California Supreme Court--Inverse Condemnation Caltrans Steve Price, deputy district director for area operations and maintenance talks about the fix of the flooding of State Highway 1 would showing that this flooding can be abated!...
State Assemblymember Katcho Achadjian
San Luis Obispo County Superviser and State Assembly Katcho Achadjian
Abel Maldonado-Katcho Achadjian-Sam Blakeslee pdf...
The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Arthur Gilbert and Kenneth R. Yegan are fully aware of Judge Martin J. Tangemans statements in his August 5, 2008 inverse condemnation decision on P. 7 per photo exhibits # 1278-1337 and 1338 of this OCSD pipe directly inside the Railroad Culvert! They now allow Government to block and dam storm water drainages systems as seen in these photos! Photo Evidence/Exhibits presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman 1278-1337-1338 pdf...
Being a whistle blower in San Luis Obispo County has a price! San Luis Obispo County Department of Public Works... County of San Luis Obispo Answer to Petition for Review Supreme Court Case No. S185267 by Thomas L. Riordan, SBN 104827. The County ignores the fact that San Luis Obispo County issued the POVE building permits and required POVE to raise this drainage pond that the County uses for their storm water retention in the mid 80's! This retention pond has been in use since the 1950's per Caltrans Photos! Not 1977 when the County issued new building permits! The County acknowledges the OCSD County permitted discharge into this drainage system as seen in Judge Martin J. Tangeman exhibits noted #1278-1337-1338 showing POVE not at fault for the flooding of State Highway 1! County of San Luis Obispo Answer to Petition for Review pdf...
San Luis Obispo County Supervisers and State Assembly Katcho Achadjian This November 8, 2010 email below from the County of San Luis Obispo shows that the flooding of State Highway 1 is not the fault of Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange as ruled by San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman!
The County States as we presented to Judge Tangeman this cause of State Highway 1 flooding: "We would like propose removing the stand of eucalyptus trees that exist between Highway 1 and UPRR to reduce the frequency that maintenance would be required to clear the ditch and pipe of leaves."
The County Statement here affect everyone west of State Highway 1 with this storm water having been stored on State Highway 1 since 2004! per evidence that the San Luis Obispo withheld from Judge Martin J. Tangeman and Discovery until December 2, 2008 Please see attached PDF file: "One of the alternatives is to improve the ditch off of Highway 1 and construct a new culvert under UPRR that outlets to an adequate outfall pond on land adjacent to the airport."
Please pay attenion to this communication below to the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors! San Luis Obispo County Board Of Supervisors pdf...
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 2:55 PM
To: 'kachadjian@co.slo.ca.us'
Cc: 'donparker@coastnationalbank.com'; 'Narlene Carter-Keenan'; 'jayj@pismocoastvillage.com'; 'pupobud@aol.com'; 'nengelskirger@co.slo.ca.us'; 'James, Melissa'; 'John Belsher'; 'Greg Connell'; 'gavin.newsom@sfgov.org'; 'Lt.governor@ltgov.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Blakeslee@senate.ca.gov'; 'velie@coastnews.com'; 'bray@thetribunenews.com'; 'Colin Rigley'; 'eslater@timespressrecorder.com'; 'fmecham@co.slo.ca.us'; 'jpatterson@co.slo.ca.us'; 'kvaline@co.slo.ca.us'; 'Mark L. Mosley'; 'Roger Briggs'; Scott Radovich
Subject: RE: Judgementsc
November 12, 2010
County Of San Luis Obispo
Dear Katcho Achadjian and all County Of San Luis Obispo Board
I am having a problem in getting an answer in regards to if the County of San Luis Obispo 631 Lake Street State Highway County Of San Luis Obispo
Katcho Achadjian, Could you have the County of San Luis Obispo inform Fidelity National Title Co and Keenan/Carter Group what the County’s intentions are with these liens in the published California case law decision “Bookout v. State Of California” finding no government fault and Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange 100% liable for the permanent flooding of State Highway 1; that cannot be abated according to Judge Martin J. Tangeman! Could you ask the County if they will release this 631 Lake Street 470 Price Street
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Katcho Achadjian, on another matter, It now appears from the OCSD meeting this last Wednesday and the E-Mail I have received since (Attached Below) that the County of San Luis Obispo is looking at taking this 631 Lake Street property along with the Pismo Coast Village property, Bud Kelly Property for sale for $300,000.00 and the Coast National Bank property for sale for $300,000.00 for storm water retention! The County Of San Luis Obispo County Of San Luis Obispo
The County States of San Luis Obispo now admits that the flooding of State Highway 1 is not the fault of Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange as the County Of San Luis Obispo states in this same E-Mail dated November 8, 2010---- “However, because of the relatively flat grades it is anticipated that the pipe may need frequent maintenance to keep it clear of the eucalyptus leaves that currently clog the existing ditch and pipe.
Katcho Achadjian, will the County Of San Luis Obispo also be removing the OCSD Well # 8 discharge pipe that was permitted by the County of San Luis Obispo in the Railroads storm water drainage channel, when the County removes the Eucalyptus trees? San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman did not view this discharge pipe as a problem even though our drainage expert felt that this was one of the main causes of State Highway 1 flooding? The California Second Appellate Court in their California Case law Decision “Bookout v. State of California” now allow government discharge into storm water drainage systems as seen at www.secondappellatecourt.com
Your Help is appreciated
Sincerely
Bill Bookout
CC Roger D. Later
CC Donald Parker
CC Bud Kelly
CC Narlene Carter
CC Oceano Residents
www.californiagovernorjerrybrown.com
www.lieutenantgovernorgavinnewsom.com
www.assemblymankatchoachadjian.com
From: Vern Dahl [mailto:verndahl@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 7:42 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: Fw: Oceano Drainage Improvements on Highway 1 at 13th/Paso Robles
Hello Bill,
I opened this email on Tuesday and thought you might be interested in this subject. I have put it on the Agenda of the Oceano Advisory Council meeting which is scheduled for Monday, November 15, 2010 which meets at the Sheriff Community Room, 1681 Front Street , Oceano , California
Vern
Chair, Oceano Advisory Council
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: "nengelskirger@co.slo.ca.us" <nengelskirger@co.slo.ca.us>
To: Vern Dahl <verndahl@yahoo.com>
Sent: Mon, November 8, 2010 2:01:14 PM
Subject: Oceano Drainage Improvements on Highway 1 at 13th/Paso Robles
Dear Vern,
In the past, we've discussed some of the drainage issues in Oceano and that
you had been working on forming a community group that would be active in
seeking funding to address these issues. I wanted to let you know that we
currently have an opportunity to collaborate with Caltrans, SLOCOG, and the
Community Development Block Grant program to alleviate these drainage
problems on Highway 1 in Oceano.
The County is currently working on reviewing project alternatives. One of
the alternatives is to improve the ditch off of Highway 1 and construct a
new culvert under UPRR that outlets to an adequate outfall pond on land
adjacent to the airport. However, because of the relatively flat grades it
is anticipated that the pipe may need frequent maintenance to keep it clear
of the eucalyptus leaves that currently clog the existing ditch and pipe.
We would like propose removing the stand of eucalyptus trees that exist
between Highway 1 and UPRR to reduce the frequency that maintenance would
be required to clear the ditch and pipe of leaves. However, we do not want
to propose this as part of the solution if the Oceano CSD and/or community
viewed these trees as an asset. Do you know how these trees are viewed in
Oceano?
I've sent a similar request via email to your general manager, Raffaele
Montemuro, that he might have already forwarded to you. I apologize if this
is a duplicate request. Any perspective you can share with me on this
issue would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you very much for your assistance. If you have any questions or
comments on our proposed project, please don't hesitate to call.
