Agenda Packet 2006-08-08 CITY OF
City Council � ' � � � � ' Agenda
„
Tany Ferrera Mayor Steven Adams City Manager
Jim Guthrie Mayor Pro Tem °jD Timothy J.Carmel City Ariorney
Jim Dickens Council Member ���+��C A L I F O R N I A Kelly Wetmore City Clerk
Joe Costello Council Member � �y-���3�"
Ed Arnold Council Member r�
AGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 2006
7:00 P.M.
Arroyo Grande City Councii Chambers
215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande
1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL
3. FLAG SALUTE: ARROYO GRANDE VALLEY KIWANIS
4. INVOCATION: PASTOR ROBERT UNDERWOOD
FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
5.a. Mavor's Commendation Reco4nizina Police Department Volunteer - Alice
Brown
6. AGENDA REVIEW:
6a. Move that all ordinances presented tonight be read in title only and all further readings
, be waived.
AGENDA SUMMARY—AUGUST 8, 2006
PAGE 2
7. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present
issues, thoughts, or suggestions on matters not scheduled on this agenda.
Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City
Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal action on matters not
published on the agenda. In response to your comments, the Mayor or presiding
Council Member may:
♦ Direct City staff to assist or coordinate with you.
♦ A Council Member may state a desire to meet with you.
♦ It may be the desire of the Council to place your issue or matter on a future
Council agenda.
Please adhere to the following procedures when addressing the Council:
♦ Comments should be limited to 3 minutes or less.
♦ Your comments should be directed to the Council as a whole and not directed
to individual Council members.
♦ Slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member or
member of the audience shall not be permitted.
8. CONSENT AGENDA:
The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group.
The recommendations for each item are noted. Any member of the public who wishes
to comment on any Consent Agenda item may do so at this time. Any Council
� Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit
discussion or change the recommended course of action. The City Council may
approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda on one motion.
8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification (KRAETSCH)
Recommended Action: Ratify the listing of cash disbursements for the period July
16, 2006 through July 31, 2006.
8.b. Consideration of Aqproval of Minutes (WETMORE)
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the Special (Closed Session) City
Council Meetings of July 11 and 25, 2006, the Regular City Council Meeting of July
11, 2006 and the Regular City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting of July 25,
2006, as submitted.
8.c. Consideration of Authorization to Reiect Claim Filed As�ainst the Citv —
Claimant: Pivcon Van Lines (WETMORE)
Recommended Action: Reject Gaim.
8.d. Consideration of Authorization to Purchase Parks Division Vehicle — Parks
Maintenance (HERNANDEZ)
Recommended Action: Authorize staff to purchase a new 2006 '/. ton Ford pick up
truck from Mullahey Ford in the amount of$19,576.45.
AGENDA SUMMARY—AUGUST 8, 2006
PAGE 3
S. CONSENT AGENDA: (Continued)
8.e. Consideration of Authorization to Purchase Parks Division Vehicle — Soto
Soorts Comalex (HERNANDEZ)
Recommended Action: Authorize staff to purchase a new 2006 Ford Ranger pick
up truck from Mullahey Ford in the amount of$13,124.46.
, 8.f. Consideration of Comaensation Adiustments for Part-Time Emolovees
(ADAMS)
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution approving a 3% Cost of Living (COLA)
adjustment for all part-time employees for FY 2006-07 effective July 28, 2006.
8.g. Consideration of Chanae in Council Appointments to the San Luis Obisao
Countv Water Resources Advisorv Committee IWRACI and the San Luis Obispo
Economic Vitalitv Corporation (EVCI (ADAMS)
Recommended Action: Approve appointment of Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie to the San
Luis Obispo County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC); and the
appointment of Council Member Arnold to the San Luis Obispo Economic Vitality
Corporation (EVC).
8.h. Consideration of a Resolution Acceptina Public Imorovements and Easements
for Tract 2506 Located at 325 Alder Street. Constructed bv Mal-Hun. LLC
(SPAGNOLO)
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution accepting the public improvements and
easements for Tract 2506 located at 325 Alder Street, constructed by Mal-Hun, LLC.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
9.a. Consideration of Vestina Tentative Tract Maa Case No. 04-004 & Planned Unit
Development Case No. 04-001: Aaalicant — DB & M Proaerties. LLC: Location —
415 East Branch Street (Continued from June 14. 2005 Council Meetins�)
(STRONG)
Recommended Action: Consider an addendum to a certified EIR and a proposal for
a commercial retail, office and residential project located in the Village of Arroyo
Grande (Creekside Mixed-Use Center), take tentative action on the project and direct
staff to return with a supporting resolution.
9.b. Consideration of the 2006 Drainas�e Master Plan Update (SPAGNOLO)
Recommended Action: 1) authorize the distribution of the draft 2006 Drainage
Master Plan Update for 60-day public review period, 2) authorize staff to pertorm
environmental review of the draft 2006 Master Plan Update in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and 3) authorize staff to perform an
expedited environmental review of the Newsom Springs drainage project in
accordance with CEQA.
AGENDA SUMMARY —AUGUST 8, 2006
PAGE 4
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS:
None.
11. NEW BUSINESS:
None.
12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS:
The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by a Council Member who would like
to receive feedback, direct staff to prepare information, and/or request a formal
agenda report be prepared and the item placed on a future agenda. No formal action
can be taken.
a. Request to place consideration of Development Code Amendment 04-007,
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 04-002, Planned Unit Development 04-002, and
Neighborhood Plan 04-001 (Cherry Creek project) on a future City Council
agenda for consideration along with consideration of the Planning
Commission's recommendation regarding the environmental determination
(GUTHRIE/ARNOLD)
13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS:
The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by the City Manager in order to
receive feedback and/or request direction from the Council. No formal action can be
taken.
a. None.
14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Council.
15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Manager.
16. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present
issues, thoughts, or suggestions. Comments should be limited to those matters that
are within the jurisdiction of the City Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council
from taking formal action on matters not published on the agenda.
17. ADJOURNMENT to a Special Joint Meeting of the City Council, Planning
Commission, and Architectural Review Committee on Monday, August 14, 2006 at
6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 215 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande.
AGENDA SUMMARY -AUGUST 8, 2006
PAGE 5
..««�..*�..�...�,�,k,�..�.
All staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda
are on file in the City Clerk's office and are availabie for public inspection and reproduction at cost. If
requested, the agenda shall be made availabie in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a
disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. To make a request for disability-related
modification or accommodation, contact the Administrative Services Department at 805-473-5414 as soon
as possible and at least 48 hours prior to the meeting date.
..........................
Note: This agenda was prepared and posted pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2. Agenda
reports can be accessed and downloaded from the City's website at www.arrovoqrande.orq
���� ��
. • � � •
►
. �
__ _ ..
t
a� '
� ; ;
�� ,
;
�� CAL9 � 06� NIA
__� y �
� s � �
a or 's ommen a�ion
Presented to
�
��� �� �
On this 8th day of.�lugust zoo6,
In R.ecognition of your 6oi 3�ours of
1�olunteer Service, �nthusiasm,
Ded�ication and�Nork Ethic to the
.�lrroyo C�rand�e Police Department a�,d
our Community.
� O� PRROYp Q9 .
F INCOHVOAATEO 92
�o� ¢rrara �a +or ° m
� * JUIY t0.19�1 *
cq<eFpRN�P
� pRROYp v��■
� c'P
FINCORPORRTED �Z
" m MEMORANDUM
� JULY 10. 1911 y .
P
4��FORN�
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES
BY: FRANCES R. HEAD, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR/ U�J
SUBJECT. CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION
y�
DATE: AUGUST 8, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for
the period July 16 through July 31, 2006.
FUNDING:
There is a $794,027.19 fiscal impact that includes the following items:
. Accounts Payable Checks 127303-127504 $311,212.74
• Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks $482,814.45
All payments are within the existing budget.
DISCUSSION:
The attached listing represents the cash disbursements required of normal and usual
operations. It is requested that the City Council approve these payments.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
• Approve staffs recommendation;
• Do not approve staffs recommendation;
• Provide direction to staff.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 —July 16 —July 31, 2006, Accounts Payable Check Register
Attachment 2 — July 21, 2006, Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks Register
ATTACHMENTI
apckHist Check History Listing Page: �
07/3112006 11:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
127303 07/17/2006 005034 DEPT OF C`ONSUMER AFFAI 0717 07/17/2006 275.00 275.00
127304 07/17/2006 005655 CHRISTI BUENROSTRO-BA� Ref000069314 07/17/2006 147.57 147.57
127305 07/17/2006 005654 JERRY MARTINEZ Ref000069313 07/17/2006 121.20 121.20
127306 07/18/2006 000481 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC C 6/21-194097 06/21/2006 14,355.62 14,355.62
127307 07/18/2006 000403 MAINTENANCE SUPERINTEI 071806 07/18/2006 40.00 40.00
127308 07/18/2006 002868 MICHELLE COTA 071806 07/18/2006 629.20 629.20
127309 07/18/2006 002868 MICHELLE COTA 0710 07/18/2006 337.70 337.70
127310 07/19/2006 005655 CHRISTI BUENROSTRO-BA: Ref000069368 07/17/2006 27.47 27.47
127311 07/19/2006 000946 A D STARR 43267A 07/18/2006 2,698.84 2,698.84
127312 07/19/2006 000011 ADVANCED PAGING & CELL 10701562 07/11/2006 151.01 151.01
127313 07/19/2006 001050 AMERICAN TEMPS 44653 07/11/2006 1,086.40
00044584 07/05/2006 937.2$ 2,023.68
127314 07/19/2006 002632 API WASTE SERVICES 67D00032 07/13/2006 313.76 313.76
127315 07/19/2006 000065 BRENDA BARROW 071806 07/19/2006 188.52 188.52
127316 07/19/2006 005664 BLACK MOUNTAIN CONSTR 071806 07/19/2006 5,500.00 5,500.00
127317 07/19/2006 000084 THE BOXX EXPRESS 202 07/11/2006 27.84 27.84
127318 07/19/2006 001266 BRANCH STREET DELI 1131 07/07/2006 152.29 152.29
127319 07/19/2006 000090 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER YAI 129461 07/07/2006 17.24
129546 07/14/2006 10.48 27.7z
127320 07/19/2006 000094 BRUMIT DIESEL, INC 90331 07/07/2006 95.40
90443 07/12/2006 66.15 161.55
127321 07/19/2006 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 90389 07/17/2006 13.41 13.41
127322 07/19/2006 003599 COMMERCIAL SANITARY SL 10143 07/07/2006 679.64
Page: 1
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 2
07/3112006 11:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
I
8ank code: boa
Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check ToWI
10132 07/01/2006 126.34 805.98
127323 07/19/2006 000190 CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL Lf N3734 07I07/2006 15.00 15.00
127324 07/19/2006 000201 D G REPAIR 1429 07/08/2006 210.62 210.62
127325 07/19/2006 001854 JIM DECECCO 071706 07/17/2006 54.00 54.00
127326 07/19/2006 005091 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 10265050 07/03/2006 72.34 72.34
127327 07/19/2006 004164 FEDEX 1-105-09179 07/07/2006 26.97 26.97
127328 07/19/2006 000247 TERENCE FIBICH 2409 07/12/2006 10 35 10.35
127329 07/19/2006 004202 CLAIRE FLOYD 071706 07/17/2006 45.00 45.00
127330 07/19/2006 003590 SERENA FLOYD 071706 07/19I2006 45.00 45.00
127331 07/19/2006 000262 FRANK'S LOCK& KEY, INC 23449 07/07/2006 81 09
23527 07/10/2006 78.83
23549 07/14/2006 14.4$ 174.40
127332 07/19/2006 004825 FLAVA GALBREATH 071706 07/19/2006 54 00 54.00
127333 07/19/2006 001718 GOLDSTAR PRODUCTS, INC 0015964-0026968 07/03/2006 1,612.66 1,612.66
127334 07/19/2006 002405 CHUCK HARE 071706 07/19/2006 54 00 54.00
127335 07/19/2006 004188 EDDIE HARRIS 071706 07/19/2006 90.00 90.00
127336 07/19/2006 005648 ICOM AMERICA INC 6841671 07/07/2006 91.59 91.59
127337 07/19/2006 000338 IIMC- INTL INST OF MUNICII 062906 07I19I2006 125.00 125.00
127338 07/19/2006 000343 IRRIGATION WEST 0019648 07/13/2006 76.36 76.36
127339 07/19/2006 000345 J J'S FOOD COMPANY, INC 153294 07112/2006 26.53 26.53
127340 07/19/2006 005511 CHRIS LINTNER 071706 07/19/2006 37.50 37.50
127341 07/19/2006 001136 DOUG LINTNER 071706 07/19/2006 180.00 180.00
127342 07/19/2006 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, I 92009 07I07/2006 166.74
92553 07/11/2006 91.15
Page: 2
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 3
i 07131/2006 11:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
! Bank code: boa
Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
92566 07/11/2006 30.01
92730 07/12/2006 29.83
92976 07/13/2006 28 89
93578 07/18/2006 28 89
93176 07115/2006 27.85
91690 07/05/2006 23.13
92552 07/11/2006 18.74
93639 07/18/2006 16 71
92765 07/12/2006 14.99
91923 07/07/2006 10.70
93139 07115/2006 10.49
92731 07/12/2006 8.03
92727 07/12/2006 6.41
91991 07/07/2006 6.11
92052 07/08/2006 4 82 523.49
127343 07/19/2006 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 343777476-001 07/07/2006 39.76 39.76
127344 07/19/2006 000481 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC C 7/14-620868 07/14/2006 242.37
7/14-781296 07/14/2006 17.94 260.31
127345 07/19/2006 000498 PITNEY BOWES, INC 852010 07/01/2006 911 70
852009 07I01/2006 193 50 1,10520
127346 07/19/2006 003363 NINA RIPPY 0717 07/19/2006 28.00 28.00
127347 07l19/2006 004833 STEVE ROMO 071706 07/19/2006 54.00 54.00
127348 07/19/2006 000536 GREG ROSE 071706 07/19/2006 36.00 36.00
127349 07/19/2006 004365 DANIEL RUIZ 071706 07/19/2006 37.50 37.50
127350 07/19/2006 003649 DON RUIZ 071706 07/19/2006 90.00 90.00
127351 07119/2006 004659 SAN LUIS TRUCK 84282 07113/2006 21.21 21.21
127352 07/19I2006 000578 ANN SARMIENTO 071706 07/19/2006 82.50 82.50
127353 07/19/2006 003024 MARK SCHAFFER 071706 07/19/2006 108.00 108.00
127354 07/19/2006 000947 SHIFT CALENDARS, INC 071706 07/19/2006 249.77 249.77
Page: 3
I apCkHist Check History Listing Page: a
07131/2006 11:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice � Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
127355 07/19/2006 000553 SLO COUNTY CLERK-RECOI 062906 06/29/2006 375.00 375.00
127356 07/19/2006 004860 TAMMY SMITH 071706 07/19/2006 52.50 52.50
127357 07/19/2006 000598 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP 155759 07/14/2006 318.54 318.54
127358 07/19/2006 000620 STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY S1007261.001 07/03/2006 15.40 15.40
127359 07/19/2006 005326 UNITED PORTFOLIO MGT IN 19066 07/07/2006 152.08 152.08
127360 07/19/2006 002000 VERIZON WIRELESS MESSF L5245715GG 07/15/2006 33.98 33.98
127361 07/19/2006 004097 WELLS FARGO BANK NATL, 060906 06/09/2006 103,940.00 103,940.00
127362 07/19/2006 000689 WEST PAYMENT CENTER 1000634630 06/20/2006 205.38 205.38
127363 07/21/2006 001259 AGP VIDEO, INC 1696 06/08/2006 3,780.00 3,780.00
127364 07/21/2006 003817 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SVC V 07/21/2006 0.00 0.00
127365 07/21/2006 003817 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SVC F024082 06/06/2006 33.46
F695187 O6/O6/2006 30.28
F706840 06/20/2006 30.28
F701108 06/13/2006 22.40
F712692 06/27/2006 22.40
F701097 06/13/2006 21.99
F695183 06/06/2006 21.50
F706836 06/20/2006 21.50
F712681 O6/27/2006 21.15
F706838 06/20/2006 17.35
F695185 06/06/2006 16.80
F701106 06/13/2006 16.80
F712690 06/27/2006 16.80
F695186 06/06/2006 15.60
F701107 06/13/2006 15 60
F706839 06/20/2006 15.60
F 712691 06/27/2006 15.60
F695188 06/06/2006 13.83
F706841 06/20/2006 13.83
F695182 06/06/2006 12.13
Page: 4
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 5
0713112006 11:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNOid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check ToWI
F706835 06/20/2006 12.13
F701101 06/13/2006 10.75
F712685 06/27/2006 10.75
F695189 06/06/2006 10.41
F706842 06/20/2006 10.41
F701103 06/13/2006 9 45
F712687 06/27/2006 9.45
F701100 06/13/2006 6.31
F712684 06/27/2006 6.31
F695184 06/06/2006 5.60
F701105 06/13/2006 5.60
F706837 06/20/2006 5.60
F712689 O6/27/2006 5.60
F701102 06/13/2006 5.00
F712686 O6/27/2006 5.00
F701110 06/13/2006 4.11
F712695 06/27/2006 4.11
F701109 06/13/2006 Z.B�
F712693 06/27/2006 z.8� 527.Og
127366 07121/2006 000042 ARROYO GRANDE FLOWER 29913 07/10/2006 53.63 53.63
127367 07121/2006 005615 AT&T/MCI T5206179 06/28/2006 28.95 28.95
127368 07/21I2006 000094 BRUMIT DIESEL, INC 13180 07/03/2006 88.50 88.50
127369 07/21/2006 001577 BURDINE PRINTING 8019 O6/25/2006 442.75
7862 06/04I2006 334.37
7855 06/04/2006 326.99
7893 06l10/2006 194 18
7966 06/22/2006 167.31
7805 05/29/2006 112.56
7994 06/25/2006 70.94
7861 06/04/2006 52.37
7911 06/19/2006 27.94 1,729.41
127370 07/21/2006 004077 CA ST DEPT OF HEALTH SV 072006 07/20/2006 335.00 335.00
127371 07/21I2006 000134 CA ST DEPT OF JUSTICE 573338 06/07/2006 3,076.00 3,076.00
Page: 5
apckHist C heck History Listing Page: s
07/31/2006 11:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
127372 07/21/2006 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 82461 06/16/2006 39.28
79848 06/07/2006 26.69 65.97
127373 07/21/2006 005663 CENTRAL COAST GERANIUI 071806 07/20/2006 166.75 166.75
127374 07/21/2006 001925 CLEARWATER COLOR NUR; 41401 06/01/2006 65.64 65.64
127375 07/21/2006 000171 CLINICAL LABORATORY OF 745682 07/12/2006 626.00 626.00
127376 07/21/2006 000178 COLD CANYON LANDFILL, IP 138495 OS/02/2006 48.00 48.00
127377 07/21/2006 000181 COMMUNICATION SOLUTIO 3583 07/09/2006 751.64 751.64
127378 07/21/2006 005667 RENE CONDOVA 071806 07/20/2006 26.00 26.00
127379 07/21/2006 002673 DOCTOR'S MEDPLUS MEDIC 13880658 06/02/2006 190.00
13880703 06/02/2006 135.00 . 325.00
127380 07/21/2006 000262 FRANK'S LOCK& KEY, INC 23480 06/24/2006 27.89 27.89
127381 07/21/2006 005656 LILI FUERTE 071806 07/18/2006 29.00 29.00
127382 07/21/2006 005660 ROSIE GARCIA 071806 07/18/2006 29.00 29.00
127383 07/21/2006 000605 THE GAS COMPANY 7/10-200 N 07/10/2006 120 32
7/11-350 07/11/2006 10126
7/7-1500 07/07/2006 58.13 27g.7�
127384 07121/2006 000280 GRAND PERFORMANCE 3428 06/21I2006 85.00 85.00
127385 07/21/2006 000288 CITY OF GROVER BEACH 071106 07/11/2006 40.58 40.58
127386 07/21/2006 005665 JULIE GUTIERREZ 071806 07/20/2006 29.00 29.00
127387 07/21/2006 001237 HANSON AGGREGATES 552499 06/28/2006 669 37 669.37
127388 07/21/2006 000345 J J'S FOOD COMPANY, INC 154098 O6/24/2006 3.41 3.41
127389 07/21/2006 003949 KERN'S PAPER CONNECTIO 17904 O6/29/2006 347.49
17838 06/26/2006 334.08
17907 06/29/2006 217.�$
17872 06/26/2006 173.75 1,072.50
Page: 6
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 7
� 07/3112006 11:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
127390 07/21/2006 005035 MARC LEWIS 071806 07/18/2006 29.00 29.00
127391 07/21/2006 005659 SHERRY LOPEZ 071806 07/18/2006 24.00 24.00
127392 07/21I2006 004768 JON MACHADO 071806 07/18/2006 29.00 29.00
127393 07/21/2006 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, I 91129 06/30/2006 24.97 24.97
127394 07/21/2006 000441 MULLAHEY FORD FOCS169040 O6/26/2006 629.97 629.97
127395 07/2172006 001886 OFF�CEMAX-HSBC BUS SOI 03404J1801 06/29I2006 21.08 21.08
127396 07/21/2006 005657 ANNA ORTIZ 071806 07/18/2006 29.00 29.00
127397 07/21/2006 005661 JACK OWEN 071806 07/18/2006 29 00 29.00
127398 07121/2006 000498 PITNEY BOWES, INC 401419 06/18/2006 379.88 379.88
127399 07/21/2006 003980 PITNEY BOWES, INC 7658355-JN06 O6/13/2006 483.00 483.00
127400 07/21/2006 005662 DAVID PUTNAM 071806 07118/2006 29.00 29.00
127401 07/21/2006 000523 R &T EMBROIDERY, INC 29187 07/17/2006 332.05 332.05
127402 07/21/2006 005411 REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHO 7460-06-016 07/12/2006 1,260 05 1,260.05
127403 07/21/2006 002838 ROSENOW SPEVACEK GRO 0018212 06121/2006 125.00 125.00
127404 07/21/2006 005666 SANDRA RUST 071806 07/20I2006 91.00 91.00
127405 07/21/2006 002932 RUTAN &TUCKER, LLP 476357 O6/19/2006 975.00
475912 O6/13/2006 496.04 1,471.04
127406 07121/2006 005025 ALICE SANCHEZ 071806 07/18/2006 29 00 29.00
127407 07/21/2006 000583 ALLEN SCHOFIELD ELECTR 5515 07/11/2006 120.00 120.00
127408 07/21/2006 000556 SLO COUNTY ENVIRONMEN IN0044351 03/16/2006 86.00 86.00
127409 07/21/2006 000564 SLO COUNTY NEWSPAPER: 6392997 06/04/2006 383.32
6395693 06/09/2006 159.73
6391111 06/02/2006 54.46
6399972 O6/16/2006 78.95 706.46
Page: Z
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: s
07131/2006 11:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
IBank code: boa
Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
127410 07121/2006 004167 SLO COUNTY PUBLIC HEAL" 0045199 07/10/2006 1,332.97 1,332.97
127411 07/21/2006 003343 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL 23V/13400568 06128/2006 106.84 106.84
127412 07/21/2006 000602 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 121505 12115/2005 4,900.06 4,900.06
127413 07/21/2006 005658 HANS SPECK 071806 07/18/2006 29.00 29.00
127426 07/25/2006 000058 BANK OF AMERICA 7/8-2059 07/08/2006 2,096.69
7/8-9436 07I08/2006 515.63
7/8-2083 07/08/2006 40428
7/8-7762(06/07) 07/08/2006 306.06
7/8-4272 07/08/2006 211.76
7/8-7762(05I06) 07I08/2006 191.84
7/8-9444 07I08/2006 132.92
7/8-2031 07I08/2006 37.69
7/8-2581 07/08/2006 20.47
7/8-2091 07/08/2006 -335.50 3,581.84
127427 07125/2006 003001 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREI 071106 07/11/2006 589.01 589.01
127428 07/25/2006 000492 PETTY CASH PEITY CASH 07/25/2006 294 02
PETTY CASH(06/07) 07/25/2006 249.76 543.78
127429 07/27/2006 000012 AGRI-TURF SUPPLIES, INC 47529 07/10I2006 768.05 768.05
127430 07/27I2006 001050 AMERICAN TEMPS _ 44715 07/18/2006 1,086.40
00044652 07/11/2006 937.28 2,023.68
127431 07/27/2006 005507 AT&T 7/7-0183 07/07l2006 194.96
7/8-9816 07/08/2006 78.01
7/7-3959 07/07/2006 33.40
7/73956 07/07/2006 33.40
7/73953 07/07/2006 33.40 373.17
127432 07/27/2006 001758 AUTO GLASS CENTRAL 013769 07/03/2006 205.51 205.51
127433 07/27/2006 001055 AVCO FIRE EXTINGUISHER 11527A 07/10/2006 504.63 504.63
127434 07/27/2006 001944 BASIC CHEMICAL SOLUTIOP SI5195929 07/10/2006 567.86 567.86
Page: 8
apckHist Check History Listing Page: 9
07131/2006 11:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check# Date Vendor Status Clear/Void Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total �
127435 07/27/2006 004150 BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTER 071506 07/15/2006 515.25 515.25
127436 07/27/2006 000078 BLUEPRINT EXPRESS 29443 07/24/2006 38.22 38.22
127437 07/27/2006 000090 BRISCO MILL& LUMBER YAI 129614 07/20/2006 55.96
129606 07/20/2006 5 �� 61.73
127438 07/27/2006 001577 BURDINE PRIIVTING 8075 07/05/2006 340.67 340.67
127439 07/27/2006 005668 BUTTONS N BOWS 072006 07/20/2006 5,000.00 5,000.00
127440 07/27/2006 005670 CALIFORNIA RELEAF 072706 07/27/2006 370.00 370.00
t27441 07/27/2006 002771 CENTRAL COAST GASES 183298 07119/2006 2327 23.27
127442 07/27/2006 002842 COMMERCIAL MAINTENANC 7156-0706 07/17/2006 120.00 120.00
127443 07/27/2006 003599 COMMERCIAL SANITARY Sl 10150 07/01/2006 211.71 211.71
127444 07/27/2006 000201 D G REPAIR 1437 07/13/2006 40.00 40.00
127445 07/27/2006 005671 DEATHRIAGE & COMPANY 4279 07/19/2006 171.06 171.06
127446 07/27/2006 001854 JIM DECECCO 072406 07/24/2006 54.00 54.00
127447 07/27/2006 005091 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 10292928 07/07/2006 526.85
10368678 07/18/2006 101.89
10368677 07/18/2006 97 89
10335938 07/13/2006 79.35
10326008 07/12/2006 79.31
10283384 07/06I2006 67.04
10292929 07/07/2006 39.99
10358273 07/17/2006 38.58
10378800 07/19/2006 27.66
10335939 07/13/2006 11.82 1,070.38
127448 07/27/2006 000210 DIESELRO OF SLO, INC 19500 07/10/2006 571.76
19522 07/11I2006 59 50
19524 07/11/2006 42.50
19523 07/11/2006 42.50
19521 07/11/2006 42.50
Page: 9
apckHist Check History Listing Page: �o
07131I2006 11:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
19520 07/11/2006 42.50
19519 07/11/2006 42.50 843.76
127449 07/27/2006 002673 DOCTOR'S MEDPLUS MEDIC 013875539 07111/2006 75.00 75.00
127450 07/27/2006 004164 FEDEX 31-117-01004 07/21/2006 1624 16.24
� 127451 07/27/2006 001525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, 1110476 07/03/2006 868.73
1116124 07/07/2006 830.12
1119613 07/13/2006 488.11
1120127 07/12/2006 175.91
1118955 07/10/2006 142.91
1121050 07114/2006 104.73
1116706 07/07I2006 58.99
1114322 07/07/2006 52.89
1117579 07/07/2006 31.51 2,753.90
127452 07/27/2006 004202 CLAIRE FLOYD 072406 07124/2006 22.50 22.50
127453 07/27/2006 004790 DEANNA FLOYD 072406 07I24I2006 22.50 22.50
127454 07/27/2006 003590 SERENA FLOYD 072406 07/24/2006 45.00 45.00
127455 07/27/2006 004825 FLAVA GALBREATH 072406 07/24/2006 108.00 108.00
127456 07/27/2006 000288 CITY OF GROVER BEACH 072606 07/26/2006 127.20 127.20
127457 07/27/2006 002405 CHUCK HARE 072406 07/24/2006 54.00 54.00
127458 07/27/2006 004188 EDDIE HARRIS 072406 07/24/2006 54 00 54.00
127459 07/27/2006 000348 J W ENTERPRISES 187417 07/20/2006 101.73 101.73
127460 07/27I2006 003949 KERN'S PAPER CONNECTIO 17967 07/11/2006 70.95
17940 07/11/2006 47.30 118.25
127461 07/27/2006 005265 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER, INC 0726-SUMMER CLASS 07/26I2006 764.40
072606 07/26/2006 $$2� 852.60
127462 07/27/2006 001035 KIMBERLY KRAFT 072006 07/20/2006 46.27 46.27
127463 07/27/2006 000376 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC 4657498 07/20/2006 118.38
Page: 10
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 1�
07/31/2006 11:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check# Date Vendor Status Clear/Void Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
4657497 07/20/2006 45.75 164.13
127464 07/27/2006 005511 CHRIS LINTNER 072406 07/24/2006 60.00 60.00
127465 07/27/2006 001136 DOUG LINTNER 072406 07/24/2006 54.00 54.00
127466 07/27/2006 004279 MID STATE PLUMBING & 071706 07/17/2006 1,806 90 1,806.90
127467 07/27/2006 000429 MWER'S ACE HARDWARE, I 93001 07/14/2006 162.98
93676 07/19/2006 101.21
93749 07/20/2006 9� a9
93836 07I20/2006 6326
93686 07119/2006 55.75
93755 07/20/2006 49.29
107791 07/10/2006 48.79
92862 07/13/2006 42.87
93422 07/17/2006 42.30
94305 07/24/2006 31.05
109350 07/21I2006 30.44
93510 07/18/2006 27 86
93610 07/18/2006 18.21
109262 07/20/2006 16.08
99658 07119/2006 14.45
93352 07/17/2006 13.92
93351 07/17/2006 8.57
93979 07l21/2006 4.82
93504 07/18/2006 4.2$
93503 07/18/2006 427
94366 07/24/2006 1.74 840.03
127468 07/27/2006 002927 NATIONAL RESOURCE SAFE 75479 07/10/2006 19.40 19.40
127469 07/27/2006 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 343613975-001 07/07/2006 96.51
344698636-001 07/14/2006 59.65
343611254-001 07/07/2006 11.95 168.11
127470 07/27/2006 000481 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC C 7/17-654774 07/17/2006 32.02
7/19-235044 07119/2006 2143
7/18-889211 07/18/2006 2018 73.63
Page: 11
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 12
0713112006 11:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
127471 07/27/2006 005669 PRESSTECK INC T368578 07/03/2006 268.08 268.08
127472 07/27/2006 004833 STEVE ROMO 072406 07/24/2006 54.00 54.00
127473 07/27/2006 000536 GREG ROSE 072406 07/24/2006 90.00 90.00
127474 07/27/2006 004365 DANIE� RUIZ 072406 07/24/2006 60.00 60.00
127475 07/27/2006 003649 DON RUIZ 072406 07/24/2006 112.50 112.50
127476 07/27/2006 000538 S & L SAFETY PRODUCTS 131853 07/12/2006 242.92
131851 07/12/2006 225 60 468.52
127477 07/27I2006 000569 SAN LUIS PAINTS G12174 07/05/2006 103.38 103.38
127478 07/27/2006 000578 ANN SARMIENTO 072406 07/24/2006 30.00 30.00
127479 07/27/2006 003024 MARK SCHAFFER 072406 07124/2006 180:00 180.00
127480 07/27/2006 003838 SILVAS OIL COMPANY, INC 211820 07/17/2006 25,863.66 25,863.66
127481 07/27/2006 000550 SLO COUNTY AIR POLLUTI� 10445 07/10/2006 349.92 349.92
127482 07/27/2006 000553 SLO COUNTY CLERK-RECOI 072706 07/27I2006 25.00 25.00
127483 07/27/2006 004258 SLO COUNTY HOUSING TRl 063006 06/30/2006 5,000.00 5,000.00
127484 07/27/2006 004860 TAMMY SMITH 072406 07/24/2006 45.00 45.00
127485 07/27/2006 000624 SUPERIOR QUALITY COPIEf 33556 07/25/2006 2,409.61 2,409.61
127486 07/27/2006 000653 DOTTIE TRULOCK 072606 07/26l2006 825.60 825.60
127487 07/27/2006 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS 2055613295 07/21/2006 57.53
2055783833 07/21/2006 49.91
2056012959 07121/2006 32.49 139.93
127488 07/28/2006 001259 AGP VIDEO, INC 1740 06/30/2006 3,327.50 3,327.50
127489 07/28/2006 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 97751 05/25/2006 12.10 12.10
127490 07/28/2006 003168 CELLULAR ONE 02139 07/08/2006 125.10 125.10
127491 07/28/2006 000195 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER 17922 06/19/2006 84.75
Page: 12
apckHist Check History Listing Page: 13
07/31/2006 11:42AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
18068 06/19/2006 23.00 107.75
127492 07/28/2006 005671 DEATHRIAGE & COMPANY 4175 06/29/2006 99.00 99.00
127493 07/28/2006 005672 AMBERLEE FOSTER 072006 07/20/2006 28.50 28.50
127494 07/28/2006 004372 GARING TAYLOR &ASSOCIi 6332 O6/30/2006 2,783.10 2,783.10
127495 07/28/2006 000605 THE GAS COMPANY 7/11-1375 07/11/2006 73.45 73.45
127496 07/28/2006 005673 WALTER GILLIS CARD#2392 07/21/2006 36.00 36 00
127497 07/28/2006 003547 MICHELE JACKMAN 2006531 05/31I2006 2,500.00 2,500.00
127498 07/28/2006 005674 CAROLYN JOHNSON REFUND 07/21/2006 218.00 218.00
127499 07/28/2006 005389 MGE UNDERGROUND INC PW 2005-02 07/24/2006 39,870 00 39,870.00
127500 07/28/2006 000444 MUSTANG TREE CARE SER' 344 07/17/2006 6,500.00 6,500.00
127501 07/28/2006 000637 TEXAS REFINERY CORP 769758 07/11/2006 616.69 616.69
127502 07/28/2006 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS 2054813185 07/04/2006 203.47 203.47
127503 07/28/2006 000685 JOHN L WALLACE &ASSOC 20286 07/13/2006 11,093.52
20287 07/13/2006 397.38 11,490.90
127504 07/28/2006 004897 WOOD RODGERS 47335 07/17/2006 16,610.30 16,610 30
boa Total: 311,212.74
190 checks in this report Total Checks: 311,212.74
Page: 13
ATTACHMENT2
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION
PAY PERIOD
O6/30/O6 -07113/06
07/21/06
FUND 010 438,029.74 5101 Salaries Fuli time 181,093.18
FUND 220 17,169.48 5102 Salaries Part-Time - PPT 21,174.59
FUND 284 - 5103 Salaries Part-Time -TPT 11,340.71
FUND 612 8,102.00 5105 Salaries OverTime 9,868.73
FUND 640 19,513.23 5107 Salaries Standby 363.75
482,814.45 5108 Holiday Pay 15,736.35
5109 Sick Pay 2,870.49
5110 Annuai Leave Buyback 37,056.68
5111 Vacation Buyback
5112 Sick Leave Buyback
5113 Vacation Pay 16,705.40
5114 Comp Pay 6,887.77
5115 Annual Leave Pay 7,278.08
5121 PERS Retirement 79,674.58
5122 Social Security 23,935.09
5123 PARS Retirement 445.12
5126 State Disability Ins. 1,146.70
5127 Deferred Compensation 750.00
5131 Health Insurance 34,314.55
5132 Dentallnsurance 4,171.44
5133 Vision Insurance 965.96
5134 Life Insurance 566.95
5135 Long Term Disabitiry 958.18
5143 Uniform Allowance 20,600.00
5144 Car Allowance 500.00
5146 Council Expense
5147 Employee Assistance 235.15
5148 Boot Allowance 3,900.00
5149 Motor Pay 75.00
5150 Bi-Lingual Pay 200.00
+ 482,814.45
�
8.b.
I MINUTES
I SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JULY 11, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. ROLL CALL:
Mayor Ferrara called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. Council Member Jim Dickens, Council Member
Ed Arnold, Mayor Pro Tem Jim Guthrie, City Manager Steven Adams, and City Attorney Timothy
Carmel were present. Council Member Joe Costello was absent.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
3. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION:
a. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8:
Property: APN: 006-151-027; Vacant Lot at the Corner of Faeh Avenue and EI
Camino Real
Agency Negotiator: Steven Adams, City Manager
Negotiating Party: RAD LLC
Under Negotiation: Price, Terms and Conditions of Potential Purchase
4. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION:
Mayor Ferrara announced that there was no reportable action from the closed session.
5. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 6:54p.m.
Tony Ferrara, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JULY 25, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
7. ROLL CALL:
Mayor Ferrara called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. Council Member Jim Dickens, Council Member
Joe Costello, Council Member Ed Arnold, Mayor Pro Tem Jim Guthrie, City Manager Steven Adams,
and City Attorney Timothy Carmel were present.
I 2. PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
�
3. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION:
a. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.6:
Agency Negotiator: Steven Adams, City Manager
Unrepresented Employees: Part-time Employees
4. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION:
Mayor Ferrara announced that there was no reportable action from the closed session.
5. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 6:59p.m.
Tony Ferrara, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
I
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
� TUESDAY, JULY 11, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Ferrara called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
City Council: Council Members Jim Dickens, Ed Arnold, Mayor Pro Tem Jim Guthrie and
Mayor Tony Ferrara were present. Council Member Joe Costello was absent.
City Staff Present: City Manager Steve Adams, City Attomey Tim Carmel, City Clerk Kelly
Wetmore, Director of Financial Services Angela Kraetsch, Police Commander
Steve Andrews, Assistant City Engineer Mike Linn, and Director of
Community Development Rob Strong.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Diane Aubachon, representing Rotary Club of Arroyo Grande, led the Flag Salute. .
4. INVOCATION
Pastor Paul Jones delivered the invocation.
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
None.
6. AGENDA REVIEW
6.a. Ordinances Read in Title Only.
Council Member Dickens moved, Council Member Arnold seconded, and the motion passed
j unanimously that all ordinances presented at the meeting shall be read in title only and all further
reading be waived.
7. CITIZENS' INPUT. COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS
Trudv Jarrett, President, League of Women Voters of San Luis Obispo County (LWV), announced
that from October 14`h through 22nd, the LWV will host visitors from Ukraine and they look fonvard to
bringing them to Arroyo Grande for a visit.
Marnie Barrett, Orcutt Road, asked is she would have an opportunity to speak on Agenda Item
11.a. Mayor Ferrara responded yes.
8. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Ferrara invited members of the public who wished to comment on any Consent Agenda Item
to do so at this time. There were no public comments.
Council Member Arnold moved, and_Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie seconded the motion to approve
Consent Agenda Items 8.a. and 8.b., with the recommended courses of action. The motion passed
on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Amold, Guthrie, Dickens, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: Costello
Minufes: City Council Meeting
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Page 2
8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification.
Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period June 16, 2006 through June
30, 2006.
S.b. Consideration of Two-Year Review of Plot Plan Review 04-002; Tried and True Tattoo;
1037 East Grand Avenue.
Action: Received and filed the two-year review of Plot Plan Review 04-002 as required by
Resolution No. 3744.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
70. CONTINUED BUSINESS
70.a. Consideration of Ordinance Adding Chapter 3.22 to Title 3 of the Arroyo Grande
Municipal Code Establishing a Transactions and Use Tax to be Administered by the
State Board of Equalization.
City Manager Adams presented the staff report and recommended the Council introduce the
proposed ordinance adding Chapter 3.22 to Title 3 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code
establishing a transactions and use tax to be administered by the State Board of Equalization. He
explained that if the ordinance were approved by a majority vote of the qualified electors of the City
in November 2006, an additional '/� cent local sales tax would be established in the City. He further
explained that the additional revenue from the tax is necessary to fund needs identified in the City's
long-range financial plan, including, but not restricted to major transportation improvements,
infrastructure improvements and maintenance; public safety facilities, equipment and staffing; and
improvements to public facilities necessary to comply with Americans with Disabilities Act
regulations.
Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter,
and upon hearing no public comments, he closed the public comment period.
� Following comments in support of the proposal, Council Member Arnold moved to introduce an
Ordinance as follows "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADDING
CHAPTER 3.22 TO TITLE 3 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A
TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION". Council Member Dickens seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Arnold, Dickens, Guthrie, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: Costello
11. NEW BUSINESS
71.a. Consideration of Adoption of the Five-Year Radar Speed Survey.
Minutes: City Council Meeting
Tuesday,July 11, 2006
Page 3
Assistant Ciry Engineer Linn presented the staff report and recommended the Council adopt a
; Resolution certifying the five-year radar speed survey. Staff responded to questions from Council
regarding the criteria for establishing speed limits in residential districts; and speed limits as they
relate to elevation of various road segments.
Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter.
Bill McLauqhlin, President, Los Robles Homeowners Association, expressed concern on behalf of
the neighborhood about the proposed speed limit increases on Rancho Parkway as it relates to
public safety. He noted that even at 35 mph, the roadway remains hazardous for pedestrians and
automobiles due to its hilis and curves; stated that the crossing between Trader Joe's and
Albertson's is dangerous; said over the last five years he has never seen any effort to enforce the
posted speed limit on Rancho Parkway; suggested there were measures the City could employ to
help drivers adhere to posted speed limits such as installing lighted signs, or posting signs that
! state "Entering a Residential Area, Speed Limits are Strictly Enforced". He requested the Council
leave the current speed limits as is and try other remedies to ensure speed limits are observed. He
expressed further concern about the elevation of Rancho Parkway as it approaches Palos Secos as
it relates to sight distance. He concluded by stating if the City decided to move ahead as proposed,
he hoped the City would work to ensure the new speed limits are strictly enforced.
Steve McBeth, Refugio/Rancho Parkway, spoke in opposition to increasing the speed limit on
Rancho Parkway due to safety issues. He stated the roadway is less than a mile long and the
speed limit should stay as is and it should be enforced.
Larrv Womack, Via Las Aguilas, agreed with Mr. McLaughlin's comments and spoke in opposition
to increasing the speed limit on Rancho Parkway.
Marnie Barrett, Orcutt Road, expressed concern about raising the speed limit to 40 mph on E.
Grand Avenue from Oak Park Blvd. to Halcyon; expressed concern about vehicles turning left out of
driveways on E. Grand going eastbound, and pedestrian safety in the crosswalks. She urged the
Council to reconsider raising the speed limit on this portion of E. Grand Avenue. She further stated
she spoke with police officials at the City of Grover Beach who indicated they had not received
sufficient notice of tonighYs meeting in order to participate, and expressed concern about the speed
limits being different between the two cities.
Dannv Beher, Refugio Place, agreed with Mr. McLaughlin's comments and expressed concems
about raising the speed limit on Rancho Parkway due to the downgrade of the road near Refugio
Place, the curves in the road, and pedestrian and vehicle safety.
Alexander Yorba, Refugio Place, referred to the transition from Rancho Parkway to Refugio and
expressed concern about the safety of the children that are playing in and around Rancho Grande
Estates.
Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public comment period.
Council questions and discussion ensued with regard to State law as it relates to establishing speed
limits; the California Vehicle Code definition of a residential area as it relates to the establishment of
speed limits; establishing speed limits which can be legally enforced; and various methods that
could be used to calmlchannel traffic flow.
, Minutes: City Council Meeting
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Page 4
I
Council Member Arnold stated he could support staff's recommendations with the exception of the
segment on W. Branch Street from Vernon to Rancho Parkway. He stated this segment needed to
be further studied and examined. With regard to the speed limit on Rancho Parkway, he noted that
the Council had approved changes to the flow of traffic beNveen Phase 1 and 2 of the Five Cities
Center which had not yet been installed that would help solve some of the traffic issues in that
location.
Council Member Dickens stated it was appropriate to lower the speed limit on Tally Ho Road as it is
defined as a residential neighborhood. With regard to W. Branch Street, he noted that along with
the steep grade of portions of the road and the nearby school, there was also a lack of adequate
sidewalks along this portion of roadway between Vernon and Rancho Parkway; therefore, he
expressed concern about increasing the speed limit to 45 mph due to publiGpedestrian safety. He
noted that E. Grand would continue to be a problem for pedestrians and discussed looking for
methods to alert the public about pedestrians in the crosswalks or perhaps removing crosswalks not
i located at signaled intersections. With regard to Rancho Parkway, Council Member Dickens
'; questioned why it does not meet the criteria for super-elevation as it approaches northbound
towards James Way. He expressed concern about establishing two different speed limits for a road
; that is less than a mile long, and would prefer to keep the whole segment at 35 mph if it can be
justified and enforced. He recommended further study of W. Branch Street, E. Grand Avenue, and
Rancho Parkway.
Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie supported staff's recommendations as proposed; however, he suggested
monitoring the traffic on Rancho Parkway to see if speeds increase as a result of raising the speed
limit; suggested reviewing the crosswalks located on E. Grand Avenue and consider removing
those at uncontrolled intersections; suggested looking at W. Branch Street to determine if it meets
the criteria for super-elevation status; and stressed the importance of enforcing the posted speed
limits.
Mayor Ferrara referred to the segment of E. Grand from Halcyon to Oak Park and expressed
concern with future redevelopment at Elm and E. Grand that will increase the intensity of traffic. He
; also noted the heavy RV and trailer traffic that travels down E. Grand towards Pismo State Beach
which could fall under the category of special and unique circumstances as it relates to the speed
limit. He noted that the City should try and coordinate the speed limit with the City of Grover Beach
for consistency.
Police Commander Andrews and City Manager Adams briefly responded to the varying road
circumstances between the cities of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach, such as the bulb-outs and
planters located in the Grover Beach City limits. City Manager Adams noted that staff would review
E. Grand Avenue further.
�' Mayor Ferrara supported a continued review of the speed limit on E. Grand Avenue; expressed
; concem about elevation/design of Rancho Parkway and supported leaving the speed limit at 35
mph and pursuing traffic channelization and signage methods first; supported the recommendation
' for reducing the speed limit on Tally Ho Road; requested that staff review the warrants for a 3-way
stop sign at James Way and Tally Ho Road; and requested further review of W. Branch St.
Minutes: City Councfl Meeting
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Page 5
Further discussion ensued regarding additional study and reviewing various alternatives and
conditions relating to the speed limit recommendations on Rancho Parkway, E. Grand Avenue and
W. Branch Street.
Council Member Arnold moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ESTABLISHING SPEED LIMITS ON VARIOUS
CITY STREETS" with the exception of E. Grand Avenue (Halcyon to Oak Park) and W. Branch
Street (Vernon to Rancho Parkway) for further study; and that the traffic calming measures for
Rancho Parkway be accelerated. The motion died for lack of a second.
Council Member Dickens moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ESTABLISHING SPEED LIMITS ON VARIOUS
CITY STREETS" with the exception of Rancho Parkway (Camino Mercado to James Way), W.
Branch Street (Vernon to Rancho Parkway), and E. Grand Avenue (Halcyon to Oak Park); and to
direct staff to further study alternatives and conditions regarding the speed limit recommendations
on Rancho Parkway, E. Grand Avenue and W. Branch Street. Mayor Ferrara seconded and the
motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Dickens, Ferrara, Guthrie, Arnold
NOES: None
ABSENT: Costello
11.b. Consideration of Community Request Regarding Citizen Appeal of Staff Decisions
and Recommendations.
City Manager Adams presented the staff �epoR and recommended the Council review and discuss
the request made by the Mike Titus Memorial Committee and direct staff to proceed with the
proposed actions outlined in the staff report.
� Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter.
Colleen Martin, Olive Street, representing the Mike Titus Memorial Committee, distributed a letter
dated July 11, 2006 to the Council (on file in the Administrative Services Department) and spoke
regarding the establishment of a citizen's appeal process of staff decisions and recommendations
as it relates to administration of the General Plan.
Steve Ross, Garden Street, expressed concem about the proposed process as it relates to a
citizen's ability to appeal staff reports in that it could open the process up to frivolous appeals.
Otis Paae, Myrtle Street, clarified that the proposed citizen appeal process would relate only to
appeals of General Plan Amendments.
i Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public comment period.
� Council comments and discussion ensued regarding the Committee's desire to establish a citizen
appeal process; clarification that the Committee's intent was to apply the process solely to projects
Minutes: City Councll Meeting
� Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Page 6
including a General Plan amendment; acknowledgment of the Council's role as elected
� representatives of the community, to review information in staff reports, to encourage public
participation, and to appoint competent and productive advisory body members; that the existing
process has worked; acknowledgment that the Development Code could be modified to clarify
� language regarding appeals; and support for staff's recommendations regarding modifying
Development Code language, establishment of a formal complaint procedure, and establishment of
practices and policies to address review of staff materials. It was suggested that staff reports be
completed one week in advance in order to provide for adequate public review; extending the time
limit for public comment when new information is presented, and to create formal guidelines
regarding public comment.
Mayor Ferrara opened up the discussion for further public comment:
� Colleen Martin, Olive Street, suggested that the City provide a one page form to complete which
would include information about how citizens can participate in the process.
Trudv Jarratt, President, League of Women Voters, expressed concern with the proposal, which
would not allow citizens access to information that has been changed once it has been distributed.
She expressed concern that this process would open the doors to special interest groups to change
information in staff reports.
� Otis Paae, Myrtle Street, reiterated that this proposal limits the process to only address General
1 Rlan amendments.
I
Following further discussion, staff was directed to prepare recommendations regarding an informal
administrative review process for the City Manager to consider citizen complaints related to
information presented in staff reports. There was no formal action on this item.
12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS
a) Request for discussion of establishing goals and timelines for Advisory Body review and
consideration of project applications (ARNOLD)
Council Member Arnold requested discussion regarding the establishment of goals and timelines as
it relates to advisory body review and consideration of project applications. After brief discussion,
Mayor Ferrara suggested, and the Council concurred, to direct staff to schedule a joint meeting
beriveen the City Council, Planning Commission, and Architectural Review Committee.
13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS
None.
' 14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
i None.
I
�
Minutes: City Council Meeting
Tuesday,July 11, 2006
Page 7
�, 16. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
None.
17. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ferrara adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m.
Tony Ferrara, Mayor
ATTEST:
I
i Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
' (Approved at CC Mtg )
i�
�
�
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 25, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor/Chair Ferrara called the Regular City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting to order at
7:01 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
City Council: Council Members Jim Dickens, Joe Costello, Ed Arnold, Mayor Pro Tem
Jim Guthrie, and Mayor Tony Ferrara were present.
City Staff Present: City Manager Steve Adams, City Attorney Tim Carmel, Director of
Administrative Services/City Clerk Kelly Wetmore, Director of Financial
Services Angela Kraetsch, Director of Community Development Rob
Strong, Associate Planner McClish, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
i, Don Spagnolo, and Chief of Police Tony Aeilts
3. FLAG SALUTE
Members of Boy Scout Troop 26 led the Flag Salute.
4. INVOCATION
Retired Pastor Richard Scharn delivered the invocation.
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
5.a. Mayor's Commendations Recognizing James Murphy, Attorney; and Sandy and
Cindi Lubin for Contributions to the "Let There Be Lights" Program.
Mayor Ferrara presented a Mayor's Commendation to Sandy and Cindi Lubin for their generous
I contribution to the "Let There Be Lights" Program. Community Development Director Strong
accepted the Commendation on behalf of Mr. Murphy, who was not present.
6. AGENDA REVIEW
6.a. Ordinances Read in Title Only
Council Member Arnold moved, Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed
unanimously that all ordinances presented at the meeting shall be read in title only and all further
reading be waived.
I 7. CITIZENS' INPUT. COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS
Eddie EI-Helou, E. Branch Street, stated he was pleased to see the progress of the "Let There
Be Lights" program. He then spoke about the Village Improvement Association's (VIA)
partnership with the City in the beautification of the Village business district. He referred back to
the Village Streetscape Plan approved in 2001, noted the City had applied for grant funds
through SLOCOG, and announced that the grant had fi�ally been funded. He announced the VIA
had purchased and donated all the new trees that would be planted in new planters along E.
Branch Street.
��
Minutes: City CounciURedeve/opment Agency Meefing Page 2
Tuesday, Ju/y 25, 2006
8. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor/Chair Ferrara invited any member of the public who wished to comment on any Consent
Agenda item to do so at this time. There were no public comments received.
Mayor Pro TemNice Chair Guthrie requested that Item 8.h. be pulled for discussion.
Council/Board Member Dickens moved, and Council/Board Member Arnold seconded the motion
� to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.i., with the exception of Item 8.h., with the
recommended courses of action. The motion carried on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Dickens, Arnold, Costello, Guthrie, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification.
Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period July 1, 2006 through July
15, 2006.
8.b. Statement of Investment Deposits.
Action: Received and filed the report of current investment deposits as of June 30,
2006.
8.c. Consideration of Approval of Minutes.
Action: Approved the minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings of June
27, 2006, as submitted.
8.d. Consideration of an Award of a Consultant Services Agreement with Tenera
Environmental to Provide Services in Conjunction with the Annual Creek Cleaning
Program.
Action: 1) Approved a Consultant Services Agreement with Tenera Environmental for
services in conjunction with the annual creek cleaning program in the amount of
$15,874.00; and 2)Authorized the Mayor to execute the Agreement.
8.e. Consideration to Approve the Plans and Specifications for the 2006 Pavement
Management Program, PW 2006-07.
Action: 1) Approved the plans and specifications for the 2006 Pavement Management
Program, PW 2006-07; 2) Determined that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA
pursuant to Section 15301(d): and, 3) Directed the Director of Administrative Services to
file a Notice of Exempiion.
8.f. Consideration of Authorization to Purchase Unmarked Police Vehicle.
Action: Authorized staff to purchase a new 2005 Ford Crown Victoria sedan, from
Mullahey Ford, for a total cost of$21,404.21.
8.g. Consideration of Authorization to Purchase Two (2) Replacement Police
DepaRment Patrol Vehicles.
Action: Authorized staff to purchase two (2) replacement Police Department patrol
vehicles from Mullahey Ford for$45,400.
8.i. Consideration of Purchase of Proaertv at Faeh Street and EI Camino Real
[COUNCIURDA].
