Item 18 - Report on Drainage Problems on Golden Way Jim Francella
, AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
- --,
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
- FROM: James l. Bowersox, City Ma~
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Managefjtr ~
Mark S. Weston, Director of Engineering Service
J. Bradley Kutzner, Senior Civil Engineer ~
DATE: February 28, 1995
SUBJECT: Report on Drainage Problems on Golden Way Requested by
Jim Francella on January 31, 1995
ABSTRACT:
During the rains this year, flooding of properties along Golden Way have occurred.
This report discusses the condition and limitations of the drainage channel and the
cause for localized flooding.
FISCAL IMPACT
No additional funds are needed at this time.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
-
This item is not subject to CEQA review.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Jim Francella.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council direct staff to consider studying channel
improvements to the area between Gate Drive and Neddick Avenue in the future Capital
Improvement Program. In addition, staff will meet with residents to discuss means to
increase channel capacity to reduce localized ~ooding.
--.
ACTION =::-
-
fEB 2 8 1995 Ii¿M 18
1 of 5
~ AGENDA REPOR~
CITY OF POW A Y
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: "James l. Bowersox, City Man~
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manage~
Mark S. Weston, Director of Engineeri Service~~
J. Bradley Kutzner, Senior Civil Engineer~
DATE: February 28, 1995
SUBJECT: Report on Drainage Problems on Golden Way Requested by
Jim Francella on January 31, 1995
BACKGROUND
On January 31, 1995, Jim Francella brought to the Council's attention drainage
problems on Golden Way, a private road. In 1993, Jim and Robert Francella had
discussed this issue with staff. An evaluation of the problem was begun but
no funds had been budgeted for this project. Staff focussed their efforts on
the residents' other request, which was to install a sewer in Golden Way.
Two branches of Poway Creek cross Golden Way (See Attachment A). The 1 arger
southern branch crosses Golden Way approximately 700 feet south of the
Francella's property. The northern branch flows across the Francella's
property, and in recent years flows from the channel have flooded the
Francella's property and several others to the south. These properties are in
the flood plain of Poway Creek. The north branch flow crosses Golden Way in a
single 24" pipe. In addition, the road dips just south of this pipe to allow
water to also cross over the surface of the road. In severe rain storms, like
that experienced in early January of this year, storm water flowing in this
creek exceeds its capacity and floods the adjacent properties. In addition,
the flows exceed the capacity of the culvert crossing and inundate Golden Way.
Further, flooding on Francella's property results in part from debris catching
on fences installed at the property line, greatly reducing the carrying
capacity of the channel.
Based on old topographic records (1958), this north stream channel
historically drained all of the north half of Poway Creek (over 3.5 square
miles). Urba~ization in the early 1960's redirected the majority of this flow
to the south Dranch of Poway Creek. The remaining portion of this drainage
basin (approx~ly 0.5 square miles) developed in the late 1970's with the
Flair subdivi>fcrIT just north of Garden Road and in the late 1980's and early
1990's with Sunrise Ranch, la Paz Summit and Silveridge. The recent
development occurred during the drought of the late 1980's and early 1990's.
ACTION:
2 of 5 fEB 28 1995 ITEM 1-£
- -
Report on Dreinege Problems on Golden Wey
Requested by Jim Frencelle on Jenuary 31. 1995
- City Council Agende 2/28/95
Page 2
With the last few' years' wetter winters, the Francella's are now experiencing
higher storm water flows but lower than the pre-1960 flows. The France 11 as
are noticing a change in the runoff pattern which includes a quicker rise in
the water level as water drains from a basin with more impervious area.
The Francella property is occupied with a house, large detached garage and a
modular building. The creek flow enters the property on the east and crosses
the property south of the structures and leaves the property at the southwest
corner. The creek leaves the property about 50 feet east of Golden Way. The
Francella's have made significant improvements in and around the residence,
including installing a 4-foot high stucco fence along the southwest, west and
part of the north of the property's perimeter. This presents a barrier to
water that escapes the banks of the creek and keeps it near the house.
Additionally, they have installed fence/gates in the creek. These fence/gates
are designed to hinge at the top and swing up as water passes under them.
Until sufficient pressure is built up behind these gates, they do not move.
The pressure is normally developed by debris catching on the gates, blocking
the flow and giving the water something to push against. The water then backs
up until sufficient pressure is developed to move the gates. Sometimes,
debris causes the gates to sag on their hinges, and likely impedes the flow of
water. On February 14, 1995, after several hours of heavy rain, staff visited
- the France 11 a's property. The fences were catching debris but did not swing
open. Flow was slowed down by the fences.
Since the natural channel cannot contain the 100-year storm, nor large storm
events, it is imperative that the channel be kept as clean as possible and
unobstructed. Any obstruction will cause a backwater effect and may cause the
water to escape the natural channel. All obstructions in the channel should
be removed.
Staff surveyed the channel in the vicinity of France11a's. The channel i s the
flattest between Claire Drive and Golden Way. Because of this, they also
experience severe siltation in the channel as water velocities decrease
raising the water level in the channel. The Francellas have stated that they
remove silt from their portion of the channel annually.
The existing sJ-Rgle 24" pipe in Golden Way cannot handle the flow in the
natural chann§]. It also blocks the flow of water and causes a backwater
effect just d~tream of the Francella's property. Additional pipes with a
larger capacity should be installed across Golden Way to alleviate obstruction
of the flow. On February 14, 1995, the pipe was flowing nearly full and
catching debris while the flow in the Francella's channel was about half full.
The Francella's lot is very flat. A considerable amount of storm water flow
enters the Francella's property from overland runoff from properties north of
Francella's. This water contributes to flooding of Francella's property on
the north and west side of the property.
