The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda Packet 2006-08-22City Council Tony Ferrara Mayor Jim Guthrie Mayor Pro Tem JIm Dickens Council Member Joe Costello Council Member Ed Arnold Council Member Agenda Steven Adams City Manager Timothy J. Carmel City Attorney Kelly Wetmore City Clerk AGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 22, 2006 7:00 P.M. Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers 215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M. 2. ROLL CALL: 3. FLAG SALUTE: 4. INVOCATION: KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS PASTOR ROBERT BANKER OPEN DOOR CHURCH 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: None. 6. AGENDA REVIEW: 6a. Move that all ordinances presented tonight be read in title only and all further readings be waived. AGENDA SUMMARY -AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 2 7. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present issues, thoughts, or suggestions on matters not scheduled on this agenda. Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal action on matters not published on the agenda. In response to your comments, the Mayor or presiding Council Member may: Direct City staff to assist or coordinate with you. A Council Member may state a desire to meet with you. It may be the desire of the Council to place your issue or matter on a future Council agenda. Please adhere to the following procedures when addressing the Council: • Comments should be limited to 3 minutes or less. • Your comments should be directed to the Council as a whole and not directed to individual Council members. • Slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member or member of the audience shall not be permitted. 8. CONSENT AGENDA: The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group. The recommendations for each item are noted. Any member of the public who wishes to comment on any Consent Agenda item may do so at this time. Any Council Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit discussion or change the rewmmended course of action. The City Council may approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda on one motion. 8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification (KRAETSCH) Recommended Action: Ratify the listing of cash disbursements for the period August 1, 2006 through August 15, 2006. 8.b. Statement of Investment Deaosits (KRAETSCH) Recommended Action: Receive and file the report of current investment deposits as of July 31, 2006. 8.c. 8.d. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution authorizing the FY 2006-07 property tax levy approved by voters on November 5, 2002. Complaints and Informal Administrative Review Process (ADAMS) Recommended Action: Approve the proposed policy and procedure regarding requests for service and complaints, including the establishment of an informal administrative review process. AGENDA SUMMARY -AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 3 8. CONSENT AGENDA: (Continued) 8.e. Approval for Payment of Emeraencv Exaenditures (FIBICH) Recommended Action: Approve payment to Brumit Diesel, Inc., in the amount of $13,365.54 for emergency repairs and appropriate $13,000 to the Department of Building and Fire Vehicle Maintenance Account. 8.f Ash Street. Constructed by S&S Homes (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution accepting the public improvements, easements, and rights of way for Tract 2505, Jasmine Place, located at Courtland Street and Ash Street, constructed by S&S Homes. 8.g. Works Department (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: Authorize staff to purchase a'/.-ton utility truck and the Extra Care Extended Warranty for the Public Works Department from Mullahey Ford in the amount of $24,655.45. 8.h. Consideration of a Resolution Adootina the FY 2006-07 Public Works Fees and Service Charges (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution approving the FY 2006-07 Public Works Fees and Service Charges. 8.i. Recommended Action: 1) Accept the project improvements, as constructed by Lee Wilson Electric Company, Inc., in accordance with the plans and specifications for the East Grand Avenue/Halcyon Road Traffic Signal Upgrade Project; 2) Direct staff to file a Notice of Completion; and 3) Authorize release of the retention of $19,883.90 thirty-five (35) days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded if no liens have been filed. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9.a. Recommended Action: Adopt the attached Resolution, denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit 06-002. AGENDA SUMMARY -AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 4 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Continued) 9.b. 9.c. 9.d. Recommended Action: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council: 1) adopt a Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving General Plan Amendment Case No. 06-001, reclassifying 11.1 acres from Community Facilities to Single Family Residential Low Density and reclassifying 1.2 acres from Agriculture to Community Facilities, including the extension of Castillo del Mar Drive from Orchard Street to Valley Road and 2) introduce an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map to designate the subject properties as Residential Hillside (RH) and Public Facility (PF), Development Code Amendment 06-004, Initiated by the City of Arroyo Grande for property located on and adjacent to the Arroyo Grande High School campus. If the Resolution and Ordinance are approved and introduced, respectively, a Resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 06-004 will be brought forward when the Ordinance is considered for adoption at the September 12, 2006 meeting. Improvements (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: 1) Select a preferred alignment for the Newsom Springs drainage improvements; 2) Direct staff to perform additional engineering analysis and to initiate- the environmental review process in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); 3) Appropriate $75,000.00 for environmental review process costs from the Unappropriated General Fund balance and transfer $25,000 from the Pavement Management Program Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget; and 4) Direct staff to work with representatives of the Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District to identify and apply for grant funding to further pursue future drainage improvements to reduce or eliminate impacts on existing agriculture land. 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS: None. (STRONG) Recommended Action: Adopt an Interim Urgency Ordinance to extend the suspension of acceptance and processing of new applications for development of any portion of property immediately adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek, Tally Ho Creek, Meadow Creek or creek tributaries within the City of Arroyo Grande. AGENDA SUMMARY -AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 5 11. ,NEW BUSINESS: None. 12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: This item gives the Mayor and Council Members the opportunity to present reports to the other members regarding committees, commissions, boards, or special projects on which they may be participating. (a) MAYOR TONY FERRARA: (1) San Luis Obispo Council of Governments/San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLOCOG/SLORTA) , (2) South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) (3) Other (b) MAYOR PRO TEM JIM GUTHRIE: (1) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC) (2) Other (c) COUNCIL MEMBER JIM DICKENS: (1) South County Area Transit (SCAT) (2) South County Youth Coalition (3) Other (d) COUNCIL MEMBER JOE COSTELLO: (1) Zone 3 Water Advisory Board (2) Air Pollution Control District (APCD) (3) Fire Oversight Committee (4) Fire Consolidation Oversight,Committee (5) Other (e) COUNCIL MEMBER ED ARNOLD: (1) Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA) (2) California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) (3) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) (4) Other 13. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS: The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by a Council Member who would like to receive feedback, direct staff to prepare information, and/or request a formal agenda report be prepared and the item placed on a future agenda. No formal action can be taken. a. None. AGENDA SUMMARY -AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 6 14. CITY MANAGER ITEMS: The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by the City Manager in order to receive feedback and/or request direction from the Council. No formal action can be taken. None. 15. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Council. 16. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Manager. 17. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present issues, thoughts, or suggestions. Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal action on matters not published on the agenda. 18. ADJOURNMENT ,~.~*.,t***......*..,,.~ All staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda are on file in the City Clerk's office and are available for public inspection and reproduction at cost. If requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. To make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, contact the Administrative Services Department at 805-473-5414 as soon as possible and at least 48 hours prior to the meeting date. Note: This agenda was prepared and posted pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2. Agenda reports can be accessed and downloaded from the City's website at www.arrovocrande.orp 8.a. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL M'P~ FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICE ~' 1 ` ~ BY: FRANCES R. HEAD, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISO SUBJECT: CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION DATE: AUGUST 22, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period August 1 through August 15, 2006. FUNDING: There is a $1,496,453.44 fiscal impact that includes the following items: Accounts Payable Checks 127505-127756 $1,058,258.51 Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks $ 438,194.93 All payments are within the existing budget. DISCUSSION: The attached listing represents the cash disbursements required of normal and usual operations. It is requested that the City Council approve these payments. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: Approve staffs recommendation; Do not approve staffs recommendation; Provide direction to staff. Attachments: Attachment 1 -August 1 -August 15, 2006, Accounts Payable Check Register Attachment 2 -August 4, 2006, Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks Register i apckHist 08/14/2008 10:48AM Check History Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Attachment 1 Page: 1 Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 127505 08/02/2006 001050 AMERICAN TEMPS 00044714 07/18/2006 1,171.60 44716 07/18/2006 910.00 00044777 08/01/2006 834.77 44654 07/11/2006 728.00 44776 08/01/2006 728.00 4,372.37 127506 08/02/2006 002632 API WASTE SERVICES 67S00037 07/28/2006 248.48 248.48 127507 08/02/2006 005507 AT & T 7/7-3960 07/07/2006 33.40 33.40 127508 08/02/2006 000065 BRENDA BARROW 072706 07/27/2006 133.39 133.39 127509 08/02/2006 000078 BLUEPRINT EXPRESS 29450 07/26/2006 12.87 12.87 127510 08/02/2006 005677 SEAN BRENNAN 72006 07/20/2006 60.00 60.00 127511 08/02/2006 005678 GERALD BREWSTER 13610 07/26/2006 1,200.00 1,200.00 127512 08/02/2006 000094 BRUMIT DIESEL, INC 90532 07/17/2006 122.73 122.73 127513 08/02/2006 000096 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. 32462 07/26/2006 385.79 385.79 127514 08/02/2006 000105 CA CONTRACTORS 74428 07/13/2006 106.15 106.15 127515 08/02/2006 004077 CA ST DEPT OF HEALTH 073106 07/31/2006 60.00 60.00 127516 08/02/2006 000603 CAROUEST AUTO PARTS 88676 07/10/2006 122.11 91233 07/19/2006 116.48 89255 07/12/2006 97.53 87343 07/05/2006 93.68 20472 08/01/2006 84.27 88934 07/11/2006 69.50 90495 07/17/2006 45.70 16290 07/19/2006 34.32 93154 07/26/2006 30.47 16291 07/19/2006 5.00 699.06 127517 08/02/2006 000149 CENTRAL COAST FENCE, 2006-440 07/25/2006 1,903.00 1,903.00 127518 08/02/2006 002309 COASTAL CHRISTIAN 072706 07/27/2006 430.00 430.00 Page:1 apCkHist 08/14/2006 9:50AM Check History Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: z Bank code: boa Check q Date Vendor Status Clear/VOid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 127519 08/02/2006 000174 COASTLINE EQUIPMENT 4910370 07/21/2006 837 .37 837 .37 127520 08/02/2006 000190 CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL L! N4037 07/14/2006 15 .00 15 .00 127521 08/02/2006 001854 JIM DECECCO 073106 07/31/2006 36 .00 36 .00 127522 08/02/2006 000208 J B DEWAR, INC 11678 07120/2006 212 .21 212 .21 127523 08/02/2006 004046 MATTHEW DI SALVO 072806 07/28/2006 20 .08 20 08 127524 08/0212006 005683 JULIE DOTSON 072406 07/2412006 30 00 30 00 127525 08/02/2006 000240 FARM SUPPLY CO 76441 07/2612006 106. 18 106 .18 127526 08/02/2006 001525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, 1122338 07/17/2006 664. 95 664 .95 127527 08/02/2006 004202 CLAIRE FLOYD 073106 07131/2006 22. 50 22 .50 127528 08/0212006 004790 DEANNA FLOYD 073106 07/31/2006 22. 50 22 .50 127529 08/02/2006 003590 SERENA FLOYD 073106 07/31/2006 45 00 45 .00 127530 08/02/2006 004825 FLAVA GALBREATH 073106 07/31/2006 36. 00 36 .00 127531 08/02/2006 002358 GREAT WESTERN ALARM 060710006 08/01/2006 25. 00 060710571 08/01/2006 25. 00 50 .00 127532 08/02/2006 004188 EDDIE HARRIS 073106 07/3112006 104. 00 104 .00 127533 08/0212006 000928 HI-TECH EMERGENCY 114992 07/21/2006 148. 81 148 .81 127534 08/02/2006 000290 HPC/EAGLE ENERGY 107019 07/17/2006 191. 16 191 .16 127535 08/02/2006 005681 MINDY JUSTICE 072406 07/24/2006 30. 00 30 .00 127536 08/02/2006 001793 J J KELLER & ASSOCIATES, 006377857 07/24/2006 140. 85 140 .85 127537 08/02/2006 004845 JOHN CARSON 073106 07/31/2006 54. 00 54 .00 127538 08/02/2006 005511 CHRIS LINTNER 073106 07/31/2006 60. 00 60 .00 127539 08/02/2006 001136 DOUG LINTNER 073106 07/31/2006 162. 00 162 .00 127540 08/02/2006 000405 CATHY MALLORY 072706 07/27/2006 18. 02 18 .02 Page: 2 apckHist 08/14/2006 9:50AM Check History Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 3 Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 127541 08/02/2006 000399 MC CARTHY STEEL, INC 1908 07/26/2006 257.19 257.19 127542 08/02/2006 005414 STEVE MC CLELLAN 073106 07/31/2006 54.00 54.00 127543 08/02/2006 000423 MID-STATE CONCRETE PRC 21540 07/05/2006 215.50 215.50 127544 08/02/2006 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, I 109998 07/26/2006 66.18 95342 07/31/2006 39.64 95014 07128/2006 37.89 94942 07/28/2006 2995 94811 07127/2006 28.40 92930 07/13/2006 21.12 93454 07/17/2006 19.88 93995 07/21/2006 19 26 94778 07/27/2006 19.04 93797 07/20/2006 17.14 95473 08/01 /2006 15.50 94604 07/25/2006 10.60 109999 07/26/2006 8.57 94821 07/2712006 4.82 95334 07/31/2006 3.21 94689 07/26/2006 132 342.52 127545 08/02/2006 000441 MULLAHEY FORD FOCS169484 07/18/2006 301.24 112900 07/26/2006 91.75 392.99 127546 08/02/2006 005679 KAMI OISBOID 072606 07126/2006 48.00 48.00 127547 08/02/2006 000481 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC C 7/20-190318 07/20/2006 106.92 106 92 127548 08/02/2006 005682 FRANK RAMIREZ 072406 07/24/2006 30.00 30.00 127549 08/02/2006 004833 STEVE ROMO 073106 07/31/2006 54.00 54.00 127550 08/02/2006 000536 GREG ROSE 073106 07/31/2006 54.00 54.00 127551 08/02/2006 003649 CHARLES D (DON) RUIZ 073106 07/31/2006 90.00 90.00 127552 08/02/2006 004365 DANIEL RUIZ 073106 07/31/2006 37.50 37.50 127553 08/02/2006 000578 ANN SARMIENTO 073106 07/31/2006 67.50 67.50 Page: 3 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 4 08114/2006 9:50AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor 127554 08/02/2006 003024 MARK SCHAFFER 127555 08/02/2006 003838 SILVAS OIL COMPANY, INC 127556 08/02/2006 004860 TAMMY SMITH 127557 08/02/2006 000598 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP 127558 08/02/2006 000609 BOB SPEAR 127559 08/02/2006 000620 STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY 127560 08/02/2006 000624 SUPERIOR QUALITY COPIEf 127561 08/02/2006 000637 TEXAS REFINERY CORP 127562 08/02/2006 002370 TITAN INDUSTRIAL 127563 08/02/2006 000659 UNDERGROUND SERVICE A 127564 08/02/2006 005326 UNITED PORTFOLIO MGT IN 127565 08/02/2006 005680 FRED VAN SLYKE 127566 08/02/2006 000689 WEST PAYMENT CENTER 127570 08/04/2006 005615 AT&T/MCI 127571 08/04/2006 000935 BRUCE BEAUDOIN & ASSOC 127572 08/04/2006 001917 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH 127573 08/04/2006 000084 THE BOXX EXPRESS 127574 08/04/2006 000090 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER YAI 127575 08/04/2006 000110 CA ST DEPT OF CORRECTI( 127576 08/04/2006 000994 CALVARY CHAPEL CHURCH Status ClearlVoid Date Invoice Inv. Date 073106 07131 /2006 211688 07117/2006 073106 07/31 /2006 156209 07128/2006 073106 07/31/2006 51008435.002 07/13/2006 S 1009912-001 07/26/2006 33557 07/18/2006 770405 07/19/2006 1013619 07/21/2006 60070152 07/20/2006 19106 07125/2006 072406 07124/2006 811790024 07/20/2006 T5190554 06/28/2006 T5215071 07/01/2006 T5206177 06/29/2006 T5215054 07/01/2006 10757 04/25/2006 JUNE 2006 06/06/2006 201 07/11 /2006 128971 05/31 /2006 6273 07/19/2006 REFUND 07/24/2006 Amount Paid Check Total 54.00 54.00 3,481.34 3,481.34 60.00 60.00 183.19 183.19 54 00 54.00 246.34 18.13 264.47 797.72 797.72 309.55 309.55 317.17 317 17 250.56 250.56 148.50 148.50 30.00 30.00 205 38 205.38 88.51 85.31 2s.os 17.66 220.53 1,500.00 1,500 OC 210.00 210.OC 46.61 46.61 21.41 21.41 5,127.92 5,127.92 29.00 29.OC Page: 4 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 5 08/1412008 9:50AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearlVOid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 127577 08/04/2006 004548 CARMEL & NACCASHA, LLP V 08/08/2006 10501 08/02/2006 13,992 .24 V 08/08/2006 10502 08/02/2006 2,636 .25 16,628. 49 127578 08/04/2006 000603 CAROUEST AUTO PARTS 75156 05119/2006 234 .35 7314-C75209 05/19/2006 -76 .05 7314-94877 08/02/2006 -155 .20 3. 10 127579 08/04/2006 000157 CENTRAL VALLEY TOXICOL 110489 06/25/2006 60 .00 60. 00 127580 08/04/2006 004440 CHOICEPOINT BUSINESS & A60001463164 06/30/2006 250 .00 250. 00 127581 08/04/2006 005685 CLARK CENTER ASSOCIATI~ REFUND 07/24/2006 62 .00 62. 00 127582 08/04/2006 005686 JENNY COELHO REFUND 07/24/2006 29 .00 29. 00 127583 08/04/2006 005688 DESERAE DOMINGUEZ REFUND 08/02/2006 29 .00 29. 00 127584 08/04/2006 005106 ESGIL CORP 07060304 07/27/2006 1,194 .08 1,194. 08 127585 08/04/2006 003289 EXXONMOBIL FLEET/GECC 10818054 07/06/2006 147 .54 147. 54 127586 08/04/2006 000330 INFORMATION TECH DEPT 4569 06/30/2006 172 .03 172. 03 127587 08104/2006 000366 KEY TERMITE & PEST CONT 15616 06/30/2006 52 .00 52. 00 127588 08/04/2006 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOC 060932 06/30/2006 280 .00 060930 06/30/2006 96 .25 060931 06/30/2006 87 .50 060924 06130/2006 60 .50 524. 25 127589 08/04/2006 005151 MICHAEL MARTINEZ 080306 08/03/2006 1,561 44 1,561. 44 127590 08/04/2006 000966 GEORGE MC GILLIGAN REFUND 08/02/2006 29 00 29. 00 127591 08/04/2006 004982 JENNIFER MCGEE REFUND 08/02/2006 58 .00 58. 00 127592 08/04/2006 005689 ED MCOUARRIE REFUND 08/02/2006 29 .00 29. 00 127593 08/04/2006 005690 KATE MILLER REFUND 07/24/2006 29 .00 29. 00 127594 08/04/2006 000965 MARIAN MITCHELL REFUND 07/24/2006 58 .00 58. 00 127595 08104/2006 000441 MULLAHEY FORD FOCS167526 06/30/2006 2,389 .47 Page: 5 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: s 08114/2006 9:50AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor 127596 08/04/2006 004550 OAK PARK CHRISTIAN CHUi 127597 08/04/2006 001886 OFFICEMAX -HSBC BUS.SOI 127598 08/04/2006 000477 P J'S TOP SHOP 127599 08/04/2006 004158 PHOENIX GROUP 127600 08/04/2006 000498 PITNEY BOWES, INC 127601 08/04/2006 000531 RICHETTI WATER CONDITIC 127602 08/04/2006 003089 RINCON CONSULTANTS, IN( 127603 08/04/2006 005684 KRISTIANE SCHMIDT DVM 127604 08/04/2006 000587 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIBUTC 127605 08/04/2006 001465 ELMER OR RUTH SMITH 127606 08/04/2006 000623 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASf^ 127607 08/04/2006 005691 MARGARITA VALDEZ 127608 08/04/2006 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS 127609 08/04/2006 000704 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS II 127612 08/08/2006 000376 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC 127613 08/08/2006 003265 PLATINUM PLUS FOR BUSIt` Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total FOCS168255 06/30/2006 190.39 2,579.86 REFUND 08/02/2006 29.00 29.00 03311 J 1781 06/27/2006 14.45 14 45 723445 07/31/2006 869.80 869.80 62006157 07/12/2006 157.30 157.30 7147128-JY06 07/13/2006 165.00 165.00 44308 07/01 /2006 15.00 15.00 9180 06/30/2006 1, 750.00 1, 750.00 155 08/02/2006 4,687.40 4,687.40 CFN94439 06/3012006 30.25 30.25 REFUND 07/24/2006 29.00 29.00 824 06/30/2006 120.11 120.11 REFUND 08/02/2006 47.50 47.50 2055668961 07/07/2006 487 44 2054758555 07/04/2006 301.44 788.88 T5293 07/04/2006 350.00 350.00 4662227 07/21/2006 18.71 18.71 7/20-0918 07/20/2006 2,073.07 7/20-6305 07/20/2006 733.59 7/20-6347 07/20/2006 31777 7/20-2611 07/20/2006 280.76 7/20-6313 07/20/2006 12767 7/20-6289 07/20/2006 54.00 7/20-9686 07/20/2006 44.00 7/20-6263 07/20/2006 40.00 7120-6289(2) 07/20/2006 15.63 3,686.49 Page:6 apckHist Check History Listing Page: ~ 08/14/2008 9:50AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check p Date Vendor 127614 08/08/2006 000620 STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY 127615 08/08/2006 004548 CARMEL & NACCASHA, LLP 127634 08/09/2006 005676 JEFF DRIGGERS 127635 08/09/2006 005675 KATHY PRISCILIANO 127636 08/09/2006 005694 S&S HOMES 127637 08/09/2006 005693 CRAIG SUTTON 127638 08/09/2006 005697 AG SPANISH OAKS LLC 127639 08/09/2006 005687 ERIKA DIAZ 127640 08/09/2006 005701 DAVID DUNBAR 127641 08/09/2006 005692 VANCE ENDSLEY 127642 08/09/2006 005085 EVERYDAY CHURCH 127643 08/09/2006 005700 RENEE FRENCH 127644 08/09/2006 005699 DAVID OR BRENDA GLEASC 127645 08/09/2006 005698 RAYLIN HANSON 127646 08/09/2006 000492 PETTY CASH 127647 08/11/2006 000009 ADDICTION MED CONSULTF 127648 08/11/2006 001050 AMERICAN TEMPS 127649 08/11/2006 005180 APEX OUTDOOR POWER EC 127650 08/11/2006 001997 ARCH WIRELESS 127651 08/11/2006 000042 ARROYO GRANDE FLOWER Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total S1010003.001 07127/2006 66.03 S1009384.001 07/27/2006 42.70 108.73 10501/10502 08/02/2006 14,564.10 14,564.10 Ref000069848 08/02/2006 139.76 Ref000069689 07/28/2006 18.73 158.49 Ref000069688 07/28/2006 48.19 48.19 Ref000069850 08/02/2006 28.93 2893 Ref000069849 08102/2006 26.20 26.20 1000 08/07/2006 6,124.00 6,124.00 REFUND 07/18/2006 125.00 125.00 REFUND 08/08/2006 29.00 29 00 REFUND 07/11/2006 40.00 40.00 REFUND 08108/2006 29.00 29.00 REFUND 08/08/2006 29.00 29 00 REFUND 08/08/2006 162.25 162.25 REFUND 08108/2006 29.00 29.00 PETTY CASH-PD 06/23/2006 1 17 1.17 14054003 07/20/2006 49.50 49.50 44778 08/01 /2006 1, 086.40 44842 08/02/2006 1,059.24 44840 08/02/2006 182.00 2,327.64 27201 07/17/2006 2.15 2.15 P3257180G 06/27/2006 842.30 842.30 30912 07/3112006 69.71 Page: 7 apCkHist 08/14/2006 9:50AM Check History Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page:8 Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor 127652 08/11/2006 005507 AT & T 127653 08/11/2006 005615 ATBT/MCI 127654 08/1112006 001758 AUTO GLASS CENTRAL 127655 08/11/2006 000051 AVILA SIGN & DESIGN 127656 08/11/2006 000065 BRENDA BARROW 127657 08/11/2006 001944 BASIC CHEMICAL SOLUTIOP 127658 08/11/2006 000935 BRUCE BEAUDOIN & ASSOC 127659 08/11/2006 000077 A BETTER BEEP 127660 08/11/2006 005696 BREAKAWAY TOURS & EVEI 127661 08/11/2006 000087 BREZDEN PEST CONTROL, 127662 08/11/2006 000090 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER YAI 127663 08/11/2006 001577 BURDINE PRINTING 127664 08/11/2006 000095 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, I~ 127665 08/11/2006 000134 CA ST DEPT OF JUSTICE Status Clear/Void Date Invoice 31080 7/8-9867 7/7-7480 75292780 75323978 75349483 75340165 75349464 74349466 75349461 75349460 75349465 013777 0521 REIMBURSEMENT SI5201838 10790 10726508 10727252 2422 56330 129774 129674 8188 8213 8231 2324068 577832 Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 07/31/2006 4987 119.58 07/08/2006 80.86 07/07/2006 67.79 148.65 07/01/2006 289.63 07/07/2006 88.51 07/11/2006 87.04 07/08/2006 29.55 07/11/2006 2919 07/11/2006 17.69 07/11/2006 16.68 07/11/2006 14.74 07/11/2006 14.44 587.47 07/05/2006 238.41 238.41 05/21/2006 225.00 225.00 08/07/2006 46.24 46.24 07/24/2006 617.21 617.21 07/3112006 2,000.00 2,000.00 07/01 /2006 134.25 08/01/2006 134.25 268.50 08/02/2006 310.00 310.00 08/03/2006 109.00 109.00 07/31/2006 214.69 07/25/2006 4.56 219.25 07/22/2006 543.20 07/22/2006 484.68 07/21/2006 342.95 1,370.83 08/0112006 28.74 2874 06!30/2006 2,789.00 2,789.00 Page: 8 apckHist Check History Listing Page: 9 08114/2006 9:SOAM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 127666 08/11/2006 003053 CID CABRIALES REIMBURSEMENT 07113/2006 750.00 750.00 127667 08111/2006 000603 CAROUEST AUTO PARTS 91433 07/20/2006 57.14 127668 08/11/2006 003854 CCMF - CA CITY MGT FOUN' 127669 08/11/2006 002771 CENTRAL COAST GASES 127670 08/1112006 000160 CHAPARRAL 127671 08/11/2006 001990 CHARTER COMMUNICATIOP 127672 08/11/2006 000163 CHERRY LANE NURSERY 127673 08/11/2006 003411 CLEAN SWEEP JANITORIAL 127674 08/1112006 005702 BETTY CLINE 127675 08/11/2006 003599 COMMERCIAL SANITARY Sl 127676 08/11/2006 002868 MICHELLE COTA 127677 08/11/2006 000113 CPCA - CA POLICE CHIEFS I 127678 08/11/2006 004481 CRITICAL REACH 127679 08/11/2006 000196 CUESTA EQUIPMENT CO 127680 08/11/2006 000201 D G REPAIR 127681 08/11/2006 001515 KIMBERELY DE BLAUW 89114 07/12/2006 53.97 94209 07/31/2006 53.27 94673 08/01/2006 4.91 169.29 MEMBERSHIP 07/01/2006 350 00 350.00 49868 07/31/2006 567.50 567.50 246018 08/04/2006 132.00 132.00 080206 08102/2006 194.95 194.95 18739 07/24/2006 514.37 18489 07/08/2006 120.04 18448 07/03/2006 69.70 18505 07/11/2006 15.00 719.11 1678 08/01/2006 4,587.15 4,587.15 REFUND 08/02/2006 30.00 30.00 10172 07/28/2006 550.19 10164 07/24/2006 79.15 10165 07/24/2006 77.01 706.35 REIMBURSEMENT 08/07/2006 198.00 198.00 218 07/0112006 260.00 2331 07/01/2006 75.00 2549 07/01/2006 75.00 410.00 071706-1104 07/1712006 250.00 250.00 323856 07/26/2006 65.98 65.98 1430 07/16/2006 110.74 110.74 REIMBURSEMENT 07/3112006 120.00 120.00 Page: 9 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 10 08114/2006 9:SOAM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE _ Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearlVOid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 127682 08/11/2006 001854 JIM DECECCO 080806 08/10/2006 54.00 54.00 127683 08/11/2006 005091 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 10428932 07/26/2006 131.73 10428933 07/26/2006 36.13 10388621 07/2012006 31.60 199.46 127684 08/11/2006 001840 DELL MARKETING LP P17948298 07/31/2006 4,903.65 4,903.65 127685 08/11/2006 005149 EATON POWER QUALITY CC 1424925 07/26/2006 2,107.67 2,107.67 127686 08/11/2006 004164 FEDEX 1-143-13221 08/07/2006 50.46 1-130-20429 07/21/2006 43.27 93.73 127687 08/1112006 001525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, 1126983 07/21/2006 436.31 1122058 07/25/2006 200.56 636.87 127688 08/11/2006 004821 FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE 06-222682-BE 08/09/2006 826,022.50 826,022.50 127689 08/11/2006 004202 CLAIRE FLOYD 080806 08110/2006 22.50 22.50 127690 08/11/2006 004790 DEANNA FLOYD 080806 08/10/2006 22.50 22.50 127691 08/11/2006 003590 SERENA FLOYD 080806 08/10/2006 45.00 45.00 127692 08/11/2006 000262 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY, INC 23624 07/22/2006 25.55 23545 07/13/2006 15.02 23551 07/14/2006 15.00 23625 07/27/2006 8.58 64.15 127693 08/11/2006 004825 FLAVA GALBREATH 080806 08/1012006 108.00 108.00 127694 08111/2006 000605 THE GAS COMPANY 8/1-140 08/01/2006 75.56 8/1-211 08/01/2006 31.49 107.05 127695 08/11/2006 002288 GT DISTRIBUTORS, INC INV0151525 07/05/2006 410.45 INV0153201 08/01/2006 345.72 756.17 127696 08/11/2006 000293 HAINES & COMPANY, INC 93014 08105/2006 223.64 223.64 127697 08/11/2006 004188 EDDIE HARRIS 080806 08110/2006 72.00 72.00 127698 08/11/2006 000301 HEACOCK TRAILERS & TRU 22175 07/13/2006 166.45 Page: 10 iii apCkHist 0811412006 9:50AM Check History Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 11 Bank code: boa Check # Date- Vendor 127699 08/11/2006 002931 HECKLER & KOCH, INC 127700 08/11/2006 000307 BOB HICKS TURF EQUIPMEI 127701 08/11/2006 004329 IACP POLICY CENTER 127702 08/11/2006 002820 INDOFF, INC 127703 08/11/2006 000345 J J'S FOOD COMPANY, INC 127704 08/11/2006 005201 JAS PACIFIC 127705 08/11/2006 005703 CYNDI JASPER 127706 08/11/2006 003949 KERN'S PAPER CONNECTIO 127707 08/11/2006 004015 DAN LANGSTAFF 127708 08/11/2006 004845 JOHN CARSON 127709 08/11/2006 002653 LAW ENFORCEMENT LEGAL 127710 08/11/2006 000387 LINSON SIGNS 127711 08/11/2006 005511 CHRIS LINTNER 127712 08/11/2006 001136 DOUG LINTNER 127713 08/11/2006 000388 SUSAN LINTNER 127714 08/11/2006 005705 JESSE LOPEZ 127715 08/11/2006 000419 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE Status Clear/VOid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 22268 07/26/2006 32.18 198.63 225154 07/21/2006 64.67 64.67 24750 08/01 /2006 102.13 24619C 07/17/2006 -40.85 61.28 081006 08/10/2006 30.00 30.00 755872 08/04/2006 217.53 217.53 154478 08104/2006 241.71 241.71 818965 08/07/2006 6,408.00 6,408.00 REFUND 08/02/2006 30.00 30.00 18036 07/27/2006 419.13 17993 07/13/2006 330.76 18077 07/27/2006 130.31 880.20 REIMBURSEMENT 07/26/2006 980.43 980.43 080806 08/10/2006 90.00 90.00 081006 08/10/2006 39.50 39.50 5038 07/18/2006 470.00 470.00 080806 08/10/2006 52.50 52.50 080806 08/08/2006 162.00 162.00 071106 07/11/2006 40.00 40.00 REFUND 08/02/2006 30.00 30.00 14906 07/27/2006 170.51 14806 07/18/2006 154.43 0015004 08/04/2006 154.29 14909 07/27/2006 76.41 14669 07/06/2006 31.47 14858 07/24/2006 31.47 Page: 11 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 12 08/14/2006 9:50AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearlVoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 14964 08/01/2006 31.47 14993 08/03/2006 31.47 681.52 127716 08/11/2006 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, I 95805 08/04/2006 186.51 95467 08/01 /2006 54.83 95809 08/04/2006 53 87 94935 07/28/2006 48.25 95333 07/31/2006 32.11 93835 07/20/2006 26.75 94549 07/25/2006 26.13 94503 07/25/2006 24.08 94781 07/27/2006 24.08 96142 08/07/2006 23.16 95589 08/02/2006 19.28 94333 07/24/2006 19.17 95585 08/02/2006 18.22 96165 08/07/2006 14.97 95704 08/03/2006 13.58 96270 08/08/2006 10.70 95812 08/04/2006 9 64 95584 08/02/2006 7.00 94662 07/26/2006 6.63 95760 08/03/2006 6.63 ' 95019 07/28/2006 4.82 95811 08/04/2006 3.21 95509 08/01/2006 2.67 95814 08/04/2006 2.65 638.94 127717 08/11/2006 000441 MUILAHEY FORD PO#953 07/31/2006 21,372.04 FOCS170028 08/03/2006 2,411.63 FOCS167721 07/06/2006 309.15 FOCS170223 08/04/2006 188.61 FOCS168807 07/05/2006 143.67 FOCS169367 07/11/2006 126.84 FOCS169285 07/05/2006 37.81 FOCS168282 07/05/2006 34.60 24,624.35 127718 08/11/2006 005650 NAPA AUTO PARTS 72064 07/13/2006 127 57 127.57 Page: 12 apckHist Check History Listing Page: 13 08114/2006 9:50AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 127719 08/11/2006 002927 NATIONAL RESOURCE SAFE 75652 07/24/2006 19. 40 19.40 127720 08/11/2006 005228 KERI NELSON 080706 08/10/2006 6. 44 6.44 127721 08/11/2006 000466 NOBLE SAW, INC 155248 07/07/2006 180. 16 155645 07/13/2006 35. 33 215.49 127722 08/11/2006 002174 NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KN( 197799 07/13/2006 314. 01 314.01 127723 08/11/2006 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 344120494-001 07/14/2006 280. 69 343536262-001 07/07/2006 107. 59 344397604-001 07/14/2006 53. 40 441.68 127724 08/11/2006 005707 LINDA OLDS REFUND 08/07/2006 150. 00 150.00 127725 08/11/2006 000470 ON-DUTY UNIFORMS & EQU 50617 07/06/2006 41. 32 41.32 127726 08/11/2006 000481 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC C 8532998718-5 07128/2006 33,380 56 7/21-194097 07/21/2006 14,355. 62 7/21-019097 07121/2006 45. 63 47,781.81 127727 08/11/2006 005284 R & B MOBILE EQUIPMENT E 072106 07/21/2006 211. 55 211 55 127728 08/11/2006 000523 R & T EMBROIDERY, INC 29178 07/11/2006 105. 11 105.11 127729 08/11/2006 005704 RAGAN COMMUNICATIONS 080206 08/02/2006 89. 00 89.00 127730 08/11/2006 000531 RICFIETTI WATER CONDITIC 45267 08/01/2006 15. 00 15.00 127731 08/11/2006 002670 RICOH LEASING 06080657651 08/04/2006 155. 28 155.28 127732 08/11/2006 003031 ROBERTSON SUPPLY 6214 07/31/2006 192. 14 6213 07/31/2006 118. 00 310.14 127733 08/11/2006 004833 STEVE ROMO 080806 08/10/2006 54. 00 54.00 127734 08/11/2006 000536 GREG ROSE 080806 08/10/2006 36. 00 36.00 127735 08/11/2006 003649 CHARLES D (DON) RUIZ 080806 08/10/2006 105. 00 105.00 127736 08/11/2006 004365 DANIEL RUIZ 080806 08/10/2006 67. 50 67.50 127737 08/11/2006 002932 RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP 478907 07/20/2006 819. 00 Page: 13 apCkHist 08114/2006 9:SOAM Check History Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: la Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 478896 07/20/2006 811.13 478895 07/20/2006 42.00 1,672.13 127738 08/11/2006 000803 SAN LUIS MAILING SVC 30625 08/02/2006 1,586.37 1,586.37 127739 08/11/2006 000545 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO S030000073 07/06/2006 4,000.00 4,000.00 127740 08/11/2006 000578 ANN SARMIENTO 080806 08/10/2006 45.00 45.00 127741 08/1112006 003024 MARK SCRAPPER 080806 08/10/2006 126.00 126.00 127742 08/11/2006 000587 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIBUTC CFN94817 07/15/2006 59.27 CFN95197 07/31/2006 51.77 11104 127743 08/11/2006 001434 SLO COUNTY IWMA 81106 08/11/2006 5,000.00 5,000.00 127744 08/11/2006 000731 SLO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DE 071406 07/14/2006 6,660.00 6,660.00 127745 08/11/2006 004860 TAMMY SMITH 080806 08/10/2006 45.00 45.00 127746 08/11/2006 003641 SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY 1516363 08/01/2006 207.72 1514614 08/01/2006 106.76 1521352 08/01/2006 106 76 1517523 08/01/2006 5 62 426.86 127747 08/1112006 000613 STATEWIDE SAFETY & SIGH 49621 07/31/2006 33.78 33.78 127748 08/1112006 000616 STERLING COMMUNICATIOI 21867 07/01/2006 974.00 21914 07/26/2006 370.01 21897 07/09/2006 150.00 21886 07/09/2006 141.71 21887 07/09/2006 92.50 1,728.22 127749 08/1112006 005706 JENNIFER STOVER REFUND 08/02/2006 30.00 30 00 127750 08/11/2006 000620 STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY S1010049.001 07/27/2006 69.53 69.53 127751 08/11/2006 000624 SUPERIOR QUALITY COPIEF 33569 07/19/2006 2,649.98 2,649.98 127752 08/11/2006 002370 TITAN INDUSTRIAL 1013324 07/03/2006 341.70 1013693 07/27/2006 184.32 1013377 07/07/2006 149.94 Page: 14 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 15 08114/2006 9:50AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 127753 08/11/2006 000642 TOSTE GRADING & PAVING 127754 08/11/2006 000669 UNION ASPHALT, INC 127755 08/1112006 000687 WAYNE'S TIRE, INC 127756 08/1112006 002289 WULFING'S BACKGROUND t 1013692 1013323 1013717 3173-IN 241933 760077 759654 759750 760059 071706 07/27/2006 74.78 07/03/2006 5792 07/27/2006 11.59 820.25 07/25/2006 1, 500.00 1, 500.00 07/20/2006 2,044.13 2,044.13 08102/2006 418.84 07117/2006 165.05 07/20/2006 23.13 08/02/2006 23.13 630.15 07/17/2006 200.00 200.00 boa Total: 1,058,258.51 229 checks in this report Total Checks: 1,058,258.51 Page: 15 Attachment 2 DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION PAY PERIOD 07/74/06 - 07127/06 08104/08 FUND 010 395,193.14 5101 Salaries Full time 194,825. 08 FUND 220 16,331.40 5102 Salaries Part-Time - PPT 21,261. 17 FUND 284 - 5103 Salaries Part-Time - TPT 17,551. 15 FUND 612 7,868.93 5105 Salaries OverTime 18,467. 69 FUND 640 18,801.46 5107 Salaries Standby 379. 61 438,194.93 5108 Holiday Pay 7,927. 19 5109 Sick Pay 3,024 66 5110 Annual Leave Buyback - 5111 Vacation Buyback 5112 Sick Leave Buyback 5113 Vacation Pay 12,352 .50 5114 Comp Pay 10,952 .35 5115 Annual Leave Pay 7,885 .36 5121 PERS Retirement 73,881 .28 5122 Social Security 20,784 .64 5123 PARS Retirement 462 .03 5126 State Disability Ins. 1,142 .65 5127 Deferred Compensation 775 .00 5131 Health Insurance 38,806 .08 5132 Dentallnsurance 4,893 .42 5133 Vision Insurance 1,099 .24 5134 Life Insurance 573 .83 5135 Long Term Disability - 5143 Uniform Allowance - 5144 Car Allowance 875 .00 5146 Council Expense 5147 Employee Assistance - 5148 Boot Allowance - 5149 Motor Pay 75 .00 5150 Bi-Lingual Pay 200 .00 438,194 .93 8.b. TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES BY: FRANCES R. HEAD, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOFj~~ SUBJECT: STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT DEPOSITS ((// DATE: AUGUST 22, 2006 ~ ~-~, RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council receive and file the attached report listing the current investment deposits of the City of Arroyo Grande, as of July 31, 2006, as required by Government Code Section 53646 (b). DISCUSSION: This report represents the City's investments as of July 31, 2006. It includes all investments managed by the City, the investment institution, investment type, book value, maturity date, and rate of interest. As of July 31, 2006, the investment portfolio was in compliance with all State laws and the City's investment policy. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: • Approve staffs recommendation; • Do not approve staff's recommendation; • Provide direction to staff. Attachment: Portfolio Summary CITY OF .• ~ • Y:~ CALIFOF2N IA/y A,~ CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary July 31, 2006 City of Arroyo Grande 214 E. Branch St. Arroyo Grande, CA 93430 Phone: (805)473-5400 Interest Investments Book Value Interest Rate Rate PY Date of Purchase Term Maturity Date % of Portfolio Local Agency Investment Funds $ 10,349,866.27 4.85% 3.08% 86.00% Certicates of Deposit -Banks First Standard Bank 99,000.00 4.96% December 2, 2005 365 December 2, 2006 0.82% Redding Bank of Commerce 99,000.00 4.95% February 8, 2006 14 Mos. April 7, 2007 0.82% Bank of Santa Clarita 99,000.00 5.05% March 9, 2006 365 March 9, 2007 0.82% International City Bank 99,000.00 5.22% April 5, 2006 365 April 5, 2007 0.82% Granite Community Bank 500,000.00 5.20% April 23, 2006 365 April 23, 2007 4.15% Redding Bank of Commerce 500,000.00 5.48% May 17, 2006 9 Mos. February 17, 2007 4.15% Golden Security Bank 90,000.00 5.62% June 20, 2006 360 June 20, 2007 0.75% Mission NB 100,000.00 5.75% July 10, 2006 365 July 10, 2007 0.83% First Credit Bank $ 99,000.00 5.70% July 26, 2006 365 July 25, 2007 0.82% Total Certificates of Deposit $ 1,685,000.00 14.00% Total Investments $ 12,034,866.27 100.00% 8.c. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL ~ ,pql FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES 1°~ ~'i~ SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FIRE STATION EXPANSION GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PROPERTY TAX LEVY RATE DATE: AUGUST 22, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the FY 2006- 07 property tax levy approved by voters on November 5, 2002. The San Luis Obispo County Auditor Controller's Office has calculated a .00964% levy per $100 of assessed value. FUNDING: The tax levy rate of .00964% is expected to result in revenues of approximately $202,000. This will provide sufficient revenues for paying FY 06-07 principal and interest of $137,145; paying agent fees and banking administrative cost of $1,800; San Luis Obispo County handling charges of $450; and a reserve of approximately $60,000. The .00964% rate is a decrease from last year's rate of .0110%. DISCUSSION: On November 5, 2002, voters approved Measure 0-02, authorizing the expansion of the Arroyo Grande Fire Station and the issuance of $1,900,000 in general obligation bonds. The Measure, which was approved by more than two-thirds of the Arroyo Grande voters, authorized bonded indebtedness and placing a tax on real property within the Arroyo Grande city limits. The election results were subsequently certified and the bonds issued in accordance with all laws and regulations. Interest and principal payments, paying agent fees and banking administrative costs on the general obligation bonds are due during FY 2006-07. The San Luis Obispo County Auditor-Controller requires that all tax levies be submitted by August 31, 2006 for collection and remittance in December 2006 and April 2007. Staff from the SLO Auditor-Controller's office and the City concur on the amount required for principal, interest, and fees; the calculation arriving at the tax levy rate; and the tax levy rate amount of .00964%. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AUTHORIZING THE FIRE STATION EXPANSION PROPERTY TAX LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 WHEREAS, City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California , ("City") is duly authorized and existing under the laws of said State; and WHEREAS, in the City of Arroyo Grande, a special election (the "Election") was duly and regularly held on the 5~" day of November 2002, in that territory included within the boundaries of the City at which Election there was submitted to the qualified voters of said City the following question: MEASURE 0-02: Shall the City of Arroyo Grande expand the Fire Station including the addition of sleeping facilities, a federally required area for safe clean up of blood-borne pathogens, a federally required room to store turnout clothing, a system to divert vehicle exhaust from the apparatus rooms, an expanded training room, fire sprinklers, seismic retrofit of the facility to meet current standards, and expansion of the apparatus bay, by issuing $1,900,000 in general obligation bonds; and WHEREAS, more than two-thirds of the votes cast at the November 5, 2002 General Municipal Election were in favor of and assented to the incurring of such indebtedness, and the City Council of the City is now authorized and empowered to provide for the form of bonds of the City, and for the issuance thereof for the purpose and objects provided for in the election, payable, .principal and interest, from taxes levied exclusively upon the taxable real property within the City, as permitted by law: and WHEREAS, the City issued its General Obligation Bonds, Series A of 2003 (Fire , Station Project) in the amount of $1,900,000 pursuant to Resolution No. 3648, adopted by the City Council of the City, which bonds were issued for the purpose of the fire station expansion and retrofitting project (the "Bonds"); and WHEREAS, the City Council is further authorized to determine by resolution on or ' before August 31 of each year, the specific tax to be levied on each parcel of land in the ' City; and WHEREAS, it is now necessary and appropriate that the City Council of the City levy and collect the taxes for Fiscal Year 2006-07 for the purpose specified in the Election, by the adoption of a resolution; and RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby resolves as follows: 1. In accordance with Government Code Section 43632, there is hereby levied upon the parcels of land within the City the taxes for Fiscal Year 2006-07 (the "Taxes"), at the tax rates set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. The City Manager or his designee (the "City Manager") is designated and directed to file this Resolution with the San Luis Obispo County Auditor-Controller no later than August 31, 2006. 2. The Taxes shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem taxes are collected and shall be subject to the same penalties and the same procedure, sale and lien priority in cases of delinquency as provided for ad valorem taxes, as such procedure may be modified by law or the City Council of the City from time to time. 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized to transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the San Luis Obispo County Assessor and/or the San Luis Obispo Treasurer-Tax Collector, together with other supporting documentation as may be required to place the Taxes on the secured property tax roll for Fiscal Year 2006-07 and for the collection of the Taxes in the manner of ad valorem property taxes, and to perform all other acts which are required by Government Code Sections 43600 et. seq. (the "Act"), or deemed necessary by the City Manager in order to accomplish the purpose of this Resolution, the Act or Bond covenants. 4. The assessment shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as County ad valorem property taxes are collected, and all laws providing for the collection and enforcement of County ad valorem property taxes shall apply to the collection and enforcement of the assessments. After collection by the County, the amount of the assessments, after deducting compensation due the County for collection, shall be paid to the City. 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 day of 2006. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 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 EXHIBIT A SCHEDULE OF TAX RATE Tax rate per $100 of assessed value = .00964% 8.d. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED POLICY REGARDING REQUESTS FOR SERVICE AND COMPLAINTS AND INFORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCESS DATE: AUGUST 22, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council approve the proposed policy and procedure regarding requests for service and complaints, including the establishment of an informal administrative review process. FUNDING: Development of proposed software is estimated to cost $5,000. Funding was included in the FY 2006-07 Budget. DISCUSSION: At the August 22, 2006 meeting, the City Council considered a request by the Mike Titus Memorial Committee to establish a process that would allow citizens to appeal staff reports and recommendations. To address issues that were identified, the City Council directed staff to proceed with plans to develop a standard process for receiving and tracking citizen complaints and requests for service and to establish an informal administrative review process for complaints regarding staff reports. The proposed standard process will create a standard form and database for citizen requests. Per City Council discussion, the proposed administrative review process would provide an opportunity for the public to communicate concerns regarding staff reports to the City Manager. After investigation, a determination would be made if any corrections are warranted and/or whether postponement of the item would be recommended in order to provide appropriate time for public review of the changes. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Approve the proposed policy and procedure regarding requests for service and complaints, including the establishment of an informal administrative review process; S:Wdministration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports\Request for Service and Complaint Policy 8.22.06.doc CITY COUNCIL POLICY AND PROCEDURE REGARDING REQUESTS FOR SERVICE AND COMPLAINTS AND INFORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCESS AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 2 - Direct changes to policy and procedure and approve; - Direct staff to draft informal review process separate from the policy regarding complaints and requests for service; - Direct staff to expand scope of administrative review process; - Provide other direction to staff. Attachments: Proposed Policy Regarding Requests for Service and Complaints CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY AND PROCEDURE POLICY #: A-029 ISSUED: 9/1 /06 EFFECTIVE: 9/1/06 CANCELLATION DATE: N/A SUPERSEDES: N/A SUBJECT: REQUESTS FOR SERVICE AND COMPLAINTS POLICY: It is the policy of the City to provide outstanding customer service, which involves responsive, effective and professional follow-up to all complaints and requests for assistance. To accomplish this, the City maintains a decentralized system of processing and responding to requests, which allows for more timely response and personalized service. At the same time, a standard tracking system is utilized citywide to provide a means to ensure that follow-up to all requests are completed in a timely manner. Furthermore, it is the City's policy to comply with all Federal, State and local regulations and to immediately respond in a thorough manner to complaints that any representative of the City has not acted in accordance with such regulations. PROCEDURE: A. Citizen Reouest Procedure 1. When an individual or group has a complaint or request for assistance, they may make that request to the appropriate department or to Administration. 2. If a request is made to another department, the individual or group shall be referred to the appropriate department. 3. The individual or group shall be provided the opportunity to either submit the background of the request verbally or to complete the standard City Request Form (See Exhibit A). B. Records 1. The City shall maintain a database of requests for service on the City's computer network that can be accessed by all departments, which included the following information: a. Name b. Address POLICY #: A-029 REQUESTS FOR SERVICE AND COMPLAINTS PAGE 2 c. Phone Number d. Date received e. Description of request f. Staff assigned to respond to the request g. Status of the request h. Date completed 2. The individual receiving the request or complaint shall enter the data in the tracking system. If the request is received by Administration, the data shall be entered and the request referred to the appropriate department. The initial individual that the item is referred to shall be recorded as the staff assigned. 3. If the operating department assigns the request to another staff person in the department, the supervisor assigning the work shall modify the recorded staff assignment in the tracking system. C. Processing Requests 1. Staff shall respond to requests in a prompt and responsive manner. 2. The staff person assigned to the request shall update the status of the response in the system on a weekly basis. 3. The system shall provide the City Manager with a monthly report identifying all requests that are active or have been completed within the prior month. 4. The City Manager shall review and monitor all requests on an ongoing basis. D. Complaints Regarding Staff Performance 1. Any complaint regarding staff performance shall be referred to the City Manager. 2. Items involving employee performance are tracked independently and not entered into the citywide tracking system. 3. The appropriate department director shall be requested to investigate the performance issue. 4. If the complaint involves a claim of harassment, discrimination or illegal behavior, other investigation and response shall be conducted as appropriate per the City's policies and procedures, which may be assigned POLICY #: A-029 REQUESTS FOR SERVICE AND COMPLAINTS PAGE 3 to the Human Resources Manager, Police Department or other investigator. 5. Appropriate action shall be determined. 6. The City Manager shall respond to the complainant. E. Complaints Involving Illegal Activities 1. Any complaints involving unlawful acts shall be referred immediately to the Police Department or other appropriate authority. 2. Reports of illegal activity will not be entered in the citywide tracking system. The record instead shall be tracked by the appropriate authority to which the complaint is referred. F. Disputes 1. Any dispute with a department decision or response to a request shall be referred to the City Manager. 2. The dispute shall be investigated by the City Manager to determine appropriate action. The City Manager shall respond to the complainant in a timely manner. 3. If the action is final and does not involve an agenda item to be appealed or considered by any other decision making authority, the complainant may submit a request in writing or during the public comment period at a public meeting for the City Council to place the issue on the agenda for consideration. The City Council may then request the City Manager to place the item on a future City Council agenda for consideration. G. Informal Administrative Review Process Involving Staff Reports 1. If members of the public identify information or conclusions within a staff report that they believe to be inaccurate or inconsistent with City policies and/or regulations, they may submit their concerns to the City Manager either in person or on the City Standard Request Form. 2. The City Manager will meet with the complainant and immediately investigate the information and make a determination if a change is necessary. 3. The City Manager will submit a written determination to the appropriate board, commission or City Council prior to the meeting and provide a copy to the complainant. Staff will report any changes to the Board, Commission or City Council at the meeting. 4. If the City Manager determines the changes are substantive to the issues being considered and individuals involved are not provided satisfactory POLICY #: A-029 REQUESTS FOR SERVICE AND COMPLAINTS PAGE 4 time to review modifications, postponement of the item and/or decision shall be recommended. 5. If the City Manager determines the issues are substantive to the issues being considered and sufficient time is not available to properly investigate and respond to the concerns, postponement of the item and/or decision shall be recommended. 6. If postponement of the item is not recommended and/or the issues identified have not been resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant, the complainant may communicate their concerns and request the board, commission or City Council and request they consider postponement of the item and/or decision during the public comment period of the hearing involving the agenda item. Steven Adams City Manager 8.e. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: TERRY FIBICH, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND FIRE SUBJECT: APPROVAL FOR PAYMENT OF EMERGENCY EXPENDITURES DATE: AUGUST 22, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve payment to Brumit Diesel, Inc., in the amount of $13,365.54 for emergency repairs and appropriate $13,000 to the Department of Building and Fire Vehicle Maintenance Account. FUNDING: The cost for the repair work will require the appropriation of $13,000 from the Unappropriated General Fund balance. DISCUSSION: On July 17, 2006, Arroyo Grande Fire Department Engine 6695 suffered a major failure of its automatic transmission. The failure of the transmission required the apparatus be repaired by Brumit Diesel, Inc. in Santa Maria, the only repair facility in this area that is properly qualified to work on this type of equipment. Upon opening the transmission it was determined that the entire transmission required rebuilding. The Engine was placed back in service on August 2, 2006. The cost of this repair work is $13,365.54. This repair was done without competitive bidding due to the emergency nature of the repairs and the sole source nature of the qualifications and skills of this particular vendor. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Approve staffs recommendation; - Do not approve staffs recommendation; - Modify as appropriate and approve staffs recommendation; or -Provide direction to staff. S.f. MEMORANDUM TO: ~ CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS OF WAY FOR TRACT 2505, JASMINE PLACE, LOCATED AT COURTLAND STREET AND ASH STREET, CONSTRUCTED BY S&S HOMES DATE: AUGUST 22, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt a Resolution accepting the public improvements, easements, and rights of way for Tract 2505, Jasmine Place, located at Courtland Street arid Ash Street, constructed by S&S Homes. FUNDING: There is no fiscal impact at this time. Maintenance of these facilities will be funded from Public Works maintenance funds in future years. DISCUSSION: On August 10, 2004, the City Council approved the final map for Tract 2505 located at Courtland Street and Ash Street and rejected, without prejudice as to future acceptance, the offers of dedication for street tree, public water and public sewer easements. The project was conditioned to perform the following improvements: 1. install private roads, 2. install water mains on site for fire hydrants and water services, 3. install sewer mains on-site, 4. install storm drainage facilities to convey the storm drain runoff to the Berry Gardens basin, 5. under ground on-site and perimeter overhead public utilities, 6. sidewalk along the Ash Street and Courtland Street frontage, On April 26, 2005, the City accepted the improvements for Tract 2260, Berry Gardens. Two off-site offers of dedication were obtained with the Berry Gardens project for an extension of Courtland Street through Jasmine Place (see Attachment 2 and 3). At that time, staff recommended that these offers of dedication be accepted with the Jasmine Place improvements as construction of that project impacted that section of Courtland Street (see Attachment 4). CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS OF WAY FOR TRACT 2505, JASMINE PLACE, LOCATED AT COURTLAND STREET AND ASH STREET, CONSTRUCTED BY S&S HOMES AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 2 Staff has inspected the improvements and recommends the City Council accept the improvements as constructed. Staff also recommends that the easements for street trees, public water,' public sewer, and offers of dedication for right of way and sidewalk also be accepted. The homeowners will maintain the on-site storm drainage system and roads. The City will accept ownership of the water mains, sewer mains, and Courtland Street, as well as the improvements to Ash Street. The applicant has provided the 10% warranty security as required by the Municipal Code. The warranty security will be released after one year provided the improvements are still in satisfactory condition. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: • Approve staffs recommendation; • Do not approve staff's recommendation; • Modify staff's recommendation as appropriate and approve; or • Provide direction to staff. Attachment: Attachment 1 -Map of Tract 2505 Attachment 2 -Document No. 2001100498 Attachment 3 -Document No. 2001100499 Attachment 4 -Staff Report -Acceptance of Tract 2260 improvements Council Memo -Acceptance of Improvements -Tract 2505.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 2505, JASMINE PLACE WHEREAS, the City Council approved Final Tract Map 2505 located at Ash Street and Courtland Street on August 10, 2004 and rejected, without prejudice as to future acceptance, easements for street trees, public water and sanitary sewer; and WHEREAS, the project was conditioned to do certain public improvements; and WHEREAS, the developer impacted improvements and offers of dedication constructed by S&S Homes, which were off-site of the project and within Jasmine Place; and WHEREAS, the City Council continued to reject, subject to acceptance with the Jasmine Place improvements, the offers of dedication for right of way and sidewalk for Courtland Street; and WHEREAS, the developer has constructed the improvements required by the conditions of approval for Tract 2505; and WHEREAS, staff has inspected the improvements and finds they are constructed in accordance with the approved plans for the project; and WHEREAS, the developer has provided the 10% warranty security as required by the conditions of approval, to be released at the conclusion of the one-year warranty period, provided the improvements are still in satisfactory condition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby accept the offers of dedication and public improvements constructed for Tract 2505, as follows: 1. Street Tree, 2. Sanitary Sewer, 3. Water Main, 4. Sidewalk Easement per Document No. 2001100498, 5. Street Right of Way per Document No. 2001100499, RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 On motion of Council Member and by the following roll call vote, to wit: seconded by Council Member AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of 2006. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 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 -- --- -- - - ---- ATTACHMENT 1 ,. ~ ; ~ ~~~~ _~ UN p E~~~ ° a ~O i5 e ~~!! Sooo~ ~ 'a Q~ pF ~ d Irl ~ zd ~ yg9 ~5 Lo ~ VN~r~ N GLLFO~ 4U z~~r' ^ 56 F .