HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1997 0702 CC REG ITEM 09Cary or mooRPA m cALPOM
City Council Meeting
of 1997.
ACTION:
BY,_...� AGENDA REPORT
�-L = T Y O F MOORPA�
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of
DATE: June 6, 1997 (Council Meeting 6- 18 -97)
'7a�d. ► aCio)
ITEM e.
CITY OF MOORPARK. CALIFORNIA
City Council Meeting
ACTION:
SUBJECT: Consider Approval of the Preferred Alternative Design
Concept for the Construction of Certain Drainage
Improvements Required for the Gabbert Canyon and Walnut
Canyon Watersheds, and Authorization for the City Manager
to Proceed, if Necessary, with Efforts to Develop a
Financing Program for Said Project
This report 1) presents for discussion a study pertaining to needed
regional drainage facility improvements; 2) requests approval of
the preferred Alternative Design Concept for those needed
facilities; and, 3) requests authorization for the City Manager to
proceed, if necessary, with efforts which may be required to
facilitate the development of a financing program for the
construction of those improvements.
DISCUSSION
A. Study
In response to concerns raised by City staff and the owners of
certain vacant properties being considered for development, the
Ventura County Flood Control District (VCFCD) retained the firm
of Robert Bein, William Frost do Associates (RBF), to prepare a
report assessing the existing conditions of, and the future
needs for, storm drain facilities serving the Gabbert Canyon and
the Walnut Canyon watersheds. That report was recently
completed and made available to the public. A copy of the Study
has been distributed to the City Council under separate cover.
Certain excerpts from the Study are attached hereto and listed
as follows:
Exhibit A: Executive Summary;
Exhibit B: a map showing the combined watersheds for both
Gabbert Canyon and Walnut Canyon;
Exhibit C: a copy of Section 12 defining the recommended
Design Alternative [Alternate B]; and,
Exhibit D: a copy of Section 11 pertaining to Financing.
Exhibit E: (Partial) List of Stakeholders
gabbert Q01
199 7
7/2 .
Gabbert Canyon / Walnut Canyon Study
June 18, 1997
Page 2
B. Existing, Conditions
It was known before the study was commissioned, that the
existing drainage facilities for the subject watersheds were
inadequate. These drainage facility deficiencies pose a number
of rather significant problems, including the following:
1. Many properties in and adjacent to the lower reaches of these
watersheds are subject to inundation during significant storm
events. These properties are shown on the Federal Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) as being in flood prone areas.
2. The lack of a definite plan for the resolution of these
problems has made it difficult to proceed with the
development of many of these properties. The impact of any
proposed property development, upon the design, nature and
cost of future needed storm drain facilities, has been
unknown.
The purpose and objectives of the RBF Study was to clearly
document the extent of the deficiencies and to recommend
alternative design concepts to resolve those deficiencies.
C. Improvement Techniques
The design alternatives which have been developed basically
utilize three approaches to construct improvements to the flood
control handling capacity of the facilities serving these
watersheds. Those techniques are generally described as
follows:
1. Channel Improvement: The modification and /or replacement of
existing facilities to increase capacity.
2. Detention: The construction of detention basins to hold
rather than convey peak storm flows.
3. Diversion: The construction on new facilities along new
alignments to divert storm flows away from existing
facilities in order to render those facilities adequate.
Note: In addition, the nature of
proposed in many of the
Alternatives allows or provides
segments of the existing flood
gabbert
the modifications
Conceptual Design
for the removal of
control facilities.
$(�'.(�a M 0 � IG�
M 020
Gabbert Canyon / Walnut Canyon Study
June 18, 1997
Page 3
D. Design Alternatives
Over seventy (70) separate alternative design concepts were
considered by RBF. All of those alternatives utilized various
combinations of the three design approaches described above.
Obviously, most of the tentative design concepts were discarded
for a variety of reasons (feasibility, costs, etc.). The Study
selected eight separate design alternatives which were developed
fully for consideration. Those options, which are briefly
described in Exhibit 'A' attached, are identified as Alternates
A through H.
In should be noted that all of the Alternatives discussed are
only conceptual in nature. The precise designs for the proposed
improvements have not yet been established. The exact shape,
size, and location of many of the improvements proposed will be
determined as a function of the design process. Once the
designs are determined, rights -of -way required for the selected
final design will be acquired.
E. Preferred Alternative
The recommended option is design Alternate B. This option is
described in more detail in Exhibit 'C' attached. As you can
see from Table E -2 in Exhibit 'A', the range of estimated costs
for all of the Alternatives is within ten percent (10 %). As a
result, cost was not a determining factor in arriving at the
recommended Alternate. Alternate B was selected because it is
believed to be the most reasonable approach offering a lesser
degree of adverse impacts upon affected properties.
F. Shasta Diversion
One element of the improvements proposed by Alternate B is the
construction of twelve feet wide by five feet deep (12' x 51)
covered box culvert to extend from the existing Walnut Canyon
box culvert north of the railroad tracks at a point just west of
Sierra Avenue, southerly along the west side of the rear of the
residential properties located on the west side of Shasta Avenue
[actual construction would occur along the easterly edge of the
industrial property) and then southerly across the vacant
property south of Los Angeles Avenue to the Arroyo Simi. The
purpose of this facility is to divert a maximum flow of 300 cfs
(cubic feet per second) to the south, rendering the existing
down stream Walnut Canyon box culvert better able to handle
storm flows from sources to the west. That portion of the new
facility south of Los Angeles Avenue would replace existing
VCFCD storm drains now located on the vacant property southwest
of the intersection of Los Angeles Avenue and Liberty Bell Road.
gabbert -
0000z1
Gabbert Canyon / Walnut Canyon Study
June 18, 1997
Page 4
G. Pacific Communities Builder, Inc. [Tract 50531
Pacific Communioties Builder, inc. is now in the process of
developing plans for the construction of a residential
development on the above mentioned vacant property located
southwest of Los Angeles Avenue and Liberty Bell Road (Tract
5053]. City staff, the developer and VCFCD have had meetings to
discuss the feasibility of including in those proposed
development plans, the construction of the southerly reach of
the above described Shasta diversion box culvert. It should be
noted that this property is not in the subject watersheds and
is, therefore, not obligated to fund any part of the cost for
these improvements. Regardless of that fact, the developer and
VCFCD are in the process of developing a financing mechanism
which will allow this construction to be undertaken by the
developer on behalf of the VCFCD. It is the goal of all
concerned that these facilities be constructed as a part of the
infrastructure improvements to be constructed for that
residential project.
