Photo taken the day of the accident, March 2, 2015.
  • Photo taken the day of the accident, March 2, 2015.
  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

Point Loma residents had warned the city for over six years about the crosswalk located on Cañon Street being a potential death trap.

The crosswalk on Cañon in Pt. Loma is on a blind right turn (note man in red shirt).

Tree limbs and overgrown bushes obstructed views for drivers and pedestrians. The transition ramp from Catalina Boulevard and the steep grade encouraged high vehicle speeds.

On March 2, 2015, residents’ fears came true.

The crossswalk was further obscured by overgrown vegetation on the day of the accident.

On that day, during the morning commute at 6:25 a.m., David Hoban drove his black Chevy Suburban to work when he struck 56-year-old John Aavang as he and his seven-month-old daughter Juniper Aavang were crossing the street. Juniper’s mother, Ginerva Aavang stood a few feet behind and watched as the Suburban’s left fender collided into Juniper’s stroller, dragging it for 68 feet. Hoban, whom police said was not speeding at the time, rushed to help Juniper. He found she had abrasions on the back of her head. Her arm was broken and she struggled to breathe. She died later that morning.

John Aavang lay 68 feet away in the gutter. Blood trickled from his left ear. He had suffered a traumatic brain injury from the collision.

Nearly two years after the accident, attorneys for the Aavang family accuse the city and its attorneys of concealing evidence, committing perjury, and trying to block city officials from testifying under oath, including myor Kevin Faulconer, who then served as Point Loma’s council representative and still lives and cycles the area.

On February 23, attorneys for the Aavang family requested that a judge impose terminating sanctions, essentially stripping the city’s opportunity for a defense.

According to court documents obtained by the Reader, Aavang’s attorneys say opposing counsel has spent the better part of a year refusing to turn over evidence. And when emails are given, they have been heavily redacted and are illegible.

But, as evident in a March 17, 2015, public records request filed by the Reader, the city spent a much longer time trying to prevent evidence related to the crosswalk from surfacing.

Two weeks after the accident the Reader submitted a request to view any complaints from residents to Faulconer as well as internal documents between Faulconer’s office and San Diego’s traffic and engineering department. The city produced one complaint submitted by Point Loma resident Jon O’Connor in July 2010. O’Connor said the crosswalk was a “complete blind spot for families with kids trying to cross.”

Eight months later, O’Connor followed up: “The ladder crosswalk and signs are greatly appreciated,” he wrote. “However, we were almost run over again on Monday [morning] with over 20 cars driving by before someone stopped at the crosswalk. Something else has to be done at this intersection and it cannot wait another 120 days before somebody gets injured.“

But according to court documents filed by Aavang’s attorneys, O’Connor was not the only person to warn the city and Faulconer. As later revealed, two city employees who lived near the intersection also submitted complaints.

If not for one employee’s decision to speak to police on the day of Juniper Aavang’s death, those emails may have never seen the light of day. On March 2, 2015, hours after the accident, as police officers investigated, Richard Snapper, a 35-year former city employee who worked as the city’s personnel director and served as the assistant city manager, arrived at the scene and requested to speak to an officer. He wanted it in the official record that he had complained about the intersection nearly six years prior.

In a deposition given in the case, Snapper said he had attempted to use what he characterized as a crosswalk “fraught with peril” in 2009 during an afternoon walk.

“I mean, I’m an outdoor guy,” he added. “I would not even walk across it that second time I visited there. I chose to go to the middle of the block…rather than going to the crosswalk.”

Shortly after his walk, Snapper emailed then–director of engineering for the city, Patti Boekamp. However, Snapper — aware of what has come to be known as the city’s unwritten policy to avoid liability by refraining from mentioning safety issues in city emails — did not include the location but asked Boekamp to call him.

“I worked for the city,” Snapper later testified. “And I wasn’t going to put in, ‘I think this is dangerous’ and then identify a location. It just seemed to be prudent not to advertise a problem….”

Boekamp later instructed a city engineer to go investigate. The engineer later found that the crosswalk was not a safety risk.

