Appellate court hearing scheduled in San Luis Obispo

May 5, 2010

In an unusual move, the California 2nd District Appellate Court will hear oral arguments regarding a contentious local appeal in the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisor chambers on Thursday at 9:30 a.m.

An Oceano business owner, whose property has been plagued by flooding, appealed a ruling by San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman. The judge had ruled that Bill Bookout’s flooding problems were not the result of government errors.

Bookout contends that because Caltrans raised the highway and has continued to shovel debris into the drainage system in an effort to protect neighboring properties, his Oceano Nursery building has repeatedly flooded and is now unusable because of mold.

In 2006, Bookout sued Caltrans, the Oceano Community Services District, San Luis Obispo County, the Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange, and the Union Pacific Railroad. He lost the suit and in 2008 laid off 12 employees and closed the Oceano Nursery.

Meanwhile, over the past year, the highway has flooded 13 times.

San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Katcho Achadjian said he believes the appeals case will help identify the party responsible for the flooding problems.



  1. ————————As presented to each State Senator and State Accembly Man as seen at

    California State Senate
    From: Bill Bookout []
    Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 4:45 PM
    To: ‘’
    Cc: ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘SANDRA SHEFFIELD’; ‘Weber, Tad – SLO’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’
    Subject: RE: Our California Constitution

    Dear State Senators and State Assembly Members and all News Media———————–

    New California case law regarding Inverse Condemnation will be decided on May 6, 2010 in the Appellate Court Case Bookout et al. v. State of California Dept. of Transportation in the San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors building at 9:30 am.

    To Be Decided:

    1) Can Caltrans shovel and Grade Contaminated Storm Water and Debris into our California Storm Water Drainage systems? This will affect all Counties in California!

    2) Can California County’s withhold evidence and whiteness’s from discovery?

    3) Are Superior Court Judges allowed to determine what evidence is withheld from discovery and assist in withholding evidence from discovery as stated by Judge Tangeman in Exhibit # 579—“And for the purpose of the exhibits we don’t need the photographs.” The Court Judge Tangeman—States: “All Right”

    4) Is Caltrans allowed in California to raise our State Highways without addressing drainage issues?

    5) Is local Government allowed to daily dredge debris and Community Well water into storm water drainage systems? Judge Tangeman Stated in regards to the video evidence. “In the case of OCSD, the evidence largely consisted of the construction of the drainage outfall from Well No. 8 in the vicinity of the culvert. While there was evidence of substantial amounts of being discharged from Well No. 8, there was an absence of evidence that such discharges occurred contemporaneously with heavy rains and flooding problems.”

    6) Are California Superior Court Judges allowed to ignore California case law presented to them dealing with inverse Condemnation? Arreola v. County of Monterey (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 722.

    7) If California Superior Court Judges can change trial Court testimony. Judge Tangeman misheard Caltrans Testimony on Page 936 As stated–“Now, the – we saw earlier a photograph of a Caltrans loader, as you described it , actually in the channel. Do you have – I mean, can you tell us why that was done? To your understanding , why that would have been done?” Answer. “I would imagine that the loader was working in the area. The
    employee who was running the loader was probably a conscientious employee and wanted to try to help.” Question. Do you have a problem with your employees doing “Good Neighbor” sort of deeds like that?” Answer. “NO, we do – We try to do that when we can.” This is what Judge Tangeman stated in his August 5, 2008 ruling that changes the true testimony of Caltrans “Mr. Fry testified that any work undertaken by Cal Trans employees in the channel to help clear the channel were most likely undertaken solely as a “good neighbor” practice by a “conscientious employee”

    2nd Appellate District
    Change court Supreme District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 Div 1 District 4 Div 2 District 4 Div 3 District 5 District 6

    Court data last updated: 05/03/2010 05:05 PM

    Case Summary Docket Scheduled Actions Briefs
    Disposition Parties and Attorneys Trial Court

    Case Summary

    Trial Court Case:

    Court of Appeal Case:


    Case Caption:
    Bookout et al. v. State of California Dept. of Transportation

    Case Type:

    Filing Date:

    Oral Argument Date/Time:
    05/06/2010 09:30 AM


    From: Bill Bookout []
    Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 5:09 PM
    To: ‘’
    Cc: ‘’; ‘’
    Subject: RE: Our California Constitution

    Dear Assembly Member Perez, Senator Maldonado and Assembly Member Sam Blakeslee

    I have added this video to YOUTUBE addressed to the State Senator and Assembly Members.

