No Value: William Cox vs Ilgiz Yamilov, et al.

On March 16, 2021 a No Value was filed involving a dispute between William L. Cox, and Caifornia Department Of Parks And Recreation, California Department Of Transportation, County Of Monterey, Ilgiz Yamilov, Putnam Lexus, State Of California, The County Of Monterey, Yelena Yamilov, for Other PI/PD/WD Unlimited (23) in the District Court of Monterey County.

Preview
JAMES F. SPIERING, SBN 60043
SPIERING LAW
30 Ryan Court, Suite 230
Monterey, CA 93940-7854
Tel: 831-920-6000
Fax: 831-225-0047
4
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
5 William L. Cox

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF MONTEREY

10 William L. Cox, Case No.: 21CV000858
(Consolidated with Case No. 22CV000078)
11 Plaintiff
YS.
12 DECLARATION OF DR. SHAKIR R.
State of California, et al. SHATNAWI, Ph.D., P.E. IN SUPPORT OF
13 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY
14 Defendants AND THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION'S MOTION FOR
15 SUMMARY JUDGMENT
16 Hearing Date: 02/02/2024
Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m.
17 Dept. 14
18
Complaint Filed: 03/16/2021
19 FAC
SAC
Filed:
Filed::
05/19/2021
05/23/2022
20
Trial Date: 03/08/2024
21
William L. Cox,
22
Plaintiff
YS.

24 California Department of Parks and
Recreation Complaint Filed: 01/10/2022
25
Defendants
26

Declaration of Dr. Shakir R. Shatnawi, Ph.D., P.E. in Support of Plaintiff s Opposition to Defendant State of California by and
through The Department of Transportation's Motion for Summary Judgment
-1-
1
///
DECLARATION OF SHAKIR SHATNAWI, Ph.D., P.E.

I, Dr. Shakir R. Shatnawi, Ph.D., P.E. declare as follows:

5 l. I make this declaration in support of Plaintiffs William L. Cox Opposition to Defendant State of
6 California Department of Parks and Recreation's and the California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans)

Motion for Summary Judgement. The matters stated below are based on my personal knowledge, background,

experience and training, and if called upon as witness I can and would competently testify thereto.

A. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
2. I am a licensed Civil Engineer (California Professional Engineer's license No.
11
52795), with specific training and education in Transportation Engineering, including highway
12
engineering and traffic engineering, engineering investigations, safety, sight distance, road
13
hazards, pavement, repairs, maintenance, and rehabilitation.
14
3. Since 2010, I have served as President of Shatec Engineering Consultants LLC, which provides
15
public and private consulting services in transportation, highway, and traffic engineering. During my career I
16
have worked with the State of California Department of Transportation ("Caltrans") as discussed below, and I
17
have consulted with local government entities on highway and roadway related safety issues and solutions.
18

4. I obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in civil engineering from California State University,
19

Sacramento in 1982. I obtained a Master of Science degree in civil engineering from San Jose State University

21
in 1985. In 1990, I obtained a Ph.D. in civil engineering &om University of Arkansas at Fayetteville.

22 5. From 1991 through 2010, a period of twenty years, I was employed by Caltrans. I held numerous

23 positions with Caltrans in that period ranging from Transportation Engineer to Division Chief.

24 6. In addition to my real world transportation engineering experience with Caltrans, I also have

25 academic experience. From 1993 through 1999, I served as an Adjunct Professor in the Civil Engineering
26 Department at California State University, Sacramento. I taught semester-long engineering courses to
undergraduate and graduate master's students. My courses included a 3-unit upper division course for Civil
28

Declaration of Dr. Shakir R. Shatnawi, Ph.D., P.E. in Support of PtaintiA's Opposition to Defendant State of California by and
through The Department of Transportation's Motion for Summary Judgment
-2-
Engineering majors called "Transportation Facility Design" (also called "Transportation Facilities: Design &
Operation" ). That course addressed the principles and methods of design of transportation facilities with an

emphasis on safe highway design. The topics addressed included geometric design, traffic control devices, traffic

flow, facility design, and facility layout. The course also covered consideration of an engineer's responsibility
5
for highway safety and the engineer's role in the evolution of design standards.
6
7. For graduate students at California State University, Sacramento, I taught a graduate Civil
7
Engineering course for master's students called "Highway Engineering." It was a 3-unit course on the advanced
8
study of current topics in highway design, operation and maintenance, including highway safety, pavement
9
design and management. The course focused on good and accepted highway design practices.
10
A true and correct copy of my curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Exhibit A
11