H. Stakeholder's Meeting
on the morning of June 5, 1997, a meeting was held at the
Moorpark Community Center to discuss the subject report.
Although City staff hosted the meeting, the meeting was actually
conducted by representatives of the VCFCD and its consultant
(RBF). A number of owners of properties affected by the subject
study and its recommendations were invited to this meeting.
Lists of those invited and those in attendance are attached as
Exhibit 'E.' The purpose of the meeting was to allow the VCFCD
and its consultant (RBF) to explain the purpose, objectives,
methodology, findings, conclusions and. recommendations set forth
in the Study.
Those noted
notified in
discussed b
yon the above mentioned
writting that this
the City Council on
1 ! - _z !
lists (plus others) have been
matter is scheduled to be
June 18th.
Attached as Exhibit ' D' is a copy of Section 11 of the Study
pertaining to financing. This discussion generally describes
the options available to finance the construction of these
facilities. In the opinion of staff, it will be necessary to
retain the services of a consultant to "flesh -out" these and
other possible financing options. It is also the view of staff
that the key to success will be to enlist and involve the owners
of a number of potentially affected properties. Those affected
gabbert
.0
000022
Gabbert Canyon / Walnut Canyon Study
June 18, 1997
Page 5
properties may include some or all of the following: a)
properties contributing the storm flows; b) properties which
will be assessed for the proposed improvements; and c)
properties which will benefitted by the proposed improvements.
J. VCFCD Project
The existing and proposed facilities are and will be owned and
maintained by the VCFCD. As shown on Exhibit 'B' the watershed
areas extend well beyond the City limits. For these reasons
this project must be undertaken and administered by the VCFCD.
K. City Participation
As you know, a number of properties affected by this project are
within the City Limits. Many of those properties are proposed
to be developed in the near future. The timely implementation
of the subject project is seen to be a high priority of the
City. It may, therefore, be desirable for the City to
participate with the VCFCD in facilitating and expediting the
process required to seek and obtain financing for this project.
With the approval of the City Council, it would be the intent of
staff to work with the VCFCD to maximize those options. It is
proposed that all "out -of- pocket" City costs be funded by the
VCFCD. Such costs would be funded from either existing Walnut
Canyon / Gabbert Canyon drainage fees now retained by the VCFCD,
and /or by future revenues for the proposed project.
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Approval of the selection of design Alternate B for the
construction of certain drainage facility improvements for
the Gabbert Canyon and Walnut Canyon Watersheds.
2. Authorization for the City Manager to approve certain City
efforts to work with the VCFCD on the development of the
financing mechanism for the proposed project, provided that
all "out -of- pocket" City costs are funded by the VCFCD.
gabbert
000023
Is Executive Summary
The existing 1.57 miles of Gabbert Canyon Channel and 2.5 miles of Walnut Canyon Channel,
located in the City of Moorpark (see Regional Vicinity Map), consist primarily of improved concrete
channels which were originally constructed by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) between 1959
and 1962. These facilities collect and convey storm runoff to the Arroyo Simi from a total tributary
watershed drainage of 6.91 square miles. Comparison of the existing hydraulic capacities for the
flood control channel sections to the estimated runoff quantities indicates that the channels cannot
provide the desired level of flood protection. The limited hydraulic conveyance capacity of the
existing channel system results in a flood protection deficiency and is documented on the current
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City of Moorpark. The existing hydraulic capacities can
only provide conveyance which correspond to equivalent return periods as low as 5- years, depending
_ upon the location in the channel. This report presents a comprehensive engineering investigation
of the hydraulic deficiencies associated with this regional flood control channel system. The primary
objective of the study is to develop and evaluate alternative drainage improvements and stormwater
management measures that provide: (1) the necessary level of flood protection, (2) compatibility
with existing and future landuse, (3) provide the maximum public benefit for least costs, (4)
minimize impact to existing facilities, (5) eliminate hydraulic deficiencies, and (6) identify minimum
drainage requirements for future development within the watershed. The intent of this document is
to develop a conceptual design for a recommended system of comprehensive stormwater
management measures which will provide the watershed planning framework to allow
implementation of the regional flood control improvements and continued development within the
watershed.
Various combinations of individual storage and conveyance oriented flood control elements were
integrated into comprehensive system which would provide the required level of flood protection.
The conveyance system improvements included: (1) increasing the hydraulic capacity of the existing
channel section through either reconstruction to enlarge the section or extending wall heights, (2)
construction of a channel diversion systems to split a portion of the flow, (3) removal of hydraulic
restrictions, and (4) channel outlet relocation and reconstruction. The conveyance oriented
improvements primarily involved modifications to the existing channel sections in order to
t maximize the overall drainage system capacity with minimum acquisition of additional right -of -way.
The flood control storage alternatives included both on -line and off -line gravity operated stormwater
detention basins. The detention basins also incorporated requirements for debris storage. Detention
basin configurations and locations were developed to maximize available storage volume while
minimizing impact to property. Another primary consideration which limited the size of the flood
control storage facilities was to ensure that the detention were not within the jurisdiction of the
California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD).
The proposed correction of the flood control deficiency must be evaluated on a watershed basis
through the application of a systematic approach since the various drainage elements have a
Gabbert and Walnut Canyon Channels Executive Summary
Flood Control Deficiency Study ES -1
1111 ��
N,7
combined impact on the channel. The feasibility evaluation resulted in screening the available
channel "system" alternatives to a maximum of eight for detailed consideration, from a total of
ninety -eight which were developed in the plan formulation. The objective was to optimize the
effectiveness of the system through incorporating the existing facilities into the recommended
program to the maximum extent possible. The primary components associated with each of the eight
channel "system" alternatives are indicated in the Table E.1 - Summary Description ofAlternative
Channel Systems. All alternatives have some similar required construction elements which include:
(1) modification of Gabbert Canyon Debris Basin to provide detention storage, (2) additional
detention basins located upstream at the headworks of Walnut Canyon, adjacent to Gabbert Road,
and upstream of Casey Road, (3) channel reconstruction for the -1,900 -foot portion of Walnut
Canyon Channel downstream of High Street, and (4) all systems require improvement of 2,655- feet
Gabbert Canyon Channel between the Walnut Canyon Channel confluence and the existing Gabbert
Debris Basin (See Exhibit 1, Alt. B, for relative locations). In addition to these elements, the
alternatives evaluated various combinations of additional detention basins, diversion systems, or
relocated channel outlets to the Arroyo Simi.
