The URL can be used to link to this page

Eden Rock at PGA West Draft Subsequent EIR - Volume II - Appendices (2007)EDEN ROCK at PGA WEST Project Draft subsequent EIR. Volume II - Appendices SCH No. 2007061056 Prepared by: IMPACT SCIENCES, INC.. 234 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 205 Pasadena, California 91101 Prepared for: City of La Quinta Planning Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253-1504 Wallace H. Nesbitt, Principal Planner { _ V November 2007 Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Eden Dock at PGA West Project State Clearinghouse No. 2007061056 Volume II — Appendices Prepared for: City of La Quinta Planning Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253-1504 Contact: Wallace H. Nesbit, Principal Planner (760) 777-7125 Prepared by: Impact Sciences, Inc. 234 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 205 Pasadena, California 91101 Contact: Ali H. Mir (626) 564-1500 November 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS secu 7t Page 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................................... 1.0-1 2.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................... 2.0-1 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...................................................... 3.0-1 4.0 AESTHETICS.............................................................................................................................................4.0-1 5.0 AIR QUALITY........................................................................................................................................... 5.0-1 6.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES....................................................................................................................... 6.0-1 7.0 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.............................................................................................. 7.0-1 8.0 LAND USE AND PLANNING............................................................................................................... 8.0-1 9.0 NOISE.........................................................................................................................................................9.0-1 10.0 PUBLIC SERVICES..................................................................................................................................10.0-1 10.1 Fire Protection .......... ...................................................................................................................... 10.1-1 10.2 Police Protection............................................................................................................................10.2-1 10.3 Schools............................................................................................................................................10.3-1 10.4 Parks and Recreation................................................................ ................................................10.4-1 10.5 Library Services.............................................................................................................................10.5-1 11.0 TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC, PARKING, AND CIRCULATION ...............................................11.0-1 12.0 PUBLIC UTILITIES..................................................................................................................................12.0-1 12.1 Water...............................................................................................................................................12.1-1 12.2 Wastewater.....................................................................................................................................12.2-1 12.3 Solid Waste .................... ................................................................................................................. 12.3-1 12.4 Electricity........................................................................................................................................12.4-1 12.5 Natural Gas.............................................................. .................................................. .................... 12.5-1 12.6 Telephone and Cable Television ......................... ........................................................................ 12.6-1 13.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS.....................................................................................................13.0-1 14.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES....................................................................................................................14.0-1 15.0 PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED......................................................................................15.0-1 16.0 REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................................16.0-1 Impact Sciences, Inc. i Eden Rock at PGA West Subsequent EIR 223-12 November 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Appendices 1.0 - Notice of Preparation and Responses Notice of Preparation Written Responses to the Notice of Preparation 4.0 - Visual Simulations by RM Design Studios 5.0 - Air Quality URBEMIS2007 Unmitigated Construction Emissions Localized Significance Threshold Analysis URBEMIS2007 Operational Emissions CO Hotspots URBEMIS2007 Mitigated Construction Emissions URBEMIS2007 Operational Emissions - Alternative 2 URBEMIS2007 Operational Emissions - Alternative 3 URBEMIS2007 Operational Emissions - Alternative 4 6.0 - Cultural Resources Paleontological Resources Assessment Report Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report 8.0 - Drainage Study by MDS Consulting 9.0 - Noise Calculations Construction Equipment Noise Eden Rock Traffic Counts Eden Rock On -Site CNEL Contours Eden Rock On -Site CNEL Contours - Alternatives 2 through 4 11.0 - Traffic Impact Study by RK Engineering Impact Sciences, Inc. 11 Eden Rock at PGA West Subsequent EIR 223-12 November 2007 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Ea" 3.0-1 Regional Vicinity Map.......................................................................................................................... 3.0-3 f 3.0-2 Project Site and Local Vicinity Aerial Photograph............................................................................ 3.0-4 3.0-3 Illustrative Proposed Site Plan..........................................................................................................- 3.0-9 3.0-4 Proposed Site Plan................................................................................................................................3.0-10 3.0-5 Entry Gate House Site Plan.................................................................................................................3.0-11 l 3.0-6 Entry Gate House Elevation................................................................................................................3.0-12 3.0-7 Garden House Site Plan .............. .................................................. ............... ....................................... 3.0-13 3.0-8 Garden House Elevation.......................................................... ........................................................... 3.0-14 a3.0-9 Courtyard Home Site Plan..................................................................................................................3.0-15 3.0-10 Courtyard Home Elevation.................................................................................................................3.0-16 3.0-11 Manor Home Plan................................................................................................................................3.0-17 3.0-12 Manor Home Elevation.......................................................................................................................3.0-18 3.0-13 Village Home Plan................................................................................................................................3.0-21 3.0-14 Village Home Elevation...................................................................................... ............ ...................3.0-22 4.0-1 Existing View from Northwest of the Project Site................................................................. 4.0-3 4.0-2 Existing View from Southwest of the Project Site............................................................................. 4.0-6 4.0-3 Existing View from Southeast of the Project Site .............. .......... 4.0-7 4.0-4 Existing View from Northeast of the Project Site.............................................................................. 4.0-8 4.0-5 View Orientation Diagram..................................................................................................................4.0-11 4.0-6 Location 1, View from PGA Blvd. 200 feet north of the PGA West Clubhouse entrance looking southeast towards proposed clock tower...........................................................................4.0-12 4.0-7 Location 2, View from PGA Blvd. 150 feet north of the PGA West Clubhouse entrance looking east-southeast towards proposed Courtyard and Manor Homes...................................4.0-13 4.0-8 Location 3, View from Courtyard Home looking west towards PGA Blvd.................................4.0-16 4.0-9 Location 4, View from PGA West Clubhouse parking lot entry drive, looking east towards proposed Courtyard and Manor Homes...........................................................................4.0-17 4.0-10 Location 5, View from PGA West Clubhouse parking lot exit looking east-southeast towards proposed Courtyard and Village Homes .......................................... ................................ 4.0-18 4.0-11 Location 6, View from PGA Blvd. 650 feet northwest or the Jack Nicklaus Entry Gate looking east-southeast towards proposed Courtyard Homes ......................................... ....... ......4.0-19 4.0-12 Location 7, View from PGA Blvd. at Jack Nicklaus Entry Gate looking north-northeast towards proposed Courtyard Homes, Village Homes and clock tower.......................................4.0-20 4.0-13 Location 8, View from PGA Blvd. 200 feet west of Jack Nicklaus Blvd. looking northeast towards proposed Courtyard Homes................................................................................................4.0-21 4.0-14 Location 9, View from PGA Blvd. at Spanish Bay Road looking northwest towards proposed Courtyard Homes and clock tower..................................................................................4.0-24 4.0-15 Location 10, View from Stadium Clubhouse Parking Lot looking northwest towards proposedManor Homes......................................................................................................................4.0-25 4.0-16 Location 11, View from Oakmont Street overlooking Stadium Golf Course looking southwest towards proposed Manor Homes...................................................................................4.0-26 4.0-17 Location 12, View from Pete Dye Drive overlooking Stadium Golf Course looking south- southeast towards proposed Manor Homes.....................................................................................4.0-27 8.0-1 Existing Land Use Designations..,............................................................„......................................... 8.0-3 8.0-2 Existing Zoning Designations......................................................................................,....................... 8.0-4 Impact Sciences, Inc. 111 Eden Rock at PGA West Subsequent EIR 223-12 November 2007 LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Figure Page 9.0-1 Common Noise Levels.......................................................................................................................... 9.0-3 9.0-2 Noise Attenuation by Barriers............................................................................................................. 9.0-4 9.0-3 Typical Levels of Ground -Bourne Vibration..................................................................................... 9.0-7 9.0-4 Noise Levels of Typical Construction Equipment ............................... ............................................ 9.0-16 11.0-1 Study Area Intersections .... ...................... ........ ..................................................... ,............................. 11.0-3 11.0-2 Existing Lane Geometry and Traffic Controls..................................................................................11.0-4 11.0-3 Existing Peak Hours and Daily Traffic Volumes.............................................................................11.0-9 11.0-4 Project Trip Distribution....................................................................................................................11.0-14 11.0-5 Project Traffic Volumes — Peak Hours and Daily...........................................................................11.0-15 11.0-6 Existing With Project Traffic Volumes — Peak Hours and Daily..................................................11.0-16 11.0-7 Post 2020 General Plan Without Project Traffic Volumes —Peak Hours and Daily..................11.0-27 11.0-8 Post 2020 General Plan With Project Traffic Volumes— Peak Hours and Daily ........................11.0-28 Impact Sciences, Inc. iv Eden Rock at PGA West Subsequent EIR 223-12 November 2007 LIST OF TABLES Table Pale 1.0-1 Summary Table of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures.......................................................... 1.0- 5.0-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards......................................................................................................... 5.0-3 5.0-2 Ambient Pollutant Concentrations Registered near the Project Site .............................................. 5.0-6 5.0-3 Six Top GHG Producer Countries and the European Community ............................................... 5.0-11 5.04 GHG Sources in California..................................................................................................................5.0-12 5.0-5 Comparison of Global Pre -Industrial and Current GHG Concentrations....................................5.0-14 5.0-6 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Status Salton Sea Air Basin (Riverside County)...........................................................................................5.0-17 5.0-7 California Ambient Air Quality Standards and Status Salton Sea Air Basin (Riverside County)...........................................................................................5.0-19 5.0-8 Localized Significance Criteria for SRA 30.......................................................................................5.0-30 5.0-9 Unmitigated Project Construction Emissions - Eden Rock at PGA West....................................5.0-34 5.0-10 Modeling Results -Maximum Impacts at Residential Receptors.................................................5.0-35 5.0-11 Unmitigated Project Operational Emissions - Eden Rock at PGA West......................................5.0-37 5.0-12 Predicted Future Local Carbon Monoxide Concentrations - With Project..................................5.0-40 5.0-13 Comparison of ADT to Population Growth - Eden Rock at PGA West.......................................5.0-43 5.0-14 Project Features and Mitigation Measures to Achieve Climate Action Team Strategies ...........5.0-45 5.0-15 Mitigated Project Construction Emissions - Eden Rock at PGA West.........................................5.0-48 9.0-1 Outside to Inside Noise Attenuation.................................................................................................. 9.0-2 9.0-2 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments...................................................... 9.0-8 9.0-3 Municipal Code Exterior Noise Standards........................................................................................ 9.0-9 9.0-4 La Quinta Municipal Code Construction Hours............................................................................... 9.0-9 9.0-5 Existing Noise Contours in the Proposed Project Area...................................................................9.0-11 9.0-6 Existing On -Site Noise Contours ........................... ...... .......................... ......... .................................... 9.0-12 9.0-7 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment....................................................................9.0-18 9.0-8 2020 With and Without Proposed Project Noise Levels..................................................................9.0-20 9.0-9 2020 With Proposed Project Orr Site Noise Contours......................................................................9.0-22 11.0-1 Level of Service (LOS) Definitions for Uninterrupted Traffic Flow ......................................... ..... 11.0-2 11.0-2 Level of Service (LOS) Definitions for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections ....................11.0-5 11.0-3 Level of Service (LOS) Existing (2007) Traffic Conditions..............................................................11.0-7 11.0-4 Thresholds for Changes in LOS at Intersections............................................................................11.0-11 11.0-5 Proposed Project Trip Generation Rates.........................................................................................11.0-12 11.0-6 Proposed Project Trip Generation....................................................................................................11.0-12 11.0-7 Level of Service (LOS) Existing (2007) Without and With Project Traffic Conditions..............11.0-17 11.0-8 Municipal Code Parking Requirements..........................................................................................11.0-21 11.0-9 Project Parking Provided...................................................................................................................11.0-22 11.0-10 Project's Fair Share Traffic Signal Contribution Project Percentage of Post 2020 TrafficGrowth............................................................................................... .11.0-24 11.0-11 Level of Service (LOS) Post (2020) General Plan Without and With Project TrafficConditions..._...........................................................................................................................11.0-25 11.0-12 Project's Fair Share Intersection Contribution Project Percentage of Post 2020 TrafficGrowth ........................................... ......................................................................................... 11.0-30 10.3-1 Student Generation- Eden Rock .......... ....................................................... ....................... ........... ..... 10.3-3 12.1-1 Water Demand - Eden Rock...............................................................................................................12.1-4 Impact Sciences, Inc. v Eden Rock at PGA West Subsequent EIR 223-12 November 2007 LIST OF TABLES (continued) 12.2-1 Wastewater Generation — Eden Rock................................................................................................12.2-2 12.3-1 Solid Waste Generation— Eden Rock................................................................................................12.3-4 12.4-1 Electricity Demand — Eden Rock........................................................................................................12.4-4 12.5-1 Natural Gas Demand — Eden Rock....................................................................................................12.5-3 12.5-2 Southern California Gas Company Annual Gas Supply and Requirements...............................12.5-3 13.0-1 SCAG Demographic Predictions ........................................... ............................................................. 13.0-7 14.01 Unmitigated Project Operational Emissions — Alternative 2..........................................................14.0-9 14.02 2020 With Proposed Project and Alternative 2 Noise Levels .......................................................14.0-10 Impact Sciences, Inc. vi Eden Rock at PGA West Subsequent EIR 223-12 November 2007 APPENDIX 1.0 Notice of Preparation and Responses Notice of Preparation NOTICE OF PREPARATION To: (Agency) + (Address) Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: Consulting Firm (if applicable): Agency: City of La Ouinta Planning Department Firm Name: Impact Sciences. Inc. Street Address: P.O. Box 1504 Street Address: 234 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 205 City/State/Zip: La Quinta, California 92247 City/State/Zip: Pasadena, California 91 1.01 Contact: Wallace H. Nesbit, Principal Planner Contact: Ali H. Mir, Project Planner The City of La Quinta Planning Department will be the Lead Agency and will prepare a Subsequent environmental impact report (SEIR) to the 1984 PGA West Specific Plan EIR (SCH #83062922), for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description, location, and the potential environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study (❑ is ® is not) attached. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Wallace H. Nesbit at the address shown above. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency. Project Title: Eden Rock at PGA West Project Location: City of La Quinta Riverside City (nearest) County Project Description (brief): The proposed Eden Rock at PGA West project would include the construction of a clubhouse/recreation center in the center of the project site, as well as 81 manor homes, 83 courtyard homes, and 128 village condominium homes for a total of 292 residential units. Construction of the project, if approved, would begin in the last quarter of 2008, with full build -out anticipated to be complete by the last quarter of 2011. Date: (, l " D -�- Signature: A1"'`'! U Title: Telephone: (760) 77-1233 Reference: California Administrative Code, Title 14 (CEQA Guidelines), Sections 15082(a), 15103, 15375. EDEN ROCK AT PGA WEST PROJECT DESCRIPTION LEAD AGENCY City of La Quinta Planning Department P.O. Box 1404 La Quinta, California 92247 LOCATION OF PROJECT As illustrated in Figure 1, Regional Location Map, the project site is located in the City of La Quinta in eastern Riverside County. Figure 2, Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses, shows an aerial photograph of the project site, which consists of 41.95 acres located at the northwest corner of PGA Boulevard and Spanish Bay within the existing PGA West golf course and residential community. As shown, the site is currently undeveloped, vacant, and partially graded. Figure 3, Proposed Site Plan, shows an illustrative site plan of the proposed uses configured on the project site. The project site Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) is: APN 775-220-021. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The proposed Eden Rock at PGA West project includes a mix of several types of multi -family residential units and a clubhouse with recreational amenities for the residents. A total of 292 residential units are proposed in three multi -family types of residential units. On the north side of the project site, 81 manor homes are planned. These 81 units would be housed in 27 buildings designed to appear as single manor - style homes, with each building including 2 attached townhouses and 1 penthouse unit. On the west and south side of the project site, 83 courtyard homes are planned. These courtyard homes would be located in two-story duplex buildings, with each court consisting of four units; there is one stand-alone unit in the southwest portion of the site. Finally, 128 village condominium homes are planned in the interior of the site. These 128 village condominium units would be located in 8 buildings, with 16 units in each building. A 7,122 -square -foot clubhouse/recreation center with a 32 -foot by 70 -foot pool is proposed in the center of the site. The clubhouse would include a clock tower feature with a height of 43.5 feet. This facility would serve the residents of the project. Construction would begin the last quarter of 2008 and would be completed by the end of 2011, Impact Sciences, Inc. 1 Eden Rock at PGA West 223.12 June 2007 i I I San Bernardino (•parrrm rl M f �� wr = � 1 all rw n �y Riverside County I I ' He Sprinpg ; \ Joshua Tree Lt r National San Bernardino 5.0 2.5 0 5.0 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES SOURCE: Impact Sciences, Inc.— December 2006 223-012.05/07 Monument 1 Hidde f \ I Sprig J s Project Site Spring eR wells /Salton I Sea FIGURE 1 Regional Location Map r v Fs ; vi 2- -47 17 « r . v' 1 �+. •. t - '+7 a -i _ _y •Averdu 515. of�5I"Project Site 17 4 u (kIL Ir. �:�'�! - ffiffi� I U. "I F;T- 4. - .1 Aw ^� 1 rn s Aide IN MW NOT TO SCALE. Mr y,. -tip;q •' � .X. � �—.. ,7y` ia, d'� 71f � - ;� � Y✓- r -- � � Its °C! � � . -. 1. P -R I •'r Notice of Preparation Discretionary Actions/Entitlements A series of approvals from the City of La Quinta would be necessary for implementation of the project. Discretionary approvals may include, but are not limited to the following: • Certification of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report as well as adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; • General Plan Amendment 2006-107, a request to amend the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element from Tourist Commercial (TC) to Resort Mixed Use (RMU) on the 41.95 -acre project site; • Zone Change 2006-107, a request to amend the La Quinta Official Zoning Map, from Tourist Commercial (CT) to Tourist Commercial/Residential Specific Plan (CT/RSP), on the 41.95 -acre project site; • Specific Plan 83-002, Amendment #6, Amending the PGA West Specific Plan to implement development principles and guidelines for a 292 -unit residential condominium project with a clubhouse building, common pools, and lighted tennis courts, on the 41.95 -acre project site; • Tentative Tract Map 32266, A Division of 41.95 acres into 97 residential lots, a 1.35 -acre community center lot, and other common area lots; • Site Development Permit 2006-852, for Site Plan and Building Design Approval of 292 one, two, and three-story condominium units on 41.95 acres, a 7,122 -square -foot recreation building with a 32 -foot by 72 -foot common pool and a 43.5 -foot -high clock tower feature, and private entry gatehouse; and • Development Agreement 2006-011, consideration of an agreement to implement a funding mechanism ensuring payment to the City of La Quinta of certain fees to financially offset the conversion of the original hotel/resort site to residential, for the anticipated potential lost revenue(s) associated with development of the Eden Rock Project. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT Based on a preliminary review of the proposed project consistent with Section 15060 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of La Quinta Planning Department has determined that a Subsequent EIR should be prepared for this proposed project. In addition, consistent with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of La Quinta Planning Department has identified the following probable environmental effects of the project, which will be addressed in the Subsequent EIR for this project: • Aesthetics • Air Quality • Public Services/Parks and Recreation • Land Use and Planning • Hydrology and Water Quality Impact Sciences, Inc. 5 223.12 • Noise • Cultural Resources • Public Utilities and Services • Traffic and Parking • Cumulative impacts • Recreational impacts Eden Rock at PGA West June 2007 Notice of Preparation The City of La Quinta Planning Department has determined that there is not a likelihood of potentially significant effects related to the environmental topics listed below. The City proposes that the Subsequent EIR indicate the reasons why these effects were determined not to be significant and are therefore not addressed in detail in the Subsequent EIR: • Agricultural Resources • Mineral Resources • Population and Housing • Biological Resources • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Geology and Soils The City of La Quinta Planning Department will consider comments received in response to this Notice of Preparation in determining the scope and content of the Subsequent EIR for this project. Any comments provided should identify specific topics of environmental concern and your reason for suggesting the study of these topics in the Subsequent EIR. Please provide your comments in writing to: City of La Quinta Planning Department P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92247 Attention: Wallace H. Nesbit, Principal Planner Thank you for your participation in the environmental review of this project. Impact Sciences, Inc. 6 Eden Rock at PGA West 223.12 June 2007 APPENDIX 4.0 Visual Simulations by RM Design Studios EDEN ROCK Visual Simulation Study TEM COMPLETION STATUS - VIRTUAL SIMULATION STUDY REQUIREMENTS FROM CITY OF LA QUINTA ISSUE RM will need to add in the "before" photos on which the images were based, for each simulated view, as initially requested. Clearly label each view and put each before and after view together — don't show all before and all after in one separate sections. I am not sure the massing images came out such that they are very effective in conveying the mass of the buildings to any degree. The text in the Methodology section indicates the structures are differentiated by color but there is no legend to that effect. We will have to discuss with IS for their opinion. 3 Weiskopf is misspelled in titles, 4 Photo images need to be numbered for identification with the list and map. Photo 12 appears to show wall near or right at curbline, where MDS 5 exhibits show a 12 foot setback from wall to PGA curbline. The 2 palms are shown behind structures, but in the base photo they would be in front of the wall. Wa[Is — applicant has stated that walls were to be stucco per HOA 6 req't — make sure what is shown is consistent with what is actually being proposed. 7 Firm background —just a brief overview of expertise and experience in preparation of these types of analyses, not marketing info; $ 1Introductory text about the visual simulations analysis, how accurate it can be, and why; 9 Existing view conditions of, on and from the project site ("before" photos, and on and off site photos); Criteria used for the study viewsheds selected and views of project 10 massing (why these views as opposed to others)_ While the City did suggest the photo locations, RM should discuss each location and how they provide the best opportunity for the visual analysis; 9/17/2007 ANTICIPATED STATUS OWNER COMPLETION Previously compiled and matrixed by PSC. Can assist IS if necessary. Impact 9/1912007 Need to verify that this is in IS scope. Sciences? Complete 8/17 RM Design 9/1912007 ? 9/19/2007 Previously compilea compileand mainxea ny PSC. Can assist if necessary. Need to verify that this is in IS scope. Additional updates from RM ? 9119/2007 raraivari R/17 To be determined RM Design 911912007 Complete 8117 RM Design 9/1912007 Impact 9/19/2007 Sciences? Previously compiled and matrixed by PSC. Can assist IS if necessary. Impact 9/1912007 Need to verify that this is in IS scope. Sciences? Previously compiled and matrixed by PSC. Can assist IS if necessary. RM Need to verify that this is in IS scope. Revisions with landscaping by RM Design 911912007 scheduled for 9/18 completion. Impact 9/1912007 Sciences? j Clear/detailed text and maps (with labels and legends) showing the locations/directions of the study viewsheds; 12 Photographs and text of existing conditions of the viewsheds with a key map, legend, and labels (views onto and from the site); -Description of the use of story poles, and the methodology of the 13 software used to provide visual simulations/massing models (how/why they are accurate); Visual simulations of the viewsheds portraying with project conditions, 14 with text describing what the visual simulations are showing (using the same photos as the existing conditions section for comparative analysis); Previously compiled and matrixed by PSC. Can assist IS if necessary. Impact Need to verify that this is in IS scope. Additional updates from RM Sciences? 9119/2007 received 8117 Previously compiled and matrixed by PSC. Can assist IS if necessary. Impact Need to verify that this is in IS scope. Additional updates from RM Sciences? 9/19/2007 received 8117 Impact 9/1912007 Sciences. Impact 9/19/2007 Sciences. Impact 9119/2007 15 Meaning WHAT exactly? Sciences? Conclusions/findings. 16 Verbiage similar to that supplied for Lodge at Rancho Mirage Hotel Impact 9/19/2007 Expansion Project Sciences Eden Rock Visual Simulation Study Creation Methodology Superimposed Images: The superimposed images are computer simulations driven by site, orientation, topographic and design j information overlaid on existing photographs. Cameras are placed in the area specified by the City of La Quinta Planning Department. The Eden Rock project site has story poles representing finished height of structures placed in plan locations. These pole locations and heights (where available) are installed in the 3D site. Camera orientation is refined by aligning the 3D reference points to the photograph. On site elevations and topography are modeled using current elevation surveys combined and modified by site grading plans. Off site elevations and topography are modeled using current elevation surveys, satellite imagery and available web based topographic information. Building and infrastructure modeling is created using CAD files from the architect and civil engineer, which include streets, curbs, grading info, building design and placement. PGA Blvd information was created using CAD files for the existing topographic map from original engineer of record, MDS Consulting. This includes PGA Blvd. street grading and curb placement. We match as many reference points as possible, not just one, to ensure accurate representation of proportions. 6 Buildings are placed at the proper finished floor heights as indicated on the engineering plans submitted for this project. Building designs and elevations are as indicated on the architectural plans submitted for this project. The camera taking the original overlay photos were kept at approximately 6' elevation above the grade level at the photographs point of origin. Using the data described above a computer program models the engineered perspective based on known territorial data and accurate plan engineering. Massing Studies: The Massing Studies are computer simulations driven by topographic and design information. Site elevations and topography are modeled using current elevation surveys combined and modified by site grading plans. Building and infrastructure modeling is created using CAD files from the architect and civil engineer, which include streets, curbs, grading info, building design and placement. PGA Blvd information was created using CAD files for the existing topographic map from original engineer of record, MDS Consulting. Buildings are placed at the proper finished floor heights as indicated on the engineering plans submitted for this project. Building designs and elevations are as indicated on the architectural plans submitted for this project. Each building type is differentiated by color to better illustrate design types and visual impact on the massing study images. The view orientation of the massing studies is from a 6' elevation (approximately) above grade level at the images point of origin. Using the data described above a computer program models the engineered perspective based on known territorial data and accurate plan engineering. Animation: The animation is an artistic representation based on plan and building layout and design. In the Eden Rock animation the site is represented as flat and landscaping is representational of design intent. Programs used in the creation of Eden Rock Visual Simulations: • Photoshop • AutoCAD • ArchVision 3DMax + ArchVision RPC 3ds max plug -ins. Principal Designer/Project Lead for Eden Rock Visual Simulations: Jason Axtolis, Senior Project Manager, RM Design Studio Experience: 2000 — 2007 3D artist, Senior Project Manager and Division Manager for RM Design West Coast Division 1999 — Architectural animations and or Exhibit Design. 1997-1999 Office Manager and Drafter for a Laser Plotting company that dealt with circuit board layouts Associates Degree in Computer Animation and Applied Sciences. RM Design Studio, Principal Robert Masulis Robert is a 1989 graduate of the University of Illinois with a Bachelor's degree in Architecture. After working as an architect for several years he founded RM Design Studio in 1994. Since then RM Design Studio has grown into a nationally recognized leader in the computer-generated rendering and virtual reality industry with offices in Atlanta, Chicago, Charlotte and Tempe 1 ti • W J r i? , ..1•.. . Ilii � � � �.: , P / V - 1 - PhotoEntry Gate HouseVillage Homes +` \ Garden House Courtyard Homes Manor Homes f ire T I\ ` [` SOURCE: RM Design Studio - October 2007 View 1: Taken from PGA Blvd 200 feet north of the PGA West Clubhouse entrance looking southeast towards proposed Eden Rock clock tower. 1 A - Existing View SOURCE: RM Design Studio - October 2007 View 1: Taken from PGA Blvd 200 feet north of the PGA West Clubhouse entrance looking southeast towards proposed Eden Rock clock tower. 1 B - Proposed Buildings SOURCE: RM Design Studio - October 2007 View 1: Taken from PGA Blvd 200 feet north of the PGA West Clubhouse entrance looking southeast towards proposed Eden Rock clock tower. 1 C - Proposed Buildings and Proposed Landscaping SOURCE: RM Design Studio - October 2007 View 2: Taken from PGA Blvd 150 feet north of the PGA West Clubhouse entrance looking east-southeast towards proposed Eden Rock Courtyard and Manor Homes. 2A- Existing View --75, OIOPPP- AIM :e- - -. A•- -- - SOURCE: RM Design Studio - October 2007 View 2: Taken from PGA Blvd 150 feet north of the PGA West Clubhouse entrance looking east-southeast towards proposed Eden Rock Courtyard and Manor Homes. 2C - Proposed Buildings and Proposed Landscaping SOURCE. RM Design Studio - October 2007 View 3: Taken from Courtyard Home looking west towards PGAW Blvd. 3A- Existing View ffs D -- "� - - �n�: — . LLJ''��Y--ice ter, u -=� - _ -- . - -, - � :-�..�-. +."tom -- _ �^ '� . - -.. _- Y. — —Tf h+e_. _ r'�_ ice, � _ ;, � _ SOURCE: RM Design Studio - October 2007 View 5: Taken from PGA West Clubhouse parking lot exit looking east-southeast towards proposed Eden Rock Courtyard and Village Homes. 5A- Existing View SOURCE: RM Design Studio - October 2007 View 5: Taken from PGA West Clubhouse parking lot exit looking east-southeast towards proposed Eden Rock Courtyard and Village Homes. 5B - Proposed Buildings SOURCE: RM Design Studio - October 2007 View 6: Taken from PGA Blvd 650 feet northwest of the Jack Nicklaus Entry Gate looking east-southeast towards proposed Eden Rock Courtyard Homes. 6A- Existing View tl - .. ,tel � - •� �- R _ i, � � VAL 9 1 _ SOURCE: RM Design Studio - October 2007 View 7: Taken from PGA Blvd at Jack Nicklaus Entry Gate looking north-northeast towards proposed Eden Rock Courtyard Homes Village Homes and clock tower. 7B - Proposed Buildings `� rte,,; •3i• �r wr•: � �,if-�� r..i: � � � '} +��- ."� ` t � � �� . a 4 � _ � Y, �. �.. i�� .! .� - � 1a� - r- ^� Y '�- f =� � ��. * � . s. _ �/:r '�y,�-- ,� r%^. i - - - --- _ •.. -i ti ---- - - ..- ...p- ;� { w - , mss+- !� - . - _ • .. - - � ... .. _ r �,: ' Yom' i 1 47 r no y,+e ¢p y� {� ,, , €:• * . r .. L� i*t+i ""` — 3"` s 44. F t' ..� s - 'dam �� .. - _ � .. y - aa� �- - • -- � F SOURCE: RM Design Studio - October 2007 View 9: Taken from PGA Blvd at Spanish Bay Road looking northwest towards proposed Eden Rock Courtyard Homes and clock tower. 9A- Existing View SOURCE: RM Design Studio - October 2007 View 9: Taken from PGA Blvd at Spanish Bay Road looking northwest towards proposed Eden Rock Courtyard Homes and clock tower. 9B - Proposed Buildings SOURCE: RM Design Studio -October 2007 View 9: Taken from PGA Blvd at Spanish Bay Road looking northwest towards proposed Eden Rock Courtyard Homes and clock tower. 9C - Proposed Buildings and Proposed Landscaping ALI I r r:. r ' _ � 4 goy ` >, i � . xaV � � � - - Y r � - _, . • r � .. t `=`� � '.ry fir.'• �; f+ SOURCE: RM Design Shido - October 2007 View 11: Taken from Oakmont Street overlooking Stadium Golf Course looking southwest towards proposed Eden Rock Manor Homes. 11 A - Existing View SOURCE: RM Design 5-Wio - Odober 2007 View 11: Taken from Oakmont Street overlooking Stadium Golf Course looking southwest towards proposed Eden Rock Manor Homes. 11 B - Proposed Buildings SOURCE: RM Design Studlo - October 2007 View 11: Taken from Oakmont Street overlooking Stadium Golf Course looking southwest towards proposed Eden Rock Manor Homes. 11 C - Proposed Buildings and Proposed Landscaping SOURCE: RM Design Studio - October 2007 View 12: Taken from Pete Dye Drive overlooking Stadium Golf Course looking south-southeast towards proposed Eden Rock Manor Homes. 12A- Existing View SOURCE: RM Design Studio - October 2007 View 12: Taken from Pete Dye Drive overlooking Stadium Golf Course looking south-southeast towards proposed Eden Rock Manor Homes. 12B - Proposed Buildings SOURCE: RM Design Studio - October 2007 View 12: Taken from Pete Dye Drive overlooking Stadium Golf Course looking south-southeast towards proposed Eden Rock Manor Homes. 12C - Proposed Buildings and Proposed Landscaping APPENDIX 5.0 Air Quality URBEMIS2007 Unmitigated Construction Emissions Page: 1 11/1/2007 04:35:43 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: Z:\Alan Sako\Eden Rock\Air Quality\Emissions Data\Eden Rock - Construction.urb9 Project Name: Eden Rock Project Location: Riverside County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx 2008 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 0.34 2.75 2008 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 0.34 2.75 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 2009 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 0.97 5.18 2009 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 0.97 5.18 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 2010 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 1.12 4.83 2010 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 1.12 4.83 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 2011 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 1,06 4.46 2011 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 1.06 4.46 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated 2008 Mass Grading 09/29/2008- 12/19/2008 Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel Mass Grading On Road Diesel Mass Grading Worker Trips CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 1.48 0.00 12.07 0.15 12.22 2.52 0.13 266 1.48 0.00 4.71 0.15 4.86 0.98 0.13 1.12 0.00 000 60.99 0.00 60.27 60.99 0.00 57.91 5.90 0.01 0.02 0.31 0.33 0.01 028 0.29 5.90 0.01 0.02 0.31 0.33 0.01 0.28 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.55 0.01 0.02 0-28 0,31 0.01 0.26 0.27 5.55 0.01 0.02 0,28 0.31 0.01 0.26 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.20 0.01 0,02 0.26 0.29 0.01 0.24 0.25 5.20 0.01 0.02 0.26 0.29 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 0.34 2.75 1.48 0.00 12.07 0.15 12.22 2.52 0.13 2.66 0.30 2.56 1.38 0.00 12.07 0.13 12.21 2.52 0.12 2.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 12.07 0.00 12.07 2.52 0,00 2.52 0.29 2.42 1.25 0,00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.01 0.14 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page:1 11/11/2007 04:35:43 PM Asphalt 12/22/2008-01/02/2009 0.03 0.19 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 Paving Off -Gas 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 0.02 0.16 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2009 0.97 5.18 5.90 0.01 0.02 0.31 0.33 0.01 0.28 0.29 Asphalt 12/22/2008-01/02/2009 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off -Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Building 01/05/2009-12/30/2011 0.76 5.13 5.87 0.01 0.02 0.30 0.32 0.01 0.28 0.29 Building Off Road Diesel 0.58 3.90 1.91 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.23 0.23 Building Vendor Trips 0.08 1.04 0.78 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 Building Worker Trips 0.10 0.19 3.17 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 Coating 07/06/2009-12/30/2011 0.20 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coating 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2010 1.12 4.83 5.55 0.01 0.02 0.28 0.31 0.01 0.26 0.27 Building 01/05/2009-12/30/2011 0.72 4.83 5.53 0.01 0.02 0.28 0.31 0.01 0.26 0.27 Building Off Road Diesel 0.55 3.71 1.87 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.22 0.22 Building Vendor Trips 0.08 0.95 0.73 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.04 Building Worker Trips 0.09 0.17 2.93 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 Coating 07/06/2009-12/30/2011 0.40 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coating 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2011 1.06 4.46 5.20 0.01 0.02 0.26 0.29 0.01 0.24 0.25 Building 01/05/2009-12/30/2011 0.67 4.46 5.19 0.01 0.02 0.26 029 0.01 0.24 0.25 Building Off Road Diesel 0.51 3.45 1.82 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.20 0.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.07 0.85 0.67 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 Building Worker Trips 0.08 0.15 2.70 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 Coating 07/06/2009-12/30/2011 0.40 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coating 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page:1 111 /2007 04:35:43 P M Phase Assumotions Phase: Mass Grading 9/29/2008 - 12/19/2008 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description Total Acres Disturbed: 42.93 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 10 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Medium Onsite Scraper Use: 8 hr/day; Offsite Haulage: 0 hrs/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 128.5 Off -Road Equipment: 2 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Loaders (164 hp) operating at a 0.54 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Scrapers (313 hp) operating at a 0.72 load factor for 8 hours per day 4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Paving 12/22/2008 - 1/2/2009 - Default Paving Description Acres to be Paved: 5.72 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Off Highway Trucks (479 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 1/5/2009 - 12/30/2011 - Default Building Construction Description Off -Road Equipment: 1 Air Compressors (106 hp) operating at a 0.48 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Other Equipment (190 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Plate Compactors (8 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Trenchers (63 hp) operating at a 0.75 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 7/6/2009 - 12/30/2011 - Default Architectural Coating Description Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 50 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page: 1 SO2 PM10 Dust 11 /1 /2007 04:35:43 PM PM10 PM2.5 Dust Construction Mitigated Detail Report: PM2.5 1.48 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated 0.15 ROG NOx 2008 0.34 2.75 Mass Grading 09/29/2008- 0.30 2.56 12/19/2008 0.98 0.12 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 0.29 2.42 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.01 0.14 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.01 Asphalt 12/22/2008-01/02/2009 0.03 0.19 Paving Off -Gas 0.01 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 0.02 0.16 Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.03 Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 2009 0.97 5.18 Asphalt 12/22/2008-01/02/2009 0.01 0.05 Paving Off -Gas 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.04 Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 Building 01/05/2009-12/30/2011 0.76 5.13 Building Off Road Diesel 0.58 3.90 Building Vendor Trips 0.08 1.04 Building Worker Trips 0.10 0.19 Coating 07/06/2009-12/30/2011 0.20 0.00 Architectural Coating 0.20 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 2010 1.12 4.83 Building 01/05/2009-12/30/2011 0.72 4.83 Building Off Road Diesel 0.55 3.71 Building Vendor Trips 0.08 0.95 Building Worker Trips 0.09 0.17 CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 1.48 0.00 4.71 0.15 4.86 0.98 0.13 1.12 1.38 0.00 4.71 0.13 4.84 0.98 0.12 1.11 0.00 0.00 4.71 0.00 4.71 0.98 0.00 0.98 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.08 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 001 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.90 0.01 0.02 0.31 0.33 0.01 0.28 0.29 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.87 0.01 0.02 0.30 0.32 0.01 0.28 0.29 1.91 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.78 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 3.17 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.55 0.01 0.02 0.28 0.31 0.01 0.26 0.27 5.53 0.01 002 0.28 0.31 0.01 0.26 0.27 1.87 0.00 0.00 024 0.24 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.73 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.04 2.93 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 Page:1 11/11/2007 04:35:43 PM Coating 07/06/2009-12/30/2011 Architectural Coating Coating Worker Trips 2011 Building 01/05/2009-12/30/2011 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Coating 07/06/2009-12/30/2011 Architectural Coating Coating Worker Trips 0.40 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.06 4.46 5.20 0.01 0.02 0.26 0.29 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.67 4.46 5.19 0.01 0.02 0.26 0.29 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.51 3.45 1.82 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.07 0.85 0.67 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.15 2.70 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.40 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 9/29/2008 - 12/19/2008 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61 % PM25: 61 For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PMI 0: 61 % PM25: 61 Page: 1 11/1/2007 04:36:14 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: ZAAlan Sako\Eden Rock\Air Quality\Emissions Data\Eden Rock - Construction. urb9 Project Name: Eden Rock Project Location: Riverside County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 2008 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 10.12 85.31 46.01 0.01 402,43 4.45 406.88 84.05 4.10 88.14 2008 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 10.12 85.31 46.01 0.01 156.97 4.45 161,42 32.79 4.10 36.88 2009 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 8.95 45.73 45.45 0.04 0.18 2.90 2.95 0.06 2.67 2.69 2009 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 8.95 45.73 45.45 0.04 0.18 2.90 2.95 0.06 2.67 2.69 2010 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 8.57 37.05 42.51 0.04 0.18 2.18 2.36 0.06 2.00 2.06 2010 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 8.57 37.05 42.51 0.04 0.18 2.18 2.36 0.06 2.00 2.06 2011 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 8.16 34.29 40.02 0.04 0.18 2.03 2.21 0.06 1.86 1.92 2011 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 8.16 34.29 40.02 0.04 0.18 2.03 2.21 0.06 1.86 1.92 Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Time Slice 9/29/2008-12/19/2008 10.1285.31 46.01 0.01 402.43 4.45 406.88 84.05 4.10 88.14 Active Days: 60 Mass Grading 09/29/2008- 10.12 85.31 46.01 0.01 402.43 4.45 406.88 84.05 4.10 88.14 12/19/2008 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 402.40 0.00 402.40 84.04 000 84.04 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 9.72 80.57 41.56 0.00 0.00 4.26 4.26 0.00 3.92 3.92 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.32 4.57 1.66 0.01 0.02 0.19 0.21 0.01 0.17 0.18 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.09 0.17 2.79 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 Page: 1 11/1/2007 04:36:14 PM Time Slice 12/22/2008-12/31/2008 8.01 48.52 24.09 0.01 004 309 3.14 0.01 2.84 2.86 Active Days: 8 Asphalt 12/22/2008-01/02/2009 8.01 48.52 24.09 0.01 004 3.09 3.14 0.01 2.84 2.86 Paving Off -Gas 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 5.90 41.03 18.34 0.00 0.00 2.78 2.78 0.00 2.56 2.56 Paving On Road Diesel 0.51 7.31 2.65 0.01 0.03 0.30 0.33 0.01 0.28 0.29 Paving Worker Trips 0.10 0.19 3.11 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 Time Slice 1/1/2009-1/2/2009 Active 7.67 45.73 23.06 0.01 0.04 2.90 2.95 0.01 2.67 2.69 Days: 2 Asphalt 12/22/2008-01/02/2009 7.67 45.73 23.06 0.01 0.04 2.90 2.95 0.01 2.67 2.69 Paving Off -Gas 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 5.60 38.73 17.77 0.00 0.00 2.62 2.62 0.00 2.41 2.41 Paving On Road Diesel 0.48 6.84 2.43 0.01 0.03 0.27 0.30 0.01 0.25 0.26 Paving Worker Trips 0.09 0.17 2.85 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 Time Slice 1/5/2009-7/3/2009 Active 5.91 39.61 45.30 0.04 0.17 2.33 2.51 0.06 2.14 2.20 Days: 130 Building 01/05/2009-12/30/2011 5.91 39.61 45.30 0.04 0.17 2.33 2.51 0.06 2.14 2.20 Building Off Road Diesel 4.50 30.12 14.76 0.00 0.00 1.93 1.93 0.00 1.78 1.78 Building Vendor Trips 0.64 8.04 6.05 0.01 0.05 0.33 0.37 0.02 0.30 0.31 Building Worker Trips 0.76 1.45 24.49 0.03 0.13 0.08 0.21 0.05 0.07 0.11 Time Slice 7/6/2009-12/31/2009 Active 8.95 39.61 45.45 0.04 0.18 2.33 2.51 0.06 2.14 2.20 Days: 129 Building 01/05/2009-12/30/2011 5.91 39.61 45.30 0.04 0.17 2.33 2.51 0.06 2.14 2.20 Building Off Road Diesel 4.50 30.12 14.76 0.00 0.00 1.93 1.93 0.00 1.78 1.78 Building Vendor Trips 0.64 8.04 6.05 0.01 0.05 0.33 0.37 0.02 0.30 0.31 Building Worker Trips 0.76 1.45 24,49 0.03 0.13 0.08 021 0.05 0.07 0.11 Coating 07/06/2009-12/30/2011 3.04 0.01 0,15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coating 3.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Time Slice 1/1/2010-12/31/2010 Active 8.5737.05 42.51 0.04 0.18 2.18 2.36 0.06 2.00 � 2.06 - Days: 261 Building 01/05/2009-12/30/2011 5.52 37.04 42.37 0.04 0.17 2.18 2.36 0.06 2.00 2.06 Building Off Road Diesel 4.24 28.45 14.34 0.00 0.00 1.81 1.81 0.00 1.66 1.66 Building Vendor Trips 0.60 7.30 5.61 0.01 0.05 0.29 0.34 0.02 0.27 0.28 Building Worker Trips 0.69 129 22.42 0.03 0.13 0.08 021 0.05 0.07 0.11 Page: 1 11/1/2007 04:36:14 PM Coating 07/06/2009-12/30/2011 3.04 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coating 3.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 Time Slice 1/3/2011-12/30/2011 Active 8.16 34.29 4002 0.04 0.18 2.03 2.21 0.06 1.86 1.92 Days: 260 Building 01/05/2009-12/30/2011 5.12 34.29 39.89 0.04 0.17 2.03 2.21 0.06 1.86 1.92 Building Off Road Diesel 3.95 26.56 13.97 0.00 0.00 1.69 1.69 0.00 1.56 1.56 Building Vendor Trips 0.55 6.54 5.19 0.01 0.05 0.26 0.31 0.02 0.24 025 Building Worker Trips 0.62 1.18 20.73 0.03 0.13 0.08 0.21 0.05 0.07 0.11 Coating 07/06/2009-12/30/2011 3.04 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coating 3.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase Assumptions Phase: Mass Grading 9/29/2008 - 12/19/2008 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description Total Acres Disturbed: 42.93 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 10 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Medium Onsite Scraper Use: 8 hr/day; Offsite Haulage: 0 hrs/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 128.5 Off -Road Equipment: 2 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Loaders (164 hp) operating at a 0.54 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Scrapers (313 hp) operating at a 0.72 load factor for 8 hours per day 4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Paving 12/22/2008 - 1/2/2009 - Default Paving Description Acres to be Paved: 5.72 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Off Highway Trucks (479 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 1 11/11/2007 04:36:14 PM Phase: Building Construction 1/5/2009 - 12/30/2011 - Default Building Construction Description Off -Road Equipment: 1 Air Compressors (106 hp) operating at a 0.48 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Other Equipment (190 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Plate Compactors (8 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Trenchers (63 hp) operating at a 0.75 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 7/6/2009 - 12/30/2011 - Default Architectural Coating Description Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 50 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Construction Mitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated Time Slice 9/29/2008-12/19/2008 Active Days: 60 Mass Grading 09/29/2008- 12/19/2008 Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel Mass Grading On Road Diesel Mass Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 12/22/2008-12/31/2008 Active Days: 8 Asphalt 12/22/2008-01/02/2009 Paving Off -Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 10.12 85.31 46.01 0.01 156.97 4.45 161.42 32.79 4.10 36_88 10.12 85.31 46.01 0.01 15697 4.45 161.42 32.79 4.10 36.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 156,94 0.00 156.94 32.77 0.00 32.77 9W72 80.57 41.56 0.00 0.00 4.26 4.26 0.00 3.92 3.92 0,32 4.57 1.66 0.01 0.02 0.19 0.21 0.01 0.17 0.18 0.09 0.17 2,79 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 8.01 48.52 24.09 0.01 0.04 3.09 3.14 0.01 2.84 2.86 8.01 48.52 24.09 0.01 0.04 3.09 3.14 0.01 2.84 2.86 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.90 41.03 18.34 0.00 0.00 2.78 2.78 0.00 2.56 2.56 0.51 7.31 2.65 0.01 0.03 0.30 0.33 0.01 0.28 0.29 0.10 0.19 3.11 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 Page: 1 11/1/2007 04:36:14 PM Time Slice 1/1/2009-1/2/2009 Active 7.67 45_73 23.06 0.01 0.04 290 2.95 0.01 2.67 2.69 Days: 2 Asphalt 12/22/2008-01/02/2009 7.67 45.73 23.06 001 0.04 2.90 2.95 0.01 2.67 2.69 Paving Off -Gas 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 5.60 38.73 17.77 0.00 000 2.62 2.62 0.00 2.41 2.41 Paving On Road Diesel 0.48 6.84 2.43 0.01 0.03 0.27 0.30 0.01 0.25 0.26 Paving Worker Trips 0.09 0.17 2.85 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 001 0.01 Time Slice 1/5/2009-7/3/2009 Active 5.91 39.61 45.30 0.04 0.17 2.33 2.51 0.06 2.14 2.20 Days: 130 Building 01/05/2009-12/30/2011 5.91 39.61 45.30 0.04 0.17 2.33 2.51 0.06 2.14 2.20 Building Off Road Diesel 4.50 30.12 14.76 0.00 0.00 1.93 1.93 0.00 1.78 1.78 Building Vendor Trips 0.64 8.04 6.05 0.01 0.05 0.33 0.37 0.02 0.30 0.31 Building Worker Trips 0.76 1.45 24.49 0.03 0.13 0.08 0.21 0.05 0.07 0.11 Time Slice 7/6/2009-12/31/2009 Active 8.95 39.61 4545 0.04 0.18 2.33 2.51 0.06 2.14 2.20 Days: 129 Building 01/05/2009-12/30/2011 5.91 39.61 45.30 0.04 0.17 2.33 2.51 0.06 2.14 2.20 Building Off Road Diesel 4.50 30.12 14.76 0.00 0.00 1.93 1.93 0.00 1.78 1.78 Building Vendor Trips 0.64 8.04 6.05 0.01 0.05 0.33 0.37 0.02 0.30 0.31 Building Worker Trips 0.76 1.45 24.49 0.03 0.13 0.08 0.21 0.05 0.07 0.11 Coating 07/06/2009-12/30/2011 3.04 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coating 3.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Time Slice 1/1/2010-12/31/2010 Active 8.57 37.05 42.51 0.04 0.18 2.18 2.36 0.06 2.00 2.06 Days: 261 Building 01/05/2009-12/30/2011 5.52 37.04 42.37 0.04 0.17 2.18 2.36 0.06 2-00 2.06 Building Off Road Diesel 4.24 28.45 14.34 0.00 0.00 1.81 1.81 0.00 1.66 1.66 Building Vendor Trips 0.60 7.30 5.61 0.01 0.05 0.29 0.34 0.02 0.27 0.28 Building Worker Trips 0.69 1.29 22.42 0.03 0.13 0.08 0.21 0.05 0.07 0.11 Coating 07/06/2009-12/30/2011 3.04 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coating 304 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 1 11/1/2007 04:36:14 PM Time Slice 1/3/2011-12/30/2011 Active Days: 260 Building 01/05/2009-12/30/2011 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Coating 07/06/2009-12/30/2011 Architectural Coating Coating Worker Trips 8.16 3429 4040^02 0.04 0.18 2.03 2.21 0.06 1.86 1.92 5.12 34.29 39.89 0.04 0.17 2.03 2.21 0.06 1.86 1.92 3.95 26.56 13.97 0.00 0.00 1.69 1.69 0.00 1.56 1.56 0.55 6.54 5.19 0.01 0.05 0.26 0.31 0.02 0.24 0.25 0.62 1.18 20.73 0.03 0.13 0.08 0.21 0.05 0.07 0.11 3.04 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 9/29/2008 -12/19/2008 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61 % PM25: 61 % For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61 % PM25: 61 % Page: 1 11/1/2007 04:36:33 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: ZAAlan Sako\Eden Rock\Air Quality\Emissions Data\Eden Rock - Construction.urb9 Project Name: Eden Rock Project Location: Riverside County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 2008 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 10.12 85.31 46.01 0,01 402.43 4.45 406.88 84.05 4.10 88.14 2008 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 10.12 85.31 46.01 0,01 156.97 4.45 161.42 32.79 4.10 36.88 2009 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 895 45.73 45.45 0.04 0.18 2.90 2.95 0.06 2.67 2.69 2009 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 8.95 45.73 45.45 0.04 0.18 2.90 2.95 0.06 2.67 2.69 2010 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 8.57 37.05 42.51 004 0.18 2.18 2.36 0.06 2.00 2.06 2010 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 8.57 37.05 42.51 0.04 0.18 2.18 2.36 0.06 2.00 2.06 2011 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 8.16 34.29 40.02 0.04 0.18 2.03 2.21 0.06 1.86 1.92 2011 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 8.16 34.29 40.02 0.04 0.18 2.03 2.21 0.06 1.86 1.92 Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2 5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Time Slice 9/29/2008-12/19/2008 10.12 85.31 46.01 0.01 402.43 4.45 406.88 84.05 4.10 88.14 Active Days: 60 Mass Grading 09/29/2008- 10.12 85.31 46.01 0.01 402.43 4.45 406.88 84.05 4.10 88.14 12/19/2008 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 402.40 0.00 402.40 84.04 0.00 84.04 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 9.72 80.57 41.56 0.00 0.00 4.26 4.26 0.00 3.92 3.92 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.32 4.57 1.66 0.01 0.02 0.19 0.21 0.01 0.17 0.18 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.09 0.17 279 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 001 0.01 Page: 1 11/1/2007 04:36:33 PM Time Slice 12/22/2008-12/31/2008 8.01 48.52 24.09 0.01 0.04 3.09 3.14 0.01 2.84 2.86 Active Days: 8 Asphalt 12/22/2008-01/02/2009 8.01 48.52 24.09 0.01 0.04 3.09 3.14 0.01 2.84 2.86 Paving Off -Gas 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 Paving Off Road Diesel 5.90 41.03 18.34 0.00 0.00 2.78 2.78 0.00 2.56 2.56 Paving On Road Diesel 0.51 7.31 2.65 0.01 0.03 0.30 0.33 0.01 0.28 0.29 Paving Worker Trips 0.10 0.19 3.11 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 Time Slice 1/1/2009-1/2/2009 Active 7,67 4573 23.06 0.01 0.04 2.90 2.95 0.01 2.67 269 Days: 2 Asphalt 12/22/2008-01/02/2009 7.67 45.73 23.06 0.01 0.04 2.90 2.95 0.01 2.67 2.69 Paving Off -Gas 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 5.60 38.73 17.77 0.00 0.00 2.62 2.62 0.00 2.41 2.41 Paving On Road Diesel 0.48 684 2.43 0.01 0.03 0.27 0.30 0.01 0.25 0.26 Paving Worker Trips 0.09 0.17 2.85 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 Time Slice 1/5/2009-7/3/2009 Active 5.91 39.61 45.30 0.04 0.17 2.33 2.51 0.06 2.14 2.20 Days: 130 Building 01/05/2009-12/30/2011 5.91 39.61 45.30 0.04 0.17 2.33 2.51 0.06 2.14 2.20 Building Off Road Diesel 4.50 30.12 14.76 0.00 0.00 1.93 1.93 0.00 1.78 1.78 Building Vendor Trips 0.64 8.04 6.05 0.01 0.05 0.33 0.37 0.02 0.30 0.31 Building Worker Trips 0.76 1.45 24.49 0.03 0.13 0.08 0.21 0.05 0.07 0.11 Time Slice 7/6/2009-12/31/2009 Active 8.95 39.61 45_45 0.04 0.18 2.33 2.51 0.06 2.14 2.20 Days: 129 Building 01/05/2009-12/30/2011 5.91 3961 45.30 0.04 0.17 2.33 2.51 0.06 2.14 2.20 Building Off Road Diesel 450 30.12 14.76 0.00 0.00 1.93 1.93 0.00 1.78 1,78 Building Vendor Trips 0.64 8.04 6.05 0.01 0.05 0.33 0.37 0.02 0.30 0.31 Building Worker Trips 0.76 1.45 24.49 0.03 0.13 0.08 0.21 0.05 0.07 0.11 Coating 07/06/2009-12/30/2011 3.04 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coating 3.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Time Slice 1/1/2010-12/31/2010 Active 8.57 37_05 4251 0.04 0.18 2.18 2.36 0.06 2.00 2.06 Days: 261 Building 01/05/2009-12/30/2011 5.52 37.04 42.37 0.04 0,17 2.18 2.36 0.06 2.00 2.06 Building Off Road Diesel 4.24 28.45 14.34 0.00 0.00 1.81 1.81 0.00 1.66 1.66 Building Vendor Trips 0.60 7.30 5.61 0.01 0.05 0.29 0.34 0.02 0.27 0.28 Building Worker Trips 0.69 1.29 22.42 0.03 0.13 0.08 021 0.05 0.07 011 Page: 1 11/1/2007 04:36:33 PM Coating 07/06/2009-12/30/2011 3.04 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 Architectural Coating 3.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Time Slice 1/3/2011-12/30/2011 Active 8.16 3429 40_02 0.04 0.18 2.03 2.21 0.06 1.86 1.92 Days: 260 Building 01/05/2009-12/30/2011 5.12 34.29 3989 0.04 0.17 2.03 2.21 0.06 1.86 1.92 Building Off Road Diesel 3.95 26.56 13.97 0.00 000 1.69 1.69 0.00 1.56 1.56 Building Vendor Trips 0.55 6.54 5.19 0.01 0.05 0.26 0.31 0.02 0.24 0.25 Building Worker Trips 0.62 1.18 20.73 0.03 0.13 0.08 0.21 0.05 0.07 0.11 Coating 07/06/2009-12/30/2011 3.04 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coating 3.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 Phase Assumptions Phase: Mass Grading 9/29/2008 - 12/19/2008 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description Total Acres Disturbed: 42.93 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 10 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Medium Onsite Scraper Use: 8 hr/day; Offsite Haulage: 0 hrs/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 128.5 Off -Road Equipment: 2 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Loaders (164 hp) operating at a 0.54 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Scrapers (313 hp) operating at a 0.72 load factor for 8 hours per day 4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Paving 12/22/2008 - 1/2/2009 - Default Paving Description Acres to be Paved: 5.72 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Off Highway Trucks (479 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 1 11/1/2007 04:36:33 PM Phase: Building Construction 1/5/2009 - 12/30/2011 - Default Building Construction Description Off -Road Equipment: 1 Air Compressors (106 hp) operating at a 0.48 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Other Equipment (190 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Plate Compactors (8 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Trenchers (63 hp) operating at a 0.75 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 7/6/2009 - 12/30/2011 - Default Architectural Coating Description Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 50 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Construction Mitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitigated Time Slice 9/29/2008-12/19/2008 Active Days: 60 Mass Grading 09/29/2008- 12/19/2008 Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel Mass Grading On Road Diesel Mass Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 12/22/2008-12/31/2008 Active Days: 8 Asphalt 12/22/2008-01/02/2009 Paving Off -Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust 10.12 85.31 46.01 0.01 156.97 4.45 161.42 32.79 4.10 10.12 85.31 46.01 0.01 156.97 4.45 161.42 32.79 4.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 156.94 0.00 156.94 32.77 0.00 9.72 80.57 41.56 0.00 0.00 4.26 4.26 0.00 3.92 0.32 4.57 1.66 0.01 0.02 0.19 0.21 0.01 0.17 0.09 0.17 2.79 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 8.01 48.52 24.09 0.01 0.04 3,09 3.14 0.01 2.84 8.01 48.52 24.09 0.01 0.04 3.09 3.14 0.01 2.84 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.90 41.03 18.34 0.00 0.00 2.78 2.78 0.00 2.56 0.51 7.31 2.65 0.01 0.03 0.30 0.33 0.01 0.28 0,10 0.19 3.11 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 PM2.5 3688 36.88 32.77 3.92 0.18 0,01 2.86 2.86 0.00 2,56 0.29 0.01 Page: 1 11/1/2007 04:36:33 PM Time Slice 1/1/2009-1/2/2009 Active 7.67 45.73 23.06 001 0.04 2.90 2.95 0.01 2.67 2.69 Days: 2 Asphalt 12/22/2008-01/02/2009 7.67 45.73 23.06 0.01 0.04 2.90 2.95 0.01 2.67 2.69 Paving Off -Gas 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 Paving Off Road Diesel 5.60 38.73 17.77 0.00 0.00 2.62 2.62 0.00 2.41 2.41 Paving On Road Diesel 0.48 6.84 2.43 0.01 0.03 0.27 0.30 0.01 0.25 0.26 Paving Worker Trips 0.09 0.17 2.85 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 Time Slice 1/5/2009-7/3/2009 Active 5.91 39.61 45.30 0.04 0.17 2.33 2.51 0.06 2.14 2.20 Days: 130 Building 01/05/2009-12/30/2011 5.91 39.61 45.30 0.04 0.17 2.33 2.51 0.06 2.14 2.20 Building Off Road Diesel 4.50 30.12 14.76 0.00 0.00 1.93 1.93 0.00 1.78 1.78 Building Vendor Trips 0.64 8.04 6.05 0.01 0.05 0.33 0.37 0.02 0.30 0.31 Building Worker Trips 0.76 1.45 24.49 0.03 0.13 0.08 0.21 0.05 0.07 0.11 Time Slice 7/6/2009-12/31/2009 Active 8.95 39.61 45.45 0.040.18 2.33 2.51 0.06 2.14 2.20 Days: 129 Building 01/05/2009-12/30/2011 5.91 39.61 45.30 0.04 0.17 2.33 2.51 0.06 2.14 220 Building Off Road Diesel 4.50 30.12 14.76 0.00 0.00 1.93 1.93 0.00 1.78 1.78 Building Vendor Trips 0.64 8.04 6.05 0.01 0.05 0.33 0.37 0.02 0.30 0.31 Building Worker Trips 0.76 1.45 24.49 003 0.13 0.08 021 0.05 0.07 0.11 Coating 07/06/2009-12/30/2011 3.04 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coating 3.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Time Slice 1/1/2010-12/31/2010 Active 8.57 37.05 42.51 0.04 0.18 2.18 2.36 0.06 2.00 2.06 Days: 261 Building 01/05/2009-12/30/2011 5.52 37.04 42.37 0.04 0.17 2.18 2.36 0.06 2.00 2.06 Building Off Road Diesel 4.24 28.45 14.34 0.00 0.00 1.81 1.81 0.00 1.66 1.66 Building Vendor Trips 0.60 7.30 5.61 0.01 0.05 0.29 0.34 0.02 0.27 0.28 Building Worker Trips 0.69 1.29 22.42 0.03 0.13 0.08 0.21 0.05 0.07 0.11 Coating 07/06/2009-12/30/2011 3.04 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coating 3.04 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.01 0.14 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 1 11/1/2007 04:36:33 PM Time Slice 1/3/2011-12/30/2011 Active Days: 260 Building 01/05/2009-12/30/2011 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Coating 07/06/2009-12/30/2011 Architectural Coating Coating Worker Trips 8.16 34.29 40.02 0.04 0.18 2.03 2.21 0.06 1.86 1.92 5.12 34.29 39.89 0.04 0.17 203 2.21 0.06 1.86 1.92 3.95 26.56 13.97 0.00 0.00 1.69 1.69 0.00 1.56 1.56 0.55 6.54 5.19 0.01 0.05 0.26 0.31 0.02 0.24 0.25 0.62 1.18 20.73 0.03 0.13 0.08 0.21 0.05 0.07 0.11 3.04 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 3.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 9/29/2008 - 12/19/2008 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61 % PM25: 61% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61 % PM25: 61 % Localized Significance Threshold Analysis Localized Significance Threshold Analysis for Eden Rock at PGA West Prepared for: City of La Quinta La Quinta, California Prepared by: Impact Sciences, Inc. 234 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 205 Pasadena, California 91101 Phone: (626) 569-1500 Fax: (626) 569-1501 November 2007 Localized Significance Threshold Analysis SUMMARY The proposed project would develop 292 residential units in duplex, triplex, and multiple attached structures. The site of the proposed project is located within the existing PGA West golf course and residential development, and is located in the City of La Quinta approximately 105 miles from the City of Los Angeles and the Pacific Coast, and approximately 240 miles from the Phoenix/Scottsdale metropolitan region. The City is bounded on the west by mountainous land and by the City of Indian Wells, on the east by the City of Indio and unincorporated Riverside County, on the north by Riverside County, and federal and County lands to the south. The project site is within the PGA West Specific Plan area. This area is completely developed, with the exception of 15 to 20 scattered residential lots and the 41.95 -acre proposed project site. Properties adjacent to the project site are developed with golf course and single-family residential land uses. The project site is currently undeveloped, vacant, and partially graded. This study analyzed the impacts of the construction emissions (fugitive dust and motor vehicle and equipment exhaust) on ambient air quality concentrations in the vicinity of the construction site. The ambient air quality impacts were compared to thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The significance threshold for respirable particulate matter (PMio) represents compliance with Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). The threshold for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is intended to constrain emissions so as to aid in progress toward attainment of the ambient air quality standards. The thresholds for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and carbon monoxide (CO) represent the allowable increase in concentrations above background levels in the vicinity of the project that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the relevant ambient air quality standards. The Localized Significance Threshold (LST) analysis showed that the maximum 24-hour PMIo and PM2s concentrations outside the proposed project area would exceed the thresholds of significance established by SCAQMD at nearby residential and sensitive receptors due to construction of the proposed project. Impact Sciences, Inc. { Eden Rock at PGA West Subsequent EIR 0223.012 November 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY 1.0 GENERAL.........................................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Description................................................................................................. ............... ..1 1.2 Regional Air Quality.............................................................................................................................1 1.3 Thresholds of Significance...................................................................................................................2 2.0 CALCULATIONS OF EMISSIONS...............................................................................................................4 3.0 LST ANALYSIS ........................ ............................................................................................................... ......... 5 3.1 Modeling Approach.......................................................................................................................... .5 3.2 Modeling Results...................................................................................................................................6 3.2.1 Adjustment of NO2 Impacts.....................................................................................................6 3.2.2 Project -Specific Impacts............................................................................................................8 4.0 CONCLUSIONS................................................................ ..................................................................9 Appendices A Modeling Files (available by request) B Selected ISCST3 Modeling Output C Summary of ISCST3 Modeling Input and Output LIST OF FIGURES Figure PagQ 1 Wind Rose for the Indio Monitoring Station, 1981..................................................................................7 LIST OF TABLES 9 1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Status — Salton Sea Air Basin (Riverside County) .... 2 2 Peak Background Concentrations for SRA 30 for the Period of 2004 to 2006 ......................................3 3 Localized Significance Criteria...................................................................................................................3 4 Estimated Construction Emissions Associated with the Project............................................................5 5 NO2-t0-NOx Ratio as a Function of Downwind Distance.......................................................................8 6 Modeling Results — Maximum Impacts at Residential Receptors.........................................................9 Impact Sciences, Inc. 11 Eden Rock at PGA West Subsequent EIR 0223.012 November 2007 Localized Significance Threshold Analysis 1.0 GENERAL 1.1 Project Description The proposed project would develop 292 residential units in duplex, triplex, and multiple attached structures. The site of the proposed project is located within the existing PGA West golf course and residential development, and is located in the City of La Quinta approximately 105 miles from the City of Los Angeles and the Pacific Coast, and approximately 240 miles from the Phoenix/Scottsdale metropolitan region. The City is bounded on the west by mountainous land and by the City of Indian Wells, on the east by the City of Indio and unincorporated Riverside County, on the north by Riverside County, and federal and County lands to the south. The PGA West golf course and residential development is accessible from Interstate 10 by way of Jefferson Street, which becomes PGA Boulevard as you enter the project at the northerly boundary. Madison Street defines a portion of the easterly property boundary; the southern boundary is defined by Avenue 58, and the westerly by the San Jacinto Mountains. The project site is within the PGA West Specific Plan area. This area is completely developed, with the exception of 15 to 20 scattered residential lots and the 41.95 -acre proposed project site. Properties adjacent to the project site are developed with golf course and single-family residential land uses. The project site is currently undeveloped, vacant, and partially graded. 1.2 Regional Air Quality The project is located in the Coachella Valley in the Riverside County portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB or Basin), which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) designates air basins as being in "attainment" or "nonattainment" for each of the seven criteria pollutants. Nonattainment air basins are ranked (marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme) according to the degree of the threshold violation. The stringency of emission control measures adopted by a state or air district depends on the severity of the air quality within the specific air basin. The status of the Riverside County portion of the Basin with respect to attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) is summarized in Table 1, National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Status — Salton Sea Air Basin (Riverside County). As shown in the table, the Riverside County portion of the Basin is designated as serious nonattainment for ozone (a). Serious Nonattainment areas have an attainment date of June 15, 2013, to comply with the 8 -hour ozone standard. For respirable particulate matter (PMio), the Riverside County portion of the Basin was required to meet the national standard by 2001; however, elevated annual PM10 levels from 1999 through 2001 prompted the SCAQMD to adopt the 2002 and 2003 Coachella Valley PMio State Implementation Plan (CVSIP), both of Impact Sciences, Inc. 1 Eden Rock at PGA West Subsequent EIR 0223.012 November 2007 Localized Significance Threshold Analysis which demonstrated attainment of the federal PMio NAAQS by 2006.1 In 2006, the U.S. EPA repealed the annual PMio standard due to a lack of evidence linking health problems to long-term exposure to coarse particle pollution. The existing federal PMio 24-hour standard was unchanged. The revocation of the annual PMio standard became effective December 17, 2006.2 Over the past five years, annual average PMlo concentrations have met the levels of the revoked standard and peak 24-hour average PMto concentrations have not exceeded the current federal standard; thus, the Riverside County potion of the Basin is currently eligible for redesignation as attainment for the PMio standard.3 However, a formal request for redesignation has not been submitted to the U.S. EPA, thus the Basin remains nonattainment for PMio. Table 1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Status — Salton Sea Air Basin (Riverside County) Pollutant Averaging Time Designation/Classification Ozone (03) 8 Hour Nonattainment/Serious Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 Hour, 8 Hour Attainment/Unclassifiable Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual Arithmetic Mean Attainment/Unclassifiable Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 24 Hour, Annual Arithmetic Mean Unclassifiable Respirable Particulate Matter (PMio) 24 Hour Nonattainment/Serious Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24 Hour, Annual Arithmetic Mean Attainment/Unclassifiable Lead (Pb) Calendar Quarter Attainment Source: Environmental Protection Agency. "Region 9: Air Programs, Air Quality Maps.' [Online] [July 19, 20071. <http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/inaps/maps-top.htinl> 1.3 Thresholds of Significance The proposed project is located in Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30. Table 2, Peak Background Concentrations for SRA 30 for the Period of 2004 to 2006, shows the peak background concentrations of NO2 and CO in SRA 30 (Coachella Valley) in which the proposed project is located. These are the values on which LST for NO2 and CO are based. 1 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final 2003 Coachella Valley PMio State Implementation Plan, August 1, 2003. [Online] July 6,2007<http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/PM10PLans.htm>. 2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Ambient Air Quality Standards, March 2, 2007. [Online] July 6, 2007 dlttp://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html>. 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Draft Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, p. 8-1, May 2007. [Online] July 6, 2007 <http://www.aqmd.gov/agmp/07agmp/07AQMP_draftfinal.html>. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2 Eden Rock at PGA West Subsequent EIR 0223.012 November 2007 Localized Significance Threshold Analysis Table 2 Peak Background Concentrations for SRA 30 for the Period of 2004 to 2006 Averaging Peak Pollutant Period Unit 2004 2005 2006 Concentration Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 hour ppm 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.10 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 hour ppm 2 2 2 5 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 hours ppm 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.0 Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District. Historical Data by Year. [Online] July 27, 2007 <http://wwzv.agnid.gov/smog/ his toricaldata.lntnv. Table 3, Localized Significance Criteria, shows the threshold criteria recommended by the SCAQMD for determining whether the emissions resulting from construction of a development project have the potential to generate significant adverse local impacts on ambient air quality. The SCAQMD's concentration -based PMio threshold from its Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology)¢ is a 24-hour average concentration of 10.4 micrograms per cubic meter (lig/m3) based on compliance with Rule 403. The threshold for PMas, which is also 10.4 lig/n3, is intended to constrain emissions so as to not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the ambient air quality standards.s The thresholds for NO2 and CO are based on the maxinumt concentrations that occurred in SRA 30 during the last three years (2004 to 2006) as shown in Table 3. These thresholds represent the allowable increase in Na and CO ambient concentrations above current levels that could occur in SRA 30 without causing or contributing to exceedances of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), For reference, the applicable ambient air quality standards are also shown in Table 3, Localized Significance Criteria. ppm =parts per million. Table 3 Localized Significance Criteria Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, June 2003 and Final Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM2.5 Significance Thresholds, October 2006. LST Criteria for NO2 and CO are the differences between CAAQS and the Peak Concentration. 2 California has not adopted a 24-hour AAQS for PM2s the 24-hour PM2.5 AAQS shown is the national standard. All other standards are the California standards. 4 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, June 2003. 5 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM 2.5 Significance Thresholds, October 2006. Impact Sciences, Inc. 3 Eden Rock at PGA West Subsequent EIR 0223.012 November 2007 Averaging LST Criteria Peak Conc. CAAQS/NAAQSI,z Pollutant Period n/m3 ppm ppm µg/m3 ppm Respirable Particulate Matter (PMio) 24 hours 10.4 NA NA 50 NA Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24 hours 10.4 NA NA 35 NA Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 hour 282 0.15 0.10 470 0.25 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 hour 20,598 18 2 23,000 20 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 hours 9,155 8.0 1.0 10,000 9.0 Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, June 2003 and Final Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM2.5 Significance Thresholds, October 2006. LST Criteria for NO2 and CO are the differences between CAAQS and the Peak Concentration. 2 California has not adopted a 24-hour AAQS for PM2s the 24-hour PM2.5 AAQS shown is the national standard. All other standards are the California standards. 4 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, June 2003. 5 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM 2.5 Significance Thresholds, October 2006. Impact Sciences, Inc. 3 Eden Rock at PGA West Subsequent EIR 0223.012 November 2007 Localized Significance Threshold Analysis 2.0 CALCULATIONS OF EMISSIONS Unmitigated construction emissions during grading and other earthwork activities were estimated based on the URBEMIS2007 (Version 9.2) emissions estimation model for land use development projects. Model input parameters were based on information and activity levels provided by the applicant. Where [ information was not available, model default values or data from similar projects were used. The results indicate that on-site maximum anticipated daily emissions of PMlo, PM2.5, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and CO are anticipated to occur during the grading phase during the fourth quarter of 2008. The key construction emission estimation assumptions for the peak emission -generating phase described above are as follows: • Anticipated grading schedule: September 2008 to December 2008; • Number of work days to conduct material hauling. 60 days; • Total acres disturbed: 42.93 acres (grading is expected to occur beyond the project site boundary); • Maximum daily acreage disturbed: 10 acres; • Daily on-site cut/fill: 3,834.29 cubic yards per day; • Daily off-site cut/fill: 89.57 cubic yards per day; and • Dust control measures: As required by SCAQMD Rules 403 and 403.1. The maximum daily emissions that could occur on the project site from any construction phase were selected for each pollutant for the LST analysis. Only emissions from on-site equipment and activity were considered in the analysis. In theory, the maximum daily emissions for each pollutant could occur during a different phase (e.g., grading, building construction); however, for the proposed project, the maximum emissions are anticipated to occur during the grading phase. Table 4, Estimated Construction Emissions Associated with the Project, presents these estimated construction emissions for PMio, PM2.5, NOx, and CO. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4 Eden Rock at PGA West Subsequent EIR 0223.012 November 2007 Localized Significance Threshold Analysis Table 4 Estimated Construction Emissions Associated with the Project r - Maximum Daily Emissions I (pounds per day) Pollutant Fugitive Dust Mobile Sources PM10 208.48 4.26 PM2.5 43.54 3.92 NOx — 80.57 CO — 41.56 Source: Construction emissions were estimated based on URBEMIS2007 (Version 9.2) emission factors for off-road mobile sources. Emissions reflect the worst-case scenario (i.e., highest daily emissions associated with theproject). The worst-case daily emissions may occur indifferent project construction phases. 3.0 LST ANALYSIS Per the recommendation of the SCAQMD, ambient PM1o, PM2.5, NO2, and CO concentrations due to the construction of the proposed project were analyzed using methods described in its LST Methodology.6 The SCAQMD-approved dispersion model, Industrial Source Complex — Short Term (ISCST3)7 was used for the analysis to model the dispersion of the pollutants of concern. 3.1 Modeling Approach The modeling approach used for this analysis is as follows: • Sources: The proposed project site was divided into four areas of approximately equal size (each area is approximately equal to the maximum assumed daily acreage disturbed). This approach was based on the assumption that grading activity would occur on a portion of the overall project site on the day with the worst-case emissions, and that the grading activity was equally likely to occur in any of these portions. Fugitive dust emissions, which include PMio and PM2.5, were treated as area sources distributed over each of the four areas of the project site. Per the LST methodology, the area sources were given a ground level release height and a 1 -meter (m) initial vertical dimension to represent the initial vertical spread of the emissions. Dry depletion parameters, per the LST methodology, were used for the PMio emissions. Equipment and motor vehicle exhaust emissions of PM1o, PMzs, NO2, and CO were modeled as volume sources with a release height of 5 m, which represents the midrange of the expected plume rise from frequently used construction equipment during daytime atmospheric conditions.8 To simulate the exhaust emissions, 92 to 100 elevated volume sources with dimensions of 20 m by 20 m were distributed throughout each of the four areas of project site. Per the LST methodology, dry depletion parameters were used for the vehicle exhaust emissions of PMio. 6 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, June 2003. 7 Lakes Environmental Software, ISC-AERMOD View (Version 5.7.0). 8 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, June 2003, p. 2-2. Impact Sciences, Inc. 5 Eden Rock at PGA West Subsequent EIR 0223.012 November 2007 Localized Significance Threshold Analysis • p Receptors: Discrete fenceline receptors and discrete Cartesian receptors were used to determine air p quality impacts in the vicinity of the project site. The fenceline receptors were placed at 25-m intervals from the construction site boundaries out to 100 m. Discrete Cartesian receptors were placed at 100-m intervals out to 2 kilometers (km). This was sufficient to cover nearby receptors. Elevation parameters were obtained from 7.5 -minute digital elevation models (DEM) from the United States Geological Survey (USGS). • Meteorology: Indio was identified as the nearest meteorological monitoring station for the proposed project. Deposition meteorological data were used for the PM,o emission sources. Data representing the worst case meteorological conditions were obtained from the SCAQMD. Wind rose figures illustrating the prevailing wind speeds and directions from January 1, 1981 to December 31, 1981 are shown in Figure 1, Wind Rose for the Indio Monitoring Station, 1981, • Model Options: SCAQMD model options were selected (NOCALM, URBAN). Dry deposition was selected for the PM,o emission sources. 3.2 Modeling Results 3.2.1 Adjustment of NO2 Impacts The SCAQMD's LST Methodology discusses an adjustment of the NO2 impacts due to the fact that most of the emitted NOx in the combustion exhaust will occur in the form of nitric oxide (NO), rather than as NO2. Nitric oxide is converted in the atmosphere through chemical reactions to NO2. The LST methodology discusses this adjustment as follows: NOx emissions are simulated in the air quality dispersion model and the NO2 conversion rate is treated by a NO2-to-NOx ratio, which is a function of downwind distance. Initially, it is assumed that only 5 percent of the emitted NOx is NO2. At 5,000 meters downwind, 100 percent conversion of NO-to-NO2 is assumed.9 9 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, June 2003, p. 2-8. The NO2 conversion rates are adapted by the SCAQMD from Arellano, J.V., A.M. Talmon, and P.J.H. Builtjes, "A Chemically Reactive Plume Model for the NO-NO2-03 System," Atmospheric Environment 24A, 2237-2246. Impact Sciences, Inc. 6 Eden Rock at PGA West Subsequent EIR 0223.012 November 2007 WIND ROSE PLOT: DISPLAY: Figure 1, Wind Rose for the Indio Monitoring Station, 1981 Wind Speed Direction (blowing from) NORTH 35% i r' 21% �r 14% 796 WEST 1 EAST WIND SPEED (Knots) — 22 17-21 - 11 - 17 SOUTH 7-11l 4-7 ® 1-4 Calms: 2 59% COMMENTS: DATA PERIOD: T COMPANY NAME: 1981 Impact Sciences, Inc. Jan 1 - Dec 31 00:00 - 23:00 CALM WINDS: TOTAL COUNT: 2.59% 8760 hrs. AVG WIND SPEED: DATE: PROJECTNO.: 6.29 Knots 0/31/2007 0223.012 WRPLOT View- Lakes Environmental Software SOURCE: Impact Sciences, Inc—October2007 FIGURE I �.......W�indose for theIndioMonitoringStation,1981 223-012.10/07 r� Localized Significance Threshold Analysis Table 5, NO2-to-NOx Ratio as a Function of Downwind Distance, which is taken from the LST Methodology, demonstrates how the NO2-to-NOx ratio varies with distance from the source. Table 5 NO2-to-NOx Ratio as a Function of Downwind Distance Downwind Distance NO2/NOx Ratio 20 0.053 50 0.059 70 0.064 100 0.074 200 0.114 500 0.258 1000 0.467 2000 0.75 3000 0.9 4000 0.978 5000 1.0 Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. ' South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, June 2003, Table 2-4, p. 2-9. For this analysis, the distances from the center of the four emission source groups to the receptors with the highest NOx concentrations were determined. A NO2-to-NOx ratio was calculated from the values in Table 5. Ratios at distances between the values in Table 5 were interpolated. For the proposed project site, the distances between the centers of the four modeled source groups to the residential receptors, where the maximum NOx concentrations were observed, were approximately 190 m, 160 m, 320 m, and 210 m. Therefore, NO2-to-NOx ratios of 0.110, 0.098, 0.172, and 0.119 (multiplying factors) were applied to the modeled results for the residential receptors. By multiplying the NOx concentration with the appropriate multiplying factor, the Na concentration at the maximally impacted receptor was determined. 3.2.2 Project -Specific Impacts Table 6, Modeling Results — Maximum Impacts at Residential Receptors, show the maximum PM10, PM2.5, NO2, and CO concentrations associated with the proposed project at the maximally impacted residential receptors. Sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity include residences located to the northwest, southwest, and southeast of the project site. These residences are composed primarily of single-family housing. The existing housing lies on residential roads intersecting and adjacent to PGA Boulevard. The nearest school to the proposed project site is Westside School Elementary located Impact Sciences, Inc. 8 Eden Rock at PGA West Subsequent EIR 0223.012 November 2007 Localized Significance Threshold Analysis approximately 1.6 miles east of the project site. The school is located outside of the dispersion model's 2 -km receptor grid; however, based on the results of the dispersion model at the 2 -km limit, the impacts at the school are estimated to be substantially less than the established significance thresholds. As stated in Section 3.1, fugitive dust and combustion emission sources were placed in four different G areas within the project site. The values presented in the following tables are the maximum results associated with grading activity in the area producing the highest impacts at residential receptors. Table 6 Modeling Results — Maximum Impacts at Residential Receptors Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, June 2003 and Final Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM2.5 Significance Thresholds, October 2006. The maximum impacts for PMw, PM2.5, NO2, and CO were observed at the residential area located to the northwest of the project site along Oak Tree (adjacent to PGA Boulevard). 