B. MATERIALS REVIEWED AND SITE VISIT
12
9. I have Performed a site insP ection of the accident location and reviewed the following in

connection with my work on this case, including the preparation of this declaration:
14
~ The Traffic Collision Report and Supplement;
15
~ The Complaint;
16
~ Photos and videos;
17
~ Collision records;
18
~ Cox response to RFP on 8/24/2023;
19
~ Document production with Bates Stamp Nos. DOT00001-000853;
20
~ Depositions of Yelena Yamilov, llgiz Yamilov, William Cox, Brent Marshall and Sean James;
~ MSJ Documents:
MSJ Points & Authorities,
23
MSJ Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts,
24
MSJ Statement of Evidence — Plaintiffs response to RFP Set I, AG 000001-
25
000809), and
26
MSJ Declarations and Exhibits I through 16;
27

28
~ Caltrans Highway Design Manual

Declaration of Dr. Shakir Jt. Shatnawi, Ph.D., P.E. in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant State of California by and
through The Department of Transportation's Motion I'o r Summary Judgment
-3-
l ~ California Local County Roads Roadside Safety Pocket Guide, 2016i
2 ~ AASHTO Roadside Design Guide, 2011i
3 ~ California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD)'nd
4 ~ Google Maps'

10. I personally visited and viewed the site of the subject collision on May 29, 2021. I
6
drove both the southbound and northbound directions of SR 1 and inspected the subject accident
7
location and the surrounding area. [Exhibit B — Site Inspection.]
8
11. The subject accident occurred on January 9, 2021 as Ilgiz Yamilov (Pl) entered the
9
southbound lane and was planning to go into the southbound direction from the western side of
l0
the highway when his 2020 Lexus RX 450 H was struck by a southbound 2020 BMW GS R1250
ll
black motorcycle driven by William Cox. The accident occurred during daytime around 1440 hours
t2

l3
when the western roadside was full of parked vehicles.
12. The posted speed limit on SR-1 around the accident location was 55 mph. The
highway runs in the south. north direction around the accident location and consists of two 12-foot
lanes'ne lane in each direction. There are 5-foot paved shoulders and dirt shoulders of the
roadway with various widths in both sides. The dirt shoulder is within Caltrans right of way and
ttt within the clear recovery zone of the highway.
19 13. The presence of roadside vehicle parking along State Route (SR) 1 around postmile
30 PM70.832 (0.3 miles north of Riley Ranch Road) created a dangerous condition of public property.
The GPS coordinates for the accident location are 36.520187, 121.931152 per the Traffic Collision
Report (TCR). (Exhibit C, Location and Accident Diagram).
23
14. The condition of the roadway was dangerous to motorists because the available sight
24
distance was substantially less than the required sight distance and there were no adequate safety
25
countermeasures provided to ensure the safety of motorists, as discussed in this declaration.
26
Vehicle parking on the western side of the highway substantially lowered the required sight
27
distance and had a significant contribution to the cause of the subject accident.
28

Declaration of Dr. Shakir R. Shatnawi, Ph.D., P.E. in Support of Plaintif's Opposition to Defendant State of California by and
through The Department of Transportation's Motion for Summary Judgment
I 15. The presence of parked vehicles next to the highway reduces sight distance and was
a substantial contributor to the cause of the collision. This reduction is especially dangerous during
daytime hours when the amount of tourist parking increases significantly.
16. Additionally, vehicle parking in close proximity to the traveled way and within the
5
clear recovery zone inherently creates a dangerous condition.
6
17. Parked vehicles along the roadside are recognized as safety hazards as they block
7
drivers'iew and shorten the required sight distance in addition to acting as fixed objects.
8
18. Frequent ingress and digress of vehicles into/from the roadside increase the
9
likelihood of accidents.
10
19. The State of California had an obligation and the ability to provide safe travel to the
ll
motorist public using various means. For example, Caltrans has several options when the right of
12

14
following'3
way and the clear recovery zone is frequently used for parking including the
a) Prohibiting parking alongside the highway.

15
b) Working with the County of Monterey to find an alternative parking location.

16
c) Purchasing property through the condemnation process to provide for parking.
17 d) Filing a lawsuit to acquire property rights. Caltrans can notify the California
18 Transportation Commission (CTC) of its intention to seek a Resolution of Necessity
19 (RON) which will authorize it to file a lawsuit based on public interest and based on
20 the need to provide the greatest public good with the least private injury, among other
21 things. [Exhibit D, Caltrans website link: httns://dot.ca.eov/nroarams/right of.
22 wav/acauisition-condemnation].
23
e) Establishing warning signs.
20. All industry and national standards indicated that providing a clear recovery zone along highways
25
is essential. The clear recovery zone concept is defined as "the unobstructed, traversable area provided beyond
26
the edge of the through traveled way for the recovery oferrant vehicles. The clear zone includes shoulders„bike
27
lanes, and auxiliary lanes, except those auxiliary lanes that function like through lanes. It can be used as a
28

