CC 2024-02-27_10a Reso Denying Dometic Well_Harrisß¹»²¼¿ ׬»³ èò»ò
п¹» ïPage 198 of 299
ß¹»²¼¿ ׬»³ èò»ò
п¹» îPage 199 of 299
ß¹»²¼¿ ׬»³ èò»ò
п¹» íPage 200 of 299
ß¹»²¼¿ ׬»³ èò»ò
п¹» ìPage 201 of 299
ß¹»²¼¿ ׬»³ èò»ò
п¹» ëPage 202 of 299
ß¹»²¼¿ ׬»³ èò»ò
п¹» êPage 203 of 299
ß¹»²¼¿ ׬»³ èò»ò
п¹» éPage 204 of 299
ß¹»²¼¿ ׬»³ èò»ò
п¹» èPage 205 of 299
ß¹»²¼¿ ׬»³ èò»ò
п¹» çPage 206 of 299
THISPAGEINTENTIONALLY LEFTBLANK
ß¹»²¼¿ ׬»³ èò»ò
п¹» ïðPage 207 of 299
ß¹»²¼¿ ׬»³ êò½ò
п¹» ïPage 208 of 299
ß¹»²¼¿ ׬»³ êò½ò
п¹» îPage 209 of 299
ß¹»²¼¿ ׬»³ êò½ò
п¹» íPage 210 of 299
ß¹»²¼¿ ׬»³ êò½ò
п¹» ìPage 211 of 299
ß¹»²¼¿ ׬»³ êò½ò
п¹» ëPage 212 of 299
ß¹»²¼¿ ׬»³ êò½ò
п¹» êPage 213 of 299
N
240
Feet
Page 214 of 299
THISPAGEINTENTIONALLY LEFTBLANK
ß¹»²¼¿ ׬»³ êò½ò
п¹» èPage 215 of 299
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: GEOFF ENGLISH, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
BY: SHANE TAYLOR, UTILITIES MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN
APPLICATION BY TERRY CHANDLER TO DRILL AND INSTALL A
REPLACEMENT WELL ON PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURE; APN
007-731-015; 980 EAST CHERRY AVENUE
DATE: FEBRUARY 14, 2017
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the application by
Terry Chandler to drill and install a replacement irrigation well on a property zoned
Agriculture; APN 007-731-015; 980 East Cherry Avenue.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
There are no funding impacts associated with this property. The cost to provide the
report is limited to staff time, which equates to approximately $250.
BACKGROUND:
The agricultural parcel has been irrigated by a dedicated agricultural irrigation well. The
existing well has fallen into disrepair and is no longer functional. In addition the location
of the existing well needs to be changed to comply with the new sanitary siting
requirements due to the septic disposal system on the property.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Chapter 13.08 requires Council approval for
new or replacement wells or abandonment of existing wells. Approval to drill a well may
be granted if the Council determines: 1) the well will neither deplete nor contaminate
the City water supply and, 2) service from the City’s water system is neither practical
nor feasible.
Depletion or Contamination:
It is staff’s opinion that the proposed replacement irrigation well will not deplete or
contaminate the City’s water supply. This is based upon the location of the proposed
dedicated irrigation well is located approximately 2.5 miles from the nearest City of
Arroyo Grande well. This parcel is outside of the adjudicated Santa Maria
Groundwater Basin and the property owner retains overlying water rights.
Item 9.h. - Page 1Page 216 of 299
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION BY
TERRY CHANGLER TO DRILL AND INSTALL A REPLACEMENT WELL ON
PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURE; APN 007-731-015; 980 EAST CHERRY
AVENUE
FEBRUARY 14, 2017
PAGE 2
Practicality of Supply from the City’s Water System
The City currently serves the property with potable water for domestic and fire
protection purposes. The property is connected to the City’s water main on East Cherry
Avenue. The City currently does not provide irrigation water to any agriculturally zoned
parcels within the City limits. A separate connection to the City’s water system would
be required to irrigate the 7-acre parcel. A properly sized meter connection would be a
substantial cost to the applicant. The City’s current water supply analysis does not
account for this connection in that the City does not serve agricultural lands with potable
water for irrigation purposes.
ADVANTAGES:
A replacement irrigation well will provide the parcel with the required water to continue
in its production of typical row and truck crops in addition to a number of fruit trees. The
property is zoned Agriculture and the request is consistent with the following General
Plan Policies:
Ag2-1 Maintain water resources for production agriculture, both in quality and in
quantity, so as to prevent the loss of agriculture due to competition for water with
urban development.
Ag2-1.2 Support efforts to provide needed surface and/or ground water
resources for agricultural irrigation to those properties zoned Agriculture, Very
Low Density and Low Density.
Item 9.h. - Page 2Page 217 of 299
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION BY
TERRY CHANGLER TO DRILL AND INSTALL A REPLACEMENT WELL ON
PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURE; APN 007-731-015; 980 EAST CHERRY
AVENUE
FEBRUARY 14, 2017
PAGE 2
DISADVANTAGES:
Even though irrigation of this parcel does not count against the amount of water for
urban use, a new well would allow for additional groundwater use. However, this is a
replacement well and the existing well was historically used to irrigate this parcel, but no
records are available to determine how much water was actually pumped per year.
ALTERNATIVES:
Not applicable at this time.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This project is categorically exempt per section 15303 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2.
Attachment:
1. Letter from Terry Chandler dated December 23, 2016, with map
Item 9.h. - Page 3Page 218 of 299
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AN APPLICATION BY TERRY
CHANDLER TO DRILL A REPLACEMENT IRRIGATION WELL
ON A PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURE; APN 007-731-015;
980 EAST CHERRY AVENUE
WHEREAS, Terry Chandler has submitted an application to drill a replacement well to
irrigate the agricultural fields at 980 East Cherry Avenue; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 requires City Council review and approval
of all new or replacement wells; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds the proposed well will neither deplete nor
contaminate the City water supply based upon the use and placement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that service from the City’s water system is neither
practical nor feasible to irrigate the agricultural fields.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande does hereby approve the application to drill and install a replacement irrigation
well at 980 East Cherry Avenue, subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit “A”,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
On motion of Council Member ________________________, seconded by Council
Member ______________________, and on the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 14th day of February 2017.
Item 9.h. - Page 4Page 219 of 299
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
JIM HILL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
ROBERT MCFALL, INTERIM CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
HEATHER WHITHAM, CITY ATTORNEY
Item 9.h. - Page 5Page 220 of 299
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
EXHIBIT “A”
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
TERRY CHANDLER REPLACEMENT IRRIGATION WELL
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City
requirements as are applicable to this project.
2. The event shall occur in substantial conformance with the application and plans
on file in the Public Works Department.
3. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought
against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of
said approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant
shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs
and attorney fees, with the City, its agents, officers or employees may be
required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but
such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this
condition.
4. The applicant shall install a meter on the well head and report annual pumping
amount to the City by December 31st of each year.
5. An approved backflow device shall be installed per City standard on the water
meter service.
6. The applicant shall abandon the existing well on site and supply the Public Works
Department with a letter stating said abandonment by the County of San Luis
Obispo Public Health Department.
7. A copy of the well/driller report required by the provisions of Section 13751 of the
Water Code of the State shall be submitted to the Public Works Department upon
completion of the construction of the well.
Item 9.h. - Page 6Page 221 of 299
Item9hPage7
Page 222 of 299
Item9hPage8
Page 223 of 299
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TERESA MCCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN
APPLICATION BY DARREN SHELTER/AGC HOLDING
CORPORATION TO DRILL AND INSTALL A TEMPORARY WELL FOR
INTERIM AGRICULTURAL USE ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT; APN 007-781-055; NOYES ROAD
DATE: DECEMBER 12, 2017
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Approval of the request to install a temporary well would allow non-potable water to be
used for interim agricultural uses on the property for up to five-years.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
There are no funding impacts associated with this action.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the application by
Darren Shetler to drill and install a temporary well for interim agricultural purposes on a
property zoned Planned Development; APN 007-781-055; Noyes Road.
BACKGROUND:
The City has received a letter and well siting study from Mr. T. Keith Gurnee on behalf
of Mr. Darren Shetler and HGC Holding Corporation, requesting City permission to drill
an irrigation well for irrigation on the approximately 27-acre property at Noyes Road.
The vacant property has historically been used for cattle grazing (Attachment 1). The
zoning is Planned Development – Single Family Residential.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Chapter 13.08 requires Council approval for
new or replacement wells or abandonment of existing wells. Approval to drill a well may
be granted if the Council determines: 1) the well will neither deplete nor contaminate
the City water supply and, 2) service from the City’s water system is neither practical
nor feasible.
Depletion or Contamination:
The well siting and well impact studies submitted and prepared by Cleath-Harris
Geologists indicate that a well could be placed on the property without impacting City
Item 9.e. - Page 1Page 224 of 299
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION BY
SHETLER TO DRILL AND INSTALL TEMPORARY WELL FOR INTERIM
AGRICULTURAL USE ON PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURE; APN 007-81-055;
NOYES ROAD
DECEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 2
supply or water quality. A test well will be constructed and tested and results of
productivity and quality reported to the City prior to operation of the well for interim
agricultural use. Any potential future change in use of the property would require
appropriate environmental review with further pumping tests, modeling analyses and
evaluation and separate City Council approval. This parcel is outside of the adjudicated
Santa Maria Groundwater Basin and the property owner retains overlying water rights.
Practicality of Supply from the City’s Water System
The adjacent vacant parcel between the subject parcel and Equestrian Way, also
owned by Mr. Shetler, is currently served by a 1-inch irrigation water meter that this
conditioned to be abandoned. This would allow the interim agricultural purpose on the
subject properties to be served with non-potable water. The City could in the future
extend water utility infrastructure from Oak Park and Equestrian Way to the subject
parcel, in the event the properties are developed for residential use. In such case the
proposed well would be abandoned or utilized for other purposes agreed upon by the
City. The City generally does not provide potable City water to properties within the
City limits for agricultural purposes or to agriculturally zoned parcels.
ADVANTAGES:
A temporary well will serve interim agriculture related use with non- potable water until
the property is developed. As such, the request may be considered consistent with the
following General Plan Policy:
Ag2-1.2 Support efforts to provide needed surface and/or ground water
resources for agricultural irrigation to those properties zoned Agriculture, Very
Low Density and Low Density.
DISADVANTAGES:
No disadvantages have been identified to drill a temporary well for which the projected
amount of water for interim agricultural uses would not deplete the portion of the Pismo
Formation groundwater supply.
ALTERNATIVES:
Not applicable at this time.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This project is categorically exempt per section 15303 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
1) Adopt Resolution to approve a temporary well for interim agricultural use.
2) Do not adopt a Resolution and deny a temporary well for interim agricultural use.
3) Provide other direction to Staff.
Item 9.e. - Page 2Page 225 of 299
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION BY
SHETLER TO DRILL AND INSTALL TEMPORARY WELL FOR INTERIM
AGRICULTURAL USE ON PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURE; APN 007-81-055;
NOYES ROAD
DECEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 3
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2.
Attachments:
1. Letter from Mr. T. Keith Gurnee and Cleath-Harris Geologists, Inc. Well
Siting Study, with maps
2. Cleath-Harris Geologists, Inc. Well Impact Study
Item 9.e. - Page 3Page 226 of 299
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AN APPLICATION BY
DARREN SHETLER TO INSTALL A TEMPORARY IRRIGATION
WELL FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES ON A PROPERTY
ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT; APN 007-781-55; NOYES
ROAD, ARROYO GRANDE
WHEREAS, Darren Shetler has submitted an application to drill a temporary well for
interim agricultural use at property on Noyes Road in Arroyo Grande; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 requires City Council review and approval
of all new or replacement wells; and
WHEREAS, based upon studies submitted by the Cleath-Harris Geologists, Inc. dated
November 9, 2017, the City Council finds the proposed well will neither deplete nor
contaminate the City water supply; and
WHEREAS, based upon the interim agricultural use and the distance from existing City
water infrastructure, the City Council finds that service from the City’s water system is
neither practical nor feasible..
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande does hereby approve the application to drill and install an irrigation well at
Noyes Road, subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and
on the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 12th day of December 2017.
Item 9.e. - Page 4Page 227 of 299
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
JIM HILL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
JAMES BERGMAN, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
HEATHER WHITHAM, CITY ATTORNEY
Item 9.e. - Page 5Page 228 of 299
RESOLUTION NO. 4773
PAGE 3
EXHIBIT “A”
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A TEMPORARY
TESTIRRIGATION WELL
DARREN SHETLER/AGC HOLDING CORPORTATION
APN 007-781-055 and -056 NOYES ROAD
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City
requirements as are applicable to this project.
2. The event shall occur in substantial conformance with the application and plans
on file in the Public Works Department.
3. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought
against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of
said approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant
shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs
and attorney fees, with the City, its agents, officers or employees may be
required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but
such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this
condition.
4. The irrigation meter serving APN 007-781-056 shall be abandoned.
5. Results from well tests for the purposes of installation of an agricultural irrigation
well outlined in the Cleath-Harris Geologists, Inc. Well Impact Discussion shall be
reported to the City prior to well operation.
6. The applicant shall install a meter on the well head and report annual pumping
amount to the City by December 31st of each year.
7. An approved backflow device shall be installed per City standard on the water
meter service.
8. This approval is to install a temporary well for on-site interim agricultural
purposes and is valid for five (5) years. If so directed by the City in the event a
permanent well approval is not obtained within five (5) years, the applicant shall
Item 9.e. - Page 6Page 229 of 299
abandon the well and supply the Public Works Department with a letter stating
said abandonment by the County of San Luis Obispo Public Health Department.
9. A copy of the well/driller report required by the provisions of Section 13751 of the
Water Code of the State shall be submitted to the Public Works Department upon
completion of the construction of the well.
Item 9.e. - Page 7Page 230 of 299
ATTACHMENT 1
Item 9.e. - Page 8Page 231 of 299
Item 9.e. - Page 9Page 232 of 299
Item 9.e. - Page 10Page 233 of 299
Item 9.e. - Page 11Page 234 of 299
Item 9.e. - Page 12Page 235 of 299
November 9, 2017
AGC Holding Corporation
c/o Keith Gurnee
108 Broad Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Cleath-Harris Geologists, Inc.
71 Zaca Lane, Suite 140
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
805) 543-1413
ATIACHMENT2
SUBJECT: Well Impact Discussion, Noyes Road Property
Arroyo Grande, California, APN 007-781-055
Dear Mr. Shetler:
C~HG
Cleath-Harris Geologists (CHG) herein provides a discussion regarding potential impacts related to
constructing and operating a water well on the Noyes Road property, APN 007-781-055, within the
City of Arroyo Grande (Figure 1). There are no wells currently on this property. The productivity and
quality of water from the proposed water well will not be known until the test well is constructed and
tested. Until such a time, impacts can be generally discussed.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed well would be located in the northwestern portion of the property east of the creek that
follows Noyes Road (gps coordinates: 35.14592 North and 120.59114 West), at an elevation of about
200 feet above MSL. The proposed well is recommended to be drilled to 700 feet and completed to a
depth of 600 feet with 8-inch diameter PVC water well casing with perforations opposite aquifer beds
identified based on geophysical and lithologic logs of the borehole. The proposed well is expected to
be 600 feet or less deep with perforations opposite aquifers that are encountered between 100 and 600
feet.
The well will be located maintaining setbacks to meet County Health guidelines. A 50-foot annular
well seal should be placed according to State of California water well standards.
The well is anticipated to pump at about 50 gallons per minute (gpm). As a condition for allowing
the well to be constructed in the City of Arroyo Grande, the City requires that production from the well
be metered.
The produced water would be used to meet currently undefmed demands for agricultural or domestic
purposes consistent with current zoning. For this impact analysis, a residence and secondary residence
could be constructed and avocadoes or citrus could be planted (current use is for range land). Such
agricultural uses would be suitable for the valley floor and lower slopes that are outside of the riparian
corridor. The domestic water demand for one residence and secondary residence is estimated at 1 acre-
feet per year (AFY) with a consumptive use of 0.43 AFY. The non-riparian valley floor and lower
slopes have an approximate area of 8 acres on the parcel where the well would be located. A vocadoes
use about 2.1 feet of applied water per year. Full planting of the suitable land would require an
Well impact discussion Noyes Road November9,2017
Item 9.e. - Page 13Page 236 of 299
CrIG
average of 17 AFY. The total water demand for the property would be 18 AFY, or an average
continuous pumping rate of 11 gpm. Typical water production occurs during a portion of the day, and
therefore, a 50 gpm yield from a well is desirable.
The City of Arroyo Grande has an interest in completing a well in this area for municipal use. While
this well is not proposed for municipal use, the design of the well would conform to health codes
applicable to municipal water wells, should a change of use be pursued. Water production from a
municipal well could be significantly more than would be required for this parcel.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The environmental setting pertinent to this impact discussion related to the construction and the
operation of a well includes a discussion of the geology, water resources, and a description of the well
location environment.
Geology
The geology of the property is shown on the published geologic map, "Geology of the Arroyo Grande
Quadrangle'', California Division of Mines and Geology Map Sheet 24. This geologic map indicates
that the property is underlain by the Squire member of the Pismo Formation, a "massive white medium
to coarse grained sandstone" and does not provide any geologic structural attitudes in the vicinity of
the property. CHG geologic mapping indicates that the beds are very different than described on the
published map or even in subsequent mapping for the Los Robles del Mar or City of Arroyo Grande
projects. The sedimentary beds as mapped on the property include layers of sand and gravel separated
by diatomaceous siltstone layers. These beds generally dip to the north-northwest at between 10 and
44 degrees.
The upper sandstone beds include, progressively with depth, a conglomeratic sandstone, a soft white
sandstone, a hard resistant gray sandstone, a dark brown sandstone, a white cemented sandstone. This
is underlain by diatomaceous shale and then a soft white fossiliferous (pecten shells)
sandstone/siltstone. The underlying siltstone and claystone beds, above the deep Los Robles aquifer,
are several hundred feet thick.
The most permeable sands/sandstone beds that can be encountered at a depth of less than 600 feet
underlie the northern portion ofthe property. The proposed well near the existing northern entrance to
the property would produce from these sandstone beds. Figure 1 shows the southern limit of these
aquifers.
The deeper aquifer known as the "Los Robles aquifer" tapped by the City Well #10 on Deer Trail
Circle underlies the property at depth below the aquifers described above and would not be accessible
to a 600-foot well in the main part of the valley floor on the property. The "Los Robles Aquifer" is
estimated to be at a depth of 1,000 feet in the vicinity ofthe south gate along Noyes Road.
Well impact discussion Noyes Road 2 November 9, 2017
Item 9.e. - Page 14Page 237 of 299
CrIG
Groundwater
The groundwater level is closest to ground surface along the valley floor. The creek following Noyes
Road was dry when observed during this investigation. The groundwater level elevation is estimated
to be approximately 130 to 150 feet above sea level (50-70 feet depth).
Groundwater quality beneath the property is not specifically known. Jn general, groundwater in this
area is of good water quality for domestic and irrigation uses. Iron, manganese, arsenic and selenium
are constituents of concern that have been found in some wells in the area.
Wells in the area that tap the same aquifer as the proposed well are located to the north and west ofthe
proposed well. The City wells do not pump from the aquifer that would be tapped by the proposed
well. The locations of the wells adjacent to the proposed well that share the groundwater source are
shown on the attached aerial photograph.
IMPACTS
Potential impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed well include geologic
hazards, groundwater interference at adjacent wells, and reduction in fl.ow in the adjacent tributary to
Meadow Creek. Measures are discussed that could mitigate potential impacts.
Geologic Hazards
Geologic hazards at the well site could include seismic-induced slope stability and ground rupture,
landslides, flooding, soil stability/erosion, and mineral hazards. These hazards are discussed in the
2015 Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan that includes the City ofArroyo Grande.
Seismic Hazards
No faults are mapped on published geologic maps in the proximity to the well site. The closest
potentially active fault is the Wilmar Avenue fault, located near Highway 101. Therefore no fault
rupture hazard is known to exist at the well location.
