Source: http://www.inversecondemnation.net/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:08:56+00:00

Document:
Inverse Condemnation, California Supreme Court Constitution Appeal for the inverse condemnation in Oceano California by Caltrans, County of San Luis Obispo, Union Pacific Railroad and the Oceano Community Service District! San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman has allowed the County of San Luis Obispo to withhold evidence from discovery and trial. He States September 12, 2008 in a request for rehearing: "No further information was forthcoming and now the questionnaires are here I guarantee they are voluminous, I haven't even read through all of them." "But I think it's imcumbent to demonstrate to the court exactly which factual assertation and which witness would actually produce evidence which would result in a basis for a new trial."
Please review the video evidence and photos below, showing that the "Exchange" is not responsible for the flooding of State Highway 1!
The County of San Luis Obispo in their "Answer To Petition For Review" by Thomas L. Riordon, SBN 104827 shows the California Supreme Court why this review is necessary as the County of San Luis Obispo explains on P. 5 "The Oceano Community Service District (District) owns a water well. From time to time, the well discharges water into the drainage channel that leads to the culvert under the rail bed." (RT Vol. 5:1265-1266)"
PLEASE REVIEW THE VIDEOS PRESENTED TO JUDGE MARTIN J. TANGEMAN OF OCSD DISCHARGEING FROM THEIR WELL # 8 PER EXHIBITS # 1768 AND # 579! THIS ACTION GOES AGAINST RECENT CALIFORNIA CASE LAW "SKOUMBAS V. CITY OF ORINDA"
The County of San Luis Obispo acknowledges "No Date Of Stabilization" the construction permitted in the drainage channel by the County, allowing the OCSD Well # 8 discharge Pipe installed into this drainage culvert! (Per Davis Testimony!) The County States: "Davis's daily log for that year makes referance to a meeting with Bookout on December 20, 2002. (RT Vol. 2:402) Bookout took a picture of the pipe going into the drainage channel in the aftermath of a rain event in 2002." The County States: "The picture included a District employee. (RT Vol. 2:403) This photo shows No Date of Stabilization and that OCSD and Caltrans had not properly corrected the complaint in Exhibit # 579! Thus showing that the partial use of Exhibit # 579 was a predjudicial Error in now California Case Law "Bookout v. State of California!"
Chief Justice Ronald M. George-Caltrans and County showing that the flooding can be abated!
PLEASE REVIEW THE VIDEO PRESENTED TO JUDGE MARTIN J. TANGEMAN OF OCSD DISCHARGE FROM WELL # 8 PER EXHIBITS # 1768 AND # 579! THIS ACTION GOES AGAINST RECENT CALIFORNIA CASE LAW "SKOUMBAS V. CITY OF ORINDA"
Associate Justice Ming W. Chin The Oceano Community Service District photos of their use of the storm water drainage channel as presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman!
Caltrans Raising State Highway 1 a foot per their testimony in front of Judge Martin J. Tangeman!
The County has shown, that the County, OCSD and Caltrans have "EXERCISED DOMINION AND CONTROL" over this storm water drainage channel!
The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Kenneth R. Yegan and Arthur Gilbert State on P. 6 and 7 of their July 28, 2010 published California Case law Decision; ignoring documents from Brebes and Davis prior to State Highway 1 flooding--(Fountain Ave-Airpark Dr)! "Bookout argues the trial court erred in receiving documentary evidence that was not produced during discovery. The document is a county drainage study questionnaire returned by Bookout in July 2002. Bookout stated on the questionnaire that the area floods one foot or more once a year and that the flooding has damaged his inventory."
The websites that I have launched are now seen nationally on the internet. This is probably the first time in U.S. history that a case with the overwhelming evidence (Testimony, State, County, OCSD documents, Videos, Photos, Evidence withheld form discovery) presented to a Superior Court is now seen on so many websites and on YOUTUBE showing the mistakes made by a Superior Court? The Statements made by the Court after trial will make national news and very interesting California Case Law with the Supreme Courts decision as to if this is now legal in the State of California!
The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Arthur Gilbert and Kenneth R. Yegan do not view the 500 photos and videos presented to them and Judge Martin J. Tangeman of Caltrans Raising State Highway 1 and then Grading and Shoveling Debris and Contamination into the Oceano Storm water drainage system, while the Oceano Community Service District dredges 2500 gallons of debris and well water into this system daily as a cause of the flooding of our State Highway 1!
"Bookout points to no findings of fact in his favor. Instead, he relies on over 500 photographs and videos showing the flooding, several hundred documents which he claims show each defendant exercised dominion and control over the drainage facilities, and the testimony of his expert engineer, Keith Crow. He believes the evidence against the defendants was overwhelming.
Here there is an obvious cause of the flooding. The Exchange modified the drainage by constructing a junction box and pipeline that redirected the flow of water by 90 degrees."
The Second Appellate in their published decision July 28, 2010 allows inverse condemnation by Caltrans drainage changes since December 2000 to Raise and flood State Highway 1 13th and Paso Robles Streets in Oceano California and then Grade and shovel debris into the Oceano Communities Storm Water Drainage Channel putting blame on a produce company for 1977 construction! They Allow withholding of evidence stating "The Trial Court did not abuse its discreation." California Residents can decide this by viewing Caltrans action now on YOUTUBE and the photo documents that Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman allowed Union Pacific Railroad to withhold at trial that went with Exhibit # 579!
The Second Appellate Court July 28, 2010 published decision compleatly ignores Statute Of Limitations changes as seen in exhibit # 579 "Did you observe likely causes of the flooding, such as clogged culverts under roads, catch basins filled with dirt, no place for water to flow?" On Exhibit # 579 withheld from discovery by the County Of San Luis Obispo it was stated--- "Hwy 1 Not Adaquate drainage on Hwy 1 under the train track & Overlay from Caltrans in 2001 on Hwy 1"
The Second Appelate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Kenneth R. Yegan and Arthur Gilbert State on P. 4 of their July 28, 2010 published decision "The court found that the Railroad may have been negligent by failing to enlarge the culvert or requiring that its tenant do so. But the court also found that the Railroad is not a public entity subject to an action for inverse condemnation." This now changes Inverse Condemnation Responsibility making the lower landowner responsible for drainage from other landowners property that they do not own!
The one Photo that Union Pacific RailRoad Included in Exhibit # 579 shows a Train Wreck and no Date of Stabilization in this drainage system as stated on this photo exhibit #579 " Pipeline in rail road culvert obstructin flow (Culvert Abuse) 13th Street & Highway 1 Mr. Bookout" The photos and video below show this OCSD pipline obstructing and damming this drainage system as seen in Exhibt #579, 1768 and 1756, which backs up this statement showing no Date Of Stabilization with this OCSD drainage changes since the County of San Luis Obispo permitted building construction of RR property by POVE in 1977, 1984 and 1985! The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Kenneth R. Yegan and Arthur Gilbert do not mention this later RR/POVE construction nor any of the other documents that the County of San Luis Obispo withheld from discovery as seen in this PDF file!
Being an elected OCSD Director--Whistleblower in California Per the flooding of our State Highway-as seen in this March 1, 2007 E-Mail to Scott Radovich and the February 6, 2007 Clayton U. Hall letter To: Ms. Mauri McGuire, Carl Warren & Company CC-Rita L. Neal ESQ--Debra A Hessli-Risk Manager County of San Luis Obispo--Trying to Make A Deal in regards to the Evidence that they Withheld From Discovery involving their County Insurance. Plus their Documents presented to Judge Tangeman showing that Flooding Could Be Abated for $43,295.00---pdf County December 18, 2006 Statement-("Potentially Dangerious Situation") involves public safety to our Pacific Ocean!
The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Kenneth R. Yegan and Arthur Gilbert do not believe as seen in the video above, that the County, and Caltans storm water from State Highway 1 --13th and Paso Robles Streets inside the Oceano Nursery property is inverse condemnation or the use of a "Public Enity Physically entered Bookout's land or maintained possession and control over any portion of it." They Believe--"The Trial Court correctly concluded the three-year statute applies." The Second Appellate Court States this even after seeing photos and videos and hearing Caltrans testomony of Caltrans shoveling and grading Caltrans storm water debris into the Oceano Community's storm water drainage channel!
March 1, 2007 E-Mail County in 2007 Withholding of Evidence! "The County Of San Luis Obispo has withheld key information regarding flooding and prior actions of other agencies this has cost the County Tax payers thousands of dollars as drainage studies have been done without this information being provided."
The Second Appellate Court has ruled June 28, 2010 that this 2001-2002 Oceano Community Service District drainage change is not inverse condemnation or Causation of our State Highway Flooding! The Appellate Court has seen the videos of this OCSD pipe inside a storm water drainage channel discharging well water and debris daily into a storm water drainage system used by the County, Caltrans, OCSD and Union Pacific Rail Road! The Appellate Court States: "Plaintiff brought this action against a number of public entities and a railroad claiming the defendants caused his property to flood when it rained. The complaint alleged inverse condemnation and tort causes of action. The inverse condemnation cause of action was tried to the court. After plaintiff's case, the trial court granted nonsuit based on the statute of limitations, failure to prove causation, and a determination that the railroad is not a public entity. Thereafter, the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings on the tort causes of action. The court granted the motion based on the trial court's previous finding of lack of causation and the statute of limitations. We affirm."
