Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVesting Subdivision Maps Wallis Ranch . November 2006 Vesting Master and Tentative Tract Maps Written Statement The following findings relate directly to the lettered questions listed under the Written Statement section of the application submittal requirements for a Tentative Subdivision Map. A. "That the proposed map and design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and any applicable specific plans" This project is consistent with the Stage I and 2 Planned Development Rezones, along with all applicable City of Dublin policies and guidelines. The proposed subdivision plan for Wallis Ranch is consistent with the type, location and size of land use designations found in the approved Planned Development Rezones and the General Plan and East Dublin Specific Plan. B. "That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development" The project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of zoning proposed. The type of proposed land use designations are identical to those permitted by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Open space corridors have been created to buffer and preserve significant natural features. In doing so, the proposed land uses are sensitive to environmental constraints while still providing a community that is both livable and naturally cohesive. Development patterns outlined in the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan concentrate higher density uses in the lowlands along Tassajara Creek, while the steeper portions of the site have been designated for lower density residential uses. The preliminary geologic and geotechnical study completed for the project site states that the site is suitable for its proposed uses. No earthquake faults are located on Wallis Ranch. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) FIRM community panel map No.060705 0002 B (dated Revised November!, 2002) does not indicate flooding or flood zones on the property. A HEC analysis prepared by MacKay & Somps demonstrates that runoff from the 100 year storm event under existing conditions is contained well within the banks of the creek. No change is expected under post- construction conditions. Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants has performed a creek bank evaluation report. Their work includes site reconnaissance and review of historical site aerial photographs. They found no evidence of large scale changes of the creek alignment within the past 50 years, and note that the creek banks are relatively unstable. Berlogar observed some creek bank retreat in the downstream direction, but noted this can be remedied by providing the 100 foot setback, and controlling surface runoff. c. "That the design of the subdivision or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat" " The design of this project is not expected to substantially impact the environment or injure wildlife or their habitat. This project proposes the concentration of residential development in areas of few environmental constraints, while preserving those areas where more environmental constraints exist. Environmental impacts caused by this project will be mitigated either on-site or off-site. The applicant has worked extensively with various environmental agencies, biologists, and arborists to design a project that minimizes environmental impacts to the biological resources on the site. Through field visits and intensive site review, locations for bridge crossings have been selected that will impact the least amount of native oaks and other riparian vegetation, prevent new creek scouring, and minimize disruption to the California red-legged frog. State of the art fencing and barriers have been developed to prevent California tiger salamanders from entering into developed areas. D" "That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems" " The proposed project is consistent with the Eastern Dublin General Plan's and Specific Plan's ordinances for public health, safety, and welfare. The proposed development project will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, nor will it be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. The project will produce no noxious odors, hazardous materials, or . . exceSSIve nOIses. Any and all landslides within the development area will be stabilized, removed, or avoided in accordance with geotechnical reports. Development in hillside areas is carefully regulated under the Specific Plan to insure that hazardous hillside conditions are avoided or remedied. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) FIRM community panel map No.060705 0002 B (dated Revised November!, 2002) does not indicate flooding or flood zones on the property. A HEC analysis prepared by MacKay & Somps demonstrates that runoff from the 100 year storm event under existing conditions is contained well within the banks of the creek. No change is expected under post- construction conditions. In addition, none of the residential lots in the project will have direct driveway access onto a major arterial. E. "That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use, of property within the proposed subdivision" " The designs of this project will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed Project Area. Page I . Vesting Master and Tentative Tract Maps Written Statement ~ ~ I ._ ~. '- I I -2--__ I ~.I_. ---L- __ United States of America Publici Semi-Public Lands United States of America Publici Semi-Public Lands 12-0.1-2006 12:07:26 dlalG p-OpeILSpocLOwoe...hip.dW ,------- / ~end / D D I. ~ 1_ ~ ~ ~ D B ~ D Wallis Ranch Vesting Tentative Map - Open Space Ownership & Maintenance September, 200G I G034-40 - ~f .:; ~ .c ....' M EBRPD T f311 Easement ------- --------- ------- Open Space maintained by "t.nd TnJ5t" or &:\ual. owned by un Family NelC3hborhood "A" HOA owned anc::l maintained NelC3hborhood "6" HOA owned and malnullned NelC3hborhood "CO HOA owned and maintained NelC3hborhood "D" HOA owned and maintained NelC3hborhood "E' HOA owned and maIntained Pnvately owned anc::l m.llntalned Park owned and maintained by City Street: rl~ht5 of way owned by City, 8' trail and artlenal 51dewallc5 malntalnedl?Y City and all otller 5ldewal~ maintained by Ma!lter HOA. Land5cape maintained by Ma!lter l10A Owned by un family, malnbllned by Ma5ter HOA Ma5ter HOA owned anc::l mamtalned (ll1cludes ba5ln If prOVIded) Certain area!l !lubJect to conserv.atlon eil5ement held by ~nd T nJ5t' Owned and maintained by Un Family, Arty future tral15 to be pemlltted and maintained by EBRPD, or deslC3natee. Subject to Con5ervatlon Ea5elTlent held by "un T nJ!lt' . ~ _CICIy. samps CML ENGINEERING.LAND PLANNING. LAND suRVEYING PleGlIGnlGn, CA (925) - 225-0690 NOATH Q' 100' 200' 400' WALLIS RANCH ApPROVED STREET NAMES ALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY PLANNING DEPARTMENT James E. Sorensen Agency Director August24,2006 RECEIVED AUG 2 8 2006 DUBUN PLANNING Chris Bazar Planning Director 224 West Winton Ave. Room 111 CITY OF DUBLIN Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, California 94568 Hayward California 94544 Attention: Mr. Michael Porto, Planning Consultant Community Development Department phone 510.670.5400 fax 510.785.8793 Re": Approval Memorandum for Requested Wallis Ranch Street Names www.acgov.org/cda Dear Mr. Porto: In response to your inquiry of August 16, 2006 regarding Wallis Ranch Street Names, we requested approval of all streets by the Sheriffs Department, of proposed names and alternative names shown on your list of requested street names, which includes the street names shown on the Site Development Review Site Drawing, P-X-X, prepared by Mackay & Somps. An approval Memorandum from the Sheriffs Department is enclosed herewith indicating street names of the list that were approved and street names that were denied for the Wallis Ranch. Our contact with the Sheriffs Department is bye-mail and they answer bye-mail. If I had your e-mail address, I could forward their street approvals and denials more readily and more efficiently. Please include your e-mail address in future inquiries. We trust the enclosed Memorandum is ample response to your request for street name approval review for the Wallis Ranch. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. ~iChardV. GaIV~, ~ Planning Department RVG:r Enclosure SPFOAI1ZED S€R"1C1'S SIOCTION. 2000 150TU 1I VENUE, SAN LEANDRO, C'!; 9457<;, Ltf,9 (510) 661m40 rAX (510) 6(;]-7728 MARSHAL. CORONER - PU!l1...lC ADMlNISTR....TOR DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES MEMORANDUM DATE: Aug 22. 2006 TO: Richard Galvez, CDA Planning Dept. FROM: Donna Young, SC,ESDAdmin Emergency Services Dispatch SUBJECT: Tract 7515 This office has considered the following street names. PROPOSED STREET NAMES Acre Creek Belvedere Run Benchridge Benchwood Grove Branch Creek Bungalow Glen Calico Glen Cottage Creek Cottage Glen Cottage Grove Dorothy Edgepark Farmstone Hollow Fieldstone Knoll Gable Ridge Gatestone Falls Golden Fields Green Gable Julie Ann Approved . Approved. Approved. Approved. Approved. Approved. Approved . Approved. Approved. Approved . Approved. Approved . Approved, Approved . Approved . Approved . Approved . Approved Approved . Kelby Acres Lily Rose Magnolia Falls Orchard Falls Penbrook Arbor Prairie Hollow Quail Stone Quiet Prairie Ranchridge Acres Rustic Creek Rustic Ridge Serenity Hollow Slatestone Farms Square Cottage Tara Heights Verdant Knoll Wallis Ranch 3[P/ Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved ~., \{LfI-' Elelo Creekdale Creekstone Bridgeway Brook Glen Haven Creek Haven Wood Hili Creek Meadow Ridge Meadow Edge Ridge Rock Ridge Run Rldgestead Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Stone Branch Stonecreek Stonedale Grove Tassajara Dale Tassajara Falls Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 510-667-7746. at your earliest convenience. DY 08/29/2006 07:10 FAX 9259315483 Planning Dept . \0', .__.~,...:: ~001 ~ Qf Df./t.!r r~)~~~ CITY OF DUBLIN . . ~I~. 