HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/1/2025 Item 8a, Tway, Hanh, and Schwartz - Staff Agenda CorrespondenceCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum
City of San Luis Obispo
Council Agenda Correspondence
DATE: April 1, 2025
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Timmi Tway, Community Development Director
Prepared by: Hannah Hanh, Associate Planner
Luke Schwartz, Transportation Manager
VIA: Whitney McDonald, City Manager
SUBJECT: ITEM 8A – REVIEW OF AN INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT, REZONE, AND ANNEXATION TO FACILITATE
BROADSTONE VILLAGE, A PHASED RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, AT
12500 AND 12501 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD
Staff has received the following questions regarding the Broadstone Village project.
Questions with similar themes have been combined in the responses below. The
questions are bolded with staff’s responses shown in italics:
Bob Jones Trail
1) Why does the project include a realigned Bob Jones Trail extension that runs
alongside the LOVR Bypass between LOVR and South Higuera, instead of
the previously proposed pathway alignment along San Luis Creek?
The applicant has proposed a modified Bob Jones Trail alignment that runs parallel
to the proposed LOVR Bypass Road primarily for the purposes of placing the trail
in a more visible location to reduce potential for undesirable behaviors (i.e. illegal
dumping, camping, etc.) and public safety concerns for trail users. The modified
alignment would also place the path outside of the creek setback and riparian
zone, reducing potential for environmental and flooding concerns. It should also
be noted that, while the City allows construction of shared-use paths within creek
setbacks with approval of a setback exception request, the City’s Active
Transportation Plan recommends locating shared-use paths outside of creek
setbacks.
The alignment for this particular segment of the Bob Jones Trail was previously
evaluated in a 2013 study, which recommended a preferred trail alignment that
follows the creek corridor. The 2013 study recommended a Creekside alignment
primarily to reduce impacts to the adjacent agricultural fields and farming
operations. The 2013 study did note that if the future LOVR Bypass is advanced
prior to the Bob Jones Trail construction, the “pathway would align with the Bypass
and include separation from the roadway”.
Item 8a – Broadstone Village Initiation Page 2
Ultimately, the project applicant and staff are supportive of (a) retaining the Bob
Jones Trail alignment along the creek as previously approved, (b) aligning the trail
parallel to the Bypass Road as proposed in the current Broadstone Village Project
Plans, or (c) exploring a hybrid alternative that aligns the trail parallel to the creek
along the development site to avoid driveway conflicts before aligning parallel to
the Bypass Road south of the development to increase visibility. Attachment A
(Bob Jones Trail Alignment Options), included in this correspondence, provides an
illustrative map showing these options.
Staff will be seeking input from the Council, Active Transportation Committee, and
community to guide further development of the project circulation plans if Council
supports initiating this planning effort.
2) How would the proposed relocation of the Bob Jones Trail from the
approved Creekside location affect bicycle and pedestrian safety?
The safety benefits of the modified alignment are greater public visibility of the trail
and less potential for vagrancy and undesirable behaviors. The trade-off with the
modified alignment proposal is that the trail would cross the two Broadstone Village
site driveways south of LOVR, which creates a conflict point between vehicles,
pedestrians and cyclists. The current design proposal assumes design strategies
to minimize conflicts at these driveways, including a raised crosswalk, lighting, and
high-visibility crosswalk markings.
The benefits of the previously approved Bob Jones Trail alignment are that the trail
would not cross the Broadstone Village site driveways by aligning along the creek.
The trade-off would be less visibility of the trail and likely greater potential for public
safety concerns.
As noted in a previous response above, the applicant and staff are supportive of
the previously approved Bob Jones Trail alignment following the creek, the
modified alignment presented with this development proposal that parallels the
LOVR Bypass Road, or a hybrid combining features of each alignment. Final
designs for the trail would be based on Council direction, as well as additional input
from the Active Transportation Committee and community, and the environmental
review and analysis of any potential design constraints.
3) Can you provide more detail on why the Bob Jones Trail alignment is being
proposed over the previously-approved alignment? How will this work with
the approved design for the Higuera Complete Streets project? Do we need
to rethink any elements of the three projects in relationship to one another?
As noted in a previous response above, the modified Bob Jones Trail alignment
was proposed to increase visibility of the trail for the safety/comfort of trail users,
as well as to increase separation between the trail and creek riparian zone to
reduce potential for environmental concerns. Staff and the applicant are supportive
Item 8a – Broadstone Village Initiation Page 3
of retaining the previously approved alignment or the modified alignment proposal.
The Higuera Complete Streets Project includes proposed intersection crossing
improvements at the LOVR/Higuera intersection, including addition of a
southbound bicycle signal phase. The Bob Jones Trail extension contemplated
with this development proposal provides another opportunity for cyclists to cross
LOVR but does not conflict with or eliminate the need for the crossing
improvements proposed as part of the Higuera Complete Streets Project.
4) The applicant indicated three reasons for the BJT realignment:
a. Alignment with county land and lack of county permission to build the
BJT in the riparian zone.
b. Distance from creek (environmental concerns). Previous approved
alignment was too close to the creek.
c. Safety, cleanliness
In correspondence from members of the ATC and public, there was push
back on two of these items. There is a belief that the county had already
agreed to the riparian alignment and was not a part of the new proposed
alignment. Can you speak to the involvement of the county up to this point
and their take on both alignments?
The reasons for the proposed modified Bob Jones Trail alignment are summarized
in the previous responses above, as well as confirmation that the applicant and
City staff would be supportive of the previously approved alignment or the modified
alignment proposal, pending input from the Council, ATC and community. The City
has not had direct conversations with the County regarding the modified trail
alignment; however, the County has indicated that annexation of the Hayashi
Property (APN 076-081-030) by the City would be required to support the proposed
LOVR Bypass Road and Bob Jones Trail extension, which would allow the
roadway and trail to be designed pursuant to City standards and policy direction.
5) Will the connection between the existing BJT and the new BJT be fully
separated from LOVR? Rendering on page 290 of the staff report shows
separation in the northern new development but seems to move out to LOVR
on the city land.
Final design details for the connection between the existing Bob Jones Trail
terminus and the proposed extension south of LOVR will be refined pending input
from the Council, Active Transportation Committee, and community. There are
opportunities to provide this connection as a Class I bikeway (shared-use path) or
via separate Class IV bikeway (protected bike lane) and sidewalks, or a
combination of the two, on the north or south sides of LOVR, depending on whether
the LOVR Bypass Road and new signalized intersection are recommended for
advancement. Either way, the intent is to provide a facility that is physically
separated from LOVR traffic.