Declaration of Dr. Shakir R. Shatnawk Ph.D., P.E. in Support of Plaintifps Opposition to Defendant State of California hy and
through The Department of Transportation's Motion for Summary Judgment
-5-
designate area bordering the roadway, starting at the edge of the traveled way, which is available for safe use

by errant vehicles. Safe use generally means the slope is flat enough andfree offixed object hazards so a motorist

leaving the road is able to stop and return to the roadway safely. " (Exhibit E, Roadside Safety Pocket Guide, p.
4
5)
21. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) define the clear recovery zone for recoverable foreslopes as an
7
unobstructed, relatively flat (4: I or flatter) or gently sloping area beyond the edge of traveled way that affords
8
the driver of errant vehicles the opportunity to regain control. (Exhibit F, AASHTO Roadside Design Guide, pp.
9
3-6).
10
22. The width of the clear recovery zone is a function of vehicle speed. Table I below shows an
11

extracted table from the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide, 4m Edition 2011. (Exhibit F, AASHTO Roadside
12

Design Guide, p. 3-3.)
13

23. The clear recovery zone requirements adopted and implemented in the State of California are
14

presented in Table I of Exhibit E, Roadside Safety Pocket Guide. The Design Speed in the table is based on the
highway horizontal and vertical alignment features. Since the highway section in the area of the crash location
is tangent, we can safely assume that the Design Speed at that location is the posted speed, which is 55 mph.

18 24. The design ADT can be assumed to be the existing ADT because it reflects the actual ADT. In

19 fact, the existing traffic volumes for that stretch of highway far exceeded the minimum Table ADT value of
2o 6,000 for many years prior to the accident date. For example, the AADTs for the years 2016, 2017, 2020
21 and 2021 were 14,800, 13,400, 6,800 and 9,400, respectively. As the 85th percentile speed increases, the
CRZ has to increase for safety reasons. Based on the Table, the CRZ was 22 to 24 feet at the time of the subject

collision since the actual ADT was higher than the Table ADT value of 6,000. (Exhibit E, Roadside Safety

Pocket Guide, p. 6.)
25

Declaration of Dr. Shakir R. Shatnawi, Ph.D., P.E. in Support of PlaintifFs Opposition to Defendant State of California by and
through The Department of Transportation's Motion for Summary Judgment
-6-
DeslBn Soreslopes Baskslopes
DeslBn
Speed tvr6H 1VrSH to lvrSH to lvr6H or
RDT 1VOH 1VOH
1 mph) or Batter 1V:4H 1V:4H Ratter
540 UNDER 7-10 7-10 7-10 7-10 7-10
750'50-1500

10-12 12-14 10-12 10-12 10-12
15DO-6000 12-14 14-16 12-14 12-14 12-14
OVER 6000 14-16 16-18 14-16 14-16 14-16
45-50 UNDER 10-12 12-14 8-10 8-10 10-12
750'50-1500

14-16 16-20 10.12 12-14 14-16
1500-6000 16-18 20-26 12-14 14-16 16-18
OVER 6000 20-22 24-28 14-16 18-20 20-22
55 UNDER 12-14 14-18 10-12 10-12
750'50-1500

16-18 20-24 10-12 14-16 16-18
1500-6000 20-22 24-30 14-16 16-18 20-22
OVER 6000 22-24 16-18 20-22 22-24
26-32'6-18

UNDER 20-24 10.12 12-14 14-16
750'50-1500

20-24 12-14 16-18 20-22
26-32'6-3032-40'0-32'6-44'-10
10 1500-6000 14-18 18-22 24-26
OVER 6000 20.22 24-26 26-28
65-7D'NDER 18-20 14-16 14-16
20-22
750'50-1500

24-26 12-16 18-20
28-36'4-42'8-46'0.12
28-32'0-34'0-26
12 1500-6000 16-20 22-24 26-28
OVER 6000 22-24 26-30 28-30

Table 1. Clear Recovery Zone Requirements (Exhibit E, p. 6.)
14

16
25. I conducted a site inspection of the accident location on May 29, 2021 between about

1230 hours and 1500 hours. [Exhibit B, Figures 1 through 10.] The site inspection revealed serious
sight distance problems at the accident location due to the permitted roadside parking. On the
trJ western roadside of the highway, tourist parking was excessive.
20 26. During my site inspection, I noticed a tremendous amount of vehicles that were
parked. Many vehicles were entering and exiting the parking area with numerous vehicles making
U.turns and left. turns. There were no warning signs that would warn drivers about the potential
of slow moving vehicles and of vehicles entering the highway into live traffic. The traffic was heavy
24
and there were vehicles blocking sight distance due to their parking locations and trying to enter
25
or exist the parking area.
26
27. As I was standing on the western side of the highway, I noticed that parked vehicles
27
created a substantial reduction in the required sight distance.
28

