The URL can be used to link to this page

CMD95A Hwy. 101 Drainage (2) CITY OF ENCINITAS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: June 9, 1999 TO: City Council VIA: Robert T. Acker, City Manager FROM: Alan D. Archibald,Director of Engineering Services SUBJECT: Negative Declaration for Leucadia Drainage Improvements(CMD95A) BACKGROUND: City staff has completed an Environmental Initial Study in accordance with the City's California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and has determined that this project would not have a significant effect on the environment due to mitigation measures to be incorporated into the project. Those measures are included in the Determination Based on Initial Study, attached. Legal notice of preparation of the Environmental Initial Study was published and established the public review period to run from April 5, 1999 to May 4, 1999. The Determination Based on Initial Study was submitted to the State Clearinghouse pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The State Clearinghouse distributed copies of the Determination Based on Initial Study and plans to eleven state agencies including the Coastal Commission, Department of Fish and Game, and Department of Parks and Recreation. The deadline to return comments back to the State Clearinghouse was May 13, 1999. The City has received a letter from the State Clearinghouse informing the City that there were no comments from the State agencies and that the City has complied with CEQA requirements regarding State Clearinghouse review. The project is presently going through the Coastal Development Permit process. It will be competed within two months. FISCAL AND STAFF IMPACTS No fiscal or staff impacts. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council adopt the Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments: Negative Declaration Response to Comments Determination Based on Initial Study Ar6172 CITY OF ENCINITAS NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Title: Leucadia Drainage; Low Flow Storm Drain Systems . Location: North Coast Highway 101 and Railroad Corridor from Sunset Drive to South Carlsbad State Beach, Leucadia Community, Encinitas, California. Description: Low flow trunk and collection storm drainage facilities . Project Sponsor: Engineering Services City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 FINDING: Based upon information provided in the Initial Study, along with Comments and Responses to the Notice of Preparation of a Negative Declaration which have been presented to the City Council, City of Encinitas, at a duly called meeting on , the Council finds that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: Mitigation measures included in the project as a condition of project approval to avoid potentially significant effects include: Site specific geotechnical and soils engineering investigations shall be performed prior to project final design and construction activities. Point source pollution control structures such as oil/water separators and water quality inlets shall be considered for installation in certain locations to remove petroleum compounds and grease as well as floatable debris and settleable solids from storm water. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to substantiate the finding. Date Mayor, City Council City of Encinitas 1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMNIENTS FOR DETERMINATION BASED ON INITIAL STUDY The Determination Based on Initial Study to prepare a Negative Declaration for the Leucadia Drainage Low Flow Storm Drain System has been circulated for public and concerned agency review and comment from 5 April to 4 May 1999. No comments were received. In addition, a State Clearing House (SCH#99041060) review was conducted from 13 April to 13 May 1999. None of the state agencies have comments . 2 Notice of DeterminA _an Appendix D To: _ Office of Planning and Research From: (Public Agency)City of Encinitas 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 Sacramento,CA 95814 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas,California 92024 X County Clerk County of San Diego 1600 Pacific Highway San Diego,California 92101 Subject:Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resource Code. Leucadia Drainage; Low Flow Storm Drain System Project Title SCH#99041060 Kipp Hefner 760.633.2783 State Clearing House Number Lead Agency Area Code/Telephone/Extension (if submitted to Clearing House) Contact Person North Coast Hwy 101 and Railroad Corridor from Sunset Dr to South Carlsbad State Beach,Encinitas,San Diego County Project Location(include County) Project Description: Low Flow trunk and collection storm drainage facilities. This is to advise that the City of Encinitas has approved the above described project on 9 June 1999 ®Lead Agency ❑Responsible Agency and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project[®will❑will not]have a significant effect on the environment. 2. ❑An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. ®A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 4. Mitigation measures[®were❑were not]made a condition of the approval of the project. 5. A Statement of Overriding Considerations[❑was®was not]adopted for this project. This is to certify that the final Mitigated ND with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public at: Engipqering SFpicpN,City of.) initas, 05 South Vulcan Avenue,Encinitas,California 92024 RAJ Md6u —5-11('/q q 60� f�7411 K4?eV- Signature(Public Agency) Date T tie Date Received for filing and posting at OPR: Revised March 1986 y 0 ar. --I x x G +c (2) 01 r- 0 (a m V C C C •� yl G tT •'1 ri W ro L U1 + 3 41 E u1 4J ° v x W (1) 4 U ro W H m A C C. 0 -) m G (0.-ii C o y .C) co ri 'o a) ooai3u ° a -1 4J a) A m a) LV aU ro 41 tp a j 0 0 a ca m +� o a m C m aa)i ° T 0 H •C rn ro b ro tr N > G 41 y-•G-I -.V1 4. m m O 0 °o a)a)aa)) 43 44 ro o c � 1n �4 ro 1n 4.3 H CO (0 b A of 0 •a -.1 4) C ca j U -1 0 3 ro 3 U) w rn 4-1 x -.A + a) ro ro {� N U 4 .0 N m 4 C .. a-+ m w m .0 m O L b U C •r1 N ,a 1 N O 41 4 m r c w U m ro 3 aa)) r � o ax a 4J C rJ C 41 O -� G m (n .0 --i O' a. � C, R J)n n C 3 3 m m O U tr, � G v a ro o C 4 m > m m U a) O G 4 ri -.i O 4-J +i .r-i A •.� C .1 r1 A C N G v w C C U -� +) ca 0 V) A r O N a) •ri (a >, •• V '6 N G +) V) w ri co 4 ri O 4 4 m r G +-) m m o R O m ro .--i m o •-1 4 41 C O C --a > a a �+ ul -C w m o aU 1n o 0 0 —4 0 4 41 w (0 a) J-J r C 4 'U U +) U) a O -H m O C ri-n O m (1) o a G 4 G 'o O (3) R O 0 0 0 4 T - U r m N O Q) O " > 4) W O .i 1+ 4 7 a) G A O a m m r1 (A al 4 41 G R R (Z a) m to 4-1 .C: G N •� 0 a ca a) 'o O 4 4 41 -4 -1 (1) V) 4 (1) O 4 m N G E a) C 4 m u m ri U O O 4 -•1 ro --+ p .0 m 4 ro a) O •rl 4 1 0 , o cn -n 0) 3 c n o G o U U) m 4 �-i o o ro tr o m a N •,I 4 CT 1n m C 4 •O 13 U) -r1 ri 1n p b b > 0 C 0 U m a (1) w m m (1) C G m •-i C > -r4 U .1 E +) G 4 A C O co •� •.Oi 7 C N O S 4 1n a) a (1) -r1 U J� O ro a) 7 >+ > • O E ri ri 4j U .� '1 a) G .1 O 4 O C b a) ca ri C -1 4-1 C R ri o X m R 4 m ro > 4 r a) w 3 1 A_i a) a) a i 0 c 3 U U' w 0 N ri CO 4) 4 a) a 4 4 .1J m z 0 4 C U w c7 ro 0 U -G x 1 o a -4 N -n H b O (O a x 4 -1•H 41 4 c e c 4J v rn v c Fi G a al f S.a N CC 4J N m Ol H a) a•� 7 b m N C a) 4 a) a) SC U •rI G G trl CO 4 (1) +1--+ G m o tT b+ m .0 x 4J -•1 .,� ;:, ri 1-1 > •rl.-I •rl m (U > Lj Q) m C �1) W .� •C-m A C -H m e 4+ G 0 ca m U) 1.) J-J •1 V 'o m 4 U (z -rl O 4 a) >+cn 1) .-H -r1 •H - i) •ri 'U 4 U CO C R b -4 . U) r) % 3 3 1) ro 4 4 Ln -1-.-I 4 E -•1Z (L) N A (1) .ri RO+ O • -W Uwb Q) -ri > O > 7N 41 11 g e CO m U -4 4 -H H ••1 a) a) q W U U o ++ a) G N +c ro rn w b E +) Cl U ] •r1 •rl a) U 4-1 a Z •n ro t0 U 4' U ro 1a (1) r (Z •--I ri Q) G U 7 r O O r1 m a) a) G a) 4 ri G w m W.,1 -1 Q) 4 H 4 a ,-I -n 4 a) -n O C 0 U to w ca +) a O (0 4) Ei 0 4-1 (1)0 un 0 crow m ..i•.1 -1 O ro ,c a) 4 ,J op a 4-J _1 U -U N W K A G m tr+a 4 F > a R W U U 1-1 N ❑ cn ^r a a n 4 c ca o c ro 4 4 4 O m roN i� U o a1 a co c G U a) 'a CL (2) In m 04 'a U >, O x a) O L E ••1 H 4 C N 1e W H ri A U W O N + + b H R 1 9 z p, � N �C �+ A a) N H O (0 )4 ro ai) 0 1) U +1 p .) -1 A q 0 0 X 3 � � gp4QFro• 4-J � a x xx xxx q tTH d ro V J U7 U 7 C w � a N E a y1 ca 4 m b q C 3 ro > N ro q — 1 ccoovxo roro xx 4J t, 43 0 oa as n pa V) H 4—J G4 ° ) to E to -O C 0 C a. a) G C J U --1 U U N 0 7 .-�I N O N N q� 'O a 4 N i) 4, 1 C •A u o by r 4. Xo > 0 H Oa, G Gi aGi tr ° m am off43 � Ga o (a a) 4-1 0 tr 4-)--4 G .-t C m U a) w C 0 .0 4-J � ax) (G0 -0-1 co N A C O tr.Q 3 -0 a.o m G N O JJ 4 -1 4 4 ,� v tr3 A C a °n. ro ro _0 Xn — o m (a 1 71 .11 a) � 41 U a) 0+ O U -'� 4 4 yn •Lo a G N tr U O G P O N 4 U 7 O 4 O 4 a) O C U O U +1 C G U C) �:l CO 41 GO O 00 tr a) m tT G 41 to �ml •--1 U U G U Q a) 41 a U a m ] •.i U 4 U 4 W A N O E CO b--+ O •,1 a) 1) E co a a) + a) a) U U M r C U 0 > O C +1 U tr O {� O c0 G 0 C )4 tr a) 4 7 y 4 O.11 O E•--i•.i P. G N 0 m y1 0 0 U 4 U U l -I c0 — fa +� '0 0) a) ro U O .� a° •LS .0 m =u) w O O (1) OA 04J A -P Lo Uyn O n SA-A C a) ••--) A a) try -0 .. to C C w v rn co GE + •U 3 -i 0 +1 O 04 r W o 3 3 G 3 ca N 3 > - tr a o to o b tp rob m- -a cA C 4 > 3 + w C u CL C 4J 4J U ro aU1 >, aX) > yn x .•�-t 4 4 G � 14 a) a) a m c0 > WW y w U O C (I 0 aEi aEi 4 aE ro m �] U E a •+� U U > > O --1 > a) RI +) r b -0 E tr tr --4--i M O O 11 C O U W U a) G C 0 4 C G 44-•-t 4 4 0 •-I 4 (3) O ca 4 G 7 G 0 (0 --I O O O p LL A E f] C a s G O O 7 G O U -4 70p. 41 +1 c, W U U U (0 (1) O •-i •.-1 4 a)--1 U C tr tD'4� (1) " U a) (1) y -p j-1 w A w E U' --t tGi U U .� C aa)i-4 'y U U O U G a) 0 --t •11 a) --I O 't) U a) b O a) (1) +1 +) a) O U ►7 - w E E C U--i C ---i C q H m-r1 C •n.-I c0 O +J -4 U U U •O U o U 0) Id F O O 0b O w --t W C G-•iI•-A C 0 --1A C. 4 4 .-i N 4.-I a U' a) ca a) a) a) 10 W 41 7 X C +1 [14 U U 11 W U) U) to .7 W c0 U) W N U •-I•-1 O > V W ro A C a) U H104 q •x O X U C H 0 X H W U a) b•-i H 4-1 a) 10 W 4J w 0 o z G N N O 0 0C N O H O m E -� N +1 Q) 0 0 'o N -.mod 0 N C a tT N 0 4-1 p R C r N -� 0 1 O N 4 ro Ili N A 4 4 w --I 0 O m EF+ r0i 0 4 4 d 0 b a N 0 : N 44 ro m 0 0. m ro G w W N .N N '0 >C 7C >C >C >C 7C �C q .qA N •0 a 4 7 • 0 N ••� U 0 c m 01H x 4 E m & � O LL N f4 c N ► 4 w r! m -4 � C .0 -- UU N S A N (a -i 4J O U LO 4-1 tr, --I -M'0 m w m w ° o ° � � Nm i a o --a En •>1W q m 0 0W 0. ro - 1 0) a .c m r-I R p 4-) 0 U N -� m m ri rd tT 0 0 0 •ri O --1 C C 4 U N ro o m y ✓d 4 > A W 0.-� N m CO 4 --i C ri •rI o 0.•-1 .0 0 0 (0 W a) A) W 0 b) G 1 V b � a) m N m " •0 G -1 q ri m 0 U C O O ++ R a) G 4 - 0 4 w O W b 0 br C n U w U) -1 +-' 0 .A � G C - a p O A) C 0 � W v1 H p.O 0 a) a '40 m O 0 G 0 N 04 a) w 0 -'i 4 •A b 0 •-4 C CO 4-1 E 0 A 4 m A) 0 4 m a) E N m a) W c- m N 43 rir C m C A T+, U m m e N . -� 3 C N 4 CO N > CO U E m C) a c m rq � O o o +1 11 C Wri rd c a ac C Ul m w --11 tT-n 4 C N r U C. N O m E 0 �93 H 0 m 0 .0 '0 --1 N m •rl .� w 4 43 W ty 4 "0 0 •rl -A "o --1 O N U T x 0 O N C w G 0 W m •ri a-) U -� •0 C 41 U m co m m a) O A •-i 'O m 0 7 k+ 0 0 (1) C N -a -a m 4 U N 4 W (1) 441 •rl -r1 A '-I 4 'C 0 -i w 4J W m m b) 0 A 4 0 4 N o) --i m C 0 a � w U)) m �' A to w U a) ,. w m N a) o 41 •0 U 4-j 0 m T 4J +1 °C C 4 U (0 m C a) •0 m U 4 10 4 U b N m U 0 m q m-n m r-I 0 of --i 0 0 G m 3 CU w ov o -Q -1 m > o m o ri av n ° 0 a) 41 '0 N 4 N 0 A 3 �- 4 m N 4 7 4 W r•I 4-j 0+-1 m C 0 10 W --I 4 0 U V m w 0 0 in a) ro d N al o m 0 m V)) w r 'u a4) u m H 0 T A O .0 U G 4 0 i 1j 4 0 4 4 T 4 w 0 CO 4-) Id 0 .0 N 0 .r~ N 7 -0 0 ,c--i 4 . 0 b U 4 4 0 .. J� 41 O --I 1� J.-� 0 "o N O 1� "1 �O m m 0 m m o w + r-I m 4-� N m 4 A m C 4 w U 0 C +j 0 C 0 7 ro 3 w w 3 0 (a 0 r) 0 C p] O 0 C O 0 O O O (1) O --1 N O 4 4 w ri U +) V) •r1 w C U b 4 m 0 W 4 C m 4 a N +J C 43 m N R 0 0 0 C N O c C 0 1 m 3 r' 0 m m m 0 (d 4 0 0 A N 4 T m a) 0 m •0 4 +! -1 +J lEi b) 4 E .c 0 T 7 0. -i N 4 m --i 4 N N •r1 -, O N n + C ai 4-j o 41 V) C o N m 4-, A) o v co 3 T.0 C m T 4- N •-i w O x m C JO 0 • A 0 O 4 0 m 4 m 4 G +� -i C 4 3 C m U C O. m m w m CO m m W C 0 0 T 0 0 -i 0 m U --� O tT '0 7 O G --t > 0 b+ m m U C m w 4-J 0 +j 0 a) •-i C 0 U W y..r C O N •r1 b G 0 ri 4-J 4 -i C 4 1) w C 4 (1) O 0 1.) 4 C 0 tT U -1 m m --i •-i . LL O O tT 0 a) -i C .4J "o A m -ri -ri o (1) m b m LL 4 -0 N a) 4 ,C > A 4 b) C m --1 W > 4 --i N •o U 0 4 4 4 U N tT CO 44 CO +p •ri m o m R m --I 4 -rl -.1 CO m +J N 4� c-H •• a) ++ 0 a) 4 a) 4 N o q J� ,� '0 0 •rl N w 0 0 A) 0 4 CO A --1 m N C tP m X. Jj O w a) o w � LO m C U --i N 0 4J m O C N -� c N T --i m 3 41 m m ++ -� O C 0 --i (o m O C m a) m a id m T c w N o T.0 C 0 3 3 3 c ti m U --i O D. m O. w --I O 0 N c m Ni C G G 0 --i T O 0 -1 ,-i m + 4 0 4 Tf m o 0 p m tr•rI a -� 4 m 0 o E w a + o U 4 G 4 o U 7 C r E r W --i 0 C C b) b m W •r1 > 0 --i 4 0 N b T m 0 7 CP 1� W >+ m N c .G o .c--1 C 1� --1 -A W 4 '0 m 0 a) T a) w N W U 0 C c � 0 m E U +� m T O N 0 4 tj c 0 G u 'O u 4 4 4 4 4 O m W --i 0•-I p w b r1 4 c C O m X O C O m C -4 N m O 0 7 m 4 + O - C -i •ri 0 .>~ 7 m 0 m N (1) 0 U 4 4 m C7 0 • 0. +j N •c .0 N m l-j CL y 0 N 3 N ri > T 4 W e N 0 4 N 0 m +1 L) 0 m -J W 4� A 0 la > a) m 0 •rI --I tT m 0 •-i --I 0 •--I N m . 4 W O 7 C 7 .-i w A 4 4 0 O i b' G4-J 4 E w w G O O 4 c0 ¢ O 4 4 N m i N w m o O w CO •o --1 0 o m m 4 0 0 0. 0 O T O 4 4 p U o 0 0 N 4 0 C O r- 44 C O C 0 m tT O C 4 U 41 _ + C 0 C 4 m 4 ---I C 'O a) a) 4-j � a 'o c w 4 0 r 0 m C --I tP 4 w 0 0 [ o m 4 0 G N C m 0 b co N N --1 N w C 0 04 --i w w C N w N 7 O CO--i �+ H 1-1 N 4 --I Id m C 0 4 a-+ C --i CO 4J 4 •-I O 4J W a) 4 0 4J G 1-1 0 3 41 m CO 0 m 0 CP c ro O 4 4+ U O' 0 0. 0 --I 7 E C CO m 4 c b U '3 qi 0 -o U o H •r1 0 1J 0 0 U 4 0 m 0 i ,c 4 C Q. N (a 0 7 3 -C 0 C 7 p C a) E Id A) 0 m w O U a) T C +� 0 7 0 4 U' m w --1 0 •0 U x E U JJ 0 •r1 T 4 N m --1 m W 4 N m 7 N 4 a) O 0 4 4 -� 1� 0 0--I 4•-I U -0 -A > --I m 4 •ri N --i m c E T A GL w ma c ^ a) b 4 CO U 4 4 --i 0 0 E 0 G A •A 0 (v m G •LS U O O --I m a) C Cu J-) U CO .(-. L O . a) tP A G� G W N-M 7 .4 A) > m (1) -o m aJ 4 a) N G c U W OD--1 . .1) 4J Lo 4 -1 7 4--I 0 0 0 0 --a a) N O 'U U O C -- U Y C O c m 0 ,n G c � •-i `•-1 O m 0 0 a) 4 4 m Id 41 4 0 E 0 W tT 0 0 4 CO 0 � ---4 w � 0 �--1 •-a C 3 N ("1 b J� •--I 4 CL N 0. tT m m O r-I ---H •-4 4 •^ O 4 4 0 tTc th --i G 4 m 0 C --1 •'-i N rd 0 --q N 0. O 0, N m N a 4 M 4 N N 4 0 •0 N C O z N m 0 Ul m 0 0 ++ m 0 4 '0 a) N 7 — (0 M a) 0 a) 0•-I h a) a-+ m W [ H a) C .0 C Cn•r1 4 U T •rI 0.U '0 m Q. 4 C a) PG tr N �- Cn rT r tr +1 T 4 v +-+ 4 0 w -P O 43 0 -4 --i W L 0 m 4 (�s]7 G w O h ro H 0 •-� Cl 4 0 0 0 -n 0 m 0 C T E 0 R. N 0 H m 0 0. tP N h m m w m c > •-i lJ ,C +J 0 0 Y 4 ,� O > •-1 J•) •c 4 .--1 ,C S1. .� .0 X G•-i T.0 .0 C A O m q E-E m N'o to W E 4---1 4..+ O E 0 -i E 'O E U w W--i A +J U U 0 U•-I U •-� Q F-1 V) CO m a m•-� -A W LL w C m -C CO w .-. 0 G -0 •-1 E +1 X A -a _—i 4 N -� 0 m — m 0 •n--w E 'o — 7 O --i --- a) —•-i a) m J� q W m m 0..0 A m C v a) -4 w 0 •C 7 4 a) Ur,� (0 •-4 m 0 A -0 v m -0 m 0 `I-1 a 4 m ��x > 0 7 W 0 .c 0 0 N O O j w 0 4 0 m 0 w 4 LL (L N c tT f-1 m E m 0 U 11 +� .0 w +, 0) is x 00 tr -1 sa ro si ro m a) ro 4-4 W 4-4 ro W ro xx 0 L) 1441 0 00 .14 00 xx ro 0 4 G A +Jm ' u G 0 3 o m trm a o �1 s01 voi tr m G CO W G 7 0, G 7 m 0 -� 4-j_i Y a) ro G W.,i a) W ro W m .1 W W A X a) -4 ro A r . 0 0 v a) 4 ro m Y W W W W W ro U . W 0 m > W 0 17 C W 00 a cl.i Em' '.� u;•0 n-,3 I s1 141 C � s174 1 N 7 C .o� W�.,.i W A w al 44 0 m � 0 o o O 1 0 3 ro 0 m si ro o C U tr W -.1 $4 Y N E W b w C m C H O 1 CO a tl ro 0 O G -1 O p 0 C 0) ri .0 a N 41 -1 m 14-14 � Ga� A �+ m Y s ro > rob o -14 > W a) s1 ro o a�-.a ro a) Y a) a) ::1 w A ro a) m 11 ro W m F S W U m m W tP•i 147 0 tT ro aa) 0 v 0 N 3 W ri 0 3•� � A _ W --1 r ro s1 171�c U W a U 0 •14 0 W -1 W O ro W N r14 C 0 y G •,14 �l a) W '0 >4 r,1 Y df 0 o 3 -.i tr G ro 3 wed b � WOaC0 roa > o y o � Id O m N rori) ro CO W W 0 0 W m -,i a) •rl -1 o W s1 .-1 3 0 C m W 0 r14 si o ro m W W m 0 Y w m ro 0 r1 0 0 m-4 m a) C � W C-li Co U 1 114 b) �' w C a C a) E� a) a) C C W o -i a) m C d ''� ro.� 3G 0 > rz 0 •.a W Ns40 si 3 Y O+ p ro w > > W O -1 •.a 0 •r1 nt W o ro 0 •H a) 0 •r1 '1 C G O d •i 0 s1 ro W tT Y Y U a) s W W 0 C W W N H ro-i b a) C W 4-J 0 N a) •n (1) ro 141 +J m i > U ro ro C ro C r14 m w A W 3 14 ro O 1 a) O N ro r14 O w 7 ro W G m si W W sa � U x a) 5 Q N ro En 3 b > m 4i .�C O W O C O W S1 C 0 G a) ,� a G U ro a) C W > O a W r1 Y >, m b 1 W s1 -, ,-1 0 >a x -.i tO W JE U) ro -i ro a) a G ro r+ A o Y t O a o ic) r1 �' � .� •� ro ro O U a) U 7 Ej -i C U ca U a) w 1 OW ro0 wU) W ro �w o Am dJ a)7 :4 0 W G D a m m 6 00 Id 0 a) tr a 0 +� 17 dl w s4 •.1 O a) C ro r14 Y W C 0 s4 Y H m a a) W •n w d o w Y ri m a i W W m C a) CO 00 w-� W '0 O m 0 --i tr C b a C C G W Ci 0 a roma 41o •r+ Y9i ro -•1 (1) 0 (1) r ro 000 W ro .c 3 tr 0 a ro r14 ro �+ 0 00 0 ro ::s --1 +� (a [ W w W � o W a s C N " t7'W m 1 b 0 3 F E m U a) G -� •r1 w o '0 141) - 3 3 o G w ,C a) .0 •-i--� C G N 10 -.-i o U a F CO -fi O N m >+W C rZ W O �4 W W x C m .a -ri m 0 b '0 A O " a w s1 tT G O G t7T W 'ri 147 O W W W W •r1 C > U O A tP 0 W N G b ••1 C >4 U C 114 CO W A W b1 .� >-1 O W ro -•1 a) a) G tr ro a) a) a) b 0 +� 0 W 3 4-4 w W a -t i T3 o o ) W 5 0 m 0 Cr-) LW w -1 W 0 0 W CO 0 a a) m al a) N O ro O W G t W 3 •0 W m m r_ r: N-4 O s4 w W N -i ro W ro ro .1 -0 -1 a) -' U O G U) C '�ro m ro w w �J (1) a -• 0' 171 (1) ri r > W a) ro C a+ � ro O � W tr m 0 a) a m -a O O 7 0 U o tr 1 ro m ro • ro C m ro W m o rZ 8 ro m a CO m a) r+ a) O O m > ro 0 r14 A U a a) ro O m W C C m 0 W W W .-) � 0 Y >~ ro a) W >W C 7 -.i - 0 0 a U--1-.i 00 0 tr Y r N )4 W i ri ro a) ro m (o >m 0 ca W a C U m C m m .-1 W (Ii-i 0 a) i w ro W G -.1 ro m m--1 •� A m -.1 ro 4 W > W o O b ro .H ro •i U zs s1 `0 W 3 3 0 G W .0 -0 -.1 a) W L' o -0A W W 0 0 C W ro a) ro t, S4 C ro (1) U W w 141 C ro ro W U a) r W W-.--I W C W 4-1 W G 171 G 0 ••i ro W a) a) 't3 a SC-I aGi W V W c0 ro C C w a) O a) O A m m N V 11 W a) A .�a ro � S-4 W C -,A -1 O >.W m •r CO W a W m W O .'i .1 W A ro W •i N A w m a) a) (2) i C• 1 a x F� U d O G 3 m•i b m C " U •-i A w sa W W ca W W O N -•1 N m a ro '0 U G Y 1 (1) O ro -11 o U o G W W O - U ri r+ 10 a) a) m -� •0 ro 0 'd .c U W V --i a) O G ro U a) a) .-i d '0 U C- 1 w G r14 W W V -1 •0 C U m (0 0 ro ro Ia O .L O >w N O W G •.1 ro C m N U ro .-I -rl O 41 ) m L+ m W .0 11 U U W •.1 L4 U •rl r-1 O .0 a) N ri J >. O )n - W m O C ro U O a) C � W W m •0) 17, a A W a O O b c) O s _ >N -4 s1 C )4 $4 ro CO p 0.'i U-H C U W W O r1 m 0) a O i Co i s1 a O C S4 C 3 ro -'1 U W ro (1) U r14 0 W C •.1 W W -.i ro ro N m G W a) (1) 'Lj W ro a) U CP 0) a if r14 W CO (1) W C C --i W W '0 O O �. W W a) W (1) C (L I.1 C w 0 .�." .C: ro a) ro m O 0 C W a) 0 00 p C i w s1 W A �C W a ro C tT C U W t71 t~ 7 C a co r sa r C ca w C >,w C �C O G 00 7 -•1 a) O 11 C m C W m ro 0 a) >, A O ro U U •a N N w i G )•1 > ro w W O s4 W s1 W m rob C .-I E ro sa C W W 0 ri--+ w O C r >+ a si C > •1 O m O C C -• .1 W " Y 14 w -.1 •.1 W W-.1 b a) ro ro s1 3 > G a) 4 G '0 1 o Id r4 0 3 W a m -ri 3 a) W ro a 0 0 E W 0 O a) - i G o U a 3 0 C 14 E G i1 .1 = -4 r1 a) E O G 0 m W N W 14 S-i W C •'1 w -rl W 3 W W O cu •rl O C ro W W --1 O 0 4) > O W a) U W a a) ro a) ro W (1) ,-I 1.14 b G W -•-I U -.-I a) W ro •rl (1) .4 O •.i H C ' C m G W O W W = CI > sa W C � W A ro W .i ca a) c w a) .-1 W W W -4 ro--i 0 IV If O a) -1 U U a) ri $ 11 w E C 7 C 3 C E •27 m 7 > s1 7 >� a) 0) G 6 r-I C ro C N W W O .0 tT si W > O •' O b 0 43) .14 > W > U d "0 a) r W N m > O O a) si W > 4-r1-.I a) Y O O o al W W 0 C 11 01 0 (d "0 o U C >4 W a --•ri ••i CO O ro 1 1 0 U J > N N-i w N -n CO ro a ro O ro C Y an d sa 1 14 >~ p a W O a o 3 4 W 4J W W-'-i ro N m a W ro N a > m Eu d a) 0 �4 '0 o S4 •.1 m b' W N b) c0 E a) Si .0 C 8 �+ C C •n -n is -.-i I 0 0 t W W o N w W a c U W ro w c G o o a O a " U S+ W �4 CO ro b W m G W (3) 0 N C (0 a) O a-.i dl �.• U W 3 0 0 a) Ii ro W 0 A 0 0 W i1 a 3 c G U b C - -r 14 U W ro a) r a) x a) ro Q) CT W .i a) C O W a) ro W l a) W 4-1 W O W G n r o a) m C ro W H an W 1 W 1 N N Id Co m m b 0 0 ro Q ro R O m O a -O ~ s Y W Q 14 a u N OG U P+-.i 0 a' W W W P. a) a) to :3 a4 C7 W w a+-^i H > U W m U m C G W Z 4 171.0 3 Q C w -4 '� N -4 SE CL a) co 41 W ro '0 W A U •ri W m W W W G ro 14 b a) W W U O 0) H a ro o A U b W ro ro 114 x N m O a) m O U 141 ro a) •11 0 -1 ro >4 w 7 �4 C X H W w W W -0 A W r1 3 E 3 0 tl 3 w 141 O W > a •'i W 12 O b x x x ° G O c x O U N z m (a -14 a) C 1 ro H 04 S4 aJ r T � J (a (1) > 3 m aa) y m m o a b b .-I N G c S-, co O N y U .0 .0 N m C S) F -j xx x x SAO w xxxx a) b > 5: .G O F > 4.) 0 N 4j 4j .07 •.i y O C C C w o N c0 a) O G m m. I Q A '0 C.w S-i C C O S� N- m C X U U 1 b a 1 m n .- �I C -.1 " J-) 7 n N G N 0 J� O C b 0 a0 -1 b 4, U .1 m O G m > w O b o G ro b ° + Q)o+ m C ] y O m mw P4 U) C 3 ma) a> Nw �o m o H a m E a Q ° > C 4- o >i 4J ro > 0 +, ov > HG u) � 0 „ on •�a,-P n.--1 -� U ro t' ° v w o n G (0 .vw '� ro 4J 41 o ro G •.i �' G- O m is m > H •U ° w C S4 ° a O-ice,� co v� a -,A c v m 1 C . u ro o 0 a co a a-o a F m +, co m m- •-1 a) .-i " 4j C s1 A C s, a at ao o. b o G C m G w �, G-4 a) (1) U -� C O O w 10 •• . C ro m A w ca O U G m 0 O cn (1) m " m C O A -C ij aJ m A 7 QL O O u c. N O m ? -O c C V) U 41 ^ ro C C•rl m p a--1 m co b +, --4 C � O .. x u 5 -� TS +1 s1 C O "7 C. O R, O w GL N or m al (o -.i tr, G U N X U -•i w 0.l N O y 0 0 m u) �n r) > Q) N G o G�4 44 N cn rh C m C •D ' m C A ' N d QC N O r ro 7 10 m_ w `O �-a0 r �+ Sa N a-, JJ —4 � S.a vl-•i C � a) ro m a) m w w C G •-a C .� �n ro O -.� m r r A 41 -H w o C.r1 m -H r 0 4 3 -wu m G G • r1 Ln O o m -H � m A - m 4j m O o ,n ro m V m >1 O " x s4 s + n Am b r- C r1 G C. -'1 . a) w > ch r1 m i! w -p 0 -, M C 41 V tr �. � C .0 m C -1 G r) r .-1 G +� -� N w (o — O -H C m C O C o m m O b O ^d m > m -0 r C. ro 0 ro .0 m a,n. i, G w m -rl �1 a) b O m r O U +� A m N C m O S-, G w U C. O C C. a) C. a) .0 O (1) m 0 0 U G +, O N O -.1 m •� .0 a) .0 a) a +, v �+ m m C. m -.1 r1 •-+ b •-� s, U -H �+ 4, s, F m .1 m m 7 a) +, m C. C. �+ ro '0 w C � C. a) ^w G w 0 64 -0 U 1, v -4 C C fl C s1 m v CO-H C.m -.a o o m C .1 •.-) m U m CO m a) " G C m u) C v u1 H 3 7 w a) CO C .,1 41 Ln 7 w w O h m V m a) w w m C (1) C O,Ta)S m --o A p . u) f o ca o -H w N U o G o > m 0 � m „ o, u a 0 w G v 3 S-I m m U (1) .-I S4 U-•-) a7 > iiEei O[i C E ro U r - O o a ° a) m o a) a) m C. o i� -, m 3 o a) m o, a) m H ro O of 1 " .1 m m U �4 +, w w U a m O G m a) O +J O -0 C U N w ` -� -,A A tr C. U a 4 m m m m C. CO ,n w (a 0 o W m C G •i 4-J w U C m (1 ao �4 a) w O ro O a) -4 F- > C N > 4.j 03: -H c H -1 o o � H m > a) x a) '0 � o 0 0 + - v m m a) m x 3 m .1 � ol u •H ro . ro s1 0w G s1 o Q) WaJr m m >> co o V � is CO )4 M C C, U O 04'O vI sa m ro w N .1 a) ro G p a a a .-1 w m C. �4 �4 ro U (13 G C m a) y o O O, Z7,+, Q-C co E ro +� N o 0 E T7 Sa rl .^{•.1 N 1G } U 1, C ro A a) m a) W -P U yJ o > G 3 S1 4J . C •rl m u) A -•1 ij 7 1-1 pa O a) a) �+ [`• a) U m O w '�y-.a 1UQ 'l7 a) a) m •0 .G C O m a) .1 p a -0 w w •.1 O m G +J a) 'o U w m m a) m m m E 1 ro ro U iJ o CO -r C m b u H w m m a - N O m m + m v - 3 o ro 4) s4 • m > > 0 w+ 3 +-� s1 -0 -1 3 W m 10 w 'O .,1 a! x �+ E .0 EF > +� O,rl rl G •�+ x m G O V1 N Sa (1) w 1+ .-A m O W N E- O U ►7 C •-1 rl N O O •-1 ro > a) cy U N m m N G i4 •-+ E O C.•r, H '0 V U w -4 F .--1 U C " m C m C G w tr, O C O O a) m--i m a) C m O O ro s1 w a a .3 O,•-1 w F h1x F1 �1xv ax ox 0 (a amity ^ w -0 m ca a m A U -0 a) w M IT a ro �4 [l C U — H m A U O al a m U 0 C, N 14 t a m w o f H 13 y 0 � x x x x x H C O y -,1 ° w C ro G H w a a4 r x x G � C m -4 ro O 0 y ii U -•C-I 4.) 44 N 43 bl] 0 � 04 in U°l 0 a) O Z+ >�41 ro a) b 0 0 +1 4J 44 3 0 Cl y bl U 0 •,1 C W W ro � o ro 0) G a N C C iOT l4 C v 4-j 4J as b O ro sa 0 l4 U >4 CO w 71 A a) ro �a Ul N JJ U) co S4 N N C O U) +j ro to s, ro -a u7 N La 41 '� Ul O m V -1 (D co O ro 7 C .C� w s4 ro + a ro ro o �-w a) V) a) a! U U a) C a O r F "0 C A C1 -� am o u " a A w 04 C N G m F�o ro w C a) w -1 ro H U ° - w ro 0 ro w m >m o � m m d a) m ° U) w sa 6 (0 C 0 o O o C ro •-� p 0 O a) w 0 -,1 G N N iT Ul y U -4 A N O b a) O G N C ro C > ro w sa " .1 -, ro .G 0 d -,1 � b V)) O G V ro ro 1Eq Ul tC0 Lroi 0, O. -•-1-1 X C 7 M co � ° 4-1 Q) 0 N 0 '0 U) W ro Ul Ul _ 44 a) O > C �Pi4 (L G (Q a) G > .G w a) m G a) N H O a) U) S4 a) .1 ++ C Sa ro m A ° i d > G � b b w `a-' O ,� ro C > C X .� -.i Li r) O a) a) y 3 ° w o ' C o v v G a p o am � wco. w a 0 H 0 w ro a � ) O- yJ 1 •rl a) m -� Sa O ( a. N lOi c N m •.°i o i� A L x U O ro to x A W 7 r) (a LO Ul -.-1 C U U) a) . C W G 7 rl H -m • a 1•+ -.i Ul O -- O N W C a) co G F a) .0 .0 W sa r. O .N X ul C m U � m CK 3 r- W-H E-E E-F r.( m Cu a E-F W -0 Lo 4-1 J-i p H dAm U ij X ro OA U x romA > U ro 1 H " 14 o b 0 z Eari " m "0 (d xxx x o m a) w w o tl m ~ a k) 0 r °' b b O. o n sa m a)--i.,1 CO si s m �' w b C N A � H to -� m w C C � co r s4 � � 93 3 � b m o b 4-1 4J E •.tli 0 G U) (1)uu) w41 > N b xx 04 �4 x a) 44 ro � , Si O N Q. O ro + U � .� 0 z u as my H l4 U m m ate) °a u-ii � -1 w° o a W 7 0 c y S w m wi o � )n b m 0. `a m o w O O > w-I w si C �w z m m m 0 > u O y)+) 3 � u > m E m �\ a)-- G w r1 G C m b m m •11 a) 3 ca 1-4 G >4 m ro 0 ;' m C w w w si G -11 � 16 0 0 —1 id a) m ul -i u Ur•.i c O 0 m m 44 0 O .ri -1 o v u u m m o m +) W m ro 0 C m o G > E 0 a) + 0 0 m b a) a •.ir .b' e mw mow aar, mrou °cam y b) o N (1) -Q 'i m m U � C m + a� 0 •.i � ° a E -+ m O a) a) U tl a a) C C G a to c a) S4 a) w N b C 0 m a) U u ~ V) U) m W O w li w Li 0 0 U] N U N C ,I w U) m Q ro G N E w C i C 0 a) � Ni UUl N O H m V 4 C co C ro ,4 rd tl c0 O G a) T7 v N -'i 1' +� C 0 m c U) w-.i SQ o C tl 0 C > ,.� --i w m N - (a U) a) w 0 7 0 i A ca p, C b) O � O co � m A N U � m~ w f4 w o s D 3 m o 0 v1 > b •C C a m O 0 .i •.i V) w S4 4 •-i C tp U .0 w a) W E 0 N •� 0 0 > m 0 ai o au) 4 .� " V O v) � " G w � a) x w o 0. 0 -1 G w G Q) m m •�:: F m 0ai G Q O O O w s ul v m " u t 0 m > m a m m wy 0 A Sa o m m a) >'i N b m G C tr+r-I m C w ro tl m a co o G> o --i •�+ W C Q m E.,i Cl) .--i tl N E 3 w O Q1 •-i tP .-� x .� 0 -1 '0 --+ 'O , m m N U) C U) L4 w CO o C 43 0 3 0 0 C •"-1 G b- d U) m U 7 > a-A ro w G x ri a) .0 a) a w 3 u m N c m C a) 1 a) Q. V U )n ai co �0) O U U) 0 W 7 tl •0 w a) ri •.UO�) CO " a) o N a o O (1) w c U U U h u m 4 0 0.w C] 0..m U 0 b .0.) a 1° � w • 0 ca w w o O O O W .i m w > b ' si -,i o f w s4 m u o ri 3 b -- U a) ) O a) a)a) F a) 4) ro E w m 41 0 U7 14 N C C 0 w w w .1 1 M N a) m -C� G m m u u o 0 C W 7 C �+ m w (1) to m m -0 C b -H G a •.i b Qo h a) )a (1) m G --i . m s.a C fl. c G a) N tr+ (a 0 , m b,w Q. a) w m U) C a) --i m k o m w w N U) N b '0 --i (a ul > G "0 Sr a) •-i Ol w -i (1) --1 fz • 0 •a sa N C C (1) - m a) G b U E M G 0 w m -1 u) (1) (n w .-i m r > -4 o U) . w > 0 C N N CO X m•-i m .0 C O N �- a) m u •-i C U m --i c >N U C--i > •-i F O b 0 CO .. ri w O ri sa C tl a S] - -m O w H m m w •O O w U n > 41 N �4 al Q w si w 4 {a o O w U m UJ O .-•-i m .i 0 •� m w (1) '0 O O .�n to N " rZ m ) Si W a) -0 b•.i N N w 0 n C CL O, U) it p .i > O O (tl O U) m 0 w 1 7 m a) 0 C -•i W O m U (a a) (1) >.-i rl 0 0 0 m 44 C a) C w W >•+ 'o -rl C w m 0 r- 4, m u 9: .q N i Q"6) Q' G) wih O N a) C a) > " m U) U 0 +) C a) m 0 U) .Q a) U a) b.H c4 > tl 43 al E G a) m r m F- -1 CO GN O � 4 G O � w •H a) ul C --I •i O J- C -- 41 � a) i > 0 a) E w - W u u w w ri U w m n m a) u w O m ^ m 0 -i m w m E m 3 m 9 m 0 c a m i -�i � s co � w u E >o 3 U 3 C C C•-i a) > m b C a) O 0 a) m .-1 -.i .-1 A SQ m .0 .q m W a b� o w s•+ 7 7 0 y, 0 U) U) w U) U) .H C 7 u 0 C w G O 0 0 --i N > m C w w c C m m m a) -o C � 0 o G w i a a) 3 3 M o a) w H C C o --i 1] 11-H 4 N " .0 •.I •.4 Q. w N E N C m a) Q. w C O S4 O N N !-i a) C G 7 m (1 C a) E E N O G 0 m )a w o 9 o a) •1 0. > h o 0 w E w E C ol a) a) a) 0. O m C•-i •-1 w 0 c .0 x O o 0 V1 s4 C-�i co G --i O N > > is --i a) a) .-1 -4 JJ •tl w a) a) W U) S4 w o O w .w a) > y 0 0 o w u C 0 m U) m a) 04 0 --i w w .i u n o 6 +1 O 14 l4 W > a) m u 3 m U bl rl m A b C E a) c w a) G U O )+ 0 04 a. U w --i m w C C .-I •-i w •.i > O -0 •• U w M N s4 a) p, E E C m O .-1 G Ul "D ••i -A � � 7 0 a) u a) U) a) 0 U a) -n , E m 0. U m 'd O a) C G i 0 U w i w a) m w G > O -H .-i y O+--i s4 E G N (0 sa 4) a N U "o U) C (1) o Q.cam• m 0 ii o y w w W V a) --i m Co w m 16 3 U) w a) Q c " �4 U) C O+ 64 o w Z u u a) -i 0 G m w V) 3 •A 0 ca :5 Z n u) m U m m 0 a) -1 a) z c u b O a) a) E w -i w m o C .-4 .-) a) a) U) O o --i N U 0 w >4 b E 0 0 0 E--C1 --1 � 41 ro W m Ca U 0. F W C a ►7 -Ci 0' .-i IC--Ci 4 F � N O 0 a a m w A 0 m m o ro h z w m E a w 3 L. a cn 0 u w m a,° aa)) .ir- c0: am .-i - z n )am 4o nu . a) w c .-i ,-.i q a ro A o U w rl CO--i A O+'0 0 .i m m Q a m > m m � m A U -o a) a m -i •0 r 0 m 34-1 m > m m m X � w W A NS+ � �+ mW 3-0 w 15 z � xx xxxxx xxx xxx x x H )4 O C i4 p G O to 0 C 3 3 if m y 3 E W A 4-1 N U) C N ro H a) N A .r N y C ro a) 0-� N N O U (a R m W W Q1 a) ri G 0 v 'O ro 0' +) W b� 0 C ro ro G tn W V1 w � NU H ro V b -.C-I m O N G J-1 W (0 W 10 r�1 G 7 S4 .0 N a)S 4 a)a) ri )d y N O 41 U N N 0 a Q) U)U) •� —1 1d -,� 41 w N N y C +1+ 0' � m tG7' a0 N a) ro .-i a) -ri ro +J 4-J (a x N 1a a) a) �4 ti > x a ro N co: � -� W •rl C .00 co 3 ro 3 a U W r a) G —4 W W m O •� N T3 O 3 w .0 + o o ^ G C o ro -11 p m 0 N N U N N i1-7 > 7 a) 4 O U 0 U b' O W ro w•H + co V)i 4 C 0 O --1 m y 7 --4 U L ro -I U O o C� o Q.w n r 3 3 O ro C 4 R'd rn u O o b u > w -,N i > a) -- ^ C 0 (0 w � 5 Q) G ro 0.m ro m . ro?O � 'o W N in 41 41 i ro m o G °3 c . im4ro w � ai m u N a m + G a s o -4w s4 m co u {4 N G N OU C .l� co ) ro •Ui .0 U a) r1 >+� i+ Ol4 ^ a) a) N U a) 0 O ^ ^ •rl N O ro 7 O -•i ro m a) C ro +) )a u �- O 41 m w N ul 0 G A O C C �+ O a) O a) N LO U a) "O 0 7 r r) N cc) co 0 M 4 Lr. n u� a E 3 0 N > M N O 7 O N d V) o 1) >1 •.d W �••) . N (1) O -H rl 11 -.1 is .--� O Sa a) U C h •.� cri a "`" �4 �` 0 o a 3 W Or N ro 3 ro a 0 :1 —1 0 r E co JO-J N r h 4O+ Q.+J W co C a) +J 4J U ro V) 0 W N N +p-c C b� c N N 'O +J S-i G N N •.d U a) W ro Sc •-i N ro 4� --I N N ro a7 -•-I W U) d'••i S4 > C s, (a N ro ro N G 3 G r > G O rn -4 H W p ?�-4 +) C O --1 W O a) O > SQ 0) al a) —i O ri ro •-i G --I N CO •-I LL ro U --I '0 � �$ c0 > U a) 0 -4 co••i (a -H • N N •• ro C U ro N C a) a -� > U 4 0 O •C > ro O C a°) --1i C a m co ply U) S.a N O --I S4-.-I O •n ro �-1 > •� .0 O _ -) �i N N a G .-1 +c '0 •0•-1 ° " 0 4 U! a) C a� U 4 tT W () x O i0.+ -i X u-) m cW0 ° N N S � N CLi� 0 U U ow N O. � a � 4m 0 � � r N -.--4 C ro i+ N a m S.c .ca E H N E Q' E ro N • E ro - u ro -� o a ro ro u u v p' H --I 1a U la Sa f0 ro S4 0� la N 1 W ro •-I N 11 i-� .A .Q .. •-I -.i h ai F 3 + o - 0 o 3 3 0 w o -P u [�+ ro ro Z 0 0 G W W W W G Sa CO H a Sa a -i Sa •0•--� O m al UI U W O O sa N CT E 7 G U .0 1-� a) HC ti' a) ro a) Sa •.-I c0 H b >.-r� (a� N N c0 H 4 W •r�•-1 r7 ++ .c.� N N ++ N Sa u 3 0 A F . ui N O a w > (1) F m ��a++ w 3 aUammcncna O Qu � wa� oN w > a) a (a a) s wros4 � UQroa 0 000 �a axa) U m ° m ay ^ H ^ -- n _ ro H d m A U b N w a ro o a O H ro A U a (i m u a) ro 0 0 0•c O E H X C 44 W to N X W > U X 0 16 co N •zj Sa C m � 0 go �4 xx N N 4 m b ro x x m -.+ O m (1) 14 41 0 b m b X� 0 G � E A b b N �4 c C C � 0 0 m m 0 tn Fro 0 0 A m ; a) y ° 0 >, u b 44 Id G U u o u) a, A ro x x b+H u� v aN ro >, o w as m 4-) .,1 -1 w U r- $4 7 y a .. N 2 (V ; ro c C a..c ro CO .° o o 0 b 0 -14 n w FT A 0 A 4-) 1 N Ul U (a 1 ro N O A O O 4J u L E .Oi p0, 0 �4 w A (1) ro U" R E Ga dl •.1 N H C �,. a b+M 4 o a H sa v N dl +1 L' .0 Lc U 1! U tT cd y�j %-C O w > .� d O o R w d) 0 0 L 0 1.1 u r moa41w Id roro � 3 tr O � e � -' d' �, 4Am z > a--1 r.4) b1 0 N •�-I k ro N w U cc w a) aU 6 to H N s4 <d co U ro C >11 Ul L-A � U 1 1-i O -r1 .�i ••i N - wb co o 5 C d td 0 Cro >, o -1 �4 .1 -4 -.1 N .-1 S4 .� tJn (U 43 44 fd 4.) Cn H CO 4J ,>r N co r. N Q Al to N41 N C � .� > C O C xi u 1-c Ql U O tT 7 f2. ro 41 ro .�4 C •0 'O U cu z N O O O A C O t7T X U -1 C 7 0 C O w m CO co n. ro aN �Ja O N U r�I U S4 W ro O 7 (1) U A tT 0 7 m w U �, Carororo ,•� goo ob > o4� �4 s4 ,C U) U al cd -4-1rl lOa .� n. ro 'r� 3 O to -A C .,A C A ro 4, 10 ,� rob N ro Q7 --� U ca O 4-1 C "tr,0' .�0) AO rl C C '1 c'Qd -,-I O ro t~ N J-c O .-rNl ••U1 J� •-I -•-I 0) C o ro A N U ro > a d .� E 0 --I .-1 tU 0 •.1 ri O. ar N O G CO S4 i H >• r Q O 0 O C --i -0 3 >.'0 •-1 CO w A N U u E m -a c > Z trot W ro O Q C " J., ro (o -1 O C CO -1 N 0 n ul �-1 ul Ej � m a) ro C N Q .-1 N -ri .-I C > 4-j .� O U) .--I tT 3 r1 10 0 0 N f-i N Z, C O ro -,A r1 u > A co '0 3 � � a 3 ar o N w ro � � z 044 UI U r Ul U) __j--I OL C N ro •• O 41 Ul 0 10 l+ ca R O N Ul Ul ~ tU b 7 A dl 0 U H A C .A 14 .-� C E C N +) N w N (1) 7 0 0 0-- U A >c 0 N CO ro 1' saa ro �4 a0 .� ae 0. 10 u .Q UU 4 Q.0 10 0 55 t� w w O C: 0 W U rn 1J (d a d) 4- 0 Ul tT H w N y N z U � a U ro a+ 7 N w -1 U M N Vl '0\ d) U O .0 ol O CO O O N aca - c0 Aca 41 Fl ul E c o E wH - 7 N 01— •.I F1Hj 0 W ro m > "b A 0 o U b X �p cd A U 18 Information Sources The following information sources were consulted and referenced for this Initial Study. (1) City of Encinitas, 1989 updated. "Encinitas General Plan Program Land Use Policy Map" and "Encinitas Zoning Map. " Blackline/Blueline maps prepared for the City of Encinitas, Encinitas, California. (2) City of Encinitas, 1989 updated. Encinitas General Plan. City of Encinitas : Encinitas, California. (3) Barrett Consulting Group, 1995. "Draft Highway 101 Corridor Drainage Improvements Report. " Prepared for the City of Encinitas, Encinitas, California. (4) California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region, 1995. "Tentative Order No. 95-76 (NPDES Permit No. CA0108758) Waste Discharge Requirements for Storm Water and Urban Runoff from the County of San Diego, the Incorporated Cities of San Diego County, and the San Diego Unified Port District. " Draft waste discharge requirements prepared for the California Regional Water ' Quality Control Board, San Diego Region, San Diego, California. (5) Curtis Scott Englehorn and Associates, 1998 . Inspection of North Coast Highway 101 and Railroad Corridor and vicinity for Engineering Services, City of Encinitas, Encinitas, California. (6) Encinitas Municipal Code, 1993 updated. "Chapter 9. 32, Noise Abatement and Control" and "Chapter 30 . 40, Performance Standards . " Municipal Code, City of Encinitas, Encinitas, California. (7) Caltrans, 1995 . "Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones . " Manual prepared for Caltrans, Sacramento, California. (8) W.A. Pasco Engineering, 1998 . "Draft Leucadia Drainage, Low Flow Drainage Plans . " Prepared for the City of Encinitas, Encinitas, California. 19 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The following mitigation measures shall be completed and incorporated into final plans and construction documents as appropriate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Site specific geotechnical and soils engineering investigations shall be performed prior to project final design and construction activities . Point source pollution control structures such as oil/water separators and water quality inlets shall be considered for installation in certain locations to remove petroleum compounds and grease as well as floatable debris and settleable solids from storm water. 20 sTaTs OF [ a / / ; OxN | x /-0V��DOI`8A��[� O� Planning ~~JReseaI[h ^` `'^^^ - � `4ovIsmrxSTRUT sACxAmswro.cAuFonm/A 95812-w44 `*��3�- _ ,'+pz-znx FAX ym-pz'`r»5 ««n'/`P'/^.g`' in,utuiync6 ( Uxra .ru} mxx»* '/v'Fxmox Ma/l4. \uVV � Mir j999 KippBeffier CI City ofEncinitas 505S.Vulcan Avenue Encinitas,C/\42024 _ Subject: Leucudiu Drainage,Low Flow Storm Drain System SCB#: 99041060 Dear Kipp Bcfncc The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for n:vicvv. The review period io closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents,pursuant to the California Environmental OuuUtyAct. Please call the State Clearinghouse ut(916)445'O613iC you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. l[you have u question about the above-named project,please refer tuthe eight-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. 8bocere|y, Terry Roberts Senior Planner,State Clearinghouse CITY OF ENCINITAS DETERMINATION BASED ON INITIAL STUDY Name of Project: Leucadia Drainage; Low Flow Storm Drain Systems . Location: North Coast Highway 101 and Railroad Corridor from Sunset Drive to South Carlsbad State Beach, Leucadia Community, Encinitas, California. Description: Low flow trunk and collection storm drainage facilities. Entity or Person Undertaking Project: Engineering Services City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Staff Determination: The City of Encinitas staff, having undertaken and completed an Initial Study of this project in accordance with the City' s CEQA Guidelines for the purpose of determining whether the proposed project might have a significant effect on the environment, has reached the following conclusion: 1 . The project could not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X 2 . The project could not have a significant effect on the environment, due to mitigation measures accepted by the applicant which include : Site specific geotechnical and soils engineering investigations shall be performed prior to project final design and construction activities. Point source pollution control structures such as oil/water separators and water quality inlets shall be considered for installation in certain locations to remove petroleum compounds and grease as well as floatable debris and settleable solids from storm water. 3 . The project could have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT will be prepared. T ` i Y Date City of Encinitas 1 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST FORM Project Information 1 . Project Title: Leucadia Drainage; Low Flow Storm Drain Systems . 2 . Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Kipp Hefner Project Engineer (7 60) 633-2783 4 . Project Location: North Coast Highway 101 and Railroad Corridor from Sunset Drive to South Carlsbad State Beach, Leucadia Community, Encinitas, California (see maps) . 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Engineering. Services City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 6. General Plan Designation: 7 . Zoning: Residential 2 . 01-3. 00 Units/Acre Residential 3 (R-3) Residential 5. 01-8 . 00 Units/Acre Residential 8 (R-8) Residential 8 . 01-11 . 0 Units/Acre Residential 11 (R-11) Residential 11 . 01-15 . 00 Units/Acre Residential 15 (R-15) Residential 15. 01-25. 00 Units/Acre Residential 25 (R-25) Office Professional Office Professional (OP) Local Commercial Local Commercial (LC) Visitor-Serving Commercial Visitor-Serving Commercial General Commercial (VSC) Public/Semi-Public General Commercial (GC) Ecological Resource/Open Space/Parks Ecological) Resource/Open Space/Parks (EROS) 8. Description of Project: This project consists of low flow trunk and collection storm drainage facilities at three job sites . The first job site is a combination of an open shallow drainage channel and storm drain pipe. The drainage channel (South Channel) runs east of the Coast Highway between the railroad tracks and Vulcan Avenue just north of Encinitas Boulevard to Basil Street. This channel will collect 2 runoff from both the railroad corridor and Vulcan Avenue. At the downstream end the channel will connect to an 18 inch RCP storm drain which collects runoff from an existing sump at Hermes Avenue and Cereus Street. This system then dumps into an 18 inch storm drain that crosses the railroad to the west and ties into the storm drain system in the Coast Highway. The second job site involves a network of storm drain pipes that collect runoff from several sumps west of the Coast Highway, the highway itself, and the drainage areas in the first job site. The site (Leucadia Drainage No. l) extends from Basil Street northerly along the Coast Highway to South Carlsbad State Beach just north of La Costa Avenue. Runoff from the first job site and Basil Street is picked up with an 18 inch RCP storm drain pipe and dumped into the main storm drain that runs north along the Coast Highway. Next, an 18 inch storm drain will collect runoff from the sump area on Cadmus Street and dump into the main storm drain which will be increased in size to a 24 inch RCP. A parallel system will begin at this point to collect runoff from sump areas in the alley running from Daphine Street to Diana Street. This system will consist of several catch basins and an 18 inch RCP storm drain. The parallel system will also collect runoff from the sump area located in the park located west of the Coast Highway at Leucadia Boulevard. The system will eventually dump into the main storm drain along the Coast Highway at Diana Street. North of this point a series of catch basins collect runoff from the highway. The main storm drain will run along the highway and tie into an existing 24 inch storm drain which discharges into two detention/percolation basins at the South Carlsbad State Beach parking lot . The third job site consists of a combination of storm drain pipes and an open shallow drainage channel. The drainage channel (North Channel) runs east of the Coast Highway between the railroad tracks and Vulcan Avenue from just north of Leucadia Boulevard to opposite of Grandview Street. The system starts with an 18 inch RCP storm drain that cross Leucadia Boulevard and dumps into the new channel, and ends with a connection to an existing channel continuning north to and under La Costa Avenue. In addition inlets and a storm drain will be installed in Union Street and Orpheus to convey ponding water from a sump at that location. Improvements within each job site may be constructed in phases depending on job site and overall project costs and capital improvement budget allocations . 3 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Development along the North Coast Highway 101 and Railroad corridor consists predominately of residential and commercial uses . The commercial district is located almost entirely along the west side of the highway. Residential neighborhoods of varying densities occur to the west of the highway and east of the railroad across Vulcan Avenue. Topographically, the corridor relatively flat north to depressed a�eas along the highway and railroad. and sumps in the corridor along the highway and railroad as well as in alleys west of the highway and along Vulcan Avenue east of the railroad. There is also a nearby related depressed area at Orpheus Avenue and Union Street. These locations have inadequate or nonexistent drainage facilities to relieve chronic ponding and flooding problems . There is an existing storm drain discharge detention and percolation basin and cneBsrking lot c ad pa and Pertainpercolation existing 24 the south Carlsbad State inch storm drains along on the west connected the highway asin. In addition a pump station of Phoebe Street conveys seasonal ponding waters through a 12 inch pressure line which joins the 24 inch system. lo. Other agencies whose approval is required and permits needed: California State Parks and California Coastal Commission Recreation City of Carlsbad Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors listed below involving at least would one impact l thatisla affected by this project, "Potentially Significant Imasctind indicated by athe checklist onithe Mitigation Incorporated" following pages . Geological Problems Water Evaluation of Environmental Impacts A brief explanation is provided for all checklist answers supported by information sources cited in the parentheses following each question. References are listed following the checklist. All site answers take account of the whole action involved including as as well as offsite, project as Well as cumulative, direct as indirect, and construction as well as operational impacts . 4 A "No Impact" answer is appropriate if referenced sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the project. "Less Than Significant Impact" describes an applicable effect which does not cross the threshold of significance. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more of such impacts when the determination is made an EIR is required. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact. " Associated mitigation measures are described in bold type in the checklist. Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the following checklist have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Signature Date Af Printed Name For 5 City of Encinitas, California Dudek & Associates, Inc Encinitas, California ADS Environmental Services, Inc. ENCINITAS INFLOW SURVEY JOB NUMBER 8061 REHABILITATION COST ANALYSIS MAIN LINE MANHOLE : MUNICIPAL/PRIVATE SERVICE LINE --MANHOLE-- LEAK GALLONS CUMULATIVE REPAIR CUMULATIVE MS UP DOWN DIA RATE RECOMMENDATION RANK ELIMINATED GPD ELIM. COST COST F 085 086 8 11,650 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 19.06 10,485 10,485 550 550 ' F 078 077 6 11,650 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 19.06 10,485 20,970 550 1,100 F 066 060 8 11,650 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 19.06 10,485 31,455 550 1,650 B 030 029 10 11,650 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 19.06 10,485 41,940 550 2,200 B 026 025 8 11,650 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 19.06 10,485 52,425 550 2,750 A 030 031 6 3,242 RAISE MANHOLE TO GRADE (EASEMENT) 5.84 2,918 55,343 500 3,250 B 032 066 10 2,752 REALIGN & GROUT CASTING, MH IN EASE 5.50 2,477 57,820 450 3,700 A 009 011 8 3,242 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 5.31 2,918 60,737 550 4,250 F 091 092 10 2,752 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 4.50 2,477 63,214 550 4,800 ' 8 043 044 6 2,752 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 4.50 2,477 65,691 550 5,350 B 036 035 8 2,752 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 4.50 2,477 68,168 550 5,900 B 029 028 10 2,752 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 4.50 2,477 70,645 550 6,450 A 002 003 8 2,752 REALIGN & GROUT CASTING, MH IN ST. 4.13 2,477 73,121 600 7,050 B 033 032 8 1,408 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 2.30 1,267 74,389 550 7,600 A 037 038 8 1,408 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 2.30 1,267 75,656 550 8,150 A 032A 033 8 1,408 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 2.30 1,267 76,923 550 8,700 A 011 013 8 1,408 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 2.30 1,267 78,190 550 9,250 A 014 007 8 1,440 REALIGN & GROUT CASTING, MH IN ST. 2.16 1,296 79,486 600 9,850 B 010 009 8 1,700 REPAIR MH/LINE CONNECTION (INTER) 2.13 1,275 80,761 600 10,450 F 063 064 8 1,408 REALIGN & GROUT CASTING, MH IN ST. 2.11 1,267 82,028 600 11,050 D 002 002A 6 1,440 REHABILITATE MANHOLE CONE 1.68 1,008 83,036 600 11,650 A 042 043 6 1,440 REHABILITATE MANHOLE CONE 1.68 1,008 84,044 600 12,250 F 063 064 8 1,408 REHABILITATE MANHOLE CONE 1.64 986 85,030 600 12,850 A 056 057 8 1,440 ROOT REMOVAL RECOMMENDED 1.58 720 85,750 456 13,306 G 003 004 8 782 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 1.28 704 86,454 550 13,856 F 095 096 1b 782 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 1.28 704 87,158 550 14,406 F 086 087 8 782 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 1.28 704 87,861 550 14,956 E 024 020 8 782 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 1.28 704 88,565 550 15,506 D 046 047 8 782 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 1.28 704 89,269 550 16,056 G 011 T03 8 720 SEAL JOINT SECTIONS OF PRECAST MH 1.08 540 89,809 500 16,556 E 024 020 8 720 SEAL JOINT SECTIONS OF PRECAST MH 1.08 540 90,349 500 17,056 D 016 012 8 720 SEAL JOINT SECTIONS OF PRECAST MH 1.08 540 90,889 500 17,556 E 034 029 8 1,440 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.92 1,008 91,897 1,100 18,656 F 047 048 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE CONE 0.84 504 92,401 600 19,256 D 009 013 8 1,440 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.84 1,008 93,409 1,200 20,456 D 003 004 6 1,440 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.84 1,008 94,417 1,200 21,656 B 018 025 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE CONE 0.84 504 94,921 600 22,256 A 058 004 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE CONE 0.84 504 95,425 600 22,856 A 052 053 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE CONE 0.84 504 95,929 600 23,456 A 035 036 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE CONE 0.84 504 96,433 600 24,056 A 031 032 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE CONE 0.84 504 96,937 600 24,656 E 033 031 10 508 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 0.83 457 97,394 550 25,206 F 063 064 8 1,408 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.82 986 98,380 1,200 26,406 A 037 038 8 1,408 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.82 986 99,365 1,200 27,606 A 011 013 8 1,408 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.82 986 100,351 1,200 28,806 D 049 048 10 346 REALIGN & GROUT CASTING, MH IN ST. 0.52 311 100,662 600 29,406 H 050 051 8 312 REALIGN & GROUT CASTING, MH IN ST. 0.47 281 100,943 600 30,006 ' H 046 047 8 312 REALIGN & GROUT CASTING, MH IN ST. 0.47 281 101,224 600 30,606 G 005 006 8 312 REALIGN & GROUT CASTING, MH IN ST. 0.47 281 101,505 600 31,206 E 044 040 8 312 REALIGN & GROUT CASTING, MH IN ST. 0.47 281 101,786 600 31,806 City of Encinitas, California Dudek & Associates, Inc Encinitas, California ADS Environmental Services, Inc. ENCINITAS INFLOW SURVEY JOB NUMBER 8061 REHABILITATION COST ANALYSIS MAIN LINE : MANHOLE : MUNICIPAL/PRIVATE SERVICE LINE --MANHOLE-- LEAK GALLONS CUMULATIVE REPAIR CUMULATIVE MS UP DOWN DIA RATE RECOMMENDATION RANK ELIMINATED GPD ELIM. COST COST E 034 029 8 312 REALIGN & GROUT CASTING, MH IN ST. 0.47 281 102,066 600 32,406 ' E 017 013 8 312 REALIGN & GROUT CASTING, MH IN ST. 0.47 281 102,347 600 33,006 E 007 011 8 312 REALIGN & GROUT CASTING, MH IN ST. 0.47 281 102,628 600 33,606 A 053 053A 8 312 REALIGN & GROUT CASTING, MH IN ST. 0.47 281 102,909 600 34,206 T 001 002 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.42 504 103,413 1,200 35,406 ' F 066 060 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.42 504 103,917 1,200 36,606 F 044 045 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.42 504 104,421 1,200 37,806 D 042 046 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.42 504 104,925 1,200 39,006 D 025 030 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.42 504 105,429 1,200 40,206 1 D 022A 022 6 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.42 504 105,933 1,200 41,406 D 022 021 6 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.42 504 106,437 1,200 42,606 D 020 025 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.42 504 106,941 1,200 43,806 D 017 020 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.42 504 107,445 1,200 45,006 D 004 004A 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.42 504 107,949 1,200 46,206 D 002 002A 6 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.42 504 108,453 1,200 47,406 B 058 059 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.42 504 108,957 1,200 48,606 B 052 053 6 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.42 504 109,461 1,200 49,806 B 046 045 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.42 504 109,965 1,200 51,006 A 006 007 8 360 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.21 252 110,217 1,200 52,206 T 008 009 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 110,217 1,100 53,306 T 001 002 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 110,217 1,100 54,406 G 003 004 8 0 REPAIR MH/LINE CONNECT.