CMS95D Leucadia Blvd. Wideningh of caqjs�
U
v
,
°qOFOR�`P
April 2, 1993
YIA
City of Carlsbad
Warren H. Shafer
City Manager
City of Encinitas
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
Dear Warren,
In response to your March 17, 1993 letter to Ray Patchett, we have corrected the
Leucadia Boulevard Fact Sheet. The corrected copy is attached for your use.
If you have any other questions please give me a call.
LBH:brg
c: City Manager
Community Development Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009 -1576 • (619) 438 -1161 • FAX (619) 438 -0894
N
FACT SHEET
LEUCADIA BLVD (SR -680) AND
OLIVENHAIN ROAD CONNECTION
CITY OF CARLSBAD
BACKGROUND
The City of Carlsbad has for several years been investigating the need of providing an
additional east /west circulation connection through the heart of North County. With
the prospect of future traffic impacts from increasingly intense development east of
the 1 -5 corridor and the construction of the new California State University San
Marcos campus, a major road link between the 1 -5 and 1 -15 corridors is becoming a
necessity in order to provide an efficient and safe roadway network.
The City of Carlsbad in conjunction with the City of Encinitas are jointly pursuing
adoption of an alignment of a regional roadway network through the Mid County
Transportation Committee. This committee has been reviewing various roadway
alignment alternatives which would provide for an effective circulation network with
the least environmental impacts.
Failure to complete this project in a timely manner will result in severe congestion and
safety hazards along two existing east /west connecting roadlinks, La Costa Avenue
and Encinitas Boulevard as well as impacts to Rancho Santa Fe Road in Carlsbad and
San Marcos. This situation currently exists and can be expected to increase with
expansion of regional traffic demands.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project proposes to widen and improve the following three circulation facilities:
.• M • •m
This interchange improvements required a modification to the existing
interchange by providing four travel lanes (two in each direction), ramp
widening to accommodate an extra on /off lane including ramp metering and the
installation of traffic signals at both the on and off ramp intersections with
Leucadia Boulevard.
Estimated Cost - $ 10,000,000
.• :• - . 1 -1• .0 1-
This road link follows the original alignment of SA 680. The improvement
requirements include widening Leucadia Boulevard to Major Arterial Standards
(4 travel lanes plus a raised landscaped median) within an 84' right -of -way.
This would require the acquisition of a number of existing properties within the
City of Encinitas. The Encinitas City Council has committed to aquiring right -of-
way in order to complete this project.
Estimated Cost - $20,000,000
No Olivenhain Road between El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road
Olivenhain Road is classified as a Prime Arterial Roadway consisting of 6 travel
lanes (three in each direction) with a raised landscaped median. Portion of this
roadway are already constructed toward the. eastern end of this road link.
Estimated Cost - $12,000,000
This circulation network is of utmost importance to the traffic patterns of North
County. As can be seen on the attached exhibit, the link of Leucadia Boulevard and
Olivenhain Road provides a much needed east /west connection from Interstate 5 to
areas of San Marcos, the County of San Diego and also a connection through the City
of Escondido to the 1 -15 corridor. The traffic volumes are projected to increase
through this corridor with the completion of the California State University San
Marcos campus.
This program would represent a notable beginning at resolving significant regional
circulation issues for the entire mid - county portion of San Diego County.
a
R
EXHIBIT
PROJECT NAME
LEUCADIA BLVD. /OLIVENHAIN RD. 1
J J
UN �N i
Ct
Q Q
�
Q lJ..l
■
:m d
O
w w
�b
Q Q
CJa
� J
J
w
�
a
R
EXHIBIT
PROJECT NAME
LEUCADIA BLVD. /OLIVENHAIN RD. 1
■,
San Diego
HYDROLOGY • '
LEUCADIA BOULEVARD WIDENING 1
FROM TO SIDONIA STREET
...:.. ... z ........
Prepared By:
Nolte and Associates
5469 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 305
San Diego, CA 92123
Project Number: SDO019
August 23, 1995
NOLTE and ASSOCIATES
Engineers / Planners / Surveyors
5469 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 305, San Diego, G 92123 Tel: (619) 278 -9392 FAX No. (619) 278 -4628
HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR
LEUCADIA BOULEVARD WIDENING
FROM 1-5 TO SIDONIA. STREET
TABLE OF CONTEN'T'S
PAGE
SECTION I
1
1.0
Introduction ......... ...............................
1
1.1 Purpose of Study . ...............................
1.2 Scope ......... ..............................1
1
2.0
Study Area ......... ...............................
2
2.1 Soil Groups .... ...............................
2
2.2 Land Uses ..... ...............................
2
3.0
Hydrology .......... ...............................
2
3.1 Methodology- Rational Method ........................
2
4.0
Conclusions ......... ...............................
"A"
2
4.1 Line ...... ...............................
2
4.2 Line "B" ...... ...............................
SECTION II
Appendix 1
Existing Condition Hydrology Calculations
Ultimate Condition Hydrology Calculations
SECTION III
Appendix 2
Precipitation Map - 100 -year 6 hour Isopluvials
Precipitation Map - 100 -year 24 hour Isopluvials
Soil Map
Existing Condition 1"=400' Hydrology Map
SECTION IV
Appendix 3
Gutter and Roadway Discharge - Velocity Chart
Capacity of Curb Opening Inlets
Nomogram- Capacity, Curb Inlet at Sag
Caltrans GMP Inlet Ponding Calculations
SECTION V
Map Pocket
Line "A" Ultimate Hydrology Map (1"=80' Scale)
HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR
LEUCADIA BOULEVARD WIDENING
FROM I -5 TO SIDONIA STREET
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of Study
This Hydrology Study is the basis for the design of drainage facilities for the widening
and realignment of Leucadia Boulevard and Saxony Road. The storm drain system for
Line "A" is shown on the Hydrology Map in the map pocket of Section V.
1.2 Scope
This study analyzes the 100 year flow in three basins, labeled by the lines that drain them
as A, B, and C. The proposed storm drain system is designed to intercept and convey
the 100 year storm design flows.
2.0 STUDY AREA
The existing Line "A" drainage basin at the sump inlets west of Saxony drains
approximately 54.9 acres. This drainage is intercepted by a series of curb inlets in the
Fox Point subdivision and on Leucadia Boulevard. This drainage is conveyed to Del
Rio Avenue via 18, 24, and 36" storm drains with a short reach. of open channel at the
southwest corner of the Fox Point Subdivision. The proposed improvements would
replace this reach with a 36" pipe and add curb inlets in Saxony, Passiflora and Leucadia
Boulevard as shown on the map in Section V.
The existing Line "B" drainage basin at the Caltrans headwall on Piraeus Street drains
approximately 45.7 acres. This drainage is conveyed to this headwall through open
channels and street flows. The existing condition study routed the flows from the north
side of Leucadia, down Pireaus to this headwall to simplify the computer model. In
reality, a portion of this flow would turn down Ocean View Avenue, where the City has
been receiving complaints of flooding during recent years. The proposed improvements
would install a temporary curb inlet at the intersection of Leucadia and Piraeus and an
18" RCP approximately 800' to the Caltrans headwall.
The existing Line "C" drainage basin curb inlet at the I -5 northbound off -ramp
intersection with Leucadia drains approximately 3 acres. No changes to this system are
proposed with the widening of Leucadia Boulevard.
Digital topography for the road improvements was prepared by Zenith Aerial in January,
- 1993. The 400 scale topography was taken from the City's Master Drainage Plan.
2.1 Soil Groups
The USGS Soil Map in Section III indicates 5 different types of soil within the study
area, but all of them are considered Type "D" soil for hydrological calculations.
2.2 Land Uses
The drainage basin for Line A and C is comprised of medium density residential
development. The drainage basin for Line is comprised of a large amount of green
houses along with some single family development. A runoff coefficient of 0.55 was
used for both types of development. In the analysis of smaller basins consisting of a
large amount of impervious area, an appropriate higher runoff coefficient was used.
3.0 HYDROLOGY
3.1 Methodology - Rational Method
To develop flows for runoff from design storms, the Rational Method was used according
to the County of San Diego Hydrology Manual and Design and Procedure Manual. The
AES San Diego County Rational Method Computer Program was used to model the
basins and the resultant calculations are provided in Appendix 2.
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
4.1 Line "A"
The drainage basin for Line A has been increased by 1.1 acres, causing an increase
to the 100 year storm of approximately 1.3 cfs. The increased area is from Encinitas
Ranch, where the high point in the extension of Leucadia Boulevard will be at Quail
Gardens Drive approximately 600' easterly of the existing high point at the ranch
boundary. It is our opinion that this increase is insignificant and that the immediate
downstream facilities are adequate. If there is a concern for the diversion of water,
Encinitas Ranch may be able to install a system that intercepts the diversion and redirects
it to its original course.
4.2 Line "B"
The drainage basin for Line "B" has been increased by 0.5 acres by the elimination of
the existing high point in Leucadia just west of Del Rio. This causes an increase to the
100 year storm of 0.9 cfs. Again, it is our opinion that this is an insignificant increase
and that the immediate downstream facilities are adequate. However, Caltrans may have
another opinion and to intercept this runoff, addition storm drain facilities would have
to be placed in Leucadia Boulevard.
N:44D0019\00\WP51\HYDRO.RPT
...+ nrw, r** w* w***,► ww*, itir*, t* w** ww, rw* w* waa****, rsr*, e, r*, �rern► rr,►, rww*,rurr*,r* * **,t*r ***w* *,r,r*
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-94 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 13A Release Date: 3/16/94 License ID 1415
Analysis prepared by:
Nolte and Associates, Inc.
5469 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 305
San Diego, CA 92123
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY
*
* LEUCADIA BLVD
*
* EXISTING CONDITION 100 YR ANALYSIS
*
k LINE A (FN EXLINEA)
FILE NAME: EXLINEA.DAT
TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 9:16 7/12/1995
---------------------------------------------------------------
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.600
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = .90
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C "- VALUES USED
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
************ w, r**, �►, �nNne**, r:**+. w******+ w�rw**:** w*,►y. * * *w * *w * ** * *,rr * * * * *w **+. * * ***
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.10 IS CODE = 21
» »> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «<
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500'x'
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 650.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 310.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 294.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 16.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 18.694
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.926
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 9.01
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.60 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 9.01
* **** * * *,er*w�*** t*s rw,r *+ew:w,A r* *** I * I** r *,t,► ti n►*w r
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 4
» » >COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTI14E THRU SUBAREA « «<
» » >USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE « «<
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 7.2 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 13.8
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 288.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 274.00
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 190.00 MANNING'S N = .013
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 9.01
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .23 TC(MIN.) = 18.92
r* r, rt*, rrrwr« aaw+ rtnrw** ti►+ rw, rrr, rw,► w, w, u=,►, r+ rw+.+ rtrwnr:«, t, r»* netrw, r +►ww+rw,rrww+e,et,rw *wt *w,r,►,r
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------
» » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW « «<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.903
- SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "0"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.30 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.67
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 7.90 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.69
TC(MIN) = 18.92
.°*, t*, rr, r, r*,►, r***, r, t, rtr*, trnrr, tt**, t, r, es*, r***, rrwtt*, r***, e, rr ,r *snrt * *,r *,tf,e,r+r *r * *rr *,rf r *,r,r,e
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 4
-• » »> COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA « «<
»» >USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE « «<
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.3 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 16.0
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 274.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 234.00
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 465.00 MANNINGIS N = .013
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 12.69
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .49 TC(MIN.) = 19.41
wsnrww, ewrww« wtw, r:+ r*,► srwr, k,► wu«, ew* r, kra, r+►*+►+► r•. rw=+ r=+ rw, r**•+►+ r+ a *wr*+n►+t+►w,e+rr+t+rw+►,►+rw+►
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 8
» » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW « «<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.856
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500'%
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 8.90 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 13.98
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 16.80 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 26.67
TC(MIN) = 19.41
t*, tyru�rf, �s, rrtw* ww, rww, r+ n►, u=, rs, r+ r,► rnr +rrtrw= w,e,►rrw,r,r *iwtww+r+r *f f+r,►�►a,►,rir *= r,►,►r *+rw�+r+o-+r
- FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 4
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA « «<
» »>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE « «<
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 15.1
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 234.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 208.00
FLOWLENGTH(FEET4 = 365.00 MANNING'S N = .013
- GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 26.67
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .40 TC(MIN.) = 19.81
r* ww..*, r, r,►* www* w* rw, r, e**•« •w,►twssrnrwr+►,e+wsw,twrwrr,►• sus. s. «► *,r.,►,rw *rw,r *•,r.rrr•,r *,r*
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 8
_-----------------------------------------------
» » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW « «<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.818
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS 160"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500`
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 17.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 26.35
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 33.80 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 53.02
TC(MIN) = 19.81
ew, rw, es.«.:,► ss« ww�, r.* s• ww. r, r, r, r**, e*, e•** wsr:, r, r. s* w+ r*, r. w, ew,►•* ,r+ «,r+rr,r«r,i.,►,et «,r.. * *,rr
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 5.00 IS CODE = 4
» » >COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA « «<
» » >USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE « «<
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 36.0 INCH PIPE IS 14.1 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 20.6
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 207.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 199.00
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 120.00 MANNING'S N = .013
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 36.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 53.02
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .10 TC(MIN.) = 19.91
.�, ** wwwwrww*+., rr*+ r+ n►+ ewr a► mfwr*,k rrw, rww* w, e*, r: w, �r+ r+ w, r, r+ rew, rrwr,►+► ++ra,r,�r+► :,r,r :rrtw* *wars
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 5.00 IS CODE = 8
-------------------------------------------------------------------
» » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW « «<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.810
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 9.30 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 14.37
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 43.10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 67.39
- TC(MIN) = 19.91
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwrwwwww ww* wwwwwwwwtwwwwww wwwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 4
» » >COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA « «<
» »>USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE « «<
= ssasmr-r°----- ••-- °- xasxs��= m=- ===s= ===s�v � =s= �s= = =a'°�= -s=sz=
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 36.0 INCH PIPE IS 22.9 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 14.2
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 199.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 193.00
- FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 283.00 MANNING'S N = .013
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 36.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 67.39
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .33 TC(MIN.) = 20.24
r**, ewr* wa++►*, rr*, rwsw#, rrr+ nw+ r* w, rr,► r, rww+. wrnr, errrr r* w+ r*, r, r, ew +tinrw *r,r # *r,r +,►,rnr*+►+► * * *r
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 8
» »>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW « «<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.780
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500- -
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 11.80 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 18.04
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 54.90 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 85.43
TC(MIN) = 20.24
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 85.43 Tc(MIN.) = 20.24
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 54.90
_... s :zamazsaasazzazz :aaazzaa azazazzzzaszzm= zazzszzrzmzzzzazzazz= zzszza� zzzz
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-94 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 13A Release Date: 3/16/94 License ID 1415
Analysis prepared by:
Nolte and Associates, Inc.
5469 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 305
San Diego, CA 92123
* * * * * * * * # * * * * * * *** # * * * # * *# DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * # # * * * # **# * * * * #*** * # **
#
* LEUCAOIA BLVD
#
* EXISTING CINOITION 100 YR ANALYSIS
#
* LINE B GFN- EXLiNF.RI
#******#*******#***#***#******#**#**#****#* *#**# # * # * * * * # * * ##* * *** * # * # * * * *#
FILE NAME: EXLINEB.DAT
TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 14:42 7/11/1995
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.600
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = .90
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C "-VALUES USED
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
#************#**#************#******#****#**# * ##* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** * * * * * * *****
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 11.10 IS CODE = 21
» »> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «<
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 850.00
-" UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 215.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 190.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 25.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 20.146
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.788
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.83
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.50 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.83
#****#*#*********************#******#*******# ** #**#* # * * **** * *###* * ***#***#**
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.10 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 6
------------------------------------------------------
» » >COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA « «<
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 190.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 173.00
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 750.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 15.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK = 13.00
INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECINAL) = .020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
* *TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 5.11
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS:
STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) = .35
HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 11.20
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.72
PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY = 1.30
STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) = 3.36 TC(MIN) = 23.50
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.524
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.57
SUMMED AREA(ACRES) = 3.70 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.41
END OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = .38 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 12.89
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.60 DEPTH *VELOCITY = 1.38
- FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 14.00 IS CODE = 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
» » >COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA « «<
------ --- - - -- -- ------ - - - - --
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 173.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 140.00
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 900.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 24.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK = 22.00
INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECINAL) = .020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
* *TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 6.96
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS:
STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) = .36
HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 11.70
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.68
PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY = 1.69
STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) = 3.20 TC(MIN) = 26.71
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.325
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .9500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.10
-• SUMMED AREA(ACRES) = 4.20 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.51
END OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = .37 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 12.40
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.54 DEPTH *VELOCITY = 1.70
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 14.00 TO NODE 14.00 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.) = 26.71
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 2.32
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 4.20
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 7.51
***************, r, r********** w, tir* t+►** ww********** w*+ w * * : * **rrr�+► * *►,t * * *nr+r **,r*
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.00 TO NODE 13.10 IS CODE = 21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
» » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «<
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 1200.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 240.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 175.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 65.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 19.529
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.845
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 33.17
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 21.20 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 33.17
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.10 TO NODE 14.00 IS CODE = 51
» » >COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW « «<
» » >TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA « «<
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 175.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 140.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 950.00
CHANNEL SLOPE = .0368
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = .00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = .015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 33.17
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC) = 12.27 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 1.16
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.29 TC(MIN.) = 20.82
t**************** *, +A rww* rww*wi m�*+%* * ********* * * ***
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 14.00 TO NODE 14.00 IS CODE = 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
» » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW « «<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.730
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 20.30 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 30.48
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 41.50 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 63.65
TC(MIN) = 20.82
°*, r**, r, r*** w, rs**, r*, w**, r*+ r*, r** w*, rr+ *: ww* r .+r+r,► *y.+r *+ryry.,r,►,r *+rw ** ,►sirs *,r*,r,r * *,r *,rr **,r * **
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 14.00 TO NODE 14.00 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:
T114E OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 20.82
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 2.73
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 41.50
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 63.65
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR)
(ACRE)
1 7.51 26.71 2.325
4.20
2 63.65 20.82 2.730
41.50
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 70.05 20.82 2.730
2 61.72 26.71 2.325
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 70.05 Tc(MIN.)
= 20.82
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 45.70
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 70.05 TC(MIN.)
= 20.82
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 45.70
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
--- r, r*, e****, t*, er*****, r*, e*******, r, r* rrrt** ier** w*, r, �r**,►+ t, r*, r*, r * *,r * * *,trnrw * *,►trr* *,t* **,r+r
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-94 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 3/16/94 License ID 1415
Analysis prepared by:
Nolte and Associates, Inc.
5469 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 305
San Diego, CA 92123
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * ** * * * *' * * * ** * * * * **,r*,►*
*
* LEUCADIA BLVD
*
* EXISTING CONDITION 100 YR ANALYSIS
*
* LINE C (1`t'E M_rMT
*********,►***********,►*** w:***,►, r* vr*, ksr***, r*, ieir* w** ** * *w *,rir * ** * *,r *irye * * *,�w *w*
FILE NAME: EXLINEC.DAT
TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 14:59 7/11/1995
--------------------------------------------------------------
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
----------------------------------------------------------------
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.600
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = .90
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"- VALUES USED
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
* * * * * * * ** ***, r*, rr**, r* ww* w**** w,►**** w* w* w************* * *w *,r * **�r*,► * * ** * *w,►-r * *,ryr
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 21.00 TO NODE 21.10 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------
»»> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «<
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 850.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 206.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 185.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 21.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 21.351
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) - 2.686
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.43
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.00 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.43
raxw, r* w****** int* w* r***, �t+ r* w*** w** wr*, t�rrrrw, e,►* rr**** * *,ieir *w ** * * * * * *w*�n►+* * *,w,r*
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 21.10 TO NODE 22.00 IS CODE = 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
» » >COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA « «<
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 185.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 170.00
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 650.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 15.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK = 13.00
INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
* *TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 6.14
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS:
STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) = .37
HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 12.05
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.91
PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY = 1.44
STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) = 2.77 TC(MIN) = 24.12
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.483
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.41
SUMMED AREA(ACRES) = 5.50 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.85
END OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = .40 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 13.73
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.91 DEPTH *VELOCITY = 1.57
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.85 Tc(MIN.) = 24.12
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.50
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982 -94 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 3/16/94 License ID 1415
Analysis prepared by:
Nolte and Associates, Inc.
5469 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 305
San Diego, CA 92123
** *** * * * * * **** * * * *** * * * *** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY
*
* LEUCADIA BLVD
ULTIMATE CONDITION 100 YR ANALYSIS
*
* LINES Al, A2, A3, A4, 8 A5
FILE NAME: LIHEA.DAT
TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 9:47 8/22/1995
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION.