Declaration of Dr. Shakir R. Shatnawk Ph.D., P.E, in Support of Plaintiff s Opposition to Defendant State of California by and
through The Department of Transportation'5 Motion for Summary Judgment
-7-
1 28. Additionally, I found that the vehicle parking was within the clear recovery zone. The
roadside dirt area west of the paved shoulder where vehicles parked ranged in width between 12
to 25 feet or even narrower at some locations. These measurements indicate that the parked
vehicles were within the clear recover zone, and many of which created an obstruction from the
driver perspective.
6
29. Industry standards require providing an adequate corner sight distance for vehicles
7
and pedestrians so that safe maneuvers can be made safely. For example, Caltrans HDM, Section
8
405.1 Sight Distance, Page 400-26 dated July 1, 2020 states that 'At unsi gnalizedintersections a
9
substantially clear line ofsight should be maintained between the driver ofa vehicle. bicvcli st or
10
nedestrian stonoed on the minor road and the driver ofan anoroachine vehicle on the maior road
ll
that has no ston. Line ofsight for all users should be includedin right of we v in order to oreserve
12
sight lines. "(Underline added). [Exhibit G - HDM, Section 405.1.l
13

30. The blockage caused by parked vehicles triggers a corner sight distance condition.
14

31. The required corner sight distance was determined to be 650 feet according to
Caltrans Highway Design Manual and to the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways
and Streets. AASHTO is the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Oficials
18 which is considered the authority on transportation engineering issues and all states have
19 representatives in this organization including Caltrans.
20 32. Additionally, the frequent ingress digress of vehicles adjacent to the highway triggers
a decision sight distance condition. Caltrans HDM: The required decision sight distance for a 55
mph is 865 feet.
23
33. The Caltrans HDM states that "At certain locations, sight distance greater than
stopping sight distanceis desirable to allow drivers time for decisions without making last minute
25
erratic maneuvers (see Chapter III ofAASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Desi gn ofHighways and
26
Streets, for a thorough discussion of the derivation of decision si ght distance.) On freeways and
27
expressways the decision sight distance valuesin Table 20I. 7should be used at lane drops and at
28

Declaration of Dr. Shakir R. Shatnawi, Ph.D., P.E. in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant State of California by and
through The Department of Transportation's Motion for Summary Judgment
-8-
offramp noses tointerchanges, branch connections, safetv roadside rest areas. vista noints. and
insnection stations. When determining decision sight distance on horizontal and vertical curves,
Eig ures 2014, 2015 and 2016 can be used. Eigure 201 7is an expanded version of Figure 2014
and gives the relationship among length of crest vertical curve, design speed, and algebraic
5
difference in grades for much longer vertical curves than Figure 201.4. Decision sight distanceis
measured using the 6 Vz-foot eye hei ght and Y~-foot object height." fExhibit G, 2020 HDM, Section
201.7].
8
34. The available sight distance in the presence of a parked vehicle west of the highway
9
can be determined geometrically and can vary depending on the distance between the point of
10
observation of the driver who is attempting to make the crossing maneuver and the parked vehicle
11

to his left. The point of observation per Caltrans HDM is at 15 feet from the edge of the travel way
12
which represents the point from where the driver needs to see prior to making the decision of
13

14
entering the highway.
35. Considering various scenarios where a parked vehicle obstructs the driver's sight
view from different locations away from the driver's view shows signilcant reductions in the sight

17 distance due to the blockage caused by parked vehicles.
18 36. The available sight distance was determined to substantially less than the required
19 650 feet or 865 feet because of the allowed parking on the western side of the highway. [Exhibit
20 G, Sight Distance Analysis.l
21 37. Since the available sight distance is substantially less than the required sight
distance for entering the southbound lane, then the subject location creates a dangerous
condition with a significant risk of injury to the traveling public.
38. It is imperative to implement safety countermeasures to overcome this hazardous
25
condition. Industry standards require providing an adequate sight for the motorist public. This is
26
especially important since parking on the western side of the highway is a regular and constant
27
phenomenon and not a sporadic event.
28