But Snapper was not the only city employee to complain about poor visibility at the crosswalk. Former deputy city attorney Paige Hazard contacted Faulconer’s council office on February 2, 2013, requesting that someone “evaluate visibility” of the crosswalk. A field investigator inspected the crosswalk and determined that visibility was not an issue.

Police officers investigating the accident did not agree. In the March 2015 incident report, investigators found several obstructions for drivers and pedestrians that concealed views of oncoming traffic.

“It is my opinion that due to the obstructions caused by the palm trees, foliage, and traffic signal control box, it is not reasonable to assume that either party would have been able to see the other soon enough [to] prevent the collision from occurring,” wrote one of the investigators.

In the motion for terminating sanctions, attorneys for the Aavangs point to Snapper’s and Hazard’s testimony as evidence that the city committed perjury, hid documents, and violated the public records request.

“[We] have just recently confirmed the lengths to which [the city] has gone to hide critical percipient witness information and documents in this case. [The city] can provide no legitimate excuse for concealing Mr. Snapper’s and Ms. Hazard’s records and information. At all relevant times, [it] was aware of these witnesses, and was aware of the records and reports relating to these prior complaints; [the city] did not like the implications of producing this information so [it] tried to hide it. [The city’s] concealment is shocking, and directly contravenes the Discovery Act, the Brown Act, and the [California Public Records Act].”

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

Comments

Hereismycommnet March 1, 2017 @ 9:44 a.m.

It's saddens me that people are hurt or killed when preventative action was not implemented. The city and its leaders need to make public safety its first priority.

Trees blocking views in roads or crosswalks are dangerous....overgrowth of trees on Pescadero and Guizot in 92107 was reported on 11/30/16 on get it done and still no action by the city. One has to get half way into the street to see oncoming traffic down. Another hazardous condition that is ignored. Just one of many. SHAMEFUL!

1

dwbat March 1, 2017 @ 10:45 a.m.

Not surprising, since the city still can't keep up with the potholes and hazardous sidewalks. It was too busy playing suck up to the Chargers for years.

1

JustWondering March 1, 2017 @ 10:44 a.m.

I too have written about this specific intersection albeit after this fatal collision. The City's solution does little, if anything, to actually prevent future collisions and fatalities. However, it probably will absolve them of future liability. By installing a completely signal light controlled intersection and crosswalk the city has shifted liability from itself to the drivers and pedestrians who traverse it. They, the users, must use it corrrectly, or face the consequences and liability. However, the problem is really shared between intersection design itself and the behavior of humans, trained to expect a certain condition.
The design, a fork in the road, alllows cars traveling N/B Catalina transition to N/B Cañon at speeds in excess of 35 MPH or 51.3 feet every second, through a curve in the road. The new signal light controlling the transition lane remains green 99.9% of the time, conditioning drivers to expect a green light. Furthermore the overhead portion of the light has a daytime camouflage of a eucalyptus tree background. Thus drivers trained to expect a green react accordingly. A pedestrian, who has a false sense of security, from a painted latter crosswalk and now a safe to cross signal, could easily be risking life and limb. I've personally witnessed several cars sail right through this light when its red. Just like it's not even there.

A safer inprovement would have been to reconfigure the intersection just as the City did years ago at a nearly identical one nearly, Catalina and Chatsworth. The only real difference between the two: proximity to an elementary school. But Catalina and Cañon are adjacent to our neiborhood's only retail stores.

A reconfiguration would slow down cars on that section of Cañon, where speed is, and has been an issue.

The collision which occurred two years ago, on March 2, 2015, was tragic and preventable. Money will not bright back the lives lost. However, money and the will to change a poor design can a future incident. If the City Council's first responsibility is to the safety of its citizens and visitors they will revisit this issue.

Our former council rep and current Mayor, must truthfully answer all questions regarding his knowledge and actions.

This incident and the loss of life is tragic, but now we learn of the cover-up and or tactics to exclude damning evidence, statements or lack of appropriate action. When will our elected leaders and their bureaucratic subordinates learn that covering up makes the situation worse, in this case MUCH WORSE.