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.600
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = .90
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C "-VALUES USED
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
****** w****** w******* ww*, o-*** w** wwwwsr: w*******• r *w** * * * * * *w,rw,►**w ** * *** * * * * **
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.10 IS CODE = 21
»»> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «<
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 650.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 310.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 294.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 16.00
_ URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) s 18.694
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.926
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 9.01
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.60 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 9.01
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 2.10 IS CODE = 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
» » >COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA « «<
» »>USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE « «<
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 7.2 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 13.8
. UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 288.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 274.00
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 190.00 MANNING'S N = .013
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
_ PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 9.01
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .23 TC(MIN.) = 18.92
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.10 TO NODE 2.10 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.) = 18.92
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 2.90
-- TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 5.60
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 9.01
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 2.10 IS CODE = 21
» » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «<
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
MOBILE HOME DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 1120.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 320.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 280.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 40.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 17.735
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
- DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.027
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.90
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.00 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.90
r, r, t,►* sw**** wt* w, rrs* tir�nrt*, r* rrw*, rsww, r* wwrrww** wsrt,►**,►**, rstw ,►,e,►w,rr *t,► *,r,r *,►,r,► *,rw
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.10 TO NODE 2.10 IS CODE = 8
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW « «<
N100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.027
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
MOBILE HOME DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.90
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) 6.00 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) - 11.81
TC(MIN) = 17.74
rwtrw+ rrrw** w* w,►* *twt *w�rirww,r *nr+rtt *,t * *+ err**y r*+ t+ r+*, t*, R+ti etrir+►* wttttr *tr *wyrtt,r *tttt *,t *w * *,t
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.10 TO NODE 2.10 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.) = 17.74
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.03
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 6.00
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 11.81
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE)
1 9.01 18.92 2.903 5.60
2 11.81 17.74 3.027 6.00
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 20.45 17.74 3.027
2 20.33 18.92 2.903
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 20.45 Tc(MIN.) = 17.74
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 11.60
r, rt*, rtw, rir *t *,r,rtw,rtw,tt,rw **,rt * *t* shat** t* t***, t, rt*, rw*** ar, r,t,t * * *,rt,r*,t*,rt**,r,r*,r*t
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.10 TO NODE 3.10 IS CODE = 4
» »> COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA « «<
» » >USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE « «<
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 11.1 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 17.9
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 274.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 258.50
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 180.00 MANNING'S N = .013
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 20.45
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .17 TC(MIN.) = 17.90
_, rssaassssssssssssassssssssssassasssasssssssassssasasssssssassasssssassssssss
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.10 TO NODE 3.10 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.) = 17.90
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.01
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 11.60
-- PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 20.45
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 3.10 IS CODE = 21
------------------------------------------------------------
» » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS« «<
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 500.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 275.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 262.00
-° ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 13.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 16.099
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.222
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.43
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.50 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.43
#*########*##*###*#####*#####*#*##**######### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # * * # # # # # # # # # # ##
- FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.10 TO NODE 3.10 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.) = 16.10
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.22
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.50
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 4.43
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE)
1 20.45 17.90 3.009 11.60
2 4.43 16.10 3.222 2.50
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 23.53 16.10 3.222
2 24.59 17.90 3.009
-- COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 24.59 Tc(MIN.) = 17.90
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 141.10
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.10 TO NODE 3.20 IS CODE = 4
» »> COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA ««<
» »>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE « «<
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 12.7 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 18.5
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 258.50
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 234.00
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 285.00 MANNING'S N = .013
_ GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 24.59
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .26 TC(MIN.) = 18.16
*#######*#####################*#*############ * # # # # # # # # # * * # * ### ##* # # *#* # # * # *#
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.20 TO NODE 3.20 IS CODE = 8
» » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW --
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.981
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 4.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.56
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 18.10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 31.15
TC(MIN) = 18.16
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.20 TO NODE 4.10 IS CODE = 4
» » >COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA -«<
» » >USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE « «<
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 17.6
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 234.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 208.00
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) is 365.00 MANNING'S N = .013
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 31.15
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .35 TC(MIN.) = 18.50
#*################*#########*##*#######*##*## * # # # # # * # # # * ##* # # * # # * ##* * # * * * * ##
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.10 TO NODE 4.10 IS CODE = 8
» » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW « «<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.945
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 16.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 26.24
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 34.30 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 57.39
TC(MIN) = 18.50
***#****************##***#######************* *##* # # # ### ### # # # # # # # * # ##### # * **
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.10 TO NODE 4.10 IS CODE 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
» » >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE « «<
= assxassxsxsxaxxssxassxsssxsxaa -� saxasxaxasxaax- �ssxssxrxass= s�ssxssx3xxsx=
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 18.50
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.95
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 34.30
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 57.39
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 4.10 IS CODE = 21
» » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «<
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 1200.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 275.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 216.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 59.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 20.169
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.786
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.90
_ TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.20 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.90
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.10 TO NODE 4.10 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.) = 20.17
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 2.79
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.20
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 4.90
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM
RUNOFF
Tc
INTENSITY
AREA
NUMBER
(CFS)
(MIN.)
(INCH /HOUR)
(ACRE)
1
57.39
18.50
2.945
34.30
2
4.90
20.17
2.786
3.20
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 62.03 18.50 2.945
2 59.19 20.17 2.786
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 62.03 Tc(MIN.) = 18.50
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 37.50
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.10 TO NODE 5.10 IS CODE = 4
----------------------------------- -- -- --- --- -- --- --- --- ---- - -- - --
» »> COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA « «<
» » >USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE « «<
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 36.0 INCH PIPE IS 15.4 INCHES
_ PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 21.5
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 207.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 199.00
FLOWLENGTH (FEET) = 120.00 MANNING'S N = .013
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 36.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 62.03
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .09 TC(MIN.) = 18.60
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.10 TO NODE 5.10 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.) = 18.60
-- RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 2.94
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 37.50
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 62.03
**, rsnr* w** rrw***** wrr*** rw*,► * *w * **w *s *ww*,r * * * *wir *r *,r * *wf *,t* * * * *,t* * * * * * * * * * * **
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 5.10 IS CODE = 21
---------------------------------------------------------------------
» » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «<
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 840.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 280.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 211.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 69.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 14.222
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.491
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 13.44
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 7.00 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 13.44
*** ww********* w*** w** w*** s* w,►y nrw** rw*****, ir**** * **,rwww * *w * *w * * * * * * ** * * *w ** ***
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.10 TO NODE 5.10 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.) = 14.22
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.49
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 7.00
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE 13.44
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE)
1 62.03 18.60 2.936 37.50
2 13.44 14.22 3.491 7.00
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 65.61 14.22 3.491
2 73.33 18.60 2.936
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 73.33 Tc(MIN.) = 18.60
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 44.50
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.20 TO NODE 6.30 IS CODE = 4
•------------------------------------------------------------------
» » >COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA « «<
»» >USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE « «<
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 36.0 INCH PIPE IS 25.7 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 13.6
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 199.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 196.00
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 165.00 MANNING'S N = .013
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 36.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 73.33
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .20 TC(MIN.) = 18.80
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.30 TO NODE 6.30 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.) = 18.80
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 2.92
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 44.50
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 73.33
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 6.10 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
» » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «<
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D°
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 1600.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 265.00
-- DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 206.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 59.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) - 25.633
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWL9NGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
-- NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.387
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.60
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.60 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.60
#*###########*##*##*########*###########*#### ####### # # # # ### * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ##
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.10 TO NODE 6.20 IS CODE = 4
---------------------------------------------------------------
» »> COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA « «<
» » >USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE « «<
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 12.2 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 9.9
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 200.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 199.00
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 40.00 MANNING'S N = .013
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 12.60
TRAVEL TIME(MIN -) _ .07 TC(MIN -) = 25.70
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.20 TO NODE 6.20 IS CODE = 8
» » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW « «<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.383
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .9500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .30 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .68
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.90 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 2 13.28
TC(MIN) = 25.70
*#######*##**###**#########*#*############### *## * # ### # #### # # # # # # * # # # # # # # # # ##
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.20 TO NODE 6.30 IS CODE = 4
» »> COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA « «<
» »>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE « «<
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 13.1 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 9.7
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 199.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 196.00
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) - 130.00 MANNING'S N = .013
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00" NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 13.28
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .22 TC(MIN.) = 25.92
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.30 TO NODE 6.30 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.) = 25.92
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 2.37
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 9.90
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 13.28
** CONFLUENCE DATA
**
STREAM
RUNOFF
Tc
INTENSITY
AREA
NUMBER
(CFS)
(MIN.)
(INCH /HOUR)
(ACRE)
1
73.33
18.80
2.916
44.50
2
13.28
25.92
2.370
9.90
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 84.13 18.80 2.916
2 72.89 25.92 2.370
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 84.13 Tc(MIN.) = 18.80
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 54.40
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.30 TO NODE 7.20 IS CODE = 4
» » >COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA -«<
» » >USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE< «<
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 36.0 INCH PIPE IS 25.1 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 16.0
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 196.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 193.00
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 118.00 MANNING'S N = .013
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 36.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 84.13
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .12 TC(MIN.) = 18.92
**** s*, ew, rw, tww* w********,►, r** w, e,► �►** w*,► w+ rw** w** *+w * *w ** * * : *w*wr * * **w * * * ** * * * ** w
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.20 TO NODE 7.20 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.) = 18.92
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 2.90
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 54.40
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 84.13
******, ei r*, �►* w+ rs* wwt+ r**** �nrw*, rw***********, r*, e** rrr *w * ** * *w*,►w * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
-•• FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.00 TO NODE 7.10 IS CODE - 21
-- - -- --- --- --- ---- ---- --- --- -- --- ---
» » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «<
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 300.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 222.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 202.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 20.00
- URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 9.111
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.652
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.09
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.60 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.09
kAr*** A* tkfritk****`*** tY** tF** at* tF* tRtk*** t** tR* tkk***`# Nttt*#* tk* *4 *tklr **aFtktF *tktk *Yr ** * *** **
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.10 TO NODE 7.20 IS CODE = 4
» »> COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA « «<
» » >USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE « «<
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.4 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 12.1
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 202.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 193.00
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 95.00 MANNING'S N = .013
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 4.09
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .13 TC(MIN.) = 9.24
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.20 TO NODE 7.20 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.) = 9.24
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 4.61
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.60
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 4.09
** CONFLUENCE DATA
**
STREAM
RUNOFF
Tc
INTENSITY
AREA
NUMBER
(CFS)
(MIN.)
(INCH /HOUR)
(ACRE)
1
84.13
18.92
2.903
54.40
2
4.09
9.24
4.609
1.60
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 57.09 9.24 4.609
2 86.71 18.92 2.903
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
-- psuc rLou uA7s(cpo) = 86'71 7c(MIN-) = 18'92
7oraL xnsA(Acnsw) = 56'00
smo OF mrunY oumvmmv:
—
PEAK FLOW nmrs(cFm) = ea'r` rc(nIm') = 18'92
7mnaL AREA(ACRES) = 56'00
===========================~=======================================~========
-- cmo OF RATIONAL wsr000 ANALYSIS
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-94 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 3/16/94 License ID 1415
Analysis prepared by:
Nolte and Associates, Inc.
5469 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 305
San Diego, CA 92123
* * * # * * * * * * # * * * * # * * # * * # * * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * ** * # * # * * * # *#**** * # * * * * #*
*
* LEUCADIA BLVD
*
* ULTIMATE CONDITION 100 YR ANALYSIS
*
* LINES B AND 61
****#*#*##***#**#**#***#************#****#* # # * * # * # * * * * * # # * * **###*# * # * # * * **
FILE NAME: LINEB.DAT
TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 11: 0 7/12/1995
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AMD HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.600
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE _ .90
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C "-VALUES USED
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
*#***#*##*#***#**#*******#*************#****# * * * * * # # * # # * * * ##* * #*# * * # #** **# #*
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 11.10 IS CODE = 21
» »> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «<
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 850.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 215.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 190.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 25.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 20.146
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.788
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.75
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.75
~ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.10 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 6
--------- -------------------------------------------------------------------
» » >COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA « «<
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 190.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 173.00
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 750.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.
- STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 15.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK = 13.00
INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
* *TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 6.04
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS:
STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) = .37
HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 12.05
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.85
PRODUCT OF DEPTHBVELOCITY = 1.41
STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) = 3.25 TC(MIN) = 23.39
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(1NCH /HOUR) = 2.532
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.58
SUMMED AREA(ACRES) = 4.30 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.34
END OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = .38 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 12.89
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.12 DEPTH *VELOCITY = 1.58
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 14.00 IS CODE = 4
» » >COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA « «<
» »> USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE « «<
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.2 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 9.4
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 167.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 140.00
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 900.00 MANNING'S N = .013
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 7.34
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.60 TC(MIN.) = 25 -00
############################################# # # # # # # ### ### # # # # # # # # ####### # # ##
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 14.00 TO NODE 14.00 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.) = 25.00
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 2.43
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 4.30
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 7.34
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.00 TO NODE 13.10 IS CODE = 21
» >>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «<
exxsaxxrxsxsxsxm_ = sxxaxm_ xs__xa- a °- sa_r_ axo= ° °==-------- - - -� --
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 1200.00
- UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 240.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 175.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 65.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 19.529
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.845
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 33.17
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 21.20 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 33.17
*#######*##############*##*#####*#########*## ###* # # * # # # # # # # * # # * # * # # # ##* # # # ##
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.10 TO NODE 14.00 IS CODE = 51
»»> COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW « «<
» »>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA « «<
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 175.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 140.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 950.00
CHANNEL SLOPE = .0368
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = .00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = .015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 33.17
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC) = 12.27 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 1.16
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.29 TC(MIN.) = 20.82
##############*######*#*######*############## # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # * # # # #####
' FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 14.00 TO NODE 14.00 IS CODE = 8
» » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW « «<
-- sssrssxsaxs� assxxsreaaxxsx� xx _= mxaa= axxsra
== xsaxasaxssxsassxxsxsss__
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.730
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 20.80 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 31.23
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 42.00 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 64.40
TC(MIN) = 20.82
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 14.00 TO NODE 14.00 IS CODE = 1
» »>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE « «<
- » » >AMD COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES - <<
-axes
=== as saassassax�xasssxaaasax�saxsssaxxaxasx = == z___ _ _____ _ __________
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 2.73
-._ TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 42.00
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 64.40
** CONFLUENCE DATA
**
STREAM
RUNOFF
Tc
INTENSITY
AREA
NUMBER
(CFS)
(MIN.)
(INCH /HOUR)
(ACRE)
1
7.34
25.00
2.426
4.30
2
64.40
20.82
2.730
42.00
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 70.92 20.82 2.730
2 64.57 25.00 2.426
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 70.92 Tc(MIN.) = 20.82
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 46.30
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 70.92 Tc(MIN.) = 20.82
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 46.30
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
v =
nm Ply
Wll
Lrj
Ln
cQ
o
cam,
<
/ _ N z
U
-- � z o Ln
<
<z
j M ti 0 U
z 00
O a n y O
°O
I
G N p U y
Z LL. J M W< p
O O p , .
N C U -
O z
O W O < z
U
i- H- O w
¢c) t-w
C- O z
O W J F
voLL
.a
u
W
a
N
Revised 1/85 APPENDIX XI -E
� _ c•, "� � / ,.-, 111 _ �
_ /o_ ,�` _ 1• r � I V
C:)
Ln
CN
MCC C=
oatl
CD
CO
Uz
Lzj
`� � � _ -_•�� X1657 � - ��;�r
• ` N ``� ^ /' I y
�- I — _ v
O
U <
Z
u Z
r� C
p to
Zu-
<
N � Li
U.Zz
Co W O
L � U
z C O
moo_ O
O w
U O fL
C <
v
U1
0 LA S , < O OM
D ::J
r M U
N O �
o < <
M za
r m
<
z
V
u
C.
w
Revised 1/35 APPENDIX YI -H
J
•� � . - ♦+'�`wy -ya "'F � J I � � `. � ' " ♦ ..fie a-
Hrc
if
MIC =mot i CfC CID2 ii ' _ .., ` 7
;+ t
r Cf I CsC
Cfc
Cso IW r =
RuG Le
a C5C • ✓ % it y, . ! _
, L
i, CfC CsC WC2
OhE'
\ MIC w LeF2 ' CvF3"
i tsD2 v AtE.'c2
Go F n ,�
I MIC _GaF v t Cs8
MIC
^� Cs8 . rD ao
AN
SbC
'' ` GaF
°
Cs8 i".7
Cr wa ,
TeF
CsD
Cso
Cb
.. ' MIC v \� r - G �•'� 1 I 'r �' �'�+a` "� � '�' � "�'' ^'
�C-Tb CbE1�y RLG
cfcr
R.
CMZ
AtD a
MIG S.y.. ' t- � �' a � l
SbC •'. "'�
MIE ,
MIE k" .• -
AtF
MCALPIA
ctc
MIC
LL—
Pr r
,+ Y,. 7�' MSC . � �+' ` < . •
tt "'{ �A•o71- r. -y 1P-� ��•`- -••'4 � '`�- i .. .-. Cb� � "af
501 L �'�� >- 1' ,, t.. •�' I . _ r '!_ -::, - - r� -_
haw
Cr
r>
ME
:� - • CbC
CfC A-. .t �
CSS
w b
CCE
CD -- £
J11.
Ato
V ".
ftm.1
L R
SX&
i
3w,
LLJ
LLJ
T-
(f)
ui
Ld
(n
0
LLI
.j
D
0
co
LU
.j
CL
0
0
.J
0
Cr
mr
z
0
F-
M
z
0
C)
z
F-
CO
X
L.Li
0
II
n - .0175
RESIDENTIAL STREET
ONE SIDE ONLY
- - -7 - - -- — --_
20 30 40 5^ -l"
�7 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
127 as LAS DISCHARGE (C. F S.)
EXAMPLE: s°
Given: S= 2,
CF S chartiv .: Depth Q4 Velocity 4.4 f ps. . H LT -u 4'
,
D = D. 3b, 0 3
ZYf /v• v I D� /
SAN DIEGO COUNTY 1 GUTTER AND ROADWAY
DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES i DISCHARGE– VELOCITY CHART
l —
DESIGN MANUAL i
! APPROVED DATE tZ I3 01G
APPEND; X X-0
f•— I s' ---+�
2%
:•- n :.015
!3�
D10ft
0.13
D = U!
44,0'
:4 -
14= —_:
-- - -r
_ = ��
j
i
L.
9
W
4-9
O
-
�
-.. -.. 4
ITIF 1
-
...
cn
,. .
_
..1
0.7
0.6
1
— -_ __
n - .0175
RESIDENTIAL STREET
ONE SIDE ONLY
- - -7 - - -- — --_
20 30 40 5^ -l"
�7 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
127 as LAS DISCHARGE (C. F S.)
EXAMPLE: s°
Given: S= 2,
CF S chartiv .: Depth Q4 Velocity 4.4 f ps. . H LT -u 4'
,
D = D. 3b, 0 3
ZYf /v• v I D� /
SAN DIEGO COUNTY 1 GUTTER AND ROADWAY
DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES i DISCHARGE– VELOCITY CHART
l —
DESIGN MANUAL i
! APPROVED DATE tZ I3 01G
APPEND; X X-0
�;� vii S�.nP L,L' �i•��
CHART 1 -103.6 A
CAPACITY OF CURB OPENING INLETS
ASSUMED 2% CROWN.
-
017E (A +Y)3/2 �
*A = 0,33
y = HEIGHT OF WATER AT CURB FACE (0.4' MAXIMUM)
-- REFER TO CHART 1- 104,12
L = LENGTH OF CLEAR OPENING OF INLET
I
_ *Use A =0 when the inlet is adjacent to traffic;
i.e., for a Type "J" median inlet or where the
parking lane is removed.
0` — 2 . L
�.
n ,
1113 C
o. zS
- C: � „ •� � Lf� ¢`�/Q "��.33 r���
Lg +fi.v! SHT. N0.
REV. CITY OF SAN DIEGO - DESIGN GUIDE
CAPACITY OF CURB OPENING INLETS
13
CHART I- 103.6C
to
lO 0 6
5 3
9 j 1' (� v 4
.T l = 3 2
J _ -
O 2 I.S
} _
_ -
- z
ID •
•'' Z
Z 3 U
_ O
O I
Z
I.0
= O
O O
U. .
.9
2 2
2 =
= 7
7 5" O
O
z S
S Z z
z 3
4
T e
e
O J
00 �
J
.7
� 0
O 3
3 �
� .
`V. O
y c
_ �
_ 3 y
cr _
�- .
.5
CL
3 v 08 + W .4
v 06 -� c
f� `C
�l I D 4 —' J O
K
Z ("u
Natet of ewe \ \\ lrrfece of 2
eMN N1ef r
Lseei 4eerats+w (0) ♦ — .15
EL$V4TION SECTION
REV. CITY OF SAN DIEGO - OESIGN GUIDE SHT. NO.
,
NOMOGRAM - CAPACITY , CURB
INLET AT SAG
15
��\ NOLTE and ASSOCIATES, Inc. JOB NO.
- Engineers / Planners / Surveyors DATE
;.��� U✓� ,n {" l 'V `iz / DESIGNED BY
SUBJECT ✓L/'
CHECKED BY
f
f�'f� /� J� � � . � ��� --may ✓� � -�
I
�
y
v
77
Z.
100V = It
dbW 11J0I0HdJlH NOIlIdNOO JNIlSiX3
aadn3inoa eiadon3l
r
f
i 1 tl,
�', 1 ; Y•j J
9 13-- NHS -33S
4 r: r' �y , : r:
..' y I Atli ibr'� n
Y
N
Y'1i�'•R �Y•'nvS 'yM�.' T n tY1�� «, '1 b�. � ��
,t� �1L
j� rii ,: /Y•r "S �6s'�p� Ad ,,� ry ; �1 01/•
- .� �1 � - ,..� � �`� }:.� Yom' •. i �.