Declaration of Dr. Shakir R. Shatnawi, Ph.D., P.E. in Support of PlaintiA" s Opposition to Defendant State of California by and
through The Department of Transportation's Motion For Summary Judgment
-9-
1 39. A review of the engineering as-built plans shows an uphill grade of 5.913% followed
by a 500-foot crest vertical curve then by a 0.6% slight uphill grade.. [Exhibit H, MSJ Statement
of Evidence, pdf Pages 189-190]. The analysis of the plans shows the following:
~ San Jose Creek was located at Station 429+50.
The beginning of vertical curve is at Station 410+50
End of vertical curve is at Station 415+50.
The area of impact (AOI) is at Station 412+10 which is 340 feet south of the end of
the curve (160 feet north of beginning of curve).
The grade at AOI is around 2.3% which is located south of the vertical curve crest.
10

40. The engineering as-built plans and google maps show the existence of a left-hand
12
horizontal curve, in the perspective of a northbound traveler. This horizontal curve starts at
13

14
Station 418+04.0 and ends at Station 427+27.96 and it is located in the 5.913% grade section with
a radius of 4,000 feet and length of 923.86. This horizontal curve is situated between south of San
Jose Creek Canyon Road and after the end of the vertical curve.
41. The vertical alignment lowers the available sight distance which is slightly
18 exacerbated by the horizontal curve.
19 42. The Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis System (TASAS) Table B — TSAR
20 Report for the 5-year period between 1/9/2016 and 1/8/2021 along a 0.5-mile segment along SR-1
21 along the distance from PM70.61 to PM71.11 was analyzed. The evaluation revealed 11 accidents
consisted of 1 sideswipes, 6 rear-ends, 2 broadsides and 1 other type. (Exhibit I, TSAR).
23 43. An examination of the accident history shows that 10 out of the ll accidents can be
related to the roadside parlring. For example on 8/23/2019 and on 10/17/2020, there were two
sideswipe accidents {one northbound and one southbound) between a vehicle entering from the
26
shoulder and a vehicle proceeding straight. On 8/9/2019 and 8/7/2016, there were two broadside
27
accidents (both southbound) involving a vehicle making a U-turn and a vehicle proceeding straight.
28

Declaration of Dr. Shakir R. Shatnawi, Ph.D., P.E. in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant State of California by and
through The Department of Transportation's Motion for Summary Judgment
-10-
There were 6 rear end accidents (five northbound and one southbound) involving vehicles slowing
down or stopping to make a turn. There was only one unrelated accident that involved a vehicle
hitting an animal (deer) in the southbound direction.
44. Most of the accidents occurred during daytime'ine occurred during daytime, one
occurred during dusk time, and one occurred during nighttime.
6
45. The collision rate per the TSAR Report for the 0.5.mile stretch around the accident
7
location for the 5 year period preceding the accident location is 1.09 crashes per million vehicle
8
miles (acc/mvm). The statewide average which combines rural and urban accidents (i.e. inside and
outside city) is 1.30 acc/mvm. Accordingly, the MSJ argued that the collision rate at the accident
to
location was less than the average statewide and therefore it concluded that the accident location
11

did not have a crash history. (See PP 4 6, Declaration of Shafizadeh). However, if we examine the
12
collision rates in the 3.years of 2018, 2019 and 2020 for similar 2- and 3-lane rural highways only,
13

14
the average statewide collision rate becomes 1.03 acc/mvm. (See Exhibit J, Accident Rates). This
indicates that the collision rate for the accident location was higher than the average statewide
collision rate of similar highways. Note, that 9 out of the 10 relevant accidents occurred in the past
3 years. Also, if we examine the collision rates in the 5.years of 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020
18 for similar 2- and 3 lane rural highways only, the average statewide collision rate becomes 1.07
19 acc/mvm. This indicates that the collision rate of the accident location was higher than the
2o statewide collision rate of similar highways. (See Exhibit J, Crash Rates). Additionally, it is
anticipated that there would have been numerous other averted accidents that were not reported
due to the nature of the location. See Caltrans website link: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/research-
innovation-system-information/annual-collision-data.
46. Another comparison can be made on a districtwide bases. The accident occurred in
District 5 which is one of 12 Caltrans districts in California. The 5-year average districtwide
26
collision rates for District 5 for the years 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 was 1.02 and for the 3-
27
year average for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020 was 1.00.
28

Declaration of Dr. Shakir R. Shatnawi, Ph.D., P.E. in Support of PlaintifFs Opposition to Defendant State of California by and
through The Department of Transportation's Motion for Summary Judgment
-11-
I 47. The above collision data analysis shows that the accident location had higher
statewide and districtwide collision rates for both the 9 years and the 5 year preceding the subject
accident date for similar rural highways.
48. Caltrans has the authority and the responsibility to remedy the dangerous parking
issue and to provide adequate warning. The 2010 California Code Vehicle Code (CVC) Chapter 9.
Stopping, Standing, And Parking, VEHICLE CODE SECTION 22500-22526, indicates that the
7
Department of Transportation with respect to highways under its jurisdiction may place signs or
8
markings prohibiting or restricting stopping, standing, or parking of vehicles in areas where
9
parking is dangerous to those using the highway or where stopping, standing, or parking of
10
vehicles would unduly interfere with the free movement of traffic. [Exhibit E, CVC Section 22505l.
11

See the following link:
12
htttis://law.iustia.corn/codes/california/2010/veh/22500-
13

22526.htmltt/:-:textse(a)%20Ution%20anv%20hiehwav%20in.the%20hit.hwav%20onnosite%
14

15
20a%20standina.