Item 8a – Broadstone Village Initiation Page 4
Environmental Review / Traffic Concerns
6) What environmental impacts would the project foreseeably have on the
Hayashi Property? On traffic? On the neighborhoods?
If Council authorizes the initiation of the project, environmental review will be
completed in accordance with CEQA. This would include a range of technical
studies to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project, and the
environmental analysis would be considered by decisionmakers in the future. A
formal transportation impact study has not yet been prepared for the development
proposal to confirm potential traffic impacts and mitigation requirements. Based on
findings of previous traffic studies for other large development projects in this
vicinity, it is anticipated that focused analysis will be required for the LOVR/US 101
Interchange, Los Verdes Park driveways, LOVR/S. Higuera intersection and along
the S. Higuera corridor, including future considerations both with and without the
Prado Road/US 101 Interchange. Further, future traffic analysis scenarios will also
assume the Higuera Complete Streets Project has been implemented.
7) The Applicant’s project description discusses water modeling that was
completed for the project. What is this model and who did the modeling?
The City contracts with Wallace Group Engineering to maintain and provide
technical support for the City’s hydraulic model. This model allows for impacts to
domestic water and fire water service to be evaluated for proposed projects. The
water modeling for this specific project was completed by Wallace Group in
December 2024. No issues were found to exist with this analysis. Any significant
changes in the plans modeled may require additional analyses (Attachment C).
8) Members of the public have remarked that the County has significant
flooding concerns about the bypass road. Is there a flooding analysis on
their land that would garner that conclusion?
A comprehensive study of the project’s impacts on the floodway will occur during
the environmental review process if the project review moves forward. Future
analysis will identify potential project-related impacts and recommended mitigation
strategies for future consideration.
9) Agenda correspondence from the Applicant references future traffic studies.
What happens if the future analysis shows untenable traffic flow impacts,
can they build without providing any mitigations?
A comprehensive transportation impact study has not yet been prepared for the
development proposal. If the Council chooses to authorize further processing of
the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Annexation applications, it should
be noted that authorization to initiate the project review does not require the
Council to approve the final development proposal, as currently presented. If the
Item 8a – Broadstone Village Initiation Page 5
project review progresses, there may be changes to the project scope based on
new and more detailed information. The pending traffic impact study will identify
potential project-related impacts and recommended mitigation strategies to guide
future review of project entitlements by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Ultimately, if there are traffic impacts that are unacceptable, the project could be
denied, approved with conditions, or modified to address impacts.
10) The alternative for no annexations presented on pages 236-237 would result
in the construction of more units, but would traffic analysis support the
building of the project in that form?
The developer has indicated that without the annexation, they would propose more
units, however, the review process, including the environmental and traffic
analysis, will inform what is actually proposed or allowed for approval and
construction.
A comprehensive transportation impact study has not yet been prepared for the
development proposal with or without the potential annexation and LOVR Bypass
Road. Based on preliminary due diligence analysis prepared to date, it is likely that
without the proposed LOVR Bypass Road, there will be insufficient traffic from the
development to warrant installation of a traffic signal at the new site driveways on
LOVR. Further, due to proximity of the new site driveways to existing signalized
intersections, left-turn movements exiting both the north and south Broadstone
Village sites would likely need to be prohibited per City Access Management
Standards.
11) Was residential development of this property included in the plans for the
Prado Road Interchange? Was residential development of this property
included in traffic engineering plans? What would the impact of this project
be on traffic congestion? On the neighborhoods near the LOVR and South
Higuera intersection?
Transportation studies prepared previously for the Prado Road/US 101
Interchange Project as well as other large development proposals (San Luis
Ranch, Avila Ranch, Froom Ranch, etc.) assumed future development of these
properties, but with a lower level of density (approximately 160 dwelling units)
compared to the current project proposal (409 total dwelling units).
A detailed traffic impact study will be prepared for the current development
proposal to identify potential off-site transportation impacts and mitigation
recommendations, where appropriate. Based on the findings of other recent
transportation impact studies, this traffic study will include increased focus on
circulation within the southern portion of the City, including potential impacts on
the Los Verdes Park driveways, LOVR corridor (including US 101 Interchange),
Higuera Street corridor, and future traffic conditions with and without the planned
Prado Road/US 101 Interchange in place.
Item 8a – Broadstone Village Initiation Page 6
Annexation
12) Is the Hayashi Property (parcel proposed for annexation) currently protected
by an Open Space/Conservation easement in the County? If yes, what entity
is the easement holder? If no, is it zoned agriculture? When was its last
agricultural use?
Yes – There is an open space easement on a portion of the Hayashi Property as
described and accepted by the Board of Supervisors in Resolution No. 81-485
(Attachment B). If annexation of this property is initiated, City staff would be
working with County staff to have this easement conveyed from the County to the
City as part of the review process. The property is in the County Agriculture land
use category (AG) and is currently used for agricultural operations.
13) Was the annexation of this property included in the LUCE update or in any
specific plan? If yes, which one/s? If no, why not? Was residential
development of this property included in the City’s General Plan build out
plans? If no, how would the additional units impact buildout?
Annexation of the Hayashi Property is not specifically identified in the 2014 LUCE
update. However, the property is eligible for annexation by the City since it is in the
City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). It should be noted that all residential development
would occur on properties, currently within the existing City limits and urban
reserve line (URL), and annexation is only intended to enable construction of the
LOVR Bypass along with an extension of the Bob Jones Trail through the north
portion of this property. The LOVR Bypass Road was discussed in the 2014
General Plan Circulation Element as a potential connection to be evaluated with
any future planning efforts related to the Creekside Special Planning Area. Based
on preliminary communications with the County of San Luis Obispo, the County is
not interested in pursuing a roadway if the Hayashi Property remains within their
jurisdiction. Therefore, the LOVR Bypass (and accompanying trail extension
through the Hayashi Property) would only be achieved if the City pursues
annexation and facilitates its construction as part of the development project.
As detailed in the staff report, the 2020 Housing Element identified the North Site
and South Sites (proposed for residential development) for possible rezoning to
the R-3 zone, instead of the currently proposed R-4 zone for both sites. The
request for the R-4 zone would result in approximately 55 additional density units,
which have not been accounted for in the General Plan, and therefore would be
studied for project impacts as part of the review process, if these applications are
initiated.