�_i`'�,` ' /
.: F�
i K
f��
Wk
am
oil
j
,
��' - �•"�' .t"+s+� d'-t'w� �•�i t s ' -e fr�l�'i!�.��6 ��' Ire �:! ! rl `' 'a
L
�� Pry: N� � , + ....... •; t- '� �<< ,�� ��= _ ..1�. +1` W
Tp-
. t, 2. I<< •i ". Q � � � � R ' 1Mj�" p7y�, } it `(► k ��'. ]6t �`nl +g; ��.�'
i 1! F ! •y • ` 14 i It `.
.. � � �7lrF�'�+ �:�'�l'"»: �'� _ li1`l",'r,,{,,: •Y 4�'°d}�'•'s'.i.::ak�•; '!#�Y;,,'°'"l�ia
y { �:, 4- r, +1! O V -u=: d',j` � �!' , •' M;� • I - r .. -.wp� , ;'' °�• ailr
yv . +c4• ' 'a, star � r L i N ' - '. .�Y r����{� ,y • .• ,,,,,,..,�v.+ - -
4'1
• r+.. `y L- � _ is
�} ' lFr A ,ea F ✓.-- ee ' "V/�P eRy , 1 P�,
y
1 :. i. r. 4'llIE.. .�.'c�' .gym.- --': �.r•A'� �. �''.yn -J � sy5v"_�' ' .r.- � ' �. 1''a � �r� ' � ``.��,��, Q�I..�
NOW
F1Yar
OAK
J•�",.. +•s r`y,,.'k '^":.+Md!M! .. -yl,� li F�"..a"...i_.Sf (' j 1
!R 4 it
,_. • ,.. .,,. , -. - ..ter•,•,, .��• ,��1��• ,. ,. �mai ,
IL
w..:..y rs1►y
i
ALIGNMENT STUDY - LEUCADIA BOULEVARD
FROM I -5 TO EL CAMINO REAL, ENCINITAS
Prepared for
City of Encinitas
August, 1994 FINAL REPORT
By
LEEDSHILL- HERKENHOFF, INC.
5820 Oberlin Dr92121u374 01
San Diego, C A
Phone: (619) 455 -7787 Fax: (619) 455 -0029
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION .... . . . . . . ...........................
2.0 GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....... .
2.1 SEGMENT 1: 1 -5 TO SAXONY ROAD ................ .
2
2.2 SEGMENT 2: SAXONY ROAD TO SIDONIA AVENUE ......
3
2.3. SEGMENT 3: SIDONIA AVENUE TO EL CAMINO REAL ....
4
2.4 LANDSCAPE CONCEPT ............................
...............
2.5 RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION ............. .
3.0 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES .........................
APPENDIX 1 - PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
APPENDIX 2 - CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
APPENDIX 3 - SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION
E:
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the results of the Alignment Study along Leucadia Boulevard
from 1 -5 to El Camino Real. The report includes a description of the
y
the Cit Council in addition to preliminary plans and
alignment as identified by rofile sheets from I -5 to El
construction cost estimates. The plans consist of plan and
I neprom I -5 to Sidonia Street.
Camino Real with a single line profile along the centerline
t has been developed which
In addition to the preliminary plans, a landscape concept
includes a plant list, cross - sections, and schematic layouts for the parkways and
potential rest /view areas. A preliminary construction cost estimate is also included in
the report. The preliminary cost estimate has been broken into three segments as
follows: Segment 1: 1 -5 to just west of Saxony Road, Segment 2: Saxony Road to just
east of Sidonia Street and Segment 3: Sidonia Street to El Camino Real.
2.0 GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following is a brief description of the proposed .Leucadia Boulevard alignment from
15toEICamino Real. In general terms Leucadia Boulevard will consist of two 12 foot
travel lanes and an 8 foot emergency parking /bike lane in each direction from 1-5 to just
west of the proposed Via Cantebria intersection. From Via Cantebria to l
Real the roadbed widens to include three 12 foot lanes and an 8 foot emergency
Y
p
arking /bike lane in each direction. See Figures 1 through 5 for the preliminary plans
of Leucadia Boulevard from 1 -5 to El Camino Real. Throughout the limits of this project
the median width varies from 4 to 24 feet to minimize the impact to adjacent land forms
and to accommodate left turn pockets. The width of the parkways from Road to Sidonia Street
Road range from 16 to 30 feet. The parkways from Saxony from Sidonia
range from 20 to 30 feet wide. Through the Encinitas Ranch property,
Street to El Camino Real, the parkways will be 30 feet wide.
1
fug
rn
v
,a
.z
e_
gt
'I _ H
- n
w
R
T
m�
.s
111
.... .., ..
''j-''j'��! �—• ±
_
Y,
_ >A.– ems—
j
:'ON 3NOHd
:SS3NOOV
3WVN S.21 MON3
z
:'ON 3NOHd
:SSMIMV
:3MYN U33NION3
7 � �
s
i
h 1py
L P`
t=
I
d V,
Iq
J
M
O
r w
Wa
�o
z
CL
g
U
O
K < tj
°a
IL
W
° U
T �
00
I I 1
� W
U
8
�1
`Zy
J
a
g
J
pW
�s
i
2.1 SEGMENT 1: 1 -5 TO SAXONY ROAD
Starting from the west end of the study area at 1 -5, the roadway shifts slightly to
the south prior to reaching the first intersection at Clark Avenue. From 1 -5 to
Clark Avenue, Leucadia Boulevard will be transition from the width at the 1 -5
overcrossing to an 80 foot wide curb to curb width. The 80 foot width includes
two twelve foot travel lanes and an 8 foot emergency parking /bike lane in each
direction and a 16 foot wide median with a 12 foot left turn pocket. On the north
side of Leucadia Boulevard, Urania Avenue would ultimately be realigned to
intersect with Clark Avenue. This realignment will be phased, as noted on the
plans, to allow the existing agricultural operation to continue. When the
agricultural use changes to another use Urania Avenue will be realigned to Clark
Avenue. In the ultimate configuration the Urania /Clark intersection will be
signalized allowing full turning movements. Until the change of use occurs the
interim configuration will include a signal at the intersection of Urania Avenue
and Leucadia Boulevard. The interim configuration will limit the turning
movements a Clark Avenue to right -in and right -out. In addition to the phased
implementation at the Urania /Clark intersection the development of the parkway
area adjacent to parcels 254 - 362 -13 and 254 - 362 -14, as noted on the plans, will
also be phased.
From Clark Avenue to the just west of Del Riego Avenue, Leucadia Boulevard
runs parallel to the existing right of way line along Leucadia Boulevard. The
proposed southerly right of way line would match the existing southerly property
line of the properties on the south side of the Boulevard. The width of the
roadbed remains the same with two 12 foot travel lanes and an 8 foot
emergency parking /bike lane in each direction and a 16 foot wide median.
From just west of Del Riego Avenue to Saxony Road, Leucadia Boulevard shifts
back to the north. The shift curves to the north so the alignment from Saxony
Road to Sidonia Street will provide a minimum of 20' of parkway along the north
2
side of Leucadia Boulevard. As a result of the median along Leucadia
Boulevard access to all residential roadways and driveways between Clark
Avenue and Saxony Road will be restricted to right -in /right -out turning
movements.
2.2 SEGMENT 2: SAXONY ROAD TO SIDONIA AVENUE
From Saxony Road to the intersection at Sidonia Street the centerline of the
Leucadia Boulevard will run parallel to the existing right of way lines. The
intersection of Leucadia Boulevard and Saxony Road will be realigned utilizing
a 20 degree skew as it crosses Leucadia Boulevard. Saxony Road will curve to
the west beginning at the southerly property line of the third property to the south
of the Boulevard. Saxony Road will cross Leucadia Boulevard along a tangent
and it will then curve back to join the existing Saxony Road alignment to the
north of the Boulevard.
Continuing to the east along Leucadia Boulevard the roadbed remains the same
with two 12 foot travel lanes and an 8 foot emergency parking /bike lane in each
direction from Saxony Road to Sidonia Street. The median will transition from
16 wide at the left turn pocket at Saxony Road to 8 feet in between the two
intersections and back to 16 feet at the left turn pocket at Sidonia Street. By
narrowing the median additional parkway width is created in the center portion
of this segment. On the north side of the Boulevard, Passiflora Avenue will
have right -in and right -out access turning movements. On the south side of
Leucadia Boulevard there will be right -in only access at Passiflora Avenue and
Sidonia Street. Woodley Place will have both right -in and right -out access
turning movements. Eugenie Avenue will be converted into a cul -de -sac and
therefore there will be no access to Eugenie Avenue from the Boulevard. To
provide access to the properties that front along the Boulevard a driveway
system that runs parallel to the roadway will be provided. The plans include, in
concept only, a potential configuration of the driveway system. The final design
3
of the driveway system will be developed conjunction with the affected property
owners. The construction of the driveway system is not intended to include the
purchase of private property. The intersection at Sidonia Street will not be
signalized but it will include both left and right turn movements from the north
onto and off of Leucadia Boulevard.
2.3 SEGMENT 3: SIDONIA AVENUE TO EL CAMINO REAL
Heading east from Sidonia Street, Leucadia Boulevard enters the Encinitas
Ranch property and it begins a large radius curve to the northeast. Throughout
this entire segment the parkways will be either within a private Landscape
Development Zone (LDZ) or within dedicated public right -of -way.
As Leucadia Boulevard curves to northeast the intersection with Quail Gardens
Road will occur. Leucadia Boulevard will consist of two 12 foot travel lanes and
an 8 foot emergency parking /bike lane in each direction. The median at the Quail
Gardens Road intersection will include a 16 foot wide median which will
accommodate the 12 foot left turn pocket.
As the roadway approaches the bluff line it enters a large radius curve to the
east and the median narrows from 16 feet to 4 feet wide. The sidewalk is
moved from the typical location, behind the curbline, to a trail system that
meanders through the bluff. By narrowing the median and moving the sidewalk,
the impact of the slope would be lessened. The depth of the cut at the bluff line
would be approximately 85 to 95 feet.
As the roadway enters the valley it approaches the intersection at proposed Via
Cantebria. The location of the Via Cantebria intersection has not been finalized
at this time and therefore the location as shown on the plans is conceptual in
nature. As the median widens out to 16' for the left turn pocket the eastbound
0
roadbed widens out the accommodate a third 12' wide lane. This third lane
would accommodate a right turn pocket/deceleration lane.
As Leucadia Boulevard proceeds from Via Cantebria to the east towards El
Camino Real the roadbed widens to include three 12 foot lanes and a 8 foot
emergency parking /bike lane in each direction. The median would be widened
to 24 feet to accommodate dual left turn lanes at Via Cantebria, El Camino Real
and future driveway access points.
2.4 LANDSCAPE CONCEPT
In addition to the preliminary roadway plans the alignment study includes a
landscape concept plan and schematic plans for features such as meandering
sidewalks, view /rest areas, and landscaping along the alignment. See Figures
6 through 8 for schematic views and sections relevant to the Landscape
Architecture components of the boulevard.
The Landscape Concept is as follows:
The concept for the Leucadia Boulevard streetscape is to create a "Scenic
Roadway" ambience that reflects the semi - rural, informal character of the
Encinitas area. Meandering pedestrian paths accented by trees, low
plantings and earth berms will create a pleasing visual experience.
The plant palette for Leucadia Boulevard shall consist of both California
native and ornamental species compatible with the Encinitas area. These
species shall be drought tolerant and low maintenance trees, shrubs, and
groundcovers. Landscaped areas shall be mulched with wood chips or
bark to help preserve soil moisture and discourage weed growth.
Trees shall be limited to a maximum of 30' tall and be placed so not to
interfere with the private property views of the ocean. Shrubs shall be
5
limited to species naturally growing a maximum of 3' high to promote
safety to residential uses. The plant palette will include deciduous and
flowering varieties to underscore the mild Encinitas climate and to
emphasize a sense of seasonal change.
View /Rest Areas shall occur at areas along the Boulevard for the
pedestrian to rest and enjoy the view. The view /rest areas shall have an
enhanced paving area with benches and trash receptacles. These areas
shall be located to maximize the view potential and promote a sense of
relaxation to the user.
Streetscape amenities will reinforce the natural, informal character of the
road. Vandal resistant site furnishings such as benches, trash
receptacles and bollards shall create a continuity with other elements of
the roadway such as paving and walls. Paving and walls shall be
enhanced to provide the semi -rural feel and discourage graffiti.
The Plant list is as follows:
PIRAEUS STREET TO SIDONIA STREET, SIDONIA STREET TO
BLUFF AREA, AND VIA CANTEBRIA TO BLUFF AREA
TREES
AGONIS FLEXUOSA ( "Peppermint Tree ")
CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS ( "Western Redbud ")
GEIJERA PARVIFLORA ( "Australian Willow ")
KOELREUTERIA PANICULATA ( "Goldenrain Tree ")
LEPTOSPERMUM LAEVIGATUM ( "Australian Tea Tree ")
MELALEUCA NESOPHYLLA ( "Pink Melaleuca ")
METROSIDEROS EXCELSUS ( "New Zealand Christmas Tree ")
PARKINSONIA ACULEATA ( "Mexican Palo Verde ")
PINUS TORREYANA ( "Torrey Pine ") (IN RANCH AREA)
RHUS LANCEA ( "African Sumac ")
TRISTANIA CONFERTA ( "Brisbane Box ")
ON
SHRUBS
CALLIANDRA CALIFORNICA (N.C.N.)
CARISSA GRANDIFLORA ( "Dwarf Natal Plum ")
CARPENTERIA CALIFORNICA ( "Bush Anemone ")
CEANOTHUS IMPRESSUS (N.C.N.)
CEANOTHUS RIGIDUS 'SNOWBALL' ( "Snowball Ceanothus ")
GALVEZIA SPECIOSA ( "Island Bush Snapdragon ")
ISOMERIS ARBOREA ( "Bladderpod ")
NERIUM OLEANDER, DWARF ( "Petite Oleander ")
PENNISETUM SETACEUM ( "Fountain Grass ")
RAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 'CLARA' ( "White Indian Hawthorne ")
RIBES SPECIOSUM ( "Fushia Flowering Gooseberry ")
RIBES VIBURNIFOLIUM ( "Catalina Perfume Currant ")
SALVIA MELLIFERA ( "Black Sage ")
GROUNDCOVERS
ACACIA REDOLENS (N.C.N.)
CISTUS SALVIFOLIUS ( "Sageleaf Rockrose ")
DELOSPERMA 'ALBA' ( "Disneyland Iceplant ")
LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS ( "Trailing Lantana ")
LONICERA JAPONICA 'HALLIANA' ( "Hall's Honeysuckle ")
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'PROSTRATUS' ( "Prostrate Rosemary ")
BLUFF AREA (Southern Maritime Chaparral Community)
ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM ( "Chamise ")
ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA ( "Coast Sagebrush ")
ARCHTOSTAPHYLOS GLANDULOSA SP. ( "Del Mar Manzanita ")
CEANOTHUS VERRUCOSUS ( "Coast White Lilac ")
COMAROSTAPHYLIS DIVERSIFOLIA ( "Summer Holly ")
CORETHROGYNE FILAGINIFOLIA ( "Del Mar Sand Aster ")
HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA ( "Toyon ")
QUERCUS DUMOSA ( "California Scrub Oak ")
RHUS INTEGRIFOLIA ( "Lemonade Berry")
EARTH RETENTION STRUCTURE PLANTING
CISSUS ANTARCTICA ( "Kangaroo Treebine ")
FICUS PUMILA ( "Creeping Fig ")
7
30716
K NDSC URE CtgRAOJ � g
i T RAn v
S � SAXON
r
D
�r
D
D Z
v
C D �1
M M c
0nm
Dm�
xr-
z D
�n
�cn
0
D
C7
r
m
c
n
D
O
D
r
�I
n�
r) D
O
X
O
Z
r-
0
m
D
2
m
cn
m
m
m !'
1 D OR_
N
b
(I --
I x '§
G7
O
={ N
CD
0
-D
C)
M
Cl)
-Z
� N
y �
z
Z
cn
�D
m
W
N
m
0
Y
fi�rr) Y�
lip � 1
N
n
x
O r
Z D
< Z
;u C7
C:) U)
C-)
v >�
omc
nm
zzK
nD
m
m
m
c
u
m
C
0
D
D1
oo�
C'
0
X
O
Z
O
D
O
z
D
- cn
_,l l
a
m m
m m
i
J
i
i1
�T
1 -
j�
I
I
Z N
�o
0
-"1► <
D
m
f
cn �
�T Imo.
'o
N
0)
Tm
CD z
�>
rn
�rn
z
l�
I�
rn
V )
C
rn
rn
�>
r
D
z
m to
cn 0
\ -0-TI
smc
m
*nm
;bM
rri
C'7
N
r
m
C7
D
0
D
r
C
s
7
'm
m
r
m
CD
O
r
0
U)
CD
-�
m
m
m
z
C-)
U)
D
_
;z
m
n
I ,m
m
m
o
l�
D
ID
r
<_
O
m
m
0
c
�
�
m
o
IO
'�<
m
2.5 RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION
From 1 -5 to Sidonia Street, a number of properties will have to acquired by the
City to construct the proposed modifications. Attached as Figure 11 is the
preliminary plan from 1 -5 to just east of Saxony Road with the probable property
acquisitions highlighted. From just east of Saxony Road to Sidonia Street the
roadway is aligned within the existing City right -of -way and therefore no property
will be required along this segment. From Sidonia Street to El Camino Real the
roadway traverses the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan Area. For the purposes
of the preliminary cost estimates the only property acquisition that has been
identified as a cost to the City are those properties from 1 -5 to just east of
Saxony Road as indicated on Figure 9.
3.0 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES
For the purposes of this study the construction cost estimate has been broken down
into the following roadway segments: Segment 1: 1 -5 to just west of Saxony Road,
Segment 2: Saxony Road to just east of Sidonia Street, and Segment 3: Sidonia Street
to El Camino Real. The preliminary cost estimates include line items for right -of -way
acquisition costs, roadway construction costs and landscape an irrigation construction
costs. In addition to these costs the City can anticipate the Landscape and Irrigation
maintenance costs in the range of 50 to 75 cents per square foot of landscape area.
A summary of the preliminary cost and quantity estimates as included in Appendix 1
are as follows
SEGMENT 1 (1 -5 to Saxony) $7,430,000
SEGMENT 2 (Saxony to Sidonia) $815,000
SEGMENT 3 ( Sidonia to El Camino Real) $9,010,000
TOTAL
W
$17,255,000
APPENDIX 1
PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
SUMMARY
AUGNMENT STUDY SEGMENT #1
LEUCADIA BOULEVARD
AUGUST -2 -94
PLANNING LEVEL COST AND QUANTITY ESTIMATE
JOB NO.
93701.11
1 -5 TO SAXONY ROAD
FILE NO.
SEGICQ.WK1
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
UNITOF
TOTAL
UNIT
COST
DESCRIPTION
MEASURE
QUANTITY
COST
1 CLEAR AND GRUB
AC
5.50
$1,000.00
$5,500
2 DEMOLITION
LS
1
10,000.00
10,000
3 EXCAVATION
LS
1
15,000.00
15,000
4 UTILITY ADJUSTMENTS
LS
1
20,000.00
20,000
5 AGGREGATE BASE CL II (9 ")
TONS
6,900
15.00
103,500
6 ASPHALTCONCRETE (4 ")
TONS
3,100
35.00
108,500
7 CURB AND GUTTER
LF
3,650
6.50
23,725
8 ME DIAN CURB
LF
3,100
5.75
17,825
9 DRIVEWAY/ SIDEWALK (4')
SF
29,300
3.00
87,900
10 STORM DRAIN
LS
1
20,000.00
20,000
11 STREET LIGHTS (300 OC)
EA
10
2,900.00
29,000
12 TRAFFIC SIGNALS
LS
1
120,000.00
120,000
13 SIGNING AND STRIPING
LS
1
3,000.00
3,000
14 HANDSCAPE (MEDIANS)
SF
4,700
4.50
21,150
15 LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
SF
73,900
4.50
332,550
16 RIGHT OF WAY (PARTIAL -22 PARCLES)
SF
44,200
10.00
442,000
17 RIGHT OF WAY (FULL -17 PARCELS)
EA
17
300,000.00
5,100,000
SUBTOTAL $6,459,650
15% CONTINGENCY 968,948
TOTAL $7,428,598
SUMMARY
AUGNMENT STUDY SEGMENT #2
LEUCADIA BOULEVARD AUGUST -2 -94
PLANNING LEVEL COST AND QUANTITY ESTIMATE JOB NO. 93701.11
SAXONY ROAD TO SIDONIA STREET FILE NO. SEG2CQ.WK1
UNITOF TOTAL UNIT COST
DESCRIPTION MEASURE QUANTITY COST
1 CLEAR AND GRUB
AC
4.50
$1,000.00
$4,500
2 DEMOLITION
LS
1
5,000.00
5,000
3 EXCAVATION
LS
1
10,000.00
10,000
4 UTILITY ADJUSTMENTS
LS
1
15,000.00
15,000
5 AGGREGATE BASE CL II (9)
TONS
6,450
15.00
96,750
6 ASPHALTCONCRETE (4 ")
TONS
2,900
35.00
101,500
7 CURB AND GUTTER
LF
3,600
6.50
23,400
8 MEDIAN CURB
LF
2,700
5.75
15,525
9 SIDEWALK (4 ")
SF
24,000
3.00
72,000
10 STORM DRAIN
LS
1
10,000.00
10,000
11 STREET LIGHTS (300 OC)
EA
5
2,900.00
14,500
12 TRAFFIC SIGNALS
LS
1
120,000.00
120,000
13 SIGNING AND STRIPING
LS
1
2,000.00
2,000
14 HANDSCAPE (MEDIAN)
SF
4,100
3.00
12,300
15 LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
SF
45,900
4.50
206,550
SUBTOTAL $709,025
15% CONTINGENCY 106,354
TOTAL $815,379
,TI►I�rJoll
ALIGNMENT STUDY SEGMENT #3
LEUCADIA BOULEVARD
AUGUST -2 -94
PLANNING LEVEL COST AND QUANTITY ESTIMATE
JOB NO.