Nola Engelskirger, PE
Department of Public Works
County Government Center
San Luis Obispo , CA 93408
office: (805) 788-2100
fax: (805) 788-2182
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 5:11 PM
To: 'Wilson, Nick - SLO'
Cc: 'rmiller@newtimesslo.com'; 'velie@coastnews.com'; 'sduerr@thetribunenews.com'; 'bray@thetribunenews.com'; 'bmcewen@fresnobee.com'; 'Greg Connell'; 'jwasserman@sacbee.com'; 'jboren@fresnobee.com'; 'kachadjian@co.slo.ca.us'; 'Lt.governor@ltgov.ca.gov'; 'mmosley@sezalaw.com'; 'news@ksby.com'; 'news12@kcoy.com'; 'plloyd@fresnobee.com'; 'Weber, Tad - SLO'; 'tbolton@santamariatimes.com'; 'eslater@timespressrecorder.com'; 'acharlton@timespressrecorder.com'; 'John Belsher'; 'Senator.Aanestad@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Alquist@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Ashburn@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Blakeslee@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Calderon@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Cogdill@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Corbett@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Correa@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Denham@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.DeSaulnier@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Ducheny@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Dutton@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Emmerson@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Florez@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Hancock@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Harman@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Hollingsworth@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Huff@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Kehoe@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Leno@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Liu@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Lowenthal@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.McLeod@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Oropeza@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Padilla@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Pavley@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Romero@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Runner@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Simitian@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Steinberg@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Strickland@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Walters@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Wiggins@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Wolk@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Wright@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Wyland@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Yee@senate.ca.gov'
Subject: RE:
October 27, 2010
Nick Wilson,
Please re-view my web-site www.secondappellatecourt.com as I have attached a pdf file showing what the undisputed facts, presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman, the Second Appellate Court and the California Supreme Court where! Freeing Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange of any drainage responsibility for Caltrans actions and signed contracts with the Oceano Community Service District! Supervisor Katcho Achadjian and Senator Abel Maldonado are aware of Caltrans actions as seen in their letters attached to this website pdf!
The California Supreme Court has denied my Appeal today and I have posted the videos of Caltrans shoveling and grading debris into the Oceano Community’s storm water drainage channel as the Oceano Community Service District is now allowed by the California Supreme Court to daily discharge debris and Well water into a California Storm Water Drainage Channel! Please review these, actions also under the Supreme Court Justices names on YOUTUBE!
Exhibits Recieved by Judge Martin J. Tangeman showing no Date of Stabilization and that Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange is not responsible for the flooding of State Highway 1! OCSD 1983 Letter-1985 Construction--Caltrans $5,000.00 Signed Agreement--Caltrans $42,295.00 fix! Department of Transpertation reneging on Signed 1985 Contracts-Abel Maldonado-Katcho Achadjian--Sam Blakeslee and Governor Arnold Schwarzeneggers Letters... McClatchy News-Nick Wilson--Cal Coast News-Karin Velie--New Times Ryan Miller National News Story for being a Government Whistle Blower! NBC News, ABC News, Fox News, CBS News
Supreme Court
Court data last updated: 10/27/2010 04:05 PM
Case Summary Docket Briefs
Disposition Parties and Attorneys
Disposition
BOOKOUT v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case Number S185267
Only the following dispositions are displayed below: Orders Denying Petitions, Orders Granting Rehearing and Opinions. Go to the Docket Entries screen for information regarding orders granting review.
Case Citation: none
Date
Description
10/27/2010
Petition and Depub. request(s) denied
Click here to request automatic e-mail notifications about this case.
Exhibit # 1756 Are three letters written by the Oceano Community Service District April 21, 1983 to San Luis Obispo County John Wallace. Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange, Dennis Donovan. Southern Pacific Land Company, John Sherman, explaining the OCSD Construction process of their well # 8 and their intended use of the storm water drainage channel.
Exhibit # 1730 April 29, 1983 Letter response from Southern Pacific Railroad to the Oceano Community Service District informing OCSD that the intended use of the storm water drainage channel is for “storm water runoff”
Exhibit # 1773 January 10, 1985 Department of Transportation Memorandum Document showing drainage concerns of Caltrans going back to 1974. A $5,00.00 Contributions from the Oceano Community Service District for their new Fire Station Construction drainage!
Exhibit # 1757 March 13, 1985 The Oceano Community Service District signed contract agreement with Caltrans allowing for the OCSD new Construction/Fire Station drainage to enter State Highway 1 and go into the Caltrans drainage inlet leading into Railroad culvert! March 14, 1985 Oceano Community Service District minute order regarding Caltrans agreement with OCSD # 05A239 signed by Gina Davis Deputy Secretary to the Board. March 13, 1985 OCSD meeting minutes with John Wallace showing the $5,000.0 OCSD contribution to Caltrans drainage of State Highway 1 per signed Caltrans OCSD agreement!
Exhibit # 1875 March 27, 1985 County of San Luis Obispo letter requiring requiring Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange to raise the Outlet of the storm water retention pond on Southern Pacific Railroad property. May 22, 1985 County of San Luis Obispo County Of San Luis Obispo December 13, 1984 and a letter from the Counties Chief Building
Exhibit # 1774 April 4, 1985 Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Fully Executed Copy of Cooperative Agreement between the State and the Oceano Community Service District, addressed to then General Manager Richard C. Hill.
Exhibit # 1758 September 11, 1985 Are OCSD meeting minutes showing drainage changes to the Oceano Communities storm water drainage system with the discharge of Well # 8 water onto County of San Luis Obispo property. OCSD mentions prior recommendations from Montgomery Engineers’ before John Wallace became the OCSD District Engineer after leaving the County of San Luis Obispo
Exhibit # 1759 February 27, 1986 Letter by John L. Wallace Consulting Civil Engineers to the County of San Luis Obispo Glenn Priddy for drainage coming off of State Highway 1 onto County of San Luis Obispo Airport “Pacific Place” property going into the Oceano Lagoon and then into the Pacific Ocean. “Culvert that crosses the Railroad tracks on front Street near the railroad station” OCSD new at this time that State Highway 1 Drainage was for storm drainage, rather then their Well # 8 water.
Exhibit # 1790 September 25, 1987 Letter By Gary Simms, from the Department of Transportation to the County of San Luis Obispo Glenn Priddy, showing that the OCSD and State drainage at this time could be fixed for only $43,295.00. The County of San Luis Obispo
Exhibit # 1791 October 15, 1987 from OCSD to the Department of Transportation per their 1985 $5,000.00 signed agreement with Caltrans taking liability for storm water drainage!
Exhibit # 1792 November 18, 1987 District Agreement No. 05A239 A/1 from the Department of Transportation. November 3, 1987 hand written document attached
Exhibit # 1793 May 18, 1988 letter to the Department of Transportation from OCSD, Plans for Subject drainage project from 1985 agreement between Caltrans and OCSD.
Exhibit # 1794 November 30, 1988 is Fred Brebs of the Department of Transportation maintenance log for cleaning cleaning
Exhibits # 1768 Starting in November 30, 2001 are the OCSD Phil Davis daily logs starting with the OCSD broken Well # 8 Pipe on County and Railroad property in 2001. December 20, 2002 Log, problem as seen in exhibit # 579 withheld from discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo State Highway
Exhibit # 1789 September 15, 1987 Judge Martin J. Tangeman would not allow into evidence. This document shows a conflict between the County of San Luis Obispo, Caltrans and the Oceano Community Service District after the April 4, 1985 Department of Transportation signed agreement taking the OCSD storm water.
Exhibit # 579 that the County of San Luis Obispo
Exhibit # 9 filed July 24, 2008 after trial showing complaint in exhibit # 579 withheld from Discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo
Dear Mr. Katcho Achadjian, The County of San Luis Obispo in the Petition for Review bring up the County permitting the OCSD, use of this storm water drainage system Volume 2 P. 384-385 The Appellate Court ignored direct testimony by Phil Davis showing the County Approved and their 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." This Statement shows the County Liable per (Marin v. City of San Rafael)
Dear Mr. Katcho Achadjian,Why would the County of San Luis Obispo want to withhold evidence #579 from discovery? Please review your letter attached above August 21, 2002 to Caltrans Gregg Albright and his response to you on September 26, 2002! In your letter you mention the fact that Caltrans had raised State Highway 1! You State: "Ponded water obstructs pedestrian movements through the area, it is hazardous to north bond traffic on Highway 1, and is possibly unhealthy." Attached above is Exhibit # 1768 #1790 presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman showing that the flooding of State Highway 1 can be abated! Why does Caltrans mention the Oceano Airport as a problem with our State Highway 1 Flooding in their September 26, 2002 letter?
San Luis Obispo County Supervisor, Katcho Achadjian, Caltrans in their September 26, 2002 letter. You acknowledge prior drainage problems. Caltrans admits the problems caused as seen in exhibit # 579 that the County of San Luis Obispo withheld from Discovery! Your Help is needed as Caltrans Acknowledges that their storm water drainage was stored on other private property before the Oceano Nursery property! Caltrans States: "The 13th Street/State Route 1 intersection drains to a smaller basin that Phelan & Taylor presently use, just north of the warehouse. In both cases, this is the terminus point of flow because there is no downhill path anymore for flow to get to Arroyo Grande Creek."
San Luis Obispo County Supervisor, Katcho Achadjian, your help is appreciated and needed as I ask of you and all News Media--Why Does The State Of California Have To Use My Business Property For Their Storm Water Retention? Caltrans acknowledges that they would abate my complaint as seen in exhibit # 579 to you on September 26, 2002! "The Department will correct the minor nuisance problem created by the recent maintenance repair of Route 1 at its intersection with 13th Street and Paso Robles Street."