1

bcoldpro March 1, 2017 @ 6:41 p.m.

In my neighborhood of Scripps Ranch the Traffic Division spends most of it's time attempting to increase residential speed limits from 25mph to 35mph. They are like a bad boil popping up on one residential street than another and are successful in increasing the speed limit unless the residents immediately impacted get wind of the effort in time to react. Scripps Ranch has many windy streets and hilly terrain which result in some "unnatural " measuring of average speeds. Where residential speed limits have been increased those serve to increase the average speeds as those vehicles then merge to areas of posted 25mph limits. This is not brain surgery to understand ONLY it seems by the Traffic Division. I have been a resident of Scripps Ranch for 30 years and it has been a constant battle. Only our past Council person now a State Legislator listened and responded to the Scripps Ranch neighborhood, our current City Council Person? Haven't any idea who that is but I invite he/she to be aware of this issue. I wonder how much important tax money could be saved by getting rid of useless self serving traffic studies to justify the expense of changing speed limit signs in areas like Scripps Ranch. Maybe the plan is to increase driver confusion thereby increasing speeding tickets? The last attempt by the Traffic Division was to increase the residential speed limit to 35mph in front on Jerabek Elementary School and Jerabek Park where children are present daily on a street where there is no stop sign to cross for over a mile from the Elementary School or Park. Again, not rocket science.

1

Cassander March 1, 2017 @ 10:59 a.m.

This case is a microcosm of all that is corrupt and disgusting about San Diego government. Elected leaders refuse to exert even a minimal amount of effort to protect or serve citizens; and career bureaucrats make violating The Brown Act a matter of policy to avoid the very accountability that law is intended to ensure.

San Diegans need to wake up: if those in power feel safe from personal consequence in committing all the violations of law and morality detailed in this article over literal dead bodies, it's not possible to believe them acting fairly or justly about anything.

3

martygraham619 March 1, 2017 @ 10:08 p.m.

Great work, Dorian. Sometimes failed Public Records Act requests tell you more than the ones where you get the documents.

1

aardvark March 1, 2017 @ 10:58 p.m.

I've posted this before. Some years ago in Allied Gardens, a student was killed while crossing Waring Rd--one of the main roads through Allied Gardens, which is also a short block from Lewis Middle School. The intersection had been dangerous for years before that, but it took a student getting killed before the city remedied the problem by putting a traffic light at the intersection. As usual, the city was reactive rather than proactive.

1

AlexClarke March 2, 2017 @ 6:51 a.m.

While the City Attorney is elected by the people he/she serves the interest of the city not the citizens.

1

JustWondering March 2, 2017 @ 9:22 a.m.

Not so fast.

As a taxpayer I don't want the City just handing out money to everyone who files a claim because not all claims are legitimate. Fiscal responsibity is part and parcel of protecting citizen too. The City, just like many large corporations, has a risk management department. They are the first line of a bureaucratic defense against phony claims. If the claim is denied by Risk Management, the claimant then decides to file suit or not.

Further investigation could and sometimes does reveal liability. It's then the City and its taxpayers should do the right thing and offer appropriate compensation.

Covering up facts, for whatever reason, is wrong. This is especially important to discover when City leader, political ones included, are involved. The allegation in this case is Faulconer, as Coucil District 2's rep did nothing regarding a safety issue. If true, he should not hold an office of public trust.

The City Attorney has a duel role in cases like this one. Correct ethical and moral behavior is the gold standard. It may be naïve to believe, but let's pray our leaders exercise it properly.

0

AlexClarke March 3, 2017 @ 10:57 a.m.

Agreed but more often than not it is the citizens that get hosed.

0

Ponzi March 2, 2017 @ 9:57 a.m.

Faulconer will be remembered as the worst mayor San Diego has ever had. The others DID things good and bad, Faulconer does nothing.

1

dwbat March 3, 2017 @ 9:57 a.m.

Not surprising, as his background is public relations (not management). In other words, put lipstick on a pig.

