Improving the pedestrian connectivity between Blair Park and Coaches Field is also consistent with the previously adopted 2014 Piedmont Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and the 2021 Piedmont Safer Streets (PSS) Plan. Both documents recommend installing high visibility crosswalks across the north (Red Rock Road) and the east (Moraga Avenue) approaches of the intersection with rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) for the east crosswalk across Moraga Avenue to warn motorists in both directions of Moraga Avenue when pedestrians are crossing the roadway.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 264
Appendix C
Sewer Analysis
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 265
Technical Memorandum 1 of 21
Technical Memorandum
To: Karly Kaufman, MESM,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
From: Kevin Gustorf, PE
Megan Kurtz, PE
Date: July 16, 2024
Subject: Sewer Analysis for the City of Piedmont Housing Element Update
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is a State of California Housing Law which requires cities to expand their affordable housing options. The RHNA is part of the periodic process of updating local General Plan Housing Element. The City of Piedmont (City) is in the process of preparing their 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (HEU) to incorporate General Plan amendments to comply with their required allocation and future housing needs. Table 1-1 summarizes the RHNA allocation assigned to the City. Please refer to the Housing Element Update for definitions of the income levels in the table below.
Table 1-1: Summary of RHNA Required Housing Allocation for City Income Level Units
Extremely Low and Very Low 163
Low 94
Moderate 92
Above Moderate 238
Total 587
Increasing residential capacity has many impacts which necessitate an environmental review to select optimal sites. Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) is leading the environmental process and has subcontracted with Wood Rodgers, Inc. (Wood Rodgers) to perform a sewer capacity analysis to evaluate the impacts of the required additional development and provide a nexus of approval for future development. This Technical Memorandum (TM) summarizes the City’s existing sewer collection system, determines the available capacity in the system, evaluates the capacity impacts of the required additional development and documents the results of a hydraulic model analysis.
It should be noted that this study is a high-level analysis based on available data and assumptions made about the existing sewer infrastructure. Project specific sewer capacity studies must be completed for all proposed development projects greater than four (4) housing units and must include, but are not limited to, the following elements:
1. Sewer flow projections for the proposed development in Piedmont, and from other sources outside of Piedmont located upstream and served by the same sewer lines/trunk lines.
2. Capacity needed to serve the proposed development project from the project site to the trunk line.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 266
Sewer Analysis for the City of Piedmont Housing Element Update July 16, 2024
Technical Memorandum 2 of 21
3. Actual capacity of the existing sewer system.
4. Actual sewer flow measurements from a minimum of two separate time periods.
The scope of each project specific sewer study shall be coordinated with City staff.
2.0 BACKGROUND
The City is located in Alameda County about 10 miles east of San Francisco. The City of Oakland (Oakland) surrounds the City on all sides. Being completely landlocked and essentially built out has created challenges for new employment and housing within the City. In the 1.7 square miles of City, most of the development is single-family residential homes. Per 2023 estimates from the Division of Finance, there are 3,683 single-family residential homes (SFR), 77 SFR attached homes, 135 multifamily residential (MFR) homes with 2 to 4 units, and 78 MFR homes with 5 or more units. There is limited commercial space with the largest concentration being in the Civic Center area. Refer to Figure 2-1 for a map of the City and its current land use breakdown.
The City’s sewer system consists of approximately 271,009 linear feet (LF) of gravity main ranging from 4 to 18 inches in diameter. There is approximately 39,898 LF of lateral piping. The system has about 1,821 manholes including clean-outs and lamp holes. Elevation ranges in the City from about 46 feet to 620 feet above mean sea level. Elevation generally slopes downward from North to South and East to West. The flow direction for the gravity sewer pipes also follows this trend. The City does not have any pump/lift stations within its sewer collection system.
The City has 10 locations where flow comes into the system from Oakland. Additionally, there are 21 locations where flow leaves the City and flows into Oakland’s system. Figure 2-2 shows these locations as well as the direction of flow and diameter of pipes in the system. Table 2-1 summarizes the length of pipe by diameter and material.
Table 2-1: Summary of Pipe by Diameter and Material
**from City provided Geographic Information System (GIS)** The City is located close to employment centers making it a desirable place to expand housing.
However, there are currently only 60 vacant lots scattered throughout the City comprising an Diameter
(in)
Length by Material (ft)
CPP HDPE VCP PVC DIP STEEL TRU ACP Unknown
4 22 2,867 0 36 0 0 0 0 1,268
5 430 3,278 94 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 5,138 130,591 30,371 1,717 383 96 66 0 2,046
7 0 0 0 118 0 0 0 0 0
8 4,898 38,780 7,402 1,597 113 0 1,119 0 6,628
10 1,035 9,808 1,702 1,889 316 0 1,638 0 1,572
12 578 1,638 3,176 1,083 0 0 281 0 638
15 420 257 372 855 378 101 0 505 177
16 0 0 698 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 0 566 470 627 0 0 0 0 1,172
Total (ft) 12,521 197,620 44,284 7,923 1,191 197 3,103 505 43,562 ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 267
Sewer Analysis for the City of Piedmont Housing Element Update July 16, 2024
Technical Memorandum 3 of 21
approximate total of 12 acres. The number of lots that are developable is much smaller due to challenging terrain constraints.
The terms of the RHNA requires the City to develop 587 new units; however, the City’s HEU identifies a need for 652 additional units. This can be achieved through either a land use (LU) change or through a density bonus (accessory dwelling units added to an already residentially zoned property). Figure 2-3 shows these lots differentiated by density bonus or LU change. This analysis will consider the addition of 652 units as the minimum required.
Additionally, Senate Bill 9 (SB9) allows for additional development in the form of converting parking lots, gas stations, etc. into residential housing. These are not included in the 652 units identified by the City’s HEU; however, the lots are included in the 1,046 units buildout condition identified by the City.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 268
0200 4 1 Feet
EXISTING LAND USE
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE SEWER ANALYSIS
PIEDMONT, CA
JANUARY 2024
J:\Jobs\8585_Rincon\003_Piedmont Sewer Study\GIS\ArcGISPro\JN8585_Clean_DummyMegan\JN8585_Clean_DummyMegan.aprx(AMJ).aprx 1/17/2024 11:06 AM ajoven FIGURE 2-1
NORTH
Legend
Land Use
Estate Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Mixed Use and Commercial
Public Facilities
Single Family Residential
City Limits
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 269
Legend
2!! Manholes - Piedmont
!( Manholes - Oakland
Flow
!H Entering System
!H Leaving System
Sewer Main - Piedmont
4"
5"
6"
7"
8"
10"
12"
15"
16"
18"
Sewer Main - Oakland
City Limits
LandType
ER
MFR
MUC
PF
SFR
EXISTING SEWER
SYSTEM LAYOUT
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
SEWER ANALYSIS
PIEDMONT, CA
JANUARY 2024
J:\Jobs\8585_Rincon\003_Piedmont Sewer Study\GIS\ArcGISPro\JN8585_Clean_DummyMegan\JN8585_Clean_DummyMegan.aprx(AMJ).aprx 1/17/2024 11:09 AM ajoven FIGURE 2-2
NORTH
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
!
2!!
2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
! 2!! 2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!H
!H
!H
!H
!H
!H
!H
!H
!H
!H
!H
!H !H
!H
!H
!H
!H
!H
!H
!H
!H
!H !H
!H
!H
!H
!H
!H
!H
!H
!H
308-07
403-89
304-31
342-08A
440-17
423-24
331-74
331-59
404-31
331-21
430-20
331-07
423-71
340-40
316-29
432-86
432-06
308-52
441-21
430-04A
404-24
431-3A
432-52A
423-54
431-64
431-10
432-69
402-1A
343-09
352-67
434-47
331-47
341-22A
351-01
430-27
331-54
403-73A
403-46
422-31A
307-53
316-35
422-93A
352-38
422-21
341-08B
340-25
431-41
441-48
352-65
422-05
442-02A
304-1A
421-13
422-2A
330-21
402-45
352-32
308-28
343-07
431-76
441-58
350-24
433-01A
434-45
316-26
308-24
431-66
431-96
403-91
422-2C
340-28
405-58
308-25
440-12A
440-16
320-28
422-42
433-06
441-16
402-37
423-51
442-07
432-48
340-29
341-20A
440-07
342-02
402-39
422-19 423-27
404-80A
404-21A
316-28
341-12
431-31B
404-3A
316-10
422-64
432-89
422-87
431-34
441-30
403-64A
402-98
423-65
440-01
400-67B
351-41
308-54
420-3A
431-49A
404-25
403-62
434-33
341-47
404-38
404-33
316-59
420-06
423-42
341-04
405-64C
433-46
341-52
432-12
420-2B
402-81
422-92
422-09
420-03
422-07
310-50
441-57
341-1B
350-11
316-88
403-08
340-10
400-44
350-25
422-74
316-37
433-26
423-64
331-48
300-30
422-30A
320-31
441-08
351-05
316-77
402-30
307-76
404-94
430-20E
420-20B
352-41A
422-20
402-97
422-86
442-36
402-48
316-96
433-05
432-37A
310-49
404-39
442-10
403-03
343-31
422-51
432-04
405-68A
331-64
432-56A
430-23
433-39
405-69
422-25
432-30A
310-67
341-5A
434-46
422-89
403-72
430-29
441-18
405-70
420-14
442-16
307-59
431-06
441-51A
313-14
316-57
403-14
431-31
404-64
402-1B
431-44
403-21A
423-1E
308-26
340-17
331-25
404-79
341-1C
430-19
434-12
430-08
423-34
340-08
440-12
308-21
400-37
316-62
300-44
442-28
316-1B
434-27
404-92
440-02A
350-08
432-14A
343-39
403-36
331-92
431-48
404-20
403-76
441-83
432-09 423-49
310-48
342-49
423-16
331-70
420-04A
403-25
307-75
432-45A
340-32
431-46
352-77
423-75
351-16
352-27
431-50
310-65
441-70
352-02
420-3C
402-85
404-62
340-13
442-02
402-77
404-71
330-14
350-13
322-74
431-60A
422-71
400-60
403-18
402-92
404-26
441-97
441-33
316-13
331-57
400-58
341-4B
430-17
434-44
422-64A
431-74
423-35
331-72
423-42A
442-37
434-13
400-59
331-50
343-12
404-80
441-54
402-60A
400-57
405-07
316-07A
402-71
441-91
431-66A
432-91
433-46A
442-19
403-33
342-24
441-34 404-42
403-2A 423-13A
400-50
432-42
342-54
431-07
402-62
423-77
403-27
423-68
341-06
308-11
308-10
423-07
331-04
431-79
432-8A
430-30
402-87
422-43
405-47
331-26
316-53
307-58
402-76
404-04
316-83
331-71
432-22
422-4A
341-31
423-43
351-61
308-56
422-16A
404-43
331-4A
402-74
430-18
404-76A
330-24
404-3B
432-47
405-09
340-46
343-20
431-73
307-69
403-21
402-3B
316-50
441-64
400-52
421-14
403-38
331-34
351-19
420-01
341-48
341-2C
331-82
441-63
316-28A
403-79
433-28
405-2A
343-42
423-22
320-29
433-36
423-33
420-20A
403-64
331-20
400-26
400-27
423-62
421-03
403-82A
421-12
400-59A
422-44
404-13
316-24
432-7A
330-23
350-18
300-37
342-11
431-51
440-05
343-32
423-72
310-64
432-49A
432-82
432-60
313-53
343-34
403-2C
403-90
352-80
422-57
404-63
316-52
422-04
331-87
432-28
343-36
422-4B
316-43
433-04
300-42
441-56A
343-26
343-06
352-34
404-07
340-22
432-72
405-4B
400-28
308-51
316-2B
402-2A
403-66
316-44
308-32
442-12
432-2A
342-46A
421-18
403-56
423-45
430-32
422-48
350-19
342-01
421-1A
400-35
434-14
400-68A
351-21
433-01
350-15
308-60
422-1A
402-91
441-99
400-64
431-01
404-44A
352-67A
331-75
316-30
316-17A
431-40A
340-11
433-20
403-26
330-15
431-72
423-60
420-05
308-22
433-08
422-49
402-5A
342-18
423-31
310-61A
441-55
432-14
423-57
331-30
432-73
351-59 316-56
340-30B
433-14
423-53
343-49
422-3C
441-51
431-28
405-45
316-65
433-21
422-61
422-88
403-30A
433-10A
423-1D
403-69
405-44
431-90A
423-13
423-10
405-42
404-89
403-55
423-1A
405-60
341-34
316-85
300-27
316-70
350-29
404-48
404-16
343-45
405-52
423-17
442-34
432-86B
350-28
342-2B
442-21
422-79B
341-41
351-06
404-10
440-15
316-58
431-2A
351-11
402-75
352-31
431-49
316-17B
430-21
442-35
432-44
342-1A
405-08A
432-16
405-55
402-63
433-54
308-44
432-59
442-27
340-02
423-38
432-53
313-38A
402-31
400-50A
403-61
316-75
433-22
405-46
310-70
432-52C
403-65
442-05
403-07
316-10C
442-11
308-43
330-07
423-44
352-07
431-81
341-45
316-80
434-03
351-64
352-21
402-82
310-48A
400-43
405-08
402-65
342-98
420-1A
432-5A
341-08
432-15
400-74
402-70
431-86
431-11
434-42B
430-1C
431-45
402-47
352-63
433-27
422-17
331-53
420-22
422-03
431-1A
432-39
405-2B
308-30
308-55
420-3B
322-71
340-47
432-68
331-28
350-02
331-3A
341-36
ABND_DE1
431-13
422-98C
403-100
423-29
402-90
316-10A
340-08B
403-93
442-1C
307-68
316-32
330-11
342-50
340-1A
430-06
421-06
404-42A
402-41
405-57
422-75
405-08C
404-97
434-06
330-18
316-19
341-40A
422-66
400-76
441-43A
423-46A
308-47
420-13A
400-33
442-07A
441-98
430-10
423-74
441-13A
343-10
432-85
404-66A
343-15
405-04
307-52
341-35
352-06 330-18A
422-01
442-32
341-3C
432-01
316-32A
316-27A
307-84
434-41
442-33
404-04A
403-86
441-62A
434-59
441-65
434-09
400-61
432-3A
340-30A
404-65
307-64
400-26A
308-1B
433-37
352-08
405-50
403-87
432-26
404-92A
343-22
402-42
441-53
331-3B
422-13
322-72
431-23
420-12
432-60B
441-24A
423-23
352-03
441-04
400-22
316-3A
441-40
402-60
316-81
440-07A
430-29A
350-01
400-67
423-47
342-21A
404-45
442-14
432-62
433-24
420-21
307-82
341-30
351-58
433-55
442-26
423-15A
423-21A
352-36
316-05
421-15
402-54
352-79
422-11
310-62
431-02
405-01
330-25
422-35
431-32
316-68
342-20
405-34A
341-1D
440-13
422-5B
316-40
402-66
405-09A
404-36
433-43
432-33
331-55
352-15
422-14
402-1D
316-23
434-1B
433-38
343-05
331-65
403-60
441-78
431-89
316-48
431-69
316-11
422-96
308-31
422-93
307-85
331-85
351-29
412-29
330-05
350-23
341-13
431-57
431-90
432-1C
432-23
441-93
352-81
403-52
400-56
434-01
350-05
430-31
404-30
342-04
342-51
307-66
400-65
422-87B
432-40
441-101
404-53
422-65
420-12B
441-42
340-42
331-17
352-40 352-82
422-84
352-20
432-50
433-45
403-37
441-36B
430-20A
343-46
433-12
402-96
432-78
441-50
403-78
434-15
310-63
431-71
433-57
441-59
432-61
400-23
342-09
422-46
351-33
341-19
402-59A
434-43
340-09
405-35
330-10
403-24
316-47
322-73
313-55
316-71
343-44
432-52B
430-13
433-44
431-95
404-87
441-95
352-26
420-02
422-98B
433-51
342-19
308-2A
431-65A
420-04
432-49
422-94
431-2B
430-20F
423-32
431-18
430-04
420-18
422-10
310-44
441-03
431-69B
402-69
441-45
440-1A
343-19
402-72
441-26
331-1A
343-08
308-05
442-1A
421-08A
422-69
430-25
404-61
405-44A
421-05
405-40
350-22
316-34
402-80
342-97
422-32
433-23
404-61A
403-45
400-29
434-42A
440-20
422-59
403-51
343-41
340-19
403-30
441-27
404-44
343-13
423-6A
341-4C
340-50
352-78
341-44
442-06
430-20C
403-1B
403-75
404-02
431--56
422-12
434-20
422-79
431-87
343-47
430-21C
351-43
434-02
402-1H
350-16
351-27
331-29A
316-27
316-93
422-73
320-32
431-36
432-56
310-69
340-08A
431-58
404-86A
431-05
404-33A
352-25
422-81
441-74
403-83
442-18
352-60
341-39
431-92
430-15
404-2A
403-57
441-52
405-72
441-77
432-81
405-36
405-68
352-16
330-19
342-52
403-70
441-39
430-19A
405-09B
442-17
331-66
342-03
322-70
432-47A
431-83A
404-01
431-31A
423-55
310-46
400-38
422-78
343-16
434-32
423-51A
340-11A
430-05A
402-67
431-01A
405-10
431-85
404-70
316-94
343-35
440-03
405-37
316-45
432-08
423-08
352-50
431-88
400-30A
423-36
431-69C
351-30
308-39
423-37
308-13
431-46C
404-73
420-2A
420-10
434-37
308-23
442-09A
431-39
400-73
316-87
432-83
404-6A
341-40
340-45
316-41
432-41
432-58
432-19
423-47A
440-19
351-35
307-50
404-72
420-20
422-47
433-11
300-29
316-84
316-66
403-3C
432-45B
331-86
441-35A
307-65
422-76
432-76
352-66
404-50
316-08
403-88
331-77
308-33
441-81
432-79
433-03
340-44
434-38
441-92
441-12
403-10 420-19
402-1C
432-80
400-70
432-87
434-51
351-39
432-36
434-21
420-21A
420-08
433-10
351-24
423-61
300-2A
434-57
422-95
432-10
441-24
404-14
403-35A 422-16
430-20G
308-09
430-02
423-11
343-03A
405-3A
432-65
402-44
412-36
340-03
405-62
313-58
430-24
400-45
433-07
340-51
340-30
422-8A
300-28
351-14
405-67
316-90
431-04
340-08C
316-92
442-15
432-43A
433-48
307-70
422-54
402-3A
404-41
352-18
422-70
308-49
350-06
341-32
352-09
405-05
432-50A
331-69
423-14
442-13
308-14A
403-22
342-96
404-93
433-42
432-90
404-40
422-92A
430-20D
432-57B
331-06A
351-17
350-14
403-77
343-30
304-3A
422-54A
402-48A
404-21
316-38
352-64
403-28
434-29
423-59
313-56
431-89A
404-60
441-23
352-33
404-05
422-20A
342-1B
331-89
342-48
422-3B
316-98
423-18
441-86
422-27
405-39
404-27
420-23
422-56
343-11
307-67
330-17
441-31
422-47A
431-40
434-04
316-20
307-71
342-44
341-32A
343-28
351-25
441-87
442-25
304-33
421-16
307-61
343-02
352-62
402-78
431-3C
404-35
304-32
ABND1
423-20
331-29
442-01
442-23
405-66
432-70
350-04
404-77
304-30
432-71
434-34
308-1C
434-11
331-46
434-25
405-1B
341-24
432-63A
343-38
400-32
402-68
352-11
422-87A
431-03
441-06
431-62B
330-22
420-12A
402-99
351-10
351-46
352-41
423-4A
310-66
431-65B
331-05
403-67403-74
442-04
433-32
351-12
403-1A
404-09
431-38
430-12
300-39
404-31A
316-07
422-22
322-69
403-68 432-64
351-32
402-33
343-48
400-73A
352-47
431-47
441-72
400-47
316-12
350-09
351-42
340-27
434-17A
340-14
434-31
316-17C
431-62A
432-61A
308-59
441-43
423-19
422-41
342-15
432-37
423-69
421-09
308-24A
404-80B
434-10
422-29
441-02
331-51
431-52
352-52
350-12
441-66A
422-2B
421-01A
442-08
ABND4
331-03A
404-69
331-36
405-03
308-57
405-3B
423-21
320-30
304-36
403-47
405-64A
316-03
441-85
431-29
405-41
331-5B
352-29
421-02
400-51
423-74A
442-20
422-98D
431-21
423-16A
342-46
442-22
441-74A
402-57
316-76
304-2A
431-17
431-01B
316-86
442-01B
402-93
352-58
423-43A
352-57
316-18
350-21
441-15
441-35C
343-40
341-46
434-16
352-26A
307-77
316-79
352-19
434-17
405-11
441-96
434-53
342-21
307-72
352-39
343-14
404-03
432-11
341-5B
404-96
433-17
316-42
307-57
341-3A
422-83
422-41A
340-24
351-09
442-26A
352-05
342-05
432-03
350-2A
352-24
400-41
316-1A
403-61A
308-46
404-55
402-51
422-99
405-63
422-97
440-09
405-06
441-62
400-40
441-60
403-39
300-39A
404-90
343-27
434-22
433-31
422-77
422-98
316-14
433-30
432-46A
440-18
400-29A
404-03A
422-50A
422-1C
352-43
441-49
402-40
434-56
405-04A
313-38
434-19
316-16
431-33
313-60
442-1B
350-07
308-37
351-63
341-20
442-31
441-44
316-46
431-12
404-13A
420-15
307-54
350-20
402-73
403-31
423-73
402-1E
308-58
402-79A
441-32
351-03
331-90
402-35
341-3B
352-17
304-4A
441-17
430-17A
330-09
403-54
331-60
431-30
434-48
351-22
404-32
441-67
423-48
431-24
423-39
441-29
340-05
307-94
331-22
331-52
341-38
405-06A
441-19A
330-06
403-19
431-62
404-22
403-11
310-44A
404-06
316-4A
405-38
433-49
431-46B
308-29
441-09
442-09
423-03
432-25
341-49
432-1D
331-18
402-79B
404-23
402-32
400-46
351-23
307-81
402-50
441-19
405-03A
404-15
400-42
400-34
352-84
434-42
431-2D
420-09
422-52
403-53
403-41
422-06
441-71
404-37
440-06
434-30
421-08
432-41A
300-35
434-05
404-95
423-3A
422-26
441-13
432-20
404-12
405-07A
434-52
403-05
431-53
404-51
404-52
404-58
405-53
422-39
431-2C
423-66
441-56
403-82
313-54
442-01A
400-39
400-24
434-50
331-5A
430-28
402-34
352-44
403-50
404-68
403-63
ABND2
422-55
341-22
400-66
422-50
402-86
403-09
420-07
331-09A
404-24B
422-53
343-18
431-91
342-23
433-15
404-80C
404-28
422-63A
341-45A
430-14
412-37
402-79
431-93
441-66
404-11
404-70A
340-43
433-26A
434-35
423-52
432-63
420-2C
433-2F
310-61
432-77
341-50
432-38
433-02
430-09
431-16
423-67
400-62
331-76
404-66
423-40
402-27
432-60A
441-05
404-86
441-35
316-72
422-50B
402-56
403-85
404-18
431-67A
402-6A
404-84
432-22A
404-91
432-67
403-02
441-89
440-14
430-05B
404-5A
405-64
433-25
342-08
340-06
403-17
352-56
308-34
431-42
422-67
400-25
423-2B
307-60
310-60
404-75
402-94
422-02
402-49
331-31
340-48
404-57
403-92
431-59
432-21
352-55
400-30
433-53
403-84
331-35
352-30
340-35A
331-27 352-37
433-52
403-43
441-76
440-02
402-36
404-67
342-14
420-94
441-28
404-08
322-67
422-63
351-13
432-1B
304-6A
430-02A
351-20
422-7A
341-27
433-41
441-01
352-23
431-43
403-13
331-79
420-13
403-44
403-32
352-51
431-40B
442-29
433-29
423-02A
343-03
432-31
307-51
403-81
313-59
316-36
316-63
412-35
330-13
351-57
422-34
351-37
331-14
322-68
403-93A
432-1A
340-22A
331-78
341-2D
331-80
422-31
422-36
307-73
331-2A
430-16
431-25
442-24
403-12
310-68
441-90
341-42
434-07
352-13
405-49
432-54A
331-19
423-01 422-60
400-48
405-48
431-67
440-10
432-45
434-08
404-47
331-58
430-21A
331-16
405-64B
331-49
422-5C
307-56
400-68
351-02
434-39
422-40
300-45
403-71
331-73
403-48 432-43
400-69
422-1B
441-38
434-3A
402-58
421-04
351-38
351-45
432-84
422-80
403-58
431-15
402-79C
404-74
343-17
433-34
316-60
405-61
431-08
304-5A
432-66
441-69
300-32
432-1E
431-94
400-36 402-88
405-54
422-58
441-75
423-09
434-23
340-49
422-82
351-18
340-41
331-33
330-20
402-59
342-41
350-3A
431-77
431-75
433-33
350-17
405-88
403-80
341-10
405-56
342-42
423-5A
405-51
423-15
430-21B
402-28
352-86
403-01
432-75
433-47
404-17
341-51
434-49 403-40
400-66A
423-11A
341-35A
422-22A
351-31
340-44A
404-49
404-92B
405-34
423-05
423-41
402-52
441-41
432-57A
313-57
431-65
442-30
441-84
351-28
430-01
308-02
420-3D
404-76
352-85
433-18
331-88
423-01A
432-54
341-17
430-11
422-28
308-24B
405-43
400-63
440-08
316-51
423-63
433-40
423-02
342-42B
421-01
433-56
430-22
340-12
422-98A
432-46
433-19
420-16
351-14A
412-1A
404-46
422-24
423-48A
430-17B
316-06
402-53
316-49
441-98A
423-28
423-2A
404-54
420-17
431-55 423-46
404-4A
403-73
402-78A
330-08
422-68
331-32
431-46A
351-1B
403-34
331-08A
400-31
340-35
440-04
316-82
340-24A
431-83
441-25
351-04
331-08
350-27
422-44A
300-33
310-47
422-79A
422-30
316-01
308-48
402-90A
342-17
308-03
340-31
402-29
432-30
341-37
402-64
422-72
402-43
430-05
432-32
352-10
307-63
308-04
432-86A
405-08B
402-83
308-17
316-17
441-29A
432-55
352-54
352-28
316-89
441-46
340-26
431-68
340-34
430-26
422-6A
352-04
343-33
400-49
405-65
421-11
432-6A
403-21B
433-09
402-38
331-84
308-19
331-06
ABND3
431-54
351-26
340-33
350-10
402-46
316-15
308-14
352-48
421-17
441-73
432-07
434-28
316-24A
434-18
316-61
430-01A
316-91
422-45
307-83
313-52
404-83
423-50
442-03
403-04
400-28A
404-19
432-74
421-07
404-56
441-82
402-84
331-67
316-10B
331-61
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!H
!H
342-49
342-24
342-54
342-18
342-98
342-50 342-21A
342-20
342-51
342-19
342-97
342-52
341-40
342-96
342-44
342-15
342-21
342-23
342-14
351-38
342-41
342-42 342-42B
342-17
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 270
Legend
Proposed Change Type
Density Bonus
Land Use
0200 4 1 Feet
PROPOSED SITES FOR
DENSITY INCREASE OR
LAND USE CHANGE
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE SEWER ANALYSIS
PIEDMONT, CA
JANUARY 2024
J:\Jobs\8585_Rincon\003_Piedmont Sewer Study\GIS\ArcGISPro\JN8585_Clean_DummyMegan\JN8585_Clean_DummyMegan.aprx(AMJ).aprx 1/17/2024 11:11 AM ajoven FIGURE 2-3
NORTH
NOTE: THIS FIGURE SHOWS
THE 652 SITES
IDENTIFIED BY RINCON
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 271
Sewer Analysis for the City of Piedmont Housing Element Update July 16, 2024
Technical Memorandum 7 of 21
3.0 METHODOLOGY
The City provided their GIS files of the existing sewer collection system. The GIS files were imported into InfoSewer, the platform used to model the City’s system and determine available sewer capacity. A comparison of the City’s GIS data to record drawing information indicated data gaps existed, and data clean-up was required in order to develop the hydraulic model. As such, the City provided a LiDAR surface which was used to determine the rim elevation for each manhole.
A significant portion of the invert data was also missing from the GIS, however the GIS data included manhole depth. Therefore, the inverts were determined by subtracting the depth from the rim elevation obtained from the LiDAR. For simplicity, it was assumed that the invert coming into a manhole was the same as the invert going out (no drop across the manholes). All end-of-line cleanout manholes and lamp holes were removed from the model as these do not connect sewer main lines and typically are only used for maintenance purposes and do not have flow loading allocated to them.
The sewer system was then divided into tributary areas based on connectivity and outlet location from the City’s system. Fourteen (14) tributary areas were determined and are shown in Figure 3-1. Each tributary area was further broken down into Thiessen polygons around each manhole using geoprocessing tools in GIS. The Thiessen polygons are the basis of load allocation within the model which will be further discussed in the next section.
In order to determine an initial flow factor to load the model, the total number of dwelling units (DU) was divided by the total acreage of the City. This yielded 3.68 DU/acre. From there, Oakland flow factors (gallons per day (gpd) per DU) were multiplied to the 3.68 DU/acre to get a flow factor in gpd/acre for each land use type. Land use factors are summarized in Table 3-1. It is noted that these factors were only used for initial model loading purposes, and do not account for model calibration which will be discussed in Section 4-3. It should be noted that open space is omitted from this table as those areas do not produce additional generation.
Table 3-1: Summary of Demand Factors for Each Land Use
Land Use
Oakland
Demand
Factor
Model Loading
Demand Factor
(gpd/acre)
SFR 330 gpd/DU 1,213
MFR 250 gpd/DU 919
Commercial 100 gpd/ac 100
The City also provided recent flow data from a number of flow monitors (FM) located throughout the City. The flow data was collected over the course of several months in a different calendar years. The flow monitoring data was compared to the model flows allocated using the aforementioned flow factor, and adjustments were made within the model to better simulate the measured flow conditions. The flow monitor locations are shown in Figure 3-2.
The following section will discuss the model development and how the loads were determined and applied for each scenario.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 272
NORTH
TRIBUTARY AREAS
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE SEWER ANALYSIS
PIEDMONT, CA
JANUARY 2024
FIGURE 3-1
Legend
Number
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
City Limits
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 273
NORTH
FLOW MONITOR LOCATIONS
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE SEWER ANALYSIS
PIEDMONT, CA
JANUARY 2024
FIGURE 3-2
Legend
& Sewer Mains - Piedmont
2!! Manholes - Piedmont
Flow Monitor
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &&
&
& &
&
&&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
& & & & &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
& & &
&
&
&
& &
& &
&
& & &
&& &
& & &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&& & &
&& & &
& && &&
& & &
&
& &
&
&
&
& &
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&&&
&
&
&
&&
&&
&
&
&& &
&&
&
&
&&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&&
&
& &
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& & & &
&
&&
&
&& &
& &
&
& &
&
&
&& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&&
& & &
&
&&&
& &
& &
&&
&&&&&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&& &
&& &&
&
&
&
&
&& &
&&&
& &
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &&&&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
& & &
&
&
&
&
&&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
& & &&
&&
&
& &
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&&&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&&
&
&
&& &
&
&
&
&
& &&
&
&
&
&&
&
&&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
& &
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&& &&&
& & & &
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
& & &
&
&
& &&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
& &
&
&&
&
&&&
& & &
&&&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& & &&
&
&
&
&
&
&& & & & &
&
&&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
& & & &
&
& & & &
&
& &
&&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
& &&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&&&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&&
&
&&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&&&&&
&
& & &
&
&
& &
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
& & &
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&&
&
&&
&
&
&
&&&
&
&
&& &
&
&&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&&
&
&
&& &
&
& &&
&
&&
&
&
&& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
& &&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
& & & &
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
& &
&&&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&& &
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& & &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&& &
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
& &
&
&
& &
&
& &
&&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
& &
&
&&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&&
&
&
&
&
&&&
&
&&
&
& &&
&&
&&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
& &&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& & & &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&&
&
&
&&
&
& &
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
& && &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
& &
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
& & &
&
&&& &
&
&
&&
&
& & & &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
& &
&
&
&
& & &
&
& & &&
&
& &
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
& &&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
& &
&
& &
&
& &&
&
&&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& & &
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&&&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
! 2!!
2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
!
2!!
2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
PIE_0164A_010
PIE_0164A_008
PIE_0164A_007
PIE_0164A_004
PIE_0164A_009
PIE_0164A_005
PIE_0164A_002
PIE_0164A_001
PIE_0164A_003 PIE_0164A_006
PIE_0164A_006alt
PIE_0107_006
PIE_0107_001
PIE_0107_004
PIE_0107_003 PIE_0107_002
PIE_0107_005
PIE_0028B_001
PIE_0028B_002
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 274
Sewer Analysis for the City of Piedmont Housing Element Update July 16, 2024
Technical Memorandum 10 of 21
4.0 HYDRAULIC MODEL
InfoSewer Suite 7.6, SP1, Update #19 was used to model the sewer system. The purpose was to determine if there is existing capacity to accommodate sewer generated from additional development at the proposed sites. This will assist the City in defining a nexus of approval with conditions for where upsizing existing pipes will be required by future developers.
4.1 – Model Scenarios
In total, nine (9) different scenarios were modeled, with three (3) different flow conditions: average dry weather flow (ADWF), peak dry weather flow (PDWF), and peak wet weather flow (PWWF), analyzed under three (3) different buildout conditions. The model scenarios are steady state (not extended period simulations). The scenarios modeled are as follows:
1. Baseline Scenario – Existing Land Use (LU)
a. ADWF
b. PDWF
c. PWWF
2. Interim (preferred) Scenario – Existing LU plus 652 Units Developed a. ADWF
b. PDWF
c. PWWF
3. Maximum Buildout Scenario – Existing LU plus 1,046 Units Developed (652 Units + 394 Bonus Units) a. ADWF
b. PDWF
c. PWWF
Each of the 14 tributaries were modeled under all nine scenarios. However, two of the tributaries were very small, with only a few manholes collecting waste from the City (T4 and T14) and are not impacted by any of the proposed additional development areas. Therefore, their sheds were omitted from the model analysis as they had no effect on the system from a capacity analysis perspective.
4.2 – Initial Model Loading
The model was initially loaded using the flow factors discussed in Section 3.0. Each manhole has a Thiessen polygon drawn around it and encompassing the land uses adjacent to it. The area for each land use within the polygon was determined and multiplied by the appropriate flow factor to generate the flow projection. This process produced an initial flow condition to represent the Baseline Scenario – ADWF condition. The flows were further calibrated as discussed later in this section. See Figure 4-1 for the breakdown of Thiessen polygon and tributary areas.
4.3 – Model Calibration
In order to validate model accuracy, the model is calibrated to field measured conditions. The Baseline Scenario – ADWF condition was calibrated using the flow monitor data gathered by EBMUD and provided by the City. Flow monitor data was provided from the fall and winter months of 2016-2017 and 2022-2023. Based on historical rainfall data, the months of November 2016 and November 2022 were determined to be the closest to ADWF conditions as they had minimal recorded rainfall and had the lowest measured flows.
The calibration effort utilized the flow monitor(s) located closest to the outfalls into the Oakland system since they capture the majority of the wastewater flowing through the City. Each tributary area was calibrated individually if data was available. The flow monitor data was compared to the flow produced ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 275
Sewer Analysis for the City of Piedmont Housing Element Update July 16, 2024
Technical Memorandum 11 of 21
in the model at the corresponding location. The flow monitor data was divided by the model flow to produce a factor used to scale the model flow up or down to match actual measured conditions. For tributaries without any flow monitor data used the highest factor to produce a worst-case scenario. Table 4-1 summarizes the original and calibrated flows for the ADWF condition.
Table 4-1: Summary of Calibrated Flows for Existing Average Dry Weather Flow Tributary Flow Monitor ID Flow Monitor
Flow (gpm)
Model Flow
(gpm)
Adjust
Factor
Calibrated
Total Flow
(gpm)
1 PIE_0107_0011237.1 337.5 0.70 236.5
2 PIE_0164A_004, 005, 007, 0082262.2 229.3 1.14 261.5
3 - - - 2.52 5.1
5, 6, 7 PIE_0164A_0092 43.7 21.5 2.03 43.6
8 - - - 2.52 1.3
9 - - - 2.52 2.2
10 - 2.52 7.4
11 PIE_016A_010228.3 11.2 2.52 32.2
12 - - - 2.52 15.7
13 - - - 2.52 11.3
TOTAL 616.8
Notes:
1. Tributaries 4 and 14 were excluded from the analysis due to their small size and not having any additional flows being contributed.
2. The Adjustment Factor was applied to individual tributary areas. The calibrated total flow does account for the various adjustment factors from upstream tributaries. 1 FM data is from 2019
2 FM data is from 2022
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 276
NORTH
THIESSEN POLYGONS FOR
TRIBUTARY AREA LOADING
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE SEWER ANALYSIS
PIEDMONT, CA
JANUARY 2024
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
! 2!! 2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
!
2!!
2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &&
&
& &
&
&&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
& & & & &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
& & &
&
&
&
& &
& &
&
& & &
&& &
& & &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&& & &
&& & &
& && &&
& & &
&
& &
&
&
&
& &
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&&&
&
&
&
&&
&&
&
&
&& &
&&
&
&
&&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&&
&
& &
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& & & &
&
&&
&
&& &
& &
&
& &
&
&
&& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&&
& & &
&
&&&
& &
& &
&&
&&&&&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&& &
&& &&
&
&
&
&
&& &
&&&
& &
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &&&&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
& & &
&
&
&
&
&&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
& & &&
&&
&
& &
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&&&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&&
&
&
&& &
&
&
&
&
& &&
&
&
&
&&
&
&&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
& &
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&& &&&
& & & &
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
& & &
&
&
& &&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
& &
&
&&
&
&&&
& & &
&&&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& & &&
&
&
&
&
&
&& & & & &
&
&&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
& & & &
&
& & & &
&
& &
&&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
& &&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&&&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&&
&
&&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&&&&&
&
& & &
&
&
& &
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
& & &
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&&
&
&&
&
&
&
&&&
&
&
&& &
&
&&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&&
&
&
&& &
&
& &&
&
&&
&
&
&& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
& &&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
& & & &
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
& &
&&&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&& &
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& & &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&& &
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
& &
&
&
& &
&
& &
&&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
& &
&
&&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&&
&
&
&
&
&&&
&
&&
&
& &&
&&
&&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
& &&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& & & &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&&
&
&
&&
&
& &
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
& && &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
& &
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
& & &
&
&&& &
&
&
&&
&
& & & &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
& &
&
&
&
& & &
&
& & &&
&
& &
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
& &&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
& &
&
& &
&
& &&
&
&&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& & &
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&&&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
FIGURE 4-1
Legend
& Sewer Mains - Piedmont
2!! Manholes - Piedmont
Land Use
Estate Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Mixed Use and Commercial
Public Facilities
Single Family Residential
Thiessen Polygons
T1
T2
T3
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
City Limits
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 277
Sewer Analysis for the City of Piedmont Housing Element Update July 16, 2024
Technical Memorandum 13 of 21
Once the Baseline - ADWF condition was calibrated, the flows were peaked according to the Oakland peaking factor (PF) formula:
= 1 +
14 4 + (
1000)/ , ℎ 3.75 ≥ ≥ 2.00
This Oakland PF formula yielded a PF of 2.91. The ADWF flows were multiplied by the PF to determine the loading for the Baseline - PDWF scenario. The model output results were then compared to the maximum measured flow from November 2022 for each flow monitor. Based on the peak flow data from November 2022, it was determined that the Baseline – PDFW flows in the model should be multiplied by an additional 1.9 to simulate FM data more closely. Table 4-2 summarizes the calibrated flows for the Baseline - PDWF scenario.
Table 4-2: Summary of Calibrated Flows for Existing Peak Dry Weather Flow Tributary Flow Monitor ID Flow Monitor
Flow (gpm)
Model Flow
(gpm)
Adjust
Factor3
Calibrated Total
Flow (gpm)
1 - - - 1.90 1,307.6
2 PIE_0164A_004, 005, 007,
008 2435.4 929.9 2.62 2,445.6
3 - - - 1.90 28.2
5, 6, 7 PIE_0164A_009 263.2 137.5 1.90 240.8
8 - - - 1.90 7.0
9 - - - 1.90 12.2
10 - - - 1.90 41.1
11 PIE_016A_010 147.2 82.6 1.78 178.2
12 - - - 1.90 87.1
13 - - - 1.90 71.9
TOTAL 3,419.7
Notes:
1. Tributaries 4 and 14 were excluded from the analysis due to their small size and not having any additional flows being contributed.
2. The Adjustment Factor was applied to individual tributary areas. The calibrated total flow does account for the various adjustment factors from upstream tributaries.
The Baseline – PWWF scenario was initially loaded by adding the projected inflow and infiltration (I/I) flows to the Baseline – PDWF condition. The I/I flows were determined utilizing the City of Oakland standard of 1,000 gpd/acre. I/I was allocated evenly to all manholes. It was determined that the January 2023 flow monitor data represented peak rainfall conditions. The model output flow was calibrated by comparing it to the maximum flow measured during the month of January 2023 for each flow monitor.
The allocated flows were then adjusted by a corresponding peaking factor to achieve a calibrated flow condition. Table 4-3 summarizes the calibrated flow condition for the Baseline – PWWF scenario.
It is noted that the flows coming into the City from the City of Oakland could not be determined based on the available flow monitoring data, however it is known that there are flows generated from outside 3 All sheds were multiplied by 1.9 in addition to the PF of 2.91. Different factors are shown here but the 1.9 was chosen because it was the worst-case scenario.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 278
Sewer Analysis for the City of Piedmont Housing Element Update July 16, 2024
Technical Memorandum 14 of 21
the City captured in the flow data. Therefore, the flows allocated directly into the City manholes in the model account for the measured flows generated outside of the City.
Table 4-3: Summary of Calibrated Flows for Existing Peak Wet Weather Flow Tributary Flow Monitor ID Flow Monitor
Flow (gpm)
Model Flow
(gpm)
Adjust
Factor
Calibrated
Total Flow
(gpm)
1 - - - 3.30 2,728.8
2 PIE_0164A_004, 005,
007, 008 3172.2 1328.5 2.39 3175.2
3 - - - 3.30 98.5
5, 6, 7 PIE_0164A_009 851.4 273.3 3.11 850.5
8 - - - 3.30 28.7
9 - - - 3.30 44
10 - - - 3.30 142.9
11 PIE_016A_010 581.9 176.4 3.30 672.0
12 - - - 3.30 318.4
13 - - - 3.30 220.7
TOTAL 7,635.8
Notes:
1. Tributaries 4 and 14 were excluded from the analysis due to their small size and not having any additional flows being contributed.
2. The Adjustment Factor was applied to individual tributary areas. The calibrated total flow does account for the various adjustment factors from upstream tributaries.
It should be noted that the calibrated flow for all scenarios includes the flow coming into the Piedmont system from Oakland.
4.4 – Future Scenario Model Loading
The additional flows anticipated under the interim and buildout ADWF condition were calculated using the City of Oakland flow factor for the SFR and MFR land use condition depending on the proposed density. The additional flows are summarized in Table 4-4. It should be noted that flows summarized in Table 4-4 were further adjusted within the model based upon the previously determined calibration adjustment factors for each tributary area, as shown in Tables 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3.
Table 5-4: Summary of Additional ADWF
Future
Scenario
Land
Use
Add’l
Units
(DUs)
Flow
Factor
(gpd/DU)
Add’l. Flow
(gpd)
Add’l.
Flow
(gpm)
Interim SFR 54 330 17,820 12.4
MFR 598 250 149,500 103.8
Buildout SFR 394 330 130,020 90.3
The additional ADWF were allocated to the model by adding the flows to the manholes on the frontage of the property or to the nearest manhole (shown in Figure 4-2).
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 279
Sewer Analysis for the City of Piedmont Housing Element Update July 16, 2024
Technical Memorandum 15 of 21
Table 4-5 summarizes the flows for each scenario and condition and will be further broken down in the following section talking about the calibration process.
Table 6-5: Summary of Allocated Model Demands
Scenario
Flow (gpm)
Existing
(Baseline) Interim [1] Buildout [1]
ADWF 616.8 875.8 1,041.6
PDWF 3,419.7 4,842.2 5,759.1
PWWF 7,635.8 12,276.3 14,185.9
[1] Total flows shown here are the total flows allocated within the hydraulic model after the calibration process.
4.5 – Model Analysis Results
Each of the scenarios was analyzed in the model to evaluate the available capacity. The focus of the model analysis was to analyze the change in capacity from the existing (Baseline) condition to interim and buildout conditions. The model was analyzed using the City of Oakland sewer design criteria which is summarized in Table 4-6 below.
Table 4-6: Summary of Design Criteria
Design
Criteria Standard
Velocity Minimum of 2 feet per second.
Shall not exceed 10 feet per second.
Inside
Diameter
Minimum of 8 inches for sanitary sewer.
Minimum of 4 inches for house/building
connection.
d/D
≤ 0.7 for mains less than 15” in diameter
≤ 1.0 for mains greater than or equal to 15”
diameter
Roughness
Coefficient
The greater of 0.013 or the pipe manufacturer's
design recommendation.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 280
Legend
Proposed Change Type
Density Bonus
Land Use
& Sewer Mains - Piedmont
2!!
Loading Manholes
0200 4 1 Feet
LOADING MANHOLES
FOR THE INTERIM CONDITION
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE SEWER ANALYSIS
PIEDMONT, CA
JANUARY 2024
J:\Jobs\8585_Rincon\003_Piedmont Sewer Study\GIS\ArcGISPro\JN8585_Clean_DummyMegan\JN8585_Clean_DummyMegan.aprx(AMJ).aprx 1/18/2024 2:37 PM ajoven FIGURE 4-2
NORTH
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &&
&
& &
&
&&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
& & & & &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
& & &
&
&
&
& &
& &
&
& &
&& & &
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&& & &
&& & &
& && & &
& & &
&
& &
&
&
&
& &
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
& & &
&&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
& & &
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& & & &
&
&&
&
&& &
& &
&
& &
&
&
&& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&&
& & &
&
& &&
& &
& &
&&
&&&&&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&& &
&& &&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
& &
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &&& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
& & &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
& & & &
&&
&
& &
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&&&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
& &
&
&
&& &
&
&
&
&
& &&
&
&
&
&&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
& &
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& & &&&
& & & &
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
& & &
&
&
& &&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& & &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&&
&
&
&&
&
& &
&&&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
& &&
&
&
&
&
&
&& & & &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
& & & &
&
& & &
&
&
& &
&&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&&&&&&
&
& &
&
&
&
& &
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
& & &
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
& &
&
&&
&
&
&
&&&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&& &
&
& &&
&
&&
&
&
&& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
& & & &
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
& &
&&&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& & &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&& &
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
& &
&
&
& &
&
& &
&&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
& &
&
&&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&&
&
&
&
&
& &&
&
&&
&
& &&
&&
&&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
& &&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& & & &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&&
&
&
&&
&
& &
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
& && &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
& &
&
&
&
& &
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& & &
&
& && &
&
&
&&
& &
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& & &&
&
& &
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
& &&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
& &&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& & &
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&&&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
! 2!! 2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
! 2!! 2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
340-40
430-27 403-46
422-2C
340-28
340-29
402-39
316-28
341-1B
316-37
340-32
352-02
341-4B
342-24
403-2A
423-77
343-20
341-48
330-23
432-82
300-42
405-4B
400-64
342-18
340-30B
405-45
405-44
405-42
423-1A
405-08
405-2B
432-68
341-40A
434-41
322-72
423-47
432-62
402-54
434-1B
400-65
352-82
402-96
402-59A
405-35
313-55
404-87
343-19
405-40
316-34
320-32
404-86A
352-60
352-16
340-11A
402-1C
432-65
402-44
340-03
300-28
350-06
304-3A
402-48A
352-64
405-39
405-1B
330-22
422-22
432-64
402-33
340-27
308-24A
405-3B
405-64A
405-41
405-11
316-42
316-1A
300-39A
404-90
403-11
310-44A
405-53
313-54
400-66
404-28
341-45A
432-63
310-61
341-50
402-27
403-02
342-08
340-35A
430-02A
402-28
400-66A
405-34
308-48
340-31
402-43
340-26
340-34
434-18
307-83
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 281
Sewer Analysis for the City of Piedmont Housing Element Update July 16, 2024
Technical Memorandum 17 of 21
5.0 CAPACITY RESULTS
The model results reported herein focus on the pipeline capacity in the PWWF scenarios. A pipeline is considered deficient if it exceeds the d/D criteria identified in Table 4-6. The hydraulic model evaluation determined that there are 30 pipe segments that are deficient under the existing PWWF condition, 26 additional pipe segments that become deficient due the interim development condition, and an additional 5 segments under the ultimate buildout condition. The location of these pipe segments is shown on Figures 5-1 to 5-3, and the tabular model results are included as an Attachment.
It is noted that the hydraulic model was developed based upon the best available information and was not constructed based upon survey or GPS data. It is recommended that the City monitor the 30 pipe segments that were found to be deficient in the existing PWWF condition. As new development is proposed, the City should require a detailed analysis of the downstream sewer collection as a condition for development approval. The detailed analysis should include as built and survey verification of sewer manhole invert elevations, pipe slopes, and pipe diameter. In some cases, localized flow monitoring may be required to verify existing flow conditions.
Additionally, all proposed development projects greater than four (4) housing units will be required to complete a project-specific sewer capacity evaluation as described in the introduction of this report.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 282
FIGURE 5-1
NORTH
PIPES EXCEEDING CRITERIA
(EXISTING PWWF CONDITION)
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE SEWER ANALYSIS
PIEDMONT, CA
JANUARY 2024
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
! 2!!
2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
! 2!! 2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
! 2!!
2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
! 2!!
2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
350-11
400-22
350-05
400-23
308-2A
350-06
350-04
350-09
340-27
331-03A
316-16
331-09A
308-03
308-04
340-26
350-10
316-15
Legend
2!! Manholes - Piedmont
Existing d/D
d/D < 0.7
d/D > 0.7
NOTE: ALL PIPES WITH VIOLATIONS
HAVE A DIAMETER LESS THAN 15"
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 283
FIGURE 5-2
PIPES EXCEEDING CRITERIA
(INTERIM PWWF CONDITION)
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE SEWER ANALYSIS
PIEDMONT, CA
JANUARY 2024
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
! 2!!
2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
! 2!! 2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
! 2!!
2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
400-44
350-08
442-02
316-13
442-19
400-64
316-17B
400-50A
400-43
400-22
350-05
400-65
400-23
308-2A
405-37
308-33
400-45
422-70
350-06
442-01
350-04
350-09
340-27
331-03A
316-14
316-16
313-60
405-38
313-54
331-09A
308-34
313-59
400-66A
405-34
440-08
308-04
340-26
400-49
NORTH
NOTE: ALL PIPES WITH VIOLATIONS
HAVE A DIAMETER LESS THAN 15"
Legend
2!! Manholes - Piedmont
Interim d/D
d/D < 0.7
d/D > 0.7
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 284
FIGURE 5-3
PIPES EXCEEDING CRITERIA
(BUILDOUT PWWF CONDITION)
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE SEWER ANALYSIS
PIEDMONT, CA
JANUARY 2024
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
! 2!!
2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
! 2!! 2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
! 2!!