I Action: The City Council adopted Resolution No. 3938 approving the proposed
Financing Agreement between the City and Redevelopment Agency; 2) the
Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. RDA 06-03 approving
the Financing Agreement between the City and Redevelopment Agency, finding that the
Agency's acquisition is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to
14 C.C.R. §§ 15060(c)(2) and 15061(b)(3), approving the purchase and sale agreement
Minutes: City Council/Redeve/opment Agency Meeting Page 3
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
for the vacant lot at Faeh Street and EI Camino Real (APN 006-151-027), and authorizing
the Executive Director or Chair to execute a Certificate of Acceptance consenting to the
recordation of the Grant Deed; and 3) the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors
, appropriated $830,000 from the Redevelopment Agency Budget for property acquisition
plus escrow, appraisal, soils and environmental tests and closing costs.
8.h. Consideration of Redevelopment Agency Assistance for Undergrounding or
Relocation of Utilities Necessary for a Proposed Restaurant Project at 1400-1480 E.
Grand Avenue [COUNCIURDA].
Action: It is recommended: 1) the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors adopt a
Resolution making required findings to appropriate funding for undergrounding or
relocation of the utility pole and lines located at 1400 — 1480 E. Grand Avenue,
appropriating funding not to exceed $120,000 for that purpose, and authorizing the
Executive Director to enter into an agreement not to exceed $120,000 for the
;, undergrounding or relocation described above; and 2) the City Council adopt a
Resolution consenting to the Agency funding described above and making required
findings related thereto.
In response to questions by Mayor Pro TemNice Chair Guthrie, City Manager/Executive Director
Adams explained that funding through the County was not available for this project.
Mayor Pro TemNice Chair Guthrie moved to approve staff's recommendations as follows: Adopt
"A RESOLUTION OF THE ARROYO GRANDE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING
THE AGENCY'S FUNDING FOR UNDERGROUNDING OF, OR RELOCATION OF, CERTAIN
UTILITY POLES AND LINES AT 1400-1480 EAST GRAND AVENUE"; appropriate funding not
to exceed $120,000, and authorize the Executive Director to enter into an agreement not to
exceed $120,000 for the undergrounding or relocation; and adopt "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CONSENTING TO THE FUNDING BY
THE ARROYO GRANDE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR UNDERGROUNDING OF, OR
RELOCATION OF, CERTAIN UTILITY POLES AND LINES AT 1400-1480 E. GRAND
AVENUE". Council/Board Member Dickens seconded, and the motion passed on the following
roll-call vote:
AYES: Guthrie, Dickens, Costello, Arnold, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
9. PUBLIC HEARING
8.a. Consideration of Adoption of Ordinance Adding Chapter 3.22 to. Title 3 of the
/Uroyo Grande Municipal Code Establishing a Transactions and Use Tax (Sales
'i Tax) to be Administered by the State Board of Equalization and Related
Resolutions Required to Place the Proposed Ordinance on the November 7, 2006
� Election Ballot.
I
City Manager Adams presented the staff report and recommended the Councit: 1) Adopt an
Ordinance adding Chapter 3.22 to Title 3 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code establishing a
transactions and use tax to be administered by the State Board of Equalization; 2) Adopt a
modified Resolution ordering the submission to the qualified electors of the City a measure and
� Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 4
I Tuesday, Ju/y 25, 2006
i
, four advisory measures relating to the establishment of a local transactions and use tax (sales
tax) at the General Election to be held on Tuesday, November 7, 2006; 3) Adopt a modified
Resolution setting priorities for filing written arguments regarding City measures and directing the
City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the measures; and 4) Adopt a modified
Resolution providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for City measures submitted at municipal
elections.
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who
wished to be heard on the matter. No public comments were received and Mayor Ferrara closed
the public hearing.
Council Member Arnold moved to adopt an Ordinance as follows, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADDING CHAPTER 3.22 TO TITLE 3
OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A TRANSACTIONS AND
USE TAX TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION". Council
Member Dickens seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote:
� AYES: Arnold, Dickens, Costello, Guthrie, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Council Member Arnold moved to adopt a Resolution as follows, "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO
THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY A MEASURE AND FOUR ADVISORY
� MEASURES RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A LOCAL TRANSACTIONS AND
USE TAX (SALES TAX) AT THE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY,
NOVEMBER 7, 2006, AS CALLED BY RESOLUTION NO. 3925". Council Member Dickens
seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Arnold, Dickens, Costello, Guthrie, Ferrara
NOES: None
i ABSENT: None
Council Member Amold moved to adopt a Resolution as follows, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN
ARGUMENTS REGARDING A CITY MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS". Council Member Dickens seconded, and the motion
passed on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Arnold, Dickens, Costello, Guthrie, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Council Member Amold moved to adopt a Resolution as follows, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL
ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED AT MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS". Council
Member Costello seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Arnold, Costello, Dickens, Guthrie, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
I
Minutes: City Council/Redeve/opment Agency Meeting Page 5
� Tuesday, Ju/y 25, 2006
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS
None.
11. NEW BUSINESS
11.a. Consideration of Appointment of Voting Delegate and Alternate for the League of
California Cities Annual Conference.
City Manager Adams presented the staff report and recommended the Council appoint one
Council Member as the voting delegate and one Council Member as the alternate delegate for
the League of California Cities Annual Conference.
Mayor Ferrara moved to appoint Council Member Arnold as the voting delegate and himself as
the alternate delegate. Council Member Dickens seconded, and the motion passed on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Ferrara, Dickens, Costello, Arnold, Guthrie
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
11.b. Consideration of Fiscal Year 2006-07 Budget Update. [COUNCILIRDA]
Director of Financial Services Kraetsch presented the staff report and recommended the City
Council/Redevelopment Agency Board approve the budget adjustments listed in the Budget
Update report; approve requests for additional appropriations in the General Fund; find that
pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33334.3 that the planning and administrative
expenses charged to the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund are necessary for the
production, improvement, or preservation of low and moderate-income housing.
Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the
matter. No public comments were received.
Council/Board Member Costello moved to approve the budget adjustments listed in the Budget
Update report; approve requests for additional appropriations in the General Fund; find that
pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33334.3 that the planning and administrative
expenses charged to the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund are necessary for the
production, improvement, or preservation of low and moderate-income housing. Council/Board
Member Arnold seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Costello, Arnold, Dickens, Guthrie, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
11.c. Discussion of an Arroyo Grande Watershed and Creek Memorandum .of
Understanding.
Associate Planner McClish presented the staff report and recommended the Council discuss the
working draft Arroyo Grande Watershed and Creek Memorandum of Understanding ("draft
MOU"), make any modifications determined to be necessary or desirable and authorize the
Mayor to distribute the working draft MOU to involved agencies for review and comment.
I Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 6
i Tuesday, July 25, 2006
� Mayor Ferrara gave a brief background of the recent successful Proposition 218 election to fund
programs for the maintenance, protection, and enhancement of the Arroyo Grande watershed
and creeks. He explained that he had requested, and the Council had concurred, to direct staff
to prepare a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which would be presented to key
agencies involved in the process.
Council comments and discussion ensued with regard to the City's role in the process; funding
issues; whether there should be representation from Zone 1/1A; and the status of the Habitat
Conservation Plan as well as the Swanson Study.
Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the
matter. No public comments were received.
Following discussion, staff was directed to modify the MOU as follows: 1) Modify section ill.c. to
read: Provide a practical and effective means of maximizing the benefits and minimizing adverse
impacts on apricultural resources, riparian, wetland and other ecosystem habitat within
Watershed; 2) Modify the last sentence in section VI — Funding — "...The parties sba14 mav make
available other reasonable and proportionate funding and resources necessary to implement
Watershed maintenance, protection, and enhancement efforts and programs, including through
staffing, grants, voluntary contributions and/or other similar resources.
Council Member Costello moved to modify the working draft MOU as directed and to authorize
the Mayor to distribute the MOU to involved agencies for review and comment. Council Member
Dickens seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Costello, Dickens, Arnold, Guthrie, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
a. MAYOR TONY M. FERRARA:
� (7) San Luis Obispo Council of Governments/San Luis Obispo Regional Transit
I Authority (SLOCOG/SLORTA). Executive Board met to set Agenda for next
� meeting.
i (2) South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD). Will be
discussing the District Rate Study Update. and planning presentations to OCSD
Board and Cities of Arroyo Grande and Pismo Beach to receive feedback on
proposed rate increase. Approved the FY 06-07 Budget.
(3) Other. None.
� b. MAYOR PRO TEM JIM GUTHRIE:
(1) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC). Meets tomorrow.
(2) Other. None.
c. COUNCIL MEMBER JIM DICKENS:
(1) South County Area Transit (SCAT). No report.
(2) South County Youth Coalition. No report.
(3) Othe�. None.
Minutes: City Council/Redeve/opment Agency Meeting Page 7 '
Tuesday, July 25, 2006 '
d. COUNCIL MEMBER JOE COSTELLO:
(1) Zone 3 Water Advisory Board. No report.
(2) Air Pollution Control District (APCD). Meets tomorrow.
(3) Fire Oversight Committee. No report.
(4) Fire Consolidation Oversight Committee. No report.
(5) Other. None.
e. COUNCIL MEMBER ED ARNOLD:
(1) Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA). No report.
(2) California Joint Powers Insurance Authority(CJPIA). No report.
(3) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC). No report.
(4) Other. None.
13. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS '
None.
14. CITY MANAGER ITEMS
None.
15. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Council Member Arnold requested that commendations be presented to vendors that donated
the trees that were planted on Tra�c Way.
Council Member Dickens requested that the graffiti on the trash bin by Miner's Hardware be
removed.
Mayor Ferrara referred to excessive pizza advertising signage along E. Grand Avenue and ,
requested that staff look into the matter to ensure compliance with the City's sign ordinance.
16. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
None.
17. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
None.
18. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ferrera adjoumed the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
Tony Ferrare, Mayor/Chair
ATTEST:
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk, Agency Secretary
(Approved at CC Mtg 1
pRROY� S�C�
O� C,p
� INCORPORATED 92
V O
T
* JULT 10. tGl1 *
c4��FORN�P
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESICITY
CLERK 1, , 1
F�
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO REJECT CLAIM FILED AGAINST THE CITY -
CLAIMANT: PLYCON VAN LINES, INC.
DATE: AUGUST 8, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council reject the claim and authorize the City Clerk to send
a standard rejection letter to the claimant as recommended by the City's Claims
Administrator, Carl Warren & Company.
FUNDING:
None.
DISCUSSION:
Plycon Van Lines, Inc. filed a timely claim against the City on June 29, 2006. Carl
Warren & Company, the City's claims administrator, is recommending that the claim be
rejected on the basis of the claim administrator's investigation and authorize the City
Clerk to send a standard rejection letter to the claimant. The statute of limitations will
run six months from the date the rejection letter is sent.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Reject the claim and authorize the. City Clerk to send a standard rejection
letter to the claimant.
2. Take no action; however, this will extend the statute of limitations.
Attachment:
None, claim on file in the City Clerk's office.
8.d.
� pRROYO
p C,p
� MICOHPOR�7ED 9Z
� ° MEMORANDUM �
� # .u�r io. �c�� *
c4��FOR��P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
� FROM: DANIEL C. HERNANDEZ, DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION AND ��
FACILITIES
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE PARKS
DIVISION VEHICLE — PARKS MAINTENANCE
DATE� AUGUST 8, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council authorize staff to purchase a new 2006 '/< ton Ford
pick up truck to Mullahey Ford in the amount of$19,576.45
FUNDING:
In the Fiscal Year 2006-07 Parks Division budget, $25,000 was allocated for the
purchase of a new vehicle.
DISCUSSION:
- On July 3, 2006, the Parks, Recreation and Facilities Department solicited bids for a '/<
ton pick up truck. The City received (2) responses out of over 15 that were distributed.
Mullahey Ford submitted the lowest bid in the amownt of $19,576.45. This is a new
vehicle to be used by Parks Division.
i
i ALTERNATIVES:
� The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
'i
'1
= Approve staffs recommendation;
',� - Modify staff's recommendation;
�� - Do not approve staff's recommendation;
;� - Provide direction to staff.
di
I
,� Attachments:
�i 1. Bid Opening Log Sheet
I.
�I
��
� �
� ��
pRROy� I I
oF � ATTACHMENT 1 i
� � i
� INCOHPORATED 9Z , i
U � m � �
� NLY ID, tBll y
c4C/FpRN�P BID OPENING LOG SHEET
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
RFP DEADLINE: July 20, 2006, 2:00 p.m.
Parks Division '/4 Ton Truck — Parks Maintenance
SUBMITTED BY: TOTAL i
Mullahey Ford $19,576.45
Arroyo Grande, CA
Stowasser GMC $23,175.00
Santa Maria, CA
Keliy Wet ore
Director of Ad inistrative Services/City Clerk
c: Director of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities
City Manager
�
i
I
E pRROVp S�e�
� c9
, � INCOIIGOR�TED 9Z
� ° MEMORANDUM
� .w�. ,o. ,o„ *
c9��FORN�P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DANIEL C. HERNANDEZ, DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION AND �/ �W
FACILITIES
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE PARKS
DIVISION VEHICLE — SOTO SPORTS COMPLEX
DATE: AUGUST 8, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council authorize staff to purchase a new 2006 Ford Ranger
pick up truck from Mullahey Ford in the amount of$13,124.46.
FUNDING:
In the Fiscal Year 2006-07 Soto Sports Complex budget, $20,000 was allocated for the
purchase of a new vehicle.
DISCUSSION:
On July 3, 2006, the Parks, Recreation and Facilities Department solicited bids for a
regular cab pick up truck. The City received (2) responses out of over 15 that were sent
out.. Mullahey Ford submitted the lowest bid in the amount of $13,124.446. This is a
replacement vehicle for a 1986 Mazda pick up truck. This vehicle qualifies for
replacement under C-007 of the Administrative Policies and Procedures related to
Replacement of Specialized EquipmenUMachinery.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Approve staffs recommendation;
- Modify staff's recommendation;
- Do not approve staff's recommendation;
- Provide direction to staff.
Attachments:
1. Bid Opening Log Sheet
R:\Staff ReportsWwardbidSotoVeh8.06.doc
I
pRROy�
o� � ' ATTACHMENT 1
� �
� INCOflPORATEO yZ �
V O
m i
ic �u�r �o, ieii *
c9��FORN�P BID OPENING LOG SHEET
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
RFP DEADLINE: July 20, 2006; 2:00 p.m.
Parks Division Truck — Soto Sports Complex
SUBMITTED BY: TOTAL
Mullahey Ford $13,124.46
Arroyo Grande, CA
�
Stowasser GMC $15,825.00 `
Santa Maria, CA
Kelly Wet ore
Director of Ad inistrative Services/City Clerk
c: Director of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities
City Manager
�
�
i
I
- - - - - - - - - - - -
i
PaROro 8•f•
pE C
I �
F MICONPpNATED 92
V D
T
* '°`T �°, iB1 ' MEMORANDUM
c���FORN�P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER�3 �
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENTS FOR PART-
TIME EMPLOYEES
DATE: AUGUST 8, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
� It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving a 3°/a Cost
of Living ("COLA") adjustment for all part-time employees for FY 2006-07 effective July
28, 2006.
FUNDING:
The cost impact of the recommendation is approximately $18,000 for FY 2006-07.
Funding has been budgeted in the FY 2006-07 annual budget adjustments approved by
City Council at the July 25, 2006 meeting.
DISCUSSION:
in order to continue to enable the City to recruit and maintain quality employees in part-
time positions, it is recommended that a 3% COLA be provided to all part-time
employees, effective July 28, 2006, which is the beginning of the current pay period.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Adopt resolution approving the COLA;
- Modify as appropriate and adopt the resolution approving a COLA at a different
percentage;
- Do not adopt the resolution
- Provide direction to staff.
S:Wdministration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports\Salary and Benefit Reports�Part-Time Salary Benefit
Report FY 2006-07.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A SALARY AND BENEFIT
PROGRAM FOR PART-TIME EMPLOYEES FOR FISCAL YEAR
2006-07
i
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande ("City°) deems it in the best interest
of the City that compensation for part-time employees be fixed as hereinafter provided.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande that:
1. Part-time employees shall receive the salaries as designated in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
2. The terms of this Resolution shall be effective for the pay period beginning July 28,
2006.
3. All other part-time employee salary and benefit terms and conditions remain in full force
and effect as set forth in Resolution No. 3463.
On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2006.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
1 RESOWTION NO.
PAGE 3
EXHIBIT "A"
PART-TIME EMPLOYEES SALARIES
2006-07
PERMANENT PART-TIME EMPLOYEES
HOURLY
POLICE DEPARTMENT RATE
, Designated Level I Reserve Officer $ 21.73
Senior Police Reserve O�cer 19.36
Police Reserve O�cer 17.27
Police Reserve O�cer Trainee 14.51
Police Dispatcher/Clerk II 18.54
Police Dispatcher/Clerk I 16.32
Police Dispatcher/Clerk Trainee 14.12
FIRE DEPARTMENT
' Administrative Officer 11.67
Administrative Officer(Fire Grants) 26.52
HOURLY RATE
3 YEARS
START 1 YEAR 2 YEARS (+)
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT PAY SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE
Recreation Senior Leader $ 9.54 $ 9.80 $ 10.28 $ 10.76
Recreation Assistant Senior Leader 7.97 8.20 8.62 9.06
j AM/PM Childcare Coordinator 12.26 12.52 13.16 13.79
, AM/PM Teacher 10.35 10.61 11.18 11.72
AM/PM Assistant Teacher 9.73 9:97 10.48 10.98
AMlPM Assistant I 8.43 8.61 9.04 9.48
AM/PM Assistant II 8.11 8.36 8.80 9.23
I AM/PM Assistant III, High School 7.94 8.15 8.56 8.98
Pre School Teacher 12.26 12.52 13.16 13.79
HOURLY
MISCELLANEOUS PART-TIME RATE
Printer $ 16.94
Recreation Building Supervisor 10.17
Recreation Building Coordinator 7.90
Office Assistant 13.02
HOURLY RATE
2 YEARS 3 YEARS
START 1 YEAR (+) (+)
PAY SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE
Maintenance Worker- Parks,
Public Works, Building $ 10.24 $ 11.53 $ 14.00
Mechanic's Assistant 13.92 14.94 16.95
Neighborhood Services Coordinator 18.74 20.75 22.77
Associate Planner 24.73 26.38 28.15 30.08
Sr. OfficeAssistant 16.02 16.82 17.66 t8.55
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 4
EXHIBIT "A"
PART-TIME EMPLOYEES SALARIES
2006-07
TEMPORARY PART-TIME EMPLOYEES
HOURLY
POLICE DEPARTMENT RATE
Crossing Guard $ 8.42
HOURLY RATE
START 1 YEAR 2 YEARS
PAY SERVICE SERVICE
Police Cadet $ 8.68 $ 9.81 $ 10.92
HOURLY RATE
3 YEARS
START 1 YEAR 2 YEARS (+)
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT PAY SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE
(Substitute) Recreation Senior Leader $ 9.54 $ 9.80 $ 10.28 $ 10.76
(Substihxte) Recreation Assistant Senior Leader 7.97 8.20 8.62 9.06
(Subsdtute) AM/PM Childcare Coordinator 12.26 12.52 13.16 13.79
(Substitute)AM/PM Teacher 10.35 10.61 11.18 11.72
(Substitute)AM/PM AssistantTeacher 9.73 9.97 10.48 10.98
(Substitute) AM/PM Assistant I 8.43 8.61 9.04 9.48
(Substitute) AM/PM Assistant II 8.11 8.36 8.80 9.23
(Subsritute) AM/PM Assistant III,High School 7.94 8.15 8.56 8.98
(Substitute)Pre-SchoolTeacher 12.26 12.52 13.16 13.79
HOURLY
MISCELLANEOUS PART-TIME RATE
Administrative Secretary $ 15.84
Office Assistant 13.02
(Seasonal) Maintenance Worker- Parks, 10.24
Public Works, Building
Student Intern 7.77
HOURLY RATE
2 YEARS
START 1 YEAR (+)
PAY SERVICE SERVICE
Administrative Intern $ 10.69 $ 11.21 $ 11.78
� s.�.
pRROyO
p`� C�
FINCOFPORIITED 92
V T
* '"`�"0, i°„ * MEMORANDUM
c4��FORN�P
TO: CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER �
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CHANGE IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS TO THE
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY
COMMITTEE (WRAC) AND THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ECONOMIC
VITALITY CORPORATION (EVC)
DATE: AUGUST 8, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council approve the appointment of Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie
to the San Luis Obispo County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC); and the
appointment of Council Member Arnold to the San Luis Obispo Economic Vitality
Corporation (EVC).
FUNDING:
There is no cost impact from this item.
DISCUSSION:
Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie is currently the City Council appointed representative to the
EVC and Council Member Arnold is the appointed representative to the WRAC. They
have requested City Council consider alternating these appointments since each has an
interest in becoming involved in the other board.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Approve appointment of Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie to the San Luis Obispo
County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC); and appointment of
Council Member Arnold to the San Luis Obispo Economic Vitality Corporation
(EVC);
- Modify and approve the appointments;
- Do not approve the appointments;
- Provide staff direction.
S:Wdministration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports\WRAC and EVC
Appointments 8.8.06.doc
8.h.
pRROYO
OF C,p
, INCORPOFATED 92
h
" �" "' MEMORANDUM
+ ���� ,o, ,a„ *
c4��FORN�P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
. FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKSICITY ENGINEER�
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS AND EASEMENTS FOR TRACT 2506 LOCATED AT
325 ALDER STREET, CONSTRUCTED BY MAL-HUN, LLC
DATE: AUGUST 8, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt a Resolution accepting the public
improvements and easements for Tract 2506 located at 325 Alder Street, constructed
by Mal-Hun, LLC.
FUNDING:
There is no fiscal impact at this time. Maintenance of these facilities will be funded
from Public Works maintenance,funds in future years.
DISCUSSION:
On February 8, 2005 the City Council approved the final map for Tract 2506 located at
325 Alder Street and rejected, without prejudice as to future acceptance, the offers of
� dedication for street tree and sewer easements.
The project was conditioned to perform the following improvements:
1. replace existing 4" ACP water main under Alder Street with 8" PVC,
2. water service manifold,
3. sewer main on-site,
4. storm drainage retention basin on-site,
5. underground on-site and perimeter overhead public utilities,
6. sidewalk along the frontage,
Staff has inspected the improvements and recommends the City Council accept the
improvements as constructed. Staff also recommends that the easements for street
trees and sewer lines also be accepted.
The homeowners will maintain the on-site storm drainage system and the City will
accept ownership of the sewer mains and the frontage improvements to Alder Street.
The applicant has provided the 10% warranty security as required by the Municipal
Code. The warranty security will be released after one year provided the improvements
are stili in satisfactory condition.
+ 1
� CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND
EASEMENTS FOR TRACT 2506 LOCATED AT 325 ALDER STREET,
CONSTRUCTED BY MAL-HUN, LLC
AUGUST 8, 2006
PAGE 2
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
• Approve staff's recommendation;
• Do not approve staff's recommendation;
• Modify staff's recommendation as appropriate and approve; or
• Provide direction to staff.
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Map of Tract 2506
Council Memo-Acceptance of Improvements-Trect 2506.doc
� �O �� .
fOl/h�4.W�P�.fhQL qP
a.o�.eie„e�R ca+� S BA515 OF BEARING6-
THE "BI.ZIS Of �A0.iNl+5�foR TNK sURVtY �HO
�� I � - 91100�V13�oN K TNE 6p9iE0.�Y LINE oF ALDER
i SjR6Et pESWEEN FOUN� MONUMCUT�TIDN Pfft
A5H /� '�o�, (R�) AflO NoTCD HEREON Ah N0o•o0 72"E.
STREE"T ' / � _ �
F �mnvuGFO.� 7 " LEGENO=
�a�) '0� • O6NVtES FoUNO MoN�M6N1 A9 SNoW'1
�y � M.fo o4yG0.�0e0
�"' ..�..�':H.GT 2� t:C? � o ocNOtes ect�"�.e. w/��nst�c rnrnc.e.'5%e9e
a - - "" - UH�E55 Me[�O o1ME0.WbE
p� �R�� ~ (M� HE�4UPED OA�A
J� `� (R1) OF1q PE2 P•MP '�10-41
p�$ (R0) vAt� ,PE0. MAPS 1'I-52
Y� �.� .-... .. _ . . .� -.. (QLL) DA'fA GL4I44TOV FPOMHWnRO
r E; r 9.F� SOW.0.6 fECT
e C0.'�� �0.n "� fo.S�g�11e0�R WI�uS�� P.J.E. P110LIG U'(IN'(Y EASEMCN'f
�a'y�P.w/ftrs,+u-cnP (PD)
� 1 /q.LE.l2E�B1'ER(0.'�l ^ /��.s.SID�Pe0.(0.e�
No9'S�A4�[-2EA�Y(a$w) 'UH(-RBB.9'(R�� NE!'Si�4��E�1B].41'U�)
' �� 83�50• � t.zd �� � +aa.n' � � � YIGINIT( N1AP Csae sweet�)
I J � � O � � �
� s.
F— N � I� s � � ��S � I6 ' - ,
W I �j0l45G. � O 5T.15F. 49199f. � Y F
T � o I IOP.JE.�50te Yf6C � � I.UA NOLY.seN � ,� 'N�'��E ('�2.1\ �` &� -
� � i ESMf.Ve0.nll5 NM M�T.�([ATNIS'RM�h6 Ao P.U.E.PuEL �iCCHlANO ' 1 0�_ :
1J PArv(� wL oPMNq6
Z r � �( I��NGY54'25"6--- / e INAO ^ -g i C5N4 fEO�MIP I N;g ?'J
W N �N � eroso• � �, ea.so' g � o .iaa
y / � <no4.. I •__ :- /��C
_ - � ,�'�YLGSD�i4G4 W.WM1FI.� yN]�BW FN A4uM5� � NBY5�i'ob°F 124.I1' � ;i. ��.PV
S I . N-p I I FtIN.IOof.UE. j``�jj
Q � 9 I O N r O o N ' i O PEHISb.pyQSC �Q .
'O N O O ��
� w � 5of24.F. a ,°y 5o'1�ia.F g 9 `�p ' � r . •
Y S `Y 99195P. � g N yl
Q � 1 � I 83.50 � '— B3.50� -� �� ' �12.1�' ' � ._..
Q I �._ u0%•>ltt."E-2l9Af(K) E�Hf-40C.9[¢d N09'54'ioE 20YI1'(Ri) � / 1� -
� O�D� l�+S
//� v
°�u°�,:. fM P.` (� �`C N� _.
7�� fnil ^/�.faa) (azl /�P D a o: .
y 1 e� !1l�'0���.��� �R4� � �� �i;.
a�N� N F u �R�� �
4�N.N 'y� ..
��°� "g TRACT 250
, s =
l � SY001y1rON Of 40(1D�N 6WCW 1 of 1N! FMR vh
\� ' I� -- 1phGT� lu'ME c1[Y OF ARRMO 4N.NOe,wuNTY �AN
�'18 Nq9•5F28'B-4BOA2'(0.DIM7 EA4(-4DB.9��0.�� NBY55'�4E-'t!]���(rtx) LWbolKPO.�'f�tE DPU��wRWq�f6RMW PIL�IN
/Rj�,� 600K 3� Ph66 p2 ep�N,pS� �u t�E DfF�C6 op�
l
)U'(N�) �FO.1\.P.W/PLI�6OL �O.YI.P.W�PMSqfi � � CoYNSY R6CORO6R OF SMO LeUNT(. � I
GP R�[E-2596bR0.(0.1�0.8) GAP a.<E.45i4{rPB{iVlRFD ;
� r2ePnaeo 0Y� �
ALAN J�C. G E5FlU ti CIVIL EKG ER
. 't\"1 EpN G0.�ND AVENUfi NG �
ARRO`(o GINNDE�CA.93b40 �
�NONt. 0oSA09-SRbB
pM1t6+ MqRt1{�10oD
- SNEeT 2 oF 2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING EASEMENTS AND
IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 2506
. WHEREAS, the City Council approved Final Tract Map 2506 located at 325 Alder Street
on February 8, 2005 and rejected, without prejudice as to future acceptance, easements
for street trees and sanitary sewer; and
WHEREAS, the project was conditioned to do certain public improvements; and
WHEREAS, the developer has constructed the improvements required by the
conditions of approval for Tract 2506; and
WHEREAS, staff has inspected the improvements and finds they are constructed in
accordance with the approved plans for the project; and
WHEREAS, the developer has provided the 10% warranty security as required by the
conditions of approval, to be released at the conclusion of the one-year warranty period,
provided the improvements are still in satisfactory condition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande does hereby accept the offers of dedication and public improvements
constructed for Tract 2506, as follows:
1. Street Tree,
2. Sanitary Sewer,
3. Water Main,
On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member ,
and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of 2006.
- i
RESOLUTION NO. �
PAGE 2
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
9.a.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CIT COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
On TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 2006, the Arroyo Grande City Council will conduct a public hearing
� at 7:00 P.M. in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET to consider the following
item:
CASE #'s: Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 04-004 and Planned Unit
Development Case No. 04-001
PROPOSAL: The City Council will consider a proposal for a commercial retail, office and
residential project to be developed in the Village of Arroyo Grande
(Creekside Center).
LOCATION: 415 East Branch Street
APPLICANT: DB & M Property, LLC
STAFF CONTACT: Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner
The City of Arroyo Grande certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the
Creekside Center mixed-use project (Tentative Tract Map 01-002 and Conditional Use Permit 01-
001) in September 2003. In compliance with Section 15162 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the City has prepared an Addendum to the FEIR for the revised project. The
purpose of the Addendum is to address the possible environmental effects associated with the
revised development proposal. If the City Council does not feel that an Addendum is appropriate,
project approval will not be considered.
The Council may aiso discuss other hearings or business items before or after the item listed
above. If you challenge the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising oniy those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Failure of any
person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the action of
the legislative body for which the notice was given.
Information relating to these items is available by contacting Arroyo Grande City Hall at 473-
5414. The Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20.
�
, Kelly Wetmore ity Clerk
(Publish 1T, The Tribune, Friday, July 28, 2006)
PRROy�
O� C�
� INCOFPORATED 92
V T '
� JULY 10. 1911 *
C4�/F ORN�P
MEMORANDUM �
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR�
I �
BY: �.'f f KELLY HEFFERNON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO.
04-004 & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 04-001;
APPLICANT — DB & M PROPERTIES, LLC; LOCATION — 415 EAST
BRANCH STREET (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 14, 2005 COUNCIL
MEETING)
DATE: AUGUST 8, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council consider an addendum to a certified EIR and a
proposal for a commercial retail, office and residential project located in the Village of
Arroyo Grande (Creekside Mixed-Use Center), take tentative action on the project and
direct staff to return with a supporting resolution.
FUNDING:
There would be additional City costs associated with maintenance if the City accepts the
offer of dedication of the creek channel and creek setback area.
DISCUSSION:
Backqround
The City Council adopted Resolution No. 3710 on September 23; 2003 certifying the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Creekside Center project. The previous
project proposed to retain and remodel the existing office building, relocate two former
Loomis residences, remove the E.C. Loomis and Son Feed Store and develop a retail
commercial, office and residential complex on the former Loomis property located at the
east edge of the Village. The EIR determined that the main residence would be eligible for
listing in the Califomia Register as a historical resource, and that the grain warehouse
serves as an important feature of the setting of the main house. In response to this
determination, the applicant submitted revised plans that retain all of the existing
' structures and provides a larger residential component.
The Planning Commission considered the project on April 19, 2005 and made the
following recommendation to Couricil (see Attachment 1 for Meeting Minutes):
CITY COUNCIL
VTTM 04-004; PUD 04-001 (CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER)
AUGUST 8, 2006
PAGE 2
Recommend denial of the proposal based on the inability to make findings No. 1, 2 and
3 of the Resolution approving the projecf regarding issues of consistency with the goals,
objecfives, policies, plans, programs, intent, and requirements of the General P/an; public
health, safety, and we/fare; and consistency with the purpose and intent of fhe
Development Code.
The Commission further added that the project could meet the findings for approval if the
following issues were taken care of:
1. The driveways on Crown Terrace should be level or down sloped to the
street.
2. The barn should be preserved in its entirety with net loss of three parking
spaces and include a parking reduction for the barn or reduction in the
proposed retail space to accommodate the /oss of three parking spaces.
3. Provide public access to creek and park open space area.
4. There should be no gate, but have a "look back" provision to reassess after
one year. Enough space shou/d be left if it is determined that a gate is
necessary af a later date.
5. The building design, height and materials should go back to ARC and
Planning Commission before issuance of a building permit for final
development.
6. There shou/d be further determination and defailed description of any
retaining walls along Crown Terrace.
7. The issue of biological creek filters should be included in the staff report to
' Council.
8. A mode/to scale of the project in its entirety should be presented to Council.
9. The project should be reduced by one unit in Plan '8" to improve on-site
loading and parking.
, 10. The access between the Barn and Loomis house should provide a pedestrian
path out to the sidewalk.
In response to Planning Commission comments and concerns, the applicant proposed the
following project revisions.
1. Residential driveways leading from the four (4) residential units along Crown
Terrace will slope downward to provide for traffic sight distance visibility.
2. The addition to the rear poRion of the existing warehouse will be retained and
the resultant loss of parking spaces will be absorbed with a subsequent loss of
retail space at the warehouse or the conversion of existing residences to
commercial uses.
3. The existing loading dock along the easterly wall of the warehouse will be
retained, and the newly constructed handicap ramp will be relocated with
development of the proposed commercial structure.
4. A pedestrian access will be provided from East Branch Street between the
warehouse and Loomis house leading to the residential area of the project.
5. The originally proposed controlled access gate between the residential and
commercial areas has been eliminated from the project plans.
CITY COUNCIL
VTTM 04-004; PUD 04-001 (CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER)
AUGUST 8, 2006
PAGE 3
6. The Citys ARC and Planning Commission will app�ove final building designs,
materials of construction and color schemes.
7. The guardrail along Crown Terrace is to be constructed in accordance with the
standards adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande.
8. The applicant intends to incorporate the Best Available Technology (BAT), as
outlined by the Federal EPA standards, to deal with pollution caused by urban
runoff.
9. A scale model for the site has been completed at a scale of 1"=20' and will be
available at the City Council meeting.
10. Flood sections with this development were presented with the subdivision
application submittal. These sections and calculations indicate conformance
with the City's Flood Plain Management Ordinance No. 501.
11. Creek clean up and restoration will be improved and managed with the
development of the residential component of the project in accordance with the
submitted landscape plans and the recommendations contained within the FEIR
for the project.
12. The elimination or modification of street light structures and their intensity in the
residential areas of the project is acceptable if the City allows for deviation from
these requirements.
The City Council considered this project on June 14, 2005 and continued the item to a .
date uncertain pending resolution of several issues (see Attachment 2 for Meeting
Minutes). Issues discussed included:
• Reciprocal access agreement with adjacent property to the west.
• Safe access to Paulding Middle School.
• Sight distance concem on Crown Terrace where it intersects with Crown Hill.
• Left turn pocket design.
• Crown Terrace/Le Point Street intersection improvements.
• Tree removal along Crown TeRace.
• Large scale of proposed commercial building in relation to the Loomis barn.
• Clarification of how the publiGprivate interface within the 25' creek setback area
will be managed.
• Emphasis of pedestrian access throughout the project.
• Widening of Crown Terrace.
In response to Council comments, the applicant has secured a reciprocal easement for
ingress and egress with the neighboring property to the west (see Attachment 3 for signed
agreement), and has revised the tentative tract map to show the 25' wide creek setback
area as an individual parcel to be irrevocably offered to the City. Revisions to the Grading
Plan, Easement Plan and Flood Sections have also been made. The applicant has
additionally submitted the following exhibits to further clarify features of the project (see
Attachment 4):
CITY COUNCIL
VTTM 04-004; PUD 04-001 (CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER)
AUGUST 8,2006
PAGE 4
1. Creek Easement. Open Space and Setback Exhibit, identifying the various
setbacks and easements along Tally Ho Creek. The 25' wide creek setback
area is shown on the revised tentative tract map as Lot 14. Consistent with
Development Code Section 16.64.060(R), the creekbed and 25' from the top of
the bank will be irrevocably dedicated to the City. The area identified on the
exhibit as the shaded homeowners open space area is an open space amenity
accessible to members of the Creekside Homeowners Association (HOA) and
, will be maintained by the HOA. The applicant recommends that a trail
easement be recorded but remain unimproved, without public access, until such
time as additional easement segments are acquired and a trail constructed by
the City linking a creek trail system between existing public right of ways (on Le
Point Street and East Branch Street).
2. Creek Landscapinq and Improvement Plan Exhibit, which shows proposed
landscaping, play structure and other miscellaneous improvements within the
floodplain setback area. Slight modifications to the landscape plan will be
necessary to move the proposed Homeowner's amenities from the area now
identified as Lot 14.
3. Creek Gradinq Plan Exhibit, illustrating the preliminary grading proposed for the
creek area and adjacent houses.
4. Composite Creek Gradinca and Landscaaina Plan Exhibit, which is a composite
of the above two exhibits.
5a. Pedestrian Pathwavs Exhibit, illustrating pedestrian and open space
connections through the project to East Branch Street and the Village Area.
5b. Drivewav and Parkinq Areas Exhibit, including the second access onto East
Branch Street.
6. Sidewalk View of New Buildinq — Desiqn Compatibilitv Exhibit shows the view of
the new commercial building and warehouse building from a pedestrian's
sidewalk viewpoint from the north side of East Branch Street.
7. Warehouse/New Buildinq — Desiqn Compatibilitv Exhibit shows existing and
proposed views of the property frontage illustrating compatible size, scale and
design elements between the existing warehouse and new commercial building
without making any design modifications to the design of the submitted project.
8. East Branch Street/Crown Hill StreeUCondo Street Elevation Exhibit illustrates
the size and scale of the main architectural elements in the vicinity. The exhibit
shows that the condo units, with the exposed under story, dominate the visual
backdrop to the site and in the neighborhood. The proposed commercial
building provides a middle position in the spatial hierarchy of the streetscape
and appears complimentary in size, scale and massing to the other urban forms
on the site.
CITY COUNCIL
VTTM 04-004; PUD 04-001 (CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER)
AUGUST S, 2006
PAGE 5
9. Crown Terrace Riqht-of-Wav Width — Imqact Comqarison Exhibit illustrates the
impact of required retaining wall heights if Crown Terrace were to increase from
two, 12' wide travel lanes with no parking to two, 15' travel lanes. Other related
impacts would be shorter length of driveways, effects on structural retaining
walls within the residential units and floor plan redesigns.
10. Left Tum Pocket Exhibit shows the design and functional characteristics of a left
tum pocket into the project from Crown Hill Street. A 6' wide sidewalk with ADA
compliance ramps will also be improved. Final design details of these
improvements will accompany the improvement plans for the project.
The applicant submitted additional information regarding drainage including calculations
identifying the difference in pre and post development volumes for various storm events
using the San Luis Obispo County standards. The drainage evaluation indicates that the
peak flows are being reduced through reduction in impervious surface area. Also included
is correspondence beiween the City Public Works Department and TEC Civil Engineering
Consultants discussing drainage detention basin need, design, and location (see
Attachment 5).
Regarding the suggested redesign of Plan "A", the applicant studied the point of access for
the upper duplex unit at the comer of Le Point and Crown Terrace and determined that
due to the steepness of the Le Point slope, the garage access would be awkward and
potentially conflict and interfere with travel lane vehicles at the intersection. Therefore, no
design modifications of the garage location were made. The applicant also evaluated the
removal of the three-foot high clearstory roof element on the commercial building and
concluded that this detail helps to provide visual relief to the roof plane, and helps diminish
the vertical profile of the building.
The applicant requests that conditions no. 79 and 94 be modified to eliminate the
improvement on the north side of the Le Point Street right-of-way that abuts the project
site, except for the short segment necessary to connect crosswalks with sidewalks at the
Crown Terrace/Le Point Street intersection. Condition no. 86 has been amended to
include low growing landscape material within the island to be installed on the southeast
corner of Crown Terrace and Le Point Street based on earlier public comments.
Proiect Descriation
Proposed is a reconfiguration of twenty-three (23) underlying lots into thirteen (13) lots,
and a mixed-use development composed of 12 duplexes, a 12,000 square foot �
commercial/office building, and potential conversion of existing structures (two residences) �
to commercial uses (see table below for square footage and coverage information). The '
warehouse is currently occupied by a fabric store (Chameleon). Primary access to the
commercial development is from East Branch Street and Crown Hill and the residences
have access from either Crown Terrace or Le Point Street. Currently, the plans do not �
include a controlled entry gate behveen the residential and commercial uses, as depicted �
on earlier plans. The Conceptual Landscape Plan shows rail bed gravel along the old
i
�
I
cirv couNCi�
V7TM 04-004; PUD 04-001 (CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER)
AUGUST 8,2006
PAGE 6
Pacific Coast Railroad right of way in an .effort to simulate and preserve this historic
feature.
Pro ect Statistics:
Site Area 121,205 s.f. (2.78 acres)
Existing Impervious Surface Area 117,778 s.f.
(buildings, ddveways, walkways,parking—impervioussu�face
area from FEIR Sec. 4.7-6, /ess area now not a part)
Pro osed Pro'ect Foot rints/Covera e:
e Warehouse 5,880 s.f.
e House Maud 962 s.f.
e House Hilde 834 s.f.
New Commercial 4,421 s.f.
New Residential Plan A, 4 buildin s 9,284 s.f.
New Residential Plan B, 8 buildin s 9,296 s.f.
Parkin , Drives, Walks/Patios 43,257 s.f.
Tota/Impervious Surface Area 73,934 s.f.
(propased project represents a 36% decrease in impe�vious
surface area
Residential Plan "A" contains eight (8) units in four (4) buildings with access from either
interior drives at grade level, or above from Crown Terrace. The duplexes are three (3)
levels with individual units ranging from 1,940 to 2,595 square feet. Residential Plan "B"
contains eight (8) primary units and eight (8) second units in eight (8) buildings, all two (2)
stories with access from interior drives. These units are smaller, from 420 to 1,303 square
feet in size (with optional plan for a larger, .1,523 square foot unit). The commercial
structure has three (3) levels with an elevator and two-story parking garage accessed from
Crown Terrace and at grade level. The project is conditioned to not exceed the thirty-six
foot (36') height limit for the Village Mixed Use (VMU) district. The architectural style of the
complex is a mix of Craftsman and California Bungalow. Per the originally adopted 2003
Housing Element (the tentative map is yested under that Housing Element), the project is
subject to a 10% inclusionary requirement, or two (2) units.
Environmental Review
City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the project in
September 2003. An Addendum has been prepared for the project to evaluate the
potential environmental impacts of the revised project (see Attachment 6). Per the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Lead Agency (the City) shall prepare an
addendum to an EIR 'rf only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make
the EIR document adequate, and the changes made by the addendum do not raise
important new issues about the sign�cant effects on the environment. The addendum
must be considered prior to making a decision on the project.
CITY COUNCIL
VTTM 04-004; PUD 04-001 (CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER)
AUGUST 8,2006
PAGE 7
The Addendum provides information to the City Council on the changes to the site plan,
changes to environmental impacts resulting from these revisions, and conclusions about
the potential changes in impacts. Focused issues addressed in the Addendum include
the following:
• Parking
• Traffic/Access
• Historical Resources
• Recreation
• Biological Resources
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires all state and local agencies to
establish monitoring or reporting programs whenever approval of a project relies upon a
mitigated negative declaration or an environmental impact report (EIR). The monitoring or
reporting program (MMP) must ensure implementation of the measures being imposed to
mitigate or avoid the significant adverse environmental impacts identified in the mitigated
negative declaration or EIR.
The MMP is required for all mitigation measures adopted by the City as conditions of the
project approval. When the City certified the FEIR, the City agreed to adopt all mitigation
measures identified in the FEIR for the project, and the mitigation measures shall be
required to avoid potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. The MMP,
included as Attachment 7, contains the relevant mitigation required for the original project
and new mitigation for the revised project.
Parkinq
Total proposed parking for the project has been reduced by four (4) spaces with retention
of the warehouse side loading dock and rear addition (see table below for parking
calculations). Parking is considered adequate by utilizing the parking reduction provision
in Development Code Section 16.56.050, which allows up to a 20% parking reduction for
mixed-use projects. The loss of four (4) parking spaces represents a 3.4% parking
reduction.
CITY COUNCIL
VTTM 04-004; PUD 04-001 (CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER)
AUGUST 8,2006
PAGE 8
Parkin Re uirements
Residential Units Re uired Parkin Pro osed Parkin
Second Residences 1 per unit = 8 spaces uncovered 1 per unit = 8 spaces
8 units uncovered
2 Bedroom (8 units) 2 per unit + 0.5 per unit for guest 2 per unit + 2 guest spaces =
arkin = 20 s aces 18 s aces
3 Bedroom (8 units) 2 per unit + 0.5 per unit for guest 2 per unit + 5 guest spaces =
arkin = 20 s aces 21 § aces
Subtotal: 48 spaces (32 covered and 16 47 spaces (32 covered and
uncovered 15 uncovered
. ,, , • ..,
Commercial 1 er 300 s . ft. of floor area
Existin Warehouse 19 s aces 19 s aces
Existin Residences 11 s aces 8 s aces
New Office/Retail 40 s aces 40 s aces
Subtota/: 70 s aces 67 s aces
TOTAL: 118 s aces 114 s aces
DIFFERENCE: -4 s aces
Traffic/Access
The original project included the property developed with an office building and storage
units adjacent to Tally Ho Creek. This one (1) acre property, which has the only direct
driveway access from East Branch Street, was sold. The applicant recently secured an
access agreement from the adjacent property owner to the west, significantly improving
access and site circulation. As mentioned above, residential tra�c will access the site
from either Crown Terrace or Le Point Street.
In response to concems of tuming movement conflicts with the Paulding Middle School
AM and PM peak hour traffic, a separate Site Access Analysis was conducted by
Associated Transportation Engineers (ATE), dated February 11, 2005. The analysis
concluded that the proposed access at Crown Hill would not adversely impact the
projected level of service (LOS) A-B. As added mitigation, however, ATE recommended
that a "KEEP CLEAR"zone be painted in front of the Crown Hill driveway to accommodate
left hand tum movements into the project. Since a "keep clear" area would not always be
obeyed and requires enforcement, staff determined that a left turn pocket into the project
site would be a superior solution (MM 4.11.1). The road is wide enough at this location to
install a left turn pocket and allow sufficient room for cars to pass through. To accomplish
this, the curbs on Crown Hill must be painted red up to Crown Terrace (red curb already
exists for half the distance).
ATE also conducted a Stop Sign Warrant Analysis dated February 23, 2005 for the
intersection of Le Point Street and Crown Terrace. The study concludes that the traffic
volumes, delays and speeds at this intersection do not warrant an all-way stop or a partial
(two-way) stop. Staff believes that other criteria (such as sight distance and safety)
besides that contained in the Caltrans Traffic Manual, apply to this intersection that favor
the installation of a multi-way stop configuration with crosswalks as follows:
CITY COUNCIL
VTTM 04-004; PUD 04-001 (CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER)
AUGUST 8,2006
PAGE 9
o Since the project will provide a new pedestrian sidewalk on the west side of
Crown Terrace, pedestrians must be able to safely access the existing
crosswalk on the north side of Le Point Street east of the intersection. In
accordance with the requirements of Municipal Code Section 6-02.12,
crosswalks shall be installed on the west and northern legs of the intersection
to discourage pedestrians from crossing Crown Terrace on the south side of
the intersection. City will not allow crosswalks to be installed at uncontrolled
intersections.
e There are also considerations for traffic circulation due to the offset geometry
of Crown Terrace entering Le Point Street. The centerlines of the northern
and southern legs of Crown Terrace are offset by approximately 50 feet. The
Caltrans Highway Design Manual Section 403.3 also discourages roadways
entering intersections at an angle skewed more than 30°. The current
configuration of the northbound lane of Crown Terrace enters the intersection
at an approximate 50° angle. The northbound lane must be reconfigured to
enter the intersection at a 90° angle. This will enable northbound traffic to
better negotiate the left turn onto westbound Le Point Street.
♦ The steep grade of eastbound Le Point Street and the inadequate corner
sight distance of northbound Crown Terrace onfo Le Point Street qualify as
"Undesirable Geometric Features" for intersections in accordance with
Caltrans Highway Design Manual Section 402.2.
Historical Resources
The EIR determined that the main house has historical significance (i.e. is eligible for
listing in the California Register of Historic Places) and that the warehouse contributes
to the "setting" of the main house, but by itself is not considered historically significant.
The revised project retains all existing structures, which changes the environmental
determination from a Class I impact (significant and uriavoidable) to a Class IV impact
(beneficial) and Class II (Significant but mitigable).
A new mitigation measure (MM 4.4.1) has been added requiring the co-applicant and
the new owner of the property to register the main residence in the California Register
of Historic Places through the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). Any change
to the "R3" occupancy classification or any physical alteration also requires consistency
with the Secretary's Rehabilitation Standards and Guidelines (36 CFR part 68) or
technical advisories (MM 4.4.2).
Recreation
The original project included several open space/recreational amenities, including an
amphitheatre and pedestrian trail network along the creek and throughout the project.
Because the project site is an acre smaller in size resulting from the sale of the office
property, recreational opportunities are reduced. However, the residential component of
the project does incorporate an open space area that iricludes a play structure, picnic
-
MINUTES I ATTACHMENT1 '
PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 19, 2005
Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to schedule consent
items 3, 4 & 5 to a public hearing, date uncertain.
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Parker,Tait, Fellows, Keen and Chair Brown
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
A. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04-004; APPLICANT — DB & M
PROPERTIES, LLC; LOCATION — 415 EAST BRANCH STREET (continued from
April 4, 2005 meeting).
Associate Planner, Ms. Heffernon, gave a brief update of the proposal for the mixed use
development; stated that the Commission had previously considered this at a special
hearing on April 4, 2005; stated that site access, stop sign warrant analyses (conducted by
Associated Traffic Engineers) and retention of the loading dock on the east side of the
warehouse were discussed at the meeting. Ms. Heffernon further discussed water supply,
stating that measures had already been included in the EIR addendum; the level of
significance may have to be changed from significant and unavoidable to potentially
significant but mitigable; adoption of overriding considerations is therefore not necessary. In
conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends the Commission adopt a
Resolution recommending approval of the project to the City Council subject to Conditions
of Approval.
Commission Comments:
Keen:
• He was ready to move forward with approval of this project.
• He would like to add a mitigation that all the drives on Crown Terrace be sloped
down toward the street for safety.
• Agreed with the four-way stop.
• The 25-foot setback should be clarified with subdivision; there seems to be conflict
with the requirements for other projects.
• The gate between the commercial and residential should be an access for
emergency vehicles only and not a through gate.
Parker:
• Is in favor of reducing parking in the commercial area in order to retain the portion of
the historical barn and the square footage of the 2nd building.
• The creek walk/access to the park should be retained; the City should maintain the
park; it should be opened up and made larger (by losing one of the units).
• Commercial and residential parking should be open; visitor parking could be signed;
remove the gate to make parking more accessible to the duplexes.
• Cannot understand what the building materials would look like from the drawings;
would like them to match the barn and look more historic; not in favor of corrugated
metal painted green (needs to look more rustic); ARC may have ideas; not in favor of
stucco, iYs too modern.
MINUTES PAGE 4
PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 19, 2005
• The design of the 3-story duplexes is very innovative; likes the density; has concern
that the 3-story may look large; would like each duplex to look individual to lesson
the impact.
• There is already a problem in this area with the traffic; mitigations may improve it.
• Putting in a sidewalk and railing for the pedestrian walkway may make it better;
concern with safety of backing out onto Crown Terrace and putting in sidewalk along
a narrow of 24 feet; not sure how this will work and concern that it will be a problem.
• The duplexes are very large; suggest the square footage be reduced to allow more
green space and this in turn could eliminate some other problems and make them
more affordable.
Fellows:
• Asked if the sketch submitted by Mr. Balgeman had been considered by staff.
• The site is a good place for homes and makes a walkable community; the proposed
commercial development would help with sales tax revenue also.
• The Crown Terrace sidewalk is badly needed; the proposed four-way stop is needed
and the proposed curb should be squared up for safety.
. There are negative impacts for the neighbors on Crown Hill due to the size of
project, the number of units proposed and the serious circulation problems as
proposed - one entrance and exit only at a snarled up corner.
• The gate was proposed to stop people form driving through the commercial area out
onto LePoint Street; he could not support the circulation as it was now.
• Pedestrians should have a place to walk separate from the driveway; suggested a
pathway between the barn and Maud's house and a raised textured walkway from
the residential units and out along the pathway to the sidewalk.
• If this project were approved as proposed the result in traffic snarl would be
ridiculous and unacceptable. '
• If egress (exit through the Hayes property) is not obtained and if an easement for
foot traffic is not worked out, the project should be started from square one with a
much reduced plan for the front and rear phases; if the egress is obtained the project
should be modified with no more than 20 residential units; 8,000 sq ft of commercial;
a lower street front profile. This may mean no third story units and no second level
parking units on Crown Terrace; the project needs a card key gate between the
commercial and residential; ingress near the present barn with angled parking with
access out the back; a safe walkway from the residential areas; the rear portion of
the barn and the loading dock retained; garden area between Hilde's house and old
stone wall left as is and because of the amount of asphalt, etc. there should be one
or more retention basins/biological filters to treat water before it runs off into the
creek.
• If he is overruled and there are homes on Crown Terrace there should be no backing
out; hammerhead driveways are the only way to go.
. If the neighbors above do not want street lights, they should be an option.
• If there is a 2-story parking garage the roof should not be open.
• A scale model of the project is required.
• A left turn pocket does not in any way mitigate the loss of egress through the Hayes
property.
• The circulation is unacceptable.
MINUTES PAGE 5
PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 19, 2005
Tait:
• This project can achieve goals of the City, provide housing options and create
walkable neighborhoods and expand transportation choices. It reduces land
consumption; likes.proximity to Village and enhances community; supports Village
shops; connects people with places.
• He has serious concern with potential flooding even though this has been addressed
in the EIR; he had spoken to Gorden Bennett who gave him history of flooding in the
Village who said that the Tally Ho Creek should be cleared out.
• He read excerpts from the DEIR by Duffy & Assoc. which stressed the potential for
flooding in the area of the project site; read excerpts from mitigation measures for
the Town Center EIR (a proposal on the same site in 1980); he would like to get an
update on these concerns.
• As requested in the April 4, Planning Commission minutes, who is going to take care
of the creek clean up. The EIR does not specify this.
• The removal of any part of the structure of the historic barn should not take place.