Seismic events will occur that can result in ground shaking in the proximity of the well site. Ground
shaking from an earthquake will be most noticeable on the ridge top and to a lesser extent at the well
location. As the well is largely below grade, no significant impact is anticipated due to ground
shaking.
Liquefaction could occur within the alluvial sands from seismic events where groundwater levels are
shallow (less than 50 feet). Groundwater at the well site is not known but is expected to be 70 feet
below grade. Thus, a low potential for liquefaction exists.
Well impact discussion Noyes Road 3 November 9, 2017
Item 9.e. - Page 15Page 238 of 299
C~IG
Slope Stability/Landslide Hazard
No landslides are mapped on published geologic maps in the proximity of the well site. Therefore the
potential for landslide impact is negligible.
Flooding Hazard
The well site is about 20 feet above the creek and appears to be outside of the floodway of a 100-year
flood.
Soil Stability/Erosion Hazard
Soils in this area, when saturated, have limited weight bearing capacity and as a result may not support
heavy vehicles. Road base should be placed on the drilling pad to stabilize the soils.
Erosion may occur where water flow is concentrated. Pumped water should be controlled to prevent
erosion and erosion control measures should be placed where water flow across the well site is
expected.
Mineral Hazard
No naturally occurring asbestos is present within the watershed of the proposed well location.
Groundwater Impacts
Groundwater impacts include pumping interference at adjacent wells and long term reliability. These
impacts are best addressed upon completion of the well with information from the pumping test. This
preliminary groundwater impact discussion utilizes previous studies. Three water studies that have
been performed in the area were used for this preliminary evaluation of groundwater impacts from this
proposed well:
Water Availability Study for Vesting Tentative Tract C0-92-058, AN 044-365- 018, Oak Park
Area, Arroyo Grande Fringe, San Luis Obispo County, California", July 31, 1992, located
across Noyes Road from the subject property;
Second Addendum to Groundwater Assessment, Proposed Subdivision 686 Erhart Lane, Oak
Park Area, San Luis Obispo County, California", November 23, 2015 for the Hurley Ranch
subdivision (686 Erhart Lane, located west of Old Oak Park Road between Erhart and Vetter
Lanes;
Cumulative Projects Water Level Impact and Water Supply Assessment at the
Sweet Springs Mobile Home Park, Arroyo Grande, California, December 16, 2016, located
between Huasna Road and Corbett Canyon Road
The 1992 study established water use/consumptive use estimates for residences and identified wells
and their pumping rates in the near proximity to the project site. It estimated the water use for a
Well impact discussion Noyes Road 4 November 9, 2017
Item 9.e. - Page 16Page 239 of 299
cr-1G
combined and secondary unit combined was one acre-foot per year. The consumptive use, considering
returnflow from on-site wastewater disposal systems, was estimated at 0.43 AFY. One of the wells
was reported to produce 50 gpm.
The 2015 Hurley Ranch subdivision report included a pumping test that provided an estimate of
drawdown with distance from a well in a similar aquifer pumping at 15 gpm. The drawdown after 72
hours at a distance of 100 feet was 1.5 feet.
The 2016 Cumulative Impacts analysis for the Sweet Springs Mobile Home Park subdivision modeled
production from three proposed projects and developed a distance drawdown contour map. The
findings of this model determined the drawdown with distance from the pumping well. The values for
drawdown with distance would not apply to this proposed well, as the transmissivity of the formation
will be different for this aquifer zone. However, this methodology could be used at the proposed well
once the well has been drilled and tested to determine the aquifer parameters. This report also included
an estimate of water use for avocadoes of 2.1 AFY per acre.
Pumping Water Level Drawdown Impacts
Pumping of groundwater from a well will cause short term water level declines (drawdown) at adjacent
wells that tap the same aquifers. The closest well is at a distance of at least 300 feet from the proposed
well site. The drawdown at adjacent wells cannot be known until the well is constructed and tested.
However, if the Hurley Ranch well pumping test is any indication, the drawdown associated with a 15
gpm pumping rate should be one foot or less at a well 300 feet or more distant at the end of three days
of pumping. After the pump is turned off, recovery to the original static water level in the pumped
well and the adjacent wells is expected to occur.
Reliability
The reliability of this water supply source relates to local groundwater level trends and the
groundwater basin yield. This impact should be assessed once the well has been constructed and
pumping test has been performed and analyzed. At the Hurley Ranch project (on Old Oak Park Road)
well water levels between 1980 and 2012 were essentially the same. However, along Noyes Road,
groundwater level records from adjacent private wells are not available. One water level measurement
in 1992 at a well across Noyes Road found a depth to water of 16.83 feet (approximately an elevation
of 155 feet). Once constructed, the water level in the proposed well can be measured and compared to
this historic water level and other water levels recorded on well completion reports to determine if
water levels have changed.
The safe groundwater yield from the Oak Park aquifers is estimated at 540 AFY (Los Robles del Mar
project yield analysis). The Oak Park area has not been determined to be in overdraft. Groundwater
production from the Oak Park area was estimated for the Hurley Ranch subdivision groundwater
impact studies (April 22, 2016 letter to the City of Arroyo Grande and the June 2, 2015 Addendum) at
453- 463 AFY. The estimated potential production of water from the proposed well, if added to the
Well impact discussion Noyes Road 5 November 9, 2017
Item 9.e. - Page 17Page 240 of 299
CI-JG
production estimate from the Hurley Ranch documents, would result in a total production of 471-481
AFY, which is less than the Oak Park aquifer estimated safe groundwater yield.
CONCLUSION
This preliminary discussion of impacts from the proposed well provides findings related to impacts at
the well site and groundwater impacts. Further analysis of the groundwater impacts should be
performed once the well has been constructed and tested. The analysis could include a modeling
analysis of groundwater level changes from pumping the new well at different rates (similar to the
Sweet Springs Mobile Home Park cumulative projects analysis), should the City of Arroyo Grande
pursue the possibility ofusing this well for municipal purposes.
Respectfully submitted,
CLEATH-HARRIS GEOLOGISTS, INC.
Timothy S. Cleath, Certified Hydrogeologist #81
Well impact discussion Noyes Road 6 November 9, 2017
Item 9.e. - Page 18Page 241 of 299
Explanation
Well ---,
Proposed Well
Property Boundary
Arroyo Grande City Limits
house/ building
structure
Basemap source: San Luis Obispo County Building and
Planning Department Permit View
Known Wells within 1000 ft of
proposed well site.
r·
I
51 I , ~
J
I
NT-13..4'.1'1n ~
e4M35-02:) . ,_
OUl.i~~·
0 1000 2000 ft
Figure 1
Distance from Proposed Well
Well Impact Study Discussion APN 007 781 055
Item 9.e. - Page 19Page 242 of 299
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Item 9.e. - Page 20Page 243 of 299
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TERESA MCCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
INSTALLATION OF A REPLACEMENT DOMESTIC WELL ON
PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL ESTATE REQUESTED BY RICK
PIERCE; APN 007-781-008; 687 PRINTZ ROAD ARROYO GRANDE
DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 2018
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Adopting the Resolution will enable the subject property owner to replace a failing
domestic well on his property in order to supply water to his residences.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
There are no funding impacts associated with this action.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the request by
Rick Pierce to drill and install a replacement well on an existing residential parcel for
domestic supply at 687 Printz Road.
BACKGROUND:
The City has received a request from Mr. Rick Pierce, owner of the subject property, to
drill and install a domestic supply well in order to replace an existing domestic well
installed in the 1950’s that is now failing. The property currently includes two
residences constructed in the 1950’s prior to annexation into the City. Currently,
residents must bring in water from offsite for domestic needs. The zoning is Residential
Estate – the only district that includes properties that are not connected to City water
and sewer utilities.
Item 9.h. - Page 1Page 244 of 299
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INSTALLATION OF A
REPLACEMENT DOMESTIC WELL ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL ESTATE
REQUESTED BY RICK PIERCE; APN 007-781-008; 687 PRINTZ ROAD ARROYO
GRANDE
FEBRUARY 13, 2018
PAGE 2
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Chapter 13.08 requires Council approval for
new or replacement wells or abandonment of existing wells. Approval to drill a well may
be granted if the Council determines: 1) the well will neither deplete nor contaminate
the City water supply and, 2) service from the City’s water system is neither practical
nor feasible.
Depletion or Contamination:
This well will replace an existing domestic well on the property, which will be required to
be properly abandoned and records submitted to the City along with copies of the new
well report. The project is conditioned to submit verification that the replacement well is
located 100 ft. from septic system area. Additionally, the replacement well is be
conditioned to include a meter. This parcel is outside of the adjudicated Santa Maria
Groundwater Basin and the property owner retains overlying water rights. As
Item 9.h. - Page 2Page 245 of 299
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INSTALLATION OF A
REPLACEMENT DOMESTIC WELL ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL ESTATE
REQUESTED BY RICK PIERCE; APN 007-781-008; 687 PRINTZ ROAD ARROYO
GRANDE
FEBRUARY 13, 2018
PAGE 3
conditioned, the replacement well will not deplete nor contaminate the City’s water
supply.
Practicality of Supply from the City’s Water System
The neighborhood that includes the subject parcel also includes several other properties
off of Printz Road and Easy Street that use domestic wells for water supply. If utilities
were to be extended to serve the property, it would likely be from La Canada and serve
all the properties in the neighborhood. The City does not have any plans to extend
water utility infrastructure to or near the property and service from the City’s water
system is considered neither practical nor feasible at this time.
ADVANTAGES:
The replacement well will provide domestic supply to the residences on the property for
domestic needs and satisfy health and safety requirements.
DISADVANTAGES:
No disadvantages have been identified to drill a replacement well and it is not
anticipated to create any additional impact to the portion of the Pismo Formation
groundwater supply.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:
1. Adopt the Resolution approving the installation of the replacement well
2. Do not adopt the Resolution approving the replacement well;
3. Provide other direction to Staff.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This project is categorically exempt per section 15303 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2.
Attachment:
1. Letter from Mr. Rick Pierce
Item 9.h. - Page 3Page 246 of 299
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE APPROVING THE INSTALLATION OF A REPLACEMENT
DOMESTIC WELL ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL ESTATE
REQUESTED BY RICK PIERCE; APN 007-781-008; 687 PRINTZ ROAD
ARROYO GRANDE
WHEREAS, Rick Pierce has submitted an application to drill and install a replacement
well for domestic supply at 687 Printz Road in Arroyo Grande; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 requires City Council review and approval
of all new or replacement wells; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds the proposed replacement well will neither deplete
nor contaminate the City water supply and is needed to serve the property to satisfy
health and safety needs; and
WHEREAS, based upon the distance from existing water infrastructure, the City Council
finds that service from the City’s water system is neither practical nor feasible.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande does hereby approve the application to drill and install a replacement domestic
well at 687 Printz Road, subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and
on the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 13th day of February 2018.
Item 9.h. - Page 4Page 247 of 299
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
JIM HILL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
JAMES BERGMAN, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
HEATHER WHITHAM, CITY ATTORNEY
Item 9.h. - Page 5Page 248 of 299
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
EXHIBIT “A”
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
REPLACEMENT DOMESTIC SUPPLY WELL
STAFF PROJECT CASE NO. 18-001
RICK PIERCE; APN 007-781-008; 687 PRINTZ ROAD ARROYO GRANDE
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City
requirements as are applicable to this project.
2. The event shall occur in substantial conformance with the application and plans
on file in the Community Development Department.
3. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought
against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of
said approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant
shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs
and attorney fees, with the City, its agents, officers or employees may be
required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but
such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this
condition.
4. The applicant shall comply with all Conditions of Approval for Staff Project Case
No. 18-001, as well as the terms, conditions and standards specified in the written
permit issued by the County of San Luis Obispo Public Health Department.
5. This approval shall expire on February 13, 2019 unless a drilling permit is obtained
from the County of San Luis Obispo Public Health Department. Time extensions
may be requested in conformation with Subsection 16.12.140.C of the Arroyo
Grande Municipal Code.
6. The applicant shall abandon all existing wells on site and supply the Community
Development Department with a letter approving said abandonment from the
County of San Luis Obispo Public Health Department.
7. The applicant shall install a meter on the well head and report annual pumping
amount to the City Public Works Department by December 31st of each year.
Item 9.h. - Page 6Page 249 of 299
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
8. An approved backflow device shall be installed per City standard on the water
meter service.
9. A copy of the well/driller report required by the provisions of Section 13751 of the
Water Code of the State shall be submitted to the Public Works Department upon
completion of the construction of the well.
10. The applicant shall obtain an electrical permit as required for a new well pump.
11. The applicant shall produce survey verification that the distance of the
replacement well to any septic system (leach field) is greater than 100 feet to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
Item 9.h. - Page 7Page 250 of 299
January 16, 2018
Teresa McClish
Director of Community Development
City of Arroyo Grande
300 E. Branch
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Dear Ms. Mcclish,
ATTACHMENT 1
My name is Rick Pierce and four generations of my family have lived, or are currently residing at
687 Printz Road. We are located within the city limits of AG, but because of our rural location-
we do not have access to city water services. We have a well which is quickly drying up, and we
are in the process of trying to drill a new well.
Our well is about 65 years old, and is not an agriculture well, it supplies our household with
potable water for basic daily requirements. The county has asked us to get permission from the
AG City Council before we can proceed. I would like to request that this request for permission
is calendared on the Council's agenda as soon as possible, given our ability to get water has
dimi.nished very quickly. We are down to just 1 to 2 GPM.
We have contracted Filipponi & Thompson, a very long standing and reputable business in the
county to do the actual drilling when the time comes. I will be glad to assist in getting this
shepherded along due to the health and safety of my family. I understand all things take some
time, but we have had to pay $400 each for 3 water truck loads to get by. Mr. Shane Taylor has
been kind enough to make city water temporarily available to us for purchase so we don't have
to pay that much in the future.
Thank you for your time and help with our problem. And thank you for all you do for our city. I
work and teach at AGHS/The Clark Center, my wife teaches at Judkins MS, and we are both very
active in the community. We appreciate the staff of the city who are often overlooked and not
recognized for everything they do.
Please advise on the process from here so we may be of the utmost help.
Sincerely,
Rick Pierce
687 Printz Road
Arroyo Grande
Cell: 805-710-6570
RECEIVED
JAN 1 7 2018
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDEItem9.h. - Page 8Page 251 of 299
G o gle Earth feet~-----iorretersri-----~;.;..;_ __ _ 5
Pir~J< .. lf
037 R:1NTZ RoAD ® ~
OLb [tJ£.LL
@ :: ~t:w W£L.L-
Item 9.h. - Page 9Page 252 of 299
Go g le Earth feet:~--------30
rreters1 10
7 Pr<Z11'-lTZ RoAD @ ~ OLD lAl£LL
@ ~ Nt:W WELL
Bou! 15 -20 f ££.,-r AfA12-I)
Item 9.h. - Page 10Page 253 of 299
687 PRINTZ RD WELL LOCATION
0 10 20 FEET
I I I PROPERTY LINES ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE TO BE USED AS REFERENCE ONLY . Item 9.h. - Page 11Page 254 of 299
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Item 9.h. - Page 12Page 255 of 299
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BILL ROBESON, ACTING CITY MANAGER / PUBLIC WORKS
DIRECTOR
BY: PATRICK HOLUB, ASSISTANT PLANNER
SHANE TAYLOR, UTILITES MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
INSTALLATION OF TWO (2) IRRIGATION WELLS ON PROPERTY
ZONED AGRICULTURE; LOCATION – 500 FAIR OAKS AVENUE;
APPLICANT – LEROY SARUWATARI
DATE: JULY 14, 2020
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Approval of the request would allow the property owner to apply for two (2) new irrigation
wells through County Environmental Health.
IMPACT TO FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
There is no direct funding impact anticipated as a result of this request.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the request by Leroy
Saruwatari to drill and install two (2) new wells for irrigation water on an existing
agricultural parcel at 500 Fair Oaks Avenue.
BACKGROUND:
The City has received a request from Mr. Leroy Saruwatari, owner of the agricultural
parcel located at 500 Fair Oaks Avenue, to drill and install two (2) new irrigation wells in
order to provide water for agricultural crops. Four (4) wells currently exist on the property.
The existing wells are too shallow (<100’) and are not currently providing enough supply.
Item 8.h. - Page 1Page 256 of 299
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INSTALLATION OF TWO
2) IRRIGATION WELLS ON PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURE; LOCATION – 500
FAIR OAKS AVENUE; APPLICANT – LEROY SARUWATARI
JULY 14, 2020
PAGE 2
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 requires Council approval for new or
replacement wells or abandonment of existing wells. Approval to drill a well may be
granted if the Council determines: 1) the well will neither deplete nor contaminate the City
water supply; and 2) service from the City’s water system is neither practical nor feasible.
Depletion or Contamination
The new wells will provide irrigation water to the existing approximately thirty-two (32)
acre agricultural field along the north side of Fair Oaks Avenue. The existing wells are not
producing a sufficient volume of water to irrigate the land adequately. The project is
conditioned to install a meter on the new wells to track usage. The property is within the
adjudicated Santa Maria Groundwater Basin and the property owner retains overlying
water rights. As conditioned, the wells will not deplete nor contaminate the City’s water
supply.
Practicality of Supply from the City’s Water System
The agricultural fields that include the subject parcel also utilize several other irrigation
wells along Fair Oaks Avenue and Valley Road. By policy, the City does not supply
Item 8.h. - Page 2Page 257 of 299
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INSTALLATION OF TWO
2) IRRIGATION WELLS ON PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURE; LOCATION – 500
FAIR OAKS AVENUE; APPLICANT – LEROY SARUWATARI
JULY 14, 2020
PAGE 3
agricultural properties with potable water, therefore, this property requires the use of a
well in order to be viable as a productive agricultural operation.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:
1. Adopt the attached Resolution approving the installation of two (2) new
irrigation wells;
2. Do not adopt the attached Resolution approving the installation of two (2) new
irrigation wells;
3. Provide direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
The wells will provide water supply to an agricultural property for irrigation needs.
DISADVANTAGES:
No disadvantages have been identified to drill the requested wells and it is not anticipated
to create additional impact to the portion of the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), it has been
determined that this project is Categorically Exempt per Section 15303 of the CEQA
Guidelines regarding new construction or conversion of small structures.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted in at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2.
Attachments:
1. Well Permit Application
Item 8.h. - Page 3Page 258 of 299
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING THE INSTALLATION OF TWO
2) NEW IRRIGATION WELLS ON PROPERTY ZONED
AGRICULTURE; LOCATED AT 500 FAIR OAKS AVENUE;
APPLIED FOR BY LEROY SARUWATARI
WHEREAS, Leroy Saruwatari has submitted an application to drill and install two (2)
new irrigation wells at 500 Fair Oaks Avenue in Arroyo Grande; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 requires City Council review and
approval of all new or replacement wells.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande hereby resolves as follows:
1. The City Council finds the proposed irrigation wells will neither deplete nor
contaminate the City water supply and are needed to serve the properties for
agricultural purposes.
2. Based upon the fact that the City does not supply agricultural property with
potable water, connection to the City’s water infrastructure is not feasible.
3. The City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby approves the application
to drill and install two (2) new irrigation wells at 500 Fair Oaks Avenue, subject
to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference.
On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member ,
and on the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 14th day of July 2020.
Item 8.h. - Page 4Page 259 of 299
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
BILL ROBESON, ACTING CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
Item 8.h. - Page 5Page 260 of 299
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TWO (2) NEW IRRIGATON WELLS
500 FAIR OAKS AVENUE
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City
requirements as are applicable to this project.
2. The installation of the wells shall occur in substantial conformance with the
application and plans on file in the Public Works Department office.
3. The applicant shall comply with all the conditions of the City Council
Resolution adopted on July 14, 2020, as well as the terms, conditions, and
standards specified in the written permit issued by the County of San Luis
Obispo Public Health Department.
4. The applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its
agents, officers, and employees harmless, at its sole expense from any action
brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of said
approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall
reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and
attorney’s fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be
required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but
such participation shall not relieve applicant of their obligations under this
condition.
5. This approval shall expire on July 14, 2022, unless a drilling permit is obtained
from the County of San Luis Obispo Public Health Department. Time
extensions may be requested in conformation with the Arroyo Grande
Municipal Code.
