CC 2017-02-14_12a 2016 Pavement Mgmt Plan Update
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: GEOFF ENGLISH, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE 2016 UPDATE TO THE
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN AND LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING BILLS SB1 AND AB1
DATE: FEBRUARY 14, 2017
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council;
1. Adopt a Resolution adopting the 2016 Update to the Pavement Management
Plan (PMP);
2. Endorse the “Critical Point Management” methodology for the City’s Pavement
Management System; and
3. Authorize the Mayor to sign letters of support for Transportation Funding Bills,
AB1 and SB1
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
There is no immediate cost impact to approve the recommendation associated with the
updated Pavement Management Plan (PMP). The cost for Rick Engineering Company
to conduct the pavement evaluations and update the City’s Pavement Management
Plan was $45,150. The budget allocation for street repairs and resurfacing projects in
FY 2016-17 was $870,000 with the addition of $35,000 carried over from FY 15/16 for a
total of $905,000.
Three budget projections were prepared during the preparation of the 2016 Update to
the Pavement Management Plan and will be discussed in detail during the presentation
of the draft PMP. The first budget projection shows the decline of the Pavement
Condition Index (PCI) under the continuation of current funding levels. The second
budget projection shows the projected decline in PCI if $500,000 is added to the annual
pavement preservation budget. The final budget projection shows the anticipated cost
per year to maintain the PCI at current level of 68.
BACKGROUND:
On March 8, 2016, the City Council approved a Consultant Services Agreement with
Rick Engineering Company for pavement evaluation services and to update the City's
Pavement Management Plan (PMP). The previous version of the PMP was adopted by
the City Council on September 28, 2010. The 2010 PMP guided the annual street
Item 12.a. - Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE 2016 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN AND
LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR TRANSPORTATION FUNDING BILLS SB1 AND AB1
FEBRUARY 14, 2017
PAGE 2
repair and resurfacing projects through the current fiscal year. The primary goal of the
2010 PMP was to apply a resurfacing treatment to all road segments in Arroyo Grande
based on a pre-established schedule, with a projected type of asphalt resurfacing
treatment. The final year of the 2010 PMP was Fiscal Year 2016/17 (Year 7) upon
which all road segments identified in the PMP were to have received a pavement
resurfacing treatment. A majority of the road segments identified in Year 7 did not
receive a treatment due to several reasons, including funding limitations.
The draft 2016 PMP was completed with the assistance of Rick Engineering Company
and provides options for future road segment resurfacing and presents several
recommendations that will assist in our pavement preservation efforts.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
The City of Arroyo Grande currently maintains 66.3 centerline miles (137.9 Lane Miles)
of roadways (approximately 13,612,455 square feet of pavement). This represents an
asset with a replacement value of approximately $180,000,000, which is definitely one
of the City’s largest infrastructure investments.
The overall result from the evaluation of the City’s street system indicates the City's
overall weighted average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is 68. (PCI is a standard
measurement on a 100 point scale used by most public agencies to determine the state
of their roadways.) Although a PCI of 68 is below the targeted PCI value of 70 for many
California cities, it surpasses the overall PCI value of most of the SLO County public
agencies. Only the City of Pismo Beach and the City of San Luis Obispo have a higher
overall PCI.
Item 12.a. - Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE 2016 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN AND
LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR TRANSPORTATION FUNDING BILLS SB1 AND AB1
FEBRUARY 14, 2017
PAGE 3
This higher level of road condition is largely attributable to the continued annual
investment of Local Sales Tax funds to the City’s Pavement Management Program.
The City’s pavement preservation efforts were guided during the past seven years by
the 2010 Pavement Management Plan. This document, among other things, provided
a pre-established schedule of road segments to be completed using a pre-determined
pavement preservation treatment, with a corresponding cost estimate. As mentioned
above, the seven (7) year plan was to have allowed for all road segments in the City to
be resurfaced. Not all road segments in the City were resurfaced during the 7-year
plan, of which many were scheduled for Year 7 (FY16/17) which is attached to this
report. Following are some reasons why not all road segments were completed in the 7
year plan:
Several road segments were missed or not included in the 2010 PMP;
Cost estimates were not adjusted for inflationary purposes and as a result
allocated funds did not cover the costs anticipated in the 2010 PMP; and
Resurfacing treatments proposed in 2010 were not suitable to adequately
address the accelerated deterioration of many road segments. More costly
resurfacing treatments were required for many road segments.
The 2010 PMP did not include any resurfacing treatment for Oro Drive, which by 2016,
had deteriorated to the point that a surface treatment such as a slurry seal or a micro-
surfacing would no longer have been a suitable treatment option. A heavy renovation
in the form of a “Mill and Overlay” was necessary to address the deteriorated condition
of this road segment. Close inspection and analysis determined that waiting longer to
address this road segment would have resulted in further deterioration leading to an
even more expensive “full-depth reconstruction.” It is largely for this reason that a
different road segment selection methodology is being recommended in the 2016
Pavement Management Plan and discussed further below.
FUTURE ROAD SEGMENT SELECTION STRATEGIES
The success of our pavement preservation efforts has translated into a limited number
of requests from Arroyo Grande residents inquiring as to when their road will be
resurfaced and an implied satisfaction among Arroyo Grande residents about the City’s
road maintenance program. Despite the maintenance of a 68 PCI and the general good
condition of the City’s roads, there are some current concerns and future challenges
that are addressed in the updated 2016 Pavement Management Plan.
The Pavement Management Plan serves as a tool that is used to identify the most cost
effective strategy for City-wide road maintenance. There are three common strategies
in pavement management and project prioritization of the specific road segments for
resurfacing:
Item 12.a. - Page 3
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE 2016 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN AND
LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR TRANSPORTATION FUNDING BILLS SB1 AND AB1
FEBRUARY 14, 2017
PAGE 4
1. Worst First Strategy: This approach selects the worst condition road segments
for repair and resurfacing. This approach results in the highest unit cost approach
and results in a lack of preventative maintenance for better condition road
segments.
2. Pre-Established Schedule Strategy: An established schedule of future road
resurfacing and repair projects prepared strictly on an annual rotation based on a
projected time frame during which all road segments would receive some type of
resurfacing. This approach does not address the cost effective needs of the road
network but is often received well by members of the community because they
can see when their own street is scheduled for maintenance.
3. Critical Point Strategy: This approach selects the road segments for repair or
resurfacing that are at a “critical point” of deterioration. The critical point is a point
located on the pavement deterioration graph which indicates the PCI value is
about to drop which would trigger a more expensive maintenance or
rehabilitation approach. Catching the pavement section at the appropriate time
results in the most cost effective approach and still meets the needs of the
community. This strategy provides the right treatment on the right road at the
right time.
The Critical Point road segment selection strategy is recommended because it is the
most cost effective in maintaining the roadway system citywide. The cost to maintain a
good condition road with a “light maintenance” treatment can be twenty to thirty times
less expensive than a “heavy rehabilitation” of a poor condition road. As a result, our
budget allocation can resurface twenty to thirty more road segments in good condition
than those in poor condition. The critical point strategy is a long-range methodology
that maintains and improves roadways before they slip into a more costly PCI range.
Roadways are then treated with a corresponding maintenance or rehabilitation
treatment before degrading into a more expensive treatment.
The drawback to this approach is that it does not necessarily provide property owners
with a certain date for resurfacing of the road segment fronting their property. The PMS
system will annually evaluate and provide recommendations for repair and resurfacing
based on this critical point approach. The critical point road segment selection approach
is the most economical pavement management approach and will assist the City in
achieving the targeted overall PCI value in the shortest amount of time. It is
recommended that the City Council formally adopt the Critical Point Strategy.
The Pavement Management Plan also includes additional recommendations that are
discussed in more detail in the report:
1. Institute a regular global maintenance (street sealing) program:
Item 12.a. - Page 4
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE 2016 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN AND
LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR TRANSPORTATION FUNDING BILLS SB1 AND AB1
FEBRUARY 14, 2017
PAGE 5
2. Enhance the City’s pothole repair program:
3. Continue the current crack sealing program:
4. Create a Green Streets program
5. Implement a street subsurface evaluation program:
6. Modify and enforce trench cut standards
7. Coordinate with other programs and departments:
a. Utility Master Planning and scheduled repairs:
b. City Trees:
c. Bicycle Traffic:
8. Create a comprehensive Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program
FUNDING SCENARIOS
The PMP does not make a specific funding recommendation, but instead evaluates
three budget scenarios for future consideration. The first budget projection shows the
decline of the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) under the continuation of current funding
levels. The second budget projection shows the projected decline in PCI if $500,000 is
added to the annual pavement preservation budget. The final budget projection shows
the anticipated cost per year to maintain a PCI of 70.
The primary concern is that if the City’s pavement preservation program is continued at
the current levels, there will be steady decline in PCI, which would be projected to be at
58 by 2023. Alternate funding sources will need to be secured and allocated to the
City’s pavement preservation efforts if we wish to maintain the current overall road
surface condition.
A recent County-wide sales tax ballot measure, Measure J-16, which would have
provided approximately $700,000 over the nine year life of the Measure to the City of
Arroyo Grande for road maintenance and transportation improvements, was defeated.
At the State level, several Transportation Bills have been unsuccessful in recent years,
and in-fact Transportation funding to local agencies through State allocations have been
reduced in recent years. Currently, there are two separate pieces of State legislation
that are being considered, AB1 (Frazier) and SB1 (Beall).
AB 1 and SB 1 are similar proposals which will provide comprehensive transportation
reforms and infrastructure investments to fund needed road repairs and deferred
maintenance in addition to other transportation needs. A fact sheet from the League of
Cities is included as an attachment to this report as are draft support letters from the
City, should the Council wish to authorize the Mayor to sign the two letters for support of
AB1 and SB1 prepared by the League of California Cities. Transportation funding has
been a top League strategic priority the last several years and staff recommends
approving these two support letters as State funding support is crucial to meeting the
local transportation and road maintenance needs.
Item 12.a. - Page 5
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE 2016 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN AND
LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR TRANSPORTATION FUNDING BILLS SB1 AND AB1
FEBRUARY 14, 2017
PAGE 6
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:
1. Adopt a Resolution adopting the 2016 Update to the Pavement Management
Plan (PMP), endorse the “Critical Point Management” methodology for the City’s
Pavement Management System; and authorize the Mayor to sign letters of
support for Transportation Funding Bills, AB1 and SB1;
2. Adopt a Resolution adopting the 2016 Update to the Pavement Management
Plan (PMP), endorse the “Critical Point Management” methodology for the City’s
Pavement Management System; and do not authorize the Mayor to sign letters of
support for Transportation Funding Bills, AB1 and SB1;
3. Direct staff to develop a schedule of road segments to be resurfaced based on
the current funding levels; or
4. Provide direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
The PMP will provide a useful tool in the management of the City’s effort to maintain a
vital component of its infrastructure. Additionally, the Critical Point road segment
selection approach is the most economical pavement management approach and will
assist the City is achieving a higher overall PCI value in the shortest amount of time.
DISADVANTAGES:
The program is dependent upon the City's current revenue and budget allocations.
Changes in revenues and budget priorities will affect the City's ability to perform the
maintenance projects as stated in the report. Additionally, funds allocated to pavement
preservation may limit the City’s ability to maintain other important infrastructure such as
buildings, parks and drainage.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Roadway maintenance projects are categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15301(c)
covering the repair and maintenance of existing highways, streets and sidewalks.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2.
Attachments:
1. 2016 Pavement Management Plan Update
2. League of Cities- AB1 & SB1 Fact Sheet
3. Support Letter- AB1 (Frazier)
4. Support Letter- SB1 (Beall)
5. 2010 Pavement Management Plan – Year 7 (FY 16/17) Resurfacing Schedule
Item 12.a. - Page 6
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 0 of 30
Pavement Management Plan
2016 Update Report
Submitted to: City of Arroyo Grande 300 E. Branch St Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
1160 Marsh Street, Suite 150
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 544-0707
RICK Project #17754
ATTACHMENT 1
Item 12.a. - Page 7
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 1 of 30
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Pavement Management Program (PMP) has been developed for the City to
implement a systematic program of maintenance, repair, and improvement of the
streets of Arroyo Grande. The recommendations were based on Metropolitan
Transportation Committee’s (MTC) StreetSaver, which uses eight asphalt concrete (AC)
and eight portland cement concrete (PCC) distress type protocols (modified from the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D6433 standard). In 2015, the City
began using StreetSaver, a pavement management system, commonly used by
California municipal agencies. StreetSaver was utilized in part for the development of
the City’s updated PMP. The updated PMP recommends optimal strategies and
estimated costs for street improvements to obtain a desired pavement condition index
(PCI). A pavement condition index is a rating system between 0 and 100 indicating the
overall condition of the road segment(s).
Four general maintenance and rehabilitation categories were considered for this PMP
program; Light Maintenance, Heavy Maintenance, Light Rehabilitation, and Heavy
Rehabilitation. Annual pavement maintenance and rehabilitation projects were
developed for the next seven years using a critical PCI approach. StreetSaver defaults
to a seven year review for the purposes of including short-term and long-term outlooks
of the City’s street maintenance and rehabilitation program, however, the City may elect
to analyze the data and project budgets based on any desired length of time. For this
report, we are providing a seven year analysis.
The overall result from the evaluation of the City’s street system indicates the City's
overall weighted average PCI is 68. Although this is below the targeted PCI value of 70
for most California cities, it surpasses the overall PCI value of SLO County (63 PCI),
Grover Beach (42 PCI), Pismo Beach (73 PCI), San Luis Obispo (71 PCI), Morro Bay
(66 PCI), Atascadero (47 PCI), and Paso Robles (62 PCI). This information is included
to assist the City and community members in gauging what the different PCI values
actually mean when they drive through these neighboring cities and county.
PCI values are also broken down into sub-categories known as functional classes. The
functional classes identify each road segment as arterial, minor arterial, collector,
residential, and other. To best understand the difference of these functional classes it is
easiest to understand if one considers residential streets to be the least busy with traffic
up to arterials with the highest levels of traffic. Residential streets are generally quiet
with trash trucks and postal trucks generating the largest load impacts to the roadway.
Collector streets generally accept traffic from multiple residential streets and then
channel the traffic onto arterial streets leading to highways and freeways. Functional
classes of Other are place holders simply to inventory the City’s parking lots, alleys, or
private street segments. They do not affect the overall PCI value of the City’s street
network. Below is a table identifying the PCI values of each functional class within the
City.
Item 12.a. - Page 8
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 2 of 30
City of Arroyo Grande PCI Values by Functional Class
Functional Class Centerline
Miles PCI
Arterial 4.4 75
Minor Arterial 9.1 69
Major Collector 12.5 64
Residential/Local 41.9 70
Total 67.9 68
Although the PCI values are reasonably close to the target of 70 PCI, our firm has
reason to believe, based on a systematic visual inspection of each road segment, that
the overall PCI value of 68 is artificially inflated because the recent resurfacing projects
performed over the last five fiscal years likely have masked critical pavement failures
which could not be accounted for during this pavement evaluation process. Resurfacing
treatments are typically used for light maintenance; however, it is likely resurfacing
treatments were used on streets with pavement distresses requiring heavy maintenance
or rehabilitation due to budget constraints. It is difficult to say how inflated the average
PCI value is. Visual inspections are good for about three years and we recommend
having another inspection at that time to evaluate the deterioration rates of such streets.
Item 12.a. - Page 9
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 3 of 30
RECOMMENDATIONS
After the evaluation and analysis processes and after updating the StreetSaver
database, we recommend the City perform the following work to achieve a target
average PCI of 70 for the City’s street network.
1. Utilize the “Critical Point” decision making strategy for selection of future road
rehabilitation projects.
2. Update the StreetSaver database each time work is completed.
3. Implement a street subsurface evaluation program, that includes core sampling
and deflection testing
4. Continue the crack sealing program.
5. Strictly enforce the City’s updated trench cut standards and 5-year Pavement Cut
Policy (Attached).
6. Encourage use of proven new technologies and materials in pavement design.
7. Enhance the City’s current pothole repair program.
8. Update the Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program annually.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The current annual budget of $930,000 does not appear sufficient to maintain the street
system at its current PCI level of 68. StreetSaver estimates a 11 point PCI drop will
occur in seven years if the annual budget remains at $930,000. By adding $500,000 a
year for each of the 7 years there will only be an 8 point PCI drop at the end of seven
years. To achieve and maintain a PCI of 70, the City would need to employ alternate
strategies and funding sources in order to maintain a Pavement Condition Index
acceptable to the community.
Item 12.a. - Page 10
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 4 of 30
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 3
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 3
SECTION I – INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ............................................................ 5
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT GOALS .................................................................................... 8
SECTION II – BACKGROUND ....................................................................................... 9
PAVEMENT DESIGN BASICS ............................................................................................. 9
Traffic Loads ............................................................................................................. 9
Strength of Native Soil ............................................................................................. 11
Pavement Deterioration ........................................................................................... 12
Typical Pavement Defects ....................................................................................... 13
PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................. 14
Crack Sealing .......................................................................................................... 14
Digouts (Patching) ................................................................................................... 14
Slurry Seals and Micro-surfacing............................................................................. 14
Cape Seals .............................................................................................................. 15
PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROCEDURES ..................................................................... 15
Conventional Overlays ............................................................................................ 15
Heavy Overlay: AC Removal and Replacement (Mill and Fill) ................................ 16
Reconstruction ........................................................................................................ 16
SECTION III: THE PMS PROGRAM............................................................................. 17
BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 17
SYSTEMS ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................................... 17
PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PRIORITIES ............................................................................ 18
SYSTEM INVENTORY...................................................................................................... 19
PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION UNIT COSTS ........................................... 19
Approximate Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation Costs .............................. 20
Visual Evaluations ................................................................................................... 21
System Update ........................................................................................................ 21
SECTION IV: SUMMARIZED SYSTEM INFORMATION .............................................. 23
SECTION V: RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 24
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT FUNDING OPTION RESULTS ..................................................... 24
Budget-Driven Scenarios ........................................................................................ 25
Target-Driven Scenario ........................................................................................... 26
RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 27
PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 28
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 30
Item 12.a. - Page 11
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 5 of 30
SECTION I – INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
This project consisted of an evaluation of each city street and updating the StreetSaver
Pavement Management System (PMS) for the City of Arroyo Grande with road segment
data and available road maintenance and repair history
A PMS program has several distinctive uses as a budgeting and inventory tool, while
also providing a record of pavement condition. The primary use of any PMS is a
budgeting tool with the aim of maximizing the cost effectiveness of every dollar spent on
city streets. As an inventory tool, StreetSaver provides a quick and easy reference on
pavement areas and usages. As a pavement condition record, StreetSaver provides
age, load-related, non-load related, and climate related pavement condition and
deterioration information.
A PMS is not capable of providing detailed engineering designs for each street. The
PMS instead helps to identify potential repair and maintenance candidate streets.
Further investigation of these streets should be performed to determine appropriate
detailed engineering recommendations for each road segment. Project level
engineering examines the pavements in significantly more detail than the visual
evaluation required for the PMS system and provides optimization of the design given
all of the peculiar constraints of the project streets.
The PMS software assumes average construction and material quality. Pavement life is
very sensitive to materials and workmanship quality. Poor quality new construction may
result in up to a 50 percent loss in the pavement life. In other words, poor quality new
construction may last 10 to 15 years, whereas excellent quality construction may last 20
to 30 years. Investing in quality, both in design and construction, provides significant
returns in extended pavement life resulting in lowered annual maintenance costs.
It is highly recommended the City utilize the Highway Design Manual when designing
appropriate street rehabilitation projects to maximize the use of public funds by
obtaining the longest anticipated life of the pavement. New technologies for pavement
maintenance and resurfacing are introduced on a regular basis and are heavily
analyzed by Caltrans. It is recommended the City obtain as much information from
manufacturers, contractors, engineering consultants, and Caltrans when evaluating
appropriate resurfacing and maintenance treatments for each road segment.
In order to understand the general concept of pavement management systems, one
needs to understand the concept of pavement deterioration. In summary, all pavements
deteriorate under load impacts and weather conditions. Load related impacts are
termed axle loads and are simply the weight of a vehicle transferred through the axles,
through the tires, and into the pavement on which we drive. Weather related impacts
include water penetration, heat, freeze, UV exposure, and many other commonly
experienced weather effects. As pavement is subjected to traffic loads and weather, it
deteriorates; however, if the City is proactive in maintaining and rehabilitating the
roadways it is possible to greatly extend the life of pavement using low cost methods
Item 12.a. - Page 12
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 6 of 30
which slow down the deterioration process.
To illustrate this concept we have provided some graphs below.
Figure 1 – Typical Pavement Deterioration Curve
Figure 2 – Typical PCI Drop vs. Percent of Pavement Life
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
PA
V
E
M
E
N
T
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
AGE OF PAVEMENT
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
PA
V
E
M
E
N
T
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
AGE OF PAVEMENT
70% of Life
Original Condition
40% PCI Drop
40% PCI Drop
15% of Life
Item 12.a. - Page 13
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 7 of 30
Figure 3 – Approximate Maintenance and Repair Costs
(Possible repair and maintenance listed for reference only. Repairs and maintenance
should be determined by the Engineer of Work for each specific project.)
Figure 4 – Preferred Maintenance and Repair Approach
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
PA
V
E
M
E
N
T
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
AGE OF PAVEMENT
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
PA
V
E
M
E
N
T
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
AGE OF PAVEMENT
Approximate Maintenance Costs for each PCI Range
Resurfacing maintenance
will prolong pavement life
at the lowest possible cost.
$16-42 per Square Yard
- Multi-layer Resurfacing or
- Thin Asphalt Lift with Paving Fabric
$60 per Square Yard
- Heavy Asphalt Patching with
- Heavy Asphalt Overlay
$117 per Square Yard
- Full Reconstruction
- Asphalt over Agg Base
$3 per Square Yard
- Fog Seal
- Slurry Seal or Micro-Surfacing
$3 per Square Yard
$16-42 per Square Yard
Item 12.a. - Page 14
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 8 of 30
Figure 5 – Least Effective, but common, Approach
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT GOALS
The PMP for the City of Arroyo Grande has five primary goals as follows:
1. Update and implement the StreetSaver program.
2. Provide an accurate and complete inventory of the City’s existing pavements
and condition.
3. Identify and quantify maintenance and rehabilitation needs for the street
system.
4. Develop an annual plan for the maintenance of the streets.
5. Recommend a budget for the City street system.
A full appreciation of a pavement management system and the value of its data and
cost projections depend on a basic understanding of pavement design basics. These
are provided in Section II: Background. Section III provides information on the PMS
Program specifics incorporated into the program. Section IV provides Summarized
System Information in the form of easy to read tables and figures. Section V provides a
set of policy and program recommendations for future pavement management. Two
appendices detail the proposed pavement management program and a list of
description of pavement distresses.
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
PA
V
E
M
E
N
T
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
AGE OF PAVEMENT
$117 per Square Yard
Reconstruction
without maintenance
is the least cost
effective approach.
Item 12.a. - Page 15
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 9 of 30
SECTION II – BACKGROUND
This section is intended to introduce important pavement design definitions and
calculations as a background for understanding the Pavement Management System
(PMS) assumptions.
PAVEMENT DESIGN BASICS
The two most critical considerations in pavement design include the anticipated load
above the pavement and the ability of the native soil to support those anticipated
loads. The pavement section is then designed as the medium between the loads
and the native soil.
Traffic Loads
Pavements are a structural support system generally considered to act like a beam.
But unlike beams in buildings which generally have static loads, the pavement
structure is flexed many times from traffic loading. Cars and light trucks have little
impact on the pavement structure. Larger/Heavier trucks have very significant
impacts to the pavement due to the high axle weights. The impact of trucks is
measured in equivalent single 18,000-pound axle loads (ESALs). The total ESALs
are converted into a design Traffic Index (TI) by an exponential formula. For
example, a design TI of 5 is equal to 7,160 ESALs. A design TI of 8 is equal to
372,000 ESALs. Therefore, the design TI is related to the total number of ESALs
that the pavement will support before it begins to fail, regardless of the passage of
time. Normally for a new pavement, the ESALs over a 20-year period are used. For
rehabilitation procedures such as overlays, 10 years is generally used. Below are
two figures representing the traffic index calculation and ESALs for common vehicles
on your roadways.