Table EA - Summary Description of Alternative Channel Systems
Alt.
Gabbert Basin
Additional
Gabbert
Walnut
Diversion
Channel
No.
Modification
Detention
Channel
Channel
Channel
Outlet
Basins
Reaches
Reaches
System
Relocation
A
Improved to 145 AF
0,1,2,3
2,3
2
300 cfs
Gabbert &
Detention Storage
(V,o,,, = 140 AF)
Walnut
B
Improved to 145 AF
0,1,2,3
2
2
300 cfs
Walnut
Detention Storage
(V,,,,,, = 140 AF)
C
Improved to 145 AF
0,1,2,3
2,3,4
2
300 cfs
None
Detention Storage
(V,.,,, = 140 AF)
D
Improved to 145 AF
0,1,2,5
2,3
2
None
Gabbert &
Detention Storage
(V,,,,,, = 380 AF)
Walnut
E
Improved to 145 AF
0,1,2,5
2
2
None
Walnut
Detention Storage
(V,o,,, = 380 AF)
F
Improved to 145 AF
0,1,2,5
2,3,4
2
None
None
Detention Storage
(V,,,,,, = 380 AF)
G
Improved to 145 AF
0,1,2,4
2,3
2
100 cfs
Gabbert &
Detention Storage
(V,.,,, = 295 AF)
Walnut
LH:
Improved to 145 AF
0,1,2,4
2
2
100 cfs
Walnut
Detention Storage
(V,o,,, = 295 AF)
Gabbert and Walnut Canyon Channels
Flood Control Deficiency Study ES -2
Executive Summary
000025
A 3
The total construction costs for each of the alternative drainage "systems" was estimated including
land acquisition requirements. These costs provide the primary basis for selection of the
.� recommended drainage "system ", however there are issues related to land acquisition which should
be resolved before finalizing selection of the project design alternative. The summary of the various
cost elements with and without right -of -way are indicated in the following Table E.2 Summary of
' Alternative System Construction Costs. It appears, that of all the eight alternatives that Alternative
"B" is the least -cost alternative; subject to more detailed estimates. Although the total costs of all
alternatives are relatively close to each other for this level of estimates, so costs is not the primary
' selection criterion. The feasibility of implementation is another important criteria which Alternative
"B" ranks very high. If land acquisition costs are not included in the total costs then Alternative "E"
becomes the recommended solution since the diversion system is replaced by a diversion detention
basin that satisfies the same condition. It is tentatively recommended that Alternative "B" become
the selected solution. This alternative includes (1) relocating the Walnut Canyon Channel outlet
while continuing to utilize the existing Gabbert Canyon Channel outlet, (2) only improving one
channel reach on both Gabbert and Walnut Canyon channels, (3) an underground diversion system
adjacent to Shasta Avenue, and (4) an "offline" detention basin parallel to Poindexter Avenue. This
alternative has one of the lesser land acquisition requirements and it appears to have a high degree
of feasibility while compatible with the adjacent property owners. The configuration of the various
recommended channel and watershed facilities is on Exhibit - Alternative No. B - Schematic Map
located on the following page.
M
is
Table No. E.2 - Summary of Alternative Systems Construction Costs
(Cost in thousand of dollars)
Alt
Detention Basins
Divert
Charm
Walnut
Charm
Gabbert '
Charm
Outlet
Charm
Capital
Cost
Subtotal
R/W
Total
Costs
0,1,2
1 3,4,5
Gabbert
I I
(Alt. B)
A
$1,395
$587
$2,508
$2,266
$132
$984
$1,592
$8,827
$1,294
$10,121
*B
$1,395
$587
$2,508
$2,266
$132
$298
$1,138
$8,663
$927
$9,590
C
$1,395
$587
$2,508
$2,266
$132
$2,787
---- - - - - --
$10,013
$767
$10,780
D
$1,395
$2,252
$2,508
-- - - - - --
$132
$984
$1,592
$8,362
$1,917
$10,280
E
$1,395
$2,252
$2,508
-- - - - - --
$132
$298
$1,138
$7,687
$2,405
$10,095
F
$1,395
$2,252
$2,508
- - - - - --
$132
$2,787
--- - - - - --
$8,774
$1,874
$10,648
G
$1,395
$1,626
$2,508
$679
$132
$984
$1,592
$8,417
$1,5641
$9,981
H
$1,395
$1,626
$2,508
$679
$132
$298
$1,138
$7,742
$2,056
$99797
• .. ...... .....u..0 a AL..A"L l v c
Gabbert and Walnut Canyon Channels Executive Summary
Flood Control Deficiency Study ES -3
QOQO26
T-_X NI V-_ %' 'T 'C
Section 12— Recommended Drainage System
12.1 Recommended System Components
r�
Based upon the costs and feasibility of implementation, drainage system Alternative `B" is the
least -cost alternative and is the recommended alternative. The Rough Order Magnitude (R.O.M.)
costs for this system include $8,663,00 in capital construction costs and $927,000 for land
_ acquisition, which totals an estimated R.O.M. cost of $9,590,000. The total right -of -way required
for this alternative is approximately 36.7 acres. The different project alternatives were developed
with the goal of achieving a balance achieving the flood protection goal and providing the most
economic solution. The primary system components associated Alternative `B" include: (1)
reconstruction of Gabbert Debris Basin to provide detention storage through modification of the
existing basin and construction of another storage reservoir upstream as well as a separate debris
basin at the headworks which will provide 145 acre -feet of flood control storage and 53 acre -feet of
debris storage, (2) a 14 acre -foot detention basin at the headworks to the Walnut Canyon Channel,
(3) a 20 acre -foot detention basin at the location of an existing reservoir site in a tributary canyon
at Casey Road, (4) a 36 acre -foot detention basin located in the tributary canyon adjacent to Gabbert
•- Road, (5) constructing a 300 -cfs diversion system from Walnut Canyon Channel along Shasta
Avenue to the Arroyo Simi, (6) relocation of the channel outlet for Walnut Canyon Channel along
3,000 feet of earthen trapezoidal channel from Los Angeles Avenue to the Arroyo Simi, (7)
reconstruction of the Gabbert Canyon Channel from the debris basin to Los Angeles Avenue, and
_ (8) construction of an 70 acre -foot off -line detention basin at the channel diversion location on
Walnut Canyon Channel. There is the potential for additional alternatives to be evaluated through
refinement of the proposed system. The storage capacity within the Gabbert Canyon detention basin
can be further optimized if a portion of the storage is utilized in the proposed upstream debris basin.
