Disability: Susan Mizner, Director; John Paul Scott, Deputy Director for Physical Access; Joanna Fraguli, Deputy Director for Programmatic Access; Ken Stein, Program Administrator; Josie J. Lee, Office Manager and Howard O. Wong, Council Clerk.
Jack Fagan, Co-Chair, called the meeting to order at 1:03 p.m.
2 APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
The Council approved the agenda of the January 19, 2007 MDC Meeting.
3 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
The Council approved the Minutes from the November 17, 2006 MDC Meeting. There was no MDC Meeting in December 2006.
4 PUBLIC COMMENT
Jessica Robinson, Executive Director for CounterPULSE, announced that her organization and Jess Curtis/Gravity have teamed up for the next three months from January through March to offer a series of dance workshops for people with physical impairments. For more information, the website is www.counterpulse.org.
Paula Cook, West Bay Housing Association, provided an update on her organization’s progress to provide affordable and accessible housing options for seniors and people with disabilities who reside at Laguna Honda Hospital. She stated that this includes seeking funding from different resources and applying for grants.
Arden Wheeler spoke about the need for more chairs for seniors and people with disabilities in the Registration’s waiting area at San Francisco General Hospital.
Peter Albert, Acting Director for Municipal Transportation Authority, introduced two of his colleagues, Bridget Smith (Manager, Livable Streets Program) and Cristina Olea (Manager, Pedestrian Program). They provided an update on two key initiatives of the Pedestrian Program including the installation of accessible pedestrian signals and the Pedestrian Master Plan.
Ed Evans spoke about the problems caused by “humps, bumps and lumps” (speed bumps) on the street pavement, because vehicles carrying passengers with disabilities including back injuries can aggravate their condition. Mr. Evans also invited the public to attend the monthly meetings of Muni Accessible Advisory Committee. For more information, call (415) 701-4485, TTY: (415) 701-4730. Lastly, Mr. Evans would like the Council to work to stop bicyclists and skateboarders from using the sidewalks and endangering people with disabilities.
Raymond Vega expressed his frustrations when he hears from the Latino community and seniors that they are not receiving assistance immediately due to lack of staffing and/or language barriers. He said that there is a tremendous need for more bilingual staffing and additional services.
Tomasita Medal shared her personal observations on how difficult it is for seniors and people with disabilities to receive taxi services. She said that many people have to wait for a long period of time and it seems they are often neglected.
5 REPORT FROM THE CO-CHAIRS
Co-Chair Fagan provided a year in review of what the MDC has been working on including adopting an official mission statement; two voter education forums; presentations by proponents and opponents on Ballot Measure D regarding the zoning changes at Laguna Hospital; as well as Ballot Measure K, regarding city policy relating to the housing needs of seniors and adults with disabilities; working with Department of Elections on accessible polling places, accessible machines and rank-choice voting; expanding equal access and safety with the ADA Transition Plan, Barrier Removal Project, Blind and Low Vision Priorities Project, 311 City Information Line, and the Pedestrian Safety Master Plan; increasing awareness about people with environmental illness and multi-chemical sensitivities; educating the public about community living housing options; disaster preparedness activities including Alert SF; celebrating the annual ADA Anniversary by honoring individuals and City Departments who further disability rights; holding a joint meeting with the Department of Aging and Adult Services on funding priorities; and passing resolutions including set-aside contracts to create employment opportunities for people with disabilities in City Departments.
Co-Chair Parsons stated that it has been busy year for MDC and a lot was accomplished, but there is still more work to be done. She added that one of the issues that the MDC will work on for the New Year will be shelter issues as well as providing long-term housing that is affordable and accessible for everyone including people with disabilities.
6 REPORT FROM THE DIRECTOR OF THE MAYOR’S OFFICE ON DISABILITY
Ms. Mizner reported on the following:
* MOD finished reviewing and meeting with the applicants for the MDC’s vacancies. The Mayor’s appointment officer has received all the applications and the Mayor will make his decision soon.
* There is a vacancy from the disability community on the Citizen’s Advisory Committee to work on the Better Streets Plan. Applications are due by January 31st.
