HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/17/2004, BUS6 - FOOTHILL BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 90197D council "' °°`Feb 17, 2004
j acEnaa aEpont ��H .
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Michael D. McCluskey, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Barbara Lynch, Assistant City Engineer
1
SUBJECT: FOOTHILL BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SPECIFICATION
NO. 90197D
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve plans and specifications for "Foothill Bridge Replacement Project, Specification No.
90197D."
2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids upon receipt of authorization from the State and authorize
the CAO to award the contract if the lowest responsible bid is no more than 5% over the
Engineer's Estimate.
3. Confirm the findings of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental
Impact Report for the Waterway Management Plan regarding overriding considerations on
flooding.
4. Approve Amendment 8 with Martin, Rivett & Olson for Construction Management and
Environmental Monitoring Services in the amount of $576,000 and authorize the Mayor to
execute the amendment.
5. Adopt a Resolution of Necessity for easements for the Foothill Bridge Replacement Project.
6. Authorize the CAO to enter an agreement with Meyer/Nave for legal assistance in filing
eminent domain actions not to exceed $70,000.
7. Appropriate $1,109,400 from grant funds and $277,300 from the General Fund ($250,800 from
the CIP Reserve and $26,500 from the General Fund unreserved fund balance) to provide
necessary funding for construction and to provide the required deposition of funds for eminent
domain.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The Foothill Bridge failed in the spring of 2001. Replacement bridge construction plans and
permits have now been prepared and the project is ready for the City Council to authorize the
advertising of the construction documents for Foothill Bridge. The existing double culverts will
be replaced with a clear span bridge, more acceptable to the regulating agencies than culverts,in
a phased two year project. The new structure will accommodate larger storms and reduce
flooding.
Assistance will be needed during the construction for both inspection and environmental
monitoring due to current staff commitments to other construction work. Staff is recommending
using the design and environmental consultants for the project to 1) provide smooth
communication between the design and construction staff and 2) consolidate claim liability.
Some environmental monitoring work in the second year may be completed by Natural
Resources Program staff as work loads allow.
1 � �
Foothill Bridge Replacement Construction and Right of Way,Specification No. 90197
Page 2
The last item needing resolution to allow for bidding is the acquisition of needed permanent and
temporary construction easements. Negotiations with property owners are underway but
incomplete. Staff is recommending proceeding with a Resolution of Necessity at this time on
two of the properties so that an Order of Possession can be obtained. The third property would
come to the Council at the March I" meeting if an agreement is not reached. Assistance from a
legal firm specializing in these kinds of actions is recommended due to the tight timeframe. The
Order of Possession will allow staff to apply for the construction funding for the project. Once
funding is approved, the project can advertise for bidding. Any significant delays to the project
now will result in a delay of the project until summer of 2005. Staff will be establishing some
temporary on street parking in the area to mitigate the loss of access to one of the properties
adjacent to the construction.
The project has an approved environmental document as well as all permits from regulatory
agencies. A Caltrans permit is anticipated soon, but only affects traffic control on Highway 1..
The construction is anticipated to cost $3,000,000, with construction management and
environmental monitoring estimated at $576,000. Acquisition of easements is expected to cost
$138,700 with an additional cost of $70,000 for contact legal counsel. Additional funding will
be required to cover these higher than budgeted for costs.
DISCUSSION
Background
In the spring of 2001 a noticeable depression developed on Foothill Boulevard at the Stenner
creek crossing east of Santa Rosa Street. This crossing consists of 2 -13 '2 foot corrugated metal
culverts. Public Works staff went into the culverts and observed that they were distorted. The
State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Structures Division was contacted and arrived the
next day to make an assessment of the culverts. Because of the severity of the distortion, the
State bridge inspectors believed the culverts were not salvageable and could be unstable. The
culverts had lost their curvature and the backfill necessary to support them appeared to have
migrated out from between them. The structure is estimated to have had a 20 year life span at
the time of construction in 1964. It is not only appropriate but highly recommended that the City
replace it. Caltrans produced a structures inspection report detailing the failure, clearing the way
for the City to obtain Federal funding. A reduced load limit was placed on the structure pending
the results of monitoring for continued settlement. The structure remained steady for a period
and then began settling again. At that time the decision was made to put a concrete lining in the
bottom of the culverts and install the temporary bridges currently in place.
Replacement Project
The Foothill Bridge Replacement Project will replace the existing circular culverts with a clear
span bridge. The existing culverts do not provide any natural creek bed for fish migration and
this type of construction is typically no longer approved by regulatory agencies. The new bridge
will span the creek, and although there will be rock protection to prevent undermining of the
lX r
Foothill Bridge Replacement Construction and Right of Way,Specification No.90197
Page 3
bridge walls, there will be native creek sands and gravels above the rock to allow for the
formation of a natural channel.
Sill walls are also being included as part of the new construction to prevent down cutting of the
channel. Down cutting is already evident downstream of the culvert and is being controlled
upstream of the current structures by the structures themselves. The sill walls will function in a
similar manner, preventing down cutting from migrating upstream. Down cutting of the channel
would eventually lead to bank failures upstream and possible threats to structures on or near the
channel, including the proposed bridge. The sill walls are sloped to provide a low point to allow
for fish passage during low creek flows.
The new bridge will be constructed in two phases in order to minimize the impact to traffic,
provide for adequate construction time and maintain existing utility connections.
Phase I(June 2004 to Nov 2004): During the first phase, eastbound traffic will be detoured, but
westbound traffic (toward Santa Rosa) will continue to flow. It is anticipated there will be some
congestion at the beginning of construction and again when school starts in the Fall, but that
drivers will quickly learn to approach the area on alternate routes. Staff will use all available
resources to keep the public informed of the construction, alert them to the closure and suggest
alternate routes.
Phase II (June 2005 to Nov 2005): During the second phase of construction, the new bridge
will be open on the south side and we will be able to provide one lane each way with bike lanes.
Staff must assemble several documents to complete the application for the construction funding.
Federal funding has been identified for use by this project, but the City cannot advertise for
construction bids until certain tasks have been completed, thus insuring all preliminary work
needed to complete construction is done. Especially important is proof that both the Federal and
State environmental documents have been completed and that the City owns, or has the
necessary easements over any property needed for the construction, or has obtained an Order of
Possession from the courts for the easements. Once staff completes the funding application and
the State authorizes the funding, the project can advertise for bids.
Storms and Flooding
The existing culverts do not pass a 100-year storm and in heavy storms, water exits the creek at
Foothill Boulevard and makes its way through the streets and properties in the area south of
Foothill Boulevard until it is able to rejoin the creek. The new bridge will pass the 100-year
storm. The hydraulic and flood studies for the bridge project show the channel is capable of
carrying this size storm. The water will still escape the creek at the next bridge at Murray Street.
From Murray Street south to where the flood water rejoins the creek, flooding would be similar
to the historical patterns until the City replaces the Murray Street bridge and perhaps the Santa
Rosa bridge downstream. After the new bridge is complete, the area between Foothill and
Murray will have a reduced flood risk.
�� 3
I
Foothill Bridge Replacement Construction and Right of Way,Specification No.90197
Page-4
The City has received a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approving the change in the flood boundaries. As a
part of the study required for the CLOMR, the existing flood patterns were analyzed using the .
aerial topographic survey recently completed for the Waterway Management Plan, supplemented
by field surveyed cross sections of the creek. The new study has a higher level of precision than
that completed for the original flood maps.
When the City proceeds with construction of the new bridge, 14 buildings will be removed from
the designated flood zone, including an intermediate care facility for the developmentally
disabled and an apartment building. There will be 3 residences and 2 office buildings added to
the flood zone. (See Attachment 1) Of these five structures, one of the office buildings is
located on a large property, a portion of which is already in the flood zone, thus this structure is
already "considered" to be in the flood zone and is on a raised foundation. Two of the other five
structures show to be already in the area subject to flooding, a difference from the existing flood
map. This is entirely a function of the increased precision of the new study for the CLOMR,
compared to the original study, and not a function of the bridge project. The remaining two of
the five added to the zone are a result of the passage of more water through the Foothill Bridge.