6. The applicant shall install a meter on the new well heads and report annual
pumping amounts to the City Public Works Department by December 31st.
7. A copy of the well/driller report required by the provisions of Section 13751 of
the Water Code of the State shall be submitted to the Public Works
Department upon completion of the construction of the wells.
8. The applicant shall obtain permits for all electrical connections required for the
new well pumps.
Item 8.h. - Page 6Page 261 of 299
ATTACHMENT 1
Item 8.h. - Page 7
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO HEALTH AGENCY
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION
2156 Sierra Way STE. 8, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
PO Box 1489, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Phone: (805) 781-5544 Fax: (805) 78 1-4211
Email: ehs@co.slo.ca.us
onstruction D Repair/Modification D Replacement
P,~~/N.~;.'-',;-·:: . ...,... ...... -...-_ _,...._....,......,..,.-,-~~~~·
c~.:.':
Date·.~·..,......,...-·...,,..-------!·-.............. .,.....,
WP)Jo: .... :·: ...,...--,-"'"'--.....,_~;._,..---,...,..._.,...;,.;..
WELL PERMIT APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION' REPAIR, OR MODIFICATION OF WATER WEUS
J.""--_.c;,~~--=~-""'--:.;;.i...=:::::....---City or Area .4.roy 0
Assessor's Parcel Number OO(o -,) L/I -()Ir Site served by a water company, agency or district? uJ..-No Yes
I II · D _j II
Mailing Address
Drilling Company Name .....i.;z:::.:iu:.:::----".LL...i....:c---'-:..:..,--1----=--.::.,_:~--'L...c;.__:::;__ ___ Telephone Number _ _.@ ... ro ______ ~~-~~-,..--
Mailing Address __ ..L...::'----.=....:"-"-"------<L-=-----------'--,;;..;;.;;..i....:--"""-'--.,........;.R_~--'I/...;:;;~____. ________ _
Fax 4)4= EmeilAddress ±ylo/b,(;-7 <;;) qt>/. Ct!J"">,
I hereby agree to comply with all applicable laws and regulations of the County ofSan Luis Obispo and the State of California pertaining to well
construction, destruction, repair or modification . Within sixty days after completion of the well, I will furnish EnvironmMtal Health Services with a well
completion rfM)ort and water q uality test results. This application becomes a valid permit following sign off by Environmental Health Services.
HALL NOT OOMMENCE UNTIL THIS APPUCATION IS APPROVED
Contractor Signature -F~--=-~~-:_~-:_~-:_ _______ Prlnted Name tt /~ Date _ _..,..........,,__ __ _
Page 262 of 299
Item 8.h. - Page 8
Intended Use:
Construction D Repair/Modification D Replacement
D Domestic Private ~gation/Agriculture D Commercial
D Public/Community Water System D Stock D Industrial
Public Water System Name __________________ contact. __________________ _
If Different From owner)
Parcel Size (acres) lf. 7--J---: Is proposed well located within city limits? D No D Yes Name of city ________ _
D Paso Robles GWB O Edna GWB D Cuyama GWB D Los Osos GWB ~a Maria GWB D Coastal Zone O Lake Nacimiento D Sensitive Resource Area
Basin Name. ___________ Sub-Basin Name ___________ Target Aquifer/Basin _________ _
Do you anticipate drilling into a water bearing formation that has the potential to degrade a higher quality aquifer? D Yes Enilo
If yes, please explain: _________________________________________ _
Is there any known potential to encounter a water bearing forma~ w!)!re levels of water quality constituents such as nitrate, selenium,
hydrogen sulfide, boron, organics, etc., are a concern? D Yes uJ-No If yes, please explain: _______________ _
Geologist letter attached: D Yes No (Required for wells over 800' OR equal to or deeper than the sub-area thresholds in the PRGWB)
Other attachments: D Construction Plan/Diagram D Land Use Permit D Coastal Zone Permit
D Air Rotary D Reverse Rotary D Cable Tool D Other ____________ _
Exploration Hole: Exploration/Borehole Depth J-oo ft. Exploration/ Borehole Diameter _ _,_/_O=-___ in.
Conductor casing: Conductor Depth, _____ ft. Diameter ______ in. Material _____ Seal Depth _____ ft.
Boring: Boring Depth ;:).DC> ft. Boring Diameter --":}__'-L(+----in.
Well Casing:o:Pr9duction Casing Depth :J.oQ ft.
Size CLY / Le
Thickness/Gauge/ASTM sched. JJ}l J-( D Steel l:!:tP!astic Dstainless D Other _________ _
Diameter _,_/2=:= __ i.n. Gravel Pack/ Gravel
AnnularSeal: Depth ,f[) ft. DNeatCement l!'.lsandCement L, sack mix Oather _________ _
Seal Method: ~mped with tremie pipe D Other _______ D Retardant/Accelerator (name) ________ _
WELL PROPOSAL/CONSTRUCTION MODIFICATIONS NOTE: NOT APPROVED UNTIL SIGNED BELOW
Date: ______ Description: ____________________________________ _
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY"-PROJECT MODIFICATIONS EVALUATION
Received by: _.;. ____ _.;._..,_ ___ ~_ ...... _Evaluated by:_· .----'-"-'-_;,---'----""'-_;,~-Date:--'--""'--'--'-'
Approved Denied ApprQveclwith Conditions:-----"-'"---'------------'--'-'--"'-'----
COMPLETE AND ATTACH REQUIRED SCALED PLOT PLAN AND ANY REQUIRED LAND USE PERMITS OR GEOLOGIC REPORTS AS APPLICABLE
Page 2 of3
Page 263 of 299
Item 8.h. - Page 9
WELL PERMIT PLOT PLAN
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
2156 SIERRA WAY STE. 8/PO BOX 1489
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401
PHONE: (805)781-5544, FAX (805)781-4211
EMAIL: EHS@CO.SLO.CA.US
SCALE: ¼" = 25'
INDICATE BELOW THE EXACT LOCATION OF PROPOSED WELL WITH RESPECT TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WITHIN A 200 FOOT RADIUS: PROPERTY LINES,
EASEMENTS, WATER BODIES OR WATER COURSES, DRAINAGE PATTERN, ROADS, EXISTING WELLS, SEWERS AND PRIVATE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS,
ANIMAL ENCLOSURES AND ANY OTHER CONCENTRATED SOURCES OF POLLUTION. INCLUDE DIMENSIONS. ALL PROPOSED WELL SITES SHALL BE
DESIGNATED WITH A FLAGGED SURVEYOR'S STAKE LABELED "WELL SITE." DRILLING SHALL NOT COMMENCE UNTIL THIS APPLICATION IS APPROVED.
W--f
s
u\ ~
Directions to site:
Gate codelsl and survev contact information:
Page 264 of 299
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Item 8.h. - Page 10Page 265 of 299
Page 266 of 299
Page 267 of 299
Page 268 of 299
Page 269 of 299
Page 270 of 299
Page 271 of 299
Page 272 of 299
Page 273 of 299
Page 274 of 299
Page 275 of 299
Page 276 of 299
Page 277 of 299
Page 278 of 299
Page 279 of 299
Page 280 of 299
Page 281 of 299
Page 282 of 299
Page 283 of 299
Page 284 of 299
Page 285 of 299
Page 286 of 299
Page 287 of 299
Page 288 of 299
Page 289 of 299
Item 10.a.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Community Development Director
BY: Patrick Holub, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Conduct Public Hearing and Consider a Resolution Denying the
Installation of One (1) Domestic Well on Property Zoned Planned
Development (PD); Applicant–Michael Harris; Representative–Richard
Burde, SLO Civil Design and Marsha Burch, Attorney at Law
DATE: February 27, 2024
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Following a public hearing, consider staff’s recommended denial of the request of the
property owner to drill and install a new domestic well at an unaddressed property on
Noyes Road (APN: 007-781-055), northeast of the intersection of Noyes Road and
Equestrian Way (“Subject Property”).
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
There is no direct funding impact anticipated as a result of this denial. If the application is
denied, the applicant will have the option to connect to City services, which will require
staff time to process any subsequently submitted development application and/or a
separate connection application. If the well application is approved, staff time will be
required to finalize the well permit. Both approval options will require application fees to
offset staff time.
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Adopt a Resolution denying the request by Michael Harris to drill and install one (1)
new domestic well on an unaddressed property on Noyes Road (APN: 007-781-055)
northeast of the intersection of Noyes Road and Equestrian Way; and
2) Determine that the denial is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act (“CEQA”) because CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency
disapproves or rejects (Pub. Resources Code § 21080(b)(5); State CEQA Guidelines, §
15270(a)), and it will not have direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental
impacts (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.
Page 73 of 299
Item 10.a.
City Council
Conduct Public Hearing and Consider a Resolution Denying the Installation of One
(1) Domestic Well on Property Zoned Planned Development (PD); Applicant–
Michael Harris; Representative–Richard Burde, SLO Civil Design and Marsha
Burch, Attorney at Law
February 27, 2024
Page 2
BACKGROUND:
The City received a request from property owner Michael Harris seeking approval to drill
a well at the Subject Property in order to provide domestic/drinking water to a future
proposed residence. The proposed well meets the City’s definition of an individual
domestic well because it is a single well used to supply water for the domestic needs of
an individual residence.
Mr. Harris is the owner of the unaddressed property (shown above) on Noyes Road (APN:
007-781-055) northeast of the intersection of Noyes Road and Equestrian Way (“Subject
Property”). In April 2019, Mr. Harris contacted the City regarding his intent to build a
single-family residence on the Subject Property. City staff provided information regarding
zoning and allowed uses, and indicated that residential uses were allowed on the Subject
Property. Mr. Harris also had conversations with staff beginning in October 2022
regarding a domestic well, in conjunction with his submittal of a well application to the
San Luis Obispo County Health Department (“SLO Health”). On October 18, 2022, the
City’s Utility Manager sent a reply to SLO Health that the City Council is required to review
and approve well applications. To date, Mr. Harris has not submitted an application for
any residential development at the Subject Property.
In March 2023, staff had several e-mail conversations with Mr. Harris regarding
scheduling the well application for a City Council hearing. Concerns by staff were raised
during the review period leading up to and as part of the drafting of the staff report, and
these concerns were expressed to Mr. Harris. Staff and Mr. Harris held several follow-up
meetings in the subsequent months, including meetings with Mr. Harris and/or his
Page 74 of 299
Item 10.a.
City Council
Conduct Public Hearing and Consider a Resolution Denying the Installation of One
(1) Domestic Well on Property Zoned Planned Development (PD); Applicant–
Michael Harris; Representative–Richard Burde, SLO Civil Design and Marsha
Burch, Attorney at Law
February 27, 2024
Page 3
representative on May 10, June 15, and August 15, 2023. Ultimately, the well application
was scheduled for a City Council hearing on October 24, 2023. On the day of the hearing,
staff received a letter from Mr. Harris’ attorney, Marsha Burch, with a 40 -page attachment
that included multiple legal assertions regarding the proposed project and staff’s
recommended denial (“Attorney Letter”). The Attorney Letter and its attachment are
included as Attachment 3.
Due to the receipt of the Attorney Letter a few hours before the scheduled hearing and
the legal assertions made therein, staff recommended a continuance to November 28,
2023, to allow for analysis of and response to the arguments in that Attorney Letter. Mr.
Harris indicated on October 24, 2023 that he was unable to attend the November 28,
2023 public hearing in person, and requesting that the item be further continued. At the
November 28, 2023, City Council meeting, at the request of Mr. Harris, the item was
continued to January 9, 2024. On January 9, 2024, at the request of Mr. Harris, the City
Council continued the public hearing to February 27, 2024. City staff issued new public
hearing notice for purposes of the continued February 27, 2024 public hearing.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Chapter 13.08 outlines the City’s regulations
regarding wells. Section 13.08.040 of the AGMC requires the City Council to consider, in
its discretion, approval for new or replacement wells or abandonment of existing wells.
Approval to drill a well within the City boundaries may be granted if the City Council
determines: 1) the well will neither deplete nor contaminate the City water supply; and 2)
service from the City’s water system is neither practical nor feasible.
Depletion or Contamination
Mr. Harris’ proposed location for the well is on the Subject Property northeast of the
intersection of Noyes Road and Equestrian Way. Any well proposal would be required to
submit verification that the well is located at least one -hundred feet (100’) from septic
system areas, which would also be confirmed by County Environmental Health.
Additionally, any new well would be conditioned to be metered to determine annual
usage. The well site is outside of the adjudicated Santa Maria Groundwater Basin and is
located in the Los Robles Aquifer. The closest City well is located about 2,800 feet away
southwest of the proposed well site. Because the proposed well would not tap the same
aquifer utilized by the City’s wells, staff’s determination is that there is no ant icipated
interference or depletion to the City’s system from the requested well.
Practicality and Feasibility of Connecting to the City’s Water System
It is important to highlight that in determining the practicality and feasibility for a domestic
water service connection, staff reads the practicality and feasibility test as one based on
whether the City is reasonably able to provide a domestic water service connection from
Page 75 of 299
Item 10.a.
City Council
Conduct Public Hearing and Consider a Resolution Denying the Installation of One
(1) Domestic Well on Property Zoned Planned Development (PD); Applicant–
Michael Harris; Representative–Richard Burde, SLO Civil Design and Marsha
Burch, Attorney at Law
February 27, 2024
Page 4
the City water service line, to the private property boundary, and at what cost to the City
this can be done. Staff does not believe practicality and feasibility criteria should be based
upon the private property owner’s costs associated with installing domestic water service,
nor should it be based solely on the topography of the site.
Prior to 2017, and only for temporary or replacement irrigation wells for agriculture
properties or sports fields, the City did consider the cost to an applicant to connect to the
municipal water supply. When costs to an applicant were considered, ref erence to costs
to the applicant strictly referred to the Water Availability Fee, Water Distribution Fee and
Meter Fee associated with the City installing a water meter. These fees were all collected
at the time of building permit issuance and were based only on the size of the proposed
connection. The applicant/property owner would still be responsible for connecting the
meter to their home and any additional costs unknown to the City.
From 2017 to present, the only factors considered in assessing the feasibility and
practicality of a municipal water connection for a domestic well applicant were:
1) Distance from existing municipal water infrastructure;
2) Any necessary infrastructure improvements;
3) Any easements that might be needed to connect to the m unicipal water supply;
and
4) Whether the proposed water connection is located outside City limits.
Since 2017 these factors have been consistently applied to all domestic water well
applications. Since 2017 there have been six total well applications, three of which were
for domestic wells, and no staff reports mention costs to the applicant as a factor in
granting or denying the well application. At no time has the cost to the applicant ever been
a factor considered for a domestic well application such a s Mr. Harris’ application.
Mr. Harris has provided a groundwater feasibility analysis that examines the local
conditions and finds that developing a groundwater well to serve the Subject Property is
feasible from a hydrological perspective, which is inclu ded as part of the application
materials in Attachment 2.
As stated above, Chapter 13.08 of the AGMC provides that the City Council may approve
a well if “service from the city water system is neither practical nor feasible .” Staff
determined that it is both feasible and practical for the City to connect the City’s water
supply to the Subject Property. This determination is due to several factors. First, the
Subject Property is immediately adjacent to the City’s Reservoir No. 5 , which is a 1.2
million gallon above-ground storage tank. Second, a residential water service connection
can be made directly to the City owned water main from the tank and a connection placed
to Mr. Harris’s property line with a standard water meter on the property. The connection
Page 76 of 299
Item 10.a.
City Council
Conduct Public Hearing and Consider a Resolution Denying the Installation of One
(1) Domestic Well on Property Zoned Planned Development (PD); Applicant–
Michael Harris; Representative–Richard Burde, SLO Civil Design and Marsha
Burch, Attorney at Law
February 27, 2024
Page 5
from Reservoir No. 5 to Mr. Harris’ property would be approximately 50 feet in length
along generally level land, with minimal surface restrictions. The connection would not
require any easements or improvements to existing City infrastructure. Lastly, the
connection at the Subject Property is within the City’s boundaries.
In light of these facts, staff has determined it is both practical and feasible for the City to
connect Mr. Harris’s property to the municipal water supply.
Applicant’s Analysis
In contrast to staff’s determination, Mr. Harris and his representatives have argued that
this connection is neither practical nor feasible. Mr. Harris cites the location of the
preferred building site on the property as approximately 600-800 feet from the reservoir,
depending on the trenching route, and would involve grading through steeper slopes and
sensitive oak trees. Mr. Harris has stated that the City should consider tree impacts in
making its determination, citing the Community Tree Program in Chapter 12.16 of the
AGMC. Mr. Harris argues that due to the challenges of connecting a potential future
home to the municipal water supply, it is expensive to connect to the municipal water
supply and thus he should be entitled to a we ll permit. Staff disagrees with this position.
First, the City does not need to take into consideration impacts to trees when considering
a well application. The AGMC allows the Director of Public Works to issue permits for the
removal and replacement of any impacted oak trees on properties within the City. This
authority takes into consideration any impacts connecting to the municipal water supply
and allows the mitigation of those impacts.
Regarding the cost of connecting a future home to the municipal water supply, such costs
are purely speculative at this point. As of the date of this Staff Report, Mr. Harris has not
submitted any applications to build any structures on the Subject Property and he has
never submitted such an application to the City. The City can only make decisions based
on the facts before it at the time the decision is made. If new facts are presented at a later
time, and Mr. Harris submits a new permit application or development application, the
City will analyze any applications under those new facts.
Furthermore, the City is not responsible for the proposed location of residential structures
on a property; the location of residential structures is proposed by an applicant and
ultimately reviewed by the City to ensure code requirements are met, such as setbacks,
height limits, and health and safety standards contained in the California Building
Standards Code. With regard to the cost to Mr. Harris of connecting to the municipal water
supply, as noted above, this is not a factor considered by the City when determining the
practicality and feasibility analysis.
Comparison to Other Well Approvals
Page 77 of 299
Item 10.a.
City Council
Conduct Public Hearing and Consider a Resolution Denying the Installation of One
(1) Domestic Well on Property Zoned Planned Development (PD); Applicant–
Michael Harris; Representative–Richard Burde, SLO Civil Design and Marsha
Burch, Attorney at Law
February 27, 2024
Page 6
The City Council has approved several well applications in the City, including agricultural
replacement wells, irrigation replacement wells, two replacement domestic wells, and one
new domestic well. These wells are listed below with their date of approval, type of well ,
and location:
September 27, 2005 – Replacement Agricultural Irrigation Well – Coach Road
November 27, 2007 – Replacement Agricultural Irrigation Well – 871 East Cherry
Avenue
November 25, 2008 – Replacement Sports Field Irrigation Well – 207 Pilgrim Way
December 18, 2008 – Replacement Sports Field Irrigation Well – 495 Valley Road
February 14, 2017 – Replacement Agricultural Irrigation Well – 980 East Cherry
Avenue
December 12, 2017 – Temporary Agricultural Irrigation Well – Noyes Road
February 13, 2018 – Replacement Domestic Well – 687 Printz Road
July 14, 2020 – Two Replacement Agricultural Irrigation Wells – 500 Fair Oaks
Avenue
January 12, 2021 – New Domestic Well – 575 Easy Street
January 10, 2023 – Replacement Domestic Well – 959 Valley Road
As shown in the list above, the City Council approved five replacement agricultural wells
for several properties for agricultural purposes such as crop irrigation and/or livestock
watering and approved two replacement irrigation wells for sports fields. The City Council
also approved one temporary agricultural well for interim agricultural purposes.
With regard to domestic wells, the City Council approved a replacement domestic well for
687 Printz Road in 2018, and a new domestic well for 575 Easy Street in 2021. For both
of these properties, which are located in the same general vicinity, the City determined
that it was neither practical nor feasible to extend services to these properties because
the nearest City waterlines were located over 1,000 feet away. Making a connection
between the existing infrastructure and these properties would have crossed multiple
other private properties and additional open space. Connection to the City’s water system
for the above two residential properties was determined to be infeasible because multiple
private property owners would be required to grant an easement to the applicant just to
make the connection. This is in contrast with the current application, where the Subject
Property is adjacent to City property and no easements/agreements with other private
property owners are required to connect services. Additionally, the Subject Property is
very close to an existing City reservoir. It should be noted that the City also appro ved a
replacement domestic well on 959 Valley Road, but unique circumstances of this
replacement well existed at time of approval, including that this well replaced an existing
long-established well within the City limits for a residence that was located outside of the
Page 78 of 299
Item 10.a.
