My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
2002 AGN NOV 19 I09
Colton
>
CITY CLERK
>
City Council Agendas
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2009
>
2002
>
2002 November 19 Agenda Packet
>
2002 AGN NOV 19 I09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/24/2014 8:59:46 PM
Creation date
2/20/2014 1:17:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General Documents
Created By
avillalba
DocType
Agendas
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
CITY OF COLTON <br />AGENDA REPORT <br />FOR COUNCIL MEETING OF November 19, 2002 <br />Honorable Mayor and City Council <br />City Attorney <br />ECT: Ratify Joinder in Amicus Curiae Brief in Barden v. City of <br />Sacramento <br />November 19, 2002 <br />BACKGROUND: <br />Item #9 <br />From time to time, public agencies seek the City's support as an amicus curiae (a "friend <br />of the court"). There is no cost to the City to participate as an amicus curiae. The City <br />of Sacramento is requesting support for their petition to the United States Supreme Court <br />and subsequent amicus brief regarding this case which involves the Ninth Circuit Court of <br />Appeals decision in support of having all public entities make their existing sidewalks <br />immediately "accessible" under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). <br />DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: <br />This case began with a law firm representing disabled individuals who alleged that public <br />entities are obligated under the ADA to make their sidewalks "accessible" by removing and <br />replacing broken concrete, removing telephone and utility poles and other "obstructions" <br />in the sidewalk, and removing/replacing sidewalks with an "excessive" cross slope. The <br />plaintiffs' allegations contrast with the actual requirements under the ADA, which do not <br />obligate a city to replace its existing sidewalks. Instead, the ADA requires that structures <br />built or significantly altered after the ADA went into effect need to be constructed or altered <br />or make them accessible to the disabled. <br />The United States District Court agreed with Sacramento in holding that a city's existing <br />sidewalks need not be made immediately "accessible" under the ADA. The Ninth Circuit <br />Court of Appeals, in a published opinion, reversed the District Court's ruling and held that <br />a city's sidewalks must be made accessible. <br />ANALYSIS: <br />If the Ninth Circuit's decision is allowed to stand, the financial impacts for cities, counties, <br />telecommunication and utility companies will be enormous. Because the Ninth Circuit's <br />decision is the only decision on this issue in the United States, it must be followed by all <br />RVPUB\NGS\642700 _1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.