2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
308-52
442-02A
400-44
350-08
316-13
320-29
308-51
400-64
316-17A
400-43
430-1C
405-08C
307-52
400-61
400-22
405-34A
350-05
400-23
313-55
308-2A
422-69
404-2A
307-50
308-33
350-06
442-01
350-04
400-47
350-09
340-27
316-17C
320-30
316-14
316-16
313-60
405-38
313-54
442-01A
331-09A
400-62
402-56
308-34
307-51
440-10
400-66A
440-08
308-03
308-04
316-17
340-26
316-15
NORTH
NOTE: ALL PIPES WITH VIOLATIONS
HAVE A DIAMETER LESS THAN 15"
Legend
2!! Manholes - Piedmont
Buildout d/D
d/D < 0.7
d/D > 0.7
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 285
Sewer Analysis for the City of Piedmont Housing Element Update July 16, 2024
Technical Memorandum 21 of 21
ATTACHMENTS
HYDRAULIC MODEL RESULTS (PWWF SCENARIOS)
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 286
ID Upstream MH Downstream MH Diameter Length Slope Existing d/D Interim d/D Buildout d/D 400-23+400-22 400-23 400-22 10 251.275 0.021 0.793 1 1
400-24+400-23 400-24 400-23 18 357.739 0.021 0.301 0.562 0.601 400-25+400-24 400-25 400-24 18 298.489 0.023 0.288 0.53 0.566 400-26+400-26A 400-26 400-26A 18 59.276 0.017 0.283 0.54 0.575 400-26A+400-76 400-26A 400-76 18 165.347 0.022 0.269 0.506 0.538 400-27+400-26 400-27 400-26 18 198.277 0.026 0.252 0.474 0.502 400-28+400-28A 400-28 400-28A 18 119.43 0.025 0.25 0.476 0.503 400-28A+400-27 400-28A 400-27 18 247.814 0.017 0.278 0.533 0.567 400-29+400-29A 400-29 400-29A 12 220.574 0.049 0.214 0.465 0.489 400-29A+400-28 400-29A 400-28 12 85.805 0.064 0.201 0.432 0.454 400-30+400-29 400-30 400-29 12 208.098 0.05 0.212 0.463 0.487 400-30A+400-30 400-30A 400-30 12 143.772 0.06 0.202 0.438 0.46 400-31+400-30A 400-31 400-30A 10 142.634 0.123 0.215 0.47 0.494 400-32+400-31 400-32 400-31 10 140.751 0.124 0.21 0.466 0.489 400-33+400-32 400-33 400-32 12 61.5 0.033 0.227 0.513 0.539 400-34+400-33 400-34 400-33 12 30.795 0.044 0.211 0.472 0.495 400-35+400-34 400-35 400-34 10 199.288 0.144 0.2 0.444 0.465 400-36+400-35 400-36 400-35 10 134.262 0.123 0.206 0.464 0.486 400-37+400-36 400-37 400-36 10 190.21 0.101 0.215 0.49 0.514 400-38+400-37 400-38 400-37 10 240.755 0.05 0.254 0.606 0.639 400-39+400-38 400-39 400-38 12 43.929 0.049 0.199 0.453 0.474 400-40+400-39 400-40 400-39 10 190.13 0.069 0.232 0.546 0.573 400-41+400-40 400-41 400-40 10 192.236 0.083 0.219 0.514 0.538 400-42+400-41 400-42 400-41 12 157.347 0.035 0.183 0.472 0.49 400-43+400-42 400-43 400-42 15 240.488 0.006 0.211 0.567 0.59 400-44+400-43 400-44 400-43 12 285.746 0.002 0.346 1 1
400-45+400-44 400-45 400-44 12 41.175 0.058 0.153 0.405 0.419 400-45+442-03 400-45 442-03 8 239.881 0.108 0.23 0.608 0.628 400-46+400-45 400-46 400-45 12 120.07 0.078 0.202 0.541 0.56 400-47+400-46 400-47 400-46 8 157.824 0.015 0.557 1 1
400-48+400-47 400-48 400-47 12 154.072 0.016 0.246 1 1
400-49+400-48 400-49 400-48 12 177.887 0.001 0.473 1 1
400-50+400-50A 400-50 400-50A 12 44.788 0.07 0.168 0.526 0.538 400-50A+400-49 400-50A 400-49 12 281.243 0.021 0.228 1 1 400-51+400-50 400-51 400-50 12 281.034 0.076 0.162 0.51 0.521 400-52+400-51 400-52 400-51 10 35.728 0.037 0.246 1 1
400-56+400-52 400-56 400-52 12 400.798 0.049 0.169 0.578 0.591 400-57+400-56 400-57 400-56 12 105.31 0.074 0.149 0.508 0.518 400-58+400-57 400-58 400-57 12 207.125 0.06 0.157 0.54 0.551 400-59+400-59A 400-59 400-59A 12 9.571 0.051 0.158 0.565 0.575 400-59A+400-58 400-59A 400-58 12 115.082 0.051 0.16 0.566 0.577 400-60+400-59 400-60 400-59 12 62.394 0.053 0.156 0.56 0.57 400-62+400-60 400-62 400-60 12 110.789 0.042 0.156 0.592 0.602 400-64+400-62 400-64 400-62 12 577.678 0.026 0.175 0.698 0.712 400-65+400-64 400-65 400-64 8 177.23 0.03 0.284 1 1
400-66+400-66A 400-66 400-66A 8 56.975 0.04 0.248 1 1
400-66A+400-65 400-66A 400-65 8 284.781 0.021 0.309 1 1 400-67B+400-66 400-67B 400-66 8 238.018 0.076 0.15 0.21 0.228 400-68+400-67B 400-68 400-67B 8 87.992 0.083 0.143 0.201 0.218 400-68A+400-68 400-68A 400-68 6 48.521 0.488 0.023 0.03 0.036 400-69+400-68 400-69 400-68 8 205.738 0.067 0.142 0.204 0.22 400-73A+400-69 400-73A 400-69 8 362.879 0.072 0.137 0.198 0.213 400-76+400-25 400-76 400-25 18 259.642 0.027 0.255 0.475 0.504 402-1a+402-35 402-1A 402-35 6 286.46 0.046 0.078 0.09 0.101 402-1B+402-46 402-1B 402-46 8 291.826 0.062 0.204 0.261 0.285 402-1C+402-39 402-1C 402-39 8 229.062 0.101 0.022 0.084 0.086 402-1D+402-34 402-1D 402-34 8 53.93 0.016 0.126 0.138 0.149 402-1E+402-37 402-1E 402-37 6 281.676 0.098 0.053 0.066 0.076 402-27+400-22 402-27 400-22 8 50.242 0.07 0.027 0.088 0.092 402-28+402-27 402-28 402-27 6 542.546 0.024 0.028 0.125 0.13 402-29+400-24 402-29 400-24 8 47.962 0.083 0.124 0.235 0.245 402-2A+402-54 402-2A 402-54 6 156.004 0.048 0.066 0.074 0.08 402-31+402-29 402-31 402-29 8 95.568 0.136 0.107 0.205 0.214 402-32+402-31 402-32 402-31 8 41.16 0.033 0.072 0.22 0.223 402-33+402-32 402-33 402-32 8 379.819 0.013 0.071 0.271 0.272 402-34+402-31 402-34 402-31 8 155.817 0.204 0.083 0.12 0.129 402-35+402-1D 402-35 402-1D 8 426.424 0.005 0.104 0.124 0.14 ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 287
ID Upstream MH Downstream MH Diameter Length Slope Existing d/D Interim d/D Buildout d/D 402-36+402-1A 402-36 402-1A 6 442.801 0.018 0.042 0.06 0.072 402-37+402-34 402-37 402-34 8 490.325 0.044 0.067 0.134 0.144 402-38+402-37 402-38 402-37 6 287.498 0.039 0.063 0.176 0.185 402-39+402-38 402-39 402-38 8 149.192 0.053 0.035 0.109 0.113 402-3A+402-58 402-3A 402-58 8 20.831 0.055 0.107 0.141 0.155 402-3B+402-3A 402-3B 402-3A 6 215.006 0.091 0.024 0.038 0.047 402-41+402-1E 402-41 402-1E 6 259.928 0.063 0.03 0.044 0.053 402-42+400-25 402-42 400-25 8 42.519 0.052 0.256 0.367 0.397 402-43+402-42 402-43 402-42 8 158.861 0.027 0.3 0.435 0.472 402-44+402-43 402-44 402-43 8 144.23 0.058 0.031 0.104 0.106 402-45+402-43 402-45 402-43 8 207.861 0.04 0.269 0.345 0.378 402-46+402-45 402-46 402-45 8 37.387 0.049 0.25 0.322 0.352 402-48A+402-46 402-48A 402-46 6 86.951 0.216 0.04 0.09 0.093 402-51+402-1B 402-51 402-1B 8 291.113 0.051 0.211 0.27 0.295 402-52+402-51 402-52 402-51 8 225.371 0.027 0.239 0.311 0.341 402-53+402-52 402-53 402-52 8 63.535 0.044 0.21 0.272 0.297 402-54+402-53 402-54 402-53 6 421.646 0.135 0.055 0.108 0.114 402-56+402-53 402-56 402-53 8 114.736 0.101 0.164 0.203 0.222 402-57+402-56 402-57 402-56 8 125.864 0.053 0.112 0.149 0.165 402-58+402-57 402-58 402-57 8 194.921 0.032 0.124 0.164 0.182 402-59+402-59A 402-59 402-59A 6 284.41 0.081 0.043 0.059 0.071 402-59A+402-3A 402-59A 402-3A 6 110.076 0.074 0.086 0.131 0.14 402-60+402-59 402-60 402-59 6 29.719 0.022 0.045 0.061 0.072 402-62+402-3A 402-62 402-3A 8 56.406 0.019 0.1 0.118 0.132 402-63+402-62 402-63 402-62 6 380.152 0.05 0.104 0.122 0.137 402-64+402-63 402-64 402-63 6 18.895 0.143 0.071 0.083 0.093 402-66+402-6A 402-66 402-6A 6 226.424 0.015 0.076 0.087 0.097 402-6A+402-64 402-6A 402-64 6 419.652 0.027 0.098 0.111 0.122 402-70+402-71 402-70 402-71 6 166.047 0.017 0.198 0.203 0.207 402-71+402-91 402-71 402-91 6 151.432 0.091 0.142 0.149 0.156 402-72+402-71 402-72 402-71 6 155.264 0.007 0.068 0.086 0.1 402-76+402-46 402-76 402-46 8 59.481 0.064 0.112 0.126 0.138 402-78+402-78A 402-78 402-78A 6 141.121 0.058 0.154 0.171 0.186 402-78A+402-76 402-78A 402-76 6 123.64 0.008 0.265 0.297 0.325 402-79+402-79A 402-79 402-79A 6 71.332 0.081 0.069 0.08 0.089 402-79A+402-79B 402-79A 402-79B 6 38.398 0.009 0.156 0.177 0.195 402-79B+402-79C 402-79B 402-79C 6 105.418 0.021 0.172 0.189 0.204 402-79C+402-78 402-79C 402-78 6 170.921 0.091 0.125 0.14 0.152 402-80+402-79 402-80 402-79 6 294.772 0.03 0.044 0.058 0.068 402-81+402-56 402-81 402-56 6 182.067 0.002 0.522 0.653 0.732 402-82+402-81 402-82 402-81 6 23.804 0.036 0.247 0.295 0.318 402-83+402-82 402-83 402-82 6 137.141 0.134 0.019 0.033 0.042 402-86+402-82 402-86 402-82 6 250.715 0.003 0.458 0.568 0.622 402-87+402-86 402-87 402-86 6 150.405 0.073 0.17 0.187 0.201 402-88+402-87 402-88 402-87 6 103.723 0.147 0.141 0.153 0.163 402-91+402-90 402-91 402-88 6 208.348 0.019 0.216 0.234 0.25 402-92+402-91 402-92 402-91 6 119.469 0.027 0.028 0.048 0.061 402-93+402-86 402-93 402-86 6 52.987 0.022 0.083 0.152 0.161 402-96+402-93 402-96 402-93 6 182.526 0.059 0.032 0.103 0.107 402-99+402-42 402-99 402-42 6 283.966 0.034 0.038 0.053 0.064 403-01+400-23 403-01 400-23 10 68.087 0.015 0.062 0.093 0.109 403-02+403-01 403-02 403-01 10 78.001 0.023 0.05 0.078 0.091 403-03+403-02 403-03 403-02 10 262.328 0.022 0.043 0.063 0.077 403-04+403-03 403-04 403-03 6 229.62 0.037 0.063 0.094 0.116 403-05+403-04 403-05 403-04 6 205.899 0.106 0.044 0.064 0.079 403-07+403-05 403-07 403-05 6 161.478 0.039 0.044 0.066 0.081 403-08+403-07 403-08 403-07 6 129.907 0.126 0.027 0.038 0.046 403-10+400-23 403-10 400-23 8 25.263 0.047 0.128 0.176 0.189 403-11+403-10 403-11 403-10 6 150.737 0.029 0.161 0.248 0.263 403-13+403-11 403-13 403-11 6 199.418 0.028 0.156 0.176 0.193 403-14+403-13 403-14 403-13 6 275.143 0.025 0.155 0.173 0.187 403-17+403-10 403-17 403-10 8 357.103 0.09 0.067 0.075 0.082 403-18+403-17 403-18 403-17 8 347.371 0.104 0.061 0.066 0.071 403-19+403-18 403-19 403-18 8 144.104 0.065 0.016 0.027 0.034 403-1A+403-24 403-1A 403-24 6 201.878 0.021 0.051 0.077 0.094 403-1B+403-90 403-1B 403-90 6 159.929 0.015 0.039 0.059 0.073 403-21+403-14 403-21 403-14 6 286.169 0.025 0.101 0.12 0.136 ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 288
ID Upstream MH Downstream MH Diameter Length Slope Existing d/D Interim d/D Buildout d/D 403-21A+403-21B 403-21A 403-21B 6 115.613 0.155 0.034 0.043 0.049 403-21B+403-21 403-21B 403-21 6 236.013 0.168 0.055 0.064 0.072 403-24+400-26A 403-24 400-26A 6 44.069 0.119 0.108 0.138 0.16 403-25+403-24 403-25 403-24 6 80.178 0.088 0.101 0.128 0.149 403-26+403-25 403-26 403-25 6 190.912 0.138 0.072 0.091 0.106 403-27+403-25 403-27 403-25 6 94.21 0.115 0.058 0.069 0.078 403-28+403-27 403-28 403-27 8 261.227 0.131 0.029 0.034 0.038 403-2A+400-26 403-2A 400-26 6 396.649 0.054 0.117 0.159 0.175 403-2C+403-37 403-2C 403-37 6 201.391 0.021 0.046 0.061 0.073 403-30+403-2A 403-30 403-2A 6 292.903 0.122 0.069 0.09 0.106 403-30A+403-30 403-30A 403-30 6 131.466 0.004 0.056 0.082 0.099 403-31+403-30 403-31 403-30 6 48.359 0.08 0.063 0.081 0.094 403-32+403-31 403-32 403-31 6 140.495 0.128 0.043 0.057 0.067 403-33+403-32 403-33 403-32 6 61.873 0.06 0.033 0.046 0.055 403-34+400-27 403-34 400-27 6 163.436 0.059 0.052 0.061 0.068 403-37+400-26 403-37 400-26 6 49.481 0.087 0.065 0.076 0.085 403-39+400-28 403-39 400-28 6 47.031 0.032 0.13 0.204 0.218 403-40+403-39 403-40 403-39 6 121.098 0.065 0.105 0.166 0.176 403-41+403-40 403-41 403-40 6 211.727 0.094 0.088 0.144 0.151 403-44+403-41 403-44 403-41 6 151.396 0.16 0.063 0.117 0.121 403-46+403-44 403-46 403-44 6 97.707 0.079 0.067 0.131 0.134 403-48+400-28 403-48 400-28 8 89.567 0.048 0.091 0.108 0.122 403-50+403-48 403-50 403-48 8 261.572 0.107 0.073 0.086 0.096 403-51+403-50 403-51 403-50 8 197.699 0.131 0.058 0.07 0.079 403-52+403-51 403-52 403-51 6 134.717 0.125 0.065 0.079 0.09 403-53+403-52 403-53 403-52 6 133.236 0.019 0.045 0.061 0.073 403-54+403-52 403-54 403-52 6 82.214 0.09 0.048 0.055 0.062 403-56+403-51 403-56 403-51 8 106.613 0.149 0.03 0.035 0.039 403-57+400-28A 403-57 400-28A 6 41.828 0.123 0.102 0.12 0.134 403-58+403-57 403-58 403-57 6 276.292 0.078 0.088 0.109 0.125 403-60+403-58 403-60 403-58 6 236.132 0.125 0.066 0.084 0.097 403-61A+403-60 403-61A 403-60 6 217.363 0.057 0.076 0.093 0.107 403-64+400-29 403-64 400-29 6 368.877 0.034 0.044 0.057 0.067 403-66+400-31 403-66 400-31 6 36.965 0.143 0.079 0.09 0.099 403-67+403-66 403-67 403-66 6 149.187 0.018 0.107 0.122 0.134 403-68+403-67 403-68 403-67 6 203.964 0.057 0.076 0.083 0.088 403-69+400-32 403-69 400-32 8 78.646 0.015 0.045 0.063 0.075 403-70+403-69 403-70 403-69 6 220.971 0.154 0.032 0.041 0.048 403-73+400-34 403-73 400-34 6 24.534 0.064 0.053 0.061 0.068 403-82+403-85 403-82 403-85 6 39.498 0.018 0.059 0.073 0.083 403-85+403-26 403-85 403-26 6 258.573 0.057 0.084 0.104 0.12 403-88+403-1A 403-88 403-1A 6 228.194 0.021 0.043 0.06 0.071 403-90+403-61A 403-90 403-61A 6 87.146 0.011 0.105 0.124 0.139 403-93+403-93A 403-93 403-93A 6 24.242 0.078 0.023 0.038 0.048 403-93A+403-85 403-93A 403-85 6 44.466 0.07 0.059 0.073 0.084 404-01+400-41 404-01 400-41 10 27.205 0.069 0.119 0.149 0.167 404-03A+404-01 404-03A 404-01 6 310.858 0.09 0.066 0.072 0.077 404-04A+404-01 404-04A 404-01 6 115.602 0.093 0.202 0.259 0.293 404-06+404-04A 404-06 404-04A 8 235.355 0.099 0.135 0.172 0.193 404-08+404-06 404-08 404-06 6 104.725 0.088 0.199 0.253 0.285 404-09+404-08 404-09 404-08 6 173.026 0.016 0.037 0.058 0.071 404-10+404-08 404-10 404-08 6 331.969 0.078 0.201 0.255 0.285 404-11+404-10 404-11 404-10 6 54.007 0.025 0.261 0.335 0.377 404-12+404-11 404-12 404-11 6 69.137 0.043 0.211 0.268 0.298 404-13+404-12 404-13 404-12 6 135.236 0.064 0.186 0.236 0.262 404-14+404-13 404-14 404-13 6 108.213 0.119 0.159 0.201 0.221 404-15+404-14 404-15 404-14 6 52.6 0.037 0.188 0.245 0.272 404-16+404-15 404-16 404-15 6 58.525 0.009 0.259 0.338 0.373 404-17+404-16 404-17 404-16 6 238.21 0.106 0.138 0.177 0.193 404-18+404-97 404-18 404-97 6 291.773 0.164 0.021 0.033 0.041 404-19+404-11 404-19 404-11 6 435.953 0.025 0.086 0.108 0.126 404-20+404-19 404-20 404-19 6 104.541 0.056 0.066 0.08 0.09 404-21A+404-20 404-21A 404-20 6 547.858 0.089 0.042 0.051 0.058 404-23+404-14 404-23 404-14 6 220.466 0.053 0.067 0.074 0.08 404-25+404-15 404-25 404-15 6 22.433 0.203 0.03 0.038 0.044 404-28+404-17 404-28 404-17 6 70.528 0.138 0.074 0.113 0.12 404-2A+400-47 404-2A 400-47 8 22.642 0.6 0.119 0.158 0.174 ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 289
ID Upstream MH Downstream MH Diameter Length Slope Existing d/D Interim d/D Buildout d/D 404-30+404-28 404-30 404-28 6 330.115 0.057 0.081 0.092 0.101 404-31A+404-30 404-31A 404-30 6 443.885 0.026 0.054 0.067 0.076 404-32+404-97 404-32 404-97 6 77.914 0.182 0.065 0.076 0.086 404-33A+404-6A 404-33A 404-6A 6 132.566 0.04 0.053 0.063 0.071 404-36+404-2A 404-36 404-2A 8 181.466 0.08 0.194 0.259 0.286 404-37+404-36 404-37 404-36 6 169.299 0.012 0.088 0.11 0.126 404-38+404-37 404-38 404-37 6 302.494 0.01 0.064 0.08 0.092 404-39+404-36 404-39 404-36 8 93.444 0.081 0.187 0.252 0.277 404-3B+404-06 404-3B 404-06 6 224.262 0.105 0.034 0.044 0.051 404-40+404-39 404-40 404-39 6 120.888 0.041 0.113 0.118 0.123 404-42+404-39 404-42 404-39 8 49.295 0.091 0.169 0.234 0.258 404-42A+404-42 404-42A 404-42 8 51.354 0.07 0.18 0.248 0.274 404-43+404-42A 404-43 404-42A 8 23.148 0.02 0.218 0.31 0.339 404-44+404-44A 404-44 404-44A 5 336.666 0.007 0.073 0.1 0.119 404-44A+400-52 404-44A 400-52 5 321.686 0.022 0.073 0.102 0.123 404-45+404-42A 404-45 404-42A 8 33.563 0.024 0.111 0.136 0.155 404-46+404-45 404-46 404-45 6 121.622 0.086 0.106 0.132 0.152 404-48+404-46 404-48 404-46 6 187.045 0.07 0.102 0.125 0.143 404-4A+400-46 404-4A 400-46 6 264.411 0.044 0.053 0.063 0.071 404-50+404-48 404-50 404-48 6 128.197 0.129 0.086 0.103 0.116 404-52+404-50 404-52 404-50 6 179.978 0.1 0.087 0.102 0.115 404-54+404-52 404-54 404-52 6 129.818 0.149 0.061 0.075 0.085 404-56+404-54 404-56 404-54 6 173.609 0.183 0.023 0.034 0.041 404-58+404-54 404-58 404-54 6 141.847 0.01 0.065 0.081 0.093 404-60+404-46 404-60 404-46 6 220.276 0.021 0.046 0.062 0.073 404-61+404-43 404-61 404-43 8 324.06 0.016 0.228 0.326 0.356 404-61A+404-61 404-61A 404-61 6 48.427 0.061 0.236 0.338 0.369 404-63+404-61A 404-63 404-61A 6 294.606 0.049 0.246 0.354 0.386 404-65+404-63 404-65 404-63 6 128.515 0.106 0.201 0.287 0.311 404-66A+404-65 404-66A 404-65 6 27.3 0.049 0.043 0.054 0.063 404-67+404-65 404-67 404-65 6 180.54 0.075 0.215 0.308 0.333 404-69+404-67 404-69 404-67 6 125.193 0.138 0.182 0.26 0.28 404-6A+404-32 404-6A 404-32 6 209.859 0.12 0.06 0.071 0.079 404-70A+404-69 404-70A 404-69 6 36.127 0.016 0.093 0.102 0.11 404-72+404-71 404-72 404-69 6 190.27 0.061 0.206 0.305 0.328 404-73+404-72 404-73 404-72 6 145.613 0.114 0.021 0.035 0.044 404-76+404-72 404-76 404-72 6 292.545 0.236 0.146 0.213 0.227 404-76A+404-76 404-76A 404-76 6 261.569 0.02 0.2 0.222 0.242 404-80+404-76A 404-80 404-76A 6 352.316 0.028 0.174 0.193 0.208 404-80A+404-80B 404-80A 404-80B 6 79.595 0.108 0.067 0.072 0.077 404-80B+404-80C 404-80B 404-80C 6 67.37 0.069 0.087 0.097 0.105 404-80C+404-80 404-80C 404-80 6 89.853 0.069 0.095 0.108 0.119 404-83+404-80 404-83 404-80 6 114.828 0.227 0.036 0.043 0.048 404-86+404-86A 404-86 404-86A 6 64.559 0.488 0.077 0.134 0.14 404-86A+404-94 404-86A 404-94 6 21.942 0.154 0.105 0.19 0.199 404-87+404-86 404-87 404-86 6 43.747 0.1 0.085 0.182 0.189 404-89+404-87 404-89 404-87 6 218.876 0.088 0.077 0.152 0.157 404-90+404-89 404-90 404-89 6 14.061 0.574 0.038 0.091 0.092 404-92+404-87 404-92 404-87 6 93.134 0.355 0.019 0.029 0.035 404-94+404-76 404-94 404-76 6 23.271 0.02 0.176 0.324 0.341 404-97+404-17 404-97 404-17 6 118.798 0.076 0.099 0.118 0.133 405-01+400-52 405-01 400-52 6 64.293 0.028 0.162 0.177 0.191 405-03+405-03A 405-03 405-03A 6 96.866 0.016 0.128 0.141 0.152 405-03A+405-01 405-03A 405-01 6 317.909 0.005 0.23 0.25 0.267 405-04A+400-56 405-04A 400-56 6 15.92 0.018 0.102 0.11 0.117 405-06A+400-58 405-06A 400-58 6 16.476 0.025 0.084 0.092 0.1 405-07A+400-59A 405-07A 400-59A 6 26.079 0.084 0.042 0.052 0.059 405-08+405-09B 405-08 405-09B 6 10 0.195 0.055 0.109 0.113 405-08A+400-60 405-08A 400-60 6 31.605 0.028 0.132 0.21 0.224 405-08B+405-08 405-08B 405-08 6 131.913 0.158 0.039 0.047 0.052 405-08C+405-08A 405-08C 405-08A 6 84.63 0.043 0.062 0.071 0.078 405-09B+405-08A 405-09B 405-08A 6 115.825 0.328 0.051 0.099 0.104 405-11+400-64 405-11 400-64 6 52.599 0.585 0.015 0.059 0.061 405-1B+400-66A 405-1B 400-66A 8 85.97 0.047 0.073 0.317 0.32 405-2B+405-1B 405-2B 405-1B 8 351.25 0.085 0.059 0.235 0.238 405-34+400-66 405-34 400-66 6 180.54 0.233 0.145 0.708 0.719 405-35+405-34 405-35 405-34 6 144.429 0.437 0.081 0.534 0.537 ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 290
ID Upstream MH Downstream MH Diameter Length Slope Existing d/D Interim d/D Buildout d/D 405-37+405-35 405-37 405-35 6 133.242 0.287 0.088 0.598 0.601 405-38+405-37 405-38 405-37 6 63.994 0.105 0.106 1 1
405-39+405-38 405-39 405-38 6 74.178 0.089 0.103 1 1
405-3B+405-2B 405-3B 405-2B 8 341.124 0.052 0.062 0.219 0.22 405-40+405-39 405-40 405-39 6 169.764 0.294 0.068 0.495 0.497 405-41+405-40 405-41 405-40 6 106.569 0.11 0.052 0.518 0.52 405-42+405-41 405-42 405-41 6 126.311 0.189 0.039 0.306 0.307 405-44+405-44A 405-44 405-44A 6 42.45 0.21 0.137 0.205 0.218 405-44A+405-60 405-44A 405-60 6 66.549 0.206 0.139 0.208 0.222 405-45+405-34 405-45 405-34 6 41.038 0.028 0.185 0.291 0.311 405-46+405-45 405-46 405-45 6 181.024 0.211 0.105 0.139 0.151 405-47+405-46 405-47 405-46 6 102.16 0.503 0.079 0.106 0.116 405-48+405-47 405-48 405-47 6 111.107 0.071 0.109 0.156 0.171 405-49+405-48 405-49 405-48 6 154.205 0.439 0.022 0.03 0.035 405-4B+405-3B 405-4B 405-3B 8 372.914 0.068 0.043 0.146 0.148 405-51+405-48 405-51 405-48 6 97.924 0.118 0.086 0.126 0.135 405-53+405-51 405-53 405-51 6 60.44 0.053 0.09 0.14 0.15 405-54+405-53 405-54 405-53 6 17.409 0.454 0.02 0.028 0.034 405-56+405-53 405-56 405-53 6 128.525 0.048 0.079 0.086 0.091 405-58+400-67B 405-58 400-67B 6 240.709 0.334 0.026 0.034 0.039 405-60+400-73A 405-60 400-73A 6 236.921 0.234 0.147 0.213 0.229 405-61+405-60 405-61 405-60 6 168.359 0.153 0.056 0.066 0.074 405-62+405-61 405-62 405-61 6 33.232 0.391 0.033 0.039 0.044 405-64+405-64A 405-64 405-64A 6 37.313 0.075 0.143 0.165 0.182 405-64A+405-64B 405-64A 405-64B 6 41.47 0.016 0.212 0.308 0.333 405-64B+405-64C 405-64B 405-64C 6 56.484 0.413 0.101 0.141 0.152 405-64C+405-44 405-64C 405-44 6 36.458 0.607 0.099 0.135 0.146 405-65+405-64 405-65 405-64 6 94.265 0.331 0.083 0.098 0.111 405-66+405-65 405-66 405-65 6 26.192 0.104 0.105 0.123 0.138 405-67+405-66 405-67 405-66 6 27.963 0.045 0.111 0.133 0.151 405-68+405-68A 405-68 405-68A 6 46.955 0.219 0.05 0.064 0.074 405-68A+405-67 405-68A 405-67 6 25.363 0.478 0.052 0.064 0.073 405-69+405-68 405-69 405-68 6 28.017 0.001 0.187 0.229 0.263 405-72+405-69 405-72 405-69 6 19.857 0.748 0.016 0.024 0.029 405-88+405-03 405-88 405-03 6 306.623 0.012 0.11 0.119 0.127 420-02+420-94 420-02 420-94 15 324.261 0.034 0.236 0.298 0.337 420-03+420-3D 420-03 420-3D 15 165.261 0.05 0.202 0.256 0.288 420-04+420-03 420-04 420-03 18 225.719 0.004 0.298 0.384 0.436 420-04A+420-04 420-04A 420-04 18 234.228 0.026 0.187 0.237 0.266 420-05+420-04A 420-05 420-04A 18 105.927 0.022 0.193 0.244 0.275 420-06+420-05 420-06 420-05 15 268.649 0.032 0.224 0.285 0.322 420-07+420-06 420-07 420-06 15 236.322 0.027 0.231 0.295 0.333 420-08+420-07 420-08 420-07 15 95.854 0.103 0.157 0.199 0.223 420-09+420-1E 420-09 420-08 12 220.799 0.085 0.22 0.282 0.316 420-10+420-09 420-10 420-09 12 222.446 0.009 0.391 0.515 0.591 420-12+420-12A 420-12 420-12A 12 80.1 0.397 0.138 0.173 0.192 420-12A+420-12B 420-12A 420-12B 12 26.254 0.324 0.145 0.183 0.203 420-12B+420-2C 420-12B 420-2C 12 50.571 0.037 0.248 0.316 0.354 420-13+420-13A 420-13 420-13A 12 48.86 0.098 0.189 0.235 0.262 420-13A+420-12 420-13A 420-12 12 264.131 0.053 0.225 0.285 0.319 420-14+420-1A 420-14 420-1A 12 48.846 0.109 0.181 0.226 0.252 420-15+420-14 420-15 420-14 12 156.478 0.075 0.199 0.247 0.276 420-16+420-2B 420-16 420-2B 12 196.784 0.067 0.196 0.246 0.275 420-17+420-16 420-17 420-16 12 187.27 0.064 0.198 0.249 0.278 420-18+420-3B 420-18 420-3B 12 192.961 0.065 0.194 0.243 0.272 420-19+420-18 420-19 420-18 12 26.676 0.056 0.195 0.247 0.276 420-1A+420-13 420-1A 420-13 12 119.163 0.069 0.205 0.256 0.286 420-20+420-20B 420-20 420-20B 10 185.914 0.054 0.193 0.252 0.279 420-20A+420-20 420-20A 420-20 8 17.748 0.078 0.172 0.226 0.251 420-20B+420-19 420-20B 420-19 8 302.55 0.057 0.258 0.339 0.378 420-21+420-21A 420-21 420-21A 10 202.119 0.051 0.139 0.178 0.197 420-21A+420-20A 420-21A 420-20A 8 244.64 0.054 0.187 0.246 0.273 420-22+420-21 420-22 420-21 10 179.91 0.023 0.161 0.21 0.233 420-23+420-22 420-23 420-22 10 142.91 0.017 0.165 0.217 0.24 420-23+423-11A 420-23 423-11A 6 224.699 0.038 0.276 0.361 0.4 420-2A+420-15 420-2A 420-15 12 84.506 0.063 0.207 0.258 0.288 420-2B+420-2A 420-2B 420-2A 12 32.878 0.112 0.174 0.218 0.244 ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 291
ID Upstream MH Downstream MH Diameter Length Slope Existing d/D Interim d/D Buildout d/D 420-2C+420-10 420-2C 420-10 15 66.17 0.071 0.17 0.216 0.242 420-3A+420-02 420-3A 420-02 15 52.449 0.041 0.215 0.272 0.306 420-3B+420-3C 420-3B 420-3C 12 183.059 0.06 0.198 0.249 0.278 420-3C+420-17 420-3C 420-17 12 44.631 0.057 0.202 0.254 0.285 420-3D+420-3A 420-3D 420-3A 18 179.72 0.042 0.168 0.212 0.238 420-94+420-01 420-94 420-01 18 290.186 0.024 0.252 0.325 0.366 421-01+420-02 421-01 420-02 8 161.534 0.066 0.136 0.162 0.183 421-01A+421-01 421-01A 421-01 8 9.567 0.202 0.019 0.025 0.03 421-03+421-01 421-03 421-01 8 159.642 0.056 0.13 0.157 0.178 421-04+421-1A 421-04 421-1A 8 20.328 0.085 0.113 0.135 0.152 421-05+421-04 421-05 421-04 8 92.535 0.067 0.112 0.135 0.153 421-06+421-05 421-06 421-05 8 69.637 0.023 0.141 0.17 0.193 421-07+421-06 421-07 421-06 8 69.341 0.03 0.102 0.122 0.137 421-08+421-07 421-08 421-07 8 69.331 0.094 0.072 0.085 0.096 421-08A+421-08 421-08A 421-08 8 52.086 0.118 0.062 0.074 0.083 421-09+421-08A 421-09 421-08A 8 41.798 0.082 0.063 0.074 0.083 421-11+421-06 421-11 421-06 6 53.881 0.108 0.075 0.096 0.112 421-12+421-11 421-12 421-11 6 36.746 0.208 0.038 0.05 0.059 421-13+421-12 421-13 421-12 6 62.336 0.091 0.033 0.044 0.052 421-14+421-11 421-14 421-11 6 148.452 0.045 0.073 0.087 0.098 421-15+421-14 421-15 421-14 6 56.017 0.159 0.04 0.047 0.053 421-16+421-17 421-16 421-17 6 86.756 0.218 0.043 0.048 0.053 421-17+421-09 421-17 421-09 8 208.013 0.063 0.058 0.069 0.077 421-18+421-17 421-18 421-17 8 57.349 0.078 0.035 0.04 0.045 421-1A+421-03 421-1A 421-03 8 134.585 0.061 0.126 0.151 0.171 422-01+422-3B 422-01 422-3B 6 27.871 0.138 0.087 0.097 0.106 422-03+422-01 422-03 422-01 6 41.772 0.113 0.087 0.094 0.101 422-05+422-03 422-05 422-03 6 155.263 0.208 0.025 0.035 0.042 422-09+422-98A 422-09 422-98A 6 180.317 0.321 0.103 0.126 0.144 422-10+422-09 422-10 422-09 6 101.542 0.008 0.238 0.296 0.343 422-11+422-10 422-11 422-10 6 114.379 0.01 0.224 0.275 0.317 422-12+422-11 422-12 422-11 6 47.622 0.019 0.169 0.212 0.247 422-13+422-12 422-13 422-12 6 77.831 0.15 0.1 0.124 0.142 422-14+422-13 422-14 422-13 6 68.153 0.086 0.111 0.137 0.156 422-16+422-16A 422-16 422-16A 6 122.738 0.034 0.102 0.124 0.141 422-16A+422-14 422-16A 422-14 6 76.484 0.196 0.074 0.09 0.103 422-17+422-16 422-17 422-16 6 38.843 0.269 0.038 0.053 0.064 422-19+422-17 422-19 422-17 6 200.631 0.039 0.039 0.063 0.079 422-1B+422-98D 422-1B 422-98D 8 44.466 0.215 0.033 0.04 0.046 422-1C+422-8A 422-1C 422-8A 8 186.032 0.12 0.037 0.087 0.091 422-20+422-19 422-20 422-19 6 73.479 0.076 0.026 0.04 0.05 422-22+422-22A 422-22 422-22A 6 170.711 0.183 0.11 0.159 0.178 422-22A+422-98A 422-22A 422-98A 6 63.166 0.325 0.097 0.14 0.158 422-24+422-22 422-24 422-22 6 253.466 0.145 0.114 0.142 0.164 422-25+422-24 422-25 422-24 6 10.065 0.214 0.099 0.122 0.139 422-26+422-25 422-26 422-25 8 245.565 0.095 0.03 0.041 0.049 422-27+422-26 422-27 422-26 8 135.266 0.088 0.021 0.029 0.035 422-29+422-24 422-29 422-24 6 102.021 0.125 0.025 0.037 0.045 422-2B+422-1B 422-2B 422-1B 8 203.641 0.202 0.023 0.028 0.032 422-2C+422-1C 422-2C 422-1C 8 100.222 0.094 0.034 0.089 0.09 422-30+422-25 422-30 422-25 6 209.529 0.05 0.127 0.153 0.173 422-31+422-30 422-31 422-30 6 37.84 0.114 0.1 0.119 0.134 422-32+422-31 422-32 422-31 6 126.925 0.069 0.105 0.124 0.139 422-34+422-32 422-34 422-32 6 26.469 0.186 0.063 0.075 0.085 422-35+422-34 422-35 422-34 6 116.656 0.138 0.045 0.058 0.067 422-36+422-35 422-36 422-35 6 192.718 0.076 0.028 0.042 0.051 422-39+422-32 422-39 422-32 6 287.446 0.068 0.051 0.059 0.066 422-3B+431-3C 422-3B 431-3C 8 208.416 0.06 0.078 0.088 0.097 422-41+422-41A 422-41 422-41A 6 100.881 0.264 0.025 0.034 0.04 422-41A+422-14 422-41A 422-14 6 15.664 0.177 0.047 0.058 0.067 422-44+422-44A 422-44 422-44A 6 95.751 0.269 0.054 0.058 0.061 422-44A+420-1A 422-44A 420-1A 6 12.094 0.221 0.061 0.069 0.075 422-45+420-2A 422-45 420-2A 6 16.972 0.253 0.043 0.053 0.061 422-46+422-45 422-46 422-45 6 95.614 0.28 0.028 0.036 0.042 422-47+422-47A 422-47 422-47A 6 22.906 0.664 0.025 0.036 0.043 422-47A+420-3C 422-47A 420-3C 6 6.304 0.175 0.051 0.066 0.077 422-48+422-47 422-48 422-47 6 146.067 0.158 0.03 0.04 0.046 ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 292
ID Upstream MH Downstream MH Diameter Length Slope Existing d/D Interim d/D Buildout d/D 422-50+420-18 422-50 420-18 6 258.167 0.037 0.073 0.088 0.1 422-50A+422-50 422-50A 422-50 6 168.537 0.028 0.068 0.077 0.085 422-51+420-19 422-51 420-19 8 314.064 0.039 0.204 0.25 0.286 422-52+422-51 422-52 422-51 8 209.889 0.076 0.171 0.208 0.238 422-54+422-98 422-54 422-98 8 211.579 0.062 0.177 0.214 0.245 422-54A+422-54 422-54A 422-54 8 111.122 0.058 0.179 0.216 0.247 422-55+422-54A 422-55 422-54A 8 188.479 0.003 0.391 0.482 0.562 422-56+422-55 422-56 422-55 6 84.055 0.153 0.087 0.108 0.125 422-58+422-56 422-58 422-56 6 98.766 0.153 0.075 0.096 0.112 422-59+422-58 422-59 422-58 6 121.167 0.104 0.062 0.073 0.082 422-5C+422-54A 422-5C 422-54A 4 36.489 0.001 0.125 0.194 0.242 422-60+422-59 422-60 422-59 6 15.12 0.068 0.031 0.044 0.053 422-63+422-58 422-63 422-58 6 172.353 0.146 0.048 0.065 0.077 422-63A+422-63 422-63A 422-63 6 44.734 0.075 0.033 0.045 0.053 422-64+422-63 422-64 422-63 6 158.465 0.028 0.045 0.059 0.07 422-68+422-55 422-68 422-55 8 53.956 0.015 0.224 0.267 0.302 422-69+422-68 422-69 422-68 8 337.247 0.008 0.262 0.313 0.355 422-6A+422-99 422-6A 422-99 8 39.941 0.478 0.041 0.073 0.078 422-70+422-69 422-70 422-69 6 104.825 0.002 0.561 0.707 1 422-71+422-70 422-71 422-70 6 45.412 0.071 0.107 0.122 0.134 422-72+422-71 422-72 422-71 6 205.618 0.048 0.112 0.125 0.136 422-74+422-72 422-74 422-72 6 348.339 0.02 0.123 0.135 0.146 422-76+422-74 422-76 422-74 6 331.711 0.012 0.037 0.06 0.075 422-78+422-70 422-78 422-70 6 314.186 0.039 0.216 0.258 0.292 422-79+422-79A 422-79 422-79A 6 60.39 0.061 0.126 0.159 0.183 422-79A+422-78 422-79A 422-78 6 84.767 0.057 0.131 0.166 0.193 422-7A+422-6A 422-7A 422-6A 8 79.167 0.208 0.04 0.083 0.088 422-80+422-79 422-80 422-79 6 187.745 0.069 0.09 0.103 0.114 422-81+422-80 422-81 422-80 6 211.733 0.045 0.089 0.1 0.11 422-82+422-81 422-82 422-81 6 28.898 0.036 0.081 0.088 0.095 422-83+422-79 422-83 422-79 6 167.3 0.029 0.101 0.135 0.16 422-86+422-83 422-86 422-83 6 185.51 0.014 0.107 0.145 0.173 422-87+422-86 422-87 422-86 6 76.004 0.006 0.119 0.162 0.193 422-87B+422-87 422-87B 422-87 6 103.314 0.036 0.026 0.045 0.057 422-88+422-87 422-88 422-87 6 343.156 0.072 0.058 0.072 0.082 422-89+422-88 422-89 422-88 6 198.133 0.052 0.029 0.044 0.055 422-8A+422-7A 422-8A 422-7A 8 116.01 0.01 0.078 0.166 0.175 422-92+422-92A 422-92 422-92A 6 67.308 0.043 0.103 0.122 0.138 422-92A+422-78 422-92A 422-78 6 72.054 0.041 0.159 0.176 0.19 422-93+422-92 422-93 422-92 6 327.472 0.059 0.042 0.062 0.075 422-93A+422-93 422-93A 422-93 6 113.259 0.092 0.031 0.042 0.051 422-96+422-92 422-96 422-92 6 137.528 0.1 0.055 0.062 0.067 422-98+422-52 422-98 422-52 8 164.257 0.093 0.162 0.196 0.224 422-98A+422-98B 422-98A 422-98B 8 140.506 0.169 0.114 0.152 0.173 422-98B+422-98C 422-98B 422-98C 8 367.374 0.069 0.142 0.191 0.217 422-98C+422-98D 422-98C 422-98D 10 16.764 0.089 0.101 0.136 0.154 422-98D+420-2C 422-98D 420-2C 15 100.806 0.019 0.091 0.122 0.139 422-99+420-13A 422-99 420-13A 8 261.137 0.134 0.062 0.104 0.111 423-01+420-19 423-01 420-19 6 181.03 0.038 0.16 0.18 0.197 423-01A+423-01 423-01A 423-01 6 124.694 0.006 0.227 0.257 0.282 423-02+423-01A 423-02 423-01A 6 191.842 0.01 0.183 0.206 0.226 423-03+423-02 423-03 423-02 6 190.053 0.097 0.1 0.11 0.119 423-05+423-03 423-05 423-03 6 165.881 0.085 0.075 0.085 0.094 423-08+423-05 423-08 423-05 6 42.829 0.264 0.043 0.048 0.052 423-11+420-20 423-11 420-20 6 187.215 0.026 0.311 0.41 0.458 423-11A+423-11 423-11A 423-11 6 214.913 0.085 0.226 0.295 0.326 423-14+423-5A 423-14 423-5A 8 256.677 0.071 0.034 0.04 0.045 423-15+432-78 423-15 432-78 8 371.207 0.012 0.094 0.113 0.128 423-16+423-1E 423-16 423-1E 6 341.297 0.07 0.067 0.079 0.089 423-19+420-23 423-19 420-23 6 173.967 0.076 0.2 0.257 0.287 423-1A+420-21A 423-1A 420-21A 8 331.501 0.022 0.055 0.089 0.093 423-1D+423-19 423-1D 423-19 6 222.951 0.131 0.151 0.201 0.223 423-1E+423-15 423-1E 423-15 6 21.133 0.11 0.074 0.087 0.097 423-20+423-1D 423-20 423-1D 6 174.284 0.13 0.148 0.197 0.218 423-21+423-20 423-21 423-20 6 183.82 0.075 0.165 0.221 0.244 423-22+423-21 423-22 423-21 6 260.186 0.063 0.143 0.205 0.228 423-23+423-22 423-23 423-22 6 232.365 0.042 0.155 0.222 0.246 ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 293
ID Upstream MH Downstream MH Diameter Length Slope Existing d/D Interim d/D Buildout d/D 423-24+423-23 423-24 423-23 6 100.605 0.112 0.109 0.163 0.181 423-27+423-24 423-27 423-24 6 234.821 0.107 0.109 0.162 0.179 423-28+423-27 423-28 423-27 6 19.292 0.026 0.136 0.212 0.233 423-29+423-28 423-29 423-28 6 62.263 0.082 0.098 0.153 0.167 423-2A+423-29 423-2A 423-29 6 35.695 0.068 0.098 0.152 0.163 423-2B+423-16 423-2B 423-16 6 121.767 0.098 0.024 0.037 0.046 423-31+423-21 423-31 423-21 6 97.988 0.184 0.067 0.071 0.075 423-32+423-27 423-32 423-27 6 100.5 0.197 0.022 0.033 0.04 423-34+423-29 423-34 423-29 6 104.186 0.175 0.018 0.031 0.039 423-36+423-19 423-36 423-19 6 44.832 0.123 0.083 0.094 0.104 423-38+423-36 423-38 423-36 6 27.426 0.059 0.084 0.094 0.103 423-39+423-38 423-39 423-38 6 79.954 0.027 0.047 0.061 0.071 423-40+420-23 423-40 420-23 8 303.295 0.012 0.269 0.359 0.397 423-42+423-42A 423-42 423-42A 8 196.359 0.13 0.141 0.186 0.204 423-42A+423-40 423-42A 423-40 8 308.73 0.063 0.17 0.226 0.247 423-43+423-43A 423-43 423-43A 6 154.037 0.025 0.058 0.07 0.079 423-43A+423-42 423-43A 423-42 6 26.727 0.074 0.055 0.069 0.08 423-46+423-46A 423-46 423-46A 8 215.973 0.151 0.126 0.169 0.184 423-46A+423-42 423-46A 423-42 8 224.244 0.145 0.134 0.176 0.192 423-47+423-46 423-47 423-46 8 85.431 0.026 0.135 0.204 0.219 423-48+423-48A 423-48 423-48A 8 157.486 0.005 0.173 0.202 0.226 423-48A+423-77 423-48A 423-77 8 109.083 0.013 0.139 0.164 0.185 423-49+423-48 423-49 423-48 8 251.286 0.103 0.083 0.095 0.104 423-4A+423-64 423-4A 423-64 8 154.559 0.095 0.059 0.068 0.075 423-50+423-49 423-50 423-49 6 88.424 0.159 0.1 0.114 0.126 423-50+423-62 423-50 423-62 8 22.362 0.178 0.075 0.086 0.094 423-51+423-50 423-51 423-50 8 177.879 0.062 0.083 0.098 0.109 423-52+423-74A 423-52 423-74A 8 266.232 0.08 0.067 0.078 0.087 423-53+423-52 423-53 423-52 6 213.928 0.075 0.063 0.069 0.075 423-55+423-52 423-55 423-52 6 114.712 0.195 0.052 0.062 0.07 423-59+423-55 423-59 423-55 6 248.84 0.082 0.055 0.062 0.068 423-5A+420-22 423-5A 420-22 8 46.934 0.041 0.044 0.056 0.064 423-60+423-46 423-60 423-46 8 65.152 0.001 0.355 0.416 0.469 423-61+423-60 423-61 423-60 8 304.153 0.008 0.175 0.202 0.225 423-62+423-61 423-62 423-61 8 349.978 0.115 0.09 0.103 0.113 423-63+423-50 423-63 423-50 6 172.869 0.033 0.148 0.168 0.184 423-64+423-63 423-64 423-63 6 217.308 0.107 0.107 0.119 0.13 423-65+423-4A 423-65 423-4A 8 171.73 0.108 0.05 0.056 0.062 423-66+423-65 423-66 423-65 8 80.466 0.116 0.032 0.037 0.041 423-67+423-40 423-67 423-40 6 53.226 0.04 0.086 0.098 0.109 423-72+423-67 423-72 423-67 6 155.141 0.014 0.081 0.092 0.102 423-74A+423-51 423-74A 423-51 8 340.094 0.058 0.079 0.092 0.103 423-77+423-47 423-77 423-47 8 35.583 0.061 0.099 0.139 0.152 430-01+430-01A 430-01 430-01A 10 26.762 0.088 0.217 0.297 0.33 430-01A+400-22 430-01A 400-22 10 77.04 0.038 0.254 0.359 0.403 430-02+430-02A 430-02 430-02A 10 305.338 0.021 0.31 0.428 0.48 430-02A+430-01 430-02A 430-01 10 98.494 0.021 0.311 0.434 0.486 430-04+430-02 430-04 430-02 10 381.246 0.026 0.29 0.4 0.448 430-04A+430-04 430-04A 430-04 10 203.252 0.029 0.28 0.386 0.432 430-05+430-04A 430-05 430-04A 10 25.206 0.033 0.27 0.371 0.414 430-05+430-05A 430-05 430-05A 10 187.503 0.031 0.27 0.371 0.414 430-05A+430-05B 430-05A 430-05B 15 77.967 0.038 0.172 0.226 0.251 430-05B+420-94 430-05B 420-94 15 140.872 0.018 0.207 0.273 0.304 430-06+430-05 430-06 430-05 10 319.525 0.03 0.391 0.556 0.634 430-08+430-06 430-08 430-06 10 305.825 0.034 0.361 0.514 0.579 430-09+430-08 430-09 430-08 10 330.643 0.052 0.316 0.446 0.499 430-10+430-09 430-10 430-09 10 22.722 0.073 0.288 0.404 0.45 430-11+430-10 430-11 430-10 10 109.835 0.071 0.277 0.394 0.438 430-13+430-11 430-13 430-11 10 297.43 0.083 0.264 0.376 0.417 430-14+430-13 430-14 430-13 10 37.169 0.063 0.283 0.404 0.45 430-15+430-14 430-15 430-14 10 156.057 0.06 0.286 0.409 0.456 430-16+430-15 430-16 430-15 10 83.748 0.047 0.303 0.436 0.487 430-17+430-17A 430-17 430-17A 10 18.371 0.083 0.092 0.111 0.125 430-17A+430-16 430-17A 430-16 10 165.725 0.062 0.277 0.398 0.442 430-17B+430-17A 430-17B 430-17A 12 293.884 0.007 0.356 0.535 0.6 430-18+430-17B 430-18 430-17B 12 36.062 0.01 0.323 0.48 0.535 430-19+430-19A 430-19 430-19A 10 189.137 0.018 0.351 0.529 0.592 ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 294
ID Upstream MH Downstream MH Diameter Length Slope Existing d/D Interim d/D Buildout d/D 430-19A+430-18 430-19A 430-18 10 216.933 0.041 0.285 0.42 0.464 430-1C+430-26 430-1C 430-26 8 56.763 0.014 0.446 0.667 0.774 430-20+430-20A 430-20 430-20A 8 206.648 0.097 0.296 0.445 0.492 430-20A+430-20C 430-20A 430-20C 8 151.69 0.088 0.308 0.461 0.511 430-20C+430-20D 430-20C 430-20D 8 22.317 0.117 0.286 0.426 0.47 430-20D+430-20E 430-20D 430-20E 8 178.698 0.12 0.287 0.425 0.47 430-20E+430-20F 430-20E 430-20F 8 100.85 0.098 0.304 0.452 0.501 430-20F+430-20G 430-20F 430-20G 12 154.868 0.11 0.173 0.248 0.272 430-20G+430-19 430-20G 430-19 12 133.073 0.047 0.214 0.31 0.341 430-21+430-21A 430-21 430-21A 10 143.346 0.041 0.261 0.392 0.43 430-21A+430-21B 430-21A 430-21B 10 42.835 0.023 0.303 0.46 0.508 430-21B+430-21C 430-21B 430-21C 15 86.711 0.006 0.249 0.372 0.408 430-21C+430-20 430-21C 430-20 15 90.032 0.066 0.137 0.201 0.218 430-22+430-21 430-22 430-21 10 230.222 0.083 0.217 0.324 0.354 430-23+430-22 430-23 430-22 10 260.435 0.053 0.241 0.362 0.397 430-24+430-23 430-24 430-23 10 227.712 0.04 0.26 0.392 0.43 430-25+430-24 430-25 430-24 10 51.664 0.03 0.274 0.407 0.448 430-26+430-25 430-26 430-25 10 199.129 0.014 0.33 0.469 0.523 430-27+430-1C 430-27 430-1C 8 113.597 0.036 0.323 0.469 0.521 430-28+430-27 430-28 430-27 8 97.873 0.042 0.308 0.431 0.48 430-29+430-29A 430-29 430-29A 8 86.407 0.068 0.266 0.356 0.397 430-29A+430-28 430-29A 430-28 8 134.998 0.08 0.258 0.344 0.383 430-30+430-29 430-30 430-29 8 82.911 0.073 0.249 0.336 0.373 430-31+430-30 430-31 430-30 8 95.274 0.067 0.183 0.267 0.291 430-32+430-31 430-32 430-31 8 85.703 0.018 0.252 0.374 0.409 431-01+430-05A 431-01 430-05A 10 103.182 0.013 0.186 0.22 0.247 431-02+430-05 431-02 430-05 10 28.47 0.154 0.038 0.049 0.058 431-03+431-01A 431-03 431-01 10 84.79 0.009 0.2 0.236 0.266 431-04+431-03 431-04 431-03 10 106.751 0.028 0.151 0.177 0.199 431-05+431-04 431-05 431-04 10 55.346 0.026 0.151 0.177 0.199 431-06+431-05 431-06 431-05 10 123.714 0.029 0.147 0.172 0.192 431-07+431-06 431-07 431-06 10 223.742 0.046 0.13 0.151 0.168 431-08+431-07 431-08 431-07 6 140.164 0.009 0.298 0.343 0.381 431-10+431-08 431-10 431-08 6 249.777 0.017 0.229 0.261 0.289 431-11+431-17 431-11 431-17 6 122.606 0.123 0.073 0.089 0.102 431-12+431-11 431-12 431-11 6 77.618 0.134 0.065 0.078 0.089 431-13+431-12 431-13 431-12 6 37.028 0.057 0.05 0.067 0.08 431-17+431-10 431-17 431-10 6 174.353 0.127 0.086 0.103 0.117 431-1A+431-08 431-1A 431-08 6 42.784 0.127 0.023 0.036 0.044 431-21+431-10 431-21 431-10 6 277.344 0.022 0.154 0.168 0.18 431-23+431-21 431-23 431-21 6 199.748 0.038 0.127 0.136 0.143 431-25+431-23 431-25 431-23 6 81.626 0.085 0.07 0.076 0.08 431-29+431-07 431-29 431-07 10 8.791 0.32 0.05 0.06 0.068 431-2A+431-02 431-2A 431-02 10 232.571 0.066 0.042 0.055 0.064 431-2B+431-2A 431-2B 431-2A 10 241.513 0.052 0.041 0.053 0.062 431-2C+431-2B 431-2C 431-2B 10 112.04 0.056 0.027 0.036 0.043 431-2D+431-2C 431-2D 431-2C 10 120.148 0.061 0.021 0.027 0.031 431-30+431-29 431-30 431-29 10 52.727 0.007 0.116 0.14 0.159 431-33+431-30 431-33 431-30 10 157.189 0.002 0.143 0.173 0.197 431-34+431-33 431-34 431-33 10 160.831 0.021 0.081 0.097 0.109 431-36+431-34 431-36 431-34 10 205.008 0.032 0.072 0.085 0.095 431-38+420-07 431-38 420-07 10 118.915 0.015 0.155 0.191 0.22 431-39+431-38 431-39 431-38 6 89.428 0.016 0.088 0.122 0.146 431-3A+431-59 431-3A 431-59 10 24.6 0.237 0.05 0.06 0.068 431-3C+431-36 431-3C 431-36 10 175.705 0.029 0.072 0.083 0.092 431-40+431-40A 431-40 431-40A 6 135.153 0.009 0.052 0.073 0.088 431-40A+431-39 431-40A 431-39 6 43.664 0.008 0.083 0.11 0.129 431-42+431-39 431-42 431-39 6 117.574 0.194 0.022 0.033 0.04 431-44+431-38 431-44 431-38 10 104.413 0.197 0.08 0.096 0.11 431-45+431-44 431-45 431-44 10 89.219 0.079 0.098 0.118 0.134 431-46+431-45 431-46 431-45 10 94.142 0.015 0.145 0.175 0.199 431-46A+431-46 431-46A 431-46 6 30.587 0.023 0.061 0.082 0.098 431-46B+431-46A 431-46B 431-46A 8 149.653 0.045 0.024 0.034 0.041 431-47+431-46 431-47 431-46 10 212.843 0.077 0.092 0.11 0.124 431-48+431-47 431-48 431-47 6 108.887 0.071 0.105 0.117 0.127 431-49A+431-48 431-49A 431-48 6 152.317 0.013 0.102 0.12 0.135 431-50+431-49A 431-50 431-49A 6 35.968 0.055 0.055 0.063 0.071 ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 295
ID Upstream MH Downstream MH Diameter Length Slope Existing d/D Interim d/D Buildout d/D 431-53+431-47 431-53 431-47 10 57.263 0.034 0.091 0.112 0.128 431-55+431-53 431-55 431-53 6 48.275 0.06 0.058 0.073 0.084 431-57+431-55 431-57 431-55 6 368.779 0.115 0.045 0.052 0.058 431-59+431-53 431-59 431-53 10 125.189 0.031 0.081 0.1 0.114 431-60A+431-3A 431-60A 431-3A 10 126.137 0.113 0.032 0.043 0.05 431-62+431-60A 431-62 431-60A 8 114.769 0.124 0.037 0.048 0.057 431-62A+431-62B 431-62A 431-62B 6 191.215 0.179 0.022 0.033 0.041 431-62B+431-62 431-62B 431-62 8 59.439 0.232 0.026 0.035 0.041 431-64+431-65 431-64 431-65 5 62.91 0.11 0.031 0.047 0.058 431-65+431-65A 431-65 431-65A 6 111.943 0.16 0.078 0.085 0.091 431-65A+431-65B 431-65A 431-65B 6 99.669 0.1 0.089 0.101 0.11 431-65B+431-3A 431-65B 431-3A 6 113.231 0.212 0.079 0.091 0.101 431-71+431-2B 431-71 431-2B 6 26.181 0.19 0.027 0.037 0.043 431-73+430-06 431-73 430-06 8 104.34 0.023 0.146 0.178 0.203 431-74+431-73 431-74 431-73 8 101.525 0.045 0.123 0.148 0.168 431-75+431-74 431-75 431-74 8 210.041 0.05 0.115 0.139 0.158 431-76+431-75 431-76 431-75 6 129.282 0.147 0.044 0.056 0.066 431-77+431-76 431-77 431-76 6 26.879 0.105 0.038 0.047 0.054 431-81+431-75 431-81 431-75 8 112.112 0.059 0.103 0.122 0.138 431-83+431-81 431-83 431-81 6 107.883 0.12 0.045 0.053 0.059 431-86+431-81 431-86 431-81 8 127.538 0.065 0.092 0.109 0.122 431-87+431-86 431-87 431-86 8 152.505 0.06 0.091 0.107 0.119 431-88+431-87 431-88 431-87 6 70.525 0.118 0.031 0.041 0.049 431-89+431-89A 431-89 431-89A 6 40.383 0.053 0.087 0.097 0.107 431-89A+431-87 431-89A 431-87 6 56.071 0.09 0.113 0.128 0.141 431-90+431-90A 431-90 431-90A 6 112.542 0.133 0.036 0.045 0.051 431-90A+431-89A 431-90A 431-89A 6 35.229 0.073 0.061 0.074 0.084 431-92+431-89 431-92 431-89 6 283.641 0.141 0.026 0.037 0.045 431-93+430-06 431-93 430-06 6 107.193 0.032 0.057 0.077 0.091 431-94+431-93 431-94 431-93 6 258.638 0.094 0.038 0.047 0.054 431-96+431-13 431-96 431-13 6 329.484 0.073 0.031 0.044 0.053 432-01+430-08 432-01 430-08 8 67.186 0.025 0.093 0.116 0.134 432-03+432-01 432-03 432-01 8 260.444 0.08 0.069 0.084 0.096 432-04+432-03 432-04 432-03 8 104.196 0.067 0.054 0.071 0.084 432-06+432-04 432-06 432-04 6 111.822 0.182 0.049 0.059 0.067 432-08+432-06 432-08 432-06 6 189.78 0.021 0.065 0.077 0.086 432-09+432-04 432-09 432-04 6 172.487 0.075 0.027 0.041 0.05 432-10+430-09 432-10 430-09 6 133.452 0.055 0.044 0.054 0.063 432-14A+430-10 432-14A 430-10 8 85.415 0.088 0.099 0.113 0.124 432-15+432-14A 432-15 432-14A 8 106.206 0.03 0.118 0.135 0.149 432-16+432-15 432-16 432-15 8 68.465 0.092 0.087 0.099 0.108 432-1A+432-04 432-1A 432-04 6 194.55 0.044 0.04 0.052 0.062 432-1C+430-29 432-1C 430-29 6 32.043 0.075 0.103 0.118 0.131 432-1D+430-29 432-1D 430-29 8 68.964 0.042 0.032 0.04 0.046 432-1E+430-26 432-1E 430-26 8 450.007 0.052 0.032 0.039 0.045 432-20+432-16 432-20 432-16 8 65.452 0.051 0.088 0.1 0.111 432-21+432-20 432-21 432-20 8 281.271 0.04 0.049 0.06 0.068 432-22+432-21 432-22 432-21 8 44.921 0.163 0.031 0.035 0.039 432-25+432-20 432-25 432-20 6 142.565 0.203 0.034 0.042 0.047 432-26+432-20 432-26 432-20 6 129.279 0.212 0.068 0.071 0.075 432-30+432-37 432-30 432-37 6 37.076 0.017 0.103 0.119 0.132 432-30A+432-30 432-30A 432-30 6 111.568 0.139 0.051 0.057 0.062 432-32+432-37 432-32 432-37 6 198.11 0.102 0.059 0.071 0.08 432-33+432-32 432-33 432-32 6 26.897 0.057 0.037 0.049 0.058 432-37+432-37A 432-37 432-37A 6 26.653 0.024 0.129 0.155 0.175 432-37A+430-16 432-37A 430-16 6 9.488 0.042 0.119 0.144 0.164 432-39+430-17 432-39 430-17 10 75.012 0.278 0.067 0.08 0.091 432-40+432-39 432-40 432-39 6 57.708 0.148 0.147 0.176 0.2 432-42+432-40 432-42 432-40 6 125.996 0.132 0.149 0.178 0.201 432-43+432-42 432-43 432-42 6 74.876 0.081 0.055 0.063 0.069 432-45+432-45A 432-45 432-45A 6 244.855 0.105 0.145 0.17 0.189 432-45A+432-42 432-45A 432-42 6 57.247 0.054 0.173 0.204 0.229 432-45B+432-45 432-45B 432-45 6 65.067 0.143 0.109 0.125 0.138 432-46A+432-45 432-46A 432-45 6 74.937 0.041 0.106 0.125 0.141 432-47+432-47A 432-47 432-47A 6 64.06 0.079 0.064 0.076 0.086 432-47A+432-46A 432-47A 432-46A 6 51.915 0.077 0.079 0.094 0.105 432-48+432-47 432-48 432-47 6 164.468 0.147 0.033 0.042 0.048 ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 296