-
FES 28 1995 ITEM 18 I
3 of 5
Report on Oralnaga Problams on Golden Way
Raquasted by Jim Francella on January 31, 1995
City Council Agenda 2/28/95
Page 3
FINDINGS
The flooding that has occurred is a result of all of the factors mentioned
above. Some improvement in the flooding situation is within the control of
the residents (creek cleaning, removal of barriers in the creek, removal of
barriers in the floodplain, installation of additional pipes across Golden
Way, a private road). This area is impacted by the 100-year floodplain of
Poway Creek. Future master planning of flood plain improvements and
construction of detention basins and improved channels will reduce the
flooding,
It should be noted that staff has not evaluated other nearby neighborhoods in
the floodplain. Similar problems may exist elsewhere. Several local ized
flooding problems exist in the floodplain of Poway Creek. Obstructions in
drainage channels in this area must be removed to maximize capacity of
existing channels and minimize flooding. Major improvements are needed to
remove homes from the floodplain. Staff has not prepared a floodplain
improvement master plan for this area. Staff estimates a study of this nature
would exceed $100,000 and should be considered in the future.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This item is not subject to CEQA review.
FISCAL IMPACT
No additional funds are needed at this time.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Jim Francella.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council direct staff to consider studying
channel improvements to the area between Gate Drive and Neddick Avenue in the
future Capital Improvement Program. In addition, staff will meet with
residents to discuss means to increase channel capacity to reduce localized
flooding. ~,.
.=::.
Attachment A - Map of Poway Creek Crossing Golden Way
FEB 2 8 1995 H¿M 18
4 of 5
^,~NW^
LINDA
-- l
1.-
-
- tIc
-
--
- - - 100-Year F
0 loodpla'
-Q,,=D 100 ln
-Year
Floodway
5 of 5 I ATTACHMENT
A
. . ,,'
Robert and Sara Francella
13103 Golden Way
Poway, California 92064
748-7152
February 28, 1995
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
We have lived in Poway since 1968. In 1968, the water that ran through our property came
from Neddick Avenue, Clair Drive. A small portion of water came from the Chevron gas
station which was on the corner of Poway and Garden roads and down Golden Way. The
Garden Road 7-11 now sits on the Chevron site.
The water problems we have experienced in the past and are continuing to experience are a
direct result of the ditch that was constructed on Clair Drive in August 1974. At that time,
the Long Beach Construction Company, with the approval of the County of San Diego,
wanted to build on the north side of Garden Road and east side of Poway Road. (See
Attached easement dated August 19, 1974.
Gordon and Thelma Weatherbie gave the County Flood Control District an easement through
their property (Gordon's Grocery) and received $1 as payment.
The contractor, Rick Engineering Company, needed a drainage system big enough to handle
all of the water that would flow from the northeast end of Poway. The pipe had to be big
enough to handle the 50-year flood. This was a condition of the County of San Diego.
In our opinion, the ditch that was constructed on Doris Gough's property was fraudulent. We
feel the drainage ditch along Clair Drive from Garden Road is illegal.
The ditch is as big or bigger than the Poway Creek channel south end of Golden Way. In
1968, the channel going from the Weatherbie's (Gordon's Grocery) though the Gough property
was a small ditch that handled a small amount of water. This original ditch was not intended
to handle all of the water that now flows from north of Garden Road.
The water starts flowing from as far up as the west side of Sunrise Ranch Road, crosses
Poway Road and covers the former County dump site, covers the northwest side of Poway
Road, crosses Poway Road by the Mt. Olive Lutheran Church, crosses Garden Road, flows
into the ditch along Clair Drive, and then flows through our property.
The original ditch crossing Garden Road was never intended to handle a 25- or 50-year flood.
It was built later, under false pretenses. It was built under the disguise of cleaning out a
small ditch. The water never flowed through our property with the first rain, it took at least
5 or 6 rains before we had any sign of run off. The water naturally soaked into the ground.
Now, the volume of water and the intensity of the flow has increased to the point where our
property is flooding.
~~)..~ AS
~ I g
..-..-....-...-...
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
February 28, 1995
Page 2
The following are excepts from documents that are attached.
Letter dated June 19, 1974 from Doris Gough to the Office of the County Engineer,
Subdivision Control Engineer RE: Flair Poway TM3319-1.
"The County knew of the work being done on the Weatherbie property and the grading of a
drainage ditch on the Gough property. The letter talks about grading a drainage ditch
approximately 1 1/2 feet below existing ground line. In the letter it says that the limits shall
be the southerly property line of Mrs. Weatherbie's property to the drainage swale crossing
her property approximately 600 feet southerly of Garden Road."
l..etter dated June 18, 1974 from Rick Engineering to Mrs. Gough refening to the pipe. It
states:
"The present condition consists of small, partially silted pipe which allows drainage to pass
onto your property. Because of the bad siltation problem in the existing drainage ditch, Long
Beach Construction Company would like to grade a small ditch, approximately one and half
(1 and 1/2) feet below the existing groundline on your property."
Rick Engineering went to Mrs Gough and told her that they wanted to clean a small ditch
along side the street. Rick Engineering held a meeting with the residents on Clair Drive and
us (we were all standing in the middle of the street on Clair Drive). The representative from
Rick Engineering drew a line on a map. Mrs. Gough said, "no, the line runs down the middle
of my property. It shouldn't been there." The representative moved the pencil over a little
and drew the line closer to the edge of Clair Drive. Mrs. Gough signed the paper. The next
day, earth movers came in and hauled large amounts of dirt away and dug a channel 30 feet
wide and about 6 feet deep. We and the residents of Clair Drive protested to no avail.
l..etter dated June 18, 1974 from Rick Engineering to Doris Gough
"There was a old silt filled drain coming across Garden Road from the old Chevron Gas
Station on the comer of Poway Road and Garden Road. This pipe went across Garden Road
and under Gordon Weatherbie's property and emptied on to Mrs Gough property."
Comment
Why, if there was an existing old silt filled drainage pipe under Gordon Weatherbie's property
did the contractor and County need new easements rights, the old pipe would have been
existing. Why get an easement from the Weatherbie's and Gough.?
In our opinion the existing pipe was not big enough to handle all of the water that was
anticipated would come from the development, so under the guise of cleaning out the existing
channel, the contractor was given the approval to dig a hole 30 feet across and 6 feet deep.
,.---,,--....,---.,-----
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
February 28, 1995
Page 3
Letter dated May 12, 1976 from Dion G. Dyer, Attorney at Law. Re: Gough vs Rick
Engineering Company
" ...and the County demanded as a condition of our subdivision map that we construct the
storm drain."
This pipe went across Garden Road. The County demanded as a condition of the subdivision,
that a storm drain be built.