• Could not support the removal of the back loading dock to provide additional parking.
. There have been more than twenty public comment letters received regarding
concerns with traffic, driveway backing out onto Crown Terrace and pedestrian
safety— he shares these concerns.
• The proposed yellow curb for commercial deliveries would take away from street
parking for the other businesses.
• The project may be too dense if delivery trucks cannot get into the project to deliver;
he hopes there is room for emergency vehicles.
• Concern about the loss of open space and recreational amenities that were included
in the original project and the opportunity for enhancement of the Tally Ho Creek is
reduced due to the sale of the existing office property.
• He recommended: Reduce the residential buildings in Plan 'A' by one (decreasing
the number of driveways on Crown Hill); reduce number of buildings in Plan 'B' by
one, this would help accommodate the large delivery trucks and would provide for
expansion of the creek area located at top of creek.
• A scale model is definitely needed before going to City Council.
Brown:
• He would like to see the Commissioner's diverse points of view reflected in detail in
the minutes for City Council.
• Read the four findings required for approval of the project; he could not make finding
No. 3, regarding historic resources due to the proposed alteration of the back portion
of the barn to provide parking spaces.
• He agreed with Commissioner Keen's comments regarding the driveway slopes.
• There should be no gate; this should be a relief route for pedestrians; there should
be a "look-back" provision of 6 months to one year; if not successful, a gate could
then be put in.
• Agrees with the suggestion from Commissioner Parker to reduce the retail space for
parking.
• Agrees with possibility of reducing future uses of the barn to preserve parking
spaces lost by preserving the barn.
• Access to the creek is an important issue.
• A model of the project should be required to provide a level of comfort for the public,
' Commission and Council.
MINUTES PAGE 6
PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 19, 2005
• Density: 3-stories is acceptable, but smaller units would make them more
affordable.
• The retaining walls should be dealt with by staff before going to Council.
• Circulation: The developer has made a problem by not having an access agreement
before selling the property next door; he was leaning toward approval of the project
because it would have less traffic than if it was a completely retail project; there is
already a traffic problem in this area.
• He agreed with Commissioner Fellows regarding the stone garden wall, the side
walks on north side of LePoint and the street lights; he was not sure if the left turn
pocket lane would solve the problem and the "keep clear" signage should be
included.
• He understands the neighbor's concerns with this project, but there will be a project
at this site regardless, and while circulation is an issue he was likely to vote in favor
of the project if the right motion could be crafted.
• He would like to see a recommendation to Council regarding creek clean up,
flooding and good language to take care of the 100-year flood level.
Commissioner Tait asked Mr. Devens if an analysis had been done on the culvert, as
recommended in the 2002 DEIR. Mr. Devens stated there is a study being done, currently
being reviewed, for a property owner on the corner of Le Point and carried all the way down
to East Branch Street.
Mr. Strong explained that flooding is evident on the property; it is addressed in the EIR and
it is mandatory that the new development be protected from flooding or it would not be
permitted; it is a Federal requirement and is in the Code.
Commissioner Keen stated that it was not the responsibility of the Commission to design
the project; the Commission should either deny or approve the project.
Commissioner Fellows stated he would be more comfortable with a denial of this project as
trying to craft a motion to include every concern could leave something important out.
After further Commission discussion, (on how they should move fonvard) Chair Brown
stated that as the project is currently proposed a majority of the Commission have enough
concerns that one or more of the findings cannot be met; he would like to see the project
move forward in some positive manner; he asked the applicant if he would like to comment.
Joe Boud, the applicanYs representative:
• This proposal has been before all committees for over a year with pre-application
review to gain insight and make adjustments.
• He is fine with the suggestion of sloping the drives down; losing the gate; minor
adjustments to the building materials, even though the ARC has already
recommended approval of this project as submitted:
• Traffic: The conclusions from the traffic study indicated the LOS was not going to be
affected; there were no major traffic problems except during school rush hour.
• Having a walkway between the Barn and Maud's house is a good idea.
• Crown Terrace: 24-foot street width is equal to two travel lanes.
MINUTES PAGE 7
PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 19, 2005
• Unit max count and square footage: We meet the City's zoning code and the project
was designed with this in mind.
• Regarding the loss of the 6 parking spaces and the barn, the applicant would agree
to retain the barn in iYs entirety if the Commission would be willing to approve a
parking reduction if that portion of the barn were to convert to a full retail use; losing
square footage on the new commercial building to reduce parking requirements
would be a problem.
• The size of units is directed by the footprint and the garage on the top level, etc; it
would not work to squeeze down the units; he explained all the constraints that had
to be considered.
• If City can avoid street lights, that would be fine with them.
• The creek and flooding: The permitting authorities will take care of this; it is all part
of the EIR.
• Open space and recreational usage: Approximately 25% of the site is dedicated to
open space; they would not be in favor of reducing the units to provide more.
• Widening Crown Terrace would require a massive retaining wall and they did not
consider this necessary.
• They could do a scale model.
• He would like the Commission to make a recommendation that includes their
concerns.
Fellows:
• Why do the "out of town" experts state that there will not be a traffic problem at this
site even though the traffic experts failed to see the traffic problem at Rancho
Grande. Mr. Boud — he could only speak for fhe traffic report at this development
and they have indicated that the LOS would not be negatively affected with this
project.
Tait:
i • Who is going to do the creek clean up? Mr. Boud— the applicant with the required
agency approvals; the creek walkway system if it extends up to Tally Ho could be
created for the bene�t of the public; could be conditioned to idenfify this as a
desired goal; they believe they have enough open space (25% of the site).
• The scale model is definitely needed. Mr. Boud — suggested that fhe City
incorporate this as a requirement into the application process.
Parker:
• Asked Mr. Boud to clarify if they intended to open up the park for the public. Mr.
i Boud— if the City would maintain the area and the amenity area included as a credit
� to the development.
• Asked if there was a pedestrian access between the Barn and Maud's Home would
they agree to continue the path to the park if the City would maintain it? Mr. Boud—
agree this would be a good idea for the City.
� • Re the design submitted by Mr. Balgeman: How do you plan on putting up guard
' rails along the driveways and still maintain visual access for backing out. Mr. Boud—
it could be done wifhout a solid wall and would meet the building standards.
After further discussion the Commission agreed that they were ready to make a motion with
some recommendations to Council.
MINUTES PAGE 8
PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 19, 2005
Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to
recommend denial of the proposal based on the inability to make finding #2 that the
project will affect public health and safety.
Chair Brown asked that the motion be amended to include finding No. 1 (as it is not
consistent with the goals and objectives of the City), and finding No. 3 (for historic resources
, as the applicant is proposing to remove the back portion of the barn).
The motion was amended:
Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to
recommend denial of the proposal based on the inability to make findings No. 1, 2
and 3.
Commissioner Parker asked if the motion to deny was based on the findings not being met
i in the current proposal and that it does not include what the developer is willing to change?
She would like a motion to state what the developer is willing to change.
Chair Brown stated that the motion to deny was based on the findings in the current
proposal.
� The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Fellows, Tait, Parker and Chair Brown
NOES: Commissioner Keen
ABSENT: None
Discussion:
Chair Brown stated he wanted to make sure that the Council would be aware of all of the
issues that the Commission had concerns with. Commissioner Keen asked if more specific
detail should be included regarding the findings for denial. Chair Brown added that
regarding finding No. 1 he did have some concerns for pedestrian access to the creek,
pedestrian recreation area and if the terms of the General Plan are being met by the open
space. Commission Fellows stated that he had not made specific mention in finding No. 1
that the lack of bio-filtration of run off water as one of the concerns for public health and
taking off the back of the barn (finding 1 & 3).
Chair Brown made a motion that the project could meet the findings if the following
issues were dealt with:
1. The driveways on Crown Terrace should be level or down sloped to the street.
2. The barn should be preserved in its entirety with net loss of three parking spaces
and include a parking reduction for the barn or reduction in the proposed retail
space to accommodate the loss of three parking spaces.
3. Provide public access to creek and park open space area.
4. There should be no gate, but have a "look back" provision to reassess after one
year. Enough space should be left if it is determined that a gate is necessary at
a later date.
5. The building design, height and materials should go back to ARC and Planning
Commission before issuance of a building permit.final development.
MINUTES PAGE 9
PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 19, 2005
6. There should be further determination and detailed description of any retaining
walls along Crown Terrace.
7. The issue of biological creek filters should be included in the staff report to
Council
8. A model to scale of the project in its entirety should be presented to Council.
9. The project should be reduced by one unit in Plan 'B" to improve on-site loading
and parking.
10. The creek access between the Barn and Maud house should be opened up to
provide a pedestrian path out to the sidewalk. �
Commissioner Tait asked if the Branch Street flood study of the culvert would influence the
project? Mr. Devens replied that it is currently under review, but is not for this project.
Commissioner Tait asked again about the clean up of the creek and stated his concern.
Chair Brown said he would amend the motion to state: "the staff report shall include that
some investigation be done as to the process timelines and responsibilities of clean
up of the creek".
Commission Parker seconded the motion.
Commissioner Keen stated he agreed that it was very important to clean up the creek, but
that he did not think it was the developer's problem and felt instead that it is the City's
responsibility. He requested an additional amendment to the motion to include the 4-way
stop and the 3-way stop be lit and one street light in the middle of Crown Terrace (but not at
the same spacing as downtown).
Commissioner Parker stated that street lighting for residential areas could be applied to this,
not Village commercial lighting.
Chair Brown said he would amend the motion to investigate if Crown Terrace could
have residential lighting as opposed to commercial Village lighting.
Commissioner Fellows questioned the reason for eliminating the gate; Chair Brown stated
to make full use of the mixed use design parking, but the "look-back" provision should be
included.
Commissioner Fellows stated circulation is a huge problem, fewer units will not help, there
is lack of a biological filter for drainage to the creek and where Crown Hill stops at Branch
Street there should be a crosswalk, with or without the project.
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Brown, Commissioners Parker and Tait
NOES: Commissioners Keen and Fellows
ABSENT: None
The Commission took a 10-minute break.
ATTACHMENT2 ;
l >
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
JUNE 14, 2005
PAGE 6
Council Member Amold moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ESTABLISHING WATER AND SEWER
RATES AND CHARGES", and approving the tiered rate structure with yearly usage monitoring.
Following discussion, the motion was amended to include that the tiered water rate schedule
would be implemented as soon as feasible and a water conservation status report would be
provided a year from the date of implementation. Council Member Guthrie seconded the
amended motion. Following further discussion concerning monitoring and reporting, the motion
carried on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Arnold, Guthrie, Dickens, Costello, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Council Member Arnold moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE SETTING FORTH THE AMOUNT OF
LOPEZ CONTRACT CHARGES". Council Member Dickens seconded, and the motion carried
on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Arnold, Dickens, Guthrie, Costello, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
, At 8:25 p.m. at the request of Council Member Dickens, the Council unanimously agreed to take
a recess to allow time to review correspondence received at the beginning of the meeting
relating to Item 9.c.
Mayor Ferrara reconvened the meeting at 838 p.m.
9.c. Consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 04-004 and Planned Unit
Development Case No. 04-001; Applicant— DB & M Properties, LLC; Location —415
East Branch Street.
Associate Planner Heffernon presented the staff report and recommended the Council consider
an Addendum to a certified Environmental Impact Report and a proposal for a commercial retail,
o�ce and residential project. The Planning Commission recommended the City Council deny the
project as presented at the April 19, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Associate Planner
Heffernon noted that the applicant had since made changes to the project in accordance with
Planning Commission and public comment. Staff responded to questions from Council.
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing.
Joe Boud, Joseph Boud & Associates, spoke on behalf of the applicant and gave a brief
background presentation on the status and design of the project which has been in progress for
the past five years. He stated that the proposed mixed-use project had been presented to the
Council as a pre-application last year in order to better understand the City's goals and
expectations for the site. He stated the project had been reviewed by the Staff Advisory
Committee, Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and Planning Commission and support
letters had been provided by the Chamber of Commerce and Village Improvement Association.
He explained that the project had been redesigned as a result of feedback received. He referred
CITY COUNCILlREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
JUNE 14, 2005
PAGE 7
to Conditians #79 and #94 and suggested a change to the requirement for full sidewalk
improvements along Le Point Street; had agreed to the down slope driveways on Crown
Terrace; commented that the barn had been retained; referred to Condition #6 which requires an
open space agreement and a trail easement; commented that the applicant agreed to eliminate
the gate between the residential and commerciai components; stated that the driveway between
the barn and Maude house had been eliminated; stated they had aiso agreed to return the
project back to the Planning Commission and ARC and suggested that a condition for this be
added; noted that a guard raii sample had been provided which would be reviewed by the
Pianning Commission and ARC; noted that a storm drain filter sampie had been provided; and
noted that a scale model of the project had been prepared. He commented that the creek
cleanup and restoration comments made at Planning Commission would be managed through
the mitigation-monitoring program as specified in the EIR, as weli as compliance with the flood
control ordinance. He stated that they agreed to modify the streetiights, which may require a
change to Condition #72. He conciuded by stating that almost every item the Pianning
Commission brought up was incorporated into the project with the exception of the loss of one
residential unit. He stated the project complies with all development code standards; the
commercial building was designed to compliment the Loomis building, and the bungalow sryle
residential units were designed to compliment the Village. He stated he hoped this was a project
the Council could support. Mr. Boud responded to questions from Council concerning circulation
issues surroundi�g the project; the proposed height of the commercial building; the proposed
trail easement, proposed fencing, and clarification concerning required setbacks.
Earl Balaeman, Le Point Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed project and stated he had
only heard about this project in January. He suggested involving the neighborhood earlier, at the
beginning of the process. Ne expressed concerns regarding safety on Crown Terrace and Le
Point Street due to increased traffic generated from the development, density of the proposed
project, as well as ingress and egress from Crown Terrace.
James Norbv, Le Point Street, opposed the design of the project and said it did not make sense
to have 24 u�its exiting the development onto a dead-end street. He also said he heard the
adjacent property owner would not grant an easement and that this should be required so a
driveway could be used from E. Branch Street,
Carol Fulmer, Le Point Street, asked that the project include a crosswalk where the sidewalks on
Crown Terrace and Le Point already intersect near the proposed isiand. She expressed concern
that the growth of this area has not yet been addressed and it was not fair to dump the traffic
from a mixed-use project into a well-established urban area; agreed that the tra�c shouid be put
onto the commercial streets and not back into the neighborhood,
Bill McCann, Crown Hill, began by stating that the proposed Creekside Center shouid eventually
be approved in some form and, if done properly, it wiil be a fine addition to the City, However, he
expressed concerns about tra�c impacts on E. Branch Street at the corners of Crown Hill and
Crown Terrace. He believed that a compiete evaluation of the subject propeRy, the Hayes
property, and the Scolari property should be done to determine how best to handle all of the
traffic within the boundaries of E. Branch Street, Crown Terrace, Le Point and Mason Streets. He
spoke of previous traffic studies. He dispiayed photos (on file in the Administrative Services
Department) showing vehicies at these locations during peak hour traffic. He stated he did not
believe that even with the proposed driveway relocation and an added left turn lane, that it would
be adequate to service the development. He also stated it was imperative that a reciprocal
access agreement be obtained with the adjacent property owner to the west and stated that
without this agreement, the size of the project should be reduced. He suggested if the project
was reduced, to eliminate the upper residentiai units on Crown Terrace.
I CITY COUNCILIREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
JUNE 14, 2005
PAGE 8
Ann Balaeman, Le Point Street, referred to the letter she wrote to the Planning Commission
which included 37 signatures of her neighbors opposing the scope of the project as it relates to
tra�c and safety impacts, and asked the Council to visit the site and walk the streets surrounding
the project site.
, Barbara Freel, Le Point Street, referred to the proposed island along Crown Terrace and
expressed concerns that it will be all concrete without any landscaping. She stated she was
unhappy with the trees along Crown Terrace being removed and also expressed concern with
lighting generated from the project and its impact to the residences.
, Camav Arad, owner of Chameleon Fabrics on E. Branch Street, rebutted some of Mr. Boud's
, comments regarding redesign of the project; that the barn was retained (the barn was sold); and
stated that not all of the Planning Commission's suggestions were addressed, including design
materials for the commercial building and creekside access. She referred to the roofline of the
proposed commercial building and objected to the metal roof. She noted that the design of the
commercial portion should be cute, charming, and character driven to attract shoppers.
Steve Ross, Garden Street, commented that the project had gone through the ARC and was
reviewed by people who were familiar with the Cityscape; believed that the project is outside the
strictest area of architecture that would include the Village Core and is in the Village Mixed Use
area as far as zoning. He said if the City intends to provide affordable workforce housing,
' projects like this within the core of the City is where it should be provided. He said he did not
believe this project takes away from the rural feel of the City. He stated that the project should
follow the City's guidelines.
Jacklin Pontarelli, Le Point Street, said there is a unique opportunity in the Village to provide a
project that will benefit the citizens, merchants, and visitors. She spoke of the need to include
businesses that will attract visitors and that those businesses have adequate parking.
Howard Mankins, Hillcrest Drive resident and owner of several businesses in the Village, stated
he has lived here all his life and has watched the changes in the City. He said there is more to
being for or against a project; what is good for the City is what counts. He commented on the
water supply issue. He stated it was important for the Council to consider a project that brings in
sales tax, offers some workforce housing, and stated that projects cannot economically assume
all of the mistakes made around it. He noted that the Village Improvement Association
supported this project and that this project would be good for the Village. He supported the
proposed project.
Greq Moore, Village business owner and member of the Village Improvement Association, spoke
in support of the project. He pointed out the project is compatible with the area and is a nice
addition to the Village, provides a live/work environment, and noted that residents could walk to
the Village for services.
Richard DeBlauw, property owner/applicant, stated that retired people who are interested in the
project have contacted him. He spoke in support of the project.
Susan Flores, E. Branch Street, stated that she sees potential for this project; noted that the
developer is a long time resident of the City; commented that Crown Hill needs to be opened up;
and more sidewalks are needed for the kids. She supported the project as proposed.
John Gutierrez, E. Branch Street, commented that traffic is already coming from other areas of
the City to the Village and he disagreed that the neighborhood would be impacted by additional
traffic. He supported the proposed project.
Mike McConville, E. Branch Street, commented that backing out onto E. Branch Street is tough.
He stated this was a good project and that he felt there was too much negativity surrounding the
project. He suggested that sidewalks be installed on Crown Hill. He supported the project and
Iencouraged the Council to provide the applicant with clear direction.
� _
CITY COUNCIVREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
JUNE 14, 2005
PAGE 9
Michael Bondello, McKinley, acknowledged that the City Council is very concerned with the
details of the project as well as the neighborhood's concerns. He spoke about the existing traffic
problems near Crown Hili and stated that this project will exacerbate the problem.
Ann Balqeman, Le Point Street, noted that the addresses of those who spoke in favor of the
project are not directiy impacted and do not live in the immediate vicinity of the project.
Joe Boud, applicanYs representative, responded to public comments and spoke of the tra�c
studies that have been conducted and the level of service impacts. He also clarified that his
reference to a redesign of the project was from the original 35,000 square foot shopping center
to this proposed mixed-use project of 24 residential units and a 12,000 square foot commercial.
building. He encouraged approval of the project.
Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing.
Council Member Arnold stated one of his concerns was the access through the west side of the
property. He stated he could not support the project until that access is granted. He addressed
the circulation issue; referred to the trees on Crown Terrace and suggested a way to save them;
expressed concern with regard to the scale of the commercial building; requested story poles on
the site; and concluded by stating that most of the issues could be resolved and this could be a
good project. He reiterated that access to the west side of the parcel is criticai.
Council Member Guthrie asked questions of the traffic engineer regarding Crown Hill and E.
Branch. Mr. Dan Dawson replied that detailed studies, tra�c, and pedestrian counts were
conducted during a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Council Member Guthrie stated that he believes
commercial use generates more traffic than residential; that the proposed improvements will
return Crown Terrace to a residential street; the addition of a sidewalk on the west side also
improves the street to a residential nature; and the driveways would contribute more to a
residential nature of Crown Terrace. He stated the net affect is an improvement to Crown
Terrace/Le Point. He expressed a concern about the creek setback/property line issue as it
relates to the residential component. In terms of the commercial component, he acknowledged
that there is a traffc problem at the intersection at certain times of the day; however, the overall
effect at this intersection is not serious according to the City's policies. He shared concerns with
the proposed scale/height of the commercial building. He said the addition of a second entrance
on E. Branch is important and would improve the traffic congestion at Crown Hill and E. Branch.
He concluded by stating that he would need clarification on the creek setback to ensure that
houses are not being built within the creek setback, and agreed that the project needs the
access easement for a second entrance on E. Branch Street. He stated that with those two
additions he could support the project as designed.
Council Member Dickens stated he relies in part on observations and input from residents in the
immediate area for traffic concerns. He reflected on the pre-application process which was
review of a conceptual plan and an opportunity to provide input. He spoke about the focus and
vision for the Village Core. He stated that he had preferred the original commercial project and
did not support the large residential component as presented. He spoke about the site and said
a project needs to capitalize on its assets, including creekside access, close proximity to the
Village, and the historic features and buildings on the site. He objected to the size and scale of
the three-story commercial building which dwarfs the existing barn; did not see adequate
pedestrian access or pathways to the Village; and felt there were land use conflicts between the
commercial and residential uses. He stated there was also a conflict between the residential and
open space. He commented that historically, this parcel has had no access to Crown Terrace
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
JUNE 14, 2005
PAGE 10
and that it needs to be widened and improved to City standards. He was not in favor of
relinquishment of any easements along Le Point, and stated that future circulation and access
issues need to be addressed. He noted that circulation within the development was imperative
and that circulation must include access to the west. He suggested the appiicant look at the
assets this parcel provides, capitalize on those assets, and mitigate traffic circulation problems
more effectively.
Mayor Pro Tem Costello inquired how many trees were proposed to be removed. He expressed
concern with the left turn pocket as proposed; the driveway as proposed on E. Branch Street
conflicts with Crown Hill intersection; stated that access from the west side of the property needs
to be in place first; supported the four way stop at Crown Terrace and Le Point; did not have a
problem with the driveways backing out into the street; noted that lighting impacts are mitigated
and should not create a nuisance for the residential neighborhood; suggested a one year review
period on an interior gate; agreed that pedestrian circulation needed to be improved; supported
the proposed density and noted that in order to preserve agricultural in the City, we need to look
at other areas for development; requested clarification regarding the open space and potential
impacts to the homes; clarification regarding the creek setback; and stated at this point he could
not support the project.
Mayor Ferrara asked staff to address the potential for phasing the project. Director Strong stated
there was initially a recommendation to phase the project to defer the 12,000 square foot
commercial building until the western access was obtained. He said the applicant has been in
negotiations with the owner of the property located to the west.
Mayor Ferrara noted that a considerable amount of progress had been made on this project. He
acknowledged existing problems surrounding the site. He stated that size, scale and intensity of
use are the most critical issues in the Village. He stated he was pleased that negotiations were
undervvay to obtain access to the western portion of the site. He agreed the creek setback and
open space issues need to be clarified. He expressed appreciation for the three dimensional
model; did not support the proposed roofline of the commercial building; stated that the
commercial building needs to blend in better with the barn; supported the concept of "less
verticality, more horizontality' and stated it needed to be softened and/or flattened. He liked the
idea of phasing of the project overall for circulation purposes and stressed the need for a
manageable circulation segment. He had issues with the results of the traffic study based on his
actual experience. He stated with additional modifications, the project would work. He
commented that live/work units are not working in this area and supported the concept of small
residential units, with proper landscaping.
Council Member Arnold moved to continue to a date uncertain consideration of Vesting Tentative
Tract Map Case No. 04-004 and Planned Unit Development Case No. 04-001; Applicant— DB &
M Properties, LLC; Location —415 East Branch Street. Council Member Guthrie seconded, and
the motion carried on the following roli-call vote:
AYES: Arnold, Guthrie, Costello, Ferrara
NOES: Dickens
ABSENT: None
Mayor Ferrara requested, and the Council concurred, to move Agenda Item 10.a. up on the
Agenda for consideration prior to Item 9.d.
� - ATTACHMENT3
RECORDING REQUESTED BY: )
) I,
DB&M PROPERTIES, LLC )
)
AND WHEN RECORDED RET[lRN T0: ) ,'
J Johnson, Attorney at Law ) Q � � �..o � �F� �� �
PO Box 3 � I � �.� T"1
Grover Beach, CA 93483 )
� � ��
' �e c c�f�� �
��
MAY � 3 2006
GRANT OF EASEMENTS FOR EXCLUSI�7E
PARKING AND SEWER LATERAL CIN OFARROYO Gi2ANDE
COMMUNIN DEVELOPMENT
Preamble
This Agreement made this Z.S 'f�`" day of April, 2006 by and
between DB&M PROPERTIES, LLC, a California Limited Liability
Company, hereinafter referred to as "Grantor, " and MILTON F.
HAYES and MARY J. HAYES, Husband and Wife, hereinafter referred to
as "Grantee. "
Recitals
WHEREAS, "Grantor" is the owner of certain real property in
the city of Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, State of
California, hereinafter referred to as the "Servient Tenement, "
and described as follows :
[SEE EXHIBIT "A" FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION]
WHEREAS, "Grantee" is the owner of certain real property, in
the city of Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, State of
California, hereinafter referred to as the "Dominant Tenement, "
and described as follows :
[SEE EXHIBIT "B" FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION]
1
-,
NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows :
1 . Grant o£ Sewer Lateral Easement
A. "Grantor" hereby grants to "Grantee" an easement
as hereinafter described.
Character of Easement
B. The easement granted herein is appurtenant to the
Dominant Tenement.
Description of Sewer Easexnent
C. The Easement granted herein is an easement
appurtenant for installation of a sanitary sewer line
for sewage emanating from dominant tenement only.
Location of Sewer Easement
D. See EXHIBIT "C" for a map of the location. See
EXHIBIT "D" for a legal description.
Exclusiveness o£ Easement
E. The easement granted herein is not exclusive.
Secondary Easement
F. The easement granted herein includes incidental
rights of maintenance, repair, and replacement . The
easement shall include the right to install, maintain
and repair the sewer line. The dominant tenement shall
return the sub-surface and surface area to the same
condition as it was in prior to installation,
maintenance and repair.
2. Grant o£ Exclusive Parkina Easement
"Grantor" hereby � grants to "Grantee" an easement as
hereinafter described.
Description of Parking Easement
A. The easement granted herein is an easement
appurtenant for parking and access to the parking area
for use by "Grantee" only.
2
Location of Exclusive Parking Easement
B. See EXHIBIT "E" for a map of the location. See
EXHIBIT "F" for legal description.
Exclusiveness of Easement
C. The easement granted herein is exclusive.
Secondary Easement
D. The easement granted herein includes incidental
rights of maintenance, repair and replacement .
"Grantor" and all their successors (as defined in
paragraph 7 below) shall maintain the easement in a
good and clean condition which shall include a good
quality seal coat every three (3) years or sooner if
necessary, repair and replacement of asphalt if
necessary and other maintenance to keep the easement in
good condition. "Grantor" shall pay for all of the
maintenance as and for part of the consideration for
obtaining a driveway access agreement. "Grantee" and
their successors (as defined in paragraph 7 below)
shall pay no cost of maintenance repair or replacement .
Should the parking area be in need of maintenance,
"Grantee" shall notify "Grantor" of required
maintenance. "DB&M" shall have 90 days to complete the
necessary maintenance. If the necessary maintenance is
not complete in 90 days, weather or an act of God an
exception, then "Grantee" may pay to have the
maintenance done and collect the actual costs plus 20�
as agreed upon liquidated damages plus attorney' s fees
if it is necessary to collect by court action.
3 . Insurance
"Grantor" sha11 name "Grantee" as additional insured
and keep a liability insurance policy in effect on the
parking easement with limits of at least $1, 000, 000 . 00
4 . Non-Assianment
The dominant tenement cannot assign any rights in the
easement to any other person. The easement does run
with the land as described in paragraph 7 below.
3
5. Entire Aareement /
This instrument contains the entire agreement between
the parties relating to the rights herein granted ' and
the obligations herein assumed. Any oral
representations or modifications concerning this
instrument shall be of no force and effect excepting a
subsequent modification in writing, signed by the party
to be charged.
6. Attornev' s Fees
In the event of any controversy, claim, or dispute
relating to this instrument or the breach thereof, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the
losing party reasonable expenses, attorney' s fees; and
costs .
7 . Bindina Effect
This instrument shall bind and inure to the benefit of
the respective heirs, personal representatives,
successors, and assigns of the parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
instrument the day and year first above written.
GRANTOR GRANTEE
DB&M Properties, LLC
a California Limited Liability
Company ,
� /
,%) �r�'?�i%1" .�Yl� ���r'��<� ' =� �. : �✓
By: RICHARD P. DeBLAUW, �LTON F. HAYES
PRESIDENT
� /Q
By• JAMES R. MATTHEWS, MAR " J. YES
MEMBER
4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss .
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO )
On �.{,Q�,� 02 , 2006, before me �(�,►�y� �Q1'tfl �i}-��J[' ,
a Notary Public for the State of California, personally appeared
Milton F. Hayes and Mary J. Haves, personally known to me or proved to me
on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons whose names are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they
executed the same in their authorized capacities, and that by their
signatures on the instrument the persons, or the entities upon behalf of
which the persons acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
I(AREN MAfiIE BECHT�I�
y � COMM.�1359278 �
� � �� � County oi Sart W's p�y'ga�o �n
'Nbt ry Public � MY Comm.Exp.Jure 2,2006
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO )
On 7Y�,a...� 3 , 2 0 0 6, b e f o re me 7'�.�/.�,;.,, �. Ce--�s�t-e�n� ,
a Notary ubl c for the State of California, pe�sonally appeared
Richard P. DeBlauw and James R. Matthews, personally known to me or
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons
whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that they executed the same in their authorized capacities, and that
by their signatures on the instrument the persons, or the entities upon
behalf of which the persons acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal .
t �.° �--C���-a-�c_.
NO dry Pllb11C BOBBIE L COLESON
�"" Commission# 1383921
� :!�,y Notary Public - California >
� `y San Luis Oblspa County
� V MyComm.ExpiresDec6.2006
5
LEGAL DESCRIPTION .
EXHIBIT"A"
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE,COUNTY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL 1: (A portion of APN: 007-203-017)
That portion of Block 38 of Beckett's Crown Hili Addition to the Town of Arroyo Grande, in the City of Arroyo
Grende, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map recorded )une 19, 1905 in Book A,
Page 57 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County,and of the street adjoining said Block 38
on the Northeast described as a whole as follows:
Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 1 in said Biock 38;
thence North 61° East along the Southerly line of said Block, 226 feet;
thence North 29° West, 187.5 feet;
thence Northwesterly across said street to the Southeast corner of Lot 14 of said Block 38;
thenceSouYh 61°West alon9 the Southerly iine of Lots 14 and 25 of said Block 38, 237.5 feet to the Southwest
corner of said Lot 25;
thence South 29° East across said street and along the East line of said Biock 38, 237.5 feet to the point of
beginning.
IXCEPTING therefrom that portion of Block 38 and of the street adjoining said Block 38 on the Northeast,
described as a whoie as follows:
Beginning at the most Easterly corner of Lot 9 of said Biak 38;
thence North 29° West, 187.5 feet;
thence Northwesterly across said street to the Southeast corner of Lot 14 of said Biock 38;
thence South 61° West, along the Southerly line of Lot 14 of said Block 38, 65.30 feet;
thence South 29° East, 237.5 feet to a point on the Southerly line of said Block 38, said point being located
South 61° West, 4 feet from the most Southerly corner of Lot 8 of said Block 38;
thence North 61° East, 54 feet to the point of beginning.
ALSO IXCEPTING therefrom Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 26, 27, 28 and 29 in said Block 38;
ALSO EXCEPTING therefrom that portion of the street within Block 38, designated on said map as "Street"
which was abandoned by Resolution No.72 of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande,a certified copy of
which was recorded May 10, 1939 in Book 257, Page 440 of Official Records, bounded as follows:
Bounded Southeasterly by the Northwesteriy line of Lot 26;
Bounded Northeasteriy by the Northwesterly prolongation of the Northeasteriy line of Lot 26;
Bounded Northwesterly by the Southeasterly line of Lot 25;
Bounded Southwester�y by the Northwesterly prolongation of the Southwesterly line of Lot 26.
Also Excepting therefrom that portion conveyed to Adair Brown and Trudy Brown by Grant Deed recorded]une
�6, 2004 in Instrument No. 2004-055175 of Official Records.
PARCEL 2: (A portion of APN: 007-203•017)
That portion of Block 38 of Beckett's Crown Hill Addition to the Town of Arroyo Grande, in the City of Arroyo
Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map recorded )une 19, 1905 in Book A,
Page 57 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County,and of the street adjoining said Block 38
on the Northeast described as a whole as follows:
Beginning at the most Easterly corner of Lot 9 of said Block 38;
thence North 29° West, 187.5 feet;
thence Northwesterly across said street to the Southeast corner of Lot 14 of said Block 38;
thenCe South 61° West, along the Southerly line of Lot 14 of said Block, 6530 feet;
thence South 29° East, 237.5 feet to the Southerly line of said Block 38, said point being located South 61°
EXHIBIT °A° page 1 of 2
D(HIBIT"A"(con[inued)
West, 4 feet from the most Southerly corner of Lot 8 of said Block;
thence North 61° East, 54 feet to the point of beginning,
PARCEL 3: (APN: 007-203-013)
Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 in Blak 38 of Beckett's Crown Hill Addition to the Town of Arroyo Grande, in the
C'ity of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map recorded ]une 19,
1905 in Book A, Page 57 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said Counry.
PARCEL 4: (A portion of 007-204-003)
Commencing at the most Northerly corner of�ot 13 in Block 38 of Beckett's Crown Hill Addition to the Town of
Arroyo Grande, in the City of Arroyo Grande,County of San Luis Obispo,State of Caiifornia, according to map
recorded ]une 19, 1905 in Book A, Page 57 of Maps, in the o�ce of the County Recorder of said County;
thence North 61° East to the Westerly line of the right of way of the Pacific Coast Railway Company;
thence Southerly along the said Westerly line of said right of way to its intersection with the Easterly line of Lot
9 of said Blak 38;
thence Northerly along the Easterly line of Lots 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of said Blak, to the point of beginning.
PARCEL 5: (007-204-003)
That portion of the Pac�c Coast Railway right of way as described in the deed to the San Luis Obispo and
Santa Maria Valley Railroad Company,a corporation, recorded August 13, 1881 in Book N, Page 228 of Deeds,
of Beckett's Crown Hill Addition to the Town of Arroyo Grande, in the City of Arroyo Grande,County of San Luis
Obispo,State of Cal'rfornia,according to map recorded)une 19, 1905 in book A, page 57 of Maps, in the office
of the County Recorder of said County, which lies between the Southeasterly line of Le Point Street and the
Northeasterty protongation of the Southeasterly line of Blak 38 of said Beckett's Crown Hill Addition.
EXCEPTING therefrom ail of the minerals, oil,gas and other hydraarbon substances within or underlying said
land as reserved in the deed from Bell Petroleum Company, recorded )uly 26, 1950 in Book 572, Page 400 of
Official Records.
PARCEL 6: (APN 007-204-001)
All of Blak 36 of Beckett's Crown Hill Addition to the Town of Arroyo Grande, in the City of Arroyo Grande,
County of San Luis Obispo,State of California,according to map recorded)une 19, 1905 in Book A, Page 57 of
Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County.
EXHIBIT "A" page 2 of 2
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PARCEL 1:
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 29 in Blak 38 of Beckett's Crown Hiil Addition to the Town of Arroyo Grande, in the City of
Arroyo Grantle, County of San Luis Obispo, State of Caiifornia, according to map recorded in Book A, Page 57
of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County.
PARCEL 2:
That portion of Taly Ho Street as shown on the map of Beckett's Crown Hill Addition to the Town of Arroyo
Grande, in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of Calffornia, according to map
recorded in Book A, page 57 of Maps, which was abandoned by Resolution No. 167 of the City Council of the
city of Arroyo Grande, a Cert�ed Copy of which was recorded November 20, 1953 in Book 734, page 255 of
Official Records, that would pass by a conveyance as to Parcel 1 above.
PARCEL 3:
Lots 26, 27 and 28 in Blak 38 of Beckett's Crown Hill Add'Rion to the Town of Arroyo Grande, in the Ciry of
Arroyo Grende,County of San Luis Obispo, State of Cal'rfornia,according to map recorded in Book A, Page 57
of Maps, in the o�ce of the County Recorder of said County.
PARCEL 4:
That portion of the stree[within elak 38 of Beckett's Crown Hill Addtion to the Town of Arroyo Grande, in the
City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map recorded in Book A,
Page 57 of Maps,designated on said map as"StreeY'which was abandoned by Resolution No. 72 of the City
Council of the City of Arroyo Grande, a Certified Copy of which was recorded May 10, 1939 in Book 257, page
440 of Official Records, bounded as foilows:
Southeasterty by the Northwesterly line of Lot 26 in said Blak 38;
Northeasterly by the Northwesterly prolongation of the Northeasterly line of Lot 26 in said Blak 38;
Northwestery by the Southeasterly line of Lot 25 in said Bbck 38;
Southwesterly by the Northwesterly prolongation of the Southwesterly line of Lot 26 in said Blak 38.
PARCEL 5:
That portion of Taly Ho Street as shown on the map of Beckett's Crown Hill Addition to the Town of Arroyo
Grande, Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of Cal'rfornia, according to map recorded in Book A,
Page 57 of Maps,whkh was abandoned by Resolution No. 167 of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande,
a Certified Copy of which was recorded November 20, 1953 in Book 734, page 255 of Official Recorcis,bounded
as fo�lows:
Southwesterly by the Southwesterly iine of the Northeasteriy 30 feet of said Tally Ho Street;
Southeasterly by the Southwesterly prolonqation of the Southeasterly line of Lot 28 in Block 38 of said
Beckett's Crown Hill Addi[ion to the Town of Arroyo Grande;
Northeasterly by the Southwescerly lines of Lots 28, 27 and 26, in said Block 38 and the Northwesterly
prolongation of the Southwesterty line of said said Lot 26;
Northwesterly by the Southwesterly prolongation of the Southeasterly line of Lot 25 in said Blak 38.
APN: 007-203-15 and 16
EXHIBIT nBn
EXHIBIT
SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT
OVER A PORTION `
OF BLOCK 38
OF BECKETT'S CROWNHILL ADDITION
TO THE TOWN OF ARROYO GRANDE
CITY OP ARROYO GRANDE.
STATE OF CAUFORNIA ,
� _ —
///�BOI E�MA� TOI EIMOVE
///���� _ _ _ FUTURE _ _
—. SSMH
� FORMERLY HARDIN STREET�� ������ 87,79� SS
ABANDONED PER 257—OR-440
N`�22� � ��
POINT OF��I FOOj V'n�E
BEGINNING �� WER
� SAN�TARY SE
EASEMENT I
� LOT
o - -
�°
_ , LOT 26 � LOT 4
� i I
�Q � - - - - - - - - - -
' LOT 27
� °�° LOT > 0
g Oi
O p
� N V
- - - - ' 3
i � I
� LOT 28 L 0 C � - - -
� I
- - - - �
I -LOT 29 - � � ti
� �°R�
_ 3p•
� � - � i
f �
� I I I � I
i 1i 2 i g i q LOT 11
L�T L�T L�T L�T 3 I
I � � �
i i i � � � i ��
i i i i z �-o c
_ _ _ _ _ 1 � _ _ _ _ _ _ _
EAST BRANCH STREET
EXHIBIT "C" .
; EXHIBIT .
A ten foot wide Easement for Sanitary Sewer and Incidental Purposes lying over, under
and upon a portion of Block 38 of BecketYs Crown Hill Addition to the Town of Arroyo
Grande in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obis po, State of California,
according to Map recorded June 19, 1905 in Book A, Page 57 of Maps, in the office of
the County Recorder of said County, the centerline of which is more particularly
described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the Northerly projection of the line between Lots 26 and 13 of
said Block 38 which bears North 28° 49' 52" West, 209.86 feet from the Southeast
corner of Lot 4 of said Block 38; thence leaving said projection, North 52° 5'I' S1" East,
67.79 feet to the future location of a proposed sanitary sewer manhole. The westeriy
ends of the sidelines of said 10 foot wide Easement shall be lengthened and/or
shortened to meet the beginning boundary line.
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT
EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR
PARKING PURPOSES
OVER A PORTION
Of BLOCK 38 OF
�
1 \ — — � — — � — — CITY 0�ARR0�Y0 GRANDE ANOE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
N28'26'40"W 142.02'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -POINT OF��
I COMMENCMENT I
� I
� �
I � _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ �
I �
I I
��ORnr MI �
�3�' �I I i
�I I �
I �
I �
� I I
— — � — — — —
� �3 i2 3� ii I I io I �, W ,
� � �I I I �— - - _ — W
�� � I � �
I ' I � I I---
I N� I - - � - - I �
I �
� � � I I � _
� R=3.00' � I � BILOCKI 38 ^ z
�=5330'S4"
L=I2.80'^ �� � � I � - - I m
I — —�
R=23.00' � �
�=53'22'14 � b
L=21.42' � — � I � �
I I I�
� �� I I �- - _ — _ �
M I � � Q
w 13 � I � W
3 N28'73'27"W 54.00' M � I _
�.
M o EXCLUSIVE o � �N � �"
a � PARKING � � �n
' ^ EASEMENT Z �'" � �-- --��- - -- - - - -- - - - - -
—1O � R=3.00 I I
N 528'73'27"E 54.00' I \\p=90'22' •'
TRUE \ L=4.73' e I
P.0.8. �N28'13'27"W I
� 4.59' ( —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — —
I ��-- - - - � - - - - - �
I � � I I I
26 27 I 28 � 29 � — �' —
� � — —1
EXHIBIT °E"
EXHIBIT
An Exclusive Easement for Parking and Incidental Purposes lying over, under and upon
a portion of Block 38 of Beckett's Crown Hill Addition fo the Town of Arroyo Grande in
the City of Arroyo Grande, County of S an Luis Obispo, State of Califor nia, according to
Map recorded June 19, 1905 in Book A, Page 57 of M aps, in the o�ce of the County
Recorder of said Counfij, said Easement being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a point on the Northerly right of way line of B ranch Street which bears
South 61° 00' 00"West, 101.55 feet from the Southeast corner of Block 36 of Beckett's
Crown Hiil Addition; thence
North 28° 26' 40" West, 142.02 feet; thence
South 61° 15' 14"West, 141.73 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the
North and having a radius of 3.00 feet; thence
Along said curve Westerly and to the Right through a Central Angle of 53° 30' 54" for an
Arc Length of 2.80 feet to the beginning of a tangent Reverse curve concave to the
South and having a Radius of 23.00 f eet; thence
Along said curve Westerly and to the Left through a Central A ngle of 53° 22' 14" for an
Arc Length of 21.42 feet; thence
South 61° 23' S5"West, 38.52 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the
North and having a Radius of 3.00 fe et; thence
Along said curve Westerly and to the Right through a Central Angle of 90° 22' 38" for an
Arc Le�gth of 4.73 feet; thence
• North 28° 13' 27" West 4.59 feet to the True Point of beginning; thence
North 61° 46' 33" East, 18.00 feet; thence
North 28° 13' 27" West, 54.00 feet; thence
South 61° 46' 33" West, 18.00 feet; thence
South 28° 13' 27" East, 54.00 feet to the True Point of beginning.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM any portion lying within the property of the Grantee.
EXHIBIT ^F"
CREEKSIDE � IATTACHMENT4 �
Creek easement, Open Space - r
& Setback Exhibit
�- .
� ' S , r"
` �' • ��
<,
� '
HOA common open space ' � .� .�
t
easement area (shaded) °' � • � � �
-,...�.
� new sycamore
�
• . .� ' -4'SNubs '
� '
centerline of creek I
• ' ii� � o
� !F
'x .{
top of creekbank � � ,�<. b���
� ena
� �S Vash
< <
s
;x•
x ♦
25' setback/dedication area—� „ : ��:"" " ' � T
. ; �.
(includes stream bed and �:. `��'�X'� �`
�u.. ,,y;,3.�.��,��;..;
setback area; per 16.64.060) �. j
;: �•
0
..r` � o
z-
FEMA fioodplain setback line °
� . �
�a m !�
CREEKSIDE 2
Creek Landscaping & Improvement Ptan Exhib9t
:-�e��
split rail(ence �
6'wide hYPicap .
concrete or '
sealetl tlewmposed
granita path —
�ie
aiea wthin�ek setbSCk �� \\ �
to centeAine ot creeK shall be !
dtlresseE iri suDSepuent
Riparieh Plan �
� e�ilst oek to remaln> ' �C
( �/ �
_ �
/ >
1 new sycdmare �
1
, —4'shrubs
I . _� ..,';..', � _
� � r.,. ., , . . �
/ . sod
playsiructure(ages 2-12) ':�:•. , O
�with resiliaqt,accessib�e `\ S
0 surtacin9 : �� 1'�' ' S
1
S`� Qc'�'
\�m mm'� ,K
�m ��� :�J:. .
� ���Q / pikes �
• ,i, � 0nd
tfash
OC?�' �``� � � ,
new retlwoods ��
/ MyaOorum scraen �,.
a� 'a
1 �
�
1 �a �
' 4'shniDSCreen . O � , Q
� • . .. • .. . . � W� • )
/ -sF
' • (
j � � . . � +
�REEI�SIDE
3
Creek Grading P�an Exhibit' --
, � (
�,
< �. DENSE � •t `� �. e,��;vft` t5" C6
� v .�� a
� VEGETATION
� -
��, } N61'03'47' 185.t5' ��Wt •tg^ 1NE
_ _ � ' "" ,`,,,,: y`. .
� /` y `
, � �� L i
I14.20 TQP �� � "� �
{ ( � � \`� ' � S �C� ' FFL�S
I > �--s ' ; FF'?0
y � , ',
� �' �. 30" 0
� ` c/ O - - l
` � _ /� _ _---- �
�ENSE /� �
' � � / \ �/QS� .
� � �� � �
�'l-y. �
VEGETASION / c0 F�l•S ��O C
, � � /
1 w '; . � ^y'
� Jh� � �. '/
( W / '
Y � ^ n �� �/ ^ �\ f �
i/ ^ ,, �
J ^
1
` �� , . — — � _ — — � ` � 7165 t
�
� �. , , , ���
/!/ SQ ', � • ' !/� I ,
r/ H � � CqR J� . � ,
Jf � F275 fp70 � -�0.57r �
/ � � � F)�' ./ i t
�O �' � Sp -` '_ � ;-
: .� � ' --a: i
� c�* ` J � I �'O' ' �
° l� ,r�„'-' ` -,--! ! � ; ���
j -% m .�—..�- / � �
1 ,✓ ��� �O. i
!
O 1�
�� SDM �5.4 Tc � J?r5 I
tp '�rq� F�1sr � "� ��Cl
�'R��� ,: .._ �L:._,
.��'" "'�.r��� /
� �.... �
� N aR '
Tj
�•O I
' _—�� ( � �2�S Gqh, G ,'
� � �)O �1 �2>S �� � .� �+i .,
I I �` � '` `
�
� ? ,,�5�
i � ' —
I N — "
{ � _ _ ti _ _ -- � I i��� �8.
1 �
o ��ss�p � � 1
{ $ ' JAS INES �
{ ,
} �if1� .1 � `17r ��;
1 � i i
�, f�
' ,l`' J � � — _6rF'_—_�- � w � �' � (�J t
f f � _— -- �
� , , I
• � � - - - , • � � . • � •
� �
I.'i i,' �
'•� � �����L_= _ -- _ -
� �-- -� .�-�--�r � ��n►��`l
j ��ij���.irls"sY�:�r< '' � rwyirr�r �
, ��i ��, �,� .;,,,._ � ��
� .• � � � ��P'•r " 1,I_a �,��
� � l � � ' i�10►,'��� � ��"�����'�°�
� �� .. � � ��� '
� , �' ��� �`IAj!C:�� � _����Ilvs
!;� / �\' ���ii�:� �� � =�,"`31
� � I � _ ,�. � � ',.,��� � . _ �
� ����;tl ������
i�!�;!► ;[�u�ersio»v;�
� � '�_-�—_- ..—.r�.:..�:.�—.�-��� � �
1 /i9it�'E ' ' ��,'
� / � ���� �����'� 0. -`,�If � . {.
��,`
, 1 �,1Y�1_--_—' '��
� ��;/�� ��,, �It�� -'�TP���I '��.
�I ' � ' �� 1�' J�����.
� ,. '1 � ���_�� � �i��, (, � .� [�I �i
.. ��C�'
�ir;i(j `i '�+ >s� '
� ' ' 1 r� ��/.������� ����.
�� _ •��� �% 1 °v_.��eo�`��',�;� .
.r -�• �� . �� ��.. �-.-r--_--.- �.
h �� ��' . � C '����'O��'' � I
�!!►/-,iS. . ' , � ;°,r , �s� i�;�'I% `'�� �'
� P. � ,�,j%z j �,�^�;�=�/ .�! _�1�/ ;������ �
� �.:. `: � �S'Lti!Nd � C:� �
� ��� �1:3���i -�i��� U �
f ���� �� � �i'' �
v�: � (������'_� �
�� _ .�� f�l'�::������i�.��.-_.�—. , � �.
J s • I �'T��y
� - � ` �I��,. ��ri ls .�i i..
,A. ��7 �+i/,f� �\\�1r1�`.-�—.�e�=��, .� -`IC�, ��Z
.�
�.r�a;, - . ���r�
�� �,� 7��7�J� ♦ ii���/lA
1 . I �l�u�.:iri�s�I + _ �� __ � '��p�I{{{'!!! �r!
� .����-s <.�/f.�. � � � .... � ,a,
' �ii 'ir .rG�.lyd��%r _,�� ''' 1��
. .;=,i r ���— ��,� �
� ' r Si'�;`^=;:�� � , �;N� Il��.\ s�'i
' �� ��� ��I � `
laN� � 'I� �I���,---.. �:�i�
�.� ,�;J��i � r�� � '- `
� � ;���;.c7��,1 °;�j ��� _ ��� ,�► � " .:
; �/C � ° � ' _ '�a�i;; ='�I � 'imyfllNNU
� , E '� :_; . �...._
' �� � �;i- u�t' � _:�...
� � . ., � � - � r.`.►!.�� — � �� ��P., �',� �
�► `�t I � � iv v=����,.v"'i��,, ' i=;i�h : I
r� '�t � � �
� �'►�firCiivil�`'����.`:irm�:r._-...�� I ` - ��..�
f ' ��i.�i!'`�,�;�. �°" '����r! ` �
� �v��1y�^���:o�,s-s-- =-- e:.:-.:p:"' - .
i i'�r ^ .� ��t�1� i 1� \� `���� ���/ `��
�-.1/.f11.=��_ e � I �������
.� ; �. ������, —.� �
\ ��� �'�. •��
' •� �I
' ' .
�•
�
� CREEKSIDE
Pedestrian Pathways Exhibit
�
TME CREEKS�DE COMPLEX ` �- ' " T " ' ` ' �3�1a�
q Mlxp Uw PlennW Oevelopmant � I Fq
PHOPEqiyBTATiSTICS - _. \�� maanoww�m�.w. Y��g���
owwM w�wuu � i `_ ' ! �
,: k'�%�'� .1.
+:�'.a`...�'....ow " � c�"� I F !
'�"'� SITE PLAN + ' ;
o..�.,.,..�o «.A....�., �
..�..�..... ;
uxowue o., � 7
u�..mw� wiw.w.°.. .�..... ' I 4
.�� �
aw.°7•uwm . / 1 i
uvuuwwnwxo ••oa�.irM°i�v �<F �.. I �f C1
o�a.:wfiwo ) �
rMlfOi�YM�M r4��e.w a � I 1 I � ��p
Ait�NOR!/.WLLIIO •wwu64 ,y /. 1 / � � I '1 1 L
m�+atw.n��Y )' j / / I WY' MP (7
6 �
oexewrux w w«.. � ` � O
.�.a.�.�...� � /' r c, i ' , , �,I �
_�� -....W ° � �,, �! j r .. ,� ' � �
m[�nu xrc...... '�� i.: / I 1 flESIDENTIAIPLANA
'iwiuu....w�°'�wrr '. / AESIDENiWLPIANB � I� f �
} i
BWLOINaBTATI5TIC8 � �,�C � � i O N
��ti4}., ! � ' 1� :MIIi�WWIYaMMq� � 1�
•lfWNMLXwM���iIYOI/�VnA I �:�/�' � � I . MwMM�YNM V
C
ow.� w. r / Q/ �/ .;:' fy Q m
n...�m.... � I I� u p
:��. � , � � ` � �
XOINNMI%AMI-��lN//IIVNIi I ' � � Q�
YLLl ' / - y � 'E
++v.. �aw.w.�r�m� �
M�
Dq�IUS �v�F�Y��n4 1- O
� / NOTAPANT � � W �
i�� r• � / �� i 1 � � �
�rlu�w+ I .j � My���Y�N��wn�l MWIWwM I S
iR4I wiu4Ym�wi��w�r j je " �l� I � � � N
�comuim...o..c�.w�mvo ^ s '� � M . u � a
. . s, _ �
i . ....e,�,u_�.;•_; �
-,.�, .
� � u; ; � . � E
�::. :".�,' �c�sna NousFS �f . �� i
I
, � � , � � -
���.�,..,�� � �.;� �, :
� a
+:°%.." �9 ,,u -
j i
.,�.�a.� . , i ezisnNO� (� � , ,{ .
WMEX0118�lBAHN � � I -�f= � :COMYEfiCIAL'7BEFICEBL00
wiwnunusnl�ww..0 I O. S�% i G
�§mume � Q N R. � � 6 :�k . .;
��m. ' � O � �i SI I 6��1 ��Y ' �
Mow/Lnwn �
TOMIOIMdWCt � 1 .�' N f+ �
'WYO�W .r'�wl� #�. . .' ���'�SC. . ..tlTi . �„€�� ���+
. sn. q
s
e n •�♦ x' C n 8 T �B f a i �1 � (Q3
1 ��iM
� �� € � � ��
$ ��pyi�� a� C 3 � � � � s 7 `x m
� � � �a 4 $ FC ���� b�E����C ;1� D�'4 " # # p � � � � � � � H �O
��� i��g���,� {}� g�ilt �, � � Y � � o� :.