    Please review Caltrans Actions:

    Added to
    Quicklist 1:12

    California State Assemblymebers–John Perez, California State Senators Abel Maldonado

    California State Assemblymebers–John Perez, California State Senators Abel Maldonado

    (0) 2 Total Votes - 1 up - 1 down
  2. ————-Victory, Victory, Victory with the Appelate Court Hearing today in San Luis Obispo

    Appellant presents this reply to Respondents Oceano Community Services District,
    County of San Luis Obispo, Union Pacific Railroad, and State of California – Department of
    Transportation’s Brief.
    A. A Three-Year Statute of Limitation is not a Complete Defense to this Action.
    Respondents argue that the three-year statute of limitation found in Code of Civil
    Procedure 338(j) is a complete defense to this action. Appellant has argued in it opening
    brief that a five-year statute of limitation for a permanent continuing taking should apply
    since these Defendants have created a drainage basin on Appellant’s property during any
    substantial rainstorm. See Appellant’s opening brief, pgs 8-10.
    Assuming, arguendo, that Appellant is held subject to a three-year statute of
    limitation, the conditions at the Subject Property warrant successive three-year time periods
    after each flood, since the conditions change every year and his property and inventory were
    damaged differently during each flood. A continuous and repeated course of conduct causing
    damages to one’s property which have not stabilized does not begin the accrual of a cause
    of action. Lee v Los Angels County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2003) 107
    Cal.App.4th 848, 858. It is not argued that the culvert was still under construction when
    Appellant’s property first began flooding, but that these Defendants continued to assert
    control, use, perform haphazard maintenance, and alter the conditions of the watershed every
    year which destabilizes the conditions at the drainage facility and causes the floods.
    Respondents and the trial court cite to Lyles v State of California (2007) 153
    Cal.App.4th 281, in support of their position that a three-year statute of limitation completely
    bars Appellant’s action. Lyles v. State of California dealt with a one-time flood allegedly
    caused by an inadequate drainage system surrounding Highway 1. This case did not address
    how to apply the three-year statute of limitation when there are successive, periodic floods
    every year. In Appellant’s situation, each flood creates a new statute of limitation since the
    type of haphazard maintenance, severity of rain storm, upstream watershed conditions,
    OCSD Well #8 operations, and the level of inlet storage capacity are different but existing
    upon each flood.
    B. 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
    chanel 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 chanel. (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 chanel 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 chanel by
    Caltrans. (RT Vol 4 Pgs 916-917, 920; Exhibits 1466-1467, 1513-1519)
    ix) Accumulation of sedimentary debris in drainage chanel which reduces
    storage capacity. (RT Vol. 4 Pg 920; RT Vol 6 Pg 1534; RT Vol. 6 Pgs.
    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
    C. 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
    D. Respondent’s Subversion of the Civil Discovery Act has Prejudiced Appellant’s
    Respondents have argued that the admittance of Exhibit 579 was not prejudicial and
    was proper. The Civil Discovery Act requires all parties to make reasonable attempts to
    respond to discovery in a timely manner and reasonable and diligent attempt to locate
    requested documents. Exhibit 579 was never produced during discovery, and should have
    been withheld from the trial after Appellant’s proper objection. Although admittedly
    authored by Appellant, he did not remember completing the questionnaire and its use during
    trial was a complete surprise to Appellant. (RT Vol.5 Pgs. 1219-1221). This error goes
    beyond the mere non-disclosure of one document, all the responses to the questionnaires
    presented to the Respondent County of San Luis Obispo from the public were withheld from
    production. (Appendix # 14, 15). These additional withheld questionnaires from other
    residents in the community contain possible new facts and new witness which could have
    substantiated Appellant’s assertions regarding the date of accrual and the conflicting
    testimony regarding the beginning of the flooding of his property. The admittance of Exhibit
    579, and the discovery of additional facts and possible new witnesses substantiate the
    prejudicial error and the necessity of a new trial.
    E. Appellant did not Ignore any Contrary Evidence
    Both Respondent County of San Luis Obispo and State of California – Department of
    Transportation argue that Appellant has waived any argument concerning the sufficiency of
    the evidence by failing to acknowledge both favorable and unfavorable evidence in its
    Appendix. Appellant disagrees with this assertion, and submits it carefully considered all the
    evidence presented at trial, and introduced in the appendix and brief only that evidence which
    relates to the issues on appeal. While great care must be taken to furnish an adequate record
    on appeal, it is also important to avoid including unnecessary material in the record. If any
    party has required the inclusion of “any matter not reasonably material to the appeal’s
    determination,” the appellate court can sanction the offending attorney and/or party by
    withholding or assessing costs or imposing any other penalties deemed appropriate under the
    circumstances. CRC 8.276(a)(2); Garcia v. Lucindo (1961) 191 Cal.App.2d 303, 308.
    Balancing these duties, Appellant is not sure which evidence it did not included in its
    Appendix which he should have reasonably anticipated would be relied upon by
    Respondents. In any event, Respondents properly submitted their supplemental appendix
    with additional reference to Exhibits entered at trial.
    For the foregoing reasons and those contained in Appellant’s Opening Brief,
    Appellant respectfully requests that this Court reverse Judge Tangeman’s ruling for Judgment
    on the First Phase of the trial for Inverse Condemnation Liability, reverse Judge Estrada-
    Mullaney’s ruling for Judgment on the Pleadings for the Second Phase of the trial, and order
    a re-trial of this case on the issues presented therein.