(EXT.IN ST 0.00 0 110,217 1,500 55,906 F C001 061 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 1,584 57,490 F 096 097 10 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 2,100 59,590 F 095 096 10 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 3,340 62,930 F 094 095 10 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 1,630 64,560 F 094 095 10 0 ROOT REMOVAL RECOMMENDED 0.00 0 110,217 978 65,538 F 094 095 10 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE CONE 0.00 0 110,217 600 66,138 F 093 094 10 0 REALIGN & GROUT CASTING, MH IN EASE 0.00 0 110,217 450 66,588 F 088 090 10 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 6,000 72,588 F 088 090 10 0 REPLACE BROKEN MH FRAME/COVER 0.00 0 110,217 500 73,088 F 087 088 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 2,200 75,288 F 086 087 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 960 76,248 F 085 086 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 2,600 78,848 F 085 086 8 0 ROOT REMOVAL RECOMMENDED 0.00 0 110,217 1,300 80,148 F 085 086 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE CONE 0.00 0 110,217 600 80,748 F 081 082 8 0 REPAIR MH/LINE CONNECT.(EXT.1N ST 0.00 0 110,217 1,500 82,248 F 078 077 6 0 RAISE MANHOLE TO GRADE (EASEMENT) 0.00 0 110,217 500 82,748 F 077 076 0 0 REPAIR OF MAINLINE (UP TO 251) 0.00 0 110,217 1,000 83,748 F 076 075 6 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 110,217 4,384 88,132 F 075 074 6 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 110,217 1,352 89,484 F 074 089 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 2,960 92,444 F 069 067 6 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 110,217 2,744 95,188 F 061 062 8 0 ROOT REMOVAL RECOMMENDED 0.00 0 110,217 960 96,148 F 060 061 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.00 0 110,217 1,200 97,348 F 060 061 B 0 REPAIR MH/LINE CONNECTION (INTER) 0.00 0 110,217 600 97,948 F 060 061 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 280 98,228 F 059 060 6 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 2,768 100,996 F 058 063 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 1,200 102,196 F 055 085 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 2,400 104,596 City of Encinitas, California Dudek & Associates, Inc Encinitas, California ADS Envirorunental Services, Inc. ENCINITAS INFLOW SURVEY JOB NUMBER 8061 REHABILITATION COST ANALYSIS MAIN LINE : MANHOLE : MUNICIPAL/PRIVATE SERVICE LINE -MANHOLE-- LEAK GALLONS CUMULATIVE REPAIR CUMULATIVE MS UP DOWN DIA RATE RECOMMENDATION RANK ELIMINATED GPD ELIM. COST COST F 054 055 8 0 INSITUFORM ENTIRE MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 9,750 114,346 F 054 055 8 0 HEAVY CLEANING RECOMMENDED(DEBRIS) 0.00 0 110,217 600 114,946 F 053 054 8 0 INSITUFORM ENTIRE MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 20,150 135,096 F 053 054 8 0 HEAVY CLEANING RECOMMENDED(DEBRIS) 0.00 0 110,217 1,240 136,336 F 052 053 8 0 1NSITUFORM ENTIRE MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 19,695 156,031 F 052 053 8 0 HEAVY CLEANING RECOMMENDED(DEBRIS) 0.00 0 110,217 1,212 157,243 F 049 052 8 0 INSITUFORM ENTIRE MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 18,590 175,833 F 049 052 8 0 HEAVY CLEANING RECOMMENDED(DEBRIS) 0.00 0 110,217 1,144 176,977 F 020 025 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 3,000 179,977 F 020 025 8 0 REPAIR MH/LINE CONNECT.(EXT.IN ES 0.00 0 110,217 1,000 180,977 E 034 029 8 0 SEAL JOINT SECTIONS OF PRECAST MH 0.00 0 110,217 500 181,477 D 055A 055B 8 0 DE-R00T, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 976 182,453 D 055A 0558 8 0 ROOT REMOVAL RECOMMENDED 0.00 0 110,217 488 182,941 D 055A 0558 8 0 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 0.00 0 110,217 550 183,491 D 055 055A 8 0 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 0.00 0 110,217 550 184,041 D 051 049 10 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 110,217 1,100 185,141 D 049 048 10 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE CONE 0.00 0 110,217 600 185,741 D 046 047 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.00 0 110,217 1,200 186,941 D 034 038 8 0 REPAIR MH/LINE CONNECT.(EXT.IN ST 0.00 0 110,217 1,500 188,441 D 023 022A 6 0 ROOT REMOVAL RECOMMENDED 0.00 0 110,217 156 188,597 C 011 010 8 0 REPLACE BROKEN MH FRAME/COVER 0.00 0 110,217 500 189,097 B 066 030 10 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 110,217 1,100 190,197 B 066 030 10 0 ROOT REMOVAL RECOMMENDED 0.00 0 110,217 1,788 191,985 B 065 023 10 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.00 0 110,217 1,200 193,185 B 063 064 10 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.00 0 110,217 1,200 194,385 B 046 045 8 0 NORMAL CLEANING OF LINES 0.00 0 110,217 1,248 195,633 B 043 044 6 0 REPAIR MH/LINE CONNECT.(EXT.IN ST 0.00 0 110,217 1,500 197,133 B 042 043 6 0 REPAIR MH/L1NE,CONNECT.(EXT.IN ST 0.00 0 110,217 1,500 198,633 B 042 043 6 0 REPAIR MH/LINE CONNECT.(EXT.IN ST 0.00 0 110,217 1,500 200,133 B 038 037 8 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 110,217 2,024 202,157 B 038 037 8 0 NORMAL CLEANING OF LINES 0.00 0 110,217 1,012 203,169 B 037 036 8 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 110,217 2,672 205,841 B 036 035 8 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 110,217 2,608 208,449 B 036 035 8 0 NORMAL CLEANING OF LINES 0.00 0 110,217 1,304 209,753 B 035 034 10 0 HEAVY CLEANING RECOMMENDED(GREASE) 0.00 0 110,217 2,070 211,823 B 035 034 10 0 HEAVY CLEANING RECOMMENDED(GREASE) 0.00 0 110,217 2,070 213,893 B 034 033 10 0 HEAVY CLEANING RECOMMENDED(GREASE) 0.00 0 110,217 2,082 215,975 B 032 066 10 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 110,217 1,100 217,075 B 030 029 10 0 REPAIR OF MAINLINE (UP TO 251) 0.00 0 110,217 3,150 220,225 B 030 029 10 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 110,217 1,100 221,325 B 029A 038 6 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 2,792 224,117 B 028 063 10 0 REPAIR MH/LINE CONNECTION (INTER) 0.00 0 110,217 600 224,717 B 028 063 10 0 NORMAL CLEANING OF LINES 0.00 0 110,217 912 225,629 B 023 024 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 110,217 1,100 226,729 B 018 025 8 0 REALIGN & GROUT CASTING, MH IN EASE 0.00 0 110,217 450 227,179 B 015 035 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 110,217 1,100 228,279 B 014A 014 6 0 DE-R00T, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 1,848 230,127 B 014 015 8 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 110,217 2,216 232,343 B 014 015 8 0 NORMAL CLEANING OF LINES 0.00 0 110,217 1,108 233,451 B 012 038 8 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 110,217 2,328 235,779 ' City of Encinitas, California Dudek 8 Associates, Inc Encinitas, California ADS Environmental Services, Inc. ENCINITAS INFLOW SURVEY JOB NUMBER 8061 REHABILITATION COST ANALYSIS MAIN LINE : MANHOLE : MUNICIPAL/PRIVATE SERVICE LINE -MANHOLE-- LEAK GALLONS CUMULATIVE REPAIR CUMULATIVE MS UP DOWN DIA RATE RECOMMENDATION RANK ELIMINATED GPD ELIM. COST COST B 011 012 0 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 1,488 237,267 B 010 009 8 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 110,217 2,056 239,323 B 009 005 8 0 REPLACE 75 LF OF MAIN LINE 0.00 0 110,217 5,625 244,948 B 009 005 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 110,217 1,100 246,048 B 008 011 8 0 INSITUFORM ENTIRE MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 18,070 264,118 B 007 008 6 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 110,217 1,152 265,270 B 007 008 6 0 REPAIR OF MAINLINE (UP TO 251) 0.00 0 110,217 1,500 266,770 B 007 008 6 0 REPAIR MH/LINE CONNECT.(EXT.IN ST 0.00 0 110,217 1,500 268,270 B 007 008 6 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 110,217 1,100 269,370 A 057 043 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 110,217 1,100 270,470 A 055 056 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 2,792 273,262 A 053A 057 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 2,408 275,670 A 053 053A 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 2,720 278,390 A 052A 052 6 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 2,880 281,270 A 052 053 8 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 110,217 2,720 283,990 A 051A 051 8 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 110,217 1,272 285,262 A 048Z 048 6 0 REPAIR FAULTY TAP UNDER PAVMT. 0.00 0 110,217 2,000 287,262 A 0482 048 6 0 REPAIR FAULTY TAP UNDER PAVMT. 0.00 0 110,217 2,000 289,262 A 048Z 048 6 0 REPAIR OF MAINLINE (UP TO 251) 0.00 0 110,217 1,050 290,312 A 048Z 048 6 0 REPAIR OF MAINLINE (UP TO 251) 0.00 0 110,217 1,050 291,362 A 047 047A 8 0 BLOCKAGE IN LINE 0.00 0 110,217 0 291,362 A 046 047 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 2,856 294,218 A 045Z 045 6 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 1,616 295,834 A 045 046 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 2,816 298,650 A 044Z 044 6 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 2,656 301,306 A 044Z 044 6 0 REPAIR FAULTY TAP UNDER PAVMT. 0.00 0 110,217 2,000 303,306 A 044 043 6 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 2,688 305,994 A 042 043 6 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 2,808 308,802 A 041 015 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 1,800 310,602 A 041 015 8 0 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R8COV. 0.00 0 110,217 550 311,152 A 040 041 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 464 311,616 A 039 040 8 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 110,217 2,464 314,080 A 037 038 8 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 110,217 2,448 316,528 A 036 037 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 2,464 318,992 A 036 037 8 0 REPAIR MH/LINE CONNECT.(EXT.IN ST 0.00 0 110,217 1,500 320,492 A 036 037 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 110,217 1,100 321,592 A 035 036 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 2,880 324,472 A 033 034 8 0 REPLACE 15 LF OF MAIN LINE 0.00 0 110,217 975 325,447 A 029 026 12 0 HEAVY CLEANING RECOMMENDED(DEBRIS) 0.00 0 110,217 2,910 328,357 A 028 029 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 1,184 329,541 A 027 028 6 0 INSITUFORM ENTIRE MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 15,345 344,886 A 026 P.S. 12 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 110,217 100 344,986 A 026 P.S. 12 0 NORMAL CLEANING OF LINES 0.00 0 110,217 100 345,086 1 A 017 018 8 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 110,217 816 345,902 A 017 018 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.00 0 110,217 1,200 347,102 A 016 017 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 1,568 348,670 A 016 017 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE CONE 0.00 0 110,217 600 349,270 A 015A 016 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 110,217 1,100 350,370 A 015 014 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 1,848 352,218 A 015 014 8 0 REPAIR OF MAINLINE (UP TO 251) 0.00 0 110,217 1,575 353,793 City of Encinitas, California Dudek & Associates, Inc Encinitas, California ADS Environmental Services, Inc. ENCINITAS INFLOW SURVEY JOB NUMBER 8061 REHABILITATION COST ANALYSIS MAIN LINE : MANHOLE : MUNICIPAL/PRIVATE SERVICE LINE ' -MANHOLE-- LEAK GALLONS CUMULATIVE REPAIR CUMULATIVE MS UP DOWN DIA RATE RECOMMENDATION RANK ELIMINATED GPD ELIM. COST COST A 015 014 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 110,217 1,100 354,893 A 014 007 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 110,217 1,100 355,993 A 013 012A 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 110,217 1,816 357,809 A 012A 012 8 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 110,217 1,776 359,585 A 011 013 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 110,217 1,100 360,685 A 007 009 8 0 REPAIR MH/LINE CONNECTION (INTER) 0.00 0 110,217 600 361,285 A 003 058 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 110,217 1,100 362,385 A 003 058 8 0 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 0.00 0 110,217 550 362,935 r j 1 1 1 ' City of Encinitas, California Dudek & Associates, Inc Encinitas, California ADS Environmental Services, Inc. 1 ENCINITAS INFLOW SURVEY JOB NUMBER 8061 REHABILITATION COST ANALYSIS MAIN LINE : MANHOLE : MUNICIPAL/PRIVATE SERVICE LINE FOR MINI-SYSTEM A --MANHOLE-- LEAK GALLONS CUMULATIVE REPAIR CUMULATIVE MS UP DOWN DIA RATE RECOMMENDATION RANK ELIMINATED GPD ELIM. COST COST A 030 031 6 3,242 RAISE MANHOLE TO GRADE (EASEMENT) 5.84 2,918 2,918 500 500 A 009 011 8 3,242 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 5.31 2,918 5,836 550 1,050 A 002 003 8 2,752 REALIGN & GROUT CASTING, MH IN ST. 4.13 2,477 8,312 600 1,650 A 037 038 8 1,408 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 2.30 1,267 9,580 550 2,200 A 032A 033 8 1,408 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 2.30 1,267 10,847 550 2,750 A 011 013 8 1,408 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 2.30 1,267 12,114 550 3,300 A 014 007 8 1,440 REALIGN & GROUT CASTING, MH IN ST. 2.16 1,296 13,410 600 3,900 A 042 043 6 1,440 REHABILITATE MANHOLE CONE 1.68 1,008 14,418 600 4,500 A 056 057 8 1,440 ROOT REMOVAL RECOMMENDED 1.58 720 15,138 456 4,956 A 058 004 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE CONE 0.84 504 15,642 600 5,556 A 052 053 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE CONE 0.84 504 16,146 600 6,156 A 035 036 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE CONE 0.84 504 16,650 600 6,756 A 031 032 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE CONE 0.84 504 17,154 600 7,356 A 037 038 8 1,408 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.82 986 18,140 1,200 8,556 A 011 013 8 1,408 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.82 986 19,125 1,200 9,756 A 053 053A 8 312 REALIGN & GROUT CASTING, MH IN ST. 0.47 281 19,406 600 10,356 A 006 007 8 360 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.21 252 19,658 1,200 11,556 A 057 043 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 19,658 1,100 12,656 A 055 056 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 19,658 2,792 15,448 A 053A 057 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 19,658 2,408 17,856 A 053 053A 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 19,658 2,720 20,576 A 052A 052 6 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 19,658 2,880 23,456 A 052 053 8 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 19,658 2,720 26,176 A 051A 051 8 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 19,658 1,272 27,448 A 048Z 048 6 0 REPAIR FAULTY TAP UNDER PAVMT. 0.00 0 19,658 2,000 29,448 A 048Z 048 6 0 REPAIR FAULTY TAP UNDER PAVMT. 0.00 0 19,658 2,000 31,448 A 048Z 048 6 0 REPAIR OF MAINLINE (UP TO 251) 0.00 0 19,658 1,050 32,498 A 048Z 048 6 0 REPAIR OF MAINLINE (UP TO 251) 0.00 0 19,658 1,050 33,548 A 047 047A 8 0 BLOCKAGE IN LINE 0.00 0 19,658 0 33,548 A 046 047 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 19,658 2,856 36,404 A 045Z 045 6 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 19,658 1,616 38,020 A 045 046 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 19,658 2,816 40,836 A 044Z 044 6 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 19,658 2,656 43,492 A 044Z 044 6 0 REPAIR FAULTY TAP UNDER PAVMT. 0.00 0 19,658 2,000 45,492 A 044 043 6 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 19,658 2,688 48,180 A 042 043 6 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 19,658 2,808 50,988 A 041 015 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 19,658 1,800 52,788 A 041 015 8 0 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 0.00 0 19,658 550 53,338 A 040 041 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 19,658 464 53,802 A 039 040 8 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 19,658 2,464 56,266 A 037 038 8 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 19,658 2,448 58,714 A 036 037 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 19,658 2,464 61,178 A 036 037 8 0 REPAIR MH/LINE CONNECT.(EXT.IN ST 0.00 0 19,658 1,500 62,678 A 036 037 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 19,658 1,100 63,778 A 035 036 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 19,658 2,880 66,658 A 033 034 8 0 REPLACE 15 LF OF MAIN LINE 0.00 0 19,658 975 67,633 A 029 026 12 0 HEAVY CLEANING RECOMMENDED(DEBRIS) 0.00 0 19,658 2,910 70,543 A 028 029 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 19,658 1,184 71,727 A 027 028 6 0 INSITUFORM ENTIRE MAINLINE 0.00 0 19,658 15,345 87,072 1 City of Encinitas, California Dudek & Associates, Inc Encinitas, California ADS Environmental Services, Inc. 1 ENCINITAS INFLOW SURVEY JOB NUMBER 8061 REHABILITATION COST ANALYSIS MAIN LINE : MANHOLE : MUNICIPAL/PRIVATE SERVICE LINE FOR MINI-SYSTEM A --MANHOLE-- LEAK GALLONS CUMULATIVE REPAIR CUMULATIVE MS UP DOWN DIA RATE RECOMMEN*ION RANK ELIMINATED GPD ELIM. COST COST A 026 P.S. 12 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 19,658 100 87,172 A 026 P.S. 12 0 NORMAL CLEANING OF LINES 0.00 0 19,658 100 87,272 A 017 018 8 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 19,658 816 88,088 A 017 018 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.00 0 19,658 1,200 89,288 A 016 017 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 19,658 1,568 90,856 A 016 017 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE CONE 0.00 0 19,658 600 91,456 A 015A 016 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 19,658 1,100 92,556 A 015 014 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 19,658 1,848 94,404 A 015 014 8 0 REPAIR OF MAINLINE (UP TO 251) 0.00 0 19,658 1,575 95,979 A 015 014 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 19,658 1,100 97,079 A 014 007 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 19,658 1,100 98,179 A 013 012A 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 19,658 1,816 99,995 ' A 012A 012 8 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 19,658 1,776 101,771 A 011 013 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 19,658 1,100 102,871 A 007 009 8 0 REPAIR MH/LINE CONNECTION (INTER) 0.00 0 19,658 600 103,471 A 003 058 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 19,658 1,100 104,571 A 003 058 8 0 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 0.00 0 19,658 550 105,121 r City of Encinitas, California Dudek 8 Associates, Inc Encinitas, California ADS Environmental Services, Inc. i, ENCINITAS INFLOW SURVEY JOB NUMBER 8061 REHABILITATION COST ANALYSIS MAIN LINE MANHOLE : MUNICIPAL/PRIVATE SERVICE LINE FOR MINI-SYSTEM 8 --MANHOLE-- LEAK GALLONS CUMULATIVE REPAIR CUMULATIVE MS UP DOWN DIA RATE RECOMMENDATION RANK ELIMINATED GPD ELIM. COST COST B 030 029 10 11,650 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE RBCOV. 19.06 10,485 10,485 550 550 8 026 025 8 11,650 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE RBCOV. 19.06 10,485 20,970 550 1,100 B 032 066 10 2,752 REALIGN 8 GROUT CASTING, MH IN EASE 5.50 2,477 23,447 450 1,550 B 043 044 6 2,752 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R8COV. 4.50 2,477 25,924 550 2,100 B 036 035 8 2,752 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE RBCOV. 4.50 2,477 28,400 550 2,650 8 029 028 10 2,752 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R8COV. 4.50 2,477 30,877 550 3,200 B 033 032 8 1,408 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R8COV. 2.30 1,267 32,144 550 3,750 B 010 009 8 1,700 REPAIR MH/LINE CONNECTION (INTER) 2.13 1,275 33,419 600 4,350 8 018 025 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE CONE 0.84 504 33,923 600 4,950 B 058 059 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.42 504 34,427 1,200 6,150 8 052 053 6 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.42 504 34,931 1,200 7,350 B 046 045 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.42 504 35,435 1,200 8,550 B 066 030 10 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 35,435 1,100 9,650 B 066 030 10 0 ROOT REMOVAL RECOMMENDED 0.00 0 35,435 1,788 11,438 B 065 023 10 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.00 0 35,435 1,200 12,638 1 B 063 064 10 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.00 0 35,435 1,200 13,838 B 046 045 8 0 NORMAL CLEANING OF LINES 0.00 0 35,435 1,248 15,086 B 043 044 6 0 REPAIR MH/LINE CONNECT.(EXT.IN ST 0.00 0 35,435 1,500 16,586 B 042 043 6 0 REPAIR MH/LINE CONNECT.(EXT.IN ST 0.00 0 35,435 1,500 18,086 B 042 043 6 0 REPAIR MH/LINE CONNECT.(EXT.IN ST 0.00 0 35,435 1,500 19,586 B 038 037 8 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 35,435 2,024 21,610 B 038 037 8 0 NORMAL CLEANING OF LINES 0.00 0 35,435 1,012 22,622 B 037 036 8 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 35,435 2,672 25,294 B 036 035 8 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 35,435 2,608 27,902 B 036 035 8 0 NORMAL CLEANING OF LINES 0.00 0 35,435 1,304 29,206 B 035 034 10 0 HEAVY CLEANING RECOMMENDED(GREASE) 0.00 0 35,435 2,070 31,276 B 035 034 10 0 HEAVY CLEANING RECOMMENDED(GREASE) 0.00 0 35,435 2,070 33,346 1 B 034 033 10 0 HEAVY CLEANING RECOMMENDED(GREASE) 0.00 0 35,435 2,082 35,428 B 032 066 10 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 35,435 1,100 36,528 8 030 029 10 0 REPAIR OF MAINLINE (UP TO 251) 0.00 0 35,435 3,150 39,678 B 030 029 10 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 35,435 1,100 40,778 B 029A 038 6 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 35,435 2,792 43,570 B 028 063 10 0 REPAIR MH/LINE CONNECTION (INTER) 0.00 0 35,435 600 44,170 B 028 063 10 0 NORMAL CLEANING OF LINES 0.00 0 35,435 912 45,082 B 023 024 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 35,435 1,100 46,182 B 018 025 8 0 REALIGN 8 GROUT CASTING, MH IN EASE 0.00 0 35,435 450 46,632 B 015 035 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 35,435 1,100 47,732 B 014A 014 6 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 35,435 1,848 49,580 LB 014 015 8 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 35,435 2,216 51,796 B 014 015 8 0 NORMAL CLEANING OF LINES 0.00 0 35,435 1,108 52,904 B 012 038 8 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 35,435 2,328 55,232 B 011 012 0 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 35,435 1,488 56,720 1 B 010 009 8 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 35,435 2,056 58,776 B 009 005 8 0 REPLACE 75 LF OF MAIN LINE 0.00 0 35,435 5,625 64,401 B 009 005 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 35,435 1,100 65,501 B 008 011 8 0 1NSITUFORM ENTIRE MAINLINE 0.00 0 35,435 18,070 83,571 B 007 008 6 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 35,435 1,152 84,723 B 007 008 6 0 REPAIR OF MAINLINE (UP TO 251) 0.00 0 35,435 1,500 86,223 8 007 008 6 0 REPAIR MH/LINE CONNECT.(EXT.IN ST 0.00 0 35,435 1,500 87,723 Dudek 8 Associates, Inc City of Encinitas, California ADS Environmental Services, Inc. Encinitas, California ENCINITAS INFLOW SURVEY JOB NUMBER 8061 REHABILITATION COST ANALYSIS MAIN LINE : MANHOLE : MUNICIPAL/PRIVATE SERVICE LINE FOR MINI-SYSTEM B --MANHOLE-- LEAK GALLONS CUMULATIVE REPAIR CUMULATIVE MS UP DOWN DIA RATE RECOMMENDATO RANK ELIMINATED GPD ELIM. COST COST 8 007 008 6 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 35,435 1,100 88,823 i 1 1 t City of Encinitas, California Dudek 8 Associates, Inc Encinitas, California ADS Environmental Services, Inc. ENCINITAS INFLOW SURVEY JOB NUMBER 8061 REHABILITATION COST ANALYSIS MAIN LINE : MANHOLE : MUNICIPAL/PRIVATE SERVICE LINE FOR MINI-SYSTEM C -MANHOLE-- LEAK GALLONS CUMULATIVE REPAIR CUMULATIVE MS UP DOWN DIA RATE RECOMMENDATION RANK ELIMINATED GPD ELIM. COST COST C 011 010 8 0 REPLACE BROKEN MH FRAME/COVER 0.00 0 0 500 500 r r r r r r r i r -r r r r City of Encinitas, California Dudek.& Associates, Inc Encinitas, California ADS Environmental Services, Inc. ENCINITAS INFLOW SURVEY JOB NUMBER 8061 REHABILITATION COST ANALYSIS MAIN LINE : MANHOLE : MUNICIPAL/PRIVATE SERVICE LINE FOR MINI-SYSTEM D MANHOLE-- LEAK GALLONS CUMULATIVE REPAIR CUMULATIVE MS UP DOWN DIA RATE RECOMMENDfJON RANK ELIMINATED GPD ELIM. COST COST D 002 002A 6 1,440 REHABILITATE MANHOLE CONE 1.68 1,008 1,008 600 600 D 046 047 8 782 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 1.28 704 1,712 550 1,150 D 016 012 8 720 SEAL JOINT SECTIONS OF PRECAST MH 1.08 540 2,252 500 1,650 D 009 013 8 1,440 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.84 1,008 3,260 1,200 2,850 D 003 004 6 1,440 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.84 1,008 4,268 1,200 4,050 D 049 048 10 346 REALIGN & GROUT CASTING, MH IN ST. 0.52 311 4,579 600 4,650 D 042 046 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.42 504 5,083 1,200 5,850 D 025 030 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.42 504 5,587 1,200 7,050 D 022A 022 6 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.42 504 6,091 1,200 8,250 D 022 021 6 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.42 504 6,595 1,200 9,450 D 020 025 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.42 504 7,099 1,200 10,650 D 017 020 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.42 504 7,603 1,200 11,850 D 004 004A 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.42 504 8,107 1,200 13,050 D 002 002A 6 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.42 504 8,611 1,200 14,250 D 055A 0558 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 8,611 976 15,226 D 055A 0558 8 0 ROOT REMOVAL RECOMMENDED 0.00 0 8,611 488 15,714 D 055A 0558 8 0 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 0.00 0 8,611 550 16,264 D 055 055A 8 0 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 0.00 0 8,611 550 16,814 D 051 049 10 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 8,611 1,100 17,914 D 049 048 10 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE CONE 0.00 0 8,611 600 18,514 D 046 047 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.00 0 8,611 1,200 19,714 D 034 038 8 0 REPAIR MH/LINE CONNECT.(EXT.1N ST 0.00 0 8,611 1,500 21,214 D 023 022A 6 0 ROOT REMOVAL RECOMMENDED 0.00 0 8,611 156 21,370 City of Encinitas, California Dudek & Associates, Inc Encinitas, California ADS Environmental Services, Inc. ENCINITAS INFLOW SURVEY JOB NUMBER 8061 REHABILITATION COST ANALYSIS MAIN LINE : MANHOLE : MUNICIPAL/PRIVATE SERVICE LINE ' FOR MINI-SYSTEM E -MANHOLE-- LEAK GALLONS CUMULATIVE REPAIR CUMULATIVE MS UP DOWN DIA RATE RECOMMENDATION RANK ELIMINATED GPD ELIM. COST COST E 024 020 8 782 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 1.28 704 704 550 550 E 024 020 8 720 SEAL JOINT SECTIONS OF PRECAST MH 1.08 540 1,244 500 1,05D E 034 029 8 1,440 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.92 1,008 2,252 1,100 2,150 E 033 031 10 508 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R&COV. 0.83 457 2,709 550 2,700 E 044 040 8 312 REALIGN 8 GROUT CASTING, MH IN ST. 0.47 281 2,990 600 3,300 E 034 029 8 312 REALIGN 8 GROUT CASTING, MH IN ST. 0.47 281 3,271 600 3,900 E 017 013 8 312 REALIGN 8 GROUT CASTING, MH IN ST. 0.47 281 3,551 600 4,500 E 007 011 8 312 REALIGN & GROUT CASTING, MH IN ST. 0.47 281 3,832 600 5,100 E 034 029 8 0 SEAL JOINT SECTIONS OF PRECAST MH 0.00 0 3,832 500 5,600 r 1 1 r r 1 r 1 r r r r City of Encinitas, California Dudek 8 Associates, Inc Encinitas, California ADS Environmental Services, Inc. ENCINITAS INFLOW SURVEY JOB NUMBER 8061 REHABILITATION COST ANALYSIS MAIN LINE : MANHOLE : MUNICIPAL/PRIVATE SERVICE LINE FOR MINI-SYSTEM F -MANHOLE-- LEAK GALLONS CUMULATIVE REPAIR CUMULATIVE MS UP DOWN DIA RATE RECOMMEND4ON RANK ELIMINATED GPD ELIM. COST COST F 085 086 8 11,650 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE RBCOV. 19.06 10,485 10,485 550 550 F 078 077 6 11,650 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE RBCOV. 19.06 10,485 20,970 550 1,100 F 066 060 8 11,650 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE RBCOV. 19.06 10,485 31,455 550 1,650 F 091 092 10 2,752 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R8COV. 4.50 2,477 33,932 550 2,200 ' F 063 064 8 1,408 REALIGN 8 GROUT CASTING, MH IN ST. 2.11 1,267 35,199 600 2,800 F 063 064 8 1,408 REHABILITATE MANHOLE CONE 1.64 986 36,185 600 3,400 F 095 096 10 782 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE RBCOV. 1 28 704 36,888 550 3,950 F 086 087 8 782 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE R8COV. 1.28 704 37,592 550 4,500 F 047 048 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE CONE 0.84 504 38,096 600 5,100 F 063 064 8 1,408 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.82 986 39,082 1,200 6,300 F 066 060 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.42 504 39,586 1,200 7,500 F 044 045 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.42 504 40,090 1,200 8,700 F C001 061 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 40,090 1,584 10,284 F 096 097 10 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 40,090 2,100 12,384 F 095 096 10 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 40,090 3,340 15,724 F 094 095 10 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 40,090 1,630 17,354 F 094 095 10 0 ROOT REMOVAL RECOMMENDED 0.00 0 40,090 978 18,332 F 094 095 10 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE CONE 0.00 0 40,090 600 18,932 F 093 094 10 0 REALIGN 8 GROUT CASTING, MH IN EASE 0.00 0 40,090 450 19,382 F 088 090 10 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 40,090. -�6,non 25_,.382 F 088 090 10 0 REPLACE BROKEN MH FRAME/COVER 0.00 0 40,090 -50 25,882 F 087 088 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 40,090 2,200 28,082 F 086 087 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 40,090 960 29,042 F 085 086 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 40,090 2,600 31,642 F 085 086 8 0 ROOT REMOVAL RECOMMENDED 0.00 0 40,090 1,300 32,942 F 085 086 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE CONE 0.00 0 40,090 600 33,542 F 081 082 8 0 REPAIR MH/LINE CONNECT.(EXT.IN ST 0.00 0 40,090 1,500 35,042 1 F 078 077 6 0 RAISE MANHOLE TO GRADE (EASEMENT) 0.00 0 40,090 500 35,542 F 077 076 0 0 REPAIR OF MAINLINE (UP TO 251) 0.00 0 40,090 1,000 36,542 F 076 075 6 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 40,090 4,384 40,926 F 075 074 6 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 40,090 1,352 42,278 F 074 089 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 40,090 2,960 45,238 F 069 067 6 0 CLEAN TEST AND SEAL LINE 0.00 0 40,090 2,744 47,982 F 061 062 8 0 ROOT REMOVAL RECOMMENDED 0.00 0 40,090 960 48,942 F 060 061 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.00 0 40,090 1,200 50,142 F 060 061 8 0 REPAIR MH/LINE CONNECTION (INTER) 0.00 0 40,090 600 50,742 F 060 061 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 40,090 280 51,022 F 059 060 6 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 40,090 2,768 53,790 F 058 063 8 0 DE-RDOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 40,090 �' 1,200 54,990 F 055 085 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 40,090 2,400 57,390 F 054 055 382 0 INSITUFORM ENTIRE MAINLINE 0.00 0 40,090 9,750 67,140 F 054 055 8 0 HEAVY CLEANING RECOMMENDED(DEBRIS) 0.00 0 40,090 600 67,740 F 053 054 8- 2S 2' 0 INSITUFORM ENTIRE MAINLINE 0.00 0 40,090 20,150 �i 87,890 F 053 054 8 0 HEAVY CLEANING RECOMMENDED(DEBRIS) 0.00 0 40,090 1,240 89,130 F 052 053 8-3 Sp 0 INSITUFORM ENTIRE MAINLINE 0.00 0 40,090 19,695 108,825 F 052 053 8 0 HEAVY CLEANING RECOMMENDED(DEBRIS) 0.00 0 40,090 1,212 110,037 ' F 049 052 8- 0 INSITUFORM ENTIRE MAINLINE 0.00 0 40,090 18,590 128,627 F 049 052 8 0 HEAVY CLEANING RECOMMENDED(DEBRIS) 0.00 0 40,090 1,144 129,771 F 020 025 8 0 DE-ROOT, TEST AND SEAL MAINLINE 0.00 0 40,090 3,000 132,771 ' City of Encinitas, California Dudek 8 Associates, Inc Encinitas, California ADS Environmental Services, Inc. ENCINITAS INFLOW SURVEY JOB NUMBER 8061 REHABILITATION COST ANALYSIS MAIN LINE : MANHOLE : MUNICIPAL/PRIVATE SERVICE LINE FOR MINI-SYSTEM F MANHOLE-- LEAK GALLONS CUMULATIVE REPAIR CUMULATIVE MS UP DOWN DIA RATE RECOMMENDATION RANK ELIMINATED GPD ELIM. COST COST ' F 020 025 8 0 REPAIR MH/LINE CONNECT.(EXT.IN ES 0.00 0 40,090 1,000 133,771 ' City of Encinitas, California Dudek 8 Associates, Inc Encinitas, California ADS Environinental Services, Inc. ENCINITAS INFLOW SURVEY JOB NUMBER 8061 REHABILITATION COST ANALYSIS MAIN LINE : MANHOLE : MUNICIPAL/PRIVATE SERVICE LINE FOR MINI-SYSTEM G -MANHOLE-- LEAK GALLONS CUMULATIVE REPAIR CUMULATIVE MS UP DOWN DIA RATE RECOMMENDIWN RANK ELIMINATED GPD EL1M. COST COST 1 G 003 004 8 782 REPLACE MH COVER W/WATERTITE RBCOV. 1.28 704 704 550 550 G 011 T03 8 720 SEAL JOINT SECTIONS OF PRECAST MH 1.08 540 1,244 500 1,050 G 005 006 8 312 REALIGN 8 GROUT CASTING, MH IN ST. 0.47 281 1,525 600 1,650 G 003 004 8 0 REPAIR MH/LINE CONNECT.(EXT.IN ST 0.00 0 1,525 1,500 3,150 i 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 1 ' City of Encinitas, California Dudek & Associates, Inc Encinitas, California ADS Environmental Services, Inc. ENCINITAS INFLOW SURVEY JOB NUMBER 8061 REHABILITATION COST ANALYSIS MAIN LINE MANHOLE : MUNICIPAL/PRIVATE SERVICE LINE FOR MINI-SYSTEM H --MANHOLE-- LEAK GALLONS CUMULATIVE REPAIR CUMULATIVE MS UP DOWN DIA RATE RECOMMENDATION RANK ELIMINATED GPD EL1M. COST COST H 050 051 8 312 REALIGN & GROUT CASTING, MH IN ST. 0.47 281 281 600 600 H 046 047 8 312 REALIGN & GROUT CASTING, MH IN ST. 0.47 281 562 600 1,200 City of Encinitas, California Dudek 8 Associates, Inc Encinitas, California ADS Environmental Services, Inc. ' ENCINITAS INFLOW SURVEY JOB NUMBER 8061 REHABILITATION COST ANALYSIS MAIN LINE : MANHOLE : MUNICIPAL/PRIVATE SERVICE LINE FOR MINI-SYSTEM T MANHOLE-- LEAK GALLONS CUMULATIVE REPAIR CUMULATIVE MS UP DOWN DIA RATE RECOMMENDJON RANK ELIMINATED GPD ELIM. COST COST T 001 002 8 720 REHABILITATE MANHOLE WALL 0.42 504 504 1,200 1,200 T 008 009 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 504 1,100 2,300 T 001 002 8 0 REHABILITATE MANHOLE BENCH, TROUGH 0.00 0 504 1,100 3,400 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 04 + 's k4L 2-o �7 -417 4 7 fi 1�5 -�334r 0 Ll 1'2-.-e7- i I -/, ��13 ' ? - Z . 44 , 1 2--4 0. LT -1 71 LT -70 TO F s , -7 2- CT soy Vf2 6- 7-7 113 8-3, 8 7 �F l � F=�l � , ., .-. f C 0 91 4 June 1 , 1995 Mr. Hans Jensen Engineering Department City of Encinitas 505 S . Vulcan Ave Encinitas , CA 92024 Re: 598 Hermes Encinitas , CA Dear Mr . Jensen, On April 13 , 1995 , Wayne Pasco and I met with you to explore the various options for development of the above referenced property and to inquire into requirements the City would impose for said development . Out of that discussion I came away with certain parameters that I understood would need to be contained in the development plans . I would like to outline some of these points in writing to make sure we are in agreement with everything. These points are as follows : 1) That the City of Encinitas will be designing and installing a comprehensive drainage system for the Leucadia area of the City. 2) That the plans are for one of the major links in this drainage system to run through the property. 3) That in exchange for providing easement rights to the City for the drain pipe, the City will install and maintain this pipe at no cost to the owner of the property. 4) That once the drain line is installed by the City the property will have drain access so runoff from the property will be able to flow into the drainage system. 5) That at the time the City obtains the easement for the drain pipe across the adjacent property to the west , the City will support the inclusion in those easement rights an easement. for the sewer from this property to the sewer line under Vulcan Ave. 6) That , assuming all other development requirements are met , the City will allow the development of three of the four lots even before the City's drainage system is installed. Development of the lowest lot will be approved when a comprehensive means of run off removal has been installed. I trust we are in agreement on these items . If for some reason I have misunderstood anything please contact me as soon as possible so t t I can make adjustments in my development plans . S cure % Larry I aker 635 Melba Rd Encinitas , CA 92024 ( 616) 436-7946 City of Carlsbad August 28, 1995 X0/9 MR. HANS JENSEN '��%�f, ; SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 920243633 RE: PROPOSED HIGHWAY 101 CORRIDOR DRAINAGE PLAN Dear Mr. Jensen: Carlsbad Assistant City Engineer David Hauser brought to my attention the proposed Highway 101 Corridor Drainage Plan currently under review. As you are aware, the City of Carlsbad, in cooperation with several Federal and State Resource Agencies, is currently in the process of restoring Batiquitos Lagoon. The project completion date is anticipated to be mid-1997 at which time the completed project will be thereafter administered by the State of California, Department of Fish and Game as a State of California ecological reserve. Any potential plans for discharging drainage runoff directly into Batiquitos Lagoon should include the opportunity for review and comments from the following agencies participating in the Batiquitos Lagoon restoration project: California Department of Fish and Game California Stat3 Lards Commission California Coastal Commission San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board United States Environmental Protection Agency United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service United States Army Corp of Engineers I share David's questions and comments addressed in his August 22, 1995 letter to you regarding potential volume and velocity of direct discharge into Batiquitos Lagoon, sedimentation controls, identification and elimination of urban pollutants, potential impacts upon nesting sites and endangered avian species, etc. These issues and others should be the subjects addressed in an environmental analysis of the proposed drainage 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 plan August 28, 1995 Page 2 if direct discharge into Batiquitos Lagoon is contemplated. The above listed agencies, as well as the City of Carlsbad, I believe would be interested in reviewing and commenting upon the environmental analysis. Please call me at 438-1161, extension 4386 with any questions regarding the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project. Regards, IJHN J. CAHILL Municipal Projects Manager Project Director, Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project c: David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director = City of Carlsbad Engineering . - . - August 22, 1995 Mr. Hans Jensen °°' Senior Civil Engineer City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024-3633 Gfr�Ct r < 'I ENGIt `EPt�,'g "s PROPOSED PROPOSED HWY 101 CORRIDOR DRAINAGE PLAN Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your proposed Hwy 101 corridor drainage plan. We would like to offer our support for the option which involves tunneling through the bluffs and discharging directly to the Ocean. We are not in favor of the proposed alternative design which would discharge a large diameter pipe directly into the Batiquitos Lagoon. We believe the alternative design may pose a significant adverse risk to the ongoing restoration of the Batiquitos Lagoon. The lagoon waters in the area of the proposed alternative discharge point are somewhat removed from the main body of the lagoon and will be subject to minimal cleansing action when the lagoon is opened to tidal waters. With the influx of fresh water to this site there could be significant reed growth thus leading to greater stagnation of the lagoon waters in this area. Since the site is immediately adjacent to the newly constructed least tern nesting site, we suggest that a more thorough environmental analysis be conducted to ensure the protection of this endangered species. In addition, the effects of discharging urban waters to this sensitive area should be fully considered. For instance, what type of urban pollutants currently exist in this drainage basin? In what quantities?Will these pollutants pose a risk to the foraging least terns?Will a sedimentation basin be required? If so, how big must it be and where will it be constructed? Is there room for an adequately sized basin outside of the wetland areas? These questions should be fully addressed within a focused environmental impact report before proceeding with any alternative design to discharge drainage waters to this sensitive resource area. If you need my assistance on this matter or would like further clarification on my comments, please feel free to give me a call at 438-1161 Ext 4362. Re7Z---,- David Hauser Assistant City Engineer c City Engineer Municipal Projects Manager Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (619) 438-1161 - FAX (619) 438-0894 41 44 Ul Ul N ro0o+41a J, 0 0.� N N .G1 N C 00 a3 a {4" N N ro�yq CT0 V 0 v H] O'o a N G U N N N °yaac°� G v to 00 0 v y ro ro �4 41 m CO 44 .H 4 1� 41.H z 0 N 3 34 0 qb o w cn roa� m °'�'o p NN d A N C y GO N l4 N G ro•a 1.4 N G > P.N ro ro 1 114(a ° .H > p 0 o y•, u o,� 0 S N la,Q1 G N N G ro b 4J a) ro 41 N •4 G .� W N rnro s4 0 H aw aa3 o vi G ou G o .b 'U ON1 p �lyl+ IoW .°_� .L�` ❑:_ ,v, v u, v 0� o o 0 G 0 en v� m b v v b 7 ro v 0 �G ° � ° Fv ab � ° my ° N 0 °� Wy.� .'J � �A OD�:� G� v OGD•�y 3 ¢ m� w W W W N w ° N p C GO 5 v N w n G r ? N o o~m m o 3Fj m m > r o 0 v LL 0040 oU -rn o v a ro G 0. w N w z u o oo ? C °o z o v o D C3 U) m o 0 v X ° in 3 ma w a mN m o °°°� 0x a o Mr b ° v •a w op o 0 vrn o'a.� 3 d �� v ° °GC'[ ° ono °rev -.- v N v u G pp o °U c°Q.° v eo^ ° o ' 6n v a a 3 3 v 0o vw .2w R c a �o c v via [, H o° v m o•NO wa o ro w V y 'r'"o.0 V o 'G° mU '. 0 W o w o l; Q !0'L' N A N pp M Y v :� co O 0 U Q v°n w Q m V ° ° o ro 5 §) )� (\\ & § ( ±/ = Hew \ � \\\ � ƒ ƒ f % , \ }\ ; g 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON.Governor .... CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION ROBERT C.HIGHT,Executive Officer 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 South (916)574-1800 FAX(916)574-1810 Sacramento,CA 95825-8202 California Relay Service From TDD Phone 1-800-735-2922 from Voice Phone 1-800-735-2929 i ' Contact Phone:(916)574-1892 °°^r�^•--,.,,,,,.,-Contact FAX.