Lawsuit dated September 23, 1976 filed by Doris Gough, Plaintiff vs William B. Rick, dba
Rick Engineering Company, Long Beach Construction Company
Complaint: Unnatural Diversion of Surface Waters, Impairment of Access, Deviation from
Construction Plan.
Pæe 3. Items 1 throul!h 6
"Long Beach and through the personal visit of his own employees, requested plaintiff's
permission to enter upon the premises for the represented purpose of constructing thereon a
small ditch approximately one and one-half [1-1/2] feet below the existing ground line."
Page 3 Item 8, 9, 10, (a) (b) (c) (d)
Pæe 3 Item 8
"On or about June 19, 1974 in reasonable reliance on the aforesaid representation, plaintiff
gave written permission to said defendants to construct a ditch as represented."
Pæe 3 Item 9
"Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that, at the time of requesting such
permission, said defendants and each of them knew that their representation was at material
variance from the true facts and was false."
Pæe 3 Item 10
"Plaintiff is informed and believes that true facts were that:
(a) on or about March 19, 1974, said defendants plan for a small ditch approximately one-half
(1 1/2) feet deep had been rejected by defendant County:
(b) Whereupon said County conditioned its approval of the tentative map for the aforesaid
Flair-Poway subdivision upon provision for a 50-year frequency storm flow;
..-..-.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
February 28, 1994
Page 4
(c) provision for such storm flow required substantially greater capacity than that of a small
ditch approximately one and one-half ([1 1/2) feet below the existing groundline; and
(d) such storm flow required a ditch in excess of three and one-half (3 1/2) feet deep and
approximately thirty (30) feet wide."
PlI2e 4. Item 11
"Said representation was made by defendants to induce plaintiff to grant such permission;
plaintiff would not have granted such permission to said defendants had she known the true
facts."
PlI2e 4. Item 12
"Plaintiff did not learn the true facts until on or about September 24, 1975, at which time
heavy earth-moving equipment had been moved onto the premises."
PlI2e 4. Item 14
"Plaintiff is informed and believes that, on or about the dates of September 24, 25, and 26,
1975, defendant Long Beach constructed a ditch on plaintiffs premises of a capacity sufficient
for 50-year frequency storm flow, the dImensions of such ditch being approximately thirty
(30) feet wide approximately six hundred (600) feet long, and more than three and one-half (3
1/2) feet deep."
PlI2e 5. Item 21
"Unnatural diversion of Surface Water. Heretofore and prior to September 27, 1975,
defendants Rick, Long Beach and Coun1y, and each of them, planned, approved, and
constructed streets, curbs, gutters, culvel1s, storm drains, and ditches, all comprising the parts
of a system of drainage for the Flair-Poway Subdivision and contiguous public streets, into
which they collect and concentrate the surface waters that formerly flowed across and seeped
naturally into the soil of said subdivision, and, by means of covered drainage pipes which
cross under Garden Road and ditch upon the adjoining Weatherbie property,discharge such
waters on to the premises of plaintiff in unnatural and excessive quantities."
When the ditch was originally planned by the County of San Diego in 1974, the County said
that they would carry the ditch along Clair Drive down to the main channel (Poway Creek).
Then we where told because of Proposition 13 the County ran out of money and the project
was canceled.
Mrs Doris Gough died in June 1978. Because her children did not have the money to
continue the fight, the lawsuit against Rick Engineering was stopped. Since then, developers
continue to build and we continue to receive the runoff from the developments.
-....--.-..----..--.---.. . ---...-.-
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
February 28, 1995
Page 5
In the agenda report there is a comment about our fences, suggesting that the fences are
contributing to the water problems. This is not true. We have a block wall around the front
of our property and chain link fence in the back. At both entrances of the waterway, there is
a "flood gate" that allows the water to flow through. When heavy rains come, we hook the
gates up so the water can flow freely.
We cannot remove our fence because it protects our property and our home. Before we
constructed the fence we had people walking or horseback riding, and the Border Patrol
chasing undocumented workers through our property, not to mention the stray animals. We
have two dogs and we need the fence. The liability of having the property unfenced is to
great.
In 1993, we approached the City Council and requested sewer installation on Golden Way. In
June 1994, we finally hooked up to the sewer. We appreciate the help given to us by the
City Manager and staff. At the same time, a report was done on the drainage problems. We
have never seen the report but have been told that it suggested that the drainage channel be
continued down Clair Drive to Poway Creek.
We are requesting the City Council's help to resolve this problem.
---.-- --'------. -
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO o"",O~~',';:'~~."o,
DEI'ARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES ^~,~,,~,~~,:,,:.':;:~:~,
"'1 . D G 1 COMMUNITY SERVICES AGE'NCY ;;,~;,t~:,'~':'~:~~::t
n1 ano . onza es 'M,',"', ",.""
Director CO""" 0""""", c.""' "" 0..".",. A.i. s", °,""" CA"", M,S.~"':;..~t;~~,,..
"O""", So.."..
M.S. .", ",.",s
Co"'mo""..,o,,.
M.>, om ..,.s",
~;'::"~'::,,':"';~';.~',"t';
TO: Board of Oirectors, San Diego Flood Control District (A45) M;:~';~>O';~';':;~"
FROM: Director. Department of General Servic~s (0360)
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Deeds and Grants 'by County Staff
Attached is a Resolution which amends the Resolution that authorized cert"in
County staff positions to accept Deeds and Grants on behalf of the San Diego
Flood Control District. It is my
RECOMMENDATION: That your Bo"rd
Adopt the attached Resol uti on.
Discussion:
'On October 12, 1971 ("B" Various) the Directors of the San Diego County Flood
Control District authorized certain County staff positions to accept Deeds
and Grants conveying to the San Diego County Flood Control District, title
or intel'est in Real Property. This authorization was changed by a Resolution
from the San Diego County Flood Control District on October 12, 1976 (4) due
to the passage of County Ordinance #4514 (New Series) adopted on May 27, 1975
whil:h o:ha~ged t~~ nrg~niz~ti yn and t i ti. of agenc i ~s.