I would like to thank, Mark L, Mosley of the law Firm Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate, LLP for their Amicus Brief Letter as all California Residents are affected by the Second Appellate Courts published California Case Law Decision in Bookout v. State Of California
Please review the following websites:
www.californiagovernorjerrybrown.com
www.lieutenantgovernorgavinnewsom.com
www.senatorsamblakeslee.com
www.assemblymankatchoachadjian.com
www.governorarnoldschwarzenegger.net
www.inversecondemnation.net www.californiasupremecourt.info www.californiasupremecourts.com www.secondappellatecourt.com www.oceanonursery.com www.supremecourtofcalifornia.com www.supremecourtcalifornia.com www.supremecourtjustices.net www.heritageoaksbankquestions.com www.unitedstatessupremecourt.net
www.governormegwhitman.co www.unitedstatessupremcourt.com
www.governorbrown.net www.lieutenantgovernorabelmaldonado.com
www.governorjerrybrown.net
www.governormegwhitmancalifornia.com
www.governorabelmaldonado.com
www.californiasupremecourt.co
The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Arthur Gilbert and Kenneth R. Yegan are fully aware of Judge Martin J. Tangemans statements in his August 5, 2008 inverse condemnation decision on P. 7 per photo exhibits # 1278-1337 and 1338 of this OCSD pipe directly inside the Railroad Culvert! They now allow Government to block and dam storm water drainages systems as seen in these photos! Photo Evidence/Exhibits presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman 1278-1337-1338 pdf...Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 2:55 PM
To: 'kachadjian@co.slo.ca.us'
Cc: 'donparker@coastnationalbank.com'; 'Narlene Carter-Keenan'; 'jayj@pismocoastvillage.com'; 'pupobud@aol.com'; 'nengelskirger@co.slo.ca.us'; 'James, Melissa'; 'John Belsher'; 'Greg Connell'; 'gavin.newsom@sfgov.org'; 'Lt.governor@ltgov.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Blakeslee@senate.ca.gov'; 'velie@coastnews.com'; 'bray@thetribunenews.com'; 'Colin Rigley'; 'eslater@timespressrecorder.com'; 'fmecham@co.slo.ca.us'; 'jpatterson@co.slo.ca.us'; 'kvaline@co.slo.ca.us'; 'Mark L. Mosley'; 'Roger Briggs'; Scott Radovich
Subject: RE: Judgementsc
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 7:42 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: Fw: Oceano Drainage Improvements on Highway 1 at 13th/Paso Robles
From: "nengelskirger@co.slo.ca.us" <nengelskirger@co.slo.ca.us>
To: Vern Dahl <verndahl@yahoo.com>
Sent: Mon, November 8, 2010 2:01:14 PM
Subject: Oceano Drainage Improvements on Highway 1 at 13th/Paso Robles
Dear Vern,
In the past, we've discussed some of the drainage issues in Oceano and that
you had been working on forming a community group that would be active in
seeking funding to address these issues. I wanted to let you know that we
currently have an opportunity to collaborate with Caltrans, SLOCOG, and the
Community Development Block Grant program to alleviate these drainage
problems on Highway 1 in Oceano.
The County is currently working on reviewing project alternatives. One of
the alternatives is to improve the ditch off of Highway 1 and construct a
new culvert under UPRR that outlets to an adequate outfall pond on land
adjacent to the airport. However, because of the relatively flat grades it
is anticipated that the pipe may need frequent maintenance to keep it clear
of the eucalyptus leaves that currently clog the existing ditch and pipe.
We would like propose removing the stand of eucalyptus trees that exist
between Highway 1 and UPRR to reduce the frequency that maintenance would
be required to clear the ditch and pipe of leaves. However, we do not want
to propose this as part of the solution if the Oceano CSD and/or community
viewed these trees as an asset. Do you know how these trees are viewed in
Oceano?
I've sent a similar request via email to your general manager, Raffaele
Montemuro, that he might have already forwarded to you. I apologize if this
is a duplicate request. Any perspective you can share with me on this
issue would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you very much for your assistance. If you have any questions or
comments on our proposed project, please don't hesitate to call.
Nola Engelskirger, PE
Department of Public Works
office: (805) 788-2100
fax: (805) 788-2182
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 5:11 PM
To: 'Wilson, Nick - SLO'
Cc: 'rmiller@newtimesslo.com'; 'velie@coastnews.com'; 'sduerr@thetribunenews.com'; 'bray@thetribunenews.com'; 'bmcewen@fresnobee.com'; 'Greg Connell'; 'jwasserman@sacbee.com'; 'jboren@fresnobee.com'; 'kachadjian@co.slo.ca.us'; 'Lt.governor@ltgov.ca.gov'; 'mmosley@sezalaw.com'; 'news@ksby.com'; 'news12@kcoy.com'; 'plloyd@fresnobee.com'; 'Weber, Tad - SLO'; 'tbolton@santamariatimes.com'; 'eslater@timespressrecorder.com'; 'acharlton@timespressrecorder.com'; 'John Belsher'; 'Senator.Aanestad@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Alquist@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Ashburn@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Blakeslee@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Calderon@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Cogdill@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Corbett@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Correa@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Denham@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.DeSaulnier@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Ducheny@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Dutton@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Emmerson@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Florez@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Hancock@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Harman@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Hollingsworth@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Huff@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Kehoe@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Leno@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Liu@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Lowenthal@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.McLeod@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Oropeza@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Padilla@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Pavley@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Romero@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Runner@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Simitian@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Steinberg@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Strickland@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Walters@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Wiggins@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Wolk@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Wright@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Wyland@senate.ca.gov'; 'Senator.Yee@senate.ca.gov'
Subject: RE:
Exhibits Recieved by Judge Martin J. Tangeman showing no Date of Stabilization and that Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange is not responsible for the flooding of State Highway 1! OCSD 1983 Letter-1985 Construction--Caltrans $5,000.00 Signed Agreement--Caltrans $42,295.00 fix! Department of Transpertation reneging on Signed 1985 Contracts-Abel Maldonado-Katcho Achadjian--Sam Blakeslee and Governor Arnold Schwarzeneggers Letters... McClatchy News-Nick Wilson--Cal Coast News-Karin Velie--New Times Ryan Miller National News Story for being a Government Whistle Blower! NBC News, ABC News, Fox News, CBS News
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
Exhibit # 1756 Are three letters written by the Oceano Community Service District April 21, 1983 to San Luis Obispo County John Wallace. Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange, Dennis Donovan. Southern Pacific Land Company, John Sherman, explaining the OCSD Construction process of their well # 8 and their intended use of the storm water drainage channel.
Exhibit # 1730 April 29, 1983 Letter response from Southern Pacific Railroad to the Oceano Community Service District informing OCSD that the intended use of the storm water drainage channel is for “storm water runoff”
Exhibit # 1773 January 10, 1985 Department of Transportation Memorandum Document showing drainage concerns of Caltrans going back to 1974. A $5,00.00 Contributions from the Oceano Community Service District for their new Fire Station Construction drainage!
Exhibit # 1757 March 13, 1985 The Oceano Community Service District signed contract agreement with Caltrans allowing for the OCSD new Construction/Fire Station drainage to enter State Highway 1 and go into the Caltrans drainage inlet leading into Railroad culvert! March 14, 1985 Oceano Community Service District minute order regarding Caltrans agreement with OCSD # 05A239 signed by Gina Davis Deputy Secretary to the Board. March 13, 1985 OCSD meeting minutes with John Wallace showing the $5,000.0 OCSD contribution to Caltrans drainage of State Highway 1 per signed Caltrans OCSD agreement!
Exhibit # 1875 March 27, 1985 County of San Luis Obispo letter requiring requiring Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange to raise the Outlet of the storm water retention pond on Southern Pacific Railroad property. May 22, 1985 County of San Luis Obispo County Of San Luis Obispo December 13, 1984 and a letter from the Counties Chief Building
Exhibit # 1774 April 4, 1985 Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Fully Executed Copy of Cooperative Agreement between the State and the Oceano Community Service District, addressed to then General Manager Richard C. Hill.
Exhibit # 1758 September 11, 1985 Are OCSD meeting minutes showing drainage changes to the Oceano Communities storm water drainage system with the discharge of Well # 8 water onto County of San Luis Obispo property. OCSD mentions prior recommendations from Montgomery Engineers’ before John Wallace became the OCSD District Engineer after leaving the County of San Luis Obispo
Exhibit # 1759 February 27, 1986 Letter by John L. Wallace Consulting Civil Engineers to the County of San Luis Obispo Glenn Priddy for drainage coming off of State Highway 1 onto County of San Luis Obispo Airport “Pacific Place” property going into the Oceano Lagoon and then into the Pacific Ocean. “Culvert that crosses the Railroad tracks on front Street near the railroad station” OCSD new at this time that State Highway 1 Drainage was for storm drainage, rather then their Well # 8 water.