The Second Appellate Court allows withholding of evidence as talked about by Judge Martin J. Tangeman September 12, 2008 and believe's that it is OK for Caltrans to Grade and Shovel Storm Water debris into this California storm water drainage system after Caltrans raised State Highway 1 a foot! The Second Appellate Court beleives that the flooding of our State Highway cannot be abated! The Second Appellate Court believes that this flooding is caused by Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange in 1977 construction and that their is no government Liability for Caltrans, County and OCSD drainage changes since 1977! The Second Appellate Court does not take into account that this POVE construction was over seen and permitted by the County Of San Luis Obispo. The Second Appellate Court ignores the fact that the County of San Luis Obispo required the outlet of this drainage system raised in 1985 County Building permits!
The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Kenneth R. Yegan and Arthur Gilbert State on P. 6 and 7 ignoring documents from Brebes and Davis prior to State Highway 1 flooding--(Fountain Ave-Airpark Dr)! "Bookout argues the trial court erred in receiving documentary evidence that was not produced during discovery. The document is a county drainage study questionnaire returned by Bookout in July 2002. Bookout stated on the questionnaire that the area floods one foot or more once a year and that the flooding has damaged his inventory."
Plane Crashes San Luis Obispo County Airport Oceano-Flooding Second Appellate Court-Inverse Condemnation The County of San Luis Obispo Exhibit # 579 Documents withheld from discovery show how this drainage once traveld to the Oceano Airport in 2002 as stated in these County Questionnaires! These documents will ultimatly close the Oceano Airport when Caltrans and the County San Luis Obispo end using State Highway 1 for Storm Water Retention!
California State Government (Caltrans, County, OCSD) should not be allowed to use our storm water drainage channels for their Debris and Well Water! These videos above were presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman and the Second Appellate Court! Please read the following two PDF files regarding San Luis Obispo County and OCSD actions during discovery!
OCSD Attorney Conflict Robert Weeks--Fiancee/Wife Was Oceano Nursery Bookkeeper that the Oceano Community Service District Hired knowing this Fact!---OCSD Directors Full Knowledge of Their Action!. pdf..
The Second Appellate Court does not find an (Abuse of Discretion) in their June 28, 2010 decision P. 6 and 7 or, that it is a Prejudicial Error for the County of San Luis Obispo-or Union Pacific Railroad to withhold 150 Oceano/County whiteness-plus photo/Questionnaires/ documents from discovery until after trial July 30, 2008! They allow Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman to withhold photo attachments that went with Exhibit # 579 showing Caltrans maintaining the Oceano Communities Storm Water Drainage Channel--Raising State Highway 1 and blocking drainage on the East Side of State Highway 1!. The Second Appellate Court does not find this to be a Prejudicial Error in California!
Video talked about by the Appellate Court----Oceano Train Wreck as seen in photo exhibits withheld from discovery by the County Of San Luis Obispo in exhibit # 579! Caltrans Caught shoveling and grading debris into storm water drainage channel as seen by the California Second Appellate Court and San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman!
The Second Appellate Court ignored (Marin v. City of San Rafael) and their Statement in their June 23, 2010 decision and the Railroads and Our exhibits # 1756, 1874, 1875 "The taking of private property for the purpose of constructing storm drainage systems has been recognized to be for a public use. (Marin v. City of San Rafael (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 591, 595; Ullery v. County of Contra Costa (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 562, 568; DiMartino v. City of Orinda (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 329, 336.) "An action in inverse condemnation will lie when damage to private property is proximately caused by use of a storm drainage system for its intended purpose." (Souza v. Silver Development Co. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 165, 170.) When accepted and approved by a municipality, drainage systems become a public improvement and a part of the system of public works. (Frustuck v. City of Fairfax (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 345, 358.) "The fact that the work is performed by a contractor, subdivider or a private owner of property does not necessarily exonerate a public agency, if such contractor, subdivider or owner follows the plans and specifications furnished or approved by the public agency. When the work thus planned, specified and authorized results in an injury to adjacent property the liability is upon the public agency under its obligation to compensate for the damages resulting from the exercise of its governmental power." (Id. at pp. 362-363; see DiMartino, supra, at pp. 338-339.)"
The Second Appellate Court States in their decision P. 2-regarding what they think is the couse of State Highway 1 -13th Paso Robles Streets and Oceano Nursery flooding! "The Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange (Exchange) first leased, then purchased, from the Railroad the property west of the raised rail bed. The iron pipe discharges onto the Exchange's parcel. Around 1977, the Exchange installed a subsurface junction box at the pipe's outfall. From the junction box, the water is diverted 90 degrees through a second 24-inch pipe to a retaining pond 200 feet away. The junction box is inadequate, causing the water to back up and flood Bookout's property." California Supreme Court and California Residents---How is this Oceano Community Service District Well # 8 Discharge into a government storm water drainage system legal and not a cause?
The Second Appellate Court ignored California Case Law of Dedications as with the Oceano Community Service District Prescriptive Easement Exhibit # 1768 giving a 5 Year Statute of Limitation since Caltrans and OCSD drainage changes in December of 2002. Caltrans Fred Brebes testified that Caltrans had maintained this drainage system for 30 years prior to 2002!
The Appellate Court States June 23, 2010 in Barrett v. County of Ventura--Filed 6/23/10 Barrett v. County of Ventura CA2/6 States: "Dedication of private property for public use requires an offer of dedication by the owner and an acceptance of the offer by the public entity." (Ackley v. City Etc. of San Francisco (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 108, 112.) The "approval or 'acceptance need not be by formal action but may be implied from official acts of dominion or control over the property . . . .' [Citation.] . . . 'Use of the land [for a public purpose] over a reasonable period of time constitutes an acceptance . . . , without any formal action in relation thereto by governmental authority . . . .'" (Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 595-596.) "On the other hand, where 'there is no acceptance of a street or the drainage system within it, there is no public improvement, public work or public use and therefore there can be no public liability for inverse condemnation.'" (Ullery v. County of Contra Costa, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at pp. 568-569.) The County of San Luis Obispo has accepted the POVE pond as seen in (Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 595-596.) The County has accepted the OCSD use of this drainage system per exhibit # 1756 and testimony by OCSD!
County of San Luis Obispo Intentional Misconduct of evidence being withheld from discovery and then (Redacted) Affecting Public Health and Safety/flooding from State HWY 1 to our Pacific Ocean. Involving the County Of San Luis Obispo--Board of Supervisors--General Services--Airport Property, Fountain Ave and the Larry Baughman Property! Molly Thurmond on September 12, 2008 informed Judge Tangeman after his August 5, 2008 Inverse Condemnation Decision of 150 County Oceano Community drainage study Questionnaires, that she and the County of San Luis Obispo withheld from discovery and his August 5, 2008 Inverse Condemnation Decision! (Prejudicial Error) State-Caltrans,County, RWQCB, Drainage Permits presented to the Appellate Court that the Appellate Court ignored! County--State Drainage to Pacific Ocean that may close the Oceano Airport Port! PDF File San Luis Obispo Tribune 1953 County Drainage!.
County Of San Luis Obispo--Deputy Director of General Services--George R. Rosenberger Exhibit #579--Glenn Priddy County Of San Luis Obispo Fix and their cost--Steve Price Caltrans responsibility to the Pacific Ocean... As seen in these YOUTUBE videos!
Superior Court Judge Teresa Estrada-Mullaney in her February 2, 2009 Judgment Decision "Notice of Judgment" States: "Judge Tangeman determined the flooding problem was "static" for several years prior to Plaintiff's purchase of his property. Plaintiff contends the flooding is continuous and can be abated. Plaintiff argues Defendants negligent maintenance of the drainage system increases the frequency and severity of the flooding. That is inconsistent with Judge Tangeman's determination that the primary culprit was POVE's improvements, rather than negligent maintenance of the drainage system. There was no showing that Union's operation of Well No. 8 contributed to the blockage. There was no showing of the County's responsibility for maintaining the drainage channel. There was no evidence that any accumulated debris in State's right of way contributed to the problems in the operation of the drainage system. County, State, Union or OCSD could not have abated the nuisance by undertaking any maintenance"
It is unfortunate That San Luis Obispo County withheld Evidence from Discovery attached! This E-Mail below deals with Caltrans Raising our State Highway and the problems this caused! The photos in this video show the problems caused by Caltrans raising State Highway 1 and the blockage on the East Side.
How does this help you? Likewise, I was thinking about the 2002 photo with the curb and gutter and you cleaning up, doesn’t that look like you are cleaning up after a flood? This would contradict your testimony.
Court Reporters Transcripts showing Caltrans intentionally shoveling debris into this drainage channel.PDF..