16
49. The features and factors which created that risk were never evaluated or addressed

17 in a systematic way consistent with good and accepted roadway engineering principles.
18 50. Caltrans did not specifically consider the constant roadside parking and its sight
19 distance implications in their engineering plans.
20 51. Caltrans approved engineering plans do not show the parking situation on the
western side of the highway as being part of design considerations. In other words, the roadside
parking was not included as a design feature in the engineering plans.
23
52. Parking was prohibited on the east side of the highway by Caltrans following an
ordinance from the County of Monterey in 2019. (See Exhibit L, East Side Parking Prohibition).
25
Although one of the benefits to this prohibition would be a reduction in the accident rate for
26
pedestrians crossing the highway, an unintended consequence to this prohibition was an increase
27
in the number of parked vehicles on the west side of the highway. I did not see any studies that
28

Declaration of Dr. Shakir JL Shatnawi, Ph.D., P.E. in Support of Plaintifps Opposition to Defendant State of California hy and
through The Department of Transportation's Motion for Summary Judgment
-12-
would have shown an analysis of the impact of this parking prohibition on increasing the parking
on the west side. Caltrans had the responsibility to conduct a thorough analysis of the parking
ordinance prior to implementing it. It would have been obvious to a prudent engineer that
4
prohibiting parking on one side of the highway without providing an appropriate alternative
5
location would result in exacerbating the parking situation on the other side.
6
53. The State of California had failed to exercise its authority to remedy the dangerous
7
condition that had existed for a long time and which had been recognized as a safety problem as
8
presented in the paragraphs below.
9
54. Roadside parking next to San Jose Creek Beach was addressed in a 1979 resolution
10
adopted by the California Park and Recreation Commission. The resolution stated that "Removal
ll
of shoulder parking on Highway 1 {at San Jose Creek Beach) to be considered as an emergency
12
measure. [Exhibit M, Resolution, AG 0001541.
13

14
55. Excerpts from the 1983 Carmel Area Land Use Plan showed that there was a
recognition of the safety hazards associated the roadside parking along SR-1. The excerpts stated
"Parking along the highway shoulders in the vicinity of major recreational areas shall be
discouraged due to pedestrian and traffic hazards and confh'cts. Especially hazardous in the
Carmel areais the uncontrolled, haphazardous parking on the west side ofHighway l at San Jose
Creek Beach. The Department of Parks and Recreation shall provide improved parking at San
20 Jose Creek Beach to the standards and criteria set forthin the Public Access Element of this Plan.
21 These standards shall supersede thosein the Point Lobos State Reserve General Plan (October
1979) regarding beach parking on page 88. This parking shall be of highest priority, and the
Countyis prepared to technicalplanning assistance to expedite this project. "[Exhibit N, Excerpts,
AG 000142 AG 0001431.
25
56. The State was on notice for a long time about the existence of the dangerous condition
26
due the roadside parking on SR-1. For example a letter to James Doyle of State Department Parks
27
and Recreation dated April 4, 1987 acknowledged the high rate of accidents along SR.1. The letter
28

Declaration of Dr. Shakir R. Shatnawi, Ph D., P E. in Support of PlaintifF s Opposition to Defendant State of California hy and
through The Department of Transportation's Motion for Summary Judgment
-13-
stated "The beach and adjacent coastline has been an area of hi gh accident frequency to drivers
and sightseers for many years." Another letter dated April 2, 1987 Irom James Watanabe a
research biologists at the Monterey Aquariums and a lecturer at the Hopkins Marin Station of
4
Stanford University to James Doyle of State Department Parks and Recreation praised the
proposed safety measure to eliminate parking on the side of the highway shoulder. Mr. Watanabe
indicated that "I would also hate to have to dodge cars turning left onto and off the highway as I
6

