Loading...
LMA ESD Site Dev Report ESD Site Development Alternative Analysis SUMMARY REPORT Prepared for: City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Prepared by: Lettieri-McIntyre and Associates, Inc. 1551 Fourth Avenue, Suite 430 San Diego, California 92101 Mai 1997 ESD SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT r Prepared for: City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Prepared by: Lettieri-McIntyre and Associates. Inc. 1551 Fourth Avenue, Suite 403 San Diego, CA 92101 May 2. 1997 Summary Report FSD Site Development Alternatives Analvsis Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose 1 1.2 Planning Study 1 13 Summary of Findings 4 1.4 Report Organization 5 2.0 PRIMARY OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS 6 2.1 Primary Opportunities 6 2.2 Primary Constraints 7 3.0 DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES 8 3.1 Basic Features 8 3.2 Alternative 1, Mixed-Use Center with Public Space 10 3.3 Alternative 2, Hotel Suites with Conference Center 12 3.4 Alternative 3, Ten-Plex Cinema with Commercial Center 14 3.5 Alternative 4, Public Use Area 14 3.6 Expanded Development Concept 18 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 19 4.1 Alternatives Analysis 19 4.2 Summarv Matrix 19 43 Development Timeline 20 5.0 DOCUMENT PREPARATION 33 i %lay 2, 1997 Summan• Report ESD Site Development Alternatives Analysis Table of Contents TABLES Table Page 1 Feasibility Matrix 21 FIGURES Figure Page 1 Project Site 2 Aerial Photo 3 Generalized Site Development Plan 9 '-4 Alternative 1, Conceptual Site Plan: Mixed-Use with Public Space 11 5 Alternative 2, Conceptual Site Plan: Hotel Suites with Conference Center 13 6 Alternative 3, Conceptual Site Plan: Ten-Plex Cinema with Commercial Center 15 7 Alternative 4, Conceptual Site Plan: Public Use Area 17 S Hypothetical Timeline for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 31 Hypothetical Timeline for Alternative 4 32 \fav Z. 1997 11 Summarv Report ESD Site Development Alternatives Analysis Introduction 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose The ESD Site Development Alternatives Analysis focuses on an 18.17-acre property located within the City of Encinitas. Previously owned by the Encinitas Sanitary District and used for a wastewater treatment facility, the property is currently owned by the City and managed by the City's Encinitas Sanitary Division (ESD). In the spring of 1996, the City initiated a planning studv to determine feasible and beneficial uses for the ESD site. This report summarizes the conclusions of this study. The ESD Site is strategically located on Encinitas Boulevard and Vulcan Avenue, within one- quarter mile of the Interstate 5 (I-5) interchange at Encinitas Boulevard. The property consists of two distinct sectors: The western 8.17-acre portion along Encinitas Boulevard is referred to as the "western sector" and the 10.00-acre portion adjacent to the freeway is called the "eastern sector" (refer to Figure 1). Figure 2 contains an aerial photo of the site and illustrates the surrounding commercial, residential and recreation districts. Since 1975, when operations of the ESD wastewater treatment plant ceased, the City studied opportunities for re-using the site. Various public committee reports and ballot initiatives reflect a desire for park and civic uses, but financing and legal issues have restricted implementation. The City Council continues to seek an appropriate and feasible land use for the ESD site. Site conditions will require substantial investment in infrastructure and environmental mitigation prior to development. As a result, future development must balance infrastructure and mitigation costs with market demand to avoid fiscal impacts to the City and ESD rate pavers. 1.2 Planning Study To address these issues, the City Council called for a thorough analysis of the site's physical, environmental. infrastructure and access limitations: financially feasible development options: and cost estimates for environmental mitigation and infrastructure improvements. A multi-disciplinary planning team implemented the following phased study to address the City Council's questions: • Phase 1. Environmental, economic and land use conditions pertaining to the ESD site were studied, and opportunities and constraints for future development were identified. The project team prepared technical reports documenting the site characteristics and then summarized the findings in the ESD Site Opportunities/Constraints Report. %tav 2. 1997 1 ~ I y 1 ^Nr Eastern- UlLLllL1 v~ n - sator- ~-I 0~® ml L weSUM ` G Setaor, I G ®9 HE {q Iii ~ I~~ 9 ®9 Nt Base Alap Source: Cirv ojEncautat, GIS N LEGE\ D Projea Site Scale Unknown 'roject Site Figure 1 2 _ III=•'f~'' ti ' ''~«1,~ - - JUP. S. 0:1 A .400 9 AM • / , x + 7!j MIN -rg ,T - ~ / it ~]~T- _ ~ .T,+j~ r-{t; C;~ I i • i " - P. 4.1 Summary Report ESD Site Development Alternatives Analysis Introduction • Phase II.• Four development alternatives responding to the opportunities and constraints as well as the community's goals were identified: Alternative 1, Mixed-Use Center with Public Space; Alternative 2, Hotel Suites with Conference Center; Alternative 3, Ten-Plex Cinema and Commercial Center; and Alternative 4, Public Use Area. • Phase III.• For each development alternative, the project team estimated the cost of environmental mitigation and infrastructure improvements, evaluated financial feasibility, and forecasted timelines for project approval and permits. This work culminated in the ESD Site Development Alternatives Analysis. 