Caltrans caught before and after Judge Tangeman's August 5, 2008 inverse condemnation decision Grading and Shoveling "Evidence"--Contaminated Storm Water and Debris into the Oceano Communities Drainage system to the County/RWQCB permited Railroad/P.O.V.E. pond, then to our Pacific Ocean!
"I hope that you continue to seek legal counsel and that this very difficult situation will be resolved soon."
The Second Appellate Court Ignored in their June 28, 2010 Decision, what had been California Case Law up to June 28, 2010, With Caltrans, County and OCSD actions this drainage system has no "Date of Stabilization"! Arreola v. County of Monterey(2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 722. “We conclude that in order to prove the type of governmental conduct that will support liability in inverse condemnation it is enough to show that the entity was aware of the risk posed by its public improvement and deliberately chose a course of action – or inaction – in the face of that known risk.” “Knowing that failure to properly maintain the Project channel posed a significant risk of flooding, Counties nevertheless permitted the channel to deteriorate over a long period of years by failing to take effective action to overcome the fiscal, regulatory, and environmental impediments to keeping the Project channel clear. This is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding of a deliberate and unreasonable plan of maintenance.” State diversion or obstruction of surface water onto land “not historically subject to flooding” is not protected by reasonableness rule, but results in strict liability.
Caltrans actions of shoveling and grading storm debris into this drainage channel, while the Oceano Community Service District is permitted to discharge Well # 8 water into this drainage system should have been ruled on per the Second Appellate Courts Decision June 28, 2020 per-- Skoumbas v. City of Orinda (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 783. Diversion of surface waters into a natural watercourse creates liability only if it causes an unreasonable risk of harm under Locklin factors and is a substantial cause of damage. Flood control system that “fails in heavy rain and causes damage to property that has historically been subject to flooding” governed by rule of reasonableness. City could be liable even if its storm drainpipe discharged into a private pipe and the damage occurred “downstream.” “”We conclude the critical inquiry is not whether the entire system was a public improvement, but rather whether the City acted reasonably in its maintenance and control over those portions of the drainage system it does own.” “Substantial cause-and-effect relationship” is enough for liability even for downstream flooding.
The Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren--Kenneth R. Yegan---Arthur Gilbert on Page 2 and 6 of their June 28, 2010 decision allow Government to block storm water drainage channels in California per the Davis daily logs Exhibit # 1768! They believe that these photos and video below of the OCSD use of this channel are not a cause of our State Highway 1 flooding! They Blame POVE 100% ignoring Exhibit # 1875 of the County of San Luis Building permits per (Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 595-596.) Requiring POVE to raise the County's Storm Water Drainage Outlet!
The Appellate Court on Page 12 of their Appellate Decision ignores this "Continuous Nuisance" per "Mangini"
Question. How much water is discharged out of the pipe each time that you do the procedure that you described?
Answer. “Approximately 2,500 Gallons per minute?” Question. And the rate at which this water is discharged is somewhere around 1,300 gallons per minute?
Answer. “Well, it starts out fast and gradually slow down until it stops. And when it stops, all the water is going into the system.”P. 385 Question: Are you aware of any permission sought by the district, itself for operating this pipe?
Answer: “Other then the Health Department, I don't know of any."
P.386 by Mr. Belsher: Thirteen thirty-six and 1337, is this the same discharge pipe we discussed or saw in the previous photograph, only a different configuration?
Question: And did you oversee an extension of the pipe into the culvert that’s depicted there?
Question. And this picture dated 2002, so does that seem as if that was the state of the – to your recollection, That the pipe was projecting into the culvert as of 2002?
Question: And I note that the pipe now is cut back from the entrance to culvert?
Question: And is that an action which you and your staff took in 2002?
The Second Appellate Court is mistaken (Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 595-596.)as stated (FACTS-Discussion P. 8 "Here there is an obvious cause of the flooding. The Exchange modified the drainage by constructing a junction box and pipeline that redirected the flow of water by 90 degrees.") ("Causation") ("Overwhelming Evidence") Per Phil Davis Daily logs Exhibit # 1768 mentioned by the Appellate Court in Page 2 and 3 of their June 28, 2010 Decision! The Appellate Court erred in testimony of Fred Brebs and Evidence P. 3, 6, 7--Sutton, Brebes and Davis--Testomony as seen in the Court Transcripts!
The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Peren--Kenneth R. Yegan--Arthur Gilbert; ignore Exhibit # 1756, 1731, 1732, 1760, 1763, 1769, 1772, 1773, and 1783 presented by Union Pacific per Causation drainage changes made by Caltrans, County and OCSD showing no (Date of Stabilization) And (Causation) from OCSD taking a working drainage channel in exhibit # 1756 April 21, 1983 for their use (Prescriptive Easement) of this pipe below installed in 2001 per Caltrans exhibit # 1768 . P. 8 "In other words, the City (OCSD) was liable because it directed the installation of, used , and owned the pipe."
Union Pacific Rail Road Exhibit # 1756 --P. 8 OCSD P. 7 "Obvious Cause"--(Causation) OCSD letter written to County RR and POVE presented to the Appellate Court (Prescriptive Easement) States: "This Channel has been protected by use of a culvert that would conduct surface waters under Southern Pacific tracks to what may be a bunker under the loading docks of the Pismo-Oceano Vegetable Exchange (POVE) . The water, then, might flow to a small retention basin maintained by POVE."
"Because this is an established drainage channel. The District feels that its full design capacity should be available for use. Reserch, however has not clearly revealed the agency responsible for the maintenance of the channel. Consequently , we have no idea the condition of the channel and wheather, in its present state of maintenance, it can adequately carry the quantity of water that will be discharged."
Mention this Causation-Prescriptive Easement video of the Oceano Community Service District ignoring expert testimony on P. 3 of Keith Crowe "(3) the district well added silt and debris;" In exhibit # 1768 OCSD and Caltrans David Fry-recieved a complaint of debris daming/blockage--(NOT FLOODING) and abated this problem per their testimony and the Phil Davis Daily logs! OCSD daily logs States on Friday, December 20, 2002. "I had to meet with Bill Bookout and a couple of guys from cal trans about the 6 inch line from well 8 that ends at the culvert by the tracks. I had Dan saw off the 6 inch pipe and end it 5 feet in front of the culvert so that there will be no danger of the pipe plugging debris at the entrence to the culvert."
Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Peren--Kenneth R. Yegan--Arthur Gilbert P. 6 fail to acknowledge this Prescriptive Easement, Causation testimony other then to State: "But none of these alledged changes of conditions compelled the trial court to conclude that the flowing was not relatively consistant and static for several years prior to Bookout's purchase of his property."" County of San Luis Obispo documents left out of exhibit # 579 provided December 2, 2008 after trial shows the Appellate Court Justices decision to be wrong! Prejudicial Error!
The Appellate Court viewed and Mentioned 500 photos plus videos showing OCSD possession/prescriptive easement of this drainage channel exhibit #1756! Change of (Statute of Limitations/Causation P. 7) This taking of this drainage channel by OCSD is after P. 2 (Facts) P. 6 (Discussion) of POVE County Permitted drainage changes in 1977-- The Appellate Court on P. 6 regarding "Date of Stabilization" believes that the last improvements where in the late 1970's! Ignoring the photos/videos/exhibits above presented to and mentioned by the Appellate Court! The Appellate Court ignores Fred Brebes Testomony that Caltrans had maintained this drainage channel for 30 years prior to 2002! OCSD has been in charge since as seen above and in their weed abatement P. 6 of the Apellate Court Transcripts! Oceano Community Service District States: Page 390 July 10, 2008 Testimony by OCSD Employee see photo above.
Question. Okay. Now, this is a picture, 1396, of you inspecting the entrance to the 20-inch culvert; correct?
Question. Are you concerned at all that the operation of this pipe could blow leaves and other debris into the pipe during its operation?
Answer. Um, well we wanted to check and make sure it didn't happen.
Question. So what's your observation?
Answer. We just look through the culvert. If you could see a culvert going a hundred feet, or whatever it goes, well it is fine. Page 391.Question. And did you observe debris blowing into this pipe on occasion?
Question from the operation of the discharge pipe?
Question Do you have any maintenance plan for the channel or the culvert with respect to debris?
This Same Appellate Court Stated five days eariler in Barrett v. County of Ventura--Filed 6/23/10 Barrett v. County of Ventura CA2/6 "The taking of private property for the purpose of constructing storm drainage systems has been recognized to be for a public use. (Marin v. City of San Rafael (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 591, 595; Ullery v. County of Contra Costa (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 562, 568; DiMartino v. City of Orinda (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 329, 336.) "An action in inverse condemnation will lie when damage to private property is proximately caused by use of a storm drainage system for its intended purpose." (Souza v. Silver Development Co. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 165, 170.) When accepted and approved by a municipality, drainage systems become a public improvement and a part of the system of public works. (Frustuck v. City of Fairfax (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 345, 358.) "The fact that the work is performed by a contractor, subdivider or a private owner of property does not necessarily exonerate a public agency, if such contractor, subdivider or owner follows the plans and specifications furnished or approved by the public agency. When the work thus planned, specified and authorized results in an injury to adjacent property the liability is upon the public agency under its obligation to compensate for the damages 6 resulting from the exercise of its governmental power." (Id. at pp. 362-363; see DiMartino, supra, at pp. 338-339.)"