ID Upstream MH Downstream MH Diameter Length Slope Existing d/D Interim d/D Buildout d/D 432-49+432-45B 432-49 432-45B 6 150.541 0.138 0.102 0.116 0.128 432-49A+432-49 432-49A 432-49 6 173.908 0.059 0.052 0.061 0.068 432-50+432-49 432-50 432-49 6 179.856 0.117 0.095 0.105 0.113 432-52B+432-52C 432-52B 432-52C 6 217.288 0.093 0.075 0.08 0.085 432-52C+432-50 432-52C 432-50 6 240.596 0.079 0.082 0.092 0.1 432-54A+432-42 432-54A 432-42 6 159.975 0.012 0.046 0.066 0.079 432-56+432-56A 432-56 432-56A 6 307.998 0.076 0.113 0.136 0.155 432-56A+430-20 432-56A 430-20 10 67.356 0.09 0.06 0.072 0.082 432-57A+432-57B 432-57A 432-57B 6 166.862 0.072 0.048 0.057 0.064 432-57B+432-56 432-57B 432-56 8 238.264 0.016 0.062 0.075 0.085 432-58+432-56 432-58 432-56 6 289.166 0.055 0.092 0.111 0.126 432-5A+430-18 432-5A 430-18 6 88.448 0.25 0.041 0.047 0.052 432-60+432-58 432-60 432-58 6 146.247 0.074 0.075 0.091 0.103 432-61+432-60 432-61 432-60 6 212.994 0.024 0.093 0.108 0.12 432-61A+432-61 432-61A 432-61 6 32.759 0.064 0.048 0.057 0.065 432-62+430-24 432-62 430-24 6 230.617 0.067 0.045 0.157 0.162 432-63+432-62 432-63 432-62 6 467.052 0.014 0.051 0.166 0.171 432-64+430-25 432-64 430-25 6 57.24 0.073 0.077 0.226 0.235 432-65+432-64 432-65 432-64 6 53.56 0.022 0.095 0.26 0.271 432-68+432-65 432-68 432-65 6 284.271 0.047 0.068 0.177 0.185 432-69+432-68 432-69 432-68 6 183.58 0.021 0.061 0.084 0.1 432-72+432-69 432-72 432-69 6 343.066 0.071 0.034 0.046 0.055 432-73+430-1C 432-73 430-1C 8 49.163 0.026 0.13 0.151 0.168 432-74+432-73 432-74 432-73 8 39.591 0.034 0.117 0.135 0.15 432-75+432-74 432-75 432-74 6 263.228 0.089 0.049 0.056 0.063 432-78+432-74 432-78 432-74 8 92.784 0.029 0.112 0.128 0.14 432-79+432-78 432-79 432-78 6 166.834 0.103 0.039 0.048 0.055 432-7A+430-20E 432-7A 430-20E 6 189.721 0.014 0.033 0.057 0.071 432-81+430-28 432-81 430-28 6 17.774 0.29 0.042 0.112 0.115 432-82+432-81 432-82 432-81 6 95.602 0.213 0.043 0.117 0.119 432-84+432-1C 432-84 432-1C 6 267.453 0.062 0.03 0.044 0.053 432-85+432-1C 432-85 432-1C 6 254.824 0.1 0.079 0.088 0.095 432-86B+432-85 432-86B 432-85 6 215.938 0.085 0.045 0.053 0.06 433-01+433-01A 433-01 433-01A 6 231.164 0.115 0.22 0.263 0.297 433-01A+430-30 433-01A 430-30 6 221.973 0.088 0.241 0.288 0.326 433-02+433-01 433-02 433-01 6 49.303 0.053 0.249 0.299 0.34 433-03+433-01 433-03 433-01 6 137.31 0.151 0.075 0.083 0.089 433-05+433-03 433-05 433-03 6 157.859 0.124 0.068 0.072 0.077 433-08+433-11 433-08 433-11 6 325.474 0.212 0.059 0.067 0.074 433-09+433-08 433-09 433-08 6 122.831 0.352 0.028 0.035 0.04 433-11+433-02 433-11 433-02 6 254.491 0.148 0.166 0.197 0.222 433-12+433-11 433-12 433-11 6 153.441 0.11 0.165 0.195 0.22 433-14+433-12 433-14 433-12 6 207.136 0.146 0.151 0.178 0.2 433-15+433-14 433-15 433-14 6 197.439 0.233 0.022 0.032 0.039 433-18+433-14 433-18 433-14 6 62.254 0.313 0.123 0.143 0.159 433-19+433-18 433-19 433-18 6 60.611 0.115 0.154 0.178 0.198 433-21+433-19 433-21 433-19 6 165.014 0.158 0.141 0.161 0.179 433-22+433-21 433-22 433-21 5 323.805 0.046 0.212 0.243 0.269 433-24+433-22 433-24 433-22 6 108.541 0.047 0.163 0.184 0.202 433-26+433-25 433-26 433-24 5 525.9 0.031 0.205 0.234 0.258 433-27+433-26 433-27 433-26 5 121.176 0.056 0.167 0.189 0.208 433-28+433-27 433-28 433-27 5 198.71 0.139 0.061 0.069 0.075 433-2F+433-34 433-2F 433-34 6 101.705 0.152 0.032 0.041 0.048 433-30+433-27 433-30 433-27 5 268.221 0.072 0.118 0.134 0.148 433-31+433-30 433-31 433-30 6 168.069 0.004 0.166 0.187 0.204 433-32+433-31 433-32 433-31 6 331.497 0.025 0.062 0.073 0.082 433-34+433-02 433-34 433-02 6 77.262 0.047 0.124 0.151 0.172 433-37+433-34 433-37 433-34 6 200.01 0.103 0.091 0.109 0.123 433-40+433-37 433-40 433-37 6 181.842 0.098 0.082 0.098 0.111 433-44+433-40 433-44 433-40 6 137.742 0.375 0.046 0.058 0.067 433-46+433-44 433-46 433-44 6 128.131 0.444 0.015 0.025 0.032 433-48+433-44 433-48 433-44 6 123.493 0.018 0.073 0.084 0.093 433-53+433-21 433-53 433-21 6 224.684 0.104 0.05 0.063 0.073 433-55+433-53 433-55 433-53 6 102.44 0.343 0.034 0.039 0.044 434-01+430-32 434-01 430-32 8 51.929 0.132 0.094 0.157 0.169 434-02+434-01 434-02 434-01 6 74.792 0.108 0.139 0.238 0.255 434-03+434-02 434-03 434-02 6 132.677 0.089 0.132 0.239 0.255 ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 297
ID Upstream MH Downstream MH Diameter Length Slope Existing d/D Interim d/D Buildout d/D 434-05+434-03 434-05 434-03 6 210.746 0.13 0.104 0.207 0.221 434-08+434-05 434-08 434-05 6 193.764 0.159 0.092 0.192 0.204 434-09+434-08 434-09 434-08 6 22.074 0.189 0.077 0.178 0.188 434-12+434-09 434-12 434-09 6 115.259 0.122 0.082 0.194 0.205 434-13+434-12 434-13 434-12 6 58.338 0.41 0.025 0.032 0.037 434-15+434-12 434-15 434-12 6 115.891 0.077 0.074 0.207 0.216 434-16+434-15 434-16 434-15 6 72.359 0.197 0.054 0.161 0.167 434-18+434-16 434-18 434-16 6 413.451 0.122 0.045 0.173 0.177 434-1B+434-42 434-1B 434-42 6 82.306 0.175 0.028 0.09 0.093 434-20+434-18 434-20 434-18 6 170.103 0.179 0.029 0.038 0.045 434-25+434-16 434-25 434-16 6 222.582 0.085 0.043 0.052 0.059 434-28+434-02 434-28 434-02 6 201.095 0.104 0.06 0.066 0.071 434-29+430-32 434-29 430-32 6 175.338 0.025 0.269 0.355 0.391 434-30+434-29 434-30 434-29 6 198.242 0.018 0.291 0.384 0.422 434-31+434-3A 434-31 434-3A 6 232.096 0.026 0.252 0.334 0.364 434-32+434-31 434-32 434-31 6 93.892 0.049 0.103 0.112 0.121 434-33+434-32 434-33 434-32 6 149.348 0.072 0.082 0.087 0.092 434-34+434-31 434-34 434-31 6 295.958 0.097 0.132 0.197 0.217 434-38+434-34 434-38 434-34 6 142.021 0.125 0.077 0.138 0.145 434-39+434-38 434-39 434-38 6 93.098 0.322 0.057 0.106 0.109 434-3A+434-30 434-3A 434-30 6 201.611 0.02 0.275 0.365 0.4 434-41+434-39 434-41 434-39 6 312.81 0.143 0.04 0.114 0.117 434-42+434-42A 434-42 434-42A 6 62.66 0.142 0.056 0.107 0.113 434-42B+423-2A 434-42A 423-2A 6 441.407 0.019 0.129 0.202 0.213 434-44+434-34 434-44 434-34 6 36.606 0.16 0.093 0.115 0.132 434-45+434-44 434-45 434-44 6 40.848 0.096 0.101 0.124 0.142 434-46+434-45 434-46 434-45 6 95.787 0.373 0.022 0.031 0.037 434-49+434-45 434-49 434-45 6 178.44 0.063 0.094 0.116 0.133 434-51+434-49 434-51 434-49 6 42.192 0.189 0.063 0.079 0.09 434-52+434-51 434-52 434-51 6 50.195 0.048 0.078 0.096 0.11 434-56+434-52 434-56 434-52 6 76.205 0.271 0.039 0.05 0.058 434-57+434-56 434-57 434-56 6 32.21 0.062 0.023 0.04 0.05 440-01+400-28 440-01 400-28 15 190.972 0.027 0.244 0.423 0.448 440-02+440-02A 440-02 440-02A 15 79.48 0.027 0.234 0.413 0.435 440-02A+440-01 440-02A 440-01 15 199.721 0.03 0.23 0.404 0.425 440-03+440-02 440-03 440-02 16 102.708 0.054 0.18 0.313 0.329 440-04+440-03 440-04 440-03 16 125.149 0.032 0.204 0.358 0.376 440-05+440-04 440-05 440-04 16 86.978 0.039 0.159 0.314 0.326 440-06+440-1A 440-06 440-1A 16 98.124 0.026 0.172 0.346 0.36 440-07+440-07A 440-07 440-07A 16 38.027 0.05 0.146 0.291 0.302 440-07A+440-06 440-07A 440-06 16 144.437 0.075 0.133 0.263 0.273 440-08+440-07 440-08 440-07 16 70.304 0.109 0.121 0.239 0.248 440-09+440-08 440-09 440-08 12 69.045 0.005 0.379 1 1
440-10+440-09 440-10 440-09 8 280.514 0.049 0.357 1 1
440-12+440-12A 440-12 440-12A 8 254.284 0.024 0.166 0.202 0.23 440-12A+440-10 440-12A 440-10 8 198.089 0.175 0.139 0.162 0.181 440-13+440-12 440-13 440-12 8 312.954 0.037 0.144 0.175 0.199 440-14+440-13 440-14 440-13 8 153.063 0.058 0.128 0.154 0.175 440-15+440-14 440-15 440-14 8 62.859 0.071 0.118 0.142 0.162 440-16+440-15 440-16 440-15 8 115.415 0.135 0.082 0.096 0.108 440-17+440-16 440-17 440-16 8 289.836 0.128 0.045 0.058 0.067 440-18+440-17 440-18 440-17 8 223.944 0.069 0.042 0.056 0.065 440-19+440-18 440-19 440-18 8 219.131 0.059 0.034 0.046 0.055 440-1A+440-05 440-1A 440-05 16 32.406 0.1 0.127 0.246 0.256 440-20+440-19 440-20 440-19 8 220.799 0.006 0.032 0.051 0.063 441-01+440-01 441-01 440-01 10 307.426 0.042 0.102 0.121 0.136 441-02+441-01 441-02 441-01 6 209.141 0.072 0.15 0.176 0.197 441-03+441-02 441-03 441-02 6 71.169 0.187 0.093 0.107 0.118 441-04+441-03 441-04 441-03 6 117.64 0.203 0.082 0.094 0.103 441-05+441-04 441-05 441-04 6 55.962 0.042 0.086 0.093 0.098 441-06+441-04 441-06 441-04 6 177.614 0.012 0.109 0.126 0.141 441-08+441-06 441-08 441-06 6 127.65 0.069 0.067 0.073 0.079 441-101+441-60 441-101 441-60 8 208.695 0.048 0.064 0.075 0.083 441-13+441-13A 441-13 441-13A 6 299.448 0.061 0.086 0.101 0.113 441-13A+441-02 441-13A 441-02 6 362.673 0.064 0.092 0.11 0.125 441-16+441-13 441-16 441-13 6 154.676 0.046 0.088 0.1 0.109 441-17+441-16 441-17 441-16 6 244.672 0.038 0.086 0.092 0.098 ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 298
ID Upstream MH Downstream MH Diameter Length Slope Existing d/D Interim d/D Buildout d/D 441-19+441-19A 441-19 441-19A 6 95.95 0.032 0.086 0.106 0.122 441-19A+441-01 441-19A 441-01 6 62.568 0.03 0.095 0.12 0.139 441-21+441-19 441-21 441-19 6 618.255 0.028 0.055 0.077 0.092 441-23+441-21 441-23 441-21 6 72.593 0.05 0.042 0.054 0.062 441-24+440-01 441-24 440-01 6 35.474 0.194 0.024 0.034 0.041 441-26+440-04 441-26 440-04 6 261.507 0.038 0.121 0.126 0.13 441-27+440-04 441-27 440-04 8 5.711 0.683 0.133 0.152 0.168 441-28+441-27 441-28 441-27 8 238.57 0.025 0.255 0.297 0.333 441-29+441-29A 441-29 441-29A 8 286.291 0.036 0.222 0.258 0.289 441-29A+441-28 441-29A 441-28 8 243.827 0.011 0.309 0.361 0.406 441-30+441-29 441-30 441-29 8 92.847 0.038 0.218 0.253 0.282 441-31+441-30 441-31 441-30 6 128.862 0.033 0.321 0.376 0.423 441-32+441-31 441-32 441-31 6 92 0.112 0.087 0.105 0.119 441-33+441-32 441-33 441-32 6 293.21 0.008 0.161 0.19 0.215 441-34+441-33 441-34 441-33 6 44.027 0.385 0.058 0.067 0.075 441-35A+441-98 441-35A 441-98 6 282.676 0.017 0.058 0.072 0.083 441-38+441-31 441-38 441-31 6 166.595 0.038 0.261 0.298 0.329 441-39+441-38 441-40 441-38 6 179.595 0.06 0.231 0.261 0.287 441-43+441-43A 441-43 441-43A 6 139.047 0.069 0.089 0.107 0.121 441-43A+441-31 441-43A 441-31 6 65.025 0.059 0.106 0.126 0.143 441-44+441-43 441-44 441-43 6 23.293 0.037 0.095 0.112 0.126 441-45+441-44 441-45 441-44 6 60.74 0.053 0.071 0.084 0.095 441-46+441-45 441-46 441-45 6 55.229 0.056 0.053 0.062 0.069 441-49+441-40 441-49 441-40 6 36.974 0.03 0.135 0.162 0.183 441-50+441-93 441-50 441-93 6 47.432 0.042 0.182 0.202 0.219 441-51+441-93 441-51 441-93 6 142.591 0.039 0.087 0.093 0.099 441-52+441-95 441-52 441-95 6 49.281 0.068 0.115 0.13 0.141 441-54+441-52 441-54 441-52 6 95.567 0.095 0.104 0.114 0.123 441-56+441-54 441-56 441-54 6 347.065 0.105 0.092 0.1 0.106 441-58+441-56 441-58 441-56 6 47.657 0.122 0.084 0.088 0.091 441-59+441-49 441-59 441-49 6 70.164 0.039 0.106 0.13 0.149 441-60+441-59 441-60 441-59 8 122.487 0.06 0.065 0.077 0.087 441-62+441-62A 441-62 441-62A 8 98.156 0.11 0.029 0.035 0.039 441-62A+441-101 441-62A 441-101 8 80.774 0.121 0.039 0.047 0.053 441-65+441-30 441-65 441-30 6 235.882 0.053 0.035 0.048 0.058 441-67+441-28 441-67 441-28 6 85.222 0.118 0.039 0.048 0.054 441-70+441-27 441-70 441-27 8 85.738 0.031 0.125 0.143 0.157 441-71+441-70 441-71 441-70 8 104.973 0.03 0.121 0.137 0.151 441-72+441-71 441-72 441-71 8 265.764 0.044 0.107 0.12 0.131 441-73+441-72 441-73 441-72 8 30.55 0.067 0.081 0.093 0.103 441-74+441-73 441-74 441-73 8 97.278 0.033 0.092 0.104 0.114 441-75+441-74 441-75 441-74 8 247.881 0.044 0.077 0.086 0.094 441-76+441-75 441-76 441-75 6 104.156 0.017 0.135 0.147 0.157 441-77+441-76 441-77 441-76 6 128.867 0.133 0.048 0.055 0.06 441-91+440-09 441-91 440-09 6 133.001 0.005 0.106 0.121 0.133 441-93+441-40 441-93 441-40 6 282.432 0.087 0.174 0.193 0.209 441-95+441-97 441-95 441-97 6 174.327 0.007 0.284 0.309 0.33 441-97+441-50 441-97 441-50 6 232.362 0.041 0.181 0.198 0.213 441-98+441-34 441-98 441-34 6 149.167 0.055 0.066 0.08 0.09 442-01+442-01B 442-01 442-01B 8 150.928 0.116 0.231 0.6 0.621 442-01A+440-10 442-01A 440-10 8 246.366 0.076 0.26 0.697 0.727 442-01B+442-01A 442-01B 442-01A 8 144.724 0.277 0.187 0.461 0.476 442-02+442-02A 442-02 442-01 8 498.857 0.029 0.327 1 1
442-03+442-02 442-03 442-02 8 65.77 0.099 0.237 0.63 0.653 442-04+442-03 442-04 442-03 6 55.596 0.018 0.062 0.085 0.103 442-08+440-12A 442-08 440-12A 8 290.983 0.136 0.087 0.1 0.11 442-09+442-09A 442-09 442-09A 8 252.939 0.024 0.116 0.132 0.146 442-09A+442-08 442-09A 442-08 8 299.283 0.031 0.122 0.138 0.152 442-10+442-09 442-10 442-09 8 196.903 0.049 0.087 0.1 0.111 442-11+442-10 442-11 442-10 8 115.854 0.023 0.087 0.102 0.114 442-12+442-11 442-12 442-11 8 25.759 0.128 0.046 0.056 0.063 442-17+442-12 442-17 442-12 6 247.387 0.075 0.066 0.078 0.088 442-19+442-17 442-19 442-17 6 196.907 0.085 0.024 0.039 0.048 442-1B+442-04 442-1B 442-04 6 336.51 0.007 0.059 0.08 0.094 442-22+400-48 442-22 400-48 6 141.506 0.137 0.027 0.038 0.045 442-26+440-15 442-26 440-15 6 317.236 0.103 0.088 0.11 0.127 442-27+442-26 442-27 442-26 6 293.46 0.093 0.084 0.104 0.12 ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 299
ID Upstream MH Downstream MH Diameter Length Slope Existing d/D Interim d/D Buildout d/D 442-28+442-27 442-28 442-27 8 216.274 0.043 0.063 0.078 0.089 442-29+442-28 442-29 442-28 8 179.524 0.009 0.049 0.078 0.096 442-30+442-29 442-30 442-29 6 126.544 0.022 0.05 0.076 0.094 442-31+442-30 442-31 442-30 6 135.235 0.002 0.076 0.105 0.126 442-34+440-16 442-34 440-16 6 112.113 0.011 0.171 0.194 0.214 442-35+442-34 442-35 442-34 6 59.625 0.074 0.07 0.087 0.1 442-36+442-35 442-36 442-35 6 103.18 0.033 0.069 0.086 0.098 442-37+442-36 442-37 442-36 6 97.964 0.137 0.032 0.041 0.048 310-44+310-44A 310-44 310-44A 10 103.918 0.127 0.435 0.477 0.504 310-46+310-44 310-46 310-44 10 326.616 0.1 0.29 0.344 0.346 310-47+310-46 310-47 310-46 8 151.445 0.088 0.249 0.228 0.28 310-48+310-47 310-48 310-47 8 152.968 0.203 0.197 0.181 0.22 310-49+310-48 310-49 310-48 8 154.536 0.243 0.183 0.169 0.204 310-60+310-49 310-60 310-49 8 231.058 0.034 0.294 0.27 0.328 310-61+310-61A 310-61 310-61A 8 117.386 0.063 0.231 0.214 0.256 310-61A+310-60 310-61A 310-60 6 17.065 0.071 0.35 0.323 0.395 310-62+310-61 310-62 310-61 6 79.134 0.042 0.348 0.307 0.394 310-63+310-62 310-63 310-62 8 90.121 0.051 0.22 0.195 0.247 310-64+310-63 310-64 310-63 8 34.437 0.051 0.216 0.192 0.242 310-65+310-64 310-65 310-64 8 103.447 0.204 0.152 0.135 0.168 310-66+310-65 310-66 310-65 6 50.268 0.168 0.231 0.204 0.255 310-67+310-66 310-67 310-66 6 72.028 0.045 0.278 0.245 0.307 310-68+310-67 310-68 310-67 6 92.645 0.102 0.211 0.187 0.232 310-69+310-68 310-69 310-68 6 46.468 0.074 0.166 0.148 0.191 310-70+310-69 310-70 310-69 6 117.642 0.276 0.119 0.106 0.134 313-53+313-52 313-53 313-52 8 217.881 0.043 0.486 0.633 0.617 313-54+313-53 313-54 313-53 8 236.626 0.042 0.483 0.633 0.615 313-55+313-54 313-55 313-54 8 149.47 0.014 0.682 1 1
313-56+313-55 313-56 313-55 8 343.237 0.085 0.102 0.089 0.102 313-57+313-56 313-57 313-56 8 350.283 0.061 0.074 0.066 0.079 313-58+313-57 313-58 313-57 6 225.639 0.032 0.097 0.085 0.1 313-59+313-55 313-59 313-55 10 356.113 0.006 0.567 0.747 0.747 313-60+313-59 313-60 313-59 8 432.559 0.011 0.656 1 1
316-01+310-46 316-01 310-46 8 22.062 0.113 0.026 0.025 0.037 316-03+316-01 316-03 316-01 6 114.939 0.616 0 0 0
316-05+310-46 316-05 310-46 8 267.024 0.086 0.316 0.425 0.39 316-07+316-07A 316-07 316-07A 6 35.673 0.407 0.041 0.037 0.047 316-07A+316-05 316-07A 316-05 6 98.205 0.298 0.059 0.053 0.069 316-11+316-05 316-11 316-05 8 142.214 0.095 0.299 0.409 0.371 316-13+316-11 316-13 316-11 6 224.6 0.273 0.297 0.442 0.384 316-15+316-13 316-15 316-13 6 205.291 0.035 0.51 1 1
316-16+316-15 316-16 316-15 6 174.907 0.008 1 1 1
316-17+316-17A 316-17 316-17A 6 20.868 0.02 0.56 1 1
316-17A+316-17B 316-17A 316-17B 6 25.604 0.034 0.482 1 1 316-17B+316-17C 316-17B 316-17C 6 99.293 0.015 0.632 1 1 316-17C+316-16 316-17C 316-16 6 38.483 0.015 0.655 1 1
316-1A+316-32 316-1A 316-32 6 103.838 0.054 0.048 0.256 0.175 316-1B+316-30 316-1B 316-30 6 155.088 0.117 0.214 0.381 0.302 316-20+316-17 316-20 316-17 6 40.446 0.144 0.32 0.512 0.425 316-23+316-20 316-23 316-20 6 251.433 0.127 0.317 0.449 0.39 316-24+316-23 316-24 316-23 6 104.705 0.268 0.138 0.119 0.127 316-24A+316-24 316-24A 316-24 6 33.79 0.07 0.176 0.151 0.157 316-27+316-27A 316-27 316-27A 6 175.908 0.051 0.093 0.081 0.094 316-27A+316-23 316-27A 316-23 6 184.401 0.03 0.125 0.11 0.134 316-28+316-23 316-28 316-23 6 213.904 0.108 0.252 0.426 0.348 316-28A+316-28 316-28A 316-28 6 105.316 0.173 0.045 0.041 0.054 316-29+316-28 316-29 316-28 6 147.067 0.062 0.265 0.461 0.372 316-30+316-29 316-30 316-29 6 319.658 0.107 0.225 0.393 0.316 316-32+316-32A 316-32 316-32A 6 51.758 0.127 0.18 0.36 0.275 316-32A+316-1B 316-32A 316-1B 6 77.243 0.091 0.214 0.401 0.312 316-34+316-32 316-34 316-32 6 312.633 0.114 0.175 0.295 0.235 316-35+316-34 316-35 316-34 6 145.295 0.031 0.218 0.353 0.284 316-36+316-35 316-36 316-35 6 306.416 0.047 0.188 0.311 0.245 316-37+316-36 316-37 316-36 6 350.676 0.091 0.072 0.232 0.163 316-40+316-20 316-40 316-20 6 13.253 0.552 0.054 0.172 0.127 316-41+316-40 316-41 316-40 6 132.27 0.156 0.062 0.232 0.164 316-42+316-41 316-42 316-41 6 93.337 0.151 0.057 0.233 0.16 ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 300
ID Upstream MH Downstream MH Diameter Length Slope Existing d/D Interim d/D Buildout d/D 316-45+316-11 316-45 316-11 8 227.5 0.093 0.126 0.111 0.133 316-46+316-45 316-46 316-45 6 28.668 0.105 0.147 0.129 0.151 316-47+316-46 316-47 316-46 6 227.266 0.071 0.142 0.125 0.145 316-48+316-47 316-48 316-47 6 109.087 0.066 0.121 0.106 0.123 316-4A+316-79 316-4A 316-79 6 125.701 0.196 0.04 0.037 0.051 316-50+316-48 316-50 316-48 6 51.442 0.09 0.058 0.052 0.067 316-52+316-45 316-52 316-45 8 22.613 0.096 0.047 0.043 0.059 316-53+316-52 316-53 316-52 8 296.66 0.1 0.037 0.033 0.044 316-56+310-47 316-56 310-47 6 64.888 0.26 0.05 0.046 0.065 316-57+316-56 316-57 316-56 6 31.254 0.415 0.033 0.03 0.042 316-59+310-48 316-59 310-48 6 66.984 0.166 0.066 0.058 0.068 316-61+310-49 316-61 310-49 6 115.718 0.018 0.052 0.05 0.08 316-63+310-61A 316-63 310-61A 6 120.714 0.009 0.151 0.137 0.186 316-65+316-63 316-65 316-63 6 284.291 0.021 0.11 0.099 0.129 316-68+316-65 316-68 316-65 6 141.074 0.165 0.054 0.048 0.06 316-75+310-66 316-75 310-66 6 79.013 0.06 0.138 0.123 0.152 316-77+316-75 316-77 316-75 6 112.926 0.257 0.087 0.077 0.094 316-79+316-77 316-79 316-77 6 93.298 0.029 0.085 0.078 0.11 316-82+310-67 316-82 310-67 6 89.989 0.008 0.133 0.117 0.138 316-84+310-68 316-84 310-68 6 68.206 0.019 0.203 0.177 0.205 316-85+316-84 316-85 316-84 6 64.95 0.062 0.095 0.085 0.106 316-87+316-85 316-87 316-85 6 106.436 0.218 0.062 0.055 0.064 316-90+310-70 316-90 310-70 6 56.48 0.045 0.163 0.146 0.188 316-92+316-90 316-92 316-90 6 119.865 0.176 0.114 0.102 0.128 316-93+316-92 316-93 316-92 6 99.275 0.042 0.158 0.14 0.17 316-94+316-93 316-94 316-93 6 40.215 0.04 0.148 0.131 0.156 316-96+316-94 316-96 316-94 6 83.06 0.365 0.082 0.072 0.083 316-98+316-96 316-98 316-96 6 106.119 0.01 0.186 0.161 0.175 340-03+340-02 340-03 340-02 10 15.823 0.037 0.045 0.077 0.065 340-05+340-02 340-05 340-02 10 84.619 0.019 0.455 0.549 0.55 340-08+340-08A 340-08 340-08A 10 56.949 0.113 0.252 0.313 0.303 340-08A+340-08B 340-08A 340-08B 10 28.051 0.391 0.187 0.229 0.223 340-08B+340-08C 340-08B 340-05 10 85.516 0.053 0.313 0.387 0.376 340-09+340-08 340-09 340-08 10 91.712 0.298 0.196 0.243 0.234 340-10+340-09 340-10 340-09 10 81.038 0.056 0.274 0.36 0.344 340-11+340-11A 340-11 340-11A 10 143.873 0.049 0.281 0.355 0.346 340-11A+340-10 340-11A 340-10 10 70.349 0.018 0.362 0.487 0.463 340-12+340-11 340-12 340-11 10 248.349 0.112 0.226 0.285 0.277 340-13+340-12 340-13 340-12 10 68.334 0.015 0.375 0.48 0.469 340-14+340-13 340-14 340-13 10 117.214 0.057 0.259 0.329 0.321 340-17+340-14 340-17 340-14 10 281.512 0.1 0.221 0.281 0.273 340-19+340-17 340-19 340-17 10 161.919 0.014 0.356 0.471 0.454 340-1A+340-48 340-1A 340-48 8 162.934 0.077 0.088 0.079 0.098 340-22+340-22A 340-22 340-22A 10 76.722 0.034 0.27 0.362 0.347 340-22A+340-19 340-22A 340-19 8 113.424 0.09 0.286 0.383 0.369 340-24+340-24A 340-24 340-24A 10 205.652 0.064 0.224 0.302 0.286 340-24+342-2B 340-24 342-2B 8 209.331 0.068 0.279 0.377 0.358 340-24A+340-22 340-24A 340-22 10 14.441 0.067 0.221 0.298 0.284 340-25+340-24 340-25 340-24 10 63.821 0.068 0.297 0.41 0.387 340-26+340-25 340-26 340-25 10 172.35 0.057 0.3 0.425 0.398 340-27+340-26 340-27 340-26 8 126.141 0.01 0.703 1 1
340-28+340-27 340-28 340-27 15 141.821 0.018 0.205 0.278 0.266 340-29+340-28 340-29 340-28 15 52.751 0.005 0.275 0.376 0.36 340-30+340-30A 340-30 340-30A 8 41.543 0.023 0.45 0.632 0.604 340-30A+340-30B 340-30A 340-30B 15 271.938 0.005 0.278 0.372 0.359 340-30B+340-29 340-30B 340-29 15 53.606 0.019 0.2 0.267 0.257 340-31+340-30 340-31 340-30 10 48.404 0.07 0.24 0.323 0.31 340-32+340-31 340-32 340-31 10 285.136 0.077 0.231 0.292 0.29 340-33+340-32 340-33 340-32 10 60.411 0.037 0.277 0.327 0.338 340-34+340-33 340-34 340-33 10 60.443 0.09 0.217 0.235 0.255 340-35+340-35A 340-35 340-35A 10 4.821 0.402 0.149 0.157 0.172 340-35A+340-34 340-35A 340-34 10 56.442 0.003 0.522 0.565 0.635 340-40+340-35 340-40 340-35 10 173.918 0.034 0.274 0.289 0.318 340-41+340-40 340-41 340-40 10 107.281 0.069 0.22 0.229 0.254 340-42+340-41 340-42 340-41 10 89.816 0.079 0.211 0.219 0.243 340-43+340-42 340-43 340-42 10 77.205 0.084 0.206 0.215 0.237 340-44+340-44A 340-44 340-44A 8 18.035 0.135 0.143 0.125 0.146 ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 301
ID Upstream MH Downstream MH Diameter Length Slope Existing d/D Interim d/D Buildout d/D 340-44A+340-43 340-44A 340-43 8 110.651 0.101 0.157 0.138 0.162 340-45+340-44 340-45 340-44 8 80.706 0.017 0.193 0.171 0.208 340-46+340-45 340-46 340-45 8 51.876 0.116 0.087 0.079 0.105 340-47+340-46 340-47 340-46 8 70.054 0.039 0.111 0.1 0.13 340-48+340-47 340-48 340-47 8 154.134 0.032 0.113 0.101 0.129 340-49+340-1A 340-49 340-1A 8 59.34 0.066 0.084 0.075 0.091 340-50+340-49 340-50 340-49 8 135.225 0.06 0.073 0.065 0.079 340-51+340-50 340-51 340-50 8 220.958 0.066 0.058 0.051 0.06 341-04+340-08 341-04 340-08 6 171.422 0.354 0.055 0.049 0.057 341-08+341-08B 341-08 341-08B 6 68.74 0.061 0.254 0.224 0.277 341-08B+340-05 341-08B 340-05 6 65.938 0.062 0.256 0.226 0.282 341-12+341-1C 341-12 341-1C 6 68.189 0.012 0.362 0.316 0.387 341-13+341-12 341-13 341-12 6 130.898 0.031 0.272 0.238 0.288 341-17+341-13 341-17 341-13 6 295.802 0.07 0.21 0.184 0.222 341-19+341-17 341-19 341-17 6 303.538 0.13 0.15 0.133 0.165 341-1B+341-39 341-1B 341-39 6 303.943 0.066 0.115 0.226 0.188 341-1C+341-1D 341-1C 341-1D 6 89.06 0.038 0.272 0.239 0.293 341-1D+341-08 341-1D 341-08 6 77.988 0.02 0.333 0.292 0.361 341-20+341-19 341-20 341-19 6 157.531 0.074 0.165 0.146 0.18 341-22A+341-20 341-22A 341-20 6 34.287 0.329 0.109 0.097 0.117 341-24+341-22A 341-24 341-22A 5 145.794 0.062 0.198 0.174 0.208 341-27+341-24 341-27 341-24 5 120.934 0.008 0.294 0.257 0.307 341-2C+341-2D 341-2C 341-2D 8 111.126 0.013 0.053 0.048 0.067 341-2D+340-22 341-2D 340-22 8 149.332 0.025 0.074 0.067 0.086 341-30+341-27 341-30 341-27 5 163.185 0.019 0.175 0.154 0.188 341-31+341-30 341-31 341-30 6 119.576 0.042 0.063 0.057 0.076 341-35+340-25 341-35 340-25 6 26.663 0.143 0.087 0.076 0.085 341-36+340-27 341-36 340-27 8 483.277 0.103 0.153 0.199 0.191 341-37+341-36 341-37 341-36 8 386.777 0.068 0.167 0.219 0.208 341-38+341-37 341-38 341-37 6 149.967 0.028 0.179 0.298 0.264 341-39+341-38 341-39 341-38 6 80.557 0.066 0.135 0.234 0.203 341-3A+341-37 341-3A 341-37 6 19.039 0.01 0.272 0.317 0.318 341-40A+341-5A 341-40A 341-5A 6 227.205 0.11 0.068 0.15 0.114 341-41+341-3A 341-41 341-3A 6 106.828 0.147 0.135 0.158 0.154 341-42+341-41 341-42 341-41 6 96.064 0.172 0.115 0.143 0.135 341-44+341-42 341-44 341-42 6 137.052 0.095 0.081 0.138 0.12 341-45A+341-44 341-45A 341-44 6 194.323 0.021 0.052 0.179 0.136 341-46+340-30 341-46 340-30 6 84.343 0.16 0.035 0.033 0.049 341-48+340-31 341-48 340-31 6 28.321 0.037 0.065 0.194 0.143 341-4B+340-33 341-4B 340-33 6 75.395 0.375 0.055 0.151 0.109 341-50+340-40 341-50 340-40 6 117.674 0.185 0.093 0.102 0.103 341-51+341-50 341-51 341-50 6 268.752 0.015 0.159 0.138 0.151 341-5A+341-5B 341-5A 341-5B 6 341.886 0.086 0.08 0.162 0.132 341-5B+341-1B 341-5B 341-1B 6 209.901 0.059 0.105 0.185 0.16 342-01+342-2B 342-01 342-2B 10 97.134 0.011 0.267 0.312 0.33 342-02+342-01 342-02 342-01 8 325.929 0.057 0.232 0.273 0.287 342-03+342-02 342-03 342-02 8 272.139 0.053 0.232 0.275 0.289 342-04+342-03 342-04 342-03 7 118.3 0.084 0.243 0.291 0.303 342-05+342-04 342-05 342-04 6 237.395 0.118 0.084 0.073 0.083 342-08+342-08A 342-08 342-08A 8 293.385 0.028 0.186 0.27 0.259 342-08A+342-46A 342-08A 342-46A 6 104.142 0.12 0.202 0.283 0.275 342-09+342-1A 342-09 342-1A 6 89.657 0.103 0.134 0.184 0.187 342-11+342-1A 342-11 342-1A 6 54.864 0.391 0.093 0.13 0.123 342-14+342-11 342-14 342-11 6 253.448 0.062 0.098 0.181 0.163 342-15+342-14 342-15 342-14 6 83.338 0.381 0.05 0.112 0.095 342-17+342-15 342-17 342-15 6 241.71 0.061 0.066 0.169 0.135 342-18+342-17 342-18 342-17 6 202.756 0.049 0.043 0.172 0.126 342-1A+342-08 342-1A 342-08 8 164.591 0.029 0.183 0.246 0.245 342-1B+313-60 342-1B 313-60 10 135.922 0.01 0.468 0.611 0.605 342-20+342-09 342-20 342-09 6 104.31 0.026 0.178 0.253 0.251 342-21+342-20 342-21 342-20 6 247.163 0.108 0.112 0.171 0.165 342-21A+342-21 342-21A 342-21 6 123.475 0.289 0.072 0.064 0.077 342-23+342-21 342-23 342-21 6 254.692 0.085 0.068 0.159 0.135 342-24+342-44 342-24 342-44 6 191.518 0.007 0.084 0.282 0.206 342-2B+342-1B 342-2B 342-1B 10 34.171 0.005 0.549 0.749 0.749 342-42+342-21A 342-42 342-21A 6 107.221 0.041 0.043 0.041 0.066 342-44+342-23 342-44 342-23 6 312.092 0.114 0.055 0.145 0.116 ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 302
ID Upstream MH Downstream MH Diameter Length Slope Existing d/D Interim d/D Buildout d/D 342-46+342-46A 342-46 342-46A 6 307.273 0.102 0.158 0.139 0.169 342-46A+342-04 342-46A 342-04 6 119.902 0.046 0.33 0.41 0.423 342-48+342-46 342-48 342-46 6 231.552 0.103 0.146 0.129 0.156 342-49+342-48 342-49 342-48 6 380.277 0.131 0.113 0.101 0.125 342-50+342-49 342-50 342-49 6 162.425 0.121 0.106 0.094 0.115 342-52+342-50 342-52 342-50 6 103.661 0.097 0.096 0.085 0.102 342-54+342-52 342-54 342-52 6 104.64 0.085 0.094 0.082 0.092 343-02+340-43 343-02 340-43 8 71.31 0.061 0.24 0.27 0.291 343-03+343-02 343-03 343-02 8 230.122 0.026 0.295 0.336 0.36 343-03A+343-03 343-03A 343-03 6 115.321 0.422 0.046 0.041 0.05 343-05+343-03 343-05 343-03 8 138.881 0.073 0.217 0.25 0.265 343-06+343-05 343-06 343-05 6 121.015 0.2 0.153 0.135 0.161 343-07+343-06 343-07 343-06 6 134.036 0.099 0.173 0.152 0.18 343-08+343-07 343-08 343-07 6 128.861 0.151 0.148 0.13 0.153 343-10+343-08 343-10 343-08 6 35.525 0.13 0.048 0.043 0.058 343-12+343-08 343-12 343-08 6 139.291 0.183 0.125 0.109 0.124 343-14+343-12 343-14 343-12 6 55.366 0.087 0.046 0.045 0.075 343-15+343-14 343-15 343-14 6 123.778 0.207 0.028 0.028 0.045 343-17+343-05 343-17 343-05 8 231.666 0.08 0.162 0.212 0.214 343-18+343-17 343-18 343-17 8 122.277 0.126 0.14 0.187 0.186 343-19+343-18 343-19 343-18 8 236.188 0.013 0.24 0.329 0.325 343-20+343-19 343-20 343-19 8 113.101 0.084 0.149 0.172 0.186 343-22+343-20 343-22 343-20 8 154.534 0.008 0.25 0.224 0.297 343-26+343-22 343-26 343-22 6 100.556 0.057 0.216 0.194 0.254 343-27+343-26 343-27 343-26 6 157.367 0.125 0.175 0.157 0.204 343-28+343-27 343-28 343-27 6 81.637 0.147 0.159 0.143 0.186 343-30+343-28 343-30 343-28 6 161.63 0.149 0.079 0.069 0.078 343-33+343-28 343-33 343-28 6 194.583 0.129 0.139 0.126 0.168 343-34+343-33 343-34 343-33 6 130.129 0.115 0.123 0.113 0.156 343-35+343-34 343-35 343-34 6 131.69 0.085 0.115 0.106 0.146 343-36+343-35 343-36 343-35 6 43.078 0.125 0.074 0.068 0.095 343-38+343-36 343-38 343-36 6 107.558 0.153 0.057 0.053 0.074 343-40+343-38 343-40 343-38 6 60.166 0.038 0.062 0.057 0.077 343-44+343-35 343-44 343-35 6 164.635 0.095 0.061 0.057 0.081 343-45+343-44 343-45 343-44 6 113.677 0.161 0.027 0.027 0.046 343-47+343-34 343-47 343-34 6 59.835 0.168 0.048 0.044 0.057 350-01+310-44 350-01 310-44 10 139.968 0.441 0.233 0.238 0.258 350-02+350-01 350-02 350-01 10 29.437 0.141 0.311 0.317 0.345 350-04+350-3A 350-04 350-3A 10 155.902 0.014 0.577 0.595 0.662 350-05+350-04 350-05 350-04 10 221.254 0.002 1 1 1
350-06+350-05 350-06 350-05 10 182.214 0.007 0.715 0.747 1 350-08+350-06 350-08 350-06 10 333.064 0.006 0.769 0.794 1 350-09+350-08 350-09 350-08 10 176.456 0.004 1 1 1
350-10+350-09 350-10 350-09 10 161.507 0.016 0.512 0.529 0.576 350-11+350-10 350-11 350-10 8 39.297 0.014 0.816 1 1
350-12+350-11 350-12 350-11 8 63.568 0.114 0.398 0.413 0.445 350-13+350-12 350-13 350-12 8 66.691 0.107 0.398 0.416 0.448 350-14+350-13 350-14 350-13 8 98.865 0.083 0.422 0.443 0.476 350-15+350-14 350-15 350-14 8 103.551 0.073 0.435 0.458 0.491 350-16+350-15 350-16 350-15 8 154.686 0.074 0.424 0.448 0.479 350-17+350-16 350-17 350-16 8 94.003 0.026 0.559 0.602 0.649 350-18+350-17 350-18 350-17 8 70.729 0.093 0.239 0.209 0.247 350-20+350-18 350-20 350-18 8 307.882 0.028 0.314 0.273 0.324 350-21+350-20 350-21 350-20 8 185.998 0.068 0.173 0.152 0.179 350-22+350-21 350-22 350-21 8 191.06 0.133 0.137 0.12 0.142 350-23+350-22 350-23 350-22 8 69.263 0.07 0.145 0.128 0.15 350-24+350-23 350-24 350-23 8 257.01 0.074 0.131 0.115 0.132 350-25+350-24 350-25 350-24 8 38.589 0.115 0.106 0.093 0.107 350-27+350-25 350-27 350-25 8 252.01 0.391 0.071 0.062 0.068 350-29+350-27 350-29 350-27 8 24.808 0.059 0.095 0.082 0.088 350-3A+350-02 350-3A 350-02 10 230.463 0.126 0.318 0.325 0.353 351-01+350-06 351-01 350-06 6 179.489 0.181 0.094 0.082 0.096 351-02+351-01 351-02 351-01 6 167.891 0.033 0.08 0.071 0.089 351-04+351-1B 351-04 351-1B 6 52.957 0.019 0.25 0.222 0.281 351-05+351-04 351-05 351-04 6 134.088 0.173 0.131 0.117 0.148 351-10+351-05 351-10 351-05 6 126.822 0.372 0.093 0.084 0.109 351-11+351-10 351-11 351-10 6 58.513 0.312 0.059 0.052 0.06 ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 303
ID Upstream MH Downstream MH Diameter Length Slope Existing d/D Interim d/D Buildout d/D 351-13+351-10 351-13 351-10 6 170.007 0.114 0.08 0.074 0.107 351-14+351-14A 351-14 351-14A 6 52.139 0.027 0.047 0.045 0.072 351-14A+351-13 351-14A 351-13 6 39.673 0.022 0.087 0.081 0.115 351-17+351-13 351-17 351-13 6 231.142 0.092 0.051 0.047 0.063 351-19+350-11 351-19 350-11 6 75.182 0.26 0.035 0.033 0.046 351-1B+350-09 351-1B 350-09 6 42.761 0.021 0.248 0.22 0.283 351-21+350-13 351-21 350-13 6 55.969 0.09 0.06 0.054 0.068 351-23+350-15 351-23 350-15 6 32.997 0.07 0.106 0.094 0.112 351-24+351-23 351-24 351-23 6 144.095 0.307 0.059 0.052 0.061 351-26+350-18 351-26 350-18 6 31.761 0.255 0.064 0.056 0.065 351-27+350-20 351-27 350-20 8 30.742 0.265 0.124 0.109 0.128 351-28+351-27 351-28 351-27 8 27.842 0.237 0.113 0.1 0.119 351-29+351-28 351-29 351-28 6 196.32 0.12 0.189 0.166 0.197 351-30+351-29 351-30 351-29 6 89.304 0.079 0.198 0.174 0.206 351-31+351-30 351-31 351-30 6 104.241 0.048 0.196 0.172 0.208 351-32+351-31 351-32 351-31 6 122.666 0.02 0.236 0.207 0.246 351-33+351-32 351-33 351-32 6 45.185 0.224 0.114 0.1 0.12 351-35+351-33 351-35 351-33 6 184.576 0.264 0.092 0.081 0.098 351-37+351-35 351-37 351-35 6 192.07 0.115 0.072 0.065 0.085 351-38+351-37 351-38 351-37 6 97.852 0.147 0.042 0.039 0.054 351-39+350-22 351-39 350-22 6 73.813 0.066 0.095 0.083 0.094 351-42+350-23 351-42 350-23 8 86.704 0.051 0.057 0.051 0.061 351-45+350-25 351-45 350-25 8 127.032 0.06 0.037 0.034 0.047 351-59+310-44 351-59 310-44 6 103.226 0.477 0.075 0.066 0.076 351-61+351-59 351-61 351-59 6 163.2 0.21 0.084 0.074 0.081 352-02+350-17 352-02 350-17 8 197.958 0.022 0.436 0.521 0.524 352-03+352-02 352-03 352-02 8 104.124 0.071 0.317 0.363 0.37 352-09+352-03 352-09 352-03 8 131.885 0.082 0.302 0.347 0.353 352-10+352-09 352-10 352-09 8 119.362 0.096 0.223 0.278 0.265 352-11+352-10 352-11 352-10 6 76.372 0.162 0.107 0.093 0.099 352-16+352-09 352-16 352-09 8 126.85 0.113 0.172 0.169 0.192 352-17+352-16 352-17 352-16 8 296.001 0.115 0.171 0.151 0.183 352-20+352-17 352-20 352-17 8 50.454 0.1 0.17 0.15 0.182 352-21+352-20 352-21 352-20 8 144.353 0.134 0.062 0.055 0.066 352-23+352-21 352-23 352-21 8 186.727 0.08 0.061 0.054 0.061 352-25+352-20 352-25 352-20 8 91.342 0.095 0.148 0.131 0.162 352-26+352-26A 352-26 352-26A 8 25 0.114 0.123 0.109 0.137 352-26A+352-25 352-26A 352-25 8 65.992 0.15 0.122 0.109 0.136 352-27+352-26 352-27 352-26 8 209.229 0.144 0.087 0.077 0.092 352-28+352-27 352-28 352-27 8 170.62 0.138 0.074 0.066 0.079 352-29+352-28 352-29 352-28 8 113.68 0.116 0.074 0.065 0.075 352-30+352-29 352-30 352-29 6 39.047 0.165 0.041 0.038 0.053 352-31+352-26 352-31 352-26 8 111.568 0.143 0.077 0.069 0.089 352-32+352-31 352-32 352-31 8 117.429 0.05 0.086 0.077 0.101 352-33+352-32 352-33 352-32 6 94.785 0.331 0.045 0.042 0.06 352-34+352-33 352-34 352-33 6 155.923 0.096 0.041 0.039 0.057 352-37+352-32 352-37 352-32 8 97.337 0.138 0.052 0.045 0.052 352-41A+352-10 352-41A 352-10 8 218.468 0.083 0.21 0.276 0.259 352-43+352-57 352-43 352-57 8 173.5 0.152 0.105 0.093 0.113 352-44+352-43 352-44 352-43 8 161.89 0.071 0.12 0.106 0.124 352-47+352-44 352-47 352-44 6 140.725 0.287 0.117 0.103 0.12 352-48+352-47 352-48 352-47 6 96.706 0.051 0.119 0.104 0.114 352-51+352-47 352-51 352-47 6 160.469 0.299 0.081 0.072 0.084 352-52+352-51 352-52 352-51 6 41.057 0.037 0.115 0.1 0.112 352-55+352-43 352-55 352-43 6 19.496 0.285 0.035 0.033 0.046 352-57+352-41A 352-57 352-41A 8 251.29 0.097 0.187 0.257 0.238 352-58+352-57 352-58 352-57 8 133.874 0.13 0.134 0.217 0.185 352-60+352-58 352-60 352-58 8 93.926 0.476 0.016 0.065 0.048 352-63+352-58 352-63 352-58 8 94.907 0.135 0.13 0.197 0.17 352-64+352-63 352-64 352-63 8 40.252 0.217 0.092 0.109 0.104 352-66+352-64 352-66 352-64 8 204.104 0.561 0.073 0.063 0.071 352-67+352-66 352-67 352-66 8 93.652 0.051 0.114 0.099 0.109 352-67A+352-67 352-67A 352-67 8 118.212 0.065 0.031 0.029 0.043 352-77+352-63 352-77 352-63 8 23.496 0.116 0.065 0.155 0.119 352-80+352-77 352-80 352-77 8 181.337 0.302 0.048 0.122 0.091 352-82+352-80 352-82 352-80 8 158.328 0.055 0.032 0.176 0.121 412-36+412-35 412-36 412-35 8 478.327 0.109 0.117 0.117 0.242 ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 304
ID Upstream MH Downstream MH Diameter Length Slope Existing d/D Interim d/D Buildout d/D 412-37+412-36 412-37 412-36 6 249.108 0.007 0.065 0.065 0.457 304-1A+304-3A 304-1A 304-3A 8 146.636 0.082 0.047 0.046 0.047 304-3A+304-5A 304-3A 304-5A 8 129.529 0.067 0.061 0.096 0.097 304-5A+304-6A 304-5A 304-6A 8 21.996 0.22 0.052 0.076 0.076 331-16+331-14 331-16 331-14 6 326.423 0.108 0.154 0.15 0.154 331-18+331-176 331-18 331-16 6 91.494 0.041 0.138 0.134 0.138 330-06+330-05 330-06 330-05 8 323.902 0.035 0.306 0.565 0.638 330-07+330-06 330-07 330-06 8 198.699 0.056 0.268 0.483 0.54 330-08+330-07 330-08 330-07 8 40.806 0.026 0.321 0.6 0.681 330-09+330-08 330-09 330-08 8 36.765 0.063 0.255 0.457 0.508 330-10+330-09 330-10 330-09 8 109.295 0.034 0.259 0.466 0.521 330-11+330-10 330-11 330-10 8 117.31 0.093 0.186 0.325 0.361 330-13+330-11 330-13 330-11 8 169.911 0.015 0.272 0.495 0.557 330-14+330-13 330-14 330-13 8 72.788 0.015 0.264 0.481 0.539 330-15+330-14 330-15 330-14 8 100.494 0.048 0.19 0.335 0.372 330-17+330-15 330-17 330-15 8 187.344 0.073 0.164 0.287 0.32 330-18+330-18A 330-18 330-18A 8 116.202 0.009 0.227 0.41 0.464 330-18A+330-17 330-18A 330-17 8 12.546 0.175 0.129 0.224 0.249 330-19+330-18 330-19 330-18 8 18.704 0.113 0.119 0.207 0.232 330-20+330-19 330-20 330-19 6 83.557 0.12 0.165 0.293 0.33 330-21+330-20 330-21 330-20 6 147.365 0.147 0.14 0.248 0.281 330-22+330-21 330-22 330-21 6 150.419 0.154 0.126 0.225 0.257 330-23+330-22 330-23 330-22 6 271.91 0.16 0.099 0.177 0.205 330-24+330-23 330-24 330-23 6 57.291 0.273 0.069 0.115 0.12 331-08A+330-08 331-08A 330-08 6 269.638 0.067 0.022 0.038 0.052 331-22+331-29 331-22 331-29 6 108.88 0.149 0.074 0.123 0.13 331-26+330-05 331-26 330-05 8 56.942 0.035 0.133 0.226 0.246 331-27+331-26 331-27 331-26 6 100.098 0.034 0.144 0.246 0.268 331-28+331-27 331-28 331-27 6 164.922 0.095 0.109 0.184 0.199 331-29+331-29A 331-29 331-29A 6 162.483 0.041 0.121 0.205 0.217 331-29A+331-28 331-29A 331-28 6 139.565 0.009 0.188 0.325 0.35 331-31+330-09 331-31 330-09 6 285.684 0.042 0.201 0.348 0.376 331-32+331-31 331-32 331-31 6 113.467 0.083 0.153 0.262 0.282 331-33+331-32 331-33 331-32 6 16.952 0.092 0.14 0.237 0.256 331-34+331-33 331-34 331-33 6 141.827 0.169 0.078 0.13 0.139 331-35+331-34 331-35 331-34 6 189.889 0.03 0.096 0.161 0.171 331-46+331-33 331-46 331-33 6 124.461 0.045 0.122 0.206 0.221 331-47+331-46 331-47 331-46 6 31.347 0.188 0.047 0.078 0.084 331-49+331-46 331-49 331-46 6 175.188 0.187 0.063 0.105 0.111 331-52+331-26 331-52 331-26 6 132.731 0.019 0.15 0.255 0.275 331-53+331-52 331-53 331-52 6 101.169 0.047 0.107 0.18 0.192 331-54+331-53 331-54 331-53 6 186.87 0.015 0.112 0.189 0.201 331-61+330-07 331-61 330-07 6 47.029 0.05 0.055 0.091 0.1 331-65+330-10 331-65 330-10 6 40.587 0.112 0.097 0.164 0.176 331-66+331-65 331-66 331-65 6 175 0.016 0.144 0.245 0.262 331-67+331-66 331-67 331-66 6 89.889 0.044 0.085 0.143 0.151 331-71+330-11 331-71 330-11 6 107.607 0.086 0.099 0.166 0.185 331-72+331-71 331-72 331-71 6 105.367 0.076 0.095 0.16 0.177 331-73+331-72 331-73 331-72 6 40.888 0.101 0.08 0.135 0.148 331-75+331-73 331-75 331-73 6 134.654 0.093 0.068 0.114 0.125 331-77+331-75 331-77 331-75 6 92.123 0.014 0.072 0.121 0.133 331-80+330-13 331-80 330-13 6 119.22 0.118 0.049 0.082 0.089 331-85+330-18A 331-85 330-18A 6 259.176 0.029 0.143 0.244 0.265 331-86+331-85 331-86 331-85 6 125.888 0.157 0.088 0.148 0.159 331-87+331-86 331-87 331-86 6 51.487 0.143 0.072 0.121 0.13 331-88+331-87 331-88 331-87 6 62.17 0.225 0.056 0.093 0.098 331-92+330-20 331-92 330-20 6 62.852 0.337 0.048 0.081 0.086 331-58+331-57 331-58 331-57 8 47.246 0.008 0.159 0.159 0.159 331-59+331-58 331-59 331-58 8 110.745 0.01 0.059 0.059 0.059 331-5A+331-90 331-5A 331-90 6 174.92 0.01 0.244 0.244 0.244 331-06+331-06A 331-06 331-06A 6 327.667 0.06 0.22 0.22 0.22 331-06A+331-04 331-06A 331-04 6 67.846 0.067 0.302 0.302 0.302 331-08+331-06 331-08 331-06 6 230.994 0.065 0.126 0.126 0.126 300-28+300-27 300-28 300-27 8 191.138 0.014 0.463 0.495 0.508 300-29+300-28 300-29 300-28 8 149.071 0.03 0.364 0.378 0.387 300-29+308-2A 300-29 308-2A 6 27.631 0.071 0.486 0.504 0.516 300-2A+300-37 300-2A 300-37 10 18.318 0.17 0.231 0.241 0.246 ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 305
ID Upstream MH Downstream MH Diameter Length Slope Existing d/D Interim d/D Buildout d/D 300-30+300-29 300-30 300-29 10 20.23 0.051 0.35 0.363 0.371 300-32+300-30 300-32 300-30 10 36.781 0.062 0.332 0.344 0.351 300-33+300-32 300-33 300-32 10 217.354 0.102 0.274 0.285 0.29 300-35+300-33 300-35 300-33 10 167.331 0.135 0.252 0.262 0.267 300-37+300-35 300-37 300-35 10 149.975 0.018 0.421 0.44 0.449 300-39+300-39A 300-39 300-39A 6 81.629 0.167 0.438 0.45 0.46 300-39A+300-2A 300-39A 300-2A 6 168.773 0.084 0.547 0.571 0.585 300-42+300-39 300-42 300-39 6 306.137 0.179 0.203 0.214 0.216 308-03+331-03A 308-03 331-03A 6 160.036 0.04 0.636 0.661 0.683 308-04+308-03 308-04 308-03 6 42.955 0.028 0.709 0.743 0.772 308-07+308-2A 308-07 308-2A 6 118.801 0.063 0.143 0.143 0.149 308-09+308-07 308-09 308-07 6 131.242 0.088 0.118 0.118 0.121 308-11+308-09 308-11 308-09 6 118.01 0.345 0.075 0.075 0.077 308-14+308-14A 308-14 308-14A 8 114.992 0.071 0.131 0.131 0.133 308-14A+300-32 308-14A 300-32 8 35.824 0.076 0.135 0.135 0.138 308-17+308-14 308-17 308-14 8 148.413 0.511 0.073 0.073 0.074 308-19+308-17 308-19 308-17 6 96.991 0.242 0.108 0.108 0.11 308-24A+308-24B 308-24A 308-24B 6 66.756 0.406 0.099 0.112 0.113 308-24B+300-2A 308-24B 300-2A 6 23.665 0.444 0.105 0.117 0.119 308-25+300-42 308-25 300-42 6 264.833 0.166 0.167 0.167 0.168 308-2A+308-04 308-2A 308-04 6 94.67 0.023 0.751 0.792 1 308-31+300-39 308-31 300-39 6 168.976 0.483 0.272 0.277 0.284 308-32+308-31 308-32 308-31 6 205.252 0.039 0.514 0.525 0.541 308-33+308-32 308-33 308-32 6 129.784 0.024 0.564 0.579 0.597 308-34+308-33 308-34 308-33 6 201.32 0.011 0.696 0.72 0.751 308-37+308-34 308-37 308-34 6 251.143 0.021 0.505 0.521 0.538 308-39+308-37 308-39 308-37 6 279.016 0.011 0.462 0.485 0.497 308-43+308-39 308-43 308-39 6 264.646 0.013 0.352 0.376 0.386 308-44+308-43 308-44 308-43 6 29.984 0.006 0.392 0.423 0.435 308-46+308-44 308-46 308-44 6 101.041 0.019 0.249 0.274 0.279 308-47+308-46 308-47 308-46 6 50.722 0.013 0.258 0.288 0.292 308-48+308-47 308-48 308-47 6 112.023 0.035 0.184 0.208 0.21 308-49+308-44 308-49 308-44 6 138.915 0.151 0.08 0.08 0.082 308-51+308-37 308-51 308-37 6 54.639 0.319 0.135 0.135 0.141 308-52+308-51 308-52 308-51 6 18.814 -0.201 1 1 1
308-54+308-52 308-54 308-52 6 133.647 0.127 0.143 0.143 0.149 308-55+308-54 308-55 308-54 6 44.787 0.045 0.153 0.153 0.161 308-57+308-55 308-57 308-55 6 100.771 0.13 0.102 0.102 0.107 308-58+308-57 308-58 308-57 6 75.976 0.001 0.253 0.253 0.267 308-60+308-58 308-60 308-58 6 57.151 0.152 0.048 0.048 0.051 331-03A+331-09A 331-03A 331-09A 6 102.407 0.025 0.776 1 1 307-51+307-50 307-51 307-50 8 276.302 0.007 0.589 0.589 1 307-52+307-51 307-52 307-51 8 103.479 0.052 0.319 0.319 0.411 307-53+307-52 307-53 307-52 8 178.664 0.096 0.083 0.083 0.114 307-56+307-53 307-56 307-53 6 51.214 0.219 0.071 0.071 0.097 307-58+307-52 307-58 307-52 8 43.067 -0.051 1 1 1
307-59+307-58 307-59 307-58 8 57.786 0.098 0.249 0.249 0.309 307-61+307-59 307-61 307-59 8 56.57 0.109 0.237 0.237 0.291 307-63+307-61 307-63 307-61 8 105.944 0.242 0.189 0.189 0.229 307-64+307-63 307-64 307-63 6 53.823 0.083 0.358 0.358 0.437 307-65+307-64 307-65 307-64 6 91.307 0.009 0.337 0.337 0.431 307-66+307-65 307-66 307-65 6 199.536 0.106 0.145 0.145 0.182 307-67+307-66 307-67 307-66 6 159.108 0.123 0.114 0.114 0.137 307-71+307-64 307-71 307-64 6 318.14 0.07 0.291 0.291 0.342 307-72+307-71 307-72 307-71 6 259.873 0.013 0.344 0.344 0.421 307-75+307-72 307-75 307-72 6 48.521 0.034 0.219 0.219 0.264 307-76+307-75 307-76 307-75 6 238.544 0.073 0.157 0.157 0.178 320-29+320-28 320-29 320-28 8 170.268 0.043 0.286 0.312 0.389 320-30+320-29 320-30 320-29 6 154.235 0.008 0.478 0.576 0.774 320-31+320-30 320-31 320-30 6 176.873 0.008 0.385 0.486 0.62 320-32+320-31 320-32 320-31 6 420.886 0.009 0.202 0.278 0.336 322-68+320-29 322-68 320-29 6 204.27 0.039 0.275 0.275 0.331 322-69+322-68 322-69 322-68 6 247.052 0.064 0.202 0.202 0.231 322-72+320-31 322-72 320-31 6 42.628 0.277 0.108 0.134 0.155 ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 306
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan – Fehr & Peers Responses to Transportation Comments (August 20, 2025) # Comment Response
Tom Brohard letter dated May 1, 2025
1 1) Traffic Speeds - The documents continue to incorrectly rely on the 85th percentile speed rather than the "Design Speed" which is typically 10 mph above the 85th percentile speed. For Moraga Avenue, the design speed should be at least 50 mph and could be as high as 55 mph depending on current speed measurements. The vehicle speeds relied upon by the Public Review Draft were likely influenced by the speed feedback signing which apparently was in place and operating when vehicle speeds were measured in September 2023 (See Page 29). The speed measurements also do not necessarily reflect current conditions and traffic speeds.
The comment states that the design speed should be 10 mph above the measured 85th percentile speed. However, no sources or standards are referenced. According to the Highway Design Manual (HDM), Index 101.1(2)(a), setting a design speed higher than the operating speed would only be appropriate for existing limited access highways and conventional highways in rural areas. Since Moraga Avenue is in a suburban setting with numerous intersecting roadways and private driveways, it is not considered a limited access highway or a conventional highway in a rural area, and therefore, setting a design speed higher than the operating speed may not be appropriate.