Item 12.a. - Page 16
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 10 of 30
Item 12.a. - Page 17
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 11 of 30
Strength of Native Soil
The other element of pavement design is the support of the native soil subgrade
which supports the anticipated traffic loads. The support value is designated by the
R-value (resistance value) test, which is performed by a soils engineer. The R-value
test indicates how well the native soil can resist traffic loads. If a native soil
subgrade has a high R-value it will result in a relatively small asphalt structural
section. If a native soil subgrade has a low R-value it will result in a relatively thick
asphalt structural section.
Using the anticipated design TI values and laboratory R-value test results, the
pavement designer chooses various materials to construct the structural section.
The most common pavement section is a thin layer of asphalt concrete over
aggregate base(s). Below are two examples of pavement design sections with
varied R-Values. The first example shows pavement sections for typical residential
streets with varied soil types. The second example shows pavement sections for
typical arterial streets with varied soil types. The purpose of these examples is to
show how pavement sections can vary depending on many factors.
LOW R-VALUE SOIL
MEDIUM R-VALUE SOIL
HIGH R-VALUE SOIL
RESIDENTIAL STREETS
TI = 5.5 TI = 5.5 TI = 5.5
R-Value = 5 R-Value = 40 R-Value = 75
RESIDENTIAL STREETS - PAVEMENT DESIGN RESULTS
Asphalt = 0.25 feet Asphalt = 0.25 feet Asphalt = 0.25 feet
Agg Base = 0.98 feet Agg Base = 0.42 feet Agg Base = 0.35 feet
ARTERIAL STREETS
TI = 9.0 TI = 9.0 TI = 9.0
R-Value = 5 R-Value = 40 R-Value = 75
ARTERIAL STREETS - PAVEMENT DESIGN RESULTS
Asphalt = 0.46 feet Asphalt = 0.46 feet Asphalt = 0.46 feet
Agg Base = 1.71 feet Agg Base = 0.79 feet Agg Base = 0.35 feet
Item 12.a. - Page 18
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 12 of 30
It is not recommended to require a standard pavement section because soil types
can (and often do) vary even in close proximity to one another. It is recommended
to design pavement maintenance and rehabilitation specific for each road segment.
Also very important, the City should require new streets in proposed developments
to be constructed to engineering designed pavement sections using anticipated TI
values, provided by the City, and R-value test results taken by the developer. This
will reduce maintenance and rehabilitation costs by City once after development is
completed. The standard pavement section table currently provided by the City
should be replaced with a requirement for engineering design following the highway
design manual.
Pavement Deterioration
Pavement deteriorates from two processes: fatigue and aging. The processes occur
simultaneously. In a well designed and constructed pavement, the two processes
result in the need to rehabilitate the pavement at approximately the same time. This
is called the design life. The design life for the newest pavements is 20 years. Each
aging process has its own set of pavement defects which are related to the process.
Fatigue
The first deterioration process is fatigue from heavy axle loads. As the pavement
structure flexes or bends from heavy wheel loads, the asphalt concrete layer's
ability to flex is consumed. (The impact of one trash truck trip on a road segment
is roughly equivalent to 1,000 car trips.) With sufficient bending, the asphalt
concrete layer begins to break at the bottom. This cracking progresses upward
until it reaches the surface and appears as alligator cracking. If left unattended,
they will produce a pothole. These areas are repaired by removal and
replacement of the asphalt concrete in the affected areas. These repairs are
commonly called digouts.
Aging
The major element of the pavement structure which ages is the asphalt concrete
layer. To a minor extent, aggregate bases can age if contaminated by fine soil
particles which are transported from the subsoil into the aggregate base.
Asphalt concrete is composed of aggregates and asphalt cement. The
aggregates used are generally of fair quality and do experience some breakdown
over time. Aggregate aging problems need to be addressed in maintenance
procedures. The asphalt concrete binder ages as well. As the asphalt binder
ages, it loses volume through loss of volatile components in the asphalt. As the
volume decreases, the pavement will progressively crack from the resulting
tensile strain in the layer. Normally, these cracks first show up as transverse
cracks. They also show up at weak areas such as paving joints. These cracks
widen and increase over time until the pavement has a checkerboard
appearance.
Item 12.a. - Page 19
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 13 of 30
The aging process also causes the pavement to become more brittle. The
increased stiffness results in additional cracking from loaded vehicles. This load
induced cracking from the brittleness of the asphalt concrete is very similar to
fatigue cracking in appearance. The major agent for deterioration of the asphalt
concrete binder is oxygen. The carrier of the oxygen is water. Water enters the
pavement either from the surface or as water vapor from underneath.
Typical Pavement Defects
StreetSaver analyzes eight different distress types that include
1. Alligator Cracking (Fatigue Cracking)
2. Block Cracking
3. Distortions
4. Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking
5. Patching and Utility Cut Patching
6. Rutting/Shoving
7. Weathering
8. Raveling
For purposes of understanding the character and levels of these distresses, the
pavement defect descriptions from the rating manual are included in the Appendix.
Item 12.a. - Page 20
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 14 of 30
PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE
Pavement maintenance procedures are designed to slow the pavement aging
process. Mainly, the procedures are designed to protect the pavement from the
adverse effects of age, water and to some extent wear from vehicle traffic.
Maintenance procedures which protect the pavement from aging are crack sealing,
digouts, slurry seals, and cape seals. When pavements have extensive cracking and
are beyond their design life, sealing can also be used as an interim holding measure
or stop gap prior to major rehabilitation.
Crack Sealing
Crack sealing prevents surface water from getting beneath the asphalt concrete
layer into the aggregate bases. Crack sealing is generally performed using hot
rubberized crack sealing material. The procedure includes routing small cracks,
cleaning and sealing. The City has an annual Crack Sealing program whereby City
staff rents a crack-fill machine, purchases crack seal material and applies the
material using our Public Works Department Maintenance Workers. City staff
generally applies crack seal to road segments scheduled for resurfacing the same
year.
Digouts (Patching)
Digouts are small areas of deteriorated pavements (usually potholes) which are
removed and replaced with new asphalt concrete. Pavement removal is
accomplished by cold planning (grinding) or saw cutting and excavation. New
asphalt is then installed to the excavated area... The digout depth is determined
depending on the severity and type of distress, as well as street type and
construction. Shallow patching is often used on low to medium severity distressed
areas of pavement where the underlying base is sound, while a full depth digout is
required when the failure of the base material is detected. Digouts are generally
performed by the City crew, though digouts repairs are often required in preparation
for a contracted slurry seal.
Slurry Seals and Micro-surfacing
Slurry seals consist of a combination of fine aggregate and emulsified oil used on
relatively good streets to preserve and extend pavement life. Slurry seals are also a
cost effective treatment for streets whose major form of distress is severe
weathering or raveling. Micro-surfacing is similar to a slurry seal with added
polymers that allow the application of thicker layers and added service life. The
added thickness of micro-surfacing makes it a good choice to correct rutting. Micro-
surfacing is commonly used by public agencies in San Luis Obispo County as a
routine street sealing treatment, providing excellent results with a life expectancy of
approximately 8 years. The City of Arroyo Grande has used micro-surfacing
treatments periodically since 2010.
It is important to note that the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), in
coordination with the Federal Highway Administration, has determined that Road
Item 12.a. - Page 21
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 15 of 30
Alteration (Rehabilitation) projects trigger the requirement for Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements. The DOJ and FHWA have determined that the
Micro-surfacing treatment is classified as an alteration, triggering the installation of
ADA compliant wheel chair ramps and street corners adjacent to the altered road
segment. This federal mandate also requires that any existing curb ramps that do
not meet the ADA standards in affect after 1991 are updated. This requirement has
the potential to significantly increase the cost of a road rehabilitation project where
an “alteration” is completed.
Cape Seals
Cape seals consist of a chip seal with a slurry seal placed on top. A chip seal is an
application of small angular rock (chips) approximately 1/4" to 3/8” in maximum size
embedded into a thick application of asphalt emulsion. Most chips seals incorporate
polymer modified binders.
Cape seals are used on residential and collector streets to maintain a pavement
which may need an overlay, but there are not sufficient funds available. Chip seals
are placed over low to moderate alligator cracks and block shrinkage cracking. Due
to the distress covered by the chip seal, small areas of dis-bonding or failure may
occur and will require patching.
Cape sealed surfaces are fairly coarse compared to new paving. Due to this
characteristic, they may not be Appropriate for high volume road segments in urban
areas. This treatment is more commonly used on rural, low volume road segments.
Though chip seals were used extensively in Arroyo Grande prior to incorporation,
many of the streets that received this treatment did not have a stable base and
subsequent deterioration has resulted. Cape seals have never been used in Arroyo
Grande but are being considered as a pavement treatment option in the near future
on streets with a stable base. They may also be used as an interim holding measure
to “hold" the pavement together until funds become available for major rehabilitation.
Cape seals are also considered alteration by the DOJ/ FHWA and as a result trigger
ADA upgrades.
PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROCEDURES
Pavement rehabilitation consists of procedures used to restore the existing
pavement quality or to add additional structural support to the pavement.
Rehabilitation procedures include conventional asphalt overlays; heavy overlays:
and reconstruction.
Conventional Overlays
Conventional overlays generally consist of surface preparation, the optional
installation of pavement fabric, followed by the application of varying thicknesses of
asphalt concrete. Surface preparation can consist of crack filling, pavement repairs
of base failures and leveling courses.
Item 12.a. - Page 22
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 16 of 30
Pavement fabric is often used as a water inhibiting membrane and to retard
reflective cracking. Reflective cracking occurs when native soil subgrade is not
strong enough (does not have a high R-value) to support the asphalt when a heavy
vehicle drives on the roadway. The bottom of the asphalt section cracks under
loading and over time the crack propagates to the street surface. Care must be
used with fabric to avoid intersections with heavy truck braking, steep grades
(generally over 8 percent), and areas where subsurface water might be trapped.
The overlay thickness is determined by the structural requirement of the deflection
analysis and reflective cracking criteria. The reflective cracking criteria requires the
thickness of the overlay to be a minimum 1/2 the thickness of the existing bonded
layers. Pavement fabric can account for 0.10 ft of asphalt for reflective cracking
criteria if the structural requirements from the deflection analysis are met.
Conventional overlays have an expected service life of 7 to 13 years if they are
designed to meet structural and reflective cracking criteria and are well constructed.
Heavy Overlay: AC Removal and Replacement (Mill and Fill)
On some thick asphalt concrete pavements, the most economical approach to
rehabilitating the pavement is to remove some of the existing asphalt concrete
surface by cold planning (grinding) and placing new asphalt concrete surface which
matches the existing profile. This method may be required if the pavement profile is
already so thick that the additional thickness obtained from recycling the existing
pavement is unacceptable due to drainage, street geometry, or other concerns. The
removed asphalt can often be recycled and reused on other streets if concurrent
projects are planned appropriately. Depending on existing conditions, this method
should have a life of 15 to 20 years.
Reconstruction
When the pavement has severe cross section deficiencies or requires significant
structural strengthening, reconstruction may be the only alternative. Generally,
existing pavement materials are recycled and incorporated into the new pavement
structure in a process called Full Depth Reclamation (FDR). This method minimizes
the importation of new base material and virtually eliminates export of material to
landfill sites. Engineered emulsion binders are mixed with the existing materials to
form a base that is equal to or superior in strength to new aggregate base. For
reference, a majority of the recently completed Oak Park Boulevard Rehabilitation
Project by the Grover Beach was an FDR project.
Item 12.a. - Page 23
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 17 of 30
SECTION III: THE PMS PROGRAM
This section discusses the characteristics of the PMS program and its application to the
City of Arroyo Grande.
BACKGROUND
A pioneering, computer-based pavement management system (known as
StreetSaver) developed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), is
helping Bay Area cities and counties better maintain their local streets and roads.
In 1982, MTC completed a study of local road and street maintenance needs and
revenue short falls in the San Francisco Bay Area. The results of the study indicated
that local jurisdictions were spending only 60 percent of funds required to maintain
roads in a condition considered adequate. This indicated a need to improve
pavement maintenance and rehabilitation techniques and practices. A committee
was formed to evaluate pavement management efforts. At approximately the same
time, six public works directors reviewed a proposal to develop a prototype PMS;
however, it was felt that the proposed system was too complex. This group strongly
emphasized that simplicity was the most important objective to be developed in a
PMS if it was to be adopted and used by cities and counties.
In 1983, a consultant was retained to assist MTC in determining PMS needs,
resources, and problems. In addition, they were to develop three basic elements of a
standardized prototype PMS: a pavement condition index (PCI), effective
maintenance treatments for the Bay Area, and a network level assignment
procedure. The result was the first version of the MTC PMS in 1987.
With the release of version 8 in 2003, MTC has renamed MTC PMS to StreetSaver.
The StreetSaver v.8 Online was launched in April 2005. MTC becomes the first and
is the leader in cloud-based provider for pavement management software. The latest
version of the StreetSaver v.9 Online, .NET edition was released in July 2008.
With more than 25 years of experience in pavement management and continuing
research and development, StreetSaver has become the most utilized software in
the West Coast. Several Central Coast municipal agencies also use the StreetSaver
pavement management tool.
SYSTEMS ASSUMPTIONS
The PMS program makes several basic assumptions regarding the degradation of
pavements. The basis of the system is the Pavement Condition Index (PCI). New
pavements with no defects receive a score of 100. From this score, the program
deducts points based on defect type and severity identified during the visual review.
After the initial PCI for a street segment is determined, the program reduces the PCI
on an annual basis using preset deterioration curves. Placement on the deterioration
curve is determined by the date of original construction or most recent overlay. The
PCI is increased when a maintenance or rehabilitation activity is performed.
Item 12.a. - Page 24
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 18 of 30
The system uses standard treatments to raise the PCI based on the original PCI.
The treatment strategies include light maintenance, heavy maintenance, light
rehabilitation, and heavy rehabilitation. Examples of these strategies are identified in
Section II above.
The system ratings do not take into account geometric constraints in the system
such as excessive street cross slopes, heights of curbs in median, or thickness of
curb and gutter pans. These geometric constraints often make some procedures
inapplicable. For example, when StreetSaver recommends an overlay it does not
take into account all of the fixed infrastructure neighboring the roadway such as curb
and gutter. You cannot place a two inch asphalt overlay next to concrete curb and
gutter because the asphalt would sit higher than the concrete. This requires the
contractor to remove the existing asphalt immediately adjacent to the gutter pan so
the surface of the new asphalt will match the surface of the existing concrete gutter
pan. The system also does not include miscellaneous costs, at this time, such as
associated concrete repairs or sidewalk improvements. StreetSaver is still being
modified continually to include various inventory functions to account for
miscellaneous items of work such as concrete sidewalk, ADA ramps, and curb and
gutter replacement. Since those features do not currently exist we have included
multipliers in the estimated unit costs to cover such anticipated expenses in the
budget.
Maintenance treatment recommendations are based on certain PCI and pavement
distress level thresholds, some of which are adjustable by the user and others are
not. Due to these assumptions and program simplifications, the PMS program
designated maintenance treatment for a given street may not be precisely what that
particular street requires. The PMS program identifies candidate streets for various
treatment types. The project engineer then visually reviews the streets. Depending
on the condition, a specific maintenance treatment can be specified, or in the case of
major rehabilitation, additional testing may need to be performed to identify which
specific maintenance or rehabilitation approach may be most economical.
The goal of the PMS program is to furnish budgetary amounts in order to achieve
system wide improvements in the overall pavement condition. The goal of the project
engineering is to obtain the maximum economic impact for a given subset of the
system to be maintained. Using the PMS program, management is able to
realistically budget for an economical approach to maintaining the City's street
network. Annually updating maintenance activity and costs is highly recommended
as it will help keep the PMS system current..
PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PRIORITIES
Though the initial selection of streets, scheduling of work, and choice of treatment is
made by the StreetSaver program with the goal of maximizing the impact of
pavement management dollars, several user-defined criteria guide the program in
the way it processes data. These key criteria include:
Item 12.a. - Page 25
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 19 of 30
• Achieve and maintain an average PCI of 70 or higher for all city streets with
no street below a PCI of 55.
• Give priority to more heavily traveled streets. The order of priority has been
set as arterial, collector, and residential, in that order.
• Preventative maintenance on streets with a low surface area percentage of
distresses is the best use of funds. Dig-out repairs followed by slurry seal or
micro-surfacing treatment measures can be used as appropriate. Priority is
given to streets that are at risk of dropping into a lower PCI range requiring
rehabilitation.
• Rehabilitation measures are generally required for streets with a PCI in the
range of 55 to 70 or high surface area percentage of distresses. Priority is
given to streets that are at risk of dropping into a lower PCI range requiring
full reconstruction.
• Reconstruction measures are generally required for streets with a PCI less
than 55.
SYSTEM INVENTORY
The street classifications (arterial, collector, and residential) assigned in this report
were determined by Caltrans. Since pavement life is directly proportional to the
types and weight of vehicles, the City should periodically review and upgrade the
classification of streets so the PMS can correctly identify rehabilitation and
maintenance strategies and account for the increased truck traffic.
All streets were measured using a vehicle mounted measuring device for length and
a hand held measuring wheel for width. In the case of cul-de-sacs, StreetSaver
adjusts the area to account for the additional pavement area in the cul-de-sacs
bulbs. Widths were measured from edges of asphalt, excluding curb and gutter.
Widths of collectors and arterials were adjusted to account for pavement in turn
pockets. An alphabetical listing of the streets, broken into their segments is available
in the appendix.
PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION UNIT COSTS
The following costs were used to develop the indicated budget numbers for each
street segment reviewed. The costs include miscellaneous work such as dig-outs,
pavement markings and traffic lane striping. .
The estimated costs are based on unit cost averages for previous road repair and
maintenance projects. Small projects will have higher unit costs and large programs
will have lower unit costs. The larger the annual program size, the better the
economies of scale. Timing is also important. Bidding the work in early spring may
result in lower prices than bids solicited in the late summer or fall. If small packages
are used, costs could be 25 to 50 percent higher.
The estimated costs below reflect prices for work completed within the county over
Item 12.a. - Page 26
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 20 of 30
the past few years, including data from within the City and estimated costs from
other agencies using StreetSaver. The developed unit costs include striping and
other lump sum project costs for each street segment. The costs per street segment
were then averaged and rounded to produce the indicated unit costs. The unit costs
include a 10% contingency and a 15% allowance to account for engineering design
fees and inspection. These prices are in today’s dollars (July 2016) and do not
account for inflation.
Work performed by the City crews is also included in the unit costs. Such work
includes crack sealing, weed abatement, and potholing.
Approximate Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation Costs
Estimated Costs (per Square Yard) and Estimated Service Life of Treatments
Treatment
Description
Arterial Collector Residential
Est. Costs
($/SY)
Est.
Life
(Yrs)
Est. Costs
($/SY)
Est.
Life
(Yrs)
Est. Costs
($/SY)
Est.
Life
(Yrs)
Reconstruction $117.00 15-20 $102.38 15-20 $87.75 15-20
Heavy
Rehabilitation $60.00 12-15 $52.50 12-15 $45.00 12-15
Light
Rehabilitation $42.00 8-12 $36.75 8-12 $31.50 8-12
Heavy
Maintenance $16.40 5-8 $14.35 5-8 $12.30 5-8
Light
Maintenance $3.24 3-5 $2.84 3-5 $2.43 3-5
The estimated unit costs reflected above include construction, design, and special
inspection. The costs above due not account for annual inflation.
The costs were calculated based on recent past projects performed within the City of
Arroyo Grande as well as neighboring cities. There are many pavement
maintenance and rehabilitation options to consider for each street improvement
project, however, in an effort to estimate construction costs we assumed pavement
treatments for each category of maintenance or repair as listed below. The
estimated base cost includes average construction pricing for applicable assumed
treatments and does not include administrative costs for city project management,
engineering design, construction management, special inspections, or construction
contingency. In order to account for these additional costs we assumed a
multiplying factor for arterial, collector, and residential streets in the amount of 2.0,
1.75, and 1.50, respectively.
Item 12.a. - Page 27
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 21 of 30
Maintenance or
Repair Assumed Treatment Est. Base
Cost ($/SY)
Reconstruction 13” Aggregate Base + 3” Asphalt
Pavement $58.50
Heavy
Rehabilitation
25% Digouts + Pavement Fabric + 2”
Asphalt Overlay $30.00
Light Rehabilitation Pavement Fabric + 2” Asphalt Overlay $21.00
Heavy
Maintenance
Microsurfacing + Chip Seal +
Microsurfacing $8.20
Light Maintenance Microsurfacing $1.62
Since life cycle cost analysis is part of developing annual maintenance and
rehabilitation programs, some general life expectancies should be identified. For a
typical light maintenance treatment, a service life of 3 to 5 years can be assumed. A
heavy maintenance treatment may provide a service life of 5 to 8 years. A typical
conventional overlay, whether light or heavy, has an expected service life of 8 to 12
years. Depending on the existing pavement and soil conditions, other rehabilitation
options can be applied that will provide a service life of up to 15 years. A
reconstructed pavement is expected to provide a service life of 20 years.
Depending on the existing conditions, the identified service life may vary. The
projections of future life are given to provide a broad outline for pavement
maintenance budgeting. They should not be interpreted as providing definitive
predictions of future pavement performance.
Visual Evaluations
All of the pavements were evaluated by two field technicians and 5% of the analysis
was checked through Rick Engineering’s quality control process. The Road rating
was performed pursuant to the Pavement Condition Index Distress Identification
Manual for Asphalt and Surface Treatment Pavements (April 2012, Third Edition
(Revised)).
*A color coded map and a list of each street with their current PCI is available in the
appendix.
System Update
The following updates were made to Street Saver to allow the City to make
financially-sound decisions regarding the City’s street network.
1. Road Segments – The roadways were re-segmented to reflect logical start
and stop limits of road segments based upon existing conditions of the
pavement. For example start and stop points were modified based on asphalt
conditions, road width changes, or similar. All segment lengths and widths
were updated to reflect field measurements, eliminating previous
measurements which were estimates taken from Google Earth or Google
Street View.
Item 12.a. - Page 28
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 22 of 30
2. Historical Records – Historical maintenance and repair data was inputted for
each road segment.
3. PCI Values – Each road segment was evaluated in the field and from the data
obtained StreetSaver provided a PCI value representing the condition as of
July 2016.
4. GIS – The mapping component was updated through the combined efforts of
City staff and Rick Engineering staff. Limits of City streets were properly
identified and distinguished from neighboring jurisdictions. Neighborhood
zones were also created to assist the City in future planning purposes.
Item 12.a. - Page 29
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 23 of 30
SECTION IV: SUMMARIZED SYSTEM INFORMATION
The City of Arroyo Grande currently maintains 66.3 centerline miles (137.9 Lane Miles)
of roadways (approximately 8,030,178 square feet of pavement). This represents an
asset with a replacement value of approximately $180,000,000. (See GASB 34 – Cost
Summary)
Data was collected for the City’s street network using StreetSaver PMS Version 6.1.
The current weighted average PCI (Pavement Condition Index) for the street system is
68 based on the PMS update performed by Rick Engineering; however, there is reason
to believe this PCI value may be falsely inflated. There were many streets which appear
to be recently sealed with a surfacing treatment such as a slurry seal or micro-surfacing
seal that had severe alligator cracking or other asphalt failures, prior to the resurfacing.
Although resurfacing treatments can be cost-effective, they must be placed on existing
asphalt surfaces appropriate for their application. Within 3-5 years we would expect the
asphalt pavement failures to manifest themselves through the resurfacing seals placed
within the last three years. Another PMS database re-evaluation should be performed to
identify the actual PCI values of the road segments. All analyses performed in this
report included the average PCI value of 68 and no adjustments were made at this time.
The street network for the City of Arroyo Grande includes the following:
Functional Class Lane Miles Area (Square Feet) Percent of
System Average PCI
Arterial 9.4 863,800 6.3% 76
Minor Arterial 20.0 2,173,525 16% 69
Major Collector 25.1 2,539,705 18.7% 68
Residential/Local 83.4 7,529,800 55.3% 70
Other* N/A 505,625 3.7% 68
Total 137.9 13,612,455 100% 68
* Other – Includes City parking lots, water tank access roads, and a fire access road
Note: Private roads are included in the inventory, but excluded from the budget
analysis.
Item 12.a. - Page 30
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 24 of 30
SECTION V: RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
There are three general approaches that may be taken for pavement management and
selection of the specific road segments for resurfacing;
1. Worst First: The approach selects the worst condition road segments for repair
and resurfacing. This approach results in the highest unit cost approach and
does result in preventative maintenance for better condition road segments.