4.0 CONCLUSIONS The LST analysis was conducted to estimate worst-case ambient air quality impacts during construction of the proposed project. The LST analysis shows that maximum 24-hour PMio and PM2.5 concentrations are anticipated to exceed the thresholds of significance established by SCAQMD at the maximally impacted residential receptors to the project site. The impacts suggest that PM,o emissions could exceed the limitations in SCAQMD Rule 403. Impact Sciences, Inc. 9 Eden Rock at PGA West Subsequent EIR 0223.012 November 2007 Averaging Modeling Results LST Criteria' Exceeds Pollutant Period m3 ppm gg/m3ppm Threshold? Respirable Particulate Matter (PM,o) 24 hours 170.84 NA 10.4 NA YES Fine Particulate Matter (PM2 s) 24 hours 43.73 NA 10.4 NA YES Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 hour 40.64 0.02 282 0.15 NO Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 hour 190.37 0.17 20,598 18 NO Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 hours 127.49 0.11 9,155 8.0 NO Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, June 2003 and Final Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM2.5 Significance Thresholds, October 2006. The maximum impacts for PMw, PM2.5, NO2, and CO were observed at the residential area located to the northwest of the project site along Oak Tree (adjacent to PGA Boulevard). 4.0 CONCLUSIONS The LST analysis was conducted to estimate worst-case ambient air quality impacts during construction of the proposed project. The LST analysis shows that maximum 24-hour PMio and PM2.5 concentrations are anticipated to exceed the thresholds of significance established by SCAQMD at the maximally impacted residential receptors to the project site. The impacts suggest that PM,o emissions could exceed the limitations in SCAQMD Rule 403. Impact Sciences, Inc. 9 Eden Rock at PGA West Subsequent EIR 0223.012 November 2007 APPENDIX A Modeling Files (available by request) APPENDIX B Selected ISCST3 Modeling Output CO 1 -HOUR * ISCST3 (02035): C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\ASAKO\MY DOCUMENTS\ISC-AERMOD VIEW\0223.01 * MODELING OPTIONS USED: * CONC URBAN ELEV NOCALM * PLOT FILE OF HIGH 1ST HIGH 1 -HR VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: SRCGPI * FOR A TOTAL OF 2479 RECEPTORS. * FORMAT:(3(lX,F13.5),lX,F8.2,3X,A5,2X,A8,2X,A4,6X,A8) * CX Y AVERAGE CONC ZELEV AVE GRP HIVAL NET ID 568153.75000 3722885.50000 153.18875 -2.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568153.93800 3722910.25000 146.27940 -2.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568154.12500 3722934.75000 141.81700 -1.21 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568154.31300 3722959.50000 154.74875 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568154.43800 3722984.00000 165.14575 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568154.62500 3723008.75000 170.75728 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568134.00000 3722845.50000 103.40791 -2.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568128.75000 3722885.75000 124.14698 -2.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568128.93800 3722910.25000 122.13799 -1.10 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568129.12500 3722935.00000 113.15084 -1.00 I -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568129.31300 3722959.50000 100.62518 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI IST NA { 568129.43800 3722984.25000 112.30051 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568129.62500 3723008.75000 123.82796 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568109.00000 3722845.50000 85.31755 -2.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568103.75000 3722886.00000 102.91441 -2.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568103.93800 3722910.50000 101.44398 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568104.12500 3722935.25000 93.39384 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568104.31300 3722959.75000 82.63728 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568104.43800 3722984.25000 78.39671 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568104.62500 3723009.00000 86.86439 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568085.81300 3722840.50000 73.13858 -2.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568078.75000 3722886.00000 87.57638 -2.00 1 -HR SRCGPI IST NA IIN 568078.93800 3722910.75000 86.48341 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568079.12500 3722935.25000 79.59251 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568079.31300 3722960.00000 69.66206 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568079.43800 3722984.50000 58.99110 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA jl 568079.62500 3723009.25000 66.38409 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568179.56300 3723033.50000 189.64638 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568202.68800 3723033.50000 189.12831 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568225.75000 3723033.50000 190.36702 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA i 568248.81300 3723033.50000 179.94917 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA I 568161.93800 3723051.25000 156.63580 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568202.62500 3723058.50000 155.41502 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568225.68800 3723058.50000 152.22725 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568248.75000 3723058.50000 142.55646 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568161.87500 3723076.25000 131.80009 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568119.37500 3723044.00000 117.63658 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568202.56300 3723083.50000 129.10210 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568225.62500 3723083.50000 125.82784 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568248.68800 3723083.50000 118.01254 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA fff 568271.81300 3723083.75000 106.45053 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568161.81300 3723101.25000 111.41338 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568126.68800 3723086.50000 107.89310 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568101.75000 3723061.75000 100.28272 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568202.50000 3723108.50000 109.18062 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568225.56300 3723108.50000 106.16113 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568248.68800 3723108.50000 100.37756 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568179.62500 3723008.50000 222.56276 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568271.93800 3723008.75000 187.19380 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568372.75000 3722887.50000 152.12158 -2.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568403.37500 3722877.75000 154.89676 -2.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568548.87500 3722873.00000 61.07409 -2.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568600.87500 3722861.25000 49.14606 -2.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568714.37500 3722753.00000 35.68019 -3.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568666.93800 3722711.25000 40.61177 -3.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568666.87500 3722657.50000 40.01034 -3.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568687.37500 3722629.75000 34.63791 -3.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA {l 568616.18800 3722554.25000 39.13876 -3.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568550.06300 3722498.50000 39.19817 -3.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568426.50000 3722489.50000 38.49400 -3.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568291.56300 3722511,00000 58.51054 -3.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA G 568245.81300 3722569.50000 60.72901 -3.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA r CO 8 -HOUR F * ISCST3 (02035): C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\ASAKO\MY DOCUMENTS\ISC-AERMOD VIEW\0223.01 • MODELING OPTIONS USED: * CONC URBAN ELEV NOCALM * PLOT FILE OF HIGH 1ST HIGH 8 -HR VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: SRCGPI * FOR A TOTAL OF 2479 RECEPTORS. * FORMAT: (3(lX,F13.5),lX,F8.2,3X,A5,2X,A8,2X,A4,6X,A8) * X * Y AVERAGE CONC ZELEV AVE GRP HIVAL NET ID 568133.43800 3722797.00000 17.50064 -2.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568113.87500 3722781.50000 13.91512 -2.00 8 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568153.75000 3722885.50000 34.60003 -2.00 8 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568153.93800 3722910.25000 39.88846 -2.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568154.12500 3722934.75000 51.15723 -1.21 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568154.31300 3722959.50000 58.75203 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568154.43800 3722984.00000 61.94491 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568154.62500 3723008.75000 62.55347 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568134.00000 3722845.50000 18.26371 -2.00 8 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568128.75000 3722885.75000 24,61975 -2.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568128.93800 3722910.25000 29.84906 -1_10 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568129.12500 3722935.00000 31,81495 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568129.31300 3722959.50000 36.08142 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568129.43800 3722984.25000 41..78996 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568129.62500 3723008.75000 44,65205 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568109.00000 3722845.50000 12.58934 -2.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568103.75000 3722886.00000 18,70150 -2.00 8 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568103.93800 3722910.50000 22.59667 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568104.12500 3722935.25000 24.86782 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568104.31300 3722959.75000 25.39111 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568104.43800 3722984.25000 27.33229 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568104.62500 3723009.00000 31.48819 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568085.81300 3722840.50000 9.73890 -2.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568078.75000 3722886.00000 14.76656 -2.00 8 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568078.93800 3722910.75000 17.75636 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568079.12500 3722935.25000 19.81641 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568079.31300 3722960.00000 20,76890 -1.00 8' -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568079.43800 3722984.50000 20.38827 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568079.62500 3723009.25000 21.60500 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568179.56300 3723033.50000 82.16615 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568202.68800 3723033.50000 116.94851 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568225.75000 3723033.50000 127.49195 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568248.81300 3723033.50000 122.75756 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568161.93800 3723051.25000 49.62891 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568202.62500 3723058.50000 91.03231 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568225.68800 3723058.50000 98.86984 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568248.75000 3723058.50000 95.11489 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568161.87500 3723076.25000 43.99848 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568119.37500 3723044.00000 39.87786 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568202.56300 3723083.50000 72.15508 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568225.62500 3723083.50000 78.27040 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568248.68800 3723083.50000 76.72592 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568271.81300 3723083.75000 69.02585 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568161.81300 3723101.25000 39.83678 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568126.68800 3723086.50000 34.57389 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568101.75000 3723061.75000 33.21875 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568202.50000 3723108.50000 58.81671 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568225.56300 3723108.50000 63.60556 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568248.68800 3723108.50000 63.42729 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568179.62500 3723008.50000 88.22903 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568271.93800 3723008.75000 129.40370 -1.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568372.75000 3722887.50000 76.79762 -2.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568403.37500 3722877.75000 48.83773 -2.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568548.87500 3722873.00000 10.85831 -2.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568600.87500 3722861.25000 8.94932 -2.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568714.37500 3722753.00000 5.50064 -3.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568666.93800 3722711.25000 7.26349 -3.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568666.87500 3722657.50000 7.36080 -3.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568687.37500 3722629.75000 6.53152 -3.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568616.18800 3722554.25000 7.27264 -3.00 8 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568550.06300 3722498.50000 9.47683 -3.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568426.50000 3722489.50000 12.04491 -3.00 8 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA NOx 1 -HOUR * ISCST3 (02035): C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\ASAKO\MY DOCUMENTS\ISC-AERMOD VIEW\0223.01 * MODELING OPTIONS USED: * CONC URBAN ELEV NOCALM * EOR A TOTAL OF 2479 RECEPTORS. * FORMAT:(3(lX,F13.5),lX,F8.2,3X,A5,2X,A8,2X,A4,6X,A8) * X * Y AVERAGE CONC ZELEV AVE GRP HIVAL NET ID ` I^ 568153.06300 3722812.50000 192.16946 -2.00 1 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 6 568133.43800 3722797.00000 162.54839 -2.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568113.87500 3722781.50000 140.99213 -2.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568153.75000 3722885.50000 297.29980 -2.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568153.93800 3722910.25000 283.89032 -2.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568154.12500 3722934.75000 275.23022 -1.21 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568154.31300 3722959.50000 300.32709 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568154.43800 3722984.00000 320.50519 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568154.62500 3723008.75000 331.39548 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568134.00000 3722845.50000 200.68796 -2.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568128.75000 3722885.75000 240.93712 -2.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568128.93800 3722910.25000 237.03815 -1.10 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568129.12500 3722935.00000 219.59648 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568129.31300 3722959.50000 195.28743 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568129.43800 3722984.25000 217.94612 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568129.62500 3723008.75000 240.31796 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568109.00000 3722845.50000 165.57928 -2.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568103.75000 3722886.00000 199.73010 -2.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568103.93800 3722910.50000 196.87640 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568104.12500 3722935.25000 181.25323 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568104.31300 3722959.75000 160.37756 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568104.43800 3722984.25000 152.14769 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568104.62500 3723009.00000 168.58125 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568085.81300 3722840.50000 141.94304 -2.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568078.75000 3722886.00000 169.96303 -2.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568078.93800 3722910.75000 167.84192 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568079.12500 3722935.25000 154.46835 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568079.31300 3722960.00000 135.19594 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568079.43800 3722984.50000 114.48645 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568079.62500 3723009.25000 128.83432 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568179.56300 3723033.50000 368.05438 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568202.68800 E 3723033.50000 367.04895 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568225.75000 3723033.50000 369.45303 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568248.81300 3723033.50000 349.23468 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568161.93800 3723051.25000 303.98953 -1.00 I -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568202.62500 3723058.50000 301.62039 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568225.68800 3723058.50000 295.43347 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568248.75000 3723058.50000 276.66528 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568161.87500 3723076.25000 255.78984 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568119.37500 3723044.00000 228.30219 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568202.56300 3723083.50000 250.55368 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568225.62500 3723083.50000 244.19925 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568248.68800 3723083.50000 229.03172 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568271.81300 3723083.75000 206.59291 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568161.81300 3723101.25000 216.22444 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568126.68800 3723086.50000 209.39255 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568101.75000 3723061.75000 194.62279 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568202.50000 3723108.50000 211.89136 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568225.56300 3723108.50000 206.03125 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568248.68800 3723108.50000 194.80699 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568179.62500 3723008.50000 431.93649 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568271.93800 3723008.75000 363.29462 -1.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568372.75000 3722887.50000 295.22858 -2.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568403.37500 3722877.75000 300.61441 -2.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568548.87500 3722873.00000 118.52898 -2.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568600.87500 3722861.25000 95.37971 -2.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568714.37500 3722753.00000 69.24596 -3.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568666.93800 3722711.25000 78.81691 -3.00 I -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568666.87500 1 3722657.50000 77.64967 -3.00 1 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568687.37500 3722629.75000 67.22321 -3.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568616.18800 3722554.25000 75.95818 -3.00 1 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 9 568550.06300 3722498.50000 76.07350 -3.00 1 -HR SRCGPI IST NA PM10 24-HOUR r * ISCST3 (02035): C:\Documents and Settings\asako\My Documents\ISC-Aermod View\0223.01 * MODELING OPTIONS USED: * CONC DDEP URBAN ELEV TOXICS NOCALM ARDPLT * PLOT FILE OF HIGH IST HIGH 24 -HR VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: SRCGPI * FOR A TOTAL OF 2479 RECEPTORS. * FORMAT:(4(lX,F13.5),lX,F8.2,3X,A5,2X,A8,2X,A4,6X,A8) * X * y AVERAGE CONC DRY DEPO ZELEV AVE GRP HIVAL NET ID 568186.31300 3722810.75000 49,89095 0.08709 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568159.00000 3722845,25000 41.14962 0.06176 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568153.06300 3722812,50000 32,47378 0.05194 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568133.43800 3722797.00000 23.29205 0.03233 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568113.87500 3722781,50000 17.78617 0.01999 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568153.75000 3722885.50000 51.28710 0.06329 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568153.93800 3722910.25000 59.46689 0.08303 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568154,12500 3722934.75000 66.39812 0.09250 -1.21 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568154.31300 3722959.50000 73.05943 0.10104 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568154.43800 3722984.00000 80.23809 0.10471 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568154.62500 3723008.75000 83.36851 0.09840 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568134.00000 3722845,50000 22,87667 0.02451 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568128,75000 3722885.75000 33.56505 0.03133 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568128,93800 3722910.25000 36.72233 0.04125 -1.10 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568129.12500 3722935.00000 37.58861 0.05142 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568129.31300 3722959.50000 43.99178 0.05753 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568129.43800 3722984.25000 47.36511 0.05932 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568129,62500 3723008.75000 49.73990 0.05826 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568109.00000 3722845,50000 16.93908 0.01473 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568103.75000 3722886,00000 24.52237 0.02143 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568103.93800 3722910.50000 27.85551 0.02640 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568104.12500 3722935.25000 29.04531 0.03251 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568104.31300 3722959.75000 28.69247 0.03764 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568104.43800 3722984.25000 33.47022 0.04089 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568104.62500 3723009.00000 36.69899 0.04250 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568085.81300 3722840.50000 12.74005 0.01197 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568078.75000 3722886.00000 18.82184 0.01601 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568078.93800 3722910.75000 21.72677 0.01921 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568079.12500 3722935.25000 23.46061 0.02246 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568079.31300 3722960.00000 23,89190 0.02640 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568079.43800 3722984.50000 23,01060 0.02959 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568079.62500 3723009.25000 26.43963 0.03170 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568179.56300 3723033.50000 113.42965 0.14050 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568202.68800 3723033.50000 159,86684 0.14811 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568225.75000 3723033.50000 170.84235 0.15301 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568248.81300 3723033.50000 170.50221 0.15861 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568161.93800 3723051.25000 59.56114 0.09233 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568202.62500 3723058,50000 113.22735 0.10624 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568225.68800 3723058.50000 123.37154 0.11104 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568248.75000 3723058,50000 121.53512 0.11457 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568161.87500 3723076.25000 52.21159 0.07505 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568119.37500 3723044.00000 45.43849 0.04652 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568202.56300 3723083.50000 86.66354 0.08394 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568225.62500 3723083.50000 95.25597 0.08801 -1..00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568248.68800 3723083.50000 94.23844 0.08961 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568271.81300 3723083.75000 86.11633 0.08640 -1,00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568161.81300 3723101.25000 47.35925 0.06210 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568126.68800 3723086.50000 40.18972 0.04743 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568101.75000 3723061.75000 37,59694 0.03673 -1,00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568202.50000 3723108.50000 70.04905 0.06790 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568225.56300 3723108.50000 77.02003 0.07172 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568248.68800 3723108.50000 76.49989 0.07255 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568179.62500 3723008.50000 199.56075 0.25012 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568271.93800 3723008.75000 289,84470 0.27695 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568372.75000 3722887.50000 229.91020 0.23443 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568403.37500 3722877.75000 69,96453 0.13510 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568548.87500 3722873.00000 12.70832 0.02827 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568600.87500 3722861.25000 10.21279 0.01880 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568714.37500 3722753,00000 6.21456 0.00795 -3.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568666.93800 3722711,25000 7.32447 0.00960 -3.00 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568666.87500 3722657.50000 7.58616 0.01189 -3.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568687.37500 3722629.75000 6.81371 0.01139 -3.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568616.18800 3722554.25000 7.48789 0.01378 -3.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568550.06300 3722498.50000 10.41119 0.01783 -3.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA ** CONCUNIT ug/m^3 ** DEPUNIT g/m^2 PM2.5 24-HOUR + * ISCST3 (02035): C:\Documents and Settings\asako\My Documents\TSC-Aermod View\0223.01 * MODELING OPTIONS USED: * CONC URBAN ELEV NOCALM * PLOT FILE OF HIGH 1ST HIGH 24 -HR VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: SRCGPI * FOR A TOTAL OF 2479 RECEPTORS. * FORMAT: (3(IX,F13.5),lX,F8.2,3X,A5,2X,A8,2X,A4,6X,A8) * * X Y AVERAGE CONC ZELEV AVE GRP HIVAL NET ID 568153.06300 3722812.50000 8.09164 -2.00 74 HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568133.43800 3722797.00000 5.88168 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568113.87500 3722781.50000 4.54089 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568153.75000 3722885.50000 12.95163 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568153.93800 3722910.25000 15.15780 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568154.12500 3722934.75000 17.55217 -1.21 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568154.31300 3722959.50000 18.80395 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568154.43800 3722984.00000 19.45905 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA f 568154.62500 3723008.75000 19.59333 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568134.00000 3722845.50000 5.89817 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568128.75000 3722885.75000 8.63152 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568128.93800 3722910.25000 9.56235 -1.10 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568129.12500 3722935.00000 9.88920 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568129.31300 3722959.50000 11.81164 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568129.43800 3722984.25000 12.93937 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568129.62500 3723008.75000 13.48191 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568109.00000 3722845.50000 4.40586 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568103.75000 3722886.00000 6.29900 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568103.93800 3722910.50000 7.22301 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568104.12500 3722935.25000 7.61483 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568104.31300 3722959.75000 7.60872 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568104.43800 3722984.25000 8.76149 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568104.62500 3723009.00000 9.68796 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568085.81300 3722840.50000 3.29492 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568078.75000 3722886.00000 4.85105 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568078.93800 3722910.75000 5.62808 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568079.12500 3722935.25000 6.11061 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568079.31300 3722960.00000 6.25672 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568079.43800 3722984.50000 6.10761 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568079.62500 3723009.25000 6.83038 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568179.56300 3723033.50000 28.89041 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568202.68800 3723033.50000 40.75668 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568225.75000 3723033.50000 43.64544 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568248.81300 3723033.50000 43.73236 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568161.93800 3723051.25000 15.48950 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568202.62500 3723058.50000 29.20506 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568225.68800 3723058.50000 31.66800 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568248.75000 3723058.50000 31.03414 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568161.87500 3123076.25000 13.60127 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568119.37500 3723044.00000 11.82556 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568202.56300 3723083.50000 22.53626 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568225.62500 3723083.50000 24.50324 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568248.68800 3723083.50000 24.47555 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568271.81300 3723083.75000 22.71324 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568161.81300 3723101.25000 12.24288 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA ` 568126.68800 3723086.50000 10.34240 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568101.75000 3723061.75000 9.81925 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568202.50000 3723108,50000 18.09326 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568225.56300 3723108.50000 19.71502 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568248.68800 3723108.50000 19.99237 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568179.62500 3723008.50000 48.89142 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568271.93800 3723008.75000 71.94020 -1.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568372.75000 3722887.50000 55.41985 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568403.37500 3722877.75000 16.34736 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568548.87500 3722873.00000 3.30012 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568600.87500 3722861.25000 2.70126 -2.00 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568714.37500 3722753.00000 1.64696 -3.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568666.93800 3722711.25000 2.13601 -3.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568666.87500 3722657.50000 2.17808 -3.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA 568687.37500 3722629.75000 1.94011 -3.00 24 -HR SRCGPI IST NA 568616.18800 3722554.25000 2.15339 -3.00 24 -HR SRCGPI 1ST NA II ** CONCUNIT ug/m^3 APPENDIX C Summary of ISCST3 Modeling Input and Output Eden Rock at PGA West ISCST3 - Model Emission Rate Inputs Conversion of lbs/day to g/s Project Component Mud,el Source Averaging Period Numberot Volume Soumvs Numberof Area Sources Modeled Emission bite CO :Nax Fii10 PM10 t17PM) PM10 (Dust) PM2.5 PM25 (DPM) PM[" (Dust) Group (noun) (Exhaust) (Du.40 1b4day &h. [brrtday gts lbs/day tbalday gls lbs/day g!s lbs/day Ibalday gls ]belday gls Northwest SRCGP1 8 97 1 4156 6.75E-03 80.57 1.31E-02 161.2 4.26 6.92E-04 156.94 2.47E+00 36.69', 3.92 536E-04 32.77 5.16E-01 Southwest SRCGP2 8 92 1 41.56 7.11E-03 80.57 1.38E-02 161.2 4.26 7.29E-04 156.94 2.47E+00 36.69 3.92 6.71E-04 32.77 5.16E-01 Northeast SRCGP3 8 96 1 41.56 6.82E-03 80.57 1.32E-02 1612 426 6.99E-04 156.94 2.47E+00 36.69 3.92 6.43E-04 32.77 5.16E-01 Southeast SRCGP4 8 100 1 41.56 6.55E-03 80.57 1.27E-02 161.2 4.26 6.71E-04 156.94 2.47E+00 36.69 3.92 6.17E-04 32.77 5.16E-01 Source: URBEMIS2007. Note: The project site was divided into four roughly equal sized areas. Due to the nonuniform shape of the project site, the number of volume sources in each of the four areas may not be identical. The modeled emission rates represent the maximum daily emissions for each pollutant based on URBEMIS2007 (Version 9.2). The maximum emissions for each pollutant may not occur on the same day or in the same construction phase. PM,s Dry Depletion MicronY Fraction Density 1 0.0787 23 2.5 0.1292 2.3 10 0.7922 2.3 Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, June 2003. Eden Rock at PGA West ISCST3 - Model Results Maximum Modeled Impacts at Sensitive Receptors and NOZ Conversion Project Component Model Source Group Receptor Type Modeled Impacts at Sensitive Receptors (All Source Groups) CO NOx PM" PM" 1 -Hr 8 -Hr 1 -Hr 24 -Hr 24 -Hr pg/-, µMm3 Vg/m3 µ8/_3 pg/m3 Northwest SRCGPI Residential 190.37 127.49 369.45 170.84 43.73 Southwest SRCGP2 Residential 134.79 28.52 261.61 37.65 9.50 Northeast SRCGP3 Residential 57.51 17.37 111.31 18.40 5.22 Southeast SRCGP4 Residential 106.23 39.91 205.97 46.34 13.15 Project Component Model Source Group Receptor Type Maximum Modeled Impacts at Sensitive Receptors CO NOx PM" PM" 1 -Hr 8 -Hr 1 -Hr 24 -Hr 24 -Hr p8✓m3 ppm p8/m3 ppm µ8/m3 µS/_3 µ1;/m3 Northwest SRCGPI Residential 190.37 0.17 127.49 0.11 369.45 170.84 43.73, Project Component Model Source Group Receptor Type Conversion to NOZ NO, NO,-NOx NO,-NOx NO, 1 -Hr Distance Ratio 1 -Hr µg/m3 meters pg/m3 ppm Northwest SRCGPI Residential 369.45 190 0.110 40.64 0.02 Southwest SRCGP2 Residential 261.61 160 0.098 25.64 0.01 Northeast SRCGP3 Residential 111.31 320 0.172 19.10 0.01 Southeast SRCGP4 Residential 205.97 210 0.119 24.47 0.01 Source: Lakes Environmental, ISC-AERMOD View, Version 5.7.0 Note: The NO 2 concentration at the maximally impacted receptor is a function of the NO x concentration and the distance between the emission sources and the receptor. Therefore, the NO z concentration at the maximally impacted receptor may result from a different model source group than that producing the overall maximum NOx concentration. URBEMIS2007 Operational Emissions Page: 1 10/30/2007 07:11:17 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: Z:\Alan Sako\Eden Rock\Air Quality\Emissions Data\Eden Rock - Operational (Residences).urb9 Project Name: Eden Rock Project Location: Riverside County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 2.75 0.52 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 2.52 3.60 26.87 0.03 4.81 0.96 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 5.27 4.12 27.37 0.03 4.81 0.96 Page: 1 SO2 PM10 10/30/2007 07:11:17 PM 0.22 0.00 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: 0.00 0.00 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx Natural Gas 0.04 0.52 Hearth 0.00 0.00 Landscape 0.02 0.00 Consumer Products 2.60 Architectural Coatings 0.09 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 2.75 0.52 CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area Source Changes to Defaults Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100% The number of persons per household for consumer product use changed from 3 persons to 2.85 persons Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX Condo/townhouse general 2.52 3.60 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 2.52 3.60 Operational Settings: Includes correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2012 Season: Annual Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 CO SO2 PM10 PM25 26.87 0.03 4.81 0.96 26.87 0.03 4.81 0.96 Page: 1 10/30/2007 07:11:17 PM Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Condo/townhouse general 40.60 5.86 dwelling units 292.00 1,711.12 15,134.86 1,711.12 15,134.86 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 45.5 0.7 99.1 0.2 Light Truck < 3750 lbs 9.5 1.1 93.6 5.3 Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 21.9 0.5 99.5 0.0 Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 12.1 0.8 99.2 0.0 Lite -Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 1.9 0.0 78.9 21.1 Lite -Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.6 0.0 50.0 50.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 0.8 0.0 12.5 87.5 Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 1.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Urban Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Motorcycle 4.5 57.8 42.2 0.0 School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motor Home 1.5 0.0 86.7 13.3 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home -Work Home -Shop Home -Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 12.7 7.0 9.5 13.3 7.4 8.9 Rural Trip Length (miles) 17.6 12.1 14.9 15.4 9.6 12.6 Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 % of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Page: 1 10/31/2007 10:52:45 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: Z:\Alan Sako\Eden Rock\Air Quality\Emissions Data\Eden Rock - Operational (GH).urb9 Project Name: Eden Rock Project Location: Riverside County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.03 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.03 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Natural Gas 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscape 0.02 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 Consumer Products 0.00 Architectural Coatings 0.01 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.03 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area Source Changes to Defaults Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0 Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0 Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100 The number of persons per household for consumer product use changed from 3 persons to 2.85 persons Page: 1 10/30/2007 07:11:28 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: ZAAlan Sako\Eden Rock\Air Quality\Emissions Data\Eden Rock - Operational (Residences).urb9 Project Name: Eden Rock Project Location: Riverside County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 15.07 2.88 2.77 0.00 0.02 0.02 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 13.54 18.58 148.68 0.17 26.36 5.28 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 28.61 21.46 151.45 0.17 26.38 5.30 Page: 1 SO2 PM10 10/30/2007 07:11:28 PM 1.22 0.00 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: 0.01 1.55 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx Natural Gas 0.22 2.86 Hearth - No Summer Emissions Landscape 0.12 0.02 Consumer Products 14.23 Architectural Coatings 0.50 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 15.07 2.88 CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 1.22 0.00 0.01 0.01 1.55 0.00 0.01 0.01 2.77 0.00 0.02 0.02 Area Source Chanoes to Defaults Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100% The number of persons per household for consumer product use changed from 3 persons to 2.85 persons Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX CO Condo/townhouse general 13.54 18.58 148.68 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 13.54 18.58 148.68 Operational Settings: Includes correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2012 Temperature (F): 80 Season: Summer Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 SO2 PM10 PM25 0.17 26.36 5.28 0.17 26.36 5.28 Page: 1 10/30/2007 07:11:28 PM Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Condo/townhouse general 40.60 5.86 dwelling units 292.00 1,711.12 15,134.86 1,711.12 15,134.86 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 45.5 0.7 99.1 0.2 Light Truck < 3750 lbs 9.5 1.1 93.6 5.3 Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 21.9 0.5 99.5 0.0 Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 12.1 0.8 99.2 0.0 Lite -Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 1.9 0.0 78.9 21.1 Lite -Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.6 0.0 50.0 50.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 0.8 0.0 12.5 87.5 Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 1.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Urban Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Motorcycle 4.5 57.8 42.2 0.0 School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motor Home 1.5 0.0 86.7 13.3 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home -Work Home -Shop Home -Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 12.7 7.0 9.5 13.3 7.4 8.9 Rural Trip Length (miles) 17.6 12.1 14.9 15.4 9.6 12.6 Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 % of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Page: 1 10/31/2007 10:53:00 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: Z:\Alan Sako\Eden Rock\Air Quality\Emissions Data\Eden Rock - Operational (GH).urb9 Project Name: Eden Rock Project Location: Riverside County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.16 0.07 1.59 0.00 0.01 0.01 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.16 0.07 1.59 0.00 0.01 0.01 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Natural Gas 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hearth - No Summer Emissions Landscape 0.12 0.02 1.55 0.00 0.01 0.01 Consumer Products 0.00 Architectural Coatings 0.04 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.16 0.07 1.59 0.00 0.01 0 01 Area Source Changes to Defaults Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0 Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0 Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100 The number of persons per household for consumer product use changed from 3 persons to 2.85 persons Page: 1 10/30/2007 07:11:37 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: ZAAlan Sako\Eden Rock\Air Quality\Emissions Data\Eden Rock - Operational (Residences).urb9 Project Name: Eden Rock Project Location: Riverside County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 15.04 4.47 1.91 0.01 ROG TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 14.28 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 29.32 NOx CO SO2 22.06 144.35 0.14 NOx CO SO2 26.53 146.26 0.15 PM10 PM2.5 0.14 0.14 PM10 PM2.5 26.36 5.28 PM10 PM2.5 26.50 5.42 Page: 1 10/30/2007 07:11:37 PM Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx Natural Gas 0.22 2.86 Hearth 0.09 1.61 Landscaping - No Winter Emissions Consumer Products 14.23 Architectural Coatings 0.50 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 15.04 4.47 CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 1.22 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.69 0.01 0.13 0.13 1.91 0.01 0.14 0.14 Area Source Changes to Defaults Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100% The number of persons per household for consumer product use changed from 3 persons to 2.85 persons Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX Condo/townhouse general 14.28 22.06 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 14.28 22.06 Operational Settings: Includes correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2012 Temperature (F): 60 Season: Winter Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 CO SO2 PM10 PM25 144.35 0.14 26.36 5.28 144.35 0.14 26.36 5.28 Page: 1 10/30/2007 07:11:37 PM Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Condo/townhouse general 40.60 5.86 dwelling units 292.00 1,711.12 15,134.86 1,711.12 15,134.86 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 45.5 0.7 99.1 0.2 Light Truck < 3750 lbs 9.5 1.1 93.6 5.3 Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 21.9 0.5 99.5 0.0 Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 12.1 0.8 99.2 0.0 Lite -Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 1.9 0.0 78.9 21.1 Lite -Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.6 0.0 50.0 50.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 0.8 0.0 12.5 87.5 Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 1.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Urban Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Motorcycle 4.5 57.8 42.2 0.0 School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motor Home 1.5 0.0 86.7 13.3 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home -Work Home -Shop Home -Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 12.7 7.0 9.5 13.3 7.4 8.9 Rural Trip Length (miles) 17.6 12.1 14.9 15.4 9.6 12.6 Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 % of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Page: 1 10/31/2007 10:53:20 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: Z:Wlan Sako\Eden Rock\Air Quality\Emissions Data\Eden Rock - Operational (GH).urb9 Project Name: Eden Rock Project Location: Riverside County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emtac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 004 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Natural Gas 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 0,00 Hearth 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscaping - No Winter Emissions Consumer Products 0.00 Architectural Coatings 0.04 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area Source Changes to Defaults Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0 Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0 Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100 The number of persons per household for consumer product use changed from 3 persons to 2.85 persons CO Hotspots BAY AREA AQMD SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 ANALYSIS; UPDATED WITH EMFAC2007 Project Title: Intersection: Analysis Condition: Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Background I -hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8 -hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: Analysis Year: Eden Rock at PGA West Subsequent EIR 1. Washington Street and Avenue 50 Post 2020 General Plan with Project Traffic Volumes SRA 30, Station 4137 3.0 1.3 0.7 2020 Approach/Departure No. of Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Washington Street AT GRADE 4 5 5 East-West Roadway: Avenue 50 AT GRADE 4 5 5 EMFAC2007 COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO Air Basin: Salton Sea Air Basin County: Riverside County Assumes lowest mean wintertime temperature of 40 degrees F and 27% humidity. Average Speed (miles per hour) Year 5 8 11 14 17 20 23 26 29 32 2020 3.287 2.834 2.467 2.175 1.95 1.791 1.682 1.589 1.509 1.441 PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES A.M. Peak N 451 627 277 W < v > E 425 ^ A 236 314 > < 383 93 v v 150 < A > 120 824 155 S Representative Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) P.M. Peak N 522 1,184 299 W < v > fi 536 A A 387 526 > < 468 134 v v 207 < ^ > 142 1,032 194 S N -S Road 2,840 N -S Road 3,960 E -W Road 1,786 E -W Road 2,328 Primary Road = N -S Road Primary Road= N -S Road ROADWAY CO CONTRIBUTIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadwav 0 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet Volume Factor A.M. Peak Hour N -S Road 11.9 7.0 5.4 * 2,840 * 3.29 100,000 E -W Road 3.3 2.6 2.2 * 1,786 * 3.29 100,000 P.M. Peak Hour N -S Road 11.9 7.0 5.4 * 3,960 * 3.29 - 100,000 E -W Road 3.3 2.6 2.2 * 2,328 * 3.29 100,000 TOTAL CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8 -Hour 0 Feet from Roadway Edge 4.3 4.8 2.6 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 3.8 4.1 2.1 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 3.6 3.9 1.9 r BAY AREA AQMD SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 ANALYSIS; UPDATED WITH EMFAC2007 Project Title: Intersection: Analysis Condition: Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Background 1-hcur CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8 -hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: Analysis Year: Eden Rock at PGA West Subsequent EIR 2. Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 Post 2020 General Plan with Project Traffic Volumes SRA 30, Station 4137 3.0 1.3 0.7 2020 Approach/Departure No. of Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Jefferson Street AT GRADE 6 5 5 East-West Roadway: Avenue 50 AT GRADE 4 5 5 EMFAC2007 COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO Air Basin: Salton Sea Air Basin County: Riverside County Assumes lowest mean wintertime temperature of 40 degrees F and 27% humidity. Average Speed (miles per hour) Year 5 8 11 14 17 20 23 26 29 32 2020 3.287 2.834 2.467 2.175 1.95 1.791 1.682 1.589 1.509 1.441 PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES A.M. Peak N 384 732 107 W < v > E 316 ^ A 240 365 > < 4t3 47 v v 46 < ^ > 82 868 34 S Representative Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N -S Road 2,647 N -S Road 3,564 E -W Road 1,607 E -W Road 2,318 Primary Road = N -S Road Primary Road = N -S Road ROADWAY CO CONTRIBUTIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadway 0 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet Volume Factor A.M. Peak Hour N -S Road 9,5 6.1 4.9 * 2,647 * 3.29 100,000 E -W Road 3.3 2.6 2.2 * 1,607 * 3.29 - 100,000 P.M. Peak Hour N -S Road 9.5 6.1 4.9 E -W Road 3.3 2.6 2.2 P.M. Peak * 3.29 - * 3.29 - 100,000 100,000 N A.M. P.M. 426 1,045 396 Peak Hour 8 -Hour W 4.0 < v > 25 Feet from Roadway Edge E 476 ^ 1.9 ^ 147 580 > 1.8 < 629 113 v v 79 94 1,071 90 S N -S Road 2,647 N -S Road 3,564 E -W Road 1,607 E -W Road 2,318 Primary Road = N -S Road Primary Road = N -S Road ROADWAY CO CONTRIBUTIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadway 0 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet Volume Factor A.M. Peak Hour N -S Road 9,5 6.1 4.9 * 2,647 * 3.29 100,000 E -W Road 3.3 2.6 2.2 * 1,607 * 3.29 - 100,000 P.M. Peak Hour N -S Road 9.5 6.1 4.9 E -W Road 3.3 2.6 2.2 * 3,564 * 2,318 * 3.29 - * 3.29 - 100,000 100,000 TOTAL CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8 -Hour 0 Feet from Roadway Edge 4.0 4.4 2.3 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 3.7 3.9 1.9 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 3.5 3.7 1.8 BAY AREA AQMD SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 ANALYSIS; UPDATED WITH EMFAC2007 Project Title: Intersection: Analysis Condition: Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Background 1 -hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8 -hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: Analysis Year: Eden Rock at PGA West Subsequent FIR 3, Jefferson Street and 54th Avenue Post 2020 General Plan with Project Traffic Volumes SRA 30, Station 4137 3.0 1.3 0.7 2020 Approach/Departure No. of Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Jefferson Street AT GRADE 4 5 5 East-West Roadway: 54th Avenue AT GRADE 2 5 5 EMFAC2007 COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO Air Basin: Salton Sea Air Basin County: Riverside County Assumes lowest mean wintertime temperature of 40 degrees F and 27% humidity. Average Speed (miles per hour) Year 5 8 11 14 17 20 23 26 29 32 2020 3.287 2.834 2.467 2.175 1.95 1.791 1.682 1.589 1.509 1.441 PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES A.M. Peak Representative Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) P.M. Peak N 12 410 855 W < v > 1: 7 ^ ^ 516 2> < 5 7 v v 130 < A > 0 248 56 S N -S Road 1,624 N -S Road 2,048 E -W Road 1,295 E -W Road 1,564 Primary Road = N -S Road Primary Road = N -S Road ROADWAY CO CONTRIBUTIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadway 0 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet Volume Factor A.M. Peak Hour N -S Road 11.9 7.0 5.4 * 1,624 * 3.29 - 100,000 E -W Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 * 1,295 * 3.29 100,000 P.M. Peak Hour N -S Road 11.9 7.0 5.4 * 2,048 * 3.29 100,000 E -W Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 * 1,564 * 3.29 100,000 TOTAL CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) N P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8 -Hour 0 Feet from Roadway Edge 3.8 4.0 2.0 8 218 601 3.6 1.7 W 3.4 3.5 < v > E 5 ^ ^ 516 2> < 5 4 v v 128 I 276 43 I S1 Representative Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) P.M. Peak N 12 410 855 W < v > 1: 7 ^ ^ 516 2> < 5 7 v v 130 < A > 0 248 56 S N -S Road 1,624 N -S Road 2,048 E -W Road 1,295 E -W Road 1,564 Primary Road = N -S Road Primary Road = N -S Road ROADWAY CO CONTRIBUTIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadway 0 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet Volume Factor A.M. Peak Hour N -S Road 11.9 7.0 5.4 * 1,624 * 3.29 - 100,000 E -W Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 * 1,295 * 3.29 100,000 P.M. Peak Hour N -S Road 11.9 7.0 5.4 * 2,048 * 3.29 100,000 E -W Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 * 1,564 * 3.29 100,000 TOTAL CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8 -Hour 0 Feet from Roadway Edge 3.8 4.0 2.0 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 3.5 3.6 1.7 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 3.4 3.5 1,6 BAY AREA AQMD SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 ANALYSIS; UPDATED WITH EMFAC2007 Project Title: Intersection: Analysis Condition: Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO Background 1 -hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8 -hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: Analysis Year: Eden Rock at PGA West Subsequent EIR 4. Madison Avenue and 54th Avenue Post 2020 General Plan with Project Traffic Volumes SRA 30, Station 4137 3.0 1.3 0.7 2020 Approach/Departure No. of Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Madison Avenue AT GRADE 4 5 5 East-West Roadway: 54th Avenue AT GRADE 2 5 5 EMFAC2007 COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO Air Basin: Salton Sea Air Basin County: Riverside County Assumes lowest mean wintertime temperature of 40 degrees F and 27% humidity. Average Speed (miles per hour) Year 5 8 11 14 17 20 23 26 29 32 2020 3.287 2.834 2.467 2.175 1.95 1.791 1.682 1.589 1.509 1.441 PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES A.M. Peak N 212 429 39 W < v > E 225 A A 35 37 > < 32 384 v v 62 405 641 112 S1 I Representative Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) P.M. Peak N 287 580 53 W < v > E 319 ^ ^ 47 50 > < 42 544 v v 80 < A > 774 916 143 S N -S Road 2,033 N -S Road 3,037 E -W Road 1,295 E -W Road 2,016 Primary Road = N -S Road Primar Road = N -S Road ROADWAY CO CONTRIBUTIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadway 0 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet Volume Factor A.M. Peak Hour N -S Road 11.9 7.0 5.4 * 2,033 * 3.29 - 100,000 E -W Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 * 1,295 * 3.29 - 100,000 P.M. Peak Hour N -S Road 11.9 7.0 5.4 E -W Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 * 3,037 * 2,016 * 3.29 * 3.29 100,000 100,000 TOTAL CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak _Hour 8 -Hour 0 Feet from Roadway Edge 4.0 4.4 2.3 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 3.6 3.9 1.9 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 15 3.7 1.8 BAY AREA AQMD SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 ANALYSIS; UPDATED WITH EMFAC2007 Project Title: Intersection: Analysis Condition: Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO; Background 1 -hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8 -hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: Analysis Year: North-South Roadway: PGA Boulevard East-West Roadway: Project West Entrance Eden Rock at PGA West Subsequent EIR 5. PGA Boulevard and Project West Entrance Post 2020 General Plan with Project Traffic Volumes SRA 30, Station 4137 3.0 1.3 0.7 2020 Approach/Departure No. of Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. AT GRADE 4 5 5 AT GRADE 0 5 5 EMFAC2007 COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO Air Basin: Salton Sea Air Basin County: Riverside County Assumes lowest mean wintertime temperature of 40 degrees F and 27% humidity. Average Speed (miles per hour) Year 5 8 11 14 17 20 23 26 29 32 2020 3.287 2.834 2.467 2.175 1.95 1.791 1.682 1.589 1.509 1.441 PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES A.M. Peak Representative Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) P.M. Peak N 0 386 16 W < V > E 0 A A 30 0> < 0 0V V 0 < A > 0 274 0 S N -S Road 587 N -S Road 706 E -W Road 77 E -W Road 46 Primary Road = N -S Road Primary Road = N -S Road ROADWAY CO CONTRIBUTIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadway 0 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet Volume Factor A.M. Peak Hour N -S Road 11.9 7.0 5.4 x 587 * 3.29 - 100,000 E -W Road 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 77 * 3.29 100,000 P.M. Peak Hour N -S Road 11.9 7.0 5.4 E -W Road 0.0 0.0 0.0 N 3.29 * 3.29 - 100,000 100,000 TOTAL CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) A.M. P.M. Peak Hour 0 256 0 Feet from Roadway Edge 12 3.3 1.5 W 3.1 3.2 < 50 Feet from Roadway Edge V > 1.4 E 0 A A 65 0> < 0 0V V 0 < A > 0 254 0 S Representative Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) P.M. Peak N 0 386 16 W < V > E 0 A A 30 0> < 0 0V V 0 < A > 0 274 0 S N -S Road 587 N -S Road 706 E -W Road 77 E -W Road 46 Primary Road = N -S Road Primary Road = N -S Road ROADWAY CO CONTRIBUTIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadway 0 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet Volume Factor A.M. Peak Hour N -S Road 11.9 7.0 5.4 x 587 * 3.29 - 100,000 E -W Road 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 77 * 3.29 100,000 P.M. Peak Hour N -S Road 11.9 7.0 5.4 E -W Road 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 706 * 46 3.29 * 3.29 - 100,000 100,000 TOTAL CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8 -Hour 0 Feet from Roadway Edge 3.2 3.3 1.5 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 3.1 3.2 1.4 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 3.1 3.1 1.4 BAY AREA AQMD SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 ANALYSIS; UPDATED WITH EMFAC2007 Project Title: Intersection: Analysis Condition: Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Background I -hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8 -hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: Analysis Year: Eden Rock at PGA West Subsequent EIR 6. Project South Entrance and PGA Boulevard Post 2020 General Plan with Project Traffic Volumes SRA 30, Station 4137 3.0 1.3 0.7 2020 Approach/Departure No. of Speed Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M. North-South Roadway: Project South Entrance AT GRADE 0 5 5 East-West Roadway: PGA Boulevard AT GRADE 2 5 5 EMFAC2007 COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO Air Basin: Salton Sea Air Basin County: Riverside County Assumes lowest mean wintertime temperature of 40 degrees F and 27% humidity. Average Speed (miles per hour) Year 5 8 11 14 17 20 23 26 29 32 2020 3.287 2.834 2.467 2.175 1.95 1.791 1.682 1.589 1.509 1.441 PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES A.M. Peak Representative Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) P.M. Peak N 20 0 0 W < v > E 41 A ^ 0 0> < 0 0 v 0 < ^ > 0 0 0 S N -S Road 51 N -S Road 61 E -W Road 51 E -W Road 61 Primary Road = N -S Road Primary Road = N -S Road ROADWAY CO CONTRIBUTIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadwav 0 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet Volume Factor A.M. Peak Hour N S Road 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 51 * 3.29 100,000 E -W Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 * 51 * 329 - 100,000 P.M. Peak Hour N -S Road 0.0 0.0 0.0 E -W Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 N 3.29 3.29 100,000 100,000 TOTAL CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) A.M. P.M. Peak Hour 43 8 -Hour 0 3.0 If 1.3 W 3.0 3.0 < 50 Feet from Roadway Edge v 3.0 > E 8^ ^ 0 0> < 0 0 v 0 0 0 0 S1 I Representative Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) P.M. Peak N 20 0 0 W < v > E 41 A ^ 0 0> < 0 0 v 0 < ^ > 0 0 0 S N -S Road 51 N -S Road 61 E -W Road 51 E -W Road 61 Primary Road = N -S Road Primary Road = N -S Road ROADWAY CO CONTRIBUTIONS Reference CO Concentrations Traffic Emission Roadwav 0 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet Volume Factor A.M. Peak Hour N S Road 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 51 * 3.29 100,000 E -W Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 * 51 * 329 - 100,000 P.M. Peak Hour N -S Road 0.0 0.0 0.0 E -W Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 * 61 * * 61 * 3.29 3.29 100,000 100,000 TOTAL CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour 8 -Hour 0 Feet from Roadway Edge 3.0 3.0 1.3 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 3.0 3.0 1.3 50 Feet from Roadway Edge 3.0 3.0 1.3 URBEMIS2007 Mitigated Construction Emissions Page: 1 11/1/200705:10:51 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: Z:\Alan Sako\Eden Rock\Air Quality\Emissions Data\Construction Mitigation\Eden Rock - Const Mitigation.urb9 Project Name: Eden Rock - Construction Mitigated Project Location: Riverside County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES 2008 Mass Grading 09/29/2008- 12/19/2008 Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel Mass Grading On Road Diesel Mass Grading Worker Trips CO ROG NOx 2008 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 0.30 2.56 2008 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 0.30 2.56 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: 0.00 3.59 0.13 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated 2008 Mass Grading 09/29/2008- 12/19/2008 Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel Mass Grading On Road Diesel Mass Grading Worker Trips CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 1.38 0.00 10.60 0.13 10.74 2.21 0.12 2.34 1.38 0.00 3.59 0.13 3.72 0.75 0.12 0.87 0.00 0.00 66.14 0.00 65.32 66.13 0.00 62.66 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 0.30 2.56 1.38 0.00 10.60 0.13 10.74 2.21 0.12 2.34 0.30 2.56 1.38 0.00 10.60 0.13 10.74 2.21 0.12 2.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.60 0.00 10.60 2.21 0.00 2.21 0.29 2.42 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.01 0.14 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 1 11/l/200705:10:51 PM Phase Assumptions Phase: Mass Grading 9/29/2008 - 12/19/2008 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description Total Acres Disturbed: 42.93 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 10 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Medium Onsite Scraper Use: 7 hr/day; Offsite Haulage: 0 hrs/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 128.5 Off -Road Equipment: 2 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Loaders (164 hp) operating at a 0.54 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Scrapers (313 hp) operating at a 0.72 load factor for 8 hours per day 4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Construction Mitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 9/29/2008 - 12/19/2008 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61% PM25: 61% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61°% PM25: 61% ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 2008 0.30 2.56 1.38 0.00 3.59 0.13 3.72 0.75 0.12 0.87 Mass Grading 09/29/2008- 0.30 2.56 1.38 0.00 3.59 0.13 3.72 0.75 0.12 0.87 12/19/2008 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.59 0.00 3.59 0.75 0.00 0.75 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 0.29 2.42 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.12 0.12 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.01 0.14 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 9/29/2008 - 12/19/2008 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61% PM25: 61% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61°% PM25: 61% Page: 1 11/1/2007 05:11:13 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: ZAAlan Sako\Eden Rock\Air Quality\Emissions Data\Construction Mitigation\Eden Rock - Const Mitigation.urb9 Project Name: Eden Rock - Construction Mitigated Project Location: Riverside County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 2008 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 10.12 85.31 46.01 0.01 353.43 4.45 357.88 73.81 4.10 77.91 2008 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 10.12 85.31 46.01 0.01 119.68 4.45 124.13 25.00 4.10 29.09 Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Time Slice 9/29/2008-12/19/2008 10.12 85.31 46.01 0.01 353.43 4.45 357.88 73.81 4.10 u 77.91 Active Days: 60 Mass Grading 09/29/2008- 10.12 85.31 46.01 0.01 353.43 4.45 357.88 73.81 4.10 77.91 12/19/2008 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 353.40 0.00 353.40 73.80 0.00 73.80 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 9.72 80.57 41.56 0.00 0.00 4.26 4.26 0.00 3.92 3.92 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.32 4.57 1.66 0.01 0.02 0.19 0.21 0.01 0.17 0.18 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.09 0.17 2.79 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 Page: 1 11/1/2007 05:11:13 PM Phase Assumptions Phase: Mass Grading 9/29/2008 - 12/19/2008 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description Total Acres Disturbed: 42.93 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 10 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Medium Onsite Scraper Use: 7 hr/day; Offsite Haulage: 0 hrs/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 128.5 Off -Road Equipment: 2 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Loaders (164 hp) operating at a 0.54 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Scrapers (313 hp) operating at a 0.72 load factor for 8 hours per day 4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Construction Mitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 9/29/2008 - 12/19/2008 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25'. 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61 % PM25: 61 % For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61% PM25: 61°% ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Time Slice 9/29/2008-12/19/2008 10.12 85.31 46.01 0.01 119.68 4.45 124.13 25.00 4.10 29.09 Active Days: 60 Mass Grading 09/29/2008- 10.12 85.31 46.01 0.01 119.68 4.45 124.13 25.00 4.10 29.09 12/19/2008 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 119.65 0.00 119.65 24.99 0.00 24.99 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 9.72 80.57 41.56 0.00 0.00 4.26 4.26 0.00 3.92 3.92 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.32 4.57 1.66 0.01 0.02 0.19 0.21 0.01 0.17 0.18 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.09 0.17 2.79 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 9/29/2008 - 12/19/2008 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25'. 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61 % PM25: 61 % For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61% PM25: 61°% Page: 1 11/11/2007 05:11:27 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: ZAAlan Sako\Eden Rock\Air Quality\Emissions Data\Construction Mitigation\Eden Rock - Const Mitigation.urb9 Project Name: Eden Rock - Construction Mitigated Project Location: Riverside County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 2008 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 10.12 85.31 46.01 0.01 353.43 4.45 357.88 73.81 4.10 77.91 2008 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 10.12 85.31 46.01 0.01 119.68 4.45 124.13 25.00 4.10 29.09 Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Time Slice 9/29/2008-12/19/2008 10.12 85.31 46.01 0.01 353.43 4.45 357.88 73.81 4.10 77.91 Active Days: 60 Mass Grading 09/29/2008- 10.12 85.31 46.01 0.01 353.43 4.45 357.88 73.81 4.10 77.91 12/19/2008 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 353.40 0.00 353.40 73.80 0.00 73.80 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 9.72 80.57 41.56 0.00 0.00 4.26 4.26 0.00 3.92 3.92 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.32 4.57 1.66 0.01 0.02 0.19 0.21 0.01 0.17 0.18 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.09 0.17 2.79 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 Page: 1 11/1/2007 05:11:27 PM Phase Assumptions Phase: Mass Grading 9/29/2008 - 12/19/2008 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description Total Acres Disturbed: 42.93 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 10 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Medium Onsite Scraper Use: 7 hr/day; Offsite Haulage: 0 hrs/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 128.5 Off -Road Equipment: 2 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Loaders (164 hp) operating at a 0.54 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Scrapers (313 hp) operating at a 0.72 load factor for 8 hours per day 4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Construction Mitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitigated Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 9/29/2008 - 12/19/2008 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5 % For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61°% PM25: 61°% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44°% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61% PM25: 61% ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Time Slice 9/29/2008-12/19/2008 10.12 85.31 46.01 0.01 119.68 4._45 124.13 25.00 4.10 29.09 Active Days: 60 Mass Grading 09/29/2008- 10.12 85.31 46.01 0.01 119.68 4.45 124.13 25.00 4.10 29.09 12/19/2008 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 119.65 0.00 119.65 24.99 0.00 24.99 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 9.72 80.57 41.56 0.00 0.00 4.26 4.26 0.00 3.92 3.92 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.32 4.57 1.66 0.01 0.02 0.19 0.21 0.01 0.17 0.18 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.09 0.17 2.79 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 9/29/2008 - 12/19/2008 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5 % For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61°% PM25: 61°% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44°% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61% PM25: 61% URBEMIS2007 Operational Emissions - Alternative 2 Page: 1 11/6/2007 12:17:02 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (TonsNear) File Name: Z:\Alan Sako\Eden Rock\Air Quality\Alternatives\Eden Rock - Alt2.urb9 Project Name: Eden Rock Alternative 2 Project Location: Riverside County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.87 1.72 2.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 11.47 15.52 111.92 0.12 20.04 4.01 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 12.34 17.24 114.20 0.12 20.04 4.01 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Natural Gas 0.12 1.71 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscape 0.07 0.01 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 Consumer Products 0.00 Architectural Coatings 0.68 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.87 1.72 2.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 1 11/6/2007 12:17:02 PM Area Source Chances to Defaults Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5°%to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100°% The number of persons per household for consumer product use changed from 3 persons to 2.85 persons Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 Racquetball/health 0.99 1.36 9.89 0.01 1.74 0.35 Hotel 7.22 9.52 68.62 0.07 12.35 2.47 Regnl shop. center 3.26 4.64 33.41 0.04 5.95 1.19 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 11.47 15.52 111.92 0.12 20.04 4.01 Operational Settings: Includes correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2012 Season: Annual Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Racquetball/health 25.06 1000 sq ft 40.00 1,002.40 5,471.68 Hotel 6.22 rooms 1,000.00 6,220.00 38,867.28 Regnl shop. center 32.68 1000 sq ft 100.00 3,268.00 18,723.22 10,490.40 63,062.18 Page: 1 11/6/2007 12:17:02 PM Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 45.5 0.7 99.1 0.2 Light Truck < 3750 lbs 9.5 1.1 93.6 5.3 Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 21.9 0.5 99.5 0.0 Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 12.1 0.8 99.2 0.0 Lite -Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 1.9 0.0 78.9 21.1 Lite -Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.6 0.0 50.0 50.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 0.8 0.0 12.5 87.5 Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 1.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Urban Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Motorcycle 4.5 57.8 42.2 0.0 School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motor Home 1.5 0.0 86.7 13.3 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home -Work Home -Shop Home -Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 12.7 7.0 9.5 13.3 7.4 8.9 Rural Trip Length (miles) 17.6 12.1 14.9 15.4 9.6 12.6 Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 % of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Racquetball/health 5.0 2.5 92.5 Hotel 5.0 2.5 92.5 Regnl shop. center 2.0 1.0 97.0 Page: 1 11/6/2007 12:17:31 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: Z:\Alan Sako\Eden Rock\Air Quality\Alternatives\Eden Rock - Alt2.urb9 Project Name: Eden Rock Alternative 2 Project Location: Riverside County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 4.80 9.41 12.50 0.00 0.04 0.04 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 60.98 80.10 614.71 0.68 109.83 21.99 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 65.78 89.51 627.21 0.68 109.87 22.03 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Natural Gas 0.68 9.35 7.86 0.00 0.02 0.02 Hearth - No Summer Emissions Landscape 0.37 0.06 4.64 0.00 0.02 0.02 Consumer Products 0.00 Architectural Coatings 3.75 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 4.80 9.41 12.50 0.00 0.04 0.04 Page: 1 11/6/200712:17:31 PM Area Source Changes to Defaults Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100% The number of persons per household for consumer product use changed from 3 persons to 2.85 persons Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 Racquetball/health 5.19 7.04 54.24 0.06 9.53 1.91 Hotel 38.79 49.14 377.19 0.42 67.69 13.55 Regnl shop. center 17.00 23.92 183.28 0.20 32.61 6.53 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 60.98 80.10 614.71 0.68 109.83 21.99 Operational Settings: Includes correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2012 Temperature (F): 80 Season: Summer Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Racquetball/health 25.06 1000 sq ft 40.00 1,002.40 5,471.68 Hotel 6.22 rooms 1,000.00 6,220.00 38,867.28 Regnl shop. center 32.68 1000 sq ft 100.00 3,268.00 18,723.22 10,490.40 63,062.18 Page: 1 11/6/200712:17:31 PM Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 45.5 0.7 99.1 0.2 Light Truck < 3750 lbs 9.5 1.1 93.6 5.3 Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 21.9 0.5 99.5 0.0 Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 12.1 0.8 99.2 0.0 Lite -Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 1.9 0.0 78.9 21.1 Lite -Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.6 0.0 50.0 50.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 0.8 0.0 12.5 87.5 Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 1.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Urban Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Motorcycle 4.5 57.8 42.2 0.0 School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motor Home 1.5 0.0 86.7 13.3 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home -Work Home -Shop Home -Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 12.7 7.0 9.5 13.3 7.4 8.9 Rural Trip Length (miles) 17.6 12.1 14.9 15.4 9.6 12.6 Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 % of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Racquetball/health 5.0 2.5 92.5 Hotel 5.0 2.5 92.5 Regnl shop. center 2.0 1.0 97.0 Page: 1 11/6/2007 12:17:45 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: Z:\Alan Sako\Eden Rock\Air Quality\Alternatives\Eden Rock - Alt2.urb9 Project Name: Eden Rock Alternative 2 Project Location: Riverside County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 4.43 9.35 7.86 0.00 0.02 0.02 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 66.53 94.95 610.35 0.58 109.83 21.99 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 70.96 104.30 618.21 0.58 109.85 22.01 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Natural Gas 0.68 9.35 7.86 0.00 0.02 0.02 Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscaping - No Winter Emissions Consumer Products 0.00 Architectural Coatings 3.75 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 4.43 9.35 7.86 0.00 0.02 0.02 Page: 1 11/6/2007 12:17:45 PM Area Source Changes to Defaults Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5°% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100°% The number of persons per household for consumer product use changed from 3 persons to 2.85 persons Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 Racquetball/health 5.94 8.34 54.15 0.05 9.53 1.91 Hotel 41.06 58.26 373.63 0.36 67.69 13.55 Regnl shop. center 19.53 28.35 182.57 0.17 32.61 6.53 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 66.53 94.95 610.35 0.58 109.83 21.99 Operational Settings: Includes correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2012 Temperature (F): 60 Season: Winter Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Racquetball/health 25.06 1000 sq ft 40.00 1,002.40 5,471.68 Hotel 6.22 rooms 1,000.00 6,220.00 38,867.28 Regnl shop. center 32.68 1000 sq ft 100.00 3,268.00 18,723.22 10,490.40 63,062.18 Page: 1 11/6/2007 12:17:45 PM Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 45.5 0.7 99.1 0.2 Light Truck < 3750 lbs 9.5 1.1 93.6 5.3 Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 21.9 0.5 99.5 0.0 Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 12.1 0.8 99.2 0.0 Lite -Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 1.9 0.0 78.9 21.1 Lite -Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.6 0.0 50.0 50.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 0.8 0.0 12.5 87.5 Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 1.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Urban Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Motorcycle 4.5 57.8 42.2 0.0 School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motor Home 1.5 0.0 86.7 13.3 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home -Work Home -Shop Home -Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 12.7 7.0 9.5 13.3 7.4 8.9 Rural Trip Length (miles) 17.6 12.1 14.9 15.4 9.6 12.6 Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 % of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Racquetball/health 5.0 2.5 92.5 Hotel 5.0 2.5 92.5 Regnl shop. center 2.0 1.0 97.0 URBEMIS2007 Operational Emissions — Alternative 3 Page: 1 11/6/200712:44:34 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.22 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (TonsNear) File Name: Z:\Alan Sako\Eden Rock\Air Quality\Alternatives\Eden Rock - Alt3 (Residences).urb9 Project Name: Eden Rock Alternative 3 Project Location: Riverside County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 2.50 0.47 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 2.28 3.27 24.39 0.03 4.37 0.87 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 4.78 3.74 24.87 0.03 4.37 0.87 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Natural Gas 0.04 0.47 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscape 0.02 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 Consumer Products 2.36 Architectural Coatings 0.08 TOTALS (tonstyear, unmitigated) 2.50 0.47 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 1 11/6/2007 12:44:34 PM Area Source Changes to Defaults Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0 Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0 Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100 The number of persons per household for consumer product use changed from 3 persons to 2.85 persons Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 Condo/townhouse general 2.28 3.27 24.39 0.03 4.37 0.87 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 2.28 3.27 24.39 0.03 4.37 0.87 Operational Settings: Includes correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2012 Season: Annual Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Condo/townhouse general 16.56 5.86 dwelling units 265.00 1,552.90 13,735.40 1,552.90 13,735.40 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 45.5 0.7 99.1 0.2 Light Truck < 3750 lbs 9.5 1.1 93.6 5.3 Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 21.9 0.5 99.5 0.0 Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 12.1 0.8 99.2 0.0 Lite -Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 1.9 0.0 78.9 21.1 Lite -Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.6 0.0 50.0 50.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 0.8 0.0 12.5 87.5 Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 1.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Urban Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Motorcycle 4.5 57.8 42.2 0.0 School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motor Home 1.5 0.0 86,7 13.3 Page: 1 11/6/200712:44:34 PM Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home -Work Home -Shop Home -Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 12,7 7.0 9.5 13,3 7.4 8.9 Rural Trip Length (miles) 17.6 12.1 14.9 15.4 9.6 12.6 Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 30 0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 of Trips - Residential 32,9 18.0 49.1 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Page: 1 11/6/2007 12:20:03 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: Z:\Alan Sako\Eden Rock\Air Quality\Alternatives\Eden Rock - Alt3 (GH).urb9 Project Name: Eden Rock Alternative 3 Project Location: Riverside County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.03 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 003 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.00 0,00 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Natural Gas 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscape 0.02 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 Consumer Products 0.00 Architectural Coatings 0.01 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.03 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area Source Changes to Defaults Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0 Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0 Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100 The number of persons per household for consumer product use changed from 3 persons to 2.85 persons Page: 1 11/6/200712:44:58 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: Z:\Alan Sako\Eden Rock\Air Quality\Alternatives\Eden Rock - Alt3 (Residences).urb9 Project Name: Eden Rock Alternative 3 Project Location: Riverside County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 13.68 2.62 2.66 0.00 0.01 0.01 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 12.28 16.86 134.93 0.15 23.93 4.79 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 25.96 19.48 137.59 0.15 23.94 4.80 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Natural Gas 0.20 2.60 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hearth - No Summer Emissions Landscape 0.12 0.02 1.55 0.00 0.01 0.01 Consumer Products 12.91 Architectural Coatings 0.45 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 13.68 2.62 2.66 0.00 0.01 0.01 Page: 1 11/6/2007 12:44:58 PM Area Source Changes to Defaults Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0! Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0 Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100 The number of persons per household for consumer product use changed from 3 persons to 2.85 persons Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX CO Condo/townhouse general 12.28 16.86 134.93 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 12.28 16.86 134.93 Operational Settings Includes correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2012 Temperature (F): 80 Season: Summer Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Land Use Type Condo/townhouse general Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 lbs Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs Lite -Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs Lite -Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home SO2 PM10 PM25 0.15 23.93 4.79 0.15 23.93 4.79 Summary of Land Uses Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT 16.56 5.86 dwelling units 265.00 1,552.90 13,735.40 1,552.90 13, 735.40 Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 45.5 0.7 99.1 0.2 9.5 1.1 93.6 5.3 21.9 0.5 99.5 0.0 12.1 0.8 99.2 0.0 1.9 0.0 78.9 21.1 0.6 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.8 0.0 12.5 87.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 57.8 42,2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.5 0.0 86,7 13.3 Page: 1 11/6/2007 12:44:58 PM Urban Trip Length (miles) Rural Trip Length (miles) Trip speeds (mph) of Trips - Residential of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home -Work Home -Shop Home -Other Commute Non -Work Customer 12.7 7.0 9.5 13.3 7.4 8.9 17.6 12.1 14.9 15.4 9.6 12.6 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 32.9 18,0 49.1 Page: 1 11/6/2007 12:20:15 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: Z:\Alan Sako\Eden Rock\Air Quality\Alternatives\Eden Rock - Alt3 (GH).urb9 Project Name: Eden Rock Alternative 3 Project Location: Riverside County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.16 0.07 1.59 0.00 0.01 0.01 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.16 0.07 1.59 0.00 0.01 0.01 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Natural Gas 0.00 0.05 0.04 000 0.00 0.00 Hearth - No Summer Emissions Landscape 0.12 0.02 1.55 0.00 0.01 0.01 Consumer Products 0.00 Architectural Coatings 0.04 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.16 0.07 1.59 0.00 0.01 0.01 Area Source Changes to Defaults Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0 Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0 Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100 The number of persons per household for consumer product use changed from 3 persons to 2.85 persons Page: 1 ROG NOx 11/6/200712:45:13 PM SO2 PM10 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Natural Gas 0.20 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) 1.11 File Name: Z:\Alan Sako\Eden Rock\Air Quality\Alternatives\Eden Rock - Alt3 (Residences).urb9 0.00 0.00 Project Name: Eden Rock Alternative 3 0.09 1.47 Project Location: Riverside County 0.01 0.12 On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Landscaping - No Winter Emissions Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: Consumer Products AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 13.65 4.07 1.73 001 0.12 0.12 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 12.96 20.02 131.00 0.13 23.93 4.79 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES 0.12 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 26.61 24.09 132.73 0.14 24.05 4.91 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Natural Gas 0.20 2.60 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hearth 0.09 1.47 0.62 0.01 0.12 0.12 Landscaping - No Winter Emissions Consumer Products 12.91 Architectural Coatings 0.45 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 13.65 4.07 1.73 001 0.12 0.12 Page: 1 11/6/2007 12:45:13 PM Area Source Changes to Defaults Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100% The number of persons per household for consumer product use changed from 3 persons to 2.85 persons Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX CO Condo/townhouse general 12.96 20.02 131.00 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 12.96 20.02 131.00 Operational Settings Includes correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2012 Temperature (F): 60 Season: Winter Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Land Use Type Condo/townhouse general Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 lbs Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs Lite -Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs Lite -Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,OOO lbs Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home SO2 PM10 PM25 0.13 23.93 4.79 0.13 23.93 4.79 Summary of Land Uses Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No, Units Total Trips Total VMT 16.56 5.86 dwelling units 265.00 1,552.90 13,735.40 1,552.90 13,735.40 Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 45.5 0.7 99.1 0.2 9.5 1.1 93.6 5.3 21.9 0.5 99.5 0.0 12.1 0.8 99.2 0.0 1.9 0.0 78.9 21,1 0.6 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.8 0.0 12.5 87.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 57.8 42.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.5 0.0 86.7 13.3 Page: 1 11/6/200712:45:13 PM Urban Trip Length (miles) Rural Trip Length (miles) Trip speeds (mph) of Trips - Residential % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home -Work Home -Shop Home -Other Commute Non -Work Customer 12.7 7.0 9.5 13,3 7.4 8.9 17.6 12.1 14.9 15.4 9.6 12.6 30.0 30.0 30,0 30.0 30.0 30.0 32.9 18.0 49.1 Page: 1 11/6/2007 12:20:27 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: Z:\Alan Sako\Eden Rock\Air Quality\Alternatives\Eden Rock - Alt3 (GH).urb9 Project Name: Eden Rock Alternative 3 Project Location: Riverside County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report. AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) ROG NOx 0.04 0.05 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.04 0.05 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx Natural Gas 0.00 0.05 Hearth 0.00 0.00 Landscaping - No Winter Emissions Consumer Products 000 Architectural Coatings 0.04 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.04 0.05 CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area Source Chances to Defaults Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0 Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0 Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100 The number of persons per household for consumer product use changed from 3 persons to 2.85 persons URBEMIS2007 Operational Emissions - Alternative 4 Page: 1 11/6/200712:50:19 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: Z:\Alan Sako\Eden Rock\Air Quality\Alternatives\Eden Rock - Alt4 (Residences).urb9 Project Name: Eden Rock Alternative 4 Project Location: Riverside County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 1.89 0.52 1.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 2.26 3.36 25.10 0.03 4.49 0.90 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 4.15 3.88 26.67 0.03 4.49 0.90 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Natural Gas 0.04 0.50 021 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscape 0.25 0.02 1.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 Consumer Products 1.49 Architectural Coatings 011 TOTALS (tons/year, unm@igated) 1.89 0.52 1.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 1 11/6/2007 12:50:19 PM Area Source Changes to Defaults Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0 Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0 Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100 The number of persons per household for consumer product use changed from 3 persons to 2.85 persons Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX CO Single family housing 2.26 3.36 25.10 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 2.26 3.36 25.10 Operational Settings: Includes correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2012 Season: Annual Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Land Use Type Single family housing Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 lbs Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs Lite -Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs Lite -Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home SO2 PM10 PM25 0.03 4.49 0.90 0.03 4.49 0.90 Summary of Land Uses Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT 55.67 9.57 dwelling units 167.00 1,598.19 14,135.99 1,598.19 14,135.99 Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 45.5 0.7 99.1 0.2 9.5 1.1 93.6 5.3 21.9 0.5 99.5 0.0 12.1 0.8 99.2 0.0 1.9 0.0 78.9 21.1 0.6 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.8 0.0 12.5 87.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 578 42.2 0.0 0.1 00 0.0 100.0 1.5 0.0 86.7 13.3 Page: 1 11/6/200712:50:19 PM Urban Trip Length (miles) Rural Trip Length (miles) Trip speeds (mph) of Trips - Residential of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Travel Conditions Commute Residential Customer Home -Work Home -Shop Home -Other 12.7 7.0 9.5 17.6 12.1 14,9 30.0 30.0 30.0 32.9 18.0 49.1 Commercial Commute Non -Work Customer 13.3 7.4 8.9 15.4 9.6 12.6 30.0 30.0 30.0 Page: 1 11/6/2007 12:21:24 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: Z:\Alan Sako\Eden Rock\Air Quality\Alternatives\Eden Rock - Alt4 (GH).urb9 Project Name: Eden Rock Alternative 4 Project Location: Riverside County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.03 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.03 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Natural Gas 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscape 0.02 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 Consumer Products 0.00 Architectural Coatings 0.01 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.03 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area Source Changes to Defaults Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100% The number of persons per household for consumer product use changed from 3 persons to 2.85 persons Page: 1 11/6/200712:50:31 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: Z:\Alan Sako\Eden Rock\Air Quality\Alternatives\Eden Rock - Alt4 (Residences).urb9 Project Name: Eden Rock Alternative 4 Project Location: Riverside County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 10.30 2.80 8.61 0.00 0.03 0.03 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 12.01 17.35 138.87 0.15 24.62 4.93 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 22.31 20.15 147.48 0.15 24.65 4.96 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Natural Gas 0.21 2.72 1.16 0.00 0.01 0.01 Hearth - No Summer Emissions Landscape 1.35 0.08 7.45 0.00 0.02 0.02 Consumer Products 8.14 Architectural Coatings 0.60 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 10.30 2.80 8.61 0.00 0.03 0.03 Page: 1 11/6/200712:50:31 PM Area Source Chances to Defaults Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0 Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0 Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100 The number of persons per household for consumer product use changed from 3 persons to 2.85 persons Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX CO Single family housing 12.01 17.35 13887 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 12.01 17.35 138.87 Operational Settings: Includes correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2012 Temperature (F): 80 Season: Summer Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Land Use Type Single family housing Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 lbs Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs Lite -Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs Lite -Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home SO2 PM10 PM25 0.15 24.62 4.93 0.15 24.62 4.93 Summary of Land Uses Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT 55.67 9.57 dwelling units 167.00 1,598.19 14,135.99 1,598.19 14,135.99 Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 45.5 0.7 99.1 0.2 9.5 1.1 93.6 5.3 21.9 0.5 99.5 0.0 12.1 0.8 992 0.0 1.9 0.0 78.9 21.1 0.6 0.0 50.0 50.0 08 0.0 12.5 87.