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