2. Pre-Established Schedule: An established schedule of future road resurfacing
and repair projects prepared strictly on an annual rotation based on a projected
time frame during which all road segments would receive some type of
resurfacing. This approach does not address the cost effective needs of the road
network but is often received well by members of the community because they
can see when their own street is scheduled for maintenance.
3. Critical Point: This approach selects the road segments for repair or resurfacing
that are at a “critical point” of deteriorating. The critical point is a point located on
the pavement deterioration graph which indicates the PCI value is about to drop
which would trigger a more expensive maintenance or rehabilitation approach.
Catching the pavement section at the appropriate time results in the most cost
effective approach and still meets the needs of the community.
The Critical Point road segment selection approach is recommended regardless of a
projected schedule or resurfacing program. The drawback to this approach is that it
does not necessarily provide property owners with a certain date for resurfacing of the
road segment fronting their property. The PMS system will annually evaluate and
provide recommendations for repair and resurfacing based on this critical point
approach. The critical point road segment selection approach is the most economical
pavement management approach and will assist the City is achieving the targeted
overall PCI value in the shortest amount of time.
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT FUNDING OPTION RESULTS
There are two separate approaches to funding the City’s pavement management
program, including a budget-driven scenario and a target-driven scenario. The
budget-driven funding scenario identifies the resulting PCI value over time based on
a pre-determined pavement management budget. The target-driven approach
identifies the estimated budget over time based on a targeted PCI value. Both
approaches are identified in more detail below.
The following results were generated from Street Saver analyzing both budget-
driven and PCI Target-driven scenarios.
Item 12.a. - Page 31
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 25 of 30
Budget-Driven Scenarios
Two budget-driven scenarios were analyzed. The first analysis shows the projected
PCI if the current budget is maintained. The second analysis shows the projected
PCI if the current budget is increased $500,000 annually. This second analysis
indicates the results had the SLOCOG Bond Measure J passed in the recent
election in the past month of November. A similar bond measure may pass the
second attempt by SLOCOG but the timing for the tax initiative is currently unknown.
Approximate Allocated Costs over 7 Years
Current
Budget
Arterial Collector Res/Local Other GRAND
TOTALS
Rehab $1,407,672 $1,187,723 $3,494,043 $194,812 $6,284,250
Prev.
Maint. $74,088 $62,512 $183,897 $10,253 $330,750
Total $1,481,760 $1,250,235 $3,677,940 $205,065 $6,615,000
Current
Budget
+$500K
Arterial Collector Res/Local Other GRAND
TOTALS
Rehab $2,152,472 $1,816,148 $5,342,743 $297,887 $9,609,250
Prev.
Maint. $113,288 $95,587 $281,197 $15,678 $505,750
Total $2,265,760 $1,911,735 $5,623,940 $313,565 $10,115,000
Projected PCI Values over 7 Years
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Current
Budget
Without Treatment 68 66 63 61 58 56 53
With Treatment 69 67 66 64 62 60 58
Current
Budget
+$500K
Annually
Without Treatment 68 66 63 61 58 56 53
With Treatment 69 68 66 65 63 62 61
Item 12.a. - Page 32
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 26 of 30
Target-Driven Scenario
A target-driven scenario was analyzed targeting an average street network PCI
value of 70 are the results.
Below are the total estimated costs and projected average network PCI values for
the target-driven approach to achieve an average PCI = 70 within 7 years.
Approximate Costs over 7 Years to Maintain PCI = 70
Arterial Collector Res/Local Other GRAND
TOTALS
Rehab $938,285 $4,457,766 $14,003,562 $161,801 $19,561,414
Prev.
Maint. $331,520 $271,002 $976,173 $24,980 $1,603,675
Total $1,269,805 $4,728,768 $14,979,735 $186,781 $21,165,089
Projected PCI Values over 7 Years
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Without Treatment 68 66 63 61 58 56 53
With Treatment 70 70 70 70 70 70 70
Item 12.a. - Page 33
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 27 of 30
RECOMMENDATIONS
After a full analysis of the street network and update of the pavement management
system database, Rick Engineering recommends the City consider options to
increase funds to maintain an average network PCI value of PCI = 65 for residential
streets and PCI = 70 for arterials and collectors. We recommend the City pursue
this target-driven approach rather than a budget-driven approach. The target-driven
approach keeps PCI values from dropping below the critical points along the
pavement degradation curve. By keeping the PCI above these critical points the
overall street budget will be minimized in the long-term. If a budget-driven approach
is taken, the results are costly and will likely require heavy rehabilitation or
replacement of roadways in the future. The target-driven scenario as presented is
anticipated to cost an additional $14.5 Million over the seven-year PMP.
Due to current funding limitations, however, the budget driven approach will need to
be employed until additional funding sources are identified. This approach will
result in the long term lowering of the City’s PCI and the continued degradation of
the City’s road infrastructure.
Rick Engineering also recommends the following –
1. Regularly update the StreetSaver street condition database: All maintenance,
repair and rehabilitation activities should be entered into the StreetSaver
database so current street conditions can be tracked and project planning
facilitated.
2. Coordinate with the Street Maintenance Division to perform basic
preventative maintenance and to record work performed into Street Saver on
a regular basis. These measures can affect the PCI values over a long
period of time and if maintained regularly, the City will be able to make
informed decisions in real time without requiring a potentially lengthy
consultation process.
3. Re-evaluate the PMS Street Saver database every 3-5 years. If City staff
utilizes Street Saver regularly and enters updates after repair and
maintenance projects are completed the re-evaluation can be performed after
5 years. If the database is not updated regularly, a re-evaluation after three
years is recommended.
4. Encourage use of new proven technologies and materials in pavement
design. There are many cost-effective approaches being presented by
manufacturers, contractors, and scholars. Such approaches are often
discussed at California Asphalt Pavement Association (Cal APA) meetings as
well as other such organized meetings. RICK will gladly provide scheduling
information about such events upon request.
Item 12.a. - Page 34
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 28 of 30
PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
Below are some pavement management program recommendations.
1. Institute a regular global maintenance (street sealing) program: The expected
life of a good slurry seal or micro-surface treatment is eight years and a cape
seal can be expected to last 10 years. Every street in the City should be
sealed every 8 to 10 years unless it is scheduled for major rehabilitation.
Such a maintenance program will need to be phased in over time, as there
are many streets that already exceed this interval and budget does not allow
treating them all immediately.
2. Enhance the City’s pothole repair program: Pothole repair prevents water
intrusion into the supporting soil and can also serve as a “stop gap” repair
until major maintenance can be performed. Pothole repair can sometimes
involve a simple removal and replacement of the top layer of asphalt, but
more often requires full digout of the underlying base and reconstruction of
the entire pavement profile. Once the area of pothole patch repairs exceeds
10% of the street area, the street is a candidate for major rehabilitation. The
Public Works Department Streets Division is responsible for pothole repairs.
Pothole repair requests usually originate from citizens but a more pro-active
approach coordinated with the street sealing program will enhance both the
life of the pothole repair and the seal coat.
3. Continue the current crack sealing program: Older pavements tend to crack
even if the subgrade is stable. Cracks, however, will allow water to enter the
supporting soil and destabilize the pavement base. A regular crack sealing
program will increase the longevity of streets and delay costlier maintenance
and repairs. The Streets Division has the equipment to perform this task.
Unlike potholes, which are often reported by citizens, cracks are best
identified during periodic inventories. The StreetSaver PMS catalogues
cracks that need attention. Sealing cracks prior to micro-surfacing or chip
seals will extend the life of the new surface.
4. Create a Green Streets program: Street reconstruction is an opportunity to
“go green’ through the use of recycled pavement materials and in redesigning
drainage to reduce the amount of polluted runoff that enters our creeks and
the storm drain system. Green streets usually have bike and pedestrian-
friendly components. Such a program is often a good candidate for external
grant funding to help stretch City budget dollars.
5. Implement a street subsurface evaluation program: Streets that are
scheduled for reconstruction may have adequate materials in the pavement
profile to warrant full-depth reclamation of these materials. Depending on the
quality and thickness of the existing materials that make up the pavement
profile, and a suitable binder material can be designed to be added during the
Item 12.a. - Page 35
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 29 of 30
reclamation process to form a strong base. An evaluation of the pavement
profile will provide the necessary data for engineering design of the recycled
base.
6. Modify and enforce trench cut standards: Trench cuts can have a significant
impact on street durability. Internal coordination with utility master plan
projects will help reduce damage to recently paved streets due to planned
activities, but trenching for emergency repairs and new developments are
inevitable. Diligent enforcement of current engineering standards for trench
backfill including the one-year warranty against settlement will help minimize
trenching impacts to the pavement. The City standards should also be
updated to conform to current material specifications and trench repair
technologies.
7. Coordinate with other programs and departments: Street repair and
maintenance often impacts other activities, programs and City operations. At
a minimum, the following activities should be coordinated with street repair
and maintenance:
a. Utility Master Planning and scheduled repairs: Coordination of
proposed street and utility work can avoid counterproductive efforts
such as trenching in newly repaved streets.
b. City Trees: Urban trees are a valuable resource to communities and
have a positive economic benefit, however street work will require
periodic trimming and/or removal of trees to accommodate repairs or
work within the drip line.
c. Bicycle Traffic: Class 2 bicycle lanes share the paved area of City
streets, often on the outside edge or shoulder. Pavement maintenance
and overlays should be performed such that sharp edges and ridges in
the bicycle lane are avoided. Pavement repair may also present an
opportunity to correct or enhance bicycle lane markings.
8. Create a comprehensive Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program:
Based on the above policy recommendations, pavement management system
reports, and preliminary field evaluations of the City street system, a
comprehensive plan should be prepared for the upkeep, maintenance and
rehabilitation of the streets of Arroyo Grande. The program should have
several budget alternatives including the use of current budget amounts
projected forward. City Council can then choose amongst the alternatives with
an understanding of how the adopted program will impact the long term
condition of City streets. Though the Program lists projects over a five-year
period, budgeting should plan for ten years of work.
Item 12.a. - Page 36
City of Arroyo Grande 2016 Pavement Management Plan 30 of 30
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Current PCI Condition Map
Appendix B – Spreadsheet of Current Road Segments and PCI Values
Appendix C – Street Saver Scenario Results
Appendix D – Street Saver Cost Projection Input Data (“Decision Tree”)
Appendix E – Description of Pavement Defects
Item 12.a. - Page 37
APPENDIX A
Current PCI Condition Map
Item 12.a. - Page 38
Current PCI Condition
Printed: 1/26/2017
City of Arroyo Grande
300 E. Branch St
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
(805) 473-5460
Test
Feature Legend
Category I - Very Good
Category II - Good (Non-Load)
Category III - Good (Load)
Category IV - Poor
Category V - Very Poor
0 0.5 1
Miles Item 12.a. - Page 39
APPENDIX B
Spreadsheet of Current Road Segments and PCI Values
Note:
1. Streets indicating a PCI Value = 0 are private streets, streets not in Arroyo
Grande City Limits, or unable to be evaluated.
Item 12.a. - Page 40
Ci
t
y
o
f
A
r
r
o
y
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
20
1
6
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
RO
A
D
S
E
G
M
E
N
T
-
DE
T
A
I
L
E
D
D
A
T
A
a
n
d
P
C
I
V
A
L
U
E
S
1 of 18
St
r
e
e
t
I
D
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
D
Be
g
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
En
d
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Le
n
g
t
h
(F
T
)
Width (FT)Area (SF)
P
C
I
Ac
o
r
n
D
r
10
E
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
W
a
y
Eq
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
W
a
y
1,
5
0
0
3
7
5
5
,
5
0
0
5
4
Al
d
e
r
S
t
10
F
a
r
r
o
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ca
m
e
r
o
n
C
o
u
r
t
69
0
3
8
2
6
,
2
2
0
5
7
Al
d
e
r
S
t
20
F
a
r
r
o
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
As
h
S
t
1,
4
1
0
3
7
5
2
,
1
7
0
7
5
Al
d
e
r
S
t
30
A
s
h
S
t
Ea
s
t
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
1,
4
5
0
3
8
5
5
,
1
0
0
5
3
Al
l
e
n
S
t
10
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
W
a
y
Ga
r
d
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
2,
1
5
0
3
1
6
6
,
6
5
0
9
1
Al
p
i
n
e
S
t
N
10
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
Fa
e
h
A
v
e
1,
0
5
8
3
2
3
3
,
8
5
6
9
2
Al
p
i
n
e
S
t
S
10
C
e
r
r
o
V
i
s
t
a
C
i
r
c
l
e
(
E
O
S
)
Ce
r
r
o
V
i
s
t
a
L
a
n
e
27
0
3
2
8
,
6
4
0
7
4
Al
p
i
n
e
S
t
S
20
C
e
r
r
o
V
i
s
t
a
L
n
Do
d
s
o
n
W
a
y
24
2
3
4
8
,
2
2
8
1
9
Al
p
i
n
e
S
t
S
30
D
o
d
s
o
n
W
a
y
E.
G
r
a
n
d
1,
4
3
0
3
4
4
8
,
6
2
0
7
9
An
d
r
e
D
r
15
J
e
n
n
y
P
l
a
c
e
CD
S
1,
4
7
0
2
9
4
2
,
6
3
0
8
2
Ar
a
b
i
a
n
C
r
10
V
i
s
t
a
D
r
i
v
e
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
63
3
3
7
2
3
,
4
2
1
6
5
Ar
c
a
d
i
a
D
r
10
L
o
n
g
d
e
n
D
r
Su
n
r
i
s
e
D
r
.
10
1
0
1
0
0
0
Ar
r
o
y
o
A
v
e
10
P
i
l
g
r
a
m
W
a
y
We
s
t
C
h
e
r
r
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
60
7
3
3
2
0
,
0
3
1
7
5
As
h
S
t
10
C
i
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
(
H
e
r
m
o
s
a
C
t
)
CI
W
E
a
s
t
o
f
S
p
r
u
c
e
1,
7
2
5
4
1
7
0
,
7
2
5
6
6
As
h
S
t
20
C
I
W
E
.
o
f
S
p
u
c
e
S
t
S.
E
l
m
S
t
60
0
3
3
1
9
,
8
0
0
8
1
As
h
S
t
30
S
.
E
l
m
S
t
Al
d
e
r
S
t
2,
0
3
0
3
7
7
5
,
1
1
0
6
8
As
i
l
o
S
t
10
L
a
C
a
n
a
d
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
N
o
r
t
h
e
n
d
)
L
a
C
a
n
a
d
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
u
t
h
E
n
d
)
1
,
3
2
0
2
9
3
8
,
2
8
0
9
0
As
i
l
o
S
t
20
L
a
C
a
n
a
d
a
Vi
s
t
a
D
r
i
v
e
1,
3
0
0
2
9
3
7
,
7
0
0
9
4
As
p
e
n
S
t
10
A
s
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Po
p
l
a
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
1,
4
8
0
3
7
5
4
,
7
6
0
6
0
Av
e
n
i
d
a
D
e
D
1
0
V
i
a
B
a
n
d
o
l
e
r
o
(
N
o
r
t
h
e
n
d
)
Vi
a
B
a
n
d
o
l
e
r
o
(
S
o
u
t
h
E
n
d
)
3,
2
0
0
3
7
1
1
8
,
4
0
0
55
Ba
k
e
m
a
n
N
1
0
F
a
r
r
o
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
(
E
a
s
t
S
i
d
e
)
Fa
r
r
o
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
(
W
e
s
t
S
i
d
e
)
1,
4
0
0
3
3
4
6
,
2
0
0
9
1
Ba
k
e
m
a
n
S
1
0
F
a
r
r
o
l
l
R
o
a
d
(
W
e
s
t
S
i
d
e
)
Fa
r
r
o
l
l
R
o
a
d
(
E
a
s
t
S
i
d
e
)
1,
5
9
0
3
6
5
7
,
2
4
0
6
4
Ba
m
b
i
C
t
10
T
i
g
e
r
T
a
i
l
D
r
i
v
e
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
40
0
3
7
1
4
,
8
0
0
7
1
Be
d
l
o
e
L
n
10
W
e
s
t
C
h
e
r
r
y
L
a
n
e
Fa
i
r
O
a
k
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
50
0
1
9
9
,
5
0
0
5
1
Be
e
c
h
S
t
10
F
a
r
r
o
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
Fa
i
r
O
a
k
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
70
0
3
7
2
5
,
9
0
0
5
8
Be
l
l
S
t
10
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
(
E
a
s
t
)
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
1,
0
5
0
3
5
3
6
,
7
5
0
8
7
Be
n
n
e
t
t
A
v
10
L
i
n
d
a
D
r
i
v
e
Ha
l
c
y
o
n
(
N
o
r
t
h
)
1,
0
2
0
3
5
3
5
,
7
0
0
7
5
Item 12.a. - Page 41
Ci
t
y
o
f
A
r
r
o
y
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
20
1
6
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
RO
A
D
S
E
G
M
E
N
T
-
DE
T
A
I
L
E
D
D
A
T
A
a
n
d
P
C
I
V
A
L
U
E
S
2 of 18
St
r
e
e
t
I
D
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
D
Be
g
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
En
d
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Le
n
g
t
h
(F
T
)
Width (FT)Area (SF)
P
C
I
Be
n
n
e
t
t
A
v
20
H
a
l
c
y
o
n
(
N
o
r
t
h
)
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
1,
0
5
0
3
5
3
6
,
7
5
0
8
6
Be
t
a
C
t
10
B
r
i
g
h
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
18
5
3
6
6
,
6
6
0
3
0
Bl
a
c
k
b
e
r
r
y
15
B
o
y
s
e
n
b
e
r
r
y
S
t
Cr
a
n
b
e
r
r
y
S
t
1,
0
5
0
3
3
3
4
,
6
5
0
8
8
Bl
u
e
b
e
r
r
y
A
1
0
B
o
y
s
e
n
b
e
r
r
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Co
u
r
t
l
a
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
48
3
3
3
1
5
,
9
3
9
8
8
Bo
y
s
e
n
b
e
r
r
1
0
R
a
s
p
b
e
r
r
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
St
r
a
w
b
e
r
r
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
93
0
3
3
3
0
,
6
9
0
8
8
Br
a
n
c
h
M
i
l
l
10
E
a
s
t
C
h
e
r
r
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ci
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
3,
5
3
0
2
4
8
4
,
7
2
0
4
7
Br
a
n
c
h
S
t
E
10
B
r
i
d
g
e
S
t
(
B
r
i
c
k
s
)
Ma
s
o
n
S
t
(
B
r
i
c
k
s
)
79
0
4
2
3
3
,
1
8
0
7
2
Br
a
n
c
h
S
t
E
20
M
a
s
o
n
S
t
(
B
r
i
c
k
s
)
Ga
r
d
e
n
S
t
1,
4
6
0
4
8
7
0
,
0
8
0
6
2
Br
a
n
c
h
S
t
E
30
G
a
r
d
e
n
S
t
Hu
a
s
n
a
1,
0
3
0
3
2
3
2
,
9
6
0
7
7
Br
a
n
c
h
S
t
W
1
0
O
a
k
P
a
r
k
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ca
m
i
n
o
M
e
r
c
a
d
o
1,
7
4
0
4
5
7
7
,
4
3
0
6
7
Br
a
n
c
h
S
t
W
2
0
C
a
m
i
n
o
M
e
r
c
a
d
o
Br
i
s
c
o
R
o
a
d
2,
8
8
0
6
7
1
9
2
,
9
6
0
56
Br
a
n
c
h
S
t
W
3
0
B
r
i
s
c
o
R
o
a
d
CO
P
E
a
s
t
o
f
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
e
n
t
r
a
n
c
e
1
,
0
8
0
4
2
4
5
,
3
6
0
6
6
Br
a
n
c
h
S
t
W
4
0
C
O
P
E
a
s
t
o
f
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
e
n
t
r
a
n
c
e
V
e
r
n
o
n
1,
6
1
0
4
2
6
7
,
6
2
0
5
1
Br
a
n
c
h
S
t
W
4
5
V
e
r
n
o
n
S
t
E.
G
r
a
n
d
83
0
2
8
2
3
,
2
4
0
7
9
Br
a
n
c
h
S
t
W
5
0
E
.
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
W
a
y
27
5
5
0
1
3
,
7
5
0
8
9
Br
a
n
c
h
S
t
W
6
0
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
W
a
y
Br
i
d
g
e
S
t
68
5
4
0
2
7
,
4
0
0
6
4
Br
i
d
g
e
S
t
10
B
r
a
n
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
E
a
s
t
)
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
W
a
y
95
0
3
9
3
7
,
0
5
0
4
4
Br
i
g
h
t
o
n
A
v
1
0
O
a
k
P
a
r
k
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Co
u
r
t
l
a
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
67
8
4
0
2
7
,
1
2
0
7
0
Br
i
g
h
t
o
n
A
v
2
0
C
o
u
r
t
l
a
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
El
m
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
N
o
r
t
h
)
1,
9
0
0
4
0
7
6
,
0
0
0
4
6
Br
i
s
c
o
R
d
10
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
(
E
a
s
t
)
Li
n
d
a
D
r
i
v
e
75
0
4
0
3
0
,
0
0
0
8
3
Br
i
s
c
o
R
d
20
L
i
n
d
a
D
r
i
v
e
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
1,
3
5
0
4
0
5
4
,
0
0
0
8
3
Br
i
s
c
o
R
d
30
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Br
a
n
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
W
e
s
t
)
30
0
4
0
1
2
,
0
0
0
8
9
Br
i
t
t
a
n
y
A
v
10
S
o
u
t
h
E
l
m
Ca
r
r
i
n
g
t
o
n
P
l
a
c
e
31
0
3
7
1
1
,
4
7
0
9
3
Br
o
a
d
m
o
o
r
D
1
0
S
u
n
r
i
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
Lo
n
g
d
e
n
D
r
i
v
e
63
4
2
6
1
6
,
4
8
4
0
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
10
C
h
e
r
r
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
Fa
i
r
O
a
k
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
52
5
3
4
1
7
,
8
5
0
5
9
Ca
l
l
e
C
a
r
m
e
1
0
V
i
a
B
a
n
d
o
l
e
r
o
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
25
0
3
7
9
,
2
5
0
7
6
Ca
l
l
e
C
u
e
r
v
1
0
V
i
a
L
a
s
A
g
u
i
l
a
s
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
26
0
2
9
7
,
5
4
0
8
6
Item 12.a. - Page 42
Ci
t
y
o
f
A
r
r
o
y
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
20
1
6
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
RO
A
D
S
E
G
M
E
N
T
-
DE
T
A
I
L
E
D
D
A
T
A
a
n
d
P
C
I
V
A
L
U
E
S
3 of 18
St
r
e
e
t
I
D
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
D
Be
g
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
En
d
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Le
n
g
t
h
(F
T
)
Width (FT)Area (SF)
P
C
I
Ca
l
l
i
e
C
t
10
H
u
a
s
n
a
R
o
a
d
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
19
0
3
7
7
,
0
3
0
7
0
Ca
m
e
r
o
n
C
t
1
0
A
l
d
e
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ha
l
c
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
56
2
3
7
2
0
,
7
9
4
5
6
Ca
m
i
n
o
M
e
r
c
1
0
B
r
a
n
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
W
e
s
t
)
CO
P
W
e
s
t
o
f
W
a
l
m
a
r
t
E
n
t
.