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 57.8 42.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.5 0.0 86.7 13.3 Page:1 11/6/200712:50:31 PM Urban Trip Length (miles) Rural Trip Length (miles) Trip speeds (mph) I of Trips - Residential of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home -Work Home -Shop Home -Other Commute Non -Work Customer 12.7 7.0 9.5 13,3 7.4 8.9 17,6 12,1 14.9 15,4 9.6 12,6 30,0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 32,9 18.0 49,1 Page: 1 11/6/2007 12:21:37 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: Z:\Alan Sako\Eden Rock\Air Quality\Alternatives\Eden Rock - Alt4 (GH).urb9 Project Name: Eden Rock Alternative 4 Project Location: Riverside County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.16 0.07 1.59 0.00 0.01 0.01 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.16 0.07 1.59 0.00 0.01 0.01 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Natural Gas 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hearth - No Summer Emissions Landscape 0.12 0.02 1.55 0.00 0.01 0.01 Consumer Products 0.00 Architectural Coatings 0.04 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.16 0.07 1.59 0.00 0.01 0 01 Area Source Changes to Defaults Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100% The number of persons per household for consumer product use changed from 3 persons to 2.85 persons Page: 1 ROG NOx 11/6/2007 12:50:42 PM SO2 PM10 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Natural Gas 0.21 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) 1.16 0.00 File Name: Z:\Alan Sako\Eden Rock\Air Quality\Alternatives\Eden Rock - Alt4 (Residences).urb9 0.01 Hearth Project Name: Eden Rock Alternative 4 1.39 0.59 Project Location: Riverside County 0.11 0.11 On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: Consumer Products 8.14 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 9.03 4.11 1.75 0.01 0.12 0.12 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 13.05 20.60 134.82 0.13 24.62 4.93 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 22.08 24.71 136.57 0.14 24.74 5.05 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Natural Gas 0.21 2.72 1.16 0.00 0.01 0.01 Hearth 0.08 1.39 0.59 0.01 0.11 0.11 Landscaping - No Winter Emissions Consumer Products 8.14 Architectural Coatings 0.60 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 9.03 4.11 1.75 0.01 0.12 0.12 Page: 1 11/6/2007 12:50:42 PM Area Source Changes to Defaults Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0 Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0 Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 1000/6 The number of persons per household for consumer product use changed from 3 persons to 2.85 persons Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX CO Single family housing 13.05 20.60 134.82 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 13.05 20.60 134.82 Operational Settings: Includes correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2012 Temperature (F): 60 Season: Winter Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2 3 Nov 1 2006 Land Use Type Single family housing Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 lbs Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs Lite -Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs Lite -Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home SO2 PM10 PM25 0.13 24.62 4.93 0.13 24.62 4.93 Summary of Land Uses Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT 55.67 9.57 dwelling units 167.00 1,598.19 14,135.99 1,598.19 14,135.99 Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 45.5 0.7 99.1 0.2 9.5 1.1 93.6 5.3 21.9 0.5 99.5 0.0 12.1 0.8 99.2 0.0 1.9 0.0 78.9 21.1 0.6 00 50.0 50.0 0.8 0.0 12.5 87.5 1 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 57.8 422 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.5 0.0 86.7 13.3 Page: 1 11/6/2007 12:50:42 PM Urban Trip Length (miles) Rural Trip Length (miles) Trip speeds (mph) I of Trips - Residential of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home -Work Home -Shop Home -Other Commute Non -Work Customer 12.7 7.0 9.5 13.3 7.4 8.9 17.6 12.1 14.9 15.4 9.6 12.6 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 32.9 18,0 49.1 Page: 1 11/6/2007 12:33:14 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: Z:\Alan Sako\Eden Rock\Air Quality\Alternatives\Eden Rock - Alt4 (GH).urb9 Project Name: Eden Rock Alternative 4 Project Location: Riverside County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) ROG NOx 0.04 0.05 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.04 0.05 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx Natural Gas 0.00 0.05 Hearth 0.00 0.00 Landscaping - No Winter Emissions Consumer Products 0.00 Architectural Coatings 0.04 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.04 0.05 CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area Source Changes to Defaults Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85% to 100% The number of persons per household for consumer product use changed from 3 persons to 2.85 persons APPENDIX 6.0 Cultural Resources Paleontological Resources Assessment Report 05/07/2007 MON 18:09 FAX 760 777 1233 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT CROWN POINTE OF PGA WEST City of La Quinta Riverside County, California JAN 2 3 2006 0 Submitted to: CITY OF LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Scott Miller DEPARTMENT Pacific Land Management 17700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, Suite 100 Portland, OR 97224 Submitted by: Harry M. Quinn, Paleontologist/ Geologist Matthew Wetherbee, Report Writer Michelle O. Bunn, Paleontologist CRM TECH 4472 Orange Street Riverside, CA 92501 Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator Bai Tang, Principal Investigator September 3, 2004 CRM TECH Contract #1399 Approximately 42 Acres APN 775-220-014 1_1SCS La Quinta. Calif., 7.5'(1:224 .,OGO) Quadrangle Sections 16 and 21, T6S RVE, San Bernardino Ease Meridian 05/07/2007 MON 18:09 FAX 760 777 1233 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY In July and August, 2004, at the request of Pacific Land Management, CRM TECH performed a paleontological resource assessment on approximately 42 acres of vacant land in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. The subjectproperty of the study, Assessor's Parcel Number 775-220-014, is located on the north side of PGA Boulevard, within the PGA West Torn Weiskopf Signature Golf Course development. It consists of a portion of the south half of Section 16 and a portion of the north half of Section 21, T6S, WE, San Bernardino Base Meridian. The study is part of the environmental review process for a proposed residential development project. The City of La Quinta, as Lead Agency for the project;, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the study is to provide the City of La Quinta with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would potentially disrupt or adversely affect any paleontological resources, as mandated by CEQA, and to design a paleontological salvage program for the project, if necessary. In order to identify any paleontological resource localities that may exist in or near the project area and to assess the possibility for such resources to be encountered in future excavation and construction activities, CRM TECH initiated records searches at the San Bernardino County Museum and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, conducted an additional literature search, and carried out a field survey of the project area, in accordance with the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. Since the surface of the entire project area appears to have been impacted during past grading and surface usage, grubbing, removal of the stockpiled dirt, and shallow surface grading are not likely to unearth any significant paleontological resources. However, grading activities impacting the undisturbed portion of the project area are likely to encounter paleontological resources within the Holocene --age sediments present at the site. Based on the information available, the undisturbed portion of the project area is assigned a moderate to high sensitivity for paleontological resources. Therefore, monitoring of earth -moving activities for paleontological resources, along with a program to mitigate impacts to the resources that are unearthed, is recommended once these undisturbed sediments are reached during construction activities. Z003/028 05/07/2007 MON 18:10 FAX 760 777 1233 TABLE OF CONTENTS 0004/028 MANAGEMENTSUMMARY...................................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1 SETTING......................................................................................................................................4 METHODS AND PROCEDURES.................................................................................................4 RecordsSearches.........................................................................................................................4 FieldSurvey.............................................................................................................................5 RESULTSAND FINDINGS..........................................................................................................5 Resultsof the Records Searches .............................................. , ....,................................,...,, .. ,..5 Results of the Literature Search................................................................................................6 Resultsof the Field Survey........................................................................................................7 DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................................8 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................ 8 CONCLUSION................................................................................................... I ........................... 9 APPENDIX 1: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS....................................................................13 APPENDIX 2: RECORDS SEARCHES RESULTS.....................................................................17 LIST OF FIGURES Figure1. Project vicinity ...............................................................................................................1 Figure2. Project area.....................................................................................................................3 Fire 3. 'Sketch man of the oroiect area...................................................................................3 Figure 4. Overview of the current natural setting of the project area......................................5 0 0 05/07/2007 MON 18:10 FAX 760 777 1233 INTRODUCTION IM005/028 F In July and August, 2004, at the request of Pacific Land Management, CRM TECH performed a paleontological resource assessment on approximately 42 acres of vacant land in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California (Fig. 1). The subject property of the study, Assessor's Parcel Number 775-224-014, is located on the north side of PGA Boulevard, within the PGA West Tom Weiskopf Signature Golf Course development. It consists of a portion of the south half of Section 16 and a portion of the north half of Section 21, T6S, R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian (Fig. 2, 3). The study is part of the environmental review process for a proposed residential development project. The City of La Quinta, as Lead Agency for the project, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; PRC §21000, et seq.). The purpose of the study is to provide the City of La Quinta with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would potentially disrupt or adversely affect any paleontological resources, as mandated by CEQA, and to design a paleontological salvage program for the project, if necessary. In order to identify any paleontological resource localities that may exist in or near the project area and to assess the possibility for such resources to be encountered in future excavation and construction activities, CRM TECH initiated records searches at the San Bernardino County Museum and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, conducted a literature seareh,, and carried out a field survey of the project area, in accordance with the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The following report is a complete account of the methods, results, and final conclusion of this study. ` x�erm � a! 11s1n 9�-+:••rrh 1 7 ° I e,. Project ,:�• � _ � , !� _ `� location Gem �jd •`"�t,�J t � J .� p, � s � harm WARP As,; i s•y ��} y 7+ L.Crr+s o A`• � I ,�`� t � ....�. IAN. FTS � 3' RRiS LIND ".' t. f. R . ;-4• � C ; rr �• ' a E><I -rox SCALE 1:250,000 S ' NDIAN I 0 5 10miies E. zi 1 ,A In - Figure 1. Project vicinity. (Based on USGS Santa Ana, Calif., 1:250,000 quadrangle,1979 edition) 05/07/2007 MON 18:12 FAX 760 777 1233 Q 006/028 Figure 2. Project area. (Based on USGS Indio, La Quinta, Martinez Mountain, and Valerie, Calif., 1:24,000 cluadrangIes,1956-1996 editions) 2 ��r 1 •� 4J ll�f r5w•�� y i AVENUE 1 �1 Project area ., y j 1p.`'Y i (: ES+�. .s�� rs sva wx� 'T —. .. AYE ,..w 1 i ?8 _ .,--z—�=.�^r• +.. J _s irn 21 22 I tl4�'� `sew r.:„3��•"`_ '� a .. -,....a+1 'moi . �vvyIIIIy�� ..a A V64 `" are#', ': as �t '' °c_. "'�•:,!�1 a � Ln raurnra cued. m� soled 27 - SCAM 1:24,000 � MGrPIMt hffn. fJuxi. YekrYe Q 0 112 1 mile tea a su ° ' wl 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 feetilip Figure 2. Project area. (Based on USGS Indio, La Quinta, Martinez Mountain, and Valerie, Calif., 1:24,000 cluadrangIes,1956-1996 editions) 2 ��r 1 •� 4J 05/07/2007 MON 18:12 FAI 760 777 1233 QIQ -71-4411.1' f IOU, 93M ard Figure 3. Sketch map of the project area. (Based on Concept -Plan by GMA, 2004) Q007/028 05/07/2007 MON 18:13 FAX 760 777 1233 SETTING 0008/028 The project area is located in the western portion of the Coachella Valley, which occupies the northwestern portion of the Colorado Desert geomorphic province Genkins 1980:4041). The Colorado Desert province is bounded on the southwest side by the Peninsular Ranges province, on the north by the eastern Transverse Ranges province, and on the northeast by the southern portion of the Mojave Desert province (ibid.). The province widens to the southeast through the Imperial Valley and extends into Mexico. One of the major features to be found within the Colorado Desert province is the Salton Trough, a 290 -km (180 -mile) long structural depression containing the present-day Salton Sea. This depression extends from the San Gorgonio Pass area southward into Mexico. During the late Miocene and early Pliocene, this trough was a northward extension of the Gulf of California (Powell 1995). By the late Pleistocene and Holocene times, the northwestern portion of this trough was filled with over 4,000 feet of sediments (Proctor 1968). 'W'hile the terra "Salton Trough" refers to the entire structural depression from the San Gorgonio Pass to the Gulf of California, the term "Salton Basin" is used to describe that portion of the area that drains directly into the Salton Sea (Harms 1996:117). The Salton Sea, therefore, occupies the Salton Basin portion of the Salton Trough (ibid.). Elevations within the Colorado Desert province tend to be low, while those of the surrounding provinces can be quite high. This configuration has made for local to regional rapid filling of the basin, especially along its margins, with coarse clastic sediments. Such coarse sediments afford only local environments for the preservation of vertebrate remains. However, some scattered vertebrate fossils have been found in these fluvial derived classic sediments. The project area is situated on a relatively level parcel of land, with an elevation of approximately 10 feet below mean sea level (pig. 4). The 1975 orthophotobase on which the soils have been plotted shows the project area to contain at least two structures in the southwestern portion, open undeveloped desert in the southeastern portion, and farmed. land in the northern portion (Knecht 1980:Map Sheet 11). Currently, much of the project area has been disturbed by previous grading and landscaping activities, which was apparent by the stockpiled soils observed throughout the project area. The southern and western portions of the project area are enclosed entirely by a fence, and contain the remains of a nursery, which was probably used during the landscaping of the PGA development. The northern portion of the prc.ject area Iies outside the fenceline and consists of a paved parking lot. The eastern portion of the project area consists of a storm water catch basin. Piles of old sod, gravel, and broken asphalt were also observed throughout the property. There is also a CVWD sewer line traversing in an east -west direction through the northern portion of the project area. The vegetation throughout the southern portion of the project area consists of salt cedar patches. METHODS AND PROCEDURES RECORDS SEARCHES The records search service was provided by the Regional Paleontologic Locality Inventory located at the San Bernardino County Museum in Redlands and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County in Los Angeles. These institutions maintain files of 4 010 05/07/2007 MON 18:14 FAX 760 777 1233 1a00s/ers f. r Figure 4. Overview of the current na tural setting of the project area. (Photo taken on August 5,2004; view to the northeast) regional paleontological site records as well as supporting maps and documents. The records search results are used to identify previously performed paleontological resource assessments and known paleontological localities within a one -mile radius of the project area. In addition, a literature search was conducted using materials in the CRM TECH library, including unpublished reports produced during surveys of other properties in the area, and the personal library of CRM TECH geologist/ paleontologist Harry M. Quinn. FIELD SURVEY On August 5, 2004, CRM TECH geologist/ paleontologist Harry M. Quinn and paleontological surveyor Michelle Bunn (see App.1 for qualifications) conducted the intensive -level, on -foot field survey of the project area. During the survey, Quinn and Bunn walked parallel north -south and east -west transects spaced 54 meters (ca. 150, feet) apart. The northern portion of the project area was only examined around the edges of the paved parking lot, golf trails, remnants of old Avenue 56, and the existing landscaped areas. RESULTS AND FINDINGS RESULTS OF THE RECORDS SEARCHES The Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (McLeod 2004) and the San Bernardino County Museum (Scott 2004) found no known paleontological localities within the boundaries of the project area. However, the record searches indicate Lnat there are 5 011 05/07/2007 MON 18:15 FAX 760 777 1233 [it 010/028 sites located probably within a one -mile radius of the project area (McLeod 2004; Scott 2004; see App. 2). The record searches also found several paleontological localities previously reported near the project area, but outside the one -mile radius. Some of these known localities have produced fossils from sediment lithologies similar to those known to occur at this location (ibid,). Based of these previous discoveries, the San Bernardino County Museum considers the project vicinity to be an area of "high paleontologic sensitivity," and declares any ground - disturbing operations in the vicinity to have a "high potential to impact significant nonrenewable fossil resources," primarily Holocene -age Iacustrine invertebrate fossils (Scott 2004). RESULTS OF THE LI'T'ERATURE SEARCH Dibblee (1954:Plate 3) mapped the site geology as Qal, or Decent alluvial -fan, flood -plain, swamp, lake, and sand dune deposits. The onsite geology has been mapped by Rogers (1965) as QI-Qal, or Quaternary lake deposits and alluvium of Recent age. The original surface soils for the project parcels were mapped as Ir (Knecht 1980:Sheet 11). The Ir type soils belong to the Indio Series, specifically the Indio very fine sandy loam (ibid.:21). These soils develop in nearly flat alluvium and consist of approximately 10 -inch thick surface layer developed above a substratum 60 inches thick or more of light brownish gray, highly micaceous, very sandy loam that is stratified with silt and silt loam lenses (ibid.). This soil type contains a scattering of freshwater shells and shell fragments (ibid.) Whistler et al. (1995) reports the discovery of terrestrial and freshwater vertebrate remains at a locality not far to the east of this property and from similar sediment lithologies as mapped by Rogers (1965) for the current project area. That fossil locality is characterized by interbedded sediments of lacustrine and fluvial origin (Whistler et al.1995:116) with the terrestrial vertebrate remains apparently corning from the fluvial sediments. It is interesting to note that all of the identified terrestrial vertebrates identified from this locality still have living representatives within or immediately adjacent to the site area. This project lies very close to the recorded sites mentioned by McLeod (2004) and is in a location with similar stratigraphy to that encountered at the PGA West Tom 'Weiskopf Signature Golf Course site reported on by Whistler et al. (1995). The exposed lake bed sediments in the Coachella Valley have been incorrectly dated as being hate Pleistocene through Holocene in age (CRM TECH 1999; LSA Associates, Inc. 2000; McLeod 2004). The Pleistocene age was apparently based on calcareous tufa dates by Smith and Turner (1975:24-27) and Turner and Reynolds (1977), though it was later determined that tufa is a material that results in very questionable radiometric dates (McCarthy 1981:107-1.09; Quinn 2000a:5-6), as it is not completely organic in origin. Scott (2004:1) dated the Holocene Lake CahuiIla sediments as having been deposited between 470 years before present to at Ieast around 6,000 years before present, making them late Holocene in age. Padon (1983) also considers the Lake Cahuilla sediments to be Late Pleistocene to Early Holocene in age. More recent data suggests that the last high stand, the 42 -foot mark, only ended around A.D. 1680, or a little more than 300 years before the present (Laylander 1997; Quinn 2002; Rockwell 1995; 1997; von Werlhof 2001:26). II 1.2 05/07/2007 MON 18:15 FAX 760 777 1233 Z011/028 While the lakebed sediments are often called the Quaternary Lake Cahuilla beds (Rogers 1965; Dibblee 1954.Plate 3), no Pleistocene -age fossils localities have been reported from these lakebeds or their equivalent strata within the Coachella Valley. A preliminary study of soil borings drilled for engineering purposes indicates that at least the upper 25 feet (ca. 7.6 meters) of sediments in the lower Coachella Valley are Holocene in age. A few borings have been drilled to 50 feet (ca. 15.2 meters) below grade without encountering any definable Pleistocene sediments. The nearest known Pleistocene and older fossil -bearing sediments are along the up -thrown side of the San Andreas Fault System, such as in the Indio and Mecca Hills (Dibblee 1954:21-28; Proctor 1968:19-23). A small number of early to middle Pleistocene vertebrate fossils have been found there as float and in outcrop. It is therefore doubtful that an Pleistocene fossils, vertebrate or invertebrate, will be recovered from the lower Coachella Valley, including the project area, during normal grading operations. Many Holocene paleontological localities are known from the ancient Lake Cahuilla sediments. In one instance, invertebrates, such as gastropods (snails) and pelecypods (clams and mussels), were found in association with vertebrate remains of fish, birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians (McLeod 2004). Some plants spores and pollens were also recovered from this locality (ibid.). However, freshwater mollusks are usually the only large fossils found within the lakebed sediments themselves. Freshwater fish remains have been recovered from several of the archaeological sites associated with the old shoreline of Holocene Lake Cahuilla (Love 1996; Love et al. 1999; Quinn 2000b; Wilke 1978). At one shoreline camp (Site CA-RIV-3013) in La Quinta, fish bones were recovered in large quantity from a fire hearth feature (Love et al. 2002:30-31). Dr. Thomas A. Wake at UCLA identified the fish bone recovered from this feature. Based on his identifications, the feature contained bones from Elops affinis (machete), Gila elegans (bonytafil chub), Ptychocheilus lucius (Colorado River pikeminnow), Xyrauchen texanus (razorback sucker), and Mugil cephalus (striped mullet). While fish bones have been -found in archaeological sites along the lakes old shoreline, they are seldom recovered from the lake bed sediments unaffiliated with human habitation sites. Unlike the freshwater mollusk shells, fish bones are rarely found within the lake bed sediments below occupation zones of archaeological sites (ibid.) The shells and shell fragments of Physa sp., Anodonta sp., and Tryonia sp. are among the most common mollusks to be found in the lake bed sediments (Quinn 2000c). These shells and shell fragments are Iight and can be blown about by winds that create the shifting sand dunes. When found in a living position, such as closed -paired valves for Anodonta sp. and clusters of Physa sp. and Tryonia sp., these materials can make good paleoenvirinmental indicators. Based on the literature review, the project area is determined to have a low to moderate potential for Holocene vertebrate fossil remains and a moderate to high potential for significant nonrenewable Holocene invertebrate remains. RESULTS OF THE FIELD SURVEY During the field survey, shell material was found in both in the stockpiled dirt and in the low areas adjacent to the stockpiles. The shells observed consisted mainly of Tryonia sp.. Physa sp., and Anodonta sp. However, these sheIIs were not found in any abundance, such 7 01 05/07/2007 MON 18:16 FAX 760 777 1233 0012/028 as being concentrated in any of the blowout areas. Also found were some shells of the Asian. clam Corbicula sp., which have been introduced through the CVWD irrigation water. Also, remnants of the old Avenue 56 was observed during the field survey. DISCUSSION The literature research indicated that the project area contains sediments deposited within the bed of Holocene Lake Cahuilla. Many Holocene paleontological localities are known from these old Lake Cahuilla sediments. Specimens from these localities usually consist only of freshwater mollusks. However, other invertebrates, such as gastropods (snails) and pelecypods (clams and mussels), have been found in association with the vertebrate remains of fish, birds, reptiles, and amphibians (Whistler et al. 1995:109-118). Some plant spores and pollens were also found (ibid.). The Los Angeles County Museum and the San Bernardino County Museum report the presence of paleontological :resource localities near the project area (McLeod 2004; Scott 2004). These localities have produced mainly freshwater mollusks from Holocene Lake Cahuilla, but some other invertebrates, plant, and vertebrate fossils are also listed. During the field survey, the surface at the open areas of the project area was found to contain a few freshwater mollusks. The field survey also found that the entire surface of the project site has been disturbed either by grading or surface usage for a nursery area. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the study results presented above, the proposed project's potential impact on paleontological resources is determined to be moderate to high, especially for Holocene - age invertebrate fossils. However, the entire surface area has been impacted with more than 2/3 of the area consisting of stockpiled dirt from previous grading. Because of the surface disturbance no monitoring of tree rernoval, grubbing, or surface grading is recommended and no monitoring during the removal of the onsite -stockpiled dirt is needed. Monitoring of earth -moving activities for paleontological resources is recommended for grading after the stockpiled surface materials have been removed and a program to mitigate impacts to the resources that might be exposed or unearthed during grading of undisturbed soils is recommended. Such a program should be developed in accordance with the provisions of CEQA as well as with regulations currently implemented by the City of La Quinta and the proposed guidelines of the society of Vertebrate Paleontology, and should include, but not be limited to the following, as outlined after Scott (2004): The excavation of areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic resources should be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor. Monitoring should be restricted to undisturbed Lake Cahuilla beds and any undisturbed subsurface older alluvium, which might be present below the surface. The monitor should be prepared to quickly salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays. The monitor should also remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil 05/07/2007 MON 18:17 FAX 760 777 1233 (0013/028 invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor must have the power to temporarily halt or divert grading equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens. Collected samples of sediments should be washed to recover small invertebrate and vertebrate fossils. Recovered specimens should be prepared so that they can be identified and permanently preserved. Specimens should be identified, curated, and placed into a repository with permanent retrievable storage. A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens, should be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined above. The report should include a discussion of the significance of all recovered specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency, would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. CONCLUSION CEQA Appendix G provides that "a project may be deemed to have a significant effect on the environment if it will ... disrupt or adversely affect a... paleontological site except as a part of a scientific study." The present study, conducted in compliance with this provision is designed to identify any significant, non-renewable paleontological resources that may exist within or adjacent to the project area, and to assess the possibility for such resources to be encountered in future excavation and construction activities. Since the surface of the entire project area appears to have been impacted during past grading and surface usage, grubbing, removal of the stockpiled dirt, and shallow surface grading are not likely to unearth any significant paleontological resources. However, grading activities impacting the undisturbed portion of the project area are likely to encounter paleontological resources within the Holocene --age sediments present at the site. Based on the information available, the undisturbed portion of the project area is assigned a moderate to high sensitivity for paleontological resources. Therefore, monitoring of earth -moving activities for paleontological resources, along with a program to mitigate impacts to the resources that are unearthed, is recommended once these undisturbed sediments are reached during construction activities. 05/07/2007 MON 18:17 FAX 760 777 1233 REFERENCES Q014/028 CRM TECH 1999 Paleontological Mitigation Plan. In the La Quinta General Plan, Riverside County, California. Prepared by CRM TECH, Riverside, California. Dibblee, T. W., Jr. 1954 Geology of the Imperial Valley Region, California. In R. H. Jahns (ed.): Geology of Southern California, pp. 21-28. California Division of Mines Bulletin 170, Part 2. Sacramento. Harms, Nancy S. 1996 A PrecoIlegate Teachers Guide to California GeomorphiclPhysiographic Provinces. Far West Section, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, Concord, California. Jenkins, Olaf P. 1980 Geomorphic Provinces Map of California. California Geology 32(2):40-41. California Division of Mines and Geology Publication. Sacramento. Knecht, Arnold A. 1980 Soil Survey of Riverside County, California—Coachella Valley Area. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Laylander, Don 1997 The Last Days of Lake Cahuilla: The Elmore Site. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 33(1,12):1-138. Love, Bruce 1996 Archaeology on the North Shoreline of Ancient Lake Cahuilla, Final Results from Survey, Testing, and Mitigation -Monitoring. Manuscript report on file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Love, Bruce, Kathryn J. W. Bouscaren, Natasha L. Johnson, Thomas A. Wake, Harry M. Quinn, and Mariam Dandul 2002 Final Testing and Mitigation Report, Rancho Fortunado Property, Tentative Tract 28964, City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Manuscript report on file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Love, Bruce, Harry M. Quinn, Thomas A. Wake, Leslie Quintero, and David Largo 1999 Final Report, Archaeological Testing and Mitigation, Rancho La Quinta Project; City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Manuscript report on file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. LSA Associates, Inc. 2000 Paleontological Resource Assessment: RJT Homes, La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Prepared by LSA Associates, Inc., Riverside, California. McCarthy, Daniel F. 1981 Rock Art Dating at Travertine Point. In F. G. Brock (ed.): American Indian Rock Art, Volume VI. Papers Presented at the Sixth Annual A.R.A.R.A. Symposium, pp. 107- 117. El Toro, California. McLeod, Samuel A. 2004 Paleontological Resources for the Proposed 1399: Crown Point (PGA West), Paleo Project Area. Records review letter report prepared by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, California. Padon, Beth 1983 Cultural Resources Assessment, Oak Tree West Project, Riverside County, California. Prepared by LSA, Inc., Cultural Resource Division, Newport Beach, California. 10 05/07/2007 MON 18:18 FAX 760 777 1233 [a 015/028 Powell, Charles L., H 1995 Paleontology and Significance of the Imperial Formation at Garnet Hill, Riverside County, California. U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 95-489. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Proctor, Richard J. 1968 Geology of the Desert Hot Springs -Upper Coachella Valley Area, California, with a Selected Bibliography of the Coachella Valley, Salton Sea, and Vicinity. California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 94. Sacramento. Quinn, Harry M. 2000a Petroglyphs in Tufa Along the Western Shoreline of Holocene Lake Cahuilla. Coachella Valley Archaeological Society Newsletter 12(4):5-6. 2000b Vertebrate Fauna from Holocene Lake Cahuilla Based on Remains Recovered at Archaeological Sites in the La Quinta Area of the Coachella Valley, Riverside County, California. Coachella Dalley Archaeological Society Newsletter 12(10): 2-4. 2000c Fresh -Water Snails, Clams and Mussels of Ancient Lake Cahuilla. Coachella Valley Archaeological Society Newsletter 12(7):2-6. 2002 The Last High Stand of Holocene Lake Cahuilla. Coachella Valley Archaeological Society Newsletter 14(1):6-7. Rockwell, Thomas K. 1995 Unpublished lecture presented at the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society. 1997 Personal communications. Rogers, Thomas H. 1965 Geological Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet (1:250,000). California Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento. Scott, Eric 2004 Paleontology Records Review, "1399: Crown Paint (.PGA West)," City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Records review letter report prepared by the San Bernardino County Museum, Section of Geological Sciences, Redlands, California. Smith, Gerald A., and Wilson G. Turner 1975 Indian Rock Art of Southern California. San Bernardino County Museum Association, Redlands, California. Turner, W. G., and R. E. Reynolds 1977 Dating the Salton Sea Petroglyphs. Science News 111 (February). Von Werlhof, jay 2001 Notes on the Desert CahuilIa and Their Yunnan Neighbors. In L. R. McCown, G. A. Clopine, D. H. Bowers, Jay von Werlhof, R. D. Simpson, R. V. May, and P. King (eds.) The Archaeological Survey Association of Southern California's Lake Le Conte Survey. San Bernardino County Museum Association Quarterly 48(3):21-35. Waters, Michael R. 1983 Late Holocene Lacustrine Chronology and Archaeology of Ancient Lake Cahuilla. Quaternary Research 19:373-387. Whistler, David P., E. Bruce Lander, and Mark A. Roeder 1995 A Diverse Record of Microfossils and Fossil Plants, Invertebrates, and Small Vertebrates from the Late Holocene Lake Cahuilla Beds, Riverside County, California. In Paul Remeika and Anne Strutt (eds.): Paleontology and Geology of the Western Salton Trough Detachment, Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, California, Volume I, pp. 109-118. San Diego Association of Geologists, San Diego, California. 05/07/2007 MON 18:18 FAX 760 777 1233 20/6/028 Wilke, Philip J. 1978 Late Prehistoric Human Ecology of ,Lake Cahuilla, Coachella Valley, California. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 38. University of California, Berkeley. 12 O l �� 05/07/2007 MON 18:19 FAX 760 777 1233 I APPENDIX 1: Personnel Qualifications 13 lib 0 /028 r 0 if 19 r 05/07/2007 MON 18:19 FA% 760 777 1233 Q018/028 PROJECT GEOLOGIST/PALEONTOLOGIST Harry M. Quinn, M.S. Education 1968 M.S., Geology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 1964 B. S, Geology, Long Beach State College, Long Beach. 1962 A.A., Los Angeles Harbor College, Wilmington North Palm Springs, California. Graduate work oriented toward invertebrate paleontology; M.S. thesis completed as a stratigraphic paleontology project on the Precambrian and Lower Cambrian rocks of Eastern California. Professional Experience 2000 -Present Project/ Field Paleontologist, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 1998 -Present Project/Field Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 1992-1998 Independent Geological/ GeoarchaeoIogical/Environmental Consultant, Pinyon Pines, California. 1994-1996 Environmental Geologist, E.0 E.S., Inc, Redlands, California. 1988-1992 Project Geologist/ Director of Environmental Services, STE, San Bernardino, California. 1987-1988 Senior Geologist, Jirsa Environmental Services, Norco, California. 1986 Consulting Petroleum Geologist, LOCO Exploration, Inc. Aurora, Colorado. 1978-1986 Senior Exploration Geologist, Tenneco Oil E & P, Englewood, Colorado. 1965-1978 Exploration and Development Geologist, Texaco, Inc., Los Angeles, California. Previous Work Experience in Paleontology 1969-73 Attended Texaco companywide seminars designed to acquaint all paleontological laboratories with the capability of one another and the procedures of mutual assistance in solving correlation and paleo-environmental reconstruction problems. 1967-1968 Attended Texaco seminars on Carboniferous coral zonation techniques and Carboniferous smaller foraminifera zonation techniques for Alaska and Nevada. 1966-1972,1974,1975 Conducted stratigraphic section measuring and field paleontological identification in Alaska for stratigraphic controls. Pursued more detailed fossil identification in the paleontological laboratory to establish closer stratigraphic controls, mainly with Paleozoic and Mesozoic rocks and some Tertiary rocks, including both megafossil and microfossil 'identification, as well as fossil plant identification. 1965Conducted stratigraphic section measuring and field paleontological identification in Nevada for stratigraphic controls. Pursued more detailed fossil identification in the paleontological laboratory to establish closer stratigraphic controls, mainly with Paleozoic rocks and some Mesozoic and Tertiary rocks. The Tertiary work included identification of ostracods from the Humboldt and Sheep Pass Formations and vertebrate and plant remains from Miocene alluvial sediments. Memberships Society of Vertebrate Paleontology; American Association of Petroleum Geologists; Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists; Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, Pacific Section; Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists; San Bernardino County Museum. Publications in Geology Five publications in Geology concerning an oil field study, a ground water and earthquake study, a report on the geology of the Santa Rosa Mountain area, and papers on vertebrate and invertebrate Holocene Lake Cahuilla faunas. 14 4 �w s. 05/07/2007 MON 18:19 FAX 760 777 1233 REPORT WRITER Matthew Wetherbee, Msc., RPA* Education 0019/028 2004 Paleontological monitoring training session presented by Cogstone Resource Management, Santa Ana, California. 2004 Msc., Palaeoecology of Human Societies, University College London, London, England. 2001 Archaeological field school, North Kharga Oasis Survey, Western desert of Egypt, Greco-Roman period, Egypt. 1999-2001 Study abroad at the American University in Cairo, Egypt. 2000 B.A., Anthropology (emphasis in Archaeology and Zooarchaelogy), University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC). 1999 Archaeological Field School, San Juan Bautista Historical Mission, Monterey, California, in conjunction with UCSC. 1997 A.A., Anthropology, Irvine Valley College, Irvine, California. 1997 Archaeological Field School, Saddl eback College, San Juan Capistrano, California. Professional Experience 2004- Project Archaeologist/Report Writer, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 2003-2004 Archaeologist, Cogstone Resource Management, Santa Arta, California. • Fieldwork, lab technician, taphonomist. 2003-2004 Archaeologist, Viejo California, Mission Viejo, California. • Survey, testing, data recovery, and monitoring. 2002 Archaeologist, SWCA, Mission Viejo, California. • Filed crew member for archaeological surveys, mitigation excavations, and monitoring. 2001 Research Assistant, Theban Mapping Project, the American University in Cairo, Egypt. 1999-2001 Archaeological assistant to Dr. Salima Ikram, the American University in Cairo. • Assisted with the Animal Mummy Project at the Cairo Egyptian Museum, and various Egyptology and zooarchaeological research. Publications 2004 "Making a Duck Mummy and Discovering a Secret of the Ancient Technology," in KMT. A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt, Vol.15(2). Conference Papers 2000 "Recipe for the Afterlife," Mummification in Ancient Egypt. American Research Center in Egypt conference at U.C. Berkeley. Membership Register of Professional Archaeologists. American Research Center in Egypt. 15 ` P.. 05/07/2007 MON 18:20 FAX 760 777 1233 Ca 020/O28 PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/PALEONTOLOGIST Michelle O. Bunn, B.A. Education 2003 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino. 1996 A.S., Botany, College of the Desert. 2004 "California State Paleontology Certification Program," Anza Borrego Desert State Park. Professional Experience 2004- Project Archaeologist/ Paleontologist, CRM TECH, Riverside. • Preparing archaeological/ paleontological reports; • Conducting archaeological/ paleontological field surveys; t • Participating in various archaeological/ paleontological testing, mitigation, and monitoring programs. 2003-- Volunteer Paleontologist, Anza Borrego Desert State Park. • Conducting paleontological field surveys; • Participating in paleontological recovery programs; • Conducting laboratory identification and preparation of fossil specimens; • Curating fossil collections. 2003-2004 Education Program Manager (Natural Science), Palm Springs Desert Museum. • Supervise and develop educational components for natural science exhibitions; • Develop lesson plans and exhibition -related teachers' packets; • Organize museum natural science bus trips and extended trips. 1998- Naturalist, Covered Wagon Tours. • Provide educational tours with emphasis on the natural and cultural history of the Coachella Valley. 1998- Independent Contractor. • Conduct studies on the ethnobotany and natural history of the Coachella Valley. 1996-2003 Education Specialist (Natural Science), Palm Springs Desert Museum. • Instruction in classes for students K -i grades; • Design and write exhibition -related student periodical, exhibit text, and newspaper articles; • Conduct natural history bus tours, lectures, workshops, and docent training; • Supervise plant transect surveys as well as animal care and collection. Memberships Coachella Valley Archaeological Society (current president). ABDSP Paleontology Society. Natural and Cultural History Outreach. 16 �:, ; 05/07/2007 MON 18:20 FAA 760 777 1233 141021/028 APPENDIX 2: RECORDS SEARCHES RESULTS 17 05/07/2007 MON 18:20 FAx 760 777 1233 CRM Tech NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM of Los ANGELES COUNTY 4472 Orange Street Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: John J. Eddy Z022/028 Vertebrate Paleontology Section Telephone: 213)) 763-3325 FAX: 213} 746-7431 e-mail: smc eo @nhm.org 28 July 2004 re: Paleontological reso::rces for the proposed 1399: Crown Pointe (PGA West), Palen project area- Dear rea Dear John: I have conducted a thorough search of our paleontology collection records for the locality and specimen data for the proposed 1399: Crown Pointe (PGA West), Paleo project area as outlined on the section of the La Quinta USGS topographic quadrangle map that you faxed to me on 27 July 2004. We have no localities directly within the project boundaries, but we do have localities nearby that occur in the same sedimentary unit. Below the uppermost soil layers, that are unlikely to contain significant vertebrate fossils, the entire project area has surficial lacustrine and fluvial [lake and stream channel] deposits of Late Pleistocene or Holocene age [the latter less than 10,000 years before present] known as the Lake Cahuilla beds. Directly south-southeast of the proposed project area on both sides of Madison Street north of 58'h Avenue but slightly lower in elevation, we have several fossil localities in the same continuous Lake Cahuilla beds. These localities were collected during mitigation activities for the construction of the PGA West Tom Weiskopf Signature Golf Course. LACM 6252, 6253, and 6255 were collected in a single trench site west of Madison Street. They produced a significant fauna of terrestrial and freshwater vertebrates (see attachment) as weli as diatoms, land plants, clams, snails and crustaceans. A trench to the east of Madison Street produced a similar fauna so was not collected. A single jaw of the bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis was recovered from LACM 6256, another locality to the east of Madison Street. Any significant subsurface below the uppermost soil layers may well encounter significant fossil remains from the Quaternary Lake Cahuilla beds. Many of the fossil specimens collected from these deposits are small isolated elements of fossil organisms that were recovered from screen - washing sediment samples. Thus if any significant excavation below the soil level is conducted on the proposed project site, it is recommended that in addition to monitoring the excavations to collect any larger fossil remains uncovered, sediment samples be collected and processed to determine the 900 Exposition Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90007 RECEIVED JUL 3 0 2004 r�; tr 05/07/2007 MON 18:21 FAX 760 777 1233 191023/028 small fossil potential at the proposed project site. Any fossils recovered during mitigation should be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations. Additional fossil locality information for the proposed project area may be available through the University of California at Riverside Department of Geology [collections and records now at the University of California at Berkeley Museum of Paleontology]. This records search covers only the vertebrate paleontology records of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. It is not intended to be a thorough paleontological survey of the proposed project area covering other institutional records, a literature survey, or any potential on-site survey. Sincerely, i Samuel A. McLeod, Ph.D. Vertebrate Paleontology enclosure: attachment; invoice 05/07/2007 MON 18:21 FAX 760 777 1233 oMln..gJn SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM 2024 Orange Tree Lane - Redlands, California USA 92374-4560 61viy �y¢z� ww.d (909) 307.2669 • Fax (909) 307-0539 • wsbcountymuseum.org 6 August 2004 CRM Tech attn: John J. Eddy 4472 Orange Street Riverside, CA 92501 Q025/028 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES GROUP ROBERT L. McKERNAN Director re: PALEONTOLOGY RECORDS REVIEW, 111399: CROWNS POINTE (PGA WEST)", CITY OF LA QUINTA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Eddy, The Division of Geological Sciences ofthe San Bernardino CountyMuseum (SBCM) has completed a literature review and records search for the above-named —42 -acre project in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County. The study area is located in the southwestern quadrant of section 16 and the northwestern quadrant of section 21, Township 6 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, as seen on the La Quinta, California 7.5' United States Geological Survey topographic quadrangle map (1959 edition, photorevised 1980). The study area lies within the Salton Trough, a northward extension of the Sea of Cortez (McKibben, 1993). The Salton Trough lies below sea level, and is an active continental rift underlain by the landward extension of the East Pacific Rise; it is surrounded on three sides by mountains and bounded to the southeast by the Colorado River delta. Since the beginning of the Holocene Epoch [± 11,000 years before present (ybp)], the Colorado River delta has blocked marine water from entering the Salton Trough from the Sea of Cortez. Freshwater lakes have existed intermittently in the deeper parts of the basin that developed landward of the Colorado River delta (Van de Kamp, 1973; Waters, 1983; Maloney, 1986; Whistler and others, 1995). Previous geologic mapping (Rogers, 1965) indicates that the study area is located upon Quaternary lake sediments deposited below the 12 -meter high shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla, which is thought to have existed intermittently from 470 ybp to at least f 6,000 ybp (Van de Kamp, 1973; Waters, 1983; Whistler and others, 1995). These lacustrine sediments were deposited during each of at least seven high stands of Lake Cahuilla, each high stand resulting from flooding of the Salton Trough by inflow from the Colorado River (Waters, 1983). Fluvial sediments in the area were laid down during intervening lake low stands when the lake bed was dry. These alternating lacustrine and fluvial sediments, termed the Lake Cahuilla beds, have previously yielded fossil remains representing diverse freshwater diatoms, land plants, sponges, ostracods, molluscs, fish, and small terrestrial vertebrates. As these remains are not associated with any evidence of human activity, they are considered paleontological rather than archaeological. For this reason, the Lake Cahuilla beds are interpreted to have high potential to contain significant nonrenewable fossil resources. �.1.; .. ..:N A. j{L:�Y\.—... 7s� ._: Li.. 3:. E!'.•'�i�.... ...... '.... UF$x...... ;i C: Cc i'�!C � .�'.''�Cij moi; ___(�. ..�..I.. .. - .. ... . •........ ... s'iCC'r ... n:.i i-: .li-.':- El��l Y E.o:,nc::iG Dz�eic3rnrrri ara C!_.' ... �!- ,.�.....................D 'Af�G 1'2 2�4 VUN v u.: 05/07/2007 MON 18:23 FAX 760 777 1233 literature ! records review, Paleontology, CRM Tech: Crowne Pointe, La Quinta 3 2. Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. 3. Identification and curation ofspecimens into an established, accredited, professional museum repository with pennanent retrievable paleontologic storage. The paleontologist must have a written repository agreement in hand prior to the initiation of mitigation activities. Mitigation of adverse impacts to significant paleontologic resources is not complete until such curation into an established museum repository has been fully completed and documented. 4. Preparation of a report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens. It is recommended that this report incorporate the full results of this literature review, as well as the full results of the (recommended) review of the records of the Vertebrate Paleontology Department of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency along with confirmation of the curation of recovered specimens into an established, accredited museum repository, would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. References Maloney, N.J., 1986. Coastal landforms of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, northeastern Salton Basin, California. In P.D. Guptil, E.M. Gath and R.W. Ruff (eds), Geology of the Imperial Valley, California. South Coast Geological Society, Santa Ana, California 14: 151-158. McKibben, M.A., 1993. The Salton Trough rift. In R.B. and J. Reynolds (eds.), Ashes, faults and basins. San Bernardino County Museum Association Special Publication 93-1: 76-80. Rogers, T.H., 1965. Geologic map of California, Santa Ana sheet. California Division of Mines and Geology. Scale 1:250,000. Scott, E. and K. Springer, 2003. CEQA and fossil preservation in southern California. The Environmental Monitor, Fall 2003, p. 4-10,17, Van de Kamp, P.C., 1973. Holocene continental sedimentation in the Salton Basin, California: a reconnaissance. Geological Society of America Bulletin 84: 827-848. Waters, M.R., 1983. Late Holocene lacustrine chronology and archaeology of ancient Lake Cahuilla, California. Quaternary Research 19: 373-387. Whistler, D.P., E.B. Lander and M.A. Roeder, 1995. A diverse record of microfossils and fossil plants, invertebrates, and small vertebrates from the late Holocene Lake Cahuilla beds, Riverside County, California. In P. Remeika and A. Sturz (eds.), Paleontology and Geology of the Western Salton Trough Detachment, Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, California, p. 109-118. 10 027/U28 o t ;:j Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report 05/04/2007 FRI 17:50 FAX 760 777 1233 rECrl-E,0WE JAN 2 3 2006 0 CITY OF LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HISTORICAVARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT EDEN ROCK PROJECT City of La Quinta Riverside County, California Submitted to: Chris Hentzen GMA 2700 Newport Boulevard, Suite 190 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Submitted by: Bai Tang, Principal Investigator Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator Deirdre Encarnacift, Archaeologist/ Deport Writer Daniel Ballester, Archaeologist CRM TECH 4472 Orange Street Riverside, CA 92501 October 28, 2005 CRM TECH Contract 01706 Approximately 42 Ames Assessor's Parcel No. 775-220-014 USGS La Quinta, Calif., 75(1:24,0W) Quadrangle Sections 16 and 21, T6S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian. 0010/028 05/04/2007 FRI 17:51 FAX 760 777 1233 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY In October 2005, at the request of GMA, CRM TECH performed a cultural resources study on approximately 42 acres of vacant land in the City of La Quints, Riverside County, California. The subject proper of the study, Assessor's Parcel No. 775-220-014, is located on the north side of PGA Boulevard, within the PGA West Tom Weskopf Signature Golf Course development. It consists of a portion of the south half of Section 16 and a portion of the north half of Section 21, T6S, R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian. The study is part of the environmental review process for a proposed residential development prcject known as Eden Rock. The City of La Quinta, as bead Agency for the project, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance. The purpose of the study is to provide the City of La Quinta with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would cause substantial adverse changes to any historical/ archaeological resources that may exist in or around the project area, as mandated by CEQA. In order to identify and evaluate such resources, CRM TECH conducted a historical/ archaeological resources records search, pursued historical background research, and carried out an intensive -level field survey. Native American consultation for this project is undertaken by the City of La Quinta pursuant to Senate Bill 18, and thus was not included in the scope of this study. Through the various avenues of research, the present study did not encounter any "historical resources," as defined by CEQA, within or adjacent to the project area. Therefore, CRM TECH recommends to the City of La Quints a finding of No Impact regarding cultural resources. No further cultural resources investigation is recommended for the project unless development plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study. However, if buried cultural materials are encountered during any earth moving operations associated with the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. Ia 011/028 05/04/2007 FRI 17:51 FAX 760 777 1233 TABLE OF CONTENTS U012/028 MANAGEMENTSUMMARY...................................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION..................................................,.......................................................................1 Figure 3. SETTING.........................................................................................................................................3 Figure 4. CurrentNatural Setting.............................................................................................................3 Figure 5. CulturalSetting..........................................................................................................................4 Figure 6. EthnohistoricContext............................................................................................................4 Figure 7. HistoricContext.....................................................................................................................4 Figure8. RESEARCHMETHODS................................................................................................................5 Figure 9. RecordsSearch...........................................................................................................................5 HistoricalResearch....................................................................................................................5 FieldSurvey................................................................................................................................5 RESULTSAND FINDINGS..........................................................................................................6 RecordsSearch Results..............................................................................................................6 HistoricalResearch Results.............................................................:.........................................6 FieldSurvey Results..................................................................................................................9 DISCUSSION........................................................................ ,......................................................... 9 RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................................10 CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................11 REFERENCES...................................................................................................... ............12 APPENDIX 1: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS...................................................................13 LIST OF FIGURES Figure1. Project vicinity ................................................................................................1 Figure2. Project area....................................................................................................................2 Figure 3. Overview of the current natural setting of the project area......................................3 Figure 4. Previous cultural resources studies.............................................................................7 Figure 5. The project area and vicinity in 1856...........................................................................8 Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1901...........................................................................8 Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1903...........................................................................8 Figure8. The project area and vicinity in 1941.............................................................,..........,..8 Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1952-1959..................................................................9 ii 05/04/2007 FRI 17:51 FAX 760 777 1233 INTRODUCTION 2013/028 In October 2005, at the request of GMA, CRM TECH performed a cultural resources study on approximately 42 acres of vacant land in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California (Fig. 1). The subject property of the sWdy, Assessor's Parcel No. 775-220-014, is located on the north side of PGA Boulevard, within the PGA West Tom Weiskopf Signature Golf Course development. It consists of a portion of the south half of Section 16 and a pvrkion of the north half of Section 21, T6S, R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian (Fig. 2). The study is part of the envirvrunental review process for a proposed residential development project known as Eden Rock. The City of La Quinta, as Lead Agency for the ro�jeck, required the study in evmpp^Bance with the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA; PRC §21000, et seq.) and the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance (Title 7, La Quints Municipal Code). CRM TECH performed the present study to provide the City of La Quinta with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would cause substantial adverse changes to any historical/archaeological resources that may exist in or around the project area, as mandated by CEQA. In order to identify and evaluate such. resources, CRM TECH conducted a historical/ archaeological resources records search, pursued historical background research, and carried out an intensive level field survey. Native American consultation for this project is undertaken by the City of La Quinta pursuant to Senate Bill 18, and thus was not included in the scope of this study. The following report is a complete account of the methods, results, and final conclusion of the present study. Awl .it 4i...� ,,. � 4..�'#SL�+/�" rbc fl�'liw�l� �a' • �s.�li�rR's�� , # . Figure 1. Project vicinity. (Erased on USGS Santa Ana, Calif„ 1:250,000 quadrangle [USGS 1979]) 05/04/2007 FRI 17:53 FA% 760 777 1233 fa 014/029 i Figure 2. Project area. (Based on USGS Indio, La Quinta, Martinez Mtn, and Valerie Calif., 1-24,000 quadrangles {USG' 1972a;1972b;1.980;19%1) elk 34 t ,� Project:=�;Wa6 �s ' area N. •, •°" i aEA 4 N � L• AVE E 66'. o ... e '70 {v. r [1 29;' r�a,Mr � � a 28 `� � � ° . i 27 Pit • a - SCALE 1:24,000 ifnex �Y 0 1/2 1 tulle i 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 feet Figure 2. Project area. (Based on USGS Indio, La Quinta, Martinez Mtn, and Valerie Calif., 1-24,000 quadrangles {USG' 1972a;1972b;1.980;19%1) 05/04/2007 FRI 17:53 FA% 760 777 1233 SETTING CURRENT NATURAL SETTING 4015/028 The City of La Quinta is situated on the western edge of the Coachella Valley, a northwest - southeast trending desert valley that constitutes the western end of the Colorado Desert. Dictated by this geographic setting, the climate and environment of the project area and its surrounding region are typical of southern California's desert country, marked by extremes in temperature and aridity. Temperatures in the region reach over 120 degrees in summer, and dip to near freezing in winter. Average annual precipitation is less than five inches, and average annual evaporation rate exceeds three feet. The project area is bounded by PGA Boulevard on the south and west, and by a golf course with a clubhouse, a parking lot, and existing; homes on the north and east. It encompasses relatively level parcel of land, with an elevation of approximately 10 feet below mean sea level. The ground surface has been disturbed by previous mass ,grading and landscaping activities, and several reservoirs and large pads are found within the project boundaries. The northwestern portion of the project area is currently a paved parking lot. A number of underground pipelines have been placed across the property, including a sewer line traversing in an east -west direction through the northern portion of the project area. The scattered vegetation observed within the project boundaries consists of salt cedar patches, tumbleweeds, oleander, sunflowers, and small desert grasses and shrubs (Fig. 3). V iC iJ�.. ••R'a ai i$i1 .} . ` � :' iia �•2 i ��/ � ��r�r �J Figure 3. Overview of the current natural setting of the project area. (Photo taken on October 5, 2006; view to the northwest) 3 05/04/2007 FRI 17:55 FAX 760 777 1233 CULTURAL SETTING Ethnohistoric Context 1g 016/028 The Coachella Valley is a historical center of Native American settlement, where U.S. surveyors noted large numbers of Indian villages and rancherfus, occupied by the Cahuilla people, in the mid -19th century. The Cahuilla, a Takic-speaking people of hunters and gatherers, are generally divided by anthropologists into three ;groups, according to their geographic setting: the Pass Cahuilla of the San Gorgonio Pass -Palm Springs area, the Mountain Cahuilla of the Sari Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains and the Cahuilla Valley, and the Desert Cahuilla of the eastern Coachella Valley. The Cahuilla did not have a single name that referred to an all-inclusive tribal affiliation. Instead, membership was in terms of Iineages or clans. Each lineage or clan belonged to on6of two main divisions of the people, known as moieties. Members of clans in one moiety had to marry into clans from the other moiety. Individual clans had villages, or central places, and territories they called their own, for purposes of hunting gauze, gathering food, or utilizing other necessary resources. They interacted with other clans through trade, intermarriage, and ceremonies. Population data prior to European contact are almost impossible to obtain,, but estimates range from 3,600 to as high as 10,000 persons. During the 19th century, however, the Cahuilla population was decimated as a result of European diseases, most notably smallpox, for which the Native peoples had no immunity. Today, Native Americans of Pass or Desert Cahuilla heritage are mostly affiliated with one or more of the Indian reservations in and near the Coachella Valley, including Torres Martinez, Augustine, Cabazon, Agua Caliente, and Morongo. Historic Context In 1823-1825, Josd Romero, Josd Maria Estudillo, and Romualdo Pacheco, leading a series of expeditions in search of a route to Yuma, became the first noted European explorers to travel through the Coachella Valley. However, due to its harsh environment, few non - Indians ventured into the desert valley during the Mexican and early American periods, except those who traveled across it along the established trails. The most important among these trails was the Cocomaricopa Trail, an ancient Indian trading route that was "discovered" in 1862 by William David Bradshaw and became known after that as the Bradshaw Trail. In much of the Coachella Valley, this historic wagon road traversed a similar course to that of present-day Highway 111. During the 1860x -1870x, the Bradshaw Trail served as the main thoroughfare between coastal southern California and the Colorado Diver, until the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1876-1877 brought an end to its heyday. Non -Indian settlement in the Coachella Valley began in the 1870s, with the establishment of railroad stations along the Southern Pacific Railroad, and spread further in the 1880s, after public land was opened for claims under the Homestead Act, the Desert Land Act, alld ether federal land laws. Farming became the dominant economic activity in the valley, thanks to the development of underground water sources, often in the form of artesian 7 r �� 05/04/2007 FRI 17:56 FAX 760 777 1233 2017/028 wells. But it was not until the completion of the Coachella Canal in 1948-1949 that farmers in the and region obtained an adequate and reliable water supply. The main agricultural staple in the Coachella Valley, the date palm, was first introduced around the turn of the century. By the late 1910s, the date palm industry had firmly established itself, giving the region its celebrated image of "the Arabia of America." Starting in the 1920s, a new industry, featuring equestrian camps, resort hotels, and eventually country clubs, gradually spread throughout the Coachella Valley, and since then transformed it into southern California's leading winter retreat. In today's City of La Quinta, the earliest settlement and land development activities did not occur until the turn of the century. In 1926, with the construction of the La Quinta Hotel, the development of La Quinta took on the character of a winter resort, typical of the desert communities along Highway 111. Beginning in the early 1930s, the subdivision of the cove area of La Quinta and the marketing of "weekend homes" further emphasized this new direction of development. On May 1, 1982, La Quinta was incorporated as the 19th city in Riverside County. RESEARCH METHODS RECORDS SEARCH The records search for this study was conducted by CRM TECH archaeologist Daniel Ballester (see App.1 for qualifications) at the Eastern Information Center (EIC), University of California, Riverside. During the records search, Ballester examiners maps and records on file at the EIC for previously identified cultural resources in or near the project area, and existing cultural resources reports pertaining to the vicinity. Previously identified cultural resources include properties designated as California Historical Landmarks, Points of Historical Interest, or Riverside County Landmarks, as well as those listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the California Historical Resource Information System. HISTORICAL RESEARCH Historical background research for this study was conducted by CRM TECH historian Bai "Toni" Tang (see App. 1 for qualifications) on the basis of published literature in local and regional history and historic maps of the La Quinta area. Among maps consulted for this study were the U.S. General Land Office's (GLO) land survey plat maps dated 1856 and 1903, and the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) topographic maps dated 1904,1941, and 1.956-1959. These maps are collected at the Science Library of the University of California, Riverside, and the California Desert District of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management;, located in Moreno Valley. FIELD SURVEY On October 5, 2005, CRM TECH archaeologists Daniel Mlester and Thomas Melzer (see App. l for qualifications) carried out the intensive -level, on -foot field survey of the project area. During the survey, Ballester and Melzer walked parallel east -west transects spaced 5 05/04/2007 FRI 17:56 FAX 760 777 1233 igjuiaiuca I 10 meters (ca. 33 feet) apart. In this way, the ground surface in the entire project area was systematically and carefully examined for any evidence of human, activities dating to the prehistoric or historic periods (i.e., 50 years ago or older). Ground visibility ranged from poor to excellent (0-907'0), depending on the density of the vegetation. The results of the survey are discussed below. RESULTS AND FINDINGS RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS According to records on file at the Eastern Information Center, the project area was covered by at least two previously completed cultural resources studies, but no archaeological sites or other cultural resources were recorded on or adjacent to the property. Outside the project boundaries but within a one -mile radius, EIC records show some 20 other previous studies covering various tracts of land and linear features (Fig. 4). These and other similar studies resulted in the identification of 18 historical/ archaeological sites and a large number of isolates—i.e., sites with fewer than three artifacts --within the scope of the records search. The majority of these sites were prehistoric—i.e, Native American—in nature, consisting primarily of surface scatters of artifacts commonly found in the Coachella Valley, such as ceramic sherds, groundstone pieces, and chipped stone tools and debitage. Five of the sites dated to the historic period and consisted of buildings constructed in the 1930s -1950s era. The isolates were recorded predominantly as prehistoric ceramic sherds and chipped stone flakes. None of these previously recorded sites was located in the immediate vicinity of the project area, and thus none of them requires further consideration during this study. HISTORICAL RESEARCH RESULTS According to historical sources consulted for this study, the project area apparently remained vacant and undeveloped until the mid -20th century (Figs. 5-9). During the 19th and early 20th centuries, the only man-made feature noted in the project vicinity was a road traversing along the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains (Figs. 5-7). Judging from its course, this road was clearly a part of the historic Cocomazicopa-Bradshaw Trail. In 1901- 1903, the trail was known to pass directly through the project area, but no evidence of any settlement or land development activities was found within or adjacent to the project boundaries at that time, or in the early 1940s (Figs. 6-8). By 1941, the Cocomaricopa-Bradshaw Trail had been largely abandoned and all but disappeared in the La Quinta area, undoubtedly the results of accelerated settlement and agricultural development in the vicinity (Fig. 8). In the meantime, the area had begun to exhibit a cultural landscape that was typical of rural southern California at the time, featuring scattered farmsteads connected by a more regular grid of roads (Fig. 8). One of the roads, Avenue 56, ran across the project area duringg the 1940s -1950s, and two buildings, most likely rural residences, were found in the southeastern portion of the project area in the 1950s (Figs. 8, 9). None of these features, however, have survived to the present time, as discovered during the field survey (see below). 05/04/2007 FRI 17:57 FAX 760 777 1233 Z019/028 15 ` k 4�`� 171 x,1713 �y �{jlq �s Ir 1'. LIS ' v -2s 2785 1713 is r � r 99 3915/ 22 xl t. e•�. tl. '?f L'4f r 2796 .ff\ 1712,1713 a.4366fir' l� Project area 4f324 385 29) Areas previously surveyed Uneer surveys 0 cowl% Parks .y v SCALE 1:24,000 i 1000 0 1000 2000 feet Figure 4. Previous cultural resources studies in the vicinity of the project area, listed by EIC file number. Locations of historical/ archaeological sites are not -shown as a protective measure. 7 t Scope ofOMo i r records # -..... '� o •`f search ,, , I 4283 v rF .. ... r UV9IJ 31192 p8441' 15 ` k 4�`� 171 x,1713 �y �{jlq �s Ir 1'. LIS ' v -2s 2785 1713 is r � r 99 3915/ 22 xl t. e•�. tl. '?f L'4f r 2796 .ff\ 1712,1713 a.4366fir' l� Project area 4f324 385 29) Areas previously surveyed Uneer surveys 0 cowl% Parks .y v SCALE 1:24,000 i 1000 0 1000 2000 feet Figure 4. Previous cultural resources studies in the vicinity of the project area, listed by EIC file number. Locations of historical/ archaeological sites are not -shown as a protective measure. 7 05/04/2007 FRI 17:58 FAX 760 777 1233 _ , )" - - ii Project , ,►�60 area ;s +ua►i�ill�ii � �i " 5 t+5it1 t1$1It% r r 0 2000 4000 f®el � Figure 5. The project area and vicinity in 1856. (Source: GLO 1856) 2020/028 roject area SCALE 1:125,000 0 1 2 mils Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1901. (Source: USGS 1904) �:' ' a 40I 34» 'a tit Project ec;fir e_ --- _ 640 ---- _ area # -, Yr 40, i arr.a� a eO Se 4 � 27� +JO i=C Puf BU.rO$ 90.dA a73 0 2000 4000 feet ry9 »: 3 s 2020/028 roject area SCALE 1:125,000 0 1 2 mils Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1901. (Source: USGS 1904) Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1903. Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1941. (Source: GLO 1903) (Source: USGS 1941a;19415) �:' ' M, d r+ Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1903. Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1941. (Source: GLO 1903) (Source: USGS 1941a;19415) 05/04/2007 FRI 17:58 FAX 760 777 1233 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS The intensive -level field survey produced completely negative results for potential cultural resources. The entire project area was closely inspected for any evidence of human activities dating to the prehistoric or historic periods, but none was found. As mentioned above, the project area has been heavily disturbed in the past, and the entire parcel appears to have been graded. The northwestern corner of the project area has been paved and is in use as a parking lot, and there are several pads and reservoirs elsewhere in the project area. Not surprisingly, no remains of the Cocomaricopa-Bradshaw Trail or any other man-made features noted in the historic maps were discovered during the field survey. In sum, despite the intensive survey efforts, no buildings, structures, objects, sites, features, or artifacts more than 50 years of age were encountered within the project area. Q021/028 Project ,area 7G JJ{{ _ z4, F � yr� Plh S } y p, 77- lk 27 SCALE 1:82,500 28 0 1 RrNle Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1952-1959. (Source: USGS 1956;1959) DISCUSSION The purpose of this study is to identify any cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area, and to assist the City of La Quinta in determining whether such resources meet the official definitions of "historical resources," as provided in the Califon -da Public Resources Code, in particular CEQA. According to PRC §5020.1 Q), "'historical resource' includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational., social, political, military, or cultural annals of California." More specifically, CEQA guidelines state that the term "historical resources" applies to any such - resources listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, included in a local register of historical resources, or determined to be historically significant by the Lead Agency (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(1)-(3)). Regarding the proper criteria for the evaluation of historical significance, CEQA guidelines mandate that "a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be 'historically significant' if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources" (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(3)). A resource may be listed in the California Register if it meets any of the following criteria: 0J 05/04/2007 FRI 17:59 FAX 760 777 1233 (1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage. (2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. (4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC §5024.1(c)) Q022/028 A local register of historical resources, as defined by PRC §5020.1(k), "means a list of properties officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution." For properties within the City of La Quinta, the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance (Title 7, La Quinta Municipal Code) provides for the establishment of a historic resources inventory as the official local register. A property may be considered for inclusion in the historic resources inventory based on one pr more of the following: A. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history; or B. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state or national history; or C. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, is a valuable example of the use of the indigenous :materials or craftsmanship or is representative of a notable work of an acclaimed builder, designer or architect; or D. It is an archaeological, paleontological, botanical, geological, topographical, ecological or geographical site which has the potential of yielding information of scientific value; or E. It is a geographically definable area possessing concentration of sites, buildings, structures, improvements or objects linked historically through location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and/or association, in which the collective value of the improvements may be greater than the value of each individual improvement. (LQMC §7.06.020) The results of the various research procedures completed for this study have established that no potential historical resources were previously recorded within or adjacent to the project area, and none was encountered during the present survey. Although the historic Cocomaricopa-Bradshaw Trail and two 1940s -1950s buildings are indicated within the project boundaries by historic maps, no archaeological remains were found of any of these features. Based on these findings, and in light of the criteria listed above, this study concludes that no historical resources exist within or adjacent to the project area. RECOMMENDATIONS CEQA establishes that "a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment" (PRC §21084.1.). "Substantial adverse change," according to PRC §5020.1(q), "means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the sigrdficance of a historical resource would be impaired." 10 05/04/2007 FRI 18:00 FAX 760 777 1233 023/028 Since no historical resources were encountered during the course of this study, CRM TECH presents the following recommendations to the City of La Quinta: No historical resources exist within or adjacent to the project area, and thus the project as currently proposed will not cause a substantial adverse change to any known historical resources. No further cultural resources investigation is necessary for the proposed project unless development plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study. If buried cultural materials are discovered during any earth -moving operations associated with the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. CONCLUSION The foregoing report has provided background information on the project area, outlined the methods used in the current study, and presented the results of the various avenues of research. Throughout the course of the study, no "historical resources," as defined by CEQA, were encountered within or adjacent to the project area. Therefore, the City of La Quinta may reach a finding of No Impact regarding cultural resources, with the condition that any buried cultural materials unearthed during earth -moving activities be examined and evaluated by a qualified archaeologist prior to further disturbances. 11 05/04/2007 FRI 18:00 FAX 760 777 1233 REFERENCES X1024/028 GLO (General Laird Office, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1856 Plat Map: Township No. 6 South Range No. 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian; surveyed in 1656. 1903 Plat Map: Township No. 6 South Range No. 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian; surveyed in 1903. USGS (United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1904 Map: Indio, Calif. (30',1:125,000); surveyed in 1901. 1941a Map. Coachella., Calif. (15', 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1941. 1941b Map: Toro Peak, Calif. (15',1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1941. 1956 Map: Coachella, Calif. (15',1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1952 and 1953, field -checked in 1955-1956. 1959 Map: Palm Desert, Calif. (15', 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1954, field - checked in 1957 and 1959. 1972a Map: Indio, Calif. (7.5;1:24,000);1956 edition photorevised in 1972. 1972b Map: Valerie, Calif. (75, 1:24,000);1956 edition photorevised in 1972. 1979 Map: Santa Ana, Calif. (1:250,000);1959 edition revised. 1980 Map: La Quinta, Calif. (7.5,1:24,000);1959 edition photorevised in 1975. 1996 Map: Martinez Mountain, Calif. (7.5,1:24,000); aerial photographs taken in 1954, photorevised in 1994. 12 05/04/2007 FRI 18:00 FAX 760 777 1233 Q025/028 APPENDIX 1: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/HISTORIAN Bai "Tom" Tang, M.A. Education 1988-1993 Graduate Program in Public History/ Historic Preservation, UC Riverside. 1987 M.A., American History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 1982 B.A., History, Northwestern University, Van, China. 2000 "Introduction to Section 106 Review," presented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the University of Nevada, Reno. 1994 "Assessing the Significance of Historic Archaeological Sites," presented by the Historic Preservation Program, University of Nevada, Reno. Professional Experience 2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 1993-2002 Project Historian / Architectural Historian, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 1993-1997 Project Historian, Greenwood and Associates, Pacific Palisades, California. 1991-1993 Project Historian, Archaeological Research Unit, UC Riverside. 1990 Intern Researcher, California State Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. 1990-1992 Teaching Assistant, History of Modern World, UC Riverside. 1988-1993 Research Assistant, American Social History, UC Riverside. 1985-1988 Research Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University. 1985-1986 Teaching Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University. 1982-1985 Lecturer, History, Van Foreign Languages Institute, Van, China. Honors and Awards 1988-1990 University of California Graduate Fellowship, UC Riverside. 1985-1987 Yale University Fellowship, Yale University Graduate School. 1980,1981 President's Honor List, Northwestern University, Xi'an, Cl -dna. Cultural Resources Management Reports Preliminary Analyses and Recommendations Regarding Califorrda's Cultural Resources Inventory System {With Special Reference to Condition 14 of NPS 1990 Program Review Report}, California State Office of Historic Preservation working paper, Sacramento, September 1990. Numerous cultural resources management reports with the Archaeological Research Unit, Greenwood and Associates, and CRM TECH, since October 1991. Membership California Preservation Foundation. 13 05/04/2007 FRI 18:01 FAX 760 777 1233 2026/028 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/ARCHAEOLOGIST Michael Hogan, Ph.D., RPA* Education 1991 Ph.D., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. 1981 B.S., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside; with honors. 1980-1981 Education Abroad Program, Lima, Peru. 2002 Section 106—National Historic Preservation Act: Federal Law at the Local Level. UCLA Extension Course 4888. 2002 "Recognizing Historic Artifacts," workshop presented by Richard Norwood, Historical Archaeologist. 2002 "Wending Your Way through the Regulatory Maze," symposium presented by the Association of Environmental Professionals. 19921 "Southern California Ceramics Workshop," presented by Jerry Schaefer. 1992 "Historic Artifact Workshop," presented by Anne Duffield -Stoll. Professional Experience 2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, riverside, California. 1999-2002 Project Archaeologist/ Field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside. 1996-1998 Project Director and Ethnographer, Statistical Research, Inc., Redlands. 1992-1998 Assistant Research Anthropologist, University of California, Riverside 1992-1995 Project Director, Archaeological Research Unit, U. C. Riverside. 1993-1994 Adjunct Professor, Riverside Community College, Mt. San Jacinto College, U.C. Riverside, Chapman University, and San Bernardino Valley College. 1991-1992 Crew Chief, Archaeological Research Unit, U. C. Riverside. 1984-1998 Archaeological Technician, Field Director, and Project Director for various southern California cultural resources management firms. Research Interests Cultural Resource Management, Southern Californian Archaeology, Settlement and Exchange Patterns, Specialization and Stratification, Culture Change, Native American Culture, Cultural Diversity. Cultural Resources Management Reports Author and co-author of, contributor to, and principal investigator for numerous cultural resources management study reports since 1986. Memberships * Register of Professional Archaeologists. Society for American Archaeology. Society for California Archaeology. Pad fie Coast Archaeological Society. Coachella Valley Archaeological Society. 14 05/04/2007 FRI 18:01 FAX 760 777 1233 PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/REPORT WRITER Deirdre Encarnacion, M.A. Education 2003 M.A., Anthropology, San Diego State University, California, 2000 B.A., Anthropology, minor in Biology, with honors; 'San Diego State University, California. 1993 A.A., Communications, Nassau Community College, Garden City, N.Y. Professional Experience Q 027/028 2004- Project Archaeologist/ Report Writer, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 2001-2003 Part-time Lecturer, San Diego State University, California. 2001 Personal Academic Assistant, Dr. Lynn Gamble, San Diego State University. 2001 Archaeological Collection Catalog, SDSU Foundation. 2001 Archaeological Field School, San Diego State University. 2000 Archaeological Field School, San Diego State University. PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/PIELD DIRECTOR Daniel Ballester, B.A. Education 1998 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino. 1997 Archaeological Field School, University of Las Vegas and University of California, Riverside. 1994 University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico. 2002 "Historic Archaeology Workshop," presented by Richard Norwood, Base Archaeologist, Edwards Air Force Base, presented at CRM TECH, Riverside. Professional Experience 2002- Field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside. 1999- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside. 1998-1999 Field Crew, K.E.A. Environmental, San Diego. 1998 Field Crew, A.S.M. Affiliates, Encinitas. 1998 Field Crew, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside. 15 05/04/2007 FRI 18:02 FAA 760 777 1233 PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST Thomas J. Melzer, B.A. Education lQ� 018/UL�S f 2004 B.A., Anthropology/Cultural Resources Management, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. Experience 2004- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside. 2002 Archaeological Field Technician, 'Death Valley National Park Archaeological Site Resources Condition Assessment Project, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, Foundation; directed by Dr. Mark W. Allen. • Survey and assessment of previously recorded sites; co-author of final report. 2001.-1002 Archaeological Field Technician, Red Mountain Archaeological Project, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona; directed by Dr. Mark W. Allen. • Survey, test excavation, Iaboratory analysis of artifacts. 16 APPENDIX 8.0 Drainage Study by MDS Consulting DRAINAGE STUDY HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS FOR TRACT 33226 EDEN ROCK AT SGA WEST May 10, 2005 Prepared For: PACIFIC SANTA FE CORPORATION 8905 SW. NIMBUS AVE. #400 BEAVERTON, OR 97008 Prepared By: MDS CONSULTING 355, E. RINCON STE 219 CORONA, CA 92879 -7 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT SUMMARY • Project Description • Vicinity Map 2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION • Rainfall Intensity — Inches per Hour (Plate 4.1, 2 of 6) = Runoff Index for Pervious Area (Plate 5.5, 2 of 2) a 2 yr, 3 hour Precipitation (Plate 5.1) • 100 yr, 3 hour Precipitation (Plate 5.2) • 2 yr, 6 hour Precipitation (Plate 5.3) • 100 yr, 6 hour Precipitation (Plate 5.4) • 2 yr, 24 hour Precipitation (Plate 5.5) • 100 yr, 24 hour Precipitation (Plate 5.6) 3. RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS 100 YEAR DRAINAGE STUDY • 10 YEAR DRAINAGE STUDY 4. UNIT HYDROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS • 100 YEAR, 1 HOUR HYDROGRAPH * 100 YEAR, 3 HOUR HYDROGRAPH 100 YEAR, 6 HOUR HYDROGRAPH • 100 YEAR, 24 HOUR HYDROGRAPH 5. DRAINAGE AREA NODE MAP SECTION 1 PROJECT SUMMARY EDENROCK AT PGA WEST PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project is the Fifth Amendment within the PGA WEST Specific Plan of Development originally adopted by the City of La Quinta in 1984. This Amendment follows the goals of the Pacific Santa Fe Corp. and the City of La Quinta set for in the PGA West Specific Plan. Tract 33226 is classified as "Medium Density Residential', with an average density of 4-8 DU per Acre, consisting of single-family homes or condominium units. The master grading and drainage concept for Tract 33226 is to provide an effective system of drainage and storm water management. The storm drainage concept utilizes the fairways of golf courses to recharge groundwater resources while storm water runoff will be held onsite and stored in the system of golf course lakes and low -points. HYDROLOGY METHODOLOGY To calculation the maximum storm runoff for the project, the Rational Method based upon Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 1978 Hydrology Manual was used. The Unit Hydrology Analysis using CivilDesign 7.0 which is based upon Riverside County Synthetic Unit Hydrology Method RCFC&WCD Manual dated 1978. PROJEC SITE VICINITY MAP -- SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION �- :D n 0 -n "< Cp D CATHEDRAL CITY DURATION FREQUENCY MINUTES 10 100 YEAR YEAR 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 4.14 6.T6 3.73 6.08 3.41 5.56 3.15 5.15 2.95 4.81 2.77 4.52 2.62 4.28 2.49 4.07 2.38 3.88 2.28 3.72 2.19 3.58 2.11 3.44 2.04 3.32 1.97 3.22 1.91 3.12 1.85 3.03 1.75 2.86 1.67 2.72 1.59 2.60 1.52 2.49 1.46 2.39 1.41 2.30 1.36 2.22 1.32 2.15 1.28 2.09 1.24 2.02 1.16 1.89 1.09 1.76 1.03 1.68 .98 1.60 .94 1.53 .90 1.46 .86 1.41 .83 1.35 .80 1.31 RAINFALL INTENSITY -INCHES PER HOUR CHERRY VALLEY DURATION FREQUENCY z 6 2.96 4.53 10 100 4.21 n m 5 3.65 C Z 3.30 4.97 x Ln U) 8 2.82 4.24 _i 2.64 3.97 10 D 3.75 U 2.36 3.56 12 2.25 3.39 0 2.16 3.25 14 D 3.12 15 1.94 3.00 m D 2.90 0 1.86 2.80 18 1.80 2.71 D D 2.64 20 1.70 2.56 22 1.61 2.43 O 1.54 2.32 26 Z 2.22 N 1.41 2.13 30 0 2.05 32 1.31 -w 34 1.27 1.91 a) 1.23 1.85 38 CATHEDRAL CITY DURATION FREQUENCY MINUTES 10 100 YEAR YEAR 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 4.14 6.T6 3.73 6.08 3.41 5.56 3.15 5.15 2.95 4.81 2.77 4.52 2.62 4.28 2.49 4.07 2.38 3.88 2.28 3.72 2.19 3.58 2.11 3.44 2.04 3.32 1.97 3.22 1.91 3.12 1.85 3.03 1.75 2.86 1.67 2.72 1.59 2.60 1.52 2.49 1.46 2.39 1.41 2.30 1.36 2.22 1.32 2.15 1.28 2.09 1.24 2.02 1.16 1.89 1.09 1.76 1.03 1.68 .98 1.60 .94 1.53 .90 1.46 .86 1.41 .83 1.35 .80 1.31 RAINFALL INTENSITY -INCHES PER HOUR CHERRY VALLEY DURATION FREQUENCY MINUTES 6 2.96 4.53 10 100 4.21 YEAR YEAR 5 3.65 5.49 6 3.30 4.97 7 3.03 4.56 8 2.82 4.24 9 2.64 3.97 10 2.49 3.75 11 2.36 3.56 12 2.25 3.39 13 2.16 3.25 14 2.07 3.12 15 1.94 3.00 16 1.92 2.90 17 1.86 2.80 18 1.80 2.71 19 1.75 2.64 20 1.70 2.56 22 1.61 2.43 24 1.54 2.32 26 1.47 2.22 29 1.41 2.13 30 1.36 2.05 32 1.31 1.98 34 1.27 1.91 36 1.23 1.85 38 1.20 1.80 40 1.16 1.75 45 1.09 1.64 50 1.03 1.55 55 .99 1.47 60 .93 1.40 65 .89 1.34 70 .85 1.29 75 .82 1.24 BO -79 1.20 85 .77 1.16 SLOPE _ .580 1 SLOPE _ .550 CORONA DURATION FREQUENCY MINUTES 6 2.96 4.53 10 100 4.21 YEAR YEAR 5 3.10 4.78 6 2.84 4.38 7 2.64 4.07 8 2.47 3.81 9 2.34 3.60 10 2.22 3.43 11 2.12 3:27 12 2.04 3.14 13 1.96 3.02 14 1.89 2.92 15 1.83 2.82 16 1.77 2.73 17 1.72 2.66 18 1.68 2.58 19 1.63 2.52 20 1.59 2.46 22 1.52 2.35 24 1.46 2.25 26 1.40 2.17 28 1.36 2.09 30 1.31 2.02 32 1.27 1.96 34 1.23 1.90 36 1.20 1.85 38 1.17 1.81 40 1.14 1.76 45 1.08 1.66 50 1.03 1.58 55 .98 1.51 60 .94 1.45 65 .90 1.40 70 .87 1.35 75 .84 1.30 80 .82 1.26 85 .80 1.23 SLOPE : .480 DESERT HOT SPRINGS DURATION FREQUENCY MINUTES 6 2.96 4.53 10 100 4.21 YEAR YEAR 5 4.39 6.76 6 3.95 6.08 7 3.62 5.56 8 3.35 5.15 9 3.13 4.81 10 2.94 4.52 11 2.78 4.28 12 2,65 4.07 13 2.53 3.88 14 2.42 3.72 15 2.32 3.58 16 2.24 3.44 17 2.16 3.32 18 2.09 3.22 19 2.03 3.12 20 1.97 3.03 22 1.86 2.86 24 1.77 2.72 26 1.69 2.60 28 1.62 2.49 30 1.55 2.39 32 1.50 2.30 34 1.45 2.22 36 1.40 2.15 38 1.36 2.09 40 1.32 2.02 45 1.23 1.89 50 1.16 1.78 55 1.09 1.68 60 1.04 1.60 65 .99 1.53 70 .95 1.46 75 .91 1.41 80 .88 1.35 85 .85 1.31 SLOPE ■ .580 ELSINORE - MILDOMAR DURATION FREQUENCY MINUTES 10 100 YEAR YEAR 5 3.23 4.94 6 2.96 4.53 7 2.75 4.21 8 2.58 3.95 9 2.44 3.73 a0 2.32 3.54 11 2.21 3.39 12 2.12 3.25 13 2.04 3.13 14 1.97 3.02 15 1.91 2.92 16 1.85 2.83 17 1.80 2.75 18 1.75 2.67 19 1.70 2.60 20 1.66 2.54 22 1.59 2.43 24 1.52 2.33 26 1.46 2.24 28 1.41 2.16 30 1.37 2.09 32 1.33 2.03 34 1.29 1.97 36 1.25 1.92 38 1.22 1.87 40 1.19 1.82 45 1.13 1.72 5o 1.07 1.64 55 1.02 1.56 60 .98 1.50 65 .94 1.44 70 .91 1.39 T5 .88 1.35 80 .85 1.31 85 .83 1.27 SLOPE _ .480 RUNOFF INDEX NUMBERS OF HYUKULUUIC SU1L-k_UVnx UUMrLnArG 1 rULC rr mvtvU.") ii Quality of Soil Group Cover Type (3) Cover (2) I A I B I C D AGRICULTURAL COVERS (cont.) - Legumes, Close Seeded (Alfalfa, sweetclover, timothy, etc.) Orchards, Deciduous (Apples, apricots, pears, walnuts, etc.) Orchards, Evergreen (Citrus,' avocados, etc.) Pasture, Dryland (Annual grasses) Pasture, Irrigated (Legumes and perennial grass) Row Crops (Field crops - tomatoes, sugar beets, etc.) Small Grain (Wheat, oats, barley, etc.) Vineyard Poor 66 85 Good 58 177 1 72 81 189 85 See Note 4 Poor 57 73 82 86 Fair 44 65 77 82 Good 33 58 72 79 Poor 67 78 86 89 Fair 50 69 79 84 Good 38 61 74 80 Poor 58 74 83 87 Fair 44 65 77 82 Good 33 58 72 79 Poor 72 81 88 91 Good 67 78 85 89 Poor 65 76 84 88 Good 63 75 83 87 See Note 4 Notes: 1. All runoff index (RI) numbers are for Antecedent Moisture Condition (AMC) II. 2. Quality of cover definitions: Poor -Heavily grazed or regularly burned areas. Less than 50 per- cent of the ground surface is protected by plant cover or brush and tree canopy. Fair -Moderate cover with 50 percent to 75 percent of the ground sur- face protected. Good -Heavy or dense cover with more than 75 percent of the ground surface protected. 