Exhibit # 1790 September 25, 1987 Letter By Gary Simms, from the Department of Transportation to the County of San Luis Obispo Glenn Priddy, showing that the OCSD and State drainage at this time could be fixed for only $43,295.00. The County of San Luis Obispo
Exhibit # 1791 October 15, 1987 from OCSD to the Department of Transportation per their 1985 $5,000.00 signed agreement with Caltrans taking liability for storm water drainage!
Exhibit # 1792 November 18, 1987 District Agreement No. 05A239 A/1 from the Department of Transportation. November 3, 1987 hand written document attached
Exhibit # 1793 May 18, 1988 letter to the Department of Transportation from OCSD, Plans for Subject drainage project from 1985 agreement between Caltrans and OCSD.
Exhibit # 1794 November 30, 1988 is Fred Brebs of the Department of Transportation maintenance log for cleaning cleaning
Exhibits # 1768 Starting in November 30, 2001 are the OCSD Phil Davis daily logs starting with the OCSD broken Well # 8 Pipe on County and Railroad property in 2001. December 20, 2002 Log, problem as seen in exhibit # 579 withheld from discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo State Highway
Exhibit # 1789 September 15, 1987 Judge Martin J. Tangeman would not allow into evidence. This document shows a conflict between the County of San Luis Obispo, Caltrans and the Oceano Community Service District after the April 4, 1985 Department of Transportation signed agreement taking the OCSD storm water.
Exhibit # 579 that the County of San Luis Obispo
Exhibit # 9 filed July 24, 2008 after trial showing complaint in exhibit # 579 withheld from Discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo
Dear Mr. Katcho Achadjian, The County of San Luis Obispo in the Petition for Review bring up the County permitting the OCSD, use of this storm water drainage system Volume 2 P. 384-385 The Appellate Court ignored direct testimony by Phil Davis showing the County Approved and their 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." This Statement shows the County Liable per (Marin v. City of San Rafael)
Dear Mr. Katcho Achadjian,Why would the County of San Luis Obispo want to withhold evidence #579 from discovery? Please review your letter attached above August 21, 2002 to Caltrans Gregg Albright and his response to you on September 26, 2002! In your letter you mention the fact that Caltrans had raised State Highway 1! You State: "Ponded water obstructs pedestrian movements through the area, it is hazardous to north bond traffic on Highway 1, and is possibly unhealthy." Attached above is Exhibit # 1768 #1790 presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman showing that the flooding of State Highway 1 can be abated! Why does Caltrans mention the Oceano Airport as a problem with our State Highway 1 Flooding in their September 26, 2002 letter?
San Luis Obispo County Supervisor, Katcho Achadjian, Caltrans in their September 26, 2002 letter. You acknowledge prior drainage problems. Caltrans admits the problems caused as seen in exhibit # 579 that the County of San Luis Obispo withheld from Discovery! Your Help is needed as Caltrans Acknowledges that their storm water drainage was stored on other private property before the Oceano Nursery property! Caltrans States: "The 13th Street/State Route 1 intersection drains to a smaller basin that Phelan & Taylor presently use, just north of the warehouse. In both cases, this is the terminus point of flow because there is no downhill path anymore for flow to get to Arroyo Grande Creek."
San Luis Obispo County Supervisor, Katcho Achadjian, your help is appreciated and needed as I ask of you and all News Media--Why Does The State Of California Have To Use My Business Property For Their Storm Water Retention? Caltrans acknowledges that they would abate my complaint as seen in exhibit # 579 to you on September 26, 2002! "The Department will correct the minor nuisance problem created by the recent maintenance repair of Route 1 at its intersection with 13th Street and Paso Robles Street."
I would like to thank, Mark L, Mosley of the law Firm Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate, LLP for their Amicus Brief Letter as all California Residents are affected by the Second Appellate Courts published California Case Law Decision in Bookout v. State Of California
Please review the following websites:
www.californiagovernorjerrybrown.com
www.lieutenantgovernorgavinnewsom.com
www.senatorsamblakeslee.com
www.assemblymankatchoachadjian.com
www.governorarnoldschwarzenegger.net
www.inversecondemnation.net www.californiasupremecourt.info www.californiasupremecourts.com www.secondappellatecourt.com www.oceanonursery.com www.supremecourtofcalifornia.com www.supremecourtcalifornia.com www.supremecourtjustices.net www.heritageoaksbankquestions.com www.unitedstatessupremecourt.net
www.governormegwhitman.co www.unitedstatessupremcourt.com
www.governorbrown.net www.lieutenantgovernorabelmaldonado.com
www.governorjerrybrown.net
www.governormegwhitmancalifornia.com
www.governorabelmaldonado.com
www.californiasupremecourt.co
The Second Appellate Court is mistaken on P. 8 of their July 28, 2010 published California Case Law decision as testimony presented to the Second Appellate Court from Phil Davis of the Oceano Community Service District and exhibit 1768 are facts that have been seen and mentioned by the Second Appellate Court! This evidence is overwhelming as seen above and below! These drainage changes are made after the Appellate Courts P. 8 100% Blame of the Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange!
OCSD stated involving the County Of San Luis Obispo to Judge Tangeman P. 383 Answer: “We run the well— Right now, we’re running about five or six day a week. And we just start it in the morning, so it goes through a cycle” –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? Answer. Yes. Question: And did you oversee an extension of the pipe into the culvert that’s depicted there? Answer. Yes. 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? Answer. Yes. Question. And 1338 is another example of the pipe extended into the culvert. Thirteen thirty nine, is this an OCSD employee? Answer. “I believe it is.” Question: And I note that the pipe now is cut back from the entrance to culvert? Answer: “That’s correct.” Question: And is that an action which you and your staff took in 2002?Answer. “YES”
San Luis Obispo County Supervisor, Katcho Achadjian, 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 flooding--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"
The Court OVERRULED.
Question: (P.. 658) “Mr. Mckinley, in that grinding crown removal project in 2003, do you recollect removing any portions of 13th Street
San Luis Obispo County Supervisor, Katcho Achadjian, why would the County Of San Luis Obispo try to make a deal with my prior Attorney Scott Radovich as seen in this pdf file letter from San Luis Obispo County Attorny Clayton U. Hall to Ms. Mauri McGuire February 6, 2007? Abel Maldonado-Katcho Achadjian-Sam Blakeslee pdf... The County has endangered San Luis Obispo County residents by not fixing this flooding problem as stated by the County Attorney! "AS to the "fix" the defendents did agree that it does not make sence to resolve the plantiff's damage claim unless the problem has bee rectified. Otherwise, subsequent flooding will cause subsequent litigation."
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/Culvert for other use's then Storm Water Drainage. This action of eminent domain has caused this drainage system to not be able to stabilize and does not allow a date of stabilization! OCSD 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."
The flooding photo talked about by the Second Appellate Court P. 3 of their published California Case Law decision, below was taken in December 2002 and does not flood Oceano Nursery! This is backed up as seen in the next photo of an OCSD employee cutting the OCSD PVC pipe in the aftermath of this rain event! The Second Appellate Court on P. 3 of their published decision July 28, 2010 acknowledge the complaint of this use of this drainage system in June 2002 in exhibit #579 withheld from discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo!
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!
The Second Appellate Courts allowed use of Government to use Storm Water Drainage channels in this manner affects all California Inverse Condemnation Law beginning with Skoumbas v. City of Orinda and now Bookout v. State of California!
The Second Appellate Court States on Page 8 and Page nine of their July 28, 2010 published California Case Law decision: ---"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 Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Kenneth R. Yegan and Arthur Gilbert with their July 28, 2010 published California Case Law decision has now ended all prior inverse condemnation law, that once protected United States residents! They allow California Judges to withhold evidence attached with exhibits as Stated by Union Pacific Railroad to Judge Martin J. Tangeman! “And for the purpose of the exhibits we don’t need the photographs.” Judge Martin J. Tangeman States: “All Right” Per Exhibit 579 documents and photos!
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!
Caltrans, County of San Luis Obispo and OCSD. 
California State Highway Patrol Put in Danger with flooding--Toxic Waste
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 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 their shoveling and grading Caltrans storm water debris into the Oceano Community's storm water drainage channel!
March 1, 2007 E-Mail "It is unfortunate that i'm the one that has to be the whistleblower on the County/State/OSD-Cover-up. This has had a Defamation on my reputation, tremendous financial losses and caused a stigma on my Business that will last forever. You initially took this case on a inverse condemnation assumption and I still feel, that's the case. P.O.V.E. and Union Pacific is purely irresponsible and negligent."