93701.11
SIDONIA STREET TO ELCAMINO REAL- ENCINITAS RANCH
FILE NO.
SEG3CQ.WK1
UNITOF
TOTAL
UNIT
COST
DESCRIPTION
MEASURE
QUANTITY
COST
1 CLEAR AND GRUB
AC
19.00
$1,000.00
$19,000
2 DEMOLITION
LS
1
60,000.00
60,000
3 EXCAVATION
CY
1,190,000
5.00
5,950,000
4 UTILITY ADJUSTMENTS
LS
1
25,000.00
25,000
5 AGGREGATE BASE CL II (9)
TONS
22,950
15.00
344,250
6 ASPHALTCONCRETE (4)
TONS
10,880
35.00
380,800
7 CURB AND GUTTER
LF
12,000
6.50
78,000
8 MEDIAN CURB
LF
12,000
5.75
69,000
9 DRIVEWAY/ SIDEWALK (4')
SF
60,000
3.00
180,000
10 STORM DRAIN
LS
1
60,000.00
60,000
11 BRIDGE /CULVERT
LS
1
50,000.00
50,000
12 STREET LIGHTS (300 OC)
EA
25
2,900.00
72,500
13 TRAFFIC SIGNALS
LS
2
120,000.00
240,000
14 SIGNING AND STRIPING
LS
1
20,000.00
20,000
15 HANDSCAPE (MEDIAN)
SF
18,000
3.00
54,000
16 LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
SF
52,000
4.50
234,000
SUBTOTAL $7,836,550
15% CONTINGENCY 1,175,483
TOTAL $9,012,033
APPENDIX 2
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. 94-75
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS REGARDING THE
ALIGNMENT AND DESIGN OF LEUCADIA BOULEVARD
FROM 1 -5 FREEWAY TO EL CAMINO REAL
WHEREAS, the City Council established a work project for the alignment and
design of Leucadia Boulevard;
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution NO. 92-60 establishing the
Leucadia Boulevard Task Force;
WHEREAS, the Leucadia Boulevard Task Force met from December, 1992 to
August, 1993 to provide a recommendation to the City Council;
WHEREAS, the Traffic Commission conducted a public hearing on Leucadia
Boulevard in late 1993 and provided a recommendation to the City Council;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on Leucadia
Boulevard from January 1994 to March, 1994, providing a recommendation to the City
Council at their March 3, 1994 meeting;
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public workshop on Leucadia Boulevard
at their March 23, 1994 meeting with a public hearing at their April 26, 1994 meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution NO. 94 -28 certifying the Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR SCH #93121012) for the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan
and Leucadia Boulevard alignment/ design.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
cd /psm /d: /reports /sr081094.cc3 (8/3/94)
Encinitas hereby approves as follows:
A. The Final EIR addresses the environmental issues associated with the
alignment and design of Leucadia Boulevard. The Final EIR identifies
unavoidable adverse impacts including biological resources, noise, and air
quality. As a result, Resolution NO. 94-75 includes Findings and a
Statement of Overriding consideration (Exhibit A). Since the adoption of this
Resolution could be considered the first step in a series of actions that will
result in unavoidable adverse impacts that may be caused by the Encinitas
Ranch Specific Plan, the Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations relates to both Leucadia Boulevard and the Encinitas Ranch
Specific Plan.
B. Alignment and design for Leucadia Boulevard from the 1 -5 Freeway to El
Camino Real as shown in Exhibit B of this Resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this loth day of August , 1994 by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Bond, Davis, Duvivier, Hano, Wiegand
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
E. Jan pool, City Clerk
Gai Hano
Mayor of the City of Encinitas
1, E. JANE POOL Cky Clerk of tfie City of Endtnima, CW=ja
do hweby a iHy under Penalty of pwfwl► that the above
and fongohV is a true and careot copy of thin document
on file M my altica In witness whsraoi 1 have sat mr hand
and tltie Seall of to Gty Encinitas this
.OLi doy of 19
od /psm /d: /reports /sr081094.oc3 l8 /3 /94l 940" Pool• City
EXHIBIT A
Resolution 94-75
FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ENCINITAS REGARDING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPOT A LEUCAD
PLAN, BOULEVARD ALIGNMENT AND ANNEXATION
OF THE ECKE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
The City Council of the City of Encinitas hereby makes the following Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations concerning the Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR), identified as State Clearinghouse No. 93121012, for the Encinitas Ranch
Specific Plan, the Leucadia Boulevard Alignment and the Annexation of unincorporated
territory into the City of Encinitas and into appropriate utility districts pursuant to the
Cs )ia Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et
sea•, and its implementing guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000
et sea.
FINDINGS
Section 15091 of the CEQA guidelines provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for
which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or
more significant environmental effects of the project unless the
public agency makes one or more written findings for each of
those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation
of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
cd /psm /d: /reports /sr081094.co3 (8/3/94)
Valley planning areas. The project applicant shall also install on -site sediment
traps /basins in the Sidonia East planning area. The project applicant shall implement
irrigation and fertilizer management programs for the golf course in the Quail Hollow East,
North Mesa and South Mesa planning area and the open space recreational facilities in
Green Valley. Graded banks shall not exceed 30 feet in height where feasible for site
specific development. All graded banks greater than 15 feet high should be contour, or
land -form graded. Graded bank slope increments should vary and banks undulate both
vertically or horizontally. The project applicant shall reduce encroachment of steep slopes
in excess of the allowance by withdrawing grading from the steep slopes in the Quail
Hollow East and North Mesa planning areas as described in the FEIR as the Reduced
Effects on Sensitive Resources Alternative. Bridge structures for roadways to span the
Encinitas Creek flood plain shall be installed. The applicant shall prepare a site specific
hydrology study and drainage control plan, prior to development, and shall implement
measures recommended in the plan to minimize the effects of flood plain encroachment
and channel relocation by providing an open, soft bottom environmental channel with
vegetative linings, drop structures and other energy dissipating structures, taking into
account necessary Green Valley off - stream urban pollutant and sediment control
measures. The Encinitas Creek flood plain encroachment by commercial and mixed use
development in the Green Valley Planning Area shall be mitigated through an amendment
to Land Use Element Policy 8.2 to allow flood plain intrusion for limited reconfiguration of
the floodplain to improve the overall storm water drainage system relative to the El
Camino Real section of the Encinitas Creek corridor.
d. Topographic Alteration and Visual Quality.
• Sionificant Effect: The FEIR identifies potential impacts: (i) to
landform alteration due to graded banks in excess of 30 feet in height on 19.7 acres of
the study area, encroachment on slopes with a gradient in excess of 25 percent on
24.6 acres or 24 percent, and substantial modification of 25.5 acres of the Encinitas Creek
flood plain and channel; and (ii) to visual quality due to potential partial view blockage and
scenic vista degradation from Sidonia Street, the Sidonia neighborhood and Quail
Botanical Gardens, possible degradation of scenic vista from El Camino Real and Garden
View, Mountain Vista and Amargosa neighborhoods, visibility of the Leucadia Boulevard
bluff grading and visibility of the Olivenhain Municipal Water District Wanket Reservoir site.
e Facts in Support of Finding: The project applicant shall
implement adopted impact control measures by complying the requirements of Encinitas
Municipal Code sections 23.24.450, 23.24.460 and 23.24.490 (grading ordinance) which
regulate cuts and fills and require rounding, blending and planting of slopes. Graded
bank heights shall not exceed 30 feet where feasible for site specific development. All
banks exceeding 15 feet in height shall be contour graded. Encroachment of steep
slopes in excess of the 10 percent allowance and modification of the Encinitas Creek
flood plain and channel shall be mitigated through implementation of the Reduced Effects
on Sensitive Resources alternative and by amending General Plan Land Use Element
Policy LU 8.2 to allow flood plain intrusion for limited reconfiguration of the floodplain to
cd /psm /d: /reports /sr081094.cc3 (8/3/94)
improve the overall storm water drainage system relative to the El Camino Real section
of the Encinitas Creek corridor. The applicant shall mitigate possible partial view blockage
and scenic vista degradation by implementing the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance
Sections 6.5.2, 6.6.2, 6.7.2, 6.8.2 and 6.9.2 development standards concerning building
height limits, specific standards, site planning, accessory structures, auxiliary structures/
equipment, walls and fences, storage, parking and landscaping. The applicant also shall
comply with design guidelines and design review for all development. Specific Plan
General Planning Standards for the North Mesa planning area shall be implemented for
landscape screening around the water tank facility to visually separate and screen tanks
from surrounding areas.
e. Cultural Resources and Paleontology.
e Significant Effect: The FEIR identifies potential impacts: (i) to
historical resources due to possible degradation of the architectural character of the Groh
House by construction of a noise attenuation barrier /wall and possible destruction or
disturbance of historical agricultural equipment; and (ii) to paleontological resources due
to the possible destruction or disturbance of subsurface paleontological resources in
Terrace Deposits and Torrey Sandstone.
e Facts in Support of Finding: The project applicant shall
implement the measures recommended in Section 4.6.3 of the FEIR, which are
incorporated herein by this reference. The noise attenuation barrier for the Groh House,
if necessary, shall be designed and constructed of materials complementary to the
architectural character of the building. Historical architectural equipment shall be
relocated as necessary and, if not retained by the present owner, donated and /or sold
to an historical society or other interested party for preservation and display. The
applicant shall implement a monitoring program for grading activities, conducted by a
qualified paleontologist, which shall include the activities specified in Section 4.6.3 of the
FEIR, including the recovery and preservation of important fossils, if any, exposed during
development activities.
f. Land Use Compatibility.
e Significant Effect: The FEIR identifies potential impacts to
current and future land uses and community character compatibility due to possible
conflicts with adjacent residential, religious retreat and open space uses where other uses
extend to common boundaries in the study area.
e Facts in Support of Finding: The applicant shall implement
the Specific Plan General Planning Standards, which require landscape buffering along
the perimeters of the Specific Plan area, including landscape buffers between proposed
and existing development in the Quail Hollow East, East Saxony and Quail Gardens East
planning areas, edge conditions in the Quail Hollow East planning area, blended
transitional zones and buffer /screen landscape treatments around the existing and future
od /psm /d: /reports /wI381094.cc3 (8/3/94)
water tanks in the North Mesa planning area, between the school site and existing and
future residential development and in the West Saxony planning area along on the north
and westbound boundaries, as specified in section 4.7.3 of the FEIR. The applicant also
shall implement the Specific Plan Design Guidelines, Special Treatment zone for high
intensity land uses, including the regional commercial, mixed use and multi - family areas,
including the optional multi- family and hotel /inn uses in the North Mesa. planning areas.
g. General Plan Consistency.
• Significant Effect: The FEIR identifies potential impacts to
the following elements and /or policies of the General Plan: (i) Land Use Element impacts
due to inconsistencies with Policy 8.5 as a result of encroachment and alteration of the
Encinitas Creek flood plain in Green Valley, steep slopes of finger canyons in the Quail
Hollow East and North Mesa planning areas and biotic habitat in finger canyons under
the special study overlay zone, with Policy 8.2 as a result of intrusion into the 100 -year
flood plain by the multi - family and regional commercial center structures in Green Valley,
with Policy 8.6 as a result of associated fill significantly redirecting flood flows and
requiring modifications to the floodway, and lack of full preservation of significant natural
features, and with Policy 8.8 as a result of traffic generation (68,037 ADT) in excess of the
25,000 ADT ceiling; (ii) Housing Element impacts due to inconsistencies with Policy 3.11
as a result of the encroachment into steep slopes and finger canyons in the Quail Hollow
East and North Mesa planning areas and intrusion into the Encinitas Creek flood plain in
- Green Valley; Circulation Element impacts due to inconsistencies with Goal 5 as a result
of portions of Leucadia Boulevard exceeding the 85 -foot wide major roadway right -of -way,
and inconsistencies with circulation plan classifications for Leucadia Boulevard (major
roadway), Via Cantebria (major roadway) and location of the Garden View Road
extension; (iii) Resource Management Element impacts due to inconsistencies with Policy
4.9 as a result of flood plain intrusion in the Green Valley planning area, with Policy 9.9
as a result of changing the natural drainage channel, with Policy 10.1 as a result of
encroachment of steep slopes supporting sage scrub in the Quail Hollow East and North
Mesa planning areas, and with Policy 10.5 as a result of encroachment into contiguous
coastal sage scrub in these areas; and (iv) Noise Element impacts due to inconsistency
with Policy 1.6 as a result of unmitigable or partially mitigable noise levels along portions
of Leucadia Boulevard.
• Facts in SuaQort of Finding: The project applicant shall
rectify certain inconsistencies with policies of the Encinitas General Plan by proposing
amendments to the following elements of the General Plan, as specified in Section 4.8.3
of the FEIR: amend the Circulation Element to reclassify Leucadia Boulevard to an
augmented major roadway, to reclassify Via Cantebria to an augmented collector roadway
and to relocate Garden View Road; amend the Land Use Element Policy 8.8 and the
Circulation Element Policy 2.23, Goal 5, Policy 5.3 and page C -26 concerning Leucadia
Boulevard improvements; amend the Noise Element Policy 1.6 concerning roadway
projects noise mitigation measures where feasible. The applicant also shall redesign the
Specific Plan to withdraw from steep slopes in accordance with encroachment
cd /psm /d: /reports /sr081094.cc3 (8/3/94)
allowances, to withdraw flood plain encroachments in accordance with requirements of
Land Use Element Policy 8.2, and to withdraw from Diegan sage scrub and southern
maritime chaparral as described in the Reduced Effects on Sensitive Resources
Alternative. In the alternative, the applicant may propose amendment to Land Use
Policy 8.2, as specified in Section 4.8.3 of the FEIR, to address encroachments in the
flood plain.
h. Aari, culture.
e Sianificant Effect: The FEIR identifies potential impacts due
to real or perceived conflicts with adjacent residential and community uses where
agricultural operations extend to common boundaries in the study area.
e Facts in Support of Finding: The applicant shall comply with
Specific Plan General Planning Standards by installing a landscape buffer, as described
in Section 4.9.3 of the FEIR, between Specific Plan areas designated and classified for
agricultural uses and adjacent urban uses.
i. Traffic.
e Significant Effect: The FEIR identifies potential impacts in
the study area due to: (i) deficient conditions in long range intersection ICU values for the
intersections of E1 Camino Real at Olivenhain Road, El Camino Real at Woodley Road,
Saxony Road at La Costa Avenue, El Camino Real at La Costa Avenue and El Camino
Real at Calle Barcelona; (ii) deficient conditions in interim year intersections of Saxony
Road at Encinitas. Boulevard, the northbound ramps of the 1 -5 interchange with Encinitas
Boulevard, El Camino Real at Olivenhain Road, the commercial district access road at
Leucadia Boulevard and Saxony Road at La Costa Avenue; and (iii) deficient access
roads to the commercial center.
e Facts in Support of Finding: The project applicant shall
mitigate long range intersection deficient conditions by payment of project share fees
through the citywide transportation improvement program and by implementing a public
facilities financing plan (development agreement) which shall include provisions for
payment of the applicant's fair share of costs for traffic improvements required because
of the Specific Plan. The project applicant also shall construct the traffic improvements
specified in Table 4 -24 of the FEIR, including construction of Via Cantebria in the Specific
Plan area, participating in construction of the northward extension of Via Cantebria,
construction of a new intersection of Via Cantebria at Leucadia Boulevard, adding a
northbound free right -turn lane on El Camino Real at Olivenhain Road, and adding a
shared westbound left/through -lane for El Camino Real at Woodley. The applicant shall
mitigate interim intersection deficient conditions by implementing a public facilities
financing plan (development agreement) which shall include provisions for the applicant's
payments for its fair share of costs for traffic improvements required because of the
Specific Plan. The project applicant also shall construct the improvements specked in
od /psm /d: /reports /sr081094.cc3 (8/3/94)
Table 4 -24 of the FEIR, including construction of a segment of Leucadia Boulevard
adjacent to the Specific Plan area, installation of a traffic signal for the access road at
Leucadia Boulevard, add northbound left -turn lane, a second southbound left -turn lane
and separate southbound right -turn lane, a third southbound through -lane and dual
westbound left -turn lanes for El Camino Real at Olivenhain Road, construct a west leg of
the new intersection and add southbound right -turn lane for El Camino Real at Woodley,
and add a third westbound through -lane for Saxony Road at Encinitas Boulevard. The
applicant shall mitigate the deficient access to the proposed commercial center by
configuration of the access drives for Leucadia Boulevard, El Camino Real and Via
Cantebria /Garden View Road as specified in Table 4 -25 of the FEIR. The project
applicant also shall develop with the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad a joint fair share
formula in which the project applicant shall participate on a fair share basis, for additional
improvements to intersections located in the City of Carlsbad on Saxony Road at La
Costa, El Camino Real at La Costa, and El Camino Real at Calle Barcelona.
• Significant Effect: The FEIR identifies potential impacts due
to excessive noise levels: (i) from short-term construction activities encroaching into
properties occupied by sensitive receptors; (ii) along circulation element roadways of the
Specific Plan which encroach into the properties of sensitive receptors; (iii) from
commercial, office, school, community and active recreational uses which encroach into
properties of sensitive receptors; and (iv) along the section of Leucadia Boulevard to be
improved, which encroach into the properties of sensitive receptors.
• Facts in Support of Finding: The project applicant shall
implement adopted impact measures by complying with Encinitas Municipal Code
Section 9.32.140 (noise ordinance), to regulate construction noise, and Section 23.24.320
(grading ordinance) to regulate the time of grading operations. The applicant shall
conduct comprehensive acoustical studies, using a qualified acoustician, prior to site
development involving sensitive receptors along circulation element roadways,
commercial, office, school, community and active recreational uses adjacent to sensitive
receptors, and prior to construction of Leucadia Boulevard improvements along the
existing section. The applicant shall implement recommendations of such studies as
necessary for adequate noise level attenuation, such as walls, earth berms, woodcrete,
or combinations thereof, as well as mechanical equipment enclosures and insulation.
k. Public Facilities and Services.
• Significant Effect: The FEIR identifies potential impacts: (i) to
water service due to implementation of planned domestic water supply distribution
facilities of the San Dieguito Water District, the Olivenhain Municipal Water District and the
San Eiijo Joint Powers Authority, the siting and implementation of reservoirs planned by
the San Dieguito Water District and the Olivenhain Municipal Water District and the
extension of pipelines and additional improvements; (ii) to sewer service due to the study
cd /psm /d: /reports /sr081094.cc3 (8/3/94)
area being outside the Leucadia County Water District current service area, sewer
demand greater than the Encinitas Sanitary District and Leucadia County Water District
projections, implementation of planned sewer transmission facilities and the extension of
pipelines and additional improvements; (iii) to fire protection services due to
implementation of planned fire operational resources of the Encinitas Fire Protection
District needed as development occurs in the study area, including the siting of an
Encinitas Fire Protection District station in the Green Valley planning area; and (Iv) to
school services due to anticipated demand in excess of the planned permanent facility
capacity of the Encinitas Union Elementary School District and the San Dieguito Union
High School District.
• Facts in Support of Finding: The applicant shall prepare a
hydraulic analysis of precise plans and /or individual entitlements (e.g., tentative maps and
use permits), prior to development, as required by the San Dieguito Water District,
Olivenhain Municipal Water District and San Elijo Joint Powers Authority. A water
reservoir site shall be selected by San Dieguito Water District and Olivenhain Municipal
Water District as necessary prior to development of the golf course in the North Mesa
planning area. The Leucadia County Water District shall annex portions of the Specific
Plan in its current service area prior to providing sewer service. The applicant shall
prepare a flow analysis of precise plans and /or individual entitlements, and shall pay all
required fees and install all required improvements within the planning areas, prior to their
implementation, as required by the Encinitas Sanitary District and the Leucadia County
Water District. The applicant shall pay fire protection fees as required by the Encinitas
Fire Protection District prior to implementation of individual entitlements. A fire station site
shall be selected by the Encinitas Fire Protection District as necessary prior to
development of the Green Valley planning area. The applicant shall enter into a
development agreement with the Encinitas Unified Elementary School District and the San
Dieguito Union High School District for fees, or for land for a school site, to offset school
facility impacts. The applicant shall work with the school districts to develop a school
facility financing plan as necessary. The Encinitas Unified Elementary School District shall
approve an elementary school site prior to development of the East Saxony and South
Mesa planning areas.