1.3 Summary of Findings The ESD Site Development Alternatives Analysis concluded that: • Current leases affecting portions of the project site generate approximately $35,000 in annual revenue for ESD. The site also serves as a City storage yard. Relocating the City storage yard could be difficult because there are very few appropriate sites in Encinitas. Of the private development alternatives, neither Alternative 2, Hotel Suites and Conference Center, nor Alternative 3, Ten-Plex Cinema and Commercial Center, is financially feasible. That is, the development costs significantly outweigh the project value. The financial feasibility of Alternative 1, Mixed-Use Commercial Center with Public Space, is marginal. The unfavorable feasibility conclusions are largely due to 1) extraordinary on- and off-site improvements required by site conditions, and 2) substantial development and permit fees. In addition, the small site size limits the amount of possible development which also reduces financial feasibility. • Mello-Roos financing to assist on- and off-site infrastructure costs would most benefit Alternative 2, creating a positive residual land value. • Development of Alternative 4, Public Use Area, would reduce the cost of on- and off-site improvements but no revenues would be generated unless patrons are charged for use or the park (entrance, parking, concessions, etc.). As a result, this alternative would result in a negative residual land value. The City, however, would realize savings if a park was developed on the ESD site versus another site because the City already owns the property. %fay 2. 1997 4 Summarv Report ESD Site Deveiooment Alternatives Analysis Introduction • Alternative 4 conforms best to Citv development policies and would least impact existing, nearby residents. Of the private development alternatives, Alternative 2 conforms best to City policies and would least impact residents. • Alternatives 1 and 2 would require the excavation of 31,000 cubic yards of earth and the placement of 31,000 cubic yards of fill. Alternative 3 would require excavation and placement of 65,000 cubic yards due to the two levels of sub-surface parking. The sub- surface parking for Alternative 3 would also require special engineering measures to address the high groundwater table. Alternative 4 would require minimal grading of 4,700 cubic yards, balanced onsite. • Alternative 2 would generate less traffic than Alternatives 1 and 3, (approximately 4,360 versus 6,240 and 10,391 average daily trips [ADT] respectively). However, Alternative 4 would generate only 280 ADT. • Prior to finalizing the site vehicular access plan for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, the City should coordinate design of the I-5/Encinitas Boulevard interchange improvement with Caltrans. Depending on the configuration of the interchange improvements, a joint signal on Encinitas Boulevard shared by the existing Smart-n-Final shopping center and the ESD site could benefit traffic operations more than two separate signals. 1.4 Report Organization Five sections make up the Summary Report. The first section consists of this Introduction. Section 2.0 - Primary Opportunities and Constraints, outlines the conditions most significantly affecting development potential of the site. The development alternatives are described in Section 3.0 - Development Alternatives, and Section 4.0 - Conclusions, compares and contrasts the feasibility of each alternative. Lastly, Section 5.0 - Document Preparation, identifies the City Council Sub-committee members. Citv staff, and consultants who participated in the study. • Mav 2.:997 5 Summarv Report ESD Site Development Alternatives Analysis Primary Opportunities and constraints 2.0 PRIMARY OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS The first phase of the study involved preparing the ESD Site Opportunities/Constraints Report. This report provides an analysis of environmental, infrastructure, and market conditions that could limit or support development on the project site. "Opportunities" refer to conditions that support or are compatible with development, and "constraints" refer to conditions that limit or reduce development feasibility. The Opportunities/Constraints Report provides an assessment of the following: • Land use patterns and relevant policies; • Market conditions; • Geotechnical conditions; • Hazardous waste contamination: • Utilities and drainage; • Traffic and site access; • Cultural resources; • Biological resources; and • Noise. 2.1 Primary Opportunities Primary opportunities for future development identified in the Opportunities/Constraints Report include: • Proximity to I-5 and location within an established commercial corridor; • Location within walking distance of the beach and commuter rainus station; • Need for recreational facilities in the Old Encinitas area; Mav 2. 1997 6 Summary Report _ ESD Site Development Alternatives Analysis Primary Opportunities and Constraints • Strong market potential in near-term (next five years) for convenience retail, and market- rate or affordable apartments; moderate market potential in near-term for a large multi- plex cinema; strong market potential in mid-term (five to ten years) for mid-priced business, tourist or economy motel; and moderate market potential in mid-term for specialty retail, restaurants, and office development; and • Topography allows placing development at elevations lower than both the adjacent residents and Encinitas Boulevard which could decrease perceived building mass and improve compatibility. 