- (916)574-1925 t n it November 20, 1995 " ~° NOV 2 7 ��File Ref: SD 95-08-22.3 Hans Jensen City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Avenue San Diego, CA 92024 Dear Mr. Jensen: SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation(NOP) of a Negative Declaration (ND) for the Highway 101 Corridor Drainage Plan, SCH 95081002 Staff of the State Lands Commission(SLC)has reviewed the subject document. We apologize for the lateness of our comments and would appreciate their consideration by the City. Under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),the City is the Lead Agency and the SLC is a Responsible and/or Trustee Agency for any and all projects which could directly or indirectly affect sovereign lands,their accompanying Public Trust resources or uses, and the public easement in navigable waters. The proposed project involves the construction of ocean outfalls. We do not have sufficient information to determine if the outfalls will extend onto sovereign lands under the jurisdiction of the SLC. Please provide us with detailed plans of the proposed outfall structures so that a determination can be made if SLC authorization is required. If you have any questions,please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, i-' illy 7t_.L' ( � -Jane E. Smith Public Land Management Specialist Southern California Region cc: OPR PETE WILSON, Govowor -- GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH r' T y (:A 95814 .. September 1, 1995 HANS JENSEN CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 S. VULCAN AVE ENCINITAS, CA 92024 Subject : HIGHWAY 101 CORRIDOR DRAINAGE PLAN SCH # : 95081002 Dear HANS JENSEN: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments . This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act . Please call at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Sincerely, ANTERO A. RIVASPLATA Chief, State Clearinghouse CITY OF ENCINITAS ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT LEGAL NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City of Encinitas, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , has completed an Environmental Initial Study and is proposing to adopt a Negative Declaration for the following project: PROJECT NAME: Highway 101 Corridor Drainage Plan. APPLICANT: City of Encinitas Engineering Services Department LOCATION: Highway 101 Corridor from Orpheus Avenue to La Costa Avenue between I-5 and the Pacific Ocean, Leucadia Community, Encinitas, California. DESCRIPTION: Trunk system and collection system drainage facilities. The trunk system to consist of either a small-diameter pipe(s) "micro-tunneled/pipe jacked" through the bluffs to discharge into the ocean at the base of the seacliff (preferred alternative) , or a large-diameter pipe to convey storm water north to the ocean near Batiquitos Lagoon. The trunk system will be along Highway 101, with possible microtunneling discharge locations at Basil Street and Avocado Street. The collection system will consist of pipes and inlets throughout the watershed tied to the trunk system. The City has performed an initial environmental study which has determined that either no significant negative environmental impacts would result or that mitigation measures would be incorporated into the project to reduce potential significant impacts to a level of insignificance. Therefore, a Negative Declaration is proposed for this project. Anyone wishing to comment on and/or challenge the environmental findings must do so in writing and file with the Engineering Services Department, City of Encinitas, 505 South Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas CA 92024 during the public review period to run from 31 July 1995 to 5 : 00 p.m. 30 August 1995. The environmental record for this project is available from the Engineering Services Department at the address noted above. For further information please contact Hans Jensen, Senior Civil Engineer, at the above address or by telephone (619 ) 633-2770 . SUN NEWSPAPERS & THE LOG 61' 4314888 P. 04 @ITV OF a mmrrAs ENa1NEElllNO SeRVICIIi DEPART1rICNT LMAL NOTICE OF cmVIRONMINTAL MMIE N The City of Encinitas,pursuant to the California Envlrattnental Quality Act (CEQA),has completed an Environmental Initial study and Is proposing to adopt a Negative Declaration lot the following project: PROJECT NAYS:Highway 101 Corridor Dralnege Plan 30) APPLICANTS City of Encinitas Engineering Services Department LOCATIONI Highway 101 Corridor from Orpheus Avenue to Le Costa Avenue between 1-5 and the Peak:Ocean.Leucadfa Community,Encinite3. California. pas@mIPTIONt Tnnk system and collecllon system drsrtege Iacil Iles.The trunk system to Consist of either a small-diameter pipe(q) -micr0- lunnektd/pipe lacked'through the bluffs 10 discharge Into the ocean at go base of the sesdNf(preferred alternative),or a large-diameter pipe 10 Canvey storm water north to the ocean new Batiqultoe Lagoon,The trunk system will Do along Highway 101.with possible mlorgUwi@*V discharge locations at Basil Street and Avocado Street.The collection system will CWWU 01 Pipes and Inlets throughout the watershed tled to the trunk system. The City of Encinitas has performed an Initial onvlornmenfat study which has determined that either no significant negative environmental impacts would result or that mittgalion measwss would be Incorporated Into the Pro- fact to reduce potential significant Impacts 10■level 01 lnsignllieenea. Therefore.a Negative Declaration is proposed for IMnle project,Anyone wish- ing to comment on snMa challenge the wwft ire IW findings must do eo In writing and file with the Engineering Services Department,Coy of Enci nkes, 505 South Vulcan Avenue,Encinitas,CA 92024 during the public review pari- 0d to run from 31 July 1995 to 5:00 p.m,30 August 1995. The environmental record for [hie project Is avellsbis from the Engineering Services Depanmsm at Itta address noted above.For further infartlatbn please contact Hann Jensen,Senior CfW Engineer,at the above address or by telephone(819)633-2770. ES 6753:August 3,1996 i, CITY OF ENCINITAS AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: October 18, 1995 TO: City Council rOR YOUR RECORDS From City Clerk VIA: Lauren Wasserman, City Manager FROM: Engineering Services Department OAlan Archibald, Engineering Services Department Director Hans Carl Jensen, Subdivision Engineer SUBJECT: Highway 101 Corridor Drainage Plan. ISSUE: Whether to certify a Negative Declaration for the Drainage Project, and to select the preferred Alternate, for which final plans will be prepared. BACKGROUND: The city approved the necessary services for the 1994-1995 Capital improvement project "101 Corridor Drainage", design of a storm drainage system for the area west of I-5 and north of Union Street. A contract was entered with Barrett Consulting Group. In resolving the drainage problems in the Leucadia area, a phased drainage facility is planned. The drainage facilities will consist of two components, a "mainline" or "backbone" system and a collection system. The mainline facility will consist of either a large-diameter pipe that conveys storm water north to the Batiquitos Lagoon or "microtunneling/pipe jacking" a smaller-diameter pipe through the bluffs to an ocean discharge(s) along the Leucadia seacliffs. The conceptual location for the mainline system is anticipated along Highway 101, with possible discharge locations for microtunneling at Basil Street and Avocado Street. The collection system will entail the layout and configuration of a system designed to serve the ultimate drainage needs of Leucadia and tie into the backbone facility. Upon review and acceptance of the preliminary alignments and designs, final construction documents will be prepared for as much of the mainline and collection system as funding allows. As additional monies become available, other alignments identified in this study will be designed and constructed in the future. Barrett has produced a preliminary design report for the Highway 101 Corridor Drainage project, and that report was used to notice and solicit CEQA comments on the project proposal following Project CMD95A the rules for processing a negative declaration. The Negative Declaration is attached as Exhibit "A". Barretts report detail three different alternates for the alignment of drainage structures to convey the stormwater out to the ocean. ANALYSIS: The preliminary design report outlines three alternative designs: 1. Alternative No. 1 - Basil Street and Avocado Street Outfall. Estimated Cost = $4,644,800 2. Alternative No. 2 - Basil Street Outfall. Estimated Cost = $5,211,300 3. Alternative No. 3 - Batiquitos Outfall. Estimated Cost = $5,877,700 All the systems are similar in the collection area, and differ in the method for getting the flow to the ocean. Alternate No. 1 will provide a split system with two outfalls, with smaller pipes through the foot of the bluffs. The system can be built in stages, and at the time of the final plan approval, such phasing will be a part of the plans. Alternate No. 2 will provide for only one outfall through the bluff, necessitating a larger microtunneling operation. Alternate No. 3 takes the outflow northerly to Ponto Beach, through the City of Carlsbad who voiced their concern for a discharge of storm water to the lagoon. The executive summary of the report outlines the cost of the alternates, and the reduced preliminary plans show the alignments of the alternates. These items are attached as Exhibit "B". FISCAL IMPACTS: The Consultant will be paid for services as they are performed, and funding of the Contract is obtained from the drainage fee fund. The cost for this contract is $273,340, approved by the City Council on February 8, 1995. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that: 1. City Council certify the mitigated Negative Declaration for Highway 101 Corridor Drainage Plan, and 2. The Consultant prepare final plans for Alternate No. 1, Basil Street and Avocado Street outfall system. 2 PETE VOLSON, Governor ,s n ESOURCES AGENCY MISSION a C t .STATE OF CALIFORNIA- OACTAIL O F` CALIFOR. ,7 1995 F SAN DIEGO AREA November 21, ✓!, ' 3111 CAN81��%"�0 NORTH+SUITE2 92108" ; SAN DIEGO,CA 4 (819) 5z1.8036 City of Encinitas Avenue 505 South Vulcan Encinitas,CA 9204 pttn: Hans Jensen Re. Highway 101 Corridor Drainage plan proposed Negative Declaration d,although the Dear Mr. Jensen. document an provide the passed,would like to Pconstruction of s reviewed the above cited draft docu eriod has already p Went sump Commission staff has that the protect involves the 30 day public review p ess several prone d Vulcan prescribed It is our understanding facilities to addr ents* stem drainage f hway 101,the railroad alternative for following cow collection sy along Hig referred a trunk system and ber of low-lying areas The identified preferred through well as a num unity of Encinitas• cro-tunneled/piPe matters,the areas as the Leucadia cornet eter pipes procedural Avenue in all-( Relative to system consists of set d as such,requires review cal the trunk y e into the ocean at two locations'one an a certified L W1 the Coasts Z However, the bluffs to discharge t is located Cit of Encinitas has the City proposed development permit Since the y would be within the coastal develop elo ment perm: would issued by under a co coastal dev P the sandy development the coas uire a coastal the City Coastal program ment that is located therefore re( the final action by any portion of the develop anal jurisdiction an In addition, d extent of the 's area of original portion only• feet of the inlan Commission Commission for that p Permit from the Comma ment located within 300 P Coastal Commission• a ing for those portions of the deem op entally dam g beach would be appealable to the t environm alternative is the leas at Batiqumtos Lagoon that the preferred e to discharge ast Tern Commission staff agree proposes a large Pip acts to designated Le ve. The alternative that prop otential impacts on,and impacts to wetland altern ate that include p ber of concerns during co raises a num ossible public access impacts s not raise such issues. nesting sites,P cro-tum1elin 7 alternative doe suggests that t' The proposed mi Commission staff f as Possible referred alternative,Comte of the bluff as s with the preferred as close to the toe some form of e Relative to concern acts to the bluff. In addition, points should be located Ze erosion impacts of the di bluff discharge potent' for erosion imp reduce the p should also be included to minimize dissipater system GARY MARTIN 576 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 December 1, 1995 One Hans Jensen, Engineering Dept CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 So. Vulcan Ave Encinitas, CA 92024 Dear Mr Jensen It has come to my attention that the City of Encinitas is planning to drain all of the water from west of I -5 to the blufftop lot at 560 Neptune and under my property at 576 Neptune Avenue. The Mayor, Councilmembers&the Engineering Department of Encinitas need to be made aware that although public meetings were conducted within the state regulations as far as public notices are concerned; the City of Encinitas, failed to notify any of the homeowners that were directly affected by this project. This represents a violation of our property, as well as our constitutional rights as citizens and as homeowners. Furthermore, the area that the City has targeted as the Number One choice for water drainage has a history of bluff erosion. This area has a number of seawall demonstrating a long history of problems , not to mention a geological fault line known by the City of San Diego, as the Encinitas Fault Line, which runs under 560, 560 lot, 574-576 Neptune Avenue. This area was deemed hazardous as far back as the 1940's when it was shored up as a World War II work project. This government project built a lower seawall stretching from 560 to 610 Neptune Avenue demonstrating that this was already a problemed area long before there was much of a population here in Encinitas. The City of Encinitas has recently declared this same area as a GHAD district (geological hazardous abatement district)further attesting to the volatility of this area continuing into the: present day. I have been participating in the City of Encinitas' public meetings for the Comprehensive Local Plan. This proposed drainage solution to the fragile privately owned bluffs has never been presented to the blufftop owners in Encinitas for discussion. If the City of Encinitas proceeds with this plan of action, it should be prepared to compensate the affected homeowners for any depreciation suffered by this construction. 1 sell real estate full -time on Neptune Avenue and am an authority here on property value. It is my professional opinion that if the City puts a drainage pipe as proposed under my property, or any of my neighbors properties, this will greatly depreciate our property values. It is only fair to expect to be compensated for any loss in property values. I strongly hope that the City of Encinitas will take a closer look at other alternatives concerning the drainage problems of Leucadia. I would appreciate your immediate attention in this matter. I am enclosing herein, my businesscard and welcome your contacting me for further discussion in the matter. Sincerely, Gary Martin' Enclosure , f, 17 14-'G� FRANK L. CHABRE 584 Neptune Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 December 20, 1995 Diane Lanager Assistant Planner CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 So. Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 Dear Ms . Lanager: We have recently been informed by our neighbors about the drainage project which the city is planning, and the proposed storm drain in our area. The City of Encinitas has never given us any notice or information about this proposal . We have in our possession geotechnical evaluations of our property and adjacent property which clearly state that any excavation of the bluff in this area would compromise its stability. We strongly recommend that you find an alternative solution to the drainage problem on the highway. We would appreciate your immediate consideration of the problems which could be created by your proposed action. Further, please send us forthwith copies of any and all plans from the Department of Engineering, Minutes of related meetings and any other material relating to the matter that is in the possession of the City. We also require advance written notices of each and every meeting to be conducted regarding this matter. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs . Frank L. Chabre l , P. O. Box 2036 ,� G% 4D Sausalito, CA 94966 December 16, 1995 Hans Carl Jensen ✓F Subdivision Engineer sFy fG�' City of Encinitas505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas,CA 92024-3633 Re: 405 Fulvia Street, Encinitas Dear Mr. Jensen, I am very concerned about the state of my property at the corner of Fulvia and Hymettus and my tenants therein due to problems of flooding that occurred last year. In your letter of May 16, 1995 you stated that "there are no drainage systems in the area, " that natural contours cause the problems that I have had, and that the city plans for drainage improvement were 6 to 10 years away. However, my tenant Alan Saltamachio informed me that the city has recently cleaned out a city drain on this very corner because it was clogged up. Indeed, I've never had city streets draining into my property during rainy season before this year. Recently, I had to replace some duct work related to my heating system and learned that there is now rust damage to my furnace, which is under the house. I know that the flooding last winter caused this damage because the furnace was inspected in October by PG & E and it was in fine condition ("almost like new" even though it is not new) . Acccording to the company that did the duct work, Air Supply of Carlsbad, "the furnace is very rusty and will need replacement next season. " My yard, I am told, was several feet under water. I feel that the City of Encinitas needs to solve this problem at once! I also feel that the City's failure to maintain its drain properly, which is apparently there for this very reason, is negligent, and has damaged my property as well as my relationship with my tenant. What can you do for me to redress the costs that I am going to bear and to prevent its happening again? Sincerely, Anne K. Blau� � } CITY U,- E,'NCINITAS ; .0- 4 - CITY CLERK IAJ- December 6, 1995 95 DEC 12 pM 4; 40 ? Councilperson, Gail Hano City of Encinitas OL 505 Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Dear Gail: You have always been helpful and willing to consider the problems of bluff owners in Encinitas and I thank you for that. This letters concerns the proposed drainage project from I-5 to the beach. Naturally, I am worried about what it might do to my own property. Information is what I need. What optional plans have been considered? Are specific engineering plans already developed? What is the time frame? Would traffic be distributed? How does the city obtain the privilege or right to tunnel under property? In summary, I am concerned as a property owner and uninformed as to the need for such a projects. Any help will be appreciated. Sincerely, 'John N. McAllister, M.D. R December 6, 1995 ' Mayor Chuck Du Vivier City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, Ca. 92024 �)eai Mr. Hams Jenseno It offends me to the core to find out that the City of Encinitas is planning to solve a drainage problem by boring right through and under mfr bluff property at 560 Neptune ,",ve. It is very disconcerting to me that I was not consulted or made aware of the fact that the City of Encinitas was making plans to use my private property for a drainage project. This is not a Communist country - yet! The plan is outrageous, insane and down right irresponsible; 1 . The bluff is a foundation for all the homes on the bluff. To bore through and under the bluff is to literally undermine and weaken the very foundation of the structures. 2. At 560 Neptune and the adjacent lot, the upper retaining wall, reinforced by tiebacks, would be undermined. The middle portion of the bluff would begin to erode again. The lower free-standing wall would be weakened. The potential cave in would be imminent and threatening my neighbor's property. 3. The property is for sale. Disclosing the proposed drainage project (which would also foul up the beach ) not only would deter an interested buyer but would also depreciate considerably the value of the property. 4. The City of Encinitas as, a public servant, has no moral or legal right to put the homeowners through so much anguish, stress and concern and above all cause the bl:affowners loose all confidence in the City's administrative good judgment and intentions. What would you do if it were your home and your property? 5. It is hard for me to fathom the fact that by trying to solve one problem the City is creating another problem and a bigger one. 6. I do hope that t'ne Cite .of fsncini tas will ma',e amends a-rid not force rme to seek legal advice. rely, L. Dradle, / 560 Neptune Ave. Encinitas, Ca. 92 436077?' v MaryAnn Keithley 592 Neptune Ave Encinitas, CA 92024 December 13, 1995 Diane Lanager, Assistant Planner City of Encinitas 5 05 So Vulcann Ave Encinitas, CA 92024 Dear Ms Lanager : I have recently found out that the City of Encinitas is planning to put a drainage pipe through the bluffs on Neptune Avenue and that the City is considering placement of this pipe on any number of my neighbors'properties, or possibly even my own . I have owned my home for over 30 years and I am appalled that the City would consider this project knowing the fragility of these bluffs, and without even notifying any of the homeowners whose properties would be damaged. In light of the recent drainage pipe disaster in San Francisco, I believe that a much better solution to this drainage problem would be avoid the bluffs entirely. A better solution might be to run a pipe to Moonlight Beach or to Batiquitos Lagoon. If the City of Encinitas proceeds with its present plan to microtunnel the fragile, privately owned bluffs, I will be forced to seek legal action. Sincerely, A ��4 Ma Ann Keithley 02/12/96 17:44 $619 536 5620 BARRETT CSTG. GP a001 EW Earth Tech Offices throughout the World 9675 Business Park Avenue,Suite 100 San Diego, California 91131 619 536-5610 Fax 619 536-5620 FACSIMILE TRANSM117AL TO: Hans Jensen FROM: Keith Gillfillan COMPANY: City of Encinitas DATE: February 12, 1996 FAX NO.: 633 - 2627 PROJECT NO.: 20133410 - 030 PAGES: 4 pages including this sheet Hans, Attached is a memo from Woodward Clyde regarding their status and findings of work. We can discuss this further on Tuesday. Regards, Keith encinite.fax 02/12/96 17:44 $619 536 5620 BARRETT CSTG. GP Q002 02/12/96 12'04 $293 7`. WCC 3ARRETT CSTG. GP 16 002 WOODw YDE MEMORANDUM To: Keith GO Man From: Greg Raines Office: San Diego Date: February 12, 1996 Subject: 101 Drainage Project-Geotechnical and Tunnel Design Project Status I am submitting this memorandum to update yc u on the status of our work on the subject project. The fo lovimg sections outline our work to date: SCIEDULE We have compl ed the field exploration with thl exception of the coastal test pits. The tide, swell, weather, and beach levels will apparent] not allow us to perform this work until sometime in th spring. In the interim we have completed our mapping and reconnaissance but may still n the test pits eventually. We a limited amount of budget left at this time for the test pwe will keep you appraised o 7 the budget status prior to performing the coastal test pits. We are in the rocess of completing the geotechnrcal report and reviewing the plans and specifications. you know, we are only proceeding on one outfaR as our request for a scope and budget mo ' cation has not been approv When we come to an agreement on the revised costs, will be able to complete our ' eering work on the second ocean outfall location. Per ou previous conversations, we NQ focused our effort, thus far, on the Basil Street Outf M. Our analyses a about 50 percent complete. I anticipate completing all the agreed to analytical work by the week ending February 23, 996. We plan to have a draft of our final report complIete for review by the end of February. We can incorporate the second outfall into the report if we receive approval by the end of this week(February 16)otherwise we will leave the sons blank until we come to an agreement. C1PR.oJFL'[s\�SI I:.--R\Ei IDoc 02-u-45 02/12/96 17:45 $619 536 5620 BARRETT CSTG. GP Q003 ttL/1G/tob 1Z:IA "Z93 WCC BARRETT CSTG. GP 0003 c OUTFALL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS We have completed our evaluation of the Basil Street Outfall Location. Our evaluation indicates that a site stability is less than the d usually required for a beach structure. We have devel ped several stabilization alte which include various combinations of walls, fill, and shotcrete with anchors. The City of Encinitas should review. the various schemes to male a decision on risk versus cost issues. Moi Arzamendi(our coastal engineer) would li7ce to eet with Earth Tech(formerly kn DWn as Barrett) and the City, either in person or by conferen:e can, to discuss the issues pri i to finalizing the report. We have not done any work on the Avocado Street location Please call Moi to set up a meeting_ One additional item to discuss with Moi, is the need to have a survey control point on the beach for us to tie in oFlr surveys_ At this time our field survey information is based on assumed ele :ons or tentative beach marks available in the field. Based on this reconnaissance the top of wall at the Basil Street Outfall is not at+8 feet MSL but instead at approximately 13 feet MSL. TUNNEL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The pri mary co aerations with the tunnels as presently laid out evolves around the outfall elevation, the earth material the tunnel should be constructed in, and the related hydraulic impacts of thes items. Both of the outJWl invert elevations should be placed at elevation+17 MSL. I believe they are currently at +10 which is too low to limit potential blockage from beach sediments or from wave runup- Basil Street -The inlet elevation for the asil Street Tunnel at Aighway 101 should be at or below elevation +3(). This will keep the e M tunnel in the more stable Tertiary aged formation. I bilieve it is currently at +25 whi is acceptable to us if the hydraulics are acceptable- Avocado Street QUEN - We briefly looked at the Avocado Street Tunnel profile_ It has a number of pote tial problems. As stated above the invert at the outlet should be at devation +17. This pla:c it in the younger Terrrace D40sits. It would be best to keep the entire tunnel in one fo ton type if appropriate. Vie�rovided you with the profile which you may want to look at Io lay out s new profile. It is important that we try to keep the tunnel 3 to 5 feet from the contact between the Terrace Deposrts and the Tertiary aged formation. The contact has the potential for flowing ground, grohndwater, cobbles, uneven excavation rates, and ground settlement. h is best to keep it off of this contact_ If not possible, I have some ideas on how to make it work with ground improvement, but this adds cost_ Also, think about 02/12/96 17:46 V619 536 5620 BARRETT CSTG. GP 2004 � __ __ �� . r .ir ..�- 1t +�-• I11vWla �J1�- Jl �VUti the possibility f doing both open cut and tmzncTing on this segment if truck traffic can be accommodated Ra*oad Cr We have not looked at the road ivaaels_ Again, it is best to construct these in the?i formation. Since we were ' t allowed to drM any borings, except for the outtalk,and sidce we have not received am othrjr subsurface information for the railroad, it is difficult to male accurate assessments. I antici we that we will need to ultimately drill for these crossings. i �T �_Z Woodward-Clyde qW Engineering&sciences applied to the earth&its environment March 05, 1996 Project No. 9451132R-SI02 Mr. Keith Gillfillan Earth Technology 9675 Business Park Avenue San Diego, CA 92131 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS HIGHWAY 101 CORRIDOR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 30 PERCENT PROJECT DESIGN ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Dear Keith: The purpose of this memorandum is to highlight and summarize some of the pertinent geotechnical issues at the 30 percent design stage of the project. It is intended to be sufficiently complete so that it can be easily modified into a final report document. This geotechnical design memorandum should be reviewed along with our draft geotechnical report for the subject project. OPEN CUT PIPELINE SEGMENTS Pipe Depth - Much of the open cut pipeline segments appear to be located at a depth which will place them right along the terrace/formation contact. This zone has the potential for groundwater and flowing sand. In order to reduce the extra costs associated with construction along the contact, we recommend that the pipe invert be raised as much as possible. This will, in our opinion, allow the contractor to bid the project using trench boxes for support of the trenches so as to keep the bid price as low as possible. Ideally, we would like to see the invert 10 feet above the contact. As a minimum, it should be at least five feet above the contact. Our assessment of the contact elevation can only be made from the existing borings performed for the outfall segments. Based on very limited data, we currently estimate the contact to be around elevation 42 to 47 feet MSL. We would recommend additional borings along the deep open-cut segments to accurately establish the depth to the contact and the groundwater levels. Existing Utilities - The impact of existing utilities on the shoring design needs to be clearly established. The proximity of these utilities to the pipe trench may impact the stability of the trench. Woodward-Clyde Consultants•A subsidiary of Woodward-Clyde Group, Inc. Sunroad Plaza 3,Suite 1000•1615 Murray Canyon Road•San Diego,California 92108 619-294-9400•Fax 619-293-7920 Woodward-Clyde Mr. Keith Gillfillan Earth Technology March 5, 1996 Page 2 Vulcan Trenching - The trench down Vulcan Avenue appears to be adjacent to power poles which have a disconcerting lean to them. We are concerned that the trenching will adversely affect the power poles which could run the project costs up. Repaving ReQuirements - The repaving recommendations provided are the minimum standards for open trenching. The width of the trench down highway 101 and its location may result in the need to repave the entire construction corridor (i.e. both northbound lanes, the median, and the shoulder). This will also aid in adding benefits to the motorist who will be impacted by the construction process. Value Engineering - Given the planned tunnels, Contractors may want to provide a value engineering bid to design more of the project using tunneling/pipe jacking techniques, especially where the pipe is relatively deep and below groundwater. To aid in this value engineering we should attempt to lay the project out (from a hydraulic perspective) so that pipe jacking can be bid as a VE alternative. This would include the need for straight alignments (e.g. no curves down Highway 101). Evenly spaced manhole locations will also help (e.g. 500 feet on center wherever possible). Manholes should also be located in areas which will allow improved traffic control flow around them as they could serve as jacking/receiving pits. The inclusion of uniform pipe sizes also helps with this (e.g. 36 and 54-inch as opposed to 24, 36, 48, and 54-inch). The pipe should be jacked above or below the elevation of the terrace deposit/Tertiary formation contact. The project is ideally suited for a value engineering tunneling alternative as long as we do not design it so that it is too difficult for the contractors to make the conversion. If VE alternative is desired, the Contractors also need to be provided with more geotechnical information (e.g. borings along the alignment) otherwise, it should not be expected. TUNNELED SEGMENTS Outfall Tunnel Invert Elevations - An invert elevation of 13 feet MSL at the seacliff has been established by the design team as a compromise between competing elements. An invert of +17 was recommended by WCC so as to be above the wave runup and beach sedimentation levels. The 30 percent drawings show an invert of +10 MSL. The slope of the pipe should be as flat as possible to facilitate the tunneling operation. Tunneling is ideally down in an uphill direction. It can be done downhill but is eased by keeping the gradient as flat as possible. W:\9451132R\SI02-B-L.DOC Woodward-Clyde Mr. Keith Gillfillan Earth Technology March 5, 1996 Page 3 Railroad Tunnel Invert Elevations - Similar to the open cut pipeline segments, the railroad tunnels appear to be located at or near the contact with the terrace deposits and the Tertiary formational soils. This contact needs to be avoided as much as possible. The pipe should be raised above the contact if possible. The contact also needs to be verified with additional borings. As there is apparently no existing data available along Highway 101 or the railroad, we recommend that two borings be drilled, one on either end, of each crossing. Outfall Tunnel Staging Areas - The current plan is to stage the pipe jacking work from the planned manhole on Highway 101. This location appears to be adjacent to a number of utilities. The utilities need to be accurately located and the staging area laid out to verify that a jacking shaft, support equipment, and traffic control can be accommodated. If it can not be accommodated within the Highway 101 right-of-way then the staging may need to move partially into the Railroad right-of-way or the residential neighborhood. Railroad Tunnel Staging Areas - There are five planned railroad tunnels. We have comments on several of the staging areas. The railroad crossing at Leucadia Boulevard is located in an area highly congested with overhead and surface utilities. This crossing would be eased if it were moved to the south away from the congested intersection. Note also that the shaft on the east side has overhead utilities which need to be kept clear of. The shafts on the east side of the Glaucus and Jason Street railroad crossings need to be checked to confirm that residential access both onto the street and into driveways is maintained. The railroad crossing north of Hillcrest may be better facilitated if it is located at Avocado Street. This way, if hydraulic requirements and sump pick up points allow, the Avocado Street shaft can accommodate a pipe jacking drive across the railroad and lead to one less jacking pit set up. Optional Railroad Crossing - The plan sheets show an optional railroad crossing. It may be desirable to bid it as an extra work item and then authorize it if the funds allow. Jacking Pipe Requirements - Jacking pipe will likely be made of reinforced concrete. The requirements for this type of pipe are fairly well established. The need for pressure pipe within the tunneled outfall segments needs to be investigated to confirm that jacking pipe standards exist which can meet the anticipated internal pressures. The need for casing under the railroad crossings also needs to be investigated. Typical railroad standards indicate that a steel casing is required if the pipe is under pressure. The key to cost effective pipe jacking is to eliminate the casing. We should try to make sure that the W:\9451132R\SI02-B-L.DOC Woodward-Clyde Mr. Keith Gillfillan Earth Technology March 5, 1996 Page 4 railroad will not require a casing. Another key to cost effective pipe jacking is to eliminate or allow for elimination of the need for multiple tunnel boring machines for different pipe sizes. As this time, it appears that the jacking pipe ranges from 24, 36, 48, and 54-inch pipe. Depending on available equipment, there are a number of ways these hydraulic requirements could be accommodated. We should make sure that cost savings can be incorporated to accommodate construction of these segments using various techniques. Geologic Information - It is our understanding that there may be a desire within the City to place geologic information on the plan sheets. We fully support this with the following qualifier. If the information is placed on the plan sheets, we should all fully back it as the baseline condition for the contractor to bid on. In this regard the standard contracting practice recommended within the industry is to provide the contractors with a "Geotechnical Baseline Memorandum" in the bid package. It contractually establishes the bidding baseline conditions for the contractor. Woodward-Clyde chairs the ASCE committee overseeing this process and we can provide more information if requested. OUTFALL SITES Structures - Shoreline protection structures are recommended for each site. The Basil Street Outfall site structure requirements need to consider the balance between cost and maintenance in regards to the height of the wall and fill recommended. The Avocado Street site simply needs a protective headwall type structure which, as recommended, would be constructed as an anchored shotcrete wall. Other design issues not covered by our report but which need to be considered include architectural finishes, vegetated slopes, energy dissipation, water quality, third party issues, etc. Test - When the tides, swell, beach levels, etc. allow, we do plan to excavate test pits on the beach as originally planned. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Excavation Spoils - The trenching and tunneling will produce excess soil which will need to be disposed of. The City may want to consider placing processed soil spoils in selected areas throughout Leucadia. These areas may include low areas which do not drain properly, wall backfill for the seacliff structures, and beach replenishment for high quality excess spoils. Other City accessible locations for disposing of excess spoil should also be considered if available to aid the contractors in cost affective disposal options. W:\9451132R\S102-B-L.DOC Woodward-Clyde Mr. Keith Gillfillan Earth Technology March 5, 1996 Page 5 Geotec nical .xplorati ns - We recommend additional geotechnical explorations for the railroad crossings and the deep open cut segments. The purpose would be to accurately establish the terrace/formational contact and associated soil and groundwater conditions along the contact. We feel that this information is important to design the project lay out to provide information to bidding contractors so as to get as low a cost as possible. The drilling conditions conducive to a simple drilling program which, assuming the project goes forward, will likely pay for themselves in reduced bids and less potential for claims. If you have any questions or would like to discuss these issues in more detail, please give us a call. Very truly yours WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS 1A, /' /A,a— Gregory L. Raines, P.E. Project Manager GLR/sll W:\9451132R\SI02-B-L.DOC �. _ Ron Brady- Eucalyptus trees along Higf y 101 Page 1 From: Kipp Hefner To: Greg Shields; Ron Brady Date: 1/14/02 1:15PM Subject: Eucalyptus trees along Highway 101 I wanted to find out what, if any, impact our drainage project would have on the existing Eucalyptus trees considering how many people called me up, including Councilwoman Houlihan, expressing concern about it. Gary Hoyt, our Landscape Architect consultant,who is also an Arborist, said that considering where our trench line is we whould not have any negative effect on the trees while we are trenching out there because Eucalyptus trees are very resilient. He said the only trouble we might have is if a Eucalyptus tree is infected with the insect called "Lerp". The Lerp sucks juice out of the leaves, and weakens the tree. He said if that is the case with a tree that we trench by, then maybe the trenching would just exasberate the situation and just worsen the condition of the tree. If the tree is healthy he said that there will be no problem. CC: Leroy Bodas • • 5 C I� State o f California J'�ronmen tal Review Mem randlum Date September 5, 2002 Attached Please Find: To Jeanne Akin ® Project Evaluation Form/s Dept. of Parks and Recreation ® For Signature(Final) San Diego Coast District ❑ For Review and Comment ❑ For Redesign/Modification/Resubmittal From Tina Robinson ® 5024 Review Form/s Dept. of Parks and Recreation ® For Signature and Return (Final) Southern Service Center ❑ For Review(Contact Reviewing Specialist) ® Notice/s of Exemption 15303 & 15304 Project/s : South Carlsbad State Beach-- Leucadia Flow Storm Drain F-1 Other: System Project (02/03-SD-12) Please Note: ❑ Additional Information Requested (see Comments section below) ® Project Modification/s or Condition/s (see Comments section below) ® See Archaeological Site 5024 Review Form (Section/s: III-VII) ® See Historic Facility 5024 Review Form (Section/s: III-VII) ® See Archaeologist's Comments on PEF ® See Historian's Comments on PEF ® See Resource Ecologist's Comments on PEF ❑ See Environmental Coordinator's Comments on PEF Comments: Archaeologist, Therese Muranaka, states that an archaeological monitor must be present during project construction. Please notify DPR archaeologist prior to construction. Resource Ecologist, William Abbott, states that all plant propagates must come from on site native vegetation populations. Civil Engineer, Jeff Ahlstrom, states that a DPR inspector must monitor modifications to existing parking lot. If constructed as described, incorporating the above conditions, this project is exempt under CEQA. Please return a copy of the signed final signature page from PEF, (the signature page for the 5024 signed by the project manager) and the original signed NOE. Thank you, Tina Robinson, Associate Park and Rec. Specialist Environmental Coordinator Southern Service Center 619-220-5324 E-mail: trobinson @parks.ca.gov Tina Robinson To:' "LBODAS( ancinitas.ca.us".GWIA-DMZ.HQDMZ Date: 9/5/02 11:5�_AM Subject: Re: Information on Storm Drain project Thanks Leroy- I would like to add the wording that the water will course out of the extreme northeast area of Basin 2, thus not affecting the archaeological sites-but I can't edit or copy your e-mail. Is that OK with you? Just reply yes or no and I will print out the e-mail to include in our Project Evaluation Form. >>> "Leroy Bodas" <LBODAS @ci.encinitas.ca.us> 09/05/02 09:53AM >>> Tina, here is the project description for the work on State Park property. The project consists of regrading Basin 1 to a configuration which will approximately double the exinting size.As a part of the regrading 30 feet of 24" RCP storm drain, a storm drain cleanout and outlet structure will be installed at the south end of the new basin.A 48" CMP riser will be installed on the inlet side of the existing 36" RCP which connects Basin 1 to Basin 2. An overflow pipe with CMP riser will be installed in the Right-of-Way of Carlsbad Blvd. near the northeat corner of Basin 2.This pipe and riser will not be installed on State property. This pipe will allow water to flow from Basin 2 and not affect the existing archaeological sites. Basin 1 will be landscaped and irrigated after construction in conformance with the approved revegetation. The grading of Basin 1 also requires some minor modifications to the existing parking layout.The parking lot will be reconfigured by relocating or redesigning 9 of the existing parking islands. The new parking islands will be constructed using concrete curb and gutter to match existing islands. The new lot configuration will add 4 parking spaces to the total provided. A new split rail fence will be constructed between the parking area Basin 1. Please let me know if you need additional information. Leroy >>>"Tina Robinson" <trobinson _i)arks.ca.gov>09/04/02 04:56PM >>> you should be able to reply to this e-mail. I'll let you know if I need anything else and we will again start to process the state's environmental review process for the permit. 9675 Business Park Avenue, San Diego, California 92 13 1 October 28, 1997 Mr. Hans C. Jensen City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Subject: Highway 101 Drainage Corridor - Alternatives Study Report Dear Hans, Per our meeting on May 13, 1997, and subsequent discussions, I have assembled the following revised proposal to prepare a study report analyzing selected alternatives mentioned in the public workshop held at the City of Encinitas for the Highway 101 Drainage project. Telephone This proposal outlines our proposed scope of work and estimated costs. 619.536.5610 Earth Tech will provide a study report to the City of Encinitas outlining several options available to the City to mitigate the flooding problems currently occurring along the Highway F a c s i m i l e 101 corridor between Orpheus Street and Batiquitos Lagoon. The report will include conceptual plans, estimated construction costs, descriptions of each alternative along with 6 t 9.5 3 6.5 6 2 0 respective benefits and drawbacks, and an evaluation matrix showing the alternatives studied. The study will include a review of the options utilizing the 100-year and 10-year storms, and will prepare construction cost estimates including the entire collection system costs (from 30% estimates already prepared). All costs for sewage treatment will be estimated based upon input from the respective sewer district doing the treating. The alternatives which will be evaluated are as follows: 1. 24-inch Outfall to Batiquitos Lagoon - This option will study a storage system (tank, oversized pipes, or possible surface ponding at Leucadia Park), a collection system to Basil Street, and a 24-inch outfall pipe to Batiquitos Lagoon utilizing the existing 24-inch outfall that exists now. 2. Update the Three Alternatives Included in the Negative Declaration - This option will add the low-flow interceptor system and upstream collection system, and update the construction costs for the three alternatives proposed in the Environmental Negative Declaration Statement. The alternatives are as follows: Alternative No. 1 - This alternative includes the Avocado and Basil Street Beach Outlets, with the upstream watershed being divided into two major basins of approximately the same size. Alternative No. 2 - This alternative includes the Basil Street Beach Outlet and a trunk system down Highway 101, taking the entire watershed out under Basil Street onto the beach. ENCINI.LET E A R T H ` T E C H Formerly Barrett Consulting Group Mr. Hans C. Jensen City of Encinitas October 28, 1997 Page 2 Alternative No. 3 - This alternative includes a beach outlet to the ocean near Batiquitos Lagoon, and a main trunk system down Highway 101. 3. Add Ocean Outfall to Alternative No. 2 - This option will study the feasibility and estimated construction costs to add an ocean outfall to the Basil Street Beach Outlet (Negative Declaration Alternative No. 2 above). No plans or profiles will be produced for this study. It is anticipated that two meetings with City staff will be required to discuss the options, prepare weighting criteria for the evaluation matrix, and review the draft study report. At the conclusion of the review of the draft report, a final report will be issued taking into account the City's comments. The above scope of work is to be completed by November 26, 1997. Cost Estimate We propose to perform the work on a time-and-materials basis with the not-to-exceed budget costs listed in the table below. Earth Tech $14,020 Woodward-Clyde 5.500 TOTAL FEE $19,520 We propose to perform this work in accordance with our existing contract with the City. Your signature at the end of this proposal will serve as acknowledgment of your acceptance. If you have any questions, please call. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this support to the City of Encinitas. Very truly yours, Approved by- Earth Tech, Inc. G�V� `, * ?S / Hans C. Jen pe . mith Director of Civil Engineering SKS:sd 16497 ENCINLLET E A R T H ` T E C H AT'. -'HMENT "A" 9675 Business Park Avenue, San Diego, California 92131 June 10, 1997 ! 4 Mr. Hans C. Jensen City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Subject: Highway 101 Drainage Corridor - Alternatives Study Report Dear Hans, Per our meeting on May 13, 1997, I have assembled the following proposal to prepare a study report analyzing various alternatives mentioned in the public workshop held at the City Telephone of Encinitas for the Highway 101 Drainage project. This proposal outlines our proposed scope of work and estimated costs. 619.5 3 6.5 6 1 o Earth Tech will provide a study report to the City of Encinitas outlining several options Facsimile available to the City to mitigate the flooding problems currently occurring along the Highway 101 corridor between Orpheus Street and Batiquitos Lagoon. The report will include 61 9 5 3 6.5 6 2° conceptual plans, estimated construction costs, descriptions of each alternative along with its respective benefits and drawbacks, and an evaluation matrix showing all the alternatives. The study will include a review of the options utilizing the 100-year and 10-year storms, and will prepare construction cost estimates including the entire collection system costs (from 30% estimates already prepared). All costs for sewage treatment will be estimated based upon input from the respective sewer district doing the treating. The alternatives which will be evaluated are as follows: 1. 24-inch Outfall to Batiquitos Lagoon - This option will study a storage system (tank, oversized pipes, or possible surface ponding at Leucadia Park), a collection system to Basil Street, and a 24-inch outfall pipe to Batiquitos Lagoon utilizing the existing 24-inch outfall that exists now. 2. Direct All Drainage to Sewer System - This option will study a storage system (tank, oversized pipes, or possible surface ponding), a collection system to Basil Street, and a pumping or gravity outlet to the sewer system. Multiple storm intervals will be evaluated to minimize the impact to the sewage system while providing some mitigation to the drainage problem. 