2. Findings Regarding Unavoidable Impacts Which Cannot Be Mitiaated
Below a Level of Significance.
The analysis presented in the FEIR determined that three impacts
cannot be mitigated below a level of significance after feasible mitigation measures have
been adopted for the proposed project: (1) Biological Resources; (2) Noise; and (3) Air
Quality.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), the City Council
finds that, although changes, alterations or conditions have been incorporated into the
project which will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts of the
od /psm /d: /report9/sr081094.oc3 (8/3/94)
project, the three significant effects listed below cannot be mitigated to fully acceptable
levels and specific economic, social or other considerations make the mitigation measures
or the project alternatives identified in the FEIR infeasible as a means of diminishing or
avoiding the potential environmental harm. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093,
a Statement of Overriding Considerations, balancing the benefits of the proposed project
against its unavoidable environmental risks, is set forth in Section 11 below.
a. The significant unavoidable adverse impacts for which the City
Council hereby makes the finding of Section 15091(a)(3), and the mitigation measures
incorporated into the project, are as follows:
(1) Biological Resources.
• Significant Effect: The FEIR identifies potential
impacts due to: loss and disturbance of Diegan sage scrub, southern maritime chaparral,
southern willow riparian woodland, southern riparian scrub, coastal and valley freshwater
marsh, disturbed wetland, southern willow scrub, and mulefat scrub; fragmentation and
isolation of a large block of bluff scrub and chaparral habitat by the extension of Leucadia
Boulevard; the loss and disturbance of Encinitas baccharis, Del Mar manzanita, Del Mar
sand aster, Nuttall's scrub oak and California adolphia; the loss of habitat for the
California gnatcatcher; the elimination or interruption of wildlife dispersal across a large
block of bluff sage and chaparral habitat by the extension of Leucadia Boulevard; the
localized division of bluff habitat from Encinitas Creek riparian habitat by development;
and the disturbance of habitat by artificial lighting and intrusion by humans and domestic
animals.
* Facts in Sul2port of Finding: The project applicant
shall prepare, prior to development, an impacted sensitive vegetation and sensitive
species and or acquisition plan, which shall consist of two parts: an overall concept and
strategy for the entire development site, which shall by completed prior to any on -site
disturbance of identified impacted resources; and particular requirements for individual
sectors of the site, which shall be completed on a sector by sector basis prior to on -site
disturbance of identified impacted resources in each respective sector. The plan shall
satisfy the mitigation requirements specified in Section 4.5.3 of the FEIR. The applicant
shall implement the mitigation measures of Section 4.5.3 of the FEIR, including:
replacement of Diegan sage scrub on -site by restoration of disturbed open space areas
and off -site by acquisition and restoration of disturbed areas or acquisition of existing
scrub and placement in permanent open space; off -site acquisition of southern maritime
chaparral and placement in permanent open space; replacement of southern willow
riparian woodland, southern willow scrub / mulefat scrub /freshwater marsh /disturbed
wetlands, southern riparian scrub on -site in the Encinitas Creek environmental
channel /flood plain open space; replacement of Encinitas baccharis on -site by
propagation and introduction into sage scrub restoration locations; replacement of Del
Mar sand aster on -site by propagation and introduction into sage scrub restoration
locations; replacement of California adolphia off -site by acquisition and restoration of
cd /psm /d: /reports /sr081094 =3 (8/3/94)
disturbed areas or acquisition of existing southern maritime chaparral with substantial
populations of adolphia and placement in permanent open space; acquisition of existing
southern maritime chaparral with substantial populations of Del Mar manzanita and
Nuttall's scrub oak and placement in permanent open space; construction of a wildlife
bridge over the Leucadia Boulevard extension through bluff located where wildlife
movement occurs; and installation of a wildlife corridor along the north boundary
connecting bluff and riparian habitats. The applicant also shall implement Specific Plan
General Planning Standards requiring minimum width rear yard and wall or fence at edge
of open space in residential areas and with Zoning Ordinance Sections 6.7.2, 6.8.2 and
6.9.2 Development Standards requiring shielding of outdoor lighting.
(2) Noise.
• Significant Effect: The FEIR identifies potential
impacts due to excessive noise levels along both sides of the segment of Leucadia
Boulevard, from 1 -5 to Saxony Road, encroaching into the properties of sensitive
receptors. Noise attenuation measures also will be inadequate for any second story
outside balconies within the noise impact contour.
• Facts in Su000rt of Finding: The applicant shall
conduct comprehensive acoustical studies, by a qualified acoustician prior to site
development, and shall implement recommendations of the studies as necessary.
Adequate noise attenuation measures will be of doubtful effectiveness and may be
aesthetically unacceptable because necessary barriers along the roadway must be at
least eight feet high to achieve meaningful noise reductions. In addition, there will be
gaps in the barriers as a result of driveways connecting lots directly to the roadway, which
will degrade barrier noise attenuation. Noise barriers of a height necessary to achieve
adequate attenuation generally are considered visually unpleasant, particularly along a
long corridor with stretches of intermittent walls and no walls.
(3) Air Qualily.
• Significant Effect: The FEIR identifies potential impacts due
to excessive levels of PM10 in fugitive dust from short-term construction activities,
excessive levels of CO and Nox from vehicles in "cold start" modes of operation and
excessive localized pollutant levels from traffic congestion.
• Facts in Support of Finding: The project applicant shall
implement adopted control measures by complying with City of Encinitas Municipal Code
Section 23.24.400 (grading ordinance) to control dust from grading operations. The
project applicant shall comply with State Implementation Plan and the Regional Air Quality
Strategy requirements. The project applicant also shall implement the mitigation
measures for potential impacts due to traffic which are specified in Section 4.10.3 of the
cd /psm /d: /reports /wW1094.oc3 (8/3/94)
FEIR and are incorporated here by this reference.
b. The project will result in significant adverse impacts on
biological resources, noise and air quality after implementation of all feasible mitigation
measures. The chief goal of CEQA is mitigation or avoidance of environmental harm.
Alternatives and mitigation measures fulfill the same function of diminishing or avoiding
adverse environmental effects. When a significant impact remains after implementation
of mitigation measures, a reasonable range of alternatives must be analyzed and either
adopted or shown to be infeasible as a means of reducing or preventing harmful effects
on the environment. Section 1534 of the CEQA Guidelines defines "feasible" as "capable
of being accomplished in a successful manner, taking into account economic,
environmental, legal, social and technological factors."
(1) The FEIR analyzed six design alternatives, four
alternative development sites and the no project alternative in addition to the proposed
project. The following summarizes the feasibility of these alternatives as a means to
reduce or avoid the significant unmitigated impacts associated with the project:
(a) Biological Resources.
Although the significant impact has been reduced
to the extent feasible by the design considerations and mitigation measures identified in
the FEIR and incorporated into the project, the impact on biological resources cannot be
mitigated to an acceptable level.
The City Council finds that, although the project's
effect on this impact could be avoided by the no project alternative, such alternative is
infeasible because it would not attain the project objectives and would not provide the City
with the benefits of the project described below. Neither project alternatives nor mitigation
measures are capable of avoiding this impact. The City Council further finds, however,
that the Reduced Effects on Sensitive Resources Alternative may substantially lessen this
impact. The City Council further finds that, although the strict adherence to Encinitas
General Plan criteria and County jurisdiction alternatives may lessen this impact, such
alternatives are infeasible because they would not attain the project objections as
presented in the Specific Plan proposal and would not provide the City with the benefits
of the project described below. The significant impact is acceptable when balanced
against the mitigation measures adopted to reduce project specific impacts and the facts
set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations below.
(b) Noise.
Although the significant impact has been
substantially reduced to the extent feasible by virtue of the design considerations and the
mitigation measures identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the project, impacts
related to noise remain.
cd /psm /d: /reports /sr081094.cc3 (8/3/94)
The City Council finds that, although the no
project alternative can avoid this impact, such alternative is infeasible because it would
not attain the project objectives and would not provide the City with the benefits of the
project. The remaining project alternatives which involve development requiring the
extension of Leucadia Boulevard also would result in essentially the same impact. Neither
project alternatives nor mitigation measures are capable of avoiding this impact. The
significant impact is acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth above and in
the Statement of Overriding Considerations below.
(c) Air Qualfty.
Although the significant impact has been
substantially reduced to the extent feasible by virtue of the design considerations and the
mitigation measures identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the project, the impact
on air quality cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
The City Council finds that, although the project's
effect on this impact could be avoided by the no project alternative, such alternative is
infeasible because it would not attain the project objectives and would not provide the City
with the benefits of the project. All other alternatives evaluated in the FEIR result in
essentially the same impacts as the proposed project, except the strict adherence to
Encinitas General Plan criteria and County jurisdiction alternatives. These two alternatives
would result in substantial reductions in traffic volumes and resulting impacts on air
quality, reducing it to a level of insignificance. The City Council finds, however, that these
alternatives are infeasible because they would not attain the project objectives and would
not provide the City with the benefits of the project. Neither project alternatives nor
mitigation measures are capable of avoiding this impact. The significant impact is
acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth above and in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations below.
(2) The FEIR presents an evaluation of six design
alternatives, four alternative locations and the no project alternative to the proposed
Specific Plan. These include:
(a) Reduced effects on sensitive resources;
(b) Different Leucadia Boulevard alignment;
(c) Reduced effects on Encinitas Creek flood plain;
(d) Different uses and use configuration;
(e) Strict adherence to general plan criteria;
(f) County jurisdiction;
cd /psm /d: /reports /sr081094.oc3 (8/3/94)
(g) Different locations; and
(h) No project.
The City Council hereby makes the finding of CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091(a)(3) as set forth above for the three significant unavoidable impacts and
provides the following facts in support thereof concerning the above alternatives:
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN
A. Reduced Effects on Sensitive Resources (EIR Section 5.1)
This alternative would redesign the project to withdraw from sensitive Diegan
sage scrub and southern maritime chaparral and to reduce steep slope encroachment,
primarily in the Quail Hollow East and North Mesa planning areas. In these planning
areas, the golf course and single family development would be pulled back further from
the finger canyons in the northwest sector and away from the eastern bluff edge. There
would be an increase in open space of approximately 39 acres, most of which would be
natural area. The golf course would be reduced in size by 21 acres, while there would
be an increase of a few acres of agricultural land. The purpose of this alternative is to
reduce effect on sensitive resources.
The City finds that this alternative would substantially reduce steep slope
encroachment, with a 55 percent reduction in encroachment into slopes with gradients
of 25 percent or steeper. Steep slope encroachment at 8 percent would be within the
10 percent allowance for the site. Landform alteration also would be considerably
reduced, particularly in the Quail Hollow East planning area where high banks would be
reduced in area and encroachment of steep finger canyon areas lessened. The City
Council further finds that this alternative would considerably lessen direct impact to
sensitive biological resources, with a 24 percent reduction in impacts to Diegan coastal
sage scrub, a 33 percent reduction in total impacts to southern maritime chaparral, and
elimination of impacts to southern riparian scrub. Total impacts to sensitive plant species
also would be reduced.
The City Council further finds that all significant impacts from the proposed
project will be mitigated by the project and the adoption of the mitigation measures
outlined in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, accept the impacts
concerning biological resources, air quality and noise. The City Council further finds that
this alternative will not mitigate such impacts to a level below significance. However, this
alternative meets project objectives and considerably lessens project impacts on sensitive
resources. Except for the no project alternative, this alternative is considered
environmentally superior to all other alternatives and is the preferred alternative. For
those impacts which cannot be mitigated to below significance, the City Council has
cd /psm /d: /reports /srO81094.cc3 (8/3/94)
adopted the Statement of Overriding Considerations below.
B. Different Leucadia Boulevard Alignment (EIR Section 5.2)
This alternative would redesign the alignment of the Leucadia Boulevard
extension. The FEIR considered four different alignments identified as follows:
(i) Encinitas Road Standards; (ii) Scheme I; (iii) Scheme II; and (iv) Scheme III. The first
three alignments would be located to the south to maintain a larger continuous block of
habitat north of the roadway to Batiquitos Lagoon; the final alignment would move the
roadway slightly to the north to reduce impacts to sensitive plant species, particularly
Encinitas baccharis.
The City Council finds that the first alignment, which is based on exact
compliance with Encinitas public road standards, would require extensive recreating for
a diagonal bluff cut, would result in considerable loss of sensitive Diegan coastal sage
scrub and southern maritime chaparral, as well as numerous sensitive plants. Schemes I
and II, which are in general compliance with City standards, would reduce disruption to
the bluff and would be responsive to localized biological constraints by being sited to
minimize grading and avoid sensitive plants and habitat to the extent feasible for a
functional roadway. With Schemes I and II, the golf course would be relocated, the
regional commercial center would have a different configuration and there would be a
substantial reduction in dwelling units. Scheme III would be similar to that in the Specific
Plan, but would be located slightly to the north to reduce bluff grading and to avoid
Encinitas baccharis.
The City Council further finds that all significant impacts from the proposed
project will be mitigated by the project and the adoption of the mitigation measures
outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, except the impacts
concerning biological resources, air quality and noise. The City Council further finds that,
although Schemes I and II would result in fewer dwelling units which in turn would
generate lower traffic volumes and reduced vehicle emissions, this alternative will not
mitigate the impacts to biological resources, air quality and noise to a level below
significance. For impacts which cannot be mitigated to below significance, the City
Council has adopted the Statement of Overriding Considerations below.
C. Reduced Effects on Encinitas Creek Flood Plain (EIR Section 5.3)
This alternative would redesign the project to withdraw from the flood plain
in the southern portion of the Green Valley planning area. This alternative would relocate
two small commercial buildings, together with an additional building, adjacent to
El Camino Real on each side of an additional access road crossing over Encinitas Creek,
od /psm /d: /reports /sMI094 =3 (8/3/94)
and would eliminate the recreational sports fields in order to leave the flood plain open
in that location. The purpose of this alternative is to reduce effects on the Encinitas Creek
flood plain.
The City Council finds that this alternative would lessen intrusion of the flood
plain, would be consistent with Encinitas General Plan Goals and Policies pertaining to
flood plain preservation, and would result in considerable modification of the flood plain
and channel in the northern portion of the Green Valley project area.
The City Council finds that this alternative is impractical due to the fact that
the drainage channel south of the point where Encinitas Creek enters the Specific Plan
Area provides drainage runoff from urbanized areas, the channel has been adversely
impacted by past attempts to place the channel into concrete swales, and the channel
may be bridged to provide access to developable areas outside the 100 -year flood plain
but closer to El Camino Real; thereby increasing adverse visual impacts. In addition, the
drainage channel is not currently capable of containing 100 -year flood plain storm runoff
which impacts existing improvements to El Camino Real and the safety of its use to
motorists. The improvements proposed by the Specific Plan would redirect the drainage
channel to be closer to El Camino Real, improve the channel to adequately contain 100 -
year storm runoff volumes, enhance the channel with a riparian planting program to
restore a more natural condition, and provide for detention areas to filter urban pollutants
prior to them entering Encinitas Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon beyond.
The City Council further finds that all significant impacts from the proposed
project will be mitigated by the project and the adoption of the mitigation measures
outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, except the impacts
concerning biological resources, noise and air quality. The City Council further finds that
this alternative will not mitigate such impacts to a level below significance. For those
impacts which cannot be mitigated to below significance, the City Council has adopted
the Statement of Overriding Considerations below.
D. Different Uses and Use Configuration (EIR Section 5.4)
This alternative would provide for different uses and use configuration
throughout the Specific Plan area. Agricultural uses would be located in a continuous
block in the South Mesa planning area, single family residential uses would be located in
all planning areas except West Saxony and Green Valley, mixed uses would be located
in the West Saxony and East Saxony planning areas, Quail Botanical Gardens would be
expanded into the East Saxony area, community and educational facilities would be
located in the South Mesa, North Mesa and Sidonia East planning areas, a regional
commercial center, recreational uses and other mixed uses would be located in the Green
Valley planning area, and main vehicle transportation corridors would be Leucadia
_. Boulevard, Quail Gardens Drive, Via Cantebria and Garden View Road. This alternative
od /pam /d: /reports /wO81094 =3 (8/3/94)
also would allow substantially more dwelling units, more commercial /office space square
footage, approximately 32 more acres of agricultural land and no golf course.
The City Council finds that this alternative would allow more intensive land
uses than the Specific Plan, resulting in increased traffic volumes, vehicle emissions and
demand for services and that other impacts would be similar to or greater than those
identified for the Specific Plan. The City Council therefore finds that this alternative can
be eliminated from consideration.
The City Council further finds that all significant impacts from the proposed
project will be mitigated by the project and the adoption of the mitigation measures
outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, except the impacts
concerning biological resources, noise and air quality. The City Council further finds that
this alternative will not mitigate such impacts to a level below significance. For those
impacts which cannot be mitigated to below significance, the City Council has adopted
the Statement of Overriding Considerations below.
E. Strict Adherence to Encinitas General Plan Criteria (EIR Section 5.5)
This alternative would redesign the project to comply strictly with the criteria
for development set forth in the Encinitas General Plan. This alternative would involve a
slightly larger study area, would reconfigure land uses, would substantially reduce the
number of dwelling units and the total square footage of commercial and office uses,
would allow 100,000 total square feet of industrial use, would increase the amount of
agricultural land, would eliminate the golf course and would substantially reduce traffic
volumes.
The City Council finds that this alternative would meet most of the project
objectives. The City Council further finds that this alternative, however, would not provide
as many dwelling units or as broad a range of housing opportunities as the Specific Plan,
would limit commercial service to a neighborhood center rather than a regional center,
would result in fewer recreational opportunities and would allow industrial uses which
could result in conflicts with surrounding areas. Accordingly, the City Council finds that
this alternative is not feasible.
The City Council further finds that all significant impacts from the proposed
project will be mitigated by the project and the adoption of the mitigation measures
outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, except the impacts
concerning biological resources, noise and air quality. The City Council further finds that,
although this alternative will reduce air quality impacts to a level of insignificance, this
alternative will not mitigate impacts to noise and biological resources to a level below
significance. For impacts which cannot be mitigated to below significance, the City
Council has adopted the Statement of Overriding Considerations below.
od /psm /d: /reports /sr081094.oe3 (8/3/94)
F. County Jurisdiction (EIR Section 5.6)
This alternative would not annex the Specific Plan area in the City of
Encinitas and would redesign the project to comply with the General Plan and zoning
requirements of the County of San Diego. Among other differences in impacts, this
alternative would allow at least 1,190 dwelling units more than the Speck Plan, would
have no commercial or office uses, would have approximately 126 more acres of
agricultural land, and would eliminate the golf course.
The City Council finds that this alternative would meet some of the project
objections. The City Council further finds, however, that this alternative would provide no
office space, no commercial services, fewer recreational opportunities, and would be less
sufficient because, without annexation, both the City of Encinitas and the County of San
Diego would be involved and the value of any future entitlements have the provision of
services to future development. Accordingly, the City Council finds that this alternative
is not feasible.
The City Council finds that all significant impacts from the proposed project
will be mitigated by the project and the adoption of the mitigation measures outlined in
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, except the impacts concerning
biological resources, noise and air quality. The City Council further finds that, although
this alternative would have a substantially reduced traffic volume which would lessen air
quality impacts to a level of insignificance, this alternative would not mitigate impacts to
noise and biological resources to a level below significance. For those impacts which
cannot be mitigated to below significance, the City Council has adopted the Statement
of Overriding Considerations below.
G. Alternative Development Sites (EIR Section 5.7)
The following alternative sites were evaluated in the FE1R:
1. Hall Progert_y
This alternative site is approximately 45 acres and is located along
the west side of 1 -5 south of Santa Fe Drive, behind a neighborhood commercial center.
The site is currently used for agricultural. Surrounding land use is primarily single family
residential, with the adjacent ten -acre commercial center designated Local Commercial.
The City Council finds that this alternative site is not large enough for
either a regional commercial center or golf course. The City Council further finds that
development would generate a high volume of traffic and that access to the site is limited.
cd /psm /d: /reports /sr081094.oc3 (8/3/94)
The City Council further finds that development of this site would have significant impacts
associated with traffic, air quality, noise, land use compatibility and General Plan
consistency. The City Council further finds that the project sponsor does not own this
site or adjacent properties. Development of the site would have significant constraints
and land use compatibility problems and would require extensive time for processing
required approvals.
The City Council further finds that all significant impacts from the
proposed project will be mitigated by the project and the adoption of the mitigation
measures outlined in the. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, except the
cumulative impacts due to solid waste disposal, air quality and traffic circulation. The City
Council further finds that this alternative will not mitigate such cumulative impacts to a
level below significance. For those impacts which cannot be mitigated to below
significance, the City has adopted the Statement of Overriding Considerations below.
2. Chana/Tec -Built Prooerti
This alternative site consists of combined properties totalling
approximately 146 acres on the north side of Manchester Avenue, between Sienna
Canyon Drive and Trabert Ranch Road. The site is vacant and surrounded by mostly
single family residential use. San Elijo Lagoon Reserve is situated across Manchester
Avenue to the southwest.
