Agenda packet, regular meeting — La Mesa City Council, May 13, 2025 (part 13 of 15)

Elevation QAVG (CFS) DV (CF) DT (HR) Total T

0.17 0.02 255 3.88 27.54

0.33 0.02 293 3.42 23.66

0.50 0.03 317 2.65 20.24

0.67 0.04 335 2.30 17.59

0.83 0.05 350 2.09 15.29

1.00 0.05 362 1.94 13.20

1.17 0.06 373 1.83 11.26

1.33 0.06 382 1.74 9.44

1.50 0.07 390 1.66 7.70

1.67 0.07 397 1.59 6.04

1.83 0.07 403 1.53 4.45

2.00 0.08 408 1.48 2.92

2.17 0.08 412 1.43 1.43
HMP-2

Page 2043 of 2604 ends

PLAN VIEW

ELEVATION VIEW

RIGHT END VIEW

LEFT END VIEW

SITE SPECIFIC DATA

GENERAL NOTES

INSTALLATION NOTES

STANDARD DETAIL

STORMWATER BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM
MWS-L-6-8-V

FOR PATENT INFORMATION, GO TO
www.ContechES.com/IP
BF-3-2 0.147 OFFLINE N/A N/A N/A PEDESTRIAN 3.4 1.3 1.0 0.147 * PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

Page 2044 of 2604 ends

Page 2045 of 2604 ends

August 2021

GENERAL USE LEVEL DESIGNATION FOR BASIC (TSS)

ENHANCED AND PHOSPHORUSTREATMENT
For
MWS-Linear Modular Wetland
Ecology’s Decision
Based on Modular Wetland Systems, Inc, application submissions, including the Technical Evaluation Report, dated April 1, 2014, Ecology hereby issues the following use level designation:

1. General Use Level Designation (GULD) for the MWS-Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System for Basic, Phosphorus, and Enhanced treatment  Sized at a hydraulic loading rate of:
 1 gallon per minute (gpm) per square foot (sq ft) of Wetland Cell Surface Area
 Prefilter box (approved at either 22 inches or 33 inches tall)  3.0 gpm/sq ft of prefilter box surface area for moderate pollutant loading rates (low to medium density residential basins).
 2.1 gpm/sq ft of prefilter box surface area for high pollutant loading rates (commercial and industrial basins).

2. Ecology approves the MWS – Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System units for Basic, Phosphorus, and Enhanced treatment at the hydraulic loading rate listed above. Designers shall calculate the water quality design flow rates using the following procedures:
 Western Washington: For treatment installed upstream of detention or retention, the water quality design flow rate is the peak 15-minute water quality treatment design flow rate as calculated using the latest version of the Western Washington Hydrology Model or other Ecology- approved continuous runoff model.

Page 2046 of 2604 ends

 Eastern Washington: For treatment installed upstream of detention or retention, the water quality design flow rate is the peak 15-minute water quality treatment design flow rate as calculated using one of the three methods described in Chapter 2.2.5 of the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (SWMMEW) or local manual.
 Entire State: For treatment installed downstream of detention, the water quality treatment design flow rate is the full 2-year release rate of the detention facility.

3. These use level designations have no expiration date but may be amended or revoked by Ecology, and are subject to the conditions specified below.

Ecology’s Conditions of Use
Applicants shall comply with the following conditions:
1) Design, assemble, install, operate, and maintain the MWS – Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System units, in accordance with Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. applicable manuals and documents and the Ecology Decision. 2) Each site plan must undergo Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. review and approval before site installation. This ensures that site grading and slope are appropriate for use of a MWS – Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System unit. 3) MSW – Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System media shall conform to the specifications submitted to and approved by Ecology. 4) The applicant tested the MWS – Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System with an external bypass weir. This weir limited the depth of water flowing through the media, and therefore the active treatment area, to below the root zone of the plants. This GULD applies to MWS – Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment Systems whether plants are included in the final product or not.
5) Maintenance: The required maintenance interval for stormwater treatment devices is often dependent upon the degree of pollutant loading from a particular drainage basin. Therefore, Ecology does not endorse or recommend a “one size fits all” maintenance cycle for a particular model/size of stormwater treatment technology.  Typically, Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. designs MWS – Linear Modular Wetland systems for a target prefilter media life of 6 to 12 months.  Indications of the need for maintenance include effluent flow decreasing to below the design flow rate or decrease in treatment below required levels.  Owners/operators must inspect MWS – Linear Modular Wetland systems for a minimum of twelve months from the start of post-construction operation to determine site-specific maintenance schedules and requirements. You must conduct inspections monthly during the wet season, and every other month during the dry season (According to the SWMMWW, the wet season in western Washington is October 1 to April

Page 2047 of 2604 ends

30. According to the SWMMEW, the wet season in eastern Washington is October 1 to June 30). After the first year of operation, owners/operators must conduct inspections based on the findings during the first year of inspections.
 Conduct inspections by qualified personnel, follow manufacturer’s guidelines, and use methods capable fo determining either a decrease in treated effluent flowrate and/or a decrease in pollutant removal ability.  When inspections are performed, the following findings typically serve as maintenance triggers:
 Standing water remains in the vault between rain events, or  Bypass occurs during storms smaller than the design storm.  If excessive floatables (trash and debris) are present (but no standing water or excessive sedimentation), perform a minor maintenance consisting of gross solids removal, not prefilter media replacement.  Additional data collection will be used to create a correlation between pretreatment chamber sediment depth and pre-filter clogging (see Issues to be Addressed by the Company section below)
6) Discharges from the MWS – Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System units shall not cause or contribute to water quality standards violations in receiving waters.

Applicant: Modular Wetland Systems, Inc.

Applicant’s Address: 5796 Armada Drive, Suite 250
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Application Documents:

Original Application for Conditional Use Level Designation, Modular Wetland System, Linear Stormwater Filtration System Modular Wetland Systems, Inc., January 2011 Quality Assurance Project Plan: Modular Wetland System – Linear Treatment System Performance Monitoring Project, draft, January 2011
Revised Application for Conditional Use Level Designation, Modular Wetland System, Linear Stormwater Filtration System Modular Wetland Systems, Inc., May 2011 Memorandum: Modular Wetland System-Linear GULD Application Supplementary Data, April 2014

Page 2048 of 2604 ends

Technical Evaluation Report: Modular Wetland System Stormwater Treatment System Performance Monitoring, April 2014
Applicant’s Use Level Request:
 General Use Level Designation as a Basic, Enhanced, and Phosphorus treatment device in accordance with Ecology’s Guidance for Evaluating Emerging Stormwater Treatment Technologies Technology Assessment Protocol – Ecology (TAPE) January 2011 Revision.

Applicant’s Performance Claims:
 The MWS – Linear Modular wetland is capable of removing a minimum of 80-percent of TSS from stormwater with influent concentrations between 100 and 200 mg/L.  The MWS – Linear Modular wetland is capable of removing a minimum of 50-percent of total phosphorus from stormwater with influent concentrations between 0.1 and 0.5 mg/L.
 The MWS – Linear Modular wetland is capable of removing a minimum 30-percent of dissolved copper from stormwater with influent concentrations between 0.005 and

0.020 mg/L.
 The MWS – Linear Modular wetland is capable of removing a minimum 60-percent of dissolved zinc from stormwater with influent concentrations between 0.02 and 0.30 mg/L.

Ecology’s Recommendations:
 Modular Wetland System, Inc. has shown Ecology, through laboratory and fieldtesting, that the MWS – Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System filter system is capable of attaining Ecology’s Basic, Phosphorus, and Enhanced treatment goals.

Findings of Fact:

Laboratory Testing
The MWS-Linear Modular wetland has the:
 Capability to remove 99 percent of total suspended solids (using Sil-Co-Sil 106) in a quarter-scale model with influent concentrations of 270 mg/L.  Capability to remove 91 percent of total suspended solids (using Sil-Co-Sil 106) in laboratory conditions with influent concentrations of 84.6 mg/L at a flow rate of 3.0 gpm per square foot of media.
 Capability to remove 93 percent of dissolved Copper in a quarter-scale model with influent concentrations of 0.757 mg/L.
 Capability to remove 79 percent of dissolved Copper in laboratory conditions with influent concentrations of 0.567 mg/L at a flow rate of 3.0 gpm per square foot of media.

Page 2049 of 2604 ends

 Capability to remove 80.5-percent of dissolved Zinc in a quarter-scale model with influent concentrations of 0.95 mg/L at a flow rate of 3.0 gpm per square foot of media.  Capability to remove 78-percent of dissolved Zinc in laboratory conditions with influent concentrations of 0.75 mg/L at a flow rate of 3.0 gpm per square foot of media.

Field Testing
 Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. conducted monitoring of an MWS-Linear (Model # MWS-L-4-13) from April 2012 through May 2013, at a transportation maintenance facility in Portland, Oregon. The manufacturer collected flow-weighted composite samples of the system’s influent and effluent during 28 separate storm events. The system treated approximately 75 percent of the runoff from 53.5 inches of rainfall during the monitoring period. The applicant sized the system at 1 gpm/sq ft. (wetland media) and 3gpm/sq ft. (prefilter).
 Influent TSS concentrations for qualifying sampled storm events ranged from 20 to 339 mg/L. Average TSS removal for influent concentrations greater than 100 mg/L (n=7) averaged 85 percent. For influent concentrations in the range of 20-100 mg/L (n=18), the upper 95 percent confidence interval about the mean effluent concentration was

12.8 mg/L.
 Total phosphorus removal for 17 events with influent TP concentrations in the range of

0.1 to 0.5 mg/L averaged 65 percent. A bootstrap estimate of the lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL95) of the mean total phosphorus reduction was 58 percent.  The lower 95 percent confidence limit of the mean percent removal was 60.5 percent for dissolved zinc for influent concentrations in the range of 0.02 to 0.3 mg/L (n=11).

The lower 95 percent confidence limit of the mean percent removal was 32.5 percent for dissolved copper for influent concentrations in the range of 0.005 to 0.02 mg/L (n=14) at flow rates up to 28 gpm (design flow rate 41 gpm). Laboratory test data augmented the data set, showing dissolved copper removal at the design flow rate of 41 gpm (93 percent reduction in influent dissolved copper of 0.757 mg/L).

Issues to be addressed by the Company:

1. Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. should collect maintenance and inspection data for the first year on all installations in the Northwest in order to assess standard maintenance requirements for various land uses in the region. Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. should use these data to establish required maintenance cycles.

2. Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. should collect pre-treatment chamber sediment depth data for the first year of operation for all installations in the Northwest. Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. will use these data to create a correlation between sediment depth and pre-filter clogging.

Page 2050 of 2604 ends

Technology Description:

Download at http://www.modularwetlands.com/
Contact Information:

Applicant: Zach Kent
BioClean A Forterra Company
5796 Armada Drive, Suite 250
Carlsbad, CA 92008
[email protected]
Applicant website: http://www.modularwetlands.com/
Ecology web link: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wg/stormwater/newtech/index.html Ecology: Douglas C. Howie,
P.E. Department of
Ecology Water
Quality Program
(360) 870-0983
[email protected]
Revision History
Date Revision
June 2011 Original use-level-designation document
September 2012 Revised dates for TER and expiration
January 2013 Modified Design Storm Description, added Revision Table, added maintenance discussion, modified format in accordance with Ecology standard
December 2013 Updated name of Applicant
April 2014 Approved GULD designation for Basic, Phosphorus, and Enhanced treatment
December 2015 Updated GULD to document the acceptance of MWS – Linear Modular Wetland installations with or without the inclusion of plants July 2017 Revised Manufacturer Contact Information (name, address, and email) December 2019 Revised Manufacturer Contact Address
July 2021 Added additional prefilter sized at 33 inches August 2021 Changed “Prefilter” to “Prefilter box”

Page 2051 of 2604 ends

85% P24 = 0.51 in
Project

Page 2052 of 2604 ends

Page 2053 of 2604 ends

County of San Diego Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) Attachment 8: Documentation of DMAs with Structural Hydromodification BMPs County of San Diego SWQMP Attachment 8.0 (General Requirements) Page 8.0-1 Template Date: January 8, 2019 Preparation Date: 1/9/2019

8.0 General Requirements
 Completion of this attachment is required for all PDPs subject to hydromodification management requirements (see PDP SWQMP Form Table 5). Do not submit this attachment if exempt from Hydromodification Management requirements. Document the PDP exemption in Attachment 9.  Submit this cover page and all required Sub-attachments for all structural hydromodification management BMPs proposed for the project.
 Constructed features must fully satisfy the requirements described in applicable BMPDM sections and appendices, and any other guidance identified by the County.  DMA Exhibits and Construction Plans: DMAs, features, and BMPs identified and described in this attachment must be shown on DMA Exhibits and all applicable construction plans submitted for the project. See Attachment 2 for additional instruction on exhibits and plans.  Structural BMP Certification. All structural hydromodification management BMPs documented this attachment must be certified by a registered engineer in Attachment 7, Sub-attachment 7.1.  Structural BMP Verification. BMP installation must be verified by the County at the completion of construction. Applicants must complete an Installation Verification Form (Attachment 10).

Sub-attachments (check all that are completed)
☒ 8.1: Flow Control Facility Design (required)1
Submit using ☒ the Sub-attachment 8.1 cover sheet provided, or ☐ as a separate stand-alone document labeled Sub-attachment 8.1.
☒ 8.2: Hydromodification Management Points of Compliance (required) Complete the table provided in Sub-attachment 8.2.

8.3: Geomorphic Assessment of Receiving Channels

1. Has a geomorphic assessment been performed for the receiving channel(s)? ☒ No, the low flow threshold is 0.1Q2 (default low flow threshold) ☐ Yes (provide the information below):

Low flow threshold: ☐ 0.1Q2 ☐ 0.3Q2 ☐ 0.5Q2
Title:

Date: Preparer:

Submit using ☐ the Sub-attachment 8.3 cover sheet provided, or ☐ as a separate stand-alone document labeled Sub-attachment 8.3.

8.4: Vector Control Plan (required if BMPs will not drain in less than 96 hours) ☐ Included with this attachment ☐ Not required
1 Including Structural BMP Drawdown Calculations and Overflow Design Summary. See BMPDM Chapter 6 and Appendix G for additional design guidance.

Page 2054 of 2604 ends

County of San Diego SWQMP Sub-attachment 8.1 (Flow Control Facility Design) Page 8.1-1 Template Date: January 8, 2019 Preparation Date: 1/9/2019

8.1 Flow Control Facility Design
Insert Flow Control Facility Design behind this cover page or submit as a separate stand-alone document labeled Sub-attachment 8.1.

Page 2055 of 2604 ends

PROJECT

BOUNDARY
B
R
OA
D
M
O
O
R
D
R

JERICHO RD
A
MA
YA
D
R

PROJECT

BOUNDARY

PROJECT

BOUNDARY
B
R
OA
D
M
O
O
R
D
R

JERICHO RD
A
MA
YA
D
R

PROJECT

BOUNDARY
PVT. DRIVE "A"
PVT. DRIVE "B"
PVT. DRIVE "C"
P
VT. D
R
I
VE
"E
"
PVT. DRIVE "C"
T
T
BLDG #2
BLDG #3
BLDG #4 BLDG #5
BLDG #6
B
L
D
G
#
7 BLDG #1
P=652.2
P=651.3
P=651.3 P=649.0
P
=646.3
P=652.2
P=651.2
P=651.7
P=650.3
P=650.3
P=648.0
P=646.4
P
=64
5 3.

PVT. DRIVE "D"
BLDG #9
P=652.6
BLDG #8
P=652.1
P=651.6
FF=653.3
FF=652.8
FF=652.3 P=652.6
FF=653.3
FF=652.9
FF=651.9
FF=652.4
FF=652.9
FF=652.0 FF=651.0
FF
=64

7.0 FF
=646.0
FF=652.0 FF=651.0 FF=649.7
FF=648.7
FF=647.1
OF
1 1
PREPARED BY:

LEGEND:

PROJECT BOUNDARY...........................................................................................

DMA BOUNDARY....................................................................................................

DAYLIGHT...............................................................................................................

PROPOSED STORM DRAIN..................................................................................

FLOW LINE.............................................................................................................

SUBAREA ACREAGE.............................................................................................

DMA ICON...............................................................................................................

IMPERVIOUS - ROAD............................................................................................

IMPERVIOUS - ROOF............................................................................................

IMPERVIOUS - SIDEWALK/DRIVEWAY....................................................................................

PERVIOUS AREAS.................................................................................................

SELF-MITIGATING AREA.......................................................................................

ACTIVE OPEN SPACE...........................................................................................

DISPERSION AREA................................................................................................

DE MINIMIS AREA................................................................................................

INLET......................................................................................................................

HYDROLOGIC SOIL TYPE.....................................................................................

POINT OF COMPLIANCE.......................................................................................

STRUCTURAL BMP\ MWS UNIT............................................................................

SYMBOL:

DMA 1
DMA 1
DMA 2

CITY OF LA MESA, CALIFORNIA

HMP MAP

JERICHO ROAD
DMA 3
BF-3-1
SM-1
SM-2
SM-3
HMP-1 BF-3-2
HMP-2
SD-B
697 SF
4'X6'
6'X8'
465 SF
SD-B
638 SF
SD-B
815 SF

DE MINIMIS
250 SF
SD-B
425 SF
SD-B
543 SF
SD-B

Page 2056 of 2604 ends

Page 2057 of 2604 ends

Project Name: Jericho
Project Applicant: Meritage Homes
Jurisdiction: City of La Mesa
Parcel (APN): E4866701800
Hydrologic Unit: San Diego
Rain Gauge: Oceanside
Total Project Area (sf): 152,024
Channel Susceptibility: High
BMP Sizing Spreadsheet V3.0

Page 2058 of 2604 ends

Project Name: Hydrologic Unit:

Project Applicant: Rain Gauge:

Jurisdiction: Total Project Area:

Parcel (APN): Low Flow Threshold:

BMP Name: BMP Type:

BMP Native Soil Type: BMP Infiltration Rate (in/hr):

HMP Sizing Factors Minimum BMP Size
DMA
Name Area (sf)
Pre Project Soil
Type Pre-Project Slope
Post Project
Surface Type
Area Weighted Runoff
Factor
(Table G.2-1)1
Volume Volume (CF)
DMA 1 41,086 D Moderate Mixed 0.9 0.12 4240
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
BMP Tributary Area 41,086 Minimum BMP Size 4240
Proposed BMP Size* 4390 * Assumes standard configuration

3.5 ft

3.5 ft
1211 CF
Notes:

1. Runoff factors which are used for hydromodification management flow control (Table G.2-1) are different from the runoff factors used for pollutant control BMP sizing (Table B.1-1). Table references are taken from the San Diego Region Model BMP Design Manual, April 2018.

This BMP Sizing Spreadsheet has been updated in conformance with the San Diego Region Model BMP Design Manual, April 2018. For questions or concerns please contact the jurisdiction in which your project is located.

Describe the BMP's in sufficient detail in your PDP SWQMP to demonstrate the area, volume, and other criteria can be met within the constraints of the site.

BMP's must be adapted and applied to the conditions specific to the development project such as unstable slopes or the lack of available head.

Designated Staff have final review and approval authority over the project design.

Standard Cistern Depth (Overflow Elevation)
Provided Cistern Depth (Overflow Elevation)
Minimum Required Cistern Footprint)
Areas Draining to BMP
City of La Mesa
E4866701800
D
BMP Sizing Spreadsheet V3.0
NA
Cistern

0.1Q2
152,024
Oceanside
San Diego
HMP-1
Jericho
Meritage Homes

Page 2059 of 2604 ends

Project Name: Hydrologic Unit:

Project Applicant: Rain Gauge:

Jurisdiction: Total Project Area:

Parcel (APN): Low Flow Threshold:

BMP Name BMP Type:

Rain Gauge Unit Runoff Ratio DMA Area (ac) Orifice Flow - %Q2 Orifice Area Soil Type Slope (cfs/ac) (cfs) (in2
)
DMA 1 Oceanside D Moderate 0.575 0.943 0.054 0.80

3.50 0.054 0.80 1.01
Max Orifice Head Max Tot. Allowable
Orifice Flow
Max Tot. Allowable
Orifice Area
Max Orifice
Diameter
(feet) (cfs) (in2
) (in)
Provide Hand Calc. 0.053 0.79 1.000
Average outflow during
surface drawdown Max Orifice Outflow Actual Orifice Area Selected Orifice Diameter
(cfs) (cfs) (in2
) (in)
Drawdown (Hrs) Provide Hand
Calculation
HMP-1
Pre-developed Condition
No Orifice Required for
Infiltration Facilities
DMA
Name
San Diego
BMP Sizing Spreadsheet V3.0
City of La Mesa
E4866701800
Jericho
Meritage Homes

0.1Q2
152,024
Oceanside
Cistern
Drawdown time exceeds 96 Hrs. Project must
implement a vector control program.

PLEASE SEE FOLLOWING PAGES

FOR MANUAL CALCS
48 hrs

Page 2060 of 2604 ends

Page 2061 of 2604 ends

Page 2062 of 2604 ends

Page 2063 of 2604 ends

Date: 7/26/2023
Project Name: DMA1- SOUTH - COPY - 33763 (7-26-2023 22-10-38) City / County:

State:

Company:
=Adjustable Input Cells Telephone:

Out-to-out length (ft): 70.0 Backfill Porosity (%): 40% System Diameter (in): 72 Out-to-out width (ft): 24.0 Depth Above Pipe (in): 6.0 Pipe Spacing (in): 36 Number of Manifolds (ea): 1.0 Depth Below Pipe (in): 0.0 Incremental Analysis (in): 2 Number of Barrels (ea): 3.0 Width At Ends (ft): 1.0 System Invert (Elevation): 0 Width At Sides (ft): 1.0
Depth (ft) Elevation (ft)
Incremental
Storage (cf)
Cumulative
Storage (cf)
Incremental
Storage (cf)
Cumulative
Storage (cf)
Incremental
Storage (cf)
Cumulative
Storage (cf)
Percent Open
Storage (%)
Ave. Surface
Area (sf)

0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 748.8

0.17 0.16 47.6 47.6 105.8 105.8 153.4 153.4 31.0% 1,004.4

0.33 0.33 85.9 133.5 90.4 196.2 176.3 329.7 40.5% 1,105.0

0.50 0.50 109.6 243.1 81.0 277.2 190.6 520.3 46.7% 1,178.6

0.67 0.66 127.9 370.9 73.7 350.8 201.5 721.8 51.4% 1,237.6

0.83 0.83 142.8 513.7 67.7 418.5 210.5 932.2 55.1% 1,286.6

1.00 1.00 155.3 669.1 62.7 481.2 218.0 1,150.2 58.2% 1,328.4

1.17 1.16 166.1 835.2 58.4 539.5 224.5 1,374.7 60.8% 1,364.3

1.33 1.33 175.4 1,010.6 54.6 594.2 230.0 1,604.7 63.0% 1,395.4

1.50 1.50 183.4 1,194.0 51.4 645.6 234.9 1,839.6 64.9% 1,422.2

1.67 1.66 190.4 1,384.3 48.7 694.3 239.0 2,078.6 66.6% 1,445.4

1.83 1.83 196.3 1,580.7 46.3 740.5 242.6 2,321.2 68.1% 1,465.2

2.00 2.00 201.4 1,782.0 44.2 784.8 245.6 2,566.8 69.4% 1,481.9

2.17 2.16 205.6 1,987.7 42.5 827.3 248.2 2,815.0 70.6% 1,495.8

2.33 2.33 209.1 2,196.8 41.2 868.5 250.3 3,065.3 71.7% 1,507.0

2.50 2.50 211.8 2,408.6 40.1 908.5 251.9 3,317.2 72.6% 1,515.5

2.67 2.66 213.9 2,622.5 39.2 947.8 253.1 3,570.3 73.5% 1,521.6

2.83 2.83 215.2 2,837.7 38.7 986.5 253.9 3,824.2 74.2% 1,525.2

3.00 3.00 215.9 3,053.6 38.4 1,024.9 254.3 4,078.6 74.9% 1,526.4

3.17 3.16 215.9 3,269.5 38.4 1,063.4 254.3 4,332.9 75.5% 1,525.2

3.33 3.33 215.2 3,484.7 38.7 1,102.1 253.9 4,586.8 76.0% 1,521.6

3.50 3.50 213.9 3,698.6 39.2 1,141.4 253.1 4,840.0 76.4% 1,515.5

3.67 3.66 211.8 3,910.5 40.1 1,181.4 251.9 5,091.9 76.8% 1,507.0

3.83 3.83 209.1 4,119.6 41.2 1,222.6 250.3 5,342.1 77.1% 1,495.8

4.00 4.00 205.6 4,325.2 42.5 1,265.1 248.2 5,590.3 77.4% 1,481.9

4.17 4.16 201.4 4,526.6 44.2 1,309.4 245.6 5,836.0 77.6% 1,465.2

4.33 4.33 196.3 4,722.9 46.3 1,355.6 242.6 6,078.6 77.7% 1,445.4

4.50 4.50 190.4 4,913.3 48.7 1,404.3 239.0 6,317.6 77.8% 1,422.2

4.67 4.66 183.4 5,096.7 51.4 1,455.7 234.9 6,552.4 77.8% 1,395.4

4.83 4.83 175.4 5,272.1 54.6 1,510.4 230.0 6,782.5 77.7% 1,364.3

5.00 5.00 166.1 5,438.2 58.4 1,568.7 224.5 7,006.9 77.6% 1,328.4

5.17 5.16 155.3 5,593.5 62.7 1,631.4 218.0 7,224.9 77.4% 1,286.6

5.33 5.33 142.8 5,736.3 67.7 1,699.1 210.5 7,435.4 77.1% 1,237.6

5.50 5.50 127.9 5,864.2 73.7 1,772.7 201.5 7,636.9 76.8% 1,178.6

5.67 5.66 109.6 5,973.8 81.0 1,853.7 190.6 7,827.5 76.3% 1,105.0

5.83 5.83 85.9 6,059.7 90.4 1,944.1 176.3 8,003.8 75.7% 1,004.4

6.00 6.00 47.6 6,107.3 105.8 2,049.9 153.4 8,157.2 74.9% 748.8

6.17 6.16 0.0 6,107.3 124.8 2,174.7 124.8 8,282.0 73.7% 748.8

6.33 6.33 0.0 6,107.3 124.8 2,299.5 124.8 8,406.8 72.6% 748.8 System Pipe Stone Total System
Storage Volume Estimation
Miscellaneous
Contech Engineered Solutions, LLC is pleased to offer the following estimate of storage volume for the above named project. The results are submitted as an estimate only, without liability on the part of Contech Engineered Solutions, LLC for accuracy or suitability to any particular applicaton and are subject to verification of the Engineer of Record. This tool is only applicable for rectangular shaped systems.

CMP: Underground Detention System
Storage Volume Estimation
Summary of Inputs
System Information Backfill Information Pipe & Analysis Information These results are submitted to you as a guideline only, without liability on the part of CONTECH Engineered Solutions, LLC for accuracy or suitability to any particular application, and are subject to your verification.

Page 2064 of 2604 ends

HMP #1 Discharge
Discharge vs Elevation Table
Low orifice: 1 " Top orifice: 4 "
Number: 1 Number: 0
Cg-low: 0.61 Cg-low: 0.61
invert elev: 0.00 ft invert elev: 4.00 ft
Middle orifice: 3 " Emergency inlet: 18" standup pipe
number of orif: 1 Rim height: 5.00 ft
Cg-middle: 0.61 Area 1.7671 sq ft
invert elev: 3.17 ft Circumference 4.7124 ft
h H/D-low H/D-mid H/D-top Qlow-orif Qlow-weir Qtot-low Qmid-orif Qmid-weir Qtot-med Qtop-orif Qtop-weir Qtot-top Qemerg Qtot (ft) - - - (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.17 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.009 0.013 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009

0.33 4.00 1.88 0.00 0.014 0.024 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.014

0.50 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.018 0.344 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018

0.67 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.021 2.243 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.021

0.83 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.024 8.567 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024

1.00 12.00 0.00 0.00 0.026 24.355 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026

1.17 14.00 0.00 0.00 0.028 57.454 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028

1.33 16.00 0.00 0.00 0.030 119.136 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.030

1.50 18.00 0.00 0.00 0.032 224.716 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.032

1.67 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.034 394.165 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.034

1.83 22.00 0.00 0.00 0.036 652.729 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.036

2.00 24.00 0.00 0.00 0.037 1031.545 0.037 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.037

2.17 26.00 0.00 0.00 0.039 1568.256 0.039 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.039

2.33 28.00 0.00 0.00 0.040 2307.630 0.040 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.040

2.50 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.042 3302.171 0.042 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.042

2.67 32.00 0.00 0.00 0.043 4612.744 0.043 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.043

2.83 34.00 0.00 0.00 0.045 6309.182 0.045 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.045

3.00 36.00 0.00 0.00 0.046 8470.909 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.046

3.17 38.00 0.00 0.00 0.047 11187.553 0.047 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.047 < 0.054 cfs

3.33 40.00 0.65 0.00 0.048 14559.566 0.048 0.047 0.039 0.039 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.088

3.50 42.00 1.32 0.00 0.050 18698.833 0.050 0.109 0.123 0.109 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.158

3.67 44.00 1.99 0.00 0.051 23729.298 0.051 0.146 0.194 0.146 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.197

3.83 46.00 2.65 0.00 0.052 29787.573 0.052 0.176 0.219 0.176 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.228

4.00 48.00 3.32 0.00 0.053 37023.556 0.053 0.202 0.230 0.202 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.255

4.17 50.00 3.99 0.50 0.054 45601.051 0.054 0.224 0.363 0.224 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.279

4.33 52.00 4.65 1.00 0.055 55698.380 0.055 0.245 0.902 0.245 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.300

4.50 54.00 5.32 1.50 0.056 67509.000 0.056 0.264 2.310 0.264 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.320

4.67 56.00 5.99 2.00 0.057 81242.122 0.057 0.281 5.277 0.281 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.339

4.83 58.00 6.65 2.50 0.058 97123.324 0.058 0.298 10.755 0.298 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.356

5.00 60.00 7.32 3.00 0.059 115395.172 0.059 0.314 19.999 0.314 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.373

5.17 62.00 7.99 3.50 0.060 136317.830 0.060 0.329 34.603 0.329 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.994 1.383

5.33 64.00 8.65 4.00 0.061 160169.680 0.061 0.343 56.547 0.343 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.811 3.216

5.50 66.00 9.32 4.50 0.062 187247.942 0.062 0.357 88.230 0.357 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.165 5.584

5.67 68.00 9.99 5.00 0.063 217869.281 0.063 0.370 132.512 0.370 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.063 7.497

5.83 70.00 10.65 5.50 0.064 252370.432 0.064 0.383 192.752 0.383 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.897 8.344

6.00 72.00 11.32 6.00 0.065 291108.813 0.065 0.395 272.851 0.395 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.651 9.111

0.047 CFS AT 3.17 FT =TOTAL ALLOWABLE ORIFICE FLOW, WHERE REQUIRED VOLUME IS PROVIDED (4,333 CFT) SEE NEXT PAGE

Page 2065 of 2604 ends

depth area area (ac) elevation volume (cf)
volume
(acft)

0.00 749 0.0172 0.0 0.0 0.000

0.17 1004 0.0231 0.2 153.4 0.004

0.33 1105 0.0254 0.3 329.7 0.008

0.50 1179 0.0271 0.5 520.3 0.012

0.67 1238 0.0284 0.7 721.8 0.017

0.83 1287 0.0295 0.8 932.2 0.021

1.00 1328 0.0305 1.0 1,150.2 0.026

1.17 1364 0.0313 1.2 1,374.7 0.032

1.33 1395 0.0320 1.3 1,604.7 0.037

1.50 1422 0.0326 1.5 1,839.6 0.042

1.67 1445 0.0332 1.7 2,078.6 0.048 1.53 DCV

1.83 1465 0.0336 1.8 2,321.2 0.053

2.00 1482 0.0340 2.0 2,566.8 0.059

2.17 1496 0.0343 2.2 2,815.0 0.065

2.33 1507 0.0346 2.3 3,065.3 0.070

2.50 1516 0.0348 2.5 3,317.2 0.076

2.67 1522 0.0349 2.7 3,570.3 0.082

2.83 1525 0.0350 2.8 3,824.2 0.088

3.00 1526 0.0350 3.0 4,078.6 0.094

3.17 1525 0.0350 3.2 4,332.9 0.099 >4240 cft

3.33 1522 0.0349 3.3 4,586.8 0.105

3.50 1516 0.0348 3.5 4,840.0 0.111

3.67 1507 0.0346 3.7 5,091.9 0.117

3.83 1496 0.0343 3.8 5,342.1 0.123

4.00 1482 0.0340 4.0 5,590.3 0.128

4.17 1465 0.0336 4.2 5,836.0 0.134

4.33 1445 0.0332 4.3 6,078.6 0.140

4.50 1422 0.0326 4.5 6,317.6 0.145

4.67 1395 0.0320 4.7 6,552.4 0.150

4.83 1364 0.0313 4.8 6,782.5 0.156

5.00 1328 0.0305 5.0 7,006.9 0.161

5.17 1287 0.0295 5.2 7,224.9 0.166

5.33 1238 0.0284 5.3 7,435.4 0.171

5.50 1179 0.0271 5.5 7,636.9 0.175

5.67 1105 0.0254 5.7 7,827.5 0.180

5.83 1004 0.0231 5.8 8,003.8 0.184

6.00 749 0.0172 6.0 8,157.2 0.187

6.17 749 0.0172 6.2 8,282.0 0.190

6.33 749 0.0172 6.3 8,406.8 0.193

6.50 749 0.0172 6.5 8,531.6 0.196
HMP #1 Stage Storage-CMP
4,333 CFT STORAGE
PROVIDED AT 3.17 FT
> 4,240 CFT MIN BMP
SIZE

Page 2066 of 2604 ends

HMP #1 DRAWDOWN CALCULATION
Elevation QAVG (CFS) DV (CF) DT (HR) Total T

0.17 0.01 153 4.51 47.72

0.33 0.01 176 4.11 43.21

0.50 0.02 191 3.26 39.11

0.67 0.02 202 2.86 35.85

0.83 0.02 210 2.61 32.99

1.00 0.02 218 2.43 30.38

1.17 0.03 224 2.29 27.96

1.33 0.03 230 2.18 25.67

1.50 0.03 235 2.08 23.49

1.67 0.03 239 2.00 21.40

1.83 0.03 243 1.93 19.40

2.00 0.04 246 1.87 17.47

2.17 0.04 248 1.81 15.60

2.33 0.04 250 1.75 13.79

2.50 0.04 252 1.70 12.04

2.67 0.04 253 1.65 10.34

2.83 0.04 254 1.61 8.69

3.00 0.05 254 1.56 7.08

3.17 0.05 254 1.52 5.52

3.33 0.07 254 1.05 4.01

3.50 0.12 253 0.57 2.96

3.67 0.18 252 0.39 2.39

3.83 0.21 250 0.33 1.99

4.00 0.24 248 0.29 1.67

4.17 0.27 246 0.26 1.38

4.33 0.29 243 0.23 1.13

4.50 0.31 239 0.21 0.89

4.67 0.33 235 0.20 0.68

4.83 0.35 230 0.18 0.48

5.00 0.36 224 0.17 0.30

5.17 0.88 218 0.07 0.13

5.33 2.30 210 0.03 0.06

5.50 4.40 202 0.01 0.03

5.67 6.54 191 0.01 0.02

5.83 7.92 176 0.01 0.01

6.00 8.73 153 0.00 0.00

TOTAL DRAW
DOWN < 96 HRS

Page 2067 of 2604 ends

Project Name: Hydrologic Unit:

Project Applicant: Rain Gauge:

Jurisdiction: Total Project Area:

Parcel (APN): Low Flow Threshold:

BMP Name: BMP Type:

BMP Native Soil Type: BMP Infiltration Rate (in/hr):

HMP Sizing Factors Minimum BMP Size
DMA
Name Area (sf)
Pre Project Soil
Type Pre-Project Slope
Post Project
Surface Type
Area Weighted Runoff
Factor
(Table G.2-1)1
Volume Volume (CF)
DMA 2 95,865 D Moderate Mixed 0.8 0.12 9566
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
BMP Tributary Area 95,865 Minimum BMP Size 9566
Proposed BMP Size* 9842 * Assumes standard configuration

3.5 ft

3.5 ft
2733 CF
Notes:

Provided Cistern Depth (Overflow Elevation)
Minimum Required Cistern Footprint)
Describe the BMP's in sufficient detail in your PDP SWQMP to demonstrate the area, volume, and other criteria can be met within the constraints of the site.