2.2 Primary Constraints Primary constraints to future development include: • Residences located immediately north of site could be adversely affected by development; • Established view preservation policies for the I-5 corridor; r • Majority of western sector underlain by topsoil, fill soil and alluvium precluding shallow- founded, settlement-sensitive structures. Torrey sandstone along the northern boundary is suitable for development. Unless expensive mitigation measures are undertaken, these conditions force larger structures to the back of site and permit only small structures and parking in the remainder; • Groundwater table as shallow as seven feet below ground surface in western sector; • I-5/Encinitas Boulevard interchange currently at capacity and drivers experience congestion in peak hours. Traffic generated by ESD site development could worsen conditions; • Sensitive biological habitat, excessive freeway noise and steep slopes dominate the eastern sector; • Western sector also subject to significant transportation noise: and • Western sector. the portion with greatest development potential. limited in size (only about eight acres). The Opportunities/Constraints Report identifies very little hazardous waste contamination and a very low potential for a significant cultural resource site to exist on-site. As a result, neither issue represents an opportunity or constraint to future site development. May 2. 1997 7 Summary Repots ESD Site Development Alternatives Analysis Development Alternatives 3.0 DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES The second phase of the study consisted of identifying appropriate development alternatives for the ESD site. Information about land use, environmental and infrastructure constraints along with market demand served as the basis for four alternatives: • Alternative 1, Mixed-Use Center with Public Space; • Alternative 2, Hotel Suites with Conference Center; • Alternative 3, Ten-Plex Cinema and Commercial Center; and • Alternative 4, Public Use Area. 3.1 Basic Features The four alternatives generally share several basic development features, (see Figure 3). Under each alternative, the 8.17-acre western sector is planned for development and the 10.00-acre eastern sector is maintained'as open space. In Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, the western sector is 'combined with the two undeveloped, privately-owned parcels contiguous to the northwestern corner to increase the land area available for development and provide additional access opportunities, (refer to Figure 2). Including the two privately owned parcels increases the total developable area from 8.17 to 8.70 acres for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. For each alternative, the eastern sector would remain open space, permitting preservation of the riparian habitat and steep slopes as well as open space views from I-5. All the concept plans provide for a trail through the eastern sector, with a connection across the western sector to pedestrian and bicycle facilities on Encinitas Boulevard. Shade trees, sidewalks, crosswalks and other pedestrian amenities along both Encinitas Boulevard and Vulcan Avenue would encourage pedestrian corridors between the project site and downtown, the commuter rail station, the beach and nearby residential neighborhoods. The proximity of the residential neighborhood requires design sensitivity on the northern project border. The conceptual site plans provide a 20- to 30-foot building setback on the northern boundary. Unfortunately, the better building soils are located in this area so a wider building setback would result in locating the buildings entirely on the alluvial soils. Most of the residences are located 20 to 40 feet above the existing project site grade and maintaining the verticai separation will reduce adverse impacts on residents. However, Alternatives 1, ? and 3 will most likely involve filling and elevating the site to meet grading, structural and other design requirements. \tav 2, 1997 8 i ~Il 4 • 1~ Eastern Sector Open Space and Recreational Trail V - 11 i1~ ~ 1, i 1' ''A A I. 777 ~ ~ V Additional Parcels luded for Planning Purposes in Alternatives 1.2 and 3 Existing 11J/ Western Sector' r~ Commercial ~~7t DeveiopmentAres - Center_ r 'P I y. Ir11TgS a cast Alap Source. t2ecreattonat racumes Tian. 1993 Encinitas Generot Plan I 0 300 Jeneralized Site Development Plan Figure 3 9 Summary Report ESD Site Development Alternatives Analysis Development Alternatives 3.2 Alternative 1, Mixed-Use Center with Public Space • Site Area: 8.70 acres • Hypothetical Building Area: 82,500 square feet (sf) • Hypothetical Parking Requirement: 330 spaces (1 space/250 sf) • Hypothetical Parking Capacity: 385 spaces • Concept: This alternative consists of a specialty commercial center which incorporates civic, cultural, recreational and entertainment uses (see Figure 4). Analysis of this alternative rests on the assumption that the center has the same functional characteristics as a neighborhood retail commercial center. ,r Primary access to the site would be accomplished by a new signalized intersection on Encinitas Boulevard, located approximately 600 feet east of the Vulcan Avenue/Encinitas Boulevard intersection and 500 feet west of the existing commercial center signal. Two right-turn movement only access points are also proposed on the project's Encinitas Boulevard frontage. An alternate access plan would locate a new, full-movement signalized intersection at the eastern boundary of the project site. That intersection would replace the existing signal to the commercial center and the hotel entry to the south. This shared access plan would require coordinated grading and site planning with adjacent properties. Because the project site is approximately 25 feet lower than the commercial site to the east, the southeast comer of the project site would need to be filled to meet grade at Encinitas Boulevard. Within the project, a cross drive could incline up to the east property and down into the project site. This alternate access plan responds to possible operational chances on Encinitas Boulevard from future I-5 interchange improvements. The conceptual site plan locates large building masses along the northern and eastern portions of the site to avoid the alluvial soils. Smaller "pad" buildings are located along Encinitas Boulevard. The northern open space and trail are connected to the center through a park and 15,000 sf plaza. Civic, cultural, recreational and restaurant uses are intended to occupy the area around the plaza. The larger lease spaces are intended for major commercial tenants that would be the primary attraction to the center. Smaller lease spaces could consist of retail and office uses. The pad building at the intersection of Vulcan and Encinitas Boulevard is intended for restaurant or retail use. This corner would have improved pedestrian access to better connect to the commuter station. %tav 2. 