The City Council finds that this alternative site does not meet project
size requirements for the regional commercial center and golf course. Developable area
for this site would be reduced because of steep slopes as well as sensitive coastal sage
scrub and southern maritime chaparral habitat. Commercial use is likely to have
significant impacts associated with grading, biology, water quality, traffic, air quality, noise,
General Plan consistency and land use compatibility. Access is limited to Manchester
Avenue with a high volume of traffic loaded onto a two -lane augmented local street.
There would be conflicts between commercial use and the rural surroundings of this site
and a General Plan amendment would be necessary, requiring extensive time for
processing necessary approvals. The project sponsor does not own this site or adjacent
properties.
The City Council further finds that all significant impacts from the
proposed project will be mitigated by the project and the adoption of the mitigation
measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, except the
impacts due to biological resources, noise and air quality. The City Council further finds
that this alternative will not mitigate such cumulative impacts to a level below significance.
For those impacts which cannot be mitigated to below significance, the City Council has
adopted the statement of overriding considerations below.
3. Yasuda./Gim Properties
cd /psm /d: /reports /sr081094.cc3 (8/3/94)
This alternative site consists of combined properties totalling
approximately 45 acres on the north side of Manchester Avenue adjacent and east of 1 -5.
The site is partly in agricultural use, with native vegetation on a bluff along the northern
boundary. Surrounding land use is varied, with single family dwellings to the north, a
community college to the east, an auto service station to the west and the San Elijo
Lagoon Reserve to the south.
The City Council finds that this alternative site does not meet project
size requirements for the regional commercial center and golf course. Steep slopes and
sensitive coastal sage scrub habitat which further reduce the developable area of this
45 -acre site, making it too small for a golf course or regional commercial center.
Surrounding land uses to the south and east leave no adjacent land for possible
combined development. The City Council further finds that use for a commercial center
would likely have significant impacts associated with grading, biology, water quality, traffic,
air quality, noise, General Plan consistency and land use compatibility. Access is limited
to Manchester Avenue and commercial use would generate a high volume of traffic. The
site is designated for residential use and a General Plan amendment would be necessary,
which would require extensive time for processing. The project sponsor does not own
this site or adjacent properties.
The City Council further finds that all significant impacts from the
proposed project will be mitigated by the project and the adoption of the mitigation
measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, except the
impacts due to biological resources, noise and air quality. The City Council further finds
that this alternative will not mitigate such impacts to a level below significance. For those
impacts which cannot be mitigated to below significance, the City Council has adopted
the Statement of Overriding Considerations below.
4. Hunt Property_
This alternative site has approximately 281 acres and is located in the
City of Carlsbad along the west side of El Camino Real between La Costa Avenue on the
north and the northern boundary of the Specific Plan area on the south. Portions of the
site have been used for agricultural purposes, with riparian woodland along Encinitas
Creek paralleling El Camino Real and natural vegetation on a bluff along the west
boundary. Surrounding land uses are varied, with agricultural use to the south and west,
vacant, naturally vegetated land to the east (the Fieldstone La Costa project site),
Batiquitos Lagoon to the north beyond La Costa Avenue, and a neighborhood
commercial center to the northeast at La Costa Avenue.
The City Council finds that the developable area for this site would
be reduced by sensitive southern maritime chaparral and riparian woodlands, making it
too small for a golf course. This site would probably have enough usable area for a
regional commercial center. Commercial development of this alternative site likely would
od/p&m/d: /reports /sr081094.oc3 (8/3/94)
cause impacts to grading, biology, water quality, traffic, air quality, noise and General Plan
consistency. Commercial use would generate a high volume of traffic onto El Camino
Real alone R no connection were made to Leucadia Boulevard. The site is designated for
community commercial use and a General Plan amendment would be necessary. There
is a current proposal to develop 86 acres, with 600,000 square feet of commercial use on
56 acres and 400 multi- family dwelling units on 18 acres. The project sponsor does not
own the site.
The City Council further finds that all significant impacts from the
proposed project will be mitigated by the project and the adoption of the mitigation
measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, except the
impacts due to biological resources, noise and air quality. The City Council further finds
that this alternative will not mitigate such impacts to a level below significance. For those
impacts which cannot be mitigated to below significance, the City Council has adopted
the Statement of Overriding Considerations below.
H. No Project (EIR Section 5.8)
The no project alternative is a default alternative required to be included in
the analysis by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)(2). Adoption of the no project
alternative would retain the existing jurisdiction of the County of San Diego and its General
Plan designations and would not preclude future development.
The City Council finds that although the no project alternative would
eliminate potential impacts that may result from the implementation of the proposed
Specific Plan, it would not preclude future development. There would be ongoing erosion
of cultivated fields in the Green Valley planning area and erosion and sedimentation of the
Encinitas Creek Channel, which would continue to exacerbate off -site sedimentation of
the creek and Batiquitos Lagoon. The City Council further finds that none of the project
objectives would be achieved with this alternative. Without a specific plan for the area,
there would be no guidance for its development into the future and the precise time frame
for improvements to and the extension of Leucadia Boulevard would be unknown. In
addition, there would be reasonable projection as to when this roadway and other missing
links of the circulation system within the Specific Plan area would be completed.
The City Council further finds that all significant impacts from the proposed
project will be mitigated by the project and the adoption of the mitigation measures
outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting program, except the impacts
concerning biological resources, noise and air quality. The City Council further finds that,
although these impacts could be avoided by the no project alternative, such alternative
is infeasible because it would not attain the project's objectives and would not provide the
City with the benefits of the project. For those impacts which cannot be mitigated to
below significance, the City Council has a adopted the Statement of Overriding
Considerations below.
cd /psm /d: /reports /sr081094.oc3 (8/3/94)
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The FEIR identifies three unavoidable environmental impacts which
cannot be mitigated below significance by the proposed project: biological resources;
noise; and air quality. The City Council has weighed the benefits of the proposed project
against such unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the
proposed project.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council hereby
finds and states that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh such unavoidable
environmental risks, which are found acceptable due to the following overriding.
considerations:
a. Biological resources are impacted to a level of significance by
the extension of Leucadia Boulevard through the inland bluffs. This extension impacts
sensitive vegetation resources and bisects the vegetation habitat area. All alternatives
extending Leucadia Boulevard would result in some degree of significant impact to
biological resources. The extension of Leucadia Boulevard from El Camino Real to the
1 -5 Freeway is an essential component in the City's General Plan Circulation system.
Without the extension, City Traffic Models indicate that the future build -out of the City, in
accordance with the General Plan, would result in significant degradation of Levels of
Service at intersections and road segments near the Specific Plan area and in other parts
of the City. The extension is necessary to accommodate City and regionally generated
traffic at adequate Levels of Service. The project, therefore, cannot mitigate biological
impacts to a level below significance since the City's General Plan requires the Leucadia
Boulevard extension. The project will implement, however, mitigation measures intended
to minimize the impacts on biological resources generated by the project to the extent
feasible.
b. Noise generation levels can be mitigated to below a level of
significance within the Specific Plan area by the implementation of adequate buffers and
construction techniques to attenuate vehicle noise. However, noise impacts from the
western boundary of the site to the 1 -5 Freeway will be significant along Leucadia
Boulevard due to the proximity of existing residences and the fact that noise attenuation
walls cannot be constructed which do not have breaks in them for driveways and other
access points to the properties fronting Leucadia Boulevard. The extension of Leucadia
Boulevard from El Camino Real to the 1 -5 Freeway is an essential component in the City's
General Plan Circulation system. Without the extension, City Traffic Models indicate that
the future build -out of the City, in accordance with the General Plan, would result in
significant degradation of Levels of Service at intersections and road segments near the
cd /psm /d: /reports /sM1094.cc3 (8/9/94)
Specific Plan area and in other parts of the City. The extension is necessary to
accommodate City and regionally generated traffic at adequate Levels of Service. The
project, therefore, cannot mitigate noise impacts along Leucadia Boulevard west of the
Specific Plan area to a level below significance since the City's General Plan requires the
Leucadia Boulevard extension. The project will implement, however, mitigation measures
intended to reduce noise impacts below a level of significance within the Specific Plan
project area.
c. Air quality for San Diego County is in violation of state and
federal standards, resulting in any contribution to this existing problem to be considered
cumulatively significant. Mitigation of this existing problem can only be accomplished on
a regional basis. The project will implement mitigation measures, however, intended to
minimize the impacts on air quality generated by the project to the extent feasible.
d. The project will improve the general quality of development and
construction by mandating the specific goals, policies and regulations to guide
development in an environmentally sensitive manner on the project site.
e. The project will provide enhancement, restoration and
maintenance of improvements within the riparian corridor of Encinitas Creek and its
tributary drainage channel. The riparian area improvements will be subject to approval
by the Army Corps of Engineers (404 Permit) and the California Department of Fish &
Game (1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement); in addition to the California Coastal
Commission review process. Said improvements are required as mitigation and are more
specifically discussed in Section 4.3.3 of the Final EIR.
f. The project will preserve approximately 60% of the Specific
Plan area in open space for sensitive vegetation preservation along the inland bluffs and
within finger canyons on the site, in agricultural preserves (with greenhouse uses), and
in recreational preserves for a golf course (174 acres) and other recreational uses such
as playing fields and hiking trails.
g. The project will increase employment opportunities within the
City by providing permanent employment opportunities in association with the commercial
uses.
h. The project will result in a capital investment of several million
dollars in commercial resources in the City as evidenced by the projected cost of
construction and equipping the project.
i. The project will provide additional revenues to the City due to
increased property and sales taxes as evidenced by the projected increase in assessed
value of the property and the projected sales revenues for the project.
od /psm /d: /reports /srO81094.cc3 (8/3/94)
j. The project will provide an expanded opportunity for
purchasing goods- and services within the City at certain prices for which residents now
travel outside the City to obtain.
od /psm /d: /reports /srO81094.cc3 (8/3/94)
APPENDIX 3
SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION
CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION
Leucadia Boulevard Design Issues
A. Median:
Council consensus: 8' landscaped median that transitions to 16' at intersections
to accommodate a left hand turning movement between Sidonia Street and Saxony
Road. 16' landscaped median to be in other area (between Saxony Road and I -5
freeway and within the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan).
B. Parkway Width:
Council consensus: Parkway to be as wide as possible fully landscaped.
Parkway width doesn't have to be uniform.
C. Avocado Acres Neighborhood:
1) Council consensus: Support leaving the roads open to Leucadia
Boulevard with right turning movements into and out of the neighborhood.
2) Council consensus: Support a southern alignment from Saxony Road to
Clark Avenue. (The southerly alignment would start within 300' east of
Saxony Road.) Connection to I -5 freeway would allow a northerly
extension of the bridge.
3) Council consensus: The southerly alignment would be implemented in
phases to allow existing agricultural uses on the north side of the road to
continue their operation. To accommodate the existing agricultural
operations, the road improvements (curb -to -curb including sidewalks)
would be installed with the 30' landscape parkway on the north side being
deferred. At the time the agricultural use converts to another use the 30'
landscaped parkway would be installed.
D. Clark/Urania Realignment:
Council consensus: Support the realignment of Clark Avenue and Urania
Avenue. The Clark/Urania realignment would be accomplished through a phasing
of improvements. This phasing would allow the existing agricultural uses to
continue operations. When the existing agricultural use converts to another use,
Urania Avenue would be realigned to Clark Avenue. The Urania/Clark
intersection would then be signalized allowing full turning movements. Until the
change of use occurs, Urania Avenue and Leucadia Boulevard would be
signalized. Turning movements at Clark Avenue during this period would be
limited to right in and right out.
E. Saxony Road Realignment:
Council consensus: Support the realignment of Saxony Road, allowing for a
20% skewed to the intersection with Leucadia Boulevard to help minimize the
impacts on properties.
F. Passidonia Knolls Neighborhood:
1) Council consensus: Passiflora Avenue and Sidonia Street - right -in
turning movement off of Leucadia Boulevard only.
2) Council consensus: Support cul-de -sac of Eugenie Avenue eliminating
vehicular access to Leucadia Boulevard. Property owners to dedicate land
for cul -de -sac.
Staff note: Locate cul-de -sac at the north end of the City maintained road
within the existing right -of -way.
3) Council consensus: Woodley Place - provide right -in and right -out
turning movements off of Leucadia Boulevard.
4) Council consensus: Driveway access - all of the lots fronting Leucadia
Boulevard having driveway access will be provided with vehicular
driveway access to the side streets. Access can be provided on a
combination of private property and public right -of -way which would
allow a greater parkway between the driveway and Leucadia Boulevard.
G. Fox Point Neighborhood:
1) Council consensus: Both Passiflora Avenue and Sidonia Street to be kept
open to Leucadia Boulevard with right -in and right -out turning
movements. In addition, Sidonia Street would be provided with left
turning movements.
2) Council consensus: Provide a minimum of at least a 20' parkway
on the north side of Leucadia Boulevard.
H. Early Acquisition Program:
Establish an early acquisition program for property/homes impacted by the
design of Leucadia Boulevard.
I. No Truck Route:
Staff to provide comments on ways for the City to enforce no truck traffic
on Leucadia Boulevard.
J. Other Task Force Design Recommendations: (See Attachment 3)
Council Consensus: Direct staff to modify the report as recommended by the
Planning Commission and receive the report (without adopting it). The report
would then be used as a guide for implementing the design measures.
K. City Council Action (August 10, 1994)
Adopted Resolution 94 -75 conditionally. Council directed staff to contact the
property owners generally located at the south/west corner of Saxony Road and
Leucadia Boulevard. Due to the new design of Leucadia Boulevard these
property owners may not be aware of the acquisition impacts associated with
starting the southerly alignment of Leucadia Boulevard east of Saxony Road.
Should this present problems for the property owners, staff is to bring this back
to the Council.
ATTACHMENT 4
Leucadla Boulevard Scenic roadway
Design Recommendations
(as modified by the Planning Commission).
cd /psm /d: /reports /wW1094.ce3 (8/3/94)
t �J
LEUCADIA BOULEVARD SCENIC ROADWAY DESIGN
RECOMMENDATION
The following report was received by the City Council at their August 10, 1994 meeting. The
following document includes the Planning Commission's changes to the recommendation
provided by the Leucadia Boulevard Task Force regarding the design of Leucadia Boulevard.
The Task Force provides their recommendations in 3 sections of the Leucadia Boulevard Scenic
roadway Design Recommendation report:'
Section 4 - Definition of a Scenic Roadway,
Section 5 - Recommendation on the Design of Leucadia Boulevard, and
Section 6 - Recommendations on the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan.'
I The Planning Commission has reviewed the first 3 sections of the Task Force recommendation (Mission Statement, Background,
and Public Participation Summary). The Commission accepts these sections without any support or opposition.
2 Since these recommendations relate to the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan, the City Council and Planning Commission
considered them during their review of the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan.
Leucadia Boulevard Design Rccomnu:ndntions
(ed /pam/d:misc /pclbreco) (7/20/94) 1
LEUCADIA BOULEVARD SCENIC ROADWAY DESIGN
RECOMMENDATIONS
Table of Contents.
Page >#
1. Mission Statement.
2. Background.
3. Public Participation Summary.
4. Definition of a Scenic Roadway.
5. Recommendation on the Design of Leucadia Boulevard.
6. Recommendation Regarding Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan.
7. Appendices:
7.1 Leucadia Boulevard Task Force Membership.
7.2 Circulation Element Information:
Goal 4 and written text on scenic highway.
Goal 5 and related policies of the Circulation Element regarding Leucadia
Boulevard.
7.3 Issue Identification Report.
7.4 Resolution 92 -60, Establishing the Leucadia Boulevard Task Force.
7.5 Listing of Meetings, Dates and Tasks.
7.6 Written comments received during the process are provided in a separate
document available in the Community Development Department. This document
is referred to as "Leucadia Boulevard Written Comments" document.
7.7 Maps of Leucadia Boulevard Design as Recommended by the Task Force. This
is provided in a separate document available in the Community Development
Department.
Leucadia Boulevard Design Recommendations
(cd /prm/d:misc /pclbreco) (7/20/94) 2
1. MISSION STATEMENT
The objective of this Task force is to provide a recommendation to City Council regarding the
design and improvement of Leucadia Boulevard based on the following objectives:
A. To adhere to the Encinitas General Plan by providing "a truly scenic roadway;
to fit and reflect the community character; to mitigate all possible negative effects
on surrounding neighborhoods from noise, traffic, light and visual blight by
providing substantial design and landscaping amenities; and to create a visual
asset to the community."
B. To be completely informed about all constraints including sensitive habitats and
wildlife, historically significant sites and artifacts and archeological and
paleontological sites and to minimize damage to those sites.
C. To solicit and respond to the questions and concerns of concerned citizens via
Public Workshops.
2. BACKGROUND
The Leucadia Boulevard Task Force was created by the City Council pursuant to Policy 5.3 of
the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The purpose of the Task Force is to act as an
advisory committee to the City Council in developing design standards for Leucadia Boulevard
between I -5 and El Camino Real.
The Task Force has met 15 times over 8 months to meet the City Council deadline to identify
issues ,3 receive public comments," and provide direction on design issues for Leucadia
Boulevard. This included on -site visits of the project area to become familiar with the physical
characteristics and attending public workshops to listen and talk to individuals about the project.
After becoming oriented with the task of designing a road and understanding the various issues,
the Task Force began the process of considering various design alternatives to Leucadia
Boulevard. The Task Force focused its review on the I -5 to Sidonia Street portion of Leucadia
Boulevard and didn't review in detail the portion between Sidonia Street and El Camino Real.
The design alternatives considered include:
Force.
1. A northerly alignment directly impacting properties on the north side of Leucadia
3 See the Issue Identification Report (Section 7.3 of this report) for a listing of the various issues identified by the public and Task
" See the Lcucadia Boulevard Written Comments document for a record of the public and department correspondence received,
located within the Community Development Department.
Leucadia Boulevard Design Recommen.latious
(cd/psm/d:misc/pclb rev o) (7/20194) 3
Boulevard between Saxony Road and I -5 Freeway.
2. A southerly alignment directly impacting properties on the south side of Leucadia
Boulevard between Saxony Road and I -5 Freeway.
3. A frontage road alternative that would allow access to homes and existing streets
on the south side of Leucadia Boulevard between Clark Avenue and Del Rio
Avenue, between Saxony Road and Sidonia Street, and between Passiflora
Avenue and Sidonia Street.
4. Various design options were evaluated within each overall design alternative,
including: Urania Avenue realignment, Saxony Road realignment, width of
medians and parkways, narrowing ROW through the bluff, special features within
the Green Valley area, and other design features.
After consideration of the issues, public comments and various design options, the Task Force
provided a recommendation that is a blend of the various design alternatives initially presented.
See Section 4 for a description of the Leucadia Boulevard Scenic Roadway and Section 5 for the
recommendation of the Task Force.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public participation was provided throughout the process in addition to receiving comments at
each meeting under oral communication. Two public workshops were conducted. The first
public workshop was held on January 23, 1993 to obtain initial comments from the public
regarding the design of Leucadia Boulevard. After preliminary design alternatives were
received, another workshop was held (April 20, 1993) to receive comments from the public
regarding the design options. All of the comments were reviewed in detail by the Task Force.
Public notification was provided for both workshops which included press releases, display ads
in local newspapers, and direct mailing to all property owners within adjacent neighborhoods.'
Significant time and energy was provided by the various neighborhood groups to disseminate
information and to obtain feedback. Two neighborhood groups presented their recommendations
to the Task Force on how their neighborhoods should relate to Leucadia Boulevard. These two
neighborhoods included the Fox Point neighborhood (north of Leucadia Boulevard at the
Passiflora Avenue and Sidonia Street intersections) and Passidonia Knolls Coalitiog (south of
Leucadia Boulevard between Saxony Road and Sidonia Street.)
Other neighborhoods were kept abreast of the issues by "key" people who received materials to
share with their neighbors. This helped to get the word out for the Avocado Acres
s See the Leucadia Boulevard Written Comment document for a record of all of the public, department,
and agency correspondence received, located within the Community Development Department.
Leucadia Boulcvnmi Design Recommoidalions
(cd /prm/d:misc /pclbrcco) (7/20194) 4
neighborhood (south of Leucadia Boulevard between Saxony Road and I -5 Freeway) and the
neighborhood north of Leucadia Boulevard between Saxony Road and the I -5 Freeway.
Neighborhood Group Presentation Summary
The Leucadia Boulevard Task Force received input and /or group presentations from three
neighborhood groups who would be most impacted by the Leucadia Boulevard extension.
1. Avocado Acres (represented by Jan Shur), a group of 200 homes located on the
south side of Leucadia Boulevard between Clark Avenue and Saxony Road.
Avocado Acres requested that the majority of their streets fronting Leucadia Boulevard
be made cul -de -sacs using a rolled berm system which would allow emergency access
as necessary. They felt this would best serve the needs of their neighborhood.
2. Passidonia Knolls (represented by Doug Shaw), a group of 83 homes located on
the south side of Leucadia Boulevard between Saxony Road and Sidonia Street.
Passidonia Knolls originally requested that their streets which front on Leucadia
Boulevard be made cul -de -sacs. They requested that a new entrance be created to the
east in the Encinitas Ranch area via Quail Gardens Road. They believed this plan would
best preserve their neighborhood character, leave adequate access for emergency vehicles
and eliminate the possibility of through traffic.