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."
Video --
The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Kenneth R. Yegan and Arthur Gilbert have ruled June 28, 2010 that this 2001-2002 Oceano Community Service District drainage change is not 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."
Second Appellate Court-Inverse Condemnation 
Train Wreck
Jun 28 2010
B214906
[PDF] [DOC]
Bookout v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transportation CA2/6 filed 6/28/10 
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!County Discovery Abuse Brebes-Sutton per the Baughman Property from State Highway 1 PDF File...
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." The Second Appellate Court call this a (Single) document instead of what Judge Martin J. Tangeman Stated September 12, 2008 in regards to some of these (Redacted) whiteness statements, questionnaires and evidence withheld from discovery below! "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." County Discovery Abuse Brebes--Sutton per the Baughman Property--Highway 1 PDF File...
The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Kenneth R. Yegan and Arthur Gilbert have Ruled the actions Above and below are now Permanent and legal in California, per their Appellate Court Decision June 28, 2010! Each Justice is fully aware, that this flooding can be abated for only $43,295.00 Exhibit # 1790. They are aware of the documents above and below withheld from Discovery Exhibit # 579. They are aware of the OCSD Exhibit # 1756-Prescriptive Easement daily use of this drainage system for 2500 hundred gallons per minute of well water discharge as seen in this 1983 letter to the County of San Luis Obispo Rail-Road taking this drainage system. They are aware of the Video's of this pipe discharging debris into this drainage system since 2001 per exhibit # 1768! The County 1985 Approved and permitted--RR/POVE pond--mentioned on P. 2 and P. 6-Video P. 8 of their Appellate Court decision! They are aware of documents withheld by the County Of San Luis Obispo P. 6 and P. 7! The Appellate Court is aware that this drainage course was not changed by POVE per Caltrans Drainage Documents December 17, 1973 Exhibit # 1772 (Prejudicial Error) (Accrual Date) (Causation)
County of San Luis Obispo and Caltrans Liability to the Pacific Ocean
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!
YOUTUBE 
County Of San Luis E-Mail Deal and Withholding of Evidence
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!
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 that Flooding Could Be Abated---pdf
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!
The Second Appellate Court States Page. 7 and 8 of their June 28. 2010 decision "Even if the trial court erred in applying the statute of limitations, the trial court found that Bookout failed to carry his burden of proof as to causation in his action against the District, the County and Caltrans. Plaintiff has the burden of proving a substantial causal relationship between the defendant's act or omission and the injury. (California State Automobile Assn. v. City of Palo Alto (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 474, 481.) To carry that burden plaintiff must exclude the probability that other forces alone produced the injury. (Ibid.) " These YOUTUBE videos below show (Causation) Each State Senator and State Assembly Member is fully aware of these videos and Caltrans, County, OCSD use of this drainage system!Train Wreck 
State Highway Patrol put in danger by Caltrans! Railroad Train Wreck
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!
State Highway Patrol put in danger by Caltrans! Railroad Train Wreck 
California State Senators--State Assemblymembers knowledge of Caltrans, County of San Luis Obispo-Inverse Condemnation, affecting Public Health and Safety of our State Highway along with Photo/Statements and Documents withheld by County Of San Luis Obispo And Union Pacific Railroad at trial as allowed by Judge Tangeman, as Judge Tangeman Stated "All Right" --Prejudicial Error--
The Appellate Court is aware of their June 23, 2010 decision, which exercised dominion and control over the private drain as seen in Barrett v. County of Ventura CA2/6 filed 6/23/10 PDF]
"For liability to be imposed on a public entity for a dangerous condition of public property, the entity must be in a position to protect against or warn of the hazard." (Mamola v. State of California ex rel. Dept. of Transportation, supra, 94 Cal.App.3d at p. 788.) 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 that Flooding Could Be Abated---pdf
Caltrans, County, Oceano Community Service District were each aware from their documents that State Highway 1 Drainage could be abated for only $43,295.00 As seen in the PDF file above per Appellate Court Exhibit # 1790
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.)"
OCSD Exhibit # 1756 Causation-Exhibits # 1278, 1337, 1338 P. 8 OCSD Respondents. Breif
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 Causation-No Date of Stabilization Exhibits 1756, 1757, 1758, 1768, 1769, 1772, 1773, 1790, 1830, 1874, 1875 County March 27, 1985 permit letter requireing POVE to raise this Drainage system. On P. 9 of their June 28, 2010 Decision State: "(Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at p. 596.) In other words, the city was liable because it directed the installation of, used, and owned the pipe. It even obtained an injunction to prevent plaintiffs from interfering with its operation. None of those factors are present here." The Appellate Court ignored direct testimony by Phil Davis showing the County Approved and their 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." This Statement shows the County Liable per (Marin v. City of San Rafael)
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!
The Second Appellate Court is aware of OCSD, County drainage change actions in Exhibit # 1756 that have taken this drainage channel in Oceano per their aquired Prescriptive Easement since the OCSD April 21, 1983 letter to POVE, County Of San Luis Obispo and Union Pacific Rail Road. Exhibit # 1768 shows Causation and no date of Stabilization! Exhibit 1875 Shows the County changing the POVE pond as seen in (Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 595-596.)
train Wreck in Oceano Caused by Caltrans, County of San Luis Obispo and OCSD. California State Highway Patrol Toxic Waste
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! 
California State Senators and State Assemblymember YOUTUBE knowledge of Caltrans Caltrans Supervision YOUTUBE Video January 2007 RWQCB NPDES Permited
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.
County Of San Luis E-Mail Deal and Withholding of Evidence Sanctions ... Inverse Condemnation Sanctions California Supreme Court
From: Scott Radovich User [mailto:scott@radovich.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 9:31 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: Re: Emailing: 2006-10-06_0085
Bill,
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.
Scott
On 1/17/07 9:19 PM, "Bill Bookout" <pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net> wrote:
Scott this is a picture of my neighborhood before my nursery started flooding i'm not sure the date, but it could be 2001
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
2006-10-06_0085
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.
Court Reporters Transcripts showing Caltrans intentionally shoveling debris into this drainage channel.PDF..
California State Highway Patrol--County Of San Luis Obispo Exhibit #579
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!
Lieutenant Governor, Abel Maldonado has helped and stated May 12, 2009
"I hope that you continue to seek legal counsel and that this very difficult situation will be resolved soon."
Oceano Nursery as seen on YOUTUBE and presented to Judge Tangeman! o
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!
As seen on YOUTUBE changing the date of stabilization
The Appellate Court on Page 12 of their Appellate Decision ignores this "Continuous Nuisance" per "Mangini"
The Second Appellate Court is mistaken on P. 8 of their June 28, 2010 decision as testimony presented to the Second Appellate Court from Phil Davis of the Oceano Community Service District and exhibit 1768 are facts that have been seen and mentioned by the Appellate Court! This evidence is ovewhelming as seen below! These drainage changes are made after the Appellate Courts P. 8 100% Blame of the Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange! OCSD stated to Judge Tangeman P. 383 Answer: “We run the well— Right now, we’re running about five or six day a week. And we just start it in the morning, so it goes through a cycle” –
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?
Answer. Yes.
Question: And did you oversee an extension of the pipe into the culvert that’s depicted there?
Answer. Yes.
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?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And 1338 is another example of the pipe extended into the culvert. Thirteen thirty nine, is this an OCSD employee? Answer. “I believe it is.”
Question: And I note that the pipe now is cut back from the entrance to culvert?
Answer: “That’s correct.”
Question: And is that an action which you and your staff took in 2002?
Answer. “YES”
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."
This type of Causation, prescriptive easement over rides the Appellate Court P. 2 P. 6 determination decision that POVE construction in 1977 was the cause of this flooding! OCSD admitted in exhibit # 1756 "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." They contacted the County of San luis Obispo per their testimony. (Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 595-596.)Union Pacific Railroad Exhibit # 1768---September 11, 1985 letter and Phil Davis daily logs showed The Appellate Court Justices, the Prescriptive Easement, Causation that each have claimed does not exist! The County actions in these drainage changes and permits exhibit 1874-1875 are the main Cause per (Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 595-596.)
The Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Peren--Kenneth R. Yegan--Arthur Gilbert
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?
Answer. UH-UH.
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?
Answer. “Blowing into it.”
Question from the operation of the discharge pipe?
Answer. No
Question Do you have any maintenance plan for the channel or the culvert with respect to debris?
Answer. NO, WE DO NOT.”