3. Analyze the Effect of No Improvements - This option will study the existing flooding characteristics, listing those properties currently being inundated, and quantifying the property values of the areas being affected based upon the assessors records or property values obtained from the City. HwYmiscr E A R T H @ T E C H Formerly Barrett Consulting Group Mr. Hans C. Jensen City of Encinitas June 10, 1997 Page 2 4. Update the Three Alternatives Included in the Negative Declaration - This option will add the low flow interceptor system and upstream collection system, and update the construction costs for the three alternatives proposed in the Environmental Negative Declaration Statement. The alternatives are as follows: Alternative No. 1 - This alternative includes the Avocado and Basil Street Beach Outlets, with the upstream watershed being divided into two near-equal-sized major basins. Alternative No. 2 - This alternative includes the Basil Street Beach Outlet and a trunk system down Highway 101, taking the entire watershed out under Basil Street onto the beach. Alternative No. 3 - This alternative includes a beach outlet to the ocean near Batiquitos Lagoon, and a main trunk system down Highway 101. 5. Moonlight Beach/Cottonwood Creek Outlet - This option will refine the alternative presented in the City Workshop taking the drainage from the entire watershed to a beach outlet at Moonlight Beach at the base of Cottonwood Creek. In addition to including a low flow intercepter system and an upstream collection system, new conceptual construction cost estimates will be prepared to properly reflect the extensive tunneling costs. 6. Lower Railroad Tracks and Combine with Drainage System - This option will evaluate the impacts and estimated construction costs associated with lowering the railroad tracks from Encinitas Boulevard to La Costa Avenue. A conceptual layout of the lowered track system will be prepared utilizing the following assumptions: provide 26 feet clear at all underpasses; City to bear all costs (no NCTD participation); still may need some sort of ocean or lagoon outlet (perhaps Moonlight Beach or Batiquitos Lagoon); no coordination with NCTD will be performed (concepts will not be submitted to NCTD for approval); and environmental impacts will not be considered. 7. Add Ocean Outfall to Alternative No. 2 - This option will study the feasibility and estimated construction costs to add an ocean outfall to the Basil Street Beach Outlet (Negative Declaration Alternative No. 2 above). It is anticipated that two or three meetings with City staff will be required to discuss the options, prepare weighting criteria for the evaluation matrix, and to review the draft study report. At the conclusion of the review of the draft report, a final report will be issued taking into account the City comments. HWYIO1.SCP E A R T H @ T E C H Mr. Hans C. Jensen City of Encinitas June 10, 1997 Page 3 COST ESTIMATE We propose to perform the work on a time-and-materials basis with the not-to-exceed budget costs listed below. Earth Tech $23,585 Woodward-Clyde Consultants $9,775 TOTAL FEE $33,360 We propose to perform this work in accordance with our existing contract with the City. Your signature at the end of this proposal will serve as acknowledgment of your acceptance. If you have any questions, please call . We appreciate the opportunity to provide this support to the City of Encinitas. Very truly yours, Earth Tech Approved by: *Stephen mith Hans C. Jensen Director of Civil Engineering SKS:sd 01177204 HWYIO1.SCP E A R T H ` T E C H ,I _, (� I il� �4,k g4. t,&i ornia ?Z30o Teieonone 714) 744-53.:.: 97 J its (;PM 7�;-5zs v 13, 1997 ail: VIThomlaww aol.com File Number ilr. Roger W. Kravel City Attorney for City of Encinitas 5090 Shoreham Place 4101 San Diego, CA 92122 RE: Mother Euphemia, owner of 560 Neptune,Encinitas Dear Mr. Kravei: 1 represent Mother Euphemia who is the owner of real property located at 560 Neptune as we11 as an adjoining vacant lot. We understand that the City of Encinitas is considering a plan to drain all water west of the Interstate 5 freeway to the biuff top property owned by my client. Apparently the city is considering a plan to tunnel under my client's bluff property to provide a sewage outlet to the sea. This project could be accomplished by tunneling under city owned property however we understand that the city is reluctant to despoil their property,but would prefer to utilize the property of my client. _ _ .. ....-..7�........r' ' ,� .5--�'"cr'Pv.�vt _ .1-- --_`�_- --`�--117 T ZL'7..1. ♦.. �p.�.4..grAr1.t}19t - objection. It is our position that the construction of such a project would destroy the value of my client's property. My client will vigorously oppose such a project. If you wish to discuss this matter further please feel free to contact me. Sincerely yours. NIAUR— tNE THOMASON MT/db cc: City of Encinitas Mother Euphemia J �a v l �, To: Councilmembers 176/97 From: Charles F. Moore City of Encinitas I _- - , 388 La Veta Ave 505 S. Vulcan Ave =' Encinitas, Ca. Encinitas, Ca. 'HIS WAS INDIVIDUALLY ADL'PESSEE TO ALL COUNC:L MEl i6r_-S Councilmembers: T he other day while looking through the Beach News I noticed that the City is !coking into the feasibility of drilling through the bluffs to install drainage pipes at two locations in Leucadia. Cne is at Leucadia Park which would drain to just south of Beacons Beach and one at Basil St. which would drain west of the 600 block of Neptune Ave. While the technology may be there and it might save money in the short run, this is an unacceptable solution to the problem of flooding along the highway in Leucadia. The City needs to look at all ramifications from this project. Cne Nouid oe the oe!lution ,hat would be dumped along our beaches that now gave no storm drains from Moonlight to Batiquitos Lagoon. This would be a year around problem, not just during the rainy season. 1 waik this stretch of beach often and take cride that the pollution from the streets, lawns and animals cannot reach it. Will City Lifeguards or the Health Dept. monitor the outfall pipes for pollution as in various locations at San Diego City beaches? '.Kith the future expansion of Leucadia Blvd the pollution problem could only get worse. ,Kith our already weakened bluffs, i do not think drilling drainage pipes under eopies homes is a goad solution. What ii there is a leak? I am sure that you could find an angineer to put his stamp of approval on :t. but It is us, the residents who will be left with the respcnsibiiity and the cost to correct this problem in the future. Would it be the same engineer that approved the project at 828 ,Neptune that resulted in a massive bluff failure. The best solution is to run a pipe to Batiquitos Lagoon where all affected areas could hook into the drainage system. 'When 1 called Hans Jensen or some information he told me the project has been in the planning stages for some time and the City had filed notice in `The____, Throwaway Paper," his words. not mine. There has to be a better 'Nay to notify all affected residents and concerned citizens. ! urge you to think of the quality of life of our beach and to stop this project now before any more time or money is wasted. Yours truly, Charles F. Moore 3 $ ° o. v ,. v EEi yy C y C N U E bp0. oE EA •o � •��•o y p, H E C w p U U ._ O C C � � � 6.pU v1.•('.. 4) bo z, ' co y -6 -0 y O v $ 4r O O C s ,C 4. 4 cd 3 0 $ o U cc>�� U T $.0 CN t ^ �. o. a � s3 � '� a EEaw o c, � - U P. � •s. � � � U �a 0 .G U ti C7 p N cNRa an 7 p 33Cn3p000 � y . Ci bQ :+ w � � C b4C.'� �a 0 E4� q�f1 w � ea � w CU �" E > o . < 0 ass x R _s ps ox'ofa. C C ' N t 3 d"� y h y c .. � � ya� pa� ec3gs 6. u'vi333y ciby� ` C% Cc Q. at b4 w 94 .�. O �„ O 3 ..�, O ; � � � E c � �•� c 3 0 � � �" � � '. G7 'o MV ca o _ ' k> Woodward-Clyde 4W Engineering&sciences applied to the earth&its environment �V MEETING MINUTES Highway 101 Corridor Drainage Project February 13, 1996 4:00 PM at City of Encinitas Offices Attendees: Hans Jensen, City of Encinitas Keith Gillfillan, Earth Tech(formerly Barrett Consulting Group) Moi Arzamendi, Woodward-Clyde Consultants Issue (1): WCC Fee Adjustment Hans stated that WCC's request for a fee adjustment has been approved and that he would be processing the paperwork in the near future. WCC will be proceeding with work for both the Basil Street and Avocado Street outfall locations based on this verbal agreement. Issue (2): Slope Stability Analyses-Basil Street Moi provided an overview of preliminary slope stability analyses for the upper terrace bluffs (above approximate elevation +26' MSL) at the Basil Street outfall location. Analyses indicate that the existing conditions may have a minimum safety factor on the order of 1.06 and has a potential failure surface which is consistent with previous failure scarps at the site. Stability of the existing tieback shotcrete upper bluff retaining wall (above approximate elevation +75' MSL) is unknown since design details and as- built construction records have not been provided for review. However, stability analyses utilizing assumed tieback dimensions and loads indicate that the shotcrete wall may have an unverified safety factor in excess of 1.5. Global failure analyses of the existing condition assuming a minimum safety factor of 1.5 indicates that a minimum setback of approximately 60 feet from the top-of-bluff edge may be required for any new construction on the property above and behind the slope (approximate pad elevation +98' MSL). Moi provided the results of 17 additional preliminary slope stability analyses which consisted of various schemes for seawall alignment, height, Woodward-Clyde Consultants-A subsidiary of Woodward-Clyde Group, Inc. Sunroad Plaza 3,Suite 1000-1615 Murray Canyon Road-San Diego,California 92108 619-294-9400-Fax 619-293-7920 Meeting Minutes Woodward-Clyde Highway 101 Corridor Drainage Project February 13, 1996 Page 2 backfill slope inclination and height, and additional tieback anchors. In general, global stability of potential alternative remedial measures presented may be able to accommodate safety factors ranging from 1.2 to 1.5. for the upper bluff. These safety factors represent real demonstrable increases in slope stability on the order of 20 to 50 percent, respectively. Corresponding minimum setbacks on the order of 55 to 40 feet, respectively, were determined for these assumed conditions. Seismic slope stability has not been performed at this time. Issue (3): Slope Stability Analyses -Avocado Street Slope stability analyses for the Avocado Street outfall location has not been performed at this time. However, based on results of the Basil Street slope stability analyses and gentle sloping topography of the Avocado Street site, it may be assumed that safety factors are not adversely low. Analyses for this area will be performed in the near future. Issue (4): Acceptable Safety Factors The project team discussed issues related to what safety factors may or may not be considered acceptable for the project based on levels of risk to life and economic risk. It was recognized that if either risk to life or economic risk was considered high that minimum safety factors should be in excess of 1.5 for static conditions. However, if both of these risks were to be determined to relatively low then a reduced minimum safety factor may be considered acceptable. With respect to the subject City project, Hans stated that the City may be in the position to accept a minimum safety factor of 1.25 for upper bluffs and associated stability measures since the relative economic risk of repairing or replacing the end of the outfall pipe is considered low. Further, the assumed risk to life at the toe-of-slope may also be considered low since the probability of a person being at that specific location at the time of failure is low. The seawall should be design for conventional conservative minimum safety factors (i.e., sliding, overturning, and bearing) since the cost of total replacement would be considered high. With respect to similar risks for homeowners located above, a minimum safety factor of 1.5 will be required. This is based on the assumption that the developed property is a major investment for the owner and that occupancy may be considered continuous. It should also be recognized that the majority of upper bluffs along the Encinitas shoreline may have existing safety factors less than 1.5. CAENCIN\MINUTES.DOC Muting Minutes Woodward-Clyde Highway 101 Corridor Drainage Project February 13, 1996 Page 3 Designs for the project will be based on the minimum safety factors described above unless otherwise directed by Hans. Issue (5): Outfall Invert Elevation at Discharge Location The invert elevation for the outfall pipe at potential discharge locations was discussed. The original invert elevation requested by Hans was +10' MSL WCC recommended an elevation of +17' MSL. Hans has revised his request to an invert elevation of+13' MSL. This request is based on the assumption that (1) the seawall will be recurved near the top such that waves are deflected up and back away from the outfall pipe, (2) the outfall pipe discharge end will be setback several feet from the top-of-wall, and (3) the seawall will have two design wave conditions. Issue(6): Design Waves It is recognized that the California Coastal Commission (CCC) requires that shoreline protection devices be designed to handle wave conditions similar to the 1982-83 storms. The CCC considers this scenario to be on the order of the 75-year storm event. Shoreline protection devices should be designed not to fail under these assumed adverse conditions. The unrefracted deep water significant wave height (K) for the 75-year storm may be assumed to be on the order of 26.7 feet. Hans has also requested that a lesser storm event be considered with respect to seawall overtopping frequency to the extent that the end of the outfall pipe is nominally protected. Hans has requested that the 10-year storm event be used for this design condition. The unrefracted deep water significant wave height (He)for the 10-year storm may be assumed to be on the order of 18.9 feet. Issue (7): Illegal Wall Hans informed us that the existing seawall located at the Basil Street site is an illegal device. Hans stated that it was quickly built over a weekend during a low tide condition. There are not any design plans for the wall, the wall was not permitted or inspected by the City, the wall may not have a solid foundation, the wall does not have tieback anchors, and backfill behind the wall may consist of construction debris and poorly compacted soil. If the Basil Street site is selected for the outfall then the illegal wall will be removed in its entirety since if it was to be left in place that it may compromise the integrity of the new seawall, backfill, and outfall support. CAENCIMMINUI'ES.DOC Med`ting Minutes Woodward-Clyde Highway 101 Corridor Drainage Project February 13, 1996 Page 4 Issue(8): Seawall and Bluff Stabilization Design Features At this time, the potential seawall at the Basil Street site may consist of a reinforced concrete cantilever seawall with a recurved top. The seawall alignment may be located about 10 to 15 feet in front of the existing illegal seawall. It is assumed that native gravels and cobbles will form a natural berm in front of the seawall after construction. The seawall will be provided with internal drainage relief. Sloped backfill above_the seawall will consist of"select" fill soil and may have an inclination be on the order of 1-1/2:1 to 1-3/4:1 (horizontal to vertical) depending of contouring requirements. Hans has left the idea open for the use of additional shotcrete with tieback anchors for the middle portion of the upper bluff. However, this type of stability system is not favored. Design of the outfall pipe discharge end may require an evaluation of alternatives. Issue (6): Tunneling Considerations Tunneling considerations were discussed only briefly. It is recognized that a mixed face excavation condition along the contact of the terrace deposits and the Tertiary sandstone is not acceptable for microtunneling. In addition, locally thin sandstone cover above the crown of the pipe is not recommended. Greg Raines will provide complete recommendations for design and construction at a later date. Issue (7): Topographic Maps Hans will provide copies of topographic maps prepared by Rick Engineering of selected shoreline areas. Issue (8): Construction Drawings for Basil Street Hans will provide copies of approved construction drawings for the upped bluff stabilization measure for the Basil Street site. -/ Issue(10): Tideflex Valve Both Hans and Keith will perform more research on the suitability of Tideflex valves for the project. C:\ENCIN\M1NLTrES.DOC MEETING MINUTES 3rd Meeting (Progress Review) C�Dgs�n Date: April 11, 1995 Meeting Place: City of Encinitas Meeting Participants: Hans Jensen, City of Encinitas (City) Blair Knoll, City of Encinitas Keith Gillfillan, Barrett Consulting Group (BCG) Abe Barhoumi, Barrett Consulting Group Mike Hatch, Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC) Project: Highway 101 Corridor Drainage - City of Encinitas SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: This was a progress review meeting with the City of Encinitas (City), and was intended to review preliminary alignment alternatives studied to date. The following is a summary of the items discussed. 1. The outstanding action items from the March 23rd meeting were discussed and updated as follows: a. Action: Final contract documents, Exhibit A, and Attachments C and D are missing. Status: Not received to date. City (Hans) to provide. b. Action: Case History of 3 -D easements Status: BCG is obtaining a book authored by 3 prominent Ca. surveyors specifically regarding 3 - D easements. C. Action: Copy of flowage easement at Hymettus & Hygeia. Status: City (Blair) to provide. 2. Review of Alternative Alignments a. Alternative # 1 (Basil St. Outfall) Alternative # 1 provides a trunk line storm drain that begins south of Avocado Ave. within the Northbound travelled way of Hwy 101 and continues south along Hwy 101 to Basil St. From Basil, it is anticipated the storm drain would be tunneled through the bluff to an Ocean outfall. Pipeline specifics include: Approx. discharge 100 yr. storm Q = 331c.f.s. Range in pipe diameter: 36" to 54" Pipe gradient: s = varies 0.3% to 0.5% Depth of Pipe: d = 15 ft. near Avocado , 42 ft. near Basil # of Railroad crossings: RR x-ings = 4 to connect the.collection system to the trunk line Discussion: The depth of pipe near Basil (42 ft.) is a concern and would entail substantial shoring cost, trench safety, traffic handling and construction staging along Hwy 101, if performed with conventional cut & cover methods. The outlet invert at the beach should be at elevation 8 to 10. The City is currently building sea walls at elev. 13. This alternative would require easements across 3 properties and is not expected to impact any existing structures. The property near Basil St. would be bisected by an easement while the other two properties can accommodate the alignment with easements adjacent to their southerly lot lines. The City anticipates having to educate the property owners regarding 3-D easements. matting.3 20133410.001 1 b. Alternative # 2 (Big Pipe w Lagoon) Alternative # 2 is a trunk line that picks up storm water at the most southerly limits of the of the project (Union Street) and continues north along the northbound travelled way of Hwy 101 to a point near La Costa Ave. and then heads in a northwesterly through the intersection to a discharge point near the vicinity of the existing State Park & Rec. Dept. parking lot. Pipeline specifics include: Approx. discharge 100 yr. storm Q = 324 c.f.s. Range in pipe diameter: 36" to 54" Pipe gradient: s = varies 0.3%to 0.5% Depth of Pipe: d = 8 ft. at Union St. & Leucadia Blvd. & 23 ft. at La Costa Ave. # of Railroad crossings: RR x-ings = 4 to connect collection system the trunk line Discussion: A discharge near the parking lot will be a challenge environmentally and involve more agencies than Alt. # 1. (City of Carlsbad, State Parks Depart. to name a few). Based upon preliminary cost estimates ( $ 3,073,404) this alternative is the most costly. The City will use this alternative as a last resort and use the information generated to date as a comparison to the other alternatives. No further work need be performed on Alt: # 2. 4. Alternative # 3A (Spilt Flow south to Basil north to Parking lot) Alternative #3A proposes to split the trunk line into north & south systems. The north segment would collect storm runoff near Jason Ave. and convey it northerly along the same alignment as Alt. # 2 to the State Park & Rec. parking lot. The south segment would collect drainage near Leucadia Blvd. and then follow the same southerly alignment to Basil St. as Alt. # 1. Northerly Pipeline specifics include: Approx. discharge 100 yr. storm Q = 236 c.f.s. Range in pipe diameter: 36" to 60" Pipe gradient: s = 0.3% Depth of Pipe: d = 8 ft. at Jason Ave.,& 24 ft. at La Costa Ave. #of Railroad crossings: RR x-ings = 2 to connect collect system to the trunk line Southerly Pipeline specifics include: Approx. discharge 100 yr. storm Q = 188 c.f.s. Range in pipe diameter: 48" to 54" Pipe gradient: s = 0.3% Depth of Pipe: d = 8 ft. at Leucadia Blvd.,& 22 ft. at Basil St. # of Railroad crossings: RR x-ings = 2 to connect collect system to the trunk line Discussion: This alignment has the lowest cost and provides shallower pipe depths than the other options studied. It also provides hydrology & hydraulic benefits in the way of lower peak flows. The City suggested revising the alignment of the north segment by avoiding the parking lot outfall and evaluating micro-tunneling along Granview to a second Ocean outfall. Obtaining easements along this alignment will probably impact structures. The City currently has drainage easements in the area and is optimistic they can obtain the necessary 3-D easements. 3. Cost Comparisons: Preliminary cost for pipe lines and shoring (excluding structures) of the 3 alternatives were distributed and are attached. Total cost are summarized as follows: Alt. # 1 - $ 2,762,100 Alt. # 2 - $ 3,073,404 Alt. # 3A - $ 2,391,625 The cost for shoring is a major component of the cost and is approximately half the total cost for each alternative. m-Ai"B.3 20133410.001 2 4. Hwy 101 vs. Vulcan Ave. BCG briefly discussed the preference to align the main trunk line in Hwy 101 in leu of Vulcan Ave. Some of the advantages are as follows. a. The northbound side of Hwy 101 has very few existing utilities whereas Vulcan contains a number utilities. b. With conventional cut & cover trenching the trench width and construction zone could be as wide as 30 ft.. this would take up the entire width of Vulcan Ave. It is proposed to temporarily route Northbound traffic onto the southbound lanes, using the Southbound lanes for both northbound & south bound traffic. 5. Miscellaneous Items BCG inquired about the previous discussion regarding drainage within the railroad ROW south of Orpheus . BCG would like to document this activity on the basin mapping so that future drainage improvements would understand the logic behind not picking up that particular low point as part of the Hwy 101 project. The City concurred that this would be a good idea and mentioned that North County Transit District (NCTD) would be constructing a double track sometime in the future and the City would require them to regrade the low spot near Orpheus, so it will drain southerly to a drainage system near Encinitas Blvd. 6. Schedule Review BCG distributed an updated schedule that reflected the adjustment of the Geotechnical data collection task being performed in Phase 2. Currently the project is on schedule. 5. Action Items a. BCG to review 3-D easement documentation and provide re-cap to the City. b. City to provide plans prepared by Pacific Soils (Doug Jacobsen) for upper bluff walls near Bradley property and the proposed Basil alignment. . C. BCG to include the rerouting of Alt. 3A to Grandview as a second Ocean outfall. NEXT MEETING: May 22, 1995. Time to be determined. NOTE: Participants are asked to supplement the minutes of this meeting with any crucial information that may have been missed. If comments are not received, the discussions summarized are presumed to be correct. Keith Gillfil an, Project Manager Date c: All participants Steve Smith, BCG File meeting.3 20133410.001 3 0 U) u) 0 0 0 0 0 0 CY O f�00 (°O t°p r N Y: YT O r W /�� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 : Q� j N 0 N O 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 LO C7 O O O /LPL,• 0 0 N N U) T O G ; (6 4.P 0000 0 �00 � �F FW- ° 000°0 ° �CY ° ° ° ° Q n o 0 Z 2; 00 Q ° 0 0 r- 0 0 0 0 0 0 CY N MOO O O Cl) CNF cd 0- 0Cr W14: r rNCO N00 «M W:G N OIAOtn000OO ZO 1, N o O r MO.: H: w040Otn000 to oo c000 00 O Lncho too N N N r O 0 Z: N W C7 rn Z O O Z J J Q U � WW F- w $ $ $ $ $ $ DD wac � cra_rcr orI— F- o � � d (ONp0pp � O � (O = 0 _L9 Q. N C7 st In (O U1 Ch CA F- L STATE OF CALIFORNIA-RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS,Governor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION San Diego Coast District 8885 Rio San Diego Drive, Ste. 270 s �' San Diego, California 92108 (619) 688-3260 FAX(619) 688-3229 Sept. 2, 2003 Brian F. Byrd,Ph.D. ASM Affiliates 543 Encinitas Blvd. Suite 114 Encinitas, CA 92024 Dear Brian, Enclosed are signed copies of the Application and Permit to Conduct Archaeological Investigations(DPR Form 412A) and the Request for Archaeological Accession Number(DPR Form 663) for the work at Leucadia State Beach(popularly known as "Ponto State Beach"). The application should be with the crew chief during the excavations to show to any park staff that enquired. The Accession Number is the prefix used for your lab work: P1333-01, -02,etc. The Project Evaluation Form for CEQA evaluation is completed, and filed with me. The only comments were from State Park Ecologist that the excavation takes place between Sept. 15'", 2003, and March 15, 2004,because of nesting season. I have notified the park maintenance supervisor, chief ranger, and resource ecologist of the project's clearance. Please let me know about actual start-up dates, and I will notify them further. If you have any questions, please call me. One further note, in conversation with another contract company during the bidding process (now over),reference was made to a record search at SCIC which showed a 1983 excavation report for SDI-9589 by DPR archaeologist Dan Bell. I went to SCIC, and called DPR Sacramento,but did not find a report; I furthermore called DPR Associate State Archaeologist Dan Bell at the Northern Service Center, and he did not recall coastal excavations in San Diego in 1983. I continue to be intrigued by this missing report, and feel it is essential to find it if it exists. I will investigate it further, but wanted to mention it to you. Sincerely, Therese Muranaka, Ph.D., R.P.A. Associate State Archaeologist San Diego Coast District California State Parks (619) 778-2553 •As - sty TRACKING NUMBER DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION x003 DATE RMD RECEIVED DATE DISTRICT RECEIVED Application and Permit to Conduct Ib °3 DATE APPROVED/SENT DATE APPROVED/SENT Archaeological Investigations/Collections TO DISTRICT TO APPLICANT B RMD g> 8 03 DATE SENT TO DATE SENT TO APPLICANT/DISTRICT APPLICANT/RMD Instructions: Application must be Typewritten with original signatures on original and four photocopies of the application. USGS topographic map and other maps showing precise location of proposed work must be attached. M AP I-ICANT ORGANiZArl= 760 632-1094 ASM Affiliates, Inc. A MSS 543 Encinitas Blvd., Suite#114, Encinitas, CA 92024 The above applicant hereby applies to the Department of Parks and Recreation for a Permit under the Public Resources Code 5097.5 to conduct archaeological investigations on lands of the State of California as follows: -STATE ARK N OUNTY San Diego Coast District/ `C�. .S' San Diego ETHNOGRAPHIC AREA/HISTORIC PERIODS Luiseno, Prehistoric/Ethnohistoric Periods USGS QUADRANGLES) Encinitas SECTIONS) TOWNSHIP(S) 4W ( 33 12S UTMS UTM -471150mE, 3660250mN I ( (Use permanent trmomiaf if applicable) CA-SDI-9589/SDM-W-87 1. The aims, purposes, and methods of this investigation will be as follows (attach continuation sheets as necessary. For excavations, provide a research design and an outline of the report to be provided): Proposed investigation is as described in T. Muranaka's memorandum of March 17. 2003, and involves the excavation of STPs and formal units in order to determine presence/absence of archaeological deposits and their integrity and content. 2. Expected duration of project(specify dates of field investigations, laboratory studies, and report completion): Work would commence around August 15 and terminate no more than 4 weeks later. 3. General scope and nature of applicant organization's activities and goals: ASM will conduct subsurface testing to determine if potential CRHR/NRHP eligible cultural resources are being adversely affected by innudation from drainage project which terminates at site. 4. Name, title, address, telephone, and affiliation of principal investigator Attach resume or curriculum vitae): Brian F. Byrd, Ph.D., Senior Archaeologist, ASM Affiliates, Inc, 543 Encinitas Blvd., Suite 114 Encinitas, CA. 92024, (760)632-1094 see attached cirriculum vitae. Principal in Charge is John R. Cook, RPA. DPR 412A 5. Name, address, affiliation and telephone number of person in actual direct charge of field work(attach resume and curriculum vitae if different from#4): Drew Pallette, Associate Archaeologist, (760)632-1094 see attached curriculum vitae. 6. Laboratory work will take place at institution, address, phone number, person to contact): ASM Affiliates, Inc., 543 Encinitas Blvd., Suite#114, Encinitas, CA 92024 (760)632-1094 Contact: Mark Becker, Ph.D., Laboratory Director. 7. Name and location of facility that has agreed to curate materials collected under this permit(must meet requirements under Stanoard Conditions and Restrictions): San Diego Archaeological Center, 16666 San Pas ual Valley Road, Escondido, CA 92027. l have read and agree to adhere to the Standard Conditions and Restrictions. t am currently holding the following Archaeological Permit(s)with the Department of Parks and Recreation(list all for which any part is incomplete): APPUCA of type) DATE Brian F. Byrd, Ph.D. 7/15/2003 TITL r�,��,, SIGNATURE DATE DISTRICT ARCHAEOLOGIST REVIEW G�+C , DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT APPROVAL DISTRICT RESOURCE ECOLOGIST REVIEW 1-03 SERVICE CENTER ARCHAEOLOGIST REVIEW CURATOR OF STATEWIDE RECORDS REVIEW CULTURAL HERITAGE SUPERVISOR APPROYAlCm g APPLICANT MUST CARRY THIS PERMIT AT ALL TIMES WHILE COLLECTING PERMIT VALID FROM 3 TO g O PERMIT CONDITIONS: DPR 412A STANDARD CONDITIONS AND RES1 RICTIONS (ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERMITS) Only archaeological material may be collected under issuance of this permit.A11 artifacts and specimens collected remain the property of the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation.The applicant is responsible for arranging for the curation, accession, safeguarding, and preservation of all materials collected in accordance with accepted museum standards. These arrangements must be made with the Curator of Statewide Records(916-324-0192)prior to application for the permit.Any plan must address the continuing availability of the collection for public observation, scientific study, and display if curated (on loan) to institutions outside of DPR facilities.Artifacts must be cataloged using DPR accession numbers, which are to be obtained at the beginning of the project from the DPR Curator of Statewide Records(916-324-0192).It is the responsibility of the permit holder to provide DPR with four(4)copies of all catalogs, field notes, photographs, and reports, even if curation is arranged in a facility not under the control of DPR. Collection should be accomplished by methods that conserve resources and must be of some tangible benefit to the State Park System. The collections shall be used for scientific and educational purposes dedicated to public benefit only and shall in no case be used for commercial purposes or personal profit. Permits must be approved by both the Cultural Heritage Supervisor and District Superintendent before work begins. All work to be accomplished shall be discussed with the District Superintendent prior to beginning of field work. The District Superintendent may specify additional restrictions or conditions due to site sensitivity, natural hazards in the area, visitor traffic patterns, etc. Fieldwork shall be scheduled with the District Superintendent or Designee, who shall be contacted immediately upon arrival in the Park Unit. Should unanticipated changes in Park conditions occur during the course of the fieldwork, additional restrictions may be required for reasons of health, safety, and resource protection. Direct any questions regarding this Permit to the Supervisor, Cultural Heritage Section,Resource Management Division. Plant life and other features shall not be disturbed without permission of Department staff.After excavation,restore the area to as near its former condition as possible.Park unit staff should be consulted before and after backfrlling for suggestions and approval. Permits are issued for one year or a portion thereof. Within six (6) months of permit expiration and at least thirty(30) days prior to filing final reports with any other agency, Permittee agrees to provide the Department of Parks and Recreation with four(4)copies of all site survey records, survey and excavation reports, photographs, and artifact and specimen catalogs for review. A final report is required within a year. Two (2) sets of the above specified documents will be sent to the District Superintendent, and two (2)to the Cultural Heritage Supervisor. Copies of any materials published shall be submitted to the Department and should include an acknowledgement of the Department of parks and Recreation. For continuing studies, submit a new application with four copies of a progress report. Permittee agrees to file copies of archaeological reports and site records with the appropriate Regional Information Center. Applicant agrees to indemnify, save harmless, and defend the State of California, its officers, agents, and employees against any and all claims, demands, damages, losses or liability of its officers, agents, and employees due or incident to, either in whole or in part, whether indirectly connected with,the activities described in this Permit or arising out of or in any way connected with or incident to the Permit issued from this application. In the event State is named as codefendant under the provisions of Government Code Section 895 et seq.,the Permittee shall notify State of such fact and shall represent State in such legal action unless State undertakes to represent itself as codefendant in such legal action, in which event State shall bear its own litigation costs, expenses and attorney's fees. The Applicant,its officers, agents, employees, or others holding permits under this application, acting in the performance of this agreement,are not officers,agents,or employees of the State. DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION ADDRESSES: Supervisors Curator of Statewide Records Cultural Heritage Section Museum Collections Section, Resource Management Division Resource Management Division Department of Parks and Recreation 2505 Port Street P.O.Box 942896 West Sacramento,CA 95691 Sacramento,CA 94296-0001 DPR 412A Brian F. Byrd, Ph.D. Senior Archaeologist EDUCATION 1987 Ph.D., University of Arizona, Department of Anthropology 1979 M.A., University of Arizona, Department of Anthropology 1977 B.A., University of Arizona, Department of Anthropology PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Dr. Byrd has over 23 years of professional archaeological experience spanning three continents, and a wide range of expertise in prehistoric archaeology. He has been the recipient of 15 grants and fellowships from Wenner-Gren, NEH, and NSF, among others. His research interests include prehistoric adaptations to and and semi-arid environments, flaked stone analysis, and modeling changes in technology, subsistence, and settlement organization. He is a Registered Professional Archaeologist and was certified in fieldwork, collections research, and documents research by the Society of Professional Archaeologists. Dr. Byrd has been Principal Investigator for a series of major research projects in Southern California, including research designs, surveys,testing and evaluation projects,and data recovery. Twelve of these projects were conducted for the Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. Prior to ASM, he conducted a range of field research projects including intensive surveys, test excavations, and large-scale excavations of prehistoric hunter-gatherer caves, rockshelters, open- air settlements, and agricultural villages. From 1975-1981, Dr. Byrd was involved in a series of research projects entailing six seasons of field research within the Anasazi, Mogollon, and Hohokam culture areas. In 1999, Dr. Byrd was awarded the "Thomas H. King Award for Excellence in Cultural Resource Management" by the Society for California Archaeology. This honor was bestowed for the 1998 CRM report "Springs and Lakes in a Desert Landscape:Archaeological and Paleoenvironmental Investigations in the Silurian Valley and Adjacent Areas of Southeastern California". This interdisciplinary project in San Bernardino County was done for the USACE on behalf of the Fort Irwin Land Expansion. The report has drawn extensive praise from officials at the State Historic Preservation Office and at the BLM, on whose land the survey was conducted. EMPLOYMENT HISTORY 1997-present Associate Adjunct Professor,Dept. of Anthropology, University of California, San Diego 1995-present Senior Archaeologist, ASM Affiliates, Inc. 1993-1997 Assistant Adjunct Professor, Dept. of Anthropology, University of California, San Diego 1992-1995 Senior Archaeologist, Brian F. Mooney Associates, San Diego 1992 summer Instructor, Dept. of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, Madison 1989-92 Assistant Scientist, Dept. of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, Madison 1988-89 Visiting Archaeologist, Forhistorisk Museum, Moesgaard, Denmark 1987-88 Annual Professor, American Center of Oriental Research, Amman, Jordan 1987-89 Honorary Fellow, Dept. of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, Madison SELECTED CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS Cartago and Olancha Four-Lane Project. Principal Investigator for archaeological excavations at 15 sites near Owens Lake, Owens Valley, Great Basin, California. For Caltrans. San Elijo Lagoon Field School. Principal Investigator for paleoenvironmental and archaeological project funded by a National Science Foundation Grant and conducted through ASM and the University of California, San Diego. San Clemente Island Studies, San Clemente Island, California. Principal Investigator for 12 projects including excavations on 19 sites, surveys, and site- signing on San Clemente Island, CA. For the Dept. Of the Navy, South Bay Area Focus Team. MILCON P529 Project. Principal Investigator for write-up of report and oversight of inventory and curation of artifacts and documents from an extensive project involving NAGPRA issues on MCB Camp Pendleton. Also responsible for oversight of data recovery programs and Native American consultation related to the project. For NAVFACENGCOM, SWDIV. Silurian Valley Study Area Survey, San Bernardino County. Principal Investigator for class II survey of 53,225 acres of BLM land in the central Mojave Desert. Two-phase, stratified random sample survey with geomorphic and paleoenvironmental components conducted for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District as part of the proposed Fort Irwin land expansion. Fort Irwin, Central Mojave Desert, California. Principal Investigator for five projects including data recovery, research design, and surveys over 17,941 acres on Fort Irwin, San Bernardino County,. CA. For the Army Corps of Engineers. Central District and Rogers Dry Lake Archaeological Testing and Evaluation, Edwards Air Force Base. Principal Investigator for two projects assessing the National Register significance of 15 Archaic and Late Prehistoric sites along the shoreline of Rogers Dry Lake, in the western Mojave Desert. For the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Mitigation Treatment Plan for the Awl Site, CA-SBR-4562 Fort Irwin, San Bernardino County. Developed an archaeological data recovery plan that augments surface collection and testing. Further analysis of existing data is integrated into a research program focused on paleoenvironmental reconstruction, chronology, settlement organization, resource procurement, and subsistence orientation. For U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Interstate 5 Phase I Survey. Principal Investigator for a pedestrian survey of the Interstate 5 ROW to find new archaeological resources and to re-evaluate old resources. Tasks included oversight on the update of record search data and design of GIS and relational databases. For Caltrans District 11. A Window to the Past. Principal Investigator for design of an archaeological study on MCB Camp Pendleton. For MCB Camp Pendleton. Coastal Archaeology of Las Flores Creek and Horno Canyon, Legacy Testing. Principal Investigator for testing of 3 shell midden sites on MCB Camp Pendleton. For the Army Corps of Engineers. Archaeological Testing Along San Mateo and San Onofre Creeks, Northwestern Camp Pendleton Principal Investigator for testing of 6 shell midden sites on MCB Camp Pendleton. For the Army Corps of Engineers. Lonestar Site Archaeological Testing and Evaluation. Principal Investigator for testing and National Register evaluation of an Archaic/Late Prehistoric site (CA- SDI-12,337) on Otay Mesa in southern San Diego County. Conducted for Caltrans, District 11 as part of the State Route 125 project. Phase II Archaeological Evaluation of CA-SDI-11,453, Sunnyside, San Diego County, California. Principal Investigator for test excavations at an Archaic site situated on a hilltop adjacent to the Sweetwater River. Conducted for Caltrans, District 11, as part of the State Route 125 highway project. Archaeological Survey of the LFAM Training Areas, Camp Pendleton, San Diego County. Encompassing 4858 acres, 18 sites were recorded. For the Army Corps of Engineers. Re-Evaluation of the San Mateo Archaeological National Register District, San Diego. County. Current status of contributing properties and new nearby discoveries reviewed to aid long-range planning and management. For Army Corps of Engineers. Rancho San Diego Archaeological Data Recovery. Directed data analysis and report of excavations at four Late Prehistoric and Archaic sites in south-central San Diego County, for the Rancho San Diego Development Project. Data Recovery Excavations at SDI-10,726 on Camp Pendleton, northern San Diego County. Conducted detailed investigations of a large coastal shell midden. For Southwest Division of Navy and Army Corps of Engineers. Overview of Past Archaeological Surveys and Research Design for Additional Survey of Camp Pendleton, California. Principal Investigator for rigorous evaluation of 45 previous surveys and made recommendations regarding their current utility and where more archaeological survey is needed. Developed strategy utilizing Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for implementing a research- oriented inventory of archaeological sites for Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. Camp Pendleton Legacy Archaeological Testing, Site Relocation, and Condition Evaluation. Developed research design for testing three sites, and the resource and condition evaluation of four sites with known burial remains along the coast of Camp Pendleton. Entailed consideration of protective measures as required by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Antelope Valley, Mojave Desert, California. Principal Investigator for two projects. Included excavation of fifteen sites. PUBLICATIONS BOOKS Byrd, B. F. 1989 The Natufian Encampment at Beidha:Late Pleistocene Adaptation in the Southern Levant. Jutland Archaeological Society Publications Vol. 23:1. Aarhus, Denmark. Byrd, B. F., and C. Serr 1993 Multi-Component Archaic and Late Prehistoric Residential Camps Along the Sweetwater River, Rancho San Diego, California. Brian F. Mooney Associates Anthropological Technical Series 1, San Diego. Byrd, B. F., D. M. Pallette, and C. Serr 1994 Prehistoric Settlement Along Rogers Dry Lake, Western Mojave Desert, California. Brian F. Mooney Associates Anthropological Technical Series 2, San Diego. Schreiber, K. J., C. Heathington-McCarthy, and B. F. Byrd 1981 Report of the Testing of Interstate 10 Corridor Prehistoric and Historic Archaeological Remains Between Interstate 17 and 30th Drive. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 156. Tucson, Arizona. JOURNAL CONTRIBUTIONS Byrd, B. F. 1996 Book Note on The Natufian Chipped Lithic Assemblage from Sunakh near Petra, Southern Jordan, by Charlott Hoffman Pedersen. American Antiquity 61(3):633. 1994 Public and Private, Domestic and Corporate: The Emergence of the Southwest Asian Village. American Antiquity 58(4):639-666. 1994 From early Humans to farmers and herders - recent progress on key transitions in Southwest Asia. Journal of Archaeological Research 2(3):221-254. 1993 Excavations at Beidha Volume 2. American Journal of Archaeology 97. 1991 Comment on The ecological genetics of domestication and the origins of agriculture, by M. A. Blumler and R. Byrne. Current Anthropology 32(1):38. 1989 The Natufian: settlement variability and economic adaptations in the Levant at the end of the Pleistocene. Journal of World Prehistory 3(2):159-197. 1988 Late Pleistocene settlement diversity in the Azraq Basin. Paleorient 14(2):257-264. 1981 A standardized system for recording survey project information. Journal of Field Archaeology 8:381-383. Byrd, B. F., and E. B. Banning 1988 Southern Levantine pier houses: intersite architectural patterning during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. Paleorient 14(1):65-72. Byrd, B. F., and C. Monahan 1995 Death, mortuary ritual, and Natufian social structure. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14:251-287. Byrd, B. F., and G. O. Rollefson 1984 Natufian occupation in the wadi el Hasa. Annual of the Department of Antiquities, Jordan 28: 143-150. Andreson, J. M., B. F. Byrd, M. Elson, R. H. McGuire, R. Mendoza, E. Staski, and J. P. White 1981 The deer hunters: Star Carr reconsidered. World Archaeology 15(1):32-46. Banning, E. B., and B. F. Byrd 1989 Alternative approaches for exploring Levantine Neolithic architecture. Paleorient 15(1):153-159. 1987 Houses and the changing residential unit: domestic architecture at PPNB 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53:309-325. 1984 The architecture of PPNB 'Ain Ghazal. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 225:15-20. Garrard, A. N., A. Betts, B. F. Byrd, and C. Hunt 1987 Prehistoric environment and settlement in the Azraq Basin: an interim report on the 1985 season. Levant 19:5-25. 1986 Preliminary report on the fourth season of prehistoric and paleoenvironmental investigations in the Azraq Basin.Annual of the Department of Antiquities, Jordan 30:11-22. Garrard A. N., and B. F. Byrd 1992 New dimensions to the Epipaleolithic of the Wadi Jilat in central Jordan. Paleorient 18(1):47-62. Garrard, A. N., B. F. Byrd, and A. Betts 1986 Prehistoric environment and settlement in the Azraq Basin: an interim report on the 1984 season. Levant 18:5-24. Garrard, A. N., P. Harvey, F. Hivernel, and B. F. Byrd 1985 Prehistoric environment and settlement in the Azraq Basin. A report on the 1982 season. Levant 17:1-28. MacDonald, B., G. O. Rollefson, E. B. Banning, B. F. Byrd, and C. D'Annibale 1983 The wadi el Hasa survey 1982; a preliminary report. Annual of the Department of Antiquities, Jordan 26:311-323. Rollefson, G., E. B. Banning, B. F. Byrd, Z. Kafafi, I. Kohler, D. Petocz, S. Rolston, and L. Villiers 1984 The PPNB village of'Ain Ghazal (Jordan): preliminary report of the 1982 season. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft 116:139-192. EDITED VOLUME CONTRIBUTIONS Byrd, B. F. 2000 Households in Transition: Neolithic Social Organization within Southwest Asia. In Social Configurations of the Near Eastern Early Neolithic, edited by Ian Kuijt, pp. 63-98. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press. 1998 Spanning the Gap from the Upper Paleolithic to the Natufian: The Early and Middle Epipaleolithic. In The Prehistoric Archaeology of Jordan,edited by Donald O. Henry. BAR International Series 705:64-82. Archeopress, Oxford. 1994 Late Quaternary hunter-gatherer complexes in the Levant between 20,000 and 10,000 BP. In Late Quaternary Chronology and Paleclimates of the Eastern Mediterranean, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and R. Kra, pp. 205-226. Radiocarbon Publications. 1992 The dispersal of food production across the Levant. In The Transition to Agriculture, edited by A. B. Gebauer and T. D. Price. Monographs in World Archaeology 4:49-61. Prehistory Press, Madison. 1991 Beidha - an early Natufian encampment in southern Jordan. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by O. Bar Yosef and F. Valla, pp. 245-264. International Monographs in Prehistory. 1988 The Natufian of Beidha: report on renewed field research. In The Prehistory of Jordan, edited by A. N. Garrard and H. G. Gebel. British Archaeological Reports - International Series 396:175-197. 1981 Analysis of lithic artifacts from Las Colinas, AZ T:12:10 (ASM). In Report of the Testing of Interstate 10 Corridor Prehistoric and Historic Archaeological Remains Between Interstate 176 and 30th Drive, edited by K. J. Schreiber, C. Heathington and B. F. Byrd. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 156:213-222. Byrd, B. F., and S. M. Colledge 1991 Early Natufian occupation along the edge of the dry southern Jordanian steppe. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F. Valla, pp. 265-276. International Monographs in Prehistory. Byrd, B. F., and A. N. Garrard 1990 The last glacial maximum in the Jordanian desert. In The World at 18,000 B.C. Volume 2 Low Latitudes, edited by C. Gamble and O. Soffer, pp. 78-96. Unwin/Hyman Publishers. Byrd, B. F., and S. N. Reddy in press Late Holocene Adaptations along the Northern San Diego Coastline: New Perspectives on Old Paradigms In Cultural Complexity on the California Coast: Late Holocene Archaeological and Environmental Records, edited by J. Erlandson and T. L. Jones. UCLA Press. Banning, E. B., and B. F. Byrd 1989 Renovations and the changing residential unit at 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan. In Households and Communities, edited by S. MacEachern, D. J. W. Archer, and R. D. Garvin, pp. 525-533. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Chacmool Conference. Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary. Garrard, A. N., D. Baird, and B. F. Byrd 1994 The chronological basis and significance of the late Paleolithic and Neolithic sequence in the Azraq Basin, Jordan. In Late Quaternary Chronology and Paleclimates of the Eastern Mediterranean, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and R. Kra, pp. 177-200. Radiocarbon Publications. Garrard, A. N., A. Betts, B. F. Byrd, and C. Hunt 1988 Summary of paleoenvironmental and prehistoric investigations in the Azraq Basin. In The Prehistory of Jordan, edited by A. Garrard and H. G. Gebel. British Archaeological Reports - International Series 396: 311-337. Garrard, A. N., P. Harvey, F. Hivernel, and B. F. Byrd 1985 The environmental history of the Azraq Basin. In Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, vol. 2, edited by A. Hadidi, pp. 109-115. Amman, Department of Antiquities. TECHNICAL REPORTS Byrd, B. F. (editor) 2000 Archaeological Testing of Three Sites Along the LVT Road, North-Central, San Clemente Island, California. Prepared for NAS North Island. ASM Affiliates, Inc. 146 pp. Byrd, B. F. 1999 Archaeological Survey of the LFAM Training Areas (LFAM 700, LFAM 701, LFAM 701A, LFAM 702 and LFAM 703), Camp Pendleton. Prepared for Army Corps of Engineers. ASM Affiliates, Inc. 45 pp. 1999 Testing and Evaluation of 14 Archaeological Sites In India LFAM-700 on Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Army Corps of Engineers. ASM Affiliates, Inc. 127 pp. 1997 Re-Evaluation of the San Mateo Archaeological National Register District. Prepared for Army Corps of Engineers. ASM Affiliates, Inc. Draft. 1997 Exploiting the Desert Oases:Archaeological and Paleoenvironmental Investigations in the Silurian Valley and Adjacent Area of Southeastern California. Prepared for Army Corps of Engineers. ASM Affiliates, Inc. 800 pp. Draft. 1997 Archaeological Testing of a Limited-Use Shell Scatter (CA-SDI-10,841)Along the San Luis Rey River on Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Army Corps of Engineers. ASM Affiliates, Inc. 65 pp. Draft. 1996 Coastal Archaeology at SDI-10,728, Las Flores Creek, Camp Pendleton,California. Prepared for Army Corps of Engineers. ASM Affiliates, Inc. 112 pp. Draft. 1996 Reconstructing the Regional Landscape — Considerations of a Multidisciplinary Research Strategy For Archaeological Survey of Camp Pendleton, California. Prepared for Army Corps of Engineers. ASM Affiliates, Inc. 82 pp. 1996 Camping in the Dunes: Archaeological and Geological Investigations of Late Holocene Settlements West of Rogers Dry Lake. Prepared for Army Corps of Engineers. ASM Affiliates, Inc. 309 pp. 1996 Coastal Archaeology of Las Flores Creek and Homo Canyon, Camp Pendleton, California. Prepared for Army Corps of Engineers. ASM Affiliates, Inc. 366 pp. 1979 Pithouse identification project. In Report of Archaeological Investigations by University of Arizona Archaeological Field School. Fort Apache Indian Reservation, edited by J. J. Reid, pp. 29-38. Report on file, Arizona State Museum. 1978 Test excavations at AZ P:14:176. In Report of Archaeological Investigations by University ofArizona Archaeological Field School. Fort Apache Reservation,edited by M. Graves, pp. 6-8. Report on file, Arizona State Museum. Byrd, B. F., and J. Eighmey 2000 Archaeological Site Signing Project for Three Areas, Central San Clemente Island, California. Prepared for NAS North Island. ASM Affiliates, Inc. 26 pp. 2000 Archaeological Testing of Four Sites Near West Cove, Northern San Clemente Island, California. Prepared for NAS North Island. ASM Affiliates, Inc. 117 pp. Byrd, B. F., and D. Pallette 2000 Archaeological Survey Of the Central Corridor Area, Fort Irwin, California. Prepared for Army Corps of Engineers. ASM Affiliates, Inc. 86 pp. 1993 Archaeological Overview and Sample Survey of the Silurian Valley Study Area. Prepared for Army Corps of Engineers. Brian F. Mooney Associates. Byrd, B. F., D. M. Pallette, and C. Serr 1995 Archaeological Testing Along San Mateo and San Onofre Creeks, Northwestern Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Army Corps of Engineers. Brian F. Mooney Associates. Byrd, B. F., and K. Victorino 2000 BUDSIMAROPS Archaeological Re-Survey and Site Re-Recording, San Clemente Island, California. Prepared for NAS North Island. ASM Affiliates, Inc. 43 pp. 2000 1998 Archaeological Site Signing Project for Five Areas, Northern San Clemente Island, California. Prepared for NAS North Island. ASM Affiliates, Inc. 19 pp. Banning, E. B., and B. F. Byrd 1984 Ain Ghazal Field Guide. Manual of excavation, recording, and sampling methods for area supervisors. 22 pp. PRESENTATIONS 1996 Low Tides and Sandy Beaches: Experimental Ethnoarchaeology of a Small Package Marine Resource in Southern California. Invited paper, Society for American Archaeology Annual Meeting, New Orleans. 1996 Old Problems and New Perspectives on the Archaic of Coastal Southern California: Recent Results from Camp Pendleton. Invited paper, Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Bakersfield. 1995 Shell Middens and Littoral Adaptations: Late Holocene Hunter-gatherers of Camp Pendleton, Southern California. Paper presented at Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Eureka. 1994 Late Holocene Occupation along the Southeast Margin of Rogers Dry Lake, Antelope Valley, California. Invited paper, Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ventura. 1991 Shifting subsistence strategies and the onset of agriculture in the eastern Levant. Invited paper, Society for American Archaeology Annual Meeting, New Orleans. 1990 Late Pleistocene settlement variability in the eastern Jordanian desert. Invited paper, Society for American Archaeology Annual Meeting, Las Vegas. 1989 Village order and form in transition. International Conference "Built Form and Cultural Research: Intercultural Process", Tempe. Beidha - an early Natufian encampment in southern Jordan. International Conference "The Natufian Culture and the Origins of the Levantine Neolithic", Valbonne, France. Early Natufian occupation in the dry southern Jordanian steppe. Conference "The Natufian Culture and the Origins of the Levantine Neolithic", Valbonne, France. 1988 Late Pleistocene assemblage diversity in the Azraq Basin. CNRS conference "The Prehistory of the Levant. 2", Lyon, France. Intrasite architectural variability at PPNB 'Ain Ghazal in a pan-Levantine context (with E. B. Banning). CNRS conference "The Prehistory of the Levant. 2", Lyon, France. Renovations and the changing residential unit at 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan (with E. B. Banning). 21st Annual Chacmool Conference "Households and Communities", Calgary. 1987 Renovation in domestic architecture: the changing residential unit at PPNB 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan (with E. B. Banning). SAA Annual Meeting, Toronto. 1986 Azraq Paleoenvironmental Project; early prehistory in the eastern desert of Jordan (with A. Garrard). Annual Meeting, American Schools of Oriental Research, Atlanta. 1985 Architectural variability and use of space at PPNB Jericho and Ain Ghazal (with E. B. Banning). Jericho Symposium, London. 1979 Surface and subsurface artifact variability. SAA Meeting, Vancouver. POST-DOCTORAL TEACHING EXPERIENCE 1996 Spring: Anthropology 90 "Topics in Prehistory", Undergraduate Seminar, Dept. of Anthropology, University of California, San Diego. 1995 Spring: Anthropology 90 "Topics in Prehistory", Undergraduate Seminar, Dept. of Anthropology, University of California, San Diego. 1995 Winter: Anthropology 134 "Paleolithic Cultures of the World" Upper Division Undergraduate Lecture Course, Dept. of Anthropology, University of California, San Diego. 1994 Spring: Anthropology 90 "Topics in Prehistory", Undergraduate Seminar, Dept. of Anthropology, University of California, San Diego. 1993 Fall: Anthropology 103 "The Archaeology of Hunter-Gatherers", Upper Division Undergraduate/Graduate Lecture Course, Dept. of Anthropology,University of California, San Diego. 1992 Summer: Anthropology 102 "Archaeology and the Prehistoric World", Introductory Lecture Course, Dept. of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, Madison PRE-DOCTORAL ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS TEACHING ASSISTANTSHIPS Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona Project Origins (Special Education & Archaeology), 1987. Old World Prehistory, 1987. Foundations of Archaeology (Graduate level), 1986. Principles of Archaeology, 1986. Exploring Archaeology, 1985. Field Methods in Archaeology, 1984. Field Methods in Archaeology, 1980 (Field School). Field Methods in Archaeology, 1979 (Field School). RESEARCH Instructor (Staff Archaeologist) Center for Jordanian Studies, Yarmouk University, Jordan, 1983-1984. Research Assistant, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, 1978-1980. PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS American Anthropological Association Paleoanthropology Society Register of Professional Archaeologists Society for American Archaeology Society for California Archaeology Drew Mann Pallette Associate Archaeologist EDUCATION 1987 B.A. California State University, Long Beach, Department of Anthropology PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Mr. Pallette has a B.A. in Anthropology from California State University, Long Beach and over 14 years of archaeological field experience with particular emphasis in southern California and Arizona desert archaeology. His experience includes all phases of field supervision, including surveys, testing, and data recovery. He has co-authored numerous technical reports. In addition, he is founder and past-president of the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society, and has served as a member of the Riverside County East Area Planning Council and the City of La Quinta's Historic Preservation Commission. Mr. Pallette is primarily responsible for directing surveys, National Register evaluations, and data recovery investigations in southern California. He has supervised over 200 projects, including approximately 65 testing, data recovery, and surveys for Caltrans, Bureau of Land Management, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Caltrans projects include road surveys, site testing, and data recovery in both San Diego and Imperial counties. These projects include surveys of portions of both State Route 86 and Interstate 8, and testing and evaluation programs for State Route 125, at the McGowan, Lonestar, and Poggi Canyon Eucalyptus sites. He has conducted large-scale survey programs at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center at Twentynine Palms, Fort Irwin, and the Yuma Proving Grounds, as well as testing and data recovery programs at Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base. He served as Field Director for the Class II 60,000-acre Ft. Irwin Expansion Survey. Most recently, Mr. Pallette supervised a 20,000-acre Class II survey of portions of Fort Irwin. EMPLOYMENT HISTORY 1995-present Associate Archaeologist, ASM Affiliates, Inc. 1990-95 Associate Archaeologist, Brian F. Mooney Associates (BFMA) 1988-90 Assistant Archaeologist, Cultural Systems Research, Inc. (CSRI) 1989-90 Assistant Archaeologist, LSA 1989 Assistant Archaeologist, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside 1988 Assistant Archaeologist, Brian F. Mooney Associates 1988 Assistant Archaeologist, Archaeological Systems Management SELECTED CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS 2002-2003 Field Director and report co-author of a cultural resources survey, limited testing, and evaluation of portions of IID's proposed Salton Sea Interconnect Project. For the Imperial Irrigation District. 1997-present Numerous surveys of portions of various Interstate and State Highways in San Diego, Imperial, and Riverside Counties. Projects have included: Phase 11 testing and evaluation of 20 prehistoric sites in southern San Diego County along proposed State Route (SR) 125, testing and excavation of a series of sites along SR-94, San Diego County, and Phase I surveys and testing of various sites along Interstate 8, SR-98, and SR-78 in Imperial County, California. For Caltrans District 11. 1999-present CCDC on-call archaeology. Conducted HAZMAT remediation monitoring on numerous historic archaeological sites within the Gaslamp District in Downtown San Diego. Tasks have included monitoring,recording uncovered historic features, data recovery of historic trash deposits, pit and privies. For the City of San Diego Centre City Development Corporation. Agua Caliente Indian Reservation, Palm Springs, California. Field Director for various surveys and data recovery projects for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in Palm Springs, California. Projects have included a remote sensing survey of the Andreas Cemetery, excavation and documentation of an ethnohistoric irrigation feature, and construction monitoring for road realignment. For the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. 2001 Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, San Diego County. Supervised testing and evaluation of a multi-component coastal site located on Las Flores Creek for the COE. Prepared portions of the report. For the Department of the Navy, SWDIV. South Access Road monitoring. Conducted archaeological monitoring of road construction within the Cabrillo National Monument at Point Loma, San Diego County. Monitoring identified a historic slab associated with the NHRP-eligible site adjacent to the project area. Tasks included recording this feature and preparing site forms for submission to the CHRIS. For the City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department. 2000 Viejas Indian Reservation, San Diego. Various projects including surveys and testing programs for the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians. For Butler Roach Group and the Viejas Tribal Council. 1999 Fort Irwin Surveys, Riverside County, CA. Directed Phase I surveys of over 20,000 acres at the Fort Irwin Military Reservation, located in the Mojave Desert near Barstow. For the US Army Corps of Engineers. 1998 Field Director and report co-author for IID's A3 Line Relocation project. Project includes survey, site testing, and evaluation of resources a portion of IID A3 transmission line. For the Imperial Irrigation District. Field Director and report co-author of a cultural resources study including survey and testing or cultural resources on IID's C-Line Pole Replacement Project. For the Imperial Irrigation District. Field Director and report co-author of a cultural resources study including survey and testing of cultural resources on IID's L-Line transmission line project. For the Imperial Irrigation District. 1997-99 Fort Irwin Expansion/Silurian Valley,Riverside County,CA. Directed 65,000-acre sample survey of Silurian Valley and adjacent areas to Fort Irwin as part of the Fort Irwin expansion for the COE. Project extended over several years and documented over 300 archaeological sites. Prepared portions of the report. For the US Army Corps of Engineers. Supervised testing and evaluation of a shell midden site located San Luis Rey drainage at Camp Pendleton for the Department of the Navy, SWDIV. Co-authored report with Dr. Brian Byrd. For Dept. Of the Navy, SWDIV. Various California Environmental Quality Act Projects throughout San Diego County, California. Principal Investigator and report author of over 100 CEQA Phase I and Phase 1I survey and testing projects in San Diego County for developers and other private companies. 1997 Rancho San Diego, San Diego County. Supervised a data recovery program of four prehistoric sites located within the Rancho San Diego development project in south- central San Diego County. Edwards Air Force Base. Supervised fieldwork for a testing and evaluation of nine prehistoric sites located near the western shoreline of Rogers Dry Lake: prepared portions of report. For the Army Corps of Engineers. State Route 125, San Diego County, CA. Directed and supervised the testing and evaluation of 20 archaeological sites over a six-month period,prepared reports. For California Transportation Ventures and Caltrans District 11. 1995 Silurian Valley Survey. Supervised class II sample survey of 7,000 acres in Silurian Valley, Mojave Desert documented 33 new historic and prehistoric sites; prepared portions of report. For the Army Corps of Engineers. 1994 Edwards Air Force Base. Supervised fieldwork for testing program at six sites adjacent to Rogers Dry Lake in the Mojave Desert; prepared portions of report. For the Army Corps of Engineers. White Tanks Archaeological Survey and National Register Nomination. Assisted with supervision of survey over 1,853 acres in the Tank Mountains, Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, recording over 350 rock art panels, 10 rockshelters, five large quarries, and numerous Late Archaic-Late Prehistoric habitation sites associated with natural water tanks; documented a complex system of trails with associated shrines and pot drops; performed subsurface shovel testing and limited surface collection. For Yuma Proving Ground. 1992 Chino Canyon Archaeological Testing. Supervised testing program and prepared portions of report for nine late prehistoric sites in Chino Canyon, near Palm Springs. Gosser/BLM Land Exchange. Supervised survey in Imperial County, recorded sites, and prepared portions of report. For the Bureau of Land Management. Gold Fields Survey. Supervised 3,000-acre class III inventory, documenting sites, and writing report. For Goldfields Mining Corporation. Lavic Lake Survey, Twentynine Palms Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center. Supervised stratified random sample survey of 1,482 acres around Lavic Dry Lake. Recorded and evaluated National Register eligibility for 35 prehistoric sites and one historic mining site. For Army Corps of Engineers. 1988-90 Tahquitz Canyon Project. Assisted with testing and data recovery phases, monitoring, and ceramics and ground stone analysis for a late prehistoric- ethnohistoric Cahuilla site complex in Palm Springs, California; excavated midden deposits, occupation surfaces, rock shelters, and irrigation ditches under Principal Investigator, Dr. Lowell J. Bean. For the Riverside Flood Control District and Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. 1988 Tumco Historic Gold Mine Survey. Surveyed and recorded historic resources associated with the Tumco gold mining area. Yuma Proving Ground Inventories and Sample Surveys. Participated in random sample survey of Quaternary desert pavement terraces in Yuma County, Arizona. For Yuma Proving Grounds. Field Supervisor(volunteer), East Mojave Rock Art Recording Project. Supervised the inventory, mapping, and documentation of rock art at three sites in San Bernardino County for the Cow Cove Project. Crew person (volunteer), Bureau of Land Management. Conducted inventory, mapping, and documentation of rock art at Sheep Springs near Ridgecrest, under the direction of Dr. Frank Bock. PUBLICATIONS Not listed are over 200 small Phase I and II CEQA reports. 2002 (with Sinead Ni Ghabhlain)Data Recovery for Prehistoric Sites SDI-10306, 10307, and 14562, Central Section of SR-56, San Diego County, CA. Submitted to Caltrans District 11. 2002 (with Sinead Ni Ghabhlain)Significance Evaluation of the Del Mar Bluffs Spillway (P-37-024195), Del Mar, California. Submitted to BRG. 2001 (with Sinead Ni Ghabhlain) Phase I Study for the Agricultural Inspection Station and Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Facility Located Near Felicity, California. Submitted to Caltrans District 11. 2000 (with Brian F. Byrd) Archaeological Survey of the Central Corridor Area, Fort Irwin, California. Submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers. 2000 (with Seetha N. Reddy) Archaeological Survey of Mike and November Training Areas on Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, San Diego County, California. Submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers. 1998 (with Jerry Schaefer) A Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation of the Imperial Irrigation District's L-Line Pole Replacement Project, Imperial and Riverside Counties, California. Prepared for the Imperial Irrigation District. 1998 (with Jerry Schaefer) A Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation of the Imperial Irrigation District's C-Line Pole Replacement Project, Imperial County, California. Prepared for the Imperial Irrigation District. 1998 (with Jerry Schaefer) A Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation of the Imperial Irrigation District's A3-Line Relocation Zone, Imperial County, California. Prepared for the Imperial Irrigation District. 1997 (with Seetha N. Reddy et al.) Archaeological Investigations of Case Spring and Firebreak Sites on Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, California. Prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers. 1997 (with Brian F. Byrd) Exploiting the Desert Oases: Archaeological and Paleoenvironmental Investigations in Silurian Valley and Adjacent Areas of Southeastern California. Prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers. 1996 (with Brian F. Byrd) Coastal Archaeology at SDI-10,728, Las Flores Creek, Camp Pendleton, California. Prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers. 1996 (with Brian F.Byrd)Camping in the Dunes:Archaeological and Geomorphological Investigations of Late Holocene Settlements West of Rogers Dry Lake. Prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers. 1996 (with Brian F. Byrd et al.) Archaeological Testing Along San Mateo and San Ono fre Creeks, Northwestern Camp Pendleton, San Diego, California. Prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers. 1994 (with Brian F. Byrd and Carol Serr)Prehistoric Settlement Along Rogers Dry Lake. Testing and Evaluation of Six Sites Beside Mercury Boulevard, Edwards Air Force Base, California. Report prepared by BFMA for the US Army Corps of Engineers. 1994 (with Brian F. Byrd)Archaeological Overview and Sample Survey of the Silurian Valley Study Area. Prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers. (with Brian F. Byrd and Carol Serr)Archaeological Testing Along the San Mateo and San Onofre Creeks, Northwestern Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, California. Prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers. 1993 (with Jerry Schaefer and Anne Duffield-Stoll) The Thompson-Cummings Farmstead. Archaeological and Historical Investigations of an Early 20th Century Farm in French Valley, Riverside County, California. 1993 (with Jerry Schaefer) Archaeological Investigations of Two Lake Cahuilla Campsites near Toro Canyon, Riverside County, California. Prepared for George Berky and Associates. 1992 (with Jerry Schaefer)Archaeological Testing and Evaluation of Cultural Resources for the Shadowrock Project Area, Chino Canyon, Palm Springs, California. Prepared by BFMA/CSRI for Shadowrock Ventures. 1992 (with Jerry Schaefer)Results and Recommendations of a Class III Inventory of the Proposed Mesquite Arid Landfill Project Area, Goldfields, California. Prepared by BFMA for Environmental Solutions. 1992 (with Jerry Schaefer) Results of a Class III Cultural Resources Inventory of the Proposed Gosser/GoldFields/BLM Land Exchange. Prepared by BFMA for Environmental Solutions. 1992 (with Jerry Schaefer) A Cultural Resource Assessment for Thirteen Proposed PacTel Microwave Tower Sites: I-I5 1Barstow to Mountain Pass. Prepared by BFMA for PacTel Cellular. 1992 (with Jerry Schaefer) A Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment of the Shadowrock Project Area, Chino Canyon, Palm Springs, California. Prepared by BFMA/CSRl for Shadowrock Ventures. 1991 (with Jerry Schaefer) Prehistoric and Historic Land Use and Settlement Patterns atLavicLake, Twentynine Palms MCA GCC, San Bernardino, California. Prepared by BFMA for the US Army Corps of Engineers. 1991 Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Brockman Property Lot Split, Lawson Valley, San Diego County. Prepared by BFMA for Paul Brockman. 1991 (with Cook et al.) Preliminary Report for an Archaeological Data Recovery Program at CA-SDI-186 and CA-SDI-4757. Prepared by BFMA for Home Capital Corporation. 1991 Cultural Resource Survey of the Fenton Harmony Grove Project. Prepared for Dudek& Associates. 1991 Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment of the BEMA Indian Pass Project Area. Prepared by BFMA for Imperial Gold. 1991 (with Lowell Bean)Phase II Cultural Resource Study:Archaeological/Ethnography of the Canyon Development Project Area, Palm Springs, California. Prepared by CSRI for Jonathan Silver. 1991 Cactus City Communications Site Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment. Prepared by BFMA for the BLM. 1991 A Cultural Resource Assessment of the Canyon Club Development Project Located in Palm Springs, California. Prepared by CSRI for Jonathan Silver. 1990 A Cultural Resource Assessment of the Westinghouse Desert Communities Project, Palm Desert, California. Prepared for David Graham of Westinghouse Properties. 1990 A Cultural Resource Assessment of the CVWD Reservoir 5690 Project, Palm Desert, Riverside County, California. 1990 A Cultural Resource Assessment of a Five-Acre Parcel (25978) Located in the Cahuilla Hills, Riverside County, California. Report prepared for Dan Jewell. PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS Society for American Archaeology Society for California Archaeology American Rock Art Research Association Coachella Valley Archaeological Society (Founding President) State of California - The Resources Agency Department of Parks and Recreation STATE ARCHAEOLOGICAL COLLECTIONS RESEARCH FACILITY 2505 Port Street,West Sacramento,CA 95691 Phone: 916-375-5921,916-375- 922 / Fax: 916-375-5920 REQUEST FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL ACCESSION NUMBER Accession Number: 1333 PROJECT INFORMATION Project Name: Carlsbad State Beach Site Trinomial/Name: CA-SDI-9589 County: San Diego State Park District: San Diego Coast District Park Unit: Ponto State Beach Project Date: August 15, 2003-September 30, 2003 Description of Project: Excavation of shovel test pits and formal excavation units to determine the presence/absence of archaeological deposits and their integrity Contract:Yes ® No ❑ Date 07/11/2003 Contract Number. N/A Permit: Yes ® No ❑ Date Permit Number: pending Other Agreement(Specify Type): (Please include or fax copy of approved Permit/Contract/Agreement) Interim storage/preparation site: ASM Laboratory Proiected Date of Collection Release to the State Archaeological Collections Research Facility Requestor: Brian F. Byrd, Senior Archaeologist Date: July 22, 2003 Name/ride '(See Signature Below) Institution: ASM Affiliates, Inc. Address: 543 Encinitas Blvd., Suite#114 Encinitas, CA 92024 Phone/Fax/e-mail: 760-632-1094, 760-632-0913, bbyrd@asmaffiliates.com Headquarters/District/Service Center/Unit Concurrence: �,�,� , <) Name of Staff A fisting with Request C � Purpose of Project(example:mitigation): Archaeological testing Requestor's Signature: DPR Staff Assigning Accession Number: - 5 S Date: 8 15-1"3 SignaturetTitre /trGlucvl�rsr (Over for Archaeological Record) DPR 663 02.2002 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ACCESSION RECORD SIZE OF THE COLLECTION Total Number of Objects: or, Estimated Number of Objects: DESCRIPTION OF THE COLLECTION Time Range of the Collection(if known): Ethnic Association(s)(Russian, Chinese,Native American,etc.): Association With Other Collections(if known): STATUS OF THE OBJECTS IN THE COLLECTION Processed/Cleaned ❑ Catalogued ❑ Packaged ❑ STATUS OF THE COLLECTION DOCUMENTATION Catalogue ❑ Field Notes and Records ❑ Maps ❑ Reports ❑ Sketches/Drawings ❑ Floppy Disks/CDRom ❑ Photo Log ❑ B/W Prints ❑ Color Prints ❑ Negatives ❑ ❑Digital Images ❑ Slides ❑ Audio Tapes ❑ Video Tapes ❑ Other Project Reports/Titles/Dates: Research Type/Date and References: STORAGE INFORMATION Specific Storage Location of Collection: S cf 3 u Storage Preservation Comments: Prepared By: �Y , a d I� - �`�4-*— Date: Si nature/Pdnted Name Updated By: Date: Si nature/Pdnted Name DPR 663 02.2002 1G E'( )1 :<1( I! I( A G E O T E C H N I C A L C O N S U L T A N T S May 2, 2004 Mr. Greg Shields City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Street Encinitas, California 92024-3633 SUMMARY OF FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING TEMPORARY DRAINAGE CHANNEL—LEUCADIA STORMDRAIN ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Reference Document: Public Improvement Plans . for Temporary Drainage Channel, Leucadia Stormdrain, Orpheus and Vulcan; City of Encinitas Engineering Department, 6 sheets, work project no. CMD-95A, 0028-131. The purpose of our work was to evaluate the compaction effort along the alignment. Our field service was conducted from March 4, 2004 through March 8, 2004. A soil sample was secured on March 4, 2004 and transferred to the laboratory for maximum density and optimum moisture testing. That sample was processed and testing completed on March 5, 2004 by the laboratory. The maximum density of the soil was 119.3 pcf with optimum moisture content of 10.7 percent. A copy of the testing sheet is attached. The field service consisted of 6 tests on March 4, 2004 adjacent to and between the top of the channel and the edge of the ballast of the RR tracks. Test results were uniformly low in dry density, except for tests 2 and 6. Actual test values could not be obtained on that date because the maximum density test was not yet completed; however, based on the wide variation and some apparent low dry densities the contractor provided a vibrating sheep-foot for compaction along the entire sections of concern. 3 0 6 0 INDUSTRY ST S U I T E 1 0 5 O C E A N S I D E C A 9 2 0 5 4 TEL: 760.721.5488 FAX: 760.721.5539 G E O i E C H N I C A L C O N S U L i A N 1 5 Page 2 Leucadia Stormdrain May 2, 2004 Periodic observations were performed during the compaction effort of the contractor. After receiving the maximum density test results and determining that 4 of the tests taken on March 4, 2004 were less than 90 percent, the alignment was checked again on March 5, 2004 retesting from station 22+00 to 26+10. All test results were greater than 90 percent. Periodic observations were performed during the remaining compaction effort of the contractor and two tests with results greater than 90 percent were taken on March 8, 2004. The summary of testing is provided below: Density Dry Field Compaction Test# Date Station Density Moisture Value M Comment 1 3-4-04 26+10 100.7 pcf 11.7 % 83 Fail 2 44 25+00 114.8 9.1 95 Pass 3 46 24+00 103.5 12.8 86 Fail 4 IC 23+00 103.4 8.1 86 Fail 5 66 22+00 101.5 11.6 85 Fail 6 46 20+50 111.6 8.6 93 Pass 1R 3-5-04 26+10 113.9 13.7 95 Retest - Pass 2R 64 25+00 115.4 9.5 96 Pass 3R 64 24+00 108.7 11.3 91 Retest-Pass 4R 69 23+00 107.4 13.8 90 Retest-Pass 5R 46 22+00 109.8 10.2 92 Retest-Pass 7 3-8-04 south end 107.7 9.7 90 Pass 8 46 15+00 110.4 8.6 92 Pass G E O i E C H N I C A L C O N S U L 7 A N i S Page 3 Leucadia Stormdrain May 2, 2004 Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us directly. Very truly yours, James F. Knowlton RCE 55754/CEG 1045 GEOPACIFICA FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Test Date Elevation Soil Maximum Optimum Compaction Comments No. Type Density Moisture % 1 3 y /an 7 l v- /0�;A/ Z-' !- 01.5 //• 5' Z.7-t- �� Zc7- ,:�v 3 /-&f. 7 11, 3 `f 1715; fz, 1a7. 7 ). 7 of/FPoifj Z33 � i L� DATE p r 3 PROJECT NO. PROJECI 1 FIELD REPORT LOCATION CONTRACTOR OWNER WEATHER TEMP. TO PRESENT AT SITE SUMMARY OF INSPECTION: � r RECOMMENDATIONS: GEOPACIRCA SIGNATURE �� GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS TEL: (760) 721-5488 �'OPIES TO: FAX: (760) 721-5539 3060 INDUSTRY ST., SUITE 105 OCEANSIDE, CA 92054 . 11• Sample Date: 3/5/04 SO DESCRIPTION DK BRN SILTY SAND 2-3 #4 - 9,9 SOIL &MOLD • ■ .•: •.: ••: ••: ••: • ■ 1 • Ong i •• • 1 •.: •.: WET DENS. Kwom swim 1 • WET _ SOIL !DRY SOIL SETUP BY A DRY DENS. ®®®® WT. RETAINED MAXIMUM DENSITY i • • / IN1t�lon►�lINO1C��1�o��NNON►`tilltllttt11tt111tt1 10 oilloo1111111o1I Igloo 1I MIN looll NONNI NINON NINE INtt1 111 ,�111111 11►111111111111111111111111 I loll IN 1 111111111111111111111111111 111111111III III 1111®111►�11 ®11""'11�� 11111111111111 1111111111 111111111 1111111IIIn I II I MIN 1NINN 11111 Ell 1111131 INN 111_��JI l��11111111111111111MIN I In 11 Hill 1111111 MIN 111N Ilan Ip111=In I�nl l000m ltool l 811000 ► oil mi IInI lull Itto1 Intl 1N111oo01 ntol loME 1 1111 U. X111111111111' 111119111111 NINE k IN111111111111 It 1111111 11111111 It111 NINA NONNI NONNI loll NONNI Noll'. 1►.1111111111■ ■■01111111011111111111119011 1Ig1I 111 I'll 11111111111 1111111 11u1 N1 1I 111 1 11 pN 111.1 MINN I11111I11.11NIICl1I111•I1111.IIIII.I 111111®1 11 �1 1'•"'71111111111111 k 11111111 11111111111311111111 11111I1111111111rI1 I In11�j111111,r 11111 1 ;.11111.1(loll 100 1111.1 X1111 I,El 1111 11tH INt1 INII Itlll ntol Imo llII1„NI11.11 Mill INn I1 NO 1111101111 1 111111 1 g 1111110 I NNIa11111goo I to 1111 I NIIII NoOI1 I000l II1o11oII1 loll IWI WN 1111111111:11111111!11M 11111111 211111111111131111111111III I HI111111111MIN 111111111111111111111M11�11 1'' 1111111111152111111111111 INCH IM IN1111►�11110H 1u1111111 M1111111111111 INN 11 111 1111 111111111 1111' IIIN IIU1111► 111111 111111111111111►X11111`0 11111111111111 MINNl111111111111111111111111111111111111 11'. ooNtI I 1t0 11 ME lull NINE 10111 IN IN NI111.11111►411 NINON NONNI NONNI NONNI NONNI NONNI milli lull 11111.. IIINIIIIt1111o11I9.1 11t11I1I1111►`4I'm ICltI111�111111`►I1I 11 pillillillill 111I111IOt111oo01110ollolt1111o11 NMI lollll 11IN MI111111111111. 1111111E III I MIN1I II`►11 IlI 11NI I 11 1111111 11 111111111111111111111111 I1u1 1IM111111 I1111111111��111111I 111111I��1111Ii IIIII 111,,111611 11111 NINON NONNI MINN I i11111n 11p1 11111111111111111111111,1 Illll NONNI 1115:11111 l.Il n'il i5:1111111111 NINON NONNI 111111111111 M 0111 1111' I11o111oo11oNO1 milli 11101 PIOOI NINE loll I W I No5.1 No�t�IINtI�UI11NOO11I1N11ooO11n11 loll It1o11I1IN 1OI11 n111111111ttt11■o oil t1111 1211111111 11 et■111th.1 gloom 2111It11931111111 .I NNE loll NINE IIIII IOIO1 lull Illll Itttr. 111111111111111 11111111111115:11111111!111111:1111111. 111161111 IN 11111 MINN MINN NONNI 1111111 MIN 111111n1I 11111 Milli 111111111111MIN I MIN 01111 MEN NINON 101111 C 1111163 1110111111M MINN 11111 MIN I I1MIN 1111111111' 111111 IM Milli 11111111 MIN 1MIN 11I.111111111111111`INN 11V111u��1115.111�1111111111111111111111111111MIN M1t1lIIII Wn non 1W11tW noE,IOII NtW ntt1 I,�U 1 milli 11o11I11W In11 ml nlll pIE 11111 11 fni nl lip!-:��tlnl all II1111CO 1Nn.•N111`►!1 11941NI1 moll milli sel W11p0 1111111111 INN 11111 IN 1 11111111 1111�..U��1 1!N 111110111 I16•1111IC CII11 C91111111111111111M N INN 11111. u11 NINON 1111111111 NONNI I11tt a1111111115.I.1111I NINON 115E=1111.11111.•0111.•1 NINON HIM I o111111I 11111 MIN 111111u1111111 NINON II'.w1111111INN 1115.t 1 11111 11111 24111 1101 1�. 2.4111111111 MIN 111111pW11 Idol NINON 11111 Ell MIR.II11 IN I I NMI toll I`►\:_ INN lug W`�1 NIIIi 1 I.IO115.1I 1W11 11 Not I NINE NINON lolls ItIN1 II5% IN IN 111 ell NONNI 116:9111 Nog INt1421111111.411IN I NINE 2IOOI INN 1 Ilm NOW 11n1111111111111111'u1C MIN I 1111111111111111mill k I I Ilp1 III I IN`►I11111.11111 1,111 IN I Inn 1111111111'' 11111111111111111x51111111111111111111111111111111111C2 111111111111111��1111��1 III► 111i X11111111111 11 111111111111111 IIIII 111111111111111111111111111111 I11111`.!I MIIC 1111115`.�1111I.11111�a1�15`.111111111111 INIO111111 IINI NINA NIII NINI NONNI NINE NINON INO WE IN1C�11111 g��11 INNti Moll 1��I1 11 look 11oN WNI' 111I11I111 Illll INII 111 11111111111 oil 1III NN 111.111 IIIII t 11`�ll 1111111111 II.�1 II1IC�Illl 5. 1115.41 IINI'; 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 I I11N I IN:1�I1115`►1111111:1111104 11I'I 11 H IN I ; 111111111111111111111/111111111111111111111111111111IIIIII 1111111 .HIM 11111111M 11101 im1C N11�11.. 1111. 1111111 III 1111111 MIN 11111111111111111111NINE IIIII IIIII Mill 11 Now MINI BONI NMI 1111111 IN 11115,41111 NONE lt■■m NINON IINN NOUN NINE milli NIMBI NONNI NONNI loml man 1 nooi I..�N ItN11111 11fl.1 NN924 IN Isla: IoINl go l 1IO11 Iooil 11 11 1 Ooot1 INtoN Iltll IIIt1 MINI Ittn Iltt1 boll It 62 ml 1111 IlOtl�.�NI 11 NOMINEE 111111111111II11 oil 11111111111111 INN 1111111111111111I1 1I111MINN IN I6:111111 NIl11111�:IIIII i:UIi Ilnl I11111II111111111111 hill 1111111 IIII MEN IIIII 11111 111 N11 1101111111 10.4 1 11111,IIIII IsMI 111 :! . , 111111111111:11 I M N I loll looll MILAN/111111111 INN 1°1111111 1111m1C 111111"MI1111111 11111 1 n "° K H BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS RIVERSIDE LAWYERS ONTARIO (909)586-1450 402 WEST BROADWAY, 13TH FLOOR (909)989-8584 - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101-3542 - INDIAN WELLS (6 1 9) 525-1300 ORANGE COUNTY (760) 568-261 1 (6 19) 233-61 18 FAX (949) 263-2600 BBKLAW.COM - SACRAMENTO (91 6)325-4000 C. MICHAEL COWETr (6 1 9) 525-1336 MICHAEL.COWETT @BBKLAW.COM June 2, 2004 Ms. Jace C. Schwarm , Risk& Safety Department Manager ` City of Encinitas San Dieguito Water District C '�_t ,•, 1-Y _ 505 S. Vulcan Avenue - Encinitas, CA 92024-3633 Re: License Agreement with City of Encinitas re Temporary Drainage Detention Basin Dear Ms. Schwarm: Please find enclosed a signed original of the above-referenced Agreement. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to call. Sin re yours, i is Iel C ett Of BEST B ST IEGER LLP CMC:mab Enclosure CMC\297238.1 NCTD No. LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into as of the effective date of ("Effective Date") by and between the North San Diego County Transit Development Board ("NCTD"), and City of Encinitas ("Licensee"). RECITALS A. NCTD has policies regulating and governing the use of its Rights-of-Way. B. Licensee has applied for the issuance of a License in accordance with such policies and NCTD has agreed to allow Licensee to use that portion of the Right of Way identified in Exhibit A ("License Area"), subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. C. Licensee agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. License to Use. In consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth in this Agreement, NCTD licenses and permits Licensee to construct, operate and maintain a temporary drainage detention basin and ditch ("Facility"), a description of which is set forth on Exhibit "B" attached hereto, subject to applicable local, state and federal law and this Agreement. 2. Authority Not Exclusive. This License is non-exclusive. The Licensee shall respect the rights and property of NCTD and other authorized users of the Rights-of-way, easements, power poles, street light poles, vaults, and conduits. Except as otherwise required by applicable law, disputes between the Licensee and parties other than NCTD over the use, pursuant to this Agreement, of the easements, power poles, street light poles, vaults, conduits and other rights-of- way shall be submitted to NCTD for resolution. Licensee expressly agrees the Facility shall not interfere with any use of the surface property. 3. Relocation. Licensee shall, at Licensee's sole expense and within thirty (30) days after receiving written notice from NCTD, protect, temporarily relocate, or remove the Facility if NCTD determines, in its sole and absolute discretion, that the Facility is inconsistent or interferes with NCTD's current or planned use of the License Area or Right-of-Way. In consideration of NCTD's agreement to enter into this License, Licensee hereby waives any and all rights it may now have, or hereafter obtain, to any "relocation assistance benefits" pursuant to the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. § 4601 et seq.), the California Relocation Assistance law (Cal. Gov. Code § 7260 et seq.) or any other statute that replaces or provides rights similar to such statutes, if NCTD requires Licensee to relocate the Facility or makes use of the Right-of-Way in such a way CMC1295838.1 as to 'displace' Licensee from the License Area. Licensee, further, shall in the future execute any further documentation of the release and waiver provided hereby as NCTD may reasonably require. 4. Limitations on Use. 4.1 Licensee shall comply with all applicable terms, conditions and requirements of NCTD's policies regarding rights-of-way and other NCTD ordinances, rules and regulations. Licensee shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations of the federal, state, county, local governments and all administrative agencies thereof which may have jurisdiction over Licensee's proposed use of the License Area and the use, construction, and maintenance of the Facility. 4.2 Licensee shall not cause or permit any Hazardous Material to be used, stored, transported, generated, or disposed in or about the License Area by Licensee or Licensee's agents, employees, contractors, licensees, or invitees. "Hazardous Material" means any hazardous, toxic, or infectious substance, material, or waste which is or becomes regulated by any local governmental entity, the State of California, or the United States Government under any law, regulation or ordinance regulating or controlling any Hazardous Material (the "Hazardous Materials Laws"), including, without limitation, any material, or substance which is (i) defined as a "hazardous waste," "extremely hazardous waste" or "restricted hazardous waste" under California Health and Safety Code §§ 25115, 25117 or 25122.7, or listed pursuant to California Health and Safety Code § 25140, (ii) defined as a "hazardous substance" under California Health and Safety Code § 25316, (iii) defined as a "hazardous material," "hazardous substance" or "hazardous waste" under California Health and Safety Code § 25501 (v) defined as a "regulated medical waste" under 40 C.F.R. § 259.10(a) or § 259.30, (v) petroleum or petroleum product, (vi) asbestos, (vii) designated as a "hazardous substance" pursuant to § 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. § 1317), (ix) defined as a "hazardous waste" pursuant to § 1004 of the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6901, et seq. (42 U.S.C. § 6903), or (x) defined as a "hazardous substance" pursuant to § 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq. (42 U.S.C. § 9601). 4.3 No use, construction, or maintenance by Licensee or on Licensee's behalf on the License Area will interfere with any railroad operations on the Right-of-Way. 4.4 Licensee shall not cross or permit the crossing over of the railroad tracks on the Right-of-Way except at public crossings approved by the California Public Utilities Commission. 4.5 Licensee shall not leave any personal property or equipment on the Right- of-Way unattended at any time. CMC\295838.1 2 4.6 Licensee shall not install or use any underground storage tanks on the License Area. 5. Insurance. Licensee, at Licensee's sole cost and expense, shall procure and maintain the following insurance: 5.1 General Liability. a. Coverage for commercial general liability shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability Coverage (Occurrence Form CG 0001). b. Limits shall be no less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply to the Right-of-Way (with the ISO CG 2503, or ISO CG 2504, or insurer's equivalent endorsement provided to NCTD) or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. C. The policy shall cover bodily injury (including death) and property damage liability, owned and non-owned equipment, and blanket contractual liability. d. All policy or endorsement limitations relating specifically to operations on or near railroad property or track shall be eliminated. 5.2 Automobile Liability. a. Coverage for automobile liability insurance shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability Coverage (Form CA 0001), covering Symbol 1 (any auto). b. Limits shall be not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) for bodily injury and property damage each accident limit. C. The insurance shall indemnify against loss from liability imposed by law for damages on account of bodily injury, property damage, and personal injury. The automobile liability policy shall cover all owned, non-owned, and hired automobiles. 5.3 Licensee shall cover or insure under the applicable laws relating to workers' compensation insurance, all of their employees working on or about the Right-of-Way, all in accordance with the "Workers' Compensation and Insurance Act," Division IV of the Labor Code of the State of California and any Acts amendatory thereof. Licensee shall provide employers liability insurance in the amount of not less than one mRlion dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and disease. By CM0295838.1 3 his/her signature hereunder, Licensee certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and it will comply with such provisions in connection with any work performed on the Site. Any persons providing services with or on behalf of Licensee shall be covered by workers' compensation (or qualified self- insurance). 