Further study of the grading design and relative elevations of the interconnected ponds will assist
in refining the hydraulic operation for the basin. However, the current analysis provides a
conservative evaluation of the system while maximizing the flood control benefits.
r
Recommended Detention Requirements for Future Development Projects
General recommendations and guidelines are provided for future private development projects to
9 _ ensure that hydrologic impacts are mitigated. The objective of this program attempts to maintain
the existing hydrology on a watershed basis similar to current conditions studied as part of this
investigation. The proposed Hitch Ranch development hydrologic impacts have been
accommodated in the proposed detention basins located on their property. A drainage ordinance
should be implemented on a watershed basis which outlines the specific requirements that can be
used in planning the development projects. General guidelines include the following:
1. The peak outflow from one or more detention basins within a development project area
_ under fully developed conditions should not exceed 90 percent of the peak flow under the
7 existing pre - development conditions for all storm frequencies up to and including the
100 -year frequency and a single storm duration of up to 24- hours.
Gabbert and Walnut Canyon Channels Section 12
IFlood Control Deficiency Study 12 -1 Recommended Drainage System
1 000028
J
C- 7-
2. Follow the requirements outlined by VCFCD for detention basin design.
3. Provide an un ated outlet large enough to permit the complete draining of each basin
within 24 hours following a storm.
4. Multi -use detention basins are acceptable and encouraged, including meeting the
stormwater quality requirements for the project.
t
5. The regional effect of the local development project detention basin on the watershed
must be evaluated to ensure that it does not have a negative effect on downstream flowrates
ro, in the main channel. The potential for increasing the peak flowrate at other downstream
locations within the watershed must be avoided in the design of the basin.
In addition, it may be appropriate to consider utilizing a 10 -year storm frequency for the design on
the on -site storm drain systems within the developments rather than a 50 -year frequency adopted by
the City. The 10 -year design frequency is consistent with the current VCFCD guidelines and
provides conveyance of the 10 -year storms but residence are still protected from the 100 -year in
7 order to satisfy FEMA requirements. The effect of changing the design frequency allows the ability
to take advantage of local storage within the streets during large peak storm events and minimizing
i the impact on the flood control system with reduced efficiency of the local storm drain.
12.1.1 Operation and Maintenance
Implementation of the recommended watershed drainage system improvements will generally result
in higher annual maintenance costs primarily associated with the addition of the detention basins.
The basins will require the periodic removal of sediment trapped to maintain the require minimum
flood control storage volume. Long term development within the upper portions of the watershed
will result in reducing the sediment production and in turn lowering some of the maintenance costs.
The relocated outlet for Walnut Canyon will require maintenance since the proposed section is an
earthen trapezoidal section with rock rip -rip side slopes. The total overall amount of channel does
not increase from the length that VCFCD currently maintains, however, detention/debris basins are
a significant feature requiring additional maintenance. Additional typical maintenance requirements
associated with detention basins include: (l) periodic inspection, (2) weed removal, (3) debris
a /sediment removal, (4) rodent control, (5) vector (mosquito abatement) control, (6) outlet structure
and spillway inspection or repair for cracking, movement, seepage, and piping, and (7) inspection
or repair of embankment and slopes for seepage, piping, and instability.
- There are a variety of elements which will be incorporated into the flood control improvements
,. to facilitate maintaining and provide access to the drainage facilities. Many of these items are
standard features for flood control facilities.
Top -of -Bank Maintenance Roads: Maintenance roads would follow the standards outlined by
VCFCD for their facilities. The roads would be either six inches of CMB or 3 inches of asphalt
over 6 inches of CMB.
Gabbert and Walnut Canyon Channels Section 12
Flood Control Deficiency Study 12 -2 Recommended Drainage, System
N 00002
0100 IN -984 CFS
0100 OUT =514 CFS
CBYPASS =902 CFS
STOR- VOL =145 AC -FT
SED. VOL-53 AC -FT.
1g
u,
q00 -902 CFS
CHNL. SECT.
8 =14' 0=5.5'- 4.0'
0100 =143 CFS I 1
—RCP SECT. — l
0 -3.5_ \�
0100 -229 1
CHNL. SECT
B -10' D -E
1+100 -564 CFS
EXIST. CHNL S
B -12' O -5'
•
�r..� Robert Be;n,W ;lUam Frost & Associates
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, PLANNERS 6 SURVEYORS
�7 P.O. BOX 57057. 14725 ALTON PARKWAY, IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92619 -7057
1 (714) +72 -7505
YI�■wl'
0100 IN -390 CFS
%0 -1035 CFS+
0100 DUT -273 CFS
CHNL. SECT.
STOR. VOL. -14 AC -FT
8 -14' D -4.5'
0100 -1113 CFS
—
CANYON
CHNL. SECT.
MODIFIED
B -16.5'
DETENTION BASIN
CANYON RICH ST,
D-6'I
51TE N0. 1
PIER =6'
0100 IN -301 CF j
0100 OUT-65
STOR._.VO4..�10 AC -FT
SED. �W�88 AC -FT.
0100-1o35 cF
WCHNL
SECT.
PROPOSED
/
/ /
/
8. 16' D -6' IJ
DETENTION BASIN /
V
/
0100 -564 CFS-46
QIOO-1113 CFS --
NATURAL TRAP.
CHNL. SECT.
CHNL SECT.
D -6.5'
,RJNCTION STRUCTURE
CASEY RD. M E A ON
101
78:P' D- 8' -15'
�a
I
0100 =143 CFS I 1
—RCP SECT. — l
0 -3.5_ \�
0100 -229 1
CHNL. SECT
B -10' D -E
1+100 -564 CFS
EXIST. CHNL S
B -12' O -5'
•
�r..� Robert Be;n,W ;lUam Frost & Associates
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, PLANNERS 6 SURVEYORS
�7 P.O. BOX 57057. 14725 ALTON PARKWAY, IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92619 -7057
1 (714) +72 -7505
YI�■wl'
0100 IN -390 CFS
0100 1N =547 CFS OI W =476 CFS
0100 DUT -273 CFS
/
STOR. VOL. -14 AC -FT
N
SED. VOL. -It AC -FT.