E � $ s�. da Y� g � S �O
�� e� e .. 1 ' �qfi �'s� , � , n sb �f� ic�� ��°= g�
� $� i��, � ii� ��� � 1� 'a tt � � � �;S f g��� ��iT��������3��{��� �%
� � � q 6 s � � ��� F � � � �;� F �i
�
i
'_----._--�� � m
. .r' ___""'^•� •I "� �
r
z
-------- o
� -- ��, �
' °' C
� �> ``�-�..-,-�" .�C,
i � �,,. �.�. �'d. � "'
�%�`r'�:.�� _��yT^ ..� a �•
- � ��.. ��^��,�.�:.. - . ,:, �'�,,d � n
� �?. .�. -"�v�Y�y.s� \ � �
q� f y �
% � p
�.e � � � � U
,� .
� " - �� v C
�: o�� � ,'. �r: ` '. -- o�i n
�,: O ;, � a,«�;, Si=� �t r N
� �•X'� m
�- .;;s. '4 .:. �,� ,,,� . �
�� j�.
� . Z S-..� �Pl�i �
£ �•
u ';� �t" �`� ''h`i 6.
�.: s �. .�
��—� '�r r�!."�»,? fz:�.';
�� ��-k�
g �� � 3�t .
.��� � � �� r� . �, � ! �i���
`wf r 'N �,+�'7�+E + y,�� �'`:; � � Q� (y¢�' � k _, - i_. ` — �� -sr� � �`!
:I l(��~!iry`�g P wµ��a!� h �l y � � E ��.#,�4�'}��� f �'.
� �1 1 +1'V'f`�9�5'.�+Li��' �.�.� ._ G1 . .�, ��� �e� j( �
,. '���X � .� „ �,` p r` ,.'4 � '�s�o
^ {�� � x � wx ,� �ti
�; ��' 7
�v ,. � 'f, y> ?{5 `,�,
. ,
� �
�� "E}�'n'�r� a:- u
� ��
�i Vh ,��a����i ' p �y p}4
a �` . 1`{ �M�, ,M1 � t� � i���,
V �--'� [
� � �µ A� C.i r r � jr�7k'
a� o� � ♦ � �
g � ,K{� � i ,��
y '^ i.-�, F f�'}' � r'�d�
'�"q .g � y��� s �� ,n `�'r� .�
N�� � . � �( } ;. .. �� ,� , h�'w
.� � sa. . .,s:..�.,r_7 nh+.'''=i+ ., =--4�Sa . ..:;.yw �.. :,� �
6_ c e v w • s e n •m♦ c e �4 ` ♦�• _P,y.Jn11,w;�t8b,� ,.. . .
p
3�'�
s
.ow
� ` (�MPLEX,�a �I
ECv . ,.�oYoGrande
' j THE CRE��SID B�„su�
. . - �peveloP�•
OBbNPecDMY`LL4 AMixedu�plan
o�°,yu°�"
�
• ' 1
. - - . - . .
� - • . . . . .
�� � � ����
� � .
, � , . � v
p fy '{ > . a � �':, S.
r �y �: � �i � '# ( •
YJ}� � 1l] 'T 2 `A 'v4�_ � �
j �:ti f ` :r� � ` l � � :.`.: '�¢• ,:.��ti _ �l�
� .�, „ ,... . ,�
� �.:i �+ r �, .g „ ,..� j� �:�
�.f f"� .; Yy � � ;ia n . :Ge I� � �� � .s .
I� >� i pry�.� � ��fl .:.
",.`^ C 9 � 3. .
� �y.F.� . . - Mt�S fN'r5= l- � � �i
���`�� � , !u�ll��ll�� r���:
��,
� w :�� ���� ; �.
�� � !1i y� ,.-,F:�
. -����� � � ��
�� � �k
j
� _ � i , � ; �fl �,
i � i , '�` '�IFir/� � �a�,,_-
i � � i fL� i {i � ,av .. .
� I
1 � 1�� � � � � �'+�`�p� � � f " I
i p � u��
�t � � � 2 �� s.,...i�.'.i/' ' �� �,��•
F r '���1 . �°
� 'A 1 � ��� .'.'���ji �I� �'
�� !r' -1-=�'��F �`��
��, ,,r� y�. �`
+. �:
. - . .
� - . . • . . .
., + ....
y� x��.�i' ycw�o-� �t 9�+z���'��'fr��.�xpr6 .�.�$ �e, .. „ a'� x � �
v r 2,�`��t $t -t�v .�" -`-t fti � .3""�b .�',z5'r"�. �� �'"'-��`+-1- .r ra ;.,'�rs
,t�, .i a,,.� w 5 r'd�:�,.r�.�n�' "`�Z"��'-i,�'�-��`�'>�yzi%"�ef3 ,.�.���x3`"�e!,±,ry �� 'L "?; _
1"'�". c,sa 3�Lf r��yz xY�� y /i�Yp' R -�''S c`v!s �k+4� _ j"
M'��;��t;t�� f�A�u'.vy+s`ur� �"". - . e�ai .Y.�
a ;�.� -e%� :S
�y..� .
.:r� �
�. � �,� �n��I� }` ���� � � } � 1� �,�
� �� ' �
� � ■� '� c<
�:,- � � Sj� �"`- � . � t :.,.,
� . ,.�_ ��{• � .
� �_..-- , �� , ._ � � �%:
�� ` ,j.�� +�..r"�>� n t
r� �� � r. 1 �.{�
� J` ' �" ' '_ +� �� bc� n
` — r"�.,r �
�rI � "_'
�-'�. i I � - - _ -_���y�� 7d ,.
,�I .. . - ,o° _ �i ,aaen �,�;� 4� "
� � ,rr .
��i� ��;p��� .� �F �..,�.��--�Y�-
_ ��-
� i , „ r .
,
. i� I� i ' �i! I� . �:��.�O..:y..�/i;Y�' �'��%�� ` ;r
_ ����Vfl�l��������'����� I � �!� � � ' ' , ""',�; �� i � i:lil� i � �.h y�i���l�•��I�h�����.�►�:�:__.
� �r� � •:-�-�_ II��� ��,, -,��,�dIIIIIIIII��mninuuu umlllt��� ! i �i — 1���� } -,.N4 �°.S
� ''r—����I� �' ���� � ��"r__..-r..�.-+i ������'�!�;I�� ������� ;'�'ll�� �llliuunj :�tn�..��
i i���. _ __ ������IN�. '�imi„ !4i��u'_ � i Y II II p �
i I�;� �j _ ��--=��I �Llfit�i.iwT.:.un iJ_'?� I '— ��� '� �'�=�� 4'�
;; i� � � -- =--�� _IIIP�" ' �. > ' ,
p . fdu, �
I � � N � �'� i��h� III + iinr� I I Iv I �. �JI � II�"
�� . ,�� �����.��u�����G������i���Il�i�i���������i�����c�I����61ar�u�����I��r��������i��ii���ti��������, a . ,,�,.
� k..,,.�UlU�
_ J
� � / �
8
CREEK�IDE
Branch ! Crown Hil! Street/ Condos ,
Street Elevation Exhibit
�� � � I I !
� i ` (
� � w
$C' �T I �
� �
� � I x
�eracmmemem.r.. PaM��wstruwm � S
, '1�---y. . � o
9
i I Q
U
� I 1
I
�
I I
wam¢aax I
EXISTING " i � p COMMERCIAL/OFFICE BLDG�
WAREHOUSE/BARN � . , ^��
i t —
I
i I .
' I d 1
bl
I 6 '
I j �
- ' -- ..�1
. B p A N � H 5 T fl E E T � � �
�s�. I �
k � . t
� =� , , �° I �
� -- � �
Warehouse Entrance New Building Crown Terrace Condos
9
CREEKSIDE
Crown Terrace ROW — 30' vs 35' Wide '
Impact Comparison Exhibit
_ � ��.v::.�.
,,,,,n
i
� ' ,�;�\ �y . ,
� w r�l�' r rt
1 "'' y
� � %�,.�
v,� A< � f
i!�q�� q�
Y � �'
�•�
�
�
I � 1 �
iQj� 3 �
. .'i'�r.''e WT� iv.��
Kd
� '��a h
IT a� } —�
�--�� xl ,,.m�
la°
i �
'� i !
_ �,�� __ 4�I, i i
fu
i � i i
� � ,�,
I »p R �`^�,
' i
�
- - i
, � � i
i��° j
- - I ���. .�n'aa.
� � �L----.._..
� .� I
F j 5 j �
ROWN�T � '�,� STREET
30' ROW+5'Sidewalk Condos
29'high Retaining Wall
i�
� Crown Terrace
/
24' ROW+ 5'Sidewalk
23'high Retaining Wall
Residential Building 'A'
FFL 221.0'
10
CREEKS9DE
Left Turn Pocket @ Crown Hill Street Exhibit I
CREEKSIDE SECONO ENTRV/EXIT CREEKSIOE CENTEfl ENTRY
�
1-J/ �
Move siopbar W back oi crosswalk �
CROWN XILL STflEET
—�a_�`� ^�L!/ Y�// �,J, � _ __
__ ���� `� �— �'- - _� — �
7 T . � T�y �., �' . (�
t{��U `� �` v.l
`�� �� New fi'ctosswalk w/ADA ramps to sidawalks
� �
\ `
� ��
ti
\ �� �
� �
�� � \
�
�� \� fl9>B ST
�,� � 1. RqN6b
�� �� �ET
� `
��
\
- - - - ---�. �-oi[bB6 09:18 �8055412132 .. , - _ � I
TEC ENGINEERING � '
I '.
ATTACHMENT5 �
`
d115 BoWA Bfood Btr�et,6M Lub OONpo,CA 09W9•BOfiA81.1BBi-FYC 806.�97,9118
YleLregA EYe/usb0ll
CLIENT: OeBlauw Bullders DATE: 2&Apr-06 I
JOB P10: De61auw008 ��
LOCATION: Br�Street and Crown Ternlli§,Arroyo Grende . �
Purpow: i�
Calculate tlie dHlererr.a In pre entl poat deV91tlpetl vdumes ue'ap Ihe Counry W San W le Obispo Stantlerda(10 twur dura8on � �
for 10 hours)bflsed upon Counry StenOeitl�`Factors for ihls rype of tlevelopment. � ��
Slte Dwinage Pa�arnebrs:
7c: 10 hr Co.SW.for Slzing In0ltreUan 80.8ina �
G Imparvbus: 0.80 Co.SM D-2 �
C-Pervious 0.35 Co.9ttl D-2 i
(2,10) (5,10) (f0,10) (25,10) (60J0) (100,70) Co.St0.D�8
I(Inlhr): 0.78 028 0.30 0.38 OA7 0.48 �
Composk C-Pro DevNoped Condltiiie0
Are9 Aree C i I
it` AC � �
impervb�ssunace in,na 2.�0 o.eo !
�
Pervbua Area 3,427 0.08 D.95 I �
' TMaI Area 121,206 2J8 0.88 I I,
Compoeit C-Post Devalopsd Condkifdn� '
ImparviouaSudace 73,934 7.70 0.80
PerviousAreB 47,277 1.08 0.35
TotalAreB 121,205 2.78 Q.6B
VolUme-(VeCxIxAx8p1c80ot10)
Pre Post DMlerence
�jy� Develooetl IFf'1 d�ttelooeA[FTyI j�
2-year 15847 72360 �587
5-yeer 23036 17853 -5182
70-yeer 26678 20800 '5979
25-yeer 338� 28093 -7573 I
60-ye8r 41640 322T3 -9387
100-year 43411 33848 -9785
. i
Page 1 '
�
I
. L.
From: "Ben Fine" <bfine@tecslo.com>
Subject: FW: Detention Basin Design - Tract 2346 - Crown Hill and W. Branch
Date: May 1, 2006 8:08:01 AM PDT
1'0: "'Duane P. DeBlauw"' <deblauwcon@sbcglobal.neb, <jcboud@sbcglobal.neb
Duane and Joe-
Here is copy of the email Victor Devens sent me regarding the basin for The
Creek Side Complex. If you need anything else let me know.
Ben
Benjam A. Fine, M.S., M.B.A., E.I.T.
Design Engineer
TEC Civil Engineering Consultants
4115 Broad Street, Suite B1
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Phone (805) 541-2114 x207
Fax (805) 541-2132
"Engineering California's Interests"
-----0riginal Message-----
From: Victor Devens [mailto:VDevens@arroyogrande.org]
' Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 5:13 PM
To: bfine@tecslo.com
Subject: Detention Basin Design - Tract 2346 - Crown Hill and W. Branch
iBen:
i This is a follow up to our phone conversation earlier today regarding
; detention basin design criteria for the above referenced project. The
City is currently reviewing the detention design criteria for
developments adjacent to the creek to mitigate impacts and has not
' adopted a specific criteria as of yet.
Per our conversation, you stated that the basin would be located in the
landscaped area adjacent to the creek, which is within the 100-year
flood plain. The basin wouid become inundated with creek water at times
when the basin would need to be in operation, rendering the basin
ineffective. If a detention basin is required, an alternate site would
, need to be selected.
You also stated that the amount of impervious surface on the site is
being reduced with this project. This wouid, in turn, reduce the peak
flows. Detention basins are typically required when the project is .
, increasing the peak flows. If the peak flows are in fact being reduced
through reduction in impervious surface, then a detention basin would
not seem necessary for this specific project. However, the reduced �
impervious surface would need to be verified prior to consideration of
waiving detention requirements.
Please feel free to contact me if you have further questions.
Victor
�
Victor Devens ;
Associate Engineer - Development �
City of Arroyo Grande I
Phone: (805) 473-5445 �
Fax: (805) 473-5443 �'
E-mail: vdevens@arroyogrande.org
I
��
,
ATTACHMENT6
CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER �
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 04-004 & �i
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 04-001
Environmenta/Impaci�ReportAddendum
August 2006
__._........._.__ _.,_ �_r _..ee�e...._ _._�_
��;i
: ���'�- •., i
� '+ ��t'�.iL:id{ t .`i'^ �' y a�. j 3.
y4 �ki �t.v t�l7�r���!'r i.�'f�-�t�r'�'!" �7�$.i..
?, i';�j i
� THE CREEKSIDE CO�iPL�� 3'a'-;
� ;c�,�
� A Mixed Use Planned Deuelapment 3!o{'
� — ;�:<_ ,��.
_�. _ �,��;
.,...�.. ;��'..W I
::r:-
� �L:
... ...�_....r {)�:
w � W��
_ i � =Y:
�:'
�'.
_ + ._..._......,.......�._............_. _...,....� ;3'�i
�
e:��
p ;_......._. y .,� •:"1,�+* . .
_ Y�� I t � .,'i'' �
�� I � .��YY . `..\\�\
1 � � ,
f.�J? I F� s.}.C� � ��:..�
$ p�S ti
�t PY
�f�, � �q%::A,`x� . ( \ ;)
"�� µ" : � :
Y{! t��.+�'wY�� ,.y �� Y
� � y {
.�t � 1.�1. � < ��
�
a�r �',,.- �� � ���1 'v . � �
�� �� ,=' � �'� �„�a,g�'�
,
� a i � �, > ;�
: � .
� ':' � i� 1 ...� r �. .
'� ,wo�.nsu " � ..,a �i%" .
' =� �
� � \ ry � � ��i� . ..
\ �
�
� � �''�� ...,-2—, '�?y ,�;g`�;
��. � i�f� y ;y����'Y ,im�usx i��.j�s�.+�
�� '� .�: �#� .��.—�"}��"'°_"- �
\ �CCC�.J i�s�"�, "`�\ i `\
Prepared by:
Ciry of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
__ _. . _ . .
�
i
� . CREEKSIDE EIR ADDENDUM i
� �
1.0 . INTRODUCTION - - �
Background . . � � i
In September 2003 the City of:Arroyo Grande adopted Resolution No. 3710 certifying ?
- the Final Environmental Impact`Report (FEIR) for the Creekside Center mixed use
project (Tentative Tract Map 01-002 and Conditional Use Permit 01-001).. The FEIR ;
examined potential . ,environmental impacts associated with development of a �
:commercial retail, office and residential complex on a 3.5-acre site located at 415 East �
Branch Street. The proposed project involved construction of 37,000 squere feet of i
retail, office and residential space in five separate one and two story.buildings and '
reconfiguration of 37 underlying lots into fve parcels. The applicant proposed to retain j
_ the existing office building, relocate the two former Loomis residences, and remove the ,
E.C. Loomis and Son Feed Store. The FEIR determined that the main residence would
be eligible foc_ listing in the California Register as a historical resource, and that the
" grain warehouse serves as an important feature of the setting for.the main house.
_ Removal of these structures was determined to be a significant environmental impact. '
: Several of the parcels originally included in the project have changed ownership since
the initial submittal in January 200U: -.The property underlying the existing office �
building and storage units was sold and ,therefore_ is not a part of the proposed �
development. The properly underlying.the two residences and feed sfore has also been
sold, but is still included as.part of the revised project.. A"Consent of Landowner" letter
, _ was submitted to the City on September 28, 2004 containing.signatures of.all-owners of
� record for .the redesigned project. Because• of these changes. in project.design and
ownership, the. applicant withdrew and resubmitted the tentative tract map in .
September 2004. This created a new processing timeline consistent with the Permit �
StreamliningAct and Subdivision.Map Act. i
( F abl��`��v4^��tt�n � ` �;�`��;����' - �„,` ' , F�� �;��, a` r �,., , � _ � .� ,
� . � �"e�- �,� �s� �*�?tii z �a�{�'s� ���i��F�� ,, �� � �+ifi�"u'�&�''���'°�"� a a� ���,��4T�`E 4 ,
p �i��ih� �ri�b trc� � a .L,_ ..�.. ������i�= . _�. . '�, -��=2�� ��F ,�� �
$,.sFY-��ff t Y'� �;"1kb s� X
� � � �E,�Er��ra�'Mrr�a�itaF�AMaI��i� .� :�-� ��r r�„ �, �� a��"�,� . 1
- . '��,Fl ��Y/ y �� ,�p�Q@' (�s ry ir� r„,�a}�mz »s.t�? Jy J �-�+,,4� � .
�'/{. �/,�� r�( ����'I�IM'YIM! y!I ��S Mk� TR �`fyt „�R�T k� � �h�t `.�"G i
� " f �V `'��a'F13�l�.lU����1� S 12 �4'�'°cr"���t'n ' `s��F "VSh�°,f'�''�'j` � N6pt� 1�4 . .
Si � 4�! • aas r;• •' j�^`av� ,'�n '� k ^�. _
y�� } .4'�:;�+ 1 i ��4+��� �I( s�r,s, s. � �,t '�
! � �t 4 �� �. � �t�-� +*.��� , ����)n k""�7 �"k �+,Y2 ydF a t
a 3 ;g F�r"' ni 4 � e S tlF � (S
`��i e�d►sa��',�,.�tl�i�f�d1�1't�'�t�3,Ar,�hit'e�#r�r�F�la�l�ntriig'�;��`' � .
� � .' ,, ,,� � �.a!r,�F�t b.�w' C�c�c uLt t 3�'i'� .+"=b^'4��`a x � �it L .. , .
�, �*��� � Fei e �t�on�`�n+� (,d�te��,ku� 2�,'2��4) ��r-�
_ . `�`�'f�' �.�}E2 r � n;rir� ag `, ��i '��'°�' � . �� ��N�'�"�t°��� � � 4 n� a .
E :,,.�' '" ,{� sr '' _ } �'�`�°�h'�'j ' �a '�t'�,
� _ :�y�+t y�mr 6�, � ���t i ,+€ A . � � �� a�,�„e�� :
'a i ` -�'a,.. *, dii �r�.�ii °� � �' u+�t� a�k3� �E ;�
F " f��„l�s +'T��cr�_..y.:�. .3A�?,fi . "�u.._..»_....�.. ,.�., .+,'itG.i '°iL_.__ ...,w...,.._ '' ,
i ' r . - . ' ' . . - . , �
i . . . _ � ' ' _ .. . . . i
E � Creekside CenEerEIR Addendum - 2- �
� .�. .
� .. . ___ __ ___ _ _ . .
�
, I
I
This Addendum provides information to the City of Arroyo Grande's decision-makers on: �
• The revised site plan for the proposed mixed-use project;
• Potential changes in impacts resulting from the revisions to the project; and .
• Conclusions regarding potential changes in impacts and the applicability of �
- criteria that would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
Revised Project Description.
The original mixed-use project was redesigned in .response to comments contained in
the FEIR. Most existing buildings are proposed to remain, except the storage sheds �
and garden barn in the center and east sides of the site, and the•revised project ;
includes considerably more residential floor area as compared to the originai proposal.
;
Proposed is a Planned Unit Development application .to construct .12 duplexes and a ,
12,000 square foot commercial/offce building, and retain the existing residences and
former Loomis store (see Fi ure l for Site Rlan). Because the revised project does not _
include the existing office.building and associated storage structures located adjacent to .
the creek, the project site is smaller (2.5 vs. 3.5 acres). The Tract Map reconfigures 23
existing parcels into 13 parcels. Primary access is from a driveway on East Branch
Street and from Crown Hill. Secondary and emergency access through the site is from
Le Point Street.
Residential "Plan A° contains 8 units in 4 buildings with access from either below at ,
grade level, or above from Crown. Terrace. The duplexes are three levels with
, individual units ranging from 2,000 to 2,655 square feet in size. Residential "Plan B"
contains 16 units in 8 buildings, all two stories with access from the ground level.
These wnits are smaller, from 420 to 1,300 square feet in size. The proposed new
12,000 square foot commercial structure has three levels with an elevator and two-
story parking garage, a portion of which is accessed from Crown Terrace, with the
majority of the spaces at grade level, utilizing the existing driveway to Crown Hill Street
near the East Branch Street intersection. ,
��
�
j ,-
� �
�
�
�
�
f
�
� Creekside Center EIR Addendum - 3-
�
; ,
e .,_ _ _ -- ---- __---
i :.. � , .. .
; . . � - _
I, , FI RE 1: 'PROPOSED.SITE'PLAN AS REVISED � '
i . . _ . . .
.
I , �
, �� ' . M' , 3:-. � ;g =�
�� d ,. ��!�. �
( .�� �. _ �--_.°°,r � ��,� .�.;'1�, , , ,
I �.w. ,...,.. � � �.
� SIT�Pi.AN 1 ,�..� -,
�.,.4,.. �„�,,, /� y�� �s�'" T� "� -.g � � .., ' ( �: k
� ��� :. �.- �', '�. .��. . `,�/.. :. r i, .. �„s,,...r° x .. °� s.:......._.�.�.l...w... ...� ..
`_ , . � . . g.w�w,� ',. . � ' .
�@ -�� � . �, ��
��� �"+n.PV'� � f .. .i. ; �
�'.y'"". . .. . , r ' i �.y„ t F � �� �t,.r . g � � -
� , _ �� ��� . . - � F i � ¢ � „-.,,, s � � ..
..�+�+...• � f �'1 L.a„. f rr ��
-pwwy.a '' � $J F + . t ,�
� , . .. . .,w . . � "
� : �' . : : .� � p . i; � . ... � 4 ` jYY
' r°°°` .'S'„���"+»�r... � . f . .;� �� ;8 . ,- "'�mb6MWq���,a �(�� .
� ' - ;, ,.+ ' , ' � .��� +.�+-"'" � sC�E riW4
RU'E 3,
° ,�„ � , � , ._ �'�,,�i.�, ;��
.....,..�..µ. � � 1 a`�+ ''�j77 ' �iF _. §
� y��, }�� € �f {^''"'{ " �
. � � �r J�-' �R i 4 t � A �"° 4 R"" 'Y:
- , ia�l+ S. i f t y a�` Y'� � t +t ""�w. 4`��� { f t ; x ��� .
c .
_ � � ���,�ir �
P t
t
,� �� _ ' :' 4 k � � �
' �""' _ , -` � ,t . �` i � a:t'" r - '3°' t - .. X ' w - _
r� a}- !
.. j`�r."w 'w � � �.,tt cr /�_i. +� � .
'�.« +�arw�r� f � �'� .. t i i n . , .�—. »�*. � . ' ��,
� � � i7 , �s�w! � .. . 3 ` i ;� 1 t�9 �`. 9 yy � . .
� , oA �yF "
, . 1P�..� " 1 , ...... . , +^' � /y�\j y '
" , �"�.'* G... �� u.M�+�r�.ww -i'^mn" ' �✓�
♦.w�.. ' 4. 7j� �. --Y .
" wrwnwwrw , i i :..�. 1: �a� . .. .,...�. � � ¢ � .�.,�,..«. {}\ .: . �31i/� �
. aSC- ., ; �� _ $ ,iw
�'»�. � � ,,,�}�,�;. �•--_,�.„.°•* � . �7�
«� '
� . +......e�.,,. ; � . � {I - ,s �,�
,. - . .. �� } r s� � ��..�.�f�s� vue«xa.,�u.� � w„x;;aa:, ` .�� � � .
� N114 � ' - t k . . � � ��� I 1 � ' .
- ' . f+WWww.� 1 ' . � .
. . �,W�1�� . I i . i � � .
' w�� 4�.r f ', i f {Y�'..y .
� , {t[ � � 3
� .ip Xyµ}_ t...:... . � j k� .... McwC } �� 4.�4 ._�.i�� �
. . . . . ...... w....
� ..:': #
.,«;...A.. m�._.,, .n �.___�__, . , �
..,.,
� � - � �: __. .. _ � i �� �
� ' . „ � ...._ .�7 .I�
. . '- . ' . .. ' . rv'v .• � � � R Y t s i ?� f�4 � � �
� - _� . '. ,� a � � f 3
- . .. � ' " ' W�
. . ' � ' , . . � , � j
, Requirements for Preparatiorrof an:Addendum
� � -
. The California. Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)- pcovides' for the preparation of an -
' Addendum to a Final EIR. Section,15164 of CEQAstates in part; �
"(a) Zhe /ead agency o�responsi6/e agency sha//prepare an addendum to a previous/y '
' _: . . ; certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary.but none of the conditions � i
described in Section 15162 caUing fo�prepa�ation of a subsequent EIR have occv�red."
CEQA Section 15162 requires preparetion of a Subsequenf EIR in the following case§: _ . �
(1)Sutistantia/ .changes. are proposed in the. pinject which wi// �equire major
°,. . re�isions:of the p�evious EIR or negative dec/aration due to the invo/vement of .
new significant environmenta/effects o�a substantia/increase in,the severity of
� � pre�ious/y identified significant effecYs; � . � i
.
, Creekside Center EIR Addendum. � =4- ; ' • -
, . I
, �
- ,
(2)Substantia/ changes occur with respect fo the circumstances unde� which the �
project is undertaken which wil/ �equire major re�isions of the previous EIR or '
Negative DeUaration due to the. involvement of new siynificant environmental I
effects or a subsbntia/increase in the seveiity of p�evious/y idendfied significant ''
effecrs; or i
(3)New info�mation of substantial importance;:which was not known and cou/d not
have been known with the exercise of reasonab/e di/igence at-the time the
' previous EIR was certified as comp/ete or t/ie Negative Dec/aration wasadopted, j
shows any of the fo/%wingr ',
(A) The project wi/l have one or.mo�e significant effects not discussed in the ( i
previous EIR or negative dec/aration;
(B) Significant effects previous/y examined.wi//be substantia/ty more severe
than shown in fhe previous EIR; �
(C) Mitigation measures or a/te�natives previous/y found not to be feasible
would in fact be feasib/e, and would substantia//y reduce one or more
significant effecls of the project;.but the project proponents. decline to •
adopf the mitigation measure or.a/te�native; or .
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different.from
� those ana/yzed in the,previous EIR wou/d substantia//y reduce one or .
• moie significant et�`'ects�on tlie environment, but the project proponents
� , decline to adopt the mitigation measu�e or altemative."
None oP the provisione of CEQA Section �15162 apply to the amended project, and
therefore an Addendum (rather than a Subsequent EIR) has beem prepared.
� Pursuant to CEQA Section 15164(c):
'An addendum need not be circu/ated.for public.review but can be inc%uded in or
attacheo'to the Final EIR or adopted negative decla2tion,"
This Addendum has therefore not 6een circulated for public review, but is provided as
an attachment to the Final EIR. ,
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF MINOR PRO)ECT MODIFICATIONS
Proposed Environmental Determination
- Uporr review and comparison of the proposed.project and original submittal eValuated
by the .EIR, several minor modifcations and refinements have been made. As_
, previously_noted, the project,description information presented.in this Addendum relafe
only to changes in the land use� composition and physical layout of the site. These
changes could result in positive and/or negative effects related to the following areas
' , examined in the Final EIR:
� Creekside Center EIR Addendum, ;S-. :
'�
i � _. .._
� j �
. , . . . • • ' . �
. . . . . . .. . ' � . I
- . ` . Land Use � .
. Parking . . _
• Historical Resources � " '
• . Recreation
• Biological Resources . �
The proposed changes would not result in any changes to the'conclusions reached from
� the previously certified EIR, nor would there be a substential increase.in the severity of
previously identified significant effects. Also; no new information of_ substantial
importance is known to existthat was not known or could.not have been known at the
. , . time of the previousEIR. . . � :
The foilowing analysis identifies the minor changes made to #he project plans and
design as compared to the original submittai evaluated by the EIR, and explains why
the change is considered"minor._- .
Modification #1: Land Uses. As previously noted; the original project would have
removed the two former Loomis �residential ,buildings and feed store as well as all
accessory storage buildings to enable construction of the Creekside:Center. The Center �
- was a complex of the existing_ o�ce building and four new retaiF or office buiidings
' containing approximately 31,000 gross floor area, with one building also pcoposing four ,
' residential units. This project would;have involved significant unaVoidable irripacts to .,;
the existing buildings including,the historic resources identified in the certified EIR.
' The revised project retains the historic resources for.potential restoration or reuse and
eliminates only accessory structures behind and.to the east of the.existing houses.and
- former feed store to enable 12,000 square.feet.of new retail/office building and the 12 .
duplex residential buildings. The revised Creekside Complex is a mixed-use: planned
unit development that is approzimately one-third commercial/office and 'two-thirds
residential, including 24 dwelling units: : _
Modification #2: Parking. The revised project fias d'ifferent parking. requiremenEs
� then the originai project because of:- the increased , number of residential . units.
' However, there is, no change to the number of deficient parking spaces: .
Analysis: The current project complies with Development Code . calculations for
residential and commereial parking utilizing �a 3.4% parking reduction, aliowable for - .
mixed-use projeets. . Net residential parking has a deficit of one (1) guest space and net. ,
commercial parking_ has a deficit of three (3) spaces. TIie.DeVelopment Code (Section .
16.56.050) allows up to a 20%o parking reduction-for mixed-use projects; which is more
� then adequate for the proposed project. The:original project was deficient by a total of
;. four (4) parking spaces as well. The proposed-parking would accommodate the project .
demands using the sha�ed parking scenario-descritied in the EIR. No .new impacts
would result from the revised parking confguration and. rio additional mitigation is
i necessary. � - - -
� .
; . . . .
� Creekside Center EIR Addendum - 6- �
i .
�
, : . -
� - ---�--'-- = .
I
�
' Modification #3: Historical Resources. The existing former Loomis houses and
' feed store structures are proposed to remain, including the main house, which the EIR
has determined to be a potentially significant historic resource eligible for listing in the
Califomia Register of Historic Places.
Analysis #3: The revised project retains all existing historic resource structures and
� . � related setting, which changes this.environmental determination from a Class I impact
(significant and unavoidable) to a Class N impact (beneficial) and Class IT (Significant.
but mitigable).
' Retention of these existing structures requires certain mitigation measures be added
that.were discussed in the EIR,but did not apply, because the single historical resource
on the project site, the main house, was proposed to.be demolished. Subsequently, the
applicant sold the property containing the historical resource without adequate and
legally enforceable restrictions or.conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the
properly's historic significance,
Mitigation Measure 4.4.1 has been_added requiring the new owner of the property to
, register the main residence in the, California Register of Historic Places through the
State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP).
In the event the main house is converted from a residential to e commercial use or is
renovated, any alteration (including ,restoration, rehabilitation,. repair, maintenance,
stabilization, hazardous material . remediation,,and provision of handicapped access)
must be consistent with the Secretary's Rehabilitation Standards and Guidelines (36 CFR
part 68) or technical advisories (Mitiqation Measure 4.4.2)
Modification #4: Recreation. Loss of recreational opportunities.
Analysis #4: The revised project does not include an amphitheatre or a pedestrian trail
adjacent to the creek as originally proposed. However, the residential component does
incorporate a small open space area adjacent to the creek that includes a play
structure, picnic table and bench. Mitigation measures have been added regarding
requirement of a trail easement (see MM 4.4.30 and MM 4.4.31 below under Biological
Resources). This does not constitute a significant impact and no additional mitigation
measures are required.
Modification #5: Biological Resources. The creekway enhancement component of
the original project has mostly been eliminated.
Analvsis #5: Because the property developed with the office building and storage units
is no longer part of the project, the opportunity for enhancement of Tally Ho Creek is
reduced. This is a significant impact that can be mitigated with recordation of an open
space agreement, and a twenty-five foot (25� creek easement measured frorri Yop of
bank that includes a trail easement (Mitigation Measure 4.4.30). The project is further
required to construct a footpath to tFie creek that would be stable and not erosive. The
trail must be covered with base rock�and designed to be permeable and to avoid the
concentration of storm runoff. The developer shall also plant shrubs, such as native
Creekside Center EIR Addendum - 7-
� .
___ __ _ .
�� blackberry, adjacent to any trails and/or footpaths to.discourage use of a shortcut path; .
and revegetate any existing short.paths (Mitigation Measure 4.4.31). '
� � .
' Modification #6: Water.
' Development of the proposed project would require water for both domestic use and
� landscape irrigation. � The water consumption by this project would further reduce the . ,
Ciry's remaining supply,of available water._ This'impact will be minimized by mitigation
measures, including using water-conserving designs, fixtures and landscaping.
' The City currently receives its water supply, from both surface and groundwater
sources. Ground water extractions are tlerived from seven (7) wells and two (2)
separate basin formulations. Surface water is otitained from the .Lopez Reservoir
, Project, whieh was constructed in the late 1960's.. Reclaimed storm water collected by
` the Soto Sports Complex Storm VUater Reclamation Project'is also used as an irrigation
supply source.
The City adopted a Water System Master Plan,in .1999; which identified water resources
as being a significant issue, and identified inethods to increase and diversify.water
supply to increase long-term reliability of the City's weter service to ifs residents. The
report assessed potential. methods to address the water supply issue and,prioritized
alternatives. -
The Ciry used appcoximately 97.7% of its available/allocated water supply, totaling
approximately 3,700 acre-feet, between January 2004 and December 2004. Per
Chapter 13.05.010 of the City's Municipal Code (1Nater Supply Conditions), this leyel of
water use is considered'a "severely restricted" water supply�condition that has not yet
reached a "critical" level. To manage its potential. water supply deficiency, the Ciry
� edopted a two-phased strategy in November 2004 that included alternatives to be
! ,. pursued to meet the Ciry's water demand over the ne�10- year period (phase i), and
j identified alternatives that will provide permanenh water supply increases to meef the
long-term demand that are most desirable; feasible and cost efFective (phase 2).: As
part of phase 1, the City adopted a Vllater Conservation Prograrri_ in_May 2003 that
included:
k . � . . . � � - - " . . .. , �
{ • Plumbing Retrofit Program; '
�
�' , . • Water,Shortage Contingency Analysis; •
� . • Public Information and Education; '
. Information System Asse§sment,for Top Water Users;
� . Enforcement of City's Water Conservation Codes; and
�
�: . • Optional components, including washing machine rebates, irrigation system or,
landscaping rebates, and retrofit of cemetery with.non-potable water. .
� Other components of phase 1 include construction of Well No. 10 (located on Deer
� Trail Circle), pursuing oil field water on.Price Canyon, implerrienting a tiered water and - �
� �, sewer rate strudure as financial incentives for water conservation, and a utility retrofit .
iupon-sale program. It should also be noted that pursuant to the agreement entitled
� _
�
�
Creekside Center EIR Addendum - 8 -
�.
'___ _ _ _' _ ___ _ _
Management of the Arroyo Grande Ground Water Basin, dated effective June 10, 2002,
the Ciry is entitled to the first 359.1 acre feet ofthe urban parties share of any increase
in the safe yield of the Arroyo Grande Ground Water Basin; an RFP for this study has
been implemented. This additional entitlement, potentially presents the most immediate
increase in water supply to the Ciry
Phase 2 provides various permanent water supply options that include:
• Conducting a groundwater study;
• Pursuing water from the Nacimiento Project;
� • Implementing a reclaimed water system; .
• Studying feasibility of a desalination plant; and
• Pursuing water from the State Water Project.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
,
4.1 Aesthetics
The revised project adheres to the Design Guidelines for the .Historic Overlay
District (the "Guidelines`� per review of the Architectural .Review Committee
(ARC). The project therefore repuires less mitigation for visual impacts than the
original project. No additional mitigation measures are required.
4.2 Air Quality
Less air quality mitigation is necessary with tlie revised project since none of the ,
existing buildings on the projecE site are proposed to be demolished. All
, mitigation related to dust:control are required, and no additional measures are
necessary.
, 4.3 Biology .
The following mitigation measure has been added:'
MM 4.3.30: The developer shall record an open space agreement and twenty-
five foot (25� creek easement on the property measured from top of bank. No
development shall occur within 25' creek setback area. A trail easement is
further required within the setback area.
� 4.4 Cultural Resources
The following mitigation measures have been added:
MM 4.4.1: The owner of the property containing the former Loomis residences .
and grain warehouse shall register the main residence in the California Register
of Histocic Places through the State Office of Historic Preseroation (OHP).
MM 4.4.2: Alterations to the main house shall comply with the Secretary's
Rehabilitation Standards and Guidelines (36 CFR part 68).
Creekside Center EIR Addendum - 9 -
_—. .. . '__ _
4.5 �eoloav and Soil �
No new impacts are expected with the reyised project and no additional
mitigation measures are necessary.
4.6 Hazardous Materials
No new impacts are expected with the revised project and no additional
mitigation measures are necessary.
4.7 Hvdrologv, and Water Oualitv .
; No new �impacts are expected with the revised project and no additional
mitigation measures are necessary.
4.8 Land Use �
There are no impacts requiring mitigation with either the original or revised
project.
4.9 Noise
' No new impacts are expected with the , revised project and no additional
mitigation measures are necessary. �
4.10 Public Services and Utilities
There are no impacts requiring mitigation with either the original or revised
' project.
4.11 Water and Wastewater
Wastewater,disposal is not considered a significant impact and existing facilities
can handle the increased project demand. Cumulative water supply remains a
significant impact but mitigable with implementation of mitigation measures. All
mitigation measures in FEIR are required. No additional mitigation measures are
' necessary for water or wastewater impacts. . '
4.0 CONCWSION
- � Based on the above discussion, the proposed mitigation measures or minor chariges are
not .considerably different from.those analyzed in the previous EIR; nor would they
substantially reduce or change the conclusions. The applicant wilf be incorporating
these and other required environmental mitigation measures into the project.
Therefore, a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not considered necessary, and the EIR
addendum is.appropriate. �
5:\COMMUNIfY_DEVELOPMENT�PRO7EC15\TfM\Creekside TfM 2346\Creekside,QR Addendum 2.doc
Creekside Center EIR Addendum - 30 -
ATTACHMENT7
CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER i
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 04-004 &
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 04-001
(THE "PROJECT"�
' Mitigation Monitoring Program
August 2006
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................. 2
LegalBasis ........................................................................ 2
Program Implementation and Monitoring .................................... 3
Implementation ...................................................... 3
Mitigation Monitoring ............................................. 4
Mitigation Monitoring Status Reporting ........................... 5
Project Mitigation Measures ...................................................... 5
4.1 Aesthetics ................................................................ 5
I4.2 Air Quality ................................................................ 6
" 4.3 Biology 7
................................................................
4.4 Cultural Resources ....................................................... 16
4.5 Geology and Soil ....................................................... 19
4.6 Hazardous Materials .............................................. 22
4.7 Hydrology, and Water Quality ..................................... 23
4.8 Land Use ................................................................ 26
4.9 Noise ......................................................................... 26
, 4.10 Public Services and Utilities ..................................... 26
4.11 Water and Wastewater .............................................. 26
�
,
d
Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Creekside Center
Introduction
Mitigation is defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a measure which:
. Avoids the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
. Minimizes impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation.
• Rectifies the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted
environment.
• Reduces or eliminates the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the project.
• Compensates for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or
environments.
Mitigation measures discussed below have been identified in Chapter 4 of the FEIR,
Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, as feasible and effective in mitigating
project-related environmental impacts. The effectiveness of each measure is identified in this
Mitigation Monitoring Program and discussed in more detail in Chapter 4 of the FEIR.
Leqal Basis
Overriding Considerations
The City Certified the FEIR for the Creekside Center in September 2003 and an Addendum to
that document has been prepared to evaluate potential impacts for a revised project. At the
time of considering approval of the project, the City must consider the information presented in
the Final EIR and Addendum: The FEIR for the original project identified significant and
� unavoidable impacts with the demolition of historical resources and to the City's cumulative
water supply. The revised project reduces impacts to historical resources to a less than
significant level by retaining all significant (historic resources or important to their setting)
existing structures on the project site. Impacts to the City's long-term water supply remains a
significant and unavoidable impact previously recognized in the 2001 GPU Program EIR.
If a project is determined to a have significant, unavoidable impact, the City must find that the
benefits of the project outweigh the environmental effects before approving the project. This is
called a Statement of Overriding Considerations and it must be included in the record of project
approval (CEQA Guidelines §15093). The Statement of Overriding Considerations is a written
statement, based on substantial evidence, explaining why the Lead Agency will accept the
' project with significant effects. Because the project has a significant, unavoidable
environmental impact regarding water supply, the City must make this finding of Overriding
Considerations in its approval of the project. A Notice of Determination is filed after the City
makes its final decision.
Mitigation and Monitoring Program
The legal basis for the development and implementation of a Mitigation and Monitoring Program
lies within CEQA. CEQA Sections 21002 and 21001.1 state:
#
Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program -2 -
�
. Public agencies are not to approve projects as proposed if there are feasible
alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially
lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects; and
, • Each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment
of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so.
. CEQA Section 21081.6 further requires that: the public agency shall adopt a
reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of
project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the
environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure
compliance during project implementation.
. The monitoring program must be adopted when a public agency makes its findings
under CEQA so that the program can be made a condition of project approval in order
to mitigate significant effects on the environment. The program must be designed to
ensure compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation to mitigate
or avoid significant environmental effects.
Proqram Implementation and Monitorinq
Each mitigation measure is described in the following format:
Impact: The description of the specific environmental impact.
Mitigation Measure (MM): The description of the mitigation measures.
Mitigation Level: The level to which the impact is anticipated to be
mitigated.
Responsible Party: The agency, Department or individual that has the
responsibility for implementing or perForming the
measure.
Monitoring Agency: The public agency that has the responsibility for
monitoring to ensure that the mitigation measure is
effective in mitigating the impact.
Timing: The appropriate points in time at which the mitigation
measure is to be initiated and completed.
lmplementation
The City shall be responsible for overall implementation and administration of the Mitigation and
� Monitoring Program for the project. The City shall designate a staff person to serve as
, coordinator of all mitigation monitoring among the various government agencies, construction
contractors, and interested residents. This person (Coordinator) will oversee all mitigation
measures and ensure they are completed to the standards specified in the FEIR and Addendum
' and will ensure that the mitigation measures are completed in a timely manner. They will also
� be responsible for the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist.
,
{
Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 3-
'J
Duties of the Coordinator include the following:
• Coordinate with applicable agencies that have mitigation monitoring and reporting
responsibility;
• Coordinate activities with the construction manager;
• Coordinate activities of all in-field monitors;
. Develop a work plan and schedule for monitoring activities;
• Coordinate activities of consultants hired by the developer when such expertise and
qualifications are necessary;
. Conduct routine inspections and reporting activities;
• Plan checks;
� • Assure follow-up and response to citizen inquiries and complaints;
• Develop, maintain, and compile Verification Report Fbrms;
. Maintain the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist or other suitable mitigation compliance
summary; and
• Coordinate and assure implementation of corrective actions or enforcement
measures, as needed.
Mitigation Monitoring
The implementation of mitigation measures shall be monitored at two levels. The first level of
monitoring is done through the use of a Verification Report. This report is to be completed for
each mitigation measure by the in-field monitor, responsible agency, or construction manager
(whichever is appropriate for the given action and mitigation measure). Frequency of report
completion will vary based on the type of mitigation measure. For example, measures that
require modification of final design drawings will only require that the Verification Report be
completed at the time of Final drawings are completed and again when they are approved.
However, in-field monitoring for activities such as construction may require that a Verification
Report be completed daily.
Once a mitigation measure has been completed and the measure needs no further monitoring
or follow-up, the in-field monitor, responsible agency, or construction manager shall notify the
Coordinator that the measure has been completed. This notification shall be done by sending a
final Verification Report. The Coordinator shall be responsible for collecting and maintaining
completed Verification Reports. Copies of these reports shall be maintained by the City.
If the in field monitor, responsible agency, or construction manager determined that non-
compliance has occurred, a written notice shall be delivered to the Coordinator describing the
non-compliance and requiring compliance within a specified period of time. If non-compliance
still exists at the expiration of the specified period of time, construction may be halted and fines
may be imposed upon the party responsible for implementation, at the discretion of the City.
The second level of monitoring shall be done through the completion of the Mitigation Monitoring
. Checklist. The purpose of the Checklist is to provide a summary of the status of adopted
mitigation measures for the City, other public officials, and concerned citizens. The Coordinator
shall update the Checklist twice a year. The Coordinator shall update the Checklist by reviewing
the Verification Reports and contacting the in-field monitors, responsible agencies, and the
construction manager to review the status of their respective mitigation measures. A copy of the
most current Mitigation Monitoring Checklist shall be maintained at the Community Development
Department.
Creekside FEIR MRigation Monitoring Program -4-
Mitigation Monitoring Status Reporting
� The City shall compile a Mitigation Monitoring Status report on an annual basis. The report shall
' be prepared by the Coordinator and contain the following:
• Mitigation Monitoring Checklist to provide the status of every mitigation measure;
• List of completed mitigation measures;
• List of all non-compliance incidences, with action taken or required'
• Evaluation of the effectiveness of the mitigation measures;
• Recommendations for modifications to the Mitigation and Monitoring Program to
improve effectiveness; and
� • Required modifications to the Mitigation and Monitoring Program to comply with
j legislation and policies adopted in the previous year (e.g. newly listed threatened
species).
Project Mitigation Measures
This section presents a listing and description of the recommended mitigation measures that
avoid or minimize potential environmental impacts.
4.1 Aesthetics
The revised project uses building colors and materials consistent with the Design
Guidelines for the Historic Overlay District (the "Guidelines") and therefore requires no
mitigation for visual impacts.
Impact: Signs added as part of the proposed project may conflict with the existing
Design Guidelines for the Historic Overlay District and with the Development Code for the
Village Mixed Use District. This is a potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to
a less-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s).
' MM 4.1.1: A Planned Sign Program application shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department (CDD). All signs to be installed on or around the proposed
buildings shall be subject to review by Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and
approval by the CDD.
� Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande, CDD
' Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit
� Impact: Sidewalks installed as part of the project may conflict with the Guidelines. This
is a potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with
implementation of the following mitigation measure(s).
MM 4.1.2: All sidewalks to be installed shall be consistent with the Guidelines and the
Development Code, subject to review and approval by the ARC.
E Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD, ARC
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande - CDD, Public Works Dept.
Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit
Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program -5-
9
Impact: The proposed development would result in an increase in external lighting.
Night lighting for security, parking and street lighting could be perceived as intrusive to
surrounding residential neighborhoods. This is a potentially significant impact that can be
mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation
measure(s).
MM 4.1.3: All lighting for the proposed project shall conform to Development Code
Section 16.48.090 for position, intensity and operation. In particular, street and parking
lot lights shall be directed away from the surrounding residential areas, and shall be of
minimum intensity. A photometric plan shall be submitted for review and approval by
CDD and Police Dept. consistent with these lighting requirements.
� Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande - CDD, ARC, Public Works Dept.,
Police Dept.
Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit
4.2 Air Qualitv
Impact: The revised project does not include demolition of any primary buildings and
therefore no impacts of hazardous air pollutants such as asbestos or lead materials are
anticipated. However, construction activities would produce short-term air quality
impacts. This is a potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to a less-than-
'I significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s).
MM 4.2.1: The dust control measures listed below shall be followed during construction
, of the project, and shall be shown on grading and building plans:
• During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep
all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the
, site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later
morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds
15 miles per hour.
• Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or
treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation.
• All vehicles hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered
or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance
between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section
23114.
• Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads on to
streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site.
Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program -6-
• Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried on to
adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used
where feasible.
• Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to
manufacturer's specifications.
• Maximize the use of diesel construction equipment meeting, as a minimum,
the California Air Resources Board's 1996 certification standard for off-road
heavy-duty diesel engines.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande - Public Works Dept., Building and Fire
Department
Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit and during construction
4.3 Bioloqical Resources
' A biological resources investigation was conducted for the project, with emphasis on
identifying sensitive biological resources and associated project impacts given the site's
, proximity to Tally Ho Creek.
Impact: Construction of the project may result in loss of and damage to existing
' vegetation/botanical resources and species habitat. In addition, the potential loss of trees
within the riparian corridor could have substantial effect on habitat suitability for special-
status wildlife species (although no trees are currently scheduled for removal). This is a
potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with
implementation of the following mitigation measures.
MM 4.3.1: A Riparian Restoration, Landscaping, and Monitoring Plan (Restoration Plan)
shall be prepared by a qualified restoration/revegetation biologist and a qualified arborist.
The Restoration Plan shall include, at a minimum, the requirements within the mitigation
measures included in the FEIR, success criteria, and contingency planning if those
criteria are not met.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer shall submit the plan to the City and California
Dept. of Fish and Game (CDFG)
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD and PF2&F (Parks, Recreation
and Facilities Dept.); CDFG
Timing: Restoration Plan shall be submitted and approved prior to
issuance of Grading Permit; duration of monitoring shall be no
less than five (5) years.
MM 4.3.2: Any trees intentionally or unintentionally killed or removed that are greater
than or equal to four (4) inches diameter at breast height (DBH) and less than twelve (12)
inches DBH shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio. Trees removed that are greater than or
equal to twelve (12) inches DBH shall be replaced at a 5:1 ratio. Replacement trees shall
Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 7 -
be limited to appropriate native, riparian tree species as approved by the City Parks,
Facilities and Recreation DepartmenYs arborist.
Mitigation Level: Less-tfian-significant
Responsible Party: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, Parks, Recreation & Facilities
Dept.
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, Parks, Recreation & Facilities
Dept.; CDFG
Timing: Duririg construction
MM 4.3.3: Non-native, invasive plant species (German ivy, poison hemlock, etc.) shall
be removed from the project site, and replaced with appropriate native herbaceous plant
species as directed by a qualified restoration biologist.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, Parks, Recreation & Facilities
, Dept.; CDFG
Timing: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
MM 4.3.4: All disturbed areas of bare soil and slopes within the project site must be
protected from erosion during and after construction in conformance with mitigation
measures in the Geology and Soils section. Re-vegetation in appropriate areas of the
site shall be implemented immediately following construction with locally occurring native
plants and native erosion control seed mix (composed of locally-occurring native seed), in
conjunction with geotechnical fabrics such as jute netting, for steeper slopes.
Implementation of the re-vegetation and other construction Best Management Practices
shall be monitored by a qualified restoration biologist.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: Restoration Biologist; City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, Parks,
' Recreation & Facilities Dept._
Timing: During and after construction activities
MM 4.3.5: The restoration Plan for the site shall contain the following measures for tree
protection during construction:
• A qualified arborist shall be present on-site during preliminary grading. Two
sets of the site map and grading plan shall be submitted Prior to Grading
Permit and shall contain all information required under the terms of Section
7-1.06d of the City of Arroyo Grande Grading Ordinance.
. To protect trees on and near the site during construction, tree preservation
zones (TPZ) shall be established by installing fencing, with stakes
embedded in the ground, no less than 48 inches in height, at the dripline
� (the perimeter of the foliar canopy) of the tree, or at the critical root radius,
as defined by the consulting arborist. This installation will be done prior to
any grading or construction activities. In addition, herbaceous and shrubby
Creekside FE1R Mitigation Monitoring Program -8-
, vegetation shall be fenced and protective wood barriers shall be provided
where these are to be retained.
. Storage of construction materials, debris, or excess soil and parking of
vehicles or construction equipment shall be prohibited within the dripline of
existing trees (the TPZ). Any solvents or liquids shall be properly stored,
- disposed, and recycled to prevent accidental release.
• Soil compaction on the construction site shall be minimized, particularly
within the riparian corridor and under the dripline of trees. Soil surface shall
be protected with a deep layer of mulch (tree chips) to reduce compaction,
retain moisture, and stabilize soil temperature.
. The natural grade around trees that are not removed shall be maintained.
No additional fill or excavation shall be permitted within areas of tree root
j development. If tree roots are unearthed during the construction process,
+ the consulting arborist shall be notified immediately. Exposed roots shall be
covered with moistened burlap until a determination is made by the on-site
arborist.
• Any areas of proposed trenching shall be evaluated with the consulting
arborist and the contractor prior to construction. All trenching on this site
shall be approved by the on-site arborist. Trenching within a tree dripline
shall be performed by hand. Tree roots encountered shall be avoided or
properly pruned under the guidance of the consulting arborist.
�i Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: Arborist; City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, Parks, Recreation &
Facilities Dept.
Timing: During construction
Impact: The project could substantially degrade the riparian corridor associated with
Tally Ho Creek indirectly through introduction of exotic/invasive non-native plant species,
introduction of foreign materials (petroleum products, refuse, etc.), erosion, slope
slippage, and directly through disruption of a sensitive habitat. This is a potentially
, significant impact that can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with
implementation of the following mitigation measure(s).
MM 4.3.6: To reduce erosion hazards due to construction activities, grading shall be
minimized, and project applicants shall use runoff and sediment control structures, and/or
establish a permanent plant cover on side slopes following construction as required in
i Mitigation Measures within the Geology and Soils section of the FEIR.
iMitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept.
Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program -9-
i
I
I
1 MM 4.3.7: The applicant shall submit a Notice of Intent to the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) to obtain a State Water Resources Control Board General
Construction Storm Water Permit. This shall include preparation and approval of a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of Best Management
Practices to reduce water quality impacts as required by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB).
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept.
Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
� MM 4.3.8: Work shall be completed during the dry season (April 15 to October 15) to
� reduce active construction erosion to the extent feasible. If construction must extend into
the wet weather season, a qualified geohydrologist or geotechnical engineer, and
restoration biologist shall prepare a drainage and erosion control plan that addresses
construction measures to prevent §edimentation and erosion of Tally Ho Creek.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept.
Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit and during construction
MM 4.3.9: No fueling or maintenance of equipment shall take place at the site.
� Mechanical equipment shall be serviced in designated staging areas located outside of
the creek riparian area. Water from equipment washing or concrete wash down shall be
prevented from entering the creek.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— Public Works Dept.
Timing: During construction
, MM 4.3.10: All removed and excess material shall be disposed of off-site and away from
the flood plain, outside areas subject to U.S. Army Corps jurisdiction.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— Public Works Dept.
y Timing: During construction
q
I MM 4.3.11: Erosion control and bank stabilization measures shall be implemented to
! ensure that the banks used for access do not erode. In addition, when possible,
alternative bank protection methods, such as restoration of native vegetation, root wads,
or other bioengineering methods of stabilization, shall be used. In order to reduce long-
term effects of soil compaction and, changes in topography, construction vehicles and
personnel shall not enter the low flow channel and wet areas or if necessary, with prior
Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 10-
i
City and DFG approval, only to the extent necessary to complete construction activities.
Construction mats, wood planking, and other devices shall be used whenever possible to
reduce impacts associated with soil compaction.
; Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— Public Works Dept.
Timing: During construction
MM 4.3.12: All temporary fill placed during project construction shall be removed at
project completion and the area restored to approximate pre-project contours and
� topography as approved by a qualified geohydrologist and restoration biologist.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
i Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept.
Timing: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
MM 4.3.13: No construction debris or materials shall be allowed to enter the creek bed,
either directly or indirectly. Stockpiles should be kept far enough from the banks of the
active channel and protected to prevent material from entering the creek bed.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
� Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept.
_
Timing: During construction
Impact: The project has the potential to result in significant direct impacts to the
southwestern pond turtle in the project footprint (and associated riparian corridor)
including through harassment, injury, or mortality from construction equipment,
construction debris, and worker foot traffic and from temporary loss of habitat, temporary
dispersal disruption, and consumption by predators attracted to the activities. In addition,
� the project may result in significant indirect impacts to pond-turtle habitat including
disturbance of upland slopes during construction and the resulting siltation,
sedimentation, pollution, exposure, and reduction of cover. This is a potentially
significant impact that can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with
implementation of the following mitigation measure(s).
MM 4.3.14: A qualified biologist, preferably with a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), shall perform pre-
construction surveys for southwestern pond turtles. If southwestern pond turtles are
� observed within the Area of Potential Effect (APE), they shall be relocated (only by a
�. biologist with an MOU) to appropriate habitat elsewhere along Tally Ho Creek. If the
� surveying biologist does not have an MOU, CDFG shall be contacted regarding
I southwestern pond turtle presence, to determine an appropriate course of action.
i
� Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
� Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD; CDFG
Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitonng Program - 11 -
j Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
' MM 4.3.15: An on-site biological monitor shall assess the Area of Potential Impact (API)
daily for southwestern pond turtle presence, and relocate any observed individuals to
appropriate associated habitat (only if the monitor has a MOU). If the surveying biologist
does not have an MOU, CDFG shall be contacted regarding southwestern pond turtle
presence, to determine an appropriate course of action.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD; CDFG
Timing: During construction
� Impact: The project would potentially result in a significant adverse impact to nesting
� raptors due to increased physiological stress, increased brood mortality, and potential
J nest abandonment. These impacts may occur due to reduced habitat suitability or quality
� (physical or biological changes in the area), increased frequency of disturbance (i.e.,
noise, dust, vibration, etc.), and increased accidental death (direct mortality). The
j available nesting raptor habitat at and near the project site that may be impacted by the
; project includes all trees within 300 feet of project boundaries, including the adjacent
areas surrounding Tally Ho Creek. This is a potentially significant impact that can be
mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation
measure(s).
MM 4.3.16: Pre-construction surveys for nesting raptors shall be performed by a
qualified biologist. If raptor nests are located during pre-construction surveys, a 300-foot
buffer shall be established around each nest for the duration of the breeding season
I (ending August 1S�), or until such time as the young are fully fledged as determined by a
qualified biologist in coordination with CDFG. Every effort shall be made to avoid
removal of, or impact to, known raptor nests within project boundaries. If trees known to
support raptor nests (in past years) cannot be avoided, limbing or removal of these trees
may only occur during the non-breeding season (March 15 —August 1).
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD; CDFG
Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
Impact: The project may result in significant impacts to adult and sub-adult California
Red Legged Frogs (CRLFs) including harassment, injury, or mortality from construction
activities including placement of debris, worker foot traffic, restoration activities,
temporary loss of habitat, temporary dispersal disruption, consumption by predators
attracted to the activities, and siltation and pollution of the habitat. This is a potentially
significant impact that can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with
� implementation of the following mitigation measure(s).
MM 4.3.17: All work within the sensitive habitats shall be confined to a work-window of
May 1 to November 1 to minimize the impact on wildlife species.
Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 12-
�
�
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD; CDFG
Timing: During Construction
MM 4.3.18: A biological monitor shall be on site during initial construction activities
� (grading, vegetation removal) to monitor for special-status wildlife.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer, Consulting Biologist
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD; CDFG
i Timing: During Construction
MM 4.3.19: A biological monitor shall conduct protocol-level surveys for CRLF within the
riparian corridor associated with the project site to establish site utilization by this
species.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer, Consulting Biologist
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD; CDFG
Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
MM 4.3.20: Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is required. This
will involve a minimum 135-day review during which time USFWS will prepare a
r; Biological Opinion and Take Permit.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer; USFWS
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD; USFWS
Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
MM 4.3.21: A permitted biologist (USFWS permit) shall relocate any and all individuals
located within project boundaries to suitable habitat without the risk of take (relocation of
! CRLF also has the potential to take individual frogs, but this will be addressed in the
Service's Biological Opinion). Relocation of CRLF, if present, would occur prior to, and
for the duration of, construction.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer, Consulting Biologist
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD; USFWS
, Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit and during construction
MM 4.3.22: An employee education program shall be conducted to familiarize workers
with the biology and identification of special-status•wildlife species that may potentially be
encountered during construction. This education program will also discuss access to and
from the site, impact minimization, required avoidance and conditions of construction
measures, and communication with appropriate agencies (CDFG and USFWS). One
Creekside FEIR Mifigation Monitoring Program - 13 -
i
person will be appointed the point of contact for these agencies, and will be responsible
for appropriate communication in the unlikely event that special status species are
encountered during construction. Neither the appointed contact nor anyone else on the
crew shall handle special status wildlife at any time.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer, CDFG and USFWS
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD; CDFG; USFWS
Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
MM 4.3.23: Equipment staging areas and vehicle parking and movement shall be
restricted to designated construction zones. Flagging shall also be used to keep
equipment, vehicles, and personnel from restricted areas.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD, Public Works Dept.
Timing: During construction
MM 4.3.24: To reduce the potential attraction of CRLF predators, all food-related trash
materials (e.g., leftovers, wrappers, and containers) shall be removed from the
construction site each day, and sites would be constantly maintained as litter-free.
Project personnel shall be instructed not to bring pets on-site, which may also prey upon
CRLF.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
� Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, Public Works Dept.
Timing: During construction
MM 4.3.25: Strict adherence to erosion control measures, and control of project run-off,
is critical to maintaining CRLF habitat. Riparian mitigation, geology and soils mitigation,
hydrology mitigation, and steelhead mitigation shall be implemented.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, Public Works Dept.
Timing: During construction
MM 4.3.26: After completion of construction activities, the Restoration Plan shall be
prepared and implemented. At a minimum, this plan shall include post-construction
restoration of the site to pre-construction topography and contours, including: re-
� contouring to provide for appropriate drainage and soil stability conditions, non-
native/invasive exotics control, re-establishment and planting of native riparian species,
success criteria, and conditions in the event that post-construction restoration does not
!, attain the goals of the plan.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
, Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, Public Works Dept.
Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 14-
Timing: Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy
Impact: The project could result in significant impacts to Steelhead and their habitat due
to direct and indirect impacts to Tally Ho Creek. The project may also result in indirect
impacts to Arroyo Grande Creek due to construction and post-construction downstream
erosion, discharge of sediment, and discharge of other pollutants that could affect
� downstream habitat. This is a potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to a
less-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s).
MM 4.3.27: The developer shall enter into formal consultation with the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding potential impacts to steelhead.
i
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD
� Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
MM 4.3.28: No removal of riparian or upland trees that provide shade to Tally Ho Creek
shall occur. Management shall include planting of native riparian species (i.e., willow,
big-leaf maple, cottonwood, etc.) along the creek to provide shade and therefore aid in
cooling of the creek. The on-site riparian habitat shall be enhanced to result in a net
benefit to Tally Ho Creek.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD, Public Works Dept.
Timing: During construction
MM 4.3.29: To reduce the peak runoff volumes (flashiness) of storm events from the site
to the adjacent creeks, the developer shall submit a drainage plan prepared by a qualified
hydrologist or civil engineer that demonstrates that the project post-construction run-off
rate would not exceed pre-construction run-off rate in a 10- and 100-year flood event.
The following specific provisions shall be included in the drainage plan subject to review
and approval by the City Public Works Director, and a Restoration Biologist:
• The drainage plan should be devised such that the bench immediately
surrounding the project site shall capture and retain roof and patio runoff
from the site and prevent uncontrolled surface runoff toward the creek. If a
gutter system is inappropriate for restoration, a paved ditch shall be
constructed around the foundation facing the creek to collect all runoff and
feed it into a storm drain system.
. Any increase in impermeable surfaces on the property that would lead to
increased surface runoff toward the creek shall be prevented. If the amount
of impermeable surfaces is increased, the surfaces shall be paved with
porous pavement blocks and the drainage plan shall provide for capture of
increased runoff and percolation on the bench without additional overland
movement of water toward the creek.
Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 15 -
�
i
I • The drainage plan shall include two water detention facilities: one for clean
roof/patio runoff and one for parking lot runoff. Alternatively, the drainage
plan can include a single detention and storm water pollution prevention
system. Runoff from the roofs and patios shall be sent into an underground
, detention tank and then metered out slowly to a culvert running down the
slope of the creek with appropriate energy dissipation. Runoff from any
new parking area on the site shall be directed into the appropriate pollution
control facility or facilities, subject to approval by the Regional water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) in their review of the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention (SWPP). The stormwatedurban runoff pollution control
� methodology shall be consistent with mitigation measures in the hydrology
and water quality section of the EIR.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept.
Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
MM 4.3.30: The developer shall record an open space agreement and twenty-five foot
(25') creek easement on the property measured from top of bank. No development shall
occur within 25' creek setback area. A trail easement is further required within the
setback area.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, Public Works Dept.
Timing: Prior to Grading Permit
MM 4.3.31: To combat unwanted creek access and foot traffic that disturbs vegetation,
! the developer shall construct a footpath to the creek that would be stable and not erosive.
� The trail should be covered with base rock and designed to be permeable and to avoid
the concentration of storm runoff. The developer shall also plant shrubs, such as native
blackberry, adjacent to any trails and/or footpaths to discourage use of a shortcut path,
and revegetate any existing short paths.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, Public Works Dept.
Timing: Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy
i'
4.4 Cultural Resources
Impacts related to the original project included removal of the primary house and
warehouse, which were found to be significant and unavoidable even with
� implementation of required mitigation measures. Because all structures are proposed to
remain with the revised project, there are no significant unavoidable impacts to these
resources. However, mitigation is required to ensure the long-term preservation of
existing structures that are eligible for listing in the California Register as historic
resources.
Creekside FEIR Mftigation Monitoring Program - 16 -
r
Impact: The project includes removal of the rear loading dock located on the north
elevation of the grain warehouse. An historical evaluation was conducted by Chattel
Architecture, Planning & Preservation, Inc., for removal of the loading dock to determine
if demolition would result in a significant impact to an historical resource. The conclusion
of the consultant is as follows:
"While the grain warehouse itself may contribute to the setting of the
main house, loss of the rear loading dock would not, in and of itself,
cause substantial adverse change to the historical resource (main
house). Loss of a loading dock which may or may not have been an
element of fhe setting of the house during the period of significance
would not materially alter the historical resource or its setting to the point
where fhe main house wou/d lose its ability to convey its historical
significance. Because demolition of the grain warehouse north loading
dock would not constitute materia/ impairment to an historica/ resource,
no adverse impacts are expected to occur as a result of this limited
demolifion. In concept, demolifion of a small portion of the north, rear of
the grain warehouse, on a secondary elevation, seems acceptable, if it
facilitates retention of the main house and compatible development of
� the proposed project site."
Removal of the rear loading dock therefore does not constitute a potentially significant
i impact and no mitigation is required. Such removal would require a demolition permit
and ARC review in accordance with D-2.4 Design Guidelines and Standards.
Impact: Transfer, lease, or sale of property without adequate and legally enforceable
restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the propertys historic
significance. This is a potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s).
MM 4.4.1: The owner of the property containing the former Loomis residences and grain
warehouse shall register the main residence in the California Register of Historic Places
through the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP).
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD, Building Dept.
Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit
Impact: Alteration of an historical resource, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair,
maintenance, stabilization, hazardous material remediation, and provision of
handicapped access that is potentially not consistent with the Secretary's Rehabilitation
Standards and Guidelines (36 CFR part 68) or technical advisories. This is a potentially
significant impact that can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with
implementation of the following mitigation measure(s).
MM 4.4.2: Alterations to the main house shall comply with the Secretary's Rehabilitation
Standards and Guidelines (36 CFR part 68).
i
iCreekside FEIR Mitigation Monko�ing Program - 17-
�
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— Building Dept.
Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit
MM 4.4.3: The segment of the rail bed on the project site shall be left intact and its
alignment identified. If it is not possible to preserve the rail bed, then documentary
drawings consistent with accepted industry practice shall be made of this historic feature
to provide an archival record of its existence prior to disturbance or removal. Such
documentary drawings shall be appropriately labeled and placed in the collection of the
regional information center at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The
documentary drawings shall be accepted by the Community Development Director prior
to submittal to the repository and issuance of any final occupancy for the project. A high-
� quality, laser or equivalent copy, shall be provided to the Community Development
" Director for retention in the project file.
�
i
�. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Building Dept.
Timing: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
Impact: Although no prehistoric resources have been found on the project site, the
potential for such resources exists. The project has the potential to disturb such
resources and result in their loss. This is a potentially significant impact that can be
mitigated to a less-than-significant level with the following mitigation measure(s).
MM 4.4.4: The following note shall be placed on the grading plans for the project:
"In the event that during grading, construction or development of the project,
and archeological resources are uncovered, all work shall be halted until the
City has reviewed the resources for their significance. If human remains
(burials) are encountered, the County Coroner (781-4513) shall be contacted
immediately. The applicant may be required to provide archaeological studies
and/or mitigation measures."
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept.
Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
MM 4.4.5: A qualified archaeologist shall be retained to monitor all earth movement
(grading) activity. For the purposes of this project, a qualified archaeologist shall meet
the qualifications and be registered on the Register of Professional Archaeologists.
In the event that prehistoric cultural materials, or historic cultural materials are
encountered, work in the immediate vicinity of the finds shall be suspended and the
archaeologist allowed to quickly record, collect and analyze any significant resources
encountered. Following the field analysis work, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare
' Creekside FEIR MRigation Monitoring Program - 18-
I a final monitoring/mitigation report that includes a description of the methods used,
; materials recovered, and the results of historic or prehistoric analysis of those materials.
The final archaeological monitoring/mitigation report prepared by the qualified
archaeologist shall be accepted by the Community Development Director prior to
submittal to the repository and issuance of any final occupancy for the project. A high-
quality, laser or equivalent copy, shall be provided to the Community Development
Director for retention in the project file.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD
Timing: During construction
Impact: Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the
, integrity of an historical resource's significant historic features.
MM 4.4.6: The Community Development Director shall ensure the project is reviewed
through design development and construction documents phases for conformance with
the "Design Guidelines and Standards for Historic Districts" (the "Guidelines"). The
project site is located in an area of transition from formal commercial to single and
multiple family residential areas adjoining an agrarian character, farm-support
commercial complex at the northeast edge of the Village Mixed Use district. The project
design shall emphasize these transitional and agrarian features, which are reflected in
the "existing design elements". These features include barn-like building envelopes with
' gable roofs and horizontal or vertical cladding.
As part of their established responsibilities, the Architectural Review Committee (ARC)
shall conduct their own, parallel review for consistency with the Guidelines. No building
permit for the project shall be issued for the project until the final design has been
reviewed and found to be consistent with the Guidelines in accordance with the process
described above.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD
, Timing: Prior to issuance of a Building Permit
4.5 Geoloqv and Soils
' The project as revised requires less cut and fill compared to the original project: 590
cubic yards (cy) of cut and 2,870 cy of fill for the revised project vs. 1,264 cy of cut and
' 2,953 cy of fill as originally proposed. Although there is less site disturbance (limited
demolition proposed and less grading), the clearing and grading necessary to develop
the site as proposed has the potential to cause erosion and sedimentation in local
drainages and is therefore subject to mitigation. The site is also located in a seismically
active region that necessitates mitigation.
Impact: The project site will be subject to severe ground shaking in a strong seismic
event, which could cause damage to structures and endanger public safety. This is a
Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monito�ing Program - 19 -
potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with
implementation of the following mitigation measure(s).
MM 4.5.1: A project-specific geotechnical report shall be prepared by a registered
geotechnical engineer as required by the City's Grading Ordinance, and the
recommendations of that report shall be incorporated in the design and construction of
the proposed project. Final improvement plans submitted to the City shall be
accompanied by a letter of certification from the geotechnical engineer that the plans are
in conformance with the geotechnical report, and the certification shall confirm that the
plans include the following:
• The project shall be designed to withstand ground shaking associated with
a large magnitude earthquake on nearby active faults.
• All proposed structures shall be designed to conform to the most recent
Uniform Building Code (UBC) Zone 4 guidelines.
• The project shall comply with the requirements of the City's Grading
Ordinance.
• Site-specific specifications regarding clearing, site grading and preparation,
footings, foundations, slabs-on-grade, site drainage, and pavements or turf
block shall be delineated.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept.
Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
Impact: The project would potentially result in soil instability impacts (including
landslides) that could damage structures and endanger public safety. This is a potentially
significant impact that can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with
implementation of the following mitigation measure(s).
MM 4.5.2: The geotechnical report shall include the following considerations, at a
minimum, to ensure that the impacts related to soil instability and landslides are reduced
to a less-than-significant level:
• Utilities should be designed with as much flexibility as practical to tolerate
potential differential movement without becoming disconnected or broken.
• Subgrade or base material shall be replaced or covered with suitable base
material.
• Retaining wall design shall be prepared by a qualified structural engineer
based on the recommendations of a qualified geotechnical engineer and
shall comply with the requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance.
• Land with slopes greater than 25% shall not be developed, except as
indicated in the approved building and grading permits.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept.
Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 20-
Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
Impact: The project site will be subject to soil erosion and downstream sedimentation
during construction. This is a potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to a
less-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s).
MM 4.5.3: Prior to Grading Permit for the project, the applicant shall prepare and submit
a grading and erosion control plan in compliance with the City's Grading Ordinance for
review and approval by the Public Works Department, and a qualified biologist and
geohydrologist. The erosion control plan shall be subject to review and approval, and
monitoring during construction, by the on-site biologist, geotechnical engineer, and City
staff and shall include the following, at a minimum:
• Install and maintain silt basins and fences or straw bales along drainage
paths during construction to contain on-site soils until bare slopes are
vegetated. Carefully stockpile graded soils away from drainages;
• Restrict grading and earthwork during the rainy season (October 15 through
April 15) and stabilize all exposed soils and graded areas prior to onset of
the rainy season through mulching and reseeding. Permit grading within
this period only with installation of adequate sediment and erosion control
measures;
. Delineate and describe the practices to retain sediment on the site,
including sediment basins and traps, and a schedule for their maintenance
and upkeep;
• Delineate and describe the vegetative practices to be used, including types
of seeds and fertilizer and their application rates, the type, location and
extent of pre-existing and undisturbed vegetation types, and a schedule for
maintenance and upkeep;
• Estimate of the cost of implementing and maintaining all erosion and
sediment control measures;
• Revegetate graded slopes with appropriate native plant species (as
specified by a qualified botanist or revegetation specialist) immediately
upon completion of grading or prior to extended inactivity in any exposed
area;
• Comply with all applicable City of Arroyo Grande ordinances including
landscaping compatibility for erosion control;
• Only clear land that will be actively under construction within 6 to 12
months; ,
• Stabilize disturbed areas except where active construction is taking place.
Examples of stabilization techniques include jute netting, hydro-seeding
(using native plant composition in consultation with a qualified biologist or
re-vegetation specialist), etc. and provide permanent stabilization during
finish grade and landscape the site;
• Dispose of all construction waste in designated areas, and keep storm
water from flowing on or off these areas;
Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program -21 -
• Divert or intercept storm water before it reached Tally Ho Creek, using
temporary dikes, swales, or pipe slope drains to provide for settling of
suspended solids and prevention of contamination by construction
materials; and
• Place perimeter controls where runoff enters or leaves the site prior to
clearing, grubbing, and rough grading. Perimeter controls may include
dikes, swales, temporary storm drains, sand bags or hay bales.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, Public Works Dept.; Consulting
biologist and geohydrologist
Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
4.6 Hazardous Materials
The project site has been used for agricultural chemical operations for decades.
Although remediation occurred in 1986, soil contamination from continued agricultural
chemical operations could have occurred, creating unsafe conditions. Because there is
no proposed demolition, mitigation measures are not necessary for public safety
associated with asbestos and lead paint contained in existing structures. However,
naturally occurring asbestos could be present in the soils, requiring precautionary
mitigation.
Impact: The project site may contain unsafe levels of hazardous materials, which may
exceed state action levels and may pose a threat to future construction workers,
residents or users at the Creekside Center project site. This is a significant impact that
can be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the following mitigation measure(s).
MM 4.6.1: Subject to approval by the San Luis Obispo County Environmental Health
Department (County Health), the developer shall conduct any necessary soil sampling,
risk assessment and remediation, and present evidence to the City of Arroyo Grande that
the risk of future exposure of people working, living or using the site is reduced to a level
that is acceptable to the relevant resource agencies (County Health, and the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, if requested by County Health). The City shall not
issue a grading permit until they receive written verification to demonstrate that the level
of risk is acceptable to resource agencies and that the levels of hazardous materials are
safe for all proposed site activities.
' In addition, as requested by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD), the applicant shall
adhere to the following requirements:
• Storage piles of contaminated material shall be covered at all times except
when soil is being added or removed;
• Covers on storage piles should be maintained in place at all times in areas
not actively involved in soil addition or removal;
• Contaminated soil shall be covered with at least six (6) inches of packed
uncontaminated soil or other TPH — nonpermeable barrier such as plastic
tarp
• No head space should be allowed where vapors could accumulate;
'i
Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program -22-
• Covered piles should be designed in such a way to eliminate erosion due to
wind or water;
• No openings in the cover are permitted;
• During soil excavation, odors should not be evident to such a degree as to
cause a public nuisance; and
• Clean soils must be segregated from contaminated soil.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— Public Works Dept.; County Health;
RWQCB; APCD
Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
MM 4.6.2: Prior to any grading activities at the site, a geologic evaluation will be
necessary to determine if naturally occurring asbestos is present. If naturally occurring
asbestos is found at the site, the developer must comply with all requirements outlined in
the Asbestos ATCM for construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining
Operations. These requirements may include but are not limited to 1) an Asbestos Dust
Mitigation Plan that must be approved by the APCD before construction occurs, and 2)
an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for some projects, if requested by the APCD.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept.; APCD
Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
4.7 Hvdroloqv and Water Qualitv
The project is within the City's adopted Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and
FEMA requirements for floodplain zoning. However, the project site and surrounding
lands are subject to inundation during a 100-year flood due to the insufficient capacity of
the Branch Street Culvert. Replacement of this culvert would be a costly regional capital
improvement that could not legally be imposed on the project developer solely. An
analysis should be made, however, to determine whether structures nearby the site
would be flooded due to project activities and whether improvements to the culvert would
be necessary to increase the capacity to sufficiently handle a 100-year storm upon
project development.
Impact: The project would expose people and structures to a potentially significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding of the Tally Ho Creek due to
project improvements in combination with insufficiency of the culvert under Branch Street
to be able to pass the 100-year flood event. This is a significant impact that can be
reduced to a less-than-significant level with the following mitigation measure(s).
MM 4.7.1: A qualified civil engineer shall prepare and submit a project-specific
, flooding/drainage study to demonstrate that the project has appropriate flood design
subject to review and approval by the City prior to approval of a grading permit for the
project. The project shall meet these standards at the time of site development, including
the following criteria within the floodplain:
Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program -23-
• All new structures shall have finish floors elevated at least one foot over the
level of the 100-year flood or the structures must be flood-proofed to a level
at least one foot over the level of the 100-year flood;
• Structures located within the flood plain must be capable of withstanding
the hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads (including buoyancy) caused by the
100-year flood at the site;
• The development must not cause a rise of over one foot in the level of the
100-year flood at any off-site location;
• Any new development must be located beyond the riparian setback
designated in City Codes;
• Affected structures shall be flood proofed and certified as provided for in
Ordinance No. 501; and
• Flood proofing at doorway openings should utilize floodgate barriers and
flood proof inembranes should be integrated into the structural design.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept.
Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
Impact: Future construction activities and post-construction uses at the site could result
in degradation of water quality in nearby surface and ground water bodies through
surface runoff, and infiltration to ground water, and may indirectly cause impacts on the
riparian values of the downstream waterbodies and sensitive species. This is a
significant impact that can be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the following
mitigation measure(s).
MM 4.7.2: The developer shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) and an Erosion Control Plan (as required by MM 4.5.3) and submit them to the
City for review and approval Prior to Grading Permit. The SWPPP shall include Best
Management Practices for construction and post-construction activities to control runoff
volumes and rates, and erosion, and to prevent discharge of pollutants to Tally Ho Creek.
When pavement is removed, uncovered site soils shall be further tested for possible
contaminants. Specific Best Management Practices to be implemented shall be
developed based on site-specific analysis of the optimum pollution control methodology
and shall include, at a minimum, the requirements set forth in MM 4.5.3, measures
identified in the Biological Resources section, and the following:
• The drainage plan shall demonstrate that existing local and downstream
hydrological conditions would not be significantly impacted with'
implementation of the proposed project such that new bank erosion would
result due to project improvements.
• The applicanYs drainage plan shall demonstrate that after construction has
been completed and the site permanently stabilized, the post development
average annual total suspended solids (TSS) loadings from the site are
reduced by 80% compared to predevelopment loadings with pollution
control measures.
Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program -24-
• Use one or more of the following best management practices to control
urban runoff: infiltration trenches, concrete grid pavement, vegetated filter
strips, water quality inlet catch basins with sand filter, or other appropriate
practices using guidance from the RWQCB, US EPA, or other agency with
water quality regulatory authority. A good source of information on best
management practices can be found in "National Management Measures
Guidance to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Urban Areas: (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, July 2002).
• The plans and specifications for the construction contract shall require that
best management practices be implemented throughout construction. The
City of Arroyo Grande shall inspect the project site during construction and
� verify that the construction contractor is implementing the proper erosion
and water quality protection measures. The applicants shall implement the
following water quality control and protection measures during construction:
- Performing major vehicle maintenance, repair jobs and equipment
washing off site;
- Maintaining all vehicles and heavy equipment and inspecting
frequently for leaks;
- Designating one area of the construction site, well away from
streams or storm drain outlets, for auto and equipment parking and
routine vehicle and equipment maintenance;
- Cleaning-up spilled dry materials immediately. Do not "wash them
away" with water, or bury them;
- Using only minimal water for dust control;
- Cleaning-up liquid spills on paved dr impermeable surFaces using
"dry" cleanup methods (i.e., absorbent materials, cat letter, and/or
rags);
- Cleaning-up soils on dirt areas by removing and properly disposing
of contaminated soil;
- Reporting significant spills to the appropriate spill response
agencies;
- Storing stockpiled material, wastes, containers and dumpsters under
a temporary roof or secured plastic sheeting;
- Properly storing containers of paints, chemicals, solvents and other
hazardous materials in garages or sheds with double containment
during rainy periods;
- Placing dumpsters under roofs or covering them with plastic sheeting
at the end of each work day and during rainy weather;
- Washing out concrete mixers only in designated washout areas
where the water will flow into setting ponds or onto stockpiles of
aggregate base or sand. Whenever possible, recycling washout by
pumping back into mixers for reuse. Never dispose of washout into
the street, storm drains, drainage ditches, or streams;
- Applying concrete, asphalt and seal coat during dry weather.
Keeping contaminants from fresh concrete and asphalt out of the
storm drains, creeks, by scheduling paving jobs during periods of dry
weather, allowing new pavement to cure before storm water flows
across it;
Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program -25 -
- Covering catch basins and manholes when applying seal coat, slurry
seal, fog seal, etc.; and
- Always parking paving equipment over drip pans or absorbent
materials, since they tend to drip continuously.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept.
Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
4.8 Land Use and Planninq
The project is consistent with the policies and standards of Land Use Element of the
2001 General Plan, the Village Mixed Use District Development Code, and Design
Guidelines for Historic Districts. There are no significant land use related impacts, and
no mitigation measures are necessary.
4.9 Noise
Existing ambient noise in the vicinity of the project site is primarily generated by traffic.
The project will generate a short-term noise impact with construction activities. Long-
term increases in traffic and other operational noise levels are considered less-than-
significant impacts and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Impact: Existing residences in the project area would be exposed to short-term noise
impacts during construction. This is a significant impact that can be reduced to a less-
than-significant level with the following mitigation measure(s).
MM 4.9.1: Construction activities shall be restricted to the hours of 8:OOAM to 5:00 PM
Monday through Friday. There shall be no construction activities on Saturday or Sunday.
Equipment maintenance and servicing shall be confined to the same hours.
MM 4.9.2: All construction equipment utilizing internal combustion engines shall be
required to have mufflers that are in good condition. Stationary noise sources shall be
located at least 300 feet from occupied dwelling units unless noise reducing engine
housing enclosures or noise screens are provided by the contractor.
, MM 4.9.3: Equipment mobilization areas, water tanks, and equipment storage areas
shall be placed in a central location as far from existing residences as feasible.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD, Public Works Dept.
Timing: During construction
4.10 Public Services and Utilities
, Public services and utilities serving the project vicinity include police and fire protection,
emergency response, schools and libraries, parks and recreation, utilities and solid waste
disposal. Impacts to these services resulting from the project are less than significant
and no mitigation measures are necessary.
�
Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program -26-
4.11 Water and Wastewater
Wastewater disposal is not considered a significant impact and existing facilities can
handle the increased project demand. Cumulative water supply impacts are considered
significant but mitigable with implementation of mitigation measures.
Impact: Development of the proposed project would require water for both domestic use
and landscape irrigation. Water consumption by this project would further reduce the
City's remaining supply of available water. This impact will be minimized by mitigation
measures, including using water-conserving designs, fixtures and landscaping. The
following mitigation shall be required to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
MM 4.11.1: The project shall comply with the City's required water conservation
measures including any applicable measures identified in any applicable City Water
Conservation Plans.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept.
Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit
MM 4.11.2: The project shall install best available technology for low-flow toilets,
showerheads and hot water recirculation systems.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande —Building Dept.
Timing: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
MM 4.11.3: The final landscape plan shall show low-water use/drought resistant species
and drip irrigation systems rather than spray irrigation systems.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Parks, Recreation and Facilities Dept.
Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit
MM 4.11.4: The project plans shall include methods for collecting surface run-off from
the site for use on landscaped areas to reduce water use and minimize run-off to the
e�ent feasible.
Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant
Responsible Party: Developer
Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande —Public Works Dept.
Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit
Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program -27-
f�ECrIYE� ATTACHMENT 8
:'!T•' „� n,,, ., _, . . ,
, �„ ,_,�,.;a , o :, �
�
�
August 2, 2006 06 AUG -2 `�i �� �:�
City Council
Arroyo Grande City Hall
215 East Branch Sf
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Re: Proposed Creekside Development Plan
Dear City Council:
During the June 14, 2005 meeting of the City Council, Mayor Pro Tem Costello asked
questions of City staff regarding the trees along Crown Terrace and L.e Point Street that
are going to be destroyed as a result of this development. Ms Heffernan's response was
that there were `bnly a few fir trees and no oaks."
This response was quite surprising since, in reality, there are approximately 60 mature
Leyland Cypress along Crown Terrace and L.e Point that will be destroyed along with (5)
Brisbane Box trees, a very mature Sego palm, an Arroyo Willow, (2) Black Cottonwood
trees and a small Coastal Live Oak tree. This is considerably more than "a few."
While I assume that a landscaping plan for the development is in place and is being
reviewed by the City; the number of yeazs the proposed landscaping will take to mature
will be considerable.
If the proposed 3 story townhouses along Crown Terrace were scaled back to two stories
with ingress/egress for them being on L,e Point and East Branch Street (rather than Crown
Terrace), none of these trees would need to be destroyed. And, the safety concerns of
residents backing out onto Crown Terrace would be eliminated.
Thank you for your consideration of these points.
Sincerely,
�LaI,�t1JL� �j�l���
Barbara Freel
502 L,e Point St
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
�CHAMELEON �j�`�
Fabrics, Fumiture& Design � �
415 E. Branch St. ��/�,
ARO o Grande, CA 93420
Tel: (805)481-4104 Fax: (805)481-4105 C/n, AUG Q� C .
August 1, zoos c°MM�N�o�,o G���
City of Arroyo Grande � F��O�9N�F
Councii Members &Staff
RE: Creekside Project at 415 E. BranCh St MFNr
General Conoems about the entire projed—is this the right Fit for the�Ilage?? �
Dear Council Members and City Staff:
We understand that this property someday will be developed. However once again, the same old alans
are submitted by the developer. Yes, some of the adjustments have been made in response to the
Planning Commission's reoommendations. However, the resounding issues, concems and vision for the
village that were expressed by the community, the Planning Commission and even City Council
Members last June, were ignored. Please do not rush to approve a project that is still not designed
with the best i►rterests of the community, commerce or historical sign�cance of this priceless
last stand for-the "Historical�Ilage of Arroyo Grande".
In short, this project, though impressive, is not right for this piece of property to be developed in the
Village Commercial Core area for the following reasons:
Concem Description . Solution
Density of the homes We cannot require state mandated quotas . Reduce the number of
for housing developments to be forced on housing units
the part of the city where there is already . qdd another commercial
� overburdened traffic concems, small building
sVeets, dead-end streets, blocked off . Increase parking area
streets=basicall no lo ical traffic flow.
Traffic Flow In the event of an emergency(fire, Consider opening Le Pointe
earthquake, Lopez Dam etc.)24 units Bridge as an enhancement for
with 2 cars each (48) would stifl converge the traffic flow in the future but
at 415 E. Branch along with all residents plan for it now.
of Crown Hill—not acce table
Commercial Structure The structure next to the Bam will tower Reduce sUvcture to 2 floors
over the bam—completely hide the green
Vidorian Home on Crown Terrace
View shed desVoyed Creating these driveways on Le Point are Keep only the one parking
ridiculous from a traffic point of view but garage driveway exiting on
will also remove all the Crown Terrace. Keep trees on
Le Pointe and Crown Terrace to
hide"yucky" (for lack of a better .
woM a artment buildin .
,
Architectural Styling The Current proposed commercial building Refer to the new JJ's Market -.
For Commercial looks lack-luster, mundane and cheap commercial complex on the . 1 ;
Structure and does not enhance the commercial Mesa. It looks like an old �
aspect of the project"*` westem town that has always
been there!
Sin rely, "
V �t�(�__
C may Arad - Chameleon
� CHAMELFAN _ .
Fabrics, Fumiture& Design
415 E. Branch St.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
TeL (805)481-4104 Fau: (805) 481-4105 .
August 1, 20� � RECEIVED
City of Arroyo Grande
Council Members &Staff AUG 0 1 2�6
RE: Creekside Project at 415 E. Branch St CITY OFARROYO GRANDE
Business Preservation Concems
COIVIMUNIiI' DEVECOPMENT
Dear Council Members and City Staff:
As the above mentioned project comes up again for review"Chameleon"wants to express the following
concems to both the City Councii and Staff regarcling the actual construction and implementation details.
Driveway Access to Chameleon
We request that the City ensure in writing the condition with the developer that this primary access to the
properiy remain open and acce"ssible for business tra�c, parking, deliveries etc., vvith no disrupUon to
business during the entire construction process. We will do everything possible to work with the
developers to make this achievable.
Dust CoMrol
A dust control program during construction must be ensured on the site. This is for the safety of the
customers and the tenants. Because of ventilation circumstances at the bam and the existence of only
two doors on the north-east side of the building where most of the construction will occur, it is imperative
especially during dry weather that the area be watered down at regular intervals during the day to
prevent dust and keep excessive dirt off the driveway.
WateNine Crossing
We have been infortned by the Building Department that it is the DevelopePs responsibility to ensure
unirrterrupted water service to 415 E. Branch ("The Bam°). The waterline which existed betore the
property was sub-divided, crosses the developer's paroel and will require possible re-routing or relocating
to ensure oontinuous service. Again, Chameleon will do whatever necessary to provide the developer
� with hours and/or a schedule that the water service will not interrupt business.
Thank you so much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
���� �� �� �� � �
Camay Ara and WiMon E. Tullis
Chameleon
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
214 B.Branch St.
A;royo Grande, CA 93420
March 7;2005
Members of the C��/y' �J/ (�/1�L1/�
This letter is in reference to the project pmposed for the Loomis property. My main
concern is safety along Crown Teirace.
I live on May Street with my wife and two young daughters, and we walk along Crown
Terrace at least twice a day on our way to and from downtown.As such,we are very
familiar with how narrow that shzet is,and how dangerous it can be. The combination of
more traffic and the proposed driveways e�ering onto Cmwn Teriace is a recipe for
disaster.The mad is very nanow(27 feet according to a neighbqr)and has a blind corner
onto Lepoint amund w}rich cars often travel at very high speed. 'W'rth cars backing out
onto Crown Terrace,it is only a matter of time before there is an accidetrt.
It seems like it would be far safer to route the exits from the homes either onto Branch
Street as is currently the case,or else onto tower L.epoint. Regardless of what happens, if
this.project is approved t�e city should require that the developer either put a sidewalk
along Crown Terrace,or else provide a route through the developmetrt that resideuts on
LePoint and May Street can use to safety avoid Crown Terrace.
We aze also concerned about light pollution. If this project is to be mixed use,we hope
that the businesses will be required to consider the residential areas neerby and install low
intensity liglrting.
Thaolc you for taking the time to read these comments.
Sincerely,
����
Derek Mitchem and fatnily
513 May Street ����4`���
Arroyo Grande 9 X
473-8719 "
hiAR 0 8 2005
CqY OF AR �O GRiW�E
COMMUN}'{�L?E�14P�M
' i . F
, /�/�'i-c� 3 - �S
Re: Creekside Center Development
To: �J'���/fi''" i`' - -
We are very concerned about the development of
this gropesty.
1=Too big for our Village.
2=Traffic, Extremely dangeraus, even under current
Conditions.
3=Wi11 ruin our street with more noise, traffic, and
trying to get onto the street.
Sincerely� �-G� ,
/ r
�7��L�l�t�IYU�- Q /�or.�
.I' lr,S' ,�?�eiiL�"-
. ��,y� �'��.� � .
�3��a -� 8'� �
REC�6VE�
1ilr.�� �� i+ /oO�J
ClTY OF ARRCTYO GRAAIDE
COMMUNIiY DEYELOPMEM
�
,,March 8, 2005 —---------..—
Yo:, P� 4�,y'lrll, �m�i�.ss�o�
,
i From: l.e Poatt Committee r
5ubjeCt: Update on proposed Creekside Iloomis) project
Attached is a copy of offiaial recotd from the Counry of San L,uis Obispo showing (egal
subdivi�on for tha eubject project�ite, that is in effect as of today. The proposed site
coosists of 5 parcels, and based on rscords, aU dwned by DB&M properties, LLC. Note that
the dashed lines within the parcei are primarfly tand IockeO biocks and can not be developed
without access. However, the 6 parcels appeer to have eCCess as foliows:
o Percei No. 11 hes access from E. &anch
o Parcel No. 12 has acceas from E. BrenCh
a Parcel No. 1 has access from Ctown Hill
o Parcel No. 3 has access from E. Brsn�h
a Parce! No. 13 including ell ot its imaginary lots, siso appears to be lend loaked bacause
of envtronmeMel issues at Tally Ho. 8nd deed end of Le PoiM. Howaver, since all
parCels are owned by sams Antity, eccass may be possi6le through percels 11 and 12
leading to E. &anch, of Course subject to City approvai.
M brief it appears that the ernire ptoperty has no rigM ow feasible access to Le Point or
Crown Terrece. Their proposal, as it is submitted to the C1tY, seems tar aeyqnd the
capecity of the site. Furthermae, the p►opo8ed plen seems to overl0ok availeble ecceas
points that would war �_�ch smailer scate nroiect, but Du��ue aCCess hom where it
does not belona. _ '
Submitted by
5pqkesparson for ��
Le Pant Commktee � ���
Attachment: As noted ��
A�� �,�
Xc : �y �.�/�/�- ��r�L�„�(� co,y�UNry oY G�6
D�l�MFNI
_ . �
j
!.
, I �` 0`0 � - , lN 4�wv•..._.
i �b , •�'�<
„ � \
� � �0 �.
� � � �� � ,J
' \ ��1
� \ ;NO�E^"' LQ750.s.� t0 (�� J .
l SNDSYN 0N YAP �-0� s.
` v
; ot r ; (
, b0
, aos �+ 1 �
; '°' { , o�. � S T'. �
. , , � ,
, ,� �-
,u�s. ..nvf �� E r_ __ �;... ...__..., K .
� '—s0 —f0'- �D , �isc-1 ` RR A-57
� 4� g g �S�a� �M so '-�s �LV ' _ _ � _ �f W�' ��s�
' ! 6 i ,. (4� i� { 1 t4 _ ,!1 ; ',j N_ _1�i9.so) — -- � p 1
; a� __ O � J`f31 1 4 � ,; (� _,r6z) __ w — — — Q
...
; ` " ' � — = -- -i i- —�� .I— — -: �_ _ t 18
� tl _ �B �18� _ ..1 � � _ _ — _ ' - -- - r�S,� - - 01 � 11 �
, _ �_ � I !4 �ls _ _ �— !
O0 202 �1! � :I _ � rM— — —� , "l� � � � � � —'�
� 9 J (zs)
dR.Y. 8�4 9_��J y � � � � � Z0.3 ` 1!� � � ( ._ �0- �
�iARDEN �_ •_� ' ' � " �- - -- - - — `
� — 1 ��� ss 9'ra� —aa' , y�
0 1 t I� t 4 W - � _ � �t�. _� Y� tP 1�� _ , O 1 �� 4 � 2 6
_ _ _ _ �
�
�_ s
mi i i � " � - - i Zs �rr _ _ ; _ • - 4 - Z �s —
s, , � � �:�-�-� �7�i �' �o'$�; r � � -��o �3 5 ��i,.
o , � = 13 � � IIt13f � SIBITI �,tfY V � � _ � � ['O � 1 : � 3 W
i i `. i � < � � � 1 i/,�,i I �` i + ! a 'V � .,j
'V
1 I a � 7k � o� �s 1 4 I 1 I ! 1 ! �_!O._..-_ s - ��� 0 10
� , ;�; 5•- .
� s se as 4� � — ST.$
� — , � �s , �� , — �OWN
.� � "�.`�'� s�r.
EAST �'� BRANCN � _, '��' �' �
a s�° e , �,4i`• �
S ^ _.` , ��o'G
d7-� S'-�
� {4s} �
; �' SWAL!'S R£SUBDMStON, R.M. Bk• 1 � P�l�2'4' CITY OF ARROrO GRANDI
�D s f�ARDEN'S 7RACT, R.A�. Bk. B � �'9'•� SAN LUlS OBtSPO COUAtT'
� DE PIE�RA. P1SAi0 dc BOtSFt DE CHEMISAZ. R.i+l. Bk.A . Ag. 65
� RANCNO CORRAt. „ „_ �� cai �cnaNre
nrn✓rr*k` nnnun� r ur � sr.mm�►, n �• n+-
437 I.e Point .
Arroyo Grande,Ca
/��rY n�J�� �L February 14,2005R E C�IVE�
C� l�
Arroyo Grande
214 East Branch Street
Arcoyo Grande, CA 93420 , h cti 7 4 2005
Dear Planning Commissioners: CIN OF ARROYO GRANDE.
COMMUNtiY DEVELOPMENi
• Conceraing the proposed Planned Unit Development Case No. 04-001 (415 East
Branch Street):
The proposal has completely ignored the established neighborhoad that exists
adjacent to the Crown Terrace and I.e Point intersection. These people have owned their
homes for up to twenty years and more. We appreciate the desirability of "T'he Village"
locarion,but above that,we have maintained and improved ow properties, developed our
friendships and enjoy the privileges of living in this lovely area. We have only leazned in
the last month about this project that t�as apparently been successfully proceeding through
planning stages for years.
This proposal ignores the fact that the streets in and out of this area now carry ,
large trucks, school buses,large numbers of automobiles and considerable pedestrian
traffic�—culminating at bottlenecks at two streets that intersect Crown Hill--Crown
Terrace and East BranctJ Highway 227. In addition,where Crown Terrace becomes Le
Point Street,an extremely dangerous blind curve with absolutely NO tra�c control
guarantees danger for anyone attempdng to enter Le Point Street or Crown Terrace at that
point. What considerarion does this proposal give to the approximately 24 new
household drivers and coundess commercial customers who will enter this community at
this location?
This proposal is a determined effort by the owner to get his investment out of the
red Understood. However,the loca6on and the plan almost preclude the new owners
from becoming a part of the existing community,although the resuliant traffic will
certainly have to be incorporated somehow. As the owner of the 100-year-old house on
Le Poffit and Crown Terrace,having lived there since 1986,I am resigned to the fact that
change is inevitable;but before the city hands the developer the keys,I make the
following suggestions:
1. That all 'vnprovements on the property under consideration be made ON the
property, itself. This should include fire lanes,sidewaiks, city services including
wiring, cable boxes,meters,etc.Remember the people who have taken pride in
improving landscape and those who value peace and privacy and WHO LIVE
HERE NOW.
2. That lower I.e Point be designated a one-way street for entrance of the residents,
and that a one-way exit through the commercial portion of this property be .
incorporated at a ponrt other than the location of the Crown HilU Branch/227 '
Highway stop sign that is already bottlenecked at least twice a day for several
minutes at a time. The locked gate should not be included.
3. The developer should be mindful that the neighborhood azound his proposed
development is the selling poittt Buyers here will want the same consideration
for traffic pattems,safety concems,housing density aad the community
ambience,which we who have long lived here expect Anything less wili kill the
golden goose for everybody. Signs are that already we may be overwhelming our
ability to remain unique among American small towns. , �
To tlus developer,and parricularly to the city planners,please listen to and
consider those who live here NOW. You have only ttris opportunity to get it
right
Sincere�
` Carol Fulmer �
, -
JOHN CLEMO �
535 I,epoint SL Plrone_ (805)489-2889
Anoyo Ga�dc,CA 934Z0 . � Cet: (�3)801-96�
jciemo721 t�A�l.com
�EC�EIVEC�
Mau�ch 3,2005
MAR p 4 2005
�17��/ D (J�/� CItY OF ARROYO GRANbE
At'royo
21a S.Branch sc. COMNAUNrtY DEVROPMENT
Arroyq Ci�aode CA 93420
To tlee P�ming Comm�on:
I am a p�vparty ownar on Lapoiu�Straet.9n�e�ar to tim aroa thst l�s boen re�tly
tapped for a po�b r�Rim1/oo�emear�l pmo,jecc. I aaooura�e you W bok long aod
l�d aL this proposel,and to rejoct id.
To Put it�'.I bou�6t tlns yaa�aty baxuse of the qui�t n�OihOOd,�he low h�affic
volume,snd ahh ttx�e that iR was ane ofthe 8�,��orlqods in tha city.
30,wLat I'm o�jacting to wrould be tbe mive of�nct�;tbe�acrea�cd tra�c violume
ia e n�od ofmiddle sohool�en ami beloved p�s,sad wbet I be�owe to'be the
overaIl n�s ofthe pro�eot'st qu�iam.
��b',I AM fn�growth in the dty uf Acmyo fisande. But I em ega5ffit growth£or�'8
ovnn salae. Wt�en we hav+o emough tw�;ta in the�y c�arantly on the west o�d of
tt�vs'llage(and I do bel�eve tlmt thvy�t lmve va�,wea sfter almast S y+ears of
m6ste�we)then wae oonld actua}ly th�k about inuld'mg moie commercial propatiea l�eae.
�,��,P��R . � .
'Phedc 3rou�'1"our aon�dagtion in tLis�.
,
, •
�/� �'� �va�� ��s o,✓ �� ��
Febivary Il,2405 �
�� � 3
�,��n�,� �t��./
P ' g 'ssion
214 rancb St. / � C; ,F �/ �a � C . � �, _
de,Ca 93420 �
Dear Commiss�oners,
My husbaud and I have lived at the comer of Le Poim and Crown Tercace for 21/2 years.
T'his has been a quiet lovely neighborhood except for the speeding short-cut tcaffic usiag
Crown Tenace and Le Ponrt St,There is a blind spot at the corner of Le point and Crown
Terrace when uaveling from Branch St. The proposal to pe�mit access to Le Ponrt St.
from the Loomis area wiil definitely cause additional haffic at that intersecdon. The ca;s
trsvel too fast,theie is no traffic control and the traffic study done last year was
inconclusive. It is a very dangerous situation in just attempting to back your car out of
onr driveway. There are many neighborhood ohild�en who ride bikes and skatetwazd at
Uris said intersection There are also many scnior citizens and disabled persons "
fcequerting this inteisection with some using walkers and wheel ohairs. Of course they
move very cautiously and slowly. They also complain of difficulty backing out of their
driveway due to speeding uaf�c. There are also a number of children from Paulding 7r.
High School who walk by this same intersectiou maraing and afternoon due to the.
closure of Crown Hitl as it meets Hwy. 227.
In light of the above I feel it is not safe to add additional ttaffic and potential problems to
this intersection. The Planned Unit Development Case No U4-001 wouid create more
� traffic and congestion. The side walks planned for Cmwn Teriace,(24 ft wide)is
definitely not sa6e fo;p�ians or school children.
The January 18,2005 meeting was w start at 7:OOpm as posted on the fence in front of
Loomis}uoperty. This was inacctuate as it started at 6:OOp�. Some of the neIghbors
missed ti�u►aedng due to this e�ror. I am also concerned that so much plaiming has becn
done witflout the neighborhood's awareness.
Please note the Sigoatures of the neighbors on the back of this leuer who a�ree with these
commeat5 and disapprove access to Le Poi�of ttris project.
Sincerely,
e geman ���/��
O�oint 5����� �
Arroyo Graude,Ca. G �n
U
93420 GryOF �2?c�ls
CpMMUN�R�Y►'�E'Cp�DE
NT
The undersigned agee with commezns of tlris letter wluch object to access to Le FoictC ,.
Street&om the Loomis property developnnent.
// `���t �GPoa,�J� .
r�,�s 2� �
~��r��.�� .
�,,,-_ � '^) aa-a� sb?- :� �'�`' ' ..
�ac,.e ,_. 'V,.10 oa�
�10'�� ��L� .
� � � �'a$ �� S't'
��
��i� �- �"8 r-9190 . , .
�
, �� ��� S`� : ,;. . : .
t�. .� -
�-n�1 �'p'ti r�� �' _.
�a-�.�-.�--
.st 3 N(� �~ti=� � . � . [
�� ���.� �� �� �� :�� ;
,
� � l�'.�,�� l ,�,� �
�: ��-� �� ��� ��. �'����
My hu�d and I bave iiveti�ti�comor ofLe Poi�and Ccoam Taia�x far 2 U2 yea�s.
T6is has been a quiet Mvaty n�b�Od exoept.fa ttia�pg shat�at tiaSic using
CroWm Tawoe and I.e Poi�rt St, is s blind spot at t��otLo point md(�cown
Taraca w�en traveling Ero� St T6a prnpoaal to paimit�'to Le Poiat S�
�.the I.00aais apes will c�e ad�tio�l tra�c at�at in�eisecti�. The c�s
trav�ei too fa�,there is uo traffic 1 eod We tra�c sindy dnme laet yeu wsa
imwncln�sive. It.is a vay da�oua situ�ion in juat�tu back yio�r�c'a�rt of
�drivovYay. 1'hene an ms�ry ' ehild�en wha�ide�and elraksboa►9d a1�:
� this seid.i�oa Thae a�e aleo manY�mi�ci1�e�aod�sabied.PQaso�s
froq�this i�ian with soare�ing vvalleers�vvlosl cheics. t7f coucae tlwy
move very c�utia�slY���Y•'�Y����Y�8 out of their
drive�vay dne to�eading haffic. I'hcae ace also a�of duldren from Paald'mg Jr.
fi'igh Schcwl who wstic by this sa�e i�sacttan morning md aftanoon dua t�U�
Closure ofCmwn Hi11 aa it meets Fiwy.227.
, In`light of the above I feel it is not sefe to acld edditionel t�affic aad po6amial problems to
, t�ia�oa The Platmed Umt Davelo�t CaseNo 04-0O1 woald txeate tno�e
- tteffic and�on. 'The side wall�s plannad fa�Cmwm Tetra�x.(24 ft wide)is
d�nitelyaos sa�e for ped�hians or�chool ohilaren.
11�Jamuary 18,2005�was to start at 7:OOpm as pos0od o�.the fence in Eromt of
I.omnis p�operl.y. Tltis was i�cucaDe�it souted at 6� Sa�maof tbe meighbcns
missed the�d�e to tLis aror. I am aleo cw�dmt ao much plsonin�l�a beea
dono withotrt Uu mighb�hood'a avrateness.
���� Z .
Please no�a the Si�es af tba neighbora an�of this�es w�ho sgee w+ilh the�e
comm�s and di�p�ve�xss to Le Point ofthis papjeck .
SincerelY, / ��°°''���
Ba1�ea�an����J q ��
sos r:e ro,nc 3k� UG o
n�yo ci�ao,ca. c� 2 20D6
9342(► � ' c�MM N�n'DE.VEIp N�E
PMENT
.�� .
- �.�, �� � o� �-
, Tfie undarsigned agree wittt comments of tlris leuer which object to access to'I.e Point
Shtct&ari►the Ltwmis properly development,
J�GkI�� �.�r�,�c�� �� a� - ��-���
;;'o s c�. f'c,J��— . �
� L}� • � . �3 ya a ,Q,� �
� V /NN! � �.KJ r`/�fZ���"` c.....�..--i � (%' ^°-"�.4.� �
/���-so�r� �� s�►-r+� ��t-� 4�9a
�'ta [.� Pnla� �7�%,w, -
� � • qa�ao '�� 0`�..�� ,.