The Second Appellate Court States on P. 6 P. 7 of their Appellate Court decision compleatly ignore as Exhibit # 579 documents withheld from discovery an trial! County Discovery Abuse per the Baughman Property from State Highway 1 PDF File... They State: "The determination of when the statute of limitations begins to run is a question of fact. (Lee, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 857.) Here the trial court determined that the date of stabilization theory does not apply. The court found that the last improvements to the drainage system were constructed by the Exchange in the late 1970's, and that the flooding problem was relatively consistent and static for several years prior to the time Bookout purchased his property in 2000.
Bookout challenges the trial court's findings by listing what it characterizes as changed conditions since the Exchange constructed the junction box in the 1970's. The alleged changed conditions include: maintenance activities, modifications to Well No. 8, weed abatement, removal of a retaining wall, alteration of Highway 1, shoveling and grading of debris, accumulation of debris, and an increase in impervious surfaces. But none of these alleged change of conditions compelled the trial court to conclude that the flowing was not relatively consistent and static for several years prior to Bookout's purchase of his property.
Bookout argues the trial court erred in receiving documentary evidence that was not produced during discovery. The document is a county drainage study questionnaire returned by Bookout in July 2002. Bookout stated on the questionnaire that the area floods one foot or more once a year and that the flooding has damaged his inventory."
"Bookout points to no findings of fact in his favor. Instead, he relies on over 500 photographs and videos showing the flooding, several hundred documents which he claims show each defendant exercised dominion and control over the drainage facilities, and the testimony of his expert engineer, Keith Crow. He believes the evidence against the defendants was overwhelming."
"Bookout claims the evidence is credible because it is uncontradicted. He cites Joseph v. Drew (1950) 36 Cal.2d 575, 579, for the proposition that uncontradicted testimony of a witness may not be disregarded, but should be accepted as proof of the fact to which the witness testified. Indeed, there are no doubt cases where the uncontradicted testimony of a witness is so credible that no reasonable trier of fact could reject it. But this is not such a case."
"Here there is an obvious cause of the flooding. The Exchange modified the drainage by constructing a junction box and pipeline that redirected the flow of water by 90 degrees. The Exchange has settled with Bookout. Evidence that the remaining defendants contributed to the conditions that caused the flooding rests largely in Crowe's expert testimony. As helpful as expert opinion can be, such testimony carries a built-in bias: experts are most often very well paid for their opinions. The trial court had good reason to be skeptical of Crowe's testimony. We apply the usual rule on appeal that the trier of fact is not required to believe the testimony of any witness, even if uncontradicted. (Sprague v. Equifax, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1012, 1028.) The evidence presented here did not compel the trial court to find in favor of Bookout."
The Appellate Court chose to ignore the fact that this flooding could be abated from Caltrans documents for only $43,295.00 and that the County of San Luis Obispo required the outlet for this water raised per County Permits Exhibits 1874-1875. The California Supreme Court will need to decide if this is now legal in California (Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 595-596.)and if Has any merit for California Case law?
Caltrans East Side of State Highway 1 flooding photo 2002 of complaint in exhibit # 579-----Caltrans actions in raising State Highway 1 a foot without addressing drainage off of State Highway 1! The Appellate Court States: "Here there is an obvious cause of flooding. The Exchange modified the drainage--" Excuse me why would Caltrans Raise State Highway 1 and not account for drainage!!! This Nusisance Can be Abated!
The County of San Luis Obipo in their Appellate Court brief mention "McKinley" on P. 19 but does not mention Mr. McKinley's Statement below showing Caltrans changing the drainage stabilization (Causation) of HWY 1. 13th, and Paso Robles Streets--per exhibit 579 (Causation) a change in (Date of Stabilization) and that Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange is not the Cause of this flooding!
Answer: (P. 643) Yeah, I responded to a communication that our maintenance engineer received from Bill Bookout, that there was ponding, A ponding issue at the corners of 13th and Highway 1 and Paso Robles and Highway 1. And so it was in response to that communication." Question: Do you know approximately which side of the State highway this ponding occurred? Answer: "It was on the East Side". " Page 645 “We reconstructed the pavement, so we put base and we put asphalt down.” “I believe we put down half a foot of A.C., I believe.
Question: (P 653 Cross-Examination by Caltrans-Exhibit photos 579) "And when you--It was your understanding that the reason this job -- You were asked to design this job was because the Plaintiff had complained about ponding on the East Side near his property, of State Route 1? Answer: Correct." --"Objection; Leading"
i) Maintenance activities in the drainage channel. (Respondent’s Appendix “RA” Exhibit 1768; Reporters Transcript “RT” Vol. 2 Pg 382-400; RT Vol 6 Pg 1506-1507; Exhibit 1446-1447).
v) Removal of retaining wall by Caltrans (RT Vol 3 Pg 642-643).
x) Increase in impervious surfaces in the watershed (RT Vol.6 Pgs 1572). These activities have slowly destabilized any static condition in the watershed which may have existed after the junction box modification in the late 1970's. Although there has been conflicting evidence of when Appellant’s property first began flooding, these changes in the watershed afford Appellant a delayed accrual date until the conditions remain unchanged, which to date has not happened. If conditions have been static since the late 1970's as held by Judge Tangeman, why did it take 30 years for Plaintiff’s property to begin flooding?"
The Appellate Court ignored direct testimony by Phil Davis showing the County involvement in the OCSD prescriptive easement pipe constructed in the Rail Roads Drainage channel! P. 385 Court Transcripts-- Question: Are you aware of any permission sought by the district, itself for operating this pipe? Answer: “Other then the Health Department, I don't know of any."
You Tube--Caltrans District 5 against their NPDES Storm Water Permits and Training!
The Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren Kenneth R. Yegan and Arthur Gilbert-on Page 10 bring up Arreola v. County of Monterey, however ignores this case as presented to the Appellate Court "(An entity that has power to control a project is liable even if it does not actively participate in it. An entity with the power to control a project need not actively participate in it to suffer liability. Proof that an entity signed a contract assuming responsibility for the project, shared a common governance with an active participant, or provided an exclusive revenue source for the project, can establish control.) Arreola v. Monterey County (2002) Cal.App.4th-[2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4319]."
The Second Appellate Court ignored this written Appellant's Reply Brief Statement! "The Flooding of Appellant’s Property is a Continuous Nuisance One of the factors to determine if a nuisance is permanent or continuous is the ability to remedy the situation. Baker v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport (1985) 29 Cal.3d 862, 869. As Appellant’s expert testified, the construction of a detention basin near the inlet of the culvert would prevent Highway One and Appellant’s property from flooding. (RT Vol. 6 Pgs.1583-1584). Also, Respondent County of San Luis Obispo and the State of California Department of Transportation designed a fix to the situation in 1987 for $43,295. (RA Exhibit 1790). The situation in this case is not a permanent nuisance, and Judge Estrada-Mullaney’s ruling preventing Appellant to proceed on his nuisance and trespass causes of action in the second phase were in error. Under this rationale, if the Respondents put a lid on the culvert today to prevent all drainage from entering it, Appellant would still not have a cause of action for nuisance, even though this new act creates more flooding and more damage." They then discredit (Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp., supra, 230 Cal.App.3d at p. 1143.) For this nuisance that can be abated!
The Second Appellate Court ignores the fact presented to Judge Tangeman and the Appellate Court of Exhibit # 1757 of a signed Caltrans, County and OCSD contract showing that this flooding could have been abated, prior to the flooding we are seeing since 2004! Judge Tangeman was aware of the March 14, 1985 OCSD meeting inwhich Gina Davis OCSD Deputy Secretary to the Board. ATTEST Minute Order "At its regular meeting on march 13, 1985, the board of Directors of the Oceano Community Service District directed President Allen to sign amended cooperative agreement #05a239, between the State and Oceano Community Service District, covering the contribution by the District to the State for the correction of an unsatisfactory drainage condition at Mile Post 12.4 on State Highway 1."
Caltrans with Judge Tangeman's August 5, 2008 Inverse Condemnation Decision, now has a legal right to (NOT) maintain drainage off of our State Highways in California!! The Oceano Community Service District can now legally dredge debris into this Railroad property storm water County of San Luis Obispo drainage system after the County requied the outlet pond raised per exhibit #1875--County permits--(Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 595-596.)!
The Oceano Community Service District use of this storm water drainage channel affecting public health and safety as seen in exhibit 579 and testified about by Caltrans!!!
Notice the Dam that the OCSD Well # 8 PVC pipe creates in this Storm Water Drainage Channel in 2002 photo before flooding and OCSD cut their pipe in 2002 leaving this discharge pipe in this channel to discharge debris into the Railroads/County drainage system????