5.4 The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain the following provisions: a. NCTD, its directors, officers, employees, contractors, are to be named as additional insureds as respects liability arising out of Licensee's operations and activities or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by Licensee. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to NCTD, its directors, officers and employees. b. For any claims arising from Licensee's operations or activities, Licensee's insurance shall be primary insurance to NCTD, its directors, officers, employees and contractors. Any insurance, self- insurance or other coverage maintained by NCTD, its directors, officers and employees shall not contribute to it. C. Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to NCTD, its directors, officers, employees, contractors, agents or authorized volunteers. 5.5 All of the insurance shall be provided on policy forms and through companies reasonably satisfactory to NCTD. 5.6 Insurance is to be placed with insurers having a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A-, VII or equivalent or as otherwise approved by NCTD. 5.7 Prior to execution of this License, Licensee shall file with NCTD a certificate of insurance signed by the insurer's representative. Such evidence shall also include confirmation that coverage includes or has been modified to include required provisions as set forth in section 6.4. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall state or be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be amended or canceled, except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by U.S. mail has been given to NCTD. 5.8 Every contractor or subcontractor of Licensee entering upon, using, or performing any work upon the Right-of-way by or on behalf of Licensee shall provide evidence of insurance required under this section 6 prior to entering upon the Right-of-Way. CMC\295838.1 4 5.9 Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, the Licensee may self insure for any risk set forth in this Section 5 in the manner and to the extent that the Licensee self insures for similar risks with respect to its operations, equipment and property. To the extent the Certificates of Insurance provided pursuant to paragraph 5.7 do not describe the self insurance, the manner in which such self insurance is provided and the extent of such self insurance shall be set forth in a Certificate of Self Insurance delivered to NCTD and signed by an authorized representative of the self insured Party, which fully describes the self insurance program and how the program covers the risks set forth in this Section 5. Insurance provided by a joint powers agency insurance pool shall be considered self insurance for the purposes of this paragraph. If at any time during the term of this License, Licensee elects to not self insure, Licensee shall comply with all applicable provisions of this Section 5 to the extent it does not so self insure. 6. Indemnification. Licensee agrees to protect, save, defend, and hold harmless NCTD and its Board and each member of the Board, the San Diego Northern Railroad, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation ("AMTRAK"), the Southern California Regional Rail Authority ("SCRRA" or "Metrolink"), and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company ("BNSF"), their officers, agents and employees from any and all liability or claim of liability, loss or expense, including defense costs and legal fees and claims for damages of whatsoever character, nature and kind, whether directly or indirectly arising from or connected with an act or omission of Licensee, or any employee, agent, invitee, or contractor of Licensee, or other person acting by or on behalf of Licensee on or about the Right-of-Way, including, but not limited to, liability, expense, and claims for bodily injury, death, personal injury, or property damage; provided, however, that nothing herein shall relieve any party indemnified hereunder from liability to the extent that such liability arises from such party's sole established negligence or willful misconduct. The requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Licensee as required by section 6, and any approval of such insurance by NCTD, are not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by Licensee pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to the provisions concerning indemnification. 7. Construction. 7.1 Any work performed or caused to be performed by Licensee on the License Area shall be performed (a) at Licensee's sole cost and expense; (b) in accordance with any and all applicable laws, rules and regulations (including the NCTD's rules and regulations) and (c) in a manner that is satisfactory to NCTD and which meets or exceeds the then applicable standards of the industry for such work. 7.2 Licensee shall submit to NCTD for review and approval prior to commencement of any construction drawings, specifications, and other construction documents describing any proposed work in the License Area CMC\295838.1 5 ........_........ ... . in sufficient detail to enable NCTD to determine the scope and nature of the proposed work and the potential effect of such work on the Right-of- Way and train operations. NCTD may approve or disapprove any work in NCTD's sole and absolute discretion, and NCTD may require such changes or impose such conditions as NCTD, in its sole and absolute discretion, deems necessary or appropriate. 7.3 Licensee shall provide NCTD and all holders of underground utility facilities located within the License Area with at least seven (7) calendar days written notice prior to commencement of any work on the License Area. In the event of an emergency, Licensee shall notify NCTD personally or by telephone prior to commencing any work. Upon completion of any work, Licensee shall restore the License Area to its condition immediately preceding the commencement of the work. 7.4 Every individual who will be entering upon the License Area or Right-of- Way under this Agreement, before entering, shall first attend a class conducted by NCTD or NCTD's designee on Railroad Worker Protection Safety rules and regulations. Licensee shall pay all costs associated with such class. 7.5 Not less than three (3) business days prior to each entry on the License Area or Right-of-Way, Licensee shall complete the "Flag Protection Right- of-Way Work Request" form, attached hereto as Exhibit "C." The need for flag protection for Licensee's operations on or adjacent to the Right-of- Way shall be determined in the sole discretion of NCTD's Manager of Maintenance of Way. In the event that the Manager of Maintenance of Way determines that flag protection is necessary, Licensee shall not enter upon or use the License Area until flag protection has been provided. Licensee shall pay all costs of flag protection. NCTD shall use reasonable efforts to provide flag protection on the dates and times of Licensee's requested entries, provided that any work by NCTD, BNSF, or AMTRAK that requires flag protection shall take priority. NCTD shall not be liable for any costs, expenses, or claims if flag protection is not provided on Licensee's requested dates or times of entry. 7.6 Licensee shall, upon NCTD's request and at Licensee's expense, install barrier fencing, K-rail, and/or landscaping to shield the railroad track area from public access and or the improvements thereon from public view. NCTD shall have the right to review and approve fencing and/or landscaping plans prior to installation. 7.7 NCTD's review and inspection of the drawings, specifications, construction documents, and work is for the purpose of examining the general arrangement, design, and details of the work for potential impact on the Right-of-Way and railroad operations. NCTD and NCTD's employees, consultants, and agents assume no responsibility for and make no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to the design, condition, workmanship, or adequacy of the drawings, specifications, CMC\295838.1 6 construction documents, or work. No review, comments, requirements, or inspection shall relieve Licensee or Licensee's engineers, contractors, subcontractors, or consultants from the entire responsibility for the errors or omissions in the drawings, specifications, or construction documents, or for the quality or adequacy of the work 7.8 Licensee shall reimburse NCTD within 30 days of invoice for all costs and expenses incurred by NCTD (including a 7.2 administrative fee which shall be equal to 7.2 percent of NCTD's actual expenses and (in connection with the planning, design and construction of the improvements), including, but not without limitation, consultant's fees, markout of railroad facilities, inspectors, security and flag protection as NCTD deems necessary, the installation and removal of false work beneath the tracks, equipment rentals and restorations of the Right-of-Way. 8. Maintenance and Repair. Licensee shall, at Licensee's sole expense, maintain the Facility and License Area in a condition satisfactory to NCTD and in accordance with applicable governmental codes. Licensee shall be responsible for any citations issued by any agency having jurisdiction as a result of Licensee's failure to comply with any applicable law, regulation, ordinance, rule, or order. 9. Default; Termination. In the event that Licensee fails to perform any obligation under this Agreement, Licensee shall pay all costs and expenses incurred by NCTD in obtaining performance of such obligations, including costs of suit and reasonable attorney's fees. If Licensee uses the Right-of-Way for any purpose not expressly authorized by this Agreement or fails to act strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and if such default is not corrected within 30 days' notice from NCTD to Licensee, NCTD may terminate this Agreement and present Licensee from using or remaining upon the Right-of- Way. If NCTD determines that any default by Licensee does or has the potential to cause a danger to the Right-of-Way or railroad operations, NCTD may immediately and without prior notice to Licensee terminate this Agreement and prevent Licensee from using or remaining upon the Right-of-Way, with or without process of law. Upon termination of this Agreement, Licensee shall, at Licensee's sole expense, remove the Facility and all other Licensee improvements in or upon the Right-of-Way and restore the Right-of-Way in a manner satisfactory to NCTD. Should Licensee fail or refuse to comply with the terms of this section, NCTD may, at its option, perform such work, and Licensee shall reimburse NCTD for all costs and damages so incurred. 10. Service of Notice. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any notice required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be in writing and may be given by personal delivery or by certified or registered mail, and shall be deemed sufficiently given if delivered or addressed to Licensee at the address listed below the Licensee's signature or to NCTD at North San Diego County Transit Development Board, 810 Mission Avenue, Oceanside, CA 92054, Attention: Manager-of Real Estate. Mailed notices shall be deemed given upon actual receipt at the address required, or forty-eight hours following deposit in the mail, CMC\295838.1 7 postage prepaid, whichever first occurs. Either party may by notice to the other specify a different address for notice purposes. 11. Vibration and Noise From Train Operation; Barricades. Licensee recognizes and acknowledges that railroad tracks are located on or adjacent to the License Area, and that the operation of trains over the tracks does and will produce vibrations which may affect the Facility and Licensee's use of the License Area. With knowledge and understanding of these facts, Licensee by execution of this Agreement, agrees that no legal action or complaint of any kind whatsoever shall be instituted against NCTD by Licensee or on Licensee's behalf as result of vibrations or as a result of the use of the railroad tracks in general. 12. Laws, Venues, and Attorneys' Fees. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. If any action is brought to interpret or enforce any term of this Agreement, the action shall be brought in a state or federal court situated in the County of San Diego, State of California. In the event of any claim, legal action or proceeding between the parties arising under or concerning this License, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses as part of the judgment resulting therefrom. 13. Acceptance of License Area. Licensee accepts the License Area in its present physical "as-is" condition, and agrees to make no demands upon NCTD for any improvements or alterations. By signing this License, Licensee represents and warrants that Licensee has independently inspected the License Area and the area immediately surrounding and made all investigations, tests, and observations necessary to satisfy Licensee as to the condition of the License Area, zoning and land use laws, regulations, and ordinances affecting the License Area, and all of the conditions, restrictions, encumbrances, and other matters of record relating to the License Area. Licensee agrees that Licensee is relying solely on Licensee's independent inspection and that NCTD has made no warranty or representation with regard to the License Area. NCTD shall not be responsible for any latent defect or change in condition in the License Area and Licensee's obligations under this License shall not be diminished on account of any defect in the License Area, any change of condition, or any damages occurring on the License Area. In case of the eviction of Licensee by anyone owning or claiming title to or any interest in the License Area, NCTD shall not be liable to Licensee for any damage of any nature whatsoever or to refund any moneys paid hereunder. Licensee hereby releases NCTD from all future claims, actions, or demands that Licensee may have or may hereinafter have, known and unknown, in any way relating to the quality, fitness, or condition of the License Area, and Licensee specifically waives all rights under California Civil Code section 1542, which provides as follows: "A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor." CMC\295838.1 8 14. Termination. The Facility is a temporary facility. This License shall expire two years from the effective date. Upon expiration, Licensee shall restore the License Area to its pre-license condition. The Parties agree that Licensee is developing plans for, and will construct a drainage facility to replace the Facility which will not require the use of NCTD right-of-way for any above-ground drainage facilities. Emergency Number. Licensee shall immediately notify the Dispatcher at(800) 500-7346 if the tracks become damaged, Clocked, or fouled in any way. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed below, effective as of the Effective Date, by their duly authorized representatives. NCTD: City of Encinitas North San Diego County Transit Development Board By: By: Name: —{.K Name: L J Title: Gf'e Title: C, t•a ►'1 C �i:c�cV� r Address: F;Cr, CMC\295838.1 9 EXHIBIT S 82'08'23" w \ 38.00' t\ � SCALE 1"-loo' eW Top -VULCAN \ TOE \ \ BALLAST \ t \ Z. \ \ t!+\� \`tt �3% \ , 3 \ t \ \ tX 't CITY OF ENCINITAS Right-of-W&y Engineering Services, Inc. LICENSE AGREEI M ENT 4187 Avenida De L Plots Me- 114 • Oaesaelde. CA 82066 (780) 792-1886 FAX (780) 739-1307 Orowh,q Us name: Orpheus drainage ucens� agrsement.dwg DATE: MAY 11, 2004 SHEET 2 OF EXHIBIT "B" The project involves drainage improvements along Vulcan Ave. between Encinitas Blvd. and Leucadia Blvd., and has three parts to it. The first part runs parallel to Vulcan Ave., and goes from Orpheus Ave. to Union St.. This portion of the project consists of a graded trapezoidal channel that has a 4 foot bottom width, 1.5 1 side slopes, and a varying depth. The north part of the channel ends at a headwall at Union Street, and discharges into a 24 inch storm drain. The edge of the channel is 30 feet east of the centerline of the NCTD railroad tracks. The shoulder area between the railroad ballast and the channel was graded at a 2% cross slope that drains to the channel. All graded areas were sprayed with a bonded fiber matrix, which included a native seed mix. Both the side slopes and the bottom of the channel had straw matting installed on top of the bonded fiber matrix. The second part of the project involved grading a triangular channel that runs parallel to Vulcan Ave. from Orpheus Ave. to approximately 750 feet south of Orpheus Ave.. The top of slope for the triangular channel starts at the toe of the railroad ballast on the west side, and at the edge of the existing asphalt walkway on the east side of the channel. The side slopes and depth of the channel vary. The entire area of the channel from toe of ballast to edge of asphalt walkway was sprayed with a bonded fiber matrix, which included a native seed mix. The last part consists of a triangular channel graded parallel to Vulcan Ave. from the headwall at Union Street to approximately 250 feet to the north. The westerly top of slope of the channel is a minimum of 25 feet from the centerline of the NCTD railroad tracks. The side slopes vary from 3:1 to 4.5:1. The centerline of the ditch is 16.40 feet from the easterly NCTD right of way line. The shoulder area between the railroad ballast and the channel were graded at a 2% cross slope, and drains to the channel. The entire area of the triangular channel and the shoulders west and east of the channel were sprayed with a bonded fiber matrix, which included a native seed mix. EXHIBIT "C" Job Name: C,.onrtrol Numb Billable Party: Rours Authorized: ........ .:..:. ........:.:':. •N ,:,..,........:.:.....•.r........<......x.a..r.on....:,.yi"4"; M • •. ," 42-Mn�. AS R�. U :..... ,........Nw. -. ...... ..;�w� 1. Work performed on the NCTD RIGHT-OF-WAY which involves personnel or equipment must have an NCTD-supplied flagperson for duration of the work, unless specifically waived by NCTD. Cost of the flag person shall be bome by the party requesting the the work. Depending on the extent of the work, NCTD may require the requesting party to provide a deposit to cover the estimated cost of the flag protection. 2. Work Request form MUST BE FILLED OUT COMPLETELY AND RETURNED TO NCTD A MINIMUM OF 72 HOURS PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE WORK. PLEASE RETURN FORM TO. North San Diego County Transit Development Board 810 Mission Avenue Oceanside, CA 92054 Attention: JIM CUNNINGHAM PHONE: (760)VA-6538 FAX: (760)754-0644 ......................._... _ _....................... 3. on the nature of the work, NCTD may request a meeting at the job site prior to approving the work request. �4. Contractor shall sign time cards of personnel providing flag protection. 5. Contractor requesting a flag person will be charged a minimum of four hours show-up time if no Contractor personnel is on the jobsite at the time and date specified in this request, ,. .. .. .. ,.:...�•.•.:. °i:.,..;�;i.:::.•�h"#•i'%!:C%='.r:_df:t yk, •»awyJ:,i;:!•1;<•V .. �:.;'::s�Cl j„'wr;;'...<:.CXa:N•'.'!,!.^M:M.`YM;:ri s'.ti:.`�.r�:w�,.' NAME OF CONTRACTOR Vadnais Corporation PHONE: 858-550-1460 BILLABLE PARTY: Vadnais Corporation Address: 9164 Rehco Road City. San Diego State: CA Zip: 9_ 2121 PURPOSE OF WORK: Place straw matting LOCATION OF WORK: Orpheus&Vulcan Encinitas EQUIPMENT TO BE USED Pickup WORK START DATE: 5-10-04 TIME: 7:30 AM COMPLETION DATE: 5-10-04 TIME: 3:30 PM PERSON IN CHARGE AT WORK SIT Jeff Anderson CONTRACTOR'S SIGNATURE: DATE: 5-7-04 APPBOVED BY: DATE: PRINT NAME: MP#: EXHIBIT " A " \ITT \� vE SCALE 1°-100' \ \. y Jam•`\.. '`,. \ '\.• ti \tc\ \ `\ \ VULCAN TOE — ` \ `\ R/W BALLAST• \ x \ aT 38.00' N 62'06'23" E CITY OF ENCINITAS Right-Of-Way Engineering Service,, Inc. LICENSE AGREEMENT 4189 Avenida De La Pasta 8tc. 114 • Oceanside, CA U2000 (760) 78>=-1966 PAX (760) 782-1-187 Drawing file mama Orpheus drainage license agrarnnant.dwg DATE: MAY 11. 2004 SHEET 1 OF 2 EXHIBIT "C" Control Number. Job Name: Hours Authorized: Billable Party: 4. ••�`'� r.V IM 1 IwrA•r•♦'rvVtt>1r•J.wM.•WM.MVn'r•••• .N••M m♦ •. • • vY.1.p19nN:1.•111dN•It1•rIIN•OM`.pp•r.«ynu♦v. • •••y�' .p. ♦ ry AI :��' 1. Work performed on the NCTD RIGHT-OF-WAY which involves personnel or equipment must have an NCTD-supplied flagperson for duration of the work, unless specifically waived by NCTD. Cost of the flag person shall be bome by the party requesting the the work. Depending on the extent of thor t NCTD may require n a requesting party to provide a deposit to cover the estimated -f»»» ..._..........................».»».. .._-- y. Work Request form MUST OF B2 HOURS PRIOR AND OF THE TO NCTD A MINIMUM ME WORK PLEASE RETURN FORM TO: North San Diego County Transit Development Board 810 Mission Avenue Oceanside, CA 92054 Attention: JIM CUNNINGHAM PHONE: (?60)9664538 FAX: (760)754"'0644 »3. . Depending on the nature of the work, NCTD may request a meeting at the job site prior to approving the work request. 4,_ .Contractor shall sign time cards of personnel providing flag protection. 5. Contractor requesting a flag person will be changed a minimum of four hours show-up time if no Contractor personnel is on the jobsite at the time and date specified in this request. - - NAME OF CONTRACTOR: PHONE: BILLABLE PARTY: Address: City: State: C._A Zip: LOCATION OF WORK: PURPOSE OF WORK: EQUIPMENT TO BE USED: TIME: WORK START DATE: TIME: COMPLETION DATE: PERSON IN CHARGE AT WORK SITE: CONTRACTOR'S SIGNATURE: DATE: DATE: APPROVED BY: MP#1 PRINT NAME: City of - Encinitas August 29, 2008 State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Torrey Pines State Reserve/North Sector Attn: Brian Gaudet 12600 N. Torrey Pines Rd. La Jolla, CA 92037 SUBJECT: Final Report-Fifth Annual Mitigation Monitoring of the Ponto State Beach Detention Basin Site, Leucadia Low Flow Storm Drain Project,Wetland Mitigation Plan Dear Brian: Enclosed with this letter is the Fifth and Final Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Ponto State Beach Detention Basin which was done as part of the Leucadia Low Flow Storm Drain Project(City Project Numbers CMD95A and CMD04B). The Mitigation Monitoring Report is being done in compliance with State and Federal Resource Agency permits which required a 5 year mitigation monitoring of the detention basin at Ponto State Beach in accordance to the Wetland Mitigation Plan for the detention basin. The conclusion section of the final report states that this project has met or exceeded all the final standards, and recommends the release of the basin from all of the permit monitoring conditions. Consequently, the City of Encinitas has completed the 5 year maintenance of the detention basin at Ponto State Beach. I have enclosed the final report for you to assist you and to make you aware of the type of maintenance the final report recommends for the detention basin in the future. Please let me know if you have any questions. I can be contacted at(760)633-2775. Sincerely, Kip fner, P.E. Engineer II Enclosures: Final report, Fifth Annual Mitigation Monitoring Report Cc: Leroy Bodas Tel 760/633-2600 FAX 760/633-2627,505 South Vulcan Avenue,Encinitas,CA 92024 TDD 760/633-2700 City of Encinitas August 29, 2008 US Army Corps of Engineers-Regulatory Attn: Robert Smith 16885 West Bernardo Dr., Suite 300A San Diego, CA 92127 SUBJECT: Final Report-Fifth Annual Mitigation Monitoring of the Ponto State Beach Detention Basin Site, Leucadia Low Flow Storm Drain Project,Wetland Mitigation Plan Dear Robert: Enclosed with this letter is the Fifth and Final Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Ponto State Beach Detention Basin which was done as part of the Leucadia Low Flow Storm Drain Project(City Project Numbers CMD95A and CMD04B). The Mitigation Monitoring Report is being done in compliance with State and Federal Resource Agency permits which required a 5 year mitigation monitoring of the detention basin at Ponto State Beach in accordance to the Wetland Mitigation Plan for the detention basin. The conclusion section of the final report states that this project has met or exceeded all the final standards, and recommends the release of the basin from all of the permit monitoring conditions. Consequently, the City of Encinitas hereby respectfully requests final signoff from further permit monitoring. Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Kipp H , P.E. Engineer II Enclosures: Final report, Fifth Annual Mitigation Monitoring Report Cc: Leroy Bodas Tel 760/633-2600 FAX 760/633-2627,505 South Vulcan Avenue,Encinitas,CA 92024 TDD 760/633-2700 City of Encinitas August 29, 2008 California Regional Water Quality Control Board Attn:John H. Robertus 9711 Clairemont Mesa Blvd., Suite A San Diego, CA 92124-1324 SUBJECT: Final Report-Fifth Annual Mitigation Monitoring of the Ponto State Beach Detention Basin Site, Leucadia Low Flow Storm Drain Project,Wetland Mitigation Plan Dear Mr. Robertus: Enclosed with this letter is the Fifth and Final Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Ponto State Beach Detention Basin which was done as part of the Leucadia Low Flow Storm Drain Project(City Project Numbers CMD95A and CMD04B). The Mitigation Monitoring Report is being done in compliance with State and Federal Resource Agency permits which required a 5 year mitigation monitoring of the detention basin at Ponto State Beach in accordance to the Wetland Mitigation Plan for the detention basin. The conclusion section of the final report states that this project has met or exceeded all the final standards, and recommends the release of the basin from all of the permit monitoring conditions. Consequently, the City of Encinitas hereby respectfully requests final signoff from further permit monitoring. Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Since eiv. Kipp H n r, P.E. Engineer 11 Enclosures: Final report, Fifth Annual Mitigation Monitoring Report Cc: Leroy Bodas Tel 760/633-2600 FAX 760/633-2627,505 South Vulcan Avenue,Encinitas,CA 92024 TDD 760/633-2700 City of Encinitas August 29, 2008 California Department of Fish and Game South Coast Region Region 5 Attn;Tamara A. Spear 4949 Viewridge Ave. San Diego, CA 92123 SUBJECT: Final Report-Fifth Annual Mitigation Monitoring of the Ponto State Beach Detention Basin Site, Leucadia Low Flow Storm Drain Project, Wetland Mitigation Plan Dear Tamara: Enclosed with this letter is the Fifth and Final Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Ponto State Beach Detention Basin which was done as part of the Leucadia Low Flow Storm Drain Project(City Project Numbers CMD95A and CMD04B). The Mitigation Monitoring Report is being done in compliance with State and Federal Resource Agency permits which required a 5 year mitigation monitoring of the detention basin at Ponto State Beach in accordance to the Wetland Mitigation Plan for the detention basin. The conclusion section of the final report states that this project has met or exceeded all the final standards, and recommends the release of the basin from all of the permit monitoring conditions. Consequently, the City of Encinitas hereby respectfully requests final signoff from further permit monitoring. Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely. Kipp er, P.E. Engineer II Enclosures: Final report, Fifth Annual Mitigation Monitoring Report Cc: Leroy Bodas Tel 760/633-2600 FAX 760/633-2627,505 South Vulcan Avenue,Encinitas,CA 92024 TDD 760/633-2700 RICK 91V6iArE E�N CpMP�y G San Diego Riverside Orange Phoenix Tucson Water Resources Division September 27, 2004 Mr. Kipp Hefner City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024_3633 SUBJECT: HYDROLOGIC AND TRUING STORMDHYDRAULIC (RICK TRIBUTARY TO TH ALONG UCAD�OF K ENGINEERI G COMP�VHT-OF-WAY. JOB _WAY BOULEVARD Dew Mr. Hefner: NUMBER 14413) Pursuant to yow•re analysis t the quest, Rick Engineering existing storm drains g Company has County Transit District(NCTD)Ri system along Prepared hydrologic g Leucadia Blvd that discharges hydraulic H drolo ght_°f way at Vulcan Avenue. ges into the North A rational method h (`4ES)Rational hydrologic analysis was system from Method Program to Prepared usin Fulvia Street to model the e g the Advanced Engineerin delineated from Vulcan Avenue alonisting 100_year g Software City 2-foot contour runoff into the existin y ofEncinitas. ur digital to g the Leucadia Blvd, g storm 7.2 acres. The total watershed area graphy flown in Jul The watershed drain area tributary Y 2001, Which areas were a1y to the NCTD was Provided by the ie rational rght-of--way is approximately method analysis shows t ;charges to the NCTD right-of-way a peak flo 7 cfs disco t ght-of--w 'rate of38.5 cubic feet discharges from the existinay at this of drain ounding street area to the g storm g 100- Per second (cfs) NCTD ri drain system and the remain-storm event. Approximately interception at each existing n lal dated June inlet/catch basin The Rational Method g 6.8 cfs drains from ne 2003. See the enclosed rational and is b analysis ass the ed information. aced on the San Die caned 100% method analysis and hydrologic County Hydrology 11_ ydrologic workmap for 'arced Engineering Software he existing storm drains (AES)Pi peflow hydraulic Program Performs g Ystem along Leucadia Blvd. analysis program was used to radually varied flow and The AES Pipeflow pressure hydraulic profile computations. The San Diego California 92110-2596 (619)291-0707 FAX: (619)291-4165 ._._ **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2003, 1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2003 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2003 License ID 1261 Analysis prepared by: RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 5620 Friars Road San Diego, California 92110 619-291-0707 Fax 619-291-4165 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** • NTCD - LEUCADIA BLVD AND VULCAN AVE. J-14413 • 100-YEAR EXISTING HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS OF AN AREA ALONG NORTH SIDE OF • LEUCADIA BLVD THAT DRAINS TO NTCD R/W AT VULCAN AVE FN:4413NTCD.RAT/RES ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 4413NTCD.RAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 07:33 09/27/2004 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2 .500 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 12.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.85 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) --- ----- --------- ----------------- ------ ----- ------ ----- ------- --- ----- --------- ----------------- ------ ----- ------ ----- ------- 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2 .00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150 2 30.0 20.0 0.020/0.020/ --- 0.50 1.50 0.0100 0.125 0.0180 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth) * (Velocity) Constraint = 0.5 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE. * **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8700 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 98 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 179.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 177.70 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.30 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN. ) = 2.828 WARNING: INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW PATH LENGTH IS GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH = 67.33 (Reference: Table 3-1B of Hydrology Manual) THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITYSITY(I1VCH SUBAREA RUNOFF IS BASED/HOUR) = 6.587 TOTAL AREA(ACRES)FS) = ON Tc 0.57 5-MINUTE. 0'10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CPS) = FLOW PROCESS 0.57 FROM ******************** ----------------_ NODE 101. 00 ****** TO NODE ****************** »»>COMPUTE STREET FLOW 102.00 >»> LOW TRAVE ''------ IS CODE = 62 __---== (STREET-TABLE SECTION # 2 TIME THRU SUBARE '--------------------- _ _ USED)««< A««< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 177- 70 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 1105.00 STREET DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) HALFWIDTH(FBET) = 30.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6. 0 113 .00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL G INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) RADEBREAK(FEET) OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECI 0.020 = 20.00 �I') = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to- 1 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = curb) 0.0180 $TREETFLOW MOD EL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOWN STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = p 29 3 .78 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) _ AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC, ) =9' 04 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC. ) 4' 19 .STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.20 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) =Tc (MI = 7.23 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : 5.1993 3 USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 98 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.574 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ 2'20 PEAK FLOW 6.11 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: RATE(CFS) = 6.56 DEPTH(FEET) = 0.33 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) _ FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.79 DEPTH* LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC. ) _ 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 1.59 80*00*FEET. -FLOW-PROCESS-FROM-NODE- 102.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE _ **** >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM -'----- ______ 1 ---------------------- AM-FOR CONFLUENCE«<<< - ------ ------------------------------------------ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIARE: CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 _ = 7 23 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.19 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS 2'20 AT CONFLUENCE _ 6.56 FLOW PROCESS ***************FROM*** *NODE***************************************************** -- - - - 103.00 TO NODE----104 .00 IS *** -->>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA - ---__----CODE 21 -----__---- _ -_-____-_-- ANALYSIS««< ---------'---- USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 89 6700 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) _ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 70.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 14144. ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 144.00 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN,) '00 5.720 WARNING: INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW PATH LENGTH IS GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH = 69.29 (Reference: Table 3-1B of Hydrology Manual) THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.039 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.40 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.40 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 104 .00 TO NODE 102 .00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) <<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 144.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 113.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 710.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0437 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 24.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2 .000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.018 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 0.50 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.023 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5300 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 89 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2 .87 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 2.36 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.05 TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 5.02 Tc (MIN. ) = 10.74 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.69 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.536 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2 .30 PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) = 4.96 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.07 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2 .87 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 103 .00 TO NODE 102 .00 = 780.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 102 .00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE«<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ----------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN. ) = 10.74 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.02 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2 .30 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 4.96 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN. ) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 6.56 7.23 5 .193 2 .20 2 4 .96 10.74 4 .023 2 .30 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN. ) (INCH/HOUR) 1 9.90 7.23 5.193 2 10.04 10.74 4.023 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 10.04 Tc(MIN. ) = 10.74 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4 .50 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102. 00 = 1180 .00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW) <<<<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 113 . 00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 108.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 30.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.0 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 17.96 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 10.04 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 0.03 Tc (MIN. ) = 10.77 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 105.00 = 1210.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 105.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< -----------------------------=---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.016 USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5100 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 76 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.5519 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.30 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.61 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4. 80 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.64 TC(MIN. ) = 10.77 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 105.00 TO NODE 108.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) <<<<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 103 .00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 95.18 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 136.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.6 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 12.86 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 10.64 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 0.18 Tc (MIN. ) = 10.94 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 108.00 = 1346.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 108.00 TO NODE 108.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN. ) = 10.94 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3 .97 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 4. 80 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE 10.64 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 106.00 TO NODE 107. 00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8700 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 98 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 70.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 179.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 177.70 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.30 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN. ) = 2.789 WARNING: INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW PATH LENGTH IS GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH = 68.57 (Reference: Table 3-1B of Hydrology Manual) THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.587 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.57 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.57 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 107.00 TO NODE 108.00 I.S CODE = 62 -------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>> (STREET TABLE SECTION # 2 USED) <<<<< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 177.70 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 100.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 1250.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 30.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 20.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0180 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.65 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.30 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.71 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 4.52 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC. ) = 1.35 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 4.61 Tc(MIN.) = 7.40 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.117 USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8700 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 98 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.870 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.80 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.01 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.90 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.46 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.35 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 12 .38 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 5.22 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.84 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 106.00 TO NODE 108.00 = 1320.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 108.00 TO NODE 108.00 IS CODE = 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE«<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN. ) = 7 .40 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.12 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.90 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 8.46 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN. ) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 10.64 10.94 3 .974 4.80 2 8.46 7 .40 5.117 1.90 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN. ) (INCH/HOUR) 1 16.72 7.40 5.117 2 17.21 10.94 3 .974 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 17.21 Tc(MIN.) = 10.94 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.70 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 108.00 = 1346.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 108. 00 TO NODE 108.50 IS CODE = 41 ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) <<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 95.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 89.20 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 80.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 10.7 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 15.78 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 17.21 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 0 .08 Tc (MIN. ) = 11.03 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 108.50 = 1426.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 108.50 TO NODE 108.50 IS CODE = 81 ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.954 USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5100 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 76 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.5994 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.45 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.90 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 23 .47 TC(MIN. ) = 11.03 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 108.50 TO NODE 109.00 IS CODE = 41 ----------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) <<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 89.20 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 72.15 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 238.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 13 .4 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 16.61 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 23 .47 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 0.24 Tc(MIN. ) = 11.27 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 109.00 = 1664 .00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 109.00 TO NODE 109.00 IS CODE = 81 ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3 .900 USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5100 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 76 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.5919 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.90 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.79 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.80 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 24.93 TC(MIN. ) = 11.27 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.00 TO NODE 109.00 IS CODE = 81 -------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3 .900 USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6700 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 89 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.5979 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.90 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2 .35 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 11.70 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 27.29 TC(MIN. ) = 11.27 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 109.00 TO NODE 111.00 IS CODE = 41 ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) <<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 72.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 61.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 688.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ASSUME FULL-FLOWING PIPELINE PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 8.69 PIPE FLOW VELOCITY = (TOTAL FLOW) / (PIPE CROSS SECTION AREA) GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24 .00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 27.29 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 1.32 Tc (MIN. ) = 12 .59 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 111.00 = 2352.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 111.00 TO NODE 111.00 IS CODE = 81 -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3 .631 USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6700 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 84 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.6110 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.60 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.33 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.30 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 31.73 TC(MIN.) = 12 .59 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 111.00 TO NODE 112 .00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) <<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 61.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 60.15 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 90.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ASSUME FULL-FLOWING PIPELINE PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 10.10 PIPE FLOW VELOCITY = (TOTAL FLOW) / (PIPE CROSS SECTION AREA) GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24 .00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 31.73 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 0.15 Tc (MIN. ) = 12.74 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 112.00 = 2442.