At a later meeting the Passidonia Knolls group eliminated the entrance to the east via
Quail Gardens Road and designed a partial frontage road east of Passiflora Avenue to
Sidonia Street. They continued to show their streets cul- de -saced to Leucadia Boulevard.
This was done when the Encinitas Ranch Task Force determined to not show any
vehicular access to the neighborhood on the encinitas Ranch Specific Plan. 61 % of the
homes in Passidonia Knolls favored this plan.
A group of residents from Passidonia Knolls represented by Brent and Olga Dils
dissented from this plan and requested that a new internal road be created on the south
side of Leucadia Boulevard between Passiflora Avenue and Sidonia Street. This road
would not open to Leucadia Boulevard. They felt this solution would best serve the six
houses fronting on Leucadia Boulevard. 15 % of the homes in Passidonia Knolls favored
this plan.
3. Fox Point (represented by Peg Woodward), a group of 110 homes located on the
north side of Leucadia Boulevard between Saxony and Sidonia Streets.
Fox Point requested that their streets be made cul -de -sacs and that Quail Gardens Road
also be used to create a new entrance to their community. They did so for the same
reasons expressed by Passidonia Knolls and also felt that Leucadia Boulevard would flow
Leucadia Boulevard Design Rccommendatioms
(cd /prm/d:misc /pelhrco) (7/20/94) 5
more freely and be narrower, leaving more room for buffering since all need for turn
lanes in this area would be eliminated. 73 `Yo of the homes in Fox Point favored this plan.
4. DEFINITION OF SCENIC ROADWAY
A Scenic Roadway should be or should have:
Landscaping to give a natural, semi - rural, informal appearance to the road.
Continuity of a landscape theme throughout. This includes using trees which will
not interfere with the view of the ocean from the roadway and the surrounding
areas, where applicable.
Use of design techniques which diminish the appearance of unending asphalt,
enhance views, add interest, enhance the sense of relaxation and slow traffic to
a safe level.
Preserve the natural topography as much as possible.
The road should follow the natural contours as much as possible rather than
running perpendicular to them, thus minimizing grading and grading impacts.
Retain the natural flora and habitat connections as much as possible.
Where large buildings exist, they should be set back and sited with minimal
visibility from the roadway. They should be heavily screened from the roadway
with landscaping. Ample landscaping and proper siting is imperative at the
design stage to accomplish this. Existing commercial buildings should be
landscaped to attain the same results to the extent possible. Any changes to
existing businesses shall meet existing standards and design.
To the extent possible, entrances to commercial facilities should be eliminated
from the Scenic Roadway.
Distance between signals should be optimized to allow for a smooth flow of
traffic and adequate pedestrian and bicycle crossing.
West of Sidonia Street along Leucadia Boulevard, City sign standards would
apply. Within the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan sign standards established as
part of the Specific Plan will apply.
Where possible, small seating areas should be placed to take advantage of scenic
vistas, both in existing residential areas and in new development.
The use of walls should be discouraged where they will be visible from the
leucadia &wlevanl Design Recommendations
(cd /psm/d:misc /pclhreco) (7120/94) 6
roadway and if found necessary, should be designed to create a scenic, semi -rural
atmosphere.
The needs of pedestrians and bicyclists must be addressed. Pedestrian/bicycle
amenities must be both safe and provide a natural, semi -rural feel. Enhanced
hardscape materials should be used for pathways. Landscaped areas should be
mulched with wood chips or bark.
The use of concrete fill within the median should be minimal. The median should
be landscaped to the maximum extent. Concrete barriers (K- Beams) or posts
(bollards) should be discouraged in the roadway or medians.
Lighting should be subdued, decorative and of limited height, consistent with
safety standards.
5. RECOMMENDATION ON THE DESIGN OF LEUCADIA BOULEVARD
5.1 The Leucadia Boulevard Task Force believes it is important that the following be
made a part of the record of the design of Leucadia Boulevard:
A. Our recommendations regarding the design of Leucadia Boulevard were
made based on the General Plan's maximum traffic (ADT's) for a four -lane major
roadway. This Task Force does not support six through lanes for any portion of
the Boulevard.
B. We have not received any information regarding the expected noise which
will be generated by the traffic. Therefore we do not know if this plan will
adequately mitigate noise in the residential areas. We believe a continuing quality
of life should be mandated for the residents of those neighborhoods.
C. This Task Force was not permitted to look at alternative roadway
corridors. However, if the environmental impacts and studies indicate that the
road should be realigned to the south, this Task Force would concur with that
recommendation. We have not received any information from Fish and Wildlife,
Fish and Game or any environmental body which might influence this important
decision.
D. City staff has independently done an alternative design recommendation
for Leucadia Boulevard. This Task Force does not endorse its recommendation
and feels that it does not meet the expressed needs of the vast majority of
neighborhood residents.
5.2 Leucadia Boulevard design direction. The following recommendations are not
provided in any order of importance.
Leucadia Boulevard Design Rcaannundntiuna
(cd /psm/danisc /pclbreco) (7/20/44) 7
A. Bridge wetland area at Olivenhain Road.
B. Narrow the right -of -way through the bluff area to minimize the impacts.
The right -of -way through this section would include a 4' wide raised median, no
pedestrian walkway along roadway, bicycle facility on the road, and earth
retention structures fully landscaped.
C. Leucadia Boulevard parkway be given as an irrevocable offer or sold to
a land trust or other appropriate organization to help ensure that the paved width
of Leucadia Boulevard does not increase.
The Planning Commission notes that guarantees to protect the widening of
Leucadia Boulevard are currently in place. Goal 2.23 of the Circulation Element
requires an affirmative vote of a majority of those voting in an election to change
the classification of a road for a greater capacity.
D. The selection of trees should be limited to protect existing views.
E. Meandering walkway within the parkway to have enhanced paving
materials.
F. Finalized landscape plan shall not conflict with existing neighborhood
landscaping along Leucadia Boulevard and adjacent properties.
G. Ultimate plant selection should relate to the adjacent uses, such as,
pedestrian paths. Maintenance and longevity should be considered.
H. The phase of construction of Leucadia Boulevard, between the I -5 freeway
and Sidonia Street, shall include landscaping, noise attenuation, medians, and
ROW improvements. Landscaping to be fully installed where feasible,
recognizing that the preservation of existing greenhouse operations will result in
a delay of parkway landscaping. One of the key elements of the Planning
Commission's recommendation is the phasing of road improvements in order to
allow existing agricultural uses currently located along Leucadia Boulevard to
continue their operation. This will require a phasing of some of the parkway
landscaping along the north side of Leucadia Boulevard.
I. Bus pull outs should be coordinated with NCTD.
J. All design elements should have continuity (lights, site furnishings,
landscape, hardscape, etc.)
K. Water conservation measures should be utilized for landscaping utilizing
efficient irrigation systems and the use of drought tolerant plants palates.
Leucadia &ulevaal Design Recommendations
(cd /psm/daniac /pclbrcco) (7/20/94) 8
L. Encourage the use of plants requiring minimum or no pruning to establish
a natural, semi -rural look.
M. Noise attenuation to be accomplished in the following method. 1st priority
is to use berms. Should adequate area is not available for berming, the next best
alternative would be the utilization of earth retention structures. If this is cannot
be accomplished, then a one -half wall system would be acceptable with berming
on one side of the wall. Should walls be required, the walls shall have a natural
appearing look and be vegetated to maximum extent possible.
N. The implementation of the various design standards to be subject to review
by the Community Advisory Board or another citizen committee preferably made
up of Leucadia residents. The Planning Commission recommends the deletion of
Circulation Element policy 5.3A which established the Leucadia Boulevard Task
Force, since their work is completed. The Commission further recommends that
the Council (outside of the General Plan amendment process) establish a sub-
committee of the Planning Commission and City council to make sure that the
design standards are implemented through the design phase of Leucadia
Boulevard.
O. Ultimate landscape design should be sensitive to early establishment and
long term success of the landscape.
P. The design and speed of the road should reflect the residential
neighborhood adjacent to the road.
Q. Design consideration be given to provide safety to residential uses, such
as sidewalks and traffic control measures with emphasis on children safety.
R. Leucadia Boulevard shall be maintained as a no truck route.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE ENCINITAS RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
A. Establish a 150' building setback from Leucadia Boulevard in the Green Valley
area.
B. Consider a frontage road in the Green Valley area or other means to/take truck
access off of El Camino Real without access to Leucadia Boulevard.
C. Establish as part of the Specific Plan a traffic plan to be required as part of future
development application that would identify truck deliveries and access through a major
use permit. This would give the City some control over truck access.
D. Minimize signage along Leucadia Boulevard. See definition of scenic roadway.
Leucadia Boulevard Design Rccommcudiuions
(cd /psm/d:misc /pclbreco) (7/20/94) 9
E. Recommend a cul -de -sac at Passiflora and Sidonia on the north side of Leucadia
Boulevard (Fox Point Neighborhood) and create a new entrance to the Fox Point
neighborhood via the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan. The timing of the closing of the
two streets to Leucadia Boulevard will need to be coordinated with the implementation
of the Specific Plan.
F. Wherever possible, addresses other than Leucadia Boulevard be assigned within
the Specific Plan.
G. Encinitas Ranch Task Force should not approve any development that would
result in LOS E or less.
Leucadia &iulavard Design Rccornmendations
(cd /pscn/d:tnisc /pclbreco) (7/20/94) 10
APPENDIX 7.1
LEUCADIA BOULEVARD TASK FORCE MEMBERS
Voting Members
1.
Morton F. August
2.
Theodore Benson
3.
Sharon G Brossman
4.
Michael Ceragioli
5.
Robert Hearne
6.
Karen Kaden
7.
Valerie Sowder
Nonvoting Members
8. Maura Wiegand, Chair
9. John Davis, Vice Chair
10. Lester Bagg, Planning Commission and Encinitas, Ranch Task Force representative
11. Steve Perkins, Encinitas Ranch Task Force representative
12. Pat Caughey, New Encinitas area representative
Ir
Laucadia Boulcvard Dcaign Rccommcndation+
(cd /prm /d:mi%c /pclbrcco) (7/20/94) 11
Appendix 7.2
Scenic Roadway /Highway
Circulation Element, Encinitas General Plan
The following text and goals are pulled from the Circulation Element of the General Plan
regarding scenic roadway /highway.
Scenic Roadway - Any of the last four roadway categories (Arterial, Major, Collector,
and Local) may be designated as "scenic" roadways. The scenic roadway designation
will be used to aesthetically enhance such roadways through future improvements which
provide amenities such as abundant landscaping, decorative street furniture, recreational
trails, earthen berms for noise attenuation, and additional right -of -way to accommodate
such features, in addition to the normal improvements related to vehicular
accommodation and circulation convenience.
Goals 4 and 5 of the Circulation Element
Scenic Highways
The preservation and maintenance of scenic highways is emphasized in the following
policies as well as policies included in the Resource Management Element. In addition, future
road improvements should include design features that enhance the communities through which
they pass.
GOAL 4: The City should make every effort to develop a circulation system that highlights
the environmental and scenic amenities of the area. (Coastal Act /30251)
POLICY 4.1: Design roads to enhance scenic areas. (Coastal Act /30251)
POLICY 4.2: Promote and encourage roadside and median landscaping. (Coastal Act/30251)
POLICY 4.3: Separate pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic by encouraging adequate space
for walking and biking by striping roadways, excepting freeways. Coastal Act/302` 2)
POLICY 4.4: Where possible, establish a separate system of hiking trails, bicycle paths and
equestrian trails from which motorized vehicles shall be banned.
POLICY 4.5: Design and construct attractive bike paths and pedestrian ways along existing
freeway overpasses and underpasses. Discourage separate pedestrian overpasses. (Coastal
Act/30252)
L.eucadin Boulevard Design Rucummcndntiuna
(cd /pxm/d :in6dpc1hrcco) (7/20/44) 12
POLICY 4.6: Enforce existing laws prohibiting off -road motorized vehicles from traveling on
public roads. Prohibit off road motorized vehicles from operating within city limits.
POLICY 4.7: Encourage consistent signing throughout the city using international sign
standards when appropriate. (Coastal Act/30251)
POLICY 4.8: Develop and enforce a system of truck routes which discourages truck traffic on
residential streets and roads.
POLICY 4.9: Prohibit whenever legally possible, or strictly regulate billboards on city streets,
roads, freeways, railroad rights -of -way, and lagoons. (Coastal Act/30251/30253)
POLICY 4.10: Develop street lighting standards, where appropriate, consistent with
neighborhood /community character and night sky viewing.
POLICY 4.11: Keep street lighting, curbs, and gutter requirements consistent with individual
neighborhood character.
POLICY 4.12: Encourage undergrounding of utilities within street rights -of -way and
transportation corridors. (Coastal Act/30251)
POLICY 4.13: Encourage utilization of reflective devices and road striping where useful for
safety.
POLICY 4.14: Where feasible, minimize the dependence on private motor vehicles. (Coastal
Act/30252)
Leucadia Boulevard, East of I -5
The objectives in the design and improvement of the Leucadia Boulevard link are to provide a
truly scenic roadway; to fit and reflect the community character; to mitigate all possible negative
effects on surrounding neighborhoods from noise, traffic, light and visual blight by providing
substantial design and landscaping amenities; and to create a visual asset to the community.
GOAL 5: Leucadia Boulevard between I -5 and Olivenhain Road is planned as a major
arterial with an 85 -foot right -of -way. Prior to any improvements of any portion of this link
above the capacity (at LOS "D ") of a two -lane local roadway, all of the following policies
shall be satisfied:
POLICY 5.1: The specific plan required by the Land Use Element for the unincorporated
sphere area through which the Leucadia Boulevard alignment passes shall be adopted by the
City.
Leucadia Boulevard Design Recommendations
(cd /pRm/d:misc /pelbmco) (7/20/94) 13
POLICY 5.2: The annexation of the sphere area to the City of Encinitas shall have been
accomplished.
Policy 5.3: Full design and improvement plans for the length of Leucadia Boulevard between
I -5 and Olivenhain Road shall be a scenic roadway completed and adopted by the City, subject
to the following:
The City shall form the Leucadia Boulevard Task Force to be composed of residents of
Leucadia. The Task Force will participate with City staff in developing design standards
for Leucadia Boulevard east of I -5. Consideration of comments by residents of New
Encinitas will be considered in the design of the northeast link of Leucadia Boulevard.
- Design may include full landscape /street -scape design, bicycle and pedestrian facilities,
recreational trails, and intersection improvements where desired. Where facilities cannot
be accommodated within the right -of -way, additional easements may be required.
The design of the Leucadia Boulevard extension may include broad landscaped medians
and /or parkways which may be integrated with pedestrian facilities.
Buffers such as earth berms, vegetation, broad parkways and other landscape features
may be provided to protect adjacent land uses from undesirable effects of traffic, noise,
pollution and light along Leucadia Boulevard.
The extension of Leucadia Boulevard across the bluff facing Green Valley shall be
aligned and developed so as to minimize grading impacts to the bluff along Green Valley.
Wildlife corridors across the alignment of Leucadia Boulevard at the Green Valley bluff
and elsewhere as warranted shall be provided to facilitate wildlife passage and provide
continuous areas of habitat.
The connection of Leucadia Boulevard to Olivenhain Road shall bridge over Encinitas
Creek rather than use pipes or culverts to minimize impacts to the drainage area.
With street design, detailed noise impact analysis shall be provided to identify where
.noise walls or other attenuation measures may be required. Such analysis shall assume
ultimate "build -out" traffic volumes. The installation of noise walls /other measures shall
be provided prior to or in conjunction with street improvement. J
Where it is necessary or desirable to construct retaining or noise - attenuation walls along
the Leucadia Boulevard corridor, they shall be constructed with natural- appearing
materials and generously landscaped with vines, trees, and shrubbery, reflecting local
community character.
The design and improvement of Leucadia Boulevard may be considered as a two stage
Leucadia Boulevard Design Recommendation%
(cd /psm /d:misc /pelbrcco) (7/20/94) 14
project: Stage I being a two lane highway and Stage II providing additional lanes and
improvements as needed to accommodate ultimate projected traffic.
A maximum of four through - travel lanes shall be designed and improved. The additional
right -of -way for physical or visual mitigation shall not be used for through- lanes.
A high priority shall be given to implement these standards in areas where 126 feet of
right -of -way presently exists.
No truck routes shall be permitted along Lel.icadia Boulevard from I -5 to Sidonia Street.
The City will consider purchasing any land within the right -of -way when it is offered for
sale along Leucadia Boulevard from I -5 to Sidonia Street.
Leucadia Boulevard Design Recommendations
(cd /psm/d:misc /pclbmco) (7/20/94) 15
Appendix 7.3
LEUCADIA BOULEVARD ISSUE REPORT
The following concerns, issues and desires were identified by citizens and the Leucadia Boulevard Task Force. The issues identified
have been summarized below under major categories which include:
1. Circulation
1.1 Limit Vehicular Access to Local Streets
1.2 Truck Traffic
1.3 Traffic Control
1.4 1- 5 /Leucadia Boulevard Intersection
1.5 Other Circulation Issues
2. Design
2.1 Landscape
2.2 Pedestrian
2.3 Other Design Issues
3. Environmental
3.1 Noise
3.2 Historic
3.3 Biological
3.4 Other Environmental Issues
4. Public Services
5. Infrastructure
6. Process /Phasing
7. Other Issues
8. Land Use
9. Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan
The numbers listed in parenthesis indicate duplicates of the same issue or concern. Issues identified by the Task Force (M are
also noted in parenthesis.
1. Circulation -
1.1 Limit Vehicular Access to Local Streets
Against Sidonia north of Leucadia Boulevard being blocked off.(7)
2 Passiffora should not be a cross street through the median.
3 Cul-de -sac (block off or restrict access) all access streets ( Sidonia, Passiflora and Eugenie south of Leucadia
Boulevard).(10)
4 Concern for preventing the possible use of the side streets of Sidonia, Woodley, Passiflora, Eugenie for by -pass
traffic.
5 CuWe -sac Eugenie Avenue.(5)
6 Concerns with increase traffic in Avocado Acres neighborhood. (2)
7 Block off Del Rio, Del Riego, La Mirada, and Clark Streets to through traffic to Leucadia Boulevard, allowing
access for emergency vehicles.(2)
8 All local roads to be open to access by emergency vehicles. (2)(1 F)
9 Emergency access into the Avocado Acres is needed from all 4 streets. Small 3' walls could be placed along
Leucadia with landscaping to buffer the noise.
10 How will side street traffic be diverted and along what routes will residents in the neighborhood get around?
Leucadia Boulevard Task Force Issue Report
11 Blocking vehicular access into neighborhoods - should try to not impact other neighborhoods. (TF)
12 Several streets from Sidonia to IS should not connect to Leucadia Boulevard.
13 No through traffic allowed on side streets, cul -de -sac or construct berms.(2)(TF)
14 Visual access is important into neighborhoods. Landscape berms verse walls. (TF)(2)
15 Limit access onto Leucadia Boulevard (Quail Gardens Road and Saxony Road). (TF)
16 Sidonia and Leucadia Boulevard intersection (north side). closure verses open. (TF)
17 Frontage road along Leucadia Boulevard for ingress and egress to the existing residential homes. (TF)
18 Would like the task force to consider taking (with consent of neighborhood) ail houses on the south side of the
road to increase the right- of-way to add an internal two 10 -foot travel lanes and five foot optional sidewalks - lane side of
street only, with restricted parking (off- site). No parking 10 pm to 6 am. This would allow internal circulation and
emergency entrances.
18 Do not want walls at the end of the above streets or along Leucadia Blvd. - graffiti will follow.
1.2 Truck traffic
1 What are the limitations to truck traffic?
2 Truck access on Leucadia Boulevard. limit /prohibit. (TF)(19)
3 Enforcement of no through truck traffic. (TF)
4 Don't understand how the banning of trucks between 1 -5 and Sidonia will be enforced, when they will be allowed
between Sidonia and El Camino Real. Where will trucks be routed to? (2)
1-3 Traffic Control
1 Berm at Oceanview and Piraeus intersection causes one to proceed slowly when driving automobiles on Piraeus,
where the speed limit is 50 mph — this is an accident ready to happen.
2 An intersection at Passiflora and Leucadia Boulevard is needed.
3 How will you enforce the number of vehicles per day on Leucadia with all of the new development planned?
4 Traffic controls between 1-5 and EI Camino Real are needed.
5 Concern about the safety for the children with access to Capri school.(3) Light or stop sign between Saxony
and 1 -5 for neighborhood children to access Capri School (or overpass).(7) Adequate crosswalks to allow pedestrians to
cross the road easily at least at Passiflora, Sidonia and Saxony. .