* Ms. Mizner deferred to Ken Stein, Program Administrator for MOD, to report on the MDC recommendations to the Department of Aging and Adult Services (DAAS). Mr. Stein reported that the recommendations have been well-received and are currently being reviewed by the City Attorney.
* MOD’s website (www.sfgov.org/mod) has been revised and updated. Some of the modifications included columns on “What’s New”, “Know Your Rights” as well as the “Architectural Access” and “Programmatic Access”. Information and resources have been updated to provide the public and City Departments with the most current news.
* Ms. Mizner deferred to John Paul Scott, Deputy Director on Physical Access, for his report on city-wide accessible meeting locations. Mr. Scott reported that he and an intern in MOD have been developing a database of accessible meeting sites as well as going on-site to assess the facilities for accessibility. He added that the Recreation and Parks Department is working on re-assessing their existing facilities for accessibility.
* Ms. Mizner reported that San Francisco has been recognized as being one of the top 10 most accessible cities in the country and thanked the community for its advocacy in leading us to that standing.
7 DISABLED PLACARD ISSUANCE AND ABUSE. PRESENTATION BY JUDSON TRUE, SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY (SFMTA).
Mr. True stated that disabled placard abuse reduces the availability of accessible parking spaces to individuals with disabilities and there is an exponential growth of disabled placard in San Francisco and California in general. He provided data and statistics from 2004 and 2005 on the distribution of the placards. It included that in 2004, there were a total of 36,540 placards given out, which increased more than 50% in 2005. MTA established the Disabled Placard Detail in 1995 and it has been successful in confiscating and verifying many placards in the City. In 2005, 834 placards were confiscated. The undercover operation consists of 2 teams of plainclothes Parking Control Officers (PCO) deployed throughout the City of San Francisco. Mr. True pointed out that these PCO enforce the law by approaching the citizens who violate the use of the disabled placards. He stated that there are some possible legislative solutions including that local jurisdictions can now impose an additional $100 fine for disabled parking violations. Another possible solution is to establish a review panel to review disabled license plate and placard issuance by doctors, to identify cases or patterns of fraud or inadequate certification of the qualifying disability.
For more information, the website is www.sfmta.com and Mr. True can be reached at (415) 701-4582 or [email protected].
8 ACTION ITEM: ENDORSEMENT OF PROPOSED CITY-WIDE POLICIES – DRAFT REASONABLE MODIFICATION POLICY AND DRAFT SERVICE & SUPPORT ANIMAL POLICY.
DRAFT REASONABLE MODIFICATION POLICY (ATTACHED)
Ms. Mizner provided a recap of this policy at the previous MDC Meeting. She noted that this policy reaffirms the City and County of San Francisco’s ADA obligation to provide reasonable modifications in its policies, practices and procedures for all qualified people with disabilities, and to provide these modifications quickly, easily, and with minimum burden to the person with the disability.
The Council voted unanimously to endorse the proposed city-wide policy. The motion passed unanimously.
DRAFT SERVICE AND SUPPORT ANIMAL POLICY (ATTACHED)
Ms. Mizner stated that this policy is a subset of the Reasonable Modification Policy. It was made into a separate policy because there is oftentimes confusion and disagreement about the definition of a “support animal”. Ms. Mizner stated that emotional support animals are included in this policy. This policy would ensure that all people with service and support animals be afforded equal access to city facilities, programs, services and activities.
The Council voted unanimously to endorse the proposed city-wide policy. The motion passed unanimously.
9 DISABILITY DISASTER PREPAREDNESS COMMITTEE (DDPC)
Joanna Fraguli, Deputy Director for Programmatic Access, reported a year-end review of what the committee has been working on, including rescue and evacuation procedures, education issues, emergency notification, emergency shelters and policies, disability-specific resource procurement and continuous supply of aids and services last year. For the New Year, she stated the committee will continue to work on these issues as well as outreach, funding and training.