BMP's must be adapted and applied to the conditions specific to the development project such as unstable slopes or the lack of available head.

Designated Staff have final review and approval authority over the project design.

Standard Cistern Depth (Overflow Elevation)
E4866701800 0.1Q2
HMP-2 Cistern
D NA
Areas Draining to BMP
City of La Mesa 152,024
BMP Sizing Spreadsheet V3.0
Jericho San Diego
Meritage Homes Oceanside

Page 2068 of 2604 ends

Project Name: Hydrologic Unit:

Project Applicant: Rain Gauge:

Jurisdiction: Total Project Area:

Parcel (APN): Low Flow Threshold:

BMP Name BMP Type:

Rain Gauge Unit Runoff Ratio DMA Area (ac) Orifice Flow - %Q2 Orifice Area Soil Type Slope (cfs/ac) (cfs) (in2
)
DMA 2 Oceanside D Moderate 0.575 2.201 0.127 1.87

3.50 0.127 1.87 1.54
Max Orifice Head Max Tot. Allowable
Orifice Flow
Max Tot. Allowable
Orifice Area
Max Orifice
Diameter
(feet) (cfs) (in2
) (in)
Provide Hand Calc. 0.043 0.64 0.900
Average outflow during
surface drawdown Max Orifice Outflow Actual Orifice Area Selected Orifice Diameter
(cfs) (cfs) (in2
) (in)
Drawdown (Hrs) Provide Hand
Calculation
No Orifice Required for
Infiltration Facilities
Drawdown time exceeds 96 Hrs. Project must
implement a vector control program.

E4866701800 0.1Q2
HMP-2 Cistern
DMA
Name
Pre-developed Condition
City of La Mesa 152,024
BMP Sizing Spreadsheet V3.0
Jericho San Diego
Meritage Homes Oceanside

PLEASE SEE FOLLOWING PAGES

FOR MANUAL CALCS
42 hrs

Page 2069 of 2604 ends

Page 2070 of 2604 ends

Page 2071 of 2604 ends

Date: 8/1/2023
Project Name: Underground Perforated CMP - 35383 (8-1-2023 17-29-9) City / County:

State:

Company:
=Adjustable Input Cells Telephone:

Out-to-out length (ft): 69.0 Backfill Porosity (%): 40% System Diameter (in): 72 Out-to-out width (ft): 42.0 Depth Above Pipe (in): 6.0 Pipe Spacing (in): 36 Number of Manifolds (ea): 1.0 Depth Below Pipe (in): 0.0 Incremental Analysis (in): 2 Number of Barrels (ea): 5.0 Width At Ends (ft): 1.0 System Invert (Elevation): 0 Width At Sides (ft): 1.0
Depth (ft) Elevation (ft)
Incremental
Storage (cf)
Cumulative
Storage (cf)
Incremental
Storage (cf)
Cumulative
Storage (cf)
Incremental
Storage (cf)
Cumulative
Storage (cf)
Percent Open
Storage (%)
Ave. Surface
Area (sf)

0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 1,249.6

0.17 0.16 78.7 78.7 176.8 176.8 255.5 255.5 30.8% 1,672.0

0.33 0.33 141.9 220.6 151.5 328.3 293.4 548.9 40.2% 1,838.4

0.50 0.50 181.2 401.8 135.8 464.1 317.0 865.9 46.4% 1,960.0

0.67 0.66 211.3 613.1 123.7 587.8 335.1 1,200.9 51.1% 2,057.4

0.83 0.83 236.0 849.0 113.9 701.7 349.9 1,550.8 54.8% 2,138.5

1.00 1.00 256.8 1,105.8 105.6 807.3 362.3 1,913.1 57.8% 2,207.5

1.17 1.16 274.5 1,380.3 98.5 905.7 373.0 2,286.1 60.4% 2,266.9

1.33 1.33 289.9 1,670.2 92.3 998.0 382.2 2,668.3 62.6% 2,318.2

1.50 1.50 303.2 1,973.4 87.0 1,085.0 390.2 3,058.4 64.5% 2,362.6

1.67 1.66 314.6 2,288.0 82.4 1,167.5 397.0 3,455.5 66.2% 2,400.9

1.83 1.83 324.5 2,612.5 78.5 1,245.9 403.0 3,858.4 67.7% 2,433.6

2.00 2.00 332.9 2,945.3 75.1 1,321.1 408.0 4,266.4 69.0% 2,461.3

2.17 2.16 339.9 3,285.2 72.3 1,393.4 412.2 4,678.6 70.2% 2,484.2

2.33 2.33 345.6 3,630.8 70.0 1,463.4 415.6 5,094.2 71.3% 2,502.7

2.50 2.50 350.1 3,980.9 68.2 1,531.6 418.3 5,512.6 72.2% 2,516.8

2.67 2.66 353.5 4,334.4 66.9 1,598.5 420.4 5,932.9 73.1% 2,526.8

2.83 2.83 355.7 4,690.2 66.0 1,664.5 421.7 6,354.6 73.8% 2,532.8

3.00 3.00 356.8 5,047.0 65.5 1,730.0 422.4 6,777.0 74.5% 2,534.8

3.17 3.16 356.8 5,403.8 65.5 1,795.6 422.4 7,199.3 75.1% 2,532.8

3.33 3.33 355.7 5,759.5 66.0 1,861.5 421.7 7,621.0 75.6% 2,526.8

3.50 3.50 353.5 6,113.0 66.9 1,928.4 420.4 8,041.4 76.0% 2,516.8

3.67 3.66 350.1 6,463.1 68.2 1,996.6 418.3 8,459.7 76.4% 2,502.7

3.83 3.83 345.6 6,808.7 70.0 2,066.6 415.6 8,875.4 76.7% 2,484.2

4.00 4.00 339.9 7,148.6 72.3 2,139.0 412.2 9,287.6 77.0% 2,461.3

4.17 4.16 332.9 7,481.5 75.1 2,214.1 408.0 9,695.5 77.2% 2,433.6

4.33 4.33 324.5 7,805.9 78.5 2,292.6 403.0 10,098.5 77.3% 2,400.9

4.50 4.50 314.6 8,120.6 82.4 2,375.0 397.0 10,495.5 77.4% 2,362.6

4.67 4.66 303.2 8,423.7 87.0 2,462.0 390.2 10,885.7 77.4% 2,318.2

4.83 4.83 289.9 8,713.6 92.3 2,554.3 382.2 11,267.9 77.3% 2,266.9

5.00 5.00 274.5 8,988.1 98.5 2,652.7 373.0 11,640.9 77.2% 2,207.5

5.17 5.16 256.8 9,244.9 105.6 2,758.3 362.3 12,003.2 77.0% 2,138.5

5.33 5.33 236.0 9,480.9 113.9 2,872.2 349.9 12,353.1 76.7% 2,057.4

5.50 5.50 211.3 9,692.2 123.7 2,995.9 335.1 12,688.1 76.4% 1,960.0

5.67 5.66 181.2 9,873.3 135.8 3,131.7 317.0 13,005.1 75.9% 1,838.4

5.83 5.83 141.9 10,015.3 151.5 3,283.2 293.4 13,298.5 75.3% 1,672.0

6.00 6.00 78.7 10,093.9 176.8 3,460.0 255.5 13,554.0 74.5% 1,249.6

6.17 6.16 0.0 10,093.9 208.3 3,668.3 208.3 13,762.2 73.3% 1,249.6 System Pipe Stone Total System
Storage Volume Estimation
Miscellaneous
Contech Engineered Solutions, LLC is pleased to offer the following estimate of storage volume for the above named project. The results are submitted as an estimate only, without liability on the part of Contech Engineered Solutions, LLC for accuracy or suitability to any particular applicaton and are subject to verification of the Engineer of Record. This tool is only applicable for rectangular shaped systems.

Page 2072 of 2604 ends

HMP #2 Discharge
Discharge vs Elevation Table
Low orifice: 1.45 " Top orifice: 6 "
Number: 1 Number: 0
Cg-low: 0.61 Cg-low: 0.61
invert elev: 0.00 ft invert elev: 5.00 ft
Middle orifice: 6 " Emergency inlet:
number of orif: 10 Rim height: 5.00 ft
Cg-middle: 0.61 Area 1.7671 sq ft <-2' X 2' Weir
invert elev: 4.17 ft Circumference 4.7124 ft
h H/D-low H/D-mid H/D-top Qlow-orif Qlow-weir Qtot-low Qmid-orif Qmid-weir Qtot-med Qtop-orif Qtop-weir Qtot-top Qemerg Qtot (ft) - - - (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.17 1.38 0.00 0.00 0.018 0.021 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018

0.33 2.76 1.88 0.00 0.029 0.036 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.029

0.50 4.14 0.00 0.00 0.037 0.071 0.037 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.037

0.67 5.52 0.00 0.00 0.044 0.485 0.044 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.044

0.83 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.049 2.211 0.049 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.049

1.00 8.28 0.00 0.00 0.054 6.998 0.054 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.054

1.17 9.66 0.00 0.00 0.059 17.657 0.059 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.059

1.33 11.03 0.00 0.00 0.063 38.303 0.063 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.063

1.50 12.41 0.00 0.00 0.067 74.599 0.067 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.067

1.67 13.79 0.00 0.00 0.071 133.999 0.071 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.071

1.83 15.17 0.00 0.00 0.075 225.991 0.075 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.075

2.00 16.55 0.00 0.00 0.078 362.342 0.078 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.078

2.17 17.93 0.00 0.00 0.081 557.341 0.081 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.081

2.33 19.31 0.00 0.00 0.085 828.042 0.085 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.085

2.50 20.69 0.00 0.00 0.088 1194.507 0.088 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.088

2.67 22.07 0.00 0.00 0.091 1680.049 0.091 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.091

2.83 23.45 0.00 0.00 0.093 2311.478 0.093 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.093

3.00 24.83 0.00 0.00 0.096 3119.343 0.096 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.096

3.17 26.21 0.00 0.00 0.099 4138.174 0.099 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.099

3.33 27.59 0.00 0.00 0.102 5406.727 0.102 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.102

3.50 28.97 0.00 0.00 0.104 6968.229 0.104 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.104

3.67 30.34 0.00 0.00 0.107 8870.617 0.107 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.107

3.83 31.72 0.00 0.00 0.109 11166.786 0.109 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.109

4.00 33.10 0.00 0.00 0.111 13914.830 0.111 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.111

4.17 34.48 0.00 0.00 0.114 17178.286 0.114 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.114 < 0.127 cfs

4.33 35.86 0.33 0.00 0.116 21026.378 0.116 0.000 0.606 0.606 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.722

4.50 37.24 0.66 0.00 0.118 25534.259 0.118 2.719 2.252 2.252 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.370

4.67 38.62 0.99 0.00 0.120 30783.255 0.120 4.774 4.542 4.542 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.663

4.83 40.00 1.33 0.00 0.123 36861.111 0.123 6.179 7.034 6.179 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.302

5.00 41.38 1.66 0.00 0.125 43862.231 0.125 7.320 9.305 7.320 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.445

5.17 42.76 1.99 0.33 0.127 51887.922 0.127 8.306 11.028 8.306 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.994 9.426

5.33 44.14 2.33 0.67 0.129 61046.639 0.129 9.186 12.036 9.186 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.811 12.126

5.50 45.52 2.66 1.00 0.131 71454.227 0.131 9.989 12.396 9.989 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.165 15.285

5.67 46.90 2.99 1.33 0.133 83234.167 0.133 10.732 12.475 10.732 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.063 17.928

5.83 48.28 3.33 1.67 0.135 96517.815 0.135 11.427 13.014 11.427 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.897 19.459

6.00 49.66 3.66 2.00 0.137 111444.651 0.137 12.082 15.195 12.082 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.651 20.869

6.17 51.06 4.00 2.34 0.139 128516.201 0.139 12.715 20.871 12.715 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.357 22.211

6.33 52.39 4.32 2.66 0.141 146434.413 0.141 13.284 31.545 13.284 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.976 23.401

6.50 53.79 4.66 3.00 0.142 167605.986 0.142 13.862 51.508 13.862 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.595 24.599

0.114 CFS AT 4.17 FT =TOTAL ALLOWABLE ORIFICE FLOW, WHERE REQUIRED VOLUME IS PROVIDED (9,696 CFT) SEE NEXT PAGE

Page 2073 of 2604 ends

depth area area (ac) elevation volume (cf)
volume
(acft)

0.00 1249.6 0.0000 0.0 0.0 0.000

0.17 1672.0 0.0384 0.2 255.5 0.006

0.33 1838.4 0.0422 0.3 548.9 0.013

0.50 1960.0 0.0450 0.5 865.9 0.020

0.67 2057.4 0.0472 0.7 1,200.9 0.028

0.83 2138.5 0.0491 0.8 1,550.8 0.036

1.00 2207.5 0.0507 1.0 1,913.1 0.044

1.17 2266.9 0.0520 1.2 2,286.1 0.052

1.33 2318.2 0.0532 1.3 2,668.3 0.061

1.50 2362.6 0.0542 1.5 3,058.4 0.070

1.67 2400.9 0.0551 1.7 3,455.5 0.079

1.83 2433.6 0.0559 1.8 3,858.4 0.089

2.00 2461.3 0.0565 2.0 4,266.4 0.098

2.17 2484.2 0.0570 2.2 4,678.6 0.107 1.57 DCV

2.33 2502.7 0.0575 2.3 5,094.2 0.117

2.50 2516.8 0.0578 2.5 5,512.6 0.127

2.67 2526.8 0.0580 2.7 5,932.9 0.136

2.83 2532.8 0.0581 2.8 6,354.6 0.146

3.00 2534.8 0.0582 3.0 6,777.0 0.156

3.17 2532.8 0.0581 3.2 7,199.3 0.165

3.33 2526.8 0.0580 3.3 7,621.0 0.175

3.50 2516.8 0.0578 3.5 8,041.4 0.185

3.67 2502.7 0.0575 3.7 8,459.7 0.194

3.83 2484.2 0.0570 3.8 8,875.4 0.204

4.00 2461.3 0.0565 4.0 9,287.6 0.213

4.17 2433.6 0.0559 4.2 9,695.5 0.223 >9566 cft

4.33 2400.9 0.0551 4.3 10,098.5 0.232

4.50 2362.6 0.0542 4.5 10,495.5 0.241

4.67 2318.2 0.0532 4.7 10,885.7 0.250

4.83 2266.9 0.0520 4.8 11,267.9 0.259

5.00 2207.5 0.0507 5.0 11,640.9 0.267

5.17 2138.5 0.0491 5.2 12,003.2 0.276

5.33 2057.4 0.0472 5.3 12,353.1 0.284

5.50 1960.0 0.0450 5.5 12,688.1 0.291

5.67 1838.4 0.0422 5.7 13,005.1 0.299

5.83 1672.0 0.0384 5.8 13,298.5 0.305

6.00 1249.6 0.0287 6.0 13,554.0 0.311

6.17 1249.6 0.0287 6.2 13,762.2 0.316

6.33 1249.6 0.0287 6.3 13,970.5 0.321

6.50 1249.6 0.0287 6.5 14,178.8 0.325
HMP #2 Stage Storage-CMP
9,696 CFT STORAGE
PROVIDED AT 4.17 FT
> 9,566 CFT MIN BMP
SIZE

Page 2074 of 2604 ends

HMP #2 DRAWDOWN CALCULATION
Elevation QAVG (CFS) DV (CF) DT (HR) Total T

0.17 0.02 255 3.88 42.28

0.33 0.02 293 3.42 38.40

0.50 0.03 317 2.65 34.97

0.67 0.04 335 2.30 32.33

0.83 0.05 350 2.09 30.03

1.00 0.05 362 1.94 27.94

1.17 0.06 373 1.83 26.00

1.33 0.06 382 1.74 24.17

1.50 0.07 390 1.66 22.44

1.67 0.07 397 1.59 20.78

1.83 0.07 403 1.53 19.19

2.00 0.08 408 1.48 17.65

2.17 0.08 412 1.43 16.17

2.33 0.08 416 1.39 14.74

2.50 0.09 418 1.35 13.35

2.67 0.09 420 1.31 12.00

2.83 0.09 422 1.27 10.69

3.00 0.09 422 1.24 9.42

3.17 0.10 422 1.20 8.18

3.33 0.10 422 1.17 6.98

3.50 0.10 420 1.14 5.81

3.67 0.11 418 1.10 4.67

3.83 0.11 416 1.07 3.57

4.00 0.11 412 1.04 2.50

4.17 0.11 408 1.01 1.46

4.33 0.42 403 0.27 0.45

4.50 1.55 397 0.07 0.19

4.67 3.52 390 0.03 0.11

4.83 5.48 382 0.02 0.08

5.00 6.87 373 0.02 0.06

5.17 8.44 362 0.01 0.05

5.33 10.78 350 0.01 0.04

5.50 13.71 335 0.01 0.03

5.67 16.61 317 0.01 0.02

5.83 18.69 293 0.00 0.02

6.00 20.16 255 0.00 0.01

6.17 21.54 208 0.00 0.01

6.33 22.81 208 0.00 0.00

6.50 24.00 208 0.00 0.00

TOTAL DRAW
DOWN < 96 HRS

Page 2075 of 2604 ends

Elevation QAVG (CFS) DV (CF) DT (HR) Total T

0.17 0.02 255 3.88 30.28

0.33 0.02 293 3.42 26.40

0.50 0.03 317 2.65 22.98

0.67 0.04 335 2.30 20.33

0.83 0.05 350 2.09 18.03

1.00 0.05 362 1.94 15.94

1.17 0.06 373 1.83 14.00

1.33 0.06 382 1.74 12.18

1.50 0.07 390 1.66 10.44

1.67 0.07 397 1.59 8.78

1.83 0.07 403 1.53 7.19

2.00 0.08 408 1.48 5.66

2.17 0.08 412 1.43 4.17

2.33 0.08 416 1.39 2.74

2.50 0.09 418 1.35 1.35
HMP-2

Page 2076 of 2604 ends

County of San Diego SWQMP Sub-attachment 8.2 (Points of Compliance) Page 8.2-1 Template Date: January 8, 2019 Preparation Date: 1/9/2019

8.2 Hydromodification Management Points of Compliance
 List and describe all points of compliance (POCs) for flow control for hydromodification management.
 For each POC, provide a POC identification name or number, and a receiving channel identification name or number correlating to the project's HMP Exhibit (see Attachment 2).

POC name or # Channel name or # POC Description
1 Proposed 18” onsite
Storm Drain
Runoff from DMA 1 and DMA 2 comingle at this
point and then flow to an existing Storm Drain pipe
on Amaya Drive where it comingles with existing
flows.

Page 2077 of 2604 ends

County of San Diego
Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SWQMP)
Attachment 10: BMP Installation Verification for Priority Development Projects County of San Diego SWQMP Attachment 10
Template Date: August 4, 2021

Page 1 of 6 ends

Preparation Date: Click or tap to enter a date.

This form must be accepted by the County prior to the release of construction permits or granting of occupancy for applicable portions of a Priority Development Project (PDP). Its purpose is to provide documentation of the final installation of permanent Best Management Practices (BMPs) used to satisfy Structural Performance Standards for the development project. Compliance with these standards reduces the discharge of pollutants and flows from the completed project site.

Applicable standards may be satisfied using Structural BMPs (S-BMPs), Significant Site Design BMPs (SSD-BMPs), or both. Applicants are responsible for providing all requested information.

PART 1 PROJECT INFORMATION
A. Project Summary Information
Project Name Jericho Road
Record ID
(e.g. grading/improvement plan
number, building permit)
TBD
Project Address 9407 Jericho Road
Assessor's Parcel Number(s) APN(s) 486-670-18
Project Watershed
(Hydrologic Unit, Area, and Subarea
Name with Numeric Identifier)
San Diego River Watershed, Lower San Diego, La Mesa,
#907.10
B. Owner Information
Name Calvary Chapel of El Cajon
Address 9407 Jericho Road, La Mesa, CA 91942
Email Address
Phone Number (619) 633-9956
COUNTY – OFFICIAL USE ONLY
INTAKE ID#
ACCEPTANCE ID#

Page 2078 of 2604 ends

Page 2 of 6 ends

Preparation Date: Click or tap to enter a date.
**THIS PAGE IS FOR PARTIAL VERIFICATIONS ONLY **
If final grade release or granting of occupancy is being requested for only a portion of the Priority Development Project (PDP) please fill out the table below. Include ALL of the Structural BMPs and/or Significant Site Design BMPs for the entire project in the table. Include a mark-up of the DMA map from the approved SWQMP with this Verification package that clearly shows which DMAs you are submitting for approval and which DMAs have already been accepted (if any).

DMA # APN or Lot # BMP ID #
WPP
Acceptance
Date
(If applicable)
WPP
Acceptance ID#
(If applicable,
e.g. 20/21-001)

Page 2079 of 2604 ends

Page 3 of 6 ends

Preparation Date: Click or tap to enter a date.

PART 2 BMP INVENTORY INFORMATION
Use this table to document Structural BMPs (S-BMPs) and Significant Site Design BMPs (SSD-BMPs) for the PDP. All DMAs that are not self-mitigating or de minimis must have at least one Structural BMP or Significant Site Design BMP.  In Part A list all Structural BMPs (including both Pollutant Control and/or Hydromodification as applicable) by DMA.  Complete Part B for all DMAs that contain only Significant Site Design BMPs. SSD-BMPs are Site Design BMPs (SD-BMPs) that are sized and constructed to satisfy Structural Performance Standards for a DMA.  The information provided for each BMP in the table must match that provided in the Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SWQMP), construction plans, maintenance agreements, and other relevant project documentation.

DMA # BMP Information Maintenance
Category
(1, 2, 3, or 4)
Maintenance
Agreement
Recorded DOC #
Construction
Plan Sheet #
Landscape
Plan Sheet #

FOR DPW-WPP
USE ONLY Quantity Description/Type of Structural BMP BMP ID # A. Structural BMPs (S-BMPs)
Add rows as needed. Click into the last column in the row below this, then press TAB to add a new row.

B. Significant Site Design BMPs (SSD-BMPs)
Choose an item. Choose
Choose an item. Choose
Choose an item. Choose
Choose an item. Choose
Choose an item. Choose
Choose an item. Choose
Add rows as needed. Click into the last column in the row below this, then press TAB to add a new row.

Page 2080 of 2604 ends

Page 4 of 6 ends

Preparation Date: Click or tap to enter a date.

PART 3 REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS
For the permanent BMPs listed in Part 2, submit the following to the County inspector along with this Verification form as a package (check all that are attached):
☐ PHOTOGRAPHS: Final construction photos of every permanent BMP listed in Part 2 are required. Final photos must be recent and be labeled with the date and a BMP Identifier.

Additional photographs illustrating proper construction of the BMPs are recommended to be included and may be requested by WPP prior to acceptance of this Verification (e.g. excavation depths, liners, hydromodification orifices, Biofiltration Soil Media (BSM), vegetation, mulch).
☐ MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS: Copies of approved and recorded Storm Water Maintenance Agreements (SWMA), Category 1 Maintenance Notification Agreements (MN), or Encroachment Maintenance and Removal Agreements (EMRA) for all S-BMPs.

Note: Significant Site Design (SSD) BMPs and most Category 4 BMPs do not require recorded maintenance agreements.
☐ CONSTRUCTION PLANS: Submit electronic and/or 11” X 17” hard copies of the current approved Construction Plan sheets for the Record ID(s) listed on Page 1:
☐ Grading Plans
☐ Improvement Plans
☐ Precise Grading Plan
☐ Building Plan (Applicable BMP Sheets only)
☐ Other (Please specify)
For each Construction Plan, the sheets submitted must incorporate all of the following:
 A BMP Table on Sheet 1, AND
 A plan detail cross-section of each verified as-built BMP, AND  The location of each verified as-built BMP
☐ LANDSCAPE PLANS: If the PDP includes vegetated BMPs and has a Landscape Plan, submit the following:
☐ Final Landscape Plans
☐ Proof of Irrigation Installed (if applicable)

Page 2081 of 2604 ends

Page 5 of 6 ends

Preparation Date: Click or tap to enter a date.

PART 4 PREPARER’S CERTIFICATION
By signing below, I certify that the BMP(s) listed in Part 2 of this Verification Form have been constructed and are in substantial conformance with the approved plans and applicable regulations. I understand the County reserves the right to inspect the above BMPs to verify compliance with the approved plans and Watershed Protection Ordinance (WPO). Should it be determined that the BMPs were not constructed to plan or code, corrective actions may be necessary before permits can be closed.

Note: Structural BMPs must be certified by a licensed professional engineer.

Please sign and, if applicable, provide your seal below.

Preparer’s Name:

Email Address:

Phone Number:

Preparer’s Signature:

Date:
[SEAL]

Page 2082 of 2604 ends

Page 6 of 6 ends

Preparation Date: Click or tap to enter a date.

PROJECT RECORD ID: ___________________________

COUNTY - OFFICIAL USE ONLY
County Inspector Approval:
*NOTE: The County approved SWQMP document and any Addendums or Revisions must be included with this BMP Installation Verification submittal package. □ DPW Private Development Construction Inspection (PDCI) □ PDS Building
□ DGS
□ DPR
By signing below, the County Inspector concurs that every BMP listed in Part 2 of this BMP Installation Verification form has been installed per plan.

Inspector Name: _______________________________________________ Inspector’s Signature: ___________________________ Date: _______________ DPW Watershed Protection Program (WPP) Acceptance:

Date Received: _________________________________________ WPP Reviewer: __________________________________________ WPP Reviewer concurs that the BMPs accepted in Part 2 above may be entered into County inventory.

WPP Reviewer’s Signature: ___________________________ Date: _______________ Enter Acceptance ID# on page 1.

NOTES:

Page 2083 of 2604 ends

County of San Diego Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) Attachment 11: BMP Maintenance Agreements and Plans
County of San Diego SWQMP Attachment 11 Page 11.0-1
Template Date: August 4, 2021 Preparation Date: 7/27/2023

11.0 Cover Sheet and General Requirements
 All Structural BMPs must have a plan and mechanism to ensure on-going maintenance. Use the table below to document the types of agreements to be submitted for the PDP and submit them under cover of this sheet.
 See BMPDM Section 7.3 for a description of maintenance categories and responsibilities. Note that since Category 3 and 4 BMPs are County-maintained, they do not require maintenance agreements.
a. Applicability of Maintenance Agreements
Check the boxes below to indicate which types of agreements are included with this attachment. ☒ Maintenance Notification Agreement for Category 1 Stormwater Structural BMPs  Exhibit A: Project Site Map; and a Map for each BMP and its Drainage Management Area (DMA).
 Exhibit B: BMP Maintenance Plan (see below)
CATEGORY 1 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS ARE RECORDED PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. ☐ Storm Water Facilities Maintenance Agreement (SWMA) (Category 2 BMPs)  Exhibit A: Legal Description of Property
 Exhibit B: BMP Maintenance Program (see below)
 Exhibit C: BMP Locations
CATEGORY 2 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS ARE RECORDED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE.

Maintenance agreement templates and instructions are available on the County’s website:
www.sandiegocounty.gov/stormwater under the Development Resources tab, Submittal Templates.
b. Maintenance Plan Requirements
Maintenance plans should include the following:
☒ Specific maintenance indicators and actions for proposed structural BMP(s). These must be based on maintenance indicators presented in BMP Design Manual Fact Sheets in Appendix E and enhanced to reflect actual proposed components of the structural BMP(s). ☒ Access to inspect and perform maintenance on the structural BMP(s). ☒ Features to facilitate inspection (e.g., observation ports, cleanouts, silt posts, or other features that allow the inspector to view necessary components of the structural BMP and compare to maintenance thresholds).
☒ Manufacturer and part number for proprietary parts of structural BMP(s) when applicable. ☒ Maintenance thresholds specific to the structural BMP(s), with a location-specific frame of reference (e.g., level of accumulated materials that triggers removal of the materials, to be identified based on viewing marks on silt posts or measured with a survey rod with respect to a fixed benchmark within the BMP).
☒ Recommended equipment to perform maintenance.
☒ When applicable, necessary special training or certification requirements for inspection and maintenance personnel such as confined space entry or hazardous waste management.