Notice Caltrans Drainage change (Prescriptive Easement) above (Concrete Bag and OCSD Pipe) as seen by Judge Tangeman and local news media per exhibit #579! with the Appellate Court decision on June 28, 2010 this action by local government in California is now Legal!
"In Pierpont Inn, Inc. v. State of California (1969) 70 Cal.2d 282 (disapproved on other ground in Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Continental Development Corp. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 694), the state constructed a freeway over land owned by Pierpont. Pie brought an action for condemnation and damages. The state demurred on the ground that Pierpont failed to file a claim under the government claims within two years of the accrual of the cause of action. The court held the claim was timely. Pierpont reasonably awaited the completion of the project to determine more accurately the exact extent to which its remaining property would be damaged. (Id. at p. 293.) Courts have subsequently cited Pierpont for the proposition that where there is continuous and repeated damage, incident to a public improvement, the limitations period does not begin to run until the situation has stabilized. (See Lee, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 857.)"
"The determination of when the statute of limitations begins to run is a question of fact. (Lee, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 857.) Here the trial court determined that the date of stabilization theory does not apply. The court found that the last improvements to the drainage system were constructed by the Exchange in the late 1970's, and that the flooding problem was relatively consistent and static for several years prior to the time Bookout purchased his property in 2000."
Caltrans-Exhibit # 579 Photos taken by Caltrans in regards to complaint in Exhibit # 579 showing Flooding!
Notice photos below withheld from discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo of Caltrans maintaining drainage channel in summer 2002! Photo of Caltrans flooding east side of State Highway 1 per Exhibit # 1789!
Molly Thurmond, ESQ. (SBN 104973) and Thomas A Cregger, ESQ. (SBN 124402) both knew at the time of trial that both had knowledge of these Causation/Date of Stabilization-Prescriptive Easement-Photos and Documents, Whitness's that they withheld from discovery and Judge Martin J. Tangeman! ( DURING TRIAL.) Hall, Hieatt & Connely, LLP on July 30, 2008 provided Questionnaires and redacted the whitness's names!. The color photos above where not provided until December 2, 2008 after trial as previously requested. Dean Benedix, County response No. 1--October 16, 2008 States: "If you would like us to provide you with copies of the redacted responses, we will produce such copies once you have paid the estimated copying cost of $50.00." Dean Benedix, County response No. 2--October 16, 2008 "Response: We will produce copies of the requested attachments and photographs per your request once you have paid the estimated coping costs of $15.00."
Lou Wheeler photos-Documents showing no flooding prior to 2004 --as viewed by Dean Benedix, Randy Ghezzi, Raleigh Greene, Max Keller, Cliff Howe, Michael Eckman per Dean Benedix statement: "I believe the attached photos are from Lois Wheeler of Oceano 481-5687 D Benedix 6/10/02"
Response No.3 from Dean Benedix After trial regarding documents wittheld from discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo! "We will produce copies of written communications and photos (in Color) Sent by oceano community members to Questa Engineering or the County of San Luis Obispo in regards to flooding in Oceano between 2000-2004 per your request once you have paid the estimated coping costs of $10.00."
The Second Appellate Court in their June 28, 2010 decision allows this type of withholding of evidence!
San Luis Obispo County/Union Pacific Railroad Exhibit # 579 photo documents withheld from discovery by County of San Luis Obispo and Union Pacific Rail Road shows Caltrans raising State Highway 1 a foot and the flooding problem on east side of State Highway 1 this created, as stated in the document provided with County 2002 Drainage Study Questionnaire! These color photos where provided December 2, 2008 and are not part of (Appendix 15) showing no Stabilization to this drainage system!
San Luis Obispo County Exhibit # 579 documents withheld from discovery by the County deals with prior County Inverse Condemnation by the County of San Luis Obispo in the Al Baughman property west of State Highway 1! In exhibit 1789 Caltrans States: "One of the members of the Oceano Commuinty Service District is an owner of property downstream from project (P. Hom)."
Glenn Priddy of the County of San Luis Obispo testified: "Are you aware of proposals for resolving the drainage problem at -- That we've referred to previously? Are you aware of proposals to resolve that problem dating back into the eighties?" Answer. Yes. Question. And have you raised issues with the respect to proposed solutions due to downstream impacts? Answer. “I have – There have been issues raised about potential downstream impacts since the eighties, and I –In the most recent discussions, I’ve pointed that out as something that needs to be looked at.” Ms Thurmond States: “Again, this is outside the water shed, not affecting Bill Bookout’ Ex-OCSD Director Larry Baughman states in the documents that the County of San Luis Obispo withheld from discovery in exhibit # 579. "We Own a home at 1519 Fountain Ave which is currently rented to Chuck Bachman. It floods every winter with up to a foot of water in the living room, causing Mr. Bachman to move to a Motel." "Water At The Corner Of 13th/Paso Robles/And Highway 1 Runs (Drains) Under The Railroad Tracks Across Railroad Ave And Collects In The Area Highlighted In Yellow On The Reverse. Something Has To Be Done To Get That Water To The Lagoon Or South To The Ag Creek At The East End Of Airport Runway. The End Of Fountain Ave Floods Every Winter. Larry Baughman"
The Oceano Airport and the Larry Baughman Property Flooding prior to 2004 as talked about in Exhibit # 579 documents withheld from Discovery/Trial by the County of San Luis Obispo!
The San Luis Obispo New Attorney's Porter Scott--Terence J. Cassidy, SBN 99189 and Thomas L. Riodan, SBN 104827--- in their Respondents Brief mention exhibit 579 defending the prejudicial error that the County of San Luis Obispo made in withholding evidence from discovery and their attempt to get out of "Harsh Discovery Sanctions" As there is plenty of evidence showing their Intentional Concealment of Evidence before and after trial! The County States: "In any event, whatever error the trial court made regarding this solitary document was harmless in light of other admissible evidence demonstrating the Plaintiff became aware of the causes of flooding damage to his property no later then 2002." (Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 595-596.) Needs to hold the County accounable for withholding evidence from discovery!
Why would a California Superior Court Judge not allow Exhibit # 1789 into evidence and then admit in against protest partial evidence, Exhibit # 579? As stated in the Court Transcripts by Union Pacific Railroad and Judge Tangeman? “And for the purpose of the exhibits we don’t need the photographs.” The Court States: “All Right” Judge Tangeman after his August 5, 2008 Inverse Condemnation Decision States on P. 2117-2018 without acknowledging the photographs, regarding other documents withheld from discovery. "I accept Mr. Belsher's argument these questionnaires where not available at that time. They weren't available until July 30th." "no fruther information was forthcoming and now the questionnaires are here I guarantee they are voluminous, I haven't even read through all of them."
County Of San Luis Obispo--Deputy Director of General Services--George R. Rosenberger..YOUTUBE.
This E-mail from OCSD General Manager Patick O' Reilly, ties in with the County Of San Luis Obispo Withholding of Evidence regarding Dean Benedix and documents within Exhibit # 579 involving Fred Brebes of Caltrans and Fountain Ave. Flooding that Judge Tangeman stated "no further information was forthcoming and now the questionnaires are here I guarantee they are voluminous, I haven't even read through all of them." This is a very large Prejudical Error, that now affects every California residents health and Safety on State Highway 1 in Oceano!
Caltrans plowing through State Highway 1 while the Baughman property is not flooded as seen in Exhibit #579 withheld by the County San Luis Obispo.
The Respondent's Brief's by the County of San Luis Obispo have chosen to lie to the Appellate Court in regards to evidence presented at trial!
This person's life is put in danger for a flooding problem created by Caltrans, County of San Luis Obipo and the Oceano Community Service District that could be abated for only $43,295.00 as seen in Caltrans documents!!! The County on P. 4 of their Respondent's Brief States: "The nuisance alleged by Plaintiff is a permanent one, difficult to abate, not a continuous one for which a new cause of action accrues upon each flood." "In addition, Plaintiff suggests no evidence that might have established the County's Liability for such torts, which require at least as much direct conduct and causation from the County, as compared to inverse condemnation." The County States on P. 29 of their Respondent's Brief States--under Statute of Limitations "A continuing nuisance is one that may be easily or inexpensively abated by the defendant," As seen in Caltrans, County and Oceano Community Service District Documents presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman this flooding can be easily abated for only $43,295.00!!!!!
In County of San Luis Obispo Files with drainage Studies and Color photos that where not part of Exhibit # 579 presented to Judge Tangeman!
Whiteness Direct knowledge of State Highway 1 Drainage that Molly Thurmond, ESQ. (SBN 104973) and The County of San Luis Obispo Dean Benedix withheld from Discovery!
Judge Martin J. Tangeman Stated September 12, 2008 in regards to these (Redacted) whiteness statements and evidence withheld from discovery above! "No further information was forthcoming and now the questionnaires are here I guarantee they are voluminous, I haven't even read through all of them." "But I think it's imcumbent to demonstrate to the court exactly which factual assertation and which witness would actually produce evidence which would result in a basis for a new trial."