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 112.00 TO NODE 112 .00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3 .604 USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6700 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 89 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.6210 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2 .90 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 17.20 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 38 .49 TC(MIN. ) = 12 .74 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 17 .20 TC(MIN.) = 12 .74 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 38.49 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS _ -- ------ —, _ i- /-'__/ t• , �\ +. as 31 ---- k - / � I 71, do do ad "��%i ..�••�a "'�.�. \1� .. �/ � _ .\ ..— / / __ _.' --_. — - , Q r _ , �+ C � N 0 y-°__�� J `��- '/`� •rte _.�I�"�� IJ �i'��l \ --'�----_�- TQ ep Em ora 0 46 / + � FC' � � O n ft C ****************************************************************************** PIPE-FLOW HYDRAULICS COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: LACFCD,LACRD, AND OCEMA HYDRAULICS CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1982-2003 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 8.0 Release Date: 01/01/2003 License ID 1261 Analysis prepared by: RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 5620 Friars Road San Diego, California 92110 619-291-0707 Fax 619-291-4165 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * NTCD - LEUCADIA BLVD AND VULCAN AVE. J-14413 * PIPE FLOW ANALYSIS DURING 100-YEAR STORM EVENT (EXISTING CONDITION) * STORM DRAIN ALONG NORTH LEUCADIA BLVD. & VULCAN AVE. FN:4413NTCD.PIP/OUT ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 4413NTCD.PIP TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 14:48 09/22/2004 GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW ANALYSIS FOR PIPE SYSTEM NODAL POINT STATUS TABLE (Note: "*11 indicates nodal point data used. ) UPSTREAM RUN DOWNSTREAM RUN NODE MODEL PRESSURE PRESSURE+ FLOW PRESSURE+ NUMBER PROCESS HEAD(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS) DEPTH(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS) 112.00- 1.97* 813 .13 1.89 Dc 809.36 FRICTION 111.00- 2.90* 993 .05 1. 89 Dc 809.36 ) JUNCTION 111.00- 4.11* 1068.57 1.57 663.01 ) FRICTION 110.50- 3 .65* 979.57 1.58 661.23 ) MANHOLE 110.50- 3 .65* 979.29 1.56 665.01 ) FRICTION 109.00- 3.18* 886.36 1.35 723.63 JUNCTION 109.00- 2.58 805.98 1.06* 835.73 ) FRICTION 108.50- 1.48*Dc 686.13 1.48*Dc 686.13 JUNCTION 108.50- 4 .17* 702 .43 0.88 557.24 FRICTION ) HYDRAULIC JUMP 108.00- 1.44*Dc 405.34 1.44*Dc 405.34 ) JUNCTION 108.00- 3 .53* 430.79 0.70 285.27 FRICTION ) HYDRAULIC JUMP 105 .00- 1.25*Dc 195.78 1.25*Dc 195.78 CATCH BASIN 105.00- 2 .10* 149.03 1.25 Dc 56.59 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ENERGY BALANCES USED IN EACH PROFILE = 25 -------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: STEADY FLOW HYDRAULIC HEAD-LOSS COMPUTATIONS BASED ON THE MOST CONSERVATIVE FORMULAE FROM THE CURRENT LACRD,LACFCD, AND OCEMA DESIGN MANUALS. ****************************************************************************** DOWNSTREAM PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA: NODE NUMBER = 112.00 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 60. 15 PIPE FLOW = 31.73 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 24.00 INCHES ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 62 .120 FEET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NODE 112 .00 : HGL = < 62 .120>;EGL= < 63 .714>;FLOWLINE= < 60.150> ****************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 112.00 TO NODE 111.00 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 111.00 ELEVATION = 61.00 (FLOW UNSEALS IN REACH) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CALCULATE FRICTION LOSSES (LACFCD) : PIPE FLOW = 31.73 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 24 .00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 90.00 FEET MANNING'S N = 0.01300 ===> NORMAL PIPEFLOW IS PRESSURE FLOW ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NORMAL DEPTH(FT) = 2 .00 CRITICAL DEPTH(FT) = 1.89 DOWNSTREAM CONTROL ASSUMED FLOWDEPTH(FT) = 1.97 ----------------------------------------------------- GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW PROFILE COMPUTED INFORMATION: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DISTANCE FROM FLOW DEPTH VELOCITY SPECIFIC PRESSURE+ CONTROL(FT) (FT) (FT/SEC) ENERGY(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS) 0 .000 1.970 10.128 3 .564 813 .13 0.073 1.971 10. 126 3 .564 813 .25 0. 147 1.972 10.125 3 .565 813.38 0.222 1.974 10.123 3.566 813 .50 0.299 1.975 10. 121 3 .566 813 .63 0.376 1.976 10.119 3 .567 813.76 0.455 1.977 10. 118 3.568 813 .89 0.535 1.978 10.116 3 .568 814.02 0.617 1.980 10.114 3 .569 814 .16 0.700 1.981 10. 113 3 .570 814.30 0.784 1.982 10.111 3 .571 814.45 0.869 1.983 10. 110 3 .571 814 .59 0.956 1.984 10.109 3 .572 814 .74 1. 044 1.986 10. 107 3.573 814 .90 1.134 1.987 10. 106 3 .574 815.05 1.225 1.988 10. 105 3 .574 815.21 1.317 1.989 10.104 3 .575 815.38 1.411 1.990 10.103 3 .576 815.54 1.507 1.992 10.101 3 .577 815.71 1.604 1.993 10.101 3 .578 815.89 1.704 1.994 10.100 3 .579 816.07 1.805 1.995 10.099 3 .580 816.26 1.908 1.996 10.098 3 .581 816.45 2 .014 1.998 10. 098 3 .582 816.65 2 .122 1.999 10.097 3 .583 816.85 2 .235 2 .000 10.097 3 .584 817.07 ===> FLOW IS UNDER PRESSURE 90.000 2 .898 10.100 4 .482 993 .05 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NODE 111. 00 : HGL = < 63.898>;EGL= < 65.482>;FLOWLINE= < 61.000> ****************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 111.00 TO NODE 111.00 IS CODE = 5 UPSTREAM NODE 111.00 ELEVATION = 61.00 (FLOW IS UNDER PRESSURE) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE JUNCTION LOSSES: PIPE FLOW DIAMETER ANGLE FLOWLINE CRITICAL VELOCITY (CFS) (INCHES) (DEGREES) ELEVATION DEPTH(FT. ) (FT/SEC) UPSTREAM 27.29 24.00 0.00 61.00 1.81 8.687 DOWNSTREAM 31.73 24 .00 - 61.00 1.89 10.100 LATERAL #1 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 LATERAL #2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Q5 4.44===Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT=== LACFCD AND OCEMA FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED: DY= (Q2*V2-Q1*V1*COS(DELTAI) -Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3) - Q4*V4*COS (DELTA4) ) / ( (A1+A2) *16.1) +FRICTION LOSSES UPSTREAM: MANNING'S N = 0.01300; FRICTION SLOPE = 0.01455 DOWNSTREAM: MANNING'S N = 0.01300; FRICTION SLOPE = 0.01967 AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS 0.01711 JUNCTION LENGTH = 4.00 FEET FRICTION LOSSES = 0.068 FEET ENTRANCE LOSSES = 0.317 FEET JUNCTION LOSSES = (DY+HV1-HV2) +(ENTRANCE LOSSES) JUNCTION LOSSES = ( 0.481) +( 0.317) = 0.798 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NODE 111.00 : HGL = < 65.107>;EGL= < 66.279>;FLOWLINE= < 61.000> ****************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 111.00 TO NODE 110.50 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 110.50 ELEVATION = 66.46 (FLOW IS UNDER PRESSURE) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CALCULATE FRICTION LOSSES (LACFCD) : PIPE FLOW = 27.29 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 24 .00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 344.00 FEET MANNING'S N = 0.01300 SF= (Q/K) **2 = ( ( 27.29) / ( 226.224) ) **2 = 0.01455 HF=L*SF = ( 344.00) * (0.01455) = 5.006 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NODE 110.50 : HGL = < 70.113>;EGL= < 71.285>;FLOWLINE= < 66.460> ****************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.50 TO NODE 110.50 IS CODE = 2 UPSTREAM NODE 110.50 ELEVATION = 66.52 (FLOW IS UNDER PRESSURE) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CALCULATE MANHOLE LOSSES (LACFCD) : PIPE FLOW = 27 .29 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 24.00 INCHES FLOW VELOCITY = 8.69 FEET/SEC. VELOCITY HEAD = 1. 172 FEET HMN = .05* (VELOCITY HEAD) = .05* ( 1.172) = 0.059 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NODE 110.50 : HGL = < 70.172>;EGL= < 71.344>;FLOWLINE= < 66.520> ****************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.50 TO NODE 109.00 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 109.00 ELEVATION = 72.00 (FLOW IS UNDER PRESSURE) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CALCULATE FRICTION LOSSES (LACFCD) : PIPE FLOW = 27.29 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 24 .00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 344.00 FEET MANNING'S N. = 0.01300 SF=(Q/K) **2 = ( ( 27.29) / ( 226.224) ) **2 = 0.01455 HF=L*SF = ( 344 .00) * (0.01455) = 5.006 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NODE 109.00 : HGL = < 75.178>;EGL= < 76.350>;FLOWLINE= < 72 .000> ****************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 109.00 TO NODE 109.00 IS CODE = 5 UPSTREAM NODE 109.00 ELEVATION = 72 . 15 (FLOW IS UNDER PRESSURE) (NOTE: POSSIBLE JUMP IN OR UPSTREAM OF STRUCTURE) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CALCULATE JUNCTION LOSSES: PIPE FLOW DIAMETER ANGLE FLOWLINE CRITICAL VELOCITY (CFS) (INCHES) (DEGREES) ELEVATION DEPTH(FT. ) (FT/SEC) UPSTREAM 23 .47 18 .00 15.00 72 .15 1.48 17.508 DOWNSTREAM 27.29 24.00 - 72 .00 1.81 8.687 LATERAL #1 2 .17 24 .00 90.00 74.15 0.51 3.421 LATERAL #2 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Q5 1.65===Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT=== LACFCD AND OCEMA FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED: DY= (Q2*V2-Q1*Vl*COS (DELTAI) -Q3*V3*COS (DELTA3) - Q4*V4*COS (DELTA4) ) / ( (A1+A2) *16.1) +FRICTION LOSSES UPSTREAM: MANNING'S N = 0.01300; FRICTION SLOPE = 0.06881 DOWNSTREAM: MANNING'S N = 0.01300; FRICTION SLOPE = 0.01455 AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS 0.04168 JUNCTION LENGTH = 4. 00 FEET FRICTION LOSSES = 0. 167 FEET ENTRANCE LOSSES = 0.234 FEET JUNCTION LOSSES = (DY+HV1-HV2) +(ENTRANCE LOSSES) JUNCTION LOSSES = ( 1.390) +( 0.234) = 1.624 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NODE 109.00 : HGL = < 73.214>;EGL= < 77.974>;FLOWLINE= < 72 .150> FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 109.00 TO NODE 108.50 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 108.50 ELEVATION = 89.20 (FLOW IS SUPERCRITICAL) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CALCULATE FRICTION LOSSES (LACFCD) : PIPE FLOW = 23 .47 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 18.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 238.00 FEET MANNING'S N = 0.01300 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NORMAL DEPTH(FT) = 1.05 CRITICAL DEPTH(FT) = 1.48 ------------------------------------------------------ UPSTREAM CONTROL ASSUMED FLOWDEPTH(FT) = 1.48 GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW PROFILE COMPUTED INFORMATION: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DISTANCE FROM FLOW DEPTH VELOCITY SPECIFIC PRESSURE+ CONTROL(FT) (FT) (FT/SEC) ENERGY(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS) 0.000 1.482 13 .306 4 .233 686.13 0.149 1.465 13 .358 4.237 686.57 0.528 1.448 13 .424 4.248 687.71 1.093 1.430 13 .504 4 .264 689.44 1.827 1.413 13 .595 4.285 691.70 2 .723 1.395 13 .696 4 .310 694.44 3 .783 1.378 13 .807 4.340 697.64 5.012 1.361 13 .928 4.375 701.29 6.421 1.343 14.058 4 .414 705.38 8.023 1.326 14.197 4 .457 709.90 9.839 1.308 14 .345 4 .506 714.85 11.893 1.291 14.502 4.559 720.24 14 .216 1.274 14 .669 4 .617 726.07 16.849 1.256 14.845 4 .680 732 .35 19.844 1.239 15.030 4 .749 739.09 23 .267 1.222 15.225 4.823 746.30 27.208 1.204 15.431 4 .904 753 .99 31.788 1.187 15.647 4.991 762.17 37.178 1.169 15.874 5.084 770.87 43 .629 1.152 16.112 5.185 780.11 51.532 1.135 16.361 5.294 789.89 61.541 1.117 16.623 5.410 800.25 74 .882 1.100 16.897 5.536 811.21 94.317 1.082 17.184 5.671 822 .79 128.702 1.065 17.486 5.816 835.03 238.000 1.064 17.503 5.824 835.73 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- NODE 108.50 : HGL = < 90.682>;EGL= < 93.433>;FLOWLINE= < 89.200> FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 108.50 TO NODE 108.50 IS CODE = 5 UPSTREAM NODE 108.50 ELEVATION = 89.20 (FLOW UNSEALS IN REACH) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE JUNCTION LOSSES: PIPE FLOW DIAMETER ANGLE FLOWLINE CRITICAL VELOCITY (CFS) (INCHES) (DEGREES) ELEVATION DEPTH(FT. ) (FT/SEC) UPSTREAM 17.21 18.00 0.00 89.20 1.44 9.739 DOWNSTREAM 23.47 18 .00 - 89.20 1.48 13 .309 LATERAL #1 6.26 18.00 90.00 89.20 0.97 3 .542 LATERAL #2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Q5 0.00===Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT=== LACFCD AND OCEMA FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED: DY=(Q2*V2-Q1*V1*COS(DELTAI) -Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3) - Q4*V4*COS (DELTA4) ) / ( (A1+A2) *16.1) +FRICTION LOSSES UPSTREAM: MANNING'S N = 0.01300; FRICTION SLOPE = 0.02684 DOWNSTREAM: MANNING'S N = 0.01300; FRICTION SLOPE = 0.04573 AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS 0.03629 JUNCTION LENGTH = 4 .00 FEET FRICTION LOSSES = 0.145 FEET ENTRANCE LOSSES = 0.000 'FEET JUNCTION LOSSES = (DY+HV1-HV2)+ (ENTRANCE LOSSES) JUNCTION LOSSES = ( 1.414) +( 0.000) = 1.414 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NODE 108.50 : HGL = < 93 .375>;EGL= < 94.847>;FLOWLINE= < 89.200> ****************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 108.50 TO NODE 108.00 IS CODE = 1 ' UPSTREAM NODE 108.00 ELEVATION = 95.00 (HYDRAULIC JUMP OCCURS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CALCULATE FRICTION LOSSES (LACFCD) : PIPE FLOW = 17.21 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 18.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 80.00 FEET MANNING'S N = 0.01300 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HYDRAULIC JUMP: DOWNSTREAM RUN ANALYSIS RESULTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NORMAL DEPTH(FT) = 0.84 CRITICAL DEPTH(FT) = 1.44 --------------------------------------- UPSTREAM CONTROL ASSUMED FLOWDEPTH(FT) 1.44 GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW PROFILE COMPUTED INFORMATION: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DISTANCE FROM FLOW DEPTH VELOCITY SPECIFIC PRESSURE+ CONTROL(FT) (FT) (FT/SEC) ENERGY(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS) 0.000 1.442 9.861 2 .953 405.34 0.052 1.418 9.947 2 .956 405.61 0.202 1.394 10.048 2.963 406.41 0.445 1.371 10.162 2.975 407.68 0.783 1.347 10.289 2.992 409.42 1.218 1.323 10.429 3 .013 411.61 1.757 1.299 10.582 3.039 414.26 2.408 1.275 10.747 3 .070 417.37 3 .180 1.251 10.926 3 .106 420.96 4. 089 1.227 11. 117 3 .148 425.03 5.150 1.203 11.323 3 .195 429.61 6.386 1.179 11.543 3 .250 434.71 7. 822 1.155 11.779 3 .311 440.36 9.491 1.132 12.030 3 .380 446.59 11.437 1.108 12.298 3 .458 453.42 13.713 1.084 12.584 3 .544 460.91 16.395 1.060 12.890 3.641 469.08 19.581 1. 036 13.215 3 .749 477.98 23.412 1.012 13 .563 3. 870 487.66 28.094 0.988 13.934 4.005 498.17 33 . 949 0.964 14.331 4.155 509.59 41.514 0.940 14.755 4 .323 521.98 51.800 0.916 15.209 4.511 535.41 67.081 0.893 15.696 4.720 549.99 80.000 0.881 15. 936 4 .827 557.24 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HYDRAULIC JUMP: UPSTREAM RUN ANALYSIS RESULTS -------------------------------------------------- DOWNSTREAM CONTROL ASSUMED PRESSURE HEAD(FT) = 4.17 --------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW PROFILE COMPUTED INFORMATION: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DISTANCE FROM PRESSURE VELOCITY SPECIFIC PRESSURE+ CONTROL(FT) HEAD(FT) (FT/SEC) ENERGY(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS) 0.000 4 .175 9.739 5.647 702.43 58.579 1.500 9.739 2 .973 407.50 ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE HEAD(FT) = 1.50 GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW PROFILE COMPUTED INFORMATION: ------------------------------------------------------------------ DISTANCE FROM FLOW DEPTH VELOCITY SPECIFIC PRESSURE+ CONTROL(FT) (FT) (FT/SEC) ENERGY(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS) 58.579 1.500 9.736 2 .973 407.50 58.623 1.498 9.737 2 .971 407.28 58.660 1.495 9.739 2.969 407.09 58.694 1.493 9.741 2 .967 406.91 58.725 1.491 9.744 2 .966 406.75 58.754 1.488 9.747 2.965 406.60 58 .780 1.486 9.751 2 .963 406.47 58.804 1.484 9.754 2.962 406.34 58.826 1.482 9.758 2 .961 406.22 58 .847 1.479 9.763 2 .960 406.11 58.866 1.477 9.767 2.959 406.01 58.883 1.475 9.772 2 .958 405.92 58.899 1.472 9.777 2.958 405.84 58.913 1.470 9.783 2.957 405.76 58.927 1.468 9.788 2 .956 405.69 58 .938 1.465 9.794 2.956 405.63 58.949 1.463 9.800 2.955 405.57 58.958 1.461 9.806 2 .955 405.52 58.966 1.458 9.812 2.954 405.48 58 .973 1.456 9.819 2 .954 405.44 58.979 1.454 9.825 2 .954 405.41 58.984 1.451 9.832 2.953 405.38 58.988 1.449 9.839 2.953 405.36 58.990 1.447 9.846 2.953 405.35 58 .992 1.445 9.854 2 .953 405.34 58.992 1.442 9.861 2.953 405.34 80.000 1.442 9.861 2.953 405.34. ------------------------END OF HYDRAULIC JUMP ANALYSIS------------------------ PRESSURE+MOMENTUM BALANCE OCCURS AT 34.92 FEET UPSTREAM OF NODE 108.50 ---- DOWNSTREAM DEPTH = 2 .580 FEET, UPSTREAM CONJUGATE DEPTH = 0.932 FEET ---------------------------------------------------------------- NODE 108.00 : HGL = < 96.442>;EGL= < 97.953>;FLOWLINE= < 95.000> ****************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 108.00 TO NODE 108.00 IS CODE = 5 UPSTREAM NODE 108.00 ELEVATION = 95.18 (FLOW UNSEALS IN REACH) ---------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE JUNCTION LOSSES: PIPE FLOW DIAMETER ANGLE FLOWLINE CRITICAL VELOCITY (CFS) (INCHES) (DEGREES) ELEVATION DEPTH(FT. ) (FT/SEC) UPSTREAM 10.64 18.00 45.00 95.18 1.25 6.021 DOWNSTREAM 17.21 18.00 95.00 1.44 9.864 LATERAL #1 6.57 18.00 90.00 95. 18 0.99 3 .718 LATERAL #2 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Q5 0. 00===Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT=== LACFCD AND OCEMA FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED: DY= (Q2*V2-Q1*V1*COS(DELTAI) -Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3) - Q4*V4*COS (DELTA4) ) / ( (A1+A2) *16.1) +FRICTION LOSSES UPSTREAM: MANNING'S N = 0.01300; FRICTION SLOPE = 0.01026 DOWNSTREAM: MANNING'S N = 0.01300; FRICTION SLOPE = 0.02342 AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS 0.01684 JUNCTION LENGTH = 4.00 FEET FRICTION LOSSES = 0.067 FEET ENTRANCE LOSSES = 0.000 FEET JUNCTION LOSSES = (DY+HV1-HV2) + (ENTRANCE LOSSES) JUNCTION LOSSES = ( 1.321) + ( 0.000) = 1.321 ---------------------------------------------------------------- NODE 108.00 HGL = < 98.711>;EGL= < 99.274>;FLOWLINE= < 95.180> FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 108.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 105.00 ELEVATION = 103 .00 (HYDRAULIC JUMP OCCURS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CALCULATE FRICTION LOSSES (LACFCD) : PIPE FLOW = 10.64 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 18. 00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 136.00 FEET MANNING'S N = 0.01300 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HYDRAULIC JUMP: DOWNSTREAM RUN ANALYSIS RESULTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NORMAL DEPTH(FT) = 0.68 CRITICAL DEPTH(FT) = 1.25 ----------------------------------------------- UPSTREAM CONTROL ASSUMED FLOWDEPTH(FT) = 1.25 -------------------------------------------- GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW PROFILE COMPUTED INFORMATION: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DISTANCE FROM FLOW DEPTH VELOCITY SPECIFIC PRESSURE+ CONTROL(FT) (FT) (FT/SEC) ENERGY(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS) 0.000 1.252 6.748 1.960 195.78 0.021 1.229 6.861 1.961 195.88 0.087 1.207 6.982 1.964 196.18 0.202 1.184 7.111 1.969 196.68 0.370 1.161 7.248 1.977 197.40 0.598 1.138 7.395 1.988 198 .34 0.892 1.115 7.551 2 .001 199.52 1.261 1.092 7.716 2 .017 200.95 1.714 1.069 7 .893 2 .037 202.64 2 .263 1.046 8.080 2 .061 204 .61 2 .922 1.024 8 .280 2.089 206.87 3 .709 1.001 8 .492 2 .121 209.45 4 .644 0.978 8.719 2 .159 212 .35 5.755 0.955 8.960 2.202 215.61 7.075 0.932 9.218 2 .252 219.25 8.649 0.909 9.493 2 .309 223 .30 10.534 0.886 9.786 2.374 227.78 12.810 0.863 10.101 2 .449 232 .74 15.588 0.841 10.438 2 .533 238.21 19.032 0.818 10.800 2 .630 244.24 23.398 0.795 11.188 2 .740 250.88 29. 112 0.772 11.607 2.865 258.18 36.977 0.749 12 .058 3 .008 266.21 48.799 0.726 12.546 3 .172 275.04 70.374 0.703 13 .075 3 .360 284 .76 136.000 0.702 13 .103 3 .370 285.27 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HYDRAULIC JUMP: UPSTREAM RUN ANALYSIS RESULTS -------------------------------------------------- DOWNSTREAM CONTROL ASSUMED PRESSURE HEAD(FT) = 3 .53 ----------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW PROFILE COMPUTED INFORMATION: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DISTANCE FROM PRESSURE VELOCITY SPECIFIC PRESSURE+ CONTROL(FT) HEAD(FT) (FT/SEC) ENERGY(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS) 0 . 000 3.531 6.021 4.094 430.79 42 .989 1.500 6.021 2. 063 206.85 -------------------------------------------------- ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE HEAD(FT) = 1.50 -------------------------------------------------------- GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW PROFILE COMPUTED INFORMATION: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DISTANCE FROM FLOW DEPTH VELOCITY SPECIFIC PRESSURE+ CONTROL(FT) (FT) (FT/SEC) ENERGY(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS) 42 .989 1.500 6.019 2 .063 206.85 43 . 176 1.490 6.025 2.054 205.87 43 .343 1.480 6.035 2.046 204.99 43 .498 1.470 6. 048 2 .039 204. 17 43 .643 1.460 6.063 2 .032 203.40 43 .779 1.450 6.080 2.025 202.68 43. 908 1.441 6. 100 2 .019 202.00 44.029 1.431 6.121 2.013 201.36 44.144 1.421 6.144 2.007 200.75 44.251 1.411 6.168 2 .002 200.19 44.353 1.401 6.194 1.997 199.66 44.448 1.391 6.221 1.992 199.16 44.537 1.381 6.250 1.988 198.70 44.620 1.371 6.280 1.984 198.28 44.697 1.361 6.312 1.980 197.88 44.768 1.351 6.345 1.977 197.52 44.832 1.342 6.379 1.974 197.20 44. 891 1.332 6.415 1.971 196.90 44.943 1.322 6.452 1.968 196.64 44. 989 1.312 6.490 1.966 196.42 45.028 1.302 6.530 1.964 196.22 45.060 1.292 6.571 1.963 196.07 45. 086 1.282 6.613 1.962 195.94 45. 104 1.272 6.657 1.961 195.85 45.115 1.262 6.702 1.960 195.80 45.119 1.252 6.748 1.960 195.78 136.000 1.252 6.748 1.960 195.78 ------------------------END OF HYDRAULIC JUMP ANALYSIS------------------------ PRESSURE+MOMENTUM BALANCE OCCURS AT 27.98 FEET UPSTREAM OF NODE 108.00 DOWNSTREAM DEPTH = 2 .209 FEET, UPSTREAM CONJUGATE DEPTH = 0.703 FEET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NODE 105.00 : HGL = < 104 .252>;EGL= < 104.960>;FLOWLINE= < 103 .000> ****************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 105.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE = 8 UPSTREAM NODE 105.00 ELEVATION = 103 . 00 (FLOW UNSEALS IN REACH) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CALCULATE CATCH BASIN ENTRANCE LOSSES (LACFCD) : PIPE FLOW = 10.64 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 18. 00 INCHES FLOW VELOCITY = 6.75 FEET/SEC. VELOCITY HEAD = 0.708 FEET CATCH BASIN ENERGY LOSS = .2* (VELOCITY HEAD) _ .2* ( 0.708) = 0.142 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NODE 105.00 : HGL = < 105.101>;EGL= < 105.101>;FLOWLINE= < 103 .000> ****************************************************************************** UPSTREAM PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA: NODE NUMBER = 105.00 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 103 .00 ASSUMED UPSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 104 .25 FOR DOWNSTREAM RUN ANALYSIS -------------------------------------- END OF GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW ANALYSIS IIIilAAilNIAm m NIIHINIQ11H1111N�111 1i(1111111i111lIIIN lflfll '�'"' '�, ' � - III111HIIll11H1!llll 11�fININIIIl111111lI1llillll�IIII ,^�NB�'��Nllllillll IIIQI NII AIAANIIiIIIIDNAmIN i8m111A81lIII 111111111l:��JIIII�?� III IIIl Nil VIII ,;IINIIINIII INIIIIIIIIINIIIINII tll(NNmlllllll NHlllllil��llllll��IIIIIIttIIIN11Hi! 11NimIImIINIIINN! IIIIIHNIIIIIiHIIIHf I[Ilh alii!!: rf.r a-•�i�er�x oil MIR no RHMIRIIIIIIIIII loillilupi 11 QPIIIIII u C. i.. C� filllUIIIUU �U! IIIUI UII[IIIlIlI11111N111 Ili1llIIUI111E1[IIII�e ��1111�e1!flUl UINli111UN1 DRUM O N 101NillfllNillf lllllflll[Ili��11C i►1611111 - - • ; omiiIIIUNII = IUII11 iumiINIINI Nlf llll11 lllliUllNlfll lllll l!��I1111 _ ' . . UiIIIIIIIUIII°° L Nlull NI NliiillNIIlI!U!NI11l11I11I mo lN I 1f111Ii1111E� zv� illuilNm1 loll �11i1lI'3�III[ il; co 'lllll IIIIIIUUUNI NI : IUI UillU11111IN[[11111NII1111111 11111.111 IIIIIIfl11 UfNUNiUl1f - mmMINH IIIU 111IIIIIiIINHill1111E�aIil[ic 111111UIIIlUI '`I, ' . -01, Lif IUNmNiIfN ImNINDIO NIll1N1111llilliIIIlU11N!!19111f'!1NIIIII IlOR . • . UIUIDNIlN , tNHUU ID IN In llllllllloi I ;:? i IIIIIIIII Illif;.;ll III Ulm l u l l 1UU1 IN INlIIII IIIUIINfIIIII1111I11111;�111lIiY�111in U CL F m flIIUIIIIUlIliIIIIiI�il J�'I U I IIII UU n NIU IU fll IIIIIIlI l lfNIIII1NI1IfIIfIIf � �llUlillll III UiIUIN IIIIi IIIIIE� ,U IN flmiIn III III RHODi ,�IIIilll IIIIIIII I l iN NO N 1111111 Hull Hung Ili to i[Ill!1LmCi11111N1111111il oil N INHull iII[IE -llillllillilililllllll �i n�,1111N[UNIINIIUNiIINIfIN[lllll�1.1H I I111 NNlIlIlNlll U � En UNUINI nntu�mmmnen�mmililllli illllllll ORION IIIIIn1 HimN IN iiU� N !III! �IIIUIIII11IlIIl1[fII11NifHill I I Hull I 0 -- _ �`` "-'�1"." ll��:�i11�11 111111tIt1111111t11111i11111i1111U1111 � �� '�^� - � n�umun�n unmunirnnannm : , I� �11111UIN NNI:. [hill i1fI11111111 1fII1I11111IIIIIINIIf1111U1f1i 1fmIIIQ, 11 N11fN11NU , 1111III HIM liININII 11111111 INDOOR 11 1 - ► •- iNUlllm ! ling_ IillllllUI1111I1I11111! fllllllllillllUlllll � � , `�� - UINU11 - IN Il N11ifIlUl11i' ` Ili 111111111111 loll llll[Illlll11 mm • • � r� UUMNII . IL_ �IAIIII niNUllll IN 111H illlflll41I ! IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII UmnIU till!iIRMININN[Illflllilflllflll ; Hill 11! IIII III - NUUIUUU , m.► UII11NIl1NIlNllflNlllNlllf ' ' 1!811! III IIII . Nn r1, lull III lllimimlimlilfllilli I I VIII � !�U 1 m10 111111111Ulllfllllllilll1111::11:1111111 1 IIIIN III Doug Il IUI11[llllfilUlll111111111111111 , i10II II IIIIIIII i �' 11 Ilin Hull l�th�lli� limo IIUNffllllllllfUllllllii ��OR iimi im ill Ilm IillBilllllln upillilinfllU! alllll Ill ! . nmi �! UINUlIIIiIlII �� I1111i111flillllllhlliliNlllll 1111111111 1111# I l 11f11 � - ® : .!!�I1NUliI IIIIIIIiIif III lHill i11 �i ullllll �.m Him 9CI lmmii[fIIfU![UffliNllillllll[N[[IIIIIII��IIIIIIIIII RINI � :Ifl 8N!U! IIINU11111I111 f111[[!lillilIfNIIUIIiUIIlfllll lI iNUNlnmlUUnim i!!-lllummillllNllillll Oil lIII llil U�Hill mflmnU i NNNIll11 fU11NI Doug lBID 111 11 IIUfN UUUNimnlmmlil 0� mllllllllltlll111Uf111111U111UlIIIIIII UI 111111 1111mmilln i .11ll!Illll N1I111111N111l1111111111 inU1N - I,��11Ul11111 1 lIIUIIIINNIIIIIII[ IIII Ill IIII u IlNlinlllmi III �,lill IU IN !HBO III ilIli IIII UI 1�A� �nm��U�fNfI11lillUlfllllllf IIIi � N ; �; . , nN 11IIll llllI lfullllill Him Rill 1 111 w l �11fQ4, !W IIIf11111111UU . UI C . . . . , � . mU� .INIfflNllllll[I VIII I i ' 1tiC► Ill[! �� f PIl� lllll!! NIIUIII m 111 : �� lfNllllU l�111 ,_ �; , , ��e1U1111U1 NIIIiIINffIUIU III '� ; _ I[U=NIn n11fnNnlI lmi 111 . INl[UIIUUUlU I�UNUI 9 U1UUllIUIUIIUi IIaUNIUNUmh' ti��1111II :-'' Nilllm ,: .: •= 11nlllnffil I11!lla��;��ip N11C�,ilUllUl11lU 11fU1111 II IIUIlIiC►►. � IINl C111111t111111 = . limo lliRillllllllf11N1 DID U111m m�ININ1UU INU - mlI�U11111I�111111111lInllNlllk��iti'��111111 �� - � � ' � - _ ling NI0 liimiuUU[II11111fIIIiNCm► �n 1111!11! n11�liumilllulllU1NIU111111D1! ` m' '�'�•�-� IlHOUR oulllllfU1N11111NIllfll11 !!1001! 1111HUMID IlIII111Mili 1ll1NIU11G1l�If111U11 IIUIiII11111UIIII11IlNUMillillUmllli!iNNllU11 CITY OF ENCINITAS �--� CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: June 16, 2004 AM TO: Mayor and City Council VIA: Kerry Miller, City Man FROM: V(/ eter Cota-Robles, Director of Engineering Services SUBJECT: Council discussion to consider alternatives for addressing flooding problems in Leucadia along Coast Highway 101, Vulcan Avenue and surrounding areas BACKGROUND: In 2002 and early 2003 the City of Encinitas constructed the Leucadia Low Flow Drainage Improvement Project to reduce surface ponding during small rainfall events and to speed Drainage of historical sump areas during larger rainfall events. During completion of the project, nested storms with high intensity cells caused extensive flooding in the Leucadia area, particularly along the Coast Highway 101 corridor. In response, the City contracted with Rick Engineering to evaluate the Low Flow Drainage to identify any immediate short-term improvements that might increase the capacity of the system. In addition, Rick Engineering was commissioned to identify any other short term projects that could generally improve Drainage in the Leucadia area, as well as to identify and analyze longer term alternatives to fully address the flooding problems. As Council is aware, based on initial consultant recommendations a number of short term improvements have been implemented over the past year including installation of orifice plates at key locations in the Low Flow Drainage System, modification of the operation of the Phoebe Pump Station float switches, construction of a Drainage swale along Vulcan Avenue north of Orpheus Avenue, and installation of a sluice gate/orifice plate in the Low Flow Drainage System near RCP Block to speed Drainage of ponding in this area after storm events. Together these improvements have increased the capacity of the Low Flow Drainage System from an estimated 1-year level of flood protection to a 5-year level of protection. In addition, as discussed in the Rick Engineering Study, work is currently under way to replace the existing Phoebe Pumps with new higher capacity "trash" pumps which are less likely to clog from tree branches and other debris prevalent in the area. Additional inlets are also planned to "feed" the new pumps. This work is included in current budgets and is anticipated to be completed early this fall, once the pumps (currently on order) are delivered and installation can be contracted. These improvements will further augment the capacity of the existing short term system and will particularly improve Drainage from lower intensity storms in the vicinity of the Ar6679 - Phoebe-Pump Station south to Diana Street. Finally, the City has established emergency protocols whereby the Fire Department, with support from Public Works, the Sheriff's Department and Engineering Services, provides emergency response during flood events. This response includes assistance with sand bagging, closing of roads as necessary and pumping of water from low-lying areas (most notably Leucadia Park) using portable pumps and Vac-con equipment Rick Engineering has recently completed another phase of their study. A report has been prepared analyzing long-term solution alternatives to the flooding problems in Leucadia, as well as identifying additional short-term improvements. The Executive Summary of the study is attached to this report. Full copies of the study are being distributed to all Council Members and are available for public review at the Office of the City Clerk and at the Engineering Services Department. We will attempt to place the study on line with links from the Engineering Services Department home page, however, some graphics may not be compatible with the City's web page capabilites. Representatives from Rick Engineering will be making a comprehensive presentation of the study results to Council. ANALYSIS Rick Engineering has identified several possible additional short-term alternatives for further improving Drainage in the Leucadia area, as well as a primary ultimate solution. These alternatives are summarized in the Executive Summary and discussed in detail in their Report. As also indicated in the Report, there may be an additional long-term alternative that would link with a future grade separation project on the rail line; however, this alternative can not be fully analyzed until this fall when the current Grade Separation Study being carried out for SANDAG (with City funding) is further along. One noteworthy aspect to Rick Engineering's Study results is that while the short-term alternatives would increase flood protection in smaller intensity storms (up to approximately 10- year), and could reduce 100-year flood depths, they do not appear to significantly reduce the size or cost of ultimate flood protection alternatives. In addition, before embarking on any short- term improvements, it will be important to carefully consider the costs, permitability, community character impacts and related issues. Similarly, before proceeding with an ultimate improvement alternative, it will be important to develop a comprehensive funding and permitting strategy. Staff believes it is also advisable to complete the analysis of a grade separation-linked flood protection alternative before making a final determination on a course of action. In addition, due to the high costs of many of the short-term and ultimate alternatives, the complexity of the issues and the potential community impacts, staff believes that it would be prudent to meet with residents and business owners in the Leucadia area to discuss the study results in detail, as well as financing issues and other items identified above before developing final recommendations on this matter. FISCAL AND STAFF IMPACTS: Ar6679 - improvements range from $600,000 to over $31 million depending on the alternative(s) selected. It is likely that a combination of funding sources including some type of assessments to benefiting properties would need to be developed to provide adequate funding for the more costly of-these-alternatives RECOMMENDATION: It is recommenoed that the Council take the following actions: 1. Consider the presentation by Rick Engineering, together with any public testimony and provide staff with preliminary comments and guidance; 2. Direct staff to continue with design and implementation of the Phoebe Pump Station upgrades and the associated new inlet system; 3. Direct staff;to continue contracting with Rick Engineering to complete analysis of a grade separation related ultimate Drainage alternative; 4. Direct staff to,meet with residents and business owners to review the study results and receive feedback; 5. Direct staff to return in the fall, after completion of the above items, with a further report , and recommendations, including a preliminary financing strategy to support the recommendations. Attachments: Executive Summary Ar6679 i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction City of Encinitas(City) contracted with Rick Engineering Company to conduct a detailed hydrologic and hydraulic study of the Leucadia area to analyze inundation of City streets . and private properties during varying return frequency storm events. Flooding has historically occurred in this area along and adjacent to Highway 101, between Encinitas Boulevard and La Costa Avenue. The study encompassed analyses of historic drainage conditions, which led 'to implementation of a series of drainage improvements that now represent the existing condition. Further analyses were performed to incorporate several drainage improvement alternatives to arrive at a solution that will improve the overall drainage of Leucadia. Rick Engineering Company prepared a final report detailing the results from the historic and existing drainage analysis for storm events up to the 5-year design frequency titled "Hydrologic and Hydraulic Study for Coast Highway 101 Interim Storm Drain Improvements, Encinitas, California" dated November 18, 2003. Focusing on the drainage patterns for larger storms, this report concentrates on the 10-year and 100-year storm frequencies. Historic Drainage Condition The historic (and existing) topography in Leucadia does not allow free-flowing surface drainage. The profile of the flow path contains several peaks and valleys, subsequently creating sump areas. In the historic condition (pre-2001 storm drain installation), the sump areas in the alley west of Highway 101 did not contain underground storm drain systems. Therefore, the runoff produced by storm events ponded in the sump areas until it eventually infiltrated into the ground, evaporated, or was otherwise removed via pump or other device. During larger storm events (greater than an estimated 10-year frequency), 1 of 8 06/10/04 the water ponded until it reached an elevation that allowed it to'overtop into the next sump. The water followed this process until ultimately making its way north to the Batiquitos Lagoon. Since the runoff could not freely'drain out of the sump areas, at times the ponded water reached elevations that inundated not only streets and alleys, but also residential apd commercial properties. Existing Drainage Condition—Completed Projects The City of Encinitas has completed several projects to improve the drainage in Leucadia. These projects include the installation of a storm drain system, enhancements to the storm drain system, improvements to surface.drainage, as well as implementation of emergency response protocols during storm events. Installation of a Storm Drain System (2001) The existing storm drain system consists of a 24" main line along Coast Highway 101 that begins near Union Street, flows in the northerly direction, and outlets into two detention basins located in series just north of La Costa Avenue. Several laterals tie into the main line, which connect the sump areas in the alley to the storm drain system. The capacity of the storm drain system when it was constructed in 2001 varied from less than 2-year storm frequency to up to 10-year storm frequency depending on the location, which provided varying degrees of drainage within the watershed. Storm Drain System Enhancement (2003) The City enhanced the existing storm drain system (November 2003)to reduce the extent of flooding during small, frequent storm events (up to 5-year) when compared with the historic condition. The interim improvements result in lower ponded water elevations and constant drainage at a more regulated rate. These enhancements were achieved by the installation of orifice plates in the laterals to the main storm drain line. By controlling the rate of discharge, the efficiency of the storm drain can be maintained for storm events up to 5-year frequency throughout the entire system. 2 of 8 06/10/04 v Improvements to Surface Drainage (2004) The City,constructed a 1,306-foot long earthen channel with an 4-foot bottom width and 1.5:1 (horizontal:vertical) side slopes aligned parallel to Vulcan Avenue adjacent to the NCTD right-of-way from approximately Orpheus Avenue to Union Street. Prior to installation there was no defined drainage channel to convey storm runoff, resulting in, inundation between Vulcan Avenue and the railroad ballast. The ditch was designed to alleviate some flooding within Vulcan Avenue and convey storm runoff to the headwall of the storm drain system in the NCTD right-of-way near Union Street. Emergency Response Protocol (On"oin�) Several departments within the City work collectively to alleviate the extent of flooding in Leucadia. The Fire Department implements an action plan prior to and during storm events, including placing sand bags in several areas to protect homes and businesses, closing the city streets as necessary, and pumping storm runoff from Leucadia Park westerly over the bluffs at Beacons Beach. In addition, the Public Works Department dispatches vac-con trucks to remove localized ponds from the sump areas. Drainage Improvement Projects in Design Phase The City is currently in the process of implementing additional drainage improvements in Leucadia. These options are short-term improvements that will benefit drainage in specific areas during small frequent storm events. Phoebe Pump Station Under existing conditions runoff is detained at a pump station located at Coast Highway 101 and Phoebe Street. The pump station discharges approximately 500 gallons per minute (gpm) into a storm drain system beneath Coast Highway 101. The existing pumps fail frequently during storms and the inlets near the pump station do not effectively collect runoff to keep the pumps functioning properly. 3 of 8 06/10/04 A redesigned pump station at Phoebe Street consisting of two new pumps with ✓ approximately 1,500 gpm capacity is currently in the design phase and installation is scheduled in the summer of 2004. In addition, two-new inlets will be installed near the PUMP station to collect localized ponding. The new pumps and inlets will improve the local drainage in,the vicinity of the pump station. Leucadia Boulevard Drainage Swale The City is in the design phase for an earthen channel aligned parallel to Vulcan Avenue north of Leucadia Boulevard adjacent to the NCTD right-of-way. An existing drainage pipe that collects runoff from a portion of Leucadia Boulevard currently drains into this area; however, there is no defined drainage channel to convey storm runoff. The ditch was designed to alleviate some flooding within Vulcan Avenue and convey storm runoff northerly within the NCTD right-of-way. Drainage Improvement Projects in Planning Phase Several alternatives designed to alleviate the extent of flooding for frequent storm events, as well as for the 100-year storm, are being analyzed in the planning phase. These options are grouped into two categories: short-term improvements targeted at more frequent storms, and ultimate improvements that will address the 100-year storm. Short-term Improvements Alternative 1: Leucadia Park Overflow The City is analyzing the benefit of constructing an overflow storm drain system to collect runoff from the upper watershed (Basins 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7) at Leucadia Park. Storm runoff would be diverted from the main storm drain system at Leucadia Park to an overflow system that would extend from the park through the bluffs at Beacon's Beach Low flows would still pass through the existing 101 storm drain system and discharge to the detention basins north of La Costa Avenue. S - 7 4 of 8 06/10/04 �✓ A-4-foot-diameter pipe transitioning to a 2-foot diameter pipe at the outlet discharging out the bluffs near Beacon's Beach was analyzed for this option. This could potentially divert up to 90% of the 10-year runoff and relieve the,downstream main storm drain system . during smaller stprms. The overflow system is not exp.ected to significantly reduce 100- year floodplain elevations, 'or affect the size of pipes or cost of installing the ultimate 100-year storm drain system. This would eliminate the necessity for pumping during storm events smaller than 110-year return frequency. Environmental permitting of the outlet has not been investigated but is expected to present a significant challenge in the feasibility of this project. Estimated Cost$2-2.5 million (Separate cost estimates prepared by Haley &Aldrich and Jacobs Associates) Alternative 2: Grading Options Three options were analyzed for regrading areas in the northern portion of the watershed to improve surface drainage. Option A Grade a channel approximately 495-feet long with a 10-foot bottom width and 5:1 side slopes between Highway 101 and the railroad tracks within the NCTD right-of-way near Bishopsgate Road. The channel will remove an existing hump that hinders conveyance of runoff, resulting in decreased floodplain elevations up to 1-foot for the 100-year storm event. Estimated cost: $600,000 (Cost estimated prepared by Rick Engineering Company) Option B IL S-9 5 of 8 06/10/04 . ....... ......._. Regrade the northbound lanes of Highway 101 from approximately Grandview Street to Bishopsgate Road (1,370 linear feet) to remove an existing hump that hinders conveyance of runoff. Floodplain elevations will decrease by up to 2-feet for both the 10- year and 100-year storm events. Estimated Cost: $3.2 million (Cost estimate prepared by Rick Engineering Company) Option C Regrade the northbound lanes of Highway 101 from approximately Jupiter Street to Moorgate Road (3,170 linear feet), lowering the grade approximately one foot lower than Option B. Floodplain elevations will decrease by over 2-feet for both the 10-year and 100-year storm events. Option C provides the most benefit to commercial and residential properties adjacent to Highway 101 by removing approximately 5 city blocks from the 100-year floodplain. Estimated Cost: $4.5 million (Cost estimate prepared by Rick Engineering Company) Ultimate Improvements Alternative 3: 100 year Capacity Storm Drain System Construct an underground storm drain system with capacity to convey the peak flow rate from 100-year frequency storm event. This would remove the floodplain for up to a 100- year storm from the study area. A 10-year storm drain system was investigated but due to only minor savings in construction costs this system is not recommended. A large storm drain system is required to convey the undetained runoff from the Leucadia watershed. Preliminary results show that for the 100-year storm a 5-foot diameter pipe is required at the upstream end of the watershed, eventually transitioning to a 9-foot diameter pipe at the outlet into the lagoon. Environmental permitting of the outlet has not -G i 6 of 8 06/10/04 been investigated but is expected to present a significant challenge in the feasibility of this project. This option includes utilization of the existing 24" storm drain as a low flow system discharging to the detention basins north of La Costa Avenue to preserve'water quality benefits. Estimated Cost: $27-31 million (Cost estimate prepared by Haley & Aldrich) Other Alternatives Construct an underground storm drain system with capacity to convey the peak flow rate from the 100-year frequency storm event assuming drainage changes within the NCTD right-of-way consisting of grade separation (lowering the railroad tracks) .that would prevent runoff east of the tracks from getting west of the railroad tracks. This system is designed to convey runoff from the watershed area west of the railroad tracks only, approximately 30%of the watershed area of Alternative 3. NCTD is conducting feasibility studies for the grade separation project; however, the actual construction of the project could be as many as 20 years from now. This alternative will not be pursued unless more detailed plans to construct the grade-separated tracks are available. A plan would also be in place to address the remaining 70% of the watershed that would stay east of the railroad tracks. Additionally, completion time of this project would be weighed against the other alternatives to determine the most feasible project that will address flooding issues within an acceptable amount of time. Additional planning and investigations are required to analyze this alternative in more detail. 7 of 8 06/10/04 1 i Conclusion This report summarizes hydrologic and hydraulic analyses of historic drainage conditions, the implementation of drainage improvements that now represent the existing condition, as well as several proposed alternatives to improve drainage in Leucadia for both the short-term and ultimate conditions. The City of Encinitas will select one or more alternatives to further investigate based on factors including overall benefit to the community, completion time, environmental constraints, and cost. 0 � t 8 of 8 06/10/04 4 � ; SO�ANA BEACH LJ El MAR SAN DIEGO f} s II7�7G/ 4 'F+i.. ION MAP tt,iii �' a+ y+t. e, rr'1 • ;�tt h7: ^ �+ t• y l fie, it �1.`; .� _�, r � 7 ,S ,` •'fir � �:d ^F � '�.:�1� �� .�7,P#:p+.pi �•`�� ..may{'4 y ,��'. ,.. �:y). �`� �'+l; .'� .; �. °«�.eR �." -i11M'��+i y ��. ..•t �,{�Y9• 6?t � '' N'F+ �.� Y.. � _ t'fy,e. e 11gf}'y'11-- _ y''A�M„ey-1 ` E' � ' �r�j, J+.a� e,w. .. -r.�', L ,i- fii6`• ., 4 � W A a e y t e Q_a + r Lam' vet r• y__. .e.: • _ +, 4 x { •„P 6 t• q ` S 1; �'�. E: »J�Yt,a,. i p.eylyC'�1�`y'�'" '(� � 'Su '!^ Y�• a .e +. 1 \� mi r~ �J v� s`..'. r• - mot. \t ..�1.t � ae��.t�'.t•'i C + •�' 1' w �'`�� f -ea $S �•' � � , _ _ sfr - '..pr-4''• y �.'