The increase height in flood elevation affecting these last two structures is a matter of inches but
both of these structures are currently on raised foundations so damage potential due to flooding
should be minimal.
Once the map revision becomes final, the new flood plain limits will take effect. The
information will be available to lending institutions at that time. Those properties with
mortgages, that do not currently have flood insurance, will be required to obtain flood insurance,
and those now outside the flood .zone will no longer be so required. For those properties on
raised foundations reductions in insurance are usual when an elevation certificate is provided
showing that the improvements are above the flood level. Property owners have been notified of
the change and of the Council's hearing of this item.
Confirm Statement of Overriding Considerations
The Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR)
for the Waterway Management Plan (WMP) was adopted on October 21, 2003. At that time it
was recognized that there would continue to be flooding but that there were overriding
considerations supporting the adoption of the plan. (See Attachment 2) As the Council decided,
the plan calls for design using a 100-year storm for Stenner Creek north of Chorro Street. But
due to a staff oversight, a different section of the plan was not modified to follow Council
direction and calls for the restriction of flows on the Foothill Bridge project to a 50-year storm
level. The project plans follow Council direction and follow the design guidelines adopted in the
WMP (designing the Foothill Bridge to pass a 100-year storm). Because of the conflict, staff has
been advised that the Council should affirm its earlier findings of overriding considerations prior
to authorizing bids for the project.
The overall goal of the WMP is to reduce flooding. Designing the Foothill Bridge to pass the
100-year event accomplishes that and a 50-year event design does not. While there is some
extension of the flood zone, it is anticipated that waters in this area will be very shallow and
4,
1
Foothill Bridge Replacement Construction and Right of Way,Specification No.90197
Page 5
those property owners will now be eligible for flood insurance to mitigate this change in the
flood zone. The findings and overriding considerations from the EIS/EIR of the WMP generally
state that if the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects,
then the effects may be considered acceptable. While the fact that additional properties would be
added to the flood zone was not known at the time the Negative Declaration was adopted for the
bridge project, the addition of properties to the flood zone is not significant under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in this case because of the benefits in reduced flooding,
fourteen structures removed and only two added as a result of the construction. The flood zone
will change again when the City and State replace the other bridges downstream. Thus it will
always be in a state of flux and future maps may remove the properties added with this project.
The original Statement of Overriding Consideration considered all aspects of the impacts of the
WMP and by affirming that Statement a second time, Council will be recognizing the most
recent data(14 eliminated and 2 added as a result of construction.)
Environmental review of this minor change to the project is sufficiently addressed in the WMT
EIS/EIR and, per section 15153 of CEQA, this EIR can be used in lieu of any additional
environmental review. The overriding considerations of the WMP are incorporated by reference.
Construction Management and Environmental Monitoring
A project of this size and complexity will require full time inspection. We anticipate the need for
two inspectors during certain portions of the work and to cover any extended work hours. The
Engineering Division does not currently have adequate staff to provide inspection for this project
due to the number of other projects occurring. It will be necessary to contract for the inspection.
Engineering is planning to provide the backup inspection staff to a) minimize the number of
contract inspectors required, b) train staff on bridge projects and c) provide continuity in the
event something happens to the contract inspector. The Federal Highway Administration requires
the City to provide a City employee who has received State registration in Civil Engineering, to
act as the Resident Engineer overseeing the project. Engineering will provide one engineer for
project oversight, which results in the loss of staff time for other design and project management
for the duration of the construction.
Natural Resources staff also expect a busy summer 2004 and will be unable to provide
environmental monitoring for this project for the first year. It may be possible for their staff to
provide the second year of monitoring and they will complete the three to five year follow up
monitoring of the habitat mitigation program required by the State and Federal regulating agencies.
The amendment to the consultant contract to provide the monitoring services allows the City to
determine at a later date whether the second year of environmental services will be needed. (See
Attachment 3)
In the past, staff has found that using the consulting firm that put together the environmental and
construction documents, has resulted in good coordination between the designers and inspection
during construction. This practice also consolidates liability in the event of a claim regarding
the project because the designers retain responsibility for construction decisions that change the
original design. Little, if any, cost advantage is anticipated by advertising for proposals for the
Foothill Bridge Replacement Construction and Right of Way,Specification No.90197
Page 6
inspection and monitoring. Costs generally represent the hours spent on the project that are
driven by the construction contractor not the consultant.
Right of Way &Resolution of Necessity
Bridge construction generally requires the use of adjacent properties to set up stream diversions,
dewatering operations, complete habitat mitigation planting required by regulating agencies,
stage construction operations and gain access to the creek. On past bridge projects, easements
have had little impact on property owners and so have been fairly easy to obtain. However,
negotiations for easements on this project have not gone as well as we hoped. In order for
construction to proceed, the City must have acquired the necessary easements. When
government agencies and private individuals cannot arrive at mutually agreeable easement
agreements, the fairest way to settle the matter is in the Courts where a judge will decide the
issue.
Discussions with property owners have been ongoing and all have received an offer of
compensation based upon the appraised value of the property. Unfortunately, at this time, the
City and the property owners have not come to agreement on compensation. Negotiations
cannot continue any longer without some resolution, as the resulting delays to the project will
eliminate an entire construction season. Therefore, the only course remaining that will enable a
summer 2004 construction is the use of eminent domain to acquire the necessary construction
easements.
Staff must complete a Right of Way Certification for this project before the State will authorize
funding for the construction of the project. The City certifies that all easements have been
acquired that are necessary for construction or that an Order of Possession has been obtained.
from the Courts that provides for those easements to be available in time for construction.
Funding must be authorized by the State before the project can advertise for bids and be
awarded. It will take about three months to complete the funding authorization, project bidding
and award. That means that the project is now on a critical timeline for start of construction this
summer.
The City, as a public agency, has the right to acquire property without an agreement in place
with the property owner, under certain circumstances. In order to do this, the City must make the
following four findings:
1. The public interest and necessity require the Project;
2. The Project is planned and located in the manner which will be most compatible with the
greatest public good and the least private injury;
3. The property interests sought to be acquired are necessary for the project;
4. The offer required by section 7267.2 of the Government Code of the State of California has
been made to the owners of subject property;
Once these findings are made, the City Council must pass a Resolution of Necessity that will be
filed with the Court, and then an Order of Possession will be obtained. This starts the process by
which the Courts determine the appropriate compensation for the easement. Often settlement is
6 '- to
r" I
Foothill Bridge Replacement Construction and Right of Way,Specification No.90197
Page 7
reached following the Order of Possession and prior to litigation ensuing. The driving force
behind this request for the City Council to adopt this Resolution of Necessity is the need to start
construction at the beginning of this summer.
To reiterate, all property owners have been provided notice, as required by law, of the City
Council's hearing of this item this evening. This allows the owners an opportunity to explain
why they believe the Council should not adopt this Resolution. Property owners were also
informed that the Council will not consider the issue of compensation at this time.
Staff has been working with the firm of Meyers/Nave and the City Attorney to provide legal
analysis, answer questions and review documents leading up to the Council's hearing of the
request for a Resolution of Necessity. This firm specializes in eminent domain proceedings and
staff is recommending that we continue to work with this firm as they are somewhat familiar
with the existing situation. There will be a fairly intense level of effort required to file the
paperwork for the Order of Possession in Superior Court. This is not a type of work that staff is
familiar with and able to efficiently perform. Staff is recommending that the Council approve
additional funding for specialized outside legal assistance.
Necessity Findings
There are three property owners the City is currently dealing with for easements. Two of these
properties are covered under the Resolution of Necessity before the Council tonight. The third
property will come before the Council at the March 151 meeting. Each property has more than
one easement to be acquired. The property affected at the fourth "corner" of the project already
has an easement over it adequate for the work anticipated. (See Attachment 4) Of the four
findings necessary for the Council to make in order to approve the Resolution of Necessity, items
1, 2 and 4 listed above, are fairly straightforward. The fact that the bridge exists now and
Foothill is a major City traffic corridor serving both the University and Sierra Vista Hospital
speaks to the public need for the project. As to the placement of the bridge, here again, the
alignment and location of Foothill Boulevard already exist. To alter the alignment would cause
greater damages to adjacent properties than leaving it in the existing location. The fourth item,
references offers made by the City. The City has, through a Right-of-Way agent, generated
appraisals and presented offers to property owners. These appraisals and offers are subject to
approval by the City Council.