The Appellate Court ignored direct testimony by Phil Davis showing the County involvement in the OCSD pipe constructed in the Rail Roads Drainage channel! P. 385 Court Transcripts-- Question: Are you aware of any permission sought by the district, itself for operating this pipe? Answer: “Other then the Health Department, I don't know of any."
Why would the State of California/Caltrans raise a State Highway as seen in exhibit #579 withheld from discovery and then grade and shovel contaminated storm water debris into a storm water drainage channel as a Community Service District; Dams and Dredges, Debris in this man made storm water drainage channel?
In Exhibit 1789 dated September 15, 1987; Caltrans States: " The County provided the permit to the railroad and/or its tenant for the new building construction that now impedes the drainage flow which is the reason that makes this project necessary."
Judge Tangeman Stated in regards to the video above presented to him at trial. "In the case of OCSD, the evidence largely consisted of the construction of the drainage outfall from Well No. 8 in the vicinity of the culvert. While there was evidence of substantial amounts of water being discharged from Well No. 8, there was an absence of evidence that such discharges occurred contemporaneously with heavy rains and flooding problems." Please view the video above taken January 13, 2007 talked about by Judge Tangeman! Judge Tangeman August 5, 2008 Decision not looking at evidence and testimony at trial PDF..
Judge Tangeman States having acknowledged OCSD use of this Drainage system on Railroad property: "I find that there has been no establishment of prescriptive easements by any of the governmental entities over the private property of the railroad." "I also find that there was insufficient evidence of causation as to Oceano Community Service District, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California as between their acts and conduct and the flooding, especially given the problems associated with the drainage across the private property of the railroad and/or of P.O.V.E., without necessity to distinguish between those two entities."
The Second Appellate Court on P. 10 of their June 28, 2010 Appellate Cour Decision has Ruled: "Arreola v. County of Monterey (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 722, 753-754.) But Bookout fails to point to anywhere in the record that the trial court applied the reasonableness test instead of strict liability. In any event, the court's ruling was based on the statute of limitations and failure to prove causation. The results are the same under the reasonableness test or strict liability. The defendants prevail."
The Second Appellate Court on P. 13 of their June 28, 2010 Appellate Cour Decision has Ruled: "All Mangini was trying to say is that a nuisance can still be continuous even after the offensive conduct has ended. The nuisance or trespass alleged here is permanent. The three-year statute of limitations bars Bookout's causes of action for nuisance and trespass."
The judgment is affirmed. Costs are awarded to respondents.
GILBERT, P.J. We concur: YEGAN, J. PERREN, J."
Caltrans Drainage from State Highway 1 per Exhibit # 1772 Dated December 17, 1973 photos and statements shows this 90 degree drainage turn going back to 1953. POVE (Exchange) did not redirect the flow as ruled by the Appellate Court!
Below are facts as decided in Yue v. City of Auburn 3 Cal.App.4th 751 The Second Appellate Court mistook these facts and I would like to have them in the record as we go to the California Supreme Court?
The fact that the Second Appellate Court on June 23, 2010 stated in Barrett v. County of Ventura—Filed 6/3/2010 Frustuck v. City of Fairfax (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 345 [28 Cal.Rptr. 357 with the 5 Year statute is very different then what the Appellate Court stated in our decision just five days later on P. 5 of their Appellate decision! This need to be in the record for the California Supreme Court~!
“Burrows v. State of California (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 29 [66 Cal.Rptr. 868] was a case in which defendant's road resurfacing and widening project eliminated a drainage ditch, thus changing drainage patterns of surface water and causing flooding of plaintiff's land.” The Appellate Court ignored Caltrans raising State highway 1 “McKinley testimony and RR and OCSD exhibit # 1756?
All of this information has been found with the Appellate Courts June 23, 2010 decision in Barrett v. County of Ventura--Filed 6/23/10 This is enough to bring this back to this Appellate Court for reconsideration!
The Oceano Community Service District and Union Pacific Railroad have presented an exhibit # 1756 to the Second Appellate District Court dated April 21,1983 pages 11, 12, 13 showing OCSD taking use of this storm Water drainage Channel Caltrans, OCSD and County using State Hwy 1 for a storm water retention PDF. While the County of San Luis Obispo on Page 17 of their Appellate Brief show OCSD and Caltrans cutting the OCSD Well # 8 Six-inch pipe above once again changing any Stabilization this system might of had! Thus, changing what the County calls an accrual date!
Superior Court Judge Teresa Estrada-Mullaney in her February 2, 2009 Judgment Decision "Notice of Judgment" States: "Judge Tangeman determined the flooding problem was "static" for several years prior to Plaintiff's purchase of his property. Plaintiff contends the flooding is continuous and can be abated. Plaintiff argues Defendants negligent maintenance of the drainage system increases the frequency and severity of the flooding. That is inconsistent with Judge Tangeman's determination that the primary culprit was POVE's improvements, rather than negligent maintenance of the drainage system. There was no showing that Union's operation of Well No. 8 contributed to the blockage. There was no showing of the County's responsibility for maintaining the drainage channel. There was no evidence that any accumulated debris in State's right of way contributed to the problems in the operation of the drainage system. County, State, Union or OCSD could not have abated the nuisance by undertaking any maintenance"Court Reporters Transcripts showing Caltrans intentionally shoveling debris into this drainage channel.PDF..
The San Luis Obispo Superior Court has Stated in their August 5, 2008 Decision regarding Inverse Condemnation: "Mr. Fry testified that any work undertaken by Cal Trans employees in the channel to help clear the channel were most likely undertaken solely as a "good neighbor" practice by a "conscientious employee” Why is Caltrans allowed to Grade Contaminated Debris Into this Storm Water Drainage Channel?
Judge Tangeman Exhibits presented to him during trial showing inverse condemnation Caltrans endangering public Safety!.PDF..
The Caltrans Supervisor mentioned by the Court explained Caltrans grading of debris into Storm Water Drainage channels as seen in Caltrans Testimony at trial on page 916-917 of the San Luis Obispo Court Reporters Transcripts.
Caltrans November 26, 2008 after the August 5, 2008 decision regarding Inverse Condemnation continuing to shovel contaminated storm water debris into this Oceano Communities drainage channel!??
In this sworn testimony statements by Caltrans. Caltrans has admitted their improper use of this storm water drainage system for their accumulated debris storage coming off of State Highway 1! Why would this Superior Court State: "There was no evidence that any accumulated debris in State's right of way contributed to the problems in the operation of the drainage system. County, State, Union or OCSD could not have abated the nuisance by undertaking any maintenance"
This flooding is continuous and can be abated with proper Maintenance by Caltrans!
Question. “Based on your personal observations, has a substantial amount of material entered onto the Highway as depicted in 1475 following the removal of the concrete wall?” THE COURT: I’ll allow that Question.
Answer. Sediment? Not so much sediment as Eucalyptus bark. There is some sediment, Yes.
Caltrans stated at trial in their testimony regarding 2003 raising State Highway 1 13th and Paso Robles Streets due to ponding problem on East Side of their State Highway--Exhibit 579 documents withheld from discovery show ponding problem in 2002 as talked about in 2002 questionnaire.
The County of San Luis Obipo in their Appellate Court brief mention "McKinley" on P. 19 but does not mention Mr. McKinley's statement below showing Caltrans changing the drainage stabilization of HWY 1. 13th, and Paso Robles Streets--per exhibit 579!
Why would a California Superior Court Judge feel that Caltrans Raising State Highway 1 and Two County Streets since 2003 is not a problem after Caltrans had raised their State Highway in December 2000? Caltrans has acknowledged this major drainage change due to East Side ponding photos above? December 2000 Below!
Caltrans Drainage changes raising State Highway 1 on purpose; affecting public health and safety is now public knowledge! It is now time for local News Media to start asking some questions of Caltrans, County and OCSD!!
Attached at the bottom are a list of exhibits presented to the trial Court, in Yellow that are documents exhibit #'s 1731, 1732, 1756, 1760, 1763, 1769, 1772, 1773, 1783 that Caltrans, OCSD, Union Pacific Railroad believes shows that this flooding can not be abated and has been flooding forever. I ask the public to decide for themselves and then talk to our News Media as this affects all California Residents!
Why is Caltrans Shoveling & Grading Storm Debris into the Oceano Communities Drainage System? The San Luis Obispo Superior Court has Stated in their August 5, 2008 Decision regarding Inverse Condemnation: "Mr. Fry testified that any work undertaken by Cal Trans employees in the channel to help clear the channel were most likely undertaken solely as a "good neighbor" practice by a "conscientious employee” Is this type of Maintenance normal for Caltrans?
Oceano Nursery Contaminated Storm Water outside damage along with Oceano Market flooding problems.
Two Feet plus of contaminated storm water in 2004 2007 Flooding!!!!
Why would Judge Tangeman feel that this OCSD Well # 8 Pipe used daily by the Oceano Community Service, pumping 2500 Gallons of water a minute into this drainage system is not a cause of the debris that is dredged into this Storm Water drainage inlet pipe? Notice the nice green grass on one side of the pipe and all the debris on the other side?