STOR. VOL. -70 AC -FT 8 =6' D =5'
MODIFIED
/
DETENTION BASIN
CANYON RICH ST,
51TE N0. 1
0100 IN -301 CF j
0100 OUT-65
STOR._.VO4..�10 AC -FT
SED. �W�88 AC -FT.
6
j
OI DO °354 CFS
PROPOSED
/
/ /
/
EXIST. CHNL. SECT.
B -7' D =4' -6'
DETENTION BASIN /
Gr
/
0100 IN -536 CFS j
= B -8' D=6' 8 -8' 0 -5'
(100 OUT -143
EXIST. CHNL. SECT.
B =10' D =5' q00 -300 CFS—.,3
STOR. VOL =A AC -FT
SED. VOLfp AC -FT.
,RJNCTION STRUCTURE
CASEY RD. M E A ON
CHNL. SECT,
i
0100 1N =547 CFS OI W =476 CFS
/
0100 OUT -9 CFS CHNL SECT.
/
STOR. VOL. -70 AC -FT 8 =6' D =5'
/
CANYON RICH ST,
0100 -559 CFS 0100 -559 CFS
IJ CHNL. SECT. EXIST. CHNL. SECT.
`'0100 =156 CFS
= B -8' D=6' 8 -8' 0 -5'
EXIST. CHNL. SECT.
B =10' D =5' q00 -300 CFS—.,3
CHNL. SECT,
i
8 =12' D =5'
Iz°-
N m
to
LOS ANGELES AVE.
¢°
i
LEGEND
0100 =493 CFS- -I
EXISTING CHANNEL
CHNL. SECT.
D-5' B -14'
NO MODIFICATIONS
MODIFIED CHANNEL SECTION
■���• EXISTING CHANNEL REMOVAL
- -� PROPOSED CHANNEL
0.0H0
►'0.
DETENTION BASIN SITE
• CHANNEL STRUCTURE
MODIFICATION
DATE
r
WALNUT /GABBERT CANYON
5/97
lA
ALTERNATIVE N❑,
B
XHIBI
SCHEMATIC MAP
C_- A-
Maintenance Road Turnout: The VCFCD maintenance staff has design requirements regarding
turnouts at specified interval of long sections of channel maintenance roads. These turnout are
generally double wide maintenance road locations which allow passing for vehicles or temporary
parking.
Vehicle Turnarounds: Areas to allow maintenance vehicles to turn- around at locations where the
maintenance or road dead -ends without access to a major thoroughfare. The turn- around areas
would generally consist of an unencumbered 50 foot square area.
Basin Access Ramps and Perimeter Roads: Direct access for maintenance vehicles to the detention
or debris basin locations and the ability for heavy equipment to clean out the basin floor, also
accessing the basin outlet works.
Summary
The hydraulic analysis of the existing Walnut and Gabbert Canyon Channel systems has confirmed
that in its present condition that it does not meet the desired level of flood protection and there are
hydraulic deficiencies which would cause flooding. Further development of this watershed without
restrictions to limit the hydrologic impacts will worsen the condition. In order to alleviate the
existing flood hazard potential it is recommended that the drainage system be improved to the extent
necessary to provide the desired flood protection. The recommended improvement program outlined
in this regional drainage system master plan have been formulated and evaluated on a watershed
Lbasis, but it must be implemented on a local basis.
il..
T
Gabbert and Walnut Canyon Channels Section 12
Flood Control Deficiency Study 12 -3 Recommended Drainage System
�✓031
_a
J
a
J
J
I
J
I
I
J�
Section 11— Financing
11.1 Financing Methods Available
The financing of public facilities by local agencies have a variety of financing mechanisms
available to fund the infrastructure costs. Many methods cannot be used by private organizations
or individuals, but offer great flexibility to public agencies. The two major categories of public
work funding include pay -as -you go financing and debt financing (pay -as- you -use). Pay- as -you-
go financing requires governments to pay for infrastructure costs directly from current revenues.
These programs for pay -as- you -go include: creation of special assessment district, levying special
property taxes, creating a special district, impact fees from new developments, grants or aid from
the State and Federal government. Debt financing requires local governments to tap credit markets
and raise funds through the issuance of dept obligations. The use of debt financing involves
various type of financing tools which include. short terra notes, unlimited Qx_ general obligation
bonds, limited tax general obligation bonds, and revenue bonds. Another type of financing is
pay-as-you-need which is defined as a form of pay -as- you -go, which involves impact fees or
assessments to support loan or bond payments. In this form of financing, payments collected vary
depending upon the benefit received. The benefit in this case is not necessarily one of need, but
rather one of forecasted or predicted need based upon potential flood damage. Assessment must
be apportioned upon any basis which will reasonably measure these benefits. The advantage of
this method is that only users benefitting from the improvements need to pay for* them. The
following table outlines some of the most common California laws used as authority for levying
special assessments which are available and their applicability according to the elements in the
implementation of the recommended project. However, recent passage of Proposition 218 may
influence the ability for the public agency to levee rates /charges, or establish fees to support
the financing for construction, operation, and maintenance of public facilities. The costs for
long term maintenance and monitoring may be a consideration in the selection of the financing
mechanism, since many of the procedures do not include maintenance, but only consider capital
construction.
Table No. 11.1 - Project Related Allowable Uses of Assessment Laws
Description of Act
Drainage
Flood
Control
Improvement Act of 1911
Capital
Capital
Municipal Improvement Act of 1913
Capital
Capital
Benefit Assessment Act of 1982
Capital &
Maintenance
Capital &
Maintenance
Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of
1982
Capital &
Maintenance
Capital
Improvement Bond Act of 1915
Capital
Capital
Map Act Areas of Benefit
Capital
- - - - --
** The table reflects the associated allowable uses based upon the specifics of each Act. The table indicates uses for either
Capital Improvements or Capital Improvements and the Operation and Maintenance of the facility.