Page 2084 of 2604 ends

Page 2085 of 2604 ends

Appendix I
Noise Technical Report

Page 2086 of 2604 ends

Page 2087 of 2604 ends

Noise Technical Report
Jericho Road
Residential Project
City of La Mesa, California
SEPTEMBER 2024
Prepared for:

CITY OF LA MESA
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, California 91942
Contact: Laura Traffenstedt
Prepared by:
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Contact: Connor Burke, INCE

Page 2088 of 2604 ends

Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

Page 2089 of 2604 ends

15823 i
SEPTEMBER 2024
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.

Acronyms and Abbreviations............................................................................................................................................ iii 1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Report Purpose and Scope....................................................................................................................1

1.2 Regional and Local Setting ....................................................................................................................1

1.3 Project Description .................................................................................................................................1

1.4 Fundamentals of Noise and Vibration...................................................................................................1

1.4.1 Sound, Noise, and Acoustics....................................................................................................1

1.4.2 Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels ......................................................................................1

1.4.3 A-Weighted Sound Level...........................................................................................................2

1.4.4 Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels .......................................................................7

1.4.5 Noise Descriptors......................................................................................................................7

1.4.6 Sound Propagation ...................................................................................................................7

1.4.7 Groundborne Vibration Fundamentals....................................................................................8 2 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................................................................9

2.1 Federal ....................................................................................................................................................9

2.2 State........................................................................................................................................................9

2.2.1 California Code of Regulations, Title 24..................................................................................9

2.2.2 California Department of Health Services Guidelines ............................................................9

2.2.3 California Department of Transportation ................................................................................9

2.3 Local..................................................................................................................................................... 10

2.3.1 City of La Mesa....................................................................................................................... 10 3 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................................................ 13 4 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................................................................... 17 5 Impact Discussion............................................................................................................................................. 19 6 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................................................... 25 7 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................................... 27 8 References Cited............................................................................................................................................... 29 TABLES
1 Typical Sound Levels in the Environment and Industry .....................................................................................2 2 City of La Mesa Land Use/Noise Compatibility Guidelines ............................................................................ 10 3 City of La Mesa Exterior Noise Limits .............................................................................................................. 11

Page 2090 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT 15823 ii
SEPTEMBER 2024
4 Measured Baseline Outdoor Ambient Noise Levels........................................................................................ 13 5 Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels............................................................................... 19 6 Estimated Distances between Construction Activities and the Nearest Noise-sensitive Receptors .......... 20 7 Predicted Construction Noise Levels per Activity Phase................................................................................. 21 8 Roadway Traffic Noise Modeling Results ........................................................................................................ 22

FIGURES
1 Project Location ...................................................................................................................................................3 2 Site Plan................................................................................................................................................................5 3 Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations ................................................................................................ 17

APPENDICES
A Baseline Noise Measurement Field Data
B Construction Noise Modeling Input and Output
C Traffic Noise Modeling Input and Output
D Operational Noise Model Input and Output

Page 2091 of 2604 ends

15823 iii
SEPTEMBER 2024
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of La Mesa
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
ips inches per second
ISO International Organization for Standardization
Leq equivalent noise level
Leq(h) equivalent noise level during a 1-hour period
Lmax maximum sound level
OPR California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research PPV peak particle velocity
RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model
RMS root mean square
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
Jericho Road Residential Project Proposed Project
SLM sound level meter
SPL sound pressure level
ST short-term
TFIC Transportation Forecast Information Center
U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

Page 2092 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT 15823 iv
SEPTEMBER 2024

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 2093 of 2604 ends

15823 1
SEPTEMBER 2024
1 Introduction

1.1 Report Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this technical report is to assess the potential noise impacts associated with construction and operation of the Jericho Road Residential Project (Project) located in the City of La Mesa (City), California. This analysis uses the significance thresholds in Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.)

1.2 Regional and Local Setting
The project site is located at 9407 Jericho Road in the northeastern area of the City of La Mesa, California. The site is located roughly one mile east of State Route 125, and a half mile north of Interstate 8. The developed site is immediately surrounded by other existing development including paved streets, residential housing, and apartments.

1.3 Project Description
The project consists of up to 73 three story townhomes on the 3.49-acre site. The proposed townhomes would range in size from approximately 1,200-1,800 square feet and 2-4 bedrooms. The project site is located within one half-mile of a major transit stop and parking minimums do not apply; however, the project would include two garage spaces per unit plus approximately 5 guest spaces. The existing site is currently developed with the Cavalry Chapel, a parking lot, turf area, a playground, and associated church facilities/structures. The project site is surrounded by a single-family home to the north and east, and multi-family developments to the south and west.

1.4 Fundamentals of Noise and Vibration
The following is a brief discussion of fundamental noise concepts and terminology.

1.4.1 Sound, Noise, and Acoustics
Sound is a process that consists of three components: the sound source, sound path, and sound receiver. All three components must be present for sound to exist. Without a source to produce sound, there is no sound. Similarly, without a medium to transmit sound pressure waves, there is no sound. Finally, sound must be received; a hearing organ, sensor, or object must be present to perceive, register, or be affected by sound or noise. In most situations, there are many different sound sources, paths, and receptors rather than just one of each. Acoustics is the field of science that deals with the production, propagation, reception, effects, and control of sound. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired.

1.4.2 Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels
The amplitude of a sound determines its loudness. Loudness of sound increases with increasing amplitude. Sound pressure amplitude is measured in units of micronewton per square meter, also called micropascal. One micropascal is approximately one-hundred billionth (0.00000000001) of normal atmospheric pressure. The pressure of a very

Page 2094 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT 15823 2
SEPTEMBER 2024
loud sound may be 200 million micropascals, or 10 million times the pressure of the weakest audible sound. Because expressing sound levels in terms of micropascal would be very cumbersome, sound pressure level in logarithmic units is used instead to describe the ratio of actual sound pressure to a reference pressure squared. These units are called Bels. To provide a finer resolution, a Bel is subdivided into 10 decibels (dB).

1.4.3 A-Weighted Sound Level
Sound pressure level alone is not a reliable indicator of loudness. The frequency, or pitch, of a sound also has a substantial effect on how humans will respond. Although the intensity (energy per unit area) of the sound is a purely physical quantity, the loudness, or human response, is determined by the characteristics of the human ear.

Human hearing is limited not only in the range of audible frequencies, but also in the way it perceives the sound in that range. In general, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 and 5,000 hertz, and it perceives a sound within that range as more intense than a sound of higher or lower frequency with the same magnitude. To approximate the frequency response of the human ear, a series of sound level adjustments is usually applied to the sound measured by a sound level meter. The adjustments (referred to as a weighting network) are frequency dependent.

The A-scale weighting network approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to ordinary sounds. When people make judgments about the relative loudness or annoyance of a sound, their judgments correlate well with the A-scale sound levels of those sounds. Other weighting networks have been devised to address high noise levels or other special situations (e.g., B-scale, C-scale, D-scale), but these scales are rarely used in conjunction with most environmental noise. Noise levels are typically reported in terms of A-weighted sound levels. All sound levels discussed in this report are A-weighted decibels (dBA). Examples of typical noise levels for common indoor and outdoor activities are depicted in Table 1.

Table 1. Typical Sound Levels in the Environment and Industry Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dB) Common Indoor Activities Diesel truck at 15 meters (50 feet),
at 80 kilometers per hour
(50 miles per hour)
80 Food blender at 1 meter (3 feet); garbage
disposal at 1 meter (3 feet)
Noisy urban area, daytime; gas lawn
mower at 30 meters (100 feet)
70 Vacuum cleaner at 3 meters (10 feet)
Commercial area; heavy traffic at
90 meters (300 feet)
60 Normal speech at 1 meter (3 feet)
Quiet urban, daytime 50 Large business office; dishwasher next room Quiet urban, nighttime 40 Theater; large conference room (background) Quiet suburban, nighttime 30 Library
Quiet rural, nighttime 20 Bedroom at night; concert hall (background) Lowest threshold of human hearing 0 Lowest threshold of human hearing Source: Caltrans 2013.

Page 2095 of 2604 ends

Date: 2/20/2024 - Last saved by: tfriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j1582301\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Noise\Figure01_ProjectLocation.mxd MacArthur
Park
Northmont
Park
La Mesita
Park
Harry
Griffen
Park
Hillside Park
City of El
Cajon OS
City of El
Cajon OS
Mission
Trails RP
Eucalyptus Park
San Carlos Pocket
Park
Fletcher
Hills Park
125
8 Pa rkway Dr
Arnele Ave
Severin Dr
CenterDr
Dallas St
N Johnson Ave
S Marshall Ave
Bancroft Dr
N Marshall Ave
Grandvi e w Dr
WakarusaSt
Conrad Dr
Palm Ave
S Johnson Ave
Hacienda Dr
GarfieldAve
Boulder Lake Ave
La Mesa Blvd
N Cuyamaca St
Murray Dr
Amaya Dr
Gr o ssmont B lvd
Grossmont Cen ter Dr
Jackson Dr
Lake Murray
Blvd
Fanita Dr
W Chase Ave
El Cajon Blvd
W Main St
Lemon Ave
Fuerte Dr
University Ave
Navajo Rd
Fletcher Pkwy
Mission Valley Fwy
Project Location
9407 Jericho Road, La Mesa CA
SOURCE: SanGIS 2023, Open Street Map 2019
0 2,000 1,000 Feet
Project Boundary
FIGURE 1
94 188
209
163
74 56
86 125
371
67 76 79
78 Chula Vista
Solana Beach
Encinitas
San
Diego
Carlsbad
Oceanside
Lemon Grove
La Mesa
El Cajon
Santee
Poway
San
Marcos
Escondido Vista
Imperial Beach
National City
Del Mar
8 15
5 805
Riverside
County
Mexico

SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
Project Site

Page 2096 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT 15823 4
SEPTEMBER 2024

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 2097 of 2604 ends

JERICHO RD

AMAYA DR

PROJECT

BOUNDARY
PVT. DRIVE "A"
PVT. DRIVE "B"
PVT. DRIVE "C"
PVT. DRIVE "E"
PVT. DRIVE "C"
7 7
BLDG #2
BLDG #3
BLDG #4 BLDG #5 BLDG #6
BLDG #7
BLDG #1
PVT. DRIVE "D"
BLDG #9
BLDG #8
Amenity Area A
• + 1,400 SF
• Fire feature with seating
• Decorative screen wall
• See Amenity Plan for additional details
Amenity Area D
• + 4,500 SF
• BBQ area with shade sails and seating
• Tot lot and passive grass area for lawn games
• Enhanced with landscaping and special
paving at crosswalks
Amenity Area C
• + 2,800 SF
• Gathering space with water feature
• Decorative walkways and planting
• See Amenity Plan for additional details
Typical Three-Story Townhome Building
• 3 building types
• 1 elevation styles
• ÁRRUSODQYDULDWLRQ
• Maximum height of 38.0 feet
• Oriented to provide front doors along
streetscapes and paseos
Amenity Area B
• + 4,500 SF
• BBQ counter with overhead shade structure
• Variety of seating options
• Passive grass open space area
• Walkway connection to Amenity Area D
• See Amenity Plan for additional details
Amenity Area E
• + 1,800 SF
• DG Bocce Ball court
• Gather area with seating and umbrellas
Site Plan
9407 Jericho Road, La Mesa CA
FIGURE 2
Path: Z:\Projects\j1582301\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Noise
SOURCE: Hunsaker 2023

Page 2098 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT 15823 6
SEPTEMBER 2024

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 2099 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT 15823 7
SEPTEMBER 2024

1.4.4 Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels
Under controlled conditions in an acoustics laboratory, the trained, healthy human ear is able to discern changes in sound levels of 1 dBA when exposed to steady, single-frequency signals in the mid-frequency range. But for outdoor conditions, a change of 3 dB is considered “barely perceptible” (Caltrans 2013). Since a doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dB increase in sound, this means that a doubling of sound energy (e.g., doubling the volume of traffic on a road) would result in a barely perceptible change in sound level. A change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible, and a change of 10 dBA is perceived as twice (if a gain) or half (if a loss) as loud (Caltrans 2013).

1.4.5 Noise Descriptors
Units of measure have been developed to evaluate the long-term characteristics of sound. The energy-equivalent sound level (Leq) is also referred to as the time-average sound level. It is the equivalent steady-state or constant sound level that in a stated period of time would contain the same acoustical energy as the time-varying sound level during the same time period. For instance, the 1-hour A-weighted equivalent sound level, Leq(h), is the energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 1-hour period, and is the basis for the City of La Mesa’s “general sound level limits”.

People are generally more sensitive to and thus potentially more annoyed by noise occurring during the evening and nighttime hours. Hence, another noise descriptor used in community noise assessments—the community noise equivalent level (CNEL)—represents a time-weighted, 24-hour average noise level based on the A-weighted sound level. However, unlike an unmodified 24-hour Leq value, the CNEL descriptor accounts for increased noise sensitivity during the evening (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) and nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) by adding 5 dBA and 10 dBA, respectively, to the average sound levels occurring during these defined hours within a 24-hour period.

1.4.6 Sound Propagation
Sound propagation (i.e., the traverse of sound from a noise emission source position to a receiver location) is influenced by multiple factors that include geometric spreading, ground absorption, atmospheric effects, and occlusion by natural terrain and/or features of the built environment.

Sound levels attenuate (or diminish) geometrically at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance from an outdoor point-type source due to the spherical spreading of sound energy with increasing distance travelled. The effects of atmospheric conditions such as humidity, temperature, and wind gradients are typically distancedependent and can also temporarily either increase or decrease sound levels measured or perceived at a receptor location. In general, the greater the distance the receiver is from the source of sound emission, the greater the potential for variation in sound levels at the receptor due to these atmospheric effects. Additional attenuation can result from sound path occlusion and diffraction due to intervention of natural (ridgelines, dense forests, etc.) and built features (such as solid walls, buildings and other structures).

Page 2100 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT 15823 8
SEPTEMBER 2024

1.4.7 Groundborne Vibration Fundamentals
Groundborne vibration is fluctuating or oscillatory motion transmitted through the ground mass (i.e., soils, clays, and rock strata). The strength of groundborne vibration attenuates rapidly over distance. Some soil types transmit vibration quite efficiently; other types (primarily sandy soils) do not. Several basic measurement units are commonly used to describe the intensity of ground vibration. The descriptors used by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) include peak particle velocity (PPV) that is in units of inches per second (ips). The calculation to determine PPV at a given distance is as follows:

PPVdistance = PPVref*(25/D)^1.5
Where:

PPVdistance = the peak particle velocity in inches per second of the equipment adjusted for distance PPVref = the reference vibration level in inches per second at 25 feet D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver

Page 2101 of 2604 ends

15823 9
SEPTEMBER 2024
2 Regulatory Setting

2.1 Federal
In its Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance manual, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) recommends a daytime construction noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq over an 8-hour period (FTA 2018) when detailed construction noise assessments are performed to evaluate potential impacts to community residences surrounding a project. Although this FTA guidance is not a regulation, it can serve as a quantified standard in the absence of such noise limits at the state and local jurisdictional levels.

2.2 State

2.2.1 California Code of Regulations, Title 24
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations sets standards that new development in California must meet.

According to Title 24, interior noise levels are not to exceed 45 dBA CNEL in any habitable room (ICC 2019).

2.2.2 California Department of Health Services Guidelines The California Department of Health Services has developed guidelines of community noise acceptability for use by local agencies (OPR 2017). Selected relevant levels are listed here:
▪ Below 60 dBA CNEL: normally acceptable for low-density residential use ▪ 50 to 70 dBA: conditionally acceptable for low-density residential use ▪ Below 65 dBA CNEL: normally acceptable for high-density residential use and transient lodging ▪ 60 to 70 dBA CNEL: conditionally acceptable for high-density residential, transient lodging, churches, educational, and medical facilities.

The normally acceptable exterior noise level for high-density residential use is up to 65 dBA CNEL.

2.2.3 California Department of Transportation
In its Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (Caltrans 2013b), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recommends 0.5 ips PPV as a threshold for the avoidance of structural damage to typical newer residential buildings exposed to continuous or frequent intermittent sources of groundborne vibration. For transient vibration events, such as blasting, the damage risk threshold would be 1.0 ips PPV (Caltrans 2013b) at the same type of newer residential structures. For older structures, these guidance thresholds would be more stringent: 0.3 ips PPV for continuous/intermittent vibration sources, and 0.5 ips PPV for transient vibration events.

With respect to human annoyance, Caltrans guidance indicates that building occupants exposed to continuous groundborne vibration above 0.2 ips PPV would find it “annoying” and thus a likely significant impact. Although these Caltrans guidance thresholds are not regulations, they can serve as quantified standards in the absence of such limits at the local jurisdictional level.

Page 2102 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT 15823 10
SEPTEMBER 2024

2.3 Local

2.3.1 City of La Mesa

2.3.1.1 City of La Mesa General Plan
The goal of the Noise Element of the adopted La Mesa General Plan (City of La Mesa 2012) is to minimize the impact of noise on the community by identifying existing and potential noise sources and providing the policies and standards needed to keep noise from reducing the quality of life in La Mesa. The Noise Element establishes guidelines to evaluate the compatibility of land use and noise exposure levels in La Mesa. Table 2 summarizes the City’s exterior land use-noise compatibility guidelines. Shading in this table represents the maximum noise exposure level considered compatible for each land use category. The goal for maximum outdoor noise levels in multi-family residential areas is 65 dBA CNEL. This level is intended to guide the design and location of future development and serve as a target for the reduction of noise in existing development. However, it is noted that 65 dBA CNEL is a goal which cannot necessarily be reached in all multifamily residential areas within the realm of economic or aesthetic feasibility.

Table 2. City of La Mesa Land Use/Noise Compatibility Guidelines Land Use Category
Annual CNEL (dBA)
55 60 65 70 75
Residential – Low Density Single Family,
Duplex, and Mobile homes
Residential – Multiple Family
Transient Lodging – Motels, Hotels
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, and
Nursing Homes
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheatres
Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation,
Cemeteries
Offices Buildings, Business, Commercial, and
Professiona
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture
Note: Shading represents the maximum noise exposure level considered normally acceptable for each land use category.

Source: City of La Mesa 2012

2.3.1.2 City of La Mesa Municipal Code
La Mesa Municipal Code Chapter 10.80, Noise Regulation, prohibits unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noises in the City of La Mesa. Section 10.80.040 establishes standards for exterior noise levels from non-transportation (stationary) noise sources. Limits in the noise ordinance are intended to apply to noise associated with proposed new development and are generally applied at the property boundary of the proposed development. The exterior noise limits for each zone classification are summarized in Table 3. These standards apply when the ambient noise level does not already exceed the noise limit. In cases where the ambient noise level already exceeds the noise limit, the ambient noise level becomes the applicable noise limit.

Page 2103 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT 15823 11
SEPTEMBER 2024
Table 3. City of La Mesa Exterior Noise Limits
Land Use Category
Noise Level (dBA)(1)
Nighttime (10
p.m. to 7 a.m.)
Daytime (7 a.m.
to 7 p.m.)
Evening (7 p.m.
to 10 p.m.)
R1 (Urban Residential) and R2 (Medium Low
Density Residential)
50 60 55
R3 (Multiple Unit Residential) and RB
(Residential Business)
55 60 60
C (General Commercial), CN (Neighborhood
Commercial), CD (Downtown Commercial), and
CM (Light Industrial and Commercial Service)
60 65 65
M (Industrial Service and Manufacturing) 70 70 70
(1) If the measured ambient base noise level exceeds the standard noise limit, the allowable noise exposure standard shall be the ambient base noise level.

Source: La Mesa Municipal Code Section 10.80.040
Section 10.80.090 states that it is unlawful for any person to install or operate any machinery, equipment, pump, fan, air conditioning apparatus, or similar mechanical device which can be or is operated in any manner so as to create noise which will cause the noise level at the property line of any property to exceed the ambient base noise level by more than five dBA. The installer of any such mechanical devices is required to furnish to the Department of Building Inspection and Housing a certificate of compliance indicating that the equipment installed as proposed can, without the addition of any baffling or construction, be operated within these sound limits.

Section 10.80.100 regulates construction noise, and states that it is unlawful for any person within a residential zone or CN (neighborhood commercial) zone, or within 500 feet of these zones, to operate equipment or perform any outside construction or repair work on buildings, structures, or projects or to operate any pile driver, power shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, power hoist, or any other construction-type device between the hours of 10:00 p.m. of one day and 7:00 a.m. of the next day or on Sundays unless a special permit authorizing the activity has been duly obtained from the chief building official. The City’s exterior noise limits identified in Table 3 do not apply to construction activities.

Page 2104 of 2604 ends

15823 12
SEPTEMBER 2024

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 2105 of 2604 ends

15823 13
SEPTEMBER 2024
3 Existing Conditions
Field measurements of sound pressure level (SPL) were conducted near the Proposed Project site on January 31, 2024, to quantify and characterize the existing outdoor ambient sound levels. Table 4 provides the location, date, and time period at which these baseline noise level measurements were performed by an attending Dudek field investigator using a Rion-branded Model NL-62 sound level meter (SLM) equipped with a 0.5 inch, pre-polarized condenser microphone with pre-amplifier. The SLM meets the current American National Standards Institute standard for a Type 1(PrecisionGrade) sound levelmeter. The accuracy ofthe SLM was verified using a field calibrator before and after the measurements, and the measurements were conducted with the microphone positioned approximately 5 feet above theground.

Four (4) short-term (ST) noise level measurement locations (ST1–ST4) that represent existing noise-sensitive receivers were selected on and near the Proposed Project site. These locations are depicted as receivers ST1–ST4 on Figure 3, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations, and were selected to characterize the baseline outdoor ambient sound levels for City residential noise-sensitive receptors (see Figure 3). The measured Leq and Lmax noise levels are provided in Table 4. The primary noise sources at the sites identified in Table 4 consisted of traffic along adjacent roadways, aircraft noise, the sounds of leaves rustling, and birdsong. As shown in Table 4, the measured SPL ranged from approximately 53.4 dBA Leq at ST3 to 64.3 dBA Leq at ST1. Beyond the summarized information presented in Table 4, detailed noise measurement data is included in Appendix A, Baseline Noise Measurement Field Data.

Table 4. Measured Baseline Outdoor Ambient Noise Levels Site Location/Address Date/Time Leq (dBA) Lmax (dBA)
ST1 East of Project boundary, along Amaya Dr 2024-01-31, 01:09 PM to 01:24 PM

64.3 72.3
ST2 Northeastern Project boundary, along
Jericho Rd
2024-01-31, 01:29 PM
to 01:44 PM

55.6 62.3
ST3 Northwestern Project boundary, at
adjacent Grossmont Village Condos
2024-01-31, 01:53 PM
to 02:08 PM

53.4 55.4
ST4 Southern Project boundary, at adjacent
Serena Vista Apartments
2024-01-31, 02:15 PM
to 02:30 PM

54.1 64.2
Source: Appendix A.

Notes: Leq = equivalent continuous sound level (time-averaged sound level); Lmax = maximum sound level during the measurement interval; dBA = A-weighted decibels; ST = short-term noise measurement locations.

Generally, the measured samples of daytime Leq agree with expectations: at each measurement location, Leq values are above 50 dBA due largely to being within proximity to a roadway or driveway.

Page 2106 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT 15823 14
SEPTEMBER 2024

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 2107 of 2604 ends

Date: 2/20/2024 - Last saved by: tfriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j1582301\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Noise\Figure03_NoiseMonitoring.mxd Amaya Dr
ST1
ST2
ST3
ST4
Noise Monitoring Locations
9407 Jericho Road, La Mesa CA
SOURCE: SanGIS 2023, Open Street Map 2019
0 10050 Feet
Project Boundary
Noise Monitoring Locations
FIGURE 3

Page 2108 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT 15823 16
SEPTEMBER 2024

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 2109 of 2604 ends

15823 17
SEPTEMBER 2024
4 Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) and the City of La Mesa’s municipal code and will be used to determine the significance of potential noise impacts. Such potential noise and vibration impacts to the community would be considered significant if the Proposed Project would result in the following:

Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; or, Expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (for a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport).

In light of these above significance criteria, this analysis uses the following standards to evaluate potential noise and vibration impacts.
▪ Construction noise – A noise impact would be considered significant if construction activities were to occur outside the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., per Section 10.80.100 of the City’s Municipal Code, and/or if construction noise levels exceed the FTA’s daytime construction noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq over an 8-hour period.
▪ Off-site Project-attributed transportation noise – For purposes of this analysis, a direct roadway noise impact would be considered significant if increases in roadway traffic noise levels attributed to the Proposed Project were greater than 3 dBA CNEL at an existing noise-sensitive land use. ▪ Off-site Project-attributed stationary noise – For purposes of this analysis, a noise impact would be considered significant if noise from typical operation of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning and other electro-mechanical systems associated with the Proposed Project exceeded 60 dBA hourly Leq from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., 55 dBA hourly Leq from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and 50 dBA hourly Leq from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
▪ Construction vibration – Guidance from Caltrans indicates that a vibration velocity level of 0.2 ips PPV received at a structure would be considered annoying by occupants within (Caltrans 2013b). As for the receiving structure itself, aforementioned Caltrans guidance from Section 2 recommends that a vibration level of 0.3 ips PPV would represent the threshold for building damage risk.

Page 2110 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT 15823 18
SEPTEMBER 2024

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 2111 of 2604 ends

15823 19
SEPTEMBER 2024
5 Impact Discussion
Potential noise and vibration impacts attributed to Project construction and operation are studied in the following subsections that are categorized by the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G significance for noise. a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Short-Term Construction
Construction noise and vibration are temporary phenomena, with emission levels varying from hour to hour and day to day, depending on the equipment in use, the operations performed, and the distance between the source and receptor. Equipment that would be in use during construction would include, in part, graders, backhoes, rubber-tired dozers, loaders, cranes, forklifts, pavers, rollers, and air compressors. The typical maximum noise levels at a distance of 50 feet from various pieces of construction equipment and activities anticipated for use on the Proposed Project site are presented in Table 5. Note that the equipment noise levels presented in Table 5 are maximum noise levels. Usually, construction equipment operates in alternating cycles of full power and low power, producing average noise levels over time that are less than the maximum noise level. The average sound level of construction activity also depends on the amount of time that the equipment operates and the intensity of construction activities during that time.

Table 5. Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels Equipment Type Typical Equipment (Lmax, dBA at 50 Feet) All Other Equipment > 5 HP 85
Backhoe 78
Compressor (air) 78
Crane 81
Dozer 82
Excavator 81
Flat Bed Truck 74
Front End Loader 79
Generator 72
Grader 85
Man Lift 75
Paver 77
Roller 80
Welder / Torch 73
Source: DOT 2006.

Note: Lmax = maximum sound level; dBA = A-weighted decibels.

Aggregate noise emission from Proposed Project construction activities, broken down by sequential phase, was predicted at two evaluation distances to the nearest existing noise-sensitive receptor: 1) from the nearest position of the construction site boundary and 2) from the geographic center of the construction

Page 2112 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT 15823 20
SEPTEMBER 2024
site, which serves as the time-averaged location or geographic acoustical centroid of active construction equipment for the phase under study. The intent of the former distance is to help evaluate anticipated construction noise from a limited quantity of equipment or vehicle activity expected to be at the boundary for some period of time, which would be most appropriate for phases such as site preparation, grading, and paving. The latter distance is used in a manner similar to the general assessment technique as described in the FTA guidance for construction noise assessment, when the location of individual equipment for a given construction phase is uncertain over some extent of (or the entirety of) the construction site area. In this studied scenario, because of the equipment location uncertainty, all the equipment for a construction phase is assumed to operate—on average—from the acoustical centroid position. Table 6 summarizes these two distances to the closest noise-sensitive receptor for each of the five sequential construction phases. At the site boundary, this analysis assumes that up to only one piece of equipment of each listed type per phase would be involved in the construction activity for a limited portion of the 8-hour period. In other words, at such proximity, the operating equipment cannot “stack” or crowd the vicinity and still operate normally.

For the acoustical centroid case, which intends to be a geographic average position for all equipment during the indicated phase, this analysis assumes that all equipment for the indicated activity will be operating in a given hour over the 8-hour assessment period.

Table 6. Estimated Distances between Construction Activities and the Nearest Noise-sensitive Receptors
Construction Phase
(and Equipment
Types Involved)
Distance from Nearest NoiseSensitive Receptor to
Construction Site Boundary
(Feet)
Distance from Nearest NoiseSensitive Receptor to Acoustical Centroid of Site
(Feet)
Demolition (dozer, backhoe) 15 75
Grading (grader, scraper, dozer,
front end loader)
15 75
Building construction (crane,
man-lift, generator, backhoe,
welder/torch)
30 125
Architectural finishes (air
compressor)
30 125
Paving (paver, roller, other
equipment)
30 125
A Microsoft Excel–based noise prediction model emulating and using reference data from the Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) (FHWA 2008) was used to estimate construction noise levels at the nearest occupied noise-sensitive land use. (Although the RCNM was funded and promulgated by the Federal Highway Administration, it is often used for non-roadway projects, because the same types of construction equipment used for roadway projects are often used for other types of construction.) Input variables for the predictive modeling consist of the equipment type and number of each (e.g., two graders, a loader, a tractor), the duty cycle for each piece of equipment (e.g., percentage of time within a specific time period, such as an hour, when the equipment is expected to operate at full power or capacity and thus make noise at a level comparable to what is presented in Table 5), and the distance from the noise-sensitive receiver. The predictive model also considers how many hours that equipment may be on site and operating (or idling) within an established work shift. Conservatively, no topographical shielding

Page 2113 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT 15823 21
SEPTEMBER 2024
was assumed in the modeling. However, modeling does include a temporary 8-foot-high construction noise barrier on the property lines that connects with the nearby single-family homes. The RCNM has default dutycycle values for the various pieces of equipment, which were derived from an extensive study of typical construction activity patterns. Those default duty-cycle values were used for this noise analysis, which is detailed in Appendix B, Construction Noise Modeling Input and Output, and produce the predicted results displayed in Table 6.

Table 7. Predicted Construction Noise Levels per Activity Phase Construction Phase (and
Equipment Types Involved)
8-Hour Leq at Nearest NoiseSensitive Receptor to
Construction Site Boundary (dBA)
8-Hour Leq at Nearest NoiseSensitive Receptor to Acoustical Centroid of Site (dBA)
Demolition (dozer, backhoe) 77.5 64.8
Grading (grader, scraper, dozer,
front end loader)

80.0 71.3
Building construction (crane,
man-lift, generator, backhoe,
welder/torch)

74.9 59.8
Architectural finishes (air
compressor)

63.8 50.1
Paving (paver, roller, other
equipment)

74.8 61.8
Notes: Leq = equivalent noise level; dBA = A-weighted decibels.

As presented in Table 7, the estimated construction noise levels are predicted to be as high as 80 dBA Leq over an 8-hour period at the nearest existing residences (as close as 15 feet away) when grading activities take place near the northern property boundaries. Note that these estimated noise levels at a source-toreceiver distance of 15 feet would occur when noted pieces of heavy equipment would each operate for a cumulative period of less than six (6) hours a day. By way of example, a grader might make multiple passes on site that are this close to a receiver; but, for the remaining time during the day, the grader is sufficiently farther away, performing work at a more distant location, or simply not operating. On an average construction workday, heavy equipment would be operating sporadically throughout the Project site and more frequently away from the property line edge. At more typical distances closer to the center of the Project site (approximately 75 feet from the nearest existing residence), construction noise levels are estimated to range from approximately 50 dBA Leq to 71 dBA Leq at the nearest existing residence. For these instances when operation of construction equipment and processes are sufficiently proximate to potentially cause activity noise levels to exceed 80 dBA Leq, which the FTA uses as guidance for construction noise exposure at a residential receptor, mitigation measure MM-NOI-1 shall be implemented as indicated site conditions may warrant. Proper application of 8-foot temporary noise barriers or comparable sound abatement due to implementation of MM-NOI-1 has the ability to reduce noise levels by up to 16 dB, which would correspondingly reduce the estimated non-mitigated construction noise levels to 80 dBA Leq, which would make the level compliant with the 80 dBA guidance.