    (1) 3 Total Votes - 2 up - 1 down
  3. ——————–San Luis Obispo County Residents should know how Caltrans has been maintaining State Highway 1 in Oceano as stated at trial by Caltrans!

    Question. Mr. Fry, Exhibit # 1475 on the screen there is the same as Exhibit 11 in your deposition transcript. Can you describe for me the materials that you see here on Highway 1?
    Answer. “I see Dirt, Water, Eucalyptus Leaves and Seed Pods from the Eucalyptus.”
    Question. Now in your practice as a Maintenance Supervisor and as a lead worker, has it consistently been your practice to somehow, I guess, blade this material to the side of the road?
    Answer. “YES. When – When it gets in this condition, we come down with a plow truck and we plow it back off the road. Sometimes we plow it to the gutter and come back later and pick it up. Sometimes we plow it behind the curb and either roll it in with the truck or leave it behind, just leave it behind the curb where it came from.”

    “I’m not sure what they’re doing in this picture. It appears that they’re throwing dirt up on the bank at the base of the tree.” Question: “Is this anything related to the buildup of sediment at the mouth of the drainage channel?” Answer. “Well it’s more grass. Well, Yeah, sediment and grass.” Question: And where’s this material removed to when you engaged in this particular activity? Answer. “Based on the Mud behind me at the base of the tree, I would say we where throwing it up on the bank.” Question: So you were keeping it in the four feet that you consider to be Caltrans right-of-way? Answer. “YES” Question: And how often have you engaged – You or your staff engaged in the particular activity? Answer. “How often does it rain down there?” Question: Is it fairly often – Answer: “YES” Question: Based on the rainfall. Answer. “YES, just about every time it rains.”

    This is what was stated by the Court in the second phase of trial! The above statements by Caltrans shows that this drainage system is not “Static” as stated below!