Gabbert and Walnut Canyon Channels Section 11
Flood Control Deficiency Study 11 -1 Financing
o0o032
j � -z
Stormwater Utility Fees is a utility approach to financing public drainage facilities. Stormwater
utilities are public utilities that are financed by dedicated user charges. User charges for an
individual property are based on the contribution of the property to the total volume of stormwater
that must be managed. A general approach to developing a utility rate structure involves
estimation of a charge per "equivalent runoff unit" (ERU) and then estimating the charge per
parcel. In some areas the charge to the parcel is increased if located in a floodplain and the
-� charge can be reduced if on -site detention is provided as part of the development.
i
-s►
Exactions is the practice of requiring developers to provide certain physical facilities is one of the
most important and well established means of financing infrastructure. In California subdivision
exactions are worth over five times as much as all development - related fees and assessments, and
now account for nearly half of the annual public capital formation in the state. Provisions with
the State of California Subdivision Map Act include certain sections which provide for the
dedication of land related to drainage systems. Section 66478.1 ensures that local agencies must
require public easement along banks of rivers and streams and Section 664 ?9 allows local
ordinances to require that property be reserved for certain public facilities. There are certain
requirements which must be satisfied by the public agencies in order to impose land reservations
by local ordinance and the primary issues include: (1) therequirement of land reservation be based
upon adopted specific plan or general plan, (2) the amount of land reserved will not make the
development of the remaining land economically unfeasible.
Drainage Fee Assessment Programs are possible through state legislation which enables the
implementation of a drainage fee program by a public agency. Section 66483, Division 2 of Title
7 of the State of California Government Code (Subdivision Map Act), as amended January 1,
.. 1994, allows the creation of ordinances which require payment of fees for the purposes of
defraying costs of constructing planned drainage facilities. Some of the specific requirements
`I associated with the creation of a drainage fee program include the following:
i
• An ordinance must be adopted to require the payment of, a drainage fee as a condition
of approval of final subdivision maps.
• The ordinance must particularly refer to a drainage plan adopted for specific areas.
7 • Prepare a drainage plan which includes (1) a map of the drainage area or areas showing
the boundaries and locations, type and size of planned drainage facilities, and (2)an
estimate of construction costs of the drainage facilities for each area.
• The government entity must adopt the drainage plan with a finding by resolution that the
development of property within the planned drainage areas will require construction of the
described drainage facilities, and a finding that the fees proposed are fairly apportioned
on the basis of wither the benefits of, or the need for, drainage facilities created by
.� proposed development
• A "Planned Drainage Facilities Fund" is created for the various drainage area and funds
—1 are maintained separately. The basic source of funds are drainage fees collected on a per-
acre basis.
t VCFCD Land Development Fee This fee was initially established in 1967 at $400 per acres and
is updated annually based on the Engineering New Record Construction Cost Index for the Los
Gabbert and Walnut Canyon Channels Section 11
Flood Control Deficiency Study 11 -2 Financing
.I
_2 D-7)
Angeles Area. The VCFCD policy indicates that these monies can be utilized three ways,
preferably to finance construction of VCFCD red line facilities, which include: (1) financing of
improvements within a city, (2) finance construction outside the city that will be of benefit to the
city, and (3) use all or part of the "local share" money required to finance federally funded
construction.
Two popular financing mechanisms which have been primarily utilized to development special
assessment districts based upon the benefit from public improvements are the Mello -Roos
Community Facilities Act of 1982 and the Municipal Improvem nt Act of 1913/1915. The Mello-
Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 was enacted as an alternative method for local
governments to provide facilities to serve their communities. It provides an alternative to making
dedication and paying in -lieu fees as the method of satisfying requirements to provide certain
public capital facilities and services. While not a true assessment, the "special tax" upon land
offered by this Act provides a financing tool that is treated in part like an assessment.
The Mello -Roos Act allows the formation of "community facilities districts" in specified areas
within their jurisdictions. A community facilities district is a special financing entity through
which a local government is empowered to levy special taxes and issue bonds authorized by a two -
thirds vote of the qualified elector of such district. In areas with less than twelve registered
voters, the qualified electors are the landowners. Prior to initiation of proceeding to form a
community facilities district, the developer may be required to enter into an agreement with the
Issuer which will set out term under which the legislative body of the Issuer will form the
community facilities district. Usually the developer will be required to advance all costs incurred
by the public agency to form the community facilities district. The costs may include estimated
J engineering, planning, inspection, and administrative costs and expenses. These costs will be
repaid to the developer from bond proceeds. Generally, with the cooperation of all parties
`j involved, the proceedings to form a community facilities district may be completed and bond
,j proceeds received in five to six months after the proceeding are initiated.
The Municipal Improvement Act of 1913/1915, currently the most frequently used Assessment
Act in California, allowed local agencies to impose assessment on benefitted property to finance
the construction of various public improvements, the acquisition of real property rights, and the
J maintenance and repair of improvements constructed with this Act.
J
J
7
Another funding mechanism which specifically focuses on flood control projects is the Benefit
Assessment Act of 1982. This Act authorizes local agencies to impose assessments on benefitted
property to finance the operation and maintenance of drainage, flood control services, and the
installation and improvement of drainage and flood control facilities. In the case of an assessment
for flood control services, the Act provides that the benefit may be determined on the basis of the
proportionate storm water runoff from each parcel.
Gabbert and Walnut Canyon Channels
Flood Control Deficiency Study 11 -3
Section 11
Financing
.1
000034
_J br4-
Special assessment districts are a common funding program using a convenient designation for
properties that receive a special benefit and are subject to the special assessment. The special
assessment is designed to recover the costs of an improvement that directly benefits an individual
property and. these -assessment are based on formulas that relate the charge against a parcel to the
benefits. The capital is generated for the construction of the improvements through the sale of
°) general obligation bonds.
� Tax Increment Financin g ( TIF ) uses increases in property values attributed to a capital project
to recover the project's costs. Under this approach, a special tax increment district is created by
the adoption of a plan for development of the infrastructure of a particular geographic area.
Although the use of tax increment financing in rural area is not uncommon, this method is usually
used to finance redevelopment in deteriorated areas characterized by declining property values.
A more detailed description of the process associated with the 1913/1915 Act have been provided,
however, most of the other special assessment acts previously indicated follow similar procedures.