City Council
Conduct Public Hearing and Consider a Resolution Denying the Installation of One
(1) Domestic Well on Property Zoned Planned Development (PD); Applicant–
Michael Harris; Representative–Richard Burde, SLO Civil Design and Marsha
Burch, Attorney at Law
February 27, 2024
Page 7
City after the existing well ran dry, and there was an established access easement for the
connection.
In reviewing past well approvals granted by the City, it is important to note that agricultural
and domestic wells have consistently been treated separately due to their distinct impacts
on the City’s water supply. The City is responsible for managing the demands on the
municipal water system, as well as the ground water aquifers that the City utilizes.
Agricultural land uses have historically been connected to groundwater wells rather than
the City’s water distribution system due to their significant volumes of consumption. Such
heavy usage of municipal water for irrigation purposes will negatively impact the municipal
water system. Additionally, using water for agricultural irrigation does not require the
water be treated for human consumption. Therefore, it is better for agricultural properties
to access well water for irrigation because well water is not treated for human
consumption.
The City’s water supply comes from a mix of surface water from Lopez Lake and
groundwater, which must be managed by the City. Management of these water sources
includes conservation measures that apply to all users, such as cash for grass programs,
limits on outdoor watering days, no outdoor watering between 10 am and 4 pm, tiered
pricing, and additional restrictions during times of drought to ensure a continuous reliable
supply of water to the City’s users. All of the domestic water passing through the City’s
distribution system has been treated to a level acceptable for potable human
consumption. Irrigation wells are not required to meet this standard because they irrigate
crops at the ground surface level and are not intended for domestic use. Therefore, the
City has historically allowed some agricultural properties, particularly those that need
replacement agricultural wells, to utilize groundwater and domestic properties to connect
to the City’s domestic water system to minimize unnecessary costs associated with water
treatment and distribution.
Alleged CEQA Violations
Mr. Harris alleges that denial of the well application constitutes a project under CEQA
because it will indirectly require utility connections to service the planned single -family
residence, which will include the removal of oak trees. As such, it is claimed that the
exemption used by the City is insufficient. CEQA applies only to projects undertaken,
supported, or authorized by a public agency. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd.
(b)(5); State CEQA Guidelines, 15270, subd. (a).) Denials of a project are exempt from
CEQA review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15270. Moreover, even if this
denial could be considered a “project” subject to CEQA, a “project” refers to the whole of
an action that has the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the
environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
(State CEQA Guidelines, § 15378, subd. (a).) An indirect effect on the environment is not
Page 79 of 299
Item 10.a.
City Council
Conduct Public Hearing and Consider a Resolution Denying the Installation of One
(1) Domestic Well on Property Zoned Planned Development (PD); Applicant–
Michael Harris; Representative–Richard Burde, SLO Civil Design and Marsha
Burch, Attorney at Law
February 27, 2024
Page 8
reasonably foreseeable if the future activity is uncertain and is independent of the project.
(Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1450;
Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1209,
1223.) As stated above, Mr. Harris has not submitted an application to the City for the
planned single-family residence. Development of a single-family residence is therefore
uncertain and analyzing the potential environmental impacts of said residence where
there is no description available would be too speculative for meaningful evaluation. In
addition, the denial of the well application is separate from, and independent of, the need
to connect to the City’s water and the associated review that would occur in concert with
a future application. Therefore, the denial of the well application will not have the potential
to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the
environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.)
If and when Mr. Harris submits a project proposal or application to build a single-family
residence, the City will conduct environmental review at that time that will include utilities
and the required connection to City water. In addition, the City will determine what land
use entitlements, if any, will be required at that time, including the possibility of a tree
removal permit. The City is not required to do any further environmental review at this
time associated solely with the denial of the well application. However, should the City
Council approve the well application, the approval is cat egorically exempt from CEQA
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15303 (Class 3), as further explained below.
Review Process
Mr. Harris has alleged that staff originally recommended approval of the well application
and distributed a staff report to that effect. While it is true that a staff member indicated in
e-mail correspondence to Mr. Harris that there was a likelihood that staff would
recommend approval, this draft staff recommendation was before the City’s full review
was completed, and staff’s recommendation is not final until the final staff report has been
distributed to the City Council and the public. No alternative draft staff reports were
distributed to the City Council or to any member of the public at any time.
Allowed Land Uses on the Property
Staff’s recommendation to deny the well application is strictly based on the above
practicality and feasibility analysis. Neither staff nor the City envision any particular use
of private property in the City. The City simply reviews uses proposed by applicants. Mr.
Harris has alleged that staff envision that the Subject Property should be developed with
multiple residences. This is incorrect, and staff’s recommendation on the well application
is not contingent on any particular development at the Subject Property. Further, staff has
confirmed with Mr. Harris that one single-family residence is an allowed use on the
Subject Property. As stated earlier, no application for development has been submitted
to date for the Subject Property.
Page 80 of 299
Item 10.a.
City Council
Conduct Public Hearing and Consider a Resolution Denying the Installation of One
(1) Domestic Well on Property Zoned Planned Development (PD); Applicant–
Michael Harris; Representative–Richard Burde, SLO Civil Design and Marsha
Burch, Attorney at Law
February 27, 2024
Page 9
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt the Resolution denying the installation of one (1) new domestic supply well;
2. Reject staff’s recommendation denying the installation of one (1) new domestic
supply well; or
3. Provide other direction to staff .
ADVANTAGES:
Denial of the application may result in the required connection of the property to the City’s
water system for domestic use, depending on the specifics of any future, submitted
development application. Connection to the City’s water system for domestic use is
consistent with City policy to ensure that properties within the City will connect to the
system when it is practical and feasible to do so.
DISADVANTAGES:
None identified.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
In compliance with CEQA, it has been determined that if the application is denied, t he
item does not qualify as a “project” under CEQA, because CEQA does not apply to the
disapproval or rejection of projects. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(5); State
CEQA Guidelines, § 15270, subd. (a).). There will be no construction or developm ent as
a result of the denial of this application for a domestic water well, and therefore the denial
has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical
change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3); 15378.)
In the alternative, should the City Council approve the installation of a domestic water
well, this project would be categorically exempt from CEQA under the Class 3 exemption,
which applies to the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities
or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and
the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor
modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. (State CEQA Guidelines, §
15303.). This project falls within the Class 3 exemption because approval of the project
would result in the installation of one small well structure. Furthermore, none of the
exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply here. The project is
not located in a particularly sensitive environment because the project site is zoned for
residential use. There will be no cumulative impact of successive projects of the same
type in the same place, over time, because only one domestic well is necessary to serve
any future proposed residential uses on the project site. There are no unusual
circumstances such that the project will have a significant environmental impact. The
project will not result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees,
historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway offici ally
Page 81 of 299
Item 10.a.
City Council
Conduct Public Hearing and Consider a Resolution Denying the Installation of One
(1) Domestic Well on Property Zoned Planned Development (PD); Applicant–
Michael Harris; Representative–Richard Burde, SLO Civil Design and Marsha
Burch, Attorney at Law
February 27, 2024
Page 10
designated as a state scenic highway. The project is not located on a site included on any
list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. In addition, the project will
not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
Therefore, the project is categorically exempt from CEQA and no further environmental
review is required.
Staff recommends that whether City Council denies or approves the application for a
domestic water well, a Notice of Exemption should be filed with the County Clerk and
State Clearinghouse within five days of the City Council’s final action.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2. A new public hearing notice was published in the
Tribune on February 16, 2024.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Resolution
2. Application Materials
3. Letter from Marsha Burch dated October 24, 2023, and attached “Harris Report”.
4. Previous Well Approvals – Resolutions
5. Previous Well Approvals – Staff Reports
Page 82 of 299
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE DENYING THE INSTALLATION OF ONE (1)
NEW DOMESTIC SUPPLY WELL ON PROPERTY ZONED
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT; LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF NOYES ROAD AND EQUESTRIAN WAY
(APN: 007-781-055); APPLIED FOR BY MICHAEL HARRIS, AND
FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM CEQA
WHEREAS, Michael Harris has submitted an application (see Exhibit “A”) to drill and
install one (1) new domestic supply well at a property on an unaddressed parcel on
Noyes Road in Arroyo Grande (“Well Application”); and
WHEREAS, the Well Application would be on unaddressed property on Noyes Road
(APN: 007-781-055), northeast of the intersection of Noyes Road and Equestrian
Way (“Subject Property”); and
WHEREAS, Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (“AGMC”) Chapter 13.08 requires City
Council to discretionarily review and approve or deny all new or replacement wells in
the City; and
WHEREAS, specifically, AGMC section 13.08.040 requires the City Council to
consider, in its discretion, approval for new or replacement wells or abandonment of
existing wells. Approval to drill a well within the City boundaries may be granted if
the City Council determines: 1) the well will neither deplete nor contaminate the City
water supply; and 2) service from the City’s water system is neither practical nor
feasible; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed, continued public hearing on February
27, 2024, to consider the Well Application; and
WHEREAS, as described in additional detail below and as incorporated by the
accompanying Staff Report, the City Council finds that service from the City’s water
system is both practical and feasible to Subject Property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande hereby incorporates the recitals herein in full and denies the application to
drill and install one (1) new domestic supply well at an unaddressed property on
Noyes Road (APN: 007-781-055), requested in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
1. The City Council finds that pursuant to Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Chapter
13.08, the following required finding cannot be made to approve the Well
Application: “service from the City’s water system is neither practical nor
Page 83 of 299
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
feasible.” The City Council finds that it is both feasible and practical to connect
the City’s water supply to the Subject Property, as:
a. The Subject Property is immediately adjacent to the City’s Reservoir
No. 5, which is a 1.2 million gallon above-ground storage tank; and
b. A residential water service connection can be made directly to the City
owned water main from the tank and a connection placed to Mr. Harris’s
property line with a standard water meter on the property; and
c. The connection to City’s water supply would not require any easements
or improvements to existing City infrastructure; and
d. The connection at the Subject Property is within the City’s boundaries.
2. CEQA. The City Council determines that if the application is denied, the item
does not qualify as a “project” under CEQA, because CEQA does not apply to
the disapproval or rejection of projects. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080,
subd. (b)(5); State CEQA Guidelines, § 15270, subd. (a).). There will be no
construction or development as a result of the denial of this application for a
domestic water well, and therefore the denial has no potential to result in either
a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the
environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3); 15378.)
In the alternative, should City Council approve the installation of a domestic
water well, this project is categorically exempt from CEQA under the Class 3
exemption, which applies to the construction and location of limited numbers
of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and
facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures
from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the
exterior of the structure. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15303.). This project falls
within the Class 3 exemption because approval of the project would result in
the installation of one small well structure. Furthermore, none of the
exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply here.
The project is not located in a particularly sensitive environment because the
project site is zoned for residential use. There will be no cumulative impact of
successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time, because
only one domestic well is necessary to serve any future proposed residential
uses on the project site. There are no unusual circumstances such that the
project will have a significant environmental impact. The project will not result
in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic
buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially
designated as a state scenic highway. The project is not located on a site
included on any list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5.
In addition, the project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource. Therefore, the project is categorically
exempt from CEQA and no further environmental review is required.
City Council directs staff to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk
and State Clearinghouse within five days of this Resolution.
Page 84 of 299
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member ,
and on the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 27th day of February 2024.
Page 85 of 299
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 4
_________________________________________
CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________________________
JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
________________________________________
MATTHEW DOWNING, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________________
ISAAC ROSEN, CITY ATTORNEY
Page 86 of 299
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 5
EXHIBIT A
Page 87 of 299
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 6
Page 88 of 299
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 7
Page 89 of 299
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 8
Page 90 of 299
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 9
Page 91 of 299
Page 92 of 299
November 8, 2022
Mike Hanis
Cleath=Harris Geologists, Inc. 75 Zaca Lane, Suite 110 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805)543-1413Subject: Well Impact Evaluation
Proposed Private Well in City of Arroyo Grande
APN 007-781-055
Dear Mr. Han-is:
CHG
Per your request, Cleath-Hanis Geolog ists has performed a Well Impact Evaluation to address
requirements for the City of Anoyo Grande.
The proposed domestic well would serve a residence and ADU on parcel APN 007-781-055. The
parcel is located in the n01them corner of the City and is not cmTently served by City utilities.
Two potential sites for the residence and ADU are under consideration. One building site is
about 700 feet to the west at an elevation of230 feet (approximate coordinates of 35.145369, -
120.590831) and the other building site is about 630 feet from the water tank at an elevation of
265 feet (approximate coordinates of 35.143869, -120.89374).
Water demand for the proposed residence and ADU is estimated at about 2 acre-feet, a po1tion of
which would be percolated back into the groundwater via a leachfield and landscape nTigation
deep percolation.
CITY PRIVATE WELL ORDINANCE
Anoyo Grande Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 requires the City Council approve new or
replacement wells or abandonment of existing wells. Approval to drill a well may be granted if
the Council determines that (1) the well will neither deplete nor contaminate the City water
supply and (2) service from the City's water system is either not practical or not feasible.
PROPOSED WELL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
The siting and design of the proposed well will be requiI·ed to meet State, County and City
regulations. Figure 1 from a CHG 2017 study of the propeity shows the proposed location of the
well. The well will be located so as to maintain setbacks from on-site wastewater facilities (150
feet) and prope1ty boundaries (10 feet). A 50-foot annular well seal should be placed according
to State of California water well standards. Well impact evaluation 11/8/2022
Page 93 of 299
Page 94 of 299
Page 95 of 299
Page 96 of 299
Page 97 of 299
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MINOR PROJECT APPLICATION
II PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Street Address: 0 NOYES RD Zoning: Planned
Development
Assessor Parcel No.: 007781055 Parcel Size: 26.54
acre
General Plan Land use Designation:
Legal Description of Existing Lot: CY AG PM 28-85 PTN LT 11
Building Sizes in Square Feet:
E i ting
no buildings
currently
exist on the
property
Propo ed
To be
determined
Describe the Proposed Project in Detail. For Vacation Rental applications, please include the emergency contact
person's name, address and phone number below:
Drilling of a water well for future dome tic u e
Page 98 of 299
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MINOR PROJECT APPLICATION
III. COMPLETE THIS SECTION FOR LARGE FAMILY DAY ACRE PERMITS, PLOT PLAN REVIEWS, AND
TEMPORARY USE PERMITS ONLY NOT REQUIRED FOR SHORT TERM RENTAL APPLICATIONS (VACATION
RENTALS AND HOMESTAYS).
1 Indicate the propo ed hour of operation (DAYS AND TIMES)
2 E timate the number of employee
Total:Maximum Shift:Time of Maximum Shift:
3. Indicate the number of patrons, clients, customers, etc. anticipated:
Average per day:Peak Hours:
4. Number of off street parking spaces to be provided: (if applicable show breakdown as to use)
Total:Garage (enclosed): Covered:Open:
5. Describe any night-time lighting that will be provided, including the type of lighting to be installed:
IV. COMPLETE THIS SECTION FOR CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS, AND LOT
MERGERS ONLY
Number of e i ting lot
Size of e i ting lot (in quare feet)
Number of propo ed lot
Size of propo ed lot (in quare feet)
Page 99 of 299
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MINOR PROJECT APPLICATION
V. COMPLETE THIS SECTION FOR ALL PROJECTS
Due to recent interpretation and legal amendments to the Political Reform act of 1974, the City needs to be aware of all entities (i.e.
corporations, lending institutions, etc. or individuals that may have a financial interest in the proposed project. All LLCs shall provide relevant
Articles of Incorporation in order to disclose all financially interested entities. Please complete the following certification and provide your
signature:
The following entities and/or indivduals have financial interest in this project:
APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE:
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements and
answers herein made and all data, information, and evidence herewith
submitted are in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
true and correct. I understand that the submittal of incorrect or false
information is grounds for invalidation of application completeness
determination or approval. I understand that the city might not
approve what I am applying for, or might set conditions of approval.
Signed Date
PROPERTY OWNER/AUTHORIZED AGENT:
I certify under penalty of perjury that I am the owner of the property
that is the subject of this application and consent to its filing. (If
signed by the authorized agent, a letter from the property owner must
be provided indicating that the agent is authorized to act on his/her
behalf.)
Signed Date
Page 100 of 299
131 South Auburn Street
GRASS VALLEY, CA 95945
Telephone:
(530) 272-8411
mburchlaw@gmail.com
October 24, 2023
Via Electronic Mail
Brian Pedrotti, Community
Development Director
City of Arroyo Grande
300 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
bpedrotti@arroyogrande.org
Jessica Matson, City Clerk
City of Arroyo Grande
300 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
jmatson@arroyogrande.org
Re: Consider a Resolution Denying the Installation of One (1)
Domestic Well on Property Zoned Planned Development (PD);
Applicant – Michael Harris; Representative – Richard Burde, SLO
Civil Design
Dear Mr. Pedrotti, Ms. Matson, and Council Members:
This office represents Mike Harris with respect to the above-referenced
domestic well application (“Project”). We have reviewed the staff report for the
Project consideration at the City Council meeting on October 24, 2023 (“Staff
Report”) and provide the following comments.
A response to the Staff Report has also been prepared by my client and
raises many issues that should be carefully considered by the Council. It is
attached to this letter for your review and referred to herein as the “Harris
Report”. The two most concerning issues will be addressed below: (1) the
disparate treatment of this landowner for reasons that appear to be unrelated to
the Code or any other legitimate City consideration; and (2) the improper use of
a CEQA1 exemption and failure to comply with CEQA for the proposed denial of
the application.
1 California Environmental Quality Act: Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq. and the CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14, 15000 et seq.
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 101 of 299
City of Arroyo Grande
October 24, 2023
Page 2 of 4
A. The Project is being treated differently than any previous well
application submitted to the City.
As described in detail in the Harris Report at pages 13-15, the City has
consistently considered the cost to the applicant as a significant factor in
determining whether a well application should be granted. In this case, the City
staff is well aware of the fact that the “connection” the City proposes will be in a
distant corner of the applicant’s parcel, and will require expensive trenching
through protected oak forest in order for the applicant to make use of the City
water at the most reasonable building site. (See Harris Report for description of
expense and feasibility.) For inexplicable reasons, for the first time in two
decades the City staff is asserting that the consideration of expense and
feasibility of the use of City water only pertains to the expense incurred by the
City. This interpretation of the City Code defies logic, and it would be an abuse
of discretion for the City Council to disregard the reasonable past interpretation
that considered the actual feasibility of the use of City water.
The Staff Report for the Project is opaque, and there is no explanation for
the staff’s abrupt shift from intending to recommend approval in the Spring of
this year, to the current refusal to employ the long-followed analysis the City has
used in the past. The Staff Report recommends an approach that singles out the
applicant for disparate treatment, and the Council should reject this path and
consider the actual feasibility of the use of City water on the parcel and consider
the application in an equitable manner.
B. Denial of the Project application is not exempt from CEQA.
The staff report mistakenly concludes that approval or denial of Project
would be exempt from CEQA. (Staff report, p. 36.)
While the staff report correctly notes that approval of the domestic well
would be subject to a Class 3 exemption, it goes on to improperly conclude that a
denial of the application is “not a project”. The staff report states as follows:
[I]f the application is denied, the item does not qualify as a
“project” under CEQA, because it has no potential to result in
either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change
in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (b)(2)-
(3), 15378.).
It is true that approval, and the drilling of one domestic well, will have no
impacts. The opposite is true of a denial, requiring the connection to the City
water supply. It is astonishing that the City has been receiving detailed
information from the applicant raising many concerns about the oak forest that
lies between the proposed “connection” to the parcel and the likely building site,
and yet ignores this issue in the Staff Report. The Harris Report describes these
Page 102 of 299
City of Arroyo Grande
October 24, 2023
Page 3 of 4
impacts in detail, including the fact that the necessary work would be
inconsistent with the Community Tree Program.