'II/Ii '\. ~ ~ W 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94566 ~~~, Website: http://www_ci.dublin.ca.us DATE: AuguSt 16, 2006 TO: Captain Thuman via Rose Macias, Dublin Police Services Donna Young, Alameda County Sheriff - Emergency Services Dispatch SCQtt McMillian, Alameda County Fire Prevention Paul Del Piano, Alameda County Fire Services, Fire Mapping Paul Kruger, Senior Civil Engineer Gregory Shreeve. Sr. Building Inspector John Sugiyama, DublUl Unified School District Dublin Postmaster via Sandy Sharp, u.s, Postal Service, Pleasanton Post Office Bret Lucas, Alameda CountyPlamririg Department City of Livermore Community Development Department ?-City of Pleasant on Planning Department Anna Carter, LLNL . 7000 East Ave., L-388, Livennore, CA 94550 Mike Menchini, .' . . . '.' AlamedaCountyFire, 19780CullC.anyon~d.,C~0 Vali~~~~@ FRQM:M.chael Porto. -Planning Consultant W AUG 1 8 2006 BJECT: Wallis Ranch Str~t Names' . ........... ... ',. . iTv'o'F"P'LEASANTON , ," .. ., C PLANN\NG OE~T. Enclosed f01' YOUrteview:is' a copy of the Street Name EXlUhit,Proposed Street Names List, and Project Location Map regarding the request for new stre.et names in Area F EastJW est. Please review for potential conflicts with other streets in the area. Send any comments yot)- may have by Wednesday; September 6, 2006. Your prompt attention and turn around to this request is greatly appreciated; you may fax your response to 925-833:-6628. Thank you in advance for your review. Please feel free to call me at 925-833-6610 with any questions you may have. For YiJur convenience, if you will not be sending any comments, please indicate below, and retUrn to: Michael Porto, Community Development Department 100 Civic PIa2a ' DUb~, CA 94568 'Qf] "Noeoriunents (Name and department/agency)' .. .. " .. ." ,..- '. .:. ~3ro" 'j:;" r ~m--13;....f}eMJ ~tNJ11J1A. - flaAi1 y\, \'15 '. . .' '. ..~ ., ., ,_...",. , . cc; . Ginger Russell' . ' Are~ Code (925) . City Manager .833-6650 . City Council 833.6650 . PersOImel 833.6605 . Economic: Development 833-6650 Finance 833.6640' Public WorkslEngincmog 833-6630 . Parks & Community Services 833-6645' Police 833-6670 PlamtmglCode Enforcement 833-6610 . Building Inspection 833-6620 . Fire Prevention Bw=u 833-6606 08/28/2008 TUE 08: 13 [TX/RX NO 8583] I4l 001 CITY OF DUBLIN 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 Website: http://www.cLdublin.ca.us DATE: August 16, 2006 TO: Captain Thuman via Rose Macias, Dublin Police Services Donna Young, Alameda County Sheriff - Emergency Services Dispatch Scott McMillian, Alameda County Fire Prevention Paul Del Piano, Alameda County Fire Services, Fire Mapping Paul Kruger, Senior Civil Engineer Gregory Shreeve, Sr. Building Inspector John Sugiyama, Dublin Unified School District Dublin Postmaster via Sandy Sharp, U.S. Postal Service, Pleasanton Post Office Bret Lucas, Alameda County Planning Department City of Livermore Community Development Department City of Pleasanton Planning Department Anna Carter, LLNL 7000 East Ave., L-388, Livermore, CA 94550 Mike Menchini, Alameda County Fire, 19780 Cull CanyonRd., Castro Valley, CA 94545 FROM: Michael Porto, 'Planning Consultant w sUBJECT: Wallis Ranch Street Names Enclosed for your review is a copy of the Street Name Exhibit, Proposed Street Names List, and Project Location Map regarding the request for new street names in Area F East/West. Please review for potential conflicts with other streets in the area. Send any comments you may have by Wednesday, September 6,2006. Your prompt attention and turn around to this request is greatly appreciated; you may fax your response w925-833-6628. Thank you in advance for your review. Please feel free to call me at 925-833-6610 with any questions you may have. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For your convenience, if you will not be sending any comments, please indicate below, and return to: ~ No comments Michael Porto, Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 .A A .. I ~ l o rAJ +t- tV\ l ()v\cl ex- ( Ac Fp (Name and department/agency) ,-,c: Ginger Russell Area Code (925) . City Manager 833-6650' City Council 833-6650 . Personnel 833-6605 ' Economic Development 833-6650 Finance 833-6640 . Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 . Parks & Community Services 833-6645 . Police 833-6670 Planning/Code Enforcement 833-6610 . Building Inspection 833-6620 . Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606 Community Development Department Building and Safety Division MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 31, 2006 Mike Porto, Planning Consultant Gregory Shreeve Sr., Building Official~ Street Names for Wallis Ranch The City of Dublin Building Division has reviewed the street names proposed and have the following suggestions: Number 1 Street Name Wallis Ranch Road 7 Bridgeway 18 21 Rustic Creek Tassajara Falls Meadow Ridge 28 29 34 37 41 48 Haven Creek Hill Creek Haven Wood Acre Creek Quail Stone , Tassajara Dale 50 51 Meadows Edge . Rustic Ridge Comment Name seems to be close to Wallace Lane in Pleasanton, Police and Fire should review. I do not recommend this name as a street named S. Bridge Way is already located in the Dublin Ranch area. Rustic Place, already exists in Dublin, names are similar. Do not recommend unless it intersects with Tassajara Road. Having a Tassajara Falls parallel to Tassajara Road, may be confusing to children. Meadow Court already exists on the far west of Dublin and San Ramon has 3 Meadow Glens. I am concerned that a 911 caller may confuse Meadow Ridge with Meadow Court and the streets are on opposite ends of the City. Too close to Haven Place, in the center of the City Too close to Hill Crest that is already in Dublin Too close to Haven Place, in the center of the City Pronunciation may be to close to Acorn Court Name is too close to Quail Creek. Do not recommend unless it intersects with Tassajara Road. Having a Tassajara Dales parallel to Tassajara Road, may be confusing to children. See comment for street 25 above Rustic Place, already exists in Dublin, names are too similar. The following names on the list are very similar to each other and should only be considered if the street names intersected with each other: J u,:~ I'\,~J . ,~ v~ <f 15 / 22/ 52 Cottage Creek, Cottage Grove, Cottage Glen 18 / 51 Rustic Creek, Rustic Ridge 21/48 Tassajara Falls, Tassajara Dale (see above) 24/ 36 Benchridge, Benchwoood Grove 25 / 50 Meadow Ridge, Meadows Edge 1 / 34 Haven Creek, Haven Wood 40/45 /53 Ridge Rock, Ridgestead, Ridge Run If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me. F:\application referral letter responces\wallis street names.doc Page 1 of 1 WALLIS RANCH TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM COMBINED HMP AND WATER QUALITY POND DESIGN SPECIFICA nONS THE DUBLIN-WALLIS RANCH PROPERTY Schaaf /I' Wheeler CONSULTING CML ENGINEERS lOON. Winchester Blvd., Suite 200 Santa Clara, CA 95050 (408) 246-4848 FAX (408) 246-5624 s&w@swsv.com TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Schaaf, P.E., Ph.D. DATE: June 6, 2006 FROM: Stephanie Conran JOB #: M&SX.65.06 SUBJECT: Combined HMP and Water Quality Pond Design Specs the Dublin-Wallis Ranch Property Schaaf & Wheeler has created a Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP) for the Dublin- Wallis Ranch property. It has been requested that the possibility of combining the requirements for the HMP and water quality ponds into one dual purpose pond be explored. For this site, it is possible and a satisfactory detention basin was designed and is detailed in this memo which accounts for all flows which currently run though the site, including some areas outside of the specific site boundaries but within the watershed. The dimensions were based upon a preliminary drawing provided by MacKay and Somps. The results are frrst presented, followed by summaries of the procedures and parameters used in our hydrologic and hydraulic modeling. RECOMMENDATIONS A pond water surface area of 1.12 acres will be needed to meet the HMP requirements. It was assumed that the basin floor will have a 1 % grade and that the side slopes will have a ratio of 3: 1. The recommended pond depth is 9.8 feet total, allowing for about 2 feet of freeboard according to the drawing. It was assumed that there would be no percolation through the floor of the basin. The other specifics of the basin's design are described below in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 - Detention Basin Overview Maximum Pond Area 0.66 acre footprint at base Maximum Pond Depth 9'8" Maximum Volume Detained 7.4 ac-ft Volume Required for Water Quality 5.8 ac-ft Time to Drain 2.06 days max, 5.8 ac-ft released over 48 hrs To: Jim Schaaf -2- June 6. 2006 Outlet Description Diameter or Width Invert above Pond Bottom Orifice # 1 5" 0" Weir #1 8' 7'6" Table 2 - Detention Basin Outlet Works Figure 1. HMPIWater Quality Pond Layout for the Dublin - Wallis Ranch Site Figure 2 shows the project site flow-frequency curves with the basin routing using HEC-HMS. HMP allows the pre-development conditions to be exceeded by a maximum of 10% for no more than 10% of the length of the curve. It can be seen that the designed basin adequately modifies the post-development hydrograph to match the hydrograph of the existing conditions within the required parameters of the 10-year flood event and 10% of the 2-year flood event. Dublin - Wallis Ranch Pond HMP Results To: Jim Schaaf -3- June 6. 2006 Rainfall-Runoff Curves 70 5 ___ __u_______ _ __ nnnn_nnnn____n_______n_n_nn_nn_ __n_nn___nnn_n___n__n__nn_nnnn_nnn_n_nnn o 1 Pre-Developmenl - - '1Q-YR 65 60 mm.10% of2-YR 55 - Post-Deloelopment Excel Pond 50 -HMSPond 45 - 40 J!! o -; 35 0) ~ ~ 30 o .!!! 25 c 20 15 10 10 Time (hr) 100 1000 Figure 2. Hydrographs of the Dublin - Wallis Ranch Site SITE DETAILS This site currently has no urban development, so all of the pre-development area is assumed to be pervious. The site is underlain by two types of soil, Diablo Clay and Clear Lake Clay, which are both Group D soils. It was calculated that the developed area would be 41 % impervious and 59% pervious. MODELING OVERVIEW The US Army Corps of Engineer's HEC-HMS software was used to simulate 53-years of rainfall-runoff at the site. With the results from the HEC-HMS analysis, we then used an MSExcel spreadsheet to design a detention pond that will conform the post-development hydro graph to the pre-development hydro graph for the Wallis Ranch site. The goal of the basin routing is to modify the post-development flows so that they produce a flow-frequency curve equal to or less than the existing conditions curve, specifically between the flows of the 10-year flood and 10% of the 2-year flood. The area below the 10-percent of the 2-yr flow rate was not matched since it has been determined that flows below this rate are inconsequential to stream Dublin - Wallis Ranch Pond HMP Results To: Jim Schaaf -4- June 6. 