Item 3 deals more directly with the necessity of the easements. To be comfortable with this
determination, Council may wish to review the attached maps of the easements to be acquired
(Attachment 4.) There are two types of easements the project requires. The first are the
permanent easements that encompass all the elements of the new structure so that the City has
the right to have the improvements on the property and so that maintenance and repairs can be
made in the future. While we already have some permanent easements in place, two more are
needed and are shown as easement numbers 6 and 7.
Temporary easements, the second type, provide the space and access necessary to build the new
bridge and complete the requirements set out by the regulatory agencies. These are easement
numbers 8, 8A, 9, 9A, 10, 12, 13 and 16. The regulatory agencies require the City to complete
�� r)
i
Foothill Bridge Replacement Construction and Right of Way,Specification No.90197
Page 8
areas of planting to mitigate the construction, to divert the live stream and remove silt resulting
from the work before water enters the live stream. All of these items take space that the City
does not own or have rights to.
The project phasing will limit the staging area available to the contractor on the street. The
property on the north side of the bridge provides the only good access to the creek. The site is
lower than the street making access much easier than from the other two sites. Easements 8 and
8A give the City access to the area next to the creek and easements 9 and 9A are areas for
staging and taking equipment and materials into the creek. While it may have been possible to
build an access ramp to the creek from the vacant lot at the southeast side of the project, staff
was informed early on by a representative of the owner that construction on that lot was
anticipated to occur at the same time as the bridge. Access from that side would also only be
good for the first year, as equipment accessing the area of the second phase of the project could
damage the new construction and the habitat placed during the first phase. Temporary easements
10, 12, and 13 are primarily for stream diversion and mitigation planting.
Easement number 16 is the most unique. It is temporary in nature, but closes the access to the
parking lot for the apartment building while the first phase of construction is underway. This
easement and easements 6 and 12 are not under consideration this evening and will be
considered at the Council's March I` meeting. The property owner in this instance received the
letter of offer from the City after the two properties that are being considered tonight.
Staff, working with the consultants,has reduced the size of these easements to what we believe is
the minimum to allow construction to reasonably occur. Thus, the easements are necessary for
the construction of the new bridge. (See Attachment 5)
CONCURRENCES
An Initial Study was prepared for the project and approved by the Architectural Review
Commission (ARC.) The ARC requested that the City set aside Public Art funds for this project.
On October 21, 2003 the Council considered the ARC request along with the recommendation of
staff to put this year's current public art money into other projects. Council approved public art
for four other locations and directed staff to consider Public Art money for the bridge in the next
budget cycle.
The City Tree Committee has reviewed and approved the removal of the trees and the
replacement tree planting for the project.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration was filed at the County, providing California environmental
clearance. A Categorical Exclusion was prepared by Caltrans and approved by the Federal Highway
Administration to comply with Federal environmental clearance requirements.
The Army Corps of Engineers has issued a.Permit, the Department of Fish& Game an Agreement,
the National Marine Fisheries Service a Biological Opinion and the Regional Water Quality Control
Board a Water Quality Certification for the project. Formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife
Service did not occur due to the lack of habitat for special species.
_ r q
Foothill Bridge Replacement Construction and Right of Way,Specification No. 90197
Page 9
FISCAL IMPACT
The bridge replacement is eligible for Federal Funding under the Highway Bridge Replacement
and Rehabilitation Program (HBRR.) This program pays 80% of the costs for environmental
review, property acquisition, design and construction of the replacement. The project was
identified in the 2003-05 Financial Plan, Appendix B, page 133 and currently has a balance of
$2,695,000 to support construction and $16,000 to support acquisition.
As summarized below, this project will cost approximately $1.4 million more to complete than
our current budget. Of this amount, the City's added obligation is $277,300. Staff has reviewed
the original cost estimate used for the 2003-05 budget request and the latest estimate submitted
by the consultants. The cost increases are in five-main areas:
1. Removal and disposal of contaminated soils was not covered in the original estimate.
2. Planting areas have increased substantially under requirements from the regulatory agencies.
3. Costs for excavation and backfill have gone up substantially.
4. Easement costs are higher than initially estimated as discussed above.
5. Construction Management was not included in the budget request.
Project Costs
Current Proposed Variance
Construction: t 2,695,000 3,000,000 305,000
- Construction Contingencies: 300,000 300,000
Construction Management: 576,000 576,000
- Construction Management Contingencies: 10,000 10,000
Acquisistion of Easements:
- Payments to Property Owners: 2 16,000 138,700 122,700
Legal Services: 70,000 70,000
Miscellaneous Costs: 3,000 3,000
Total $297119000 $4,097,700 $1,386,700
1. The original construction budget was$2,760,000 with.$65,000 spent to fund fees,additional design costs and site
maintenance.
2. $26,300 will be required for the two properties covered under the Resolution of Necessity before the Council
tonight. The remainder will be for the third property to be considered by the Council at their March I'meeting.
Project Fundin
Current Proposed Variance
HBRR Grant @ 80% 2,168,800 3,278,160 1,109,400
General Fund@ 20% 542,200 819,540 277,300
Total $2,7119000 $490979700 $19386,700
Foothill Bridge Replacement Construction and Right of Way,Specification No.90197
Page 10
Funding the City's Share. As reflected above, funding the City's share of this project will cost
an additional $277,300, bringing the total to $931,500. Of this amount, $250,800 can be covered
from the remaining balance in the CIP reserve, leaving $26,500 to be funded from the General
Fund unreserved fund balance.
Using the remaining funds in the CIP reserve for this high-priority project will close-out this
account for the remainder of 2003-05. As part of the 2004-05 Financial Plan Supplement, we
will evaluate the feasibility of restoring some or all this funding to the CIP reserve. However,
given our fiscal situation, this may not be possible. In this case, assuming we will want to avoid
further reductions in our operating reserve, this will mean that any future CIP project shortfalls in
other General Fund financed projects over the next fifteen months will have to covered by
deleting or deferring other CIP projects. The additional grant funding is received upon invoice
from the City showing expenditures have been made. It is anticipated about half of the funds
would come to the City in late 2004 with the remainder at the end of 2005.
In summary, while the project is more expensive than originally anticipated, we do not believe
that there are any realistic reductions in cost that can be made and still construct the needed
improvements this summer.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Do not confirm the Statement of Overriding Considerations. If the Council does not wish to
authorize these changes to the flood zone by approving the plans and specifications for the
construction, staff should be directed to revise the construction plans to restrict flow through the
structure to its current levels. A year's design and construction delay is most likely. Revised
permitting would be necessary.
2. Do not approve a Resolution of Necessity. Council could direct staff to continue negotiating
with property owners and await resolution of those negotiations until authorizing bidding. This
would delay the project for an additional year or more to allow time for agreements to be reached
and signed by the affected owners and even then there is not guarantee that agreements could be
reached.
Pros:
There is a possibility that an agreement can be reached with the property owners and
condemnation costs could be saved. This is only a possibility as property owners are
concerned about the unknown. By starting construction and then settling with them, they
will have a much better idea of the actual financial impacts to them before settling.
Cons:
The bridge has been operating at a substandard level of service since March of 2001
when the existing structures failed. To delay the project at this time would push the start
of construction off to the summer of 2005 with completion occurring in late 2006.
The current impacts to the traveling public would continue. These commuters are either
caught in the traffic backups on Foothill and Santa Rosa due to the single travel lanes, or
Lo, 1 O
Foothill Bridge Replacement Construction and Right of Way,Specification No.90197
Page 11
are detouring onto streets not meant to carry heavy traffic. There will be additional
maintenance costs for the existing temporary structures. The existing culverts have not
settled since the lining and temporary bridges were installed; however, there is still a
potential they will collapse. Agreements with regulating agencies will also need to be
renegotiated to authorize the different construction period.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 - Revised flood boundary map
Attachment 2 - Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations from the Waterway
Management Plan
Attachment 3 - Amendment for Construction Management and Environmental Monitoring
Attachment 4 - Map of easements to be acquired
Attachment 5 - Resolution of Necessity with Exhibits
Available in the Council office for Review:
Plans and Specifications
Enlarged color version of Attachment 4
g\-Mrrem pmg)Cs\bridgesl90197 bolhlll_smrmer britlgeldocumerds\7-staff mports190197d adv&mw.doc
Shortcut w Vdrive
Le
r t \
-�` _----~-_--____........-...
