Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
3466; OLIVEHAIN RD WIDENING AND REALIGNMENT; FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; 1992-01-01
4., ç;;------ P .J 14 LI - ----:---' T - . - -- - - . . . r A. 0• . 4 . ~141 - * - . 0 - - - . - . 0 - - - JI 4 4- 4 . - s' - •00 4 .4- . 1 -• - k - 1 - . -ç '_ • • I - ..Ills JA •• i I 4 5 . 4 rA rT - t20_ j ; t-4J0 I 0 1 1 (I -, : '-• _• • 50 I t 4.0 4 . . 'OO • •_ - ' 4 0,1 :- Jk brianL+- F moonc____ U 1 - . planning, design & environmental studies, , - I • I. 57 FAL. * '. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I FOR -' OLIVENHAIN ROADWDENING/REALIGNMENT AN OIC s 4 It / — (SCH# 91011035) I Preparedfor: , - City of Encinitas Community Development Department o 527 Encinitas Boulevard C Encinitas, California 92024 - ) (619) 944-5060 41 Prepared by 1I Brian F Mooney. Associates 9903-B Busmesspark Avenue San Diego, California 92131 (619) 578-8964 - January, 1992 ' - . TABLE OF CONTENTS -• Section '- Page I USER'S GUIDE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. v I SUMMARY Isil rI 1.0 INTRODUCTION - I-i L 2.0 . 'PROJECT DESCRIPTION. 2.1 Project Location Il-i 2.2 Environmental Settiig 2.3 Proposed Project '11-13 2.4 Environmental Review Study Areas 11-22 2.5 General Plan Designated Trail Alignment 11-22 2.6 Project Objectives •. .. . 41-26 2.7 Agency Approvals Required : . ...: 11-27 I 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 0 JJJi 3.1 Biological Resources 3.2 Cultural Resources : ' 111-21 1 3.3 Geologic Hazards - . 111-26 3.4 Traffic/Circulation ' . '.. ' 111-31 V 3.5 General Plan Compatibility ' . 111-49 3.6 Traffic Noise . .• 111-55 3.7 Paleontological Resources ' IIIL66 ' 3.8 Hydrology/Water Quality . . ... •. . 111-68- 3.9 Community 'Character/VisualResource I. • 0 , 111-75 - 3.10 Public Services/Utilities 0 0 - 111-90 4.0 GROWTH INDUCEMENT IV-1 5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS . . p • V-i 0 '6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT . ;• • VI-1 7.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT . • Vu-i. 0' - - . - TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) I Section Page 1 9.0 ANY SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED I ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED -IX-1 - 100 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM x-i I 11.0 REFERENCES, PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED XI-1 J2.0 CERTIFICATION I - APPENDICES (Bound Separately) ' I 1 Environmental Impact Assessment Form for Olivenhain Road Interim Expansion to Four Lanes (Fay. Round and Associates) I 2 Notice of Preparation (City of Encinitas) 3 Comments Received During Notice of Preparation Review Period 4 Drainage Study for Encinitas Creek (Dr. Chang) I r 5 Biological Resources Technical Report (BFMA) 6 Cultural Resources Technical Report (BFMA) 7 Soil and Geologic Reconnaissance Technical Report (GEOCON) I 8 El Camino Real /Olivenhain Road Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analyses (City of Carlsbad and City of Encinitas)- -.9.'. Existing Traffic Volumes for El Camino Real between Olivenhain Road and Levante I Street (JHK & Associates), Intersection Capacity Utilization Standards and Relationship to Levels of Service (Highway Capacity -Manual).' and Intersection Warrants (AASHTO and Highway Design M-anuaI) 10 Acoustical Analysis Technical Report (BFMA) 11 Paleontological Assessment Technical Report (RMW Paleo Associates) 12. Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Water Quality Technical R'epott (Nolte and-Associates),I 13 Letters of and Responses to Public and Other Agency. Comments I I I - I - I - - LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.1-1 Regional Location Map 2.1-2 Vicinity Map 2.24 Topography at Westeri End of Project Route 2.2-2 Topography, at Eastern End of Project Route 2.2-3 Residential Land Uses Along the Project Route 2.2-4a Encinitas Creek 100-Year Floodway/Floodplain Limits Adjacent to Olivenhain Road (Western Segment) 2.2-4b ' Encinitas Creek '100,-Year Floodway/Floodplain Limits Adjacent to Olivenhain Road (Eastern Segment) 2.2-5 Encinitas Creek 100-Year Floodway/Floodplain Limits Adjacent to La Costa Avenue/El Camino Real Intersection 2.3-1 Proposed Olivenhain Road Alignment #2 23-2 Proposed Olivenhain Road Cross-Sections 11-3 Proposed Floodwater Detention Dike 2.3-4 Alternative Flood Control Berm Designs at La Costa Ave/El Camino Real 2.3-5 Conceptual Cross-Section of Proposed Flood Control Berm at La Costa Ave/El Camino Real 2.4-1 Alternative Alignments Study Area 2.4-2 Proposed Dike. and Future Detention Basin "D" Study Area 2.4-3 Alternative Flood Control Berms Study Area 3.1-1 Biological Resources Map - Olivenhain Road 3.1-2 ' Biological Resources Map 7 Detention Basin 3.1-3 Biological Resources Map - La Costa Avenue 3.1-4 Olivenhain Road Biological Impacts Map 3.1-5 . Detention Basin Biological .Impacts'Map 3.1-6ã La Costa Avenue Alternative 1 , 3.1-6b 'La Costa Avenue Alternative 2 . 3 1-7a Proposed Revegetation Sites - Olivenhain Road 3.1-7b . Proposed Revegetation Site-. La Costa Avenue 3.37 1 Existing Soils at Western End of Project Route 3.3-2 Existing Soils at Eastern End of Project Route 3.5- ' 1 City of Encinitas Circulation Plan 3.5- City of Carlsbad Circulation Plan 3.5-3 , ''Comparison of Street Design Guidelines 3.6-1 Measured Existing Noise Levels 3.6-2 , . Calculated Existing Noise Levels'- Western Road Segment 3.6-3 Calculated Existing Noise Levels - Eastern Road Segment 3.6-4 ' Future Noise Levels,- Western Segment 3.6-5 Future Noise Levels- Eastern Segment 3.8-1 ' Locations of Detention Basins within the Project Vicinity 3.9-1 ' Visual Resource Sensitivity Map .11-9 11-10 11-14 11-15 11-18 11-20 LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Number jle Page 3.9-2 Natural Resource SensitivityMap ' . H177 3.9-3 Vantage Point Locations 111-78 3.9-4 Vantage Point 1 — hIII79 3.9-5 Vantage Point 2 3.9-6 Vantage Point 3 111-81 3.9-7 Vantage Point 4 .' 111-82 3.9-8 Vantage Point 5 + ' 111-83 3.9-9 . Vantage, Point 6 •. '111-84' 3.9-10 Vantage Point .7 . 111-85 3.9-11 "Worst Case" Thompson Property. Grading 111-87 3.10-1 Major. Utility Easements within the Project Vicinity - .111-91 5.0-1 Planned Development in Project Vicinity V-2 6.2-1. Alternative #1: Southern Alignment V ' -VI-2 6.2-2 Alternative #3 Northern Alignment ' VI-5 6.2-3 Alternative #4 Existing Two-Lane Alignment "- VI-7 LIST OF TABLES V Number Title V . . Page 3.1-1 Summary of Impacts to Vegetative Habitats Within the j... La Costa Avenue Flood Control Project Area 111-13 5. 3.4-1 Primary Roadways and Key Intersections in the Project Vicinity 4 11134 V 3.4-2 V 'Roadway Definitions by Classification 111-35 3.4-3 Standards for Roadway Levels of Service V ' 111-36 V 3.4-4 Roadway Capacity Standards V '111-37. V Summary of Existing Roadway Levels df Service V Within the Project Vicinity 111-39 3.4-6 Intersection Capacity Guidelines for Functional Design 111-40 3.4-7 Summary of Existing Intersection Levels of Service Within the Project Vicinity • 111-41 3.8-1 Water Quality Standards for: Encinitas Creek and - Batiquitos Lagoon .s , '. 111•70 3.8-2 Batiquitos Lagoon Water Quality 111-7 1 6.2-1 Summary of Impacts to Vegetative Habitats within - the Olivenhain Road Project Area- S . Vv..4 . V 10.0-1 Mitigation Monitoring checklist ' ' X-3 I USER'S GUIDE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), or other environmental analysis, for any project which may have a significant effect on the environment. The purpose of an EIR is to identify such effects, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided. EIRs must be organized and written in such a manner that they will be meaningful and useful to both decision-makers and the public. When an EIR is required, it must be considered by every public agency prior to its approval or disapproval of a project. The Lead Agency has the responsibility for determining whether an EIR or a Negative Declaration would be required for a project. The City of Encinitas is the Lead Agency for this project and has determined that an EIR is required. Ems must contain discussions of specific topics as outlined by the lead agency, as well as specific topics outlined in guidelines for the implementation of CEQA prepared by the State Secretary for Resources. Such guidelines are periodically updated to comply with changes in CEQA and court interpretations. This report follows the most recent guidelines and amendments to CEQA. ,$ Chapter 1.0 of this document introduces the project, and Chapter 2.0 includes a: discussion about the location, environmental setting, and description of the proposed project, as well as the objectives and agency approvals required. Chapter 3.0 is a description of the Environmental I Analysis which examines the issues identified by the City of Encinitas as having potentially significant environmental effects. These issues are biological resources, cultural resources, geologic hazards, traffic/circulation, General Plan compatibility, traffic noise, paleontological resources, hydrology/water quality, community character/visual resource, and public services/utilities. Chapters 4.0 through 10.0 address the specific topics required by CEQA and include: Growth Inducement; Cumulative Impacts; Alternatives To The Proposed Project; Effects Found Not To Be Significant; The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's Environment and the Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity; Any Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be Involved in the Proposed Action Should it be Implemented, and a Mitigation Monitoring Checklist. The Alternatives Section includes a discussion of the No Project Alternative, Alternative Alignments, Road Widening Alternative, and Grade-Separated Intersection Alternative. This Draft Em will be made available for review by the public and public agencies for 45 days. The Encinitas City Council will consider the Final E, certify it as complete and in compliance with, CEQA, and must consider it in approving or disapproving the project. Public input is encouraged at any scheduled hearings for the project and EIR. In the final review of the project, environmental considerations, as well as economic and social factors, will be weighed to determine the most appropriate course of action. v IT I I I I '1 SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves three aspects: widening and - reagnment - of aportion7 tinofa flpodwitiordikejüsttO thOuthOf thisrI and construction of a flood control berm at the sectiñf IiCóiiAvenue and EFCãñiino Real. Existing and proposed rights-of-way for Olivenhain Road are within the corporate boundaries of both the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad, in northern San Diego County. The future floodwater detention basin 'D" would be located in the Encinitas Creek floodplain, just west of Rancho Santa Fe Road, in the City of Carlsbad. The La Costa Avenue/El Camino Real intersection flood control berm would be situated along the City of Carlsbad/County of San Diego boundary, just south of Batiquitos Lagoon. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES The following environmental issues analyzed in this EIR, and briefly summarized below, have been found not to be significantly impacted by the proposed project: cultural resources, geologic hazards, traffic/circulation, General Plan compatibility, paleontological resources, and hydrology/water quality. Potentially significant environmental impacts have been identified for the remaining issues evaluated herein, but can be mitigated to below a level of significance through implementation of mitigation measures. These issues include biological resources, traffic noise, community character/visual resource, and public services/utilities. Additional environmental issues were evaluated during an initial Environmental Impact Assessment, and were determined by the City of Encinitas not to be impacted by the proposed project. These issues, which were not included in this EIR analysis, are: air quality, natural resources utilization, land use compatibility, light and glare, hazardous waste generation and disposal, housing demand, recreational uses, and agricultural conversion. Biological Resources Impacts. The proposed project would directly impact sensitive wetland habitats including southern willow scrub, coastal freshwater marsh, coastal salt marsh, and disturbed wetland scrub, as well as upland habitats including southern mixed chaparral, eucalyptus woodland, ruderal vegetation, and disturbed land. The impact to coastal salt marsh is considered significant. Impacts to southern willow scrub and freshwater marsh habitats are considered cumulatively significant due to their limited range. The impact to ruderal vegetation may include losses of the sensitive sand aster. A slight increase in roadway runoff volumes due to increased asphalt surface area for the widened road, which may include residuals of oil and grease, could significantly impact Encinitas Creek aquatic wildlife. Significant noise levels from construction equipment operation and future traffic along Olivenhain Road may disrupt sensitive songbird (i.e., willow flycatcher and least Bell's vireo) mating and foraging activities in adjacent riparian habitat. S-i 'I• I Mitigation. The Alternative #2 Olivenhain Road design and the Alternative #1 flood control berm design at La Costa Avenue/El Camino Real intersection are recommended as the least I environmentally damaging alternatives. A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pre-Discharge Notification and a California Department of Fish and Game 1601 Sireamcourse Alteration Agreement shall be prepared and approved prior to the approval of final roadway improvement plans. All mapped sensitive habitats to be disturbed shall be revegetated at the appropriate replacement ratios and within ecologically appropriate areas on-site. All proposed habitat restoration sites shall be monitored by a qualified biologist during plant installation and for a fi ve- year period thereafter. Prior to construction of the proposed flood control berm at La Costa Avenue/El Camino Real intersection, the coastal salt marsh vegetation and top soil layer to be impacted shall be salvaged, and then tilled into the soil of the prepared salt marsh revegetation site. Proposed roadway construction for the portion of the project route between the SDG&E easement and the western Willow Creek subdivision boundary shall occur outside the months of March through July in order' to avoid potentially significant noise impacts to sensitive breeding songbirds. In order to avoid incremental water pollution impacts from oil and gas residuals into the Encinitas Creek watershed, appropriate runoff protection facilities shall be installed south of Olivenhain Road. I Cultural Resources Impacts. No cultural resources are located within the proposed construction easements delineated I for the three study areas;- therefore, no adverse direct impacts to these resources would occur as a result of project implementation. I Mitigation. Because two archaeological sites exist adjacent to the project study areas, all construction activities shall be restricted to within the limits of proposed construction easements, as delineated by visible flagging/staking. Geologic Hazards Impacts. There are no soil or geologic conditions present within the three study areas which would preclude project implementation. The presence of undocumented fill soils and compressible alluvium, however, would require removal and recompaction of all loose soils prior to construction. Stabilization replacement fills would be required for the proposed 32-foot high, 2:1 cut slope along the. north side of the road segment to be realigned. The presence of shallow groundwater at this location would limit the depth of remedial grading to just above the groundwater level. Placement of a geotextile fabric and coarse aggregate blanket would be required over the exposed cut soils prior to compaction of fill and paving. Construction dewatering, particularly adjacent to El Camino Real, would also be required. Mitigation. Prior to the approval of final roadway improvement plans, a detailed soils and geologic investigation addressing the approved alignment shall be performed. All proposed roadway improvement and grading plans within existing utility easements on-site shall be S-2 reviewed and approved by the Public Works Departments of the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad prior to final approval. All manufactured cut/fill slopes shall be planted with erosion-resistant groundcover vegetation, and watered by a well-designed and maintained irrigation system. A Landscape and Irrigation Plan for all graded slopes shall be approved by the Public Works Departments of the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad prior to approval of final roadway improvement plans. Landscaping and irrigation of all manufactured slopes, per approved plans, shall be installed as soon as practical after grading in order to reduce erosion potential on exposed slopes. Traffic/Circulation Impacts. The proposed project would improve existing traffic congestion which presently occurs along Olivenhain Road to acceptable levels of service. It would also result in acceptable levels of service at primary street segments and key intersections in the project area under build-out (Year 2010) traffic conditions, except for El Canino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road south of Olivenhain Road. Some temporary traffic delays may be experienced along Olivenhain Road and its intersections with El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road during the construction period. Mitigation. Closure of Olivenhain Road to through traffic shall not be permitted during its proposed widening and realignment, unless other detour options, such as Calle Barcelona between El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road (if it is allowed to be completed prior to project implementation), are identified which would be acceptable to the City Engineers of Encinitas and Carlsbad. A Traffic Control/Detour Plan for the proposed project shall be approved by the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad Planning and Engineering Departments prior to approval of final roadway improvement plans. Approval of such a Plan would eliminate temporary traffic delays otherwise caused by detouring, thereby maintaining existing traffic/circulation patterns within the project area. During the construction period, the road shall be re-striped to allow one lane in each direction for use by public and emergency vehicle traffic. The existing traffic signal at the Olivenhain Road/El Camino Real intersection shall be switched to the flashing red mode during construction equipment operation. Future improvements to El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road segments in the vicinity of the proposed project will be required prior to build-out year traffic forecasts to ensure compliance with the City of Encinitas General Plan Circulation Element. Finally, in response to comments recieved from County Department of Public Works during the Public Review Period, the following mitigation measures shall also be included as required conditions of project approval: 1) Construct the Olivenhain Road/El Camino Real intersection at right angles; 2) Determine appropriate right-of-way widths and distances required for relinquishment of access rights; 3) Provide adequate sight distance; and 4) Provide the appropriate number of left-turn lanes at the Olivenhain Road/El Camino Real intersection. S-3 General Plan Comóatibility ' Impacts. The proposed Alignment #2 would result in minor deviations from General Plan roadway design criteria established by the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad for the construction of a Prime Arterial; however, the respective Circulation Elements contain provisions for variation I in design. In particular, the descriptions of width and other facilities are offered as non-exclusive alternatives which allow for such minor variations in roadway design. Consequently, the proposed project is determined to be in substantial conformance with the General Plan Circulation I Element standards for a Prime Arterial roadway. Mitigation. No mitigation measures are required. I Traffic Noise I Impacts. An increase in future traffic volumes along the widened Olivenhain Road would result in increased traffic noise levels at existing residences fronting the proposed project route on both sides of the road. Construction equipment operation may also result in short-term noise impacts I to these residences. 