In summary, construction noise during allowable daytime hours (between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.) has the potential for noise to equal but not exceed the 80 dBA Leq 8-hour FTA guidance at the nearest residential receiver on occasion. Therefore, incorporation of MM-NOI-1 is recommended to reduce construction noise

Page 2114 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT 15823 22
SEPTEMBER 2024
exposure levels. Thus, under such conditions, temporary construction-related noise would be considered less than significant.

The outcome of the King & Gardiner Farms versus Kern County judge’s decision established a requirement for construction noise analyses to disclose the relative increase of construction noise over ambient noise levels. construction noise levels would cause a temporary increase of 0 to 24 dBA Leq over existing ambient noise levels; ranging from an imperceptible difference in the sound magnitude to a double-digit difference that would be perceived as being two to- three times as loud to average healthy hearing.

Long-Term Operational
Off-Site Traffic Noise Exposure
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would result in the creation of additional vehicle trips on local arterial roadways (i.e., Amaya Drive), which could result in increased traffic noise levels at adjacent noise-sensitive land uses. Appendix C, Traffic Noise Modeling Input and Output, contains a spreadsheet with traffic volume data (average daily traffic) on Amaya Drive. In particular, the proposed Project would create additional traffic along Amaya Drive, which according to the Traffic Impact Assessment prepared for the proposed Project (CR Associates 2024) would add 438 total average daily trips to the site’s vicinity.

According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), a three-dBA change in sound is the point at which humans generally notice a barely perceptible change in sound, a five-dBA change is generally readily perceptible, and a 10-dBA increase is perceived by most people as a doubling of the existing noise level (Caltrans 2013). Due to the existing and proposed urban setting of the Project area, a readily perceptible change in noise (5 dBA) would be the appropriate threshold to determine significant increases in traffic noise.

Potential noise effects from vehicular traffic were assessed using the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model version 2.5 (FHWA 2004). Information used in the model included the roadway geometry, Existing Year (2024), Existing Plus Project, Horizon Year (2050), and Horizon Year Plus Project traffic volumes and posted traffic speeds. Noise levels were modeled at representative noise-sensitive receivers ST1 through ST3, as shown in Figure 3. Since the prepared traffic assessment did not include future traffic volumes, Horizon Year traffic numbers were estimated using the SANDAG Transportation Forecast Information Center.

The receivers were modeled to be 5 feet above the local ground elevation. The noise model results are summarized in Table 8. Based on results of the model, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in readily perceptible increases in traffic noise.

Table 8. Roadway Traffic Noise Modeling Results
Modeled
Receiver
Existing
(2024) Noise
Level (dBA
CNEL)
Existing
(2024) Plus
Project Noise
Level (dBA
CNEL)
Horizon Year
(2050)
without
Project Noise
Level (dBA
CNEL)
Horizon Year
(2050) with
Project Noise
Level (dBA
CNEL)
Maximum
Project-Related
Noise Level
Increase (dB)
ST1 62.5 62.6 64.5 64.7 0.2
ST2 53.3 55.5 54.1 56.1 2.2

Page 2115 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT 15823 23
SEPTEMBER 2024
Table 8. Roadway Traffic Noise Modeling Results
Modeled
Receiver
Existing
(2024) Noise
Level (dBA
CNEL)
Existing
(2024) Plus
Project Noise
Level (dBA
CNEL)
Horizon Year
(2050)
without
Project Noise
Level (dBA
CNEL)
Horizon Year
(2050) with
Project Noise
Level (dBA
CNEL)
Maximum
Project-Related
Noise Level
Increase (dB)
ST3 39.5 40 41.2 41.6 0.5
ST4 50 50.2 51.9 52.1 0.2
Source: Appendix C
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibel; CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level; dB = decibel.

Table 8 shows that at all three listed representative receivers, the addition of Project-related traffic to the roadway network would result in a CNEL increase of less than 3 dB, which is below the discernible level of change for the average healthy human ear. At all on-site exterior locations, the predicted CNEL values are less than 65 dBA, and compatible with the City’s guidance for exterior noise levels. Thus, a less-thansignificant impact is expected for Project-related off-site traffic noise increases affecting existing residences in the vicinity.

Stationary Noise Sources
Less Than Significant Impact. The incorporation of new multi-family homes and a mix of open space uses attributed to development of the proposed Project would add a variety of noise-producing electromechanical equipment that include those presented and discussed in the following paragraphs. Most of these noise-producing equipment or sound sources would be considered stationary or limited in mobility to a defined area. Using a Microsoft Excel–based outdoor sound propagation prediction model, Projectattributed operational noise at nearby community receptors was predicted using several assumptions: 1) Treatment of exposed at grade air-cooled condensing units as point-type sound emission sources; and 2) Point-source sound propagation (i.e., 6 dB per doubling of distance) that conservatively ignores acoustical absorption from atmospheric and ground surface effects. See Appendix D for quantitative details of the inputs and outputs that form the basis of the following assessment presentations.

Residential Unit Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Noise For purposes of this analysis, each of the new occupied residential units would be expected to feature a split-system type air-conditioning unit, with an air-cooled refrigeration (2-ton capacity) condenser unit.

Assuming each condenser unit has a sound pressure level (SPL) of 68 dBA at 3 feet based on available data from a likely manufacturer (Carrier 2012), and the units would generally be installed at grade on or near rear porches. Therefore, the closest existing noise-sensitive residential receptor to the west of the proposed Project’s western unit would be as close as 30 horizontal feet to the nearest of these condenser units. The predicted sound emission level from the combination of all operating condenser units as received by this offsite single-family home would be 48 dBA Leq and thus be compliant with the City’s nighttime threshold of 50 dBA hourly Leq. Under such conditions, the operation of residential air-conditioning units would result in a lessthan-significant impact.

Page 2116 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT 15823 24
SEPTEMBER 2024
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities may expose persons to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise, causing a potentially significant impact. Caltrans has collected groundborne vibration information related to construction activities (Caltrans 2020). Information from Caltrans indicates that continuous vibrations with a PPV of approximately 0.2 ips is considered annoying.

For context, heavier pieces of construction equipment, such as a bulldozer that may be expected on the Project site, have peak particle velocities of approximately 0.089 ips or less at a reference distance of 25 feet (DOT 2006).

Groundborne vibration attenuates rapidly, even over short distances. The attenuation of groundborne vibration as it propagates from source to receptor through intervening soils and rock strata can be estimated with expressions found in FTA and Caltrans guidance. By way of example, for a bulldozer operating on site and as close as the western Project boundary (i.e., 15 feet from the nearest occupied property) the estimated vibration velocity level would be 0.19 ips per the equation as follows (FTA 2006):

PPVrcvr = PPVref * (25/D)^1.5 = 0.19 = 0.089 * (25/15)^1.5 In the above equation, PPVrcvr is the predicted vibration velocity at the receiver position, PPVref is the reference value at 25 feet from the vibration source (the bulldozer), and D is the actual horizontal distance to the receiver. Therefore, at this predicted PPV, the impact of vibration-induced annoyance to occupants of nearby existing homes would be less than significant.

Construction vibration, at sufficiently high levels, can also present a building damage risk. However, anticipated construction vibration associated with the proposed Project would yield levels of 0.19 ips, which do not surpass the guidance limit of 0.3 ips PPV for building damage risk to older residential structures.

Because the predicted vibration level at 15 feet is less than this guidance limit, the risk of vibration damage to nearby structures is considered less than significant.

Once operational, the Proposed Project would not be expected to feature major producers of groundborne vibration. Anticipated mechanical systems like heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning units are designed and manufactured to feature rotating (fans, motors) and reciprocating (compressors) components that are well-balanced with isolated vibration within or external to the equipment casings. On this basis, potential vibration impacts due to Proposed Project operation would be less than significant.

C) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? There are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the Project site. The project site is located approximately

4.5 miles from Gillespie Field airport. The project site is not located within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour of Gillespie Field (SDCRAA 2010). Thus, the project site is not exposed to excessive noise levels generated by airports. Impacts would be less than significant.

Page 2117 of 2604 ends

15823 25
SEPTEMBER 2024
6 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure, introduced in Section 4, Impact Analysis, would apply during construction activities.

MM-NOI-1 Temporary Construction Noise Reduction. The Project applicant or its contractor would implement one or more of the following options for on-site noise control and sound abatement means that, in aggregate, would yield a minimum of approximately 16 dBA of construction noise reduction during the site preparation phase of the Project:
▪ Administrative controls (e.g., reduce operating time of equipment and/or prohibit usage of equipment type[s] within certain distances to a nearest receiving occupied off-site property). ▪ Engineering controls (change equipment operating parameters [speed, capacity, etc.], or install features or elements that otherwise reduce equipment noise emission [e.g., upgrade engine exhaust mufflers]).
▪ Install noise abatement on the site boundary fencing (or within, as practical and appropriate) in the form of sound blankets or comparable temporary solid barriers to occlude construction noise emission between the site (or specific equipment operation as the situation may define) and the noise-sensitive receptor(s) of concern.

Page 2118 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT 15823 26
SEPTEMBER 2024

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 2119 of 2604 ends

15823 27
SEPTEMBER 2024
7 Conclusions
This Memorandum was conducted to predictively quantify construction and operation noise and vibration attributed to the proposed Project. The results indicate that potential impacts during construction site preparation activities would be less than significant with the incorporation of MM-NOI-1. No mitigation is required.

Page 2120 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT 15823 28
SEPTEMBER 2024

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 2121 of 2604 ends

15823 29
SEPTEMBER 2024
8 References Cited
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September.

Caltrans. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Division of Environmental Analysis, Environmental Engineering, Hazardous Waste, Air, Noise, Paleontology Office. Sacramento, California. April.

Carrier. 2012. CA16NA 018-061 Single-Stage Air Conditioner w/ Puron Refrigerant. Catalog No: CA16NA-06PD. https://resource.carrierenterprise.com/is/content/Watscocom/carrier_ca16na04200g_article_ 1404816230343_en_ss
City of La Mesa. 2010. City of La Mesa Municipal Code, Chapter 10.80 – Noise Regulation. https://library.municode.com/ca/la_mesa/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT10PUPESAMO_ CH10.80NORE
City of La Mesa. 2012. La Mesa General Plan – Noise Element. https://www.cityoflamesa.us/DocumentCenter/ View/6202/08LaMesaGPNoise-CD?bidId=
DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model: User’s Guide. Final Report. FHWA-HEP-06-015. DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02. Cambridge, Massachusetts: DOT, Research and Innovative Technology Administration. August 2006.

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2004. FHWA Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5.

FHWA. 2008. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), Software Version 1.1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division. Washington, D.C.

December 8, 2008.

FHWA. 2011. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. FHWA-HEP-10-025. December. https://www.codot.gov/programs/environmental/noise/guidelines-policies/fhwa-noise-guidance-dec-2011 FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA Report No. 0123. September.

International Organization of Standardization (ISO). 1996. 9613-2: “Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors, Part 2: General Method of Calculation”. December. https://www.iso.org/standard/20649.html OPR (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research). 2017. State of California General Plan Guidelines. http://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html Sanchez, J., PE, TE, PTOE, & Belmudez, C. (2023, September 15). Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project – Traffic Assessment Letter. CR Associates.

SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). Transportation Forecast Information Center (TFIC). July 10, 2015.

Page 2122 of 2604 ends

JERICHO ROAD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT 15823 30
SEPTEMBER 2024

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 2123 of 2604 ends

Appendix A
Baseline Noise Measurement Field Data

Page 2124 of 2604 ends

Page 2125 of 2604 ends

Field Noise Measurement Data
Record: 1818
Project Name Jericho Road Residential (Meritage Homes)
Project # 15823
Observer(s)
Date 2024-01-31
Meteorological Conditions
Upload NOAA Forecast

Page 2126 of 2604 ends

Temp (F) 66
Humidity % (R.H.) 68
Wind Gusty
Wind Speed (MPH) 2
Wind Direction South West
Sky Clear
Instrument and Calibrator Information
Instrument Name List (SAC) NL-62
Instrument Name (SAC) NL-62
Instrument Name Lookup Key (SAC) NL-62
Manufacturer Rion
Model NL-62
Serial Number 350815
Calibration Date 7/16/2018
Calibrator Name (SAC) Rion NC-74
Calibrator Name (SAC) Rion NC-74
Calibrator Name Lookup Key (SAC) Rion NC-74
Calibrator Manufacturer Rion
Calibrator Model NC-74
Calibrator Serial # 34167529
Pre-Test (dBA SPL) 94.1
Post-Test (dBA SPL) 94

Page 2127 of 2604 ends

Windscreen Yes
Weighting? A-WTD
Slow/Fast? Slow
ANSI? Yes
Monitoring
Record # 1
Site ID ST1
Site Location Lat/Long 32.786146, -116.993378
Begin (Time) 13:09:00
End (Time) 13:24:00
Leq 64.3
Lmax 72.3
Lmin 53
Other Lx? L90, L50, L10
L90 53.4
L50 56.7
L10 70.1
Other Lx (Specify Metric) L
Primary Noise Source Traffic
Other Noise Sources (Background) Birds, Distant Aircraft, Distant Dog Barking, Distant Gardener / Landscape Noise Other Noise Sources Additional Description Landscapers across the street operating equipment, occasional helicopter flyovers Is the same instrument and calibrator being
used as previously noted?
Yes

Page 2128 of 2604 ends

Are the meteorological conditions the same as
previously noted?
Yes
Source Info and Traffic Counts
Number of Lanes 2
Lane Width (feet) 10
Roadway Width (feet) 20
Roadway Width (m) 6.1
Distance to Roadway (feet) 35
Distance to Roadway (m) 10.7
Distance Measured to Centerline or Edge of
Pavement?
Centerline
Roadway Type Arterial
Estimated Vehicle Speed (MPH) 30
Speeds Estimated by: Driving the Pace
Posted Speed Limit Sign (MPH) 30
Traffic Counts
Vehicle Count Summary A 59, MT 0, HT 0, B 1, MC 0
Select Method for Recording Count Duration Enter Manually Counting Both Directions? No
Count Duration (minutes) 15
Direction WB
Vehicle Count Tally

Page 2129 of 2604 ends

Select Method for Vehicle Counts Enter Manually
Number of Vehicles - Autos 59
Number of Vehicles - Medium Trucks 0
Number of Vehicles - Heavy Trucks 0
Number of Vehicles - Buses 1
Number of Vehicles - Motorcyles 0
Traffic Counts
Vehicle Count Summary A 51, MT 1, HT 0, B 2, MC 0
Select Method for Recording Count Duration Enter Manually Counting Both Directions? No
Count Duration (minutes) 15
Direction EB
Vehicle Count Tally
Select Method for Vehicle Counts Enter Manually
Number of Vehicles - Autos 51
Number of Vehicles - Medium Trucks 1
Number of Vehicles - Heavy Trucks 0
Number of Vehicles - Buses 2
Number of Vehicles - Motorcyles 0

Page 2130 of 2604 ends

Description / Photos
Site Photos
Photo
Comments / Description Facing SW

Page 2131 of 2604 ends

Site Photos
Photo
Comments / Description Facing E

Page 2132 of 2604 ends

Site Photos
Photo
Comments / Description Facing N
Monitoring
Record # 2
Site ID ST2
Site Location Lat/Long 32.786713, -116.993495

Page 2133 of 2604 ends

Begin (Time) 13:29:00
End (Time) 13:44:00
Leq 55.6
Lmax 62.3
Lmin 51.9
Other Lx? L90, L50, L10
L90 52.2
L50 54.2
L10 58.7
Other Lx (Specify Metric) L
Primary Noise Source Traffic
Other Noise Sources (Background) Birds, Distant Aircraft, Distant Traffic Other Noise Sources Additional Description Occasional aircraft flyovers Is the same instrument and calibrator being
used as previously noted?
Yes
Are the meteorological conditions the same as
previously noted?
Yes
Description / Photos
Site Photos

Page 2134 of 2604 ends

Photo
Comments / Description Facing E
Site Photos

Page 2135 of 2604 ends

Photo
Comments / Description Facing W + project site
Site Photos

Page 2136 of 2604 ends

Photo
Comments / Description Facing S
Site Photos

Page 2137 of 2604 ends

Photo
Comments / Description Facing N
Monitoring
Record # 3
Site ID ST3
Site Location Lat/Long 32.787471, -116.994777

Page 2138 of 2604 ends

Begin (Time) 13:53:00
End (Time) 14:08:00
Leq 53.4
Lmax 55.4
Lmin 52.5
Other Lx? L90, L50, L10
L90 52.8
L50 53.2
L10 54.3
Other Lx (Specify Metric) L
Primary Noise Source Traffic
Other Noise Sources (Background) Birds, Distant Aircraft, Distant Traffic, Rustling Leaves Is the same instrument and calibrator being
used as previously noted?
Yes
Are the meteorological conditions the same as
previously noted?
Yes
Description / Photos
Site Photos

Page 2139 of 2604 ends

Photo
Comments / Description Facing S
Site Photos

Page 2140 of 2604 ends

Photo
Comments / Description Facing N
Site Photos

Page 2141 of 2604 ends

Photo
Comments / Description Facing E + project site
Monitoring
Record # 4
Site ID ST4
Site Location Lat/Long 32.785990, -116.994251

Page 2142 of 2604 ends

Begin (Time) 14:15:00
End (Time) 14:30:00
Leq 54.1
Lmax 64.2
Lmin 51.4
Other Lx? L90, L50, L10
L90 51.9
L50 53.1
L10 55
Other Lx (Specify Metric) L
Primary Noise Source Traffic
Other Noise Sources (Background) Birds, Distant Traffic, Rustling Leaves Other Noise Sources Additional Description Distant rail (SD MTS) Is the same instrument and calibrator being
used as previously noted?
Yes
Are the meteorological conditions the same as
previously noted?
Yes
Description / Photos
Site Photos

Page 2143 of 2604 ends

Photo
Comments / Description Facing NE + project site
Site Photos

Page 2144 of 2604 ends

Photo
Comments / Description Facing SW
Site Photos

Page 2145 of 2604 ends

Photo
Comments / Description Facing W/NW
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Page 2146 of 2604 ends

Page 2147 of 2604 ends

Appendix B
Construction Noise Modeling Input and Output

Page 2148 of 2604 ends

Page 2149 of 2604 ends

Jericho
Acoustical Analysis Report
Attachment B -- Construction Noise Prediciton Model Worksheets To User: bordered cells are inputs, unbordered cells have formulae 80 allowable hours over which Leq is to be averaged = 8 = temporary barrier (TB) of input height inserted between source and receptor Construction Activity Equipment Total
Equipment Qty
AUF % (from

FHWA RCNM)
Reference
Lmax @ 50 ft.
from FHWA
RCNM
Client Equipment Description, Data
Source and/or Notes
Source to NSR
Distance (ft.)
Temporary Barrier
Insertion Loss (dB)
Additional Noise
Reduction
DistanceAdjusted Lmax
Allowable
Operation Time
(hours)
Allowable
Operation Time
(minutes)
Predicted 8-
hour Leq
Source
Elevation (ft)
Receiver
Elevation (ft)
Barrier
Height (ft)
Source to
Barr. ("A")
Horiz. (ft)
Rcvr. to Barr.
("B") Horiz.
(ft)
Source to
Rcvr. ("C")
Horiz. (ft)
"A" (ft) "B" (ft) "C" (ft) Path Length
Diff. "P" (ft) Abarr (dB)
Heff (with
barrier)
Heff (wout
barrier)
G (with
barrier)
G (without
barrier)
ILbarr (dB)
Demolition backhoe 3 40 78 75 0.1 73.6 8 480 74 5 5 0 70 5 75 70.2 7.1 75.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1 dozer 1 40 82 75 12.3 65.4 8 480 61 5 5 8 70 5 75 70.1 5.8 75.0 0.90 12.5 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 12.3 Total for Demolition Phase: 74.6
Grading grader 1 40 85 75 12.3 68.4 8 480 64 5 5 8 70 5 75 70.1 5.8 75.0 0.90 12.5 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 12.3 scraper 4 40 84 75 12.3 67.4 8 480 69 5 5 8 70 5 75 70.1 5.8 75.0 0.90 12.5 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 12.3 dozer 1 40 82 75 12.3 65.4 8 480 61 5 5 8 70 5 75 70.1 5.8 75.0 0.90 12.5 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 12.3 front end loader 1 40 79 75 12.3 62.4 8 480 58 5 5 8 70 5 75 70.1 5.8 75.0 0.90 12.5 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 12.3 Total for Grading Phase: 71.3
Building Construction crane 2 16 81 125 11.8 58.3 4 240 50 5 5 8 120 5 125 120.0 5.8 125.0 0.87 12.4 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 11.8 man lift 1 20 75 125 11.8 52.3 8 480 45 5 5 8 120 5 125 120.0 5.8 125.0 0.87 12.4 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 11.8 all other equipment > 5 HP 1 50 85 125 11.8 62.3 4 240 56 5 5 8 120 5 125 120.0 5.8 125.0 0.87 12.4 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 11.8 generator 1 50 72 125 11.8 49.3 8 480 46 5 5 8 120 5 125 120.0 5.8 125.0 0.87 12.4 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 11.8 backhoe 1 40 78 125 11.8 55.3 4 240 48 5 5 8 120 5 125 120.0 5.8 125.0 0.87 12.4 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 11.8 compressor (air) 2 40 78 125 11.8 55.3 8 480 54 5 5 8 120 5 125 120.0 5.8 125.0 0.87 12.4 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 11.8 Total for Building Construction Phase: 59.8
Paving concrete mixer truck 1 40 79 125 11.8 56.3 8 480 52 5 5 8 120 5 125 120.0 5.8 125.0 0.87 12.4 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 11.8 paver 2 50 77 125 11.8 54.3 8 480 54 5 5 8 120 5 125 120.0 5.8 125.0 0.87 12.4 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 11.8 all other equipment > 5 HP 1 50 85 125 11.8 62.3 8 480 59 5 5 8 120 5 125 120.0 5.8 125.0 0.87 12.4 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 11.8 roller 2 20 80 125 11.8 57.3 8 480 53 5 5 8 120 5 125 120.0 5.8 125.0 0.87 12.4 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 11.8 Total for Paving Phase: 61.8
noise level limit for construction phase at "occupied property", per FTA= Copy of RCNM-emulator-with-barrier_cb Dudek Project No. 15823 Acoustical Center Page 2151 of 2604 Jericho
Acoustical Analysis Report
Attachment B -- Construction Noise Prediciton Model Worksheets Equipment Description Impact
Device?
Acoustical
Use Factor
(%)
Lesser of or
available
Lmax
Spec. 721
Lmax
Measured
Lmax @50ft
(dBA, slow)
All Other Equipment > 5 HP No 50 85 85 -- N/A --
Auger Drill Rig No 20 84 85 84
Backhoe No 40 78 80 78
Bar Bender No 20 80 80 -- N/A --
Blasting Yes -- N/A -- 94 94 -- N/A --
Boring Jack Power Unit No 50 80 80 83
Chain Saw No 20 84 85 84
Clam Shovel (dropping) Yes 20 87 93 87
Compactor (ground) No 20 80 80 83
Compressor (air) No 40 78 80 78
Concrete Batch Plant No 15 83 83 -- N/A --
Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 79 85 79
Concrete Pump Truck No 20 81 82 81
Concrete Saw No 20 90 90 90
Crane No 16 81 85 81
Dozer No 40 82 85 82
Drill Rig Truck No 20 79 84 79
Drum Mixer No 50 80 80 80
Dump Truck No 40 76 84 76
Excavator No 40 81 85 81
Flat Bed Truck No 40 74 84 74
Front End Loader No 40 79 80 79
Generator No 50 72 72 81
Generator (<25KVA, VMS signs) No 50 70 70 73
Gradall No 40 83 85 83
Grader No 40 85 85 -- N/A --
Grapple (on backhoe) No 40 85 85 87
Horizontal Boring Hydr. Jack No 25 80 80 82
Hydra Break Ram Yes 10 90 90 -- N/A --
Impact Pile Driver Yes 20 95 95 101
Jackhammer Yes 20 85 85 89
Man Lift No 20 75 85 75
Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) Yes 20 90 90 90
Pavement Scarafier No 20 85 85 90
Paver No 50 77 85 77
Pickup Truck No 40 55 55 75
Pneumatic Tools No 50 85 85 85
Pumps No 50 77 77 81
Refrigerator Unit No 100 73 82 73
Rivit Buster/chipping gun Yes 20 79 85 79
Rock Drill No 20 81 85 81
Roller No 20 80 85 80
Sand Blasting (Single Nozzle) No 20 85 85 96
Scraper No 40 84 85 84
Shears (on backhoe) No 40 85 85 96
Slurry Plant No 100 78 78 78
Slurry Trenching Machine No 50 80 82 80
Soil Mix Drill Rig No 50 80 80 -- N/A --
Tractor No 40 84 84 -- N/A --
Vacuum Excavator (Vac-truck) No 40 85 85 85
Vacuum Street Sweeper No 10 80 80 82
Ventilation Fan No 100 79 85 79
Vibrating Hopper No 50 85 85 87
Vibratory Concrete Mixer No 20 80 80 80
Vibratory Pile Driver No 20 95 95 101
Warning Horn No 5 83 85 83
Welder / Torch No 40 73 73 74
Copy of RCNM-emulator-with-barrier_cb Dudek Project No. 15823 RCNM_UG_Table1_data Page 2152 of 2604

Page 2153 of 2604 ends

Appendix C
Traffic Noise Modeling Input and Output

Page 2154 of 2604 ends

Page 2155 of 2604 ends

INPUT: ROADWAYS jericho rd
dudek 9 April 2024
nas TNM 2.5
INPUT: ROADWAYS Average pavement type shall be used unless PROJECT/CONTRACT: jericho rd a State highway agency substantiates the use RUN: cal of a different type with the approval of FHWA
Roadway Points
Name Width Name No. Coordinates (pavement) Flow Control Segment X Y Z Control Speed Percent Pvmt On
Device Constraint Vehicles Type Struct?
Affected
ft ft ft ft mph %
EB Amaya Dr 25.0 point11 11 6,331,940.5 1,866,367.9 0.00 Average point10 10 6,332,593.0 1,866,241.2 0.00 Average
point9 9 6,332,676.0 1,866,243.1 0.00 Average
point8 8 6,332,796.0 1,866,260.6 0.00 Average
point7 7 6,332,950.0 1,866,321.8 0.00 Average
point6 6 6,333,027.0 1,866,367.2 0.00 Average
point5 5 6,333,087.5 1,866,417.5 0.00 Average
point4 4 6,333,139.5 1,866,468.1 0.00 Average
point3 3 6,333,192.0 1,866,524.5 0.00 Average
point2 2 6,333,249.0 1,866,603.4 0.00 Average
point25 25 6,333,348.5 1,866,751.0 0.00
WB Amaya Dr 25.0 point20 20 6,333,544.5 1,867,077.5 0.00 Average point26 26 6,333,321.5 1,866,760.8 0.00
Jericho Rd 36.0 point21 21 6,333,221.0 1,867,070.1 0.00 Average point22 22 6,333,127.0 1,866,933.2 0.00 Average
point23 23 6,333,129.0 1,866,897.9 0.00 Average
point24 24 6,333,310.5 1,866,774.5 0.00
EB Amaya Dr-2 25.0 point28 28 6,333,348.5 1,866,751.0 0.00 Average point1 1 6,333,564.0 1,867,063.5 0.00
WB Amaya Dr-2 25.0 point29 29 6,333,321.5 1,866,760.8 0.00 Average point19 19 6,333,176.5 1,866,553.1 0.00 Average
point18 18 6,333,083.0 1,866,457.8 0.00 Average
point17 17 6,332,986.0 1,866,385.6 0.00 Average
point16 16 6,332,875.0 1,866,325.9 0.00 Average
point15 15 6,332,764.0 1,866,284.5 0.00 Average
C:\TNM25\Projects\Jericho Road Residential\existing 1 9 April 2024

Page 2156 of 2604 ends

INPUT: ROADWAYS jericho rd
point14 14 6,332,698.0 1,866,273.1 0.00 Average
point13 13 6,332,556.5 1,866,274.0 0.00 Average
point12 12 6,331,950.0 1,866,391.8 0.00
C:\TNM25\Projects\Jericho Road Residential\existing 2 9 April 2024

Page 2157 of 2604 ends

INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes jericho rd
dudek 9 April 2024
nas TNM 2.5
INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes
PROJECT/CONTRACT: jericho rd
RUN: cal
Roadway Points
Name Name No. Segment
Autos MTrucks HTrucks Buses Motorcycles

V S V S V S V S V S
veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph
EB Amaya Dr point11 11 291 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point10 10 291 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point9 9 291 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point8 8 291 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point7 7 291 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point6 6 291 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point5 5 291 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point4 4 291 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point3 3 291 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point2 2 291 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point25 25
WB Amaya Dr point20 20 247 30 5 30 2 30 0 0 0 0
point26 26
Jericho Rd point21 21 32 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
point22 22 32 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
point23 23 32 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
point24 24
EB Amaya Dr-2 point28 28 247 30 5 30 2 30 0 0 0 0
point1 1
WB Amaya Dr-2 point29 29 291 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point19 19 291 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point18 18 291 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point17 17 291 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
C:\TNM25\Projects\Jericho Road Residential\existing 1 9

Page 2158 of 2604 ends

INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes jericho rd
point16 16 291 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point15 15 291 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point14 14 291 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point13 13 291 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point12 12
C:\TNM25\Projects\Jericho Road Residential\existing 2 9

Page 2159 of 2604 ends

INPUT: RECEIVERS jericho rd
dudek 9 April 2024
nas TNM 2.5
INPUT: RECEIVERS
PROJECT/CONTRACT: jericho rd
RUN: cal
Receiver
Name No. #DUs Coordinates (ground) Height Input Sound Levels and Criteria Active X Y Z above Existing Impact Criteria NR in
Ground LAeq1h LAeq1h Sub'l Goal Calc.
ft ft ft ft dBA dBA dB dB
ST1 1 1 6,333,135.0 1,866,543.8 0.00 4.92 64.30 66 10.0 8.0 Y ST2 2 1 6,333,167.5 1,866,839.5 0.00 4.92 55.60 66 10.0 8.0 Y ST3 3 1 6,332,725.5 1,867,076.2 0.00 4.92 53.40 66 10.0 8.0 Y ST4 4 1 6,332,950.5 1,866,627.1 0.00 4.92 54.10 66 10.0 8.0 Y C:\TNM25\Projects\Jericho Road Residential\existing 1 9

Page 2160 of 2604 ends

RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS jericho rd
dudek 9 April 2024
nas TNM 2.5
Calculated with TNM 2.5
RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS
PROJECT/CONTRACT: jericho rd
RUN: cal
BARRIER DESIGN: INPUT HEIGHTS Average pavement type shall be used unless a State highway agency substantiates the use
ATMOSPHERICS: 68 deg F, 50% RH of a different type with approval of FHWA.