Item 8a – Broadstone Village Initiation Page 7
Growth Management
14) What would be the sprawl-inducing impact on our greenbelt?
The residential development would be located on properties (i.e., North and South
Sites) that are currently within the existing City limits and URL. Any improvements
outside of the existing City limits and URL are specific to the LOVR Bypass and
Bob Jones Trail extension, which would be possible features of the project, if the
City Council authorizes processing of the Annexation application. The remaining
majority of the Hayashi Property would be designated for agricultural use or as
open space and would not induce sprawl outside of the URL. Note – If the
annexation request is not supportable and this application is not authorized by the
City Council for processing, then the applicant has indicated they would only
pursue the residential development project on properties within City limits.
In addition, growth inducing impacts of the project would be analyzed as part of
the environmental review processes should the project move forward.
15) What other housing projects are currently entitled? How would this project
affect the timing of other projects already in the works, i.e. the Madonna on
LOVR property? How would it impact the City’s 1% Growth Management
Ordinance that the City exceeded this year?
There are over 1,000 housing units currently entitled but not yet constructed in the
City. Many of these units are found in Avila Ranch, and the Orcutt Area and Airport
Area Specific Plans. In addition, staff has received submittals seeking entitlements
for development in the Froom Ranch Specific Plan area, which includes a total of
809 housing units. Traffic impact studies for large development proposals such as
this one, include analysis of the proposed project under existing traffic conditions,
as well as future near-term (5-10 year horizon) and cumulative (20 year horizon)
conditions, which allows for evaluation of project impacts in conjunction with other
planned and approved development projects, such as San Luis Ranch, Avila
Ranch and the Froom Ranch Specific Plan.
If the Broadstone project applications are authorized by Council for processing,
staff’s subsequent review and evaluation would include an analysis of the impacts
of these other entitled major planning projects. The phasing schedule of
construction associated with the development of the Broadstone project would also
be reviewed by staff for consistency with the City’s growth management limitations
specified in Land Use Element Policy 1.11.2. Any deed-restricted affordable
housing units included in the project would not be subject to the City’s growth
management limitations. It is likely that the Broadstone project will take between
5-10 years to reach completion. At this point, the City will be in a new Housing
Element cycle and possibly under updated General Plan Land Use and Circulation
Elements.
Item 8a – Broadstone Village Initiation Page 8
Project Design
16) Los Verdes Park single entry issues: Are they mandated under state law for
fire safety to accept the additional entry point?
There is no statewide mandate in California that explicitly requires an existing
residential development to accept an additional entry point for fire and life safety.
17) Homes appear to be turned away from the riparian area. Is there a reason
that they’re oriented this way?
This initiation hearing is for early policy consideration. The plans provided by the
applicant are preliminary and a full policy analysis of the design will occur should
the project move forward. If directed by the Council, staff would work with the
applicant if there is desire to incorporate the creek as an amenity in the project
design.
Funding
18) How much general fund money would be required to build the proposed
bypass road, to extend water/sewer service to the area, provide public safety
services, etc.? Can the City afford this expenditure of public funds, given the
upcoming projected budget deficits?
An estimate of general fund needed to support the project would require a fiscal
impact study. Since a detailed project description is required to inform the fiscal
impact study, and the project description would be affected by whether and how
Council chooses to initiate these project applications, this study has not yet been
completed. If Council directs staff to process these applications, a fiscal impact
study could be required as part of the review process to inform Council’s final
decision on the project. The fiscal impact study would evaluate ongoing costs
associated with maintenance of new infrastructure, services, etc. Additionally, it
should also be noted that staff is recommending that no general fund commitments
be made to support the construction of the LOVR Bypass as described in the
Council Agenda Report.
Airport Land Use Commission
19) Would the Airport Land Use commission have jurisdiction over this
property?
Yes – All three (3) project sites are located entirely or mostly within the boundaries
of the Airport Influence Area (AIA), specifically Safety Zone 6 (Traffic Pattern) of
the AIA. Since the project includes various legislative applications, review by the
Airport Land Use Commission for a consistency determination with applicable
standards in the Airport Land Use Plan is required.
Item 8a – Broadstone Village Initiation Page 9
Affordable Housing
20) How many affordable housing units should be considered beyond what is
required if we are hoping to get closer to our goal of the additional 1200
needed in the next 3 years? Some correspondence mentioned a reduction in
the number of required affordable units because these are designed for
seniors.
The affordable units that would be associated with this development, if there are
any, are likely to benefit the City in the next housing element cycle, due to the
timing of the project. On pages 246-247 of the staff report, staff has a provided an
analysis of the number of units that would have been required of the project if it did
not include a senior housing component (which has exempted it from the City’s
inclusionary housing ordinance). This analysis is provided to facilitate a
conversation about deed restricted units in the project, should the Council wish to
provide direction.
ATTACHMENTS
A – BJT Alignment Options
B – Open Space Easement
C – Water Model Results
-
';t:
J ....
. t:· .
i:· ...
r
~' • • I
1·
~·· . ·,: i;
:: .• :f
)•.·
; .:-
~.
.
: ...
: r·
: :!
. -~ ~ ·~ ,
___ }lon _day ____ · i)ecer::her ~ 7 ---.: _, 19_ 81 _ .
. I .