1997 10 ~r = a~ bn w Z \ ~I m - - ; 1 m ~ / 1 ' U gp : j CV a dr i I'. •3 1 ~ W U N 1 C 1 ~ I 'C7 1 co 1 1 1 I cC .1 ~ I a 1, 1 U i V [U Nve. U%can ~9 U c~ a~ Q Summary Report ESD Site Development Alternatives Analysis Development Altematives The buildings are single story and adequately served by surface parking. There are approximately 55 additional parking spaces over the City requirements for a commercial center. Additional parking could be used to allow more restaurant and entertainment uses on the site. City standards for commercial centers under 100,000 sf allow 8 percent restaurant uses or 6,600 sf. With the additional parking spaces restaurant space could total approximately .10,700 sf. 3.3 Alternative 2, Hotel Suites with Conference Center • Site Area: 8.70 acres • Hypothetical Building Area: 130,200 sf • Hypothetical Parking Requirement. 361 spaces (225 spaces for hotel at 1.25 spaces/room, and 136 spaces for four restaurants at 1 space/100 sf) Hypothetical Parking Capacity: 361 • Concept: This alternative consists of a suites hotel designed for extended stay, combined with conference facilities and restaurants (see Figure 5). Users would include business travelers, conference attenders, Del Mar Race Track employees and spectators, winter visitors, summer family vacationers, and future Legoland guests. The site would be accessed by a signalized intersection and a right-turn only access on Encinitas Boulevard. An alternate design proposed a full-movement signal shared with the commercial center to the east and the existing hotel on the south side of Encinitas Boulevard: The conference center and restaurant would be available for use by business organizations and the community alike. These facilities are located in the northeastern portion of the site adjacent to the public open space and trail. Pad restaurants and a plaza at the intersection of Encinitas Boulevard and Vulcan Avenue are intended to be accessible to the commuter station. Surface parking is provided adjacent to the public use areas and as a buffer between the hotel rooms and Encinitas Boulevard. The suites hotel concept is intended to provide extensive landscaping, outdoor recreational space, and the quiet atmosphere of a condominium or time-share residential project. Two-story buildings are located along the northern and eastern property boundaries over %lay 2, 1997 12 an s w Z~ N I • I N I - I I _ l l I Y I U I U 1 U 1 I C 1 I I II ~ I ~ ' ' _ " W VJ j I 1 1 I ~ i i ' 1 ~ 1 Vultan~~• z O N Cd .r Summary Report ESD Site Development Alternatives Analysis Development Altematives Torrey Sandstone soils and single-story buildings are located over the alluvial soils. The buildings in the northern portion of the site could be designed as terraced villas reflecting the existing topography, and the smaller buildings could be designed as cottages. 3.4 Alternative 3, Ten-Plea Cinema with Commercial Center • Site Area: 8.70 acres • Hypothetical Building Area: 90,000 sf • Hypothetical Parking Requirement: 1,133 spaces (933 spaces for 2,800-seat cinema at 1 space per three seats, and 200 spaces for commercial/restaurant space at 1 space per 250 square foot) • Hypothetical Parking Capacity: 1,155 spaces • Concept: This alternative consists of an entertainment-oriented commercial center (see Figure 6). The large parking requirement for this use requires that two levels of structured parking be located partially below grade and under the buildings. The proposed development would combine a 40,000 sf, ten-screen cinema; two major commercial tenants; and a retail, restaurant, and entertainment court with extensive plaza space and two pad restaurants. It would be prudent to select major tenants with daytime peak parking requirements to allow additional parking during weekend and evening peak hours for the entertainment uses. Access to the site is provided by a new signalized entry, approximately 600 feet east of the Encinitas Boulevard/Vulcan Avenue intersection or by an alternate, shared full- movement signal at the eastern boundary. A second full-movement, signalized intersection could provide direct access into the parking garage from Vulcan Avenue. This intersection could be shared with the property to the west which may be developed as a commuter parking lot. Two right-turn only access points, one on Encinitas Boulevard and one on Vulcan avenue, are also proposed. 3.5 Alternative 4, Public Use Area • Site Area: 8.17 acres • Hypothetical Building Area: 13,000 sf • Hypothetical Parking Requirement: As determined by City staff Mav 2. 1997 14 oci s i i i i i 1. 