6 Stop signs every couple of block on Leucadia.
7 Install a signal at the intersection of Saxony Road and Leucadia Road.(2)
8 Traffic signals /control. (TF)
9 Umit speed to 35 mph. (2)
10 Want 25 mph speed limit through residential neighborhood. (2)
11 Keep the speed limit on the road at 45 MPH (35 MPH if possible).
12 Hope the speed limit would be kept down to the lowest MPH possible.
13 Speed and traffic control. (TF)
Leucadla Boulevard Task Force Issue Report
14 Where would traffic signals be placed? (2) Would there be any cul -de -sacs?
1.4 I5/1-pucadia Boulevard
1 How does the road impact the current design of 1 -57
2 Leucadia Boulevard and 1 -5 intersection (design, timing and phasing). (TF)
3 Leucadia Boulevard /1 -5 -impacts to the west side of 1-5 (traffic /pedestrian across freeway and west area). (TM (2)
4 Coordinate with CALTRANS on 1 -5 /Leucadia Boulevard intersection. (TF)
5 Complete the I -5 /1-eucadia Boulevard bridge prior to the construction of Leucadia Boulevard. JF)
6 Concerned about the restructuring of the interchange of Leucadia Blvd. and 1 -5 (northeast comer). I am
concerned about my access to 1 -5 and Leucadia Blvd.
1.5 Other Circulation
1 Provide a curbed bicycle path.
2 Follow the General Plan with 4 lanes.
3 The General Plan clearly states a maximum of 4 lanes and if you attempt to go beyond this you will need a vote
of the community.
4 • Under General Plan Circulation Element: C•7 & C-8 should not be reclassified to a greater capacity and no link
shall be added without the affirmative vote of the majority of those voting in an election to approve such a change.
5 Feel a two land Leucadia Road would be more appropriate.
6 Sidonia should not become a major short cut.
7 Would the City be willing to relocate driveways (945 Leucadia Boulevard) to Eugenie?
a Keep Leucadia Boulevard narrow - prevent future widening. (TF)(2)
9 Consider alternate transportation modes to lessens ADT's (traffic study considers the worse case under current
transit patterns and behaviors). (TF)
10 Overall ADT's for Leucadia Boulevard. (TF)
11 Future right -of -way acquisition (north verses south side). (TF)
12 Evaluate the need to acquire the properties on the south side of Leucadia Boulevard west of Saxony Road. (TF)
13 Properties abutting Leucadia Boulevard - access issues. (TF)(1)
14 How many lanes will there be between Saxony and Sidonia?
15 The road should be lowered in the area between 1-5 and Sidonia. (2) This is the area where neighborhoods
already exist and where the most consideration should be shown. routing traffic through a sound proof type of tunnel
would also be a good idea.
16 Comments were made about possibility of increasing from 4 to 6 lanes. Would that be implemented in this
area? What happens to homes?
17 In favor of 44ane extension and design improvements of Leucadia Boulevard. Circulation element is sorely in
need of this project. (3)
18 Opposed to the construction of a 4-lane road. 'scenic" or otherwise on Leucadia Boulevard. (3)
Leucadia Boulevard Task Force Issue Report
Z Desian -
2.1 Landscape
1 Grassy, palm treed, decoratively landscaped areas on either side of the street to use as park area.
2 Landscape should be rural(4), drought tolerant(3), and native. Should be designed so that herbicides and
pesticides will not be necessary. (TF)
3 Sufficient landscaping is needed to make Leucadia Boulevard a truly scenic route.(5)(TF)
4 Provide landscaping and earth berms on the side, minimize the median. This could include noise attenuation
walls.
5 Provide a planted medium.
6 Make Leucadia Boulevard the most beautiful road in the City.
7 Any walls should be heavily landscaped.
8 Use berms, trees and hedges in lieu of walls.(2)
9 Keep Leucadia Boulevard as narrow as possible with green trees, bike paths and walking paths(3) on the outside
area of street(8). No center Island.(5)
10 Support landscaping next to the roadway with the bike and pedestrian walkway separated from the road with
landscaping. (TF)(1)
11 Landscaped medians verses wide landscaped buffers at the edge of the road. (TF)
12' Leucadia Boulevard landscape theme (potentially to help emphasize the flower industry in the community). (TF)
13 Leucadia Boulevard streetscape theme (possibly to tie to a City -wide theme). (TF)
14 Use reclaimed water from Cardiff for watering of landscaped areas.
15 Include landscaping and trials along sides and median.
22 Streetscape
1 Street lighting - style /design. Lighting for roadway and for pedestrians. Lights at intersections for safety
purposes. Dark Skies. (TF)
2 Like ornamental lighting similar to what we had downtown Leucadia.
2-3 Pedestrian
1 Provide bicycle and pedestrian paths completely separated from the roadway.
2 Trails for walking and bike riding.
3 Provide sidewalks to protect residents.
4 Pedestrian traffic currently completes with automobile traffic especially in the afternoon when greenhouse
workers are going home and children are getting out of school.
5 Bike /pedestrian crossing of Leucadia Boulevard. Same as golf cart crossing ? ??? (TF)
6 Sidewalks are needed. (TF)
7 Recreational opportunities along Leucadia Boulevard (walkways, horse trails, bikes, etc). (TF)
Leucadla Boulevard Task Force Issue Report
2 Other Design
Issues
1
No walls at the end of Avocado Acres and Leucadia Boulevard.
2
Don't create walls that can result in a blackboard for graffiti. Walls need to be landscaped. (7)(1)
3
Opposed to 6-8' walls between the Avocado Acres area and the roadway. Small 3' walls could be put along the
property
lines with landscaping. Need the neighborhood to be visually open.(7)
4
Hope this road will be as scenic as the Poinsettia /Alga extension in Carlsbad. Will the median have landscape?
5
Keep a nice rural atmosphere.(3)
6
Design is such a way to add to the community. Include bike and walking tails, trees and flowers, views of the
ocean, etc.
7
How does it relate to 680?
8
The road will split Leucadia.
9
Doesn't the road of this magnitude also require transit?
10
Do not want to loose the feeling of neighborhood.
11
Leucadia Boulevard should be a lush scenic roadway where ocean views and open space are a high priority.
Want this road to be beautiful, green and a positive addition to the area.
12
Maintain community character. (TF)
13
Linear verse curved roadway. (TF)
14
Will there be walls for area between Saxony and Sidonia? If so, how high?
3 Environmental
3.1 Noise
1
Sound proofing from the noises of Leucadia Boulevard needed. If walls used, landscaping needs to be
provided.(5)
2
Noise and landscape control must be a very high priority.
3
How will the design handle the noise factor?
4
Need sound walls and landscaping for Fox Point. Walls to be graffiti proof.
5
Most important issue is that of sound abatement.
6
Installation of sound.barrier walls with foliage to cover walls on Leucadia Boulevard.
Af
7
What will be done to reduce road noise caused by the grade in front of 945 Leucadia Boulevard?
8
Purchase all land along Leucadia Boulevard between 1 -5 and Sidonia Avenue to provide an adequate sound and
visual buffer for those residing in surrounding homes.
9
Provide sound and visual buffers that will protect residence in the area.
10
Noise mitigation efforts. What is the acceptable limit (community and General Plan standards)? There may be
trade offs with having a visually accessible community verses noise attenuating walls /berms. (TF)
11
Will there be walls for noise attenuation?
Leucadla Boulevard Task Force Issue Report
4U Historic
Believe there are several properties of historic value along the route. How will they be protected?
2 Historic issues - potential use of the home at Leucadia Boulevard and Piraeus Street for weddings, social events
and to help set a landscape theme for the roadway. (TF)
3 The northeast corner has a beautiful adobe house and ground. This along with adjoining property would make
a beautiful entrance and wedding reception, group eating - Spanish restaurant.(2)
3_3 Biological
1 Leucadia Boulevard will cut through the bluff and cross Encinitas Creek near El Camino Real. Riparian habitat
will be lost at the creek crossing and southern maritime chaparral will be lost on the bluff face. Of particular concern is
the possible loss of Baccharis Vanessae (Encinitas Bacchans) which would require off -site mitigation through acquisition
of appropriate habitat. In order to eliminate the need for off -site mitigation, it is recommended that the population of
Baccharis vanessae be avoided. Alignment could be refined to minimize loss of other sensitive plants. Wildlife bridge
or underpass could provide some mitigation for loss of the wildlife corridor. (Environmental Consultants)
2 Leucadia Boulevard crossing the bluff will impact the environmental corridor.
3 Torrey pines - impacted by Leucadia Boulevard - attempt to avoid. (TF)
4 Leucadia Boulevard crossing of open space area of the bluffs - biological issues. May wish to consider
narrowing the right-of-way, wildlife bridge over the road, tunneling the bluff, or bridging the bluff. (TF)
5 Maintain wildlife separation from accessing onto Leucadia Boulevard (consider a low adobe wail). (TF)
3.4 Other Environmental Issues
Impacts of traffic, pollution, light, noise and debris will result.(TF)(3)
2 Impacts to other Circulation Dement roads. (TF)
3 The grading on the current alignment through the bluff will be extensive.
4 Minimize grading. (TF)
5 The view of the road from the residents is of prime concern.
6 Major population growth brought about by this proposed highway. Impacts on air quality, quality of life, increase
in commute time to work, funds for waste treatment /disposal, increase police protection, fire protection, availability of
water, equal use of all our beaches.
4. Public Service
5. Infrastructure
Mail delivery, transit and school bus access along Leucadia Boulevard. (TF)
Drainage (existing problem at Ocean View). (TF)
2 Natural spring on Leucadia Boulevard at Eugenie - need to address. (TF)
3 When it rains, mud, rocks, debris and high water coma roaring down Leucadia Blvd. down Piraeus, down
Oceanview on the east side washing out driveway aprons, etc., as there are no curbs or berms built at all. Install an
underground culvert or drain. Also, install roadside curbs to eliminate washout of front of properties and driveway aprons.
4 Ever since the freeway has been built, we have had a problem of flooding on Oceanview Ave., because neither
the County or Caltrans put in proper drainage ditches etc. to take care of water flowing down Leucadia Blvd.
Leucadla Boulevard Task Force Issue Report
6. Process /Phasing
1 Will the City purchase, condemn or take any properties along this routs? How will this be done, when will it be
done and how will it be paid for?
2 When do you proposed to begin this project? How long will it take?
3 Will the road be expanded and extended as one cohesive project or in stages?
4 Will 2 lanes go in first or will all 4 lanes go in ?(2) Piecemeal development of Leucadia Boulevard will cause
years of torn up roadway.
5 Construct a 44ane roadway from the outset to minimize disturbance to the neighborhood.
6 Phasing - constructing the roadway in phases (2 lanes first and then 4 lanes) verses constructing the entire
project at one time. Impact residents once with construction (2 lands verses 4 lanes - phasing of improvements; could
allow 2 lanes on Encinitas Ranch with 4 lanes in existing neighborhood). (TF)
7 How is all of this being paid for? (federal or state funds ?)(TF)(3)
8 How and when will the 1 -5 ramps be redesigned? How will this be paid? Will this construction proceed the
Leucadia Boulevard construction?
9 What is the time table for this project ?(TF)(5)
10 Develop a land acquisition process to address the short and long term impacts to property owners along
Leucadia Boulevard.
11 How is the City going to compensate for taking away property?
12 Complete the project as quickly as possible and thus reduce the negative financial impact for those within the
corridor.
13 Show extra concern for residents living adjacent to Leucadia Boulevard during the construction process, for
example, noise, work hours, access to local streets, dust control. Require contractor in his contract to comply.
7. Other
1 No direct connection to any other major thoroughfare (Olivenhain Road).
2 Leucadia Boulevard to be one lane in each direction only.
3 Street lights and sidewalks in Saxony Knolls at no expense to home owners.
4 Local traffic only on Saxony Road.
5 Tunnel through the existing residential area .... can it be done, how much would it cost?
6 Are other alignments of the roadway possible which might better protect the sensitivity of the bluffs? Could we
bridge the bluffs in some manner? Jf
7 Consider a more southern route through the Ecke Ranch for Leucadia Boulevard to minimize the destruction
of the sensitive vegetation in the bluff area.
8 Alternate alignment of Leucadia Boulevard to the south of the Ecke property to connect at Via Cantebria and
potentially via Union Street to make a new connection to the Freeway.
9 The policies of the Circulation Element of the General Plan should be enforced.
10 How can 4 lanes of traffic filter onto the two lanes for traffic west of the freeway without major traffic back -up?
11 Do the businesses along Encinitas Boulevard want to lose the drive -by traffic that will use Leucadia Boulevard?
Leucadia Boulevard Task Force Issue Report
12 Why doesn't the City spend their time widening La Costa? (3)
13 We were told for years that the Eckes would not sell. What happened?
14 Is the City getting the full taxes on this property and penalties for taking it out of the agricultural preserve?
15 It Leucadia Boulevard has 126' ROW next to Fox Point, why only 85' for the remainder of the project?
16 Is the County, State, Coastal Commission, EPA, Sierra Club, etc., approval required for any of this work?
17 The citizens of Encinitas will suffer, without compensation, a significant change in their quality of life.
18 Is the City prepared to purchase this property and provide economic relief to those impacted by the Leucadia
extension?
19 Sign pollution, minimize. (TF)
20 Golf course crossing of Leucadia Boulevard. (TF)
21 Lowering grade through the existing Leucadia Boulevard. (TF)
22 Preservation of the rural character of our neighborhood.
8. land use
1 No commercial between 1 -5 and east of the bluff. (8)
2 Concerned about impacts to greenhouses at Urania and Leucadia Boulevard. Need to address impact as early
as possible as to what is best use of property.
3 Are you aware that Piraeus between Leucadia Boulevard and La Costa Avenue is the only through freeway
frontage road from Tamarak Avenue. in Carlsbad to San Diego. If it was rezoned it could be a good tax base increase
for Encinitas.
9. Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan
1 Accommodate no more than 25,000 ADT's.(4)
2 Design residential streets adjacent to Sidonia area with no connecting streets.(2)
3 Encourage tourism with golf course, flower fields, riding /hiking paths and open space.(2)
4 Would prefer tourism rather than commercial growth. (3)
5 No commercial on upper mesa.
6 In the Green Valley area where the Leucadia Boulevard alignment comes down the bluff would be a natural area
for an amphitheater.
7 Suggest that the golf course be located on the east side of Sidonia Street (extending north /south).
8 Local road access to Encinitas Ranch. (TFj
9 Opposes the extension of the local residential streets east of Sidonia (south of Leucadia Boulevard).
10 Consider special building setback of Leucadia Boulevard for the Encinitas Ranch development standards
(residential and commercial). (TF)
11 Do not tie in the new housing development access road to Sidonia Street, in Fox Point.
Leucadia Boulevard Task Force Issue Report
Appendix 7.4
Resolution 92 -60
Leucadia Boulevard Design Recununcndntiuns
(cd /psm/d:misc /pclbrcco) (7 /20/94) 24
RESOLUTION 92 -60
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, ESTABLISHING
THE LEUCADIA BOULEVARD TASK FORCE
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Encinitas,
California, that the Leucadia Boulevard Task Force is established
as follows:
1. Membership
A. The Leucadia Boulevard Task Force shall consist of
14 members (7 voting members and 7 nonvoting
members) and shall include:
Voting members
7 Citizens residing in Leucadia.
Nonvoting members
2 City Council members (Maura Wiegand and John
Davis).
1 Traffic Commissioner
2 Representatives from the Encinitas Ranch
Specific Plan Task Force (one Planning
Commissioner and one citizen -at- large).
2 Citizens residing in New Encinitas
B. The affirmative votes of three (3) Council members
shall be required to appoint an individual to the
Leucadia Boulevard Task Force.
2. Oualifications
The following qualifications are.to be used as guidelines
for selecting individuals to serve on the Leucadia
Boulevard Task Force:
A. Well known and respected in community.
B. Well rounded in their interests.
C. Concerned for the entire City.
D. Able to work well and congenially with other
people.
PM /04/CRO11- 933wp51 1(8/20/92 -6)
Book # — 6 _.._rage # -�67 -
E. Willing to take the time required. Capable of
committing approximately two years.
F. Not involved as chairperson for any political
campaign.
G. Entire membership should represent the general
balance of the community (i.e., age, area of City,
sex, ethnic, various groups).
H. Knowledge of issues.
I. Voting members must be a resident of the community
of Leucadia. Resource members must be a resident
of the City.
J. If you are within any of the following categories,
State Law would probably disqualify you from
participating as a Committee Member:
(1) A person who has an interest in real property
that is located within a 300 foot radius of
Leucadia Boulevard and the road decisions will
have any financial effect on the person's real
property;,
(2) A person who has real property that is located
outside a radius of 300 feet from Leucadia
Boulevard but the reasonable foreseeable
financial effect of the decision - making
process could change the fair market value of
the person's real property by $10,000 or more,
or the rental value of the person's property
by $1,000 or more during a twelve -month
period;
(3) Leucadia Boulevard is, or may be, located on
the person's property;
(4) The decision - making process will result in the
construction or improvement of the Leucadia
Boulevard right -of -way such that the person's
real property will receive new or
substantially improved services.
3. Procedures
A. Maura Wiegand shall be the Chair and John Davis
shall be the Vice -Chair for the Task Force.
B. Four voting members of the Leucadia Boulevard Task
Force shall constitute a quorum.
PM /04/CRO11- 933wp51 2(8/20/92 -6)
Book # 6 -. -.rage #_ 76?
C. The Leucadia Boulevard Task Force shall hold
meetings in accordance with the Brown Act.
D. All meetings shall be open to the public.
4. DUTIES OF THE TASK FORCE
The Leucadia Boulevard Task Force will be an advisory
committee to the City Council will participate with staff in
developing design standards for Leucadia Boulevard between I -5
and E1 Camino Real focusing on the area between I -5 and Ecke
property. The established schedule considers adoption of the
road alignment and design by the City Council 12/93. Public
hearings will start with the Planning Commission July 1993.
It is important for the Task Force to recognize and maintain
the time schedule. A preferred road alignment and preliminary
design shall be to the City Council January, 1993. Proposed
Road Design standards shall be to the City Council in April,
1993.
5. FINANCIAL INTERESTS
A. The Leucadia Boulevard Task Force shall perform a
solely advisory function. Their conclusions and
recommendations will be thoroughly reviewed by the
Planning Commission and City Council before action
is taken. Therefore, members need not file a
financial disclosure statement.
B. As required by law, members shall not participate
in any decision in which they have a financial
interest.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th ' day of August, 1992, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Davis, Hano, Omsted, Slater, Wiegand
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
E. JVE POOL, City Clerk
PM /04/CRO11- 933wp51 3(8/20/92 -6)
i
-7
MAURA WIEGAND, Mayo the
City of Encinitas, t4ifornia
Book —rage N
Appendix 7.5
LEUCADIA BOULEVARD TASK FORCE
MEETING SCHEDULE
Nfeeting
Date
Suhie t
Description
1.
12/8/92
Orientation
Brief Task Force on duties and orientation
6:00 p.m.
materials.
2.
1/9/93
On -Site Tour
Meet at the east end of Leucadia Boulevard
9 a.m. - 11 a.m.
(where it terminates at the Ecke Ranch).
Conduct a walking tour of Leucadia
Boulevard.
3.
1112193
Re_ular
Discuss issues raised at 12/8/92 Orientation
6 p.m. (Tues.)
meeting. Provide Constraints Analysis.
4.
1/23/93
Issue Identification
Public Open House for issue identification for
9 a.m. - 11 a.m.
the project.
(Saturday)
5.
2/2/93
Issue Identification
Task Force identifies Issues.
(6 p.m. Tuesday)
6.
2/16/93
Issue identification
Base map info provided and issue
(6 p.m. Tuesday)
identification with consultant. Task Force
discusses issues to assist in the consultant in
the design of 3 alternative road designs.
7.
3/2/93
MEETING CANCELED
(Tuesday)
8.
3/16/93
Alternative design
Consultant prepares 3 alternative design
(6 p.m. Tuesday)
discussion
concepts to the Task Force. Task Force
discusses and provides comments.
9.
4/6/93
MEETING CANCELED
(Tuesday)
10.
4/20/93
Public Open House
Public Open House to review the design
(Tuesday 6 p.m. - 9 p.m.)
alternatives for Leucadia Boulevard.
11.
5/4/93
Alternative design
Task Force to review public comment
(6 p.m. Tuesday)
discussion
received at open house (4/10), comments
from City Departments (Fire and Sheriff) and
other comments and provide direction to the
consultant regarding the alternative designs.
12.
5/18/93
Discuss alternatives
Task Force to discuss the 3 alternatives and
(6 p.m. Tuesday)
provide comments and direction.
13.
618/93
Discuss alternatives.
Task Force to discuss the 3 alternatives and
(6 p.m. Tuesday)
I provide comments and direction.
Uueadia Boulovant Design Recommendations
(cd /psm /d:misc /pclbroco) (7/20/94) 28
I.-,-
NIMing
Date
S►►bJect
Description
14.
6/29/93
Presentation of
Consultant to present the design alternative as
(6 p.m. Tuesday)
alternatives.
directed by the Task Force.
15.
7/6/93
Discuss alternatives.
Consultant to refine the alternatives based on
(6 p. m. Tuesday)
6/8 Task Force discussion /direction and
present the refine alternative(s). Task Force
to provide additional comments and direction.
16.
7/27/93
Discuss related
Discuss related recommendations that the
6 p.m. Tuesday)
recommendations.
Task Force wishes to forward along with
their recommendation for the design of
Leucadia Boulevard.
15.
8/3/93
Refine preferred
Final meeting. Task Force meets with
(6 p.m. Tuesday)
alternative
consultant to refine preferred alternative and
receive final input.
L,cucadin ttoulovanl Design Recommendations
(cd /psm/d:misc /pclbmco) (7/20/04) 29