Because of Ordi nances #5355 and 5356 adopted on January 23, 1979 by your Boa rd,
and which implement the new County Organizationa] structure, it is necessary
to amend the above mentioned resolutions to conform to that structure, This
:'I¡ill (IJ I~h ~
I
I
I
I
ßoard of Directors -2- March 2, 1979
wi 11 a 11 ow the appropri ate staff to accept the Deeds and Grants on beha 1f of the ' ,
County Flood Control District.
~ '/~
¡'/I DI .
y-;~.)r/' / ¿ ,
/ / ;r;:p~~,-?;:;;:Iv (
V I .
HILARIO (LARRY) D. GONZALES. Di rector !
General Services I
;,
HDC:LLF:j1 ¡ ¡
'i
Attachments ;
;
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT: None R";,,,"cc; by: 1 " Not needed: ¡,
GAG ~ - il
;O""001 ~ - i
'",,',Ior - V" !!
..:; -.- L ,/ L
~/ .
I
ì
j
I
cc: County Counsel (A12): Facility & Real Property ~ivision (0200:
General Services (0360): Sanitation & Flood Control (0380):
Community Servi ces Agency (A249)
M^o 20 ¡q79 5
""'-"., CJ-{OO
.' .. ~- ,"",
TUESDAY, ~~RCH 20, 1 " 7., . ..":---'
/;0. 5 Flood Control 1979
I I:[SOLUTIO¡¡ :'..UTH');,¡¡¡;:(, CeínA!!! t tJ/~'~
\ .;, .'.:¡ ,.\'~':'1~ cou:ln SPF¡: rO')ITl.\;;'; ,0 ,ìrCErr CE::DS
,~;¡DGi~::':,j(;'i¡EII\l.I'()r
fir ' J' SAil DIEGO COUilTY FLOOD cornROL DISTRICT ~'~ ,J,lL.
en \I;a~ion of Dil'E~ctor Hpore (t::z b~O
Jirector Eckert , the following resolution is adopted:
,':HERE,L\,S, Section 27281 of the Government Code provides that a political
COt'poration or governmental agency, by a general resolution, may authorize .~n
officer or agent to jmi'itJ. on behal f of the poli tical cor'poration or go'/ern-"
,"ental anency nëeds'Ûd1:'rilrítsf conveying any flïtë"êsT'f1f"ð'I"';È!ð.!lem!!1\t:"1J~ðñ tlMll
fë~tateffor public purposes; and
\;HEREAS, on October 12, 1971, Ninute No. "B" Various, imd on October 12,
1376 ¡':i nute Item 4 , the Board of Directors of the San Diego County Flood
Control District
:~;~rcinaf~er referred to as "ïhe Dist,'ict") adopted a ,-esolution authorizing
certain Co~nty staff positions to accept on behalf of the District, Deeds Dr
Grd!1:s conveying to tl;e District, title to or an interest in real property; and
:,IHEP.EAS, ther'e is romol presented to the Board of Directors, a letter fro:n
the Cir'cctor, Department of General Ser'/ices of the County of San Diego re-
co,"¡;;e~ding the Board of Directors of the Districtdesignate the hereafter
named County staff positions to accept on behalf of the District, Deeds or
Grants conveying !ny interest in or easement upon real estate for public purposes.
Di :'ector, Depart:;:ent of General Se.-vices
Jj rccLO:', Faci li ty ¿ Real Propert¡ Division
Cepart~;ent of General Services
Directo:', Dep~rt"'ent of ïr-ansportaticn
./
',.
\
~. --------
,
r
"'-~~,1'. '--.'
,.
/
, .' P,SSiStdnt [)i'-¿Ct,~", O¡;pi1r'tn:ent of r..."n':;i:)rtòt,iu(
Supervising He.l i'I'ope,'ty Arìent, '¡"lu,~tiQn ~ !,cr;~isitiGn
Facility & Redl PrO;1erty Oi',i<:ion, D"p""t:::u,t cf Cen",,-al Ser-vices
r;o'¡.¡. TlIERlrÙRE, b¿ it r¿solv¿û thôt tile ßoJ,'do~ Direct:Jrs of the Di:tdct
;',,:-r'~J "utho,-izc:; persons VIith th:Jse aforèil:entioned County staff positions to
1j,!i,¡;'~j ti°n behòlf of the District, geElqLo.r~:,,~r~ntsJConveji¡¡g to the District,
~~j c\li:1tll'¡¡,g~Wil¡,.¡i Il~e fig ';oj J};;( e .!.kiffiP e,~.tt:l
Passed and adopted by the Board of OJ rectors of the
San'Oiego County Flood Control District
of the County of San Diego, State of CaliforniJ, tn i f~2Õfh~d~Y of Harch ,
1979, by the follo¡'¡ing vote:
AYES: Directors Hoore, Hedgecock, Bates and Eckert
NOES: Directors None
¡1,BSENT: Director Hamilton
- - -
I
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COmiTY OF SAN DIEGO )S8.
I, PORTER D. CR£!1ANS, ClerIc of the Board of Directors of the SaIl Diego County
Flood Control District, State or Cêlifornia, hereby c~rtify that I p~ve coc?ared
th.o foregoing copy with the original r.osolution passed and adopted by said Bo.ord
at a TPr'l'l",.. ~.oeting thereof, at the ti~ and by the VOte therein stat.od,
which original reaolution is IlOW on file in my office; that the same courains a
full, true and correct transcript therefrom and of the whole thereof.
thi.I!, witness 1I1Y hand and the seal of said San Diego County Flood Control District
?Orh day of 11arch. 1979
PORTER D. C~'1.~,S
Clerk of the Board of Directors
S"n Die:,;o County Flood Contro! District
By Beatrice Mitchell
(SEAL) Deputy
""""-"'"""-"""'"'"""""
""'-'l"'" d
,~
"-'F /. J
-_.-J.._------~~----
--,-----
WilLI\: RI{,()I'.I)LD. PLI'.AS! ~I\" IIIIS
'U"STld'~II"; I" 1"0 "LL/,'.'¡;~ ~C74':"224980
l:j~:) 80l>K 1914
RECI>RDED REOUEST OF
Cke\.. ß"ard .,f Diree"", CO. REAL PROPERTY DIV.