PRESENT: Supervieon .1 .. 1:ry r,i.l.!fenderfcr~ 1:~:rt P. KI.IP?o?r, .ffowl!rd D. ·!'1at\~ins,
Je(f Jorgensen, end Chid.rr,en t'te>ve l-l.:C '£lvaine ·
.'>BSENT:
·' ·'
DOC.NO.·
·. OFFICIAL RECORDS . t..E'SO!,U'.i'ION NO. SAN LUIS ~!pSPO co.; CAL
CD~
P.ESOLliTICt.; ACCEPTIHG DEDICATION OF' Fill MAff 2 41982
CPJ.:U-SrACI: i:.ASLJ·JE:~T /.:t,(1) A BUILDING RES~'ntC'l'ION w1····· .... E. ZIMARIK
WITnUi ':'HE FLOOD f».ARD AJIBJ\S SliOW?: .... ""'
0~1 Pi.RC.EL HAP co 79-218 I COUNTY RECORDER l· TIME 8 t 5. Q·PM
1·he follO\lir.g r~solution is now offered 11:1c! r .. Cl4:
:i:mm;.:,\S, th-.· S:.:;unty of Slln Luis Ol::ispo has oo<:n ;c:.uly requested
to 4C::Ct;lpt a certain 0£fe1· to declictitc to tho Fublic:: e.s o,,en-space
all of Parc~l 2 on Po.rcc:.l :.!a;,: Co 751-~].9 • .axcept. tnoG~ portior.e
d~si1:nated ti-...,r~on a:. a '· residcntio.l use area". sul.:j,.c:t to tr.e
furtlier lir.iitations anc;; conditions contained or: the .l".11p: 11.r.J
\·n·:;..;rul.S, ti,~ county of San Luis Obispo ha& been duly r..,quested
to accevt & certain 9rant and offer to dedicate to the county of
San Luis Ol>iapo t :)e rignt. to restrict the ercctio:1 of buildings
or other structures within the flood h&zare areas sho~m on Parcel
Map CO 79-218: and
1
l-/llEF<EAS, the County i'ngineer by letter dated Nqyemher ·30 ,
1981, has duly recommended that the floard of Suparvisors accept ·, .
the offors of dedication to tho public of open·sracc· ·land and the
building restrictions ~ithin tbe flood hazard areae shown on
Parcel rsap co 7 9-216.
NOW, 'l'HEJU,:FOR,1;' Bl:: IT Rl::SOLVED l\i:,D ORDERJ..:C by th~ Doard of .
Supervisors of tho Cour.ty of' San Luis ObiGpc, State ot Califo.rni,,
as t'ollowa,
1. 'l'hat the Boare of Suporvhor.e find• and dot~ninee ~~: _
tne pros~rvation of tho land offered for do~iaation ~ the p~ll~ . .
e.a opon-epe.ce ; on Parcel l!ap CO 79"!"218 is condetent ~i'th th1: ·
~al· Plan~ o~ t:he Count:t.1. that 't.he land .i~ aaoon~~&11y ~~rowel
,· . • . . 't -.· .
u4 1t · Htain~ in na na~ural et.abt baa ao.ni~ val~ tcil the · ..
'i '.' .. ,.:·. .
•. ..
~ i
I I ... ': .
. ~t> ~· ~ ;r
'~\' • • I • • • •'J4! • ' c..> ... ,,. .,., ::~::aj . ~·-; ···'Ii .·.,J
,V ,·'-4 ., r : f '
:,.
['
., . 't. ·~· l
I• ' ' i, ,,
L
I
,, .
:.,;;,..
:,;• ·.~ -~
:.b
,·;j· '., .. • j: ..
,'. :_;.
,. . .
'• .\,
./i~:>,
. ,(; .,,,.
: i ~-
·'1 :~ •• t.
;~·.·
''i7
-jl_ !
ATTACHMENT B
•·
..
t
· j
·;.
• .:=+=:'-•• ·• . , ... .· \I; : '·:~ .',~···:;::~:~.-·;'~·."},::} .
~} ....
. ~
I
public and ie V41Wlblo aa a watc~ahcd, and t!ie offor i of clodication :_.
conui.no<l on the H•p contains ai:-propriato coven.ante to t.'l.at: ~a f ·
and that it iG in the public intorGat that the land ·be retained
!'.
as opcn-ai:acc bccnu!lc c1.1c:n J.~n:.:: 11ill ndd to t.ha ar..anit.ic~ of
·1
I
That tile Board of S•Jporviaora finds and de~ermines
livin<; in noighl:>ori.ng urban1zc,l 1u:eus.
that 2.
'
the restriction upon tn~ crectio11 of iJuiluinc;a or other :1tructurc&
Wit:lin tho flooc.i ha:ilu:d ar.::aa showrt and <lolincate<i on I'£1rcol tw..;>
' co n-210 ie consistent with the General Plan of the County; that
!
tin:: floo<l :1a::.:.rl.! ar~os :ir.:: essentially unin,l>rovcc.! a.,;. if rct11~1cd
in their natural 1;tatc ;1 ave !>cor:ic value to the pul.>lf'c and are
valual~le as .:1 ,-mt .. :rsh,~u, an<l the grant and offe:r of dcciication
cont.:1i11ed on t:1e ;:,!!.' coutaina appro1:-riatc covenant.a to that end;
ilnd that it is i r. the :1ublic interest that ti1c flood h,u:aru areas
be retai:-icd in their n.itural !ltotc because ::such land ir. itr.
natural stnte will a<.id tv the al!:cnitics of living in neigl:,:,or.1ng
urbanizc<.i arcu$,
3 , 'l'hnt tte offer to dedicate to the public .is open-space,
the lillld as sllown on Parcel Hap CO 7!1-2lC .:is filed in uoolt .,$L_,
PageJ.S-in the office of the COW\ty Recorder, is hereby accepted.
4. 'l'hat the grant and offer to dedicate to the county of
;
£.:1n Luis Obispo the right to restfict the erection of uuildinga_
l
or other structures withi.n the flood hazard areas a~j &bown on
• I'Arcol l·1ap CO 79-218 as filed in Boak ..fl.L_., Pa9e ~ in the ·, office of tho County r:ecorder, ia· hereby accepted.
I
s. That the Clerk of the Boud of Supervisors. is authorized
and directed to record a copy of ~his rP.eolution in ~he office of
the county Recorder of tbo County of San t.uJ.e Ol>isp0~
'
.,·
I t ·. ' i i
' ,, . ~
., ·,
1•
" :,
~ !
. ~
,.
j .
.,.
; .....
" :~ ..
··.,.:
;'"'
· I ·
'i.
,_-?; ..
·' :'"~ ... ··,,,• ... :.....:;
. ~ .
. ,•,
...
·;,.'
. fjl
..... ,(.h
.
·, ' . r·,.
:·::·
:I . ' f~. ~!
• ,>,
l··· '':s :
upon motion of Suporviao:s-__ . _D_i_e_f_e_n_d_e_r_f_e_r ____ .,, aeeondod by ....
, and on tho folla'iiing roll ~-~~--~ ..... ~----.1 Supervieor Hankins , .... ... · . . . .
call vote, 1:0-u:, ·
AYES& Supervbor,: ')4 I' f' nn<1erfer 1 · Mankin6 1 1<uppc,r t :Ja"t"g~:'ll:i !!n? C°il8 :l.rin.an
~cc ~lvaine '
-None.·
:•
!•'
: ::< \;):~~: f , .. ;~ ~ .. _.;.;Ji::;} )~.1--~~ ~
,..,-: ..... \,
6 i: •• ,.