    “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”

    (0) 2 Total Votes - 1 up - 1 down
  4. ————Prejudical error——–These are the Documents letters of whiteness, that where withheld from Discovery by The County Of San Luis Obispo exhibit # 579 and finally given to us in full on December 2, 2008 five months after the inverse Condemnation trial.—————–Showing the County of San Luis Obispo and State of California Tort liability Drainage West of State Highway 1as also seen at

    Larry A Baughman–Owner of 1519 Fountain Ave. west of State Highway 1 and an Ex OCSD Director with knowledge of drainage through County Airport property States:

    “We Own a home at 1519 Fountain Ave which is currently rented to Chuck Bachman. It floods every winter with up to a foot of water in the living room, causing Mr. Bachman to move to a Motel.”
    “Water At The Corner Of 13th/Paso Robles/And Highway 1 Runs (Drains) Under The Railroad Tracks Across Railroad Ave And Collects In The Area Highlighted In Yellow On The Reverse. Something Has To Be Done To Get That Water To The Lagoon Or South To The Ag Creek At The East End Of Airport Runway. The End Of Fountain Ave Floods Every Winter. Larry Baughman”

    Bill Tatum 1539 Fountain Ave. —2001 flooding of Entire Street. Sporadic some flooding every year

    Larry A Baughman–Owner of 1519 Fountain Ave. Statement house Floods every winter– Ex-OCSD Director

    Chuck Bachman–1519 and 1525 Fountain Ave. Property on Fountain Floods every year with 6- 18 inch’s of water.

    Greg S. McGree– Fountain Ave knowledge

    Marquis Miller 548 Honolulu “Heavy Rains overflow lagoon”

    Less Brown–652 Air Park Dr.

    Jesser Esser–608 Air park Dr. “Storm Water Drainage Ditch next to Oceano Airport” “Years of neglect by SLO County”

    John W. Carter 1778 Aloha Place

    Mary Fernald 590 Honolulu St. Problems in last five years

    David and Penny Villalba 567-571 Honolulu– Every time it Rains house up to 6-12′

    Raoul Cristin 1810 Laguna Drive

    Jan Dilo, Department of Public Services San Luis Obispo County

    R. George Rosenberg, Deputy Director of General Services County Of San Luis Obispo

    Cynthia M. Joselson/Dennis A.Huebner—Photos

    Franklin C. Owen –Flooding in the Oceano Airport neighborhood.

    Keith pelemeyer-Pismo State Beach maintenance Supervisor

    In County of San Luis Obispo Files with drainage Studies and Color photos

    September 7, 1990 San Luis Obispo County letter to Planning Department drainage in Oceano, Street improvements /Sidewalks

    October 1, 1990 County Of San Luis Obispo letter to OCSD Water Run off and Drainage

    October 17, 1990 Letter from John L. Wallace to OCSD Drainage in Oceano, Retention Basins, County Requirements

    January 15, 1991 San Luis Obispo County letter to OCSD overall study of drainage patterns

    March 15, 1991 San Luis Obispo County Letter to OCSD of Drainage nuisance problems and solutions by the County of Slo

    May 3, 1991 OCSD letter to SLO County Analysis of OCSD Storm Drainage Problem regarding future County Building Permits

    September 23, 1991 letter to Ruth Bracket Sidewalks

    September 25, 1991 letter from Ruth Brackett not talking about Paso Robles and 13th streets

    November 18, 1991Oceano Halcyon Advisory Committee minutes Drainage in Oceano not Paso Robles and 13th streets ally ways sidewalks

    February 10, 1992 Draft letter Sidewalks

    February 12, 1992 OCSD Meeting minutes Regarding Cienaga flooding County Responsibility Drainage Director Baughman.

    March 11, 1992 OCSD letter regarding Flooding of Oceano Slough below State highway 1

    February 10, 1993 OCSD Minutes 11 C. Video of flooding problem on highway 1

    June 8, 1993 OCSD memorandum Meeting on Arroyo Grande outfall

    February 23, 1994 OCSD meeting minutes Concerns West of State highway 1

    February 25, 1994 San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District letter to Tony Boyd County Engineering Dept.