1,
0
0
0
3
8
3
8
,
0
0
0
6
6
Ca
m
i
n
o
M
e
r
c
2
0
C
O
P
W
e
s
t
o
f
W
a
l
m
a
r
t
E
n
t
r
a
n
c
e
R
a
n
c
h
o
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
1,
4
9
0
4
1
6
1
,
0
9
0
7
9
Ca
m
p
a
n
a
P
l
1
0
G
u
l
a
r
t
e
R
o
a
d
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
56
2
3
8
2
1
,
3
5
6
5
6
Ca
n
y
o
n
W
y
1
0
T
a
l
l
y
H
o
CI
W
1,
3
0
0
3
8
4
9
,
4
0
0
7
3
Ca
n
y
o
n
W
y
2
0
C
a
n
y
o
n
W
y
(
C
I
W
)
CD
S
45
0
2
6
1
1
,
7
0
0
8
4
Ca
n
y
o
n
W
y
3
0
C
I
W
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
1,
6
2
0
2
3
3
7
,
2
6
0
0
Ca
r
d
i
n
a
l
C
t
10
R
o
b
i
n
C
i
r
c
l
e
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
15
0
3
7
5
,
5
5
0
5
9
Ca
r
m
e
l
l
a
D
r
1
0
F
a
r
r
o
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
CD
S
90
0
3
5
3
1
,
5
0
0
7
4
Ca
r
o
l
P
l
10
C
a
r
m
e
l
l
a
D
r
i
v
e
Fa
r
r
o
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
58
0
3
7
2
1
,
4
6
0
6
1
Ca
r
r
i
n
g
t
o
n
10
B
r
i
t
t
a
n
y
A
v
e
CD
S
14
0
3
7
5
,
1
8
0
9
3
Ca
s
t
i
l
l
o
C
t
10
V
i
s
t
a
D
r
i
v
e
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
30
0
2
9
8
,
7
0
0
8
8
Ca
s
t
i
l
l
o
D
e
10
O
r
c
h
a
r
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
1,
3
1
2
3
7
4
8
,
5
4
4
9
7
Ca
s
t
i
l
l
o
D
e
20
O
r
c
h
a
r
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ar
r
o
y
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
H
i
g
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
16
3
3
7
6
,
0
3
1
9
8
Ce
d
a
r
S
t
10
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Sp
r
u
c
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
54
0
3
5
1
8
,
9
0
0
6
0
Ce
d
a
r
S
t
25
S
p
r
u
c
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
Co
u
r
t
l
a
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
88
7
3
0
2
6
,
6
1
0
7
6
Ce
r
o
V
i
s
t
a
C
1
0
C
e
r
r
o
V
i
s
t
a
L
a
n
e
Al
p
i
n
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
71
5
3
7
2
6
,
4
5
5
8
1
Ce
r
o
V
i
s
t
a
L
1
0
A
l
p
i
n
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
Ce
r
r
o
V
i
s
t
o
C
i
r
c
l
e
55
0
4
3
2
3
,
3
7
5
8
3
Ch
a
p
a
r
r
a
l
L
1
5
S
p
a
n
i
s
h
M
o
s
s
L
n
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
86
0
3
7
3
1
,
8
2
0
7
6
Ch
e
l
s
e
a
C
t
10
B
r
i
g
h
t
o
n
A
v
e
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
s
a
c
14
4
4
4
6
,
3
3
6
6
5
Ch
e
r
r
y
A
v
E
1
0
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
W
a
y
PC
R
a
i
l
w
a
y
P
l
a
c
e
1,
4
2
0
2
2
3
1
,
2
4
0
9
5
Ch
e
r
r
y
A
v
E
2
0
P
C
R
a
i
l
w
a
y
P
l
a
c
e
Br
a
n
c
h
M
i
l
l
R
o
a
d
1,
1
2
5
4
0
4
5
,
0
0
0
7
3
Ch
e
r
r
y
A
v
E
3
0
B
r
a
n
c
h
M
i
l
l
R
o
a
d
En
d
o
f
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
60
0
2
2
1
3
,
2
0
0
8
7
Ch
e
r
r
y
A
v
W
1
0
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
W
a
y
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
B
e
d
l
o
e
L
n
)
20
0
3
4
6
,
8
0
0
6
Ch
e
r
r
y
A
v
W
2
0
A
r
r
o
y
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
87
8
3
9
3
4
,
2
4
2
8
1
Ch
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
10
O
a
k
P
a
r
k
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ro
b
l
e
s
R
o
a
d
1,
5
0
0
2
2
3
3
,
0
0
0
5
6
Item 12.a. - Page 43
Ci
t
y
o
f
A
r
r
o
y
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
20
1
6
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
RO
A
D
S
E
G
M
E
N
T
-
DE
T
A
I
L
E
D
D
A
T
A
a
n
d
P
C
I
V
A
L
U
E
S
4 of 18
St
r
e
e
t
I
D
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
D
Be
g
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
En
d
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Le
n
g
t
h
(F
T
)
Width (FT)Area (SF)
P
C
I
Ci
n
d
y
W
y
10
P
l
a
t
i
n
o
L
a
n
e
Cl
a
r
e
n
c
e
A
v
e
94
0
2
5
2
3
,
5
0
0
0
Cl
a
r
e
n
c
e
A
v
1
0
H
u
a
s
n
a
R
o
a
d
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
64
6
3
2
2
0
,
6
7
2
8
8
Cl
e
v
e
n
g
e
D
r
1
0
G
r
i
e
b
D
r
i
v
e
Cl
u
b
h
o
u
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
51
4
2
3
1
1
,
8
2
2
0
Cl
i
n
t
o
n
C
t
10
J
a
m
e
s
W
a
y
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
25
0
2
9
7
,
2
5
0
8
8
Cl
u
b
h
o
u
s
e
D
1
0
M
e
a
d
o
w
W
a
y
CD
S
32
0
3
5
1
1
,
2
0
0
0
Co
a
c
h
R
d
10
B
r
a
n
c
h
M
i
l
l
R
o
a
d
Fl
o
r
a
R
o
a
d
-
C
I
W
N
.
o
f
F
l
o
r
a
74
3
4
0
2
9
,
7
2
0
9
5
Co
a
c
h
R
d
20
F
l
o
r
a
R
o
a
d
-
C
I
W
N
o
r
t
h
o
f
F
l
o
r
a
E
n
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
1,
1
0
0
2
0
2
2
,
0
0
0
2
Co
b
r
e
P
l
10
G
u
l
a
r
t
e
R
o
a
d
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
49
0
3
7
1
8
,
1
3
0
3
9
Co
l
i
n
a
S
t
10
V
i
a
L
a
B
a
r
r
a
n
c
a
Ja
m
e
s
W
a
y
43
5
2
8
1
2
,
1
8
0
7
9
Co
l
l
a
d
o
C
t
10
A
v
e
n
i
d
a
d
e
D
i
a
m
a
n
t
e
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
37
0
3
7
1
3
,
6
9
0
3
9
Co
r
b
e
t
t
C
y
n
1
0
R
o
u
t
e
2
2
7
Ci
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
1,
2
3
0
2
4
2
9
,
5
2
0
8
0
Co
r
b
e
t
t
C
y
n
2
0
H
u
a
s
n
a
R
d
Pr
i
n
t
z
R
d
2,
7
0
0
2
6
7
0
,
2
0
0
6
8
Co
r
n
w
a
l
l
A
v
1
0
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
N.
R
e
n
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
1,
3
6
1
3
8
5
1
,
7
1
8
8
7
Co
r
o
n
a
D
e
l
T
1
0
B
r
i
g
h
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
42
0
3
7
1
5
,
5
4
0
6
2
Co
r
r
a
l
P
l
10
C
o
r
b
e
t
t
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
66
0
2
6
1
7
,
1
6
0
7
3
Co
u
r
t
l
a
n
d
N
1
0
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
(
E
a
s
t
)
Br
i
g
h
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
1,
0
8
0
3
7
3
9
,
9
6
0
7
5
Co
u
r
t
l
a
n
d
N
2
0
B
r
i
g
h
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
55
0
3
6
1
9
,
8
0
0
9
5
Co
u
r
t
l
a
n
d
S
1
0
A
s
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ra
s
p
b
e
r
r
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
39
0
3
7
1
4
,
4
3
0
8
9
Co
u
r
t
l
a
n
d
S
2
0
R
a
s
p
b
e
r
r
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
St
r
a
w
b
e
r
r
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
1,
0
7
0
3
7
3
9
,
5
9
0
8
8
Co
u
r
t
l
a
n
d
S
3
0
S
t
r
a
w
b
e
r
r
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
CO
P
a
t
C
I
W
30
0
4
0
1
2
,
0
0
0
9
1
Co
u
r
t
l
a
n
d
S
4
0
C
O
P
a
t
C
I
W
E.
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
51
0
3
4
1
7
,
3
4
0
9
1
Co
v
i
n
g
t
o
D
r
1
0
S
u
n
r
i
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
Lo
n
g
d
e
n
D
r
i
v
e
70
0
2
6
1
8
,
2
0
0
0
Cr
a
n
b
e
r
r
y
A
1
0
R
a
s
p
b
e
r
r
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
Bl
a
c
k
b
e
r
r
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
71
5
3
3
2
3
,
5
9
5
8
8
Cr
e
e
k
s
i
d
e
D
1
0
W
o
o
d
l
a
n
d
D
r
i
v
e
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
40
4
3
7
1
4
,
9
4
8
7
3
Cr
e
e
k
V
i
e
C
t
1
0
C
r
e
e
k
V
i
e
w
W
a
y
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
D
r
i
v
e
23
0
1
8
4
,
1
4
0
0
Cr
e
e
k
v
i
e
W
y
1
0
W
o
o
d
l
a
n
d
D
r
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
38
0
2
0
7
,
6
0
0
0
Cr
o
s
s
S
t
10
I
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
Al
l
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
66
0
3
7
2
4
,
4
2
0
7
5
Item 12.a. - Page 44
Ci
t
y
o
f
A
r
r
o
y
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
20
1
6
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
RO
A
D
S
E
G
M
E
N
T
-
DE
T
A
I
L
E
D
D
A
T
A
a
n
d
P
C
I
V
A
L
U
E
S
5 of 18
St
r
e
e
t
I
D
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
D
Be
g
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
En
d
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Le
n
g
t
h
(F
T
)
Width (FT)Area (SF)
P
C
I
Cr
o
w
n
H
i
l
l
10
B
r
a
n
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
E
a
s
t
)
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
1,
6
4
0
2
5
4
1
,
0
0
0
6
4
Cr
o
w
n
T
e
r
10
L
e
P
o
i
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
Cr
o
w
n
H
i
l
l
45
0
1
8
8
,
1
0
0
2
7
Cr
o
w
n
T
e
r
20
L
e
P
o
i
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ma
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
E
O
S
)
21
0
3
7
7
,
7
7
0
6
6
Cu
e
r
d
a
C
t
10
A
v
e
n
i
d
a
d
e
D
i
a
m
a
n
t
e
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
20
0
3
7
7
,
4
0
0
4
2
Cu
e
s
t
a
P
l
10
V
i
a
L
a
B
a
r
r
a
n
c
a
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
22
0
2
6
5
,
7
2
0
7
2
De
e
r
T
r
a
i
l
10
E
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
W
a
y
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
80
0
2
4
1
9
,
2
0
0
5
4
De
l
S
o
l
S
t
10
T
h
e
P
i
k
e
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
73
0
3
7
2
7
,
0
1
0
6
8
De
v
o
n
s
h
i
r
e
1
0
L
o
n
g
d
e
n
D
r
i
v
e
(
S
)
Lo
n
g
d
e
n
D
r
i
v
e
(
N
)
72
0
2
6
1
8
,
7
2
0
0
Di
a
m
o
n
d
C
r
1
0
L
e
a
n
n
a
D
r
i
v
e
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
17
5
3
7
6
,
4
7
5
9
4
Di
a
n
a
P
l
10
F
a
r
r
o
l
l
A
v
e
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
67
5
3
7
2
4
,
9
7
5
7
1
Di
x
s
o
n
S
t
10
O
a
k
P
a
r
k
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
CD
S
73
5
3
7
2
7
,
1
9
5
8
8
Do
d
s
o
n
W
y
1
0
A
l
d
e
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ha
l
c
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
60
0
2
9
1
7
,
4
0
0
6
4
Do
d
s
o
n
W
y
2
0
H
a
l
c
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
Al
p
i
n
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
73
0
3
5
2
5
,
5
5
0
9
6
Do
s
C
e
r
r
o
s
10
V
i
a
L
a
s
A
g
u
i
l
a
s
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
30
1
2
9
8
,
7
2
9
7
8
Ea
s
y
S
t
10
P
r
i
n
t
z
R
d
CD
S
1,
8
6
2
2
2
4
0
,
9
6
4
0
Ea
t
o
n
D
r
10
L
o
n
g
d
e
n
D
r
i
v
e
Su
n
r
i
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
65
0
2
6
1
6
,
9
0
0
0
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
l
1
0
C
i
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
Oa
k
P
a
r
k
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
95
3
0
2
,
8
5
0
4
8
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
l
2
0
O
a
k
P
a
r
k
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Hi
l
l
c
r
e
s
t
D
r
i
v
e
2,
0
5
0
3
0
6
1
,
5
0
0
9
8
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
l
3
0
H
i
l
l
c
r
e
s
t
D
r
i
v
e
St
o
n
e
c
r
e
s
t
D
r
80
0
4
0
3
2
,
0
0
0
9
6
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
l
3
5
S
t
o
n
e
c
r
e
s
t
D
r
Br
i
s
c
o
R
d
1,
0
5
0
3
2
3
3
,
6
0
0
9
5
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
l
4
0
B
r
i
s
c
o
R
o
a
d
Ha
l
c
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
(
N
o
r
t
h
)
70
0
5
0
3
5
,
0
0
0
9
7
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
l
5
0
H
a
l
c
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
(
N
o
r
t
h
)
Be
n
n
e
t
t
.
1,
1
6
0
4
6
5
3
,
3
6
0
9
4
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
l
6
0
B
e
n
n
e
t
t
E.
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
82
0
3
7
3
0
,
3
4
0
7
3
El
m
S
t
N
10
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
(
E
a
s
t
)
Br
i
g
h
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
1,
2
9
8
4
0
5
1
,
9
2
0
7
0
El
m
S
t
N
20
B
r
i
g
h
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
CD
S
24
0
3
7
8
,
8
8
0
7
7
El
m
S
t
S
10
C
i
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
Th
e
P
i
k
e
80
0
4
7
3
7
,
6
0
0
5
7
El
m
S
t
S
20
T
h
e
P
i
k
e
Fa
r
r
o
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
1,
5
1
0
6
2
9
3
,
6
2
0
8
6
Item 12.a. - Page 45
Ci
t
y
o
f
A
r
r
o
y
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
20
1
6
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
RO
A
D
S
E
G
M
E
N
T
-
DE
T
A
I
L
E
D
D
A
T
A
a
n
d
P
C
I
V
A
L
U
E
S
6 of 18
St
r
e
e
t
I
D
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
D
Be
g
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
En
d
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Le
n
g
t
h
(F
T
)
Width (FT)Area (SF)
P
C
I
El
m
S
t
S
30
F
a
r
r
o
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
As
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
1,
4
5
0
6
2
8
9
,
9
0
0
6
1
El
m
S
t
S
N
B
5
4
0
A
s
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
e
(
E
a
s
t
)
2,
0
3
0
3
1
6
2
,
9
3
0
8
2
El
m
S
t
S
S
B
5
4
0
E
.
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
As
h
S
t
2,
1
0
0
3
1
6
5
,
1
0
0
8
0
Em
a
n
C
t
10
A
l
p
i
n
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
48
0
3
4
1
6
,
3
2
0
8
2
Em
e
r
a
l
s
B
y
E
1
0
R
o
d
e
o
D
r
i
v
e
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
44
6
3
7
1
6
,
5
0
2
8
1
Em
e
r
a
l
s
B
y
W
1
0
R
o
d
e
o
D
r
i
v
e
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
46
5
3
7
1
7
,
2
0
5
8
4
Eq
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
10
J
a
m
e
s
W
a
y
Vi
s
t
a
C
i
r
c
l
e
2,
6
0
0
3
7
9
6
,
2
0
0
3
4
Eq
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
20
V
i
s
t
a
C
i
r
c
l
e
No
y
e
s
R
o
a
d
1,
9
0
6
3
7
7
0
,
5
2
2
4
3
Fa
e
h
A
v
10
H
a
l
c
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
(
N
o
r
t
h
)
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
60
0
3
6
2
1
,
6
0
0
1
0
0
Fa
i
r
O
a
k
s
A
v
1
0
E
l
m
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
Pe
c
a
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
1,
3
3
0
4
1
5
4
,
5
3
0
7
0
Fa
i
r
O
a
k
s
A
v
2
0
P
e
c
a
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ha
l
c
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
1,
3
2
0
3
7
4
8
,
8
4
0
7
2
Fa
i
r
O
a
k
s
A
v
3
0
H
a
l
c
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
PC
C
E
.
o
f
W
o
o
d
l
a
n
d
1,
1
0
0
5
7
6
2
,
7
0
0
6
4
Fa
i
r
O
a
k
s
A
v
4
0
P
C
C
E
.
o
f
W
o
o
d
l
a
n
d
Va
l
l
e
y
R
o
a
d
2,
2
4
0
6
0
1
3
4
,
4
0
0
90
Fa
i
r
O
a
k
s
A
v
5
0
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
o
a
d
PC
C
@
1
0
1
O
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
1,
6
8
0
4
8
8
0
,
6
4
0
8
7
Fa
i
r
O
a
k
s
A
v
6
0
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
W
a
y
PC
C
@
H
w
y
1
0
1
b
r
i
d
g
e
43
0
3
6
1
5
,
4
8
0
9
1
Fa
i
r
V
i
e
w
D
r
1
0
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
Br
i
g
h
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
84
0
3
7
3
1
,
0
8
0
4
5
Fa
i
r
V
i
e
w
D
r
2
0
B
r
i
g
h
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Cu
l
-
D
e
-
S
a
c
30
0
3
8
1
1
,
4
0
0
4
2
Fa
r
m
h
o
u
s
e
P
1
0
G
r
o
v
e
C
o
u
r
t
Hi
l
l
s
i
d
e
C
o
u
r
t
40
0
3
7
1
4
,
8
0
0
7
3
Fa
r
n
s
w
o
r
t
h
1
0
S
u
n
r
i
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
Lo
n
g
d
e
n
D
r
i
v
e
80
0
2
6
2
0
,
8
0
0
0
Fa
r
r
o
l
l
A
v
10
C
i
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
El
m
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
1,
6
7
5
4
4
7
3
,
7
0
0
9
1
Fa
r
r
o
l
l
A
v
20
E
l
m
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
Vi
c
t
o
r
i
a
n
C
t
1,
1
0
0
4
0
4
4
,
0
0
0
8
8
Fa
r
r
o
l
l
A
v
30
V
i
c
t
o
r
i
a
n
C
t
Ha
l
c
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
60
0
3
7
2
2
,
2
0
0
8
0
Fa
r
r
o
l
l
A
v
40
H
a
l
c
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
Cu
l
-
D
e
-
S
a
c
30
0
3
0
9
,
0
0
0
8
9
Fi
e
l
d
v
i
e
w
P
1
0
H
i
l
l
s
i
d
e
C
o
u
r
t
Gr
o
v
e
C
o
u
r
t
36
0
3
7
1
3
,
3
2
0
9
3
Fi
r
e
A
c
c
R
d
10
P
e
a
r
w
o
o
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
Gu
l
a
r
t
e
R
o
a
d
55
1
1
0
5
,
5
1
0
8
5
Fl
o
r
a
R
d
10
C
o
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
65
0
3
8
2
4
,
7
0
0
9
6
Fo
r
e
s
t
G
l
e
n
1
0
W
o
o
d
l
a
n
d
D
r
i
v
e
Cu
l
-
D
e
-
S
a
c
41
5
3
0
1
2
,
4
5
0
6
9
Item 12.a. - Page 46
Ci
t
y
o
f
A
r
r
o
y
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
20
1
6
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
RO
A
D
S
E
G
M
E
N
T
-
DE
T
A
I
L
E
D
D
A
T
A
a
n
d
P
C
I
V
A
L
U
E
S
7 of 18
St
r
e
e
t
I
D
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
D
Be
g
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
En
d
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Le
n
g
t
h
(F
T
)
Width (FT)Area (SF)
P
C
I
Fo
r
t
u
n
a
C
t
10
P
l
a
t
i
n
o
L
a
n
e
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
20
0
3
7
7
,
4
0
0
4
4
Ga
r
d
e
n
S
t
10
E
a
s
t
B
r
a
n
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
C
r
e
e
k
)
25
0
2
4
6
,
0
0
0
2
7
Ga
r
d
e
n
S
t
20
I
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
E.
C
h
e
r
r
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
1,
0
4
0
3
7
3
8
,
4
8
0
1
0
0
Ga
r
d
e
n
S
t
30
C
h
e
r
r
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
(
E
a
s
t
)
Gr
o
v
e
C
o
u
r
t
15
0
3
2
4
,
8
0
0
8
9
Ga
r
d
e
n
S
t
40
G
a
r
d
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ga
r
d
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
95
3
2
8
2
6
,
6
8
4
0
Ga
r
f
i
e
l
s
P
l
10
T
h
e
P
i
k
e
Cu
l
-
D
e
-
S
a
c
1,
2
4
3
3
7
4
5
,
9
9
1
6
5
Ga
y
n
f
a
i
r
T
r
10
T
h
e
P
i
k
e
Fa
r
r
o
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
1,
6
2
0
3
8
6
1
,
5
6
0
7
1
Gl
e
n
b
r
o
o
k
10
B
a
k
e
m
a
n
L
a
n
e
(
E
)
Ba
k
e
m
a
n
L
a
n
e
(
W
)
27
0
2
0
5
,
4
0
0
0
Gl
e
n
o
a
k
D
r
10
L
o
n
g
d
e
n
D
r
i
v
e
Su
n
r
i
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
81
2
2
5
2
0
,
3
0
0
0
Go
l
d
e
n
W
e
s
t
1
0
F
a
r
r
o
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
Cu
l
-
D
e
-
S
a
c
64
2
3
8
2
4
,
3
9
6
7
5
Gr
a
c
e
L
n
10
R
o
d
e
o
D
r
i
v
e
-
S
o
u
t
h
s
i
d
e
Ro
d
e
o
D
r
i
v
e
-
N
o
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
2,
6
5
0
2
9
7
6
,
8
5
0
8
4
Gr
a
c
e
L
n
20
R
o
d
e
o
D
r
i
v
e
Ch
a
p
a
r
r
a
l
L
a
n
e
13
5
3
7
4
,
9
9
5
9
5
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
E
B
5
1
0
C
i
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
@
C
O
P
E
.
o
f
O
a
k
P
a
r
k
J
u
n
i
p
e
r
S
t
1,
2
5
0
3
8
4
7
,
5
0
0
8
6
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
E
B
5
2
0
J
u
n
i
p
e
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
S.
E
l
m
S
t
r
e
e
t
1,
1
0
0
3
8
4
1
,
8
0
0
4
7
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
E
B
5
3
0
S
.
E
l
m
S
t
Ha
l
c
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
2,
8
0
0
3
8
1
0
6
,
4
0
0
83
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
E
B
5
4
0
H
a
l
y
c
o
n
R
o
a
d
EC
R
(
C
O
P
@
M
c
D
o
n
a
l
d
)
1,
8
2
0
3
0
5
4
,
6
0
0
7
6
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
E
B
5
4
5
E
C
R
(
C
O
P
@
M
c
D
o
n
a
l
d
s
)
PC
C
@
1
0
1
O
v
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
70
0
3
0
2
1
,
0
0
0
9
5
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
E
B
5
5
0
A
C
@
H
w
y
1
0
1
o
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
E.
B
r
a
n
c
h
50
0
3
0
1
5
,
0
0
0
8
8
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
W
5
1
0
E
a
s
t
B
r
a
n
c
h
S
t
PC
C
@
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
1
0
1
o
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
5
0
0
3
0
1
5
,
0
0
0
8
8
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
W
B
5
1
5
P
C
C
@
1
0
1
O
v
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
EC
R
(
C
O
P
@
M
c
D
o
n
a
l
d
s
)
70
0
3
0
2
1
,
0
0
0
9
5
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
W
B
5
2
0
E
C
R
(
C
O
P
@
M
c
D
o
n
a
l
d
s
)
Ha
l
c
y
o
n
1,
8
5
0
3
0
5
5
,
5
0
0
7
9
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
W
B
5
3
0
H
a
l
c
y
o
n
So
u
t
h
E
l
m
S
t
2,
7
5
0
4
0
1
1
0
,
0
0
0
82
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
W
B
5
4
0
S
o
u
t
h
E
l
m
S
t
Fa
i
r
v
i
e
w
95
0
3
8
3
6
,
1
0
0
6
4
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
W
B
5
5
0
F
a
i
r
v
i
e
w
Ci
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
@
C
O
P
,
E
.