'Significant construction noise levels may also impact sensitive breeding bird species that use the Encinitas Creek riparian area adjacent to the south side of the proposed road. Most of the proposed road construction would take place at the western end of the project route. I Since no residential land 'uses occur in this area, construction noise would primarily impact biological habitat. . Mitigation. Future traffic noise impacts to residences fronting the south side of the project route shall be mitigated via proposed extension of existing noise attenuation walls. The feasibility of extending existing walls for the purpose of future traffic noise attenuation along the rear yards of residences fronting the north side of Olivenhain Road shall be internally evaluated by the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad, in accordance with Policy 1.1 of the Encinitas General Plan Noise Element. If found to be feasible, any proposed wall extensions shall be of sufficient height and uniform. building material consistent with existing structures so as to reduce noise to exterior and ground floor receptors, but may not significantly reduce noise to second floor, receptors. Proposed roadway construction for the portion of the project route between the SDG&E easement and the western Willow Creek subdivision boundary shall occur outside the months of March through July in order to avoid potentially significant noise impacts to sensitive breeding songbirds. Paleontological Resources Impacts. The Santiago Formation occurs in all three project study areas, and contains significant fossils as evidenced by their abundance and high potential for discovery, in the immediate project vicinity. Quaternary age marine terrace and alluvial deposits found in the study areas are also. considered significant, but have a low potential of fossil occurrence in the Carlsbd area. S-4 facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage. Due to the small nature of some fossils, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for processing through fine mesh screens. Any fossils collected shall be prepared to the point of identification and properly curated before they are donated to their final repository. All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. Hvdrolo2v/Water Quality Impacts. The proposed project is not expected to create significant water quality impacts within the project areas or downstream watersheds, such as Batiquitos Lagoon. Temporary increases in turbidity and/or total suspended solids may occur within Encinitas Creek during the construction phase of the project, but no surface or groundwater impacts are expected. Due to anticipated increases in future traffic volumes and paved surface area, slight increases in grease and oil residuals runoff may be encountered. Sediment transport is expected to decrease due to the increased paved area and the addition of floodwater detention basin "D." Mitigation. Debris fences and screens shall be stationed downstream from proposed grading, but outside the Encinitas. Creek 100-year floodplain limits and associated sensitive wetland habitat boundaries. Any temporary dams shall be constructed from material such as clean gravel which would cause little or no siltation. Except as shown on approved plans, no riprap, rock or other impermeable materials shall be discharged into Encinitas Creek. Any temporary fills shall be constructed of nonerodible materials and shall be removed immediately upon completion of the work. When road construction operations are completed, any excess materials or debris shall be removed from the work areas. Bridge plans for the El Camino Real bridge just south of Olivnhain Road intersection indicate that riprap protection is in place approximately 20 feet upstream and downstream of the bridge, but is currently silted over. Prior to road construction, the status and condition of this riprap shall be inspected to determine if it is still providing adequate protection against scour from erosive velocities on the upstream side of the El Camino Real bridge. Community Character/Visual Quality Impacts. Proposed roadway cut slopes along the north side of the realigned road would result in significant visual impacts to northbound traffic along El Camino Real, south of its intersection with Olivenhain Road, and to existing residential land uses south of the project mute. Adverse visual impacts to the Thompson residence on the south side of the proposed realignment would result from placement of a fill slope/retaining wall approximately .12 feet away to support the widened mad segment at this location. No visual impacts would occur from proposed construction of detention basin "D" dike or the flood control berm at the La Costa Avenue/El Camino Real intersection. S-5 i I Mitigation. Mitigation for visual/landform modification impacts associated with proposed roadway grading shall include scarification of the cut face by the use of a serrated blade or other methods to create pockets where planted vegetation could better take hold. Where possible, all I manufactured slopes shall undulate, with rounding of the tops and toes of the slopes to better blend them into the surrounding terrain. A detailed Landscape and Irrigation Plan for all manufactured slopes shall be approved by the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad Planning and I Engineering Departments. All plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the respective cities' Landscape Architects. Prior to final "as-built" approval of grading plans, representatives from the Public Works Departments of both cities shall inspect landscape installation to ensure I conformance with the requirements of this EIR and relevant Grading Permits. Additionally, the project Landscape Architect shall certify by letter to these departments that the landscape I installation conforms to these requirements. Rather than constructing a retaining wall or fill slope adjacent to the Thompson residence, one of the following two alternative mitigation measures shall be implemented during road 1 construction in order to reduce adverse visual impacts to below a level of significance: 1) Two, six-foot high vegetated crib walls shall be installed adjacent to this property, with a three-foot , wide planting area between them; or 2) Two, six-foot high slump-block retaining walls, similar in color and appearance as the existing four-foot wall fronting the Willow Creek/Bridgewater subdivision to the west, shall be installed. In addition, a four-foot high slump-block wall shall I :be installed at the southern ROW. edge, at the top of the slope. This wall shall match and tie into the existing aforementioned block wall to the west. Three-foot wide planting areas shall also be established between each wall. Construction of either alternative shall meet commonly-accepted I engineering practices. Vegetation and irrigation associated with either alternative shall be specified by the homeowner, but shall not be unreasonably demanded. Public Utilities Impacts. Relocation of existing utility lines within the western segment of Olivenhain Road to ' be realigned would not be required as long as these lines remain within the proposed ROW of the new road alignment there is no major excavation required for the new roadway cut; and no new facilities connections are proposed. If relocation is required, these facilities would remain I in service until new lines have been relocated and tested. As long as standard construction procedures for utility line relocation are followed, no impacts or interruptions to existing service in the project area are anticipated. Existing gas and electric facilities within the 150-foot wide SDG&E easement that crosses Olivenhain Road near El Camino Real would be lowered to accommodate the new profile of the proposed road realignment. Potential impacts resulting from these relocations could include accidental damage to lines during construction and/or public safety impacts from personnel working too close to the lines. The proposed project may significantly impact law enforcement, fire protection, and paramedic emergency response time to the Olivenhain Road project area, particularly during peak-hour commuter periods, should bottlenecks, traffic delays, or detours occur at existing neighborhood access points and transition routes during the construction phase. S-6 I Mitigation. To ensure that public services in the project area are not impacted, specifications. shall be placed in the construction documents that would ,provide for temporary service connections in th u e event of anticipated erruptions td water, seer gas, electric, telephone, or television lines Th es Ile citiof Encinitas and Carlsbad shall coorthnate final &pproval of roadway improvement plans with the respective utility companies and agencies to ensure non-interference with existing public facilities Furthermore, SDG&E requires that certain standards be followed J while working in or around gas transmission facilities Finally, the County Sheriff's Department and loc&l fire departments shall be powd&lopiés of the approved Traffic Control/Detour Plan for the proposed project. Receipt of such Plans would provide these agencies information regarding the variables which could potentially affe& emergency response mode and time to the project area during proposed road construction. With - his information, these agencies could develop alternate, mutes or other methods to ensure that emergency response to the project area is not significantly impacted duriig project àónstrution. i _* - - 4 • 14 ',..t', • I 4 4• 1 •. -' . I . i - . - . . 14. 4 _4 •••4 - - - . • 4 . . . . • -. , * * 4 • , .4 - , - t .. . .4 . 4 - 4 . •*4 __4.. • I * * 4 '-4 4- . . * 4. -4 . 4 • 1 4 -. -. '1 - 4 •.444 I _ I _ 44 I - ' 4. - - • - - 1-- 44 4 • - . - 4 4 4 . 4 ' 4 •. • ., 4. .. . 4 . 4- 4. _4 4 •*••4 .. . 4. I S-i - I 44 I '1 10 INTRODUCTION This draft Environmental Impact. Report (EIR) is an informational document intended for use by the City of Encinitas (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), any Federal, State or local jurisdictional agencies, and the public. As such, it provides 'a detailed review and analysis of the I potential environmental impacts that could result from the proposed Ohvenhain Road widening, realignment, and flood control project, as identified by the City during an Environmental Initial Study (EIS) for the project (Appendix 1). The proposed project is located generally east of El Cimino Real, south of La Costa Avenue, west of Rancho Santa Fe Road, and north of Encinitas I Boulevard, in the City of Encinitas I Based on the results of the EIS, the City has determined that an EIR is require dfor the proposed project. The environmental analysis containedherein is based on the Olivenhain Road Route Adoption Report prepared by Project Design Consultants (August 16, 1990, revised February 26, I . 