- osm v my 6 133HS 33S wo- I ~~ M r PIL4R [CT> _ ~- ~..r I-~ -+~ F. .~- A ~ ~; 1 ~ 1 ez rv .ga I;,. TJ3 'I'" 9:7 -~ ~ 1 I ~ n ~ ~ m Nm_n N ~ ~~ U ~--- m g is - NI * . U 1 -.s ~l l I `1 I'- ~~ gll~ ~? ~tv°.~ gg f l~i~ ~_~ C -,~- "n = x LL ~ n ~~ 1 91^. ~n 1 +~ nw1n L ~ >:i~, y Lc~s a ~ 1. ui+i ;~~~.1_~t.laaoa,., 1 Q ' tur _ ~ ~- ~ \ A I = ~~a~ 9£-6W-LL ~SOI lOb'2~1 l I G ~.e '~ 3~ w.~9 e ~~° R ~ 1 o ~~ -~ 3t 1 1~ .e I ~ ~g tl tl ~gg &n tt~~ lyC -7 1~`gm F~ 6u § 1 aa I~~Y m y ~ l 1 ~~ &'~ Isvc I ~ ivytmx i % S # I 1 I I `e4 ~ ~ 1 I ~( $ ~ i) r~ I k k +~ ii :s ' 1 Y' I 1 d d i aa; 1 I ~/ / I Jaya ua 1 ~, $$ 1 I @ O~gW ~A Fctt g ~ ~ H• 3 ~~ ®o® I I I T I I of m _ L~ _ _ ewTelai'R eil.o• BA9S 1 (sn -saiu n W y~ N lavla °. ~ bl w I 11 _ e ui Y.;'AY_ } I ~ _MT. _ -2~ Y1. I D• La! 19 I ~ I bl 31 ~ am 4'~,: -: ~-: ~, ~a..c.exsa ~ I a r.a_~C.vYfES's:LJ 1' ~ ILn~lx t (~ t y3] a U'-- ;`.']., I S s~G _~_~-P`~ YwsmrL ena xerdmT pruepl INY1S1a'[ O- Ef(5/C PW/A 15.a1 ~ (run Yawua.rz xs xortn ® PAPerG EAYYgf PrttstmrA Acros us~nnr mwrt M¢s • uwilr [wr ® NPIL VARY 6 YNG LASYI, a PYL ® WLC YAILR LAYULYI T ACT 2260 KPH II ~'I la Ix Ia BEMINCS 19-MB-87 --- _-- _~--~__ Pxav --_ ,~ ,r,a-- I bl 3a 3 3 bl x] '0" °J aus n sxs < ~' irl r j -- a x3Et~ 1 ~ ~ L.Y%Y Sal' I L e xs FI a r ~9 F ~8~~ a a A13 llte f., .:. n Rrr j ,. I a sx,u .~ t~~.., x ~s=, ~T ;Iq ~ w,z9 ixse~ I s x e]VYt _ ~ I~ 9y~x~ Y xyc~~ A URIry E~YU[ PiHUC LnL xC }~ s[xn [sUV a nuc Asa .~ ~ _~/ .IA _. p_k7~~ 91R ~uY esi ~° ww ~wnyv ` I* d~ ~ B LN W `q' I nN xM IF b= xu I axx .~ ~9 ' ' s~ ~ ~ I laL Jx I I rw v I f ?I$ bib I I I I I 1 1 I 1 _ I __ --_ -_-_ xiv . _°°~-1E~ __ _Aran _ _. ^ ASH STREET _ W>Y(TQ ^ A BIYARf POYA¢ ORNNS G41FN15 M£YY UYAIm P(M tOR 1 xIRU N CY~Iw4 NEAS ttW%FO eY &IM145 FEFERENCES Bp515 OF BEARINGS a .n¢..m Y(mw Pu n-w-v xrt a.aa w ss.aws rm ms v..c. n nc swm xA Yaurts a<ao wr u.uY-sa uxL a wur Ylm a.a xalm As ew.rsxL Pw u. \ rN ra ~ ~xun ~ T '~ I -' ~a~'- ^ F~ ~IR 1 oA ~ ~ ~'^ r_~ bl v a+ese ' a ~4 A _ _ MY.OY4 _ _ r e ~ nv ~ 'iwA R m° 8 g~~ r. r sl'miei ix• Im. n~ bui I g % _ _ MYIYxT _ Psx I I 1 ^F - ~ F gs4 ~ wl~~ ~ b}Y]' y Rd ~ M^ 1 ~~ ~ I~ ' xa.v xE xs. ~ I ~ 0 ~I~ 1 n.M T_ _ ~--..~ 6W px~a~,n~ ~' vxx/qyx I ~ x >Pli ss al I ~I~ _ > x....yi + ~ ~m . - ~ ~p - ~ Y9 I sl xmV~xY 101. I .~ I 1 1 ~W' yI I 8 L l ]] ~S e ~ ,. S amtyLl r.m t~ a.v°n°a er: WRD Engirneering GN Enq'newiw Sw. p P. Q Bn 1a]. 4vv &IXA. G 9lleJ Plk (Bfb( xl-19W LVf IEaYI b1-9116 dASMtNE PLACE TRACT MAP N0. 2505 PUNNED UNIT DEVELIXPENENT SUBgN4ON OF A PORl1ON ~ LOTS 11-15, J.F. BECKETYS DRANO AVENUE TRACT UTY OF ARROYO GRANDE CounlY aE San LWa OblYao, Callfomh January x0O4 3~eat L O( i m' rtE~ORDING REQUESTED BY CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO: Director of Public Works 208 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420 JULIE~RODEWALD - - ---- - san Luis Dbispo County-Cle; q~q(;HMENT 2 Recorded at the request of ' Public Docn: 2001100498 Titles: t Pages; 9 Fees 0.00 Taxes 0.00 Others 0.00 PAID 50.00 IRREVOCABLE AND PERPETUAL OFFER TO DEDICATE SIDEWALK EASEMENT THIS OFFER TO DEDICATE, made this ioTx day of AUGUST 2001; py S & S HOMES OF THE CENTRAL COAST of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, hereinafter termed Offeror: WHEREAS, said Offeror desires to make an irrevocable, and perpetual offer to the public, of an easement for sidewalk purposes, which offer may be accepted at any time by any governmental entity which has power to establish, construct, and maintain sidewalks. NOW, THEREFORE, For a valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, said Offeror covenants and promises as follows: 1. That said Offeror is the owner of the following interest decribed below: See Exhibit "A" 2. That said Offeror does hereby irrevocably and in perpetuity offer to such governmental entity, a dedication of a public easement for Sidewalk purposes, and incedental uses upon the following decribed property: See Exhibit "B" Page 1 3. That until such time as tho offer of dedication is accepted by such governmental entity, all owners of property contiguous to the above described Road and Public Utility easement shall have the right to the use of said Road and Public Utility easement parcel as a private road and Public Utility easement. 4. That said Offeror agrees that said Offer of Dedication shall be irrevocable and that such a governmental entity may, at any time in the future, accept said offer of dedication of the public right of way. 5. That said Offeror agrees that this irrevocable and perpetual Offer to Dedicate is and shall be binding on his heirs, legatees, and assignees. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Offer is hereby executed by the said Offeror on the day and year first above written. S & S HCMES OFT CENTRAL COAST a~ ~. .~ Date Offeror wARRSrr sArrosRs Lienholders Junko Toma Date Date eri o oma Lienholder Page 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ) ss On 1 `".G~ ,.i ~ ':G, 2001, b personally appeared ~'~-' Ycs , ~ is ~ me, ~~ ~~~_< , a NotaryPublic, personally known to me (ar proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. .::. - - - SSE°NANI~L.?:t0i~lt N OOMIsi. ~1i??592 '° WITNESS my !Sand and seal "%r ° Notary 'e~lirCa~„omia County of San Luis 06isya . /~. --j 7 / ~ o My Comm. E:A. iaori172 ~~J~. ~i~ ~`~-~`~l,~.000.C_-~` ~/~G';jj` STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ) ss On , 2001, before me, , a Notary Public, personally appeared ,personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and seal Page 3 Rug 1^ O1 04: 16p Century 21 FilerR G Ca t9G51499-6753 p,Z RECORDING REQUE$TEO BY CfTY OF ARROYO GRANDE WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO: Director of Pubiic Works 2.48 E. Hranch Sffeet Arrcya Grande, California 43420 iRREVOCABL'E AND PERPETUAL OFrER 7(.~ DEDICATE SIDEWALK EASEMENT THIS OFFER TO DEDICATE, made this 1CTx day of AUGU:_T 2001; by _ S G 5 HOMES OF THE CENTRAL COAST of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, hereinafter termed Offeror: WHEREAS, said Offeror desires to make an irrevocable and perF~etual offer to the public, of an easement far sidewalk purposes, which offer may be accepte~_I at any time by any governmental entity which has power to establish, construct, and maintain sidewalks. NOW, THEREFORE, For a valuable consideration, the receipt ar~d sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, said Offeror covenants and promises as follows= 1. That said Offeror is the owner of the following interest decribed below: See Exhibit "A" 2. That said Offeror does hereby irrevocably and in perpetuity offer to such governmental entity, a dedication of a public easement for Sidewalk purpose ~s, and incedental uses upon the following decribed property- See Exhibit "B" Page 1 Rug 1D D1 D4:16p Century 21 FilerR G Ca (8051489-6753 p.3 3. That until such time as the offer of dedication is accepted by such gavernrnenta( entity, all owners of property contiguous to the above described Sidewalk easement shall have the right to the use of said Sidewalk easement parcel as a private: pedestrian access easement. 4. -+hat said Offeror agrees that said Offer of Dedication shall be: inrevocable and that such a governmental entity may, at any time in the future, accept sai~j offer of dedication of the Sidewalk easement. 5. l'hat said Offeror agrees that this irrevocable and perpetual (:offer to Dedicate is and shall be binding on his heirs, legatees, and assignees. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Offer is hereby executed by the said Offeror on the day and year first above written. 5 5 S; f30MI:s F THE CENTRAL CDAST Date Offeror p ' santl~Exs - ~~o_ a ~ ri~naold3. `.'c," 7/~a~ DatE Ju T~tna~ L16IlIlC1.v~Y / / ~X..~/~? Date McYiko Totn3 Page 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ) ss On A ~-~. ~~ „C~ ~O, , 2001, before me, eC,~=-FJ~lctin ~ C' L ~ ~~'~1 G ul~C , a Notary Public, personally appeared LV ~~ i P ~~ cSQA<LL¢,1 ( ,personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/shelthey executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which-the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. STEPHANIEL.i~tONK ~ ~ COMM.#1177392 ;. Notary Publie•CaHfomia . ; Couafy of San Wis ObisW hiY Comm. Exp. Aprtl 22.2002 $ WITNESS my hand anted seal~~/~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OI31SP0 ) ss 1q On u i3'~ © , 2001, before me, ~ ~-F ~ ~1ic,i; E' • '~l~~~Notary Public, personally app ared ~L~.w~~CO 1U`~~ULCiJ Cf Il~i\ Q~ ~t¢ 1 Utz-personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument WITNESS my han and seal STEPHAN.IEL.MONK N ~a~.~11n3s2 ~a~i~i~ obl~o ~ MY Comm. Exp. April 2E. 004 Page 3 *~' 'XHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTIO PARCELI THAT PORTION OF LOTS 11, 12, 13 AMID 14 OF J.F. BECKETT'S GRAND AVENUE TRACT, ACCORDING TO THE MAP FILED FOR RECORD SEPTEMBER 26, 189I IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 11, DISTANT SOUTH 89°50' WEST 68 FEET, MORE OR LESS, FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF, SAID POINT BEING THE SOUTHEAST. CORNER OF THE PROPERTY CONVEYED TO JESSICA C. HAZZARD BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 150, PAGE 322 OF DEEDS; THENCE SOUTH 89°50' WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF LOTS 11, 12,'13 AND 14, 892 FEET; THENCE NORTH 3°15' EAST, 275.75 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°50' EAST, 892 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE PROPERTY SO CONVEYED TO SAID JESSICA C. HAZZARD; THENCE SOUTH 3°IS' WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 275.75 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ~ - PARCEL 2: THAT PORTION OF LOTS 14 AND 15 OF THE J. F. BECKETT'S GRAND AVENUE TRACT, ACCORDING TO MAP FILED FOR RECORD SEPTEMBER 26, 1891 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER,OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: . BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 14, SOUTH 89°50' WEST, 892 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY CONVEYED TO JESSICA C. HAZZARD BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 150, PAGE 322 OF DEEDS, THENCE NORTH 3°15' EAST 20 FEET; THENCE . SOUTH 89°50' WEST, AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOTS 14 AND 15, 762.5 FEET, MORE'OR LESS, TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 15; THENCE SOUTH 30°53' WEST ALONG SAID WEST LINE 20 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 15; THENCE NORTH 89°50' EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOTS 15 AND 14; 766.1 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ' E_YH~IT "B" An Easement for City sidewalk and incidental purposes lying over, under and upon the following described strip of land being a portion of Lots 13 and I4 of J.F. Beckett's Grand Avenue Tract in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California according to map filed for record in Book B, page 75 on September 26, 1891, in the office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows: A strip of land 5.00 feet wide lying adjacent to, Westerly of and pazallel with the following described sideline, said sideline being the Westerly sideline of a certain "OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR COURTLAND STREET": B Doinning at the Northeast corner of Tract 1055 according to Book 11, Page 36 of Maps filed in the Office of the Recorder of said County; thence along the Northerly line of the property described in Volume 1253, Page 225 of Official Records of said County, North 89° 49' S6" East a distance of 108.38 feet to the True Point of Beginning and the beginning of anon-tangent curve concave Easterly having a radius of 327.00 feet, a radial line to said beginning beazs South 84° 15' 49" West; thence leaving said Northerly line, Southerly along said non-tangent curve, through a central angle of 0° 30' 11 ", an arc length of 2.87 feet to the beginning of a tangent line; thence South 06° 14 21"East, 128.83 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave Westerly having a radius of 689.00 feet; thence Southerly along said curve, through a central angle of 9° 31 53", an arc length of 114.62 feet to the beginning of a compound curve concave Northwesterly having a radius of 23.00 feet; thence, Southerly along said curve, through a central angle of 95° 13' 19", an arc length of 38.22 feet to the Point of Terminus on the Northerly Right of Way line of Ash St. as shown on the map of Tract 1055, containing 1,401 squaze feet, more or less. The Westerly side line shall be lengthened and/or shortened to meet at the beginning boundary line This work was prepared by me or under my supervision at the request of Roger Olds on Octo~be~r~30, 2~0{01~.,(, /~~ ~ ,t ~~ ~ ,55 _Q0 N. Cgd'n 9~~ LS 4283 exp 6/30/04 Q ci a ~ PLS4283 Exp. 6130!?`J" TRACT 2260 ~ PnaSE I I ' I n~ _~P.~.$. I TRUE P.{~.8. ____ ISg4'I5:49~W RADIAL __. ~~IT Dn V N89'49'S6"E ''rr /. 108.38' R=327.00' ,' ~ ` :' . . I tk030'11' ,` I L=2.8 i r' i ~ I ~ PORTION 'r l ~; PORTION o ~ (~ 1253-OR-225 N ~ 1253-OR-225 , ~ ~' (*1 9 0] I- ~ I ~ A i I ~~ N27 m ~ .- ~ ~ N , ~ ~ ~ ~ W ' i , U , nt ' , N i 5' S10EWAL.K '~ 3j EASEMENT ~~ ~~ ~~ T , N I I N 1 m ~ ' 1 ~ 1 I ~IW A I i I D ~ i m I ~ ° ~ NpL LANp ~ I o ~ ~~5~0 0 H. CgssG94 ~~ ~- z ~ o v`~" 10'So~O1~F ~o ~ ~ ~ I a ~ PLS4263 ~' p ~ Q ~ ~ Exp.6/30/~~' ~ N ~e '_ 1I ~~32,00• ~ ~ T'9l ~~ OQ~ ?4 F OF CA~~F C a3~ 643" R-568 00. I ~7~'13' R=23.00' I I 11-MB-36 Ca~asr X95'13"19" . ~, - ~ ASH ST. DEDICATION ~ L=3x.22' ~, • C E M T P R t 1 N~~ P.~.T. ASN STREET PORTION l0T I06 `_ RANCHO C.O.P. EASEMENT FOR CITY SIDE'9P9LK BDNG PORTIONS of LOTS 13 & 14 rsRAPHIC SCALE Of J.F. aECKET'('S GRAND AVENUE TRACT PER B MAPS 75 IN THE COUNTY 'b 0 20 a0 80 CF SAN LUIS OalSPO. STATE OP CALIFORNIA. - 1 inch 40 tt WRD Engineering Civi! Engineerin -Land Surveyin P. 0. Box 432, Grover Beaeh, CA 93483 ~ 2 „~ PH: (eo5) ae~-sea Fax teas) 4eT-s14e E~~;~J ~F DCCsd~,~E'ti? RECOrcDING REQUESTED BY CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO: Director of Public Works 208 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420 JULIE RDDEWALD ', San Luis 06ispo County-CI. Recorded at tho request of Public ATTACHMENT 3 3:75 PM Doca: 2001100499 Titles: 1 Pages: 9 Fees 0.00 Taxes 0.00 Others O.OD PAID 50.00 IRREVOCABLE AND PERPETUAL OFFER TO DEDICATE STREET RIGHT OF WAY AND PUBLlC UTILITY EASEMENT THIS OFFER TO DEDICATE, made this 10TH day of AUGUST by S & S HOMES OF THE CENTRAL COAST 2001; of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, hereinafter termed Offeror: WHEREAS, said Offeror desires to make an irrevocable and perpetual offer to the public, of an easement for Public Road and Public Utility purposes, which offer may be accepted at any time by any governmental entity which has power to establish, construct, and maintain Roads and Public Utilities. NOW, THEREFORE, For a valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, said Offeror covenants and promises as follows: 1. That said Offeror is the owner of the following interest decribed below: See Exhibit "A" 2. That said Offeror does hereby irrevocably and in perpetuity offer to such governmental entity, a dedication of a public right-of-way for Road and Public Utility purposes, and incedental uses upon the following decribed property: See Exhibit "B" Page 1 Fug 10 O1 04:16p Century 21 FilerF G Ca l8D~J489-6753 p.5 3. l'hat until such time as the offer of dedication is accepted by >uch governmental entity, all owners of property contiguous to the above described Road +_ind Public Utility easement shall have the right to the use of said Road and Public Utility easement parcel as a private road and Public Utility easement. 4. 1"hat said Offeror agrees that said Offer of Dedication shall b~:~ irrevocable and that such a governmental entity may, at any time in the future, accept said offer of dedication of the public right of way. 5. l'hat said Offeror agrees that this irrevocable and perpetual C:~ffer to Dedicate is and shall be binding on his heirs, legatees, and assignees. IEV WITNESS WHEREOF, this Offer is hereby executed by thy:: said Offeror on the day and year first above written. _ 5 & F:OCIES OFT CENTFAL COAST ~/ O ~~ Date Offeror wAt~aerl sANOFRS ~~~~"' j Licnholders clu.~.'~J /~C. DatE~ J'unko Town Ud CH eri o oit.a Page Z STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ) ss On ~~G S~F l0 , , 2001, before me, 5~~~-~n~~ ~.~I/y1 o~f~c, a Notary Public, personally appeared l~ GC t ~ ill cS ~v~cl2 ~~ C ,personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. STEPHANIEL.MONK r' COMM.#1177392 Notary Publia•CaHfamia County of San Luis Ob'~po N My Comm. 6~tp. April ~, 2002 WITNESS my hand and seal STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ) ss On ~ C' ' ' O , 2001, before me, ~/ i /t~-ctc Q. ~-- ~'2~'ll~a Notary Public, pereonallyappe ed ~~wv~(c0"Z2`~Lw"~ ~l~C`t IC.L~I ti?a ~ e (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) islare subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/Ffer/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. STEPHAPIIEL. MONK N CON~M.#1177392 Y' Notary' Public-Calbomla r ". County of San Luis Obi' F•o PAy Comm. E;cp. April 22, ZO' . , STEPHANIELMONK ui ' COMhA.#1177392 . a. Notary PubiieCalitomla Couar9 of San Luis Oblspo ~' . i3%U. Aprri~ WITNESS my han and seal Page 3 Aug 10 O1 04:16p Century 21 FilerR G Ca (8x`51489-6753 p.4 RECORDING REQUESTED BY CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO: Director of Public Works 208 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 9342D IRREVOCABLE AND PERPETUAL OFFER TC:~ DEDICATE -STREET RIGHT OF WAY AND PUBLIC UTILITI' EASEMENT THIS OFFER TO DEDICATE, made this 10TH day of AI3GUS~C~ by S 'S S HOMN^,S OF THE CENTRAL COAST 2001; of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, hereinafter termed Offeror: WH[REAS, said Offeror desires to make an irrevocable and perFletual offer to the public, of an easement for Public Road and Public Utility purposes, which ,:rffer may be accepted at any time by any governmental entity which has power to establish, construct, and maintain Roads and Public Utilities. NOW, THEREFORE, For a valuable consideration, the receipt acid sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, said Offeror covenants and promises as follows: 1. Thai said Offeror is the owner of the following interest decribed below: See Exhibit "A" 2. Tha# said Offeror does hereby irrevocably and in perpetuity offer to such governmental entity, a dedication of a public right-of--way for Road and Public Utility purposes, and incedental uses upon the following decribed property: See Exhibit "B" Page 1 3. That until such time as the offer of dedication is accepted by such governmental entity, all owners of property contiguous to the above described Sidewalk easement shall have the right to the use of said Sidewalk' easement parcel as a private pedestrian access easement. 4. That said Offeror agrees that said Offer of Dedication shall be irrevocable and that such a govemmental entity may, at any time in the future, accept said offer of dedication of the Sidewalk easement. 5. That said Offeror agrees that this irrevocable and perpetual Offer to Dedicate is and shall be binding on his heirs, legatees, and assignees. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Offer is hereby executed by the said Offeror on the day and year first above written. S & Sr~HOMES bF THE CENTRAL COAST SS ~/ /li / // / Date --ff-- --- BY: SANDERS Lienholder Data Junko Toma Lienholder ' Date Meriko Toma Page 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ) ss On '~ ~~,~~ ` ~, C~ ; , 2001, before me, ~~~-;%~'«~~-~~ r_ L i;`~l e - ;~, a Notary Public, personally appeared _ ` cwt c ~';1 c ~~ ~~-~c1,.E_ s 3 ,personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Stt?HANIEL. t;10NK N "~~~ COl;N.r1177392 x °~ " Nci~ry Publie•Cafuomia ~, Couafj of San Luis Obispo ~~ My Comm. 5zp. April 22, 2002 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO On personally appeared WITNESS my hand and seal ss 2001, before me, , a Notary Public, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the.same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and seal Page 3 a `~ *' .bXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION. . PARCEL 1: THAT PORTION OF LOTS 11, 12, 13 AND 14 OF J.F. BECKETT'S GRAND AVENUE TRACT, ACCORDING TO THE MAP FII,ED FOR RECORD SEPTEMBER 26, 1891 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 11, DISTANT SOUTH 89°50' WEST 68 FEET, MORE OR LESS, FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF, SAID POINT BEING ;THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY CONVEYED TO JESSICA C. HAZZARD BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 150, Pt~GE 322 OF DEEDS; THENCE SOUTH 89°50' WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF LOTS I1, 12, '13 AND 14, 892 FEET; THENCE NORTH 3°15' EAST, 275.75 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°50' EAST, 892 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE PROPERTY SO CONVEYED TO SAID JESSICA C. HAZZARD; THENCE SOUTH 3°15' WEST ALONG SAID EAST LBJE 275.75 FEET TO;THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ~ - PARCEL 2: i THAT PORTION OF LOTS 14 AND 15 OF THE 7. F. BECKETT'S GRAND AVENUE TRACT, ACCORDING TO MAP FILED FOR RECORD SEPTEMBER 26, 1891 IN THE.OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDE~L OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 14, SOUTH 89°50' WEST, 892 FEET F2`tOM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY CONVEYED TO JESSICA C. HAZZARD' BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 150, PAGE 322 OF DEEDS, THENCE NORTH 3°15' EAST 20 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°50' WEST, AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOTS 14 AND 15, 762.5 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 15; THENCE SOUTH 30°53' WEST ALONG SAID WEST LINE 20 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 15; THENCE NORTH 89°50' EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOTS 15 AND 14; 766.1 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Exhibit "B" A strip of land 54 feet wide except as flared out at the South end and lying over, under and upon a portion of Lots 13 and 14 of J.F. Beckett's Grand Avenue Tract in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of Califomia according to map filed for record September 26, 1891 in the office of the County Recorder of Said County said strip lying 27 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at the Southerly terminus of the centerline of Courtland Street as delineated on the map of Tract 2260 per Map Book 19, .Page 43, records of said county; thence South 06° 14' 21" East, 128.83 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the West; thence Along said curve with a Radius of 716.00 feet to the Right through a central angle of 9° 42' 42" for an Arc Length of 121.36 feet; thence South 03° 28' 27" West, 23.01 feet to the North line of 'Ash Street Easement Dedication' as shown on the map of Tract 1055 per Map Book 11, Page 36 and the Point of Terminus. The aforementioned strip of land shall be shortened and/or extended to meet and be contiguous with the South end of Said Courtland Street on the North and the North side of Ash Street on the South. The aforementioned strip of land shall be flared out at the South end with tangent circular property returns each with a Radius of 23.00 feet and meeting the North side of 'Ash Street Easement Dedication' on the West side and meeting the North side of Ash Street on the East side said flared portion being more particularly depicted on the attached Exhibit Plat. End of Description Executed at Grover Beach, Califomia August 10, 2001 JI ~~ r ~ ' ~'v'Y'v~"y~ " U ~ ¢ PLS4283 LS 4283 exp 6/30/04 _ Exp. 6/30/?'~ TRACT 2260 PHASE, i ASH STREET DEDICATION 54.31' --- 27.14'-- 27.15 ..1~; X0'30'11 ~:..':.'.'..'...'.'.'..':.: '~ R=327.00' 1 1... - ...':..:::.'--.':.':. ~ ~ I ~ L=2.87' ' 2r'::.: - .'..... 11:........... n :~, ; Z, , 1... z ~ ~~ I O. r ~j.~-~ k- SIDEWALK I 1 ~ p. ~. ~ EASEMENT N Z w. r-' i ~ k~- ~:... ~ ~, x . z .-.~ ~ _ .~ ~S'=..~..:. :. ;... . ~ ._.:. ~ t':.:.....':..'.': .':.' z ~ . ~ ..~ I C: .'.'.'::.'.':..'.-:.~..'. 1 X931'53" II " t I t.'...'.'.'.'.'.'. ~ .'.'.'.-.'.'.'.'.-. R=689.00' i t:::.::.-.': '.~:::.':.:-'. L=114.62. I c.... '::.'.:-: '- :':::::..': ~9 2'42' "' f R=7 6.00' .-..i 4--:~.:•L=1 1.38' I t 11::: - :'.'.:'.'-' - :.'.'.'.'.':.': i C.:....:.':::: :.'::.'.'::.'.' ::J R=23.00' ~ ~ .': _cY: '.:..'::.'. L=38.22' , :.'..•:.'. S~o ~..~..~.-: ---~ . a:.':.:•::. ~ i...: '.':::.ON .::....':.'.'.': . ..... . ..... Z .....:::........ R=568.00' ~~ L=52.09' NOt _ ~- OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR COURTLAND STREET BEING PORTIONS OF LOTS 13 & 14 OF J.F. BECKETT'S GRAND AVENUE TRACT PER B-TM-75 iN THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRACT 2260 PHASE II FUTURE SIDEWALK EASEMENT PORTION OF 1253-OR-225 N W E S O" 1 ~~ 2. 0' p' 80' SCALE: 1 "=40' dF9'41'33' R=743.00' L=125.89' X9337'01' R=23.00' L=37.58' i'50'11'W 17.46' ASH STREET t• Bllo~o i-ui,~ PLS4283 5~' Exp. 6/30/Qq' RHG.~ ATTACHMENT 4 8.h. TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEERnf~ SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAYS AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 2260 -PHASES I, II AND III -BERRY GARDENS - S8~S HOMES DATE: APRIL 26, 2005 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Council: 1. accept the public improvements for Tract 2260; 2. adopt the attached resolution accepting the offers of dedication and rights of ways shown on the final tract map for Phases I, II and III; 3. adopt the attached resolution accepting the offer of dedication for Courtland Street per Parcel Map AG 00-301;and 4. accept the 10% warranty security in the amount of $376,045.84. FUNDING: There is no immediate fiscal impact. Maintenance of these facilities will be funded from Public Works maintenance funds in future years. DISCUSSION: On September 8, 1998 the City approved Tract 2260 known as Berry Gardens located south of East Grand Avenue, north of Ash Street, east of Oak Park Boulevard, and west of Spruce Street. The City Council approved the phased final map as outlined below: Phase Date Council Aoaroved Final Mao Date Final Mao Recorded I October 10, 2000 November 3, 2000 II December 11, 2001 December 28, 2001 III June 25, 2002 July 2, 2002 The applicant was conditioned to construct off-site improvements that included the following: • 12" water main from the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Courtland Street, through the site, and extend to the intersection of Ash Street and Courtland Street, • Gravity sanitary sewer main from Lift Station No. 2, located at the end of Poplar Street on the Poplar Ponding Basin site, to the sanitary sewer. mains constructed underneath on Strawberry Avenue, ar2or2oo5cITY couNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAYS AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 2260 -PHASES I, II AND III -BERRY GARDENS - S&S HOMES APRIL 26, 2005 PAGE 2 • Sanitary sewer force main from Lift Station No. 7, located at the comer of Boysenberry and Cranberry, and connect to the gravity sanitary sewer main underneath Ash Street at a point approximately 300 feet west of the intersection of Spruce Street and Ash Street, • Courtland Street, from the northern project boundaries to East Grand Avenue, • Courtland Street, from the southern project boundary to Ash Street, • Traffic signal conversion at East Grand Avenue and Courtland Street from three legs to four legs. There were two off-site offers of dedication for Courtland Street south of the project boundary. Document No. 2001100498, recorded on December26, 2001, created a 5' wide sidewalk easement immediatelywest of the extension of Courtland Street. Document No. 2001100499, recorded on December 26, .2001, created the right of way for Courtland Street. This is currently under construction with Tract 2505, Jasmine Place. Staff recommends that these offers of dedication and the associated improvements be accepted at a future date when the improvements for Tract 2505 are accepted, as construction activities may impact this section of Courtland Street. During the process of obtaining an offer of dedication far the segment of Courtland Street north of the project site, the City began to process CUP 00-019 and TPM 00-007 for Long's Shopping Center. The right of way dedicated for Courtland Street was part of the subject site, and was dedicated on Parcel Map AG 00-301 (see Attachment 2). The City Council approved the final map for Parcel Map AG 00-301 on June 11, 2002, and rejected without prejudice as to future acceptance the easements and offers of dedication depicted on the subject map. The City has yet to accept the offers of dedications, easements, and improvements as the developer is still in the process of addressing the remaining items of work. However, staff recommends that the other offers of dedication and easements offered on Parcel Map AG 00-301 continue to be rejected without prejudice as to future acceptance until these punch list items have been completed. A small portion of right of way at the corner of Blackberry and Cranberry and a small portion of Oak Park Boulevard at the northwest comer of the project is within the City of Grover Beach. The applicant made an offer of dedication for the appropriate portions of right of way per Document No. 2000-022749 (see Attachment No. 3). In addition, the easterly fifteen (15) feet of the right of way for Oak Park Boulevard is within the City of Arroyo Grande. An informal maintenance agreement has been reached by the cities. The City of Arroyo Grande will maintain the portion of Blackberry and Cranberry within the City of Grover Beach. The City of Grover Beach will maintain the portions of Oak Park Boulevard within the City of Arroyo Grande. S: W UBLIC W ORKS ENGINEERING SHARED REMS\Development ProJacts\TrectMega\Tisa 22fi0- Ber~yGstlenslCaundl AocpetaicelSlaBRepon-Twd 2280 -Acceptance of Imgovemenls.COc 4/20l2005CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAYS AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 2260 -PHASES 1, II AND III'- BERRY GARDENS - S&S HOMES APRIL 26, 2005 PAGE 3 When this project was in the approval process, there had been discussions to amend the City limit line to follow the right of way lines to avoid the issue of rights of way falling within two jurisdictions, but was not pursued at that time. This issue could be pursued in the future, should the Council so desire. It has been the Council's policy to reject offers of dedication, without prejudice as to future acceptance, until the City accepts the improvements, unless special circumstances arise that require the acceptance of offers of dedication. With this project, the City accepted the offer of dedication for the park site in fee title with the approval of the final map for Phase No. 1. This enabled the immediate use of the park by the public. The required improvements have been constructed and staff has inspected the improvements. Staff recommends that the Council accept the following offers of dedication and associated improvements: a. Street Tree Planting and Maintenance Easements, b. Public Water Easements, c. Public Sewer Easements, d. Public Drainage Easements, e. Stormwater Basin Easement, f. Public Utilities Easements or "P.U.E.", g. Sidewalk Easements, h. Blackberry Avenue, i. Boysenberry Street, j. Blueberry Avenue, k. Cedar Street, I. Courtland Street, m. Cranberry Street, n. Huckleberry Avenue, o. Loganberry Avenue, p. Oak Park Boulevard, q. Raspberry Avenue, r. Seabright Avenue, s. Strawberry Avenue, t. Offer of dedication for Courtland Street per Parcel Map AG 00-301, The developer is required to warranty the improvements for a period of one year following acceptance. The required 10% warranty securities has been submitted to the City as outlined below: S:\PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERINGSHARED ITEMS1Developnbr,t Pn~eda\TraUMapa\Tract7280-BenyGarclena\CwntllActpefanceMSteNRepoA-Trace . 1280 -ACCeplenca M Impove,nar,ts.°oc 4120/2005CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAYS AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 2260 -PHASES 1, II AND III -BERRY GARDENS - S&S HOMES APRIL 26, 2005 PAGE 4 Phase Comoanv Amount I American Motorists Insurance Company $313,872.94 II Mid-State Bank and Trust $32,545.38 III Mid-State Bank and Trust $29,275.16 Staff recommends acceptance of these securities. These securities will be released at the conclusion of the warranty period, provided the improvements are still in satisfactory condition, and the appropriate offer of dedication for a public sewer easement for the sanitary sewer lift station is obtained. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: Adopt the attached resolutions accepting the offers of dedications, easements, rights of way and improvements as constructed for Tract 2260; Do not adopt the attached resolutions accepting the offers of dedications, easements, rights of way and improvements as constructed for Tract 2260; Modify staffs recommendation as appropriate and approve; Provide direction to staff. Attachments: 1. Location Map -Tract 2260 2. Parcel Map AG 00-301 3. Irrevocable and Perpetual Offer to Dedicate -Document No. 2000-022749 S:W UBUC WORKS ENGINEERING SNARED REMS~Devebpment Pro~eds\Tract MapslTract2ZB8- BenyGerdensll:otmcil AapetenoelStaR Report-Tract 2280 - Acceptance of Improvemenls.tlac RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE. ACCEPTING CERTAIN EASEMENTS, .RIGHTS OF WAY AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN TRACT 2260 WHEREAS, the City Council approved Final Tract Map 2260 as follows: Phase Date Council Aooroved Final Mao I October 10, 2000 II December 11, 2001 III June 25, 2002 WHEREAS, the developer has constructed the improvements required by the Tract 2260 conditions of approval; and, WHEREAS, the developer has provided the 10% warranty security as required by the Tract 2260 conditions of approval, to be released at the conclusion of the warranty period, provided the improvements are still in satisfactory condition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby accept the public improvements constructed for Tract 2260, and accepts the following offers of dedications and public easements as shown on the final map for Tract 2260 recorded as follows: I November 3, 2000 19 43 II December 28, 2001 19 87 III July 2, 2002 20 21 and authorize the Mayor to execute a certificate of acceptance: 1. Street Tree Planting and Maintenance Easements, 2. Public Water Easements, 3. Public Sewer Easements, 4. Public Drainage Easements, 5. Stormwater Basin Easement, 6. Public Utilities Easements or "P.U.E.`, 7. Sidewalk Easements, 8. Blackberry Avenue, 9. Boysenberry Street, 10. Blueberry Avenue, 11. Cedar Street, 12. Courtland Street, 13. Cranberry Street, 14. Huckleberry Avenue, 15. Loganberry Avenue, 16. Oak Park Boulevard, RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 17. Raspbeny Avenue, 18. Seabright Avenue, 19. Strawberry Avenue, On motion of Council Member and by the following roll call vote, to wit: seconded by Council Member AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day'of 2005. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 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 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING CERTAIN EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS OFF-SITE OF TRACT 2260 WHEREAS, the City Council approved Final Tract Map 2260 as follows: Phase Date Council Aooroved Final Maa I October 10, 2000 II December 11, 2001 III June 25, 2002 WHEREAS, an offer of dedication for Courtland Street was made on Parcel Map AG 00-301; and, . WHEREAS, Parcel Map AG 00-301 recorded June 25, 2002, at Page 54 of Book 56 of Parcel Maps; and, WHEREAS, the developer has constructed the improvements required by the Tract 2260 conditions of approval; and, WHEREAS, the developer has provided the 10% wan'anty security as required by the Tract 2260 conditions of approval, to be released at the conclusion of the warranty period, provided the improvements are still in satisfactory condition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby accept the following offers of dedications and public easements and associated public improvements constructed off-site for Tract 2260, and authorize the Mayor to execute a certificate of acceptance: Offer of Dedication for Courtland Street per Parcel Map AG 00-301, recorded June 25, 2002, at Page 54 of Book 56 of Parcel Maps. On motion of Council Member and by the following roll call vote, to wit: seconded by Council Member AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of 2005. 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 Qpqq b°~~ r. ~ p'('CAGH~E~T 1 -,~p,~~~2., :-~-" ~ ~_-- h~ at.~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~;~3~ ~~ ~~~ ~. ~~i~~ R f ~~~~ ~` ~. ~` h~~~ J y b~ ~~~~~ ~~ Q f~ _ ~ :r~ ~~ .~~. e a .~ $ ~"~~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~~ ~ ~~ g 11t4 Yd~ a ~~~~ ~ ~~l~ ~ti`~~~ rAt~ ~ k~~ jE ~ 1~~~ ~~ a ~_'` 1~l.~ $! 1 ..,~~~ ~, ' x7i . a 3.~ ~~~R ~~'~ . ygsr~ ,~~ ~ ~t ~~~~~~llllll a o' x~ZbY ~ ~d ' ~ -- ,~ ~ ~ ~~ m ;, e ~ ~ ~ -~.. Ia_ C~ i ~^ i i ~~ i V ' W •rwi t ~t 1 y ~ ~ O ~ ---- --- ! 8 ~~' ~®® °`~~ ~~ 6 L~~~IR `~ REEF ~` e ~ ~ i~~g~ '^F + t~a ip~l ~4 ~y ~y., @. Et P E 41 ..F ~,` ~ ~ ~ h ~ :I------ ---- r------~ - ~ ~ ~_ ~ h r I ~ ''' ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~-- tq, ---- ------ ---------------- ---------- - -- .•~•••••• 133J1S ONd7121n0,~ `", :d'Y~'..'~im ~ ;` j¢ ~ e ig ;, arw aoh S` ~ i ,~i~ 1`~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ i • ~. ~~ ATTACHIIAENT 3 RECORDLNG REQUESTID BY: WHEN RECORDED RETC.R~I T0: WESTLAND ENGliVEERtNG 75 ZACA LANE, SUITE 100 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 9301 ~ __ D0C IYO~ 200-d22~~9 Rpt No: 00030473 Official Records ;NF -1 0.00 San Luis Obispo Co. ; Julie L. Rodewald ; Recorder ~ Apr 27, 2000 Time: 10:49 ~ ~ 11] ;roTAL o.oo IRREVOCABLE &t PERPETUAL OFFER TO DIDICATE THIS OFFER TO DIDICATE, made the 27 day of fePitll._ 200o by THE NAMES LIS't"6'D OS~t P~.GE. Z ~ Whereas, said Offeror desires to make an offer to dedicate, irrevocably, to the public, an easemen, for Public Road and Public Utility purposes, which o$er maybe accepted az any time by nay govetnmenra[ entity winch has the power to establish, constrict and maintain Roads and Public Utt7ities. NOW, THEREFORE, said Offeror covenaau and promises as follows: 1. That said Offeror is the owner of the following interest described below 5a Exhibit "A" 3. That said Offeror does hereby irrevocably and in perpetuity offer to such governmental entity a dedication of a public ri¢ht-of--way for Road and Public Utility purposes and incidental uses upon the following desrnbed grope: ~y: Set Exhibit "B" 3. That until such time as the above offer of dedication is accepted by such a govermnenxai entity, all owners of property rnntig~lous to the above described Road and Public Utility easement parcel shall have the right to the use of said Road and Public Utility easement parcel as a private Road and Public Utility easement 4. That said Offeror asrees that said offer of dedication shall be irrevocable. and that such a govertunent entity may, at any time in the future, accept said offer of dedication of the publicright-of-way. d. That said Offeror agrees that this irrevocable and perpetual Offer to Dedicate is and shall be binding on his heirs, legatees and assignees. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Offer to Dedicate is hereby executed by the said Offeror on the day and yeaz first above written. CHARLES M. BAKER AND KATHLEEN M. BAKER, TRUSTEES OF THE BAKER LIVING TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 24, 1993. ~- 26- 2AOd CHARLES M.BAI TRUSTEE DATE ~~ ~ ~~-~ KATHLEEN M.B R, TRUSTEE DATE TATSUMI KAWAOKA, MASAKATSU KAWAOKA, MIYOKO YASUKOCHI AND CRAIG KAWAOKA, CO-TRUSTEE OF THE EXEIv1PTI0N TRUST CREATED UNDER THE KINGO KAWAOKA FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST DATED APRIL 5, 1990. TATSUMI KAWAOKA, MASAKATSU KAWAOKA, MIYOKO YASUKOCHI AND CRAIG KAWAOKA. CO-TRUSTEES OF THE SURVNOR'S TRUST CREATED UNDER THE KINGO KAWAOKA FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST DATED APRIL 5, 1990. MASAKATSU K.4WAOKA, AS TRUSTEE OF THE KAWAOKA CHILDREN'S TRUST DATED DECEMBER 24, 1997. DATE: SIGNATURE: J -Soeb .~. ~~s1r~~~ TATS KA~AOKA nzUSr~& MASAKATSUKAWAOKA rRustse •-o~ f ~ MIYOKO UKO -rRUS1-ea< K- 2I - oD G KAWAOKA rausr~ --. .. ,. ~~•• EXF~IT "A" That portion of Block 115 and Manhattan Aveaue as shown on the bfap of the Town of Grover in the City of Grover Beach, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California according Book "A", Page 6 of Maps, in the office of the County Recordei of said County, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Easterly line of 18`~ Street which beats Southerly 8.69 feet from the Southwest corner of Said Block 115, said point of beginning being as angle in the City Limit Line described in the Annexation to the City of Aaoyo Grande entitled "Fair Oaks No. ""; thence along said ~Y Limit Line and parallel to the Southerly line of said Block 115, South 86° 45' 00" East, 259.00 feet; thence along a line parallel with and distant ?59,00 feet from the Easterly line of 18°i Street, North 3° 14' 46" East, 53.49 feat to the Southeast corner of that property descrbed in Book 160, Page 297 of Deeds filed in the Office of the Recorder of said County; thence along said South Iine, North 86° 45' 00" West, 259.00 feet to the Eastcdy line of 18°i Street; thence along said Easterly line, South 3° 14' 46" West, 55.49 feat to the point of beginning and containing 13,853 square feat, more or less. EXFIIBIT "B" That portion of Block 116 and itiianhattan Avenue as shown on the Iyfap of the Town of Grover m the City of Grover Beach, County of San Luis Obispo, State of Caifornia according Book "A", Page 6 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorde; of said County, desrn'bed as follows: Beginning at a point on the Easterly line of 18`h Street which bears Southerly 8.69 feet from the Southwest corner of Said Block I I5, said point of beginning being as angle in the City Limit Line descn'bed in the Annexation to the City of Arroyo Grande entitled "Fair Oaks No. r'; thence along said Ciry Limit Line and parallel with the Southerly line of said Block 115, South 86° 45' 00" East, 15.00 feet; ' thence along a line parallel to and distant 15.00 feet from the Easterly line of 18et Street, . North 3° 14' 46" East, 53.49 feet to the South line of that property described in Book 160, Page 29'7 of Deeds filed in the Office of the Recorder of said County; thence along said South line, North 86~ 45' 00" Wcst, 15.00 feet to the Easterly line of 18°i Street; thence along said Easterly line, South 3° 14',4.6" West, 53.49 feet to the point of begitming and containing 802 square feet, more or less. TOGETHER W1TH: That portion of Block 115 and i;Qanhattaa Avenue as shown an the Map of the Town of Grover in the City of Grover Beach, County ~of San Luis Obispo, State of California according Book "A", Page 6 of Malts, in the office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the Easterly line of 18m Street which bears Southerly 8.69 feat from the Southwest corner of Said Block 115, said point of beginning being an angle in the Ciry Limit Line descni~ed in the Annexation to the City of Arroyo Grande entitled "Fair Oaks No. 7"; thence along said Ciry Limit Line and parallel with the Southerly line of said Block 11:, South 86° 45' 00" East, Z~ 1.06 feet to the True Point of Beirming and the beanning of a c•,uve f concave So4~easte:ly; with a radio of 85.00 fee:; . r- ,.-~, thence along said curve Northeasterly and to the right from a tangent bearing of North 25° 00' 30" East through a central angle of 39° 23' S6" for an arc length of 38.45 feet to the City Limit Line as desrn'bed in said Annexation to the City of Arroyo Grande; thence along said Ciry Limit Line, South 3° 14' 46" West 42.95 feet; thence along said City Limit Line, Notch 86' 45' 00" West 37.94 feet to the Ttue Point of Beginning and containing 1,006 square feat more or less. ~ t,4N0 SCR v RD H. C'~.., 'i `r Prepared: February 17, 1999 Richard H. Cassera, LS 4283 At San Luis Obispo, Califatnia Renewal Date 6/30/00 .::~ ..~ m rz ~+ Q O 35' LLI ~ ~~ k., .~. °f T ~. 15" I 160-DEEDS-2g7 PROPOSED OFFER OF DEDICATION FER 51-LS_53 OFFER O~PDED CATION i N03'14'46'E 53.49'(M) ,M,.. ~ S$$'45'00'E 259.00'(M)~~Vv ^ _ PROPOSc"D ~~ NOT A PART OFFER OF DEDICATION ~ ~ TRACT 2260 R=85.00 ' o~ D=39'23 So; -_- _-- CITY UMIT$ (TYP) L=58.45 ; *, j S86'45'00°E 259.00'(M) ----"-- I 35' ~ 15' ~ ~ 279-OR-428 t ' ~ ;,PROPOSED OFr'ER OF DEDICATION ~ ~; TRACT 2260 I ' I ' J ~ ~ GRoAPHI~ SCALE ~ I ' I ~ - I ~ 1 inch - ao rt I 1 U ~~ WIQ min f ~~ ~I}O- OIO ~~~ j ~. I f~. ti : . I '':`'o; wi ~ ~~,s: O.. 9,~~ ~'-.I~ ~. `~. Rq~~q<, . Ss4 sg 3o f. PROPOSED OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR PL~LIC STREETS eerlc A PORnCN CF El~c ns CF THE TOWN OF GROVE4 P~ A LiAPS 8 IN TeIE C'a' JNTY CF SAN L'!IS OBlSPC. SAiE ~ CALFCRNIA. 'r4~ ARE7 3": WESTL,?~1v7~ ~NGII~ERL'FG CO~PA~~IY 7s ZACA uNE, sulr ~co SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA 93401 N0. 97.008 ,-. ~. ST~TEOFf~~G~~~~ COL~tI'Y OF .~. • A ~.oao On this ~S/ day of ~ , lA9$ before me; E'l t If s~ a ~f~°_ dr,~~ Notary Public, personally appeared: /' Q A t ~ ~ QWA t~ ~ f~ p~nrAtt., >m~~ r„ TM+e -0R-~ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instntmeat and acknowledged to me that, he~sl~J~y executed the same in his/hFfhhaff authorized capacitv(ies), and that by his/hoAthetr signature(s) on the instnument the person(s) or entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Wimess my hand es~r®opnai Co„rnbson r tzost2o ~ ~ - uyca,m,5~~+a~ STATE OF COLT~iTY OF On this, day of .1998 before me, Notary Public, personally appeared: personally known to me -OR-_„_ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is'are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that, he~shehhey executed the same in his/heritheir authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their sigoature(s) on the instrumem the person(s) or entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the insttumertt. Wimess my hand and official seal ,,, - CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ss- On Q~Jc. a•~. e2,p00, before me, ~-a-~•+~1 . • ~i • ~0 0 ~-~-r . ww''"-' - -wm..w nw aoaw p.a ~~u,. oo.. now vr~~i personally appeared 7 Q.'C.4L.Ln'LC. BOBBIE L. COLESON Comm. C 1203863 N NOTARY PORtIC•ULIFOANIA N Saa lah 004po Cwary „~ Yy Comm. Eebirer Oea R, 2002 rm. wtrr sw amw to be the person(s) whose name(s) Adore subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that>s~artney executed the same in Dif/Rst/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by )their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. sr.arrwtmvwac - OPTIONAL Though the inrormation below u rrot ragWred by law, R may prone veNabh ro persons rely6p on the documem and could prevent haudulent removal and realpG7ment of flu's /ore to another document. Description of Attached Title or Type of DowmeM: p Doament Date:11.,Q>t...2J"1 ~ eZ.,f~ Q 0 Numtaer of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Alxrve: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: v Individual TaVamume n.n C Corporate Officer -Title(s): Partner -Limited =General Attorney in Fact Trustee ~ i Cauardien or f:onservator I Other. I I i I i Signer Is Representing: .m 158T NauonY now/ Mraoaaa. • ):50 Ga Sow nn.. ?.C. Haa 2M',i • G.uwertn. .t 3t 3t3.7W: vroc ne.:e0? R.mev :~?y.:,~r t.dC.9?9-u8t? 1e proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence ALL•PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California • ~- , ~ ss. County of a !*_ n + r ; ~ OL21 ~ On . a ~ ~ X00 Q before me; ~ 8->f•-erC.~ ~ • ~i~-~ ~.~ 1+'x,, , on. wn,..m noe a oee.. ue.. •,.+. ooF woiay A,a;.~ personally appeared ~h-~-~ ~ • ~.2.~JLh,. , roman a sgMn.i 7~personaliy known to me .proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence .~ 0 31E 1, COIESON Comm. 01203963 N •~~ XOTAflYrueuc•culFOtwu S+o loit OOura Coaary ~ Y Comm. E:o4e5 Dec.6, 2005 ~~sw~ to be the person whose namej7Q is)aag subscribed tc the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/3hE/tl+aq executed the same (n his2tatf•NbedF authorized cspacity(~c), and that by his/ba~tiseit signature)rQ on the Instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(y~ acted, executed the Instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. -~ ;~..a,~„~ OPTIONAL Though Me Inlnrmalkn bebw is not npWred by law, d may prove valuable to persons +elying on the document end could prevent haudulent ramous! and raettaehment o/ Ws lam to another tlocumant. Description of Attached Document Ttlle ar Type Of Document M 1 .r Document Data: ~•~~ ..~/- '".',. Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: o(P~9es: // Capaeity(tes) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: G Individual C Corporate Officer-Title(s): _ Partner -~ Umited ^_ General Attorney in Fact Trustee Guardian or Conservator Other. Signerts Representing: lee a owmc n.n j K _ _ s tyS7 N.ppryl Neliry wvea.uon • 3754 J. Sera AV... ?.G. ae. leu"a • :.vnwaln. J~ 9+]:S•24'2 Oraa ~e. iA7: R.uar..au iaB+m :aCF575A51F ••' I CALIFORNIA MENT State of California ss. County of ~ ^ r~ , ! ~ -+ /~ 1^ ~ ~ ~~~ On ~r~.i.. a.a'e d ~ ~ C before me; ~ Y F, . ~r--.~ a .l h-TL) o.n wme are nw a omw l~o-• •+ene oow Wray PeoFf1 personally appeared - ~ • ~~-~ , ~ NaMq er sgnrrn personally known to me ~ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person~rj whose namei~ islarC subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me thatA6/she/@pyr'6xeated the same in 12+C/herRAd@ authorized capacity fA~, and that by QtCher/tlte~f signaturT~Q.on the instrument the personpcj, or 80991E 1. COIESON the entity upon behalf of which the person(t~ Comm. 01203983 N NOUNY e A F N acted, executed the instrument. ru OR uC•C U U &a td: oracle eounrr team. Eadru De. 6, 2002 WITNESS my hand and official.seal. /~ q ~- Nce Navy awlrUwe ~ ~ ~ ~ ,r ~ agmw. NetuY RroBc w _~~,. OPTIONAL Though the lnformatlon Debw is nor required 6y law, !r may prow valuable M pernona relying on the document and could prevent Daudulent remove/ and re~tachment o/ mis ram M another dacurrsnl. Description of Attached Document P ~ Title or Type of Docu m ent • ~ '~D ~` - Document Date: ~ii ~ e2_~ 0 0 ~ Number of Page"`>~ ~ """' " Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: CapacRy(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: ' G Individual ~ " Qorporete0fficer-Title(s): Paitner~" omit d =General "' AttomaY inFacf""".. ..'""„_."';.`_'."'e""~';`..., ... Trustee _ Guardian or Conservator Other. Signer Is Representing: ~~ ::f-i Neuentl Noury Hbuaupn • aSSO ie Sale iwe_ iri. Sea $6p. • CJ,ileweN~..:.4 a1s:i-aeC~ anic. roe, ;90t geaa~r.;ylTavnt'2C0-a16883~ ENQ OF DOCUMENT 8.g. *~,~.. ,o. ,a„~. TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A 3l4-TON UTILITY TRUCK FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 22, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize staff to purchase a 3/4-ton utility truck and the Extra Care Extended Warranty for the Public Works Department from Mullahey Ford in the amount of $24,655.45. FUNDING: Funding for this vehicle is included in the approved FY 2006/07 budget. A total of $26,000 was budgeted fora 3/4-ton truck. DISCUSSION: On August 1, 2006 the Public Works Department solicited bids fora 3/4-ton utility truck. The utility truck will be used by our Water Services Worker. The truck will provide storage of pipe, fittings, water meters and all necessary tools to pertorm service repairs and meter maintenance and will replace a 1994 3/4-toh pick up that meets the criteria per Administrative Policy and Procedures C-006 for replacement of light trucks of five years of age or 80,000 miles. The City received two responses from the four bid packages distributed for bid. Bids were received from Mullahey Ford and Christianson Chevrolet. Staff is requesting authorization to purchase the Extra Care Extended Warranty for $1,451 to ensure that this vehicle will be covered for major repairs for the life of the vehicle based on the City's Replacement Policy. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Approve staffs recommendation to purchase a '/< ton utility truck from Mullahey Ford; - Do not approve staffs recommendations; - Modify staff's recommendation as appropriate and approve; or - Provide direction to staff. Attachment: Bid Opening Log Sheet BID OPENING LOG SHEET CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RFP DEADLINE: August 10, 2006, 2:00 p.m. Public Works Truck SUBMITTED BY: Christianson Chevrolet Arroyo Grande, CA Mullahey Ford Arroyo Grande, CA TOTAL WARRANTY #1 WARRANTY #2 $24,376.85 $1,735 $1,100 $23,204.45 $1,520 $1,451 Kelly We'tmor¢~ Director of A ministrative Services/City Clerk c: Director of Public Works City Manager 8.h. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO,,jDIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2006-07 PUBLIC WORKS FEES AND SERVICE CHARGES DATE: AUGUST 22, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving the FY 2006-07 Public Works Fees and Service Charges. FUNDING: Services and equipment provided to other public agencies are charged based on the attached fee schedule. During the last year, these fees and service charges generated approximately $22,000 in revenue. DISCUSSION: The Public Works Department has updated the Schedule of Fees and Service Charges that other agencies will pay for services and equipment and for cost recovery for services provided to repairor replace damaged or vandalized City property that may occur during the fiscal year. Public Works also provides assistance to other public agencies on anon-priority basis. City work is scheduled ahead of the work performed for other agencies, unless the request is a result of an emergency. Examples of this service include rental of the City's paver, roller and otherequipment and manpower by the County or other agencies. When City property is damaged by traffic accidents or vandalism, costs to replace or repair the property is charged back to the responsible party based on these fees. These fees and charges include the City's indirect cost as set forth in the City's adopted Cost Allocation Plan. Due to a savings of $30,000 in the auto shop, the indirect cost rate was reduced by approximately $20,000 because of the elimination of personnel. Fringe benefits such as medical, dental, vision and salaries for Maintenance Personnel has increased. These changes caused labor to increase to $41.71 .per hour and the over-time rate to increase to $52.44 per hour. Equipment rates will increase an average of $1.00 per hour due to rising fuel and maintenance costs. An increase in material costs varies for asphalt, sand, Class #2 base, and concrete with the greatest increase for concrete from $80.25 to $95.00 per yard. Indirect costs are expenses not readily identifiable with a particular action or service, but rather are incurred for a joint purpose, which benefits more than one fund/department. Common examples of indirect costs are accounting, personnel, building maintenance, and utility expenses. Though indirect costs are not readily identifiable with direct operating 'programs, they can be allocated based on rational, logical methodology. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2006-07 PUBLIC WORKS FEES AND SERVICE CHARGES AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE2 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. Attachment: Schedule of Fees and Service Charges RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ESTABLISHING SPECIFIED FEES FOR PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES WHEREAS, the City Council has established fees for services furnished by, or on behalf of, the City of Arroyo Grahde; and WHEREAS, due to the effects of inflation and other factors, some of said fees are no longer adequate to equitably compensate the City for the costs of providing certain public works services; and. WHEREAS, the City wishes to recover the full cost of field services furnished by the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered, on August 22, 2006 at a regularly scheduled public meeting, the question of whether to adjust said fees to reflect the estimated amount that is required to compensate the City for providing such services; and WHEREAS, at said meeting the City Council has duly considered all oral and written presentations that were made regarding the proposed fees; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande that the schedule of fees entitled "CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FEES AND SERVICE CHARGES" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein is hereby approved and adopted. On motion of Council Member and by the following roll call vote, to wit: seconded by Council Member AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of August 2006. 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 EXHIBIT A PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Fees and Service Charges August 2006 LABOR COSTS: Computed = (monthly wage x 12 months _ 26 periods - 80 hours =hourly wage) Hourly wage x 42% (fringe benefits) + $5.95 (medical, dental, vision) =direct labor cost per hour + 14.56% indirect cost rate =billing rate DURING WORK HOURS Average Cost = $41.71 per hour DURING AFTER HOURS: (1.5 x hourly wage rate) less benefits Average Cost = $52.44 MINIMUM CALL-OUT RATE: (2 hours at 1.5 hourly wage rate) EQUIPMENT COST Pickup Trucks - $11.00 per hour Service Trucks - $38.00 Backhoe - $38.00 per hour per hour PW-2 PW-16 PW-42 PW-4 PW-34 PW-45 PW-32 PW-41 PW-6 PW-40 PW-33 PW-52 PW-36 PW-9 PW-1 CAT Generator - Loader - $58.00 per hour 6" Pump - $19.00 per hour $78.00 per hour PW-282 PW-38 PW-140 Dump/Flat Bed Truck Crack Sealer - $43.00 per hour Sewer Vacuum/Jet Truck 5-7 yards $43.00 per hour $106.00 per hour PW-19 PW-27 PW-50 PW-249 PW-51 Paver - $63.00 per hour Grader - $58.00 per hour Chipper - $43.00 per hour PW-46 PW-14 PW-111 Paint Striper - $63.00 per hour Concrete Saw - $14.00 per hour Air Compressor $17.00 per hour PW-47 PW-103 PW-243 Grinder - $27.00 per hour 5-Ton Roller - $24.00 per hour PW-154 PW-12 MATERIAL COST: (cost plus tax) Concrete - $95.00 yard Class II Base - $19.00 ton Sand - $16.00 ton A/C - $55.00 ton .1. TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE EAST GRAND AVENUE / HALCYON ROAD TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADE PROJECT, PW 2005-01 DATE: AUGUST 22, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council: A. accept the project improvements, as constructed by Lee Wilson Electric Company, Inc. in accordance with the plans and specifications for the East Grand Avenue / Halcyon Road Traffic Signal Upgrade Project; B. direct staff to file a Notice of Completion; and, C. authorize release of the retention of $19,883.90 thirty-five (35) days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded if no liens have been filed. FUNDING: On January 10, 2006, the City Council awarded the East Grand Avenue /Halcyon Road Traffic Signal Upgrade Project to Lee Wilson Electric Company, Inc. in the amount of $189,400.00. The total project budget was $208,340.00, which included costs for design, materials testing, contract administration, and construction contingencies. The final adjusted project cost is $198,839.00, resulting in a savings of $9,501.00. DISCUSSION: Lee Wilson Electric Company, Inc. has completed all items of work on the East Grand Avenue /Halcyon Road Traffic Signal Upgrade Project in accordance with the plans and specifications. The project scope of work included the replacement of the existing signal poles and mast arms, installation of a battery back-up system and the replacement of the controller equipment. The scope of work also included upgrades to the existing ADA ramps at the intersection for compliance with the current code requirements. S:\Public Works\Engineering\Capital Projects\2006\East Grand-Halcyon Signal\Council\Accept Project\Council Memo - Project Acceptance.doc CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE EAST GRAND AVENUE /HALCYON TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADE PROJECT, PW 2005-01 AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 2 Staff is recommending the Council accept the improvements as constructed, authorize staff to file a Notice of Completion, and release the remaining portion of the 10% retention ($19,883.90) to Lee Wilson Electric Company, Inc. thirty-five (35) days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded if no liens are filed. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: • Approve staffs recommendations; • Do not approve staff's recommendations; • Modify as appropriate and approve staffs recommendations; or • Provide direction to staff. Attachment: 1. Notice of Completion S:\Public Works\Engineering\Capi[al Projects\2006\Eas[ Grand-Halcyon Signal\Council\Accept Project\Council Memo - Project Acceptance.doc RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE P.O. BOX 550 ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93421 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: ATTACHMENTI 1. The undersigned is owner or agent of owner of the interest or estate stated below the property hereinafter describe. 2. The FULL NAME of the OWNER is: The City ofArrovo Grande 3. The FULL ADDRESS of the OWNER is: 214 East Branch Street. Arroyo Grande. California 93420 4. The NATURE OF THE INTEREST or ESTATE of the undersigned is: in fee 5. THE FULL NAME and FULL ADDRESS of ALL PERSONS, if any, who hold such interest or estate with the undersigned as JOINT TENANTS or as TENANTS IN COMMON aze: NAMES ADDRESSES 6. THE FULL NAMES and FULL ADDRESSES of the PREDECESSOR'S in interest of the undersigned if the property was transferred subsequent to the commencement of the work of improvements herein referred to: NAMES ADDRESSES 7. All work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was COMPLETED August 4. 2006 8. The NAME OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR, if any, for such work of improvement is: Lee Wilson Electric Company Inc. 9. The street address of said property is: Intersection of East Grand Avenue and Halcyon Road 10. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of Califomia, and is described as follows: _ East Grand Avenue/Halcyon Road Tragic Signal Upgrade Project. PW 2005-01 Verification ofNON-INDIVIDUAL owner: I, the undersigned, declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe Slate ofCalifomia that I am the Public Works Director of the aforesaid interest or estate in the property described in the above notice; that I have read the said notice, that I know and understand the contents thereof, and the facts stated therein aze tme and correct. Don Spagnolo, PE, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 22, 2006, Arroyo Grande, California -- END OF DOCUMENT -- 9.a. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING On TUESDAY, AUGUST 22, 2006, the Arroyo Grande City Council will conduct a public hearing at 7:00 P.M. in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET, ARROYO GRANDE to consider the following item: CASE NO.: Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of Conditional Use Permit Case No. 06-002 (Continued from June 13, 2006). The City Council will consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit Case No. 06-002 for demolition of an existing veterinary clinic and construction of a new two-story veterinary clinic. LOCATION: 270 N. Halcyon Road APPELLANT: VCA South County Animal Hospital STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Ryan Foster, Assistant Planner The Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the item listed above. If you challenge the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Failure of any person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the action of the legislative body for which the notice was given. Information relating to these items is available by contacting Arroyo Grande City Hall at 473-5414. The Counc/i~l meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20. L!S Kelly We or ,City Clerk Publish 1T, The Tribune, Friday, August 11, 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR~1~~ BY: RYAN FOSTER, ASSISTANT PLANNER ~~-(~ SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-002; 270 NORTH HALCYON ROAD (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 13, 2006) DATE: AUGUST 22, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution,. denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit 06-002 (Attachment 1). At the direction of the Council, the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) reviewed the project at its meeting of August 7, 2006 and recommends that the project be revised based on the discussion below (Attachment 2). FUNDING: There is no direct fiscal impact to the City associated with the project. DISCUSSION: Background On June 13, 2006, the City Council considered an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny approval of Conditional Use Permit 06-002. The Council reviewed plans that had been revised based on the Commission's denial. These revisions consisted of increasing the rear setback of the proposed building and minor changes to the landscaping plan. The Council deferred taking final action on the appeal and directed the ARC to review the revised project and make recommendations regarding the following items: ^ Alternative foundation systems; ^ Altemative plans to save existing eucalyptus trees; • Potential parking reductions; • Final location of street trees; ^ The architectural character of the proposed building; and ^ Internal parking lot circulation S:\Community DevelopmentlPROJECTS\APL\06-001 WPL_06001_CC_RPT_2.doc clnr coulvclL APPEAL 06-001 AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 2 OF 5 Supalemental Information Report The applicant provided a Supplemental Information Report (Attachment 3) that contains an expanded arborist's report, specifications for alternative foundation systems, and several alternative designs intended to save the existing eucalyptus trees, including one alternative that would create additional on-street parking on North Rena Street (proposed by Community Development Department staff). The expanded arborist's report studied the issue of how close a building foundation could be placed next to the existing trees without endangering their longevity. The report concluded that, based on several sources, the optimal 'Tree Protection Zone' should be defined as 1.25' of distance from trunk for every 1" of trunk diameter, measured at breast height. Because the trees vary in size and location, this `Tree Protection Zone' does not form a rectangular buffer area, but rather amulti-pointed polygon, as illustrated in the report. This zone extends a maximum of distance of approximately 61' from the southern property line. As stated above, the Report contains several design alternatives, which are summarized below: ^ Scenario 1 -Retain all existing trees. This scenario was completed to determine the maximum building footprint that would be allowed based on the 'Tree Protection Zone' identified in the expanded arborist's report if all but the damaged tree were retained. Under this scenario, the buildable area is reduced to 3,031 square-feet and eight (8) on=site parking spaces (this scenario incorporates staff proposal for additional on-street parking). This study determined this scenario to be infeasible due to the program for the clinic's future operations, which requires a minimum footprint (first-floor) of 3,568 square-feet. ^ Scenario 2 -Remove only the largest trees. This scenario was completed to determine the maximum building footprint that would be allowed based on the 'Tree Protection Zone' idehtified in the expanded arborist's report if only the largest existing trees were removed. While this scenario allows a maximum building footprint beyond the minimum required by the program for the clinic's future operations, due to the triangular shape of the property, the maximum length of the building would be too short to accommodate internal circulation for the integrated functions of the clinic. ^ Scenario 3 -Removal and replacement of trees. This scenario was ultimately determined by the applicant to be the preferred alternative based on both the required minimum footprint based on the program for the clinic's future operations and the minimum building length required to accommodate internal circulation for the integrated functions of the clinic, which cannot be separated onto two levels. S:\Community Development\PROJECTS\APL\06-001\APL_06.001_CC_RPT_2.doc CITY COUNCIL APPEAL 06-001 AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 3 OF 5 The revised plan (based on Scenario 3, included in the Report) does include an increased setback for the proposed building of 10' from the southern property line. This would allow more room for replacement trees; however, based on the expanded arborist's report, it would further damage the existing eucalyptus trees. The applicant has provided the materials requested by the Council, including several renderings of the proposed building, showing both proposed replacement trees and also the unobstructed building itself. A color and materials board will be present at the meeting for Council review. ARC Review and Recommendations At the direction of the Council, the ARC reviewed the Supplemental Information Report, including revisions to the project, at its meeting of August 7, 2006. In order to address all of the Council's concerns, the ARC made several recommendations, as follows (votes are shown in italics): ^ Alternative foundation systems and alternative plans to save existing eucalyptus trees -recommend that the applicant further revise plans for the proposed building as to not impact the trees, using a pier foundation as necessary, preferably moving the proposed building to the northern end of the property (3-1); ^ Potential parking reductions -recommend that the project include at least eleven (11) on-site parking spaces, provided that the applicant can secure four (4) additional off-site parking spaces; if the applicant cannot secure off-site parking, the project should include at least fourteen (14) on-site parking spaces (4-0); ^ Final location of street trees -recommend that street trees be planted with construction of the project in a location that will allow them to remain once Halcyon Road is widened, if feasible, as determined by the landscape architect (4-0); ^ Architectural character of proposed building -recommend that .the asphalt shingle roof be replaced with a standing seam roof, with color and material to be reviewed by the ARC (4-0); and ^ Internal parking lot circulation -the ARC did not make a recommendation regarding this issue. Falling Limbs The applicant has submitted materials to Community Development Department staff documenting two instances of limbs falling off of the existing eucalyptus trees, one in the South County VCA parking lot, the other on North Rena Street, between City property and the South County VCA property (Attachment 4). Public Comment S:\Community Development\PROJECTSWPL\06001 ViPL_OG001_CC_RPT_2.doc CITY COUNCIL APPEAL 06-001 AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 4 OF 5 Community Development Department Staff has received six (6) letters from members of the public supporting the project since the June 13, 2006 City Council meeting (Attachment 5). Staff Alternatives The Community Development Department staff has developed two (2) alternative plans for the proposed project (Attachment 6), described below: ^ Alternative #1: This alternative would place the proposed building approximately 24' from the southern property line and include a new row of trees adjacent to the proposed building, while retaining the existing eucalyptus trees along the southern property line. Due to the increased building setback from the southern property line, the shape of the proposed building footprint would have to be revised to retain the desired floor area. This alternative was reviewed by the applicant and determined to be infeasible due to the desired minimum building length (addressed above under Scenario 2). ^ Alternative #2: This alternative is essentially the same as Alternative #1, with the exception that it would allow placement of the proposed building footprint at a setback of approximately 24' from the southern property line. This would require the City to abandon a portion of North Rena Street to accommodate moving the building footprint to the east. In order to confirm whether this option is feasible, staff requested the applicant to perform exploratory trenching of the property to determine the location and density of existing tree roots at 10' and 20' from the southern property line to help determine the feasibility of placing the building footprint within the 'Tree Protection Zone' as defined in the expanded arborist's report. However, the applicant declined this request, preferring the information in the Report be allowed to stand on it's own merit. It should be noted that the applicant did not have sufficient time to review this alternative before preparation of this report. Both of the above alternatives include a re-alignment of North Rena Street to provide additional on-street parking. The alternatives also show how the City property, which currently contains the temporary modular office for the Police Department, could be redeveloped into a shared parking lot once the Police Department building is renovated. It should be noted that although the alternatives show adouble-loaded parking lot, this would require future removal of the eucalyptus trees. If the trees were to remain indefinitely, the parking lot could only be developed with a maximum of eleven (11) on- site parking spaces. S:\Communiry Development\PROJECTS\APL\06001\APL_06-001_CC_RPT_2.doc CITY COUNCIL APPEAL 06-001 AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 5 OF 5 ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are presented for Council consideration: 1. Adopt the attached Resolution denying the appeal and thereby denying approval of Conditional Use Permit 06-002; 2. Do not adopt the attached Resolution, tentatively uphold the appeal and direct staff to return with a supporting Resolution; or 3. Provide direction to staff Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Minutes, April 18, 2006 2. Architectural Review Committee (ARC) Notes, August 7, 2006 3. Supplemental Information Report (distributed to Council, on file in Community Development Department) 4. Documentation of falling limbs 5. Public comment letters 6. Staff alternative plans S:\Community Development\PROJECTSWPL\06001\P,PL_06001_CC_RPT_2.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING APPEAL 06-001 AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-002; LOCATED AT 270 NORTH HALCYON ROAD; APPLIED FOR BY THE SOUTH COUNTY VETERINARY CLINIC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande considered an application for Conditional Use Permit 06-002 to demolish an existing animal hospital and construct a new two-story animal hospital at 270 North Halcyon Road at a public hearing on April 18, 2006 and made a motion to deny approval of Conditional Use Permit and direct staff to return with a supporting Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande adopted a Resolution to deny Conditional Use Permit 06-002 on June 6, 2006; and WHEREAS, the applicant has filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered this appeal at a public hearing on August 22, 2006 in accordance with the Municipal Code of the City of Arroyo Grande; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following required findings for Conditional Use Permit approval cannot be made in an affirmative manner: The proposed use is permitted within the subject district pursuant to the provisions of this section and complies with all the applicable provisions of this title, the goals, and objectives of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the city. The proposed removal of mature eucalyptus trees necessary to develop the proposed project does not comply with the following General Plan policies: ^ C/OS 1-1.4 -Locate structures...on portions of a site so as to minimize visual impact (Conservation Element). LU 11-2.4 -Require that new developments be designed so as to respect the views from existing developments; provide view corridors which are oriented toward existing or proposed community amenities, such as park, open space, or natural features (Land Use Element). LU 11-2.5-Design development projects within the City of Arroyo Grande to provide screening as necessary to shield neighboring properties from the adverse effects of that development (Land Use Element). RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be established or located. The proposed use would impair the integrity and character of the district in which if is to be located because the proposed building does not relate to the prevailing, existing or planned scale of adjacent development (LU 11.2.2). 3. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development that is proposed. The site is not suitable for the intensity of development that is proposed because the proposed setbacks do not provide an adequate buffer between dissimilar uses (LU 11-1.2) nor do the proposed setbacks from streets and adjacent properties relate to the scale of the structure and the width of the street (LU 11-2.3). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby denies Appeal 06-001 and upholds the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit 06-002, based on the above findings. On motion by Council Member following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: seconded by Council Member ,and by the the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 22"d day of August, 2006. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 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 ATTACHMENT1 C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 06-002; APPLICh~~ -wu rn cvurv ~ t J VET CLINIC; LOCATION - 270 N. HALCYON. Mr. Foster presented the staff report for consideration of an application for demolition of an existing veterinary clinic and construction of a new two-story clinic on the opposite end of the property. He explained that there are long range plans to widen Halcyon Road; the effects of widening on the proposed project would reduce the setback on the Halcyon Road side to zero feet (which is consistent with the current mixed use zoning) and would also reduce the parking by two spaces. There are eight eucalyptus trees proposed to be removed located on and adjacent to the southern property line and two street trees proposed to be removed (due to the location of the building and the foundation prep required), on the western side of the property. The applicant is proposing a replacement ratio of 2:1, double the Code requirement, so there will be a total of 27 trees (20 new & 7 existing). The applicant is asking the Planning Commission to establish appropriate parking requirements (as they are not specifically delineated in the Code for this type of a use). Not included in the staff report is a proposal to utilize the existing building while the new building is being built; the applicant is discussing additional parking with the church across the street to mitigate the loss of onsite parking, but there is no formal agreement at this time. The ARC recommended approval of the project including the proposed removal of eucalyptus trees with recommended changes to the landscape/parking; a condition was included in the Resolution that the revised landscape/parking plan is returned for review to the ARC prior to issuance of a building permit. In conclusion, Mr. Foster stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 06-002, including the findings of approval for the project. The Commissioners asked questions to clarify some statements in the staff report. Commissioner Tait asked for clarification on the area behind the police modular and what this area would be used for in the future. Mr. Foster explained that parking is located there and a 3-foot fence to help screen it; plans for the future will change this area and parking may be where the modular is now located. Commissioner Parker asked if there would be a retention wall in the area that the Police Department had graded next to the veterinary property. Director Strong stated there would not be a retention wall in this area. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing to public comment. Eugene Sims, architect, stated he had brought a model, material board, and photograph of the proposed project for Commission review; introduced Dr. Pollock and LeeAnn Palm from VCA Animal Hospital, Wes Conner, arborist and Dr. Levine who were present to answer questions. Mr. Sims submitted a petition which had been signed by over 200 residents in the area supporting replacement of the eucalyptus trees on the south side of their property. Dr. Ken Levine, stated that he and his wife had planted the eucalyptus trees many years ago and it would not hurt their feelings a bit if they were taken out. Hugh Pope, 723 Bennett Avenue, closest residence to existing animal hospital, stated the animal clinic has been a very good neighbor. His only concerns were that conditions would be included to state (as conditioned in the prior conditional use permit). • No outside dog runs; • No boarding of animals; • No incineration of animal carcasses; and • No excessive noise (noise abatement). Gary Scherquist 228 Short Street, stated he believes the trees can be saved with the exception of one tree that has been severely cut. Regarding the soil report on the trees he believed a different type of foundation could solve the problem; Eucalyptus Nikoli can be used for street trees. Chair Fellows closed the public hearing to public comment In reply to a question from Commissioner Tait, Steve Paulick, Medical Director, stated that the space upstairs would be used for recovery of cats, but they are not a boarding facility. In reply to the comment by Mr. Scherquist, regarding a different type of foundation for saving the trees, Wes Conner, arborist, stated that having a whole series of trees side by side would make it difficult for both aeration and nutrients to get to the remaining roots underneath the building; in addition, the roots that have already been cut on the south side of the relocated Police building severed some of the structural roots. With buildings on both sides of the roots the trees would not survive and may become safety a hazard. Regarding the comment from Mr. Scherquist on the Eucalyptus Nikoli, he agreed they can be used for street trees, but only if put in when small and given opportunity to survive plus they would have to be continuously pruned and maintained in order to survive. Street trees traditionally have a life span of about 25 years. In reply to a question from Commissioner Parker, Mr. Conner stated that even if there were 20 feet between the building (a one-story building) and the trees it would still restrict the opportunity for the trees to survive properly. Commissioner Parker asked if the building were a smaller footprint and the space inside rearranged could the upstairs space be used for hospital use. Dr. Pollock stated that that they had looked at this, but working in two stories for a veterinary hospital would not be practical. Commissioner Parker expressed concern that the recommended replacement trees, Holly Oaks, (which grow to 40 feet tall and 40 feet around) and would not survive in a two foot space close to a building. Mr. Sims stated that they would work with the City to get the trees right and would follow up on this. Although the public hearing was closed Chair Fellows allowed Mr. Scherquist's request to make further comment. He was not present at the last ARC meeting, but the ARC had suggested that the smaller area to the north be used for employee parking so there would be an entrance off Rena Street and off Halcyon Road for the public. This would allow one for one additional parking space in the driveway area and then would allow the building to be moved a width of one parking space also. Commission Comments: Tait: • He concurred with the ARC and would like to save the trees, but he was not sure this could happen with what has happened in the recent past; experts are stating that even moving the building 15-20 feet away from the trees would not help; the trees may be reaching senility and probably should be removed and replaced with something more appropriate (although he does not like to state this). • The parking has been worked as best as can be. • The interim parking using the Church lot whilst the building is under construction should be a condition. • The applicant has worked very well with the landscape to keep the entrance to the gateway of the City looking good and have done a good job with this. • This animal hospital is an important facility that does need expansion. • He is favorable towards this project. Commissioner Parker stated that this grove of eucalyptus trees is our visual gateway to Arroyo Grande; we are proposing to replace them with a parking lot and atwo-story building and it does not make sense to her; she also has a problem imagining how 40-foot replacement trees planted behind the building, in a two-foot planting area, would survive; there is only room for bushes or ground cover. She believes the project could be redesigned to save the trees (the building moved up). She could not support the project the way it is. Fellows: • This project is over-developed for site and wrong for the community; it's zoned mixed-use, but it's immediately adjacent to a residential area. • It's in a tree City where you we are asking to take down the trees, a large esthetic contributor to our small town rural character and asking us to grace the gateway on Halcyon Road with a parking lot instead of a building and asking for a smaller parking lot than is not really adequate for the size of the building you are proposing. • You are asking to keep the building you are in while the new one is being built, but where the building is now is the best location for it. • He could not support the project in any form that it is in now. Commissioner Fellows then read from the General Plan the sections that he felt related to the reasons he could not support the project: • Introduction, Page 7, Community Vision: This does also relate to trees and all but one of these trees could be saved. • Page Ag C/OS-11, C/OS1-1.4 - "locate structures to minimize visual impact" & C/OS1-1.5- he disagrees with the staff report- the tress are a wonderful mitigation for a two-story building. • Land Use Element: Page LUE-10, LU5-6: Mixed Use: the grove of eucalyptus trees are a positive part of our environment. • Growth Management, Page LUE-16, LU11-1, "Require new developments to be at appropriate density based upon compatibility with majority of existing surrounding land use": Even though a lot of people signed a petition we have no idea under what conditions they signed or what they were told so he could not give serious consideration to the signatures on the petition. • LU11-1.1: As proposed this project fails ih a lot of different aspects. • LU11-1.2: Re adequate buffering -the trees serve this function. • LU11-2: This project as proposed is not designed to create pleasing transitions to surrounding development. • LU11-2.1: As proposed this would not be a good fit. • LU11-2.2: This building would be taller than the Police station and the residences next to it. • LU11-2.3: Setbacks do not relate to scale of structure and width of street. • LU11-2.4 & 2.5: There would be no trees to screen from the residential neighborhood. He further stated that he does not agree with the staff report that the environmental determination can be made for this proposed project; that the existing trees are not appropriate for this project; that replacement of the existing trees would improve the urban forest. However, removal of the trees would impact the sites scenic beauty; there are no parking agreements with the neighbors yet; he cannot make the finding that: the proposed project will not create any adverse environmental impacts. Commissioner Tait stated he had asked Mr. Sims about the distance between the chain link fence and the sidewalk as he had the same concern as Commissioner Parker regarding the two foot planter area in the back and how trees that would grow to 40 feet would survive. Mr. Sims stated that the dimensions stated on the site plans were correct. The Commission had a discussion on whether they could make a motion that would include saving the trees. Commissioner Parker stated that any motion to save the trees would include altering the design plan and that is something they could not dictate. Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Chair Fellows, to deny, without prejudice, the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 06-002, and that Findings Nos. 1., 2. & 3. could not be made as explained by Chair Fellows during his discussion on the General Plan. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Parker and Chair Fellows NOES: Commissioner Tait ABSENT: Commissioners Brown and Ray Director Strong reminded the public that this action is final unless appealed and filed within 10 working days, with the City Clerk. ARC NOTES AUGUST 7, 2006 _ PAGE 3 ATTACHMENT2 • The plans may be confusing for the builder. (It was noted that construction plans to scale will be required by the Building Department prior to permit issuance.) • ARC should review details of the gusset plates once the fabricator has c e up with a design. Gary Scherquist moved and Kristen Barneich seconded recommend 'on of approval to the Community Development Director for ARC 06-002 with the fo ing conditions: • The false front shall be removed. • The rear structure shall have a hip or gable roof at a applicant's discretion. • The brick shall match the front of the existing b 'ding. • Sketches of the detailing of gusset plates nd decorative features designed by the applicant's craftsman shall be re 'wed by ARC prior to construction (in office). • Aluminum samples shall be revie d by ARC prior to construction (in office). • Staff shall review revised co ruction plans for conformance to this motion. If staff feels they're not in co rmance, plans shall return for further ARC review. Discussion: At Mr. Scherq ' is request, Mr. Gutierrez described the fire pits as being about 36" high and 5' in ameter. Consensus was to approve the river rock detail on the fire pits and add it the motion. • River rocks be used on the fire pits. Motion aooroved• 4/0 voice vote. There was ~-minute break at 3:30 p.m. Mr. St ng noted that reporting of this item to Planning Commission would include addi ' nal information related to the use permit. One neighbor has voiced concern over n ' e in the evenings, so one idea to address that is the addition of an acoustical screen the rear to help deflect sound from the Miller Street neighborhood. ARC requested review of the acoustical screen once designed. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 06-002; APPLICANT -SOUTH COUNTY VETERINARY CLINIC (VCA); REPRESENTATIVE -JOSEPH ECHEVARRI, SIM ARCHITECTS; LOCATION - 270 HALCYON. Assistant Planner Ryan Foster presented the staff report. Per Mr. Scherquist's request, he read aloud the City Council motion. In response to Chair Hoag, he affirmed that Council didn't agree with ARC's recommendation to approve the prior project, directed ARC to review alternatives, and didn't provide for or against preserving the trees. Ms. Barneich asked, "Where is Mr. Strong's hand-sketched plan where all the trees were saved and more parking is located on the street? In response to Ms. Barneich, Mr. Strong noted that his hand-sketched plan is similar to options 1 and 2 in the back of the applicant's Supplemental Information Report, however two out of the three neighbors consulted had objections. Eugene Sim, principal at SIM Architects, introduced the consultant team. Present were: • Joseph Echevarri, architect at SIM, ARC NOTES AUGUST 7, 2006 PAGE 4 • Jerry Kay, counsel to the VCA, • Ross Wells, HWA landscape architect, • Wes Connor, arborist, • LeeAnn Palm, Vice President of VCA, • Tony Samma, TSA structural engineer, and • Dr. Steven Paulick, head physician at VCA. Joseph Echevarri discussed the three alternatives presented in the report. Option 1 shows all trees retained. However, there wouldn't be enough room left to accommodate the square footage required by the needs of the animal hospital, and it's a mix of acute angles that wouldn't work for them. Therefore, option 1 isn't feasible. In option 2, which proposes removal of some of the largest trees and moves the building further north, there still isn't room enough for the required square footage on the first floor. They can't just adjust this by moving exam rooms upstairs, as it would be awkward and inefficient for circulation of pets, owners and staff. Also, onsite parking is very small at only 8 spaces, which wouldn't work either, so this wouldn't be a viable solution. Option 3 is the only feasible option. Although it removes existing trees, there's more room for new ones and would allow the required square footage for the VCA. This is best for both the VCA and the City. ARC questions Scherquist • Are you retaining one eucalyptus on the street side? Yes -the leaning one. o Mr. Peachey agreed that it should be identified better on the landscape plan. Barneich • What is the reasoning for replacing the Eucalyptus with Holly Oaks and Bottle Trees, since they get 40-70' and 30-50' high, respectively? They donY normally get that tall - usually more like 30; and they will have to be selectively pruned as they grow. • Are the Eucalyptus currently being irrigated? They have been irrigated at least up to the last couple years. • Won't the roots of new trees extend under foundations in a short time, since there's only a 10' area? Roots are opportunistic and will grow where there are water and nutrients, so they'll probably stay in that area and perhaps go towards PD. Newer trees adapt to their environment, older trees generally do not. • Can the roots be pruned on the Eucalyptus similar to street tree root pruning? It would be a continual effort at both the top and roots - a continuous conflict. • Is the new building located so that they can use the existing one during construction? Yes, but also due to the shape - a narrow building crammed into the comer would be inefficient for their use. • Would it be difficult to find another building for temporary use during construction and is that common? Dr. Paulick replied that he didn't know anyone who has done that, but he supposed it could be done. Hoag • Is the setback now 10' (instead of 5')? Yes. ARC NOTES AUGUST 7, 2006 PAGE 5 • Is there no required setback in this zone? Right, it's 0-15' in the Mixed Use zoning. If the street is widened later, the resulting O'setback would be allowed. • Is that why Council is concerned to lose street trees? Yes. • In terms of the footprint, is it an 8' overhang on the second story? Yes. That is less than half of the building. • It was helpful to have photo simulations of the building and how the screen enhances it. Council's comment that they're "exchanging one concrete box for another" does the structure a disservice, as the new one is more varied in profile with a pitched roof in the middle. Unfortunately, the mature trees in the simulations obscure part of the building. They were meant to show mature landscaping. Barneich • Will street trees disappear with widening Halcyon? They move or get replaced as shown in L1/L2. Scherquist • Why not plant future trees now? That would conflict with new sidewalk or new onsife planter curb being poured, which would be bad for the roots. Barneich • Why plant the Western Redbud if it doesn't do well here? It's the Eastern Redbud that doesn't do well here. Scherquist • Basically he likes the building, but asked if the East elevation could be worked on to look more "friendly" per Council's request. • Why is there a gabled roof in the middle of two rectilinear forms? The main roof of the existing building leaks due to flatness. They wanted to reduce the amount of roof drains, so a shed roof is best. • Why did they propose an asphalt roof so out of character with the screen and quality of design? They considered a metal roof, but asphalt has a more residential feel. • Who designed the property screen between the PD and VCA? Ross Wells designed it for a Blood Red Trumpet Vine. • Can't they keep the mature trees instead of replacing them with small trees and waiting 20-30 years for the same growth? They're looking at five years (start with 8' and end up with 25'in 5 years). o How long. will they last? We've seen them grow to 75 years old in Mediterranean climates. • On the page showing "Scenario 2, slab foundation", if the tree had a 24" barrier, it seems there would be plenty of feeder roots and that with new irrigation the roots would grow. Will it die if the building is setback 20' from it? Those trees are distressed now and will continue to be so, due fo City activities to the south. Anything we do will cause them to have a shorter life, including irrigation, fertilization and aeration, because it changes the root environment. o But it wouldn't kill the tree? It wouldnY be immediate, but it would be faster. • On the page showing "Scenario 2, pier foundation", it shows the new tree with roots going onto City property. When the City builds there, will they have to remove the new trees? There will be barriers; so new roots will go east and west rather than north and south. ARC NOTES AUGUST 7, 2006 PAGE 6 o How deep are barriers? They're 24'; mainly to deflect roots from paving. They're already destabilized from one side and now would be from the other side. On the PD side, they cut the roots. The aerial roots maintain stability of the tree, not the taproot. At some point, it will fall on the building. o If the new tree barrier is only 24", when they excavate foundations, they will cut roots of the new trees. The City will have to protect our new trees. We want to keep stabilizing roots. Next door, with compaction and putting down brick, it damaged the roots. ^ Ms. Barneich asked how they're being held? There's a taproot, aerial roots and structural roots. o Aren't the aerial roots going down at a certain angle? The feeder roofs are, generally in the top 12-24': Structural roots start there and go down further, but usually not much more than 36': o Do the stabilizing roots go down so that by the time they're 24' out, they're about 36" deep and they could use a post and beam system (instead of compaction)? The pile could go right through the roots. They donY know where they are, because they curve and change direction. The southeast comer of the parking lot is buckling 24' away from the tree base, so there are substantial roots that far away. It also depends on moisture, because the roots don't go down as far during a drought. o What is the difference between structural roots and feeder roots? Feeder roots continue to expand and grow and eventually become structural roots. These trees are already weak and if do any more damage above or below, it will weaken them further. • Are they tearing them out, because of damage the City caused to the trees? The trees are inappropriate in the first place. Ken Levine made a presentation fo Council noting they don't come from a Mediterranean climate and donY adapt to our drought conditions, that's why he had to put in irrigation. If this is built, those trees would fail earlier than they would otherwise. • It would be nice to keep them. After the first public hearing at which Mr. Connor spoke against saving them and I spoke for them, Mr. Connor came up to me and commented, "You were right. Good job". • As far as location, with the upturned slab edge beam they can get more than 12' spacing. He hates to see the trees go. Peachey • Pier Caisson systems are expensive to preserve trees. • Didn't these trees get approved to be removed with the PD application? No, Council chose to have them trimmed. ARC recommended removal. • Are they short on parking? Based on the City's 1:250 ratio, yes, but the Development Code has a provision that the approving body can determine what an appropriate ratio is for uses not otherwise specifically listed. o In his mind, it's no different than a medical use. Parking is usually worse than a general office. Mr. Foster noted that a hospital (for humans) generally gets more visitors, whereas an animal hospital is often adrop-off/pickup situation. o Can they achieve a permanent off-street parking agreement with the church? They have for the construction period, buf it doesnY look hopeful for a ARC NOTES AUGUST 7, 2006 PAGE 7 permanent agreement. There is more on-street parking than normal due to the location. o How many spaces are proposed? 15 before and 13 after street widening. o How many spaces are required by the strict interpretation? At 1:250, it would be 18. o Did the Higgins study suggest 9 to 15 spaces? Yes. • Are the current Eucalyptus at the end of their lifespan even if they weren't damaged? They are approaching maturity. How long they'll live beyond that cant be determined. Even if there were statistics available, it would be in a natural environment, not with roofs cut and the wind blowing -there are too many variables. o How long ago were the roots cut? About January/February. o Has anybody inspected them for signs of stress? Yes and they are more stressed. They paved over what roofs remain and did compaction between the temporary PD building and trees 1-5. They're going to put in brick pavement; so more work is taking place today., o Are there signs like throwing limbs off? It's not something that will happen overnight. It's along-term condition - 6 months to a year. o What are PD's plans for a permanent building? There arenY any yet, but it will be a parking lot or building, so there will be more pavement or footings. The lot is only 50' wide and wont accommodate any use more than 10' away from trees. o Since the City cut the trees, can we get a concession for saving future trees, since the same thing may happen again? • Was there a three dimensional depiction of architecture presented at Planning Commission? Yes, and it's here today. o He likes the architecture and doesn't understand why Council didn't. Hoag • With the gable roof not matching the two ends of the building, it keeps it from being a box. The architecture works here, whereas it wouldn't in other parts of the City. • The roofing material might be a more appropriate color standing seam roof. It's not that important to match the character across the street. • On trees, he doesn't know what to think. He's told that the south side roots have been compromised and he's not sure what would be gained at the expense of a revised building program, but if that's the priority of the system, that's what it has to be. • This isn't a bad project. It represents a lot of challenges, as well as opportunities. Barneich • Is the green color in the Supplemental Report true? No, it's a patina green. Scherquist • Could there be an overhang on the east elevation, like an eyebrow to the depth of the return? We could study that to further break down the scale. Hoag • Could they use a standing seam metal roof in the same patina green? There were some comments it would look too industrial for the area. ARC NOTES AUGUST 7, 2006 PAGE 8 ARC Comments After discussion on how to proceed with Council's direction, it was decided to discuss first the priority of saving trees, which would color the rest of the issues. 1. Alternatives to save the trees: Bameich • If the motion changes the location of the building, the alternatives will be different. If not, the small accent trees (Butis and Melaleuca) should be replaced with something taller, more vertical like Ginkgo. They also have a 3' hedgerow and a fence on back to block cars and headlights. • She expected more alternatives after Council, and this plan is the same one they've seen for the third time except moving the setback another 5'. • She likes the building, which may be big and boxy, but she likes its modern look. • However, she prefers the building to be located on the corner for viewing from EI Camino Real. With the parking lot tucked in back, it would save the trees and possibly allow for more parking. • She encourages pursuit of a parking agreement with neighbors. • She hoped the building would be moved 24' back, which reflects Mr. Strong's plan. • One tree will have to come out that was root pruned with a chainsaw, but the others should stay. Scherquist • He agreed with Ms. Barneich. The City has bent over backwards to accommodate the VCA while saving the trees. The applicant just kept the original plan and tried to justify removing trees, which is unfortunate, because Council's motion was to consider alternatives to save trees. • The building should be on the corner at the gateway. Also, he would be okay with moving it far enough away to accommodate the trees. • In regards to what the City has done to trees from the other side, this should be taken up with the City Arborist. Council moved to save trees and authorized money to prune them. He doesn't want an unsafe condition there. • He's also in favor of scenario 1 or 2. Peachey • He supports removing the trees for the following reasons. o Granted, large trees have a public benefit to public. However, it's apparent there's a problem created in trying to save them on a property line between two commercial buildings. o He would prefer to see more trees on public streets, instead of having to struggle with these in the future. o He would support moving street trees back in an effort to screen parking. It's unfortunate that they're eucalyptus. Every project he works with, people want to get rid of them because they're messy and dangerous. Mr. Scherquist noted these are a different species. It's the Blue Gum that is bad. One of these is a City street tree and another is a street tree elsewhere. • He still supports creating more space for landscaping at the corner. ARC NOTES AUGUST 7, 2006 PAGE 9 • He likes the Higgins report that other communities require less parking for animal hospitals. • His preferred alternative is scenario 3, with an emphasis on adding more landscaping along public views. By taking out existing trees, and replacing them with new ones, they've gone through a lot of effort to create a problem (not a benefit). He would prefer that new trees instead be added at the front. • They should go back to a 5' setback from the south property line for more landscape. o Mr. Scherquist noted the Eucalyptus can be seen from the freeway. o Mr. Peachey responded that trees planted in front and allowed to mature would be seen from the freeway as well. Hoag • He agreed with part of each of the previous comments. • He'd rather have the building on the corner to serve as a focal point, but he knows it's not as easy as just taking the proposed building and moving it in front. • The best feature is the larger element on the west with the screen and he would want that as a focus, so it would have to be adjusted. • That means the existing building would go and the doctor wouldn't have a place to work during construction. • It's the best design for the long-term character of the City, and it has a secondary benefit of saving trees. • The trees probably need to be replaced sooner rather than later. Maybe what we need to do is focus on landscaping and street frontages. If we're not going to move the building to the front, then scenario 3 or Peachey's variation with a 5' setback is where he comes out. 2. Foundations: Scherquist • If they're not saving the trees, it's a moot point. If they are saving the trees, if pilings are used, then careful exploration of where significant roots are should take place. Spacing can be designed, so there's a little more or a little less than 12' between to save roots. If a connecting beam thicker than slab is needed, then it can be turned up and be above grade, rather than below. • If the building is moved to the corner, then it's also a moot point. He shows 20' deep, but once soils issues taken are care of, pilings will vary in each area. If the building is close to the trees, piers are the better solution. Barneich • She deferred to the architects on choice of foundation. Peachey • He agreed with Mr. Scherquist that piers would facilitate keeping the trees, however that's not the option he supports. Hoag • If he had to pick a scenario, he would rather try the piers, as it stands to reason they would have less impact and they may be able to dodge many of the roots, but he's unsure if that's possible or not. ARC NOTES AUGUST 7, 2006 PAGE 70 3. Potential oarking reductions: Peachey • The Higgins report says Paso and SLO use 1:300, which would be 15 spaces. Salinas uses 1:400, which would be 11.25 spaces. Santa Maria uses 1:520, which would be 8.6 (g) spaces. The City has the ability to reduce parking based on the report. They're at 15 before and 13 after, .plus 2off-street if the double frontage counts, so it would total 15 or 17, and 13 or 15. Barneich • 13 or 15 are both fine based on the Higgins report. Peachey • Is there a way parking layout can be redesigned to reduce asphalt? Page A1.3C is an attempt to do that. • I support a ratio of 1:400 (11 spaces with additional landscaping, taking into account the unique properties of the lot with two frontages and on street parking). • Ms. Barneich agreed. Scherquist • How many onsite spaces are there currently? There are 14 and fullness depends on the time of day. o That's hard for him to reduce the amount of parking spaces, and he's for more landscaping. There's off-street parking already. o Mr. Peachey asked how much smaller is the current facility than proposed? It's about a 1700 sf increase, but a lot of that isn't public, it will be upstairs storage, utility rooms and an atrium (900 sf upstairs). The 800 sf downstairs includes enlarging the reception and waiting room, as well as an additional exam room. There will be the same number of doctors initially, but this will make things more efficient, so clients donY have to wait for a room to be cleaned before they can enter. • He supports 14 or more onsite spaces and more landscaping. Hoag • He likes maximizing landscaping and wouldn't support less than 11 spaces, but wouldn't want more than 14, given on-street parking. 4. Parking layout and 5. Multiale access: • Mr. Scherquist noted they didn't have design alternatives with two lots each with their own access versus only one with through access. The one offered loses trees. Through access is important. • Ms. Barneich agreed with Mr. Scherquist. • Mr. Peachey wasn't certain there's not an alternative to through access. There were only three Planning Commissioners present at the meeting and they preferred through access. Minutes say parking should be worked out as best possible, and it may have referred more to the trees than to access issues. o He still advocates a flexible approach to parking layout for additional access and better landscaping. The through parking alternative could be developed to make it more efficient in regards to backing up. There's an option to close off and rotate some to get the same number of spaces, through parking, and a staff lot. ARC NOTES AUGUST 7, 2006 PAGE 11 As is, it seems awkward. There is concern with the nuisance of people driving through. • Chair Hoag didn't have a problem with through access, but agreed it could be redesigned to be more efficient. 6. Street trees: Hoag • L2.2 has a combination of tree wells, trees behind the sidewalk, and a hedge that softens the parking lot. Do we feel there's an adequate way to accommodate street trees with street widening? Scherquist • He wasn't sure what Council was asking for. He thought they wanted to plant trees now, but the applicant has addressed the impracticality and they are probably correct. Barneich • She concurred that they can't put the trees in the middle of existing sidewalk. Peachey • The more street trees, the better. He didn't agree that they couldn't plant the future trees now. They can move existing sidewalk to accommodate them. o Consensus was a reversal of the opinion -ARC agreed that it is possible to plant street trees before the street is widened? It would cut the root system of fhe trees on one side when they put in new sidewalk and curb, plus, the other side will be all reconstructed. Hoag • If they can find a way to plant now so they don't have to cut roots later, then do it. He agreed the more street trees, the better, but he wants their planting to be done sensitively so that the decorative screen still be visible. 7. Buildino facade (Architecture): Mr. Scherquist encouraged alternative roof material to asphalt shingles and encourage the architect to look more at the east elevation (it may be fine or may need softening). • Mr. Peachey agreed with Mr. Scherquist and suggested adding an espalier similar to the other one with purple flowers, maybe just to frame the window with a grid espalier. He doesn't support the eyebrow. • Ms. Barneich was okay with the asphalt roof shingles, but prefers a metal standing seam roof, since it goes better with the rest of the modern building. She deferred on that to the architects and likes the rest of the building. • Chair Hoag thought the architecture is acceptable. The east elevation would look good with an espalier. A standing metal seam roof would go better with the patina green screen. It's not too critical to convey a residential look there, since the two ends aren't residential and there's varying architecture across the street. It's not "just another concrete box". Mr. Sim heard the comments and appreciated design support, but requested more clarity on ARC perspectives, particularly which scheme is preferred by ARC. ARC NOTES AUGUST 7, 2006 PAGE 12 Mr. Scherquist asked if ARC could just pass comments to City Council via the minutes. Chair Hoag replied that there were several issues where a clear consensus wasn't reached. After further discussion, it was decided to break down the motion based on issues for sake of clarity. ARC Motions 1. Alternatives to save the trees and 2. Foundation: Gary Scherquist moved and Kristen Barneich seconded recommendation to: • Direct the applicant to research and pursue alternate site plans that will allow for saving the trees, and incorporating the pier foundation, as needed depending on the location of the building. • The best building location is at the north end of the site as a focal point. Motion approved: 3/1 voice vote; Michael Peachey opposed. 3. Potential parking reductions: Mr. Scherquist noted if the building were located at the north end of the site, they'd get more efficient parking at the other end. Chair Hoag felt there should still be a range given for parking spaces. Mr. Peachey noted difficulty in estimating a number of spaces, since there won't be more doctors initially, but it will work more efficiently. Chair Hoag moved that the number of parking spaces be not.less than 11 and not more than 14, with an emphasis on maximizing the landscape area. The motion died for lack of a second. • Ms. Barneich moved and Mr. Scherquist seconded the number of parking spaces to be not less than 11 onsite, so long as there's an agreement for 4 additional offsite spaces, and if no agreement can be reached, onsite parking shall not be less than 14 spaces. Motion approved: 4/0 voice vote. 4. Parking layout and 5. Multiple access points: ARC chose not to deal with these via motions. 6. Street trees: Mr. Scherquist moved and Ms. Barneich seconded to plant street trees in accordance with future street widening now, if feasible as determined by project Landscape Architect, and the more trees the better, as long as they don't block the building screen. Motion approved: 4/0 voice vote. 7. Building Facade (Architecture): Ms. Barneich moved to approve architecture with the condition that asphalt shingles be changed to standing seam roof to match the color of the green patina screen. Mr. Scherquist expressed concern that it may compete if it's the same color, since the screen is an accent point. Ms. Barneich moved and Mr. Scherquist seconded that composition shingles not be ARC NOTES AUGUST 7, 2006 PAGE 13 used, but that the basic architectural approach is acceptable, and alternatives should be presented at a future ARC meeting. Motion approved: 4/0 voice vote. Mr. Sim responded to ARC comments stating that the consultant team really spent a lot of effort on this project. This was a very professional report and they described in depth the infeasibility of other alternatives in the booklet, which also stated the facts of why scheme 3 is the compelling choice for this site. Gary Scherquist moved and Warren Hoag seconded to continue the meeting past 5:00 p.m. Motion approved: 4/0 voice vote. Gary Scherquist moved and Warren Hoag seconded to allow the meeting to run to 7:00 p.m. Motion approved: 3/1 voice vote; Michael Peachey opposed. D. ARCHITECTURAL REVEW CASE NO. 06-006; APPLICANT - FLOYD CAMPBELL; REPRESENTATIVE -Same; LOCATION - 567 CROWN HILL. Assistant Planner Ryan Foster presented the staff report. Flo Campbell was present to answer questions and invited ARC to visit the project. Gordon ennett stopped by and he's pleased with the streetscape and how it looks, which he ked hard to achieve. After no discus 'on, Gary Scherquist moved and Kristen Barneich seconded recommendation of royal to the Community Development Director for ARC 06-006 as submitted. Discussion: Ms. Bameich co ented house sits back, so it won't really see did a great job fitting the proposed h about the garage being located in front in front would obscure it. Motion approved: 4/0 voice vote. the front house looks wonderful. The proposed ;n. She likes the colors. Chair Hoag noted they ise among the trees. There's not much choice ~to the easement, and he agreed the house E. VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE NO. 06-003; APPLIC T -DANIEL AND SUSAN COZZA; REPRESENTATIVE -AMY HENRY; LOCATIO - 210 TALLY HO. Assistant Planner Ryan Foster presented the staff report. Mark Guillardi, general contractor, was present to fill in for Amy Henry, rchitect. The house has been designed over the course of a year to be within code stand s. ARC had the following comments and questions: • Are they here not for architectural review, but for determination of conformanc with Required Findings per section 16.16.110? Mr. Foster replied that is correct. Per section D.3, the Director is allowed to seek input from the ARC. Mr. Foster ATTACHMENT 4 -----Original Message----- From: Gillian Wilson ~mailto:gillian.wilsonCalvcamail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 12:20 PM To: Joseph Echeverri Subject: RE: Branch Drop photos First limb drop occurred around 10:30 a.m. on 8/15. There was basically no wind at all at that time. Second limb drop was approximately and hour and a half later. there was a slight breeze, but not even strong enough to really stir the leaves, never mind shake the branches. Gillian Gillian Wilson, Office Manager VCA South County Animal Hospital, #149 Tel: (805)489-1361 Fax: (805)489-5197 Rena Street, between City property and South County VCA property - bbi13/2006; 16:42 805-756-5298 Arroyo Grande City Council Members Arroyo Grande City Hall 214 B. Branch St. An•oyo Grande, Ca. 93420 Re: VCA South County Animal Hospital 270 No. Halcyon Rd. Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93420 6-13-06 OS Jilil ! 3 Fit ire tse Hi, As a. prior employee of the veterinary clinic, I would. like to support the replacement of the VCA South Co. animal hospital. i can tell you as a registered animal health technician that a. veterinary clinic needs to advance with technology to remain competitive in the veterinary business. That clinic is old and needs to be replaced. The eucalyptus trees that stand in the way of the new building are old and are probably approaching the end of their lifetime. Where I live in the county of San Luis Obispo, I've seen trees taken down for the betterment of society. I have seen new trees planted to replace the old trees taken down. I have also seen property owners remove and destroy oalc trees in preparation of house building with no one even addressing the removal of the trees on their property. I feel meeting in the middle would be an appropriate solution to the South County Animal Hospital vs. the Arroyo Grande City Council issue. If the old eucalyptus trees need to be removed for the betterment of the veterinary hospital then new trees, such as lemon scented eucalyptus or beautiful blooming trees such as blue Jacaranda trees should be planted. My suggestion would be to plant these new trees along the cement wall of the cemetery along Bennett Street for all in the city to enjoy. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Dorothy Tallman, RVT 1230 Futura Lane Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93420 805-756-5272 GAL POLY HEALTH Central CoastAni~l Protection Society "C-CtAI'S" >,x~.~ ~~ waimal I?tDernion Society rcc~rs~~ iraaon-prafi4 soI(ex3) s8 vWueleer chadtable orpurimtian Oedicared err rbe proawlimt o! aninnt wdfarc. liasnt d Dtraeton FLNsAelh+p. Pwnidrnt t~ ~~. 'neetw l)Msatas err Lane tcq De safe EllemaMln.RW.~ car s.~ "GCAI'S spuluun oumenwrsspey/naaw pto~rams, oontmusiq eduea. doer propams m she ~eJfare of animals, speeial prognxns fa senior eitiaens and their arrinWS sad fortamiltey error bclwv the proveRy level. Adviws >?d~d 0. Cd0. Dv M. Ini~e ~ Swieer. Inure, tSlSmde Me+ie 1leeYs_D'V01 Anl®10'rW Caovd (]ioiu. IaAesae.,t~uu~.~~ls ~ts.aa«. rv~.~amrotbrl:, sn-vntsA Qdcn S®ocOs. DYb, POD., !\N rra., IlfdlaeM Ve0 Aers.. nl.~m~A, c>mr«ni0 oa~I _ ..~ u~ ~ C.~:,.e».r. s.. c. naoyo Gnode.G. feo7p [a~m'Oaesn.w aecdcAacd6le IlN TrASeE!!a To The Editor. July 14yJ06 Animal 1„oversAlert ! The Arroyo Grande Ciry Cotuxil is considering a decision to deny a pemtit to one of the eitiy's much needed veterimry hospitals. V CA Vet 1>Yospital on Halcyon most expand to lterrer serve elients and weir pets. Why denial? In order M save two or threw ancient errcatyptas trees that are alrrady ruining the parking arcs and about at the end of their life-spans. A "City of Trees" is wonderful, but so aro pewple and Wear pets -all living things. As tax~xxying residence of the City, please contact the mayor and all council members to e><prass your contents about the possible loser of a vetctioary hoapiW that bas peen mach tb the eommuniry, including reduced fee sterili~ations, vacci~ cations »nd other services, and offers senior citizen diswuars, plus more. When the city grows,vital services must grow. Driving a needed services business out Of towh is not a good thing, especially in ao election year. Please at>mrrd the Council Meeting on Tuesday, August 2Z Call City Hall err 473-5404 for more information. Thank you. Sitetlfely. /~~, Elaine Anthon , lrtcsident`^t~rcctots, Y CeaU»I Co»stAhimal Rorecrion 5ociery (Elnioe Anthony) 773-3015) Mail:rtg Adarcu: P.O. Bmc 929, Pismo Eeach, CA. 93448 Tslephont (SOS)'48J-J433 9 d b09ltr6bb£9'GNil0~91'1£/'c0~91 9004 9l r~i1r(3f11? hv8=~ Susanne Link Valadez 1634 Crestview Circle San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 July 17, 2006 City of Arroyo Gtande City Council 214 E. Branch Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Re: Proposed plans by VCA Animal Hospital On Council Agenda August 22nd Dear Council: I am not a city resident but I come to Arroyo Grande on a fairly frequent basis. I understand that the city of Arroyo Grande is making life difficult for the VCA Animal Hospital with respect to building a new facility. I have taken my animals there for years and write on their behalf. The Planning Commission has rejected VCA Animal Hospital's building permit (again). Please allow this business to rebuild in the city so that it doesn't go elsewhere. You need to be accommodating as this business is truly needing to update and grow. I request that you reconsider their plans and assist this business that has been an icon in your city. Sincerely, ~ Susanne Link Valadez . C~ t~ ~~'u~tu~~,- ?I~~IG(r ~~ ~°ti,~/ ~~, ~~~~~ 27s Candice Ct .-i1 ~/ ~ ~~ ~~~~ Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 ~/ ~ ~` ~~'r'('n~ July 26, 2006 ~` n' dr-' . ,, ~ `~ `c OiLi1z f J,,j . ,,: ,;~ ~ ,_j r To: Arroyo Grande City Council ~ V ~L~'p%s;•~ ~r SUBJECT: PERMIT FOR VCA SOUTH COUNTY HOSPITAL I attended the City Council meeting on June 3, 2006 to support the VCA hospital in their efforts to obtain a permit to build a new hospital and provide better service for our pets. _ _The public was well represented by wncerned pet owners and animal support groups - demonstrating the overwhelmirg value of the-VCA to our communityand the need for- improved facilities. At that meeting the Council acknowledged the value of the VCA and the need for a new hospital but still refused to approve the permit because Eucalyptus trees were going to be removed. So, now as a concerned citizen, I am writing to register my disbelief that the Council will not approve the VCA permit because of the removal of a few Eucalyptus trees. I ask that the Council please review the facts again: • The trees will be, replaced 2 fo'r 1' in the new construction • A certified arborist presented evidence at the June 13 meeting that the trees presem a safety concern and need to be cut • The trees aze not native • The trees were planted by the original owner of the VCA and yet the current owner of the land cannot remove the trees • The original planter of the trees feels it was a mistake to plant Eucalyptus trees because of the mess they create and the lack of aesthetic appeal (stated at the 6/13 -- ~ meeting) _ " - • The Council acknowledged at the 6/13 meeting, without azgument, the overwhelming need and value of the new hospital I understand it is the goal of the City of Arroyo Grande to retain as many trees as possible. However, when the trees are not native and the impact of retaining the trees prohibits the building of a much needed and updated animal hospital, the Council needs to forego the old and unsafe trees and accept the new building and the plan' for replacement trees which aze more plentiful and safer. Respectfully, Janis Dreyer Cc: Dr. Steven Paulick, VCA South Country Animal Hospital San Luis Obispo Tribune _~City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission The Goldiner Family 431 Leoni give Grover Beach California 93433 805-473-2562 Dr. Steven D. Paulick D.V.M., Medical Director VCA South County Animal Hospital 270 North Halcyon Rd. Arroyo Grande CA 93420 August 14, 2006 Dear Dr. Paulick, Many thanks to you and your staff, who have dutifully and compassionately cared for our pets for many years. Arthur andJ are excited by the prospect of the new hospital for our animals and our friend's pets as well. As local residents and business owners, we understand that the Arroyo Grande Architectural Review Committee is concerned about the ecological and aesthetic impact of new development projects. Unfortunately, we are dismayed and somewhat confused by the recent change by the Committee regarding the hospital's plan to build a new facility located on the southern properly line based on the development Impact on a small stand of unsightly, messy, invasive, non-native eucalyptus trees. The ARC recommendations belie any advantage: one forces you to build a facility that is smaller than you have determined your patient needs to be, and at additional (and presumably unnecessary) cost. The other forces you to potentially discontinue care during the building process. It seems that the ARC, with the best of intentions, is putting the needs of the trees, (not exactly California Oaks) over the needs of our family pets by disregarding the recommendations of medical and conservation professionals. You and your staff provide a necessary community service, and since both of the recommendations would negatively impact your patients, we appreciate your willingness to stick with the review process to advocate for what you feet would be best for the hospital and our beloved pets. On the evening of August 22n°, Arthur will be teaching a class at Cuesta College and I will be away in Boston, therefore, neither of us will be able to attend the meeting to tend our support of your position and the project as we would like, If it is possible to get fhis letter or our encouragement to the ARC to allow the "two-to-one" replacement of trees as an acceptable plan on the record by some means, we would surely appreciate it. Thank you for all you do. Sincerely, ~'~/\ Lin Camplese-Goldiner 5 d b09lb6bb89'uN!i0;9! '1S/i0~91 900 Sl 9i1~!jfll) !+,~~r,;- 15 August 2006 Honorable Mayor Ferrara, Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie, Council Members Arnold, Costello and Dickens, I am writing on behalf of myself and the below named people in support of the VCA South County Animal Hospital project. I am a former Architectural Review Committee member, a 23-year plus business owner, and community member who has been very active in Arroyo Grande. It sounds to us, after attending various meetings, we can agree no one present hates trees or pets or opposes the expansion of the Hospital and it's service. The problem seems to be the eucalyptus trees bordering the south property line. It also seems that as much as VCA has cooperated (when the original recommendation of ARC was for removal of the trees and building of the new hospital), azbitrary decisions are being made in the face of recommendations and despite professional information about the state and condition of the trees. This information includes: • The trees were planted, admittedly, by the original Hospital owners without understanding of their habit and appropriateness for that site neazly 40 years ago. The trees are nearing the end of their life span. Their roots have already been damaged by grading and paving done for the Police Department expansion. In the last week, one lost a limb, which fell in the parking lot where is could easily have injured a person, a pet or damaged property. My experience with eucalyptus trees of all varieties, is that age + size + weather =falling limbs or whole trees. Add to that the stress of root damage and in many places one would be required to remove the trees as a hazard to road traffic and sidewalk pedestrians. Dr. Paulick has included a two-to-one replacement of trees in the Hospital expansion project As an inveterate gazdener I know that not every tree is appropriate for every space. (I have on my property over 20 trees.) One is a six-trunk redwood which I enrolled in the Landmark tree program. I tried to have a Sierra Buckeye enrolled in the Landmark tree program as well and was declined. I was told just because it was `old and unique' was not reason enough to protect it. Can you imagine asking to have eucalyptus trees enrolled? Dr. Paulick and VCA have worked hard to come up with a project to fit on a unique property, be good neighbors by mitigating sight impact on the adjoining neighborhood, meet parking and landscape requirements while still meeting the obvious need for an updated facility. Asking a business to close while a new building is constructed is an undue burden on any business owner. Asking them to simply replicate the old hospital to avoid the root zone of the trees is unreasonable. Please reconsider this impasse. Listen to the arborists who have the expertise required by the City to evaluate project's landscaping and tree protection and removal. As a former business owner I implore you to support this longtime business-resident of Arroyo Grande in an era when it is increasingly difficult for independent local businesses. Allow the VCA Hospital project to move forwazd, as proposed, by removal of the necessary trees. Thank /you. Christine Klopfer /Emily Howazd 216 Pearwood Ave. AG Paul and Kate Phillips AG Marge and Don Klopfer 1350 Sierra Dr. AG -..~ ,~ c;i:c~;7 r:,:..~ A~ACHMENT ~ ~', i c r Y\ ~'.; ~a \ C ' \\i ~'. K\ ~~ h\J \ '/~ \ ' S / Jam" \ . ~ ~ F / .~ ~h 1 ~Y'i ~~\ \ ~; / \. i~ ~r \~ o . ~ . ^l \ `" '/ /~ \ - '~ •'~ ^Y,1i sy ~~~.: ~ fir. I ' d ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ` -^ 1 ` '" ~_.+ I~\ ~~~ ~ ~~ I ~'- .. a /S \g~ ~4}, ~ aAY"J< ~ a b~ ~+ W ~\ 8 \ ~ . / _ ~ '~. i ®. ~ ~/ ~ L ~t ~ ~,~ ~~~~ a ~ ~ ~ \ w~+r ~ , \ eae .f lY" 1 ,~ i 6 ~',, , c ~. ¢, '-~ ,~ ~'. ~ ,T % ~, '~; ~~ `i ~ l '~ '~', c { ~ ~ J ''~j ~I ~ '< ~. 1~1~ ~(} 7 L~ \11 1~ 1 ~t' ,'~, i I ~d3 4~ ~~ ~;~ ~ R' 6 \ '~i ~ ~:-o ~\ \~ \ ~ c~ \ ~ ;' _ \ ~~ ~~ \ ~ ~ r __- r ~ / \ /~ '~ ~ ~ VA '~ Y~~' ~~1,\ i ~ \~ / ~/i . a ~i ~'~ >'~ '~ 4 , (~-~ 1 I\= t, N ' ~,. i i .C y n ~\` ~, ; \ tt~ '`- ;fir-,1~ ', r r ~~yy .~ c ~a ~ ~~ ~~ L _!r 1. d J ~ ~,6 ~ ~, ~, 1 `1 ~~ ;'' ~'~ 'a '~" _ _ ~ ,~ ,~ . ~ ~ \" ~ _ ~' \ :. ~ ± ~ 'a ~, ~~, 7 4 t ~~ ,~ w 0 s .s i a ~i ~ ~ ,, `~y .'~a ~, ~ r .r?~ a,, A ~~ ~. , F . 3~ ~ a a t . ,. '~`~ 1 ~ a i ~, ~~~ a +~ s't b.+ ~ / .S by n hd ® ~ f Y L~+.- - ® '~~' rr ~ ',' f + ~ ~' ` i ~5~ ~ +' ~AA A,,},d ~~ jf \~ ~~' v .~ '~Q ~ \~ ~ c' ` 1 ~rR'TI ~~ s ~ 'L ~. ~ ~ .- /.~ \ ~ s `~>4 1 V ~ 1 -Y. ~ ~ ~( a.,~rF . ~ ~ 9.b. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING On TUESDAY, AUGUST 22, 2006, the Arroyo Grande City Council will conduct a public hearing at 7:00 P.M. in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET to consider the following item: CASE NOS.: General Plan Amendment Case No. 06-001, Development Code Amendment Case No. 06-001, and Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 06-004 PROPOSAL: A proposed General Plan Amendment and Development Code Amendment to change land use designations and zoning of the subject properties from Community Facilities (CF)/Public Facility (PF) and Agriculture (Ag) to Single-Family Residential-Low Density/Residential Hillside (RH); and from Agriculture (Ag) to Community Facilities/Public Facility (PF). Additionally, the City Council will consider a Tentative Parcel Map including extension of Castillo del Mar Drive from Orchard Street to Valley Road and creating four parcels. LOCATION: APN 006-095-001 & 002 (including and adjoining Arroyo Grande High School at Valley Road/Fair Oaks Ave.) APPLICANT City of Arroyo Grande In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community Development Department has prepared a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. If the City Council does not feel that this determination is appropriate, project approval will not be considered. The Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the item listed above. If you challenge the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Failure of any person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the action of the legislative body for which the notice was given. Information relating to these items is available by contacting Arroyo Grande City Hall at 473-5414. The Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20. Publish 1 time, The Tribune, Friday, August 11, 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06- 001 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001, INCLUDING IMPROVEMENT AND EXTENSION OF CASTILLO DEL MAR DRIVE FROM ORCHARD STREET TO VALLEY ROAD DATE: AUGUST 22, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council: 1) Adopt a Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving General Plan Amendment Case No. 06-001, reclassifying 11.1 acres from Community Facilities to Single Family Residential Low Density and reclassifying 1.2 acres from Agriculture to Community Facilities, including the extension of Castillo del Mar Drive from Orchard Street to Valley Road and 2) Introduce an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map to designate the subject properties as Residential Hillside (RH) and- Public Facility (PF), Development Code Amendment 06-004, Initiated by the City of Arroyo Grande for property located on and adjacent to the Arroyo Grande High School campus. If the Resolution and Ordinance are approved and introduced, respectively, a Resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 06-004 will be brought forward when the Ordinance is considered for adoption at the September 12, 2006 meeting. FUNDING: There is no direct cost to the City from this action. The cost of the proposed road extension is estimated to be approximately $400,000. In addition, it is proposed the City allocate $200,000 towards purchasing or subsidizing future agricultural easements as mitigation for the projected loss of agricultural land. Under the existing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the. parties involved, J.H. Land Partnership has agreed to provide the City funding for these costs as mitigation for access to the proposed Busick Tract No. 1789 project. DISCUSSION: Background The subject 11.1 acre undeveloped hillside property is located southeast of the 37 acre Arroyo Grande High School campus, both of which are owned by Lucia Mar Unified School District (LMUSD). An emergency access roadway, water and sewer lines traverse the foot of the hillside, separating the undeveloped part of the LMUSD ownership being considered for alternative use. The 11.1 acre undeveloped hillside is CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001, INCLUDING IMPROVEMENT AND EXTENSION OF CASTILLO DEL MAR DRIVE FROM ORCHARD STREET TO VALLEY ROAD AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 2 surrounded on the east, south and west by private properties designated Single Family Residential Low Density on the adopted 2001 General Plan Land Use Map, currently zoned Residential Hillside (RH), allowing a density of 1 dwelling unit per 1.5 acres. The RH zone encourages cluster subdivision into smaller home sites and natural open space. Adjoining the Lucia Mar Unified School District property to the east is the "Vista del Mar" residential subdivision (Tract No. 2207), which created 38 hillside home sites on half-acre or larger lots for custom single family residential development and two large common open space parcels, which include a storm drainage detention basin, flood plain, grassland and wooded hillside adjoining and visible from Highway 101. Orchard Street and Castillo del Mar Drive provide the primary access to the residential neighborhood east of Arroyo Grande High School, including Vista del Mar. Because secondary access is severely restricted, the City has discouraged additional development in the area until this access constraint is corrected. This access constraint caused the City Council to reject a previous request to allow controlled local access extension to the southeast end of Castillo del Mar for a proposed 16-lot County tentative subdivision proposal called the Busick Tract No. 1789, unless the developer, J.H. Land, could obtain secondary access. The only access opportunity identified is on the south side of the Arroyo Grande High School campus, including a westerly public street extension of Castillo del Mar from near Orchard Street to a new intersection with Valley Road. This City access alternative was "the environmentally superior alternative" identified in the County's EIR for the Busick Tract, which otherwise would depend on access from EI Campo Road through the Falcon Crest Residential Suburban private road network. To connect to Valley Road, the street extension must cross the northern tip of adjoining Agriculture land owned by John Taylor. Consistent Zoning "Clean-up" The rear 8.9-acre portion of the 37-acre campus containing parking lots and sports fields of the LMUSD properties are designated on the General Plan as Community Facilities, but zoned Agriculture, rather than appropriate Public Facilities (PF) zone. It is recommended that this 8.9 acres of parking lots and sports fields be rezoned from Agriculture to Public Facility consistent with the General Plan. Parcel Map and Road Dedication The proposed road dedication and extension would effectively create two separate parcels owned by LMUSD, the 37 acre high school campus, parking and sport fields on the flat portion of the property to the north and the 11.1 acre undeveloped hillside on the south. As an alternative to Public Facility use, the LMUSD has requested that the City consider reclassification of the 11.1 acres from Community Facility to Low Density Single Family Residential and consistent rezoning from Agriculture (Ag) to Residential Hillside (RH). CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001, INCLUDING IMPROVEMENT AND EXTENSION OF CASTILLO DEL MAR DRIVE FROM ORCHARD STREET TO VALLEY ROAD AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 3 General Plan Amendments and Policv Issues: It is apparent that the improvement and extension of Castillo del Mar Drive south of the Arroyo Grande High School campus to connect to Valley Road is an important secondary access to the Orchard Street and Vista del Mar neighborhood east and southeast of the campus, including circulation to the campus, administrative offices, and a large church and school. This secondary access and circulation is a prerequisite to local street extension to serve additional hillside homes, such as the Busick Tract 1789 and the 11.1 acre undeveloped portion of LMUSD ownership southeast of the proposed .street and the adjoining Haddox hillside property to the south and west. This westerly street extension behind the High School is the only possible means of secondary access to the area because Highway 101 right of way precludes connections to the east and Falcon Crest and Sunrise Terrace private roads preclude connections to the south. In particular, the General Plan Circulation/Transportation Element, policy CT 3-4.2 provides: "Emergency access design standards should limit cul-de-sac lengths, provide a logical grid or connected system of local streets providing at least two directions of neighborhood access, and minimize through traffic on local streets, particularly traversing single-family residential neighborhoods" (emphasis added)." Assuming that the Castillo del Mar Drive extension is accomplished as proposed, the street alignment requires consideration of several adjoining land use alternatives. The existing private street and utilities at the foot of the hillside coincide with the proposed public street right of way and separate an 11.1 acre undeveloped portion of the fifty- acres owned by LMUSD. The 37 acre campus and grounds located on the north side of this road are fully committed to classrooms and related facilities, sport fields, and parking. (As noted above, designated Community Facilities on the General Plan, the southernmost 8.9 acres of the campus is inappropriately and inconsistently zoned Agriculture.) Additionally, the 11.1 acres of undeveloped hillside land owned by the school district is also designated Community Facilities, reflecting its public agency ownership, but zoned Agriculture. Once separated from the high school campus by the proposed Castillo del Mar Drive extension it could either remain classified for future Community Facilities, or logically considered for re-classification (due to slope constraints) for Single Family Residential Low Density and RH zoning. As noted above, the private lands within the City to the east, south and west of the subject 11.1 acres are designated Single Family Residential Low Density and zoned RH. The Vista del Mar subdivision (Tract 2207) was developed on the hillside to the east. With adequate access, the 18.0-acre Haddox property to the south and west may CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001, INCLUDING IMPROVEMENT AND EXTENSION OF CASTILLO DEL MAR DRIVE FROM ORCHARD STREET TO VALLEY ROAD AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 4 similarly develop. Subsequent Residential Hillside subdivision of either LMUSD property and/or Haddox property would probably involve "cluster design" similar to Vista del Mar with half or more of the acreage retained as natural or landscaped open space and the residential development contained on half-acre sized detached single family residential lots and local streets. Because any subsequent subdivision requires discretionary City approval, as well as environmental impact determination when development design and density are proposed, the current consideration of land use alternatives is an initial step. If the 11.1 acre hillside property remained designated as Community Facilities on the General Plan and was re-zoned Public Facility, the LMUSD or any successor public agency could propose any type of pubic or quasi-public use subject to City and CEQA review. Examples of possible PF use include: community college or high school classrooms, church or private school, related administrative offices or corporation yard, park, playground or athletic facilities. While not yet resolved, the LMUSD board has requested that the 11.1-acre hillside be redesignated for possible alternative use to Single Family Residential Low Density and zoned Residential Hillside, to enable development similar to the properties to the east, south and west. In staffs opinion, this lower intensity alternative use potential is more consistent with the sloping terrain, natural drainage, existing trees and access constraints evident on this hillside property. It also could provide a significant sale or lease income to the school district, faced with declining enrollment in this part of the district, and continuing budget pressures. As part of the MOU, the District initiated this request for General Plan and Development Code Amendments to enable possible disposition and alternative private use. The reclassification from Community Facilities to Single Family Residential Low Density and rezone from Agriculture to Residential Hillside (RH) appears consistent with General Plan Land Use Element policies LU2-2, 2.1 and 2.4, which provide: "Accommodate the development of Residential Hillside cluster development and allow a maximum density of 1 du/1.5 acre in appropriate Single Family Residential Low Density areas zoned Residential Hillside. Encourage clustered subdivision or Planned Development to retain steeper slopes, drainage, natural vegetation and other site features as Conservation Open Space." "Ensure that all residential hillside development, regardless of density, does not excessively intrude on the natural slope and terrain of the hillside including density that is commensurate with the steepness of slope and cITY couNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001, INCLUDING IMPROVEMENT AND EXTENSION OF CASTILLO DEL MAR DRIVE FROM ORCHARD STREET TO VALLEY ROAD AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 5 discouraging excessive use of retaining walls, intrusive grading and removal of native oak trees." On the south side of the Arroyo Grande High School campus, the proposed connection of Castillo del Mar Drive to Valley Road requires that an additional 1.2 acre portion of John Taylor's adjoining agricultural fields be utilized to provide a safe road intersection (and separating a triangular tip which could not be efficiently farmed). It is therefore proposed that this severed triangle piece be reclassified and rezoned from Agriculture to Public Facility and that the remnant north of the road right-of-way be re-designated Community Facilities and zoned Public Facility. The MOU provides that this acre be donated to LMUSD and combined with the 37 acre Arroyo Grande High School property for campus related uses. While no specific uses are proposed at this time, it is probable that landscaping, drainage basin, parking and perhaps accessory office or classroom buildings would be considered by the District in the future. In concept, this 1.2-acre loss of Agriculture land is an allowed exception to Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element policy Ag1, which provides: "Avoid and/or mitigate loss of prime farmland soils and conserve non- prime Agriculture use and natural resource lands." Specifically, Ag1-1.2 states: "Public facilities are permitted on agricultural and natural resources lands when required by health, safety and welfare of the public." That is clearly the case regarding the proposed extension of Castillo del Mar Drive to provide adequate and safe circulation and secondary access around the high school. Additionally, General Plan policies Ag1-4, Ag1-4.1, Ag1-4.2 and Ag1-4.3 provide that loss of prime farmland soils is a significant adverse environmental impact unless mitigated. Loss includes unavailability for agricultural use due to pavement or buildings or conversion to other uses including landscaping. Possible mitigation for loss may include permanent protection of prime farmland soils at a ratio of 1:1 with regard to the acreage of land removed from the capability for agricultural use or other potential mitigation measures acceptable to the City Council: Payment of in-lieu fees is one example of mitigation mentioned in Ag1-4.2. However, Ag 1-4.3 provides in part: "Only after the imposition of available mitigation and consideration of alternatives to avoid the proposed action (loss of prime farmland soils) may the City Council approve development on prime farmland soils subject to overriding considerations as permitted by California Government Code Section 15093." CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001, INCLUDING IMPROVEMENT AND EXTENSION OF CASTILLO DEL MAR DRIVE FROM ORCHARD STREET TO VALLEY ROAD AUGUST 22, 2006 ' PAGE 6 In this case, it is specifically proposed that $200,000 be allocated for off-site in-lieu fee mitigation to enable from 1 to 4 acres of Agricultural Conservation Easement. If interpreted literally, Ag1-4.3 policy would require preparation of an EIR, despite mitigation to less than significant (if the in lieu fee offered is accepted by the City Council). Legally and procedurally, this is not consistent with the intent of CEQA nor Ag1 to avoid or mitigate loss of prime farmland soils. Furthermore, policy Ag1-4 states that the City should first: "Establish and apply a significance criterion (threshold of significance) for CEQA analysis, as provided by CEQA Section 15064.7, that considers loss of prime farmland soils as a significant adverse environmental impact." The City has not yet revised its CEQA guidelines to include such criteria nor addressed possible exceptions or mitigation as provided by Ag1-1.2 and Ag1-4.2 The City Council will need to interpret these apparent conflicts and intent of the policies, based in part on recommendations from the Planning Commission. To a lesser extent, the reclassification and rezoning of the existing LMUSD property, which is undeveloped, hillside non-prime land, currently zoned Agriculture, could be viewed as "agricultural conversion to urban uses." However, Aga-1.5 states: "Vacant or undeveloped agricultural land shall refer to fallow cropland, grazing land or land supporting other agricultural uses as identified in Ag 3-1.1, that is not in productive use at the time of any designation action or redesignation request." Further, policy Ag 3-3.2 defines: "Non-prime areas shall comprise what are commonly referred to as 'grasslands' on hillsides and sloped areas generally southeast, east and north of the urban area. These are typically non-irrigated and support grazing or dry-land crops." Conservation of non-prime Agricultural lands and allowing use of vacant or undeveloped agricultural land (other than prime farmland soils) does not require mitigation nor is it considered a significant environmental impact, except as addressed in the General Plan Program EIR. Other Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space policies and programs of the General Plan are also intended to promote coexistence of agricultural and urban land uses including "right-to-farm", "buffers", ag-support and ag-conservation measures. In particular, Aga-14 states: "Consider reclassification of an Ag parcel, only if and when the parcel is less than minimum size (e.g. legally nonconforming as to area) and is isolated from other agricultural uses." cITY couwclL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001, INCLUDING IMPROVEMENT AND EXTENSION OF CASTILLO DEL MAR DRIVE FROM ORCHARD STREET TO VALLEY ROAD AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 7 Aga-14.1 defines when a parcel is "isolated" from other nearby Agriculture areas and Ag3- 14.2 further provides: "In cases considered for conversion, the parcel shall be adequately served by appropriate infrastructure and any development application shall be subject to environmental analysis as referenced in AOSCE Policy Ag1-4." Environmental Assessment: Staff has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA. Based on the review, staff does not anticipate that this project will have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, staff has prepared a negative declaration with mitigation measures for the Planning Commission's recommendation and City Council's consideration (see Attachment 3). ALTERNATIVES: 1) Adopt the Resolution approving GPA 06-001 as recommended by the Planning Commission, including the mitigated negative declaration; then introduce the Ordinance amending the Zoning Map; 2) If the City Council finds the project and/or Mitigated Negative Declaration cannot be approved, it can deny all or part. 3) Finally, if the City Council needs specific issues further addressed or has questions which should be answered prior to recommended actions, it could continue the public hearing to September 26 or October 10 or 24. Attachments: 1. General Plan amendments map 2. Development Code Amendments map 3. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study 4. Tentative Parcel Map 5. Planning Commission Minutes from July 13, 2006 6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 06-2004 7. Project Referral response dated 06/29/06, from SLO County Agricultural Department RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001, RECLASSIFYING 11.1 ACRES FROM COMMUNITY FACILITIES TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY AND RECLASSIFYING 1.2 ACRES FROM AGRICULTURE TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES, INCLUDING THE EXTENSION OF CASTILLO DEL MAR DRIVE FROM ORCHARD STREET TO VALLEY ROAD WHEREAS, the City Council of Arroyo Grande on May 9, 2006 considered and approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Lucia Mar Unified School District (LMUSD), J.H. Land, and John Taylor regarding the above proposals for circulation and access improvements, land use and zoning changes and related mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, the Program EIR prepared for the 2001 General Plan adopted October 9, 2001, evaluated environmental impacts associated with numerous circulation, land use and zoning alternatives, but did not address potential changes involving public agency owned properties; and WHEREAS, area and site specific DEIR was prepared in December 1990 for GPA 89- 3, PD Rezoning 89-215 and proposed development project known as Vista del Mar, including the same circulation and more substantial land use and zoning proposals, and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has conducted current initial studies and concluded that environmental impacts associated with the MOU and proposed circulation and land use changes will be mitigated to less than significant as outlined in a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration dated June 23, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after public hearing, consideration of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, all testimony and evidence presented, finds the Mitigated Negative Declaration appropriate and adequate pursuant to State and local CEQA laws and guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after public hearing, consideration of staff report, all testimony and evidence presented, finds the proposed Castillo del Mar Drive improvement and extensions necessary for the public health, safety and welfare and consistent with adopted Circulation Transportation Element policies, particularly CT3- 4.2; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after public hearing, consideration of staff report regarding Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space and Urban Area Land Use Elements, all testimony and evidence presented finds the proposed land use and zoning map changes as shown on Attachments 1 and 2 to be appropriate and consistent with the intent of 2001 General Plan Update adopted policies, including LU2- 2, LU2-2.1 and LU2-2.4, and Ag1, Ag1-1.2, Ag1-4, Ag1-4.1 and Ag1-4.2; and RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 06-004, General Plan Amendments and Development Code Amendments Case Nos. 06-001 will not adversely affect public health, safety and welfare and that the City Council will determine the adequacy of proposed in-lieu mitigation contribution regarding loss of prime farmland soils which cannot be avoided by any feasible alternatives. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approves General Plan Amendment Case No. 06-001, including the improvement and extension of Castillo Del Mar Drive between Orchard Street and Valley Road. On motion by Council Member seconded by Council Member ,and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this day of 2006. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 TONY M. FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO DESIGNATE THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES AS RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE (RH) AND PUBLIC FACILITIY (PF), DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 06-004, INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON AND ADJACENT TO THE ARROYO GRANDE HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS WHEREAS, the 2001 General Plan Update Urban Land Use Element Map designates the subject properties as reclassified by General Plan Amendment 06-001; and WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande Zoning Map currently designates the subject property as Agriculture and Public Facilities; and WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande initiated Development Code Amendment 06-001 to amend the Zoning Map and designate the project site as Public Facilities and Residential Hillside; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed Development Code Amendment 06-001 at a duly noticed public hearing on July _, 2006 in accordance with the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande at which time all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information and public testimony presented at the public hearings, staff reports, and all other information and documents that are part of the public record; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: A. Based on the information contained in the staff report and accompanying materials, the proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the General Plan and is necessary and desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan. B. The proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern. C. The proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Development Code. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 2 D. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map are less than significant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level as specified in the initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration associated with General Plan Amendment 06- 001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows: SECTION 1. The above recitals and findings are true and correct. S cE -TION 9. Development Code Section 16.24.020 (Zoning Map) is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause of the Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unlawful, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared unconstitutional. SECTION 4. Upon adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall file a Notice of Determination. S CTInN 5, A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the Ordinance, the summary with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the Ordinance shall be published again, and the Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance. SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. On motion by Council Member seconded by Council Member ,and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this day of 2006. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 3 TONY M. FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY - ------ EXHIBIT A F Y .~. t* ~ _ ~ rat e- ~ ~^ ~r Y T ~- ,~~ / y+ ,_ ~ ~' ~ ` T ,.`' ~ l=' y.. sky ~5 n- ~~~:;~~- ' 1 J ~` ~.J ~ ~.n a ~.V` ~ y"r~~~ \ K ~ ~rJ r \ v ~~,, it ' ` r ,: //\ o°a ~ Y t i~ # ~ ~~' ~ t F ~~ r, 1i ~ ~ r~ ~~ ~ ~ a. d /'.,. 6 ~ s ..e,; qy .~' ,.. r Yf.i _., » A s LL v '. . ~+ :~<~ b~~~~~. AF _ ~"w ~~1 N ' ~ t\ >. an s a .-' ~ a ~~ „~~ '~ ~~- ~ ~-~ v ~.- ~ . ~. o ~ ~: c N ~ I d' ~~~ r . ~1 s, C Ids }~ •~ Q {I~~ W O O L a ATTACHMENT 1 i,. ii Y' o r N • ~ ~, ~ '1 Y _ ~ ~~ +:. C ~ C ~ r ~ ~ ~ F ~..^~;. ~, t _ ~~~ ~ f ~:: _,~~ ~, =~ .~ ~.. >~ :~ ~-~ ~. ;~~ ~% ;- ~~ ~. r ~. ~_ r ~~ /- _ °a °' ~.~~ t ~~.~. ,` ,..~ ~ ~ r~, - . ~., \ _ ~ p U '' ' ~ ' ' i N e ~~'~' ' _ ~ ? ~ ° ~ '-' ~` ~ ~ - ~` 1~ , ~~ o '~,. ~ .. ~ , ' i 3 ~ ~~ ~ t ; ,~ ~1 ~~.. ;~~ ; ,~* , ~ '~ ~~ .. ;~^ ~~. ~~ ~; C~ ATTACHMENT 2 N .. a 0 ~c 0 0 a ATTACHMENT3 O~~P0.ROYpC IMCONi09ATC z u m {t MT 10. 191, C4~/FOR~`P CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY -ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST. Project Title & No. GPA 06-001: DCA 06-001: and TPM 06-004 AGHS/Valley Road 4t ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: the environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT' or "POTENTIALLY IS SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATED", as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ® Aesthetics ®Geology and Soils ^ Recreation ® Agricultural Resources ^ Hazards/Hazardous Materials ®Transportation/Circulation. ® Air Quality ®Noise ^ Wastewater ® Biological Resources ®Population/Housing ^ Water ® Cultural Resources ®Public Services/Utilities ®Land Use DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation. the Environmental Coordinator finds that: ^ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made liy or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ^ The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ^ The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ^ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because ati potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Teresa McClish, Associate Planner -~ ~._ i~ i r_~tn ~ .Tunz /3: Zoo(o Rob Strong, ~ Reviewed by Date GE rifv ofArrovo Grande, Initial Study forGPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004 Page 1 Project Environmental Analysis The City's environmental review process incorporates all of the requirements for completing the Initial Study as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQP, Guidelines. The Initial Study includes staffs on-site inspection of the project site and surroundings and a detailed review of the information in the file for the project. In addition, available background information is .reviewed for each project. Relevant information regarding soil types and characteristics, geologic information, significant vegetation and/or wildlife resources, water availability, wastewater disposal services, existing land uses and surrounding land use categories and other information relevant to the environmental review process are evaluated for each project. The Community Development Department uses the checklist to summarize the results of the research accomplished during the initial environmental review of the project. Persons, agencies or organizations interested in obtaining more information regarding the environmental review process for a project should contact the City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department at 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 or call (805) 473- 5420. A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposal to extend the existing City roadway known as Castillo Del Marto improve circulation around the southeast portion or Arroyo Grande High School campus and adjoining residential neighborhood. Castillo Del Mar will be extended from its present terminus to Valley Road to serve the existing Vista Del Mar development located within the City limits and the J.H. Land Partnership proposed development located within the unincorporated area of San Luis Obispo County. The proposed roadway extension will traverse the Lucia Mar Unified School District (LMSD) property for the existing Arroyo Grande High School site (APN 006-095-001) and a portion of a private agricultural parcel owned by John Taylor (Assessor's Parcel No. 006-095-002). The project includes the following components: 1) Tentative parcel map for an approximate 50-acre property including and southeast of Arroyo Grande High School campus to create a 37-acre parcel (existing Arroyo Grande High School campus) and an 11-acre parcel and to rezone a 10-acre portion (existing sports fields and parking lots) of the 37-acre parcel from Agriculture to Public Facilities (identical to the zoning for the remainder of the Arroyo Grande High School campus); and amend the 2001 General Plan Land Use Element to re-designate the 11-acre proposed parcel from Community Facilities to Low Density Single Family Residential and to rezone the 11-acre proposed parcel from Agriculture (Ag) to Residential Hillside (RH) [See Attachment A]; 2) Subdivide an approximate 7.5 acre parcel adjoining and south of Arroyo Grande High School campus on the east side of Valley Road to create a 1.2-acre parcel and a 6.3-acre parcel and amend the 2001 General Plan Land Use Element to designate the 1.2-acre parcel from Agriculture to Community Facilities and rezone the 1.2 -acre parcel from Agriculture (Ag) to Public Facility (PF); 3) To design, construct, extend and improve Castillo Del Mar Drive from near Orchard Street to Valley Road to enable circulation around Arroyo Grande High School and allow local street access southeast to a proposed County subdivision known as Busick Tract No. 1789 located outside City limits; 4) To accept an in-lieu mitigation contribution for loss of one acre of prime farmland associated with proposed road extension and .potential conversion of prime farmland to future Public Facility use. Design and review of any subsequent residential subdivision is not part of the project and therefore any future development is subject to separate discretionary and environmental review. This Initial Study evaluates potential environmental impacts for the proposed amendments to the Land Use Element and Zoning maps that are intended to provide consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the General Plan and Zoning amendments that are related to the Tentative Parcel Map and land use changes associated with the proposed construction of Castillo del Mar, as well as the proposed road extension and improvements. City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study forGPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004 Page 2 ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER(S): 006-391-044; 006-095-002 :tt B. EXISTING SETTING LAND USE CATEGORY: Agriculture (A); Open Space (OS) as a combining designation on a portion of the project site; Community Facility (CF) ZONING: Agriculture (AG) EXISTING USES: High School athletic fields and parking lots; farming operations; vacant TOPOGRAPHY: The site has varying topographical gradients with an approximate 2 - 9% slope southeast to athletic fields and farmland. VEGETATION: Native and exotic grasses, oak trees and willow trees; one-acre cultivated irrigated farmland PROJECT SIZE: Approximately 57 acres total for two existing parcels, including 'I) APN 006-095-002 -an approximate 50-acre LMSD property consisting of the Arroyo Grande High School campus (approximately 27 acres), AGHS sports fields and parking (approximately 10-acres), and a vacant hillside parcel (approximately 11.6-acres); and 2) APN 006-095-001- an approximate 7.5-acre parcel owned by John Taylor and used for agriculture. SURROUNDING LAND USE CATEGORIES AND USES: i North: Community Facilities;(CF); Public East: Agriculture (A); County Agriculture; Low Facilities (PF); Arroyo Grande High School; Density Residential; Agriculture (AG); Agriculture (AG) north of Fair Oaks Avenue. Residential Hillside (RH) Vista Del Mar j residential Subdivision South: Agriculture (A); County Agriculture; Low West: Low Density Residential; Residential Density Residential -single house; Agriculture Hillside (RH) vacant; County Agriculture; (AG); Residential Hillside (RH) vacant Farmland. ~ C. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS During the Initial Study process, several issues were identified as having potentially significant environmental effects (see following Initial Study). Those potentially significant items associated with the proposed project can be minimized to less-than-significant levels by incorporating the mitigation measures listed below. All mitigation measures contained in this Initial Study shall be included in the Conditions of Approval for the project. City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004 Page 3 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ~.,, INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 1. AESTHETICS -Will the project: significant Impact can Insignificant Not & will be Impact Applicable mitigated a) Create an aesthetically incompatible site open to public view? b) Introduce a use within a scenic view open. to public view? c) Change the visual character of an areal d) Create glare or night lighting that may affect surrounding areas? e) Impact unique geological or physical featured t) Other Setting. The project includes approximately 11.6-acres of undeveloped hillside behind the Arroyo Grande High School sports fields and student parking area which is proposed for disposition and rezoning from Agriculture (A) to Residential Hillside (RH). An existing roadway, Castillo del Mar Drive, and a connecting segment currently used for emergency access, would be improved as a public street right-of way and offered for dedication. Additionally, the roadway improvement includes a 44 ft. wide roadway extension, that is 987 lineal ft. for Castillo Del Mar from its current terminus, along the southern edge of the Arroyo Grande High School campus, and extended in an "S" curve to intersect Valley Road (Attachment A). Additionally, approximately one-acre of prime farmland including the proposed road extension, immediately adjacent the Arroyo Grande High School is proposed to be re- designated and rezoned from Agriculture to Community Facility/Public facility. Both the 11.6 acres of vacant hillside and the area east of Valley Road through which the Castillo del Mar Drive is proposed to be extended, are open to public view. Impact. Policy C/OS1-1 of the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan encourages protection of visually accessible scenic resources. A 'scenic resource' is further defined as "agricultural land, open spaces, hillsides, ridgelines, canyons, valleys, landmark trees, woodlands, wetlands, streambeds and banks, and well as aspects of the built environment that are of a historic nature, unique to the City, or contribute to the rural, small town character of the City." The City has not officially recognized this property as being a sensitive scenic resource, and the road extension will only traverse vacant and farmed agricultural land for approximately 100 feet. Since the road extension crosses property at the bottom of a moderately sloped parcel and along the periphery of existing parking lots for Arroyo Grande High School, it is not expected that the road extension will cause a significant aesthetic impact. The 11.6 acres proposed to be re-designated and rezoned to Residential Hillside (RH) are surrounded on three sides by RH zoning, which includes the Vista del Mar subdivision to the east. This proposal would enable future subdivision application, subject to project-specific environmental review, for a maximum of eight residences, exclusive of possible density bonuses for affordable housing. City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study forGPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004 Page 4 MitigationlConclusion. MM 1.1The Lucia Mar Unified School District (LMUSD) or subsequent owner of the 11.6-acre hillside parcel, shall apply for a tentative map or improvement plan prior to any grading, alteration of topography, drainage modification or tree removal. , Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -CDD, Public Works Dept. Timeframe: Prior to Grading Permit MM 1.2 The City shall install a protective fence or silt barrier on both sides of the proposed public street extension of Castillo del Mar Drive prior to road construction activity which shall remain in place until road improvements are completed according to approved puns and specifications. Responsible Party: City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept. Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -CDD, Public Works Dept. Timeframe: Prior to Grading MM 1.3 Consistent with the Program EIR for the General Plan 2001 update; any future tentative map or development proposal for the 11.6-acre parcel shall include the following measures to ensure consistency with the Single Family Residential -Low Density (LD) General Plan designation as well as the RH zoning classification: cluster any proposed development if necessary to retain steeper slopes, drainage, natural vegetation and other site features as conservation open space (LU2-2.1); ensure that all residential hillside development, regardless of density, does not excessively intrude on the natural slope and terrain of the hillside including density that is commensurate with the steepness of the slope and prohibiting the excessive use of retaining walls, intrusive ,grading and removal of native oak trees (LU2-2.4); and allow development at a maximum of 1.5 dwelling units per acre, with potential for lower densities if required in order to address site-specific environmental impacts. Responsible Party: Monitoring Agency: Timeframe: 2. AGRICULTURAL F - Will the project: Developer City of Arroyo Grande -CDD Prior to certification of project -specific CEQA document tESOURCES Significant Impact can Insignificant Not & will be Impact Applicable mitigated a) Convert prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use? b) Impair agricultural use of other property or result in conversion fo other uses? c) Conflict with existing zoning or Williamson Act program? d) Other Setting. Both the 11.6-acre hillside portion of the project and the Arroyo Grande High School sports fields (approximately 10 acres) have conflicting zoning and General Plan classifications. The General Plan classification is Community Facilities (CF) and the zoning district is Agriculture. This conflict was documented in the City's study on Agricultural Resources (2003), and determined that the General Plan designation for this parcel was not inconsistent or in need of modification, and therefore the zoning would be changed from Agriculture to PF during the Development Code Update process to City ofArrovo Grande, Initial Study forGPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004 Page 5 address changes required by the 2001 General Plan update (not yet complete}. Therefore the change in zoning from Agriculture for the 10-acre sports fields and the 11.6-acre vacant hillside area is not considered a conversion of prime agricultural-land due to it's consistency with the designation as CF in the 2001 General Pian, review under the 2001 General Plan EIR and subsequent ana{ysis in the 2003 Report on Agricultural Resources (including it's non-prime classification as class iV - Vl soils according to the USDA Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County). However, the proposed General Pian and Zoning Amendments for the 1.2 acre portion of John Taylor's 7.5-acre parcel (APN 006-095- 001), currently in row crop production, from Agriculture to Community Facilities/PF is considered a conversion of prime agricultural land. Impact. Due to the proposed re-zoning and conversion of 1.2 acres of irrigated and farmed agricultural land, the impact must be considered significant unless it can be determined that in consideration of all the implications of the conversion, there is feasible mitigation that can reduce the impact to less than significant. The General Plan Agricultural, Conservation and Open Space Element objective Ag1 requires the City to "Avoid andlor mitigate loss of prime farmland soils and conserve non-prime Agriculture use and natural resource lands." Several policies and implementation measures specifically relate to loss of the City's agricultural land inventory and must be considered in light of the specifics of the proposal in order to determine if the impact can be mitigated to the extent that it is no longer significant or if it remains sign cant even after all applicable mitigation is required. Given that the proposal includes the improvement, extension and dedication of a public road to address a circulation deficiency, Ag1-1.2 relates to the proposed action as it states: "Public facilities are permitted on agricultural and natural resource lands when required by public health, safety and welfare of the public". Adequate and safe circulation and secondary access around the high school is an applicable application of this policy and provides for consideration of mitigation if the potential conversion can not be fully avoided due to public health safety and welfare. Additionally, the proposed conversion of 1.2-acres of agricultural land is located a triangular piece of property between the Arroyo Grande High School campus and Valley Road, and as such it is not anticipated that it will fragment or impair other agricultural lands. Since nearly the entire proposed 1.2-acre parcel would be included within 100 ft. of operational farmland, there could not be any residentia- development on the property, consistent with the City's agricultural buffer requirements in Section 16.12.170.E. General Plan policy Ag1-4 and related policies include provisions for mitigation which may include permanent protection of prime farmland soils at a ratio of at least 1:1 with regard to the acreage of land removed from the capability for agricultural use which may be satisfied by payment of in-lieu fees as proposed. Development Code provisions suggest up to a 2:1 mitigation of comparable Ag capability. Mitigation/Conclusion. MM 2.1: Payment of an in-lieu fee sufficient to provide for the permanent protection of comparable farmland for the 1.2-acre conversion. The General Pian indicates mitigation fees of comparable farmland at a ratio or 1:1, however the City's Development Code requires mitigation fees at a ratio of up to 2:1 to be used for acquisition of a farmland conservation easement of farmland deed restriction in accordance with Section 16.12.170. Proposed mitigation fees are consistent with the 2:1 ratio. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande CDD Dept. Timing: Prior to recordation of the final map. City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study forGPAOti-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004 Para ~ MM 2.2: A deed restriction shall be recorded on the proposed 1.2-acre public facilities parcel prohibiting residential development consistent with Section 16.12.170.E of the City's Development Code. Responsible Party: LMUSD Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande, CDD Dept. Timing: Prior to recordation of the final map MM 2.3: Consistent with the 2001 General Plan Update Program EIR, any future development application on the proposed 11.6-acre Residential Hillside parcel shall include provision for a permanent open-space parcel to retain steeper slopes, drainage, natural vegetation and other site features (i.e. a "cluster subdivision" or PUD). Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande CDD Dept. Timing: Prior to certification of project-s pecific CEQA document. 3. AIR QUALITY -Will the project: Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not Significant 8 will be Impact Applicable mitigated a) Violate any state or federal ambient air quality standard, or exceed air quality emission thresholds as established by County Air Pollufion Control District (APCD)T b) Expose any sensifive receptor to substantial air pollutant concentrations? c) Create orsubject Individuals to objectionable odorsl d) Be inconsistent with fhe District's Clean Air Plan? .e) Other Setting. The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) has developed the CEQA .Air Quality Handbook to evaluate project specific impacts and determine if air quality mitigation measures are needed, or if potentially significant impacts could result. The City refers to this Handbook for all discretionary projects subject to CEQA. Impact. The proposed road extension allows for alternative circulation for existing development. Any future projects that may utilize the road extension will be evaluated under CEQA for any potential impacts. The proposed road connection would be constructed along the periphery of existing parking lots for Arroyo Grande High School and would not subject individuals to objectionable odors or expose any sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations. Short-term impacts related to dust generation from grading would result in dust generation that could affect adjacent properties. Mitigation measures placed on the project would reduce short-term dust generation during construction of the project to less-than-significant levels. The dust control measures listed below shall be followed during construction of the project, and shall be shown on grading and building plans. r,;t~ of Arrovo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004 Page 7 Mitigation/Conclusion. The following mitigation measures are necessary to reduce potential air quality impacts from construction to aless-than-significant level. The project shall comply with all applicable Air Pollution Control District (APCD) regulations pertaining to the control of fugitive dust (PM,o) as contained in section 6.5 of the Air Quality Handbook. All site grading and demolition plans shall list the following regulations: MM 3.1: All dust control measures listed below (MM 3.2 - 3.6) shall be followed during construction of the project and shall be shown on grading and building plans. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. The name and telephone number of such person(s) shall be provided to the APCD prior to map recordation and grading of the road improvement and extension. MM 3.2: During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed (non-potable) watershould be used. MM 3.3: Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or Veated with soil-binders to prevent dust generation. MM 3.4: All vehicles hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at .least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical- distance between top of load and top of Vailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114. MM 3.5: Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads on to streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. MM 3.6: Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried on to adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. MM 3.7: All off-road and portable diesel powered equipment, including but not limited to bulldozers, graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes, generator sets, compressors, auxiliary power units, shall be fueled exclusively with California Air Resources Board (ARB) motor vehicle diesel fuel. MM 3.8: Diesel construction equipment shall meet the ARB's 1996 certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines. Responsible Party: City of Arroyo Grande Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept., Building and Fire Department; Air Pollution Control District Timing: During construction City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004 Page 8 Potentially Significant Impact can 8 will be Insignificant Impact Not Applicable 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - mitigated Will the project: a) Result in a loss of unique or special status species or fheirhabftatsl b) Reduce the extent, diversify or quality of native or other important vegetation? c) Impact wetland or riparian habitat? d) Introduce barriers to movement of resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or factors that could hinder the normal activities of wildlife? e) Other Setting. The proposed road improvements and extension include an area of paved roadway that is currently used for emergency access. The area of land that will be included in the portion of the roadway widening is currently roughly graded and includes an area used for storage containers. The proposed roadway extension will traverse about 200 feet across a portion of the 1.2 acre agricultural parcel currently in row crop production. There is a seasonal drainage ditch that traverses the AGHS campus between sports fields and connects to the proposed 1.2-acre Public Facilities parcel. However, the proposed road construction will occur in the area where there is existing crop production and avoids the area where there is some evidence of native vegetation (the drainage ditch is dug seasonally in the crop area for flood protection.) Impact. It is not anticipated that there will be any impact to biological resources due to the project construction because the area of proposed construction does not include special habitat or important vegetation. Any future development of the proposed 11.6-acre residential hillside parcel will be subject to site-specific environmental review. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not Wlll the project: Significant &will be mitigated Impact Applicable a) Disturb pre-historic resources? b) Disturb historic resources? c) Disturb paleontological resources? d) Other Setting. An assessment of archaeological/cultural resources in and surrounding the project area was prepared by C.A. Singer and Associates, consulting archaeologists, under contract to McClelland Consultants for the original Vista DeI Mar subdivision planned development in 1990. The nearest recorded archaeological site is located approximately 2,500 feet southwest of the project site near Los Berros Creek. However, immediately south of the project site on the Haddox property, an unrecorded site exists. r:ity ofArrovo Grande, Initial Study forGPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004 Page 9 Impact. The assessment for the 1990 Vista Del Mar EIR included a surtace examination of the off- site area that indicated that no part of the project site extends into the vicinity of the arch`a'eological site. Further, a thorough field reconnaissance of the project site revealed no surface evidence of the prehistoric or early historic occupation or use of the site, and that the soils and geological conditions of the site indicate that the likelihood of the project site is not anticipated to have any direct impact on local archaeological/cultural resources. Mitigation/Conclusion. Although it is not anticipated that there are any impacts to archaeological/cultural resources, implementation of the mitigation measure(s) listed below will ensure that no impacts will occur. MM 5.1: In the event that prehistoric cultural materials, or historic cultural materials are encountered, work in the immediate vicinity of the finds shall be suspended and a qualified archaeologist and representative from the Northern Chumash Tribal Council allowed to quickly record, collect, and analyze any resources encountered. The City shall be notified should resources meeting CEQA significance standards be discovered. The Chumash representative and archaeologist shall work as quickly as possible to permit resumption of construction activities. It is preferred that location data of finds be recorded using ahand-held global positioning system (GPS) receiver. In the event that human remains (burials) are found, the County Coroner (781-4513) shall be contacted immediately. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes the remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she will contact by telephone within 24 hours the Native American Heritage Commission. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande - CDD, Public Works Dept. Timeframe: During grading and construction activities 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not W111 the project: Significant & will be mitigated Impact Applicable a) Result in exposure to or production of unsfab/e earth conditions, such as landslides, earthquakes, liquefaction, ground failure, land subsidence or other similar hazards? b) Be wifhin a CA Dept. of Mines & Geology Earthquake Fault Zone? c) Result in soil erosion, topographic changes, and loss of topsoil or unstable soil conditions from project-related improvements, such as vegetation removal, grading, excavation, or fill? d) Change rates of soil absorption, or amount or direction of surface runoff? City ofArroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004 Page 10 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Potentially Si ifi t Impact can ill be & Insignificant act Im Not A licable Will the project; can gn w mitigated p pp e) Include structures located on expansive soilsT f) Change the drainage patferns where substantial on- or off-sife sedimentation/erosion or flooding may occurT g) Involve activities within the 900-year flood zoneT h) Be inconsistent with the goals and policies of the County's Safety Element relating fo Geologic and Seismic HazardsT i) Preclude the future extraction of valuable mineral resourcesT j) Other Setting. The site has varying topographical gradients with an approximate 2 - 99'0 northwestern - facing slope. There is a seasonal drainage ditch that traverses the existing AGHS sports fields. Undisturbed vegetation consists primarily of grasses. According to the 1990 EIR for Vista Del Mar, the project area lies on a northwest -facing slope Impact. A major source of potential earthquake damage to Arroyo Grande is from activity along the regional San Andreas Fault located less than forty (40) miles east along the eastern border of San Luis Obispo County. The most widespread intensity of ground shaking depends on several factors including the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance from the earthquake epicenter, and underlying soil conditions. Other regional faults of significance that could affect the project area in terms of ground shaking are the Rincondada and Nacimiento faults, located approximately twenty-five (25) miles east of the City. These faults are considered °potentially active", and could cause moderate (Magnitude 6.0+) earthquakes in the area. The West Huasna fault is located roughly three (3) miles east of the City of Arroyo Grande. The project site would be subject to severe ground shaking in a strong seismic event,. which. could cause damage to structures .and endanger public safety. . The project site will be subject to soil erosion and downstream sedimentation during construction and after project completion. Specific erosion control requirements are specified below under the Hydrology and Water Quality section. Mitigation/Conclusion. Seismic hazard, soil stability, soil erosion and downstream sedimentation are considered potentially significant impacts that can be reduced to aless-than-significant level with implementation of the mitigation measures listed below. MM 6.1: Final road improvement plans prepared by the City's consulting engineer shall be accompanied by a letter of certification from the civil engineer that the plans are in conformance with the following: .~:..,..fn..,,~„ t;rande. fnifial Study forGPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPMO6-004 Page 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The road improvements shall be designed to withstand ground shaking associated with a large magnitude earthquake on nearby active fault's' ` The project shall comply.with the requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance. Site-specific specifications regarding clearing, site grading and preparation, site drainage, and pavements shall be delineated, including an erosion control program. Responsible Party: City of Arroyo Grande Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept. Timeframe: Prior to Grading 7. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not MATERIALS -Will the ro'eCt: Significant & will be Impact Applicable P J mitigated a) Result in a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (e.g. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiafion) or exposure of people to hazardous substances? b) Inten`ere with an emergency response or evacuation plan? c) Expose people to safety risk associated with airport flight pattern? d) Increase fire hazard risk or expose people or structures to high fire hazard conditions? e) Create any other health hazard or potential hazardT t) Other Setting. The project is not located in an area of known hazardous material contamination. The project is not within a high severity risk area for fire. The project is not within an Airport Review area. Impact. The project does not propose the. use of hazardous materials. The project is not expected to conflict with any regional evacuation plan. Although the project does not present a significant fire safety risk the following mitigation measure s can reduce the usage of chemical herbicides within the right of way and meet state goals. Mitigation/Conclusion. For fire reduction the following measure is being considered for use within the project limits: MM 7.1 Use polymer for a natural soil pavement to prevent weed growth under (MBGR) around signposts, power line poles and a 4-foot swath parallel to the edge of roadway to keep fires from starting. Responsible Party: City of Arroyo Grande Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept. Timeframe: During Grading activities City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004 Page 12 8. NOj$E -Will the project: Potentially Impact can Insignificant 'Not Significant &wiil be Impact Applicable mitigated a) Expose people fo noise levels that exceed fhe City's Noise Element Thresholds? b) Generate increases in the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas? c) Expose people fo severe noise or vibration? d) Other Setting. Existing ambient noise in the vicinity of the project site is primarily generated by vehicular traffic ahd adjacent agricultural operations. Impact. The project is expected to generate loud noise during construction that will impact the adjacent school site and residences. This is considered a potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to aless-than-significant level with implementation of the below mitigation measures. Mitigation/Conclusion. The project will generate short-term noise impacts with construction activities that require mitigation. Long-term increases in traffic and other operational noise levels are considered less-than-significant impacts and no mitigation measures are necessary: MM 8.1: Construction activities shall be restricted to the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction shall occur on Sunday. On-site equipment maintenance and servicing shall be confined to the same hours. MM 8.2: All construction equipment utilizing internal combustion engines shall be required to have mufflers that are in good condition. Stationary noise sources shall be located at least 300 feet from occupied dwelling units unless noise .reducing engine housing enclosures or noise screens are provided by the contractor. MM 8.3: Equipment mobilization areas, water tanks, and equipment storage areas shall be placed in a central location as far from existing residences as feasible. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande - CDD, Public Works Dept. Timeframe: During construction 9. POPULATION/HOUSING - Potentially Impact can Will the project: Significant & will be mitigated a) Induce subsfantia/growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastrucfure)T Insignificant Not Impact Applicable ® ^ r`;r~. ~-arrovo Grande, Initial Study forGPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPMO6-004 Page 13 9. POPULATION/HOUSING - Potentially Significant impact can & will be Insignificant. Impact Not 'Applicable Will the project: mitigated b) Displace existing housing or people, requiring construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Create the need for substantial new housing in the area? d) Use substantial amount of fuel or energy? e) Other Setting. The project includes an improvement, extension and dedication of a portion of existing emergency access road to improve public circulation around AGHS and to the existing development of Vista del Mar and residential. subdivision in the county. The proposed road connection was originally anticipated when the Vista del Mar subdivision was built as a preferred circulation alternative instead of Orchard Ave. Castillo del Mar will enable access to a potential low density (maximum of ?- units) subdivision on the proposed 11.6-acre residential hillside parcel. Impact. The proposal addresses a ,long-term circulation deficiency for AGHS and surrounding residences. Although the project will enable access to a potential future subdivision, its potential for increased traffic is less than ten peak-hour trips, and thus the road improvement is not considered to induce substantial growth in the vicinity. The project will not result in a need for a significant amount of new housing, and will not displace existing housing. 10. PUBLIC SERVICES/UTILITIES - Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not Will the project have an effect upon, Significant 8~ will be Impact Applicable or result in the need for new or mitigated altered public services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Roadsl e) Solid Wastes? g) Other Setting. The proposal includes redesignation and rezoning of land and proposed road improvements that will not require the need for new public services in the vicinity and will not require modification of existing utilities that are in place. Any future subdivision application will include an analysis of impacts to public services. Impact. It is not anticipated that the proposal will have a significant impact on public services. City ofArroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004 Page 14 Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not Significant &willbe Impact Applicable 11. RECREATION -Will the project: mitigated a) Increase fhe use or demand for parks or other recreation opportunities? b) Affect the access to trails, parks or other recreation opportunities? c) Other Setting. The proposed road improvements will include sidewalk and improve vehicular and pedestrian circulation for AGHS and residences in the vicinity. No trail or recreation amenity is proposed. Impact. It is not anticipated that the proposal will have a significant impact for recreation. 12. TRANSPORTATION/ Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not CIRCULATION -will the ro ect: P j Significant &will be mitigated Impact Applicable a) Increase vehicle trips to local or ~ ~ ® 0 areawide circulation sysfeml b) Reduce existing "Levels of Service" on public roadway(s)? c) Creafe unsafe conditions on public roadways (e.g., limited access, design features, sight distance)? d) Provide for adequate emergency access? e) Result in Inadequate parking capacify? ' f) Result in inadequate internal traffic circulation? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportafion (e.g., pedestrian access, bus Turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? h) Result in a change in air traffic patterns fhaf may result in substantial safety risks? i) Other CitvofArioyo Grande, Initial Study forGPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPMO6-004 Page 15 Setting. The project includes an improvement, extension and dedication of a portion of existing emergency access road to improve public circulation around AGHS and to the existing development of Vista del Mar and residential subdivision in the County. The proposed road connection will implement a preferred circulation alternative (instead of Orchard Ave.) that was originally anticipated when the Vista del Mar subdivision was built. Castillo del Mar will enable access to a potential low density subdivision on the proposed 11.6-acre residential hillside parcel subject to future environmental review. Impact. Due to the grade change on the north shoulder of the existing emergency access portion of Castillo del Mar, additional widening on the north side may require retaining walls. In order to reduce the need for retaining walls to accommodate the 64' right-of-way, the following mitigation shall be required. Additionally, mitigation is required in order to provide for and encourage bicycle transportation, particularly in the vicinity of AGHS. Mitigation/Conclusion. Although no significant traffic-related concerns were identified the following mitigation is required. MM 12.1: No parking or sidewalk shall be provided on the north side of Castillo del Mar where grade change would require substantial retaining walls. Future residential subdivision on the south side of Castillo del Mar will include a curb, gutter, and sidewalk with or without on-street parking. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Building & Fire Dept.; Public Works Dept. Timeframe: Prior to issuance of grading permit for future road improvements. MM 12.2: All road improvement plans for Castillo del Mar, including both the proposed improvements and the anticipated future improvements, shall include a minimum of a class II bike lane to provide safe bicycle access in the vicinity of AGHS and the residential subdivisions. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Building & Fire Dept.; Public Works Dept. Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit 13. WASTEWATER -Will the Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not project: Significant &willbe Impact Applicable mitigated a) Violate waste discharge requirements for wastewater systems? b) Change fhe qualify of surface or ground water(e.g., nitrogen-loading, daylighting)? c) Adversely affect community wastewater service provider? d) Other City ofArroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004 Page 16 Setting. There is no wastewater disposal required for the proposal. ~. , Impact: There is no anticipated impact for wastewater. 14. HYDROLOGY AND WATER Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not QUALITY -Will the rO~ect: p ~ Significant & will be mitigated Impact Applicable a) Violate any waterqualitystandards? b) Discharge info surface waters or otherwise alter surface water quality (e.g., furbfdity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, etc.)? c) Change fhe quality of groundwater ~ ~ . ® Q (e.g., saltwaferintrusion, nitrogen- loading, etc.)? d) Change the quantify or movement of available surface or ground waterT e) Adversely affect watersupply? tJ Other Setting. Localized stormwater surface runoff follows the topography of the site northerly toward AGHS and farmland. A season drainage ditch traverses east to west the AGHS sports fields and will run through a proposed pipe under the proposed road extension near Valley Road and continue through existing farmland to Los Berros Creek. Approximately one-acre of irrigated farmland will be removed from production. Impact. Construction and grading activities and exposed soil could cause erosion during project development. An approximate 150 ft. segment of proposed road extension will traverse the vicinity of a drainage ditch, dug seasonally by the agricultural landowner for flood protection. Mitigation/Conclusion. In order to reduce the potential for erosion and to provide for seasonal drainage, the following mitigation is required. MM 14.1: To reduce erosion hazards due to construction activities, grading shall be minimized, and the developer shall provide for a temporary siltation and drainage control basin during construction. All finished slopes shall be hydroseeded with a permanent seed mix composed of native plant species indigenous to the areas. if a drainage structure is widened; all exposed soil needs to be replanted with native grass plugs or hydroseeded for storm water requirements. Responsible Party: City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept. Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande - CDD, Public Works Dept. Timeframe: Prior to Grading MM 14.2: Work shall be completed during the dry season (April 15 to October 15) to reduce active construction erosion to the extent feasible. If construction must extend into the City ofArroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004 Page 17 wet weather season, a qualified hydrogeologist or civil engineer shall prepare a drainage and erosion control plan that addresses measures to accommodate the seasonal drainage ditch. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept. Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Gradirig Permit and during construction MM 14.3: All temporary fill placed during project construction shall be removed at project completion and the area restored to approximate pre-project contours and topography. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept. Timeframe: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy MM 14.4: No construction debris or materials shall be allowed to enter the vicinity of the .drainage ditch either directly or indirectly. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept. Timeframe: During construction 5. LAND USE - Wlll the project: Inconsistent Potentially Consistent Not Inconsistent Applicable a) Be potentially Inconsistent with land use, policy/regulation (e.g., General Plan, Development Code), adopted fo avoid or mitigate for environmental effects? b) Be potentially inconsistent with any habitat or community conservation plan? c) Be potentially inconsistent with adopted agency environmental plans or policies with jurisdiction over the project? d) Be potentially incompatible wifh surrounding land uses? e) Other Setting/impact. Surrounding uses are identified on Page 3 of the Initial Study. The proposed project was reviewed for consistency with policy and/or regulatory documents relating to the environment and appropriate land use (e.g., City's Land Use Element, Development Code, Zoning Map, etc.). Referrals were sent to outside agencies to review for policy consistencies and code compliance (e.g. County Agricultural Commissioner, RWQCB, APCD.) As discussed in the section relating to impacts to Agriculture, the proposed zoning and general plan land use designations for the 10-acre AGHS sports fields and 11.6-acre proposed residential hillside parcel are considered internally consistent. The General Plan land use designation and rezoning of the 1.2 acre of farmland requires mitigation. City ofArroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004 Page 18 The proposal also includes an area of conservation open space land use designation overlay as shown on the General Plan land use map. This designation is to acknowledge need to maintain a drainage facility through the AGHS sports fields to prevent flooding and to convey regional drainage to Los Berros Creek and eventually to Arroyo Grande Creek. The proposal does not conflict with this overlay by rezoning from agriculture to .public facility and the proposed road improvements and extension will provide for the necessary drainage facility. Mitigation/conclusion. No inconsistencies remain after implementation of all required mitigation and no additional mitigation is determined to be necessary. ['.itv ofArrovo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004 Page 19 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not SIGNIFICANCE -Will the Significant &will be Impact Applicable mitigated project: a) Have fhe potential to degrade fhe quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ^ ® ^ ^ b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) ^ ® ^ ^ c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ^ ^ ® ^ d) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or Indirectly? ^ ^ ® ^ City ofAnoyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004 Page 20 Exhibit A -Initial Study References and Agency Contacts The City of Arroyo Grande has contacted various agencies for their comments on the proposed project. With respect to the subject application, the following have been contacted (marked with an ®) and when a response was made, it is either attached or in the application file: Ag ncv County Public Works Department County Environmental Health Division County Planning & Building & Fire Dept. County Agricultural Commissioner's Office Air Pollution Control District Regional Water Quality Control Board CA Department of Fish and Game CA Department of Forestry CA Department of Transportation US Army Corps of Engineers So. County Sanitation District Northern Chumash Tribal Council The following reference materials have been used in the environmental review for the proposed project and are hereby incorporated by reference into the Initial Study. The following information is available at the City Community Development Department. SOURCE LIST: 1. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan (October 2001) 2. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Land Use Map (October 2001) • 3. City of Arroyo Grande Development Code 4. City of Arroyo Grande Zoning Map 5. ,City of Arroyo Grande Existing Setting and Community Issues Report 6. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Program EIR (October 2001) 7. Air Pollution Control District Clean Air Plan 8. FEMA -Flood Insurance Rate Map ' 9. Ordinance No. 521 (Amending Title 10, Chapter 3 of the Municipal Code regarding the Community Tree Program) 10. Ordinance No. 550 (Amending Title 16 of the Municipal Code to incorporate regulations and amending the Zoning Map to create an Agricultural Preservation Overlay District) 11. San Diego Council of Governments -Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates 12. City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Report on Agricultural Resources 13. Environmental Impact Report for General Plan Amendment 89-2; Planned Development Rezone 89-215 (Vista Del Mar) December 1990. ATTACHMENTS: A: Roadway improvement location map B: Map showing proposed road alignment and rezone C: Map showing proposed road alignment and general plan amendment City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for "Cherry Creek" Page 21 ~'~~~ ~S g8,t~,t 3£ ~~ 0 0 _i o: a .ol ~ o F 1V 9u9 g ~} tl ~! ~t t ; ~ ~ tt ~~5 ~j~ t ~ , I 1 ` ~ ~t~ iU ~j18 ~ :.ta tlitl la:4a n~~ g~e ATTACHMENT 4 w ,, ca Z Qi Qi a( O .i ,i (] ~ ~#fi ~~j ~ ~ w ~~''3a~!i~14 ~ I o I E i Y j ~Iiii~;I~s i ~il~' ~' ~~; I' 8 e '~ : '~~ ~, 1rg,' uZ y~ k ~. U, ~_i s Ci ~d ~ ~ I I y! I p , i sl ~~ ~ a.. ` "~ i,lllilit°t~~ ~ ,: ~ i `j ~.y~ r_ il. •'~~ 1 i,t ea :tfr•. - ~2 i i I !~ f t J J~ q I Y x r s 9 / °~ % /~~~ a yn~ i• a 0~~ q=`~ ~1 Y'+ _- / ~ 37Y ° Ye / •:' It e e ATTACHMENT 5 PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 6 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2006 Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. Mr. Atkission said he had considered pulling back the roof overhang, but wasn't ready to make a decision at this time. Mrs. Atkisson requested the suggestion in writing (to be provided via a copy of these minutes). Mr. Tennant restated that he would like to see accurate, verifiable measurements and added that he's willing to compromise. • Commissioner Ray requested that a rendition of the south side silhouette of the two homes be prepared if further review is needed. Mrs. Tennant agreed that professional measurements of their house would be welcome. Consensus was the commissioners would like both parties to work together on an agreeable solution, instead of having to live with whatever is resolved by someone else. They would like to offer the quickest permit path through Planning Commission by leaving open options for Administrative Approval of a redesign, and/or appeals to Planning Commission and City Council as necessary. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to continue the item in order to allow applicants and their neighbors time to discuss the design and to allow the Community Development Director to approve the project as an Administrative Decision for future report or bring it back to public hearing as he sees fit. Discussion on motion: Commissioner Parker asked about holding a place on the September 5 agenda. Mr. Strong noted it depends on the agendizing process - as an Administrative Decision or further Public Hearing. Either way, each party can appeal and delay approval an additional 2-3 months as things are now. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Ray, Parker, Tait and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: None 7:40 pm The Commission took a 10-minute break. C. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001 & DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001 & TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 06- 004; APPLICANT =CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION - APN 006-095- 001 & 002 (adjoining Arroyo Grande High School/Valley Road/Fair Oaks Ave Community Development Director, Rob Strong, presented the staff report, describing affected parcels on a map. There are two levels of consideration to deal with in addition to the Tentative Parcel Map (TPM): 1) the General Plan Amendment (to reflect actual land use as Community Facilities [CF] and Single Family Residential Low Density PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2006 PAGE 7 [SFRLD]), and 2) the Development Code Amendment (to reflect zoning as Public Facility [PF] and Residential Hillside [RH]). There are several areas that haven't been updated on the land use or zoning map to reflect current high school use (CF/PF). LMUSD has requested that the hillside parcel be rezoned to SFRLD in preparation for possible sale, in the event that the District determines it is not needed for public facility. In regards to the proposed extension of Castillo del Mar through the Taylor ag parcel, there were several alignments reviewed with different road curvatures. The preferred alignment presented by engineering consultant, John Wallace and Associates affects the least amount of ag land. Also, it is the only viable access for the developing parcels. The first issue that should be dealt with is the environmental determination. If commissioners see any potential for adverse effects that haven't been mitigated, then they should take no further action and recommend an EIR or additional studies until those issues are resolved. If they accept the mitigated negative declaration (MND), then discussion should ensue regarding the GPA. The TPM simply implements the road alignment. This has all came about after years of discussion with JH Land, City Council, Lucia Mar Unified School District (LMUSD) and John Taylor. They all entered into a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) that this should be considered and coordinated. Each suggestion has importance to some of those parties, so if commissioners decide not to support one part, that could preclude the MOU from being implemented and prevent the road from being accomplished at this time. Commission questions of staff: Ray • Why isn't the Land Evaluation Site Assessment (LESA) model being used to determine necessity of an EIR for this project? The City has no such model established as a measure of significance. There are assumptions involved -one of which is size (for ag suitability), and the entire Taylor property wouldnY meet size regulations by the City or County standards (County is 20 acres, City is 10). There are ag easements on the Runels' property. Just putting it into a conservation contract can be significant. Road extension and separation of one acre of land from the rest of the cultivated area would be significant if not mitigated. Per the General Plan, mitigation is allowed at a minimum of 1:1 replacement with like land and a permanent conservation easement. There arenY any one-acre parcels on the market, but there may be some larger ones available in the future. The mitigation proposal offers $200,000, which is 2-4 times the estimated cost of one acre of Agriculture Conservation Easement. There's no assurance that City Council will find that amount is acceptable, and commissioners can comment on sufficiency of in lieu fees. Please set our minds at ease regarding the lack of the "threshold of significance" mentioned in the General Plan. There's no current standard that can be interpreted one way or the other. The Commissioners and .Council need to use their best judgment as the lead agency. This could be challenged in court, but as there is no established threshold, it is open to interpretation. PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2006 PAGE 8 • So it is on a case-by-case and won't set a precedent? Wifh any environmental determination, it is case-by-case. • Will there continue to be access at the acute angle intersection? It's a private driveway now, not owned or controlled by the City. The road proposed is intended to substitute for it. • Can we condition it and will the condition be followed? Commissioners can recommend abandonment, but LMUSD has the ability fo make decisions similar fo Council. The Haddox property uses that as the only established access to their 20- acre parcel and they have a private driveway easement. In regards to traffic, anybody south of the intersection will choose this way to Orchard rather than Fair Oaks. What is the impact through the neighborhood? There hasnY been a discussion on that, as it was felt the new intersection would more likely feed the parking lot. Brown • What is the overall benefit to the City, besides benefiting the developer and getting some funds for the road? Will circulation be greatly improved? Yes, that has been the understanding between LMUSD and the City for some time. Maybe it was different 10 years ago, but with the new homes it is greatly needed. • Was the in lieu fee just from negotiation and not from comps? Yes, but the City has appraised properties equivalent fo prime soils and determined it's appropriate. There are other larger parcels available fo serve ag uses, which cost less than $100,000/acre. It can be assumed that there would be less compensation required forjust a conservation easement. The $200,000 mitigation fee would probably result in 2-4 acres of mitigation. • In regards to General Plan statements about loss of prime farmland soils, it seems they need to have a statement of overriding considerations. Is this appropriate mitigation and would there be different "thresholds" if another property came forward? The policy may be flawed. If it is intended to require an EIR, though there's no significant effect, then it's just red tape. If a project isnY mitigated to level less than significant levels, then an EIR would be required. Planning Commission recommended and City Council adopted the General Plan policy. If it's inconsistent with reasonable mitigation, then the policy can be amended. If the policy should be literally interpreted, then this proposal is over. • There needs to be a measure to use for consistency of approvals from one project to the next. There needs to be a statement of overriding consideration. Mr. Strong replied there cant be a statement of overriding consideration if there's not an EIR. If the effects are less than significant, there's no reason for an EIR, so iYs a contradiction. An applicant could come in and try not to mitigate impacts at all, but the point is fo make them try. Parker • WiII it set off the Taylor property's "right to farm" by extending the road? No. • In regards to changing the land use to Single Family Residential Low Density (SFRLD), is an environmental review required? When they prepared the 2001 General Plan, they did a blanket CEQA review over all changes proposed, which was adopted. Each project later proposed upon which the City takes discretionary PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 73, 2006 PAGE 9 action would require a new CEQA determination. LMUSD has requested if be SFRLD. Tait • Is the SLO County Ag Commissioner okay with this per correspondence? Yes. 12g on page 15 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is listed as "impact can and will be mitigated". Why is that an impact? The Ag Commissioner verbally expressed concerns with the City's current policy of allowing pedestrian trails through ag properties. They're concerned the Circulation Element could allow trails through ag property. The "Lopez to Sea" concept implies trail systems following the creek, which would be of concern to ag interests. That will be brought back for clarification with Pedestrian/Bike Plan considerations. They were concerned it implied a trail along the drainage channel, and he assured them that wasnt the case and isnY depicted on plans. • The only agencies that responded to the MND were County Ag and the Northern Chumash. Weren't there responses from APCD, DFG or Corps of Engineers? No, and it's not unusual. • Do we know how much money will be needed for the road widening and in lieu fees? The road widening is estimated by the Cify Engineer of $400,000. The in lieu fees is $200,000. Land acquisition is a private transaction between those two parties as outlined in the MOU. These are conservative estimates, but Council can decide the sufficiency of funding proposed. More than likely, the 1:1 mitigation will be exceeded and they'll be able to purchase land at 2:1 or even 4:1, but the land transaction isnY part of public agency control. • Is the current acute angle intersection considered dangerous? It doesn't' meet any City or County standards. It's there; but that doesn't mean it's right. Fellows • Could the LESA model be fitted to our community and used? If the City can create a model that works, if would be a pioneer. Those he has reviewed are for larger areas. o That would help in making approvals more consistent. o Does City Council decide if that's the right thing is to do? Yes. Ray • What is the potential problem (page 7, 4"' paragraph) regarding the school district's purchase not being 'Yuithin the control of the City"? LMUSD could create a new project after purchase, make CEQA decisions as the lead agency on the new project, and if the City didnY like it, they'd have to go to court to dispute it. o What is the difference? Currently, the land isnY publicly owned by LMUSD, so they can't make environmental decisions on it (and Taylor cant as a private citizen). Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. Tom Runels, 586 Valley Road, spoke regarding the project. He felt the existing road works fine. The angle may be hard, but there's stacking capacity which would be lost if it's moved further down. In regards to Valley Road, he already has to go to Los Berros PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2006 PAGE 10 to access the freeway. He doesn't have a problem with the project, but the location will create a bigger problem. There's another road they could open up that was used for construction for two years. Otherwise, there will be more traffic on Orchard than there is now. There's only a school traffic problem in the morning and the afternoon, but during mid-day there's no problem. If and when the road is changed, it will generate a drainage problem that LMUSD should address. It seems like the General Plan is being ignored in regards to saving ag land. The road should be lined up to go through a property and.line up with the Mortuary and with EI Campo Road. In response to Chair Fellows, Mr. Runels responded that the current problem with the acute angle intersection is mainly speeders who should just slow down. There have been very few accidents -mostly at night. • Commissioner Ray asked if the reason for not connecting the road as Mr. Runels suggested is more loss of ag land? Mr. Strong replied that it was discussed during approval of the 2001 General Plan and it was felt not to have a purpose of that point. He outlined other possibilities, concluding this proposal was the alternative endorsed by LMUSD and the City. o Craig Campbell noted the road alignment is actually quite close to it (and he showed his diagram with engineered accuracy). o There was further discussion between Mr. Runels, Mr. Strong and Commissioner Ray regarding road alternatives. Mr. Runels concluded that if done, there would be many kids who circle ("cruise") the school, which may be an issue for the school district. Herman Olave, 222 W. Cherrv, spoke regarding the project. He talked to neighbors and hasn't found anyone dissatisfied with traffic circulation there. There's a problem in the morning and the afternoon for about 20-30 minutes each, but otherwise it's fine. He has no objection to extending it to Valley Road, but feels they have been lied to by the City and contractors. Any agreements need to be in writing and adhered to. The problem is enforcement of kids jaywalking and parking where they shouldn't -there needs to be more code enforcement. Parents dropping kids off are the ones who complain. He's concerned that $400,000 isn't sufficient for improvements. Chair Fellows closed the hearing for public comment. Commission comments: Fellows: • The engineer's map should be presented to Council for sake of accuracy. • Why couldn't there be different curvature to save more ag land? Some concerns include sight distance, headlights into the Runels house, and the engineers said the curves wouldnY work. Parker • Mr. Runels talked about cueing. What about taking part of the ag portion left over to use for alert-hand turn lane onto the new street? It's not only possible, but also proposed. There's still only room for two lanes to the south, but there's potential for three lanes or more to the north (toward the intersection). PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 11 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2006 Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. Judith Haddox, asked if the existing road would stay there? If this proposal is accepted and the road is realigned, the existing driveway would be at the discretion of the school district. One concept is should Planning Commission recommend that it be eliminated. It depends on acceptance fo alternative road alignment. He showed another way to place the driveway. If she doesn't agree to elimination, then it couldn't be done. It was an offer fo the City to dedicate, but if was never accepted. I don't think we want it closed, because it would be easier to get out the same way and there are certain things we need access to. It could be gated further toward the end. Chair Fellows closed the hearing for public comment. Commission Comments (continued): Brown • What is the intent for the pie-shaped piece of land? There's no specific proposal. • Will it belong to LMUSD? Yes. Tait • Has the City researched drainage problems with Valley Road? Drainage is being relieved by bond improvements on the high school. Some water went across the campus, through the intersection and ended up across the street. Drainage across the ditch is handled if it's a low storm, but not a high storm. When the ditch runs full, the low is at the intersection. The ultimate solution is a pipeline up Valley Road toward the Saruwatari property and to the creek, which would be better than a single corrugated metal pipe and 2-3 times the capacity. Under aworst-case storm, the Taylor field is flooded. Seasonal drainage and water under low flow goes along the ditch, across the Runels property, and continues as a flood plain to Tiger Tail and Sunset Terrace, then connects to Los Berros channel. If won't totally solve thing, but would be better than it is today. 9:30 am The Commission took a 10-minute break. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to continue past 10:00 p.m. on the proviso that commissioners only deal with the administrative approval for 314 Whiteley (after finishing this item). Motion approved on a 5/0 voice vote. Commission comments (continued): Tait • The main question is the loss of 1.2 acres of prime Ag land. In regards to AG1-1.2, he thinks that circulation is a "public health, safety and welfare' issue. Although it's an adverse impact, it can be mitigated with at least a 2:1 ratio. The benefits are great and it should go forward. Parker • Access is vital for safety, not only to address problems with EI Campo, but Fair Oaks and Valley Road. PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2006 PAGE 12 • It's important to rezone - it's a cleanup issue. • Regarding the LMUSD request for rezoning, she understands that water and infrastructure are in place now for PF zoning and that when a project comes forward, it would need the appropriate environmental review at that time. • She struggled with interpretation of the prime soils issue -whether it necessitates a statement of overriding consideration and CEQA review. She doesn't want to set a precedent, but it comes down to adequate mitigation and consideration on a case- by-case basis. While she can recommend approval to Council for this project due to issues of safety and community, she noted this does not indicate that loss of all prime soils can be mitigated to less than significant. Ray • She also had a problem with "overriding considerations" and EIR necessity. However, projects are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and there's public benefit of special significance for public safety and welfare -not just private development. • The road itself is part of the mitigation. • It is a public welfare issue undoubtedly. If she lived in Vista del Mar, she would want fire engines to be able to access her home two ways. • She recommends closing the acute angle intersection for the safety of residents. • She's not sure about approving the 11 acres from ag to SFRLD. It's less of a change to PF. In saying that, there's no question LMUSD needs the money, which would ultimately benefit the students. Though not prime soils, she would recommend the project as proposed except for the 11 acres, which she would like addressed separately by Council. Brown • He has great misgivings about opening the door to perceived or actual changes to General Plan policies by doing this. If they use the "case-by-case basis" argument, that seems to say in this case we can ignore the prime soils loss and in others we can't. He understands Mr. Strong's logic about the threshold of significance and need for an EIR, but he's more concerned about precedent setting. Having said that, he recommends approval with the footnote that the City agendize the "threshold of significance issue", so in the future there's a less arbitrary methodology. He wants to be fair and have perception of fairness. The LESA model wouldn't work, because it would wipe out the small ag parcels. Fellows • The good thing about the proposal is less traffic on Orchard, where there is a problem that would at least be helped every morning and afternoon. When rezoned, there would be more traffic, so the Castillo extension would help. • He's never been in favor of taking productive prime ag out of production and he isn't now. His solution is: o Leave the ag triangle in production, leave it zoned ag and make it a teaching plot for organic farming, and take out the existing road and return it to ag. o If that doesn't work, pull out and return the northeast corner to ag production. • The only way to mitigate ag land loss is to create ag land. 1:1 mitigation is good. In lieu fees sound good, but if they're not used immediately, that may never happen. PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2006 PAGE 13 The cost may increase and/or a new Council may decide to use it for something else. A 2:1 ratio would be preferred. A lot of people worked a long time to put this together. Jim Dickens noted the only way to preserve ag land for the future is to put a conservation easement on it. The only way to go forward is to collect the mitigation money before the road goes in, find land and buy the development rights and it will be protected in perpetuity. No rezoning, grading, etc. should be done until 2 acres are conserved. It may be available fairly soon. He can't vote yes unless there's immediate conservation in 1:1 or 2:1 basis. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to approve the General Plan Amendment Case No. 06-001, Development Code Amendment Case No. 06-001, and Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 06-004 with the following changes: 1. It is requested that City Council agendize discussion of General Plan Policy AG1- 4 in regards to the required "threshold of significance" to clarify whether Planning Commission should decide the necessity of EIR's on a case by case basis. Discussion: Commissioner Ray emphasized the importance of Mitigation Measure 5.1 and the importance of monitoring by the Northern Chumash Tribal Council. Commissioner Parker felt that Mitigation Measure 1.2 should be moved to section 6 (Geology and Soils). She also questioned whether Initial Study Checklist question 9.a. was an "insignificant impact". She felt that opening the road introduces the strong possibility for future growth. Mr. Strong responded that any future growth of adjoining parcels as residential developments would have to be reviewed by Commissioners as individual projects, and they could be appropriately mitigated/conditioned at the time of each project's review. After further Commission and staff discussion the following condition was added to the motion: 2. It is recommended that the asphalt be removed from the abandoned road and that area, along with the triangle separated from John Taylor's property, be kept in ag production, possibly as a teaching area for the high school. and adopt: RESOLUTION N0.06-2004 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 06-004, INCLUDING IMPROVEMENT AND EXTENSION OF CASTILLO DEL MAR DRIVE FROM ORCHARD STREET TO VALLEY ROAD; LAND USE ELEMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF 11.1 ACRES FROM COMMUNITY FACILITIES TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY AND CONSISTENT REZONING FROM AGRICULTURE TO RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE (RH); AND LAND USE ELEMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF 1.2 ACRES FROM AGRICULTURE TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND CONSISTENT PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2006 PAGE 14 REZONING OF THIS 1.2 ACRES AND AN ADJOINING 8.9 ACRES OF ARROYO GRANDE HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS FROM AGRICULTURE TO PUBLIC FACILITY (PF), AS INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Tait, Parker, Ray and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 13th day of July 2006. 10:10 pm Commissioner Parker left, as she wasn't feeling well. III. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Overlay direction. -Per above, it was decided this item would not be discussed due to the late hour. 2. Reouest for discussion and reconsideration by Chair Fellows: Administration Approval of the demolition of a 1960's ranch-style home and construction of a new Spanish eclectic style single-family home, ARC 06-004, located at 314 Whiteley Street. • Chair Fellows noted that Community Development Department staff has been short-handed and the report omission probably shouldn't have caused the delay. Now that the information has been presented, the project looks fine, so long as all ARC recommendations are followed, especially in handling drainage off the property with permeable pavers, so there's little water leaving the property down the street into the creek. It's also important to change the roof and that the garage door look like two doors. With the plans, he was impressed that the garage won't be as obvious as he imagined. • Commissioner Brown asked if the reason for pulling the item wasn't because it may not have matched the Design Guidelines. Chair Fellows replied that he had reviewed the Guidelines and though it may not be a "great fit", the two architects felt it fit fairly well and the Village residential guidelines are flexible. • Commissioner Brown asked Chair Fellows again if he was okay with the project. Chair Fellows replied that his preference would be to remodel instead of demo and rebuild, but there's no code to support that so it's not an issue. • Commissioner Tait asked for clarification that with ARC's changes was Chair Fellows fine with the project. Chair Fellows replied, "Yes". • Chair Fellows moved to not hold a public hearing to reconsider this project. • Discussion on motion: ATTACHMENT6 RESOLUTION NO. 06-2004 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-001, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 06-004, INCLUDING IMPROVEMENT AND EXTENSION OF CASTILLO DEL MAR DRIVE FROM ORCHARD STREET TO VALLEY ROAD; LAND USE ELEMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF 11.1 ACRES FROM COMMUNITY FACILITIES TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY AND CONSISTENT REZONING FROM AGRICULTURE TO RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE (RH); AND LAND USE ELEMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF 1.2 ACRES FROM AGRICULTURE TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND CONSISTENT REZONING OF THIS 1.2 ACRES AND AN ADJOINING 8.9 ACRES OF ARROYO GRANDE HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS FROM AGRICULTURE TO PUBLIC FACILITY (PF), AS INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE. WHEREAS, the City Council of Arroyo Grande on May 9, 2006 considered and approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Lucia Mar Unified School District (LMUSD), J.H. Land, and John Taylor regarding the above proposals for circulation and access improvements, land use and zoning changes and related mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, the Program EIR prepared for the 2001 General Plan adopted October 9, 2001, evaluated environmental impacts associated with numerous circulation, land use and zoning alternatives, but did not address potential changes involving public agency owned properties; and WHEREAS, area and site specific DEIR was prepared in December 1990 for GPA 89- 3, PD Rezoning 89-215 and proposed development project known as Vista del Mar, including the same circulation and more substantial land use and zoning proposals, and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has conducted current initial studies and concluded that environmental impacts associated with the MOU and proposed circulation and land use changes will be mitigated to less than significant as outlined in a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration dated June 23, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after public hearing, consideration of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, all testimony and evidence presented, finds the Mitigated Negative Declaration appropriate and adequate pursuant to State and local CEQA laws and guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after public hearing, consideration of staff report, all testimony and evidence presented, finds the proposed Castillo del Mar Drive improvement and extensions necessary for the public health, safety and welfare and RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 consistent with adopted Circulation Transportation Element policies, particularly CT3- 4.2; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after public hearing, consideration of staff report regarding Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space and Urban Area Land Use Elements, all testimony and evidence presented finds the .proposed land use and zoning map changes as shown on Attachments 1 and 2 to be appropriate and consistent with the intent of 2001 General Plan Update adopted policies, including LU2- 2, LU2-2.1 and LU2-2.4, and Ag1, Ag1-1.2, Ag1-4, Ag1-4.1 and Ag1-4.2; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 06-004, General Plan Amendments and Development Code Amendments Case Nos. 06-001 will not adversely affect public health, safety and welfare and that the City Council will determine the adequacy of proposed in-lieu mitigation contribution regarding loss of prime farmland soils which cannot be avoided by any feasible alternatives. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande that Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 06- 004, General Plan Amendment Case No. 06-001, and Development Code Amendment Case No. 06-001, including the improvement and extension of Castillo Del Mar Drive between Orchard Street and Valley Road be approved as depicted on map Attachments 1 and 2. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission that: 1) the City Council agendize discussion of General Plan Policy Ag1-4 regarding "threshold of significance" criteria ,to clarify whether the Commission should decide the necessity of EIR's on a case by case basis when loss of prime farmland soils is involved, and 2) the Lucia Mar Unified School District consider abandonment and removal of the asphalt road or driveway from Valley Road along the southwest edge of the existing high school property to the parking lot to offset the new pavement of Castillo Del Mar Drive extension and maintain as much prime farmland soil in production as possible, at least until off-site permanent agricultural conservation easement is actually acquired by the mitigation in-lieu fee, possibly used for high school agricultural education purposes. On motion by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Tait, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES:Brown, Tait, Parker, Ray and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 13"' day of July 2006. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 ATTEST: KATHY MENDOZA CHUCK FELLOWS, CHAIR SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ..:. . ,. ~o'` " c,~ .,Irr -,-: r <,-,,-:" _. ,...., , ~ - ATTACHMENT 7 ,~ V,i, ~.,.. •~'• INCORPORATED 7 ..... ... .. --~ ..~ U m .. ....... .- ._ ....... , . , -. . .k JULY 10, 1911 * N _ c4~rFORN~P PROJECT REFERRAL ~ ~ J;.~~~ 1 ~~' m S: , - DATE: luwe pro, 200 Project Name & Numbe '~ z 4elnerai plaw,4vuewdwLewt IJO a6-DO1. DevelopvxewtCode/}vuewdvuewt No. o6-ooY. ~ Tewtatiye parcel Ma'o No. 06-004 TO: S!_O.^~uwtta~. GowLwlissiow f1t±w: Ll~wda /tuchiwacllie FROM: Rob StvowG, CowLVUUwit~ DevelopwLewt Aivectov Phone N: (805) 473-5420 PROJE%T DESCRIPTION: City-iwitiated pvonosT al as follows: i) Tewtative Parcel reap fov aw appvoxivuate so-acve p~pevt~ iwcludivL~ awd southeast o f .4rro~o 4vavLde F+ia~n school cawLpL~s to eveate a -acr~gavicel awd aw iY-acve parcel awd to vezowe a io-acre port"Low the ~9-acr~pavicel fvowL Raricultuve (stal to public facilities (PP), awd awtewd the 2ooi Geweral plow l.awd use Elevuewt to vedsi~wate ttie i2-acre parcel frovu CowLwLUwit~ ~acilit'L~s (CI=) to t_ow Dewsitl~ SiwcJle-~avuilt~ Residewtial (s~-LD) awd to rezowe tt7e 22-acre pave L fvowL Ar~rieultuve (RcJ) to tzesidewtial I-Fillside (RFF): 2) rewtatCve panel rag for aw agproxivuate 8-acve ~arceL ad~oiwiwa awd sout'r of ftvro~o Grawde Fti~t1 school cavupus ow the east side o~vallel~ Road to create a i.2-acve pavicel awd a 6.S-r•~cve parcel awd avuewd the 2001 4eweral plow Laved use Elevuewt to desic~wate the i.2-acre parcel fvovu .4~riculture (R~) to Govuvuuwit~ Facilities (CF) awd rezowe the i.2-acre parcel fvovu Ag (.4g) to public Faeiiities (pF): 3) ro desi~w, eowstruct. extewd awd iwLpvoye Castillo Del n~tav Drive frolu weav orchavd stveet to valley Road to ewable circulatiow arouwd .^cYi'Cd;, Gra 4Lr, 11"'I^ c.r 1,~~1 n~, .l nltnl,, In.^.P I. 5tvyyt nr. r.RCC t.%he w.Sl,_tt $qu.~~^ela St t0_a uroL`osed Coulnku SLIbdLVL5 L06L PLN.Oww as $LCSiCl2. TVGiGt No. 189 located outside the Cito liviaitr; 4) 70 aGCent Aw iw-lieu vuiti~atiow cowtributiow for loss of apgroxivwatell~ Y-acve~pvT ~wLe favw~lawd associated with ~roposrro?d extewsiow awd potewtial cowyersiow of privue favvulawd to future public facilitt~ use.. PROJECT LOCATION: portiows of lkPN'S 006-0 6-001 ~ 006-095-002 (ad~oiwiwP ,~r~~o wawde Hiah sc.tiooVyallP~u Road/~aiv oa'rzs eve.). P/ease return this letter with your comments attached no later than luwe 30, 2006. PART I. IS THE ATTACHED INFORMATION ADEQUATE FOR YOU TO DO YOUR REVIEW? ,_ /YES (Please go on to PART II.) NO (Call me ASAP to discuss what else you need.) PART II. ARE THERE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS, PROBLEMS OR IMPACTS IN YOUR AREA OF REVIEW?~ !./ NO (Please go on to PART III.) YES (Please describe impacts, along with recommended mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less-than-significant levels, and attach to this letter.) PART III.. INDICATE YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR FINAL ACTION. Please attach any conditions of approval you recommend to be incorporated into the project' s approval, or state reasons for recommending denial. IF YOU HAVE " NO COMMENT", PLEASE SO INDICATE, OR CALL. 1~ ,Lya ~n~ Q ~~t~~,U~ c{{/~~ 7g1- Da a Name Phone ThGt v~12 IJ. Ok! 9.c. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING On TUESDAY, AUGUST 22, 2006, the Arroyo Grande City Council will conduct a public hearing at 7:00 P.M. in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET, ARROYO GRANDE to consider the following item: PROPOSAL: Newsom Springs Drainage Project. The proposed project involves construction of a drainage system through a series of ditches, box culverts and/or pipes to carry Newsom Springs watershed storm water runoff from the box culvert under Branch Mill Road to the Arroyo Grande Creek, as well as potential additional detention improvements upstream from Branch Mill Road. The Council will consider selection of a preferred alignment and whether to initiate the environmental review process for the proposed project. LOCATION: The area from the box culvert under Branch Mill Road to Arroyo Grande Creek by traversing along Branch Mill Road and then crossing both Cherry Avenue and Myrtle Street or directly across existing farm land, as well as potential options involving the area upstream from Branch Mill Road. STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Don Spagnolo, Director of Public Works The Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the item listed above. If you challenge the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Failure of any person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the action of the legislative body for which the notice was given. Information relating to these items is available by contacting the City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department at 473-5440. The Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20. Y Kelly Wet ore, ity Clerk Publish 1T, The Tribune, Friday, August 11, 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS DATE: AUGUST 22, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council: A. select a preferred alignment for the Newsom Springs drainage improvements; B. direct staff to perform additional engineering analysis and to initiate the environmental review process in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and C. appropriate $75,000 for environmental review process costs from the unappropriated General Fund balance and transfer $25,000 from the Pavement Management Program Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget; and D. direct staff to work with representatives of the Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District to identify and apply for grant funding to further pursue future drainage improvements to reduce or eliminate impacts on existing agricultural land. FUNDING: It is estimated that the environmental review process will likely result in costs up to $100,000. Staff is recommending that $25,000 be transferred from the Pavement Management Program CIP budget. The City received State Proposition 42 funds above what was originally projected. Therefore, this will not result in any reduction to the project. Staff is recommending that the remaining $75,000 be appropriated at this time from the unappropriated General Fund balance. However, staff is working on recommendations to replace this funding through savings in equipment replacement in the Building and Fire Department budget and through increased cell tower lease revenues. These changes are proposed to be reflected in the First Quarter Budget Report. There is currently $286,293 remaining in the Newsom Springs CIP budget account. However, under any of the options considered, it is anticipated that this funding will be needed for construction costs. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 2 DISCUSSION: Background On August 8, 2006, the City Council authorized a 60-day public review of the 2006 Drainage Master Plan Update. During the discussion, Council requested that staff research and provide a separate presentation to select a preferred alignment for the Newsom Springs drainage improvements. The Newsom Springs project has been analyzed in reports prepared in 1998 and 2006. In 1998 a draft negative determination focusing on one of several alternative projects was distributed for public comment, but the declaration was not approved by the City Council. The 1999 Drainage Master Plan was adopted including the Newsom Springs project, subject to future consideration of the alternative alignment and configurations. Project Description: The Newsom Springs project is intended to reduce flooding in several locations within the City. The total Newsom Springs project watershed area is 1,240 acres and generates a 100-year peak runoff flow of 1,024 cubic feet per second (cfs). The watershed is comprised of 1,160, 51 and 73 acre subwatersheds. The main watershed of 1,160 acres lies upstream of Branch Mill Road. Ina 100-year storm event, this watershed will generate about 891 cubic feet per second (cfs) of runoff. The runoff crosses Branch Mill Road and into the City limits through an 8 ft. x 4 ft. culvert. Downstream of the Branch Mill Road crossing, an additional watershed of approximately 51 acres contributes additional runoff upstream of the "stone culvert", and a watershed of approximately 73 acres contributes additional runoff to the intersection of Branch Mill Road and East Cherry Avenue. A small ditch currently diverts 30 to 100 cfs of this runoff to the east, crossing Branch Mill Road again through the 3 ft. x 5 ft. "stone culvert". Downstream, this flow contributes to flooding problems within Tract 139 (Launa Lane), at the Vagabond Mobile Home Park, the Pacific Coast Christian School, and further downstream at Valley Road. In a large storm, the majority of the runoff flow is not diverted through the stone culvert. The excess flow sheets across the agricultural fields and is directed toward the intersection of Branch Mill Road and East Cherry Avenue. At this point, the 100-year runoff is approximately 1,024 cfs. Historically, there has not been adequate drainage facilities to accommodate this runoff in a controlled manner between East cherry and Arroyo Grande Creek. As a result, the homes within Noguera Place cul-de-sac have experienced serious flooding. In 1999, the City constructed temporary drainage improvements that improve the area drainage in small storms. These consist of a ditch from the stone culvert to Arroyo Grande Creek, with a culvert crossing at East Cherry. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 3 Tract 2217, a housing tract at the southwest corner of the Branch Mill Road and East Cherry Street intersection, contributed $250,000 towards a regional drainage solution (the Newsom Springs project) in lieu of constructing offsite drainage improvements. The subdivision agreement required payment of the moneys within one year of project acceptance. The City accepted the public improvements in 1998. One lot on the south side of Hillside Court within Tract 2217 included grading that is dependent on the completion of the Newsom Springs project. Therefore, building permits for these two homes have been held up. This is because the grading design is based on the expected reduced flow in the rear yard ditch that will be achieved when the Newsom Springs project is completed. A recent development proposal known as the Cherry Creek project is located at the end of Cherry Avenue. This private development project is proposed to construct 27 homes on approximately 9 acres and is currently under review by the City. This project is proposing to install drainage facilities that would be required for either of the proposed alignments by incorporating them into the design. A series of box culverts along with an earthen swale have been proposed to traverse the site. Landscaping will also be incorporated in the design to enhance the area around the earth swale. On April 7, 1998, John L. Wallace and Associates (now Wallace Group) prepared a "Hydrology and Hydraulics Report" researching the watershed characteristics and hydrology requirements for the Newsom Springs area. Based on the information, the report recommended various alignment alternatives for potential drainage improvements, including cost estimates for each option. Three alignments were developed that provide for a series of ditches and/or pipes to carry storm water from the box culvert under Branch Mill Road to Arroyo Grande Creek. Alignment "A" carries storm water on its existing path along Branch Mill Road crossing both Cherry Avenue and Myrtle Street to Arroyo Grande Creek. The proposed Cherry Creek subdivision project includes an additional proposal for a drainage project generally along Alignment "A". Alignments "B" and "C" have a more direct route from Branch Mill Road across the existing farm land to an outlet at Arroyo Grande Creek. All three drainage alignments include pipes or ditches along Branch Mill Road, which collect runoff from the portion of the watershed downstream of the Branch Mill Road crossing and convey the flow to Arroyo Grande Creek. The potential to utilize stormwater detention facilities as a component of the Newsom Springs project was also investigated and described in a June 28, 2006 report prepared by the Wallace Group. Alignment "A" is recommended as the preferred alternative because it has been deemed the most feasible alternative due to cost considerations and with Option A-4 (Cherry Creek), there is the ability to acquire the necessary right-of-way at this time. However, there are many issues related to the alignment options, including the extent of the area protected from flooding, the extent of right of way acquisition required, and the affect on agricultural operations and property access. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 4 The alignment options are described below and shown schematically on the concept sketches. With Council direction regarding the preferred alignment, staff will prepare a more detailed analysis and project description of the project and initiate the environmental review process. Alignment "A" Alignment "A" is the most westerly alignment and generally locates the drainage facilities within two reaches. Reach 1 is from East Cherry Avenue Extension to Arroyo Grande Creek and provides flood protection to the Tract 409 (Noguera Place) area. Reach 2 is along Branch Mill Road, from the stone culvert to East Cherry Avenue and provides flood relief for Tract 139 (Launa Lane), Vagabond Mobile Home Park, Coastal Christian School, and surrounding areas. Within this general alignment, there are four configurations of improvements that have been considered. This includes the three projects originally considered in the 1998-1999 report and the project included in the proposed Cherry Creek subdivision. Issues common to all of the Alignment "A" alternatives: • Protects existing developed areas and areas zoned for development. • Does not provide flood protection for agricultural lands upstream of East Cherry Avenue. Most closely follows the existing path of the majority of flood stage runoff. Diverts low flow runoff from the stone culvert to Arroyo Grande Creek. Questions have been raised that this may be a wetland issue. This can be studied during environmental review and if necessary a small conduit can be used to convey environmental flows. The project differences are summarized below: Project A-1 Reach 1: 2-72 inch pipes Reach 2: Inlets and Ditches Cost: $884,275 Additional Issues related to project A-1: • In order for the Reach 1 pipes to provide adequate capacity, large collection ditches and multiple inlets must be constructed within the agricultural property upstream of East Cherry Avenue. • The Reach 1 pipes directly connect runoff from agricultural properties to Arroyo Grande Creek, eliminating the existing filtering effect of flow across grassy field and open ditches. • The Reach 2 ditches would impede existing agricultural operations. • Right of way acquisition over agricultural property would be required. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 5 Project A-2 Reach 1: Ditch and Bridges Reach 2: 48 inch pipe and inlets and ditches Cost: $1,087,350 Additional Issues related to project A-2: • In order for the Reach 1 ditch to provide adequate capacity, large collection ditches must be constructed within the agricultural property upstream of East Cherry Avenue. • The Reach 2 pipe impacts the farming operations less since it can be buried within the right of way of Branch Mill Road and farming vehicles can operate on the surface above the pipe. • Provides earthen surtace for runoff from agricultural properties toArroyo Grande Creek, maintaining the existing filtering effect of flow across grassy field and open ditches. • Right of way acquisition over agricultural property would be required. Project A-3 Reach 1: 2-72 inch pipes Reach 2: 48 inch pipe and inlets and ditches Cost: $996,550 Additional Issues related to project A-3: • In order for the Reach 1 ditch to provide adequate capacity, large collection ditches must be constructed within the agricultural property upstream of East Cherry Avenue. • The Reach 2 pipe impacts the farming operations less since it can be buried within the right of way of Branch Mill Road and farming vehicles can operate on the surface above the pipe. • The Reach 1 pipes directly connect runoff from agricultural properties to Arroyo Grande Creek, eliminating existing filtering effect of flow across grassy field and open ditches. • Right of way acquisition over agricultural property would be required. Project A-4 (Project as proposed by the Cherry Creek Subdivison) Reach 1: Ditch and Culverts Reach 2: 48 inch pipe and inlets Cost: $1,087,350 (approximately the same as A-2) Additional Issues related to project A-4: • This project is essentially the same as A-2, except that it uses large culverts instead of bridges, and it attempts to keep the collection ditch north of the existing agricultural property by relocating a portion of East Cherry Avenue. Additional topographic information is required to verify the feasibility of this concept. • It is likely that the required facilities would be larger than as shown on the Cherry Creek proposed tentative map. • Intended to avoid any work or right of way acquisition over the agricultural property south of East Cherry Avenue. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 6 • The Reach 2 pipe impacts the farming operations less since it can be buried within the right of way of Branch Mill Road and farming vehicles can operate on the surface above the pipe. • Provides earthen surtace for runofffrom agricultural properties to Arroyo Grande Creek, maintaining the existing filtering effect of flow across grassy field and open ditches. Cost (2006 estimate): Description A-1 A-2 A-3 Design, Permitting, Admin $229,250 $281,900 $258,350 Right-of-Way Acquisition $59,250 $67,300 $59,250 Construction $595,775 $738,150 $678,950 Estimated Project Cost $884,275 $1,087,350 $996,550 _. __ NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE PROJECT OI ifaJYCIJT O PDn IMT OI TCPYATIVCC ~ Y.. 1,.x.1.. ._.._- ::1: i~ ` lil ~,. . tt'i '. .. t '1 ~'~ ~S ~ ', ~'1.. `~.. ', ,,, ~. ,, ;` ~~YA 'Ij~` ~. ~C. `.. .l. ~ '1 `', , l ~.r / I' i ~ ;t ~ ~ ~ ~ ,.-.\ r $: r ~ . .,r ' i '` ,. ~ y - CCfY J( ~ i ~ ~~. ~~ ~ ~ARkIIY(7 C~k AN UE ~t ~~ Il ,. (Ally ]nlets "6 \ Ditches ' /; (A2) Ditch \~' `~ CA3) 1-48' PI e, ~, Inlets. r' '~ ''~ /~. Y~ \. f ~ .. \ ~ .r .. ,; \ / /~ rt. ` ;t ~ ` ~'~ f J \ ,/ ,%y' /~J' ~\ ~ ~ IVnr~~:(Jr. %j -, ` _ _.. / /// I flC111NTY CIF .~ SF1N LUIS ^D1SYfJ CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 7 Alignment "B" Description: This project would also provide relief to Tract 139 (Launa Lane), Vagabond Mobile Home Park, Coastal Christian School and surrounding areas by diverting runoff before it crosses Branch Mill Road in a pipe and conveying the flow directly to Arroyo Grande Creek. This pipe would be smaller in diameter than with Alignment A because much of the flow would be diverted upstream. Alignment B follows property lines in a route direct from the crossing at Branch mill Road to Arroyo Grande Creek, and generally locates the drainage facilities within four reaches. Reaches 1 and 2 are the same as for Alignment A, except that the flow to be conveyed is only the runoff downstream of the main channel crossing at Branch Mill Road. Reaches 3 and 4 are the downstream and upstream sections of the proposed main conveyance facility. This alignment provides flood protection for all of the areas that Alignment A does, plus the agricultural properties downstream of Branch Mill Road. Within this general alignment there are three configurations of improvements that have been considered. Issues common to all of the Alignment B alternatives: • Protects existing developed areas and areas zoned for development. • Protects agricultural lands between East Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road • Does not follow the existing path of the majority of flood stage runoff. • Diverts low flow runoff from the stone culvert to Arroyo Grande Creek. Questions have been raised that this may be a wetland issue. This can be studied during environmental review and if necessary a small conduit can be used to convey environmental flows. The project differences are summarized below: Project 8-? Reach 1:48 inch pipe Reach 2: Inlets and ditches Reach 3: Ditch with crossings Reach 4: Ditch with crossings Cost: $1,371,875 Additional Issues related to project B-1: • The proposed ditch may impeded agricultural operations and alter property access. • Topographic constraints increase the size of the project. • Provides earthen surface for runoff from agricultural properties to Arroyo Grande Creek, maintaining the existing filtering effect of flow across grassy field and open ditches. • Right of way acquisition over agricultural property would be required. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 8 Project 8-2 Reach 1: None Reach 2: None Reach 3: Ditch with crossings Reach 4: Ditch with crossings Cost: $948,475 Additional Issues related to project B-2: • Properties downstream of Branch Mill Road are not fully protected. • Topographic constraints increase the size of the project. • Provides earthen surface for runoff from agricultural properties to Arroyo Grande Creek, maintaining the existing filtering effect of flow across grassy field and open ditches. • Right of way acquisition over agricultural property would be required. Project 8-3 Reach 1:48 inch pipe Reach 2: 48 inch pipe Reach 3: 2-102 inch pipes Reach 4: 2-102 inch pipes Cost: $1,833,725 Additional Issues related to project B-3: • Topographic constraints increase the size of the project. • The Reach 3 and 4 pipes directly connect runoff from agricultural properties to Arroyo Grande Creek, eliminating existing filtering effect of flow across grassy field and open ditches. • Farming operations and access could occur over the pipe. • Right of way acquisition over agricultural property would be required. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 9 NEWSOM SPRINGS~DRAINAGE PROJECT _ ALIGNMENT 8 - PRn.IECT ALTERNATIVES `"""° ~ ••- •. ~ Y .. 1 Q ~ ~ 11 t 1_S ~ I Yi ~ ~ /. }t i y r i~ '.~ ~/ / r if ,~, / _. I l 1 .f'~'~ ~` ~,1~. ! t ' n^.^ '~ REACH 3 ,,~ ''" ~, ~ Yr' i J ('. ~i t ~ ~ ~ G~" ,. A~ h)~1) Dftch~,;~/Crossings ~ , ~ ~ ,- '`~. ~~ `. CB2) Dlt¢h w/Crossings;.. ~" f'~ ,~-`' ""''r-•~. ~ _ r ,, ~\ ~"'v ~$3)' J102' Pipe / '~ f .* ~ ' _ 1 ~•n% } ~ E ~~ ~ ~ ~~" ~ T~. ~~ t ` h C y~ 48' Pi ~ (!~~ ) Ditch w/Cro 53ngs ~~ '`~\ 11 x~~,< ~ ~+~ ` .~ HPS None pj \ 2> Ditch\w1Ctr~sshgs ~~..~ ,, ,r `r ~ /~~~'~~ ~~ ~'`tB3) 48' PI a ~:~j,.~'~7i3> 2-102'\~~ ~'. . ~ f ~~ ~~ ''~~' ~~ REACH 2 ~ ~ \ r r ~ ! < < ~ r 4 ~ ~ :~ ~ `~ C81) Inlets 6 ',f '` . ~, \ Ditches "~. =' 1 , (B2> None ~ ~ ' /; ' \ , \\ \ ' ~ \ ` it 1 l 1 J 11 ^~T`..f]`., lj~~,l ~ >} ' ~ ~' CC3l1N lY Orr ~t ' OYN Cf. k,N11f. ._. _ .._ ~} err, /~' ~ ~~ c 5AN LUIS ODISPLI ~! ;.. „ ~ ,N.1 ~ 1...1 t:_ ___.__.._._. ::. _ .. _. ...______.. ________ ._._.__._._._... _____ Cost (2006 estimate): Description 8-1 B-2 8-3 Design, Permitting, Admin $355,675 $245,900 $475,400 Right-of-Way Acquisition $145,075 $118,000 $139,650 Construction $871,125 $584,575 $1,218,675 Estimated Project Cost $1,371,875 $948,475 $1,833,725 Alignment "C" Alignment "C" follows a similar strategy to Alignment "B". However, the location of the facility has been shifted to a location more to the west. Compared to Alignment B, this project appears to impact less agricultural operations, but it requires a longer facility, and it would be deeper at the downstream end because there is not as much natural fall. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 10 NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE PROJECT A~IUNMENT C -PROJECT ALTERNATIVES - -- ~ ,,.,„ """'" - . 1 =s ' y . 1 t - r t ~ ~ t ~ , n j ~ n~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ / ` r --- - ,..v ~ ~ l { - REACH 3 _ .. _„ . .,.... . .f -. ' ~ . .. . , ~ ~ ~':t' `~ ~ RSA H 1 ^. j CH 4 .. ' ,)~ ~ t, ~~ ~\ ~~. REACH 2 \ ` .~ ~ l s'\ ' \` • `~ ~tr.~i, ,`. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 1~ cCll 48' Pipe, i `f ~\ r` r y rM ~ \~'~ Inlets. B *~v Dit h ~` , \ •, ~ / ~ / h<ur~ ~,~~ %~ C e5 .. ~' J i 1 1 C \ I ,i .. \,.. yep ~-~ / { ~''• ~. J <r.. i t % ~:' . i i ` I'111 ri ``~ ~ ~ ~ CUUfikTY ^f' .F~{ i '1RR!.'Y 1 il'1N17E. /i' ~ @\ / SAN LUiS OIiISPO ~ ,~, A ~ ~ Issues related to the Alignment "C" alternatives: • Protects existing developed areas and areas zoned for development. • Protects agricultural lands between East Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road • Does not follow the existing path of the majority of flood stage runoff. • Diverts low flow runoff from the stone culvert to Arroyo Grande Creek. Questions have been raised that this may be a wetland issue. This can be studied during environmental review and if necessary a small conduit can be used to convey environmental flows. Topographic constraints increase the size of the project. • Provides earthen surface for runofffrom agricultural properties to Arroyo Grande Creek, maintaining the existing filtering effect of flow across grassy field and open ditches. • Right of way acquisition over agricultural property would be required. • Agricultural operations and property access is impeded by the Reach 3 and 4 ditch. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AUGUST 22, 2006 ~ PAGE 11 Cost (estimated 2006 $): Design, Permitting, Admin $322,000 to $395,000 Right-of-Way Acquisition $167,000 Construction $736, 800 to 945,000 Estimated Project Cost $1,225,800 to $1,507,000 Upstream Detention Two basin locations were selected to determine feasibility. One is located at the north side and one on the south side of Branch Mill Road at the intersection with Newsom Springs Creek. These locations were reviewed in the field and analyzed by computer modeling. Site constraints limit the size of the basin. With the site boundary constrained the analysis indicates that the effectiveness of the basin depends on the available basin depth. With basin depths assumed of 10 to 12 feet, the reduction in peak outflow is marginal. However, with the basin depth increased to 15 feet (basin bottom to top of the berm), a reduction in flow of 327 cfs (34 percent) can be achieved. Whether or not this depth can be achieved on the site must be determined by field survey. This is a significant reduction in flow, but would not eliminate the need for downstream flood protection. Also, the basin would be designed with a spillway and downstream properties would need to consider a safe overflow path for spillway flows. An alternative concept preliminarily reviewed is to utilize Branch Mill Road as a dam to hold back stormwater. However, based on initial analysis, staff does not believe that there would be a significant increase in capacity overthe detention basin concept. Additionally, it would require substantial property acquisitions or a flood easement and would still require drainage pipes be installed to the creek. Staff proposes to perform additional analysis on this alternative as part of the effort to work with the RCD on improvements to prevent impacts to existing agricultural properties. Analysis Staff is recommending that the Council designate Alignment "A" as the preferred alignment, with option A-2 or A-4 (the Cherry Creek proposal) as the intended project. Constructing project A-2 orA-4 provides the City with an opportunityto address an ongoing drainage concern, does not preclude construction of either Alignment "B" or "C" in the future, and provides an opportunity to incorporate drainage facilities in the overall design of the proposed development. The specific design option proposed will depend on whether or not the Cherry Creek project incorporates the proposed system or the City constructs the project independently, and whether the feasibility of project A-4 is verified with additional topographic information. With Council designation of Alignment "A", staff would proceed with a more detailed project description (field survey and preliminary plans), and initiate environmental review. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 12 It would also be staff's recommendation to abandon the existing drainage easement along the westerly edge of the proposed Cherry Creek project upon completion of the storm drain improvements assuring the project can be constructed as proposed. Under the preferred alternative, it has been determined that there would no longer be any benefit from the easement. Staff has confirmed that the properties drain in the opposite direction and the ditch was intended to be temporary when originally installed. However, a public utility easement would remain. Public Notice Notices regarding tonight's meeting have been published in the newspaper and distributed to property owners within 300 feet of the Cherry Creek project and within Newsom Canyon, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Copies of the Newsom Springs Detention Basin Feasibility Report and the Newsom Springs Drainage Project Hydrology and Hydraulics Study will be made available to the public through the Public Works Department. The information can also be accessed from the City's Internet website. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: Approve staff's recommendation; Request staff to provide additional analysis; • Do not approve staff's recommendation; • Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendation; or Provide direction to staff. Attachments: 1. Newsom Springs Detention Basin Feasibility Report, July 27, 2005 2. Newsom Springs Drainage Project Hydrology and Hydraulics Study ~e ATTACHMENT1 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE NEWSOM SPRINGS DETENTION BASIN FEASIBILITY REPORT WALLACE GROUP 4115 BROAD STREET, SUITE B-5 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 T 805 544-4011 F 805 544-4294 Job Number: 0232.5754 July 27, 2005 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE NEWSOM SPRINGS DETENTION BASIN FEASIBILITY REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATION ...........................................................................................................................................7 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS .........................................................................................................................1 REVIEWED AND APPROVED :....................................................................................................................1 SUMMARY ..................:.................................................................................................................................2 PURPOSE ......................................................:..............................................................................................2 AREA WATERSHEDS ..................................................................................................................................2 POTENTIAL BASIN LOCATIONS ................................................................................................................4 EXISTING HYDROLOGY ..............................................................................................................................4 HYD ROG RAPH .........................................................................................................................................5 ACRES ..............................:.......................................................................................................................5 STORMWATER RUNOFF (CFS) ..................................................................................................................5 COMPARISON OF EXISTING CONDITION RESULTS WITH SIMILAR WATERSHEDS ..........................6 BASIN MODELING .......................................................................................................................................7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 -Watershed Areas .............:.........................................................................................3 Figure 2 -Potential Basin Locations ...........................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 -Comparison of Prior Analysis to Current Analysis .................................................:.....5 Table 2 -Comparison of Runoff Rates Calculated For Similar Watersheds In The Area ............6 Table 3 -190 x 510 feet basin performance (2.2 acre site) .........................................................7 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A - Simplified Existing Conditions Model With Hydroflow Hydrograph Input Parameters Appendix B -Existing Conditions and Hydroflow Hydrograph Input Parameters Appendix C -Alternatives Considered WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005 Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study Page 1 CERTIFICATION Preparation of this report included efforts by the following persons: Craig A. Campbell, Principal Engineer Cheryl A. Lenhardt, Civil Engineer Professional Engineers This report was prepared by, or under the direction of the following Professional Engineer's in accordance with the provisions of Section 6700 of the Business and Professions Code of the State of California. Civil Engineer: Cheryl A~'Lenhardt, Civil Engineer PE 65306 '_ " C 65306 EXP. cl "''~ -7~ REVIEWED AND APPROVED: - 7.2J-05~ Cra A. ampbell, Principal Engineer P 34405 WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005 Newsom Springs Basin Feasibr/ity Study Page 1 SUMMARY The intersection of Cherry Avenue and Branch MiII Road in the City of Arroyo Grande is subject to flooding in large storm events. Prior studies have identified alternative drainage projects to convey flood flows safely to Arroyo Grande Creek. This report evaluates the feasibility of using an upstream detention basin as a component of the Newsom Springs Drainage Project. Locations at Branch Mill Road and upstream were evaluated in the field and by computer modeling. Site constraints limit the size of the basin. With the site boundary constrained, our analysis indicates that the effectiveness of the basin depends on the available basin depth. With basin depths of 10 to 12 feet, the reduction in peak outflow is marginal. However, with the basin depth increased to 15 feet (basin bottom to top of berm), a reduction in flow of 327 cfs (34 percent) can be achieved. Whether or not this depth can be achieved on the site must be determined by field survey. Based on a field observation, it appears questionable. Therefore if the project is to proceed further we recommend a topographic map be prepared. If the basin were installed as part of the Newsome Springs Drainage project, it can be expected to have the following effects: • Downstream facilities can be smaller. • The properties between Branch Mill Road and Cherry Lane Extension would receive some flood control benefit. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide an analysis of the feasibility of constructing a detention basin upstream of a reoccurring flooding problem at the intersection of Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road in the City of Arroyo Grande. AREA WATERSHEDS Three undeveloped watersheds converge at the intersection of Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road as shown in figure 2. WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005 Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study Page 2 is 4 The largest of the three watersheds is 1,116 acres and collects runoff from Newsom and Guaya Canyons. Ina 100-year storm, this watershed will generate about 854 cubic feet per second (cfs) of runoff. The runoff crosses Branch Mill road and into the City limits through an 8ft x Oft culvert and travels north through a roadside channel. Adjacent to, and just down stream of, the first watershed is a smaller steep mountainous watershed of 51 acres. The runoff from these two watersheds converges at the "stone culvert." This combined flow contributes to flooding problems within Tract 139 (Luang Lane), at the Vagabond Mobile Home Park, at the Pacific Coast Christian School, and further downstream at Valley Road. Excess flows are not diverted through the stone culvert. The excess flow travels in a roadside ditch that runs parallel to Branch Mill Road (See Figure 3, yellow) until is reaches the intersection of Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road. At the ditches terminus, the runoff WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005 Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study Page 3 Figure 1 -Watershed Areas generated from flat, irrigated cropland of approximately 73 acres, combines with the two previous watersheds, resulting in a 100-year runoff of approximately 1080 cfs. As a result, the homes within Tract 409 have experienced serious flooding. POTENTIAL BASIN LOCATIONS Installing detention basins upstream of flooding problem has the potential to store the peak flow and meter out a flow at a lower rate. Based on a site review, two areas were identified as possible locations for basins. These areas were chosen for evaluation because they were currently undeveloped, were relatively flat, and were at the base of the largest contributing watershed. They are shown with red boundaries in Figure 3 and are both along the flow path of Newsom Canyon. The rectangular area analyzed south of Branch Mill Road is the larger site at 2.27 acres while the area north of Branch Mill Road is 1.72 acres. In addition to being larger, the southerly site has more usable vertical room. Therefore, the southerly site is considered for additional analysis in this report. Field review was also determined that areas further upstream of Branch Mill Road are too constrained by the canyon walls and existing home sites to be considered for a basin. EXISTING HYDROLOGY A previous analysis of existing conditions was presented in April of 1998. The analysis performed at that time was generated using the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Method program (SBUH). The current analysis was performed with the `Hydroflow Hydrographs' application with the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Method selected for the hydrograph routing option. The 'Hydroflow Hydrograph' application is an improved modeling software package that allows the routing of the hydrograph information generated by the SBUH application. The existing conditions of both programs were compared using the same rainfall parameters to verify the consistency of the models with each other. The results of each program run are consistent with each other and are shown in the columns labeled 'previous' and 'in-kind WG 0232.5754 - July 11, 2005 Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study Page 4 evaluation' of Table 1. The third column of table 1, 'updated model,' was the results generated by the new 'Hydroflow Hydrographs' program which now can reflect the travel time realized in the system. The SBUH models previously developed required that the three hydrographs converge together at the same location. However in reality, hydrograph 1 discharges into a 2,760-foot long ditch located along the north side of Branch Mill Road, south of the agricultural fields [hydrograph 4]. Flow travels northward and is combined with the runoff associated with Hydrograph 2 at the stone culvert located at the intersection of Huebner lane [hydrograph 5]. The combined flow of hydrograph 1 and 2 travel northward in a 611-foot long roadside located along the eastern shoulder of Branch Mill road [hydrograph 6]. This roadside ditch currently discharges the combined flows at the southwestern dorner of the intersection of Branch Mill Road and Cherry Avenue. The runoff associated with the agricultural fields, or hydrograph 3, also discharges to the southwestem corner of the intersection of Branch Mill Road and Cherry Avenue [hydrograph 7]. A second model was developed using the upgraded software to more accurately reflect the existing conditions. As a result, the peak discharge fora 100-year event was reduced to 968 cfs, or 500 cfs per square mile. The decrease of peak flow by 112 cfs is attributable partly due to the travel time realized in the roadside ditches, and partly due to a more defined rainfall distribution in the new model. Table 1 -Comparison of Prior Analysis to Current Analysis _ HYDROGRAPH , ACRES ,. $TORMWATERRUNOFF{CFS) .; Previous `• Current Q100 :. ' ~ ~. Q100 ~. (HydioflowHydrographProgram) ~~~ #s tion Desdn „ ' , p . _ ... ~ (ssuH. , . Program) In`Kind .Updated Evaluation Mode6 1 Newsom Springs Creek to 1116 891 854 854 Branch Mill Road 2 Hillside area Tributary to 51 60 62 62 Branch MiII Road 3 Agriculture area between 73 73 164 164 Branch Mill Road -Cherry Ave 4 Open Channel from Branch 811 Mill Road to Stone Culvert 5 Stone Culvert (Hydrographs 2 863 and 4 combine) 6 Open Channel from Stone 859 Culvert to Cherry Avenue 7 Combined flows from 968 agriculture and channel flows (Hydrographs 3 and 6) Flow to Arroyo Grande Creek ~ 1240 1024 1178 I 968 WG 0232.5754 Juiy11, 2005 Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study Page 5 The overall system time of concentration was increased by 9 minutes. The parameters entered are provided in Appendix A. While a graphical representation of the model, tables of the input parameters and subsequent results are provided in Appendix B. The restrictions of the box culverts at the outlets of hydrograph one and two were not considered but it is anticipated that they would serve to further decrease the peak flow observed at the intersection of Branch Mill Road and Cheny Avenue. COMPARISON OF EXISTING CONDITION RESULTS WITH SIMILAR WATERSHEDS As shown in table 2, the Hydroflow Hydrograph program results for hydrographs one and two are fairly consistent with other studies performed in the area. However, the new hydrograph for the agricultural area, hydrograph 3 reflects a doubling of the peak flows realized in a 100-year storm event. The primary reason for this increase in peak flow is a result of a decrease in the time of concentration. In the previous study, the time of concentration was set at 32.4 minutes. The new study, based upoh sheet flow principles, assessed the time of concentration to be only 13.9 minutes. The time of concentration calculations are provided in appendix A. Table 2 -Comparison of Runoff Rates Calculated For Similar Watersheds In The Area `~ . ;.. 'AREA, , CALCULATED:: " ' SQUARE PEAK FLOW' STUDY SPONSOR - .. DESCRIPTION OF AREA MILES ` :PER $QUARE: YEAR OF STUDY , . MILE City of AG - Wallace Group 2005 Newsom Springs to Branch Mill & 1.94 500. Cherry Rd Intersection FEMA study for SLO CO Meadow Creek at US 101 4.4 591 Unincorporated areas Insurance Maps 1991 FEMA study for SLO CO Carpenter Canyon Creek at 1.0 600 Unincorporated areas Insurance Maps 1991 confluence with Corbit Canyon Creek FEMA study for SLO CO Corbit Canyon Creek upstream 3.9 590 Unincorporated areas Insurance Maps 1991 confluence with Poorman Canyon Creek FEMA study for SLO CO Deleissigues Creek at confluence 2.5 600 Unincorporated areas Insurance Maps 1991 with Corbit Canyon Creek FEMA study for SLO CO Los Berros Creek at confluence with 26.9 409 Unincorporated areas Insurance Maps 1991 Aff0y0 Grande Creek Corps of Engineers study of San Corbit Canyon Creek 4.7 510 to 660 Luis Counbj streams, 1987 FEMA study of Arroyo Grande North Fork of Los Berros Creek 2.6 461 flood insurance rate maps, 1984 WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005 Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study Page 6 BASIN MODELING A model was created to analyze the effect, if any, on the construction of a detention basin upstream of the area prone to flooding. The basin analyzed was situated at the north end of the tributary associated with hydrograph 1 on the south side of Branch Mill Road. The available depth at the sites appears to be about 15 feet. This would be obtained by a combination of excavation below grade and berms above grade. This available depth is limited by the need for freeboard, and an overflow weir. In order to convey the 100-year peak runoff of 854 cfs, a 50 feet wide overflow weir would flow approximately 3.1 feet deep. Adding one foot of freeboard, and the top 4.1 feet of the basin must be reserved for overflow capacity and freeboard. Basin depths ranging from 10 feet to 15 feet were considered for a basin with 1:3 side slopes and top dimensions of 190 feet by 510 feet. For each case, the basin outflow was restricted (by using smaller outflow pipe), and by trials, the pipe size was determined that would maintain the 100 year water surface elevation below the spillway. The results of this evaluation are shown below in Table 3. Table 3 -190 x 510 feet basin pertormance (2.2 acre site) ' '` ' 100-YEAR'FLOW (CFS) ;. .,.DEPTH. ,. OF WEIR :PIPE SIZE ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ POND ELEV (IN) ;_. TOTAL AT ` ° (~ ' . ;. INFLOW OUTFLOW ;CHERRY: REDUCTION .. ,... , . ;AVENUE'; 10 ft 6.3 5-60 854 745 828 26 12 ft 7.8 3-66 854 703 779 75 15 ft 10.9 2-60 854 546 527 327 WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005 Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study Page 7 APPENDIX WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005 Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study Page 8 APPENDIX A SIMPLIFIED EXISTING CONDITIONS MODEL WITH HYDROFLOW HYDROGRAPH PARAMETERS All watersheds shared a hydrologic soil group of'D" and a Type 1 Storm with rainfall rates that are consistent with NOA Maps of the area. The SCS Curve Numbers (CN) for each of the watersheds were assigned as follows: Hydrograph SCS Curve Number 1. A composite curve. number of 74 was generated for the area associated with hydrograph 1. It was generated by assigning a SCS Curve Number of 77 to the estimated 279 acres associated with the western slopes of the Guaya and Newsom Canyons that are densely forested, a SCS Curve Number of 73 to the estimated 826 acres associated with the west facing slopes of the Guaya and Newsom Canyons that are non- developed brush lands in good condition and a SCS Curve number of 98 to the estimated 11 acres of impervious area (roads, buildings, etc). 2. An SCS curve number of 77 was assigned to hydrograph two because a dense canopy of oak trees characterized the area. 3. An SCS curve number of 88 were assigned to hydrograph three because row crops characterize the area. The time of concentration for each watershed was determined by the SCS TR-55 method for hydrographs 1 and 2. Hydrograph 3 used the SCS average velocity method. WG 0232.5754 July 17, 2005 Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study Page TR55 Tc Worksheet Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 1 Newsom Springs Cr at Branch Mill Rd Xing Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.130 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 300.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 2.20 0.00 0.00 Land slope (%) = 20.00 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 10.10 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 10.10 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 600.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope (%) = 33.00 0.00 0.00 Surface description =Unpaved Unpaved Unpaved Average velocity (ft/s) = 9.27 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 1.08 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 1.08 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sgft) = 0.01 1.00 7.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.03 4.00 9.00 Channel slope (%) = 18.20 4.03 1.00 Manning's n-value = 0.040 0.025 0.018 Velocity (ft/s) = 7.61 4.73 6.99 Flow length (ft) = 1100.0 14900.0 600.0 Travel Time (min) = 2.41 + 52.54 + 1.43 = 56.38 Total Travel Time, Tc .............. ............................................ .................... 67.60 min 3 TR55 Tc Worksheet Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 2 Hillside Area trib to Branch Mill Rd Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.400 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 200.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 2.20 0.00 0.00 Land slope (%) = 15.00 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 20.14 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 20.14 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 1300.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope (%) = 18.50 0.00 0.00 Surface description =Unpaved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 6.94 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 3.12 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 3.12 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sgft) = 7.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 9.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope (%) = 1.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.018 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft!s) = 6.99 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 600.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 1.43 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 1.43 Total Travel Time, Tc ......................................................... ..................... 24.70 min 3 I ~, Project: (\,~,.~,,~_;, rn `. ~;~ ,^ Project No: < ~ ? - Calculated By: L''.1 ~ - Date: Scale: Checked By: Date: Sheet of -.o ~~ WALIACE GROUP - ~_ i ~ ' u' S 1 '" i' ~9 ~iz Ids ~-:. ~ b0 ~ \/ i ~ ~~' ~ ,.,. ° ~ ~.~_. ~ , r~ ~. ~ ~ J /)CI{' ?. - >~+ ,~,:n,~,-! `fno~ ~ta~^,' U2~04L;~a o- -' -. { C ai v _ „,L~ CIVIL ENGINEERING i CONSTRUCTION AIAN.4GEMENT ~ LANDSCAPE Afl CHITECTU RE i ' MECHANICAL ~ ENGINEERING PLANNING PUBLIC WORKS AD MIPIISTAATION SURVEYING / GIS SOLUTIONS WATER RESO UAC ES WALLACE SWANSON IPITEANATIONAL 'I 4115 5RGAD ST I SUITE 8-5 I SAPI LUIS OBISPO ' CA IIFOFDIIA 934C1 T 80S 544-4617 ''. c a0i ~=~-=254 9!iTE cc _.:LIAOP:... -.::. APPENDIX B EXISTING CONDITIONS MODEL AND HYDROFLOW HYDROGRAPH PARAMETERS WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005 Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study Page 2 1 2 3 SlmPli-tlec~ EXf5T1 /la 4 J k,p = ~ a o >r,,., Legend Hyd" Origin 1 SBUH Runoff 2 SBUH Runoff 3 SBUH RurrofF 4 Combine Descriotlon Newsom Springs Cr at Branch Mill Rd Xing Hillside Area trib to Branch Mill Rd Farm Area between Branch Mill Rd & Cherry Ave Combined Flows appr Branch Mill & Cherry Intsctn liydraflow Flydrograplis Model Project; Simplified exisitng Newsom Springs ~ Ti~c>rease d -E. ~ -~„- N I ~ l-IZ Qp~ak g D ~ CAS ~~ ~ ~DOn V+^r ~, Y1 Jun 9 2005, 10:13 AM 1 Hydrograph Summary Report Hyd. Jo. Hydrograph type (origin) Peak Flow (cfs) Tlme interval (min) Time to peak (min) Volume i I (aeft) Inflow hyd(s) Maximum elevation (ft) Maximum storage (acft) I ~ Hydrograph description ~ 1 SBUH Runoff 854.31 1 601 257.533 - i Newsom Springs Cr at Branch Mill R 2 SBUH Runoff 61.92 i 599 12.947 - Hillside Area trib to Branch Mill Rd 3 SBUH Runoff 164.10 1 598 25.220 - -- Fans Area between Branch Mill Rd 8 a I Combine ~ I 1178.06 1 720 i 240.583 I ~ 1, 2, 3 ~ - I -- i Combined Flows appr Branch Mill 8 I Simplified exisitng Newsom Springs bmd: 100 Year ~ Thursday, Jun 9 2005; 2:04 PM %'' j II i' Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolva Hydrograph Summary Report Hyd. Vo. Hydrogreph type (origin) Peak flow (cfs) Time interval (min) Time to peak (min) Volume (acft) Inflow hyd(s) Maximum elevation (ft) - Maximum storage (acft) Hydrograph description 1 SBUH Runoff 594.68 I 1 610 257.532 - Newsom Springs Cr at Branch Mill R 2 SBUH Runoff 59.85 1 599 12.947 - Hillside Area trib to Branch Mill Rd 3 SBUH Runoff 164.10 1 598 25.220 - ~- Fann Area between Branch Mill Rd 8 4 Combine ~ 801.12 i I 1 ~ 600 295.100 I 1, 2, 3 - I i i Combined Flows apps Branch Mill & existing Newsom Springs Drainage i ~t~fii-fle~d~t~l~i6~rtry i 2:10 PM "~; Jun 9 2005 Thursday , , HydraFlow Hydrographs by Intelisolve t ' 5 6 C Le end Hyd. Origin Description I SBUH Runoff Newsom Springs Cr at Branch Mill Rd Xing 2 SBUH Runoff Hillside Area hib to Branch Mill Rd 3 SBUIi Rwwff Farm Area between Branch Mill Rd & Cherry Ave 4 Reach Branch mill road channel to stone culvert 5 Cumbine Slone Culvert 6 Reach From Stone Culvert to Cherry Ave 7 Combine Intersection of~BH Rd and Cherry Ave peal< loo . ~~ $ c-~5 t~ = ~o9m,n Hydraflow Hydrographs Model I Project: Existing Newsom Springs Drainage using chanlfeTl~day, Jun 9 2005, 1:56 PM Hydrograph Summary Report Hyd. o. Hydrogreph type ' (origin) Peak flow (cfs) Time interval (min) Time to peak (min) Volume (acft] Inflow hyd(s) Maximum elevation (ft) I Maximum storege (acft) Hydrograph description 1 SBUH Runoff 854.43 1 601 257.533 - Newsom Springs Cr at Branch Mill R 2 SBUH Runoff 61.92 1 599 12.947 - - Hillside Area trib to Branch Milt Rd 3 SBUH Runoff 164.70 1 598 25.220 - Fann Area between Branch Mill Rd & 4 Reach 811.49 1 610 257.533 1 -- Branch mill road channel to stone cul 5 Combine 863.05 1 610 270.480 2, 4 Stone Culvert 6 Reach 858.89 1 613 270.480 5 - - From Stone Culvert to Cherry Ave 7 Combine 967.99 1 609 i 295.700 3, 6 ~ - - i i Intersection of BH Rd and Cherry Av I Existing Newsom Springs Drainage ~ ! ts~tuh~el3b~pQ.00 Year I . Thursday, Jun 9 2005, 1:56 PM ~-' / 1 T Hyd raflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve APPENDIX C ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005 Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study, Page 3 1 2 4 I 3 5 I 7 ~.. Let7end ~' _ Hvd• Orinin Descriation t i '1 SBUIi Runoff Newsom Springs Cr at Branch Mill Rd Xing ~~.. ~: ~O •-' ~ +' ~ , 2 SBUH Runoff Hillside Araa lrib to Branch Mill Rd 3 SBUH Runoff Farm Area between Branch Mill Rd $ Cherry Ave 4 Reservoir South of Branch Mill R 5 Reach Basin to stone culvert 6 Combine Stone Culvert 7 Reach From Stone Culvert to Cherry Ave B Combine Intersection of BH Rd and Cherry Ave Hydraflow liydrographs Model I Project: basin Newsom Springs Drainage.gpw I Wednesday, Jul 27 2005, 4:42 PM Hydrograph Summary Report Hyd. No. i ' Hydrograph type (origin) Peak flow (cfs) Time interval (min) Time to peak (min) i ~ Volume (acft) Inflow hyd(s) Maximum elevation (ft) ~ Maximum ' storage (acft) Hydrograph description '. 1 SBUH Runoff 854.43 1 601 257.533 - -- Newsom Springs Cr at Branch Mill R 2 SBUH Runoff 61.92 1 599 12.947 - Hillside Area trib to Branch Mill Rd 3 SBUH Runoff 164.10 1 598 25.220 - - Fartn Area between Branch Mill Rd 8 4 Reservoir 703.06 i 627 257.464 1 197.25 18.774 South of Branch Mill R 5 Reach 695.50 1 634 251.464 4 Basin to stone culvert 6 Combine 728.92 1 632 270.411 2, 5 Stone Culvert 7 ~ Reach 727.51 1 635 270.410 6 - - From Stone Culvert to Cherry Ave 8 Combine 779.18 1 632 295.631 3, 7 - Intersection of BH Rd and Cherry Av f ~ ~! ('~ ~ ~' -+ ,r ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ i I ~ i I i I i i / c.. i i basin Newsom Springs Drainage.gp wReturn Period: 100 Year i Wednesday, Jul 27 2005, 4:17 PM J Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hydrograph Plot Hydraflaw Hydrographs by Intelisolve Wednesday, Jul 27 2005, 4:17 PM Hyd. No. 4 South of Branch Mill R Hydrograph type =Reservoir Peak discharge = 703.06 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time interval = 1 min Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Max. Elevation = 197.25 ft Reservoir name = 12 foot depth Max. Storage = 15.774 acft Storage Indication method used. Hydrograph Volume = 257 464 acft South of Branch Mill R Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 4 -100 Yr 861.00 _ _ __ 738.00 1 615.00 492.00 369.00 246.00 123.00 0 00 Q (cfs) 861.00 738.00 615.00 492.00 369.00 246.00 123.00 0.00 2 0 3 5 8 11 13 16 19 21 24 27 Time (hrs) --- Hyd No. 4 -Hyd No. 1 Pond Report Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Wednesday, Jul 27 2005, 4:17 PM Pond No. 1 - 12 foot depth Pond Data Bottom LxW = 190.0 x 510.0 ft Side slope = 3.0:1 Bottom elev . = 190.00 ft Depth = 12.00 ft Stage I Storage Table Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sgft) Incr. Storage (acft) Total storage (acft) 0.00 190.00 96.900 0.000 0.000 0.60 190.60 99,433 1.352 1.352 1.20 191.20 101,992 1.387 2.739 1,80 191.80 104,577 1.423 4.162 2.40 192.40 107,187 1.458 5.620 3.00 193.00 109,824 1.495 7.115 3.60 193.60 112, 487 1.531 8.646 4.20 194.20 115,175 1.568 10.214 4.80 194.80 117, 889 1.605 11.819 5.40 195.40 120,630 1.643 13.462 6.00 196.00 123, 396 1.681 15.142 6.60 196.60 12fi,188 1.719 16.861 7.20 197.20 129, 006 1.758 18.6 t 9 7.80 197.80 131,850 1.797 20.415 8.40 198.40 134,720 1.836 22.251 9.00 199.00 137,616 1.876 24.126 9.60 799.60 140,538 1.916 26.042 10.20 200.20 143,485 1.956 27.998 10.80 200.80 146,459 1.997 29.995 11.40 201.40 149,459 2.038 32.033 12.00 202.00 152,484 2.079 34.112 Culvert /Orifice Structures Weir Structures IAl IBl LC] ID] [AI IB] ICl IDl Rlse (in) = fi6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest Len (ft) = 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Span (in) = 66.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest EI. (ft) = 197.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. Barrels = 3 0 0 0 WeirCoeff. = 2.60 3.33 0.00 3.33 Invert EI. (ft) = 190.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Weir Type =Broad - - - Length (ft) = 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multistage = No No No No Slope (°/a) = 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N-Value = .013 .013 .013 .013 Orif. Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Multistage = Na No No No Exfiltretion = 0.000 inlhr (Wet area) Tailwater Elev. = 0.00 ft Nola: CuIveNOnfrce outllowa have been analyzed antler inlet antl outlet control Stage (ft) 14,00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.C0 z.oo o.oo 0.00 200.00 400.00 - Total O 600.00 Stage 1 Discharge Stage (ft) 14.00 12.00 i 0.00 8.00 6.C0 4.C0 2.00 o.oD 80G.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.G0 1800.00 2000.00 2200.00 Discharge (cfs) 3 Hydrograph Summary Report Hyd. No. Hydrograph type (origin) Peak flow (cis) Time interval (min) Time to peak (min) i i Volume ~ (acff) Inflow hyd(s) Maximum elevation (ft) Maximum storage (acft) Hydrograph description 1 SBUH Runoff 854.43 1 601 257.533 - Newsom Spdngs Cr at Branch Mill R 2 SBUH Runoff 61.92 1 599 12.947 - Hillside Area trib to Branch Mill Rd 3 SBUH Runoff 164.10 1 598 25220 - Farm Area behveen Branch Mill Rd & 4 Reservoir 546.24 1 650 257.411 1 200.85 30.164 South of Branch Mill R 5 Reach 544.82 1 657 257.411 4 - - Basin to stone culvert '~ 6 Combine 497.16 1 665 270.279 2, 5 - Stone Culvert 7 Reach 497.00 1 668 270.279 6 - From Stone Culvert to Cherry Ave 8 Combine 527.03 1 659 295.499 3, 7 - Intersection of BH Rd and Cherry Av i I i f~~' '' ;0 ~~ basin Newsom Springs Drainage.gp wReturn Period: 100 Year Wednesday, Jul 27 2005, 2:39 PM HydraFlow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hydrograph Plot Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Wednesday, Jul 2i Z005, 2:39 PM Hyd. No. 4 South of Branch Mill R Hydrograph type =Reservoir Peak discharge = 546.24 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time interval = 1 min Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Max. Elevation = 200.85 ft Reservoir name = 15 foot depth Max. Storage = 30.164 acft Storage Indication method used. Hydrograph Volume = 25 i.411 acft 2 South of Branch Mill R Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 4 - 100 Yr Q (off) 861.00 738.00 615.00 492.00 369.00 246.00 123.00 0 00 861.00 738.00 615.00 492.00 369.00 246.00 123.00 0 00 0 3 5 S 11 13 16 19 21 24 27 29 Time (hrs) --- Hyd No. 4 -Hyd No. 1 Pond Report Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Pond No. 1 - 15 foot depth Pond Data Bottom LxW = 190.0 x 510.0 ft Side slope = 3.0:1 Stage /Storage Table Wednesday, Jul 27 2005, 2:39 PM Bottom elev. = 190.00 ft Depth = 15.00 ft Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sgft) Incr. Storage (acft) Total storage (acft) 0.00 190.00 96,900 0.000 0.000 D.75 190.75 100,070 1.696 1.696 1.50 191.50 103,281 1.757 3.446 2.25 192.25 106,532 1.806 5.252 3.00 193.00 109,824 1.863 7.115 3.75 193.75 113,156 1.920 9.034 4.50 194.50 116,529 1.977 11.012 5.25 195.25 119,942 2.036 13.047 6.00 196.00 123,396 2.095 15.142 6.75 196.75 126,890 2.155 17.297 7.50 197.50 130,425 2.215 19.512 8.25 198.25 134,000 2.276 21.788 9.00 199.00 137,616 2.338 24.126 9.75 199.75 141,272 2.401 26.527 10.50 200.50 144,969 2.464 28.991 11.25 201.25 148,706 2.528 31.520 12.00 202.00 152,484 2.593 34.112 12.75 202.75 156,302 2.658 36.771 13.50 203.50 160,161 2.724 39.495 14.25 204.25 164,060 2.791 42.286 15.00 205.00 168,000 2.859 45.145 Culvertl0rifice Structures Weir Structures IA] [Bl [C] LDl [AI IB] [Cl IDl Rise (in) = 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest Len (ft) = 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Span (in) = 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest EI. (ft) = 200.