    July 26, 1995 OCSD Meeting minutes Cienaga flooding problem Concern with railroad subdividing their property. A problem at Paso Robles Street

    January 10, 1997 OCSD Letter to planning Commission County of San Luis Obispo

    October 8, 1997 OCSD meeting Minutes Drainage Problems Bill Bookout Specifically on Airpark and Fountain Ave.

    May 13, 1998 OCSD meeting Minutes “Front and Cienaga Drainage problem

    October 14, 1999 San Luis Obispo County letter and documents of concern to Union Pacific Railroad regarding Cienaga Drainage not Paso Robles St.

    January 25, 1999 letter from OCSD to Khatchik h. Achadjian-issues-Flooding and Drainage channel behind Fountain Ave.

    January 29, 1999 County Supervisor katcho Achadjian Letter to OCSD

    February 5, 1999 OCSD letter to County regarding highway 1 Drainage issues not Paso Robles street.

    November 10, 1999 Louis e. Wheeler letter to K.H. Achadjian

    Whiteness Direct knowledge of State Highway 1 Drainage

    Jay Jamison showing no flooding in 2002 with his knowledge of Highway 1.

    Mark Hutctenreuther, knowledge of highway 1

    Loni Silkwood, 1611 Paso Robles St Knowledge of highway 1–.

    Jak Harris, knowledge of highway 1

    Stanly Manel, knowledge of highway 1

    Wilford P. Deschenes, knowledge of highway 1

    R. Bliver, knowledge of highway 1

    Jerry Bunin, 2280 Paso Robles St. Knowledge of highway 1–

    Luis Wheeler, knowledge of highway 1 with photos taken of highway 1 and withheld from discovery including drainage in front of Oceano Market and Oceano Nursery.

    Larry A Baughman–Owner of 1519 Fountain Ave. Ex OCSD Director with knowledge of drainage through County property.

    “We Own a home at 1519 Fountain Ave which is currently rented to Chuck Bachman. It floods every winter with up to a foot of water in the living room, causing Mr. Bachman to move to a Motel.”
    “Water At The Corner Of 13th/Paso Robles/And Highway 1 Runs (Drains) Under The Railroad Tracks Across Railroad Ave And Collects In The Area Highlighted In Yellow On The Reverse. Something Has To Be Done To Get That Water To The Lagoon Or South To The Ag Creek At The East End Of Airport Runway. The End Of Fountain Ave Floods Every Winter. Larry Baughman”

    Daniel Dena Neill–2640 Grell Ln. Safety Concerns on Paso Robles Street. Sidewalks and Alley ways paved with proper drainage.

    Josue Astrero,Larry A Baughman–Knowledge of State Highway 1

    Pat Clegg, Knowledge of State Highway 1

    Sharon Collester, Knowledge of State Highway 1

    Alan & Liane Barta, Knowledge of State Highway 1–2450 Paso Robles Street

    Wando Cebulla, Knowledge of State Highway 1

    Fred Cheda, 2231 Paso Robles Street–Knowledge of State Highway 1

    Katherine B. Escobar 1627 Front Street, Knowledge of State Highway 1

    Ben Harvey knowledge of Cal Trans changes to State Highway 1

    Florence Welles 2431 Paso Robles Street.

    Marylice Mankins

    Eric Johnson Ally way knowledge

    Herb West Knowledge of State Highway 1

    Mark and Kristine Munro County Blaime wasting money on Study

    Yvonne Putman 2591 Paso Robles–County Records

    Robert W. Raymond, Knowledge of State Highway 1–poor county planning–County Eng. Photos

    Charles E Royal 1561 16th between Warner and Wilmar Errosion problems

    Chris & Linda Schroder ‘The End of 13th st. at Cienaga

    James &Throck Scudder –“Warner & 15th-water travels down 15th and Warner”

    Dean Sorensean 561 Security Court ‘Several inches to 1 foot depending on amount and length of rain

    Ailo Stananage 547 Security Court– County Liability

    Dan Striciculerda 1541 Wilmar Ave. “Flooding on Wilmar-between 14th &16th

    Fred Van Slyke flooding at cienaga 7 front every time it rains

    (0) 2 Total Votes - 1 up - 1 down
  5. —————————–When Caltrans raised State Highway 1in Oceano, they ignored public safety and created a large ponding problem before they fixed this ponding problem. Unfortunatly the County of San Luis obispo chose to withhold evidence from discovery that talked about this ponding problem and showed photos of this problem before Caltrans began shoveling and grading debris into this drainage system.