1f , ~ lI i z~ U i i i I ii 1 is 3 co 32 .5 n j C I 1 YJ U I I a~ i i 1 i 1 I i ' ba I Gir i ~a 1 i mz 1 CCf U ~ 1 ~ W a 1 II~ZY 0 M .Y a~ d Summarv Report ESD Site Development Alternatives Analysis Development Alternatives • Hypothetical Parking Capacity: 137 spaces • Concept: This public use alternative consists of a city park with community facilities (Figure 7). The "passive" park is primarily open space with expansive turf areas and picnic and tot lot amenities. An access drive and parking areas would separate the open space from community buildings. . Primary access would be taken from Encinitas Boulevard and secondary access is proposed from Vulcan Avenue. The buildings would be available for civic uses. The larger, 10,000 sf building could provide facilities for meetings, recreational programs and other community uses, and/or could house a historical museum. The smaller building footprints shown on the conceptual site plan represent the option for locating some historic buildings on the ESD site. The historic buildings, if properly restored, could be used for additional community uses or possibly retail or restaurant uses. Portions of the property could be leased as a "festival site" for a farmers' market, renaissance fair and other special events. All buildings are located on the soils most suitable for development at the existing grade. A small parking area located between the buildings would provide at-grade loading and handicap access. The access drive and most of the parking would be located approximately five feet lower than the buildings. The open space should be designed within the existing landforms, requiring only moderate grading to create' access transitions. Existing trees should be preserved where possible. Under this alternative, the open creek channel would be maintained and the drainage would not be further improved. As a result, flooding of the lower elevations would occur during significant storms. Park amenities like the group picnic ramada should be located at higher elevations to avoid water damage. The open creek channel could create public safety hazards such as injuries caused by visitor access to drainage facilities and steep slopes. In addition, the channel could create a hiding and camping place adjacent to an activity center. Two design approaches should be considered to protect the safety of visitors: controlled access or prohibited access. In the controlled access approach, the creek could be used for nature study and serve as a "wilderness" play area. This approach would require designated paths to the creek and features such as boulders and barrier plantings to limit access within specific, safe areas. The prohibited access approach would use signs, fences, prickly plants and other physical barriers designed to make the creek as inaccessible as possible. Mav 1997 16 cn 1 I~ Z I L I C , I I I - - - I'. I i' J i ~ I 1 1 I ; I 1 ~ I 1 11 i cc m I c~ \ I 1 ~ t ~ 1 G RS 1 ~ I I I 1 11 a 1 I Vulc~ pve. c~ Nogg U a~ a~ Q Summary Report L-SD Site Development Altemauves analysis Development Altematives 3.6 Expanded Development Concept The commercial development potential of the ESD site is constrained by its small size, constrained access, and lack of freeway visibility. For these reasons, combining the project site with the existing commercial center to the east provides an additional development alternative. The combined sites would total about 16 acres, similar in size to a neighborhood shopping center (sup ermarket/drugstore). In typical commercial development, buildings occupy about one-third of the site area and the remaining area accommodates surface parking, circulation drives, loading areas and landscaping. As a 16-acre site, the project could provide approximately 230,000 square feet of building area. The larger site area would provide greater design flexibility for locating buildings, accommodating adequate parking, providing good access and circulation, and achieving a better yield of usable building area. Larger tenants could be located at each end of the combined sites on the better soils. Shops and restaurants would be located between the majors and parking could be centrally located within areas constrained by alluvial soils. This type of site design is typically used to draw shoppers to the smaller retailers and restaurants as they circulate between the major tenants. The eastern part of the combined sites could accommodate a large, major tenant, seeking freeway visibility. Such a tenant could serve as a catalyst for a viable commercial site. A single shared signalized intersection could better serve the combined project as well as the existing hotel on the south side of Encinitas Boulevard. Currently, the project site is approximately 25 feet lower than the commercial center to the east. One design advantage provided by the topography is that a massive building, like a cinema, can be located or "tucked" into the lower elevation to help reduce its large scale. Another design option could be a two-story project on the ESD site connected by the upper level to the existing eastern site. Surface parking could be located below street grade for visual screening, and could still provide visibility to store fronts. However, pedestrian and vehicular circulation would be impeded by maintaining the radical grade change that virtually separates the properties. In order to create a unified commercial development, the project site circulation areas would need to be filled and elevated. The eastern site could be lowered somewhat to reduce the vertical separation without losing visibility from the freeway and Encinitas Boulevard. Parking, circulation and pedestrian entries to buildings would need to be designed within tolerable grade changes to avoid the need for stairs or steep ramps. Mav 1997 18 Summary Repoli ESD Site Development Alternatives Analysis Conclusions 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 4.1 Alternative Analysis At some point, the City may consider pursuing development of the ESD site with one of the alternatives described in the preceding section. Determining the appropriate alterative requires balancing a variety of issues. The four development alternatives differ in their potential effect on the