San Dieg" C"unty Fil",d C"nt",1 \)"",el
I hOG Paeilie Highway AU(¡ ~ 21S'K'N
San Dieg". California '!llnl
OfflCI.L RECORDS
$4H DI~OO COUHT't.CAlIF.
HAftLEH,lLOOM
I A!CO!\DER NO FEE
SPAC' ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY
EASEMENT Project Title: TM3319-1
Ass"ssor's Parc"l No. :;23-o6~-o~ Parc.1 No. 74-1031,\
'.. W.O .No. TF0344
Log '10. 114-1
1.0
For and in considerari"" "f......._....Q¡;.~..Æ).9.......D.9.Q........................D"lIar.......... (5...).,.9.9...........................)
and olher g"od and \ a!uable ",'nsiderali"ns. Ihe receipt wher«,f is I,èreby ac\."""kd~eJ. the unJer,igned.
................................................,I.~..Ç9J!ffi~m~I!!f;!!.!!¡;t;,~.I}!!.. '!'.!!mf..-!\..!'......\,!~.'!'.!!f;!!.!!U;,....\m~."'.?!'.!!.......................
...... ...........................................a.~~..~~.f!:m~~m;j.~~!'.:!=m!!:!'..':'.?!~m................ ....... ...... ..... ............... "..............................
hereinafter designzled Grantor d""s hereby gram. bargain. sell. come) and release Unl" Ihe San Dieg"
Coumy Flood Control Di,tri". Z,'"e .-............)............... herein designateJ Granlcc. ," ,uce."", and a»ign,
a p.:rpetual casement and right "f way upon. through. under. o\er, aero». and along the herein de..clibcd
real prop.:rty for the installalion. ""n,truction, maintenance. repair, replacement. recon,truction and in
spection of a drainage channel an" all structures in.:idental thereto, and for the flowagc of any watcrs in.
upon. through. undcr. o\er. acr"" and along said channcl. wgether with the righl 10 iegress and egre"
upon. througb. und<r. mer. across and along the hcrcin describ.:d real properly. Grantcc shall ha\'e a
perpet~31 right to remo' e building', "tructurc". trecs. bushe" undcrgrowth. and any otha obstruction inter.
feeing with the u"e of :;aiJ ea,en,ent and right of way by the Granlee. its succe>sors or assign" and in addition
Ihercto. to remO\'c snil and other malerials within "aid right nf way and In u,e the same in ,uch manner and
at ,ueh local ion" "" said Grant"" may dc-em pr"per. needfui or n«cssary in the construction. r«,,"slruct;nn
and maintenancc of :;aid drainag.: channel or :.Iructure" incidenlal IherelL>. T" ha\e and to hold >aid ea,e
ment and right of way unt" itself and unto its successors and assigns forc\er ','gelher wilh Ihe righl to con\ey
:;aid eascment. or any partial! nf said casement. to other public agenciö.
Thc real prop.:rty referred tn hereinabo\c and madc subject 10 said cascment and right of way by this gram
is situated in the County of San Diego. Stale of California, and is particularly described as foll(\ws:
Parcel 74-1031A (8/1~/7..) .., .,....
,\11 that portion of the Northwest Quarter a f the Southeast Quarter of
Section 18, Townshi 14 South, Range 1 ¡.;est, San Bernardino Heridian,
in the County of Sa.. .. ~go, State of California, according to the Official
Plat thereof:
Beginning at the center Df said Section 18; thence Easterly along the East-
West centerline of said Section 18 South 89.~5'30" East 159.37 feet; thence
Southerly at right angles to said Section centerline South 00.3..'30" West
~O .00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEG INNING; thence South 89.25'30" East
30.00 feet; thence South 00.34'30" West 60.00 feet; thence South 27°52'05"
East 27.29 feet; thence South 00.34'30" West 60.00 feet; thence North
ö~.25'30" West 43,00 f"et; th""ce North 00.34'30" East 144,00 feet to the
11\UF. POINT OF BEGINNING.
" p" ""'" ,
"r.'
~_._._......_._.....------_...
--- ._---
The Gra,tee shall ha~e d~e right tn fence all or an.', portion of said eascmem herein C~.}nve~ed '.~idfi~? which
there is installed or constructed a drainage channel or incidental structure. The Grantee. its succe%sor?, and
assigns, shall be responsible for operating, maintaining, and keeping m good repair the abo~e described
works of improvement, but will not ~ h21d responsible for any damages incurred within the confines of
said easement, exzept as caused by the act or omission of the Grantee.
The Grantor. his successors and assigns, reserves the right to enclose in a manner approved b) the Gramee.
its successeu and assign% any ~-rtior, of a dreinage channel provided such enclosure is constructed or itt-
stalled by a licensed contractor in accerdar.,:e with plans and s~cifieations approved by and to the satisfac
tion of the Grantee, its successors and assigns. In graf ing its. approval the Gram..e. tts successors and
assigns may impose reasonable conditions in¢ludir, g. but not 'qmited to. the filing by the contractor or
Grantor of an adequme performance bond to guaramee completion of the work.
There i~ reserved to the Grantor. his heirs a.'.d assigns, the right and privilege ~o use the above described
land of the Grantor at any time. in any manner and for any purpose not ineonsi~eet wi~h the fall u~e and
enjoymem by the Grantee. its successors and assigns, of the rights and prb. ileges herein granted.
· , t/ff
IN WITNESS WtIEREOF. the Grantor has executed this instrument on th~s....-..4....Z.da':- of...~.r'_.¢/.~..'./.. !9..'~.~...
THEIMA P, WEATHERBIE
STATE OF ..... gr.
County of._. ~¢ ~'.?.~ d~--~ r/~v~ ~ ...........................
said Cou~iy and State, ~onally ap~a~...~/~...~. ~/~.~<'~
name ...... ~. ~ ....... su~m~ to the within
known to me to ~ the ~on .......... ~ ......... wh~e ~ '
inst~ment, and acknowledged that ........... ~.~ ....................... ex~ut~ the ~me.
gVitno~ my hand and official ~al.