Logic diagrams have been developed for the Special Assessment District and the Mello -Roos
Community Facilities District proceedings which graphically illustrate the process for the major
elements associated with each funding mechanism (See Exhibit 58 - Special Assessment District
Flow Chart, and Exhibit 59 - Mello -Roos CFD Flow Chart). The general process for the 1915
Act when used in conjunction with the 1913 Act are generally as follows:
*The public agency adopts the Resolution to order the improvement, briefly describing
the proposed improvement, specify the exterior boundaries of the assessment district,
providing for issuance of improvement bonds, declaring its intention to levy assessments
to maintain, repair or improve the facility.
• The agency directs preparation of an Engineers Report which contains: plans and
specifications of the proposed improvements, description of lands, and easements to be
acquired, an estimate of the cost of the improvement and costs of lands and easements.
The report is filed with the public agency. A preliminary approval is adopted and a public
hearing is set for not less than thirty days after passage of the resolution. Bids for the
construction of the improvements and sale of the bonds can be called for before the
hearing. The notice inviting construction bids must be first published at least fourteen day
days before the date set for receipt of the bids.
s
• Prior to public hearing on the assessment district the public agency shall adopt a
resolution describing the boundaries of the district. Notice of adoption of the resolution
- and of the public hearing are published and posted at least twenty days prior to date set for
the public hearing.
• After the public agency passes on the report and any interested person may object to the
proposed improvement by filing a written protest before the hearing. If a majority of the
owners protest the formation of the district or the levy of the assessment at or before the
hearing, then no further proceedings may proceed for a period of one year from the date
of the hearing.
Gabbert and Walnut Canyon Channels Section 11
Flood Control Deficiency Study 11 -4 Financing
l000035
J
J
01
7
J
4
• The assessments cannot be increased unless consent from the owner is obtained or an
additional noticed hearing is conducted.
•After confirmation by the public agency, the clerk files the final diagram and notice of
assessment the county recorder, and the assessment and diagram with the appropriate local
agency official
A 1915 Act assessment district format was assumed for the purpose of developing an evaluation
of the estimated assessment district bonded costs for the recommended drainage system
construction costs, excluding land acquisition costs. This differs from an alternative of using a
1911 Act district which would have less administrative costs, but also less flexibility. Generally,
the 1915 Act district is the more common format utilized to finance public improvements.
Table No. 11.2 - Estimated Flood Control A:ssess>!neat Deist, rrt goaded Costs
Cost Item
Estimated Cost
Description
Estimated Construction Costs*
$8,663,000
Construction costs for flood control improve-
ments
Contingency & Engineering
$2,599,000
30% of construction costs
Cost of Issuance
$173,000
2% costs for underwriter & administration
Formation Costs
$86,000
1 % cost for bond counsel
Assessment District
Engineering
$43,000
0.5 % costs for assessment district engineer
Capitalized Interest
(18 months at 6 %)
$1,029,000
Finance costs or carry during construction
period
Bond Reserve
$570,000
Ranges from 5 -10% determined by issuing
agency and depends on risk.
Total Amount Assessed
$13,164,000
.... ................... F—J -1 --Awsc aYbLG111 4Uct1MLIVG d11u Iuc;luues only capital construction costs, excludes R/W
or land acquisition. The estimated construction costs reflect Drainage System Alt. "B"
An estimate of the bond issugnce costs is presented in Table No. 11.2 and these costs generally
include bond counsel, underwriter discount, special tax consultant, debt service reserve fund,
capitalized interest (1 -2 years), official statement and bond printing, trustee /paying agent,
letter of credit or insurance premium, and other miscellaneous costs.
Ciabbert and Walnut canyon channels
Flood Control Deficiency Study 11 -5
Section 11
Financing
000036
V) -(0
The determination of the funding for the maintenance of these facilities is important during the
initial development of the special assessment district since many procedures do not allow
maintenance costs to be included. An example is general obligation bonds are generally issued
T� by public entities only for the purpose of acquisition and construction and may
Jj finance ongoing maintenance and operation costs. Additional limitations may be provided by the
statutes of the local agencies and these should be investigated during the initial planning process.
11.1.1 Financing Issues and Policv Considerations
Several issues must be considered when evaluating public financing and these include (1) allocation
of costs b benefit (2) economic feasibility, 3 County y tY� () policies, and (4) specific types of charges
J and implementation measures. Assessment fees can either be distributed based upon actual benefits
J received from implementation of the drainage improvement or based upon considering the negative
impacts which result from development of property. The most obvious benefit received from
construction of drainage improvements is the reduction or elimination of potential flood damage
which could occur to property. The problem with assessing specific benefits is that of determining
the value of an individual property is difficult and subjective. The "negative impact basis" is based
on the concept that the charges to a parcel should be based on the contribution to the problem of
flooding and proportional cost of a system designed to alleviate that problem. The This is a superior
approach both on the basis of reasonableness as well as simplicity in determining assessment.
An important aspect to consider in setting fees is legal constraints and statutory restriction on impact
9 fees and assessments. Statutes (Section 66483 of the California State Government Code) governing
the assessment of fees and charges to cover both operation and improvement or construction of new
facilities state that "...fees should be reasonable, fair and equitable..." or "...fees should be fairly
a apportioned...on the basis of benefits conferred on the property..." Other restrictions limit charges
on individual properties to a prorata basis according to the acreage, and limit charges to cover only
the cost of facilities which are not in existence at the adoption of any master plan for the area.
—� Another key element is the economic feasibility of development - related financin g based upon
relationships of the financial burden to the underlying land values. If the burden is large, relative the
to land value for a particular use, the that use may be rendered uneconomic.
Gabbert and Walnut Canyon Channels
Flood Control Deficiency Study 11 -6
Section 11
Financing .
000037
r -}
11.1.2 Allocation of Financial Burden to Land Uses
■
Establishes a fee structure within the watershed requires that the infrastructure costs outlined for the
proposed drainage system be apportioned by some fair and reasonable method. In addition there
must be a nexus to establish an assessment which provides a relationship between the land and the
proposed infrastructure improvements. A Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) can be utilized to
determine the relative responsibility of an acre of land in each landuse category compared to an acre
of land in the single family residential category. Generally the DUE procedure are based on a
"causes or uses" test : the cost of the drainage facilities are sized to accommodate the peak runoff
were allocated in proportion to the extent to which each land use category contributes to the peak
runoff amount. Application of a DUE cost schedule provides the basis for a valid development
impact fee.