10 REPORT FROM THE EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE
Steve Crabiel, Executive Director for Toolworks, reported on the Employee Committee’s continual work on updating marketing materials. Some of their goals for the New Year are speaking engagements to different industries and human resources professionals on their work. Their next meeting focuses on the National Employment Network, and will include representatives from the Small Business Commission and Department of Rehabilitation.
11 PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Crabiel announced that Toolworks is celebrating their 35th Anniversary on Wednesday, January 24th at the San Francisco Public Library. For more info, the website is www.toolworks.org.
Rachel Platkin and Loal Isaacs, Muscular Dystrophy Association, announced that they have an upcoming event on May 19th called the Freedom Design Gala. It will consist of architects, interior designers and engineers to work on universal design accessibility for people with disabilities. Their phone number is (415) 673-7500 and their website is www.mdausa.org.
Jamie Osborne, Municipal Transportation Agency – Muni Accessible Services, announced three current and upcoming construction projects. Starting on January 29th, there will be no rail services between the Castro and West Portal Stations starting at 9:00PM. Shuttle buses will run from Van Ness to West Portal Station during that time. He also reported that construction notices have been sent out to the public on accessibility to the metro systems. For more information on the construction details and updated information, the website is www.sfmuni.com/metro or call (415) 701-4485.
Ross Woodall, Lighthouse for the Blind, spoke about a new service that the Lighthouse is providing. It is the Vision Loss Resource Center (VLRC). It provides referrals to services for people with sight impairment and/or blindness and their caregivers. Also, there is peer counseling available. The VLRC is at the Lighthouse located at 214 Van Ness Avenue. For more information, their phone number is (888) 400-8933.
12 CORRESPONDENCE
No correspondence.
13 COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Ow stated that he attended a recent Mayor’s Town Hall Meeting on homelessness in the Richmond District. He reported that one of the panelists, Angela Alioto, Mayor’s Coalition on Homelessness, stated that within ten years, there would be 3,000 units of housing for the homeless and home supportive services including eyeglasses, wheelchair, job re-training and other services that the disability community may benefit from.
Co-Chair Fagan announced that AASCEND, an advocacy and support group for adults with Autism and Asperger’s Syndrome, will meet on Saturday, January 20th to discuss special projects, outreach and support to its members and family members. The public is invited to attend. Their website is www.aascend.net.
14 ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:03 p.m.
For additional information, please contact:
Mayor’s Office on Disability
401 Van Ness, Room 300
San Francisco, CA 94102
415.554.6789 voice; 415.554.6799 TTY;
415.554.6159 fax; email: [email protected]
DRAFT San Francisco Reasonable Modification Policy DRAFT
It is the policy of the City and County of San Francisco to provide reasonable modifications in its policies, practices, and procedures for all qualified people with disabilities and to provide these modifications quickly, easily, and with minimum burden to the person with the disability. Denials of such requests should occur only in situations for which the policy modification would fundamentally alter the program, service, or activity.
Explanatory Material
BACKGROUND
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) is a federal anti-discrimination statute which provides civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, public accommodations, state and local government services, and telecommunications. Title II of the ADA governs public entities and requires that governments ensure that people with disabilities have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy government services, benefits, facilities, and activities. Sometimes, in order to provide an equal opportunity, a government entity may need to make a reasonable modification of policies, practices, and procedures.
WHO QUALIFIES TO RECEIVE REASONABLE MODIFICATIONS?
Title II of the ADA provides civil rights protections for qualified individuals with a disability. The ADA defines an individual with a disability as a person with a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities (such as walking, seeing, working, etc.). The definition of disability under California law exceeds the federal definition. California requires a limitation of major life activities, but not a substantial limitation as required by the ADA. Furthermore, the definition of major life activities is broadly construed under California law.
A person with a disability is “qualified” to receive protection under Title II if he or she meets the essential eligibility requirements for the program or service. For example, a person with a disability is qualified to have reasonable modifications provided in a program for people with HIV if he or she has HIV. A person with a disability is entitled to reasonable modifications in a city service for low income housing if he or she meets the income requirements for the service.
WHAT IS A REASONABLE MODIFICATION?