The staff report dismisses this by claiming that the “City is not
responsible” for the location of the building site on the property. The City is
responsible for its discretionary decisions that will foreseeably result in
environmental impacts. For the same reasons that the trenching will result in
significant impacts to oak trees, any future building would only occur on certain
portions of the property.
CEQA defines a “project” as an activity that (1) is a discretionary action by
a governmental agency and (2) will either have a direct or reasonably foreseeable
indirect impact on the environment. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21065.) Thus, the
discretionary decision by the City to deny a well application and force the
landowner to connect to City water is, in fact, a “project” for CEQA purposes. If
the City connection did not necessitate construction activities through a sensitive
oak forest, then the City might be able to make a determination that it was not a
project based upon the substantial evidence in the record. In this case, the record
is rife with evidence that the discretionary denial of the application will result in
significant environmental impacts.
Based upon the record before the City Council, there is no doubt that a
denial of the Project application will result in the use of City water, “connected”
to the property at a remote corner that will necessitate construction activities
within a sensitive oak forest. If the City determines that it will exercise its
discretion to deny the Project application, even though many similar applications
have been granted due to feasibility concerns for the landowner, then additional
environmental review is required. Refusing to consider the required
construction activity will at best be a violation of CEQA, and may result in a
regulatory taking if the feasibility of the construction through the oak forest is
not carefully considered by the City.
C. Conclusion
The City Council should consider the City’s previous interpretation of its
own Code to take into account the actual feasibility of a connection to the City
water supply, and treat the applicant fairly and in a way that is consistent with
the way others have been treated.
Additionally, the City Council should be aware of the environmental
impacts that will result from a denial of the Project application and consider the
Council’s opportunity here to approve the Project and avoid those significant
environmental impacts.
Forcing the applicant into the position of being required to construct
costly infrastructure that will impact the environment is a regulatory burden on
the property that exceeds the bounds of fairness and the applicant’s rights. We
Page 103 of 299
City of Arroyo Grande
October 24, 2023
Page 4 of 4
urge the City to consider the application in a fair way that will not interfere with
the property rights of the landowner, will avoid environmental impacts, and will
be consistent with the treatment of others in the City.
Sincerely,
Marsha A. Burch
Attorney
cc: Mike Harris
Isaac Rosen, City Attorney (isaac.rosen@bbklaw.com)
Page 104 of 299
1
Harris Report
APN 007-781-055
Table of Contents
Council Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 2
Intent and Purpose of AGMC Chapter 13.08 - Water Wells .......................................................................... 2
AGMC Critical Section - 13.08.040 - Permits. ................................................................................................ 3
The City has not Followed the AMGC Regarding the Permit Application Process ........................................ 3
City Council has Not Publicly Questioned or Commented on Any Well Application in a Council Meeting (at
least since 2004) ........................................................................................................................................... 4
City Staff Fails to Consider the Citizen and Taxpayer in its Decision-Making Process ................................... 4
City Staff Recommendation .......................................................................................................................... 5
The City Staff’s Has Not Provided Complete Information ............................................................................. 6
The City Staff’s Interpretation of the City Code Is Untenable ....................................................................... 7
The City Council Has Previously Determined by Resolution that Service from the City Water System is
neither Practical nor Feasible ........................................................................................................................ 8
The City Staff Believes That the Owner’s Costs Associated with Installing Domestic Water Service is
Irrelevant ....................................................................................................................................................... 9
The City Staff Believes That the Topography of the Site is Irrelevant ......................................................... 15
The City Is Not Responsible for The Proposed Location of Residential Structures on a Property .............. 17
The City Staff Has Failed to Consider the AGMC Community Tree Program .............................................. 19
The City Staff Has Failed to Consider the Health and Safety of its Resident (or the Location of a Water
Meter Impacts Safety Concerns) ................................................................................................................. 22
The City Staff Wrote and Distributed a Staff Report That Recommended Approval of the Well ................ 23
There is No Issue with Precedent Setting Related to the Well Application ................................................ 31
Land Use - Development of a Single Residence on the Parcel is Allowed................................................... 32
No Reservoir-Adjacent Parcels in the City Connect to City Water in a Similar Way.................................... 33
In 2023 The City Approved a Well That Just Feet from City Water Main .................................................... 36
Page 105 of 299
2
Council Summary
• The city staff’s interpretation of the AGMC Section 13.08.040 Part A is inconsistent with purpose
and intent of AGMC Chapter 13.08 Water Wells.
• City staff has made a new untenable interpretation of AGMC section related to water well
permits.
• City staff’s final recommendation is inconsistent with past recommendations by city staff and
past resolutions by city council regarding water wells.
• City staff prepared a report for final review which recommended approval for the well
application but suddenly, without any rational explanation, changed their position.
• City staff claims a policy exists which has never been articulated and has never been
documented by city staff, until now.
• City staff’s final recommendation is not based on reasoned decision making and did not consider
all relevant factors.
• The city staff report does not provide complete information or all alternatives for consideration
by the city and is promoting only one viewpoint.
• Service from the city water system is neither practical nor feasible based on excessive cost,
environmental issues, and safety concerns.
• There is clear and convincing evidence that the service from the city water system is neither
practical nor feasible and, as a result, city council should approve the well application.
Intent and Purpose of AGMC Chapter 13.08 - Water Wells
The AGMC was amended in 1971 to add Chapter 8 to Title 6 to require permits for the drilling of wells.
From Ordinance 87 (1971):
“The City finds that said water supply been greatly depleted by unrestricted drilling for and
pumping of water, and that a danger exists of salt water intrusion into the aquifers underlying
the City.”
“The regulations and restrictions as hereinafter set forth are necessary to protect the health,
safety and general welfare of the inhabitants and taxpayers of the City of Arroyo Grande.”
From AGMC Chapter 13.08 - WATER WELLS (Current):
“It is the purpose of this chapter to provide for the construction, repair, modification and
destruction of wells in such a manner that the groundwater of the city will not be
contaminated or polluted and that water obtained from wells will be suitable for beneficial
use and will not jeopardize the health, safety or welfare of the people of the city.”
Neither the intent nor the purpose of the AGMC on water wells prohibits the drilling of water wells
unless the water well would adversely impact the health, safety and general welfare of the inhabitants
and taxpayers of the City of Arroyo Grande.
The city staff has made no such finding regarding my proposed water well.
Page 106 of 299
3
AGMC Critical Section - 13.08.040 - Permits.
A. Application. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the application and recommendations of the
health officer for a new well shall be submitted to the council. The council may approve the
application if, in its discretion, the drilling and the operation of the well will not deplete nor
contaminate the city water supply and service from the city water system is neither practical
nor feasible.
This suggests that connecting a particular property or area to the city water system might pose technical
challenges, excessive costs, or other difficulties that make it an impractical or unviable solution. This
might then justify seeking alternative water sources, such as drilling a new well. The city code does not
prohibit new wells.
The plain language of the city code indicates that it is the “service from” the city water system that is to
be considered to determine practicality and feasibility. The use of the preposition “from” inherently
implies a direction (e.g., from the city water system to the residence).
The city staff claims that the determination of practicality and feasibility should not consider the costs to
the customer to obtain service from the city water system. The city staff also claims that the topography
of the site (characteristics of the parcel) should also be given no consideration in determining practicality
and feasibility of the service from the city water system.
This is not a reasonable interpretation of the city code. Cost is the primary consideration when
determining if service from the city water system in neither practical nor feasible for both the city and
the customer.
Any analysis considering only the city’s perspective or only the customer perspective would be
incomplete. The only way to achieve an objective, fair and comprehensive evaluation of practicality and
feasibility is to consider both the city and customer perspectives.
The City has not Followed the AMGC Regarding the Permit Application
Process
The city code states that the well application and a recommendation from the health officer shall be
submitted to the council.
Page 107 of 299
4
The health officer is not a member of city staff. The definitions in the city code make it clear that the
health officer is:
City Council has Not Publicly Questioned or Commented on Any Well
Application in a Council Meeting (at least since 2004)
The city council has never questioned, commented or pulled a well application item for separate
consideration in any city council meeting since 2004 (according to video archives).
Video archives of city council meetings are available at https://slo-span.org. The recordings of city
council meetings are available beginning February 10, 2004.
Based on the recordings available there has also never been any public questions or comments on any
well application.
City Staff Fails to Consider the Citizen and Taxpayer in its Decision-
Making Process
The city staff has the following decision matrix which precludes any consideration of any factor related to
the customer/inhabitant/taxpayer.
The city’s decision matrix is not a matrix at all. There is no consideration given to the customer.
The City’s Decision Matrix
City Perspective
Feasible and practical Not feasible nor practical
Connect to city Approve well
The City of Arroyo Grande Organizational Chart and City of Arroyo Grande Organizational Values are
contrary to position stated by city staff.
Page 108 of 299
5
The city’s decision matrix should, of course, consider the perspective of the citizen/taxpayer and all
relevant factors when making a decision to either approve or deny a well application, including customer
related factors.
A Reasonable Decision Matrix
City Perspective
Feasible and practical Not feasible nor practical
Customer
Perspective
Feasible and Practical Connect to city Approve well
Not feasible nor practical Approve well Approve well
City Staff Recommendation
The city staff is recommending that the city council deny my well application because it states that a
“connection” to the city water system is feasible and practical from the city’s perspective - but only from
the city's viewpoint and at a location they designate without regard to cost.
Practicality and Feasibility of Connecting to the City’s Water System
It is important to highlight that, in determining the practicality and feasibility for a domestic
water service connection, City staff reads the practicality and feasibility test as one based on
whether the City is reasonably able to provide a domestic water service connection from the
Page 109 of 299
6
City water service line to the private property boundary. The City does not believe the second of
the two approval criteria should be based upon the private property owner’s costs associated
with installing domestic water service, nor should it be based on the topography of the site.
The applicant has provided a groundwater feasibility analysis that examines the local conditions
and finds that developing a groundwater well to serve the subject property is feasible from a
hydrological perspective, which is included as an exhibit to this agenda item.
Staff has determined that it is both feasible and practical for the City to connect the City’s
water supply to the subject property. The subject parcel is immediately adjacent to the City’s
Reservoir No. 5, which is a 1.2 million gallon above-ground storage tank. The City’s Utilities
Manager has stated that a residential water service connection can be made directly to the City
owned main water line from the tank and a connection placed to the applicant’s property line
with a standard water meter on their property.
As described above, Section 13.08 of the AGMC provides that the City Council may approve a
well if “service from the city water system is neither practical nor feasible”. This connection
would be approximately 50 feet in length along generally level land with minimal surface
restrictions, which staff has determined is both practical and feasible for the City to provide to
the applicant’s property. In contrast to City staff’s determination, the applicant has argued that
this connection is neither practical nor feasible, citing that the location of their preferred
building site on the property is approximately 600-800 feet from the reservoir, depending on the
trenching route, and would involve grading through steeper slopes and sensitive oak trees.
However, the City is not responsible for the proposed location of residential structures on a
property – that is proposed by an applicant and ultimately reviewed by the City to ensure any
municipal code requirements are met, such as setbacks, height, and health and safety standards
contained in the California Building Standards Code. The City has historically determined
practicality and feasibility based on the City’s ability and cost to serve each parcel.
The City Staff’s Has Not Provided Complete Information
The City of Arroyo Grande City Council Handbook is clear with respect to the scope of information that is
to be provided to the city council and that manipulation of information is prohibited.
3.4 City Council/City Manager Mutual Expectations
The following mutual expectations have been agreed upon by the City Council and City
Manager regarding their respective roles and support the successful operation of the
City Manager/Council form of government. They serve as a general framework to foster
a constructive working relationship and provide new Council Members an overall outline
of how we have committed to operate. They may also serve as a basis for discussion to
resolve potential problems or when changes in the expectations are desired.
Expectation of City Manager
f. Provide complete information regarding an issue or item. Never manipulate
information in order to promote one viewpoint.
Page 110 of 299
7
g. Ensure staff reports include alternatives, potential impacts of each alternative
and staff’s best recommendation.
It is clear based on the information presented in this report that city staff has not provided complete
information, the staff report is not the only report that was authored and distributed, and that the
process and requirements have been manipulated to fit the desired outcome.
The city staff has not provided all alternatives for service from the city water system. The following
alternatives have not been provided and, of course, the potential impacts of these alternatives have not
been provided:
• Connect to the city water system via Equestrian Way
• Connect to the city water system on Noyes Road
• Adopt a resolution approving the installation of one (1) new domestic well
Staff’s best recommendation would be relative to the other alternatives, which have not been provided.
Rather than provide complete information, city staff has decided to modify their interpretation of the
AGMC so that complete information is not required or relevant. The decision to claim that no
consideration should be given to the property owner cost nor the topology of the property allows city
staff to ignore issues related to this information (cost and topology).
The only viewpoint that is being promoted is the viewpoint of the city staff, specifically and intentionally
ignoring the viewpoint of the citizen, resident and taxpayer.
The City Staff’s Interpretation of the City Code Is Untenable
The city staff report states:
“City staff reads the practicality and feasibility test as one based on whether the City is
reasonably able to provide a domestic water service connection from the City water service line
to the private property boundary.”
This is not a reasonable interpretation of the city code. Rather, this is an interpretation created to align
with a biased and predetermined decision by city staff.
The city code actually states:
“service from the city water system is neither practical nor feasible”
The city code does not use the term “connection”. It uses the term “service”. Service is a much broader
term than connection. Service, much more accurately, includes:
• Sourcing and Supply
• Connection and Infrastructure
• Water Quality and Treatment
• Delivery and Accessibility
Page 111 of 299
8
• Maintenance and Upkeep
• Consumption and Use
• Billing and Customer Service
When assessing the "practicality and feasibility" of providing "service from the city water system," each
of these factors should be evaluated. By narrowing the definition to just the installation of a water meter,
the city is likely missing a wide range of variables that collectively define what constitutes a "service." A
robust analysis taking into account all these elements would offer a more comprehensive view of
whether city water service is genuinely practical and feasible.
If the city council and the city wanted the subject regarding practical and feasible to be a “connection”
they would have used that language. They did not.
The city code does not use the phrase “the City is reasonably able to provide”. The city code does not
limit consideration to the “provider” of the service. In fact, the code uses the phrase “service from”,
which indicates consideration should be given the “receiver” of the service since it is the customer that
receives service from the city.
The city code does not use the phrase “to the private property boundary”. The city has again narrowly
interpreted the city code to fit this particular recommendation to deny the well application.
City staff is attempting to rewrite the city code to fit their recommendation on this particular well
application. Their interpretation is narrowly lacking and is unnecessary. The plain language of the city
code, the intent of the original city code, and the stated purpose of the code section provides the
guidance needed for the decision-making process.
The City Council Has Previously Determined by Resolution that Service
from the City Water System is neither Practical nor Feasible
Resolution No. 4830 was passed and adopted on December 12, 2017.
The resolution stated:
The approval of well in resolution 4830 is for the exact same parcel and the exact same well location as
the application currently under consideration.
At the city council meeting on December 12, 2017, the city council had no questions or comments prior
to approving the well on the same parcel at the same location as the current well application.
https://slo-span.org/meeting/agcc_20171212
Page 112 of 299
9
Current mayor Ray Russom and council member Barneich voted to approve the well and adopt the
resolution, as did all council members, which determined that service from the city water system was
neither practical nor feasible because of the distance from existing city water infrastructure.
Service from the city’s water system is still not practical nor feasible, as found by the city council on
December 12, 2017.
The City Staff Believes That the Owner’s Costs Associated with Installing
Domestic Water Service is Irrelevant
This is a new belief that was never previously held by city staff. This belief materialized when the decision
was suddenly made to change position regarding the well application. This belief is necessary for city
staff because, if the owner’s costs are considered, the connection to the city water service is clearly
neither practical nor feasible.
February 16, 2023 - Richard Burde and Tim Cleath met with Patrick Holub and Shane Taylor at the city
offices. Patrick Holub and Shane Taylor specifically requested the private property owner’s costs
associated with installing domestic water service. The city staff now claims that this information is
irrelevant and should not be considered when determining practicality and feasibility.
The in-person meeting was held on February 16, 2023.
February 23, 2023 at 8:43 AM - Richard Burde sent an email to Patrick Holub indicating that he was still
working on gathering the private property owner’s costs associated with installing domestic water
service.
February 23, 2023 at 9:10 AM – Patrick Holub emailed Richard Burde stating that a recommendation
that council deny the well application was unlikely once you present the numbers. The “numbers” are
the private property owner’s costs associated with installing domestic water service.
Page 113 of 299
10
March 9, 2023 at 8:41 AM – Patrick Holub emailed Richard Burde requesting the “feasibility calculation”.
The “feasibility calculation” that was requested by Patrick Holub specifically included the private
property owner’s costs associated with installing domestic water service.
March 9, 2023 at 8:46 AM – Richard Burde sent an email to Patrick Holub indicating that he met with the
contractor regarding the preliminary cost estimate, part of the private property owner’s costs
associated with installing domestic water service.
March 9, 2023 at 8:47 AM – Patrick Holub sent an email to Richard Burde that indicated he was 95%
done with the staff report and that he would augment the report with our numbers. Patrick specifically
stated that the staff report would include the private property owner’s costs associated with installing
domestic water service in the staff report.
Page 114 of 299
11
March 16, 2023 at 5:26 PM – Richard Burde emailed Patrick Holub regarding additional costs for
trenching though or removing rocks.
March 20, 2023 at 7:39 AM – Patrick Holub sent an email to Richard Burde indicating that he sent the
staff report for final review last week and that we should be on the consent agenda on March 28 for
approval of my well application.
I made multiple public records requests for the staff report which was distributed for final review which
recommended approval of my well application. The city has continued to withhold this report and any
email messages related to the report.
March 21, 2023 at 2:23 PM – Patrick Holub emailed Richard Burde asking for additional cost information,
specifically the cost related to installation of the well. Patrick indicates that he “was asked” for the
Page 115 of 299
12
information. So, in addition to Patrick there is at least one other individual that believed that the private
property owner’s costs associated with installing domestic water service was relevant and important.
March 21, 2023 at 3:14 PM – Richard Burde emailed Patrick Holub information on the cost to drill the
well.
If the private property owner’s costs associated with installing domestic water service should not be
considered, why did Patrik and city staff request information on owner’s cost and include that
information in the staff report referred to on March 20, 2023? Why were there so many emails and
communications regarding the owner’s cost if the city staff believed this information was not important
and relevant?
It is clear that the primary focus of city staff was on obtaining the private property owner’s costs
associated with installing domestic water service for the purpose of making a determination on
practicality and feasibility. It was not the belief of the city staff that this information should not be
considered. That belief materialized only after the city suddenly decided to change their position on
the well application.
Patrick Holub, the associate planner that was responsible for preparing and distributing the staff
report believed that the private property owner’s costs associated with installing domestic water
service was relevant and critical to determining whether service from the city water system was
Page 116 of 299
13
neither practical nor feasible and based on this information the service from the city water system was
determined to be not practical and not feasible.
In past well applications the city staff and the city council have determined that the property owner’s
costs associated with installing domestic water service was relevant and did, in fact, provide at least a
partial basis for determining that service from the city water system was neither practical nor feasible:
The following notes are from the section of the staff report that is titles “Practicality of Supply from the
City’s Water System”
Year Notes
2017 Agricultural use, meter connection would be a substantial cost to the applicant
2015 Agricultural use, meter would be a substantial cost to the applicant
2008 Agricultural use, meter connection would be a substantial cost to the applicant
2005 Agricultural use, connection could cost between $30,000 and $40,000
Clearly, the private property owner’s cost has been a significant determining factor in the past to
determine practicality and feasibility. It is unfair and unreasonable to fail to consider the cost to the
property owner of end-to-end service from the city water system when the costs establish that it is
neither practical nor feasible for service from the city water system but that fact does not align with the
likes and wishes of the city staff.
The city staff report claims that the determination of practicality and feasibility has historically been
based on the city’s ability and cost to serve each parcel. The cost referred to are not the city’s cost but
rather the property owner’s cost.
As you can see below the cost that is documented (by city staff) is the “cost to the applicant”, not the
cost to the city.