:.. ~ .; · ..
,/' :[.
ATTACHMENT B
~lone
,\':.'l·~ST;
[ Sl::;J..J
JJ\l.lJ;;S ~, LIM.11,0~··, J!~.
county C.:>unsel
ey: /s/ James J,, Orton
---:rii:.'es n, Orton
Oef>Uty Count}: t.:OWlS!!l
uattJtl: ;1ovember lO, 1981
, STAff OF CALIFORN~ I
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS 081SIIO) u
-! .....
..
. . ~· . :.:~
ATTACHMENT B
OWNER I S CERTI.PICA'I'£
we , the W"1derai91\6d, Mn.by cortify tha t we e..re a.11 tho owners of,
and all recordhol du·• ot ae.curity intere..at in, a.nd all parties
having any r ecord tiUe in the real property included within t.he
subclivbion and projaot shown on thh mAP, and t..hat e&Ctl of us
d,oaa he.reby oona.ent to the filing and/or recordation of thb map.
........ ~p*C'1c:;...~"'TO~P\4~C:.Ja.$<P~~,...,u..~~
~C~P'"C'~ee<-~ c,ee..e.,.v..-,..c>ot-4~ ~ "6 ·~\~ ~
~,--Nfll,o"'fMt!s~~.~\..wtti,.C,,~1!!;.QWMC..C.11't!&6~toC'e,eeC)P9
.a.nd assigns: the right to uee. th• underlying lAtld for recr oationa.l
purposes, agricultural purposes and vehicular acceu, provided
hovever, that said use .shall not lnt&rfere with the open-s~cc use
of said lot; and prov!.ded that no iJnptove.m.cnt.s othex than land-
scaping, a9rlculture, or recroational facilities shall be placed
upon said land without the npptoval of the county, and provided
furt~er that the approval of the Grantee of any i MProvem.o.nt shall
not or.mstltutc •n abal\donmcnt of the open-space use, and we hereby
grant and dedicate to t he County of SAn Luis ObispO the ri9ht to
re6td.ct the erection of buildings or other structures within those
~· O.,.~-.,-..\-....._..P..-.6~ --.,.a>~W*"°'_..,. ~ '"tO ~~-=-~~ ....... --......... -.... ~-
faoMlisrl~ EX~ • H.E HelRS OR DEVlSEES OP LUIZ
ANTHONY PERIERA, DECEASED
~
State of c~!{~~,.b,.~ isa
county Of &f:tst Luis Obhpo)
, 198L, before me. On thio J.L d<r of A!oue.lfl ber
the undersigned, a Notary Public in and tor said State, personally
appeared THOHAS H. JA.MtS known to m.o to be the Executor of the
eat.a.ta of Luh Mthony Periera. deceased and acknowledged to IIIO
that pursuant to An order of the Superior Court of the State of
California, in and for the County of San Luis Obispo, in case t+o.
17568, he signed a.nd cxecut-4 the within 1.nstru,Dient on l>ehalf of
said e ttate.
~a f) LlA ,·---. "" .. i;oif). ,Gl.'uc* ""~ o,.,c:,;, 'si:~i':"""t 1 •1r11.tnf~
. '"·:' .. :::·,~-~~;:
TRUSTEE CERTIFICATE
fflE F£bSRA.L J,.ANO BANX OP 13£R.KEL6Y, a Cocpora.tion, •• trustee under
a de-4 of trust r ecorded Oecomber 2, 1'75 in Book 1866 of Official
~ ------~
cord.1 P ge.,JlS.
.. :7 ---}-·-------------
~
St.ate of ca.lUornla @) OfPlCtA\. $£.At..
.w,.tE O CAI.DO
•<JIIIJl'I' "-"It.I( • (M.ll"~Nh\
$MilAMl&lolACOl.llltl'
J ltf ~.(~Jll.\,11M
ua.&, be.fcc:e mo, the
County of '.:>o.." +.,._ '5<>.rb..._ro..
Dn thia 1L day o! A/our((lbec
undeui9ned., a Not.ary Public in and !or said St.ate, personally appeued
~2"" ~-Svo.."'o known to crie to be tho __ President 0:1,a
$9:r C.\g,\ 0,oent kno II t:o ae 'OB l» the __ 9eecetary of 11-IE
P'Et>ERAL LA.MD B~ OP BERKELEY, the corp0ratlon that 11xecuted the. ..,,ithin
iAlt.rl.ll'l*nt and known to me to be the persons who executed the vi thin
inatr,ment o n behalf of th.e corporation herein named a.nd eeknovled9od
BOARD OP SUPE.RVISORS C£:R1'1PIC.ATE
I do hereby c&rtUy that tho Board of Supervisors of th• County
of San Luis Obispo, State of Cditornia, did, on Lu,u,:nLA, t
_'7 ___ , .uaL_, approve this raap of C0-79 .. .:18 in aecor•
dance with th,. prov.iaion& of the. Subclivia1on Map ~t and the
offors of ,!id~~i~>.~n· 1hown bu·eon for open-space and bu1.ldin9
rtttric~p.Ji , ~n. ~he .~l~ hazatd area for • 100-year Stenn
were acc,ptOd on-:be.half of the public.
Dated: • *" ·4s1,,. t( rf8J
=-,Fh21·~·-
~~y 6!f t~~n ~:t: ~~f:~rvlaon
State of Call tornia
V 101NITY MAP
MC ~c:,..t,.L..a.
3
RECORDERS CE.RTll"ICATE
Pil-4 thb ~ day of ])l!CENtlJa ~ , U8..L., a t
~.m., in Book: ~ ot Parcel Ka,ps at P•ge ...!\5',
at the reque6t of Terence Orton. Doc. No. '?S'g (,,a.a,
Pee~.
ll/ill,i,111 C. z,.:.111i,: by, ~ I)~ I
County Recorder Deputy · • .
mtGINEER' S CERTIPXCATE
Thia map waa prepai""<ld by me or Uflder "Y direction and
ia based upon a field survey in confortaance with the
requirements of the Subdivision KAP Act and local ordln•
anco at the request of David Perieo oo June 1981. l
he.reby state that this parcel up aubstanth.lly conforms
to the approved or conditionally a.pproved tent.l'ltive up,
if any.
