Swenson v. Siskiyou County et al

Filing 223

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/28/15: Settlement Conference set for 11/5/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 27 (DAD) before Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd. Jury trial is on standby for November 16, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom Three before the Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

STANLEY SWENSON, an individual,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

Civ. No. 2:08-CV-1675-JAM-CMK

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

v.
SISKIYOU COUNTY, et al.
Defendants.

16
17

On, September 17, 2015, the court conducted a final pretrial conference. Mark

18

Fickes appeared for the plaintiff, Stanley Swenson; Robert Chalfant and Wendy Motooka

19

appeared for defendants Siskiyou County, Siskiyou County Planning Commission, Lavada

20

Erickson, Frank Demarco, Bill Hoy, Marcia Armstrong, Jim Cook, Ron Stevens, Jeff Fowle,

21

Chris Lazaris, and Mike McMahon. After hearing, and good cause appearing, the court makes the

22

following findings and orders:

23

JURISDICTION/VENUE

24

Jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331, 1343 and 42 U.S.C. Section

25

1983. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391. Jurisdiction and venue are not contested.

26

JURY/NON-JURY

27
28

The parties agree that timely demand for a jury trial was made, and that twelve
(12) jurors will be impaneled.
1

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNDISPUTED FACTS
A.

A use permit (the “Use Permit”) was issued on August 3, 1966 to C. O. Palmer,

Jr., on property owned then by Mrs. Lucille Morgan.
B.

The real property subject to the Use Permit was subsequently acquired by Mr.

Swenson and his wife (the “Property”) in September 1994, consisting of 14.5 acres.
D.

Mr. Swenson and his wife subsequently conveyed a 2/3’s interest in 11.5 acres of

7

the Property to others so that he and his wife currently own a 100% interest in 3 acres of the

8

Property and a 1/3 interest in 11.5 acres of the Property.

9
10
11
12
13

E.

The Use Permit permitted the installation and operation of an asphalt hot plant and

the manufacture of aggregate and asphalt paving products.
F.

There has not been an asphalt hot plant on the Property since sometime in the

1980s, including when Mr. Swenson owned the Property.
G.

In 1995, Mr. Swenson participated in rezoning the real property to an M-M (Light

14

Industrial District) zone, which was done at his request. There has been no change in the zoning

15

applicable to the Property since February 14, 1995.

16
17
18

H.

From February 1995 to about May 2003, Rick Barnum was the County’s Planning

Director and Wayne Virag was the County’s Assistant Planning Director.
I.

In August 2000, Mr. Swenson submitted an application for a use permit to surface

19

mine on the Property. Wayne Virag had some involvement in Mr. Swenson’s August 2000

20

application for a use permit and reclamation plan approval to surface mine the real property.

21

J.

Mr. Virag notified Mr. Swenson that the August 2000 application was defective.

22

K.

In a memo to the planning department, Brian McDermott, then Director of Public

23

Works, indicated that a railroad undercrossing near the Property was too narrow and unsafe to

24

allow for the grant of the surfacing mining use permit.

25
26
27
28

L.

The County of Siskiyou had a surface mine (pit) next to Mr. Swenson’s property

for which his August 2000 application for a use permit and reclamation plan was made.
M.

Mr. Swenson’s attorney, Darrin Mercier, wrote a letter, on December 10, 2002,

followed by a letter on December 12, 2002 to Rick Barnum, director of the County’s Planning
2

1

Department, advising that his clients were moving forward with their business plan consistent

2

with the 1966 Use Permit, but inquiring whether the Planning Department had any factual or legal

3

basis to suggest that operation under the Use Permit would be unlawful.

4
5
6

N.

Mr. Virag responded to Mercier’s December 10 and 12, 2002 letters in a letter

dated February 13, 2003.
O.

Mr. Swenson filed a complaint for declaratory relief in the Siskiyou County

7

Superior Court on February 15, 2005, Case No. SCCVCV05-222 (“Siskiyou County

8

Complaint”). Mr. Swenson sought judicial determination of: (1) whether the Use Permit runs with

9

the land; (2) whether the Use Permit is still valid; and (3) whether the owner of the Property may

10

use the Property for the uses specified in the Use Permit. Mr. Swenson filed the Siskiyou County

11

Complaint before the completion of the administrative appeals to the Planning Commission and

12

Board of Supervisors.

13
14
15

P.

After about May 2003, Mr. Virag became the County’s Planning Director until his

employment finished.
Q.

Defendants Jeff Fowle, Ron Stevens, Mike McMahon, and Chris Lazaris were

16

duly appointed Planning Commissioners who attended the meeting of the Planning Commission

17

held on May 4, 2005.

18

R.

At the conclusion of the Public Hearing on May 4, 2005, a motion was adopted,

19

upon a vote of the Commissioners, upholding Mr. Virag’s opinion contained in his letter of

20

February 13, 2003.

21

S.

Defendant Frank DeMarco was County Counsel of the County of Siskiyou and

22

defendant Don Langford was the Assistant County Counsel of the County of Siskiyou during

23

2005 and the times mentioned herein.

24

T.

Don Langford attended the meeting of the Planning Commission of Siskiyou

25

County held on May 4, 2005, at the time the hearing on the appeal of Mr. Virag’s opinion

26

contained in his letter of February 13, 2003, relating to the status the Use Permit.

27
28

U.

An issue raised by Mr. Swenson, at and prior to the hearing, was whether or not

Mr. Virag’s opinion contained in his letter of February 13, 2003, was under provisions of the
3

1

Siskiyou County Code, an action subject to the administrative remedies of appeal to the Planning

2

Commission and ultimately to the Board of Supervisors.

3

V.

The decision of the Planning Commission upholding the conclusion/opinion of

4

Wayne Virag contained in his letter of February 13, 2003 was appealed to the Board of

5

Supervisors. Mr. Swenson initiated that appeal under protest.

6
7

W.

Virag’s opinion as set forth in his February 13, 2003 letter.

8
9

The Board of Supervisors, after a public hearing, denied the appeal and upheld Mr.

X.

Defendant LaVada Erickson, Marcia Armstrong, Bill Hoy, and Jim Cook were

Supervisors of Siskiyou County, who conducted and heard Mr. Swenson’s appeal of the decision

10

of the Planning Commission upholding the opinion of Wayne Virag contained in his letter of

11

February 13, 2003. That appeal was heard on May 24, 2005.

12

Y.

Defendant Frank DeMarco attended the May 24, 2005 meeting of the Board of

13

Supervisors of Siskiyou County at the time of the hearing on the appeal of the Planning

14

Commission’s decision to uphold the opinion of Mr. Virag contained in his February 13, 2013

15

letter relating to the status of the Use Permit.

16

Z.

An issue raised by Mr. Swenson, at and prior to the Planning Commission hearing

17

and the Board of Supervisors hearing, was whether or not Mr. Virag’s opinion contained in his

18

February 13, 2013 letter relating to the status of the Use Permit was, under provisions of the

19

Siskiyou County Code, an action subject to the administrative remedies of appeal to the Planning

20

Commission and ultimately to the Board of Supervisors, and hence, ultimately reviewable in

21

court by way of a Writ for Administrative Mandamus.

22

AA.

The County filed various procedural challenges to the Siskiyou County Complaint,

23

alleging in part that the administrative process before the County had not been completed. Mr.

24

Swenson’s claim for declaratory relief was dismissed, but he was permitted to proceed with his

25

claims for Administrative Mandamus in a Second Amended Complaint.

26

BB.

27

action.

28

Plaintiff Swenson prevailed against the County in the Administrative Mandamus

/////
4

1

CC.

2

Mandamus action.

3

DD.

Brian McDermott was the Director of Public Works for the County until January

EE.

Scott Sumner is the Director of Public Works for the County of Siskiyou and has

4
5

The County did not appeal the May 15, 2007 decision in the Administrative

2008.

6

been since November 2008. Prior to becoming Director of Public Works, Scott Sumner was a

7

Senior Civil Engineer for Siskiyou County from May 18, 1997 through November 23, 2002, and

8

Deputy Director of Public Works for Siskiyou County from November 23, 2002 through

9

November 15, 2008.

10

FF.

As of the present date, there has been no revocation hearing concerning the 1966

11

Use Permit.

12

DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES

13

The court has narrowed the list of disputed factual issues provided in the Joint

14

Pretrial Conference Statement to what it believes is the list of facts actually disputed. The parties

15

should meet and confer, and advise the court by the first day of the trial if the list can be further

16

narrowed.

17

A.

Whether prior to Mr. Swenson’s acquisition of the property in 1994, it was used

18

for an asphalt hot mix plant, quarry/surface mining operations, a gravel pit, and

19

aggregate/concrete processing.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

B.

Whether the County submitted a reclamation plan, jointly with Mr. Swenson, for

approval to reclaim the County’s gravel pit adjacent to Swenson’s property.
C.

Whether Mr. Swenson permitted the County of Siskiyou (the “County”) to surface

mine the Property jointly with the County’s adjacent property.
D.

Whether the County removed 4,860 tons of pit run rock from Mr. Swenson’s side

of the property line as part of the reclamation.
E.

Whether the Department of Public Works was only concerned with the railroad

27

undercrossing with respect to Swenson’s August 2000 application and not for the January 2000

28

jointly proposed Reclamation Plan.
5

1

F.

Whether after Mr. Virag reviewed the August 2000 application, the County

2

decided that Mr. Swenson could not obtain a use permit without completing an Environmental

3

Impact Report.

4

G.

Whether Mr. Virag’s Letter was formal action by the Planning Department.

5

H.

Whether the County went forward with “staff-initiated” appeal despite the

6

Plaintiff’s protest.

7
8
9
10

I.

Whether there has been the manufacture of aggregate products on the Property

during the period of Mr. Swenson’s ownership of the Property.
J.

Whether a hearing is required when the right obtained under a Use Permit expires

by operation of the law.

11

K.

Whether the Use Permit has been abandoned.

12

L.

Whether Plaintiff has any damages arising from lost mining operations, and if so,

13
14
15
16
17
18

to what extent.
M.

Whether Plaintiff has any damages arising from not operating an asphalt hot plant,

and if so, to what extent.
N.

Whether the plaintiff has established an asphalt hot plant to manufacture aggregate

and asphalt paving products on his real property since May 15, 2007.
O.

Whether the defendants have ever filed any enforcement action against Mr.

19

Swenson to prevent him from operating an asphalt hot plant to manufacture aggregate and asphalt

20

paving products pursuant to the Use Permit.