3. See Plate C-2 for a detailed description of cover types. 4. Use runoff index numbers based on ground cover type. See discussion under "Cover Type Descriptions" on Plate C-2. 5. Reference Bibliography item 17. R C F C 81 C C RUNOFF INDEX NUMBERS i-�`tDRJL OGY MANUAL FOR PERVIOUS AREA PLATE D-5.5 (2 of 2 ) SECTION 3 100 -YEAR AND 10 -YEAR RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS 33226PGA.TXT RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC&WCD) 1978 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) copyright 1982-2003 Advanced Engineerin Software (aes) (Rational Tabling version S.9DY Release Date: 01/01/2003 License ID 1269 Analysis prepared by: ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ***************kk*kk***** Tract 33226, Edenrock PGA West " Scott Tenhoff, Mos Consulting Corona 5-5-05, onsite Hydrology 100yr FILE NAME: 33226PGA.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:23 05/05/2005 ' T -r~ - ________ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODELINFORMATION: _----y Y1____ ___--____________________ USERSPECIFIED STORMEVENT(YEAR) 100.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 2 -YEAR, 1 -HOUR PRECIPITATION(INCH) = 0.500 100 -YEAR, 1 -HOUR PRECIPITATION(INCH) = 1.600 COMPUTED RAINFALL INTENSITY DATA: STORM EVENT = 100.00 1 -HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.600 SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE = 0.5900 RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C" -VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: COMPUTE CONFLUENCE VALUES ACCORDING TO RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL AND IGNORE OTHER CONFLUENCE COMBINATIONS FOR DOWNSTREAM ANALYSES *USER -DEFINED STREET -SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER -GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT -/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 16.5 10.0 0.020/0.050/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.50 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) Top -of -Curb) 2. (Depth)*(velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FTSs) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* **k*k*kk*kkkkk*****kk*kkkkk#**k#k*kk*kkir**kir****k*****kirk it*k*k ki!*kkkkkki+kyk it fk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 556.00 TO NODE 558.00 IS CODE = 21 y _-^-_______. »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<< «< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 415.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 502.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 499.80 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.70 TC = 0.359*[( 415.00**3)/( 2.70)1**.2 = 10.962 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.362 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8390 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.31 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.63 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.31 kkk*k*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk*kk**kkkkkk**kkkkkk*kkkkkk**kkk*kkkkkkk**kk*k*k*kk*k*k FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 558.00 TO NODE 560.00 IS CODE = 31 ____.._ - _ __..__.._,..._.._..___...._..----------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »» >USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 494.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 494.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING's N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DI.AMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.3 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.09 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.31 Page 1 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 10.01 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.98 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 556 33226PGA.TXT AS FOLLOWS: TC(MIN.) = 7.92 00 TO NODE 580.00 = 1105.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 580.00 TO NODE 590.00 IS CODE = 31 >>>>>COMPUTE -PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) «« < ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 488.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 488.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 10.00 MANNING'S N = 0,013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 9.7 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 10.34 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 10.01 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN,) = 0.02 TC(MIN.) = 7.94 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 556.00 TO NODE 590.00 = 1115.00 FEET. kk**k*k*kk*kkk*kk*k*kkkkk*k***k*k*k*k*k*kkkkkkkk**kkkk****k**kk*k**kk**kkkkk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 590.00 TO NODE 590.00 IS CODE = 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 ««< Irk*k**k**k***kkkk*kk********k**k*kk**k*kkkkkkkk**k*kk*irk*kkkkkk*kk***kk***kir FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 586,00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONAL -METHOD INITIALSUBAREAANALYSIS ««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 525.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 502.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 498.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 4.00 TC = 0.359*[( S25.00**3)/( 4.00)]**.2 = 11.669 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.204 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8372 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.20 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.91 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.20 *kk**k******kk*k*********kkkk*kir**k*k*k*kk*k*kkk**k*kkkkkkkkkk****kkkkkk*kkk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 586.00 TO NODE 588.00 IS CODE = 52 '»»>COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY - _ CHANNEL FLOW«« < »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA««< ELEVATION DATA UPSTREAM(FEET) _ _ 498.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = -496.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 725.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0028 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 3.20 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 1.00 (PER LACFCD/RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL) TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 12.08 TC(MIN.) = 23.74 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 588.00 = 1250.00 FEET. **kk**kkk*kkkkkkY`********kkkkk***kir kirk kick**kkk***kk**kkkkkkkk*kkk*kkirkkkk*kk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 588.00 TO NODE 588.00 IS CODE = 1 µ»»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENTSTREAMFOR CONFLUENCE«« < TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 23.74 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.76 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.91 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.20 kk**kkk****kk*kk*kk***kkkk*kk*kkk*kk****k*kkkk*****kkk****kk*********k**kkkk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 581.00 TO NODE 588.00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONALµMETHOD -INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**,? INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 124.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 497.70 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 496.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.20 TC = 0.359*[( 124,00**3)/( 1.20)]**.2 = 6.245 Page 6 33226PGA.TxT 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.079 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8537 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.35 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.26 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.35 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 588.00 TO NODE 588.00 IS CODE 1 -»»>DESIGNATE -INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE«« < »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES ««< ------- ---------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.25 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.08 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.26 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.35 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 3.20 23.74 2.765 0.91 2 1.35 6.25 6.079 0.26 *********************************WARNING********************************** IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 2.19 6.25 6.079 2 3.82 23.74 2.765 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.82 TC(MIN.) = 23.74 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.17 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 588.00 = 1250.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 588.00 TO NODE 585.00 IS CODE = 31 -»»>COMPUTE -PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL _TIME -THRU SUBAREA<<<<< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 491.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 488.80 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 165.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.7 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET)'SEC.) = 6.43 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.82 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.43 TC(MIN.) = 24.17 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 585.00 = 1415.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 585.00 TO NODE 585.00 IS CODE = 1 »»>DESIGNATE_ INDEPENDENT -STREAM -FOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 24.17 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.74 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.17 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.82 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 581.00 TO NODE 582.00 IS CODE = 21 ----------------_-__-------------------------------------------------------- { »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< ------------------------------------------------- ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 70.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 497.70 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 495.00 Page 7 77, 33226PGA.TXT ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.70 TC = 0.359*[( 70.00**3)/( 2.70)]**.2 = 3.768 COMPUTED TIME OF CONCENTRATION INCREASED TO 5 MIN. 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.932 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8586 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "8" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.30 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.05 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.30 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 582.00 TO NODE 585.00 IS CODE = 31 >>>>>COMPUTETPIPE-FLOW -TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 490.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 488.80 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 180.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.3 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.23 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.30 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.34 TC(MIN.) = 6.34 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 581.00 TO NODE 585.00 = 250.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 585.00 TO NODE 585.00 IS CODE = 1 `»»>DESIGNATE -INDEPENDENT -STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« <<< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.34 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.02 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.05 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.30 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 583.00 TO NODE 584.00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONAL- METHOD -INITIAL SUBAREA AANALYSIS ««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM _-- - - - DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 124.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 496.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 495.10 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.90 TC = 0.359*[( 124.00**3)/( 0.90)]**.2 = 6.615 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.876 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8523 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.50 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.30 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.50 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 584.00 TO NODE 585.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 490.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 488.80. FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 140.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.8 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.03 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.50 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.58 TC(MIN.) = 7.19 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 583.00 TO NODE 585.00 = 264.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 585.00 TO NODE 585.00 IS CODE = 1 »»>DESIGNATE -INDEPENDENT~ STREAM{ FOR CONFLUENCE« <<< »» >AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES ««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.19 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.59 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.30 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.50 Page 33226PGA.TXT ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 3.82 24.17 2.736 1.17 2 0.30 6.34 6.024 0.05 3 1.50 7.19 5.593 0.30 «*«kkkk«*«kkk*«*«kkkkk««««****««*WARNING««**«*«******««*«««**««*««kk*««««* IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. k«kk*«««trkk«««kkkkkk««««kir«*«««kkk««kkkkk««*Arkkkk*«««kkkkkkkkk««««««kkkkk« RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 2.62 6.34 6.024 2 2.91 7.19 5.593 3 4.69 24.17 2.736 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.69 TC(MIN.) = 24.17 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.52 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 585.00 = 1415.00 FEET, «kkkkk««kir«irk«kkkkkkk««kkkkkkk««k««kkkkkk«kkkkkkkk««kkkkkkkkkk«kk««««kkkk««« FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 585.00 TO NODE 590.00 IS CODE = 31 ----------- ------------------- - - ___ _-,___-_-.,_------ >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« < »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: -UPSTREAM(FEET)-= Y488.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)y 488.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 45.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 9.6 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.86 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 4.69 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.15 TC(MIN.) = 24.33 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 590.00 = 1460.00 FEET. ««kk««k«kkkkk«kkk«k««*kkk««kkkk««k«kirkkkkk«k««k*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk«kkkkkkkkk«« FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 590.00 TO NODE 590.00 IS CODE = 11 +-»»>CONFLUENCE-MEMORY-BANK# 1 - WITH THE - MAIN -STREAM -MEMORY««<--- __^'~ ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 4.69 24.33 2.726 1.52 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 590.00 = 1460.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 10.01 7.94 5.277 2.98 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 556.00 TO NODE 590.00 = 1115.00 FEET. ««««kk««kk«kkkkirk««««««k«kkk«kkkkWARNINGkkkkkk««k«irkk««kkkkkkk««kk«««kkkkir IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. ««k«*««««kk««k««kk««kkk««kkkkk«kkkkkkkkk««kir irk«*kk«irk«kkk«k«k«kkkkkkkk«««k ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 11.53 7.94 5.277 2 9.85 24.33 2.726 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 11.53 TC(MIN.) = 7.94 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.50 «kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk««kkk««kkkkkkkkkk«kkkkkkkkkkkkkkk«kkkkk-kkkkkkkk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 590.00 TO NODE 590.00 IS CODE = 12 ---------------------------------•-----------�--- >>>>>CLEAR MEMORY ABANK N#Y1-<<<<< Page 9 33226PGA.TXT FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 590.00 TO NODE 710.00 I5 CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) 488.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 487.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 115.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 14.5 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.54 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 11.53 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.25 TC(MIN.) = 8.19 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 710.00 = 1575.00 FEET. kkkkkkkkkkkkk**kkkkkk*k*kkkkkkkkkkk*kk*kkkkkk*kkkkkkkkkkkkk***kkkkkk*kkkkkkk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 710.00 TO NODE 710.00 IS CODE = 1 _ - - »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FORCONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.19 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.18 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 4.50 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 11.53 kkkkkkk*kkkkkkkkkkkkkk#kkkhirkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkhkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 707.00 TO NODE 709.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS«« < ------------------------------------------------------------ ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 570.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 499.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 492.40 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 6.60 TC = 0.359*[( 570.00**3)/( 6.60)]**.2 = 11.091 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.332 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8387 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.33 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.64 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.33 kkkkkkkkkkk*kkkkk*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkirkk*kkkkkkk*kkkkkkkkk*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 709.00 TO NODE 710.00 IS CODE = 31 >>>>>COMPUTE- PIPE -FLOW HTRAVEL -TIME 'THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 487.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 487.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.2 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.56 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.33 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.07 Tc(MIN.) = 11.17 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 707.00 TO NODE 710.00 = 595.00 FEET. kkkkkkkkkkk*kkkkkkkk*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk*kkkkkkkkkk*kkkkkkkkkk**kkkirk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 710.00 TO NODE 710.00 IS CODE = 1 ----------------__----_______--____..___..--__ t__ »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.17 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.31 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.64 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.33 kkkk**kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkk*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk#kkkkkkkkk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 706.00 TO NODE 708.00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONAL -METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHAN(;E)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 263.00 Page 10 r 33226PGA.TXT UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 495.20 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 492.40 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.80 TC = 0.359*[( 263.00**3)/( 2.80)7**.2 = 8.277 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.149 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8467 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.48 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.57 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.48 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 708.00 TO NODE 710.00 IS CODE = 31 -»»>COMPUTE-PIPE-FLOW~TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) «« < ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 487.40-DOWNSTREAM(FEET)487.00 --- FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.3 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.66 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 16.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.48 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.07 TC(MIN.) = 8.35 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 706.00 TO NODE 710.00 = 288.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 710.00 TO NODE 710.00 IS CODE = 1 »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENTSTREAMFOR CONFLUENCE«« < »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES ««< =__`"`.._-------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.35 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.12 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.57 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.48 • ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 11.53 8.19 5.179 4.50 2 2.33 11.17 4.315 0.64 3 2.48 8.35 5.122 0.57 IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 15.68 8.19 5.179 2 15.63 8.35 5.122 3 14.03 11.17 4.315 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 15.68 TC(MIN.) = 8.19 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.71 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 710.00 = 1575.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 710.00 TO NODE 720.00 IS CODE = 31 +->>>>>COMPUTE-PIPE-FLOW-TRAVEL-TIME-THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 487.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 486.30 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 205.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 27.0 INCH PIPE IS 19.8 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.01 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 27.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 15.68 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.68 TC(MIN.) m 8.88 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 720.00 = 1780.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 720.00 TO NODE 720.00 IS CODE = 1 Page 11 r 33226PGA.TXT MY»»>DESIGNATE'INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ---------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.88 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.94 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 5.71 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 15.68 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 717.00 TO NODE 719.00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< ---------------------------------------------------------- ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 250.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 494.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 487.70 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 6.30 TC = 0.359*[( 250.00**3)/( 6.30)]**.2 = 6.827 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.768 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8516 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.13 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.84 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.13 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 719.00 TO NODE 720.00 IS CODE = 31 »»>COMPUTE^PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL µ TIME~THRU SUBAREA«« < »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 487.70 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 486.30 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 120.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 7.6 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.80 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 4.13 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.34 TC(MIN.) = 7.17 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 717.00 TO NODE 720.00 = 370.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 720.00 TO NODE 720.00 IS CODE = 1 »»>DESIGNATE -INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE ««< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES ««< TOTAL NUMBER OFSTREAMS= 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.17 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.60 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.84 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 4.13 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 15.68 8.88 4.941 5.71 2 4.13 7.17 5.603 0.84 *********************************WARNING**********k**k*******************k IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 16.80 7.17 5.603 2 19.32 8.88 4.941 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 19.32 TC(MIN.) = 8.88 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.55 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 720.00 = 1780.00 FEET. Page 12 33226PGA.TXT FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 720.00 TO NODE 725.00 IS CODE = 31 -»» >COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL - M_ TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »» >USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) «« < ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 486.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 486.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 65.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 27.0 INCH PIPE IS 20.8 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.86 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 27.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 19.32 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.18 TC(MIN.) = 9.06 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 725.00 = 1845.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 725.00 TO NODE 725.00 IS CODE = 1 »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.06 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.88 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 6.55 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 19.32 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 727.00 TO NODE 726.00 IS CODE = 21 -»»>RATIONAL -METHOD -INITIAL SUBAREA -ANALYSIS ««< ------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION-CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL.SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 240.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 499.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 496.60 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEEr) = 2.40 TC = 0.359*[( 240.00**3)/( 2.40)]**.2 = 8.080 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.222 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8474 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.14 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.71 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.14 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 726.00 TO NODE 725.00 IS CODE = 31 »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVELTIMETHRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 491.60 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 486.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 50.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.7 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 12.09 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.14 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.07 TC(MIN.) = 8.15 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 727.00 TO NODE 725.00 = 290.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 725.00 TO NODE 725.00 IS CODE = 1 »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENTSTREAMFOR CONFLUENCE««< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.15 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.20 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.71 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.14 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 19.32 9.06 4.881 6.55 2 3.14 8.15 5.196 0.71 *********************************WARNING********************************** IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA Page 13 33226PGA.TXT WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. k*k*****##k**k##*##*kkkk**k****#kkk***k#*#kk*k##+Y**kR*kkkk***kk##k#kk*k#k# RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 20.52 8.15 5.196 2 22.27 9.06 4.881 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 22.27 TC(MIN.) = 9.06 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 7.26 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 725.00 = 1845.00 FEET. #k###*#**k#k*kkk###*kirkk#kkkkkkk##***k*kkk***#*kkkkk#kk#*kkkkkk##kk#kk#*kk** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 725.00 TO NODE 730.00 IS CODE = 31 y »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) «« < ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 486.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 485.20 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 300.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 33.0 INCH PIPE IS 23.1 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.02 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 33.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 22.27 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.00 TC(MIN.) = 10.06 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 730.00 = 2145.00 FEET. irk##kkk*kir#kk#kkkkkkkkkkkk*kkkkk*kkkkkkk#k**kkkitkkk*kkkkkk*kk*kk**###**kkkkk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 730.00 TO NODE 730.00 IS CODE = 1 --------------------- K------------------------------------------------------ -~ »»>DESIGNATEINDEPENDENTSTREAMFORCONFLUENCE« <<< _ _ ___________ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 - - CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.06 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.59 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 7.26 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 22.27 kk*k*kk*k*kkkkkk*kkk*kk*#kkkkkick**kkkkk*kkk*k*k#kkkk*kk*kir*kkk*#***kkkkkkkkk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 726.00 TO NODE 728.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 525.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 493.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 490.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 3.50 TC = 0.359*[( 525.00**3)/( 3.50)]**.2 = 11.984 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.139 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8364 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.50 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.01 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.50 *#kkk*#k*kk***kkk**k**kkkirk#kkk*#kkkk#kk*k*ick**kkkkk*kkkkkkk#ick*kkk#kk*kk*ick FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 728.00 TO NODE 730.00 IS CODE = 31 -R»»>COMPUTE~PIPE-FLOW^TRAVEL TIME- <<SUBAREA«a<< Y »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 490.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 485.20 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.4 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 15.10 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETEP.(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.50 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.03 TC(MIN.) = 12.01 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 726.00 TO NODE 730.00 = 550.00 FEET_ ir#kkkkkkk#*k*k*kkkk*kkkk#**#k##*kirkk*kkkk#**kkkkkk*k*#*#k#kk##k*kkkk**kk*kkk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 730.00 TO NODE 730.00 IS CODE = 1 - r - VT »»>DESIGNATEINDEPENDENTSTREAMFORCONFLUENCE<<<<< __ ______ _a_._____ Page 14 33226PGA.TXT TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 12.01 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.13 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.01 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.50 *k*********k**kkk*k*k**k******kkk*kk******k*******kk***kkk******k****kk*k*** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 727.00 TO NODE 729.00 IS CODE = 21 sY»»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 525.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 496.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 490.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 6.00 TC = 0.359*[( 525.00**3)/( 6.00)]**.2 = 10.760 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.410 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8395 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.07 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.07 ***k***k*****kkk***k*****k***k**kk*kkk*{r******************kk*kk*k****kk*k**k FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 729.00 TO NODE 730.00 IS CODE = 31 »»>COMPUTEyPIPE-FLOW ~TRAVEL -TIME THRU^SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 485.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 485.20 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 7.5 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.84 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 4.07 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.07 TC(MIN.) = 10.83 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 727.00 TO NODE 730.00 = 550.00 FEET. *k*********k****k*k***k****kk******k*k***k*********k*k**kk***kk*k***k*k*k*k* FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 730.00 TO NODE 730.00 IS CODE = 1 -»»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM�~ FORCONFLUENCE<<<<< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES ««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.83 RAINFALL INTENS ITY(INCH/HR) = 4.39 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.10 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 4.07 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 22.27 10.06 4.590 7.26 2 3.50 12.01 4.133 1.01 3 4.07 10.83 4.393 1.10 *******k******************k**k**kWARNING************************k****k***k IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 28.98 10.06 4.590 2 28.54 10.83 4.393 3 27.38 12.01 4.133 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 28.98 TC(MIN.) = 10.06 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.37 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 730.00 = 2145.00 FEET. Page 15 33226PGA.TXT FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 730.00 TO NODE 735.00 IS CODE = 31 _ »»>COMPUTE -PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 485.20 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 485.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 10.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 18.3 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 11.27 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 28.98 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.01 TC(MIN.) = 10.07 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 735.00 = 2155.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 735.00 TO NODE 735.00 IS CODE = 10 -------------y_--__-_----------------------------------------_-_-.._..___.,. »»>MAIN -STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 2 <<<<< FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 735.00 TO NODE 735.00 IS CODE = 13 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>CLEAR THE MAIN -STREAM MEMORY««< FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 277.00 TO NODE 250.00 IS CODE = 21 v»»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS «« < - ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 275.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 493.40 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 492.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.40 TC = 0.359*[( 275.00**3)/( 1.40)]**.2 = 9.766 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.670 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8423 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.22 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.31 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.22 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 250.00 TO NODE 260.00 IS CODE = 31 _ »»>COMPUTErPIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< - ------------------------------ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 487.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 486.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 115.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.2 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.90 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.22 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.66 TC(MIN.) = 10.43 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 277.00 TO NODE 260.00 = 390.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 260.00 TO NODE 260.00 IS CODE = 1 -»»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< - TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.43 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.49 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.31 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.22 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 258.00 TO NODE 259.00 IS CODE = 21 -r»»>RATIONAL-METHOD^INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< -------------------------------===r-�:�=�==,moi= ��=q____-___�.- ----------- -- ----------- ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 150.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 492.80 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 492.00 Page 16 33226PGA.TXT ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.80 TC = 0.359*[( 150.00**3)/( 0.80)]**.2 = 7.592 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.418 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8490 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.93 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.42 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.93 kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkxkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkxkkkk*kkk****xkkk*�kkkkkkkkkkkxkkkkk { �_-FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 259.00 TO NODE ----260_00-«IS^CODE -=- 31_____-____ j »»>COMPUTE -PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA« < »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< -ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 487.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 486.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.7 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.27 E ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 4 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.93 .I PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.06 TC(MIN.) = 7.65 i LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 258.00 TO NODE 260.00 = 175.00 FEET. *kkkkkkkxkkkkkkkkk*kkxkkk*kkkkxkkkkkkkkkkk*kk********kkkk****kkk******kkk*** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 260.00 TO NODE 260.00 I5 CODE = 1 - »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE«« < »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES «« < TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.65 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.39 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.42 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.93 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 1.22 10.43 4.493 0.31 2 1.93 7.65 5.394 0.42 *kxkkkkkkkkkkkk*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkWARNINGkkkkkk**kkkkkkkkk***kxkk***kkkkkkk IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. **kkkkkkkkkkkkk*kkkkkkk*kkkkkk**kkkkkkkxkkk****kk****kk*k**kk***kkxkk*kkkk RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 2.83 7.65 5.394 2 2.83 10.43 4.493 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.83 TC(MIN.) = 7.65 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.73 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 277.00 TO NODE 260.00 = 390.00 FEET. **kkkkkkkk*kkkk*kkkkkkkkk*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkx***kkkkk**kkkkx****kkk****kkk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 260.00 TO NODE 270.00 I5 CODE = 31 »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW -TRAVEL -TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 486.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 486.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 90.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 7.6 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.99 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.83 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.38 TC(MIN.) = 8.03 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 277.00 TO NODE 270.00 = 480.00 FEET. *kkkkk�*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkxkkkkkk*kkkkk***kk*kkkkkkkk*kk******kk*xkk***xx*x FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 270.00 TO NODE 270.00 IS CODE = 1 »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT ySTREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< Page 17 33226PGA.TXT TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.03 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.24 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.73 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.83 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 267.00 TO NODE 269.00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONAL -METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 240.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 500.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 496.80 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 3.20 TC = 0.359*[( 240.00**3)/( 3.20)]**.2 = 7.628 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.402 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8488 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.61 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.57 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.61 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 269.00 TO NODE 270.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) «« < _-ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 491.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 486.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 225.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.9 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.80 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.61 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.55 TC(MIN.) = 8.18 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 267.00 TO NODE 270.00 = 465.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 270.00 TO NODE 270.00 IS CODE = 1 »»>DESIGNATETINDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES ««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.18 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.18 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.57 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.61 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 2.83 8.03 5.243 0.73 2 2.61 8.18 5.184 0.57 ****************h****************WARNING********************************** IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE 0-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 5.39 8.03 5.243 2 5.41 8.18 5.184 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.39 TC(MIN.) = 8.03 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.30 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 277.00 TO NODE 270.00 = 480.00 FEET. *****************************************************************h*****hh*** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 270.00 TO NODE 280.00 IS CODE = 31 Page 18 33226PGA.TXT »»>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< »»>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW) «« < ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) _-- 486.00 JDOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 485.80 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 9.9 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.39 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 5.39 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.08 TC(MIN.) = 8.10 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 277.00 TO NODE 280.00 = 505.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 280.00 TO NODE 280.00 IS CODE = 1 »»>DESIGNATE-INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« <<< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.10 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.21 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.30 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 5.39 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 277.00 TO NODE 279.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 230.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 493.40 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 490.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.90 TC = 0.359*[( 230.00**3)/( 2.90)]**.2 = 7.584 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.421 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8490 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.46 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.97 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.46 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 279.00 TO NODE 280.00 IS CODE = 31 - »»>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< »»>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 486.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 485.80 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.9 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.21 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CF5) = 4.46 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.06 TC(MIN.) = 7.64 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 277.00 TO NODE 280.00 = 255.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 280.00 TO NODE 280.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES «« < TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 - CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.64 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.40 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.97 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 4.46 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 5.39 8.10 5.214 1.30 2 4.46 7.64 5.397 0.97 IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. Page 19 33226PGA.TXT RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 9.55 7.64 5.397 2 9.70 8.10 5.214 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.70 TC(MIN.) = 8.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.27 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 277.00 TO NODE 280.00 = 505.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 280.00 TO NODE 290.00 IS CODE = 31 -»»>COMPUTE -PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 485.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) _ -485.30 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 185.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 16.9 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.09 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 9.70 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.75 TC(MIN.) = 8.86 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 277.00 TO NODE 290.00 = 690.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 290.00 TO NODE 290.00 IS CODE = 10 ------------------------------.._-__-__-------------------------------------- »»>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 3 ««< FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 290.00 TO NODE 290.00 IS CODE = 13 »»>CLEARWTHE ~MAIN -STREAM MEMORY««< FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 286.00 TO NODE 289.00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONAL -METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< ---------------------------------------------------------------- - ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 250.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 491.30 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 490.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.30 TC = 0.359*[( 250.00**3)/( 1.30)]**.2 = 9.361 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.788 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8435 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.81 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.20 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.81 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 289.00 TO NODE 289.00 IS CODE = 1 M »»>DESIGNATE- INDEPENDENT _STREAM FOR -CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.36 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.79 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.20 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.81 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 287.00 TO NODE 289.00 IS CODE = 21 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< -------------------------------------------------------------- ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 230.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 492.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 490.00 Page 20 33226PGA.TXT ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.50 TC = 0.359*[( 230.00**3)/( 2.50)]**.2 = 7.812 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.327 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8482 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.27 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.28 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.27 xxxx*xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 289.00 TO NODE 289.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------- ------------ ------- ---- ---------------. __---------__ - _-_ »» >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< »» >AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS =- 2 - CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.81 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.33 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.28 PEAK.FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.27 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 0.81 9.36 4.788 0.20 2 1.27 7.81 5.327 0.28 ****xxxxxxxxxxxx*xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxWARNINGxxxxxxxx*xxxxxxxxxx*xxxxxx*xxxxxxx IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. xxxxxxxxxxx,rx*xxxx*xxxxxxx*xxx***xx*xx*xx*xxx*xxxxxx*xx*xxxx*xx*xxx*xxxxx* RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 1.94 7.81 5.327 2 1.94 9.36 4.788 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.94 TC(MIN.) = 7.81 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.48 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 286.00 TO NODE 289.00 = 250.00 FEET. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*xxxxxxx*,t***xx**xxxx**xxxx*x*x*xx**xxxxx*xxxx*xx*x*x FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 289.00 TO NODE 290.00 IS CODE = 31 -- - - >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 485.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 485.30 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.4 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.71 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.94 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.07 TC(MIN.) = 7.89 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 286.00 TO NODE 290.00 = 275.00 FEET. **xxxx*xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*xxxxxxx*xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*xxx FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 290.00 TO NODE 290.00 IS CODE = 11 --»»>CONFLUENCE MEMORY ~BANK -# 3 WITHTHEMAIN-STREAM MEMORY««< ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 1.94 7.89 5.298 0.48 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 286.00 TO NODE 290.00 = 275.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 3 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 9.70 8.86 4.941 2.27 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 277.00 TO NODE 290.00 = 690.00 FEET. *xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx***,txxxx*xWARNING***xxxxx*xxxxxxx*xxxxxxx*+rxxxxxxxx IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA Page 21 33226PGA.TXT WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaa,taaaaaaa*aaa*aaaaaaa*�aa�*aa,t*aaa ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 10.58 7.89 5.298 2 11.51 8.86 4.947 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 11.51 TC(MIN.) = 8.86 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.75 *aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 290.00 TO NODE 290.00 IS CODE = 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »» >CLEAR MEMORY BANK # 3 ««< *aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatt*ttt****ret,kre**rt*t*carr**fraaaa*a*a*aaaaaa FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 290.00 TO NODE 735.00 IS CODE = 31 »»>COMPUTE -PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 485.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 485.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 12.7 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.56 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 11.51 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.06 TC(MIN.) = 8.91 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 277.00 TO NODE 735.00 = 715.00 FEET. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa*aa,taxa*aa,taaaaaaaaaaa***aaaaaaa�a*aaa*aaaaaaaaaaaaa FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 735.00 TO NODE 735.00 IS CODE = 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------_- »»>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 2 WITH THE MAIN -STREAM MEMORY««< ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 11.51 8.91 4.929 2.75 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 277.00 TO NODE 735.00 = 715.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 2 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 28.98 10.07 4.586 9.37 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 735.00 = 2155.00 FEET. *aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaWARNINGaaaaaa*aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa*aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 37.15 8.91 4.929 2 39.69 10.07 4.586 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 39.69 TC(MIN.) = 10.07 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 12.12 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 735.00 TO NODE 735.00 IS CODE = 12 ---»---- -------------- ---------------- -- _ »»>CLEAR MEMORY BANK # 2 ««< aaaaaaaaaa*,t*aaaaa.taaaaaa,t*a*a*aaaaaaaaaaaa,taaaaaaaaaaaaaa*a**a*at:*aaaaa*,t** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 735.00 TO NODE 740.00 IS CODE = 31 >>>>>COMPUTE7PIPE-FLOW -TRAVEL �TIME THRU SUBAREA«« < >USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 485.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 484.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 135.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 39.0 INCH PIPE IS 26.6 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.57 Page 22 33226PGA.TXT ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 39.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 39.69 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.34 Tc(MIN.) = 10.41 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 740.00 = 2290.00 FEET. *x**xx**kk*k***kxx**k*xxx****x*k****kx********kxk**k************************ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 740.00 TO NODE 740.00 IS CODE = 1 - »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« <<< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.41 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.50 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 12.12 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 39.69 *******x**x**k***kxkk**xk*xxk*******kk****xkx***kx****kk****x*k**kx********* FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 737.00 TO NODE 739.00 IS CODE = 21 --- _ _ - ------ -- ----------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< ---------------------------------------------------------------- ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 145.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 491.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 490.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50 TC = 0.359*[( 145.00**3)/( 1.50)]**.2 = 6.561 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.905 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8525 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.81 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.36 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.81 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 739.00 TO NODE 740.00 IS CODE = 31 ---_--_ »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< _ »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) «« < ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 485.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 484.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 120.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.4 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.19 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.81 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.63 TC(MIN.) = 7.19 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 737.00 TO NODE 740.00 = 265.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 740.00 TO NODE 740.00 IS CODE = 1 l - »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE ««< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES ««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.19 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.60 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.36 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.81 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 39.69 10.41 4.496 12.12 2 1.81 7.19 5.596 0.36 *************xx*x**xx*x*k*x****x*WARNING****x****x*x**xx************kx**** IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. x*k*k**x**kx**xx*x**x****xx**k*****k*kx*x****kx**************x************ RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 29.21 7.19 5.596 Page 23 33226PGA.TXT 2 41.15 10.41 4.496 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 41.15 TC(MIN.) = 10.41 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 12.48 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 740.00 = 2290.00 FEET, FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 740.00 TO NODE 750.00 IS CODE = 31 -»»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL -TIME THRU-SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) «« < ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 484.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 484.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 115.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 36.0 INCH PIPE IS 28.3 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.91 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 36.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 41.15 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.28 TC(MIN.) = 10.69 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 750.00 = 2405.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 750.00 TO NODE 750.00 IS CODE = 1 »»>DESIGNATE -INDEPENDENT+ STREAM -FOR -CONFLUENCE<<<<< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.69 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.43 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 12.48 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 41.15 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 747.00 TO NODE 749.00 IS CODE = 21 r`»»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< --------------------------------------------------------- ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 250.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 491.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 488.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 3.00 TC = 0.359*[( 250.00**3)/( 3.00)]**.2 = 7.919 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.285 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8479 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.51 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.56 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.51 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 749.00 TO NODE 750.00 IS CODE = 31 »»>COMPUTE- PIPE -FLOW �TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) «« < ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 484.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 484.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.1 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.14 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.51 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.07 TC(MIN.) = 7.99 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 747.00. TO NODE 750.00 = 275.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 750.00 TO NODE 750.00 IS CODE = 1 »»>DESIGNATE -INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES ««< -------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.99 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH;HP.) = 5.26 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.56 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE s 2.51 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA Page 24 NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)3226(ACRE T 1 41.15 10.69 4.427 12.48 2 2.51 7.99 5.258 0.56 IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 33.25 7.99 5.258 2 43.26 10.69 4.427 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 43.26 TC(MIN.) = 10.69 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.04 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 750.00 2405.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 750.00 TO NODE 755.00 IS CODE = 31 --------------------------------- - ---- -_ _. »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 484.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 483.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 45.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 33.0 INCH PIPE I5 22.2 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 10.16 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 33.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 43.26 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.07 TC(MIN.) = 10.76 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 755.00 = 2450.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 755.00 TO NODE 755.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< -TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.76 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.41 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 13.04 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 43.26 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 751.00 TO NODE 752.00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONAL METHODINITIALSUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREAUNIFORM - DEVELOPMENT IS: UNDEVELOPED WITH FAIR COVER TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 400.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 493.40 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 488.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 4.90 TC = 0.709*[( 400.00**3)/( 4.90)]**.2 = 18.797 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR)= 3.173 UNDEVELOPED WATERSHED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6766 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.57 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.73 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.57 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 752.00 TO NODE 755.00 IS CODE = 31 - ------------------------------------------------------ y »»>COMPUTEPIPE-FLOWTRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) «« < -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 484.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 483.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.0 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.36 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.57 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.08 TC(MIN.) = 18.87 Page 25 33226PGA.TXT LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 751.00 TO NODE 755.00 = 425.00 FEET. ***a*k**a***a****a**a*a***aa**a*a*****k*a**k*********a********************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 755.00 TO NODE 755.00 IS CODE = 1 . - Hy »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FORCONFLUENCE ««< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES ««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS =-Y 2^ CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 18.87 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.17 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.73 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.57 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 43.26 10.76 4.409 13.04 2 1.57 18,87 3.166 0.73 ************a***********k********WARNING********************************** IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 44.15 10.76 4.409 2 32.63 18.87 3.166 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 44.15 TC(MIN.) = 10.76 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.77 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 755.00 = 2450.00 FEET. *******************aak********a*****a**************a*************aak******** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 755.00 TO NODE 760.00 IS CODE = 31 _ »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW -TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 483.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) _ - 483.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 125.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 39.0 INCH PIPE IS 28.1 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.91 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 39.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 44.15 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.30 TC(MIN.) = 11.07 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 760.00 = 2575.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 760.00 TO NODE 760.00 IS CODE = 1 »»>DESIGNATE- INDEPENDENT vSTREAM 4FOR CONFLUENCE ««< ___=_-----------------==-=---------------------------- --------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.07 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.34 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 13.77 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 44.15 ******************************k*****a**a****a*******************a*******k*** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 757.00 TO NODE 759.00 IS CODE = 21 -»»>RATIONAL -METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< -------------------------------------------------------------- ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 115.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 489.10 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 488.90 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.20 TC = 0.359*[( 115.00**3)/( 0.20)]**.2 = 8.542 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.054 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8459 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" Page 26 9 33226PGA.TXT SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.28 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.30 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.28 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa****aaaa*****aaa***aaaaaaaaa*aaaaaaaaaaaaaa FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 759.00 TO NODE 760.00 IS CODE = 31 »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< --ELEVATION TDATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 4483.90 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 483.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 120.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.6 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.57 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.28 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.56 TC(MIN.) = 9.10 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 757.00 TO NODE 760.00 = 235.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 760.00 TO NODE 760.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE «« < »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES ««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.10 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.87 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.30 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.28 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 44.15 11.07 4.338 13.77 2 1.28 9.10 4.868 0.30 *,r*a**a*a*a*,ta*,ta*aa*a**a***aa***WARNING**aa*a*aaa**oaa**arca*a**,ta**aa**,ta IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 37.60 9.10 4.868 2 45.30 11.07 4.338 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 45.30 TC(MIN.) = 11.07 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.07 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 760.00 = 2575.00 FEET. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa*aaa FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 760.00 TO NODE 770.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 483.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 482.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 125.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 39.0 INCH PIPE IS 28.7 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.93 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 39.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 45.30 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.30 TC(MIN.) = 11.37 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 770.00 = 2700.00 FEET. aaaaaa***aaa**aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa*aaaa***aa FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 770.00 TO NODE 770.00 IS CODE = 1 >>>>>DESIGNATEIINDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER. OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.37 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.27 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 14.07 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 45.30 Page 27 33226PGA.TXT FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 767.00 TO NODE 769.00 IS CODE = 21 _ a_ --_-_-N- y »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 253.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 489.10 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 487.20 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.90 TC = 0.359*[( 253.00**3)/( 1.90)]**.2 = 8.739 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.986 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8453 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.07 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.49 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.07 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 769.00 TO NODE 770.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« < »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION -DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 483.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) =---482.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.6 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.81 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.07 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.07 TC(MIN.) = 8.81 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 767.00 TO NODE 770.00 = 278.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 770.00 TO NODE 770.00 IS CODE = 1 - �-- >>>>>DESIGNATEINDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< - -^TOTAL NUMBER OF- STREAMS -= 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.81 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.96 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.49 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.07 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 289.00 TO NODE 768.00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONAL�METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 500.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 490.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 487.20 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.80 TC = 0.359*[( 500.00**3)/( 2.80)]**.2 = 12.170 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.101 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8359 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.91 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = OAS TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.91 *wwww*www*ww*ww***w****n*w**w**w**www**www*w******************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 768.00 TO NODE 770.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) «« < ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 483.20 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 482.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.0 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.22 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = i PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.91 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.06 TC(MIN.) = 12.23 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 289.00 TO NODE 770.00 = 525.00 FEET. Page 28 [[ 33226PGA.TXT I --FLOW_PROCESS-FROM-NODE---»770.00_ TO_NODE ra+�770_00_IS`CODE Y -r^ 1___ _--'^- I� »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« <<< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES ««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 ffff CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 12.23 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.09 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.85 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.91 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 45.30 11.37 4.270 14.07 2 2.07 8.81 4.962 0.49 3 2.91 12.23 4.090 0.85 IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. *kkkkkk**kkkkkk*kkkkk*kkkkkkk*kkkkkkk***kkk*k****kick****k*k***k*kkk*kkk*kk RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 39.27 8.81 4.962 2 49.78 11.37 4.270 3 48.00 12.23 4.090 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 49.78 TC(MIN.) = 11.37 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 15.41 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 770.00 = 2700.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 770.00 TO NODE 780.00 IS CODE = 31 »»>COMPUTE -PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »» >USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)«« < ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 482 SO DOWNSTREAM(FEET)-= 482.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 15.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 27.0 INCH PIPE IS 20.1 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 15.69 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 27.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 49.78 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.02 TC(MIN.) = 11.38 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 780.00 = 2715.00 FEET. k*kk*k*kkkkkkkkkkkk*k***kk*kk*kkk*kk***k*k***kkk*****kkkkkk*k*k**kkkkkk*k*** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 780.00 TO NODE 780.00 IS CODE = 10 Y - µ_-_ »» >MAIN -STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORYBANK# 2 ««< __ _ ._ _ _ *irk kirk***k***k*k**kklt**.ir*****#*ik**f *ykkkkk**ick*kkk**k*******k**kk**k*kkkk*kirk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 780.00 TO NODE 780.00 IS CODE = 13 -»»>CLEAR THEMAIN-STREAMMEMORY<<<<< **kk*kkkkkk**kk*k**kkkk*kkkkkkkkkkk*kkkkkk*k*kkk*kkkkk**kkkkk*k**k****k*kkkk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 361.00 TO NODE 360.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »» >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< ---------------------------------------------- - ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 288.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 490.10 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 489.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.10 TC = 0.359*[( 288.00**3)/( 1.10)]**.2 = 10.536 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.465 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8401 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.S4 Page 29 33226PGA.TXT TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.41 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.54 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 360.00 TO NODE 370.00 IS CODE = 31 »»>COMPUTE -PIPE -FLOW TRAVELTIMETHRU-SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) 484.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) _ -483.30- FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 195.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.1 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.89 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.54 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.12 TC(MIN.) = 11.66 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 361.00 TO NODE 370.00 = 483.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 370.00 TO NODE 370.00 IS CODE = 10 ----•---------------------------------------------`--------------------------- »»>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 3 ««< FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 370.00 TO NODE 370.00 IS CODE = 13 '-»»>CLEAR THE MAIN -STREAM MEMORY<<<<< FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 365.00 TO NODE 369.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< - -------------------------------------------------------------- ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 220.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 490.70 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 487.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 3.20 TC = 0.359*[( 220.00**3)/( 3.20)]**.2 = 7.240 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.571 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8501 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.42 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.51 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.42 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 369.00 TO NODE 369.00 IS CODE = 1 -»»>DESIGNATE -INDEPENDENT STREAM yFOR -CONFLUENCE««< ------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.24 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.57 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.51 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.42 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 361.00 TO NODE 369.00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONAL- METHOD -INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 286.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 490.10 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 487.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.60 TC = 0.359*[( 286.00**3)/( 2.60)1"*.2 = 8.834 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.954 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8450 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.05 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.25 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.05 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 369.00 TO NODE 369.00 is CODE = 1 -`- w -- - »»>DESIGNATEINDEPENDENTSTREAMFORCONFLUENCE««< _ - Page 30 33226PGA.TXT »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES ««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.83 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.95 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.25 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.05 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 2.42 7.24 5.571 0.51 2 1.05 8.83 4.954 0.25 IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 3.27 7.24 5.571 2 3.19 8.83 4.954 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS; PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.27 TC(MIN.) = 7.24 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.76 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 361.00 TO NODE 369.00 = 286.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 369.00 TO NODE 370.00 IS CODE = 31 M - ~ »»>COMPUTEPIPE-FLOWTRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< ^_- - "____ __ »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) _ _483.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) _ -483.50-� FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.7 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.51 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.27 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.08 TC(MIN.) = 7.32 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 361.00 TO NODE 370.00 = 311.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 370.00 TO NODE 370.00 IS CODE = 11 --»»>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK #- F - -- - "- - 3WITHTHEMAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<< ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 3.27 7.32 5.537 0.76 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 361.00 TO NODE 370.00 = 313.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 3 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 1.54 11.66 4.206 0.41 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 361.00 TO NODE 370.00 = 483.00 FEET. IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE 0-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 4.24 7.32 5.537 2 4.02 11.66 4.206 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.24 TC(MIN.) = 7.32 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.17 Page 31 33226PGA.TxT FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 370.00 TO NODE 370.00 IS CODE = 12 ---------------------------------------------------------_------------------- >>>>>CLEAR MEMORY BANK # 3 ««< FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 370.00 TO NODE 380.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« < »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ^ _ =_arc===.-n-.�=-r--* ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 483.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 483.30 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 15.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 7.4 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.14 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 4.24 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.04 TC(MIN.) = 7.36 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 361.00 TO NODE 380.00 = 498.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 380.00 TO NODE 380.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER -OF STREAMS -=- 2 _ CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.36 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH(HR) = 5.52 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.17 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 4.24 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 377.00 TO NODE 379.00 IS CODE = 21 Y - »» >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREAANALYSIS<<<<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS: UNDEVELOPED WITH FAIR COVER TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 1000.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 492.20 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 485.30 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 6.90 TC = 0.709*[( 1000.00**3)/( 6.90)]**.2 = 30.417 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.389 UNDEVELOPED WATERSHED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6256 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.46 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.98 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.46 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 379.00 TO NODE 380.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 484.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 483.30 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 45.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.1 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.81 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.46 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.16 TC(MIN.) = 30.57 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 377.00 TO NODE 380.00 = 1045.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 380.00 TO NODE 380.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE ««< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 30.57 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.38 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.98 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.46 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** Page 32 r IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 4.59 7.36 5.519 2 3.29 30.57 2.382 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.59 TC(MIN.) = 7.36 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.15 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 377.00 TO NODE 380.00 = 1045.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 380.00 TO NODE 385.00 IS CODE = 31 --»»>COMPUTE+PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 483.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 483.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 175.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 13.2 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.89 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 4.59 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.01 TC(MIN.) = 8.37 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 377.00 TO NODE 385.00 = 1220.00 FEET. *****a***aa**aaa***aa****aaa*aaa*a*aa****a**a*a*a*******aa****a****a******** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 385.00 TO NODE 385.00 IS CODE = 1 -»»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE «« < ---------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.37 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = S.12 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.1S PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE 4.59 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 381.00 TO NODE 382.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS «« < ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 210.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 489.70 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 487.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.20 TC = 0.359*[( 210.00**3)/( 2.20)]**.2 = 7.589 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.419 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8490 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.38 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.30 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.38 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 382.00 TO NODE 385.00 IS CODE = 31 ~^»»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA ««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 483.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 483.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.8 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.16 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.38 Page 33 33226PGA.TXT STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 4.24 7.36 5.519 1.17 2 1.46 30.57 2.382 0.98 IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 4.59 7.36 5.519 2 3.29 30.57 2.382 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.59 TC(MIN.) = 7.36 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.15 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 377.00 TO NODE 380.00 = 1045.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 380.00 TO NODE 385.00 IS CODE = 31 --»»>COMPUTE+PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 483.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 483.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 175.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 13.2 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.89 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 4.59 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.01 TC(MIN.) = 8.37 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 377.00 TO NODE 385.00 = 1220.00 FEET. *****a***aa**aaa***aa****aaa*aaa*a*aa****a**a*a*a*******aa****a****a******** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 385.00 TO NODE 385.00 IS CODE = 1 -»»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE «« < ---------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.37 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = S.12 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.1S PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE 4.59 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 381.00 TO NODE 382.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS «« < ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 210.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 489.70 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 487.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.20 TC = 0.359*[( 210.00**3)/( 2.20)]**.2 = 7.589 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.419 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8490 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.38 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.30 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.38 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 382.00 TO NODE 385.00 IS CODE = 31 ~^»»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA ««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 483.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 483.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.8 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.16 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.38 Page 33 r 33226PGA.TXT PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.08 TC(MIN.) = 7.67 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 381.00 TO NODE 385.00 = 235.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 385.00 TO NODE 385.00 IS CODE = 1 `!»»>DESIGNATE'INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE«« < »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES «« < _ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.67 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.39 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.30 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.38 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 4.59 8.37 5.116 2.15 2 1.38 7.67 5.385 0.30 IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 5.59 7.67 5.385 2 5.90 8.37 5.116 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.90 TC(MIN.) = 8.37 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.45 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 377.00 TO NODE 385.00 = 1220.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 385.00 TO NODE 390.00 IS CODE = 31 »»>COMPUTE- PIPE -FLOW %TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 483.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 482.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.0 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC:) = 7.78 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 5.90 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.05 TC(MIN.) = 8.42 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 377.00 TO NODE 390.00 = 1245.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 390.00 TO NODE 390.00 IS CODE = 1 H -»»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< --------------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.42 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.10 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.45 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 5.90 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 387.00 TO NODE 389.00 IS CODE = 21 »>»RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS«« < - ---------------------------------------------------------- ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 220.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 488.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 487.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.00 TC = 0.359*[( 220.00**3)/( 1.00)]**.2 = 9.137 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.857 Page 34 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.53 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 33226PGA.TXT COEFFICIENT = .8441 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.53 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 389.00 TO NODE 390.00 IS CODE = 31 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -4»»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< »» >USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 482.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 482.