According to the HDM (Index 101.1(2)(a)):
For existing lower-speed conventional highways in urban areas … with observed or proposed operating speeds of 45 mph or less, the design speed should be selected to be consistent with the highway context which may discourage high-speed operating behavior. Select a design speed that is logical with respect to topography, operating speed (or anticipated operating speed if the corridor is being redesigned and the physical characteristics of the highway are being changed), adjacent land use, design volumes for all users, collision history, access control, and facility type.
Consistent with this guidance in the HDM, selecting a design speed of 40 mph on Moraga Avenue, which is above the observed 85th percentile speed, is appropriate. Since Moraga Avenue connects to SR 13, this design speed is consistent with the HDM guidance to use a minimum design speed of 35 mph for local facilities that connect to a freeway or expressway (Index 101.1(2)(c)(2)). Furthermore, if the roadway is ATTACHMENT E Agenda Report Page 307
# Comment Response
designed with a higher design speed that would encourage or facilitate speeds well above the posted speed limit, motorists would be encouraged to operate at those higher speeds more routinely.
The comment also states that the collected speed data may have been influenced by the existing speed feedback sign located on westbound Morage Avenue just west of Red Rock Road. Since the speed feedback sign, as well as the existing speed limit signs, are part of the existing infrastructure along the corridor, they represent current conditions along the corridor in the study area and their effects should be included in the speed data used for the analysis. However, the existing speed feedback sign is estimated to have minimal effect on the speeds along the corridor. Although the speed feedback sign is only provided in the westbound direction, vehicles on both eastbound and westbound Moraga Avenue have similar measured speeds, which exceed the posted speed limit. In addition, the speed data collected in September 2023 is consistent with past speed data collected along the corridor. Since the speed measurements were conducted less than two years ago on the segment of the corridor under study and no major roadway modifications or development projects have been implemented in the last two years, the speed measurements reflect current conditions.
Therefore, the collected speed data remains valid and new speed data is not required.
2 2) Stopping Sight Distance - Use of the proper design speed which is 10 mph higher than the 85th percentile speed will result in longer distances for stopping, particularly in the downhill eastbound direction. It is critically important for motorists to see and react properly to the traffic signal indications at Red Rock Road with pedestrians crossing Moraga Avenue, even with advance flashing beacons for the traffic signal. The proposed signing with the flashing beacons should refer to the traffic signal rather than the pedestrian crossing which would be a part of the traffic signal. In addition, the proposed pedestrian refuge island should be deleted as its As described in response to Comment #1, the comment does not reference any sources or standards that design speed should be 10 mph above the measured 85th percentile speed. According to the HDM, using the measured 85th percentile speed to determine the design speed on Moraga Avenue is appropriate.
The proposed traffic signal at Red Rock Road, as well as the potential driveways along the south side of Moraga Avenue would also meet the longer stopping sight distance for the westbound downhill direction of ATTACHMENT E Agenda Report Page 308
# Comment Response
placement would actually encourage pedestrians to wait in the middle of Moraga Avenue rather than to walk entirely across and clear the roadway out of traffic. Traffic signal equipment and signing should not be installed within the roadway.
Moraga Avenue (which corresponds to 360 feet for a design speed of 40 mph).
The image in the Specific Plan (Figure 4.8 on page 35) will be updated to show a flashing beacon with a signal ahead sign.
The proposed refuge island on the east side of the Moraga Avenue/Red Rock Road intersection would provide raised medians on both sides of the crossing and be at least 8 feet wide to provide adequate waiting space for pedestrians and cyclists if they do not complete the crossing during one signal phase. In addition, the intersection signal would be timed to provide adequate time for pedestrians to cross the intersection in one signal cycle. Furthermore, the proposed refuge island would also narrow the travel lanes in both directions of Moraga Avenue adjacent to the median to discourage excessive speeding.
3 3) Residential Development - If located on the south side of Moraga Avenue, at least two and probably three access driveways to serve the apartments will be needed. The driveways introduce many additional points of conflict with Moraga Avenue traffic and also create the possibility of random midblock pedestrian and bicycle crossings. These potential safety issues can be eliminated before they can occur by building the residential units on the north side of Moraga Avenue where vehicle access will occur with the protection of the proposed traffic signal.
The number of driveways for potential development on Blair Park on the south side of Moraga Avenue has not been determined. Minimal midblock pedestrian crossings would be expected along this segment of Moraga Avenue because there are no major destinations on the north side of the street opposite Blair Park, except for Coaches Field, which the proposed signal on Red Rock Road would provide the shortest path, which would discourage midblock crossings.
Ralph Catalano at the Piedmont City Council on October 7, 2024 and consequent correspondence
ATTACHMENT E Agenda Report Page 309
# Comment Response
4 Our City Council will soon choose either the north or south side of Moraga Avenue as the site for a new 200-household neighborhood required by State law. That choice will reflect how safely pedestrians and bicyclists can cross Moraga Avenue at Red Rock. This is true because the south side option presumes that children residing in Blair Park will cross Moraga at the Red Rock intersection when leaving for, or returning from, either school or Coaches Field. As is now the case on the existing sidewalk west of Red Rock, a fence on the proposed sidewalk along Blair Park would likely be built to keep children from “dashing” across Moraga where about 2,200 of the 15,000 cars using the road each day will travel at speeds exceeding 40 MPH. The Blair Park fence would “funnel” pedestrians to the Red Rock intersection where they could activate a planned “stop light” presumably visible for a sufficient distance to allow motorists on Moraga to stop safely.
Based on traffic data collected in September 2023, Moraga Avenue just east of Red Rock Road has an average traffic volume of about 11,000 vehicles per day. The speed surveys also conducted in September 2023 show about 7 percent of motorists traveling above 40 mph. 5 At the Planning Commission meeting of September 25, the city’s traffic consultant opined that stopping sight distances for drivers approaching the Red Rock intersection from either direction on Moraga Avenue would be safe. He reported basing his opinion on Caltrans guidelines.
Several of us who live in Moraga Canyon found the consultant’s report surprising because a 2010 EIR prepared for proposed playfields in Blair Park found that sight distances on the segment of Moraga that includes the intersection at Red Rock did not meet Caltrans stopping sight distance standards. Hoping to understand this important contradiction, I applied the Caltrans guidelines to the proposed Red Rock intersection. Results were the same as reported in the earlier EIR -- stopping sight distances were less than Caltrans deems safe.
The Caltrans Highway Design Manual is very technical but includes two tables (attached) that succinctly provide the information regarding stopping sight distances. The first table (i.e., 405.1B) lists the appropriate The comment correctly states that stopping sight distance (SSD) is the correct sight distance to use for motorists on Moraga Avenue, and correctly describes the process and identifies the operating speed, the design speed, and the SSD of 300 feet for a design speed of 40 mph.
HDM Index 201.3 requires increasing the SSD by 20 percent for roadway segments with sustained downhill slope of 5 percent or more over one mile long. Thus, the SSD for the downhill (westbound) Moraga Avenue is 360 feet.
Based on field measurements conducted by Fehr & Peers staff in 2024 on Moraga Avenue, the signal heads for the proposed signal at Red Rock Road would have a sight distance of 320 feet for the uphill (eastbound) direction, which would meet the minimum SSD of 300 feet for the uphill direction and a sight distance of 390 feet for downhill (westbound) direction, which would meet the minimum SSD of 360 feet for the downhill direction. The signal design process will confirm the ATTACHMENT E Agenda Report Page 310
# Comment Response
guidelines for various types of roads and intersections. For signalized intersections such as that proposed at Red Rock and Moraga, a footnote to the table refers the reader to a second table (i.e., 201.1) showing stopping sight distances for various “design speeds.”
Design speed for existing roads equals the “operational speed” adjusted for circumstances specific to the analyzed road segment. Operational speed equals the 85th percentile of vehicle speeds observed traveling on the road segment in question. The September 25 Planning Commission staff report cited an operational speed of 39 MPH and a design speed of 40 MPH for Moraga Avenue at Red Rock and Blair Park.
Table 201.1 in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual shows a stopping sight distance of 300 feet for a signalized intersection on a roadway with a “design speed” of 40 MPH.
I have attached two Google maps showing my results. Each shows the segment of Moraga Avenue that includes the Red Rock intersection. Figure A shows about 190 feet between the point at which drivers traveling east on Moraga first see the Red Rock intersection and the intersection itself.
Figure B shows about 380 feet between the point at which vehicles traveling west first see the intersection and the intersection itself. If correct, these graphs imply no safe location for a signalized intersection near the current Red Rock Road. Even if the city took private property on Moraga Avenue and moved the intersection 110 feet to the east to provide a 300 foot sight distance for vehicles traveling east, vehicles traveling west would encounter an unsafe 270-foot sight distance. sightlines based on the final location of the signal poles and the final roadway configuration.
6 Also note that 200 households would likely generate over 1,200 vehicular entrances and exits from Blair Park each day. The guidelines described above imply no connecting road between Blair Park and Moraga Avenue could be safely located between the current Red Rock intersection and the “first sight” point shown on Figure B for vehicles traveling west. A The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual provides vehicle trip generation data for various land use types based on data collected at similar sites throughout the country. According to the Trip Generation Manual, typical multi-family housing generates about
4.54 vehicle trips on a typical weekday. Thus, the approximately 200 ATTACHMENT E Agenda Report Page 311
# Comment Response
connector in this segment would cause dangerous stacking of vehicles making left turns into Blair Park from a point within 300 feet of first sight by drivers traveling west on Moraga. All 1200 or so daily trips out of and into Blair Park would, therefore, occur on a single connector east of the first sight point on Figure B. AM stacking in Blair Park and PM stacking on Moraga at such a single connector would be considerable with the latter causing stacking on the Moraga/Thornhill exit of Route 13 which has a dangerously short stopping sight distance.
Assuming the above is correct, it would seem that any scheme to house 200 families in Moraga Canyon will be dangerous by Caltrans standards.
Pedestrian and bicyclist safety, however, favors planning Piedmont’s new neighborhood for the north side of Moraga. This is true because residents would have no reason to cross Moraga where the only land use would be the relocated Corporation Yard. As noted above, design speed can be modified to reflect local circumstances. Caltrans, for example, modifies design speed shown in Table 201.1 to reflect the grade of roads. Downhill grades increase design speed whereas uphill grades decrease them. The staff report did not describe the grade of the road segment in question, but Moraga Avenue is not flat. The downhill, or westerly, grade decreases at Red Rock but for the purposes of this analysis, I assumed the grade was constant. If so, grade adjusting my analyses would not affect my conclusion that a pedestrian crossing at Red Rock would not be safe. Any shortening of the 300 foot stopping sight distance for drivers approaching Red Rock from the west (i.e., traveling east) would be canceled by lengthening of that for drivers approaching from the east (i.e., traveling west). There would be no safe location for a pedestrian crossing at Red Rock.
housing units would generate about 910 vehicle trips on a typical weekday.
The number and location of driveways serving the proposed development at Blair Park have not been determined yet and will be determined as part of the project design for the development. As stated in Section 4.17 of the Specific Plan, each proposed driveway would have a left-turn lane on westbound Moraga Avenue, which would provide space for vehicles to wait for gaps in the on-coming traffic to tun left into the driveway without interfering with the through traffic on westbound Moraga Avenue. Thus, westbound Moraga Avenue would experience minimal queues, which are not expected to spill back to the SR 13 off-ramps, about 0.7 mile east of Blair Park.
7 The above result assumes a design speed of 40 MPH. As noted above, however, about 2,200 vehicles a day will exceed 40 MPH when traveling on Moraga Avenue. Indeed, the Highway Design Manual recommends (Page 100-2) that the Design Speed for local roads connecting to a State As described in response to comment #4, speed surveys conducted in September 2023 on Moraga Avenue show about 7 percent of motorists traveling above 40 mph..
ATTACHMENT E Agenda Report Page 312
# Comment Response
highway like Route 13 be 45 MPH or higher. If we assume this design speed (i.e., 45 MPH), housing 200 families in Blair Park would appear even more dangerous than implied by my conservative analyses described above. The argument entertained at the Planning Commission meeting, moreover, that narrowing Moraga Avenue could yield safer speeds assumes that the resulting “stacking” of vehicles on Route 13 at the Moraga/Thornhill exit during peak traffic hours would be safe. Stopping sight distance to that exit on Route 13 while traveling east is, however, far below safe levels given the speeds traveled on that highway.
As described in response to comment #2, HDM guidance is a minimum design speed of 35 mph for local facilities that connect to a freeway, which the proposed design speed of 40 mph exceeds.
As previously described, the proposed signal at the intersection of Red Rock Road and the driveways for the proposed development at Blair Park would be consistent with the applicable design standards, including meeting or exceeding the minimum stopping sight distance for a design speed of 40 mph.
Tom Brohard letter dated October 2, 2024
8 1. Traffic Speeds and Critical Speeds – In 2011, my reports questioned the 25 MPH speed limit and the data that was collected at that time.
Speed limits are established at about the 85th percentile speed as measured in an engineering and traffic survey. Establishing an enforceable speed limit requires starting at the 5 MPH increment closest to that speed.
The 85th percentile speed (or critical speed), is the speed at which 85 percent of the vehicles travel at or less under light, free-flowing conditions in good weather. Current speeds need to be measured in both directions on Moraga Avenue in the vicinity of Red Rock Road, with at least 100 vehicles measured in each direction. The speeds uphill and downhill should be averaged together and the critical speed calculated.
Based on data collected in September 2023 just east of Red Rock Road, the 85th percentile speed in both directions of Moraga Avenue is about 38 mph.
ATTACHMENT E Agenda Report Page 313
# Comment Response
9 2. Design Speeds – When selecting a design speed from the measured speeds, typically a speed of 10 MPH above the critical speed is chosen. At the design speed, about 95 percent of the traffic would be travelling at or below that speed. If the critical speed was found to be 43 or 44 MPH, then a design speed of 55 MPH should be utilized. If the critical speed was found to be 42 or 41 MPH, then a design speed of 50 MPH should be utilized.
As described in response to comment #1, the comment does not reference any sources or standards that design speed should be 10 mph above the measured 85th percentile speed. According to the HDM, using the measured 85th percentile speed to determine the design speed on Moraga Avenue is appropriate.
.
10 3. Stopping Sight Distance – The chart from the Caltrans Design Manual attached to Ralph’s draft letter does not account for the roadway profile grade. Downhill grades require additional stopping distance and uphill roadway grades require less stopping distance. For Moraga Avenue, the roadway grade at Red Rock Road should be considered. The stopping sight distance on a flat road would be 500’ as shown in the chart for 55 MPH and 430’ for 50 MPH. In each case, the impact of the roadway grade should be added for downhill traffic and subtracted for uphill traffic.
As described in the response to comment #5, For a 40-mph design speed, the stopping sight distance (SSD) is 300 feet on a flat roadway and 360 feet on a roadway with a sustained downhill. The proposed signal at Red Rock Road, as well as potential driveways along the south side of Moraga Avenue along Blair Park (as shown on Figure 4.37) would have an SSD of at least 300 feet for the eastbound (uphill) direction and 360 feet for the westbound (downhill) direction. 11 4. Residential Development – Section 3.11 of the Administrative Draft indicates that up to 197 multi-family units and 2 single family homes could be constructed in the area available. From the 11th Edition of Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), each affordable housing unit would be expected to generate about 5 weekday daily trips and each multi-family housing unit would generate about 7 weekday daily trips. I understand that the City Council is continuing to consider the location of the housing, but all housing will either be on the north side of Moraga Road or all on the south side. With residential development north of Moraga Avenue, all vehicle access would occur from Red Rock Road, a proposed signalized intersection that would also serve the Corporate Yard and Coaches Field. With residential development on the south side of Moraga Avenue, multiple driveways would be constructed to serve the new housing and parking along the Comment noted. Comment does not raise any technical issues and no response is needed.
ATTACHMENT E Agenda Report Page 314
# Comment Response
side of Moraga Avenue at Blair Field. Page 99 of the Administrative Draft illustrates that at least 3 driveways would be provided, with each creating uncontrolled vehicle access to and from Moraga Avenue. These three vehicle access driveways would create numerous additional conflict points with Moraga Avenue traffic compared to providing a single access point for residential development on the north side at Red Rock Road controlled by a traffic signal.
12 5. Moraga Avenue/Red Rock Road Configuration – Page 70 of the Administrative Draft illustrates a traffic signal with pedestrian facilities and advance flashing beacons for this intersection. With the housing development that is proposed and if it is located on the north side of Moraga Avenue, a traffic signal would be warranted and should be installed. I do not believe that a traffic signal would be warranted if the housing is built on the south side of the roadway. Furthermore, traffic safety would be compromised with several driveways that would create additional conflict points on Moraga Avenue. Based on this finding alone regarding traffic safety, the housing should be constructed on the north side of Moraga Avenue. Several suggestions should also be considered as follows:
Comment noted. Comment does not raise any technical issues and no response is needed.
13 a. Traffic Signal Operation – With only one through lane in each direction, separate left turn phasing (arrows) would not be needed on Moraga Avenue. When constructing the traffic signal, provisions such as wiring and larger pole foundations should be included that would easily and economically accommodate left turn phasing in the future should it be desired.
Eastbound Moraga Avenue currently provides a left-turn lane at the intersection with Red Rock Road. The left-turn lane would continue to be maintained with the proposed signal at the intersection, and it is recommended to have a protected signal phasing.
ATTACHMENT E Agenda Report Page 315
# Comment Response
14 b. Moraga Avenue – The roadway should include a separate eastbound left turn lane with a 150’ reverse taper and adequate length to accommodate 10 MPH slowing in the through lane and slowing to 15 MPH for left turns from the downhill design speed. Moraga Avenue should also include an eastbound acceleration lane that mirrors the eastbound left turn lane and allows smooth acceleration and merging into the single lane for eastbound traffic.
As described above, Moraga Avenue already has an eastbound left-turn lane at the intersection with Red Rock Road, which the Specific Plan would maintain. The driveways for potential development on the south side of Moraga Avenue would also have left-turn lanes on westbound Moraga Avenue as described in Section 4.17 of the Specific Plan. The number, location, and length of these left-turn lanes would be determined as part of the design for the development project. No acceleration lanes would be provided in either direction of Moraga Avenue because there are no applicable standards that require acceleration lanes. This would be consistent with the current configuration of Moraga Avenue through Piedmont, where no acceleration lanes are provided.
15 c. Red Rock Road – The roadway should intersect Moraga Avenue at a 90- degree angle (squared off) and there should not be a free right turn into Red Rock Road from the east – all traffic should be controlled by the traffic signal.
The project would reconfigure the intersection to eliminate the current slip right-turn on westbound Moraga Avenue at Red Rock Road and square the intersection to ensure that all movements at the intersection would be controlled by the proposed signal.
16 d. Pedestrian Crosswalks – One should be across Red Rock Drive and only on one side across Moraga Avenue with accessible ramps (probably the east side for Blair Park). “Walk” “Don’t Walk” pedestrian indications should be provided for the crosswalks, together with sufficient time for pedestrians to cross Moraga Avenue. Raised islands for pedestrians to stand on in the middle of Moraga Avenue would not be safe and should not be provided. Pedestrian crossings of the west leg should be prohibited with signs and pedestrian barricades.
Comment is consistent with the Specific Plan. See Figure 4.7 in the Specific Plan, which shows crosswalks across the north and west approaches of the intersection, with pedestrian crossings prohibited on the west approach of the intersection as there are no sidewalks along the south side of Moraga Avenue west of Red Rock Road.
The proposed refuge island on the east side of the Moraga Avenue/Red Rock Road intersection would provide raised medians on both sides of the crossing and be at least 8 feet wide to provide adequate waiting space for pedestrians and cyclists if they do not complete the crossing during one signal phase. In addition, the intersection signal would be timed to provide adequate time for pedestrians to cross the intersection in one signal cycle. Furthermore, the proposed refuge island would also ATTACHMENT E Agenda Report Page 316
# Comment Response
narrow the travel lanes in both directions of Moraga Avenue adjacent to the median to discourage excessive speeding.
17 e. Advance Flashing Beacons – Advance flashing beacons should be installed on Moraga Avenue with traffic signal warning signs, not a Pedestrian warning sign as illustrated. “Signal Ahead” pavement markings adjacent to the flashing beacons should also be painted.
The image in the Specific Plan (Figure 4.8 on page 35) will be updated to show a flashing beacon with a signal ahead sign. In addition, “Signal Ahead” pavement markings would also be painted.
18 f. Public Transit – Drop Off/Pick Up Zones – The location of public transit stops on the far side of the signalized intersection on Moraga Avenue and Red Rock Road is appropriate. These bus zones could also be used for drop off/pick up zones for the new housing and for Coaches Field so that users would not be required to enter the site.
Comment noted.
19 g. Sidewalks and Bicycle Facilities – I agree with the proposed sidewalks shown in Chapter 4.8. Existing bicycle facilities are shown on Chapter
4.10, with the proposed bicycle facilities shown on Chapter 4.11. Based on the counts cited from September 2023 in Chapter 4.10 of “up to 5 bicyclists per hour were observed in both directions”, I do not believe that the bicycle lane network proposed in Chapter 4.11 is needed. Today’s low bike volume together with the profile grades facing additional bike riders with the required professional quality of the riders would not seem to justify the expense. Constructing the proposed facilities for the few bicyclists would require significant cutting, filling, grading, and drainage structures.
Comment noted.
20 6. Provide Stopping Sight Distances – Trees, bushes, and side slopes should be cut back to provide stopping sight distances for downhill and for uphill traffic on Moraga Avenue of the traffic signal indications and the The comment is consistent with Section 4.17 of the Specific Plan which calls for minimizing landscaping to ensure adequate sight lines along Moraga Avenue. The location and size of the traffic signal indications ATTACHMENT E Agenda Report Page 317
# Comment Response
flashing beacons. It may be necessary to provide an additional traffic signal indication on the far-left approach at 18’ high to obtain the needed stopping sight distance for the design speed.
will be determined as part of the final design for the signal based on the final configuration of the roadway.
Ralph Catalano at the Piedmont City Council on March 1, 2024 21 Today’s staff report implies that you can consider the Moraga Canyon Sports Field EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2009112054) when formulating the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan. That EIR found that new entrances and exits to Blair Park would create a significant and unavoidable safety hazard for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists on Moraga Avenue. How did LSA consultants, the authors of the EIR, come to such a conclusion? Caltrans has adopted US DOT equations that use road alignment, slope, and sight distances to calculate maximum speeds for safe stopping at intersections. As described on pages 253 to 255 of the EIR, LSA engineers assumed two entrances/exists to Blair Park positioned at Caltrans recommended distances from each other and from Red Rock and Maxwelton. They measured the shortest sight line to these intersections at 385 feet. Using the Caltrans equations, they estimated the maximum safe speed to be 35 MPH. 15% of trips on Moraga exceeded that speed.
The Moraga Canyon Sports Field EIR applied the corner sight distance (CSD), which is generally applicable to intersection of two public roads.
In fact, the HDM specifically states that CSD is not applied to urban driveways (Index 405.1(2)(d)). The appropriate sight distance requirement applicable to the proposed driveways on Moraga Avenue is stopping sight distance (SSD), as described in response to comment #5.
The measured sightline of 385 feet referenced in the Moraga Canyon Sports Field EIR, which is generally consistent with the measured sightlines for the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan, exceeds the minimum SSD of 300 feet for the uphill (eastbound) and 360 feet for the downhill (westbound) direction for a design speed of 40 mph on Moraga Avenue. 22 Today, your consultants tell you that they have found locations for entrances to Blair Park that provide a longer minimum sight line than assumed by LSA. With this longer sight line, they calculate the fastest safe speed at 40 MPH. They than claim, without documentation, that no one on Moraga travels at speeds greater than 40 MPH.
As described in response to comment #4, data collected in September 2023 on Maraga Avenue show about 7 percent of vehicles traveling above 40 mph and less than 1 percent traveling above 45 mph.
ATTACHMENT E Agenda Report Page 318
# Comment Response
23 I am surprised to learn that your consultants have found two entrance/exits with a minimum sight line that, when added to the DOT/Caltrans equations, produces a 40 MPH safe speed. But let’s stipulate, for the sake of the conversation, that this is true. The simple fact remains, however, that the distribution of speeds observed on Moraga shows that at least 10% of trips exceed 40 MPH. This distribution was found before the preparation of the LSA EIR and was found again in subsequent studies including that for the City of Piedmont Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Plan (I have attached that distribution and accompanying crash analysis).
So, how big is the problem? Assuming conservative trip generation of 4 per household, 132 families in Blair Park would generate more than 500 entrances from and exits to Moraga Avenue per day. How many of these will be at a time when they encounter a vehicle traveling faster than 40 MPH? Moraga Avenue will, according to the Housing Element EIR, carry about 15,000 trips a day. About 10%, or 1,500, of these will exceed 40 MPH. That implies more than 1 per minute. So, virtually every one of the 500 entrances or exits from Blair Park will likely encounter a safety hazard as defined by Caltrans. And this circumstance assumes your consultants’ yet to be verified locations for entrances/exits. The risk will be even greater should the LSA locations prove correct. And remember, it remains city policy that projects will not be approved in Piedmont unless they provide safe sightlines. Indeed, the Housing Element EIR you have adopted states you will enforce that policy.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual provides vehicle trip generation data for various land use types based on data collected at similar sites throughout the country. According to the Trip Generation Manual, typical multi-family housing generates about
4.54 vehicle trips on a typical weekday. Thus, the approximately 200 housing units would generate about 910 vehicle trips on a typical weekday.
As described earlier, the potential driveways on Moraga Avenue would meet the stopping sight distance standard for 40 mph. Note that the established standard does not imply that all vehicles traveling above the design speed (40 mph) would not have adequate time to stop their vehicles and avoid a collision. The established standards are based on parameters such as driver perception and reaction times and vehicle braking and stopping characteristics and account for factors such as drivers with slow reaction times or driving above the design speed. This is evidenced by the current conditions on Moraga Avenue, where several segments of the roadway do not meet the SSD for 40 mph and many existing driveways and intersections along the corridor provide shorter sightlines than the potential driveways along Blair Park, and yet the reported collision data shows relatively low crash rates along Moraga Avenue than stated in the comment.
The number and location of the driveways on Moraga Avenue have not been determined and will be determined as part of the final project design. The sight distance will depend on the exact location and orientation of the driveway and the final configuration of Moraga Avenue, including type and location of landscaping and on-street loading. Final project designs will include calculation of sight distance for each new driveway to ensure that each new driveway provides the minimum required sight distance.
ATTACHMENT E Agenda Report Page 319
PIEDMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting Minutes for Monday, September 8, 2025 – DRAFT A regular session of the Piedmont Planning Commission was held on Monday, September 8, 2025, both in person and via ZOOM teleconference, in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2 (a). The agenda for this meeting was posted for public inspection on August 25, 2025 and amended and posted August 26, 2025.
CALL TO ORDER Chair Jajodia called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Chair Aradhana Jajodia and Commissioners Raffi Zaroukian, Michael Beuselinck, Wayne Rowland, and Thomas Yee
Absent: Commissioner Julie Ortiz
Staff: Planning & Building Director Kevin Jackson, Senior Planner Pierce Macdonald, Senior Planner Gopika Nair, Assistant Planner Lamis Chabbani, Associate Planner Tiffany Edwards, Administrative Assistant Mark Enea, Assistant City Attorney Karen Murphy and Fire Captain Michael Carlisle.
PUBLIC FORUM There was no Public Testimony received.
DISCLOSURES Director Jackson indicated that there are three recusals: Commissioner Beuselinck has ownership interest in a property within 500 feet of the property at 78 Fairview Avenue and Chair Jajodia has ownership interest in a property within 500 feet of the study area for the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan and ownership interest in a property within 500 feet of the property at 316 Pala Avenue.
REGULAR AGENDA The Commission considered the following items of regular business:
Approval of Minutes Resolution 25-PL-25
RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission approves the August 11, 2025 meeting minutes.
Moved by Beuselinck and Seconded by Rowland
Ayes: Beuselinck, Jajodia, Rowland and Yee
Noes: None
Abstain: Zaroukian
Absent: Ortiz
Removal of
Applications from
Regular Session to
Consent Calendar
By procedural motion, the Commission placed the following application on the Consent Calendar as noted:
• 100 Palm Drive, DRFW2025-006 (Fence Design Review Permit) Resolution 26-PL-25
RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission approves the consent calendar as noted.
Moved by Yee and Seconded by Zaroukian
Ayes: Beuselinck, Jajodia, Rowland, Yee and Zaroukian
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Ortiz
At the end of the meeting, the following Resolution was approved adopting the Consent Calendar items.
ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 320
Fence Wall Site
Feature Design
Review Permit, 100
Palm Drive,
DRFW2025-006
Resolution 006-DRFW-25
WHEREAS, the Property Owner proposes to install a heat pump and construct a 4-foottall wooden screen painted to match the house exterior within the street yard setback along Wildwood Avenue which requires a design review permit; and WHEREAS, after reviewing the application, plans and any and all testimony and documentation submitted in connection with such application and after visiting the subject property, the Piedmont Planning Commission finds that as outlined in the staff report the project is categorically exempt under California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 Class 3 (e), is consistent with the General Plan policies and programs with no exceptions as provided in the staff report; and
WHEREAS, regarding the design review permit, the Planning Commission finds that, as conditioned, the project is approved because it complies with the design review criteria under Section 17.66.060 of the Piedmont City Code as follows:
1. The proposed design is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines. The following building features are consistent with the original architecture and neighborhood development, the freestanding fence, height, material and width, and the location of the fence are consistent.
2. The design has little or no effect on neighboring properties’ existing views, privacy, and access to direct and indirect light because the distance the project and neighboring homes is appropriate. There are no significant views blocked by the low fence.
3. The proposed design does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular safety because the project does not modify onsite safety conditions, and it maintains adequate visibility for pedestrians and motorists at the intersections for Wildwood and Palm Drive.
4. The application complies with the following Design Standards and Guidelines and General Plan policies and programs: Chapter 3: Site Design and Chapter 4: Building Design.
5. The project is consistent with General Plan policies and programs, including the Land Use Element, Housing Element, and Design and Preservation Element, including Design and Preservation Policies 29.2, 29.3, 29.5, 29.9, and 31.3.
RESOLVED, that based on the findings and facts set forth heretofore, the Piedmont Planning Commission approves the design review permit application for the construction at 100 Palm Drive, Piedmont, California, in accordance with the plans and specifications on file with the City, subject to the following three conditions:
1. Sound. The proposed heat pump unit shall meet the sound requirements of a maximum 50 decibels (dBA) at the nearest property line as provided in Building Code Section 8.02.020 EE.
2. Exposed Conduits. Any new exposed conduits shall be bundled with existing conduits and painted to match the adjacent wall color. Minor modifications shall be subject to staff review and approval.
3. Defense of Legal Challenges. The Property Owner shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council, Planning Commission, advisory boards, officers, employees, consultants and agents (hereinafter “City”) from any claim, action or proceeding (hereinafter “Proceeding”)brought against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul the City‘s actions regarding any development or land use permit, application, license, denial, approval or authorization, including, but not limited to, variances, use permits, developments plans, specific plans, general plan amendments, ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 321
zoning amendments, approvals and certifications pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and/or any mitigation monitoring program, or brought against the City due to actions or omissions in any way connected to the Property Owner’s project(“Challenge”).City may, but is not obligated to, defend such Challenge as City, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all at Property Owner’s sole cost and expense. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and costs of suit, attorney’s fees and other costs, liabilities, and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Property Owner, City, and/or parties initiating or bringing such Proceeding. If the Property Owner is required to defend the City as set forth above, the City shall retain the right to select the counsel who shall defend the City. Per Government Code Section 66474.9, the City shall promptly notify Property Owner of any Proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
Moved by Jajodia and Seconded by Rowland
Ayes: Beuselinck, Jajodia, Rowland, Yee and Zaroukian
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Ortiz
Informational Report
on Permit
Applications
Received and
Approved
Director Jackson provided information on the number of permit applications received and processed during the month of August 2025. There was a total of 48 planning permits submitted and 31 approved, 20 were expedited design reviews, nine for Director, four for Planning Commission review, one for Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), three for Fence and Wall, and one each for SB 9 Urban Lot Split and SB 9 Housing Development.
Director Jackson stated that August had 48 submissions compared to the seven-month average of 30, with approvals also increasing by 60 percent over prior months.
For building permits, in August 2025, there were 118 building permit applications submitted and 108 were approved.
Director Jackson stated that the total of 118 building permit applications was about 22% higher than previous months on average.
There was no Public Testimony received.
Public Hearing:
Consideration of
Recommendation to
the City Council to
Adopt the Moraga
Canyon Specific Plan
and Amend City
Code Chapter 17
Chair Jajodia recused herself due to her ownership interest in a property within 500 feet of the study area and handed the Agenda Item over to Vice Chair Rowland to act as Chair.
Director Jackson introduced Senior Planner Macdonald, Assistant City Attorney Murphy, and Andrew (Drew) Watkins from JZMK Consultants, along with Sam Tabibnia from Fehr & Peers, Karly Kaufman and John Moreland from Rincon Consultants.
Director Jackson provided background information on the project and process and stated that tonight’s public hearing is for the Planning Commission to consider a resolution recommending City Council adoption of the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan (MCSP), finding it meets the goals of Program 1.L of the 6th Cycle Housing Element. He clarified that the City Council has already made decisions and given direction; the Commission’s role is only to determine whether the Draft Specific Plan, as modified in March 2024, adequately addresses Program 1.L.
Director Jackson elaborated on what a Specific Plan is and is not, stating that a Specific Plan is not a construction project. Instead, it is a framework, a set of standards that would guide and regulate development within a defined study area. The Specific Plan is not a project but the framework for future projects. Director Jackson stated that this evening’s ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 322
presentation will summarize common public comments, provide responses, and review the proposed revisions.