The Second Appellate Court on P. 9 of their June 28, 2010 Decision State: "(Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at p. 596.) In other words, the city was liable because it directed the installation of, used, and owned the pipe. It even obtained an injunction to prevent plaintiffs from interfering with its operation. None of those factors are present here." 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." (Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 595-596.)
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."
The Appellate Court is mistaken as seen in these documents withheld by Judge Tangeman--Union Pacific Railroad and the County of San Luis Obispo!County Discovery Abuse per the Baughman Property from State Highway 1 PDF File...
Jun 28 2010
B214906
[PDF] [DOC]
Bookout v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transportation CA2/6 filed 6/28/10
Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Peren--Kenneth R. Yegan--Arthur Gilbert ignore as Stated in the Appellant's Reply Brief ("Accrual Date") or (Causation)!!! P. 7 and 8. The Appellate Court States P. 8 and 9:
"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"
The Court OVERRULED.
Question: (P.. 658) “Mr. Mckinley, in that grinding crown removal project in 2003, do you recollect removing any portions of 13th Street
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appellant's Reply Brief
"Conditions in the Watershed are not Static which Entitles Appellant to a Delayed
Accrual Date
There have been several actions and modifications by Respondents to the drainage channel and watershed which are a cause of the flooding of Appellant’s property. Judge Tangeman held that date of stabilization approach does not apply since the last improvements to the drainage system were completed in the late 1970's and the flooding was consistent and static for several years prior to the date the Plaintiff purchased his property (Appendix #13). Below is a summary of the actions by Respondents which have changed the drainage conditions relative to Appellant’s property since the construction of the junction box in the late 1970's:
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).
ii) Modification of Well #8 discharge pipe by OCSD. (RA Exhibit 1768)
iii) Operation of Well # 8 (RT Vol 2 Pg. 383)
iv) Weed abatement in the drainage channel by OCSD. (RA Exhibit 1768; RT Vol 6 Pg 1545)
v) Removal of retaining wall by Caltrans (RT Vol 3 Pg 642-643).
vi) Alteration of Highway One in the year 2002/2003 by Caltrans. (RT Vol 3 Pg 645-646)
vii) Alteration of Highway One in the year 2005/2006 by Caltrans (RT Vol 3 Pg 645)
viii) Constant shoveling and grading of debris into drainage channel by Caltrans. (RT Vol 4 Pgs 916-917, 920; Exhibits 1466-1467, 1513-1519)
ix) Accumulation of sedimentary debris in drainage channel which reduces storage capacity. (RT Vol. 4 Pg 920; RT Vol 6 Pg 1534; RT Vol. 6 Pgs. 1546-1551)
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."
Videos as presented to Judge Tangeman of OCSD prescriptive easement of dredging debris into the Oceano Community's storm water drainage system since December 2002! Now seen on YOUTUBE-------
Oceano Community Service District Well # 8 January 13, 2007
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!
As seen on YOUTUBE changing the date of stabilization
The Appellate Court on Page 10 of their decision bring up (Reasonableness) In Arreola v. County of Monterey (2002) Shows Caltrans, County and OCSD liability as all were aware of this risk posed by its public improvement and deliberately chose a course of action- or inaction-in the face of a known risk. "Knowing that failure to properly maintain the Project channel posed a significant risk of flooding." "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." JAMES ARREOLA et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. --
California Supreme Court--YOUTUBE video-Inverse Condemnation
All Videos of Caltrans actions, can now be viewed on You Tube under Inverse Condemnation, Caltrans, County of San Luis Obispo and Oceano Community Service District You Tube Video of Caltrans January 4, 2007 Shoveling Debris into the Oceano Communities Storm Water Drainage System
The Second Appellate Court on Page 12 of their June 28, 2010 decision claim that this flooding is permanent---Ignoring Exhibit # 1790 and Exhibit # 1768, 1875! Even though the evidence presented to them shows, that can be abated for $42,295.00 They bring up (Baker v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority (1985) Baker shows the accrual of a nuisance cause of action depends on whether the nuisance is permanent or continuing: “In general, a permanent nuisance is considered to be a permanent injury to property for which damages are assessed once and for all, while a continuing nuisance is considered to be a series of successive injuries for which the plaintiff must bring successive actions. (Baker v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority (1985) 39 Cal.3d 862, 868-869 (Baker).)
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.)!
Caltrans States to the Regional Water Quality Control Board---January 12, 2009:
"Due to past litigation, the Department is no longer responsible or allowed
to maintain the channel located off of the Caltrans right of way. If you
would like further information about the drainage situation and the
maintenance effort at this location, which has a history beyond what can
be detailed in an e-mail, please let me know so that I can arrange a
meeting with Department staff familiar with the drainage challenges and
restrictions at this site."
Respectfully,
Pete Riegelhuth
D-5 NPDES Coordinator
Office 805-549-3375
Cell 805-305-7726"
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????
Caltans David Fry testified to Judge Tangeman regarding Caltrans 5 Year Prescriptive Easement--construction in the Railroad drainage channel and changes made by Caltrans of the OCSD Well # 8 Pipe in December 2002 with Caltrans installing concrete bags in front of the Oceano Community Service District Well # 8 water discharge Pipe Page 931 per exhibit # 579: Answer. “Mr. Bookout called me and asked me if I could come down and look at the pipe that – A pipe that was inserted into the entrance of the culvert. So we went down there. I met with Mr. Bookout, and I also met with Phil Davis from the Oceano Community Service District. and Mr. Bookout’s concern was that the pipe was blocking the entrance and, basically, the volume of the pipe. The --The Community Service District pipe was taking up some of the space the water could flow through the culvert.” Question. Okay. Answer. “So his request was that the Oceano Community Services District cut the four-inch water pipe, shorten it so that it didn’t actually go into the entrance to the culvert.” Question. Was that done? Answer. “That was done And when we were discussing that, I suggested that they put concrete sacks at the bottom, you know, in the bottom underneath the culvert pipe coming out a few feet, so they didn’t create a wetlands there. Because , basically, dumping extra water into the culvert -–I don’t know how often OCSD flushes their water tank, but by adding extra water, if that was wet all year-round, you’d have Tules growing there and it would create a wet lands.” So by placing something solid underneath it, then you would avoid that issue, because once that issue arises, then there’s a whole new – A whole new can of worms.” Question. Additional problems? Answer. “Additional problems, Yes.” Question Regarding what level – What types of maintenance activities could be done in wetlands; Is that correct? Answer. “Correct.”
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!
The Second Appellate Court on P. 6 of their June 28, 2010 decision ignore that this (Prescriptive Easemant) drainage situation, that has not Stabilized per the exhibits presented to them! The Appellate Court States:
"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.)"
.jpg)
.jpg)
"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" The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Peren--Kenneth R. Yegan--Arthur Gilbert ignored the County 1985 Building Permits Exhibits # 1874, 1875 as presented to the Appellate Court Requiring POVE to raise the OCSD, Caltrans, RR, County Drainage HWY Outlet State, Caltrans, County, RWQCB Drainage to the Pacific Ocean--Involving Toxic Waste!PDF...
Cal Trans November 26, 2008 after Judge Tangemans Decision calling this being a good neighbor! YOUTUBE Video...
RE: Statute of Limitations and Prejudicial Error in regards to evidence withheld from discovery/trial by the County of San Luis Obispo and Molly Thurmond, Esq. (SBN 104973)Exhibit #579 (Appendix 15) Prejudicial Error or Not? Photo/Statement Documents withheld by County Of San Luis Obispo And Railroad at trial as allowed by Judge Tangeman, as Judge Tangeman Stated "All Right" County of San Luis Obispo Causation in permits and drainage requirements on private property. OCSD and Caltrans correcting 2002 drainage complaint problems in 2002/2003 as stated in exhibit #579 Complaint Photos, Caltrans-McKinley Testomony P. 645 and (RA exhibit #1768) changing the Statute of Limitations! Date of Stabilization per Caltrans photos below per complaint! Judge Tangeman mishearing Caltrans Testomony, that from 2002 and prior Caltrans had a 30 year history of maintaining this drainage channel with Caltrans equipment rather then shoveling and grading debris into this drainage channel since! OCSD Prescriptive Easement (Taking) giving a 5 year statute of limitations
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!
The Second Appellate Courts allowed use of Government to use Storm Water Drainage channels in this manner affects all California Inverse Condemnation Law beginning with Skoumbas v. City of Orinda and now Bookout v. State of California!
The Second Appellate Court States on Page 8 and Page nine of their July 28, 2010 published California Case Law decision: ---"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 Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Kenneth R. Yegan and Arthur Gilbert with their July 28, 2010 published California Case Law decision has now ended all prior inverse condemnation law, that once protected United States residents! They allow California Judges to withhold evidence attached with exhibits as Stated by Union Pacific Railroad to Judge Martin J. Tangeman! “And for the purpose of the exhibits we don’t need the photographs.” Judge Martin J. Tangeman States: “All Right” Per Exhibit 579 documents and photos!