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.7 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.25 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.53 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.13 Tc(MIN.) = 9.26 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 387.00 TO NODE 390.00 = 245.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 390.00 TO NODE 390.00 IS CODE = 1 ~-»»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« <<< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES ««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.26 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.82 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.53 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 5.90 8.42 5.097 2.45 2 0.53 9.26 4.817 0.13 IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 6.39 8.42 5.097 2 6.11 9.26 4.817 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.39 TC(MIN.) = 8.42 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.58 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 377.00 TO NODE 390.00 = 1245.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 390.00 TO NODE 780.00 IS CODE = 31 v>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« < »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 482.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 482.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.4 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.94 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 6.39 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.OS TC(MIN.) = 8.47 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 377.00 TO NODE 780.00 = 1270.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 780.00 TO NODE 780.00 IS CODE = li - >>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 2WITH THE MAIN -STREAM MEMORY<<<<< ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA Page 35 33226PGA.TXT NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 6.39 8.47 5.078 2.58 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 377.00 TO NODE 780.00 = 1270.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 2 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 49.78 11.38 4.266 15.41 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 780.00 = 2715.00 FEET. IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 43.44 8.47 5.078 2 55.15 11.38 4.266 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 55.15 TC(MIN.) = 11.38 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 17.99 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 780.00 TO NODE 780.00 IS CODE = 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>CLEAR MEMORY BANK # 2 ««< FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 780.00 TO NODE 790.00 IS CODE = 31 --»»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL - ^ TIMETHRU SUBAREA«« < »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< --------------------=--------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 482.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 481.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 70.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 39.0 INCH PIPE IS 26.7 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 9.13 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 39.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 55.15 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.13 TC(MIN.) = 11.51 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 790.00 = 2785.00 FEET, FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 790.00 TO NODE 790.00 IS CODE = 1 r'»»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT - o - STREAMFORCONFLUENCE ««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS =�2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.51 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.24 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 17.99 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 55.15 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 787.00 TO NODE 789.00 IS CODE = 21 r-»» >RATIONAL METHOD ~ - y -~ INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS «« < ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 162.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 488.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 487.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.50 TC = 0.359*[( 162.00**3)/( 0.50)]**.2 = 8.735 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.988 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8453 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.77 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.42 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.77 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 789.00 TO NODE 790400 TS CODE = 31 »»>COMPUTENPIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< Page 36 33226PGA.TXT ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 482.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) _= 481.80 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 120.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.8 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.58 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.77 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = O.S6 TC(MIN.) = 9.29 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 787.00 TO NODE 790.00 = 282.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 790.00 TO NODE 790.00 IS CODE = 1 »»>DESIGNATE -INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE«« < »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES ««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.29 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.81 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.42 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.77 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 55.15 11.51 4.238 17.99 2 1.77 9.29 4.809 0.42 *********************************WARNING********************************** IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED I5 BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 46.29 9.29 4.809 2 56.71 11.51 4.238 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 56.71 TC(MIN.) = 11.51 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 18.41 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 790.00 = 2785.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 790.00 TO NODE 970.00 IS CODE = 31 -»»>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOWTRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 481.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 480.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 115.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 33.0 INCH PIPE IS 26.0 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 11.29 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 33.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 56.71 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.17 TC(MIN.) = 11.68 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 970.00 = 2900.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 970.00 TO NODE 970.00 IS CODE = 10 ____------------------------------------------------------------------- -- »»>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 ««< **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 606.00 TO NODE 610.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS «« < ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 195.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 500.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 495.80 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 4.70 TC = 0.359*[( 195.00**3)/( 4.70)]**.2 = 6.236 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.084 Page 37 33226PGA.TxT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8537 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.91 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.56 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.91 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 610.00 TO NODE 620.00 IS CODE = 31 -»»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) «« < ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) _ !490.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 489.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 155.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.9 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.68 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.91 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.55 TC(MIN.) = 6.79 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 606.00 TO NODE 620.00 = 350.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 620.00 TO NODE 620.00 IS CODE = 1 -- A - >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENTSTREAMFOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.79 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.79 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.56 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.91 aaaaaaaaaaaa,r*aaaaaaaaaa*aaaaaaaaaaatra*aa**a,ta,taa*aa*aaa*aaaaaaaaaaaaa�,taaaa FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 617.00 TO NODE 619.00 IS CODE = 21 -»»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS «« < ----------------------------------------------------------------- ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 175.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 496.70 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 495.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.70 TC = 0.359*[( 175.00**3)/( 1.70)]**.2 = 7.163 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.607 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8504 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.15 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.45 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.15 *aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa*aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa*aaaaaaaaaaaaaa FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 619.00 TO NODE 620.00 IS CODE = 31 y»»>COMPUTE-PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) «« < ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 490.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 489.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.7 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.88 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.15 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MI.N.) = 0.07 TC(MIN.) = 7.23 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 617.00 TO NODE 620.00 = 200.00 FEET. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaar.aaa*aaaaaaaaaa*aaaaaaaa*a*aaaaatc FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 620.00 TO NODE 620.00 IS CODE = 1 -»»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES ««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.23 RAINFALL TNTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.57 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.45 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.15 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) Page 38 33226PGA.TxT 1 2.91 6.79 5.787 0.56 2 2.15 7.23 5.575 0.45 IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 4.92 6.79 5.787 2 4.95 7.23 5.575 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.92 TC(MIN.) = 6.79 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.01 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 606.00 TO NODE 620.00 = 350.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 620.00 TO NODE 630.00 IS CODE = 31 --»»>COMPUTE-PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL -TIME pTHRU-SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 489.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 489.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 9.9 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.92 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 4.92 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.25 TC(MIN.) = 7.04 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 606.00 TO NODE 630.00 = 425.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 630.00 TO NODE 630.00 IS CODE = 10 -----------------------------------------------------------------------.... »»>MAIN -STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 2 ««< FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 630.00 TO NODE 630.00 IS CODE = 13 »»>CLEAR~THE -MAIN-STREAM -MEMORY<<<<< FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 627.00 TO NODE 629.00 IS CODE = 21 »» >RATIONAL METHOD -INITIAL -SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< ----- ---------------------------------------------------------- ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 215.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 496.70 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 494.70 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.00 TC = 0.359*[( 215.00**3)/( 2.00)]**.2 = 7.845 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.314 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8481 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.25 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.50 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.25 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 629.00 TO NODE 629.00 IS CODE = 1 --»»>DESIGNATE- INDEPENDENT YSTREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< ------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 .ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.85 RAINFALL INTENSIT,'(INCH/HR) = 5.31 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.50 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.25 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 628.00 TO NODE 629.00 IS CODE = 21 Page 39 r 33226PGA.TXT N-»» >RATIONAL -METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA _ANALYSIS «« < ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 340.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 496.90 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 494.70 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.20 TC = 0.359*[( 340.00**3)/( 2.20)]**.2 = 10.133 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.569 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8412 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.19 TOTAL'AREA(ACRES) = 0.57 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.19 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 629.00 TO NODE 629.00 IS CODE = 1 - »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT ^ - STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES «« < ---------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.13 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.57 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.57 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.19 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 2.25 7.85 5.314 0.50 2 2.19 10.13 4.569 0.57 IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. ***********##**********##*#**#******#**#********#*#*****#*********#***#*** RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 3.95 7.85 5.314 2 4.13 10.13 4.569 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.95 TC(MIN.) = 7.85 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.07 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 628.00 TO NODE 629.00 = 340.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 629.00 TO NODE 630.00 IS CODE = 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA« <<< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 489.70 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 489.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.9 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.88 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.95 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.05 TC(MIN.) = 7.90 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 628.00 TO NODE 630.00 = 365.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 630.00 TO NODE 630.00 IS CODE = 11 r»»>CONFLUENCErMEMORY BANKY# 2WWITH- THE YMAIN-STREAM-MEMORY«« < - ___ ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 3.95 7.90 5.293 1.07 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 628.00 TO NODE 630.00 = 365.00 FEET. Page 40 33226PGA.TXT ** MEMORY BANK # 2 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 4.92 7.04 5.663 1.01 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 606.00 TO NODE 630.00 = 425.00 FEET. n**k***k*******k********kn*******WARNING*nk**************n*************k** IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. *k****n*********n***k********k**k*****k*************************n********* ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 8.44 7.04 5.663 2 8.55 7.90 5.293 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.44 TC(MIN.) = 7.04 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.08 *n******k****k***k*****k********n**n**k*k*k********************************* FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 630.00 TO NODE 630.00 IS CODE = 12 {-_-=a-M1__y~c-e=---------_ -_____ »»>CLEARMEMORY BANK # 2 <<<<« FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 630.00 TO NODE 650.00 IS CODE = 31 -__o__ »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< _ »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 489.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 488.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 12.6 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = S.62 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 8.44 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.22 TC(MIN.) = 7.26 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 606.00 TO NODE 650.00 = 500.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 650.00 TO NODE 650.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.26 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.56 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.08 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 8.44 *****n**k****n*n*k******k**n***k******n******nnn********n***nnn******kk*k*** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 637.00 TO NODE 639.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 245.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 496.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 494.90 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.10 TC = 0.359*[( 245.00**3)/( 1.10)]**.2 = .9.562 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.728 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8429 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.83 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.96 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.83 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 639.00 TO NODE 650.00 IS CODE = 31 ^ r ~ -- ___ »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVELTIME THRUSUBAREA<<<<< __.__________ »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) «« < ELEVATION DATA: _� 489.90 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 488.50 - FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 85.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.7 INCHES Page 41 0 33226PGA.TXT p�*? PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.45 I ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.83 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.22 TC(MIN.) = 9.78 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 637.00 TO NODE 650.00 = 330.00 FEET, FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 650.00 TO NODE 650.00 IS CODE = 1 y>>>>>DESIGNATE- -- - -'---_~-___ INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« «< TOTAL �NUMBER vOF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.78 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.67 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.96 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.83 aa**a***a****aa**a**a********a***********a**********a****************a*aa*aa FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 650.00 TO NODE 660.00 IS CODE = 31 ^ - - - --P »»>COMPUTEPIPE-FLOWTRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< _ _ »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 488.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 488.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 155.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 10.7 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.51 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.83 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.74 TC(MIN.) = 10.52 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 637.00 TO NODE 660.00 = 485.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 660.00 TO NODE 660.00 IS CODE = 12 ------------------------r-----____----__--_-_--__-_---_-___-_---____ »»>CLEAR MEMORY BANK # 3 <<<<< --»- ~- ***MEMORY FUNCTION CAN NOT BE ACCESSED - PROCESS IGNORED.*** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 660.00 TO NODE 660.00 IS CODE = 10 -------------------__--.._-_---------_____----------------------------------- »»>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 3 ««< ***MEMORY FUNCTION _CAN -NOT BE ACCESSED - PROCESS IGNORED.***-- *************************k***aa**aaa**a*a*a*a*********a********************* FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 657.00 TO NODE 659.00 IS CODE = 21 - ----------------- - - ------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 200.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 495.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 493.30 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.20 TC = 0.359*[( 200.00**3)/( 2.20)]**.2 = 7.370 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.513 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8497 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.92 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.41 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.92 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 659.00 TO NODE 659.00 IS CODE = 1 -»»»>DESIGNATE -INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< --------- -- -- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS-= 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.37 RAINFALL INTENS--TTY(INCHHP.) = 5.51 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRESS = 0.41 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.92 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 653.00 TO NODE 659.00 IS CODE = 21 ------------------------------ ----- ---_ - »- - _--------_-_------» »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS «« < ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM Page 42 33226PGA.TXT DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) -1 325.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 500.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 493.30 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 7.20 TC = 0.359*C( 325.00**3)/( 7.20)]**.2 = 7.780 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.340 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8483 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.67 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.81 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.67 **ak***k*k*a*k**************a***k******aa***a********aa*******a*ka********** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 659.00 TO NODE 659.00 IS CODE = 1 - »» >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAMFOR CONFLUENCE««< »» >AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES ««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.78 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.34 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.81 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.67 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 1.92 7.37 5.513 0.41 2 3.67 7.78 5.340 0.81 ***k******aa*********************WARNING***as****a*************ka*******a* IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. *********ak*a****kk******a***a******aa********k*************************** RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 5.40 7.37 5.513 2 5.53 7.78 5.340 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.53 TC(MIN.) = 7.78 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.22 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 606.00 TO NODE 659.00 = 500.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 659.00 TO NODE 660.00 IS CODE = 31 -»»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW -TRAVEL -TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) «« < ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 488.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 488.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.9 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.33 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 5.53 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.07 TC(MIN.) = 7.85 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 606.00 TO NODE 660.00 = 525.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 660.00 TO NODE 660.00 IS CODE = 11 »»>CONFLUENCE'MEMORY -BANK -# 3 -WITH -THE MAIN -STREAM MEMORY<<<<< ------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- -- ***MEMORY BANK # 3 IS EMPTY AND CAN NOT BE CONFLUENCED WITH THE MAIN -STREAM MEMORY - PROCESS IGNORED.*** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 660.00 TO NODE 660.00 IS CODE = 12 ---------------------------------------------- --- -- »»>CLEAR MEMORY BANK # 3 <.«« ***MEMORY BANK -# 3 IS EMPTY - PROCESS' IGNORED.*** Page 43 33226PGA.TXT FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 660.00 TO NODE 660.00 IS CODE = 1 - - r - - -»»>DESIGNATEINDEPENDENTSTREAMFORCONFLUENCE«« < --TOTAL NUMBER OFSTREAMS=_-2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.85 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = S.31 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.22 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 5.53 I **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 666.00 TO NODE 658.00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 420.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 496.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 493.30 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.70 TC = 0.359*[( 420.00**3)/( 2.70)]**.2 = 11.041 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.344 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8388 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.32 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.91 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.32 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 658.00 TO NODE 660.00 IS CODE = 31 }»»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« < »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) «« < ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 488.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 488.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.7 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.52 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.32 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.08 TC(MIN.) = 11.12 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 666.00 TO NODE 660.00 = 445.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 660.00 TO NODE 670.00 IS CODE = 31 Y »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVELTIMETHRU SUBAREA««< »» >USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 488.00-DOWNSTREAM(FEET) _-- 487.70~-~� FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 10.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.3 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.69 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.32 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.02 TC(MIN.) = 11.14 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 666.00 TO NODE 670.00 = 455.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 670.00 TO NODE 670.00 IS CODE = 1 »» >DESIGNATE -INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.14 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.32 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.91 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.32 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 656.00 TO NODE 668.00 IS CODE = 21 -_»»>RATIONALvMETHOD INITIAL_ SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ---- ---------------------------------------^----�--_--------------_--- ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 215.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 495.50 Page 44 33226PGA.TXT DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 494.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50 TC = 0.359*[( 215.00**3)/( 1.50)]**.2 = 8.310 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.137 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8466 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.17 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.27 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.17 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 668.00 TO NODE 670.00 IS CODE = 31 - - -- ----`-__-_-- __ >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIMETHRUSUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 489.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 487.70 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 220.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.7 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.20 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.17 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.15 TC(MIN.) = 9.46 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 656.00 TO NODE 670.00 = 435.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 670.00 TO NODE 670.00 IS CODE = 1 »»>DESIGNATE- INDEPENDENT -STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES ««< TOTAL NUMBER OF- STREAMS -= 2 - CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.46 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.76 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.27 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.17 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 3.32 11.14 4.321 0.91 2 1.17 9.46 4.759 0.27 IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 3.99 9.46 4.759 2 4.38 11.14 4.321 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.38 TC(MIN.) = 11.14 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.18 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 606.00 TO NODE 670.00 = 525.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 670.00 TO NODE 680.00 IS CODE = 31 --»»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVELY- - TIMETHRUSUBAREA«« < >>>>>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 487.70 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)-=- _487.00 -~-- FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 205.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 11.4 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.69 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 4.38 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.92 TC(MIN.) = 12.06 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 606.00 TO NODE 680.00 = 730.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 680.00 TO NODE 680.00 IS CODE = 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- >>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 2 ««< Page 45 33226PGA.TXT kkkkkkk#kkkkkk#kkk##irk*##kkkkkkkkkkick#kk#kkkkkk#d-kkk#ir i#*i.#*k##ir*#*#kick*##irk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 674.00 TO NODE 678.00 IS CODE = 21 _ .._.._----- _.._..--..__ _ _--_...._ ------..__....----------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 217.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 495.20 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 492.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.70 TC = 0.359*[( 217.00**3)/( 2.70)]**.2 = 7.429 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.488 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8495 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS .1B1. SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.66 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.57 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.66 *irkkk*kk*kk#�'.ie#ik#kk#ki:##k*##k####*k##dr#irk Yr ktlk#*kk##kkir rkkk##*kkk#*kk#kkkkk#irk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 678.00 TO NODE 678.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.= 7.43 RAINFALL INTENSITY(xNCH/HR� = 5.49 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.57 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.66 k###kk#k#kkk#k####kkkkk#kkk#kkk##*kk**kk*#*k##k**kk**##**k###kkkkk*#k*k#k##k FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 676.00 TO NODE 678.00 IS CODE = 21 - A - --+1^ »»>RATIONALMETHODINITIAL SUBAREAANALYSIS <<<<< _ _ _ ___ ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM= DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 275.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 499.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 492.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 6.50 TC = 0.359*[( 275.00**3)/( 6.50)]**.2 = 7.184 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.597 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8503 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.95 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.41 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.95 kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk*kkkkkkkkk*kkkkkkkkkkkk##kkkk*kkkkkkkk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 678.00 TO NODE 678.00 IS CODE = 1 IY »»>DESIGNATEINDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES «« < TOTAL NUMBER OFSTREAMS= 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.18 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.60 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.41 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.95 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 2.66 7.43 5.488 0.57 2 1.95 7.18 5.597 0.41 kkkkkkk#kkkkkkkk*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkWARNINGkkkk#*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk#kkkkk**kkk IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. #kkkkkkkkkkkk#kkkk#kkkk#kkk#kkkkkkkkkkkkir#kkk#kkkkkkkkkkk#kkk*k#kkkkk*kkkk RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 4.52 7.18 5.597 2 4.57 7.43 5.488 Page 46 33226PGA.TXT COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.57 TC(MIN.) = 7.43 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.98 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 676.00 TO NODE 678.00 = 275.00 FEET, kk*kkkk#kkkkkkkkk*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk kkkk*kk*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 678.00 TO NODE 680.00 IS CODE = 31 -T»»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW -TRAVEL -TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 487.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 487.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 7.0 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.26 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 4.57 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.06 TC(MIN.) = 7.49 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 676.00 TO NODE 680.00 = 300.00 FEET. kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkirkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk#kkkkkk**kkkkkkkk*#kkkkkk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 680.00 TO NODE 680.00 IS CODE = 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 2 WITH THE MAIN -STREAM MEMORY««< ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 4.57 7.49 5.463 0.98 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 676.00 TO NODE 680.00 = 300.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 2 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 4.38 12.06 4.123 1.18 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 606.00 TO NODE 680.00 = 730.00 FEET. kkk*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk*kWARNINGkkk**kkkkkkkk#k*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. kkkk*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk*kkkk**kkkkkkkkkkk ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 7.29 7.49 5.463 2 7.83 12.06 4.123 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.29 TC(MIN.) = 7.49 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.16 kkkkkkkkkk#kir irk kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk####kk#k#kth tk#**#######kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk#kkk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 680.00 TO NODE 680.00 IS CODE = 12 ____---_-_-..»----------------------------------------_------------------- »»>CLEAR MEMORY BANK # 2 ««< kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk#kkkkkkkkkkk###*k##kk#kkkk#kk#*kkltkk*kkkkkkkk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 680.00 TO NODE 680.00 IS CODE = 1 --»»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT - - STREAM FORCONFLUENCE««< TOTAL =NUMBER OF STREAMS -= 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.49 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.46 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.16 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 7.29 kkkk**kkkkkkkk*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk#*#*kkkkkkkkkkk#kkkkkk#kkkkkkkkkkkkk*kirk irk#kk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 677.00 TO NODE 679.00 IS CODE = 21 ----------------- ----- -- ------- -- - - - »»>R.ATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 325.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 494.00 Page 47 33226PGA.TXT DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 492.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50 TC = 0.359*[( 325.00**3)/( 1.50)]**.2 = 10.648 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.438 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8398 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.20 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.59 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.20 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 679.00 TO NODE 680.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< - ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 487.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 487.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.7 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.91 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.20 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.07 TC(MIN.) = 10.72 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 677.00 TO NODE 680.00 = 350.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 680.00 TO NODE 680.00 IS CODE = 1 »»>DESIGNATEvINDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES «« < TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.72 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.42 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.59 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.20 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 7.29 7.49 5.463 2.16 2 2.20 10.72 4.420 0.59 IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 8.83 7.49 5.463 2 8.10 10.72 4.420 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.83 TC(MIN.) = 7.49 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.75 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 606.00 TO NODE 680.00 = 730.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 680.00 TO NODE 690.00 IS CODE = 31 »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) _ -487.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 486.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 175.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 13.6 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.33 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 8.83 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = ^v.55 TC(MIN.) = 8.03 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 606.00 TO NODE 690.00 = 905.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 690.00 TO NODE 690.00 IS CODE = 1 --»»>DESIGNATENINDEPENDENT STREAM rFOR rCONFLUENCE ««< Page 48 33226PGA.TXT TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.03 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.24 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.75 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 8.83 *kkkkkkk*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 687.00 TO NODE 689.00 IS CODE = 21 -»»>RATIONAL METHODINITIALSUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 275.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 497.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 491.60 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 5.40 TC = 0.359*[( 275.00**3)/( 5.40)]**.2 = 7.455 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.476 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8494 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.12 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.24 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.12 kkk*kkkkkkkkkkkkk*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk*kkkkkkkk*kkkkkkkkkk*kkkkk*kitkkkkkkkkkkk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 689.00 TO NODE 690.00 IS CODE = 31 - »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW -TRAVEL -TIME -THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< =ELEVATION-DATA:-UPSTREAM(FEET) _ -486.60--DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 486.00 - FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.2 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.17 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.12 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.08 TC(MIN.) = 7.54 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 687.00 TO NODE 690.00 = 300.00 FEET. kkkkkkkirkkkkkkkkkkirkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkirk kirkkkkkkk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 690.00 TO NODE 690.00 IS CODE = 1 ~-»»>DESIGNATE-INDEPENDENT STREAMFORCONFLUENCE««< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««< ---------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.54 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.44 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.24 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.12 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 8.83 8.03 5.240 2.75 2 1.12 7.54 5.442 0.24 kit ickkkkkkkkkkkkkkk*****k**k***k**WARNING***kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. kkkkk*kk*kkkkkkkkkkkkk*kirkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk*kkkkkkk*kkkkkkkkkkk RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 9.40 7.54 5.442 2 9.90 8.03 S.240 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 9.90 TC(MIN.) = 8.03 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.99 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 606.00 TO NODE 690.00 - 905.00 FEET. kkk*kirkkk#kkkkkkkkirk*kk*kirkkkkkkkk*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 690.00 TO NODE 850.00 IS CODE = 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 49 33226PGA.TXT 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.341 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8553 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.76 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.14 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.76 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 829.00 TO NODE 830.00 IS CODE = 31 ______________________. ... -_. -_ __ ______ -_-___ __ _-_-_..-______------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ---- -------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 489.60 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 488.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 140.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.5 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.12 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.76 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.75 TC(MIN.) = 6.56 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 828.00 TO NODE 830.00 = 240.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 830.00 TO NODE 830.00 IS CODE = 1 -_______-____ »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< '� »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES «« < TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.56 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.90 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.14 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.76 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 10.95 9.81 4.658 2.65 2 0.76 6.56 5.905 0.14 *********************************WARNING*************************k******** IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. ************************************************************************** RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 8.08 6.56 5.905 2 11.55 9.81 4.658 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 11.55 TC(MIN.) = 9.81 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.79 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 830.00 = 745.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 830.00 TO NODE 840.00 IS CODE = 31 r»»>COMPUTE'PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 488.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 486.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 260.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 13.7 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.93 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 11.55 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.63 TC(MIN.) = 10.43 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 840.00 = 1005.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 840.00 TO NODE 840,00 IS CODE = 10 ------------------------------------------ »»>MAIN -STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK ff 3« « < ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 836.00 TO NODE 838.00 IS CODE = 21 Page 54 33226PGA.TXT _____________________ .,®__-_______-----__ -___- _..__..-_----------___-_-_-__. »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 456.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 501.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 491.60 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 9.90 TC = 0.359*[( 456.00**3)/( 9.90)]**.2 = 8.945 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.918 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8447 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.87 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.45 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.87 ir**ie it it ir*ir irir it i`*it ir*ir*ir it ir*h*ir is is it*ir*iv *it fe fe iri kir it ic*ie it*.tic**hic*�Y it it***�k*�Y kir ie lr it dr***ic*** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 838.00 TO NODE 838.00 IS CODE = 1 ____ »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE ««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.95 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.92 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.45 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.87 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 834.00 TO NODE 835.00 IS CODE = 21 --_____..__ »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<< «< _ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 230.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 494.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 492.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.50 TC = 0.359*[( 230.00**3)/( 2.50)]**.2 = 7.812 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.327 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8482 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.99 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.44 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.99 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 835.00 TO NODE 838.00 IS CODE = 31 - A ' »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< "__ ___ »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) «« < ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 487.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 486.60 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.8 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.30 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.99 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.08 TC(MIN.) = 7.89 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 834.00 TO NODE 838.00 = 255.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 838.00 TO NODE 838.00 IS CODE = 1 Y»»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT - STREAM - FOR CONFLUENCE«« < - -- '"- '____ »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.89 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.30 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.44 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.99 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 1.87 8.95 4.918 0.45 2 1.99 7.89 5.296 0.44 Page 55 33226PGA.TXT IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 3.64 7.89 5.296 2 3.72 8.95 4.918 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.64 TC(MIN.) = 7.89 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.89 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 836.00 TO NODE 838.00 = 456.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 838.00 TO NODE 840.00 IS CODE = 31 µi»»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW ~TRAVEL -TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< _;:.:-s=-aaa_---aaaaaaa-a--.-.�_-_.-•---,_-a--R��---.---�---a-==�atza=nam=-aaaaa---.-.---.__ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = w 486.60 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 486.00 - FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.9 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.28 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.64 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.06 TC(MIN.) = 7.95 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 836.00 TO NODE 840.00 = 481.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 840.00 TO NODE 840.00 IS CODE = 11 ------- --------------^"-__Y »»>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 3 WITH THE MAIN -STREAM MEMORY««< ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 3.64 7.95 5.273 0.89 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 836.00 TO NODE 840.00 = 481.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 3 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 11.55 10.43 4.491 2.79 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 840.00 = 1005.00 FEET. IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE 0-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 12.43 7.95 5.273 2 14.64 10.43 4.491 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 14.64 TC(MIN.) = 10.43 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.68 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 840.00 TO NODE 840.00 IS CODE = 12 __»»>CLEAR`MEMORY BANK # 3~< <<<< »_____- ******h*h**hk**k**h**h***************h*kk******h******h********k**hh*hh**h*te FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 840.00 TO NODE 840.00 IS CODE = 1 _ >>>>>DESIGNATE`INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« <<< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.43 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.49 Page 56 r 33226PGA.TXT TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.68 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 14.64 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 837.00 TO NODE 839.00 IS CODE = 21 ~ - - - >>>>>RATIONALMETHODINITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS «« < --------------------------------------------------------------- ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*C(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 500.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 501.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 491.60 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET = 9.90 TC - 0.359*C( 500.00**3)/( 9.90)1**.2 = 9.453 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.760 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8432 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.65 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.66 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.65 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 839.00 TO NODE 840.00 IS CODE = 31 »»>COMPUTE -PIPE -FLOW TRAVELTIMETHRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) «« < ELEVATION -DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 486.60 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)= 486.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.0 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.65 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = l PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.65 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.06 TC(MIN.) = 9.52 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 837.00 TO NODE 840.00 = 525.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 840.00 TO NODE 840.00 IS CODE = 1 -»»>DESIGNATE -INDEPENDENT STREAM -FOR -CONFLUENCE« «< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES «« < TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.52 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.74 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.66 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.65 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 14.64 10.43 4.491 3.68 2 2.65 9.52 4.742 0.66 IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF ,TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 16.01 9.52 4.742 2 17.15 10.43 4.491 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 17.15 TC(MIN.) = 10.43 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.34 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 840.00 = 1005.00 FEET. frith is*rc*ir#h**ic,thhhkhir is rr,Y*khh*il**hhhrtiehkhdrh*hhkhhhhhhk*hhhieh**hh*ir h it*hitkhir ich hh FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 840.00 TO NODE 850.00 IS CODE = 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW -TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« < >>>>>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 486.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 485.50 Page 57 33226PGA.TXT FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 35.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 16.0 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.71 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 17.15 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.07 TC(MIN.) = 10.50 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 850.00 = 1040.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 850.00 TO NODE 850.00 IS CODE = 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »» >CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 2 WITH THE MAIN -STREAM MEMORY««< ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 17.15 10.50 4.475 4.34 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 850.00 = 1040.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 2 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 9.90 8.08 5.222 2.99 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 606.00 TO NODE 850.00 = 930.00 FEET. IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE 0-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 23.10 8.08 5.222 2 25.64 10.50 4.475 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 25.64 TC(MIN.) = 10.50 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 7.33 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 850.00 TO NODE 850.00 IS CODE = 12 -------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- >>>>>CLEAR MEMORY BANK # 2 <<<<< FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 850.00 TO NODE 860.00 IS CODE = 31 »»>COMPUTE�PIPE-FLOW FTRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 485.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 485.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 178.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 33.0 INCH PIPE IS 25.4 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.23 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 33.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 25.64 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.57 TC(MIN.) = 11.07 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 860.00 = 1218.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 860.00 TO NODE 860.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »» >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE«« < ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.07 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.34 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 7.33 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 25.64 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 856.00 TO NODE 858.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 115.00 Page 58 r 33226PGA.TXT UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 492.70 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 492.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.70 TC = 0.359*[( 115.00**3)/( 0.70)]**.2 = 6.649 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.859 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8522 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.90 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.38 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.90 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 858.00 TO NODE 860.00 IS CODE = 31 »»>COMPUTErPIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 487.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 485.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 120.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.6 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.31 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.90 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.38 TC(MIN.) = 7.03 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 856.00 TO NODE 860.00 = 235.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 860.00 TO NODE 860.00 IS CODE = 1 -1»»>DESIGNATEFINDEPENDENTrSTREAMJFOR CONFLUENCE««< = TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.03 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.67 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.38 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.90 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 857.00 TO NODE 859.00 IS CODE = 21 {»»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< -------- --------------------------------------------------------------- ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 163.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 493.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 492.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.00 TC = 0.359*[( 163.00**3)/( 1.00)]**.2 = 7.632 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.401 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8488 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.34 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.51 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.34 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 859.00 TO NODE 860.00 IS CODE = 31 ~-»»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW -TRAVEL TIME-THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 487.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)�= 485.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 120.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.1 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.64 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.34 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.35 TC(MIN.) = 7.99 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 857.00 TO NODE 860.00 = 283.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 860.00 TO NODE 860.00 IS CODE = 1 _ »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« <<< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.99 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.26 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.51 Page 59 x,txxxxxxxxxax*xx**ax*xxx,tx*xxxxxxWARNING*xxaxxaxaxxa*axxxxx*kxxaxaaxxx**xa IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. xaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*xxxxxxxx***xaxxxaxxxxx RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 20.23 7.03 5.671 2 22.60 7.99 5.258 3 29.02 11.07 4.338 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 29.02 TC(MIN.) = 11.07 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.22 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 860.00 = 1218.00 FEET. axxkxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*****xxxxxx****xx**xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*xxxxxxxxxxxx*xxxx FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 860.00 TO NODE 870.00 IS CODE = 31 - »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 485.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 484.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 300.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 39.0 INCH PIPE IS 28.5 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.47 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 39.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 29.02 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.12 TC(MIN.) = 12.18 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 870.00 = 1518.00 FEET. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 870.00 TO NODE 870.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 12.18 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.10 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 8.22 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 29.02 xxxxxxx*x*xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxaxxxifxxxkxxxx'.txxxx*xaxxxxxxx FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 866.00 TO NODE 868.00 IS CODE = 21 --»»>RATIONAL-METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< ----- --------------------------------------------------------- ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 491.40 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 490.40 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.00 TC = 0.359*[( 100.00**3)/( 1.00)]**.2 = 5.693 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.421 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8558 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.92 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.35 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.92 xxxxx*xxxaxxxxxxxxxxaxxxxxxxkxxxxxxxxaxaaxxxxxaaxxxxxxxxxxaaxxxxxxxxaxxxxxxx FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 868.00 TO NODE 870.00 IS CODE = 31 -_»»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< -~ »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION-DATA:-UPSTREAM(FEET) _ 4485.40- DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 484.50 - FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 120.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 Page 60 33226PGA.TXT PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.34 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 25.64 11.07 4.338 7.33 2 1.90 7.03 5.671 0.38 3 2.34 7.99 5.258 0.51 x,txxxxxxxxxax*xx**ax*xxx,tx*xxxxxxWARNING*xxaxxaxaxxa*axxxxx*kxxaxaaxxx**xa IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. xaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*xxxxxxxx***xaxxxaxxxxx RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 20.23 7.03 5.671 2 22.60 7.99 5.258 3 29.02 11.07 4.338 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 29.02 TC(MIN.) = 11.07 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.22 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 860.00 = 1218.00 FEET. axxkxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*****xxxxxx****xx**xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*xxxxxxxxxxxx*xxxx FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 860.00 TO NODE 870.00 IS CODE = 31 - »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 485.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 484.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 300.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 39.0 INCH PIPE IS 28.5 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.47 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 39.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 29.02 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.12 TC(MIN.) = 12.18 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 870.00 = 1518.00 FEET. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 870.00 TO NODE 870.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 12.18 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.10 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 8.22 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 29.02 xxxxxxx*x*xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxltxxxxxxxxxxxxxxaxxxifxxxkxxxx'.txxxx*xaxxxxxxx FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 866.00 TO NODE 868.00 IS CODE = 21 --»»>RATIONAL-METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< ----- --------------------------------------------------------- ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 491.40 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 490.40 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.00 TC = 0.359*[( 100.00**3)/( 1.00)]**.2 = 5.693 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.421 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8558 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.92 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.35 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.92 xxxxx*xxxaxxxxxxxxxxaxxxxxxxkxxxxxxxxaxaaxxxxxaaxxxxxxxxxxaaxxxxxxxxaxxxxxxx FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 868.00 TO NODE 870.00 IS CODE = 31 -_»»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< -~ »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION-DATA:-UPSTREAM(FEET) _ 4485.40- DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 484.50 - FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 120.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 Page 60 33226PGA.TXT ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.7 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.01 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.92 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.50 TC(MIN.) = 6.19 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 866.00 TO NODE 870.00 = 220.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 870.00 TO NODE 870.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE ««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.19 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.11 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.35 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.92 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 867.00 TO NODE 869.00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONAL -METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ------------------------------------------------------------ ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 183.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 491.10 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 490.70 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.40 TC = 0.359*[( 183.00**3)/( 0.40)]**.2 = 9.826 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.653 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8421 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.23 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.57 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.23 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 869.00 TO NODE 870.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 485.70 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 484.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 120.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.7 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.64 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.23 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.43 TC(MIN.) = 10.26 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 867.00 TO NODE 870.00 = 303.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 870.00 TO NODE 870.00 IS CODE = 1 »»>DESIGNATE4INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES ««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.26 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.54 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.57 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.23 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 29.02 12.18 4.098 8.22 2 1.92 6.19 6.110 0.35 3 2.23 10.26 4.536 0.57 IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS. Page 61 33226PGA.TXT ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 18.01 6.19 6.110 2 28.09 10.26 4.536 3 32.32 12.18 4.098 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 32.32 TC(MIN.) = 12.18 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.14 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 870.00 = 1518.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 870.00 TO NODE 880.00 IS CODE = 31 »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW -TRAVEL VTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) «« < ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 484.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 482.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 450.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 33.0 INCH PIPE IS 25.4 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.58 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 33.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 32.32 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.14 TC(MIN.) = 13.32 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 880.00 = 1968.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 880.00 TO NODE 880.00 IS CODE = 1 y »»>DESIGNATE -INDEPENDENT STREAM ~FOR -CONFLUENCE«« < TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 13.32 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.89 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 9.14 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 32.32 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 876.00 TO NODE 878.00 IS CODE = 21 -»»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< T ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 230.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 489.90 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 488.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.90 TC = 0.359*[( 230.00**3)/( 1.90)]**.2 = 8.253 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = S.157 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8468 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.97 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.68 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.97 kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkirkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkirk*kkkkkkkkkkkkk*kkk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 878.00 TO NODE 880.00 IS CODE = 31 -»»>COMPUTE -PIPE -FLOW TRAVELTIMETHRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) «« < ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 483.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 482.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 120.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.5 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.64 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.97 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.55 TC(MIN.) = 8.80 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 876.00 TO NODE 880.00 = 3350.00 FEET. kkkk*kirk kk*kkkk***kkkkkkk*kkir'.ckkk:kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkirkkkkkkkkkkkkk*k FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 880.00 TO NODE 880.00 IS CODE = 1 »»>DESIGNATE�INDEPENDENT-STREAMYFOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< -------------------------------- - TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.80 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.96 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.68 Page 62 33226PGA.TXr PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.97 kkkkkk*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk***kkkkkk*****+.****** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 877.00 TO NODE 879.00 IS CODE = 21 -----------------------------------------------------_________________ - »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 490.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 488.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.00 TC = 0.359*[( 330.00**3)/( 2.00)]**.2 = 10.145 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.566 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8412 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.23 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.84 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.23 irk*kkk*k*kir*kkkkkk****kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk***kir*kkkk*kkkkkkkkkkk#**kkkkkkkk** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 879.00 TO NODE 880.00 IS CODE = 31 .._ _....----_-_---_------------------------..------ »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ------------------------ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 483.00 OOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 482.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 120.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.9 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.72 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.23 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.54 TC(MIN.) = 10.68 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 877.00 TO NODE 880.00 = 450.00 FEET. **kkkkkkkkkkkirkkk*kkkk*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkk*kk*k�kkk*kkkkkkkkkkkkk#kk*kk**kkkkkkkk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 880.00 TO NODE 880.00 IS CODE = 1 - y ^--- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE ««< - - »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES ««< _-TOTAL NUMBER OFySTREAMS -=--3__________________________________,-_�________ CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.68 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.43 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.84 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.23 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 32.32 13.32 3.888 9.14 2 2.97 8.80 4.965 0.68 3 3.23 10.68 4.429 0.84 kkk*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkWARNING*kkk*kkkkkkkkirkkkkkkkkk kir irk*kkkkkk IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. kkkkkkkkkkkkkk*ir*krek Sr fekkkkk*irA**kkdkkk*kkkkkkkkkk*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 26.98 8.80 4.965 2 31.79 10.68 4.429 3 37.48 13.32 3.888 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 37.48 TC(MIN.) = 13.32 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.66 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 880.00 = 1968.00 FEET. *tkhkt it t.*kkkir it it kir it a`kkkkirk*',c*k*kick kik irkkkkkkkkkkkkkfrkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkir FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 880.00 TO NODE - 890.00 IS CODE = 31 -_----- - --_!--_-- »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) «« < Page 63 rl 33226PGA.TxT ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 482.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 480.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 225.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 30.0 INCH PIPE IS 24.4 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.75 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 37.48 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.43 TC(MIN.) = 13.75 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 890.00 = 2193.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 890.00 TO NODE 890.00 IS CODE = 1 - -- -" ____.._____ »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« «< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 13.75 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.82 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 10.66 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 37.48 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 883.00 TO NODE 885.00 IS CODE = 21 - -- ___________ »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS «« < __ _.___ ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 537.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 492.20 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 490.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.20 TC = 0.359*[( 537.00**3)/( 2.20)]**.2 = 13.330 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.887 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8331 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.62 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.81 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.62 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 885.00 TO NODE 887.00 IS CODE = 62 - -^ --_ »»>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED) ««< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 490.00 -DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) 488.50 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 325.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 16.50 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.050 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -walk FLOW Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 3.43 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.48 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.98 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.00 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.95 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.71 TC(MIN.) _ 16.04 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.485 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8272 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.56 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.61 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.37 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.24 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.51 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 11.89 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.07 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.05 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 883.00 TO NODE 887.00 = 862.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 887.00 TO NODE 889.00 IS CODE = 62 -------------------------- »»>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED) ««< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 488.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 486.00 Page 64 33226PGA.TXT STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 480.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 16.50 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.050 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning'S FRICTION FACTOR for StreetfloW Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 Manning'S FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 5.81 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.55 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 15.80 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.24 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.23 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.57 TC(MIN.) = 19.60 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.096 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8204 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.24 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.15 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.61 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.39 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.58 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 19.39 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.29 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.33 *NOTE: INITIAL SUBAREA NOMOGRAPH WITH SUBAREA PARAMETERS, AND L = 480.0 FT WITH ELEVATION -DROP = 2.5 FT, IS 4.3 CFS, WHICH EXCEEDS THE TOP -OF -CURB STREET CAPACITY AT NODE 889.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 883.00 TO NODE 889.00 = 1342.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 889.00 TO NODE 890.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 481.00--DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 480.50 -- FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 9.1 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.23 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = i PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 7.39 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.05 TC(MIN.) = 19.65 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 883.00 TO NODE 890.00 = 1367.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 890.00 TO NODE 890.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 19.65 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.09 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.61 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 7.39 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 884.00 TO NODE 886.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 650.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 493.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 486.60 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 6.40 TC = 0.359*[( 650.00**3)/( 6.40)]**.2 = 12.074 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.120 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8361 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.44 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.29 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.44 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 886.00 TO NODE 888.00 IS CODE = 62 - - - µ--- -_+ _-~~- - »»>COMPUTESTREETFLOWTRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<«< Page 65 33226PGA.TXT »»>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED)<<<<< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 486.60 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = -486.00-- STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 515.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 16.50 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.050 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for streetflow section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 6.59 ***STREET FLOW SPLITS OVER STREET -CROWN*** FULL DEPTH(FEET) = 0.61 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 21.81 FULL HALF -STREET VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.10 SPLIT DEPTH(FEET) = 0.53 SPLIT FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 14.23 SPLIT FLOW(CFS) = 2.48 SPLIT VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.05 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.61 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 21.81 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.10 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.67 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 7.79 TC(MIN.) = 19.86 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.072 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8199 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.70 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.28 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.99 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.73 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.61 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 22.21 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC,) = 1.12 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.69 *NOTE: INITIAL SUBAREA NOMOGRAPH WITH SUBAREA PARAMETERS, AND L = 515.0 FT WITH ELEVATION -DROP = 0.6 FT, Is 4.7 CFS, WHICH EXCEEDS THE TOP -OF -CURB STREET CAPACITY AT NODE 888.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 884.00 TO NODE 888.00 = 1165.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 888.00 TO NODE 890.00 IS CODE = 31 --»»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) 481.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 480.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 10.1 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.58 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = l PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 8.73 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.05 TC(MIN.) = 19.91 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 884.00 TO NODE 890.00 = 1190.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 890.00 TO NODE 890.00 IS CODE = 1 >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT rSTREAM IFOR CONFLUENCE««< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES ««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 19.91 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.07 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.99 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 8.73 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 37.48 13.75 3.816 10.66 2 7.39 19.65 3.091 2.61 3 8.73 19.91 3.068 2.99 **************a*************x****WARNING****«***************************** IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO Page 66 33226PGA.TXT CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 48.68 13.75 3.816 2 46.36 19.65 3.091 3 46.19 19.91 3.068 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 48.68 TC(MIN.) = 13.75 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 16.26 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 890.00 = 2193.00 FEET. **kk*kkkk***kk*kkkkk*k***k*kkk*kk***kkkkkk*kkkkk**k******kkkkkk*k*k*k*kkkkkk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 890.00 TO NODE 970.00 IS CODE = 31 - - - -- _- - - »»>COMPUTEPIPE-FLOWTRAVEL TIMETHRUSUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET)~=-7^480.50-DOWNSTREAM(FEET)-= --480.00- FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 10.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 19.4 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 17.89 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 48.68 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.01 TC(MIN.) = 13.76 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 970.00 = 2203.00 FEET: kkkkk**kk*kk**kk*k*kkkk*#####kkkkkk**k********kk**k***kkk*****k*k**kk**k*kkk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 970.00 TO NODE 970.00 IS CODE = 11 --»»>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # -- - -- - 1WITHTHE «« MAIN -STREAM MEMORY< ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 48.68 13.76 3.814 16.26 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 970.00 = 2203.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 56.71 11.68 4.202 18.41 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 970.00 = 2900.00 FEET. *************************kk******WARNING*kk*************************k***** IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. ******kkk**kk**#kkkkkk*k*kk*kk*k**kkkkkkkk*k***************kk**kk*******kk ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 98.02 11.68 4.202 2 100.15 13.76 3.814 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 98.02 TC(MIN.) = 11.68 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 34.67 kk*k**kkk*kk*kkkkkkk*kkk*kkkkk*kkkk*kkk*kk*kkkkkkkkkkkkkkk***kkkkkkkkkkkkkkk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 970.00 TO NODE 980.00 IS CODE = 31 - »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW -TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< =ELEVATION -DATA: ~UPSTREAM(FEET) = 480.00= DOWNSTREAM(FEET) =T- 469.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 145.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 30.0 INCH PIPE IS 22.0 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 25.35 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 98.02 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.10 TC(MIN.) = 11.78 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 980.00 = 3045.00 FEET. kJ,+rk**kk*ktekkrk**�kkk�kk.*fekkkiak*kkkkkk#*kk*k**kkf **kkkkk*kkkk*kkkkkkki�itkkkkk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 980.00 TO NODE 980.00 IS CODE = 1 - - »»>DE5IGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAMFOR CONFLUENCE «« < TOTAL 'NUMBER -OF^STREAMS T=3__ Page 67 33226PGA.TxT CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.78 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.18 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 34.67 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 98.02 #xxxxrx,rx+rxk*a*xt�+►x+rrt,�*ar,�*sx*+r,rr*+r+e*+rtx+r*x*xx*xr*,rr*,x+rax*x,rxx�r+r*,�*,rxx,t,taxxa FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 976.00 TO NODE 978.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< _ ,_-___- ---_ ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 487.30 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 486.70 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.60 TC = 0.359*[( 100.00**3)/( 0.60)]**.2 = 6.305 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.045 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8535 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.77 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.15 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.77 xxx**�*x*xxxxa,r**x*x**xxxxx**x*xx**a,rxxx*xxx,rxx**xx**x*xx****xa****x*a****** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 978.00 TO NODE 980.00 IS CODE = 31 --------------------------- -^ - ----f -- -- __.._..r-...._ »»>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA:yUPSTREAM(FEET) _ X481=70 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 469.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 20.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 1.2 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 14.61 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.77 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.02 TC(MIN.) = 6.33 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 976.00 TO NODE 980.00 = 120.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 980.00 TO NODE 980.00 IS CODE = 1 - »» >DESIGNATE-INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.33 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.03 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.15 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.77 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 977.00 TO NODE 979.00 IS CODE = 21 -- -^- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREAANALYSIS ««< _ _ ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 80.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 487.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 486.10 ELEVATION OIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.40 TC = 0.359*[( 80.00**3)/( 1.40)]**.2 = 4.655 COMPUTED TIME OF CONCENTRATION INCREASED TO 5 MIN. 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.932 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8586 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.65 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.11 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.65 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 979.00 TO NODE 980.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA« <<< »»>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<«< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 481.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 469.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 20.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 1.2 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 13.63 Page 68 33226PGA.TXT ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.65 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.02 TC(MIN.) = 5.02 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 977.00 TO NODE 980.00 = 100.00 FEET, FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 980.00 TO NODE 980.00 IS CODE = 1 »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE «« < »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES «« < __=.-.�tiC�'•'C� �. �__a=;=a=c===aacC�=rrc=x==a.s=�'C=__=-Baa==aa.=ALti9a :=."..a'-�==;_= �� __ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.02 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.91 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.11 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.65 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 98.02 11.78 4.182 34.67 2 0.77 6.33 6.032 0.15 3 0.65 5.02 6.912 0.11 IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 43.09 5.02 6,912 2 54.02 6.33 6.032 3 98.95 11.78 4.182 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 98.95 TC(MIN.) = 11.78 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 34.93 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 980.00 = 3045.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 980.00 TO NODE 990.00 IS CODE = 31 >>>>>COMPUTEryPIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION YDATA: vUPSTREAM(FEET)4=469.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)y=f J468.00Y-=_ FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 45.0 INCH PIPE IS 31.6 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 11.96 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 45.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 98.95 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.14 TC(MIN.) = 11.92 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 822.00 TO NODE 990.00 = 3145.00 FEET, FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 141.00 TO NODE 150.00 IS CODE = 21 -- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS: UNDEVELOPED WITH FAIR COVER TC = K*E(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 157.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 496.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 492.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 4.00 TC = 0.709*(( 157.00**3)/( 4.00)]**.2 = 11.169 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.314 UNDEVELOPED WATERSHED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7242 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.12 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.12 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 131.00 TO NODE 140.00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONALMETHOD INITIAL SUBAREA AN ~y <<<< '______________________ ALYSIS««< Page 69 r 33226PGA.TxT ________________,,=ter ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS: UNDEVELOPED WITH FAIR COVER TC = K*((LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 161.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 495.20 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 492.10 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 3.10 TC = 0.709*[( 161.00**3)/( 3.10)]**.2 = 11.932 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.149 UNDEVELOPED WATERSHED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7186 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.15 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.05 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.15 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 706.00 TO NODE 161.00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONAL- METHOD yINITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ---------------------------------------------------------------- ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 528.