    The County of San Luis Obipo in their Appellate Court brief mention “McKinley” on P. 19 but does not mention Mr. McKinley’s statement below showing Caltrans changing the drainage stabilization of HWY 1. 13th, and Paso Robles Streets–per exhibit 579! that the County of San Luis Obispo withheld from discovery which is a predicial error!

    As Stated at trial Bookout V. State of California—-

    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 or Paso Robles street?” Answer: “That was – Yeah, we went up to do our conforms, yes.” Question: Do you know about how far up those streets you went, if you can recollect?” Answer: “From the plans, I want – it seems to be around 70 –70 feet, I believe. Seventy feet.” Page 659 “We did adjust crowns on adjust crowns on 13th and Paso.”

    (0) 2 Total Votes - 1 up - 1 down
  6. —————This is a comment that Caltrans made to the Regional Water Quality Control Board after San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman’s August 5, 2008 decision that now affects public safety in all of California!

    “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.


    Pete Riegelhuth
    D-5 NPDES Coordinator
    Office 805-549-3375
    Cell 805-305-7726
    Fax 805-542-4746”

    Caltrans testified at trial, that in 2002 and before they had a 30 year history of maintaining this Storm Water Drainage Channel. They testified that in 2000 they had raised this State Highway and then they testified that they now Grade and Shovel debris into this Oceano Drainage Channel every time it Rains!

    Each Califorina State Senator and State Assembly Man has been made aware of Caltrans actions as seen on YouTube under Caltrans and the web-site

    (-1) 3 Total Votes - 1 up - 2 down
  7. ———————–It is time for the Flooding of our State Highway in Oceano to end. This is what the Regional Water Quality Control Board Stated to Caltrans regarding their actions of Shoveling and Grading Contaminated Storm Water and Debris into the Oceano Community’s Storm Water Drainage Channel.

    Videos of Caltrans actions can be seen on YOUTUBE under Caltrans and at

    —–Original Message—–
    From: Matt Thompson []
    Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 5:07 PM
    Cc: Marissa Nishikawa; Harvey Packard; Roger Briggs; Sorrel Marks; Tamara Presser
    Subject: Caltrans Maintenance Activity on Highway 1, Oceano

    John, Pete,

    As we spoke about earlier today John, here is the blog that Oceano businessman Bill Bookout has shared with Water Board staff and other agencies:

    This blog includes photos and videos of Caltrans maintenance workers plowing and shoveling flood-related debris from Highway 1 into a roadside ditch. Mr. Bookout says the Caltrans maintenance supervisor is David Fry (sp?). Mr. Bookout asserts that this activity is causing a nearby culvert beneath the railroad tracks to become clogged with debris, which exacerbates flooding of his property.

    Caltrans’ NPDES stormwater permit prohibits the discharge of wastes or wastewater from road sweeping vehicles or from other maintenance or construction activities to any surface waters or to any storm drain leading to surface water bodies. This maintenance activity appears to violate this prohibition. Please direct your maintenance staff to immediately discontinue this activity. Any flood-related debris should be scooped up and properly disposed of in an appropriate location. If we receive any further complaints regarding this activity, we may find Caltrans in violation of its NPDES requirements and pursue formal enforcement action.

    Thank you for your attention to this matter.

    –Matt Thompson

    Regional Water Quality Control Board
    Central Coast Region
    895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101
    San Luis Obispo, California 93401

    V (805) 549-3159
    F (805) 788-3572

    (3) 7 Total Votes - 5 up - 2 down

Comments are closed.