�
IL
IZ
RS
PtIL
ON
ca
LAJ
�
�
ATTACHMENT i
� zs z
9Q Xw
Q i J mW CL
W
00
J V
- Q
O O¢ ~ W uj Ouj
O
0 ti
o
IA
a' u
sw
dr
IS
• ����. (�� �� � 9 peri Y � 1J v'�.�, � � � � _
<� CF �A �c •' �A-G� L
o r a �
.� d Jill
IF
� - - ��` " � � >` ���� o Tri � cr== �'r _V' °' • ,.l�t�� ..., � � ,,.,,
O
,w,
Ld-
e
Findings
VIII. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA requires lead agencies to balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable
environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project
outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered "acceptable" (State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]). CEQA also requires, however, that where a lead agency
decision allows the occurrence of significant effects that are identified in the EIR and that are not
at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall support in writing the specific reasons for its
action. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the
administrative record (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[b]). This required statement is
referred to as a Statement of Overriding Consideration.
There has been recent legislation regarding this issue from Communities for a Better
Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002), Cal. App.4`h [No. C038844. Third Dist.
Oct. 28, 2002.1. The following is from this legislation:
On the concept of tiering, CEQA section 21094, subdivision (a) adds as relevant:
" Where a prior [EIR] has been prepared and certified for a program, plan,
policy, or ordinance, the lead agency for a later project that meets the
requirements of this section shall examine significant effects of the later project
upon the environment by using a tiered[EIR], except that the report on the later
project need not examine those effects which the lead agency determines were
either (1) mitigated or avoided ... as a result of the prior[EIR], or (2) examined
at a sufficient level of detail in the prior [EIR] to enable those effects to be
mitigated or avoided by site specific revision, the imposition of conditions, or by
other means in connection with approval of the later project."
Guidelines section 151521(3), including subsection 0(3)(C) at issue here, states as
relevant:
"69 A later EIR shall be required when the[pre-EIR] initial study or other analysis finds
that the later project may cause significant effects on the environment that were not
adequately addressed in the prior EIR ...[IV ...[¶J
"(3) Significant environmental effects have been 'adequately addressed' if the lead
agency determines that:
"(A) they have been mitigated or avoided as a result of the prior[EIR] ...;
"(B) they have been examined at a sufficient level of detail in the prior[EIR] to enable
those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site []specific revisions, the imposition of
condition, or by other means in connection with the approval of the later project; or
"(C) they cannot be mitigated to avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts.
despite the project proponent's willingness to accept all feasible mitigation measures,
and the only purpose of including analysis of such effect in another[EIR]would be to put
the agency in a position to adopt a statement of overriding considerations with respect to
the effects."
101812003 54
- actimCrrf Z - tof ,Z.
Findings
The EIR identifies one significant unavoidable adverse impact that cannot be fully mitigated.
This relates to the adoption of design flow regulations (for creek flows) that provide for a less
than 100-year level of flood protection. The adoption of these design flow regulations will result
in continued exposure of people and structures to flooding. While a 100-year level of flood
protection is not a requirement of any flood protection programs, including FEMA's Floodplain
Management guidelines, it is a common community goal of local, state, and federal flood
protection programs. However, this standard cannot be achieved in San Luis Obispo in a cost-
effective manner or without significant adverse impacts of major channel modifications.
Proposed design flows shown in the following Table 3 (from the WMP and DDM) were
confirmed by the City Council in January 2002 to be used for flood management planning.
Table 3 - Proposed Channel Design Flow Rates
Waterway' Proposed Design Flow
Major Waterways within the City of SLO
SLO Creek above confluence with Stenner Creek 40 year
SLO Creek below confluence with Stenner Creek to Madonna Road 20 year
SLO Creek from Madonna Road to Prado Road 50 year
Prado Road to Confluence with Prefumo Creek 100ear
SLO Creek frbin Prefumo Creek confluence to Urban Reserve Line 100 year
SLO Creek below Urban Reserve Line-maintain wdsting capacity Approx.10 year event(for much of reach
Sterner Creek from SLO Creek to Chorro Street 50 year
Stenner Creek from Chorro Street to Urban Reserve Line 100 year
Prefumo Creek within Urban Reserve Line 100 year
Old Garden Creek within Urban Reserve Line 25 year
East Fork of SLO Creek to Broad Street Varies3
Other Major Waterwa a 50 y6ztr
Seconds—Waterwa sb 25 ear
Minor WaterwayS6 10 year
1. For purposes of designating Design Flows,the required design capacities and design requirements,the system of creeks and
waterways in the SLO watershed is divided into major,secondary,and minor waterways. All existing and proposed conveyance
systems shall be analyzed and designed using the peak flows for the hydrographs developed per the procedures described in
Section 4 of the Drainage Design Manual to meet the design capacities.
2. 100-year protection can be provided with the Cuesta Park Detention Enhancement project.
3. East Fork of San Luis Obispo Creek is included in the Airport Area specific Plan. Standards and plans for flood management are
included in the plan and related environmental documents.
4. Other Major Waterways not named above and within the City Urban Reserve Line,or outside the City that have a drainage area of
over 10 km2 (4 sq.mi.)shall be designed for an average recurrence interval of 25 years with 0.6 m(2 ft)of freeboard,and shall
have sufficient capacity for a 50-year design discharge either by alternate surface routes(such as shallow street flow)or be
contained within the channel without freeboard.
5. Secondary Waterways have a drainage area of between 2.6 km2 and 10 km2(1 and 4 sq.mi.)and shall be designed for a stone
recurrence interval of 25 years,with 0.3 m(1 ft)of freeboard.
6. Minor Waterways have a drainage area of less than 2.6 km2 (1 sq.mi.)and shall be designed for a minimum stone recurrence
interval of 10 years,with 0.3 m 1 ft of freeboard.
Source: Table 5-2, WMP and DDM Section 5.2
Since the above design flows cannot provide a 100-year level of flood protection for all parts of
the community, their adoption is considered a significant unavoidable adverse impact and
requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Although the proposed design flows are an
improvement over the existing conditions, it is problematic to adopt Design Flows that continues
to expose people and structures to flooding.
10/8/2003 55
Mine h rnen74 .Z - log 3
Findings
The flood protection portion of the proposed action specifically relates to Category 3/Capital
Improvement Flood Control projects where the City will strive to meet Design Flows to reduce
flooding and adverse impacts to people and property.
Category 3/Capital Improvement projects were covered in the Programmatic EIS/R for the
purpose of reviewing the whole of the proposed project and for the purpose of determining
which activities would be eligible for inclusion in an Annual Work Plan for routine stream
maintenance and management. There are significant unavoidable adverse impacts associated
with the cumulative project that includes the Category 3/Capital Improvement projects that
would meet proposed Design Flows but continue to expose people and structures to flooding.
However, the WMP program activities and projects associated with flood management are
determined by the City Council to be superior to the existing policies and projects contained in
the "Pink Book". The economic and social benefits to the community, by providing some relief
from flooding when and if Category 3/Capital Improvement projects proceed forward, outweigh
the need for the City to meet a typical, but arbitrary, 100-year level of flood protection. This
Statement of Overriding Considerations applies to the policies regarding Design Flow
regulations and to Category 3/Capital Improvement projects only.
The Category 1 and 2 projects will not significantly alter flooding frequency; although they will
assist in reducing the effects of flooding by maintenance, management,habitat enhancement,and
aquatic habitat enhancement. Category 1 and 2 projects, in accordance with WMP standards,
will maintain existing channel conditions with respect to flood flow conveyance capacity, and
prevent further deterioration of conveyance capacity. This would not change the level of
flooding nor adversely affect existing conditions. Therefore, the activities that would be
permitted under the Annual Work Plan are not necessarily contributory to flooding nor would
they significantly assist flood reduction. For this reason, the City Council determines that the
impacts of maintenance and management through Category 1 and 2 projects are not significant
and would not require overriding considerations.