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. Bartels = 2 0 0 0 WeirCoeff. = 2,60 3.33 0.00 3.33 Invert EI. (ft) = 190.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wefr Type =Broad - - - Length (ft) = 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multi-Stage = No No No No Slope (%) = 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N•Value = .013 .013 .013 .013 Orif. Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Multistage = nla No No No Exfiltration = 0.000 in/hr (Wet area) Tailwater El ev. = 0.00 ft Note: CulverVOrifra aum°we have °een analyzetl under inlet and outlet canUOl. Stage (ft) 15.00 12.00 9.00 6.00 3.00 Stage f Discharge ' Stage (ft) 15.00 12.00 9.00 6.00 3.00 0.00 j O.GO 0.00 200.66 406.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600A0 1800.60 Discharge (ctsl 3 1 _ _. _. _..___ ____ _.__.__. _.__.__,_ _. ATTACHMENT 2 [~R~F°i' HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS NEWSOM SPR/NGS DRAINAGE PROJECT .~~~~ Q,~ . P,G,`\. 5J~1 April 7, 1998 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS NEWSOM SPR/NGS DRAINAGE PROJECT INTRODUCTION .................................................. 1 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS ...................................... 1 EXISTING HYDROLOGY ............................................... 2 HYDROLOGY OF ALIGNMENT A PROJECTS .............................. 4 HYDROLOGY OF ALIGNMENT B AND C PROJECTS ....................... 5 HYDRAULICS OF ALIGNMENT A PROJECTS ............................. 6 HYDRAULICS OF ALIGNMENT B AND C PROJECTS C ...................... 8 FIGURES ....................................................... 11 FIGURE 1 WATERSHED AREAS FIGURE 2 EXISTING DRAINAGE FACILITIES FIGURE 3 ALIGNMENT A -ALTERNATIVE DRAINAGE FACILITIES FIGURE 4 ALIGNMENT B -ALTERNATIVE DRAINAGE FACILITIES FIGURE 5 ALIGNMENT C -ALTERNATIVE DRAINAGE FACILITIES FIGURE 6 PROFILE OF ALIGNMENT A FIGURE 7 PROFILE OF ALIGNMENT B FIGURE 8 PROFILE OF ALIGNMENT C ATTACHMENTS: CALCULATIONS COST ESTIMATES PREPARED BY: INTRODUCTION license expires 9-30-99 G c~P\ CA M,o~~`~ No. 34405 Of NEWSOM SPRINGS HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 1 INTRODUCTION This report reviews the hydrology and hydraulics for the proposed Newsom Springs Drainage project. The drainage project has been proposed in response to repetitive flooding problems within the City of Arroyo Grande. The following report describes the drainage area, flooding, problems, the hydrology of the watersheds, and the hydraulics of the proposed drainage projects. WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS c+v~- The watershed study area is shown on Figure 1 and includes a total of 1;240.-areas. Most of this watershed is steep, mountainous, and undeveloped. These undeveloped areas drain to the lower watershed which is flat, irrigated farm land. Future development within the watershed which"could significantly affect future stormwater runoff is not anticipated and has not been considered in this study. 'Newsom Springs Creek, at the crossing of Branch Mill Road has a tributary area of) x,116 aci-es,;as shown on the attached sketch. Ile a 100 year storm, this watershed will generate about 891 cubic feet per second (cfs) of runoff. Runoff from this watershed crosses Branch Mill-Road and into4he City limitsthrough an existing 8ft x Oft concrete and-masonry culvert. In large stones,-the-capacity of this culvert will be exceeded. Downstream of the 8ft x Oft culvert, a parallel watershed of 51 acres contributes additional runoff. Runoff from this smaller watershed also crosses Branch Mill Road through culverts, or in larger storms by sheet flow across the road. As shown on Figure 2, an earth ditch carries runoff parallel to Branch Mill Road on the north side, to an existing aft x5ft-culvert known-as the "stone culvert." This-ditch is regraded each year, and.depending on the grading, the capacity of this ditch varies from approximately 30 to 100 cfsr Similarly, the capacity of the stone culvert is dependent on the grading of the ditch and the culvert entrance and varies from approximately 30 to-1.00"cfs. Flow which enters the stone culvert crosses Branch Mill road again, as shown on Figure 2. Downstream, this flow contributes to historical flooding problems within Tract 139 (Luang Lane), at the Vagabond Mobile Home Park, at the Pacific Coast Christian School and further downstream at Valley Road. Excess flows are not diverted through the stone culvert. These flows sheet.across the- :.agricultural fields and are concentrated at the intersection of Branch Mill Road and Cherry Avenue. At this point the existing 100 year runoff is.approximately 893 cfs. With-the elimination of#he'diversion through the stone~culvert, and assuming a future upgrade to the Branch Mill Road Culvert, this will increase to 1,024. cfs. The only drainage facility is a small ditch with a capacity of 22 cfs. As a result, the homes within Tract 409 have experienced serious flooding. NEWSOM SPRINGS HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 1 EXISTING HYDROLOGY Hydrologic analyses in the Arroyo Grande area are usually performed using;either,the rational meth"od.or one of several-hydrograph-computer programs. The rational method is simpler to use, but is considered less reliable for watersheds over 200 acres. Therefore, a hydrograph analysis was chosen. The hydrology of the area was evaluated utilizing a hydrograph analysis based on the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph (SBUH) method, and the results compared to other studies. The watershed data for the analysis is listed in-the following table: WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS # DESCRIPTION Acres L (ft) S(%) n %Inp 1 Newsom Springs Creek at the crossing of Branch Mill Road. 1,116 14,000 3.7 .04 0.01 2 Hillside area tributary to Branch Mill Road. 51 1,300 17 .04 0.01 3 Farmed area between Branch Mill Road and Cherry Avenue 73 2,500 1 .03 0.01 The hydrograph analysis combines rainfall data with the watershed data to produce a stormwater runoff hydrograph. Rainfalfrunoff=data used assumes saturated soil conditions and rainfall as shown: RAINFALL PARAMETER STORM RECURRENCE INTERVAL 100 yr 50 yr 25 yr 10 yr 2 Yr 24 Hour Total Rainfall (inches) 5.5 5.0 4.4 3.7 2.2 Loss Rate for pervious areas (inches/hr) .18 .20 .22 .23 .25 Hydrograph analyses are also sensitive to the time distribution of the rainfall. The rainfall distribution used in this study is based-on a reconstitution. of the-Jahuary xz,, 1:969_storm in-San Luis Obispo. The Corp's of Engineers has recommended this distribution for studies of flooding in this area. The computer program performs a hydrograph analysis for each watershed. It was recognized that-ponding occurs at both Branch Mill Road and at the-extension of Cherry Avenue. To determine the effect of this ponding, each of these locations were modeled as detention basins. At Branch MiILRoad, the area-was modeled as a-basin. with-the existing 8ft x Oft-culvert as an outlet pipe and with the road as an overflow weir. The extension of Cherry Avenue is a-dirt-road which is raised 1 to 2 feet above-the , NEWSOM SPRINGS HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 2 -. N~,~ Pt //' upstream agricultural fields. The effect of this barrier was modeled as a wide flat basin (the field) with no outlet pipe, and a long low weir (the dirt road). The output of the computer analysis for the above rainfall and watershed analysis are included in the appendix to this report. The results of the analysis for existing conditions are summarized below: HYDROGRAPH Stormwater Runoff (cfs) # DESCRIPTION Acres _100,yr ; 50 yr 25 yr 10 yr 2 Yr 24 Hour Rainfall (Inches) 5.5 5.0 4.4 3.7 2.2 1, Newsom Springs Creek at the X1,116 ~ 891 762 611 456 165 crossing of Branch Mill Road. 8X¢'gax -' ~ Hillside area tributary to 51 60 55 46 36 16 Branch Mill Road. 3 Farmed area between Branch 73 73 63 52 40 16 Mill Road and Cherry Avenue 4 Outflow of H1 through the 8ft x 01,116'; ,81~ 690 504 374 139 ,oft culvert, routed to consider restricted flows. 5 Combined flows from H2, H3 1,240 923 755 556 354 163 ' and H4. ' 6. H5 reduced-by 30 cfs diversion 1,240 893 725 526 324 133 .through the stone culvert. This as the total existing flow -approaching the Branch Mill Road- Cherry Avenue intersection. 7 H5 routed across the Cherry 1,240 ` 904 731 566 400 117 Avenue extension to consider .the effect of ponding. 8 H7 reduced by 30 cfs diversion 1,240 874 701 536 370 87 .through the stone culvert. This is existing outflow to the creek. 9 Combined flows from H1, H2, 1,240 ,1;024 878 707 531 197 an H3, this is the proposed -flow to the creek. Hydrograph analyses are sensitive to several of the rainfall and watershed variables listed above and contained within the program itself. To verify the results listed above, they were compared to the results of other studies of similar watersheds within the general area. The-above analyses indicates=that the 1.8 sq mi primary watershed will ;produce 100 year runoff at a-rate of 51.1 cfs/sq mi: As comparisons, the following studies were reviewed: The 1984 FEMA Study used a basis for the Arroyo Grande Flood insurance Rate ~1Aaps indicates the following rates of runoff for similar watersheds: Carpenter Canyon Creek 1.0 sq mi 420 cfs/ sq mi. Corbit Canyon Creek 3.9 sq mi 590 cfs/sq mi North Fork of Los Berros Creek, 2.6 sq mi 461 cfs/sq mi. Meadow Creek 4.4 sq mi. 591 cfs/sq mi. The 1987 Corps of Engineers study of San Luis Obispo County Streams indicates the following rates of runoff for similar watersheds: Corbit Canyon Creek 4.7 sq mi 510 to 660 cfs/sq mi These comparisons are seen as verifying the reasonableness of the results obtained in this study. --- ---~ HYDROLOGY OF,ALIGNMENT A PROJECTS The hydrology for the proposed projects along Alignment A were performed in a manner similar to that for the existing conditions. Watershed and rainfall characteristics are unchanged. However, the diversion through the stone culvert has been eliminated. Also, runoff will be released from the farm land at Branch Mill Road and Cherry Avenue to the creek more quickly by the storm drain collectioh and drainage system. Forthe purposes.of design, it is also assumed that in-the futureahe Branch Mill Road Culvert-will be replaced=and will not act as a restriction to the flow. 8'X ?~~ HYDROGRAPH Stormwater Runoff (cfs) # DESCRIPTION Acres lQ~~~ 1 Newsom Springs Creek at Branch Mill Road. 1,116 891 2 Hillside area tributary to Branch Mill Road. 51 60 3 Farm area between Branch Mill Road -Cherry Ave 73 73 9 Combined flows from H1, H2 and H3. This is the total design flow approaching the Branch Mill Road - Cheny Avenue intersection. 1,240 i 1,024 NEWSOM SPRINGS HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 4 This analysis shows that peak flows contributing to Arroyo Grande Creek will be increased liy-101~cfs: To review the effect of this on Arroyo Grande Creek, several factors must be considered, including; the total combined flow in the creek, the timing of peak creek flow and peak project flow, and the capacity of the creek. The watershed above the stream gage is 10.6 sq mi. Assuming a flow production of 600 cfs per sq. mi., the.100 year_flow:at_this-pointwouldbe"6;360-cfs. There are no published 100 year flow estimates for Arroyo Grande Creek at this location to confirm this. However, according to the stream gage, records maintained by San Luis Obispo County the largest-flow-of.record since 1.939. is.5,400 cfs priorto Lopez Dam-and 4,620.cfs_after, Lopezwas-constructed. The stream gage is just upstream of the contribution of the Newsom Springs runoff. For determining the impact of an incremental flow increase, the assumed flow of 6,360 cfs will be used. The Newsom Springs is a smaller watershed than Arroyo Grande Creek at the point of confluence, and therefore, the peak flows arrive at different times following a rain event. Assuming an average stream velocity of 10 fps and a stream length of 25 miles, the time of concentration for Arroyo Grande Creek at the stream gage is about three hours as compared to about one hour for the Newsom Springs flow: At that time in the storm, the AltecnativeA projects wilt actually decrease:flows.to Arroyo=Grande Creek,. because_the=existing#low paths at=Branch Mill Road-and across the agricultural fields arealow_and.hold the flow back to combine more evenly with the peak flowing Arroyo Grande creek. Even if a chance occurrence of 100 year storm patterns allowed the peak flows to combine, the increase in flow depth would be only 0.1 feet from 10.0 feet at 7,253 cfs to 10.1 feet at 7,384 cfs. HYDROLOGY OF ALIGNMENTS B AND C PROJECTS The hydrology of project alternatives along alignments-B-and C are the same, and are considered together. The hydrology is performed in a manner similar to that for the existing conditions. Watershed and rainfall characteristics are unchanged. However, the diversion through the stone culvert has been eliminated, and the point of connection to Arroyo Grande Creek is changed for most of the project flow. Also, runoff will be released from the farm land at Branch Mill Road and Cherry Avenue to the creek more quickly by the storm drain collection and drainage system. A summary of the hydrology runs for this configuration is as follows: NEWSOM SPRINGS HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 5 HYDROGRAPH Stomtwater Runoff (cfs) # DESCRIPTION Acres Q,~ 1 Newsom Springs Creek at the crossing of Branch 1,116 891 Mill Road. This flow will be diverted directly to Arroyo Grande Creek. 2 Hillside area tributary to Branch Mill Road. 51 '60 3 Farmed area between Branch Mill Road and Cherry 73 .73 Avenue 10 Combined flows from H2 and H3. This is the total 124 133 flow approaching the Branch Mill Road -Cherry Avenue intersection. The effect of these projects on the flow in Arroyo Grande Creek was evaluated in a manner similar to that described for Alternative A. Since these Alternatives divert flow entering Arroyo Grande Creek to an upstream location, flows will be increased from that point downstream until the confluence is reached. The effect of the differing time of concentration serves to diminish this effect. The Alternatives B and C projects will divert a peak flow of 891 cfs to the upstream location. However, two hours later when Arroyo Grande Creek is reaching peak flow, the Newsom Springs diversion will only be contributing a flow of 198 cfs. This increase was compared to a rating curve for the creek to determine the incremental rise. Based on the rating curve, the flow depth in this section of creek will increase 0.2 feet from 9.3 feet at 6,360 cfs to 9.5 feet at 6,558 cfs. Even if a chance occurrence of 100 year stone patterns allowed the peak flows to combine, the increase in flow depth would be only 0.7 feet from 9.3 feet at 6,360 cfs to 10.0 feet at 7,251 cfs. The Arroyo Grande Creek cross section is large in this area and the projected increase inflow depth is considered insignificant. Downstream of the stream gage, the effect on Arroyo Grande Creek is the same as evaluated for Alternative A and is also insignificant. HYDRAULICS OF,ALIGNIVIENT A PROJECTS The Alternative A project consists of two drainage facilities, as follows: Reach 2 -Conveyance from the stone culvert along Branch Mill Road to the corner of Cherry Avenue: The flow approaching the stone culvert varies from 30 to_ 10_0_cFs according to tiow the approach and the upstream ditch is graded in any particular year. NEWSOM SPRINGS HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 6 Downstream, floodwaters increase until at the intersection of Branch Mill Road and Cherry Avenue, the design flow is 1,024 cfs. Projects Al and A2 use a system of ditches to divert the stone culvert flow and to collect the flood waters which sheet across the farm land. The proposed ditch along Branch Mill Road would vary in size and capacity. At the upstream end;' ~ ^ ,near_thestone culvert, it would need to convey.the 100 cfs flow..At the Jz`Y~. downstream end,. it would"needao convey abouf 70-percent.of the total flood ;flow. Another intercepting ditch along the extension of Cherry Avenue.would also be sized for 70 percent of the total flow. At the downstream end these ditches would then be,sized to convey about 720 cfs each. These ditches could be constructed at a slope of approximately 0.30 percent. At this slope, a ditch with a 15 feet wide bottom and 3:1 side slopes would vary in depth from 3 feet at . the upstream end to 6 feet at the downstream end. These depths include 1 foot of freeboard. Flow velocity would be a maximum of 5 fps at the down stream end and minimal erosion control will be needed. Project A-3 uses a pipe to divert flow from the stone culvert. ~If a=pipe were sized Ito accommodate-the-100 cfs=flow;=a 48 inch storm: drain-would-be required. Flat slopes along the flow direction effect the sizing of the drainage facilities. Along Branch Mill Road, the existing ground slopes,approximately 0.2 percent, however, a storm drain could be constructed at 0:6 percent which would allow it to clear the downstream utilities (see Figure.4). A flared inlet would also be because of the low head available. To collect additional flood flow which will sheet across the farm land, surface ditches and inlets will be required. These ditches will be similar in size to hose described above, except at the upstream end near the box culvert. In general, little benefit is received from using underground culverts for this reach, since surface ditches will be required in any case. 2. Reach 1 -Conveyance from the corner of Branch-Mill-Road"arid Cherry Avenue' Ito Arroyo-Grande. Creek: The design flow used for this conveyance is 1,024-cfs. This assumes that the upstream areas will remain in their existing undeveloped condition. For Alternatives Al and A3, underground pipes are proposed for this reach, and as shown in Figure 4, they can be constructed at approximately 0.9 percent and clear the existing underground facilities. This will make the flowline of the downstream end be approximately 17 feet deep. The design flow can be conveyed by two 72" RCP storm drains if special attention is given to the inlets. A minimum of 3 flared inlets would be required in order for the drainage pipes to collect the runoff with the required minimal head loss. This drainage system could also be constructed of two 60" HDPE storm drains, but the downstream NEWSOM SPRINGS HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 7 end would need to be 20 feet deep to flowline, and four flared inlets would be required. The outlet of these storm drains will require careful construction. The outlet location is between an existing residential property and the existing County stream gage. The pipes will be oriented about 50 degrees toward the downstream and will not have a backwater effect on the stream gage. Construction of the pipes will require 18 to 22 feet cuts near the rear of the existing residential yard. The creek banks in this area appear to be underlain by rock. It is anticipated that a gabion retaining wall will be needed to protect the bank. The velocity of flow leaving the storm drains will be 17 to 25 fps depending on the size of pipe. This is comparable to the estimated velocity in this section of the creek (20 fps for a flow of 6000 cfs). The existing rock bottom and sides of the creek in this area appear to have a history of accommodating the high velocities without excessive erosion. Therefore, erosion protection for the storm drain outlet is proposed to consist of orienting the drains downstream and the use of gabion protection where appropriate. Alternative A2 proposes this reach to be an open ditch. This ditch will have a 15 feet wide bottom, with 2:1 side slopes and will be about xx~feet deep. Bridges will be required at Myrtle Street and at the extension of Cherry Avenue. HYDRAUL""ICS OF ALIGNMENT_B AND C PROJECTS The alternative projects along alignments B and C consist of a set of drainage facilities along an easterly location, which divert the main flow from Newsom Springs Creek and divert it directly to Arroyo Grande Creek, and an additional westerly set of facilities divert the stone culvert and field flow to the creek. Reach 2 -Conveyance from the stone culvert along Branch Mill Road to the corner of Cherry Avenue: This is the upstream end of the westerly drainage facilities. The flow approaching the stone culvert varies from 30 to 100 cfs according to how the approach and the upstream ditch is graded in any particular year. Downstream, the agricultural fields will add additional runoff until at the intersection of Branch Mill Road and Cherry Avenue, the design flow is 173 cfs. Projects B1 and C1 use a system of ditches to divert the stone culvert flow and to collect the flood waters which sheet across the farm land. The proposed ditch along Branch Mill Road would vary in size and capacity. At the upstream end, near the stone culvert, it would need to convey the 100 cfs flow. At the downstream end, it would need to convey about 70 percent of the total flood flow. Another intercepting ditch along the extension of Cherry Avenue would also be sized for 70 percent of the total flow. At the downstream end these NEWSOM SPRINGS HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 8 ditches would then be sized to convey about 720 cfs each. These ditches could be constructed at a slope of approximately 0.30 percent. At this slope, a ditch with a 15 feet wide bottom and 3:1 side slopes would vary in depth from 3 feet at the upstream end to 6 feet at the downstream end. These depths include 1 foot of freeboard. Flow velocity would be a maximum of 5 fps at the down stream end and minimal erosion control will be needed. A 48 inch storm drain with a flared inlet could be constructed to convey the 100 cfs flow from the stone culvert. The culvert approach is;used in Alternatives 63. In addition to the 48" pipe, surface ditches are needed to collect the flood water which will sheet across the agricultural field. Alternative-62 does.not include-drainage facilities for-this.reach. As_a_result, significant amounts:of=runoff-will continue to_be.flowat.the-stone culvert-and.at, Branch Mili-Road.-_Cherry Extension. Flooding problems in the areas downstream will not be entirely corrected. 2. Reach 1 - Cohveyance from the comer of Branch Mill Road and Cherry Avenue to Arroyo Grande Creek': This is the downstream reach of the westerly facilities. The design flow used in this report for this conveyance is 173 cfs. This assumes that the upstream areas will remain in their existing undeveloped condition. Alternatives 61, 62, 63 and C1 propose an underground pipe is proposed for this conveyance. The design flow can be conveyed by a single 48 inch HDPE storm drain if special attention is given to the inlets. A minimum of 2 flared inlets would be required in order for the drainage pipe to collect the runoff with the required minimal head loss. The outlet of these storm drains will require careful construction, similar to that described for the Alignment A projects. Peak outlet velocity will be about 14 fps. Altemative B2 does not include drainage facilities for this reach. As a result, significant amounts of runoff will continue to be flow at Branch Mill Road - Cherry Extension. Flooding problems in the areas downstream will not be entirely corrected. 3. Reaches 3 and 4 -Conveyance from of the Branch Mill Creek runoff to Arroyo Grande Creek. These reaches are the upstream and downstream sections of the easterly facilities which divert the Newsom Springs Creek flow direct to Arroyo Grande Creek. This concept will divert location of confluence of the Newsom Springs Creek flow upstream of the County stream flow gage. Currently this flow enters Arroyo grande Creek just downstream of the flow gage. The stream gage on arroyo Grande Creek has been in service for xx years, and is considered one of the best sources for studying the rainfall and flooding relationships. The Corps NEWSOM SPRINGS HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 9 of Engineers is currently performing flood analysis of Arroyo Grande Creek, San Luis Obispo Creek, and Santa Rosa Creek. The Corps intends to base their study on the Arroyo Grande creek because it the stream gage provides the most accurate and statistically valid data. Diverting the Newsom Springs Creek flow upstream of the stream gage will upset the integrity of future gage readings. For this reason, the County has indicated that they prefer projects along alignment A, and that projgcts along Alignments B or C should include a recording stream flow gage in order that the stream flow records may continue to be statistically valid. The design flow used in this report for this conveyance is 891 cfs. An open ditch is proposed for Alternatives 61, 62, and C1. If open ditches are constructed along these alignments, they will need to have minimal slopes to avoid being excessively deep at the downstream end. As shown in Figure 5 and 6, the existing ground along Alternative B drops only 1 foot in 1600 feet and has a one foot rise in the middle: The existirg ground of Alternative C is essentially flat. An open ditch constructed at a slope of 0.20 percent would drop about 4 feet over the length of the project. At this slope, a ditch would need to be 15 feet wide at the bottom, with 2:1 side slopes and a minimum depth of 7 feet (including 1 foot of freeboard). The velocity of the ditch would be 5.5 fps and would require moderate erosion protection such as planted grasses. As an alternative, underground pipes could be constructed steeper than a surface ditch. With the depth of cover held between 5 and 13 feet (to_allow the less expensive cast in place pipe to be used), pipes could be constructed at a 2 ~0 2 " slope of 0.42 percent. To=convey the design flow; thi§ pipe=would=need-to be either-asingle-1-14-inch diameter or double 90 inch diameter-RCP. Either pipe ~'" ~` would need special inlets to accommodate low hydraulic head. n~-~"s' Constructing a surface ditch will require that agricultural equipment crossings be provided. These will need to avoid slowing the flow, and therefore should be clear span bridges with raised approaches. The span of the proposed ditch will vary from 43 feet to 63 feet at various locations. One alternative which may be suitable is to use railroad flatcar bridges, which come in several lengths and load ratings. The cost estimates presented assume flatcar bridges, double wide (21 feet total). The outlet to Arroyo Grande Creek for this ditch is proposed to be at a location where the creek makes a 90 degree bend. Because of this, the proposed ditch can enter the creek in the direction of flow. Erosion protection will be required and is estimated to consist primarily of gabion protection. NEWSOM SPRINGS HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 10 WEST FACILITIES EAST FACILITIES TOTAL COMMENTS ALT REACH 1 REACH 2 REACH 3 REACH 4 PROJECT BUDGET (Stilwell) (Dixson) (Downstream) (Upstream) A PIPE, PIPE INLETS, None 3/10/98 estimate Superseded by A-1 2 - 72" DITCHES $830,000 A-1 PIPE, PIPE INLETS, None $690,000 Same as A, 2 - 72" DITCHES Costs Revised PREFERRED PROJECT A-2 DITCH, DITCHES None $840,000 BRIDGES A-3 PIPE, PIPE INLETS, None $770,000 2 - 72" DITCHES PIPE, 1-48" B PIPE, 30" PIPE INLETS, DITCH, 3/10!98 estimate Superseded by B-1 DITCHES with 4 equipment crossings. $1,100,000 B-1 PIPE, 48" PIPE INLETS, DITCH 4 Ag Xings $1,170,000 Same as B, DITCHES with 2 to 4 equipment crossings. 3 Ag Xings $1,060,000 Cost revised, ............ .......................... ........................................... .................................................................... 2 Ag Xings $950,000 .............................................. Pipe size revised. ................................................... B-2 None None DITCH, 4 Ag Xings $840,000 FLOOD PROBLEMS with 2 to 4 equipment crossings. 3 Ag Xings $740,000 REMAIN at Luana Lane, use either B or C alignment 2 Ag Xings $630,000 Vagabond MH Park, Pacific Coast School, ............ .......................... ........................................... .................................................................... .............................................. Noguera Place ................................................... B-3 PIPE, 48" PIPE, 48" PIPE, 2 - 90" Storm Drains, $2,010,000 Complete Underground use either B or C al~nment Solution. C PIPE, 30" PIPE INLETS, PIPE, 2-90". DITCH, with 2 3/10/98 estimate Superseded by G1 DITCHES equipment $1,960,000 crossings. C-1 PIPE, 48" PIPE INLETS, DITCH 4 Ag Xings $1,180,000 Same as C, DITCHES with 2 to 4 equipment crossings. 3 Ag Xings $1,070,000 Cost revised, 2 Ag Xings $960,000 Pipe size revised. Pipe removed. FIGURES NEWSOM SPRINGS DRA/NAGE PROJECT / -a~ ~L ~\ //1 1 ..(.. _~~~ ice, /~~ .' ~ `s ~. ~t} ~ ~' w ~ ~ ~' / ;, ~° ~ } °r J \ ~.~ b N d: f G S 1 a ~~ >H % ri~ ~ 1 6 ~ 1~ r s J ~,1 ^11} ~' S) 4 .. ~ ~ 0 ~~ ~} 0 h -. 0 1/ ~ ,~ \ Sys A 'S . _, 9 v i I .r e ~ n : .\\\ 11 ~. ~.r iI , ki .. ~ t s as ~ `~ ~1'~Y 1~ \\{`.~a _ ": \ ~ u1 'A 8 ` ~y~~ i ~\~l \ , N ~~ ~)'a~ryry~ fit ~~~fi 4 s' ~\~~ ~~i1 $i1~V~, L ~~ $ a o ~ ~ T4 v ~ 1 i V' t ~~ u ~I~~ P. ( " J ~ ~ ~' `~ ~~ X17 ~'-" . `"~^l aVS- ~ ~ U P' ~ ~ G ~ ~ } ~1~ ~ ~~~ ~~r ~r i.. ~l r ~ ~ r t ~ `" 1 r ~ ~`~ a1 'Gd ~ : ',r ~ ~ o .r o ,.. Zu > , I ~ ~ ~ 2' `t ~ ' \\C fit, \;.J ~~\\\~ ~ ~, :.~ i ~`°. a "~ o ^"'~` l ~ o ~ a J I 1 1 ~rJ :C~ ~~ r .r ~ ~ p }111 ~; v~ ~ , ~, //,~ ~ ~i t ~` ~" 4 \\ ~ be v 1 \ 1 } ~`4} j'O ~y) eat ~ ,a '. '~" ~ ~i\ F ; ~' ~ \\ _'1 ~y t ~ ~ ~~ } j 4, ~'- 1 a b - y ~ a ~ .. a~. i ~ \~y,~ } r !fir( _.r 1 . Q:__b `. ~.o r ~ sue. m } .~ ( a~vxaa'7'~. fe . ~\\ , ,\~~,~~". 1 ~ - .-'2 ~ a ~. , ~ , ~ r, v .> NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE PROJECT o.-DT-9a ALIGNMENT A - PROJECT ALTERNATIVES `'°°"_~~' 5~' ~ N ~t~~ i n z n gP~~ n EDHANDS AvE `0 ~ H a~Q ~ ya PJ CA3) 2- Plee ~~ ,~~ REACH 2 `'~ <Al) Inlets ~E~~ Ditches PSG CA2) Ditch CA3) 1-48' Pippe, Inlets, 8~ BRq/y- Newsor~ \~ Springs' ~~ CITY F~ C^UNTY ^F ARR^Y^ GR NDE - ~`' ~ SAN LUIS ^BISP^ ,NOT TO SCALE /~ NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE PROJECT 04-07-98I ALIGNMENT B - PROJECT ALTERNATIVES `°`"`°°' ~~/ REACH 3 C>B1) Dit CB~ Dit w/Crossings~, 3) 02' Pipe f`" ~ REA o C Dit w/Cro gs ~ ~~~ C 48' Pip 2> Ditch w%C ss ~ ~ ~ ~ None B3) 2-102' A A ~~~~\\ ~" <B3) 48' Pie ` g ~ REACH 2 cps e tp CBl) Inlets & 5 , p~ Ditches L ERR' ~ CB2) None f `" CB3> 48' Pi es r~. EpS~ ~RP~_ Newsobi ~- \~\ Springs ~~ ~ BRgNC'N N1LC RR \ I ~ / /%e" ~ /~ ~dP // ~ ~/ ri // ii // CITY F ~"~~`~~/ - C^UNTY ^F ARROYO GR NDE __ _.... __ ___..._......_._.._ ., ~, ... ~. SAN LUIS ^BISP^ NAT TD SCALE ALIGNMENT C -PROJECT AL S1 ~~/ Ditch /CITY ARR^Y^ a~-o~-se o„e.:o~~ \ \ ~~ ~, 1) 48' e <Cl> itch A \\ \\\ LNERR~ \ REACH 2 ~ ~ ~ P ~ \ \\ (Cl) 48' Pipe, ` Inlets, & EPS' Ditches PJ ~a~ ~N ~t \ ~ Newsom -- \~ Springs /~ ~ ~ ~~' B,PaNCN NILL .pQ / ~ / ~ ~i~Q y ~ ~ \ ~ ___1~ ~ ~ CCC ~/ ~~ /~ ~~ // ~i~< ~~ ~ `~~ C^UNTY ^F DE _ ..._ .._ ._. -._ -._ _ __-_- _ _ _ _._ ~ __ .- ck SAN LUIS ^BISP^ NOT TO SCALE JOHN L. WAILACE & ASSOCIATES 4115 Broad St. Suite B-5 ~ SAN LUfS OBISPO, CA 93401 (805) 544.4011 FAX (805) 544-4294 aae_ fIG - .f/r wsoi,i. ~ .n~,virir s ,L~.F'.~;..<..-. SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED BY ~~ DATE_9'Cn~ ~. ••i~r CHECKED BY DATE `~_ SCALE JOHN L WALLACE & ASSOCIATES 4115 Broad St. Suite 8-5 SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA 93401 (805) 544-4011 FAX (805) 544294 se+~r ao. ~ cucuu~ar ~F - wren/7~.~'. i cxEC~o er oah ..,~..,,..,~ ~...,,........ ~... ~ ....m ..~.. «..m,.Q ~.,.,~.~ CALCULATIONS NEWSOM SPR/NGS DRAINAGE PROJECT fIG i A- I~irc-z eEP ram ~/TC//E3 CUNe Plotted Curves for Trapezoidal Channel Project Description Project File untitled.fm2 Worksheet ARemative A -Interceptor Ditches Flow Element Trapezoidal Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Constarrt Data Mannings Coefficient 0.035 Channel Slope 0.003000 ft/ft Left Side Slope 3.000000 H : V Right Side Slope 3.000000 H : V Bottom Width 15.00 ft Input Data Minimum Mabmum Increment e~__LL 1 AA CAA 1 AA p Discharge vs Depth yq V m O! W L U () 03/27/98 John L Wallace 8 Associates FlowMaster ~F.07 0218:45 PM Haes[ad Metlwds. Inc. 37 Brool¢ide Road Waterbury. CT 06708 (203) 7gi1666 Page 1 of 1 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 Depth (ft) Curve A,~,eOYU ~QANU~ C.2~Ek Plotted Curves for Trapezoidal Channel ©,S'T,eC-~1m G,q G L-" Project Description Project Fle c:lhaestadUmwlnewsom s.fm2 Worksheet Arroyo Grande Creek Fbw Element Trapezoidal Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For D'ISCharge Constant Data Mannimgs CoeffiaeM 0.040 Channel Slope 0.028000 tuft Left Side Slope 1.500000 H : V Right Side Slope 1.500000 H : V Bottom Width 20.00 ft Data Depth 0.00 10.00 1.00 ft nierharna ue nanrfi 020198 John L. Wallace & Associates FbwMaster X5.07 0903:35 AM ~ Haestad McMMds, Inc. 37 Broolside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 7311666 Page 1 of 1 O.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 Depth (ft) JOHN L WALLACE & ASSOCIATES 4115 Broad St. Suite B-5 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 (805) 544011 FAX (805) 544-4294 SHEEP NO. q aF CALCULATED BY ~ ` GATE ~ /Z O/g y CHECKED BY DATE ~ ~ T A - J TORM OTZA/,c/ Curve Plotted Curves for Circular Channel Project Desaiptian Project File untitled.fm2 Worksheet Aftemative A -Main Storm Drain Flow E1emeM Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Constant Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Depth 6.00 ft Diameter 72.00 in Input Data Minimum Marimum ~ InaemeM- Channel Slope 0.005000 0.017000 0.001000 ftlft Discharge vs Channel Slope 600.0 550 0 . Coo 500.0 450 0 . 4 00.0 50 0 3 . 300.0 250 0 . m m m m O 0.004 0.006 0.008 U.U'1 U.UIG U.U'14 Chanhel Slope (ftJft) 03/22/96 John ~. Wallace & Associates 02:34 PM Haestad Metlwds, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Walerlwry, CT 06708 (203) 7Yrt 666 0.0'16 0.018 Fkw+Master X5.07 Page 1 of 7 LT .~ E~ 4 II-67 I6o lo,ooo 166 8,000 EXAMPLE ~~J (rL) ( 31 156 6,000 p•a2 iP<h« (3.s a«t) 6' 6' 144 G•120 da 5,000 5. 132 4,000 ~• Nr., 6. 5. p feel 3,000 g 4• 120 ft) Ys e.e q• 2,000 fY> 2.1 ].4 4 3 108 1 Y.2 77 ~ ( . 3. F/G rC~1'7/e ~ "p inlM 3• ~toY ~Z .1 ~i a~J .. / g6 I,000 3. H~ Sr.~c~]Q -y e eoo 3x3.50 = /, Aso __~ -- 64 / 0 / X i73 = /7 ~ 2' FLAQ6O yj' 72 pl•~ 3 Sr/L ET p 0 F.•F~ `••• 1.5 1.5 /O .. PPG Z / N / Z Gr 60 V 26 r W 1.5 c " Z 54 a _ W ~ ~ r F 46 ~/¢ Z APEO J 60 TN ~ (E T ~ C ° • 42 V 60 1 0 ~ PiPr LL `/8 rn 50 o I.O . ° Q HW SCALE ENTRANCE 1A. ¢ 40 D TYPE ¢ W W f W 36 30 (q SVUerv ud9e rnn 3 .9 .9 ~ h<edreli .9 33 O a 0 a 20 f2) W«ra end rilh W 6 30 Aeedrell = .9 . (3) Greera end •8 27 - Oralectiny 10 7 .7 24 6 •7 6 7o v« acele (21 or (s) orolact ~~ 21 5 herixomell] to seep pJ, then ' 4 ufv atreidhl Inclined Tine Mrov9h p and G stelae, er reverse of ~ 6 .6 3 illustrated. .8 IB 2 15 1.0 .5 .5 .5 12 HEADWATER DE PTH F OR CONCRETE PIPE CULVE RTS WITH INLET C ONTRO L RURENU Of PUBLIC fMnpS JRN. 1963 ~: tfa_ 7 /60 Pgm 'SBUH', Calculates Hydrographs by JMS SANTA-BARBARA-URBAN HYDROGRAPH-METHODr 12:37:46 Delta T (Time Increment) _ .25 Hours f * * File~~g100 Read from Disk Hydrographs ~# 1 + ~2 + --3 + -Added to make Hydrograph_#__9 Peak Flow = 1023.6 - - -- - _ - --- -- - * * * File g100 Written to Disk SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD - PARTIAL LIST OF FLOW ARRAY 12:38:45 Hydgph #: 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 Hydgph Hydgph Hydgph Basinr Addhyd Basinr Addhyd 7.OOhrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 7.25hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 7.50hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 7.75hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 8.OOhrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 8.25hrs 9 1 1 7 9 0 11 S.SOhrs 22 2 2 19 24 0 26 8.75hrs 31 3 3 30 36 0 37 9.OOhrs 39 3 4 38 45 0 45 9.25hrs 57 .5 5 54 63 0 66 SOhrs 82 7 7 79 93 0 96 _.75hrs 102 8 9 100 116 0 118 10.00hrs 117 8 10 '115 133 0 134 10.25hrs 143 10 12 124 145 0 164 10.SOhrs 176 12 15 140 167 98 203 10.75hrs 203 13 16 163 192 158 232 i1.00hrs 223 13 18 186 217 192 254 11.25hrs 239 7:3 18 208 240 219 270 11.50hrs 251 13 19 226 258 241 283 11.75hrs 261 14 19 241 273 259 293 12.OOhrs 268 14 19 253 285 274 301 12.25hrs 302 17 22 269 309 291 341 12.SOhrs 355 23 27 299 349 319 405 12.75hrs 397 24 30 339 393 357 451 13.OOhrs 429 25 32 378 434 398 486 13.25hrs 454 25 33 411 469 437 512 13.50hrs 528 33 40 451 523 487 601 13.75hrs 779 <6~ 66 533 661 588 907 i14.00hrs . ~ 891 i _ 60 ~ 73~ 790 : . 923 ' " _ 784 '1__024 _ _ 14.25hrs __ 745 26 _ 51 818 ~ _ _ 895 _ 904 __ 821 14.SOhrs 617 13 36 687 737 819 667 14.75hrs 518 9 27 575 611 680 554 15.OOhrs 441 8 21 525 554 587 470 15.25hrs 367 6 16 480 501 530 389 15.SOhrs 296 3 11 407 421 464 310 1~ 75hrs 241 3 8 334 344 404 251 OOhrs 198 2 6 275' 284 338 206 16.25hrs 159 2 4 227 233 280 - -~ 165 16.SOhrs 124 1 3 185 188 229 128 16.75hrs 97 0 2 151 153 186 99 17.OOhrs 76 0 1 121 123 151 77 17.25hrs 60 0 1 44 45 102 60 17.SOhrs 47 0 1 59 59 66 47 17.75hrs. 37 0 0 32 32 51 37 'R.OOhrs 29 0 0 34 34 38 29 .25hrs 23 0 0 22 22 31 23 18.SOhrs 18 0 0 20 20 24 18 18.75hrs 14 0 0 14 15 19 15 19.OOhrs 12 0 0 12 13 15 12 19.25hrs 9 0 0 10 10 12 10 19.SOhrs 8 0 0 8 8 10 8 19.75hrs 6 0 0 7 7 8 6 ZO.OOhrs 5 0 0 5 6 7 5 Peak Flow 891 63 73 818 923 904 1024 `-Y/ pb Pgm 'SBUH'„ Calculates Hydrographs by SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD P?lta T (Time Increment) _ .25 Hours =ershed Area = 1116 ac = 1.74 sq m Impervious = .O1 Watershed Length = 14000 Watershed Slope = .037 Manning's 'n' Hydgph P(24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth JMS 11:00:52 files ft = 2.65 miles (roughness) _ .04 Vol Peak Q Unit ac-ft cfs Q 1 5.50in 0.18 1.00 3.89 69 2.35in 218.4 891cfs 0.80 Watershed Area = 51 ac = .08 sq miles Impervious = .01 Watershed Length = 1300 ft = .25 miles Watershed Slope = .17 Manning's 'n' (roughness) _ .04 Hydgph P(24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q 2 S.50in 0.18 0.23 1.54 69 2.35in 10.0 63 cfs 1.23 Watershed Area = 73 ac = .il sq miles Impervious = .01 Watershed Length = 2500 ft = .47 miles Watershed Slope = .O1 Manning's 'n' (roughness) _ .03 Hydgph P(24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit nber in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q 3 S.SOin 0.18 0.54 1.29 69 2.35in 14.3 73 cfs 1.00 * * * File Q100 Written to Disk * * * File g100 Read from Disk NTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD xouting Hydrograph 1 thru a Basin, Outflow Hydrograph is 4 Outlet Pipe(s) Diameter = 107 in Btm Slope = .002 Length = 50 ft Manning's n = .013 Entrance Loss Ke = .5 No. of Pipes = 1 Pipe Inv below Basin Btm = 4 Storage data entered from keyboard Time inflow Outflow Storage Water Flow Over (hrs) (cfs) (cfs) (ac-ft) Depth (ft) Weir (cfs) 12.00 268.30 252.67 4.79 6.04 12.25 301.60 269.11 5.29 6.26 12.50' 355.00 299.27 6.20 6.64 12.75 396.50 338.61 7.37 7.14 13.00 428.80 377.62 8.50 7.59 13.25 453.90 411.20 9.47 7.98 13.50 528.40 450.48 10.71 8.47 13.75 778.70 532.89 14.06 9.72 14.00 891.00 790.27 17.64 10.99 113.69 14.25 744.80 818.26 17.92 11.09 130.40 14.50 617.40 687.30 16.44 10.57 49.59 14.75 518.20 574.96 15.13 10.11 4.24 15.00 441.10 525.27 13.68 9.58 5.25 367.30 479.70 11.64 8.82 _5.50 296.20 406.78 9.34 7.93 15.75 240.90 333.95 7.24 7.08 16.00 197.80 275.34 5.48 6.34 «< Summary of Results » > Max INFLOW = 891 cfs at 14 Max OUTFLOW= 818.26 cfs at 14.25 Max STORAGE= 17.92 ac-ft at 14.25 Max DEPTH = 11.09 ft at 14.25 which is 1.09 ft over weir Total INFLOW 218.28 ac-ft Total OUTFLOW = 218.28 ac-ft Storage at end of 24 hours = 0 ac-ft Q~oo Hydrograph # 4 Calced Pgm 'SBUH~, Calculates Hydrographs by JMS ~+s° SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD 22:06:34 P?lta T (Time Increment) _ .25 Hours :ershed Area = 1116 ac = 1.74 sq m lmpervious = .O1 Watershed Length = 14000 Watershed Slope = .037 Manning's 'n' Hydgph P(24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth files ft = 2.65 miles (roughness) _ .04 Vol Peak Q Unit ac-ft cfs Q 1 S.OOin 0.20 1.03 3.79 68 1.85in 171.8 761cfs 0.68 Watershed Area = 51 ac = .08 sq miles Impervious = .O1 Watershed Length = 1300 ft = .25 miles Watershed Slope = .17 Manning's 'n' (roughness) _ .04 Hydgph P(24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q 2 S.OOin 0.20 0.24 1.53 68 1.85in 7.8 55cfs 1.08 Watershed Area = 73 ac = .li sq miles Impervious = .01 Watershed Length = 2500 ft = .47 miles Watershed Slope = .01 Manning's 'n' (roughness) _ .03 Hydgph P(24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit ' fiber in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q 3 5.OOin 0.20 0.55 1.26 68 1.SSin. 11.2 63cfs 0.86 Q~~ Hydrographs # 2 + 3 + 4 + Added to make Hydrograph # 5 Peak Flow = 922.8683 * * * File g100 Written to Disk SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD Routing Hydrograph 5 thru a Basin, Outflow Hydrograph is 7 Outlet Pipe(s) Diameter = 1 in Btm Sl ope = .002 Length = 50 ft Manning's n = .013 Entrance Loss Ke = .5 No. of Pipes = 1 Pipe Inv ,below Basin Btm = 0 Storage data entered from keyboard Time Inflow Outflow ~ Storage Water Flow Over (hrs) (cfs) (cfs) (ac-ft) Depth (ft) Weir (cfs) 12.00 285.17 273.76 18.33 2.60 211.17 12.25 308.61 290.64 18.64 2.63 231.01 12.50 348.97 318.49 19.14 2.69 265.00 12.75 393.01 356.82 19.83 2.78 314.25 13.00 434.42 398.36 20.57 2.87 370.69 13.25 469.30 437.42 21.27 2.95 426.53 13.50 523.38 486.88 21.98 3.03 482.21 13.75 661.39 588.21 23.11 3.15 569.08 14.00 922.87 784.06 25.30 3.39 750.00 14.25 894.96 903.97 26.64 3.53 868.72 14.50 736.50 819.22 25.70 3.43 784.21 &.75 611.06 679.54 24.13 3.26 651.38 X5.00 554.37 586.55 23.09 3.15 567.62 15.25 501.40 530.21 22.46 3.08 518.77 15.50 420.98 463.92 21.72 3.00 463.21 15.75 344.45 403.70 20.67 2.88 378.18 16.00 283.74 338.29 19.49 2.74 290.09 «< Summary of Results » > Max INFLOW = 922.87 cfs at 14 Max OUTFLOW= 903.97 cfs at 14.25 Max STORAGE= 26.64 ac-ft at 14.25 Max DEPTH = 3.53 ft at 14.25 which is 1.53 ft over weir Total INFLOW = 242.56 ac-ft Total OUTFLOW = 229.14 ac-ft Storage at end of 24 hours = 13.42 ac-ft Hydrograph # 7 Calced * * * File g100 Written to Disk q,o * * * File Q50 Written to Disk Pgm 'SBUH', Calculates Hydrographs by JMS P'~NTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD 22:10:47 Delta T (Time Increment) _ .25 Hours * * * File Q50 Read from Disk SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD Routing Hydrograph 1 thru a Basin, Outflow Hydrograph is 4 Outlet Pipe(s) Diameter = 107 in Btm Sl ope = .002 Length = 50 ft Manning's n = .013 Entrance Loss Ke = .5 No. of Pipes = 1 Pipe Inv below Basin Btm = 4 Storage data entered from keyboard Time Inflow Outflow Storage Water Flow Over (hrs) (cfs) (cfs) (ac-ft) Depth (ft) Weir (cfs) 12.00 203.00 188.64 2.77 5.14 12.25 232.70 203.01 3.22 5.34 12.50 280.40 229.35 4.06 5.72 12.75 317.70 264.15 5.14 6.19 13.00 347.00 298.89 6.19 6.64 13.25 369.80 329.28 7.10 7.03 13.50 436.60 368.23 8.23 7.48 t.75 660.00 459.58 11.00 8.58 X4.00 761.50 569.07 15.06 10.09 2.93 14.25 633.20 689.66 16.47 10.58 50.85 14.50 520.50 583.61 15.23 10.15 6.43 14.75 432.40 524.37 13.63 9.56 15.00 363.40 475.76 11.52 8.78 15.25 297.10 403.83 9.26 7.90 15.50 233.10 330.74 7.14 7.04 15.75 182.90 268.08 5.26 6.24 16.00 143.70 215.89 3.63 5.53 « < Summary of Results » > Max INFLOW = 761.5 cfs at 14 Max OUTFLOW= 689.66 cfs at 14.25 Max STORAGE= 16.47 ac-ft at 14.25 Max DEPTH = 10.58 ft at 14.25 which is .58 ft over weir Total INFLOW = 171.66 ac-ft Total OUTFLOW = 171.66 ac-ft Storage at end of 24 hours = 0 ac-ft Hydrograph # 4 Calced Y S6 Hydrographs # 2 + 3 + 4 + Added to make Hydrograph # 5 Peak Flow = 755.0637 t * * File Q50 Written to Disk SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD Routing Hydrograph 5 thru a Basin, Outflow Hydrograph is 7 Outlet Pipe(s) Diameter = 1 in Btm Slope = .002 Length = 50 ft Manning 's n = .013 Entrance Loss Ke = .5 No. of Pipes = 1 Pipe Inv below Basin Btm = 0 Storage data entered from keyboard Time Inflow Outflow Storage Water Flow Over (hrs) (cfs) (cfs) (ac-f t) Depth (ft) Weir (cfs) 12.00 213.64 206.47 14.64 2.45 138.32 12.25 234.31 221.65 14.84 2.48 153.85 12.50 269.85 248.04 15.20 2.54 182.12 12.75 308.95 283.90 15.68 2.62 223.02 13.00 345.99 321.68 16.19 2.70 268.99 13.25 377.58 356.46, 16.66 2.77 313.78 13.50 429.83 397.43 17.21 2.86 369.40 13.75 571.28 495.67 18.33 3.04 489.56 14.00 684.77 648.10 19.49 3.22 622.63 14.25 755.06 730.81 20.12 3.32 699.18 14.50 624.31 683.45 19.76 3.27 654.99 4.75 553.07 574.32 18.93 3.14 556.89 X5.00 498.06 518.17 18.50 3.07 508.53 15.25 419.23 452.18 17.95 2.98 448.31 15.50 339.44 389.01 17.10 2.85 357.72 15.75 273.28 317.34 16.13 2.69 263.56 16.00 219.19 255.68 15.30 2.56 190.61 « < Summary of Results » > Max INFLOW = 755.06 cfs at 14.25 Max OUTFLOW= 730.81 cfs at 14.25 Max STORAGE= 20.12 ac-ft at 14.25 Max DEPTH = 3.32 ft at 14.25 which is 1.32 ft over weir Total INFLOW = 190.76 ac-ft Total OUTFLOW = 178.91 ac-ft Storage at end of 24 hours = 11.86 ac-ft Hydrograph # 7 Calced * * * File Q50 Written to Disk QS o SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD - PARTIAL-LIST OF FLOW ARRAY 22:15:57 "'~dgph # 1 2 3 4 5 7 Hydgph Hydgph Hydgph Basinr Addhyd Basinr 7.OOhrs 1 0 0 1 2 0 7.25hrs 2 0 0 1 2 0 7.SOhrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 7.75hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 B.OOhrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 8.25hrs 4 0 0 3 4 0 8.50hrs 7 1 1. 6 7 0 8.75hrs 10 1 1 9 11 0 9.OOhrs 12 1 1 11 13 0 9.25hrs 24 2 2 21 26 0 9.50hrs 43 4 4 41 49 0 9.75hrs 59 5 5 57 68 0 10.00hrs 71 5 6 70 81 0 10.25hrs 93 7 8 90 105 0 10.50hrs 122 9 11 118 138 0 10.75hrs 145 10 12 125 147 30 11.OOhrs 163 10 13 138 162 138 11.25hrs 177 10 14 153 177 165 i1.50hrs 188 10 14 166 191 181 11.75hrs 196 10 14 ~ 178 203 195 12.OOhrs 203 10 1 5 189 214 206 12.25hrs 233 14 17 203 234 222 .50hrs 280 19 22 229 270 248 1t.75hrs 318 20 25 264 309 284 13.OOhrs 347 21 27 299 346 322 13.25hrs 370 21 28 329 378 356 13.SOhrs 437 28 34 368 430 397 13.75hrs 660 55 57 460 571 496 14.OOhrs 762 53 63 569 685 648 14.25hrs 633 22 44 690 755 731 14.SOhrs 521 10 30 584 624 683 14.75hrs 432 7 22 524 553 574 15.OOhrs 363 6 17 476 498 518 15.25hrs 297 4 12 404 419 452 15.50hrs 233 1 8 331 339 389 15.75hrs 183 0 5 268 273 317 16.OOhrs 144 0 3 216 _ 219 256 16.25hrs 113 0 2 173 175 205 16.SOhrs 89 0 1 140 141 165 16.75hrs 70 0 1 98 99 126 17.OOhrs 55 0 1 40 41 78 17.25hrs 43 0 0 55 55 52 17.SOhrs 34 0 0 29 30 44 17.75hrs 27 0 0 32 32 33 18.OOhrs 22 0 0 21 21 27 18.25hrs 17 0 0 19 19 21 18.SOhrs 14 0 0 14 14 17 ,.75hrs 11 0 0 12 12 14 .OOhrs 9 0 0 9 9 11 19.25hrs 7 0 0 8 8 9 19.SOhrs 6 0 0 6 6 7 19.75hrs 5 0 0 5 5 6" 20.OOhrs 4 0 0 4 5 5 9~~ Watershed Area = 1116 ac = 1.74 sq miles Impervious = .01 Watershed Length = 14000 ft = 2.65 miles Watershed Slope = .037 Manning's 'n' (roughness) _ .04 1._ .gph P(24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q 1 4.40in 0.22 1.06 3.65 66 1.35in 125.6 611cfs 0.55 Watershed Area = 51 ac = .08 sq miles Impervious = .01 Watershed Length = 1300 ft = .25 miles Watershed Slope = .17 Manning's 'n' (roughness) _ .04 Hydgph P(24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q 2 4.40in 0.22 0.24 1.51 66 1.35in 5.7 46cfs 0.90 Watershed Area = Impervious = .O1 W; Watershed Slope = Hydgph P(24) Loss Number in in/hr 3 4.40in 0.22 73 ac = .il ~tershed Length .O1 Manni~ T(c) ~Vel SCS hrs ft/s CN 0.57 1.23 66 sq miles = 2500 ft = .47 miles ig's 'n' (roughness) _ .03 Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit Depth ac-ft cfs Q 1.35in 8.2 52cfs 0.71 * * File Q25 Written to Disk Qtr SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD Routing Hydrograph 1 thru a Basin, Outflow Hydrograph is 4 . .:let P ipe(s) Diameter = 107 in Btm Slope = .002 Length = 50 ft Manning 's n = .013 Entrance Loss Ke = .5 No. of Pipes = 1 Pipe Inv below Basin Btm = 4 Storage data entered from keyboard Time Inflow Outflow Storage Water Flow Over (hrs) (cfs) (cfs) (ac-ft) Depth (ft) Weir (cfs) 12.00 130.64 123.39 0.53 4.10 12.25 155.72 132.47 0.85 4.24 12.50 196.34 152.45 1.54 4.57 12.75 228.42 180.04 2.49 5.02 13.00 253.75 210.07 3.45 5.44 13.25 273.76 236.48 4.28 5.82 13.50 331.18 269.64 5.30 6.26 13.75 522.19 350.43 7.71 7.27 14.00 610.63 460.62 11.04 8.59 14.25 503.60 503.66 12.59 9.18 14.50 408.67 484.62 11.80 8.88 14.75 333.69 429.02 10.03 8.20 15.00 274.48 364.43 8.12 7.44 15.25 222.45 304.11 6.34 6.71 15.50 176.11 250.71 4.73 6.02 X5.75 139.51 204.96 3.28 5.37 ..00 110.60 166.53 2.03 4.80 «< Summary of Results » > Max INFLOW = 610.63 cfs at 14 Max OUTFLOW= 503.66 cfs at 14.25 Max STORAGE= 12.59 ac-ft at 14.25 Max DEPTH = 9.179999 ft at 57 Total INFLOW = 125.54 ac-ft Total OUTFLOW = 125.54 ac-ft Storage at end of 24 hours = 0 ac-ft Hydrograph # 4 Calced Hydrographs # 2 + 3 + 4 + Added to make Hydrograph # 5 Peak Flow = 556.335 ' * * File Q25 Written to Disk SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD Routing Hydrograph 5 thru a Basin, Outflow Hydrograph is 7 Outlet Pipe(s) Diameter = 1 in Btm Sl ope = .002 Length = 50 ft Manning's n = .013 Entrance Loss Ke = .5 No. of Pipes = 1 Pipe Inv below Basin Btm = 0 Storage data entere d from keyboard Time Inflow Outflow Storage Water Flow Over (hrs) (cfs) (cfs} (ac-ft) Depth (ft) Weir (cfs) 12.00 139.92 136.30 13.69 2.30 74.19 12.25 154.53 145.77 13.82 2.32 82.05 12.50 182.49 165.49 14.08 2.36 99.25 12.75 213.83 193.82 14.47 2.42 125.80 13.00 245.85 225.06 14.89 2.49 157.41 13.25 273.40 255.04 15.29 2.55 189.89 13.50 318.15 290.36 15.77 2.63 230.68 13.75 442.43 368.34 16.82 2.80 329.60 14.00 556.34 489.18 18.28 3.03 484.14 14.25 556.06 566.36 18.87 3.13 549.95 14.50 515.43 531.10 18.60 3.08 519.54 .75 449.30 474.97 18.17 3.02 472.33 15.00 379.00 418.53 17.50 2.91 399.21 15.25 313.98 356.06 16.65 2.77 313..25 15.50 256.55 294.67 15.83 2.64 235.83 15.75 208.61 240.83 15.10 2.52 174.24 16.00 168.89 195.66 14.49 2.43 127.60 « < Summary of Results » > Max INFLOW = 556.34 cfs at 14 Max OUTFLOW= 566.36 cfs at 14.25 Max STORAGE= 18.87 ac-ft at 14.25 Max DEPTH = 3.13 ft at 14.25 which is 1.13 ft over weir Total INFLOW = 139.49 ac-ft Total OUTFLOW = 127.64 ac-ft Storage at end of 24 hours =-11.86 ac-ft Hydrograph # 7 Calced * * * File Q25 Written to Disk SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD - PARTIAL LIST OF FLOW ARRAY 22:26:06 F 'gph # 1 2 3 4 5 7 Hydgph Hydgph Hydgph Basinr Addhyd Basinr 7.OOhrs 1 0 0 1 1 0 7.25hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0 4zr 7.SOhrs 1 0 0 1 1 0 7.75hrs 1 0 0 1 2 0 8.OOhrs 1 0 0 1 2 0 ^ 25hrs 2 0 0 1 2 0 SOhrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 8.75hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 9.OOhrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 9.25hrs 7 1 1 6 7 0 9.SOhrs 17 2 2 15 18 0 9.75hrs 24 2 2 23 28 0 10.00hrs 30 2 3 29 34 0 10.25hrs 45 4 4 43 51 0 10.50hrs 67 6 6 64 76 0 10.75hrs 85 7 8 83 97 0 11.OOhrs 99 7 8 97 112 0 11.25hrs 110 7 9 109 124 0 11.50hrs 118 7 9 117 134 67 11.75hrs 125 7 9 120 136 126 12.OOhrs 131 7 10 123 140 136 12.25hrs 156 10 12 132 155 146 12.SOhrs 196 14 16 152 182 165 12.75hrs 228 15 18 180 214 194 13.OOhrs 254 16 20 210 246 225 13.25hrs 274 16 21 236 273 255 13.50hrs 331 22 26 270 318 290 13.75hrs 522 46 46 350 442 368 14.OOhrs 611 44 52 461 556 489 14.25hrs 504 17 35 504 556 566 14.SOhrs 409 7 24 485 515 531 75hrs 334 4 16 429 449 475 15.OOhrs 274 3 12 364 379 419 15.25hrs 222 2 8 304 314 356 15.SOhrs 176 1 5 251 257 295 15.75hrs 140 0 3 205 209 241 16.OOhrs 111 0 2 167 169 196 16.25hrs 88 0 1 136 137 159 16.50hrs 70 0 1 89 90 120 16.75hrs 55 0 1 46 47 75 17.OOhrs 44 0 0 52 52 53 17.25hrs 35 0 0 32 32 44 17.50hrs 28 0 0 31 31 34 17.75hrs 22 0 0 22 22 28 18.OOhrs 18 0 0 19 19 22 18.25hrs 14 0 0 15 15 18 18.SOhrs 12 0 0 12 12 14 18.75hrs 9 0 0 10 10 12 19.OOhrs 8 0 0 8 8 9 19.25hrs 6 0 0 7 7 8 19.50hrs 5 0 0 5 6 6 19.75hrs 4 0 0 5 5 5 20.OOhrs 4 0 0 4 4 4 Peak Flow 611 46 52 504 556 566 F- ~rograph # 1 has been Erased /) ~ j Q f C' W es r Pi,~E Curve Plotted Curves for Circular Channel -rTo.vE Cvwea r F~ o~..~ QNzy Project Description Project File c:lhaeshadlfmwlnewspr.fm2 Worksheet Alternative B/C CCulverts u' ~ Flow Element Circular Channel e Method Manning's Formula Solve For Full Flow Diameter Constant Data Mannings Coefficient 0.010 Discharge 90.00 cfs Input Data Minimum Mabmum Increment Channel Slope 0.005000 0.030000 0.001000 ft/ft FuII Flow Diameter vs Channel Slape 42.0 40.0 38.0 36.0 34.0 32.0 30.0 28.0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 .. C m N E to 3 a LL 7 LL Channel Slope (it/ft) 03?2FJ8 John L. Wallace & Associates FlowMaster X5.07 0326:35 PM Haestad Metlwds, fnc. 37 Brcol¢ide Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 75516% Page 1 of t 4~0 Hydrograph # 2 has been Erased Hydrograph # 3 has been Erased .rograph # 4 has been Erased Hydrograph # 5 has been Erased Hydrograph # 7 has been Erased Watershed Area = 1116 ac = 1.74 sq miles Impervious = .01 Watershed Length = 14000 ft = 2.65 miles Watershed Slope = .037 Manning's 'n' (roughness) _ .04 Hydgph P(24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak ,Q Unit Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q 1 3.70in 0.23 1.10 3.53 65 0.88in 82.3 456cfs 0...41 Watershed Area = Impervious = .Ol W; Watershed Slope = Hydgph P(24) Loss Number in in/hr 2 3.70in 0.23 51 ac = .08 ~tershed Length .17 Manni T(c) Vel SCS hrs ft/s CN 0.24 1.49 65 sq miles = 1300 ft = .25 miles ig's 'n' (roughness) _ .04 Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit Depth ac-ft cfs Q O.SSin 3.8 36cfs 0.71 Watershed Area = 73 ac = .li sq miles Impervious = .O1 Watershed Length = 2500 ft = .47 miles Watershed Slope = .O1 Manning's 'n' (roughness) _ .03 Hydgph P(24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft Cfs Q 3 3.70in 0.23 0.58 1.19 65 0.88in 5.4 40cfs O.SS * * * File Q10 Written to Disk Qr o Pgm 'SBUH', Calculates Hydrographs by JMS SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD 22:30:47 P 'ta T (Time Increment) _ .25 Hours * * * File Q10 Read from Disk SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD Routing Hydrograph 1- thru a Basin, Outflow Hydrograph is 4 Outlet Pipe(s) Diameter = 107 in Btm Slope = .002 Length = 50 ft Manning's n = .013 Entrance Loss Ke = .5 No. of Pipes = 1 Pipe Inv below Basin Btm = 4 Storage data entered from keyboard Time Inflow Outflow Storage Water Flow Over (hrs) (cfs) (cfs) (ac-ft) Depth (f t) Weir (cfs) 12.00 63.20 62.83 0.19 2.88 12.25 83.00 79.38 0.24 3.24 12.50 115.70 111.60 0.32 3.88 12.75 141.70 123.71 0.54 4.10 13.00 162.50 136.74 1.00 4.31 13.25 179.00 152.34 1.54 4.5'7 13.50 226.10 175.38 2.34 4.95 13.75 382.40 238.53 4.35 5.85 14.00 455.90 330.2.7 7.13 7.04 .25 371.00 374.10 8.40 7.55 14.50 295.80 352.65 7.78 7.30 14.75 236.00 307.61 6.45 6.75 15.00 188.40 259.00 4.98 6.13 15.25 150.40 214.59 3.59 5.51 15.50 120.00 175.75 2.35 4'.95 15.75 95.90 144.64 1.27 4.44 16.00 76.70 117.88 0.34 4.01 « < Summary of Results » > Max INFLOW = 455.9 cfs at 14 Max.OUTFLOW= 374.1 cfs at 14.25 Max STORAGE= 8.399999 ac-ft at 14.25 Max DEPTH = 7.55 ft at 57 Total INFLOW = 82.19 ac-ft Total OUTFLOW = 82.19 ac-ft Storage at end of 24 hours = 0 ac-ft Hydrograph # 4 Calced * * * File Q10 Written to Disk Q,a Hydrographs # 2 + 3 + 4 + Added to make Hydrograph # 5 Peak Flow = 413.0984 TA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD Routing Hydrograph 5 thru a Basin, Outflow Hydrograph is 7 Outlet Pipe(s) Diameter 1 in Btm Sl ope = .002 Length = 50 ft Manning's n = ..013 Entrance Loss ge = .5 No. of Pipes = 1 Pipe Inv below Basin Btm = 0 Storage data entere d from keyboard Time Inflow Outflow Storage Water Flow Over (hrs) (cfs) (cfs) (ac-ft) Depth (ft) Weir (cfs) 12.00 71.13 0.01 7.98 1.36 12.25 92.28 0.01 9.67 1.64 12.50 131.10 5.24 11.92 2.01 0.56 12.75 146.41 121.03 13.48 2.26 62.07 13.00 161.24 149.47 13.87 2.32 85.19 13.25 177.74 166.83 14.10 2.36 100.46 13.50 210.38 190.44 14.42 2.41 122.53 13.75 309.63 250.77 15.23 2.55 185.14 14.00 404.67 343.02 16.48 2.75 296.20 14.25 413.10 400.14 17.25 2.87 373.18 14.50 373.95 394.40 17.17 2.86 365.19 14.75 320.21 353.37 16.62 2.77 309.70 15.00 266.80 301.46 15.92 2.66 244.02 .25 219.59 250.93 15.24 2.55 185.32 i~.50 178.95 206.13 14.63 2.45 137.98 15.75 146.84 168.64 14.13 2.37 102.10 16.00 119.38 137.83 13.71 2.30 75.44 «< Summary of Results »> Max INFLOW = 413.1 cfs at 14.25 Max OUTFLOW= 400.14 cfs at 14.25 Max STORAGE= 17.25 ac-ft at 14.25 Max DEPTH = 2.87 ft at 14.25 which is .87 ft over weir Total INFLOW = 91.31 ac-ft Total OUTFLOW = 79.45 ac-ft Storage at end of 24 hours = 11.86 ac-ft Hydrograph # 7 Calced * * * File Q10 Written to Disk ~!D SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD - PARTIAL LIST OF FLOW ARRAY 22:34:28 u' •dgph # 1 2 3 4 5 7 Hydgph Hydgph Hydgph Basinr Addhyd Basinr 7.OOhrs 1 0 0 1 1 0 7.25hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0 7.50hrs 1 0' 0 1 1 0 7.75hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0 8.OOhrs 1 0 0 1 1 0 8.25hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0 8.SOhrs 1 0 0 1 2 0 8..75hrs 2 0 0 1 2 0 9.OOhrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 9.25hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 9.SOhrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 9.75hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 10.00hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 , 10.25hrs 10 1 1 7 10 .0 10.50hrs 23 3 2 21 26 0 10.75hrs 34 3 3 33 40 0 11.OOhrs 43 3 4 42 49 0 11.25hrs 50 4 4 49 57 0 11.50hrs 55 4 5 55 63 0 11.75hrs 60 4 5 59 68 0 12.OOhrs 63 4 5 63 71 0 12.25hrs 83 6 7 79 92 0 .SOhrs 116 10 10 112 131 5 1~.75hrs 142 11 12 124 146 121 13.OOhrs 163 11 14 137 161 149 13.25hrs 179 li 14 152 178 167 13.50hrs 226 16 19 175 210 190 13.75hrs 382 36 35 239 310 251 14.OOhrs .456 35 40 330 405 343 14.25hrs 371 12 27 374 413 400 14.SOhrs 296 4 17 353 374 394 14.75hrs 236 1 11 308 320 353 15.OOhrs 188 1 7 259 267 301 15.25hrs 150 0 5 215 220 251 15.50hrs 120 0 3 176 179 206 15.75hrs 96 0 2 145 147 169 16.OOhrs 77 0 1 118 119 138 16.25hrs 61 0 1 40 41 88 16.50hrs 49 0 1 64 65 58 16.75hrs 39 0 0 32 32 50 17.OOhrs 32 0 0 38 38 37 17.25hrs 25 0 0 23 24 32 17.50hrs 20 0 0 23 23 24 17.75hrs 17 0 0 16 17 20 i8.00hrs 13 0 0 14 14 16 18.25hrs 11 0 0 11 11 13 18.SOhrs 9 0 0 9 9 li "".75hrs 7 0 0 8 8 9 . .OOhrs 6 0 0 6 6 7 19.25hrs 5 0 0 5 5 6 19.SOhrs 4 0 0 4 4 5 19.75hrs 4 0 0 4 4 4 20.OOhrs 3 0 0 3 3 4 4~. Peak Flow 456 36 40 374 413 400 Hydrograph # 1 has been Erased Hydrograph # 2 has been Erased Hydrograph # 3 has been Erased Hydrograph # 4 has been Erased Hydrograph # 5 has been Erased Hydrograph # 7 has been Erased Watershed Area = 1116 ac = 1.74 sq miles Impervious = .O1 Watershed Length = 14000 ft = 2.65 miles Watershed Slope = .037 Manning's 'n' (roughness) _ .04. Hydgph P(24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q 1 2.20in 0.25 1.15 3.40 67 0.24in 22.5 165cfs 0.15 Watershed Area = envious = .O1 W; Watershed Slope = Hydgph P(24) Loss Number in in/hr 2 2.20in 0.25 51 ac = .OS itershed Length .17 Manni: T(c) Vel SCS hrs ft/s CN 0.25 1.47 67 sq miles. = 1300 ft = .25 miles zg's 'n' (roughness) _ .04 Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit Depth ac-ft cfs Q 0.24in 1.0 16cfs 0.32 Watershed Area = 73 ac = .il sq miles Impervious = .OS Watershed Length = 2500 ft = .47 miles Watershed Slope = .O1 Manning's 'n' (roughness) _ .03 Hydgph P(24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q 3 2.20in 0.25 0.60 1.15 67 0.24in 1.5 16cfs 0.22 * * * File Q2 Written to Disk QL SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD Routing Hydrograph 1 thru a Basin, Outflow Hydrograph is 4 tlet Pipe(s) Diameter = 107 in Btm Slope = .002 Length = 50 ft Manning's n = .013 Entrance Loss Ke = .5 No. of Pipes = 1 Pipe Inv below Basin Btm = 4 Storage data entered from keyboard Time Inflow Outflow (hrs) (cfs) (cfs) 12.00 12.25 12.50 12.75 13.00 13.25 13.50 13.75 14.00 14.25 14.50 14:75 15.00 15.25 15.50 15.75 5.00 1.80 3.50 6.50 8.80 10.80 12.30 33.00 117.80 164.80 132.70 106.90 86.20 69.50 56.10 45.20 36.50 29.50 1.80 2.98 5.78 8.37 10.46 12.10 27.97 104.24 130.78 139.02 130.20 107.72 59.55 64.77 42.08 40.10 28.73 « < Summary of Results » > Storage (ac-ft) 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.30 0.79 1.08 0.77 0.31 0.19 0.20 0.14 0.14 0.11 Max INFLOW = 164.8 cfs at 14 Max OUTFLOW= 139.02 cfs at 14.25 Max STORAGE= 1.08 ac-ft at 14.25 Max DEPTH = 4'.35 ft at 57 Total INFLOW = 22.5 ac-ft Total OUTFLOW 22.5 ac-ft Storage at end"of 24 hours = 0 ac-ft Hydrograph # 4 Calced Water Flow Over Depth (ft) Weir (cfs) 0.20 0.33 0.64 0.93 1.07 1.15 1.93 3.73 4.22 4.35 4.21 3.80 2.79 2.93 2.34 2.28 1.97 i I * * * File Q2 Written to Disk 4~z Hydrographs # 2 + 3 + 4 + Added to make Hydrograph # 5 Peak Flow = 163.1762 * * File Q2 Written to Disk SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD Routing Hydrograph 5 thru a Basin, Outflow Hydrograph is 7 Outlet Pipe(s) Diameter = 1 in Btm Sl ope = .002 Length = 50 ft Manning's n = .013 Entrance Loss Ke = .5 No. of Pipes = 1 Pipe Inv below Basin Btm = 0 Storage data entered from keyboard Time Inflow Outflow Storage Water Flow Over (hrs) (cfs) (cfs) (ac-f t) Depth (ft) Weir (cfs) 12.00 2.00 0.00 0.72 0.12 12.25 3.58 0.00 0.78 0.13 12.50 7.08 0.00 0.89 0.15 12.75 9.97 0.00 1.06 0.18 13.00 12.26 0.00 1.29 0.22 13.25 13.90 0.00 1.56 0.27 13.50 35.17 0.00 2.07 0.36 13.75 132.44 0.00 3.80 0.65 14.00 163.18 0.01 6.86 1.17 14.25 155.02 0.01 10.14 1.72 14.50 139.10 55.94 12.60 2.12 19.50 .75 113.02 116.75 13.43 2.25 58.81 ~~.00 62.85 91.76 13.09 2.20 40.98 15.25 66.97 68.48 12.77 2.15 26.42 15.50 43.58 57.03 12.62 2.12 20.07 15.75 41.10 44.29 12.45 2.10 13.74 16.00 29.33 36.42 12.34 2.08 10.24 « < Summary of Results » > Max INFLOW = 163.18 cfs at 14 Max OUTFLOW= 116.75 cfs at 14.75 Max STORAGE= 13.43 ac-ft at 14.75 Max DEPTH = 2.25 ft at 14.75 which is .25 ft over weir Total INFLOW = 24.94 ac-ft Total OUTFLOW = 13.09 ac-ft Storage at end of 24 hours = 11.85 ac-ft Hydrograph # 7 Calced * * * File Q2 Written to Disk 9Z SANTA BARBARA iTRBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD - PARTIAL LIST OF FLOW ARRAY 22:42:58 "~~dgph # 1 2 3 4 5 7 Hydgph Hydgph Hydgph Basinr Addhyd Basinr 7.OOhrs 1 0 0 1 1 0 7.25hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0 7.SOhrs 1 0 0 1 1 0 7.75hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0 B.OOhrs 1 0 0 1 1 0 8.25hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0 8.50hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0 8.75hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0 9.OOhrs 1 0 0 1 1 0 9.25hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0 9.50hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0 9.75hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0 10.00hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0 10.25hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0 10.50hrs 1 0 0 1 2 0 10.75hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 i1.00hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 11.25hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 11.SOhrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 11.75hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 12.OOhrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 12.25hrs 4 0 0 3 4 0 .SOhrs 7 1 1 6 7 0 ~~.75hrs 9 1 1 8 10 0 13.OOhrs li 1 1 10 12 0 13.25hrs 12 1 1 12 14 0 13.50hrs 33 4 3 28 35 0 13.75hrs 118 16 13 104 132 0 14.OOhrs 165 16 16 131 163 0 14.25hrs 133 5 11 139 155 0 14.50hrs 107 2• 7 130 139 56 14.75hrs 86 1 5 108 113 117 i5.00hrs 70 0 3 60 63 92 15.25hrs 56 0 2 65 67 68 15.SOhrs 45 0 1 42 44 57 15.75hrs 37 '0 1 40 41 44 16.OOhrs 30 0 1 29 29 36 16.25hrs 24 0 0 26 26 29 16.50hrs 19 0 0 20 20 24 16.75hrs 16 0 0 16 17 19 17.OOhrs 13 0 0 13 13 15 17.25hrs 10 0 0 11 11 13 17.SOhrs 9 0 0 9 9 10 17.75hrs 7 0 0 7 7 8 18.OOhrs 6 0 0 6 6 7 18.25hrs 5 0 0 5 5 6 18.50hrs 4 0 0 4 4 5 "'.75hrs 3 0 0 3 3 4 .OOhrs 3 0 0 3 3 3 19.25hrs 2 0 0 2 2 3 19.50hrs 2 0 0 2 2 2 19.75hrs 2 0 0 2 2 2 20.OOhrs 2 0 -0 2 2 2 COST ESTIMATES nrc~eicnwl SPRINGS DRAIN 1~GE PROJECT NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION A-1 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST CONSTRUCTION 2 - 72" CIP storm drains, 5 to 10 ft of cover 800 LF ~ =$210.00 $168,000.00 Concrete Wing Wall Inlet 2 EA $6,000.00 $12,000.00 Concrete Wing Wall Double Inlet 1 EA $16,000.00 $16,000.00 Outlet facilities at creek 1 LS $175,000.00 . $175,000.00 Ditch Excavation (900 ft, avg 4.5 ft deep) 4275 CY $4.00 $17,100.00 Finish Grading 135000 SF $0.10 $13,500.00 Subtotal $401,600.00 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGEN CY $461,840.00 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Permanent Easements Dixson -Open ditch on Ag property (1100 x 50-70) 1.38 ACRES $18,000.00 $24,840.00 Caldwell -Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200.00 Stilwell -Underground pipe in RR zone (598 x 30) 0.41 ACRES $16,000.00 $6,560.00 Stilwell -Underground pipe in RR zone (varies) 0.07 ACRES $16,000.00 $1,120.00 Stilwell - Dftclt maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00 Subtotal -Permanent Easements 2.23 $42,640.00 Temporary Easements Stilwell -Construction in RR zone (598 x 30) 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280.00 Subtotal -Temporary Easements 0.41 $3,280.00 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $45,920.00 PROJECT COST SUMMARY Total Construction Cost $461,840.00 Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $45,920.00 Subtotal $507,760.00 Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding, Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at 35% $177,716.