A reasonable modification is a change or exception to a policy, practice, or procedure that allows people with disabilities to have equal access to programs, services, and activities. Reasonable modifications vary with the service, the client, and the disability.
For example, if a person who is deaf or hard of hearing attends a meeting or appointment, it is a reasonable modification to provide interpreters or other assistive communication devices. If a person has a cognitive disability, it is a reasonable modification to assist him or her in filling out forms or understanding information. Or if a person with acrophobia is unable to access a meeting location on the sixth floor of a building, it is a reasonable modification to relocate the meeting to a site on the first floor of the building, if a suitable site is available.
A reasonable modification may also be a modification of local laws, ordinances, or regulations. For instance, a reasonable modification may be changing a “no pet” ordinance in hospitals to permit people with service and support animals to enter the premises with their animal so that the person may enjoy the services and programs offered. Also, it would be a reasonable modification to allow a person using an electric wheelchair or other mobility devices to access areas where electric vehicles are banned.
Implementation Methods
The vast majority of requests for reasonable modifications are either easy to provide and/or obviously necessary for the client to receive the benefits of a service or program. Staff should be trained to comply with these requests quickly. Some auxiliary aids may take time to arrange, but the client should not have to wait longer than 72 hours for these services. In rare cases when the request does not seem to be connected to the client’s disability, may not achieve the desired result, or appears incredibly problematic, it may be appropriate to ask the client for additional information to help understand how the modification would work. In these uncommon situations it might take longer to fulfill the request, but it should take no longer than 72 hours to get back to the client on the status of their request. Also, in these cases staff should never delay providing life preserving modifications; verification can come at a later time.
HOW TO ANALYZE A REQUEST
City Departments are encouraged to train staff in making reasonable modifications. The following are a few, basic, “Do’s and Do Not’s” to help in the implementation of the policy:
DO’s:
* Do provide notice, in accessible formats, to clients of their rights under the ADA to ask for a modification in policies, practices, and procedures in order to accommodate a disability.
* Do respond to the request as quickly as possible.
* Do be prepared to obtain and to provide adequate communication devices for people with disabilities (e.g., qualified interpreters, note takers, computer-aided transcription services, written materials, audio recordings, computer disks, large print and Brailled materials, and assistive listening systems) to ensure that individuals with disabilities will be able to participate in the range of city services and programs. (Note: MOD has city approved vendors for these services.)
* Do feel free to offer an alternative to the request if it can provide a faster and more efficient solution.
DON’Ts:
* Do NOT require a person with a disability to fill out a form to request any reasonable modification. This is an additional burden on the person and on staff. Staff should be able to respond to most requests quickly and happily. In the rare case that a request may fundamentally alter the program or services, a form may be appropriate to make further determinations.
* Do NOT inquire about the nature of the person’s disability unless the request requires substantial action and may fundamentally alter the program or service. In this rare instance, more information might be necessary to resolve the issue.
* Do NOT delay requests for sensitive and life-preserving services. In such situations, verification can be dealt with at a later time.
Frequently Asked Questions
What kinds of reasonable modifications am I required to make?
Because reasonable modifications vary according to the client and the City interacts with the public in a variety of ways, there can never be a complete list of reasonable modifications that we can provide. Staff should comply with simple requests as a form of good customer service. Concerns regarding requests that may be very expensive or hard to do should be communicated to the departmental ADA Coordinator or the Mayor’s Office on Disability (MOD).
Some of the most common requests will involve assisting someone in a minor way such as providing flexible appointment times for a person with a psychiatric disability, simplifying a letter or other information for someone with a cognitive disability, helping a person with a visual impairment fill out a form, providing real time captioning at a meeting for a person who is deaf or hard of hearing, or allowing extra time during public comment for a person with a speech disability.
Also, reasonable modification requests may be part of an interactive process. For example, if someone with a visual disability requests the documents be Brailled, you may inquire whether they have a computer that may read the information through a disk. The information may be provided more quickly and efficiently through alternative methods, so staff should feel comfortable discussing and offering these options.
What is a fundamental alteration?