21
22
23

P.

Whether Mr. Swenson was aware that he risks prosecution should he proceed with

the manufacture of aggregate and asphalt paving products pursuant to the Use Permit.
Q.

Whether Swenson has ever obtained a permit or approval of a reclamation plan

24

and financial assurances, as required under California Public Resources Code Section 2770(a), to

25

permit him to surface mine on his property.

26

R.

Whether Swenson has initiated or needs to initiate a vested rights determination

27

hearing, pursuant to the Surfacing Mining and Reclamation Act (“SMARA”), regarding the 1966

28

Use Permit.
6

1

S.

Whether there was an impediment to Mr. Swenson’s making use of the real

2

property as permitted by the Use Permit issued August 3, 1966.

3

DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES/MOTIONS IN LIMINE

4

Plaintiff’s Position

5

At this juncture, Mr. Swenson does not anticipate disputes concerning the

6

admissibility of live and deposition testimony, or physical or demonstrative evidence. Based on

7

the status of discovery, Mr. Swenson does not believe that the defendants intend to use any

8

computer animation, video discs, or other high technology. Mr. Swenson is still considering

9

whether to move in limine for the exclusion of the testimony of the County’s expert, Craig M.

10

Enos. Mr. Swenson is also considering whether to move in limine to preclude defendants from

11

making certain arguments as set forth in plaintiff’s points of law, below.

12

Defendants’ Position

13

Defendants anticipate the following evidentiary disputes, to be raised by way of

14

motions in limine:

15

A.

16
17

Whether plaintiff should be precluded from arguing that Wayne Virag’s letter

constitutes the revocation of a vested right.
B.

Whether testimony from experts Thomas Chapman and Angela Casler, and

18

testimony regarding aggregate and asphalt sales from the contractor witnesses (Terry Smith,

19

Ronald Taylor, Roger Henry, Gerard Pelletier, John McDowell, Jack Mitchell, David Baird, John

20

Buick, Donald Loader, Stephen Dean, Ron Rhodes, Joe Williams, Jack DeGray, David Jackson,

21

Harold Knight, and Jim Freeze) should be excluded as irrelevant, because plaintiff has never had

22

a vested rights determination hearing pursuant to SMARA or County ordinances.

23
24
25
26

C.

Whether the Court should decline, under the Pullman abstention doctrine, to

determine the validity and scope of the 1966 Use Permit.
D.

Whether the testimony of plaintiff’s expert Thomas Chapman, and the testimony

of the contractor witnesses listed in item B, supra, should be excluded as too speculative.

27

E.

28

too speculative.

Whether the testimony of plaintiff’s expert Angela Casler should be excluded as

7

1
2

F.

were violated by the Planning Department’s initiation of a hearing on the use permit.

3
4

G.

H.

Whether plaintiff should be precluded from referencing other legal disputes he has

had with the County of Siskiyou.

7
8

Whether plaintiff should be precluded from referencing other disputes in the

County of Siskiyou over mining rights.

5
6

Whether plaintiff should be precluded from arguing that his constitutional rights

I.

Whether plaintiff should be precluded from referencing how other mines were

regulated in the County of Siskiyou.

9

J.

Whether certain testimony from William Overman, regarding the Board of

10

Supervisors’ actions and the legal effect of Wayne Virag’s letter, should be excluded as lacking

11

foundation and more prejudicial than probative.

12
13

K.

Superior Court order on the writ of mandate established a federal civil rights violation.

14
15

L.

M.

Whether plaintiff should be precluded from making arguments to the jury about

the value of abstract constitutional rights.

18
19

Whether plaintiff should be precluded from referencing the existence of insurance

or indemnification pertaining to any defendant.

16
17

Whether plaintiff should be precluded from arguing that the Siskiyou County

N.

Exclusion of expert testimony by any expert who has not been disclosed pursuant

to Rule 26.

20

O.

Exclusion of testimony, documentary evidence, or argument from plaintiff that is

21

contrary to his responses to requests for admissions.

22

Pretrial Hearing on Select Motions in Limine

23

As discussed with the parties at the scheduling conference, the court will hear

24

certain motions in limine on October 30, 2015, prior to trial. Those motions include those

25

identified above as defendants’ motion C, F, and K, motions to determine the scope of this action

26

in light of the history of the case, and the effect of missing parties, including the status of the

27

defendant’s ex-wife.

28

/////
8

1

STIPULATIONS/AGREED STATEMENTS

2
3

None at this time.
RELIEF SOUGHT

4

A.

Mr. Swenson seeks compensation for lost profits and personal salary.

5

B.

Mr. Swenson seeks emotional distress damages.

6

C.

Mr. Swenson seeks punitive damages.

7

D.

Mr. Swenson seeks attorneys’ fees and costs for the administrative proceedings

8

and the administrative writ proceedings, and this action.

9

E.

Mr. Swenson seeks prejudgment interest.

10

F.

Defendants seek judgment in their favor and attorneys’ fees.

11

POINTS OF LAW

12

The parties shall alert the court to disputes about the applicable law and legal

13

standards, including the disputes referenced in the “special factual information” section of the

14

parties’ joint statement that are relevant to trial. Trial briefs addressing these points more

15

completely shall be filed with this court no later than seven days prior to the date of trial in

16

accordance with Local Rule 285.

17

Plaintiff’s Points of Law

18

A.

19

a vested property right in the Use Permit.

20
21

Issue preclusion prohibits defendants from re-litigation whether Mr. Swenson has

B.

Defendants are precluded from arguing that Mr. Swenson’s claims are barred by

the statute of limitations.

22

C.

Defendants are not entitled to absolute or qualified immunity.

23

D.

Defendants are liable under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694

24

(1978).

25

Defendant’s Points of Law

26

A.

Individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

27

B.

Plaintiff cannot claim a property interest in the right to surface mine or to

28

manufacture asphalt, because the validity of the 1966 Use Permit remains uncertain.
9

1
2

C.

Plaintiff’s claimed damages relating to mining are too speculative to be awarded,

because he has not yet had a vested rights determination hearing.

3

D.

The case may be missing required parties.

4

E.

Plaintiff did not mitigate his damages.

5

ABANDONED ISSUES

6
7

Mr. Swenson has not abandoned any issues raised by the pleadings.
WITNESSES

8

Plaintiff’s witnesses shall be those listed in Attachment A1. Defendants’ witnesses

9

shall be those listed in Attachment B. Each party may call any witnesses designated by the other.

10

A.

The court will not permit any other witness to testify unless:

11

(1) The party offering the witness demonstrates that the witness is for the purpose

12

of rebutting evidence that could not be reasonably anticipated at the pretrial

13

conference, or

14

(2) The witness was discovered after the pretrial conference and the proffering

15

party makes the showing required in “B,” below.

16

B.

Upon the post pretrial discovery of any witness a party wishes to present at trial,

17

the party shall promptly inform the court and opposing parties of the existence of the unlisted

18

witnesses so the court may consider whether the witnesses shall be permitted to testify at trial.

19

The witnesses will not be permitted unless:

20

(1) The witness could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the

21

discovery cutoff;

22

(2) The court and opposing parties were promptly notified upon discovery

23

of the witness;

24

(3) If time permitted, the party proffered the witness for deposition; and

25

(4) If time did not permit, a reasonable summary of the witness’s testimony

26

was provided to opposing parties.

27
28

1

The court notes the plaintiff’s Witness List skips from #29 William Overman to #31 Joseph
Pelletier, and assumes this reflects a clerical error and not the omission of a witness name.
10

1

EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES AND SUMMARIES

2
3

Plaintiff’s exhibits are identified on Attachment C. At trial, plaintiff’s exhibits
shall be listed numerically.
Defendant’s exhibits are identified on Attachment D2. At trial, defendant’s exhibits

4
5

shall be listed alphabetically.

6

The court understands the parties are working to generate a joint exhibit list. The

7

court encourages the parties to generate a joint exhibit list to the extent possible. If parties wish

8

to submit a joint exhibit list to supersede their separate exhibit list in whole or in part, they should

9

submit that by October 8, 2015. Joint Exhibits shall be identified as JX and listed numerically,

10

e.g., JX-1, JX-2.

11

All exhibits must be premarked.

12

The parties must prepare exhibit binders for use by the court at trial, with a side tab

13

identifying each exhibit in accordance with the specifications above. Each binder shall have an

14

identification label on the front and spine.

15
16

The parties must exchange exhibits no later than twenty-eight days before trial.
Any objections to exhibits are due no later than fourteen days before trial.

17
18

A.

The court will not admit exhibits other than those identified on the exhibit lists

referenced above unless:

19

1. The party proffering the exhibit demonstrates that the exhibit is for the purpose

20

of rebutting evidence that could not have been reasonably anticipated, or

21

2. The exhibit was discovered after the issuance of this order and the proffering

22

party makes the showing required in Paragraph “B,” below.

23

B.

Upon the discovery of exhibits after the discovery cutoff, a party shall promptly

24

inform the court and opposing parties of the existence of such exhibits so that the court may

25

consider their admissibility at trial. The exhibits will not be received unless the proffering party

26

demonstrates:

27
28

2

The court notes Exhibit VV on the defendants’ Exhibit List is identified as a Minute Order dated
May 17, 2007, although it appears in a series of documents dated in 2005.
11

1

1. The exhibits could not reasonably have been discovered earlier;

2

2. The court and the opposing parties were promptly informed of their existence;

3

3. The proffering party forwarded a copy of the exhibits (if physically possible) to

4

the opposing party. If the exhibits may not be copied the proffering party must

5

show that it has made the exhibits reasonably available for inspection by the

6

opposing parties.

7

DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS

8
9

Counsel must lodge the sealed original copy of any deposition transcript to be used
at trial with the Clerk of the Court on the first day of trial.

10

Plaintiff’s Position

11

A.

Bill Hoy’s Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 20. (Set No. 1).

12

B.

Chris Lazaris’s Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 20. (Set No. 1).

13

C.

Siskiyou County’s and Siskiyou County Planning Commission’s Responses to

14

Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 20. (Set No. 1)

15
16

D.

E.

F.

G.
(Set No. 1).

23
24

H.

I.

Mike McMahon’s Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, and 20. (Set No.

J.

Ron Stevens’s Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 20. (Set No. 1).

1).

27
28

Marcia Armstrong’s Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 20. (Set

No. 1).

25
26

Lavada Erickson’s Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 18, and 20.

1).

21
22

Jim Cooke’s Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 15, and 20. (Set No.