1991). his EIR has been prepared in conformance with City environmental review guidelines and procedures.. Thisdocument also complies with all criteria, standards, and procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (Public Resources Code 21000 , and State EIR Guidelines (Administrative Code 15000 et q.). . . The City will use this EIR for. environmental review of discretionary actions required for approval of the proposed project. This EIR identifies environmental constraints, analyzes I program alternatives, and recommends site-specific mitigation measures. The first volume of this document provides detailed impact analyses and specific mitigation recommendations that can be used to assess,.-potential environmental impacts, associated with proposed road and flood I control improvements.-The second volume contains the technical studies, background data, and research material used to support these environmental findings I .. A Notice of Preparation (NO?) for the Iproposed project was sent to the State Clearinghouse on January 3, 1991 (Appendix 2). Appendix 3 contains and ageiicy comments received during the NOP review period. I I I I 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 ProJect Location The proposed project involves widening/realignment of a portion of the existing Olivenhain Road between El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road, construction of a floodwater detention dike just to the south of this road, and, construction of a flood control berm at the intersection of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real. Existing and proposed rights-of-way for Olivenhain Road are within the corporate boundaries of both the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad, in northern San Diego County (Figure 2.1-1), An east-west, two-lane road which connects El Camino Real with Rancho Santa Fe Road, it is approximately one mile in length (Figure 2.1-2). East of the proposed dike, a future floodwater detention basin 'D" would be located within City of Carlsbad boundaries, in the Encinitas Creek floodplain just west of Rancho Santa Fe Road. Figure 2.1-2 also shows the proposed location of a flood control berm at the La Costa Avenue/El Camino Real intersection, situated along the City of Carlsbad/County of San Diego boundary, just south of Batiquitos Lagoon. Regional access to these project areas is provided by Interstate 5 (1-5) to the west. 2.2 Environmental Setting 2.2.1 Topography 2.2.1.1 Existing Olivenhain Road Project Route The existing Olivenhain Road alignment is within an east-west trending valley which contains Encinitas Creek. It is mainly oriented on south-sloping terrain, with topography on the north side of the road sloping upward. A fairly steep hill occurs at the northwestern end of the project route extending eastward from El Camino Real for a distance of approximately 1,300 feet (Figure 2.2- 1). Elevations in this area range between 87 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) along the northern edge of the paved roadway to 175 feet AMSL at the top of the hill, approximately 750 feet to the north. Manufactured slopes separating existing residential development from the northern roadway edge increase in height from 5-10 feet at the western boundary of the Rancho del Ponderosa subdivision to 15-20 feet at the eastern boundary of the Santa Fe Ridge subdivision near the Olivenhain Road/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection. Topography on the south side of Olivenhain Road is relatively level where it abuts the Encinitas Creek floodplain at its western end. The terrain on this side of the road begins to gradually slope downward at a vacant lot on the westernmost boundary of the Willow Creek subdivision, approximately 1,550 feet east of El Camino Real. Continuing east past an existing day care center and welding shop, steep, manufactured slopes in excess of 20 feet in height occur below the roadway edge, behind a four- to five-foot high retaining wall along this subdivision. East of the Thompson residence, the natural slope on the south side of Olivenhain Road-begins to level again until it flattens out at an agricultural feed store located on Rancho Santa Fe Road (Figure 2.2-2). Cardiff-by-the-Sea (Cardiff) Solana Beach C i I I 0 1 2 3Mfles brian c mooncp planning, design & environmental studies Olivenhain Road Alignment Regional Location Map Figure 2.1-1 ER SOURCE: U.S.G.S. 30' x 601 Quad Map (Oceanside) -.m V - * Future Detention Basin "0' Potential 100-Yea Flood •- -- IV Ponding Area Ox) Aub ols VI -" Prox N V V - - Olivenhain Räad Alignment I - Vicinity Map - V 00' 2000' - briclnFmoonc!V p - V V• plan'ng. design & environmental studies 4 Figure 2.1-2 V I V EIR SOURCE U S G S 75' Quad Map (Encinutas & Rancho Santa Fe) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I 0 I E l U. ' i ., 0 CD CO . Cl) brian F.móonc p4anng. design & environmental studies derosa ndary d ry. - Wig , a,,, ,,,, ts#J ent Existing Topography at Western End of Project Route. • • • Figure 2.2-1 -4 • FIR I. ! Ito MWD Off lces Feed Store Olivenhain Road Thompson Residence Disturbed Area Its / \\ V.N VV •V• \\ '\j} '0 - 100' 200' V V Olivénhain Road Alignment V •• V V V • V • V V Existing Topography at V V Eastern End of Project Route V pIarwg. design V •• • V V Figure 2.2-2 V V V • V - • • V V V - • • V ,- Ile - 2.21.2 Future Detention Basin "D" Project Area * I . Topography at the future floodwater detention basin "D"- is relatively fiat due, to its location I within the 100-year floodplain of Encinitas Creek (see Figure 2.2-2). . . 2.2.1.3 La Costa Avenue/El Camino Real Intersection Project Area The proposed flood control berm would be constructed atop a manufactured roadwaj slope at the southwest comer of this intersection. The existing slope inclination in this area is at a 2:1 ratio: 2.2.2 VeEetation i 2.2.2.1 ExistIng 011veñhain Road Project Route The steep slope area on the north side of the existing Olivenhain Road alignment, at its ;western I end, has generally been cleared of native vegetation. This area is dOminated by ruderal,plant species such as non-native grasses and Russian thistle. Further to the north, among the knolls east of El Cimino Real, are patches of native coastal 'sage scrub vegetation. Still at the western I .. . end of the project mute, Encinitas Creek is onthe south side of Olivenhain Road, extending east and west Of El Camino Real. Vegetation in this area is characterized by dense stands',of willows, giant reed, laurel sumac, coyote bush, and buckwheat Beginning at approximately. 2,000 feet. I............ c ast of El Camino Real, the creek is channelized for the an approximate 2,500-foot distance, within Willow Creek/Bridgewater subdivision (Figure 2.2-3)...5- 2.2.2.2 Future Detention Basin "D" Project Area . Between the eastern Thompson ropertyIBridgewater subdivision boundaries, and Rancho 'Santa I Fe Road, Encinitas Creek continues within its natural drainage course. It is in this area that the proposed dike and future floodwater detention basin "D" would be located (see Figure 2.2-2). Vegetation within this reach of the creek is dominated by marsh habitat, densely covered with pickleweed, cattails, and other riparian plants._antlOtOfian&occursiothe'nortlrofthi - . rea hf the flrbdflothewbyihe I 10, 'venhain-Road;--an-d-to,,the-east-by-a-constructioiVgrading-stomge-yard::~Mg-area-appeail-to)r liftle vegetftoncompiUon onthislot of nonrnative..,vasses and-Russian area south' of the creek at thrl tioiihas ddisked in' 1 preparation for planting. It also contains disturbed, and rtujeral plant species.: 22.2.3 La Costa Avenue/El Camino Real Intersection Proiect Area A disturbed area exists at the southwest corner of the La Costa Avenue/El Camino Real - intersection, site of the prOposed flood control berth. Extending further west from this' intersection, along the south side of La Costa Avenue, existing vegetation transitions from - disturbed, ruderal plant species, such as mustard and Indian sweet clover, to marsh and willow I scrub species such as cattail, bulrush, spiny rush; and arroyo willow. - - •4 'S . • - I 11-6 4 - - - - U- - - - - SOURCE: Project Design consultants -. - - ( * . .. - = C ityh . . Ohvenhain R ed that environrnentalanalsis'of this proja! should be co results delineated herein ii--: 4 4 4 I J 24 ,EnvironmentalReview Study Areas - '1 -. • ,.•. , , 1' • ' •1 '' t.. kJ . • 10 c .:Figures2.4-1thiough 2.43show the specific study area boundaries for. the three project areas. ' covered in tlusEIR. The alternative ahgnmentsstudy area (Figure 2 4-l)encompasses the "proposed Alignment #2, as well as Alternative Alignments #1, #3, and #4 (please refer to the si "Alternatives"Secuon'of this OR).,Figure 24-2 sh1o.'s the eaiencompasedby thefuture detention bain "D" (as dehneatedby the 1982l0O-yarflóoday hri1ts)land thepiopos'd' detention id easement' Fmall, the two alternative d&sigrfs for the r )Yprojosed flood àoiitio1 berm at La Costa Aveiue/El Camin Real intersection areencompassd within the studarea b6undanes hown on Fiufe '24-3, The extn of field urv's' and, associated environmental an containeä in this document werefocusd in these thre project . ,study areas.We"tohe linear nature of th proposedflood cti1'ben 'adjacertto La Cota r • '-• 4 '1 • • 44• - I • Avenue, significantly more area to' the south of this 'roadway (approximately 600 feet) was1 included in the field surveys, but not counted in existing 'acreage calculations -,:• , ..••.'•- •'- I- •... -' : . •' • - '- . . , :• • • - - -..-..-. -•- , • . . .. .. I.. - • 7 -, 2.5,General Plan, Designated Trall.Ahgnment - , - - - , •• • .• - iofEncuutaGeneraLPl&igiiates a luki/quëstiililong the southiidOf1 .ML -....— - - - • 1easterly.through the Willow Creek/Bndgewater sub&vision, and connecting with designated trailJ '. sideofE1C moReL . 