Page 117 of 299
14
2017 Well Application
2015 Well Application
2008 Well Application
Page 118 of 299
15
2005 Well Application
The City Staff Believes That the Topography of the Site is Irrelevant
This is another new belief that was never previously held by city staff. This belief materialized when the
decision was suddenly made to change position regarding the well application. This belief is necessary
for city staff because, if the site topography is considered, the connection to the city water service is
clearly neither practical nor feasible.
July 24, 2023 at 9:38 AM – Brian Pedrotti emailed me (after I sent a detailed email to all city council
members) indicating that a meeting was expected so that the city staff could more fully understand the
physical constraints of the site. This is in direct conflict with what is now claimed to be believed
regarding the site topography.
Page 119 of 299
16
If the topography of the site should not be considered, why is Brian referring to a meeting to more fully
understand the constraints of the site. July 24 would have been an ideal time for Brian to let me know
that the constraints of the site (the topography of the site) will not be considered by city staff. This was
not communicated to me because it was not the position of city staff that the site topography did not
matter.
The topography of the site is of utmost importance to determining practicality and feasibility of service
from the city water system.
The city staff's position, which completely ignores the importance of the topology of the site, is
overlooking crucial issues. Topography should be considered as a critical element in the determination of
what's practical and feasible:
Cost-Effectiveness - Sloping or uneven terrains would require extensive civil works like leveling,
backfilling, or excavation, making the project prohibitively expensive.
Technical Considerations - Steep or varied topography can create problems that are either
technically challenging or impractical to solve.
Environmental Concerns - Construction on uneven or sloping terrain can lead to erosion and
sedimentation issues, requiring additional environmental safeguards and potentially triggering
stricter regulatory scrutiny. The need to modify the natural landscape to accommodate
infrastructure could have significant environmental consequences, such as disruption of local
ecosystems, which could be contrary to the public interest or even against environmental
regulations.
Regulatory Hurdles - Uneven topography might necessitate additional permits from
environmental agencies, increasing the complexity, duration, and cost of the project.
Modifications required for challenging topographies could potentially violate environmental and
land use statutes, causing legal issues that would make the project impractical.
Page 120 of 299
17
Precedent and Subjectivity - If topography isn't considered for one parcel, it sets a precedent.
This could compromise the city council’s ability to make consistent and fair decisions on similar
matters in the future. Topography provides an objective measure that can be evaluated through
GIS tools, contour maps, and civil engineering studies, which would make the council's decision
more transparent and less susceptible to subjectivity.
It’s clear that topography should be a significant factor in the city staff’s recommendation and council's
evaluation of practicality and feasibility. Ignoring it would undermine the council's responsibility to make
decisions that are economically prudent, environmentally responsible, and equitable for all parties
involved.
The City Is Not Responsible for The Proposed Location of Residential
Structures on a Property
However, the city is responsible for the proposed location of the water meter, which significantly
impacts the practicality and feasibility of service from the city water system and whether or not a parcel
is able to be developed.
Below are two pictures of vacant parcels in the north-west area of the city. The red arrows show the
driveway access to the parcel and the red X shows the location of the city owned and provided water
meter.
Page 121 of 299
18
Page 122 of 299
19
Does city staff really believe that the size and the topography of the site is irrelevant to the
determination of practicality and feasibility of receiving service from the city water system?
Each parcel is unique and the city code clearly uses broad language which provides the flexibility to make
a well-reasoned and fair evaluation and decision with respect to approving or denying water wells.
The City Staff Has Failed to Consider the AGMC Community Tree Program
Chapter 12.16 of the AGMC established the Community Tree Program. The Community Tree Program
establishes policies, regulations and specifications necessary to govern installation, maintenance and
preservation of trees within the city of Arroyo Grande.
City staff has failed to recognize and consider the impact of the Community Tree Program on the
practicality and feasibility of service from the city water system.
Page 123 of 299
20
The city code, including Chapter 12.16, establishes regulations that all residents and property owners are
required to obey. Violation of these ordinances can result in penalties, including fines, legal actions, or
other forms of municipal enforcement.
It is unreasonable that the city staff would exclude from consideration city-imposed regulations when
considering the well application.
From the perspective of the city reservoir property, the trees which are located on the parcel should be
considered. There is no clear, open path to connect to service from the city water system without
impacting trees which are protected by the Community Tree Program.
The Community Tree Program states:
12.16.090 - Installation, maintenance and removal of trees relating to property development.
E. All grading, building, conditional use, tract map, parcel map, planned development,
and other development proposals submitted to the city shall be accompanied by an
accurate map identifying and locating all existing trees upon the property for which
application is received and all existing trees that are off-site but affected by the
project. Such map shall also identify all existing trees that are proposed by the
applicant for removal or destruction, and such trees shall be visibly marked for the
director's inspection. The director, or his or her designee, shall locate all trees upon
the applicant's and affected property and prepare a written report to the permit-
granting authority within two calendar weeks of the permit application having been
received by the city.
Page 124 of 299
21
H. The killing, removal or damaging, intentionally or accidentally, of any tree, because
of development activity, shall result in a separate administrative penalty to be paid,
through payment by person or persons causing such loss, to the city. The payment
shall be the amount of the value of the tree, as set forth in the Manual for Plant
Appraisers, published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, but in no
event shall the payment be less than one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) per tree.
The intentional killing, removal or damaging of any tree, as a result of development
activity, shall constitute a misdemeanor.
M. Trees designated to remain on the tree removal plan shall be protected prior to and
during construction by the owner(s), using the following measures:
1. Each tree or group of trees designated to remain shall be protected by an
enclosure of a five-foot fence, prior to the beginning of construction. The
fence shall be wooden, chain link, or plastic barricade fencing. The location
of the fence is normally at the dripline of the tree, but it may adjusted or
omitted with the director's written approval.
2. No parking of vehicles or equipment or storage of materials shall be
permitted within the dripline of the trees designated to remain.
3. In the event the underground utilities must be placed within the dripline of
the trees to remain, the utilities shall be installed by auguring at twenty-four
(24) inches minimum depth or by hand trenching. If roots over one inch in
diameter are encountered, the roots shall be preserved without injury. No
machine trenching within a tree's dripline shall be permitted, unless
authorized, in writing, by the director.
4. A performance bond may be required, in a form acceptable to the city and
prior to issuance of an entitlement, to assure protection of trees on the site.
The amount of any set bond shall be one thousand five hundred dollars
($1,500.00), or the value of affected trees, whichever is greater, based on
the Manual for Plant Appraisers, Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.
The latest edition is to be available for review in the community
development department. If, in the opinion of the certified arborist, no
violation or damage has occurred during construction, the bond shall be
returned upon final building inspection. However, if damage has occurred,
the bond shall be held for three years and forfeited if, in the opinion of the
certified arborist, permanent damage has occurred.
5. Failure to comply with tree preservation requirements shall result in the
director issuing a stop work order until all requirements have been met.
Page 125 of 299
22
A bond of $200,000 or more could be required to connect to the city water system – because of the
location mandated by city staff. Mature oak trees are very expensive and there are hundreds of oak trees
on the parcel. Clearly, from an environmental perspective, not to mention a cost perspective, it would be
more practical and more reasonable to use a water source which was more closely located to building
locations.
The cost to map and identify every tree in the path to the water meter location mandated by the city
would cost more than the cost of the city water connection, which has been estimated at over $7,000.
The cost to trench through protected trees is extremely high. No machine trenching is permitted in the
tree dripline, so hand trenching must be used. In addition, no parking of vehicles or equipment or
storage of materials shall be permitted within the dripline of the trees. The cost of trenching through the
trees, in addition to the slope and rock outcroppings issues, will result in a trenching cost exceeding
$100,000 to connect to the city water system.
Whether consideration is given to the property owner cost of service from the city water system or not,
the fact that the city mandates a connection to the city water system through mature groves of trees the
result is a service from the city water system that is neither practical nor feasible from any perspective.
The City Staff Has Failed to Consider the Health and Safety of its Resident
(or the Location of a Water Meter Impacts Safety Concerns)
The great majority of water meters are placed near the street, sidewalk, or alleyway for easy accessibility
for both homeowners and utility personnel. The goal is to strike a balance between accessibility for
monitoring and maintenance and the logistical considerations of connecting the home to the water
infrastructure.
In our particular case, the city staff is recommending that the water meter be placed at the southern
property line, which is the furthest point from the driveway which will lead to the residence. There will
be no road available to access the water meter and the path to the water meter will be through very
rough terrain consisting of 30% slope, rocks, trees, and uneven terrain.
Quick and efficient shut-off of the water supply in case of leaks or contamination is vital for both safety
and resource conservation. The challenging location could significantly delay these emergency
procedures, potentially exacerbating any issues such as flooding, or property damage. In this specific
case, the accessibility barriers create a high-stakes scenario where time-sensitive actions are hindered,
thereby raising safety concerns that could have severe repercussions for the resident.
The city staff has given no consideration to the issues imposed by their proposed water meter location.
Page 126 of 299
23
The City Staff Wrote and Distributed a Staff Report That Recommended
Approval of the Well
On March 20, 2023 at 7:39 AM, Patrick Holub sent an email to Richard Burde and Mike Harris indicating
he had distributed the staff report for final review last week. He also clearly indicated that the staff
report recommended approval and that our approval would be put in front of city council on March 28,
2023.
Where is the staff report recommending approval? Why has this report not been provided to me after I
have requested it many times? Why has the staff report recommending approval not been provided to
city council for their consideration?
On March 20, 2023 at 8:17 AM, Patrick Holub sent an email to Richard Burde promising to send the staff
report that recommended approval to us on March 22 or 23, 2023. Patrick never sent the report.
Page 127 of 299
24
On March 21, 2023 Patrick emailed Richard Burde and Mike Harris requesting additional cost
information. This is odd because the city staff now claims that the owner’s costs are not relevant or
applicable to the permitting process. Patrick did not indicate who asked him to get additional cost
information.
On March 21, 2023, Patrick Holub emailed Richard Burde that “this item” will need to be moved to the
4/11 meeting. It should be noted that we provided the additional cost information the same day that it
was requested by Patrick at 3:14 PM.
Sometime between March 20, 2023 at 7:39 AM and March 21, at 2:32 PM the decision was made to
recommend that the well application be denied.
Page 128 of 299
25
On March 29, 2023 at 12:00 PM, Patrick Holub sent an email to me indicating he was waiting for “more
information” from the City Manager.
On March 29, 2023 at 12:58 PM, Patrick Holub sent an email to me indicating that the discussion
regarding my connection to the city water system had shifted away from whether it was practical and
feasible to whether it was in the best interest of the city.
Page 129 of 299
26
On April 3, 2023 at 3:15 PM, Richard Burde emailed Patrick Holub asking for a copy of the staff report.
On April 3, 2023 at 4:28 PM, Patrick Holub send an email to Richard Burde indicating that our item would
not be presented on the 4/11 council meeting.
Page 130 of 299
27
On April 17, 2023 at 4:49 PM, Richard Burde sent an email to Patrick Holub requesting an update on our
well application.
On April 18, 2023 at 9:11 AM, after receiving no reply from Patrick Holub, Richard Burde sent another
request for update to both Patrick Holub and Andrew Perez.
Page 131 of 299
28
On May 1, 2023 at 11:23 AM, Patrick Holub sent an email to Richard Burde indicating that the city staff
feels that it is not in the best interest of the city to allow a domestic well on the property.
Patrick did not specify what “best interest of the City” meant or how the city staff came to the
conclusion. This was the first time we had been given any indication that the recommendation to the
city council would be to deny the well.
Notably, Patrick did not indicate that service from the city water system was practical and feasible. It was
clear that city staff did not want to allow a domestic well on the property, and all indications have been
that the recommendation was decided upon based on the city staff’s vision of development on the
property (which equates to development fees and property taxes) and precedence setting (which is a
non-issue).
Page 132 of 299
29
On March 20, 2023 at 7:39 AM, it was clear that the city staff had completed as staff report which
recommended approval of the well application. However, on May 1, 2023 at 11:23 AM, Patrick Holub
notified us that the city staff would recommend denial of the well application.
What happened between March 20 and May 1 (42 days, Patrick was out of the office for 14 of those
days) to change the decision of city staff? City staff was clearly knowledgeable and experienced in the
processing of a permit for a well application and had written several staff reports for prior well
applications.
The only information provided regarding this sudden change was from Patrick Holub on March 29, 2023
at 12:00 PM that he was waiting for more information from our City Manager (Whitney McDonald).
The following are the only emails between city staff produced that discuss the well application between
March 21 and May 1.
On March 21, 29023 at 3:18 PM, Patrick Holub sent an email to Brian Pedrotti and Shane Taylor attaching
the well drilling cost estimate and indicating the cost estimate for trenching was $97k.
Page 133 of 299
30
On March 21, 2023 at 3:29 PM, Shane Taylor sent an email to Patrick Holub and Brian Pedrotti asking for
the trenching estimate.
On March 21, 2023 at 3:29 PM, Patrick Holub sent another email to Shane Taylor and Brian Pedrotti
attaching the cost estimate for the trenching.
There was no other internal email discussion regarding the well application that was provided as a
result of my public records request.
Between March 22 and May 1 there were no emails that discussed the well application not the
decision to recommend denial of the well application by city staff.
Page 134 of 299
31
There is No Issue with Precedent Setting Related to the Well Application
City staff has claimed on multiple occasions that there was an issue with precedent if my well application
was approved. This is not true and there has been no reasoning provided for such an assertion. There is
no record in the AGMC or any past well application that precedent setting has or should be considered
when determining whether a well should be approved or denied.
The City of Arroyo Grande 2020-2028 Housing Element Update identified forty (40) vacant parcels which
could be developed to provide housing:
Page 135 of 299
32
Of the forty (40) vacant parcels identified, thirty-eight (38) have city water available in an adjacent city
street. Only two (2) parcels do not have city water available in the adjacent street. The two parcels are
off of Noyes Road and owned by the Mike Harris.
The two parcels are not comparable to any of the 38 parcels which do have reasonable access to city
water. The 38 parcels are between 18 and 192 times smaller than the two parcels owned by Mike Harris.
The two parcels also have significant slope and significant protected trees compared to the other vacant
parcels.
No property owner would want to install a drill a well on a small parcel (0.14 to 1.43 acres) which already
has city water available in the adjacent street.
City staff concern for precedent setting based on my well application is misplaced and not reasonable.
Land Use - Development of a Single Residence on the Parcel is Allowed
The city staff have also justified the denial of a well application because they envision a different
development on the property.
I have been clear from the beginning that I am interested in building a single family residence on the
property. I made significant effort to insure that this was possible without discretionary review prior to
purchasing the property.
As early as April 2019 I contacted Andrew Perez in the Community Development Department and
informed him that my interest in the property was not as a developer that would want to subdivide for
multiple homes.
Prior to purchasing the property in December 2021 I received written confirmation from Andrew Perez
that I would be able to build a single family residence on the property:
The first time we were told that the city staff would not recommend the well because they envisioned a
different development of the property was after the staff report recommending approval was
Page 136 of 299
33
distributed. Whether or not the city staff likes the intended development plans of the property owner is
not a criterion of determining practicality and feasibility of service from the city water system.
No Reservoir-Adjacent Parcels in the City Connect to City Water in a
Similar Way
There are four (4) reservoirs within the city limits. No parcel which is adjacent to a reservoir was
required to connect to the city water system by connecting directly to a water line originating from the
reservoir tank.
The connection being mandated by city staff is unconventional and not standard practice within the city.
Page 137 of 299
34
Page 138 of 299
35
Page 139 of 299
36
In 2023 The City Approved a Well That Just Feet from City Water Main
At the city council meeting on January 10, 2023, the council members declined to question, comment
or pull for separate consideration the approval of a well that benefited a parcel outside the city limits,
even though the proposed well was very close to a city water main. There was no discussion among
council members regarding the approval of the well prior to its approval. https://slo-
span.org/meeting/agcc_20230110
The city approved a well at 959 Valley Road (inside the city limits) to serve a property and taxpayer at
2783 Los Berros Road (outside the city limits).
There is an 8” city water main that crosses Los Berros Road that is within 18 feet of the old well that was
replaced. The applicant already had customer infrastructure (pipes) that was within 18 feet of a city
water main.
The city staff did not base their recommendation on whether it was practical and feasible to connect to
the city water system. Rather, they simply stated that the non-citizen that would benefit from the well
lives outside the city limits.
Page 140 of 299
37
Page 141 of 299
38
The City of Arroyo Grande Water System Master Plan December 2012 indicates that there are customers
outside the city limits that are served by the city water system. It appears that city staff made the
decision to recommend the well and then justified it by stating that the applicant lives outside the city
limit, rather than actually evaluating the practicality and feasibility of connecting to the city water
system.
Page 142 of 299
39
Page 143 of 299
RESOLUTION N0.4053
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AN APPLICATION BY SCOTT
TREES TO DRILL A REPLACEMENT IRRIGATION WELL ON A
PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURE PRESERVE; APN 007-711-
007; 871_ EAST CHERRY AVENUE (STAFF PROJECT CASE NO.
07-010)
WHEREAS, Scott Trees has submitted an application to drill a replacement well to irrigate crops
at 871 East Cherry Avenue; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 requires City Council review and approval of all new
wells; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds the well will not deplete nor contaminate the City water
supply based upon the use, design, depth and placement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that service from the City's water system is neither practical
nor feasible to irrigate agricultural crops due to associated costs, established General Plan
policies and existing water supply agreements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does
hereby approve Staff Project Case No. 07-010 authorizing the drilling and installation of an
agricultural irrigation well at 871 East Cheny Avenue subject to the conditions as set forth in
Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
On motion of Council Member Fellows, seconded by Council Member Guthrie, and on the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:Council Members Fellows, Guthrie, Costello, Arnold, and Mayor Ferrara
NOES:None
ABSENT:None
The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 27"' day of November 2007.II
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 144 of 299
RESOLUTION NO.'4053
PAGE 2
TONY FE A, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY ET RE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
E~/EN ADAIGC CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIM THY J.EL, CI ATTORNEY
Page 145 of 299
RESOLUTION NO.L(ps3
PAGE 3
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
STAFF PROJECT CASE N0.07-010
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1.The applicant shall ascertain and comply with-all State, County and City requirements
as are applicable to this project.
2.The event shall occur in substantial conformance with the application and plans on file in
the Public Works Department.
3.The applicant shall comply with all of the Conditions of Approval for Staff Project Case
No: 07-010.
4.The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against
the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in
the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its
agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its
agents, offcers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such
action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense
of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations
under this condition.
5.The applicant shall install a backflow prevention device to the satisfaction of the Director
of Public Works.
6.The applicant shall abandon all existing wells on site and supply the Public Works
Department with a letter stating said abandonment by the County of San Luis Obispo
Public Health Department.
i
Page 146 of 299
OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION
I, KELLY WETMORE, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San ,Luis
Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the attached
Resolution No. 4053 is a true, full, and correct copy of said Resolution passed and
adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on the 27~'
day of November 2007.
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 28~' day of
November 2007.
KELLY T ORE, CITY CLERK
Page 147 of 299
RESOLUTION NO. 4140
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AN APPLICATION
BY FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD TO DRILL A
REPLACEMENT IRRIGATION WELL ON A PROPERTY
ZONED PUBLIC FACILITY; APN 006-095-020; 207
PILGRIM WAY
WHEREAS, First Assembly of God has submitted an application to drill a replacement
well to irrigate the sports field at 207 Pilgrim Way; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 requires City Council review and approval
of all new or replacement wells; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds the proposed well will neither deplete nor
contaminate the City water supply based upon the use and placement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that service from the City's water system is neither
practical nor feasible to irrigate the sports field due to associated costs, and existing
water supply agreements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande does hereby approve the application to drill and install an irrigation well at 207
Pilgrim Way, subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
On motion of Council Member Costello, seconded by Council Member Guthrie, and on
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Costello, Guthrie, Arnold, Fellows, and Mayor Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 25th day of November 2008
Page 148 of 299
RESOLUTION NO. y 1y0
PAGE 2
TONY F ,MAYOR
ATTEST:
ct (~,{,~
KELLY ETM RE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
AS TO FORM:
TIMOCT'bfY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
Page 149 of 299
RESOLUTION N0.4140
PAGE 3
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD REPLACEMENT IRRIGATION WELL
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City
requirements as are applicable to this project.