O
a
k
P
a
r
k
1
,
4
0
0
3
8
5
3
,
2
0
0
7
6
Gr
e
e
n
w
o
o
d
D
1
0
F
l
o
r
a
R
o
a
d
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
67
2
3
8
2
5
,
5
3
6
9
6
Gr
i
e
b
D
r
10
M
e
a
d
o
w
W
a
y
CD
S
75
0
2
2
1
6
,
5
0
0
0
Gr
o
v
e
C
t
10
F
i
e
l
d
v
i
e
w
P
l
a
c
e
Fa
r
m
h
o
u
s
e
P
l
a
c
e
37
5
3
7
1
3
,
8
7
5
8
0
Item 12.a. - Page 47
Ci
t
y
o
f
A
r
r
o
y
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
20
1
6
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
RO
A
D
S
E
G
M
E
N
T
-
DE
T
A
I
L
E
D
D
A
T
A
a
n
d
P
C
I
V
A
L
U
E
S
8 of 18
St
r
e
e
t
I
D
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
D
Be
g
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
En
d
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Le
n
g
t
h
(F
T
)
Width (FT)Area (SF)
P
C
I
Gu
l
a
r
t
e
R
d
10
C
o
r
b
e
t
t
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
St
a
g
e
c
o
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
1,
8
5
0
3
3
6
1
,
7
9
0
4
7
Gu
l
a
r
t
e
R
d
20
S
t
a
g
e
c
o
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Cu
l
-
D
e
-
S
a
c
77
2
3
7
2
8
,
5
6
4
6
0
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
D
r
1
0
S
u
n
r
i
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
Lo
n
g
d
e
n
D
r
i
v
e
80
0
2
6
2
0
,
8
0
0
0
Ha
l
c
y
n
R
d
N
B
5
2
0
F
a
i
r
o
a
k
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
2,
1
8
0
3
1
6
7
,
5
8
0
7
0
Ha
l
c
y
n
R
d
S
B
5
2
0
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
Fa
i
r
O
a
k
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
2,
1
8
0
3
0
6
5
,
4
0
0
7
8
Ha
l
c
y
o
n
R
d
1
0
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
1,
6
3
0
3
7
6
0
,
3
1
0
6
0
Ha
l
c
y
o
n
R
d
3
0
F
a
i
r
O
a
k
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ol
i
v
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
52
2
6
1
3
1
,
8
4
2
8
1
Ha
l
c
y
o
n
R
d
4
0
O
l
i
v
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ca
m
e
r
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
83
0
6
1
5
0
,
6
3
0
7
5
Ha
l
c
y
o
n
R
d
5
0
C
a
m
e
r
o
n
C
o
u
r
t
Ca
l
l
e
D
e
L
o
s
S
u
e
i
67
0
5
0
3
3
,
5
0
0
6
4
Ha
l
c
y
o
n
R
d
6
0
C
a
l
l
e
D
e
L
o
s
S
u
e
i
Th
e
P
i
k
e
29
0
2
4
6
,
9
6
0
8
8
Ha
m
p
t
o
n
P
l
1
0
B
r
i
t
t
a
n
y
A
v
e
CD
S
14
0
3
7
5
,
1
8
0
8
9
Ha
r
d
e
n
S
t
10
M
a
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
N
o
r
t
h
)
Ea
s
t
B
r
a
n
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
12
5
2
8
3
,
5
0
0
0
Ha
r
r
i
s
o
n
S
t
10
M
c
k
i
n
l
e
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Cu
l
-
D
e
-
S
a
c
25
1
1
8
4
,
5
1
8
1
0
0
Ha
r
t
L
n
10
N
e
v
a
d
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
25
0
2
4
6
,
0
0
0
0
Ha
w
k
i
n
s
C
t
10
C
r
o
s
s
S
t
r
e
e
t
Cu
l
-
D
e
-
S
a
c
13
3
3
7
4
,
9
2
1
6
3
Hi
d
d
e
n
O
a
k
1
0
J
a
m
e
s
W
a
y
EO
R
88
0
3
7
3
2
,
5
6
0
8
6
Hi
l
l
c
r
e
s
t
D
10
S
i
e
r
r
a
D
r
i
v
e
Mo
n
t
e
g
o
S
t
r
e
e
t
1,
9
3
0
2
2
4
2
,
4
6
0
4
6
Hi
l
l
c
r
e
s
t
D
20
M
o
n
t
e
g
o
S
t
r
e
e
t
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
1,
2
4
4
2
1
2
6
,
1
2
4
2
9
Hi
l
l
s
i
d
e
C
t
10
F
i
e
l
d
v
i
e
w
P
l
a
c
e
Lo
s
O
l
i
v
o
s
L
a
n
e
62
0
3
7
2
2
,
9
4
0
9
4
Ho
d
g
e
s
R
d
15
E
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
W
a
y
St
e
v
e
n
s
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
1,
4
1
0
2
5
3
5
,
2
5
0
6
5
Hu
a
s
n
a
R
d
10
E
a
s
t
B
r
a
n
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Bo
l
s
a
C
h
i
c
a
E
n
t
r
a
n
c
e
1,
2
0
0
6
1
7
3
,
2
0
0
8
8
Hu
a
s
n
a
R
d
20
B
o
l
s
a
C
h
i
c
a
E
n
t
r
a
n
c
e
Ca
l
l
e
C
t
1,
3
5
0
3
8
5
1
,
3
0
0
8
8
Hu
a
s
n
a
R
d
30
C
a
l
l
e
C
t
Ci
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
1,
6
4
0
6
1
1
0
0
,
0
4
0
75
Hu
c
k
e
l
b
e
r
y
1
0
C
r
a
n
b
e
r
r
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Co
u
r
t
l
a
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
49
0
3
3
1
6
,
1
7
0
8
8
Hu
e
b
n
e
r
L
n
1
0
B
r
a
n
c
h
M
i
l
l
R
o
a
d
Wa
t
e
r
T
a
n
k
1,
4
8
7
9
1
3
,
3
8
3
6
0
Id
e
S
t
10
W
h
i
t
e
l
e
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ga
r
d
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
99
0
3
3
3
2
,
6
7
0
1
0
0
Ik
e
d
a
W
a
10
H
u
a
s
n
a
R
o
a
d
Va
r
d
L
o
o
m
i
s
L
a
n
e
47
0
3
7
1
7
,
3
9
0
4
8
Item 12.a. - Page 48
Ci
t
y
o
f
A
r
r
o
y
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
20
1
6
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
RO
A
D
S
E
G
M
E
N
T
-
DE
T
A
I
L
E
D
D
A
T
A
a
n
d
P
C
I
V
A
L
U
E
S
9 of 18
St
r
e
e
t
I
D
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
D
Be
g
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
En
d
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Le
n
g
t
h
(F
T
)
Width (FT)Area (SF)
P
C
I
In
n
e
s
l
e
y
D
r
10
L
o
n
g
d
e
n
D
r
i
v
e
Su
n
r
i
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
80
0
2
6
2
0
,
8
0
0
0
Ja
m
e
s
W
y
10
O
a
k
P
a
r
k
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Eq
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
W
a
y
(
C
O
P
)
2,
1
8
0
4
1
8
9
,
3
8
0
8
8
Ja
m
e
s
W
y
20
E
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
W
a
y
(
C
O
P
)
Cl
i
n
t
o
n
C
t
(
C
O
P
)
1,
2
1
0
4
1
4
9
,
6
1
0
5
5
Ja
m
e
s
W
y
30
C
l
i
n
t
o
n
C
t
(
C
O
P
)
Ra
n
c
h
o
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
2,
3
5
0
4
1
9
6
,
3
5
0
6
6
Ja
m
e
s
W
y
40
R
a
n
c
h
o
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
Ro
d
e
o
D
r
i
v
e
1,
2
0
0
4
1
4
9
,
2
0
0
6
5
Ja
m
e
s
W
y
50
R
o
d
e
o
D
r
i
v
e
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
G
l
e
n
D
r
i
v
e
(
C
O
P
)
1,
9
3
0
4
1
7
9
,
1
3
0
6
7
Ja
m
e
s
W
y
60
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
G
l
e
n
D
r
i
v
e
(
C
O
P
)
Ta
l
l
y
H
o
R
o
a
d
1,
4
1
2
4
1
5
7
,
8
9
2
9
0
Ja
s
m
i
n
e
P
l
10
L
a
v
e
n
d
a
r
L
a
n
e
Co
u
r
t
l
a
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
28
0
2
3
0
6
4
,
4
0
0
0
Ja
s
m
i
n
e
P
l
20
C
o
u
r
t
l
a
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
25
5
2
1
5
,
3
5
5
0
Je
n
n
i
n
g
s
D
r
1
0
S
u
n
r
i
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
Lo
n
g
d
e
n
D
r
i
v
e
78
1
2
6
2
0
,
3
0
6
0
Je
n
n
y
P
l
11
J
a
m
e
s
W
a
y
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
s
a
c
60
0
2
9
1
7
,
4
0
0
9
0
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
S
t
10
P
o
p
l
a
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
57
0
3
7
2
1
,
0
9
0
6
4
Ki
n
g
s
b
u
r
y
10
L
o
n
g
d
e
n
D
r
i
v
e
Su
n
r
i
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
69
0
2
6
1
7
,
9
4
0
0
La
C
a
n
a
d
a
10
J
a
m
e
s
W
a
y
Ro
s
e
m
a
r
y
C
o
u
r
t
75
0
3
5
2
6
,
2
5
0
7
0
La
C
a
n
a
d
a
20
R
o
s
e
m
a
r
y
C
o
u
r
t
Vi
s
t
a
D
r
i
v
e
1,
2
7
0
3
7
4
6
,
9
9
0
9
0
La
C
r
e
s
t
a
D
r
1
5
H
u
a
s
n
a
R
o
a
d
Pl
a
t
i
n
o
L
a
n
e
1,
8
0
0
3
7
6
6
,
6
0
0
8
0
La
d
e
r
a
P
l
10
V
i
a
L
a
B
a
r
r
a
n
c
a
Cu
l
-
D
e
-
S
a
c
12
6
2
6
3
,
2
7
6
8
9
La
n
c
a
s
t
e
r
D
1
0
T
h
e
P
i
k
e
El
m
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
1,
0
8
5
3
2
3
4
,
7
2
0
6
6
La
P
a
z
C
r
10
P
l
a
t
i
n
o
L
a
n
e
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
99
0
3
1
3
0
,
7
8
9
3
6
La
r
c
h
m
o
n
t
D
1
0
V
e
r
n
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
We
s
t
l
e
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
22
0
3
0
6
,
6
0
0
9
5
La
u
n
a
L
n
10
L
o
s
O
l
i
v
o
s
L
a
n
e
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
55
0
3
4
1
8
,
7
0
0
9
4
La
v
e
n
d
e
r
L
n
1
0
A
s
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
28
3
2
5
7
,
0
7
5
0
La
V
i
s
t
a
C
t
10
T
h
e
P
i
k
e
Cu
l
-
D
e
-
S
a
c
38
6
3
2
1
2
,
3
5
2
7
4
Le
a
n
n
a
D
r
10
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
o
a
d
Ci
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
1,
4
5
6
3
8
5
5
,
3
2
8
9
0
Le
d
o
P
l
10
B
r
i
g
h
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Cu
l
-
D
e
-
S
a
c
27
2
3
7
1
0
,
0
6
4
4
Le
i
s
u
r
e
D
r
10
J
a
m
e
s
W
a
y
Gr
i
e
b
D
r
i
v
e
12
0
3
6
4
,
3
2
0
0
Le
m
o
n
L
n
10
O
a
k
H
i
l
l
R
o
a
d
En
d
o
f
R
o
a
d
30
0
1
3
3
,
9
0
0
0
Item 12.a. - Page 49
Ci
t
y
o
f
A
r
r
o
y
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
20
1
6
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
RO
A
D
S
E
G
M
E
N
T
-
DE
T
A
I
L
E
D
D
A
T
A
a
n
d
P
C
I
V
A
L
U
E
S
10 of 18
St
r
e
e
t
I
D
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
D
Be
g
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
En
d
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Le
n
g
t
h
(F
T
)
Width (FT)Area (SF)
P
C
I
Le
P
o
i
n
t
S
T
10
N
e
v
a
d
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ma
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
N
o
r
t
h
)
85
0
3
0
2
5
,
5
0
0
9
6
Le
P
o
i
n
t
S
T
20
M
a
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
N
o
r
t
h
)
Ta
l
l
y
H
o
R
o
a
d
49
0
3
8
1
8
,
6
2
0
7
6
Le
P
o
i
n
t
S
T
30
C
o
r
b
e
t
t
C
y
n
Cr
o
w
n
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
1,
2
9
8
3
7
4
8
,
0
2
6
5
8
Le
P
o
i
n
t
S
T
40
C
r
o
w
n
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
30
3
2
2
6
,
6
6
6
0
Le
P
o
i
n
t
T
R
10
B
r
a
n
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
E
a
s
t
)
Cr
o
w
n
H
i
l
l
12
6
2
8
3
,
5
2
8
6
8
Le
P
o
i
n
t
T
R
20
C
r
o
w
n
H
i
l
l
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
30
0
2
5
7
,
5
0
0
5
9
Li
e
r
l
y
L
n
10
E
C
h
e
r
r
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
En
d
o
f
R
o
a
d
63
1
1
2
7
,
5
7
2
0
Li
l
a
c
C
t
10
J
a
s
m
i
n
e
P
l
a
c
e
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
12
5
2
0
2
,
5
0
0
0
Li
n
d
a
D
r
10
B
e
n
n
e
t
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
Br
i
s
c
o
R
o
a
d
1,
0
9
0
3
8
4
1
,
4
2
0
7
8
Li
n
d
a
D
r
20
B
r
i
s
c
o
R
o
a
d
Oc
e
a
n
v
i
e
w
S
c
h
o
o
l
95
0
2
8
2
6
,
6
0
0
7
0
Li
n
d
a
D
r
30
O
c
e
a
n
v
i
e
w
S
c
h
o
o
l
N.
E
l
m
S
t
18
0
2
8
5
,
0
4
0
6
5
Lo
g
a
n
b
e
r
r
y
1
0
C
r
a
n
b
e
r
r
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Co
u
r
t
l
a
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
47
0
3
3
1
5
,
5
1
0
8
8
Lo
n
g
d
e
n
C
t
1
0
S
u
n
r
i
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
CD
S
12
5
3
2
4
,
0
0
0
0
Lo
n
g
d
e
n
D
r
1
0
S
u
n
r
i
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
(
W
)
Su
n
r
i
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
(
E
)
1,
8
5
5
3
0
5
5
,
6
5
0
0
Lo
s
B
e
r
r
o
s
10
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
Ce
n
t
u
r
y
L
n
83
0
4
0
3
3
,
2
0
0
2
8
Lo
s
C
i
e
r
v
C
T
1
0
V
i
s
t
a
D
r
i
v
e
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
31
5
2
9
9
,
1
3
5
8
8
Lo
s
C
i
e
r
v
o
s
1
1
V
i
s
t
a
D
r
i
v
e
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
92
0
2
9
2
6
,
6
8
0
8
8
Lo
s
O
l
i
v
o
s
L
1
5
C
h
e
r
r
y
S
t
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
51
0
3
4
1
7
,
3
4
0
5
9
Ma
g
n
o
l
i
a
D
r
1
0
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
CD
S
1,
1
9
0
3
5
4
1
,
6
5
0
7
3
Ma
p
l
e
S
t
10
E
l
m
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
95
0
3
7
3
5
,
1
5
0
5
9
Ma
p
l
e
S
t
20
W
a
l
n
u
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
Al
d
e
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
95
6
3
7
3
5
,
3
7
2
5
2
Ma
r
i
p
o
s
a
C
r
1
0
P
l
a
t
i
n
o
L
a
n
e
Cu
l
-
D
e
-
S
a
c
13
5
3
6
4
,
8
6
0
4
9
Ma
s
o
n
S
t
N
10
E
a
s
t
B
r
a
n
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Le
P
o
i
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
40
0
2
9
1
1
,
6
0
0
4
4
Ma
s
o
n
S
t
S
10
A
l
l
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ne
l
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
94
0
3
9
3
6
,
6
6
0
8
7
Ma
s
o
n
S
t
S
20
N
e
l
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ea
s
t
B
r
a
n
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
61
7
3
9
2
4
,
0
6
3
8
5
Ma
t
t
h
e
w
W
y
1
0
A
n
d
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
La
C
a
n
a
d
a
83
0
2
9
2
4
,
0
7
0
8
8
Ma
y
d
o
c
k
S
t
1
0
H
u
a
s
n
a
R
o
a
d
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
34
5
2
6
8
,
9
7
0
0
Item 12.a. - Page 50
Ci
t
y
o
f
A
r
r
o
y
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
20
1
6
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
RO
A
D
S
E
G
M
E
N
T
-
DE
T
A
I
L
E
D
D
A
T
A
a
n
d
P
C
I
V
A
L
U
E
S
11 of 18
St
r
e
e
t
I
D
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
D
Be
g
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
En
d
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Le
n
g
t
h
(F
T
)
Width (FT)Area (SF)
P
C
I
Ma
y
S
t
10
M
c
k
i
n
l
e
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Cr
o
w
n
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
80
0
3
7
2
9
,
6
0
0
5
7
Mc
K
i
n
l
e
y
S
t
1
0
C
r
o
w
n
H
i
l
l
Ma
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
73
6
2
8
2
0
,
6
0
8
6
5
Me
a
d
o
w
l
a
r
k
1
0
O
a
k
P
a
r
k
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ro
b
i
n
C
i
r
c
l
e
54
0
3
7
1
9
,
9
8
0
3
9
Me
a
d
o
w
W
y
1
0
J
a
m
e
s
W
a
y
CD
S
1,
1
0
0
2
2
2
4
,
2
0
0
0
Me
r
c
e
d
e
s
L
n
1
5
R
o
d
e
o
D
r
i
v
e
CD
S
N
.
o
f
O
l
d
R
a
n
c
h
R
o
a
d
2,
1
1
0
3
7
7
9
,
8
4
0
8
5
Me
s
a
D
r
10
T
i
g
e
r
T
a
i
l
D
r
i
v
e
Cu
l
-
D
e
-
S
a
c
1,
0
2
0
3
7
3
7
,
7
4
0
5
5
Me
s
q
u
i
t
e
L
n
1
0
C
h
a
p
a
r
r
a
l
L
a
n
e
Ja
m
e
s
W
a
y
1,
2
7
0
3
7
4
6
,
9
9
0
8
3
Mi
l
l
e
r
C
R
10
M
i
l
l
l
e
r
W
a
y
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
17
4
3
1
5
,
3
9
4
8
7
Mi
l
l
e
r
W
Y
10
L
e
P
o
i
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
G
a
t
e
)
2,
2
2
0
3
2
7
1
,
0
4
0
8
4
Mo
n
t
e
g
o
S
t
1
0
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
A
v
e
CD
S
1,
0
8
0
3
4
3
6
,
7
2
0
5
7
Mo
r
n
i
n
g
R
i
s
1
0
E
O
S
Fa
r
r
o
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
90
0
3
5
3
1
,
5
0
0
9
1
Mu
i
r
f
i
e
l
d
D
10
S
u
n
r
i
s
e
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
CD
S
26
6
3
0
7
,
9
8
0
0
Mu
l
b
e
r
r
y
L
n
1
0
M
a
g
n
o
l
i
a
D
r
i
v
e
Sy
c
a
m
o
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
33
4
3
5
1
1
,
6
9
0
6
5
Mu
s
t
a
n
g
C
r
1
0
E
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
W
a
y
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
35
5
3
7
1
3
,
1
3
5
7
3
My
r
t
l
e
D
R
10
M
y
r
t
l
e
S
t
E.
C
h
e
r
r
y
62
0
3
3
2
0
,
4
6
0
8
5
My
r
t
l
e
S
t
10
G
a
r
d
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
CO
P
E
a
s
t
o
f
N
o
g
u
e
r
a
39
2
3
7
1
4
,
5
0
4
7
1
My
r
t
l
e
S
t
20
C
O
P
E
a
s
t
o
f
N
o
g
u
e
r
a
My
r
t
l
e
D
r
39
0
2
3
8
,
7
7
5
1
0
0
Ne
l
s
o
n
S
t
10
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
W
a
y
Ma
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
97
0
3
9
3
7
,
8
3
0
5
6
Ne
l
s
o
n
S
t
20
M
a
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
Cu
l
-
D
e
-
S
a
c
73
0
3
9
2
8
,
4
7
0
9
4
Ne
v
a
d
a
S
t
10
E
a
s
t
B
r
a
n
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Le
P
o
i
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
32
5
2
0
6
,
5
0
0
8
8
Ne
w
m
a
n
D
r
1
0
A
l
p
i
n
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
56
0
3
4
1
9
,
0
4
0
8
1
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
A
V
1
0
C
o
u
r
t
l
a
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
Mo
n
t
e
g
o
S
t
r
e
e
t
1,
0
8
0
3
0
3
2
,
4
0
0
4
3
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
F
R
1
0
C
o
u
r
t
l
a
n
d
S
t
S
o
u
t
h
o
f
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
C
D
S
1,
0
3
0
1
8
1
8
,
5
4
0
7
7
No
e
l
S
t
10
O
a
k
P
a
r
k
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
CD
S
42
5
3
7
1
5
,
7
2
5
9
1
No
g
u
e
r
a
P
l
10
M
y
r
t
l
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
Cu
l
-
D
e
-
S
a
c
38
6
3
7
1
4
,
2
8
2
5
7
Oa
k
H
i
l
l
R
d
10
P
e
a
r
w
o
o
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
25
0
2
4
6
,
0
0
4
0
Oa
k
L
e
a
f
C
r
1
0
E
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
W
a
y
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
25
0
3
7
9
,
2
5
0
6
5
Item 12.a. - Page 51
Ci
t
y
o
f
A
r
r
o
y
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
20
1
6
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
RO
A
D
S
E
G
M
E
N
T
-
DE
T
A
I
L
E
D
D
A
T
A
a
n
d
P
C
I
V
A
L
U
E
S
12 of 18
St
r
e
e
t
I
D
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
D
Be
g
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
En
d
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Le
n
g
t
h
(F
T
)
Width (FT)Area (SF)
P
C
I
Oa
k
P
k
B
l
30
S
i
e
r
r
a
D
r
i
v
e
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
34
0
5
0
1
7
,
0
0
0
3
6
Oa
k
P
k
B
l
N
B
5
1
0
C
i
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
Fa
r
r
o
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
80
0
3
0
2
4
,
0
0
0
7
4
Oa
k
P
k
B
l
N
B
5
4
0
W
e
s
t
B
r
a
n
c
h
Ja
m
e
s
W
a
y
1,
3
0
0
3
0
3
9
,
1
3
0
7
0
Oa
k
P
k
B
l
N
B
5
5
0
J
a
m
e
s
W
a
y
Ci
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
(
C
O
P
e
n
d
o
f
m
e
d
i
a
n
)
8
0
0
2
3
1
8
,
4
0
0
2
1
Oa
k
P
k
B
l
S
B
5
1
0
C
i
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
Fa
r
r
o
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
72
0
3
0
2
1
,
6
0
0
6
0
Oa
k
P
k
B
l
S
B
5
5
0
C
i
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
(
C
O
P
a
t
e
n
d
o
f
m
e
d
i
a
n
)
J
a
m
e
s
W
y
80
0
2
6
2
0
,
8
0
0
0
Oa
k
S
t
10
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
69
0
3
7
2
5
,
5
3
0
8
2
Oa
k
w
o
o
d
C
t
1
0
T
e
m
p
u
s
C
i
r
c
l
e
CD
S
60
0
2
5
1
5
,
0
0
0
0
Ol
d
R
a
n
c
h
R
d
1
0
W
e
s
t
B
r
a
n
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Me
r
c
e
d
e
s
L
a
n
e
1,
9
0
0
4
0
7
6
,
0
0
0
5
5
Ol
i
v
e
S
t
10
W
o
o
d
l
a
n
d
D
r
i
v
e
Ha
l
c
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
67
4
3
7
2
4
,
9
3
8
8
0
Op
a
l
C
r
10
L
e
a
n
n
a
D
r
i
v
e
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
17
2
3
4
5
,
8
4
8
8
7
Or
c
h
a
r
d
A
v
10
F
a
i
r
O
a
k
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
We
s
t
C
h
e
r
r
y
52
0
3
8
1
9
,
7
6
0
7
5
Or
c
h
a
r
d
A
v
20
W
e
s
t
C
h
e
r
r
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
CO
P
S
.
o
f
P
i
l
g
r
i
m
W
a
y
90
0
4
2
3
7
,
8
0
0
7
5
Or
c
h
a
r
d
A
v
30
C
O
P
S
.
o
f
P
i
l
g
r
a
m
W
y
Ca
s
t
i
l
l
o
d
e
M
a
r
65
0
3
7
2
4
,
0
5
0
9
7
Or
c
h
i
d
L
n
10
S
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
W
a
y
En
d
o
f
R
o
a
d
63
5
1
2
7
,
6
2
0
0
Or
o
D
r
10
H
u
a
s
n
a
R
o
a
d
Pl
a
t
i
n
o
L
a
n
e
1,
4
3
0
3
7
5
2
,
9
1
0
3
1
Or
o
D
r
20
P
l
a
t
i
n
o
L
a
n
e
Gu
l
a
r
t
e
R
o
a
d
1,
1
1
0
3
7
4
1
,
0
7
0
4
8
Ou
t
l
a
n
d
C
t
10
G
u
l
a
r
t
e
R
o
a
d
Cu
l
-
D
e
-
S
a
c
13
5
3
7
4
,
9
9
5
7
4
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
P
t
W
1
0
E
l
m
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
El
m
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
79
7
3
7
2
9
,
4
8
9
9
0
Pa
l
m
C
t
10
W
a
l
n
u
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
Cu
l
-
D
e
-
S
a
c
45
2
3
9
1
7
,
6
2
8
7
6
Pa
l
o
s
S
e
c
o
s
1
0
R
a
n
c
h
o
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
63
0
2
9
1
8
,
2
7
0
8
4
Pa
r
a
i
s
o
10
A
s
i
l
o
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
16
2
2
9
4
,
6
9
8
8
9
Pa
r
k
L
o
t
C
o
r
r
a
l
-
0
1
0
E
.