surrounding areas, compatibility with the unique physical characteristics of the ESD site, infrastructure improvements, financial feasibility (construction and development costs versus the developer's long-term profit and City tax revenue), and conformance to established City goals and policies. To help the City consider whether to pursue development of the ESD site with one of the alternatives, each alternative was evaluated in the following areas by qualified professionals: • Land Use; t Financial Feasibility; • Geotechnical Analysis; • Utilities, Grading and Development Fees; • Traffic and Access; • Biological Resources; and • Eloise. Technical reports summarizing the results of these studies are attached as appendices to the ESD Site Development Alternatives Analysis. Some of the technical studies required data from the other studies and conclusions are often inter-related. As a result, the studies should be reviewed in totality rather than individually for a comprehensive understanding of the development issues pertaining to the ESD site. 4.2 Summary Matrix To permit efficient comparison of the alternatives, the primary conclusions of the technical studies are summarized in matrix format (see Table 1). The matrix highlights those conclusions that most significantly affect the feasibility and/or desirability of implementing the development alternatives. In terms of matrix organization, the conclusions for each alternative are listed %lay 2. 1997 19 Summarv Report ESD Site Development Alternatives Analysis Conclusions according to the subjects listed above. The alternative considered the most feasible and/or desirable is identified by asterisks on each subject topic. 4.3 Development Timeline Generalized timelines illustrating the time requirements for designing, obtaining approval and constructing the alternatives are provided in Figures 8 and 9. Because of similar development intensities and processing requirements, the estimated timeline presented in Figure 8 applies to each of the three private development alternatives. The timeline presented in Figure 9 applies to the public use alternative. The timelines begin with the City initiating the process to find a developer and ends with completion of construction. The timelines are only hypothetical and could be shortened or expanded for :-alternatives 1, 2 and 3: • The City could grade the property during the developer selection process. This could " reduce the construction time, thereby decreasing the timeline. The property in an improved, graded state could be valued at a higher rate by a potential developer. • If the graded site is not surcharged, a 12- to 18-month soil settlement monitoring period would be required. This could add between six to 12 additional months to the timeline. • The market demand for the selected alternative may not be great enough in the near tern to support development. This would expand the timeline until such time adequate demand develops. • The City may decide to pursue expansion of the project site with adjacent properties. :negotiations could extend the implementation process of any of the alternatives. Mav 1997 20 T y .r sr v ~ 'C c '3 'c ~ ~ ~ v ~ cCs C N O C C R :J ~ y R N 7i p 7 O > C > w C = O y, OU T N T J R ~ R, R ~ R M - O .may.. ~ ? 3 y yL.. ~ rn ' n C • ~ ~ j , u ^.J^. J y Vf R C ~.J ;s _ ~ on , ca ;a G C R 1 v C y O C 1) 7> y R O R 11 ~ ~ R O ~ R > N ~ O y ^ LR. > L ~ L•' ~ tR,. '`U ~ ~ ` V N TJ i ,4 .J in C 73 0 J L C t r O U O y t' U ' C v N > C.. C -0 C 61 _ a~ ;Z y U O CLO ' O c0 O C'~1 V' C. y CA C p C u J- w u C4 6. 0 Q y .y N V L L C. 7 i? R N G. .O. L r- 0 N :0 ~j > :J v C. y y Y 3 L- R y> y y 3 p y y` O O cc v u ~ ~ ~ ~ Z O •3 O = - C ' cs O ~ ~ - 'O C y z ~ O :I N ~ N ;7 J L ~ V O N ~ y 3 ~ J vi . ~ ` ~ .O u ` t.0. O w _ L. c J> ~ 7 J i ~ 'J •7 J :J ~ J R L r+ ~J.• v i > C y > L ~ N O T S ~ C CC n C C ure R~ O ~ ~ s 'D d C. cuS s.'D 72 i u y N _ C. -75 v R .y y N p 21 G 6 ^ R n a d 3 v 7 ;7 n R u N O C^ j C. y tR. :J ^7 z [3 _ a. = = -Zj O ^ O = v A R C ri 7 N QC_ N ~ c 7 N N N rn a c J- o R j eU'u Nr > y= R L L~ ~ ~ v 'd N ? 6~ = v C Q ^ C R ~ Q'(~'~ C C ~ J N U i C O U v C 3 > U r :0 G O n Y QO O ~ N O - O - N - y •y C SO ~ 'C U R y ^ C O H G N J c N ~ C O C ~ v c_ :a N~ y '7 J C' J C i> 7 V R i j n '.7 U L C CS .y.. v C N ^ N N U L Liz Q c - 4 C b v A L N (j O U Q aJ v- v 0 0 Q _ c R > 3 - m v= c ; U `c° a =n y n. y t"J acid czNU=U a x C :n R R C O ce C 3 y 3 p ~L -J L n 1J N O L L R v J O R- "Jn n _ L c 0 7 _p t.) kn J ~ - v _ ~ ^ ~ = O .D v :n Q .C _T - ~ ` a ~ ~ G U v R ^ U U - O ii U C ..O v v to C v N ~ 'C ~ cJ ~ - :7 v v ~ ~ 3 R R 0., L n L k - v_ R U R ^ v- cs r v C > ^ v ? y 7 r" - U r. n 7A > ^ G U ,3 3 ) v y _s U ~ ~ O _ UJ. Jf Ll r v u u v > L ^ ~ v c m 0 3 R C fQ jpl ~ tu U 3^ G v R L J y ri 7 n ~ p O R ~ • 22 ? ~ U O =1 ~ T v S, 7 y 3 46o% o v J U y 3 '7 L y Sl 7 R N i ' N O c«. ,Q n « ' A 'r O II _ v ' p R y u X~i > 1 vui N y O C O C= a '9 ' R u ea O G. = :v C 7 O .a U u C - .=v O C O C C G y Cam. T C Z '~A ^ a V e0 r C v Q= ca = v x G. O 7 L u O. n ~s j C r0 O O G. 7 3 n. ~ N v ~ R r R '7 .J VT'1 j v ~ • U _ ~ ' J :1 j C R7 y R ^ ^ C E•• f"f ti J O C C C O O ..T2. O O O v a~ v T y r r t. ~ O C y T ~ 7 O R C O a O ~ s rn .r n = v n a~ s U p = a v ~ 'X v V U R Z eO Z N Z n R C R 7 ':n d O > p~ :J > i it v n O A .7r ~ ^ R v O U R .U. :J O O u v O y OD v u Q~ C 0 0 0 ~ U ^ ~ 9 O R C C y 0 0. cm > O G O R O 6 R= U O. :3 O 'n > _ > R O y L E.. 46 v v v ~ u c ? io >1 N N . 