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council finds that the
preferred project may have significant effects on the environment but that these effects will be
lessened to insignificance by incorporation of the mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR
portion of this Programmatic EIS/R. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, section
15092[a,b] the City Council certifies that the Final EIR portion of the Programmatic EIS/R,
dated October 9, 2003 (including the Public Hearing Draft dated May 20,, 2003) has been
prepared in accordance with CEQA, and approves the project as recommended by Staff.
The City Council further finds that the projects for which additional environmental review would
be necessary include all projects identified as Category 3/Capital Improvement projects in the
Final EIR. Further action should not be taken on these projects until sufficient design
information is developed and submitted for review to ascertain potential impacts of these actions
on the environment and ensure that sufficient mitigation measures are incorporated into that
project design to reduce the significance of these impacts, including the possible need to review
the potential for Statement of Overriding Considerations.
10/8/2003 56
_ 4wac lim-craf .3 - P. /
Foothill Bridge at Stenner C,--x Consultant, ices Agreement—Amendment 8
Page 1 of 2
AMENDMENT EIGHT TO AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT EIGHT TO AGREEMENT is made and entered in the City of San Luis
Obispo on this day of , 2004, by and between the CITY
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, herein after referred to as City, and Martin, Rivett
& Olson Inc., Consulting Engineers hereinafter referred to as Consultant.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2001 the City entered into an Agreement with Consultant for
design and environmental services for the Foothill Street Bridge; and
WHEREAS, services are required during construction to inspect, test materials and monitor
the project;
WHEREAS, the City may be able to complete the second portion of the monitoring work, so
certain work item are to be authorized at a later time as noted in Exhibit A;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants
hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Authorization is given for additional work to provide construction related services in an
amount not to exceed $576,000 (See Exhibit A);
2. Items identified as optional services in Exhibit A shall only be undertaken upon written
approval of the City;
3. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed
the day and year first written above.
ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, A Municipal Corporation
By:
City Clerk Lee Price Mayor David F. Romero
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONSULTANT:
By:
CitJhttDKey Jonathan Lowell
g:\-=rem pmp=bndgBSW197 foothill sterner bndgaLdocuments%3-Weconstruc im%=sultant selemon&conlracPaQpilch sm.00c
Foothill Bridge at Stenner Crt�_,c' Consultant Services Ag, lent—Amendment 8 /Exhibit A
Page 2 of 2
Construction Tasks
Task Description Amendment Cost
1. Construction Management&Administration $369,000
2. Environmental Monitoring
2a. -Year 1 Monitoring $86,000
2b. - Post Construction Monitoring Year 1 ' $6,000
2c. -Year 2 Monitoring ' $81,000
2d. - Post Construction Monitoring Year 2 $ 6,000
3. Materials Sampling &Testing $28,000
Total Cost: $576,000
Footnotes:
1) Optional work item to be authorized separately in writing.
r/Ir �Y
I
`irk :•;
VI
I
PtaRl
`� IIII
♦t rw 1> �� <�s tl .■■ Ir II
ow
r's� ,f• s.••1 '•moi � � I �1���' �Y LLLLLLWr
1111
/i�1 � �. II 4 � l � �'Ir �� •�LLLc�
.( - le .•.. � �lgfid
i -� .,' ` ��,� ;1" bra V..•wy .�
.y ...im J'� `ll., nvroop2w _ .• O J� '� n •.�s
� I' ��: ��amu. • ..
I• _ �4
e;moi � z � "• k'�.. '
o
.J e +
•I ) O oo • O _ �� 1
•• '♦ 000 -1 \ \
00 y /1 OO
_ o Off'
�:. _ _ + 1 A �o�a� .•} ��`�._N to l��^ / J F
z
a� •�
r
Yb
I
i y •
a
•iJG• F,� , i )1
4N.0•in
NN F r•. Pr
d .� IE � � • 'Y1
. I
r
f
re-�.�ti�ts - Pay
RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN LAND AND
DIRECTING THE FILING OF EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS
FOR THE FOOTHILL BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Parcel Numbers:
052-252-026— 1050 Foothill Boulevard, San Luis Obispo
052.181-019— 1043 Foothill Boulevard, San Luis Obispo
052-181-022—55 Casa Street, San Luis Obispo
WHEREAS, it is desirable and necessary for the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo to acquire permanent easements and temporary construction easements in and to real
property more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part of by reference,
to construct the new Foothill Bridge and related facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo is vested with the power of
eminent domain to acquire said real property interests by virtue of Article 1, Section 19 of the
Constitution of the State of California, Health and Safety Code Section 5001 and Sections, 1240.010,
1240.020, 1240.030, 1240.040, 1240.050, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1250.110 of the Code of Civil
Procedure of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1245.235 of the Code of Civil Procedure
of the State of California, notice has been duly given to the owners of the subject property and whose.
names and addresses appear on the most recent San Luis Obispo County's equalization assessment
roll, all of whom have been given a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard before the City
Council of San Luis Obispo on the following matters:
a) Whether the public interest and necessity require the Project;
b) Whether the Project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with
the greatest public good and the least private injury;
c) Whether the interests sought to be acquired are necessary for the Project; and
d) Whether the offer to purchase required by Government Code section 7267.2 has been
submitted to the owners of the real property interests.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 7267.2 of the Government Code of the
State of California, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has made an offer to the owners
of the subject properties for just compensation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
1. The public interest and necessity require the Project;
2. The Project.is planned and located in the manner which will be most compatible with the
greatest public good and the least private injury;
3. The property interests sought to be acquired are necessary for the project;
4. The offer required by section 7267.2 of the Government Code of the State of California has
been made to the owners of subject property;
5. The City Attorney of the City of San Luis Obispo, or his duly authorized designee, is hereby
authorized and directed to institute and conduct to conclusion an action in eminent domain r- 0MM
R 1 V ,
�4wa c,Lt,nt.ct 5 - ,off ZZ
Resolution No. (2004 Series)
Page 2
for the acquisition of the estates and interests aforesaid and to take such action as he may
deem advisable or necessary in connection therewith;
6. An order for prejudgment possession may be obtained in said action and a warrant issued to
the State Treasury Condemnation Fund in the amount determined by the Court to be so
deposited, as a condition to the right of immediate possession.
Upon motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2004.
David F. Romero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lee Price,C.M.C.
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jona well
City Attorney
g:lcurrent propM\bddges\90197 fwthIII sterner brid*_d0ouments\7•staff reportsW197 res o1 neci.doc
h,c,d.c'."A - la l
Exhibit A
Legal Description
A portion of the land describedin the grant deed to Sierra Vista Hospital, INC, a
California corporation recorded, April 1, 1998 as Document No. 1998-018520 of Official
Records and a portion of the land described in the grant deed to Sierra Vista Hospital,
INC, a California corporation recorded October 28, 2001 as Document No. 2001-083565
of Official Records, in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of San Luis
Obispo, in the City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California,
more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the comer common to Sections 22; 23, 26 and 27 Township 30 South,
Range 12 East Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, on the northerly line of Foothill
Boulevard, as shown on the map of California Park Subdivision filed December 2, 1919
in Book 2, at Page 36 of Maps; in the Office of the County Recorder of said County,
marked by a brass cap as shown on a Record of Survey filed in Book 81 Page 31 of
Licensed Surveys in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, from which a
found tag stamped LS 7318 marking the intersection of Foothill Boulevard with Casa
Street cap as shown on said Record of Survey bears, north 81°23'03" east 114.936 meters
[north 79021'11" east 114.941 meters calculated from data per said Record of Survey],
Thence south 62°08'22" east 36.818 meters to the southerly line of Foothill Boulevard, 60
feet wide, as shown on said map filed in.Book 2, at Page 36 of Maps and the True Point
of Beginning;
Thence south 14'l 1'05" east 18.482 meters;
Thence south 05°13'51" west 4.687 meters;
Thence south 84°46'09" east 18.293 meters;
Thence north 05°35'08" east 14.369 meters;
Thence north 62'12'29" east 11.515 meters;
Thence north 16°25'05" east 7.485 meters;
raJ
iq-F(uc,G►,�,cx� 5
� FX.h.i.b i� �4 - �, z•
Thence north 44°25'55" east 7.155 meters;
Thence north 14°11'05" east 2.584 meters to a point on said southerly line, from which
said tag bears north 59°14'46" east 47.352 meters;
Thence westerly along said southerly line to the True Point of Beginning.