2006 degradation. The flood-frequency curve to get these parameters for each drainage area was found using the Partial-Duration Method and data output from HMS, as descnbed in the next section. The 50-percent (2-year) and to-percent (to-year) flow rates were extracted from the peaks of the duration curves. Another criterion for the pond to meet was that it should drain completely after three to five days for mosquito control. This criterion is addressed at the end of this memo. For water quality compliance, the pond must conform with the volume-based BMP sizing curve set forth in the California Stormwater BMP Handbook Approach. With a minimum runoff capture of 80%, the pond volume must fall below the 48-hr draw down sizing curve to ensure adequate treatment. HYDROLOGIC MODELING- RAINFALL-RUNOFF SIMULATIONS Setting up the HEC-HMS Models HEC-HMS models were set up for both the pre- and post-development conditions. Existing conditions consist of a single hydrologic basin. For the proposed conditions the model was broken into two basins, a pervious one and an impervious one. The sum of the hydrologic basin areas was set equal to the development area; this assumes no water enters the site from upstream. Rainfall was based on the City of San Jose precipitation gage and was adjusted directly proportionate to Mean Annual Precipitation (MAP). The study site has a MAP of I7-inches based on the Alameda County GIS shapefile for MAP. The CSJ precipitation data was adjusted from its MAP of 14 inches. Though the CSJ gage data is available in IS-minute intervals we used the I-hour rainfall data used in the 3-acre Babb Creek sample lIMP project. While the rainfall was in one-hour increments, the computations were done on a fifteen-minute basis by assuming four equal amounts of rainfall for each hour. The Transform method we used for the HMS modeling was the Clark Method, which requires a calculation of the Time of Concentration (Tc) and Storage Coefficient (R). To calculate Tc, we used the Kirby-Hathaway equation, as follows: Tc (hrs) = K*(n*L)o.47*S-O.235, where K is a constant = 0.01377, n is the roughness value ofthe flowpath, L is the approximate overland flow length, and S is the average slope of the land. The length was set as the longest flow path. The Storage Coefficients were then calculated from the Time of Concentration values using the following equations: R = 0.56 } existing conditions R+T" R = 0.4 } developed conditions R+T" The Clark values (T c and R) for post-development conditions were used for the impervious area of the post-development run, and the same Clark values used for the existing (pervious) condition was also used for the pervious post-development condition. Dublin - Wallis Ranch Pond lIMP Results To: Jim Schaaf -5- June 6. 2006 The Soil Moisture Accounting (SMA) method was used as the Loss Rate method in HMS to determine runoff Several parameters needed to be calculated and inserted into the HMS model, including canopy storage, surface storage capacity, maximum infihration rate, maximum percolation rate, soil profile storage capacity, tension zone capacity, and characteristics of the groundwater flow. Canopy Storage was based on existing and proposed land vegetation. Values used for each vegetation type in the SMA are directly from Table C-4 in the HMP Report. The existing land use vegetation is assumed to be 100-percent grasslands. The developed pervious areas are assumed to be 60-percent lawn and 40-percent trees. An earlier sensitivity analysis of various variables indicated that the Canopy Storage values do not significantly affect the model conclusions, so we have used the same canopy storage values for this site as the ones we have used for other nearby sites. Surface Storage Capacity values were based on Maximum Surface Depression Storage values from Table C-4 in the HMP Report. These values match those published in Open Channel Hydraulics (Chow, J 958) for medium sloped areas. Maximum Infiltration Rate was set equal to one-and-a-half times the hydraulic conductivity of the soil (K.at). The K.at values where taken from Table C-3 in the HMP Report. These values only vary by the soil's Hydrologic Group (A, B, C, or D). Maximum Percolation Rate was set equal to K.at This matches the method used in the three-acre Babb Creek example. Soil Profile Storage Capacity values are based on soil classification. According the Soil Survey for Alameda County, the Wallis Ranch site is underlain by Diablo and Clear Lake clay soils. We found similar soils (Cropley-Rincon and Clear Lake-Campbell, respectively) in the HMP Report and assumed the values for the Soil Profile Depth and the Tension Zone Depth, derived from the Available Water Holding Capacity (AWC), found in Table C-2 were appropriate. SMA coefficients for these the drainage areas were set equal to the Group D coefficients. Base flow was not included in the model for these areas; the computer model had this function set to "off" the same as it was in the Babb Creek example. Ground Water parameters used in the Babb Creek example were used. The Storage Capacity was 50 inches; the Percolation Rate was 0.1 inches per hour; and, the Storage Coefficient in hours was 999. Table 3 summarizes the various parameters we input into the HMS model for the project site. The "Pre" columns give values for the existing conditions, and the "Post" columns give values for the post-development conditions. Dublin - Wallis Ranch Pond HMP Resuhs To: Jim Schaaf -6- June 6. 2006 Table 3. Wallis Ranch HMS Parameters. ffiI9 m.oo ~ ~ ~tt!lmJ ~- ~ ~ ~ {tw~ ~ N/A 140 acres 100 59 100 0.395 0.303 0.503 0.202 0.13 o Imm ,rp......~,. ".::".i~'-;:~ --..- . ..:< t.: N/A 0.31 o 0.375 0.1875 0.072 o 20.24 8.59 0.048 50 0.10 999 Determining the Flow-Frequency Curves and Flow Constraints After inserting the various coefficients into HMS, the basin models were run, and the output flows were extracted into an MSExcel worksheet. Pre-development and post-development flows from HMS were then ranked and plotted. The pre-development curve was used as the matching point for the pond output described in the next section. To determine the flow constraints of the pre-development 10-year and 10% of the 2-year storm flow, the peaks from the pre-development flow were ranked. A peak flow was defined as when the two previous and two following times- steps have less flow. The 10-year flow was calculated as 67.62 cfs, and the 2-year was calculated as 45.62 cfs, giving 4.562 cfs as 10% of the 2-year. Figure 3 below shows the flow- frequency curves of the existing and post-development conditions. The flow constraints are indicated as horizontal lines. Although it can be seen that there are several values of much larger magnitude than the 10-year storm, most of these values occurred during only two storms in the recorded data. Dublin - Wallis Ranch Pond HMP Results To: Jim Schaaf -7- June 6. 2006 Rainfall-Runoff Curves 100 90 80 70 60 Ii) - .e 50 Q) tn L. ~ ..t:. 40 (.) .!!! c 30 20 10 . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pre-Development - - 10-YR - - - 10% of 2-YR - Post-Development o 0.1 10 100 1000 10000 Time (hr) Figure 3. Hydrographs for the Dublin - Wallis Ranch Site HYDRAULIC MODELING - DETENTION BASIN DESIGN Artificial outflows were modeled to drain the basin. Specifically, weirs and orifices were used. Weir outflow was based on the following equation Q= CLh3/2 , where C is the weir coefficient (3.0 used), L is the length of the weir (in feet) and h is the head above the weir (in feet). The orifice flow was based on two equations: one for open channel flow conditions and one for orifice flow conditions. When the pond level was below the top of the orifice opening (non- pressure flow) Manning's Equation was used. When the pond level was above the top of the orifice the following orifice equation was applied: Q= CA,J2gh, where C is the orifice coefficient (0.6 used), A is the area of the orifice (in feet), g is the gravitational constant and h is the distance from the pond level to the midpoint of the orifice (in feet). WATER QUALITY AND VECTOR CONTROL COMPLIANCE After achieving a satisfactory basin design for HMP requirements, we used a small Excel model to calculate the time to drain for various depths based on the 53 years of precipitation data used Dublin - Wallis Ranch Pond HMP Results To: Jim Schaaf -8- June 6. 