7
drive by this beach on weeLends." [Exhibit 0, Pages AG000076, AG000122, and AG000123].
8
57. On August 1988, the Department of Parks and Recreation issued a General Plan
9
Amendment of the Original General Plan of May 1979. The purpose of that amendment was to
10
designate for day use approximately 36 acres of land that was acquired after completion of the
ll
General Plan in 1979 for Carmel River State Beach on the west side of SR-1 for the development
12
of a 75 car parking at the north end and a 10.car parking area at the south end. This are is located
13

14
immediately north of San Jose Creek Beach. [Exhibit P, AG 000005, 000009].
58. In 1986, Caltrans District 5 provided comments on the Carmel River State Beach
General Plan Amendment. The response recognized the need to address sight distance for the
t7 parking driveway and recommended that the driveway be located around Station 434+50 to
l8 provide 18-30 seconds for sight distance in both directions. [Exhibit Q, AG 000065-000066].
19 59. More recently in July 2018, Carmel Area State Parks Preliminary General Plan and
2o Environmental Impact Report recognized the inadequate tourist parking at the state facilities and
2l the parking problem adjacent to SR-1. It stated "Parking on the highway shoulders within the
right of-way ofSE 1 near the Reserve and Coastal Area contributes to traffic congestion, creates
pedestrian risks, and adds to excessive uncontrolled walkin visitation to the Eeserve." Also, it
stated 'Visitor demand exceeding the parking capacity within the Reserve and at the State Beach
25
has resulted in many visitors parking on the shoulders of SE 1 and walLing into the parL units.
26
Hundreds of cars can be found parking wi thin the highway right-of way shoulders on busy days.
27
Existing shoulder space within the right of way of SE 1 near the Reserve can support
28

Declaration of Dr. Shakir R. Shatnawi, Ph.D., P.E. in Support of PlaintifFs Opposition to Defendant State of California by and
throush The Department of Transportation's Motion for Summary Judgment
-14-
approximately325cars. Pedestrians walkingalong the highwayshoulders have causedincreased
concern for pedestrian safety, because visitors try to cross SE 1, which has a 55-mph speed limit
and no pedestrian facilitiesin this area. Parking along SE 1 has also resultedin park visitors
shortcutting through the Eeserve's perimeter fence res ultin gin resource degradation. "(Exhibit R,
AG000355 /k AG000553).
6
60. The need to eliminate roadside parking has been recognized for at least since 1979 as
7
stated in the Point Lobes State Reserve and Carmel River State Beach General Plan. The plan
8
requested that "The department shall request Caltrans to eliminate parking all along the portion
9
ofHighway 1 right-of way that borders the reserve."(Exhibit S, AG000219).
10
61. A summary of open house comments dated 6/1/2016 on Carmel Area State Parks
11

General Plan and EIR included comments on the roadside parking along SR-1 as follows.'"Many
12
comenters urged the removal of paring along SR 1 and that it should not require serious accidents
13

or fatalities for Caltrans to mandate removal of highway parking." (Exhibit T, AG000813).
14

62. It is obvious that the use of the land west of the highway for tourist parking creates
a dangerous condition. The negligence of the State of California was a substantial contributor to
the accident. The negligence was related to poor planning, inaction and remediation. Caltrans
18 should have acted on its own to alleviate the safety hazards associated with the roadside parks
such as installing speed reduction signs, prohibiting roadside parking, dedicating an alternative
2o parking, organizing parking in a manner that would avoid blocking sight distance.
21 63. The above indicates that the State of California have been on notice regarding the
dangerous condition created by the permitted roadside parking alongside SR 1 in the vicinity of
the accident location but neglected to remedy this condition in an effective manner.
64. I can state that the State of California's neglect of the dangerous condition constituted
25
a departure from industry standards of care.
26
65. Taking all of the foregoing into account, and having visited the scene, and
27
understanding the roadway engineering principles, as well as my thirty three plus years of
28

Declaration of Dr. Shakir R. Shatnawi, Ph.D., P.E. in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant State of California by and
through The Department of Transportation's Motion For Summary Judgment
-15-
training and experience in the field of civil engineering, and highway and roadway design, it is my
3 opinion that on January 9, 2021, the subject accident location and the area immediately adjacent
to it where the subject accident occurred, was in a condition that, from an engineering perspective
4
because of the excessive parking alongside of the highway, posed a substantial risk of harm to
those using the area with due care in the manner in which it was foreseeable it would be used.
6
66. All opinions stated above were made to a reasonable degree of professional
7
probability. These opinions will be updated upon the receipt of additional case documents.
8
67. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that all of
9
the factual matters herein stated are true and correct as far as known to me, except as to those
10
matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I am informed and believe that
11

they are true. Further, I declare that all of my professional opinions offered herein are offered with
12
reasonable engineering probability.
13

Executed this 16th day of January, 2024 at El Dorado Hills, California.