1According to preliminary information provided by the City; this future trail segment would extend - 'from the eat, djaent to the ovedEñiñ Creek flood4cOiitiól cliazneI 'hichbiects the. •.,- - ,WlllowCreekjBndgewatersubdivlslon.1 Continuing west from the westernmost boundary of this. -. subdivisiozI, the trail ,ould follow the natural drainage course 6f the creek (apiokitate1y 250 fet south of the paved edge of the reahgnedL'road) for a shoit distance, then it.,wduld' wrn, ' northwest paralleling Olivenham Road. The trail would ross El Camino R'èàl and iieet with the 'future City of Carlsbad trail extending northerly, along the west side of the Green Vall&y riparian,!, ' corridor. FrOth the OlivenhainRoad/ElCanin Real intersèction;th&trail wóuldalso.proceed .1 west along the north side ofthe future Lucadia'Boulevard extension ______ I - - the' portiónadjacent'. .. - totherealii'Ohvenhain Roathis - - -. -.-- .. ..- I ' af F • ¶,. 'Thefuturetraifalignmentbetween the Willow CreelcIBndgewatersubdivision boundary and Camino Real would occur within tEeroposedHothe DepotLSjeciflcPa1 area south of the project route.An EIR is currently beingprèjared foi this iioject. It,is anticipated tha the, priñiary environmentJ issues assouitea withthe futurrai1 ahgthiient to be analyzed in that EIR ,2include: • ' ;,. . ' I'-'•"• ': "I" ' ,. - . --' •. •, • I . - , • • - -' • •1 r-. • . ---I. 11-22 - $ ' -• -. - ii . . . - - - ''' . .. •-- , I * I_i •1* $,- I' •, *( ji-V.-- - ,. :- ç 4: L"h. -. -'' :t , _ - L — — Uu1 o Li O MWD Offices Olivenhain Road Thompson Residence Existing Tack & Feed Store — -: Dislurted Aus 'I--"- 0 100' 200' brian moonap paswg. d.slgn & .nwonm.ntM iti.. 011vënhain Road Alignment Proposed Dike and Future Detention Basin 'D' Study Area Figure 2.4-2 -- .NNW '- -. \ N\ La Costa Avenue . . / \ / N N ' I r -23 - ) N •'\ \ Y ' - 2 \ - 'Olit ;* LadstaAveniie .. fi!ternat!viI!oodControI -.. _ * Berm(StiidyAre brianFmoonczv- - - tos Lag - , planning design & environmental 2 4-3 - - • ig ww ure ç - * -: 4 Vt I Possible additional impacts to sensitive wetland habitat within the Encinitas Creek floodplain. Additional area beyond the road right-of-way could be potentially impacted L by proposed construction and future use of this traiL Any additional impacts to wetlands within this reach of Encinitas Creek floodplain will require mitigation (at the appropriate replacement ratios) in the form of "in-kind" habitat restoration on-site. Depending upon the extent of this impact, however, off-site mitigation area may be required. Design feasibility and potential public safety impacts for the El Camino Real crossing. I . An important component of this analysis will involve necessary requirements for the construction of a specially-designed trail crossing of El Camino Real including, but not limited to, appropriate signage, modified crossing signal with raised pedestrian control ' buttons, and non-slip "textured" pavement in the crossing zone. Maintenance of connections to existing trails and/or to the planned regional trail system designated by the General Plans of the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad, and the County of San Diego. 2.6 'Project Objectives Currently, Olivenhain Road carries an estimated 20,599 vehicles per day (JHK and Associates, I............... 1990).''' Traffic- congestion- presently occurs along this road segment for a distance east of its intersection with El Camino Real due to limited road width which causes a back-up for vehicular turning movements onto El Camino Real. With General Plan build-out traffic volumes estimated to be 48,000 average daily trips along this road segment, congestion at the Olivenhain Road/El Camino Real intersection will intensify. To reduce traffic congestion at this intersection, the I proposed project would add more travel and turning lanes, as well as bike lanes and sidewalks to provide safe passage for bicyclists and pedestrians. The project also proposes to realign an approximate 1,200-foot segment at the west end of Olivenhain Road, where it connects with El Camino Real, in order to expedite westbound traffic flow. Additional road width would be 4 required for these proposed improvements. These improvements are also a necessary component in achieving regional traffic circulation I goals, as envisioned by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Mid-County Transportation Study and City of Encinitas General Plan Circulation Element. Both of these I documents envision a regional traffic scenario for the project area in which necessary roadway improvements are implemented to facilitate east-to-west traffic flow. This traffic scenario emphasizes commuter transition routes from the local street network within residential-designated inland areas, such as Olivenhain and San Marcos, onto east-west Prime Arterials to eventually reach north-south business destinations via Interstate 5. The proposed, project's eventual connection with future Leucadia Boulevard represents an important link within this regional traffic scheme, in conformance with the City's General Plan. 11 I 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 3.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' The following discussion is based on biological resources surveys conducted for the three project study areas (see. Figures 2.4-1 to 2.4-3) by staff biologists from Brian F. Mooney Associates (BFMA). The complete technical biology report is provided as Appendix 5 of this Em. 3.1.1 Existing Conditions 3.1.1.1 Ve2etatlon The three project study areas support a complex wetland mosaic of coastal freshwater marsh, 5 coastal salt marsh, southern willow scrub, wetland ecotone, disturbed wetland scrub, and baccharis scrub, as well as southern mixed chaparral and disturbed upland habitats. These I vegetation types are illustrated on Figures 3.1-1 through 3.1-3. As requested by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) review period for this project, the eastern boundary of the Coastal Zone Planning Area has been mapped on Figure 3.1- I i as the inland extent of the El Camino Real right-of-way (ROW). The existing vegetation patterns are the result of natural hydrology, encroachment by development into the Encinitas Creek and Green Valley floodplains, and urban runoff. The encroachments include fill for a tack $ and feed store just west of Rancho Santa Fe Road, the Willow Creek subdivision located west of the proposed floodwater detention dike, and roadway fills for Rancho Santa Fe Road, Olivenhain Road, La Costa Avenue, and El Camino Real. The most abundant wetland habitat type found within the three study areas is coastal freshwater marsh, which covers a total of approximately 6.49 acres. This habitat type is located within I Encinitas Creek south of the existing Olivenhain Road alignment, and south of La Costa Avenue. Freshwater marsh species include salt marsh fleabane, great marsh evening primrose, and southwestern spiny rush. Soft flag is the. dominant marsh species within Encinitas Creek, I covering 95% of this habitat. Tule cattail is the dominant marsh species south of La Costa Avenue. - Coastal salt marsh encompasses approximately 4.64 total acres within the study area of the future detention basin "D". This habitat is dominated by woody glasswort. Many of these plants appear desiccated, however, with a few dried salt beds scattered among them. Alkali-heath and sweet fennel are also included in this habitat type. The proposed La Costa Avenue/El Camino Real flood control berm study area supports salty susan, as well as a dense stand of southwestern spiny rush. Southern willow scrub occurs in scattered locations south of the existing Olivenhain Road alignment and La Costa Avenue, constituting approximately 2.43 total acres within these two study areas. Arroyo willow is the main arboreal element of this habitat, with shrubby willows, mule fat, soft flag, and southwestern spiny rush comprising the understory. I I 1 rn-i Coastal Zone Planning Area -. - - - I_Il — I- egend )ist Disturbod )WS Disturbed Wetland Scrub -WM Freshwater Marsh ud Ruderal WS Southern Willow Scrub E Wetland Ecotone CSM Coastal Salt Marsh SMC Southern Mixed Chaparral j Willow Flycatcher Downy Woodpecker \ud Rud 011 ------ (Eastern Boundaly); - SWS SWS : SW Dist M DWS DWS -'-----:; SWS DWS wt with Det Floodplain ention insABC) cc Rud E SWS FWM R1_ -. N I 4Ysws EII o 1001 20 CSM Rud E brian F .mOOflcV loo-vear Floodplain (with Detention Basins A,B.C.D ) p4aig. design & snvfroieital studies t 1M Olivenhain Road Alignment sws Western Project Route Biological. Resources Map Figure 3.1-1 SR - - —., SMC "1 çf_tO Rud 90 - Rud - - - go - vo - ) - Ia - . - Legend uthern CSM lt LJO Existing Dist OMWD FWM !EE Scrub Off Ices 011venhain Road \ SWS Southern Willow Scrub -----------g\ (5) Sand Aster EIJ Rud \\ ® Spiny Rush U ca Dist \ p 1982 Floodway Thompson Residence_ Rud Sr 1 E ...... S :'' DWS 0S!A -, '7 • 10 . sV' FWM Di S ......• ••..... - •••••••• • • FWM E DVV Sr S. .1 . - • Sws Rud .. WM N 105 Chp RUd 6 16o- 200 Rud Ol!venhaln RoAd Alignment IV brian F moon - S Future Detention Basin 'D . . Biological Resources Map Daiwwig. d.sign & . vIro.m.ntaI stu.s - Figure 3.1-2 - IQ [1 Wetland ecotone exists south of the existing Olivenhain Road alignment as a coastal salt marsh/disturbed riparian scrub mixture. This habitat type covers a total of approximately 1.23 acres within the alternative alignments and future detention basin "D" study areas. Marsh species consist of woody glasswort, alkali-heath, and salt marsh fleabane, while coastal goldenbush and Russian thistle constitute the disturbed scrub element. This ecotone occurs adjacent to the southern roadway edge in the eastern portion of the project route and further south of the road at the western end. Species composition Of disturbed wetland scrub (approximately 1.89 acres) varies to the south of the existing Olivenhain Road alignment. At the eastern end of the project route, within the future detention basin "D" study area, widely spaced individuals of coastal goldenbush and coyote bush are interspersed between non-native species such as castor-bean, cheeseweed, and Australian saitbush. Along the central portion of the project route, this habitat is dominated by coastal J goldenbush with patches of bare ground and red brome between the shrubs. At the western end of the project mute, within the alternative alignments study area, this plant community is dominated by broom baccharis with marsh elements such as great marsh evening primrose, woody glasswort, and salt marsh fleabane. The baccharis scrub habitat consists of a solid stand (0.06 acre) of coyote bush. Southern mixed chaparral occurs north of the existing Olivenhain Road alignment, extending approximately 0.54 