2006 for this study. For vector control, the desired maximum time to drain for standing water is three to five days. This pond will take 2.06 days at the maximum depth. This allows the pond to drain within 5 days for vector control, as well comply with water quality standards. The volume-based BMP sizing curve for Alameda County as found in Appendix D of the Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment was used. The required unit basin storage volume for this pond was calculated to be 0.5 inches for an 80% runoff capture and a runoff coefficient of 0.75. For this site, this unit basin volume translates into a total basin volume of 5.8 ac-ft. This amount within the pond will be drained over 48 hours. Therefore, this pond complies with the requirements for both water quality and HMP. Dublin - Wallis Ranch Pond HMP Resuhs W ALLIS RANCH WATER QUALITY AND HYDROMODIFlCATION MITIGATION BASIN OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE GUIDE Preliminary Water Quality and Hydromodification Mitigation Basin Operations and Maintenance Guide Wallis Ranch November 13,2006 16034-40cgl 0-1 0-06WaterQuality13asin.doc Introduction This guide details the proposed operations and maintenance of the water quality and hydromodification mitigation basin for the Wallis Ranch project. Governing regulations, site characteristics and site constraints have been considered in proposing the design of this facility and in drafting this document. The final design of the basin and its elements will be completed at a later date, however, the basic needs and design requirements are known and are used herein to describe the tasks necessary to operate and maintain this facility. This water quality basin is proposed to treat and detain critical elements of the project's post-construction storm water runoff. Runoff that cannot be directed to the basin will be directed to bioswales located within the creek open space areas. All storm runoff will eventually be released into Tassajara Creek. The basin incorporates water quality and hydro modification mitigation design parameters specified by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Specifically "first flush" storm drain runoff is held in the basin for "extended detention" treatment (settling of pollutants) of the storm water runoff. Secondary storm water treatment benefits will be obtained through storm water contact with basin vegetation and soil surfaces. Hydromodification impacts are mitigated by detaining storm water in the basin such that the post development runoff is matched to predevelopment runoff for storm frequencies that have impacts on the creeks and channel drainage systems that lie downstream of the project. Storm water enters the basin through two inlets, opposite each other in the basin and then exits via one outlet pipe and weir structure. The outlet structure is designed to detain potentially "critical flows" (as defined by Regional Board accepted analysis) and to allow for flows that exceed the "critical flows" to be routed through the basin and into the downstream storm drain system which outfalls into Tassajara Creek. Funding and Responsible Parties The Wallis Ranch Master Homeowner's Association (MHOA) will be the responsible entity to monitor and maintain this facility. CC&R's will require the MHOA to regularly monitor and maintain this basin and other water quality infrastructure in accordance with a final Maintenance and Operations Plan and the project's Storm Water Management Plan. The CC&R's will give the City the right to assume these duties if they are not adequately performed. The master developer will be responsible for the implementation of these duties until such time as the MHOA is created and become responsible for these servIces. Costs for the operation of this facility will include employing an outside party to provide monitoring and maintenance services in addition to routine maintenance costs and costs for unscheduled maintenance associated with large storms including replacement of major structures if needed. J 6034~40cg 1 0-1 0-06WaterQuality13asin.doc 2 Monitoring and Maintenance A framework for providing the necessary operations and maintenance of the facilities is critical to its longevity and effective operation. The following tasks will aid in this program: . Provide knowledgeable personnel to monitor and maintain the facilities. . Identify, and revise as necessary, a monitoring and maintenance schedule. · Provide formal reviews and maintenance and monitoring records. . Incorporate adaptive maintenance and management to address changing or unexpected conditions and to utilize new techniques. Elements of the specific tasks needed to monitor and maintain the basin are to be outlined in the final edition of this document. As warranted, monitoring and maintenance may be adaptively managed in response to changing circumstances or unforeseen conditions so long as modifications are consistent with the intentions of this Guide. Drawdown time and water level Outflow from the basin will be controlled by an outflow control structure which discharges to an outfall in Tassajara Creek. The structure has been designed to meter the project post-construction flows to retain first flush runoff for the appropriate amount of time to improve water quality and to match that of the site's pre-construction flows within a predetermined flow range. The basin water quality volume has been designed to drawdown within 48 hours. The water surface elevation in the basin will be monitored to aid in identifying potential problems. Outlet structure inlets and appurtenances will be inspected to ensure that facilities are unobstructed and functioning properly. Outflow Control Structure Visual inspection of the outlet structure will be done during each monitoring assessment of the basin. Additiopally, the outlet structure will be cleaned as part of routine maintenance as well as on an as-needed basis. The outlet will be inspected for signs of erosion at the structure's edges. Any physical obstructions of the outlet or overflow weir will be noted and identified (as to the source of the obstruction) and removed. Any floating debris near the outlet that could cause an obstruction will be removed. Trash racks will be completely cleared of debris, inspected for signs of corrosion, and repaired as necessary to maintain proper functioning. Overall Basin Integrity The basin's integrity is evaluated by the visual inspection of basin side slopes and embankments, especially around the inlet and outlet structures. These elements will be monitored in detail as part of routine monitoring, as well as during post-flood event inspections of the basin. Public streets, driveways, and emergency vehicle accessways are provided around the basin's perimeter to allow visual and physical access and review. 16034-40cg 1 0-1 0-06WaterQualityBasin.doc 3 During periodic monitoring visits, personnel will inspect the basin's entire perimeter and note evidence of erosion or slope failures. It will be noted that some erosion is to be expected and will need to be repaired over time. Embankment sides will generally be free of significant erosion, rills, slumps, and landslides. Any irregularities exhibited by the slope banks will be reported immediately and appropriate emergency measures employed within 24 hours during the wet season (October through April inclusive). Permanent repairs are to be made as soon as practical. Side slopes and embankments will be repaired with natural stone rip rap, or by re-vegetation. A geotechnical engineer will be consulted if damages are severe or deemed outside of the abilities or expertise of the monitoring and maintenance personnel. Inlet Structures Inlet structures are located on the west and east sides of the basin, directing project storm water into the basin. Visual inspection of the inlet structures will be carried out during each monitoring and maintenance visit. Inlets will be inspected and noted if there is any physical obstruction of the inlet. If inlet structures are obstructed, remedial maintenance will be performed immediately. Signs of erosion around the inlet structures, as well as at or immediately downstream will be noted and repaired. Storm water runoff is designed to enter the basin via two inlets. Each inlet will discharge into a drainage swale lined with vegetation and/or rocks. The objective is to settle sediments and sediment borne constituents by creating a low velocity of water flow, plus trap coarse debris such as plastic bottles and cans. In significant storm events, the basin will fill, allowing sediment to settle. The swales and basin bottom will then collect and trap sediment. Sediment Removal At certain time intervals it will become necessary to remove excess sediment from the basin and swales. The rate of sediment accumulation will be monitored during each routine inspection and visually and/or physically measured. If the amount of sediment that has collected at the outlet structure is estimated to exceed 12" in depth, the sediment shall be removed. Sediment removal will be performed using proven techniques familiar to the maintenance staff. Sediment will be removed in the dry season, tested for toxicity and sent to an appropriate land fill. Prior to removal, basin sediment will be tested to evaluate whether the sediment is "clean enough" for use as general fill. This is usually the case, but special disposal methods may be needed in exceptional circumstances. If analytical laboratory testing indicates that contaminants are present at greater levels than regulatory thresholds, the affected sediment will be removed from the basin and transported off-site for remediation and/or disposal in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. If no contamination is found or is present below regulatory thresholds, the sediment will be transported off site in a legal manner. Following sediment removal, re-contouring of the basin's bottom and swales will be required to return the basin to its original design grades. 16034-40cg 1 0-1 O.06WaterQualityBasin.doc 4 Vegetation Maintenance and Control The planting and landscaping around and inside the basin will be maintained on a regular schedule, most likely in coordination with adjacent landscape areas. Vegetation growth within the basin will be monitored during each visit, with excess or undesirable vegetation removed as necessary. The basin and swales may support cattails and other non-woody and emergent marsh vegetation that will require thinning on a periodic basis to reduce biomass and permit the proper functioning of the facility. Woody vegetation will be removed regularly to discourage unwanted establishment and colonization. All excess vegetation shall be cleared, especially around inlet and outlet structures. No herbicides or other chemical shall be applied within the basin. Control of emergent vegetation will generally be required when 25% or greater of the basin surface or swales are impacted. Emergent vegetation is best removed by mechanical equipment. Vegetation may be composted per local green waste management guidelines. Access, Fencing, and Retaining Walls An access ramp is provided to permit vehicle and pedestrian access to the bottom of the basin. The basin's perimeter will be fenced with a 5' tall fence, with a lockable gate provided across the access ramp. Extensive landscaping will be placed in front of the fence to discourage unauthorized access. Retaining walls will be placed within the basin side slopes. The access ramp, fencing, and walls will be inspected during each monitoring visit and regularly maintained in a timely manner as needed to keep these elements in good condition. Any damage to or failures of the embankment near the access ramp will be reported and addressed immediately. Evidence of trespassing or improper use of the facility will be noted and appropriate measures taken to correct the situation. Evidence of pathways or other signs of encroachment into the basin will be removed and remedial measures taken to further limit access. Vector Control- Mosquito Abatement The basin has been designed to prevent mosquito source development and allow for both maintenance and abatement procedures. A vector control plan developed in consultation with the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District will detail the specific monitoring and maintenance activities that will be carried out to control mosquitoes. The District addresses vector control issues through source reduction, source prevention, larvaciding, mosquito fish, and monitoring. Not all of these prevention methods are appropriate to the project. 