Caltrans, County of San Luis Obispo and OCSD. California State Highway Patrol Put in Danger with flooding--Toxic Waste 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 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 their shoveling and grading Caltrans storm water debris into the Oceano Community's storm water drainage channel!
March 1, 2007 E-Mail "It is unfortunate that i'm the one that has to be the whistleblower on the County/State/OSD-Cover-up. This has had a Defamation on my reputation, tremendous financial losses and caused a stigma on my Business that will last forever. You initially took this case on a inverse condemnation assumption and I still feel, that's the case. P.O.V.E. and Union Pacific is purely irresponsible and negligent."
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."
Video -- The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Kenneth R. Yegan and Arthur Gilbert have ruled June 28, 2010 that this 2001-2002 Oceano Community Service District drainage change is not 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."
Second Appellate Court-Inverse Condemnation Train Wreck | Jun 28 2010 |
B214906 [PDF] [DOC] |
Bookout v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transportation CA2/6 filed 6/28/10 |
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." The Second Appellate Court call this a (Single) document instead of what Judge Martin J. Tangeman Stated September 12, 2008 in regards to some of these (Redacted) whiteness statements, questionnaires and evidence withheld from discovery below! "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." County Discovery Abuse Brebes--Sutton per the Baughman Property--Highway 1 PDF File... "For liability to be imposed on a public entity for a dangerous condition of public property, the entity must be in a position to protect against or warn of the hazard." (Mamola v. State of California ex rel. Dept. of Transportation, supra, 94 Cal.App.3d at p. 788.) 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 that Flooding Could Be Abated---pdf 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 Causation-No Date of Stabilization Exhibits 1756, 1757, 1758, 1768, 1769, 1772, 1773, 1790, 1830, 1874, 1875 County March 27, 1985 permit letter requireing POVE to raise this Drainage system. On P. 9 of their June 28, 2010 Decision State: "(Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at p. 596.) In other words, the city was liable because it directed the installation of, used, and owned the pipe. It even obtained an injunction to prevent plaintiffs from interfering with its operation. None of those factors are present here." The Appellate Court ignored direct testimony by Phil Davis showing the County Approved and their 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." This Statement shows the County Liable per (Marin v. City of San Rafael) 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!. From: Scott Radovich User [mailto:scott@radovich.com] Bill, Scott this is a picture of my neighborhood before my nursery started flooding i'm not sure the date, but it could be 2001 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 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." The Appellate Court is mistaken as seen in these documents withheld by Judge Tangeman--Union Pacific Railroad and the County of San Luis Obispo!County Discovery Abuse per the Baughman Property from State Highway 1 PDF File... "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." Accrual Date There have been several actions and modifications by Respondents to the drainage channel and watershed which are a cause of the flooding of Appellant’s property. Judge Tangeman held that date of stabilization approach does not apply since the last improvements to the drainage system were completed in the late 1970's and the flooding was consistent and static for several years prior to the date the Plaintiff purchased his property (Appendix #13). Below is a summary of the actions by Respondents which have changed the drainage conditions relative to Appellant’s property since the construction of the junction box in the late 1970's: 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). ii) Modification of Well #8 discharge pipe by OCSD. (RA Exhibit 1768) iii) Operation of Well # 8 (RT Vol 2 Pg. 383) iv) Weed abatement in the drainage channel by OCSD. (RA Exhibit 1768; RT Vol 6 Pg 1545) v) Removal of retaining wall by Caltrans (RT Vol 3 Pg 642-643). vi) Alteration of Highway One in the year 2002/2003 by Caltrans. (RT Vol 3 Pg 645-646) vii) Alteration of Highway One in the year 2005/2006 by Caltrans (RT Vol 3 Pg 645) viii) Constant shoveling and grading of debris into drainage channel by Caltrans. (RT Vol 4 Pgs 916-917, 920; Exhibits 1466-1467, 1513-1519) ix) Accumulation of sedimentary debris in drainage channel which reduces storage capacity. (RT Vol. 4 Pg 920; RT Vol 6 Pg 1534; RT Vol. 6 Pgs. 1546-1551) 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 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 Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Kenneth R. Yegan and Arthur Gilbert have Ruled the actions Above and below are now Permanent and legal in California, per their Appellate Court Decision June 28, 2010! Each Justice is fully aware, that this flooding can be abated for only $43,295.00 Exhibit # 1790. They are aware of the documents above and below withheld from Discovery Exhibit # 579. They are aware of the OCSD Exhibit # 1756-Prescriptive Easement daily use of this drainage system for 2500 hundred gallons per minute of well water discharge as seen in this 1983 letter to the County of San Luis Obispo Rail-Road taking this drainage system. They are aware of the Video's of this pipe discharging debris into this drainage system since 2001 per exhibit # 1768! The County 1985 Approved and permitted--RR/POVE pond--mentioned on P. 2 and P. 6-Video P. 8 of their Appellate Court decision! They are aware of documents withheld by the County Of San Luis Obispo P. 6 and P. 7! The Appellate Court is aware that this drainage course was not changed by POVE per Caltrans Drainage Documents December 17, 1973 Exhibit # 1772 (Prejudicial Error) (Accrual Date) (Causation)
County of San Luis Obispo and Caltrans Liability to the Pacific Ocean
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!
YOUTUBE County Of San Luis E-Mail Deal and Withholding of Evidence
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!
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 that Flooding Could Be Abated---pdf
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!
The Second Appellate Court States Page. 7 and 8 of their June 28. 2010 decision "Even if the trial court erred in applying the statute of limitations, the trial court found that Bookout failed to carry his burden of proof as to causation in his action against the District, the County and Caltrans. Plaintiff has the burden of proving a substantial causal relationship between the defendant's act or omission and the injury. (California State Automobile Assn. v. City of Palo Alto (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 474, 481.) To carry that burden plaintiff must exclude the probability that other forces alone produced the injury. (Ibid.) " These YOUTUBE videos below show (Causation) Each State Senator and State Assembly Member is fully aware of these videos and Caltrans, County, OCSD use of this drainage system!Train Wreck State Highway Patrol put in danger by Caltrans! Railroad Train Wreck
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!
State Highway Patrol put in danger by Caltrans! Railroad Train Wreck
California State Senators--State Assemblymembers knowledge of Caltrans, County of San Luis Obispo-Inverse Condemnation, affecting Public Health and Safety of our State Highway along with Photo/Statements and Documents withheld by County Of San Luis Obispo And Union Pacific Railroad at trial as allowed by Judge Tangeman, as Judge Tangeman Stated "All Right" --Prejudicial Error--
The Appellate Court is aware of their June 23, 2010 decision, which exercised dominion and control over the private drain as seen in Barrett v. County of Ventura CA2/6 filed 6/23/10 PDF]
Caltrans, County, Oceano Community Service District were each aware from their documents that State Highway 1 Drainage could be abated for only $43,295.00 As seen in the PDF file above per Appellate Court Exhibit # 1790
OCSD Exhibit # 1756 Causation-Exhibits # 1278, 1337, 1338 P. 8 OCSD Respondents. Breif
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!
The Second Appellate Court is aware of OCSD, County drainage change actions in Exhibit # 1756 that have taken this drainage channel in Oceano per their aquired Prescriptive Easement since the OCSD April 21, 1983 letter to POVE, County Of San Luis Obispo and Union Pacific Rail Road. Exhibit # 1768 shows Causation and no date of Stabilization! Exhibit 1875 Shows the County changing the POVE pond as seen in (Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 595-596.)
train Wreck in Oceano Caused by Caltrans, County of San Luis Obispo and OCSD. California State Highway Patrol Toxic Waste
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! California State Senators and State Assemblymember YOUTUBE knowledge of Caltrans Caltrans Supervision YOUTUBE Video January 2007 RWQCB NPDES Permited
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
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.
County Of San Luis E-Mail Deal and Withholding of Evidence Sanctions ... Inverse Condemnation Sanctions California Supreme Court
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 9:31 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: Re: Emailing: 2006-10-06_0085
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.
Scott
On 1/17/07 9:19 PM, "Bill Bookout" <pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net> wrote:
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
2006-10-06_0085
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.
Court Reporters Transcripts showing Caltrans intentionally shoveling debris into this drainage channel.PDF..
California State Highway Patrol--County Of San Luis Obispo Exhibit #579
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!
Lieutenant Governor, Abel Maldonado has helped and stated May 12, 2009
"I hope that you continue to seek legal counsel and that this very difficult situation will be resolved soon."