Nott.'~ Pu~ic in and for .~dd Count~ and State
This is to ~rtify that the intent in rcal pro~rty convey~'~5~O ~-~'g~nl:t6,~n Dido Co~ly
Fl~d Control District Zone. a ~liti~l ~mtion and,'or governmental agency is hereby ac~pl~ on ~half
of the ~ard of Dn'ecg0~? o~ ~d~'Dh~r~c~pu~t-Cd authority conferred by R~lution of ~id ~ard
;adop~c~'o~tg~r 12.1~72 an~ Ihe.~Wie~¢o~ ~o rccor~tion thereof by its duly authorized offi~r.
This I" "Irue certified copy of lbs r~co~l
if il b<~ar,. Ihs seal, ImprlnIGd In pu~l}lo nk,
ollheReco~der. FEB 2 ~ 1995
R~rder~ou~y Clerk
S~ ~go ~uMy. Call~tnla
DEb~TED H~ON
SUFFICE PER ~P 60~8, ~ .,:'~o~-~'' ' '
Iune 19, 1974
Office of the County Engineer.
$$55 'Overland Drive
San Diego, California
Attention: Subdivision Control Engineer
G6n~6~en:~
This ts to advise you that the undersigned is the D~e~Y owner
14239 Garden ~ad. Assessors No. 323-06-01.
I'm awa~ of the work to be done on my p~pe~y in connect[on'with
i~D~vement of drainage factlt~es at 142S[ G~den ~ad on'~s.
~ea~erbie's prope~y..
It is my understanding ~at th[~ ~ork will consist of t~e
1. The grading of a drainage ditch a~p~ximately 1 and
feet below existing g~und line. The limits shall ~ the
southerly prope~y line of Ms. Weatherbie's prope~y to
the drainage swale crossing my prope~y app~ximate[y
600 feet southerly of Garden Road.
Sincerely,
EXHIBIT "3"
EN 61NEERING OMPANY I
~une 18,
Ms. Doris A. Gough :~, ~ ~' ~:~"~ ~, ~'
P. ~x-53 : / ~
.... ~way, California 92064
Dear Ms. COugh: 4~%
~ng ~ac~ Const~ction Compa~ is planning to install drainage
facilities on Ms. Weatherbte's p~pe~ at 14251 Garden Road.
This ts to replace the existing pi~s with a system adequate to
handle large store flows.
The present condition consists of a small, papally silted
which allows drainage to pass on to your pmpe~y. ~cause of the
bad siltation problem tn the exts~ng drainage ditch, .Long Beach
Const~ctton Company would like to grade a small ditch approximate-
ly one and a half (1 and 1/2) feet below the extst~g gmundltne on
yo~ p~perty. This ditch would e~end from the limits of Ms
Weatherbte'~ pmpe~y to the exlsting drainage swale crossing your
:pmpe~y approximately 600 feet southerly of Garden Road.
On behalf of ~ng Beach Cons~ctton Company we would like you to
sign the enclosed letter of ~misston to do this work on your
pmpe~y, and tatum it to us.
Thank you for your cooperation tn this maker.
Sincerely,
Michael Rust
Encl: , ,
CC: Mr. Iim Iones
MR :bg
L~.:": ~ LONG BEACH CONSTRUCTION COMPg~'~¥
~ May~i12,~1976
Dion G. Dyer
Attorney at Law
2067 First Avenue
San Diego, California 92101
Re: Gough Vs. Rice, Engineering CO.~
Your File No.~173.01 LP
Dear Mr. Dyer: .
In review of your letter dated April 27 concerning Mrs. Doris Gough, please be
advised that this is the first time I have been m~de aware of any potential mis-
understanding or problem between Mrs. Gough, Rick Engineering and the storm drain.
After reviewing all of our documentation containing Mrs. Gough's signatures, as well
as correspondence with R~ck Engineering and construction drawings, I believe that
your allogations of misrepresentation and 61aim for damages is to.tally i~correct and
without merit. We have far too much docua~nted evidence as well as personal testiT
mony which clearly shows that Mrs. Gough was fully aware .of the i~rovements to be
made to her property.
In terms of damages, it is impossible for me to understand how there could be any
claim for damages when the County deems Mrs. Gough's property within the flood zone,
and she anxiously wished to correct the flooding problem; and the County demanded as
a condition of our subdivision map that we construct the storm drain. Contrar~to
'~your allogations, Mrs..Gough's property probably has appreciated in value and bene-
fited by the construction of the storm drain facility.
If you would like to resort to legal process, as you indicate in your letter, please
feel free to do so and if you so decide, please direct further preliminary corres-
pondence to the office of Alex Harper, Attorney at Law, 1007 5th Street, suite 1100,
San Diego, California 92101.
Very truly yours,
~CTIOI COMPANY
Vice President
Attorney at l.~w
2 206? First Avenue
3 San Diego,~ ~USINESS OlVISIOM
4 T~l~phone: (714) 233-~321 ~ ~[P
5 Attorney for Pla~tlff '- ROBEP-T O.
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF.~E STATS
9 :' CO~W OF SAN DIEGO
10
3S 0Y0
15; ~tic; WI~L~M B. RICK. do~g natural Diversion
~. bus.ess aa HICK E~GINEERING ~) ~pairment of Access, D~latton
COMPANYI LONG B~CH i) from Conet~lon Plato Ta~ and
16 CONSTRUCTION COMPAq, a ) Related Damages)
17 California corporation; DOE I
t~o~h DOE XX, ~clusive, ~
18
Defendants.
......
20 Pla~tfff co~s a~ alleges:
21 FOR A ~T CAUSR,OF
22 (sga~st defendants RICK and LONG B~C~
23 L P~tfff is the o~er of that real p~pe~y locate'in the
24 ~inco~t~ area of ~ay, C~nty of' San~lego,.~alfforni~ ~re
25 pa~icular~ de~rib~ in E~btt "1' a~ach~ hereto and inco~rat~ herein
26
by refer~ce (herein~er "PresSes"),
27 2, At ~ times here~ mentioned, defendant WILLIAM B, RICK
28 (herei~fler '~ICK') wa~ and is a re~i~er~ ci~l engineer, doin~ bus.ess
2 under the name and style of RICK ESTGIBTEERING COMPANY, with his
~ principal place of business in the City of SanDiego, San Diego County,
4 California,
~, ~ 3. At all time. s. herein mentioned, defendant LONG BEACH
6~ 'cONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a California corporatio~, (hereinafter
7 "LOI~G BEACIIf') was and is the owner of the real property comprising the
8 subdivision legally dszcribed and known es Flair-Poway, aceordin~ to
9 Map No.' 8148 .filed on July 23, 1575, with the County ReaOrder of.the
~.0 County of San Diego, California.?' ~
l~. 4.~ Defendant COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO (hereinafter 'COUNTY~')
12 l~. and at~ all times herein mentioned was. a body politic and corporate of
13 the State of California.