No. 1).

19
20

Jim Fowle’s Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 15, and 20. (Set

No. 1).

17
18

Frank DeMarco’s Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 20. (Set

/////
12

1
2

K.

Defendants’ Responses to Request for Admissions Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,

29, 30, 39, 40, 55, 75, 76, 77, and 78 (Set No. 1).

3

Plaintiff’s Designation of Excerpts from Depositions

4

A.

David Baird: 4:6-8:19; 9:24-10:5; and 16:4-17:2.

5

B.

David Jackson: 4:14-5:6; 5:15-22; 6:14-25; 10:23-11:13; 13:3-18; 15:21-24;

6

18:18-19:4; 20:10-24:10; 27:9-15; 29:13-30:10; 32:2-25; 34:18-35:5.

7

C.

Donald Clifton: 4:6-16; 4:20-10:2; 11:8-14:9; 16:16-17:6.

8

D.

Richard Loader: 4:6-14; 5:25-9:12; 10:6-13:15; 14:18-15:7; 19:25-20:2; 23:5-

10

E.

Earl Campbell: 4:13-13:23; 14”3-7; 15:22-18:17; 18:20-19:8; 19:14-21:10; 21:3-

11

23:17; 29:13-30:3.

9

25:22.

12

F.

Fern Campbell: 4:13-11:20.

13

G.

Gerard Pelletier: 4:6-10; 5:24-7:23; 8:4-9:13; 14:6-15:14; 28:8-30:21.

14

H.

Harold Knight: 4:6-16; 5:22-7:9; 8:16-18:6; 28:16-29:10.

15

I.

Jack DeGray: 4:6-14; 5:20-7:18; 7:23-8:22; 10:20-11:20; 12:6-13:24; 16:1-17:13;

16

19:21-20:2; 20:6-22:17; 24:3-10; 26:4-26:23.

17

J.

Jack Mitchell: 4:6-16; 5:21-7:25; 9:8-11:2; 13:6-15:7; 19:3-22; 37:12-24.

18

K.

Joe Williams: 5:9-18; 5:24-6:8; 7:4-12; 8:7-12; 10:21-11:14; 20:3-23; 24:5-28:21.

19

L.

John Buick: 5:9-21; 6:1-25; 17:8-20:20.

20

M.

John McDowell: 4:6-8:8; 9:7-10:5; 11:10-13:5; 13:14-17:8.

21

N.

Ron Rhodes: 4:6-13; 5:9-21; 6:3-7:5; 7:20-9:24; 11:23- 12:16; 16:5-10; 16:23-

22

17:13; 21:5-22:18; 24:16-29:24.

23

O.

Ronald Taylor: 4:7-6:11; 7:5-9:11; 12:8-20; 15:24-16:13; 19:26-20:10; 27:23-

25

P.

Stephen Dean: 4:6-8:3; 8:21-10:12.

26

Q.

William Overman: 6:7-13; 7:24-15:6; 16:13-21:17.

27

R.

Roger Henry: 4:4-5:3; 7:18-8:18; 14:6-22; 31:4-32:24; 34:15-35:22.

24

28

29:19.

/////
13

1

Defendant’s Position

2

Stanley Swenson’s Response to Request for Admissions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10,

3

11, 12, 13, 19, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, and 48.

4

FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS

5

With the possible exception of motions in limine, no other motions are

6

contemplated at this time.

7

AMENDMENTS/DISMISSALS

8

None at this time.

9

SETTLEMENT

10

The parties participated in a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Dale

11

A. Drozd on June 9, 2014. Since the first settlement conference, the court has denied the

12

defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and the defendants have new counsel. The court

13

therefore orders the parties to a second settlement conference.

14

A settlement conference is scheduled before Judge Drozd for November 5, 2015

15

at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 27, 8th Floor. The parties have waived conflict to the assigned

16

magistrate judge.

17

The parties are directed to submit their confidential settlement conference

18

statements to the Court using the following email address: [e-mail].

19

Statements are due at least 7 days prior to the Settlement Conference. Such statements are neither

20

to be filed with the clerk nor served on opposing counsel. However, each party shall e-file a one

21

page document entitled Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Conference Statement.

22

The parties may agree, or not, to serve each other with the settlement statements. Each party is

23

reminded of the requirement that it be represented in person at the settlement conference by a

24

person able to dispose of the case or fully authorized to settle the matter at the settlement

25

conference on any terms. See Local Rule 270.

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
14

1

JOINT STATEMENT OF THE CASE

2

The parties have agreed to the following joint statement of the case:

3

Mr. Swenson and the County of Siskiyou dispute the applicability of
certain land use restrictions to Mr. Swenson’s real property in Siskiyou
County, and their impact on his ability to surface mine and manufacture
asphalt on his property. Mr. Swenson alleges that the County of Siskiyou
and several of its employees violated his federal constitutional rights
during the litigation. He now sues the County and several County
employees for monetary damages.

4
5
6
7
8

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

9

Because so much of this case depends on the interpretation of documents,

10

presentation of all or part of the action upon an agreed statement of facts is not advisable because,

11

in most if not all instances, the parties’ interpretation of arguably undisputed facts would require

12

thorough examination of the witnesses who prepared and received the largely undisputed

13

documents.

14

SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES

15
16

None.
IMPARTIAL EXPERTS/LIMITATION OF EXPERTS

17

None.

18

ATTORNEYS' FEES

19

As set forth in Section 7, above, Mr. Swenson seeks attorneys’ fees as permitted

20

by law. Mr. Swenson will file a motion no later than 28 days after entry of the final judgment as

21

set forth in Local Rule 293.

22
23

Defendants also will seek attorneys’ fees, as permitted by law.
TRIAL EXHIBITS

24

No special handling is required.

25

The court will not retain certified copies of exhibits as set forth in Local Rule

26

138(j) in the event of an appeal.

27

/////

28
15

1

TRIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER

2

The parties do not seek a protective order for civil trial under Local Rule

3

141.1(b)(2).

4

ESTIMATED TIME OF TRIAL/TRIAL DATE

5

This jury trial is on standby for November 16, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom

6

Three before the Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller. The parties have agreed to trail the case

7

currently scheduled for that date. The parties will be notified by one week prior to the standby

8

date whether the case will proceed on November 16, 2015. The trial is anticipated to last fourteen

9

(14) days. The parties are directed to Judge Mueller’s default trial schedule outlined on her web

10

page on the court’s website.

11

PROPOSED JURY VOIR DIRE AND PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

12
13
14

The parties shall file any proposed jury voir dire seven days before trial. Each
party will be limited to ten minutes of jury voir dire.
The court directs counsel to meet and confer in an attempt to generate a joint set of

15

jury instructions and verdicts. The parties shall file any such joint set of instructions fourteen

16

days before trial, identified as “Jury Instructions and Verdicts Without Objection.” To the extent

17

the parties are unable to agree on all or some instructions and verdicts, their respective proposed

18

instructions are due fourteen days before trial.

19

Counsel shall e-mail a copy of all proposed jury instructions and verdicts, whether

20

agreed or disputed, as a word document to [e-mail] no later than fourteen

21

days before trial; all blanks in form instructions should be completed and all brackets removed.

22

Objections to proposed jury instructions must be filed seven days before trial; each

23

objection shall identify the challenged instruction and shall provide a concise explanation of the

24

basis for the objection along with citation of authority. When applicable, the objecting party

25

shall submit an alternative proposed instruction on the issue or identify which of his or her own

26

proposed instructions covers the subject.

27

TRIAL BRIEFS

28

Trial briefs are due seven days before trial on November 9, 2015.
16

1

OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL ORDER

2

Each party is granted fourteen days from the date of this order to file objections to

3

the same. If no objections are filed, the order will become final without further order of this

4

court.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED
DATED: September 28, 2015.

7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17

1

ATTACHMENT A: Plaintiff’s Witnesses

2

PLAINTIFF’S WITNESS LIST

3
1.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

defendants. Ms. Armstrong is a defendant and her testimony will be centered on her actions as a
member of the Board of Supervisors. She will testify concerning: (1) her conduct before, during,
and after Board of Supervisor’s meetings relating to Mr. Swenson’s appeal of the decision of the
Planning Commission; (2) the evidence purportedly considered by the Board; (3) the Board’s
decision related to Mr. Swenson’s property; and (4) the manner in which she contributed to the
deprivation of Mr. Swenson’s constitutional rights.
2.

11
12
13
14

17
18

subdivision and will testify that he would have purchased gravel from Mr. Swenson, had Mr.
Swenson been allowed to manufacture aggregate.
3.

21
22

purchased gravel for this and will testify that he would have purchased gravel from Mr. Swenson,
had Mr. Swenson been allowed to manufacture aggregate.
4.

25
26
27
28

Earl Campbell. Mr. Campbell’s address is 2045 S. 19th Street, Coos Bay, Oregon

97420. Mr. Campbell was a former owner of the gravel pit located at 2700 N. Old Stage Rd., in
the Mt. Shasta Area, which is the gravel pit at issue in this case. Mr. Campbell will testify about
the history of the pit and its uses during the tenure of his ownership.
5.

23
24

John Buick. Mr. Buick’s address is 9831 Cow Creek Drive, Palo Cedro,

California 96073. Mr. Buick is a local contractor who contracts with the U.S. Forest Service. He

19
20

David Baird. Mr. Baird’s address is 240 Cricket Road, Mt. Shasta, California

96067. Mr. Baird is a local contractor and land developer. He purchased gravel for his

15
16

Marcia Armstrong. Ms. Armstrong can be reached through counsel for the

Fern Campbell. Mrs. Campbell’s address is Mr. Campbell’s address is 2045 S.

19th Street, Coos Bay, Oregon 97420. Mrs. Campbell was a former owner of the gravel pit
located at 2700 N. Old Stage Rd., in the Mt. Shasta Area, which is the gravel pit at issue in this
case. Mr. Campbell will testify about the history of the pit and its uses during the tenure of his
ownership.
/////
18

1
2

6.

is a designated expert who will testify to issues related to Mr. Swenson’s damages.

3
4

Angela Caster. Ms. Caster may be reached through counsel for Mr. Swenson. She

7.

Thomas Chapman. Mr. Chapman may be reached through counsel for Mr.

Swenson. He is a designated expert who will testify to issues related to Mr. Swenson’s damages.

5

8.

Donald Clifton. Mr. Clifton’s address is 106 Rancho Maderas Way in Henderson,

6

Nevada 89002. Mr. Clifton was a previous owner/operator of the gravel pit located at 2700 N.