The San Luis Obispo Superior Court stated regarding this photo evidence of the Oceano Community Service District use of this Storm Water Drainage Channel: ---"In the case of OCSD, the evidence largely consisted of the construction of the drainage outfall from Well No. 8 In the vicinity of the culvert. While there was evidence of substantial amounts of water being discharged from well # 8, there was an absence of evidence that such discharges occurred contemporaneously with heavy rains and flooding problems."
The Oceano Community Service District use of this storm water drainage channel affecting public health and safety as seen in exhibit 579!!!
Notice the Dam that the OCSD Well # 8 PVC pipe creates in this Storm Water Drainage Channel 2002 photo before OCSD cut their pipe in 2002 leaving this discharge pipe in this channel to discharge debris into the Railroads drainage system????
The San Luis Obispo new Attorney's Porter Scott in their Respondents Brief mention exhibit 579 talking about this OCSD pipe in this drainage channel; in this Brief Porter Scott state: "In any event, whatever error the trial court made regarding this solitary document was harmless in light of other admissible evidence demonstrating the Plaintiff became aware of the causes of flooding damage to his property no later then 2002." This government use of a drainage system can be abated and is not harmless mixed with Caltrans raising State Highway 1 and the County of San Luis Obispo requirment of the drainage retention pond to be raised in 1985!
Question-Was that debris removed from the site or, as you said earlier, disposed at the top of the bank?
Answer. I believe they Just threw it out with a pitch fork, on the bank.
When our California Constitutional Rights are taken away from us and our property is taken for a dangerous public use, as Caltrans raising a State Highway and then shoveling and Grading Contaminated Storm Water Debris into a Storm Water Drainage Channel, it is our duty to make the public aware; especially when their public safety has been endangered!
Please View this PDF file-- Caltrans and County using State Hwy 1 for a storm water retention. The San Luis Obispo Superior Court has stated, regarding the flooding of State Highway 1 and Oceano Nursery: "County, State, Union or OCSD could not have abated the nuisance by undertaking any maintenance" Local News Media is now aware of governments use of this drainage system!
Why would the San Luis Obispo Superior Court Allow this use of a Storm Water drainage Channel against California Case Law????
JAMES ARREOLA et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. -- San Luis Obispo County Drainage Changes dating back to the early 1950's.
The San Luis Obispo Regional water Quality control board have viewed the Blog www.oceanonurseryflooding.blogspot.com and have made the following comments to Caltrans in regards to their maintenance actions above and below!!
This blog includes photos and videos of Caltrans maintenance workers plowing and shoveling flood-related debris from Highway 1 into a roadside ditch. Mr. Bookout says the Caltrans maintenance supervisor is David Fry (sp?). Mr. Bookout asserts that this activity is causing a nearby culvert beneath the railroad tracks to become clogged with debris, which exacerbates flooding of his property.
Caltrans' NPDES stormwater permit prohibits the discharge of wastes or wastewater from road sweeping vehicles or from other maintenance or construction activities to any surface waters or to any storm drain leading to surface water bodies. This maintenance activity appears to violate this prohibition. Please direct your maintenance staff to immediately discontinue this activity. Any flood-related debris should be scooped up and properly disposed of in an appropriate location. If we receive any further complaints regarding this activity, we may find Caltrans in violation of its NPDES requirements and pursue formal enforcement action.
Public projects not related to flood control trigger strict liability when they cause water damage to property, even if it is historically subject to flooding. A State Highway backed up flood water onto plaintiffs' property. The appellate court concluded that the two sources of the rule of reasonableness--traditional private water law, and Professor Van Alstyne's balancing analysis--both weighed towards strict liability. First, traditional water law does not privilege downstream obstruction of flood water, as in the instant case. Second, Van Alstyne's public policy analysis only permits a reasonableness approach where a project's primary purpose is to protect plaintiffs' property. Here, the State's purpose in building the highway was to benefit the traveling public. Arreola v. Monterey County (2002) __Cal.App.4th__ [2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4319].
Again please review these County documents County of San Luis Obispo documents showing flooding could have been abated for $43,295.00 see Pages 16-19-Sept 25, 87 .pdf Showing that this flooding could be abated by the defendants!
Can a San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge allow the County of San Luis Obispo to withhold evidence affecting public Health Safety with full knowledge of the documents that where withheld from discovery and trial? The County of San Luis Obispo withholding of evidence from discovery until December 2, 2008 should not be allowed!
Judge Tangeman Stated in regards to this information below that was withheld from discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo. Exhibit #579 Not Presented July 15, 2008 Photos of Caltrans/Brebs Raising State Highway 1 in the summer of 2002 where not provided by the County or the Railroad before or during trial as stated by Union Pacific Railroad and allowed by the Trial Court!
These Photo Exhibits # 579 that the San Luis Obispo Superior Court has allowed the County of San Luis Obispo to be withheld from Discovery affects all San Luis Obispo County Residents Health and Safety along with our California Constitution and what was California Inverse condemnation Law!!
Documents Withheld from Discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo showing Caltrans raising State Highway 1 in Summer of 2002 as the document States at the top. The second photo document withheld by the County of San Luis Obispo shows Caltrans removing debris from this drainage channel in 2002 rather then grading and shoveling storm water debris into this drainage channel!
These photos where taken by Caltrans showing the effects of Caltrans raising State Highway 1 causing a dangerious condition to pedestrian traffic, Flooding of the East side of State Highway 1 along with Splashing of inventoy at Oceano Nursery prior to full flooding in 2004 of the Oceano Market, Oceano Nursery and the old Oceano Fire Station!!!
Oceano Drainage changes from State Highway 1 to the Pacific Ocean as seen in this Caltrans August of 1953 photo Exhibit #1772 dated December 17, 1973 Caltrans Photo of Drainage channel when House's where on top of what is today the storm water drainage channel! Exhibit # 1773 dated January 10, 1985 is a proposed drainage correction for this drainage channel after OCSD took the use of this drainage channel for other purposes then storm water as seen in exhibit # 1756 dated April 21, 1983. Historically this water would not be stored on State Highway 1 as seen in the drainage path in the 1953 Caltrans Photo above! It is noticeed in this 1953 Caltrans photo that a Sand Dune is where the County of San Luis Obispo Airports drainage is today as also seen in documents withheld from Discovery by the County Of San Luis Obispo. This Drainage effects every Oceano Resident from State Highway 1 to our Pacific Ocean!
In Exhibit # 1772 dated December 17, 1973 before State Highway 1 drainage changes by Caltrans it was known by Caltrans that the Railroad had a retention pond on their property that Caltrans was also using for storm water retention. Caltrans admits that drainage west of this location being a sag in the road "Would not back up to the railroad culvert to affect highway drainage."
Oceano Residents should not be held financially responsible for the County and States Drainage changes, nor should our State highway 1 today be used for Contaminated Storm Water Retention!
March 31, 1949 Photo of Oceano before the County of San Luis Obispo began drainage changes from State Highway 1 to the Pacific Ocean.
The evidence that the County of San Luis Obispo had withheld from discovery (Exhibits # 579) that was not part of Exhibit # 1769 makes the County liable for drainage changes from State Highway 1 to the Pacific Ocean. The County of San Luis Obispo had a responsibility to provide all documents that would have gone with this 2004 Drainage and Flood Control Study.
Notice that the Oceano Lagoon had not been enlarged along with the County Airport had not been built by the County of San Luis Obispo? The drainage in 1949 did not travel to lagoon as it does today!
Below are reasons why California Case Law has been put in danger with this Trial Courts Decision ignoring California Case Law---Arreola V. Monterey 2002!
This is a history of documents discoverd involving Cal Trans, The County of San Luis Obispo and the Oceano Community Service District quotes below. Cal_Trans_Documents.pdf In these documents it is learned of the State of California concerns of drainage problems west of State Highway 1 as also seen in the documents that the San Luis Obispo County had withheld from discovery until after trial.
The Oceano Community Service District Letter to Southern Pacific Railroad April 21, 1983 stated in Quotes Exhibt # 1756 Dated April 21, 1983 written to the San Luis Obispo County; Showing the Oceano Community Service District taking the Oceano Communities Drainage channel for other use's the Storm Water Drainage. This action of eminent domain has caused this drainage system to not be able to stabilize!!!
"This Channel has been protected by use of a culvert that would conduct surface waters under Southern Pacific tracks to what may be a bunker under the loading docks of the Pismo-Oceano Vegetable Exchange (POVE) . The water, then, might flow to a small retention basin maintained by POVE."
Exhibit # 1768 shows the Oceano Community Service District taking this drainage channel for other uses then Storm Water drainage followed by their hap hazard maintenance. This document take all liability away from POVE with the Oceano Community Service Distict changing the Stabilization of this drainage system from their September 11, 1985 OCSD meeting minutes up to their January 7, 2008 daily log!