B
r
a
n
c
h
S
t
Be
g
.
M
i
d
d
l
e
C
o
r
r
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
3
0
0
6
3
1
8
,
8
7
0
7
8
Pa
r
k
L
o
t
C
o
r
r
a
l
-
0
2
0
C
o
r
r
a
l
-
0
1
0
,
R
e
a
r
o
f
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
E.
L
e
P
o
i
n
t
S
t
a
n
d
C
G
20
0
7
3
1
4
,
6
0
0
5
4
Pa
r
k
L
o
t
C
o
r
r
a
l
-
0
3
0
E
.
L
e
P
o
i
n
t
S
t
a
t
M
i
l
l
e
r
W
a
y
CG
a
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
a
n
d
W
e
s
t
S
i
d
e
20
0
1
6
0
3
2
,
0
0
0
8
5
Pa
r
k
L
o
t
C
r
p
Y
r
d
-
0
1
0
E
a
s
t
E
n
t
r
a
n
c
e
t
o
C
o
r
p
Y
a
r
d
(
F
r
o
n
t
)
W
e
s
t
E
n
d
a
t
G
a
t
e
25
0
7
2
1
8
,
0
0
0
7
9
Pa
r
k
L
o
t
C
r
p
Y
r
d
-
0
2
0
R
e
a
r
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
A
r
e
a
Re
a
r
27
0
2
4
2
6
5
,
2
8
6
0
Item 12.a. - Page 52
Ci
t
y
o
f
A
r
r
o
y
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
20
1
6
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
RO
A
D
S
E
G
M
E
N
T
-
DE
T
A
I
L
E
D
D
A
T
A
a
n
d
P
C
I
V
A
L
U
E
S
13 of 18
St
r
e
e
t
I
D
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
D
Be
g
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
En
d
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Le
n
g
t
h
(F
T
)
Width (FT)Area (SF)
P
C
I
Pa
r
k
L
o
t
C
t
y
H
a
l
-
0
1
0
M
a
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
En
d
o
f
L
o
t
12
6
6
0
7
,
5
6
0
4
2
Pa
r
k
L
o
t
D
o
n
R
o
b
-
0
1
0
O
a
k
P
a
r
k
B
l
.
N
o
r
t
h
o
f
D
i
x
s
o
n
S
t
E
n
d
o
f
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
22
3
9
4
2
0
,
8
5
1
9
5
Pa
r
k
L
o
t
E
l
m
S
t
-
0
1
0
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
E
a
s
t
o
f
A
s
h
S
t
B
a
t
h
r
o
o
m
s
E
l
m
S
t
R
e
c
C
e
n
t
e
r
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
49
0
2
7
1
3
,
2
3
0
6
1
Pa
r
k
L
o
t
E
l
m
S
t
-
0
2
0
E
n
d
o
f
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
En
d
o
f
L
o
t
22
0
7
8
1
7
,
1
6
0
7
1
Pa
r
k
L
o
t
L
i
f
t
S
t
a
0
1
0
K
-
M
a
r
t
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
En
d
o
f
L
o
t
93
1
3
1
,
2
0
9
6
2
Pa
r
k
L
o
t
O
l
o
l
h
n
-
0
1
0
M
a
s
o
n
S
t
Sh
o
r
t
S
t
28
5
4
6
1
3
,
1
6
7
6
4
Pa
r
k
L
o
t
O
l
o
l
h
n
-
0
2
0
S
h
o
r
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
Br
i
d
g
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
63
2
4
9
3
0
,
7
1
5
7
4
Pa
r
k
L
o
t
R
c
h
G
r
d
-
0
1
0
J
a
m
e
s
W
a
y
@
S
a
l
i
d
D
e
l
S
o
l
En
d
o
f
L
o
t
44
0
8
9
3
9
,
0
7
2
7
7
Pa
r
k
L
o
t
S
o
t
o
-
0
1
0
A
s
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
a
t
S
p
r
u
c
e
S
t
Ba
t
h
r
o
o
m
s
24
0
6
0
1
4
,
4
0
0
7
6
Pa
r
k
L
o
t
S
o
t
o
-
0
2
0
A
s
h
S
t
@
J
a
s
m
i
n
e
P
l
Wh
e
r
e
l
o
t
w
i
d
d
e
n
s
36
0
6
0
2
1
,
6
0
0
7
6
Pa
r
k
L
o
t
S
o
t
o
-
0
3
0
B
e
g
g
i
n
g
o
f
W
i
d
e
a
r
e
a
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
t
o
C
o
r
p
Y
a
r
d
40
0
9
0
3
6
,
0
0
0
6
4
Pa
r
k
L
o
t
S
t
r
o
t
h
-
0
1
0
H
u
a
s
n
a
@
R
o
s
e
w
o
o
d
L
n
En
d
o
f
L
o
t
60
0
9
2
5
5
,
2
0
0
3
0
Pa
r
k
L
o
t
W
m
n
C
l
b
-
0
1
0
B
o
t
h
U
p
p
e
r
l
o
t
s
Fr
o
n
t
d
o
o
r
40
0
6
0
2
4
,
0
0
0
5
0
Pa
r
k
L
o
t
W
m
n
C
l
b
-
0
2
0
L
o
w
e
r
L
o
t
Fr
o
n
t
d
o
o
r
17
0
1
2
5
2
1
,
2
5
0
5
2
Pa
r
k
W
y
10
H
a
l
c
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
Re
n
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
37
8
3
4
1
2
,
8
5
2
7
6
Pa
s
e
o
S
t
10
M
a
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
18
5
3
7
6
,
8
4
5
4
6
Pa
s
e
o
S
t
20
C
o
r
b
e
t
t
C
y
n
(
H
w
y
2
2
7
)
EO
S
76
2
5
1
,
9
0
0
5
2
Pa
u
l
P
l
10
T
h
e
P
i
k
e
El
m
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
1,
0
3
0
3
5
3
6
,
0
5
0
7
5
PC
R
a
i
l
w
y
P
l
1
0
A
l
l
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ea
s
t
C
h
e
r
r
y
A
v
e
34
0
2
6
8
,
6
7
0
7
6
PC
R
a
i
l
w
y
P
l
2
0
A
l
l
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
33
5
2
0
6
,
7
0
0
7
0
Pe
a
r
l
D
r
10
L
e
a
n
n
a
D
r
i
v
e
Le
a
n
n
a
D
r
i
v
e
1,
1
5
0
3
4
3
9
,
1
0
0
8
5
Pe
a
r
w
o
o
d
A
v
1
0
H
u
a
s
n
a
R
o
a
d
Oa
k
H
i
l
l
R
o
a
d
(
E
O
S
)
1,
2
0
0
3
4
4
0
,
9
2
0
7
9
Pe
c
a
n
P
L
10
F
a
i
r
O
a
k
s
A
v
e
EO
S
33
6
1
6
5
,
3
7
6
8
1
Pe
c
a
n
S
T
10
F
a
r
r
o
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
Fa
i
r
O
a
k
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
70
0
3
7
2
5
,
9
0
0
4
6
Pi
l
g
r
a
m
W
y
1
0
O
r
c
h
a
r
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ar
r
o
y
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
37
0
3
6
1
3
,
3
2
0
7
5
Pi
n
e
S
t
10
M
a
p
l
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
CD
S
65
0
3
7
2
4
,
0
5
0
5
3
Pl
a
t
a
R
d
10
O
r
o
D
r
i
v
e
Cu
l
-
D
e
-
S
a
c
37
5
3
7
1
3
,
8
7
5
4
7
Item 12.a. - Page 53
Ci
t
y
o
f
A
r
r
o
y
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
20
1
6
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
RO
A
D
S
E
G
M
E
N
T
-
DE
T
A
I
L
E
D
D
A
T
A
a
n
d
P
C
I
V
A
L
U
E
S
14 of 18
St
r
e
e
t
I
D
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
D
Be
g
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
En
d
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Le
n
g
t
h
(F
T
)
Width (FT)Area (SF)
P
C
I
Pl
a
t
i
n
o
L
n
10
L
a
C
r
e
s
t
a
D
r
i
v
e
St
a
g
e
c
o
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
1,
1
4
5
3
7
4
2
,
3
6
5
4
2
Pl
a
t
i
n
o
L
n
20
S
t
a
g
e
c
o
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Or
o
31
0
3
7
1
1
,
4
7
0
7
3
Pl
a
t
i
n
o
L
n
30
O
r
o
D
r
Ga
t
e
@
T
e
m
p
u
s
55
0
3
7
2
0
,
3
5
0
3
1
Pl
o
m
o
C
t
10
S
t
a
g
e
c
o
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Cu
l
-
D
e
-
S
a
c
22
0
3
7
8
,
1
4
0
4
8
Po
o
l
e
S
t
15
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
W
a
y
Wh
i
t
e
l
e
y
S
t
1,
1
3
4
3
6
4
0
,
8
2
4
7
1
Po
p
l
a
r
S
t
10
J
u
n
i
p
e
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
El
m
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
1,
1
2
0
3
7
4
1
,
4
4
0
5
9
Pr
a
d
e
r
a
C
t
10
L
a
C
r
e
s
t
a
D
r
i
v
e
Cu
l
-
D
e
-
S
a
c
30
0
3
7
1
1
,
1
0
0
7
9
Pr
i
m
e
r
o
s
e
10
J
a
s
m
i
n
e
P
l
a
c
e
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
12
5
2
0
2
,
5
0
0
0
Pr
i
s
c
i
l
l
a
L
10
R
u
t
h
A
n
n
W
a
y
Cu
l
-
D
e
-
S
a
c
47
5
3
7
1
7
,
5
7
5
4
3
Pu
e
s
t
a
D
e
S
o
1
0
L
o
s
C
e
r
v
o
s
Vi
s
t
a
D
r
i
v
e
1,
4
5
0
2
9
4
2
,
0
5
0
8
8
Qu
a
i
l
C
t
10
R
o
b
i
n
C
i
r
c
l
e
Cu
l
-
D
e
-
S
a
c
26
0
4
0
1
0
,
4
0
0
5
5
Qu
a
i
l
R
i
d
g
e
1
0
H
i
d
d
e
n
O
a
k
R
d
CD
S
27
5
3
4
9
,
3
5
0
9
0
Ra
n
c
h
o
P
k
10
W
e
s
t
B
r
a
n
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ca
m
i
n
o
M
e
r
c
a
d
o
1,
6
2
0
4
2
6
8
,
0
4
0
7
0
Ra
n
c
h
o
P
k
20
C
a
m
i
n
o
M
e
r
c
a
d
o
Vi
a
P
o
c
a
1,
8
8
0
4
2
7
8
,
9
6
0
7
2
Ra
n
c
h
o
P
k
30
V
i
a
P
o
c
a
Ja
m
e
s
W
a
y
1,
0
6
0
4
2
4
4
,
5
2
0
6
5
Ra
s
p
b
e
r
y
A
v
1
5
B
o
y
s
e
n
b
e
r
r
y
S
t
Cr
a
n
b
e
r
r
y
S
t
1,
0
5
0
3
3
3
4
,
6
5
0
9
4
Re
f
u
g
i
o
P
l
10
R
a
n
c
h
o
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
Cu
l
-
D
e
-
S
a
c
45
0
2
9
1
3
,
0
5
0
8
5
Re
n
a
S
t
N
10
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
Be
n
n
e
t
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
67
0
3
6
2
4
,
1
2
0
9
2
Re
n
a
S
t
S
10
D
o
d
s
o
n
W
a
y
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
1,
2
8
0
3
6
4
6
,
0
8
0
6
8
Re
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
R
1
0
W
e
s
t
B
r
a
n
c
h
Wa
t
e
r
T
a
n
k
1,
8
8
0
1
2
2
2
,
5
6
0
0
Ri
c
e
C
t
10
B
a
k
e
m
a
n
L
a
n
e
CD
S
14
0
3
7
5
,
1
8
0
8
0
Ri
d
g
e
v
i
e
w
10
T
a
l
l
y
H
o
R
o
a
d
Wh
i
t
e
C
o
u
r
t
76
0
2
8
2
1
,
2
8
0
8
6
Ro
b
i
n
C
r
10
M
e
a
d
o
w
l
a
r
k
D
r
i
v
e
Oa
k
P
a
r
k
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
2,
2
1
0
3
7
8
1
,
7
7
0
6
1
Ro
b
l
e
s
R
d
10
S
i
e
r
r
a
D
r
i
v
e
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
18
0
1
8
3
,
2
4
0
5
5
Ro
b
l
e
s
R
d
20
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
En
d
o
f
R
o
a
d
-
C
h
i
l
t
o
n
S
t
40
0
2
4
9
,
6
0
0
4
1
Ro
d
e
o
D
r
10
W
e
s
t
B
r
a
n
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Me
r
c
e
d
e
s
L
a
n
e
1,
9
7
0
4
1
8
0
,
7
7
0
3
6
Ro
d
e
o
D
r
20
M
e
r
c
e
d
e
s
L
a
n
e
Em
e
r
a
l
d
B
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
2,
1
0
0
3
7
7
7
,
7
0
0
4
6
Item 12.a. - Page 54
Ci
t
y
o
f
A
r
r
o
y
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
20
1
6
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
RO
A
D
S
E
G
M
E
N
T
-
DE
T
A
I
L
E
D
D
A
T
A
a
n
d
P
C
I
V
A
L
U
E
S
15 of 18
St
r
e
e
t
I
D
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
D
Be
g
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
En
d
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Le
n
g
t
h
(F
T
)
Width (FT)Area (SF)
P
C
I
Ro
d
e
o
D
r
30
E
m
e
r
a
l
d
B
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
Ja
m
e
s
W
a
y
1,
4
9
0
3
7
5
5
,
1
3
0
4
0
Ro
d
e
o
D
r
40
J
a
m
e
s
W
a
y
CD
S
42
0
3
7
1
5
,
5
4
0
8
4
Ro
g
e
r
s
C
t
10
V
i
c
t
o
r
i
a
W
a
y
CD
S
55
0
3
7
2
0
,
3
5
0
7
0
Ro
s
e
m
a
r
y
C
T
1
0
L
a
C
a
n
a
d
a
CD
S
35
0
2
9
1
0
,
1
5
0
8
7
Ro
s
e
m
a
r
y
L
N
1
0
E
O
S
(
W
e
s
t
o
f
S
o
m
b
r
i
l
l
o
)
CD
S
1,
2
2
0
2
9
3
5
,
3
8
0
9
5
Ro
s
e
w
o
o
d
L
n
1
0
H
u
a
s
n
a
R
o
a
d
CD
S
52
5
3
5
1
8
,
3
7
5
9
1
Ru
s
s
C
t
10
P
a
u
l
P
l
a
c
e
CD
S
21
2
3
5
7
,
4
2
0
7
9
Ru
t
h
A
n
n
W
y
N
1
0
B
r
i
g
h
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
CD
S
43
0
3
7
1
5
,
9
1
0
5
3
Ru
t
h
A
n
n
W
y
S
1
0
B
r
i
g
h
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
CD
S
55
0
3
7
2
0
,
3
5
0
5
4
Sa
g
e
S
t
10
S
p
r
u
c
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
As
p
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
53
5
3
6
1
9
,
2
6
0
8
4
Sa
l
i
d
a
D
e
S
o
1
0
J
a
m
e
s
W
a
y
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
68
0
2
9
1
9
,
7
2
0
9
1
Sa
n
d
a
l
w
o
o
d
1
0
A
l
d
e
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ha
l
c
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
58
0
3
4
1
9
,
7
2
0
6
7
Sc
e
n
i
c
C
r
10
E
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
W
a
y
CD
S
37
0
3
7
1
3
,
6
9
0
5
2
Se
a
b
r
i
g
h
t
A
1
0
O
a
k
P
a
r
k
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Cr
a
n
b
e
r
r
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
21
3
3
3
7
,
0
2
9
8
8
Sh
o
r
t
S
t
15
A
l
l
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
EO
S
N
.
N
e
l
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
C
r
e
e
k
)
1
,
2
1
9
3
6
4
3
,
8
8
4
7
1
Sh
o
r
t
S
t
30
B
r
a
n
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
E
n
d
)
Ga
z
e
b
o
13
0
2
6
3
,
3
8
0
8
5
Si
e
r
r
a
D
r
10
O
a
k
P
a
r
k
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Hi
l
l
c
r
e
s
t
D
r
i
v
e
2,
1
8
7
2
2
4
8
,
1
1
4
4
9
So
m
b
r
i
l
l
o
10
S
a
l
i
d
a
d
e
S
o
l
Ro
s
e
m
a
r
y
C
o
u
r
t
94
0
2
9
2
7
,
2
6
0
9
5
Sp
a
n
i
s
h
M
o
s
1
0
M
e
s
q
u
i
t
e
L
a
n
e
Ch
a
p
a
r
r
a
l
L
a
n
e
1,
1
5
0
3
7
4
2
,
5
5
0
7
6
Sp
r
u
c
e
S
t
10
A
s
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ce
d
a
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
90
0
3
7
3
3
,
3
0
0
5
8
Sp
r
u
c
e
S
t
20
C
e
d
a
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
Po
p
l
a
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
60
0
3
7
2
2
,
2
0
0
5
7
St
a
g
e
c
o
a
c
h
1
0
H
u
a
s
n
a
R
o
a
d
Pl
a
t
i
n
o
L
a
n
e
1,
1
4
0
4
1
4
6
,
7
4
0
5
0
St
a
g
e
c
o
a
c
h
2
0
P
l
a
t
i
n
o
L
a
n
e
Ci
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
1,
4
0
0
4
1
5
7
,
4
0
0
5
3
St
a
n
l
e
y
A
v
10
H
u
a
s
n
a
R
o
a
d
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
80
0
3
5
2
8
,
0
0
0
9
2
St
a
r
l
i
g
h
t
10
F
a
r
r
o
l
l
Mo
r
n
i
n
g
R
i
s
e
63
0
3
5
2
2
,
0
5
0
9
3
St
a
t
i
o
n
W
y
10
F
a
i
r
O
a
k
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
W
a
y
1,
2
5
2
3
7
4
6
,
3
2
4
4
3
St
e
v
e
n
s
o
n
D
1
0
H
o
d
g
e
s
R
o
a
d
Ja
m
e
s
W
a
y
42
0
2
5
1
0
,
5
0
0
3
5
Item 12.a. - Page 55
Ci
t
y
o
f
A
r
r
o
y
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
20
1
6
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
RO
A
D
S
E
G
M
E
N
T
-
DE
T
A
I
L
E
D
D
A
T
A
a
n
d
P
C
I
V
A
L
U
E
S
16 of 18
St
r
e
e
t
I
D
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
D
Be
g
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
En
d
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Le
n
g
t
h
(F
T
)
Width (FT)Area (SF)
P
C
I
St
i
l
l
w
e
l
l
D
10
E
a
s
t
C
h
e
r
r
y
My
r
t
l
e
59
0
3
3
1
9
,
4
7
0
8
5
St
o
n
e
c
r
e
s
t
10
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
St
o
n
e
c
r
e
s
t
D
r
i
v
e
1,
1
8
2
1
8
2
1
,
2
7
6
0
St
r
a
w
b
e
r
r
y
1
0
B
o
y
s
e
n
b
e
r
r
y
S
t
Co
u
r
t
l
a
n
d
S
t
60
0
3
3
1
9
,
8
0
0
9
1
St
r
a
w
b
e
r
r
y
2
0
C
o
u
r
t
l
a
n
d
S
t
CD
S
36
5
3
3
1
2
,
0
4
5
9
1
Su
n
r
i
s
e
D
r
10
S
u
n
r
i
s
e
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
Lo
n
g
d
e
n
D
r
i
v
e
3,
1
4
5
3
0
9
4
,
3
5
0
0
Su
n
r
i
s
e
T
r
10
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
o
a
d
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
30
0
5
0
1
5
,
0
0
0
3
8
Su
n
s
e
t
D
r
10
E
l
m
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
Al
d
e
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
2,
2
0
0
3
3
7
2
,
6
0
0
8
7
Sy
c
a
m
o
r
e
C
T
1
0
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
CD
S
11
2
3
5
3
,
9
2
0
6
6
Sy
c
a
m
o
r
e
D
R
1
0
M
a
g
n
o
l
i
a
D
r
i
v
e
Ga
y
n
f
a
i
r
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
71
0
3
5
2
4
,
8
5
0
6
4
Sy
c
a
m
o
r
e
D
R
2
0
G
y
a
n
f
a
i
r
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
Ha
l
c
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
90
0
3
7
3
3
,
3
0
0
7
6
Ta
l
l
y
H
o
R
d
10
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
2
2
7
(
P
r
i
n
t
z
R
d
)
Ja
m
e
s
W
a
y
1,
9
5
0
3
7
7
2
,
1
5
0
9
1
Ta
l
l
y
H
o
R
d
20
J
a
m
e
s
W
a
y
Le
P
o
i
n
t
1,
7
0
0
3
7
6
2
,
9
0
0
9
4
Ta
n
n
e
r
L
n
10
F
l
o
r
a
R
o
a
d
Br
a
n
c
h
M
i
l
l
R
o
a
d
65
8
3
4
2
2
,
3
7
2
9
6
Ta
y
l
o
r
P
l
10
A
l
p
i
n
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
65
7
3
4
2
2
,
3
3
8
8
0
Te
m
p
u
s
C
r
10
P
l
a
t
i
n
o
L
a
n
e
Pl
a
t
i
n
o
L
a
n
e
1,
6
0
0
2
4
3
8
,
4
0
0
0
Th
e
P
i
k
e
10
C
i
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
Ti
e
r
r
a
S
t
.
40
0
5
4
2
1
,
6
0
0
7
7
Th
e
P
i
k
e
15
T
i
e
r
r
a
S
t
S.
