Caltrans Steve Price, deputy district director for area operations and maintenance talks about the fix of the flooding of State Highway 1 would have to go all the way to the Pacific Ocean and that they do not want to be the lead agency in this fix?
The California Supreme Court and the Second Appellate Court have now made California Case law allowing Caltrans to gade and shovel debris into this storm water drainage channel as they acknowlede the 500 videos and photos that are now seen on YOUTUBE!
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"
Caltrans documents that had been submitted as evidece to Judge Tangeman show the the flooding of State Highway 1 could be abated for only $43,295.00 as seen in their documents at www.oceanonursery.com
As stated by Judge Tangeman:
"The Court will acknowledge that I did not address all of the issues in the supplemental briefs and the reason for that was simply this: 631.8 is directed towards the issue as to weather there is a basis for dismissal on any several alternate grounds. Some of the issues I was not prepared to grant judgment on until I heard the defendants case. Some of the issues I was ready without the defendants case, those are the issues I address in the 631.8 ruling. So Im going to deny the motion for new trial. I will deny the motion for reconsideration."
The San Luis Superior Court had stated in their August 5, 2008 decision P. 2
"This matter came for trial on July 9, 2008. Numerous witnesses testified and hundreds of exhibits were received in evidence. At the conclusion of Plaintiffs case, defendants, and each of them, made oral motions for judgment. After hearing arguments from counsel, the Court requested supplemental briefing on the statute of limitations, as well as Plaintiffs argument that Defendants had acquired certain property rights under the doctrine of prescriptive easements."
Written decision August 5, 2008? "NOW, AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED ALL OF THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN THIS MATTER IN PLAINTIFFS CASE-IN-CHIEF AND, IN ADDITION, THE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF, THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL, AND THE PRE-TRIAL AND POST-TRIAL BRIEFS FILED BY THE PARTIES, THE COURT NOW RULES AS FOLLOWS. DEFENDANTS MOTIONS ARE GOVERNED BY CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 631.8"
Prejudicial Error by the San Luis Obispo Superior Court, resulting in a miscarriage of justice! The Trial Court would not comment or cite Arreola v. Monterey in their August 5, 2008 decision that now affects the Public Health and Safety of all San Luis Obispo County residents from State Highway 1 to the Pacific Ocean!
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 courts 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.
Senator Abel Maldonado and Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee are trying to help as Senator Abel Maldonado has stated:
"I hope that you continue to seek legal counsel and that this very difficult situation will be resolved soon."
Loading...
50:06
Criminal Trial Procedureby PublicResourceOrg7,720 views
The drainage channel is not their property. The land owner decided to have that low place we call a drainage channel- the state of california does not have any right to tell the county to get an easement. I dug that channel myself 50 years ago at the request of the land owner- nothing to do with the county or caltrans.
barneysbobbyboy 1 year ago
This is why Caltrans is now shoveling drbris into this drainage channel!
May 14, 1987 Cal Trans File G. L. Simms Subject Oceano Drainage Problem " We discussed the flooding problems that would be created by passing the water under the railroad through a new culvert. That would require the County buy an easement south and west of the railroad to maintain a channel to protect the residences in the low lands."
InverseCondemnation1 1 year ago