1

nostalgic March 3, 2017 @ 9:32 a.m.

Risk management only approves small-value items. The ethical responsibility for serious issues, like the death of a child, is automatically disapproved and if the applicant files a law suit, it is handled by the City Attorney's office.

1

Fbastani March 5, 2017 @ 1:02 p.m.

Dorian…. My name is Farhad J. Bastani and I am former employee of the City. My name is also in the Article. Actually, I had not been aware of the occurrence of the accident in Point Loma and what happened for Avang family, until February 2017. I have recently read your articles about the accident in Point Loma. I have “NO DOUBT” that the City is “THE MAIN RESPONSIBLE PARTY” for causing harm and injury in Point Loma Case. What happened in Point Loma is “EXACTLY” what I had “ANTICIPATED” couple years prior to the accident in Point Loma. See the uploaded Email dated 05/30/2013 in this comment. In 2013 and following high count of unlawful conducts of the City against me in the work place, I decided to hold a meeting with “TONY HEINRICHS”, Director of The City of San Diego Engineering and Public Works Department. At that time, I was under retaliations in the work place. I was the City employee who had repeatedly opposed the conduct of the City against “Public Safety” with straight forward language. In 2011, a 56 years pedestrian lady had lost her life in an Accident in the area of one the assigned projects to me in “Camino Del Sur”. The 2011 accident was preventable. ONCE AGAIN, in 2013, I received an item in a Reprimand for sending an email to one of the residents of San Diego and notifying him by EMAIL of an “Unsafe Situation”. On 02/25/2013, my supervising team even had attempted to “CONCEAL” and “FALSIFY THE FACTS” about the accident in 2011, even by abusing my “ANNUAL PERFOMANCE EVALUATION” which had elevated CHAOS and TENSION between me and supervising team, both verbally and in written. In the meeting on 05/30/2013, Daniel Mottola, Manager of the Human Resources of Public Works Department was presented. During the meeting, I notified “TONY HEINRICHS” about conducts against me in the work place. Then, I clearly stated to “TONY HEINRICHS” that: “THE EXISTING POLICY IN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT THAT DAVID ZOUMARAS (DEPUTY DIRECTOR) HAS CLARIFIED [ie. On 05/15/2013] IS AGAINST PUBLIC SAFETY AND PUBLIC RCORDS.THE CITY IS NEGLIGENT AGAINST PUBLIC SAFETY. THE CITY SHOULD NOT CONCEAL AND FALSIFY THE RECORDS. IF SUCH NEGLIGENCES AND CONDUCTS NOT BEING CORRECTD, MORE PEOPE WILL BE INJURED AND EVEN MAY LOSE THEIR LIFE IN FUTURE…” Then suddenly, Tony Heinrichs got upset and in an INSULTING MANNER left the meeting room and did not let me to finish my opposition. TONY HEINRICHS even did not like to LISTEN to the problem. Tony Heinrichs came back to the meeting room after Ten (10) minutes and the meeting continued for another 5 minutes. Even important matters such as “Public Safety” and conducts against “Public Records” was not important for Managers such as “TONY HEINRICHS”.

None

0

Fbastani March 7, 2017 @ 5:15 a.m.

Dorian... This is the Picture of Tony Heinrich former Director of The City Engineering and Public Works Department. He is now retired and I wish him read this article to see and know what was the consequences of their conducts and negligence against Public.

None

0

Fbastani March 5, 2017 @ 1:56 p.m.