March 14, 1985 Gina Davis OCSD Deputy Secretary to the Board. ATTEST Minute Order "At its regular meeting on march 13, 1985, the board of Directors of the Oceano Community Service District directed President Allen to sign amended cooperative agreement #05a239, between the State and Oceano Community Service District, covering the contribution by the District to the State for the correction of an unsatisfactory drainage condition at Mile Post 12.4 on State Highway 1."
May 24, 1985 Cal Trans Oceano Drainage Correction From R.D. Mcnew Subject: Retention Basin on RailRoad Property Dennis Donovan, POVE, John Goni, Water Quality Control Board, Pete Hom, Jim Carpenter, Gary Simms and Bob McNew, Caltrans present. "We began the meeting by examining the present drainage conditions and discussing the conditions of the drainage prior to the expansion of the vegetable processing facility. We then discussed alternatives to lower the outlet of the drainage facility." Both Dennis and John agreed that the waste water from the vegetable washer should be seperate from the Highway drainage."
Exhibit # 1773 dated January 10, 1985 Shows Caltrans responsibility under California Case law Arreola V. Monterery 2002 initiated after OCSD drainage changes as seen in exhibit # 1756 dated April 21, 1983! In this Exhibit it is noted under background of water ponding "on the shoulder and the east half of the northbound at this location. The ponding forces northbound traffic to cross into the south-bound lane to avoid the pond." It is mentioned the minor study of this problem from 1974 that the flooding since 2004 has not been present prior! In Exhibit # 1773 under "Deficiencies and Justification shows drainage changes by OCSD in constructing a new fire station and OCSD "agreed to make a $5,000.00 contribution to improve the drainage in front of the fire station." This contribution is seen in a Signed minute order attached with this document from OCSD dated September 29, 1984!
Exhibit # 1773 Dated January 10, 1985 shows that all prior drainage problems at this location could have been abated by the State of California-Caltrans in 1985 for $41,000.00 including the $5,000.00 contribution by the Oceano Community Service District . This Exhibit is before Caltrans began raising State Highway 1 in 1985 with street lighting with OCSD!
Exhibit # 1731 January 16, 1986 letter written to POVE by Caltrans comes after the County of San Luis Obispo requied POVE to raise the Outlet of their pond and OCSD taking use of this storm water drainage channel for their Well # 8 use that is not storm water. This letter should have been written to the Oceano Community Service District along with the County Of San Luis Obispo! This involve California Case Law Arreola V. Monterey.
Exhibit # 1783 July 23, 1986 written by Caltrans to Southern Pacific Railroad are after OCSD took use of the drainage channel for their Well # 8 along with the new OCSD fire station drainage. The silt mentiond in this letter would be coming from OCSD new use of this drainage system! In this exhibit is mentioned the Railroad basin having a higher outlet. This Higher outlet came from the County's building permits requirments in exhibit #1875 March 27, 1985 County of San Luis Obispo letter!
May 14, 1987 Cal Trans File G. L. Simms Subject Oceano Drainage Problem " We discussed the flooding problems that would be created by passing the water under the railroad through a new culvert. That would require the County buy an easement south and west of the railroad to maintain a channel to protect the residences in the low lands."
May 20, 1987 Cal Trans Memorandum Robert N. Wright "The second concern is that we fully inform the downstream owner or owners of the need for a drainage ditch clean up, clean out, or improvement."
August 2, 1987 Cal Trans meeting Pete hom, Gary Simms, John Wallace, Robert N. Wright "In our last meeting it was determined that the land owners downstream would object to a new 36-inch straight drainage pipe under the railroad and county road which was proposed by the state because of the probable flooding of the Baughman property as well as others in the low lands."
Caltrans Downstream Concerns of flooding the Baughman property as well as others! Exhibits found in exhibit 579 withheld from discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo. In the evidence withheld from discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo Attorneys and not provided until after trial and December 2, 2008 are Questionnaire Statements/photos by residents and property owners of Oceano showing County Drainage Problems on Fountain Avenue, Corner of Highway 1, Front, Delta and the whole west side of State Highway 1. Residents at 1539 Fountain State: " March 2001 Flooding on entire Street."
Property owner Larry Baughman 1895 Casitas owner of 1519 Fountain Ave and Ex- OCSD Director States in this document provided by the County of San Luis Obispo after trial!: "We Own a home at 1519 Fountain Ave which is currently rented to Chuck Bachman. It floods every winter with up to a foot of water in the living room, causing Mr. Bachman to move to a Motel."
September 15, 1987 Cal Trans Memorandum Robert n. Wright a meeting was held in Frank Lentz office September 15, 1987 At that meeting were Pete Nom, Gary Summs, O.J. Solander, Richard Hill, John Wallace, Tim Smith, Glenn Priddy, Jim Granflatten and Bob Right. "it was believed that our proposed plan of installing a 36-inch pipe to replace an existing 24-inch pipe would be acceptable to the property owners if it could be shown that the project would only affect the downstream owners minimally."
November 30, 1988 Cal Trans Memorandum Fred Brebes shows Cal Trans maintenance of the drainage channel "9/1/83 Clean Ditch In oceano" "3/30/84 Clean Sand along curb from ditch" "1/1/86 Clean Ditch" 12/14/87 Clean trees from Ditch area"
Exhibit # 1332 P. 84 of a Caltrans photo dated 1-88 G.M.R. showing the drainage channel in 1988 before OCSD made fruther drainage changes that would block and dredge debris into the Railroads storm water drainage system. The Trial Court admitted into evidence Exhibits # 1331 and 1332 p. 86 as stated by the Court. "Thirteen Thirty-One And 1332 Will Be Recieved. Overruled."
November 28, 1989 Cal Trans Memorandum Frank M. Lentz Deputy District Director Right of way subject Legal Opinion "We have been concerned, however, that our construction work might generate additional tort liability."
Exhibit # 1760 March 15, 1991 from the County of San Luis Obispo to the Oceano Community Service District shows the Counties liability for drainage before any flooding of the Oceano Nursery property. This document shows the County of San Luis Obispo's liability to the Pacific Ocean.
Exhibit 1763 from the Countyof San Luis Obispo shows ally way problems ?
May 20, 1992 in a Cal Trans Memorandum from Steve Hendrickson District hydraulics Engineer "The railroad was unwilling to financially participate in this project, and as result certain legal questions were raised. Downstream property owners opposed to the project could hold the participating agencies responsible for future flooding."
When Cal Trans raised Highway 1 in late 2000, early 2003 and 2006 they chose to flood State Highway 1 and surrounding properties rather then correct a minor drainage problem!
They created ponding problems that had not been present before. They had previously discussed; and stated in a September 15, 1987 Department of Transportation Memorandum. “The State could raise the height of Highway one approximately one foot and leave both the County and the Oceano Community Services District the problem to solve on their own (P. Hom).” Their inappropriate and unsafe actions of raising State Highway 1 in late 2000, early 2003 and 2006 effect more people then the County and OCSD. It is time to correct Cal Trans inappropriate Drainage changes since late 2000!
The Following are Exhibits that were presented to the Court found in Discovery Showing County, Caltrans, OCSD Railroad Liability and knowledge of flooding west of State Highway 1 and their reasons for not fixing small problems On Highway 1 as seen in Caltrans chooseing to grade and shovel debris into the Oceano Community's Storm Water Drainage Channel as well as OCSD being allowed to daily dredge debris into the Railroads Storm Water inlet that fills up all of theirs retention pond!
Exhibit # May 1, 1985 “Contacted Rich Hill of the Oceano Community Service District about Highway drainage. I questioned him about the retention pond next to the packing sheds and who had authority over the location and construction of it. He said possibly everybody beginning with POVE S.P.R.R. and County Flood Control was involved. He also informed me that a Board member owned a house and wanted the water routed South on Highway 1to the corner and this Question will Be asked when we present the plans to the board. Bob McNew"
Caltrans September 15, 1987 Department of Transportation Memorandum stating: “The State could raise the height of Highway one approximately one foot and leave both the County and the Oceano Community Services District the problem to solve on their own.” County Documents withheld from discovery show Caltrans raising State HWY 1 in 2002! Judge Tangeman admitted this new evidence in after our trial however chose to ignore this evidence in his decision!
Caltrans Raising State Highway 1 a foot without addressing their prior Drainage concerns in the Oceano Communities Storm water drainage system as seen above in quotes from their own documents!!!!
Caltrans public safety dangers with their new sidewalk installed after they had raised State Highway 1 13th and Paso Robles Streets. Notice Cars driving over new sidwalk??????
One of serveral Accidents after Caltrans Raised State Highway 1!!!!! Notice no safety cones, that Caltrans later installed.
The Public can help by contacting their local and National News Media and bring this to the residents of California's attention.
Local County of San Luis Obispo and State government should not be allowed to endanger San Luis Obispo Residents as seen in Caltrans Documents Exhibit # 1785 dated May 14, 1987!!!
A Dention or Retention basin on Railroad property instead of State Highway 1, Oceano Market, Oceano Nursery and the Community of Oceano would abate all of this flooding of State Highway 1 in Oceano!!!

References: V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.