Mr. Watkins presented a slideshow describing the contents of the MCSP, as well as its history, schedule, and approach. He presented two development options: Option A, with flatter terrain along Moraga Avenue; and Option B, with hillside views but more difficult topography. Both options include improvements to Moraga Avenue.
Mr. Watkins presented a summary of public feedback and outlined Moraga Avenue improvements, including a future signal at Red Rock Road, driveway access, and updated bicycle lanes. With a posted 25 mile per hour speed limit and roadway constraints, the proposed changes aim to improve safety, slow traffic, enhance safe pedestrian crossings and ensure proper access for new development.
Mr. Tabibnia presented slides showing traffic data from September 2023 indicating about 11,000 vehicles on a typical weekday on Moraga Avenue, along with speed, pedestrian and bicycle details, and presented accident data. Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, it was estimated the MCSP project would add about 910 daily vehicle trips. Mr. Tabibnia explained their analysis of possible driveway locations on Moraga Avenue, stopping sight distance per the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and noted that the MCSP recommends a signal at Moraga Avenue and Red Rock Road with flashing beacons to improve pedestrian crossings, vehicles turning and slow traffic.
Mr. Watkins presented slides related to access, emergency response, and evacuation along Moraga Avenue. Measures include emergent signal timing, coordination with Oakland and Caltrans, temporary reversible lanes during evacuation, limited street parking in high-risk periods, multiple evacuation routes, school coordination, staggered evacuation orders, carpooling, pedestrian and bicycle options, landscape standards, intersections designed to aid evacuation, and other measures.
Captain Carlisle presented and noted that he and Fire Chief Brannigan have been engaged throughout the MCSP preparation and will continue as the process moves forward. He said improvements on either side of Moraga Avenue, including better access, water supply, ember resistant construction, updated standards, sprinklers, and fire safe landscaping, would strengthen wildfire protection and create a buffer for firefighting. He shared that current emergency response planning is a significant difference compared to the 1991 fire evacuation.
Ms. Kaufman presented slides describing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for the Specific Plan, which began with the Housing Element Implementation Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR anticipated up to 199 units in the Plan area and identified significant and unavoidable impacts in historical resources, greenhouse gases, construction noise, vehicle miles traveled, wastewater capacity and wildfire. CEQA discourages repeating analysis already done, and if no new or worse impacts arise, and an Addendum to the prior EIR can be prepared to show CEQA requirements are satisfied. Future development projects will still require CEQA disclosure.
Mr. Watkins presented slides that outlined recommended Specific Plan changes. He addressed some of the public comments previously received and provided a recap of the Program 1.L goals. The presentation concluded with a slide summarizing the next steps, which listed upcoming public meetings and opportunities to receive updates via the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan e-Newsletter and Planning & Building Department eNewsletter.
ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 323
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Yee asked if it is relevant that the Housing Element EIR indicates 3.5 acres for the residential dwelling units but in the Specific Plan the two options are about
4.7 acres. Ms. Kaufman responded and explained that this is not a CEQA issue. The EIR originally estimated housing based on best judgment, and the addendum will reflect updated conditions and show that the related impacts have been properly addressed.
Commissioner Beuselink noted that Fire Captain Carlisle gave an example of the Paradise fire and an uncontrolled intersection in Chico. He asked for the Captain’s thoughts on controlled versus uncontrolled intersections, whether a controlled one can become uncontrolled, and if the Fire Department has a plan for that. Captain Carlisle explained that evacuation is the police department’s primary responsibility while the Fire Department would be managing other tasks. The Genasys system directs residents in Piedmont neighborhoods along different routes to ease intersection issues. If power is available, Fire, Police, or neighboring agencies can control intersections; if not, police officers direct traffic to prioritize evacuation.
Commissioner Zaroukian asked if, when a developer comes with a proposed development, whether they choose Option A or Option B, would the Planning Commission be held to approve one of the options. Director Jackson responded, stating that after issuing a notice of availability and reviewing responses, the City negotiates with the developer with the proposal that best meets the City’s goals. The process is public.
Concurrent with the development agreement review, the developer may go through design review before the Planning Commission, which recommends to City Council. The developer then applies for additional permits such as building and grading.
Commissioner Rowland voiced concern about handling emergencies in the limited space, noting discussion of two lanes in one direction. He asked if a specific framework exists for that scenario. Captain Carlisle responded, reiterating that it is the Police Department’s responsibility. Once law enforcement takes control, both lanes can be designated as exit only, with no entry allowed, which is how it is designed to work. Senior Planner Macdonald explained that the Genasys system provides detailed evacuation instructions.
Director Jackson clarified that the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan does not design evacuation or emergency processes, which are handled through the Genasys system by Police, Fire and other agencies. The Specific Plan focuses on improving the Moraga Avenue roadway.
Public Testimony was received from:
Vivien Mather, an Oakland neighbor, Kathleen Hurley, resident of Harbord Drive, Ellen Greenberg, resident of Jerome Avenue, Todd Kaiser, resident of Echo Lane, Alice Talcott, resident of Wildwood Avenue, Andy Madeira, resident of Cambridge Way, Jill Lindenbaum, resident of Scenic Avenue, on Chandler, resident of Bonita Avenue, Liz Lummis O’Neil, resident of Maxwelton Road, Gregor Ross, resident of Moraga Avenue, Irene Cheng, resident of Sunnyside Avenue, Randy Wu, resident of York Drive, Frances Fisher, resident of Fairview Avenue, Fritha Knudsen, resident of Pala Avenue, Xuemei Wong, resident of Moraga Avenue, Andrea Stark, resident of Moraga Avenue, Anja Eriksen, resident of Lane Court in Oakland, Deborah Leland, resident of Maxwelton Road, Deepti Sethi, resident of Abbott Way, Michael Krumboltz, resident of Harbord Drive in Oakland, Claire Parisa, resident of Sunnyside Avenue, Elise Collins, resident of Piedmont, Justin Zucker, resident of Linda Avenue, Marjorie Blackwell, resident of Pala Avenue, Silver, resident of Harbord Avenue, and Tom O’Neil.
Commissioner Discussion
ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 324
At Commissioner Rowland’s request, Director Jackson explained that the Commission’s role is to determine if the Specific Plan conforms to the General Plan, including Housing Element Program 1.L. The Specific Plan is not a development project but a framework of provisions and standards for potential housing and public facilities. If the Specific Plan adequately addresses the goals set forth in Housing Element Program 1.L, the Commission is obligated to recommend approval to City Council.
Commissioner Beuselinck noted the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan sets the framework for public facility improvements and housing development. He said the City Council directed the Draft Specific Plan be evaluated against Program 1.L goals. While many concerns exist about traffic, density, and safety, he believes the MCSP follows City Council direction, and he reserves judgment until a specific development is proposed. He supports adopting the resolution within this limited scope.
Commissioner Yee agreed with Commissioner Beuselinck, noting the Commission’s role is to evaluate the Specific Plan’s alignment with the General Plan, which he believes the MCSP meets. He acknowledged concerns about density, traffic and evacuation but said lessons have been learned since 1991 and the MCSP includes fire preparedness measures.
He stated his support for the MCSP.
Commissioner Zaroukian agreed with his fellow Commissioners.
Commissioner Rowland also agreed, noting the Specific Plan is only a framework, not an actual development. Commissioner Rowland said the MCSP provides room to address public safety concerns and fulfils State housing mandates. He stated his support for the MCSP as a framework.
Resolution 27-PL-25
WHEREAS, State of California housing element law, as set forth in Government Code §§ 65302 and 65580, et seq., requires the City of Piedmont to periodically prepare and update its Housing Element in its General Plan, and to establish goals, policies, and programs to accommodate the maintenance, diversification, and expansion of the City’s housing supply to accommodate the City of Piedmont’s regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) of 587 housing units, comprised of 238 above moderate income units, 92 moderate income units, 94 low income units, and 163 extremely and very low income units; and
WHEREAS, the 6th Cycle Housing Element must be adopted to comply with State law, accommodate the RHNA, affirmatively further fair housing, and facilitate and encourage a variety of housing types for all income levels, including multifamily housing (Gov.
Code Sections 65583.2 and 65583(c)); and
WHEREAS, the preparation, adoption, and implementation of the 6th Cycle Housing Element includes a diligent ongoing effort to include all economic segments of the community; and
WHEREAS, to comply with State housing element law, the City Council of the City of Piedmont has prepared and adopted, on March 20, 2023, the 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element (the 6th Cycle Housing Element); and
WHEREAS, Piedmont’s 6th Cycle Housing Element includes Program 1.L, which calls for the drafting of a specific plan, as provided in Government Code §65450 et seq., for a study area consisting of 18.25 acres of City-owned land and the Moraga Avenue roadway near the northern boundary of the City. The intent is to facilitate the development of below-market-rate housing to help meet the demand for affordable housing in the City. In ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 325
order for the City to meet its RHNA requirements, the Specific Plan needs to accommodate at least 132 housing units at all income levels. Housing Element Program
1.L sets forth several goals for the specific plan as follows:
• To enable construction of housing at a minimum of 132 units, on portions of the site, totaling approximately 3.5 acres of land, yielding a minimum of 60 units of housing affordable to households earning less than 80 percent of the area median income (AMI) and a minimum of 72 units affordable to households earning more than 80 percent of the AMI;
• Improved safety. New habitable structures shall be built to meet fire code requirements for Wildland Urban Interface Areas;
• Replacement and/or modernization of existing Public Works Department facilities, offices, storage areas, vehicle storage areas, etc., so that service capacity is maintained or increased, and so that the facilities meet current building and fire code requirements. • The inclusion of recreation facilities, including but not limited to an under14 soccer field, youth baseball/softball field, batting cages, artificial field turf, ballfield seating, a skate spot, a picnic area, and parking for these facilities; and • The provision of all public utilities to new housing and all City facilities to be constructed within the specific plan area in a manner consistent with public safety standards and Piedmont Climate Action Plan goals and programs; • The inclusion of improvements to pedestrian and vehicular circulation, as determined necessary by the City Engineer, to provide safe pedestrian, bicycle, and motor vehicle movements, ensure safe evacuation routes, and provide optimal emergency response; and • The inclusion of a comprehensive landscape plan for areas planned for development.
The landscape plan shall prioritize to the extent practicable: fire safety and the preservation of significant open space, scenic views, and native and heritage trees; and WHEREAS, beginning in August 2023, the City has conducted extensive community outreach in support of the preparation of a Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan including neighborhood and stakeholder engagement; an online survey; a November 30, 2023, community workshop; study sessions held by the Planning Commission, Park Commission and Recreation Commission in 2023, 2024, and 2025; and a second online survey regarding the four plan options presented at the community workshop that was available in December 2023 and January 2024; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held study sessions on January 22 and March 1, 2024, to receive information from staff and JZMK Partners on the results of the community engagement and discussions by the various commissions, and four preliminary site plan options; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of March 18, 2024, the City Council received a report from staff and a presentation from JZMK, at the conclusion of which the Council reached consensus on providing the following direction for the preparation of a Draft Moraga Specific Plan:
• Exclude site plan options 2 and 4 as presented to the City Council on March 1, 2024; • Include site plan options 1 and 3 to provide flexibility to potential developers to choose a plan that optimizes the development of housing and community benefits, including improvements to the Moraga Avenue roadway;
• Explore increasing the number of market-rate units, originally at 72, to up to 139 in order to better fund community amenities;
• Eliminate a skating facility as a goal of the plan, and instead seek the development of other community facilities, such as a dog park, a playground, or a pickleball court; and • Include the community benefits of an under-14 soccer field, youth baseball/softball field, batting cages, artificial field turf, and ballfield seating.
WHEREAS, Planning Commission held three study sessions in 2024 that introduced preliminary drafts of several chapters of the Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan to ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 326
facilitate discussions to inform the draft content of the Specific Plan and received written reports and presentations from staff and JZMK Partners, as follows:
• On August 12th the Planning Commission received a report introducing the type of contentmin each chapter and more in-depth information to facilitate a discussion of the architectural design approaches and draft design standards for new multifamily housing construction in the MCSP study area (chapter 7), as well as information on the City Council study sessions, the community workshop held on November 30th, and a summary of public comments received during the City Council study sessions and afterwards;
• On September 23rd the Planning Commission received a report to facilitate a discussion of the development requirements for new multifamily housing, City facilities and infrastructure in the MCSP study area, contained in draft chapters covering general development regulations (chapter 3), circulation (chapter 4), site design (chapter 5), and building design (chapter 6); and
• On October 14th the Planning Commission received a report to facilitate a discussion regarding the landscape design requirements for new multifamily housing, as well as requirements for public services, utilities, and infrastructure in the MCSP study area, contained in draft chapters cover landscaping standards (chapter 8) and public services, infrastructure, and utilities (chapter 9); and
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2025, the City of Piedmont made available a Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan for public review and comment; and WHEREAS, on April 28 and 30, 2025, the City Council held study sessions to receive copies of the Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan and a presentation from City staff and JZMK Partners on the content of the Specific Plan to facilitate an understanding of the content through a series of questions and responses and took public comment; and WHEREAS, Section 25.3 of the Piedmont City Code outlines the powers and duties of the Planning Commission including to consider and make recommendations to the City Council on real property, subdivisions, lot building restrictions, planning and zoning matters, matters affecting the design and aesthetics of buildings, structures and other improvements and methods of encouraging and promoting good design in construction in order to maintain the high quality of aesthetic values which make the City unique; and WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Sections 65352 – 65352.5, the City of Piedmont referred the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan to all California Native American tribes on the contact list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission and to other entities listed, and consulted with Native American Tribes that requested consultation, resulting in new policies in Chapter 10 of the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2025, the Piedmont Park Commission held a duly noticed public meeting at which time it reviewed the Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan, the staff report and all attachments, a presentation on the Specific Plan by JZMK Partners, and oral and written public comments, and recommended to the Piedmont City Council that the Council adopt provisions in the Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan related to landscaping on City-owned land and within the public right-of-way in that they address the landscaping goals of Housing Element Program 1.L; and WHEREAS, on June 18, 2025, the Piedmont Recreation Commission held a duly noticed public meeting at which time it reviewed the Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan, the staff report and all attachments, a presentation on the Specific Plan by JZMK Partners, and oral and written public comments, and recommended to the Piedmont City Council that the Council adopt provisions in the Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan related to ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 327
facilities and public property under the control of the City for the purpose of public recreation; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2025, the Piedmont Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time it reviewed the Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan, the staff report and all attachments, a presentation on the Specific Plan by JZMK Partners, and oral and written public comments; and
WHEREAS, an addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Environmental Impact Report (EIR), State Clearinghouse no. 2022020362, has been prepared by the City’s team of staff and consultants pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which studied and disclosed the potential environmental impacts from changes to the project associated with development and operation pursuant to the proposed MCSP and concluded that there would be no new impacts, new information, nor increased impacts beyond those studied in the EIR; and
WHEREAS, the September 8, 2025, public hearing met the requirements of Government Code Sections 65090 et. seq., 65453 and 65353, and City Code division 17.62; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Piedmont does hereby resolve, declare, determine, and order, based on substantial evidence in the record, as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
A. That the above recitations are true and correct.
B. That an addendum has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which studied the potential environmental impacts of changes to the project, and determined that the potential environmental impacts of development and operation pursuant to the MCSP would be no greater than, nor introduce new impacts not studied and disclosed in, the 2023-2031 Housing Element Implementation EIR and that only minor changes or additions are required. Overall, the proposed MCSP would not result in new impacts or information of substantial importance that would generate new, more severe impacts or require new mitigation measures compared to those identified for the MCSP, as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. As such, the proposed MCSP would not result in conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, and a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR is not required for the proposed MCSP. Development and operation pursuant to the proposed MCSP would be subject to all previously required mitigation measures from the Housing Element EIR, as applicable. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted for the Housing Element Implementation Project would continue to be applicable to the proposed MCSP. In addition, the MCSP would not introduce new or substantially more severe cumulatively considerable impacts beyond those analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe cumulative impacts would occur as a result of the MCSP.
C. That the Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan addresses the goals of Program 1.L of the City of Piedmont’s 6th Cycle Housing Element related to real property, subdivisions, lot building restrictions, planning and zoning matters, matters affecting the design and aesthetics of buildings, structures and other improvements and methods of encouraging and promoting good design in construction, in that the Specific Plan plans for and/or envisions the development of: residential housing for an anticipated 199 households, public infrastructure and utilities to support the development, an enhanced Public Works Department corporation yard, a multi-sport field with natural or synthetic turf the size of a U14 soccer field with baseball/softball field overlay with spectator bleachers, restrooms, and batting cages; other community facilities, such as a dog park, playground or picnic ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 328
area; and roadway improvements.
SECTION 2. Recommendations
A. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the following changes to the text of the Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan:
1. Sight Stopping Distance and Signage. MCSP Chapter 4, Section 4.9 on page 35 provides an example of the type of traffic signage and flashing beacon that alerts drivers to be aware of pedestrian crossings. In response to public comment and on the advice of the City’s consultant traffic engineers, the Planning Commission recommends changes to Chapter 4, including the image and caption for Figure 4.8 to show the typical traffic caution signage and flashing beacon for the approach to a signalized intersections and stopped cars at the signal, as provided by the City’s consultant traffic engineers. The Planning Commission recommends revisions to the text and graphics of pages 35 and 46 as follows (changes shown in bold and underlined text):
a. Page 35, change the second to last sentence in the first paragraph of Section 4.9 to read “Figure 4.8 is an example of the flashing beacons placed prior to the intersection to warn motorists of upcoming signal and pedestrian crossings.” In addition, replace the existing image with the one shown in Exhibit 1 and change the caption to read “Signal Ahead Signage with Flashing Beacon Imagery.” b. Page 35, change MCSP Section 4.9 to include a requirement for stopping sight distance analysis at the time of development agreement to determine appropriate locations for traffic signal, signage, and beacons, to read as follows “Stopping sight distance analysis shall be conducted for the design and engineering of the intersection to include but not limited to appropriate design and location(s) of signal, roadway signage, and beacons. See Chapter 10, Section 10.5.6.2, Development Agreement.”
c. Page 46, change the last sentence of the third paragraph of Section 4.17 to read “According to the HDM (Table 201.1), the minimum required SSD for vehicles for a design speed of 40 mph (rounding up the measured 85th percentile speed of 38- 39 mph) is 300 feet. HDM Section 201.3 requires increasing the SSD by 20 percent for roadway segments with sustained downhill slope of 5 percent or more over one mile long. Thus, the SSD for the downhill (westbound) Moraga Avenue is 360 feet, compared to 300 feet for the uphill (eastbound) direction.
Stopping sight distance analysis shall be conducted for the design and engineering of each proposed driveway. See Chapter 10, Section 10.5.6.4.A, Initial Design Review.”
2. Transit Stops. MCSP Chapter 4, Section 4.12 Public Transit, on page 38 includes direction regarding the placement of new transit stops along Moraga Avenue to serve new and existing residents in the MCSP area and neighboring areas. The Planning Commission recommends a change to increase the flexibility of the location of new bus stops as part of development under the MCSP. For example, upon further research, new bus stops on Moraga Avenue near Highland Avenue may achieve the goals of expanding public transit as a permanent or interim measure. The proposed change to Section 4.12 is shown below in bold and underlined text.
“The following actions should be pursued to improve bus service during development of the MCSP area:
1. Coordinate with AC Transit to introduce bus service along the Moraga Avenue corridor.
2. Provide bus stops in both directions of Moraga Avenue near the proposed signal at Red Rock Road to better accommodate bus riders needing to cross the street.
ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 329
Carefully consider the space requirements and safety of alternative locations for bus stops, including interim bus stops, to be located ½ mile or less walking distance from the entrance or entrances of all housing units affordable to lower income residents.
3. Provide amenities, such as a shelter with bench and trash receptacle at the bus stops.”
3. Common Useable Open Space. MCSP Chapter 5, Section 5.7.1, Common Useable Open Space, on page 51 includes a requirement that a minimum of 15 percent of the land used for multifamily development shall be designated as Common Useable Open Space. Comments received from the public recommend aligning the MCSP standards for common useable open space with the minimum requirements for affordable housing from the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC). The TCAC requires the minimum common space for low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) developments and large family LIHTC developments, which require less land dedicated to common useable open space, as low as 2.3 percent. The Planning Commission recommends reducing the total amount of land dedicated to common useable open space in MCSP Chapter 5, Section 5.7.1, from 15 percent to 10 percent. This change would continue to provide space for tenants to interact, children to play, and landscape amenities.
4. Private Useable Open Space. MCSP Chapter 5, Section 5.7.2, Private Useable Open Space, on page 53 requires the developer of multifamily units in the MCSP area to provide a minimum of 80 square feet of space accessible to the tenant and guests of each unit. A larger area of 100 square feet is the required standard for residences located on the ground floor. Comments received from the public request that the City change the standard for private useable open space by removing this requirement entirely. The Planning Commission recommends reducing the private useable open space area to 80 square feet for both ground floor units and units located on upper floor levels. In addition, the Planning Commission recommends allowing development to satisfy the private useable open space standard by transferring the same area to the development’s common useable open space (in addition to the required 10 percent of the lot standard, described above).
5. Affordability Levels. Section 10.5.6.2, Development Agreement, on Page 120 of the Draft MCSP includes, as required term #3, affordable housing units. The Planning Commission recommends amending the affordability levels of the units to provide additional flexibility while continuing to meet Housing Element goals. Proposed change is shown below in bold and underlined font.
“3. The provision of affordable housing, with a minimum of 60 units affordable to households earning low and very low incomes, including a minimum of 40 units affordable to those with very low and extremely low incomes, as well as units affordable to households earning moderate incomes, or less, as a minimum of 10% of any proposed market-rate units, and housing units shall include a minimum of 50% of units with two bedrooms or more to serve families.”
6. Implementation. The Planning Commission recommends changes to the text of Chapter 10, Section 10.5.6.2, Development Agreement, to incorporate recommended changes to Chapter 4, described above, and to incorporate revision recommended by the Piedmont Fire Department, as follows:
a. Section 10.5.6.2.A, Application Requirements, change the list of application requirements to include the addition of a new item 11. as follows: “11. Stopping Sight Distance Analysis for the design and engineering of the traffic signal and pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Moraga Avenue and Red Rock Road, showing design and location(s) of signal, traffic signage, and beacons and ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 330
including analysis of current traffic speeds.”
b. Section 10.5.6.2.B change the required terms of the future development agreement to include additional details about the future development proposal’s compliance with Fire Code regulations, as follows (changed text is shown in bold and underlined font): “Fire protection for new development meeting Environmental Hazards Element policy 19.9 and Fire Code requirements, including but not limited to fire sprinkler plan, evacuation improvements, fire access roads and points of access off of Moraga Avenue, turnarounds, and one or more new fire hydrants to serve the development, as well as required water pressure and flow.” c. Section 10.5.6.4, Design Review, subsection A, change the requirements for initial design review permit to include design and engineering for each driveway for the future development, including but not limited to stopping sight distance analysis, as follows (changed text is shown in bold and underlined font): “An Initial Design Review Permit shall be administered pursuant to Division 17.66 of the Piedmont City Code, except as set forth below. An Initial Design Review Permit application shall include the following: conceptual site plan, access and circulation plan, including design and engineering of each driveway, including but not limited to current traffic speeds and stopping sight distance analysis, frontage improvements, landscape plan, building massing, and architectural style…”
7. Sound Study. Piedmont General Plan policies and programs address the noise of construction, including the noise from future construction related to the MCSP. These General Plan provisions would continue to apply to development pursuant to the MCSP.
The Planning Commission recommends changes to Chapter 10, Section 10.5.7, Environmental Measures, to incorporate the following new measure to manage potential noise resulting from MCSP development and operations (new text shown in bold and underlined font):
10.5.7.8 SOUND STUDY
To ensure consistency with Chapter 8 of the Piedmont City Code, if new or relocated recreational uses that produce amplified or equipment-related noise are proposed within 500 feet of residences, a noise study shall be conducted to determine the noise levels from the proposed recreational use to residences within 500 feet. If noise levels are found to exceed the standards within Chapter 8 of the Piedmont City Code, or other noise limit if appropriate and supported by the findings of the noise study, noise reduction measures shall be implemented such that noise levels would be below the applicable standard. The noise study shall be provided to the City as part of the Initial Design Review Permit process.
If the City's Corporation Yard is relocated to within 500 feet of residences, a noise study shall be conducted to determine the noise levels from Corporation Yard to residences within 500 feet. If noise levels are found to exceed the standards within Chapter 8 of the Piedmont City Code, or other noise limit if appropriate and supported by the findings of the noise study, noise reduction measures shall be implemented such that noise levels would be below the applicable standard. The noise study shall be provided to the City as part of the Initial Design Review Permit process.”
B. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the MCSP complies with the Piedmont General Plan and City Charter and protects public health, safety, and welfare, because the City of Piedmont and the region are burdened by an affordable housing crisis and the MCSP plans for a mixed-income, multifamily neighborhood in close proximity to job centers, transit, and community services, in accordance with Piedmont Housing Element Program 1.L, because the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan is a subtype of General Plan pursuant to City Charter Section 9.01, and ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 331
because proposed City Code Chapter 17 amendments to implement the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan do not change the boundaries of any zoning district nor change any property from one zoning district to another.
C. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Implementation Environmental Impact Report.
D. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan with the changes described above in that the MCSP chapters, programs, and actions address the goals Housing Element Program 1.L and the City Council’s March 18, 2024, direction to staff
(https://piedmont.ca.gov/services___departments/planning___building/general_plan___ot her_policy_documents/moraga_canyon_specific_plan).
SECTION 3. All portions of this resolution are severable. If an individual component of this Resolution is adjudged by a court to be invalid and unenforceable, then the remaining portions will continue in effect.
Moved by Yee and Seconded by Beuselinck
Ayes:, Beuselinck, Rowland, Yee and Zaroukian
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Ortiz
Recused: Jajodia
Resolution 28-PL-25
WHEREAS, State of California housing element law, as set forth in Government Code §§ 65302 and 65580, et seq., requires the City of Piedmont to periodically prepare and update its Housing Element in its General Plan, and to establish goals, policies, and programs to accommodate the maintenance, diversification, and expansion of the City’s housing supply to accommodate the City of Piedmont’s regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) of 587 housing units, comprised of 238 above moderate income units, 92 moderate income units, 94 low income units, and 163 extremely and very low income units; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended City Council approval of the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan includes Chapter 5, Site Design, Section
5.4, Multifamily Site Design Requirements, which establishes a development standard requiring a minimum 40-foot site frontage along Red Rock Road in the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan area; and
WHEREAS, the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan includes Chapter 6, Building Design, Section 6.3, Building Height, which establishes a development standard allowing a maximum 60-foot building height limit in the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, amendments to the Piedmont City Code Division 17.22 are required to make the City Code Chapter 17 conform to Moraga Canyon Specific Plan development standards for lot frontage, building height, and conforming revisions; and WHEREAS, an addendum has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which studied the potential environmental impacts of changes to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Implementation project associated with development and operation pursuant to the MCSP, and determined that the potential environmental impacts ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 332
of development and operation pursuant to the MCSP would be no greater than, nor introduce new impacts nor new information not studied and disclosed in, the 2023-2031 Housing Element Implementation EIR.
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2025, the Piedmont Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time it reviewed the proposed City Code amendments, the staff report and all attachments, a presentation on the proposed amendments, and oral and written public comments; and
WHEREAS, the September 8, 2025 public hearing met the requirements of Government Code sections 65090 et. seq., 65453 and 65353, and City Code division 17.62.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Piedmont does hereby resolve, declare, determine, and order, based on substantial evidence in the record, as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
A. That the above recitations are true and correct.
B. That an Addendum has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which studied the potential environmental impacts of changes to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Implementation project associated with development and operation pursuant to the MCSP, and the potential environmental impacts of development and operation pursuant to the MCSP would be no greater than, nor introduce new impacts nor new information not studied and disclosed in, the 2023-2031 Housing Element Implementation EIR, and the Planning Commission has recommended that the Addendum be adopted.
C. That, pursuant to Piedmont City Code Section 17.72.040(C), the Planning Commission finds that the proposed amendments comply with the Piedmont General Plan and City Charter, the purposes of Chapter 17, and do not reclassify residential development. The proposed amendments implement the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan, in accordance and consistent with Piedmont Housing Element Program 1.L. Further, the zoning amendments do not change any zoning district boundary nor change any property from one zoning district to another.
D. That the Planning Commission recommends City Council approval of an Ordinance 78__N.S. amending City Code Chapter 17, Section 17.22.040.C, which shall amend Section 17.22.040.C to read as follows (with new language shown in bold underline):
“C. In Zone B, the development standards for the following uses are set forth below, except to the extent such standards are not consistent with an adopted specific plan, in which case the adopted specific plan shall prevail:
a. Wireless communications facility as provided in division 17.46. b. Multi-family residential as provided in section 17.24.040.A. c. Cemetery, public utility – no standards.
d. Building occupied by a public agency or other nonprofit entity – no standards, except as set forth in Section 17.22.040.A.
e. Parks and open space, including recreational uses and facilities – no standards.” E. That the Planning Commission recommends City Council approval of an Ordinance 78__N.S. amending City Code Chapter 17, Section 17.24.040 which shall amend Section
17.24.040 to include the language shown in bold underline text as follows:
“17.24.040 Regulations.
ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 333
A. In Zone C, for multi-family residential use, licensed residential care facility for 7 or more residents, co-housing and single room occupancy dwellings, the standards are as follows, except to the extent such standards are not consistent with an adopted specific plan, in which case the adopted specific plan shall prevail:
B. In Zone C, for uses other than those listed above, the development standards are as follows, except to the extent such standards are not consistent with an adopted specific plan, in which case the adopted specific plan shall prevail:” SECTION 2. All portions of this resolution are severable. If an individual component of this Resolution is adjudged by a court to be invalid and unenforceable, then the remaining portions will continue in effect.
Moved by Yee and Seconded by Beuselinck
Ayes:, Beuselinck, Rowland, Yee and Zaroukian
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Ortiz
Recused: Jajodia
The meeting recessed at 8:10 p.m. and reconvened at 8:33 p.m.
Study Session
Preliminary Draft
Objective Design
Standards for
Accessory Dwelling
Units, Multifamily
and Mixed-use
Development
Chair Jajodia rejoined the meeting.
Senior Planner Nair introduced Kevin Gardiner of Good City Company and Karen Murray from Van Meter Williams Pollock as presenters and noted receiving a late neighbor comment from California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) that staff has not yet reviewed but will address in the next draft.
Presentation slides were shared on the screen.
Kevin Gardiner explained that he and Karen Murray are assisting Piedmont with ADU, multifamily and mixed-use standards, as well as document design and layout. He recapped that the Objective Design Standards aim to streamline design review and set clear expectations for high-quality design. He outlined that Chapters 3 and 4 of the draft Objective Design Standards document cover applicability with the goal of supporting housing production.
Ms. Murray explained that updates were made to existing multifamily and mixed-use chapters of Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines, including combining multifamily, commercial, and mixed-use into one chapter, converting some of the existing guidelines into standards, and updating/adding photos and diagrams for clarity.
Mr. Gardiner noted that in the draft Objective Design Standards document for ADUs attached to the staff report are an update to existing standards in Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines and that the new standards are blue, and existing standards are black. Key updates to existing ADU standards include: ADUs must match the main residence if visible from the street but have more flexibility in backyards; new privacy standards; updated standards for ADUs above/below detached garages and two-story ADUs reflecting new State Law; and revised diagrams for clarity.
Ms. Murray stated they developed new standards for building massing, form and proportions, façade articulation, ground floor treatments, balconies and decks, parking garage design, blank wall mitigation, bird safety, open space and landscaping.
ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 334
Mr. Gardiner thanked the Planning Commission Subcommittee for their role in collaborating with staff, reviewing each draft, providing written comments and sharing updates to the Commission. Next steps were shared with meeting dates on the slide, including releasing the public review draft of the Objective Design Standards document end of September or early October.
Commissioner Discussion
Commissioners asked questions and discussed. Commissioner Beuselinck asked about stress tests. Commissioner Yee asked if step backs for 3rd story or higher was a good standard for multifamily development.
Mr. Gardiner replied that test fits have been done on typical lots, considering possible configurations, and Subcommittee input helps guide these assessments. Steps backs are currently required in our City Code for multifamily projects abutting single family residential.
There was no Public Testimony received.
Variance and Design
Review Permit, 78
Fairview Avenue,
VAR2025-002,
VAR2025-004 &
DRPC2025-011
Commissioner Beuselinck recused himself due to his ownership interest in a property within 500 feet of the subject property.
The applications propose to construct an approximately 170-square-foot carport on the existing driveway. A variance is required to construct within the 5-foot side (south) yard setback and the 20-foot street (west) yard setback.
Public Testimony was received from:
Applicant David Arpi, property owner, presented a request for variance and design permit to construct an approximately 170-square-foot carport on the existing driveway. After a prior denial, he redesigned it with a flat roof matching the house slope, clad aluminum posts in wood painted to match the trim, and roof panels painted to match shingles and stucco. The carport slightly encroaches into the street yard setback, requiring a variance in addition to the side yard. He stated that the covered driveway will allow him to park there regularly, freeing up parking space on Fairview Avenue.
Following Mr. Arpi’s presentation, the Commissioners asked questions regarding the eve, roof slope, aluminum versus wood, and the carport kit.
In response to the Commissioners’ inquiries, Mr. Apri explained that the flat roof design made the carport kit slightly larger than the original proposal. He noted that the preengineered aluminum kit is more cost-effective than custom construction and is clad in wood for aesthetic purposes to match the style of the house.
There was no Public Testimony received.
Commissioner Discussion
Commissioners asked questions and held further discussions around the roof slope.
Resolutions 002-VAR-25, 004-VAR-25 and 011-DRPC-25
WHEREAS, the Property Owner is requesting variance and design review permit to construct an approximately170-square-foot carport on the existing driveway, which construction requires a design review permit; and,
WHEREAS, variances are required to construct within the 5-foot side (south) yard setback and the 20-foot street (west) yard setback; and ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 335
Date Name Moraga Canyon Specific Plan Comments
10/27/2023 Todd Sotkiewicz If you really wanted survey input, you should have solicited all of the homeowners in Piedmont through the mail (you have all of our addresses after all; we all pay thousands of dollars in taxes to the city) rather than posting your survey availability on Piedmont Exedra.
We all don't read that online newspaper regularly. This just seems to be another example of the City of Piedmont doing what they want to do rather than listening to the citizenry on this topic. 11/16/2023 Matt Derrigo Dear Recreation Commission, First and foremost, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude for your commitment and dedication to advancing Piedmont’s recreational opportunities. As a resident of Piedmont and a parent of a 10 yr old girl who actively participates in several PRD programs, I found last night's meeting both enlightening and inspiring. Your passion and engagement in these matters are commendable. On my way home, reflecting on your discussions, especially in relation to the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan (MCSP), I believe there is a crucial aspect that warrants further attention. This is the need to proportionally grow our recreational spaces in tandem with the entire densification plan of Piedmont, as defined in the Housing Element. The MCSP certainly brings new families and demands within the study area, but it is just a part of the broader mandate of densifying our entire community. The stated goal of the MCSP on the website is merely to maintain existing amenities. However, from the presentation, it appears this might actually result in reduction of facilities, notably by downsizing the skate park to a smaller "skate spot". To my knowledge, there is currently no mandate or expectation set for growing our recreational spaces in line with this overall growth. During the meeting, it was astutely noted that new housing will lead to increased demand, which was then translated into anticipated population growth within the Moraga Canyon. While considering facility capacity for this new demand is essential, I urge the Commission to advocate for expanding our recreational areas in response to the entire Housing Element. Without such proactive planning, we risk facing challenges in providing equitable and adequate recreational facilities for our growing population. The challenges of such planning are undoubtedly complex. However, given the imminent changes and the state's overarching densification plans, our strategies must be visionary and comprehensive. I am planning to attend the community workshop on Nov 30th and will convey these sentiments there as well. If there is more I can do, I’mvery willing to provide further input or assist in any way that could be beneficial -- just let me know how. Thank you once again for your dedication to our community’s well being. I am confident that, with collaborative efforts, we can ensure that Piedmont not only grows but thrives, with recreational spaces that meet the needs of all residents, both present and future. 11/28/2023 Charles Alexander Hi Kevin, Just learned about the Moraga Canyon plan and I cannot stress that the sewage infrastructure, wildfire threat, and landfill structure are not fit for group housing. Let alone increased traffic/parking for an already limited primary escape route. Be very careful with construction agencies making a buck vs. building a stronger existing infrastructure. Concerned Maxwelton Rd resident. Turning all of Moraga Canyon into a premier sports complex for Oakland and Piedomt makes sense. Forcing housing seems like an attempt at social/civil duty mixed with construction margin grift. Best, Charles Alexander (P.S.) Thank you. Full disclosure I am an Oakland resident fwiw. Just took a hard long look at the slides, I love the initiative, but I beg you guys to quadruple-check the implications of infrastructure. Especially in regard to fire hazards. One should expect if there was a fire event, it would be 2x 1991 given the velocity of winds from the past half-decade of wind storms. Also, is there any website with more information or an opportunity to join the planning/execution team? Thanks. 12/1/2023 Susan Garbarino I'd like to make some additional comments now that I have attended the Nov 30th community meeting. I live in Upper Rockridge near the site and use Moraga Way frequently. I think it is imperative that Piedmont work with the City of Oakland regarding these plans as they will affect the surrounding neighborhoods. I didn't hear that this was happening at the meeting last night. My two main concerns are traffic and environmental safety. This is a very tight spot that already receives more traffic than it can bear. It is dark, curvy, prone to flooding, and surrounded by fuel for fires in the midst of a thickly settled area that has a history of wildfires. I was impressed by the presentation and plans last night. Most of my concerns are being considered. However, the proposed light at Red Rock (that "will be green most of the time" according to the presenter) didn't sound adequate. We need a light at the intersection of Harbord and Moraga. I realize that this is actually in Oakland, but it cuts between Piedmont and Oakland and must be considered. It is already a very dangerous intersection. I have witnessed more than one accident there. I will write to my City Councilperson to let her know this suggestion as well. Regarding which plan I would prefer and why: I strongly prefer Option three because it would change the current look 12/1/2023 Adam Thacher That was a great presentation last night. My clear favorite was I think Option 3 where the corporation yard moves across Moraga and there is no parking added under the soccer baseball field. This will make the home prices higher as the folks that will but these homes will be paying a lot and prices will be higher when they know they do not have to listen to the noise from the trucks going in and out, etc. I have a follow up question I wanted to ask the woman with dark hair who was the economics consultant who was doing the feasibility work/economic modeling etc. I did not get her card. Do you have an email for her? Thanks again for the work of you and your team. Cheers - Adam Thacher (P.S.) My question is as follows: Has she (Financing Consultant) met with or talked to experienced RE developers to see if what is being envisioned so far is economically viable from a developer’s standpoint? If she has not I was going to suggest to her that there are at least 3-4 very experienced developers that live in town that she could meet with to get feedback throughout this process. I would guess that all of them care deeply about having a great end result and would be happy to meet with her informally simply as a public service. It seems like she has great experience to do the analysis but there is difference between being a consultant and having to invest in something as a business proposition as you are well aware. My wife, for one, said she would be happy to do so. And there are others who have similar experience. https://wilsonmeany.com/people/janice-thatcher/ If the consultant wants to get her input and that of others I would suggest they would be more likely to help in informal meetings not in a public setting. I can provide an introduction if needed. 12/8/2023 Lauren Tompkinns I'm a Piedmont resident who is quite excited to see the development plans for Moraga Canyon! I would like to ask a question to see if I am interpreting the slides correctly and if so, have a followup. On slide 36: https://cdnsm5- hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_13659739/File/Government/Projects/MCSP/2023-11-30-MCSP-Community-Workshop-Presentation.pdf - Are the affordable and market rate units in separate buildings (e.g. 4 total buildings) or in the same buildings (2 totabuildings)? I hope it is the later as we wouldn't want to isolate the lower income people in separate buildings. Also, is there justification somewhere of the inclusion of single family homes in the plan? Would townhomes not fit in the same space?
ATTACHMENT
G Agenda Report Page 336
12/11/2023 Bruce Joffe Dear Director Jackson, I attended the November 30 community workshop about the proposed Moraga Canyon housing project. You and I spoke about several issues, and you welcomed me to send you follow-up observations. I am concerned about the project's isolation, the low-income residents' separation, and the willingness of the project's managers to incorporate community feedback into the plans. The first part of the community meeting was a presentation by City staff and the project planning consultants to describe the project and its four options. Then, the assembled people were invited to speak one-on-one to various project team members at poster-board stations along the perimeter of the room. No opportunity was given for workshop attendees to question the project planners as a group. General questions about the overall nature of the project would not be answered by staff personnel who were designated to discuss specific options at individual poster-board stations. This gave me and several other people the feeling that the City isn't really interested in hearing and addressing our concerns. I am concerned about the isolation of the 132 new units planned for the Moraga area. There is no "urban fabric" connecting that location with the rest of Piedmont, except for the heavily-trafficked MoragaAve. Walkers or bike riders would not see other Piedmont houses for over a quarter mile. Isolation may be a more severe problem for residents of the 60 subsidized units who may not have cars available for both going to work and for shopping or going to school. This problem could be mitigated if the City were to operate a shuttle bus, similar to the shuttles that Emeryville operates to and from the MacArthur BART station. A Piedmont shuttle could take residents down Moraga, along Piedmont Ave., across MacArthur to Grand Ave.,up Grand to Oakland Ave., up Oakland to the City Center, and then along Highland back to Moraga. Connection to the BART station might even be included in the route. The City could operate the shuttle for the first five years, and then evaluate whether the amount ofridership justifies continuing, perhaps with support from passenger fees. This solution was mentioned when we spoke at the meeting, Mr. Jackson, so I am reminding you now and requesting that it be given serious consideration. A more serious problem is the planned separation of the below-market units from the market-rate units. This is a terrible idea that will have dangerous consequences. It would create a low-income "ghetto" in the midst of high-income housing. Low-income residents would be stigmatized whenever there was a problem like graffiti, or trash, or theft. The higher-income residents would instinctively blame any grime or crime on "those people" living in the separate, nearby buildings. Numerous studies have shown that when lower-income people are physically integrated into a higher-income housing project discrimination is minimized. Indeed, the lower-income residents become better integrated into the community, and their own economic circumstances improve faster than those living in separated housing. While you agreed that integration was a good idea, Mr. Jackson, you contended that separation was necessary because the subsidized housing had to be built as a separate project. This was not my experience when I developed housing for low and moderate income people, financed by both Federal and State programs, a few decades ago. Section 8's below-market rental housing units were part of a larger market-rate project financed through HUD (the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development). There was no physical difference between the rental units. A local non-profit corporation bought the project from a for-profit developer who gained the tax-shelter benefits from selling designated subsidized units at below-market rates. In Piedmont's project, some of the 132 units could be sold to individuals (72 atmarket rate, 60 at below-market rate), with unsold units being sold to a non-profit agency which would rent the market-rate units and the subsidized units together, with no physical distinction among the units. They would be seamlessly included within the 132-unit project. No ghetto. No separation. There are many different ways to finance such mixed-income projects - direct subsidies, tax credits, a combination of county, State and Federal funding, perhaps even some philanthropy. We discussed this possibility at the communitmeeting and you asserted that an integrated project was not feasible; there would have to be two separate projects. I implore you to go back and investigate State and Federal subsidy programs more thoroughly. Creating a new housing community that separates residents by their economic status creates a danger that will cost our City financially and socially in the decades to come. I hope you, the planning consultants, and the City Council act on these concerns productively, and demonstrate that you do respond to community residents' feedback. 12/15/2023 Vincent Fisher Thanks so much for making time to meet with Liz and me. And I was great to bring the fire chief in as well. We really appreciate your view on this complicated process. Have a great weekend.12/18/2023 John Cheney Attachment - This is one more comment that is already on file with the City in 2017. I and others support "traffic calming alternatives". These are not fresh comments but rehashing comments made in 2017. We support "roundabouts" for calming traffic. 12/18/2023 John Cheney DEIR Comments and attachments re educator housing: Attached are two separate comments on the Moraga Canyon EIR plan. I am open to meet anytime. Currently our groups have met with the PUSD to propose the general approach to the City.12/23/2023 Roxanne Gault Pala between Park and Moraga is basically wide enough for one car travel in one direction but is a 2 lane road . This road will see a huge increase in traffic for those going to a new 135 unit development. Waze already diverts traffic onto this road and cars in a rush trave f t Th itt d t thi k h th dditi f th it ill ff t i t i hb h d 1/2/2024 Pam Hirtzer Just letting you know that my neighbors a few doors down on Scenic Ave have just had their home owners insurance dropped due to severe wildfire hazard. Like myself they live above Moraga Canyon. I happen to have State Farm insuring my house, and I know that State Farm is no longer providing new policies to home owners in California deemed to be residing in high fire risk areas. Hopefully I will remain grandfathered in. This unwillingness to insure homes at risk of wildfire in California has been announced by many other i i thi t Pl id thi i f ti i th d l t f th M C S ifi Pl 1/3/2024 Marj Blackwell Attached are copies of 2 traffic reports from past and proposed Moraga Ave. developments: 1. 1985 LSA report regarding development of Coaches Field; 2. 2010 Emmett Creason report regarding the proposed sports field in Blair Park. I would appreciate your assurance that both of these reports have been — or will be— provided to the consultants preparing the Moraga Ave. Specific Plan. As you can see, these reports — from 38 years and 13 years ago — both reference high volume traffic on Moraga Ave. and the danger to pedestrians trying to cross the road. Since then, Moraga Ave. traffic, if anything, has increased in volume and speed. In my and many others’ opinions, this is a primary issue that must be addressed before any development can occur in Moraga Canyon. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to your response.. 1/8/2024 Deborah Leland In reviewing the proposed changes to the Transportation Element in advance of the Planning Commission Study Session this evening, I would like to call two items to your attention:
1. Figure 4.2 of the Transportation Element shows Maxwelton Road in orange, indicating a road width of 20' - 25'. However, I believe Maxwelton Road should be depicted in red, indicating a road width of less than 20', per the description of Maxwelton Rd as 12' - 16' wide in the sidebar entitled "Narrow Streets" on the page following Figure 4.2. 2. Figure 4.4 and Table 4.4 omit Spring Path (from Moraga Ave just above Red Rock Rd to Abbott Way) from the City's inventory of pedestrian paths. Thank you for your attention to these items, and I hope there is opportunity to make the necessary corrections before adopting the amended Transportation Element. 1/8/2024 Ralph Catalano Verbal comments at Planning Commission meeting1/8/2024 Pam Hirtzer Verbal comments at Planning Commission meeting1/8/2024 Marj Blackwell Verbal comments at Planning Commission meeting1/8/2024 Andy Madeira Verbal comments at Planning Commission meeting1/8/2024 Liz Lummis O'Neil We live in the neighborhood above Coaches Field and are writing in response to the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan. It was a surprise to us that all four Moraga Canyon options presented at the November 30, 2023 meeting included two market value houses on Abbott Way and Maxwelton Road. We ask that you remove these from the Moraga Specific Plan. The two places are on extremely steep and difficult to get to locations. Accessing and building in these two locations would not be cost-effective. Surely there must be other options to 1/8/2024 Liz Lummi O'Neil Verbal comments at Planning Commission meeting1/8/2024 Kirk Peterson Verbal comments at Planning Commission meeting1/8/2024 Julie Waters Verbal comments at Planning Commission meeting1/8/2024 Irene Cheng Verbal comments at Planning Commission meeting ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 337
1/15/2024 Liz Lummis O'Neil Following the meeting last Monday, January 8, we’d like to update our letter. We request that you do not add a nature trail entrance where the current fire road gate is. We request that the fire road remains gated. •Last-minute notice: This was an absolute and outrageous curveball at the final hour. The January 8 meeting was the first time any of us learned about the nature trail proposal. As it is not even part of the housing element, we’d like it removed immediately. •Fire Safety: Maxwelton has limited access for fire trucks. 1/16/2024 Jennifer Marinelly This is response to Moraga Canyon Park. If you put houses there, you are going to create such a traffic congestion that people will be fed up. The park has wildlife that you are disregarding. The people on Moraga are leaving because of this and more will leave. First of all, we do not have any open land for building, and you should fight this. We do not have ample land for parks in the city of Piedmont and you are supposed to have more parks by the law and that is not the case. You now want to take more and make a wrong situation worse? What on earth are you thinking. We do not want to be San Francisco if that is what you want then move there. The City of Piedmont used to be sweet and quiet and cozy a little slice of heaven you are now making a slice of hell. Who is this person in Piedmont that is doing this. They are just trying to make money. If you do this, you are bringing in more people, more crime and some very shady people. You are displacing wildlife and the beautiful park with more concrete. Think about this, more people more problems. More people more crime, which is what will happen we do not have a police department that is able to handle this. Complaints, load cars, loud music, and all the other problems we already have, dogs attacking people and getting bit without reporting them because they threaten us. This is the time to stop, put the brakes on and really think low income will bring people sleeping in their cars and campers and also the homeless. Everyone knows that people know people and they will say we are living here in Piedmont so come stay if willbe smelly, dirty and look like an ugly place. Every person will have to do what they can to protect themselves and their property as the City of Piedmont Council sends it all to hell. You will not be alive long enough to see how bad it will get but all the children will suffer and young parents, but you do not care. You are as bad as Trump, with lies telling people what they want to hear, not the truth. I wouldn't be surprised if you ended up having side shows, it will happen. People who have guns will be coming, you do not pay attention, it’sall around, open your eyes. People say they want to move here, I tell them no, you do not want to, it is not at all what it used to be. So, let’s think, I know people that have left because their kids were bullied in Piedmont Schools. I know some lawyers and former city council that say this is not legal, with the parks and this is very stupid idea and should get rid of the city council people. You are really going to slam that many more people into the schools that have already suffered and fell down in the standing. You already lied to people of the cost of the pool and then you raise our taxes. WE DO NOT WANT THE HOUSES, PAY THE FINE. We would agree to pay the fine, not like you do not get enough money from, us be real. Piedmont is supposed to be an upscale place, you are making us be like East Oakland. So again, if you like that then then move there and good luck surviving. It is coming our way especially with this wrong, wrong plan. Thank you. 1/18/2024 Chris Read Option 1 is the the superior plan for Moraga Canyon: -The current Blair Park, south of Moraga Ave is underutilized; if you must build housing in the canyon, build it there! Despite being a park for a long time, almost nobody uses it! -The open space above the skate park and corporation yard would make a superior park, with hiking trails through grand oak trees yielding majestic Bay Area views. This area is already a wildlife sanctuary for deer, fox, coyote, turkey, owl, etc. In the 1800’s this land north of Moraga Ave was part of the historic 75 acre amusement park developed by the founder of Piedmont, Walter Blair https://www.historyofpiedmont.com and https://localwiki.org > Blair’s_Park . -Please do not locate housing North of Moraga Ave. The area was historically an amusement park and should be a recreation park area again for the people of Piedmont. Thanks for your efforts on this! 3/1/2024 Ralph Catalano, Ph.D.,
Distinguished Emeritus
Professor of Public Health,
University of California,
Council Members, I am attaching the comments I had hoped to make at today's study session. Having heard the consultant's comments and your questions, I would add the following.Two entrances, not one (as the consultant graphic shows), will be required to serve 132 units of housing in Blair Park. These would have to meet minimum safety standards for spacing from each other as well as from Red Rock and Maxwelton. As the 2010 LSA analyses (attached) showed, such road segments could not meet Caltrans corner sight distance standards for safety if the 85th percentile traffic speed were 35 MPH. As your consultant acknowledged today, we know that the 85th percentile speed on Moraga is now close to, if not, 40 MPH. Your consultant stated, for reasons left unclear, that Piedmont should assume just one entrance/exit and use a lesser standard for safety than did LSA implying that LSA had made a mistake when using Caltrans corner sight distance standards. Your 3/1/2024 Patty Siskind 1). Yes, I agree with Conna McCarthy, the housing should be entirely integrated with high and low income units in the same building/location.(To prevent the feeling of a ghetto.) I also feel that the units should be 2 bedrooms or more in order to get families. A master developer should be used for all the projects (and more apt to negotiate cost of city amenities.). I also feel you should sell the land rather than lease so you have units which can be sold as condominiums. People are more likely to maintain the properties with skin in the game.2). Yes, I think we should eliminate the skate park.3). Please have them modify the nature trail to reflect a loop from the starting point near the corporate yard. As we discussed, there is no room for a trail head on Maxwelton (20' wide road) and the access point on Maxwelton is the gate owned by the cemetery.4). Is the access to the two lots for sale on Maxwelton owned by Mt. View Cemetery? (There is a gate in place with signs saying this is private property)5) The citizens of Piedmont have just approved taxes for the pool, and an increase in taxes to maintain services, such as security. The residents surrounding Moraga Canyon have a much greater impact as well. They will have to accept light pollution, noise pollution, traffic congestion, fire hazard and significant safety issues with line-of-site not meeting state standards. Do you really want to ask these people to pay more in taxes for this net effect? 6) I agree you should eliminate options 3 & 4. I'm in favor of Option #1 with the least additional costs. Negotiate with the developers to add a smaller field/dog park/playground next to the houses on the north side of Moraga Canyon and develop the skate park as an 3/1/2024 Tom Gandesbery See attached written correspondence. Verbal comments made at the City Council meeting.3/1/2024 Deborah Leland Verbal comments at the City Council meeting.3/1/2024 Ralph Catalano Verbal comments at the City Council meeting. 3/1/2024 Marj Blackwell Verbal comments at the City Council meeting. 3/1/2024 Andy Madeira Verbal comments at the City Council meeting. 3/1/2024 Randy Wu Verbal comments at the City Council meeting.3/1/2024 Andy Hempeck Verbal comments at the City Council meeting. 3/1/2024 Liz Lummis O'Neil Verbal comments at the City Council meeting.3/8/2024 Randy Wu, York Drive Piedmont's role in the Bay Area's housing crisis and its reluctant compliance with RHNA. 3/11/2024 Irene Cheng and PREC:
Andrea Ruiz-Esquide
Elise Marie Collins
Frances Fisher
Randy Wu
Deborah Leland
Susy Struble
Andy Madeira
Alice Talcott
Jessica Burke
See comment letter, attached.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 338
3/12/2024 Deborah Leland I am writing to provide additional input on the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan. I strongly believe that affordable housing is a key component of any vibrant community, and I am eager for its development in Piedmont. I attended the March 1 City Council workshop, however, and I was concerned that the City may be veering in the wrong direction to achieve this goal. First, I was alarmed by the lack of adherence to the key purpose of the Specific Plan, which is to enable housing construction in Moraga Canyon. Housing cannot be secondary, or contingent upon amenities. A group of us has submitted a letter emphasizing this point more thoroughly. Relatedly, the consulting team seems to have lost sight of the scope of services for preparation of the Specific Plan, which directs the consultants to provide: “Detailed guidance on phasing and subdivision that accommodates the 60 units of lower-income housing and 72 units of above moderate-income housing . . . and that prioritizes and expedites the identification of a site for the development of affordable housing that meets the criteria and timelines to secure Alameda County Measure A-1 funding” (emphasis added). This critical local subsidy allows an affordable housing development to be competitive in securing state and federal subsidies which in turn increase the capacity of the affordable housing development to cover the infrastructure costs related to that development. Given council members’ keen focus on impacts to the City’s General Fund, retaining Measure A-1 funding should be front of mind. The only chance that the City has to retain this valuable subsidy is to adopt a Specific Plan and promptly proceed with an RFQ to select a developer who can immediately obtain control of the designated affordable housing site. At the March 1 workshop, multiple council members seemed to favor Option 2. As an occupant of one of the 50 or so Piedmont homes on the north side of Moraga, I also appreciate the benefits of Option 2 from a land use and planning perspective. However, in its current form Option 2 does not meet either of the key criteria above, due to the $5 million funding gap and the proposed phasing. Therefore, I would like to offer some ideas that could facilitate the phasing for Option 2 being reversed (i.e., to provide the developer control of the site designated for affordable housing immediately upon theCity’s selection of its development partner). First, I would like to note that under Option 1 (or Options 3 or 4), if funds to improve Coaches Field were obtained and that project were to move forward, the existing softball and soccer fields would be out of service for the duration of that construction. Thus, there is nothing that mandates that replacement field space be completed (or even started) before housing construction could begin on the existing Coaches Field site. The Specific Plan could simply allow for each subsite of Option 2 to begin once funding for that subsite is secured. It will likely take about two years following site control for an affordable housing developer to be ready to start construction, and the City could work with the Piedmont community to raise funds for development of recreation facilities on the Blair Park site during that period. However, I recognize that turning over control of the existing fields before funding is secured for new fields could create fear among the community that those recreational facilities would be lost entirely. Therefore, I believe the City Council needs to be able to see its path forward to financial viability of the full plan if it is to proceed with this option. Here are some considerations to improve the financial feasibility of Option 2: ● Allow flexibility on the size of the playfield to be developed at Blair Park. The current Coaches Field has limited usefulness given its poor drainage, lack of lighting, and small soccer field, so creating a year-round playable turf field of comparable size at Blair Park would still be a huge benefit for the community. Furthermore, my recollection of the 2010 Blair Park proposal for a 300’ x 150’ playfield was that it seemed too big for the site, creating significant visual and grading impacts. (I think the same is likely true for a field of that size on the existing site, by the way.) The City could still hold on to the idea of a U14 field as a “wish list” item should additional funding become available. ● Allow flexibility in building types, density and height to increase the residual land value and maximize the value of land features on the north side of Moraga.