Excepting therefrom the land described in the grant deed to the City of San Luis Obispo
recorded in Volume 1292 of Official Records at Page 452 in the Office of the County
Recorder of said County.
Containing 0.0377 hectares(4,061 sq. f1.) more or less.
The above described piece of land is graphically shown on Exhibit `B" attached hereto
and made a part hereof.
��CSV
George Y. Marchenko LS 6964 Date
License Expiration Date: 9/30/2005
ExP�R�s
aR.CAUFCP
Sierrapermdoc
I r�
,4�h rnutf S
EXHIBIT111311 ,�K %6T,� A
Fd supertag
Section Corner "LS 7318"
Sections 22,23,26 and 27, per 81/LS/31�
T30S,R12E,MDM,
Fd 3.5" Brass Disk stamped "Black
Co Survey" per 81/LS/31 �02 —
Point of _
Commencement — — J 10 LID
' Vj
/�29,2 /452 �0c
L9� 2�0, N0
True Point `292/pF�I452 �0U6
\ of Beginning
\ containing
0.toes N LINE TABLE
Lot 30 m4oretor9less) LINE LENGTH rn BEARING
1 2/MB/36 Ll 1 18 S62'08'22'E
L2 18.482 S14'11'05'E
L3 4.687 S05'13'51'W
N1 Lot 31 L4 18.293 S84'46'09'E
2/MB/36 L5 14.369 N05035'68'E
\ J L6 11.515 N62`12'29'E
Doe. No. L7 7.485 N16'25'05'E
1998-018520 1-8 7.155 N44.25'55'E
L9 2.584 N14.11'05'W
L4 L10 73.280 N84631'18'W
L11 47.352 1 N59'14'46'E
DOc. No. L12 114.936 N81'23'03'E
2001-083565
( IN METERS ) �
10 0 5 10 S
�7 <
1 : 500
L8.8l64
A portion of the land described in the grant deed to Sierra Vista 9 P
Hospital, INC, o California corporation recorded. April 1, 1998 and
filed as Document No. 1998-018520 of Official Records, a portionCA1.tF�
of the land described in the corporation grant deed to Sierra Vista
Hospital, INC, a California corporation, recorded May 31, 2001 and 4q¢_
filed as Document No. 2001-038777 of Official Records and o
portion of the land described in the grant deed to Sierra Vista
Hospital. INC, a California corporation, recorded October 28. 2001
and filed as Document No. 2001-083565 of Official Records, in the
Office of.the County Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo,
State of California.
Sheet 1 of. 1 John L. Wallace & Associates xv
477-0001 sierroperm 1:500 8-19-03 1p, � � A
,Wash mixt '5
Exhibit A
Legal Description
That portion of the land described in the grant deed to Sierra Vista Hospital, INC, a
California corporation recorded, April 1, 1998 as Document No. 1998-018520 of Official
Records, in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo, in the
City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the corner common to Sections 22, 23, 26 and 27 Township 30 South,
Range 12 East Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, on the northerly line of Foothill
Boulevard, as shown on the map of California Park Subdivision filed December 2, 1919
in Book 2, at Page 36 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County,
marked by a brass cap as shown on a Record of Survey filed in Book 81 Page 31 of
Licensed Surveys in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, from which a
found tag stamped LS 7318 marking the intersection of Foothill Boulevard with Casa
Street cap as shown on said Record of Survey bears,north 81°23'03" east 1.14.936 meters
[north 79°21'11" east 114.941 meters calculated from data per said Record of Survey];
Thence south 51°45'22" east 30.011 meters to the southerly line of Foothill Boulevard, 60
feet wide, as shown on said map filed in Book 2, at Page 36 of Maps and the True Point
of Beginning;
Thence south 43°15'57" east 2.398 meters;
Thence south 43°15'57" east 5.892 meters;
Thence south 01°40'32 west 12.308 meters;
Thence south 88°21'43" east 5.018 meters;
Thence south 02°00'01" east 9.961 meters;
Thence south 23°49.'37" west 14.557 meters;
Thence south 84°42'49" east 26.067 meters;
Thence north 18°29'43" east 13.274 meters;
Thence north 01°33'38" east 6.574 meters;
Thence north 07°21'55" east 17.029 meters;
Thence north 39°08'11" east 4.448 meters;
Thence north 62°12'29" east 3.099 meters;
Thence north 16°25'05" east 7.485 meters;
Thence north 44°25'55" east 7.155 meters;
Thence north 14°11'05" west 2.584 meters to a point on said southerly line, from which
said tag bears north 59°14'46" east 47.352 meters;
Thence westerly along said southerly line to the True Point of Beginning.
Excepting therefrom that portion lying northerly of the following described line:
Commencing at said section comer, thence south 62°08'22" east 36.818 meters to the
southerly line of Foothill Boulevard, 60 feet wide, as shown on said map filed in Book 2,
at Page 36 of Maps and the Exception True Point of Beginning;
Thence south 14°11'05" east 18.482 meters;
Thence south 05°13'51" west 4.687 meters;
Thence south 84°46'09" east 18.293 meters;
Thence north 05°35'08" east 14.369 meters;
Thence north 62'12'29" east 11.515 meters;
Thence north 16°25'05" east 7.485 meters;
Thence north 44°25'55" east 7.155 meters;
Thence north 14°11'05" west 2.584 meters to a point on said southerly line, from which
said tag bears north 59°14'46" east 47.352 meters.
Also Excepting therefrom the land described in the grant deed to the City of San Luis
Obispo recorded in Volume 1292 of Official Records at Page 452 in the Office of the
County Recorder of said County.
Containing 0.0074 hectares (797 sq. ft.) more or less.
The above-described piece of land is graphically shown on Exhibit `B" attached hereto
and ma e a part hereof.
End of Description.
LAMNO
eA
4- N.
George Y. Marchenko LS 6964 Date VO O
License Expiration Date: 9/30/2005 J L&69M 9
Sierra 13.doc apn 052-181-019
9�OF GA�tF�P�
14`Ila4,/M4AVC 3
EXHIBIT "B"
Fd supertag
Section Corner IS 7318"
Sections 22,23,26 and 27, per 81/LS/31
T30S,R12E,MDM,
Fd 3.5" Brass Disk stamped "Black
CO Survey" per 81/1-S/31 L12 16 P
Point of 6(�0� o
Commencement g\ud N p-
�ootb*
66
True PointL10 pRI452 �Oc
of Beginnin Nj5.41 �9 1292 200,�41
Exception OR/ 2 O;
45
S89°17'40"E True Point 1292/ 38�
of Beginnin �j
Lot 30 N containing Doc. No.
o:oD74 1998-018520
hectares Lot 31
2/MB/36 a
(797 sq. ft.) x o, 2/MB/36
more or less J
w
LINE TABLE
L13 x
L4x
LINE LENGTH BEARING
� -�
L1 30.011 S51.45'22'E
00 L2 2.398 S43015'57'E
Doc. No. =, L3 5.892 S43°15'57'E
2001-083565 L4 12.308 S1.40'32'W
( IN METERS ) L5 4.448 N39°8'I1'E
o s 10 L6 3.099 N62°12'29'E
L7 7.485 N16.25'05'E
L8 7.155 N44.25'55'E
1 : 500 J L9 2.584 N14.11'05'W
L10 73.280 N84°31'18'W
L16 1-11 47.352 N59.14'46'E
L12 114.936 N81'23'03'E
EXCEPTION LINE TABLE u3 .961 sa8°21'0'1 E
L14 9.961 S2'0'1'E
LINE LENGTH BEARING L16 14.557 S23'49'37'W
L16 26.067 S84'42'49'E
Llx 36.818 S62.08'22'E L17 13.274 N18.29'43'E
L2x 18.482 S14.11'05'E L18 6,574 Nl°33'38'E
L3x 4.687 S05°13'51'W L19 17.029 N7.21'55'E
L4x 18,293 S84046'09'E
L5x 14.369 1 N05'35'08'E
L6X 11.515 N62'12'29'E
A portion of the land described in the grant deed to Sierra Vista
Hospital, INC, a California corporation recorded, April 1, 1998 and
filed as Document No. 1998-018520 of Official Records, in the
Office of the County Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo,
State of California.