14 5. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corpornte,
l§ associate or otherwise, of defendants DOE I through DOE ~X, inclusive.
~6 are unknow~ to plaintiff, who therefore s~es said defendants by such
~ fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
~8 each of the defendants, whether named herein or designated herein as DOIE.
~-~ is responsible for the occurrences herein alleged. Plaintiff will seek leave
20 of Court to amend this compl~int to show the true names and capacities of
2~. such fictitiously-named defendants when the same have been ascertained.
22 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alle~es, that,
23 at all times herein mentioned, each of the defendants named in the caption
24 of this complaint, which is incorporated herein by reference, was and
25 is the agent, servant and employee of each of the other defendants, and
26 all of the thin~s alleged to have been done by said'defendants were done in
27 the capacity o~ and~ agent for such other defendants.
28 ?. On or about June 18, 1974, by a letter of that date, defendant
RICE. in the capacity of and as agent, servant and er~?loyee of defendant
i LONG BEACH, and through the personal visit of his own employee, requested
2 plaintiff~s permission to enter upon the pre~fses f~or the represented
I purpose of construnting thereon a '*small ditch approximatel~ one and one-
4 ~ ~alf (1ol/2) feet below the exi~tin~ ground line". A true copy of said
l~et~er'is attached here[o as, Exhibit . 7..ann is incorporated herein b'y
~referenee,
7 8. On or about ;lune 19, 1974, in reasonable re~l-'ncc on the
8 aforesaid representation, plaintiff gave written permission to enid
9 defendants to ~onetruot a ditch as ~'~presented. At~Ue copy of said letter,
~0 the ori~inal of which is in defenders' posseeainu[ is attached hereto as
3.3. Exhibit *'3" and ie incorporated herein'~y reference.
~2 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that,
~$ at the t~me of requesting such permission, enid dofend~nts and each of them
~ knew that.their representation was at msteri~l v~rinnea from the true fgcta
3.5 arid was false. .
~6 10. Flalntiff is informed and believes that the true facts were that:
3.7 (a.) on or about March 19, 19~4, said defendants' '
18 plan for a "small ditch approximately one and one-haif
19 (I-1/2) feet deep had been rejected by defendant COUNTY;
20 (b.) whereupon said COUNTY conditioned its approval of
21 the tentative map for the aforesaid lrlair-Poway subdivision
22 upon provision for a SO-year frequency storm flow~
23 (e.) provision for such storm flow required eubstan-
2~ tinlly greater capacity th~n that of a "small ditch
25' aPProximat~ly one and one-half (1-1/2) fee,t.,below the
26
existi~ grb~nd line~ and
.27 (d.) such storm flow required a ditch in excess of
28 three ~nd one-haH (3-1/2) feet deep and approximately
1 thirty ($0) feet wide.
2 Il. Said representation was re. ads by defendants to Induce plaintiff
3 to grant such permisstonl plaintiff would not have granted such permission to
~ said defendants had she known the true facts.
5 ~ ~' 12. Pl-,lntiff ~tid not learn the true faCts unfit on or about
6 September 24. 1975:' at which time heavy earth-moving equipment had been
? moved on to the premises.
8 13. On or about the date last mentioned, pla!~,ttiff~mct with
9 representstl~es of said defendan~~, who stated to~er that, unless the
~.0 ditch was csnstruCted0 her pret~lses would be periodically flooded; but
11 for the emotional amd mental duress ~aueed by such statement, plaintiff
12
13 14. Plaintiff la informed and believes, that, on or about the dates of
14 September 24° 25 and 25, 1975. defendant lONG BEACH constructed a.
35 ditch on'plaintiff's premises of capacity ~ufficiont for 50-year frequency
,1~6 storm flows, the dimensions of such ditch being approximately thirty
? feet wide. approximately :six hundred (400) feet long. and 'more than three
~ 19 and one-half (3o1~2) feet deep'~. ~
15. lmlaintiff has sustained compensable damages as the
20
result of the aforesaid representation, acts and omissions of defendants in
21
the sum of $95, 000.00.
22
13. Such representation, aCts and om~ssions were the result of
23
gross recklessness and oppression, fraud or malice practiced upon plaintiff
2~
by defendants, and by reason thereof plaintiff is entitled to exemplary
25
damages from defendants in the sum of $50,000.09.
26
~ ~x~OR A SECOND CAUSE O1~ ACTION
.27 (ag~ainst defendants RICE and LONG BF,~ACH)
28
17. Plaintiff realleges Paragraphs 1 through $, inclusive, and
~ P&ragral~S 10 through 16, inclusive, of this eo~m~laint end ineorporaem'
~ them herein by veferenee.
~'~ 18. V~ben said defendants made the foregoing representstLon, the7
, ~, ~ ~ acted engels,sly n~d negligently tn that they had no sufficient or
~'W~ ground fOr bellevin~ ma~h representation to be trueI nor did they have eecur:
~ 6 information or data. nor an~ ~form~,qlon or data, respecting the required
~ ~ 7 depth. 'miss, or enpncity of such ditch, even though they were well
~ 8 that without lu~.h I~forn~ttert and ch~ta they could not aei-"~trately State the
~ ale of mteh diteh~ and at that time, and et ell t~ee thereafter u~tll
~-~ Se~tembm~ 24, 1978, laid defendants e~neealed and suppressed from plnintifl
their lack'of Information mad knowledge and their consequent inability aeeu-
ratol~ to make the representation referred' to.
FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
.(against de~end~nt COUNT~
1~o Plaintiff realle~es P~ragrep~:l--thrma[h 8, inclusive, of this
complaint stud incorporates them herein by reference.