Receiver
Name No. #DUs Existing No Barrier With Barrier
LAeq1h LAeq1h Increase over existing Type Calculated Noise Reduction Calculated Crit'n Calculated Crit'n Impact LAeq1h Calculated Goal Calculated Sub'l Inc minus
Goal
dBA dBA dBA dB dB dBA dB dB dB
ST1 1 1 64.3 62.5 66 -1.8 10 ---- 62.5 0.0 8 -8.0
ST2 2 1 55.6 53.3 66 -2.3 10 ---- 53.3 0.0 8 -8.0
ST3 3 1 53.4 39.5 66 -13.9 10 ---- 39.5 0.0 8 -8.0
ST4 4 1 54.1 50.0 66 -4.1 10 ---- 50.0 0.0 8 -8.0
Dwelling Units # DUs Noise Reduction
Min Avg Max
dB dB dB
All Selected 4 0.0 0.0 0.0
All Impacted 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
All that meet NR Goal 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C:\TNM25\Projects\Jericho Road Residential\existing 1 9 April 2024

Page 2161 of 2604 ends

INPUT: ROADWAYS jericho rd
dudek 9 April 2024
nas TNM 2.5
INPUT: ROADWAYS Average pavement type shall be used unless PROJECT/CONTRACT: jericho rd a State highway agency substantiates the use RUN: Existing + Project of a different type with the approval of FHWA Roadway Points
Name Width Name No. Coordinates (pavement) Flow Control Segment X Y Z Control Speed Percent Pvmt On
Device Constraint Vehicles Type Struct?
Affected
ft ft ft ft mph %
EB Amaya Dr 25.0 point11 11 6,331,940.5 1,866,367.9 0.00 Average point10 10 6,332,593.0 1,866,241.2 0.00 Average
point9 9 6,332,676.0 1,866,243.1 0.00 Average
point8 8 6,332,796.0 1,866,260.6 0.00 Average
point7 7 6,332,950.0 1,866,321.8 0.00 Average
point6 6 6,333,027.0 1,866,367.2 0.00 Average
point5 5 6,333,087.5 1,866,417.5 0.00 Average
point4 4 6,333,139.5 1,866,468.1 0.00 Average
point3 3 6,333,192.0 1,866,524.5 0.00 Average
point2 2 6,333,249.0 1,866,603.4 0.00 Average
point25 25 6,333,348.5 1,866,751.0 0.00
WB Amaya Dr 25.0 point20 20 6,333,544.5 1,867,077.5 0.00 Average point26 26 6,333,321.5 1,866,760.8 0.00
Jericho Rd 36.0 point21 21 6,333,221.0 1,867,070.1 0.00 Average point22 22 6,333,127.0 1,866,933.2 0.00 Average
point23 23 6,333,129.0 1,866,897.9 0.00 Average
point24 24 6,333,310.5 1,866,774.5 0.00
EB Amaya Dr-2 25.0 point28 28 6,333,348.5 1,866,751.0 0.00 Average point1 1 6,333,564.0 1,867,063.5 0.00
WB Amaya Dr-2 25.0 point29 29 6,333,321.5 1,866,760.8 0.00 Average point19 19 6,333,176.5 1,866,553.1 0.00 Average
point18 18 6,333,083.0 1,866,457.8 0.00 Average
point17 17 6,332,986.0 1,866,385.6 0.00 Average
point16 16 6,332,875.0 1,866,325.9 0.00 Average
point15 15 6,332,764.0 1,866,284.5 0.00 Average
C:\TNM25\Projects\Jericho Road Residential\existing + project 1 9

Page 2162 of 2604 ends

Page 2163 of 2604 ends

INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes jericho rd
dudek 9 April 2024
nas TNM 2.5
INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes
PROJECT/CONTRACT: jericho rd
RUN: Existing + Project
Roadway Points
Name Name No. Segment
Autos MTrucks HTrucks Buses Motorcycles

V S V S V S V S V S
veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph
EB Amaya Dr point11 11 304 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point10 10 304 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point9 9 304 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point8 8 304 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point7 7 304 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point6 6 304 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point5 5 304 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point4 4 304 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point3 3 304 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point2 2 304 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point25 25
WB Amaya Dr point20 20 256 30 5 30 2 30 0 0 0 0
point26 26
Jericho Rd point21 21 77 30 1 30 0 0 0 0 0 0
point22 22 77 30 1 30 0 0 0 0 0 0
point23 23 77 30 1 30 0 0 0 0 0 0
point24 24
EB Amaya Dr-2 point28 28 256 30 5 30 2 30 0 0 0 0
point1 1
WB Amaya Dr-2 point29 29 304 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point19 19 304 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point18 18 304 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point17 17 304 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
C:\TNM25\Projects\Jericho Road Residential\existing + project 1

Page 2164 of 2604 ends

INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes jericho rd
point16 16 304 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point15 15 304 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point14 14 304 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point13 13 304 30 6 30 3 30 0 0 0 0
point12 12
C:\TNM25\Projects\Jericho Road Residential\existing + project 2

Page 2165 of 2604 ends

INPUT: RECEIVERS jericho rd
dudek 9 April 2024
nas TNM 2.5
INPUT: RECEIVERS
PROJECT/CONTRACT: jericho rd
RUN: Existing + Project
Receiver
Name No. #DUs Coordinates (ground) Height Input Sound Levels and Criteria Active X Y Z above Existing Impact Criteria NR in
Ground LAeq1h LAeq1h Sub'l Goal Calc.
ft ft ft ft dBA dBA dB dB
ST1 1 1 6,333,135.0 1,866,543.8 0.00 4.92 64.30 66 10.0 8.0 Y ST2 2 1 6,333,167.5 1,866,839.5 0.00 4.92 55.60 66 10.0 8.0 Y ST3 3 1 6,332,725.5 1,867,076.2 0.00 4.92 53.40 66 10.0 8.0 Y ST4 4 1 6,332,950.5 1,866,627.1 0.00 4.92 54.10 66 10.0 8.0 Y C:\TNM25\Projects\Jericho Road Residential\existing + project 1

Page 2166 of 2604 ends

RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS jericho rd
dudek 9 April 2024
nas TNM 2.5
Calculated with TNM 2.5
RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS
PROJECT/CONTRACT: jericho rd
RUN: Existing + Project
BARRIER DESIGN: INPUT HEIGHTS Average pavement type shall be used unless a State highway agency substantiates the use
ATMOSPHERICS: 68 deg F, 50% RH of a different type with approval of FHWA.

Receiver
Name No. #DUs Existing No Barrier With Barrier
LAeq1h LAeq1h Increase over existing Type Calculated Noise Reduction Calculated Crit'n Calculated Crit'n Impact LAeq1h Calculated Goal Calculated Sub'l Inc minus
Goal
dBA dBA dBA dB dB dBA dB dB dB
ST1 1 1 64.3 62.6 66 -1.7 10 ---- 62.6 0.0 8 -8.0
ST2 2 1 55.6 55.5 66 -0.1 10 ---- 55.5 0.0 8 -8.0
ST3 3 1 53.4 40.0 66 -13.4 10 ---- 40.0 0.0 8 -8.0
ST4 4 1 54.1 50.2 66 -3.9 10 ---- 50.2 0.0 8 -8.0
Dwelling Units # DUs Noise Reduction
Min Avg Max
dB dB dB
All Selected 4 0.0 0.0 0.0
All Impacted 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
All that meet NR Goal 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C:\TNM25\Projects\Jericho Road Residential\existing + project 1 9 April 2024

Page 2167 of 2604 ends

INPUT: ROADWAYS jericho rd
dudek 9 April 2024
nas TNM 2.5
INPUT: ROADWAYS Average pavement type shall be used unless PROJECT/CONTRACT: jericho rd a State highway agency substantiates the use RUN: Future of a different type with the approval of FHWA Roadway Points
Name Width Name No. Coordinates (pavement) Flow Control Segment X Y Z Control Speed Percent Pvmt On
Device Constraint Vehicles Type Struct?
Affected
ft ft ft ft mph %
EB Amaya Dr 25.0 point11 11 6,331,940.5 1,866,367.9 0.00 Average point10 10 6,332,593.0 1,866,241.2 0.00 Average
point9 9 6,332,676.0 1,866,243.1 0.00 Average
point8 8 6,332,796.0 1,866,260.6 0.00 Average
point7 7 6,332,950.0 1,866,321.8 0.00 Average
point6 6 6,333,027.0 1,866,367.2 0.00 Average
point5 5 6,333,087.5 1,866,417.5 0.00 Average
point4 4 6,333,139.5 1,866,468.1 0.00 Average
point3 3 6,333,192.0 1,866,524.5 0.00 Average
point2 2 6,333,249.0 1,866,603.4 0.00 Average
point25 25 6,333,348.5 1,866,751.0 0.00
WB Amaya Dr 25.0 point20 20 6,333,544.5 1,867,077.5 0.00 Average point26 26 6,333,321.5 1,866,760.8 0.00
Jericho Rd 36.0 point21 21 6,333,221.0 1,867,070.1 0.00 Average point22 22 6,333,127.0 1,866,933.2 0.00 Average
point23 23 6,333,129.0 1,866,897.9 0.00 Average
point24 24 6,333,310.5 1,866,774.5 0.00
EB Amaya Dr-2 25.0 point28 28 6,333,348.5 1,866,751.0 0.00 Average point1 1 6,333,564.0 1,867,063.5 0.00
WB Amaya Dr-2 25.0 point29 29 6,333,321.5 1,866,760.8 0.00 Average point19 19 6,333,176.5 1,866,553.1 0.00 Average
point18 18 6,333,083.0 1,866,457.8 0.00 Average
point17 17 6,332,986.0 1,866,385.6 0.00 Average
point16 16 6,332,875.0 1,866,325.9 0.00 Average
point15 15 6,332,764.0 1,866,284.5 0.00 Average
C:\TNM25\Projects\Jericho Road Residential\future1 1 9 April 2024

Page 2168 of 2604 ends

Page 2169 of 2604 ends

INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes jericho rd
dudek 9 April 2024
nas TNM 2.5
INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes
PROJECT/CONTRACT: jericho rd
RUN: Future
Roadway Points
Name Name No. Segment
Autos MTrucks HTrucks Buses Motorcycles

V S V S V S V S V S
veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph
EB Amaya Dr point11 11 466 30 9 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point10 10 466 30 9 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point9 9 466 30 9 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point8 8 466 30 9 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point7 7 466 30 9 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point6 6 466 30 9 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point5 5 466 30 9 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point4 4 466 30 9 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point3 3 466 30 9 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point2 2 466 30 9 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point25 25
WB Amaya Dr point20 20 228 30 5 30 2 30 0 0 0 0
point26 26
Jericho Rd point21 21 32 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
point22 22 32 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
point23 23 32 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
point24 24
EB Amaya Dr-2 point28 28 228 30 5 30 2 30 0 0 0 0
point1 1
WB Amaya Dr-2 point29 29 466 30 9 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point19 19 466 30 9 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point18 18 466 30 9 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point17 17 466 30 9 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
C:\TNM25\Projects\Jericho Road Residential\future1 1 9

Page 2170 of 2604 ends

INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes jericho rd
point16 16 466 30 9 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point15 15 466 30 9 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point14 14 466 30 9 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point13 13 466 30 9 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point12 12
C:\TNM25\Projects\Jericho Road Residential\future1 2 9

Page 2171 of 2604 ends

INPUT: RECEIVERS jericho rd
dudek 9 April 2024
nas TNM 2.5
INPUT: RECEIVERS
PROJECT/CONTRACT: jericho rd
RUN: Future
Receiver
Name No. #DUs Coordinates (ground) Height Input Sound Levels and Criteria Active X Y Z above Existing Impact Criteria NR in
Ground LAeq1h LAeq1h Sub'l Goal Calc.
ft ft ft ft dBA dBA dB dB
ST1 1 1 6,333,135.0 1,866,543.8 0.00 4.92 64.30 66 10.0 8.0 Y ST2 2 1 6,333,167.5 1,866,839.5 0.00 4.92 55.60 66 10.0 8.0 Y ST3 3 1 6,332,725.5 1,867,076.2 0.00 4.92 53.40 66 10.0 8.0 Y ST4 4 1 6,332,950.5 1,866,627.1 0.00 4.92 54.10 66 10.0 8.0 Y C:\TNM25\Projects\Jericho Road Residential\future1 1 9

Page 2172 of 2604 ends

RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS jericho rd
dudek 9 April 2024
nas TNM 2.5
Calculated with TNM 2.5
RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS
PROJECT/CONTRACT: jericho rd
RUN: Future
BARRIER DESIGN: INPUT HEIGHTS Average pavement type shall be used unless a State highway agency substantiates the use
ATMOSPHERICS: 68 deg F, 50% RH of a different type with approval of FHWA.

Receiver
Name No. #DUs Existing No Barrier With Barrier
LAeq1h LAeq1h Increase over existing Type Calculated Noise Reduction Calculated Crit'n Calculated Crit'n Impact LAeq1h Calculated Goal Calculated Sub'l Inc minus
Goal
dBA dBA dBA dB dB dBA dB dB dB
ST1 1 1 64.3 64.5 66 0.2 10 ---- 64.5 0.0 8 -8.0
ST2 2 1 55.6 54.1 66 -1.5 10 ---- 54.1 0.0 8 -8.0
ST3 3 1 53.4 41.2 66 -12.2 10 ---- 41.2 0.0 8 -8.0
ST4 4 1 54.1 51.9 66 -2.2 10 ---- 51.9 0.0 8 -8.0
Dwelling Units # DUs Noise Reduction
Min Avg Max
dB dB dB
All Selected 4 0.0 0.0 0.0
All Impacted 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
All that meet NR Goal 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C:\TNM25\Projects\Jericho Road Residential\future1 1 9 April 2024

Page 2173 of 2604 ends

INPUT: ROADWAYS jericho rd
dudek 9 April 2024
nas TNM 2.5
INPUT: ROADWAYS Average pavement type shall be used unless PROJECT/CONTRACT: jericho rd a State highway agency substantiates the use RUN: Future + Project of a different type with the approval of FHWA Roadway Points
Name Width Name No. Coordinates (pavement) Flow Control Segment X Y Z Control Speed Percent Pvmt On
Device Constraint Vehicles Type Struct?
Affected
ft ft ft ft mph %
EB Amaya Dr 25.0 point11 11 6,331,940.5 1,866,367.9 0.00 Average point10 10 6,332,593.0 1,866,241.2 0.00 Average
point9 9 6,332,676.0 1,866,243.1 0.00 Average
point8 8 6,332,796.0 1,866,260.6 0.00 Average
point7 7 6,332,950.0 1,866,321.8 0.00 Average
point6 6 6,333,027.0 1,866,367.2 0.00 Average
point5 5 6,333,087.5 1,866,417.5 0.00 Average
point4 4 6,333,139.5 1,866,468.1 0.00 Average
point3 3 6,333,192.0 1,866,524.5 0.00 Average
point2 2 6,333,249.0 1,866,603.4 0.00 Average
point25 25 6,333,348.5 1,866,751.0 0.00
WB Amaya Dr 25.0 point20 20 6,333,544.5 1,867,077.5 0.00 Average point26 26 6,333,321.5 1,866,760.8 0.00
Jericho Rd 36.0 point21 21 6,333,221.0 1,867,070.1 0.00 Average point22 22 6,333,127.0 1,866,933.2 0.00 Average
point23 23 6,333,129.0 1,866,897.9 0.00 Average
point24 24 6,333,310.5 1,866,774.5 0.00
EB Amaya Dr-2 25.0 point28 28 6,333,348.5 1,866,751.0 0.00 Average point1 1 6,333,564.0 1,867,063.5 0.00
WB Amaya Dr-2 25.0 point29 29 6,333,321.5 1,866,760.8 0.00 Average point19 19 6,333,176.5 1,866,553.1 0.00 Average
point18 18 6,333,083.0 1,866,457.8 0.00 Average
point17 17 6,332,986.0 1,866,385.6 0.00 Average
point16 16 6,332,875.0 1,866,325.9 0.00 Average
point15 15 6,332,764.0 1,866,284.5 0.00 Average
C:\TNM25\Projects\Jericho Road Residential\future + project 1 9 April 2024

Page 2174 of 2604 ends

Page 2175 of 2604 ends

INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes jericho rd
dudek 9 April 2024
nas TNM 2.5
INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes
PROJECT/CONTRACT: jericho rd
RUN: Future + Project
Roadway Points
Name Name No. Segment
Autos MTrucks HTrucks Buses Motorcycles

V S V S V S V S V S
veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph
EB Amaya Dr point11 11 478 30 10 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point10 10 478 30 10 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point9 9 478 30 10 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point8 8 478 30 10 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point7 7 478 30 10 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point6 6 478 30 10 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point5 5 478 30 10 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point4 4 478 30 10 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point3 3 478 30 10 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point2 2 478 30 10 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point25 25
WB Amaya Dr point20 20 237 30 5 30 2 30 0 0 0 0
point26 26
Jericho Rd point21 21 77 30 1 30 0 0 0 0 0 0
point22 22 77 30 1 30 0 0 0 0 0 0
point23 23 77 30 1 30 0 0 0 0 0 0
point24 24
EB Amaya Dr-2 point28 28 237 30 5 30 2 30 0 0 0 0
point1 1
WB Amaya Dr-2 point29 29 478 30 10 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point19 19 478 30 10 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point18 18 478 30 10 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point17 17 478 30 10 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
C:\TNM25\Projects\Jericho Road Residential\future + project 1 9

Page 2176 of 2604 ends

INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes jericho rd
point16 16 478 30 10 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point15 15 478 30 10 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point14 14 478 30 10 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point13 13 478 30 10 30 5 30 0 0 0 0
point12 12
C:\TNM25\Projects\Jericho Road Residential\future + project 2 9

Page 2177 of 2604 ends

INPUT: RECEIVERS jericho rd
dudek 9 April 2024
nas TNM 2.5
INPUT: RECEIVERS
PROJECT/CONTRACT: jericho rd
RUN: Future + Project
Receiver
Name No. #DUs Coordinates (ground) Height Input Sound Levels and Criteria Active X Y Z above Existing Impact Criteria NR in
Ground LAeq1h LAeq1h Sub'l Goal Calc.
ft ft ft ft dBA dBA dB dB
ST1 1 1 6,333,135.0 1,866,543.8 0.00 4.92 64.30 66 10.0 8.0 Y ST2 2 1 6,333,167.5 1,866,839.5 0.00 4.92 55.60 66 10.0 8.0 Y ST3 3 1 6,332,725.5 1,867,076.2 0.00 4.92 53.40 66 10.0 8.0 Y ST4 4 1 6,332,950.5 1,866,627.1 0.00 4.92 54.10 66 10.0 8.0 Y C:\TNM25\Projects\Jericho Road Residential\future + project 1 9

Page 2178 of 2604 ends

RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS jericho rd
dudek 9 April 2024
nas TNM 2.5
Calculated with TNM 2.5
RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS
PROJECT/CONTRACT: jericho rd
RUN: Future + Project
BARRIER DESIGN: INPUT HEIGHTS Average pavement type shall be used unless a State highway agency substantiates the use
ATMOSPHERICS: 68 deg F, 50% RH of a different type with approval of FHWA.

Receiver
Name No. #DUs Existing No Barrier With Barrier
LAeq1h LAeq1h Increase over existing Type Calculated Noise Reduction Calculated Crit'n Calculated Crit'n Impact LAeq1h Calculated Goal Calculated Sub'l Inc minus
Goal
dBA dBA dBA dB dB dBA dB dB dB
ST1 1 1 64.3 64.7 66 0.4 10 ---- 64.7 0.0 8 -8.0
ST2 2 1 55.6 56.1 66 0.5 10 ---- 56.1 0.0 8 -8.0
ST3 3 1 53.4 41.6 66 -11.8 10 ---- 41.6 0.0 8 -8.0
ST4 4 1 54.1 52.1 66 -2.0 10 ---- 52.1 0.0 8 -8.0
Dwelling Units # DUs Noise Reduction
Min Avg Max
dB dB dB
All Selected 4 0.0 0.0 0.0
All Impacted 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
All that meet NR Goal 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C:\TNM25\Projects\Jericho Road Residential\future + project 1 9 April 2024

Page 2179 of 2604 ends

Appendix D
Operational Noise Model Input and Output

Page 2180 of 2604 ends

Page 2181 of 2604 ends

Jericho
HVAC Noise Levels
SOURCE: Dudek 2024
0 91 182 Feet
Appendix D
Color High Low
70 65
65 60
60 55
55 50
50 45
45 30
dBA range
Predicted Aggregate Sound
Pressure Level (SPL)
Amaya Drive
Broadmoor Drive

Page 2182 of 2604 ends

Page 2183 of 2604 ends

Appendix J
Traffic Assessment Letter

Page 2184 of 2604 ends

Page 2185 of 2604 ends

3900 5th Avenue, Suite 310  San Diego, CA 92103  619-795-6086 www.CRAmobility.com
TO: Louisa Feletto - Forward Planning Manager; Meritage Homes FROM: Jonathan Sanchez, PE, TE, PTOE; CR Associates
Cristian Belmudez; CR Associates
DATE:

RE:
9/15/2023
Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project – Traffic Assessment Letter The purpose of this Traffic Assessment Letter (TAL) is to assess the potential transportation related impacts that may be associated with the Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project (the “Project”) and to identify any effects to existing levels of service (LOS) or traffic operations that may result in the need for off-site improvements.

Project Description
The Project proposes to construct 73 three-story townhomes on the old Calvary Church site (approximately 3.48 acres), located at 9407 Jericho Road in the City of La Mesa. The City of La Mesa has not yet adopted City of La Mesa-specific guidelines for local transportation analyses (LOS-based).

Therefore, the analyses presented below are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Guidelines for Transportation Impact Studies in the San Diego Region, May 2019 (ITE Guidelines) for LOS-based analysis. This approach is consistent with other previously approved transportation impact studies prepared for developments within the City of La Mesa, such as the Alvarado Specific Plan.

Figure 1 displays the Project’s regional location. Figure 2 displays the project site plan.

Based on the City of La Mesa’s Development Review Process for Traffic (February 2016) and Traffic Development Review – Applicability Sheet, a residential development that generates more than 100 ADT or 20 peak hour trips but less than 500 ADT or 50 peak hour trips must prepare a TAL. The TAL includes the analysis of roadway and intersections immediately adjacent to the project site under two scenarios: Existing and Existing with Project conditions. Near-Term Conditions are not required to be analyzed for a TAL. The City of La Mesa’s Development Review Process for Traffic and Traffic Development Review – Applicability Sheet are included in Attachment A.

Project Trip Generation, Distribution and
Assignment
This section outlines the analysis assumptions relating to the Project’s trip generation, assumed trip distribution pattern, and trip assignment.

Trip Generation
Trip generation for the Project was developed utilizing the SANDAG’s (not so) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002. Although the Calvary Church continues to operate under Existing conditions, for a conservative analysis, no trip credits were applied to the Project at the moment. Table 1 displays daily, as well as AM and PM peak hour project trip generation.

Page 2186 of 2604 ends

City of
Santee
City of
El Cajon
City of
Lemon Grove
County of
San Diego
County of
San Diego
City of
San Diego
City of
La Mesa
N
Figure 1
Project Regional Location
Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project
Traffic Assessment Letter
0 0.5 1 Miles
Project Site^

Page 2187 of 2604 ends

Figure 2
Project Site Plan
Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project
Traffic Assessment Letter

PROJECT

BOUNDARY
BR
OAD
M
O
O
R
DR

JERICHO RD
AMA
YA DR

LAKEVIEW DR

PROJECT

BOUNDARY

PROJECT

BOUNDARY
BR
OAD
M
O
O
R
DR

JERICHO RD
AMA
YA DR

LAKEVIEW DR

PROJECT

BOUNDARY
PVT. DRIVE "A"
PVT. DRIVE "B"
PVT. DRIVE "C"
PVT. DR VI E "E" PVT. DRIVE "C"
T
T
BLDG #2
BLDG #3
BLDG #4 BLDG #5 BLDG #6
BLDG #7
BLDG #1
P=652.2
P=651.3
P=651.3 P=649.0
P=646.3
P=652.2 P=651.2
P=651.7
P=650.3
P=650.3 P=648.0 P=646.4
P=645.3
PVT. DRIVE "D"
BLDG #9
P=652.6
BLDG #8
P=652.1
P=651.6
FF=653.3 FF=652.8
FF=652.3 P=652.6 FF=653.3
GROSS ACRES: 3.48 ACRES

PROJECT SUMMARY
NET DENSITY: 21.0 DU/AC
TOTAL UNITS = 73 UNITS
8-PLEX (4) = 32 UNITS
8R-PLEX (4) = 32 UNITS
9-PLEX (1) = 9 UNITS

Page 2188 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project Page 4
Traffic Assessment Letter
Table 1 – Project Trip Generation
Land Use Units Trip
Rate ADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
% Trips Split In Out % Trips Split In Out
Multi-Family Units
(More than 20 DU/Acre)
73 DU 6/DU 438 8% 36 2:8 8 28 9% 40 7:3 28 12
Source: SANDAG (not so) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002 As shown in the table, the Project is anticipated to generate a total of 438 daily trips, including 36 (8- in/28-out) trips during the AM peak hour and 40 (28-in/12-out) trips during the PM peak hour.

Site Access
The Project will provide access via the following two (2) project driveways:
 Project Driveway #1: This driveway will replace the existing Calvary Church driveway. The driveway will be aligned with Jericho Road and serve as the north leg of the Jericho Road & Broadmoor Drive intersection. This driveway will be stop-controlled.  Project Driveway #2: This new driveway will be aligned with Broadmoor Drive and serve as the west leg of the Jericho Road & Broadmoor Drive intersection. This driveway will be stopcontrolled.

It should be noted that traffic traveling along Broadmoor Drive and Jericho Road will continue to be uncontrolled.

Project Trip Distribution
The trip distribution for the Project was developed based on the geographical location of the project, the characteristics of the proposed land uses, and location of nearest freeway facilities. The trip distribution was supported by big data from Replica1. Figure 3 displays the project trip distribution.

Project Trip Assignment
The project trip assignment was developed by applying the project trip generation, displayed previously in Table 1, and distributing it to the study area roadway network based on the project trip distribution.

Figure 4 displays the assumed project trip assignment.

Project Study Area
The ITE Guidelines recommend that the study area be determined by where the Project adds 50 peak hour trips in either direction to existing roadway traffic. However, as shown previously in Table 1, the Project is not anticipated to generate 50 peak hour trips during the AM or PM peak hours. Therefore, the project study area includes roadway segments and intersections fronting the Project. 1 Replica is a data provider that produces large-scale models to represent mobility throughout the United States. For more information, please visit the following: https://replicahq.com/.

Page 2189 of 2604 ends

! ! !
 


 


 


Jericho Rd & Amaya Dr Water St & Amaya Dr Legend Project Dwy #1/Jericho Rd & Project Dwy #2/Broadmoor Dr
20%50%
40%60%
60 %
40 % 50%
50%
20%
50%
40%
40%
1 2 3
Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project
Traffic Assessment Letter
Figure 3
Project Trip Distribution
!
!
!
Lakeview Dr
40%
100%
60%
40%
20%
Project
Site
Amaya Dr
Water St
Broadmoor Dr
Jericho Rd
1 3
2 N 0 250 500 Feet
Trip Distribution
! Study Intersection
XX%
#
Study Intersection
Trip Distribution
Turn Movements
*Names of North-South
cross-streets always
listed first
!
XX %
  

NNOT TO SCALE
X

Page 2190 of 2604 ends

! ! !
 


 


 


Jericho Rd & Amaya Dr Water St & Amaya Dr Legend Project Dwy #1/Jericho Rd & Project Dwy #2/Broadmoor Dr
2/6 6 / 2
5 / 17
3 / 11
4/14
17/711/5
14 / 6
4/14
11 / 5
3 / 11
14/6
1 2 3
Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project
Traffic Assessment Letter
Figure 4
Project Trip Assignment
N 0 250 500 Feet
Study Intersection
Trip Assignment
Turn Movements
*Names of North-South
cross-streets always
listed first
!

AM / PM
  

NNOT TO SCALE
X
!
!
!
Lakeview Dr
175
438
263
175
88 Project
Site
Amaya Dr
Water St
Broadmoor Dr
Jericho Rd
1 3
2 Trip Assignment
! Study Intersection
XXX
#

Page 2191 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project
Traffic Assessment Letter
Figure 5
Project Study Area
!
!
!
Lakeview Dr
40%
100%
60%
40%
20%
Kathy St
Project
Site
Amaya Dr
Water St
Broadmoor Dr
Jericho Rd
1 3
2 N 0 250 500 Feet
Study Roadway Segment
!# Study Intersection

Page 2192 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project Page 8
Traffic Assessment Letter
Roadway Segments
 Jericho Road, between Broadmoor Drive/Project Driveway and Amaya Drive  Amaya Drive, between Water Street and Jericho Road
 Amaya Drive, between Jericho Road and Kathy Street
Intersections

1. Jericho Road & Broadmoor Drive/Project Driveway

2. Jericho Road & Amaya Drive

3. Water Street & Amaya Drive
Figure 5 displays the project study area.

Existing Conditions
This section documents the existing study area roadway and intersection configurations, traffic volumes and traffic operations.

Roadway Facilities
Jericho Road – Within the study area, Jericho Road is a two-way, two-lane undivided roadway that runs between Broadmoor Drive and Amaya Drive. There are no posted speed limits along Jericho Road.

Sidewalks are present and parking is permitted along both sides. Bicycle facilities are not present along Jericho Road.

Amaya Drive – Within the study area, Amaya Drive is a two-way, two-lane roadway with a two-way left turn lane west of Jericho Road. Amaya Drive has a posted speed limit of 30 mph. Sidewalks are present, and parking is permitted along both sides of the road. There are Class II bike lanes present on both sides of Amaya Drive, west of Jericho Road.

Figure 6 shows study roadway and intersection configurations within the project study area.

Traffic Volumes
Traffic counts were conducted on Tuesday April 18, 2023 while schools were in session. Figure 7 displays the existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on the study area roadways, as well as the peak hour intersection turning movement counts for the study area intersections. Traffic counts are included in Attachment B.

Traffic Operations
This section documents the existing traffic operations at the study area roadway facilities. Roadway and intersection operations are discussed separately below.

Roadway Segment Analysis
The City of La Mesa utilizes the roadway capacities and level of service (LOS) standards outlined in Table 7-2 of the ITE Guidelines, this table is provided in Attachment C. Table 2 below displays the daily roadway level of service for the study area roadways under Existing conditions.

Page 2193 of 2604 ends

! ! !
#$
#$ #$
Jericho Rd & Amaya Dr Water St & Amaya Dr Legend Jericho Rd & Church Driveway/Broadmoor Dr









1 2 3
Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project
Traffic Assessment Letter
Figure 6
Functional Classifications and Intersection Geometrics
Existing Conditions
!
!
!
Lakeview Dr
2-Ln
Collector (MF)
2-L
L
n
ocal
2-Ln
Collector w/CLTL
Project
Site
Amaya Dr
Water St
Broadmoor Dr
Jericho Rd
1 3
2 N 0 250 500 Feet
Functional Classification
! Study Intersection
#-Ln X
#
Stop Sign
*Names of North-South
cross-streets always
listed first

NNOT TO SCALE
#$
Study Intersection
Lane Geometry
!X


Page 2194 of 2604 ends

! ! !
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
Jericho Rd & Amaya Dr Water St & Amaya Dr Legend Jericho Rd & Church Driveway/Broadmoor Dr
2/21/2
0 / 2
0 / 0
0 / 5
0 / 1
1/3
9 / 18
14 / 8 1/18
12/1
12 / 15
13/1240/52
277 / 173 95 / 41
122 / 211 144 / 207
177/132
216 / 146
0 / 0 234 / 175 0/2
13/12
1 2 3
Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project
Traffic Assessment Letter
Figure 7
Traffic Volumes
Existing Conditions
!
!
!
Lakeview Dr
5,085
342
6,007
Project
Site
Amaya Dr
Water St
Broadmoor Dr
Jericho Rd
1 3
2 N 0 250 500 Feet
Daily Traffic Volumes
! Study Intersection
X,XXX
#
Study Intersection
Peak Hour Volumes
Turn Movements
*Names of North-South
cross-streets always
listed first
!

AM / PM
  

NNOT TO SCALE
X

Page 2195 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project Page 11
Traffic Assessment Letter
Table 2 - Roadway Segment Level of Service Results – Existing Conditions Roadway Segment Functional Classification
LOS
Threshold
(LOS E)

ADT V/C LOS
Jericho Road Broadmoor Drive to
Amaya Drive
2-Lane
Local Street 8,000 342 0.043 A
Amaya Drive Water Street to
Jericho Road
2-Lane Collector
(w/CLTL) 15,000 6,007 0.400 B
Amaya Drive Jericho Road to
Kathy Street
2-Lane Collector
(Multi-Family) 8,000 5,085 0.636 D
Source: CR Associates (2023)
Notes:

V/C = Volume / Capacity
As shown in Table 2, all study roadway segments currently operate at LOS D or better under Existing conditions.

Intersection Analysis
The overall average intersection delay and LOS methodologies outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM) were utilized to analyze the study intersections. Synchro 11 Traffic Analysis Software was utilized to perform the analysis. Table 3 displays the overall average intersection delay and LOS for the study area intersections under Existing conditions. LOS calculation worksheets are provided in Attachment D.

Table 3 – Peak Hour Intersection LOS Results – Existing Conditions # Intersection Control
Type
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Avg. Delay
(sec.) LOS Avg. Delay (sec.) LOS
1 Jericho Road & Broadmoor
Drive/Cavalry Church Driveway SSSC 1.0 A 8.4 A
2 Jericho Road & Amaya Drive SSSC 10.7 B 12.5 B
3 Water Street & Amaya Drive AWSC 12.9 B 11.8 B
Source: CR Associates (2023)
Notes:

SSSC = Side Street Stop Control. For SSSC intersections, the delay shown is the worst delay experienced by any of the approaches.