Oceano Nursery as seen on YOUTUBE and presented to Judge Tangeman! o
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!
As seen on YOUTUBE changing the date of stabilization
The Appellate Court on Page 12 of their Appellate Decision ignores this "Continuous Nuisance" per "Mangini"
The Second Appellate Court is mistaken on P. 8 of their June 28, 2010 decision as testimony presented to the Second Appellate Court from Phil Davis of the Oceano Community Service District and exhibit 1768 are facts that have been seen and mentioned by the Appellate Court! This evidence is ovewhelming as seen below! These drainage changes are made after the Appellate Courts P. 8 100% Blame of the Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange! OCSD stated to Judge Tangeman P. 383 Answer: “We run the well— Right now, we’re running about five or six day a week. And we just start it in the morning, so it goes through a cycle” –
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?
Answer. Yes.
Question: And did you oversee an extension of the pipe into the culvert that’s depicted there?
Answer. Yes.
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?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And 1338 is another example of the pipe extended into the culvert. Thirteen thirty nine, is this an OCSD employee? Answer. “I believe it is.”
Question: And I note that the pipe now is cut back from the entrance to culvert?
Answer: “That’s correct.”
Question: And is that an action which you and your staff took in 2002?
Answer. “YES”
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."
This type of Causation, prescriptive easement over rides the Appellate Court P. 2 P. 6 determination decision that POVE construction in 1977 was the cause of this flooding! OCSD admitted in exhibit # 1756 "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." They contacted the County of San luis Obispo per their testimony. (Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 595-596.)Union Pacific Railroad Exhibit # 1768---September 11, 1985 letter and Phil Davis daily logs showed The Appellate Court Justices, the Prescriptive Easement, Causation that each have claimed does not exist! The County actions in these drainage changes and permits exhibit 1874-1875 are the main Cause per (Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 595-596.)
The Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Peren--Kenneth R. Yegan--Arthur Gilbert
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?
Answer. UH-UH.
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?
Answer. “Blowing into it.”
Question from the operation of the discharge pipe?
Answer. No
Question Do you have any maintenance plan for the channel or the culvert with respect to debris?
Answer. NO, WE DO NOT.”
The Second Appellate Court on P. 9 of their June 28, 2010 Decision State: "(Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at p. 596.) In other words, the city was liable because it directed the installation of, used, and owned the pipe. It even obtained an injunction to prevent plaintiffs from interfering with its operation. None of those factors are present here." 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." (Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 595-596.)
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.)"
Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Peren--Kenneth R. Yegan--Arthur Gilbert ignore as Stated in the Appellant's Reply Brief ("Accrual Date") or (Causation)!!! P. 7 and 8. The Appellate Court States P. 8 and 9:
Jun 28 2010
B214906
[PDF] [DOC]Bookout v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transportation CA2/6 filed 6/28/10
"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"
The Court OVERRULED.
Question: (P.. 658) “Mr. Mckinley, in that grinding crown removal project in 2003, do you recollect removing any portions of
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appellant's Reply Brief
"Conditions in the Watershed are not Static which Entitles Appellant to a Delayed
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."
Videos as presented to Judge Tangeman of OCSD prescriptive easement of dredging debris into the Oceano Community's storm water drainage system since December 2002! Now seen on YOUTUBE-------
Oceano Community Service District Well # 8 January 13, 2007
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!
As seen on YOUTUBE changing the date of stabilization
The Appellate Court on Page 10 of their decision bring up (Reasonableness) In Arreola v. County of Monterey (2002) Shows Caltrans, County and OCSD liability as all were aware of this risk posed by its public improvement and deliberately chose a course of action- or inaction-in the face of a known risk. "Knowing that failure to properly maintain the Project channel posed a significant risk of flooding." "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." JAMES ARREOLA et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. --
California Supreme Court--YOUTUBE video-Inverse Condemnation
All Videos of Caltrans actions, can now be viewed on You Tube under Inverse Condemnation, Caltrans, County of San Luis Obispo and Oceano Community Service District You Tube Video of Caltrans January 4, 2007 Shoveling Debris into the Oceano Communities Storm Water Drainage System
The Second Appellate Court on Page 12 of their June 28, 2010 decision claim that this flooding is permanent---Ignoring Exhibit # 1790 and Exhibit # 1768, 1875! Even though the evidence presented to them shows, that can be abated for $42,295.00 They bring up (Baker v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority (1985) Baker shows the accrual of a nuisance cause of action depends on whether the nuisance is permanent or continuing: “In general, a permanent nuisance is considered to be a permanent injury to property for which damages are assessed once and for all, while a continuing nuisance is considered to be a series of successive injuries for which the plaintiff must bring successive actions. (Baker v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority (1985) 39 Cal.3d 862, 868-869 (Baker).)
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.)!
Caltrans States to the Regional Water Quality Control Board---January 12, 2009:
"Due to past litigation, the Department is no longer responsible or allowed
to maintain the channel located off of the Caltrans right of way. If you
would like further information about the drainage situation and the
maintenance effort at this location, which has a history beyond what can
be detailed in an e-mail, please let me know so that I can arrange a
meeting with Department staff familiar with the drainage challenges and
restrictions at this site."
Respectfully,
Pete Riegelhuth
D-5 NPDES Coordinator
Office 805-549-3375
Cell 805-305-7726"
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????
Caltans David Fry testified to Judge Tangeman regarding Caltrans 5 Year Prescriptive Easement--construction in the Railroad drainage channel and changes made by Caltrans of the OCSD Well # 8 Pipe in December 2002 with Caltrans installing concrete bags in front of the Oceano Community Service District Well # 8 water discharge Pipe Page 931 per exhibit # 579: Answer. “Mr. Bookout called me and asked me if I could come down and look at the pipe that – A pipe that was inserted into the entrance of the culvert. So we went down there. I met with Mr. Bookout, and I also met with Phil Davis from the Oceano Community Service District. and Mr. Bookout’s concern was that the pipe was blocking the entrance and, basically, the volume of the pipe. The --The Community Service District pipe was taking up some of the space the water could flow through the culvert.” Question. Okay. Answer. “So his request was that the Oceano Community Services District cut the four-inch water pipe, shorten it so that it didn’t actually go into the entrance to the culvert.” Question. Was that done? Answer. “That was done And when we were discussing that, I suggested that they put concrete sacks at the bottom, you know, in the bottom underneath the culvert pipe coming out a few feet, so they didn’t create a wetlands there. Because , basically, dumping extra water into the culvert -–I don’t know how often OCSD flushes their water tank, but by adding extra water, if that was wet all year-round, you’d have Tules growing there and it would create a wet lands.” So by placing something solid underneath it, then you would avoid that issue, because once that issue arises, then there’s a whole new – A whole new can of worms.” Question. Additional problems? Answer. “Additional problems, Yes.” Question Regarding what level – What types of maintenance activities could be done in wetlands; Is that correct? Answer. “Correct.”
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!
The Second Appellate Court on P. 6 of their June 28, 2010 decision ignore that this (Prescriptive Easemant) drainage situation, that has not Stabilized per the exhibits presented to them! The Appellate Court States:
"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.)"
.jpg){kind=spacer}
.jpg)
"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" The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Peren--Kenneth R. Yegan--Arthur Gilbert ignored the County 1985 Building Permits Exhibits # 1874, 1875 as presented to the Appellate Court Requiring POVE to raise the OCSD, Caltrans, RR, County Drainage HWY Outlet State, Caltrans, County, RWQCB Drainage to the Pacific Ocean--Involving Toxic Waste!PDF...
Cal Trans November 26, 2008 after Judge Tangemans Decision calling this being a good neighbor! YOUTUBE Video...
RE: Statute of Limitations and Prejudicial Error in regards to evidence withheld from discovery/trial by the County of San Luis Obispo and Molly Thurmond, Esq. (SBN 104973)Exhibit #579 (Appendix 15) Prejudicial Error or Not? Photo/Statement Documents withheld by County Of San Luis Obispo And Railroad at trial as allowed by Judge Tangeman, as Judge Tangeman Stated "All Right" County of San Luis Obispo Causation in permits and drainage requirements on private property. OCSD and Caltrans correcting 2002 drainage complaint problems in 2002/2003 as stated in exhibit #579 Complaint Photos, Caltrans-McKinley Testomony P. 645 and (RA exhibit #1768) changing the Statute of Limitations! Date of Stabilization per Caltrans photos below per complaint! Judge Tangeman mishearing Caltrans Testomony, that from 2002 and prior Caltrans had a 30 year history of maintaining this drainage channel with Caltrans equipment rather then shoveling and grading debris into this drainage channel since! OCSD Prescriptive Easement (Taking) giving a 5 year statute of limitations