~?
20. The lrlair-Poway subdivision la eont~ucms with the premises
18 plaintiff across Oardett Road for a dl~tnnee of ninety-sbt (95) feet. more or.
less, and, for- an additional length of appro~dmateXy one hundred n~ty-four
20 (184) feet alon~ laid Garden ~toad~ the Weatherbin property, bein~ a parcel
of real estate approzimately one hundred aixty-fom. (184) feet by
22
one hnndred sixty-four {184) feet, inter,essa between said subdivision and
plaintiff's premises.
Unnnture~ DIv~I~t,~, ,of,, ,l~rl'l~e s
£5
~1. Heretofore and prior to September 17;' 1975, defe~tdants RIC~,
26
LON~I BF.A¢I~ an~OUNTY, und each of them, planned, approved and
.27;
constructed streets, ettrbff. &,utters, culvertts, storm dr~tins and ditches.
28
&Il comprtsln~ the parts of n ~ystem of dressage for the lrinit--Poway
~- ~8. The construction of said draiusge ditch upon plaintiff's premises
._~ 2 was undertaken pursuant to plaintifi~s letter of permission dated June 19,
._~ 3 1974, and pursuant to gradin~ plan L-Tlfl$ asPrepared by defendant i~ICI~and
-~ ~: ,as authorized!"~' by defe'ndant COUNTY.
-~ 5 Z9. 'Said d?_.!~_~e ditch a~ constructed is more than tin. se and
.~ 6 one-half (S-l~2) feet deep and occupies a portion of p!s!ntifl~s premises
· ~ appPoxtmtely .thirty (.$0) feet wide and appro-!mately ~ix hundred (690)
feet long. Such portion of said p~remises was and is de'tod by.defendant
9 COUNTY to public use for flood;'control and storm drainage purposes to
~0 such an e~tent that the public interest would suffer by the discontinuance of
such use,
~ $0. -qaid drainage ditch as constructed is eubstaet~lly and
~.~ p, laintiff
~ materially la,'gsr than that to which[gave her consent in said letter of
· -~ perm!ssionl the construction of such ditch exceeds the scope of her consent
· ~ 15 · and was abusive and lackin~ in due regard for t. he interests of plaintiff;
,.16 11. Such construction deviates materinlly from that authorized by
defendant COUNTY in that the fence along Clair ~rivs was not replaced
nor was a~y crosstn~ constructed as required by such plan.
~9
32. The value of the property taken by defendant COUNTY is
20 $20. 000.00. The damage to the remaining property by reason of the takinll
of said portion of the premises and the construction and use thereon of a
storm drain0~e ditch is $30. 000.00.
33, Between September 24. 1975, and the date hereof, by reason
24
of the construction by defendant COUNTY of such drainage ditch on plaintJ~
25-
premises, plal~iff sustained losses of the fair 'i:ental value of her remain~
property in the imount of $10,000.00. and in the amount of $2,500.00 as th
.27
expense of r. estortng the fence along Clair Drive and of constructing a
28
fordable cr~ssintl, as specified in the construction plan as approved.
8u~hd~fon ..nd eontf~uou~ public streets, into which they co~e~ and con-
[ ~ 3 centare ~e m~faee waters t~t former~ flowed across ~ seeped nat~a~
~to ~e soft of said s~dlv~elon, and, By means of c~er~ d~age
~4 w~ch c~ss under Garden Road and a ditch UPon the adJol~ng Weatherbie
,; ~'~ prope~y, dlsc~r{e such waters on to the pre.sea of pla~t~f ~ unnatu~l .
'~ ~d' excessive quantities.' '
22. ~ a d~ect result of such condu~ ~d ~t~ction,'
8
9 pre~s~s suffer.e~st~ ~d ether dams{e, causl~ p~tfff to sustain
d~a{es in the ~m of $~, 000.00. ~ ~
· mva eat of Acc~
~2 23.. The ~oresaid premiuee.~f p~n~f ab~s, ~d, for ma~ years
~3 to Ma~ 19. 1974. ~s abutted on the ~re~ ~o~ as Oa~en Road
on the street knows as Chit Drive.
14
24. Pin,tiff ~s ~d. for ma~ years prior to the acts alle~
here~, free. u~lt~nd conve~ent access to ~e premises by way
Galen Road and by way 0f C~ Drive.'
~ . 25. Beglnn!n~ on or a~ut S~tember 24. 1975. defendants, and each
~9 of them. began eonst~ion of a ~torm-water dr~e ditch on
20 pre~eee, alo~ its f~ntage with Cl~fr Drive; eubeequent~, on or about
Septembe~ 26. 19~5. e~d co~t~ction wa~ completed.
22 26. As a result of the const~ction of such drain, s ditch.
2~ defendant COU~Y ~s ~stant/ally app~pr~at~. ~pair~ and prev~t~
24 reae~able access to phint~s premises from C~ir Drive. thereby greatly
25 depreclatl~ its ~lue. ~d d~m~la~ pla~tfff ~ the s~ of $30. 000.00.
26 ~aki~. Severance and DeCo,!on f~m Con~ctfo~
(27 delet~ "'
*27
//Y/////
Francella's
East
West
flood gates up and open
Garden Rd at the Comer of Neddick
Prier to 1975 the only water we got came from Clair Dr and from Neddick
There was nothing on the north side of Garden Road across from Gorden's grocery store
accept a Chevron gas station
Looking East from
Clair Drive
Looking North along
Clair Drive
This channel never existed prior to the
devlopment of Shadow Mountain
Illegal ditch facing South
This ditch is on Garden road, the Weatherbie's property.
According to a letter Dated June 8, 1974, to Gough from Rick Engineering. "Long Beach
Construction Company would like to grade a SMALL DITCH approximately one and a half
(12/2) feet below the existing groundline on your property,'
Illegal ditch facing north
This ditch is on Garden road, the Weatherbie's property.
According to a letter Dated June 8, 1974, to Gough from Rick Engineering. "Long Beach
Construction Company would like to grade a SMALL DITCH approximately one and a half
(12/2 feet below the existing groundline on your property~
Poway main creek at the end of Golden Way
The main channel facing West
Poway main creek at the end of Golden Way
The main channel facing East