7

Old Stage Road, in the Mt. Shasta Area, which is the gravel pit at issue in this case. He will

8

testify about the historical use of the property and the amount of gravel sales he made during his

9

ownership. Mr. Clifton was owner/operator of the pit when Siskiyou County issued the 1966 use

10

permit at issue in this case. He installed the asphalt hot mix plant and operated it on the property

11

for approximately 15 years.

12

9.

Jim Cook. Mr. Cook can be reached through counsel for defendants. Mr. Cook is

13

a defendant and his testimony will be centered on her actions as a member of the Board of

14

Supervisors. He will testify concerning: (1) his conduct before, during, and after Board of

15

Supervisor’s meetings relating to Mr. Swenson’s appeal of the decision of the Planning

16

Commission; (2) the evidence purportedly considered by the Board; (3) the Board’s decision

17

related to Mr. Swenson’s property; and (4) the manner in which he contributed to the deprivation

18

of Mr. Swenson’s constitutional rights.

19

10.

Tony Cruse. Mr. Cruse’s address is 886 Fitch Road, Alturas, California 96101.

20

Mr. Cruse is a paving contractor and asphalt hot mix operator who will testify about gravel

21

purchases, asphalt hot mix plants, and his desire to locate an asphalt hot mix plant on the gravel

22

pit located at 2700 N. Old Stage Rd., in the Mt. Shasta Area, which is the pit at issue in this case.

23

11.

Stephen Dean. Mr. Dean’s address is 16335 North Street, Redding, California

24

96001. Mr. Dean is a California Licensed Land Surveyor. He surveyed Mr. Swenson’s gravel pit

25

and will testify about the results of his survey.

26

12.

27

California 96067.

28

/////

Jack DeGray. Mr. DeGray’s address is 1633 Davis Place Road, Mt. Shasta,
Mr. DeGray is a local paving contractor who will testify about gravel and

19

1

asphalt hot mix purchases he made. He will also testify that he would have purchased materials

2

from Mr. Swenson had the defendants allowed Mr. Swenson to operate his gravel pit.

3

13.

Frank DeMarco. Mr. DeMarco can be reached through counsel for defendants.

4

Mr. DeMarco was County Counsel before, during and after the appeals hearing of May 24, 2005.

5

He will testify about his role in the County’s mistreatment of Mr. Swenson including the manner

6

in which the Board of Supervisor’s conducted the appeal of the Planning Commission.

7

14.

Lavada Erickson. Ms. Erickson can be reached through counsel for defendants.

8

Ms. Erickson is a defendant and her testimony will be centered on her actions as a member of the

9

Board of Supervisors. She will testify concerning: (1) her conduct before, during, and after Board

10

of Supervisor’s meetings relating to Mr. Swenson’s appeal of the decision of the Planning

11

Commission; (2) the evidence purportedly considered by the Board; (3) the Board’s decision

12

related to Mr. Swenson’s property; and (4) the manner in which she contributed to the deprivation

13

of Mr. Swenson’s constitutional rights.

14

15.

Jeff Fowle. Mr. Fowle can be reached through counsel for defendants. Mr. Fowle

15

was a member of the Siskiyou County Planning Commission during the events at issue in this

16

case. He will testify about his actions before, during and after the Siskiyou County Planning

17

Commission Hearing held on May 4, 2005, and related to Mr. Swenson, including the decision to

18

conduct an appeal against Mr. Swenson’s wishes. Mr. Fowle will testify about Siskiyou County

19

Ordinances and the appeals process.

20

16.

Jim Freeze. Mr. Freeze’s address is P.O. Box 1231, Yreka, California, 96097. Mr.

21

Freeze is a local paving contractor. He will testify about gravel and asphalt hot mix purchases for

22

his contracting business and how he would have purchased materials from Mr. Swenson had the

23

County permitted Mr. Swenson to manufacture aggregate and asphalt products.

24

17.

David Gravenkamp. Mr. Gravenkamp’s address is 505 North Street, Yreka,

25

California 96097. Mr. Gravenkamp was the Siskiyou County Public Works Director. He will

26

testify about the Siskiyou County Gravel Pit located on Pine Grove Dr. in the Mt. Shasta area,

27

which is adjacent to Mr. Swenson’s pit. He will also testify about the Siskiyou County Public

28

/////
20

1

Works Department’s involvement in the handling of the Mr. Swenson’s use permit and

2

reclamation plan application.

3

18.

Roger Henry. Mr. Henry’s address is 2600 Ely Lane, Redding, California 96001.

4

Mr. Henry is a local paving contractor, estimator, and project manager. He will testify about

5

gravel and asphalt hot mix purchases for his contracting business and how he would have

6

purchased materials from Mr. Swenson had the defendants allowed Mr. Swenson to manufacture

7

aggregate and asphalt products.

8
9

19.

Bill Hoy. Mr. Hoy can be reached through counsel for defendants. Mr. Hoy is a

defendant and his testimony will be centered on his actions as a member of the Board of

10

Supervisors. He will testify concerning: (1) his conduct before, during, and after Board of

11

Supervisor’s meetings relating to Mr. Swenson’s appeal of the decision of the Planning

12

Commission; (2) the evidence purportedly considered by the Board; (3) the Board’s decision

13

related to Mr. Swenson’s property; and (4) the manner in which he contributed to the deprivation

14

of Mr. Swenson’s constitutional rights.

15

20.

David Jackson. Mr. Jackson’s address is 704 Aiello Lane, Mt. Shasta, California

16

96067. Mr. Jackson is a local contractor. He will testify about gravel and asphalt hot mix

17

purchases for his contracting business and how he would have purchased materials from Mr.

18

Swenson had the County permitted Mr. Swenson to manufacture aggregate and asphalt products.

19

21.

Harold Knight. Mr. Knight’s address is 1829 Wyehka Way, Mt. Shasta,

20

California 96067. Harold Knight is a partner in the property located at 2700 N. Old Stage Rd., in

21

the Mt. Shasta Area, which is the gravel at issue in this case. He will testify about his involvement

22

with the gravel pit. He is also a local building contractor and he will testify about gravel and

23

asphalt hot mix purchases for his contracting business and how he would have purchased

24

materials from Mr. Swenson had the County permitted Mr. Swenson to manufacture aggregate

25

and asphalt products.

26

22.

Donald Langford. 311 Fourth Street, Yreka, California 96097. Mr. Langford was

27

a member of the Siskiyou County Counsel’s Office. He was present at the Siskiyou County

28

/////
21

1

Planning Commission appeals hearing that was held on May 4, 2005, and will testify about his

2

involvement before, during and after the appeals hearing.

3

23.

Chris Lazaris. Mr. Lazaris’s address is 183 South Dewitt Way, Yreka, California

4

96097. Chris Lazaris was a Siskiyou County Planning Commissioner for a number of years. He

5

will testify about his actions before, during and after the Siskiyou County Planning Commission

6

Hearing held on May 4, 2005, regarding Mr. Swenson’s gravel pit. He has knowledge of the

7

Siskiyou County Ordinances and appeals process and he will testify about them.

8
9

24.

Donald Richard Loader, Jr. Mr. Loader’s address is 242 Dietz Road, Mt.

Shasta, California, 96067. Mr. Loader is a local contractor. Donald Richard Loader, Jr. will

10

testify gravel and asphalt hot mix purchases for his contracting business and how he would have

11

purchased materials from Mr. Swenson had the County permitted Mr. Swenson to manufacture

12

aggregate and asphalt products.

13

25.

Brian McDermott. Mr. McDermott’s address is 1508 Timberhills Road, Mr.

14

Shasta, California 96067. He has held three positions in the Siskiyou County Government,

15

including serving as: (1) Assistant Public Works Director; (2) Public Works Director; and (3)

16

Siskiyou County Administrator. Mr. McDermott will testify about his knowledge of Siskiyou

17

County’s actions leading up to and including the Board of Supervisors’ appeal hearing held on

18

May 24, 2005.

19

26.

John McDowell. Mr. McDowell’s address is 3005 Cantara Road, Mt. Shasta,

20

California 96067. Mr. McDowell is a partner in the ownership of the real property located at

21

2700 N. Old Stage Rd., in the Mt. Shasta area. He will testify about the investment he made in the

22

property and the fact that he was not and will not be involved in the operation of the gravel pit

23

mining project.

24

27.

Mike McMahon. Mr. McMahon can be reached through counsel for defendants.

25

He is a defendant in this action. Mr. McMahon is and was a Siskiyou County Planning

26

Commissioner for a number of years. He will testify about his actions before, during and after the

27

Siskiyou County Planning Commission Hearing held on May 4, 2005, regarding Mr. Swenson’s

28

gravel pit.
22

1

28.

Jack Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell’s address is 29337 Riverside Road, Castella,

2

California 96017 & P.O. Box 172, Castella, California 96017. Jack Mitchell is a local paving &

3

excavation contractor. Jack Mitchell will testify about gravel and asphalt hot mix purchases for

4

his contracting business and how he would have purchased materials from Mr. Swenson had the

5

County permitted Mr. Swenson to manufacture aggregate and asphalt products.

6

29.

William Overman. Mr. Overman is deceased but his deposition testimony will be

7

presented to the jury. Mr. Overman was a member of the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors

8

during the appeals hearing, which was heard on May 24, 2005, related to Mr. Swenson’s gravel

9

pit. He will testify about the Board’s actions before, during and after the hearing. He voted to

10
11

overturn the Siskiyou County Planning Commission’s Appeal.
30.

Gerard Joseph Pelletier. Mr. Pelletier’s address is 711 Woodland Park Drive, Mt.

12

Shasta, California, 96067. He is a local excavation contractor. Mr. Pelletier will testify about

13

gravel and asphalt hot mix purchases for his contracting business and how he would have

14

purchased materials from Mr. Swenson had the County permitted Mr. Swenson to manufacture

15

aggregate and asphalt products. He will also testify about his reluctance to participate in this

16

litigation because he does business with Siskiyou County and he hears that the County will

17

retaliate against him if he assists Mr. Swenson in this case.

18

31.

Greg Plucker. Mr. Plucker can be reached through the Siskiyou County Planning

19

Department. Mr. Plucker was the Assistant Siskiyou County Planning Director and he has now

20

been promoted to the position of Siskiyou County Planning Director. He will testify about the

21

contents of a declaration he submitted in support of the defendants’ motion for summary

22

judgment. He has knowledge of the application for a business license that he approved to allow an

23

asphalt hot mix plant to be installed on Mr. Swenson’s property. Mr. Plucker will also testify

24

about Siskiyou County Zoning Ordinances, the requirements and validity of the 1966 use permit,

25

the vested mine determination process that he has developed for Siskiyou County, and the process

26

for handling vested property rights.