160~4-40cg I 0.1 0-06WaterQualityBasin.doc 5 Mosquito breeding requires still, standing water for more than a few days. It is typical that the basin will experience a low flow of water through out the year that will result from irrigation runoff within the project. The low flows will provide a continuous stream of moving water through the swales. To avoid mosquito breeding associated with detention of water for treatment purposes the basin will be drawn down over a maximum of 48 hours. In addition, the adjacent streets, driveways, and emergency access/pedestrian routes provide access to all areas of the basin floor to provide for ongoing vegetation maintenance to reduce breeding habitat and allow for larvaciding if required. During the mosquito breeding season, visual monitoring shall occur to determine the presence of larvae. If necessary, samples will be taken to the District's lab for confirmation of species composition if any ambiguity is noted. In addition, adult mosquito traps may be used in the vicinity of the basin to evaluate population abundance, movement, persistence, and so forth. Should significant mosquito breeding be detected in the basin, the Mosquito Abatement District shall be notified and consulted. However, given concerns related to water quality in the basin and downstream in regards to wildlife, the use of chemical control methods or use of mosquito fish will be avoided to the extent practical and consistent with public health and safety. Coarse Debris Removal Street sweeping and landscape maintenance within the project will greatly reduce the quantity of trash and other debris entering the basin. Monitoring personnel will qualitatively estimate the volume of litter and other coarse debris present in the basin, as well as its distribution. This debris shall be removed from the basin, and particularly from around the inlet and outlet structures and trash racks during routine basin maintenance visits, and more often as needed. Monitoring and Maintenance Schedule The following routine and non-routine monitoring and maintenance tasks and visits are recommended. The schedule may be modified as needed to respond to site conditions. Appendix A includes suggested standard inspection checklists that may be used during routine and non-routine monitoring visits, and will be included in annual reports. Routine Tasks and Visits . Comprehensive basin, and outlet structure monitoring visit required once prior to the wet season (typically in July or August) and twice during the wet season (typically in December and in February/March). · Additional monitoring will be required following large precipitation events. · Weekly inspections of inlet and outlet structures for obstructions. · Routine maintenance, including removal of coarse debris, vegetation control, and inlet/outlet structure cleaning, may be performed as part of regularly scheduled monitoring visits or performed in a timely manner following such visits. 16034.40cgl 0-1 O~06WatcrQualityRasin.doc 6 Non-Routine Tasks and Visits . Special event monitoring visits will be performed during each large precipitation event occurrence. During the first year of basin monitoring, a large precipitation event be defined as a storm that results in 1/2 inches or greater of rainfall within a 24-hour period. Following the first year of monitoring, and evidence that the basin' is function as designed, this threshold may be revised. If a new recommendation is made, it will be documented in the annual monitoring report. During flood events, the monitoring will focus on assessing whether the inlet and outlet structures are functioning properly. An initial precipitation monitoring visit will be carried out as soon as it becomes clear that a significant flood event is underway and as weather conditions permit. A follow up visit shall take place approximately 24 hours later. . Non-routine maintenance will be performed on an as needed basis for problems identified during the routine and event based monitoring programs. Such activities may include, but not be limited to: Emergency inlet or outlet maintenance. Routine or event based monitoring may identify serious problems with these structures, such as major blockages. These situations will need to be remedied immediately to allow the basin to function properly. Basin embankment repairs. Immediate action will need to occur should monitoring indicate that the basin's integrity is threatened due to excessive erosion or slumping. Repairs shall be made under the direction of a geotechnical engineer. Repairs deemed not to require immediate attention may be delayed until the dry season. Sediment removal. It is anticipated that sediment removal will be required. Monitoring records will be used to identify trends in sediment deposition, both to establish whether sediment removal is needed and to assist in locating upstream sediment sources that may be accelerating disposition in the basin. Reporting and Documentation A summary report of each year's monitoring and maintenance activities for the basin and its associated facilities shall be prepared annually and submitted to the City of Dublin by October 15 of each year. This report shall demonstrate that the basin is able to perform detention functions for the upcoming wet season. At a minimum, the annual monitoring and maintenance report shall include copies of all monitoring checklists produced during each inspection visit, describe and document maintenance activities that were performed, and describe recommended permanent modifications to the adopted Operation and Maintenance Manual for the basin. Copies of annual monitoring and maintenance reports will be maintained to aid in the review of the basin's performance and to detect trends in maintenance needs. 16034.40cg 10-1 0-06WaterQualityBasin.doc 7 ROUTINE MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES Monitoring Tasks Overall Pond integrity I. Side slope and embankments 2. Presence of rills, slides, piping, etc. Inlet structures I. Evidence of erosion 2. Inlet structure integrity 3. Presence oflitter and coarse debris in basin Sediment accumulation in basin 1. History of sediment removal and testing activities 2. Assessment of sedimentation and necessity of removal Access and fencing 1. Access road integrity and repair 2. Perimeter fencing integrity First-year storm event I. Storm-event monitoring Inlet and outlet structures I. Structure integrity 2. Presence of vegetation and debris around structures 3. Cleaning of inlet structures 4. Removal of litter and coarse debris in basin 5. Cleaning of trash racks 6. Other .routine maintenance Vegetation control in basin I. Removal of trees, shrubs, and woody plants (routine trimming and thinning) 2. Mowing 3 times per year 3. Irrigation maintenance 4. Leaf collection and removal 5. Weed removal Slopebank Integrity I. Routine repair of rills and erosion on side slope and embankments 2. Control of vegetation and rodents (as needed) 16034-40cg I 0.1 0-06WaterQualityBasin.doc 8 NON-ROUTINE MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES 1. Repair of major structures (infrequently, if ever), such as inlet repairs and repairs of access roads and fencing 2. Sediment removal (when it is approximately 12" in height at the outlet structure), including sediment testing. 3. Large-scale vegetation removal (approximately every 5 years, as needed) '6034-40cg I 0-1 0-06WaterQualityBasin.doc 9 Appendix A 16034-40cg I 0-1 0-06WatcrQualityBasin.doc Wallis Ranch Water Quality Basin MAINTENANCE REPORT FORM MAINTENANCE AND CORRECTIVE ACTION UNDERTAKEN (If none required, enter date and "none") Note: Modified from guidelines developed by Engeo, Inc. MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE OR DATE NEEDED OR DATE CORRECTIVE ACTION DEFICIENCY NOTED UNDERTAKEN 16034-40bs 1 0-11-06WallisRegionaIWaterQualilyBasinMaintenanceReportF orm.xls Page 1 Wallis Ranch Water Quality Basin COMPREHENSIVE BASIN MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE REPORT FORM To be completed following each monitoring and maintenance visit to the basin and submitted as part of an annual report to Alameda County Public Works by October 15th of each year. Note: Modified from guidelines developed by Engeo, Inc. Inspector: Date: Weather conditions: Inspection (circle one): Dec. Feb/Mar. Jul/Aug. Days since last rainfall: Date of last visit: Sediment depth: Basin water level: Sediment accumulated since last monitoring visit: ELEMENT YES NO N/A COMMENTS/SUGGESTED MAINTENANCE Drawdown time and water level Has significant precipitation occurred in the last 24 hours? Is the water surface elevation appropriate? Outlet Structure Is outlet clear of debris or other obstructions? Dry season inspection: Are the discharge line and outfall structure in good condition? 16034-40bs1 0-11-Q6Wallis-WaterQuality&HydrmodMidBasinForm.xls Page 1 ELEMENT YES NO N/A COMMENTS/SUGGESTED MAINTENANCE Dry season inspection: Are all flap gates and/or check valves functioning properly? Outlet Structure General Outfall structure functioning property and in good condition? Are there cracks or structural damage to the structures? Is there any erosion around the outlet structures? Are there litter and coarse debris present in the basin? Have the outlet trash racks been cleaned and are they in good condition? Overall basin integrity Are the side slopes and embankments in good condition? Are there rills, slides, piping or other erosion features? Inlet structures Are the inlet structures functioning properly and in satisfactory condition? 