�.�r! `. !�! ��� ���',8`"''"����� " '�
� '/ _ "y"�`,�'I
��i .�.��D,�t �� � � 1��
.. �I'� ��'�� � ��'�z0 C�,�. ,�`� �`'S'��'�
��'� ,t- �a1�r �'.ta M-o y�q-a��
535 L� �''fi o in`�-
Pcrro�a ;�r`�h� C� �t3�tzc� 1�������/�'
e.
s, '
C^c�� �i�.�t�-• ���y Q� '�`��r�� !
� p � 'Ti5 ( - �Zc��'
�.5 � . �-�' ��'
;�-l��o� �'�''"`.�v` C�a- , `� � `�Z�
�
/" ���� .��- -�-�'�
��-9 � �:
�, � �3�.�-�
,
� �}-�, �` /�''l,��e S�� ��7�� `��9'�`
: 3'8'O -�e f�oinf �
� ., . ,., . . , , ,�
� / � � T� , c� /y �d>T� �C E -s e .✓ � �/�
/
Febraaty ll,2005 �.—
�(�,.vt . � � �'
ca �� n�, ent�t. r------.
Plannin - ion l
' 214 ' 1►St / 0 j ' r
yo Ca 93420 ✓ �
Deac Commissi
My liusband and I have lived at the cornec of Le Point and Crown Terrace for 21/2 yeats.
Tlris has beea a quiet tovely neighborhood except for the speeding short-cut traffic using
Crown Teaace attd Le Point St.,There is a blind spot at the comer of Le poim and Crown
Terrace when traveling from&anch St. The proposal to permit access to Le Poim St
from the Loomis area will definitely cause additional traffic at tUat intersection The cars
travel too fast,there is no uaffic comrol and the traffic study done last year was
inconclusive. It is a very dangecous situation in just attempting W back your car ouE of
our driveway. There are many neighborhood cluldren who ride bikes and skateboard at
this said intersecdon There are also many senior citizens and disabled persons
&equenting ffiis inteisection with some using walkers and wheel cbairs. Of course they
move very cautiously and slowly.They also complain of di6culty ba�king out of their
driveway due to speeding t�a�'ic. Thete are aiso a m�mber of childreu from Paulding Jr.
High School who walk by this same iutersection morning and aRemoon due to the
ctosure of Crown Hill as it meets Hwy. 227. - -
In light of the above I feel it is not safe to add additional.trnffic and potential probiems to
this iau�section. The Pla�med Unit Development Case No 04-001 would create more
uaf�ic and congestion. The side walks planned for Crown Terrace,(24 ft wide)is
definitely not safe for pe�sh�ians or school childcen.
The January 18,2005 meeting was to start at?:OOpm as posted on the fence itt front of
Loomis propecty. This was inacc�ttate as it started at 6:OOpm: Some of the neighbors
missed the mceting due to this enor. I am also concemed 2vat so much planning ha5 been
do�without the mighborhood's awareness.
Please note the Sigoat�res of the neighbars on the back of this letter who agree with these
wmments and disapprove access to Le Poim of this project.
' cerely, �����
���
e Balgeman AU� � .
sos �Po�t s�. ��ry oF 2�006
93420 Grande,ca. c�MM�N7YDF�oRq,���F
MF��r
� �r � � 9 `,� .��� �o :.� r %:�' 9 - 25s �
The undersigned agree with comments of this letter which object to ac;cess to'I.e'Point ;
Street&om theLaomis property developmetrt. '
G���- `2• �"c��l'�� � ' L, ��..,��
��'�1' P �
��oo� � G`�'o�i,�i Terl� � , 1�,- .o.,,.,�
o ��h./� Gc�, y'�yz� '
y �� .���
/ `fl � -1�'�3
�f�'/V��� �i�'(/Z" �`�G�/S'Gs?/ti , � 624 (.E .�o�1JT
2!C G Ro�.v►�' ?�/Z,q-cc�.. ' .lU'.e� /1�IaCGz
�
�, ��- :y3�r� _ : SZ�f LE Pa�NT
" �-�'� f � 4 TZ.�I-
C� -��.�^' 1 '
3z ��-- . _ ,
D �.:�::� ��-4�� -
��1 ,
�� � � ��
� �
��� ���� , .
�iL�+�-� G`� �.s�!a� . ..
c�-° y�.y ��y�
��� �� � ; �� - . ,.
� ,
� 524 1.�...?�,�s; 5 . .
-�-�-fl..`d �rt?r���c, � ; . ,
�3y 2CO-
�,��„Y-Ge, ,e.�1
���-;�.r �-fi .� ...:
Pr�� . � 3�-�� . �
(�lh a ��«
211 Y0��1 �'��
a,�,,�. ►� �� ��, �. � �?� R� �2�
� �� ���,� �� � � - _ _
r _, �
, ,
I live right behind thr former Loomis property, so I wiil feel the
I impact of any project the deepest. Of course I would like the
smallest impact on the.neighborhood as possible. However, the
size and nature of the proposed plan is way out of scale. There are
too many driveways and not enough thought about safety issues.
Namely, kids going to and from school.
Even as it is, I have to be very careful entering the intersection.
Drivers speed around the hairpin turn at Le Point and Crown
Terrace. There is no place for people to walk safely and this
proposal will make it a certainty that someone will be maimed oz •
killed. �
The plan needs to be changed to something that fits the
neighborhood!
When I bought my home, I was told somethipg like a permanent
farmers market was'being considered. That would be perfect,
, maybe impra.ctical, but would still be worth moving toward.
The plans I sa.w call �or Pasadena style con�los to tower over the
street. I have lived in Pasadena and that style has come to fit there,
but would look ridicu�ous here.
Please save our�eighborhood!
THANK YOU;
• �6 �.
James Norby
���iE��E� 419 Le Point
F�AR Q 3 2005
CIN OF ARROYO GRAN�E
COWIMIiNITY DEVELOPMEM .
� RECEIVED _ � � �
F EB 2 8 2005
CITY OF ARROYO GR/WDE
COMMUN(TY DEVELOPMEM
I Arroyo Csrande�g ��rY ��IJN LI L...
Arroyo Grande,CA
February 14,2005
Dear Comaussioners,
As a resident of Anoyo Grande, I have enjoyed the cham2 and convenience of the
village for many years. One of the main attractions of the azea is ability to get to know
the merchents and have a personai relationslap with them wlrich is so.nnusuai in tlus
modem world. Also as a horse owner it was my pleasure to shop at the old Loomis bam
for hay,feed and pick np local eggs and that delicious oliatie berry jam for myself.
Yes,I am teminiscing,however;I do have a dcep concem for the fuque of ow
village: I would hate to see another contemporary designed stucco building built adjacent
to the Loomis bam. I Lave certainly no objection to the rights of the curc�ent owner to
make use of the property,but please,let's be particularly carefiil to preserve the unique
characier of the area and insure its development is consistent with the rest of our village.
'� � '/O��tR. �—C/" `"�� Sincerely,
,
�j`� ��� �?�-��
,��da Rawlings and Friends
�A� W
� _ 5���-
d�� . . .� . -
.
�-� . �. '?�?.�.-�-,�� ,�
G�i�`� �' ��_°� : ��,,,_a:.� e� .
G�w�y"'.�`.� .
� �. t�a U��.�-�. .;,�c�a,�,,,�
.
�
. �^ . fi�' �
.�-�' �-- ��l
��� ���
. �
- - - - ,�.,,..�..e�.�.� _ .
25 Aprii,2005
Dear Mayor a�i Council Members,
Our neighborhood(Crown Terrace/Le Point St.)has been concemed about the Loomis
Developmem project a�l v�e suongly object to the many(twelve)entrances and back-0ut
traffic from this development. T'his will add k�ic to the already overloaded 1rat�ic on
Cmwn TerraceJl.e Point roadways as a citt-off route from one area of Hwy 227(in fmm
of the Loomis store)and the other entrance to Hwy227( western end of Le Poim St.).
We are very concerned about the cut-off traffic. Recently,we learned a traffic
measurement was made of the number of c�s using Crown Tertace a�I.e Poim St as a
cut-offFor another project. 'Tlie information suggested tlus measwement was made
during 2003.
A recem SANDAG haffic study of the I.00mis Developmeni Project did not
consider the cut-off U�affic in their analysis.
Some of my neighbors have indicated some reluctance of the city to givc them the results
of the tiaffic measurementc on Crown Terrace/i.e Point Please arrange for the resuhs of
this uaffic study on Crown Terrace/Le Point St. be made available to us. This will be
shaied with otl�ers on Le Pouu Street concemed about the cut-0ff txaffic aral the added
traffic due to the Loomis Properly Development�
Y Y,
,
��/�r`�,—
Earle Balgeman
505 Le Point St
Arroyo Grande,Ca 9 42�
489-9433
�����
A11� ���
cin'oF �2Z�46
CpMMUN�RQ��O�NO�
M�Nt
����
AU� ��`O
29 March,2005 C/ry 02�
co oF R �6
Cp�omm�unity Developa►ent De ent MM�N�p ro G .
S�- �-�� �� �D�J�G�L.. F��op��F
214�East Branch Stneet NT
Armyo Cm�utde,CA 93420
Dear Commissioners,
After a number of discussions with neighbors ia the area,the style of the buildings of the
current plans for the Loomis Development are not suitable for the desired motif of our
Village. The style ofthe buiidings both residential and commercial should be more
compatible with the style of the Loomis house and barn and other buildings atong the
Village main street. It is very easy to identify the buildings which have been built in
recent years and are not compahble with tF�e majority of the Viilage architeCture.
Also,the project is described as being zoned a mixed-use developmem The'project is
divided iuto iwo areas. A commercial area and a residential aiea. It is not a rnixed
commerciaUresidential area.
Respecrively,
��,'� .
aEil/�d�Gl/r—�
Earle Balgeman
505 Le point St.
Arroyo Grande,CA 93420
I r�,�n�l���
' � c% �r �� �,d`C/�
2ia�e B�nch s�
� Armyo ti�ande,CA 93420
Dear Commissioners, �
This is written to shengty object to ilue.erzit ofPlan�d Umt IIevelop�ent Case No. 04
d01 (415 East&anch Sireet)onto I,e Poi�Street. Le Poi�3tRet c�tt�tly carries too
much speeding�c due to the use of that street as a short�ut between 2locstions of
Hwy 227 as it eircles Cmwn Hill.
The improve�of L.e Poi�Sx (N�fh of Developmert)to a 40 R width and sidevvalk
will�ch on the home ow�s lawns. The home owmers are very concemed about
tire c6soges in I.e Poiut St due to dre acc�s fiom tl��velop�ent Many l�ve oniy
recantly been igfarmetl of the accea4 bf the development W Le Poi�St.
P�'isn�m the pmp�ty fctim Cmwn T�raoe should be des►iod due M the�mw
widlfi (24 R)ofthst sU�eet, Pass�ly the ped�rian access&om Crown'fenace is for
school c�an leaviog�d r�in�g to ihe popmty. T6is is an�ssf�e choice.
The development of tl�Loomis properiy ahould only oonsid�e acccss from Ctown HiII
strret or Fsst Bran�h Stc�et and aat i�ind�a gate�o sepatate ti�e commexcial and
residential portions. The access to the Immis property from Crown EIill Street or East
B�artsh Street vvas s 'aR�oRy far 95 yeats an►d tl�e is��Oad �aon to alter t�t anid
many reasons tn not g[aut ac:cess w I.c Point Street aad im�nve that portion o€Le Point
SUcek Thank you for your consideiaEion.
,' �
�v /
F.arle Balgemat►...
505 Le Poiat St
Aaoyo(�ande;CA
93420
����
����
q�G
c��y 022
coMM�tiry�Fro 006
��o MNOj
Community Development�'eat
�" � ' � D !�/VG/ �-
� na�c s�n sc�c
Arnoyo Grande,CA 93420
Dear(:awnnissionets,
This is written W strongly objact w the eyut of Plsnned Unit Developmem Case No. 04-
ool (ais Easts�h sfic�t)o�o I.e rouN st�eet. Le Point sa�eec c�aneatty cacries wo
much spceding Uaffic due to the use af that strcet as a short�ut beriveen 2 Iocations of
Hwy 229 as it circles Crown Hi11.
The imptaw�of I.e Poiat SL (Notth of Develop�M)w a 40 R widlh en sidewalk
will e�roach�the�me ow�s lawns. 'flie home owne�s ate very corxxmed about
t�e c�n�s in Le Point St d�e ta the acecss fr�►t�e develop�nt. MsnY��Y
receatly been infoimed of the access of d�development to I.e Point St
Pedestrian acoess W tl�propetiy fi+om Cmwn Te�should be d�oied dae to tl�e nannw
width (24 R)of that street. Possibly the pedestrian access fmm Crown Teriace is for
schoo�child�ee leaving a�r�etuumng to the p�ty, Tlris is an uasafe choice.
`' �����r��
Earle Balgeman
SOS Le Point St
Auoyo Giande,CA
93420
��� �.,
r •�n ����F� . .
H v �
c°MMUN,a�,�Q o Zp�6
�-4��CO����
T
j � e s � Community Development Department � �
i � � �" . � C •�"' �Q'l/��'/L—
� � � ���� 274 East Branch Street
�. a Arroyo Grande,CA 93420
,� �
� o
� � � w8�.Ch$0�11�'� . -
� m;
4 Eni�Yau ireicln oN �reet es a strat+aa tietwan
. � tke••I;oomie Hearing Post- two paeta`6f 1fivY 227 a�6ich
porod^.Howwv�yondid� circle the Crown+H'ill erea.
�}.J � mentlon ao�ssue wh�ch is of About 15 yems ago tha eaet-
rp�_-��*r•�,��. w the Le «n eoa of GYo;v/m� Enu at�
,� ��� CV1LL`�Yw4 j x,°kkGr 'Cg������[:� '� . .
� .�1.� N i� ' � J
v �
�c5ssed°8t ��" '�`a'd�a�reY43tlk�.�
� f
} coneideted tl�e accw of-tlR,t �edlcOl neselw6 Clvwn N�l ^
p[ojeet ouW t6e ca�[tently tit� Weet. Since then mowrista
k-^ � i�o�dPationoflrF�ult;..haveaxdCio�vn7L�namid
_ Strar. Le Poiot saeet ffi a droit-wt
17tis iasuo is.'ahnnBlY. tietwewHwy227infro�af
Z . oppoaed bY the trptideAte ot' tde Loomis atote md Hwy
I.ePoint $heat. ,Thie �m- 227 at the east end of Le
� iropcoved paatitlp.of'I,e Pani Point St�cet. 'R�e cor�r of
StraetwlLLbei�wvedtoihe Crown Tecracdis POint
�� . 40 fE. aidth ot':Ehe curnnt Street is a bugY:a�d`+�an8a
C � ' ia�ptm�bd�JCtrtitio�Im P'ant t�us. „ '17ee cicy�eflleta
L : streetbelWewi�amTe+�oe ro�a
and Hwy�7. lfiis impaaMe- to��' ,�gn at
� � ' maAt Wi!!-dtCroac6 oa t6e �a►owth¢ahoR-
lawes'md fmce aro�s�tl1e '�ete have bem
( � iavolvad ptopaties a�d U .
�/ ..pp• 8�48�Y �PPoa� bY;ths+ca•rc�«�,�,,Mou of this��
; � r�idmta._ � �' 614o1�1he .. , demils
J�1�` ;y 1�beco�e� e w fh�
z iotbemtickeea�we��rc�ijeet LePa�tSheet�g�pr
w develapm�mt of�-lcied.:. the�3 "� bf
m mt
� � 1 do rwr lhiek t6ere ie'an the Janumy 18.2005 moaimg
• obja�im topgy�pmmt of the PLomng Commreoon.
of thc �e property aa TMrotc ybu;fix�rur car
� � long a it iloea nat acceea on �,, i, ,�
� �
�� � Le Pa6otSaeec. > �� ��'��'
L.e Po�Tt StreE[i.4:8��'�vh��� �
� streat due w the nseQt'�'... ," "`"'
Q� � � — .
� � �
_ � �� E�v�
� � ' AUG Q 2 2006
� CI1y pF�ROY
O z CpM�U O GI�'AND
} � NIN DEVELOPIb�ENT
�
I f I ;
ATTACHMENT 7
S'��e�l� ^/GGy�o�
� 222 9Ke xr,Kluy sr� -,�iro�yo. �aa�dC e,193420
��: l805J 4T3-698?
aiv���haoos RE�EiVED
1 P+fA� 9 R 2005
Anoyo Grande$�g ���'� /G V �(/e/�
214 E.Branch Street CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Arroyo Grande,CA 93420 COMMUNITY DEVEUJPMEM
Ref: Creekside Center Development
Gendemen:
My husband and I strongly oppose the development project as proposed. Not only will it
increase traffic on both I.c Point and Crown Terrace, but having residents backine out of
their drivewav onto Crown Terrace is dangerous and completely unacceptable. I cannot
imagiae that your Commission would peimit such a plan to go into effec�
Addirionally, we feel the aesthetics of the Village should,remain intact—especially after
seeing what was built at the West end of it—those atrocious, completely out-of-character
buildings should never have been allowed.
We ask tl�at you reconsider the project as a whole. Thank you.
Sincerety,
Z� �/
Sheila Taylor
ATTACHMENT 6
Arroyo Grande Planning Coaunission
214 B.Branch St.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
March 7; 2005
Membersofthe�g • �/�✓� //if/C <L
This letter is in reference to the project pmposed for the Loomis property. My main
concera is safety along Crown Terrace.
I live on May Street with my wife and two young daughters, and we walk along Crown
Terrace at least twice a day on ow way to and from downtown. As such,we are very
familiar with how narrow that street is,and how dangerous it can be.The combination of
more traffic and the proposed driveways ernering onto GSrown Terrace is a recipe for
disaster.The mad is_very narrow(27 feet according to a neighbor)and has a blind corner
onto Lepourt around which cazs often travel at very lugh spced. With cars backing out
onto Crowa Terrace,it is only a matter of time before there is an accidem.
It seems like it would be far safer to route the exits from the homes either onto Branch
Street as is currently the case,or else onto lower Lepoint. Regardless of what liappens, if
this project is approved the city should require that the developer either put a sidewallc
along Crown Terrace,or else p�rovide a route through the development that residents on
LePoint and May Street can use to safely avoid Crown Terrace.
We are also concerned about light pollution.If this project is to be mixed use,we hope
that the businesses will be required to consider the residential areas nearby and install low
intensity lighting.
Thank you for taking the time to read these comme�s•
Sincerely,
�'�-.�
Derek Mitchem and family
513 May Street {")C�^�����
Atroyo Grande . 1�G L
473-8719
�.taR o s 2005
. cmr oF nR �o c��e
. COMMUN{�C?��O��M
- . _ !r/-e�c� l'�/� �
C-�, ����
�������`���ITY OF ARROYO GRANDE �-��5 `��
AUG 0220�6 SPEAKER SLIP
`iU aRANDE ATTACHMENT 13
Cf(Y OE FaR1�� M
CpNIp/1UNit`( �?t����P7`he Planning Commission and staff appreciate
, your participation at this public meeting.
SPEAKING TO PLANNING COMMISSION
► Piease complete this form if you wish to address the Planning Commission
on.any subject. .
1 If you wish to speak regarding an item NOT on the agenda, your name will
be called during the oral communications period.
► If you wish to speak regarding a Public Hearing or Business item, proceed
to the speaker's stand upon recognition from the Planning Commission
Chair.
Whenyou step up to th'e microphone:
► Please speak directiy into the microphone.
! Please clearly state your name and address for the record.
� Please limif your remarks to:three (3) minufes, uniess,furEfier
time is granted by the Planning Commission�Cha.ir;
► All remarks must be addressed to the Planning Commission as
a whole and notto any Member individuaaly.
/ � . �'—G s%�
Meetinq Date: ��r � G
Name: ��� e �C �.�. tJ � � a �����L
Address: �'O B G,� / � r�ji� /`t' . ,�p -
A enda Item: � L��� �Gd � �
(The signing of this slip is voluntary) ��� � ���G%�� .
�r c�^ �
PLEASE G1VE THIS SLIP TO THE CLERK.
r_ r
� 3° �'� �.� �a=
��� ��� _���� ���� .�- � �
..
-�����/�s����d .E�r
! �� J S / ��� � ���/��=' ��'"°� � .
�� `� � � �` � .�'�" ���'�
�G�-s �, , �p�,��G�� � � ,�,� �--
�� �D f � f,l� GiJ� � .�,�� �f�A�-� ..
O,� �� � s ,��--" ��a �/%���
,
��G �� ���s� `' � ,— v � � r���J
�f ��° � � , a,f� � �i ��� v� . .e-� r ,.
��� ����5 � � _ �
%� ��� �'' ���-,�,� � ��
� �
'�� � , �°i�s' J� ,.o � � � .
��'�� � � a . �v ����� �a� ���
-�,���'�'�,�.� �' � v� ..� �
� ��� �,�in � �-� � ���->
f ,�, - �---�-- �' ,� �
� � � �� � ��
�� uj
D� ,�� � .�-r--=
, �1�� � ��
�� ��� , - �
� .:. �� .
` �,�..�,,,.�°,�
.� ��
yyl,G �i`'`'
.
� .
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ATTACHMENT 14
� SPEAKER SLIP - � �
• The Planning Commission and staff appreciate �
your participation at this public meeting.
SPEAKING TO PLANNING COMMISSION
� � ' Please complete this form if you wish to address the Planning Commission
on any subject. . '
: � ► If you wish to speak regarding an item NOT on the agenda, your name wili
be called during the oral communications period. �
► If you wish to speak regarding a Public Hearing or Business item, proceed
. to the speaker's stand upon recognition from the .Planning Commission
Chair.
When you step up to the microphone:
� Please speak directly into the microphone. - �
� / Please clearly state your name and address for the record.
► Please;limityour remarks�to:#hree (3) mmutes, unless�further
-- � . .-: ._ r . ,.�,,. .:-�-t F/k��.,�.,.._....e..__...
time is'granted by the.,Plann.ingLLCommission.Chair;
► All remarks must be addressed to the Planning Commission as
a whole and not to any Member individually.
Meetinq Date: �/ s/ S� .
Name: �C��/i+� / O�/Z�GI .
Address: $'Q� �� �j� � � .
A enda item: GOO��S /.� !3�'%- ���
(The signing of this slip is voluntary) �� • ����� ��Ol.v�(.J
� j�i9�-�GE � ��E �i�
PLEASE G1VE THIS SLIP TO THE CLERK.. ������C�J
���.'G�.G�-,v � ��'Si?j���L, � �JLS � /,fs
�/7�y /Gb I/�rJ � . �,� ������ T�s�f e . . _S� . ! _vJ n, . ,
� �'���-�v (G'L��L 7 4h.-,-- `7�LDS '� �r� 4h �
��. ��� �- � � /�.�--,�� ,
M1 " ` , . .. ... ' ` . ..L=, - . • ...i .
9.b.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
On TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 2006, the Arroyo Grande City Council will conduct a public
hearing at 7:00 P.M. in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET to
consider the following item:
Proposal: DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE.
The Council will consider approving a Drainage Master Plan which
provides an evaluation of the City's drainage facilities, recommends
drainage policies, and presents a capital improvement program to help
mitigate drainage problems in the future.
Staff
Representative: Don Spagnolo, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
The Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the item
listed above. If you challenge the proposed action in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in
this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the
public hearing. Failure of any person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds
for any court to invalidate the action of the legislative body for which the notice was
given.
Information relating to these items is available by contacting Arroyo Grande City Hall at
473-5414. The Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20.
� � �
Kelly W mor , City Clerk
Publish 1T, he Tribune, Friday, July 28, 2006
� pRROYO
� cP
� INCORPOFATED 92
" � m MEMORANDUM
�( JULY ID. 1911 *
c4�i F oRN�P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER �
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE 2006 DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE
DATE: AUGUST 8, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council
A. authorize the distribution of the draft 2006 Drainage Master Plan Update for 60-day
public review period,
B. authorize staff to perform environmental review of the draft 2006 Master Plan
Update in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and
C. authorize staff to perform an expedited environmental review of the Newsom
Springs drainage project in accordance with CEQA.
FUNDING:
There are no costs at this time. Section VI of the draft 2006 Drainage Master Plan Update
explains the methods of financing available to meet the future funding requirements forthe
proposed recommendations. The identified projects are prioritized and will be incorporated
into the Capital Improvement Program as funding becomes available.
DISCUSSION:
The Drainage Master Plan, which was initially approved by the Council on November 9,
1999, provides a plan to address the City's drainage infrastructure. It will also be utilized
as a financial planning tool to highlight funding needs for present and future conditions, as
well as determining a schedule for maintenance projects based on need and economic
feasibility.
Major components of the 2006 Drainage Master Plan Update include the following:
♦ A review of the area drainage patterns,
♦ A review of the city's major creeks and flood plain management programs,
♦ Identified drainage policy zones,
♦ Drainage basin policies,
♦ Best Management Practices for improvement of storm water quality,
♦ Identification of drainage problems in the City,
♦ Proposed capital improvement projects to correct City drainage problems.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE 2006 DRAINAGE MASTER
PLAN UPDATE
AUGUST 8, 2006
PAGE 2
The City is divided into drainage Zones A, B and C. Both Zones A and C utilize retention
and detention basins as the primary drainage strategy. Storm water in Zone B drains to
• the creek as the primary strategy. However, recent land development in Zone B has
prompted a discussion regarding the use of detention/retention basins in this zone. To
address this issue a separate detention basin analysis was performed.
The analysis determined that in some situations storm water detention basins can increase
flooding potential in Arroyo Grande Creek. This is related to the timing of the peak flow in
the creek. It takes approximately 3.5 hours for the creek to reach its highest stage in the
area along the City limits,following a peak rain event. W ith the City located so close to the
creek, and so near to the outlet at the ocean, it can be detrimental to hold runoff back and
release it over time where it can coincide with the delayed peak stage in the main creek.
Due to the soil conditions, and the proximity to the creek system, the primary drainage
strategy for Zone B should be modified from a single strategy of draining all storm waterto
the creek to a multiple approach of conveying runoff as directly as possible to the major
creeks, use of infiltration basins only if the soil type is suitable, and use of retarding basins
only where needed to prevent downstream impacts.
' The original Master Plan included 24 projects to address storm water and drainage issues.
, Projects that have been completed include:
♦ Expand the Poplar Street Infiltration Basin,
♦ Pike and Elm Street Intersection,
♦ Tally Ho and Le Point Street Intersection,
♦ Pearwood Avenue Retarding Basin Overtlow Ditch,
♦ Stagecoach Road Underground Drainage System.
The draft 2006 Drainage Master Plan Update also provides for an additional 15 projects,
, which primarily provide for oil and grease separators in existing facilities. However each
individual project will also be subject to environmental review during the design phase to
assure the compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
The plan also contains several options to address the Newsom Springs drainage area.
Three alignments were developed that provide for a series of ditches and/or pipes to carry
storm water from the box culvert under Branch Mill Road to Arroyo Grande Creek.
Alignment"A" carries storm water on its existing path along Branch Mill Road crossing both
Cherry Avenue and Myrtle Street to Arroyo Grande Creek. Alignments B and C have a
more direct route across the existing farm land to an outlet at Arroyo Grande Creek.
Alignment A is also recommended because it has been deemed the most feasible
alternative due to cost considerations and the ability to acquire the necessary right-of-way
� at this time.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE 2006 DRAINAGE MASTER
PLAN UPDATE
AUGUST 8, 2006
PAGE 3
An analysis was also performed regarding the potential use of a detention basin as a
component of the Newsom Springs drainage project. Two basin locations were selected.
One is located at the north side and one on the south side of Branch Mill Road at the
intersection with Newsom Springs. These locations were evaluated in the field and by
computer modeling. Site constraints limit the size of the basin. With the site boundary
constrained the analysis indicates that the effectiveness of the basin depends on the
available basin depth. With basin depths of 10 to 12 feet, the reduction in peak outflow in
marginal. However, with the basin depth increased to 15 feet (basin bottom to top of the
berm), a reduction in flow of 327 cfs (34 percent) can be achieved. Whether or not this
depth can be achieved on the site must be determined by field survey. Based on a field
observation, it appears questionable. Therefore, one of the other identified options would
still be necessary.
All three drainage alignments include pipes or ditches along Branch Mill that lead to Arroyo
Grande Creek. Staff is recommending that the Council consider alignment "A" as the
preferred alternative. A recent development proposal known as the Cherry Creek project is
located at the end of Cherry Avenue. This private development project is proposed to
construct 27 homes on approximately 9 acres and is currently under review by the City.
This project is proposing to install drainage facilities that would be required for either of the
proposed alignments by incorporating them into the design. A series of box culverts along
with a bioswale have been proposed to traverse the site. Landscaping will also be
incorporated in the design to enhance the area around the bioswale. Constructing
alignment "A" provides the City with an opportunity to address an ongoing drainage
concern, does not preclude construction of either alignment B or C in the future, and
provides an opportunity to incorporate drainage facilities in the overall design of the
proposed development.
An alternative concept was to utilize Branch Mill Road as a dam to hold back stormwater.
However, staff does not believe that there would be an increase in capacity over the
detention basin concept. Additionally, it would require substantial property acquisitions, still
require drainage pipes be installed to the creek and may result in other legal issues.
However, staff could perform additional analysis on this alternative if the Council desires.
Whichever alignment is adopted for Newsom Springs, it would also be staff's
recommendation to abandon the existing drainage easement along the westerly edge of
the proposed Cherry Creek project upon completion of the storm drain improvements. It
has been determined that there would no longer be any benefit from the easement.
However, a public utility easement will remain.
Notices regarding tonighYs meeting have been published in the newspaper and distributed
� to property owners within 300 feet of the Cherry Creek project and within Newsom Canyon,
as recommended by the Planning Commission. Copies of the 2006 Drainage Master Plan
Update will be made available to the public through the Public Works Department. The
z information can also be accessed from the City's internet website.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE 2006 DRAINAGE MASTER
PLAN UPDATE
AUGUST 8, 2006
PAGE 4
It is recommended the Council authorize the distribution of the draft 2006 Drainage Master
Plan Update for 60-day public review period to allow the public to comment on the
proposed plan, authorize staff to perform environmental review of the plan in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and authorize staff to perform an
' expedited environmental review of the Newsom Springs drainage project in order to
address this identified regional drainage issue.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
. Approve staff's recommendation;
. Request staff to provide additional analysis;
• Request specific projects to be considered independently;
. Do not approve staff's recommendation;
. Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendation; or
• Provide direction to staff.
Attachments:
1. 2006 Drainage Master Plan Update (on file in the Public Works Department)
2. Newsom Springs Detention Basin Feasibility Report, July 27, 2005
3. Newsom Springs Drainage Project Hydrology and Hydraulics Study
O� pRROyOC
� P
� INCORPOAPTED 9Z
" � � MEMORANDUM
� JUIV 10. �9t� *
P
4��FORN`
TO: CITY COUNCIL
n�
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER �
SUBJECT: AUGUST 8, 2006 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA, ITEM 9.b
DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE — ATTACHMENT 3
DATE: AUGUST 7, 2006
Attached you will find Attachment No. 3 to the 2006 Drainage Master. Plan Update staff
report, which, includes the original draft Newsom 5prings Drainage Study and a recent
update prepared by the Wallace Group regarding the preferred alternative.
C: City Manager
City Attomey
ATTACHMENT 3
.a+fbY$ 'y„�rt��:
j�;Y �
. ' � '.—�°��YSy�.`
� • a �:
AUgust 7, 2006 WALi,^.CE GROUP;,
. . c�vii Fn�iNEEairv�
CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Don Spagnolo , :n�r�ncevevT
Director of Public Works i.n�nscnve
City of Arroyo Grande _ necH�recruRe
215 East Branch Street v,euinraicai
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 eNCiNeenivc
?LAYNING
Subject: Newsom Springs Drainage Project ��«uc woe�es
AOMINISTPAlIJN
Dear Mr. Spagnolo: surzvenN�;
GIS SOLUTIONS .
As requested we have reviewed the April 7, 1998 Newsom Springs Drainage Project ,�nreH eesoueces
Hydrology and Hydraulics report prepared by our office. Specifically, we have focused
on the project described in the report as Alignment A, configuration A-3. iraTeienATioan SON
A copy of the concept sketch for the Alignment A projects is attached. W ith the
clarifications described below, we continue to recommend the project as described in
the 1998 report.
PROJECT DESCRIP710N ,
Alignment A, configuration A-3 consists of the following components:
• Two parallei 72-inch concrete pipes extending from Arroyo Grande Creek to the
Cherry Avenue extension.
• A system of ditches and multiple inlets east of Cherry Avenue extension.
• A 48-inch concrete pipe from Cherry Avenue extension to the Stone Culvert.
The location of the outlets in Arroyo Grande Creek is important— the intended location
downstream of the stream gage has a lower tailwater elevation, which is desirable from
a pipe capacity standpoint.
Also, the system of collection ditches and multiple inlets is very important to the system
hydraulics. There needs to be high inlel capacity with low head loss in order to utilize the
capacity of the 72-inch stormdrains (as proposed). This can be achieved with either
multiple inlets, or large tapered and sloped inlets.
HYDROLOGY �•U�LIACE GROUP
We reviewed the 1998 hydrology study and found no changes that are needed at this •�•"^�^����, ,_�.�^^
time. Subsequent to our study, The Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) performed a �,;s nao�n s-
study of Arroyo Grande Creek in which they developed regression equations that are a ;u�re e-s
simplified method of determining peak runoff. Using this method, the total 100-year sA, �.u�s oaisNo
runoff from the Newsom Springs watershed would be 1,226 cfs. We see this as c.�-�roar,�n„�o�
' confirming our estimate of 1,024 cis which is based on a more detailed hydrograph T bos sa<-ao,�
pf000dUf2. F eas saa��z�n
rmr:vannc+gmup.o:
Mr. Don Spagnob
August 7, 2006 �
Page 2 of 2
HYDRAULICS
We performed an updated hydraulic analysis of the proposed system. Using the software
program Stormcad. In modeling the system we considered the following:
Tailwater: Based on a review of the FEMA Flood elevations, actual creek flowline elevatio�s,
ACOE hydrographs, and a field review of the creek topography at the proposed outlet, the
previously used tailwater elevation of 117.8 (outlet soffit) was again selected as the basis for
analysis. This is lower than the FEMA 100-year elevation of 121.6, and is about equal to a 35-
year peak stage according to the FEMA flood profiles. This elevation was selected based on the
differing lag times of the project and the main channel, and the more detailed topography that
shows the flowline to be about 5 feet lower than indicate by FEMA. During project design, it is
recommended that a detailed HEC-RAS model of the outlet section of Arroyo Grande Creek be
performed to verify this analysis parameter.
N-value: The manning's coefficient is an important design parameter for this project: The
following references were found for cast in place concrete pipe:
• Caltrans 0.012 to 0.018 (recommended 0.013)
• FHWA HDS-5 0.010 to 0.011
• Haestad - 0.011 (cast with steel forms)
Considering the above, and the intent of using steel slip-formed cast-in-place concrete,
an n-value of 0.012 is selected.
Entrance Condition: This system requires a high capacity—low head inlet system. The 1999
report indicated thet this would be achieved with flared inlets. In the strormcad model, these are
entered as inlets attached to oversized pipes. This compares well with the attached chart from
FHWA HDS-5 which provides the hydraulics for flared and sloped inlets that we recommend be
used.
I hope that this provides you with the information that you need. Please let me know if I can be
of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
WALIACE GROUP ,s�== "��°"�"'
<��;
�� ? �< ' . ._ 1 ,
C' 1 Y�. ''�:1
(�-- ,;-_,,; � �,
C aig.Campbell. PE i����� iv�.�.^,:'�n�� ''�����{!�`';''
rincipal Engineer "� '�� (j�u'�
P1JYtxUSNr:�xmrn6.p.as,ioc ��� i . ,/.._ l�
:;p.res ��c�_T� �
��r� �
�•r:��r:,'d!`�,.�'.�?::�r
� >-. .
, ut :%:'
� 04-D7-9n
�e.sont
r p A� PR��.sC� ��
TER�A�I �� �
� SpRIt�GS A�
NE41Sa R -
4'R�JE�� � �. �,
AL.IGNM6NS � �,, �� �` ' �
tv-^'' �l 1 t `� �
,
. i � ^.�(,'''+ 4"./'r`t t
� ��`,� ,� /"r',,��Y 1 , i i t
��y-V`�\ � }�1 � � �/''•` : � �-�� !
��:.��A�\�/ t�" � �'�� � �� ' ',. %'_ `"s-
'r� \ �� µ � ` �-�- i r 1 14 � o
\ '�\ 4 f `; 1✓'" �,,,�,`; i
) V ' i ;,�L y i � �,
% 'j � � � j < ,'" � 't-"': i ' � ,'
i
s �
i ' � '� �
''% �,� %� � , .. ����.','`'� � f�\ �``�
���. f � '-. �'>i "r� �'t � � _
%,. .-r' r �
�� J '?, .` :�41't.1, � � ��` �� "7� � 2
� l' / A ��
� �y``�` '�,`---' �• ��f"�' '�R�'`�� ch�� e 9 . � �.
�,'"'=�. � �'` s` '' �"� C�' ry�� P�P ' �
•ti ^'`�. •. ` faEix A �' \ ''• G
�• ,�- '�.-._: . �--"�'m'"�' ' tA3) ,� �.
��\� � � ��� �`�'� � �. .� 2
�\ '� � `` � � � " , ' 12EACK -ts , � � ��
,. � ,r`` CAl> I�'t ches ti*S �
'��'� r � ° ��t :.
' "�°-�'� `\ �i-�Ch ,r
/�, �,�!`�.� �1/�� � CA�,) ��. P�p2, . if° Nev,so�^
,�Y�j';;,s.'� �` CA�� �itG�`�& ` //� ,�` SPrtn9
_ , ,
`� � � , // "--._
��p � V`�• ` � ��
/�3��.�^/TT'U,lT i��0 e ^ q. CY � ��
1
�/��,a� s „ � +�,. ��.
'���,��� t � _ _-.__ ---� � .� � -
,S � � �
✓'� � � � ^'—��E�:.NCN MGS f�_ �---' .
� \ /� Y_"�^ �� .
\ �1 Y . J �' / f ��
w ��. \�l � f _
````y`�~I� `` ��� L / 4'`Y / ' � •�.
� t Q �
�, `\ , `, � ' °„�' / 1,;; � `
` � \��\ `/('�����=j//z i�� C�U��Y �� Pp ��:
�\ f
�/ 11 (]
� ��. �� .' 1 }���11' �\ i� �1 IT� �Y�� $�A�t
' i '� ��' / %� 17 ," SAN �, '{Ji TO
,
�/J �`,,� l r �
,
, � .� � /
/CI-�Y @� ���
�RRpYO �'R �
i�
�R�F�
HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS
NEWSOM SPR/NGS DRA/NAGE PROJECT
. ��
• �' ��°�
�� �,
_ . �� �.��
�� o
�� ���`
� '��
��
�
April 7, 1998
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE PROJECT
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
EXISTING HYDROLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
HYDROLOGY OF ALIGNMENT A PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
HYDROLOGY OF ALIGNMENT B AND C PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
HYDRAULICS OF ALIGNMENT A PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
HYDRAUUCS OF ALIGNMENT B AND C PROJECTS C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
FIGURES . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
FIGURE 1 WATERSHED AREAS
FIGURE 2 EXISTING DRAINAGE FACILITIES
FIGURE 3 ALIGNMENT A -ALTERNATIVE DRAINAGE FACILITIES
FIGURE 4 ALIGNMENT B -ALTERNATIVE DRAINAGE FACILITIES
FIGURE 5 ALIGNMENT C -ALTERNATIVE DRAINAGE FACILITIES
FIGURE 6 PROFILE OF ALIGNMENT A
FIGURE 7 PROFILE OF ALIGNMENT B
FIGURE 8 PROFILE OF ALIGNMENT C
ATTACH M ENTS: eRpf ESSfONq�
CALCULATIONS �k.� G CAMp E`y
COST ESTIMATES �UP� eF�� �'m
� No. 34405 �
�F �
PREPARED BY: _�� `f'l9 CIVI� ��Q'
Cfai 2mp II license expires s-30-99 TF �f CA��E��
INTRODUCTION °`
NEWSOM SPRINGS ITYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 1
INTRODUCTION
This report reviews the hydrology and hydraulics for the proposed Newsom Springs
Drainage project. The drainage project has been proposed in response to repetitive
flooding problems within the City of Arroyo Grande. The foliowing report describes the
drainage area, flooding problems, the hydrology of the watersheds, and the hydraulics
of the proposed drainage projects.
WATERSHED CHARACTERISTiCS
a��
The watershed studyarea is shown on Figure 1 and includes a total of 1,240 areas.
Most of this watershed.is steep, mountainous, and undeveloped. 7hese undeveloped
areas drain to the lower watershed which is flat, irrigated farm land. Future
development within the watershed which could significantly affect future stormwater
runoff is not anticipated and has not been considered in this study.
Newsom Springs Creek, at the crossing of Branch Mill Road has a tributary area of
1,116 acres, as shown on the attached skefch. fn a 100 year storm, this watershed will
generate about 891 cubic feet per second (cfs) of runoff. Runoff from this watershed
crosses Branch Mill Road and into the City limits through an existing Sft x 4ft concrete
and masonry culvert. In large storms, the capacity of this cufvert wili be exceeded.
Downstream of the 8ft x 4ft culvert, a parailel watershed of 51 acres contributes
additional runoff. Runoff from this smaller watershed also crosses Branch Mili Road
through c�lverts, or in larger storms by sheet flow across the road. As shown on
Figure 2, an earth.ditch carries runoff parallel to Branch Mill Road on the north side, to
an existing 3ft x 5ft culvert known as the "stone cufvert." This difch is regraded each
year, and depending on the grading, the capacfty of this ditch varies from
approximately 30 to 100 cfs. Similarly, the capacity of the stone cuivert is dependent
on the grading of the ditch and the culvert entrance and varies from approximately 30
to 900 cfs. Flow which enters the stone culvert crosses Branch Mill road again, as
shown on Figure 2. Downstream, this flow contributes to historical flooding problems
within Tract 139 (Luana Lane), at the Vagabond Mobile Home Park, at the Pacific
Coast Christian School and further downstream at Valley Road.
Excess flows are not diverted through the stone culvert. These flows sheet across fhe
agricultural fields and are concentrated at the intersection of Brasch Mill Road and
Cherry Avenue. At this point the existing 100 year runoff is approximately 893 cfs.
With the elimination of the diversion through the stone culvert, and assuming a future
upgrade to the Branch Mill Roatl Culvert, this will increase to 1,024 cfs. The oniy
drainage facility is a small ditch with a capacity of 22 cfs. . As a result, the homes within
Tract 409 have experienced serious flooding.
NEWSOM SPRINGS ITYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 1
i �
EXISTING HYDROLOGY
Hydrologic analyses in the Arroyo Grande area are usuaily perFormed using either the
rational method or one of several hydrograph computer programs. 'The rational method
is simpler to use, but is considered less reliable for watersheds over 200 acres.
Therefore, a hydrograph analysis was chosen. The hydrology of the area was
evaluated utilizing a hydrograph analysis based on the Santa Barbara Urban
Hydrograph (SBUH) rriethod, and the results compared to other studies. The
watershed data for the analysis is listed in the following table:
WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS
# DESCRIPTION Acres L (ft) S(%) n °/alnp
1 Newsom Springs Creek at the 1,116 14,000, 3.7 .04 0.01
crossing of Branch�Mill Road.
2 Hiliside area tributary to Branch 51 1,300 17 .04 0.01
Miil Road.
3 Farmed area between Branch Mill 73 2,500 1 .03 0.01
Road and Cherry Avenue
The hydrograph analysis combines rainfall data with the watershed data to produce a
stormwater runoff hydrograph. Rainfall runoff data used assumes saturated soil
conditions and rainfall as shown: '
RAINFALL PARAMETER STORM RECURRENCE INTERVAL.
100 yr 50 yr 25 yr 10 yr 2 Yr
24 Hour Total Rainfall (inches) 5.5 5.0 4.4 3.7 2.2
Loss Rate for pervious areas (inches/hr) .18 .20 .22 .23 .25
Hydrograph analyses are also sensitive to the time distribution of the rainfall. The
rainfall distribution used in this study is based on a reconstitution of the January xx,
1969 storm in San Luis Obispo. The Corp's of Engineers has recommended this
distribution for studies of flooding in this area. ,
The computer program perForms a hydrograph analysis for each watershed. It was
recognized that ponding occurs at both Branch Mill Road and at the extension of
Cherry Avenue. To determine the effect of this ponding; each of these locations.were
modeled as detention basins. At Branch Mill Road, the area was modeled as a basin
with the existing 8ft x 4ft culvert as an outlet pipe and with the road as an overflow weir.
The extension of Cherry Avenue is a dirt road which is raised 1 to 2 feet above the
NEWSOM SPRINGS ITYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 2
upstream agricultural fieids. The effect of this barrier was modeled as a wide flaf basin
(the field) with no outlet pipe, and a long low weir(the dirt road). The output of the
computer analysis for the above rainfail and watershed analysis are included in the
appendix to this report. The results of the analysis for existing conditions are
summarized below:
HYDROGRAPH Stormwater Runoff(cFs)
# DESCRIPTION Acres 100 yr 50 yr 25 yr 10 yr 2 Yr
24 Hour Rainfail (Inches) 5.5 5.0 4.4 3.7 2.2
1 Newsom Spnngs Creek at the 1,916 891 762 611 456 165
crossing of Branch Mill Road. ej�,�'g,x
2 Hillside area tributary to 51 60 55 46 36 16
Branch Mill Road.
3 Farmed area between Branch 73 73 63 52 40 16
I�lill Road and Cherry Avenue
4 Outflow of H1 through the 8ft x 1,116 818 690 504 374 139
4ft culvert, roufed fo consider •
restricted flows.
5 Combined flows from H2, H3 1,240 923 755 556 354 163
and H4. '
' 6 H5 reduced by 30 cfs diversion 1,240 893 725 526 324 133
through the stone culvert. This
as the total existirtg flow
approaching the Branch Mill
Road - Cherry Avenue � ,
intersection:
7 H5 routed across the Cherry 9,240 904 731 566 400 117
Avenue extension to consider
the effect of.ponding.
8 H7 reduced by 30 cfs diversion 1,240 874 701 536 370 87
through the stone culvert.
This is existing outflow Yo
the creek.
i✓o �, 9 CombinedflowsfromH1,.H2, 1,240 1,024 878 707 531 197
P � � an H3, this is the proposed
�
�-� flow to the creek.
�°�;,c�.,�/�`' —' P'`i"',`' ��„ w..-r
���'j^'" ti,;, ti.v,-�o/ c.,.,(.�—✓r ( $ r�f � �-� yF' /ht� -�v � �p �' �0� I vs 8 f
h�i.�..v� ri�%G,r
NEWSOM SPRINGS ITYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 3
Hydrograph analyses are sensitive to several of the rainfall and watershed variables
listed above and contained within the program itself. To verify the results listed above, .
they were compared to the resuits of other studies of similar watersheds within the
general area. The above analyses indicates that the 1.8 sq mi primary watershed will
produce 100 year runoff at a rate of 511 cfs/sq mi. As comparisons, the following
studies were reviewed:
The 1984 FEMA Study used a basis for the Arroyo Grande Flood insurance Rate
Maps indicates the following rates of runoff for similar watersheds:
Carpenter Canyon Creek 1.0 sq mi 420 cfs/ sq mi.
Corbit Canyon Creek 3.9 sq mi 590 cfs/sq mi
North Fork of Los Berros Creek, 2.6 sq mi 461 cfs/sq mi.
Meadow Creek 4.4 sq mi. 591 cfs/sq mi.
The 1987 Corps of Engineers study of San Luis Obispo County Streams
indicates the following rates of runoff for similar watersheds:
Corbit Canyon Creek , 4.7 sq mi 510 to 660 cfs/sq mi
These comparisons are seen as verifying the reasonableness of the results
obtained in this study.
HYDROLOGY OF AUGNMEN'T A PROJECTS _
The hydrology for the proposed projects along Alignment A were performed in a
manner similar to that for the existing conditions. Watershed and rainfall
characteristics are unchanged. However, the diversion through the stone culvert has
been eliminated. Also, runoff will be released from the farm land at Branch Mill Road
and Cherry Avenue to the creek more quickly by the storm drain collection and
drainage system. For the purposes of design, it is aiso assumed that in the future the
Branch Mill Road Culvert will be replaced and will not act as a restriction to the flow.
6 'k �'
HYDROGRAPH ' Stormwater Runoff (cfs)
# DESCRIPTION Acres Q,�
1 Newsom Springs Creek at Branch Miii Road. 1,116 891
2 Hillside area tributary to Branch Mill Road. 51 60
3 Farm area between Branch Mill Road - Cherry Ave 73 73
9 Combined flows from H1, H2 and H3. This is the total 1,240 1,024
design flow approaching the Branch Miil Road -
Cherry Avenue intersection. �
NEWSOM SPRINGS ITYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 4
This analysis shows fhat peak fiows contributing to Arroyo Grartde Creek will be
increased by 901 cfs. To review the effect of this on Arroyo Grande Creek, several
factors must be conside�ed, inciuding; the total combined flow in the creek, the timing
of peak creek flow and peak•project flow, and the capacity of the creek. The waYershed
above the stream gage is 10.6 sq mi. Assuming a flow production of 600 cfs per sq.
mi., the 100 year flow at this point would be 6,360 cfs. 7here are no published 100
year flow estimates for Arroyo Grande Creek at this focation to confrrm this. Fiowever,
according to the stream gage records maintained by San Luis Obispo County the
largest flow of record since 1939 is 5,400 cfs prior to Lopez Dam and 4,620 cfs after
Lopez was constructed. The sfream gage is just upstream of the contr+bution of the
Newsom Springs runoff. For defermining the impact of an incrementai flow increase,
the assumed flow of 6,360 cfs will be used.
The Newsom Springs is a smaller watershed than Arroyo Grande Creek at the point of
confluence, and therefore, the peak flows arrive at different times foilowing a rain
event. Assuming an average stream velocify of 10 fps and a stream (ength of 25 miles,
the time of concentration for Arroyo Grande Creek at the stream gage is about three
hours as compared to about one hour for the Newsom Springs flow. At that time in the
storm, the Alternative A projects will actually decrease ffows to Arroyo Grande Creek,
because the existing flow paths at Branch Mill Road and across the agricultural fields
are slow and hold the flow back to combine more evenly with the peak flowing Arroyo
Grande creek. Even if a chance occurrence of 100 year storm pafferns allowed the
peak flows to combine, the increase in flow de th would be onl 0.1 feet from 10.0 feet
A Y
at 7,253 cfs to 10.1 feet at 7,384 cfs.
HYDROLOGY OF ALIGNMENT B.AND C PROJEGTS
The hydrology of project aiternatives along alignments B and C are the same, and are
considered together. The hydrology is performed in a manner similar to that for the
existing conditions. Watershed and rainfall characteristics are unchanged. However,
the diversion through the stone culvert has been eliminated, and the point of
connection to Arroyo Grande Creek is changed for most of the project flow. Also,
runoff will be released from the farm land at Branch Mill Road and Cherry Avenue to
the creek more quickly by the storm drain collection and drainage system. A summary
of fhe hydrology runs for this configuration is as follows:
NEWSOM SPRINGS ITYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 5
HYDROGRAPH Stormwater Runoff(cfs)
# DESCRIPTION Ac�es Q,�
1 Newsom Springs Creek at the crossing of Branch 1,116 891
Miil Road. This flow will be diverted directly to
Arroyo Grande Creek.
2 Hiliside area tributary to Branch Mill Road. 51 60
3 Farmed area between Branch Mill Road and Cherry 73 73
Avenue �
10 Combined flows from H2 and H3. This is the totai 124 133
flow approaching the Branch Mill Road - Cherry
Avenue intersection.
The effect of these projects on the flow in Arroyo Grande Creek was evaluated in a
manner similar to that described for Alternative A. ince these Alternatives divert flow
S
entering Arroyo Grancle'Creek to an upstream location, fiows will be increased from
, that point downstream, until the confluence is reached. The effect of the differing time
of concentration serves to diminish this effect. The Alternatives B and C projects will
divert a peak flow of 891 cfs to the upstream location. However, two hours later when
Arroyo Grande Creek is reaching peak flow, the Newsom Springs diversion will only be
contributing a flow of 198 cfs. This increase was compared to a rating curve for the
creek to determine the incremental rise. Based on the rating curve, the flow depth in
this section of creek will increase 0.2 feet from 9.3 feet at 6,360 cfs to 9.5 feet at 6,558
cfs. Even if a chance occurrence of 100 year storm patterns aliowed the peak flows to
combine, the increase in flow depth would be only 0.7 feet from 9.3 feet at 6,360 cfs to
10.0 feet at 7,251 cfs. The Arroyo Grande Creek cross section is large in this area and
the projected increase in flow depth is considered insignificant. Downstream of the
stream gage, the effect on Arroyo Grande Creek is the same as evaluated for
Alternative A and is also insignificant.
HYDRAULICS OF ALIGNMENT A PROJECTS
The Alternative A project consists of two drainage facilities, as follows:
1. Reach 2 - Conveyance from the stone culvert along Branch Mill Road to the �
corner of Cherry Avenue:
The flow approaching the stone culvert varies from 30 to 100 cfs according to
how the approach and the upstream ditch is graded in any particular year.
NEWSOM SPRINGS ITYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 6
Downstream, floodwaters increase until at the intersection of Branch Mill Road °
and Cherry Avenue, the design flow is 1,024 cfs.
Frojects A1 and A2 use a system of ditches to divert the stone culvert flow and
to coliect the f�ood waters which sheet across the farm iand. The proposed ditch
along Branch Mill Road would vary in size and capacity. At the upstream end, ^
near the stone culyert, it would need to convey the 100 cfs flow. At the ¢� �'/'-�
downstream,end, it would need to convey about 70 percent of the total flood
flow. Another intercepting ditch along the extension of Cherry Avenue wouid
also be sized for 70 percent of the total flow. At the downstream end these
ditches would then be sized to convey about 720 cfs each. These ditches could
be constructed at a slope of approximately 0.30 percent. At this slope, a clitch
with a 15 feet wide bottom and 3:1 side slopes would vary in depth from 3 feet at
the upstream end to 6 feet at the downstream end. TheSe depths inctude 1 foot
of freeboard. Flow velocity would be a maximum of 5 fps at the down stream
end and minimal erosion control wili be needed.