Dorian… I am going to post more comments in this Article. Please do not remove any of my comments. A seven months old baby girl has lost her life who even could not talk at the time of the accident in Point Loma. This matter should not be disregarded. Furthermore, The Conducts of the City, Mayer and Office of The City Attorney in Point Loma Case is “Frustrating” and “Distressing” for anyone who is familiar with “Internal Issues/Problems” in the City. After reading your articles about the Accident in Point Loma, it came to clarity for me that the City employees had even conducted against their “PERFOMANCE PLANS” in Point Loma Accident. ALL “CLASSIFIED” Public Employees should sign “PERFORMANCE PLANS”. “Performance Plan” for each “Job Title Classification” is Standard and Public Employees should sign it. A copy of the signed “Performance Plan” should be placed in “Classified Public Employee” personnel file. In “Performance Plan” of Classified Public Employee, based on their duties, there are statements in regards to “DUTY OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE” for “PUBLIC SAFETY” and “BEING ALERT, TACTFUL AND RESPONSIVE”, “DOCUMENTATION”, “COMMUNICATIONS”, “ACCURACY”, “DEAD LINES”, etc. In regards to “SAFETY”, even the word “MAY” has been used in statements such as “BEING ALERT TO CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO WORKERS AND THE PUBLIC, RPORTING TO THESE CONDITIONS TO THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION”. Without any doubt, in Point Loma Case, many of the statements in “Performance Plan” of “Public Employees” have been VIOLATED and the City even SHOULD NOT ARGUE about this matter in AVANG CASE. As a former employee of the City, this is OBVIOUS to me. Most of the managers and decision makers in the City are “AT-WILL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES” that usually do not have “TYPICAL PERFORMANCE PLANS” but they have more responsibility for “PUBIC SAFETY”. They are even responsible to make sure that employees follow their Performance Plans. Please see the pictures in this post to find my signed Performance Plan, in Job Category of Assistant Civil Engineer, at the time of the start of my employment in the City in 2008. All other Classified Public Employees have similar statements in their “Performance Plans” of their Job Title.

None

None

None

None

None

None

0

Fbastani March 8, 2017 @ 4:01 a.m.

Dorian... as another example, there is an "Standard Statement" in Public Employee Performance Plan section "CITY STANDARDS , REGULATIONS AND POLICIES" that :

"Observes Safety Reporting Procedures and take Corrective Measures to Prevent Recurrence of Safety Hazard".

Apparently in Point Loma Case, there were various reporting of "Unsafe Crosswalk" in Point Loma that the City had to follow the complaints/reports.

Unfortunately, even some MANAGERS in the City had been "Negligent" and even conducted "AGAINST" the Pubic Employees Performance Plans.

0

Fbastani March 6, 2017 @ 12:17 a.m.

Dorian… I read the allegation of Attorney of Aavang Family against “THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY” in your Article for conduct of “PERJURY”, “CAUSING WILLFUL DELAY” and “CONCEALMENT OF EVIDENCES”. It was not surprising to me. “PERJURY” is part of a “COMMON UNLAWFUL TACTIC” of The Office of The City Attorney in particular during DISCOVERIES. Their TACTIC is to first “COMMIT PERJURY” during discoveries to cause “CALCULATED DELAYS” in litigation and finally served the incomplete documents. I first encountered this unlawful conduct during litigation of Case#37-2014-00018267 against the City which repeated later until present in Case#37-2016-00024296. Office of the City Attorney is “HORRIBLY CORRUPTED”. Since 2014 until present, I have been involved in THREE (3) CASES as “OPPONENT COUNSEL” of the City of San Diego. In all of the three (3) Cases, Office of The City Attorney “OUTRAGEOUSLY” conducted against me. Unfortunately, in ALL of the three (3) Cases I was ““PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY” and Judges in San Diego Superior Court did not take me serious. Since 2014 until present, I have filed OVER TWENTY (20) SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT against Unlawful conducts of The Office of The City Attorney. For multiple times I even requested Judges to consider “PROSECUTION FOR PERJURY”, but Judges easily disregarded my requests. For multiple times, I even filed “MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE JUDGES” mainly because of BIAS ANIMUS OF JUDGES which allow The Office of The City Attorney to unlawfully conduct against me with Peace of Mind. This matter even made Judges “RETALIATORY” against me. Until present, Office of The City Attorney has repeatedly committed the following conducts against me which I have reported to the Court: ”PERJURY in Violation of CA Penal Code Sec. 118”, “FELONY in Violation of CA Penal Code Sec. 132 in Falsification/Alteration of documents/Evidences”, “Subornation of Perjury”, “Abuse of Process”, “Crime of Tampering with Evidences”, “Crime of Planting with Evidences”, “ Crime of Obstruction of Justice by Abusing SDPD for conduct of Threat”, “ Threat”, “Intimidation”, “Harassment”, “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress”, “Attempts for exhausting Energy and Resources of Opponent Party”. I have come up with this FACT that if necessary, Office of The City Attorney easily violates even “STATE AND FEDERAL PENAL CODES” in serious cases. The following individuals in the Office of The City Attorney have conducted against me: “DCA KEITH PHILLIPS”, “DCA WILLIAM GERSTEN”, “DCA CHARLES BELL”, “SHARON L. BRASHEAR City Attorney Investigator”. Attorney for AVANG family should be in particular be attentive to conduct of “Calculated Delay”, “Perjury”, “Subornation of Perjury”, “Misdirecting the Judges” and even violation of “CA Penal Code Sec. 132**” by The Office of The City Attorney.