27
28

32.

Philip Price. Mr. Price’s address is 466 Vallombrosa Avenue, Chico, California

95927. Mr. Price was outside Counsel under contract with Siskiyou County to handle legal
23

1

actions. He was brought on board when Plaintiff Stanley Swenson, through his attorney, filed the

2

Declaratory Relief Action in Siskiyou Superior Court. In response to the Declaratory Relief,

3

Philip Price filed and successfully demurred the action to a Writ of Mandamus. Mr. Price

4

counselled the Siskiyou County Planning Staff and Commission during the appeals hearing that

5

was held on May 4, 2005.

6

33.

Ron Rhodes. Mr. Rhodes’s address is 2200 Mott Airport Road, Mt. Shasta,

7

California 96067. Mr. Rhodes is a local paving & excavation contractor. Ron Rhodes will testify

8

about gravel and asphalt hot mix purchases for his contracting business and how he would have

9

purchased materials from Mr. Swenson had the County permitted Mr. Swenson to manufacture

10

aggregate and asphalt products.

11

34.

Dr. Richard Shearer. Dr. Shearer’s address is 701 Pine Street, Mt. Shasta,

12

California 96067. Dr. Richard Shearer is personal physician of Stanley Swenson. He will testify

13

about his personal observations of Mr. Swenson’s mental anguish and medical problems

14

following his interactions with Siskiyou County officials.

15

35.

Terry Smith. Mr. Smith’s address is 11725 Old Highway 99 S, Grenada,

16

California 96038. Mr. Smith is a local paving & excavation contractor. Terry Smith will testify

17

about gravel and asphalt hot mix purchases for his contracting business and how he would have

18

purchased materials from Mr. Swenson had the County permitted Mr. Swenson to manufacture

19

aggregate and asphalt products.

20

36.

Ron Stevens. Mr. Stevens is a defendant in this action and can be reached through

21

counsel for defendants. Mr. Stevens was a Siskiyou County Planning Commissioner for a number

22

of years. He will testify about his actions before, during and after the Siskiyou County Planning

23

Commission Hearing held on May 4, 2005, regarding Mr. Swenson’s gravel pit. Mr. Stevens has

24

knowledge of the Siskiyou County ordinances and appeals process and he will testify about them.

25

37.

Stanley Swenson. Mr. Swenson can be reached through his counsel. He will

26

testify about the events and circumstances giving rise to this lawsuit including the manner in

27

which the defendants violated his constitutional rights.

28

/////
24

1

38.

Ronald Taylor. Mr. Taylor’s address is 58 East Yolo Street, Orland, California

2

95963. Ronald Taylor was a local contractor. Ronald Taylor will testify about gravel and asphalt

3

hot mix purchases for his contracting business and how he would have purchased materials from

4

Mr. Swenson had the County permitted Mr. Swenson to manufacture aggregate and asphalt

5

products.

6

39.

Wayne Virag. Mr. Virag’s address is 4536 Rainbow Drive, Weed, California

7

96094. Mr. Virag held two positions in the Siskiyou County Government. He was the Siskiyou

8

County Assistant Planning Director under Richard Barnum, who is deceased. Mr. Virag will

9

testify about his role in the prolonged debate about the status of the 1966 use permit. He will also

10
11

testify as to his involvement before, during and after the appeals hearings.
40.

Joe Williams. Mr. Williams’s address is 7157 Pit Road, Redding, California

12

96001. Mr. Williams is an estimator for a paving and excavation contractor. Joe Williams will

13

testify about gravel and asphalt hot mix purchases for his contracting business and how he would

14

have purchased materials from Mr. Swenson had the County permitted Mr. Swenson to

15

manufacture aggregate and asphalt products.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
25

1

ATTACHMENT B: Defendant’s Witnesses

2
3

DEFENDANT’S WITNESS LIST
1.

Ron Stevens, Former Planning Commissioner, County of Siskiyou. Mr.

4

Stevens will testify as to: (1) all occurrences during Planning Commission meetings involving

5

plaintiff and the 1966 Use Permit; (2) the opinion letter by Wayne Virag; (3) oral and

6

documentary evidence presented to the Planning Commission; (4) plaintiff’s applications for a

7

Use Permit with Reclamation Plans, and related issues with a North Old Stage Road Railroad

8

undercrossing; (5) the role and function of the Planning Commission; and (6) the procedures and

9

processes for setting and hearing matters before the Planning Commission.

10

2.

Jeff Fowle, Planning Commissioner, County of Siskiyou. Mr. Fowle will testify

11

as to: (1) all occurrences during Planning Commission meetings involving plaintiff and the 1966

12

Use Permit; (2) the opinion letter by Wayne Virag; (3) oral and documentary evidence presented

13

to the Planning Commission; (4) plaintiff’s applications for a Use Permit with Reclamation Plans,

14

and related issues with a North Old Stage Road Railroad undercrossing; (5) the role and function

15

of the Planning Commission; and (6) the procedures and processes for setting and hearing matters

16

before the Planning Commission.

17

3.

Chris Lazaris, Planning Commissioner, County of Siskiyou. Mr. Lazaris will

18

testify as to: (1) all occurrences during Planning Commission meetings involving plaintiff and the

19

1966 Use Permit; (2) the opinion letter by Wayne Virag; (3) oral and documentary evidence

20

presented to the Planning Commission; (4) plaintiff’s applications for a Use Permit with

21

Reclamation Plans, and related issues with a North Old Stage Road Railroad undercrossing; (5)

22

the role and function of the Planning Commission; and (6) the procedures and processes for

23

setting and hearing matters before the Planning Commission.

24

4.

Mike McMahon, Planning Commissioner, County of Siskiyou. Mr. McMahon

25

will testify as to: (1) all occurrences during Planning Commission meetings involving plaintiff

26

and the 1966 Use Permit; (2) the opinion letter by Wayne Virag; (3) oral and documentary

27

evidence presented to the Planning Commission; (4) plaintiff’s applications for a Use Permit with

28

Reclamation Plans, and related issues with a North Old Stage Road Railroad undercrossing; (5)
26

1

the role and function of the Planning Commission; and (6) the procedures and processes for

2

setting and hearing matters before the Planning Commission.

3

5.

Bill Hoy, Former Member of the Board of Supervisors, County of Siskiyou.

4

Mr. Hoy will testify as to: (1) Board of Supervisors meetings relating to plaintiff and his appeal

5

of the decision of the Planning Commission; (2) oral and documentary evidence submitted to and

6

relied upon by the Board; (3) the determination by the Board of Supervisors; (4) correspondence

7

and communications with Wayne Virag, Darrin Mercier, Stan Swenson and others; (5) the

8

procedures and processes for setting and hearing issues before the Board of Supervisors; (6) his

9

involvement with Swenson’s appeal before the Board of Supervisors, and (7) his involvement

10
11

with Stanley Swenson.
6.

Marcia Armstrong, Former Member of the Board of Supervisors, County of

12

Siskiyou. Ms. Armstrong will testify as to: (1) Board of Supervisors meetings relating to plaintiff

13

and his appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission; (2) oral and documentary evidence

14

submitted to and relied upon by the Board; (3) the determination by the Board of Supervisors; (4)

15

correspondence and communications with Wayne Virag, Darrin Mercier, Stan Swenson and

16

others; (5) the procedures and processes for setting and hearing issues before the Board of

17

Supervisors; (6) her involvement with Swenson’s appeal before the Board of Supervisors; and (7)

18

his involvement with Stanley Swenson.

19

7.

Jim Cook, Former Member of the Board of Supervisors, County of Siskiyou.

20

Mr. Cook will testify as to: (1) Board of Supervisors meetings relating to plaintiff and his appeal

21

of the decision of the Planning Commission; (2) oral and documentary evidence submitted to and

22

relied upon by the Board; (3) the determination by the Board of Supervisors; (4) correspondence

23

and communications with Wayne Virag, Darrin Mercier, Stan Swenson and others; (5) the

24

procedures and processes for setting and hearing issues before the Board of Supervisors; (6) his

25

involvement with Swenson’s appeal before the Board of Supervisors; and (7) his involvement

26

with Stanley Swenson.

27
28

8.

LaVada Erickson, Former Member of the Board of Supervisors, County of

Siskiyou. Ms. Erickson will testify as to: (1) Board of Supervisors meetings relating to plaintiff
27

1

and his appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission; (2) oral and documentary evidence

2

submitted to and relied upon by the Board; (3) the determination by the Board of Supervisors; (4)

3

correspondence and communications with Wayne Virag, Darrin Mercier, Stan Swenson and

4

others; (5) the procedures and processes for setting and hearing issues before the Board of

5

Supervisors; (6) her involvement with Swenson’s appeal before the Board of Supervisors; and her

6

involvement with Stanley Swenson.

7

9.

Frank DeMarco, Former County Counsel, County of Siskiyou. Mr.

DeMarco

8

will testify as to: (1) his knowledge of plaintiff’s appeal to the Planning Commission and Board

9

of Supervisors regarding Wayne Virag’s opinion letter concerning plaintiff’s rights under a 1966

10

Use Permit; (2) plaintiff’s attempted declaratory relief action and writ of mandamus in Siskiyou

11

County Superior Court; (3) the absence of any enforcement action taken against plaintiff

12

regarding the 1966 Use Permit; (4) his advice to the Planning Commission and Board of

13

Supervisors; (5) his communications with Stan Swenson; (6) Siskiyou County Codes, including

14

Article 14 (“Expiration, Revocation and Appeals of Permits and Variances”) containing Sections

15

10-6.1401 through 10-6.1405; (7) Article 25 (“Nonconforming Land, Buildings, and Uses”)

16

containing Sections 10-6.2501 through 10-6.2505; (8) Article 46 (“Light Industrial District M-

17

M”) containing Sections 10-6.4601 through 10-6.4603; (9) Article 48 (“Rural Residential

18

Agricultural District”) containing Sections 10-6.4801 through 10-6.4803; (10) the files of the

19

Siskiyou County Department of Public Works and Planning Department relating to an application

20

for a Use Permit in 2002 by Stan Swenson; (11) related issues regarding a North Old Stage Road

21

Railroad undercrossing.