E
l
m
S
t
77
0
6
0
4
6
,
2
0
0
8
0
Th
e
P
i
k
e
20
E
l
m
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
Ha
l
c
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
2,
6
5
0
4
0
1
0
6
,
0
0
0
77
Ti
e
r
r
a
S
t
10
T
h
e
P
i
k
e
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
72
5
3
3
2
3
,
9
2
5
6
2
Ti
g
e
r
T
a
i
l
D
10
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
o
a
d
CD
S
91
5
3
7
3
3
,
8
5
5
4
8
To
d
d
L
n
10
H
a
l
c
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
Fa
i
r
O
a
k
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
68
0
3
4
2
3
,
1
2
0
6
7
To
y
o
n
P
l
10
S
t
a
g
e
c
o
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
20
0
3
7
7
,
4
0
0
3
6
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
W
y
10
B
r
a
n
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
W
e
s
t
)
PC
C
a
t
B
r
i
d
g
e
25
0
4
0
1
0
,
0
0
0
4
5
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
W
y
15
P
C
C
a
t
B
r
i
d
g
e
Fa
i
r
O
a
k
s
1,
4
0
0
6
6
9
1
,
7
0
0
4
3
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
W
y
20
F
a
i
r
O
a
k
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
1
0
1
93
0
6
0
5
5
,
8
0
0
2
6
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
W
y
X
1
0
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
W
a
y
Tr
i
n
i
t
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
75
0
3
2
2
4
,
0
0
0
9
0
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
W
y
X
2
0
T
r
i
n
i
t
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
En
d
o
f
R
o
a
d
1,
4
2
3
1
8
2
5
,
6
1
4
0
Item 12.a. - Page 56
Ci
t
y
o
f
A
r
r
o
y
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
20
1
6
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
RO
A
D
S
E
G
M
E
N
T
-
DE
T
A
I
L
E
D
D
A
T
A
a
n
d
P
C
I
V
A
L
U
E
S
17 of 18
St
r
e
e
t
I
D
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
D
Be
g
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
En
d
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Le
n
g
t
h
(F
T
)
Width (FT)Area (SF)
P
C
I
Tr
i
n
i
t
y
A
v
10
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
W
a
y
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
85
0
3
0
2
5
,
5
0
0
5
0
Tu
r
q
u
o
i
s
e
D
1
0
L
e
A
n
n
a
D
r
i
v
e
Le
A
n
n
a
D
r
i
v
e
1,
1
4
0
3
4
3
8
,
7
6
0
7
5
Va
l
l
e
y
R
d
10
F
a
i
r
O
a
k
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ci
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
1,
4
0
0
4
3
5
9
,
7
8
0
7
0
Va
l
l
e
y
R
d
20
C
i
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
N
.
o
f
S
u
n
r
i
s
e
T
r
@
C
O
P
T
i
g
e
r
T
a
i
l
D
r
67
5
4
9
3
3
,
0
7
5
4
1
Va
l
l
e
y
R
d
30
T
i
g
e
r
T
a
i
l
R
d
Ci
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
a
t
B
r
i
d
g
e
60
0
6
0
3
6
,
0
0
0
4
9
Va
r
d
L
o
o
m
C
T
1
0
V
a
r
d
L
o
o
m
i
s
L
a
n
e
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
11
8
5
7
6
,
7
2
6
5
3
Va
r
d
L
o
o
m
L
N
1
0
H
u
a
s
n
a
R
o
a
d
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
80
0
3
7
2
9
,
6
0
0
4
3
Ve
r
d
e
P
l
10
T
h
e
P
i
k
e
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
32
0
3
7
1
1
,
8
4
0
7
2
Ve
r
n
o
n
S
t
10
B
r
a
n
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
W
e
s
t
)
La
r
c
h
m
o
n
t
D
r
i
v
e
31
0
3
7
1
1
,
4
7
0
1
8
Ve
r
n
o
n
S
t
20
L
a
r
c
h
m
o
n
t
D
r
i
v
e
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
16
0
2
4
3
,
8
4
0
2
2
Vi
a
A
v
a
n
t
e
10
C
a
s
t
i
l
l
o
d
e
M
a
r
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
24
5
2
8
6
,
8
6
0
9
8
Vi
a
B
a
n
d
o
l
e
1
0
V
i
a
V
a
q
u
e
r
o
Av
e
n
i
d
a
d
e
D
i
a
m
a
n
t
e
3,
5
5
0
3
7
1
3
1
,
3
5
0
43
Vi
a
B
e
l
m
o
n
N
1
0
C
a
s
t
i
l
l
o
d
e
l
M
a
r
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
17
7
4
0
7
,
0
8
0
9
5
Vi
a
B
e
l
m
o
n
S
1
0
C
a
s
t
i
l
l
o
d
e
l
M
a
r
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
64
0
2
8
1
7
,
9
2
0
9
8
Vi
a
B
e
r
r
o
s
10
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
o
a
d
Ci
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
45
5
2
6
1
1
,
8
3
0
1
8
Vi
a
F
i
r
e
n
z
N
1
0
C
a
s
t
i
l
l
o
d
e
l
M
a
r
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
34
5
2
8
9
,
6
6
0
9
6
Vi
a
F
i
r
e
n
z
S
1
0
V
i
a
F
i
r
e
n
z
e
C
o
u
r
t
e
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
Ca
s
t
i
l
l
o
d
e
l
M
a
r
35
5
2
8
9
,
9
4
0
9
4
Vi
a
L
a
B
a
r
r
a
1
0
T
a
l
l
y
H
o
R
o
a
d
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
1,
2
5
0
3
5
4
3
,
7
5
0
7
3
Vi
a
L
a
s
A
q
u
i
1
0
C
a
m
i
n
o
M
e
r
c
a
d
o
Pa
l
o
s
S
e
c
o
s
1,
7
0
0
2
9
4
9
,
3
0
0
8
6
Vi
a
L
a
s
A
q
u
i
2
0
P
a
l
o
s
S
e
c
o
s
CD
S
93
4
2
9
2
7
,
0
8
6
8
5
Vi
a
P
o
c
a
10
R
a
n
c
h
o
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
Vi
a
B
a
n
d
o
l
e
r
o
23
0
3
7
8
,
5
1
0
6
8
Vi
a
V
a
q
u
e
r
o
1
0
R
a
n
c
h
o
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
Av
e
n
i
d
a
d
e
D
i
a
m
e
n
t
e
1,
7
0
0
3
8
6
4
,
6
0
0
4
1
Vi
a
V
a
q
u
e
r
o
2
0
A
v
e
n
i
d
a
d
e
D
i
a
m
e
n
t
e
Vi
a
B
a
n
d
o
l
e
r
o
60
0
3
8
2
2
,
8
0
0
3
3
Vi
c
t
o
r
i
a
n
10
F
a
r
r
o
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
CD
S
71
0
3
7
2
6
,
2
7
0
9
1
Vi
c
t
o
r
i
a
W
y
10
G
a
r
f
i
e
l
d
P
l
a
c
e
Ro
g
e
r
s
C
o
u
r
t
80
0
3
7
2
9
,
6
0
0
7
0
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
C
t
10
T
r
i
n
i
t
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
17
0
3
6
6
,
1
2
0
4
9
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
G
l
e
10
J
a
m
e
s
W
a
y
Hi
d
d
e
n
O
a
k
R
d
1,
3
0
0
3
3
4
2
,
9
0
0
8
9
Item 12.a. - Page 57
Ci
t
y
o
f
A
r
r
o
y
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
20
1
6
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
RO
A
D
S
E
G
M
E
N
T
-
DE
T
A
I
L
E
D
D
A
T
A
a
n
d
P
C
I
V
A
L
U
E
S
18 of 18
St
r
e
e
t
I
D
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
D
Be
g
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
En
d
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Le
n
g
t
h
(F
T
)
Width (FT)Area (SF)
P
C
I
Vi
r
g
i
n
i
a
D
r
10
H
a
l
c
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
D
r
i
v
e
86
6
3
7
3
2
,
0
4
2
8
5
Vi
s
t
a
C
R
10
E
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
W
a
y
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
41
2
3
7
1
5
,
2
4
4
7
1
Vi
s
t
a
D
R
10
E
q
u
e
s
t
r
a
i
n
W
a
y
PC
C
a
t
m
e
d
i
a
n
1,
2
0
0
3
7
4
4
,
4
0
0
4
1
Vi
s
t
a
D
R
20
P
C
C
a
t
M
e
d
i
a
n
La
C
a
n
a
d
a
1,
8
5
0
3
7
6
8
,
4
5
0
8
5
Wa
l
l
a
c
e
P
l
10
M
a
p
l
e
S
t
EO
S
20
0
2
2
4
,
4
0
0
4
3
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
10
F
a
r
r
o
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
As
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
1,
3
8
6
3
8
5
2
,
6
6
8
6
1
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
20
A
s
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
1,
2
0
0
3
7
4
4
,
4
0
0
6
2
We
s
l
e
y
S
t
10
B
r
a
n
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
E
a
s
t
)
La
r
c
h
m
o
n
t
D
r
i
v
e
35
0
2
8
9
,
8
0
0
2
8
We
s
l
e
y
S
t
20
L
a
r
c
h
m
o
n
t
D
r
i
v
e
Ca
m
p
g
r
o
u
n
d
1,
1
3
3
1
6
1
8
,
1
2
8
0
Wh
i
t
e
C
t
10
R
i
d
g
e
v
i
e
w
W
a
y
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
27
6
3
2
8
,
8
3
2
9
4
Wh
i
t
e
l
e
y
S
t
15
C
D
S
(
S
o
u
t
h
e
n
d
)
EO
S
1,
0
5
8
3
7
3
9
,
1
4
6
5
4
Wi
l
d
O
a
t
P
l
10
C
a
n
y
o
n
W
a
y
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
43
4
1
8
7
,
8
1
2
0
Wi
l
d
w
o
o
d
D
r
1
0
T
e
m
p
u
s
C
i
r
c
l
e
Co
r
b
e
t
t
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
93
5
3
0
2
8
,
0
5
0
0
Wi
l
l
o
w
L
n
10
H
a
l
c
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
D
r
i
v
e
75
0
3
5
2
6
,
2
5
0
5
9
Wi
l
s
o
n
C
t
10
B
a
k
e
m
a
n
L
a
n
e
CD
S
14
0
3
7
5
,
1
8
0
7
1
Wi
l
t
o
n
P
l
10
V
e
r
n
o
n
S
t
EO
S
37
0
3
6
1
3
,
3
2
0
8
9
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
C
T
1
0
W
o
o
d
l
a
n
d
D
r
i
v
e
Cu
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
18
0
3
7
6
,
6
6
0
6
5
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
D
R
1
0
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a
D
r
CD
S
65
0
3
7
2
4
,
0
5
0
5
1
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
D
R
2
0
C
r
e
e
k
s
i
d
e
D
r
i
v
e
Vi
r
g
i
n
i
a
D
r
64
4
3
7
2
3
,
8
2
8
5
4
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
D
R
3
0
F
a
i
r
O
a
k
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
Cr
e
e
k
s
i
d
e
D
r
i
v
e
1,
2
4
0
3
7
4
5
,
8
8
0
6
3
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
D
R
4
0
F
a
i
r
O
a
k
s
A
v
Ga
t
e
E
n
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
32
0
3
7
1
1
,
8
4
0
7
3
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
D
R
5
0
C
e
r
r
o
V
i
s
t
a
C
r
Ga
t
e
/
C
O
P
10
5
3
7
3
,
8
8
5
9
0
Wo
o
d
P
l
10
D
o
d
s
o
n
W
a
y
CD
S
65
0
3
5
2
2
,
7
5
0
5
5
Wy
s
t
e
r
i
a
C
t
1
0
J
a
s
m
i
n
e
P
l
a
c
e
En
d
o
f
S
t
r
e
e
t
90
2
0
1
,
8
0
0
0
Zo
g
a
t
a
W
y
10
G
u
l
a
r
t
e
R
o
a
d
St
a
g
e
c
o
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
1,
0
2
0
3
7
3
7
,
7
4
0
3
4
Item 12.a. - Page 58
APPENDIX C
Street Saver Scenario Results
1. Budget Scenario #1 – Maintain Current City Budget
2. Budget Scenario #2 – Add $500K to Current City Budget
3. Target Driven Scenario (PCI=70) – PCI Summary
4. Target Driven Scenario (PCI=70) – Cost Summary
Item 12.a. - Page 59
YearYearYearBudgetPMBudgetPM Budget PM
2017 $870,000 5%
2018 $895,000 5%
2019 $920,000 5%
2020 $945,000 5%
2021 $970,000 5%
2022 $995,000 5%
2023 $1,020,000 5%
Projected Network Average PCI by year
Never TreatedYear With Selected Treatment Treated
Centerline Miles
Treated
Lane Miles
2017 6968 2.481.37
2018 6766 22.0511.27
2019 6663 9.605.02
2020 6461 4.282.16
2021 6258 3.061.65
2022 6056 2.581.29
2023 5853 1.300.69
Percent Network Area by Functional Class and Condition Category
Condition
Condition in base year 2017, prior to applying treatments.
Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 12.5%8.0%29.1%1.5%51.2%
II / III 7.1%6.3%16.8%1.0%31.2%
IV 2.2%4.3%9.2%0.6%16.4%
V 0.6%0.2%0.5%0.0%1.3%
Total 22.4%18.9%55.6%3.1%100.0%
Condition
Condition in year 2017 after schedulable treatments applied.
Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 13.7%8.0%29.7%2.2%53.5%
II / III 5.9%6.3%16.3%0.5%29.0%
IV 2.2%4.3%9.2%0.5%16.2%
V 0.6%0.2%0.5%0.0%1.3%
Total 22.4%18.9%55.6%3.1%100.0%
Condition
Condition in year 2023 after schedulable treatments applied.
Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 11.2%5.8%23.6%3.1%43.7%
II / III 6.1%3.3%13.6%0.0%23.0%
IV 3.1%4.6%12.7%0.0%20.3%
V 2.0%5.2%5.8%0.0%13.0%
Total 22.4%18.9%55.6%3.1%100.0%
Scenarios - Network Condition Summary
Printed: 01/26/2017
City of Arroyo Grande
300 E. Branch St
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
(805) 473-5460
Scenario: 7 year current budget
Interest: 1%Inflation: 3%
MTC StreetSaverScenarios Criteria:1
SS1035
Item 12.a. - Page 60
YearYearYearBudgetPMBudgetPM Budget PM
2017 $1,370,000 5%
2018 $1,395,000 5%
2019 $1,420,000 5%
2020 $1,445,000 5%
2021 $1,470,000 5%
2022 $1,495,000 5%
2023 $1,520,000 5%
Projected Network Average PCI by year
Never TreatedYear With Selected Treatment Treated
Centerline Miles
Treated
Lane Miles
2017 6968 3.691.99
2018 6866 23.7612.19
2019 6663 11.485.91
2020 6561 5.182.59
2021 6358 5.162.72
2022 6256 9.965.18
2023 6153 6.673.48
Percent Network Area by Functional Class and Condition Category
Condition
Condition in base year 2017, prior to applying treatments.
Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 12.5%8.0%29.1%1.5%51.2%
II / III 7.1%6.3%16.8%1.0%31.2%
IV 2.2%4.3%9.2%0.6%16.4%
V 0.6%0.2%0.5%0.0%1.3%
Total 22.4%18.9%55.6%3.1%100.0%
Condition
Condition in year 2017 after schedulable treatments applied.
Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 13.7%8.6%30.0%2.2%54.4%
II / III 5.9%5.7%16.0%0.5%28.1%
IV 2.2%4.3%9.2%0.5%16.2%
V 0.6%0.2%0.5%0.0%1.3%
Total 22.4%18.9%55.6%3.1%100.0%
Condition
Condition in year 2023 after schedulable treatments applied.
Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 12.7%7.5%25.9%3.1%49.2%
II / III 5.5%3.3%13.4%0.0%22.2%
IV 2.2%2.9%10.6%0.0%15.7%
V 2.0%5.2%5.8%0.0%12.9%
Total 22.4%18.9%55.6%3.1%100.0%
Scenarios - Network Condition Summary
Printed: 01/26/2017
City of Arroyo Grande
300 E. Branch St
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
(805) 473-5460
Scenario: 7 year current + $500K Annually
Interest: 1%Inflation: 3%
MTC StreetSaverScenarios Criteria:1
SS1035
Item 12.a. - Page 61
City of Arroyo Grande
300 E. Branch St
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
(805) 473-5460
Target-Driven Scenarios
Network Condition Summary
Printed: 01/26/2017Interest: 1%Inflation: 3%
Projected Network Average PCI by year
Year With Selected TreatmentNever Treated
Target: Overall 70
Scenario: 70 PCI (MOD Weighted)
Objective: Minimum Network Average PCI
2017 7068
2018 7066
2019 7063
2020 7061
2021 7058
2022 7056
2023 7053
Percent Network Area by Functional Classification and Condition Class
Condition in base year 2017, prior to applying treatments.
Condition Class Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 12.5%8.0%29.1%1.5%51.2%
II / III 7.1%6.3%16.8%1.0%31.2%
IV 2.2%4.3%9.2%0.6%16.4%
V 0.6%0.2%0.5%0.0%1.3%
22.4%Total 18.9%55.6%3.1%100.0%
Condition in year 2017 after schedulable treatments applied.
Condition Class Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 12.5%8.0%31.3%2.2%54.0%
II / III 7.1%6.3%16.1%0.5%29.9%
IV 2.2%4.3%7.8%0.5%14.8%
V 0.6%0.2%0.5%0.0%1.3%
22.4%Total 18.9%55.6%3.1%100.0%
Condition in year 2023 after schedulable treatments applied.
Condition Class Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 11.2%11.3%46.0%3.1%71.6%
II / III 3.7%1.4%6.0%0.0%11.1%
IV 5.6%1.0%0.3%0.0%6.9%
V 2.0%5.2%3.3%0.0%10.5%
22.4%Total 18.9%55.6%3.1%100.0%
MTC StreetSaverScenarios Criteria:1
SS1062
Item 12.a. - Page 62
City of Arroyo Grande
300 E. Branch St
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
(805) 473-5460
Target-Driven Scenarios - Cost Summary
Printed: 01/26/2017Inflation: 3%Interest: 1%
Target: Overall 70
Scenario: 70 PCI (MOD Weighted)
Objective: Minimum Network Average PCI
2017
$1,164,588
$20,726
$170,622
$973,240
$0
$457,500
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
Non-
Project
Project
Project
Total $1,164,588Total
$0
$1,622,088 $13,123,473
2018
$1,635,503
$20,988
$0
$1,559,238
$55,277
$368,229
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
Non-
Project
Project
Project
Total $1,635,503Total
$55,277
$2,003,732 $11,133,419
2019
$2,597,397
$8,730
$18,548
$2,570,119
$0
$230,392
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
Non-
Project
Project
Project
Total $2,597,397Total
$0
$2,827,789 $15,384,215
2020
$3,446,984
$574,712
$553,107
$2,319,165
$0
$172,310
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
Non-
Project
Project
Project
Total $3,446,984Total
$0
$3,619,294 $14,067,448
2021
$4,009,829
$541,599
$938,285
$2,529,945
$0
$75,274
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
Non-
Project
Project
Project
Total $4,009,829Total
$0
$4,085,103 $15,674,367
2022
$3,298,440
$92,924
$0
$3,162,112
$43,404
$153,988
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
Non-
Project
Project
Project
Total $3,298,440Total
$43,404
$3,452,428 $17,765,578
Year Rehabilitation Preventive Maintenance Total Cost Deferred
Scenarios Criteria:1
SS1063
MTC StreetSaver
Item 12.a. - Page 63
2023
$3,408,673
$273,696
$9,990
$1,506,439
$1,618,548
$145,982
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
Non-
Project
Project
Project
Total $3,408,673Total
$1,618,548
$3,554,655 $21,669,277
SummaryFunctional Class Rehabilitation Prev. Maint.