0

Fbastani March 6, 2017 @ 1:35 a.m.

Dorian… after reading your article, it has come to clarity for me that APPARENTLY Office of The City Attorney has constituted PATTERN of causing “Calculated Willful Delays”, “Concealment of Evidences/Material Facts”, “Perjury” and “Attempt of Exhausting Energy and Resources of Opponent Parties” by all means and in various Cases. In October 2014, for the First Time I had a meeting in Office of The City for my First Case against the City. In that meeting on 10/23/2014, Sharon L. Brashear, The City Attorney Investigator stated to me that ((((((((YOU KNOW VERY WELL THAT WE ARE GOVERNMENT!!! OUR RESOURCES ARE UNLIMITED COMPARE TO YOURS (ie. Me). WE CAN EASILY EXHAUST YOUR RESOURCES AND CREATE A NASTY SITUATION FOR YOU TO FOLLOW YOUR COMPLAINT FOR FIVE (5) YEARS)))))))). In Two (2) cases, I reported, IN WRITTEN, this statement of Sharon L. Brashear to two Judges, HONR. JUDITH F. HAYES and HONR. JOEL M. PRESSMAN in San Diego Superior Court, but they did NOTHING against the Unlawful conducts of The Office of The City Attorney. After reading your Article, it has come to clarity for me that apparently Office of The City Attorney is following the same conduct in AVANG Case. In the meeting in October 2014, Sharon L. Brashear and DCA Keith Phillips were attendees.

0

Fbastani March 6, 2017 @ 2:47 a.m.

Dorian… I noticed the following statement in your article: According to court documents obtained by the Reader, Aavang’s attorneys say opposing counsel has spent the better part of a year refusing to turn over evidence. And when emails are given, they have been heavily redacted and are illegible. This conduct of the City and Office of The City Attorney is NOT NEW to me. In my Cases, the City even had unlawfully ALTERED/FALSIFIED some documents with use of WITE OUT and Office of the City attorney even had submitted documents after fraudulently removed/destroyed some important pages of the documents. This conduct of the City was FELONY. Per CA Penal Code Sec. 132 the City was even guilty of Felony. I was a PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY in my cases; as a result Judges did not take me serious and EASILY disregarded my oppositions against the Unlawful Conducts of The Office of The City Attorney, although I had submitted many documents to the court for opposing the conducts. Per CA Penal Code Sec. 132: Every person who upon any trial, proceeding, inquiry, or investigation whatever, authorized or permitted by law, offers in evidence, as genuine or true, any book, paper, document, record, or other instrument in writing, knowing the same to have been forged or fraudulently altered or ante-dated, is guilty of felony Office of The City Attorney has constituted PATTERN of committing these types of unlawful conducts.

0

Fbastani March 6, 2017 @ 1:51 p.m.

FISH ROTS FROM HEAD TO TAIL!