~ K d2,0 11}1'1../e,
Terence K. Orton, P .&. 2U07
COUN'l'Y SURVEYOR'S CBRTIPICAT£
...
This map eon!otalS with the require111CPU ot the Subdivision
Kap Act Md local ordin•t1ces .
oated, ___;},_ Ow& V'>SI\
Qc.._.Q~
County surveyor, R.C.E. 10197
PARCE L MAP
C0-79-218
Bt:1HG PQRTJON OP LOT 38 OP AANCHITA DE
SAHTA P& IH TOWNSHIP 3l SOIJTH, RANCE l2
EAST, MOUNT 01.ABW HERJOIAN, COUNTY OF
SAN r..uts OBISPO, STA.Te OP CALIFORNIA.
R£QO£STED BY; DAVID PERil?AA
PR.ePI.R.EO BY; "WESTLAND ENGINEERING COMPANY
755 FRANCIS S"l'R.0£T
• SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
(805) SH•2l9•
JULY U8l
SHe::eT I OP-t!,..
is;
~
~= 'iiii
-
--!!!!!!!!!
• -!!!!!!! ---~ -ii
!! ---
-
'~====~=-~~~
to -that auch corporation executed the aame. as t .rust.c•·
\\\L.a l....a&~.u::t.A NCL-,z..,.,._e.2.
ATTACHMENT B
'
<>
1.
i
.
l
N
">
~
\.
.
.
.
-
c
.
:
:
01
u
(!
)
11
.
1
-
-
li
l
)
r.
.1
1
. r
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
B
MEMORANDUM
Landstone Partners XV LLC
Bypass Rd Bike Path Alt Analysis – 1763-0001
Date: December 13, 2024
To: Ricardo Gomez, RRM
From: Kari Wagner, PE
Travis Vazquez, PE
Subject: Water Modeling Analysis for Broadstone Village
Wallace Group was requested by Ricardo Gomez of RRM Design Group to provide hydraulic
data for the proposed Broadstone Village development located at 12500 Los Osos Valley
Road. The proposed residential development is split by Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) into two
sites– the north site is bound by LOVR to the south, Los Verdes Dr to the east, Chuparrosa Dr
to the north, and San Luis Obispo Creek to the west, see Attachment A for the Utility Plan.
The southern site is contained by LOVR to the north, Los Palos Dr. to the east, an agricultural
field to the south, and San Luis Obispo Creek to the west. Figure 1 shows the proposed site
and the City of San Luis Obispo (SLO) Edna Saddle water pressure zone in teal.
Figure 1. Overview of the City Edna Saddle pressure zone and location of Broadstone Village.
Broadstone Village
Tank Farm Rd
Madonna/Higuera PRV
Edna Saddle
Tank
ATTACHMENT C
December 13, 2024
Page 2 of 11
Site Description
Both sites propose separate private domestic and fire water systems, each 8-inch diameter.
On the north site, there will be two connections to the existing City of San Luis Obispo
network: one connection to the existing 18-inch ductile iron pipe at LOVR, and the other to
the existing 8-inch PVC at Los Verdes Drive.
The southern site proposes a new 12” public water main from the 18-inch ductile iron pipe in
LOVR through the frontage of the property. The 8-inch private domestic and fire water
systems connect to the proposed 12-inch public water main at two locations to create a
looped network. An 8-inch public main is proposed to connect the new 12” public water main
to the existing City 8-inch main in Los Palos Drive. See Figure 2 in the following section.
To obtain the requested data, Wallace Group used the hydraulic water model developed for
the preparation of the December 2015 Final Water Master Plan (WMP). The model was
updated and calibrated in October 2022. The model results presented below include the
following:
x To estimate the pressure losses at the 8-inch backflow prevention devices as shown
on the utility plan, a loss curve from an 8-inch Wilkins Model 375 Reduced Pressure
Principle Assembly was built into the model.
x All proposed pipe is assumed to be PVC, with a Hazen-Williams C factor of 150
The following information is reflective of the water pressures and flows available at the
proposed Broadstone Village:
Water Distribution System Information
Pressure Zone Edna Saddle
Water Supply Edna Saddle Tank
Madonna/Higuera PRV
Tank Elevation during Average Day Demand (ADD) 345’
Tank Elevation during Maximum Day Demand (MDD) 339’
Tank Elevation during Peak Hour Demand (PHD) 333’
Madonna/Higuera PRV HGL 340’
Development Elevation Varies from 103’ to 114’
Required Fire Flow (FF) for high density residential per the WMP 2,000 gpm
Note: required FF is without fire sprinklers, Fire Marshall has final say on required FF.
Water Model Results
Figure 2 shows the proposed (pink) and existing (teal) water mains as modeled in WaterCAD.
Note that while each site will have parallel plumbing (separate fire and domestic systems),
only the fire system was built into the model being that fire flow demands greatly surpass
domestic demands; the fire system is the hydraulically critical one of the two.
ATTACHMENT C
December 13, 2024
Page 3 of 11
Figure 2. Overview of proposed water system.
Elevations for each junction were assigned based on the “finish floor” elevations of the
nearby pads per Attachment A, to represent the approximate pressure available at each unit.
The assumed elevations are displayed in Figure 3 and Figure 4.
12” public water
main
ATTACHMENT C
December 13, 2024
Page 4 of 11
Figure 3. Junction elevations for the north site.
Figure 4. Junction elevations for the south site.
ATTACHMENT C
December 13, 2024
Page 5 of 11
Pressures During Average Day Demand (ADD)
Pressures during ADD range from 91-103 psi.
Figure 5. Pressures during ADD.
ATTACHMENT C
December 13, 2024
Page 6 of 11
Pressures During Max Day Demand (MDD)
Pressures during MDD range from 89-101 psi.
Figure 6. Pressures during MDD.
ATTACHMENT C
December 13, 2024
Page 7 of 11
Pressures during Peak Hour Demand (PHD)
Pressures range from 83-96 psi
Figure 7. Pressures during PHD.
Available Fire Flow During MDD
Available fire flow at each junction is shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9. These values represent
the maximum fire flow that can be supplied at the junction without dropping pressure
anywhere in the system below 20 psi. Note this does not represent the flow available out of
any single hydrant, as it does not account for any losses through the hydrant valve, body, or
orifice; these values represent the flow that the water mains can deliver without dropping
below 20 psi. The lowest available fire flow of 5,200 gpm is at the north end of the north site;
this significantly exceeds the highest requirement of 2,000 gpm for high density residential.