Specifically, the skate park area offers spectacular views of the bay and easy pedestrian access to schools. The highest value use of this portion of the site could very well be lower density for-sale housing, and the Specific Plan should allow for this valuable area to be parceled off and sold for market rate homes at a density that maximizes the total land value. To offset that lower density housing, explore siting a taller structure where the site topography provides natural screening, such as the portion at the mouth of Red Rock Rd where Option 2 currently shows parking. ● Expand the developable land area at the mouth of Red Rock Road by slightly realigning Moraga Ave to the south, from where the steep hillside on the south side retreats to just below the driveway for 911 Moraga Ave. One commenter at the March 1 workshop introduced the idea of moving the entire Moraga Ave ROW to run along the southern edge of the Specific Plan area. While I don’t think this is practical given the two or three homes whose driveway access is via the north side of Moraga Ave between Red Rock Rd and Maxwelton, it seems possible at the western edge of the plan area, and could create a desirable site for a taller apartment building.If some combination of all these modifications to Option 2 result in a financially feasible plan, then the City could choose this option and allow a developer immediate site control of the designated affordable housing site. This is the only way that Option 2 would meet the primary objective of the Specific Plan and preserve the availability of the valuable Measure A-1 subsidy (if the City moves quickly). Otherwise, the City must either pledge City funds to cover the gap (which it seems disinclined to do), or select Option 1. Failure to do so would be a failure to adhere to the Housing Element’s purpose to enable housing. Thank you for your consideration, 3/18/2024 Ilene Sandler Please listen to the people who live in Piedmont in the Moraga Canyon area. We do NOT want increased density in Moraga Canyon. And the idea of adding additional units in this area (from 132 to 199) is incredibly disrespectful to those of us who live in this area. There have been multiple requests from our neighbors to the city to not locate so much of the new housing in this narrow Moraga Canyon area. New housing should be spread throughout the city -- not just located in this corner of Piedmont. The density is dangerous and unwanted. And you are disregarding earlier city planners who provided parks for the city by considering the development of Blair Park. Please do not ignore us. 3/18/2024 Deborah Leland Dear Mayor Cavenaugh, City Council members, staff and consultants, After reading the staff report, and seeing the direction the City seems to be heading, I need to provide further comment to amend the letter I submitted on March 12:
•The ideas I had o
ffered about Op
Ɵon 2 were intended to provide the City with flexibility to compromise on the secondary (i.e. non-housing) goals of the Specific Plan to enable that Op Ɵon. Instead, the direc
Ɵon proposed in the sta
ff report doubles down on the market
rate housing in order to continue to insist on the most extensive recreational uses. I think this would lead to too intensive use, problematic siting and over-development in Moraga Canyon. I do not support Option 2 at this intensity of use. I believe that the concept of flexibility that the staff report is endorsing takes the City in the wrong direction. Failure to select a site plan option is a bad idea: that approach will lead to confusion and a drawn out Specific Planning process, along with additional staff/consultant time and cost. The approach outlined in the staff report is also in clear contradiction with the direction in the Housing Element to create a Specific Plan that "prioritizes and expedites the identification of a site for the development of affordable housing that meets the criteria and timelines to secure Alameda County Measure A-1 funding." (emphasis added) The City should select Option 1. Given the City's unwillingness to compromise on having a U-14 soccer field, Option 1 is the only feasible way to proceed. This Option allows de-coupling the recreation improvements from the improvements necessary for housing and safety, so that the City can continue to follow the dream of having its U-14 field without derailing the entire Specific Planning effort. 3/18/2024 Randy Wu See attached.3/18/2024 Pam Hertzer Verbal comments made at the City Council meeting.3/18/2024 Marj Blackwell Verbal comments made at the City Council meeting.3/18/2024 Ralph Catalano Verbal comments made at the City Council meeting. 3/18/2024 Karen Harley Verbal comments made at the City Council meeting.3/18/2024 Elise Collins Verbal comments made at the City Council meeting.3/18/2024 Randy Wu Verbal comments made at the City Council meeting. 3/18/2024 Jill Lindenbaum Verbal comments made at the City Council meeting.3/18/2024 Claire Parisa Verbal comments made at the City Council meeting. 3/18/2024 Carol Galante Verbal comments made at the City Council meeting. 3/18/2024 Rick Holliday Verbal comments made at the City Council meeting.3/18/2024 Irene Cheng Verbal comments made at the City Council meeting.3/18/2024 Sarah Karlinsky Verbal comments made at the City Council meeting.3/18/2024 Alice Talcott Verbal comments made at the City Council meeting. 3/18/2024 Vincent Fisher Verbal comments made at the City Council meeting.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 339
3/18/2024 Deborah Leland Verbal comments made at the City Council meeting. 3/18/2024 Andy Madeira Verbal comments made at the City Council meeting.5/17/2024 Irene Cheng See attached.8/12/2024 Garrett Keating In tonight's discussion of building designs for Moraga Canyon I hope you will inquire about the "net zero" capability of these designs: can they accommodate solar panels on the roofs, are they suitable for micro-gridding and batteries, is one design better or worse for passive solar heating and cooling. The Housing Element adds 7000 MT GHG to the city's 32,000 MT annual emissions so the carbon footprint of these designs should be a factor in what design is chosen. 8/12/2024 Irene Cheng Verbal comments made at Planning Commission meeting and reflected in meeting minutes.8/12/2024 Marjorie Blackwell Verbal comments made at Planning Commission meeting and reflected in meeting minutes.8/12/2024 Chris Read Verbal comments made at Planning Commission meeting and reflected in meeting minutes.8/12/2024 Ralph Catalano Verbal comments made at Planning Commission meeting and reflected in meeting minutes.9/23/2024 Frank Nothaft Verbal comments made at Planning Commission meeting and reflected in meeting minutes.9/23/2024 Pam Hirzer Verbal comments made at Planning Commission meeting and reflected in meeting minutes.9/23/2024 Dimitri Maganis Verbal comments made at Planning Commission meeting and reflected in meeting minutes.9/23/2024 George Hosgood Verbal comments made at Planning Commission meeting and reflected in meeting minutes.9/23/2024 Randy Wu Verbal comments made at Planning Commission meeting and reflected in meeting minutes. 9/23/2024 Deborah Leland Verbal comments made at Planning Commission meeting and reflected in meeting minutes.9/23/2024 Marjorie Blackwell Verbal comments made at Planning Commission meeting and reflected in meeting minutes.9/23/2024 Claire Parisa Verbal comments made at Planning Commission meeting and reflected in meeting minutes. 9/23/2024 Frances Fisher Verbal comments made at Planning Commission meeting and reflected in meeting minutes.10/7/2024 Ralph Catalano Written comments submitted to City Council meeting. 10/13/2024 Jane Holland Written comments submitted via email to the City Council. 10/14/2024 Dave Holland Verbal comments made at Planning Commission meeting and reflected in meeting minutes. 10/14/2024 Randy Wu Verbal comments made at Planning Commission meeting and reflected in meeting minutes. 10/14/2024 Liz Lummis O'Neil Verbal comments made at Planning Commission meeting and reflected in meeting minutes. 10/14/2024 Ralph Catalano Written comments submitted as late mail to the Planning Commission.10/14/2024 Ralph Catalano Verbal comments made during the open forum part of the Planning Commission meeting. 4/24/2025 (OpenGov.com) This plan looks well thought out, and a good use of the open space in the area. Your neighbors just up the hill in Oakland are in full support of building more housing, and this project in particular.4/24/2025 Monika McCaffrey How do you vision the increased traffic, especially at the intersection of Harbord Drive? Already at times it is impossible to enter Moraga from either side of Harbord Drive. Will there be a traffic light, or what will be happening at that intersection?????4/28/2025 Any Madeira Verbal comments made at City Council study session.4/28/2025 Ralp Catalano Written materials submitted at the City Council study session. 4/28/2025 Anonymous I join neighbors in the concern that adding urban density and congestion to Moraga Canyon is a threat to an already challenging emergency evacuation route out of the neighborhood. Our neighbor Ken Koretz penned the following comments I post in the hope it will 4/30/2025 Marjorie Blackwell Verbal comments made at City Council study session.4/30/2025 Pam Hirtzer Verbal comments made at City Council study session.4/30/2025 Kathleen Hurley Verbal comments made at City Council study session.4/30/2025 Dara Birnbaum Verbal comments made at City Council study session.4/30/2025 Liz Lummis O'Neil Verbal comments made at City Council study session.4/30/2025 Patty Siskind Verbal comments made at City Council study session.4/30/2025 Garrett Keating Verbal comments made at City Council study session.4/30/2025 Vivian Mather Verbal comments made at City Council study session.4/30/2025 Peggy Esposito Verbal comments made at City Council study session. 5/5/2025 Marjorie Blackwell Emailed letter to City Council regarding traffic analysis including stopping sight distance with attachments.5/7/2025 (OpenGov.com) I’m against the plan for these reasons: 1. It destroys our last open space & a wildlife habitat will be destroyed forever. 2. Safety reasons- in case of a disaster, fire or whatever, it will create a nightmare traffic problem.5/8/2025 Lucy Gill Email confirming consultation with Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation and acceptance of measures to protect tribal cultural resources.6/3/2025 Kathleen Hurley Email with comments regarding development concerns, including traffic safety. 6/12/2025 M Marshall
(OpenGov.com)
Has anyone considered the high risk added to potential wildfire evacuation that would be caused by adding multi tenant buildings to Moraga Ave? Seems irresponsible to even consider putting housing there. Not to mention the increased traffic when it’s already dangerous.. why haven’t other less dangerous and more public transit accessible spots been reviewed? 6/12/2025 Anonymous
(OpenGov.com)
As a Piedmont resident that would be directly impacted by any construction on Moraga Canyon, I cannot in good conscience support this plan. I recognize that the City must add housing but these 2 proposed locations have so many more negatives than positives. Trafficwill be ground to a standstill and unable to support the 200 units being considered. With adding dedicated bike lanes, it only reduces space for vehicles on the road. The plan to add bus stops on this road would only further drag traffic to a grind. With the planned Fire Drill this weekend, I can't imagine how damaging the construction of new apartment units on Moraga would be. The City moved on too fast from considerations of alternate locations such as Beach/Linda. There is existing access to transportation and bus lines in place there. Please don't ruin Moraga Canyon for all residents of Piedmont.
ATTACHMENT
G Agenda Report Page 340
6/13/2025 Hari Titan (OPenGov.com) California has several programs designed to support the development and accessibility of low-income, all-electric housing. These programs, like the Building Initiative for Low-Emissions Development (BUILD) and the California Electric Homes Program (CalEHP), offer financial incentives and technical assistance to developers and builders constructing new, all-electric homes for low-income residents. BUILD Program: This program, managed by the California Energy Commission (CEC), provides financial incentives and technical assistance to developers constructing new all-electric, low-income housing.https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2024-10/new-federally-funded-residential-energy-rebate-programs-launching-california CalEHP: CalEHP, a sister program to BUILD, offers financial incentives and technical support to builders of new, all-electric homes for low-income residents. https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2023-07/58-million-incentives-now-available-new-all-electric-climate-friendly-homes With an all-electric building, solar panels would have a very fast payback period. The building should include electric charging stations (Tesla and non-Tesla). These incentives would help mitigate the over 7000 Metric Tones of CO2 the project is projected to add to the city’s GHG emissions as reported recently by Piedmont Connect. The City should also follow California building codes, particularly Chapter 7A and the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) code, that mandate fire-resistant materials and construction methods for new buildings in wildfire-prone areas. Things like Class A fire rated composite shingle roofing. Non-combustible or Ignition-Resistant Siding: Materials like fiber cement siding or stucco painted with Class A fire-resistant paint. Dual-pane windows with at least one pane of tempered glass, which is more resistant to heat-induced breakage. Fire-rated doors to slow fire spread. Roof vents listed as approved by thCalifornia State Fire Marshal for use in Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Non-combustible decks and fences. Hardscaping like gravel, stone, or concrete in a 5-foot ember-resistant zone immediately around the building. Wider buffer zones and defensible spaces. 6/13/2025 Kenneth and Joyce Polse Email with comments regarding traffic, safety, environmental impacts, cost, legacy, and other sites for development6/16/2025 Alice Talcott Email received 6/16/2025 regarding future development design and responsibility to construct 6/18/2025 Gabrielle Castriotta
(OpenGov.com)
As a new resident of Piedmont, I have not had the opportunity to weigh in on the Moraga Canyon Plan previously, so I have several things to say. I hope my voice is heard, especially as our home borders on the site. To start off, I think Option B, with the bulk of housing going next to Coach’s field, makes more sense than trying to squeeze so much into Blair Park. Any oaks removed from Blair Plark will need to be replaced in kind, no matter what. Therefore, my comments are addressing Option B. While I support more housing in Piedmont, especially affordable, I think this plan has some major issues that need to be resolved. First, the size and style of the housing development proposed does not match the site. It is too large, and the visuals provided appear too urban/corporate for the location. This style and scale of development would make sense at the vacant lot on Pleasant Valley and Broadway in Oakland, for example, but not tucked into the landscape in the midst of SF homes. I do support densification, especially if it allows Piedmont to maintain its precious green spaces while adding housing stock, but it needs to be at the right scale. 2-4 story townhomes might make more sense at this location. Additionally, I saw just one driveway connecting to Moraga only on the plan. For emergencies especially, it’s imperativthat any development maintains a second road out, ideally connecting to Harbord/Clarewood. If logistics must be worked out with the city of Oakland or even Mountain View Cemetery, please do so. This connection is also important for traffic mitigation on Moraga. On the topic of traffic on Moraga, if we are adding denser housing, we need the public transit to accompany it. Transit is mentioned in the plan but needs more study. This line should be implemented BEFORE the housing. Piedmont really needs a local bus route that connects to the Rockridge BART station as well as Montclair, Piedmont Ave, and Lakeshore Ave--essentially, connecting this town that is zoned almost exclusively residential to nearby goods and services. The 33 is not enough. A smaller electric shuttle (check out the Culver City Circulator in Southern California for a good example) could be a great and quieter option for navigating narrow and twisty Moraga Ave. Finally, while I love the idea of widening Moraga to create bike lanes and sidewalks, I would imagine these improvementsto be extremely costly given the difficult topography of the site. I’d be all for them, but I do question their feasibility. It’s so important for Piedmont to add housing where it makes sense, and I think this site (Option B, by Coach’s Field) is a good choice given the right parameters. Just don’t let overreach spoil the whole plan. 6/28/2025 Irene Cheng, Elise Collins
Frances Fisher, Carol
Galante, Sarah Karlinsky,
Deborah Leland, Andy
Madeira, Claire Parisa,
Andrea Ruiz-Esquide, Alice
Talcott , Randy Wu
Email received 6/28/2025, see attached.
7/7/2025 Ralph Catalano City Council meeting July 7, 2025 comments and written submittal 8/7/2025 Marjorie Blackwell, Tim
and Martha Holstlaw, Anita
Stapen, Min Yang
Written letter, see attached.
8/8/2025 Jeffery Alpert Email to Planning Commission regarding email received from Jane Pingatore sent August 8, 2025, forwarding Pingatore email. 8/9/2025 Winifred Walters Email distributed at the dais. There are problems with this plan with regard to sidewalks and bike access for new and existing Piedmont residents, specifically in the section of street and sidewalk on Moraga Avenue just west of the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan area.
Moraga Avenue is the only direct route between the proposed new housing development and schools in Piedmont, City Hall, etc. The narrow, curved section from Coaches Field, going west, to below Pala Avenue creates a bottleneck for realistic multi-modal access to the MCSP area. The video summary refers to “sidewalks on both sides” of Moraga Canyon. However, the main access from the rest of the City of Piedmont has a sidewalk on only one side, as it is today. See page 34, the section west of Coaches Field. The plan includes a “buffered bike lane uphill.” This is misleading because the buffered bike lane does not exist in the approach from the west (near Pala Ave) to the MCSP area. What is shown in the plan (page 37) is a Class III Bike Lane. A “Class III Bikeway” simply means that bikes and vehicles need to share the road. This particular section of road is both narrow and curved, with very limited visibility. I can’t imagine how this section, as proposed, can be safe for children and families travelling to and from Piedmont for school and recreation. The plan does not adequately address this issue with respect to the various considerations for Class III Bikeways. See: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/chp1000-a11y.pdf P. 38 discusses adding bus transit along Moraga Ave. This would make bicycling along that route even more dangerous. Bikes and buses along the very narrow section of this route will not be safe. I don’t believe the plan adequately addresses the possible combination of all of these modes of transportation. Winifred Walters
8/11/2025 Winifred Walters Verbal comments at the Planning Commission meeting.8/13/2025 David Petta Written letter, see attached.8/14/2025 Winifred Walters Written letter, see attached.8/21/2025 Evan Wong (OpenGov.com)
I do agree, the roads during commute hours are at capacity. The increase in traffic may seem "minor" but when you have 50 vehicles stopped on the road. You have to imagine the density this creates on a 1 lane, 2 way traffic road. A greater challenge is when/if a vehiclestops or stalls on Moraga Ave. First responders will not have access unless going through Pala Ave, and even this road has limitations. As Moraga Ave. is used primarily for commuters who utilize CA-13, not just city residents. It is not ideal nor realistic to have public transportation pass through here as the road narrows abruptly. As for public transportation specifically in the Moraga Canyon area, the system would not be heavily utilized as it would barely serve ~200 residents. Based on the design road plans it seems great in the canyon area, but this does not solve the future bottlenecking between Highland Ave, and Pala Ave. Eventually there will be bottlenecking at Red Rock rd. as well.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 341
8/21/2025 Kathleen Hurley I write in follow-up to the past council meeting where there was a noticeably large turnout for the presentation and topic of the Moraga Canyon development site specific plan. I am a resident of Harbord Drive, very close to and impacted by traffic and related policies o Moraga Avenue from Pleasant Valley Road up to the on-ramps of HWY 13 just two blocks north of my location and three to four blocks north of the proposed development plan. Because Moraga Ave serves as a major evacuation route from the area and crosses through the Piedmont/Oakland Border twice near this development proposal, a number of neighbors are inquiring how Moraga Avenue traffic will impact the surrounding community and intersections in regard to safe access, egress, emergency vehicles and response, pedestrian, bike and auto safety along the length of the corridor. As pointed out in the past, this plan is being developed in a box that doesn’t take into account the immediate community surrounding it. Every map in the Site Specific Plan put forth by the consultants stops at the Piedmont border without thought of impacts or how various improvements may be gained through mutual community cooperation. Councilmembers asked several excellent questions of the consultant and staff at the last meeting that I hope will be able to be followed up upon meaningfully. For example, the question was raised how to put a hard cap on the number of units to be developed so a developer doesn’t add more? The consultant answer to that question was that since Piedmont owns the property it will need to be placed into the developer agreement. If a vote were to be taken I believe this cap would be agreed as desirable yet there didn’t seem a way to secure a commitment that a cap would be placed. Is that something that can be taken up at a future meeting and/or noted as a request from council? Another Councilmember mentioned the past nearby conflagration and asked what emergency planning and measures were under study or included related to the development proposal. Some of the speakers and other councilmembers raised similar and related concerns including asking if there might be a second exit drive added to development on the Coaches Field side to help prevent bottlenecks. Will there be more follow-up for these issues related to emergency escape routesplans for emergency vehicle staging and overall access? Are there specific guardrails that could be prepared and added to the development agreement without having to wait for the full agreement to be drafted? It makes sense to capture and act on issues deemed important so they are not lost to time or memory. If it is deemed premature or out of scope to work with the current contractors on important issues of community safety, is there a way to document and preserve those concerns to see them addressed for when the time seems appropriate. Even at one meeting two Councilmembers had a concern about a specific tree and were told it could not be taken care of in the plan. Yet, one might ask could that be part of the development agreement? It would be sad to see the talentand efforts of many thoughtful people lost due to asserted technicalities related to a consultant document. I hope the Council will continue to question and advocate for community safety, not just limited to the box on the site map, but to the greater good and safetyof the surrounding population and community. In an area of earthquake faults, wildfire, challenging topography and a history of traffic difficulties, accidents and bottlenecks, thinking of and planning for what will happen when an area is under stress is incredibly important. I appreciate your continued thoughts in this direction. 8/21/2025 Anonymous
(OpenGov.com)
Almost all of the people who live in the direct area that would be impacted by this addition of density are opposed to this plan. The roads are already at capacity and the density would put our lives at risk if there were a fire or other emergency. There were many deaths in the most recent wildfire in this area caused by traffic jams. Even on a normal day, the intersection at Maxwelton and Moraga is already very dangerous and difficult to navigate, as is our alternative intersection at Harbord and Moraga. Any additional traffic will cause more accidents and deaths. There is no public transportation in this neighborhood to mitigate any of the added traffic. It also would destroy beautiful open space and parks that house wildlife and make Piedmont the wonderful home that is it. Our family uses the park regularly and we observe numerous species of wildlife such as the bald eagles, coyotes, red tail hawks, mule deer, red foxes, and many species of smaller birds and rodents, turkeys, turkey vultures, opossums, and more. Their habitat would be destroyed as well as our ability to appreciate the beautiful natural setting of this public open space. Destroying public open space is really going in the wrong direction. 8/22/2025 Randy Wu I have written and spoken before to the Planning Commission and City Council. For the new members of the Planning Commission, I am a longtime resident of Piedmont, and I believe the City must build more housing, both affordable and market rate. All other cities in Alameda County have built multifamily housing projects based upon their Housing Element plans. Piedmont should catch up and build its share as well in this housing cycle. I have some observations and recommendations on Circulation (Chapter 4). Observations - Moraga Ave. from the intersection at Highland Ave. to Estates Drive in Oakland has been for many drivers a quick freeway on-ramp to Highway 13 and a fast downhill ramp to Piedmont Ave. and downtown Oakland. For these drivers, the posted 25 MPH speed limit is not observed. Fehr & Peers has recorded speeds up to 40 MPH and a median speed of 35 MPH, both well above the speed limit. This section of Moraga Ave. (Highland to Estates) has about 100 lots. With the additioof 197 apartments the total number of homes and vehicles will increase. With this change Moraga Ave. no longer should be used as a drive-by getaway and instead should be designed as a residential street shared by drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. The proposed new signal light at Red Rock Road will slow traffic, but as drivers have been accustomed to driving at a high speed for decades it will take time to slow them down. (Note that Fehr & Peers believes that the new traffic light by itself will have a modest impact on high traffic speeds beyond the intersection.) Recommendations - The City should ensure that drivers comply with the posted speed limit through the following traffic safety measures: 1. The 25 MPH speed limit should be enforced by the Piedmont Police Dept. An officer should be stationed at times on Moraga Ave. to alert drivers that excessive speeding no longer will be tolerated. If necessary, traffic cameras and speed bumps could be installed to ensure that the median traffic speed is 25 MPH rather than 35 MPH. 2. The City should consider adding another crosswalk at the Red Rock Road intersection. This third "leg" of the intersection would slow traffic approaching the intersection in both directions as some drivers may try to "beat the light" if just a single crosswalk is installed on Moraga Ave. under the current design. The City also should consider, given the prospect of new families with children in the MCSP area, reducing the speed limit at this intersection to 15 MPH, the standard at ou schools. 3. Bike and pedestrian paths should be upgraded within the limits of the available road space. The current plan for an upgraded bike lane headed uphill or east on Moraga Ave. is a thoughtful addition that will improve traffic safety for cyclists pedaling at a much slower speed than drivers in cars. The shared single lane headed downhill or west on Moraga Ave. will be safe for cyclists only if the 25 MPH speed limit is enforced. Sharing a single lane with cars speeding at 40 MPH is simply toodangerous for a cyclist. In conclusion, the MCSP will transform this area from a lightly used park by a drive-by corridor into a dense residential neighborhood. "Traffic calming" measures appropriate for a lively residential neighborhood should be the primaryobjective for the Planning Commission. Finally, Implementation (Chapter 10) does not yet include analysis of the fiscal impact of 199 new homes on the Piedmont School District. If just half of the new homes have families w/ 1-2 school age children, then the District will gain 100-200 new students. This gain would reverse declining enrollment and provide additional revenue for each enrolled student. The new housing would give teachers and other City workers an opportunity to live in Piedmont rather than commute from afar. It also might help the District recruit qualified teachers for Piedmont's schools. Thank you very much for considering my comments and moving the MCSP forward in a thoughtful way. Randy Wu, York Drive 8/25/2025 Pam Hirtzer Written letter, attached.8/26/2025 David Petta Written letter, attached.8/27/2025 Alan Cohen (OpenGov.com)
In my opinion, the state legislature should not have viewed the solution to our housing shortage based on individual cities. A regional approach to this problem is for more rational. It is my understanding that no consideration was given to the available open space that each city has to accommodate new high density housing. In the case of our city Piedmont, the only available open sites are our very limited parks and recreational fieldsI think we should pursue having the state legislature have a carve out for cities, such as Piedmont ,where this is the case.we should not have to sacrifice our precious, open green space of which we have so little. Our city officials and the citizens of Piedmont need to contact our state legislators with regard to this issue. It’s obvious that in recent years have seen a tremendous number of residential housing units built in Oakland and Berkeley, San Leandro and Hayward El Cerrito in Richmond, which have the open space needed to accommodate this high density housing. Some people prefer living in a high density housing situation, I am not one of them, and I don’t think most people in Piedmont are either. Putting 160 units in Blair Park is an absolute abomination, this project will change the whole feel of the Morgen Canyon, it is an obscenity. This is a natural green corridor, should be preserved forever and not degraded in order to comply with a poorly thought out housing mandate from the state of California.This particular site gets very little natural sunlight. Moraga Avenue, of course is a major thoroughfare for emergency access and egress from the hills should there be another fire, this will be significantly will be significantly compromised . The coaches field location is at least a little bit more removed and we’ll have less of an impact on Canyon because of this it is also more expensive project which would make it less likely to ever be built. Again I think we need our city officials to pursue the idea of the carve out for cities that have no open space ,parks and green belts should be off limits. Loss of the little green space we still have in Piedmont will detract from our health and well-being immeasurably. Alan Cohen, Maxwelton Rd 9/1/2025 Winifred Walters Written letter, attached.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 342
9/3/2025 Marjorie Blackwell and
Tom Brohard
Written letter from Tom Brohard, attached. Email content: Can you please forward this email from Civil & Traffic Engineer Tom Brohard to the Planning Commission. At my request, Mr. Brohard watched a portion of the 8/11/25 Planning Commission meeting, starting at 2 hrs. I watched the meeting segment – about 7 minutes starting at 2:00 and ending when they took a break. If they returned to discuss further, please let me know what time that starts, and I will watch. The presentation purportedly summarized speed data but I have not seen any recent speed measurements or any memos by the City’s consultant Fehr & Peers. Please provide those documents to me if you have them available. One of the slides showed an 85th% speed of 38-39 mph, and from that they used 40 mph as the design speed. The design speed should be at a higher speed since the goal is to design for traffic safety so that only 1 out of 20 drivers would be above the 95th%. Assuming 40 mph as the design speed puts 15% of the traffic above the design speed, which is not safe and not appropriate Incorrectly using 40 mph as the design speed puts 15% of the traffic above 40 mph, and 85% of the traffic at the design speed or less. Stopping sight distance is an appropriate consideration as is corner sight distance. The authority used by Caltrans and local jurisdictions in California is “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Stopping sight distance is longer for downhill than for uphill. Here, 50 mph is the design speedas it represents the 95th% speed. From Table 3-1 enclosed, the stopping sight distance on level roadways for a design speed of 50 mph is 425 feet, and 305 feet for 40 mph. From Table 3-2 enclosed, the stopping sight distance on grades for a 6 % downgrade at 40 mph design speed is 333 feet and 474 feet for 50 mph. The downhill stopping sight distance for a design speed of 40 mph on Moraga Canyon Road is not adequate in advance of the proposed traffic signal at Red Rock Road. The associated stopping sight distance is less than adequate to provide safe conditions for a 50-mph design speed. From my review of Google Earth photographs, the horizontal curve to the right for downhill traffic is limited by embankments, trees, and foliage on the inside of this curve just north of Red Rock Road. The proposed measures to provide an advance flashing beacon with warning sign are incomplete by themselves. Total mitigation to provide adequate stopping sight distance will require regrading of the slope inside the horizontal curve to eliminate the stopping sight distance restriction and provide proper visibility of the traffic signal indications themselves. Please contact me with any questions regarding these comments. Respectfully submitted, Tom Brohard, Principal, Tom Brohard and Associates, 81905 Mountain View Lane, La Quinta, California 92253-7611, (760) 398-8885, [email protected] 9/3/2025 Justin Magana
(OpenGov.com)
I have read the Specific Plan and the EIR addendum. No where in either of these documents do they take traffic seriously. There is no real study of the impact of either adding a stoplight nor 199 units along this road which I use everyday. The city is either unserious about this type of study or they do not want the public to see an actual study. Many of the comments here echo each other on the problems increase traffic would cause on Moraga Avenue and I agree with each one. 9/3/2025 Todd Williams, Fennemore
Law Firm
Written letter, attached.
9/4/2025 Jeff Hoffman, Email and
OpenGov.com
Written letter, attached. Email content: Please accept the attached comment letter for inclusion in the record for the September 8, 2025 Planning Commission hearing on the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan.I’m a Piedmont resident at Echo Lane. My letter conveys overall support for adding housing but opposes the Blair Park (south-side) option on traffic / safety, community integration, and open-space / livability grounds.Kindly confirm receipt and that this will be included in the packet / record. Thank you for your time and service. 9/4/2025 David Rehnstrom, EBMUD Written letter, attached. Email content: East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan (MCSP) and Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Piedmont Housing Element (2023-2031) located in the City of Piedmont (City). EBMUD commented on the Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR for the Piedmont Housing Element (2023-2031) on December 12, 2023. EBMUD’s original comments (see Attachment A of the response letter) still apply regarding water service, wastewater planning, and water conservation. Please see attached document for EBMUD’s additional comments. If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact Sandra Mulhauser, Senior Civil Engineer, Major Facilities Planning Section at (510) 287-7032. 9/4/2025 Anne Gritzer I am writing to object to the city’s apparent intention to install field lights on Coaches Field. The Moraga Canyon Specific Plan (“MCSP”), published on the city’s website, provides a very thorough and well developed plan for proposed housing on ci property located in Moraga Canyon. The document includes a tacit reference to sports field lighting, and its definition of “Dark Sky Lighting" acknowledges that “light trespass” from the field is inevitable. (MCSP, p. 8.) Additionally, MCSP Section 10.5.7LIGHTING COMPLIANCE suggests that lighting on Coaches Field is under consideration. It states: 10.5.7.1 LIGHTING COMPLIANCE To ensure consistency with Section 3.12 of the City of Piedmont Design Guidelines related to exterior light spillage, prior t the approval of any building or landscape design for the park, corporation yard, or residential, a photometric plan shall be submitted to the City of Piedmont Planning and Building Department for Review. Direct light rays shall be shielded as necessary to nospill over onto abutting properties. Also, the photometric plan shall demonstrate that any proposed lighting shall not exceed 0.1 foot-candle on the cemetery property or 0.3 foot-candle on any property outside of the Specific Plan area. Furthermore, ansports field lighting shall not exceed 0.5 foot-candle at any residence within the Specific Plan area. (MCSP, p. 124.) Please be aware that during City Counsel discussions during the approval process for the the construction of Coaches Field, citizens residinon Scenic and Alta Avenues, situated above the field and led by former Mayor Al Peters, voiced strong objections to field lighting due to concerns regarding light pollution as well as noise during the evening hours. Each would constitute a nuisance antrespass on the peaceful enjoyment of the homes situated on the Scenic/Alta parcels. At the time and as a condition of approval, the City Counsel promised in good faith that no lights would be installed on Coaches Field without time limitation. In facthe agreement reached with the citizens was that no lights would ever be placed on Coaches Field. Nothing related to the state mandate, which has led to the MCSP, materially alters the concerns of the Scenic/Alta residents regarding Coaches FieldAdditionally, nothing related to the improvements stemming from the state’s mandate, provide any grounds that would excuse the city from honoring its agreement to never install field lights on Coaches Field. Thank you for your thoughtful attention tthese concerns. It is important that the city honor its commitments to its citizens, particularly those that were made to overcome objections to the construction of the field in the first instance. Times have not changed, and the concerns of the Scenic/Altresidents are as valid today as they were when the field was built and promises were made. Best regards, Anne Gritzer, Scenic Avenue
ATTACHMENT
G Agenda Report Page 343
9/4/2025 Todd Kaiser, Email and
OpenGov.com
I support the City of Piedmont’s commitment to increasing housing supply and expanding opportunities for low-income and working families in our community. These values are essential to creating a more inclusive, resilient city. However, I urge the Council and Planning Commission to reconsider Blair Park as a proposed development site under the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan (MCSP). The location poses serious safety, accessibility, environmental, and equity issues that directly conflict with the intent of our General Plan and the stated goals of the MCSP itself. 1. Unsafe Traffic Conditions at Maxwelton Road - Every day, residents exiting Maxwelton Road onto Moraga Avenue face hazardous conditions. There is no traffic signal or proposed improvement at this intersection, despite the MCSP’s promise to use a “complete streets” approach. The sharp curvature of Moraga Avenue and the speed of vehicles severely limit visibility, making turns unsafe even under current traffic volumes. The planacknowledges widening Moraga Avenue but explicitly says it will not add lanes, meaning congestion and dangerous turning movements will remain. Adding hundreds of new housing units will drastically worsen these risks. I invite every decision-maker to attempt this turn during peak commute hours before concluding Blair Park is a viable housing site. 2. Lack of Safe School Access - The MCSP envisions affordable housing that will welcome families with children, a goal I fully endorse. However, Piedmont does not provide school bus service. Children living at Blair Park would be forced to walk over a mile along Moraga Avenue, a high-speed arterial road, often in rain, fog, or glaring sun. Crossings are only proposed at Red Rock Road. People will jaywalk acrosMoraga Avenue seeking desired paths. Meanwhile, pedestrian and trail system improvements described in the plan, such as hillside loops around Coaches Field, are recreational amenities rather than functional routes to schools or city services. 3. Inadequate Parking and Spillover into Neighborhoods - The plan underestimates vehicle demand. In a region with extremely high living costs, units will be occupied by more people than the design intends for, each with their own car. The MCSP allows reduced parking ratios under state density bonus law, but it provides no realistic solution for overflow. Already, the Maxwelton neighborhood struggles with illegal parking in fire lanes, restricting emergency vehicle access. Adding hundreds of units at either site without adequate parking guarantees worsening congestion, unsafe blockages, and further strain on surrounding neighborhoods. This is a serious blindspot of the MCSP. The plan assumes AC Transit could one day add stops along Moraga Avenue, but this is speculative and unfunded. Families may have to wait years before reliable transit serves the site and it will not lead to a meaningful reduction in the number of vehicles in the zone. 4. No Credible Wildfire Evacuation Strategy - The MCSP itself acknowledges wildfire risk with an evacuation routes diagram, but it provides no detailed traffic modeling or capacity analysis. During a wildfire, residents from the Oakland Hills and Upper Rockridge will also be funneled through Moraga Canyon. Traffic is already gridlocked during rush hour. Adding hundreds of residents at either site, with no secondary evacuation route, poses a grave risk to public safety. 5. Loss of One of Piedmont’s Last Open Spaces - The General Plan emphasizes protection of environmentally sensitive open space as a defining feature of Piedmont’s character. Yet the MCSP frames Blair Park as simply “developable,” treating it like an interchangeable land bank. Natural open spaces like Blair Park provide ecosystem services that buildings cannot replace: they reduce stormwater runoff, improve air quality, and cool urban heat. Once developed, those benefits are permanently lost. This is also a public health and equity issue. Locating low-income housing on Blair Park removes residents’ immediate access to the recreation and mental health benefits tied to greenery. Instead of enhancing Blair Park as an inclusive natural space for all, the plan would erase it for those who most need it. 6. A Better Path Forward - The City has set an ambitious housing target, and rightly so. But good planning means choosing sites that match the needs of future residents with the infrastructure and safety conditions to support them. Coaches Field and other sites north of Moraga Avenue already include plans for recreation upgrades and have safer, more direct connections into the city core. If the goal is equity, we should not place low-income families in a location that isolates them, exposes them to daily traffic dangers, and undermines emergency safetyThe Moraga Canyon Specific Plan represents an important step toward a more inclusive Piedmont. But Blair Park is the wrong site. It sacrifices safety, equity, and open space values for a plan that is not realistic about traffic, parking, or evacuation. I urge theCouncil to remove Blair Park from the development area, and instead focus new housing on sites where residents, especially children, can live safely, access schools and services fairly, and still benefit from the open space that makes Piedmont unique. 9/4/2025 Marj Blackwell, Vincent
Fisher, Julie Watters, Daphne Albert, Peggy Esposito
This Opinion piece was partially printed in the Piedmont POST on 9/3/25. We thought you would like to read it in its entirety. On Sept. 8, 2025, Piedmont Planning Commission is scheduled to vote on a recommendation to the City Council on the Moraga Canyon SpecifiPlan (MCSP). The MCSP calls for building 197 housing units on Moraga Ave. (either in Blair Park or on the steep hillside above and around Coaches Field) The housing would be 5-storyu structures with 60 low-income and up to 137 market rate units. Some of us who have followed the Plan’s development for 3 years have questions and serious concerns for Piedmont’s future if it becomes reality. Here are a few.Disaster Evacuation: Piedmont Fire Dept. cites Moraga Canyon as a “high risk wildfire” area and predicts a wildfire is “highly likely.” The Canyon is also less than 1 mile from the Hayward Fault. Moraga Ave. is a designated emergency evacuation route and the only way out for the estimated 400 to 1,000 new Canyon residents, as well as for many existing nearby Oakland and Piedmont residents. The Plan expects people to walk or bicycle in a disaster. How likely is that? How will emergency crews reach the Canyon if Moraga Ave. is gridlocked as residents desperately try to leave? Remember the 1991 Oakland hills fire. Does Piedmont want to risk its residents’ lives? Traffic/Pedestrian Safety: Moraga Ave. is a busy, 24-hour traffic arterial, with 11,000 cars per day traveling an average 40 mph. The MCSP proposes a traffic light with a pedestrian crossing at Red Rock Rd. The City’s traffic consultants say the “safe stopping distance” required for cars traveling 40-mph meets Caltrans regulations for a traffic light. But a CA licensed civil & traffic engineer retained by Friends of Moraga Canyon says the safe stopping distance should be calculated for cars traveling 50 mph, meaning Moraga Ave. likely does not have the required stopping distance for a traffic light. If housing is built in Blair Park, the Plan specifies several driveways off of Moraga, creating even more risk and chaos for cars making left turns to enter or exit the project. Children would be tempted to dash across Moraga without waiting for a green light. Is Piedmont willing to risk serious accidents and children’s lives? Financial Risks: The MCSP requires the market-rate developer to pay all infrastructure costs, including widening Moraga Ave., adding sidewalks and bike lanes, new stormwater drains and sewer lines, undergrounding all utilities – and expanding Coaches Field. What if the developer declines or defaults partway through development? Does this cost fall on the City and Piedmont taxpayers? Will new residents be able to get fire insurance? Developing the Coaches Field side also requires moving the Corporation Yard to Blair Park Community Connection: The MCSP creates an “ island community” with no improvements on Moraga Ave. beyond the plan boundaries. No consideration of traffic backups to Hwy 13 or to the sharp curves on Moraga adjacent to Pala Ave., which are already dangerous for bicyclists.
The Plan makes no mention of what happens to daily traffic on Moraga Ave. during years of construction? How will Piedmont residents get to Hwy 13 and Montclair? Public Transit: The MCSP calls for a bus line on Moraga Ave to serve MCSP residents. How likely is AC Transit to add new bus service when it has cut nearly all service in Piedmont? Where exactly would the bus go? State law requires affordable housing be within .5 mile of public transit. It’s .7 mile from Red Rock Rd. to the closest bus stop on Highland Ave. School Children: Rather than let young children walk .7 mile to Havens School on busy Moraga Ave,. isn’t it likely parents will drive them, creating more congestion during school drop-off and pick-up times? Known Obstacles: The Plan, itself, acknowledges constraints to the development, stating that hydrology “could cause dangerous road conditions on Moraga Ave. during significant rain and cause local flooding.” Stormwater storage basins at both site options may have to be replaced. AND “due to the presence of steep slopes (above Coaches Field), much of this land is not conducive to development.” The City wants to declare Blair Park -- a designated Piedmont City park -- “surplus land” in order to develop it. But CA State law says that declaring a city park surplus land can only be done for specific reasons. The las does not mention for market rate housing. What is Plan B? State housing law requires cities to look at alternate sites. What other sites is Piedmont examining? City planners say developers want at least 1/2 acre, which narrows the choices. But the lawdoes allow smaller sites under certain conditions. Wouldn’t it be better for current and future Piedmont residents to spread new housing to existing neighborhoods, closer to schools and transit? Newcomers would feel more a part of the community and need fewer cars. Other potential sites: The City’s original plan was to build housing on the Corey Reich tennis courts and rebuild the courts on top. The Council rejected this plan, and the City switched to building 132 units Moraga Canyon. With no analysis of the capacity, the Council increased the number to 199, mainly to entice a developer to pay for expanding Coaches Field. Other potential smaller, neighborhood sites: Linda Beach Park; two tennis courts adjacent to the Community Center; the flat canyon area of Dracena Park; the empty EBMUD reservoir at the top of Blair Ave. Bottom Line: Adding State mandated 587 new housing units in Piedmont is a massive challenge, and our City officials have a monumental task in deciding what to do. They must weigh carefully how they think Piedmont should grow. Should new housing be on the outskirts of town or integrated into neighborhoods? Is Moraga Canyon a safe, buildable site for 197 housing units? Is the MCSP a financially viable choice for Piedmont? Signed: Friends of Moraga Canyon Board of Directors, Marj Blackwell, Vincent Fisher, Julie Watters, Daphne Albert, Peggy Esposito 9/5/2025 Ilene Sandler and Eric
Loucks
Email regarding traffic and wildlife habitat, attached.
ATTACHMENT
G Agenda Report Page 344
9/7/2025 Deepti Sethi (Open Gov) The City is ignoring the very real risks of wildfire mitigation and evacuation that are unique to the Moraga Canyon landscape.
State approval of housing projects does not eliminate the need to account for local conditions. Yet the proposed design standards make no mention of wildfire risk or mitigation. In a high-risk fire zone like Moraga Canyon, that omission is unacceptable. Residents reasonably expect that new development will include deliberate risk-reduction measures, not simply cosmetic standards such as fence height or façade style. Without these, new construction will contribute to the fire hazard rather than mitigate it. Examples of necessar measures include: • Greywater and rainwater harvesting to provide water for vegetation and firefighting. • Hydrated buffer strips and irrigation zones to slow fire spread, even in drought years. • Expanded hardscaping and fire-adapted construction practices proven to reduce risk. Wildfire safety demands a strategic, site-specific approach—not a one-size-fits-all checklist.Evacuation Capacity is already inadequate: The single evacuation route through Moraga Avenue is already insufficient. Adding hundreds of new units will make escape in a fire virtually impossible. • Fire trucks cannot navigate narrow streets like Abbott Way, Echo, or Scenic. • Residents—including children, elderly, and those with limited mobility—are told to evacuate by foot, which is unrealistic and unsafe. • Alternative routes only feed back into Moraga or lead directly into fire-prone vegetation. Insurance companies already recognize the severity of this risk by restricting or denying coverage. Ignoring it here places lives in danger.This is about safety, not housing opposition: Residents are not opposing affordable housing. We recognize the need for it. The issue is location and safety. Concentrating dense housing in a high-fire-risk canyon, while adopting standards that prioritize developer convenience and “processing speed” over safety, is negligence. This is the right project, but the wrong place—and the wrong approach. Standardized objective design standards ignore the realities of wildfire risk and evacuation in Moraga Canyon. The City must instead adopt site-specific, enforceable standards that protect lives, homes, and public safety. This includes finding alternatives if there is not a reasonable evacuation plan. To do otherwise is to knowingly create a dangerous condition of public property. Sincerely, Deepti Sethi 9/7/2025 Anonymous (Open Gov) This housing plan needs to be entirely abandoned for glaring safety reasons -- fire, earthquake, and traffic. What follows is a real-life reminder of deadly fire danger the City of Piedmont is courting. My family survived the Oakland Firestorm solely because of walkways that traverse the hills throughout Upper Rockridge. Our home, destroyed by the fire, was on a long, narrow winding cul-de-sac. Early on, a neighbor's home, consumed by flames, fell burning into the street blocking exit for about 40 homes. We headed out on foot downthe walkways, family dog in tow, with the flames remarkably close behind. Let us not invite future deadly experiences by approving this totally unacceptable housing plan. Piedmont does indeed need a carve-out from the State's housing "mandates". Call your legislator! 9/8/2025 Vincent Fisher Email regarding lighting, attached.9/8/2025 Peggy Esposito Email regarding liability, attached.9/8/2025 Deepti Sethi Email regarding safety measures, attached.9/8/2025 Rob Schenk Email regarding safety, attached.9/8/2025 Vivien Mabur Verbal comments during the public hearing made at the podium. References to fatalities during Oakland Hills Fire.9/8/2025 Kathleen Hurley Verbal comments during the public hearing made at the podium. References to panic during fire evacuations.9/8/2025 Ellen Greenberg Verbal comments during the public hearing made at the podium. References discretionary design process after DA adoption.9/8/2025 Todd Kaiser Verbal comments during the public hearing made at the podium. References to parking standards ("2 spaces per units") and fit. Cars will park illegally causing obstructions to emergency response.9/8/2025 Alice Talcott Verbal comments during the public hearing made at the podium. References developer obligations in section 9, pages 94, 98, 10, and 104. "Developer will pay."9/8/2025 Andy Madeira Verbal comments during the public hearing made at the podium. Design standars and developer requirements that are feasible (legally required to be feasible).9/8/2025 Jill Lindenbaum Verbal comments during the public hearing made at the podium. References test fit and setbacks / stepbacks in development standards. Feasibility.9/8/2025 Don Chandler Verbal comments during the public hearing made at the podium. References need for new essential emergency services building and sufficient land to construct.9/8/2025 Liz Lummis O'Neill Verbal comments during the public hearing made at the podium. 9/8/2025 Gregory Ross Verbal comments during the public hearing made at the podium. References to panic during fire evacuations.9/8/2025 Irene Cheng Verbal comments during the public hearing made at the podium. References to window recess, stepback above 4 stories.9/8/2025 Randy Wu Verbal comments during the public hearing made at the podium. References that vehicle speeds make Moraga Avenue unsafe and need to reduce vehicle speeds.9/8/2025 Frances Fisher Verbal comments during the public hearing made at the podium. References unsafe vehicle speeds, need to encourage law enforcement and safe design, and make MCSP financially feasible.9/8/2025 Patricia Knudson Verbal comments during the public hearing made at the podium. References impacts to aesthetics, property values, quality of life, traffic light delays.9/8/2025 Xuemei Wang Verbal comments during the public hearing made at the podium. References two car accidents.9/8/2025 Andrea Stark Verbal comments during the public hearing made at the podium. Opposes the MCSP. 9/8/2025 Deborah Leland Verbal comments during the public hearing made at the podium. References to Maxwelton Road intersection. Need to create traffic breaks to let cars onto Maxwelton Road.9/8/2025 Deepthi Sethi Verbal comments during the public hearing made at the podium. References to wildfire evacuations, fire trucks can't turnaround on MEAN streets.9/8/2025 Mike Kroltz Verbal comments during the public hearing made at the podium. References to traffic and dangerous for kids.9/8/2025 Claire Parisa Verbal comments during the public hearing made at the podium. References need to reduce design standards, obligation on developers to provide infrastructure, create parking restrictions to protect existing residents, plan for Harbord Road intersection improvements9/8/2025 Elise Collins Verbal comments during the public hearing made at the podium. References benefits of more housing in Piedmont for schools, caregivers, etc.9/8/2025 Justin Zucker Verbal comments during the public hearing made at the podium. References to need to reduce vehicle speeds and that current Codes create safe environment.9/8/2025 Marjorie Blackwell Verbal comments during the public hearing made at the podium. References to construction-related traffic issues, setting discourages pedestrian travel, and accuracy of 2023 traffic study, congestion.9/8/2025 Silver Verbal comments during the public hearing made at the podium. References to Hayward fault line, coordination with City of Oakland, feasibility of 199 units on land in Moraga Canyon. 9/8/2025 Tom O'Neill Verbal comments during the public hearing made at the podium. References to consider smaller scale development in Moraga Canyon and expense to current residents. 9/8/2025 Gabrielle Castriotta (Open
Gov)
Having further reviewed the plan, I need to change my comments. I thought at first that the housing would be going ABOVE Coach's field, in the area that is already flat and has some remnants of paving. I see now that this area is not actually within the city of Piedmont and thus not where the housing is intended to go. I unfortunately must withdraw any support for the plan now that I see that the housing would be on such a steep, cramped parcel, and that the corp yard would be moved to Blair Park to accommodate it. This area seems just too dangerous and uninsurable to build on, and it lacks any second exit to a street other than Moraga. Perhaps the city could consider acquiring the above-mentioned flat area (from Oakland? from the cemetery?) and putting housing there. That might be crazy but no crazier than the current plan. As others have suggested, Linda Park would make more sense as a place to build dense housing closer to amenities and transit, at least in comparison to the current suggestions. If Blair Park were to be utilized, it would behoove the city to maintain at least some of this precious green space as a public park and not fill it entirely with housing. Piedmont can do better than this plan 9/8/2025 Michael Henn (Open Gov) So far this has just been a giant bureaucratic exercise lasting 2 years and costing a million dollars or more. Nowhere in the mountain of verbiage do I find the two most important questions: 1. In the current adverse economic environment for multiple unit housing construction with high interest rates and construction costs, is there any reasonable probability that the market rate housing will be built. I note that fully entitled projects all over the BA are being delayed. 2. Given the requirements of Article 34 of the State Constitutiona public vote is mandated for all city sponsored or city subsidized below market rental projects. How does the city think that it can evade this requirement? ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 345
9/8/2025 Anonymous (Open Gov) When I read this plan I feel as if I’m listening to the current administration in DC. Saying something doesn’t make it true. The reality: dangerous road, no sidewalks. Last open space in the city. Loss of green space and mature oaks. It’s a much longer list. As a life long Moraga canyon resident who has decades of personal experience driving the road, (and I’m certainly not alone), I know the area and the changes on a day to day basis. To think this development will improve anything is an act of hubris. At times it can take up to 10 minutes to get onto Moraga from a side street. People speed. Bikes race down the hill. It is very very dangerous. Coming back up the hill after 3:00, cars are backed up as far as Monticello. Meaning you’re waiting for the light at Highland and Moraga for 10-15 minutes. This plan will have the traffic down to Pleasant Valley. I was here during the firestorm. These roads are narrow. Panic does not increase the safety of trying to evacuate. This is a high fire risk area. I lived through it. It was terrifying. To think of adding hundreds of more people into the mix of evacuating is ill advised at best. I want to know what the city will do when the first traffic fatality, either in cars, involving bikes, children… I question the decision to have a fall back position of “design immunity” in the case of fatalities. Aren’t the city planners supposed to have the safety of the citizens as a first priority? Note: • Cities often raise design immunity as a defense (i.e., planning/design decisions approved by the government are usually protected). • That immunity can be lost if changed physical conditions make the design dangerous and the city had notice and time to fix it (or created the danger). • The California Supreme Court has recently allowed a high-profile roadway case against a city to proceed (Whitehead v. City of Oakland), reinforcing that plaintiffs can sometimes move forward against municipalities. • There are real examples where plaintiffs recovered damages (or obtained large settlements/verdicts) in dangerous-road/public-property cases against cities or Caltrans. I urge you to acknowledge the real issues astake regarding a dangerous road, potential fatalities with increased traffic and evacuation issues in a high risk fire area. There is a better planning to be created with considerations to all of the community. 9/10/2025 Anonymous (Open Gov) From the public hearing, I gathered that at some point earlier in this process the commission chose to majorly expand the number of units for the Moraga Canyon development in order to fund improvements to recreational amenities (e.g. batting cages, astroturf field).
For existing residents of the area who will bear the brunt of this massive new complex being shoehorned into Moraga Canyon, this is very frustrating. Also, I was struck by how much the traffic and safety concerns dominated the public comments in the hearing. That's a very salient issue, but I'd encourage the commission to not overlook the other major concerns that have been raised by the community. Lastly, I'd love to know whether the public will have an opportunity to stay informed and involved in later stages of this process, like when we’re talking to developers. It sounds like that will be another critical period with major implications for what's built, so the public deserves transparency and participation. 9/15/2025 Anonymous (Open Gov) The current housing mandate has been a challenge for every town in California, setting off firestorms and conflict. Our precious little City of Piedmont is no different. Although there are myriad issues with the Moraga Canyon Plan, I want to focus on safety, the streets and the quality of life for the hundreds of families and homes on the North side of Piedmont. I am specifically speaking of those that feed into Moraga Avenue above and below Highland Avenue, most immediately Pala, Monte, Mesa, and Bonita. The impact from this proposed development also extends well into Oakland above and the neighborhoods well below Bonita. These lovely neighborhood streets, a signature of the city of Piedmont, will become constantly congested & serve as the bypasses to avoid the wait at the Highland Avenue traffic light. This poses serious danger for our children and negatively impacts the quality of life & the value of the neighborhood homes. The plan proposed Monday evening, September 8th went into great depth with diagrams & explanations of the traffic & road changes. The plan covered only one quarter mile of Moraga. Where is the plan for the impact of these hundreds of additional cars a day on the immediate neighborhoods and entire city? This problem becomes unimaginable in a fire or earthquake emergency. I need not remind you of the life-threatening gridlock on Moraga in 1991. Moraga Avenue cannot and will not adequately absorb the huge volume of additional cars in an evacuation plan. A blinking light or officer attempting to direct traffic in a horrific emergency is not only magical thinking but poses a deadly safety issue. The Moraga Canyon Plan, though convenient to drop at the North edge of town, is not safe, does not protect quality of life for the residents and should not go forward in scale or design as proposed. I do support additional housing, however this proposal is too large, has not enough infrastructure for its residents and has not adequately studied the impact & safety on the neighborhood & the city, including abolishing the last open space in Piedmont, Blair Park. 9/16/2025 Anonymous (Open Gov) I’m not opposed to adding housing in Piedmont, but I am opposed to the plan as it stands today. I believe other solutions (a smaller development and/or other locations) should be sought for three reasons: 1. Blair Park (and Moraga Canyon) is the last park we have in Piedmont. It’s beautiful, it’s habitat to many creatures (we had nesting bald eagles to the delight of the community), and it’s rare. We don’t get our natural spaces back once we destroy them. The fact that environmental concerns were surfaced and ignored per the CEQA law was jaw dropping to me. We live in a so-called green state, and we’re supposed to lead the way, but apparently, being informed of hazards is good enough. We can do better in Piedmont. 2. Safety. It’s simply too many cars and people concentrated in one place. Day to day is bad enough, but during an emergency, the consequences will be deadly. 3. Impact on the community at large. The studies done concerned a small piece of road, but did not consider the numerous residents above and below the development. Many don’t even know about the development. To add to that, those on the committee who would be most affected were asked to recuse themselves. Those are the people we want to speak! The planning committee meeting felt like a formality to bulldoze over the community (literally and figuratively) rather than represent and listen to the community. Answers given to questions felt flippant, procedural, and incomplete. Some consultants couldn’t even be bothered to be on camera. I get that you have every legal loophole on youside, but you should do the right thing anyway. 9/17/2025 Jane Holland I am responding to today’s article (09/17) in the Piedmont Post: Planning Commission moves forward with Moraga Canyon Housing recommendation. A comment made by Fire Captain Mike Carlisle that the Specific Plan makes it safer from fires because of the street widening and controlled intersections." It is RIDICULOUS to think that widening a small part of Moraga Av around Blair Park will make it SAFER; the road begins and ends in Oakland and it is 2 lanes on both ends! They have mentioned a "third lane", which would actually be the bike lane which bikers and pedestrians would use to flee! How is that SAFER?? Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) was determined by Caltrans in 2010 for the proposed soccer fields development to be unsafe to create a crosswalk; how is it safer now? Moraga Av is a very narrow, curving street with many chokepoints which make it impossible to clearly see pedestrians crossing the road; an emergency evacuation would be catastrophic as all emergency vehicles would be using the same 2 lanes as the fleeing cars from Oakland and Piedmont. We Oaklanders have been kept in the dark thruout the process and we are affected more than anyone. THIS IS NOT SAFE! Yours, Jane Holland 9/26/2025 Elinor Barron, Janet Chin The City of Piedmont Planning Commission unanimously approved a proposed new housing development project on Moraga Avenue in Moraga Canyon. This development will have a major impact on the City of Oakland and its residents. We are opposed to this project as it puts Oakland hills residents at risk in emergencies. The development project will add approximately 199 units near Blair Park-Coaches’ Field immediately west of Maxwelton Rd (Piedmont) and Harbord Ave (Oakland). The project will bring several hundred residentsand their cars to Moraga Avenue and will entail infrastructure changes as well (such as traffic control, sidewalks). Moraga Avenue directly connects Oakland’s north hills with its downtown, traversing through part of Piedmont in Moraga Canyon. Piedmont’s portion bisects Moraga Avenue into two Oakland segments. It is a major thoroughfare to and from Highway 13 and is a busy corridor with 24-hour traffic and approximately 11,000 cars per day. The Piedmont Fire Department has deemed Moraga Ave. as an emergency evacuation route. The PFD cites Moraga Canyon as a “high risk wildfire” area and predicts a wildfire is “highly likely.” The City of Piedmont is noticeably absent from the East Bay Wildfire Coalition of Governments (EBWCG). We trust that the City of Oakland’s leadershipis aware of the proposed project and in discussion with the City of Piedmont. The proposal goes to Piedmont City Council very soon. We strongly urge the City of Oakland to oppose Piedmont City Council’s approval to proceed with this project. Elinor Barron, Janet ChinSnake Rd, Oakland, 94611Sent to: Mayor Barbara Lee, [email protected]; City Councilmember Janani Ramachandran, [email protected], [email protected]; Oakland Fire Chief, Chief Damon Covington, [email protected]; Oakland Emergency Services, Veronica Cole and Olga Crowe, [email protected], [email protected]; East Bay Wildfire Coalition of Governments, John Gioia, [email protected]; Piedmont City Council. Mayor Betsy Smegal Andersen, [email protected]; Oakland Firesafe Council, [email protected]; Elizabeth Stage, Chair OFSC, [email protected]; Dr. Louise Comfort, [email protected] 9/27/2025 Charlotte Niel Bad idea. With all the additional people it will create congestion and a hazard if there is ever a need to evacuate the area. Really, what are you people thinking. 200 units???!!! Charlotte Niel, ___Grisborne Ave, Oakland CA. 94611 - Sent from my iPhone ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 346
9/28/2025 Ali Goss My name is Ali Goss, and I live at ____ Moraga Avenue, just down the street from the proposed development site. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the scale and location of the planned apartment complex under the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan. I want to be clear that I am not opposed to the development of affordable housing. However, placing such a dense project—nearly 200 units—on a narrow, high-risk, high-traffic corridor like Moraga Avenue is deeply concerning for several critical reasons: 1. Safety and Emergency Evacuation: Moraga Avenue is a designated emergency evacuation route for both Piedmont and Oakland. This route is already heavily congested during rush hour and even more so when Highway 13 is backed up. The idea of funneling hundreds of additionalresidents through this corridor during an emergency—especially in a fire-prone canyon—is irresponsible. As recent tragedies in Paradise and the Oakland Hills Firestorm of 1991 have taught us, seconds matter during evacuations. This project puts current and future residents at unnecessary risk. 2. Traffic and Infrastructure Strain: Even now, the Harbord/Moraga intersection struggles with capacity—traffic frequently backs up to Masonic Avenue. Adding hundreds of new units without a clear and effective traffic mitigation plan, including a dedicated left-turn lane and proper traffic flow management, will only worsen the situation. There are currently no safe pedestrian crossings and no continuous sidewalks, making this stretch unsafe for current residents, let alone future ones. At my address we have had quite a few car accidents over the years due to the current traffic / road conditions. 3. Fire Risk and Insurance Concerns: Moraga Canyon is officially designated a high fire-risk zone. Insurance companies already limit coverage or significantly raise premiums for homeowners in this area. Adding hundreds of units in this fire-prone canyon will not only increase risk but could also further jeopardize homeowners' access to affordable and comprehensive fire insurance coverage. I myself have been dropped and am already paying more than 2-3x for the California FAIR plan. 4. Site Unsuitability: Blair Park is a narrow strip of land unsuitable for high-density residential development. There is limited access, no existing residential infrastructure, and serious concerns about stability and environmental impact. This location is simply not appropriate for any type of housing, especially not high-density construction. 5. Unrealistic Growth Projections: The projection of 587 new units by 2031 raises serious questions. How does the city plan to responsibly andsustainably accommodate such growth—especially when the most basic safety and infrastructure needs for this initial 197-unit proposal have yet to be addressed?Alternative Solutions: Other potential housing sites should be explored more thoroughly. These include: Consolidating underutilized school properties to free up land, Acquiring and responsibly repurposing larger parcels such as Tyson Lake, Supporting infill development within already established urban areas rather than attempting to force dense development into a narrow, fire-prone canyon.In summary, while I support the goal of increasing affordable housing, this particular plan fails to take into account the basic safety, infrastructure, and environmental limitations of the proposed site. I urge the Planning Commission to reconsider this plan and explore more appropriate alternatives. Thank you for your attention and for taking the time to listen to residents who will be directly impacted by these decisions. Sincerely, Ali Goss, Moraga Avenue 9/29/2025 Alan Cohen Written comments, see attached.9/29/2025 Marj Blackwell Written comments, see attached.9/29/2025 Peter Kadison Unsafe..too congested…surely there is somewhere else…flatlands in Oakland by West Oakland BART? Port? Embarcadero? Moratorium is a vital artery this will be terrible congestion… Sent from my iPad9/29/2025 Michell Cox Please do not go forward with housing in Moraga Canyon. Pick a Park in your fine City instead.You will hear "NIMBY" and they can "get over it" or relocate. I used Moraga Avenue as my Escape Route during 1991 Oakland Hills Fire. That thoroughfare "Saves Lives". It is a recommended exit route per the OFD. Let your conscience be your guide. Will this City decision be the one responsible for "the loss of lives", as was a lesson learned in the "one road out of Hiller Highlands". Housing and the ramifications of more cars and people fleeingfor Safety is not a solution for the State Mandate. Let your conscience be your guide on this action. Step out of your comfort zone and ask for an exemption to the "mandated number" number of housing units. Pick a Park (or two) and build less units. Thank you in advance. Best, Michelle Cox Resident/Homeowner Upper Rockridge District of Oakland, CA 9/30/2025 Ralph Catalano Written comments, see attached.10/1/2025 Anne Berkey I am a survivor of the ‘91 Oakland firestorm and our family used Moraga Ave to escape the conflagration. We lived then and have subsequently rebuilt our home on Proctor Ave between Moraga and Broadway Terrace. On Oct 20, 1991, Broadway Terrace was blocked off with fire equipment, the Warren Freeway was gridlock with traffic and the fire was active on #24. My husband and I loaded our 2 small children into our cars and decided our only direct way out was down Moraga Ave. We were able to escape before the fire expanded to and destroyed our home and most of the houses on our street. This month our homeowners insurance company has rated our zip code as “extreme wild fire danger” and has raised our premiums accordingly. Moraga Ave in Oakland is part of that same extreme fire danger rating. If you authorize the construction of dense housing in the Blair Park area, you are potentially threatening the lives of all of us who live above Blair Park. God forbid we should have another firestorm like that in Oct ‘91. It could be a major earthquake, given recent rumblings on the Hayward Fault. Please do not create additional dense housing along Moraga canyon that could add to the likely gridlock that would ensue in a disaster. I recognize that housing is needed and a priority everywhere, but this proposal would result in an unsafe area that could pose a significant danger to untold numbers of people. Traffic on Moraga on a “normal” day is already high; additional housing would exacerbate the problem, especially if Moraga is needed as an emergency evacuation route. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Ann Richardson Berkey, Proctor Ave, Oakland CA 10/1/2025 Gail Wilkinson As a long-term resident of Montclair, I use Moraga Avenue frequently. We don’t need additional cars added to an already busy street. It is a lifeline for us in Montclair as it was during the 1991 fire. It’s unfortunate that Piedmont has no other land on which to build the required new apartments, which is a bad idea in my opinion. We are already overcrowded. Perhaps you can get an exemption? I oppose the Blair Park development! Sincerely, Gail Wilkinson 10/1/2025 David Boatwright Please reconsider the subject housing project. Not only would this project increase fire risk in a difficult area to access for firefighters, but Moraga Rd in this area is already a bottleneck in this narrow & winding section of road. Finding an alternative area for this project will be to the advantage of both Oakland AND Piedmont. David 10/1/2025 Sha Coleman I am 100% in support for housing at Blair Park. We desperately need more housing. Young people have nowhere to live. Don't cave into the NIMBYs. Best Regards, Sha Coleman, Board Member, Junior Center of Art and Science, Oakland CA10/1/2025 Lawrence Siskind (Open Gov) The problems with the Moraga Canyon Specific plan -- including traffic safety, fire evacuation, noise and light pollution, and many others -- have been ably described by other commentators, and I will not take up the Council's time by repeating them. Instead, I would like to mention that the decision before the City Council is not either/or. To fulfill the state mandate of constructing 587 additional housing units in Piedmont, some construction in Moraga Canyon is probably unavoidable. The crucial failing in the Planning Commission’s proposal is its wildly disproportionate approach. The Planning Commission would locate 199 of the 587 units, or 34%, in one small, confined and congested area. If approved, this plan will not only create a host of safety and pollution problems, it would also conflict withthe policies underlying the Regional Housing Needs Allocation process. The RHNA mandates a fair distribution of new housing, and requires planners to avoid segregating and concentrating the new residents. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the Moraga Canyon Specific plan, in its current form, does. Reducing the safety and pollution problems described by other commentators, and complying with the dictates of the RHNA, do not require eliminating new construction in the Moraga Canyon altogether. But they do require a more sensible distribution. There are many others areas in Piedmont, particularly in the City center, that have somehow avoided their fair share of the new housing. There is no magic formula for determining with precision how many new units should be built in any particular neighborhood. But imposing more than a third of the new units in one small area is an egregious misallocation. The City Council should remand the issue back to the Planning Commission with instructions to draft a new plan that better comports with the policies of the RHNA. Instead of locating more than a third of the new units in Moraga Canyon, the new plan should allow for somewhere between a tenth (59) and a fifth (117) of them. 10/1/2025 Anonymous (Open Gov) Three questions about the proposed plan for Moraga Canyon - has a soil report been done given the large slide on the left side of the canyon as your drive toward Highway 13? Secondly, who is going to pay for this projected construction of 197 homes in the canyon and all the landscape and road work? How will the committee estimate cost given the recent changes in cost of building materials being imported? 10/2/2025 Lisa Kaplan Written comments, see attached.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 347
10/2/2025 Jane Pingatore Holland I am Jane Holland and I live in Oakland. I am opposed to the sheer scale of 197 units being installed in our steep-sided high fire zone Moraga Canyon. Moraga is a 2 lane road and always will be no matter how you doctor up the diagrams. It is a very heavily travelled roadway (11,000+ cars daily) which begins and ends in Oakland and this project affects us Oaklanders profoundly. It is a major evacuation route for both Piedmont and Oakland. We are extremely concerned about the safety aspects of disaster evacuation with hundreds of added cars thrown into the mix with the existing hundreds trying to escape on a 2 lane road, with bikers and pedestrians using the bike lane to also escape. Your fire Captain suggested that a “third lane” for cars could somehow be created in the bike lane which defies imagination. Those using the bike lane would be sitting ducks. A retired Oakland Fireman told us that you would depend on OFD heavily to help your small fire dept but how on earth would they get into Piedmont on that narrow 2 lane road with everyone fleeing in a panic? This is not safe. Please rethink your locations for this housing which we realize is much needed. At least scale back down to 133 units, your original number (how did that get increased?). And where on earth will you put that many parking spaces (400 not including visitor parking?) And your driveways did not pass the 2010 CalTrans LOS (Line of Sight) test for the proposed but defeated soccer fields plan, why would they now??? This plan is beset with problems and it is hard to imagine new residents getting insurance as many in the area have had their insurance dropped b/c of fire/earthquake hazards and being next to the Hayward fault. Also children crossing Moraga Ave to go to school, or Coaches Athletic field are endangered by the hi volume speeding (40 MPH average in 25 MPH zone) traffic with poor LOS for the stoplight you are proposing. A traffic island has been described by some experts as more dangerous than not having one because people get over confident when caught on one; it is also very small in your design, very close to the whizzing cars. Also Blair Park is a wildlife corridor. This is not a safe project. Please reconsider. Sincerely Jane Pingatore Holland PS We have places some yard signs reflecting what the proposed units might look like and they are being stolen from Oakland private property which does not reflect well on our “opponents” from a free speech standpoint. A sensitive topic these days. 10/2/2025 Liz Lummis O'Neil, Mary
and Arnie Levine, Laura
and Keith Dierks
Written comments, see attached.
10/2/2025 David Petta Having worked for 50 years in the East Bay as an architect and planner I am sure that very few of you understand very much at all of the technical analysis in the Specific Plan; I know that I still do not. To get a more intuitive, even visceral understanding of what is being proposed I would like to suggest that you take a 30-minute stroll up and down Moraga Avenue. You don’t even have to go at rush hour, just mid-morning would be good enough. It is scary to experience the breeze of the cars zipping past; how narrow the Blair Park strip really is and how the 6-story buildings will be jammed between the south canyon wall and the street; and what the “choke point” at Red Rock and the rest of the tarp-covered landslides on the canyon’s north wall feel like close-up. If you have more time, you might also be interested in a full scale mock-up of traffic congestion along Lincoln Avenue at Head Royce School. The drop-off population there is more or less equivalent to what the 197 new units will generate on Moraga. There, another 2-lane road is jammed with two brand new short left turn lanes, three stop lights in quick succession, and a host of about 12 yellow-vested traffic marshals waving arms to direct the traffic on Lincoln and keep them from finding alternative routes through the neighborhoods. It seems to have gone fairly smoothly so far, but in an emergency on Moraga we won’t have those yellow vests; what we will have is emergency vehicles, a free-for-all and sheer terror. David Petta, Architect____ Harbord Drive, Oakland 10/2/2025 Sandy Chang Edgar and
Steven Edgar
Written comments, see attached. Two versions emailed together. 10/2/2025 Patty Siskind (Open Gov
and Email)
Written comments, see attached.
10/2/2025 Vivien Mather I, as are my neighbors, extremely worried about the proposal to build 197+ homes along a short, narrow, winding section of Moraga Avenue at Blair Park and/or across the street by Coaches Field. Let me be clear, we are not opposed to lower income (your term at the moment) housing. There’s a desperate need. But, this is the wrong place to build. This is a terrifying prospect if and when we have an emergency such as a fire or earthquake. The road is a designated emergency evacuation route for all the residents in the area, both in Piedmont and Oakland. As much as your nice fire chief video tries to assuage the residents that everything will be just fine in an emergency, we all know that this text book response does not bear any resemblance to the panic and ensuing chaos that will occur when people realize they cannot exit via the canyon. The police and firefighters will not be able to access the area and the potential loss of life is seriously real. And you know that the insurance companies will be aware of the devastating effects this development will have. A whole neighborhood could loose insurance coverage or the premiums will be so high that residents will move and the whole neighborhood fabric will fall apart. And, the people, if they buy these new residences, will struggle to get insurance too. Aside from the potentia for a catastrophic disaster, the traffic on Moraga Avenue is already at capacity and beyond and for anyone trying to access the road from side streets will, in frustration, take unnecessary risks to get out on to the street. Pedestrians already have a massive challenge crossing the road. I, for one, have almost been hit several times, even though where I cross, the line of sight is good. They’re in such a hurry, and speeding, and routinely ignore pedestrians on crosswalks. The line of sight at Red Rock is dangerously short and there’s no doubt as a pedestrian there will accidents, and, god forbid, fatalities. The whole project is irresponsible, dangerous and potentially catastrophic. And with no consideration for the people who live in the surrounding neighborhoods. Vivien Mather, Masonic Avenue, Oakland. Sent from my iPhone 10/2/2025 Andrea Stark, Richard
Stark, Ysella Stark
To: Piedmont Planning Commission, Re: Moraga Canyon Specific Site Plan, Date: October 1,2025, My name is Andrea Stark and I live at ___Moraga Ave with my parents Richard and Ysella Stark. We have lived here for about 50 years. I am writing to communicate our very strong opposition to the 197 living units that are proposed for Blair Park. Safety is of top concern. To put about 591 adults and children in danger by building in a known critical fire zone and earthquake fault line is inconceivable. The 591 does not even include all the residents that live in the surrounding area that will have increased danger. Moraga Ave is the way in and the way out. On regular days the traffic is quite heavy and any delay can cause a backup. If the power goes out on Moraga Ave there pretty much is no cell service so communicating is difficult. When panic sets in and many people are trying to evacuate at the same time it is not smooth like a planned protocol on a sheet of paper. This is not just evacuation for the development. It is for everyone. There just is not enough space to get everyone out. Aside from the very important emergency faults of this development plan there are other issues. This development will cause increased traffic on Moraga Ave. The study that was done was in 2020 (per the video that was sent out). This is 5 years later when commuting has increased. I travel on this road everyday. I am encountering back ups on my way home that start at the Highland/ Moraga stoplight. This back up sometimes goes past the cross street Ramona down towards Pleasant Valley. All these idling cars bring more noise and air pollution to the area. Blair Park provides cooling for the area especially on hot days. With climate change this should be something that is important. Yes, housing is something that is needed but putting so many people’s lives in danger is not the solution. Sincerely, Andrea Stark, Richard Stark, Ysella Stark 10/2/2025 Deepthi Sethi Written comments, see attached.10/2/2025 Ray Maldonaldo, East Bay YIMBY
Written comments, see attached.
10/2/2025 Kristin Johnson (Open Gov) I applaud the City for its thoughtful, inclusive and transparent approach. California is way underbuilt for the demand, thus leading to greater homelessness and unstable families, all of which threaten our long term security and prosperity. So, the State has stepped in to mandate that each community does its part. I believe that building in Piedmont is necessary, including for people who are currently facing extremely expensive housing relative to their income. I am encouraged by the studies that say the roads may be safer, adding stoplights and actually reducing the speeding which is currently so prevalent. This is rarely used space, not a valuable nature preserve. We all live on land that has been subdivided over years and building density is key to creating the amount of units we all need.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 348
10/2/2025 Anonymous (Open Gov)
I have lived near Templar Place & Harbord Drive around the corner from the proposed development site for the past 30years. While I applaud the commission’s desire to deliver affordable housing, I strongly object to the location and density of the planned apartment complex under the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan. My major concerns are general traffic safety, pedestrian safety, and emergency evacuation routes. Thanks to WAZE, during commute hours, there has been a considerable increase in the number of people who now leave the traffic jam on Hwy 24 East drive down Broadway, come up Broadway Terrace, turn right on Clarewood Drive which becomes Harbord Drive and then exit onto Moraga to go South on Hwy 13. The backed-up traffic on to Harbord during commute times because of all the cars trying to make a left on Moraga can extend as far as Maxwelton Drive. Placing nearly 200 units on this narrow, high-risk, high-traffic corridor would not only incease this problem but also completely block the exit of all the people who live past the end of Clarewood Drive in the event of a fire. After the Palisades Fire, one thinks more of their planned exit to safety. Moraga Avenue is a designated emergency evacuation route for both Piedmont and Oakland. Directing hundreds of additional residents through this corridor during a fire which could easily ignite in that canyon is reckless and irresponsible and puts us all at unnecessary risk. It’s my understanding, from information given after the 1991 Oakland Hills Fire, Moraga Canyon was designated a high fire-risk zone. Adding hundreds ofunits in this fire-prone canyon will increase this risk considerably. Additionally, it is very likely to make obtaining insurance coverage worse than it already is as many of my neighbors have had their policies dropped in the past two years. How does the city plan to pay forand implement the infrastructure needs for this 197-unit proposal? Considering the exorbitant costs likely to unfold, other options need to be more urgently explored. Namely: • Freeing up excess land from the Piedmont schools which are not currently effectively utilized. • Supporting infill development closer to Grand Avenue and Lakeshore Avenue better supporting low-income residents rather than attempting to force dense development into a narrow, fire-prone canyon with no sidewalks or crosswalks for these residents. I hope you will reconsider this plan and explore alternatives that make more sense for the residents for whom you are trying to accommodate. Many thanks for your consideration! 10/2/2025 Peggy Esposito I strongly urge you to vote NO on this Moraga Canyon Specific Plan. The liability to you and the City of Piedmont is high. Those of us who live on Moraga Avenue in the vicinity of Blair Park have pointed out the many reasons why it is pure folly to jam this dense housing project into this tiny strip of land known as Blair Park. Surely you can see how the plan glosses over the risks. The planners say that the actual roadway's issues can be mitigated. They can't be! Moraga Avenue is a narrow, winding road - one lane down and one lane up - plus a bike lane in the uphill direction. The road is too narrow and cannot be widened. No pretty pictures and plans on paper can change the geography of the canyon! Traffic safety was the primary reason that the Piedmont Soccer Club's planned soccer complex was never built. Nothing has changed since 2010. The same problems exist and are only worse as there are more cars which travel much faster than the posted speed limits. And the Specific Plan will add 197 units and approx 300 more cars and many, many more people. Moraga Avenue is the primary emergency evacuation route for Moraga Avenue residents and everyone else who live on the adjacent streets. There are fire zone maps which clearly show that the Moraga Canyon is in a HIGH RISK fire zone. I have been told by the Oakland Fire Department that in the case of a fire, it's every man for himself. As we know from the The Oakland Hill Firestorm, the Paradise Fire, and the Pacific Palisades fire, people died in their cars or on foot as they desperately tried to escape the flames. Surely you don't want to be responsible for putting Oakland and Piedmont residents at such high risk in case of a fire. Already fire insurance in many parts of California is getting more and more difficult to acquire. The Homeowners Insurance market is in freefall. I am not opposed to affordable housing and I realize that you have a difficult challenge with the state's mandate but please don't make you challenge our problem. There are other locations in Piedmont which make much more sense. Please think very carefully before you vote to go ahead with the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan. Think about how you would feel if it was your mother and father who lived on Moraga Avenue! Peggy Esposito, ____Harbord Drive/corner Moraga Avenue
ATTACHMENT
G Agenda Report Page 349
From: John Cheney
To: Kevin Jackson; Pierce Macdonald
Subject: EIR Comments from John Cheney -- Moraga Canyon Plan Date: Monday, December 18, 2023 4:51:38 PM
Attachments: Piedmont send EIR Moraga Canyan Thought Piece 12182023.pdf Moraga Canyon EIR- Piedmont Res#2 Comments 121823 1.pdf [EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
HI Kevin and Pierce,
Attached are two separate comments on the Moraga Canyon EIR plan.
I am open to meet anytime. Currently our groups have met with the PUSD to propose the general approach to the City.
Thanks,
John
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 350
Pathway to Piedmont Parks & Affordable Housing
Joint Development
To: Piedmont Planning EIR Comments
Date: December 18, 2023
FM: John Cheney
Re: EIR Moraga Canyon Comments: REZONING PIEMONT
RESERVOIR #2 for Housing, Parks and Fields of Play
Opportunity: The existing EBMUD Reservoir #2 has been mothballed for 30 years.
The Reservoir #2 could easily support affordable housing for over two hundred (200) units for Teachers, City Employees and general affordable housing.
Piedmont residents support the fast track integration of RHNA housing goals and 3 acres public park with dual access is from an industrial driveway above from Blair Avenue and ROW to Moraga below.
1 ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 351
Ask:
#1 Sports and Housing groups request that the City of Piedmont lead with EBMUD by rezoning the Blair Reservoir for high density housing and open public space for parks and playing fields, ahead of permission to sell from EBMUD.
#2 That Piedmont Reservoir #2 be integrated with the Moraga Canyon plan for long term public development, linking from the top of open space to Moraga Canyon via ROW owned by EMBUD, for a long term Open Space and Housing Element integrated Master Plan.
2 ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 352
Location: Mothballed EBMUD’s Piedmont Reservoir #2
Provides an opportunity to fast track RHNA and quality of life goals for all citizens 3 ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 353
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 354
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 355
Satellite map shows the Reservoir is primed for continued open space use at the top of Blair Avenue, with housing up to 200 Units below Blair with primary access from Moraga Avenue 6 The field use atop the location can provide easy access to water tanks if needed in the future.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 356
Mothballed restricted open space can become the
new accessible commons…
7 ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 357
Integrated fields of play, parks and housing
increase quality of life in Piedmont and region
8 ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 358
Restricted space can become common public use
9 ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 359
With Par Course fitness stations and much more…
10 ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 360
Mature vegetation helps integrate housing and park
to the exiting neighborhood
11 ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 361
12 Explore the possibility of
the new affordable
Teachers Housing and Commons
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 362
A new Piedmont Master Plan can help guide our
community’s search for quality.
13 ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 363
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 364
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 365
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 366
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 367
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 368
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 369
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 370
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 371
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 372
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 373
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 374
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 375
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 376
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 377
From: Rosanna Bayon Moore
To: Kevin Jackson; Pierce Macdonald; Sam Tabibnia; Andrew Watkins Subject: FW: Sight Distances on Moraga
Date: Friday, March 01, 2024 5:19:09 PM
Attachments: Caltrans handbook sight distances.pdf
LSA Analysis of Sightlines.pdf
March 1 Satement to City Council.pdf
image001.png
image002.png
Sharing…
Rosanna Bayon Moore
City Administrator
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 510-420-3040
120 Vista Ave., Piedmont, CA 94611
From: Ralph Catalano <>
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2024 4:48 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Sight Distances on Moraga
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
Council Members,
I am attaching the comments I had hoped to make at today's study session. Having heard the consultant's comments and your questions, I would add the following.
Two entrances, not one (as the consultant graphic shows), will be required to serve 132 units of housing in Blair Park. These would have to meet minimum safety standards for spacing from each other as well as from Red Rock and Maxwelton. As the 2010 LSA analyses (attached) showed, such road segments could not meet Caltrans corner sight distance standards for safety if the 85th percentile traffic speed were 35 MPH. As your consultant acknowledged today, we know that the 85th percentile speed on Moraga is now close to, if not, 40 MPH. Your consultant stated, for reasons left unclear, that Piedmont should assume just one entrance/exit and use a lesser standard for safety ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 378
than did LSA implying that LSA had made a mistake when using Caltrans corner sight distance standards. Your consultant suggested applying a private driveway standard instead. I have attached the Caltrans Handbook pages regarding sight distances. I hope that, after reading those pages, you might join me in questioning whether two road segments providing 250 to 300 vehicular entrances to, and exits from, an arterial carrying 15,000 trips a day (with 15% exceeding 40 MPH) should be considered equivalent to private driveways. Remember as well that these two segments will also be used by bicyclists and pedestrians.
I believe that Piedmonters who use Moraga Avenue are entitled to an explanation from you as why you would even consider a lower standard of safety today than your predecessors choose in 2010. They adopted the LSA EIR only after it had been extensively vetted by city staff, traffic consultants hired by private citizens, and several attorneys representing both the city and private citizens. That document unlikely included mistaken safety standards. At the very least, you should invite LSA to defend their work.
Ralph Catalano, Ph.D.
Distinguished Emeritus Professor of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, Ca. 94720
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 379
Highway Design Manual 400-1
May 20, 2022
CHAPTER 400 – INTERSECTIONS AT GRADE
Intersections are planned points of conflict where two or more roadways join or cross. At-grade intersections are among the most complicated elements on the highway system, and control the efficiency, capacity, and safety for motorized and non-motorized users of the facility. The type and operation of an intersection is important to the adjacent property owners, motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, transit operators, the trucking industry, and the local community.
There are two basic types of at grade intersections: crossing and circular. It is not recommended that intersections have more than four legs. Occasionally, local development and land uses create the need for a more complex intersection design. Such intersections may require a specialized intersection design to handle the specify traffic demands at that location.
In addition to the guidance in this manual, see Traffic Operations Policy Directive (TOPD) Number 13-02: Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) for direction and procedures on the evaluation, comparison and selection of the intersection types and control strategies identified in Index 401.5. Also refer to the publication Complete Intersections: A Guide to Reconstructing Intersections and Interchanges for Bicyclists and Pedestrians for further information.
Topic 401 – Factors Affecting Design
Index 401.1 – General
At-grade intersections must handle a variety of conflicts among users, which includes truck, transit, pedestrians, and bicycles. These recurring conflicts play a major role in the preparation of design standards and guidelines. Arriving, departing, merging, turning, and crossing paths of moving pedestrians, bicycles, truck, and vehicular traffic have to be accommodated within a relatively small area. The objective of designing an intersection is to effectively balance the convenience, ease, and comfort of the users, as well as the human factors, with moving traffic (automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, transit vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, etc.).The safety and mobility needs of motorist, bicyclist and pedestrians as well as their movement patterns in intersections must be analyzed early in the planning phase and then followed through appropriately during the design phase of all intersections on the State highway. It is Departmental policy to develop integrated multimodal projects in balance with community goals, plans, and values.
The Complete Intersections: A Guide to Reconstructing Intersections and Interchanges for Bicyclists and Pedestrians contains a primer on the factors to consider when designing intersections. It is published by the California Division of Traffic Operations. 401.2 Human Factors
(1) The Driver. An appreciation of driver performance is essential to proper highway design and operation. The suitability of a design rests as much on how safely and efficiently drivers are able to use the highway as on any other criterion.
Motorist’s perception and reaction time set the standards for sight distance and length of transitions. The driver’s ability to understand and interpret the movements and crossing ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 380
400-2 Highway Design Manual
May 20, 2022
times of the other vehicle drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians using the intersection is equally important when making decisions and their associated reactions. The designer needs to keep in mind the user’s limitations and therefore design intersections so that they meet user expectation.
(2) The Bicyclist. Bicyclist experience, skills and physical capabilities are factors in intersection design. Intersections are to be designed to help bicyclists understand how to traverse the intersection. Chapter 1000 provides intersection guidance for Class I and Class III bikeways that intersect the State highway system. The guidance in this chapter specifically relates to bicyclists that operate within intersections on the State highway system. (3) The Pedestrian. Understanding how pedestrians will use an intersection is critical because pedestrian volumes, their age ranges, physical ability, etc. all factor in to their startup time and the time it takes them to cross an intersection and thus, dictates how to design the intersection to avoid potential conflicts with bicyclists and motor vehicles. The guidance in this chapter specifically relates to pedestrian travel within intersections on the State highway system. See Topic 105, Pedestrian Facilities, Design Information Bulletin 82 - “Pedestrian Accessibility Guidelines for Highway Projects,” the AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (California MUTCD) for additional guidance.
401.3 Traffic Considerations
Good intersection design clearly indicates to bicyclists and motorists how to traverse the intersection (see Figure 403.6A). Designs that encourage merging traffic to yield to through bicycle and motor vehicle traffic are desirable.
The size, maneuverability, and other characteristics of bicycles and motorized vehicles (automobiles, trucks, transit vehicles, farm equipment, etc.) are all factors that influence the design of an intersection. The differences in operating characteristics between bicycles and motor vehicles should be considered early in design.
Table 401.3 compares vehicle characteristics to intersection design elements.
A design vehicle is a convenient means of representing a particular segment of the vehicle population. See Topic 404 for a further discussion of the uses of design vehicles.
Transit vehicles and how their stops interrelate with an intersection, pedestrian desired walking patterns and potential transfers to other transit facilities are another critical factor to understand when designing an intersection. Transit stops and their placement needs to take into account the required maintenance operations that will be needed and usually supplied by the Transit Operator.
401.4 The Physical Environment
In highly developed urban areas, where right of way is usually limited, the volume of vehicular traffic, pedestrians, and bicyclists may be large, street parking exists, and transit stops (for both buses and light rail) are available. All interact in a variety of movements that contribute to and add to the complexity of a State highway and can result in busy intersections.
Industrial development may require special attention to the movement of large trucks.
Rural areas where farming occurs may require special attention for specialized farm equipment.
In addition, rural cities or town centers (rural main streets) also require special attention.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 381
Highway Design Manual 400-3
May 20, 2022
Rural intersections in farm areas with low traffic volumes may have special visibility problems or require shadowing of left-turn vehicles from high speed approach traffic.
Table 401.3
Vehicle
Characteristics
Intersection Design
Element Affected
Length Length of storage
lane
Width Lane width
Height Clearance to
overhead signs and
signals
Wheel base Corner radius and
width of turning
lanes
Acceleration Tapers and length
of acceleration lane
Deceleration Tapers and length
of deceleration lane
There are many factors to be considered in the design of intersections, with the goal to achieve a functional, safe and efficient intersection for all users of the facility. The location and level of use by various modes will have an impact on intersection design, and therefore should be considered early in the design process. In addition to current levels of use, it is important to consider future travel patterns for vehicles, including trucks; pedestrian and bicycle demand and the future expansion of transit.
401.5 Intersection Type
Intersection types are characterized by their basic geometric configuration, and the form of intersection traffic control that is employed:
(1) Geometric Configurations
(a) Crossing-Type Intersections - “Tee” and 4-legged intersections (b) Circular Intersections –roundabouts, traffic circles, rotaries; however, only roundabouts are acceptable for State highways.
(c) Alternative Intersection Designs – various effective geometric alternatives to traditional designs that can reduce crashes and their severity, improve operations, reduce congestion and delay typically by reducing or altering the number of conflict points; these alternatives include geometric design features such as intersections with displaced leftturns or variations on U-turns. For more information on alternative intersection designs see FHWA’s Intersection Safety webpage: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 382
400-4 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020
(2) Intersection Control Strategies. See California MUTCD and Traffic Operations Policy Directive (TOPD) Number 13-02, Intersection Control Evaluation for procedures and guidance on how to evaluate, compare and select from among the following intersection control strategies:
(a) Two-Way Stop Controlled - for minor road traffic
(b) All-Way Stop Control
(c) Signal Control
(d) Yield Control (Roundabout)
Historically, crossing-type intersections with signal or “STOP”-control have been used on the State highway system. However, other intersection types, given the appropriate circumstances may enhance intersection performance through fewer or less severe crashes and improve operations by reducing overall delay. Alternative intersection geometric designs should be considered and evaluated early in the project scoping, planning and decision-making stages, as they may be more efficient, economical and safer solutions than traditional designs.
Alternative intersection designs can effectively balance the safety and mobility needs of the motor vehicle drivers, transit riders, bicyclists and pedestrians using the intersection. 401.6 Transit
Transit use may range from periodic buses, handled as part of the normal mix of vehicular traffic, to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or light rail facilities which can have a large impact on other users of the intersection. Consideration of these modes should be part of the early planning and design of intersections.
Topic 402 – Operational Features Affecting Design
402.1 Capacity
Adequate capacity to handle peak period traffic demands is a basic goal of intersection design. (1) Unsignalized Intersections. The “Highway Capacity Manual”, provides methodology for capacity analysis of unsignalized intersections controlled by “STOP” or “YIELD” signs. The assumption is made that major street traffic is not affected by the minor street movement.
Unsignalized intersections generally become candidates for signalization when traffic backups begin to develop on the cross street or when gaps in traffic are insufficient for drivers to yield to crossing pedestrians. See the California MUTCD, for signal warrants.
Changes to intersection controls must be coordinated with District Traffic Branch. (2) Signalized Intersections. See Topic 406 for analysis of simple signalized intersections, including ramps. The analysis of complex and alternative intersections should be referred to the District Traffic Branch; also see Traffic Operations Policy Directive (TOPD) Number 13-02.
(3) Roundabout Intersections. See TOPD Number 13-02 for screening process and the Intersection Control Evaluation(ICE) Process Informational Guide for operational analysis methods and tools.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 383
Highway Design Manual 400-5
July 1, 2020
402.2 Collisions
(1) General. Intersections have a higher potential for conflict compared to other sections of the highway because travel is interrupted, traffic streams cross, and many types of turning movements occur.
The type of traffic control affects the type of collisions. Signalized intersections tend to have more rear end and same-direction sideswipes than intersections with “STOP”-control on minor legs. Roundabouts experience few angle or crossing collisions. Roundabouts reduce the frequency and severity of collisions, especially when compared to the performance of signalized intersections in high speed environments. Other alternative intersection types are configurations to consider for minimizing the number of conflict points. (2) Undesirable Geometric Features.
• Inadequate approach sight distance.
• Inadequate corner sight distance.
• Steep grades.
• Five or more approaches.
• Presence of curves within intersections(unless at roundabouts). • Inappropriately large curb radii.
• Long pedestrian crossing distances.
• Intersection Angle <75 degrees (see Topic 403).
402.3 On-Street Parking
On-street parking generally decreases through-traffic capacity, impedes traffic flow, and increases crash potential. Where the primary service of the arterial is the movement of vehicles, it may be desirable to prohibit on-street parking on State highways in urban and suburban expressways and rural arterial sections. However, within urban and suburban areas and in rural communities located on State highways, on-street parking should be considered in order to accommodate existing land uses. Where adequate off-street parking facilities are not available, the designer should consider on-street parking, so that the proposed highway improvement will be compatible with the land use. On-street parking as well as off-street parking needs to comply with DIB82. See AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets for additional guidance related to on-street parking.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 384
400-6 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020
402.4 Consider All Users
Intersections should accommodate all users of the facility, including vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit. Bicycles have all the rights and responsibilities as motorist per the California Vehicle Code, but should have separate consideration of their needs, even separate facilities if volumes warrant. Pedestrians should not be prohibited from crossing one or more legs of an intersection, unless no other safe alternative exists. Pedestrians can be prohibited from crossing one or more legs of an intersection if a reasonable alternate route exists and there is a demonstrated need to do so. All pedestrian facilities shall be ADA compliant as outlined in DIB 82. Transit needs should be determined early in the planning and design phase as their needs can have a large impact on the performance of an intersection. Transit stops in the vicinity of intersections should be evaluated for their effect on the safety and operation of the intersection(s) under study. See Topic 108 for additional information. 402.5 Speed-Change Areas
Speed-change areas for vehicles entering or leaving main streams of traffic are beneficial to the safety and efficiency of an intersection. Entering traffic merges most efficiently with through traffic when the merging angle is less than 15 degrees and when speed differentials are at a minimum.
Topic 403 – Principles of Channelization
403.1 Preference to Major Movements
The provision of direct free-flowing high-standard alignment to give preference to major movements is good channelization practice. This may require some degree of control of the minor movements such as stopping, funneling, or even eliminating them. These controlling measures should conform to natural paths of movement and should be introduced gradually to promote smooth and efficient operation.
403.2 Areas of Conflict
Large multilane undivided intersection areas are undesirable. The hazards of conflicting movements are magnified when motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians are unable to anticipate movements of other users within these areas. Channelization reduces areas of conflict by separating or regulating traffic movements into definite paths of travel by the use of pavement markings or traffic islands.
Multilane undivided intersections, even with signalization, are more difficult for pedestrians to cross. Providing pedestrian refuge islands enable pedestrians to cross fewer lanes at a time.
See Index 403.7 for traffic island guidance when used as pedestrian refuge. Curb extensions shorten crossing distance and increase visibility. See Index 303.4 for curb extensions.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 385
Highway Design Manual 400-7
July 1, 2020
403.3 Angle of Intersection
A right angle (90°) intersection provides the most favorable conditions for intersecting and turning traffic movements. Specifically, a right angle provides:
• The shortest crossing distance for motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. • Sight lines which optimize corner sight distance and the ability of motorists to judge the relative position and speed of approach traffic.
• Intersection geometry that can reduce vehicle turning speeds so collisions are more easily avoided and the severity of collisions are minimized.
• Intersection geometry that sends a message to turning bicyclists and motorists that they are making a turning movement and should yield as appropriate to through traffic on the roadway they are leaving, to traffic on the receiving roadway, and to pedestrians crossing the intersection.
Minor deviations from right angles are generally acceptable provided that the potentially detrimental impact on visibility and turning movements for large trucks (see Topic 404) can be mitigated. However, large deviations from right angles may decrease visibility, hamper certain turning operations, and will increase the size of the intersection and therefore crossing distances for bicyclists and pedestrians, may encourage high speed turns, and may reduce yielding by turning traffic. When a right angle cannot be provided due to physical constraints, the interior angle should be designed as close to 90 degrees as is practical, but should not be less than 75 degrees. Mitigation should be considered for the affected intersection design features. (See Figure 403.3A). A 75 degree angle does not unreasonably increase the crossing distance or generally decrease visibility. Class II bikeway crossings at railroads follow similar guidance to Class I bikeway crossings at railroads, see Index 1003.5(3), and Figure 403.3B.
A characteristic of skewed intersection angles is that they result in larger intersections.
When existing intersection angles are less than 75 degrees, the following retrofit improvement strategies should be considered:
• Realign the subordinate intersection legs if the new alignment and intersection location(s) can be designed without introducing new geometric or operational deficiencies. • Provide acceleration lanes for difficult turning movements due to radius or limited visibility. • Restrict problematic turning movements; e.g. for minor road left turns with potentially limited visibility.
• Provide refuge areas for pedestrians at very long crossings.
For additional guidance on the above and other improvement strategies, consult with the District Design Liaison.
Particular attention should be given to skewed angles on curved alignment with regards to sight distance and visibility. Crossroads skewed to the left have more restricted visibility for drivers of vans and trucks than crossroads skewed to the right. In addition, severely skewed intersection angles, coupled with steep downgrades (generally over 4 percent) can increase the potential for high centered vehicles to overturn where the vehicle is on a downgrade and must make a turn greater than 90 degrees onto a crossroad. These factors should be considered in the design of skewed intersections.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 386
400-8 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020
403.4 Points of Conflict
Channelization separates and clearly defines points of conflict within the intersection. Bicyclists, pedestrians and motorists should be exposed to only one conflict or confronted with one decision at a time.
Speed-change areas for diverging traffic should provide adequate length clear of the through lanes to permit vehicles to decelerate after leaving the through lanes.
See AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets for additional guidance on speed-change lanes.
Figure 403.3A
Angle of Intersection (Minor Leg Skewed to the Right)
Figure 403.3.B
Class II Bikeway Crossing Railroad
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 387
Highway Design Manual 400-9
July 1, 2020
403.5 (Currently Not In Use)
403.6 Turning Traffic
A separate turning lane removes turning movements from the intersection area. Abrupt changes in alignment or sight distance should be avoided, particularly where traffic turns into a separate turning lane from a high-standard through facility.
For wide medians, consider the use of offset left-turn lanes at both signalized and unsignalized intersections. Opposing left-turn lanes are offset or shifted as far to the left as practical by reducing the width of separation immediately before the intersection. Rather than aligning the left-turn lane exactly parallel with and adjacent to the through lane, the offset left-turn lane is separated from the adjacent through lane. Offset left-turn lanes provide improved visibility of opposing through traffic. For further guidance on offset left-turn lanes, see AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.
(1) Treatment of Intersections with Right-Turn-Only Lanes. Most motor vehicle/bicycle collisions occur at intersections. For this reason, intersection design should be accomplished in a manner that will minimize confusion by motorists and bicyclists, eliminate ambiguity and induce all road users to operate in accordance with the statutory rules of the road in the California Vehicle Code. Right-turn-only lanes should be designed to meet user expectations and reduce conflicts between vehicles and bicyclists.
Figure 403.6A illustrates a typical at-grade intersection of multilane streets without right-turnonly lanes. Bike lanes or shoulders are included on all approaches. Some common movements of motor vehicles and bicycles are shown. A prevalent crash type is between straight-through bicyclists and right-turning motorists, who do not yield to through bicyclists.
Optional right-turn lanes should not be used in combination with right-turn-only lanes on roads where bicycle travel is permitted. The use of optional right-turn lanes in combination with right-turn-only lanes is not recommended in any case where a Class II bike lane is present. This may increase the need for dual or triple right-turn-only lanes, which have ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 388
400-10 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020
Figure 403.6A
Typical Bicycle and Motor Vehicle Movements at Intersections of Multilane Streets without Right-Turn-Only Lanes
NOTE:
Only one direction is shown for clarity.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 389
Highway Design Manual 400-11
July 1, 2020
challenges with visibility between turning vehicles and pedestrians. Multiple right-turn-only lanes should not be free right-turns when there is a pedestrian crossing. If there is a pedestrian crossing on the receiving leg of multiple right-turn-only lanes, the intersection should be controlled by a pedestrian signal head, or geometrically designed such that pedestrians cross only one turning lane at a time.
Locations with right-turn-only lanes should provide a minimum 4-foot width for bicycle use between the right-turn and through lane when bikes are permitted, except where posted speed is greater than 40 miles per hour, the minimum width should be 6 feet. Configurations that create a weaving area without defined lanes should not be used.
For signing and delineation of bicycle lanes at intersections, consult District Traffic Operations.
Figure 403.6B depicts an intersection with a left-turn-only bicycle lane, which should be considered when bicycle left-turns are common. A left-turn-only bicycle lane may be considered at any intersection and should always be considered as a tool to provide mobility for bicyclists. Signing and delineation options for bicycle left-turn-only lanes are shown in the California MUTCD.
(2) Design of Intersections at Interchanges. The design of at-grade intersections at interchanges should be accomplished in a manner that will minimize confusion of motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Higher speed, uncontrolled entries and exits from freeway ramps should not be used at the intersection of the ramps with the local road. The smallest curb return radius should be used that accommodates the design vehicle. Intersections with interior angles close to 90 degrees reduce speeds at conflict points between motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. The intersection skew guidance in Index 403.3 applies to all ramp termini at the local road.
403.7 Refuge Areas
Traffic islands should be used to provide refuge areas for bicyclists and pedestrians. See Index 405.4 for further guidance.
403.8 Prohibited Turns
Traffic islands may be used to direct bicycle and motorized vehicle traffic streams in desired directions and prevent undesirable movements. Care should be taken so that islands used for this purpose accommodate convenient and safe pedestrian and bicycle crossings, drainage, and striping options. See Topic 303.
403.9 Effective Signal Control
At intersections with complex turning movements, channelization is required for effective signal control. Channelization permits the sorting of approaching bicycles and motorized vehicles which may move through the intersection during separate signal phases. Pedestrians may also have their own signal phase. This requirement is of particular importance when traffic-actuated signal controls are employed.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 390
400-12 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020
Figure 403.6B
Bicycle Left-Turn-Only Lane
NOTES:
(1) For bicycle lane markings, see the California MUTCD. (2) Bicycle detectors are necessary for signalized intersections. (3) Left-turn bicycle lane should have receiving bike lane or shoulder.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 391
Highway Design Manual 400-13
July 1, 2020
The California MUTCD has warrants for the placement of signals to control vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Pedestrian activated devices, signals or beacons are not required, but must be evaluated where directional, multilane, pedestrian crossings occur. These locations may include:
• Mid-block street crossings;
• Channelized turn lanes;
• Ramp entries and exits; and
• Roundabouts.
The evaluation, selection, programming and use of a chosen device should be done with guidance from District Traffic Operations.
403.10 Installation of Traffic Control Devices
Channelization may provide locations for the installation of essential traffic control devices, such as “STOP” and directional signs. See Index 405.4 for information about the design of traffic islands.
403.11 Summary
• Give preference to the major move(s).
• Reduce areas of conflict.
• Reduce the duration of conflicts.
• Cross traffic at right angles or skew no more than 75 degrees. (90 degrees preferred.) • Separate points of conflict.
• Provide speed-change areas and separate turning lanes where appropriate. • Provide adequate width to shadow turning traffic.
• Restrict undesirable moves with traffic islands.
• Coordinate channelization with effective signal control. • Install signs in traffic islands when necessary but avoid building conflicts one or more modes of travel.
• Consider all users.
403.12 Other Considerations
• An advantage of curbed islands is they can serve as pedestrian refuge. Where curbing is appropriate, consideration should be given to mountable curbs. See Topic 303 for more guidance.
• Avoid complex intersections that present multiple choices of movement to the motorist and bicyclist.
• Traffic safety should be considered. Collision records provide a valuable guide to the type of channelization needed.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 392
400-14 Highway Design Manual
May 20, 2022
Topic 404 – Design Vehicles
404.1 General
Any vehicle, whether car, bus, truck, or recreational vehicle, while turning a curve, covers a wider path than the width of the vehicle. The outer front tire can generally follow a circular curve, but the inner rear tire will swing in toward the center of the curve.
Some terminology is vital to understanding the engineering concepts related to design vehicles.
See Index 62.4 Interchanges and Intersection at Grade for terminology. 404.2 Design Considerations
It may not be necessary to provide for design vehicle turning movements at all intersections along the State route if the design vehicle’s route is restricted or it is not expected to use the cross street frequently. Discuss with Traffic Operations and the local agency before a turning movement is not provided. The goal is to minimize possible conflicts between vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and other users of the roadway, while providing the minimum curb radii appropriate for the given situation.
Both the tracking width and swept width should be considered in the design of roadways for use of the roadway by design vehicles.
Tracking width lines delineate the path of the vehicle tires as the vehicle moves through the turn.
Swept width lines delineate the path of the vehicle body as the vehicle moves through the turn and will therefore always exceed the tracking width. The following list of criteria is to be used to determine whether the roadway can accommodate the design vehicle. (1) Traveled way.
(a) To accommodate turn movements(e.g., at intersections, driveways, alleys, etc.),the travel way width and intersection design should be such that tracking width and swept width lines for the design vehicle do not cross into any portion of the lane for opposing traffic. Encroachment into the shoulder and bike lane is permitted. (b) Along the portion of roadway where there are no turning options, vehicles are required to stay within the lane lines. The tracking and swept widths lines for the design vehicle shall stay within the lane as defined in Index 301.1 and Table 504.3. This includes no encroachment into Class II bike lanes.
(2) Shoulders. Both tracking width and swept width lines may encroach onto paved shoulders to accommodate turning. For design projects where the tracking width lines are shown to encroach onto paved shoulders, the shoulder pavement structure should be engineered to sustain the weight of the design vehicle. See Index 613 for general traffic loading considerations and Index 626 for tied rigid shoulder guidance. At corners where no sidewalks are provided and pedestrians are using the shoulder, a paved refuge area may be provided outside the swept width of turning vehicle. (3) Curbs and Gutters. Tires may not mount curbs. If curb and gutter are present and any portion of the gutter pan is likewise encroached, the gutter pan must be engineered to match the adjacent shoulder pavement structure. See Index 613.4(2)(h) for gutter pan design guidance.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 393
Highway Design Manual 400-15
May 20, 2022
(4) Edge of Pavement. To accommodate a turn, the swept width lines may cross the edge of pavement provided there are no obstructions. The tracking width lines must remain on the pavement structure, including the shoulder, provided that the shoulder is designed to support vehicular traffic. If truck volumes are high, consideration of a wider shoulder is encouraged in order to preserve the pavement edge.
(5) Bicycle Lanes. Where bicycle lanes are considered, the design guidance noted above applies. Vehicles are permitted to cross a bicycle lane to initiate or complete a turning movement or for emergency parking on the shoulder. See the California MUTCD for Class II bike lane markings.
To accommodate turn movements (e.g., intersections, driveways, alleys, etc. are present), both tracking width and swept width lines may cross the broken white painted bicycle lane striping in advance of the right-turn, entering the bicycle lane when clear to do so. (6) Sidewalks. Tracking width and swept width lines must not encroach onto sidewalks or pedestrian refuge areas, without exception.
(7) Obstacles. Swept width lines may not encroach upon obstacles including, but not limited to, curbs, islands, sign structures, traffic delineators/channelizers, traffic signals, lighting poles, guardrails, trees, cut slopes, and rock outcrops.
(8) Appurtenances. Swept width lines do not include side mirrors or other appurtenances allowed by the California Vehicle Code, thus, accommodation to non-motorized users of the facility and appurtenances should be considered.
If both the tracking width and swept width lines meet the design guidance listed above, then the geometry is adequate for that design vehicle. Consideration should be given to pedestrian crossing distance, motor vehicle speeds, truck volumes, alignment, bicycle lane width, sight distance, and the presence of on-street parking.
Note that the STAA Design Vehicle has a template with a 56-foot (minimum) and a 67-foot (longer) radius and the California Legal Design Vehicle has a template with 50-foot (minimum) and 60-foot (longer) radii. These templates are shown in Figures 404.5A through 404.5D. The longer radius templates are more conservative. The longer radius templates develop less swept width and leave a margin of error for the truck driver. The longer radius templates should be used for conditions where the vehicle may not be required to stop before entering the intersection.
The minimum radius template can be used if the longer radius template does not clear all obstacles. The minimum radius templates demonstrate the tightest turn that the vehicles can navigate, assuming a speed of less than 10 miles per hour.
For offtracking lane width requirements on freeway ramps, see Topic 504.
The Caltrans Truck Network Maps should be consulted for the appropriate design vehicle. See the link at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/legal-truck-access/truck-network-map. 404.3 Design Tools
District Truck Managers should be consulted early in the project to ensure compliance with the design vehicle guidance contained in Topic 404. Consult local agencies to verify the location of local truck routes. Essentially, two options are available – templates or computer software.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 394
400-16 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020
• The turning templates in Figures 404.5A through G are a design aid for determining the swept width and/or tracking width of large vehicles as they maneuver through a turn. The templates can be used as overlays to evaluate the adequacy of the geometric layout of a curve or intersection when reproduced on clear film and scaled to match the highway drawings. These templates assume a vehicle speed of less than 10 miles per hour. • Computer software such as AutoTURN or AutoTrak can draw the swept width and/or tracking width along any design curve within a CADD drawing program such as MicroStation or AutoCAD. Dimensions taken from the vehicle diagrams in Figures 404.5A through G may be inputted into the computer program by creating a custom vehicle if the vehicle is not already included in the software library. The software can also create a vehicle turn template that conforms to any degree curve desired.
404.4 Design Vehicles and Related Definitions
(1) The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA). (a) STAA Routes. STAA allows certain longer trucks called STAA trucks to operate on the National Network. After STAA was enacted, the Department evaluated State routes for STAA truck access and created Terminal Access and Service Access routes which, together with the National Network, are called the STAA Network. Terminal Access routes allow STAA access to terminals and facilities. Service Access routes allow STAA trucks one-mile access off the National Network, but only at identified exits and only for designated services. Service Access routes are primarily local roads. A “Truck Route Map,” indicating the National Network routes and the Terminal Access routes is posted on the Department’s Office of Commercial Vehicle Operations website and is also available in printed form.
(b) STAA Design Vehicle. The STAA design vehicle is a truck tractor-semitrailer combination with a 48-foot semitrailer, a 43-foot kingpin-to-rear-axle (KPRA) distance, an 8.5-foot body and axle width, and a 23-foot truck tractor wheelbase. Note, a truck tractor is a non-load-carrying vehicle. There is also a STAA double (truck tractorsemitrailer-trailer); however, the double is not used as the design vehicle due to its shorter turning radius. The STAA Design Vehicle is shown in Figures 404.5A and B.
The STAA Design Vehicle in Figures 404.5A or B should be used on the National Network, Terminal Access, California Legal, and Advisory routes. (c) STAA Vehicle – 53-Foot Trailer. Another category of vehicle allowed only on STAA routes has a maximum 53-foot trailer, a maximum 40-foot KPRA for two or more axles, a maximum 38-foot KPRA for a single axle, and unlimited overall length. This vehicle is not to be used as the design vehicle as it is not the worst case for offtracking due to its shorter KPRA. The STAA Design Vehicle should be used instead. (2) California Legal.
(a) California Legal Routes. Virtually all State routes off the STAA Network are California Legal routes. There are two types of California Legal routes, the regular California Legal routes and the KPRA Advisory Routes. Advisory routes have signs posted that state the maximum KPRA length that the route can accommodate without the vehicle offtracking outside the lane. KPRA advisories range from 30 feet to 38 feet, in 2-foot increments.
California Legal vehicles are allowed to use both types of California Legal routes.
California Legal vehicles can also use the STAA Network. However, STAA trucks are not allowed on any California Legal routes. The Truck Route Map indicating the California Legal routes is posted on the Department’s Office of Commercial Vehicle Operations website.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 395
Highway Design Manual 400-17
July 1, 2020
(b) California Legal Design Vehicle. The California Legal vehicle is a truck tractor-semitrailer with the following dimensions: the maximum overall length is 65 feet; the maximum KPRA distance is 40 feet for semitrailers with two or more axles, and 38 feet for semitrailers with a single axle; the maximum width is 8.5 feet. There are also two categories of California Legal doubles (truck tractor-semitrailer-trailer); however, the doubles are not used as the design vehicle due to their shorter turning radii. The California Legal Design Vehicle is shown in Figures 404.5C and D.
The California Legal Design Vehicle in Figures 404.5C and D should only be used when the STAA design vehicle is not feasible and with concurrence from the District Truck Manager.
(3) 40-Foot Bus.
(a) 40-Foot Bus Routes. All single-unit vehicles, including buses and motor trucks up to 40 feet in length, are allowed on virtually every route in California. (b) 40-Foot Bus Design Vehicle. The 40-Foot Bus Design Vehicle shown in Figure 404.5E is an AASHTO standard. Its 25-foot wheelbase and 40-foot length are typical of city transit buses and some intercity buses. At intersections where truck volumes are light or where the predominate truck traffic consists of mostly 3-axle units, the 40-foot bus may be used. Its wheel path sweeps a greater width than 3-axle delivery trucks, as well as smaller buses such as school buses.
(4) 45-Foot Bus & Motorhome.
(a) 45-Foot Bus & Motorhome Routes. The “45-foot bus and motorhome” refers to bus and motorhomes over 40 feet in length, up to and including 45 feet in length. These longer buses and motorhomes are allowed in California, but only on certain routes.
The 45-foot tour bus became legal on the National Network in 1991 and later allowed on some State routes in 1995. The 45-foot motorhome became legal in California in 2001, but only on those routes where the 45-foot bus was already allowed. A Bus and Motorhome Map indicating where these longer buses and motorhomes are allowed and where they are not allowed is posted on the Department’s Office of Commercial Vehicle Operations website.
(b) 45-Foot Bus and Motorhome Design Vehicle. The 45-Foot Bus & Motorhome Design Vehicle shown in Figure 404.5F is used by Caltrans for the longest allowable bus and motorhome. Its wheelbase is 28.5 feet. It is also similar to the AASHTO standard 45- foot bus. Typically this should be the smallest design vehicle used on a State highway.
It may be used where the State highway intersects local streets without commercial or industrial traffic.
The 45-Foot Bus and Motorhome Design Vehicle shown in Figure 404.5F should be used in the design of all interchanges and intersections on all green routes indicated on the Bus and Motorhome Map for both new construction and rehabilitation projects. Check also the longer standard design vehicles on these routes as required – the STAA Design Vehicle and the California Legal Design Vehicle in Indexes 404.4(1) and (2).
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 396
400-18 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020
(5) 60-Foot Articulated Bus.
(a) 60-Foot Articulated Bus Routes. The articulated bus is allowed a length of up to 60 feet per CVC 35400(b)(3)(A). This bus is used primarily by local transit agencies for public transportation. There is no master listing of such routes. Local transit agencies should be contacted to determine possible routes within the proposed project. (b) 60-Foot Articulated Bus Design Vehicle. The 60-Foot Articulated Bus Design Vehicle shown in Figure 404.5G is an AASHTO standard. The routes served by these buses should be designed to accommodate the 60-Foot Articulated Bus Design Vehicle. 404.5 Turning Templates & Vehicle Diagrams
Figures 404.5A through G are computer-generated turning templates at an approximate scale of 1"=50' and their associated vehicle diagrams for the design vehicles described in Index 404.3.
The radius of the template is measured to the outside front wheel path at the beginning of the curve. Figures 404.5A through G contain the terms defined as follows:
(1) Tractor Width - Width of tractor body.
(2) Trailer Width - Width of semitrailer body.
(3) Tractor Track - Tractor axle width, measured from outside face of tires. (4) Trailer Track - Semitrailer axle width, measured from outside face of tires.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 397
Highway Design Manual 400-19
July 1, 2020
Figure 404.5A
STAA Design Vehicle 56-Foot Radius
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 398
400-20 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020
Figure 404.5B
STAA Design Vehicle 67-Foot Radius
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 399
Highway Design Manual 400-21
July 1, 2020
Figure 404.5C
California Legal Design Vehicle 50-Foot Radius
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 400
400-22 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020
Figure 404.5D
California Legal Design Vehicle 60-Foot Radius
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 401
Highway
DesignManual 400-23
July 1, 2020
Figure 404.5E
40-Foot Bus Design Vehicle
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 402
400-24 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020
Figure 404.5F
45-Foot Bus & Motorhome Design Vehicle
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 403
Highway Design Manual 400-25
July 1, 2020
Figure 404.5G
60-Foot Articulated Bus Design Vehicle
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 404
400-26 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020
(5) Lock To Lock Time - The time in seconds that an average driver would take under normal driving conditions to turn the steering wheel of a vehicle from the lock position on one side to the lock position on the other side. The default in AutoTurn software is 6 seconds. (6) Steering Lock Angle - The maximum angle that the steering wheels can be turned. It is further defined as the average of the maximum angles made by the left and right steering wheels with the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
(7) Articulating Angle - The maximum angle between the tractor and semitrailer.
Topic 405 – Intersection Design Standards
405.1 Sight Distance
(1) Stopping Sight Distance. See Index 201.1 for minimum stopping sight distance requirements.
(2) Corner Sight Distance.
(a) General. At unsignalized intersections a substantially clear line of sight should be maintained between the driver of a vehicle, bicyclist or pedestrian stopped on the minor road and the driver of an approaching vehicle on the major road that has no stop. Line of sight for all users should be included in right of way, in order to preserve sight lines.
See DIB 79 for 2R, 3R, certain storm damage, protective betterment, operational, and safety projects on two-lane and three-lane conventional highways.
Adequate time should be provided for the stopped vehicle on the minor road to either cross all lanes of through traffic, cross the near lanes and turn left, or turn right, without requiring through traffic to radically alter their speed. The visibility required for these maneuvers form a clear sight triangle with the corner sight distance b and the crossing distance a1 or a2(see Figure 405.1 as an example of corner sight distance at a two-lane, two-way highway). Dimensions a1 and a2 are measured from the decision point to the center of the lane. The actual number of lanes will vary on the major and minor roads.
There should be no sight obstruction within the clear sight triangle.
The methodology used for the driver on the minor road that is stopped to complete the necessary maneuver while the approaching vehicle travels at the design speed of the major road is based on gap-acceptance behavior. A 7-1/2 second criterion is applied to a passenger car (including pickup trucks) for a left turn from a stop on the minor road.
However, this time gap does not account for a single-unit truck (no semitrailer), a combination truck (see Index 404.4 for truck tractor-semitrailer guidance), a right-turn from a stop, or for a crossing maneuver. See Table 405.1A for the time gap that addresses these situations for the assumed design vehicle making these maneuvers from the minor road.
In determining corner sight distance, a set back distance for the vehicle waiting on the minor road must be assumed as measured from the edge of traveled way of the major road. Set back 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. The location of the driver’s eye for the set back is the decision point per Figure 405.1. Corner sight distance and the driver’s eye set back are also illustrated in Figures 405.7 and 504.3I.
Line of sight for corner sight distance for passenger cars is to be determined from a 3 and 1/2-foot height at the location of the driver of the vehicle in the center of the minor road lane to a 3 and 1/2-foot object height in the center of the approaching outside lane of the major road. This provides for reciprocal sight by both vehicles. The passenger ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 405
Highway Design Manual 400-27
July 1, 2020
car driver’s eye height should be applied to all minor roads. In addition, a truck driver’s eye height of 7.6 feet should be applied to the minor road where applicable. Additionally, if the major road has a median barrier, a 2-foot object height should be used to determine the median barrier set back. A median that is wide enough to accommodate a stopped vehicle should also provide a clear sight triangle.
The minimum corner sight distance (feet) should be determined by the equation:
1.47VmTg, where Vm is the design speed (mph) of the major road and Tgis the time gap (seconds) for the minor road vehicle to enter the major road. The values given in Table 405.1A should be used to determine Tg based on the design vehicle, the type of maneuver, and whether the stopped vehicle’s rear wheels are on an upgrade exceeding 3 percent. The distance from the edge of traveled way to the rear wheels at the minor road stop location should be assumed as: 20 feet for a passenger car, 30 feet for a single-unit truck, and 72 feet for a combination truck. (b) Public Road Intersections (Refer to Topic 205 and Index 405.7); corner sight distance applies, see Table 405.1A.
At signalized intersections the corner sight distances should also be applied whenever possible. Even though traffic flows are designed to move at separate times, unanticipated conflicts can occur due to violation of signal, right turns on red, malfunction of the signal, or use of flashing red/yellow mode.
The minimum value for corner sight distance at signalized intersections should be equal to the stopping sight distance as given in Table 201.1, measured as previously described.
This includes an urban driveway that forms a leg of the signalized intersection. (c) Private Road Intersections (Refer to Index 205.2) and Rural Driveways (Refer to Index 205.4); corner sight distance applies, see Table 405.1A. If signalized, the minimum corner sight distance should be equal to the stopping sight distance as given in Table 201.1, measured as previously described.
(d) Urban Driveways (Refer to Index 205.3); corner sight distance requirements as described above are not applied to urban driveways unless signalized. See Index 405.1(2)(b) underlined standard. If parking is allowed on the major road, parking should be prohibited on both sides of the driveway per the California MUTCD, 3B.19. (3) Decision Sight Distance. At intersections where the State route turns or crosses another State route, the decision sight distance values given in Table 201.7 should be used. In computing and measuring decision sight distance, the 3.5-foot eye height and the 0.5-foot object height should be used, the object being located on the side of the intersection nearest the approaching driver.
The application of the various sight distance requirements for the different types of intersections is summarized in Table 405.1B
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 406
400-28 Highway Design Manual
May 20, 2022
Table 405.1B
Application of Sight Distance Requirements
Intersection Sight Distance
Types Stopping Corner Decision
Private Roads X X
(1)
Public Streets
and Roads
X X
Signalized
Intersections
X X
(2)
State Route
Intersections &
Route Direction
Changes, with
or without
Signals
X X X
NOTES:
(1) Per Index 405.1(2)(c), if signalized, the minimum
corner sight distance shall be equal to the stopping
sight distance as given in Table 201.1. See Index
405.1(2)(a) for setback requirements.
(2) Apply corner sight distance requirements at
signalized intersections whenever possible due to
unanticipated violations of the signals or malfunctions of the signals. See Index 405.1(2)(b).
(4) Acceleration Lanes for Turning Moves onto State Highways. At rural intersections, with “STOP” control on the local cross road, acceleration lanes for left and right turns onto the State facility should be considered. At a minimum, the following features should be evaluated for both the major highway and the cross road:
• divided versus undivided
• number of lanes
• design speed
• gradient
• lane, shoulder and median width
• traffic volume and composition of highway users, including trucks and transit vehicles ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 407
Highway Design Manual 400-29
July 1, 2020
Figure 405.1
Corner Sight Distance (b)
Table 405.1A
Corner Sight Distance Time Gap (Tg) for Unsignalized Intersections Design Vehicle Left-turn from Stop (s)(4) Right-turn from Stop and Crossing Maneuver (s)
Passenger Car 7½ 6½
Private Road Intersection
Rural Driveway
Single-Unit Truck 9½ 8½
Public Road Intersection
Combination Truck 11½ 10½
Major and Minor Roads on Routes:
National Network
Terminal or Service Access
California Legal
KPRA Advisory
Notes: Time gaps are for a stopped vehicle to turn left, right or cross a two-lane highway with no median and with minor road grades of 3 percent or less. The table values should be adjusted as follows:
(1)For multilane highways—When crossing or making a left-turn onto a two-way major road with more than two lanes, add 0.5 s for passenger cars or 0.7 s for trucks for each additional lane to be crossed. Median widths should be converted to an equivalent number of lanes in applying the 0.5 s and 0.7 s criteria. For example, an 18-foot wide median is equivalent to 1.5 lanes; this requires an additional 0.75 s for a passenger car to cross or an additional 1.05 s for a truck to cross.
(2)For minor road approach grades—If the minor road approach grade is an upgrade that exceeds 3 percent and the rear wheels of the design vehicle are on the grade exceeding 3 percent, add 0.2 s for each percent grade for left-turns and crossing maneuvers; or add 0.1 s for each percent grade for right-turns. For example, a passenger car is turning right from a minor road and at the stop location its rear wheels are on a 4 percent upgrade; this requires an additional 0.4 s for the right-turn.
(3)Unique situations may necessitate a different design vehicle for a particular minor road than those listed here (e.g., predominant combination trucks out of a rural driveway). Additionally, for intersections at skewed angles less than 60 degrees, a further adjustment is needed. See the AASHTO “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” for guidance.
(4)Time gap for vehicles approaching from the left can be the same as the right-turn from stop maneuver.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 408
400-30 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020
• turning volumes
• horizontal curve radii
• sight distance
• proximity of adjacent intersections
• types of adjacent intersections
For additional information and guidance, refer to AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, the District Traffic Engineer or designee, the District Design Liaison, and the Project Delivery Coordinator.
405.2 Left-turn Channelization
(1) General. The purpose of a left-turn lane is to expedite the movement of through traffic by, controlling the movement of turning traffic, increasing the capacity of the intersection, and improving safety characteristics.
The District Traffic Branch normally establishes the need for left-turn lanes. (2) Design Elements.
(a) Lane Width – The lane width for both single and double left-turn lanes on State highways shall be 12 feet.
For conventional State highways with posted speeds less than or equal to 40 miles per hour and AADTT (truck volume) less than 250 per lane that are in urban, city or town centers (rural main streets), the minimum lane width shall be 11 feet.
When considering lane width reductions adjacent to curbed medians, refer to Index 303.5 for guidance on effective roadway width, which may vary depending on drivers’ lateral positioning and shy distance from raised curbs.
(b) Approach Taper – On conventional highways without a median, an approach taper provides space for a left-turn lane by moving traffic laterally to the right. The approach taper is unnecessary where a median is available for the full width of the left-turn lane.
Length of the approach taper is given by the formula on Figures 405.2A, B and C.
Figure 405.2A shows a standard left-turn channelization design in which all widening is to the right of approaching traffic and the deceleration lane (see below) begins at the end of the approach taper. This design should be used in all situations where space is available, usually in rural and semi-rural areas or in urban areas with high traffic speeds and/or volumes.
Figures 405.2B and 405.2C show alternate designs foreshortened with the deceleration lane beginning at the 2/3 point of the approach taper so that part of the deceleration takes place in the through traffic lane. Figure 405.2C is shortened further by widening half (or other appropriate fraction) on each side. These designs may be used in urban areas where constraints exist, speeds are moderate and traffic volumes are relatively low.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 409
Highway Design Manual 400-31
July 1, 2020
Figure 405.2A
Standard Left-turn Channelization
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 410
400-32 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020
Figure 405.2B
Minimum Median Left-turn Channelization (Widening on one Side of Highway)
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 411
Highway Design Manual 400-33
July 1, 2020
Figure 405.2C
Minimum Median Left-turn Channelization (Widening on Both Sides in Urban Areas with Short Blocks)
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 412
400-34 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020
(c) Bay Taper – A reversing curve along the left edge of the traveled way directs traffic into the left-turn lane. The length of this bay taper should be short to clearly delineate the left-turn move and to discourage through traffic from drifting into the left-turn lane. Table 405.2A gives offset data for design of bay tapers. In urban areas, lengths of 60 feet and 90 feet are normally used. Where space is restricted and speeds are low, a 60-foot bay taper is appropriate. On rural high-speed highways, a 120-foot length is considered appropriate.
(d) Deceleration Lane Length – Design speed of the roadway approaching the intersection should be the basis for determining deceleration lane length. It is desirable that deceleration take place entirely off the through traffic lanes. Deceleration lane lengths are given in Table 405.2B; the bay taper length is included. Where partial deceleration is permitted on the through lanes, as in Figures 405.2B and 405.2C, design speeds in Table 405.2B may be reduced 10 miles per hour to 20 miles per hour for a lower entry speed. In urban areas where cross streets are closely spaced and deceleration lengths cannot be achieved, the District Traffic branch should be consulted for guidance. (e) Storage Length – At unsignalized inter-sections, storage length may be based on the number of turning vehicles likely to arrive in an average 2-minute period during the peak hour. At a minimum, space for 2 vehicles should be provided at 25 feet per vehicle. If the peak hour truck traffic is 10 percent or more, space for at least one passenger car and one truck should be provided. Bus usage may require a longer storage length and should be evaluated if their use is anticipated.
At signalized intersections, the storage length may be based on one and one-half to two times the average number of vehicles that would store per signal cycle depending on cycle length, signal phasing, and arrival and departure rates. At a minimum, storage length should be calculated in the same manner as unsignalized intersection. The District Traffic Branch should be consulted for this information.
When determining storage length, the end of the left-turn lane is typically placed at least 3 feet, but not more than 30 feet, from the nearest edge of shoulder of the intersecting roadway. Although often set by the placement of a crosswalk line or limit line, the end of the storage lane should always be located so that the appropriate turning template can be accommodated.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 413
Highway Design Manual 400-35
July 1, 2020
Table 405.2A
Bay Taper for Median Speed-change Lanes
NOTES:
(1) The table gives offsets from a base line parallel to the edge of traveled way at intervals measured from point "A". Add "E" for measurements from edge of traveled way. (2) Where edge of traveled way is a curve, neither base line nor taper between B & C will be a tangent. Use proportional offsets from B to C.
(3) The offset "E" is usually 2 ft along edge of traveled way for curbed medians; Use "E" = 0 ft. for striped medians.
Table 405.2B
Deceleration Lane Length
Design Speed
(mph)
Length to
Stop (ft)
30 235
40 315
50 435
60 530
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 414
400-36 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020
(3) Double Left-turn Lanes. At signalized intersections on multilane conventional highways and on multilane ramp terminals, double left-turn lanes should be considered if the left-turn demand is 300 vehicles per hour or more. The lane widths and other design elements of left-turn lanes given under Index 405.2(2) applies to double as well as single left-turn lanes.
The design of double left-turn lanes can be accomplished by adding one or two lanes in the median. See "Complete Intersections: A Guide to Reconstructing Intersections and Interchanges for Bicyclists and Pedestrians", published by Headquarters, Division of Traffic Operations, for the various treatments of double left-turn lanes. (4) Two-way Left-turn Lane (TWLTL). The TWLTL consists of a striped lane in the median of an arterial and is devised to address the special capacity and safety problems associated with high-density strip development. It can be used on 2-lane highways as well as multilane highways. Normally, the District Traffic Operations Branch should determine the need for a TWLTL.
The minimum width for a TWLTL shall be 12 feet (see Index 301.1). The preferred width is 14 feet. Wider TWLTL's are occasionally provided to conform with local agency standards.
However, TWLTL's wider than 14 feet are not recommended, and in no case should the width of a TWLTL exceed 16 feet. Additional width may encourage drivers in opposite directions to use the TWLTL simultaneously.
405.3 Right-turn Channelization
(1) General. For right-turning traffic, delays are less critical and conflicts less severe than for left-turning traffic. Nevertheless, right-turn lanes can be justified on the basis of capacity, analysis, and crash experience.
In rural areas a history of high speed rear-end collisions may warrant the addition of a rightturn lane.
In urban areas other factors may contribute to the need such as:
• High volumes of right-turning traffic causing backup and delay on the through lanes. • Conflicts between crossing pedestrians and right-turning vehicles and bicycles. • Frequent rear-end and sideswipe collisions involving right-turning vehicles.
Where right-turn channelization is proposed, lower speed right-turn lanes should be provided to reduce the likelihood of conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. (2) Design Elements.
(a) Lane and Shoulder Width – Index 301.1 shall be used for right-turn lane width requirements. Shoulder width shall be a minimum of 4 feet. Although not desirable, lane and shoulder widths less than those given above can be considered for right-turn lanes under the following conditions pursuant to Index 82.2:
• In urban, city or town centers (rural main streets) with posted speeds less than 40 miles per hour in severely constrained situations, if truck or bus use is low, consideration may be given to reducing the right-turn lane width to 10 feet. • Shoulder widths may also be considered for reduction under constricted situations.
Whenever possible, at least a 2-foot shoulder should be provided where the right-turn lane is adjacent to a curb. Entire omission of the shoulder should only be considered in constrained situations and where an 11-foot lane can be constructed.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 415
Highway Design Manual 400-37
July 1, 2020
Gutter pans can be included within a shoulder, but cannot be included as part of the travel lane width. Additional right of way for a future right-turn lane should be considered when an intersection is being designed.
(b) Curve Radius--Where pedestrians are allowed to cross a free right-turning roadway, the curve radius should be such that the operating speed of vehicular traffic is no more than 20 miles per hour at the pedestrian crossing. See NCHRP Report 672, “Roundabouts:
An Informational Guide” for guidance on the determination of design speed (fastest path) for turning vehicles. See Index 504.3(3) for additional information. (c) Tapers--Approach tapers are usually unnecessary since main line traffic need not be shifted laterally to provide space for the right-turn lane. If, in some rare instances, a lateral shift were needed, the approach taper would use the same formula as for a left-turn lane.
Bay tapers are treated as a mirror image of the left-turn bay taper. (d) Deceleration Lane Length--The conditions and principles of left-turn lane deceleration apply to right-turn deceleration. Where full deceleration is desired off the high-speed through lanes, the lengths in Table 405.2B should be used. Where partial deceleration is permitted on the through lanes because of limited right of way or other constraints, average running speeds in Table 405.2B may be reduced 10 miles per hour to 20 miles per hour for a lower entry speed. For example, if the main line speed is 50 miles per hour and a 10 miles per hour deceleration is permitted on the through lanes, the deceleration length may be that required for 40 miles per hour.
(e) Storage Length--Right-turn storage length is determined in the same manner as left-turn storage length. See Index 405.2(2)(e).
(3) Right-turn Lanes at Off-ramp Intersections. Diamond off-ramps with a free right-turn at the local street and separate right-turn off-ramps around the outside of a loop will likely cause conflict as traffic volumes increase. Serious conflicts occur when the right-turning vehicle must weave across multiple lanes on the local street in order to turn left at a major cross street close to the ramp terminal. Furthermore, free right-turns create sight distance issues for pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the off-ramp, or pedestrians crossing the local road.
Also, rear-end collisions can occur as right-turning drivers slow down or stop waiting for a gap in local street traffic. Free right-turns usually end up with ”YIELD”, ”STOP”, or signal controls thus defeating their purpose of increasing intersection capacity. 405.4 Traffic Islands
A traffic island is an area between traffic lanes for channelization of bicycle and vehicle movements or for pedestrian refuge. An island may be defined by paint, raised pavement markers, curbs, pavement edge, or other devices. The California MUTCD should be referenced when considering the placement of traffic islands at signalized and unsignalized locations. For splitter island guidance at roundabouts, see Index 405.10(13).
Traffic islands usually serve more than one function. These functions may be:
(a) Channelization to confine specific traffic movements into definite channels; (b) Divisional to separate traffic moving in the same or opposite direction; and (c) Refuge, to aid users crossing the roadway.
Generally, islands should present the least potential conflict to approaching or crossing bicycles and vehicles, and yet perform their intended function.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 416
400-38 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020
(1) Design of Traffic Islands. Island sizes and shapes vary from one intersection to another.
They should be large enough to command attention. Channelizing islands should not be less than 50 square feet in area, preferably 75 square feet. Curbed, elongated divisional median islands should not be less than 4 feet wide and 20 feet long. All traffic islands placed in the path of a pedestrian crossing must comply with DIB 82. See the Standard Plans for typical island passageway details.
The approach end of each island should be offset 3 feet to the left and 5 feet to the right of approaching traffic, using standard 1:15 parabolic flares, and clearly delineated so that it does not surprise the motorist or bicyclist. These offsets are in addition to the shoulder widths shown in Table 302.1. Table 405.4 gives standard parabolic flares to be used in island design. On curved alignment, parabolic flares may be omitted for small triangular traffic islands whose sides are less than 25 feet long.
The approach nose of a divisional island should be highly visible day and night with appropriate use of signs (reflectorized or illuminated) and object markers. The approach nose should be offset 3 feet from the through traffic to minimize accidental impacts. (2) Delineation of Traffic Islands. Generally, islands should present the least potential conflict to approaching traffic and yet perform their intended function. See Index 303.2 for appropriate curb type. Islands may be designated as follows:
(a) Raised paved areas outlined by curbs.
(b) Flush paved areas outlined by pavement markings.
(c) Unpaved areas (small unpaved areas should be avoided).
On facilities with posted speeds over 40 miles per hour, the use of any type of curb is discouraged. Where curbs are to be used, they should be located at or outside of the shoulder edge, as discussed in Index 303.5.
In rural areas, painted channelization supplemented with raised pavement markers may be more appropriate than a raised curbed channelization. This design is as forgiving as possible and decreases the consequence of a driver's or bicyclist’s failure to detect or recognize the curbed island. Consideration for snow removal operations should be determined where appropriate.
In urban areas, posted speeds less than or equal to 40 miles per hour allow more frequent use of curbed islands. Local agency requirements and matching existing conditions are factors to consider.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 417
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 418
400-40 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020
405.5 Median Openings
(1) General. Median openings, sometimes called crossovers, provide for crossings of the median at designated locations. Except for emergency passageways in a median barrier, median openings are not allowed on urban freeways.
(2) Spacing and Location. By a combination of interchange ramps and emergency passageways, provisions for access to the opposite side of a freeway may be provided for law enforcement, emergency, and maintenance vehicles to avoid extreme out-of-direction travel. Access should not be more frequent
Figure 405.4
Pedestrian Refuge Island
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 419
Highway Design Manual 400-41
July 1, 2020
than at three-mile intervals. See Traffic Safety Systems Guidance for additional information on the design of emergency passageways.
Emergency passageways should be located only where decision sight distance is available (see Table 201.7).
Median openings at close intervals on other types of highways create conflicts with high speed through traffic. Median openings should be spaced at intervals no closer than 1600 feet. If a median opening falls within 300 feet of an access opening, it should be placed opposite the access opening.
(3) Length of Median Opening. For any three or four-leg intersection on a divided highway, the length of the median opening should be at least as great as the width of the crossroads pavement, median width, and shoulders. An important factor in designing median openings is the path of the design vehicle making a minimum left turn at 5 miles per hour to 10 miles per hour. The length of median opening varies with width of median and angle of intersecting road.
Usually a median opening of 60 feet is adequate for 90 degree intersections with median widths of 22 feet or greater. When the median width is less than 22 feet, a median opening of 70 feet is needed. When the intersection angle is other than 90 degrees, the length of median opening should be established by using truck turn templates (see Index 404.3). (4) Cross Slope. The cross slope in the median opening should be limited to 5 percent.
Crossovers on curves with super elevation exceeding 5 percent should be avoided. This cross slope may be exceeded when an existing 2-lane roadbed is converted to a 4-lane divided highway. The elevation of the new construction should be based on the 5 percent cross slope requirement when the existing roadbed is raised to its ultimate elevation. (5) References. For information related to the design of intersections and median openings, "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets," AASHTO, should be consulted. 405.6 Access Control
The basic guidance which govern the extent to which access rights are to be acquired at interchanges (see Topic 104, Index 205.1 and 504.8 and the PDPM) also apply to intersections at grade on expressways. Cases of access control which frequently occur at intersections are shown in Figure 405.7. This illustration does not presume to cover all situations. Where required by traffic conditions, access should be extended in order to ensure proper operation of the expressway lanes. Reasonable variations which observe the basic principles referred to above are acceptable.
However, negative impacts on the mobility needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, equestrians, and transit users need to be assessed. Pedestrians and bicyclists are sensitive to additional out of direction travel.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 420
400-42 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020
Figure 405.5
Typical Design for Median Openings
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 421
Highway Design Manual 400-43
July 1, 2020
405.7 Public Road Intersections
The basic design to be used at right-angle public road intersections on the State Highway System is shown in Figure 405.7. The essential elements are sight distance (see Index 405.1) and the treatment of the right-turn on and off the main highway. Encroachment into opposing traffic lanes by the turning vehicle should be avoided or minimized. (1) Right-turn Onto the Main Highway. The combination of a circular curve joined by a 2:1 taper on the crossroads and a 75-foot taper on the main highway is designed to fit the wheel paths of the appropriate turning template chosen by the designer.
It is desirable to keep the right-turn as tight as practical, so the “STOP” or “YIELD” sign on the minor leg can be placed close to the intersection.
(2) Right-turn Off the Main Highway. The combination of a circular curve joined by a 150-foot taper on the main highway and a 4:1 taper on the crossroads is designed to fit the wheel paths of the appropriate turning template and to move the rear of the vehicle off the main highway. Deceleration and storage lanes may be provided when necessary (see Index 405.3).
(3) Alternate Designs. Offsets are given in Figure 405.7 for right angle intersections. For skew angles, roadway curvature, and possibly other reasons, variations to the right-angle design are permitted, but the basic rule is still to approximate the wheel paths of the design vehicle.
A three-center curve is an alternate treatment that may be used at the discretion of the designer.
Intersections are major consideration in bicycle path design as well. See Indexes 403.6 and 1003.1(5) for general bicycle path intersection design guidance. Also see Section 5.3 of the AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Bicycle Facilities. 405.8 City Street Returns and Corner Radii
The pavement width and corner radius at city street intersections is determined by the type of vehicle to be accommodated and the mobility needs of pedestrians and bicyclists, taking into consideration the amount of available right of way, the types of adjoining land uses, the place types, the roadway width, and the number of lanes on the intersecting street.
At urban intersections, the California truck or the Bus Design Vehicle template may be used to determine the corner radius. Where STAA truck access is allowed, the STAA Design Vehicle template should be used giving consideration to factors mentioned above. See Index 404.3.
Smaller radii of 15 feet to 25 feet are appropriate at minor cross streets where few trucks or buses are turning. Local agency standards may be appropriate in urban and suburban areas.
Encroachment into opposing traffic lanes must be avoided. 405.9 Widening of 2-lane Roads at Signalized Intersections Two-lane State highways may be widened at intersections to 4-lanes whenever signals are installed. Sometimes it may be necessary to widen the intersecting road. The minimum design is shown in Figure 405.9. More elaborate treatment may be warranted by the volume and ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 422
400-44 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020
Figure 405.7
Public Road Intersections
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 423
Highway Design Manual 400-45
July 1, 2020
Figure 405.9
Widening of Two-lane Roads at Signalized Intersections
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 424
400-46 Highway Design Manual
May 20, 2022
pattern of traffic movements. Unusual turning movement patterns may possibly call for a different shape of widening.
The impact on pedestrian and bicycle traffic mobility of larger intersections should be assessed before a decision is made to widen an intersection.
405.10 Roundabouts
Roundabout intersections on the State highway system must be developed and evaluated in accordance with National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 672 entitled “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, Second Edition” dated October 2010 and Traffic Operations Policy Directive (TOPD) Number 13-02. Also see Index 401.5 for general information and guidance. See Figure 405.10A Roundabout Geometric Elements for nomenclature associated with roundabouts. Signs, striping and markings at roundabouts are to comply with the California MUTCD.
A roundabout is a form of circular intersection in which traffic travels counterclockwise around a central island and entering traffic must yield to the circulating traffic. Roundabouts feature, among other things, a central island, a circulatory roadway, and splitter islands on each approach. Roundabouts rely upon two basic and important operating principles:
(a) Geometric design that reduce speeds at the entry and through the intersection, and (b) The yield-at-entry rule, which requires traffic entering the intersection to yield to traffic that is traveling in the circulatory roadway.
Some benefits of roundabouts include:
• Fewer conflict points, especially the high angle conflict points, which results in less severe crashes when compared to the stop-controlled or signal-controlled intersections. Over half of vehicle to vehicle conflict points associated with stop- and signal-controlled intersections are eliminated with the use of a roundabout. Additionally, a roundabout separates the conflict points which eases the ability of the driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist to identify a conflict and helps prevent conflicts from becoming crashes.
• Roundabouts are designed to reduce the vehicular speeds at intersections. Lower speeds lessen the vehicular crash severity. Likewise, studies indicate that when motorized vehicles are traveling at slower speeds, crash severity with pedestrian and bicyclist is significantly reduced; hence, roundabouts are proven safety countermeasures for traffic calming for complete street designs.
• Roundabouts are yield-controlled intersections, which allow continuous free flow of vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles when no conflicts exist. This results in less noise and air pollution and reduces overall delays at roundabout intersections. Additionally, since there is no traffic signal, the operations are not affected by power outages. • Roundabouts tend to have less delay and reduce greenhouse gases when compared to stop-controlled or signal controlled intersections.
Except as indicated in this Index, the design standards elsewhere in this manual do not apply within the boundaries of roundabouts. The boundary of a roundabout intersection is defined as follows:
• If the roadway is undivided, use the approach ends of the splitter islands.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 425
Highway Design Manual 400-47
May 20, 2022
Figure 405.10A
Roundabout Geometric Elements
NOTE:
This figure is provided to show only nomenclature and a roundabout boundary example. This figure is not to be used for design details.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 426
400-48 Highway Design Manual
May 20, 2022
• If the roadway is physically divided (such as a raised median), use 100 feet from the inscribed circle diameter (ICD) for roadways with posted speeds less than 45 miles per hour or 150 feet from the ICD for roadways with posted speeds equal to or greater than 45 miles per hour.
• For freeway exit ramps, a minimum of 200 feet from the ICD. • For freeway entrance ramps, a minimum of 50 feet from the ICD or 20 feet past the crosswalk, whichever is further from the ICD.
• If successive curves are used, also known as a chicane (NCHRP Report 672, Exhibit 6-70), use the beginning of the chicane as the boundary.
See Figure 405.10A for a typical roundabout boundary example. (1) Design Period. The 20-year design period required by Index 103.2 applies to roundabouts.
Within the required design period, a single lane roundabout may provide operational benefits for 10 or more years before a multilane configuration is necessary, depending on traffic demand. In these situations, consideration should be given to build a single lane roundabout as an initial phase of a multilane roundabout. The multilane roundabout is designed, first, and needs to meet the performance checks for a multilane roundabout configuration. The single lane roundabout is designed from the multilane design by curbing out portions of the multilane roundabout to meet all the performance checks for a single lane configuration.
This approach will maximize the safety and operational benefits during the initial and final phases of the improvements. In order to comply with the design period requirement, the initial project must provide the right of way needed for utility relocations, a shared-use path designed for a Class I Bikeway, and all other features other than pavement, lighting, and striping in their ultimate locations.
Another method to meet the 20-year design period is to determine if metering one or more of the legs would allow a single lane roundabout to function for the life of the project.
In some locations, it may not be practical to build a single lane roundabout that will operate for 10 years. Geometric constraints and other conflicts may preclude widening to the ultimate configuration. In such cases, other intersection configurations or control strategies addressed in Index 401.5 may need to be considered.
When intersection improvements are to be phased, see NCHRP Report 672, Section 6.12. (2) Design Vehicles. See Topic 404. Each roundabout has three design vehicles that need to be considered. 1) The largest vehicle to pass through the roundabout without using the truck apron. These would include, but not limited to, large vehicles transporting passengers with injuries, physical disabilities, the elderly, and transit vehicles. Other large vehicles included with this consideration are those where shifting of vehicle contents would be undesirable, such as fire engines and single-unit delivery vehicles. 2) California Legal or STAA trucks. These are discussed below in more detail. 3) Permit vehicles (oversize/overweight) that need to be able to pass through the roundabout.
Accommodations for permit vehicles are further discussed below.
The turning path for the design vehicle, dictates many of the roundabout dimensions, see Index 404.5. The design vehicle wheel tracking and swept width are to be used when designing all entries, exits, and the circulatory roadway (see Index 404.2). To maximize the safety benefits and preserve operations, roundabouts should be designed to be as small as possible and incorporate truck aprons to facilitate truck movements rather than increasing the size of the roundabout. Accommodations for trucks includes the use of truck aprons where necessary, while balancing other factors such as pedestrian accommodation.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 427
Highway Design Manual 400-49
May 20, 2022
When more than one entry lane or circulating lane is available, truck drivers prefer to take control of the intersection by: 1) taking both lanes on entry to prevent a vehicle from entering their blind spots or overtaking during entry (as they would with a turn at any other intersection configuration); and 2) encroaching into adjacent lanes while circulating to protect their blind spots and prevent overtaking. During a turning movement, a truck’s entire outside of the trailer (passenger side for left turns) becomes a large blind spot. To protect this blind spot and reduce the risk of colliding with an unseen vehicle, truck drivers may even prefer to stay in the outside lane while circulating to make through, left turn, and u-turn movements.
Roundabouts with multilane entries or circulating lanes should be designed with the understanding that most truck drivers will not stay within the lane lines.
Oversize/Overweight permit vehicles are oftentimes larger than other design vehicles, but are essential to move goods throughout the state. Due to the critical nature of goods and services, which these vehicle transport, permit vehicles must also be considered in the design of intersections. Traditional signal or stop controlled intersections are typically not an issue for most of the oversize/overweight vehicles to pass through, but the circulatory roadway and central island of roundabouts can be an obstruction to get around.
Roundabouts should not be overdesigned, nor should complete street elements be eliminated, for the occasional permit vehicle. Instead, truck aprons should be used to accommodate oversize/overweight vehicles, while preserving the speed control design of the roundabout. In addition to truck aprons, removable signs or other removable features in the central island or around the circular path can help ensure that these trucks can navigate the roundabout.
When designing for the oversize/overweight permit vehicle passing through the roundabout and staying on the state highway, a larger design vehicle is needed to design the roundabout entries, circulating roadway, and exits. The minimum design permit vehicle to be used is a "CALTRANS OS OW HEAVY HAUL" as designated in AutoTURN. See Figure 405.10B for this design vehicle. In addition to accommodating truck off-tracking, truck aprons at central and splitter islands, the design should accommodate an oversize/overweight vehicle with 6 inches of vertical clearance to pass through the intersection as shown in Figure 405.10B. A curb at the back of the central island truck apron, if needed, should not impede the oversize/overweight vehicle’s movements. Oversize/overweight vehicles are not required to stay in their own lane.
Figure 405.10B
Oversize/Overweight Design Vehicle-CALTRANS OS OW HEAVY HAUL ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 428
400-50 Highway Design Manual
May 20, 2022
The design permit vehicle as discussed may not be the appropriate permit vehicle for design purposes. For example, local situations such as farm areas where wide farm equipment or long components for windmills near a windmill power facility may necessitate a special vehicle design to pass through the roundabout. Therefore, the designer must coordinate with the District Truck Access Manager to ascertain the oversize/overweight vehicles that are to be accommodated and any additional vehicle requirements. Designers should also work with the District Truck Access Manager to determine if the permit vehicles will have an alternative route to bypass the roundabout or if they have to pass through this intersection.
To accurately simulate the design vehicle swept width traveling through a roundabout, the minimum speed of the design vehicle used in computer simulation software (e.g., Auto TURN) should be less than 5 miles per hour through the roundabout. Tracking and swept width must not encroach onto sidewalks or pedestrian refuge areas. (3) Inscribed Circle Diameter. At single lane roundabouts, the size of the inscribed circle is largely dependent upon the turning requirements of the design vehicles. The inscribed circle diameter (ICD) must be large enough to accommodate: (a) the STAA design vehicle for all roundabouts on the National Network and on Terminal Access routes; and, (b) the California Legal design vehicle on all non-STAA route intersections on California Legal routes and California Legal KPRA Advisory routes, while maintaining adequate deflection curvature to ensure appropriate travel speeds for smaller vehicles. The non-permit design vehicle is to navigate the roundabout with the front tractor’s wheels staying off the truck apron. The ICD for a single lane roundabout generally ranges between 105 feet to 150 feet to accommodate the California Legal design vehicle and 130 feet to 180 feet to accommodate the STAA design vehicle.
At multilane roundabouts, the ICD is to achieve adequate alignment of the natural vehicle path while maintaining deflection curvature to ensure appropriate travel speeds. To achieve both of these design objectives requires a slightly larger diameter than used for a single lane roundabout. The ICD for a multilane (2-lane) roundabout generally ranges between 150 feet to 220 feet to accommodate the California Legal design vehicle for non-STAA route intersections on California Legal routes and California Legal KPRA Advisory routes, and 165 feet to 220 feet to accommodate the STAA design vehicle for roundabouts on the National Network and on Terminal Access routes. Similar to a single lane roundabout, the non-permit design vehicle is to be able to navigate a multilane roundabout with the front tractor wheels staying off the truck apron.
A mini-roundabout may be an acceptable roundabout design on low volume routes or ramp terminals. With an inscribed circle diameter of less than 90 feet, the central island will need to be fully traversable to accommodate the design vehicles movements.
The ICD ranges given above are typical values; the design may be larger or smaller. Site location constraints and performance checks will determine if the diameter is appropriate for the location.
(4) Entry Speeds. Lowering the speed of vehicles entering and traveling through the roundabout is a primary design objective that is achieved by approach alignment and entry geometry.
The following entry speeds should not be exceeded:
• Single lane entry, 25 miles per hour.
• Multilane entry, 30 miles per hour.
A bypass lane is not included in the number of entry lanes. Although, a bypass lane prohibits entry into the circulatory roadway, the bypass lane should also meet the speed requirements to ensure that diverge and merge speeds are within 10 mile per hour of each other and ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 429
Highway Design Manual 400-51
May 20, 2022
vehicle speeds are not more than 20 mile per hours at pedestrian crossings. See Index 405.3(2)(b).
Entry speeds are to be determined through fastest path analysis. The fastest path is the smoothest, flattest path possible for a single vehicle in the absence of other traffic and ignoring all lane markings. The fastest path analysis should begin at least 165 feet from the ICD and should not bring the path closer than 3 feet from the edge of traveled way prior to the splitter island nor 5 feet from the face of a curb. These distances are minimums and the fastest path may occur further away from the curbs and striping depending on the roundabout configuration. For fastest path evaluation, see NCHRP Report 672, Section
6.7.1. (5) Exit Design. Similar to entry design, exit design flexibility is required to achieve the optimal balance between competing design variables and project objectives to provide adequate capacity and safety while minimizing excessive property impacts and costs. Thus, the selection of a curved versus tangential design is to be based upon the balance of each of these criteria. Exit design is influenced by the place type, pedestrian demand, bicyclist needs, the design vehicle and physical constraints. The exit curb curve radii are usually larger than the entry curb curve radii in order to minimize the likelihood of congestion and crashes at the exits. Larger exit curb curve radii may also be needed to develop adequate deflection on the adjacent entry. However, the desire to minimize congestion at the exits needs to be balanced with the need to maintain an appropriate operating speed through the pedestrian crossing.
(6) Number of Legs Serving the Roundabout. Intersections with more than four legs are often difficult to manage operationally. Roundabouts are a proven traffic control device in such situations. However, it is necessary to ensure that the design vehicle can maneuver through all unrestricted legs of the roundabout. A public or private driveway as a leg to an intersection is not uncommon nor inappropriate and can be acceptable at non-interchange roundabouts as well. Driveways in and near proposed roundabouts should be included in the performance checks where applicable, including truck turning movements. For access control guidance at interchange ramp intersections, see Index 405.10 (13). (7) Sidewalk and shared use path. The sidewalk should be designed as a shared use path, since the path will serve both pedestrians and those bicyclists who are not comfortable taking the lane to proceed though the roundabout. Although the sidewalk is considered a shared use path, it does not need to meet the design standards in Index 1003, but it should meet the design standards within Index 405.10.
(a) Pedestrian Use. Sidewalks around the circular roadway are to be designed in accordance with guidance in Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 82 Pedestrian Accessibility Guidelines for Highway Projects but must also be designed to allow lowspeed bicycles to circulate around the roundabout. In addition to the guidance in DIB 82, the following applies:
i. The detectable warning surface (truncated domes) alert a pedestrian that they are about to enter cross traffic and is required on curb ramps. They are not to be used on a bike ramp.
ii. Truck aprons and mountable curbs are not to be placed in or adjacent to pedestrian crossing areas to avoid confusing pedestrians on where the crossing begins. iii. See the California MUTCD for the signs and markings used at roundabouts. iv. At pedestrian crossing locations the accessibility design will be treated as a midblock pedestrian street crossing. See DIB 82 for more information. Pedestrian crossings may also be used by bicyclists; thus, these crossings need to be designed for both bicyclist and pedestrian needs and should be a minimum of 8 feet wide, 10 feet is preferred.