acre into the alternative alignments study area. Vegetation in this area is dense,. at about. one to two. meers in height. Dominant species in this habitat type include chaniise, scrub oak, toyon, and mission manzanita. This habitat type occurs on steep slopes in excess of 25% gradient to the north of the alternative alignments study area. As shown on Figure 3.1-1, the extent of southern mixed chaparral on steep slopes within the Coastal Zone boundary which is encompassed by this study area is minuscule, occurring only a few feet east of El Camino Real. Disturbed areas consist of the tack and feed store just west of Rancho Santa Fe Road, eucalyptus woodlands, and areas of ruderal vegetation with non-native species such as Russian thistle, Australian saltbush, mustard, soft chess, and red brome. Existing fill slopes south of the La Costa Avenue/El Camino Real intersection also contain non-native species such as Indian sweet clover, white stem filaree, and gazania. The area south of the future detention basin "D" has recently been cultivated, including some areas that previously supported coastal salt marsh habitat. A total of approximately .7.75 acres of disturbed land and 7.16 acres of ruderal vegetation occurs within the three project study areas. Approximately 73 plant species were observed within the three project study areas, 34 (46 percent) of which are non-natives (Table 1 of Appendix 5). This high percentage of non-native species reflects the disturbed nature of most of the Olivenhain Road project route. Some of the summer herbaceous species were not in evidence at the time of year when the biological field surveys were conducted, and, therefore, this should not be considered a complete list of plant species for the three project study areas. - - 3.1.1.2 Zoolo2v One reptile species, side-blotched lizard, was observed in a rudral area (Jennings, 1983), and an amphibian species, bullfrog, was observed in a pond in freshwater marsh habitat within the three project study areas. Thirty-five bird specieswere also observed within these study areas (Table 2 of Appendix 5) All may breed on-site except for the migrants, yellow-rumped warbler, white-crowned sparrow, red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, California towhee, and great blue heron, whose nesting habitats are located off-site. Evidence of five mammal species were observed in ruderal or disturbed wetland scrub habitats within the three project study areas, and include coyote, rabbit, woodrat, skunk, mule deer, and California ground squirrel (Jones et al, 1982) 3.1.13 Sensitive-Species Plant'and animal species are considered sensitive if they are listed as such by Federal or State J agencies, or by one or more conservation groups. 3.11.3.1 Sensitive Plants One sensitive plant species was observed and identified within the three project study areas, and another sensitive species was observed, although its variety was not determined. Southwestern spiny rush was detected in freshwater marsh and southern willow scrub habitats. This plant is listed as a sensitive species by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS, List 4) The survey also revealed a sand aster in a ruderal area west of the tack and feed store, which could have been either Del Mar mesa sand aster or San Dieo sand aster. Its variety is difficult to identify, however, because sand asters flower in the sunmer. (June to September). Del Mar mesa sand aster is on CNPS List lB, and is a candidate for federal listing. San Diego sand aster is on CNPS List 4. 3.1.1.3.2 Sensitive Animals 1 Two sensitive bird species were observed within or near the three project study areas, and three more may also occur. The two bird species observed are downy woodpecker and willow flycatcher A variety of other migratory riparian song birds may forage in the southern willow scrub habitat, including the least Bell's vireo, I yellow warbler, and yellow-breasted chat. A pair of downy woodpeckers and two fledglings were observed west of the Olivenhain Road/El Camino Real intersection Downy woodpeckers are typically found in this type of extensive mature riparian habitat, and are considered 'Declining" by Everett (1979) Willow flycatchers were seen in southern willow scrub habitat within Encinitas Creek south of the existing Olivenhain Road alignment, and also west of El Camino Real, but no breeding activity was observed. This species is a candidate for State liking as Endangered, a Federal sensitive species; is on the Audubon Society's "Blue List' (Tate, 1986); and Everett (1979) determined it to be 'Declining". The least Bell's vireo is a State- and Federally-listed "Endangered" species. Last seen in the, project vicinity in 1982, within the Green Valley riparian corridorwest of El Camino Real, it has not been sighted since, despite numerous! directed surveys. This obligate riparian habitat, HI-6 11 I migratory song bird requires woodland vegetation to carry out its life cycle. All reproductive I activities, from pair formation to fledgling of young, occur in well-defined territories; usually willow-dominated riparian vegetation with a dense understory. Yellow warbler is a "Species of Special Concern" (CDFG, 1990); is on the Audubon Society's "Blue List" (Tate, 1986); and is also considered a "Declining" species (Everett, 1979). Yellow warblers may forage within southern willow scrub or disturbed wetland scrub habitats within the $ three project study areas. Yellow-breasted chat is a "Species of Special Concern" (CDFG, 1990); is considered "Declining" (Everett, 1979); and is rarely seen as a migrant in either spring or fall. I Similar to the yellow warbler, the yellow-breasted chat may also forage within the project study areas. J 3.1.1.4 Sensitive Habitats Sensitive habitats are those which are considered rare within the region, are rapidly declining, I or support sensitive plants or animals. Southern willow scrub, coastal freshwater and salt marshes, and wetland ecotone, all of which occur within the three project study areas, are considered sensitive habitats. In addition, southern mixed chaparral is considered a sensitive $ habitat by the, CCC if it occurs on steep slopes in excess of 25% gradient within the Coastal Zone boundary. Southern willow scrub and other wetlands are regarded as sensitive and valuable resources due to their ability to support a diversity of wildlife species. Proximity to water, interface between a variety of habitat types, and vertical stratification of foliage are factors which contribute to the richness and productivity of wetlands. While a few wildlife species are restricted entirely to wetlands for all of their life requirements, many more are dependent on these habitats for necessities such as food, cover, or breeding. Numerous other species also make extensive use of these habitats even though they may not be entirely dependent upon them. In southern California, riparian areas by their nature are limited, and in San Diego County they ' are extremely limited. Somewhere between 0.2% (5,000 acres) and 0.5% (13,000 acres) of the County's total land area of 2.7 million acres (Wheeler and Fancher, 1984) consists of wetland habitat. Riparian habitat is also one of the fastest disappearing habitats in the County. Each of the wetland habitats within the three project study areas (i.e., freshwater marsh, coastal salt marsh, and wetland ecotone) are considered sensitive in San Diego County. This is due to their limited area, diminishing acreages, and sensitive flora and fauna that depend on these habitats. Coastal freshwater marsh and coastal salt marsh on-site are also sensitive because they support a sensitive plant species, southwestern spiny rush. 3.1.1.5 Habitat Evaluation Habitat values on-site vary due to differing levels of disturbance. Urbanization and disturbances from grading are the primary sources for reduced habitat values on-site. Disturbed areas are often of significant value, however, to certain animal species, such as large mammals and birds of prey because they provide foraging opportunities. But, the lack of evidence of significant small mammal and reptile populations during field observations indicates a probable low habitat value for the disturbed uplands found in the project study areas. Due to inadequate vegetative cover, these disturbed areas provide little wildlife value as foraging habitat for birds of prey. The disturbed wetland scrub habitat within the three project study areas is relatively sparse and contains non-native species. These characteristics attract fewer native animals. In contrast to the previously mentioned disturbances, the natural resilience of riparian systems positively affects the habitat value of the disturbed wetland scrub. The wetland ecotone on-site is also valuable as edge habitat. The southern willow scrub habitat south of the existing Olivenhain Road alignment is of medium value to wildlife due to its sparseness and relatively limited coverage. Used as foraging habitat by various birds and animals, it is probably not suitable for nesting by the least Bell's vireo. The southern willow scrub habitat south of La Costa Avenue, except for a small stand adjacent to the road, is dense, mature, and of relatively high value to wildlife. This area is affected by significant traffic noise levels from La Costa Avenue, however, which lowers its habitat value. Southern mixed chaparral north of the existing Olivenhain Road alignment has limited habitat value due to "edge effects", or disturbances from adjacent developed areas. Furthermore, future impacts to this habitat are anticipated from the approved Arroyo La Costa development at this location. Its relatively undisturbed and dense condition, however, presently increases its habitat value. Finally, since the extent of this habitat within the Coastal Zone, which is defined by the CCC as the inland edge of the El Camino Real ROW, is restricted to a narrow strip east of the paved roadway edge, habitat quality in this area is degraded by traffic noise and related "edge effects" due to its proximity to the road. Coastal salt and freshwater marsh habitats on-site are of relatively high wildlife value. During the February field survey, coastal salt marsh plants south of Olivenhain Road were in a dessicated state due to drought conditions, but may have recovered from the March rains. The coastal salt marsh habitat south of La Costa Avenue appears to be healthier, possibly due to some degree of tidal flushing from Batiquitos Lagoon. 