16034-40bs 1 0_11_06Wallis_WaterQuality&HydrmodMidBasinForm.xls Page 2 ELEMENT YES NO N/A COMMENTS/SUGGESTED MAINTENANCE Are there cracks or structural damage to the structures? Is there erosion around the structure footings? Is there erosion at the energy dissipator? Sediment accumulation Has sediment accumulation exceeded 12 inches? Has sediment removal been carried out within the last 3 months? If so, has the sediment been tested as required in the maintenance plan? Is sediment removal needed now? , Vegetation control Are there unwanted trees, shrubs, and other woody plants growing in the basin? Is vegetation control needed? Access and fencing Is the gate in good condition? 16034-40bs 1 0-11-06Wallis-WaterQuality&HydrmodMidBasinForm.xls Page 3 ELEMENT YES NO N/A COMMENTS/SUGGESTED MAINTENANCE Is the perimeter fencing in good condition? Is there evidence of encroachment or improper use of the facility? Are the access roads and ramps in good condition? Vector control Are mosquitoes or mosquito larvae evident in significant quantities? Has mosquito abatement been undertaken since the last monitoring visit? Is mosquito abatement necessary at this time? Additional maintenance recommendations Do any basin structures require maintenance to provide more effective function? 16034-40bs1 O.11-06Wallis-WaterQuality&HydrmodMidBasinForm.xls Page 4 WALLIS RANCH STREET LIGHTING PHOTOMETRIC HISTORY AND CALCULATIONS Wallis Ranch Photometries Work Page 1 of2 Connie Goldade From: Connie Goldade [cgoldade@msce.com] Sent: Thursday, September 07,20064:47 PM To: 'John Benson' Cc: Bahram Sadaghiani (bsadaghiani@msce.com) Subject: RE: Wallis Ranch Photometrics Work Attachments: Benson- City detail-spec.pdf Hi there- This is what I've been able to find. Let me know if you need additional information. Selected fixture, fixture height, etc to match attached detail. Fixture is 70w metal halide Lumec. Apparently the City has no light level standards. For Dublin Ranch, it was determined that the following be applied, and we should assume we continue this: Residential Street- lighting level, foot-candles (lux) 0.2 (2.0) with an average:minimum uniformity ratio of 6:1. Collector street (which is Wallis Ranch Road)- lighting level, foot-candles (lux) 0.3 (3.0) with an average:minimum uniformity ratio of 4:1. Community Entry (which is Wallis Ranch Road between the bridge and Tassajara Road) lighting level, foot-candles (lux) 0.5 (5.0) with an average:minimum uniformity ratio of 3:1. I guess sometimes the average:minimum is also expressed as maximum:average. I did find the original Dublin Ranch pole spacing, which was 120' for residential streets and 90' for the collectors. Previous Dublin Ranch community entries utilized a double armed pole, so that spacing is not comparable to this project (unless Bahram, you think we'd switch to double armed fixtures- let me know). With these new fixtures, we'll need to see if the photometrics show that spacing of the previously assumed max 115' can be adjusted to what was done previously. Thanks. Connie From: John Benson [mailto:johnbenson@alrinc.eom] Sent: Thursday, September 07,20062:50 PM To: Connie Goldade Subject: RE: Wallis Raneh Photometries Work Connie: I will be happy to run the photometrics but I do not know what the City standard light level requirements for this project. If you want to send the street and intersection light level requirements we will try to adjust the locations. Thanks, John Benson Associated Lighting Reps., Inc. 8480 Enterprise Way Oakland, CA 94621 (510)638-3800 x183 Fax (510)638-2908 Cell (510)385-4426 From: Connie Goldade [mailto:egoldade@msee.eom] 11/8/2006 Wallis Ranch Photometries Work Page 2 of2 Sent: Thu 9/7/2006 2:05 PM To: John Benson Subject: Wallis Raneh Photometries Work Hi John- Thanks for the files you sent the other day. The 115' max spacing info was helpful. At the City's request, we would like to have a couple different neighborhoods and some of the primary streets analyzed with your photometries work. I've attached a map illustrating which areas are desired. For your reference, many of these streets are sloping, with the biggest gradient being on Dorothy Drive, which is at a continuous 8% slope. We are assuming this will affect the photometries. I've sent the entire project AutoCAD file to you with the layers I think you need "on". If you need additional layers, just turn everything on, and then starting freezing the layers you don't need. Once you've looked at this, could you give me an estimate of how long it'll take you to perform this work? Generally, Staff has told us to provide all street fixtures per the City's lighting details- this puts the fixture "top/head" at 20'- the pole is taller, and the bulb is lower. The attached plan has located all lights to a max 115' spacing. Please let us know if we can increase the spacing and still meet City light level standards. We are also concerned with the intersections- we would like to pull the light poles a bit away from the intersection so we can provide entry landscaping and walls. Staff is concerned that if this is done, there will not be adequate lighting at the intersections. Could you please let us know how far a pole can be from the intersection to meet City light levels. Please feel free to call myself or Bahram if you have any questions. Thanks! Connie Goldade MacKay & Somps 5142 Franklin Drive Pleasanton, CA 94588 (925) 225-0690 (925) 225-0698 fax 1118/2006 L " r:: ~.) .: '5 ~ ,L MA~ :0 03 89;54a S =: 5 ::: :~' ~3 9:2 4~: _IT"" OF LU[:LIII L U -- E rc Dca, b..., eu... IloWn 'T~: (~8D)4~7lHII . . . I,,..,,,.,, (00). _.. .no :4' ~"" (""'l).o.Jl>-tI.ll3 r15' r: - @ e " ~ C0-f ~! I I r Om," 1< J/II"~ e.\IiI:'l1M'l. ~ iJ '1 . III.:: p.2 9 eJ i JC, I I . Da:e 720-06 Ip"e~~.~ .5 ~ Post-It' Fax Note 7671 To CO)./Nlt; Goc.()AtJG From /,01<. ro Go IDopl. N"'S Co_ Dt.J;b . CDD pn~ne ~ 2.25'-0690 Phone # 8 ~!J-66/q FB~ II 2 ZG- ~698 Fax ~ l.umlnelre & Bracket Inner Detill15 HOlJse-Side Shield Basel!. BoltB Infonnollon 4 Bt!l1:l1 anchor bolts, 1 " )( 3S" ... {' Fully GalvQnized, 8 nulfJ ~nd a washers (S u pplieo by Ottierll). Irnportanl~ Do not oblltnJct epece be.tween anchor plilte end eoncrete bese. ANCHOR F'LATE FllU OP[~WO & ,/4'!...J I ,.,~ IJ 279mm ~ "8,C,: l[ilI 2 Jflmmii , Tl-JICKNESS! :l/~' 'Srnm .tl.D.J!.:. Thl. eneMor plo!. occ.pto ~ be>' t elre! 0 /rom l!l J/4'P I' 11 , /1l'1) 22.2mm.O 2B3mmlll i1~~ 1'1'.:.: ....MOTTOIQ.IILt- Dublin Ranch E:QX2 LMS14940A 3~044 o~ W RNsON P""I'J' llA'r!l ~.: p^~I~l I'l' DE n=~ / ClRAVIINO N' PJo,(;l I tJ\\:D 02-l.i~5 EOX2 3104-4A : ~ /3. -- TV, 07/20/2006 10:45 FAX 9258299248 M~r 10 03 09:5~a CITY OF DUBLIN III 002/005 p":;! . Dublin Ranch (31044) Q1y 25 LLiminaire 26 Bracket 25 Pole 70MH.EQX2,.E3-QTAl1 ~o-HB-8LG-GN8rx.-LMS14940A RM~1A-PH8I1204NBTX-LMS1494DA SM8N.ZO-lP-GNSTX.LMS1494DA L.umlnar... 1- Guard: In a l"Dund shape, thlsguartlls made of aluminum e083-T5 318" ( mm) rods w twO east aluminum 356 louvers, mechanically 8888mblecl toth. acoes..mechanlsm. 2- Globe: Made of one-pIece eeamless Injected-molded partlllly ob9cur non-dlffLIsing clear polycarbonste. The globe is assembled on the access-mechaniem, . 3- R8flec:tor: Spun 1100-0 aluminum, mechanically assembled on tl'le lumlnalre, 4- Lens: Clear glass CllrveC\ ~ns, mechanIcally allS&mbllild onto the reflector, '" Lamp: 70 Wlltts metal halide Pulse stalt TVpe (not Included) . ED 17 bulb, medium base~ I- Optical system: (seS), I.E,$, 1yplillll (asymstrlcaO. Cutoff optical system. Mul1l.faceted hydrcformed aluminum reflector brightened and anodl~d. mechenlcally assembled on 1he lumlnlire and complete with house-side shield (HS). T- BEllas1: High power factor of 90%. Primary voltllge 120/2081240/277 valts, connected to 120 volts. Pulse start Type. Lamp startIng capacity -20F(-30C) degrees. Assemblecl on a unItIzed removable tray with quick disconnect plug, ; s- Accesl-Mechani8n'll Rotomatlc, die-cast A380 Ilumlnum.quarter"tum mechanIsm with constant-pressure tlprlng..foaded I pOInt$. The meehanlsm shall .offer toolfree access to the Insfas of the lumlnalre, 'amp and ballast tray. An embedded memoJy"retsntrv8 gasket shall ensure weatherp~o'lng, A red key on the ballast tray shalllndlClete polnl of englgement. 9- Housing: In .a round shape, this housing Ie made of cast 358.alumlnum, cIw a watertight grommet, mechanically assembled tel the braoket with four bolts 3/8.15 UNC. ThfsSlJlpension system permits for I full rotation of the tuminaire in 90 d ree increments, . Braclc8t 10. Tenon: Shall be mede fr~m cast 3 e IILlmlnum, welded to the ann. 11- Ann: Made of aluminum tubing, 2" x 3" (51mm x 76mm), weldecl. . '[2- Decorative Element: Rod made of bent aluminum 8053-- T5, 1/2" (13mm) outside diameter, welded. . 13~ Upper Tubing: Madia of aluminum, S. (715mm) outside dIameter, compJBte wIth hook for W1rtng, welded. 14- LoWer Tubing: Made of aluminum 6063-T6. 4" (1D2mm) outside diameter. CDmpJ8te WIth 8 tenon penetrating 12" ,(305mm) Inside the pole. The tenon shall be mechanicallY fRstened 10 the pole by two seta of throe &e1.SCJ'8WS et 120 I degreell around the f;l1)1e, 1&- Bracket 0 tlons: HS(120 PH8 twist lock t e t:lhotocell 120 volts. Poll IiI- Pole Shaft: Shall be made from a 4' (102mm) round high tensile aarbon steel tub no. Ilavlng a 0,186" (4.8mm) wall , thickness, welded to the pole base. . 117~ Joint Cover: TWo"plece round Jornt cover made from 08st 358 aluminum, mechanically fastened with stainless steel \ scre~, . . I / 1'- Pole Base: Shall be made from a 8 5/8" (168mm) round high tensile carbon steel tLlblng base having B 0.1 Be' (4,emm) , well thIckness welded to both the bottom and to of the ancher lIte. . C:\W1NOOWSlTEMP\LMS1~0A41D44A.DOC 02-24-%003 Page 2 07/20/2006 10:45 FAX 9258299248 Mar 10 03 09:548 CITY OF DUBLIN I4J 003/00b p.4 Dubll n. Ranch .(31 044). 1.. Maintenance Opening: Tne pole shall have 8 4" x a" (102mm x 229mm) malnt"nance opening centered 21" (53~mm) from the bottom of the anchor plate, complete with a we&th.rproof c:8at.368 aluminum cover and a factory assembled copper ground, lug, . 