ATTACHMENT C
December 13, 2024
Page 8 of 11
Figure 8. Available fire flow at 20 psi residual, north site.
Figure 9. Available fire flow at 20 psi residual, south site.
ATTACHMENT C
December 13, 2024
Page 9 of 11
Residual Pressure at Fire Flow Needed – North Site
Figure 10 and Figure 11 show the residual pressure at the total fire flow needed – 2,000 gpm.
Note that these results reflect a single fire flow occurring at a time for each junction.
Figure 10. Residual pressure at fire flow needed, north site.
ATTACHMENT C
December 13, 2024
Page 10 of 11
Residual Pressure at Fire Flow Needed – South Site
Figure 11. Residual pressure at fire flow needed, south site.
ATTACHMENT C
December 13, 2024
Page 11 of 11
Discussion
Static pressures for all scenarios are above 80 psi, therefore per California Plumbing Code
individual pressure reducing valves (PRVs) will be required at each domestic service.
Alternatively, a PRV can be installed at each connection to the City main on the domestic
systems (immediately downstream the backflow prevention device) to create a lower
pressure zone below 80 psi on the private systems.
The proposed water system will have positive impacts on the City of SLO water system due to
the new 12” City water main which creates an additional loop to the Edna Saddle pressure
zone.
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the data provided. You can contact
me at (805) 544-4011. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Wallace Group
Prepared By:
____________________________________
Kari Wagner, Principal/Director of Water Resources
P.E. 66026
________________________________________________________________________
Kari Wagner, Princiiiiiiiipapappappppapappppppapapppapapppapaaapappappappaaappappaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal///l//////////////////l/l/l/l///l/l/////////l/l//////l/////////l//////////lll/////llll//DiDDDDDDDDDDDDDDrector o
P E 66026
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT A
UTILITY PLAN
ATTACHMENT C
BBQ
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
BBQ
BBQ
BBQ
PSS
PSS
PSS
PSS
PS
S
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SD
W
W
W
W
W
W
FW
FW
FW
FW
S
S
W
W
F
W
F
W
W
W
W
W
FW
FW
FW
D
D
SD
SS
S
SS
SS
SS
SS
WFW
FWW
D
D
D
D
D
D
SD
D
S
D
D
D
D
D
SD
D
S
SS
D D
D
S
S
S
S
SS
SS
S
S
S
W
W
S
S SD
FW
W
D
D
D
SS
SD PW
PSS
PSS
PSS
S
S
S
103
110.61
FD 1.5 IP ILLEG
104
111.12
FD 1.5 IP TAG ILLEG
122
107.96
FD BD IN WELL
124
110.58
FD BD IN WELL
S
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XX
X
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
SD
SD
SD
SD
SS
SS
SS
FLO
O
D
Z
O
N
E
A
E
FLO
O
D
W
A
Y
A
R
E
A
I
N
Z
O
N
E
A
E
FLO
O
D
Z
O
N
E
X
FLO
O
D
Z
O
N
E
A
E
W
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
TIE INTO EXISTING MANHOLE:
INV. (E) = 99.92
INV. (W) = ±100.02112.08 RIM
INV. (NE) = 99.46
INV. (NW) = 99.36
110.98 RIM
INV. (NE) = 103.95
INV. (NW)= 103.95
INV. (SW) = 103.85
113.04 RIM
INV. (NE) = 101.60
INV. (NW) = 101.50
110.40 RIM
INV. (SE) = 104.53
111.77 RIM
INV. (SW) = 106.65
111.80 RIM
INV. (NE) = 106.76
RO
A
D
A
ROA
D
A
RO
A
D
A
R
O
A
D
B
R
O
A
D
C
RO
A
D
A
110.89 RIM
INV. (NE) = 101.21
INV. (NW) = 101.11
MATCHLINE C8
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
C
8
RO
A
D
F
111.48 RIM
INV. (SW) = 94.94
109.97 RIM
INV. (NE) = 95.57
INV. (SW) = 95.47
111.07 RIM
INV. (NE) = 96.23
INV. (SW) = 96.13
110.54 RIM
INV. (NE) = 97.85
INV. (SW) = 97.75
111.02 RIM
INV. (E) = 98.22
INV. (SW) = 98.12
111.15 RIM
INV. (SE) = 98.70
INV. (W) = 98.60
111.52 RIM
INV. (SE) = 99.63
INV. (SW) = 99.53
112.48 RIM
INV. (SW) = 105.43
5
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
77
77
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
8
111.46 RIM
EX. INV. (NE) = 99.20
INV. (SE) = 98.90
INV. (NW) = 98.80
7
111.8 FF
111.8 FF
111.8 FF
111.8 FF
111.8 FF
111.8 FF
111.8 FF
111.8 FF
113.0 FF
113.0 FF
112.5 FF
112.5 FF
112.0 FF
112.0 FF
112.0 FF
112.0 FF
111.5 FF
111.5 FF
112.0 FF
112.0 FF
113.2 FF
113.2 FF
113.8 FF
113.8 FF
113.8 FF
113.8 FF
111.5 FF
111.5 FF
110.8 FF
110.8 FF
110.8 FF
111.8 FF
111.8 FF
EXISTING 8" WATER MAIN
CONNECT PROPOSED 8"
FIRE WATER TO EXISTING
WATER MAIN
CONNECT PROPOSED 8"
DOMESTIC WATER TO
EXISTING WATER MAIN
5
1
CONNECT PROPOSED 8"
DOMESTIC WATER TO
EXISTING 18" WATER MAIN
CONNECT PROPOSED 8"
FIRE WATER TO EXISTING
18" WATER MAIN
112.59 RIM
INV. (NE) = 94.91
INV. (SW) = 94.81
7
EXISTING 18"
DUCTILE IRON
WATER MAIN LINE
NOTE: UTILITIES ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE LATEST VERSION OF THE
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED.
8" REDUCE PRESSURE PRINCIPLE BACKFLOW DEVICE PER STD. 6550
FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY PER STD. 6310
DOMESTIC 2" WATER SERVICE AND METER PER 6210
4" FIRE WATER SERVICE PER STD. 6530
8" DOUBLE CHECK BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE PER STD. 6420
SEWER LATERAL SERVICE PER STD. 6810
48" SEWER MANHOLE PER STD. 6610
SEWER CLEANOUT PER STD. 6710
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
36
"
M
I
N
.
