The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About36-Public Comments ((;(Q)[P)W Entered into Record at CouncillCmyDevCms Mtg: -/,-; //1 {f . I I I. May 17, 1999 by re Agend~ Item 3 G / 'j :., I ,{~4 .~ r' \ , Honorable Mayor Valles and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino 300 N. "0" Street San Bernardino, California 92418 ;j ~{..r' I!,{. J City Clerk/CDC Secy City of San Bernardino Your Honor: Over the last several months, I have provided sworn testimony on several occasions. This presentation has become part of my record of sworn testimony. In previous testimony, I have recalled a conversation with Roger Hardgrave subsequent to the City's adoption of our new driveway standard in or about 1986. The last recollection I could remember was that Roger described three areas that the standard would not cover. I could only recall two of the areas. Residential construction with sidewalks would not have to comply. Also, existing commercial construction would not have to retrofit the new standard on existing driveways. Of course, I resisted this assumption but was unable to convince Mr. Hardgrave. In these last few weeks, while reviewing current City sidewalks, I have come to inspect sidewalks that cross over bridges (over drainage channels). I related to you my experience on the new Orange Show Road extension (8 driveways on either side of either bridge). I also looked at the new Kenda1llE Street improvements at Little Mountain, as well as various bridges constructed or under construction. These reviews, along with loads of prayer and meditation have clarified my recollection of this decade old conversation. Roger commented to me that although this standard would be in effect for private commercial construction on our City streets, it would not be in effect for residential, retrofit, or pub6c works projects. In order to make my point, I submitted several exhibits. First, I submitted the good example of how public works projects (bridges with maintenance driveways) should be constructed. The first example depicted the bridge constructed on Lynwood just west of Victoria. The next three exhibits, were either still under construction (and late changes may still be appropriate), or showed differing interpretations, but still no safe path of traveL The last existing site depicted not only generous room in which to provide the safe path, it also showed a lack of desire to integrate our new driveway standard. Lastly, I exhibited two brand new public works projects (built more recently), that exhibit faulty interpretations of this same situation. The frrst project was mentioned at a previous deposition, and also mentioned during public comments at a subsequent April Council meeting. The newest and largest expansion of our City's network of roads was newly completed on Orange Show Road just east of Arrowhead. 5:/17/17 #3& Submitted photographs showed a total of 8 driveways that have been incorrectly designed and provided. 1be last project entails improvements on a new section of road connecting Kendall to E Street around Little Mountain. In this improvement, only one maintenance driveway was reviewed (did not comply), however, the newly built driveway at the Castaways Restaurant does not provide a safe path according to our adopted commercial driveway approach! How could this have been approved or permitted? Also, I have included a copy of a letter written by my Attorney regarding this case (and it's speedy resolution). Respectfully, Robert J. Neves 2348 Sterling Avenue, Suite 439 San Bernardino, California 92404 (909) 862-6238 '""I ." WELLCOME CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA-LA W OFFICES P. O. Box 610 321 Slafford Avenue Cardilf-By-The-Sca, CA 92007 TellFax: (760) 944-9767 April 19, 1999 Ms. Arlene Prater Best Best & Krieger LLP 402 W. Broadway, 13th Floor SanDiego, CA 92101-3542 Re: Goldkorn. et al vs. City of San Bernardino. et al Case No. ED-CY-98-42RT (RZx) Dear Arlene: I have now had an opportunity to review all of the documents in your office in connection with the continued deposition of your clients. For the time being, I am not going to request copies due to the fact that I will utilize the various documents which I have marked at the next deposition of Gene Klatt and Roger Hardgrave. I assume we can schedule these depositions as soon as you return from your trip. Also, I discussed with Karen Craig the stipulation which should provide for the court's order continuing the trial date and setting other related dates, including the date 011 which you furnish your expert witness disclosures. Another, and more important reason for this letter, is to advise you that, in view of the information furnished by Roger Hardgrave in connection with 10hn Lonberg's settlement, it will be necessary for me to depose all of the individuals who are mentioned in the memorandum deleting the J handicapped parking places in the City of San Bernardino. This will include the Manager of the Riskv Management Department and, unfortunately, the representative of the City Attorney's office, who received a copy of this memo. Mr. Lonberg and I are extremely concerned that he was allowed to reduce his judgment by $1,000 and sign a release after the date on which Mr. Hardgrave advised the other parties, including R,jsk Management, that the handicapped parking places would be removed. It was Mr. Lonberg's understanding that he was reducing his claim by $1,000 so they would accomplish the necessary on-street handicapped parking curb cuts. To me, this amounts to substantially fraudulent misrepresentation and we certainly intend to pursue this matter as far as possible in connection not only with this issue but also the issue of retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Also, we are going to again request that the Department of lustice intervene in this case since this seems to be a situation where the public officials have certainly operated completely beyond the bounds of propriety and fair dealing in settling a case (and receiving a complete release) when they knew, as a matter of fact, that they were not going to comply with the request to provide handicapped on-street parking and were going to allow Mr. Lonberg to reduce his claim by $1,000 without any intention of performing their part of the bargain. I believe that a judge would be extremely dismayed with this manner of proceeding by public officials. Also, as I have indicated, I do intend to take the depositions of all individuals mentioned on the memo from Roger Hardgrave indicating that these parking spots would be deleted prior to the time upon which the various individuals entered into a settlement with Mr. Lonberg. .. ,* 0:-'" Ms. Arlene Prater April IS, 1999 Page two of two You have mentioned that rather than enter into any type of mediation you anticipate filing a motion for summary judgment in this case. Frankly, I do not understand how any court could grant a motion for summary judgment giving the specific information we have furnished in discovery involving specific intersections and lack of curb cuts, or proper curb cuts, within the City of San Bernardino. This would be in addition to parking problems with on-street parking, the retaliation against Mr. Lonberg, and parking in the structures owned by the City, including the stadium. All of these matters will require an extensive amount of discovery on both our parts. I am attempting to avoid taking these additional depositions (which may be extremely embarrassing to public officials) and to enter into a settlement agreement through mediation so that the various corrections within the City of San Bernardino can be made and the legal expenses can be terminated. I make this suggestion on the basis that your attorney fees will continue and, if! am successful, and I believe I will be, my attorney's fees from now on will mount up. Yau now have the ability to enter into a mediation session in order to see if we can resolve our differences. I do request that a copy of this letter be furnished to the City Attorney's office and I have no reason to doubt that this will be accomplished by your firm. However, I also request that the City Attorney's office advise the City Council of the City of San Bernardino as to our willingness to settle this litigation and to enter into meaningful mediation in order to work out a final solution to the problem. We should mention that the City of San Bernardino would be well advised to follow the lead of the cities of Honolulu, San Francisco, and I anticipate, Sacramento, in connection with resolving the various difficulties under the ADA without prolonged litigation which is very expensive for the municipality involved. By entering into mediation at the present time your client would put an end to extensive litigation expenses which, as I have indicated, will be duplicative in view of the necessity for paying your fees as well as my fees and expenses. Please contact your client and advise me as to their willingness to enter into some type of settlement negotiations. Alternatively, we can agree upon the continued depositions I will have to take (which now appear to be in excess often) in view of the very critical memorandum from Roger Hardgrave prior to the settlement with Mr. Lonberg. Sincerely, WELLCOME CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA LAW OFFICES By: -<:.. PW/lIt cc: John Lonberg ~ert Neves Ruthee Goldkorn Reviewed and signed by facsimile