Sheet 1 of 1 John L. Wallace & Associates
477-0001 sierro-13 1:500 01/28/04 apn 052-181-019 N'
i9-l�fci.ch mc�.,� 5
Exhibit A
Legal Description
A portion of the land described in the grant deed to Select Income Properties 6, a
California limited partnership recorded July 11, 1977 in Book 1993 of Official Records at
Page 600 of Official Records in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of San
Luis Obispo, in the City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, State of
California, being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the corner common to Sections 22,23,26 and 27, on the northerly line of
Foothill Boulevard, as shown on the map of California Park Subdivision filed December
2, 1919 in Book 2, at Page 36 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said
County, marked by a brass cap as shown on a Record of Survey filed in Book 81 Page 31
of Licensed Surveys in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, from which a
found tag stamped LS 7318 marking the intersection of Foothill Boulevard with Casa
Street cap as shown on said Record of Survey bears; north 81°23'03" east 114.936 meters
[north 79°21'11" east 114.941 meters calculated from data per said Record of Survey];
Thence south 89°17'58" east 6.667 meters to a point on the northerly line of Foothill
Boulevard, 60 feet wide, as shown on said map filed in Book 2, at Page 36 of Maps and
the True Point of Beginning;
Thence north 03°51'21" east 22.344 meters;
Thence south 86°44'18" east 16.574 meters;
Thence north 80°15'13" east 20.952 meters;
Thence south 07°33'01" east 5.664 meters;
r
rrlZA44 S
Exh,:4*4 log e
Thence south 80°51'10" west 20.780 meters;
Thence north 87°01'06" west 11.528 meters;
Thence south 01'51'08" west 16.672 meters to said northerly line;
Thence, along said northerly line, north 89°17'40" west 6.877 meters to the True Point of
Beginning.
Containing 0.0319 hectares (3,429 sq. ft.) more or less.
The above-described piece of land is graphically shown on Exhibit `B" attached hereto
and made a part hereof.
End of Description.
LMD s�
George a. Marchenko LS 6964 Date U��SRIC
License Expiration Date: 9/30/2005 0
L&6964
select6-8MA.doc
apn 052-252-026OF CALtFO�
� � u
EXHIBIT "B"
LINE TABLE
LINE LENGTH BEARING \
LO 6.667 N89'17'58'W
L1 22.344 NO3'51'21'E
L2 16.574 S86044'18'E
L3 . 20.952 N80°15'13'E \
L4 5.664 S07°33'01'E
L5 20.780 S80°51'10'W Doc. No. 2000-073535
L6 11.528 N87°01'06'W & 2001-002824
L7 16.672 S01451'08'W
L8 6.877 N89°17'40'W Parcel 1 of 37/PM/13
Section Corner Lot 29
Sections 22,23,26 and 27 2/MB/36
Fd 3.5" Brass Disk stamped ii0.0319hect6res c,°Qe
"Black CO Survey" per Contanng �
81/LS/31 1993/OR/600 (3,429 sq. ft.) Jca �y`
more or I ss. �o
Point of Commencement i
LL3
2
16 t 5 -------
114.936 114_936
J
Vo
0a
ALO L8 True Point Of �6
Beginning X55
X5'48
S89'17'40"E N
( IN MWER3 )
,o a s +o
1 : 800
A portion of the land described in the grant deed to
Select Income .Properties 6, a California limited
partnership recorded July 11, 1977 in Book 1993 of
Official Records at Page 600 of Official Records in
the Office of the County Recorder of the County of
San Luis Obispo, State of California.
Sheet 1 of 1 John L. Wallace& Associates
477-0001 select6-8&8A 1:800 01/28/04 opn 052-252-026 I ,.Pal
Exhibit A
Legal Description
A portion of the land described in the grant deed to Select Income Properties 6, a
California limited partnership recorded July 11, 1977 in Book 1993 of Official Records at
Page 600 of Official Records in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of San
Luis Obispo, in the City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, State of
California, being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the corner common to Sections 22,23,26 and 27, on the northerly line of
Foothill Boulevard, as shown on the map of California Park Subdivision filed December
2, 1919 in Book 2, at Page 36 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said
County, marked by a brass cap as shown on a Record of Survey filed in Book 81 Page 31
of Licensed Surveys in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, from which a
found tag stamped LS 7318 marking the intersection of Foothill Boulevard with Casa
Street cap as shown on said Record of Survey bears, north 81°23'03" east 114.936 meters
[north 79'2111" east 114.941 meters calculated from data per said Record of Survey];
Thence south 89°17'58" east 6.667 meters to a point on the northerly line of Foothill
Boulevard, 60 feet wide, as shown on said map filed in Book 2, at Page 36 of Maps;
Thence north 03°51'21" east 22.344 meters;
Thence south 86°44'18" east 16.574 meters;
Thence north 80°15'13" east.20.952 meters to the True Point of Beginning;
Thence north 09°33'54" west 6.494 meters;
Thence north 78°55'46" east 12.875 meters;
Thence south 14°22'16" west 7.441 meters;
Thence south 10°32'31" east 2.140 meters;
LQ a-
Awhe�tiauwf S
Thence south 53°25'20" west 11.278 meters to a point from which said tag stamped LS
7318 bears south 89°37'28" east 67.230 meters;
Thence north 10°59'54" west 1.570 meters;
Thence north 07°33'01" west 5.664 meters to the True Point of Beginning.
Containing 0.0122 hectares (1,312 sq. ft.) more or less.
The above-described piece of land is graphically shown on Exhibit `B" attached hereto
and made a part hereof.
End of Description.
t1WD
(o�."00,0000000L il
Z-Z- 04
George Y. Marchenko LS 6964 Date OQ p
License Expiration Date: 9/30/2005
�OR CALIFO��
select6-9.doc
apn 052-252-026
MiaeA m.t.p..f 3
EXHIBIT "B"
LINE TABLE
LINE LENGTH BEARING \
L0 6.667 S89°17158'E
L1 22.344 NO3'51'21'E
L2 16.574 S86'44'18'E
L3 20.952 N80°15'13'E \
L4 6.494 N09°33'54'W
L51 12.875 N78°55'46'E Doc. No. 2000-073535
L6 7.441 S14622'16'W & 2001-002824
L7 2.140 S10°32'31'E
L8 11.278 S53°25'20'W Parcel 1 of 37/PM/13
L9 1.570 N10°59'54'W
L10 5.664 N7'33'1'W \
True Point Of
Section Corner Beginning
Lot 29
Sections 22,23,26 and 27 2/MB/36
Fd �
3.5" Brass Disk stomped c`
Cont fining 0.0122hectores oQ
"Black CO Survey" per L5 `3. lb
81/LS/31 1993/OR/600 (more or less.
Point of Commencement —1 °�5
S 89'37'28" E
Ico 67=0 �- -- - --_%
JE 114.936
N $1.23'03 _-------- 0 0
- --------------- F00th\1\ B\vim N66 °�P.�
LO Oa,
e 55„
54
S89'17'40"E
n1 METERS
1 : 800
A portion of the land described in the grant deed to
Select Income Properties 6, a California limited
partnership recorded July 11, 1977 in Book 1993 of
Official Records at Page 600 of Official Records in
the Office of the County Recorder of the County of
San Luis Obispo, State of California.