22

10.

Don Langford, Former Assistant County Counsel, County of Siskiyou. Mr.

23

Langford will testify as to: (1) his knowledge of plaintiff’s appeal to the Planning Commission

24

and Board of Supervisors regarding Wayne Virag’s opinion letter concern plaintiff’s rights under

25

a 1966 Use Permit; (2) plaintiff’s attempted declaratory relief action and writ of mandamus in

26

Siskiyou County Superior Court; (3) the absence of any enforcement action taken against plaintiff

27

regarding the 1966 Use Permit; (4) his advice to the Planning Commission and Board of

28

Supervisors; (5) his communications with Stan Swenson; (6) Siskiyou County Codes, including
28

1

Article 14 (“Expiration, Revocation and Appeals of Permits and Variances”) containing Sections

2

10-6.1401 through 10-6.1405; (7) Article 25 (“Nonconforming Land, Buildings, and Uses”)

3

containing Sections 10-6.2501 through 10-6.2505; (8) Article 46 (“Light Industrial District M-

4

M”) containing Sections 10-6.4601 through 10-6.4603; (9) Article 48 (“Rural Residential

5

Agricultural District”) containing Sections 10-6.4801 through 10-6.4803; (10) the files of the

6

Siskiyou County Department of Public Works and Planning Department relating to an application

7

for a Use Permit in 2002 by Stan Swenson; (11) related issues regarding a North Old Stage Road

8

Railroad undercrossing.

9

11.

Wayne Virag, Former Assistant Planning Director in the Planning

10

Department, County of Siskiyou. Mr. Virag will testify as to: (1) plaintiff’s Application for a

11

Use Permit in 2000; (2) submission of a Reclamation Plan in 2000; (3) his opinions regarding

12

plaintiff’s right under a 1966 Use Permit contained in his letter dated 2/13/03; (4) correspondence

13

from plaintiff’s attorney, Darrin Mercier, requesting such opinion; (5) the appeal of that opinion

14

to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors; (6) plaintiff’s writ and attempted

15

declaratory relief action in Siskiyou County Superior Court; (7) the absence of any enforcement

16

action regarding the Use Permit; (8) the application by plaintiff for a Use Permit in 2000 with a

17

Reclamation Plan; (9) issues regarding a North Old Stage Road Railroad undercrossing; (10)

18

State and County rules and regulations regarding land use issues and SMARA issues (11) his role

19

and duties as Assistant Planning Director and Director of the Planning Commission.

20

12.

Darrin Mercier, Former Attorney for Plaintiff. Mr. Mercier will testify as to:

21

(1) his correspondence and communications with the Planning Department requesting opinions;

22

(2) the appeals of Wayne Virag’s opinion letter to the Planning Department and Board of

23

Supervisors; (3) plaintiff’s failed declaratory relief action and writ of mandamus; (4) the absence

24

of any enforcement action against plaintiff.

25

13.

Phil Price, Attorney for The County of Siskiyou. Mr. Price will testify as to his

26

representation of the County during plaintiff’s appeals before the Planning Department, and the

27

failed effort for declaratory relief and administrative mandamus action in Siskiyou County

28
29

1

Superior Court. Mr. Price will also testify as to the processes and procedures for hearings, and

2

correspondence with Darrin Mercier regarding Plaintiff’s property.

3

14.

Brian McDermott, Former Assistant Director of Public Works and Former

4

Director of Public Works, County of Siskiyou. Mr. McDermott will testify as to: (1) the

5

application by plaintiff for a Use Permit with Reclamation Plans; (2) issues with the North Old

6

Stage Road Railroad undercrossing; (3) related traffic and engineering studies and cost estimates;

7

(4) communications with plaintiff, Union Pacific Railroad, the California Public Utilities

8

Commission, the California Department of Transportation and others.

9

15.

David Gravenkamp, Former Public Works Director, County of Siskiyou.

10

Mr. Gravenkamp will testify as to his involvement with the subject property and Mr. Swenson.

11

He will also testify as to various use permits and reclamations plans submitted, and action taken

12

by the County. Mr. Gravenkamp will also testify as to his knowledge of the property and history

13

of the property during relevant time periods.

14

16.

Harry Krause, Former Engineer, Department of Public Works, County of

15

Siskiyou. Mr. Krause will testify as to: (1) the application by plaintiff for a Use Permit with

16

Reclamation Plans; (2) issues with the North Old Stage Road Railroad undercrossing; (3) related

17

traffic and engineering studies and cost estimates; (4) communications with plaintiff, Union

18

Pacific Railroad, the California Public Utilities Commission, the California Department of

19

Transportation and others.

20

17.

Scott Sumner, Former Director and Deputy Director of Public Works,

21

County of Siskiyou. Mr. Sumner will testify as to his involvement with the subject property and

22

Mr. Swenson, including Swenson and the County’s joint reclamation plan.

23

18.

Greg Plucker, Community Director and Former Deputy Director of Planning,

24

County of Siskiyou. Mr. Plucker will testify as to the records of Siskiyou County relating to

25

plaintiff’s property and the property history. He will also testify as to plaintiff’s application for a

26

business license in 2010.

27
28

19.

Todd Lamanna, Former Director of Public Works, County of Siskiyou. Mr.

Lamanna will testify as to: (1) the historical and current price of aggregate and asphalt, and costs
30

1

associated therewith; (2) weights and quantities; (3) the shipping of asphalt and aggregate; (4) the

2

grades and kinds of aggregate used in asphalt; (5) government regulations relating to grades of

3

aggregate and their uses; ;(6) the amounts, grades and sources of aggregate used by Siskiyou

4

County; (7) the grade and limited amount of aggregate remaining in Swenson’s pit.

5

20.

Terry Barber. Ms. Barber will testify as to the processes and procedures for

6

obtaining the right to surface mine in Siskiyou County under SMARA and County of Siskiyou

7

rules and regulations.

8

21.

Jim Freeze, Westcoast Paving and Chip Sealing. Mr. Freeze will testify as to:

9

(1) the historical and current price of aggregate and asphalt; (2) costs associated therewith; (3)

10

weights and qualities thereof; (4) the grades and kinds of aggregate used in asphalt; (5)

11

government regulations relating to grades of aggregate and their uses; (6) the amounts, grades and

12

sources of aggregate used in Siskiyou County; (7) the grade and limited amount of aggregate

13

remaining in Swenson’s pit; and (8) The asphalt/aggregate business between 2000 to the present

14

in Siskiyou County

15

22.

Andy Lanizer, Knife River Construction. Mr. Lanizer will testify as to: (1) the

16

historical and current price of aggregate and asphalt, and costs associated therewith; (2) weights

17

and quantities; (3) the shipping of asphalt and aggregate; (4) the grades and kinds of aggregate

18

used in asphalt; (5) government regulations relating to grades of aggregate and their uses; (6) the

19

amounts, grades and sources of aggregate used by Siskiyou County; (7) the grade and limited

20

amount of aggregate remaining in Swenson’s pit.

21

23.

Earl Campbell, Coos Bay, Oregon. Mr. Campbell will testify as to: (1) the

22

property history of plaintiff’s real property; (2) cessation of surface mining; (3) past reclamation

23

plans and efforts.

24

24.

Fern Campbell, Coos Bay, Oregon. Ms. Campbell will testify as to: (1) the

25

property history of plaintiff’s real property; (2) cessation of surface mining; (3) past reclamation

26

plans and efforts.

27

25.

28

Donald Clifton, Redding, California. Mr. Clifton will testify as to:

(1)

information relating to the history of plaintiff’s real property, the uses of said property and the
31

1

property’s prior owners and operators, including uses under the 1966 Use Permit; (2) the

2

cessation of use and removal of an asphalt hot plant; (3) cessation of mining and reasons therefor;

3

(4) the pit’s limited supply of mineable aggregate; (5) the pit’s reclamation and closure, and

4

return of the financial assurance by Siskiyou County.

5

26.

John Buick. Mr. Buick will testify as to purchases of aggregate and asphalt

6

between 2000 to 2013. Mr. Buick will also testify as to economic conditions involving the

7

aggregate and asphalt industry in Siskiyou County and the competitiveness of the business.

8
9
10
11

27.

Jack Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell will testify as to purchases of aggregate and asphalt

between 2000 and 2013. Mr. Mitchell will also testify as to economic conditions involving the
aggregate and asphalt industry in Siskiyou County and the competitiveness of the business.
28.

Gerald Pelletier. Mr. Pelletier will testify as to purchases of aggregate and asphalt

12

between 2000 and 2013. Mr. Pelletier will also testify as to economic conditions involving the

13

aggregate and asphalt industry in Siskiyou County and the competitiveness of the business.

14

29.

David Baird. Mr. Baird will testify as to purchases of aggregate and asphalt

15

between 2000 and 2013. Mr. Baird will also testify as to economic conditions involving the

16

aggregate and asphalt industry in Siskiyou County and the competitiveness of the business.

17

30.

Joe Williams. Mr. Williams will testify as to purchases of aggregate and asphalt

18

between 2000 and 2013. Mr. Williams will also testify as to economic conditions involving the

19

aggregate and asphalt industry in Siskiyou County and the competitiveness of the business.

20

31.

Ron Rhodes. Mr. Rhodes will testify as to purchases of aggregate and asphalt

21

between 2000 and 2013. Mr. Rhodes will also testify as to economic conditions involving the

22

aggregate and asphalt industry in Siskiyou County and the competitiveness of the business.

23

32.

John McDowell, One-Third Owner of Pit. Mr. McDowell will testify as to his

24

one-third ownership of the pit, and aggregate/asphalt purchases that he speculates he would have

25

bought from Swenson, and his agreement to recover 10% of suit.

26

33.

Jack DeGray. Mr. DeGray will testify as to purchases of aggregate and asphalt

27

between 2000 and 2013. Mr. DeGray will also testify as to economic conditions involving the

28

aggregate and asphalt industry in Siskiyou County and the competitiveness of the business.
32

1

34.

Roger Henry. Mr. Henry will testify as to purchases of base rock and asphalt

2

between 2000 and 2013. Mr. Henry will also testify as to economic conditions involving the

3

aggregate and asphalt industry in Siskiyou County and the competitiveness of the business.

4

35.

Terry Smith. Mr. Smith will testify as to his purchases of aggregate and asphalt

5

between 2000 to 2013. Mr. Smith will also testify as to economic conditions involving the

6

aggregate and asphalt industry in Siskiyou County and the competitiveness of the business.