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST $685,476.00 ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $690,000.00 NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs 4/4/98 NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION A-2 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST CONSTRUCTION Ditch Excavation (1750 x 10'avg depth) 2269 CY _ $4:00 .. $9,076.00 West Outlet facilities at Creek 1 LS $175,000.00 $175,000.00 Bridge ~ Cherry 1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000.00 Bridge @ Myrtle 1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000:00 Finish Grading 135000 SF $0.10 $13,500:00 Subtotal $497,576.00 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGEN CY $572,212.40 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Permanent Easements Dotson -Open ditch on Ag property (1100 x 50-70) 1.38 ACRES $18,000.00 $24,840:00 Caldwell -Bridge across road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200.00 Stilwell -Open Ditch in RR zone (598 x 30) 0.41 ACRES $36,000.00 $14,760.00 Stilwell -Open Ditch in RR zone (varies) 0.07 ACRES $36,000.00 $2,520.00 Stilwell - D'RCh maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $4,500.00 Subtotal -Permanent Easements 2.23 $48,820.00 Temporary Easements Stilwell -Construction in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280.00 Subtotal -Temporary Easements 0.41 $3,280.00 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $52,100.00 PROJECT COST SUMMARY Total Construction Cost $572,212.40 Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $52,100.00 Subtotal $624,312:40 Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding, Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at 35% $218,509.34 TOTAL PROJECT COST $842,821.74 ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $840,000.00 NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs 4/4/98 NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION A-3 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST CONSTRUCTION 2 - 72" RCP storm drains, 5 to 10 tt of cover 800 LF . $210.00 . $168,000.00 1 - 48" RCP storm drain, 5 to 10 ft of cover 700 LF $90.00 $63,000.00 Branch Mill Road Ditch Excavation (1100 x 3.5) 1039 CY $4.00 $4,156.00 Concrete Wing Wall Inlet 3 EA $6,000.00 $18,000.00 Concrete Wing Wall Double Inlet 1 EA $16,000.00 $16,000.00 , Outlet facilities at creek 1 LS $175,000.00 $175,000.00 ' Finish Grading 135000 SF $0.10 $13,500.00 $457,656.00 Subtotal $526,304.40 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Permanent Easements Dixson -Open ditch on Ag property (1100 x 50-70) 1.38 ACRES $18,000.00 $24,840.00 Caldwell -Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200.00 Stilwell -Underground pipe in RR zone (598 x 30) 0.41 ACRES $16,000.00 $6,560.00 Stilwell -Underground pipe in RR zone (varies) 0.07 ACRES $16,000.00 $1,120.00 Stilwell -Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00 Subtotal -Permanent Easements 2.23 $42,640.00 Temporary Easements Stilwell -Construction in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280.00 Subtotal -Temporary Easements 0.41 $3,280.00 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $45,920.00 PROJECT COST SUMMARY Total Construction Cost $526,304.40 Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $45,920.00 Subtotal $572,224.40 Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding, Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at 35% $200,278.54 TOTAL PROJECT COST $772,502.94 ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $770,000.00 ~. `NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs 4/8/98 „` . '~.. „~ NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION B-1 DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST CONSTRUCTION Branch Mill Road Ditch Excavation (1100 x 3.5) 1039 CY $4.00 , $4,156.00 48" CIP Store Drain (5 to 10 feet of cover) 800 LF $90.00 $72,000.00 Concrete Wing Wall Inlet 2 EA $3,500.00 $7,000.00 Outlet facilites for 48" Stone Drain 1 LS $110,000.00 .$110,000.00 Ditch Excavation (1900 x 10' avg depth) 2463 CY $4.00 $9,852.00 Equipment Crossing (60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 4 EA $70,000.00 -$280,000.00 Outlet facilities at creek 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000.00 Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00 Recording Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00 Subtotal $657,208.00 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $755,789.20 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Permanent Easements Open ditch in AG zone (2000 ft x 90ft) 4.13 ACRES $18,000.00 $74,340.00 Dixson -Open ditch on AG property (900 x 30) 0.62 ACRES $18,000.00 $11,160.00 Caldwell -Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200.00 Stilwell -Underground pipe in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $16,000.00 $6,560.00 Stilwell -Underground pipe in RR zone 0.07 ACRES N/A $4,500.00 Subtotal -Permanent Easements 5.38 $98,760.00 Temporary Easements Construction in AG zone (2000 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00 Stilwell -Construction in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $4,500.00 Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.71 $13,700.00 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $112,460.00 PROJECT COST SUMMARY Total Construction Cost $755,789.20 Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $112,460.00 Subtotal $868,249.20 Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding, Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at 35°/, $303,887.22 TOTAL PROJECT COST $1;172,136.42 ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $1,170,000.00 NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs 4/5/98 NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION B-1 DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST CONSTRUCTION Branch Mill Road Ditch.Excavation (1100 x 3.5). 1039 CY $4.00 $4,156.00 48" CIP Storm Drain (5 to 10 feet of cover) 800 LF $90.00 $72,000.00 Concrete Wing Wall Inlet 2 EA $3,500.00 $7,000.00 Outlet facilRes for 48" Stonn Drain 1 LS $110,000.00 . $110,000.00 Ditch Excavation (1900 x 10' avg depth) 2463 CY $4.00 $9,852.00 Equipment Crossing (60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 3 EA $70,000.00 $210,000.00 Outlet facilities at creek 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000.00 Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00 Recording Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00 Subtotal $587,208.00 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $675,289.20 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Permanent Easements Open ditch in AG zone 2000 ft x 90ft) 4.13 ACRES $18;000.00 $74,340.00 Dixson -Open ditch on AG property (900 x 30) 0.62 ACRES $18,000.00 $11,160.00 Caldwell -Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES WA $2,200.00 Stilwell -Underground pipe in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $16,000.00 $6,560.00 Stilwell -Underground pipe in RR zone 0.07 ACRES N/A $4,500.00 Subtotal -Permanent Easements 5.38 $98,760.00 Temporary Easements Construction in AG zone (2000 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00 Stilwell -Construction in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $4,500.00 Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.71 $13,700.00 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $112,460.00 PROJECT COST SUMMARY Total Construction Cost $675,289.20 Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $112,460.00 Subtotal $787,749.20 Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding, Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at 35°/, $275,71222 TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,063,461.42 ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $1,060,000.00 NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs 4/5/98 NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION B-1 DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST CONSTRUCTION Branch Mill Road Ditch Excavation (1100 x 3.5), 1039 CY $4.00 $4,156.00 48" CIP Stomt Drain (5 to 10 feet of cover) 800 LF $90.00 ; ' $72,000.00 Concrete Wing Wall Inlet 2 EA $3,500.00 $7,000.00 Outlet facilHes for 48" Storm Drain 1 LS $110,000.00 $110,000.00 Ditch Excavation (1900 x 10' avg depth) 2463 CY $4.00 $9,852.00 Equipment Crossing (60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 2 EA $70,000.00 $140,000.00 Outlet facilities at creek 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000.00 Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200:00 Recording Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00 Subtotal $517,208.00 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15°k CONTINGENCY $594,789.20 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Permanent Easements Open ditch in AG zone (2000 ft x 90ft) 4.13 ACRES $18,000.00 $74,340:00 Dixson -Open ditch on AG property (900 x 30) 0.62 ACRES $18,000.00 $11,160.00 Caldwell -Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200:00 Stilwell -Underground pipe in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $16,000.00 $6,560.00 Stilwell -Underground pipe in RR zone 0.07 ACRES N/A $4,500.00 Subtotal -Permanent Easements 5.38 $98,780.00 Temporary Easemenfs Construction in AG zone (2000 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00 Stilwell -Construction in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $4,500.00 Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.71 $13,700.00 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $112,460.00 PROJECT COST SUMMARY Total Construction Cost $594,789.20 Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $112,460.00 Subtotal $707,249.20 Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding, Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at 35% $247,537.22 TOTAL PROJECT COST $954,786.42 ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $950,000.00 NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs 4/5/98 NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION B-2 DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST CONSTRUCTION Dftch Excavation (1900 x 10' avg depth) 2463 CY $4.00 $9,852.00 Equipment Crossing'(60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 4 EA $70;000.OG -'$280,000.00 East Outlet facilities at Creek 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000.00 Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00 Recording Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00 Subtotal $464,052.00 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $533,659.80 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Permanent Easements Open ditch in AG zone (2000 ft x 90ft) 4.13 ACRES $18,000.00 $74,340.00 Stilwell -Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00 Subtotal -Permanent Easements 4.13 $82,280.00 Temporary Easements Construction in AG zone (2000 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00 Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.30 $9,200.00 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $91,460.00 PROJECT COST SUMMARY Total Construction Cost $533,659.80 Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $91,460.00 Subtotal $625,119.80 Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding, Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at 35% $218,791.93 TOTAL PROJECT COST $843,911.73 ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $840,000.00 NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs 4/5/98 NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION B-2 DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST CONSTRUCTION Ditch Excavation (1900 x 10' avg depth) 2463 CY $4.00 $9,852.00 EquipmenYCrossing (60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 3 'EA $70,000.OC ' .$210,000.00 East Outlet facilities at Creek 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000.00 Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00 Recording Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00 Subtotal $394,052.00 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGEN CY $453,159.80 RIG HT OF WAY ACQUISITION Permanent Easements Open ditch in AG zone (2000 ft x 90ft) 4.13 ACRES $18,000.00 $74,340.00 Stilwell -Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00 Subtotal'-Permanent Easements 4.13 $82,260.00 Temporary Easements Construction in AG zone (2000 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00 Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.30 $9,200.00 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $91,460.00 PROJECT COST SUMMARY Total Construction Cost $453,159.80 Total Right of Way Acquisition Cosh $91,460.00 Subtotal $544,619.80 Design, Processing and Pernitting, Bidding, Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at 35% $190,616.93 TOTAL PROJECT COST $735,236.73 ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $740,000.00 NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs 4/5198 NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION B-2 DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST CONSTRUCTION Ditch Excavation (1900 x 10' avg depth) 2463 CY $4.00 $9,852.00 EquipmenYCrossing (60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 2 EA $70,000:00 $140,000.00 East Outlet facilities at Creek 1 LS $100;000.00 $100,000.00 Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00 Recording Stream Gage ~ 1 LS $65,000:00 $65,000.00 Subtotal $324,052.00 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGEN CY $372,659.80 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Pennanerrt Easements Open ditch in AG zone (2000 ft x 90ft) 4.13 ACRES $18,000.00 $74,340.00 Stilwell -Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00 Subtotal -Permanent Easements 4.13 $82,260.00 Temporary Easements Construction in AG zone (2000 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00 Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.30 $9,200.00 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $91,460.00 PROJECT COST SUMMARY Total Constnidion Cost $372,659.80 Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $91,460.00 Subtotal $464,119.80 Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding, Testing, Contrail Administration, and Inspection at 35% $162,441.93 TOTAL PROJECT COST $626,561.73 ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $630,000.00 NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs 4/5/98 NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION B-3 DESCRIPTION QUANTI UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST CONSTRUCTION Branch Mill Road Ditch Excavation (1100 x 3.5) 1039 CY $4.00 $4,156.00 48" CIP Stom Drain (5 to 10 feet of cover) 1500 LF - $90.00 ` $135,000.00 Concrete Wing Wall Inlet 3 EA $3,500.00 $10,500.00 Outlet facilites for 48" Storm Drain 1 LS $110,000.00 $1.10,000.00 2 - 90" CIP storm drains, 5 to 13 ft of cover 2100 LF $365.00 $766,500.00 Inlet Falicities for Double 90" 1 LS $60,000.00 $60,000.00 Outlet facilities at creek 1 LS $175,000.00 $175,000.00 Subtotal $1,261,156.00 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15°k CONTINGEN CY $1,450,329.40 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Permanent Easements Underground Pipe in AG property (2100 x 30) 1.45 ACRES $8,000.00 $11,600:00 Dixson -Pipe and Ditches in AG zone (1100x30+-) 0.76 ACRES $2,000.00 $1,520.00 Caldwell -Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200.00 Stilwell -Underground pipe in RR zone (598 x 15) 0.21 ACRES $16,000:00 $3,360:00 Stilwell -Underground pipe in RR zone (varies) 0.07 ACRES $16,000.00 $1,120.00 Stilwell -Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00 Subtotal -Permanent Easements 2.86 $27,720.00 Temporary Easements Construction in AG zone (2100 x 50) 2.41 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,640.00 Stilwell -Construction in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280:00 Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.82 $12,920.00 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $40,640.00 PROJECT COST SUMMARY Total Construction Cost $1,450,329.40 Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $40,640.00 Subtotal $1,490,969.40 Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding, Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at 35% $521,839.29 TOTAL PROJECT COST $2,012,808.69 ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $2,010,000.00 NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs anlsa Construction in AG zone (1500 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00 Stilwell -Construction in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280.00 Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.71 $12,480.00 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $142,040.00 PROJECT COST SUMMARY of Contract Administration, and Inspection at ~35% ~ ~ _~ ~ $305,963.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST ~ ~ $1,180,143.81 TED NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs 4/5198 Construction in AG zone (1500 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00 Stilwell -Construction in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280.00 Subtotal -Temporary. Easements 2.71 $12,480.00 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $142,040.00 PROJECT COST SUMMARY Construction Subtotal 35% Contract Administration, and Inspection at 788.21 PROJECT COST PROJECT NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs 4/5/98 Construction in AG zone (1500 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00 Stilwell -Construction in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280.00 Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.71 $12,480.00 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $142,040.00 PROJECT COST SUMMARY Contract Administration, and Inspection at PROJECT COST 3.21 NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs 4/5/98 NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION C-1 DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST CONSTRUCTION , Branch Mill Road Ditch Excavation (1100 x 3.5) 1039 CY $4.00 $4,156.00 48" CIP Storm Drain (.5 to 10 feet of cover) 800 LF $90.00 $72,000.00 Concrete Wing Wall Inlet - 2 EA $3,500.00 _ '$7,000.00 Outlet facilites for 48" Storm Drain 1 LS $110,000.00 $110,000.00 Ditch Excavation (1900 x 9' avg depth) 2322 CY $4.00 $9,288.00 Equipment Crossing (60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 4 EA $70,000.00 $280,000.00 Outlet facilities at creek 1 LS $80,000.00 $80,000.00 Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00 Recording Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00 Subtotal $636,644.00 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $732,140.60 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Permanent Easements Open ditch in AG zone (1500 ft x 90ft) 3.10 ACRES $18,000.00 $55,800.00 Full Value of Lot in AG zone (2.4 Ac) 2.40 ACRES $20,000.00 $48,000.00 Dixson -Open ditch on AG property (900 x 30) 0.62 ACRES $18,000.00 $11,160.00 Caldwell -Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200.00 Stilwell -Underground pipe in RR zone (598 x 15) 0.21 ACRES $16,000.00 $3,360.00 Stilwell -Underground pipe in RR zone (varies) 0.07 ACRES $16,000.00 $1,120.00 Stilwell -Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00 Subtotal.- Permanent Easements 6.77 $129,560.00 Temporary Easements Construction in AG zone (1500 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00 Stilwell -Construction in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280.00 Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.71 $12,480.00 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $142,040.00 PROJECT COST SUMMARY Total Construction Cost $732,140.60 __ Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $142,040.00 Subtotal _ $874,150.60 Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding, Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at 35% $305,963.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,180,143.81 ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET 1,180,000.00 NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs 4I8I98 NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION C-1 DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST CONSTRUCTION Branch Mill Road Ditch Excavation (1100 x 3.5) 1039 CY $4.00 $4,156.00 48" CIP Storm Drain (5 to 10 feet of cover) 800 LF $90.00 $72,000.00 Concrete Wing Wall Inlet 2 EA $3,500.00 $7,000.00 Outlet facilites for 48" Storm Drain 1 LS $110,000.00 $110,000.00 Ditch Excavation (1900 x 9' avg depth) 2322 CY $4.00 $9,288.00 Equipment Crossing (60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 3 EA $70,000.00 $210,000.00 Outlet facilities at creek 1 LS $80,000.00 $80,000.00 Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00 Recording Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00 Subtotal $566,644.00 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $651,640.60 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Permanent Easements Open ditch in AG zone (1500 ft x 90ft) 3.10 ACRES $18,000.00 $55,800.00 Full Value of Lot in AG zone (2.4 Ac) 2.40 ACRES $20,000.00 $48,000.00 Dixson -Open ditch on AG property (900 x 30) 0.62 ACRES $18,000.00 $11,160.00 Caldwell -Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200.00 Stilwell -Underground pipe in RR zone (598 x 15) 0.21 ACRES $16,000.00 $3,360.00 Stilwell -Underground pipe in RR zone (varies) 0.07 ACRES $16,000.00 $1,120.00 Stilwell -Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00 Subtotal -Permanent Easements 6.77 $129,560.00 Temporary Easements Construction in AG zone (1500 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00 Stilwell -Construction in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280.00 Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.71 $12,480.00 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $142,040.00 PROJECT COST SUMMARY Total Construction Cost $651,640.60 Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $142,040.00 Subtotal $793,680.60 Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding, Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at 35% $277,788.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,071,468.81 EST IMATED PROJECT BUDGET $1,070,000.00 NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs 4!8/98 NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION C-1 DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST CONSTRUCTION Branch Mill Road Ditch Excavation (1100 x 3.5) 1039 CY $4.00 $4,156.00 48" CIP Storm Drain (5 to 10 feet of cover) 800 LF $90.00 $72,000.00 Concrete Wing Wall Inlet 2 EA $3;500.00 $7,000.00 Outlet facilites for 48" Storm Drain 1 LS $110,000.00 $110,000.00 Ditch Excavation (1900 x 9' avg depth) 2322 CY $4.00 $9,288.00 Equipment Crossing (60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 2 EA $70,000.00 $140,000.00 Outlet facilities at creek 1 LS $80,000.00 $80,000.00 Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00 Recording Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00 Subtotal $496,644.00 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $571,140.60 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION Permanent Easements Open ditch in AG zone (1500 ft x 90ft) 3.10 ACRES $18,000.00 $55,800.00 Full Value of lot in AG zone (2.4 Ac) 2.40 ACRES $20,000.00 $48,000.00 Dixson -Open ditch on AG property (900 x 30) 0.62 ACRES $18,000.00 $11,160.00 Caldwell -Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200.00 Stilwell -Underground pipe in RR zone (598 x 15) 0.21 ACRES $16,000.00 $3,360.00 Stilwell -Underground pipe in RR zone (varies) 0.07 ACRES $16,000.00 $1,120.00 Stilwell -Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00 Subtotal -Permanent Easements 6.77 $129,560.00 Temporary Easements Construction in AG zone (1500 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00 Stilwell -Construction in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280.00 Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.71 $12,480.00 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $142,040.00 PROJECT COST SUMMARY Total Construction Cost $571,140.60 Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost __ _ __ _ _ ___ $142,040.00 _ Subtotal _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ $713,180.60 Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding, Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at 35°/, $249,613.21 TOTAL PROJECT COST $962,793.81 ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET 960,000.00 NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs 4/8198 I ,~ 9.d. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING On TUESDAY, AUGUST 22, 2006, the Arroyo Grande City Council will conduct a public hearing at 7:00 P.M. in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET to consider the following item: PROPOSAL: Interim Urgency Ordinance Extending the Moratorium on the Suspension of Acceptance and Processing of Applications for Development of any Portion of Property Immediately Adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek, Tally Ho Creek, Meadow Creek, or Creek Tributaries within the City of Arroyo Grande. Consideration of an extension of Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 572 for a period of one (1) year. Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 572, adopted by the City Council on September 27, 2005, and extended on November 8, 2005, suspended acceptance and processing of building or grading permits or land use applications which seek to.improve or develop property within twenty-five (25) feet of the top of a creek bank or edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, abutting creeks or creek tributaries with the City of Arroyo Grande in order to study the current and immediate threat of such development to the public health, safety and welfare. The extension of the moratorium created by the interim urgency ordinance will allow the City time to study and develop legislation or procedures to protect and minimize the impacts of development in the vicinity of creeks. LOCATION: Citywide APPLICANT: City of Arroyo Grande STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Rob Strong, Community Development Director The Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the item listed above. If you challenge the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Failure of any person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the action of the legislative body for which the notice was given. Information relating to these items is available by contacting Arroyo Grande City Hall at 473-5414. The Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20. Kelly Wetmdre, C~fty Clerk Publish 1T, The Tribune, Friday, August 11, 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL ~j FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR(/ BY: TERESA MCCLISH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER 1~~ SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE EXTENDING THE SUSPENSION OF ACCEPTANCE AND PROCESSING OF NEW APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ANY PORTION OF PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO ARROYO GRANDE CREEK, TALLY HO CREEK, MEADOW CREEK OR CREEK TRIBUTARIES WITHIN THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE (STAFF NO. 05-007) DATE: AUGUST 22, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Interim Urgency Ordinance to extend the suspension of acceptance and processing of new applications for development of any portion of property immediately adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek, Tally Ho Creek, Meadow Creek or creek tributaries within the City of Arroyo Grande. FUNDING: No impact other than staff commitment to continue necessary studies. DISCUSSION: On September 27, 2005 the City Council of Arroyo Grande adopted Ordinance 572 entitled "An Interim Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande Suspending Acceptance and Processing of Applications for Development of any Portion of Property Immediately Adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek, Tally Flo Creek, Meadow Creek or Creek Tributaries within the City of Arroyo Grahde". Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(a), the initial Interim Urgency Ordinance was effective fora 45-day period ending November 11, 2005, and was extended for ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days, by adoption of Ordinance 574 on November 8, 2006. This ordinance would extend the current moratorium for up to one year, also pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(a). Attachment 1 is the staff report for the initial extension of the moratorium from the September 27, 2005 City Council meeting that discusses the serious health and safety concerns related to development in close proximity to creeks. During the moratorium, staff has studied the impacts created by development adjacent to creeks and is in the process of formulating draft procedures and protections to minimize such impacts. Given the Planning Commission request for ample opportunity for public CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 22, 2006 Page 2 of 4 input regarding any proposed regulations to address development of creek properties, it is recommended that the interim ordinance be extended to allow for completion of the draft study and alternatives analysis, continued discussion with other agencies and an ample public comment period, prior to bringing the draft study for review by advisory bodies including the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Architectural Review Committee and the Planning Commission for comment and recommendation to the City Council. The attached interim urgency ordinance will extend the moratorium through August 22, 2007. A four-fifths vote is required to adopt this Ordinance. During the previous several months, staff from Community Development and Public Works has completed the following items: • Research existing and historical conditions in the watershed, including field wet and dry season photo documentation and description of streams in the City, San Luis County habitat maps for the watershed, City drainage data, review of historical photos and descriptions, and evaluation of data from existing reports for the Watershed including those prepared for or by Central Coast Salmon Enhancement: Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed Management Plan -Geomorphic and Hydrologic Conditions Assessment, 2005 ("Swanson Study"), Stream Inventory Report for Arroyo Grande Creek, 2004, Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed Management Plan, 2005, and including others as well as information concerning the Meadow Creek tributaries such as the Pismo Lake Enhancement Plan, 2003. • Survey of other jurisdictions for policies and regulations on creek setbacks and/or buffers (Seventeen jurisdictions responded, and setbacks ranged from 15 ft. in Colma to 100 feet for certain creeks in Salinas. • Survey of the number of parcels abutting creeks in the City and number of structures within the stream bank area and within 25 ft. from top of bank or edge of riparian vegetation. • Map/aerial photo preparation of all creeks and drainage ways in the City • Inventory of land use, easements and owriership of parcels abutting creeks • Compilation of ordinances (including Buffer Model Ordinances from the stormwatercenter), waterway plans and applicable policies of other jurisdictions for setbacks, run-off criteria, and low impact development • Attendance at local low impact development presentations, September 2005 and June 2006) • Status and discussion of the Creek Study at Planning Commission, February 7, 2006 • Research other jurisdictions post construction run-off criteria. Wallace group prepared the Detention Basin Analysis, dated June 28, 2006. • Evaluate other watershed management frameworks and agreements in California • Discussions with other agencies and groups, including the San Luis Coastal Resource Conservation Department (RCD), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWACB), California Department of Fish and Game, US Fish and Wildlife, County of San Luis Obispo, City of Grover Beach, and Central Coast Salmon Enhancement. S:\CommuniTy Development\PROJECTS\STAFFOS-007 creek moratorium\CC urg ord sr 082206.doc CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 22, 2006 Page 3 of 4 • A "Creek Workgroup" was created in February 2006 and meets monthly, consisting of the City Manager, staff from Community Development and Public Works, and representatives from the RCD, NRCS and Salmon Enhancement. • The City hosted a Public Forum in collaboration with the RWOCB, RCD, Salmon Enhancement on May 31, 2006 to provide information on programs relating to the Watershed and to gain public input. • Assisted the City Attorney in the preparation of a Draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed and presented to the City Council for authorization for distribution to involved parties, including 15 agencies and groups to ensure coordinated management of the Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed. Staff is progressing on developing draft alternatives for the following: • Amendment of General Plan policies and Development Code provisions specific to watershed management, creek protection and prevention of increased runoff to the detriment of downstream users; • Setbacks/buffers based on creek characteristics within the City limits (stream classification and slope of creek bank); • Environmental evaluation criteria for cumulative impacts from increased runoff on the regional drainage system; • Potential for reducing impermeable surfaces by creating a mitigation fund; • Land use incentives and regulations to reduce impacts to creeks and related habitat from new development by preventing or controlling land use in sensitive areas, implement controls to limit land impacts while accommodating growth, including some site design considerations and coordinating criteria for open space, lot coverage and impermeable surface coverage; • Integration of Storm. Water Drainage Master Plan and land use regulations to 1) incorporate long-term post construction storm water Best Management Practices (BMPs) into development projects and significant redevelopment projects to protect water quality and control run-off flow; 2) manage stormwater to retain the natural flow regime and water quality, including not altering baseline flows in receiving waters and not allowing untreated discharges to occur into existing aquatic resources; • Amending procedures for the long term private and public maintenance of creek setback/buffer areas, including easement management, offers of dedication and acquisition of open space • Engaging in discussions with other agencies and incorporating comments into the Draft MOU In order to develop policies that are comprehensive rather than piecemeal, staff requires additional time to complete the creek report with recommendations and an alternative analysis, acquire additional public comment, and bring the information back to the City Council. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for Council consideration: S:\Community Development\PR07ECTS\STAFFlOS-007 creek moratorium\CC urg ord sr 082206.doc CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 22, 2006 Page4of4 ^ Adopt an Interim Urgency Ordinance suspending acceptance and processing of development applications for properties on or adjacent to creeks within the City of Arroyo Grande and direct staff to continue the necessary studies considering all foreseeable ramifications of allowing the development on or adjacent to creeks; ^ Modify and adopt the attached Ordinance; ^ Do not adopt the attached Ordinance; or ^ Provide direction to staff. Attachments: 1. September 27, 2005 City Council Staff Report 2. Letter to the Mayor from the RWQCB dated July 27, 2006 S:\Communiry DevelopmentV'ROJECTS\STAFF\OS-007 creek moratorium\CC urg ord sr 082206.doc INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE TO EXTEND THE SUSPENSION OF ACCEPTANCE AND PROCESSING OF NEW APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ANY PORTION OF PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO ARROYO GRANDE CREEK, TALLY HO CREEK, MEADOW CREEK OR CREEK TRIBUTARIES WITHIN THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the environmental sensitivity and the need for City policy to reflect and contribute to environmental protection and preservation of the Arroyo Grande Creek, Tally Ho Creek, Meadow Creek and associated tributaries; and WHEREAS, the City Council .believes it is in the best interest of the public to maintain protection of its riparian resources in order to maintain an equilibrium between the natural feature of, and manmade alterations to, the City's creek and riparian environment, and in order to preserve the scenic beauty of these important natural resources and the recreational, aesthetic and economic benefits they provide; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the necessity for creek buffers that contribute to streambank stabilization, allow for vegetative cover and reduction of water temperature, offer a setback distance for intensive uses, provide a source of food, nesting cover, and shelter for wildlife, intercept pollutants and manage other environmental concerns, and increase environmental sustainability; and WHEREAS, amongst these other environmental factors, the City Council is aware that portions of these creeks are known to provide critical habitat for flora and fauna protected under the Endangered Species Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the updated General Plan which became effective November 10, 2001 and requires a comprehensive review and necessary revisions to the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code and Zoning Map for consistency, in accordance with Government Code Section 65860; and WHEREAS, the 2001 General Plan include a Agricultural, Conservation and Open Space Element which include the following principals: • Resources that are irretrievable and/or irreplaceable need to be protected and preserved. • Individuals and the community have a responsibility to future generations as well as to wildlife to preserve and protect finite natural resources. • Resource lands contribute to overall public health, safety and welfare beyond provision of basic necessities such as food, fiber and livelihood. • Land Use and urban development shall be managed and limited to that which can be sustained by the available resources and serviced by the circulation and other infrastructure systems; and INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 2 WHEREAS, Conservation and Open Space objective "C/OS2" of the Agricultural, Conservation and Open Space Element in the 2001 General Plan, is to "Safeguard important environmental and sensitive biological resources contributing to healthy, functioning ecosystem"; and WHEREAS, On July 12, 2005 the City Council of Arroyo Grande, by consensus, directed staff to evaluate the City's regulations, practices and procedures related to creek setback requirements and the implementation of related 2001 General Plan policies in the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element; and WHEREAS, the City has identified concems and impacts directly related to development adjacent to creeks that are not adequately or consistently addressed through the City's policies and regulations including erosion, alteration of creek banks, riparian habitat protection, rapid sedimentation, recreation and trail dedication, enforcement of provisions of dedicated creek easements, measurement of top of creek bank, non-conforming structures on creek banks and feasibility of development on non-conforming and/or antiquated lots that include creeks and riparian habitat; and WHEREAS, the City believes the City's environment is an integral and essential aspect of the City's economic viability and overall well being; and WHEREAS, there are inconsistencies between the City's 2001 General Plan Land Use Map that designates all creeks and areas surrounding creeks within the limits of the City of Arroyo Grande as Conservation/Open Space and the City's Zoning map that zones areas of Arroyo Grande Creek and Tally Ho Creek and often adjacent deeded Pacific Coast Railroad properties as Public Facilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council, Planning Commission, other boards and committees and City staff have had to address these inconsistencies which have made the development review and approval process confusing, time-consuming, inefficient and potentially detrimental to the health safety and general welfare of the community; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes these aforementioned concerns and inconsistencies related to development adjacent to creeks and riparian habitat may have a permanent long lasting negative affect on the health and welfare of its environment and potentially its economic viability; and WHEREAS, this ordinance is an urgency ordinance for the protection of the public health, safety, economy and welfare of the citizens of the City of Arroyo Grande that shall become effective immediately upon its approval by the affirmative votes of at least four members of the City Council. The City Council deems that it is critically necessary to protect habitat along creek corridors from encroachment of development that may contribute to the aforementioned issues. The City Council seeks to ensure that development occurs in a logical and orderly fashion within the City, and to study the effects of setbacks, buffers and other provisions that will implement the policies of the 2001 General Plan. Consequently, the City Council seeks to avoid permitting development in areas adjacent to creeks that may contribute to cumulative ecological, recreational and land use impacts and determine INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 3 possible mitigation measures or other procedures and protections to minimize the impacts of development in these areas; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to promptly study and re-evaluate the designation of areas adjacent to creeks within the limits of the City of Arroyo Grande consistent with the 2001 General Plan. WHEREAS, On September 27, 2005 the City Council of Arroyo Grande, adopted Ordinance 572 entitled "An Interim Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande Suspending Acceptance and Processing of Applications for Development of any Portion of Property Immediately Adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek, Tally Ho Creek, Meadow Creek or Creek Tributaries within the City of Arroyo Grande" (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "suspension of creek property development"), which Ordinance expires forty-five days from the date of its adoption pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(a); and WHEREAS, On November 8, 2005, the City Council of Arroyo Grande, adopted Ordinance 574 entitled "An Interim Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of Arroyo Grande to extend the suspension of acceptance and processing of New Applications for Development of any Portion of Property Immediately Adjeacent to Arroyo Grande Creek, Tally Ho Creek, Meadow Creek or Creek Tributaries within the City of Arroyo Grande" which ordinance expires 10 months and 15 days from the date of its adoption pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(a); and WHEREAS, On August 22, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider extending the suspension of creek property development for a period of one year, pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(a). NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: For the foregoing reasons which are incorporated herein, pursuant to the authority vested in the City Council by California Government Code Section 65858, this urgency ordinance shall create a moratorium on acceptance and processing of building or grading permits or new land use applications which seek to improve or develop property within twenty-five (25) feet of the top of a creek bank or edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, abutting Arroyo Grande Creek, including its tributaries, (Tally Ho Creek, Spring Creek, Newsome Springs Creek and Los Berros Creek), or Meadow Creek, including its tributaries, within the City of Arroyo Grande in order to study the current and immediate threat of such development to the public health, safety and welfare. SECTION 2: This urgency ordinance is adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 and shall become effective immediately upon its adoption, and shall remain in force and effect thereafter for a period of one year, or until it is repealed by further action of the City Council. SECTION 3: Within fifteen (15) days after its passage, this ordinance shall be published once, together with the names of the Council members voting thereon, in a newspaper of general circulation within the City. INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 4 On motion by Council Member ,seconded by Council Member ,and by the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this day of INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 5 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 TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM ATTACHMENT1 FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BY: TERESA MCCLISH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE SUSPENDING ACCEPTANCE OR PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ANY PORTION OF PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO ARROYO GRANDE CREEK, TALLY HO CREEK, MEADOW CREEK OR CREEK TRIBUTARIES WITHIN THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE (STAFF NO.05-007) DATE: SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt an Interim Urgency Ordinance and direct staff to immediately prepare a study considering all foreseeable ramifications of allowing development of properties on or immediately adjacent to creeks within the City of Arroyo Grande. FUNDING: No impact other than staff commitment to immediate studies. DISCUSSION: On July 12, 2005 the City Council of Arroyo Grande, by consensus, directed staff to evaluate the City's regulations, practices and procedures related to development in close proximity to creeks and adjacent riparian habitat and wetlands, as well as the related implementation of 2001 General Plan policies in the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element. The 2001 General Plan and its integrated program FEIR included major new Agricultural, Open Space and Conservation Element policies (of which the City has recently implemented many concerning agriculture). There are six policy objectives related to conservation and open space, each with several supporting policies and implementing directions (Exhibit .~A,.) Although the City has some limited requirements for certain discretionary projects specified in Title 16 (Section 16.64.070.R) relating to the dedication of easements for sensitive areas, including 25 feet from top of creek bank, there are inconsistencies with updated General Plan policies, particularly concerning those related to safeguarding important environmental and sensitive biological resources, preventing sedimentation, erosion and alteration of streambanks, and pursuing possibilities for recreation and trail dedication for the benefit of CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 Page 2 of 2 the public welfare. Therefore, as a result of issues identified in the course of evaluating recent project construction and applications, it was deemed important to address the intent of these policies and clarify specific application prior to any future development proposals. Additionally, as the City approaches buidout and as land values increase, development or redevelopment of infill properties will continue at a rapid rate. Many of the remaining vacant properties contain sensitive resources, such as creeks or creek banks with critical habitat for plants and animals. In order to prevent development of such properties while studies are underway, the State Planning and Zoning Law, Government Code Section 65858, provides for certain "urgency measures' including interim zoning ordinances effective for 45 days and, after notice and hearing, capable of a 10 (plus) month initial extension with one possible subsequent extension for an additional year, each subject to a supermajority four-fifths vote requirement for adoption. Interim urgency ordinance adoption and extension must contain a finding that there is a "current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare and that the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits or any other applicable entitlement for use which is required in order to comply with a zoning ordinance would result in that threat to public health, safety and welfare" (Government Code Section 65858c). The City continues to receive many applications for development of properties that include portions of the creek or areas within 25 feet of top of creek bank or edge of riparian vegitation, and staff believes the probable receipt of such applications during necessary studies, General Plan or the Development Code amendment process can be determined to be an immediate and current threat to the public health, safety and welfare, if such urgency measures and findings are adopted by a 4/5 vote of the City Council. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for Council consideration: ^ Adopt an Interim Urgency Ordinance suspending acceptance or processing of development applications for properties on or adjacent to creeks within the City of Arroyo Grande and direct staff to immediately prepare a study considering all foreseeable ramifications of allowing the development on or adjacent to creeks; • Take no action; • Provide direction to staff. Attachment: Exhibit "A" -portions of the Agriculture, Open Space and Conservation Element of 2001 General Plan pertaining to Conservation and Open Space. S:\Communiry Development\PROJECTSVSTAFF105-007 creek moratorium\CC urg ord sr 092705.doc California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region Linda S. Adams. Secretary for EnvironnientaJ Protection 895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101, San Luis Obispo, California 93401-7906 (805) 549-3147 • Fax (805) 543-0397 h[tp://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centmlcoast s.:-. ~~{}*-~ July 27, 2006 Tony M. Ferrara Mayor City of Arroyo Grande P.O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 ~Il>t O~ ~,RscC7Y`3 G!2ANDE COQ.^P,1t1N!Tl' C~cVcLGPi~![ivT Arnold Suhwaaenegger Governor ATTACHMENT2 WATER BOARD SUPPORT FOR ARROYO GRANDE'S EFFORTS TO PROTECT-- STREAM AND RIPARIAN AREAS Dear Mayor Ferrara: This letter is to applaud the City's recent efforts to protect riparian areas in the Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed. We are greatly encouraged by the City's implementation of its Interim Urgency Ordinance Suspending Acceptance and Processing of Applications for Development of Property Immediately Adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek,. Tally Ho Creek, Meadow Creek, or Creek Tributaries within the City of Arroyo Grande (adopted 9/27/05). Water quality and riparian habitat are intricately linked, and they are critically important to the health-of the Arroyo-Grande .Creek-.Watershed. One. of our primary goals is to protect the basic structural and functional components of streams, including their protective buffer zones. The physical or structural stream system components necessary to protect water quality and associated beneficial uses are: -1. A sustainable riparian corridor, including "a protective buffer zone, for shade (temperature control), nutrient trapping, stream bank stabilization, and habitat for terrestrial and aquatic fauna. 2. A bankfull or active channel that allows for dynamic transport of sediment and which can support a diversity of physical habitats such as pools, riffles and point bars. 3. A protected floodplain to provide flood flow capacity, sediment storage, and nutrient trapping. Encroachment into the riparian corridor by development significantly compromises these system components and we encourage the City to continue its efforts to guide development into less sensitive areas. Califort:ia Environmental Protection Agency l~cled Paper Mayor Ferrara - 2 - July 27, 2006 The Water Board has several regulatory and planning tools available to protect riparian corridors, including permitting and certification requirements, implementation of water quality attainment plans to meet Total Maximum Daily Loads, funding of easement and acquisition projects, and interaction with other agencies and land owners to promote appropriate nonpoint source pollution management activities. Specifically, the Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Region (also known as the Basin Plan), Chapter 5, Plans and Policies, Section V.G.4 requires: - _ _ "A filter strip_of appropriate width, and consisting of undisturbed soil and riparian vegetation or its equivalent, shall be maintained, wherever possible,-between--~" significant land disturbance activities and watercourses, lakes, bays, estuaries, marshes, and other water bodies. For construction activities, minimum width of the filter strip shall be thirty feet, wherever possible as measured along the ground surface to the highest anticipated water line." To meet this requirement, development must be at least 30 feet from the creek edge whenever possible. Our Vision for the Central Coast is to maintain healthy functioning watersheds for future generations. For us to achieve this Vision, we have to work together and take bold action when necessary to protect riparian areas. We would like to extend our outreach with your staff regarding Low Impact Development techniques (presented by Donette Dunaway at the May 31, 2006 Arroyo Grande Creek Protection Policy meeting) and discuss how these-techniques-can-help-protect streams and creeks while. also allowing controlled development. If you have any questions or wish to discuss ways to coordinate on riparian protection, please contact our staff: For 401 Certification issues (activities in streams), contact Dominic Roques at 542-4780 (drogues(c~waterboards.ca.gov) For information on Low Impact Development, contact Donette Dunaway at 549-3698 (ddunawayCa~waterboards.ca.gov) Sincerely, ~'~J ' ~'~ w`,~ /Roger W. Briggs Executive Officer California Environmental Protection Agency ~a Recycler! Pnper i Mayor Ferrara - 3 cc: Teresa McClish Associate Planner, City of Arroyo Grande P.O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Paavo Ogren __ _ _ Deputy Director of Public Works _ _ County of San Luis Obispo County Government Center, Rm. 207 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Michael Winn Water Resources Advisory Committee Chair 148 S. Wilson St. P.O.Box 326 Nipomo, CA 93444 S:\Low Impact Development\LID outreach agendas and IettersWrroyo City ttr, July 2006.doc California Environmental Protection Agency ~a Recycled Pnper July 27, 2006