Project A-3 uses a pipe to divert fiow from the stone culvert. !f a pipe were sized
to accommodate the 100 cfs flow, a 48 inch storm drain would be required. Flat
slopes along the flow direction effect the sizing of the drainage facilifies. Along
Branch Miil Road, the existing ground slopes approximately 0.2 pe�cent,
however, a storm drain could be constructed at 0.6 percent which wouid allow it
to clear the downstream utilities (see Figure 4). A flared inlet would also be
because of the low head�available. To collect additional flood flow which will
sheet across the farm land, surface ditches and inlets will be required. These
ditches will be similar in size to hose described above, except at the upstream
end near the box culvert.
In general, little benefit is received from using underground culverts for this
reach, since surFace ditches will be required in any case. `
2. Reach 1 - Conveyance from the corner of Branch Mill Road and Cherry Avenue
to Arroyo Grande Creek:
The design flow used for this conveyance is 1,024 cfs. Tfiis assumes that the
upstream areas will remain in their existing undeveloped condition. For
Alternatives A1 and A3, undergrourid pipes are proposed for this reach, and as
shown in Figure 4, they can be constructed at approximately 0.9 percent and
clear the existing underground facilities. This will make the flowline of the
; downstream end be approximately 17 feet deep. ,The design fiow can be
conveyed by two 72" RCP storm drains if special attention is given to the inlets.
A minimum of 3 flared inlets would be required in order for the drainage pipes to
co!lect the runoff with the required minimal head loss. This drainage system
couid also be constructed of two 60" HDPE storm drains, but the downstream
NEWSOM SPRINGS ITYDROLOGY AND HYDR,4U�ICS PAGE 7
end would need to be 20 feet deep to flowline, and four flared inlets would be
required.
The outlet of these storm drains will require carefui construction. The outlet
location is between an existing residential property and the existing County
stream gage. The pipes will be oriented about 50 clegrees toward the
downstream and will not have a backwater effect on the stream gage.
Construction of the pipes will require 18 to 22 feet cuts near the rear of the
existing residential yard. The creek banks in this area appear to be underlain by
rock. It is anticipated that a gabion retaining wall will be needed to protect the
bank. The velocity of flow leaving the storm drains will be 17 to 25 fps '
depending on the size of pipe. This is comparable to the estimated velocity in
this section of the creek (20 fps for a flow of 6000 cfs). The existing rock bottom
and sides of the creek in this area appear to have a history of accommodating
the high velocities without excessive erosion. Therefore, erosion protection for
the storm drain outlet is proposed to consist of orienting the drains downstream
and the use of gabion protection where appropriate.
Alternative A2 proposes this reach to be an open�ditch. This ditch will have a 15
feet wide bottom, with 2:1 side slopes and will be about xx feet 'deep. Bridges
will be required at Myrtle Street and at the extension of Cherry Avenue.
HYDRAULICS OF ALIGNMENT B AND C PROJECTS
The alternative projects along alignments B and C consisf of a set of drainage facilities
along an easterly location, whicli divert the main flow from Newsom Springs Creek and
divert it directly to Arroyo Grande Creek, and an additidnal westerly set of facilities
divert the stone cuivert and field flow to the creek.
1. Reach 2 - Conveyance from the stone culvert along Branch Mill Road to the
corner of Cherry Avenue:
IThis is the upstream end of the westerly drainage facilities. The flow
approaching the stone cuivert varies from 30 to 100 cfs according to how the
approach and the upstream ditch is graded in any particular year. Downstream,
the agricultural fields will add additional runoff until at the intersection of Branch
Mill Road and Cherry Avenue, the design flow is 173 cfs.
Projects 61 and C1 use a system of ditches to divert the stone culvert flow and
to coilect the flood waters which sheet across the farm land. The proposed ditch
along Branch Mill Road wouid vary in size and capacity. At the upstream end,
near the stone culvert, it would need to convey the 100 cfs flow. At the
downstream end, it would need to convey about 70 percent of the total flood
flow. Another intercepting ditch along the extensiorr of Cherry Avenue would
also be sized for 70 percent of the'totaf flow. At the'downstream end these
NEWSOM SPRINGS ITYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 8
ditches would then be sized to convey about 720 cfs each. These ditches could
be constructed at a slope of approximately 0.30 percent. At this slope, a ditch
with a 15 feet wide bottom and 3:1 side slopes would vary in depth from 3 feet at
the upstream end to 6 feet at the downstream end. These depths include 1 foot
of freeboard., Flow velocity would be a maximum of 5 fps at the down stream
end and minimal erosion control will be needed.
A 48 inch storm drain with a flared inlet couid be constructed to convey the 100
cfs fiow from the stone culvert. The culvert approach is used in Alternatives 63.
In addition to the 48" pipe, surface ditches are needed to collect the flood water
which will sheet across the agricultural feld.
Alternative B2 does not include drainage facilities for this reach. As a result,
significant amounts of runoff will continue to be flow at the stone culvert and at
Branch Mill Road - Cherry Extension. Flooding probiems in the areas
downstream will not be entirely corrected.
2. Reach 1 - Conveyance from the comer of Branch Mill Road and Cherry Avenue
to Arroyo Grande Creek:
This is the downstream reach of the westerly facilities. The design flow used in
this report for this conveyance is 173 cfs. This assumes that the upstream areas
will remain in their existing undeveloped condition. Alternatives B1, 62, 63 and
C1 propose an underground pipe is proposed for this conveyance. The design
flow can be conveyed by a single 48 inch HDPE storm drain if special attention
is given to the iniets. A minimum of 2 flared inlets would be required in order for
the drainage pipe to collect the runoff with the required minimal head loss. The
outlet of these storm drains will require carefui construction, similar to that
described for the Alignment A projects. Peak outiet velocity will be,about 14 fps.
Alternative B2 does not include drainage facilities for this reach. As a result,
significant amounts of runoff will continue to be flow at Branch Miil Road -
Cherry Extension. Flooding problems in the areas downstream wili not be
entirely coRected.
3. Reaches 3 and 4 - Conveyance from of the Branch Mill Creek runoff to Arroyo
Grande Creek.
These reaches are the upstream and downstream sections of the easterly
facilities which divert the Newsom Springs Creek flow direct to Arroyo Grande
Creek. This concept will divert location of confluence of the Newsom Springs
Creek flow upstream of the County stream flow gage. Currently this flow enters
Arroyo grande Creek just downstream of the flow gage. The stream gage on
arroyo Grande Creek has been in service for xx years, and is considered one of
the best sources for studying the rainfali and flooding relationships. The Corps
NEWSOM SPRINGS ITYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 9
of Engineers is currentiy performing flood analysis of Arroyo Grande Creek, San
Luis Obispo Creek, and Santa Rosa Creek. The Corps intends to base their
study on the Arroyo Grande creek because it the stream gage provides the most
accurate and statistically valid data. Diverting the Newsom Springs Creek flow
upstream of the stream gage will upset the integrity of future gage readings. For
this reason, the County has indicated that they prefer projects along alignment
A, and that projects along Alignments B or C should include a recording stream
flow gage in oriier that the stream flow records may continue to be statistically
valid.
The design flow used in this report for this conveyance is 891 cfs. An open ditch
is proposed for Aiternatives B1, B2, and C1. If open ditches are constructed .
along these alignments, they will need to have minimal slopes to avoid being
excessively deep at the downstream end. As shown in Figure 5 and 6, the
existing ground along Alternative B drops only 1 foot in 1600 feet and has a one
foot rise in the middle. The existing ground of Alternative C is essentiaily flat.
An open ditch constructed at a slope of 0.20 percent would drop about 4 feet
over the length of the project. At this slope, a ditch would need to be 15 feet
wide at the bottom, with 2:1 side slopes and a minimum depth of 7 feet
(including 1 foot of freeboard). The velocity of the ditch would'be 5.5 fps and
would require moderate erosion protection such as planted grasses.
As an alternative, underground pipes could be constructed steeper than a
surface ditch. With the depth of cover held between 5 and 13 feet ( to allow the
less expensive cast in place pipe to be used), pipes could be constructed at a 2 �a 2 "
slope of 0.42 percent. To convey the design flow, this pipe would need to be �
either a single 114 inch diameter or double 90 inch diameter RCP. Either pipe �'"
would need speciai inlets to accommodate low hydraulic head. ��P�'�
Constructing a surface ditch will require that agriculturai equipment crossings be
provided. These will need to avoid siowing the flow, and therefore should be
', clear span bridges with raised approaches. The span of the proposed ditch wili
vary from 43 feet to 63 feet at various locations. One aiternative whicfi may be
suitable is to use railroad flatcar bridges, which come in several lengths and
load ratings. The cost estimates presented assume flatcar bridges, double wide
(21 feet total).
' The outlet to Arroyo Grande Creek for this ditch is proposed to be at a location
where the creek makes a 90 degree bend. Because of this, the proposed ditch
can enter the creek in the direction of flow. Erosion protection will be required
and is estimated to consist primarily of gabion protection.
NEWSOM SPRINGS ITYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 10
, , „ .
WEST FAC/L/TIES EAST FACIUTIES TOTAL COMMENTS
ALT PROJECT BUDGET
REACH 1 REACH 2 REACH 3 REACH 4
(Stilwell) (Dixson) (Downstream) (upstream)
A PIPE, PIPE INLETS, None 3/10/98 estimate Superseded by A-1
2 - 72" DITCHES $830,000
............ .......................... ........................................... .................................................................... .............................................. ...................................................
A-1 PIPE, PIPE INLETS, None $690,000 Same as A,
2 - 72" DITCHES Costs Revised
PREFERRED PROJECT
............ .......................... :.......................................... .................................................................... .............................................. ...................................................
A-2 DITCH, DITCHES None $840,000
BRIDGES
............ .......................... ........................................... .................................................................... .............................................. ...................................................
A-3 PIPE, PIPE INLETS, None $770,000
2 - 72" DITCHES
PIPE, 1-48"
B PIPE, 30" PIPE INLETS, DITCH, 3/10/98 estimate Superseded by B-1
DITCHES with 4 equipment crossings. $1,100,000
............ .......................... ..............................:............ .................................................................... .............................................. ...................................................
B-1 PIPE, 48" PIPE INLETS, DITCH 4 Ag Xings $1,170,000 Same as B,
DITCHES with 2 to 4 equipment crossings. 3 Ag Xings $1,060,000 Cost revised,
2 Ag Xings $950,000 Pipe siie revised.
............ .......................... ....................��----................. .................................................................... .............................................. ...---...----......................................
B-2 None None DITCH, 4 Ag Xings $840,000 FLOOD PROBLEMS
with 2 to 4 equipment crossings. 3 Ag Xings $740,000 REMAIN at Luana Lane,
use either B or C alignment 2 Ag Xings $630,000 Vagabond MH Park,
Pacific Coast School,
Noguera Place
............ .......................... ........................................... .................................................................... .............................................. ...................................................
B-3 PIPE, 48" PIPE, 48" PIPE, 2 - 90" Storm Drains, $2,010,000 Complete Underground
use either B or C alignment Solution.
C PIPE, 30" PIPE INLETS, PIPE, 2-90". DI7CH, with 2 3/10/98 estimate Superseded by G1
DITCHES equipment $1,960,000
crossings.
............ .......................... ........................................... ................................ .......... .. ... . . .. . .. . . . . ... .
C-1 PIPE, 48" PIPE INLETS, DITCH 4 Ag Xings $1,180,000 Same as C,
DITCHES with 2 to 4 equipment crossings. 3 Ag Xings $1,070,000 Cost revised,
2 Ag Xings $960,000 Pipe size revised.
Pipe removed.
_ _ -
,
FIGURES
NEWSOM SPR/NGS DRAIIVAGE PROJECT
i ,
�
' ,-\'�./. .' � :f`.. �.� l �.._ • � G'�j ~ r!/• `./� �� ROPO' "!i .. S (��•, �I�: I' � ._. . .
1 �`�� � � 1�� � � ` . . I� .�j .'�i%'.�_� C1'L'CIi�
,v I�' / c .�� S y�a 'I, P�4� � . . \� r�a, �.�" i. . Sp�rynA i �
. �%./ /:%• ��o � �� :ir°^ ��QCO PaG� ' .�. I� '� I . ; � � c Wells
8 ��,. . , .SVDth r'., Q' 0P °� �� � ��F : {L�I'..� ii�. t .
'�� . ,� `'. �� . °ca ��j�p� 1 � iIf r �,.�� �� � (
l�... � / ,� ` l '� '\�! .\`\°°a Q' �r- :� /{%( ` r ` � �s\�il�� ��5(i��1� �I!�I ` .I � . c_,., .
' . . � ,�` a .. .
a uns Afi a we' � i, �. . �` � : 1 soo N E W 6. 6� r�"''-;
n 'e:Y \ ,, . , e . ._. _ . ,
' � � iiei�� � , ",rsy� a" �� ����� � ��\�°u . )}_I� � ���'�/\ �/� eoo�o<`.� � �m ; R � D,: G�, .
.�� ti M 3 ��� . � � 11j�I1 ((( �(- soo ��, . i �� I/��� a�y. �a � na. z, ��
1 :a ol ( '/ BO A �\ • 8 �l` r ���\` - \7 1�r � l /N�W ... �' ,s=° � 'z �°� _' """ - ea0
t. �� D.$. AMI L� r ti'/� ,�1 � /� 1 ,/ ._r_r�> � !I',(Ji
\'1 y _ � 'gi p '�.. . ' 0 J�S �(- �i� . ._�� ./ / , _� r f ��i ( _:' y/ - - \1 '_.� ;I y I I,.i'I n � ' -� •.`�,
, 13 . aUad� . �. , •ti�.. P f� �I t 61 � / .'
� �` � • e �. ���� :l� %`S_20 ��—� � � : �% ���/�� � :.�� � ,�cAvAy�'4y �'.
� r
� •'••'• • • �E pa• � ✓ /�f-i i ��,s°,,,.,6 � >68�= v' � ^ � �Ili�� I'� r)N y ' �
� J.. , �� ♦
" , � C � - � �� 1 �\ 11 �-���o�, ' _i � l.i i �� /;� /�i/�i � ��� ,�. � �1 ��-
� I ��M �) � . \
� " P " ' —' �;�.11 ���� jt\-, i�>y`� � �i� , _ � �_ ��� J --�� � �, q �� � 1 � � fr , �l �:•.
� ��,G a ��'�p °��� , ,� ` ' i' °.�, i �l . _�s°f r '_. `� . CL.� 4� soo `,� a_ , . Q �a- H.: Yj `
. . �\ /
� � �
.: � . F. y� ,A \' � i ,c< '`_ ��� �� ,_. _-. . � : . � _..,\ _
Mobile'N �n@ o / � _��� . . .. �_ � wiA � '�r ..s ..` ��_�� �� A� � :-� � \�.I..�I ,�'� . �
. Park , � c i.i' � :�I�� �� ���v� f)�_ ...,1 ._ y�� ��. ` � Jy L.
�� i� �
'.e- � . ;-- .. .)� � ���.: �"�-� i �i � : -F � y� a _ �� �I� t �r'. i , : � - ,:.
:• � -` ?� .'\. � .tT `L ✓�./ -_ _/ �_ _ � .� /;1� ���n �y :!Gbo � i �.At a �'l\i
� . ' �--. -�' i % � � � / / ` ' - ,c i .,-� - . ,
/ \\ /-- �.:._�� �g. �'a - a � i P'
. �i��,,.`/� '�\ 4P�/ �f _ /T ;\ % .'��%I \�\ _� \ � _ //i��- i•qr� °� t�-�l`r �' l�I� FJi� 6��' . !I!�� ,�
n � Z ` P r f .� ���' �'��
'�e. 9'�F. �/ � . . �� :,' ��� �,1 � .\`` . � � I��((�/CI _ `c `\�A � �:/ I � I (
� �� . Cr� 'v�i '. . '� � / �1� i �� • / _���"�_ .\�.r�� \��.. ''� Wc�� 0��. l 1
(� ( .. � � I� \ /0 \ i�. � -;��\� � ;: d. � � \�\��
�' ! � � � d a� �/ . 1 -� . �1'�_:���%, .��:�� �// i>?" rc�� '�c i � �� 1 7 y � 9�\
�-�;�']DA�I a, e � � y � .�./� �2�e,a -./,�� �i �/�(//i/i i/j�� �1� -.� f q �:i�l e i , \. \ �_ ,
=^�/,; .. ���S�i' � � �:' ,, ..'���- � ;` `,,/_ J�^ \. /�f f�f^ � ��'�I�= \\ l�\\ �� `�� � F !(�WO O . P : "Q', r � Qi:iC ���.1 �
i /. .� . a. , � J .�.\\ . � _ 4 �r � 6 �il. -� i7/ i. ( ��
� �� '�� � _ . y 4�/I .c ((`� �S�- I ' /� �U r��,� ' 1!1���� � _
/ � ��� '/ d� ` \ \ . T1 ,, �� i`/✓ \ S � _ / ' 1/ \\es��� . �1I�' ! I �ly � �� '
'�� ', qo �,
�,\`- .. , � *. i E� d � � � �� / 6 . L. � � ! I I. �i�� \ - � .�a - �i.
�a����,� . '/ IiC .� _ .�j� '+'-�_-+ �.\ \ � . �� e `�� i \ ,I ���\- �,�f � / �� (Ted/�� �. 'x��
\ �pf i: . .. - �� �� .lEl ' . � . ` / ' . � � n � �., ' � �
�,i ' J � ) 9 � . ... ^ ,�Q�l .; S � . . u � ip76
F� , orfPiis �� mn �F j ��/� III� aa '+l� �I, �(. . 1 ' i i . i < il� i1 _ 1/ . �?�I ,
�� p �ravel c e��9 '.i� . w � .�/ 1.�� i i — . �' I
� 1� ' ' i' � O �xP k . ��1I� �.�i �� � ` ��- �/ �J�I/ ��Vjil / � //�� rf �.II� �%� I�.i �,� .
1 r , �� �� / � �J / \����8/ i �1���<<���: \ �1� \'C�a�/"`i(l�l������� 1 /�/��/ I , � i I Z ;r '�� �
' � S a / . I 9 � �V�e � 1 /�N � �, ,p���l-. i n
y .I r / �� \ J/ ii r /, i � d"� i- / / �
� r / CCiI��ti�a� �� ����/ � �/v,r �i i 1 ll �i
� �� ,r�. !�� , ��I��. � �°_�llt � �� � �4�� ��'�'- �'{�J - ���;�' � 1�
� � � / '� ,i �2 � ,.1�'�� ': � ��" . s`p �: l�(��� , I i ��" �;,, ��
C , i,. � o ,i � \�. �'�� i}� y j � _ , �. I'� � � �.i �`'.'.
` �;� r . ,
� _..�. o\ ;: .i\��- 1���11�� a � �� \� . �-�l i i;, \ .\ / � �1'<
� �t � � � . .�i ��i� �� `l, I � � .�II(" � � ��� (r`' � � `
`Ri •�l � / �r, � �� � .. �` ° J�IU�� ' � I . II n ', .\ 1J'J
,V •'��,�h '\ \ / .- .�./ / (~�:. - °.� �' ,ctFl,� I, .�„p�� _ I� ` 'L '/ � � .
`\ -�`f�-�#.m � - 1J Y
) / .BM 111 I . o �.��s' . .0 , : �" � ��;;I �`\ .-, i .'� �
r' y� . , 101 o%/ .. �•' . . �.i:�... . �_, -...I��_ . . . _ /�. .. ,. _�. _ . . .W I,_
SCALE 1:24 000
i p I MItE
�_�'_'�-��_ -_:— —
�ppp 0 1000 7000 3000 <000 5000 6000 1000 fEEi -
�T� — �
. ' S p i NILOMETE�
CONTOUR WTERVAL 40 �FEET - - �
... , __ ._,.,. I
1
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE PROJECT o.-o�-9a
ALIGNMENT A - PROJECT ALTERNATIVES `�"PwSO�'
1 n � C�
`� i" n
N«� > n
�
CR��� .. ^ m 'n
0
� D
�.p� ^ CDNANOS pV n
0 �
�1 p
N �
a � v
m ^ �o
a s�,
MZ � 2
F'o
A a
�REEk n � CH
�p
t
�E y A1 -7 ipes
C ch ridge
5' 9= CA3) 2- P( e
z � P� J�
A �Ra+ REACH 2 P
� `� `� CAl) Inlets ����
�'� q Ditches PSl
° � <A2) Ditch `
e tp PJ , CA3� 1-48' Pi e,
5 �,ERR+ Inlets, �
��
� Ditches
c^5� ea"�
99
/ ewsor�
` — -- \� Springs
�
C�'^ . � BRAN[�N HJLL ,p� f � / \
g \
P E °v. / � / ��a�µ�� \ . ` — �
P� z�, ��
UP
b /
CITY F
C❑UNTY OF
ARROYO GR NDE ,�.'�� SAN LUIS ❑BISP❑
. N07 70 SLALE
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE PROJECT 04-07-98
ALIGNMENT B - PR�JECT ALTERNATIVES "'¢�_���
51� a � �� _ � .
N
�l�'� n A
' � I
CR�JN ^ n '�'a
�� a
� '�'� CDNANOS A�y
n
n e
i � REACH 3 "
< ; 1> Ditch /Crossln z
� ^ CB Dit w/Crossing�4
� CRE[K ; ;�p - _ 3) 02' Pipe ,
�;
t`` '�. REA E
�� C Dit w/Cro gs
St ° ^ � ��� C 48' PIP 2) Ditch w%C ss
� � � � � �� . None �83) 2-10z'
,, l� �\��� �� CB3) 48' PI e ` i
I' � !
`t � � �\ REACH 2 �PS� ;
° e t" CB1) Inlets & ;
S . P� Ditches
"^ �R+ � CB2) None
=� ` H `� CB3) 48' Pl es
�PS� � . 0�� . ,
9 � Newsor�
9 << _ /
� \� Springs
(�o /I� BRqM'y NJCG I / �
E �L � ���' RQ � - �
I.P °v� /�EP �
P� 9�� / ��a��a ` .
E
b�P / /
/ / /
// //
// //
CITY F ��_ ��� C❑UNTY �F
"
. .. ._. ....... ..... . . " ._ _. __.. �y ._
ARR�YO GR NDE �' SAN LUIS OBISPO
4 I
N0T TO SCALE
_._— j
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE PROJECT o.-0�-98
ALIGNMENT C — PROJECT ALTERNATIVES `'"°"_°"�
Sti. . N , n � Q�"
���� i �
GR�� n n ++
a
�� a
� EDMANDS AVE.
�� n
n
� p
� A
D Z y
� f�
m ,� �o
a
�s
z s > � t RE H 3 P°
CRE[K n �
. `�: ) Dftch
9� ���� 9z`� R H 1 RE H 4
5' � G � �\ �, 1) 48' e J CC1> itch
? � � c
P
� ,a " � ��� �eE"�� REACH 2 ���
a �� �� � fCl) 48' Plpe, `�
o � Inlets, & �.PS
e tp Ditches
PJ
q 5 '
i
N� cN�pR � . .
Ehst - 0P-� .
v \
� _ / Newsor�
— . \� Springs
� �
N
o , /�� BRA�N HILL \ '
� � ��� RQ \ �
LP E OV' ��f,a\' �� r
�y � ��l�Ba � ' _ .
P�E. �^' ��dJ - - ..
JP / �
� / ' � �
// //
// //
CITY F �'�` ���
— G❑UNTY ❑F
ARRDY❑ GR NDE _ _. _. .. .... . .__ _ . _..-- --.... .. - -- _ ,� SAN LUIS ❑BISP❑
s
NOT TO SCALE
; MYertf - - � �.
_„_�(�,PEEi� rl1N[ev � .S'riGc wE�L: .OixJo.v .
' � � �
ii
fi
, �-�t _....
l3'.1 . :. ' ` � � �v✓/9% ',_ ._ _.- _ i /�U,L� `
� _ '_ - - -- � , p
�.� -
< .
� '. ! Nli���m�� /�CN�!J , IL�_. 2
' , , ...._ .... :.....y /� LUSS '�; Z
�,3 v
°J� �.?� � ; a� r
] a.33 � �.� _ _. ;: Z
J p7u : �,. �• � : ' / ! X c v�
/2 8 �+_ r� _.._,.._ � __....._t— , , ; ; , w—m �n
� � � / oN-, �
, � o�WO.
� � i � p ; —
, ,. �W . . �p�� m
' /7G ewsr � . � � . � Av
C�ni� —� � ' 1� L / � . ,. � ' � �
� , _.,
. . � .. .�.�q ,i ...... " NNnC
j . � ...... � ..... : :. , f+
�
'_ �� f'' � D-. n
/,2 �/ �1 �. / i : a w W vNi
V � , _ .... / ;- �J . .�..... ;. .. . o� O
; I ; � n
, .� / / a _ �.. _ _ v
J2z � w ,. , ..... , ,._ { �
, 0
4,�� i 0 S / , . umi
, _...
. _ _., _.... , �
Pe. I / : - ;
/2 0 FI�P�� I /� `
��� , ; � � � � o
��� � ... : ' Q . n m r m m
�'� q�� f� /. � �.. �m s c �
I ol �y.%. . .. O w � �
//G I Q�'°_�/. � , , ..: � , � � �
,
I . i, ✓ ,
' __, . ,. ,. ; �
i l ._ ; n � �
i ,''- . , R
//`/ � , _ , � �
� :. , . ...._ _ . . ... : �1 �
I �
��2
! .. . ,.. ..,;. ' , . . '�n � S
; _ ;._ � ', ��l
//U �
: .. ..... ;. -�,�
� . ��� .. �.. �� : ' � n° ° �
i ' ' : , �' l . m ;
; �(l4( i : . ; : .... _ _. , .... �
y� ---__-i-_._._....- �--•--_.. I--._._1 _._�__..,_..._.�._.._... -j_._..._�__.... j. _ i..:.- F _.!..� „�..� �,_: _F.. ...._. .��. ro �
� U � � 2 3 i S .; G 7 g 9 _.. i� /f i z . <3 , i j is ; �,' �
� ,>.. • ' ' '. � ;
_ ___ .. . ,
R� , " ' �,� �. _ ' _ . .. ' ' *
� - . Y T, � '_ _.
,we ��fN/s/Ji-> ��?i�iG.J
JOHN L WALLACE & ASSOCIATES sH�rNO. �
4115 Broad St. Suite B-5 �
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 cn�cuu�oev �� oa� ��:'�;�' % %
(805) 544-4011
FAX (805) 544-4294 ca+ec�o er �TE
�
_._..
_. _..._
�._ _.. . . . _..
Q; �� �__. �'.tzo��s Es_._ �� T. .C�`, _- ; -: -- _ !. . .__.... ..
_- _.. -- --
_ _., , .. _
_ {
___/_� ov' _ _..T.m�_. ' �._ ....__
- - - <`-- -��- �_
_._. �••,----� __ __
� � _ _ ; _ :.. _ . .. . � ..
_-- -- .
� L3za��cfz M c
!bo �,� _._ _.._._ . .. Ropc . ..
\i ; — _ _ — --
W �_ __.__ __ _ __ , _ _
___
._..,U�— �__._. � _— . . .
i @ : � ; � � ;—,._.._ _ . .;_ _ — — _ _ "�.. _ '_._. .
_ .. �
- � —`�l . "---.. _ .---"' � , , � �. 7 ��.
'__'.
.......
:. , ; ' ; : s : i ' � - � J
; . : ; � . � �. ' '.. .._.__ . . .._..__[. � � .� . _. _...._ __
: _"'_'_ ' __._.... , .. �..
'_
� .._.._�, _'___' '_�'�.�._.._ . , : . .:..
v 1 �
. _ ;,
: : � ; : : : i � � i �: ' � ... ' _' .'
�. � I ? 1 : i , . .
: : � . '___;_._,.�-.- �.�. . . ;.__._.:.. �-. ._..-_ �. _ '.. '.r": _
_"' . ........_.�. .""" . . . , . , �..�� � . •
`. Q i '. __ � _'_ —. —.
�3o- � \��,, � -. .. ._ .. ;_...__-. ._. - ! . - _ '-T..r
- "_'_.. . - ,
'V ! � � ; , , i. ` �. � ' r ...._ . _
. , '- . � '�.. . __._ '__..._. . - - '.. . - .
-. �.��._� -i ...; , ., . � .
� ; � ' � � � 1 . :. � . � _
' � . I : . _ ...
/ i.
� � . i " . i ! . . .�� .� �'.. -... ..� « . .��� .
. '� . . • ' . . —^ .. . . . ��
: � . . . '� ._�. 1!�—�.-._ '_ �:"._.._ :.�. . �... %�.i// . - . -'__ ; _' "
' ...r. . 1 �. : ,. ..
_ --
-
' . :Q .. �:' . . . . . i .
:, : � . .. __.. '___... ..._,....._._ .
.�c�� ' ... �"_. _—'_— ' �_— � �_' . .. __ .' .. .__ ,�._" . : . '�
�..,
. .�;-. . . . k _ :: : : �. � � / � TvPLL,oF i°ior f+<:,T,rH�v:uc.
, � ;
' , ___.. __ ,._. r , �
'2 _
� �....._. . _,-1t -- . . , �.
._._. .- . : . � .
` 1 ', ; � ; / _ _ _ .... '
' - --- _ _._ -
� . .._�
1 — �
� -\. ___ '.. -- __
' ' b 2p��
� � _..
� -- — � ...._
i _ -
: �- F!�(OPE75ED _ �. 7
� .;._— Y ,_ . ."_. -
__' "' ' " _ :/. _ : : ". .
. � .
'__Y �, i . . .. : . . . � .�T ..
i _ ..
� /.�. �'��«--s-- ��— . . � � .
._ — . + _ � a � . ' .
____ �.... .._...... . '.
k ; f: _ . : . � . _ , , ..., . :__ .. .
� . - . i . : i 5 : . : : : - � i . . .__ . ......
� . • �i__ .�—T --�a^ '. ' {
. ��.�� . ' . ' � ........
. , . 4 . . : '�.
: ' ' / t' . � , ' ! , ' . .
, - '
, ; '.. .<r_' �_" .. '......_ ` ' ' .
<.. ....._. .
.. ...._. ._..__ . ' .� .
_ -+_" � . . ..
�
.._._ _�� .._ _ . '' ' . /� Y" ; ` � . . '__ ' � ;_._._.'._ _ .... ._.._._.
........ . .
; ,' ! . .; i . :. ; .. ', � ` ` . _ .....__.. _ .
. . i ` . . . ' ..__.._.; ___.,..... . . _ '
F
.:._ ... ... �
� ' _ .._— ' ..___ .
_ � --� ;._, - ---� , ,
- - .._ ___ ----: -- —
�._._ _ ___ _..---- -
�
-- --- - -�-___ —
- ; , : • ; , ! ' ; ` i ` . .......__..
-- - --- �
: � : � � � _ : . � � . . JC/ .�i unG 7
...,...., .u................��..............m,.,,.....�..m��..»,,.R.� .
CALCULATIONS
NEWSOM SPR/NGS DRA/NAGE PROJECT
�t i f/- I�irc-zeEPToa O�;csi�
Curve
Piotted Curves for Trapezoidai Channel
Project Oes«iption
Project File untitled.fm2
Worksheet Attemative A-Irrterceptor Ditches
Flow Element Trapezoidal Channel
Method Manning's Fortnula
Solve For Discharge
Constant Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.035
Channel Slope 0.003000 ft/ft
Left Side Slope 3.000000 H :V
Right Side Slope 3.000000 H :V
Bottom Widfh 15.00 ft
Input Data
Minimum Ma�dmum Inaement
Depth 1.00 6.00 1.00 ft
Discharge vs Depth
1200.0
'I 000.0
800.0
o�
�
m
m 600.0
�
L
� �
� �
400.0 �
�
s
0
200.0
o.o
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Depth (ft)
p3(1,?!g8 John l.Wallace 8 Pssociates FlowMaster v5.07
02:18:45 PM Haestad Meltads,Inc. 37 Brooksida Road Waterbury,CT 067[H (203)7'aTr1666 Page 7 of 1
curve A,fRaYV v��NU� (.2GEk
Plotted Curves for Trapezoidal Cha�nei Q J TQ��m v,g 6 L-�
Projed Desaiption
Project Fle c:lhaestadlfmHMewsom s.fm2
Worksheet Arroyo Grande Creek
Flow Element Trepezoidal Channel
Method Manning's Formula
; Solve For Discharge
�
Constant Data
Ma�nings Coeffiaent 0.040
Channel Slope 0.028000 ft/ft
Left Side Slope 1.500000 H:V
Right Side Slope 1.500000 H:V
Bottom Width 20.00 ft
Input Data
Minimum Ma�dmum IncremeM
Depth 0.00 10.00 1.00 ft
Discharge vs Depih
8000.0
7000.0
6000.0
�.5000.0
m
�
a�
�4000A
m
t
U
N
� 3000.0
2000.0
1000.0
0.0
0.0 �.O 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 '10.0
Depth (ft)
O7A1f98 John L.Wallace&As,odates FlowMaster a5.07
09.03:35 PJd Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brool¢ide Raad Wate�diry,CT W'708 (2D3)75b-t 6fi5 Page 1 of 7
_ _ '° � lYE1.�/Sb// �F'�Jn/%.�.
lOHN L WALLACE & ASSOCIATES
4115 Broad St. Suite B-5 ��TNO. o�
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 cucuureoer �' �' on�3�z o�9 9
(805) 544-4011
FAX (805) 544-4294 CHECICED BY DATE
sca e
- . — . .._ . — . .
:..�iTGll�._....�PL�Rf/LE .-_..f_✓LT_C _..._....t ,....._...._ .� _........ ... .. ... ..:_.... . .._...... ._... _....._....
._.__ ._._ . __......_ ._... .. . . .
. _ .. __ _ . . .
; : , . . ., /°J Q6 t . � � ' ; f : .
— �� ...._ ... .....__ . ..... .._'.__ _ :.. .
..��0 - S , . i: . . .
.: _ : ' ' : . : . : : ; .
: , ; � . , , : . I � � � �
/S!1 ' �—. --.._ .. --._ : . ..:_ --- __.
_ _... _.._ —• --
...,
_...<_ .. . ._----.. �:� ._ _ : —;.-- -' -...._ : ....._._ _... .. r �.... _ -
f�NC ' 1�/��.. ..
_._..... . �� .PoA� �
_.. ...._
� ` � ' : ; ; : ! � � - .
� ;
. , , . : . � " ... ..
� .. .._., _,-_.._� .._..� .. _�..._. �. .. ..._.._ ;. .....,.._ ........_. ... .. .. _.._.., ..... . :
�. . ..._._.
.._.... ._ .._. . ... ._....__ , . � , .
. . . . . : -. . __ -.... .. - -- . .....:...._. ._..
� .... ..... .;
......... .
fcf p _ ..:._ �. _...... . y. ;_ ^_ _ —X.._ �.__._ _ _._ - _ � '; : �
^ � � ' � � : _ . .i.._.. . ..'__._.... .. ..:......
y. .�._.._ : ..�...... ____..
� _.:—.... ...__.._
.._..' _ " ..__ /, ... '__.. � __; i-.._ ._—. — . . . . �. . . .
'�., � x ' '. . . ' ' '_ .' ' ..
: _._ ... ...... �\
. ._ _ . '-.— . —
....._. _.../ - � .. . - . .
�/ ' , � .. � �_... . ... ... � .: . . -.
� ��.. ... .....
�..� .�_. ,._. . . .._
i _ �..�y _ _
__ __ :. a — �---
��_ D Z _; .. '
_.. _ ..
_.
_.._
t_ P�oPos'zD � ; ,
--!_.r : _. ------�— ---�--- �.— _ .__:. ;_.. _._.. . i..... ._....... __.._..__ _ _...
_ �_ _.
I ! � ; ; ; ! .. _ _._..:.
t.:_ __..
--- __.__ _:.._ .. . .._ . _ __,.._ _
.__ , ..
' ;_ _ ,__. _ __..__.
_. _1 ..._. .._ : • _�.- ---._ .._ _
; ` � ; ' i +.._ ; ___.._ _ _
� _._ _ - ;-- �---- -- � _ ; .. --- - - ___...-- - -.-
, , , ,
: . _... - -
; : ; ; ; : ;
; ; _-_. '-... ,_ . ; ._.- .--T- - -
_._ ... __ _ ,___
: ..._
II - -- - _ ,.._.. _._ ._.... . _. _--
i + ; ' --
_ ,. ,. �-/Gv2� S
/a� T � — .S'TORM L�/Z/�/,v
Curve
Plotted Curves for Circular Channel
Project Description
Projed File untitled.fm2
Worksheet ' PJtemative A-Main Storm Drain
Flow Element Circular Channei
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Discharge
Constant Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.013 -
Depth 6.00 ft
Diameter ' 72.00 in
Input Data
Minimum Mabmum Inaement
Channel Slope 0.005000 0.017000 0.001000 fUft
Discharge vs Channel Slope
600.0
550.0
�Q.o —.2
500.0
m
`v 450.0
m
a
L
� '
L
q 4��.�
0
350.0
300.0
250.0
0.004 0.006 0.008 O.O'I 0.012 0.014 O.0'16 0.018
Channel Slope (fVk)
�/� John l.Wallace 8 Associates FbwMaster `5.07
02:34:59 PM Haestad Mettads,Inc. 37 Brool6ide Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (2D3)'7S'a1666 Page 1 ot 7
/y L_ % �1 - /T G C v/:7 G '� lNC E 1�
� II-67
fl t. T . .� £C� � ,
�eo �o,00a . _
168 8,000 EXAMP�E ��� �2J (3J
I56 D.42 incM1e� 13.5 bef) 6.
6,000 6.
144 5 000 a.lzo cis 5.
4,000 „w' nw 6' 5.
132 D t•e+
3,000 5 4.
120 ' fl) 2.5 8.8 4.
2,000 f2> 2.I �.a
t (3) 2.2 7.7 4.
108 3.
F�G rC� �'7�C °0 in leet 3.
: �Or 72�� ��p� .. .96 1,000 3.
/
�y� s�,.��a-5 c eoo 3 x3so = /,�s-o '
aa ---' --
eoo y czso = / voo �� z. 2-
50 /
�2 00 / X �73 = �73 � Z�
� FLAREO w O NQ�� _
SNG E T � F.�� " I•5 1.5 �
? ' I / o'
/O „ P�PL = 60 0 � F t.s .
[�
- Z w
o gp � � � '
a �
w as /� ioo z
�APEO > / � so - -
a
l'.-�c e r � az � eo i.o
y8' P.a� o m so w i.o
0 4O Hp SCALE ENTYPEGE � i`O:
�' 36 30 <q � sa�ar.eea<.�in ' 3 .9 �9 .9
w
� 33 . n<aawau o
a a
0 20 (21 Groova<nE ritn W .8
30 n<ae.all x .8 .
(3) Groore end •e �
27 - Oroiectinq
10
.7 .7
24 8 .7
6 To usa scale(2!or(31 prol<et ..
21 $ �arizoniallr to seala 111.then
4 uae sirala�l leclin<d Iine throu9h
. o a�a a scal<s,or reve�se as 6 .6
_ 3 illvtrrmaa. ' • 6 ' ,
18
2 '
15
5 .5 .5
' 1.0
12 HEADWATER DEPTH FOR
CONCRETE PIPE CULVERl'S �
WITH INLET CONTROL
BUREnU Of PUBUC ROnO$ JoN 1963
/�ssL.-,e F�� ' . l:, �� f G; n� C.�P,�'�
s<!�,
�/60
Pgm ' SBUH' , Calculates Hydrographs by JMS
SANTA BARBARA UKBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD 12 : 37 :46
�I De1ta T (Time Increment) _ .25 Hours
R * * File q100 Read from Disk
Hydrographs # 1 + 2 + 3 + Added to make Hydrdgraph # 9 , Peak Flow =
1023 .6
* * * File q100 Written to Disk
SANTA BARBARA URBAN H1'DROGRAPH MSTHOD - PARTIAL LIST OF FLOW ARRAY 12 :38 :45
Hydgph # : 1 2 3 4 5 7 9
Hydgph Hydgph Hydgph Basinr Addhyd Basinr Addhyd
7 .00hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 2
7 .25hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 2
7 .50hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 2
7.75hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 2
8 .00hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 2
8 .25hrs 9 1 1 7 9 0 il
8 .SOhrs 22 2 2 19 24 0 26
8 .75hrs 31 3 3 30 36 0 37
9 .00hrs 39 3 4 38 45 0 45
9 .25hrs 57 5 5 54 63 0 66
50hrs 82 7 7 79 93 0 96
_ .75hrs 102 8 9 100 116 0 118
10 .00hrs 117 8 10 115 133 0 134
10 .25hrs 143 10 12 124 145 0 164
10 .50hrs 176 12 15 140 167 98 203
10 .75hrs 203 13 16 163 192 158 232
11 .00hrs 223 13 18 186 217 192 254
11.25hrs 239 13 18 208 240 219 270
i1 .50hrs 251 13 19 226 258 241 283
11 .75hrs 261 14 19 241 273 259 293
12 .00hrs 268 14 19 253 285 274 301
12 .25hrs 302 17 22 269 309 291 341
12 .50hrs 355 23 27 299 349 319 405
12 .75hrs 397 24 30 339 393 357 451
13 .00hrs 429 25 32 378 434 398 486
13 _25hrs 454 25 33 411 469 437 512
13 .SOhrs 528 33 40 451 523 487 601
13 .75hrs 779 C63 66 533 661 588 907
14 .00hrs � 891> 60 � 73� 790 923 � 784 i024
14 . 25hrs 745 26 51 818 � 895 904 ': 821
14 .50hrs 617 13 36 687 737 819 667
14 .75hrs 518 9 27 575 611 680 554
i5 . 00hrs 441 8 21 525 554 587 470
15 .25hrs 367 6 16 480 501 530 389
15 .50hrs 296 3 11 407 421 464 310
1� 75hrs 241 3 8 334 344 404 251
: OOhrs 198 2 6 275 284 338 206
16 .25hrs 159 2 4 227 233 280 - -• 165
16 .SOhrs 124 1 3 185 188 229 128
I 16 . 75hrs 97 0 2 151 153 186 99
i17 . 00hrs 76 0 1 121 123 151 77
17 .25hrs 60 0 1 44 45 102 60
17 .50hrs 47 0 1 59 S9 66 47
17 .75hrs 37 0 0 32 32 51 37
' R .00hrs 29 0 0 34 34 38 29
.25hrs 23 0 0 22 22 31 23
18 .SOhrs 18 0 0 20 20 24 18
18 .75hrs 14 0 0 14 15 19 15
19 .00hrs 12 0 0 12 13 15 12
19 .25hrs 9 0 0 10 10 12 10
19 .50hrs 8 0 0 8 8 10 8
19 .75hrs 6 0 0 7 7 8 6
, 20 .00hrs 5 0 0 5 6 7 5
Peak Flow 891, 63 73 818 923 904 1024
`r/ Ob
Pgm ' SBUH' , Calculates Hydrographs by �7MS
� SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD 11 :00 :52
P?lta T (Time Increment) _ .25 Hours
'� �ershed Area = 1116 ac = 1 .74 sq miles
impervious = . 01 Watershed Length = 14000 ft = 2 .65 miles
Watershed Slope = .037 Manning' s 'n' (roughness) _ .04
, Hydgph P(24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit
Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q
1 S .50in 0 .18 1. 00 3 .89 69 2 .35in 218 .4 891cfs 0 . 80
Watershed Area = 51 ac = . 08 sq miles
Impervious = . O1 Watershed Length = 1300 ft = .25 miles
Watershed Slope = .i7 Manning' s 'n' (roughness) _ .04
Aydgph P (24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit
Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth , ac-ft cfs Q `
2 5 .SOin 0 .18 0 .23 1.54 69 2 .35in 10 .0 63cfs 1 .23
Watershed Area = 73 ac = .11 sq miles
Impervious = . O1 Watershed Length = 2500 ft = .47 miles
Watershed Slope = .01 Manning' s 'n' (roughness) _ .03
Aydgph P(24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q, Unit
' nber in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q
3 S .SOin 0 .18 0 . 54 1 .29 69 2 .35in 14 . 3 73cfs 1 . 00
* * * File Q100 Written to Disk �
Q,00
* * * File q100 Read from Disk
NTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD
xouting Hydrograph 1 thru a Basin, Outflow Hydrograph is 4
Outlet Pipe (s) . Diameter = 107 in
Btm Slope = .002 . Length = 50 ft
Manning' s n = _013 Entrance Loss Ke = .5
No. of Pipes = 1 Pipe Inv below Basin Btm = 4 �
Storage data entered from keyboard
Time Inflow Outflow Storage Water Flow Over
(hrs) (cfs) (cfs) (ac-ft) Depth (ft) Weir (cfs)
12. 00 268 .30 252 . 67 4 .79' 6 .04
12.25 301 .60 269 . 11 5.29 6 .26
12 .50 355 .00 299 .27 6.20 6 . 64
12 .75 396 .50 338 . 61 7.37 7 .14
13 .00 428 .80 377 . 62 8.50 7 . 59
13 .25 453 .90 411 .20 9 .47 7 . 98
13 .50 528 .40 450 . 48 10 .71 8 .47
13 .75 778 .70 532 . 89 14 .06 9 . 72
14.00 891 .00 790 . 27 17 .64 10 . 99 113 . 69
14.25 744 .80 818 _26 17 .92 11 . 09 130 .40
' 14 .50 617 .40 687 . 30 16 .44 10 .57 49 .59
14 . 75 518 .20 574 . 96 15 .13 10 .11 4 .24
15. 00 441 .10 _ 525 .27 13 .68 9 .58
5. 25 367 .30 479 . 70 11.64 5 .82 �
_5 .50 296 .20 406 . 78 9 .34 7 . 93 '
15.75 240 .90 333 . 95 7 .24 7 . 08
16. 00 197 . 80 275 .34 5 .48 6 . 34
«< Summary of Results »>
Max INFLOW = 891 cfs at 14
Max OUTFLOW= 818 .26 cfs at 14 .25
Max STORAGE= 17 . 92 ac-ft at 14 .25
Max DfiPTH = 11 . 09 ft at 14 .25 which is 1.09 ft over weir
Total INFLOW = 218 .28 ac-ft
Total OUTFLOW = 218 .28 ac-ft
Storage at end of 24 hours = 0 ac-ft
Hydrograph # 4 Calced
Pgm ' SBUH' , Calculates Hydrographs by JMS Qsa
SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD 22 : 06 : 34
Palta T (Time InCrement) _ .25 Hours
:ershed Area = 1116 ac = 1 .74 sq miles
lmpesvious = . O1 Watershed Length = I4000 ft = 2 .65 miles
Watershed Slope = .037 Manning' s 'n' (roughness) _ .04
Hydgph P(24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit
Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft . cfs Q
1 5 .00in 0 .20 1 . 03 3 .79 68 1 . 85in 171 . 8 761cfs 0 .68
Watershed Area = 51 ac = . OS sq miles
Impervious = . O1 Watershed Length = 1300 ft = .25 miles
Watershed Slope = .17 Manning� s ' n' (roughness) _ .04 '
Hydgph P(24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit
Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q
2 5 .00in 0 .20 0 .24 1.53 68 1'.85in 7 . 8 55cfs 1 .08
Watershed Area = 93 ac = _il sq miles
Impervious = . O1 Watershed Length = 2500 ft = .47 miles
Watershed Slope = .O1 Manning� s �n' (roughness) _ .03
Aydgph P(24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit
' �ber in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q
3 S .00in 0 .20 0 .55 1 .26 68 1 :85in 21 .2 63cfs 0 . 86
4�a
Hydrographs # 2 + 3 + 4 + Added to make Hydrograph # 5 , Peak Flow =
922 . 8683
t * * File q100 Written to Disk
SANTA BARBARII URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Routing Hydrograph 5 thru a Basin, Outflow Hydrograph is 7
Outlet Pipe (s) . Diameter = 1 in
Btm Slope = . 002 Length = 50 ft
Manning' s n = .013 Entrance Loss Ke = . 5
No. of Pipes = 1 Pipe Inv below Basin Btm = 0
Storage data entered from keyboard
Time Inflow Outflow Storage Water Flow Over
(hrs) (cfs) (cfs) (ac-ft) Depth (ft) Weir (cfs)
12 . 00 285 .17 273 .76 18.33 2 . 60 211 _17
12 .25 308 . 61 290 .64 18 .64 2 . 63 231 .01
12 . 50 348 .97 318 .49 19 .14 2 .69 265 .00
12 . 75 393 .01 356 .82 19 .83 2 . 78 314 .25
13 . 00 434.42 398 . 36 20 .57 2 . 87 370 . 69
13 .25 469 .30 437 .42 21.27 2 .95 426 .53
13 .50 523 .38 486 .88 21 .98 3 .03 482 .21
13 . 75 661.39 588 .21 23 .11 3 .15 569 .08
14. 00 922 .87 784 .06 25 .30 3 .39 750 .00
14.25 894 .96 903 . 97 26.64 3 .53 868 .72
14 . 50 736 .50 819 . 22 25 .70 3 .43 784 .21
1 . 75 611.06 679 .54 24.13 3 .26 651 .38
�5 .00 554 .37 � 586 .55 23 .09 3 .15 - 567 . 62 ,
15 .25 501.40 530 .21 22 .46 3 .08 518 _77
15 . 50 420 . 98 463 .92 21 .72 3 . 00 463 .21
15 . 75 344 .45 403 . 70 20 .67 2 .88 378 .18
16 .00 283 .74 338 .29 19 .49 2 . 74 290 .09
«< Summary of Results »>
Max INELOW = 922 .87 cfs at 14
Max OUTFLOW= 903 . 97 cfs at 14 .25
Max STORAGE= 26 .64 ac-ft at 14 .25
Max DEPTH = 3 .53 ft at 14 .25 which is 1 .53 ft over weir
Total INFLOW = 242 .56 ac-ft
Total OUTFLOW = 229 .14 ac-ft
Storage at end of 24 hours = 13 .42 ac-ft
Hydrograph # 7 Calced
* * * File q100 Written to Disk
Q,o
* * * File Q50 Written to Disk
Pgm ' SBUH' , Calculates Hydrographs by JMS
en�A gp,RgAFZA URgp,N FIypROGRAPH METHOD 22 :10 :47
Delta T (Time Increment) _ .25 Hours
* * * File Q50 Read from Disk
SANTA BAKBAtZA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Routing Hydrograph 1 thru a Basin, Outflow Hydrograph is 4
Outlet Pipe (s) : Diameter = 107 in
Btm Slope = .002 Length = 50 ft
Manning� s n = .013 Entrance Loss Ke = .5
No. of Pipes = 1 'Pipe Inv below Basin Etm = 4
Storage data entered from keyboard
Time Inflow Outflow Storage Water Flow Over
(hrs) (cfs) (cfs) (ac-ft) Depth (ft) Weir (cfs)
12 .00 203 .00 Z88 .64 2 . 77 5 .14
12 .25 232 .70 203 .01 3 .22 5 .34
12 .50 280 .40 229 .35 4 .06 5 . 72
12 .75 317 .70 264 .15 5 .14 6 .19
13 .00 347 . 00 298 .89 6 .19 6. 64
13 .25 369 .80 329 .28 7 .10 7 .03
13 .50 436 .60 368 .23 8 .23 7 .48
� .75 660 . 00 459.58 11 . 00 8 .58
�4 .00 761 .50 569 . 07 15 . 06 10 . 09 2 .93
14 .25 633 .20 689 .66 16 .47 10 . 58 50 .85
14 .50 520 .50 583 .61 15 .23 10 . 15 6 .43
14 .75 432 .40 524 .37 13 .63 9 . 56
15 . 00 363 .40 475 .76 11 .52 8 .78
15 .25 297 . 10 403 .83 9 .26 7 . 90
15 .50 233 .10 330 . 74 7 .14 7 . 04
15 .75 182 . 90 268 .08 5 .26 6 . 24
16 .00 143 .70 2I5 . 89 3 . 63 5 . 53
«< Summaiy of Results »> ,
Max INFLOW = 761.5 cfs at 14
Max OUTFLOW= 689 .66 cfs at 14 .25
Max STORAGE= 16 .47 ac-ft at 14 . 25
Max DEPTH = 10 .58 ft at 14 .25 which is . 58 ft over weir
Total INFLOW = 171 .66 ac-tt
Total OUTFLOW = 171. 66 ac-ft
Storage at end of 24 hours = 0 ac-ft
Hydrograph ## 4 Calced
Y'S6
S
Hydrographs # 2 + 3 + 4 + Added to make Hydrograph # 5 , Peak Flow =
755 . 0637
+ * * File Q50 Written to Disk
SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Routing Hydrograph 5 thru a Basin, Outflow Hydrograph is 7
Outlet Pipe (s) . Diameter = 1 in
Btm Slope = .002 Length = 50 ft
Manning' s n = .013 Entrance Loss Ke = .5
No. of Pipes = 1 Pipe Inv -below Basin Btm = 0'
Storage data entered from keyboard
Time Inflow Out£low Storage Water Flow Over '
(hrs) (cfs) (cfs) (ac-ft) Depth (ft) Weir (cfs)
12 . 00 213 .64 206.47 14 .64 2 _45. 138 .32 �
12 .25 234_31 221. 65 14 .84 2 .48 153 .85
12 .50 269 .85 248 .04 15 .20 2 .54 182 .12 _
12 .75 308.95 283 . 90 15 .68 2 .62 223 .02
13 .00 345.99 321. 68 16 .19 2 .70 268 .99
13 _25 377 .58 356 .46, 16 .66 2 .77 313 .78
13 .50 429 .83 397 .43 17 .21 2 .86 369 .40
13 .75 571.28 495 . 67 18 :33 3 _04 489 .56
14 .00 684.77 648 .10 19 .49 3 .22 622 . 63
14 .25 755 . 06 730 . 81 20 .12 ' 3 .32 699 .18
14 .50 624 .31 683 .45 19 .76 3 .27 654 . 99
"k .75 553 .07 574 .32 18 .93 3 .14 556 . 89
�5 . 00 498 .06 518 . 17 18 .50 3 .07 508 .53
15 .25 419 .23 452 . 18 17 .95 2 .98 448 .31
15 .50 339 .44 389 .01 17 .10 2 .85 357 . 72 '
15 . 75 273 .28 317 .34 16 .13 ' 2 .69 263 .56
16 . 00 219 .19 255 . 68 15 .30 2 .56 190 . 61
«< Summaiy of Results »>
Max INFLOW = 755 .06 cfs at 14 .25 ' '
Max OUTFLOW= 730 .81 cfs at 14 .25
Max STORAGE= 20 .12 ac-ft at 14 .25
Max DEPTH = 3 .32 ft at 14.25 which is 1 . 32 ft over weir
Total INFLOW = 190 . 76 ac-ft
Total OUTFLOW = 178 . 91 ac-ft •
Storage at end of 24 hours = 11 . 86 ac-ft
Hydrograph # 7 Calced
* * * File Q50 Written to Disk
YS°
SANTA BARBARA URBAN AYDROGRAPH METHOD - PARTIAL LIST OF FLOW ARRAY 22 :15 : 57
•''•dgph # : 1 2 3 4 5 7
Hydgph Hydgph Hydgph Basirir Addhyd Basinr
7 .00hrs 1 0 0 1 2 0
7 .25hrs 2 0 0 1 2 0
7 .SOhrs 2 0 0 2 2 0
7 .75hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0
B .00hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0
8 .25hrs 4 0 0 ? 4 0
8 .50hrs 7 1 1 6 7 0
8 .75hrs 10 1 1 9 il 0
9 .00hrs 12 1 1 11 13 0
9 .25hrs 24 2 2 21 26 0
9 .50hrs 43 4 4 41 49 0
9 .75hrs 59 5 5 57 68 0
10 .00hrs 71 5 6 70 81 0
10 .25hrs 93 7 8 90 105 0
10 .50hrs 122 9 11 118 138 0
10 .75hrs 145 10 12 125 147 30
11.00hrs 163 10 13 138 162 138
11 .25hrs 177 10 14 153 177 165
11.50hrs 188 10 14 166 191 181
11.75hrs 196 10 14 178 203 195
12 .00hrs 203 10 15 189 214 206
12 .25hrs 233 14 17 203 234 222
.50hrs 280 19 22 229 270 248
�G .75hrs 318 20 25 264 309 284
13 .00hrs 347 21 27 299 346 322
13 .25hrs 370 21 28 329 378 356
13 .50hrs 437 28 34 368 430 397
13 .75hrs 660 55 57 460 571 496
14 .00hrs 762 53 63 569 685 648
14 .25hrs 633 22 44 690 755 731
14 .50hrs 521 10 30 584 624 683
14 .75hrs 432 7 22 524 553 574
SS .00hrs 363 6 17 476 498 518
15 .25hrs 297 4 12 404 419 452
15 .50hrs 233 1 , $ 331 339 389
15 .75hrs 183 0 5 268 273 317
16 .00hrs 144 0 3 216 219 256
16.25hrs 113 0 2 173 175 205
16 .50hrs 89 0 1 140 141 165
16 .75hrs 70 0 1 98 99 126
17 .00hrs 55 0 1 40 41 78
17 .25hrs 43 0 0 55 55 52
17 .SOhrs 34 0 0 29 30 4a
17 .75hrs 27 0 0 32 32 33
18 .00hrs 22 0 0 21 21 27
18 .25hrs 17 0 0 19 19 21
18 .50hrs 14 0 0 14 14 17
' .75hrs 11 0 0 12 12 14
.00hrs 9 0 0 9 9 11
19 .25hrs 7 0 0 8 8 9
19 . SOhrs 6 0 0 6 6 7
19 . 75hrs 5 0 0 5 5 6
20 .00hrs 4 0 0 4 5 5
� qzr
Watershed Area = 1116 ac = 1 _74 sq miles
Impervious = .O1 Watershed Length = 14000 ft = 2 .65 miles
Watershed Slope = .037 Manning' s 'n' (roughness) _ . 04 -
1.. .gph P (24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit
Number in in/hr hrs Et/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q
1 4 .40in 0.22 1 . 06 3 . 65 66 1 .35in 125 .6 611cfs 0 .55
Watershed Area = 51 ac - .08 sq miles
Impeivious = .01 Watershed Length = 1300 ft = .25 'miles
Watershed Slope = .17 Manning' s ' n' (roughness) _ .04
Hydgph P(24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit
Number in in/hr hrs tt/s CN Depth ac-Et cfs Q
2 4 .40in 0 .22 0 .24 1.51 66 1.35in 5 .7 46cfs 0 .90
Watershed Area = 73 ac = .11 sq miles
Impezvious = .O1 Watershed Length = 2500 ft = .47 miles
Watershed Slope = .O1 Manning' s 'n' (roughness) _ _03
Hydgph P(24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol 'Peak Q Unit
Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-tt cfs Q
3 4 .40in 0 .22 0 .57 1.23 66 1.35in 8 .2 52cfs ' 0 . 71
* * * File Q25 Written to Disk
� 9� r
SAN'1'A HARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Routing Hydrograph 1 thru a Basin, Outflow Hydrograph is 4
: _let Pipe (s) . Diameter = 107 in
Btm Slope = .002 Length = 50 ft
Manning� s n = . 013 , Entrance Loss Ke ' = . 5
No. of Pipes = 1 Pipe Inv below Basin Btm = 4
Storage data entered from keyboard
Time Inflow Outflow Storage Water Flow Over
(hrs) (cfs) (cfs) (ac-ft) Depth (ft) Weir (cfs)
12 .00 130 . 64 123 .39 0.53 4 .10
12 .25 155 .72 132 .47 0 . 85 4 .24
12 _50 196.34 152 .45 1 .54 4 .57 ,
12 .75 228 .42 180 .04 2 .49 5 .02
13 .00 253 .75 210 .07 3.45 5 .44.