2D~ aBBe Cover: Two plsoe round base COVlSr msdet from casl 358 aluminum, mechanioally fastened with stainless ate. I screws. Ie inner wall will be slnteei. Milc!llJaneous Wifing: Pre-wlred pole complete with 25'.o'(7,62m) gauge l*'I4} TEWwll'8l. Hardware: All exposed screws will be In stainless steel. AII'seals and sealing devices srv made and/or 1111ed with epCM endfor silicone. Finisht Color to be dark forest green textured (GN8TX). Application of a polyester powder coat paInt. (4 mll5l1 DO microns). ihe chemical composition provide a highly durable UV and salt sPI"IV resistant finish in Qccordanoa to the ASTM-B117 - '73 standartt and humidity croat In accordance to the ASTM-02247-ee stlnearc\, C1W/NDOW6\ TEMP\l.M$1 4'94DA.31044A,OQC 02"204-2003 Page 3 07/20/2006 10:45 FAX 9258299248 Mar 10 03 09:55a CITY OF DU8LIN I4J 004/005 p.5 LUMEI: ~, boul, a\l~ .hIII 8alll,/IllIM', (llO). CI","..fIG ,^7 T.1: (al+)~-7044 'e: (1l14)~-1+ea ~ert.",..i\(t)1 o.p~)1 TwIst"Leek Pho1:oceU (PHI) '0 STANDARD WIRING SPECIFICATION, 3M /3F Wlrlnll Tempel'l1UT8: "3CJ"C bind to +10&"C Producn NlJII\Mr.: 211.47' AWB IlIl: 1.- SD'8ndfng: 151/.0147 anllulatlon Thick. (In): o.Q30 NDmlnel 0"0" (In): 0,136 Cable MIll (lb/1UOCa): 11.83 11 3M/:JF ~Ine I!l (bJBO:<) ~_: l : Un. In (blllon) __ Common (whl:e) (irou:ld (greell) I -' ... f i - ! i I Sl "Ii '! . 'II ! 8 ~ I- """11IM" Dot.. P",/&r: TD~E'RANCES: N A "'i.~; ,Parl: Dc.. 02-24-0.3 07/20/2006 10:45 FAX 9258299248 Mar JO 03 OS:~5. . . CITY OF DUBLIN fa! 005/005 ".s Suspended Luminaire installation TypicallnstallatiQn instructions w_.lumec:.com New Suspension System " " Mee!! all requl:'ementa for ANSI C13S,31N . -arrer! e hanglna system thet supports !hllumlnlll,. INhII8I1a being secur-.d In ~1C8 . Provldes an edler InstallsUon method \.lAth llOo kUlllnahs rotation " HlIlI cap6ve hardwal'll . STR.EET SIDE .@ LABEL STREET' BI LOClO Slep 1 A-Lift the luminalre under the cast- suspension ring. B. Align with stre'et side on luminaire C. Connect the quick-disconnect tennlnals and push the connection in.the mounting opening. Step 2 0.. Turn the luminaire clockwise to engage the head of the screws in the keyhole slots. Step 3 E. Tighten all four screws to fhmly secure the lumlnaire lir place. ' Torque: 240 Ibs/in, 20 Ibsfft '#132392,5013086101 'Pb r f<o~.;o.y ~ 70U.M - , z.. I . ~ I (Ct,{rb -tv eur-b ) (watt ") Roadway Optimizer - Layout Comparison .?- Layout #1 290/ t+S lx. 0.14 0.64 0.04 3.5 16 1.17 2.81 0.16 NA N.A. N.A. Luminaire Spacing (Within Row) Luminance - Avg Luminance - Max Luminance - Min Avg/Min MaxiMin Maximum Lv/Lavg Ratio Weighted Average VL (STV) Maximum Veiling Luminance Relative Thresold Increment (%) Discomfort Glare Control Mark Longitudinal Uniformity (Obs) Units Ft Cd/Sq.M. Cd/Sq.M. Cd/Sq.M. Cd/Sq.M. . 5 FC-. ,4.'-./ &r , ,~ II? Layout #2 Layout #3 206 J lo~ ~" 124 I ~'Z- IOe. . 0.2 0.33 0.74 0.8 0.09 0.2 2.22 1.65 8.22 4 0.81 0.49 2.48 2.16 0.16 0.16 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Illuminance - Avg Illuminance - Max Illuminance - Min Avg/Min MaxiMin Fc Fc Fc Luminaire Label Luminaire Arrangement Arm Length Mounting Height Tilt Flashed Area Color Constant Specific Luminaire Index Ft Ft Sq. Ft. Layout Type , Roadway Width Setback Lanes Per Roadway Median Width Ft Ft Ft R-Table Calculation Method 0.21 0.3 0.5 1.01 1.99 1.33 0.04 0.12 0.3 5.25 2.5 1.67 25.25 16,58 4.43 AA AA AA SINGLE SINGLE SINGLE 2.33 2.33 2.33 17.5 17.5 17.5 0 0 0 N.A. NA NA NA N.A. N.A. NA NA NA 2R_STG 2R_STG 2R_STG 36 36 36 6.5 6.5 6.5 4 4 4 0 0 0 R3 R3 R3 IES IES IES AGl321RoarlwAy Optimilef - Copyright 1999-2006 by Lighting Analysts, Inc ___L Roadway Optimizer - Layout #1 Luminaire Label: AA Luminaire Description: LUMEC EQX2-70MH-SE3-HS-SLG @ 17.5' LC File Name: S0411111.IES Luminaire Arrangement: SINGLE Arm Length = 2.33 Ft Lumens Per Lamp = 5200 Number Of Lamps = 1 Total Light Loss Factor = 0.72 Layout Information: R-Table: R3 (Slightly Specular), 00=0.07 Calculation Method: IES Layout Type: Two Rows, Staggered; 2R_STG Luminaire Spacing (Within Row) = 290 Ft Roadway Width = 36 Ft Setback = 6.5 Ft Lanes Per Roadway = 4 Luminaire Location Summary: Coordinates in Ft X-Coord -290 -145 o 145 290 435 580 725 870 1015 Y -Coord -6.5 42.5 -6.5 42.5 -6.5 42.5 -6.5 42.5 -6.5 42.5 Z-Coord 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17,5 Orient 90 270 90 270 90 270 90 270 90 270 Total Number of locations = 10 Average Tilted Lamp Correction Factor Applied = 1 ~-~ -----~-------_.~--- AGl32/Roadway Optimizer. S(opyright 1999.2006 by Lighting Analysts, Inc. Tilt o o o o o o o o o o .J~ RoadwayOpfimizer - Layout #1 Illuminance Grid: t 4"5" Oc. . ~ .0.18 .......~1:t21.... .0.36 ........0,38.. :041 ........0.'10.... .0.78 .1.01 iii :011 +0.08 :0.04 :0.04 .0.09 :0.22 +046 :101 .1.01 +046 :0.22 +0.09 +0.04 +0.04 :0.08 +0.11 +0.18 ..{)A.3 ......O,H}... ..0,04 .......0.04 ....!G:09.... ...(}.20 .....+(},31 .......{),111.. ...+0,70 ....+0,37 ......(}.20 .....+(}09 ....:!.{);Q4.. ....(}.04. ......OAO ....'.(},K'... .~021 :016 +0.10 .0.04 :0.04 .0.08 .0.15 '0.32 :049 '0.49 .0.32 :015 .0.08 .0.04 :0.04 +0.10 :0.16 .0.36 +,,20 ....:OA1... +o,os .....;(}.04 .....~0,06 ..~GA2 ...:021> ......{)A1. .+GA1 ....+0,28 .....-(H2.. ."+0.00 .. ..{),04.... .;G.-{l6 .. :0:1-1' ......(},20 +0,36 +0.28 +0.12 :0.06 +0.04 :0,05 :0.11 +0.20 :038 :0.38 :0.20 :0.11 :0.05 +0.04 .0.06 +0.12 :0.28 :0.41 ..{),32 .......0,1& ...0,08 .......(}.04 ......0,04 (}.1{) .......0016. .....{),36 ......0,3& ......{U8 ......-(ll{) ...... (}04.. +,,04 ......(}.ll8- .....0,.15.. 0.32 .......049 .037 +0.20 .0.09 .0.04 .0.04 .0.10 .0.13 '0.27 .0.27 .0.13 +0.10 .0.04 +0.04 .0.09 +0.20 +0.37 .0.78 '016 .0.22 +0.89 .0.04 .0.04 .0.08 +0.11 .0.18 +0.18 .0.11 .0.08 .0.Ol +0.01 .0.89 .0.22 +0.16 .1.01 1'1 y I 1'1 ~-X Numerical Summary: Luminaire Spacing (Within Row) = 290 Ft Grid begins at: X = 8.0555 Y = 2.25 Z = 0 Point Spacing Left- To-Right = 16.111 Ft Point Spacing Top-To-Bottom = 4.5 Ft Values in Fc Average = 0.21 Avg/Min = 5.25 MaxiMin = 25.25 Maximum = 1.01 Minimum = 0.04 Longitudinal Uniformity (MinIMax) per row starting with top row: 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.1 0.1 0.04 0.08 0.05 2 AGl321Roadway Optimizer - Copyright 1900-2006 by Lighting Analysts, Inc. Roadway Optimizer - Layout #2 Luminaire Label: AA Luminaire Description: LUMEC E0X2-70MH-SE3-HS-SLG @ 17.5' LC File Name: S0411111.IES Luminaire Arrangement: SINGLE Arm Length = 2.33 Ft Lumens Per Lamp = 5200 Number Of Lamps = 1 Total Light Loss Factor = 0.72 Layout Information: R-Table: R3 (Slightly Specular), 00=0.07 Calculation Method: IES Layout Type: Two Rows, Staggered; 2R_STG Luminaire Spacing (Within Row) = 206 Ft Roadway Width = 36 Ft Setback = 6.5 Ft Lanes Per Roadway = 4 Luminaire Location Summary: Coordinates in Ft X-Coord -206 -103 o 103 206 309 412 515 618 721 Y-Coord -6.5 42.5 -6.5 42.5 -6.5 42.5 -6.5 42.5 -6.5 42.5 Z-Coord 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 Orient 90 270 90 270 90 270 90 270 90 270 Total Number of locations = 10 Average Tilted Lamp Correction Factor Applied = 1 AGl321Roadway Optimizer. Copyright 1999.2006 by lighting Analysts, Inc. Tilt o o o o o o o o o o 3 Roadway Optimizer - Layout #2 Illuminance Grid: I 0 :; " oc. , y +012 1:0:15 + . +0.18 . (}:2.1. +0.29 uu-+:0:34 +0.39 +0.47 +019 ..u+(}:28 +' +0.37 . .....(}:39. +041 ..1:0'5(} +' +0.80 1.03 , I!I Lx +018 +038 u::t0:17 u::t{):31 + . +024 +0.14 +' .,(}:12. .u021 +0.12 +0.18 + 0 n ..::t016 +' +' +0.16 +0.15 0.15---'.{};-~ +013 u-'+:0:15 +' +0.15 ..,0:14 +015 +0:18 +0.22 +0.25 +061 .+0:51 +. +0.41 0:33- +027 .::to:27 + +0.24 0.17 ~ +199 +061 +038 .::to:77.::t0:51 u+1:0:31 + +' +0.54 +0.41 +0.24 u.., 0:38. -j 0.33- .u..0:21. +0.37 +027 +0.18 .....::to:34u 0 21.1:0:16 + + . + +0.26 +0.24 +0.15 0:47----'{H7-- 0.12 +018 u"-+:0:17 + +0.14 u-.O;12 +012 ...+0:13 + +0.16 0.15 +013 u:':0:15u + . +0.15 . .. ..0;-14 +0.15 "+(};18 +0.22 +0.25 + +0.12 :;:0:15 +0.18 u(}:21 +029 u:':0:S4 +0.39 :f:e:47 +019 "u:':(}:28 + . +0.37 ..,uO;39 +041 :':0'50 + . +0.80 1.03 I!I Numerical Summary: Luminaire Spacing (Within Row):: 206 Ft Grid begins at: X = 7.923 Y = 2.25 Z:: 0 Point Spacing Left- To-Right:: 15.846 Ft Point Spacing Top- To-Bottom:: 4.5 Ft Values in Fc Average = 0.3 AvglMin = 2.50 MaxiMin = 16.58 Maximum:: 1.99 Minimum = 0.12 Longitudinal Uniformity (MiniMax) per row starting with top row: 0.06 0.19 0.26 0.31 0.29 0.12 AGr321Roadway Optimizer - Copyright 1999-2006 by Lighting Analysts, Inc 0.26 0.19 4 Roadway Optimizer - Layout #3 Luminaire Label: AA Luminaire Description: LUMEC EQX2-70MH-SE3-HS-SLG @ 17.5' LC File Name: S0411111.IES Luminaire Arrangement: SINGLE Arm Length = 2.33 Ft Lumens Per Lamp:: 5200 Number Of Lamps = 1 Total Light Loss Factor = 0.72 Layout Information: R-Table: R3 (Slightly Specular), QO=0.07 Calculation Method: IES Layout Type: Two Rows, Staggered; 2R_STG Luminaire Spacing (Within Row) = 124 Ft Roadway Width = 36 Ft Setback = 6.5 Ft Lanes Per Roadway = 4 Luminaire Location Summary: Coordinates in Ft X-Coord -248 -186 -124 -62 o 62 124 186 248 310 372 434 Y-Coord -6.5 42.5 -6.5 . 42.5 -6.5 42.5 -6.5 42.5 -6.5 42.5 -6.5 42.5 Z-Coord 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 Orient 90 270 90 270 90 270 90 270 90 270 90 270 Total Number of locations = 12 Average Tilted Lamp Correction Factor Applied = 1 AGI32/R03dway Optimizer - Copyright 1299-2006 by Lighting Analysts, lnc Tilt o o o o o o o o o o o o 5 Roadway Optimizer - Layout #3 Illuminance Grid: ~2/oc, I ~ +0.30 +0.34 +0.48 +0.60 +1.33 +1.33 +0.60 +0.48 +0.34 +0.30 + + + + + + + + + + OAO 0,37. . .OA3 0,54 O.S5 ...-0,85 ....0,54 ..0.43 .0,37 --OAO I 10.34 10.38 10.49 10.57 10.57 10.49 10.38 10.34 10.46 '0.46 + + + + + + -+ -+ + + .....-0.47 -_mO,34 -0,37 _mOAO -OA7 ..-OA7 -OAO 0,37 -0,34 mmO,47 +0.47 +OAO +0.37 +0.34 +0.47 --!- +0.34 +0.37 +0.40 +0.47 ' 0.47 + + + + + + + + + + ---0,57 0.49 m---0;38 _ -0,34 _m.O:46 0.46 -0;34 0,38 -...0:49 mO,S7 +0.85 +0.54 +0.43 +0.37 +0.40 +OAO +0.37 +OA3 +0.54 +0.85 + + + + + + + + + + y L X ~ Numerical Summary: Luminaire Spacing (Within Row) = 124 Ft Grid begins at X = 6.2 Y = 2.25 Z = 0 Point Spacing Left-To-Right = 12.4 Ft Point Spacing Top-To-Bottom = 4.5 Ft Values in Fc Average = 0.5 AvglMin = 1.67 MaxiMin = 4.43 Maximum = 1.33 Minimum = 0.30 Longitudinal Uniformity (MinIMax) per row starting with top row: 0.23 0.44 0.6 0.72 0.72 0.23 0.6 0.44 - AGl32/Roadway Optimizer - Copyright 1999~2006 by Lighting Analysts. Inc .