11.2 Selection of the Financing Technique
The decision regarding the financing method depends on several considerations which include: (1)
cash flow, (2) landowner preferences, (3) adopted county policy. The time at which a particular
drainage improvement must be implemented is compared to the amount of development impact fees
that would have been collected up to that time. If the total collections are adequate or if an
imbalance can be corrected over relatively few years, then impact fees are useable. It has been
increasingly common in California for a comprehensive financing plan to include a mix of
development impact fees and bonded debt. Bonded debt, is authorized to pay for those major
improvements that are required immediately to implement the master plan of drainage.
Development impact fees are used to pay for improvements that can be staged over the planning
period.
Impact fees would appear to be most effective and simplest form of financing. Impact fees may be
g P Y
charged at the time the property is subdivided, at the time building permits are issued or a
combination of both. If these drainage facilities are to be implemented prior to the development
occurring in the upper watershed then some form of debt financing must be considered and drainage
fees can be used to repay the debt. Exactions in the form of land reservations for stormwater storage
detention basins or additional channel right -of -way will fulfill the land requirements in order to
implement the drainage systems.
0
Uabbert and Walnut Canyon Channels
MO Flood Control Deficiency Study
A
Section 11
11 -7 Financing
_000038
Invited to June 5th meeting G-A • V, �
Mailing List
500.0.340.22
500.0.340.08
Walnut Canyon Channels Flood Control
A.C.Construction
Bugle Boy Industries
Deficiency Study
Paul D. & Lisa A. Burns
Diane L. Becker Esq.
June 5, 1997 Meeting
4875 Spring Road
2900 Madera Road
Moorpark CA 93021
Simi Valley CA 93065
500.0.340.37
Bundy - Olympic Development
Hitch Ranch Tenants in Common
500.0.340.15, -17
Jemco Properties
8750 Wilshire Blvd #300
Richard S. Ha v n Jr.
1000 S Seaward d A Av enue
9061 Santa Monica Blvd
Beverly Hills CA 90211
Ventura CA 93001
Los Angeles CA 90069
504.0.021.24
500.0.340.02
Margaret Waayers - TR et al
J. D. Mc Grath Farms
Westoaks Investments
912 S Windsor Blvd.
P.O. Box 1106
951 S Westlake Blvd.
Los Angeles CA 90019
Oxnard CA 93030
Westlake Village CA 91361
500.0.340.28,- 29, -30, 500.0.340.23
504.0.021.02
Church Jesus Christ LDS
Southern California Edison Company
Milligan AA TR et al
Fax Division 22 "d Fl
P O Box 800
Levy Tenancy in Common
SO E N Temple
Rosemead CA 91770
1000 S Seaward Avenue
Ventura CA 93001
500.0.340.14
500.0.260.02,- 07,- 08,- 09, -04,
500.0.270.16,- 15,- 14, -09
500.250.14, - 27, -28
Richard B & Shirley Testa
y
Ja
Ja
James S Rasmussen
William Jr -C Houseman
180 Longhorn Lane
Ojai CA 93023
2360 Shasta Way Suite A
150 E Los Angeles #205
Simi Valley CA 93065
Moorpark CA 93021
500.0.250.15
500.0.250.13
500.0.250.12, 500.0.330.31
Dennis - Christine Swinburne
Mark G -Trudy A Taillon
Robert L Falke
6685 Aspen Hills Drive
6617 Aspen Hills Drive
13822 Kyte Avenue
Moorpark CA 93021
Moorpark CA 93021
Mc Farland CA 93250
500.0.050.10
511.0.110.03, 511.0.020.02, -03,
Nancy P Barberis
511.0.040.19, 500.0.270.06
Moorpark Partnership
1241 Drake Drive
Abe Guny
8222 Melrose Avenue
Simi Valley CA 91361
7250 Walnut Canyon Road
Los Angeles CA 90046
Moorpark CA 93021
Development Planning Services
Dennis Hardgrave
Bollinger Development Inc
Pacific Communities
651 Via Alondra Suite 714
er Paul Bollinger
g
Nelson Chung
Camarillo CA 93te
351 Rolling Oaks Drive Suite 100A
1000 Dove Street Suite 100
Thousand Oaks CA 91361
Newport Beach CA
Urban Strategies
g
Triliad Development
Valerie Drager
Morrison- Fountainwood- Agoura
Elaine Freeman
2509 E Thousand Oaks Blvd
270 Conejo Ridge Avenue Suite 200
Michael Greynald
Thousand Oaks CA 91362
Thousand Oaks CA 91361
2584 W Thousand Oaks Blvd
Calabasas CA 91302
CERTIFICATION OF MAILING
01 hereby cergy tlW the
attached
notice was maw to #0
attached
fist of persona s
Dated z 23 9
FILE COPY
shed by' R 24a
e
000039
U$ on 0 l�t�+ C�11.�srR�j Ct'r�i of MocAlep t, 529 -W64 - k -255
W W W
WWW
Wk in to
c o o 12C f✓ L� I ��SL.r'�( O W✓L. gU��' �iQ �c — 5���
..
1�1lCMA�,S 6yo- 07.?o
C4 a
A C4 z� -6 ?6 y x
.' 'OOOQ4U
Attended June 5th meeting
04 (� G�[ ►-� 0= (N �i(/�+cc� o��' �t �/ �,� o�Ql> s+P�s
N4 YLCQ rC e o r,- Seq.,
R eat v U,, r7f eNQl G 71 4- 303
rG1Q C e vri cr0 9D� 1 �SsnTQ f o,1ll r42 rt vlq . / I— A `%9 27Z'Z ?4':
��! tom,. • >'1,,V 'H�_,_ , � ^�- � j', �'i �; :� .-.—� % .'°.n �" ,i%. �.— t .1 � 1^ �
C-85) 37t -qi 71
IOr7. A1,13
P�upJ-T'.�tu9
3 l�
v7 "1 � 9' 3 X65 BDS - 58 Z :SSl
�� Cam}�3�i
��ti' �`%- -x,�� -�, �'rJ�i <r Kic�'� :J�- �:���c: �c= sr6� -'� �,e�� -y 5��7�/lija.���S� /�� c%•� t3�o1
llu��eSclU S �vcs�Gre
-/
3s r / T, �'� i
J2. �o� �, �L � /�c,S��Ci7 /
000041.