AWSC = All-Way Stop-Controlled. For AWSC, the delay shown is the average delay experienced at all of the approaches.

As shown in Table 3, all study intersections currently operate at LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours under Existing conditions.

Existing With Project Conditions
This section documents the anticipated traffic operations under Existing with Project conditions and identifies traffic related impacts that may be associated with the Project.

Functional Classifications and Intersection Geometrics
The Project does not propose any off-site improvements or modifications. Thus, it is assumed that all study area roadway facilities and intersections would remain the same with the implementation of the Project.

Page 2196 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project Page 12
Traffic Assessment Letter
Traffic Volumes
Existing with Project traffic volumes were derived by adding the Existing traffic volumes, displayed in Figure 7, and the anticipated Project volumes, displayed in Figure 4. Figure 8 displays the traffic volumes under Existing with Project conditions.

Traffic Operations
This section documents the anticipated traffic operations under Existing with Project conditions within the study area roadway facilities. Roadway and intersection operations are discussed separately below.

Roadway Segment Analysis
Table 4 displays average daily traffic volumes and LOS results for the study roadways under Existing with Project conditions.

Table 4 - Roadway Segment Level of Service Results – Existing with Project Conditions Roadway Segment Functional
Classification
LOS
Threshold
(LOS E)

ADT V/C LOS
LOS
w/o
Project
ΔV/C
Jericho
Road
Broadmoor Drive to
Amaya Drive Local Street 8,000 780 0.098 A A 0.055
Amaya
Drive
Water Street to
Jericho Road
Collector
(w/CLTL) 15,000 6,270 0.418 B B 0.018
Amaya
Drive
Jericho Road to
Kathy Street
Collector
(Multi-Family) 8,000 5,260 0.658 D D 0.022
Source: CR Associates (2023)
Notes:

V/C = Volume / Capacity
As shown in Table 4, the study roadway segments are projected to continue to operate at LOS D or better under Existing with Project conditions.

Intersection Analysis
Table 5 displays the overall average intersection delay and LOS for the study area intersections under Existing with Project conditions. LOS calculation worksheets are provided in Attachment E.

Table 5 - Intersection Level of Service Results – Existing with Project Conditions # Intersection Control
Type
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay w/o
Project
(AM/PM)
LOS
w/o
Project
(AM/P
M)
Avg. Delay
(sec.) LOS Avg. Delay (sec.) LOS
1 Project Dwy #1/Jericho Road &
Project Dwy #2/Broadmoor Drive1 SSSC 8.5 A 8.4 A 1.0/8.4 A / A 2 Jericho Road & Amaya Drive SSSC 11.9 B 12.7 B 10.7/12.5 B / B 3 Water Street & Amaya Drive AWSC 13.1 B 12.1 B 12.9/11.8 B / B Source: CR Associates (2023)
Notes:

SSSC = Side Street Stop Control. For SSSC intersections, the delay shown is the worst delay experienced by any of the approaches.

AWSC = All-Way Stop-Controlled. For AWSC, the delay shown is the average delay experienced at all of the approaches. 1 The proposed configuration of this intersection is not compliant with HCM 6. For the purposes of this analysis, the intersection was a three-legged intersection, with all project traffic entering/exiting from the west approach. The LOS reported is the worst delay experienced by any of the approaches.

Page 2197 of 2604 ends

! ! !
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
Jericho Rd & Amaya Dr Water St & Amaya Dr Legend Project Dwy #1/Jericho Rd & Project Dwy #2/Broadmoor Dr
1/2
1/30/2
0 / 5
0 / 0 9 / 18
3 / 13
14 / 8
5/15
29/814/6
14 / 7 13/12
42/58
17 / 32
12/23
101 / 43
122 / 211 147 / 218
177/132
216 / 146
277 / 173
245 / 180
0 / 0
0/00/0
0 / 0
0 / 0
5/15
13/12
1 2 3
Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project
Traffic Assessment Letter
Figure 8
Traffic Volumes
Existing with Project Conditions
!
!
!
Lakeview Dr
5,260
780
6,270
Project
Site
Amaya Dr
Water St
Broadmoor Dr
Jericho Rd
1 3
2 N 0 250 500 Feet
Daily Traffic Volumes
! Study Intersection
X,XXX
#
Study Intersection
Peak Hour Volumes
Turn Movements
*Names of North-South
cross-streets always
listed first
!

AM / PM
  

NNOT TO SCALE
X

Page 2198 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project Page 14
Traffic Assessment Letter
As shown in Table 5, all study intersections are projected to continue to operate at LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours under Existing with Project conditions.

Determination of the Need for Improvements
Table 7-1 of the ITE Guidelines defines when a project’s effect on the roadway system is considered to justify need for roadway improvements.

Roadway Segments
For roadway segments, the need for roadway segment improvements is justified when a project’s traffic results in the addition of more than 0.02 V/C to a roadway segment that is operating at LOS E or F under Existing conditions. Additionally, roadway improvements are justified if project traffic causes a roadway segment to degrade from LOS A through D to either LOS E or LOS F.

Since all study roadway segments are anticipated to continue to operate at LOS D or better under Existing with Project conditions, the Project does not require roadway segment improvements.

Study Intersections
For study intersections, the need for intersection improvements is justified when a project’s traffic results in the addition of more than 2 seconds of overall intersection peak hour delay to an intersection operating at LOS E or F. Additionally, intersection improvements are justified if project traffic causes an intersection to degrade from LOS A through D to either LOS E or LOS F.

Since all study intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at LOS B or better under Existing with Project conditions, the Project does not require intersection improvements.

Project Driveway Sight Distance Analysis
As part of the design process, a corner sight distance and stopping sight distance analysis was performed on the Project’s driveway. Based on the sight distance criteria outlined in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) – and Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Street, an intersection where the minor roadway is stop controlled, allows left-turn movements, and has a design speed of 30 mph (Design Speed = 25 mph speed limit on Jericho Road + 5 mph) would require a clear stopping sight distance of 200 feet and/or a clear corner sight distance of 335. Table 6 and Table 7 display the standards for stopping sight distance and corner sight distance.

Page 2199 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project Page 15
Traffic Assessment Letter
Table 6 - Minimum Stopping Sight Distances
Design Speed (mph) Minimum Stopping Sight Distance (ft) 15 80
20 115
25 155
30 200
35 250
40 305
45 360
50 425
55 495
60 570
Source: AASHTO, 7th Edition
Table 7 - Minimum Recommended Corner Sight Distance (CSD) Design Speed (mph) Minimum Corner Intersection Sight Distance (ft) 25 280
30 335
35 390
40 445
45 500
50 555
55 610
60 665
65 720
70 775
Source: AASHTO, 7th Edition
For determining corner sight distance, a setback distance for the vehicle waiting on the minor road must be assumed as measured from the edge of traveled way of the major road. Setback for the driver of the vehicle on the minor road should be a minimum of 10 feet plus the shoulder width of the major road but not less than 15 feet. In this case, the west Project driveway would be moved 10 feet in from the current right of way. Therefore, corner sight distance was measured at a setback of 15 feet from the edge of assumed travel way.

Table 8 displays the measured stopping sight distance, the design speed, as well as the minimum stopping sight distance requirements.

Table 8 - Stopping Sight Distance Analysis Results
Location Design Speed Stopping Sight Distance
Measured (ft) Required (ft) Adequate?
Traveling Westbound Along Broadmoor Drive
Project Driveway #1 30 395 200 Yes
Project Driveway #2 30 394 200 Yes
Traveling Northbound Along Jericho Road
Project Driveway #1 30 115 200 No
Project Driveway #2 30 113 200 No
Source: CR Associates (2023)

Page 2200 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project Page 16
Traffic Assessment Letter
As shown, the project driveways do not currently meet the required stopping sight distances. Project Driveway #1 needs an additional 85 feet of clear stopping sight distance from the south approach.

Project Driveway #2 needs an additional 87 feet of clear stopping sight distance from the south approach. This is due to the vertical curve along Jericho Road. As shown below, the approximately 15% slope along Jericho limits the line of sight for vehicles traveling towards the project driveways.

Table 9 displays the measured corner sight distance, the design speed, as well as the minimum corner sight distance requirements.

Table 9 - Corner Sight Distance Analysis Results
Location Design Speed Corner Sight Distance
Measured (ft) Required (ft) Adequate?
Looking East Along Broadmoor Drive
Project Driveway #1 30 101 335 No
Project Driveway #2 30 466 335 Yes
Looking South Along Jericho Road
Project Driveway #1 30 109 335 No
Project Driveway #2 30 116 335 No
Source: CR Associates (2023)
As shown, the project driveways do not currently meet the required corner sight distances. Project Driveway #1 needs an additional 234 feet of clear corner sight distance to the east along Broadmoor Drive and 226 feet to the south along Jericho Road. Project Driveway #2 meets the required corner sight distance to the east but needs an additional 219 feet of clear corner sight distance to the south along Jericho Road. Similar to the stopping sight distance analysis, the corner sight distances at the project driveways are limited along Jericho Road due to the approximately 15% vertical curve. Project Driveway #1 also has a limited corner sight distance looking east towards Broadmoor due to the wide curve at the intersection of Broadmoor Drive & Jericho Road.

Figures 9 - 16 display the stopping sight distance and corner sight distances observed at each project driveway.

Jericho Road – Point of view when traveling northbound towards Broadmoor Drive

Page 2201 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project Page 17
Traffic Assessment Letter
Figure 9 - Stopping Sight Distance Traveling Westbound Towards Project Driveway #1 = 395’ Figure 10 - Stopping Sight Distance Traveling Northbound Towards Project Driveway #1 = 115’

Page 2202 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project Page 18
Traffic Assessment Letter
Figure 11 - Corner Sight Distance Looking East from Project Driveway #1 = 101’ Figure 12 - Corner Sight Distance Looking South from Project Driveway #1 = 109’

Page 2203 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project Page 19
Traffic Assessment Letter
Figure 13 - Stopping Sight Distance Traveling Westbound Towards Project Driveway #2 = 394’ Figure 14 - Stopping Sight Distance Traveling Northbound Towards Project Driveway #2 = 113’

Page 2204 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project Page 20
Traffic Assessment Letter
Figure 15 - Corner Sight Distance Looking East from Project Driveway #2 = 466’ Figure 16 - Corner Sight Distance Looking South from Project Driveway #2 = 116’

Page 2205 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project Page 21
Traffic Assessment Letter
As shown, the project driveways do not currently meet the required corner sight distances. Project Driveway #1 needs an additional 234 feet of clear corner sight distance to the east along Broadmoor Drive and 226 feet to the south along Jericho Road. Project Driveway #2 meets the required corner sight distance to the east but needs an additional 219 feet of clear corner sight distance to the south along Jericho Road. Similar to the stopping sight distance analysis, the corner sight distances at the project driveways are limited along Jericho Road due to the approximately 15% vertical curve. Project Driveway #1 also has a limited corner sight distance looking east towards Broadmoor due to the wide curve at the intersection of Broadmoor Drive & Jericho Road.

Mitigation Requirements
The project driveways do not meet the minimum stopping sight and/or corner sight distance requirements. Therefore, it is recommended that the project applicant trims bushes and shrubs as well as limit/clear any objects in the line of sight at the project driveways in order to increase and meet sight distance
requirements. Additionally, it is also recommended that W2-1 signs, as seen in the figure to the right, are installed at the northbound approach along Jericho Road to indicate the presence of a driveway and the possibility of turning or entering traffic.

The installation of the sign shall be in accordance with the California MUTCD (version 2014 revision 7), as well as coordinated with City of La Mesa staff and to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer.

Impacts to On-Street Parking
On-street parking is permitted along both sides of Jericho Road. It is not anticipated that implementation of the Project will impact on-street parking within the study area as the Project will provide enough on-site parking to accommodate its future residents.

Impacts to Adjacent Schools, Transit & Other
Public Facilities
This section reviews and documents potential transportation related impacts that the Project may have on adjacent schools, transit, and other public facilities.

Schools
Northmont Elementary is the closest public school to the Project. It is located northwest of the Project, along Gregory St. The Project does not include any features or elements that would change or impede the travel patterns to/from the school or change access to the school. Therefore, the Project would not impact any schools within the area.

Transit
The Amaya Trolley Station is located within 1/2-mile walking distance of the Project. Thus, the Project is within a Transit Priority Area. The Project does not include any features or elements that would impede access to Amaya Trolley Station or other transit stops. Therefore, the Project would not impact any transit facilities within the area.

W2-1: Cross Road Sign

Page 2206 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project Page 22
Traffic Assessment Letter
Other Public Facilities
There are currently no other transportation related public facilities adjacent to the Project site.

On-Site Circulation and Parking
This section reviews the Project’s on-site circulation and documents the off-street parking which the Project will provide.

On-Site Circulation
The Project will have two driveways located at the intersection of Broadmoor Drive & Jericho Road.

Project Driveway #1 will be aligned with Jericho Road and Project Driveway will be aligned with Broadmoor Drive. The internal roadways are generally lined with perpendicular parking or enclosed garage spaces.

On-Site Parking
The Project will apply the City of La Mesa Municipal Code 24.04.030 – Off-Street parking requirements to determine the number of parking spaces required by the Project. Per the Municipal Code, dwelling units in apartments, condominium or community apartment projects require 2 parking spaces per unit.

Based on this standard, the Project is required to provide 146 parking spaces for residents (2 per each of the 73 units); thus, the Project will provide 146 parking spaces for residents.

The City of La Mesa Municipal Code also states that guest or visitor parking be provided at a rate of

0.4 spaces per dwelling unit. However, California Assembly Bill 2097 prohibits public agencies from imposing or enforcing a minimum automobile parking requirement for residential, commercial, and other developments if the parcel is located within a 1/2-mile walking distance of a major transit stop. The Project will provide 5 parking spaces for guests (reduced based on AB 2097). Transcript of AB 2097 can be found in Attachment F.

VMT Analysis
The City of La Mesa has not yet adopted City of La Mesa-specific guidelines for VMT-based or LOSbased analyses. Therefore, consistent with other approved developments within the City of La Mesa, such as the Alvarado Specific Plan, the scope for the VMT analysis is based on the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory. The OPR Technical Advisory provides recommendations and screening thresholds, VMT analysis methodologies, project VMT thresholds, and mitigation strategies.

Per the OPR Technical Advisory, certain projects (including residential, retail, and office projects) proposed within 1/2-mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor is presumed to have a less-than-significant VMT impact. The Project is located within a 1/2- mile walking distance from the Amaya Trolley Station, and the walking route to the station is without discontinuity of sidewalk or obstructions. Therefore, in accordance with the OPR Technical Advisory, the Project is presumed to have a less-than-significant VMT impact and exempt from further VMT analysis.

Page 2207 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project Page 23
Traffic Assessment Letter
Conclusions and Key Findings
This section summarizes the conclusions and key findings of the previous sections in this letter. The following points summarize the findings of this letter:
 The Project is not projected to have an adverse effect on traffic operations within the study area and off-site improvements are not required.
 The Project is presumed to have a less-than-significant VMT impact.  The project driveways do not meet the required stopping sight and corner sight distances. It is recommended that the project applicant install a W2-1 sign to indicate the presence of the project driveways.
 The Project does not include any features or elements that would change or impede access to nearby schools or transit facilities.
 The Project will meet parking requirements by providing 146 on-site parking spaces for residents and 5 on-site parking spaces for guests.
 The Project will have adequate internal circulation.

Page 2208 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project Page 24
Traffic Assessment Letter
Attachment A
City of La Mesa Traffic Assessment Letter Requirements

Page 2209 of 2604 ends

TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - APPLICABILITY SHEET

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT / ENGINEERING DIVISION
8130 Allison Avenue, La Mesa, CA 91942
Phone: 619.667.1166 • Fax: 619.667.1380
PROJECT DATA:

Owner’s Name & Phone No: .

Address: Permit No: .

Project: Date Applied: .

PROJECT SITE (BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WORK):
.

TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICABILITY CHECKLIST
Complete Section 1 of the checklist to determine if your development meets the minimum requirement for a Traffic Development Review. This form must be completed and submitted with your development project.

SECTION 1. MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR A TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT LETTER AND TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW:

1. Is your project a single family residential development? YES ☐ NO ☐ If the answer to Section 1, Item 1 is “Yes”, STOP! Do not continue to Section 2. Your project does not require a Traffic Assessment Letter or any further Traffic Development Review. If Section 1, item 1 answer is “No”, go to Section 2.

SECTION 2: DETERMINING THE REQUREMENTS FOR TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW.

Is or does your development;

2. Generates more than 500 ADT or 50 peak-hour trips? YES ☐ NO ☐

3. Generates more than 100 ADT or 20 peak hour trips? YES ☐ NO ☐ If Section 2, item 2 answer is “Yes” a Traffic Impact Study will be required. Please contact the Public Works Department at 619-667-1166 to schedule a Traffic Development Scoping Meeting to discuss additional requirements and fees. If the answer is “No”, proceed to item 3.

If Section 2, item 3 answer is “Yes” a Traffic Assessment Letter (TAL) will be required. Please contact the Public Works Department at 619-667-1166 to schedule a Traffic Development Scoping Meeting to discuss additional requirements and fees. If the answer is “No”, STOP! Your project does not require a Traffic Assessment Letter or any further Traffic Development Review. Or Please contact the Public Works Department at 619-667-1166 to discuss your project? Completed By:

Name, Address & Phone Number

Page 2210 of 2604 ends

Page 1 of 3 ends

Department of Public Works
Development Review Process for Traffic

Page 2211 of 2604 ends

Page 2 of 3 ends

Purpose of a Traffic Assessment Letter
A Traffic Assessment Letter (TAL) is intended to provide an evaluation process of the impacts of small developments for City staff review. It allows developers to submit a streamlined analysis, prepared by a licensed Traffic Engineer, in lieu of a full Traffic Impact Study (TIS). The developer’s authorized Traffic Engineer should always coordinate with City staff from the Department of Public Works Engineering Division prior to preparation of a TAL to determine if this document is acceptable or if a complete TIS is necessary. Upon review of the TAL by City staff, a TIS may still be required to address traffic impact issues.

Objectives of TAL Requirements
When a traffic analysis indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) for a street reaches “D” or below, the City will determine if improvements or changes in operations are needed to maintain or improve the Level of Service. These guidelines are intended to supplement TIS manuals such as SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in the San Diego Region, Caltrans’ Draft Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, the City of San Diego’s Traffic Impact Study Manual and other industry accepted traffic impact study guidelines. Special situations may call for variation from these requirements.

Components of a TAL

1. Determine and document the existing traffic volumes and peak hour level-ofservice with current site development for immediately adjacent intersection(s) and fronting roadway segment.

2. Determine projected trips generated by the proposed development based on SANDAG’s Traffic Generators manual or, if no applicable rates are available, ITE’s latest Trip Generation manual.

3. Determine and document the existing plus proposed traffic volumes and peak hour level-of-service for immediately adjacent intersection(s) and fronting roadway segment.

4. Evaluate the adequacy of visibility and access at all driveway access locations with public roadways based on sight distance criteria contained in the current edition of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. This evaluation should include a review of applicable turning radii for the largest design vehicle expected to access the development on a regular basis.

5. Evaluate the impacts of the proposed development to on-street parking.

6. Evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed development to adjacent school, transit or other public facilities.

7. Evaluate on-site circulation and parking adequacy, including a review of applicable turning radii for the largest design vehicle expected to access the development on a regular basis.

Page 2212 of 2604 ends

Page 3 of 3 ends

Submittal of TAL
Each TAL submittal shall include the following:

1. A figure identifying the project location and a site plan if available.

2. Photographs of pertinent project locations, including study intersections and roadway segments, driveways and other evaluation items.

3. A cover letter containing the signature and professional stamp of the Licensed Traffic or Civil Engineer who prepared the TAL.

4. Two (2) copies of all necessary components of the TAL on 81/2” x 11” sheets.

E:\0760 TraffEng\Dev. Traffic Review\Traffic Impact Requirements for Development 20160202.doc

Page 2213 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project Page 25
Traffic Assessment Letter
Attachment B
Traffic Counts

Page 2214 of 2604 ends

File Name : 01_LMA_DW_Jer AM
Site Code : 22923314
Start Date : 4/18/2023
Page No : 1
City of La Mesa
N/S: Driveway/Broadmoor Drive
E/W: Jericho Road
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Broadmoor Drive
Southbound
Jericho Road
Westbound
Driveway
Eastbound
Start Time Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
07:15 AM 1 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 3
07:30 AM 4 0 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 6
07:45 AM 4 0 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 5
Total 13 0 13 0 5 5 0 0 0 18
08:00 AM 1 0 1 0 6 6 0 0 0 7
08:15 AM 3 0 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 6
08:30 AM 4 0 4 0 3 3 0 0 0 7
08:45 AM 6 0 6 2 1 3 0 0 0 9
Total 14 0 14 2 13 15 0 0 0 29
Grand Total 27 0 27 2 18 20 0 0 0 47
Apprch % 100 0 10 90 0 0
Total % 57.4 0 57.4 4.3 38.3 42.6 0 0 0
Broadmoor Drive
Southbound
Jericho Road
Westbound
Driveway
Eastbound
Start Time Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:00 AM
08:00 AM 1 0 1 0 6 6 0 0 0 7
08:15 AM 3 0 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 6
08:30 AM 4 0 4 0 3 3 0 0 0 7
08:45 AM 6 0 6 2 1 3 0 0 0 9
Total Volume 14 0 14 2 13 15 0 0 0 29
% App. Total 100 0 13.3 86.7 0 0
PHF .583 .000 .583 .250 .542 .625 .000 .000 .000 .806
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268

Page 2215 of 2604 ends

File Name : 01_LMA_DW_Jer AM
Site Code : 22923314
Start Date : 4/18/2023
Page No : 2
City of La Mesa
N/S: Driveway/Broadmoor Drive
E/W: Jericho Road
Weather: Clear
Broadmoor Drive
Driveway
Jericho Road
Right
0 Left
14 Out In Total
13 14 27
Right
13 Thru
2 Out Total In
14 15 29
Left
0 Thru
0 Total Out In
2 0 2
Peak Hour Begins at 08:00 AM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
08:00 AM 08:00 AM 07:00 AM
+0 mins. 1 0 1 0 6 6 0 0 0
+15 mins. 3 0 3 0 3 3 0 0 0
+30 mins. 4 0 4 0 3 3 0 0 0
+45 mins. 6 0 6 2 1 3 0 0 0
Total Volume 14 0 14 2 13 15 0 0 0
% App. Total 100 0 13.3 86.7 0 0
PHF .583 .000 .583 .250 .542 .625 .000 .000 .000
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268

Page 2216 of 2604 ends

File Name : 01_LMA_DW_Jer PM
Site Code : 22923314
Start Date : 4/18/2023
Page No : 1
City of La Mesa
N/S: Driveway/Broadmoor Drive
E/W: Jericho Road
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Broadmoor Drive
Southbound
Jericho Road
Westbound
Driveway
Eastbound
Start Time Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 3 0 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 5
04:15 PM 3 0 3 0 4 4 0 0 0 7
04:30 PM 1 0 1 1 2 3 0 1 1 5
04:45 PM 1 0 1 0 5 5 0 0 0 6
Total 8 0 8 2 12 14 0 1 1 23
05:00 PM 1 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 3
05:15 PM 4 0 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 5
05:30 PM 4 0 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 6
05:45 PM 5 0 5 0 3 3 0 0 0 8
Total 14 0 14 0 8 8 0 0 0 22
Grand Total 22 0 22 2 20 22 0 1 1 45
Apprch % 100 0 9.1 90.9 0 100
Total % 48.9 0 48.9 4.4 44.4 48.9 0 2.2 2.2
Broadmoor Drive
Southbound
Jericho Road
Westbound
Driveway
Eastbound
Start Time Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM
04:00 PM 3 0 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 5
04:15 PM 3 0 3 0 4 4 0 0 0 7
04:30 PM 1 0 1 1 2 3 0 1 1 5
04:45 PM 1 0 1 0 5 5 0 0 0 6
Total Volume 8 0 8 2 12 14 0 1 1 23
% App. Total 100 0 14.3 85.7 0 100
PHF .667 .000 .667 .500 .600 .700 .000 .250 .250 .821
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268

Page 2217 of 2604 ends

File Name : 01_LMA_DW_Jer PM
Site Code : 22923314
Start Date : 4/18/2023
Page No : 2
City of La Mesa
N/S: Driveway/Broadmoor Drive
E/W: Jericho Road
Weather: Clear
Broadmoor Drive
Driveway
Jericho Road
Right
0 Left
8 Out In Total
12 8 20
Right
12 Thru
2 Out Total In
9 14 23
Left
0 Thru
1 Total Out In
2 1 3
Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
05:00 PM 04:00 PM 04:00 PM
+0 mins. 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0
+15 mins. 4 0 4 0 4 4 0 0 0
+30 mins. 4 0 4 1 2 3 0 1 1
+45 mins. 5 0 5 0 5 5 0 0 0
Total Volume 14 0 14 2 12 14 0 1 1
% App. Total 100 0 14.3 85.7 0 100
PHF .700 .000 .700 .500 .600 .700 .000 .250 .250
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268

Page 2218 of 2604 ends

Location: Date: 4/18/2023
N/S: Day: Tuesday
E/W:

North Leg East Leg South Leg West Leg
Jericho Road Broadmoor Drive Dead End Driveway
Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians
1000 1
0112 4
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0011 2
0000 0
1 1 2 37
North Leg East Leg South Leg West Leg
Jericho Road Broadmoor Drive Dead End Driveway
Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians
0111 3
0011 2
0000 0
0111 3
0012 3
0011 2
1010 2
0011 2
1 2 7 7 17
5:15 PM
5:30 PM
5:45 PM
TOTAL VOLUMES:
4:00 PM
4:15 PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PM
5:00 PM
7:00 AM
7:15 AM
7:30 AM
7:45 AM
TOTAL VOLUMES:
8:00 AM
8:15 AM
8:30 AM
8:45 AM
La Mesa
Jericho Road
Driveway/Broadmoor Drive

PEDESTRIANS
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878 Page 2219 of 2604 951-268-6268
Location: Date: 4/18/2023
N/S: Day: Tuesday
E/W:

Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 000000000000 0
000000000000 0
100000000000 1
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
100000000000 1
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
Driveway
TOTAL VOLUMES:

Jericho Road Broadmoor Drive Dead End Driveway
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
5:30 PM
5:45 PM
Jericho Road Broadmoor Drive Dead End
Eastbound
TOTAL VOLUMES:
4:00 PM
4:15 PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PM
5:00 PM
5:15 PM
7:45 AM
8:00 AM
8:15 AM
8:30 AM
8:45 AM
Southbound Westbound Northbound
Driveway/Broadmoor Drive
Jericho Road
La Mesa

BICYCLES
7:30 AM
7:00 AM
7:15 AM
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878 Page 2220 of 2604 951-268-6268
File Name : 02_LMA_Ama_Jeri AM
Site Code : 22923314
Start Date : 4/18/2023
Page No : 1
City of La Mesa
N/S: Amaya Drive
E/W: Jericho Road
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Amaya Drive
Southbound
Amaya Drive
Northbound
Jericho Road
Eastbound
Start Time Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 48 1 49 0 17 17 0 4 4 70
07:15 AM 48 0 48 1 15 16 0 1 1 65
07:30 AM 75 0 75 2 26 28 0 4 4 107
07:45 AM 94 0 94 1 48 49 1 4 5 148
Total 265 1 266 4 106 110 1 13 14 390
08:00 AM 63 0 63 6 26 32 0 1 1 96
08:15 AM 45 0 45 3 22 25 0 3 3 73
08:30 AM 49 1 50 2 33 35 1 4 5 90
08:45 AM 41 1 42 4 30 34 0 5 5 81
Total 198 2 200 15 111 126 1 13 14 340
Grand Total 463 3 466 19 217 236 2 26 28 730
Apprch % 99.4 0.6 8.1 91.9 7.1 92.9
Total % 63.4 0.4 63.8 2.6 29.7 32.3 0.3 3.6 3.8
Amaya Drive
Southbound
Amaya Drive
Northbound
Jericho Road
Eastbound
Start Time Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 75 0 75 2 26 28 0 4 4 107
07:45 AM 94 0 94 1 48 49 1 4 5 148
08:00 AM 63 0 63 6 26 32 0 1 1 96
08:15 AM 45 0 45 3 22 25 0 3 3 73
Total Volume 277 0 277 12 122 134 1 12 13 424
% App. Total 100 0 9 91 7.7 92.3
PHF .737 .000 .737 .500 .635 .684 .250 .750 .650 .716
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268

Page 2221 of 2604 ends

File Name : 02_LMA_Ama_Jeri AM
Site Code : 22923314
Start Date : 4/18/2023
Page No : 2
City of La Mesa
N/S: Amaya Drive
E/W: Jericho Road
Weather: Clear
Amaya Drive
Jericho Road
Amaya Drive
Right
0 Thru
277
Out In Total
123 277 400
Left
12 Thru
122
Out In Total
289 134 423
Left
1 Right
12 Total Out In
12 13 25
Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:15 AM 07:45 AM 07:00 AM
+0 mins. 48 0 48 1 48 49 0 4 4
+15 mins. 75 0 75 6 26 32 0 1 1
+30 mins. 94 0 94 3 22 25 0 4 4
+45 mins. 63 0 63 2 33 35 1 4 5
Total Volume 280 0 280 12 129 141 1 13 14
% App. Total 100 0 8.5 91.5 7.1 92.9
PHF .745 .000 .745 .500 .672 .719 .250 .813 .700
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268

Page 2222 of 2604 ends

File Name : 02_LMA_Ama_Jeri PM
Site Code : 22923314
Start Date : 4/18/2023
Page No : 1
City of La Mesa
N/S: Amaya Drive
E/W: Jericho Road
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Amaya Drive
Southbound
Amaya Drive
Northbound
Jericho Road
Eastbound
Start Time Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 40 1 41 4 75 79 7 1 8 128
04:15 PM 47 0 47 3 48 51 3 0 3 101
04:30 PM 43 0 43 4 50 54 3 0 3 100
04:45 PM 43 1 44 4 38 42 5 0 5 91
Total 173 2 175 15 211 226 18 1 19 420
05:00 PM 59 0 59 3 45 48 2 0 2 109
05:15 PM 41 1 42 2 52 54 4 0 4 100
05:30 PM 40 0 40 5 52 57 2 0 2 99
05:45 PM 29 0 29 2 48 50 4 0 4 83
Total 169 1 170 12 197 209 12 0 12 391
Grand Total 342 3 345 27 408 435 30 1 31 811
Apprch % 99.1 0.9 6.2 93.8 96.8 3.2
Total % 42.2 0.4 42.5 3.3 50.3 53.6 3.7 0.1 3.8
Amaya Drive
Southbound
Amaya Drive
Northbound
Jericho Road
Eastbound
Start Time Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM
04:00 PM 40 1 41 4 75 79 7 1 8 128
04:15 PM 47 0 47 3 48 51 3 0 3 101
04:30 PM 43 0 43 4 50 54 3 0 3 100
04:45 PM 43 1 44 4 38 42 5 0 5 91
Total Volume 173 2 175 15 211 226 18 1 19 420
% App. Total 98.9 1.1 6.6 93.4 94.7 5.3
PHF .920 .500 .931 .938 .703 .715 .643 .250 .594 .820
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268

Page 2223 of 2604 ends

File Name : 02_LMA_Ama_Jeri PM
Site Code : 22923314
Start Date : 4/18/2023
Page No : 2
City of La Mesa
N/S: Amaya Drive
E/W: Jericho Road
Weather: Clear
Amaya Drive
Jericho Road
Amaya Drive
Right
2 Thru
173
Out In Total
229 175 404
Left
15 Thru
211
Out In Total
174 226 400
Left
18 Right
1 Total Out In
17 19 36
Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:15 PM 04:00 PM 04:00 PM
+0 mins. 47 0 47 4 75 79 7 1 8
+15 mins. 43 0 43 3 48 51 3 0 3
+30 mins. 43 1 44 4 50 54 3 0 3
+45 mins. 59 0 59 4 38 42 5 0 5
Total Volume 192 1 193 15 211 226 18 1 19
% App. Total 99.5 0.5 6.6 93.4 94.7 5.3
PHF .814 .250 .818 .938 .703 .715 .643 .250 .594
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268