2. The event shall occur in substantial conformance with the application and
plans on file in the Public Works Department.
3. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action
brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the
issuance of said approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval.
The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for
any court costs and attorney fees, with the City, its agents, officers or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The
City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense
of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her
obligations under this condition.
4. The applicant shall connect the new irrigation well system to the existing
church and preschool irrigation system within a reasonable amount of time
after completion of the well.
5. The applicant shall abandon the existing well on site and supply the Public
Works Department with a letter stating said abandonment by the County of
San Luis Obispo Public Health Department.
6. A copy of the well/driller report required by the provisions of Section 13751 of
the Water Code of the State shall be submitted to the Public Works
Department upon completion of the construction of the well.
Page 150 of 299
OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION
1, KELLY WETMORE, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis
Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the attached
Resolution No. 4140 is a true, full, and correct copy of said Resolution passed and
adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Arroyo Grande on the 25th day of November 2008.
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 26th day of
November 2008.
KELLY ET ORE, CITY CLERK
Page 151 of 299
RESOLUTION N0.4149
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AN APPLICATION BY THE
LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT TO DRILL A
REPLACEMENT IRRIGATION WELL ON A PROPERTY ZONED
PUBLIC FACILITY; APN 006-095-001; 495 VALLEY ROAD
WHEREAS, Lucia Mar Unified School District has submitted an application to drill a replacement
well to irrigate the Arroyo Grande High School sport fields at 495 Valley Road; and
WHEREAS, Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 requires City Council approval of all
new wells; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds the proposed new well will not deplete nor contaminate the
City water supply based upon the use and placement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does
hereby approve the drilling and installation of an irrigation well at 495 Valley Road subject to the
conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
On motion of Council Member Guthrie, seconded by Council Member Amold, and on the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Guthrie, Arnold, Costello, and Mayor Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Fellows
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 18~" day of December 2008.
Page 152 of 299
RESOLUTION NO. 41Y9
PAGE 2
o-xs
TONY F ,MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY E ORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
SSE N ADA S, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TI OTHY MEL, CITY ATTORNEY
Page 153 of 299
RESOLUTION N0.4149
PAGE 3
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.FOR
LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT REPLACEMENT IRRIGATION WELL
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City requirements
as are applicable to this project.
2. The event shall occur in substantial conformance with the application and plans on file
in the Public Works Department.
3. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against
the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or
in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its
agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney fees, with the City, its
agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such
action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the
defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her
obligations under this condition.
4. The applicant shall abandon the existing well on site and supply the Public Works
Department with a letter stating said abandonment by the County of San Luis Obispo
Public Health Department.
5. A copy of the well/driller report required by the provisions of Section 13751 of the Water
Code of the State shall be submitted to the Public Works Department upon completion
of the construction of the well.
Page 154 of 299
OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION
I, KELLY WETMORE, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis
Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the attached
Resolution No. 4149 is a true, full, and correct copy of said Resolution passed and
adopted at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on the 18~h
day of December 2008.
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 22"d day of
December 2008.
O/1.Q_
KELL W MORE, CITY CLERK
Page 155 of 299
RESOLUTION NO. 4773
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AN APPLICATION BY TERRY
CHANDLER TO DRILL A REPLACEMENT IRRIGATION WELL
ON A PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURE; APN 007-731-015;
980 EAST CHERRY AVENUE
WHEREAS, Terry Chandler has submitted an application to drill a replacement well to
irrigate the agricultural fields at 980 East Cherry Avenue; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 requires City Council review and approval
of all new or replacement wells; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds the proposed well will neither deplete nor
contaminate the City water supply based upon the use and placement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that service from the City's water system is neither
practical nor feasible to irrigate the agricultural fields.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande does hereby approve the application to drill and install a replacement irrigation
well at 980 East Cherry Avenue, subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A",
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
On motion of Council Member Brown, seconded by Council Member Ray, and on the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Brown, Ray, Harmon, Barneich, and Mayor Hill
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this
14th
day of February 2017.
Page 156 of 299
RESOLUTION NO. 1073
PAGE 2
iJIHILL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
I
KELLY T .RE, CITY CLERK
A-PROVED AS TO CONTENT:
JAS
ii0 10 Virk
OBERT MCF iv IN - - M CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
HE• HER WHITHAM, CITY ATTORNEY
Page 157 of 299
RESOLUTION NO. 4773
PAGE 3
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
TERRY CHANDLER REPLACEMENT IRRIGATION WELL
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City
requirements as are applicable to this project.
2. The event shall occur in substantial conformance with the application and plans
on file in the Public Works Department.
3. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought
against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of
said approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant
shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs
and attorney fees, with the City, its agents, officers or employees may be
required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but
such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this
condition.
4. The applicant shall install a meter on the well head and report annual pumping
amount to the City by December 31st
of each year.
5. An approved backflow device shall be installed per City standard on the water
meter service.
6. The applicant shall abandon the existing well on site and supply the Public Works
Department with a letter stating said abandonment by the County of San Luis
Obispo Public Health Department.
7. A copy of the well/driller report required by the provisions of Section 13751 of the
Water Code of the State shall be submitted to the Public Works Department upon
completion of the construction of the well.
Page 158 of 299
OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION
I, KELLY WETMORE, City Clerk of the City of--Arroyo Grande, County of San. Luis
Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the attached
Resolution No. 4773 was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City
Council/Successor Agency of the City of Arroyo Grande on the 14th day of February,
2017.
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 21st
day of
February, 2017.
i I ,
KELLY WE MOS;,'E, CITY CLERK
Page 159 of 299
RESOLUTION NO. 4830
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AN APPLICATION BY
DARREN SHETLER TO INSTALL A TEMPORARY IRRIGATION
WELL FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES ON A PROPERTY
ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT; APN 007-781-55; NOYES
ROAD, ARROYO GRANDE
WHEREAS, Darren Shetler has submitted an application to drill a temporary well for
interim agricultural use at property on Noyes Road in Arroyo Grande; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 requires City Council review and approval
of all new or replacement wells; and
WHEREAS, based upon studies submitted by the Cleath-Harris Geologists, Inc. dated
November 9, 2017, the City Council finds the proposed well will neither deplete nor
contaminate the City water supply; and
WHEREAS, based upon the interim agricultural use and the distance from existing City
water infrastructure, the City Council finds that service from the City's water system is
neither practical nor feasible..
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande does hereby approve the application to drill and install an irrigation well at
Noyes Road, subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
On motion of Council Member Brown, seconded by Council Member Barneich, and on
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Brown, Barneich, Harmon, Ray, and Mayor Hill
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 12th day of December, 2017.
Page 160 of 299
RESOLUTION NO. V830
PAGE 2
i I
JI ILL, MAYOR
I
ATTEST:
b.. . . . , 1. . eL' I
KELLY ET/0 RE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Ilik.
tfrakikp
JAME, = - MAN, CITY MANAGERiii
APPROVED AS TO FORM:.
HEATHER WHITHAM, CITY ATTORNEY
Page 161 of 299
RESOLUTION NO. 4830
PAGE 3
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A TEMPORARY
TESTIRRIGATION WELL
DARREN SHETLER/AGC HOLDING CORPORTATION
APN 007-781-055 and -056 NOYES ROAD
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City
requirements as are applicable to this project.
2. The event shall occur in substantial conformance with the application and plans
on file in the Public Works Department.
3. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought
against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of
said approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant
shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs
and attorney fees, with the City, its agents, officers or employees may be
required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but
such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this
condition.
4. The irrigation meter serving APN 007-781-056 shall be abandoned.
5. Results from well tests for the purposes of installation of an agricultural irrigation
well outlined in the Cleath-Harris Geologists, Inc. Well Impact Discussion shall be
reported to the City prior to well operation.
6. The applicant shall install a meter on the well head and report annual pumping
amount to the City by December 31st
of each year.
7. An approved backflow device shall be installed per City standard on the water
meter service.
Page 162 of 299
RESOLUTION NO. 4830
PAGE 4
8. This approval is to install a temporary well for on-site interim agricultural
purposes and is valid for five (5) years. If so directed by the City in the event a
permanent well approval is not obtained within five (5) years, the applicant shall
abandon the well and supply the Public Works Department with a letter stating
said abandonment by the County of San Luis Obispo Public Health Department.
9. A copy of the well/driller report required by the provisions of Section 13751 of the
Water Code of the State shall be submitted to the Public Works Department upon
completion of the construction of the well.
Page 163 of 299
OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION
I, KELLY WETMORE, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis
Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the attached
Resolution No. 4830 was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the. City Council
of the City of Arroyo Grande on the 12th day of December, 2017.
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 18th day of
December, 2017.
adata0Le
KELLY ET •RE, CITY CLERK
Page 164 of 299
RESOLUTION NO. 4833
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE APPROVING THE INSTALLATION OF A REPLACEMENT
DOMESTIC WELL ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL ESTATE
REQUESTED BY RICK PIERCE; APN 007-781-008; 687 PRINTZ ROAD
ARROYO GRANDE
WHEREAS, Rick Pierce has submitted an application to drill and install a replacement
well for domestic supply at 687 Printz Road in Arroyo Grande; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 requires City Council review and approval
of all new or replacement wells; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds the proposed replacement well will neither deplete
nor contaminate the City water supply and is needed to serve the property to satisfy
health and safety needs; and
WHEREAS, based upon the distance from existing water infrastructure, the City Council
finds that service from the City's water system is neither practical nor feasible.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande does hereby approve the application to drill and install a replacement domestic
well at 687 Printz Road, subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
On motion of Council Member Barneich, seconded by Mayor Hill, and on the following
roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Barneich, Brown, Harmon, Ray, and Mayor Hill
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 13th day of February 2018.
Page 165 of 299
RESOLUTION NO. 98"
PAGE 2
JIM LL, MAYOR
TTEST:
adatOZe -
KELLY ,E GORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
k_`
JAME Nrik177 AN, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
dy
E THER WHITHAM, CITY ATTORNEY
Page 166 of 299
RESOLUTION NO. 4833
PAGE 3
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
REPLACEMENT DOMESTIC SUPPLY WELL
STAFF PROJECT CASE NO. 18-001
RICK PIERCE; APN 007-781-008; 687 PRINTZ ROAD ARROYO GRANDE
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City
requirements as are applicable to this project.
2. The event shall occur in substantial conformance with the application and plans
on file in the Community Development Department.
3. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought
against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of
said approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant
shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs
and attorney fees, with the City, its agents, officers or employees may be
required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but
such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this
condition.
4. The applicant shall comply with all Conditions of Approval for Staff Project Case
No. 18-001, as well as the terms, conditions and standards specified in the written
permit issued by the County of San Luis Obispo Public Health Department.
5. This approval shall expire on February 13, 2019 unless a drilling permit is obtained
from the County of San Luis Obispo Public Health Department. Time extensions
may be requested in conformation with Subsection 16.12.140.0 of the Arroyo
Grande Municipal Code.
6. The applicant shall abandon all existing wells on site and supply the Community
Development Department with a letter approving said abandonment from the
County of San Luis Obispo Public Health Department.
7. The applicant shall install a meter on the well head and report annual pumping
amount to the City Public Works Department by December 31st
of each year.
Page 167 of 299
RESOLUTION NO. 4833
PAGE 4
8. An approved backflow device shall be installed per City standard on the water
meter service.
9. A copy of the well/driller report required by the provisions of Section 13751 of the
Water Code of the State shall be submitted to the Public Works Department upon
completion of the construction of the well.
10.The applicant shall obtain an electrical permit as required for a new well pump.
11.The applicant shall produce survey verification that the distance of the
replacement well to any septic system (leach field) is greater than 100 feet to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
Page 168 of 299
OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION '
I, KELLY WETMORE, City Clerk of the City -of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis
Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the attached
Resolution No. 4833 was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Arroyo Grande on the 13th day of February, 2018.
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 15th day of
February, 2018.
f2016ttet-e,
KELLY WET RE, CITY CLERK
r
Page 169 of 299
RESOLUTION NO. 5013
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING THE INSTALLATION OF TWO
2) NEW IRRIGATION WELLS ON PROPERTY ZONED
AGRICULTURE; LOCATED AT 500 FAIR OAKS AVENUE;
APPLIED FOR BY LEROY SARUWATARI
WHEREAS, Leroy Saruwatari has submitted an application to drill and install two (2) new
irrigation wells at 500 Fair Oaks Avenue in Arroyo Grande; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 requires City Council review and approval of
all new or replacement wells.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande hereby resolves as follows:
1. The City Council finds the proposed irrigation wells will neither deplete nor
contaminate the City water supply and are needed to serve the properties for
agricultural purposes.
2. Based upon the fact that the City does not supply agricultural property with
potable water, connection to the City's water infrastructure is not feasible.
3. The City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby approves the application
to drill and install two (2) new irrigation wells at 500 Fair Oaks Avenue, subject
to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference.
On motion of Council Member Paulding, seconded by Council Member George, and by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Paulding, George, Barneich, Storton, and Mayor Ray Russom
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing Resolution was approved this 14th day of July, 2020.
Page 170 of 299
RESOLUTION NO. 5013
PAGE 2
CAREN RAY SOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
1
w, / / OJi4uo/t -
KELLY ET
i•
RE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
BILL ROBESON, CTING CITY MANAGER
APPROV S TO FORM:
c
1A1.--.'
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
Page 171 of 299
RESOLUTION NO. 5013
PAGE 3
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TWO (2) NEW IRRIGATION WELLS
500 FAIR OAKS AVENUE
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City
requirements as are applicable to this project.
2. The installation of the wells shall occur in substantial conformance with the
application and plans on file in the Public Works Department office.
3. The applicant shall comply with all the conditions of the City Council
Resolution adopted on July 14, 2020, as well as the terms, conditions, and
standards specified in the written permit issued by the County of San Luis
Obispo Public Health Department.
4. The applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its
agents, officers, and employees harmless, at its sole expense from any action
brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of said
approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall
reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and
attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be
required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but
such participation shall not relieve applicant of their obligations under this
condition.
5. This approval shall expire on July 14, 2022, unless a drilling permit is obtained
from the County of San Luis Obispo Public Health Department. Time
extensions may be requested in conformation with the Arroyo Grande
Municipal Code.
6. The applicant shall install a meter on the new well heads and report annual
pumping amounts to the City Public Works Department by December 31st
7. A copy of the well/driller report required by the provisions of Section 13751 of
the Water Code of the State shall be submitted to the Public Works
Department upon completion of the construction of the wells.
8. The applicant shall obtain permits for all electrical connections required for the
new well pumps.
Page 172 of 299
OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION
I, KELLY WETMORE, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis
Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the attached
Resolution No. 5013 was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Arroyo Grande on the 14th day of July, 2020.
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 15th day of
July, 2020.
11J1 4uoft —
KELLY W M E, CITY CLERK
Page 173 of 299
Page 174 of 299
Page 175 of 299
Page 176 of 299
Page 177 of 299
Page 178 of 299
Page 179 of 299
Page 180 of 299
RESOLUTION NO. 5255
PAGE 3
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OFAPPROVAL
ABANDONMENT OFONE (1) EXISTING DOMESTIC WELLANDAPPROVAL TO
DRILL ONE (1) NEW DOMESTIC SUPPLY WELL
959 VALLEY ROAD
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City
requirements as are applicable to this project.
2. The event shall occur in substantial conformance with the application and plans
on file in the Community Development Department office.
3. The applicant shall comply with all the conditions of the City Council Resolution
adopted on January 10, 2023, as well as the terms, conditions, and standards
specified in the written permit issued by the County of San Luis Obispo Public
Health Department.
4. The applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its
agents, officers, and employees harmless, at its sole expense from any action
brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of said
approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The SCHS and
AGRC shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court
costs and attorney’s fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may
be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but
such participation shall not relieve applicant of their obligations under this
condition.
5. This approval shall expire on January 10, 2025 unless a drilling permit is
obtained from the County of San Luis Obispo Public Health Department. Time
extensions may be requested in conformation with the Arroyo Grande Municipal
Code.
6. The applicant shall install a meter on the well heads and report annual pumpingstamountstotheCityPublicWorksDepartmentbyDecember31.
7. A copy of the well/driller report required by the provisions of Section 13751 of
the Water Code of the State shall be submitted to the Public Works Department
upon completion of the construction of the well.
8. The applicant shall obtain permits for all electrical connections required for the
new well pumps.
Page 181 of 299
RESOLUTION NO. 5255
PAGE 4
9. The applicant shall produce survey verification that the distance of the well to
any septic system (leach field) is greater than 100 feet to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
10. A certificate ofdestruction for the abandoned well shall be provided to the City
Public Works Department upon abandonment of the existing well.
Page 182 of 299
Page 183 of 299
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEERk
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION BY MARTIN DE LEON TO DRILL REPLACEMENT IRRIGATION WELL
DATE: SEPTEMBER 27, 2005
RECOMMENDTION:
It is recommended the City Council approve an application by Martin de Leon to drill
replacement irrigation well.
FUNDING:
There are no funding impacts associated with this project.
DISCUSSION:
The City was notified that an application was submitted to the County of San Luis
Obispo Health Department to drill a replacement well for irrigation purposes within the
City limits. Mr. de Leon submitted an application for a replacement well to irrigate
approximately 11 acres of his property on Coach Road. The existing well, which served
the property for many years, and was in declining production and no longer provided the
quantity of water necessary to irrigate the property. The well was destroyed in August
in accordance with County Health Department standards. Currently, Mr. de Leon is
pumping from Arroyo Grande creek to irrigate his property.
The City's Municipal Code includes a provision to address the construction, repair,
modification and destruction of wells within the City limits. Any person wishing to.
construct a well must obtain a permit issued by the County Health Department.
However, before a permit can be issued, the application must be approved by the City
Council. Approval may be granted if the Council determines the well will not deplete nor
contaminate the City water supply and service from the City's water system is neither
practical nor feasible.
It is anticipated that the replacement well will not deplete or contaminate the City water
supply. Water for applied irrigation is a separate component of the safe yield of the
groundwater basin and does not affect the City's groundwater entitlement. The
proposed well is also far enough from the City's well field at Elm Street park so as not to
pose any impact from potential contaminants. The property is connected to the City's
1 O" water main for domestic use, however, a connection to the City water system for
ATTACHMENT 5
Page 184 of 299
no. _____.__ ___~_._~___
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION BY MARTIN DE LEON
TO DRILL A REPLACEMENT IRRIGATION WELL
SEPTEMBER 27,2005
PAGE 2
irrigation of 11 acres of farmland would require a separate connection, A connection
large enough to supply an irrigation system could cost between $30,000 and $40,000 in
connection fees, The City currently does not serve any agricultural land with potable
water for irrigation purposes, Irrigation is a separate component of the safe yield of the
groundwater basin and supplying the irrigation system with domestic water would count
against the amount of applied irrigation and water for the urban users; This would
further reduce the amount of water for urban uses, The City's current water supply
analysis also does not account for this connection, which would use an estimated 11 to
33 acre-feet per year depending on the specific crop and irrigation method,
It is recommended the Council approve the application requested by Mr. de Leon to drill
a replacement irrigation well.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
Approve staff's recommendation;
Do not approve staff's recommendation;
Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendation; or
Provide direction to staff,
Attachments:
1, Well permit application
2, Well destruction letter
3, Plot plan
Page 185 of 299
Attachment 1
APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT WELL PERMIT
LOCATION: 200 Coach Road, Arroyo Grande
APN 07-581-02 APN 07-721-10 APN 07 721-11
This property is bordered by East Cherry Lane, on the south, Coach
Road, on the east and the Arroyo Grande Creek.
Proposed location of the well is on APN 07-721-10,
Drainage is to the southwest.
Abandoned well was'located northwest of the intersection of East
Cherry Lane and Coach Road,
COMPANY: Central Coast Drilling License No. 735315
225 N, Main
Templeton, Ca,
WELL: Depth of well estimated to be 150 feet or less,
USAGE: Water is for irrigation of approximately 11 acres of truck crops.