Sheet 1 of 1 John L. Wallace & Associates
477-0001 select6-9 1:800 01/28/04 apn 052-252-026
Exhibit A
Legal Description
A portion of the land described in the grant deed to Select Income Properties 6, a
California limited partnership recorded July 11, 1977 in Book 1993 of Official Records at
Page 600 of Official Records in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of San
Luis Obispo, in the City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, State of
California, being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the comer common to Sections 22,23,26 and 27, on the northerly line of
Foothill Boulevard, as shown on the map of California Park Subdivision filed December
2, 1919 in Book 2, at Page 36 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said
County, marked by a brass cap as shown on a Record of Survey filed in Book 81 Page 31
of Licensed Surveys in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, from which a
found tag stamped LS 7318 marking the intersection of Foothill Boulevard with Casa
Street cap as shown on said Record of Survey bears, north 81°23'03" east 114.936 meters
[north 79°21'11"east 114.941 meters calculated from data per said Record of Survey];
Thence south 89117'58" east 6.667 meters to a point on the northerly line of Foothill
Boulevard, 60 feet wide, as shown on said map filed in Book 2, at Page 36 of Maps;
Thence north 03°51'21" east 22.344 meters;
Thence south 86°44'18" east 16.574 meters;
Thence north 80°15'13" east 20.952 meters to the True Point of Beginning;
Thence north 80°15'13" east 9.851 meters;
Thence south 10°32'31" east 10.754 meters;
Thence south 78'10'13" west 2.642 meters;
Thence north 10°24'12" west 5.190 meters;
Thence south 80°15'13" west 4.380 meters;
Thence south 53°25'20" west 3.478 meters to a point from which said tag stamped LS
7318 bears south 89°37'28" east 67.230 meters
Thence north 10°59'54" west 1.570 meters;
Thence north 07°33'01" west 5.664 meters to the True Point of Beginning.
Containing 0.0073 hectares (781 sq. ft.) more or less.
The above-described piece of land is graphically shown on Exhibit `B" attached hereto
and made a part hereof.
End of Description.
g O LMC S(i
llle,�11,,�Z 7-2-04
George Y. Marchenko LS 6964 Date * L,&6964
License Expiration Date: 9/30/2005 Eypi�e5 7�
9 9-3o-oS `Q.
op CAttF�
select6-9kdoc
apn 052-252-026
,4�facti au..�t 5
LINE TABLE \ EXHIBIT "B" "
LINE LENGTH BEARING \
LO 6.667 S89°17'58'E
L1 22.344 NO3°51'21'E
L2 16.574 S86044'18'E \
L3 20.952 N80°15'13'E
L4 9.851 N80.15'13'E
L5 10.754 S10°32'31'E Doc. No. 2000-073535
L6 2.642 S78°10'13'W & 2001-002824
L7 5.190 N10'24'12'W
L8 4,380 S80'15'13'W Parcel 1 of 37/PM/13
L9 3,478 S53°25'20'W
L10 1.570 N10659'54'W \
L11 5.664 N7"33'1'W
True Point Of
Beginning
Section Corner Lot 29
Sections 22,23,26 and 27 2/MB/36
Fd 3.5" Brass Disk stamped Q�
"Black CO Survey" per Cont ining 0.007 hectares �J0
81/LS/31 1993/OR/600 (781 sq. ft.) J�a1�1
mor or less. Fo
Point of Commencement L4
L3 /S 89'37'28" E
67M. O
J _-----N'8"1-23 p3"-E 14_936
` 111 61vd N66 0� 3� oo
----- Footh 11
ALO - � Og \
S89'17'40"E N
5'48 55"E
( IN METERS >
0 0 ! 10
1 : 800
A portion of the land described in the grant deed to
Select Income .Properties 6, a California limited
partnership recorded July 11, 1977 in Book 1993 of
Official Records at Page 600 of Official Records in
the Office of the County Recorder of the County of
San Luis Obispo, State of California.
Sheet 1 of 1 John L. Wallace & Associates
477-0001 select6-9A 1:500 01/28/04 apn 052-252=026
A#zmAm e ez 3
Exhibit A
Legal Description
That portion of the land described in the grant deed to Select Income Properties 6, a
California limited partnership recorded July 11, 1977 in Book 1993 of Official Records at
Page 600 of Official Records in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of San
Luis Obispo, in the City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, State of
California, lying southerly and easterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the comer common to Sections 22,23,26 and 27, on the northerly line of
Foothill Boulevard, as shown on the map of California Park Subdivision filed December
2, 1919 in Book 2, at Page 36 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said
County, marked by a brass cap as shown on a Record of Survey filed in Book 81 Page 31
of Licensed Surveys in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, from which a
found tag stamped LS 7318 marking the intersection of Foothill Boulevard with Casa
Street cap as shown on said Record of Survey bears, north 81°23'03" east 114.936 meters
[north 79°21'11"east 114.941 meters calculated from data per said Record of Survey];
Thence south 89'17'49" east 13.544 meters to a point on the northerly line of Foothill
Boulevard, 60 feet wide, as shown on said map filed in Book 2, at Page 36 of Maps;
Thence north 01°51'08" east 16.672 meters;
Thence south 87°01'06" east 11.528 meters;
Thence north 80°51'10" east 20.780 meters;
Thence south 10°59'54" east 1.570 meters;
Thence north 53°25'20" east 3.478 meters;
Thence north 80°15'13" east 4.380 meters;
Thence south 10°24'12" east 5.190 meters;
Thence north 78°10'13" east 2.642 meters to the True Point of Beginning;
Thence north 10°32'31" west 10.754 meters;
Thence north 14°22'16" east 7.441 meters;
Awla.eAi me0f 5
Thence north 03°15'42"east 7.442 meters;
Thence north 06°13'26" west 5.567 meters;
Thence north 12044'25" west 8.155 meters;
Thence north 24°03'47" west 11.291 meters;
Thence north 67047'42" east 8.615 meters;
Thence north 68°39'19" east 13.249 meters to a point from which said tag stamped LS
7318 bears south 37°37'00" east 70.420 meters.
Excepting therefrom that portion lying southerly of that certain course of the land
described in the deed of easement to the City of San Luis Obispo recorded in Volume
1315 of Official Records at Page 520 in the Office of the County Recorder of said County
having a bearing and distance of south 52°28' west 163.37 feet per said deed of easement
[south 53°25'20"west per this description].
Containing 0.0394 hectares (4,239 sq. ft.) more or less.
The above-described piece of land is graphically shown on Exhibit `B" attached hereto
and made a part hereof.
End of Description.
1JAND
George Marchenko LS 6964 Date * c� L&6964
License Expiration Date: 9/30/2005
select6-I O.doc OF CAL�F�
apn 052-252-026
5
LINE TABLE EXHIBIT "B"
LINE LENGTH BEARING
LO 13.544 S89°17'49'E \
L1 16.672 N01051'08'E
L2 11.528 S87'01'06'E \
L3 20.780 N80651'10'E
L4 1.570 S10'59'54'E
L5 3.478 N53'25'20'E
L6 4.380 N80°15'13'E
L7 5.190 S10024'12'E
L8 2.642 N78'10'13'E Doc. No. 2000-073535
L9 10.754 N10'32'31'W ,- &. 2001-002824
L10 7.441 N14°22'16'E
1-11 7.442 NO3°15'42'E 5 s Parcel 1 of 37/PM/13
L12 5.567 N06°13'26'W
L13 8.155 N12'44'25'W
L14 11.291 N24°03'47'W
L15 8.615 N67'47'42'E
L16 13.249 N68°39'19'E
Section Corner Lot 29
Sections 22,23,26 and 27 2/MB/36
Fd 3.5" Brass Disk stamped O Qe
Black CO Survey" per Containing 0.0394\"7
81 LS 31 1993/OR/600 hectares
/ / (4,239 sq. ft.)
Point of Commencement ,, more or lessi '
. �� ••��'
`6. I-
r-L2 �3
0 . �_�----- "�
11 1315/OR/52' � E 114.936 True Point Of
1J N Beginning
6
ookln
LO o6 08
N�5 55„E
S89'17'40"E
( IN MMM )
10 C 5 ,C
1 : 800
A portion of the land described in the grant deed to
Select Income Properties 6, a California limited
partnership recorded July 11, 1977 in Book 1993 of
Official Records at Page 600 of Official Records in
the Office of the County Recorder of the County of
San Luis Obispo, State of California.
Sheet 1 of 1 John L. Wallace & Associates
477-0001 select6-10 1:800 01/28/04 apn 052-252-026 J 'q0%x