Page 2224 of 2604 ends

Location: Date: 4/18/2023
N/S: Day: Tuesday
E/W:

North Leg East Leg South Leg West Leg
Amaya Drive Dead End Amaya Drive Jericho Road
Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians
0001 1
0021 3
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0011 2
0000 0
0000 0
0 0 3 36
North Leg East Leg South Leg West Leg
Amaya Drive Dead End Amaya Drive Jericho Road
Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians
0002 2
0001 1
0001 1
0000 0
0013 4
0000 0
0004 4
0012 3
0 0 2 13 15
5:15 PM
5:30 PM
5:45 PM
TOTAL VOLUMES:
4:00 PM
4:15 PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PM
5:00 PM
7:00 AM
7:15 AM
7:30 AM
7:45 AM
TOTAL VOLUMES:
8:00 AM
8:15 AM
8:30 AM
8:45 AM
La Mesa
Amaya Drive
Jericho Road

PEDESTRIANS
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878 Page 2225 of 2604 951-268-6268
Location: Date: 4/18/2023
N/S: Day: Tuesday
E/W:

Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 000000010000 1
000000000000 0
000000000001 1
010000000000 1
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
010000010001 3
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 000000000000 0
010000000000 1
000000000000 0
000000020000 2
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
010000010000 2
020000030000 5
Jericho Road
TOTAL VOLUMES:

Amaya Drive Dead End Amaya Drive Jericho Road
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
5:30 PM
5:45 PM
Amaya Drive Dead End Amaya Drive
Eastbound
TOTAL VOLUMES:
4:00 PM
4:15 PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PM
5:00 PM
5:15 PM
7:45 AM
8:00 AM
8:15 AM
8:30 AM
8:45 AM
Southbound Westbound Northbound
Jericho Road
Amaya Drive
La Mesa

BICYCLES
7:30 AM
7:00 AM
7:15 AM
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878 Page 2226 of 2604 951-268-6268
File Name : 03_LMA_Wat_Ama AM
Site Code : 22923314
Start Date : 4/18/2023
Page No : 1
City of La Mesa
N/S: Water Street
E/W: Amaya Drive
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Serena Vista Apartments
Southbound
Amaya Drive
Westbound
Water Street
Northbound
Amaya Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 1 0 7 8 5 43 1 49 21 0 1 22 0 23 8 31 110
07:15 AM 0 3 10 13 14 48 0 62 19 0 3 22 0 18 16 34 131
07:30 AM 0 0 1 1 13 55 0 68 34 0 6 40 0 23 20 43 152
07:45 AM 0 0 3 3 20 75 0 95 46 0 10 56 3 48 36 87 241
Total 1 3 21 25 52 221 1 274 120 0 20 140 3 112 80 195 634 08:00 AM 0 0 2 2 31 59 0 90 28 1 6 35 1 41 64 106 233
08:15 AM 1 0 4 5 25 50 0 75 56 0 16 72 4 23 88 115 267
08:30 AM 0 0 4 4 19 50 0 69 47 0 8 55 1 32 28 61 189
08:45 AM 0 0 3 3 19 30 0 49 45 0 10 55 2 22 44 68 175
Total 1 0 13 14 94 189 0 283 176 1 40 217 8 118 224 350 864 Grand Total 2 3 34 39 146 410 1 557 296 1 60 357 11 230 304 545 1498 Apprch % 5.1 7.7 87.2 26.2 73.6 0.2 82.9 0.3 16.8 2 42.2 55.8 Total % 0.1 0.2 2.3 2.6 9.7 27.4 0.1 37.2 19.8 0.1 4 23.8 0.7 15.4 20.3 36.4 Serena Vista Apartments
Southbound
Amaya Drive
Westbound
Water Street
Northbound
Amaya Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM
07:45 AM 0 0 3 3 20 75 0 95 46 0 10 56 3 48 36 87 241
08:00 AM 0 0 2 2 31 59 0 90 28 1 6 35 1 41 64 106 233
08:15 AM 1 0 4 5 25 50 0 75 56 0 16 72 4 23 88 115 267
08:30 AM 0 0 4 4 19 50 0 69 47 0 8 55 1 32 28 61 189
Total Volume 1 0 13 14 95 234 0 329 177 1 40 218 9 144 216 369 930 % App. Total 7.1 0 92.9 28.9 71.1 0 81.2 0.5 18.3 2.4 39 58.5 PHF .250 .000 .813 .700 .766 .780 .000 .866 .790 .250 .625 .757 .563 .750 .614 .802 .871 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268

Page 2227 of 2604 ends

File Name : 03_LMA_Wat_Ama AM
Site Code : 22923314
Start Date : 4/18/2023
Page No : 2
City of La Mesa
N/S: Water Street
E/W: Amaya Drive
Weather: Clear
Serena Vista Apartments
Amaya Drive
Amaya Drive
Water Street
Right
13 Thru
0 Left
1 Out In Total
10 14 24
Right
0 Thru
234
Left
95 Out Total In
185 329 514
Left
177
Thru
1 Right
40 Out In Total
311 218 529
Left
9 Thru
144
Right
216
Total Out In
424 369 793
Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:00 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM
+0 mins. 1 0 7 8 20 75 0 95 46 0 10 56 3 48 36 87
+15 mins. 0 3 10 13 31 59 0 90 28 1 6 35 1 41 64 106
+30 mins. 0 0 1 1 25 50 0 75 56 0 16 72 4 23 88 115
+45 mins. 0 0 3 3 19 50 0 69 47 0 8 55 1 32 28 61
Total Volume 1 3 21 25 95 234 0 329 177 1 40 218 9 144 216 369 % App. Total 4 12 84 28.9 71.1 0 81.2 0.5 18.3 2.4 39 58.5 PHF .250 .250 .525 .481 .766 .780 .000 .866 .790 .250 .625 .757 .563 .750 .614 .802 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268

Page 2228 of 2604 ends

File Name : 03_LMA_Wat_Ama PM
Site Code : 22923314
Start Date : 4/18/2023
Page No : 1
City of La Mesa
N/S: Water Street
E/W: Amaya Drive
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Serena Vista Apartments
Southbound
Amaya Drive
Westbound
Water Street
Northbound
Amaya Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 0 1 2 3 8 45 0 53 46 2 22 70 2 64 43 109 235
04:15 PM 1 1 3 5 12 41 1 54 20 0 8 28 7 52 36 95 182
04:30 PM 1 0 3 4 12 45 1 58 25 0 9 34 4 54 31 89 185
04:45 PM 1 0 4 5 9 44 3 56 41 0 13 54 5 37 36 78 193
Total 3 2 12 17 41 175 5 221 132 2 52 186 18 207 146 371 795 05:00 PM 0 0 1 1 14 54 1 69 31 0 3 34 5 54 40 99 203
05:15 PM 0 1 4 5 13 39 0 52 31 1 15 47 5 47 37 89 193
05:30 PM 0 0 3 3 14 32 1 47 33 1 15 49 1 54 45 100 199
05:45 PM 0 0 3 3 8 33 1 42 22 1 12 35 3 51 38 92 172
Total 0 1 11 12 49 158 3 210 117 3 45 165 14 206 160 380 767 Grand Total 3 3 23 29 90 333 8 431 249 5 97 351 32 413 306 751 1562 Apprch % 10.3 10.3 79.3 20.9 77.3 1.9 70.9 1.4 27.6 4.3 55 40.7 Total % 0.2 0.2 1.5 1.9 5.8 21.3 0.5 27.6 15.9 0.3 6.2 22.5 2 26.4 19.6 48.1 Serena Vista Apartments
Southbound
Amaya Drive
Westbound
Water Street
Northbound
Amaya Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM
04:00 PM 0 1 2 3 8 45 0 53 46 2 22 70 2 64 43 109 235
04:15 PM 1 1 3 5 12 41 1 54 20 0 8 28 7 52 36 95 182
04:30 PM 1 0 3 4 12 45 1 58 25 0 9 34 4 54 31 89 185
04:45 PM 1 0 4 5 9 44 3 56 41 0 13 54 5 37 36 78 193
Total Volume 3 2 12 17 41 175 5 221 132 2 52 186 18 207 146 371 795 % App. Total 17.6 11.8 70.6 18.6 79.2 2.3 71 1.1 28 4.9 55.8 39.4 PHF .750 .500 .750 .850 .854 .972 .417 .953 .717 .250 .591 .664 .643 .809 .849 .851 .846 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268

Page 2229 of 2604 ends

File Name : 03_LMA_Wat_Ama PM
Site Code : 22923314
Start Date : 4/18/2023
Page No : 2
City of La Mesa
N/S: Water Street
E/W: Amaya Drive
Weather: Clear
Serena Vista Apartments
Amaya Drive
Amaya Drive
Water Street
Right
12 Thru
2 Left
3 Out In Total
25 17 42
Right
5 Thru
175
Left
41 Out Total In
262 221 483
Left
132
Thru
2 Right
52 Out In Total
189 186 375
Left
18 Thru
207
Right
146
Total Out In
319 371 690
Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:00 PM 05:00 PM
+0 mins. 0 1 2 3 12 41 1 54 46 2 22 70 5 54 40 99
+15 mins. 1 1 3 5 12 45 1 58 20 0 8 28 5 47 37 89
+30 mins. 1 0 3 4 9 44 3 56 25 0 9 34 1 54 45 100
+45 mins. 1 0 4 5 14 54 1 69 41 0 13 54 3 51 38 92
Total Volume 3 2 12 17 47 184 6 237 132 2 52 186 14 206 160 380 % App. Total 17.6 11.8 70.6 19.8 77.6 2.5 71 1.1 28 3.7 54.2 42.1 PHF .750 .500 .750 .850 .839 .852 .500 .859 .717 .250 .591 .664 .700 .954 .889 .950 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268

Page 2230 of 2604 ends

Location: Date: 4/18/2023
N/S: Day: Tuesday
E/W:

North Leg East Leg South Leg West Leg
Serena Vista Apts DW Broadmoor Drive Water Street Amaya Drive Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians
6140 11
3220 7
4032 9
4310 8
4420 10
4020 6
4000 4
1132 7
30 11 17 4 62
North Leg East Leg South Leg West Leg
Serena Vista Apts DW Broadmoor Drive Water Street Amaya Drive Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians
2210 5
5240 11
3422 11
2330 8
4510 10
1020 3
1200 3
1100 2
19 19 13 2 53
La Mesa
Water Street
Amaya Drive

PEDESTRIANS
7:00 AM
7:15 AM
7:30 AM
7:45 AM
TOTAL VOLUMES:
8:00 AM
8:15 AM
8:30 AM
8:45 AM
5:15 PM
5:30 PM
5:45 PM
TOTAL VOLUMES:
4:00 PM
4:15 PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PM
5:00 PM
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878 Page 2231 of 2604 951-268-6268
Location: Date: 4/18/2023
N/S: Day: Tuesday
E/W:

Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 000000000010 1
000010000010 2
000010100000 2
000010000000 1
000000100000 1
000000000000 0
000100000020 3
000100000000 1
0 0 0 2 3 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 11
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 000000000000 0
000010000000 1
000000000000 0
000000002000 2
000000000000 0
000000100001 2
000000000002 2
000010100000 2
000020202003 9
Amaya Drive
Water Street
La Mesa

BICYCLES
7:30 AM
7:00 AM
7:15 AM
Eastbound
TOTAL VOLUMES:
4:00 PM
4:15 PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PM
5:00 PM
5:15 PM
7:45 AM
8:00 AM
8:15 AM
8:30 AM
8:45 AM
Southbound Westbound Northbound
5:30 PM
5:45 PM
Serena Vista Apts DW Broadmoor Drive Water Street Amaya Drive TOTAL VOLUMES:

Serena Vista Apts DW Broadmoor Drive Water Street Amaya Drive Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878 Page 2232 of 2604 951-268-6268

Page 1 ends

City of La Mesa
Amaya Drive
B/ Jericho Road - Kathy Street
24 Hour Directional Volume Count
LMA003
Site Code: 229-23314
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
Phone: (951) 268-6268
email: [email protected]
Start 4/18/23 Northbound Hour Totals Southbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Tue Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 3 22 4 38
12:15 7 29 3 33
12:30 2 34 2 40
12:45 3 44 15 129 5 42 14 153 29 282
01:00 2 53 1 36
01:15 1 53 1 43
01:30 3 33 0 35
01:45 2 31 8 170 1 48 3 162 11 332
02:00 3 34 0 38
02:15 1 43 1 46
02:30 4 39 2 47
02:45 3 45 11 161 0 76 3 207 14 368
03:00 1 48 0 43
03:15 5 46 0 39
03:30 3 60 0 58
03:45 0 50 9 204 1 65 1 205 10 409
04:00 4 41 1 79
04:15 7 47 1 51
04:30 6 43 1 54
04:45 4 43 21 174 1 42 4 226 25 400
05:00 13 59 1 48
05:15 10 41 2 54
05:30 20 40 7 57
05:45 27 29 70 169 2 50 12 209 82 378
06:00 15 26 14 41
06:15 25 24 9 50
06:30 23 30 17 37
06:45 45 35 108 115 15 39 55 167 163 282
07:00 52 35 17 49
07:15 49 32 16 31
07:30 79 42 28 32
07:45 98 39 278 148 49 31 110 143 388 291
08:00 64 40 32 34
08:15 48 25 25 22
08:30 53 15 35 25
08:45 46 24 211 104 34 13 126 94 337 198
09:00 35 16 20 25
09:15 42 23 23 19
09:30 50 9 34 14
09:45 44 13 171 61 32 18 109 76 280 137
10:00 45 11 26 9
10:15 35 10 27 9
10:30 39 13 31 7
10:45 38 10 157 44 40 12 124 37 281 81
11:00 39 8 23 10
11:15 31 5 29 5
11:30 31 8 40 8
11:45 22 6 123 27 36 6 128 29 251 56
Total 1182 1506 1182 1506 689 1708 689 1708 1871 3214
Combined
Total 2688 2688 2397 2397 5085
AM Peak - 07:15 - - - 07:45 - - - - -
Vol. - 290 - - - 141 - - - - -
P.H.F. 0.740 0.719
PM Peak - - 03:00 - - - 03:30 - - - -
Vol. - - 204 - - - 253 - - - -
P.H.F. 0.850 0.801
Percentag
e

44.0% 56.0% 28.7% 71.3%
ADT/AADT ADT 5,085 AADT 5,085

Page 2233 of 2604 ends

Page 1 ends

City of La Mesa
Amaya Drive
B/ Water Street - Jericho Road
24 Hour Directional Volume Count
LMA002
Site Code: 229-23314
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
Phone: (951) 268-6268
email: [email protected]
Start 4/18/23 Northbound Hour Totals Southbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Tue Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 3 44 2 38
12:15 3 38 7 31
12:30 3 51 3 47
12:45 6 50 15 183 3 52 15 168 30 351
01:00 1 46 2 60
01:15 1 46 1 58
01:30 0 37 3 44
01:45 1 57 3 186 2 35 8 197 11 383
02:00 0 43 3 40
02:15 1 56 2 44
02:30 2 57 4 46
02:45 0 83 3 239 3 54 12 184 15 423
03:00 0 51 1 62
03:15 0 48 6 53
03:30 0 69 4 73
03:45 1 76 1 244 0 59 11 247 12 491
04:00 1 86 4 53
04:15 2 61 8 54
04:30 1 64 7 58
04:45 1 51 5 262 5 56 24 221 29 483
05:00 1 57 14 69
05:15 2 62 15 52
05:30 7 69 26 47
05:45 3 63 13 251 29 42 84 210 97 461
06:00 16 47 18 32
06:15 8 59 28 28
06:30 19 46 26 36
06:45 18 45 61 197 53 35 125 131 186 328
07:00 25 56 49 48
07:15 21 34 62 35
07:30 29 51 68 44
07:45 58 28 133 169 95 38 274 165 407 334
08:00 47 42 90 44
08:15 40 22 75 25
08:30 40 25 69 17
08:45 32 20 159 109 49 30 283 116 442 225
09:00 40 29 59 20
09:15 38 25 61 27
09:30 26 19 40 14
09:45 28 22 132 95 47 14 207 75 339 170
10:00 44 10 44 13
10:15 33 13 35 12
10:30 37 6 44 14
10:45 36 13 150 42 40 10 163 49 313 91
11:00 36 10 34 8
11:15 38 5 47 5
11:30 36 10 45 9
11:45 46 9 156 34 41 7 167 29 323 63
Total 831 2011 831 2011 1373 1792 1373 1792 2204 3803
Combined
Total 2842 2842 3165 3165 6007
AM Peak - 07:45 - - - 07:45 - - - - -
Vol. - 185 - - - 329 - - - - -
P.H.F. 0.797 0.866
PM Peak - - 03:30 - - - 03:00 - - - -
Vol. - - 292 - - - 247 - - - -
P.H.F. 0.849 0.846
Percentag
e

29.2% 70.8% 43.4% 56.6%
ADT/AADT ADT 6,007 AADT 6,007

Page 2234 of 2604 ends

Page 1 ends

City of La Mesa
Jericho Road
B/ Broadmoor Drive - Amaya Drive
24 Hour Directional Volume Count
LMA001
Site Code: 229-23314
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
Phone: (951) 268-6268
email: [email protected]
Start 4/18/23 Eastbound Hour Totals Westbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Tue Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 1 3 0 1
12:15 0 4 0 2
12:30 0 5 0 3
12:45 0 1 1 13 0 3 0 9 1 22
01:00 0 4 1 4
01:15 0 3 0 2
01:30 0 2 0 4
01:45 0 4 0 13 0 3 1 13 1 26
02:00 0 1 1 3
02:15 0 4 0 3
02:30 1 2 0 1
02:45 0 5 1 12 0 1 1 8 2 20
03:00 0 2 0 1
03:15 0 1 1 4
03:30 0 2 1 4
03:45 0 3 0 8 0 5 2 14 2 22
04:00 0 3 0 7
04:15 1 2 1 2
04:30 0 4 1 3
04:45 0 4 1 13 0 5 2 17 3 30
05:00 0 3 1 1
05:15 0 3 1 4
05:30 0 5 3 2
05:45 0 3 0 14 0 4 5 11 5 25
06:00 0 3 2 3
06:15 0 3 6 3
06:30 0 4 1 2
06:45 0 8 0 18 3 3 12 11 12 29
07:00 0 4 4 3
07:15 2 3 1 0
07:30 2 2 4 0
07:45 1 4 5 13 4 0 13 3 18 16
08:00 6 2 1 2
08:15 3 0 3 1
08:30 3 1 4 0
08:45 1 0 13 3 6 1 14 4 27 7
09:00 2 1 0 1
09:15 4 2 5 0
09:30 2 1 4 2
09:45 3 1 11 5 1 0 10 3 21 8
10:00 4 2 3 0
10:15 0 0 2 0
10:30 0 0 5 0
10:45 3 1 7 3 2 0 12 0 19 3
11:00 1 1 2 0
11:15 2 1 1 0
11:30 5 1 5 0
11:45 2 0 10 3 2 0 10 0 20 3
Total 49 118 49 118 82 93 82 93 131 211
Combined
Total 167 167 175 175 342
AM Peak - 07:45 - - - 08:30 - - - - -
Vol. - 13 - - - 15 - - - - -
P.H.F. 0.542 0.625
PM Peak - - 06:15 - - - 03:15 - - - -
Vol. - - 19 - - - 20 - - - -
P.H.F. 0.594 0.714
Percentag
e

29.3% 70.7% 46.9% 53.1%
ADT/AADT ADT 342 AADT 342

Page 2235 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project Page 26
Traffic Assessment Letter
Attachment C
Excerpt of ITE Guidelines

Page 2236 of 2604 ends

Page 2237 of 2604 ends

Page 2238 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project Page 27
Traffic Assessment Letter
Attachment D
Existing Conditions
LOS Calculation Worksheets

Page 2239 of 2604 ends

HCM 6th TWSC Existing Conditions
1: Jericho Road/Broadmoor Drive & Project Driveway AM Peak Hour EX.syn Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 2 13 14 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 2 13 14 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 10000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 63 63 58 58
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 0 3 21 24 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 51 25 24 0 - 0
Stage 1 24 -----
Stage 2 27 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 958 1051 1591 - - -
Stage 1 999 -----
Stage 2 996 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 956 1050 1591 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 956 -----
Stage 1 997 -----
Stage 2 996 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 1 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1591 ----
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 ----
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 0 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 ----

Page 2240 of 2604 ends

HCM 6th TWSC Existing Conditions
2: Amaya Drive & Jericho Road AM Peak Hour
EX.syn Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 122 277 0 1 12
Future Vol, veh/h 12 122 277 0 1 12
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 00011
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 68 68 74 74 65 65
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 18 179 374 0 2 18
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 375 0 - 0 591 376
Stage 1 - - - - 375 -
Stage 2 - - - - 216 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1183 - - - 470 670
Stage 1 - - - - 695 -
Stage 2 - - - - 820 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1182 - - - 461 669
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 461 -
Stage 1 - - - - 682 -
Stage 2 - - - - 819 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.7 0 10.7

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1182 - - - 647
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 - - - 0.031
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 0 - - 10.7
HCM Lane LOS A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1

Page 2241 of 2604 ends

HCM 6th AWSC Existing Conditions
3: Water Street & Amaya Drive AM Peak Hour
EX.syn Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.9
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 144 216 95 234 0 177 1 40 1 0 13
Future Vol, veh/h 9 144 216 95 234 0 177 1 40 1 0 13
Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.70 0.70 0.70 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 11 180 270 109 269 0 233 1 53 1 0 19
Number of Lanes 011110010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2211
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1122
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1122
HCM Control Delay 11.7 13.2 14.5 9.4

HCM LOS BBBA

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 81% 6% 0% 100% 0% 7%
Vol Thru, % 0% 94% 0% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Right, % 18% 0% 100% 0% 0% 93%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 218 153 216 95 234 14
LT Vol 177 9 0 95 0 1
Through Vol 1 144 0 0 234 0
RT Vol 40 0 216 0 0 13
Lane Flow Rate 287 191 270 109 269 20
Geometry Grp 277772
Degree of Util (X) 0.479 0.324 0.402 0.201 0.458 0.034
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.015 6.106 5.365 6.637 6.128 6.127 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 599 587 670 541 586 581
Service Time 4.061 3.855 3.113 4.386 3.878 4.204
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.479 0.325 0.403 0.201 0.459 0.034
HCM Control Delay 14.5 11.8 11.7 11.1 14 9.4
HCM Lane LOS BBBBBA
HCM 95th-tile Q 2.6 1.4 1.9 0.7 2.4 0.1

Page 2242 of 2604 ends

HCM 6th TWSC Existing Conditions
1: Jericho Road/Broadmoor Drive & Project Driveway PM Peak Hour EX.syn Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1 2 12 8 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 1 2 12 8 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 3 32000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 82 82 70 70 67 67
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 1 3 17 12 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 40 17 14 0 - 0
Stage 1 14 -----
Stage 2 26 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 972 1062 1604 - - -
Stage 1 1009 -----
Stage 2 997 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 966 1057 1601 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 966 -----
Stage 1 1005 -----
Stage 2 995 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 8.4 1 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1601 - 1057 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - 0.001 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - -

Page 2243 of 2604 ends

HCM 6th TWSC Existing Conditions
2: Amaya Drive & Jericho Road PM Peak Hour
EX.syn Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 211 173 2 18 1
Future Vol, veh/h 15 211 173 2 18 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00044
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 72 72 93 93 59 59
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 21 293 186 2 31 2
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 188 0 - 0 526 191
Stage 1 - - - - 187 -
Stage 2 - - - - 339 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1386 - - - 512 851
Stage 1 - - - - 845 -
Stage 2 - - - - 722 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1386 - - - 503 848
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 503 -
Stage 1 - - - - 830 -
Stage 2 - - - - 722 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0 12.5

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1386 - - - 514
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 - - - 0.063
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 - - 12.5
HCM Lane LOS A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.2

Page 2244 of 2604 ends

HCM 6th AWSC Existing Conditions
3: Water Street & Amaya Drive PM Peak Hour
EX.syn Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.8
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 18 207 146 41 175 5 132 2 52 3 2 12
Future Vol, veh/h 18 207 146 41 175 5 132 2 52 3 2 12
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 21 244 172 43 184 5 200 3 79 4 2 14
Number of Lanes 011110010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2211
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1122
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1122
HCM Control Delay 11.5 11.1 12.9 9

HCM LOS BBBA

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 71% 8% 0% 100% 0% 18%
Vol Thru, % 1% 92% 0% 0% 97% 12%
Vol Right, % 28% 0% 100% 0% 3% 71%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 186 225 146 41 180 17
LT Vol 132 18 0 41 0 3
Through Vol 2 207 0 0 175 2
RT Vol 52 0 146 0 5 12
Lane Flow Rate 282 265 172 43 189 20
Geometry Grp 277772
Degree of Util (X) 0.437 0.427 0.241 0.078 0.314 0.032
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.579 5.809 5.059 6.502 5.975 5.784 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 645 619 709 551 603 617
Service Time 3.61 3.538 2.788 4.238 3.71 3.833
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.437 0.428 0.243 0.078 0.313 0.032
HCM Control Delay 12.9 12.8 9.4 9.8 11.4 9
HCM Lane LOS BBAABA
HCM 95th-tile Q 2.2 2.1 0.9 0.3 1.3 0.1

Page 2245 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project Page 28
Traffic Assessment Letter
Attachment E
Existing with Project Conditions
LOS Calculation Worksheets

Page 2246 of 2604 ends

HCM 6th TWSC Existing with Project Conditions
1: Jericho Road/Broadmoor Drive AM Peak Hour
EX+P(Modified Int #1).syn Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.9
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 28 10 13 14 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 28 10 13 14 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 63 58 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 30 11 21 24 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 67 24 24 0 - 0
Stage 1 24 -----
Stage 2 43 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 938 1052 1591 - - -
Stage 1 999 -----
Stage 2 979 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 931 1052 1591 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 931 -----
Stage 1 992 -----
Stage 2 979 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 8.5 2.5 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1591 - 1052 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - 0.029 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -

Page 2247 of 2604 ends

HCM 6th TWSC Existing with Project Conditions
2: Amaya Drive & Jericho Road AM Peak Hour
EX+P(Modified Int #1).syn Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 17 122 277 3 12 29
Future Vol, veh/h 17 122 277 3 12 29
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 00011
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 68 68 74 74 65 65
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 25 179 374 4 18 45
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 379 0 - 0 607 378
Stage 1 - - - - 377 -
Stage 2 - - - - 230 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1179 - - - 460 669
Stage 1 - - - - 694 -
Stage 2 - - - - 808 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1178 - - - 448 668
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 448 -
Stage 1 - - - - 677 -
Stage 2 - - - - 807 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1 0 11.9

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1178 - - - 584
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.021 - - - 0.108
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 0 - - 11.9
HCM Lane LOS A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.4

Page 2248 of 2604 ends

HCM 6th AWSC Existing with Project Conditions
3: Water Street & Amaya Drive AM Peak Hour
EX+P(Modified Int #1).syn Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 13.1
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 147 216 101 245 0 177 1 42 1 0 13
Future Vol, veh/h 9 147 216 101 245 0 177 1 42 1 0 13
Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.70 0.70 0.70 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 11 184 270 116 282 0 233 1 55 1 0 19
Number of Lanes 011110010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2211
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1122
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1122
HCM Control Delay 11.9 13.5 14.8 9.5

HCM LOS BBBA

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 80% 6% 0% 100% 0% 7%
Vol Thru, % 0% 94% 0% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Right, % 19% 0% 100% 0% 0% 93%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 220 156 216 101 245 14
LT Vol 177 9 0 101 0 1
Through Vol 1 147 0 0 245 0
RT Vol 42 0 216 0 0 13
Lane Flow Rate 289 195 270 116 282 20
Geometry Grp 277772
Degree of Util (X) 0.487 0.333 0.406 0.215 0.481 0.034
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.059 6.155 5.414 6.663 6.155 6.204 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 593 583 664 538 583 573
Service Time 4.108 3.904 3.163 4.416 3.907 4.286
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.487 0.334 0.407 0.216 0.484 0.035
HCM Control Delay 14.8 12 11.8 11.2 14.5 9.5
HCM Lane LOS BBBBBA
HCM 95th-tile Q 2.7 1.5 2 0.8 2.6 0.1

Page 2249 of 2604 ends

HCM 6th TWSC Existing with Project Conditions
1: Jericho Road/Broadmoor Drive PM Peak Hour
EX+P(Modified Int #1).syn Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 13 28 12 8 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 13 28 12 8 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 70 67 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 14 30 17 12 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 89 12 12 0 - 0
Stage 1 12 -----
Stage 2 77 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 912 1069 1607 - - -
Stage 1 1011 -----
Stage 2 946 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 895 1069 1607 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 895 -----
Stage 1 992 -----
Stage 2 946 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 8.4 4.7 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1607 - 1069 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 - 0.013 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0 - -

Page 2250 of 2604 ends

HCM 6th TWSC Existing with Project Conditions
2: Amaya Drive & Jericho Road PM Peak Hour
EX+P(Modified Int #1).syn Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 32 211 173 13 23 8
Future Vol, veh/h 32 211 173 13 23 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00044
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 72 72 93 93 59 59
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 44 293 186 14 39 14
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 200 0 - 0 578 197
Stage 1 - - - - 193 -
Stage 2 - - - - 385 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1372 - - - 478 844
Stage 1 - - - - 840 -
Stage 2 - - - - 688 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1372 - - - 460 841
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 460 -
Stage 1 - - - - 808 -
Stage 2 - - - - 688 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1 0 12.7

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1372 - - - 521
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.032 - - - 0.101
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 0 - - 12.7
HCM Lane LOS A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.3

Page 2251 of 2604 ends

HCM 6th AWSC Existing with Project Conditions
3: Water Street & Amaya Drive PM Peak Hour
EX+P(Modified Int #1).syn Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.1
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 18 218 146 43 180 5 132 2 58 3 2 12
Future Vol, veh/h 18 218 146 43 180 5 132 2 58 3 2 12
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 21 256 172 45 189 5 200 3 88 4 2 14
Number of Lanes 011110010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2211
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1122
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1122
HCM Control Delay 11.9 11.4 13.3 9.1

HCM LOS BBBA

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 69% 8% 0% 100% 0% 18%
Vol Thru, % 1% 92% 0% 0% 97% 12%
Vol Right, % 30% 0% 100% 0% 3% 71%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 192 236 146 43 185 17
LT Vol 132 18 0 43 0 3
Through Vol 2 218 0 0 180 2
RT Vol 58 0 146 0 5 12
Lane Flow Rate 291 278 172 45 195 20
Geometry Grp 277772
Degree of Util (X) 0.454 0.452 0.244 0.083 0.327 0.033
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.616 5.858 5.11 6.563 6.036 5.872 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 640 616 703 546 596 607
Service Time 3.653 3.592 2.843 4.303 3.776 3.931
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.455 0.451 0.245 0.082 0.327 0.033
HCM Control Delay 13.3 13.4 9.5 9.9 11.7 9.1
HCM Lane LOS BBAABA
HCM 95th-tile Q 2.4 2.3 1 0.3 1.4 0.1

Page 2252 of 2604 ends

Jericho Road Multi-Family Housing Project Page 29
Traffic Assessment Letter
Attachment F
Transcript of California AB 2097

Page 2253 of 2604 ends

Page 2254 of 2604 ends

Page 2255 of 2604 ends

Appendix K
Water Report

Page 2256 of 2604 ends

Page 2257 of 2604 ends

DEXTER WILSON ENGINEERING, INC.

WATER ● WASTEWATER ● RECYCLED WATER

CONSULTING ENGINEERS
2234 FARADAY AVENUE ● CARLSBAD, CA ● (760) 438-4422

WATER STUDY ANALYSIS
FOR THE 9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT

IN THE HELIX WATER DISTRICT
August 10, 2023

Page 2258 of 2604 ends

Page 2259 of 2604 ends

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.