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 495.20 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 491.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 4.20 TC = 0.359*[( 528.00**3)/( 4.20)]**.2 = 11.595 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.220 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENTRUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8374 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.34 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.38 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.34 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< - ------------------------------------------------------------------ ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS: UNDEVELOPED WITH FAIR COVER TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 85.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 488.70 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 487.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.20 TC = 0.709*[( 85.00**3)/( 1.20)]**.2 = 9.833 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.651 UNDEVELOPED WATERSHED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7345 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.75 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.22 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.75 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 171.00 TO NODE 170.00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONAL METHODINITIALSUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------- ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS: UNDEVELOPED WITH FAIR COVER TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 140.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 486.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 474.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 12.00 TC = 0.709*[( 140.00**3)/( 12.00)]**.2 = 8.370 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.115 UNDEVELOPED WATERSHED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7470 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.23 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.23 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 121.00 TO NODE 130.00 IS CODE = 21 ->»» RATIONAL METHOD rINITIAL ;SUBAREA ^ANALYSIS ««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS: UNDEVELOPED WITH FAIR COVER TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]** 2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 170.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 491.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 488.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.50 Page 70 33226PGA.TXT TC = 0.709*[( 170.00**3)/( 2.50)]**.2 = 12.870 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.968 UNDEVELOPED WATERSHED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7120 f SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.65 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.23 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.65 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.23 TC(MIN.) = 12.87 - PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0_65 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS r • G Page 71 SECTION 4 UNIT HYDROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS 0 r r r PGAWEST11100.Out u n i t H y d r o g r a p h A n a l y s i s Copyright (C). CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 - 2004, version 7.0 Study date 05/10/05 File: pgawest11100.out +++++1-++++++++++t++++++f+++.++-Mi*t........+++++++i-++.i-i-..........-++++++i•+ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Riverside County Synthetic Unit Hydrology Method RCFC & WCD Manual date - April 1978 Program License Serial Number 4027 ------------------------------------------- ..----- _ English (in -lb) Input units used ---Y - English Rainfall Data (Inches) Input values used English units used in output format Drainage -Area-=--_---34.93(Ac.)-___-_-0.055-sq.-Mi, ----------- Drainage Area for Depth -Area Areal Adjustment = 34.93(AC.) _ Length along longest watercourse = 3045.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid - 570.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse = 0.577 Mi. Lenggth along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 0.108 Mi. Difference in elevation = 33.50(Ft.) slope along watercourse = 58.0887 Ft./Mi. Average Mannings 'N' = 0.013 Lag time = 0.050 Hr. La g� time = 3.01 Min. 25% of lag time = 0.75 min. 40% of lag time = 1.20 Min. unit time = 60.00 Min. Duration of storm = 1 Hour(s) user Entered Base Flow = 0.00(CFS) 2 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(Ac.)[1] Rainfall(In)[2] Weighting[1*2] 34.93 0.50 17.47 100 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(Ac.)[1] Rainfall(in)[2] Weighting[1*2] 34.93 1.60 55.89 STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00 Area Averaged 2 -Year Rainfall = 0.500(In) Area Averaged 100 -Year Rainfall = 1.600(In) Point rain (area averaged) = 1.600(In) Areal adjustment factor = 99.97 % Adjusted average point rain = 1.599(In) sub -Area Data: Area(AC.) Runoff Index impervious % 34.930 56.00 0.650 Total Area Entered = 34.93(Ac.) RI RI Infil. Rate impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area% F AMU AMC -2 (In/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) (Dec.) (In/Hr) 56.0 56.0 0.511 0.650 0.212 1.000 0.212 Sum (F) = 0.212 Area averaged mean soil loss (F) (In/Hr) = 0.212 Minimum soil loss rate ((in/Hr)) = 0.106 (for 24 hour storm duration) soil low loss rate (decimal) = 0.900 Slope of intensity -duration curve for a 1 hour storm =0.5800 ------------------------------------------------------------ u n i t H y d r o g r a p h DESERT S -Curve ------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 1 0.055 Sq. Mi. PGAWEST11100.out Unit Hydrograph Data - unit time perio d-- -- x-- - - Time% of lagDistributionunitHydrograph (hrs) Graph % (CFS) ----------------------------------------------------------±---------- 1 1.000 1991.723 100.000 35.203 sum = 100.000 Sum= 35.203 --------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Time Pattern Storm Rain Loss rate(In./Hr) Effective (Hr.) Percent (In/Hr) Max I Low (In/Hr) 1 1.00 3.60 0.058 0.212 0.052 0.01 Sum = 3.6 Sum = 0.0 Flood volume = Effective rainfall 0.01(In) times area 34.9(Ac.)/[(In)/(Ft.)1 = o.0(Ac.Ft) Total soil loss = 0.05(In) Total soil loss = 0.151(Ac.Ft) Total rainfall = 0.06(In) Flood volume = 730.1 cubic Feet Total soil loss = 6571.0 cubic Feet -------------------------------------__---------------------------- Peak flow rate of this hydrograph = 0.203(CFS) -------------------------------------------------------------------- ++}+++++++++++t++i-+++++++++++++++++++i-++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1- H O U R S T O R M R u n o f f H y d r o g r a p h -------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrograph in 60 Minute intervals ((CFS)) -----------------------------------------------_____---------------- Time(h+m) volume AC.Ft Q(CFS) 0 • 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 ------------------------------------__--------------------------------- 1+ 0 0.0168 0.20 Q I v ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 2 PGAWEST13100.out u n i t H y d r o g r a p h A n a l y s i s Copyright (C) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 - 2004, version 7.0 study date 05/10/05 File: pgawest13100.out ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Riverside county synthetic Unit Hydrology Method RCFC & WCD Manual date - April 1978 Program License Serial Number 4027 ------------------------___------------------------------------------ English (in -lb) input units Used English Rainfall Data (inches) input values Used English units used in output format = ___-3-_=___-----mi - Drainage Area 4.93(Ac,)0.055Sq. Drainage Area for Depth -Area Areal Adjustment = 34.93(Ac.) _ Length along longest watercourse = 3045.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 570.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse = 0.577 Mi. Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 0.108 Mi. Difference in elevation = 33.50(Ft.) slope along watercourse = 58.0887 Ft./Mi. Average Mannings N = 0.013 Lag time = 0.050 Hr. Lag time = 3.01 Min. 25% of lag time = 0.75 Min. 40% of lag time = 1.20 Min. Unit time = 60.00 Min. Duration of storm = 3 Hour(s) user Entered Base Flow = 0.00(CFS) 2 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(Ac.)[1] Rainfall(In)[2] weighting[1*2] 34.93 0.80 27.94 100 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(AC.)[1] Rainfall(in)[2] weighting[1*2] 34.93 2.20 76.85 STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00 Area Averaged 2 -Year Rainfall = 0.800(In) Area Averaged 100 -Year Rainfall = 2.200(In) Point rain (area averaged) = 2.200(In) Areal adjustment factor = 99.98 % Adjusted average point rain = 2.200(In) sub -Area Data: Area(AC.) Runoff index Impervious % 34.930 56.00 0.650 Total Area Entered = 34.93(Ac.) RI RI Infil. Rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area% F AMC2 AMC -2 (in/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) (Dec.) (In/Hr) 56.0 56.0 0.511 0.650 0.212 1.000 0.212 Sum (F) = 0.212 Area averaged mean soil loss (F) (In/Hr) = 0.212 Minimum soil loss rate ((In/Hr)) = 0.106 (for 24 hour storm duration) Soil low loss rate (decimal) = 0.900 U n i t H y d r o g r a p h DESERT S -Curve -------- - --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ unit Hydrograph Data ----------•----- Page 1 0.055 sq. Mi. PGAWEST13100.out unit time period Time % of lag Distribution unit Hydrograph (hrs) Graph % (CFS) ---------------------------------- ----------------------------------- 1 1.000 1991.723 100.000 35.203 sum = 100.000 Sum= 35.203 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Time Pattern Storm Rain Loss rate(In./Hr) Effective (Hr.) Percent (In/Hr) Max I Low (In/Hr) 1 1.00 0.00 0.000 0.212 0.000 0.00 2 2.00 0.00 0.000 0.212 0.000 0.00 3 3.00 0.00 0.000 0.212 0.000 0.00 Sum = 0.0 Sum = 0.0 Flood volume = Effective rainfall 0.00(In) times area 34.9(Ac.)/[(In)/(Ft.)] = 0.0(Ac.Ft) Total soil loss = 0.00(In) Total soil loss = 0.000(Ac.Ft) Total rainfall = 0.00(In) Flood volume = 0.0 Cubic Feet Total soil loss = 0.0 Cubic Feet --------------------------------------- •_--_-------------------------- Peak flow rate of this hydrograph = 0.000(CFS) -------------------------------------------------------------------- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3- H O U R S T O R M R u n o f f H y d r o g r a p h -------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrograph in 60 Minute intervals ((CFS)) _____________________-__-------------.---------.--------____--_----- Time(h+m) Volume Ac.Ft Q(CFS) 0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 --------------------------------------_-----------------_-_-_---__--__- 1+ 0 0.0000 0.00 Q I 2+ 0 0.0000 0.00 Q I 3+ 0 0.0000 0.00 Q Page 2 PGAWEST16100.out u n i t H y d r o g r a p h A n a l y s i s Copyright (C) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 - 2004, version 7.0 study date 05/10/05 File: pgawest16100.out t+tt++.........ti-+.+......4•+.++tit#i...F++ F#i°i�N........................... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Riverside county synthetic unit Hydrology Method RCFC & WCD Manual date - April 1978 Program License Serial Number 4027 ---~ -----------..--_--_----_--_----_e English(in-lb) Input Units used English Rainfall Data (Inches) Input values used English units used in output format Drainage Area =34.93(Ac.)-0.055 Sq. Mi. -- __--____----- -- ---- Drainage Area for Depth -Area Areal Adjustment = 34.93(Ac.) = 0.055 Sq. Mi. Length along longest watercourse = 3045.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 570.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse = 0.577 Mi. Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 0.108 Mi. Difference in elevation = 33.50(Ft.) slope along watercourse = 58.0887 Ft. Mi. Average Mannin `5 'N' = 0.013 Lag time = 4.050 Hr. Lag time = 3.01 Min. 25% of lag time = 0.75 Min. 40% of lag time = 1.20 Min. unit time = 60.00 Min. Duration of storm = 6 Hour(s) user Entered Base Flow = 0.00(CFS) 2 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(Ac.)[1] Rainfall(In)[2] weighting[1*2] 34.93 1.00 34.93 100 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(AC.)[1] Rainfall(In)[2] weighting[1*2] 34.93 2.50 87.33 STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00 Area Averaged 2 -Year Rainfall = 1.000(In) Area Averaged 100 -Year Rainfall = 2.500(in) Point rain (area averaged) = 2.500(In) Areal adjustment factor = 99.99 % Adjusted average point rain = 2.500(In) sub -Area Data: Area(AC.) Runoff Index Impervious % 34.930 56.00 0.650 Total Area Entered = 34.93(Ac.) RI RI Infil. Rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area% F AMC2 AMC -2 (In/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) (Dec.) (In/Hr) S6.0 56.0 0.511 0.650 0.212 1.000 0.212 Sum (F) = 0.212 Area averaged mean soil loss (F) (In/Hr) = 0.212 Minimum soil loss rate ((In/Hr)) = 0.106 (for 24 hour storm duration) Soil low loss rate (decimal) = 0.900 U n i t H y d r o g r a p h DESERT S -Curve ---------------------------------------------------- unit Hydrograph Data ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ Page 1 Page 2 PGAWE5T16100.out unit time period Time % of lag Distribution unit Hydrograph (hrs) Graph % (CFS) ---------------->__-_-_-___--__---__..__-_-___--.__..-____--.--------_- 1 1.000 1991.723 100.000 35-203 ------------------------------------------------------ sum = 100.000 Sum= 35.203 unit Time Pattern storm Rain Loss rate(In./Hr) Effective (Hr.) Percent (In/Hr) Max I Low (In/Hr) 1 1.00 0.00 0.000 0.212 0.000 0.00 2 2.00 0.00 0.000 0.212 0.000 0.00 3 3.00 0.00 0.000 0.212 0.000 0.00 4 4.00 0.00 0.000 0.212 0.000 0.00 5 5.00 0.00 0.000 0.212 0.000 0.00 6 6.00 0.00 0.000 0.212 0.000 0.00 sum T0.0 sum = 0.0 Flood volume = Effective rainfall 0.00(In) times area 34.9(Ac.)/[(In)/(Ft.)1 = 0.0(Ac.Ft) Total soil loss = 0.00(In) Total soil loss = 0.000(AC.Ft) Total rainfall = 0.00(In) Flood volume = 0.0 Cubic Feet Total soil loss = 0.0 cubic Feet Peak ----_^ flowrate -__~ of this hydrograph=0.000(CFS) -'______ __-___ -------------------------------------------------------------------- ++++++++++++++++++++t+++++++t+++-h++++++4+t++++.++++ir++++++++#+#+++++ 6- H O U R S T O R M Runoff Hydrograph -------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrograph in 60 Minute intervals ((CFS)) ------------------•-------------------.-------_---_------------------ Time(h+m) volume AC.Ft Q(CFS) 0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 ---__---_--_-..------------------------..____-----------------------_---_ 1+ 0 0.0000 0.00 Q I I I 4 2+ 0 0.0000 0.00 Q 3+ 0 0.0000 0.00 Q I 4+ 0 0.0000 0.00 Q 5+ 0 0.0000 0.00 Q 6+ 0 0.0000 0.00 Q Page 2 PGAWEST124100.out u n i t H y d r o g r a p h A n a l y s i s Copyright (C) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 - 2004, version 7.0 study date 05/10/05 File: pgawest124100.out .....-r++++t+++++t+* 4•+++t++++++.++++++++++++++++++f-h++++t+i-++++I.+t*.+-E++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Riverside County synthetic unit Hydrology Method RCFC & WCD Manual date - April 1978 Program License Serial Number 4027 English (in-lb)�Input lunits cused English Rainfall Data (inches) Input values used English units used in output format - Drainage Area —___3_� 4.93(Ac.j= _____ 44N-- _1--- 0.055 sq. Mi. Drainage Area for Depth -Area Areal Adjustment = 34.93(Ac.) Length along longest watercourse = 3045.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 570.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse = 0.577 Mi. Lenggth along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 0.108 Mi. Difference in elevation = 33.50(Ft.) Slope along watercourse = 58.0887 Ft./Mi. Average Manning'5 'N' = 0.013 Lag time = 0.050 Hr. Lag time = 3.01 Min. 25% of lag time = 4.75 Min. 40% of lag time = 1.20 Min. Unit time = 60.00 Min. Duration of storm = 24 Hour(s) user Entered Base Flow = 0.00(CFS) 2 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(AC.)[11 Rainfall(In)[2] weighting[1*2] 34.93 1.80 62.87 100 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(Ac.)[1] Rainfall(In)[21 Weighting[1*21 34.93 5.00 174.65 STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00 Area Averaged 2 -Year Rainfall = 1.800(In) Area Averaged 100 -Year Rainfall = 5.000(In) Point rain (area averaged) = 5.000(In) Areal adjustment factor = 99.99 % Adjusted average point rain = 5.000(In) sub -Area Data: Area(AC.) Runoff Index Impervious % 34.930 56.00 0.650 Total Area Entered = 34.93(AC.) RI RI Infil. Rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area% F AMC2 AMC -2 (In/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) (Dec.) (In/Hr) 56.0 56.0 0.511 0.650 0.212 1.000 0.212 Sum (F) = 0.212 Area averaged mean soil loss (F) (In/Hr) = 0.212 Minimum soil loss rate ((In/Hr)) = 0.106 (for 24 hour storm duration) soil low loss rate (decimal) = 0.900 u n i t H y d r o g r a p h DESERT S-Curve --------------------------------------------------------------------- unit Hydrograph Data --------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 1 0.055 sq. Mi. Page 2 PGAWE5T124100.out unit time period Time % of lag Distribution unit Hydrograph (hrs) Graph % (CFS) --- --------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1.000 1991.723 100.000 35.203 sum = 100.000 Sum= 35.203 unit Time Pattern Storm Rain Loss rate(in./Hr) Effective (Hr.) Percent (In/Hr) Max Low (In/Hr) 1 1.00 1.20 0.060 0.368 0.054 0.01 2 2.00 1.30 0.065 0.351 0.058 0.01 3 3.00 1.80 0.090 0.334 0.081 0.01 4 4.00 2.10 0.105 0.318 0.094 0.01 5 5.00 2.80 0.140 0.302 0.126 0.01 6 6.00 2.90 0.145 0.287 0.130 0.01 7 7.00 3.80 0.190 0.272 0.171 0.02 8 8.00 4.60 0.230 0.257 0.207 0.02 9 9.00 6.30 0.315 0.243 --- 0.07 10 10.00 8.20 0.410 0.230 --- 0.18 11 11.00 7.00 0.350 0.217 --- 0.13 12 12.00 7.30 0.365 0.204 --- 0.16 13 13.00 10.80 0.540 0.192 --- 0.35 14 14.00 11.40 0.570 0.181 --- 0.39 15 15.00 10.40 0.520 0.170 --- 0.35 16 16.00 8.50 0.425 0.160 --- 0.26 17 17.00 1.40 0.070 0.151 0.063 0.01 18 18.00 1.90 0.095 0.142 0.085 0.01 19 19.00 1.30 0.065 0.134 0.058 0.01 20 20.00 1.20 0.060 0.126 0.054 0.01 21 21.00 1.10 0.055 0.120 0.049 0.01 22 22.00 1.00 0.050 0.114 0.045 0.00 23 23.00 0.90 0.045 0.110 0.040 0.00 24 24.00 0.80 0.040 0.107 0.036 0..00 Sum T100.0 Sum = 2.0 Flood volume = Effective rainfall 2.05(In) times area 34.9(Ac.)/[(In)/(Ft.)1 6.0(AC.Ft) Total soil loss = 2.95(In) Total soil loss = 8.596(Ac.Ft) Total rainfall = 5.00(In) Flood volume = 259514.3 Cubic Feet Total soil loss = 374422.0 cubic Feet -------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak flow rate of this hydrograph = 13.696(CFS) -------------------------------------------------------------------- +++++++t+++++t++t+++++++#++++t++++++^I-++++t++++++++++++++t++.++++++++ 24 - H O U R S T O R M R u n o f f H y d r o g r a p h -------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrograph in 60 Minute intervals ((CFS)) ------------------------------- Time(h+m) volume AC.Ft Q(CFS) 0 5.0 -_--------_-_----_-�----_-�- . 10.0 .-- 15.0 20.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1+ 0 0.0175 0.21 Q I 2+ 0 0.0364 0.23 Q J 3+ 0 0.0626 0.32 Q 4+ 0 0.0931 0.37 Q I 5+ 0 0.1339 0.49 Q I 6+ 0 0.1761 0.51 Q f I 7+ 0 0.2314 0.67 Q I I } 8+ 0 0.2983 0.81 Qv 1 9+ 0 0.5068 2.52 v Q GI 10+ 0 1.0311 6.34 v Q 11+ 0 1.4185 4.69 Q 12+ 0 1.8858 5.66 Qv 13+ 0 2.8973 12.24 v Q 14+ 0 4.0292 13.70 Q 15+ 0 5.0470 12.32 Q v 16+ 0 5.8179 9.33 I Q i v 17+ 0 5.8383 0.25 Q I v 18+ 0 5.8659 0.33 Q € V1 19+ 0 5.8849 0.23 Q VI 20+ 0 5.9023 0.21 Q I V I 21+ 0 5.9183 0.19 4 [ I V 22+ 0 5.9329 0.18 Q I E I V1 23+ 0 5.9460 0.16 Q j I j Vi 24+ 0 5.9576 0.14 Q I ! VI Page 2 TION 5 APPENDIX 9.0 Noise Calculations Construction Equipment Noise Eden Rock at PGA West - Grading Assumed Attenuation: 6 dBA per doubling of distance TOTAL Leq DURING NORMAL OPERATIONS: 89.93 TYPICAL PRESSURE NOISE ASSUMED LEVEL LEVEL NUMBER USE @ 50 FT DISTANCE Leq NOISE SOURCE OF UNITS FACTOR (dBA) (Feet) (dBA) Auger/Drill Rig 0 1 81 50 #N/A Backhoe 1 0.55 80 50 77 Ballast Equilzer 0 1 82 50 #N/A Ballast Tamper 0 1 83 50 #N/A Compactor 0 1 82 50 #N/A Concrete Mixer 0 1 85 50 #N/A Concrete Pump 0 1 82 50 #N/A Concrete Vibratotr 0 1 76 50 #N/A Crane Derrick 0 1 88 50 #N/A Crane Mobile 0 1 83 50 #N/A Dozer 1 0.59 85 50 83 Electric Drill 0 1 56 50 #N/A Forklift, 40 HP 0 1 82 50 #N/A Generator 0 1 81 50 #N/A Grader 0 1 85 50 #N/A Impact Wrench 0 1 85 50 #N/A Jack Hammer 0 1 88 50 #N/A Loader 1 0.54 85 50 82 Paver 0 1 89 50 #N/A Pile Driver - Impact 0 1 101 50 #N/A Pile Driver- Sonic 0 1 96 50 #N/A Pneunatic Tools 0 1 85 50 #N/A Pump 0 1 76 50 #N/A Rail Saw 0 1 90 50 #N/A Rock Drill 0 1 98 50 #N/A Roller 0 1 74 50 #N/A Saw 0 1 76 50 #N/A Scarifier 0 1 83 50 #N/A Scraper 1 0.72 89 50 88 Shovel 0 1 82 50 #N/A Spike Driver 0 1 77 50 #N/A Tie Cutter 0 1 84 50 #N/A Tie Handler 0 1 80 50 #N/A Tie Inserter 0 1 85 50 #N/A Truck 1 0.5 88 50 85 TOTAL Leq DURING NORMAL OPERATIONS: 89.93 TOTAL Leq DURING NORMAL OPERATIONS: 89 Eden Rock at PGA West - Asphalt Assumed Attenuation: 6 dBA per doubling of distance (dBA) 50 #N/A TYPICAL #N/A 50 #N/A PRESSURE #N/A 50 ASSUMED LEVEL 85 NUMBER USE @ 50 FT NOISE SOURCE OF UNITS FACTOR (dBA) #N/A 0 1 50 81 Auger/Drill Rig Backhoe 0 1 80 Ballast Equilzer 0 1 82 Ballast Tamper 0 1 83 Compactor 0 1 82 Concrete Mixer 2 0.56 85 Concrete Pump 0 1 82 Concrete Vibratotr 0 1 76 Crane Derrick 0 1 88 Crane Mobile 0 1 83 Dozer 0 1 85 Electric Drill 0 1 56 Forklift, 40 HP 0 1 82 Generator 0 1 81 Grader 0 1 85 Impact Wrench 0 1 85 Jack Hammer 0 1 88 Loader 0 1 85 Paver 1 0.62 89 Pile Driver - Impact 0 1 101 Pile Driver- Sonic 0 1 96 Pneunatic Tools 0 1 85 Pump 0 1 76 Rail Saw 0 1 90 Rock Drill 0 1 98 Roller 1 0.56 74 Saw 0 1 76 Scarifier 0 1 83 Scraper 0 1 89 Shovel 0 1 82 Spike Driver 0 1 77 Tie Cutter 0 1 84 Tie Handler 0 1 80 Tie Inserter 0 1 85 Truck 1 0.57 88 TOTAL Leq DURING NORMAL OPERATIONS: 89 NOISE LEVEL DISTANCE Leq (Feet) (dBA) 50 #N/A 50 #N/A 50 #N/A 50 #N/A 50 #N/A 50 85 50 #N/A 50 #N/A 50 #N/A 50 #N/A 50 #N/A 50 #N/A 50 #N/A 50 #N/A 50 #N/A 50 #N/A 50 #N/A 50 #N/A 50 87 50 #N/A 50 #N/A 50 #N/A 50 #N/A 50 #N/A 50 #N/A 50 71 50 #N/A 50 #N/A 50 #N/A 50 #N/A 50 #N/A 50 #N/A 50 #N/A 50 #N/A 50 86 TOTAL Leq DURING NORMAL OPERATIONS: 89 Eden Rock at PGA West - Building Construction Assumed Attenuation: 6 dBA per doubling of distance NUMBER NOISE SOURCE OF UNITS Auger/Drill Rig Backhoe Ballast Equilzer Ballast Tamper Compactor Concrete Mixer Concrete Pump Concrete Vibrator Crane Derrick Crane Mobile Dozer Electric Drill Forklift, 40 HP Generator Grader Impact Wrench Jack Hammer Loader Paver Pile Driver - Impact Pile Driver- Sonic Pneunatic Tools Pump Rail Saw Rock Drill (Assumed for Trencher) Roller Saw Scarifier Scraper Shovel Spike Driver Tie Cutter Tie Handler Tie Inserter Truck (Assumed for Other Equipment) ASSUMED USE FACTOR TYPICAL PRESSURE LEVEL @ 50 FT (dBA) DISTANCE (Feet) NOISE LEVEL Leq (dBA) 0 1 81 50 #N/A 1 0.55 80 50 77 0 1 82 50 #N/A 0 1 83 50 #N/A 1 0.43 82 50 78 0 1 85 50 #N/A 0 1 82 50 #N/A 0 1 76 50 #N/A 0 1 88 50 #N/A 0 1 83 50 #N/A 0 1 85 50 #N/A 0 1 56 50 #N/A 1 0.3 82 50 77 0 1 81 50 #N/A 0 1 85 50 #N/A 0 1 85 50 #N/A 0 1 88 50 #N/A 0 1 85 50 #N/A 0 1 89 50 #N/A 0 1 101 50 #N/A 0 1 96 50 #N/A 0 1 85 50 #N/A 0 1 76 50 #N/A 0 1 90 50 #N/A 1 0.75 98 50 97 0 1 74 50 #N/A 0 1 76 50 #N/A 0 1 83 50 #N/A 0 1 89 50 #N/A 0 1 82 50 #N/A 0 1 77 50 #N/A 0 1 84 50 #N/A 0 1 80 50 #N/A 0 1 85 50 #N/A 1 0.62 88 50 86 TOTAL Leq DURING NORMAL OPERATIONS: 96.9 Eden Rock Traffic Counts Project: Eden Rock at PGA West Subsequent EIR Spreadsheet: Traffic Counts at Surrounding Street Segments Existing Average Daily Trips Segment ADT Washington St between Hwy 111 & Ave 48 42,600 Washington St between Ave 48 & Ave 50 26,400 Washington St between Ave 50 & Ave 52 22,300 Jefferson St between Hwy 111 & Ave 48 25,200 Jefferson St between Ave 48 & Ave 50 24,300 Jefferson St between Ave 50 & Ave 52 23,200 Jefferson St between Ave 52 & 54th Ave 21,500 PGA Blvd between 54th Ave & Project Site 7,200 Madison St between 54th Ave & Airport Blvd 13,300 Ave 50 west of Washington St 5,700 Ave 50 between Washington St & Jefferson St 11,600 Ave 50 between Jefferson St & Madison St 16,100 54th Ave west of Jefferson St 300 54th Ave between Jefferson St & Madison St 16,400 54th Ave east of Madison St 5,400 Existing Plus Project Average Daily Trips Segment ADT Washington St between Hwy 111 & Ave 48 43,300 Washington St between Ave 48 & Ave 50 26,700 Washington St between Ave 50 & Ave 52 22,400 Jefferson St between Hwy 111 & Ave 48 26,000 Jefferson St between Ave 48 & Ave 50 25,600 Jefferson St between Ave 50 & Ave 52 24,700 Jefferson St between Ave 52 & 54th Ave 23,200 PGA Blvd between 54th Ave & Project Site 8,900 Madison St between 54th Ave & Airport Blvd 13,300 Ave 50 west of Washington St 5,700 Ave 50 between Washington St & Jefferson St 11,800 Ave 50 between Jefferson St & Madison St 16,600 54th Ave west of Jefferson St 300 54th Ave between Jefferson St & Madison St 16,400 54th Ave east of Madison St 5,400 Post 2020 General Plan Without Project Average Daily Trips Segment ADT Washington St between Hwy 111 & Ave 48 67,200 Washington St between Ave 48 & Ave 50 62,600 Washington St between Ave 50 & Ave 52 39,000 Jefferson St between Hwy 111 & Ave 48 36,800 Jefferson St between Ave 48 & Ave 50 47,300 Jefferson St between Ave 50 & Ave 52 30,800 Jefferson St between Ave 52 & 54th Ave 47,200 PGA Blvd between 54th Ave & Project Site 7,200 Madison St between Ave 52 & 54th Ave 25,800 Madison St between 54th Ave & Airport Blvd 44,000 Ave 50 west of Washington St 29,400 Ave 50 between Washington St & Jefferson St 27,200 Ave 50 between Jefferson St & Madison St 22,700 54th Ave west of Jefferson St 300 54th Ave between Jefferson St & Madison St 21,800 54th Ave east of Madison St 4,000 Post 2020 General Plan With Project Average Daily Trips Segment ADT Washington St between Hwy 111 & Ave 48 67,900 Washington St between Ave 48 & Ave 50 62,900 Washington St between Ave 50 & Ave 52 39,100 Jefferson St between Hwy 111 & Ave 48 36,800 Jefferson St between Ave 48 & Ave 50 48,600 Jefferson St between Ave 50 & Ave 52 32,300 Jefferson St between Ave 52 & 54th Ave 48,900 PGA Blvd between 54th Ave & Project Site 8,900 Madison St between Ave 52 & 54th Ave 25,800 Madison St between 54th Ave & Airport Blvd 44,000 Ave 50 west of Washington St 29,400 Ave 50 between Washington St & Jefferson St 27,400 Ave 50 between Jefferson St & Madison St 23,200 54th Ave west of Jefferson St 300 54th Ave between Jefferson St & Madison St 21,800 54th Ave east of Madison St 4,000 Source: RK Engineering Group, Inc., Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study, August 30, 2007. Eden Rock On -Site CNEL Contours EDEN ROCK AT PGA WEST SUBSEQUENT EIR OFF-SITE NOISE CONTOURS - Existing ADT Volumes Design Vehicle Mix Distance from Center of Roadway ROADWAY NAME Median ADT Speed Alpha Medium Heavy CNEL at DISTANCE TO CONTOUR Segment Lanes Width Volume .(mph) Factor Trucks Trucks 75 Feet (2) 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL55 CNEL50 CNEL Washington St Hwy 111 & Ave 48 6 20 42,600 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 71.0 - 95 294 914 2,842 8,829 Washington St Ave 48 & Ave 50 6 20 26,400 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 69.0 - - 184 571 1,774 5,512 Washington St Ave 50 & Ave 52 6 20 22,300 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 68.2 - - 156 483 1,502 4,668 Jefferson St Hwy 111 & Ave 48 6 20 25,200 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 68.7 - - 175 545 1,694 5,265 Jefferson St Ave 48 & Ave 50 6 20 24,300 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 68.6 - - 169 526 1,635 5,080 Jefferson St Ave 50 & Ave 52 6 20 23,200 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 68.4 - - 162 503 1,562 4,853 Jefferson St Ave 52 & 54th Ave 6 20 21,500 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 68.1 - - 150 466 1,449 4,503 PGA Blvd 54th Ave & Project Site 4 20 7,200 35 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.3 - - - 81 252 782 Madison St 54th Ave & Airport Blvd 4 20 13,300 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 65.6 - - 85 265 824 2,562 Ave 50 West of Washington St 4 10 5,700 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 61.8 - - - 112 349 1,084 Ave 50 Washington St & Jefferson St 4 10 11,600 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.9 - - - 226 703 2,183 Ave 50 Jefferson St & Madison St 2 0 16,100 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.1 - - 96 298 927 2,881 54th Ave West of Jefferson St 2 0 300 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 48.8 - - - - - - 54th Ave Jefferson St & Madison St 4 10 16,400 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.4 - - 102 318 988 3,070 54th Ave East of Madison St 2 0 5,400 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 61.3 - - 102 316 982 (1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such as vegetative ground cover. (2) Distance to centerline of roadway. contour is located within the roadway lanes or within 75 feet of the roadway centerline. Assumed 24 -Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60% Medium -Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52% Heavy -Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06% EDEN ROCK AT PGA WEST SUBSEQUENT FIR OFF-SITE NOISE CONTOURS - Existing with Project ADT Volumes Design Vehicle Mix Distance from Center of Roadway ROADWAY NAME Median ADT Speed Alpha Medium Heavy CNEL at DISTANCE TO CONTOUR Segment Lanes Width Volume (mph) Factor Trucks Trucks 75 Feet (2) 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL55 CNEL50 CNEL Washington St Hwy 111 & Ave 48 6 20 43,300 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 71.1 - 96 299 929 2,887 8,972 Washington St Ave 48 & Ave 50 6 20 26,700 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 69.0 - - 186 577 1,794 5,573 Washington St Ave 50 & Ave 52 6 20 22,400 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 68.2 - - 156 486 1,509 4,688 Jefferson St Hwy 111 & Ave 48 6 20 26,000 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 68.9 - - 181 562 1,747 5,429 Jefferson St Ave 48 & Ave 50 6 20 25,600 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 68.8 - - 178 554 1,721 5,347 Jefferson St Ave 50 & Ave 52 6 20 24,700 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 68.7 - - 172 535 1,661 5,162 Jefferson St Ave 52 & 54th Ave 6 20 23,200 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 68.4 - - 162 503 1,562 4,853 PGA Blvd 54th Ave & Project Site 4 20 8,900 35 0 1.8% 0.7% 61.3 - - - 100 310 963 Madison St 54th Ave & Airport Blvd 4 20 13,300 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 65.6 - - 85 265 824 2,562 Ave 50 West of Washington St 4 10 5,700 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 61.8 - - - 112 349 1,084 Ave 50 Washington St & Jefferson St 4 10 11,800 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.9 - - - 230 715 2,220 Ave 50 Jefferson St & Madison St 2 0 16,600 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.2 99 307 955 2,969 54th Ave West of Jefferson St 2 0 300 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 48.8 - - - - 54th Ave Jefferson St & Madison St 4 10 16,400 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.4 102 318 988 3,070 54th Ave East of Madison St 2 0 5,400 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 61.3 - 102 316 982 (1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such as vegetative ground cover. (2) Distance to centerline of roadway. contour is located within the roadway lanes or within 75 feet of the roadway centerline. Assumed 24 -Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70%0 12.70% 9.60% Medium -Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52% Heavy -Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06% EDEN ROCK AT PGA WEST SUBSEQUENT FIR OFF-SITE NOISE CONTOURS - Future without Project ADT Volumes Design Vehicle Mix Distance from Center of Roadway ROADWAY NAME Median ADT Speed Alpha Medium Heavy CNEL at DISTANCE TO CONTOUR Segment Lanes Width Volume (mph) Factor Trucks Trucks 75 Feet (2) 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL55 CNEL50 CNEL Washington St Hwy 111 & Ave 48 6 20 67,200 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 73.0 148 461 1,433 4,451 13,831 Washington St Ave 48 & Ave 50 6 20 62,600 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 72.7 138 430 1,336 4,151 12,898 Washington St Ave 50 & Ave 52 6 20 39,000 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 70.6 87 270 838 2,605 8,094 Jefferson St Hwy 111 & Ave 48 6 20 36,800 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 70.4 82 255 792 2,460 7,644 Jefferson St Ave 48 & Ave 50 6 20 47,300 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 71.5 105 326 1,014 3,150 9,788 Jefferson St Ave 50 & Ave 52 6 20 30,800 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 69.6 - 214 664 2,065 6,415 Jefferson St Ave 52 & 54th Ave 6 20 47,200 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 71.5 105 326 1,012 3,143 9,767 PGA Blvd 54th Ave & Project Site 4 20 7,200 35 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.3 - - - 81 252 782 Madison St Ave 52 & 54th Ave 4 20 25,800 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 68.4 - - 164 510 1,583 4,920 Madison St 54th Ave & Airport Blvd 4 20 44,000 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 70.8 - 89 277 862 2,678 8,322 Ave 50 West of Washington St 4 10 29,400 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 68.9 - - 182 565 1,756 5,455 Ave 50 Washington St & Jefferson St 4 10 27,200 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 68.6 - - 168 523 1,626 5,053 Ave 50 Jefferson St & Madison St 2 0 22,700 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 67.6 - - 135 418 1,300 4,040 54th Ave West of Jefferson St 2 0 300 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 48.8 - - - - 54th Ave Jefferson St & Madison St 4 10 21,800 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 67.6 - - 135 421 1,308 4,063 54th Ave East of Madison St 2 0 4,000 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.0 - - - 76 235 731 (1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such as vegetative ground cover. (2) Distance to centerline of roadway. contour is located within the roadway lanes or within 75 feet of the roadway centerline. Assumed 24 -Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60% Medium -Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52% Heavy -Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06% EDEN ROCK AT PGA WEST SUBSEQUENT EIR OFF-SITE NOISE CONTOURS - Future with Project ADT Volumes ROADWAY NAME Segment Lanes Design Median ADT Speed Width Volume (mph) Vehicle Mix Distance from Center of Roadway Alpha Medium Heavy CNEL at DISTANCE TO CONTOUR Factor Trucks Trucks 75 Feet (2) 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL55 CNEL50 CNEL Washington St Hwy 111 & Ave 48 6 20 67,900 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 73.1 - 150 466 1,447 4,497 13,973 Washington St Ave 48 & Ave 50 6 20 62,900 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 72.7 - 139 432 1,342 4,171 12,959 Washington St Ave 50 & Ave 52 6 20 39,100 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 70.7 - 87 270 840 2,611 8,114 Jefferson St Hwy 111 & Ave 48 6 20 36,800 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 70.4 - 82 255 792 2,460 7,644 Jefferson St Ave 48 & Ave 50 6 20 48,600 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 71.6 - 108 335 1,041 3,235 10,053 Jefferson St Ave 50 & Ave 52 6 20 32,300 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 69.8 - - 224 696 2,164 6,723 Jefferson St Ave 52 & 54th Ave 6 20 48,900 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 71.6 - 108 337 1,048 3,255 10,114 PGA Blvd 54th Ave & Project Site 4 20 8,900 35 0 1.8% 0.7% 61.3 - - - 100 310 963 Madison St Ave 52 & 54th Ave 4 20 25,800 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 68.4 - - 164 510 1,583 4,920 Madison St 54th Ave & Airport Blvd 4 20 44,000 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 70.8 - 89 277 862 2,678 8,322 Ave 50 West of Washington St 4 10 29,400 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 68.9 - - 182 565 1,756 5,455 Ave 50 Washington St & Jefferson St 4 10 27,400 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 68.6 - - 170 527 1,638 5,090 Ave 50 Jefferson St & Madison St 2 0 23,200 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 67.7 - - 138 428 1,329 4,128 54th Ave West of Jefferson St 2 0 300 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 48.8 - - - - - - 54th Ave Jefferson St & Madison St 4 10 21,800 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 67.6 - - 135 421 1,308 4,063 54th Ave East of Madison St 2 0 4,000 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.0 - - - 76 235 731 (1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such as vegetative ground cover. (2) Distance to centerline of roadway. contour is located within the roadway lanes or within 75 feet of the roadway centerline. Assumed 24 -Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60% Medium -Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52% Heavy -Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06% Eden Rock On -Site CNEL Contours — Alternatives 2 through 4 EDEN ROCK AT PGA WEST SUBSEQUENT FIR OFF-SITE NOISE CONTOURS - Alternative 2 ROADWAY NAME Segment Lanes Design Median ADT Speed Width Volume (mph) Vehicle Mix Distance from Center of Roadway Alpha Medium Heavy CNEL at DISTANCE TO CONTOUR Factor Trucks Trucks 75 Feet (2) 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL55 CNEL50 CNEL Washington St Hwy 111 & Ave 48 6 20 71,605 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 73.3 - 158 491 1,525 4,739 14,724 Washington St Ave 48 & Ave 50 6 20 64,383 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 72.8 - 142 442 1,373 4,268 13,260 Washington St Ave 50 & Ave 52 6 20 39,734 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 70.7 - 88 275 854 2,653 8,244 Jefferson St Hwy 111 & Ave 48 6 20 42,149 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 71.0 - 94 291 905 2,812 8,737 Jefferson St Ave 48 & Ave 50 6 20 55,271 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 72.2 - 122 380 1,182 3,672 11,410 Jefferson St Ave 50 & Ave 52 6 20 40,134 45 0 1.8% 0.7%0 70.8 - 89 278 862 2,679 8,326 Jefferson St Ave 52 & 54th Ave 6 20 57,478 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 72.3 - 127 395 1,228 3,816 11,859 PGA Blvd 54th Ave & Project Site 4 20 17,688 35 0 1.8% 0.7% 64.2 - - - 196 610 1,895 Madison St Ave 52 & 54th Ave 4 20 25,800 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 68.4 - - 164 510 1,583 4,920 Madison St 54th Ave & Airport Blvd 4 20 44,000 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 70.8 - 89 277 862 2,678 8,322 Ave 50 West of Washington St 4 10 29,400 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 68.9 - - 182 565 1,756 5,455 Ave 50 Washington St & Jefferson St 4 10 28,249 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 68.7 - - 175 543 1,688 5,245 Ave 50 Jefferson St & Madison St 2 0 23,015 45 0 1.8% 0.7%0 67.6 - 137 424 1,318 4,096 54th Ave West of Jefferson St 2 0 300 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 48.8 - - - - 54th Ave Jefferson St & Madison St 4 10 22,010 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 67.6 - - 137 425 1,320 4,102 54th Ave East of Madison St 2 0 4,210 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.3 - - - 80 247 769 (1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such as vegetative ground cover. (2) Distance to centerline of roadway. -' = contour is located within the roadway lanes or within 75 feet of the roadway centerline. Assumed 24 -Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60% Medium -Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52% Heavy -Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06% EDEN ROCK AT PGA WEST SUBSEQUENT EIR OFF-SITE NOISE CONTOURS - Alternative 3 ROADWAY NAME Segment Lanes Design Median ADT Speed Width Volume (mph) Vehicle Mix Distance from Center of Roadway Alpha Medium Heavy CNEL at DISTANCE TO CONTOUR Factor Trucks Trucks 75 Feet (2) 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL55 CNEL50 CNEL Washington St Hwy 111 & Ave 48 6 20 67,852 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 73.1 - 150 465 1,446 4,494 13,964 Washington St Ave 48 & Ave 50 6 20 62,864 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 72.7 - 139 432 1,341 4,168 12,952 Washington St Ave 50 & Ave 52 6 20 39,109 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 70.7 - 87 271 841 2,612 8,116 Jefferson St Hwy 111 & Ave 48 6 20 37,592 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 70.5 - 84 260 809 2,512 7,806 Jefferson St Ave 48 & Ave 50 6 20 48,480 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 71.6 - 108 334 1,039 3,227 10,028 Jefferson St Ave 50 & Ave 52 6 20 32,182 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 69.8 - - 223 694 2,156 6,699 Jefferson St Ave 52 & 54th Ave 6 20 48,722 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 71.6 - 108 336 1,044 3,243 10,077 PGA Blvd 54th Ave & Project Site 4 20 8,753 35 0 1.8% 0.7% 61.2 - - - 98 305 948 Madison St Ave 52 & 54th Ave 4 20 25,800 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 68.4 - - 164 510 1,583 4,920 Madison St 54th Ave & Airport Blvd 4 20 44,000 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 70.8 - 89 277 862 2,678 8,322 Ave 50 West of Washington St 4 10 29,400 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 68.9 - - 182 565 1,756 5,455 Ave 50 Washington St & Jefferson St 4 10 27,355 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 68.6 - - 169 526 1,635 5,081 Ave 50 Jefferson St & Madison St 2 0 22,747 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 67.6 - - 135 419 1,303 4,049 54th Ave West of Jefferson St 2 0 300 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 48.8 - - - - - - 54th Ave Jefferson St & Madison St 4 10 21,831 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 67.6 - - 136 421 1,310 4,069 54th Ave East of Madison St 2 0 4,031 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.1 - - - 76 237 737 (1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such as vegetative ground cover. (2) Distance to centerline of roadway. contour is located within the roadway lanes or within 75 feet of the roadway centerline. Assumed 24 -Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60% Medium -Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52% Heavy -Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06% EDEN ROCK AT PGA WEST SUBSEQUENT EIR OFF-SITE NOISE CONTOURS - Alternative 4 ROADWAY NAME Segment Lanes Design Median ADT Speed Width Volume (rnph) Vehicle Mix Distance from Center of Roadway Alpha Medium Heavy CNEL at DISTANCE TO CONTOUR Factor Trucks Trucks 75 Feet (2) 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL55 CNEL50 CNEL Washington St Hwy 111 & Ave 48 6 20 67,871 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 73.1 - 150 466 1,447 4,495 13,967 Washington St Ave 48 & Ave 50 6 20 62,872 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 72.7 - 139 432 1,342 4,169 12,954 Washington St Ave 50 & Ave 52 6 20 39,112 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 70.7 - 87 271 841 2,612 8,117 Jefferson St Hwy 111 & Ave 48 6 20 37,615 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 70.5 - 84 260 809 2,514 7,811 Jefferson St Ave 48 & Ave 50 6 20 48,514 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 71.6 - 108 335 1,039 3,230 10,035 Jefferson St Ave 50 & Ave 52 6 20 32,222 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 69.8 - - 224 695 2,158 6,707 Jefferson St Ave 52 & 54th Ave 6 20 48,766 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 71.6 - 108 336 1,045 3,246 10,086 PGA Blvd 54th Ave & Project Site 4 20 8,798 35 0 1.8% 0.7% 61.2 - - - 99 307 953 Madison St Ave 52 & 54th Ave 4 20 25,800 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 68.4 - - 164 510 1,583 4,920 Madison St 54th Ave & Airport Blvd 4 20 44,000 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 70.8 - 89 277 862 2,678 8,322 Ave 50 West of Washington St 4 10 29,400 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 68.9 - - 182 565 1,756 5,455 Ave 50 Washington St & Jefferson St 4 10 27,360 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 68.6 - - 169 526 1,636 5,082 Ave 50 Jefferson St & Madison St 2 0 22,748 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 67.6 - - 135 419 1,303 4,049 54th Ave West of Jefferson St 2 0 300 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 48.8 - - - - - 54th Ave Jefferson St & Madison St 4 10 21,832 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 67.6 - - 136 421 1,310 4,069 54th Ave East of Madison St 2 0 4,032 45 0 1.8% 0.7% 60.1 - - - 76 237 737 (1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such as vegetative ground cover. (2) Distance to centerline of roadway. contour is located within the roadway lanes or within 75 feet of the roadway centerline. Assumed 24 -Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60% Medium -Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52% Heavy -Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06% APPENDIX 11.0 Traffic Impact Study by RK Engineering EDEN ROCK (TTM 33226) (10/30/07) TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY La Quinta, California engineering am group, inc. engineering F" m group. inc. C October 30, 2007 Mr, Ali Mir IMPACT SCIENCES, INC. 234 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 205 Pasadena, CA 91 101 Subject; Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study Dear Mr. Mir; transportation planning , itaffic engineering envirowli inial (',,ngineering • parking, studies RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) is pleased to submit this traffic impact study of the proposed Eden Rock (TTM 33226) development. The proposed project is located south of 54th Avenue, east of PGA Boulevard, and west of Madison Street in the City of La Quinta. The project will consist of 292 residential condominium units. The project will have one (1) full access point onto PGA Boulevard. The purpose of this traffic impact study is to review existing and future conditions with and without the proposed future development. Future conditions include city buildout projections. Based upon our analysis of existing and future traffic volumes, all study area intersections are projected to perform at satisfactory levels of service with the recommended improvements. Therefore, the project can be accommodated in the City of La Quinta with the recommendations included in this report. RK is pleased to provide this traffic study for the proposed Eden Rock (TTM 33226) development located in the City of La Quinta to Impact Sciences. If you have any questions regarding this study, or would like further review, please do not hesitate to call us at (949) 474-0809. Sincerely,, w5wo RK ENGINEERING GROL �, T y <"+ V Er No. 0555 Robert Kahn, P.E. LW. 12J31107 Principal P AE'�''C' N. N OF CISLI Attachments Hasan Bajwa Transportation Engineer RK:H8:rd/RK5878.doc 3991 macarthur boulevard, suite 310 JN:0655-07-01 ntewport beach, ealifornia 92660 tel 949.474.0809 fax 949.474.0902 http://www.rkengi neer.com EDEN ROCK (TTM 33226) TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY City of La Quinta, California Prepared for. IMPACT SCIENCES, INC. 234 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 205 Pasadena, CA 91 101 Contact: Ali H. Mir Prepared by: RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. 3991 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 310 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Robert Kahn, P.E. Hasan Bajwa October 30, 2007 RK: H8: rdfRK5878. doc JN: 0655-07-01 Table of Contents Section Pa e 1.0 Introduction......................................................................................... 1-1 2.0 Existing Conditions............................................................................... 2-1 3.0 Intersection Analysis............................................................................ 3-1 3.1 HCM Analysis 3-1 3.2 Level of Service 3-2 3.3 Definition of Deficiency and Significant Impact 3-3 4.0 Trip Generation.................................................................................... 4-1 5.0 Trip Distribution................................................................................... 5-1 6.0 Trip Assignment................................................................................... 6-1 7.0 Traffic Impact Analysis......................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Existing Plus Project 7-1 7.2 Post 2020 General Plan Without Project 7-1 7.3 Post 2020 General Plan With Project 7-4 7.4 Post 2020 General Plan Without Project & Post 2020 General Plan With Project With Improvements Comparison 7-8 8.0 Signal Warrant Analysis and Fair Share Analysis .................................. 8-1 8.1 Fair -Share Analysis 8-1 9.0 Findings............................................................................................,... 9-1 10.0 Recommendations................................................................................ 10-1 10.1 Existing Plus Project 10-1 10.2 Post 2020 General Plan Without Project 10-3 10.3 Post 2020 General Plan With Project 10-3 11.0 Conclusions.......................................................................................... 11-1 List of Attachments Exhibits ALocation Map....,........................................................................................... 1-2 BSite Plan........................................................................................................ 1-3 C City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element ........................................ 2-2 D City of La Quinta General Plan Roadway Cross -Sections City Streets ................ 2-3 D-2 La Quinta General Plan Roadway Cross -Sections Intersections - State Highways and City Streets .......................... _.................. .,..,............... . 2-4 E Existing Lane Geometry and Traffic Controls ........... ............................... __... 2-5 F Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................. 2-6 G Project Trip Distribution................................................................................. 5-2 H Project Traffic Volumes ......................................... ..........,.................... 6-2 1 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes.............................................................. 7-2 J Post 2020 General Plan Without Project Traffic Volumes ................................ 7-5 K Post 2020 General Plan With Project Traffic Volumes ..................................... 7-7 L Existing Plus Project Recommendations.......................................................... 10-2 M Post 2020 General Plan Without Project Recommendations ........................... 10-4 N Post 2020 General Plan With Project Recommendations ................................ 10-6 Tables 1 Intersection Analysis For Existing Conditions ................................................... 2-7 2 Trip Generation Rates..................................................................................... 4-2 3 Project Trip Generation........................................................................ ...... 4-3 4 Intersection Analysis For Existing Plus Project Conditions ................................. 7-3 �T 5 Intersection Analysis For Post 2020 General Plan Without Project Conditions .. 7-6 6 Intersection Analysis For Post 2020 General Plan With Project Conditions........ 7-9 7 Summary Intersection Analysis....................................................................... 7-10 8 Project Fair -Share Intersection Contribution Project Percent of Post 2020 Growth in Traffic ........................................................................... 8-2 Amendices Traffic Count Worksheets......................................................................................... A Existing Level of Service Analysis Worksheets ............................ .... B Existing Plus Project Level of Service Analysis Worksheets ........................................... C Post 2020 General Plan Without Project Level of Service Analysis Worksheets ......,..... D Post 2020 General Plan With Project Level of Service Analysis Worksheets .................. E Traffic Signal Warrant Worksheets . ......... .................... ,................... .. ....... ......... ...... ......... F City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06 -13 .......................................................... G Memorandum from Timothy Jonasson, Public Works Director/City Engineer .............. H 1.0 Introduction The proposed project is located south of 54th Avenue, east of PGA Boulevard, and west of Madison Street in the City of La Quinta, as shown on Exhibit A. The project is proposed for 292 residential condominium units. The project will have one (1) full access point onto PGA Boulevard. The site plan for the proposed development is illustrated on Exhibit B. The project site was previously designated for a more traffic intense hotel land use in the City's general plan traffic model. The study area includes the following intersections: North-South;Stte t East-West'Street Washington Street Avenue 50 Avenue 50 Jefferson Street 54`h Avenue Westerly Project Access Madison Street 54`h Avenue The above study intersections were chosen for analysis due to their anticipated impact and proximate location to the project site. All study intersections are considered to be major intersections within the City of La Quinta and are anticipated to carry a significant amount of project related traffic. Analysis of the above study intersections is expected to sufficiently determine all significant project related impacts. The purpose of this traffic impact study is to review Existing, Existing Plus Project, Post 2020 General Plan Recommended Alternative Without Project, and Post 2020 General Plan Recommended Alternative With Project traffic conditions. The traffic impact study will determine any recommendations necessary to accommodate the project. Exhibit A Location Map Legend: • =Study Area Intersection — = Unpaved Road 0655-07-01 (ExA) engineering EDEN ROCK (77M 33226)TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of 1aQuinta, California group, inc. 1-2 Irp.� 5'. SA 'fyrr= Se. Exhibit B Site Plan 0655-07-01(Ex6) EDEN ROCK (TTM 33226) TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, La Qulnta, Califamia 1-3 off 1". engineering group, Inc. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1-4 2.0 Existing Conditions Exhibit C shows the City of La Quinta Circulation Element and Exhibit D shows the Roadway Cross Sections. Exhibit E identifies the existing roadway conditions, number of through traffic lanes, and the intersection controls for the study area roadways. Existing roadways within the vicinity of the project site include PGA Boulevard (Private street), Washington Street (Major Arterial), Jefferson Street (Major Arterial), Madison Street (Primary Arterial), Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial), Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial), and 54th Avenue (Primary Arterial). PGA Boulevard runs adjacent to the project site and is considered to be a private four (4) lane road that is completely built out. 54Th Avenue, west of Jefferson Street, is a local street that does not go through to the west. Existing traffic volumes on roadways throughout the study area are shown on Exhibit F. These volumes are based upon weekday traffic data collected in May 2007 by Southland Car Counters for RK. The City of La Quinta experiences a seasonal traffic fluctuation, with higher volumes in the winter and spring months typically running from November through April. Since counts were conducted in May, outside of the prime season, a conservative 20% seasonal increase has been applied to the May 2007 counts, as recommended by the City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06-13 (included in Appendix G). The traffic count worksheets are included in Appendix A. Table 1 represents the Existing conditions intersection levels of service. All study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable Level of Service during Existing peak hour conditions with exception of the intersection of Jefferson Street at 54th Avenue which is projected to operate at an unacceptable level of service during peak hour conditions. Level of Service worksheets for Existing conditions are included in Appendix B. 2-1 I Exhibit C City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element AL PLAN ;mss LL J. W 01 I"Cu4 Cµ1�Md rgr�.�nrue,rtd � ma n V. Rrri /G q K Vb6�f p/ W �G IV rf�l� G65S-a7-0l(ExQ engineering EDEN ROCK (TTM 33226) TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of La Quinta, California group, inc. 2-2 Exhibit D City of La Quinta General Plan Roadway Crass -Sections City Streets A. --...A r r . r:.. Q,.. 1 (Eight Lanes divided, no parking) kajX Li111D (II VI[Ie[1, lY/DIKU KIM; Primary Arterial - A I W 12' 8' 13' 13' 18' 13' 13' 8' I2' a - 1 > - (Pour banes divided, w/bike lane) Primary Arterial - B (Four Lancs divided, w/bike lame) SecondArterial Ila, 14' 12' 12' 12' 4' _ 12' (Four Lancs undivided, no parking) Collector i (Two Lanes undivided, w/bike lane) Local ' 12, 181 ' 121 (Two Lanes w/parking) Cell tie Sac BDI 71 18' is, 7' 4 (Two Lanes, w/parking) i N 0655-07-01 (ExD) engineering EDEN ROCK (TTM 33226) TRAFFIC 1MPAC"r STUDY, City of La Quinta, California amgroup, i nc. 2-3 13' 12' 13' 12' 7' 12' E � (Four Lancs divided, w/bike lame) SecondArterial Ila, 14' 12' 12' 12' 4' _ 12' (Four Lancs undivided, no parking) Collector i (Two Lanes undivided, w/bike lane) Local ' 12, 181 ' 121 (Two Lanes w/parking) Cell tie Sac BDI 71 18' is, 7' 4 (Two Lanes, w/parking) i N 0655-07-01 (ExD) engineering EDEN ROCK (TTM 33226) TRAFFIC 1MPAC"r STUDY, City of La Quinta, California amgroup, i nc. 2-3 Exhibit D-2 La Quinta General Plan Roadway Cross -Sections Intersections - State Highways and City Streets Augmented Major at Dual Left Intersections - State Highway I a•t'– 77'6"-c- -- 85v *til*I*ItI1'-11'-1141°14 1 *I Ir► (Lright Lanes divided, w/breakdown lane) +Through lane adjacent to turn lane is reduced I foot, but returns to standard width on far side of intersection adjacent to median nose. Augmented Major at Dual Left Intersections - City Street (13igh( Lanes divided, no parking) 'Through lane adjacent to turn lane is reduced I foot, but returns to standard width on far side of Intersection adjacent to median nose, Major Arterial at Dual Left Intersections - State highway )W_._4!_ V 19!* 12' ] 2' (Bight Lanes divided, no parking) ''through lune adjacent to tum lane is reduced 2 fool, but returns to standard width on far side of intersection adjacent to median nose. Primary Arterial A at Dual Left Intersections - City Street 12' 88' 19 12, 12' 12"1 _ 12' ' 12' (Four Lanes divided, no parking) "Through lane adjacent to turn lane is reduced I foot, but returns to standard width on far side of intersection adjacent to median nose. Modified Secondary at Single Left Intersections - City Street 88' T C4W IX � [X„YX - -12— tMar t (Two Lanes undivided, %v/golf cart lane) I N e 0655-07-01(ExD-1) _ engineering EDEN ROCK (TTM 33216) TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of La Qulnta, California group, inc'. 2—A group, Exhibit E Existing Lane Geometry and Traffic Controls U =Undivided bL,— = Free Right Turn 1__ = Defacto Right Turn = Unpaved Road N 0655.01'-01 (ExE) engineering EDEN ROCK (rrM 33226) TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of La Qulnta, Callfomia am groin, Inc. 2-5 Exhibit F Existing Traffic Volumes 0655-07-01 (ExF) EDEN ROCK (TTM 33226) TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of La Qulnra, Callfornla 2-6 engineering group, inc. TABLE 1 Intersection Analysis For Existing Conditions When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. Where "1" is indicated for the through movement and "0"s are indicated for R/L movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; >> = Free Right Turn; Bold = Improvement 2 Analysis Software: Traffix, Version 7.8. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all -way stop control. For intersections with cross -street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 3 TS = Traffic Signal AWS = All Way Stop CSS = Cross Street Stop RDRT = Roundabout Delay high and/or V/C Ratio >_ 0.90 Intersection unstable. Level of Service F. is /rktab1esll; Ka K78T8. x1s !N: 0655-07-01 2-7 Intersection Approach Lane(s)t Delay' Level of Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Traffic (Seconds) Service L T R L T R L T R L T R AM I PM AM PM Intersection Contro13 Washington St, (NS) at: • Avenue 50 (EW) TS 1 2 1 1 2.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 34.2 23.5 C C Jefferson St. (NS) at: • Avenue 50 ON) TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25.4 38.0 C D • 54th Avenue (EW) AWS 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17.8 --° C F Madison St. (NS) at: • 54th Avenue (EVV) AWS 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0 14,5 1 19.9 1 B C When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. Where "1" is indicated for the through movement and "0"s are indicated for R/L movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; >> = Free Right Turn; Bold = Improvement 2 Analysis Software: Traffix, Version 7.8. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all -way stop control. For intersections with cross -street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 3 TS = Traffic Signal AWS = All Way Stop CSS = Cross Street Stop RDRT = Roundabout Delay high and/or V/C Ratio >_ 0.90 Intersection unstable. Level of Service F. is /rktab1esll; Ka K78T8. x1s !N: 0655-07-01 2-7 f THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3.0 Intersection Anal sis 3.1 HCM Analysis The current technical guide to the evaluation of traffic operations is the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM2000), in accordance with Caltrans standards. The HCM defines level of service as a qualitative measure which describes operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. The criteria used to evaluate LOS (Level of Service) conditions vary based on the type of roadway and whether the traffic flow is considered interrupted or uninterrupted. The definitions of level of service for uninterrupted flow (flow unrestrained by the existence of traffic control devices) are; LOS A represents free flow. Individual users are virtually unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream. • LOS B is in the range of stable flow, but the presence of other users in the traffic stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver. • LOS C is in the range of stable flow, but marks the beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream. • LOS D represents high-density but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience. 3-1 0 LOS E represents operating conditions at or near the capacity level. All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform value. Small increases in flow will cause breakdowns in traffic movement. a LOS F is used to define forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount that can traverse the point. Queues form behind such locations. Uninterrupted flow is generally found only on limited access (freeway) facilities in urban areas. The level of service is based on the HCM, Exhibit 23-2. 3.2 Level of Service The definitions of level of service for interrupted traffic flow (flow restrained by the existence of traffic signals and other traffic control devices) differ slightly depending on the type of traffic control. The level of service is typically dependent on the quality of traffic flow at the intersections along a roadway. The HCM methodology expresses the level of service at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches. The HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control. The levels of service determined in this study are calculated using the HCM methodology. For signalized intersections, average control delay per vehicle is used to determine the level of service. Levels of service at signalized study intersections have been evaluated using the HCM intersection analysis program. 3-2 The levels of service are defined for the various analysis methodologies as follows: LOS Average Total Control Delay Per vehicle (Seconds) ;Si nalized Unsignalized A 0.00-10.00 0.00- 10.00 B 10.01 - 20.00 10.01 - 15.00 C 20.01 - 35.00 15.01 - 25.00 D E F 35.01 - 55.00 55.01 - 80.00 >80.01 25.01 - 35.00 35.01 - 50.00 >50.01 The LOS analysis for signalized intersections is performed using optimized signal timing. Adjustment factors for elements such as lane width, trucks, grade, obstructions, parking or pedestrians are as stated in the 2000 HCM. For Existing, Existing Plus Project, and Post 2020 General Plan With and Without, Project conditions, an average peak hour factor has been taken from the counts collected for RK at each study area intersection. Saturation flow rates of 1,900 vehicles per hour of green (vphg) for through and right turn lanes, 1,900 vehicles for single left turn lanes, 1,600 vehicles per lane for dual left turn lanes, and 1,500 vehicles per lane for triple left turn lanes have been assumed for all capacity analysis. 3.3 Definition of Deficiency and Significant Impact The following definitions of deficiencies and significant impacts have been developed in accordance with the City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06-13. 3-3 Deficiency The definition of an intersection deficiency has been obtained from the City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06-13 (included in Appendix G): "In the City of La Quinta, LOS D and a maximum volume to capacity ratio of 0.90 is the acceptable build out service level. The maximum volume to capacity ratio applies to peak hours at intersections as well as daily WC analyses of roadway segments" Therefore, any intersection that has a vehicle to capacity ratio of greater than 0.90 or is operating at LOS E or F will be considered deficient. Significant Impact Thresholds of Significance Intersections Project Specific Impacts A significant adverse project specific traffic impact is assumed to occur at any intersections if the project will change the WC ratio or add Peak Hour Trips (PHT) to impacted intersections that exceed the thresholds for changes in Level of Service (LOS) established in the following table: 3-4 W Table 1 Thresholds for Changes in Level of Service (LOS) at Intersections Significant Changes in LOS Intersection LOS (Existing Increase in V/C equal to or greater than LOS A 0.25 LOS B 0.20 LOS C 0.15 Increase in Trips equal to or greater than LOS D 25 Trips* LOS E 10 Trips* LOS F 5 Trips* * To critical movements Cumulative Impacts — A significant adverse cumulative traffic impact is assumed to occur at any intersection if the project will add 10 or more peak hour trips to the critical movements at a critical intersection and is projected to cause a LOS change greater than the thresholds defined in Table 1 by the Year 2020. If the project will increase the projected 2020 WC ratio by less than 0.02 and the Traffic Uniform Mitigation fees are paid', the project's contribution to an otherwise significant cumulative impacts is considered mitigated. ' It should be noted that the City of La Quinta does not currently participate in the Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation fee program. The referenced program is the City's own Transportation Impact Fee. 3-5 Road segments' r I Project Specific Impacts — A significant adverse project specific traffic impact is assumed to occur on any road segment if any one of the following results from the project: a. If the project will add 100 or more ADT or I% or more of the total projected ADT to a road segment that is currently operating at an acceptable LOS, but would cause the LOS to fall to an unacceptable level. b. If the project will add 100 or more ADT or I% or more of the total projected ADT, whichever is greater, to a roadway that is currently operating at less -than - acceptable LOS. Cumulative Impacts — A significant adverse cumulative traffic impact is assumed to occur on any road segment if the project will add 100 or more ADT or I% or more of the total projected ADT to a roadway segment that is projected to fall to a less - than -acceptable LOS by the Year 2020. Cumulative impacts for the Post 2020 General Plan scenarios have been determined by utilizing the City of La Quinta General Plan Update Traffic Study's Post 2020 volumes. ' According to the City Traffic Engineer, the anticipated affected roadway segments are currently operating at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) and are not critical elements of the roadway system, therefore the roadway segments are not required to be analyzed in this study. Please see Appendix H for a memorandum from Timothy Jonasson, Public Works Director/City Engineer pertaining to the roadway segement analysis. 3-6 4.0 Trio Generation Trip generation represents the amount of traffic that is attracted and produced by a development. The traffic generation for the existing general plan model project has been based upon the City of La Quinta's General Plan Buildout model. The current General Plan assumes development of 41.95 acres of Tourist, Resort/Hotel uses on the site. The traffic generation for the proposed project is based upon the specific proposed land uses that have been previously planned for the development in an adopted Specific Plan for PGA West. The Eden Rock project is proposed for 292 residential condominium units, and no hotel uses. Trip generation rates for the existing general plan/specific plan hotel project, and the proposed project's residential land uses, are shown in Table 2. The daily trip generation rates for the existing general plan project are based upon the City's general plan model and the peak hour rates were derived from SANDAG's Traffic Generation Rates manual and proportioned based upon the daily rate. The SANDAG rates for peak hours were utilized because only SANDAG provided average rate data for the resort hotel land use with an acreage trip rate. The use of acres unit was the only feasible unit that could be used based upon the information available; utilizing the square footage or hotel rooms units was not an option due to the unavailability of the information in those units. The trip generation rates for the proposed residential project are based upon data collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Both daily and peak hour trip generation for the proposed project are shown in Table 3. The existing general plan hotel project is projected to generate 10,488 trip -ends per day, with 524 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 734 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. BE TABLE 2 Trip Generation Rates Existing General Plan Model Land Use Land Use Units" Peak Hour DailY4 AM PM In Out In Out Tourist, Resort/Hotel AC 5.00 7.50 10.50 7.00 250.00 Proposed Project' Land Use ITE Code Unitsa Peak Hour Daily AM PM In Out In Out Residential Condominium/Townhouse 230 DU 0.07 0.37 0.35 0.17 5.86 ' Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. 2 Source: SANDAG Traffic Generation Rates, April 2002 3 DU = Dwelling Unit AC = Acres 4 Source: City of La Quinta General Plan Model is /rktables/RK5878TB.xls IN:0555-07-01 4-2 TABLE 3 Project Trip Generation Existing General Plan Model Land Use Land Use uanti Units' Peak Hour Dail AM PM In 1Out Total In Out Total Tourist, Resort/Hotel 41.950 AC 210 315 524 440 294734 10,488 Total 210 315 524 440 294 734 10,488 Proposed Project Land Use ITE Code Quantity Units' Peak Hour Daily AM PM In Out Total In Out Total Residential Condominium/Townhouse 230 292 DU 20 108 128 102 50 152 1,711 Total 20 108 128 102 50 152 1,711 Trip Generation Comparison Land Use Quantitv Units' Peak Hour Dally-__ AM PM In Out Total In Out I Total Tourist, Resort/Hotel (Existing General Plan Model Land Use) 41.950 AC 210 315 524 440 294 734 10,488 Residential Condominium/Townhouse (Proposed Project) 292.000 DU 20 108 128 102 50 152 1,711 Total -190 -207 -396 -338 -244 -582 -8,777 ' DU = Dwelling Unit AC - Acres j.*krab1es1RK5878TB.xb IN,0655-07-01 4-3 f' The proposed residential development is projected to generate significantly fewer vehicle I trips, approximately 1,711 trip -ends per day, with 128 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 152 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. Overall, the proposed project would generate 8,777 fewer trip -ends per day, with 396 fewer vehicles per hour during the AM peak our and 582 fewer vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. 5.0 Trip Distribution Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of employment, commercial, and recreational opportunities, and the proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic was determined by evaluating existing and proposed land uses and highways within the community, existing traffic volumes and has been approved by City staff. The project trip distribution is particularly conservative due to the fact that there are no "drop-off" zones for project traffic. Instead, all project trips are assigned in a manner where they extend through each intersection in their direction until they depart from the study area. This conservative approach enables each intersection to absorb all project traffic headed in its direction, even accounting for that traffic that would remain within the study area and not necessarily go through the particular intersection. The proposed project has one (1) main access point. The trip distribution for this analysis has been based upon project buildout conditions, based upon those highway facilities that are in place or will be contemplated over the near-term. The trip distribution patterns for the project are shown on Exhibit G. 5-1 Exhibit G # Project Trip Distribution Legend: — — = Unpaved Road 10 = Percent To/From Project 0655-07-01 (ExG) EDEN ROCK (TTM 33226) TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of La Quinta, Callfornla 5-2 engineering group, Inc. 6 0 Trip Assignment _ The assignment of traffic from the site to the adjoining roadway system has been based upon the site's trip generation, trip distribution, and existing arterial highway and local street systems. Based upon the identified project trip generation and distributions, project related traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit H. Project trips have been assigned by multiplying the project trip generation per scenario by the project percent per directional movement. These volumes were then assigned to the individual roadway segment and intersections. As previously noted, the project distribution utilized in this study was based upon evaluation of existing and proposed land uses and roadways within the community and has been approved by City staff and therefore, is deemed reasonably accurate and conservative. Exhibit H Project Traffic Volumes Legend: 10.0 = Vehicles Per Day (I 000's) — — = Unpaved Road NOM = Nominal 0655-07-01 (ExH) EDEN ROCK (TTM 33226) TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, Ciry of l -a Quinta, California 6-2 engineering group, inc. r 7.0 Traffic Impact Analysis Traffic impacts have been projected and analyzed for Existing, Existing Plus Project, Post 2020 General Plan Without Project, and Post 2020 General Plan With Project conditions. 7.1 Existing Plus Project Existing Plus Project volumes have been determined by combining existing traffic volumes (which include a 20% seasonal adjustment per the City of La Quinta Traffic Bulletin #06-13) with project traffic volumes, Exhibit I shows the Existing Plus Project traffic volumes. As presented on Table 4, all study area intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable level of Service LOS D or better during Existing Plus Project peak hour conditions with exception of the intersection of Jefferson Street at 54th Avenue which is projected to operate at an unacceptable level of service during peak hour conditions. However, with the recommended improvements, all study intersections are projected to improve to an acceptable Level of Service during Existing Plus Project peak hour conditions. A fair -share analysis for project specific responsibilities towards recommended improvements is discussed in Section 8.1 of this report. HCM calculation worksheets are included in Appendix C. 7.2 Post 2020 General Plan Without Project To assess Post 2020 General Plan Without Project conditions, traffic volumes have been obtained from the City of La Quinta General Plan Update Traffic Study for all of the study intersections except Jefferson Street at 54th Avenue and Madison Street at 54th Avenue, for which Post 2020 traffic volumes were unavailable. RK, after having consulted with the City Public Works Department has extrapolated the projected traffic volumes for the two (2) remaining intersections based upon 7-1 77 10 04 -14 V evl Legend: 10.0 = Vehicles Per Day (I 000's) — — = Unpaved Road NOM = Nominal Note: Volumes Seasonally Adjusted by 20% n N Ave. 52 Exhibit I Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes LAO 1/654 1 217 N f--65/3$ cMy r_ ry n-4 1 Itis It 08/50 /0 SITE H 0655-07-01 (EA) EDEN ROCK (TTM 33226) TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of La Qulnta, California 7-2 Blvd. engineering group, inc. 58 TABLE 4 Intersection Analysis For Existing Plus Project Conditions ' When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. Where 1" is indicated for the through movement and °0's are indicated for R/L movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; >> = Free Right Turn; Bold = Improvement ' Analysis Software: Traffix, Version 7.8. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all -way stop control. For intersections with cross -street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 3 TS = Traffic Signal AWS = All Way Stop CSS = Cross Street Stop RDBT = Roundabout " Delay high and/or V/C Ratio z 0.90. Intersection unstable. Level of Service F. ' The City of La Quinta has established a certain criteria for evaluating thresholds of significance. Refer to Table 1 in the City's Engineering Bulletin #06-13. fi Improvement included in City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study. r Improvements funded and currently under construction. R Project satisfies the threshold for a signficant impact, but no improvements are necessary. operating at an acceptable level (LOS D) or better, which is acceptable pursuant to the Citys General Plan. f: Jrk rablesJRK5878TB. xis JN:0655-07-01 7-3 Intersection Approach Lane(s)' Delay Level of Significant Traffic (Seconds) Service Impacts Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Intersection Control' L T R L T R L T R L T RAM PM AM PM AM PM Washington St. (NS) at: • Avenue 50 (EW) TS 1 2 1 1 2.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 35.2 23.9 D C N N Jefferson St. (NS) at: • Avenue 50 (EW) TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25.5 38.8 C D N Y11 • 54th Avenue (EW) AWS 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20.0 --4 C F N Y - With Improvements TS6 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21.2 26.9 C C N N • Westerly Project Access (EW) CSS 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9.4 9.2 A A N N Madison St. (NS) at: • 54th Avenue (EW) AWS 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.5 0.5 0 14.5 20.0 B C N N - With Improvements I TS 2 0 1 1 0 0 D 1 0 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 7.8 1 8.4 1 A A I N I N ' When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. Where 1" is indicated for the through movement and °0's are indicated for R/L movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; >> = Free Right Turn; Bold = Improvement ' Analysis Software: Traffix, Version 7.8. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all -way stop control. For intersections with cross -street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 3 TS = Traffic Signal AWS = All Way Stop CSS = Cross Street Stop RDBT = Roundabout " Delay high and/or V/C Ratio z 0.90. Intersection unstable. Level of Service F. ' The City of La Quinta has established a certain criteria for evaluating thresholds of significance. Refer to Table 1 in the City's Engineering Bulletin #06-13. fi Improvement included in City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study. r Improvements funded and currently under construction. R Project satisfies the threshold for a signficant impact, but no improvements are necessary. operating at an acceptable level (LOS D) or better, which is acceptable pursuant to the Citys General Plan. f: Jrk rablesJRK5878TB. xis JN:0655-07-01 7-3 anticipated volumes from nearby intersections as well as the known average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for the adjacent roadway segments. Post 2020 General Plan Without Project traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit J. For Post 2020 General Plan Without Project conditions, all study area intersections are projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service during peak hour conditions. However, with the recommended improvements, all study intersections are projected to improve to an acceptable Level of Service during the peak hours, A fair -share analysis for project specific responsibilities towards recommended improvements is discussed in Section 8.1 of this report. Table 5 presents the intersection analysis for Post 2020 General Plan Without Project conditions. The HCM calculation worksheets are included in Appendix D. 7.3 Post 2020 General Plan With Project To assess Post 2020 General Plan With Project conditions, Post 2020 General Plan Without Project traffic has been combined with Project traffic. Post 2020 General Plan With Project traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit K. The Post 2020 General Plan traffic volumes already account for the site's previous land use — Resort/Hotel. However, in order to maintain a conservative analysis, the currently proposed project's trips have been added to this scenario and the trips for the Resort/Hotel have not been deducted. In aggregate, the Post 2020 General Plan traffic volumes include both the previously proposed project (Resort/Hotel) and the currently proposed project (Residential Condominiums) with absolutely no deductions, resulting in a conservative, worst case analysis. For Post 2020 General Plan With Project conditions, all study area intersections are projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service during peak hour conditions. However, with the recommended improvements, all study intersections are projected to improve to an acceptable Level of Service during the peak hours. A fair -share analysis for project specific responsibilities towards recommended VON Exhibit J Post 2420 General Plan Without Project Traffic Volumes 0655.07-01 (Ex)) engineering EDEN ROCK (TTM 33226) TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, Ciry of La Quinta, Callfornia group, inc. 7-5 TABLE 5 r... Intersection Analysis For Post 2020 General Plan Without Project Conditions When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. Where "1" is indicated for the through movement and "0"s are indicated for R/L movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. L = Left; T � Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; >> = Free Right Turn; Bold = Improvement z Analysis Software: Traffix, Version 7.8. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all -way stop control. For intersections with cross -street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 3 TS = Traffic Signal AWS = All Way Stop CSS = Cross Street Stop RDBT = Roundabout 4 Delay high and/or V/C Ratio ? 0.90. Intersection unstable. Level of Service F. 5 Improvement included in City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study. 6 Improvements funded and currently under construction. 7 Improvements require Project's Fair -Share contribution j:1rktab1es11?K5878TB.x1s ia: 0655-07-0 r 7-6 Intersection Ap roach Lane(s)' Delay Level of Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (Seconds) Service Intersection Contro13 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Washington St. (NS) at: • Avenue 50 (EW) TS 1 2 1 1 2.5 0,5 1 1 1 1 1 1 56.5 --4 E F With Improvements' TS 1 2 1 2 2.5 0.5 2 2 1 1 2 1> 25.1 44.8 C D Jefferson St. (NS) at: • Avenue 50 (EW) TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 39.4 -4 D F - With Improvements? TS 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 27.0 39.6 C D • 54th Avenue (EW) AWS 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _,4 --" F F - With Improvements TSS 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21.3 24.4 C C Madison St. (NS) at: • 54th Avenue (EW) AWS 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.5 0.5 0 --a —a F F - With Improvements TSS 2 2 1 1 2 1 7 1 1> 1 1 1 22.4 31.9 C C When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. Where "1" is indicated for the through movement and "0"s are indicated for R/L movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. L = Left; T � Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; >> = Free Right Turn; Bold = Improvement z Analysis Software: Traffix, Version 7.8. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all -way stop control. For intersections with cross -street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 3 TS = Traffic Signal AWS = All Way Stop CSS = Cross Street Stop RDBT = Roundabout 4 Delay high and/or V/C Ratio ? 0.90. Intersection unstable. Level of Service F. 5 Improvement included in City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study. 6 Improvements funded and currently under construction. 7 Improvements require Project's Fair -Share contribution j:1rktab1es11?K5878TB.x1s ia: 0655-07-0 r 7-6 Qac We, 50 27.4 Ave. 52 Legend: 10.0 = Vehicles Per Day (I 000's) N Exhibit K Post 2020 General Plan With Project Traffic Volumes 16 30 0 M 6Co 4-108150 F--vly SITE N 0655-07-01 (ExK) EDEN ROCK (TTM 33226) TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of La Quinta, Callfomla 7-7 J Blvd. engineering group, inc. improvements is discussed in Section 8.1 of this report. Table 6 presents the intersection analysis for Post 2020 General Plan With Project conditions for both without and with improvements. The HCM calculation worksheets are included in Appendix E. 7.4 Post 2020 General Plan Without Project & Post 2020 General Plan With Project With Improvements Comparison For Post 2020 General Plan Without Project conditions, all study area intersections are projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service during peak hour conditions. For Post 2020 General Plan With Project conditions, all study area intersections are projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service during peak hour conditions, However, with the recommended improvements, all study intersections are projected to improve to an acceptable Level of Service during the peak hours for Post 2020 General Plan With Project conditions. A summary of the level of service analysis for each condition is included in Table 7 TABLE 6 intersection Analysis For Post 2020 General Plan With Project Conditions ' When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. Where "1" is indicated for the through movement and "0"5 are indicated for RJL movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; >> = Free Right Turn; Bold = Improvement Analysis Software: Traffix, Version 7.8. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all -way stop control. For intersections with cross -street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. TS = Traffic Signal AWS = All Way Stop CSS = Cross Street Stop RDBT = Roundabout 4 Delay high and/or V/C Ratio ? 0.90. Intersection unstable. Level of Service F. 5 The City of La Quinta has established a certain criteria for evaluating thresholds of significance. Refer to Table 1 in the Cigs Engineering Bulletin #06-13. 6 Improvement included in City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study. 7 Improvements funded and currently under construction. e Improvements require Project's Fair -Share contribution i s Jrktab1esJRK5878T8.x1s JN: 0655-07-01 7-9 Intersection A roach Lane(s)' Delay' Level of Significant Traffic (Seconds) Service Im acts Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R AM IPM AM 713M AM PM Intersection Contro? Washington St. (NS) at: • Avenue 50 (EW) TS 1 2 1 1 2.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 ° 4 F F N Y With Improvements" TS 1 2 1 2^ 2,5 0.5 2,2 1 1 2 1> 25.1 46.0 C D N N Jefferson St. (NS) at: • Avenue 50 (EW) TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 39.2 --4 D F N Y - With Improvements" TS 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 27.0 40.3 C D N N • 54th Avenue (EW) AWS 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -•4 4 F F Y Y - With Improvements TS" 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22.2 24,4 C C N N • Westerly Project Access (EW) CSS 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0_ 9`4 9.2 A A N N Madison St, (NS) at: • 54th Avenue (EW) AWS 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.5 0.5 0 .-..4 __4 F F N N - With Improvements' J 156 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 12. 1 1 1 22.4 1 31.9 C C N N ' When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. Where "1" is indicated for the through movement and "0"5 are indicated for RJL movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; >> = Free Right Turn; Bold = Improvement Analysis Software: Traffix, Version 7.8. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all -way stop control. For intersections with cross -street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. TS = Traffic Signal AWS = All Way Stop CSS = Cross Street Stop RDBT = Roundabout 4 Delay high and/or V/C Ratio ? 0.90. Intersection unstable. Level of Service F. 5 The City of La Quinta has established a certain criteria for evaluating thresholds of significance. Refer to Table 1 in the Cigs Engineering Bulletin #06-13. 6 Improvement included in City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study. 7 Improvements funded and currently under construction. e Improvements require Project's Fair -Share contribution i s Jrktab1esJRK5878T8.x1s JN: 0655-07-01 7-9 TABLE 7 Summary Intersection Analysis ' HCM =Highway Capacity Manual LOS = Level of Service s -- - Delay High, Intersection Unstable, Level of Service F. i1rkrables/RK587MT is 1N:0655-07.01 7-10 Post 2020 General Plan Post 2020 General Plan Existing Plus Existing Plus Post 2020 General Plan Without Project With Post 2020 General Plan With Project Fxistino Proiect Proiect With Imorovernents Without Proiect Improvements With Proiect With Imorovements HCM' L05' HCM' LOS' HCM' LOS' NCM' LOS' HCM' LOS' HCM' LOS° HCM' LOS' Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM I PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Washington Street (NS) at: • Avenue 50 (EW) 34.2 23.5 C C 35.2 23.9 D C 56.5 3 E I F 25.1 44.8 C D --3 - 3 F ! F 25.1 46.0 C D Jefferson Street (NS) at: • Avenue 50 (EW) 25.4 38.0 C D 25.5 38.8 C D - - 39.4 3 D F 27.0 39.6 C D 39.2 -3 D F 27.0 40.3 C D • 54th Avenue (EW) 17.8 --3 C F 20.0 --3 C F 21.2 26.9 C C -3 -3 F F 21.3 24.4 C C --3 - 3 F F 22.2 24.4 C C • Westerly Prc�ect Access (EW - 9.4 9.2 A A - - 9.4 9.2 A A - Madison St (NS) at: I. 54th Avenue (EW) 14.5 19.9 B C 7.8 8.4 A A - --3 _3 F F 22.4 31.9 C C R3 _3 F F 22.4 31.9 C C ' HCM =Highway Capacity Manual LOS = Level of Service s -- - Delay High, Intersection Unstable, Level of Service F. i1rkrables/RK587MT is 1N:0655-07.01 7-10 8 0 Signal Warrant Analysis and Fair Share Analysis Traffic signal warrants have been analyzed at the following two (2) intersections: North-South Street Fast -West Street ;- Jefferson Street Madison Street 54th Avenue 54th Avenue The study area intersections of Jefferson Street at 54th Avenue and Madison Street at 54th Avenue currently warrant a traffic signal based upon the peak hour signal warrant analysis for Existing conditions. The traffic signal warrant worksheets are included in Appendix F. 8.1 Fair -Share Analysis The project's fair -share contribution is shown in Table 8. As to those improvements that are within the City's Transportation Impact Fee program, the project will pay for its pro -rata share of the cost of study area intersection improvements through the payment of adopted City Transportation Impact Fee As to any identified improvement not covered in the Transportation Impact Fee program, or not being constructed by others, the project developer shall either be required to install the improvement, or should be required to pay its pro -rata share based upon the number of vehicle trips added to the intersection. In this regard, the project should pay its fair -share contribution for all of the improvements to the intersections of Washington Street at Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street at Avenue 50. For detailed improvements, please refer to Chapter 10 of this report and to Table 6. The fair -share analysis shown in Table 8 is based upon a comparison of the project's traffic to the Post 2020 General Plan With Project growth in traffic. The project fair- TABLE 8 Project Fair -Share Intersection Contribution Project Percent of Post 2020 Growth in Traffic !:1rktab1es/RK5878TB.x1s 8-2 IN:0655-07-01 Project % of Post 2020 Post 2020 General Plan General Plan Existing With Project Growth in Project Growth in Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Intersection Washington Street (NS) at: • Avenue 50 (EW) 2,802 2,699 4,055 5,631 1,253 2,932 22 25 1.8% 0.9% Jefferson Street (NS) at: • Avenue 50 (EW) 2,759 3,090 3,634 5,149 875 2,059 114 136 13.0% 6.6% • 54th Avenue (EW) 1,350 1,862 1,807 2,248 457 386 128 152 28.0% 39.4% • Westerly Project Access (EW) 1 459 1 599 587 751 128 15.2 128 152 100.0% 100.0% Madison Street (NS) at: 54th Avenue (EW) 1,102 1,459 1 2,613 1 3,835 1 1,511 1 2,376 2 L 3 1 0.1% 1 0.1 !:1rktab1es/RK5878TB.x1s 8-2 IN:0655-07-01 share calculation is based upon standard practice in the County of Riverside. The project's fair -share contribution is calculated as follows: Growth in Traffic Volume = (Post 2020 General With Project Traffic - Existing Traffic) Fair -share percentage (%) = Project Volume Growth In Traffic Volume QK THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 9.0 Findings A summary of the level of service analysis for each condition for both AM and PM peak hours is included in Table 7. All study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable Level of Service during Existing peak hour conditions (which includes a 20% increase in trips in an assumed seasonal factor to the existing traffic counts as per the City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin # 06-13) with exception of the intersection of Jefferson Street at 54th Avenue (LOS F in PM peak hour) which is projected to operate at an unacceptable level of service during peak hour conditions. The study area intersections of Jefferson Street at 54th Avenue and Madison Street at 54th Avenue currently warrant traffic signals based upon peak hour signal warrant analysis for Existing conditions. The existing general plan model project (i.e., the previously planned hotel use) is projected to generate 10,488 trip -ends per day, with 524 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 734 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. The proposed residential development (with no hotel use) is projected to generate approximately 1,711 trip -ends per day, with 128 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 152 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. Overall, the proposed project will generate 8,777 less trip -ends per day, with 396 less vehicles per hour during the AM peak our and 582 less vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. During Existing Plus Project conditions (which include a 20% seasonal factor to the existing traffic counts as per the City of La Quinta Engineering Bulleting # 06-13), all study area intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable Level of Service with exception of the intersection of Jefferson Street at 54th Avenue, which is projected to operate at an 9-1 r unacceptable level of service during peak hour conditions. However, with the recommended improvements (traffic signalization), this study intersection is projected to improve to an acceptable Level of Service during the peak hours. The intersections of p p g Jefferson Street at Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street at 54`" Avenue will also have a significant adverse project specific impact, as defined in the City Engineering Bulletin #06- 13. However, because the intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS, the intersection of Jefferson Street at Avenue 50 is not anticipated to require any improvements. This is because, while it meets the test of the City's Engineering Bulletin, even with the project trips it will operate at an acceptable level — LOS D. For Post 2020 General Plan Without Project conditions, all study area intersections are projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service during peak hour conditions. However, with the recommended improvements, all study intersections are projected to improve to an acceptable Level of Service during the peak hours. For Post 2020 General Plan With Project conditions, all study area intersections are projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service during peak hour conditions with the exception of the project access point. However, with the recommended improvements, all study intersections are projected to improve to an acceptable Level of Service during the peak hours. The Post 2020 General Plan traffic volumes already account for the site's previous land use — Resort/Hotel. However, in order to maintain a conservative analysis, the currently proposed project's trips have been added to this scenario and the trips for the Resort/Hotel have not been deducted, therefore the study is basing its analysis on a worst case scenario, and is thus conservative. The project should contribute towards General Plan 2020 With Project improvements based upon fair -share analysis included in this report, for improvements that are not included in the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study. 