7

36.

David Baird. Mr. Baird will testify as to purchases of aggregate and asphalt

8

between 2000 to 2013. Mr. Baird will also testify as to economic conditions involving the

9

aggregate and asphalt industry in Siskiyou County and the competitiveness of the business.

10

37.

Don Loader. Mr. Loader will testify as to purchases of aggregate and asphalt

11

between 2000 to 2013. Mr. Loader will also testify as to economic conditions involving the

12

aggregate and asphalt industry in Siskiyou County and the competitiveness of the business.

13

38.

David Jackson. Mr. Jackson will testify as to purchases of aggregate and asphalt

14

between 2000 to 2013. Mr. Jackson will also testify as to economic conditions involving the

15

aggregate and asphalt industry in Siskiyou County and the competitiveness of the business.

16

39.

Stephen Dean. Mr. Dean is a Professional Land Surveyor and will testify as to his

17

creation of a topographical map he provided to plaintiff in connection with a proposed

18

reclamation plan.

19

40.

Harold Knight. Mr. Knight will testify as to his one-third ownership interest in

20

the property, his planned uses for the property, the permit and reclamation history of the property,

21

the re-zoning of the property, and the historical uses of the property.

22

41.

Tony Cruse. Mr. Cruse will testify as to his business dealings with plaintiff, as

23

well as the alleged or proposed placement of an asphalt hot plant on plaintiff’s property and

24

payment of a royalty for said placement.

25
26

42.

Paul Boerger. Mr. Boerger will testify as to discussions with plaintiff as to

opening an asphalt hot plant on the property.

27
28
33

1

43.

David Gallo, Ph.D. Economist. Mr. Gallo will testify as to the expert opinions he

2

has reached in this matter, and that he previously disclosed in his expert reports as well as at

3

deposition.

4

44.

5
6

Craig Enos. Mr. Enos will testify as to the expert opinions he has reached in this

matter, and that he has previously disclosed in his expert reports as well as at deposition.
45.

Stanley Swenson. The facts underlying his claims and his claim for damages.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
34

1

ATTACHMENT C: Plaintiff’s Exhibits

2
3

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT LIST
ID

Date

Document Description

1

8/3/66

Siskiyou County Planning Commission Permit Application

2

3/31/86

Letter From Robert Sellman (Planning Director) to Earl Campbell cc:

4
5
6

Gene Fink, supervisor Phil Mattos re meeting

7
8

3

8/29/86

9
10

Letter From Robert Sellman (Planning Director) to Earl Campbell cc:
Gene Fink, supervisor Phil Mattos re Reclamation Plan

4

9/22/86

Letter From Robert Sellman to Lela Clifton re: Reclamation Plan

11
Application incomplete
12
13

5

04/1987

Clifton/Campbell Ready-Mix Gravel Pit

14
15

6

5/4/87

16
17

Reclamation Plan Supplementary Statements for Lela Clifton;

Notarized Certificate for Lela Clifton (9/8/86), 1280 Wagstaff Rd.,
Paradise, CA 95569 re Suggested Model Reclamation Plan

7

6/3/87

Siskiyou County Planning Commission Regular Meeting re:

18
Reclamation Plan – Lela Clifton For Campbell Ready Mix
19
20

8

5/4/88

Review of Reclamation Plan

21
22

9

9/22/88

23
24

Letter From Robert Sellman to Campbell Ready Mix File re: On-Site

Letter From Donald E. Clifton to Robert Sellman re: Reclamation
Plan

10

6/25/91

Agreement between Siskiyou County and Earl L. Campbell

11

9/9/91

Letter From Earl Campbell to Dept. of Conservation re: ceasing

25
26
27

operations

28
35

1
2

ID

Date

Document Description

12

9/17/91

Letter From Dennis O’Bryant to Earl Campbell re: Not required to

3

file annual report

4
5

13

10/26/93

Siskiyou Planning Department Request for Release of Campbell
ready Mix Reclamation Plan (Approved)

6
7

14

3/1/94

Rezoning Petition

8

15

06/1994

Siskiyou County Codes – Article 46. Light Industrial District

9

16

7/6/94

Siskiyou County Meeting – Negative Declaration/Zone Change

17

2/14/95

Ordinance adopted – zone change as petitioned by Earl and Fern

10
11

Campbell (w/ Grant Deed attached)

12
13
14

18

09/1995

Ordinance of Siskiyou County reclassifying certain properties

19

4/3/96

Memo From Harry to Dave, Brian & Scott re: Mt. Shasta Gravel Pit –

15
16
17

Conflicting Boundary with Swenson
20

05/1999

Surface Mining and Reclamation Ordinances for Siskiyou County

21

1/10/00

Siskiyou County Reclamation Plan – Mount Shasta Pit

22

1/17/00

“Can the State of California ‘Declare’ The Rivers of Siskiyou County

18
19

as ‘Navigable’?”

20
21

23

1/21/00

Application Review of Reclamation Plan

22

24

1/26/00

Letter From Larry Evans to Doug Libby re: Siskiyou County/Stanley

23
24

R. and Therese M. Swenson Reclamation Plan
25

4/25/00

Scott Timber Co. financial documents

26

3/2/00

Less Than 3 Acre Conversion Exemption for 305 butte Street

27

3/27/00

Logging Contract

25
26
27
28
36

1
2
3

ID

Date

Document Description

28

4/23/00

Mt. Shasta Sand & Gravel Quarry Reclamation Plan

29

8/28/00

Use Permit for Stan Swenson and Mark Teague

30

9/1/00

County of Siskiyou Business License Application for Swenson Hot

4
5

Mix Asphalt Plant

6
7

31

9/5/00

Staff Review From Wayne Virag to Siskiyou County Reviewing

8

Agencies re: Stan and Therese Swenson Use Permit and Reclamation

9

Plan

10

32

9/6/00

Application Review for Reclamation Plan and Use Permit

33

9/15/00

Letter From Larry Evans to Wayne Virag re: Use permit and

11
12

reclamation plan

13
14

34

10/17/00

15
16

Letter From Richard Barnum to Mark Teague re: Use Permit and
reclamation plan

35

10/27/00

17

Letter From Richard Barnum to Stan Swenson re: Cease and Desist
Order – Illegal Mining Activity

18
36

10/31/00

Letter From Richard Barnum to Wayne Virag re: Swenson Violation

37

11/1/00

Memo From Wayne Virag re: Illegal Mining Activity – Stanley

19
20

Swenson, Grenada

21
22

38

11/8/00

23
24

Letter From Richard Barnum to Stan Swenson re: Compliance
Schedule for Illegal Mining Activity, Grenada

39

12/5/00

Letter From John Tannaci to Wayne Virag re: Swenson Quarry

40

12/8/00

Memo From Richard Barnum to Frank Demarco re: Closed Session –

25
26
27

Stan Swenson Illegal Mining Activity

28
37

1
2

ID

Date

Document Description

41

12/20/00

Memo From Wayne Virag to Pete Knoll re: Illegal Quarrying

3

Activity – Stan Swenson

4
5

42

1/19/01

Letter From Richard Barnum to Mark Teague re: Swenson Use
Permit and Reclamation Plan

6
7

43

8/1/01

Letter From Scott Sumner to Wayne Virag re: Swenson Pit

8

44

8/27/01

Complaint For Permanent Injunction, Civil Penalties in matter of

9
10

Swenson v. People
45

11/7/01

Letter From Norma Schettino to Wayne Virag re: Larry Allen’s

11
address
12
13
14

46

11/13/01

Letter From Tim Pappas to Wayne Virag

47

11/13/01

Letter From Stan Swenson to Howard Moody re: Blatant Abuse of

15
16

Power
48

8/6/02

17

Letter From Darrin Mercier to Lawrence Allen re: State of CA v.
Swenson

18
49

8/19/02

Request For Dismissal in Swenson v. People

50

8/20/02

Technical Memorandum From Mike Winton to Brian McDermott re:

19
20

Safety Study at the North Old Stage Road RR Under-crossing

21
22

51

9/5/02

23
24

Memo From Brian McDermott to Howard Moody re: Swenson Rock
Pit, Railroad Undercrossing Traffic Study

52

10/31/02

Letter From Wayne Virag to Stan Swenson re: Use

25
Permit/Reclamation Plan Application
26
27

53

12/10/02

Letter From Darrin Mercier to Rick Barnum re: Siskiyou County Use

28
38

1

ID

Date

2
3

Document Description
Permit

54

12/11/02

Fax From Buzz Knight to Wayne Virag and Rick Barnum re: Use

4
Permit

5
6

55

12/12/02

Permit

7
8

56

12/12/02

9
10

Letter From Darrin Mercier to Rick Barnum re: Siskiyou County Use

Letter From Wayne Virag to Buzz Knight re: Campbell Pit
Entitlement Status

57

3/13/03

Letter From Wayne Virag to Stan Swenson re: Campbell Quarry and

11
Hot Plant Status
12
13

58

3/6/03

Letter From Darrin Mercier to Wayne Virag re: Campbell Quarry and
Hot Plant Permits

14
15

59

3/20/03

Letter From Wayne Virag to Darrin Mercier re: Campbell Quarry

16

60

10/27/04

Letter From Wayne Virag to Darrin Mercier re: Campbell Quarry and

17

Batch Plant

18
61

2/2/05

Letter From Frank DeMarco to Darren Mercier re: Swenson –

19
viability of use permit, determination of rights

20
21

62

2/14/05

Swenson/Siskiyou County Use Permit

22
23

Letter From Darren Mercier to Frank J. DeMarco re:

63

2/15/05

24

Swenson’s Complaint for Declaratory Relief in Swenson v. County of
Siskiyou

25
64

2/21/05

Letter From Darren Mercier to Frank DeMarco re: Swenson v.

26
27

County of Siskiyou, et al.

28
39

1
2

ID

Date

Document Description

65

3/24/05

Letter From Darren Mercier to Philip Price to Swenson v. County of

3

Siskiyou, et al.

4
5

66

3/25/05

Letter From Philip Price to Darren Mercier re: Swenson v. County of
Siskiyou-Campbell Quarry and Hot Batch Plant

6
7

67

4/4/05

Location Map

8

68

4/18/05

Letter From Wayne Virag to Property Owner re: Public Hearing on

9
10

Appeal of Administrative Decision for Stan Swenson
69

4/26/05

Letter From Darrin Mercier to Frank DeMarco, Wayne Virag, Philip

11
Price re: Swenson vs. County of Siskiyou, Appeal of Administrative
12
Decision

13
14

70

4/28/05

15
16

Letter From Frank DeMarco to Darren Mercier re: Swenson v.
County of Siskiyou, Appeal of administrative decision.