Introduction and Purpose..........................................................................................................1 Water System Design Criteria ..................................................................................................2 Potable Water Demands............................................................................................................5 Fire Flows ..................................................................................................................................6 Available Water System Pressure.............................................................................................6 Existing Water System..............................................................................................................6 Proposed Water Facilities .........................................................................................................8 Private Water System..............................................................................................8 Domestic Meter and Service ..................................................................................10 Computer Model for System Analysis.....................................................................................10 Available Hydraulic Grade Line ............................................................................10 Water System Computer Model.............................................................................10 Fitting and Valve Losses........................................................................................11 Computer Model Analysis – Results .......................................................................................11 Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................................................12

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN

APPENDIX B HELIX WATER DISTRICT DESIGN CRITERIA

APPENDIX C PRIVATE WATER REFERENCE

APPENDIX D FIRE CODE REFERENCE

APPENDIX E HYDRAULIC COMPUTER MODEL OUTPUT

Page 2260 of 2604 ends

LIST OF TABLES
PAGE NO.

TABLE 1 9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY
WATER DEMAND FACTORS ...............................................................4 TABLE 2 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR THE
9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT..........................................................5 TABLE 3 WATER DEMAND FOR THE
9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT..........................................................5

LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE NO.

FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP.......................................................................................3 FIGURE 2 EXISTING WATER SYSTEM ................................................................7 FIGURE 3 PROPOSED WATER SYSTEM..............................................................9

Page 2261 of 2604 ends

Page 2262 of 2604 ends

Johanna Crooker
August 10, 2023
Water System Analysis for 9407 Jericho Road Project
DEXTER WILSON ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2
The purpose of this letter-report is to analyze the existing and proposed public water systems for the 9407 Jericho Road project and determine if there are any hydraulic deficiencies created by the proposed development of this property. Additionally, the recommended quantity and location of potable domestic meters will be provided. Irrigation is outside the scope of this analysis.

A Vicinity Map for the project is shown on Figure 1 and a preliminary site plan for the project is included in Appendix A.

Water System Design Criteria
Water system design criteria such as estimating potable water demands and evaluating the capacity of transmission and distribution pipes are based on the Water Agencies’ Standards (WAS) of which Helix Water District (District) is a member. Based on the WAS, domestic average day water demands are determined using land use acreage and an associated water demand factor. A copy of the pertinent sections in the WAS standards which presents the design criteria is attached as Appendix B.

The water demand factors are presented in Table 1.

Page 2263 of 2604 ends

Page 2264 of 2604 ends

Johanna Crooker
August 10, 2023
Water System Analysis for 9407 Jericho Road Project
DEXTER WILSON ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4
TABLE 1
9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT

AVERAGE DAILY WATER DEMAND FACTORS
Land Use Gallons Per Day Per Acre
Residential (1 DU/ac) 900
Residential. (2 DU/ac) 1,050
Residential (4 DU/ac) 2,100
Residential (8 DU/ac) 4,200
Residential (14 DU/ac) 6,750
Residential (29 DU/ac) 13,050
Residential (43 DU/ac) 16,800
Agricultural 1,750
Industrial 4,000
Park 3,000
Commercial
Institutional 5,000
Office
WAS defines a minimum static pressure of at least 65 psi. During peak hour demands, the public water system must maintain a minimum residual pressure of 40 psi. Residual pressure under maximum day demands plus fire flow must be greater than 20 psi.

Pipeline velocity must not exceed 8 feet per second (fps) under maximum domestic demands (no fire flow). For fire flow conditions, velocities shall not exceed 15 fps for fire hydrant laterals, and velocities shall not exceed 10 fps for distribution pipelines.

Page 2265 of 2604 ends

Johanna Crooker
August 10, 2023
Water System Analysis for 9407 Jericho Road Project
DEXTER WILSON ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5
Potable Water Demands
The estimated water demand for the project is calculated using the water use factors based on density presented in the WAS standards. The density is calculated based on gross area which equates to 3.48 acres for the 9407 Jericho Road site resulting in a density of 22 du/ac.

The dwelling unit density for the 9407 Jericho Road project is shown below in Table 2.

TABLE 2

RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR THE
9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT
Dwelling Units
Gross Developable
Area, acres
Density, DU/acre
73 3.48 21
The dwelling unit density corresponds to a water demand factor of 11,016 gpd per acre for the 9407 Jericho Road project. The demand factor of 11,016 gpd per acre is based on interpolating the values presented in Table 1. The total estimated average water demand for the 9407 Jericho Road project is calculated in Table 3.

TABLE 3

WATER DEMAND FOR THE
9407 JERICHO ROAD PROJECT
Land Use
Water Demand
Factor, gpd/acre
Area, acres
Average Water
Demand, gpd
Residential 9,690 3.48 33,721
The maximum day demands are 2.8 times the average, and peak hour demands are 5.8 times the average according to the curves presented in the WAS standards. This corresponds to 94,419 gpd (66 gpm) and 195,582 gpd (136 gpm), respectively.

Page 2266 of 2604 ends

Johanna Crooker
August 10, 2023
Water System Analysis for 9407 Jericho Road Project
DEXTER WILSON ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6
Fire Flows
The fire flow requirement for the project site was estimated based on the 2019 California Fire Code; the official fire flow requirement has yet to be determined. The fire code takes into account building area and construction type. The largest building proposed for the project site is conservatively estimated to be approximately 16,200 square feet (9-plex comprised of the largest 1,800 square feet units). Construction Type V-B is proposed for the onsite buildings. This results in an estimated fire flow requirement of 3,500 gpm. Assuming a reduction of 50% for an NFPA approved fire sprinkler system, the estimated final fire flow requirement for the project site equates to 1,750 gpm. The excerpt from the 2019 California Fire Code pertaining to fire flow requirements and project information on building area and construction type are shown in Appendix D.

Available Water System Pressure
Water service to the project will be from the existing District’s public water system adjacent to the project. Finished floor elevations on the 9407 Jericho Road property range between 642 feet and 652 feet. This results in a maximum static water pressure range of 71 psi to 75 psi on the project site based on the hydrant test results of 76 psi at an elevation of 640 feet.

Existing Water System
The 9407 Jericho Road project is located in an area of the District that is well developed.

Existing water facilities in the vicinity of the project include 6-inch diameter water lines in Jericho Road and Broadmoor Drive.

Figure 2 shows the existing water lines in the vicinity of the 9407 Jericho Road project.

Page 2267 of 2604 ends

Page 2268 of 2604 ends

Page 2269 of 2604 ends

Johanna Crooker
August 10, 2023
Water System Analysis for 9407 Jericho Road Project
DEXTER WILSON ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 8
Proposed Water Facilities
The water service in the area of the 9407 Jericho Road project is being supplied by the existing District water system. From a service pressure standpoint, connecting the 9407 Jericho Road project to this system will provide adequate service. As described in a previous section, the range of pad elevations on the project results in a minimum static water pressure of 71 psi.

The proposed public water system for the 9407 Jericho Road project consists of making two connections for an onsite public loop that will directly supply proposed fire hydrants as well as domestic meters. A domestic water meter connection will be made at five locations.

The 9407 Jericho Road project’s proposed onsite domestic water system will consist of private water lines.

Private Water System. Per the District’s requirement, the onsite domestic water system for 9407 Jericho Road will be private. Five connections will be made for domestic service to the project site. Domestic connections will be made along the proposed public water line loop.

Both the project’s private domestic water system and private fire protection system will be connected at each location. These facilities will be formally designed in accordance with the California Plumbing Code and/or WAS standards and will be analyzed in a separate study.

Figure 3 shows the proposed water system for the 9407 Jericho Road project. Reference information surrounding the proposed private water systems for 9407 Jericho Road are included in Appendix C.

Page 2270 of 2604 ends

Page 2271 of 2604 ends

Page 2272 of 2604 ends

Page 2273 of 2604 ends

Johanna Crooker
August 10, 2023
Water System Analysis for 9407 Jericho Road Project
DEXTER WILSON ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 10
Domestic Meter and Service. The preliminary water fixture count (WFU) for the proposed townhome units are estimated to be 30 to 35 WFUs per unit. Based on a WFU count of 30 to 35 fixture units per home, the design demand for water meter sizing is estimated to be between 350 and 400 gpm for the entire project.

Based on the meter capacities established in AWWA C700-20, the 9407 Jericho Road project will require five, 1.5-inch meters, with a 500 gpm total capacity, that shall be constructed per WAS standards. The final sizing of the service laterals and meters will need to be confirmed once the fixture units for each home are finalized.

Computer Model for System Analysis
To analyze the existing and proposed water systems for the 9407 Jericho Road project, a water system hydraulic computer model was generated for the pertinent proposed piping in the vicinity of the project. This hydraulic computer model included the public water system piping adjacent to the 9407 Jericho Road project as well as the proposed onsite piping.

Several water demand scenarios were modeled which provided data upon which the recommended pipe sizing is based.

Available Hydraulic Grade Line. Appendix B presents the hydrant flow test data performed by the District. The available pressure under an expected fire flow requirement of 1,750 gpm was extrapolated from the hydrant flow tests through the utilization of an additional spreadsheet calculation. That spreadsheet calculation is included in Appendix B as well. Results from the hydrant flow test show a residual pressure of approximately 49 psi at the 1,750 gpm expected fire flow requirement for the project at the hydrant flow test location (adjacent in Jericho Road).

Water System Computer Model. Analysis using the KYPIPE computer software program developed by the University of Kentucky determined residual pressures throughout the water system. This computer software utilizes the Hazen-Williams equation for determining headloss in pipes. The Hazen-Williams “C” value used for all pipe sizes in our analysis is 120.

Page 2274 of 2604 ends

Johanna Crooker
August 10, 2023
Water System Analysis for 9407 Jericho Road Project
DEXTER WILSON ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 11
Fitting and Valve Losses. To simulate minor losses through pipe fittings and valves, minor loss coefficients or “k” values for all fittings associated with pipes were included in the hydraulic model.

Computer Model Analysis – Results
Computer modeling of the proposed onsite public water system and existing offsite water system for the 9407 Jericho Road project was performed to confirm the pipe sizes necessary to provide adequate domestic and fire protection service to the project. The water system was analyzed under three scenarios: average day demand, peak hour demand, and a maximum day demand plus 1,750 gpm scenario.

Appendix E provides the results of the computer modeling for the analyzed water system.

Exhibit A at the back of Appendix E provides the Node and Pipe Diagram for the computer model.

The results in Appendix E show that the proposed water system shown in Figure 3 for the 9407 Jericho Road project is adequate for domestic service. The results of the computer model show that average day demand can be achieved onsite with a minimum residual pressure of 66 psi and that peak hour demand can be achieved onsite with a minimum residual pressure of 65 psi.

The results in Appendix E show that the proposed water system for the 9407 Jericho Road project is adequate for fire protection. The results of the computer model show that a 1,750 gpm fire flow can be provided onsite with a minimum residual pressure of 29 psi.

Page 2275 of 2604 ends

Johanna Crooker
August 10, 2023
Water System Analysis for 9407 Jericho Road Project
DEXTER WILSON ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 12
Conclusions and Recommendations
The following recommendations and conclusions are made based on the water system analyses performed for the 9407 Jericho Road project.

1. The 73-unit 9407 Jericho Road project will be supplied from the adjacent existing Helix Water District water system. Maximum static water pressure will be 75 psi.

2. Figure 2 in this report presents the existing water system surrounding the 9407 Jericho Road project.

3. Two public water system connections for the 9407 Jericho Road project will be made to the existing 6-inch diameter water line in the Jericho Road and Broadmoor Drive intersection.

4. The proposed 9407 Jericho Road development will be served by a proposed onsite public water loop for fire protection (hydrants) and separate private water systems stemming off the proposed public 8-inch diameter water loop for domestic service.

5. The 9407 Jericho Road project will require five, 1.5-inch meters that shall be constructed per WAS standards. The final sizing of the service laterals and meters will need to be confirmed once the fixture units for each home are finalized.

6. Offsite water improvements are not required for the 9407 Jericho Road project.

7. The fire flow requirement is estimated based on the 2019 California Fire Code. The fire code takes into account building area and construction type which results in a 1,750 gpm fire flow requirement for 9407 Jericho Road. The final fire flow requirement should be reviewed against the estimation.

8. Figure 3 in this report presents the proposed public water system for the 9407 Jericho Road project.

Page 2276 of 2604 ends

Page 2277 of 2604 ends

APPENDIX A

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN

Page 2278 of 2604 ends

Page 2279 of 2604 ends

PROJECT BOUNDARY LAKEVIEW DR PROJECT BOUNDARY PVT. DRIVE "A" PVT. DRIVE "B" PVT. DRIVE "C" PVT. DR VI E "E" PVT. DRIVE "C" BLDG #2 BLDG #3 BLDG #4 BLDG #5 BLDG #6 BLDG #7 BLDG #1 P=652.2 P=651.3 P=651.3 P=649.0 P=646.3 P=652.2 P=651.2 P=651.7 P=650.3 P=650.3 P=648.0 P=646.4 P=645.3 PVT. DRIVE "D" BLDG #9 P=652.6 BLDG #8 P=652.1 P=651.6 F =653.3 F =652.8 F =652.3 P=652.6 F =653.3 Page 2280 of 2604

Page 2281 of 2604 ends

APPENDIX B

HELIX WATER DISTRICT DESIGN CRITERIA

Page 2282 of 2604 ends

WAS Section 4.1
Design Guidelines Page 1 of 13 Revised: 07/28/2014
WATER AGENCIES’ STANDARDS
Design Guidelines for Water and Sewer Facilities
SECTION 4.1

WATER PLANNING

4.1.1 PURPOSE
This section outlines planning data to determine average, maximum day, and peak hour water demands, fire flows, pipeline velocities, system pressures, pump station capacities, and reservoir storage volumes.

A. The purpose of this section is to identify general water planning and pre-design information for use in developing AGENCY Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and developer projects. This section will help develop uniformity and consistency in projects and to assist in providing uniform and workable facilities including pipelines, pressure control facilities, pumping stations, and storage reservoirs.

B. The Engineer of Work shall incorporate the planning criteria presented in this section as a basis for design. Sometimes the criteria are given in ranges, in which case the final criterion is selected within the indicated range. In other cases, specific criteria have been given and are to be followed by the Engineer of Work.

C. If the Engineer of Work desires to deviate from the criteria presented in this section only the AGENCY can approve the change once the Engineer of Work has provided documented rationale consistent with industry standards.

4.1.2 UNITS OF MEASUREMENT
Units of measurement to be used in design calculations are listed in Appendix E.

4.1.3 PLANNING AREA AND WATER DEMAND GENERATION
A. Development Projects:

1. Planning areas and other detailed information required for development projects shall be defined in Sub Area Master Plans or may have been defined in an AGENCY’s master plan. See Section 4.4 Sub-Area Master Plan Development for undefined planning areas.

2. In the absence of more refined demand data from the AGENCY, development projects shall use the Residential Water Demand and/or NonResidential Water Demand Tables 4-1-1 and 4-1-2, respectively.

B. AGENCY Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Projects:

1. For the majority of AGENCY CIP projects, the AGENCY has previously defined planning areas through master-planning or other means. When this is not the case for a CIP project, the AGENCY may have the Engineer of Work define the planning area.

2. In the absence of more refined demand data from the AGENCY, CIP projects shall use the Residential Unit Water Demand and/or Non-Residential Unit Water Demand Tables 4-1-1 and 4-1-2, respectively.

Page 2283 of 2604 ends

WAS Section 4.1
Design Guidelines Page 2 of 13 Revised: 07/28/2014

4.1.4 LAND USE
The Engineer of Work collects and organizes existing and ultimate land use data for the geographic area to define land use categories such as: residential, commercial, institutional, parks, hospitals, hotels, industrial, office, and schools. The local cities or county can provide the information regarding zoning and dwelling unit density.

4.1.5 DWELLING UNIT DENSITY AND RESIDENTIAL UNIT WATER DEMAND The Engineer of Work shall estimate the residential population in the service area based on existing and ultimate allowable land use. Unless otherwise provided by the AGENCY, unit water demands shall be estimated based on dwelling unit density in Table 4-1-1.

Table 4-1-1
Dwelling Unit Density and Unit Water Demands
Dwelling Unit
Density
(dwelling
units/gross acre)
Unit Density
(persons/dwelling
unit)
Population Density
(persons/gross
acre)
Unit Water Demand
(gallons/gross acre-day)

0.1 6.0 0.6 90

0.2 6.0 1.2 180
1 6.0 6.0 900
2 3.5 7.0 1050
3 3.5 10.5 1575
4 3.5 14 2100
8 3.5 28 4200
9 3.5 32 4800
14 3.2 45 6750
29 3.0 87 13050
43 2.6 112 16800
73 2.2 161 24150
109 1.8 196 29400
218 1.5 327 49050

4.1.6 NON-RESIDENTIAL UNIT WATER DEMAND
A. Unless more accurate unit water demand estimates are available from the AGENCY, the non-residential unit water demands in the service area shall be estimated based on the land use categories in Table 4-1-2.

Table 4-1-2
Non-Residential Unit Water Demands
Land Use Category Unit Water Demand
Commercial and Institutional 5000 gallons/net acre-day
Landscaped Park* 3000 gallons/net acre-day
Hospital** 8000 gallons/net acre-day/floor
Hotel** 7000 gallons/net acre-day/floor
Industrial 4000 gallons/net acre-day
Office 5000 gallons/net acre-day
School 4500 gallons/net acre-day

Page 2284 of 2604 ends

WAS Section 4.1
Design Guidelines Page 3 of 13 Revised: 07/28/2014
*Assumes zero recycled water demand on landscaped park area. For parks using recycled water, potable water usage=0 to 5% of unit water demand. **For multiple story hospitals or hotels, multiply net area per floor by unit water demand by number of floors.

B. If net acres are not known for non-residential land use categories, use Table 4-1-3 to convert gross acreage to net acreage.

Table 4-1-3
Gross Acreage to Net Acreage Conversion
Land Use Category Gross Area Net Area
Commercial and Institutional 1 0.30-0.40
Landscaped Park 1 0.40-1.00
Hospital 1 0.35-0.65
Hotel 1 0.30-0.50
Industrial 1 0.25-0.35
Office 1 0.30-0.40
School 1 0.30-0.40

4.1.7 AVERAGE ANNUAL WATER DEMAND
Average daily water demands are calculated as the sum of: (1) the residential water demand and (2) non-residential water demand for each land use category as follows:

A. Average Daily Residential Water Demand (gallons/day)=Gross acres x Unit Water Demand (gallons/gross acre-day) for each Dwelling Unit Density.

B. Average Daily Non-Residential Water Demand (gallons/day) = Net acres x Unit Water Demand (gallons/net acre-day) for each Land Use Category.

C. Total Average Annual Day Water Demand (gallons/day) = Residential Water Demand + Non-Residential Water Demands.

On some projects, particularly large residential developments or developments with disproportional open space requirements in relationship to the number of dwelling units, using the unit water demands in Table 4-1-1 may generate unrealistically high estimates. For these projects, the Engineer of Work may request that the AGENCY approve an alternative approach. Similarly, the Engineer may also consider alternative unit water demand estimates for specific land use types where such estimates are based on detailed demand evaluations.

4.1.8 PEAK WATER DEMANDS
Peak hour and maximum day water demands are estimated using the peak factors presented in Figures 4-1-1 and 4-1-2. These peaking factors correspond to the AGENCY identified in Figure 4-1-3.

Peak water demands are calculated as follows:

A. Peak Hour Demand = Average Day of Year Water Demand x Peak Hour Peaking Factor.

B. Maximum Day Demand = Average Day of Year Water Demand x Maximum Day Peaking Factor.

Page 2285 of 2604 ends

WAS Section 4.1
Design Guidelines Page 4 of 13 Revised: 07/28/2014

4.1.9 HAZEN-WILLIAMS COEFFICIENTS
For existing pipelines that have flow meters and pressure gauges, the Hazen William’s “c” Coefficient shall be calculated from actual field measurements particularly for the development of system curves for pump curve selection.

The Hazen-William’s coefficients for water pipelines equal to or less than 12-inch diameter shall be as follows:

Pipe Material Hazen William’s “c” Coefficients
Asbestos Cement 120
Cast Iron 120
DIP (Lined) 120
HDPE 120
PVC 120
Steel (CML&C) 120
The Hazen-William’s coefficients for water pipelines greater than 12-inch diameter shall be as follows:

Pipe Material Hazen William’s “c” Coefficients
Asbestos Cement 130
Cast Iron 130
DIP (Lined) 130
HDPE 130
PVC 130-140 (See Agency)
Steel (CML&C) 130

4.1.10 FIRE DEMANDS
A. Before using Table 4-1-4 for fire flow rate, the governing fire department shall first be contacted to determine a rate. If the fire department cannot determine a rate, then minimum flows as set forth in Table 4-1-4 shall be used. The fire flow duration for planning purposes shall be two hours minimum.

Table 4-1-4
Fire Demands for Design Purposes
Development Type Fire Demand
(gpm)(1)
Fire Duration
(hours)
Single family residential 1,500 2
Duplexes 2,000 2
Condominiums and apartments 2,500 2
Resorts 2,500 2
Commercial 3,000 3
Industrial 3,500 3
(1) Fire Demands shall not include building sprinkler demands.

B. As an alternate method, the Engineer of Work may estimate fire demand flows by using the California Fire Code (CFC), Title 24, Part 9 Appendix BB, (current version).

Page 2286 of 2604 ends

WAS Section 4.1
Design Guidelines Page 5 of 13 Revised: 07/28/2014
C. Should application of the CFC methodology result in figures lower than those shown in Table 4-1-4, the Engineer may approve the CFC figures on a case-by-case basis following submittal of supporting calculations.

D. To calculate the fire flow volume required in operational storage reservoirs, see paragraph 4.1.15.

E. The required fire flow demand shall be supplied from at least two fire hydrants (assumes ½ flow from each hydrant) within a maximum radius of 750 feet from the fire.

F. Maximum fire hydrant supply, in some cases, can be obtained from the AGENCY.

The supply will be based on an actual flow test if fire hydrants are in the vicinity of the desired location and a calculated flow rate at 20 psi will be provided. If hydrants are not available, then hydraulic modeling is required.

4.1.11 PRESSURE CRITERIA
A. Static Pressures:

1. Static Pressure is defined as the pressure in the system with no demand occurring in the distribution system.

2. The basic pressure criteria for water system design are shown in Figure 4-1-

4. It is desirable to have water distribution pipelines in each pressure zone capable of supplying a minimum static pressure of 65 psi.

3. Generally, it is undesirable to have a maximum static pressure that exceeds 80 psi without a house regulator or 150 psi in the distribution system with a house regulator. The maximum static pressure in reservoir systems is determined from reservoir overflow elevations and/or the discharge control setting on pressure reducing valves, whichever is greater. The maximum static pressure in pumped systems is determined from reservoir overflow elevations or pump shutoff head, whichever is greater. In some instances the AGENCY may require the developer to build a pressure reducing station and create a closed zone to meet the criteria. The AGENCY will be responsible for operation and maintenance of these stations.

B. Dynamic (Operating) Pressures:

1. In analyzing the supply to a pressure zone, the minimum hydraulic grade line elevation available from the water source shall be used; a level that typically occurs during peak hour demand conditions.

2. Operating pressures under peak hour demand conditions shall not fall more than 25 psi below the static pressures greater than 65 psi, equating to a residual water distribution pipeline pressure of at least 40 psi. In areas where existing static water pressures are already below 65 psi and a 40 psi residual pressure cannot be maintained under peak hour demands, the Engineer of Work shall contact the Agency for further direction. Operating pressures are determined in the distribution system pipelines at the service connection or fire hydrant.

3. Water systems must be designed to meet the pressure criteria with one critical source out of service. Water mains must be designed so that no more than one, average-sized city block (approximately 30 homes in urban areas) is out of service at any time, and no more than two fire hydrants (excluding fire services) are on a dead end or are out of service at any time. When analyzing a system with one source of supply (either a reservoir or a pipeline) out of service, pressures may fall more than 25 psi below the static

Page 2287 of 2604 ends

WAS Section 4.1
Design Guidelines Page 6 of 13 Revised: 07/28/2014
pressure of 65 psi, but in no event may the pressure fall more than 40 psi (keeping the minimum dynamic pressure at 25 psi in the distribution pipeline or as defined by the AGENCY).

C. Pressure Requirements During Fires:

1. For the simulation of fire conditions, a minimum operating pressure of 20 psi is required in the distribution pipelines in the vicinity of the fire. The residual pressure is determined given the fire demand concentrated at no more than two hydrants within a radius of 750 feet of the fire as stated in Section

4.1.10E.

2. For water systems, the residual pressures in the distribution system during a fire shall be maintained given the following conditions:
a. The water level in the storage facility at the time of the fire is at the minimum operational level.
b. The prescribed fire duration as determined by the governing fire department is coincident with the maximum day demand condition. c. All Agency booster pumps into and out of the pressure zone where the fire is occurring are off.
d. Areas outside of the fire circumference in the same pressure zone maintain a minimum pressure of 20 psi.

4.1.12 VELOCITY CRITERIA
A. Transmission Pipelines:

1. Transmission pipelines are defined as larger diameter pipelines (typically 12” or 16”) as defined by the Agency or pipelines of any size that do not have connections to them such as fire hydrants, water services, or distribution tees, which serve to transfer water from one region to another.

2. The maximum transmission pipeline velocity shall not exceed 8 feet per second under peak hour flow conditions.

3. There is no minimum transmission pipeline velocity criterion.

B. Distribution Pipelines:

1. The maximum distribution pipeline velocity shall not exceed 8 feet per second under peak hour flow conditions or 10 feet per second under maximum day plus fire flow conditions.

2. There is no minimum distribution pipeline velocity criterion.

C. Fire Hydrant Laterals
The maximum fire hydrant lateral velocity shall not exceed 15 feet per second under maximum day plus fire flow conditions.

4.1.13 PUMP STATION CRITERIA
A. Unless directed differently by the Agency, pumping stations that are connected to reservoirs shall be designed to pump the ultimate maximum day demand projected for the service area. Certain Agencies also require that for pumped zones that the

Page 2288 of 2604 ends

WAS Section 4.1
Design Guidelines Page 7 of 13 Revised: 07/28/2014
ultimate maximum day demand plus fire flow recharge are met. See Agency for specific requirements.

B. Where pump stations are pumping in series, the first-lift pump station shall be designed to pump the ultimate maximum day demand for all service areas served.

The ultimate maximum day demand shall be calculated by summing all of the average day demands of the service areas served, then peaking the average demand using the maximum day peaking factor curve listed in Figure 4-1-2. The ultimate maximum day demand shall not be calculated by summing the ultimate maximum day demand of each service area.

C. In some cases, it may be desirable to design a pump station with a higher capacity in order to receive better electrical energy rates. These energy periods have defined terms such as AL-TOU “Time of Use” by San Diego Gas and Electric Company. The AL-TOU and other rate structures allow AGENCIES to receive lower kilowatt-hour rates to pump water in a specified time. Many factors need to be considered when designing pump stations for the different rate structures including:

1. Storage volume

2. Pumping operation (On-off levels)

3. Peaking factors of a system

4. The on-peak hours demand

5. Pump characteristic curves

6. Seasonal demand
D. If a pump station is being designed to use limited hours of pumping, the Engineer of Work shall provide a hydraulic modeling analysis for approval by the Engineer.

E. If allowed by the AGENCY, hydropneumatic pump stations shall be designed to pump ultimate peak hour demand (2 pumps, 1 duty, 1 standby each capable of pumping the peak hour flow rate) projected for the service area plus a fire flow pump capable of supplying the fire flow demand determined by the governing fire department. A general rule for sizing hydropneumatic tanks is to multiply the duty pump capacity in gallons per minute by 10. This will provide adequate unused, working, and safe limit volumes. In addition, certain Agencies require that a lower capacity pump equivalent to 30% of the average day demand be included in the design. An annuity or other funding mechanism may be required by the AGENCY to cover all operational, maintenance, and replacement costs of a hydropneumatic pump station indefinitely.

4.1.14 STORAGE CRITERIA FOR OPERATIONAL STORAGE RESERVOIRS Unless directed differently by the Agency, the minimum operational storage volume within a pressure zone is the sum of three elements: operational storage, fire storage, and emergency storage.

A. Operational Storage:

1. Operational storage is defined as the volume of storage required to allow a reservoir’s sources of supply to operate at a uniform rate throughout the day to provide water to meet all diurnal demand conditions.

2. Based on analysis and Agencies’ experience and observations, it has been determined that 30% of a maximum day’s volume is generally needed to handle the ultimate peak hour fluctuations. For this reason, operational

Page 2289 of 2604 ends

WAS Section 4.1
Design Guidelines Page 8 of 13 Revised: 07/28/2014
storage in reservoirs shall be designed for 0.3 x ultimate maximum day demand. An example follows:

Ultimate average day demand of service area = 300,000 gallons Maximum day peaking factor = 2.7
Ultimate maximum day demand=300,000 x 2.7 = 810,000 gallons Operational storage required = 0.3 x 810,000 = 243,000 gallons B. Fire Storage:

1. The governing fire department shall provide the AGENCY with the fire flow rate and duration to determine fire storage. If a number cannot be obtained from the governing fire department, use the values listed in Table 4-1-4. Fire storage shall be provided in all reservoirs. Fire storage is equal to the product of the fire demand and the duration of the fire.

An example to calculate required fire storage volume follows:

Fire demand = 1500 gpm
Fire Duration = 2 hours
Fire storage = 1500 gpm x 2 hours x 60 minutes/hour
= 180,000 gallons, or 0.18 million gallons

2. When there are two or more reservoirs serving a storage zone, then the fire storage volume may be shared between the reservoirs or put in one reservoir at the AGENCY's discretion.

C. Emergency Storage Component of Operational Reservoir:

1. The AGENCIES differ widely in terms of being able to treat and store water.

Some have large raw water lakes and their own treatment facilities. Other AGENCIES are solely dependent on imported water from the Metropolitan Water District and the San Diego County Water Authority. Because of the many differences, potable water emergency storage varies among the AGENCIES. Another factor that influences potable water emergency storage in operational reservoirs is that the San Diego County Water Authority recommends each member be able to withstand a 10-day planned or unplanned outage of the potable water aqueduct.

2. Table 4-1-5 lists the recommended emergency storage component of an operational storage reservoir by AGENCY.

Table 4-1-5
Emergency Storage Volume Required
In Operational Storage Reservoirs per AGENCY
AGENCY
Volume Required (In terms of being
multiplied by an ultimate maximum day
demand in a pressure zone)
Helix Water District 0.2
Lakeside Water District 0.2
Otay Water District 1.0
Padre Dam Municipal Water District Gravity Zone 1.0, Pump Zone 1.5 Ramona Municipal Water District 1.0
Santa Fe Irrigation District Case Specific
Sweetwater Authority 0.7

Page 2290 of 2604 ends

WAS Section 4.1
Design Guidelines Page 9 of 13 Revised: 07/28/2014
An example on how to calculate emergency storage volume in a Helix Water District reservoir follows:

Ultimate average day demand of service area = 300,000 gallons Maximum day peaking factor = 2.7
Ultimate maximum day demand=300,000 x 2.7 = 810,000 gallons Emergency storage volume required = 0.2 x 810,000 = 162,000 gallons D. Minimum Total Storage Volume Requirement (Example for Helix):

Assuming the two-hour 1500 gpm fire flow volume is included in the reservoir, the total storage volume for the Helix reservoir would be 585,000 gallons (243,000 gallon operational, 180,000 gallon fire flow, and 162,000 gallon emergency storage volume).

4.1.15 STORAGE CRITERIA FOR EMERGENCY STORAGE RESERVOIRS See each AGENCY for criteria regarding potable water emergency storage reservoirs and raw water reservoirs.

4.1.16 REFERENCE
A. Should the reader have any suggestions or questions concerning the material in this section, please contact one of the agencies listed.

B. The publications listed below form a part of this section to the extent referenced and are referred to in the text by the basic designation only. Reference shall be made to the latest edition of said publications unless otherwise called for. The following list of publications, as directly referenced within the body of this document, has been provided for the user’s convenience. It is the responsibility of the user of these documents to make reference to and/or utilize industry standards not otherwise directly referenced within this document.

1. Fire Suppression Rating Schedule, Edition 6-80, Section 1 (Public Fire Suppression), published by the Insurance Services Office

2. Water Agencies’ Standards:
a. Design Guideline:

1. Section 4.4, Sub Area Master Plans

2. Appendix E, Units of Measurement

Page 2291 of 2604 ends

La Mesa City CouncilMay 13, 2025

La Mesa City Council
May 13, 2025