17
DR. SHAKIR SHATNAWI, P.E.
18

Declaration of Dr. Shakir R. Shatnawi, Ph.D., P.E. in Support of PlaintitFs Opposition to Defendant State of California by and
through The Department of Transportation's Motion for Summary Judgment
-16-
INDEX OF EXHIBITS ATTACHED TO DECLARATION OF
DR. SHAKIR R. SHATNAWI. Ph.D.. P.E.
2
Exhibits Document Title No. Panes
A Dr. Shatnawi CV 3

4
B Site Inspection Photographs 10
5
C Location and Accident Diagram
6

D CalTrans website link — Acquisition/Condemnation

s E Roadside Safety Pocket Guide

F AASHTO Roadside Design Guide
10
G HDM, Section 405.1
11

H MSJ Statement of Evidence Pgs 189-190

I TSAR

J Crash Rates 10
15
K CVC Section 22505
16

Eastside Parking Prohibition
17

1s M Excerpts from DOT Documents (AG000154)

Excerpts from DOT Documents (AG000142, AG000143)
20
0 Excerpts &om DOT Documents {AG000076, AG0000122,
21 AG0000123)

P Excerpts &om DOT Documents (AG000005, AG000009)
23
Q Excerpts from DOT Documents (AG000065, AG000066)
24
R Excerpts &om DOT Documents (AG0000355, AG0000553)

S Excerpts from DOT Documents {AG0000218, AG000219)
27
T Excerpts from DOT Documents (AG0000813)
28

Index ofExhibits to Declaration ofDr. Shakir R. Shatnaat Ph D„P E.

Page 1
Exhibit A
Dr. Shakir Shatnawi, Ph.D., P.E.
President, Shatec Engineering Consultants, LLC
7064 Tarvisio Way, El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
Email: sshatnawiRshatec.net
Mobile: 916-990-6488
Office: 916-790-1158

Public «nd private expertise in transportationlhighwayltraffic engineering, pavements, highway
geometric design, accident analysis & reconstruction, safety, sight distance requirements, traffic
control devices, construction zone safety, roadside hazards, signage, striping, ADA standards,
friction, skid resistance, surface defects, construction defects, dispute resolution, failure
investigations, materials, repairs, maintenance and rehabilitation.

License
California Professional Engineer's License ¹52795

Education
1987-1990: Ph.D. — Civil Enaineerinu (Transnortation Enaineerinu)
University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, Fayetteville, Arkansas

1984-1985: M.S. — Civil Enaineerina (Construction Enaineerina & Manaaement)
San Jose State University, San Jose, California

1978-1982: B.S. — Civil Enaineerina
California State University, Sacramento, California

Relevant Experience Highlights
2010-Present: President
Shatec Engineering Consultants, LLC, El Dorado Hills, CA, California

1991-2010: From Transnortation Enaineer to Division Chief (nroaressive nromotions'1
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans): D-10 (Stockton), District 4 (Oakland), and
Headquarters (Sacramento), California.

1993-1999: Adiunct Professor
California State University, Sacramento, California

1997-1999: Adiunct Professor
National University, Sacramento, California

1989-1990: Research Fellow
Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, FHWA, McLean, Virginia.
Professional Summary
Dr. Shakir Shatnawi is an expert witness who has successfully assisted legal entities on a variety of
cases. He is a registered professional engineer in California, and is currently the president of Shatec
Engineering Consultants, LLC since May 2010. In this position, he directs the engineering operations,
performs studies and investigations and conducts presentations and seminars on various engineering
issues. Shakir has extensive highway and transportation exper

Case Info

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

January 18, 2024

Case Filing Date

March 16, 2021

County

Parties

Caifornia Department of Parks and Recreation Defendant
California Department of Transportation Defendant
County of Monterey Defendant
Guy Robert Gruppie Attorney for the Defendant
Ilgiz Yamilov Defendant
James Fredrick Spiering Attorney for the Plaintiff
Julie Anne Esposito Attorney for the Defendant
Putnam Lexus Defendant
Richard Jeremie Ginelli Attorney for the Defendant
Rolando William Pasquali Attorney for the Defendant
State of California Defendant
The County Of Monterey (Doe 1) Defendant
The County Of Monterey (Doe 61) Defendant
The County Of Monterey (Doe 81) Defendant
Thomas Joseph Murray Attorney for the Defendant
William L. Cox Plaintiff
Yelena Yamilov Defendant
Angela Giang Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Matthew Voss Attorneys for Defendants
Catherine Takayama Attorneys for Defendants
Georgiana Nikias Attorneys for Defendants
Lauren Canter Attorneys for Defendants

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

No Value: William Cox vs Ilgiz Yamilov, et al.

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties