HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.3 DublinRanchStLighting
CITY CLERK
File # DI8J[g][Q]-~
.
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 1, 1998
SUBJECT:
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
RECOMMENDATION:
\2~
.
Review of Proposed Dublin Ranch Street Lighting
Report Prepared by: Lee S. Thompson, Public Works Director
1)
2)
3)
4)
Original (March ~th) request letter from MacKay and Somps,
with attachments.
Supplemental report with details regarding lights and costs.
July 9th letter from MacKay and Somps which outlines the
developer's reasons for the lighting proposal.
Specification sheet with outline drawing of proposed light.
(A literature package is also being provided for City Council
members.)
Review proposed street light and provide direction to Staff. The
primary issues at this time are:
1)
Is it appropriate to have two standards for street lighting
within the City, the proposed decorative lights being more
expensive to maintain?
If the answer to Item 1 is "yes," then is the proposed design
acceptable?
2)
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The initial cost of the lights will be paid by the developer. Ongoing
maintenance, once the subdivision improvements have been accepted, would be provided by the City and
the cost paid through a street lighting maintenance assessment district. The cost of maintenance is
anticipated to be higher for this type of lighting than for the existing standard street lighting throughout
the City. Please see Exhibit 2 for details of these cost scenarios.
The current assessment per single family household for street lighting maintenance is $13.26 per year.
Use of the proposed decorative light would increase the assessment to Dublin Ranch homeowners by
approximately $5.53 per year, or 42%.
The total annual maintenance cost for the decorative light is estimated to be $4.685 higher than for "cobra
head" lighting for Phase I and $28.720 higher at buildout, based on the cost of energy, bulb replacements,
and pole painting where applicable.
--------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO: Dave Chadbourne, MacKay & Somps; Kevin
. Peters, Shea Homes, Linda Tompson, NUVIS; Jim Benya, Pacific Lightworks; Marshall Dunbar, Lighting Systems;
Marty Inderbitzen
8.j
g:\agenmisc\edliteF
ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION: The developers of Dublin Ranch have approached Staff regarding .
the use of decorative street lighting for the housing developments that are proposed as part of the entire
Dublin Ranch area. The proposed lighting, which is shown on the drawing, Exhibit 4, and is installed on
Civic Plaza near the clocktower, is proposed to be installed on residential streets and in the "town center"
area in lieu of the standard "cobra head" type lights that exist throughout the City. The number oflights
that is shown in this report does not include the office park area. At this time, the "cobra head" lights are
still proposed to be installed on the arterial streets in Dublin Ranch. If the proposed decorative light is
approved, Staff would recommend that the entire dev~lopment, except the arterial streets, use the same
light. The total number of lights to be installed in the residential and "town center" area is estimated by
the developer to be just under 1,600.
Staff is requesting direction from the City Council regarding use of this proposed light (1) because it
represents a departure from the standard "cobra head" lighting that is used throughout the existing City,
and (2) because it has the potential to cost more from a maintenance standpoint. The potential costs as
compared to standard "cobra head" lighting are outlined in Exhibit 2.
The major issues involved in the decision regarding this light are:
. Safety and the use ofIES (Dluminating Engineers Society) recommendations
. Maintenance / energyc"Q'st (and related effect on the assessment district)
. Design / aesthetic issues
.
These issues are discussed in detail in Exhibit 2. A summary of points is as follows:
. Safety / Use of IES Recommendations
The City retained the services ofa lighting consultant to review the proposed light's performance from a
safety standpoint. The proposed light does meet the IES recommendation in terms offootcandle level
(amount of light on the street) and uniformity (ratio of dark to light areas) at the developer's proposed
spacing. Lighting which meets the IES recommendation is generally considered to be "safe" from a
liability exposure standpoint. Additional information on this issue is provided in Exhibit 2, as well as
relative footcandle levels and uniformity ratios for the "cobra head" lights.
. Maintenance and Energy Cost / Effect on Assessment
The cost associated with the decorative lighting is higher from both an energy and maintenance standpoint
because of the increased number of lights caused by placing the poles closer together, and also because of
pole painting cost. All cost comparisons are based on the use of high pressure sodium (BPS) lighting.
The cost of the poles and fixtures themselves will not be an immediate issue but could cause increased
costs in the future. Again, please see Exhibit 2 for details. This is an important issue because of the street
lighting assessment district. If lighting that is more expensive to maintain is installed in this development,
it is not appropriate to spread that additional cost throughout the rest of the City. If the proposed light is
to be used, it is recommended that a separate Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment District be
established for Dublin Ranch. The developer proposes to request formation ofthe district prior to sale of .
lots to individual homeowners. Exhibit 2 indicates relative costs, both total and per individual household,
associated with each lighting soenario.
.". ~ ,":-
Page 2
.
There is a concern at this time that street lighting maintenance districts may be challenged in court, as the
proponents of Proposition 218 feel that street lighting is a general benefit rather than a specific one. If
this happens and is upheld, future street lighting maintenance costs would have to be paid from the City's
General Fund. This issue would affect the City as a whole and not just Dublin Ranch; however,
cancellation of the street light maintenance district would place a proportionately larger cost burden on
the City for this development as compared to the rest of the City.
. Design / Aesthetic Issues
The developer feels that this light contributes to the overall appearance of the subdivision. The City's
Planning Staff has reviewed the pole and fixture style and has no objection to the appearance of this style
of lighting but would like to table a decision on the color of the pole and fixture until a later date. At this
time, the developer is proposing to use a dark green; the color used on the sample installed on Civic Plaza
is not the color that would be used.
The existing painted poles in the City's older subdivisions and those which were installed on arterial
streets as part of Capital Improvement Projects are painted a dark brown color. Public Works Staff feels
that having two different colors of poles in the City would not be a maintenance issue.
. Recommendation
The developer is requesting a timely decision on the proposed light because the style of light to be used
determines the pole spacing for the lights and therefore affects the infrastructure design. Staff
recommends that the City Council review the information presented and provide direction regarding the
use of the proposed light fixture.
.
.
Page 3
.
.
.
mAIKAY Ik SORlPS
16034-0
CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING LAND SURVEYING
March 6. 1998
Lee Thomps.on
Public Works Director
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin CA 94568
Subject: Dublin Ranch Street Lighting
Dear Lee:
Enclosed for your review is a memo from Jim Benya of Pacific Lightworks which
addresses those items for which you requested additional information at our last meeting.
In additon, he has included a cost analysis table which provides further detail with respect
to anticipated capital and operating costs for each of the poleJlurninaire options described.
Our preference is to proceed with the Architectural Area Lighting 'Laguna' decorative
luminaire on a short arm using a 70 watt incandescent-colored metal halide lamp.
Although we had initially proposed using a steel pole, the aluminum or fiberglass pole
options might also be considered further before a final decision is made. Specific data for
each of the pole options is included in the cost analysis table.
We would like to have this item placed on the City Council agenda for the March 17
meeting in order that they can consider and hopefully approve our lighting system
proposal. Please advise if there are further questions or comments with respect to the
enclosed material.
Sincerely,
~~
David W. Chadbourne
cc:
Ginger Russell, Public Works
Jim Benya. Pacific Lightworks
Linda Tompson, NUVIS
Marty Inderbitzen
Rod Andrade
EXHisrr -1
5142 FRANKLIN DRIVE, SUITE B PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588-3355 PHONE (510) 225-0690 FAX (510) 225-0698
OFFICES: FAIRFIELD PLEASANTON RENO ROSEVILLE SACRAMENTO SAN JOSE
16034-Odc3/6198L Thompson '
I v-b r:p
03/05/98 THU 18:59 FAX 503 222 4535
PACIFIC LlGHTWORKS
@001
~TWQm.
Menrl0randum
To:
Dave Chadbourne
Date: 3-5-98
From: Jim Benya
Subjed: Dublin Ranch
cc:
Based on our meetings with the City of Dublin and my subsequent study, we have determined
the following costs in connection with the lighting options under discussion.
Base (ase - 30' pole, HPS cobrahead luminaire
The bi:.se case is a generic standard solution using high pressure sodium "cobrahead"
lumin.;lires. In this model, luminaires are mounted on 6' arms atop aluminum poles with a
final mounting height of 30' above the road surface. Poles are approximately 180 feet on
center. To achieve IESNA recommended levels, a 100 watt HPS lamp is used in a high
efficiency type IIluminaire with no glare control. This study assumes 160 luminaires in a
develcpment of about 847 housing units.
Minimum Upgrade - 20' pole, HPS cobrahead luminaire .
Both to improve lighting beneath maturing tree canopies and to reduce upper story light
treSpa!iS, an upgrade to more frequent 20' poles with 70 watt HPS lamps is suggested. This
will hdp identify the cost specifically associated with these improvements. This study assumes
262 11Iminaires at 110' spacing'. .'
Reconnmended System - 20' pole, metal halide decorative luminaire
The recommended lighting design utilizes 20' poles, metal halide luminaires, and a decorative
luminaire on a short arm. The lamp is a 70 watt, incandescent colored-metal halide lamp;
the lurninaire is the AAL "Laguna". The pole is nom. 20' aluminum with 30" arm, requiring a
type III luminaire distribution with house side shield. This model, when compared with the
minimum upgrade model, properly accounts for the costs due to improved light source color,
impro'/ed luminaire appearance, and improved glare control. Luminaire spacing is the same as
the minimum upgrade, above.
Cost ,.1~nalysis
Vve hi:tve analyzed the cost of each lighting system on both a first (capital) cost and an annual
(operating) cost basis. While we expect the study to favor the least preferred option, the base
case, the principal issue is the cost differential among the options. The following summarize
our calculations.
.
1 The pJle height and spacing are closely related by a ratio of about 6:1. Spacings of up to about 120' can be
accommodated without significant differences in conclusions.
PACIFIC L.1~lHTWORKS L.L.C 5441 SW MACAO AM AVe: #201 PORTLAND, OR 97201 (503) 222-3330 FAX 222-4535
;2 e-C J~
03(05/98 THU 19:00 FAX 503 222 4535
I
PACIFIC LIGHTWORKS
@J002
.
.
.
The following costs are PER PARCEL, assuming parcel frontage of approx. 55'.
[
I BASE CASE
SHORTER POLES
RECo.\1MENDED SYSTEM
RECo.\1MENDED SYSTEM,
HPS LWPS
First
(Capital)
Cost
$601
$621
$828
$819
First Cost
Compared to
Base Case
Annual
(Operating)
Cost
$12.94
$13.92
$19.09
$14.26
Annual Cost
Compared to
Base Case
+ $20
+ $227
+ $~18
+ $0.98
+ $6.1 5
+ $1.32
We re:;pectfully submit that the recommended design is more expensive but worth it. In
addition to significantly improved daytime appearance, the shorter poles and cutoff design will
provide for less light trespass into bedroom windows. While it would be reasonable to employ
the recommended design with HPS lamps, we also think the annual cost difference for metal
halide of $4.00 per parcel is worth the expense because of improved night time visibility and
impro',ed color rendering, especially of the predominant landscape colors of green and blue.
Assun" ing a fully developed, 847 unit residential community, the added cost of operating the
recommended lighting system is less than $7000 per year.
We hiwe also studied the impact of using either steel poles or fiberglass poles.
. As:;uming our recommended design, steel poles will cost each parcel about $26 less in first
(cclpital) cost, but will increase the cost of annual maintenance by about $2.60 per parcel.
. Fiberglass poles will reduce first costs by about $50 per parcel and will reduce annual
operating costs by about $2.50 per parcel.
As we are not civil engineers, we would defer to your pole experience and preference.
A separate spreadsheet is supplied for those wishing to audit our calculations.
41'" f11-
-
PACIFIC U:;HTWDRKS Ll..C 5441 SW MACADAM AVE #201 PORTLAND. DR 97201 ISOSl 222-3330 FAX 222-45:35
~4 }~
O~OOO~~~_.~~~NN~~
........<'>.......N<'>"l'Ni "'=<'11000>
~N~~ M~~N N~~N~~
............ ........ N ...........N 0.....
.... ........ N,...
,,;....
...
..
....
~
l'i~ 2
Q~ ;I:"'..
t'i :J: .!!.
in':i ~ ~ 8-
'B~e~::!
-g""8;;J.!!!
5EClO.EE!'J:
o.o'PE.8c:
::>Z=2c:Cll
~ E~~~~a~~~~$~~g~~~~
E.~ Cll"'<'>"'~ Ma"N"l'NNN~N~N
~ ~ ............ ........ N...............N wO
~;I: ~o ............ ~~
1.;'2 ~ ~ ~ ~
~~=mm :
"0 0 l! .: -
ef"-8:g_
~~~'E:g
::>z:::.3li1
~ E~~~~a~~~<,>g~~~~~~~
E.~ Cll..."l''''~ <'>O>....~"l'NNN~N~~
~ ~ ............ ........ N...............N ~...
~;I: ~~ -........ ~~
1.;':il~~'" :n
~~~~E :
""co~=~
r-~ca=
~ E a; .S'6
o.o-cE;:>
:::lz=.3"iii
.8-
E>-
"'~ :r:'
-:J: ..
~2 ~ ~ 8.
i~~eEJ:
~o",_;:>C:
lii"" 8 Cll.S III
.....E...5E'l::
~o"CE;:>~
::>z=.3"iii",
. -d m
g",,:.'l8.
~~e E
1/)>.0;:>
-g;:.o 8's
-co_E
Cll.....-.3e
~~~.: lG
:::lZ~"'O
E=
oS!.
Z !;:;:I: 10.
.~;:.. ClO
g",,~8.
-.;a."gE
~:I: ... ;:>
""3:';;.5
~o.15~E
tD~8"iii<o
e
g
I/)
>-
CI)
cool2l
O~OOO~~IO..."l',......"'NNO""
~N~~MNn~~~~~~~~-~
...~;~ ~~ ~~~~~g :~
.... ........;~
0:>
....
....
~~~~~~~~~S~~:~~;8
...~;;....~~....~~;;~~N~~
.... .......:~
.....
.....
....
O~OO~=O~~$N~"~O""IO
CO,...Il')..-(9')O('t)........ CDi.....f")COCDt"'IU)
r~~....~~~0~ NN.~~N.
......_ ...".: ~"''''''''''''N ~o
.... ....... =~
...
0:>
....
iii e
0;: !ot!..
u..." c~oc:gti
iii~e..oc 'Coll.:::lOu
OO.;;:s-gCll S Zo~...-:;
~UUCO~~ o~ c" "'Cll~
uCllGOe Cllc~-.s ___will:>
I\lo~;:>~o! ~:I:Oc:s:s~~~
",,~m~<~~ ""o~wuoa.a.u
~ S<! 8 :s :3 ~ ~ ;#. ;#. ~ ~ ~ 'if. ~ ::; ~ ~ ::J g :g S!l :;; !;;: :;; :;;
~ ~ ....: 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ... .... t") ;; ~ ~.. N_ -.: M Nm ui cci t'l'i ~
~ Q)Ot;Z;~M.~~.hMo~
....
.
co 0 8 10 ~ ~ ~ ?f. 0 .... ~ ~ 'if. co ... N co <'> 0 :g m ,... t'1
"l' g .... co <0 r.! "": ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... ::> :! ~ ~ g: ~ <'> ~ ~ ..:
In .... ... 0 0 ~ ci ..: N 10 ~ N $! t'1
... .... .... .... .... N ~ ...
....
co ,...
,... en
. ...
00 .
.... cn
....
~ 0 0 :s ~ In ~ 'if. ~ .... '" ~ ~ CO .... N CO <'> ,... ..... .... ;; '"
~g~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. . en 0 .... iN N vt ..... U"') ","
N ()) .". .. ... - .. ,.'
....
N'"
<,><0
. ...
... -
....-
....
CO 0 0 <0 ~ ~ ~ "e ~ ~ In ~ ;II. ~ - N co <'> 0 co 0> ,... ct.
... 0 0 II) co C'\! r--: ~ N U') ~ ...: Y M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ c::
:5; _0 ........0 0> . . - . - .con.
,.... ~ 0 t; ~ ~ :; ~ t; ;;~
....
.., ...
""::
ID .
....0:>
...
~ 0 0 to 0 ~ 0 "e .~ ~ ~ .,., ~ co ... N co N co ~ ... 0'> '"
... g 0 Ii) ... N :n N .,., N N .... ,... ..,. ..... <'> .... 0 I/) 0> co '"
... :; ........: .-. .. 0 ~ M a; ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ fl'.
N en M-...,." .,....wH..
..,. .
cocn
en'"
d=
.... ....
....
~ 8 8 N 0 ~ 0 oS> In ~ oS> ..... ~ N ~ ... .,., ~ NO'"
... N....N $~~NNgjC')"l',...CO<'>CO,...IO,...<l>
-; .... ~ ....: t.4- .. 0 ,...: "l d) ~ ~_ "lit. ...... N 'i"J_ ~ f"'i
~ ~ c ~ ;; :; ... ~ .. ;;;
....
0=
....
.
-
~tii "it
"'I~ 8 i; ~
... .. ~'i;'- s f~ll" E
cp 1Il....;aI~ $?!! ~
~s ~ GO~ o..-i~-'.Ir~
~=e.. =~so= ~~!-O;:;II ~
~ ~~CII:g e=el~a. p=le!uoi;GOGO
~GO~ l~im~~s~I~'~~~~~t,~li~i~~g
o~~ O!~=see~~~~ u IWW~""~"~
~~~"'~ie~I~>~!!~~~~~~~I\l~~~~
EE~~~=~!~ie~,II~~~i~g~~~g~!!
~~co~CP~~OO 1~IW~~_ccccoC~"C11
~~<~m~~ma.~o""CI)<<w<<<<~<~~~z
.
'I P6 I~
SCSt zzz tOS XY~ 00:61 nH~ 86/soico
S~HOM~H~I1 JI~IJYd
.
.
.
IAaKAY. SI.PI
March 30, 1998
16034-0
Corrected Copy
CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING LAND SURVEYING
q e r: ~. ~ ~/ F rr
TO:
Ginger Russell, Dublin Public Works
APR '" 21998
FROM:
Dave Chadbourne
G~jt?L~(~: \fJ~)~:'<S
SUBJECT: Dublin Ranch
Street Lighting System Quantities
In response to your request, I have attempted to generate an approximate quantity of
our proposed Architectural Area Lighting street lighting poles/luminaires based in
part on the land plans developed to date for Dublin Ranch. The following data
includes all of the residential neighborhoods contemplated for Dublin Ranch
(including the Wallis property which is located north of the current Phase I and is
not yet annexed to the City). I have not included the General Commercial/Campus
Office designated lands in the totals since it is not clear how these parcels might be '
developed or whether the developers of these lands would be mandated to use the
preferred Architectural Area Lighting fixture. It is assumed in our quantity totals
that the arterial streets would use the City's standard 'cobra head' fixture.
Approximate Dwelling Units:
Dublin Ranch (including Wallis Property)
Pao Yeh Lin Property
TOTAL
3851
1909
5760
Approximate Street Lighting Poles/Luminaires:
Dublin Ranch (Phase I, Area A, and Areas B-E) 1014
Pao-Yeh Lin Property 376
Wallis Property 188
TOTAL 1578
5142 FRANKLIN DRIVE, SUITE B PLEA5ANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588-3355 PHONE (510) 225-0590 FAX (510) 225-0698
16034-lkIcsu.9~8 FAIRFIELD PLEASANTON RENO ROSEVILLE SACRAMENTO SAN JOSE
"5 z1 J~
CITY OF DUBLIN
P. O. Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568
Public Works Dept.
City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin California 94568
(925) 833-6630
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 27,1998
TO: City Manager
FROM: Public Works Director
SUBJECT Details Of Potential Issues Regarding Proposed Dublin Ranch Street Lights
The following information is provided as background for the staff report regarding the proposed
decorative lighting.
While Planning Staff has no objection to the appearance of this style of lighting, and the initial
installation cost would be paid by the developer(s), there are cost factors and maintenance issues which
would cause the ongoing energy and maintenance cost for these lights to be higher than the energy and
maintenance cost associated with the existing standard cobra head lighting.
Style and Manufacturer of Li2ht. During preliminary discussions, Staff was given the opportunity to
look at different brands and styles of light. The Architectural Area Lighting product was presented as
being reliable from the standpoint of future availability and as being the lowest cost, both for the initial
installation and future maintenance.
.
In addition, this style of light (as opposed to the "acorn" or "ball" type of light) will meet "sharp cutoff"
criteria. This means that the light is directed downward onto the street rather that outward into
residents' yards and windows. Many of the existing lights in Dublin are "salad bowl" fixtures; however,
the newer lighting is being specified with cutoff optics. This is a desirable feature, as street lighting is
intended to light the public right of way and not the surrounding private property.
SDacin2 Between Li2hts. The poles proposed to be used are 20' high vs. the standard 30' Type 15 light
pole. This causes the light distribution to be narrower and thus requires the poles to be spaced closer
together. The City has generally required the 30' poles to be spaced about 180' apart.
The spacing question has brought up the issue of whether the proposed lighting meets the standards set
by the Illuminating Engineers Society (IES). The IES recommends a minimum of 0.37 footcandles
(amount of light) on the street with a uniformity (light -to-dark distribution pattern) of 6: 1. The standard
that has been used by the City in the past was based on using 70-watt lights with a spacing of about
180'. The developer's lighting engineer has questioned Staff's previous cost comparisons as being
unfair, as the proposed light would meet a higher standard than the wattage and spacing that has been
used by the City. Staff therefore retained a lighting consultant, Robert Gray and Associates, to review
this issue. The results are summarized on the chart which follows this report. Essentially, the wattage
and spacing that has been used by the City does not meet the IES recommendation, but provides 0.24
footcandles at 2.61:1 uniformity. This is a lower average footcandle level and a higher uniformity ratio .
Page 1
EXHH3iT 1J "'"
---.-~.
~/3
. than the IES recommendation. The City's lighting consultant has commented that the average person
may not notice the difference between 0.24 and 0.37 footcandles.
However, Staff did have the City's consultant prepare computer runs based on achieving the IES
recommendation with the "cobra head" fixtures, and the result (also shown on the chart) indicates that
the options are to use 100-watt fixtures at 190' spacing or to use 70-watt fixtures at approximately lOT.
The relative costs of these scenarios are also shown on the chart, with the lesser cost being the 100-watt
fixtures spaced at 190'.
The proposed decorative light does perform well at up to about 126' spacing; however, if these lights are
spaced much further apart, the uniformity becomes unacceptable. The developer is proposing to space
the lights at approximately 110', which would exceed IES recommendations at 0.40 footcandles. The
uniformity ratio meets IES standards but is not as good as the uniformity ratio achieved with cobra head
fixtures.
From a "safety" or "liability" standpoint, lighting that meets the IES recommendation is considered to be
"safe." Lighting that does not meet the recommendation, or does not meet both aspects of the
recommendation, may not necessarily be "unsafe" but may be more difficult to defend in court if it
becomes necessary.
The spacing of the lights affects the ultimate number of lights installed, which in turn affects the energy
cost and the cost of "normal maintenance," or bulb changes. The cost difference caused by the
difference in spacing onlv is shown on the chart. The end result per household is:
.
70W cobra head at 180' (existing City lighting)
lOOW cobra head at 190'
70W cobra head at 107'
70W decorative light at 126'
$5.86
$7.87
$9.53
$9.53
If the City is to change to the IES standard by providing 100-watt lights spaced at 190 feet, Staff would
propose to amortize this cost over the entire City, as the new standard would be used in all of the new
subdivisions, not just Dublin Ranch. It is estimated that this could increase the cost to individual
households by a small amount, probably $1.00 per year or less. The decorative light, on the other hand,
presents a distinct appearance that would be perceived as a "benefit" to Dublin Ranch residents and
should not be amortized over the entire City.
Metal Halide vs. Hieh Pressure Sodium Lil!hts: The developer has proposed the use of metal halide
lighting vs. the high pressure sodium (HPS) lighting that is currently used throughout Dublin and most
surrounding areas. Metal halide is a white light that can be seen locally in a number of parking lots; the
Civic Center parking lot lights utilize metal halide lamps. Other installations in Dublin include Crown
Chevrolet and Shamrock Ford. The perceived benefit of the white light is that colors appear truer than
they do under the BPS light.
.
An unforeseen problem has occurred with metal halide lighting, in that there is no PG&E rate for the
proposed 70-watt metal halide light. PG&E has stated that in order to provide a rate, it would need to
request an "advice rate" through the Public Utilities Commission, which would probably be costly in
Page 2
I} v-b I!;
terms of both time and expense. The other option would be to use 100-watt metal halide lighting, for
which there is a rate; however, this would increase the maintenance cost. In addition, the City's lighting
consultant feels that the 100-watt metal halide would cause too much glare. An additional consideration
is that the metal halide bulbs are more costly and the rated life span is only about 60% of the rated life
span of HPS. On this basis, Staff is recommending that metal halide be dropped from consideration.
Cost comparisons are therefore being made on the basis of high pressure sodium only.
.
Cost of Other Maintenance and Replacements: As noted above, the initial cost of the proposed lights
. is to be paid by the developer, and, if the City Council approves use of these lights, Staff would require a
certain percentage of "spare" fixtures and poles so that the maintenance cost (other than bulb
replacement) would remain fairly low for the first several years. Once those spares were used up, the
following costs could apply:
Fixtures: The cost of the fixture quoted in the table in Exhibit 2 is $510.00. This is apparently a
quantity or preliminary price, as the vendor has advised us the cost on a per unit basis is closer to
$800.00 each. This compares to the replacement cost for a cobra head fixture of $65.00. This is not
necessarily comparing apples to apples, as the proposed decorative fixtures are intended to be serviced
when parts need to be replaced, whereas the cobra heads are almost in the "disposable" category. For
example, the ballast cost for a cobra head fixture is about the same as the cost of a new fixture, and it is
not worth the labor time to change it. On the other hand, there would be a labor cost associated with
changing a ballast in one of the decorative fixtures. The City is currently paying about $55.00 per hour
to Alameda County for this type of street lighting maintenance. The cost of changing a ballast would
therefore be $65.00 for the ballast plus $55.00 in labor. The cost of changing a cobra head fixture would .
be $65.00 for the fixture and about half the labor cost, depending on how many repairs were done at a
time.
The actual replacement cost of the proposed fixture would come into play when a knockdown occurs or
if additional lights are needed once the City has taken over the public improvements. While
knockdowns are not common in residential areas and the cost is often reimbursed, this cost difference
should be considered as part of the decision-making process. A second consideration is whether the -
fixtures would continue to be available over time, keeping in mind that street lighting is expected to last
50 years or longer. As an example, the "mission bell" lights in Fremont, which are quite old but are an
historical part of the community, are no longer made except by special order.
Poles: It is proposed that the poles to be supplied be painted a color to match the fixture. (The
sample installed on Civic Plaza is NOT the proposed color.) While the metal poles in the older
developments in Dublin are painted (because the original PG&E installations were painted steel), poles
in developments built after the early 1970's are galvanized and not painted in order to avoid the ongoing
maintenance cost. Since taking over the lighting from PG&E, Staff has been trying to "catch up" the
painting schedule for these poles, and the current painting bid was $126 per pole. It is estimated that
metal poles should be painted about every five years to keep up appearance and prolong the life of the
pole. For comparison purposes, Staff is assuming that if the standard Type 15 poles are used, they
would not be painted.
At this point, the developer is proposing the use of fiberglas poles, which are actually less initial cost .
than steel poles and have a lower ongoing maintenance cost because they do not have to be painted as
Page 3
<J ot )J
. often. If the fiberglas poles are used, Staff would not allow direct burial (imbedded) installation but
would require that they be installed with the same type of concrete foundation as a steel pole. The
durability of fiberglas poles is comparable to that of steel poles, and their useful life is theoretically
longer because they do not corrode. Since fiberglas poles are relatively new, their actual life has not
been proven. A steel pole is considered fully depreciated at 30 years.
On the above basis, if decorative poles are to be used, Staff would at least entertain the use of fiberglas
to reduce maintenance cost. The proposed fiberglas pole has been tested by the State and has received
Caltrans approval. Pole type does not necessarily have to be decided at this time'. .
The cost for pole painting per individual household per year is estimated to be between $3.45 and $3.87
(figures for Phase I differ slightly from figures for the buildout condition).
Staffwas initially concerned about the slipover decorative base that was provided with the sample pole;
however, the manufacturer's representative has advised that this is not necessarily the quality of item
that would be provided for the subdivision. The actual unit is proposed to be heavier and would be a
"clamshell" unit that would clasp around the pole so that a damaged unit could be easily replaced. The
benefit of fiberglas vs. steel in this instance is that fiberglas tends to deflect minor blows that could dent
a steel base. Staff has noted, however, that the base has incurred a few "chips."
Summary: Aside from the purely aesthetic consideration, the main issue involved in the financial
consequence of using these lights is associated with the pole spacing. The difference in cost depends
. upon whether the City wishes to specify the IES standard for future lighting installations.
As noted above, if the City determines to use the IES standard, the cost is proposed to be amortized over
the entire City, while any increased cost associated with the proposed decorative light would be
exclusive to Dublin Ranch.
The additional cost of pole painting is a consideration, as it adds anywhere from $3.45 to $3.87 to the
cost of the Phase I assessment. It is true that the existing assessment includes some cost for pole
painting; however, at present the City has only about 500 painted -poles to . amortize among about 7,000
parcels, which comes out to about $1.80 per parcel per year.
Future of Assessment Districts: As discussed previously, if the City Council approves this type of
lighting, it is proposed to establish a separate street lighting maintenance assessment district for Dublin
Ranch rather than spread the increased cost among all of the property owners in the City. However, we
have been advised that there is the possibility that street lighting maintenance assessment districts may
be challenged in the future by proponents of Proposition 218, who contend that street lighting is of
general benefit rather than specific benefit to properties. If this source of revenue is cancelled, the cost
of street lighting maintenance would have to be paid by other means, probably the City's General Fund.
In that case, it may be prudent to keep future lighting costs as low as possible.
g: 'agenmisc Iliteinfo
.
Page 4
l' v-{ /y
~ '"
... c::.
I~ .. ~ ):
~oji:O
a.. 0. a..
0..
E.....c::
!! VI u
.. 0 ..
(l::UW
..
'"
~~iU;"5
::t.J: D CI
UUW
u;
8
,OJ:.
_ u
.i.l1
u;
o
jiU
::I .-
'" u ..
C:;.!O
ClWI-
..
o
iiU
::I '.c::
= u u
.im.l:l
..
~
"
'"
..
u
en
I~
~
.E
E
:>
c
E
..
u;
.l1
."
'0
.c::
..
:a .. :;
." .. 0
< a..J:.
..
o
u
o 0
....
--=
"::)
E;;;
~8
'" ...
lD lD
tri .....:
o
v
-i
II>
o
v-
v
<'>
.n
N
II>
N
,.;
~
<3>
o
N
~
o
<0
-i
N
0>
11>-
<'>
o
...:
<'>
o
10
~
~
.;,:
co
N
...
<'>
o
o
<3>
~
o
<'>
II>
cD
...
v
co
<3>
10
cri
10
o
lD-
'"
o
cri
<3>
0_
...
II>
.n
o
o
on
<r
o
W
II>
N
,.;
N
II>
N
,.;
~
o
o
C
~
g
o
...
0>
10-
...
<0
<6
N
o
'"
N
.... ....
;...:. .
o ...
N tri
... 0
<'> <r
c:i C
;:.., Co
o N
.... ....
...
'"
,..;
o
o
<6
...
N
e?
'"
II>
cD
...
V
lD
0>
'"
oj
to
o
.,;
'"
o
cD
'"
0_
....
II>
on
o
o
on
<r
o
<D
..
:<2
iij
.c::
~
E
~
o
...
oS!
..
e
UJ
0/1
Ii:
~
~ =
g g
~.tl
(1::"
.::)
... ...
<r .<r
<0 co
II>
N
,.;
N
II>
N
,.;
~
g
c
....
o
'"
o
...
'"
",-
.!!!
I!!
..
~
-g
B ..
o 0
I-U
10 10
<3> ~
on ....
to 10
0> 10
v- 10-
u;
<6
N
oj
:0
.!!!
.~
'0
z
0..):
E'"
..!!"l;;
.. 0
a::u
:!! ..
::I:::
lll~
'" '"
<'> ....
to ....:
... <'>
to ...
o
'"
N
o
to
N '"
~
It> It>
on .n
i
a.. 0
EI-
..!!U;
.. 0
a::u
8
o
N
l"-
e?
....
or;
N
..;
...
<'>
c
~
~y,!_(I}rn j
(I} UJ (I} _
rn a. rn ::. y,! ....
~51;;51~51~s:is:~i
~{Ill{~{:X:{::O{:X:~
:X:ili:X:-:X:-'~-'~1ii'~~
[!!.....!!!~ ~~1G~]!'f""]! Vi"
~-g'E8'E8'E~'E~S~~
ou{'l~{'l {'l -Ill 1i! "
g-f;lijg~f;~f;!f;~f;~
G:"""1i5''I'''"wt-wt-wt-If.I,.......
It>
N
,..;
N
II>
N
,..;
....
o
o
o
....
o
10
en
lD
N
v-
....
<0
<6
N
_.tl
::2
~
o
10
....
~
E
.2
-=
::)
....
....
10
N
..
~.!
0."
o '"
II,. "
u
<r
N
o
~
u
:i
III
o
<0
...
Cl
c::
Vi
!
'"
;S
~
~
~
....
'"
~
."
.g
..
'"
..
11l
C;!
:e
v
N
o
!2
N
0>
...
.n
o
to
...
II>
<'>
'"
cD
0;
.,;
N
0>
o
.n
...
o
v-
II>
.n
o
o
,..;
:;;:
N
N
It>
N
,.;
N
II>
N
,..;
...
o
o
~
v
lD
~
<0
on
N
....
co
<6
N
v
'"
'"
u;
N
v
N
o
o
<0
....
...
'"
<6
o
to
l"-
II>
<'>
<'>
cO
<'>
...
0-
<r
~
:;;:
<r
v-
II>
on
'"
I"-
...:
N
<r
v-
N
v
<'>
lri
N
II>
N
,..;
...
'"
o
~
N
CO>
cO
CO>
'"
It>-
<'>
<'>
o
,..:
'"
v
'"
'"
...
.;,:
<0
N
...
<'>
o
o
0>
...
o
II>
cO
co
to
...
II>
N
co
<6
...
0>
co'
....
v
<P
C
...
<P
.n
II>
on
co
II>
cO
<0
<P
<6
'"
It>
N
,.;
N
II>
N
,..;
...
o
o
o
...
<0
....
<6
o
<'>
N-
....
u;
cO
N
co
...
~
....
;..:.
o
N
...
<'>
o
....
o
...
CI
'"
1il en
'x !:!!_ rn
.!!. ~ [/)
(I} ~ (I} ~
a. J: a. en
;;'jl~;;~~~
m.g "t:Jm"'C~"O
~= =~=.2:=
...5~.5...5e.5
~-= -=~-=~"'"
'E 'E 'E 'E
co IU co to
~~~~~~~~
r-..~'I"""u.:f'oo-CI)......cn
II>
..,.
,.;
o
co
N
co
lD
",-
~
o
II>
cO
o
<P
...
It>
N
lD
<6
...
<3>
ai
..,.
v
10
o
I"-
'"
rD
It>
on
$
cO
co
'"
",'
<'>
II>
N
,.;
N
It>
N
,.;
....
g
o
~
<0
....
<6
o
'"
N-
v
"'0"'<3>
mO(ofD
U-;"":crilri
(O(O(O'Ilt
O)(OOM
'V. (0- (1;)- wr--&
Mtfltn......
V>
....
<0
<6
N
I!!
..
~i~ oS!
.2N:t "C
g:e~ m
:;; g ~ ~
:> ~ .ll!1~ ~
irg05C: 'E
c:'g~.. ~ C:'-'I~
~ .. Kl g a .. "'19
~~~_~~ E ~Qj
,"0 I- .QIQii;
lQ I ~~ ~ .& .!Ii "E ~ i ~
'iO.~:mE~ "'."lii..
.gKl~;i~ I~-~~
"e~:::-5 .QS:s:a.
~ . Q. ~ rr: lii iii -I-- - ~ ~ .. ..
I- ~ _g>~I~ ~ ." a. it 1;
. ",.c: 0':' l!! .. l!!
~5",5""a; 5l"'g.s8
zu.B-::'l;j" .. g"
o j1 1ii .c::=<::."
..!!f~""il=- a.6~~
.. g " III c: -g -f- I ri 0 co 0
~ us.... "m C !.~ .... ,.... ......
fii 1Il .c:: ~ i 5 'iij :E sf _~I_g-
.:; ,2: .Q .. ..' '" ,-.. c:;
,Q ~I! ~~:~ '~~ ~[~
]J'E.!!!:!~"C "E;::;~::
- '-E "' Kl,-!!! :81-1- III 0 0 0
o .. ~I""- -0."."."
ili-g",..il;i Z c:;"'~~
8 :':...:5;9.2: 0 ~~{g~
'-.- -121 I- IQ"'''''''
~Ig~~ 5.!!! ~ ~tltltl
.!!!~IlI;:1?.. ~ !!l(l}(I}Ul
'l!:~6~ill,~ 0 ~y,!y,!y,!
:> .,,1 g :; .rJ ,'" ~_ ~........ ~
~ 8 ~ I~ ~ II,. I ~ il il ~-
i1i !!/g ,~I:s iil 0 I~ ~181~
8o~~i'iii ~ 115---
'iii1iic: E15:g ~ 8888
~g58~~ ::;: 'iii'iO'iii'iii
~~~S~I!! iil ~~~~
co
...
II>
....
....
.;,:
I"-
.n
o
..,.
o
10
N
....
"".'-
..
o
U
c::
o
;I
u
.!
'0
I~
c::
:>
o
U
'U
o
u
..
.i!:
iiil-
~
'2
E
'"
II
,.
c::
..
QI
...
::I
U
'"
::1-
o
c::
..
~
...
..
:;:
l-
Ii
E
"
u
Il
"
~
..
...
I~
=
;I
'"
Ig~
..
"&
."
i,-
iii
.a
'5
.a
:;
o
'"
L~
.... ..
:> ..
"'~
='"
-=m
u;;:
~~
.. "
':'"
>'0
~.tl
~-;
QI-
-s b~
.. 0 u;~
'5..'0 8"
.g~'5 ..~
'-E2i1~"'-:S :0
:::J . .,. J:
..;'" -
~.15 l!! ~ tl:;:
~~8." ~~
.ri8~~ .E:g
,.~ '1"'""" ......-.!!! u
:E ril oj :S g
,g.5.5.5 c:;
:s :E :s.,~ ';..
." g l'!'I,," a:: 'E
liiooo iljo
-g'E'E'E ~~
ru m 1'0 rD Moo It...
;;;-g-g-g W~
~~ oS.!9 t ~
;fhfhfl) (1)0
,'" (I} (I} (I} 0 u
~y,!y,!y,! u.;
I~ ~I~l~ g ~
I- ..
, c::
&'6
! g
!-e
I- ..
~~NN
tbr)r;O<<I
mtOcDa)
T""r-J.......lrJ
mT""CDCO
rn.o.r,D-tn-
("ti-qrvf,O
tIIt,www.
I C I c~ c
'"~"@"@
8 <> <> <>
lijiii'iO'iO
000'0
1-1-1-1-
.
.
.
;0 .r6 1:3
.
.
.
mAcKAl & SORlPS
19100-0
July 9, 1998
CIVIL ENGINEERING
PLANNING LAND SURVEYING
Ginger Russell
City of Dublin
Public Works Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
,::. r t'" f~ \ , I E: D
~....... ...... t "t 4_ ....1
it:L 1 n "'[998
cL v! .
~ . ~ I I , ...-. .-
f- '_,;:'1 U V \, v u h ~,~ ~
SUBJECT: Dublin Ranch Street Lighting
Dear Ginger:
Based on our discussions this morning, enclosed for your review is a proposed text
revision which Shea Homes would like inserted into the City staff report for the Dublin
Ranch street lighting proposal. Our suggestion is that the following text be inserted into
the staff report under the DESCRIPTION after the first sentence.
The developer believes that the proposed street lighting system will provide several
benefits within Eastern Dublin. These include both aesthetic values and functional
benefits as described in the following:
Aesthetic Benefits:
. An attractive daytime appearance consistent with the project theme presented in the
approved Dublin Ranch - Phase I PD documents. '"
. Truer nighttime perception of landscape color.
. Lower mounting height is more in keeping with the scale of the surrounding
residential neighborhoods and landscape elements.
Fundional Benefits:
. The metal halide lamp is believed to provide improved peripheral visibility, thereby
providing a greater safety benefit.
. Reduced light trespass into bedroom windows due to 'improved "cut-off" features of
proposed luminaire
. Lower mounting heights will allow for easier maintenance with respect to lamp
replacement and pole re-painting.
In addition, we would like the discussion of Proposition 218 impacts to reflect the fact
that the risks resulting from a' challenge to Prop 218 are really City-wide and are not
restricted to this particular proposal as well as the fact that street lighting operating costs
to the City as whole might escalate as a result of this. We also suggest that a clearer
description of annual lighting costs for various alternatives (as noted in the table on page
2 of the staff report) be included in the revised version of the report. In particular, the
methodology and assumptions used to derive the costs as listed needs some explanation.
- SINCE 1953 -
5142 FRANKLIN DRIVE, SUITE B PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588-3355
O~9ll6&:iket l\l;'hF~tepQtJadditil3\E~bbl SPARKS ROSEVILLE SACRI
_ ;xq..ltH,~T 1A
b I ~'t.fa ~~--~
II ~ /J;
As we discussed, Jim Benya will develop some revised cost information with respect to .
reduced maintenance costs for fiberglass poles, change in metal halide lamps from
ceramic type lamps to "standard" metal halide bulbs, and adjusted costs for use of high
pressure sodium 'cobrahead' luminaires with respect to increased number of
poleslluminaires. It is his intention to fax: this data to you tomorrow.
Please. advise if there are further questions with respect to any of the above items.
Sincerely,
David W. Chadbourne
cc: Lee Thompson, City of Dublin
Kevin Peters
Martin Inderbitzen
Jim Benya
Marshall Dnnbar
Linda Tompson
.
.
19100-street light staff report additions.doc
1ft- rt If;
-26"--
!
~
.
;~
I I '.
I' "
U"",
I~
I I ;
i '
Ii 0
n I I
I ~
, ..../.... ...........
--
39"
I
!
I
I
I
20'-0. U
.
r'
, I
I I
I .
A
I
I
48" I
r-t81
E:3
18" J I
, , r _ __ i _ 1
;; '. ~r 'II~'" .'
'. ~.:;~~~~ }[/. .
121/2" B.C.-' -FIXTURE ORIENTATION
fffl-T L._._._._._..
~.
Gl_k
1
,
BOTTOM VIEW
(INDICATES POLE IS LAYING DOWN
WITH HAND HOLE FACING UP)
SOLD TO PO#
.
ARCHITECTURAL
A REA
L I G ~~~l ~ ~
CAP
CAST ALUM.. REMOVABLE.
STRAP
11/2"WIDEx.18S" THK..
BRUSHED ALUMINUM.
NATURAL FINISH.
QQMf
CAST ALUMINUM. HOUSES
BALLAST ASS'Y. SECURES
TO FITTER WI (3) SIS BOLTS.
UPPER DIFFUSER
CLEAR ACRYLIC,
SANDBLAST INSIDE.
RINGS (3)
12" DIA.:CAST ALUMINUM.
SPACERS
BRUSHED ALUMINUM.
HOOD
24. DIA., SPUN ALUMINUM.
REFLECTOR
SEGMENTED, TYPE 3 LIGHT
DISTRIBUTION WITH
HORIZONTAL LAMP POSITION.
ROTATABLE ON 900 CENTERS.
LENS FRAME ASSEMBLY
CAST ALUMINUM DOOR WITH
GASKETED CLEAR TEMPERED
SAG GLASS LENS. HINGES
OPEN FOR SERVICE AND
RELAMPING.
ARM ASSEMBLY SLA 17
ALUM. TUBE, SLIPS INTO A
5" 0.0. POLE. SECURES WITH
(2) S/S SET SCREWS AND (1)
S/S BOLT. HOLE FOR BOLT
MUST BE FIELD DRILLED AND
TAPPED IN POLE BY OTHERS.
BOLT PREVENTS LUMINAIRE
FROM WINDMILLlNG.
081 0-5R20-1 88
ALL CASTINGS ARE A356 T-6
ALUMINUM. EXTRUDED
SHAFT IS .250" 6061 T-6
ALUMINUM. A 4" X 6.5"
REINFORCED OPENING IS
PROVIDED WITH A GROUND
LUG AND CAST ALUMINUM
COVER. 2 PIECE CAST A356
ALUMINUM BASE COVER.
ANCHOR BOLTS: FOUR
ANCHOR BOLTS WI DOUBLE
HEX NUTS AND TWO FLAT
WASHERS. HOT DIPPED
GALVANIZED STEEL.
TYPE
CATALOG NUMBER
SLSR24H3-SLA17-
DB10SR20-188
FINISH: POLYESTER POWDER
COAT CHROMATE PRIMER.
AAL COLOR: SPECIFY
TO MATCH:
PROVIDE A SAMPLE COLOR CHIP
LAMPING
LAMP TYPE SPECIFY
PULSE RATED
SOCKET MEDIUM
WATTAGE SPECIFY
SINGLE FUSE_AMP.
VOLTAGE SPECIFY
ALL BALLASTS ARE HPF CON-
STANT WATTAGE. .30 DEGREE
STARTING. ALL SOCKETS ARE
PORCELAIN, PULSE RATED 4KVA.
ANCHOR BOLTS
QTY 4
SIZE 1" x 36. x 4"
BOLT CIRCLE 121/2.
PROJECTION 4"
LEVELING NUTS AND WASHERS
MUST BE INSTALLED UNDER
ALL BASES.
ONE APPROVED DRAWING MUST
BE RETURNED TO A.A.L.
BEFORE n-lIs PRODUCT CAN BE
FABRICATED.
WARNING: THIS FIXTURE MUST
BE GROUNDED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LOCAL CODES OR THE
NATIONAL ELECTRICAl CODE.
FAILURE TO DO SO MAY REOSULT
IN SERIOUS PERSONAL INJURY.
JOB NAME
DUBLIN RANCH
14249 Al"lesia Blvd P.O. Box 1869
La Mirada CA. 90638.1869
DATE
DRWN
If"'lt:U:: C" t.A
.. ~ ,...,., '-"'7
~Vt.~~~'T ~
-ioc-."'\. t ~ ~ f,.J ( -
~~~,....-.,~.
J?J v7f LJ