Dorian… I noticed the name of PATTI BOEKMAN in this Article. PATTI BOEKMAN was the Director of The City Engineering and Public Works Department. In 2010, employment of Patti Boekman openly TERMINATED by MAYER JERRY SANDERS. Then TONY HEINRICHS became the Director of Engineering. Soon after, AFSHIN OSKOUI , who was assistant director of Patti Boekman quit The City of San Diego. Then immediately, JAMES NAGELVOORT became the Assistant Director of TONY HEINRICHS. In late 2013, TONY HEINRICHS retired. Then JAMES NAGELVOORT became the Director and head of The City Engineering and Public Works Department. In 2010 and early 2011 there was “Management Crisis” and “Internal Politics” among managers in the City Engineering Department. At the time of “Crosswalk Report” by Residents of Point Loma, Patti Boekman was the Director of The City Engineering and Public Works Department. At the time of the Accident in Point Loma James Nagelvoort was Director of the City Engineering Department. ALL OF THE ABOVE THREE (3) DIRCETORS were INCOMPETENT DIRECTORS. In particular, TONY HEINRICHS and JAMES NAGELVOORT who were against “Public Safety” and “Public Record Act”. Unfortunately, such a corrupted director like JAMES NAGELVOORT is still the current Director of the City Engineering and Public Works Department.

0

Fbastani March 7, 2017 @ 2:13 a.m.

Dorian… at the time of the Accident in Point Loma, JAMES NAGELVOORT was the Director and Responsible person in the City of San Diego Engineering and Public Works Department. In an incident in April 8th. 2013, I CORRECTLY notified one of the Residents of San Diego of an “UNSAFE SITUATION” during one of the City Pavement Projects. I had “SIMPLY” replied to the RESIDENT’S EMAIL and notified him of “UNSAFE/HAZARDOUS SITUATION” which could potentially cause ACCIDENT for that resident. Even another Resident of San Diego, whose name was Kathleen McAllister had filed a “CLAIM” in The City Risk Management for the same Safety Matter, which was a correct claim. Then, I immediately subjected to “Retaliation” by supervisors with this essence that “I HAD NOT TO MADE SAFETY WARNING BY EMAIL” to the Resident and if an accident happened, that resident could SUE the City by that Email dated 04/08/2013. On 05/03/2013, I received a RETALIATORY WRITTEN REPRIMAND by Supervisors and David Zoumaras, Deputy Director. Among various “Fraudulently Fabricated Allegations” against me, SHOCKINGLY I received an ITEM in the Written Reprimand for my “SAFETY WARNING BY EMAIL TO A RESIDENT ON 04/08/2013”. Also my “Annual Performance Evaluation” which had been included with “STATEMENTS AGAINST PUBLIC SAFETY” was attached to the Written Reprimand. In the “Hearing Meeting of the Written Reprimand” on 05/03/2013, I DID NOT SIGN THE REPRIMAND and Employee’s Union Representative made note on the Reprimand as: “DECLINED TO SIGN”. Please see the attached document in this Post. Then in MAY 2013 for multiple times, I opposed the conduct and policy of the City against Public Records Act and Public Safety. I argued with the City managers that Negligence of the City against “Public Safety” would cause INJURY and even DEATH for Public, if not being corrected and conduct of the City against “Public Record Act” could “Obstruct the Evidences and Reality”. The hearing officer of the Written Reprimand dated 05/03/2013 was NAGELVOORT. On 06/18/2013 and during the APPEALING HEARING OF THE WRITTEN REPRIMAND , I ONCE AGAIN notified JAMES NAGELVOORT that NEGLIGENCE of the City against PUBLIC SAFETY and PUBLIC RECORD ACT would cause INJURY and even DEATH for Public, if not being corrected, and the ITEM in my Written Reprimand was against “PUBLIC SAFETY”. On 06/18/2013, NAGELVOORT SHOCKINGLY responded to me that the statements of David Zoumaras were correct and the City Employees should be CAUTIOUS and ALERT about this matter to PREVENT ANY POTENTIAL LAW SUIT against The City EVEN AT THE COST OF INJURY TO PUBLIC. Then he UPHELD THE WRITTEN REPRIMAND against me and even DID NOT REDUCED the duration of Written Reprimand.

