HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2002 1106 CC REG ITEM 10CM
ITEM 10 • C .
x�
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL A( "" _ A&
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council BY:.
FROM: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, ATCM /City Clerk I
DATE: October 30, 2002 (CC Meeting 11/6/02)
SUBJECT: Consider Amicus Support in Barden v. City of Sacramento
BACKGROUND
The City Attorney has recommended that the City join the amicus
curiae petition for the above - referenced litigation. This is a
federal lawsuit brought against the City of Sacramento claiming that
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a city's sidewalks must be
made "accessible" by the removal and replacement of displaced or
broken concrete; by the removal of telephone and utility poles and
other "obstructions" in the sidewalk; and by the removal and
replacement of sidewalks with an "excessive" cross slope.
DISCUSSION
The background of the case and the primary issues in this lawsuit are
described in the attached letter. To summarize, the United States
District Court in Sacramento agreed with the City of Sacramento in
holding that the ADA does not require the immediate replacement of
sidewalks constructed long before the advent of the ADA, and that a
city's existing sidewalks need not be made "accessible." On June 12,
2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court
and held that a city's sidewalks must be made accessible. The City
of Sacramento is in the process of preparing a petition asking the
United States Supreme Court to review the matter and reverse the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The City is requesting amicus
participation in both submitting the petition asking the Supreme
Court to take the case and on the merits of the case if it is
accepted by the Court. The attached letter states that amicus
participation by other entities and organizations would be at no
cost.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Direct the City Attorney to sign the representation form authorizing
the City of Moorpark to be added to the amicus curiae petition.
Attachment: Letter from City of Sacramento dated 10/14/2002
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
October 14, 2002
Ken Gilbert
Director Of Public Works
Moorpark
Moorpark CA 93021
Dear Mr. Gilbert:
CITY" OF SACRAMENTO
CALIFORNIA
' T
660J STREET
SUITE 250
SACRAMENTO, CA
95814 -2413
PH 916 -808 -7100
FAX 916 - 264 -5573
www.dt}ofs mmento.org
I am writing to you concerning a federal lawsuit brought against the City of Sacramento which has serious implications for all
cities and counties (as well as telecommunications and utility companies) in California and throughout the United States. A law
firm representing disabled individuals brought a lawsuit against the City of Sacramento claiming that under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), a city's sidewalks must be made "accessible" by the removal and replacement of displaced or broken
concrete; by the removal of telephone and utility poles and other "obstructions" in the sidewalk; and by the removal and
replacement of sidewalks with an "excessive" cross slope. The ADA does not require the immediate replacement of sidewalks
constructed long before the advent of the ADA; rather, the ADA mandates an incremental process of providing "accessibility" by
requiring that those structures built or significantly altered after the effective date of the ADA need be constructed or altered to
make them accessible to the disabled.
The United States District Court in Sacramento agreed with the City of Sacramento in holding that a city's existing sidewalks
need not be made "accessible." On June 12, 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court and held that a
city's sidewalks must be made accessible. The financial implications for cities, counties, telecommunication and utility
companies if this decision is permitted to stand are enormous. This decision is the only decision on this issue in the United States
and must be followed by all public entities in the Western United States and will probably be followed by lower federal courts in
the remainder of the United States.
The City of Sacramento is in the process of preparing a Petition asking the United States Supreme Court to review the matter and
reverse the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The City is requesting amicus participation in both submitting the Petition asking the
Supreme Court to take the case and on the merits of the case if it is accepted by the Court. Amicus counsel has already been
retained and amicus participation by other entities and organizations would be at no cost.
Enclosed is a form response authorizing your participation in the Amicus Petition and briefs on the merits. The deadline for
submission of the City's Petition is December 4, 2002. In order to allow sufficient time for inclusion on the Amicus Petition we
need a response by November IS, 2002. I appreciate your time in considering this matter and hope that Moorpark joins the
National League of Cities and members of the League of California Cities in asking the Supreme Court to review this matter and
overturn the Ninth Circuit.
If you have any questions or concerns, you or your legal counsel may contact Gerald C. Hicks at the Sacramento City Attorney's
Office at (916) 264 -5346.
Sincerely,
Mike Kash'w gi
Director of a lic Works
Enclosure