Arterial $938,285 $331,520
Collector $4,457,766 $271,002
Other $161,801 $24,980
Residential/Local $14,003,562 $976,173
$19,561,414 $1,603,675Total:$21,165,089Grand Total:
Year Rehabilitation Preventive Maintenance Total Cost Deferred
Scenarios Criteria:2
SS1063
MTC StreetSaver
Item 12.a. - Page 64
APPENDIX D
Street Saver Cost Projection Input Data (“Decision Tree”)
Item 12.a. - Page 65
Arterial AC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $1.32 3
Surface Treatment Light Maintenance $3.24 7
Restoration Treatment Light Rehab $11.54 2
II - Good, Non-Load Related Heavy Maintenance $16.40
III - Good, Load Related Light Rehab $42.00
IV - Poor Heavy Rehab $60.00
V - Very Poor Reconstruct $117.00
AC/AC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $1.32 3
Surface Treatment Light Maintenance $3.24 6
Restoration Treatment Light Rehab $11.54 2
II - Good, Non-Load Related Heavy Maintenance $16.40
III - Good, Load Related Light Rehab $42.00
IV - Poor Heavy Rehab $60.00
V - Very Poor Reconstruct $117.00
AC/PCC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $0.60 3
Surface Treatment SINGLE CHIP SEAL $0.74 6
Restoration Treatment MILL AND THICK OVERLAY $7.23 2
II - Good, Non-Load Related DOUBLE CHIP SEAL $1.52
III - Good, Load Related HEATER SCARIFY & OVERLAY $5.95
IV - Poor HEATER SCARIFY & OVERLAY $6.14
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC)$14.00
PCC I - Very Good Crack Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 3
Surface Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 99
Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 100
II - Good, Non-Load Related DO NOTHING $1.11
III - Good, Load Related DO NOTHING $1.51
IV - Poor THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES)$1.92
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC)$14.00
# of Surface
Seals before
Overlay
Functional Class
City of Arroyo Grande
300 E. Branch St
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
(805) 473-5460 Printed: 01/25/2017
Decision Tree
Surface Condition Category Treatment Type Treatment Yrs Between
Crack Seals
Yrs Between
Surface Seals
Cost/Sq Yd,
except Seal
Cracks in LF:
Functional Class and Surface combination not used
Criteria:1 MTC StreetSaverItem 12.a. - Page 66
Arterial ST I - Very Good Crack Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 9
Surface Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 99
Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 100
II - Good, Non-Load Related SINGLE CHIP SEAL $1.11
III - Good, Load Related SINGLE CHIP SEAL $1.51
IV - Poor SINGLE CHIP SEAL $1.92
V - Very Poor THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES)$7.67
# of Surface
Seals before
Overlay
Functional Class
City of Arroyo Grande
300 E. Branch St
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
(805) 473-5460 Printed: 01/25/2017
Decision Tree
Surface Condition Category Treatment Type Treatment Yrs Between
Crack Seals
Yrs Between
Surface Seals
Cost/Sq Yd,
except Seal
Cracks in LF:
Functional Class and Surface combination not used
Criteria:2 MTC StreetSaverItem 12.a. - Page 67
Collector AC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $1.32 4
Surface Treatment Light Maintenance $2.84 7
Restoration Treatment Light Rehab $10.10 3
II - Good, Non-Load Related Heavy Maintenance $14.35
III - Good, Load Related Light Rehab $36.75
IV - Poor Heavy Rehab $52.50
V - Very Poor Reconstruct $102.38
AC/AC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $1.32 4
Surface Treatment Light Maintenance $2.84 7
Restoration Treatment Light Rehab $10.10 3
II - Good, Non-Load Related Heavy Maintenance $14.35
III - Good, Load Related Light Rehab $36.75
IV - Poor Heavy Rehab $52.50
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC)$102.38
AC/PCC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $0.60 4
Surface Treatment SINGLE CHIP SEAL $0.74 7
Restoration Treatment MILL AND THIN OVERLAY $5.04 3
II - Good, Non-Load Related DOUBLE CHIP SEAL $1.52
III - Good, Load Related HEATER SCARIFY & OVERLAY $5.95
IV - Poor HEATER SCARIFY & OVERLAY $6.14
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC)$11.38
PCC I - Very Good Crack Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 9
Surface Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 99
Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 100
II - Good, Non-Load Related DO NOTHING $1.11
III - Good, Load Related DO NOTHING $1.51
IV - Poor THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES)$1.92
V - Very Poor THIN AC OVERLAY(1.5 INCHES)$7.47
# of Surface
Seals before
Overlay
Functional Class
City of Arroyo Grande
300 E. Branch St
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
(805) 473-5460 Printed: 01/25/2017
Decision Tree
Surface Condition Category Treatment Type Treatment Yrs Between
Crack Seals
Yrs Between
Surface Seals
Cost/Sq Yd,
except Seal
Cracks in LF:
Functional Class and Surface combination not used
Criteria:3 MTC StreetSaverItem 12.a. - Page 68
Collector ST I - Very Good Crack Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 9
Surface Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 99
Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 100
II - Good, Non-Load Related SINGLE CHIP SEAL $1.11
III - Good, Load Related SINGLE CHIP SEAL $1.51
IV - Poor SINGLE CHIP SEAL $1.92
V - Very Poor THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES)$7.47
# of Surface
Seals before
Overlay
Functional Class
City of Arroyo Grande
300 E. Branch St
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
(805) 473-5460 Printed: 01/25/2017
Decision Tree
Surface Condition Category Treatment Type Treatment Yrs Between
Crack Seals
Yrs Between
Surface Seals
Cost/Sq Yd,
except Seal
Cracks in LF:
Functional Class and Surface combination not used
Criteria:4 MTC StreetSaverItem 12.a. - Page 69
Residential/Local AC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $1.32 4
Surface Treatment Light Maintenance $2.43 8
Restoration Treatment Light Rehab $8.66 3
II - Good, Non-Load Related Heavy Maintenance $12.30
III - Good, Load Related Light Rehab $31.50
IV - Poor Heavy Rehab $45.00
V - Very Poor Reconstruct $87.75
AC/AC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $1.32 4
Surface Treatment Light Maintenance $2.43 8
Restoration Treatment Light Rehab $8.66 3
II - Good, Non-Load Related Light Maintenance $2.43
III - Good, Load Related Light Rehab $31.50
IV - Poor Heavy Rehab $45.00
V - Very Poor Reconstruct $87.75
AC/PCC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $1.32 4
Surface Treatment SINGLE CHIP SEAL $0.74 8
Restoration Treatment MILL AND THIN OVERLAY $5.04 3
II - Good, Non-Load Related DOUBLE CHIP SEAL $1.52
III - Good, Load Related HEATER SCARIFY & OVERLAY $5.95
IV - Poor HEATER SCARIFY & OVERLAY $6.14
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC)$103.12
PCC I - Very Good Crack Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 4
Surface Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 99
Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 100
II - Good, Non-Load Related DO NOTHING $1.11
III - Good, Load Related DO NOTHING $0.00
IV - Poor THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES)$1.92
V - Very Poor THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES)$7.27
# of Surface
Seals before
Overlay
Functional Class
City of Arroyo Grande
300 E. Branch St
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
(805) 473-5460 Printed: 01/25/2017
Decision Tree
Surface Condition Category Treatment Type Treatment Yrs Between
Crack Seals
Yrs Between
Surface Seals
Cost/Sq Yd,
except Seal
Cracks in LF:
Functional Class and Surface combination not used
Criteria:5 MTC StreetSaverItem 12.a. - Page 70
Residential/Local ST I - Very Good Crack Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 9
Surface Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 99
Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 100
II - Good, Non-Load Related SINGLE CHIP SEAL $1.11
III - Good, Load Related SINGLE CHIP SEAL $1.51
IV - Poor SINGLE CHIP SEAL $1.92
V - Very Poor THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES)$7.27
# of Surface
Seals before
Overlay
Functional Class
City of Arroyo Grande
300 E. Branch St
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
(805) 473-5460 Printed: 01/25/2017
Decision Tree
Surface Condition Category Treatment Type Treatment Yrs Between
Crack Seals
Yrs Between
Surface Seals
Cost/Sq Yd,
except Seal
Cracks in LF:
Functional Class and Surface combination not used
Criteria:6 MTC StreetSaverItem 12.a. - Page 71
Other AC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $1.60 4
Surface Treatment SINGLE CHIP SEAL $1.74 8
Restoration Treatment MILL AND THIN OVERLAY $5.04 3
II - Good, Non-Load Related SINGLE CHIP SEAL $1.11
III - Good, Load Related THIN AC OVERLAY(1.5 INCHES)$3.99
IV - Poor THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES)$5.97
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC)$8.75
AC/AC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $1.60 4
Surface Treatment SINGLE CHIP SEAL $1.74 8
Restoration Treatment MILL AND THIN OVERLAY $5.04 3
II - Good, Non-Load Related DOUBLE CHIP SEAL $1.52
III - Good, Load Related HEATER SCARIFY & OVERLAY $5.95
IV - Poor HEATER SCARIFY & OVERLAY $6.14
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC)$8.75
AC/PCC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $1.60 4
Surface Treatment SINGLE CHIP SEAL $1.74 8
Restoration Treatment MILL AND THIN OVERLAY $5.04 3
II - Good, Non-Load Related DOUBLE CHIP SEAL $1.52
III - Good, Load Related HEATER SCARIFY & OVERLAY $5.95
IV - Poor HEATER SCARIFY & OVERLAY $6.14
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC)$8.75
PCC I - Very Good Crack Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 9
Surface Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 99
Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 100
II - Good, Non-Load Related DO NOTHING $1.11
III - Good, Load Related DO NOTHING $1.51
IV - Poor THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES)$1.92
V - Very Poor THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES)$7.27
# of Surface
Seals before
Overlay
Functional Class
City of Arroyo Grande
300 E. Branch St
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
(805) 473-5460 Printed: 01/25/2017
Decision Tree
Surface Condition Category Treatment Type Treatment Yrs Between
Crack Seals
Yrs Between
Surface Seals
Cost/Sq Yd,
except Seal
Cracks in LF:
Functional Class and Surface combination not used
Criteria:7 MTC StreetSaverItem 12.a. - Page 72
Other ST I - Very Good Crack Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 9
Surface Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 99
Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 100
II - Good, Non-Load Related SINGLE CHIP SEAL $1.11
III - Good, Load Related SINGLE CHIP SEAL $1.51
IV - Poor SINGLE CHIP SEAL $1.92
V - Very Poor THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES)$7.27
# of Surface
Seals before
Overlay
Functional Class
City of Arroyo Grande
300 E. Branch St
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
(805) 473-5460 Printed: 01/25/2017
Decision Tree
Surface Condition Category Treatment Type Treatment Yrs Between
Crack Seals
Yrs Between
Surface Seals
Cost/Sq Yd,
except Seal
Cracks in LF:
Functional Class and Surface combination not used
Criteria:8 MTC StreetSaverItem 12.a. - Page 73
APPENDIX E
Description of Pavement Defects
Item 12.a. - Page 74
APPENDIX E: PAVEMENT DEFECT DESCRIPTIONS
1. Alligator Cracking (Fatigue Cracking)
2. Block Cracking
3. Distortions
4. Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking
5. Patching and Utility Cut Patching
6. Rutting/Shoving
7. Weathering
8. Raveling
Item 12.a. - Page 75
ALLIGATOR CRACKING (FATIGUE)
Alligator or fatigue cracking is a series of interconnecting cracks caused by fatigue
failure of the asphalt concrete surface under repeated traffic loading. Cracking
begins at the bottom of the asphalt surface (or stabilized base) where tensile stress
and strain are highest under a wheel load. The cracks propagate to the surface
initially as a series of parallel longitudinal cracks. After repeated traffic loading, the
cracks connect, forming many sided, sharp-angled pieces that develop a pattern
resembling chicken wire or the skin of an alligator. The pieces are generally less
than 0.5 m (1.5 ft) on the longest side. Alligator cracking occurs only in areas
subjected to repeated traffic loading, such as wheel paths. (Pattern-type cracking
that occurs over an entire area not subjected to loading is called “block cracking,’
which is not a load-associated distress.)
Severity Levels Description
Low
Fine, longitudinal hairline cracks running parallel to each other
with no, or only a few interconnecting cracks. The cracks are not
spalled.
Medium Further development of light alligator cracks into a pattern or
network of cracks that may be lightly spalled.
High
Network or pattern cracking has progressed so that the pieces
are well defined and spalled at the edges. Some of the pieces
may rock under traffic.
Item 12.a. - Page 76
BLOCK CRACKING
Block cracks are interconnected cracks that divide the pavement into approximately
rectangular pieces. The blocks may range in size from approximately 0.3 by 0.3in
(1by 1 ft.) to 3 by 3 in (10 by 10 ft.). Block cracking is caused mainly by shrinkage of
the asphalt concrete and daily temperature cycling (which results in daily
stress/strain cycling). It is not load – associated. Block cracking usually indicates that
the asphalt has hardened significantly. Block cracking normally occurs over a large
portion of the pavement area, but sometimes will occur only in non-traffic areas. This
type of distress differs from alligator cracking in that alligator cracks form smaller,
many-sided pieces with sharp angles.
Severity Levels Description
Low Blocks are defined by low* severity cracks.
Medium Blocks are defined by medium* severity cracks.
High Blocks are defined by high* severity cracks.
*See severity level of longitudinal and transverse cracking.
Item 12.a. - Page 77
DISTORTIONS
Distortions are usually caused by corrugations, bumps, sags, and shoving. They are
localized abrupt upward or downward displacements in the pavement surface, series
of closely spaced ridges and valleys, or localized longitudinal displacements of the
pavement surface. Distortions affect ride quality.
Severity Levels Description
Low
Distortion produces vehicle vibrations which are noticeable, but
no reduction in speed is necessary for comfort or safety, and/or
individual distortions cause the vehicle to bounce slightly, but
create little discomfort.
Medium Distortion produces vehicle vibrations which are significant and
some reduction in speed is necessary for safety and comfort.
High Distortion produces vehicle vibrations which are so excessive that
speed must be reduced considerably for safety and comfort.
Item 12.a. - Page 78
SHOVING
Shoving is a permanent, longitudinal displacement of a localized area of the
pavement surface caused by traffic loading. When traffic pushes against the
pavement, it produces a short, abrupt wave in the pavement surface. This distress
normally occurs only in unstable liquid asphalt mix (cut back or emulsion)
pavements.
Shoves also occurs where asphalt pavements abut PCC pavements; the PCC
pavement increase in length and push the asphalt pavement, causing the shoving.
Severity Levels Description
Low Shove causes low severity ride quality.
Medium Shove causes medium severity ride quality.
High Shove causes high severity ride quality.
Item 12.a. - Page 79
LONGITUDINAL AND TRANSVERSE CRACKING
Longitudinal cracks are parallel to the pavement's centerline or laydown direction.
They may be caused by:
1. A poorly constructed paving lane joint.
2. Shrinkage of the AC surface due to low temperatures or hardening of the
asphalt and/or daily temperature cycling.
3. A reflective crack caused by cracking beneath the surface course, including
cracks in PCC slabs(but not PCC joints)
4. Decreased support or thickness near the edge of pavement.
Transverse cracks extend across the pavement at approximately right angles to the
pavement centerline or direction of laydown. These may be caused by conditions 2 and 3
above. These types of cracks are not usually load- associated.
Severity Levels Description
Low
One of the following conditions exists.
1. Non-filled crack width is less than 3/8 in (10 mm), or
2. Filled crack of any width (filler in satisfactory condition).
Medium
One of the following conditions exist:
1. Non-filled crack width 3/8 to 3 in (10 to 76 mm), measured
on the pavement surface.
2. Non-filled crack of any width up to 3 in (76 mm)
surrounded by light and random cracking.
3. Filled crack of any width surrounded by light random
cracking.
High
One of the following conditions exists.
1. Any crack filled or non-filled surrounded by medium or high
severity random cracking.
2. Non-filled crack over 3 in (76 mm), measured on the
pavement surface.
3. A crack of any width where a few inches of pavement
around the crack is severely broken.
Item 12.a. - Page 80
PATCHING AND UTILITY CUT PATCHING
A patch is an area of pavement that has been replaced with new material to repair
the existing pavement.
A patch is considered a defect no matter how well it is performing (a patched area or
adjacent area usually does not perform as well as an original pavement section).
Generally, some roughness is associated with this distress.
Severity Levels Description
Low Patch is in good condition and is satisfactory. Ride quality* is
rated low severity or better.
Medium Patch is moderately deteriorated and/or ride quality is rated as
medium severity.
High Patch is badly deteriorated and/or ride quality is rated as high
severity. Patch needs replacement.
*Ride quality is defined in the severity levels of distortions.
Item 12.a. - Page 81
RUTTING
A rut is a surface depression in the wheel paths. Pavement up lift may occur along
the sides of the rut, but, in many instances, ruts are noticeable only after a rainfall
when the paths are filled with water. Rutting is when permanent deformation occurs
in any of the pavement layers or subgrades, usually caused by consolidated or
lateral movement of the materials due to traffic loading.
Severity Levels Description
Low 1/2 to less than 1 in (13 to 25 mm)
Medium 1 to less than 2 in (25 to 50 mm)
High Equal to or greater than 2 in (over 50 mm)
Item 12.a. - Page 82
WEATHERING AND RAVELING
Weathering and raveling are the wearing away of the pavement surface due to a
loss of asphalt or dislodged aggregate particles. These distresses indicate that either
the asphalt binder has hardened appreciably or that a poor-quality mixture is
present. In addition, raveling may be caused by certain types of traffic, e.g., tracked
vehicles. Softening of the surface and dislodging of the aggregates due to oil
spillage are also included under raveling.
Severity Levels Description
Low
Aggregate or binder of the pavement or surface seal has started
to wear away. In some areas, the surface is starting to pit. In the
case of oil spillage, the oil stain can be seen, but the surface is
hard and cannot be penetrated with a coin.
Medium
Aggregate and/or binder have worn away or the original
pavement is showing through the surface seal in a few places.
The surface texture is soft and can be penetrated with a coin.
High
Aggregate and/or binder have been considerably worn away or
much of the surface seal has been lost. The surface texture is
very rough and severely pitted. The edge of the pavement has
broken up to the extent that pieces are missing within 1 to 2 ft (.3
to .6 m) of the edge. In the case of oil spillage, the asphalt binder
has lost its binding effect and the aggregate has become loose.
Item 12.a. - Page 83
ACTION ALERT!!
AB 1 (Frazier) & SB 1 (Beall)
Transportation Funding
SUPPORT
Background:
AB 1 (Frazier) and SB 1 (Beall) are similar proposals which will provide comprehensive and sensible
transportation reforms, modest increases to existing revenue sources, and meaningful infrastructure
investments. These proposals present an opportunity for the 2017 legislature to advance a broad
framework to address the overwhelming accumulation of needed repairs and deferred maintenance in
addition to other transportation needs.
The time is now to address the $73 billion unmet funding need for local streets and roads and the $72
billion backlog to the State’s Highway System. The funding need will grow by an additional $20 billion in
just ten years for local streets and roads alone.
California’s leaders need to face the fact that the current transportation funding system is antiquated
due to fuel efficiency advancements and a gas tax which was set in 1994 and has remained unadjusted.
AB 1 and SB 1 would raise revenue over a variety of sources:
•A 12 cent increase to the gas tax (SB 1 would ask to phase this increase in over 3 years);
•Ending the Board of Equalization’s “true up” process on the unreliable price based excise tax on
gas;
•A $38 increase to the vehicle registration fee;
•A $100 vehicle registration fee on zero emission vehicles;
•A 20 cent increase to the diesel excise tax;
•$300 million from existing cap and trade funds; and
•$500 million in vehicle weight fees phased in over five years.
Through these revenue sources, AB 1 and SB 1 would generate an additional $6 billion annually to
provide desperately needed funding for the state and local transportation network. In addition to raising
revenue, the proposal includes a series of reforms to improve efficiency, transparency, and
accountability.
With the expressed commitment of Legislative Leadership and the Governor to finding a solution to our
crumbling roads and an obsolete transportation funding stream, we urge this legislature to turn their
immediate attention to both AB 1 and SB 1 as the vehicles to deliver this victory for California.
ACTION:
Please send your CITY LETTERS of SUPPORT for AB 1 and SB 1 as soon as possible. It is critical for all
Assembly Members and Senators to hear from their cities so that action on this critical issue is taken
early. Sample support letters are attached.
I have attached a legislator contact list or you can find your Legislator’s contact information
here: http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/.
ATTACHMENT 2
Item 12.a. - Page 84
AB 1 (Frazier) & SB 1 (Beall)
Transportation Funding
SUPPORT
Talking Points:
•These proposals provide comprehensive transportation reform and a funding package
that picks up where we left off at the end of the special session and gives this legislature
an opportunity for early action.
•While the legislature has had success in recent years in balancing the state budget, we
can no longer afford to ignore our most basic repair and maintenance needs if we wish
to avoid systematic failure of the state’s entire transportation infrastructure.
•These proposals would create more than 500,000 jobs. There may be no better way to
stimulate our economy than making the roads we and our children rely on safe again.
•An influx of $6 billion gives California more leverage to complete more repair projects
on a larger scale which translates to faster time tables and fewer tax dollars spent per
repair project.
•We have to face the fact that California’s obsolete funding system has left us with
crumbling roads and aging bridges. Our future relies upon a reliable road system that is
able to withstand major weather and earthquake events.
•The gas tax has remained unchanged since 1994 and due to fuel efficiency
advancements, a motorist who drove 12,000 miles in 2016 paid $101 in state per-gallon
gas tax compared to the $111 paid by a driver in 1994. To put this in perspective, if the
per-gallon gas tax had been continually adjusted over the years for inflation, a driver
today would be paying $183.71 annually.
•City of ________ would receive an additional $____ [Refer to the Local Streets & Roads
Funding document for your city’s estimated allocation] under each of the proposals,
which we could use to help stimulate our local economy, create job growth, and
improve the conditions of our local streets.
Item 12.a. - Page 85
ATTACHMENT 3
February 15, 2017
The Honorable Jim Frazier
Chair, Assembly Transportation Committee
California State Capitol, Room 3091
Sacramento, CA 95814
FAX: (916) 319-2111
RE: AB 1 (Frazier). Transportation Funding. (as introduced December 5, 2016)
Notice of Support
Dear Honorable Chair Frazier:
The City of Arroyo Grande is pleased to support your AB 1, which represents a comprehensive
transportation proposal inclusive of sensible reforms, modest increases to existing revenue sources, and
robust infrastructure investment. The proposal presents an opportunity for the new legislature to
advance a comprehensive framework to address the overwhelming backlog of repair and deferred
maintenance as well as other transportation needs in the early part of 2017.
It would be an understatement to say the time to act is now to address the $73 billion unmet funding
need for local streets and roads and $72 billion backlog to the State’s Highway System. For local streets
and roads alone, the funding need grows by an additional $20 billion in just ten years. With the
expressed commitment of Legislative Leadership and this Administration to getting this done in the early
parts of 2017, we urge this legislature’s immediate attention to this proposal as the vehicle to deliver
this victory for California.
The City of Arroyo Grande, like most municipal agencies has a backlog of road maintenance and
improvement projects including roads requiring substantial rehabilitation as well as ongoing pavement
resurfacing needs. Additionally, this transportation funding is needed for the Brisco Road at Highway
101 Interchange project which our local Council of Governments has identified as a high priority
improvement in our region.
When fully phased in, AB 1 would generate an additional $6 billion annually to provide desperately
needed funding for the state and local transportation network. To repair and maintain existing
transportation infrastructure, the proposal would generate up to $2.4 billion and $2.2 billion annually
for the state’s highway system and local streets and roads, respectively. The bill also provides nearly
$600 million for freight and the state’s trade corridors, over a half billion for transit and intercity rail,
and up to $150 million to support active transportation programs throughout the state.
The proposal takes the approach of raising revenue over a variety of sources, such as a 12 cent increase
to the gas tax to restore some of its purchasing power, ending the Board of Equalization’s “true up”
process on the price based excise tax on gas, a $38 increase to the vehicle registration fee, a $100
vehicle registration fee on zero emission vehicles, a 20 cent increase to the diesel excise tax, $300
Item 12.a. - Page 86
February 15, 2017
Page 2
million from existing cap and trade funds, and returning $500 million in vehicle weight fees phased in
over five years.
In addition to raising revenue, the proposal includes a series of reforms to improve efficiency,
transparency, and accountability, such as restoring independence to the California Transportation
Commission, creating the Office of the Transportation Inspection General with audit and investigation
authority over the state’s transportation spending, and establishing local reporting requirements on
local transportation spending. To streamline roadwork, the bill permanently extends and expands on the
limited exemptions to California’s Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for repair, maintenance, and minor
alteration projects on existing roadways to cities and counties with populations greater than 100,000
and state roadways. The proposal also creates an advanced mitigation program which authorizes the
Natural Resources Agency to establish state and regional transportation mitigation plans and mitigation
banks to allow transportation projects to fulfill their environmental requirements in advance.
Overall, this proposal provides a comprehensive transportation reform and funding package that picks
up where we left off at the end of the special session, while giving this legislature an opportunity for
early action. While the legislature has had success in recent years in balancing the state budget, we can
no longer afford to ignore our most basic repair and maintenance needs if we wish to avoid systematic
failure of the state’s entire transportation infrastructure. There may be no better way to put Californians
back to work and stimulate our economy than making the roads we and our children rely on everyday
safe again.
For these reasons, the City of Arroyo Grande Supports AB 1 (Frazier).
Sincerely,
Jim Hill
Mayor
City of Arroyo Grande
cc: Bill Monning, State Senator
Jordan Cunningham, State Assemblyman – 35th Assembly District
David Mullinax, LOCC Regional Public Affairs Manager, dmullinax@cacities.org
Meg Desmond, League of California Cities, mdesmond@cacities.org
Item 12.a. - Page 87
ATTACHMENT 4
February 15, 2017
The Honorable Jim Beall
Chair, Senate Transportation Committee
California State Capitol, Room 2082
Sacramento, CA 95814
FAX: (916) 651-4915
RE: SB 1 (Beall). Transportation Funding. (as amended January 26, 2017)
Notice of Support
Dear Senator Beall:
The City of Arroyo Grande is pleased to support your SB 1, which represents a comprehensive
transportation proposal inclusive of sensible reforms, modest increases to existing revenue sources, and
robust infrastructure investment. The proposal presents an opportunity for the new legislature to
advance a comprehensive framework to address the overwhelming backlog of repair and deferred
maintenance as well as other transportation needs in the early part of 2017.
It would be an understatement to say the time to act is now to address the $73 billion unmet funding
need for local streets and roads and $72 billion backlog to the State’s Highway System. For local streets
and roads alone, the funding need grows by an additional $20 billion in just ten years. With the
expressed commitment of Legislative Leadership and this Administration to getting this done in the early
parts of 2017, we urge this legislature’s immediate attention to this proposal as the vehicle to deliver
this victory for California.
The City of Arroyo Grande, like most municipal agencies has a backlog of road maintenance and
improvement projects including roads requiring substantial rehabilitation as well as ongoing pavement
resurfacing needs. Additionally, this transportation funding is needed for the Brisco Road at Highway
101 Interchange project which our local Council of Governments has identified as a high priority
improvement in our region.
When fully phased in, SB 1 would generate an additional $6 billion annually to provide desperately
needed funding for the state and local transportation network. To repair and maintain existing
transportation infrastructure, the proposal would generate up to $2.4 billion and $2.2 billion annually
for the state’s highway system and local streets and roads, respectively. The bill also provides nearly
$600 million for freight and the state’s trade corridors, over a half billion for transit and intercity rail,
and up to $150 million to support active transportation programs throughout the state.
The proposal takes the approach of raising revenue over a variety of sources, such as a 12 cent increase
to the gas tax to restore some of its purchasing power phased in over three years, ending the Board of
Equalization’s “true up” process on the price based excise tax on gas, a $38 increase to the vehicle
registration fee, a $100 vehicle registration fee on zero emission vehicles, a 20 cent increase to the
Item 12.a. - Page 88
February 15, 2017
Page 2
diesel excise tax, $300 million from existing cap and trade funds, and returning $500 million in vehicle
weight fees phased in over five years.
In addition to raising revenue, the proposal includes a series of reforms to improve efficiency,
transparency, and accountability, such as restoring independence to the California Transportation
Commission, creating the Office of the Transportation Inspection General with audit and investigation
authority over the state’s transportation spending, and establishing local reporting requirements on
local transportation spending. To streamline roadwork, the bill permanently extends and expands on the
limited exemptions to California’s Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for repair, maintenance, and minor
alteration projects on existing roadways to cities and counties with populations greater than 100,000.
The proposal also creates an advanced mitigation program which authorizes the Natural Resources
Agency to establish state and regional transportation mitigation plans and mitigation banks to allow
transportation projects to fulfill their environmental requirements in advance.
Overall, this proposal provides a comprehensive transportation reform and funding package that picks
up where we left off at the end of the special session, while giving this legislature an opportunity for
early action. While the legislature has had success in recent years in balancing the state budget, we can
no longer afford to ignore our most basic repair and maintenance needs if we wish to avoid systematic
failure of the state’s entire transportation infrastructure. There may be no better way to put Californians
back to work and stimulate our economy than making the roads we and our children rely on everyday
safe again.
For these reasons, the City of Arroyo Grande Supports SB 1 (Beall).
Sincerely,
Jim Hill
Mayor
City of Arroyo Grande
cc: Bill Monning, State Senator – 17th Senate District
Jordan Cunningham, State Assemblyman – 35th Assembly District
David Mullinax, LOCC Regional Public Affairs Manager, dmullinax@cacities.org
Meg Desmond, League of California Cities, mdesmond@cacities.org
Item 12.a. - Page 89
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
5
I
t
e
m
1
2
.
a
.
-
P
a
g
e
9
0
I
t
e
m
1
2
.
a
.
-
P
a
g
e
9
1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Item 12.a. - Page 92