40 L. c c 3 o e~ o ? v c u c Q a~ q a~ U o 0 o a r fV O OO O R > G~ `7 y OOn y' R N O 3 •J d U y R U p .R K y w^ R C r x M R C ° C 'L R C C 4) 3 N p X R s. C R y O I) u a~ n :a K cV E Go4 %A U "J C Q X R G~+ O R d O .C a C > 7 N R y 4 • ~ C L` .Ui •C ` R L .Rr 00 +J r, O. j R a C. ca N .v F . o. in o 7 R = H aRi o ° c = a~ d e ^ 4 r U U O R R -4.14 604 ..1 r 7 .a a: ♦ O R N cn a 3 R v R e vi C 7 = u ~ = x_ y R o R vi s T' > N L N J" :3 7 .II N q N O R d a U n ' c c u v X= a o L U Z J C a> v R i O C ~ 9~ G' n X n• C ~ y~ > 0.44 lei y o v o L R 6v 6v > _ R c a m 69 U v a a y C~ ^J C N N ~ V N v OD y U a G U C L N :r R C 2 . C > U iC , 7 R J c0 '^J ` O C 'r7n y R 3 is v a > T= j s a = O ~ ~ ' ¢ ^ r0 Z ' U 21 u a y 'l7 cs C II y = CL R C O y a R ^A 4 Q > N ^ o o a o v- 5 on v- o- 'y R N U y 7 _ > 7 r V Q C/1 R N R O . J • 23 u ~ O> O T L p y~ c J •:a » ~ O R O. r~ •R N R •R aEi Q ¢ O C p~ O O L .•n 1 O~ 72 C :i .y.. N y N ^ J G O y y V oe y O u a R 7 u L> C u 6R 6r a. s L .xR. c? c aRi H o -6 ol) -3 cl cla w 21 Cn .a R 3 1 R C C/1 u N u L N r L ` C L > C u ° p N ~ C x •N > U L o o a c- ~ ~ y c C 7 C C E 3 A c o :na_n -?o y y o CL MCA- -3 L2 > Gs. N ~ 0 ca 7a CL r= '0 2 -ca 7;B ~a 0 -Z CA ' O y C C N C N C L C .y 3 O is s. y u = > H > u > =p R O u tj ci .u, u L R u O 'C C /1 C R 7 C u u 7 H 'fl C R kn U u O L O T C/1 fS L O ioq - x N c - o- o to J 3 = c > k C : OU d R G d 4 - C L J p R C J R a. an O O> v_ O R- R =D 7 a~ O y C. i %n N y u .fl 7 y eo v1 .may. ~ C c~ R y~ ~ U :i c v c iv v ^ C T _ 0 to w .C 'O~ ~ u O C ~ O O r' a U 3U~ LUG 6i 'y L L R 'y u -Jj u - u - u _ t y Grr LL .u. G7 + 24 125 7 ^ `T L ~ v p y ~ cCa > J U T _ y :J N ~ yO L ~ V~ N Q = y ~ j ~ 7 c'3 R j C 4 ~ X ? > O 3 C * ^ C t X CO ♦ r. ♦ n C y ~ 3A w :/1 ♦ t4 R > y cC M 7 C c.. Q J ttj p. T c.. :i 21 U y N y ` O 3 7 7 j C 1. N N N > J Q v O .Y J =D C U 3 L x v G y w vum- O n nca n O. y a d .2 j = u N O 7 J y - L. N r y X y Q N `o Q C u L N it u C C ce x 'O v y•~ O O ~ ~ R aci ~ = y' a`n R E Gz7 Q .u. n oo ,p x Q m om. N y y N O ~ ~ C L 3+ O- c` y ~ ^ o " _ > rs R y :O cC O y _ nr O 4 . L C N U 75 T N J N G > " U u o a " - C 73 T~ - cca u C n= ~ 3 ~ O c c C Y. C- cz J ^ - 9 - C> y CS - C Z4 tj M ~ ^ 'J L :3 - ~ J X L U '7 ^ 7 d - 'y C 'b y ^ E y - y V C ~ r y N V N~ U N~ ~ , 1. V 75 f:113 n,nn3 - - = o 'y CD - J u ~ • ss 25 V v _ > l~ '3 z i L r tR. N L C ,Q C tj v p v~ 'p a. R 1 C n C = G y ~ L O T O O y' M C y a0i O 6. VI 7 r R~ ~ O y •'7 y y y R R ~ y ~ L R L y ca v 7 M CS = C y` R C^ R• C C 'rJ y vi d O p .J G U G U U J i j 4. R y Oy C ~ y R y cli C '+j > L .C p cC y 'G y R C C 7 p, s C U v =p R i v • V 'D tr 'Q C y O. R y ° - o v v R J n E v a~ v Q o o tj 03 G .D L "c,,J, R y ^ • X . C 7 3 O c.C. L v R - Q eci ° m o R •c_ " 3 ~ E a~ ~ R > R ~ u v' ~ -n is > R R o ai O> x o c 1 y a a c Ux -3 y n :J T C ZV _ L J N C i V L > R x _ R L •L C = C v ca ~ H U aEi G Gzl Q r Q y ~ L _ E" G E O E u Gt. O O U R 'D L~ > U U ~ ~ u U a % y C~ ~ r O Y. A G O ,Jr o n O 3 L - d u R E O 4. r C p d ~ G Go _ L C~ ~ C ~ ~ C a~ c O U C M U •R R R rp R _.1) L 7 ^ L X L O v c y y C p _ _ o' G c c' R G>> J J n U S., r j p T R E R 3 ccC ~ O vl ^ ~ C •L Y d. 3 'C C ~ = a G v R u ~ II v ~ 7 ' r= O V u 5 a 26 y A ~ J v Q y i 44: ' x c. r R vai• a~ C y v R oho y v m R v L C S 7 p - CO L CS ^ c R U 7 E 'v L ~y v1 U > G L R V" L 3 c- - v E v- v E a v v E v Y i 3= v o E a r 4. L" s v c 'x f ce v pp a -4 Cp c y y O O c0 C c0 y a C 7 .5 wed =p c Q = > a~ci v Q, C. a 3 n L o > C c c y y v v * o- c c ~n y ca c E v N y y c O of L ~ cC C • U GA of y 64 ~ cO t,. fA L U O * cC Q C~ U L m y ~ ~ d O ~ ~ C~ c y .y+ L v y y M s 7 w c M E x v"° > p 4. = v- L aai a t- 64 0 %J ° Tvr, O a- v ac >s c c c > c o E GL 3 y u C o y 44 L a U a 'A lu y 5q a V y c y aD ar U cn v is r- 6. v L y> c v v 'v = .v. ea c C i i- L '1 c e c0 c c a y° p c c c y v H c C y y mo R p y0 a Q C..= o, R o °o C. " o. ao ¢ o 'E ti o v O X o R a` p s; O v O eta ° ' i cLj R•_ >o v a r > Lo u G~ Q vi a~ s c r J p y Li O G Lj 7 y a v v C. z y 3 > 0 3 cry a> E ° car= =cam y.". o.5 o v._S 3 = U a o c E c~ rs • R v_ c E= c oD c a E E M O^ y y O > S y. a y o v y cMn T aci o _T C w 'yC a R" vc s i v k o v u= c o v 464 L a U e H c> R° c a~ = rs. 3 10 c L c e y ca a v y c 0 oq ar o° c s cQ a~ R L C ~p y y y e0 EL L° 4.• C y U O 3 O y N s 2 3 .~Lr J U c y 7 y' J w C 7 C` M N A c ° aci Q C t R s E oco c. H `c. a. a o °c E v L ao o y CC c rn p X o a` o v c n Q Q v •5 s c> = C* 10 > u CL (u v O car y~ N .eQr cl -5 •v 3 3~ L v~ o v c 3 > LT. y .2 Z ~ L R L 4y y y E... `O L T to 14 > _ L. C a O C O c a~ vai c n a L> J ti! u c E E c' ^ ayi `s o° L' v Ly. E a C O Zc .A - N U N a^ y a O y Cc V :d v p C 'C > 3 L O 'Q O N 7- C- 0 G CA 69 y C. O 64 L- E J U fr S 4. n U a 'y y >>•w L-?> c E t a Q _ T c v > Lo > II c c a= C '-,A is 7 . o^ E v` .E v y E-0 ti E m E C v C O n Ct 3 .5 ° v p a. - v o x a y a to • v v > ca ,L- c E y O 'U C •7 ~ y C v y V o ar y 'p = r, •y V a R p> R C R- ^ E_ a L O y tw~_. a GU=~ F- sU o 6l 3 c 'n J ~ ~ D Gi F 27 y U > y O C C R O R U Q O .Lj C y U y .y. 13 Q' c 7¢ N U U 'fl y U C y U CO L41 :2 = f+1 :3 C R I.L.r ,i i Vl sp U ? a' R > •U y U y Q •C :Q .L U .N C L J V .L.. T L U y C O R R U. C C? Q y 7 69 Cn •:a 3 y L L U D R •C ~ ur c~ v 4 3 LL: O O~~ O yr J = G R O > C O y C¢ v, c> w y c a n R R Q E? o c aQi u a n y c o c o n p s p Q, c L e c R c o y .3 i~ u F' a c R L o y= .5 a V = '9 n yyR„ > y O N ^ •,Un C U H V] > a. O = C L0A U C R .O U 7 L O y C j N `U ► O G to G.- O ~ a 7 3 U e9 Q ~ ~ Q u y '4 V cyUO ~ L = y w~ R~ U N_ C 'L CS C C ~ ~ r U N vyi a H L w C R U •~1 U y U: tU R R r' a R m C !/I C O y LU y R •R Q C L v v U _ r3 E E E.. n, .y c > c y u F. L c y 3 o Q=~Q¢ y L C O R a~ ¢ L p A O p IA o c 3 `c c y R C G 7 cy0 U U C ; C J R.^ O ~ CO C eQ y ^ ^ C y U C-4 y y aci yi - G U y O C cA rA G 'Ja R ca O y H ~ ~ vl R ~ e7 ~ Q S ~ 0 R n ~ _ s] J u a`i a y C j s -Q p O y Q ~^D p= U .n y ``4, a C p R 0 V a 6. E U O > y U R h 14 O a'`7 'v O v O U U U u 3 O C E s 3 'G1 V>1 .