A fundamental alteration occurs in the rare instance when there may be a significant change in the nature of the service, program, or activity in question because of a reasonable modification. For example, it is a fundamental alteration if a person with a disability asks the City Tax Collector’s Office to fill out his or her personal income tax forms. Assisting with income tax is outside of the realm of services that the Tax Collector’s Office offers and therefore this request would significantly alter the nature of their service. The determination can only be made by the head of the public entity or a designee and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action would result in a fundamental alteration, a city agency must take any other action that it can to ensure that people with disabilities receive the benefits and services of the program or activity.
Am I required to provide a reasonable modification even if there is a separate and similar program for people with disabilities?
Yes. Even when a separate program is available, an individual with a disability has the right to select which program he or she would like to participate in. For instance, if the City offers recreational programs specifically for children with mobility impairments we still must allow children with mobility impairments to participate in all recreational programs offered by the City. Therefore, some programs may require reasonable modifications in order to be accessible to children with disabilities.
DRAFT San Francisco Service and Support Animal Policy DRAFT
It is the policy of the City and County of San Francisco that all people with service and support animals be afforded equal access to city facilities, programs, services, and activities.
Explanatory Material
BACKGROUND
Title II of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that city and state governments ensure that people with disabilities have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy government services, benefits, facilities, and activities. In order to provide an equal opportunity, a government entity may need to provide a reasonable modification of policies, practices, and procedures. The Federal Fair Housing Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the State of California under the Unruh Civil Rights Act also require that people with disabilities be provided with reasonable modifications in order for them to have an opportunity for full use and enjoyment of services. For example, suspending a “no pets” rule in order for a person to be accompanied by a service or support animal is a reasonable modification.
WHO QUALIFIES TO OWN A SERVICE OR SUPPORT ANIMAL?
A person with a disability as defined under federal or state law may qualify to own a service or support animal if he or she benefits from its service. Under most federal laws, a person is considered to have a disability if he or she has a mental or physical condition that substantially limits one or more major life activities (such as walking, seeing, working, etc.). The definition of disability under California law exceeds the federal definition. California requires a limitation of major life activities, but not a substantial limitation as required by the ADA. Furthermore, the definition of major life activities is to be broadly construed under California law.
WHAT IS A SERVICE ANIMAL?
The ADA defines a service animal as "any animal that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability." The most common service animals are dogs and they may be any breed, size, or weight. However, service animals are not limited to dogs. For example, birds or monkeys may also be service animals, and have often been trained to retrieve items for the person with a disability. A person might also require the service of more than one animal for his or her disability.
Service animals may provide a variety of services including notifying people with hearing impairments of sounds, assisting people with mobility impairments with balance and movement, guiding people with visual disabilities, and alerting people with seizure disorders of an oncoming attack. These are just a few examples of the types of services and functions that service animals can provide.
WHAT IS A SUPPORT ANIMAL?
Support animals are animals that primarily provide assistance for people with psychological disabilities. For example, a person diagnosed with depression may take a cat to the doctor’s office in order to make it to an appointment on time, a person may use a snake to keep calm and treat an anxiety disorder, or a person with agoraphobia may use a dog to access public places with greater ease.
The Fair Housing Act and case law consider allowing the presence of support animals to be a type of reasonable accommodation under disability rights laws. Support animals are not always trained to perform tasks or may have only limited training. Support animals can, however, help alleviate symptoms of depression, anxiety, stress, and difficulties regarding social interactions, allowing people to live independently and fully use and enjoy their living environment. People with support animals have the same rights as people with service animals.
WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SERVICE OR SUPPORT ANIMAL AND A PET?
Service or support animals are not considered to be pets. A person with a disability uses a service or support animal as an auxiliary aid, similar to the use of a cane, crutches, or wheelchair. For this reason, disability rights laws require that service providers make modifications to “no pet” policies to permit the use of a service or support animal by an individual with a disability.
Unlike pets, service and support animals are focused on assistance and are not disruptive. They are under the full control of the owner and are not aggressive towards others. Occasionally a service or support animal may display aggressive behavior. In this case check with the owner to determine if the animal is being bothered or provoked by someone or something.