None

0

Fbastani March 7, 2017 @ 3:56 a.m.

Dorian… I strongly believe that in Point Loma Case, Attorney for Avang Family should be cautious that the City Employees do not attempt TO DESTROY THE EXISTING EVIDENCES. In several instances during my employment, I even noticed that the City Employees even “DESTROYED THE EXISTING EVIDENCES” OR “PLANTING/FABRICATING EVIDENCES”. JAMES NAGELVOORT is one of the individuals who has HISTORY OF DESTROYING THE EVIDENCES AND HARDCOPY DOCUMENTS in 2013, with concern of filing LAWSUIT against the City for Negligence against Public Safety. I am fully aware his conducts. Unfortunately, James Nagelvoort is THE CURRENT DIRECTOR OF THE CITY ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.

0

Fbastani March 7, 2017 @ 7:19 a.m.

Dorian… In this article, I noticed that the City has blocked the Testimony Under Oath by Mayer Kevin Faulconer in Point Loma Case. Mayer Faulconer even should be FIRST SUSPENDED and then being INVESTIGATED and then PROSECUTED. He has participated in conduct of “OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” by abuse of SDPD Force against me for the Published Article in San Diego Reader on 10/27/2016 in the link below: http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/20... Please see the Three (3) Pages letter dated 11/28/2016 attached to this post. I am also in possession of the AUDIO RECORDS of the incidents explained in this post. 1-On 10/27/2016 an Article Published in San Diego Reader. The subject of the Article was conduct of the City against Public Record Acts and Public Safety. Katie Keach , The City Spokeperson, had also made comment in the article. 2- Office of The City Attorney had repeatedly threatened me not to involve Mayer Faulconer in my case against the City and not to disclose any evidences for the Public. 3- In an Ex Parte Hearing on 11/02/2016, I handed San Diego Reader dated 10/27/2016 to both Judge Joel M. Pressman and the City Attorney, DCA Keith Phillips and encouraged the Judge to Read the Article. 4- Then on 11/09/2016, DCA Keith Phillips contacted me and left a “None Sense Voice Message” on my Cellphone about the Article in San Diego Reader dated 10/27/2016. 5- Then, in the morning of 11/10/2016, SDPD unexpectedly contacted me and requested to meet me out of my Residential. 6-Then I shockingly and while being confused, met a SDPD Detector out of my residential. In the unlawful investigation in the street on 11/10/2016, SDPD delivered “INDIRECT MESSAGE OF THREAT AND INTIMIDATION” to me because of publishing an Article in San Diego Reader on 10/27/2016 and disclosing the documents to Public. This conduct was PLOTTED by the Office of The City Attorney. During the investigation, I found out that KATIE KEACH and MAYER FAULCONER were behind the conduct and Immediately notified SDPD that: “This is sabotage…this is sabotage in favor of mayor…Mayor is not above the law… this is because of the sensitivity of Mayor and Office of The City Attorney for the Article in San Diego Reader… Keith Phillips is abusing Police Force against me in favor of Mayor”. (Audio record dated 11/10/2016 is available) 7- After reading your article and learning about Point Loma Case, it has NOW come to clarity for me that without any doubt Mayer Faulconer was behind the Conduct on 11/10/2016 against me while he was involved in Point Loma Case.

0

Usn March 10, 2017 @ 3 a.m.

My late father worked for the city, as an investigator for the city attorney's office. He was an honest, straight shooter. 23 years as a cop, retired as a sgt. He would tell them "this is dangerous" they told him "we'll take the risk, and pay if something happens". I guess they got tired of hearing the truth, and finally fired him, saying he was "incompetent". Ruined the poor guy's life...had to sell his belongings, and file bankruptcy to keep his house... practically drank himself to death, cancer got him first.

Here we are 20+ years later, and the City of San Diego still hasn't learned right from wrong. Pathetic.

2

Sign in to comment

Win a $25 Gift Card to
The Broken Yolk Cafe

Join our newsletter list

Each newsletter subscription means another chance to win!

Close