__.~_._~--~ It. lV' PoAOw~ - 70N~ ~ ,Z- I ' ~ / f S Ft-_ AYCq (Curb tv Ut'fb ') [fAJtt-tr) Roadway Optimizer - Layout Comparison ,?- '3 ,e; Units Layout #1 layout #2 layout #3 Luminaire Spacing (Within Row) Ft 262 /19:>"~ 240 fa/) / ()(, 140 / 7 f> '(pc- . Luminance - Avg Cd/Sq.M. 0.2 0.22 0.37 Luminance - Max Cd/Sq.M. 0.96 1.07 1.12 Luminance - Min Cd/Sq.M. 0.05 0.07 0.21 Avg/Min 4 3.14 1.76 MaxiMin 19.2 15.29 5.33 Maximum Lv/Lavg Ratio 0.89 0.83 0.5 Weighted Average VL (STV) 2.85 2.76 2.49 Maximum Veiling Luminance Cd/Sq.M. 0.18 0.18 0.18 Relati~e Thresold Increment (%) NA N.A. N.A. Disco fort Glare Control Mark NA NA NA Longitudinal Uniformity (Obs) NA N.A. N.A. Illuminance - Avg Fc 0.27 0.3 0.5 Illuminance - Max Fc 1.32 2.8 1.59 Illuminance - Min Fc 0.05 0.07 0.24 Avg/Min 5.4 4.29 2.08 MaxiMin 26.4 40 6.63 Luminaire Label AA AA AA Luminaire Arrangement SINGLE SINGLE SINGLE Arm Length Ft 2.33 2.33 2.33 Mounting Height Ft 17.5 17.5 17.5 Tilt 0 0 0 Flashed Area Sq.Ft. NA NA NA Color Constant N.A. N.A. N.A. Specific Luminaire Index NA NA NA Layout Type 2R_STG 2R_STG 2R_STG Roadway Width Ft 40 40 40 Setback Ft 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lanes Per Roadway 4 4 4 Median Width Ft 0 0 0 R- Table R3 R3 R3 Calculation Method IES IES IES .____~___l AGl321Roadway Optimizer. Copyright 1999.2006 by Lighting Analysts, Inc Roadway Optimizer - Layout #1 Luminaire Label: AA Luminaire Description: LUMEC E0X2-70MH-SE3-HS-SLG @ 17.5' LC File Name: S0411111.IES Luminaire Arrangement: SINGLE Arm Length = 2.33 Ft Lumens Per Lamp = 5200 Number Of Lamps = 1 Total Light Loss Factor = 0.72 Layout Information: R-Table: R3 (Slightly Specular), 00=0.07 Calculation Method: IES Layout Type: Two Rows, Staggered; 2R_STG Luminaire Spacing (Within Row) = 262 Ft Roadway Width = 40 Ft Setback = 2.5 Ft Lanes Per Roadway = 4 Luminaire Location Summary: Coordinates in Ft X-Coord -262 -131 o 131 262 393 524 655 786 917 V-Coord -2.5 42.5 -2.5 42.5 -2.5 42.5 -2.5 42.5 -2.5 42.5 Z-Coord 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 Orient 90 270 90 270 90 270 90 270 90 270 Total Number of locations = 10 Average Tilted Lamp Correction Factor Applied = 1 AG132/Roadway Optimizer - Copyright 19GG-2006 by lighting Analysts, Inc Tilt o o o o o o o o o o . .__~__i Roadway Optimizer - Layout #1 Illuminance Grid: 1:31 " t::'C-. .0.19 '.0.29 .0.37 .u+ 0.39 . Y .0.44 ..........0.64. I :.2~00 C32 X .0.11 .+-0;13 .0.17 +0.22 :0.30 ...0;35... .0.43 .0.47 .0.09 u.+OAO +0.11 .0;11 :0.14 .0.1&. .0.22 +0.21 Ijl .0.05 +0.07 .0.21 .0.47 .1.32 . . +0;05.. u+{HO ......+0;22 ..u.+0,43 .....+1;00 .0.06 +0.09 +0.18 +0.35 .0.64 +0;06 +0.07.. .0;14 u+O;30. +0-.44 :0.07 +0.06 +0.11 +0.22 :0.39 ....0;09... +0.-06 +O.H .0.17 .......0..37 +0.10 +005 .0.10 .0.13 +0.29 .0.07 ~-~~0t9 · 1.32 +0.47 '1;00"-''+!M3 + + 0.64 0.35 "+0.44 ..+0.30 +0.39 +0.22 ....+-0;37+0.1.7 +0.29 .0.13 +0.19 +0.11 +0.21 '+0.-22 +0.18 ....+0;14 +0.11 ... '+0;11 .0.10 +0.09 +0.07 ...+0..10 +0.09 +0.07 :0.06 ..0.-06 +0.05 .0.05 +0.05 +0.09 .0.11 ... +-0;05 ... .+0..10 ... '+0;13. +0.06 +0.11 +0.17 +0;06+0;11-' +0.-22 +0.07 +0.14 +0.30 ....+0;09.. +0.18 ....+0;35. +0.10 +0.22 +0.43 +0.07 +0.-c24--=':o.47 +0.19 .+0.29 +0.37 +0..39 :0.44 ...0.64 +1.00 · 1.3~ Numerical Summary: Luminaire Spacing (Within Row) = 262 Ft Grid begins at: X = 8.1875 Y = 2.5 Z = 0 Point Spacing Left-To-Right = 16.375 Ft Point Spacing Top- To-Bottom = 5 Ft Values in Fe Average = 0.27 Avg/Min = 5.40 MaxiMin = 26.40 Maximum = 1,32 Minimum = 0.05 Longitudinal Uniformity (MinIMax) per row starting with top row: 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.14 0.14 0.04 .0.09 0.05 2 AGl32/Roadway Optimizer - Copyright 1999.2006 by Lighting Analyst$;. Inc. Roadway Optimizer - Layout #2 Luminaire Label: AA Luminaire Description: LUMEC EQX2-70MH-SE3-HS-SLG @ 17.5' LC File Name: S0411111.IES Luminaire Arrangement: SINGLE Arm Length = 2.33 Ft Lumens Per Lamp = 5200 Number Of Lamps = 1 Total Light Loss Factor = 0.72 Layout Information: R-Table: R3 (Slightly Specular), QO=0.07 Calculation Method: IES Layout Type: Two Rows, Staggered; 2R_STG Luminaire Spacing (Within Row) = 240 Ft Roadway Width = 40 Ft Setback = 2.5 Ft Lanes Per Roadway = 4 Luminaire Location Summary: Coordinates in Ft X-Coord -240 -120 o 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 Y-Coord -2.5 42.5 -2.5 42.5 -2.5 42.5 -2.5 42.5 -2.5 42.5 Z-Coord 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 Orient 90 270 90 270 90 270 90 270 90 270 Total Number of locations = 10 Average Tilted Lamp Correction Factor Applied = 1 Tilt o o o o o o o o o o 3 AGl32/Roadway Optimizer. Copyright 1999.2006 by Lighting Analysts, Inc Roadway Optimizer - Layout #2 Illuminance Grid: r 1:20 ~. ~ +0.19 +0.11 +0.09 +0.07 +0.14 +0.37 +0.69 +2.BO +0.69 +0.37 +0.14 +0.07 +0.09 +0.11 +0.19 mm:+l}.29 ..:+0014 ....+.(lH m...+{HlS m..+{U6... .:+l},36. :+l}.55 :'"1034 m:'"{)o55 m.:'"{),36 +IH~ m:'"l}.OO :':0041 .....:'"{)A4 m:'"{),29 +0.37 +0.17 '0.12 +0.08 '0.14 +0.26 +0.47 +0.64 +0.47 +0.26 +0.14 +0.08 +0.12 +0.17 +0.37 m.mm+0.39 ...:':(1.23 :':0012 m:'"{),OS m:':{),11 ..+0,21 m:':O.~6 ....:':0.44 m+{)o36 mm+{),21 ..:'"0,11 m+OoOO .+0.12 .:':0023 +{),39 +0.44 +0.31 +0.15 +0.09 +0.09 +0.18 +0.27 +0.37 +0.27 +0.18 +0.09 +0.09 +0.15 +0.31 +0.44 Y mm:+0.65 m+Oo3fJ m+M9. +Ml :':0,09 m+0,15 :':l}.2$ ..+0,35 +{),2& +0,15 m+0.{)9 :':0.11 m:':OA9 m:':O,36 m+{),S5 I +1.03 +0.44 +0.23 +0.11 +0.09 +0.13 +0.23 +0.27 +0.23 +0.13 +0.09 +0.11 +0.23 +0.44 +1.03 I +1.115 +0.18 '0.22 '0.09 +0.08 +0.10 +0.19 +~~6 +0.10 +0.08 +0.09 +0.22 +0.18 +1.~ I t!l L-_ X Numerical Summary: Luminaire Spacing (WIthin Row) = 240 Ft Grid begins at: X = 8 Y = 2.5 Z = 0 Point Spacing Left-To-Right = 16 Ft Point Spacing Top-To-Bottom = 5 Ft Values in Fc Average = 0.3 Avg/Min = 4.29 MaxiMin = 40.00 Maximum = 2.80 Minimum = 0.07 Longitudinal Uniformity (MiniMax) per row starting with top row: 0.03 0.06 0.13 0.18 0.2 0.06 0.14 0.09 4 AGl32JRoadway Optimizer ~ Copyright 1999-2006 by Lighting Analysts, Inc Roadway Optimizer - Layout #3 Luminaire Label: AA Luminaire Description: LUMEC EQX2-70MH-SE3-HS-SLG @ 17.5' LC File Name: S0411111.IES Luminaire Arrangement: SINGLE Arm Length = 2.33 Ft Lumens Per Lamp = 5200 Number Of Lamps = 1 Total Light Loss Factor = 0,72 Layout Infonnation: R- Table: R3 (Slightly Specular), QO=0.07 Calculation Method: rES Layout Type: Two Rows, Staggered; 2R_STG Luminaire Spacing (Within Row) = 140 Ft Roadway Width = 40 Ft Setback = 2.5 Ft Lanes Per Roadway = 4 Luminaire Location Summary: Coordinates in Ft X-Coord -140 -70 o 70 140 210 280 350 420 490 V-Coord -2.5 42.5 -2.5 42.5 -2.5 42.5 -2.5 42.5 -2.5 42.5 Z-Coord 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17,5 17.5 17.5 17.5 Orient 90 270 90 270 90 270 90 270 90 270 Total Number of locations = 10 Average Tilted Lamp Correction Factor Applied = 1 Tilt o o o o o o o o o o 5 AG/321Roildway Optimi.zer ~ Copydght 1999-2006 by lighting Analysts, 1(1(;. Roadway Optimizer - Layout #3 Illuminance Grid: 70 IOc.. I ___._______JV___.__._ + 0.24 + 0.25 +0.40 + 0.56 + 1.59 +1.59 +0.5610.40 + 0.25 + 0.24 + + + + + + + + + + 0;36u-0;300Al u-0;53-uul;11 u-1;l1u--0;53- --OAl . _ 0;30. uO;36 +0.44 +0.30 +0.36 +0.46 +0.70 +0.70 +0.46 +0.36 +0.30 +0.44 + + + + + + + + + + . ..uu-0.45-.0;33..uQ.;33--0A1.0.49--0A9-uuOA1 .....uO;33 . ...Q.;33uu-OA5 +0.49 +0.41 +0.33 +0.33 +0.45 +0.45 +0.33 +0.33 +0.41 +0.49 ::0;70-:0A6-u:O;36 u:O;30.. .::0,44:0A4u:+:0.30-u:+:0;36:+:0A6 --::0]0 + + + + + + + + + + Y 1.11 0.53 0.41 0.30 0.36 0.36 0.30 0.41 0.53 1.11 + + + + + + + + + + 11'1' ,--1,59--0.56 --4lAO---'020 0.24 0.24 --'-020-0AO'-MG----1_5~ X Numerical Summary: Luminaire Spacing (Within Row);::: 140 Ft Grid begins at: X;::: 7 Y;::: 2.5 Z ;::: 0 Point Spacing Left- To-Right;::: 14 Ft Point Spacing Top- To-Bottom;::: 5 Ft Values in Fe Average;::: 0.5 AvglMin ;::: 2.08 MaxiMin;::: 6.63 Maximum;::: 1.59 Minimum;::: 0.24 Longitudinal Uniformity (MiniMax) per row starting with top row: 0.15 0.27 0.43 0.67 0.67 0.15 0.43 0.27 6 AGl32/Roadway Optimizer. Copyright 1999..2006 by Lighting Analysts, Inc Connie Goldade 'ubject: FW: Attachments: 36'70mh.2.3.5fc.pdf; 40'70mh.2.3.5fc.pdf ~~ iEJjI~ ~ ~ 36'70mh.2.3.5fc.pd 40'70mh.2.3.5fc.pd f (549 KB) f (555 KB) ------Original Message----- From: John Benson [mailto:johnbenson@alrinc.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 8:16 AM To: Connie Goldade Cc: Bahram Sadaghiani Subject: Connie: The attached are the typicals that you requested for the Dublin Ranch style light. Unfortunately, we do not supply any type of cobra heads for the City of Dublin. I believe they may use GE or Cooper but you might ask Eric Dayton with the County of Alameda. Please review the attached and give me a call with any questions !! Thanks, John Benson Associated Lighting Reps., Inc. 8480 Enterprise Way akland, CA 94621 ,510)638-3800 x183 Fax (510)638-2908 Cell (510) 385-4426 -----Original Message----- From: Connie Goldade [mailto:cgoldade@msce.com] Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 11:33 AM To: John Benson; Ramon Zapata Cc: Bahram Sadaghiani Subject: Wallis Ranch light prototypical Hi John and Ramon- We are wondering how you guys are making out with our various typical light prototypes. We also need to have you guys run a similar typical model using the City's standard cobra head light. We have some specifics, but don't know what the lighting levels work out to for foot-candles (lux) and the average:minimum uniformity ratio. We will need you to tell us that. For the cobra heads, again there are two different street sections- 1. 40' curb to curb, with pole placed 2' behind curb. (poles 44' apart) Poles are 31'-6" tall. Arm length is 6' long. 2. 36' curb to curb, with pole placed 6' behind curb. (poles 48' apart) Poles are 32'-9" tall. Arm length is 10' long. For both sections, the fixture is 70 watt and the spacing (max) is 180'. ~hat is the resulting foot candles and average uniformity ratio? Thanks! ! Connie Goldade 1 MacKay & Somps 5142 Franklin Drive Pleasanton, CA 94588 925) 225-0690 (925) 225-0698 fax 2