Some, but not all, service or support animals may wear special collars and harnesses. Some, but not all, may be licensed or certified and/or have identification papers. However, there is no legal requirement for service and support animals to be visibly identifiable or documented.
Implementation Methods
AWARENESS TRAINING
City Departments are encouraged to train staff in service and support animal policies, including the following guidelines, to ensure that the policy is well implemented:
* Do not pet or touch a service or support animal without asking the handler first. Petting a service or support animal when it is working distracts the animal from the task at hand.
* Do not feed a service or support animal.
* Do not deliberately startle a service or support animal. Avoid making noises at the animal (barking, whistling, etc.).
* Do not separate or attempt to separate a handler from the service or support animal.
* Remember, not all disabilities are visible. The nature of the person’s disability is a private matter and you are not entitled to inquire for details.
* Service and support animals do not need to wear any special identifying gear such as tags or harnesses. However, Animal Care & Control will issue one tag per household for a service or support dog upon presentation of medical verification.
* Service and support animal owners are not required to carry any paperwork certifying the animal as a service or support animal. Do not ask a handler for paperwork or documentation.
* Because service and support animals are not pets, pet fees cannot be charged for service or support animals.
* Do expect the owner to take responsibility for the care and behavior of his or her service or support animal. This generally means that while the animal is in common areas, it is on leash, in a carrier, or otherwise under the direct control of the animal owner. People with visual disabilities are exempt from removing the feces of their service or support animal (but many do anyway).
* Do expect the animal to behave appropriately. A disruptive service or support animal may be removed from the premises if it cannot be controlled. However, the person must be allowed to return without the animal. (Without the animal it will be necessary to provide an accommodation so the owner can participate in the activity or program. For example, providing an escort for a visually impaired person to view an art exhibit in a museum. Be sure to check with the owner and determine if the animal is being bothered or provoked by someone or something.)
* Do not allow any pets in the area to distract the service or support animal.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: How do I know whether someone has a pet or a service or support animal?
A: It can be hard to know whether an animal is a service or support animal. If the animal is in a harness, has a special tag, or is wearing a sign, that is a good indication. However, because service and support animals are not required to wear identifying tags and handlers are not required to have any paperwork identifying their service or support animal, please do not assume that the absence of such identifying tags means the animal is a pet.
If you are concerned that someone is bringing a pet into a “no pets” area, you may ask, “Is that your pet?” It is unlikely that someone who uses a service or support animal will respond that their animal is a pet. The owner of the animal should respond, “No this is my service/support animal.” The owner of a support animal may also refer to their animal as an emotional support or companion animal.
If need be, you may ask the handler how the animal assists them. However, this is discouraged unless there is some objection or problem with them entering with their animal. If you encounter a significant problem, first contact your departmental ADA Coordinator for assistance. In urgent or very difficult situations, you may also want to call the SFPD who have been trained to resolve these issues. For non-emergencies, call (415) 553-0123.
Q: What if the service animal is barking or being disruptive?
A: If a service or support animal is unruly or disruptive (aggressively jumping on people, barking, nipping, or other harmful behavior), you may ask the owner to remove the animal from the immediate area. In the case of removal, the owner is permitted to return to the area without the service or support animal.
Q: What if a third party is allergic to or has a fear of the service or support animal?
A: Fears of animals or common allergic reactions to animals do not suffice as reasons to remove the service or support animal from the premises. However, if a person’s allergic reaction is severe enough to cause respiratory distress he or she may request an accommodation that may involve keeping the allergic person and the person with the service or support animal separate from each other. In this case, you need to be able to work with both the person with the allergy and the person with the service or support animal to ensure they are both accommodated. Because this policy involves access to public services and spaces it is likely that the accommodation will only be required for a brief period and can be handled by placing the people in different parts of the room and keeping the animal off of furniture to avoid spreading allergens.
401 Van Ness, Room 300, San Francisco, CA 94102 415.554.6789 415.554.6159 fax
415.554.6799 TTY [email protected]