71

4/28/05

17

Letter From Philip Price to Darren Mercier cc: Frank DeMarco re:
Swenson v. County of Siskiyou, Superior Court of Siskiyou County

18
Case
19
20

72

5/2/05

Swenson vs. County of Siskiyou, Appeal of Administrative Decision

21
22

73

5/3/05

23
24

Letter From Darren Mercier to Frank DeMarco, Philip Price re:

Letter From Frank DeMarco to Darrin Mercier re: Swenson vs.
County of Siskiyou, Appeal of Administrative Decision

74

5/3/05

25

Letter From Linda Schulken to Darren Mercier cc: Frank DeMarco re
Swenson vs. County of Siskiyou

26
27

75

5/4/05

Siskiyou County Planning Commission Regular Meeting – Appeal of

28
40

1

ID

Date

2
3

Document Description
Administrative Decision for Stan Swenson

76

5/4/05

Swenson Appeal – Transcript of May 4, 2005

77

5/4/05

Staff Report – May 4, 2005 – Appeal of Administrative Decision for

4
5

Stan Swenson

6
7

78

5/4/05

Appeal of the Administrative Decision by County of Siskiyou

8

Related to Stan Swenson – Brief on Behalf of Interested Person Stan

9

Swenson

10

79

5/10/05

Closed Session – Pending Litigation

80

5/10/05

Memo From Cathie McCanna to Property Owner or Affected Agency

11
12

re: Public Hearing

13
14

81

16

82

Before the Board of Supervisors, County of Siskiyou – Meeting

5/24/15

15

5/17/05

Minutes

5/17/15

Agenda Worksheet in Setting of Possible Appeal of Planning

17

Commission Decision of May 4, 2005, Regarding the Swenson

18
Matter
19
20

83

5/24/05

Agenda Worksheet in Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision

21

Concerning the Status of a Use Permit to Allow an Asphalt Batch

22

Plant for Stan Swenson

23

84

5/24/05

24

Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings re: Board of Supervisors
Meeting

25
85

5/25/05

Nature of Proceedings: Court’s Ruling on Demurrer of Defendant

26
27

(Sustained)

28
41

1
2

ID

Date

Document Description

86

10/6/05

Plaintiff’s SAC for Petition For Writ of Mandate and for Declaratory

3

Relief

4
5

87

11/4/05

Defendant’s Demurrer of County of Siskiyou to SAC for Petition for
Writ of Mandate and for Declaratory Relief; MTS; RJN; Notice of

6

Hearing; MPA

7
8

88

11/22/05

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Demurrer to SAC

9

89

11/30/05

Defendant County of Siskiyou’s Reply to Opposition to Demurrer of

10

County of Siskiyou to SAC for Declaratory Relief; MTC Joinder of

11
Indispensable Parties; RJN
12
13

90

12/22/05

Nature of Proceedings: Ruling on Defendant’s Demurrer to and

14

Motion to Strike and Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and

15

Request for Judicial Notice

16

91

11/06/06

17

Nature of Proceedings: Ruling on Petition for Writ of Mandate
(Granted)

18
92

4/16/07

Email From Barry Shioshita to Terry Barber, Frank DeMarco, Rita

19
Haas re: Swenson Gravel Pit

20
21

93

5/15/07

Nature of Proceedings: Decision

22

94

7/20/07

Judgment

23

95

9/14/07

Memo From Neal Scott re: Railroad Grade Separation Project, North

24

Old Stage Road

25
96

10/31/07

Plaintiff’s Order After Hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s

26
27

Fees and Defendant’s Amended Motion to Tax Costs

28
42

1
2
3

ID

Date

Document Description

97

8/14/08

Siskiyou County Codes re: Zoning (retrieved 8/14/2008)

98

1/28/09

Statement of Economic Interests for Siskiyou County

99

6/23/10

Declaration of Lavada Erickson in Support of MSJ or Summary

4
5

Adjudication of Defendants

6
7

100

7/1/01

8
9

Declaration of Greg Plucker in Support of MSJ or Summary
Adjudication of Defendants

101

7/1/10

10

Declaration of Marcia Armstrong in Support of MSJ or Summary
Adjudication of Defendants

11
12

102

8/25/10

Declaration of Greg Plucker in Support of MSJ re: Typographical
Error in Declaration

13
14

103

9/1/10

Business License Application for Swenson Hot Mix Asphalt Plant

15

104

10/4/10

Administrative Record Vol. 1

16

105

10/4/10

Administrative Record Vol. 2

106

12/17/13

Stanley Swenson’s Gravel Pit – Paving and Highway Contractors’

17
18

Estimated Purchases
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
43

1

ATTACHMENT D: Defendants’ Exhibits

2
3

DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBIT LIST
ID

Date

Document Description

A

8/3/1966

Use Permit issued to C. O. Palmer

B

9/9/1991

Letter from Earl Campbell to Department of Conservation

7

C

6/25/2991

Agreement between the County of Siskiyou and Earl Campbell

8

D

4/1/2014

Letter from Earl Campbell to Philip Price

9

E

3/22/1996

Letter from Richard Barnum to Stan Swenson

F

4/14/1999

Agreement between County of Siskiyou and Stanley and Therese

4
5
6

10
11

Swenson

12
G

1/10/2000

County of Siskiyou Reclamation Plan for Mt. Shasta Pit

14

H

8/28/2000

Use Permit Application submitted by Stanley Swenson

15

I

8/28/2000

Reclamation Plan Application submitted by Stanley Swenson

16

J

4/23/2000

Reclamation Plan submitted by Stanley Swenson

K

8/28/2000

Application Information Sheet

L

9/5/2000

Project Application Review from Wayne Virag with attached Staff

13

17
18
19

Review

20
21

M

9/5/2000

Local Agency Review List

22

N

9/6/2000

Application Review

23

O

9/15/2000

Letter from Larry Evans, Siskiyou County Department of Public

24

Works to Wayne Virag

25
26
27

P

9/18/2000

Letter from Wayne Virag to Mark Teague with attached responses
from Mt. Shasta Fire district, Siskiyou County Public Works, CA.

28
44

1

ID

Date

2
3

Document Description
Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection

Q

9/19/2000

Letter from Richard Barnum to Stan and Therese Swenson with

4
attached indemnification agreement

5
6

R

Letter from Department of Conservation attached

10/11/2000

7

10/3/2000

Letter from Wayne Virag to Mark Teague

8

S

10/17/2000

Letter from Richard Barnum, Planning Director, to Mr. Mark Teague

9

T

1/19/2001

Letter from Richard Barnum to Mark Teague

U

2/2/2001

Letter from California Regional Water Quality Control Board to

10
11

Stanley Swenson

12
13

V

9/5/2002

Letter from Brian McDermott to Richard Barnum with enclosed
Omni Means Traffic Study

14
15

W

10/31/2002

Letter from Wayne Virag to Stanley Swenson

16

X

12/10/2002

Darrin Mercier to Rick Barnum

Y

12/12/2002

Wayne Virag to Buzz Knight

Z

2/13/2003

Letter from Wayne Virag to Stanley Swenson

AA

3/20/2003

Letter from Wayne Virag to Darrin Mercier

17
18
19
20
21

BB

Article 46 of the Siskiyou County Code “Light Industrial District”

22

CC

Article 25 of the Siskiyou County Code “Nonconforming Land,

23
24

Buildings and Uses”
DD

Article 14 of the Siskiyou County Code “Expiration, Revocation and

25
Appeals”
26
27

EE

2/14/2005

Letter from Darrin Mercier to Frank DeMarco

28
45

1
2
3

ID

Date

Document Description

FF

3/24/2005

Letter from Darrin Mercier to Philip B. Price

GG

3/25/2005

Letter from Philip Price to Darrin Mercier

4
5

Public hearing notices for Planning Commission Appeal

HH

6

II

4/28/2005

Letter from Philip Price to Darrin Mercier

7

JJ

5/2/2005

Letter from Darrin Mercier to County Counsel and Philip Price

8

KK

5/3/2005

Letter from Philip Price to Darrin Mercier

LL

5/4/2005

Staff Report to Planning Commission

MM

5/4/2005

Brief on behalf of Stanley Swenson

9
10
11
12
13

Transcript of Recording of Planning Commission Hearing

NN
OO

5/4/2005

Decision

14
15

Siskiyou County Planning Commission Meeting Minute Order and

PP

5/17/2005

Agenda Worksheet

QQ

5/24/2005

Agenda Worksheet

RR

5/24/2005

Public Comments

SS

5/10/2005

Closed Session Minute Order

20

TT

5/10/2005

Public Notice

21

UU

5/16/2005

Swenson Notice of Appeal

22

VV

5/17/2007

Minute Order (Board of Supervisors)

WW

5/24/2005

Agenda (Board of Supervisors)

XX

5/24/2005

Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings

YY

5/24/2005

Decision by Board of Supervisors

ZZ

12/22/2005

Ruling on Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint

16
17
18
19

23
24
25
26
27
28

46

1

ID

Date

Document Description

A-3

5/15/2007

Decision by Judge William Davis

B-3

7/20/2007

Judgment from Siskiyou County Superior Court

C-3

8/20/20007

Business License Application

6

D-3

8/30/2010

Amended Memorandum regarding Business License

7

E-3

Swenson’s Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One

8

F-3

Swenson’s Computation of Damages

2
3
4
5

9

G-3

1/9/2014

Expert Report of Craig Enos with attached exhibits

H-3

3/12/2014

Supplemental Expert Report of Craig Enos with attached exhibits

10
11
I-3

Expert Report of David Gallo, with attached exhibits

13

J-3

Supplemental Expert Report of David Gallo with attached exhibits

14

K-3

Emailed Supplemental Reports of David Gallo

15

L-3

Angela Casler CV

M-3

Expert Report of Angela Casler with attached exhibits

N-3

Supplemental Report of Angela Casler with attached exhibits

O-3

Expert Report of Thomas Chapman with attached exhibits

20

P-3

Supplemental Report of Thomas Chapman with attached exhibits

21

Q-3

Second Supplemental Report of Thomas Chapman with attached

12

16
17
18
19

22
23

exhibits
R-3

Thomas Chapman Spreadsheets combined

S-3

California Public Resources Code Section 2770(a)-(e)

24
25
26
27
28

47