CO
V
E
R
48"
WATER
TRENCH
8" FIRE WATER
MAIN
27"
8" PRIVATE DOMESTIC
WATER MAIN
24"
6"
MI
N
.
BEDDING SAND
48
"
M
I
N
.
CO
V
E
R
6"
MI
N
.
N:
\
1
8
0
0
\
1
8
3
6
-
0
4
-
C
U
2
2
-
L
O
V
R
-
N
o
r
t
h
-
S
o
u
t
h
-
G
P
-
A
m
e
n
d
\
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
\
D
e
s
D
e
v
\
S
h
e
e
t
-
F
i
l
e
s
\
C
7
-
C
8
-
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
P
l
a
n
.
d
w
g
,
C
7
,
N
o
v
2
0
,
2
0
2
4
1
:
1
9
p
m,
R
A
G
o
m
e
z
BROADSTONE VILLAGENOVEMBER 22, 2025 C7
0 feet80
1" = 40'
40 120
UTILITY PLAN - NORTH
LEGEND
PRELIMINARY KEY NOTES
W
PSS
PROPOSED PRIVATE 8" PVC WATER & 8" FIRE WATER PER
PRIVATE WATER AND FIRE TRENCH DETAIL THIS SHEET
PROPOSED 12" PUBLIC PVC SEWER MAIN LINE. (S = 0.004 FT/FT MIN.) U.N.O. PER PLAN
PROPOSED PRIVATE STORM DRAIN (SEE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS)SD
DOMESTIC WATER METER
W EXISTING WATER
FW
48" CITY STANDARD MANHOLE
CITY STANDARD CLEANOUT
S
PROPOSED CITY STANDARD FIRE HYDRANT AND FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY
SS EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF JOINT TRENCHJT
PW PROPOSED PUBLIC 12" PVC WATER
SS PROPOSED 8" PRIVATE PVC SEWER MAIN LINE. (S = 0.005 FT/FT MIN.)
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
C
NOTE: UTILITIES ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE LATEST VERSION OF THE
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED.
8" REDUCE PRESSURE PRINCIPLE BACKFLOW DEVICE PER STD. 6550
FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY PER STD. 6310
DOMESTIC 2" WATER SERVICE AND METER PER 6210
4" FIRE WATER SERVICE PER STD. 6530
8" DOUBLE CHECK BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE PER STD. 6420
SEWER LATERAL SERVICE PER STD. 6810
48" SEWER MANHOLE PER STD. 6610
SEWER CLEANOUT PER STD. 6710
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
D
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S
S
W
W
W
W
FW
FW
FW
S
S
S
D
F
W
F
W
W
W
W
F
W
FWW
D
D
D
SS
SS
SS
S
S
S
S
SD
SD
SD
S
D
D
D
D
S
D
S
D
D
D
D
S
SD
D
D
S
PW
PW
PW
PW
PW
PW
PW
PW
PW
PW
W
W
W
W
W
W
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
SS
S
S
S
SS
SS
SS
SS
S
D
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
PSS
PSS
PSS
PSS PSS
D
D
D
P
S
S
P
S
S
PSS
PSS
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SD
S
D
D
D
S
D
106
107.03
FD 1.5 IP ILLEG
10
7
98
.
5
6
FD
1
.
5
I
P
I
L
L
E
G
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
W
W
W
S
D
S
D
S
D
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
LO
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
ROAD
MATCHLINE C7
MATCHLINE C7
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
C
7
1
R
O
A
D
D
R
O
A
D
E
ROAD F
R
O
A
D
F
ROAD F
RO
A
D
F
ROAD F
L.O.V.R. B
Y
P
A
S
S
L.O.V.R. BYPASS
A
L
L
E
Y
RIPARIAN EDGE
TOP OF BANK
20' CITY
ORDINANCE
SETBACK
TOP OF BANK
12' MULTI-USE PATH
FUTURE OFFSITE
IMPROVEMENTS
5
1
5
2
3
7
7
7
3
4
3
6
6
4
2
3
7
3
6
6
6
6
4
7
6
3
6
6
6
3
3
3
3
6
2
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
4
PUBLIC SS STUB
INV. = 91.28
7
7
7
7
CONNECT PROPOSED 12"
PUBLIC WATER TO EXISTING
18" WATER MAIN
36
"
M
I
N
.
CO
V
E
R
48"
WATER
TRENCH
8" FIRE WATER
MAIN
27"
8" PRIVATE DOMESTIC
WATER MAIN
24"
6"
MI
N
.
BEDDING SAND
48
"
M
I
N
.
CO
V
E
R
6"
MI
N
.
PRELIMINARY KEY NOTES
N:
\
1
8
0
0
\
1
8
3
6
-
0
4
-
C
U
2
2
-
L
O
V
R
-
N
o
r
t
h
-
S
o
u
t
h
-
G
P
-
A
m
e
n
d
\
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
\
D
e
s
D
e
v
\
S
h
e
e
t
-
F
i
l
e
s
\
C
7
-
C
8
-
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
P
l
a
n
.
d
w
g
,
C
8
,
N
o
v
2
0
,
2
0
2
4
1
:
1
9
p
m,
R
A
G
o
m
e
z
BROADSTONE VILLAGENOVEMBER 22, 2025 C8
0 feet80
1" = 40'
40 120
W
PSS
PROPOSED PRIVATE 8" PVC WATER & 8" FIRE WATER PER
PRIVATE WATER AND FIRE TRENCH DETAIL THIS SHEET
PROPOSED 12" PUBLIC PVC SEWER MAIN LINE. (S = 0.004 FT/FT MIN.) U.N.O. PER PLAN
PROPOSED PRIVATE STORM DRAIN (SEE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS)SD
DOMESTIC WATER METER
W EXISTING WATER
FW
48" CITY STANDARD MANHOLE
CITY STANDARD CLEANOUT
S
PROPOSED CITY STANDARD FIRE HYDRANT AND FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY
SS EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF JOINT TRENCHJT
LEGEND
PW PROPOSED PUBLIC 12" PVC WATER
SS PROPOSED 8" PRIVATE PVC SEWER MAIN LINE. (S = 0.005 FT/FT MIN.)
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
UTILITY PLAN - SOUTH
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
C