Martin de Leon
200 Coach Road
Arroyo Grande, Ca,
489-8132
CITY OF
AflROYO GRANDE
SfP . ,~ 2005
CORPORATE Y/-\RD
L
Page 186 of 299
Attachment 2
j Il iicrJl -.
County of San Luis Obispo · Public Health Department
Environmental Health Services
2156 Sierra Way. P.O, Box J489
San Luis Obispo, Calffornia 93406
805) 781-5544 . FAX (805) 781-4211
Gregory Thomas, M.D., M.P.H,
County Health Officer
Public Health DIrector
CurtIs A, Batsoll, R.E.li.5,
August 13, 2004
DIrector
Martin DeLeon
200 Coach Rd.
Arroyo Grande CA 93420
RE: 'PERMIT#2004-D-030
APN 001-581-002
This Department has reviewed the destrt.ction procedures performed on the well
located at Section 23, Township 32S, Range 13E, by Coast Drilling, The well was
r' destroyed in accordance with standards.
J
i\
r
j , Thank you for your cooperation.
i (l, (
RICHARD J. L1CHTENF , R.E.H.S., M.P.H. I
Supervising Environmental Health Specialist.
c: Assessor's Office
co: Well Driller
Page 187 of 299
o.,~
n
Attachment 3FF/,
B
@
0
is
a
SUBDIVISION
I
0
tr:r~ l -~0;'.".."
i.\,
llOJ
370)
CD
N4604S'C
448.35
@
1(' A-~f:J.u:R-l\ .f'r<.>p:>S <<. \ '
lQ.
MH
u\~~:~~'
N
0,/__________DIV/SONJ
22.3.{ _ ~ ~ _ -:.. .
FR;
7
N
111.11.<
0)
i
8~ewer-
MCA.l~
rl-L~ ., u.
1>""'-l1)0.,) '1;;1)
to
0
N ..' r
u.
N"-ll>.,.,
H
1.8.2~36'~_~ .~..-..
7.~ _ _ _ _ .. _ _ _ _ _ .
s'... 6045' W..
SLbCK&ASSESSOR . ,...'..NOTE '",.,., .
MSERS SHO,WN
R~cjY6GRANDI
0 @ LOTNJ./.
IN ,CIRCLES
CITY OF.A ' .,Page 188 of 299
p,RROyO 8~g~o
INCORPORATED 9Z
U O
m
JULY 10, 1911
c~°~~FORN`P MEMORANDUM
TO:CITY COUNCIL
FROM:DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN
APPLICATION BY SCOTT TREES TO DRILL AND INSTALL
REPLACEMENT IRRIGATION WELL ON A PROPERTY ZONED
AGRICULTURE PRESERVE; :APN 007-711-007; 871 EAST CHERRY
AVENUE (STAFF PROJECT~CASE NO. 07-010)
DATE:NOVEMBER 27, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council' adopt a Resolution approving the application by
Scott Trees to drill and install a replacement irrigation well on a property zoned
Agriculture Preserve; APN 007-711-007; 871'East Cherry Avenue.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There are no funding impacts associated with this project.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant has entered escrow to purchase an approximately 3 acre property zoned
Agricultural Preserve. The property includes a residence and is currently farmed as part
of a larger agricultural operation. The applicant intends to establish a new separate
agricultural use involving plant propagation. Currently, there are- two wells on the
property that have fallen into disrepair and cannot be salvaged. Part of the escrow
agreement requires the applicant to establish a new well prior to sale in order to ensure
adequate irrigation for future agricultural production. Arroyo Grande Municipal Code,
Chapter 13.08 requires Council approval for new or replacement wells or abandonment
of existing wells.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
Adopt the attached Resolution to; allow the drilling and installation of the
replacement well;
Modify and adopt the attached Resolution to allow the drilling and installation of
the replacement well;
Do not adopt the Resolution;
Provide direction to staff
9 r
JPage 189 of 299
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION BY
SCOTT TREES TO DRILL REPLACEMENT IRRIGATION WELL ON A PROPERTY
ZONED AGRICULTURE PRESERVE; APN'007-711-007; 871 EAST CHERRY
AVENUE (STAFF PROJECT CASE'!,NO. 07-010)
NOVEMBER 27, 2007
PAGE2OF3
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
Approval to drill a well may be granted if the Council determines 1) the welt will not
deplete nor contaminate the City water supply and 2) service from the City's water
system is neither practical nor feasible.
Depletion or Contamination
It is staff's opinion that the proposed replacement well will not deplete or contaminate
the City water supply based upon the proposed size, depth and location. Conditions of
approval for this project also protect the water supply by requiring the applicant to install
a backflow protection device and properly abandon existing on-site wells.
Practicality of Supply from the City's Water'.System
The City currently does not serve agricultural lands with potable water for irrigation
purposes. The property is .connected to the City's 4" water main for domestic use;
however, a separate connection to the City water system would be required to irrigate
the 2 acres of farmland. A properly sized meter would be a substantial cost to the
applicant.
ADVANTAGES:
Water for applied irrigation is a separate component of the safe yield of the groundwater
basin and is not included in the City's groundwater entitlement. In addition, allowing the
drilling of a well for agricultural purposes is consistent with the following General Plan
Policies:
Ag2-1 Maintain water resources for production agriculture, both in quality and in
quantity, so as to prevent the loss of agriculture due to competition for water with
urban development.
Ag2-1.2 Support efforts to provide needed surface and/or ground water
resources for agricultural irrigation to those properties zoned Agriculture, Very
Low Density and Low Density.
Lastly, the property is part of the Dixon' Ranch. Agricultural Preserve Conservation
Easement. The installation of the replacement well is consistent with the provisions of
this easement. Most importantly, provision for a new well assists the property in
remaining in active agricultural production.
DISADVANTAGES:
Even though irrigation is a separate component of the safe yield of the groundwater
basin and does not count against the amount of water for the urban users, a new well
q w_
JPage 190 of 299
I
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION BY
SCOTT TREES TO DRILL REPLACEMENT IRRIGATION WELL ON A PROPERTY
ZONED AGRICULTURE PRESERVE; APN 007-711-007; 871 EAST CHERRY
AVENUE (STAFF PROJECT CASE'NO. 07-010)
NOVEMBER 27, 2007
PAGE3OF3
would allow for additional groundwater use. However, as explained above, additional
groundwater use for the purposes of. agricultural irrigation is clearly consistent with the
City's General -Plan. Alternatively, supplying agricultural irrigation with domestic water
would count against the City's supply for urban users. The City's current water supply
analysis also does not account for this connection, which could use a substantial
amount of water per year depending on the specific crop and irrigation method.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project is categorically exempt per Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The agenda was posted on Wednesday, November 21, 2007. The agenda and staff
reports were also posted on the City's website on Wednesday, November 21, 2007. No
public comments were received as ofthe time of preparation of this report.
Attachments:
1.Aerial photograph of the property showing the approximate location of the
proposed well.
2.Well drilling agreement
g 39Page 191 of 299
k
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AN APPLICATION BY SCOTT
TREES TO DRILL A REPLACEMENT IRRIGATION WELL ON A
PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURE PRESERVE; APN 007-711-
007; 871 .EAST CHERRY ~AVEN~UE (STAFF PROJECT CASE NO.
07-010)
WHEREAS, Scott Trees has submitted an application to drill a replacement well to irrigate crops
at 871 East Cherry Avenue; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 requires City Council review and approval of all new
wells; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds the .well will not deplete nor contaminate the City water
supply based upon the use, design, depth and placement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that service from the City's water system is neither practical
nor feasible to irrigate agricultural crops due to associated costs, established General Plan
policies and existing water supply agreements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED'that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does
hereby approve Staff Project Case No. 07-010 authorizing the drilling and installation of an
agricultural irrigation well at 871 East Cherry Avenue subject to the conditions as set forth in
Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
On motion of Council Member seconded by Council Member and on the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 27th day of November 2007.
q
JPage 192 of 299
I
I~
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
V
r
Page 193 of 299
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
EXHIBIT A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
STAFF PROJECT CASE NO. 07-010
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1.The applicant shall ascertain and comply-with all State, County and City requirements
as are applicable to this project.
2.The event shall occur in substantial conformance with the application and plans on file in
the Public Works Department.
3.The applicant shall comply with all of the Conditions of Approval for Staff Project Case
No. 07-010.
4.The applicant .shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against
the City, its agents, .officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in
the alternative, to relinquish such ,approval: The applicant shall reimburse the City, its
agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its
agents, officers or employees .may be ,required by a court to pay as a result of such
action. The City may, at its sole discretion; participate at its own expense in the defense
of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations
under this condition.
5.The applicant shall install a backflow prevention device to the satisfaction of the Director
of Public Works.
6.The applicant shall abandon all existing wells on site and supply the Public Works
Department with a letter stating said abandonment by the County of San Luis Obispo
Public Health Department.
Page 194 of 299
Attachment 1
R r k ay d~ fait" pt.~~fit
f~tl Y* Srk",&i~`j i+m'~ti" i{~~ I~~X~~A'q~',~a'
F
i v~'f 5,~rtru+~
y
R.
a
1rv.~', , ~a~"~t.~
w,\
o
y
r a
k3~
r
d'
Proposed well ~a
0
ax.
yam..
x~.a c
m
r
t.,,:. F..u,a
ra;~~.
g:..
r r
may" r'~'r~'~ ~R
h
s e n . %s
x' ~R~ k
r,*~ s"w~a,~xr
3~' g r,~$y~, a'~`.a y t}r,, yr, "S"~"'~ ' i
871 East Cherry AvenueFeet
N Q~Page 195 of 299
ii11/16/2007 0:46 80577326$4 KELLER WILLIAMS PA~aE 01
Attachment 2
ililapani 8c
hampson
Grilling Inc.
3tATE L1CEN9E MO. C6~ 432980
PAs 8ox816 • ~,'CA90~d9 ~ PHON~~1~71
November 8, 2007
Scott Trees
P:O. Box 68
Guadalupe CA 93434
Dear Scott:
i'~ , w I
k
We appreciate the opportunity to provide you~with a proposal to dr t[ a well on
your property located on l:. Cherry Avenue in Arroyo Grande. 1 haver enclosed
an agreement along with this letter, which outlines the charges involved. ,
Listed below is a breakdown fora 100' minimum well.
San Luis tJbispoLLCounty Permit
Test Hate
Ream and Case w/5" SDR ~1 F-480 PVC
5" .040 Weli perforation
lapis #3 Sand Pack
San Luis Obispo County Sanitary Seal
Air Jetting:ao Develop Welt
9:.::Total: $ 6,$OD.00
If the above figure meets with your approval, plea$e sign.,the white copy and
send alongiwith your $2,OOO.aO deposit to our office. The yellow copy is for
your.,,records._ Upon receipt we will complete the permit~prc~~ess~~Onte~the site
has been ~;pproved;~~wexcan schedule'~the work to ~be~in. Feel free to contact i
nie at our office with any questions..l hope to hear from you soon a id look
forvvard to working with you on this project.
Thank you,:f
Ned M. Thompson ~
NMTlscs
f
r
n F>. r a v~
8r8 .~r 4•~sst. ?dV.. r.w~ vl St r '4'y.F lk
C ,~~in.Page 196 of 299
J
r
QNov. lb. 2007 12; 21 PNM Bob Davis Realtor 0~-528-4527 eos ass No_4530 P. 1
YltiP~o>~ai $
D>e~liag Ypsc.
ette atone rrt). ov+elew P.0.13mi a45 Atlscadoro, ~Pt77f9 93+429 SOS} 466.1271
at3R~EMENT
AORBEMENTWII'i1:8coC
J
f1'aas Pho~le i3~9-1802 CaiB
Msoir+gAddrses P.O.8o/1 t8$ Ouadelupp CA fY3454 34 9•E588 FaY
WELL LOCA'fpD; 871 E t'.hehyAvenua - Atroye tfroiide Acr:EAGE:8.4 APN ll oo~aTt-9oT
7F8.9 AQ~EMENT, madr arw enterod etbD this 8fn dror of Nnvantber 6 C' _
8atwaen Scott Trees harslnatiereRYpe t7WNER,epeL~j~Qlyf 8 THG1rIPSON,~IINO CQ.. fwrain.
allercall¦dOPEIiATt7R.
W1"t'NESSETH
W?1EREAS: Owner desired to on0eps pperatorte EflB a watYrwep et a bcepon destflnated by Owner on the fotlax np eesCrr'bec
Isnd tdcaoed In Bert Lula,Obiapo:Oourriy, 9tats ofCefHornta, to wR:
WNER£lti5: t]peretardeefree to drltl avid enterw0lk
NOW, tt~REPORE, In cMlaidereUa? of the rnunrau oovenenta Ord aynsmsnty to be palfonrred 4Y the paltlee b W ~graed a telbwe:
I . t]wnsr hereby yhrss Operator, h's ampwywe, snq equlprnant. esa Irtgteee ea+d egress upon that auwa dsBCribsd Irrlde for the par.
pass of anllnq acid wall or weus.
i. Owner Mnoy deslgnetea to Operator that a well approxlmalaly 7OtY feet h. depth eh. U be drltlao by Oper-
etor, aatdng 5'ryefnp t0 that depth,
7. Tha operator syreee agar Castag ro plee0p In sard wen to Na0 or blavr we I I rtrs o} aaceaelYO mod and send.
The gwrrr apreae to psY Operator 316.00 per ltyot from ql+ surfan of lM Around to tlta Tu11 dopM of the 1 let Kok dd0ed by
Operalvr.
b, ff feat hob >a ro>ttrrad and e;esed with b"PVC 8bR zt r•a80 en eddltlonel 316.00 per root v III be charged.
e. t~pe+atar eriroes le drill sate wdH or wpEls fi wozScmrnAke minrptaa k u9ual end proelJceble Inwpls• vae4 dAtm+g.
T- That Owner e~greve to pay Opsne?ar far use drilllnq of sold wag and t'eelnq p4ad to ssld wall a• ?Nroin before provided rpon eeMplo-
den of sold aroll.
8: It Is ap~eed between Owwlwr arW Cpsrator that sell t]peraldr dtks not lprereulies tin capedpl of fia~d weB, nor Ifw pualU r Ot Water
aontalnad Mleweln. U soy,
g. t~ryrrer egreea fc pay Operoter li3,1m0.00 on alpnlnp Ihle r>orArecl end baterwa In full when teeing Is sat and vedl walhW,
10, if Ipnooee rocft or deddad mstertei er ibee e1 Wroufetlen;. b etlGOUMerod, drI11Mg will cases er gv ~ en hourly nu edlar p ~ylnp fat fooi•
eigs drifted, Koury teU wl0 not tiegM wilhtwt Owners e:eneept
1i.~lf tgneaw rash b encavntared use of s button bll for rMt weR dnling wi11 ha,¦vagable at a ~1'ot,' "Ho ne!.fov4 with an
addiibntll charge Gf', ~a` " ' psi teat Eb ww wflh easing.
12. Drlwnq aY lrla hour S~•00 Owner pay 1hr mudrinatart~ls and b8e, nAlr~ttfnp INns lnoiwded fin ir:--X Alf nfi .
F
SS, A pdnlnWm prior for oorrlpletsd vra0 .w.:.Se~~Bllotlo ...f:.,:, Mbi9num price riff net hale _ i9.snoAO
f a, County eurl.4 eenllery seal end met ro bs eo171p1etad by Owlrtef a pperekr X Coat i~.ti00.0(
16. It le understood that should lhp eaeAred Esmme past due Uls Owner agrar b0 pay Ntlerwel In ins nM of 1 ~6 per hten~ until paid M fug
and eg copegton erglanwe Ytratdlrrp ateemeye teas arts cetrrl owls.
fe. A San Luis t]bbpo County Ws0 parn+lt vugl Ees etdquhad by the Droner aeon X test 8300.00
1 f 7. opareAor k net roepepaibls for oamsgeto urlderoround ugll0ee In rife am of the drslgrlD ltr~elian,
19. When well screen to fp Hs used en WA ereen vdgl aiet slrb ehe0 be Inelutlsd el halge oT.
Per foot.
16. The oast of pe tbrtawgl be" 'leokrdpd rper feet
f 90.1'he enrgdar sllees rheg he idled wl~ 1.eWeIS st a east or Included mn, r,:,
Z1, When feet pompfiq K requltrtd U1as k m etkltldnsl charge Oi ;hYA for Inamllpgan and removal, (el : pumWn9 noure st
per hour
Y2. It enE-togisrequired fh! otwrys for lopping Ndp bs WA
ZS. A0 thkd party eatVias wlq be hllped tD owner al Best pWs 1896.
u, All }Ipurae reptergnl adequate ICGbse.
YS, Add NIA per fool for drtltrtg esyond feet.
28. N bondvGtvr Pipe b needed add WA per. foottar -Terrrporery mnduc .o: wilt be pi¦wd and
rarnotrad tpr Time A Ma~edel
4T. Mud ewlleh war fdfA
2t;, YES Water On sIk t0 b0 auD Owner.
Ze. Ftlipponl end Thempsen Orllenp, Ina is nq neponePols for eanwpe td roads, ddvCwaye Or eRn aapge
30: fiedcflll dry holB i1,E0__0..0_O per Kris.7 v rt qty; ;p•«
97. AddHlonai conr+lsnls:
e+Fe work ie owwr'a reapotlebi4Yy.;f~leaee mete fhv,tlgaes lleied en Kern 413. YVir vrpuld be hapA'Y fo Prorlde You with a pump s
sadmets upon csmpktbe etwe0 drillbr0.
t-sr.~laa~sv,bw»«
NOTJGE '
s.cernrote,a.d,...aPr.rare~rr~mdwaaroarrrvuMr?tlnvpa•rArawaraenanaW ~er.rrmm~.ct~•
wwra6v¦lliiriiu~e'f+"wa~alba edl'eeie:era¦hm..mernrr..ri...s.n
VrWereuMrpreNra llwrlrw(GWNN¦Carl sea., e.gwn 7oe~Nra4)ry;.ca/iao~w.afar peanttleMtdo~ewew eta ..dr.0. fn deoonr~rry aq~pnrrr a.
WeWnmalr, Ileenr, Wpplx w alrrperwNMtro Ie0r1s Inprori Ya~r Prcerrp eA n petManer W ar.oNren, e. arMINMd ~x Mlgmir~lr i rY1 War drke er r.
norwarerrv..~ahwacvr~wu~h..~+a«nac..eme.e.t..rrewwrose•• nr•eee~d+dd+wiwn,.«tifor,~qt+wnaN«mmrrawurwaeae.a,o.a.,..a
aenl. eer¦m~rl.xYre f¦w Prrorb muM b..~e bYemul oR ~a•.d Yr oo•rsl'
d.dr der.W ~aeaa rNYhd,..µreadneea 744 ea.r,.Pp..getfyeY lie.. rb
rawweeeeraea6egeerrboereeareh4Vrrw,wrWpeBrra.r.ya.q,'Srrem70ea,hdr*pePrtlurreneemt
e.tlen rota, eureru ii,Mwta~lGatle W~'dort r. regi,.d ~ Ier m be lleerd..a nwl~ ry NCavratde e1Re
Lkweeeera l~Mpraedee.a~anNpMree/eti~~~arrande~Mawr-
v..rrar Matlreel. lr.n t~r6 ararernrae0ee,•uerrr+.eaw,lmerer, r.r.-urwnw etlrr rnrea ellhrRglrlnrWaraelwl.rlaflepaarr r: Doran rarr tltye arena
V1ie.Y,lrlflp. benyrWe7'a+r'p,aw.V~,srnW preaM Ab l.h"r. ~rRl~.ted.l,eKe,leeD 7r ebM4 awrrn«r.. G.em,/.rr0e.•."
hMeMerR4ltrpwi.Y tltle eesFetrewN~Ma'-tAt4er all swyw pr!'eettl!Nlya?'
IPeyWeletlr eYlM brarre broaesel~aMne suehwarrweeprew.ewR anar~W
arrWea for eu w.t W /npre.+rere ar,.eeflWtoe atr^aC Mere lrlke ot9r easy
Page 197 of 299