13 .25 273 .76 236 .48 4 .28 5 .82 .
13 .50 331.18 269 .64 5.30 6.26
13 .75 522 .19 350 .43 7.71 7 .27
14 .00 610 . 63 460 .62 11.04 8 .59
14 .25 503 . 60 503 .66 12 .59 9 .18
14 .50 408.67 484 .62 11. 80 8 .88
14 .75 333 .69 429'.02 Z0, 03 8 .20
15 .00 274 .48 364 .43 8 .12 7 .44
15 .25 222 .45 304 _11 6. 34 6 .71 -
15.50 176 _11 250 .71 4.73 6 .02
� 5 .75 139 . 51 204 . 96 3 .28 5 .37
�.00 110. 60 166'.53 2 . 03 4 .80 �
«< Summary of Results »> �
Max INFLOW = 610 ,63 cfs at 14
Ma.�c OUTFLOW= 503 .66 cfs at 14 .25
Max STORAGE= 12 . 59 ac-ft at 14 .25
Max DEPTH = 9 .179999 ft at 57
Total INFLOW = 125 . 54 ac-ft '
Total OUTFLOW = 125 .54 ac-ft
Storage at end of 24 hours = 0 ac-ft
xydrograph # 4 Calced
�
Hydrographs # 2 + 3 + 4 + Added to make Hydrograph # 5 , Peak Flow =
556 .335
' * * File Q25 Written to Disk
SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD -
Routing Hydrograph 5 thru a Basin, Outflow Hydrograph is 7
Outlet Pipe (s) . Diameter = 1 in
Btm Slope = .002 Length = 50 ft
Manning' s n = . 013 fintrance� Loss Ke = .5
No. of Pipes = 1 Pipe Inv below Basin Btm = 0
Storage data entered from keyboard
Time Inflow Outflow Storage Water Flow Over
(hrs) (cfs) (cfs) (ac-ft) Depth (ft) Weir (cfs)
12 . 00 139 .92 136 .30 13 .69 2 .30 74.19
12 .25 754 .53 145 . 77 13 .82 2 .32 82 .05
12 .50 182 .49 165 .49 14.08 2 . 36 99 .25
12 .75 213 .83 193 . 82 14 .47 2 .42 125 .80
13 .00 245 .85 225 . 06 14 .89 2 .49 157 .41
13 .25 273 .40 255 .04 15 .29 2 .55 189.89
13 .50 318 .15 290 .36 15 .77 2 . 63 230 .68 - ,.
13 .75 442 .43 368 .34 16 .82' 2 .80 329 .60
14.. 00 556 .34 489 .18 18 .28 3 .-03 484.14
14.25 556 .06 566 .36 18 .87 3 .13 549 .95
14 .50 515 .43 531. 10 18 .60 3 . 08 519 .54
.75 449 .30 474 . 97 18 .17 3 _02 472 .33
15 .00 379 .00 418 .53 17 .50 2 . 91 399 .21
15 .25 313 .98 356 . 06 16 .65 2 . 77 313 .25
15 .50 256 .55 294 . 67 15 .83 2 . 64 235 .83
15 .75 208 . 61 240 .83 15_10 2 .52 174 .24
16 . 00 168 . 89 195 .66 14 .49 2 .43 127 .60
«< Summary of Results »>
Max INFLOW = 556 .34 cfs at 14
Max OUTFLOW= 566 .36 cfs at 14 .25
Max STORAGE= 18 .87 ac-ft at 14 .25
Max DEPTH = 3 .13 ft at 14 .25 which is 1 .13 ft over weir
Total INFLOW = 139 .49 aC-ft
Total OUTFLOW = 127 . 64 ac-£t
Storage at end of 24 hours = 11 .86 ac-ft
Hydrograph # 7 Calced
* * * File Q25 Written to Disk �
SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD - PARTIAL LIST OF FLOW ARRAY 22 :26 : 06
F 'gph # : 1 2 3 4 5 7
Hydgph Hydgph Hydgph Basinr Addhyd Basinr
7 .00hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
7 .25hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
4zY
7 .SOhrs . 1 0 0 1 1 0
7 . 75hrs 1 0 0 1 2 0
8 .00hrs 1 0 0 1 2 0
^ 25hrs 2 0 0 1 2 0
50hrs 2 0 . 0 2 2 0
8 .75hrs 2 0 Q 2 2 0
9 . 00hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0
9 .25hrs 7 1 1 6 7 0
9 .SOhrs 17 2 2 15 18 0
9 .75hrs 24 2 2 23 28 0
10 .00hrs 30 2 3 29 34 0
10 .25hrs 45 4 4 43 51 0
10 ,50hrs 67 6 6 64 76 0
10 ,75hrs 85 7 8 83 97 0
11 ,OOhrs 99 7 8 97 112 0
11,25hrs 110 7 9 109 124 0
11.50hrs 118 7 9 117 134 67
11 . 75hrs 125 7 9 120 136 126 ,
12 .00hrs 131 7 10 123 140 136
12 .25hrs 156 10 12 132 155 146
12 .SOhrs 196 14 16 152 182 165
12 .75hrs 228 15 18 180 214 194
13 ,OOhrs 254 16 20 210 246 225
13 ,25hrs 274 16 21 236 � 273 255
13 .SOhrs 331 22 26 270 31$ 290
13 .75hrs 522 46 46 350 442 368
14 .00hrs 611 44 52 461 556 489 �
14.25hrs 504 17 35 504 556 566
14 .50hrs 409 7 24 485 515 531
: 75hrs 334 4 16 429 449 475
1� .00hrs 274 3 12 364 379 4I9
15 .25hrs 222 2 8 304 314 356
15 .SOhrs 176 1 5 251 257 295
15 .75hrs 140 0 3 205 209 241
16 .00hrs 111 0 2 167 169 196
16 .25hrs 88 0 1 136 137 159
16 .50hrs 70 0 1 89 90 120
16 .75hrs 55 0 1 46 47 75
17.00hrs 44 0 0 52 52 53
17:25hrs 35 0 0 32 32 44
17 .50hrs 28 0 0 31 31 34
17.75hrs 22 0 0 � 22 22 28
i8 .00hrs 18 0 0 19 I9 22
18 .25hrs 14 0 0 15 15 18
18 .50hrs 12 0 0 12 12 14
18 . 75hrs 9 0 0 10 10 12
19 . 00hrs 8 0 0 8 , 8 9
19 .25hrs 6 0 0 7 7 8
19.50hrs 5 0 0 5 6 6
19 . 75hrs 4 0 0 5 5 5
2Q. 00hrs 4 0 0 4 4 4
Peak Flow 611 46 52 504 556 566
F� jrograph # 1 has been Erased
/J c.T .Q F L' W es r Pi�e= —
Curve
Plotted Curves for Circular Channel -�70�✓� Cv�vc:�f F�o� �.�ZY
Project Description
Project File c:lhaestadlfmwlnewspr.frn2
Worksheet Attemative 8/C�CuNerts
Flow Element Circular Channel ��D �
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Full Flow Diameter
Constant Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.010
Discharge 90.00 cfs
Input Data
Minimum Ma�dmum Inaement -
Channel Slope 0.005000 0.030000 0.001000 ft/ft
Full Flow Diameter vs Channel Slope
42.0
40.0
38.0
..
c
� .
� 36.0
� ,
m
O
3
0 3q.o
LL
7
�
32.0 �
, 30.0
�
28.0
0.005 O.0'I O.0'I S 0.02 OA25 0.03 i
Channel Slope (fUft) I
�
0322FJ8 John L Wal�aca&Associales FIm+TAaster �5.07 �
0326:35 PM Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brool�ide Road Waterbu CT 06708 g �
ry. (203)7�r1665 Pa e 1 ot 1
�16
Hydrograph # 2 has been Erased
Aydrograph # 3 has been Erased
. .rograph # 4 has been Erased
Hydrograph # 5 has been Erased
Hydrograph # 7 has been Erased
Watershed Area = 1116. ac = 1 .74 sq miles
Impervious = .O1 Watershed Length = 14000 ft = 2 .65 miles
Watershed Slope = .037 Manning' s 'n' (roughness) _ .04
Hydgph P (24) Loss T(c} Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit
Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q
1 3 . 70in 0 .23 1. 10 3 .53 65 0 .88in 82 .3 456cfs 0 .41
Watershed Area = 51 ac = .08 sq miles
Impervious = .01 Watershed Length = I300 ft = .25 miles
Watershed Slope = . 17 Manning' s 'n' (roughness) _ .04
Hydgph P(24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit
Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q
2 3 .70in 0 .23 0 .24 1 .49 65 0 .88in 3 .8 36cfs 0 .71
Watershed Area = 73 ac = .11 sq miles
Impervious = . 01 Watershed Length = 2500 ft = .47 miles
Watershed Slope = .01 Manning' s 'n' (roughness) _ .03
Hydgph P (24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit
Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q
3 3 .70in 0 .23 0 . 58 1 . 19 65 0 .88in 5 .4 40cfs 0 .55
* * * File Q10 Written to Disk
�r o
Pgm ' SBUH' , Calculates Hydrographs by JMS
SANPA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD 22 :30 :47
P ' ta T (Time Increment) _ .25 Hours
* * * File Q10 Read from Disk �
SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Routing Hydrograph 1 thru a Basin, Outflow Hydrograph is 4
Outlet Pipe (s) . Diameter = 107 in
Btm Slope = . 002 Length = SO, ft '
Manning' s n = . 013 fintrance Loss Ke = .5
No. of Pipes = 1 Pipe Inv below Basin Btm = 4
Storage data entered from keyboard
Time Inflow Outflow Storage Water Flow Over
(hrs) (cfs) (cfs) (ac-ft) Depth (ft) Weir (cfs)
12 .00 63 .20 62 .83 0.19 2 . 88
12 .25 83 .00 79 .38 0 .24 3 .24
12 .50 115 .70 111.60 0 .32 3 .88
12 . 75 141.70 123 .71 0.54 4 .10
13 . 00 162 .50 136 .74 1.00 4 .31
13 .25 179 . 00 152 .34 1.54 4 .57
13 .50 226 .10 175 .38 2 .34 4 .95
13 .75 382 .40 238 .53 4 . 35 5 . 85
i4 .00 455 . 90 330 .2.7 7 .13 7 .04
.25 371. 00 374 .10 8 .40 7 .55
i4 .50 295 . 80 352 .65 7 .78 7 .30
14.75 236 .00 307 .61 6 .45 6 .75
15 .00 188 .40 259 .00 4 . 98 6 . 13
15 .25 150 .40 214 .59 3 . 59 5 .51
15.50 120 .00 175 .75 2 . 35 4 .95
15 .75 95 .90 144 .64 1 . 27 4 .44
16 . 00 76. 70 117 .88 0 .34 4 . 01 -
«< Summary of Results »>
Max INFLOW = 455 . 9 cfs at 14
Max OUTFLOW= 374 . 1 cfs at 14 .25
Max STORAGE= 8 .399999 ac-ft at 14 . 25
Max DEPTH = 7 .55 ft at 57
Total INFLOW = 82 .19 ac-ft
Total OUTFLOW = 82 . 19 ac-ft
Storage at end of 24 hours = 0 ac-ft
Hydrograph # 4 Calced
* * * File Q10 Written to Disk
Q,o
Hydrographs # 2 + 3 + 4 + Adc3ed to make Hydrograph # 5 _ , Peak Flow -
413 .0984 �
TA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Routing Hydrograph 5 thru a Basin, Outfloia Hydrograph is 7
Outlet Pipe (s) . Diameter = 1 in
Btm Slope = .002 Length = 50 ft
Manning' s n = . 013 Entrance. Loss Ke = ,5
No_ of Pipes = 1 pipe Inv below Basin Btm = 0
Storage data entered from keyboard
Time InElow Outflow Storage Water Flow Over
(hrs) (cfs) (cts) (ao-ft) Depth (ft) Weir (cfs)
12 .00 71.13 0 . 01 7 . 98 1 .36
12 .25 92 .28 0 .01 9 .67 - 1 .64
12 .50 131 .10 5 .24 11 .92 2 :01 0 .56
12 . 75 146. 41 121. 03 13 .48 2 .26 62 .07
13 .00 161.24 149 .47 13 . 87 2 .32 85 .19
I3 .25 I77. 74 166 . 83 14 .10 2.36 100.46
13 .50 210 .38 190 .44 14 .42 2 :41 122 .53
13 .75 309 .63 250 .77 15 .23 2 .55 185.14
14 .00 404 .67 343 .02 16 .48 2 .75 296.20
14 .25 413 .10 400 .14 17 .25 2 .87 373 .18
14 .50 373 . 95 394.40 17.17 2 .86 365 .19
14 .75 320.21 353 .37 16 .62 2 .77 309 .70
15 .00 266. 80 301.46 15 . 92 2..66 244. 02
.25 219 .59 250 . 93 15 . 24 2 . 55 185 .32
i� _50 178 . 95 206 _13 14 .63 2 .45 137.98
15 _75 146 .84 168 .64 14 . 13 2 .37 102 .10
16 .00 119 .38 137 .83 13 . 71 2 .30 75 .44
«< Summary of Results »>
Max INFLOW = 413 .1 cfs at 14 .25
Max OUTFLOW= 400 .14 cfs at 14 .25
Max STORAGE= 17 .25 ac-ft at 14 .25
Max DEPTH = 2 .87 ft at 14 .25 which is .87 ft over weir
Total INFLOW = 91 ,31 ac-ft
Total OUTFLOW = 79 .45 ac-ft
Storage at end of 24 hours = 11 . 86 ac-ft '
Hydrograph # 7 Calced
* * * File Q10 Written to Disk `.
�i D
SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD - PARTIAL LIST OF FLOW ARRAY 22 :34 :28
�T-�dgph # : 1 2 3 4 5 7
Hydgph Hydgph Hydgph Basinr Addhyd Basinr
7 .00hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
7 .25hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
7 .SOhrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
7 .75hrs 1 0 . 0 1 1 0 �
S .00hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
8 .25hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
B .SOhrs 1 0 0 1 2 0
8..75hrs 2 0 0 T 2 - 0
9 .00hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0
9 .25hrs 2 0 0 2 2 _ 0
9 .SOhrs 2 0 . 0 2 2 0 -
9 .75hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0
10 .00hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 ' ,
10 .25hrs 10 1 1 7 10 0
10 .50hrs 23 3 2 2T 26 0
10 . 75hrs 34 3 3 33 40 0
11.00hrs 43 3 4 42 49 0
11 .25hrs 50 4 4 49 57 0
11 .SOhrs 55 , 4 5 55 63 0
11 .75hrs 60 4 5 59 68 0
12 .00hrs 63 4 - . 5 63 71 0
12 .25hrs 83 6 . 7 79 92 0
.50hrs 116 10 10 112 131 5
1� .75hrs 142 11 12 124 146 121 �
13 .00hrs 163 11 14 137 161 149
13 .25hrs 179 il 14 152 178 , 167
13 .50hrs 226 16 19 175 210 190
13 .75hrs 382 36 35 239 310 251
14 .00hrs 456 35 40 330 405 343 `
14 .25hrs 371 12 27 374 413 400
14 .SOhrs 296 4 17 353 374 394
14 .75hrs 236 1 11 308 320 353
15 .00hrs 188 1 7 259 267 301
15 .25hrs 150 0 5 215 220 251
i5 .50hrs 120 0 3 176 179 206
15 .75hrs 96 0 2 145 147 169
16 .00hrs 77 0 1 118 119 138
16 .25hrs 61 0 1 40 41 88
16 .SOhrs 49 0 1 64 65 58
16 .75hrs 39 0 0 32 32 50
17 .00hrs 32 0 0 38 38 37
17 .25hrs 25 0 0 23 24 32
17 .50hrs 20 0 0 23 23 24
17 . 75hrs 17 0 0 16 17 20
18 .00hrs 13 0 0 14 14 16
18 .25hrs 11 0 0 11 11 13
18 .SOhrs 9 0 0 9 9 11
" " .75hrs 7 0 0 8 8 9
. .00hrs 6 0 0 6 6 7
19 .25hrs 5 0 0 5 5 6 .
19 .50hrs 4 0 0 4 4 5
19 . 75hrs 4 0 0 4 4 4
20 . 00hrs 3 0 0 3 3 4
4�.
Peak Flow 456 36 40 . • 374 413 400
Hydrograph # 1 has been Erased
Hydrograph # 2 has been Erased
Aydrograph # 3 has. been Erased
Hydrograph # 4 has been Erased
Hydrograph # 5 has been Erased
Hydrograph # 7 has been Erased
Watershed Area = 1116 ac = 1.74 sq miles
Impervious = .01 Watershed Length = 14000 ft = 2 .65 miles
Watershed Slope = .037 Manning� s 'n� troughness) _ _04 _
Hydgph P(24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit
Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q
1 2 .20in 0 .25 1.15 3 .40 67 0 .24in 22 .5 165cfs 0 .15
Watershed Area = 51 ac = . OS sq miles .
: ervious = .01 Watershed Length = 1300 ft = .25 miles
Wacershed Slope = .17 Manning' s �n� (roughness) _ .04
Hydgph P (24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit
Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q
2 2 .20in 0 .25 0 .25 1 .47 67 0 .24in 1 .0 16cfs 0 .32
Watershed Area = 73 ac = .11 sq miles
Impervious = . O1 Watershed Length = 2500 ft = .47 miles
Watershed Slope = .01 Manning� s 'n' (roughness) _ .03
Hydgph P(24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit
Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q
3 2 .20in 0 .25 0.60 1 .15 67 0.24in 1 .5 16cfs 0 .22
* * * File Q2 Written to Disk
QZ
SANPA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Routing Hydrograph 1 thru a Basin, Outflow Hydrograph is 4
tlet Pipe (s) . Diameter = 107 in
Btm Slope = . 002 Length = 50 ft
Manning' s n = . 013 Entrance Loss Ke = . 5
No. of Pipes = 1 Pipe Inv below Basin Btm = 4 '.
Storage data entered from keyboard
Time Inflow Outflow Storage Water Flow Over
(hrs) (cfs) (cfs) (ac-ft) Depth (ft) Weir (cfs)
12 . 00 1. 80 1.80 0 .01 0 .20
12 .25 3 . 50 2 . 98 0 .01 0 .33
12 .50 6.50 5 .78 0 .03 0 .64 '
12 .75 8 _80 8 .37 0 .04 0 .93
13 .00 10 . 80 10 .46 0 _OS 1 . 07
13 .25 12 .30 12 .10 0 . 05 1.15 '
13 .50 33 .00 27 .97 0 .11 1 .93
13 .75 117. 80 104 .24 0 .30 3 .73
14 .00 164 . 80 130 .78 0 .79 4 .22 , !
14 .25 132 . 70 139 .02 1.08 4 .35
14 .50 106 .90 130 .20 0�.77 4 .21 - !
14 .75 86 .20 107 . 72 0 .31 3 .80 �
15 .00 69 .50 59 .55 0 .19 2 .79 !
15 .25 56.10 64 .77 0 .20 2 .93 �
15.50 45 . 20 42 .08 0 .14 2 .34
15 .75 36 .�0 40 . 10 0 .14 2 .28
5. 00 29 .50 28 .73 0 .11 1.97 �
«< Summary of Results »> !
Max INFLOW = 164 .8 cfs at 14 !
Max OUTFLOW= 139 .02 cfs at 14 . 25 �
Max STORAGE= 1 .08 ac-ft at 14 .25 �
Max DEPTH = 4'.35 ft at 57 !
Total INFLOW = 22 .5 ac-ft �
Total OUTFLOW = 22 .5 ac-ft �
Storage at end of 24 hours = 0 ac-ft i
Hydrograph # 4 Calced �
�
* * * File Q2 Written to Disk ;
. 1
1
�
i
i
i i
I
�
; i
�
._ Qz
Hydrographs # 2 + 3 + 4 + Added to make Hydrograph # ,5 , Peak Flow =
163 . 1762
* * * File Q2 Written to Disk
SANTA BARBARA URB�1N HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Routing Hydrograph 5 thru a Basin, Outflow Hydrograph is 7
Outlet Pipe (s) . Diameter = 1 in
Btm Slope = . 002 Length = 50 ft
Manning' S n = . 013 Entrance Loss Ke = .5
No. of Pipes = 1 Pipe Inv below Basin Btm = 0
Storage data entered from keyboard
Time Inflow Outflow Storage Water Flow Over
(hrs) (cfs) (cfs) (ac-ft) Depth (ft) Weir (cfs)
12 .00 2 .00 0 .00 0 .72 0 .12
12 .25 3 .58 0 . 00 0 .78 0 .13
12 .50 7 .08 0 .00 0 .89 0 .15
12 .75 9 . 97 0 .00 1 .06 0 .18
13 .00 12 .26 0 .00 1 .29 0 _22
13 .25 13 .90 0 _00 1 .56 0 .27
13 .50 35 .17 0 .00 2 .07 0 .36
13 .75 132 .44 0 .00 3 .80 0 .65
14 . 00 163 .18 0 .01 6 .86. 1.17
14 .25 155 .02 0 .01 10 .14 1.72
14 .50 139 .10 55 .94 12 .60 2 .12 19 .50
.75 113 _02 116 .75 13 .43 2 .25 58 _81
..� .00 62 .85 91 .76 13 .09 2 .20 40 .98
15 .25 66 .97 68 .48 12 .77 2 .15 26 .42
15 .50 43 .58 57 .03 12 . 62 2 .12 20 .07
15 .75 41. 10 44_29 12 .45 2 .10 13 .74
16 .00 29 .33 36 .42 12 .34 2 .08 10 .24
«< Summary of Results »>
Max INFLOW = 163 .18 cfs at 14
Max OUTFLOW= 116 .75 cfs at 14 . 75
Max STORAGE= 13 .43 ac-ft at 14 . 75
Ma�c DEPTH = 2 .25 ft at 14 .75 which is .25 ft over weir
Total INFLOW = 24 .94 ac-ft
Total OUTFLOW = 13 .09 ac-ft
Storage at end of 24 hours = 11 .85 ac-ft
Aydrograph # 7 Calced .
* * * File Q2 Written to Disk
�Z
SPNrA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD - PARTIAL LIST OF FLOW ARRAY 22 :42 :.58
T'�rdgph # = 1 2 3 4 5 7
Hydgph Hydgph Hydgph Basinr Addhyd Basinr
7 . 00hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0 -
'7 .25hrs 1 0 0� 1 1 0
7 .SOhrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
7. 75hrs 1 0 . 0 1 1 0
8 . o0hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
8 .25hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0 �
S.SOhrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
8 .75hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
9.00hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
9.25hrs 1 0 0 , 1 1 0
9.SOhrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
9 .75hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
10 .00hrs 1 0 0 1 1 ' 0
10 .25hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
10 .50hrs 1 0 0 1 2 0
10.75hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0
11.00hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0
11 .25hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0
11.50hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0
11 .75hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0
12 . 00hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0
12 . 25hrs 4 0 0 3 4 0
.SOhrs 7 1 1 6 7 0
�� .75hrs 9 1 1 8 10 0
13 .00hrs 11 1 1 10 12 0
13 .25hrs 12 1 1 12 14 0
13 .50hrs 33 4 3 28 35 0
13 .75hrs 118 16 ' 13 104 132 0
14 . 00hrs 165 16 16 131 163 0
14 .25hrs 133 5 il 139 155 0
14 .SOhrs 107 2 7 130 139 56
14 .75hrs 86 1 5 108 113 117
15 . 00hrs 70 0 3 60 63 92
15 .25hrs 56 0 2 65 67 68 .
15 .50hrs 45 0 1 42 44 57
15 .75hrs 37 0 1 40 41 44
16. 00hrs 30 0 1 29 29 36
16 .25hrs 24 0 0 26 26 29
16 .SOhrs 19 0 0 20 20 24
16 .75hrs 16 0 0 16 17 19
17 . 00hrs 13 0 0 13 13 15
17 .25hrs 10 0 0 11 11 13
17 .50hrs 9 0 0 9 9 10
17 .75hrs 7 0 0 7 7 8'. -
18 _OOhrs 6 0 0 6 6 7
18 .25hrs 5 0 0 5 5 6
18 _SOhrs 4 0 0 4 4 5
' "' .75hrs 3 0 0 3 3 4
. .00hrs 3 0 0 3 3 3
19 .25hrs 2 0 0 2 2 3
19 .50hrs 2 0 0 2 2 2
19 .75hrs 2 0 0 2 2 2
20 . 00hrs 2 0 0 2 2 2
COST ESTINlATES
NEWSOM SPRIIUGS DRAl111AGE PROJECT
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION A-1
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTION
2 -72" CIP sto;m drains, 5 to �0 ft of cover 800 LF $210.00 $168,000.00
Concrete Wing Wall Inlet 2 EA $6,000.00 $12,000.00
Concrete Wing Wall Doubie Inlet 1 EA 516,000.00 $16,000.00
Outiet facilities at creek 1 LS $175,000.00 $175,000.00
Ditch Excavation (900 ft, avg 4.5 ft deep) 4275 CY $4.00 $17,100.00
Finish Grading 135000 SF $0.10 $13,500.00
Subtotal $401,600.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15°/a CONTINGENCY $461,840.00
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
Permanent Easements
Dixson- Open ditch on Ag propeRy (1100 x 50-70) 1.38 ACRES $18,000.00 $24,840.00
Caldwell-Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200.00
Stiiwell- Underground pipe in RR zone (598 x 30) 0.41 ACRES $16,000.00 $6,560.00
Stiiweli- Underground pipe in RR zone (varies) 0.07 ACRES $16,000.00 $1,120.00
Stilwell- Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00
Subtotai -Permanent Easements 2.23 $42,640.00
Temporary Easements
Stilweli-Construction in RR zone (598 x 30) 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280.00
Subtotal -Temporary Easements 0.41 $3,280.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY AC(lUISITION $45,920.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Total Construction Cost $461,840.00
Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $45,920.00
Subtotal $507,760.00
Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding,
Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at
35°/a $177,716.00
TOTAL PROJECT COST $685,476.00
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $690,000.00 °
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs
4/4/98
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTIOIV A-2
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE' COST
CONSTRUCTION �
Ditch Excavation (7750 x 10'avg depth) 2269 CY $4.00 . $9,076.00
West Outlet facilities at Creek 1 LS $175,000.0o $175,000.00
Bridge @ Cherry i LS $15�,000.00 $150,000.00
Bridge � Myrtle 1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000.00
Finish Grading 135000 SF $0.90 $13,500:00
Subtotal $497,576,00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $572,212.40
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
Permanent Easements
Dixson -Open ditch on Ag property {1100 x 50-70) 1.38 ACRES $18,000.00 $24,840.00
Caldwell- Bridge across road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200.00
Stilwell-Open Ditch in RR zone (598;x 30) 0.4'1 ACRES $36,000.00 $14,760.00
Stilwell -Open Ditch in RR zone (varies 0.07 ACRES $36,000.00 $2,520.00
Stilweil-Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,OQ0.00 $4,500.00
Subtota! -Permanent Easements 2.23 $48,820.00
Temporary Easements
Stilwell -Construction in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280.00
Subtotal -Temporary Easements 0.41 $3,280.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $52,100.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Total Construction Cost $572,212.40
Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $52,900.00
Subtotai $624,312:40
Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding,
Testing, Contrad Administration, and fnspection at
35% $218,509:34
TOTAL PROJECT COST $842,821.74
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $840,000.00
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs
4/4/98
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION A-3
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTION
2- 72" RCP stortn drains, 5 to 10 ft of cover 800 LF $210.00 $168,000.00
1 -48" RCP storm drain, 5 to 10 ft of cover 700 LF $90.00 $63,000.00 -��
Branch Mill Road Ditch Excavation (1100 x 3.5) 1039 CY $4.00 $4,156.00 �
Concrete Wing Wail Inlet 3 EA $6,00�.00 $18,000.00
Concrete Wing Wail Double Inlet 1 EA $16,000.00 $16,000.00 - �.> °-
Outlet facilities at creek 1 LS $175,000.00 $175,000.00 `
Finish Grading 135000 SF $0.10 $13,500.00
$457,656.00
Subtotal $526,304.40
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
Permanent Easements -
Dixson - Open ditch on Ag property (1100 x 50-70) 1.38 ACRES $18,000.00 $24,840.00 -
Caldwell - Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200.00 �
Stilwell- Underground pipe in RR zone (598 x 30) 0.41 ACRES $16,000.00 $6,560.00
Stilweil- Underground pipe in RR zone (varies) 0.07 ACRES $16,000.00 $1,120.00
Stilwell - Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00
Subtotal - Permanent Easements 2.23 $42,640.00
Temporary Easements
Stilweli - Construction in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280.00
Subtotal -Temporary Easements 0.41 $3,280.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $45,920.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Total Construction Cost $526,304.40
Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $45,920.00
Subtoial $572,224.40
Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding,
Testing, Contracl Administration, and Inspection at
35% $200�278.54
TOTAL PROJECT COST $772,502.94
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $770,000.00
� � i;� _ ;: ' �
,_
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs
4/8/98 �
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION B-1
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT PRiCE COST
CONSTRUCTION .
8rerch Mill Road Ditch Excavation (1100 x 3.5) 1039 CY $4.00 $4,156.00
48" CIP Storm Drain (5 to 10 feet of cover) 800 LF - $90.00 $72,OQ0.00
Concrete Wing Wall tNeY 2 EA $3,500.00 $7,000.00
Outlet facilites for 48" Stortn Drain 1 LS $110,000.00 $110,000.00
Ditch Excavation (1900 x 10'avg depth) 2463 CY $4.00 $9,852.00
Equipment Crossing (60 ft Fiatcar Bridge) 4 EA $70,000.00 $280,000.00
Outlet facilities at creek 'I LS $100;000.00 $10Q,OQQ.00
Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF 50.10 $9,200.00
Recording Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00
Subtotal $657,208.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $755,789.20
f21GNT OF WAY ACQUISITlON
Pertnanent Easements
Open ditch in AG zone (Z000 ft x 90ft) . 4.13 ACRES $18,000.00 $74,340.00
Dixson -Open ditch on AG property(900 x 30) 0.62 ACRES $18,OOQ.00 $11,160.00
Caldwell- Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200.00
Stilwell- Underground pipe in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $16,000.00 $6,560A
Stilwell -Underground pipe in RR zone 0.07 ACRES N/A $4,500.00
Subtotaf -Permanent Easements 5.38 $98,760.00
' Temporary Easements
Construction in AG zone (2000 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4;000.00 $9,200.00
Stilwell - Construdion in RR zone ` ' 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $4,500.00
Subtotai -Temporary Easements 2.7� $13,700.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $112,460.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Totai Constnidion Cost - $755,789.20
Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $112,460.00
Subtotal - $868,24920
Design, Processing and Perinitting, Bidding,
Tesfing, Cont�act Adminisiration, and lnspection
at 35% $303,887.22
TOTAL PROJECT COST $1;172,136.42
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $1,170,000.00
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs
4l5/98
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION B-1
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTION
Br2nch Mill Road Ditcn F�ccavation (1100 x 3.5) 1039 CY $4.00 $4,156.00
48"CIP Stortn Drain (5 to 10 feet of cover) 800 LF $90.00 $72,000.00
Concrete Wing Wali Inlet 2 EA $3,500.00 $7,000.00
Outlet facilites for 48" Storm Drain 1 LS $110,000.00 $110,000.00
Ditch F�ccavation (1900 x 10' avg depth) 2463 CY $4.00 $9,852.00
Equipment Crossing (60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 3 EA $70,000.00 $210,000.00
Outlet facilities at creek 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000.00
Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00
Recording Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00
Subtotal $587,208.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $675,289.20
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
Pertnanent Easements
Open ditch in AG zone (2000 ft x 90ft) 4.13 ACRES $18,000.00 $74,340.00
Dixson-Open ditch on AG property (900 x 30) 0.62 ACRES $18,000.00 $11,160.00
, Caldweli- Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200.00
Stilwell- Underground pipe in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $16,000.00 $6,560.00 "
Stilwell- Underground pipe in RR zone 0.07 ACRES N/A $4,500.00
Subtotai -Permanent Easements 5.38 $98,760.00
Temporary Easements
Construction in AG zone (2000 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00
Stiiwell- Constniction in RR zone ' 0:41 ACRES $8,000.00 $4,500.00
Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.71 $13,7�0.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION 5112,460.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Total Construction Cost $675,289.20
Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $112,460.00
Subtotal $787,749.20
Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding,
Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection
at 35% $275,71222
TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,063,461.42
i
_
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $1,060,000.00
i
NEWSOM SPRINGSxIs I
4/5/98
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION C05T ESTIMATE OPTION B-1
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTION
Branch Mill Road Ditch EYCavation (1100 x 3.5) 1039 CY $4.00 $4,156.00
48"CIP Storm Drain (5 to 10 feet of cover) 800 LF $90.00 $72,000.00
Concrete Wing Wall Inlet 2 EA $3,500.00 $7,000.00
Outlet facilites for 48" Storm Drain 1 LS $110,000.00 $110,000.00
Ditch Excavation (1900 x 10'avg depth) 2463 CY $4.00 $9,852.00
Equipment Crossing (60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 2 EA $70,000.00 $140,000.00
Outlet facilities at creek 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000.00
Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00
Recording Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00
Subtota� $517,208.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $594,789.20
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
Permanent Easements
Open ditch in AG zone (2000 ft x 90ft) 4.13 ACRES $18,000.00 $74,340.00
Dixson-Open ditch on AG property(900 x 30) 0.62 ACRES $18,000.00 $11;160.00
Caldwell-Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200:00
Stilwell -Underground pipe in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $16,000.00 $6,560.00
Stilwell- Underground pipe in RR zone 0.07 ACRES N/A $4,500.00
Subtotal - Permanent Easements 5.38 $98,760.00
Temporary Easements
Construction in AG zone (2000 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00
Stiiwell -Construction in RR zone ' 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $4,500.00
Subtotai -Temporary Easements 2.71 $13,700.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $112,460.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Total Construction Cost $594,789,20
Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $112,460.00
Subtotal $707,249.20
Design, Processing and'Pertnitting,'Bidding,
Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection
at 35% $247,53722
TOTAL PROJECT COST $954,786.42
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $950,000.00
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xis
4/5/98
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION B-2
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTION
Ditch F�ccavation (1900 x 10'avg depth) 2463 CY $4.00 $9,852.00
Equipment Crossing(60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 4 EA $70,0OO.00 �280,000.00
East Outlet facilities at Creek 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000.00
Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9;200.00
Recording Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00
Subtotal $464,o52.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15°/a CONTINGENCY $533,659.80
� RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
Permanent Easements
Open ditch in AG zone (2000 ft x 90ft) 4.13 ACRES $18,000.00 $74,340.00
Stilwell- Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36;000.00 $7,920.00
Subtotal-Permanent Easements 4.13 $82,260.00
Temporary Easements
Construction in AG zone (2000 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00
Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.30 $9,200.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION � $91,460.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Total Construction Cost $533,659.80
Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $91,460.00
Subtotai $625,119.80
Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding,
Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at
35% $218,791.93
TOTAL PROJECT COST $843,911.73
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $840,000.00
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs
4/5/98
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTlON B-2
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTION - .
Ditch Excavation (1900 x 10' avg depth) 2463 - CY $4.00 $9,852.00
Equipment Crossing (60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 3 EA $70,0OO.00 5210,000.00
East Outlet faciiities at Creek ' 1 LS $100,000:00 $100,000.00
Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00
Recording St�eam Ga e 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00
Subtotal $394,052.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $453,959.80
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
Permanent Easemenis
Open ditch in AG zone (2000 ft x 90ft) 4.13 ACRES $18,000.00 $74,340.00
Stiiwell- Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15} 0.22 ACRES $36,000,00 $7,920.00
Subtotal'-Permanent Easements 4.13 $82,260.00
Temporary Easements
Construction in AG zone (2000 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00
Subtotal-Temporary Easements 2.30 $9,200.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $91,460.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Total Construction Cost $453,159.80
Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost - $91,460.00
SubYota! $544,619.80
Design, Processing and PeRnitting, Bidding,
Tesfing, Contrad Administration, and inspection at
35% $190,616.93
TOTAL PROJECT COST $735,236.73
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $740,OQO.OQ
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xis
4/5/98
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION B-2
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTION
Ditch Excavation (1900 x 10'avg depth) 2463 CY $4.00 $9,852.00
Equipment Crossing (60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 2 EA $70,000.00 $140,000.00
East Outlet facilities at Creek 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000.00
Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00
Recording Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00
Subtotal . $324,052.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $372,659.80
RIGHT OF WAYACQUISITION
Pertnanent Easements -
Open ditch in AG zone (2000 ft x 90ft) 4.13 ACRES $18,000.00 $74,340.00
Stilweli-Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00
Subtotal -Pertnanent Easements 4.13 $82,260.00
Temporary Easements
Construdion in AG zone (2000 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00
Subtotai -Temporary Easements 2.30 $9,200.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $91,460.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Total Construction Cost $372,659.80
Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $91,460.00
Subtotal $464,119.80
Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding,.
Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at
35% $162,441.93
TOTAL PROJECT COST $626,561.73
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $630,000.00
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs
4/5/98
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION B-3
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTI UNIT PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTION
Branch Mill Road Ditch Excavation (1100 x 3.5) 1D39 CY $4.00 $4,156.00
48" CIP Storn Drain (5 to 10 feet of cover) 1500 . LF $90.00 $135,000.00
Concrete Wing Wall Inlet 3 EA $3,500.00 $10,500.00
Outlet facilites for 48" Storm Drain 1 LS $110,000.00 $110,000.00
2- 90" CIP storm drains, 5 to 13 ft of cover 2100 LF $365.00 $766,500.00
Inlet Falicities for pouble 90" 1 �S ' $60;000.00 $60,000.00
Outlet facilities at creek t LS $175,000.00 $175,000.00
Subtotai $1,261,156.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $1,450,329.40
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
Permanent Easements '
Underground Pipe in AG property (2100 x 30) 1.45 ACRES $8,000.00 $11,600.00
Dixson - Pipe and Ditches in AG zone (1100x30+-) 0.76 ACRES $2,000.00 $1,520.00
Ca�dwell - Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200.00
Stilweil -Underground pipe in RR zone (598 x 15) 0.21 ACRES $16,000.00 $3,360.00
Stilweil - Underground pipe in RR zone (varies) 0.07 ACRES $16,000.00 $1,120.00
Stilwell - Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00
Subtotal - Permanent Easements 2.86 $27,720.00
Temporary Easements
Construction in AG zone (2100 x 50) 2.41 ACRES $4,000.00 ' $9,640.00
Stilweli - Construction in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280.00
Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.82 $12,920.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $40,640.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Total Construction Cost $1,450,329.40
Total Rightof Way Acquisition Cost $40,640.00
Subtotai $1,490,969.40
Design, Processing and Pertnitting, Bidding,
Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at
35% $521,83929
TOTAL PROJECT COST $2,012,808.69
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $2,010,000.00
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs
4/7/98
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE '
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION C-1
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTION
Branch Mill Road Ditch Excavation (1100 x 3.5) 1039 CY $4.00 $4,156.00
48"CIP Stomt Drain (5 to 10 feet of cover) 800 LF $90.00 $72,OOO.JO
Concrete Wing Wall Inlet 2 EA $3,500.00 $7,000.00
Outlet facilites for 48"Storm Drain 1 LS $110,000.00 $110,000.00
Ditch Excavation (1900 x 9' avg depth) 2322 CY $4.00 $9,288.00
Equipment Crossing (60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 4 EA $70,000.00 $280,000.00
Outlet facilities at creek 1 LS $80;000.00 $80,000.00
Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00
Recording Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00
Subtotal $636,644.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $732,140.60
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
Pertnanent Easements
Open ditch in AG zone (1500 ft x 90ft) 3.10 ACRES $18,000.00 $55,800.00
Fuli Value of Lot in.AG zone (2.4 Ac) 2.40 ACRES $20,000.00 $48,000.00
Dixson- Open ditch on AG property(900.x 30) 0.62 ACRES $18,000.00 $11,160.00
Caldweli - Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200.00
Stiiwell- Underground pipe in RR zone (598 x 15) 0.21 ACRES $16,000.00 $3,360.00
Stilwell- Underground pipe in RR zone (varies) 0.07 ACRES $16,000.00 $1,120.00
Stilwell - Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00
Subtotal -Permanent Easements $129,560.00
Temporary Easements '
Constniction in AG zone (1500 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00
Stiiweli-Construction in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $5,000.00 $3,280.00
Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.71 $12,480.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $142,040.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Total Construction Cost $732,140.60
Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $142,040.00
Subtotal $$74,180.60
Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding,
Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at
35% $305,96321
TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,180,143.81
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $1,180,000.00
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs I
4/5/98
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION C-1
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT. PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTION
_ Branch Mill Road Ditch Excavation (1100 x 3.5) 1039 CY $4.00 $4,156.00
48" C;P Storm Drain (5 to 10 feet of cover) 800 LF $90.00 $72,000.00
Concrete Wing Wall Iniet 2 EA $3,500.00 $7,000.00
Outiet facilites for 48" Storm Drain 1 LS $110,000.00 $110,000.00
Ditch Excavation (1900 x 9'avg depth) 2322 CY $4.00 $9,288.00
Equipment Crossing (60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 3 EA $70,000.00 $210,000.00
Outlet facilities at creek 1 LS $80,000.00 $80,000.00
Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF . $0.10 $9,200.00
Recording Stream Gage - 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00
Subtotal $566,644.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY - $651,640.60
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
Pertnanent Easements
Open ditch in AG zone (1500 ft x 90ft) 3.10 ACRES $18,000.00 $55,800.00
Full Value of Lot in AG zone (2.4 Ac) 2.40 ACRES $20,000.00 - $48,000.00
Dixson- Open ditch on AG property (900 x 30) 0.62 ACRES $18,000.00 $11,160.00
Caldweli- Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES N/A - $2,200.00
Stilweil- Underground pipe in RR zone (598 x 15) 0.21 ACRES $16,000.00 $3,360.00
Stilwell- Underground pipe in RR zone (varies) 0.07 ACRES $16,000.00 ' $1,120.00
Stilwell- Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00
Subtotal - Permanent Easements $129,560.00
Temporary Easements �
Construction in AG zone (1500 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00
Stilwell-Construdion in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280.00
Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.71 $12,480.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $142,040.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Total Construdion Cost $651,640.60
Total Right of Way Acquisition CosT $142,040.00
Subtotal $793,680.60
Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding,
Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at '
35% $277,788.21
TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,071,468.81
ESTIMATED PROJEGT BUDGET $1,070,000.00
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs
4/5/98
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION C-1
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTION
Branch Mili Road Ditch Excavation (1100 x 3.5) 1039 CY $4.00 $4,156.00
48" C{P Storm Drain (5 to ?0 feet of cover) 800 LF $90.G0 $72,0OO.OG
Concrete Wing Wall Iniet 2 EA $3,500.00 $7,000.00
Outlet facilites for 48" Storm Drain 1 LS $110,000.00 $110,000.00
Ditch Excavation (1900 x 9' avg depth) 2322 CY $4.00 $9,288.00
Equipment Crossing (60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 2 EA $70,000.00 $140,000.00
Outlet facilities at creek 1 LS $80,000.00 $80,000.00
Finish Gradi�g Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00
Recording Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00
Subtotal $496,644.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15°/a CONTINGENCY $571,140.60
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
Permanent Easements
Operl ditch in AG zone (1500 ft x 90ft) 3.10 ACRES $18,000.00 $55,800.00
Full Value of Lot in AG zone (2.4 Ac 2.40 ACRES $20,000.00 $48,000.00
Dixson- Ope�ditch on AG property (900 x 30) 0.62 ACRES $18,000.00 $11,160.00
Caldwell -'Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200.00
Stilwetl- Underground pipe in RR zone (598 x 15) 0.21 ACRES $16,000.00 $3,360.00
Stilwell- Underground pipe in RR zone (varies) 0.07 ACRES $16,000.00 $1,120.00
Stilwell- Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00
Subtotal -Permanent Easements $129,560.00
Temporary Easements �
Constnidion in AG zone (1500 x 50) 2.30 ,ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00
Stilwell- Construction in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280.00
Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.71 $12,480.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $142,040.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY '
Total Construction Cost $571,140.60
Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $142,040.00
Subtotal $713,180.60
Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding,
Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at
35% $249,61321
TOTAL PROJECT COST $962,793.81
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $960,000.00
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs
4/5/98
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION C-1
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTION ,
Branch Mill Road Ditch Excavation (1100 x 3.5) 1039 CY $4.00 $4,156.00
48" CIP Storm Drain ( 5 to 10 feet of cover) 800 LF $90.00 $72,000.00
Concrete Wing Wall Inlet 2 EA $3,500.00 $7,000.00
Outlet facilites for 48" Storm Drain 1 LS $170;000.00 $110,000.00
Ditch Excavation (1900 x 9'avg depth) 2322 CY $4.00 $9,288.00
Equipment Crossing (60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 4 EA $70,000.00 $280,000.00
Outlet facilities at creek 1 LS $80,000.00 $80,000.00
Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00
Recording Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00
Subtotal $636,644.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $732,140.60
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
Permanent Easements
Open ditch in AG zone (1500 ft x 90ft) 3.10 ACRES $18,000.00 $55,800.00
Full Value of Lot in AG zone (2.4 Ac) 2.40 ACRES $20,000.00 $48,000.00
Dixson -Open ditch on AG property(900 x 30) 0.62 ACRES $18,000.00 $11,160.00
Caldwell - Pipe through,access road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200.00
Stilwell - Underground pipe in RR zone (598 x 15) 0.21 ACRES $16,000.00 $3,360.00
Stilwell - Underground pipe in RR zone (varies) 0.07 ACRES $16,000.00 $1,120.00
Stilwell - Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 022 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00
Subtotai - Permanent Easements 6.77 $129,560.00
Temporary Easements
Construction in AG zone (1500 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00
Stilwell -Construction in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280.00
Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.71 $12,480.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $142,040.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Total Construction Cost $732;140.60
Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $142,040.00
Subtotal $874,180.60
Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding,
Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at
35% $305,963.21
TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,180,143.81 .
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $1,180,000.00
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs
4/8/98
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE � OPTION C-1
UNIT TOTAI
DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTI ON
Branch Mill Road Ditch Excavation (1100 x 3.5) 1039 . CY $4.00 $4,156.00
48"CIP Storm Drain ( 5 to 10 feet of cover) 800 LF $90.00 $72,000.00
Concrete Wing Wall Inlet 2 EA $3,500.00 $7,000.00
Outlet facilites for 48" Storm Drain 1 LS $110,000.00 $110,000.00
Ditch Excavation (1900 x 9' avg depth) 2322 CY $4.00 $9,288.00
Equipment Crossing (60 ft Fiatcar Bridge) 3 EA $70,000.00 $210,000.00
Outlet facilities at creek 1 LS $80,000.00 $80,000.00
Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00
Recording Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00
Subtotal $566,644.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $651,640.60
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
Permanent Easements
Open ditch in AG zone (1500 ft x 90ft) 3.10 ACRES $18,000.00 $55,800.00
Full Value of Lot in AG zone (2.4 Ac) 2.40 ACRES $20,000.00 $48,000.00
Dixson-Open ditch on AG property (900 x 30) 0.62 ACRES $18,000.00 $11;160.00
Caldwell -Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200.00
Stilwell - Underground pipe in RR zone(598 x 15) 0.21 ACRES $16,000.00 $3,360.00
Stilwell - Underground pipe in RR zone(varies) 0.07 ACRES $16,000.00 $1,120.00
Stilwell - Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 022 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00
Subtotal - Permanent Easements 6.77 $129,560.00
Temporary Easements
Construction in AG zone (1500 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00
Stilwell - Construction in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280.00
Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.71 $12,480.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION � $142,040.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Total Construction Cost $651,640.60
Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $142,040.00
Subtotal $793,680.60
Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding,
Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at
35°/a $277,788.21
TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,071,468.81
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $1,070;000.00
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs
4/8198
' NEWSOM SPRtNGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OP710N C-1
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTION
Branch Mill Road Ditch Excavation (1100 x 3.5) 1039 CY $4.00 $4,156.00
48"CIP Storm Drain ( 5 to 10 feet of cover) 800 LF $90.00 $72,000.00
Concrete Wing Wall Inlet 2 EA $3,500.00 $7,000.00
Outlet facilites for 48" Storm Drain 1 LS $110,000.00 $110,000.00
Ditch Excavation (1900 x 9'avg depth) 2322 CY $4.00 $9,288.00
Equipment Crossing (60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 2 EA $70,000.00 $140,000.00
Outlet facilities at creek 1 LS $80,000.00 $80,000.00
Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00
Recording Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00
Subtotal $496,644.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $571,140.60
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
Permanent Easements
Open ditch in AG zone (1500 ft x 90ft) 3.10 ACRES $18,000.00 $55,800.00
Full Value of Lot in AG zone (2.4 Ac) 2.40 ACRES $20,000.00 $48,000.00
Dixson-Open ditch on AG property(900 x 30) 0.62 ACRES $18,000.00 $11,160.00
Caldwell - Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES NIA $2,200.00
Stilwell- Underground pipe in RR zone (598 x 15) 0.21 ACRES $16,000.00 $3,360.00
Stilwell- Underground pipe in RR zone(varies) 0.07 ACRES $16,000.00 $1,120.00
Stilwell - Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 022 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00
Subtotal -Permanent Easements 6.77 $129,560.00
Temporary Easements
Construction in AG zone (1500 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00
Stilwell- Construction in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280.00
Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.71 $12,480.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $142,040.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Total Construction Cost $571,140.60
Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $142,040.00
Subtotal $713,180.60
Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding,
Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at
35% $249,613.21
TOTAL PROJECT COST $962,793.81
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $960,000.00
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs
418/98