3.1.2 Impacts Impacts to vegetative habitats within the three project study areas are discussed below as direct, construction-relaxed and indirect, construction/traffic noise-related. 3.1.2.1 Olivenhain Road Expansion 3.1.2.1.1 Proposed Roadway Alignment and Construction Easement The proposed Alignment #2 would directly impact approximately 0.04 acres of southern willow scrub, 0.33 acre of southern mixed chaparral, 4.7 acres of ruderal vegetation, and 0.40 acre of disturbed land (Figure 3.1-4). The impact to southern willow scrub is considered cumulatively significant due to this habitat's limited range. The construction easement for this road (i.e., 50 feet wide from the southern roadway edge and 15 feet on the north) would temporarily impact an additional 0.21 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.14 acre of coastal freshwater marsh, 0.21 acre of southern mixed chaparral, 0.04 acre of disturbed wetland scrub, 0.69 acre of ruderal vegetation, and 0.16 acre of disturbed land. Impacts from this easement to southern willow scrub and freshwater marsh are considered cumulatively significant. The impact to disturbed wetland scrub is not considered significant because of its low wildlife value due to the presence of a high percentage of non-native species. \'Southwestern \ \ - Spiny Rush Area - Fresh -AN - Water DIST'. Batiquitos Lagoon ' Marsh 01ST C, 'N '5- .5. .- ------5- 0 ç) La Costa Avenue.'' \\\ DIST SWS DIST( CSMN ' sws -_CS CSM -- - - — BS SWS LP N N SWS DIST _ \• VY DGSS . LEGEND 1' 7,2001 BS Bacöharis Scrub CSM Coastal Salt Marsh DCSS DistUrbed Coastal Sage Scrub brian F'mooncz DIST Disturbed • EUC' Eucalyptus Woodland planning, design & environmental studies SWS Southern Willow Scrub DlST ' \\\ \\ \ \\\ OliveAhain Road Alignment. Laosta Avenue Biological Resources Map Figure$.1-3 '' -:--•,"-':. — - - - L - Legend - ;. H NOTE: Northernmost Limit of Proposed Construction Easement - • L •. 0 to be Determined by Limits of Remedial Grading , Dist isturbed • ... — — — ''\ :;. •• DWS Dlsturbed1WetlàndS&üb. . I I FWM Fresh,ater Marsh 'b '/' j Ruderai Willow'Scrub E WetlandEcotoiie I. C )\J .CSM. Coastal Salt Marsh SM '•s- I •. - 0-0•-0 • 4 . 0$• SWS i . .00 S,MC $óuthernPix&f. • 'P . Chapirral L I I Flycatcher rei / ! ;::::::ent .:.. ...• // *2" / RoadwayCutSlopes .. i ' / '••• - - - • I J '•'•0 - / - - - - - I FWM\ I \ Rud - - ,0 óiinhaInROa._.. Coastal Zone— I - :, - / -••. -' PlanningAreà .• • Existing' ', -•-..*- '--•• (Eastern Boundary) SWS M DWS Dist - - • -: s —.. _•• — s • - - 100-Year Floodplain. - • O DWS • - Wf • (with Detentiàn BàsiñsA.B,C . - •;--• .SWS • 'Rud E' FWM Rd s : 0 10(Y 200' CSM OI,venhaln Roa2IAiIg7if Iheflt 0 Rud E. SwS - ,- •... i... - •; ,Pro posedAlignment#2 jbdan OflCV 100-Year Floodplain —. - Biological impacts Map ____ with, Detention Basins A.B C 0) — — - - •: , • ••-. . ••. ';Figure.3.1-4 - EIR - r ' l•.4;* .k - -'- 41 : 4- * ,;'-.. • - -c.--- ---.- .• ':.--j,---' Legend 7' out ern Coakii., lt sh DWS ed LJ ater i!;Sc* iii I SWS SouthernWHlow Scrub OflvenhainRoad \ () Sand Aster Pro1.osed Duke1.bnstruction Easement- I~z lk \ ® Spiny Rush 'Dist 1982 Floodway xK fig (J" / I \ - -..._-' •• 0 100' Dike E 49 DI t Prose o8e 1 M I N 4 Proposed Dike Fill Banks - r ~20 1F, - - - W -. 199OFlOOdplaifl - - - 71 T: Rud AT Rud OIIvenha!nRdadAIigflmet- brian moo Fv -; - - * - Figure 3 15 : : 4 • - _ - EIR Southwestern \ \ - Spiny Rush Area Fresh " Water, - DIST Batlquitos Lagoon Marsh DIST 0: \ \\ La Costa Avenue \ -- ----- '---- DIST I DIST Q. SWS N ------_ ..-. CSM SWS -_,• :, ' T BS DIST SWS Sws "-.. - - - \DISTS\\ \ LEGEND ' Olivenhain Road Alignment' BS' Baccharis Scrub 100' 2O - -• CSM Coastal Salt Marsh ' e DCSS Disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub a os a11 Avenue ' DIST Disturbed ' Biological Impacts m8P 0' brian F mooncv EUC ,-Eucalyptus Woodland, - ' Alternative 1 Flood Control Berm SWS. Southern Willow Scrub planning, design & environmental studies Alternative #1 Berm Dias! gh Construction Easement S Figure 3.1-64 ft - . : 4 Soüthesen 180iny Rush Area - Fresh \ \ WateBatiqult6 Mats r -. Lai.-Costa -Avenue, - — -- — i w DISTt 'iw t&>. T' N — - BS sws , N — .- - Ii - - - LEGEND: -- - - - 011venhaIñRoa.Allflrneit' •S_ 88 Baccharis Scrub - CSM - Coastal Salt Marsh i La Costa Avenue 1(?O 200'PCS.SI á!okgIaIImpacts:Ma,ifor Alternative 2 7 - -•., -: -DlST Dsturbed - •; - • :.. fl. - • - AI 1l J UIOO, Ofl brian mooncv EUC &6l Berm' ucaiypius,vianu c SWS Southern Willow Scrub: planning design & environmental studies ft,Wilifil/A Construction Easement 11l Aiternativei2.Brm Design, FiR ' - - - 4 - '. , U. Proposed Dike Construction Easement 19 2 100-Year Floodpliin er County) fl~~: Proposed Dike Rud brian F mooncp ©ll planning, design & environmental studies Figure 3.1-7a Southwestern . . . Spiny.Rush Area . . . . •- S -Fresh Water . \ \ 01ST Battqultos Lagoon . Marsh S. .DIST - La Costa Avenue \ CSMN N (- DlST SWS V... . --.. . - Coastal Salt 0 - N \ V - Marsh -Revegetati9fl DT 'te %\ CSS SwS N V. '\DIST\ Oil venhain Road Alignment LEGEND 6 - .100' 200' BS Bàccharls Scrub- V - La Costa Avenue- CSM Coastal- Salt Marsh . . - . AlternatIve Coastal Salt brian f mooney - Coastal Sage Scrub . -V Marsh- RevégetatiOfl Site -- planning, design & enventaI stules D18T Disturbed: EUC Eucalyptus Woodland SWS Southern Willow Scrub. Figure 3. 1-7b. I '1 3.1.2.1.2 Sedimentation and Roadway Runoff Proposed roadway construction would include the placement of a silt fence along the southern edge of the 50400t wide construction easement, and a siltation basin along the northern roadway edge near existing culverts in order to prevent downstream sedimentation. Detention basins A I ..and B would also detain most of the upstream sedimentation that would normally flow into the project area (Ruth, 1991). Slight increases in oil and grease runoff from increased paved surface area and vehicular traffic along the widened road segment are anticipated, and would be I considered a significant cumulative impact to sensitive aquatic microbiota associated with the Encinitas Creek watershed. The widening of Olivenhain Road would also slightly increase stormdrain runoff volumes into this reach of Encinitas Creek due to an eight-acre increase in J impermeable (i.e., paved) surface area contributing to this drainage basin. This would result in an increase of the 100-year peak discharge from 361 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 368 cfs (Ruth, 1991), which is not regarded as significant. 3.1.2.1.3 Roadway Construction and Traffic Noise I Significant noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment operation and increased traffic along the improved Olivenhain Road may further disrupt foraging and mating activities of sensitive songbirds that could use the southern willow scrub habitat within Encinitas Creek to the I..................... south; Noise levels in excess of 89 decibels (dB) have been recorded at 50 feet from the point- source for a general mix of operating construction equipment (Kurtz, 1991). These noise levels generally decrease by 6 dB for every doubling of distance from the point-source. With Encinitas I Creek riparian habitat located between one and 300 feet south of the proposed construction easement for Alternative #2 alignment, construction noise levels would significantly impact sensitive songbird species that may use this area (e.g., willow flycatcher). From existing information on the sensitivity of songbirds to traffic noise (i.e., the proximity of breeding territories to major roads or highways), acceptable noise disturbance levels have been I found to be within the 50-60 dB range (SANDAG, 1988; Mock, 1989). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) uses 61 dB(A) L as its standard noise threshold for impacts to sensitive bird species, such as the least Bell's vireo (Rieger, 1990). The current 61 dB(A) LM I noise contour already encompasses most of the riparian area south of Olivenhain Road. I The proposed project would result in shifting this existing noise contour approximately 110-120 feet further to the south (see Section 3.6.2 of this Em), resulting in additional impacts of approximately 1.64 acres to southern willow scrub habitat. Most of this noise impact, however, would be attributed to increases in future traffic volumes along El Camino Real. Thus, incremental noise impacts to sensitive songbirds due to increased traffic volumes . along the improved Olivenhain Road would not be regarded as significant in comparison to the amount of habitat currently being affected. I I IIII-10 ri 3.1.2.2 Proposed Detention Basin "D" Dike Construction of the proposed dike would directly in pact approximately 0.16 acre of coastal freshwater marsh, 0.19 acre of disturbed wetland scrub, and 0.89 acre of ruderal vegetation (Figure 3.1-5). The impact to freshwater marsh would be regarded as cumulatively significant. The projected loss of disturbed wetland scrub wou14 not be considered significant due to its disturbed nature Impacts to ruderal vegetation mayi include losses of the sensitive sand aster The 50-foot wide construction easement required to construct the dike would result in additional temporary impacts of 0 17 acre of disturbed wetland scrub and 2.14 acre of ruderal vegetation The temporary impact to disturbed wetland scrub from this easement is not considered significant, but impacts to the area mapped as ruderal vegetation cannot be ascertained until the variety of sand aster on-site is determined. Although not proposed as part of this project, there is a potential that future construction of the southern embankment for detention basin "D", concurrent with future development of the Wiegand property, could result in additional significant impacts to wetland habitats mapped in this area. It has been brought to our attention, however, that the property owner would be willing to designate a minimum 100400t buffer from the toe of any future fill slope for the basin embankment in order to preserve wetland habitat valies on-site. 3.1.2.3 Proposed La Costa Avenue Flood Control iBerm According to Table 11-1, the Alternative #1 berm design would directly impact approximately 008 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.04L acre of coastal salt marsh, and 031 acre of ruderal vegetation (Figure 3.1-6a), Impacts to southern willow scrub and coastal salt marsh are considered cumulatively significant. The 15-foot wide construction easement required for the Alternative #1 berm would temporarily impact an additional 008 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.04 acre of coastal salt marsh, 0.03 acre of baccharis scrub, 0.03 acre of eucalyptus woodland, and 020 acre of ruderal vegetation Temporary, impacts to willow scrub and salt marsh from this easement are regarded as cumulatively significant. The Alternative #2 berm design would directly impact approximately 0.19 acre of Isouthern willow scrub, 119 acres of coastal salt marsh, 001 acre of eucalyptus woodland, and 059 acre of ruderal vegetation (Figure 3.1-6b). The impact to coastal salt marsh is considered significant, while the impact to southern willow scrub is considered cumulatively significant. The 15-foot wide construction easement for the Alternative #2 berm would temporarily impact an additional 009 acre of southern willow scrub, 033 acre of coastal salt marsh, 003 acre of eucalyptus woodland, and 026 acre of ruderal vegetation Tempdrary impacts to southern willow scrub and salt marsh wetland habitats from this easement are considered significant. 