•,n y 0. s C ` L R C j u •c ~ ,•4U O ~ L C 'n n C C ~ O. C L C _ n. C O y C iy ~L, _ J _A 9 n Q y :A U C G.t re O U y y a' y O c y y .,y y U R R R R y 3 .y.. y N C y L L C N > > > R En R U L R j> y L d y p L C .y O a V1 C y p C ` G ca C 'U G = L ;.A R U G •L3 J R J L N =J _0 C idr 'U U y G• Sir G•C J C L y R R C p G~ G L o • n y L C R .L. R 'Q U L .7 _ 'y 'V - ~ R 17 'in U _ - •r:.~ _ y 3 C L e E U O cQ iC C j, U 3 y 'n' s aci ~ G ~ y c li C7 a. c ~ O R '7 ~ C y :7 L p _ L c p R L_ r1 ~ u 7 C O C E .r • 28 T ` C C ~ T - ^ ~ C € C - O y aLi cYLa C T O c. y ~ n y G'7 % . c 13 R^ s ~ y L r 'fl y v C v G O Io 'L O O L ~ y _ 'O rn C L :0 ~ 'Vl C _ y U O a 0 {C„ C L U_ t R :J y O~ L G. .D y n 7 :D cvC - v y~ t~~ R r 7 ~ G^.. U O ~ 1= y• 3 .:1 R G J ~ C C U ~ C v 'C Q G ~ y •y O ^ C <y'I G ~ i t L :4 y C V C L CO ~ y R 52 a: - s- L aL~ 'U 3 G C V N N co" R ~ R OV C CCi Q C. Q L~~ O v o y R A ota 1) L% Q Q cn * v ~ .0 y ~ T - I y L C 00 'O ~Q v A y ~ V p G G L y C ~ y y y w LI ti' C V .`L„ R C y s C w~ w CQ yC y U O •7 N cr LLl ~ ¢ C L y 0~ T H > c CO 6! N OD = U .O ' X C" G h O G C •6. > v _ cn vyi v a y N 4. 7 7 V ~~J ~ ~ O J C O C ~ • ~ ~ 'r V ~ ~ ~ ~ C Z G v ~ f`7 ~ ca' r y ~ c3 O ~ ~ O^~! ~ cs L V ) c3 C s ` C C = O 'Q 1) 69 O C -j ' i•' = cQ M 7 y C O _G :S C) O_ H T 3 ;n •G G T C C 7 .C cTi .C UJ 'n 3 G ` E y 'X D 'O ~j 'D ^ ~ L y ~ C :0 N y n • C u C 7• v ^Jj C C. .C C 4 V L G~i R C 7 L y O L y O y 7 c9 U O ` y G C y C7 cC G C !J :J y > ^3 Q y _ .D L •L :n U L^ y J C y y^ 6J C y C a! U u 4 y a j n G j L D t.L y C- T y• C R O O 7 O Q O 3 v~ U C- s y y C 1 oA a O O G` L _ C 7 vl C 4 J C 7 y 17 'v o t ~ y y U T.~ = y i H i .y ~ ~L..r ~ .n E a G y 0 y C G.I O U ~ y m eo o O. Q > E E > G cn~ JZ a` Sl c3 L .y _ y :J 7 H .J ~ 00 = O L C O J •Q # " m a z # ?9 o o 'til > v a~ c ~ o ~ r. o ~ aA v y J C ~ n O 'II _ p 'p 7 L !r i octs s n v-C g s D o a o y E 3 u c c v t L n U n sr J y C s R p 0 _ R N" O G U- :D E L O y E E R II > f" O_' p C. ~ ^ p U V C to O E C O 4 a_ y L- C c y y f c 0 s U c v •R N 7 a>i R> O a U o- o o c - v C c c y 2 c = .D 3 U R L O" ie .C R y R C" U N R ^ G ` C y _ Vf R y .r L a a y , 0 C C ylu a y` G' J C O .y fl R y U Ly J a3 o y U . v c R° a'o v c R 0 L 'c c _ V. a ~v a~ U U s U 3 R ♦ R C 3 'vi a s R E to c s R 1. o 'G U Y a'p y e v~ R v a R a~ u y y R J N R p C y a L y U ° v u " y U V y C :3 O s R eC7 ,a O L y L ~ 'C-j y = ~ C T O' R .a O c o E y o Q > p U U p p .O y R _ cr R Vf s.. p G. V d. 7 p C U ~ R O R U > v > R ~ y > C c p R, y U C fl u E 7 C ~ ti ~ s Y O O en .0 v R n` U y 7 p O 6p v y O T L ~y C O y C L p L U s~ a+ O O= U y n yOD 3 O CA a R Q T R c^ye U v a c s v E .y y a? 'C R> E 'i G O C cv E y R p R .a yL' p y R y O G c 45 y U c y E E E R E> 3 c ry0 R a o Q° o coos •n y m 4; t5 m ~ _ C U R ti/ L. c r R R. y ~ s 7 U y 2 v O ~ C ,G a~ ~ = a y O R t~ L C O p = y co F. d o O y j U *C C O v api a>i C' O a~>i v O u = c n v m r s L E 0 R c u z v v- ~L v c R c y E~ E ~ o> a c :ti y •yi ,p O a U R cr O.0 •O ti a D. y c? c v w R R oD p ~ ay s E.. ea U _ _ ~ s o> 0 2 y ~ a H a v y~ _ y~ O y •rn Q' y a y O N R ~ c.> E> O O " Con • y R C y 0 y~ 'n C R a O 7 y1 n R n O y y y N y 'C n N a L, ~ U _ U a cUa O C gyp., Z v U L .E - y _ R p ,c? y L y ~ d t0 o ~ E U ~ 6~ T E C. N p y . C c~0 O LU C d L O` a y r'- U L ~ E> N O y R :0 7 V I Z .Ui ? Q Z O y L 3 U :J J O Z r 30 0 Tfl r ~ > m a , . . <o A O I M G m N M e _ ,.y > O r y -4 : c V c° ~ w ~Q 1 v 00 W _ a d C4 ~ e d a~ i C. c a ~ 'C o ~ .y A a > w d o _ a W " a d s 0 v a ~ m d IL c v O • N V W O Y Ol V O C O r U m O R N fi ~ D rn ~ Y O) v Q y C I Q V m V Y Q O 5 E O m c V I c °c E Y Y d 0 O W G V C C O Q ¢ m c Y m E Ma v u E U < C7 Y E a N N ° m rn c r Y c v .q a. 0 C z Y m Y n ' o E H a x ? c W a Y m Q m U a or W E A c W C2 O N p U c > v ~Q 0 5E e E O O c 0 Q" a 0 c = $ Y E m y s i u V- a d Y Y v n B y Y T~ Y r O O O Y o l vi U m D V a a` o o. c7 rl ff. O ri A Y O O O 6 N O Y ~ Q V7 ~ V Q d ti a _ _ o 01 w 61 ~ Its a~ ~ o O. v A A o u a C: u d to Y W o a '►~i o d i O ~ N a i c n n a c i c ~m I o rn U a' - m c ~ e I m b n U Y i u > 9 I OI O c i ~ E U p° • I O e C H N a c a r = aQ a wQ a` uc ~ v of Summary Report ESD Site Development Alternatives Analysis Document Preparation 5.0 DOCUMENT PREPARATION This report was prepared for the City of Encinitas by Lettieri-McIntyre and Associates, Inc. The following elected officials and professional staff participated in report preparation: City of Encinitas John Davis, Encinitas City Council Member Chuck DuVivier, Encinitas City Council Member Lauren Wasserman, City Manager Bob Nelson, Director, Public Works Department Sandy Holder, Director, Community Development Department Gary Barberio, AICP, Senior Planner, Community Development Department Sandra Vinocur, Management Assistant, Public Works Department Lloyd Holt, Senior Civil Engineer, Engineering Services Department Chris Orozco, Management Analyst, Public Works Department Rob Blough, Traffic Engineer, Engineering Services Department r Lettieri-McIntyre and Associates Anthony Lettieri, AICP, Principal Bruce McIntyre, Principal Joan Isaacson, AICP, Project Manager Teresa Barker, ASLA, Senior Landscape Architect Mary May, AICP, Senior Planner John Messina, Associate Biologist Nicole Tee, Assistant Planner Corky DeVerell, Administrative Assistant Joanne Rdf, Graphics Department Manager Mike Blackburn, Graphics Assistant Kathy Folk. Word Processor The following companies provided technical assistance: AS1I Affiliates (Cultural Resources) John Cook, S.O.P.A., Principal Austin-Foust Associates (Traffic) Terry Austin, Principal Nfav 2. 1997 33 Summary Report ESD Site Development Alternatives Analvsis Document Preparation Earth Tech (Geotechnical/Hazardous Waste/Civil Engineering) Doug Roff, C.E.G., C.H.G., Principal Stephen Smith, P.E., Director Jack Kubota, P.E., Technical Advisor Keyser Marston Associates (Market Assessment) Paul Marra, Principal James P. Kurtz Consulting Environmental Engineer (Noise) James Kurtz, Principal Slav 2, 1997 34