01M 10.0 Recommendations 10.1 Existing Plus Project At the intersection of PGA Boulevard at Westerly Project Access, install a 150 foot southbound left turn pocket. This will be a requirement of the project. Install a stop sign, stop bar, and stop legend at Westerly Project Access. This will be a requirement of the project. Complete the internal circulation system per City of La Quinta standards. Participate in the City approved Development Impact Fee program. In conjunction with the preparation of precise grading, landscape, and street improvement plans, sight distance should be reviewed at the project access point per City of La Quinta/Caltrans standards. Jefferson Street at 50 Avenue; Install a traffic signal (improvement included in City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study). Madison Street at 50 Avenue; Install a traffic signal (Improvement included in City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study). Existing Plus Project Recommendations are summarized on Exhibit L. As shown on Table 4, a triggering of the threshold of significance from the City's Engineering Bulletin is anticipated to occur at the intersections of Jefferson Street at Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street at 54th Avenue. However, no improvements are necessary at Jefferson Street at Avenue 50, for Existing Plus Project conditions, 10-1 Exhibit L Existing Plus Project Recommendations Legend: 11 - Install Traffic Signal W Unpaved Road Defacto Right Turn N L = Street Improvements 0655-07=01 (ExL) EDEN ROCK (TTM 33226) TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of La Quinta. California 10-2 engineering group, inc. because even with the project trips, the intersection operates at LOS D, which is acceptable under the City' General Plan. 10.2 Post 2020 General Plan Without Project Washington Street at Avenue 50: Install a second southbound left turn lane, a second eastbound left turn lane, a second eastbound through lane, a second westbound through lane, and a westbound right turn overlap phase. (Project Fair - Share improvements) Jefferson Street at Avenue 50: Install a second southbound left turn lane, second eastbound left turn lane, and a second westbound through lane. (Project Fair -Share improvements) Jefferson Street at 54th Avenue: Install a traffic signal (Improvement included in City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study). Madison Street at 54' Avenue: Install a traffic signal with an eastbound right turn overlap phase. (Improvement included in City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study); Install a first and second northbound through lane, a southbound left turn lane, a first and second southbound through lane, a southbound right turn lane, an eastbound left turn lane, a westbound left turn lane, and a westbound right turn lane. (Improvements fully funded and currently under construction) Post 2020 General Plan Without Project Recommendations are summarized on Exhibit M. 10.3 Post 2020 General Plan With Project Washington Street at Avenue 50: Install a third northbound through lane, a second southbound left turn lane, a southbound right turn lane with right turn overlap 10-3 Exhibit M Post 2020 (General Plan Without Project Recommendations Legend: = Install Traffic Signal •••••• = Unpaved Road L_ = Defacto Right Turn RTO = Right Turn Overlap 1 N 0655-07-01(O.M) EDEN ROCK (TTM 33226) TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of La Quinta, California la -4 engineering group, inc. phase, second eastbound left turn lane, a second eastbound through lane, a second westbound through lane, and a westbound right turn overlap phase. (Project Fair - Share improvements) Jefferson Street at Avenue 50: Install a second southbound left turn lane, a second eastbound left turn lane, and a second westbound through lane. (Project Fair -Share improvements) Jefferson Street at 54" Avenue: Install a traffic signal. (Improvement included in City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study) Madison Street at 54th Avenue: Install a traffic signal with an eastbound right turn overlap phase. (Improvement included in City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study); Install a first and second northbound through lane, a southbound left turn lane, a first and second southbound through lane, a southbound right turn lane, an eastbound left turn lane, a westbound left turn lane, and a westbound right turn lane. (Improvements fully funded and currently under construction) Post 2020 General Plan With Project Recommendations are summarized on Exhibit N. As shown on Table 6, a significant adverse cumulative impact is anticipated to occur for Post 2020 General Plan With Project conditions at the intersections of Washington Street at Avenue 50, Jefferson Street at Avenue 50, and Jefferson Street at 54th Avenue. However, with the installation of all recommended improvements, all studied intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service. 10-5 Exhibit N Post 2020 General Plan With Project Recommendations Y N N 0655-07-01 (ExM) engineering EDEN ROCK (TTM 33226) TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of La Quinta, Callfomia group, inc. 10-6 4111 Lk To -11 IN �+} Ave. 48 1 tr I I Project Fair -Share c Improvments au Ave. 50 Ave. 52 Traffic Signal is Warranted for Existing Conditions.' And Included in the City's Development T 0-1 Impact Fee (DIF) Study.Ilk 54th Ave. All Improvemer r1l Shown for Madi J LL m e St. at 54th are f— I1 f r^ funded and currently under Legend: + SITE construction. =Install Traffic Signal Alr ort Blvd. Z = Street Improvement •••••• = Unpaved Road Ln F4 1__ = Defacto Right Turn RTO = Right Turn Overlap t F r N 0655-07-01 (ExM) engineering EDEN ROCK (TTM 33226) TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of La Quinta, Callfomia group, inc. 10-6 11.0 Conclusions Based upon this analysis of Existing, Existing Plus Project, and Post 2020 General Plan traffic conditions, all study area intersections are projected to perform at satisfactory levels of service with the implementation of the recommendations included in this report, Therefore, the proposed Eden Rock (TTM 33226) development can be accommodated within the City of La Quinta's existing standards for acceptable levels of service for roadways and intersections. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 11-2 Appendix A Traffic Count Worksheets Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N -S STREET: Washington St DATE: 5/10/2007 LOCATION: City of La Quinta E -W STREET: Ave 50 DAY: THURSDAY PROJECT# 07-3178-002 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND TOTAL NL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 2 1 1 2.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 3 183 18 38 103 12 16 18 4 18 20 46 479 7:15 AM 5 195 24 44 107 16 21 22 8 21 25 49 537 7:30 AM 6 203 22 54 125 19 17 25 6 27 29 64 597 7:45 AM 11 187 20 50 112 15 20 23 7 22 22 71 560 8:00 AM 9 192 25 46 118 12 18 29 9 28 24 80 590 8:15 AM 7 200 23 42 114 21 11 29 4 20 35 83 589 8:30 AM 5 205 16 26 103 12 20 17 7 26 12 61 510 8:45 AM 3 172 19 38 122 11 10 11 3 24 22 56 491 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 49 1537 167 1 338 904 118 133 174 48 186 189 510 4353 I AM Peak Hr Begins at: 730 AM PEAK VOLUMES= 1 33 782 90 1 192 469 67 66 106 26 97 110 298 2336 1 40 1 938 1 108 230 1 563 80 79 1 127 31 116 1 132 358 2803 PEAK HR, FACTOR: 0,979 0.919 0.884 0,915 0.978 CONTROL: Signalized Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N -S, STREET: Washington St DATE: 5/10/2007 LOCATION: City of La Quinta E -W STREET: Ave 50 DAY: THURSDAY PROJECT# 07-3178-002 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 2 1 1 2.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 4332 I - 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 3 136 25 42 176 18 17 20 4 16 16 26 499 2:45 PM 2 130 20 50 190 21 14 30 7 20 21 31 536 3:00 PM 6 148 31 41 201 19 18 26 2 22 20 28 562 3:15 PM 4 140 25 51 187 25 13 20 9 25 22 33 554 3:30 PM 2 147 21 60 196 20 16 27 5 19 25 37 575 3:45 PM 2 133 21 49 183 28 14 23 4 23 19 30 529 4:00 PM 7 146 1S 42 200 21 21 38 5 24 26 43 591 4:15 PM 3 138 35 30 172 13 13 16 6 24 15 21 486 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 29 1118 196 365 I 1505 165 126 I 200 42 173 I 164 249 4332 I PM Peak Hr Begins at: 315 PM VOLUMES = 15 566 85 202 766 94 1 64 108 23 1 91 92 143 1 2249 1 18 1 679 1 102 242 1 919 113 77 1 130 28 109 1 110 172 2699 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.974 0.962 0.762 0.876 0.951 CONTROL: Signalized Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N -S STREET: Washington St DATE: 5/10/2007 LOCATION: City of La Quinta E -W STREET: Ave 52 DAY: THURSDAY PROJECT# 07-3178-003 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 0 1 0 1.5 0.5 2 2 2 0 1 2 1 3627 I 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 0 2 0 54 1 42 182 66 1 0 19 18 385 7:15 AM 0 5 0 60 0 53 206 78 3 0 23 22 450 7:30 AM 1 4 1 65 3 73 188 75 0 2 23 40 475 7:45 AM 1 4 1 62 3 58 170 90 1 0 38 44 472 8:00 AM 2 3 1 52 5 53 176 82 1 0 34 38 447 8:15 AM 1 7 0 55 7 65 185 78 2 1 29 33 463 8:30 AM 0 5 2 66 4 68 175 91 0 2 41 45 499 8:45 AM 3 8 1 60 6 55 156 71 1 0 35 40 436 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES= 8 38 6 474 I 29 467 1438 I 631 9 5 I 242 280 3627 I AM Peak Hr Begins at: 745 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 4 19 4 235 19 244 706 3414 3 142 160 1881 51 231 5 2821 231 293' 8471 4091 5 41 1701 192 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.844 1 0.902 0.988 0.866 0.94? CONTROL: Signalized Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N -S STREET: Washington St DATE: 5/10/2007 LOCATION: City of La Qulnta E -W STREET: Ave 52 DAY: THURSDAY PROJECT# 07-3178-003 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 0 1 0 1.5 0.5 2 2 2 0 1 2 1 3502 I 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 1 6 5 59 1 100 84 48 0 0 48 56 408 2:45 PM 0 7 3 76 3 118 81 44 1 0 56 40 429 3:00 PM 1 3 1 77 1 113 76 47 1 2 50 45 417 3:15 PM 2 7 2 67 2 119 95 43 1 6 64 56 464 3:30 PM 1 4 1 73 3 122 79 SO 0 1 59 49 442 3:45 PM 3 5 3 58 2 114 72 54 2 1 54 52 420 4:00 PM 1 10 2 78 1 134 86 58 1 3 63 45 482 4:15 PM 2 7 1 65 4 104 90 53 3 1 55 55 440 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 11 49 18 553 I 17 924 663 397 9 14 I 449 398 3502 I PM Peak Hr Begins at: 315 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 7 26 8 276 8 489 1 332 205 4 11 240 202 1808 81 311 10 331 101 587 3981 246 5 131 2881 88 242 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.788 0.907 0.933 0,899 0,938 CONTROL: Signalized Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N -S STREET: Jefferson St DATE: 5/10/2007 LOCATION: City of La Quinta E -W STREET: Ave 50 DAY: THURSDAY PROJECT# 07-3178-005 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND TOTAL NL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6:00 AM — -- 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 12 123 12 33 122 68 35 32 3 3 50 39 532 7:15 AM 15 102 9 36 66 68 73 48 9 12 61 33 532 7:30 AM 5 141 12 33 125 54 62 45 18 24 69 36 624 7:45 AM 21 102 15 24 102 76 67 44 15 13 65 39 583 8:00 AM 6 126 24 27 125 57 32 32 6 14 34 36 519 8:15 AM 6 132 18 28 162 52 35 63 12 11 37 17 573 8:30 AM 12 117 9 24 96 35 49 29 18 31 58 23 501 8:45 AM 15 129 3 12 76 28 16 20 2 27 38 24 390 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR Si- ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 92 972 102 217 874 438 369 I 313 83 135 412 247 4254 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 730 AM PEAK VOLUMES 38 501 69 112 514 239 196 184 51 461 6011 83 134' 6171 287 2351 2211 61 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.962 0.894 0.855 CONTROL: Signalized 62 205 128 2299 741 2461 154 0.766 0.921 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N -S STREET: Jefferson St DATE: 5/10/2007 LOCATION: City of La Quinta E -W STREET: Ave 50 DAY: THURSDAY PROJECT# 07-3178-005 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4850 I 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 10 120 21 55 57 22 47 45 3 22 41 27 470 2:45 PM 16 146 12 71 129 26 97 52 2 27 34 24 636 3:00 PM 18 159 15 59 96 22 38 38 4 20 29 30 528 3:15 PM 13 191 6 55 102 24 36 97 2 39 30 47 642 3:30 PM 12 185 12 66 150 29 18 83 5 47 45 49 701 3:45 PM 16 175 21 41 75 22 36 73 6 49 42 12 568 4:00 PM 19 172 27 34 79 29 39 63 2 70 42 26 602 4:15 PM 12 187 32 48 94 38 51 77 6 83 41 34 703 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 116 1335 146 429 I 782 212 362 I 528 30 357 I 304 249 4850 I PM Peak Hr Begins at: 330 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 59 719 92 189 398 118 144 296 19 1 249 170121 2574 711 8631 110 227 4781 142 1731 3551 23 2991 204 145 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.942 0.719 0.856 0.854 0.915 CONTROL: Signalized Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N -S STREET: Jefferson St DATE: 5/10/2007 LOCATION: City of La Quinta E -W STREET: Ave 52 DAY: THURSDAY PROJECT# 07-3178-006 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 3546 I - 6:00 AM N 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 13 28 14 26 74 3 15 20 21 0 10 26 250 7:15 AM 20 45 15 42 99 6 23 31 27 0 8 36 352 7:30 AM 8 60 17 35 102 17 24 58 53 1 14 53 442 7:45 AM 7 100 24 24 75 36 30 76 63 1 20 46 502 8:00 AM 23 95 42 27 118 48 42 98 55 4 22 57 631 8:15 AM 16 107 30 9 78 42 23 89 36 9 31 53 523 8:30 AM 13 97 24 12 82 36 15 82 48 0 17 37 463 8:45 AM 3 86 15 15 69 18 24 64 33 3 20 33 383 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 103 618 181 190 I 697 206 196 518 336 18 142 341 3546 I AM Peak Hr Begins at: 745 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 59 399 120 72 353162 110 345 707_ 14 90 193 2119 711 4791 144 24 194 861 4241 1321 414 242 171 1081 232 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.903 0.760 0.842 0.798 0.840 CONTROL: Roundabout Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National data & Surveying Services N -S STREET: Jefferson St DATE: 5/10/2007 LOCATION: City of La Quinta E -W STREET: Ave 52 DAY: THURSDAY PROJECT# 07-3178-006 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 4 112 8 10 43 13 2 31 17 3 16 28 287 2:45 PM 3 142 3 4 68 16 1 44 24 1 23 37 366 3:00 PM 18 107 14 17 101 26 9 49 32 4 62 52 491 3:15 PM 13 117 33 40 133 43 12 77 56 15 82 64 685 3:30 PM 20 143 42 50 110 35 14 69 74 11 68 62 698 3:45 PM 16 161 27 32 100 42 27 86 52 9 44 52 648 4:00 PM 14 147 21 25 80 32 13 73 47 13 29 47 541 4:15 PM 26 167 36 43 97 45 24 78 57 21 53 63 710 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST 5R EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 114 1096 184 1 221 732 252 102 I 507 359 77 I 377 405 1 4426 PM Peals Hr Begins at: 330 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 76 618 126 150 387 154 78 306 230 54 194 224 2597 911 7421 151 180 464 185 941 367 276 651 2331269 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.895 0.886 0.930 0.837 0.914 CONTROL: Roundabout Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N -S STREET: PGA Blvd -Jefferson St DATE: 5/10/2007 LOCATION: City of La Quinta E -W STREET: 54th Ave DAY: THURSDAY PROJECT# 07-3178-007 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND TOTAL NL NT f NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 0 10 3 93 33 5 2 0 0 16 1 81 244 7:15 AM 0 32 4 110 32 3 1 0 0 14 1 77 274 7:30 AM 1 35 6 118 30 2 1 1 1 15 2 80 292 7:45 AM 0 36 8 105 38 0 0 0 0 16 0 78 281 8:00 AM 0 34 11 88 42 3 3 1 1 12 0 77 272 8:15 AM 0 37 9 83 39 1 0 0 1 11 0 99 280 8:30 AM 0 40 6 81 35 0 1 1 2 11 1 68 246 8:45 AM 0 35 4 79 37 0 0 0 0 14 0 76 245 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT f Si_. ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 1 259 51 757 286 14 8 3 5 109 5 636 1 2134 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 730 AM »_1;1 VOLUMES = 1 142 34 394 149 6 1 4 2 3 54 2 3341125 PEAK HR. 11 1701 41 4731 1791 7 51 2 4 651 2 401 FACTOR: 0.962 0.915 0.450 0.886 0.963 CONTROL: 4 -Way Stop Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N -S STREET: PGA Blvd -Jefferson St DATE: 5/10/2007 LOCATION: City of La Quinta E -W STREET: 54th Ave DAY: THURSDAY PROJECT# 07-3178-007 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 2927 I - 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 1 28 3 80 52 2 2 2 1 5 1 122 299 2:45 PM 0 38 7 114 54 1 0 0 1 6 0 135 356 3:00 PM 0 40 8 120 51 0 1 1 0 10 0 150 381 3:15 PM 0 36 17 124 60 0 0 0 2 4 0 118 361 3:30 PM 0 37 10 134 61 1 4 1 3 10 2 126 389 3:45 PM 0 44 9 118 65 0 1 1 1 12 0 164 415 4:00 PM 0 49 10 111 66 2 1 0 0 4 4 141 388 4:15 PM 0 45 7 109 56 0 0 0 1 5 1 114 338 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL IT ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 1 317 71 910 I 465 6 9 I 5 9 56 I 8 1070 2927 I PM Peak Hr Begins at: 315 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 0 166 46 487 252 3 01 1991 55 5841 3021 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.898 0.946 CONTROL: 4 -Way Stop 6 2 6 30 6 549 3.553 4 71 21 7 361 71 659 0,438 0,831 0 1)36 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N -S STREET: Madison St DATE: 5/10/2007 LOCATION: City of La Quinta E -W STREET: 54th Ave DAY: THURSDAY PROJECT# 07-3178-008 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND TOTAL NL NT NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 6:00 AM 0 I 172 655 35 I 197 0 1651 I 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 74 6 30 71 3 32 216 7:15 AM 61 5 29 90 1 36 222 7:30 AM 69 7 32 100 5 35 248 7:45 AM 82 3 18 96 7 27 233 8:00 AM 78 4 20 78 7 26 213 8:15 AM 14 3 15 76 5 18 131 8:30 AM 84 3 14 79 4 14 198 8:45 AM 97 2 14 65 3 9 190 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES= 559 0 I 33 0 I 0 0 0 I 172 655 35 I 197 0 1651 I AM Peak Hr Begins at: 700 AM IcEIC/ VOLUMES = 286 0 21 343] 01 25 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.903 CONTROL: 3 -Way Stop N, E & W 09 357 01 oo! ool a01IO311 428 mm m:: 16 130 0 919 191 1561 0 0.913 0.926 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N -S STREET: Madison St DATE: 5/10/2007 LOCATION: City of La Quinta E -W STREET: 54th Ave DAY: THURSDAY PROJECT# 07-3178-008 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 106 1 0 0 0 0 287 - - �. 1:00 PM - 250 0 -- - - 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 100 14 23 62 2 33 234 2:45 PM 98 14 41 94 2 39 288 3:00 PM 131 16 45 93 4 35 324 3:15 PM 99 12 39 88 6 24 268 3:30 PM 108 17 48 98 5 33 309 3:45 PM 139 18 32 86 2 38 315 4:00 PM 122 7 30 82 1 29 271 4:15 PM 103 8 29 87 2 19 248 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR -1 SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 900 0 106 1 0 0 0 0 287 690 24 I 250 0 2257 I PM Peak Hr Begins at: 300 PM PEAK VOLUMES= 1 477 0 63 0 0 00 164 365 17 130 0 1216 5721 01 76 0l 01 0 01 197 438 20+ 156 0 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.860 0.000 0,906 0.919 0.938 CONTROL: 3 -Way Stop N, E & W Appendix B Existing Level of Service Analysis Worksheets EXAM Wed May 30, 2007 15:50:43 Page 4-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) wwwww+wwwwwwww,rw+ww+w*+wwwww+w++w+++ww+w*w++w*w*+w*wwww*www*+*+**w•r+++++w+**+w*,t Intersection #2 Washington St. (NS) / Ave. 50 (EW) Cycle (sec): 80 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.834 Loss Time (sec): 16 (Y+R-4,0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 34.2 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: C wwwwww+wwwwwww*www+wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww++wwwwwwww+w++**+www+wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I------------------------------II---------------11---------------°I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ---------_-- I --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module-- Base odule:Base Vol: 40 938 108 230 563 80 79 127 31 116 132 358 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 40 938 108 230 563 80 79 127 31 116 132 358 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 PHF Volume: 41 959 110 235 576 82 81 130 32 119 135 366 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 41 959 110 235 576 82 81 130 32 119 135 366 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 41 959 110 235 576 82 81 130 32 119 135 366 ------------ I --------------- --------------- II ---------------II-- µ----- --I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.89 0.89 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 O.B5 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.63 0.37 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3610 1615 1805 4455 633 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- Ik--------------- ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.27 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.23 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.18 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.26 0.26 volume/Cap: 0.12 0.87 0.22 0.87 0.48 0.48 0.51 0.39 0.11 0.3B 0.27 0.87 Delay/Veh: 27.5 34.3 21.0 58.8 24.7 24.7 37.7 30.1 28,1 30.0 23.9 46.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adjnel/Veh: 27.5 34.3 21.0 58.8 24.7 24.7 37.7 30.1 28.1 30.0 23.9 46.4 LOS by Move: C C C E C C D C C C C D DesignQueue: 1 17 3 9 8 B 3 5 1 4 5 13 wwwwwwwwwww+w+wwwwwww*www+wwww+wwwwwwwwwwww+ww+++ww++*www+wwwwwwwwwwwwww+wwwwww+ Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww+*++wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww+ww++*++wwww+wwwwww+ww+ Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP I EXPM Wed May 30, 2007 15:54:14 Page 4--1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour ------------------------------------ Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwww*ww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Intersection #2 Washington St. (NS) / Ave. 50 (EW) ww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwww***wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwww*wwwwwwwww Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.676 Loss Time (sec): 16 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 23.5 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: C wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I--------------- --------------- ---------------i� _.... _� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min, Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------ I---------------lg------------------------ ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 18 679 102 242 919 113 77 130 28 109 110 172 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 18 679 102 242 919 113 77 130 28 109 110 172 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 19 714 107 254 966 119 81 137 29 115 116 181 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 19 714 107 254 966 119 81 137 29 115 11.6 182 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 19 714 107 254 966 119 81 137 29 115 116 1B1 -------------------------- �� _.._.•........_-_��--------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.67 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3610 1615 1805 4545 559 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 ---------------------...-��........-------��--------- II---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.20 0.07 0.14 0.21 0.21 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.27 0.27 0.19 0.30 0.30 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.15 Volume/Cap: 0.06 0.73 0.25 0.73 0.71 0.71 0.38 0.53 0.14 0.47 0.40 0.73 Delay/Veh: 21.3 22.7 17.4 30.5 20.3 20.3 25.7 26.4 23.2 25.4 23.8 34.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 21.3 22.7 17.4 30.5 20.3 20.3 25.7 26.4 23.2 25.4 23.8 34.8 LOS by Move: C C 3 C C C C C C C C C DesignQueue: 1 10 3 7 10 10 2 4 1 3 3 5 wwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*w*wwwwwwwwwwww Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. wwwwwwwwwwwwwww,rwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tra£fix 7.8.0115 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP EXAM Wed May 30, 2007 15:50:43 Page 7-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) f Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) wwwwwwwww**wwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*www+wwww*www Intersection #5 Jefferson St. (NS) / Ave. 50 (EW) w*www*,rwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.685 Loss Time (sec): 16 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 25.4 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: C wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww**wwwwwww*wwwwww Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------- --------------- --------- --------------- ,II ...-----------� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 •--------------------------- ------ ---------------- ---------------- Volume - _--------Volume Module: Base Vol: 46 601 83 134 617 287 235 221 61 74 246 154 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 46 601 83 134 617 287 235 221 61 74 246 154 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 50 653 90 145 670 312 255 240 66 80 267 167 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 50 653 90 145 670 312 255 240 66 80 267 167 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 50 653 90 145 670 312 255 240 66 80 267 167 ------------ I -------------- I'll---------------- --------------- ---------------{ Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 5187 1615 1805 5187 1615 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 ------------ I --------------- (--------------- ►--------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.13 0.06 0.08 0.13 0.19 0.14 0.13 0.04 0.04 0.14 0.10 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.25 0.25 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 Volume/Cap: 0.24 0.66 0.29 0.46 0.52 0.77 0.77 0.66 0.22 0.25 0.77 0.57 Delay/Veh: 24.7 24.2 21.4 23.2 19.7 29.6 33.8 27.1 20.9 21.8 33.4 24.9 User De1Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 24.7 24.2 21.4 23.2 19.7 29.6 33.8 27.1 20.9 21.8 33.4 24.9 LOS by Move: C C C C B C C C C C C C DesignQueue: 1 7 2 4 6 8 7 7 2 2 8 5 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. :rwwwwww*ww*wwwwwww*wwwwwwtwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwww Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP EXPM Wed May 30, 2007 15:54:14 Page 7-1 ----------------• --------------------------------•------.......-- Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) +**wwww+wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwww+***++*ww*+*+ww**wwwwwww*wwwwww*www*www Intersection #5 Jefferson St. (NS) / Ave. 50 (EW) +w+ww++wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww+wwwwwwwwwwwwwww++*+www+wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Cycle (sec): 75 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.896 Loss Time (sec): 16 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 38.0 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: D wwwwwwww+ww++w*+w++www+*www+wwwwwwwwwwww+wwwwwwwwwwwwwww++ww+ww+w+wwwwwwww*www+w Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- �� ------------s�-------------- ��-------------- � Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 - - - ---------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 71 863 110 227 478 142 173 355 23 299 204 145 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 71 863 110 227 478 142 173 355 23 299 204 145 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 78 943 120 248 522 155 189 388 25 327 223 158 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 78 943 120 248 522 155 189 386 25 327 223 158 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 78 943 120 248 522 155 189 388 25 327 223 158 ------------ {--------------- --------------- --------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 5187 1615 1805 5187 1615 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 ------------ {---------------{------------------------------- --------------- Capacity -------- -----Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.18 0.07 0.14 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.02 0.18 0.12 0.10 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.23 0.23 0.20 0.23 0.23 Volume/Cap: 0.25 0.90 0.37 0.90 0.54 0.52 0.52 0.90 0.07 0.90 0.52 0.43 Delay/Veh: 27.3 39.2 26.4 59.9 28.3 29.2 27.9 48.7 22.8 52.6 26.5 25.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 27.3 39.2 26.4 59.9 28.3 29.2 27.9 48.7 22.8 52.6 26.5 25.6 LOS by Move: C D C E C C C D C D C C DesignQueue: 3 12 4 9 7 5 6 13 1 11 7 5 wwwwwwww+wwwwwwwwww+wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*www+wwww+wwwwwwwwww+w+wwww+*+ Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. wwwwww+++w++ww+wwwww++wwwwww+w+wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww+www+wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww+++ Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP EXAM Wed May 30, 2007 15:50:43 Page 9-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour ------------------------------------------------ Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4 -Way Stop Method (Base volume Alternative) #****#*##***wwww*w**w***##*****###*****w**w*****###****w*www***ww*#*#**#****w*ww Intersection #7 Jefferson St. -PGA Blvd. (NS) / 54th Ave. (EW) *w#**#wwwww*ww***ww***w##***wwwwwww*wwwwwww**w***#ww*w**#**w**ww*www********#*** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.767 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 17.8 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: C ww*w*w*ww*w******#**#***w*w#ww*wwwww***ww*w*****#w**w*******ww*wwww*Www*ww****ww Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------------- --------------- ---------------11----------------I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II --------------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 1 170 41 473 179 7 5 2 4 65 2 401 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1 170 41 473 179 7 5 2 4 65 2 401 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 1 177 43 491 186 7 5 2 4 67 2 416 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 1 177 43 491 186 7 5 2 4 67 2 416 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 1 177 43 491 186 7 5 2 4 67 2 416 ------------ I --------------- ---•------------I�- Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 406 873 473 962 1017 559 363 382 413 451 478 543 -----•----I---------------II---------------��- - -.. �I- - - -- ----� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.20 0.09 0.51 0.18 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.77 Crit moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 10.9 12.2 10.4 17.1 11.0 8.9 11.7 11.1 10.5 11.7 9.9 26.3 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 10.9 12.2 10.4 17.1 11.0 8.9 11.7 11.1 10.5 11.7 9.9 26.3 LOS by Move: B B B C B A B B B B A D ApproachDel: 11.9 15.3 11.2 24.2 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 11.9 15.3 11.2 24.2 LOS by Appr: B C B C Al1WayAvgQ: 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.6 **********##**w******wwwww**www**#**#*ww*wwwwww*w*#**w*****####*#www*wwww#www*w* Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ****w*************##***#*wwwww*wwww**k#*****w#**w**#********w***********w******* Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP F-7 ft r._ EXPM Wed May 30, 2007 15:54:14 Page 9-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ft 2000 HCM 4 -Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #7 Jefferson St. -PGA Blvd. (NS) / 54th Ave. (EW) Cycle (Sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.454 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 96.5 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level of Service: F ww*wwww*w**w**w*w***************w*wwww*w**w******wwwwwwww******w*wwwwwwww******* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound west Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- f1--------------- II-------------- 11 ------------! Control: Stop sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------ I --------- f1---------------II---------------11---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 199 55 584 302 4 7 2 7 36 7 659 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse; 0 199 55 584 302 4 7 2 7 36 7 659 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 0 213 59 624 323 4 7 2 7 38 7 704 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol; 0 213 59 624 323 4 7 2 7 38 7 704 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 213 59 624 323 4 7 2 7 3B 7 704 ------------ --------------- ----•-------- ------------- --11---•------------I Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 371 789 425 900 955 523 330 346 371 401 422 484 ------------ I ---------------II--------------- ---------------II-,,.----------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.27 0.14 0.69 0.34 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.02 1.45 Crit Moves: *ww* *ww* **** **** Delay/Veh: 0.0 14.7 12.1 26.5 13.9 9.5 13.1 12.5 11.9 12.2 11.0 236.1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 14.7 12.1 26.5 13.9 9.5 13.1 12.5 11.9 12.2 11.0 236.1 LOS by Move: * B B D B A B B B B B F ApproachDel: 14.1 22.2 12.5 222.4 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 14.1 22.2 12.5 222.4 LOS by Appr: B C B F AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.3 0.1 2.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.1 0,0 30.4 wwww**w*w*w**********w*w***www******w******www*****w****w*w*wwwwwww**ww********* Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. TraffiX 7.8.0115 (C) 2007 Dowling Assoc, Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP EXAM Wed May 30, 2007 15:50:43 Page 10-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4 -Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) w+wwwwwwwww++ww**+wwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwww+wwww+wwwwwwwww++**www*+ww*+**wwwwwwwwww Intersection 410 Madison St. (NS) / 54th Ave. (EW) wwwwwwwwwwwwww+wwww+wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww++wwwwwwwwwwwww+www+wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.686 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 14.5 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: B wwwwwwwwwwww**wwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwww+wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------------- ---------------- -------------�I - -! Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 ------------------------------------------��- ------- --------- volume ------ volume Module: Base Vol: 343 0 25 0 0 0 0 131 428 19 156 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 343 0 25 0 0 0 0 131 428 19 156 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHF Volume: 370 0 27 0 0 0 0 141 462 21 168 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 370 0 27 0 0 0 0 141 462 21 168 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 370 0 27 0 0 0 0 141 462 21 16B 0 ------------ I -------_-------II--------------- --------------- ---------------i Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.89 0.00 Final Sat.: 1016 0 607 0 0 0 0 592 674 62 506 0 ------------ - ��--------------- ---------------- Capacity ---------Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.36 xxxx 0.04 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.24 0.69 0.33 0.33 xxxx Crit Moves: **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 13.2 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 1B.2 12.1 12.1 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 13.2 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 1B.2 12.1 12.1 0.0 LOS by Move: B * A * * * * B C B B ApproachDel: 12.9 xxxxxx 16.4 12.1 Delay Adj: 1.00 xxxxx 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 12.9 xxxxxx 16.4 12.1 LOS by Appr: B * C B AllWayAvgQ: 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.9 015 0.5 0.5 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwww**wwwwwwwwwwwwww+wwwwwwwwwwwwwww+ww*+ww++wwwwwwwwwwww Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. wwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww+wwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww+ Traffix 7,8.0115 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP EXPM Wed May 30, 2007 15:54:14 Page 10-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Existing Conditions i PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4 -Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) **********#*#*##*#*************#*#*##*******************************#*********** Intersection 410 Madison St. (NS) / 54th Ave. (EW) Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.789 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 19.9 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level of Service: C *****#***********###**#*#**#*********w**#*****************#*#******************# Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ----------_-- I---------------II---------------II---------------I I..------------� Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 ------------ I---------------II---------------II-------------- II V- ___-__-____..-_ Volume Module: I Base Vol: 572 0 76 0 0 0 0 197 438 20 156 0 I Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 572 0 76 0 0 0 0 197 438 20 156 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 610 0 81 0 0 0 0 210 467 21 166 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 610 0 81 0 0 0 0 210 467 21 166 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 FinalVolume: 610 0 81 0 0 0 0 210 467 21 166 0 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- Saturation ---------Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 0,89 0,00 Final Sat.: 995 0 591 0 0 0 0 528 592 59 457 0 ------------ p ---------------- II---------------- II... -----------II---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.61 xxxx 0.14 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.40 0.79 0.36 0.36 xxxx Crit Moves: **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 20.1 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 26.8 13.6 13.6 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 20.1 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 26.8 13.6 13.6 0.0 LOS by Move: C * A * * * * B D B B ApproachDel: 18.9 xxxxxx 22.7 13,6 Delay Adj: 1.00 xxxxx 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 18.9 xxxxxx 22.7 13,6 LOS by Appr: C * C B Al1WayAvgQ: 1.4 0.0 0,2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,6 3.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane, *********#***#*#*##*#w**ww****ww****#***##w#wrw*w#wwww**w#w*#**wwwww#wwwwwwwwww* Traffix 7.8.0115 (C) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP Appendix C Existing Plus Project Level of Service Analysis Worksheets E + A + P AM Sun Aug 12, 2007 00:29:13 Page 5-1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) !!! Existing Plus Project Conditions AM Peak Hour ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Washington St. (NS) / Ave. 50 (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 85 Critical Vol./Cap.(R): O.835 Loss Time (sec): 16 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 35.2 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: D Approach: North Sound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R -.. ---------- I --------------- 11 ---------------- 11 --------------- 11-- ------- ---- Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------- I --------------- 11--------------- ll--------------- ---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 40 938 108 230 563 80 79 127 31 116 132 358 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 40 938 108 230 563 80 79 127 31 116 132 358 Added Vol: 0 B 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 40 946 108 232 564 80 79 127 31 116 132 369 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.90 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 PHF Volume: 41 967 110 237 577 82 81 130 32 119 135 377 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 41 967 110 237 577 82 81 130 32 119 135 377 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 41 967 110 237 577 82 81 130 32 119 135 377 --- -.u_-...._.-I---II-------------..11---------------11---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.89 0.69 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.63 0.37 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3610 1615 1805 4456 632 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- 11---------------- 1f---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.27 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.23 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.18 0.31 0.31 0.15 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.27 0.27 Volume/Cap: 0.13 0.67 0.22 0.87 0.46 0.46 0.54 0.39 0.11 0.37 0.26 0.87 Delay/Veh: 29.5 35.2 22.0 59.5 25.5 25.5 41.6 31.7 29.6 31.6 24.7 46.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 29.5 35.2 22.0 59.5 25.5 25.5 41.6 33..7 29.6 31.6 24.7 46.3 LOS by Move: C D C E C C D C C C C D DesignQueue: 2 1B 4 10 8 €t 4 5 1 5 5 14 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traf£ix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + P PM- Sun Aug 12, 2007 00:29:55Page51 ----_-_r`r---'^^ Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Existing Plus Project Conditions PM Peak Hour ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) *******w*****wwww*w****w****ww*w*w****w**ww***w***********w**w****ww***w******** Intersection #2 Washington St. (NS) / Ave. 50 (EW) w*wwwww*w**w*ww****ww*w*****+******www*w**************wwwww**www***ww*********w* Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.689 Loss Time (sec): 16 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh); 23.9 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: C wwwww**********www*w*ww***w********wwwwwww***********wwwwww*wwwwwwww**********w* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L T - R ---------------------------��- ---- -.. ..��----------- --....I I--------� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ---,--------- --------------- {--------------- --------------•- ---------------� volume Module: Base Vol: 18 679 102 242 919 113 77 130 28 109 110 172 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 18 679 102 242 919 113 77 130 28 109 110 172 Added Vol: 0 3 0 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 18 682 102 252 926 113 77 130 28 109 110 177 User Adj: 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 19 717 107 265 974 119 81 137 29 115 116 186 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 19 717 107 265 974 119 61 137 29 115 116 186 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 FinalVolume: 19 717 107 265 974 119 81 137 29 115 116 186 - ----- -•------- I - ------------- ---------- --------------- ---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.67 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3610 1615 1805 4549 555 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 -- ----------- I ----_--------- f_-,.._.. .._..------��__.......-------- ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.20 0.07 0.15 0.21 0.21 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.12 Crit Moves **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.27 0.27 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 Volume/Cap: 0,06 0.75 0.25 0.75 0.72 0.72 0.38 0.53 0.13 0.47 0.39 0.75 Delay/Veh: 21.,3 23.4 17.6 31.2 20.4 20.4 25.7 26.3 23.1 25.4 23.7 36.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 21,3 23.4 1.7.6 31.2 20.4 20.4 25.7 26.3 23,1 25.4 23.7 36.0 LOS by Move: C C B C C C C C C C C D DesignQueue: 1 10 3 7 10 10 2 4 1 3 3 5 *w**************wwww*******ww***w*******www*************wwwwwww*ww*****w**wwwwww Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. *w**ww**www****ww*w*w*ww**ww**w*wwww********************************www*www***** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + P AM Sun Aug 12, 2007 00:29:13 Page 7--1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Existing Plus Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)' wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww**wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Intersection #5 Jefferson St. (NS) / Ave, 50 (EW) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwww Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.694 Loss Time (sec): 16 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 25.5 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: C wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ _--------------II--------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 --- - --- --I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------r Volume Module: Base Vol: 46 601 83 134 617 287 235 221 61 74 246 154 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 46 601 83 134 617 287 235 221 61 74 246 154 Added Vol: 11 82 3 0 15 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 57 683 86 134 632 287 235 221 63 75 246 154 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 62 742 93 145 686 312 255 240 68 81 267 167 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 62 742 93 145 686 312 255 240 68 81 267 1.67 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 62 742 93 145 686 312 255 240 68 81 267 167 ------------ 4--------------- II_ -...-..---------II--------------- II ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 5187 1615 1805 5187 1615 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 ------------- I --------------- 1I --------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.14 0.06 0.08 0.13 0.19 0.14 0.13 0.04 0.05 0.14 0.10 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.25 0.25 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 Volume/Cap: 0.29 0.71 0.29 0.49 0.53 0.77 0.77 0.66 0.22 0.26 0.77 0.57 Delay/Veb: 25.0 24.5 20.8 24.0 19.8 29.6 33.8 27.1 20.9 21.8 33.4 24.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veb: 25.0 24.5 20.8 24.0 19.8 29.6 33.8 27.1 20.9 21.8 33.4 24.9 LOS by Move: C C C C B C C C C C C C DesignQueue: 2 8 3 4 7 8 7 7 2 2 8 5 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane, xwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP MITIG8 - E + A + P PM Sun Aug 12, 2007 04:08:13 Page 1-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Existing Plus Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) wwr*,rw*wirw*wwwwww:rw*r*+wtwxwwwwwwwww*wwww*,twwwwwwwwwww*w*wwi.wwwwwwwxwww*w*ww�.,twt Intersection #5 Jefferson St. (NS) / Ave. 50 (EW) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww,rwwww*wirwwwwwwwwwwwww**wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwkwwww*wwwww*zwwww*wwwww Cycle (sec): 80 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.893 Loss Time (see): 16 (Y+R=4,0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 38.6 Optimal Cycle: 99 Level Of Service: D wwwwwwirwwwwwwxwww,rwwwwwwwwwwwwwwr*wwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wi.*www+rwwwwwww Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I------------------------11---------------II---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 -------- --1-----------------II------------ II ---------------1 ----------_-----1 volume Module: Base Vol: 71 863 110 227 478 142 173 355 23 299 204 145 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 71 863 '110 227 478 142 173 355 23 299 204 145 Added Vol: 5 38 2 0 78 0 0 0 10 3 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 76 901 112 227 556 142 173 355 33 302 204 145 User Adj; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 83 985 122 248 608 155 189 388 36 330 223 158 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'Reduced Vol: 83 985 122 248 608 155 189 388 36 330 223 158 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 83 985 122 248 608 155 189 388 36 330 223 158 ------------ 1 --------------- II--------------- 11 11 -------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 0.95 1.00 0,85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 5187 1615 1805 5187 1615 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 -------------1---------------11- .-------------11------------ ...-_I1-------------.-1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.19 0.08 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.02 0.18 0.12 0.10 Crit Moves: *www wwww wwww *www Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.23 0.23 0,20 0.23 0.23 Volume/Cap: 0.29 0.89 0.36 0.89 0.56 0.46 0.51 0.89 0.10 0.89 0.51 0.43 Delay/Veh: 30.4 40.0 27,5 61.4 28.9 28.6 29.5 50.1 24.5 53.8 28.0 27.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 30.4 40.0 27.5 61.4 28.9 28.6 29.5 50.1 24.5 53.8 2B.0 27.2 LOS by Move: C D C E C C C D C D C C DesignQueue: 3 13 4 10 8 6 7 14 1 12 8 6 ,r wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*www Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. *wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww�wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww,rwtwt,r*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwt**www+rwww Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + P AM Sun Aug 12, 2007 00:29:13 Page B-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Existing Plus Project Conditions AM Peak Hour --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4 -Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) wwwwwwwww*wwwwww**wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww***wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*www Intersection #7 Jefferson St. -PGA Blvd. (NS) / 54th Ave. (EW) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*www*wwwwww Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap,(X): 0.819 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.D sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 20.0 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: C wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------ I ---------------- II--------------- II--------------- 11---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 1 170 41 473 179 7 5 2 4 65 2 401 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.D0 1.00 Initial Bse: 1 170 41 473 179 7 5 2 4 65 2 401 Added Vol: 0 106 2 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 1 276 43 473 199 7 5 2 4 65 2 401 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 1 287 45 491 207 7 5 2 4 67 2 416 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 1 287 45 491 207 7 5 2 4 67 2 416 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj.- 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 1 287 45 491 207 7 5 2 4 67 2 416 ------------ I--------------- II----------------- II--------------- II-----------.-----� Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2,00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 397 858 460 912 956 520 342 358 385 424 447 509 ------------I---------------11---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.33 0.10 0.54 0.22 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.82 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 11.2 14.3 10.7 16.6 11.8 9.3 12.3 11.7 11.1 12.3 10.4 32.3 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 11.2 14.3 10.7 18.6 11.8 9.3 12.3 11.7 11.1 12.3 10.4 32,3 LOS by Move: B B B C B A B B B B B D ApproachDel: 13.8 16.5 11.7 29.4 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 13.8 16,5 11.7 29.4 LOS by Appr: B C B D AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.2 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwww:rwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwww,rw,t*,tw*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwirw**w* Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 7,9.0415 (C) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + P AM Sun Aug 12, 2007 04:13:31 Page 4-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Existing Plus Project With Improvements Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) wwwwwwwwwwwwwww,twwwwx*x*wwwww*w*wwwwww**w*ww**w**ww**wwwwwwwxww*w**w*,r**wwwww*ww Intersection #7 Jefferson St. -PGA Blvd. (NS) / 54th Ave. (EW) wwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww**wwwwwwwwwxxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwxwwww*wwwww*wwww*wwwwwww Cycle (sec): 65 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.586 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 21.2 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: C www*wwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwxwwwwwwwwww Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------. . .. I --------------- --------------- --------------- .._1I----------------1 Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 -------__--- I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol; 1 170 41 473 179 7 5 2 4 65 2 401 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1 170 41 473 179 7 5 2 4 65 2 401 Added Vol: 0 106 2 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVo1: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 1 276 43 473 199 7 5 2 4 65 2 401 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 1 267 45 491 207 7 5 2 4 67 2 416 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 1 287 45 491 207 7 5 2 4 67 2 416 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ML? Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Finalvolume: 1 287 45 491 207 7 5 2 4 67 2 416 ---------- -I --------------- fl---------------- fl--------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.B5 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.77 1.00 0.85 0.77 1.00 0,B5 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2,00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3610 1615 3502 3610 1615 1457 1900 1615 1457 1900 1615 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- Capacity ------------ Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.08 0.03 0.14 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.26 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.19 0.14 0.14 0.24 0,19 0.19 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.59 0.20 0.59 0.31 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.59 Delay/Veh: 21.5 28.2 25.4 22.9 23.0 21.6 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.7 10.2 15.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 21.5 28.2 25.4 22.9 23.0 21.6 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.7 10.2 15.0 LOS by Move: C C C C C C B B B B B B DesignQueue: 0 5 1 7 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 wxwwwwwwwxwxwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwww*wwwwwxwx Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. wwwwwxxxwxwwwxwwwxxwxwwwwwwwwxwwwww+wwwwxwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*www Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc, Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + P PM Sun Aug 12, 2007 00:29:55 Page 8-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Existing Plus Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4 -Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) wwwwwwwwwwwwwxx*wxxxwwxxwwxwwxwxwwxwxxwwwxwwwwwxxxwxxxw+wwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwxwwwxx Intersection 47 Jefferson St. -PGA Blvd, (NS) / 54th Ave. (EW) xxxxwxxwxww*xx:rwwx*wwwww**wxwwxwxwwwxwxwwxwxxww,r**w+r*wwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxa Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol../Cap.(X): 1.553 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 106.0 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: F xwx*wxwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwxwxwwwwwwxwwxxwwwxxx*wxwxxwx,rwwwwwwwxwwwxwwwwxwwwww**xwwxwx Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------_--- I ---------------II--------------- --------------- ---------------I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------I---------------11---------------) --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 199 55 584 302 4 7 2 7 36 7 659 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 199 55 584 302 4 7 2 7 36 7 659 Added Vol: 0 49 1 0 100 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 248 56 584 402 4 7 2 7 38 7 659 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0,94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 0 265 60 624 429 4 7 2 7 41 7 704 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 265 60 624 429 4 7 2 7 41 7 704 PCE Adj: 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 FinalVolume: 0 265 60 624 429 4 7 2 7 41 7 704 ------------ ( --------------- ---------------14--------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 355 759 406 880 932 507 312 326 348 374 392 453 ------------I---------------11---------------I[--------------- --------------- Capacity -------- ----Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.35 0.15 0.71 0.46 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.11 0.02 1,55 Crit Moves: wxwx wwwx wxxw xxx* Delay/Veh: 0.0 16.5 12,6 28.1 16.6 9.7 13.7 13.0 12.4 12.9 11.5 280.3 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 0.0 16.5 12,6 26.1 16.6 9.7 13.7 13.0 12.4 12.9 11.5 280.3 LOS by Move: * C B D C A B B B B B F ApproachDel: 15.8 23.4 13.1 263.2 Delay Adj: 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 15.8 23,4 13.1 263.2 LOS by Appr: C C S F AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0,5 0.2 2.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 33.9 xxxx,rxx*xw*:r*wwxxwx**+xwxwwx***wwxwwwwwwwwtxxwwwwrcwxw*w**,r*xwwwww**wwwwwww*wwwww Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc, Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + P PM Sun Aug 12, 2007 04:13:53 Page 4-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Existing Plus Project with Improvements Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) www**wwwwwww**+rwwwww**w***ww*+rw*wwwwwwww***wwwwwwwwww**wwwwwwwwww**w*www**wwwwww Intersection #7 Jefferson St. -PGA Blvd. (NS) / 54th Ave. (EW) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Cycle (sec): 65 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.843 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 26.9 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: C wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------1---------------II---------------II------------ ll ------I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min, Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------ --------------- ---------------II-------II-------------_...I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 199 55 584 302 4 7 2 7 36 7 659 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 initial Bse: 0 199 55 584 302 4 7 2 7 36 7 659 Added Vol: 0 49 1 0 100 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 248 56 584 402 4 7 2 7 38 7 659 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 0 265 60 624 429 4 7 2 7 41 7 704 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 265 60 624 429 4 7 2 7 41 7 704 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 265 60 624 429 4 7 2 7 41 7 704 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.76 1.00 0.85 0.77 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1900 3610 1615 3502 3610 1615 1450 1900 1615 1457 1900 1615 --_--------- I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.07 0.04 0.18 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.44 Crit Moves; **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.21 0.31 0.31 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.68 0.34 0.87 0.38 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.06 0,01 0.87 Delay/Veh: 0.0 32.8 28.1 35.9 17.6 15.4 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.3 8.1 24.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 32.8 28.1 35.9 17.6 15.4 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.3 8.1 24.1 LOS by Move: A C C D B B A A A A A C DesignQueue: 0 5 2 10 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 14 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwww**wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwww�w*w*wwwwwww Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. wwwwwwwwww***wwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwww Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP MITIG8 - F + A + P AM Mon Oct 29, 2007 15:36:59 Page 1-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Existing Plus Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) *wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*******wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww**ww*wwwwwwwwww**wwwwwwww*www*www Intersection #8 PGA Blvd. (NS) / Westerly Project Access (EW) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww**wwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwww*wwwwwww Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.0 Worst Case Level of Service: A[ 9.4] wwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww***ww**www**wwww*wwww*www*wwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------- I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes; 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- Il 1 volume Module: Base Vol: 0 211 0 0 248 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 211 0 0 248 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 211 D 20 248 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Adj: 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 211 D 20 248 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 ReducC Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 211 0 20 248 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 ---------------------------EI---------------II---------------II---------------1 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2,2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Capacity Module: Cntlict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 211 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 106 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1372 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 935 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1372 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 935 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.12 ------------I-------_...---_I I.....------------II---------------II---------------I Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0,0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.4 Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 9.4 LOS by Move: * * * A * * * * * * * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.4 ApproachLOS: * * * A wwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwww*www*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwww Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. wwwwwwxwwwww*wwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwww Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc, Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP MITIGB -- E + A + P PM Mon Oct 29, 2007 15:38:09 Page 1-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (,TN: 0655-07-01) Existing Plus Project Conditions PM Peak Hour ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww**www***wwwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*** Intersection #j8 PGA Blvd. (NS) / Westerly Project Access (EW) wwww*wwwwww*www*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: A[ 9.21 wwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwww*�*wwwwwwwwww***wwwwww*wwwwwwwww*www**wwwwwwwwwwww Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ------------L--------------�I ------------- --------------- -------------.......� volume Module: Base Vol: 0 254 0 0 345 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 254 0 0 345 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 102 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 254 0 102 345 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume; 0 254 0 102 345 0 0 0 0 0 0 5o Reduct vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 254 0 102 345 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 ------------ --------------- --------------- -__� Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------- Capacity ------ -----Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 254 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 127 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1323 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 906 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1323 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 906 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.08 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.06 ------------ I --------------- --------------- ---------------la---------------I Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.2 Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 9.2 LOS by Move: * * * A * * * * * * * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT -- LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.; xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * w w w w w w w w w ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.2 ApproachLOS: * * * A wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwww*www*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. wwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww***wwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwww Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP F. E + A + P AM Suri Aug 12, 2007 00:29:14 Page 11-1T Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Existing Plus Project Conditions AM Peak Hour ------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4 -Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #10 Madison St. (NS) / 54th Ave. (EW) wwwww+ww++++++++++++w++wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww+ww++++w+++ww+++++w++++w++++*+wwwwwwww Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0,686 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 14.5 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: B w+ww+w+ww+w+wwww+www*++++w+**wwww*+wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww+ww+www*+w+w+*++++ Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------------- ---------------II--------------- II ---------------I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 -- -- --��--------------- ----------------- Volume --------------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 343 0 25 0 0 0 0 131 428 19 156 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 343 0 25 0 0 0 0 131 428 19 156 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 D 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 343 0 25 0 0 0 0 133 428 19 156 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHF Volume: 370 0 27 0 0 0 0 144 462 21 168 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 370 0 27 0 0 0 0 144 462 21 168 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 370 0 27 0 0 0 0 144 462 21 168 0 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- _--------------� Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.89 0.00 Final Sat.: 1016 0 606 0 0 0 0 592 674 62 506 0 ------------- I--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.36 xxxx 0.04 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.24 0.69 0.33 0.33 xxxx Crit Moves: **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 13.2 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 18.2 12.1 12.1 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 13.2 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 18.2 12.1 12.1 0.0 LOS by Move: B * A * * * * B C B B ApproachDel: 12.9 xxxxxx 16.4 12.1 Delay Adj: 1,00 xxxxx 1.00 1,00 ApprAdjDel: 12.9 xxxxxx 16,4 12.1 LOS by Appr: B * C B AllWayAvgQ: 0.5 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.9 0.5 0.5 0.5 *www*******+wwww++++*+*+********+*wwww+wwwww*www*wwwwwww+*ww***+*++w*ww****+++w+ Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + P AM Sun Aug 12, 2007 04:13:31 Page 5-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Existing Plus Project with Improvements Conditions AM Peak Hour ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) *wwww*wwwwwww*w***t**www****w***wwww****w*w**w***w**w*****ww****w****w***##***** Intersection #10 Madison St. (NS) / 54th Ave. (EW) ****ww*******************www**ww****ww**************wwwwww*www********ww****w*** Cycle (sec): 25 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.576 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 7.8 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: A w*www*******w***w*****w***w*******www*ww**#******wwwwwww***w***************+**** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound west Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ----- _- ----_----------II---- - -...._ II--------------- II ---------------I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 ------------ I --------- •------- II--------------- 11-------------- II_...._... Volume Module: Base Vol: 343 0 25 0 0 0 0 131 428 19 156 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse; 343 0 25 0 0 0 0 131 428 19 156 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 343 0 25 0 0 0 0 133 428 19 156 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHF Volume: 370 0 27 0 0 0 0 144 462 21 168 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 370 0 27 0 0 0 0 144 462 21 168 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 MLX Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 370 0 27 0 0 0 0 144 462 21 168 0 ------------ I --------------- 11------------ ---11 --------------- II ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 0.96 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.89 0.00 Final Sat.: 3502 0 1615 0 0 0 0 1900 1615 198 1626 0 -_---------- I ---------------II-- --------- II---------- =----11----------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.29 0.10 0.10 0.00 Crit Moves: **** ***w Green/Cycle: 0.28 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.38 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.72 0.26 0.26 0.00 Delay/Veh: 7.5 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.1 5.2 5.2 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 7.5 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 5.0 10.1 5.2 5.2 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A A A A A A B A A A DesignQueue: 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 2 0 ****ww***********#****ww*wwww*w*ww**w*wwww*w*www*w**ww*******w****#*w*w*wwwww*** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. *wwww*ww*w**w**w*w************ww**x*x*w****w***w*w******ww*****w*w*************w Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + P PM Sun Aug 12, 2007 00:29:55 Page 11-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (,7N: 0655-07-01) Existing Plus Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4 -Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwzwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwzzwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwzwwwzwwwwzwwwwzwwwwz Intersection #10 Madison St. (NS) / 54th Ave. (EW) w,rwz*zwwzzwwwwzwwwwwwwwwwwwz*wwwzwzzwzzwzzzwzw*ww*wzzwzzzwwwzwwwwwwwzwzwzwz*wwwz Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol,/Cap.(X): 0.789 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 20.0 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level of Service: C wwwwwwwwwwwzwzwwwwwwwwzzzzzwwwwzwzwwzwwwwwzwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwzzwzwwwwzwwwwwww Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------11--------------- --------------- ---------------� Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 ------------ ---------------11--------------- --------------- --__--_.--__--_-1 Volume Module: Base Vol; 572 0 76 0 0 0 0 197 43B 20 156 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 initial Bse: 572 0 76 0 0 0 0 197 438 20 156 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 572 0 76 0 0 0 0 198 438 20 158 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 610 0 81 0 0 0 0 211 467 21 168 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 610 0 81 0 0 0 0 211 467 21 168 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Finalvolume: 610 0 Bl 0 0 0 0 211 467 21 168 0 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ----------------� Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.69 0.00 Final Sat.: 994 0 590 0 0 0 0 527 592 58 458 0 -----_---_--- I --------------- --------------- --------------- -..-------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol./Sat: 0.61 xxxx 0.14 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.40 0.79 0.37 0.37 xxxx Crit Moves: **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 20.2 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 26.9 13.6 13.6 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 20.2 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 26.9 13.6 13.6 0.0 LOS by Move: C * A * * * * B D B B ApproachDel: 18.9 xxxxxx 22.8 13.6 Delay Adj: 1.00 xxxxx 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 18.9 xxxxxx 22.8 13.6 LOS by Appr: C * C B Al1WayAvgQ: 1.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 3.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwzwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwzwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*www Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Tra€fix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + P PM Sun Aug 12, 2007 04:13:53 Page 5-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Existing Plus Project With Improvements Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) *****w*w*ww*w#*#**ww*www***w**w*wwwww+*w*#*w*wwww*******www**ww*ww*www**ww**###+ Intersection #10 Madison St. (NS) / 54th Ave. (EW) ******w**#+#w*w***w*#wwwwwwwwwwwx***********+wwwww*www****w****+*****#wwwwwwwwww Cycle (sec): 25 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.681 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 8.4 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level of Service: A wwww*****w***********ww*w#***#***www*www*ww#*ww*w*w*w*#**w*wwwww#*#ww***+*****ww Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ ( --------_------ --------------- --------------- --------- ..--I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 ------------ I---------------��- --......_-f�---------.-.. ��---------------f Volume Module: Base Vol: 572 0 76 0 0 0 0 197 438 20 156 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 572 0 76 0 0 0 0 197 438 20 156 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 572 0 76 0 0 0 0 198 438 20 158 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0,94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 610 0 81 0 0 0 0 211 467 21 168 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 610 0 81 0 0 0 0 211 467 21 168 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 610 0 81 0 0 0 0 211 467 21 168 0 ------------ I --------------- ��---- -------��-------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.95 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.89 0.00 Final Sat.: 3502 0 1615 0 0 0 0 1900 1615 204 1609 0 ------------ I---------------��--------}--------------- 11----------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.17 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.29 0.10 0.10 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.28 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.62 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.72 0.26 0.26 0.00 Delay/Veh: 9.1 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 10.4 5.2 5.2 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 9.1 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 5.3 10.4 5.2 5.2 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A A A A A A B A A A DesignQueue: 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 2 0 ******+***#**w*##w*wwwww*w***********wwwwwwwwwwww****#**wwwwwwww*wwwww****w****w Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. www*w***ww*#*w*#****#+****wwwwwww**w*+***+*******w*w*****+*******##*ww*wxww**www Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP 9 r Appendix D Post 2020 General Plan Without Project Level of Service Analysis Worksheets E + A + C AM Sat Aug 11, 2007 20:30:38 Page 4-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan without Project Conditions AM Peak Hour ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) xwwxwxxxxxwwwxxxxxwwwxwwxwxwwxxwxrx*xxwwx,rxwwwwxxx*xxw*xwx*wxwxwwxwxx*wxw*ww***x Intersection #2 Washington St. (NS) / Ave. 50 (EW) x+x:rxxwwwxxxxwwwwx,rwrcx*wxwxw**xtwxwwxxxwtwxwxxxxwxwxtxwxx*w*wwwxxwxxwxwxxxxwrxww Cycle (sec): 105 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.982 Loss Time (sec): 16 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 56.5 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: E wwx,r*xww,r*xxwwxxxx+rwtxxwxwxx*xx*xrw�,tw�xxwxw*wxww:w*xx*xxwwxwwxxwwxwwxwxwxww**x,r Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I--------------- !l--------------- 11--------------- ll ._._- .-------� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------I---------------11---------------Il---------------II---------------I volume Module: Base Vol: 120 816 155 275 626 451 425 314 93 150 383 225 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 120 816 155 275 626 451 425 314 93 150 383 225 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 120 816 155 275 626 451 425 314 93 150 383 225 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.9B 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 PHF Volume: 122 833 158 281 639 460 434 320 95 153 391 230 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 122 833 158 281 639 460 434 320 95 153 391 230 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Finalvolume: 122 833 158 281 639 460 434 320 95 153 391 230 ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- Il--------------- 11---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3610 1615 1805 3240 1620 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 I 11--------------- II--------------- I�--------------- I ____________ _______________ Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.23 0.10 0.16 0.20 0.28 0.24 0.17 0.06 0.08 0.21 0.14 Crit Moves; xwwx wxxx xxwx wxwx Green/Cycle: 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.16 0.32 0.32 0.24 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.21 0.21 Volume/Cap: 0.89 0.96 0.42 0.98 0.62 0.89 0.98 0.56 0.19 0.56 0.98 0.68 Delay/Veh: 94.9 66.3 34.8 92.0 31.1 42.9 77.3 32.0 27,3 43.8 81,4 43.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 94.9 66.3 34.8 92.0 31.1 42.9 77.3 32.0 27.3 43.8 81.4 43.7 LOS by Move: F E C F C D E C C D F D DesignQueue: 7 21 7 14 15 22 20 14 4 8 19 11 **xxxwxxxxwxxxwwww*xxxwxawwxwxwxxxwwwxxwxwwwwxwxx,rx,twwxx**wxwwrrxxwxxxwww,rxxw�xxx Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. xwxxxwxxwx,r*wxxwxwxxxwxxxrwx**x*xxxxxwx*xww*w*�wew*wx*xwxxxxx�r,rxxxx***w*�xxxxtxx Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP 4 E+ A + C AM Tue Oct 16, 2007 16:49:18 Page 2-1 ---------------------------------------------------- Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) F Post 2020 General Plan Without Project With Improvements Conditions AM Peak Hour - ------------------------------ --- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) r***w*********wwx**w****w********w*wwwwxwwwwwxw*ww**wxwx**w***ww**************** Intersection 42 Washington St. (NS) / Ave, 50 (EW) *ww****w*xwww*w*wwwx*w*ww*******w******www**wwwww*ww*wwww*ww*x*wwwww*wx**wwwwwww Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.796 Loss Time (sec): 16 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 25.1 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of service: C www*xx*x***xwwwwwww*x**ww****x*****ww***w****wwww*w*wwwwwww*wxwwwwww**w*wwwwwww* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T -- R ------------ j --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II --.-------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: include Include Include Ovl Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------I-- - -... II--------------- -------------- volume ------------ volume Module: Base Vol: 120 B16 155 275 626 451 425 314 93 150 383 225 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 120 816 155 275 626 451 425 314 93 150 383 225 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByvol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 120 816 155 275 626 451 425 314 93 150 383 225 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.98 0.98 0,98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0,98 0,98 0.98 PHF Volume: 122 833 158 281 639 460 434 320 95 153 391 230 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 122 833 158 2B1 639 460 434 320 95 153 391 230 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 122 833 158 281 639 460 434 320 95 153 391 230 ------------ --------------- -......II ..-----II---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0,95 0.B5 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3610 1615 3502 3240 1620 3502 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- --------------._11 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.23 0.10 0.08 0.20 0.28 0,12 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.14 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **wx Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.34 0.34 0.15 0.14 0.14 0,14 0.13 0.28 Volume/Cap: 0.58 0.76 0.32 0.52 0.58 0.84 0.84 0.64 0.42 0.61 0.84 0.50 Delay/Veh: 29.2 22.2 16.5 24.3 16.8 23.2 36.3 27.2 24.9 28.7 3B.0 18.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 29.2 22.2 16.5 24.3 16.8 23.2 36.3 27.2 24.9 28.7 38.0 18.9 LOS by Move: C C B C B C D C C C D B DesignQueue: 4 11 4 4 8 12 7 5 3 4 6 6 ww******************w*****************ww*www*w*wwwww*www*w*w*w*ww***ww********** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. **w*w*w******ww**w*******www**w*wwwwwwwwxww*ww*w***w*w****www*ww******x***wwwww* Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + C PM Sat Aug 11, 2007 20:31:35 Page 4-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan Without Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ***wwxxww*ww**wzwwww*wwwwwwwxww*ww*w**www*xwxwwww****w***wwwwxwxwwxw***ww+w**w** Intersection #2 Washington St. (NS) / Ave. 50 (EW) **www*wwxww*wwwww**z**w*w*ww**wwww**w*wwwwwww*zwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwww+**zw* Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.201 Loss Time (sec): 16 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 121.1 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: F **www**ww*www****wwww*****wwwwwwwx*ww*****wwwwwx*wwx************ww**wwxwwwwwwwzw Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ---- -------[--------------- ---------------I) Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 --------------- - ----- --------------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 142 1029 194 289 1177 522 536 526 134 207 468 382 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 142 1029 194 289 1177 522 536 526 134 207 468 382 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 142 1029 194 289 1177 522 536 526 134 207 468 382 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 149 1083 204 304 1239 549 564 554 141 218 493 402 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 149 1083 204 304 1239 549 564 554 141 218 493 402 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 149 1083 204 304 1239 549 564 554 141 21B 493 402 ----------------- JI---------------- II--------------- II-_-_-----____-_� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.65 0.95 0.87 0.87 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.08 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3610 1615 1805 3426 1520 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 ------------ I--------------- --------------- --------------- _--------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.30 0.13 0.17 0.36 0.36 0.31 0.29 0.09 0.12 0.26 0.25 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.07 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.32 0.32 0.26 0.34 0.34 0.14 0.22 0.22 Volume/Cap: 1.14 1.20 0.51 1.20 1.14 1.14 1.20 0.87 0.26 0.87 1.20 1.15 Delay/Veh: 176.1 146 39.7 173.3 111 111.4 153.6 49.1 29.2 75.9 159 143.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 176.1 146 39.7 173.3 111 111.4 153.6 49.1 29.2 75.9 159 143.6 LOS by Move: F F D F F F F D C E F F DesignQueue: 9 31 11 18 33 33 30 27 6 13 28 22 ***wwwwww*****wwww*w************wwww**xw*wwwww*w**wwwxwwwww**ww*****wwwww*****wx Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. zzw*****www***w*w**wxwxxwwwwwwx**wwww***wwxwwwwwwwwz**+**zwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*www Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP fr° MITIG8 - E + A + C PM Tue Oct 16, 2007 16:58:35 Page 1-1` Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan Without Project With Improvements Conditions PM Peak Hour ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ****wwwww*wwww*********www*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwww Intersection $#2 Washington St. (NS) / Ave. 50 (EW) www+wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwww*www Cycle (sec): 115 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0,891 Loss Time (ser_): 16 (Y+R=4,0 Sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 44.8 Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: D wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Approach: North Bound South Sound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------- --------------- ---------------I1--------------- ---------------� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include ovl Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes; 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------ --------------- -��--------------- volume ----- ----volume Module: Base Vol: 142 1029 194 289 1177 522 536 526 134 207 468 382 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 Initial Bse: 142 1029 194 289 1177 522 536 526 134 207 468 382 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 142 1029 194 289 1177 522 536 526 134 207 468 382 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1100 1,00 1.00 1,00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0,95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 149 1063 204 304 1239 549 564 554 141 218 493 402 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 149 1083 204 304 1239 549 564 554 141 218 493 402 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 149 1083 204 304 1239 549 564 554 141 218 493 402 ------------ --------------- --------•------- --------------- ---------------4 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.08 0.92 2,00 2,00 1,00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3610 1615 3502 3428 1520 3502 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 -----------• I--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------k Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.30 0,13 0,09 0.36 0.36 0.16 0.15 0.09 0.12 0.14 0.25 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.09 0.39 0.39 0.11 0.41 0.41 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.16 0.18 0.29 Volume/Cap: 0.89 0.78 0,33 0,78 0,89 0,89 0.89 0.76 0.43 0.76 0.75 0.85 Delay/Veh: 91.6 33.7 25.1 59.1 37.3 37.3 60.8 47.7 40.9 57,1 49,4 51.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 91,6 33.7 25.1 59.1 37,3 37.3 60.8 47,7 40,9 57.1 49,4 51,6 LOS by Move: F C C E D D E D D E D D DesignQueue: 9 24 8 9 27 27 16 15 7 12 14 19 wwwwwwwwwwww*www**wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. wwwwwwwwww**wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwww Traffix 7.9.0415 (C) 2007 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + C AM Sat Aug 11, 2007 20:30:38 Page 6-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan Without Project Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) wwwwwwwwwww*ww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwxw***www*www*wwwwwxww*wwwwwwxwwwwwwxwxwxww*wwwwww Intersection #5 Jefferson St. (NS) / Ave. 50 (EW) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwxwwwwwwww+wwwwxwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwx Cycle (sec): 95 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.875 Loss Time (sec): 16 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 39.4 optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: D *xwwwwwxxxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------_--- I---------------�I---- - a ----i1--- ._..-II---------------- Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------I---- - --II------- -II•--------------II-- ------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 71 786 31 107 717 384 316 365 45 45 413 24D Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 71 786 31 107 717 384 316 365 45 45 413 240 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 71 786 31 107 717 384 316 36S 45 45 413 240 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 77 854 34 116 779 417 343 397 49 49 449 261 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 77 854 34 116 779 417 343 397 49 49 449 261 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 77 854 34 116 779 417 343 397 49 49 449 261 ---------- ....I--------------- --------------- if--_______---- �I ! Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 5187 1615 1805 5187 1615 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- !I__ -__----------I. Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.16 0.02 0.06 0.15 0.26 0.19 0.21 0.03 0.03 0.24 0.16 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.07 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.29 0.29 0.21 0.35 0.35 0.12 0.26 0.26 Volume/Cap: 0.58 0.66 0.08 0.58 0.53 0.90 0.90 0.60 0.09 0.22 0.90 0.62 Delay/Veh; 48.9 33.4 27.5 44.3 28.9 53.6 60.7 27.0 20.8 38.0 53,7 33.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 48.9 33.4 27.5 44.3 28.9 53.6 60.7 27.0 20.8 38.0 53.7 33.7 LOS by Move: D C C D C D E C C D D C DesignQueue: 4 13 1 6 11 17 15 14 2 2 19 11 wwwxwwwwwwwwww*wxwww*.rxwxxxwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*x*wwwwxwwwww*x*wwwwwwwwwww*wwxwww*wxx Note; Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ***wwxwxww,rwwwwwwxww*xxwxwwwxww*xwwww*wwwwtww*wwww,rww*wwwwwwxwwwxxwwx***www**www Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + C AM Tue Oct 16, 2007 16:49:18 Page 3-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan without Project With Improvements Conditions AM Peak Hour --------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) wxwwwwxww**ww****w**w**www*****w*ww***wwwwwwwwwwww*wx*****w***w**ww************w Intersection #5 Jefferson St, (NS) / Ave. 50 (EW) ww*wxwww*w*wwwwww*w*x**xwwwxwwww*****wxwwwxw*xxw*w*xxx*w**wxwxw*www*w*w****w*www Cycle (sec): 70 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.696 Loss Time (Sec): 16 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 27.0 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: C *****w**xx***w**wwwwwwwwwww**w*w*****w**********w*wwwww*wwww*www*xxw****www***ww Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------- -------------- II----------- ,.._._-��' .._._------ ----------- -- Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min, Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 -----------_�__- -- ��----------------------- Volume ------ Volume Module: Base Vol: 71 766 31 107 717 3B4 316 365 45 45 413 240 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 71 7B6 31 107 717 384 316 365 45 45 413 240 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 71 7B6 31 107 717 384 316 365 45 45 413 240 User Adj: 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 77 854 34 116 779 417 343 397 49 49 449 261 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 77 854 34 116 779 417 343 397 49 49 449 261 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 77 854 34 116 779 417 343 397 49 49 449 261 ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- II.-----. Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0,91 0.85 0.92 0,91 0.85 0.92 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.95 0,85 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 5187 1615 3502 5187 1615 3502 1900 1615 1805 3610 1615 ---------_-- I --------- - --------------- --------------- ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.16 0.02 0.03 0,15 0.26 0.10 0.21 0.03 0.03 0.12 0.16 Crit Moves: **** **** **** *x** Green/Cycle: 0.10 0.26 0,26 0.16 0.32 0.32 0.14 0.26 0,26 0.10 0.22 0.22 volume/Cap: 0.43 0.64 0.08 0.21 0.48 0.82 0.72 0.82 0.12 0.27 0.57 0.74 Delay/Veh: 31.2 24.0 19.7 25.9 19,5 32,1 34.3 35.0 20.1 30.0 25.3 33.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 31.2 24.0 19.7 25.9 19,5 32.1 34.3 35.0 20.1 30.0 25.3 33.3 LOS by move; C C B C B C C C C C C C DesignQueue: 3 9 1 2 8 12 6 12 1 2 7 8 ********************w*wx*ww*wwww*wwwwwwwwww****x**************w*xw*www********** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. **********w*w*w******x*****w**w******ww**wxw**wx**wwwww**w***w*ww*w************* Tra££ix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc, Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + C PM Sat Aug 11, 2007 20:31:35 Page 6-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655--07-01) Post 2020 General Plan without Project Conditions PM Peak Hour --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) wxwwwwwwxwwxwxxxwxwww**wwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwww*wwwwxwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwxw Intersection #5 Jefferson St. (NS) / Ave. 50 (EW) wwwwwxwxxxwwxxww*xwxxwwwwwwwwwwwwxxxwwxwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwxw Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.271 Loss Time (sec): 16 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 115.1 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: F wwwwwwwwww,rxwwwwwwxwwxww*wwxw*xw*+wwwww*wwwwwwwwxwxww*x*xwxwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound west Bound movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------1----- --1I --------------- II--------------- II ------_-_------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------ I--------------- � I............ - _.._ I ---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: B9 1033 88 396 970 426 476 580 103 76 629 147 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 89 1033 88 396 970 426 476 580 103 76 629 147 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 89 1033 88 396 970 426 476 580 103 76 629 147 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 97 13.23 96 430 1054 463 517 630 112 83 684 160 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 97 1123 96 430 1054 463 517 630 112 83 684 160 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 97 1123 96 430 1054 463 517 630 112 83 684 160 ------------I---------------11---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 5187 1615 1805 5187 1615 1BO5 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 ------------ I --------------- II---------------- II--------------- f1 ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.22 0.06 0.24 0.20 0.29 0.29 0.33 0.07 0.05 0.36 0.10 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.06 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.30 0.30 0.23 0.43 0.43 O.OB 0.28 0.28 Volume/Cap: 0.89 1.27 0.35 1.27 0.68 0.96 1.27 0.77 0.16 0.60 1.27 0.35 Delay/Veh: 107.9 181 44.7 191.9 38.5 73.4 186.4 33.3 20.9 61.0 179 34.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 107.9 181 44.7 191.9 38.5 73.4 186.4 33.3 20.9 61.0 179 34.7 LOS by Move: F F D F D E F C C E F C DesignQueue: 6 24 5 25 19 23 29 26 4 5 36 8 wwwwwwwwww*w*twwwwwwwrwwwwxwwwwwwwxw:rwwxxww*xwx*xw**w*wwwwwwwwxwxxwwwwwwxwxwxwww Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. wwwwwwwwwwxwww*wwwwwwwwwwxwwxwwwwwwwwwxwxwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwxxww*+*wwwwww*wwxwxwx Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + C PM Tue Oct 16, 2007 16:52:29 Page 3-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan Without Project With Improvements Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) wwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Intersection #5 Jefferson St. (NS) / Ave. 50 (EW) wwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwxwxxwxxxwwwxw*,txww*w*wwwwwwwwwwwwxw*w*w*xwww:rw*ww,rwwwwwwwwwx*w Cycle (sec): 90 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.873 Loss Time (sec): 16 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 39.6 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: D wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwww+cwwwxwx*w*wxwxwwr.wwwwwwwwww*wwxw**ww*wwwwww Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ------------- Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min, Green; 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------ _...._------ -------------,.-I Volume Module: Base Vol: 89 1033 88 396 970 426 476 580 103 76 629 147 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Tnitial Bse: 89 1033 88 396 970 426 476 580 103 76 629 147 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 89 1033 88 396 970 426 476 580 103 76 629 147 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 97 1123 96 430 1054 463 517 630 112 83 684 160 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 97 1123 96 430 1054 463 517 630 112 83 684 160 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLX Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Finalvolume: 97 1123 96 430 1054 463 517 630 112 83 684 160 ------------ ----------------- --------------- --------------- -----------... ..E Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane; 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.65 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1,00 Final Sat.: 1805 5187 1615 3502 5187 1615 3502 1900 1615 1805 3610 1615 ------------ I --------------- ----------------H---------------11---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.22 0.06 0.12 0.20 0.29 0.15 0.33 0.07 0.05 0.19 0.10 Crit Moves: wwww www* wxww wwww Green/Cycle: 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.31 0.31 0.19 0.36 0.36 0.08 0.24 0.24 Volume/Cap: 0.69 0.88 0.24 0.88 0.66 0.93 0.77 0.93 0.19 0.59 0.77 0.40 Delay/Veh: 54.0 39.8 27.5 54.2 26.0 53.8 40.2 46.8 20.1 46.5 36.0 29.2 User De1Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 54.0 39.8 27.5 54.2 28.0 53.8 40.2 46.8 20.1 46.5 36.0 29.2 LOS by Move: D D C D C D D D C D D C DesignQueue; 5 16 4 10 14 17 11 22 4 4 14 6 wxwww+r,rxwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwxww,rwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*xwwwwwwwww Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. wwwwwwwwwxwxwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwxwwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwxw Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + C AM Sat Aug 11, 2007 20:30:38 Page 7-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN; 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan Without Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4 -Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) xxxx#x##wwwwwwwwwwwwxxxxw####wwwwwwwwxwxwwwww#,r+r#x*xwwwwxxxx#xw##wwwwwwwwxxwwxwx Intersection #7 Jefferson St. -PGA Blvd. (NS) / 54th Ave. (EW) ww#www#w#wwww#xwwwxww#w##w##xw#wwwxwxwww#wwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwww#w#wwwxwwxxxwxx Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(x): 1.051 Loss Time (sec); 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 38.5 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: E #w######www#wwxwwxwx#wwx#w##w#wwwwwxxwxxx#www#wwwxwwwwxwxxxxww#wwwxwwwxwxwwwwwwx Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- ------------ - --------------- ---------------� Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 -----------_�__.._.... -------�I- _-.. ----��---------------�� ---------� Volume Module; Base Vol: 1 170 41 601 198 8 5 2 4 128 5 516 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1 170 41 601 198 B 5 2 4 128 5 516 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 1 170 41 601 198 8 5 2 4 128 5 516 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 1 177 43 626 206 8 5 2 4 133 5 538 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 1 177 43 626 206 8 5 2 4 133 5 538 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 1 177 43 626 206 8 5 2 4 133 5 538 ------------- I--------------- --------------- _--_--_-----__-� Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 3..00 Final Sat.: 372 791 426 902 955 525 337 353 379 426 447 512 ------------ I --------------- ��-- _ -_---f�--- _..__--_-��- __...._... --� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.22 0,10 0.69 0.22 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0,31 0.01 1.05 Crit Moves: wwxw wwxw ###w wwww Delay/Veh: 12.0 13.9 11.7 26.6 12,1 9.5 12.9 12.3 11.6 14.5 10.5 79.9 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 12.0 13.9 11.7 26.6 12,1 9.5 12.9 12.3 11.6 14.5 10.5 79,9 LOS by Move; B B B D B A B B B B B F ApproachDel: 13.5 22.9 12.3 66.5 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 13.5 22.9 12.3 66.5 LOS by Appr: B C B F AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0,3 0.1 2.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 10,0 wxxx#ww#xww##w#www,twwwwwwwxxwxx#xwwwwww#wwwxxwxxwx,r*#wxwwwwxwwwwxwwwwwwww###wxww Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + C AM Tue Oct 16, 2007 16:49:18 Page 4-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) ttt Post 2020 General Plan Without Project With Improvements Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) wwwwwxwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxxwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwww*wwwwwww Intersection #7 Jefferson St. -PGA Blvd. (NS) / 54th Ave. (EW) wwwxwwwwxwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww,twwwwxwwwwxwwwwwwwww*wxwww*wwwwxwwwww cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.701 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh); 21.3 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: C wwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxxxxwwxwwxwwwwwww*wwwww*wwwwwwwwwwxwwxwwwww Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R -------I I ------ II _ --II --------------- II--.._.. --- ----I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 -----------_M._.._. ll---------------. II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 1 170 41 601 198 8 5 2 4 128 5 516 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Rse: 1 170 41 601 198 8 5 2 4 128 5 516 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 1 170 41 601 198 8 5 2 4 128 5 516 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume; 1 177 43 626 206 8 5 2 4 133 5 538 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 1 177 43 626 206 8 5 2 4 133 5 538 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 1 177 43 626 206 8 5 2 4 133 5 538 ---------------------------II---------------II--------- II---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.92 0,95 0.85 0.77 1.00 0.85 0.77 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3610 1615 3502 3610 1615 1454 1900 1615 1457 1900 1615 ------------I --------------- --------------- II--------------- II I � Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.18 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.33 j Crit Moves: **** **** **** M Green/Cycle: 0.18 0.12 0.12 0.24 0.18 0.18 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.42 0.23 0.75 0.32 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.21 0.01 0.75 Delay/Veh: 20.3 25.3 24.7 24.9 21.8 20.4 9.3 9.3 9.3 10.3 9.3 18.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 20.3 25.3 24.7 24.9 21.8 20.4 9.3 9.3 9.3 10.3 9.3 18.2 LOS by Move: C C C C C C A A A B A B DesignQueue; 0 3 1 9 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 11 wwwwwwwxwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwxwxwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwxxxwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwww Nate: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. xwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwxwxwxw:rwwxwxwxwwww*wwxwxwxxxwwwwxwwwwxxwxww*xwwwwwwwrwwwwwwww Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP MITIG8 - E + A + C PM Sat Aug 11, 2007 20;53:09 Page 1-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan Without Project Conditions PM Peak Hour ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4 -Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) xwzwxwxw**,rzww*xxwz*wzwwwzwxz*zxx**w*zwzxx*wzwwwww*xz*z*w*wwzw*wxzwwzw*zw*w*,t*zw Intersection #7 Jefferson St. -PGA Blvd. (NS) / S4th Ave. (EW) w,twwxwwwxw**xww*t*zw,twwww*wwzwzwxw**wwk**xwwwwzwwwwz**txzw+wwxx*wwwzzx*xre*wz*xwz Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.249 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 77.2 optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: F zxwwxzzwxwwwwxwwwwzzwwwww*xwwwwzzxwwwxwwwwzwxxwwwxwwwxzzwwwwwwwwwzwzwwwwtxwxwzww Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------_ I.. - -------- Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------ r----------- -- ��---------11---------------- ----------------[ Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 199 55 855 310 12 7 2 7 12B 5 516 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 199 55 855 310 12 7 2 7 12B 5 516 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 199 55 855 310 12 7 2 7 128 5 516 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 0 212 59 910 330 13 7 2 7 136 5 549 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 212 59 91.0 330 13 7 2 7 136 5 549 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 212 59 910 330 13 7 2 7 136 5 549 --..--------- I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------- Saturation --------- -Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 334 706 377 873 916 500 307 321 342 376 392 439 ------------ g--------------- ...--_-----------19---------------- ---- -- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.30 0.15 1.04 0.36 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.36 0.01 1.25 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 0.0 16.8 13.6 82.9 14.6 9.9 14.3 13.6 13.0 17.2 11.7 154.5 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 16.8 13.6 82.9 14.6 9.9 14.3 13.6 13.0 17.2 11.7 154.5 LOS by Move: * C B F B A B B B C B F ApproachDel: 16.1 64.2 13.7 126.3 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 16.1 64.2 13.7 126.3 LOS by Appr: C F B F AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 17.5 ww,rwwzzwwwwxwzwzwzwxwxwzwwww*+wwwzxwwxx*w+*wwwxzwww***wwz*zwzwzwxxww**w**zwwzwww Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + C PM Tue Oct 16, 2007 16:52:29 Page 4-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan Without Project With improvements Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) wwwxw*www*x*wx***********wwwwwwwwww**www**x**xww*wwwwww*wwwwwwwwwww**w*******www Intersection #7 Jefferson St. -PGA Blvd. (NS) / 54th Ave. (EW) wwwwwwwwxxx**wxw*********ww*wwwww**xxwwwwwwww**w**x**x*x*xw*wwwwwwww******x***** Cycle (sec): 65 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.807 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 24.4 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: C ***x****w***www*www*wwwwww**wx****wxxwwwww*xxwwwwww****www*wwwwwwwwwww*wwwww*ww* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------� ----- -II--_ -.. 11------------- II ----------------I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 _----------- I --------------- ---------------- 11----------------_�I_ ! Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 199 55 855 310 12 7 2 7 128 5 516 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 199 55 855 310 12 7 2 7 128 5 516 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVal: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 199 55 855 310 12 7 2 7 128 5 516 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 0 212 59 910 330 13 7 2 7 136 5 549 Re -duct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 212 59 910 330 13 7 2 7 136 5 549 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 212 59 910 330 13 7 2 7 136 5 549 ------------ ----------------II--------------- --------------- ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.77 1.00 0.85 0.77 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1900 3610 1615 3502 3610 1615 1454 1900 1615 1457 1900 1615 _---------I--------------- --------------- 11 ---------------II---------- __�I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.06 0.04 0.26 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.34 Crit Moves: **** **** wwww Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.31 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.54 0.34 0.85 0.22 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.23 0.01 0.85 Delay/Veh: 0.0 29.1 28.0 27.5 12.3 11.3 11.7 11.7 11.7 13.1 11.7 27.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 0.0 29.1 26.0 27.5 12.3 11.3 11.7 11.7 11.7 13.1 11.7 27.8 LOS by Move: A C C C B B B B B B B C DesignQueue: 0 4 2 13 4 0 0 0 0 3 0 13 ********xwwwxwww**xw*wwwwwwww*w***********w*w*wwwwx***w***************wwwwwww*ww Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. *wwxxwxwwwwwwwxx*wx***************w*wx*wxwxw*w************www******wwww******ww* Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + C AM Sat Aug 11, 2007 20:30:38 Page 8-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan Without Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4 -Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) txtttxxx:t,rirxt*ttxtttxtxtxtt*t*xtt,rxtttt*txxtttxxrcttttttt,txx*tt**xx*ttttttttttxxt Intersection #10 Madison St. (NS) / 54th Ave. (EW) �ttxtx,t,rt*xtttxt++xxxttttxtt*tttttxtxttxttrr*ttttttxxtxtx«ttxxttxttt*ttxttxtxxxtt cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.627 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 165.0 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: F xttxxxttttxtxxxxxtxxxtxtttxxt*txxtxxxxttxtttttxttxxtxtxxtttxxx*xxx*xxxxxtxxxxttt Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement; L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------]- ______- li--------------- II ---------------- II ---------------1 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes- 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 ------------I------- - ---II------------ --...;I ---------------- II ---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 405 641 112 39 429 212 225 35 384 62 32 35 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 405 641 112 39 429 212 225 35 384 62 32 35 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 405 641 112 39 429 212 225 35 384 62 32 35 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHF Volume: 435 689 120 42 461 228 242 38 413 67 34 38 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 435 689 120 42 461 228 242 38 413 67 34 38 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 435 689 120 42 461 228 242 38 413 67 34 38 ------------ I --------------- I!--------------- II--------------- II --------------- 1 Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.06 0.63 0.31 0.87 0.13 1.00 0.66 0.34 1.00 Final Sat.: 832 444 480 26 283 140 345 54 456 22B 117 383 ------------ I --------------- ll---------------- II- - - II ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.52 1.55 0.25 1.63 1.63 1.63 0.70 0.70 0.90 0.29 0.29 0.10 Crit Moves: ttxx xtxt xttt xtxt Delay/Veh: 20.3 280 12.5 312.8 313 312.8 30.2 30.2 49.4 16.9 16.9 12.8 Delay Adj: 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 20.3 280 12.5 312.8 313 312.8 30.2 30.2 49.4 16.9 16.9 12.8 LOS by Move: C F B F F F D D E C C B ApproachDel: 163.3 312.8 41.6 15.8 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 163.3 312.8 41.6 15.8 LOS by Appr: F F E C AllWayAvgQ: 1.0 33.2 0.3 37.7 37.7 37.7 2.0 2.0 4.9 0.4 0.4 0.1 ttttttttxttttxtxtxtxxxttxxttttt*,rt**xw,rttt*ttt*xtxx*xtx*tt*txtxtt,t*x*x*xxttxxxxt Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + C AM Tue Oct 16, 2007 16:49:18 Page 5-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN; 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan Without Project With Improvements Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) wxwxxxwxwxwwxxxxwwwxxwxxxxxxxxxwxwxxxwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwxxxxwxwwwxxxwxxxwxxwxxxxx Intersection #10 Madison St. (NS) / 54th Ave. (EW) www*xxxxxxxxxwxwwxwwxxxxxwxwwwxwwwwwxwwwxxxxwwxwwwwxwwwwxwwwwwwwwwxwxwxxwxwxxxxx �_ Cycle (sec): 60 critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.521 Loss Time (sec): 16 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 22.4 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: C xwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxxxwwwwxxxxxxxwxxxxxxwwwxxxxxxxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxxwwww*wwxwxwwwxxw Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- 11 ---------------- 11._-..------------��-- Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------f----..... -----II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 405 641 112 39 429 212 225 35 384 62 32 35 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse; 405 641 112 39 429 212 225 35 384 62 32 35 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 405 641 112 39 429 212 225 35 384 62 32 35 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 D.93 0.93 PHF Volume: 435 689 120 42 461 228 242 38 413 67 34 3B Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol; 435 689 120 42 461 228 242 38 413 67 34 3B PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 435 689 120 42 461 228 242 38 413 67 34 38 ------------'---------------- ---------------- II--------^------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3502 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 ------------ I ---------------------- -- --- --------------- Capacity - ---Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.19 0.07 0.02 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.02 0.26 0.04 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.39 0.30 0.30 0.12 0.22 0.22 0.17 0.20 0.40 0.12 0.15 0.15 Volume/Cap: 0.64 0.64 0.25 0.20 0.58 0.64 0.78 0.10 0.64 0.32 0.12 0.16 Delay/Veh: 24.4 19.7 16.3 24.4 22.1 25.3 36.0 19.5 16.9 25.2 22.3 22.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 24.4 19.7 16.3 24.4 22.1 25.3 36.0 19.5 16.9 25.2 22.3 22.5 LOS by Move: C B B C C C D B B C C C DesignQueue: 6 9 3 1 7 6 7 1 9 2 1 1 xxwwxxxwxxxxxxxxxwxxxxxwxxxxwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwxwxwwwxxxxwwwwwxwwwxwww*wwwwwww*www Note: Queue reported iS the number of cars per lane. xxwwwxxwxxxxxxxxwxxxxx**xxxwxxxxxxxxxxwxxxwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwxxxxxwxxxxxxxxxxxxx*wxw Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + C PM Sat Aug 11, 2007 20:31:35 Page 8-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: D655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan Without Project Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4 -Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) ++x+xxxxxxxx+++++xx+xxxx+xx+xxxx++xx+++xxxxxxxxx++x****xxxxx+xxx+*+++++x+x+xx+xx Intersection #10 Madison St. (NS) / 54th Ave. (EW) xxxxxxx+x++xxx+xxxxxxxx,rx+xxx**+x++x++x*xxxx+x*+xx+*++x*xxxxxxxx***++++++++xxxxx Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 2.288 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 348.5 Optimal Cycle; 0 Level Of Service: F xx+*xxx+xxxxxxxxx+xxxxx++xxxxxx+++*xxxxxxxxxxx+++xxxx*xxxxxx*x,rxxxx++++x+x*xxxx+ Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ----------- I---------------II---------------II----------..----II---------------I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 ------------I---------------II---------------11---------------i1---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 774 916 143 53 580 287 319 49 544 80 40 47 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 774 916 143 53 580 287 319 49 544 80 40 47 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 774 916 143 53 580 287 319 49 544 80 40 47 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0,94 PHF Volume: 823 974 152 56 617 305 339 52 579 85 43 50 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 823 974 152 56 617 305 339 52 579 85 43 50 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 823 974 152 56 617 305 339 52 579 85 43 50 ------------ I ---------------- (I--------------- --------------- 11 --------------- Saturation -------- -----Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.06 0.63 0.31 0.87 0.13 1.00 0.67 0.33 1.00 Final Sat.: 804 426 464 25 271 134 315 48 410 211 105 348 ------------ I ---------------I I ---------------- 11- ----..--------- I-------- Capacity -----_-Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 1.02 2.29 0.33 2.28 2.28 2.28 1.08 1.08 1.41 0.40 0.40 0.14 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 81.4 605 14.2 602.0 602 602.0 101.7 102 222.9 21.6 21.6 14.8 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 81.4 605 14.2 602.0 602 602.0 101.7 102 222.9 21.6 21.6 14.8 LOS by Move: F F B F F F F F F C C B ApproachDel: 338.0 602.0 174.0 19.7 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 338.0 602.0 174.0 19.7 LOS by Appr: F F F C Al1WayAvgQ: 7.8 70.3 0.5 70.4 70.4 70.4 9.0 9.0 24.1 0.7 0.7 0.2 xx+xxx++x+++++xxx+xxxxxxx+xxx++++x++++x+xxxxxx++++*+xxxxxxxxxxxxx+x+++++++�+xxxx Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + C PM Tue Oct 16, 2007 16:52:29 Page 5-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan Without Project With Improvements Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) *,r*,rwwwwww**wwwwwwwx*w*w**wwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwww***wwww*w*w**w*wwwwwwwwxw*xwwwww*w Intersection #10 Madison St. (NS) / 54th Ave. (EW) wwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwww**wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwxxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Cycle (sec): 85 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.792 Loss Time (sec): 16 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 31.9 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: C wwwwwwwwwwwww,�xwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwxwxwwxwwwww Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ C - -- --- I I --------------- I --------------- I I ........._... - - Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min, Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------ ]-.--.------- -----� _ ____..-_��---------------SI...- -- Volume Module: Base Vol: 774 916 143 53 580 287 319 49 544 80 40 47 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.o0 Initial Bse: 774 916 143 53 580 287 319 49 544 80 40 47 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 774 916 143 53 580 287 319 49 544 80 40 47 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0,94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 823 974 152 56 617 305 339 52 579 85 43 50 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 823 974 152 56 617 305 339 52 579 85 43 50 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 823 974 152 56 617 305 339 52 579 85 43 50 ------------ ---------------II--------------- -----------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.95 0,95 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Final Sat.: 3502 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1G15 --------_.--- I ---------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.24 0.27 0.09 0.03 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.36 0.05 0.02 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.28 0.39 0.39 0.12 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.18 0.46 0.12 0.08 0.08 Volume/Cap: 0.84 0.70 0.24 0.26 0,76 0,84 0.84 0.15 0.77 0.38 0.27 0.38 Delay/Veh: 35.3 23.4 17.8 34.8 34,9 47.2 45.9 29.3 24.0 35.4 37.6 38.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 Adj Del/Veh: 35.3 23,4 17.8 34,8 34.9 47.2 45.9 29.3 24.0 35.4 37.6 38.7 LOS by Move: D C B C C D D C C D D D DesignQueue: 15 16 4 2 12 12 13 2 16 4 2 2 wwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwxwwwxwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwxxwxwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. wwwwxwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP Appendix E Post 2020 General Plan With Project Level of Service Analysis Worksheets E + A + P AM Sun Aug 12, 2007 00:47:26 Page 5-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan With Project Conditions i. AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Washington St. (NS) / Ave. 50 (EW) w*w*wx**+*w*+x*w**wwwwww*w**w*********wwwwwwx****w**w*w****w***w*****x********** Cycle (sec): 95 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.005 Loss Time (sec): 16 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 56.7 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: E w*wxww**w*x*wwwwww*w*x*****w+***+*xw************ww*w**www****w******wxwxw*www*** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R -----..----_- ---------------- --------------- Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 7 7 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------ -------- ..._._,.-i_-..__ _..____.__II.._ ___-__II--------------.. Volume Module: 6 Base Vol: 120 816 155 275 626 451 425 314 93 150 383 225 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 120 816 155 275 626 451 425 314 93 150 383 225 Added Vol: 0 8 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 120 824 155 277 627 451 425 314 93 150 383 236 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 PHF Volume: 122 841 158 283 640 460 434 320 95 153 391 241 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 122 841 158 283 640 460 434 320 95 153 391 241 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Finalvolume: 122 841 158 283 640 460 434 320 95 153 391 241 ------------f--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------f Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.85 0.65 0,95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3610 1615 1805 3240 1620 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------_------------_--� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.23 0.10 0.16 0.20 0.28 0.24 0.17 0.06 0.08 0.21 0.15 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.16 0.31 0.31 0.24 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.20 0.20 Volume/Cap: 0.85 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.64 0.92 1.00 0.57 0.20 0.57 1.00 0.73 Delay/Veh: 78.4 68.7 31.8 94.9 29.2 43.6 80.6 29.8 25.3 40.6 84.6 43.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 78.4 68.7 31.8 94.9 29.2 43.6 80.6 29.8 25.3 40.6 84.6 43.2 LOS by Move: E E C F C D F C C D F D DesignQueue: 6 19 7 13 14 20 19 12 4 7 17 10 **x****w*w**w*+*****wwww*******x***w*ww*w*****w*wwxw*w*****+***w**********www**w Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + P AM Tue Oct 16, 2007 17:10;08 Page 3-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan With Project With Improvements Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) wwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwxxwww+rwwwxwwwwxw*wwwwwwxwwwxwxwwwwwwwww*ww*wwwww Intersection #2 Washington St. (NS) / Ave. 50 (EW) xwwww*wwwwxwwwwwwwxww**,t:rwwwwwwwxxwwwwwxwxx*wwwwwwxwxwwwwwwxwxw*wwwxwxwxxwwwwwww Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap.(X); 0.796 Loss Time (sec): 16 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 25.1 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: C *www**wwwwxw*wxw*wwwwwwwxwxwxxwwxwwwwwwwww**wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwxwwwwwwwwwwwx Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R _ ........ I--------------- II--------------- II ---------------II----. - -1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Ovl Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------ I --------------- ----------- ---------II--- Volume Module: Base Vol: 120 816 155 275 626 451 425 314 93 150 383 225 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse; 120 816 155 275 626 451 425 314 93 150 383 225 Added Vol: 0 8 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 120 824 155 277 627 451 425 314 93 150 383 236 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 PHF Volume: 122 841 158 283 640 460 434 320 95 153 391 241 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 122 841 158 283 640 460 434 320 95 153 391 241 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 122 841 158 283 640 460 434 320 95 153 391 241 ------------ I--------------- 11--------------- II--------------- 11----------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3610 1615 3502 3240 1620 3502 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 ------------ •-1 ---------- ...----II--------------- 11 ---------------II----------- -- � Capacity Analysis Module; Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.23 0.10 0.08 0.20 0.28 0.12 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.15 Crit Moves: x*** ***w www* *ww* Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.34 0.34 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.28 Volume/Cap: 0.5B 0.77 0.32 0.53 0.58 0.84 0.84 0.64 0.42 0.61 0.84 0.53 Delay/Veh: 29.2 22.3 16.5 24.5 16.8 23.2 36.3 27.2 24.9 28.7 3B.0 19.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh; 29.2 22.3 16.5 24.5 16.8 23.2 36.3 27.2 24.9 28.7 38.0 19.4 LOS by Move: C C B C B C D C C C D B DesignQueue: 4 11 4 4 8 12 7 5 3 4 6 6 w*wwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwww*w**w*w********wwwwww*wwwwww*w*****ww*xxww**wwww**ww*wwwww Note; Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. wwwwww*wwwww***www*w*www*wwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwww***w*wxw*wwwxwxwwwwwwww***wwwwwwww Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + P PM Sun Aug 12, 2007 00:48:44 Page 5-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan With Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ***#w#***#****w**www***xxx*#*#******www*www******w*****#******www*www*****ww**** Intersection #2 Washington St. (NS) / Ave. 50 (EW) **w#***wwwwwwww*wxwwww*ww****x*#x#*#****wwwwww***xxx#ww*w*w**##**#wwww***www**ww Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.208 Loss Time (sec): 16 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 122.5 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: F Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound west Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R -------------k--------------- --------------- ---------------- --------------- Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 .----------- --------------- ---------------- --------------- Volume Module: Module: Base Vol: 142 1029 194 289 1177 522 536 526 134 207 468 382 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 142 1029 194 289 1177 522 536 526 134 207 468 382 Added Vol: 0 3 0 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 142 1032 194 299 1184 522 536 526 134 207 468 387 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 149 1086 204 315 1246 549 564 554 141 218 493 407 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 149 1086 204 315 1246 549 564 554 141 218 493 407 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 149 1086 204 315 1246 549 564 554 141 218 493 407 ------------- I ---------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------s Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0,95 0.87 0.87 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.08 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3610 1615 1805 3434 1514 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------i Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.30 0.13 0.17 0.36 0.36 0.31 0.29 0.09 0.12 0.26 0.25 Crit Moves: w*** **** ##ww w**# Green/Cycle: 0.07 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.32 0.32 0.26 0.33 0.33 0.14 0.21 0.21 Volume/Cap: 1.13 1.21 0.51 1.21 1.13 1.13 1.21 0.87 0.26 0.87 1.21 1.18 Delay/Veh: 174.2 149 39.8 175.4 109 109.1 156.8 49.9 29.4 77.1 162 152.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 174.2 149 39.8 175.4 109 109.1 156.8 49.9 29.4 77.1 162 152.2 LOS by Move: F F D F F F F D C E F F DesignQueue: 9 31 11 19 33 33 30 27 6 13 28 23 w*w*ww*w****##********w**#*#wwww*w*w*wxx**#*********#****wwwwwwww*wwww#**w**#*** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ww****#*ww****##w*www**w*****x**www**ww*w*xww**xw***w*****#*******ww*****wwwwww* Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + P PM Tue Oct 16, 2007 17:09:08 Page 3-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan With Project With Improvements Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) wwwxwwxwwxwwwww,rwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwxwxxwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwxwwwww*www* Intersection #2 Washington St. (NS) / Ave. 50 (EW) wxwwwwxwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwxwwwwww Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.886 Loss Time (sec): 16 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 46.0 optimal Cycle: 120 Level of Service: D wwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwxwwwxwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ---.-------------- I ---------------II--------------- --------------- --------------- Control: - __-----Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Ovl Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 -_-_-------- I --------------- 11--- --------- 11--------------- 11---_....---------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 142 1029 194 289 1177 522 536 526 134 207 468 3B2 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 142 1029 194 289 1177 522 536 526 134 207 468 382 Added Vol: 0 3 0 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 142 1032 194 299 1184 522 536 526 134 207 468 387 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 149 10B6 204 315 1246 549 564 554 141 218 493 407 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 149 1086 204 315 1246 549 564 554 141 216 493 407 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 149 1086 204 315 1246 549 564 554 141 21B 493 407 - -- ----I--------------- -------------------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.08 0.92 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3610 1615 3502 3434 1514 3502 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 ------------- I --------------- 11--------------- II--------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.30 0.13 0.09 0.36 0.36 0.16 0.15 0.09 0.12 0.14 0.25 Crit Moves: wwww wwww wwww wwwx Green/Cycle: 0.09 0.39 0.39 0.12 0.41 0.41 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.16 0.18 0.30 Volume/Cap: 0.89 0.78 0.33 0.78 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.75 0.43 0.75 0.75 0.85 Delay/Veh: 92.8 35.1 26.1 60.9 38.1 38.1 62.2 49.3 42.6 58.6 51.0 52.4 User De1Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh; 92.8 35.1 26.1 60.9 38.1 38.1 62.2 49.3 42.6 58.6 51.0 52.4 LOS by Move: F D C E D D E D D E D D DesignQueue: 9 25 9 10 29 29 17 16 B 13 15 20 wxwxwxwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwxwwwwww Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. wxwxwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwxwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + P AM Sun Aug 12, 2007 00:47:26 Page 7-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan With Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) www*w***ww*w*w****************************w****w*w**************w*********wwww** Intersection f(5 Jefferson St. (NS) / Ave. 50 (EW) wwww*xwx*w*w******x***w*****************w*w*wxwww**********************w***w***x Cycle (sec); 90 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.893 Loss Time (sec): 16 (X+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 39.2 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: D wwwwww*w+**wwww*w*w***w*www*********************x*****wwwwww*w*w***wwww*w******w Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ll......-------------� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 -- I---------------- --------------- --------------- II---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 71 786 31 107 717 384 316 365 45 45 413 240 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 71 786 31 107 717 384 316 365 45 45 413 240 Added Vol: 11 82 3 0 15 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 82 868 34 107 732 384 316 365 47 46 413 240 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.0D 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj; 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 89 943 37 116 796 417 343 397 51 50 449 261 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 89 943 37 116 796 417 343 397 51 50 449 261 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 89 943 37 116 796 417 343 397 51 50 449 261 -_---------- I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 5187 1615 1805 5187 1615 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 ----------------------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.18 0.02 0.06 0.15 0.26 0.19 0.21 0.03 0.03 0.24 0.16 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.28 0.28 0.21 0.34 0.34 0.13 0.26 0.26 Volume/Cap: 0.63 0.72 0.09 0.60 0.55 0.92 0.92 0.62 0.09 0.22 0.92 0.63 Delay/Veh: 49.5 32.9 25.9 43.5 27.9 55.3 62.4 26.8 20.5 35.9 55.3 32.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh; 49.5 32.9 25.9 43.5 27.9 55.3 62.4 2.6.8 20.5 35.9 55.3 32.7 LOS by Move: D C C D C E E C C D E C DesignQueue: 4 14 1 5 11 16 14 14 2 2 18 10 ******************wx***xw**********w****w*ww*www******************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. *w****w*wxxwwww**ww*wwwwwxw*w*w**w*w*******************w*www******xww***w****x** Traf£ix 7.9.0415 (c) 2D07 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + P AM Tue Oct 16, 2007 17:10:08 Page 4-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-D1) Post 2020 General Plan With Project With Improvements Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) *www**www****www*wwwwww*w**ww*www***wwwwwwww*www**wwww*wwwww*ww*wwwwww*w*w*www** Intersection #5 Jefferson St. (NS) / Ave. 50 (EW) *ww**ww****www***wwwww****wwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*w*ww*www*w**ww***www**www*www*w Cycle (sec): 70 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.706 Loss Time (sec): 16 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 27.0 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: C ww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwww*wwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwww* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R _ ..-1---------------- --------------- ....,------------II......------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------ i ----- ....... ��--------------- --------------- _--------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 71 786 31 107 717 364 316 365 45 45 413 240 Growth Adj: 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Initial Bse: 71 786 31 107 717 384 316 365 45 45 413 240 Added Vol: 11 82 3 0 15 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 82 868 34 107 732 384 316 365 47 46 413 240 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 89 943 37 116 796 417 343 397 51 50 449 261 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 89 943 37 116 796 417 343 397 51 50 449 261 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 89 943 37 116 796 417 343 397 51 50 449 261 ------------I---------------II--------- - ��----------------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0,85 0.92 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 5187 1615 3502 5187 1615 3502 1900 1615 1805 3610 1615 ---------------1 ---------- I I------------- ... --------------- Capacity --------------Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.18 0.02 0.03 0.15 0.26 0.10 0.21 0.03 0.03 0.12 0,16 Crit Moves; **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.10 0.27 0.27 0.15 0.32 0.32 0,14 0.26 0.26 0.10 0.22 0,22 Volume/Cap: 0.49 0.68 0.09 0.23 0.49 0.82 0.72 0.82 0,12 0.28 0.57 0.74 Delay/Veh: 31.9 24.3 19.3 26,5 19.6 32.1 34.3 35.0 20.2 30.0 25.3 33.3 User De1Adj: 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 31.9 24.3 19.3 26.5 19.6 32,1 34.3 35.0 20.2 30.0 25.3 33.3 LOS by Move: C C B C B C C C C C C C DeSignQueue: 3 10 1 2 8 12 6 12 1 2 7 8 **w*****w*w*www*wwwwwwwwwwwwww*w*wwwwwwww**www*www*w*wwwwwwwww***wwww***wwwwwwww Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. wwwww*www*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww***w*w*www*ww**ww***wwwwwwwww*www*wwwww*w*www***w*wwww Traffix 7.9,0415 (c) 2007 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + P PM Sun Aug 12, 2007 00:48:44 Page 7-1� --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan With Project Conditions PM Peak Hour ------------------------------------ Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) **w**W****Wwwwxw**xw*wwWww**************w**********###*#***#**********w*WW****wW Intersection #5 Jefferson St. (NS) / Ave. 50 (EW) **wW*www****x**wwWw*****wWwwWwWwwWw*#***********W*WwwWww*W*W***WW***x**x***w**** Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap.{X): 1.280 LOSS Time (sec): 16 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 116.3 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: F ***xWx*********w#****w*w*x**x##W*****w#*WWWW****W********w*********w##*WwWw**w*W Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound west Bound Movement; L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R .....--------- --- I --------------- ---------------��- ---_--Il---------------- Control; ----------- --Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------ I---------------� _,......,,...__..� �_-..____ ...........� �___-------------! Volume Module: Base Vol: 89 1033 8B 396 970 426 476 SBO 103 76 629 147 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 89 1033 88 396 970 426 476 580 103 76 629 147 Added Vol: 5 38 2 0 78 0 0 0 10 3 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 94 1071 90 396 1048 426 476 580 113 79 629 147 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 102 1164 98 430 1139 463 517 630 123 86 664 160 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 102 1164 98 430 1139 463 517 630 123 86 684 160 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 102 1164 98 430 1139 463 517 630 123 86 684 160 ------------- I --------------- 11--------------- (I--------------- --------------- Saturation ----------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 5187 1615 1805 5167 1615 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 I---------------- --------------- ---------------- 11---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.22 0.06 0.24 0.22 0.29 0.29 0.33 0.08 0.05 0.36 0.10 Crit Moves **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.06 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.30 0.30 0.22 0.43 0.43 0.08 0.28 0.28 Volume/Cap: 0.93 1.28 0.35 1.28 0.73 0.95 1.28 0.77 0.18 0.63 1.28 0.35 Delay/Veh: 118.6 184 44.2 195.8 39.4 70.6 190.4 33.8 21.3 63,0 183 34.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 118.6 184 44.2 195.8 39.4 70.6 190.4 33.8 21.3 63.0 183 34.9 LOS by Move: F F D F D E F C C E F C DesignQueue: 6 25 5 25 21 23 29 26 5 5 36 B Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ****w*w***wWW***wWw*WW***wWWWWWWwww***Wx**W****w*w******w********www**w***#***** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RIC ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + P PM Tue Oct 16, 2007 17:09:08 Page 4-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan With Project with Improvements Conditions PM Peak Hour Level of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ***wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww**www:rww***wwww*w*wwww*wwwwwww*w*w****w*wwwww*ww*wwww* Intersection #5 Jefferson St. (NS) / Ave. 50 (EW) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*www*wwwww**wwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Cycle (sec): 90 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.879 Loss Time (sec): 16 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 40.3 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: D wwwwwwwww**wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwww*www* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -- T R L - T - R L - T - R I, - T - R ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ----... 1 --------------- 11---------- .... _I�---.._.----------II- _ -1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 89 1033 88 396 970 426 476 580 103 76 629 147 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 89 1033 88 396 970 426 476 580 103 76 629 147 Added Vol: 5 38 2 0 78 0 0 0 10 3 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 94 1071 90 396 1048 426 476 580 113 79 629 147 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 102 1164 98 430 1139 463 517 630 123 86 684 160 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 102 1164 98 430 1139 463 517 630 123 86 684 160 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 102 1164 98 430 1139 463 517 630 123 86 664 160 ---------------------------II---------------1i----------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final. Sat.: 1805 5187 1615 3502 5187 1615 3502 1900 1615 1805 3610 1615 -----r---------------- II--------------- 11--------------- --------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.22 0.06 0.12 0.22 0.29 0.15 0.33 0.08 0.05 0.19 0.10 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.31 0.31 0.19 0.36 0.36 0.08 0.24 0.24 Volume/Cap: 0.73 0.90 0.24 0.90 0.71 0.93 0.77 0.93 0.21 0.61 0.77 0.40 Delay/Veh: 57.9 41.3 27.3 57.7 29.0 53.8 40.2 46.8 20.3 47.9 36.0 29.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 57.9 41.3 27.3 57.7 29.0 53.8 40.2 46.B 20.3 47,9 36.0 29.2 LOS by Move: E D C E C D D D C D D C DesignQueue: 5 17 4 10 15 17 11 22 4 4 14 6 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. wwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + P AM Sun Aug 12, 2007 00:47:26 Page 8-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan With Project Conditions AM Peak Hour ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4 -Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) www*wwwwwwwwwww*wxwx*www**www�wwwwwwxwwxw�wxxxxw,rxwwwww*wwxw:rwwwxwx*xxxxxwxxxw:rx Intersection #7 Jefferson St. -PGA Blvd. (NS) / 54th Ave. (EW) xxxwxwxxwxxxxxxxxwwxxw*w**xwww*xx*xxxwwxww*w**www*wx*www*xxxxwxxxxxwwwwxwxxwxxxx Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.126 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 45.9 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: E *x*w*wxwwwww*wwwwwwxwwwxxxxwxxxx+wwxxwxwwxwwww,twwxxxxwxxxt+rxxwwxwxwwwwwwwwwxwwwx Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ ---------------I ------••--- - ---� I --------------- I I - --- ......... --1 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------I---------------II - ---��--------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 1 170 41 601 198 8 5 2 4 128 5 516 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1 170 41 601 198 8 5 2 4 128 5 516 Added Vol: 0 106 2 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 1 276 43 601 218 8 5 2 4 128 5 516 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj; 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 1 288 45 626 227 8 5 2 4 133 5 538 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 1 288 45 626 227 6 5 2 4 133 5 538 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Finalvolume; 1 288 45 626 227 8 5 2 4 133 5 538 ------------I--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 364 781 418 866 909 496 317 332 355 400 414 478 ------------ I ---------------II---------------- ------------- Capacity ----------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.37 0.11 0.72 0.25 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.33 0.01 1.13 Crit Moves: wwwx w*w+ xwwx xxx* Delay/Veh: 12.2 16.6 11.9 29.5 13.0 9.9 13.4 12.8 12.2 15.6 11.0 106.5 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 12.2 16.6 11.9 29.5 13.0 9.9 13.4 12.8 12.2 15.6 11.0 106.5 LOS by Move: B C B D B A B B B C B F ApproachDel: 15.9 25.0 12.9 87.8 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 15.9 25.0 12.9 87.8 LOS by Appr: C C B F Al1WayAvgQ: 0.0 0.5 0.1 2.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 12.8 *x*x#*wx*ww*1F*x*xx7Yw*#x**w#w***wx**R*xR#*w*k•k+*******w*****#*klek*k*xx****i.##*w*�' Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traftix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + P AM Tue Oct 16, 2007 17:10:09 Page 5-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan With Project With Improvements Conditions AM Peals Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) wxwwwxwwwxxwxxxxxxxwwwwwxxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwxxxwxxxxxxxxxxxxxwwwxxwwwxwxwwwwwx Intersection #7 Jefferson St. -PGA Blvd. (NS) / 54th Ave. (EW) wxwxwxxwxxxwwwwwxwwxxxxwwwxxxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwxxwwxxxxxwwxwwwxwwwwxxxwwww*xwwxx Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol,/Cap.(X): 0.739 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 22.2 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: C xwwwwxwwwwwwwxxxxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxxwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwxwxwxwxxxxxxwwwwwx Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T R L - T - R ------------ --------------- ---------------II--------------- II -------..- ---I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes; 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------ ---------------II---------------II--------------- II ---------------I volume Module: Base Vol: 1 170 41 601 198 8 5 2 4 128 5 516 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1 170 41 601 198 8 5 2 4 128 5 516 Added Vol: 0 106 2 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 1 276 43 601 218 B 5 2 4 128 5 516 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 1 288 45 626 227 8 5 2 4 133 5 538 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 1 288 45 626 227 8 5 2 4 133 5 538 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 1 288 45 626 227 8 5 2 4 133 5 538 ------------E--------------- -------------._.II---__--��--------------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.77 1.00 0.B5 0.77 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3610 1615 3502 3610 1615 1454 1900 1615 1457 1900 1615 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.08 0.03 0.18 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.33 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.18 0.12 0.12 0.24 0.18 0.18 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.68 0.24 0.75 0.35 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.21 0.01 0.75 Delay/Veh: 20.3 30.0 24.7 24.9 22.0 20.4 9.3 9.3 9.3 10.3 9.3 1B.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 20.3 30.0 24.7 24.9 22.0 20.4 9.3 9.3 9.3 10.3 9.3 1B.2 LOS by Move: C C C C C C A A A B A B DesignQueue: 0 5 1 9 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 11 wwwxwwwwwwwwwxwwxwwxxxxxxxxxxxwwwwwwwwwwwx,rwwwwwwww*wwwwwwxxxwwwxwwxwww***xwwwww Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. wwwwxwxxxxxwxxxxwxxwwwwwwwwwwwwxxxxxxwwwxwxwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwwxxwxwwwxxxxxxxwwwwwxx Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + P PM Sun Aug 12, 2007 00:48:44 Page 8-1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan With Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4 -Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) wwwwwwxwwwwwwwww**x+****wx**t**wt**xwx*xxx**www*x****x*xxwxxwwwwwxwxw***wwww**ww Intersection #7 Jefferson St. -PGA Blvd. (NS) / 54th Ave. (EW) xww**ww************wwww*xww*wwxwwwwwwwwwwwxwxwxt******www**wwwxx******w******ww* Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol,/Cap.(X): 1,341 LOSS Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 86.8 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: F wwwwwww*******www*xwxx**ww***xw**x*w**********twww*www*wwwwwwwwwxx*w**x********* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I--------------- --------------- --------------- II---------------� Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes; 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------ _........., II.. - ---- ----II--------------- II ------....--------G Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 199 55 855 310 12 7 2 7 128 5 516 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 199 55 855 310 12 7 2 7 128 5 516 Added Vol: 0 49 1 0 100 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 248 56 855 410 12 7 2 7 130 5 516 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 0 264 60 910 436 13 7 2 7 13B 5 549 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 264 60 910 436 13 7 2 7 138 5 549 PCE Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Finalvolume: 0 264 60 910 436 13 7 2 7 138 5 549 ------------ I --------------- I ---------------I �......... - - (--'------------- Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 319 676 360 849 891 485 294 306 326 352 365 409 ------------ r---------------�� _-_......_......--I�--------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.39 0.17 1.07 0.49 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.39 0.01 1.34 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 0.0 19.5 14.3 92.6 17.9 10.2 14.8 14.1 13.6 18.8 12.3 194.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 0.0 19.5 14.3 92.6 17.9 10.2 14.8 14.1 13.6 18.8 12.3 194.0 LOS by Move: * C B F C B B B B C B F ApproachDel: 18.5 67.9 14.2 157.6 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 18.5 67.9 14.2 157.6 LOS by Appr: C F B F AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.6 0.2 9.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 20.8 *w*ww*w****w*******w**txt*******xwwwwwxwx**ww*******wt**wwwwwwwtwwwwwwwwx**ww*** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + P PM Tue Oct 16, 2007 17:09:08 Page 5-1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan With Project With Improvements Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future volume Alternative) wwxwwxxwwxwwwwwxx***xww***www****�*wxwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwxxwwxwxx**xwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Intersection #7 Jefferson St. -PGA Blvd. (NS) / 54th Ave. (EW) xxxwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwxxwwxwww*xxxxxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwxxxx*wwwwwwwww Cycle (sec): 65 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.825 Loss Time (Sec): 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 24.4 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: C wwwwwwww*xxxxxxxxxwwwxxxwwxxxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwxwwxxxxxxxwwwwwwwwxwwwwxwwwxww Approach; North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R -- --II---------------II--------......__i Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------- (------- - {I---------------ll...._..__--Ii--------------.1 volume Module: Base Vol: 0 199 55 855 310 12 7 2 7 128 5 516 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 199 55 855 310 12 7 2 7 12B 5 516 Added Vol: 0 49 1 0 100 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 248 56 855 410 12 7 2 7 130 5 516 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 0 264 60 910 436 13 7 2 7 13B 5 549 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 264 60 910 436 13 7 2 7 138 5 549 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PinalVolume; 0 264 60 910 436 13 7 2 7 138 5 549 ---..-- I---------------ll---------------[I-------------ll-__-_.... - __l Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.77 1.00 0.85 0.77 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1900 3610 1615 3502 3610 1615 1454 1900 1615 1457 1900 1615 ----- -- -- r---------------Il---------------II---------------II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.07 0.04 0.26 0.12 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.34 Crit Moves: **** wwww w*xw Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.31 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.68 0.34 0.B5 0.29 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.24 0.01 0.65 Delay/Veh: 0.0 32.7 28.0 27.5 12.8 11.3 11.7 11.7 11.7 13.1 11.7 27.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 32.7 28.0 27.5 12.8 11.3 11.7 11.7 11.7 13.1 11.7 27.8 LOS by Move: A C C C B B B B B. B B C DesignQueue: 0 5 2 13 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 13 *wwwwxwwwxwxw*wwwww,rx*w*ww**ww*w**wwwwwwxwxwxwxx*wxx*xwx*xwx*www*wwwwww*wxwwwxww Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. xxxxxxxwwxwxxwwxxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwxxxwxxxxwxwxwwwxxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwxx Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP kF" MITIG8 - E + A + P AM Mon Oct 29, 2007 15:44:24 Page 1-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan With Project Conditions AM Peak Hour ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report., 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Intersection ##8 PGA Blvd. (NS) / Westerly Project Access (EW) wxwwww**www*wwwwwwwwww*www*wwwwwwwwww**wwwwwww**wwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww**ww Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: A[ 9.4] wwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww q Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R, ------------ --------------- -------------- II_------ -----I�--------------- Control; Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ------------ ---•----------- ---------------II- --- -------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 211 0 0 248 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 initial Bse: 0 211 0 0 248 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 211 0 20 248 0 0 0 0 0 0 10B User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.'00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 211 0 20 248 0 0 0 D 0 0 108 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 211 0 20 248 0 0 0 0 0 0 106 ------------I--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Critical Gap Module; Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 -.._.._-- I--------------- --------------- -------------------------- -....0 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 211 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 106 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1372 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 935 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1372 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 935 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.12 ---_-------- I --------------- --------------- --------------- 11---------------� Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.4 Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 9.4 LOS by Move: * * * A * * * * * * * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.; xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel;xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.4 ApproachLOS: * * * A wwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*www*www Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwww Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP MITIG8 - E + A + P PM Mon Oct 29, 2007 15:44:40 Page 1-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan With Project Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) wwwwx*ww*wwwxxwwwwwwwwwwww***wwwwwwwww*ww*xwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwww**wwwww*wwwww*wxwww Intersection ##8 PGA Blvd. (NS) / Westerly Project Access (EW) w**wwwwxwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwww Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: At 9.21 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwww**wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement- L - T R L - T - R L T - R L T - R ------------ I--- -- - - - --�---------------I .., I- - - .---------- Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ------------ I -------- .___..__II..-----II---------------�I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 254 0 0 345 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 254 0 0 345 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 102 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 PasserByvo1: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 254 0 102 345 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 254 0 102 345 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Finalvolume: 0 254 0 102 345 0 0 0 0 0 0 so ---------------------- - -��-- �� - ---------I�----- - Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 ------------ I ---------------- --------------- ] --------------- --------------- Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 254 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 127 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1323 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 906 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1323 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 906 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.08 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.06 ------------ I ----------II---------------II--------- ---------------� Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.2 Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 9.2 LOS by Move: * * * A * * * * * * * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.2 ApproachLOS: * * * A wwwwwwwwwww,t*wwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwww Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. wwwwwwwww-xwwwxwwwwwwwwwxw*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww**www*xww*w*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwww Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP r E + A + P AM Sun Aug 12, 2007 00:47:26 Page 11-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan With Project Conditions AM Peak Hour ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4 -Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) wxxwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwxxxxxxwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwxxwwxwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwxwwxx**www-ww Intersection #10 Madison St. (NS) / 54th Ave. (EW) xwwxwwwwwwwwxwwxxwwwwwxwwxxxxxwww*wxwwwwwwwxxxwwwwxwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwxwwwwwxxxwwwww Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.628 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 165.0 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: F wwwwwwwwwwxxxwwxwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxxwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwxwwxwwwwxwxwwwwwwwxwwww Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- --------------- II---------------��- - _..........-.I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min, Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 ------------{----- --------------- ---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 405 641 112 39 429 212 22S 35 384 62 32 35 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 405 641 112 39 429 212 225 35 384 62 32 35 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 405 641 112 39 429 212 225 37 384 62 32 35 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHF Volume: 435 689 120 42 461 228 242 40 413 67 34 38 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 435 689 120 42 461 228 242 40 413 67 34 38 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 435 689 120 42 461 228 242 40 413 67 34 38 ------------ I --------------- --------------- III --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.06 0.63 0.31 0.86 0.14 1.00 0.66 0.34 1.00 Final Sat.: 832 444 480 26 283 140 343 56 456 228 117 382 --__-------- I --------------- ---------------- II ---------------ll - I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.52 1.55 0.25 1.63 1.63 1.63 0.71 0.71 0.90 0.29 0.29 0.10 Crit Moves; **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 20.3 280 12.S 312.9 313 312.9 30.5 30.5 49.4 16.9 16.9 12.8 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 20.3 280 12.5 312.9 313 312.9 30.5 30.5 49.4 16.9 16.9 12.8 LOS by Move: C F B F F F D D E C C B ApproachDel: 163.4 312.9 41.8 15.8 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 163.4 312.9 41.8 15.8 LOS by Appr: F F E C Al1WayAvgQ: 1.0 33.2 0.3 37.7 37.7 37.7 2.1 2.1 4.9 0.4 0.4 0.1 xxxxwwxxxxww**xx**www*xwxxxxwwwwwwwww*wwxxxwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwxx*wxwwwwxwww Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + P AM Tue Oct 16, 2007 17:10:09 Page 6-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan With Project With Improvements Conditions AM Peak Hour ------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) xxwwwxwwwwxwwwwxwwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwxxwwwwwwxwwwww*wwwww Intersection #10 Madison St. (NS) / 54th Ave. (EW) wwwxwwwxwxwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwxwwwwwwwwwwxwxwxwxwwxwxwwxwwwxwwwwww Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol,/Cap.(X): 0.521 Loss Time (sec): 16 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 22.4 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: C wxwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwww*wwwwwxwxwwwwwwxxxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- ---------------11 _..-----��---------------� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------ --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 405 641 112 39 429 212 225 35 384 62 32 35 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 405 641 112 39 429 212 225 35 384 62 32 35 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 405 641 112 39 429 212 225 37 3B4 62 32 35 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHF Volume: 435 689 120 42 461 228 242 40 413 67 34 38 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 435 689 120 42 461 228 242 40 413 67 34 38 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 435 6B9 120 42 461 228 242 40 413 67 34 36 ----_-------- I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3502 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 1B05 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- _--------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.19 0.07 0.02 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.02 0.26 0.04 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.19 0.30 0.30 0.12 0.22 0.22 0.17 0.20 0.40 0.12 0.15 0.15 Volume/Cap: 0.64 0.64 0.25 0.20 0.58 0.64 0.78 0.10 0.64 0.32 0.12 0.16 Delay/Veh: 24.4 19.7 16.3 24.4 22.1 25.3 36.0 19.5 16.9 25.2 22.3 22.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 24.4 19.7 16.3 24.4 22.1 25.3 36.0 19.5 16.9 25.2 22.3 22.5 LOS by Move: C B B C C C D B B C C C DesignQueue: 6 9 3 1 7 6 7 1 9 2 1 1 wwwwwwwwxwxwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. wwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww**wwwwwwxwwwxwwwwww*wwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwxww*wwwwwww Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + P PM Sun Aug 12, 2007 00:48:44 Page 11-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan With Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4 -Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) ww,txwwwwwwwxwwwwwxxw*wwxx****wxww*wxwwxwwwwx*xxwwwwk**wxx*xxwwwxxwww*wxwxww*wxww Intersection #10 Madison St. (NS) / 54th Ave, (EW) *xwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwxwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwxxxww**wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwww*www Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 2.290 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 349.2 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: F w*wwwwwwwwwww*www*www*wwww+***www*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwxxwwwxwxxwwwwxwwwwww Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ---------------------- -------- ------- ------------- Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 ------------ I --------------- �� - --------0 ---._..... - _-C�----------- ---� Volume Module: Base Vol: 774 916 143 53 580 287 319 49 544 80 40 47 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 774 916 143 53 580 287 319 49 544 80 40 47 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 774 916 143 53 580 207 319 50 544 80 42 47 User Adj: 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: B23 974 152 56 617 305 339 53 579 85 45 50 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 823 974 152 56 617 305 339 53 579 85 45 50 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 823 974 152 56 617 305 339 53 579 85 45 50 ------------ --------------- ---------------II--------------- II --------------_I Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.06 0.63 0.31 0.86 0,14 1.00 0.66 0,34 1.00 Final Sat.: 803 425 464 25 270 134 314 49 410 207 109 348 ------------ I --------------- ------------.. ..��---------------�� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 1.02 2.29 0.33 2,28 2,28 2.28 1.08 1.08 1.41 0.41 0.41 0.14 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 81.8 606 14.2 603,6 604 603.6 102.6 103 223.4 21.8 21.8 14.8 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 61..8 606 14.2 603.6 604 603.6 102.8 103 223.4 21.8 21.8 14.8 LOS by Move: F F B F F F F F F C C B ApproachDel: 338.7 603.6 174.7 19.8 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 338.7 603.6 174.7 19.8 LOS by Appr: F F F C Al1WayAvgQ: 7.8 70.4 0.5 70.5 70.5 70.5 9.1 9.1 24.1 0.7 0.7 012 wwwwwxwxx*www*xwwwwwwwwwwwx*wxxxx*xw*wwwwwwwwwwwwxww****wwww*wwwwwwwwwwww*xx**** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP E + A + P PM Tue Oct 16, 2007 17:09:08 Page 6-1 Eden Rock (TTM 33226) Traffic Impact Study (JN: 0655-07-01) Post 2020 General Plan With Project With Improvements Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) wwxwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww:rwwwwwwxwww**wwwwwwwwww*wwwxwxwwxxww Intersection #10 Madison St. (NS) / 54th Ave. (EW) wwwwwwww*wwxwwxxwwxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwxxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwww Cycle (sec): 85 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0,792 Loss Time (sec): 16 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 31.9 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: C xwwwxwxxwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwwwxwwwxwwwwxxxwxwwwww*wwwxwwwxwwwwwww Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------1--------------- ---------------- _________-__---� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min, Green: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------ I--------------- _..-..----------- --------------- ----------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 774 916 143 53 580 2B7 319 49 544 80 40 47 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Initial B5e: 774 916 143 53 580 287 319 49 544 80 40 47 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 774 916 143 53 580 287 319 50 544 BO 42 47 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0,94 0.94 0,94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 823 974 152 56 617 305 339 53 579 B5 45 50 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 823 974 152 56 617 305 339 53 579 85 45 50 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 823 974 152 56 617 305 339 53 579 85 45 50 -__-_.------- I--------------- --------------- --------------- --__--____--_....� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.95 0,95 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3502 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 ..._---------- I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.24 0.27 0.09 0.03 0,17 0,19 0.19 0.03 0.36 0.05 0.02 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.28 0.39 0.39 0.12 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.18 0.46 0.12 0.08 0.08 Volume/Cap: 0.84 0.70 0.24 0.26 0,76 0.84 0.84 0.15 0.77 0.38 0.29 0.38 Delay/Veh: 35,3 23.4 17.8 34.8 34.9 47.2 45.9 29.3 24.0 35.4 37.7 38.7 User De1Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 35.3 23.4 17.8 34.8 34.9 47.2 45.9 29.3 24.0 35.4 37.7 38.7 LOS by Move: D C B C C D D C C D D D DesignQueue: 15 16 4 2 12 12 13 2 16 4 2 2 wxwxwwwwxwwwxwwwxwxwwwwxwwwxwwwxwwwwwwwwwwwxxw*:rxwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. xwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww**wwwwwwwww:rw*****w*wwww*xww*xwwwwwwwxwwww*xww*ww*wwwwwwwwwww Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP Appendix F Traffic Signal Warrant Worksheets 2003 Edition �a 2 WARRANT 3, PEAK HOUR (70% FACTOR) (Rural Areas) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 70 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) Traffic Conditions = Existing PM Major Street Name = Jefferson St. -PGA Blvd. Minor Street Name = 54th Ave. 500 400 300 200 100 0V 300 Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = Number of Approach Lanes Major Street = High Volume Approach (VPH) = Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street = WARRANTED FOR A SIGNAL 1144 2 702 1 November 2003 400 500 600 700 600 900 1000 1100 Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicles Per Hour (VPH) --D-1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) --6-2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) — 0 2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) ---*—Major Street Approaches - -K o Minor Street Approaches * Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. 1200 *100 *75 1300 Jefferson at 54th EX PM (Warranted).XLS Sect. 4C.06 1;- 2003 Edition WARRANT 3, PEAK HOUR (70% FACTOR) (Rural Areas) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 70 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) Traffic Conditions = Existing PM 5 Major Street Name = 54th Ave. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 811 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street = 1 Minor Street Name = Madison St. High Volume Approach (VPH) = 648 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street = 1 WARRANTED FOR A SIGNAL 500 400 300 K1141 100 0 300 November 2003 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicles Per Hour (VPH) —�1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) �2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) —0-2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) ---Major Street Approaches A1C - Minor Street Approaches * Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. *100 *75 1200 1300 Madison at 54th EX PM (Warranted).XLS Sect. 4C.06 Appendix G City of La Quinta Engineering Bulleting #06-13 P.O. Sox 1504 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92247-1504 PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 78-495 CALLS TAMPICO (760) 777.7075 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 FAX (760) 777-7155 ENGINEERING BULLETIN #06-13 TO: All Interested Parties FROM: Amothy R. Jonasson, Public Works Director/City Engineer EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2006 SUBJECT: Traffic Study General Specifications This bulletin establishes traffic study specifications, All traffic studies for the City of La Quinta should follow this criteria. SCREENING CRITERIA Traffic studies for the City of La Quinta shall be performed for projects that produce 50 or more peak hour trips as calculated by the screening criteria below. The screening calculation of the peak hour trips shall utilize the Institute of Transportation Engineers p.m. peak hour trip generation rates per the most recent Trip Generation Manual. The 7" Edition Trip Generation rates are provided below for reference only — additional land use categories are available for utilization as applicable: Land Use Unit Average Rate P.M. Weekday Peak Hour Trips per Unit Light Industry (Code 1 10) �� 1,000 GFA 1,000 GFA I 1.08 Industrial Park (Code 130) W� 0.86 Manufacturing (Code140) 1,000 GFA 0.75 Single Family Residential (Code 210) D. U.1.02 Apartment (Code 220) D. U. _ 0.67 High-rise Apartment (Code 222) D. U. 0.40 _ Residential Condominium (Code 230) D, U. 0.52 General Office (Code 710) 1,000 GFA 1.49 Corporate Headquarters (Code 714) 1,000 GFA 1.40 Office Park (Code 750} _ ^1,000 GFA 1.50 Research & Development (Code 760) 1,000 GFA 1,08 Drive-In Bank (Code 912) 1,000 GFA _ 53.46 _ Gasoline Service w/ Market (Code 945) Per Fuel Position �� 13.57 Discount Superstore (Code 81 3) 1,000 GFA 4.03 Shopping Center (Saturday, no Weekday PM Peak Hour Provided by ITE Manual) (Code 820) 1,000 GLA 4,97 Quality Restaurant (Code 931) 1,000 GFA 9.02 46.68 LFast Food w/ Drive-Thru (Code 934) �� 1,000 GFA FORMATTING CRITERIA Traffic Study reports should provide a comprehensive review of the project impact(s) and include discussion of the project description, analysis methodology including standard deviation sensitivity analysis for commercial projects, existing and future conditions including LOS analysis, verification of traffic counts utilized, mitigation measures (deceleration lanes, right and left turn lane additions, signal modifications, new signal installations, geometric modifications, etc.), Reports should include fully numbered pages with a table of contents and other standard report formatting measures. Traffic Study reports in letter format are acceptable to the City when limited scope analysis or update studies are desired. SCOPING FORM APPROVAL & DRAFT REPORT APPROVAL Preparation of traffic studies for the City of La Quinta should be initiated by preparation of a scoping form. The traffic engineer performing the study should prepare the form and submit it with an applicable map for City approval. Intersections to study and distribution assumptions should be clearly identified. The traffic engineer performing the study should tali out the specific trip generation (e.g. a.m. peak, p.m. peak, weekend peak) and development time period (e.g. existing, project phase, project buildout, City buildout) scenarios to be studied for City approval. The traffic study should only be initiated after the scoping form is approved by the Public Works Department. A draft traffic study report is also requested for City review and approval prior to finalization of the report conclusions. The Community Development Department should be contacted directly for a cumulative project listing for planned or entitled projects which would affect the development under review, GENERAL. SPECIFICATIONS Traffic Studies for the City of La Quinta shall conform to the general specifications contained within the Riverside County Transportation Department, August 2005 guidelines. These guidelines are located at the following hyperlink: http_//www.tlma.ccs.riverside,ca.usltrans/documgnts/gamphletL/tra fic impact anal sis,pdf Specific exceptions to the Riverside County specification document for the City of La Quinta are as follows: STUDY RADIUS The traffic report shall analyze roadways and intersections within the following study radius: ADT's between 0-100 0.25 mile from the adjacent perimeter of the project ADT's between 101-5,000 0.50 mile from the adjacent perimeter of the project ADT's between 5,001-10,000 1.0 mile from the adjacent perimeter of the project ADT's between 10,001-15,000 1 .5 miles from the adjacent perimeter of the project ADT's between 15,001-20,000 Review of traffic impacts throughout the City limits is requested. Full-length analysis (within La Quinta city limits) of Highway 1 1 1, Washington and Jefferson Streets is required, For all studies, project impacts north of Avenue 52 should be considered of highest priority and concern. No adjustments for diverted pass -by trips should be assumed in the analysis for Highway 1 1 1, Washington and Jefferson Streets, The City may also identify intersections and streets from adjacent municipalities to be included in the traffic study, BUILD OUT SERVICE LEVEL in the City of La Quinta, LOS D and a maximum volume to capacity ratio of 0.90 is the acceptable build out service level. The maximum volume to capacity ratio applies to peak hours at intersections as well as the daily VIC analyses of roadway segments. TRAFFIC COUNTS & TRIP GROWTH RATES Traffic counts, when required, for a given traffic study should measure a.m. peak volumes between the hours of 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and the p.m. peak volumes between the hours of 2:30 to 4:30 p,.m, The City of La Quinta experiences peak traffic volumes at atypical times of day as result of heavy construction and maintenance worker trip volumes with early start/end work schedules. Traffic counts should consider the seasonal population variations within the City of La Quinta. Counts taken from November 1 to April 15 require no seasonal adjustments. Use of traffic counts taken in the period between Thanksgiving and New Years Day will generally not be allowable given the wide variation in traffic volumes during this period. Counts taken from April 16 to May 15 and from October 1 to October 31, during the shoulder seasons, should be increased by 20%. Counts taken from May 16 to September 30 during the off season should be increased by up to 40% from measured levels. Historical traffic counts (with the aforementioned adjustments) may be utilized for a. period no greater than 1 year from the initiation of work for any new traffic study required for a new project. A request to use historical traffic counts should be documented in the scoping form submitted to the City. Trip growth rates should be assumed to equal 5% per year in La Quinta locations north of Highway 111. Trip growth rates should be assumed to equal 8% per year in La Quinta locations south of Highway 11 1 . TRAFFIC VOLUME BENCHMARKS Traffic counts and studies should benchmark against current peak season traffic volume levels available from the Coachella Valley Association of Governments at: http*://www.cvaci.orcilder)ts/tra ns.htni Studies should review current traffic census information to ensure that actual or theoretical counts are of the proper magnitude. TRIP GENERATION RATES ITE trip generation rates should utilize appropriate (and use categories for peak hour assumptions as described in this Engineering Bulletin. For high weekend use facilities such as shopping centers and restaurants, the traffic study report should utilize the higher trip generation values assigned to these classifications as well as analysis of weekday trip generation conditions. AM peak hour analysis is not generally applicable for commercial sites. The ITE rate of the peak hour of the generator NOT the peak hour of the adjacent street should generally be utilized, In addition to average peak hour rates, increases in average rates to incorporate statistical standard deviations for commercial projects (discount superstores, shopping centers, quality and fast-food restaurants), gasoline service stations and drive-in banks should be reviewed for worst case sensitivity analysis. The analysis is requested to identify marginal traffic issues with potential additional traffic volumes. The statistical standard deviation trip generation increase analysis should review all site access intersections and adjacent arterial intersections. A supplemental table & diagram should be provided within the traffic study to document standard deviation maximum trip distributions and the potential traffic impacts occurring at the margins of the trip generation estimates. The standard deviation trip generation rates are not intended to define standard mitigation measures, but to provide a sensitivity review for possible traffic impacts adjacent to the development, given the inexact nature of traffic study assumptions and results. PEAK HOUR FACTORS The Riverside County TIA Preparation Guide, August 2005, specifies use of a peak hour factor of 1.0 in buildout traffic conditions. Peak hour factors should be based on traffic counts, not an assumed peak hour factor of 1.0 (if traffic counts are available) to calculate the peak hour factor at existing intersections. TRAFFIC SIGNAL GUIDANCE The need for additional traffic signals should be based on a complete warrant analysis as well as a review of warrants generated by future ultimate buildout volumes. Warrant analysis should utilize specifications pursuant to the current version of the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) with. particular attention to Warrants 3, 6 and 8. The 70% factor (rural assumption — major street > 40 mph) warrant volume should be utilized in most cases. The need for traffic signals should include an analysis for modified Warrant 6 (Coordinated Signal Systems). This warrant should be applied to locations where adjacent traffic signals do not provide the necessary degree of platooning and where the addition of a new traffic signal will assist in providing progressive signal operation. This will be considered critical at locations which are 1300 to 2600 feet from existing traffic signals or 1300 to 2600 feet from future traffic signal installations. At locations which are less than 1300 feet from adjacent traffic signals, new traffic signals will not generally be permitted, Additionally, the need for traffic signals should include an analysis for Warrant 8 (Roadway Network). The signal warrant may be met by an intersection which has a total existing or immediately projected entering volume of at least 1,000 vehicles per hour during the peak hour of a typical weekday or has a total existing or immediately projected entering volume of at least 1,000 vehicles per hour for each of any 5 hours of a non -normal business day (Saturday or Sunday). DUAL LEFT TURN LANES & EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TURN LANES Traffic study recommendations for dual left turn lanes should be based on a threshold of 250 vehicles per hour peak hour volumes. Traffic study recommendations for an exclusive right turn lane should be based on a threshold of 200 vehicles per hour peak hour volumes, DECELERATION LANE GUIDANCE Auxiliary lanes shall be installed on all primary and secondary arterial streets, and higher order street classifications according to the following criteria: a) A left -turn deceleration lane with taper and storage length is required for any driveway with a projected peak hour left ingress turning volume estimated to be 25 vehicles per hour (vph) or greater, The taper length shall be included within the required deceleration lane length. b) A right -turn deceleration lane with taper and storage length its required for any driveway with a projected peak hour right ingress turning volume estimated to be 50 vph or greater. The taper length shall be included within the required deceleration lane length. c) Right -turn deceleration lanes will not generally be required on streets with more than three travel lanes in the direction of the right -turn lane. Installation recommendations for deceleration lanes and related intersection turning movement distributions shown in the final traffic study report will be subject to approval by the City Engineer. Auxiliary lanes will also be required to meet the following criteria.- 1. riteria: 1. The minimum lane length shall be 100 feet plus taper length for left -turn deceleration lanes and based in accordance with storage analysis. The left -turn deceleration lane should include storage for the left turn pocket (please see the nomograph in the ITE Transportation and Land Development latest edition). 2. The design length for right -turn deceleration lanes shall be in accordance with the following table. A storage requirement should be assumed for the right -turn deceleration lane. The design criteria assumptions include; a) the motorist decreases the travel speed in the outside lane before entering the deceleration lane by 10 mph below the posted speed limit for the street segment in question, b) the motorist decelerates in the deceleration lane to a final speed of 10 mph which is the assumed speed that the motorist turns the corner to enter the access drive, c) the rate of deceleration is assumed to be 6.5 feet per second. POSTED DECELERATION TRANSITION STORAGE LENGTH SPEED LENGTH LENGTH LIMIT 40 mph 132 feet 120 feet TO BE CALCULATED 45 mph 186 feet 120 feet TO BE CALCULATED 50 mph 248 feet ` 150 feet TO BE CALCULATED 55 mph J__ 319 feet wv150 feet ' TO BE CALCULATED In general, the right-of-way (with a bike lane) must be widened to 8 or 10 feet to accommodate the 12 -foot wide auxiliary lane. The reduction in right-of-way requirement with bike lane condition results from the MUTCD bike lane transition width reduction. The MUTCD specifies that a bike lane is reduced from 8 feet or 6 feet to a 4 -foot bike lane at intersections. The right-of-way (without a bike lane) must be widened to 12 feet to accommodate the 12 -foot wide auxiliary lane. If insufficient property frontage is available to accommodate the deceleration lane, dedication of frontage is requested, 3. No reductions in the width of the landscape buffer will be permitted to construct the auxiliary lane. 4. All auxiliary lanes must be contained within the development project limits. THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE INTERSECTIONS Pro'ecl t Specific imparts - A significant adverse project specific traffic impact is assumed to occur at any intersections if the project will change the V/C ratio or add Peak Hour Trips (PHT) to impacted intersections that exceed the thresholds for changes in Level of Service (LOS) established in the following table. TABLE 1: Threshold for Changes in Level of Service LOS at Irtitersections SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN LOS Intersection LOS (Existing) Increase in V/C equal to or greater than LOS A 0.25 LOS B 0.20 LOS C 0.15 Increase in Trips equal to or greater than LOS D 25 trips* LOS E 10 trips* LOS F 5 trips" *To critical movements Cumulative Impacts - A significant adverse cumulative traffic impact is assumed to occur at any intersection if the project will add 10 or more peak hour trips to the critical movements at a critical intersection and is projected to cause a LOS change greater than the thresholds defined in Table 1 by the year 2020. If the project will increase the projected 2020 VIC ratio by less than 0,02 and the Traffic Uniform Mitigation fees are paid, the project's contribution to an otherwise significant cumulative impact is considered mitigated. ROAD SEGMENTS Project Specific Impacts - A significant adverse project specific traffic impact is assumed to occur on any road segment if any one of the following results from the project: a. If the project will add 100 or more ADT or 1 % or more of the total projected ADT to a road segment that is currently operating at an acceptable LOS, but would cause the LOS to fall to an unacceptable level. b, If the project will add 100 or more ADT or 1 % or more of the total projected ADT, whichever is greater, to a roadway that is currently operating at less -than - acceptable LOS. Cumulative Impacts - A significant adverse cumulative traffic impact is assumed to occur on any road segment if the project will add 100 or more ADT or 1 % or more of the total projected ADT to a roadway segment that is projected to fall to a less - than -acceptable LOS by the year 2020, However, if the project will increase the projected 2020 VIC ratio by less than 0.02 and the Traffic Uniform Mitigation fees are paid, the project's contribution to an otherwise significant cumulative impact is considered mitigated. Cumulative impacts shall be generated from an approved list of projects available from the La Quinta Community Development Department, ITE trip generation modeling which exceeds City General Plan buildout assumptions may be down rated to provide for consistency in analysis between projects and the General Plan. EXHIBIT 4-1 LA QUI NTA STUDY AREA RECOMMENDED GENERAL PLAN INTERSECTION GEOMETRY 0541-9"6.09A REV; W51100 LA QUWA TRAFFSC M=a. La Ciu n4a, CWftr+is LluKJ K Appendix H Memorandum from Timothy Jonasson, Public Works Director/City Engineer T4ht 4 eeG,Quin1u, MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: imothy Jonasson, Public Works Director/City Engineer DATE: 11/6/07 SUBJECT: Eden Rock Roadway Segment Analysis The City of La Quinta Department of Public Works Engineering Bulletin #06- 13 dated December 19, 2006 requires the analysis of roadway segments for potential impacts at the project and cumulative level. However, the City Traffic Engineer has determined that the roadway segments that could potentially be impacted by the proposed Eden Rock at PGA West Project are not the critical elements of the roadway system (traffic intersections analyzed in the Eden Rock at PGA West Traffic Impact Study were the critical elements), therefore roadway segment analysis was not required (Please see below). The proposed Eden Rock at PGA West project is anticipated to add more than 100 trips to area roadways, exceeding the significance thresholds of the City's Engineering Bulletin. However, the City Traffic Engineer has determined that all of the roadway segments that could potentially be impacted by the proposed project are currently operating at an acceptable level of service (LOS). As stated above, the City Traffic Engineer has determined that the affected segments were not the critical elements of the roadway system (intersections were the critical elements), therefore segment analysis was not required. The acceptable LOS for roadway segments in the City of La Quinta is D, based upon the City's General Plan Traffic Impact Analysis, and the associated EIR for the General Plan. The Traffic Impact Analysis for the General Plan, and the associated analysis in the General Plan EIR, determined that all roadway segments to be impacted by the Eden Rock at PGA West project (those roadway segments connecting the studied intersections) would operate at an acceptable LOS in the Post 2020 condition (General Plan EIR Table III -13, and Exhibit III -7). That analysis was based on the location of a hotel on the Project site. As demonstrated in the Eden Rock Traffic Impact Analysis, the Project will generate 1,711 average daily trips. The current Specific Plan, in place at the time the General Plan EIR and associated Traffic Impact Analysis were prepared, identified Resort Commercial land uses on the site, generating 10,488 average daily trips. The currently proposed Project, therefore generates 8,777 fewer average daily trips than anticipated in the General Plan Traffic Impact Analysis. As a result, the City Traffic Engineer determined that the proposed Project would reduce roadway segment loads, and that segment analysis was not required. Therefore, project level and cumulative level roadway segment impact analysis was not required of the Traffic Impact Study for Eden Rock at PGA West Project. CC; Wally Nesbit Les Johnson