_ L�rw- _ 1 �' 4 �.• W,.""" 1 �, a '� -, � %. in ,; �.�r t ry,pl � _'z q .: a i-Ui}ut151L. t.�•- ° ! � Lqe�►,p. �� +.�� i.. ` .,asf+ 1�)< `b• .UY.. 1 ' v' 11 I e +�j�w} �., J ry •,+ p '� Oil, !, t, .-S tt1•i' ab,' r{` i ` Y � _�r_ �- ►s+ .x_ 11 /ti.�'•1 W 4. *•'`. �. �� - I. :--• ''7M. Y 'AF-ei' /ZG'hw Ie # q yy •----�I.� � N1�I.x� o � � _ l r j. y{t . 1. �- � '�' -,`ems _ :IGBZJ � • � .:��t ' ' � _ �E tom ' # c ege HIGHWAYS MAJOR ROADS ROADS sr •, \.,."a• r.: e�fe+/t'S1') r. ,. +�� 'v r ireI._L'. cam- V.' p g mhed.dwg Polygon t Y� yr t•' +� �_: ` Existing e ••••. CC((JJJJ C `Iq� A, !k• 4 �`R•Y �� y _ � e •� 1 �...� 'fir _ G 1YNYITT ,i SOLANA BEACH Al 4" t 7. DEL MAR SAN DIEGO AP In it �. -��""::• � w.s • 5- to •. � -� ";l,. i ". ,.'� rF+` �^ ��,,., .�' •, �t�,_�,i-�,x": . ` �.a1' S p ,, �ia�i'k' s� gyp) l�.- �1 4 �`�_ ---"�-' �� t *� * :_TP•iv" $sy�,G ,p t Yii jb y• 'rte •`l§ �S ( �, f ul to `•� r,i p.. c L`,r T" �+'G�° i��.1; _ ♦ *' tl r. r 7P 1l'^♦f` *, 'uu "-, h tYy 1 Sri" '.3 - .a { v •y'� . Its, ;1... V r. c 3,c, �✓' ` 'F•- ``\\ ��' 'k�^1•• 4 • '� _ ' to ,� 4 w yr t: Ir gyp° _ � •� �i �,Z'• It 7pp• *.'ve �' � vn�l a n. W-A. le J' .{7. y.: a��_ r.•� �,..ti � _` 4� y ' •_fit >�� y `t � , � ��►-. r (- %Z ,"._ e �J ~4 ��' -� � e"9S�' •... ti ��+\Y SFr;,moo y_ ,F`F� - �•1 •�k� �1� 1 ar' �t r,. '' ,;SiF •�..�: -r�{aY r'.'A '>i! )1 �•' GLf�L!�,`_r a Wet lw Aj ZI � _ DII•/ SIP`'��• b V •. -�. I, ■ 5 ` . •.V •t' `• * '.Ll� ''iii �•`� •� f 1 ��4} 1 ' IU4+,tlrt1'J 1 .�,'�'1r 1;.' he � � * •ti -- • _ - I ` 1 4 3 r.,� r�_J �+J � I� l k •J � � I �� ",..I� 1 �':�Y y � Y � AZ '�• Ids I ti.x.�t{,X, �"•� 1 ' .r7•P' i +�i;t 11�1tti i t`• jj++~' t-. 7 l.�7 Wd - FREEWAYS iz • • 100YRWATERSHED Nj. a Y° �' �. ^. �. -•F1^.•,`FF Existing 100 Year FbWPIaln 1 � � .V-I • • CARLSBAD 1{ _ ♦ �,•.�, r .- 41 ••i7' •',,,•',*'fit,• 't"• vp1 tif'� 1 ".. i ~ •.: DEL MAR SAN DIEGO LOCATIom MAP er avb All— N.- Jilm 'r wl ♦ J S.M.. �, � 1-n r Q-r�'1 ,,riS'`.< .. - 1 - �. \• 1_ �,y�ry� -^�'.►, .tea,' �,, \ . V" _ ,. ' p, OAS,"' ��'1�j I` 'd_ ij �/ • ' .''.`7 SN i �..• - , • .�•. •t *� d l ^� may. .W.1.: �J{� '•_ '� �Yr ,/� � �� vu`s ` � f/ �/�� Y. ^ /��% y '�. i. 'Y�.:�!} .��. •�.- � r fr t ' r�;. ! fr �•ir� it -. �r ! ' .. -�... a 1.;; t!�•��;:r Ali/,, i'.� / ' /�� . � �� i��jj"�y,♦ �� . 1N��' ��y - _�.F 1.. ^ji J '�,C� r i s^^f rifjs�,/r...JiJ �fr��s,. j �` �.r. 4.. i.-+• �' _ s•- ;q„4 ` IS 'l. It dr Ile ir Laia 'A not//A�j�; r J f/�r `,,fit�C��Jtn"1 i� /%; ,�..,,%tfi! ! � - i //;�� % ._ • � NU�7'i,-?�`�. wr ` • r ; ' r � 1 4 Li 16� 'ti_Y.'i ,.eeh y' � ,�'.,1-`� �#..• ;-I *'. "AI`` , *a. -,`'*Y �r •, i. Legend FREEWAYS HIGHWAYS STORM DRAIN Ap ' r, ►^ MAJOR ROADS ROADS .y 1 s I CID v� } r I tq �+ BISHOPSGATE RD �11, E gl,,yO�SGATE RD' t• Ilil BISHOPSGATE RD M GRANDVIEW ST GRANDVIEW ST GRAN®VIEW�S?r ¢ I' I irr �• l —pill In 7d _ AVOCADOS �: 11 AVOCADO ST ''t I � -,AVOCADO ST O � .. 1 It CD 0 [sf N li 1. O CD 1 7 Qo _ O :. .O of - J o x o 1 � � _ o m a vn n c° y V) 90 o i r rl +$h Q CID V f7 p F �o a 0 tsf �= 1 •p _o d � v cn - n D , � -rl ., o C od Q � JUPR ST i JUPITER ST PITE ST ER .r (n di JU K Z mow1 AL c I h r 1 V. j 79 33 f f I � t 1 PHOEBE ST SHOE PHOEBE ST E T= ! � 2 r 70 IT1 X z j O 1.4 N 1 a z M j � i� Ab H 1 �t ., PP �-- O N6 _Um I 6 m ,e BISHOPSGATE RD BISHOPSGATE R o � � GRANDVIEW ST GRANDVIEW ST GRAN®VIEW STS' sA . . • rl`: AVOCADO ST OCADO ST A €m o AbOCADO ST f it ► e 9 d n CD X G V/ _— 0 (D , d r, a o 'II € N 0 R1 o `E O ch En cn O CD CL M 0 =3 CL o - - z X m Mr c° a cn' o =3 �I { o P l « o y 0- ~ ' CD Ln o d o CL r e 'o ii r JUPITER ST 7 U�ITER�STj( fnJUPITER , _ 7, E a+.. PHOEBE ST �� PHOEBE S j i _ _ PHOEBE ST 4 I a rn m -1 o I it o -- ---- - z - - --------- - - - - r •i I BISHOPSGATE RD I BISHOPS ATE RD BISHOPSGATE D Y I Im 4 � 1 I GRANDVIEW ST GRANDV,IE I I GRANDVIEW ST %ST . r.-y. 3 a Z _ AVOCADO ST AVOCADO ST OCADO ST -bV f w { 0 + CD % t7i I O ! _ O O V h �_ a a' V/ T I V O cf)_ n II X O O CD � O O I CD Q I 4 U' O 90� O Q C/f x (D o. {+ _ I ' I O 70 ° O rA. f9 5 A Q CD 5 C t 1 z _ t m@ N A Lk O !1. O JUPITER ST — N JUPITER T UPIT;ER•S. _ iAmp ZVI f 'I f' f a 7 v�M._:.lit, i I a5 � - � ��----•-•' '+� � PHOEBE ST PHOEBE ST , I �l'1 -'9I �h' r r- r n O V1 v � I I Im I ioc > ; I O O Z o OJ it = r - - 1Y `� 4"ro{ p• 1 nM' •-,�• ti Apt � �{7-�'""✓ � .t � . „. "1�' _ SZ'4�` `°! - .5. -. T l,•,.�!"` t . ,. q. �F`''i t ��l'l,�LjF,��1s`.y ! r� ��? ,� � +t y� �t�• �1 7 ��i.J�;} � � ,'r'- J •+ �4 'f✓'2 5� , sari+' 4'W' '!- c'� .. lLad sR� /�,ri -.-�; ..' ', .,..,. �`,` .e1,D 1`;+►-14 it , '. r! ... 1 Yh'r.t f. ,gyp nl' MAO 'x ova l i 3" I 'fro ' . . t `�� Z. � ,. ,� f .i• s .t ,.t - 't--,,,,,•'�Q I '. .'� - k �1:311'1IL'�u'J•','�. IN HIGH WAY ADS �,.� n:' •� �� _ .. ,,1�� _ - .yam g' _ r x f!� c rot.. >t �. f • •"•5 `�� c.4 4 .,, 4 TER { �q N , A tv / I / I 1 }� �P ; s � , ♦ �® t �' v r � rgt P, � 1 •O%6`y>a1 k . . J ALI IS tl t Gmx aw v V4 Ali Nw �1J 1� i"'Ry-=" ��Esc ~,. e+• f �v � Y M` ��:1, � Ir•A �it m `, '�1"+ a � ', ` t a +� ♦ ��•t..,S'� � \,` �• / � w! -.fist-�• !�'i }'1. -. � .}. A�... Xfi��i^.t. w~ J �+. =♦: i `•rt�` t t� t L ��' �` a•t!S": `, �� •'��`@,�" ,.'I'�� -iii*• ,f�r• ,-� r ty r•°` '7 � , •�° ~°� ' �' � � � d - � u ��.�y , 9•y�(„k:�T d !�r • da No r ,.r. 1 k� e; BLS �y��.1. t UW - - _ r ,-. 11' K t ; •� fimh�\ r-0 si R w .w '0 6 WL . pp LL t t w , \c 1 p jiN ,( I L • w 4 oil s �' �♦ ,'ray♦ p� M�1 •� ;ti _ � r°'rp•ezQ7 w�IttI r . . " s a, ♦ � jr �e Ka r a ♦ � j� Legend i, : a sJ FREEWAYS �V� HiGHWAYS �• t s fir•. I. �� a Mi♦.•.`i r STORM DRAAN MAJOR ROADS ROADS Haley&Aldrich,Inc. 9040 Friars Rd. - Suite 220 San Diego,CA 92108-5860 Tel:619.280.9210 Fax:619.280.9415 HaleyAldrich.com HALEY& 8 June 2004 ALDRICH File No. 30769-000 Mr. Dennis Bowling Rick Engineering Company - 5620 Friars Road San Diego, California 92110-2596 Subject: Geotechnical Feasibility Study Trenchless Construction Methods Encinitas Storm Drain Project Encinitas, California Dear Dennis: Haley & Aldrich, Inc. (Haley & Aldrich) is pleased to provide this letter report presenting the results of our geotechnical feasibility study to evaluate trenchless techniques for storm drain - OFFICES pipeline installation. Our study was performed in accordance with our 10 February 2004 Boston proposal and the Consultant and Subconsultant Agreement dated 5 April 2004. For our study Mai,Saclms tfs we have received plan and profile drawings from Rick Engineering Company (Rick) for Cleo cla„d "Leucadia Drainage & Sewer Force Main, CMD95A & CEE97A,” dated 23 July 2001. We 011io have also received the following two geotechnical reports for the soil conditions in the general Davto„ area: Detroit ■ "Comments on GeoPacifica Report of August 24, 2001, Highway 101 Sewer Force Nliclu,'ml Main Replacement, 14" PVC Sewer Force Main System, Encinitas, California," -- Hartford dated 30 July 2003, prepared by Kleinfelder, Inc. C0uumcr;nit Kansas City ■ "Geotechnical Investigation, Beacon's Beach Access, Encinitas, California," date 17 Kim a, April 2003, prepared by URS Corporation. Los Angeles Calitorma PROJECT DESCRIPTION Manchester NC°C Hr71111)sh ik' From our discussions with you, we understand that flooding occurs in the area of Highway Parsippany 101 after storm events. The City of Encinitas (City) would like to alleviate this flooding by Nr u,lcrr=(,y upgrading the existing storm drain system in the area. The approximate location of the Portland reported flooding and the proposed new storm drains (project site) are presented on the _ famc Vicinity Map, Figure 1. We further understand that three different storm drain reaches are Rochester being considered to upgrade the current storm drain system. These reaches include the ,Nccc)ork Leucadia Boulevard to Beacon's Beach storm drain, the Highway 101 storm drain, and the sanr, Barbara various railroad crossings. Each of these storm drain reaches has unique properties requiring Grl;ti ii�ul different trenchless alternative methods. Tucson Ari_orrrr Washington Oi4rict ut Cohouhia Rick Engineering Company 8 June 2004 Page 2 The Leucadia Boulevard to Beacon's Beach reach would start at Leucadia Roadside Park adjacent to Highway 101 and drain along Leucadia Boulevard to empty onto Beacon's Beach. We understand that a 48-inch diameter pipe is planned for this reach. This storm drain would be approximately 840 feet long. We understand that a diversionary structure would be installed at the storm drain inlet to divert normal flows into the existing storm drain and that the new storm drain would only be flowing during major storms. This line would alleviate some of the flooding in the area and may be used in conjunction with the Highway 101 storm drain. The proposed alignment for the Leucadia Boulevard reach is shown on Figure 2. Based on preliminary information received from Rick, we understand that the Highway 101 reach will extend from just south of the intersection of Marcheta and Highway 101 and drain north to empty into Batiquitos Lagoon with the pipeline alignment traversing under the Highway 101 right-or-way. This proposed storm drain will drain the storm waters of most of the catchment area along Highway 101. The alignment is approximately 9,000 feet long with the approximate location shown on Figure 3. Tentatively, the storm drain diameter has been estimated at about 36 inches at the south end, stepping up incrementally in size to about 9 feet at the north end of the proposed alignment. This storm drain will be in addition to the existing 24-inch storm drain, which will remain in service. Storm drain manhole locations for _ the Highway 101 reach have been assumed to be needed at storm drain laterals. These laterals are anticipated approximately every 1000 feet. _ The final reach involves transporting storm flows from the east side of the existing railroad tracks to the west side to tie into the Highway 101 storm drain. We understand that storm flows currently pass from the east to west by surface flow through the railroad track ballast. We further understand that the proposed storm drain crossings are anticipated to consist of a 48-inch diameter pipe. The number of railroad crossings required is not known at this time. We estimate that the trenchless portions of these crossings will be approximately 50 feet in length about every 1,000 feet along the railroad tracks. The approximate location of the storm drain laterals are shown on Figure 4. ® SCOPE OF WORK For this study we performed a site reconnaissance on 20 April 2004, reviewed the drawings provided by Rick, and reviewed the geotechnical reports for the project area. We have also reviewed published geologic data for the project site. This feasibility study was performed to evaluate several trenchless techniques for installation of new pipelines for the three reaches _ listed above, including constructability and anticipated order of magnitude design and construction costs for various methods. The results of our feasibility study are presented hereinafter. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Site Conditions The various reaches are located along existing city streets or under the railroad tracks adjacent to Highway 101. The Leucadia Boulevard alignment starts at Leucadia Park at the -' intersection of Highway 101 and Leucadia Boulevard at an elevation of approximately +55 HALEY RNLEYt feet, Mean Sea Level (MSL). This alignment follows Leucadia Boulevard, which rises to an ALDRICH Rick Engineering Company 8 June 2004 -- Page 3 - elevation of approximately +95 feet, MSL to the parking lot for Beacon's Beach. The parking lot is positioned at the crest of coastal bluffs leading down to the beach below at an elevation of approximately +10 feet, MSL. Leucadia Boulevard is bordered on both sides by residential housing. The proposed storm drain would have an inlet structure at Leucadia Park and drain by gravity to Beacon's Beach. The Highway 101 reach starts just south of the intersection of Marcheta and Highway 101 and extends along the Highway 101 right-of-way, north to La Costa Avenue. This alignment then moves east of Highway 101 to Batiquitos Lagoon below. Highway 101 is a four-lane asphalt paved highway with two lanes of traffic in each direction. There is parking along the west side of the highway and a tree lined median between the north and south bound lanes. Commercial buildings border the west side of Highway 101 and railroad tracks and the - accompanying right-of-way border the highway on the east. Highway 101 gently slopes from an elevation of approximately +75 feet, MSL at El Portal to approximately +55 feet, MSL at Andrew Avenue. The highway rises to +60 feet, MSL at La Costa Avenue before descending towards Batiquitos Lagoon. We understand that the proposed storm drain would be located approximately 15 to 30 feet below the ground surface along the highway and empty into Batiquitos Lagoon. We understand that the railroad crossings would be installed to transport water under the existing railroad tracks from the east to the west. The railroad tracks are relatively level and dirt access roads border the railroad on either side. Geologic Conditions Based on our review of the available information and our site reconnaissance; we anticipate that the different reaches described above are underlain by several marine deposits including Pleistocene sand terrace deposits, the Ardath Formation and the underlying Torrey Sandstone. Fill soils derived from these parent formational soils may be encountered along the proposed pipeline reaches near the ground surface. Landslide Debris will most likely be encountered along the coastal bluffs at the end of the Leucadia Boulevard reach at Beacon's Beach. As noted above the fill material is anticipated to be derived from the native formational material in the area. Fill materials are anticipated to be shallow (less than 10 feet thick) deposits along the graded roadways and railroad right-of-way. Terrace deposits are exposed at the surface or underlying the fill material. The terrace deposits consist of medium dense to dense, light brown to reddish brown silty sand and sandy silt, with occasional layers of cohesionless sand. The terrace deposits are relatively flat lying sedimentary beds encountered to depths in excess of 30 feet as described in the Kleinfelder, 2003 report. The terrace deposits extend down to an elevation of approximately +20 to +25 feet, MSL at the contact with the underlying Ardath Shale. The Ardath Shale in the area generally consists of light gray to gray green hard claystone with some slickensided bedding planes. The Ardath Shale may be encountered at lower elevations of the proposed trenchless pipeline reaches. The Torrey Sandstone underlies the site at depth, but is not anticipated within the limits of the pipeline excavations. HALEY ._ ALDRICH Rick Engineering Company 8 June 2004 Page 4 Several ancient landslides, thought to have occurred during the late Pleistocene have been mapped along the coastal bluffs in the Encinitas area. At the western end of the Leucadia Boulevard pipeline reach, at Beacon's Beach, a large amphitheatre-shaped landslide has been - mapped. The proposed pipeline alignment would pass through this landslide. We understand that the City currently plans to stabilize this landslide within the next eight months to a year. However, if landslide stabilization is not performed prior to the installation of the storm drain pipeline, landslide debris and a failure surface will be encountered. The landslide debris consists of rotated section of the terrace deposits and Ardath Shale. The landslide failure surface consists of remolded clay with low shear strength. Groundwater conditions within the pipeline alignment are uncertain based on the available geologic reports. Seepage was observed in the borings performed in 2001 for the existing storm drain at depths below Highway 101 of about 12 feet but is likely due to perched water. TRENCHLESS ALTERNATIVES The subsurface conditions at the site and the final storm drain alignments selected will have an influence on the trenchless technology applicable for this project. More than one method may _ be technically feasible for each reach, depending upon the final alignment selected. Based on our experience it is our opinion that several trenchless methods may be technically feasible for each reach. For the Leucadia Boulevard to Beacon's Beach Reach these methods include M Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD), Jack and Bore, microtunneling, and conventional tunneling methods. For the Highway 101 Reach these methods may include one single method or a combination of methods, including mechanical methods, such as a wheel Tunnel „ Boring Machine (TBM) or a digger shield; and conventional tunneling methods, such as a modified horseshoe tunnel. A combination of two of these methods may be used as the required pipeline diameter changes along the alignment. Jack & Bore is probably the most feasible method for the railroad crossings. A discussion of each of these methods for the respective reach follows. Leucadia Boulevard to Beacon's Beach A. Horizontal Directional Drilling Horizontal directional drilling is a process of drilling a guided borehole, referred to as the pilot hole through the ground along a predetermined path from a bore pit to a receiving pit. For larger pipes, once the pilot hole is completed it is reamed by one or more passes of a reamer to a diameter typically 1.5 times the pipe diameter. Throughout the pilot hole drilling and reaming process, soil and rock cuttings are removed and borehole stability is maintained by a drilling fluid, typically bentonite slurry. On completion of reaming, the pipe is typically pulled into the borehole. Prior to pulling, the pipe is typically preassembled to its final length so that it can be pulled into the hole in one shot. The pipe can be preassembled in segments and welded/fused in the field during pull back but at an elevated risk and increased pull time. B. Jack and Bore Jack and Bore is a trenchless method in which pipe casing is directly advanced through the ground with thrust provided by hydraulic jacks from a jacking pit and excavation being HAT,EYE ALDRICH Rick Engineering Company 8 June 2004 Page 5 performed from within a steerable jacking shield at the leading edge of the pipe being jacked. Soil and rock may be excavated using augers within the casing, which transport the muck through the pipe back to the jacking pit for removal, or alternatively, excavation can be conducted manually by hand-held tools or mechanically with wheel-type or hydraulic excavators at the face. Open face shields are those without a system for pressure regulation at the face in order to prevent uncontrolled ground and groundwater inflow into the face, and wherein the excavation face is readily accessible by the workers. Open face shields are typically used in soil types with good stand-up time, or in soils that have been dewatered or otherwise prestabilized by ground improvement methods such as grouting. For open face shields used on jack and bore projects, removal of excavated soil is typically done using small carts winched between the jacking shaft and the face. The process requires personnel entry into the pipe being jacked to operate excavation equipment. Typically, the pipe being jacked using jack and bore techniques is the product(final) pipe to be installed. However, with auger boring, where the soil is transported from the face using augers inside the pipe, and with small diameter pipes, an oversize pipe or sleeve would be jacked in-place and the storm drain pipe would be placed in the sleeve and grouted in place. Typically,jacking and boring is done with pipes 42 to 48 in. in diameter and larger. C. Microtunneling W Microtunneling is a method of trenchless construction using a remotely controlled, laser- guided tunnel-boring machine that uses pipe jacking and permits continuous support of the excavation face. The remotely operated microtunneling tunnel-boring machine (MTBM) cuts a circular excavation slightly larger than the required pipeline diameter. The MTBM is typically classified as a so called closed face tunneling shield in that there is a face support/stabilization system which uses either earth or slurry pressure to ensure that the soil ahead of the MTBM remains stable and there is no uncontrolled flow of groundwater into the MTBM. The excavated material is mixed into slurry at the face of the MTBM and transported back to a "mud plant" by transmission lines, typically at the jacking shaft site where the solids are removed. The "clean" slurry is then recycled and the solids are disposed of. D. Conventional Tunneling A conventional modified horseshoe tunnel is a method by which the tunnel is excavated a few feet at a time horizontally along the alignment and is supported by the ground's own strength until support structures can be added. The tunnel progresses incrementally with a series of tunnel excavation followed by tunnel support erection. The tunnel support generally consists of beam and column bracing or wire mesh and shotcrete. After the initial support is complete and the tunnel excavation finished, the carrier pipe is installed and the annular space between the carrier pipe and the tunnel support is grouted. - Highway 101 Several methods are presented below for this reach. However, because of the varying required pipeline diameter, more than one method may be employed for the reach with two different tunnel sizes as will be described in the Recommendations section of this report. HAT•EY �� ALDRICH Rick Engineering Company 8 June 2004 W Page 6 Non-pressurized face machines are applicable for this reach above groundwater levels in formations such as soil, cemented sandstone, conglomerate, and shale. Non-pressurized face machines can also be used below the groundwater level in soil and rock where groundwater seepage can be controlled and adequate ground stability can be maintained. Two types of non-pressurized face machines (TBM and shield tunneling) are considered feasible for this reach of the project. Pressurized face machines can also be used but are not considered necessary for this project. A. Tunnel Boring Machine A tunnel boring machine consists of a rotating cutterhead and a tunnel shield. The cutterhead excavates the ground at the tunnel heading and is attached to a full circular shield to support the ground during excavation and installation of the initial or final support system. The excavated ground is taken into the machine though openings located within the cutterhead and is conveyed through the machine. The tunnel spoils are subsequently removed from the tunnel using additional conveyor systems and/or a locomotive with muck cars. A TBM would generally be applicable to the longer tunnel segments in ground with good to limited stand-up time. The initial support system for this method would most likely consist of steel ribs and lagging _ or lattice support and shotcrete. These liner systems would be installed in the tail of the shield and expanded to support the tunnel. After completion of the tunnel and the initial liner system the carrier pipe would be installed and the annular space would be grouted. B. Shield Tunneling A digger shield consists of a full circular shield. The shield also supports the ground in the rear of the machine during installation of the initial or final tunnel support system. Shield tunneling requires the use of a tunneling shield, which provides immediate support of the ground prior to installation of the initial support system. The shield is required to have steering jacks to maintain line and grade. The shield may have breasting capabilities to support the face when unstable ground conditions are encountered. Full breasting is usually required during shutdown periods such as weekends, off shifts, and mechanical breakdowns. um Dewatering is required when tunneling below natural groundwater. An open faced digger shield is well suited to all the anticipated ground conditions. The open face configuration allows access for removal of cobbles and boulders, if encountered. To allow for man-entry, tunnel shields are usually a minimum of 42-in, diameter. The initial tunnel support system(typically steel ribs and lagging or liner plate) is erected from within the tail of the tunneling shield and jacking of the tunnel shield from the installed tunnel support is used to advance the shield. The excavation proceeds using hand mining or mechanical excavation methods, such as electric digger arms, breakers, or roadheaders, from within the shield. Muck is transported from the face of the tunnel to the access pit using train type muck cars or conveyor systems. The carrier pipe is placed within the excavated tunnel and the annular space between the carrier pipe and the initial tunnel support system is filled with cement grout. HALEY�N'- ALDRICH Rick Engineering Company 8 June 2004 Page 7 C. Conventional Tunneling Two types of conventional tunneling were considered for this reach. A conventional modified horseshoe tunnel as described for the Leucadia Boulevard to Beacon's Beach Reach above and the Sequential Excavation Method, also known as the New Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM). The sequential excavation method is a method of creating underground space, which utilizes the self-supporting capacity of the rock or soil. The tunnel is generally excavated sequentially, beginning with a starter tunnel, and progressively widened with side drifts and/or bottom headings until the required underground space is achieved. Rock bolts, - lattice girders, wire mesh and shotcrete are typically used for ground support and reinforcement. When the initial support of the NATM tunnel is finished, drainage, waterproofing, and a final structural liner are added to complete the tunnel. Further evaluation of the ground condition is warranted before selecting this trenchless method, as the Kleinfelder report for the area indicates pockets of cohesionless sand, which will not support itself. D. Jack & Bore The Jack & Bore method described above for the Leucadia Boulevard to Beacon's Beach Reach will be the same for this reach as well. This method would be practical for pipeline diameters less than about 7 feet to account for the space limitations for jacking and receiving pits along Highway 101. Railroad Crossings The actual number of crossings and the location of the crossings are not known at this time. We assumed one crossing every 1,000 feet (about 11 crossings) and each crossing about 50 feet long. The Jack &Bore method as described above is the most practical method for the railroad crossings. Because of the short distance and the space available for jacking and receiving pits, this method would be both feasible and cost effective. However, for railroad crossings, steel casing around the final carrier pipe will be required in the railroad right-of- way. Shaft Construction Each of the trenchless methods described above, except HDD will require a work shaft from the surface to install the tunnel. However, we understand that a drop shaft will be required for the Leucadia Boulevard to Beacon's Beach Reach for the inlet manhole. Work shafts, as defined herein, are the shafts required by the contractor during construction to provide access to the tunnel or trenchless method for personnel and equipment, as well as for removal of excavated material (muck). The work shaft will also be used to jack pipe as necessary and for pipe installation within the tunnel excavation. From a constructability standpoint, it would be desirable, although not necessary, to locate the work shaft at the down stream end of the pipeline segment being constructed. This reduces problems associated with removal of groundwater infiltration and improves efficiency of muck removal. We understand that environmental limitations with staging on the beach will most likely require a work shaft at - the upstream end of the alignment for the Leucadia Boulevard to Beacon's Beach Reach. HAT,EY Approximate land area requirements at the work shaft sites would include the access shaft ALDRICH Rick Engineering Company 8 June 2004 Page 8 itself and room for cranes and additional equipment and pipe materials. The area required for the work shafts are anticipated to be on the order of 1 acre for larger tunnels constructed using TBMs or shields. Work shaft area requirements for smaller jack and bore operations can be much smaller, perhaps on the order of 1/2 acre. Along with a work shaft, it should be assumed for planning purposed that additional shafts, referred to herein as access shaft will be required at the opposite end of each tunnel or trenchless segment from the work shaft. The purpose of these shafts would be to remove tunnel excavation equipment (shields or TBM's) after completion of excavation and provide access to the tunnel during final lining construction. The various methods will require a different number of intermediate shafts and spacing between shafts as well as the size of the shaft required to account for limited drive lengths. The Jack & Bore methods described can - have drive lengths of approximately 400 to 800 feet for the diameters and soil types anticipated. This would require an access shaft at these intervals. Similarly, microtunneling can typically have drive lengths of approximately 1,000 feet. These methods would allow for an entrance shaft at Leucadia Park and a receiving area or pit at Beacon's Beach for the Leucadia Boulevard to Beacon's Beach alignment. The TBM, shield tunneling, and conventional tunneling methods all have theoretically infinite drive lengths. An access shaft would only need to be installed at the ends of the alignment. However, intermediate shafts may be installed for manhole construction or storm drain laterals as needed. The land area requirement for the access shafts would be on the order of 1/4 to 1/2 acre. Access shafts could be installed in Leucadia Park and within the median of Highway 101. The entrance shaft for a pipeline of about 9 feet in diameter along Highway 101 could most likely be installed in the vacant parcel between Highway 101 and the railroad tracks, immediately north of La Costa Boulevard to minimize traffic impacts. Intermediate access shafts for jacking pits or manhole construction would generally need to be about 12 to 15 feet wide for pipeline diameters of less than 7 feet and about 20 to 25 feet long for pipeline diameters between 7 and 9 feet. These intermediate shafts may require that parking along Highway 101 be temporarily removed and that the traffic lanes be rerouted around the access shafts to ease traffic impacts. These access shafts could be located to minimize impacts to N businesses. Additional work laydown areas for pipe material and equipment storage could be located off the pipeline alignments. Pipe storage laydown areas are currently being utilized along Highway 101 for the installation of storm drain and sewer pipe in Encinitas as shown in the Appendix to this report. Spoil Handing and Disposal Spoil will be generated from tunnel boring, shafts and underground excavation activities. The volume will be proportional to the mined volume of the tunnels, shafts and underground excavations, combined with bulking and/or shrinking associated with the soil and rock materials. The bulking factor is the ratio of the excavated volume of material to the in-situ volume of material. Similarly, the shrinkage factor is the ratio of the volume after placement and compaction to the in-situ volume. IHALEY �` ALDRICH Rick Engineering Company 8 June 2004 Page 9 The characteristics of the spoil will depend upon the type of material being excavated and the excavation/tunneling methods employed. Every effort should be made during design and construction planning to determine commercial reuse for the spoil. These may include reuse as concrete aggregate, structural fill, daily cover or lining material at landfills, or other uses. Tunnels which are constructed using slurry methods will create spoil which contains a mixture -- of slurry and excavated soil or rock. Slurry for tunneling is typically composed of bentonite, a naturally occurring clay mineral, and water. The soil and rock are typically removed from the slurry and the slurry reused via an automated process consisting of a series of sieves, hydro-cyclones and filter presses. Although rigorous separation techniques can remove virtually all slurry from the soil and rock, the potential presence of residual slurry or other materials in the spoil should be considered when selecting a suitable commercial reuse or disposal of the material. CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATES Conceptual cost estimates have been prepared for trenchless construction methods and are presented in the table below. These costs include equipment mobilization, excavation and spoils disposal, casing or initial tunnel support, shaft construction, and grouting as applicable. Proposed Trenchless Method Estimated Cost' Estimated - Construction Duration3 Highway 101 w TBM only $22 to 25 million 14 months TBM and shield tunnel $23 to 26 million 20 months TBM and Jack & Bore $20 to 24 million 20 months Conventional (horseshoe or NATM) $28 to 33 million 30 months Digger Shield $24 to 28 million 30 months Leucadia Boulevard HDD $1.5 to 1.8 million 2 months Microtunnelling $0.90 to 1.05 million 2 months Jack & Bore $0.90 to 1.05 million 3 months Conventional $1 to 1.25 million 6 months Railroad Crossings' Jack & Bore $75,000 to 100,000 1 month each Notes: 1. Costs for railroad crossings indicated are per crossing. The number of crossings and exact lengths are unknown at this time. 2. Estimated costs include shaft construction, tunnel excavation, soil disposal, and pipe installation. - 3. Estimated construction schedule includes tunnel and shaft excavation and pipeline installation. Duration is based on 5 day work week. The estimated costs presented do not include the cost for permitting or other utility realignment. We have assumed a 20 percent contingency in our cost estimate as indicated by the cost estimate range provided. For preliminary planning purposes, we recommend that a design cost of approximately 35 percent be added to the above costs for comparison purposes with the conventional open trench cost estimate prepared by Rick Engineering for this project. HALEY We have included an estimated cost of 4.2 million for the cost of the final product pipe, ALDRICH Rick Engineering Company 8 June 2004 Page 10 gaskets and fittings, and the 11 cleanout structures assumed in the Rick Engineering open trench cost estimate. The cost estimate presented above is subject to change based on the number of access shaft required for final pipeline access and the final pipeline alignment, and the number of connections to laterals. Additional cost estimates will be required in subsequent stages of project planning and design. Contaminated soils are not anticipated to be encountered along the proposed pipeline alignments. Costs associated with testing, handling, or disposal of potentially hazardous material encountered in the subsurface is not included in this project. Likewise the cost for dewatering is not included in this study. We understand that the landslide on the coastal bluffs at Beacon's Beach will be stabilized within the next year. If this landslide stabilization does not occur before the start of this storm drain project, stabilization of the earth slope in the vicinity of the proposed storm drain will be required, which was not included in this cost estimate. For cost estimating purposes, we evaluated several different scenarios for the Highway 101 Reach using different trenchless methods and two different tunnel diameters. We assumed that the tunnel may be completed with one 12-foot diameter using TBM technology or with the tunnel diameter stepping down to 7-foot diameter to complete the tunnel with various other methods. The smaller 7-foot diameter was chosen based on the hydraulic requirements for the storm drain. Additional evaluations of the practical tunnel sizes and refinement of the cost estimates can be performed during a follow-on geotechnical investigation. The estimates provided above are for preliminary planning purposed only. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS For the proposed project alignments and the geologic and topographic conditions present at the site, it is our opinion that the methods discussed above for each reach are all technically feasible options to install a new pipeline by trenchless technology. The various methods along each pipeline reach are presented on Figures 2 through 4. However, each method has its own limitations. Based on our review of the project constraints, the geologic conditions at the site, our site reconnaissance, our discussion with local contractors, and our experience, the three reaches will each be discussed below. Photographs of the various pipeline alignments, potential access pit locations, and staging areas are presented in an Appendix to this report. The methods selected are based on the preliminary information obtained for this study. Additional geotechnical investigations and the cost of construction materials may alter the feasibility factors for the recommended methods presented below. Leucadia Boulevard to Beacon's Beach It is our opinion that conventional tunneling would be the most feasible trenchless method for the Leucadia Boulevard to Beacon's Beach Reach to keep the alignment within the Leucadia Boulevard right-of-way. Microtunneling or jack &Bore methods may also be reasonable, if a straight alignment from Leucadia Park to Beacon's Beach is permissible (outside of the Leucadia Boulevard right-of-way). Our evaluation takes into account the two horizontal curves in the alignment necessary to stay within the city street right-of-way, the grade change EYE ALDRICH Rick Engineering Company 8 June 2004 Page 11 or slope of the storm drain, and the necessity to pass through the existing landslide. We have assumed that the entrance shaft will be located within Leucadia Park and that the storm drain will empty onto the sand at Beacon's Beach. HDD methods are pushing the size limitations for this reach (an approximately 5-foot diameter tunnel for a 4-foot diameter carrier pipe). Likewise, the approximately 850 foot length may be approaching the upper bound for a feasible drive length for jack& bore techniques. As the Beacon's Beach end of the pipeline alignment would require passage through the existing landslide, additional hazards are present. Movement of the landslide after pipeline - installation could damage the pipe and cause leakage of storm water into the ground, which may propagate the movement of the landslide. We recommend that the landslide repair that is planned occur before the installation of the pipeline. A knockout panel can be placed in the - retaining wall planned for the landslide repair to accommodate the trenchless alignment. Highway 101 For the Highway 101 alignment, we have evaluated excavating one tunnel for the entire approximately 9,000 foot of length with an diameter of 12 feet, and we have evaluated transitioning the tunnel excavation after about 5,800 feet from a 12-ft diameter tunnel to a 7-ft diameter tunnel for the last approximately 3,200 feet at the south end of the alignment, using two different tunnel methods. The diameters and number of transitions selected are _._ preliminary and included for planning purposed only. Additional analyses would be required to evaluate the number of transitions and diameters to be used in design. In our opinion, the most feasible and cost effective methods for the installation of the proposed storm drain would be a combination of a TBM machine for the larger diameter portion of the tunnel followed by a transition to a tunnel excavated using digger shield methods, or one diameter using the TBM method only. Conventional tunneling would be costly and time prohibitive. In addition, conventional methods may not be practical if cohesionless areas of the terrace deposit sandstone are encountered as discussed in the Kleinfelder report. The jack & bore method would be cost effective, but would cause much more disruption to the traffic and business as additional access shafts would be required at approximately 500 foot intervals. For these methods existing laydown areas that have recently been used for the installation of the 24-inch storm drain and associated sewer lines in the area can probably be used for staging areas for this project. We have assumed that the main tunnel entrance will be located on the vacant parcel of land between Highway 101 and the railroad tracks immediately north of La Costa Avenue. Additional access shafts may be located in the center median of Highway 101 as described above to minimize traffic, parking, and business impacts. Ground surface settlements resulting from tunneling and their impacts on adjacent utilities and structures will have to be evaluated for this trenchless alignment as additional information becomes available. Surface manifestations of ground settlement would most likely be the greatest directly above the tunnel excavation and diminish to a negligible amount at a distance equal to approximately two times the depth of the tunnel either side of the centerline. If settlement related impacts are determined to be unacceptable then mitigation measures such as compaction grouting will be necessary to reduce tunneling related settlement to acceptable levels. F ALEY , ALDRICH Rick Engineering Company 8 June 2004 Page 12 Railroad Crossings Because of the short length for each railroad crossing and the requirement for steel casing beneath the railroad tracks, we recommend that jack& bore methods be used for the railroad crossings. However, we understand from Rick Engineering that there are tentative plans to lower the railroad tracks along this stretch of Highway 101 in Encinitas. If this plan comes to fruition, conventional open trench pipe installation may be feasible during the grade realignment of the railroad tracks. If the storm drains are installed prior to lowering of the grade, the steel casing will allow for a minimal amount of soil cover between the pipeline invert and the bottom of the railroad ballast. Further Studies This feasibility study was performed based on the geotechnical reports provided to us, published information on the local and regional geology, and our experience in the area. Although the geotechnical information provided was adequate for this conceptual level study, it is not sufficient for future planning and design. Before pipeline design and specifications for trenchless excavation are developed, we recommend that an additional geotechnical investigation be performed for this project including field explorations, laboratory testing, measurement of groundwater, if present, and engineering analyses. In addition, we recommend that the records for the City of Encinitas be examined for additional geotechnical w investigations in the area that could assist with the geotechnical investigation for this project. Haley &Aldrich would be pleased to provide this additional geotechnical investigation and recommendations for trenchless pipeline design for the project, if this next step is taken towards the completion of this exciting project. LIMITATIONS This report was prepared for the purposes of a feasibility planning study only. The preliminary geotechnical considerations discussed herein are not intended for detailed design purposes. This work was performed by Haley &Aldrich, Inc., in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The preliminary geotechnical considerations presented herein are based, in part, on information from previous subsurface investigations by others. The accuracy of this information and nature and extent of variations along the pipeline alignments may not become evident until additional subsurface explorations are conducted. If changes do appear, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the information presented in this report. The scope of work for this report did not include an assessment of the presence of or impact that hazardous materials might have on the feasibility or cost of the proposed construction. HALEY ALDRICH Rick Engineering Company 8 June 2004 - Page 13 Sincerely, HALEY & ALDRICH, INC. �"�� Af$ 2501 A Steven M. Fitzwilliam, G.E. 2 (( Exp. * Daniel J. Dobbels Senior Engineer Vice President Enclosures: Figure 1 - Vicinity Map Figure 2 - Site Plan Leucadia Boulevard Figure 3 - Site Plan Highway 101 Figure 4 - Site Plan Railroad Crossings Appendix A - Project Photographs G:\Projects\INFRASTRUCTURE\30769-Encinitas Storm Drain\000\Final Letterl.doc HALEY I� ALDRICH w (r W i > ■�Z—� a L Z Z a 0° Z OU _ U)�U7 _ N CO t t Z 1� Z 2 w U U _) Q W W > � �Fy zO a �� Z U 0 O X Q 0 W ry Q U 0 Z O J D W Q � U 0 z U E O O J ;o a' Q U (n 00 O c W Q E Z LC) o O O p Ln vZ ~ S Z — � r a O W W o z m — g ¢ cl� cn Q Un _ 'S CSI W U o LO Ln _ c v E r 0 g w Q E UO S O a- N Q o g _ d L Z W U o Z W Q •y O Q m ry(n C O_ U a C O O E 0 4- �o U w O CL 0 0 0 W CD rn rn O vi C? U� o W V J o V) r c 0 Z ; LC) U W y J c Q c U C/) w U 2 W : O L W N LLJ Of + O I u+ W IEZ O ■ - o z Q 0 'o C) J Q U) ry)cn z z Q � ! ~~ d U a W w r w w (n J v „ r r' J P dp ,d, k: la leo r , � LU LU LU z z co O .� Q O IL ��. 2 uj in 2 LD W a a LU w / :i• W I .. J . , .� GG w It fir~-_ u w 5 1 ko .■ ., -d ui ■ z CO a Z U 2 W W U' W U 0 O m w o z (D LL � *r*ti C3 �• � J W Z Z • •`` O J Qz Z Q + •� how z Q Q = H U m O W � � Yi�t'• F� a = zz W w O Z z z � O r ww (n2 vv • y m p ■ • `� r V o Od m Jain got u 10 LL LL 1 r►+'�,1 P�J�� ; Lu ' •1 ��wr LL) ;r[wwwIIIJ IL Q A Ar1i LL1 S ■ Z yJ iL z O }�*7 - ,� r rte` 1A.•t z LU "� l •f'• a Q .w.• a LU lob * ' J �I Oak • *r,,� +• ,gd uf ' a z U w W N (7 N LLJ U K 0 0 W ° w CL o => k X W Z Z m O o O w I w .L uj uj co ' •'�<i •,a •>.f ..r.:�:� 2 Nn y r Z LLI J R (' i r *}i lea Ld 1ti � d U) a z U 2 W N (7 y LL1 U 0 O U v $ W o w LL CO 1 � Z O • I.` M o U Z ■ 1� ° Q Q zz W J w U U F- Q W W (/J N �� w 1�` u * Vol� *, a p i e LLI LU se � ¢ m ,a IL w z z co _ Q Of _j LLJ •� `S'. + m o fn * tr-xf 0 ..A`. LU w tv go w �� l i .•j vi a Z U Z W W 0 111 U 0 0 a Potential working shaft location at Leucadia Park View looking west of Leucadia Boulevard from Leucadia Park Encinitas Storm Drain Date of Photographs: March/April 2004 Encinitas,California Page 1 of 4 G:\Projects\INFRASTRUCTURE\30769-Encinitas Storm Drain\000\photos\photo appendix.doc Parking area above Beacon's Beach along Leucadia Boulevard ,ft—i'len r, View of Beacon's Beach Landslide at end of Leucadia Boulevard Encinitas Storm Drain Date of Photographs: March/April 2004 Encinitas,California Page 2 of 4 G:\Projects\INFRASTRUCTURE\30769-Encinitas Storm Drain\000\photos\photo appendix.doc INA& w Highway 101 looking south from Marcheta r Highway 101 showing two lanes of traffic each direction, median, and parking on west side of street Encinitas Storm Drain Date of Photographs: March/April 2004 Encinitas, California Page 3 of 4 G:\Projects\INFRASTRUCTURE\30769-Encinitas Storm Drain\000\photos\photo appendix.doc } to Highway 101 showing two lanes of traffic each direction, center median, and railroad ballast to the east north or Leucadia Boulevard elf•r:v :r.;L mY�►:"� a Vacant lot adjacent to La Costa Avenue between Highway 101 and railroad tracks Encinitas Storm Drain Date of Photographs: March/April 2004 Encinitas, California Page 4 of 4 G:\Projects\INFRASTRUCTURE\30769-Encinitas Storm Drain\000\photos\photo appendix.doc i View from vacant lot adjacent to La Costa Avenue looking down to Batiquitos Lagoon r 9 View of railroad tracks adjacent to Highway 101 Encinitas Storm Drain Date of Photographs: March/April 2004 Encinitas,California Page 1 of 3 G:\Projects\INFRASTRUCTURE\30769-Encinitas Storm Drain\000\photos\photo appendix2.doc y; K View of laydown area for along Highway 101 for current storm drain and sewer installation project Encinitas Storm Drain Date of Photographs: March/April 2004 Encinitas,California Page 2 of 3 G:\Projects\INFRASTRUCTURE\30769-Encinitas Storm Drain\000\photos\photo appendix2.doc