3.1.2.4 Sensitive Plants Construction of the proposed detention basin "D" dike could potentially impact the. Del Mar sand aster if it is determined to be present during a summer, survey. San Diego marsh elder may also be present in the freshwater marsh habitat at this location. Approximately 1.19 acres of habitat T ABLE 3.1-1 - SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO VEGETATIVE HABiTATS WITHIN THE LA COSTA AVENUE FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT.AREA Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Habitat Type Berm Construction Easement Berm Construction Eaement Southern will scrub 008 008 0 19 009 Coastal salt marsh 004 .' 004 .119 033 Baccharis scrub -- 003 .4 Eucalyptus woodland ----- 003 001 003 ' Ruderal ..Q! Q2Q Q.. i that contains the southwestern spiny rush would be directly impacted by the Alternative #2 flood control berm design at the La Costa Avenue/El Camino Real intersection.. This would be ' considered a significant impact. 3.1.2.5 Sensitive Animals f The willow flycatcher and downy woodpecker would be impacted by the projected loss of southern willow scrub habitats within the project study areas. This is regarded as a significant I cumulative impact due to the precipitous dedliie of this habitat type in the region. 3.1.2.6 Off-Site Impacts Olivenhain Road may connect with future Leucadia Boulevard alignment west of the El Camino Real intersection. Southern willow scrub and freshwater marsh habitats occur along the Green Valley riparian area west of El Camino Real, and would be impacted by this future alignment. Preliniinaiy design of future Leucadia Boulevard at this intersection indicates that approximately 0. 12 acre of freshwater marsh and 0.05 acre of southern willow scrub habitats could be impacted. This would be considered a significant cumulative impact to these two wetland habitat types. During a 100-year flood, the salt-grass pasture east of Rancho Santa Fe Road could be inundated with water behind-future detention.basin D". Approximately four acres in this area may be flooded, however, this would not be considered a significant impact to the disturbed wetland habitat which occurs here. Locations of staging areas for construction of the proposed road and detention basin dike are not known at this time; therefore, impacts cannot be assessed. No impacts to biological resources in the Olivenhain Road project area would occur from required detouring for this project because at least one existing or proposed traffic lane will be maintained for circulation during project construction. The potential .for biological impacts in the project area would further be reduced should alternate detour options be used during proposed road construction, such as Calle Barcelona between El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road (if it is allowed to be completed prior to project implementation). 3.1.3 Mitigation The Alternative #2 Olivenhain Road design and the Alternative #1 flood control berm design at La Costa Avenue/El Camino Real intersection are recommended as the least environmentally damaging alternatives in terms of potentially significant impacts to biological resources within these project study areas. Specific measures to further mitigate identified impacts to biological resources associated with project implementation are provided below. 3.1.3.1. A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pre-Discharge Notification and a California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 1601 Streamcourse Alteration Agreement shall be prepared and approved prior to the approval of final roadway improvement plans. Included in the 1601 Agreement would be the required revegetation of sensitive wetland habitats to be directly impacted by the proposed project (see Attachment 1 of Appendix 5). According to the Conceptual Wetland Restoration, Plan presented in Appendix 5, southern willOw scrub habitat impacts shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio and the impacted marsh habitats at a 1:1 ratio. This translates to a total of approximately Q.36 acre of southern willow scrub and 0.04 acre of coastal salt marsh to be revegetated on-site. Figure 3.1-7a shows the disturbed areas along Encinitas Creek floodplain, within the area of the future detention basin "D", that are ecologically appropriate for "in-kind" wetland habitat restoration. Figure 3.1-7b shows an alternative location for coastal salt marsh revegetation south of La Costa Avenue, based on a higher probability of success for restoration of this habitat at this location. This is due to its proximity to thriving marsh habitat which may benefit from increased tidal action from the nearby Batiquitos Lagoon. A pre-application meeting at both sites with resource agency personnel is recommended in order to ascertain the preferred location for coastal salt marsh revegetation. Given the complex hydrology and salinity which resulted in the mosaic of wetland types, creation of these various habitats may be difficult. Please refer to Attachment 1, Appendix 5, for detailed specifications regarding the Conceptual Wetland Restoration Plan required for this project. 3.132. Prior to construction of the proposed flood control berm at La Costa Avenue/El Camino Real intersection, the coastal salt marsh vegetation and top soil layer to be impacted shall be salvaged, and then tilled into the soil of the prepared salt marsh revegetation site 3.133. Marshes and southern willow scrub habitats within proposed construction easements shall be protected by laying geotextile and then covering the cloth with soil. The soil overcovering shall be imported from adjacent areas to be disturbed. Any willows which occur within the construction easements shall be cut down to just above the height of the soil surface layer. These cut materials shall be mulched and laid on the surface of the prepared willow Scrub revegetation site. Prior to construction and placement of geotextile, the outer limits of all construction easements shall be flagged with fluorescent tape to prevent additional wetland impacts from accidental encroachments The soil within the construction easements shall be retained to avoid sedimentation. Soil samples shall be taken prior to and after construction to determine the level of compaction in these easements. If the soil is compacted, it shall be loosened by hand raking. 3.13.4. All construction easements shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist during the spring after project implementation to determine if the habitats in these areas are regenerating on their, own. If the biologist determines that these areas are not adequately regenerating on their own, additional plantings of the affected habitat types, at the appropriate replacement ratios (3:1 for southern willow scrub and 1:1 for the marshes), shall be installed at the proposed revegetation sites shown on Figures 3.1-7a and 3.1-7b. These are in addition to plantings required for direct impacts. ffl-17 3.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES ' . .. . The following discussion is based on cultural resources surveys conducted for the three projet study areas (see Figures 2 4-1 to 2 4-3) by staff archaeologists from Brian F Mooney Associates (BFMA) The complete technical report is provided as Appendix 6 of this EIR Prior to field surveys, record searches from the San Diego Museum of Man and the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) at San Diego State Umversity were reviewed for the project study areas 32.1 Existin! Conditions . . . 3.2.1.1 Background Research;• A review of site records indicates that 58 prehistoric sites and one historic site had previously been recorded within a one-half mile radius from the project study areas Most of the prehistonc sites consist of light surface scatters of flaked and/or ground lithjc artifacts, and many contain light to moderate scatters of shell. A few sites have extensive midden 'deposits' with relatively high concentrations Of Iithi artifacts, and some exhibit traces of hearths. The sites, which have been recorded in the immediate vicinity of the three project study areas are 'described below. 3.2.1.1.1 Alternative Road Aliwiments Study Area ,. . . A portion of one recorded prehistoric, site appears to possibly exist within the alternative alignments study area. Specifically, site SDi-4872' (W-982) has been described, as existing on the northeast corner of the Olivehhain Road and El Camino Real intersection. This site waS 'first recorded by R. Kaldenberg 'in 1976, who noted the, presence of scrapers, flakes, choppers, J chopping tools, cores, and thermally fractured cobbles located on the southwest slope of a knoll approximately 300 feet northeast of this intersection. Described as a possible yucca processing site, the artifact assemblage was not diagnostic of a particular cultural affiliation. In 1989, a cultural resource study was conducted by ERC Environmental and Energy Services Company for the same alternative alignments study area. The intensive survey relocated S1)i- j 4872 in the location described by Kaldenberg, and artifacts from this site were also observed within about 30: feet of the existing. Olivenhain: Road alignment. An area extending approximately i5feet. north from the roadway edge, and for some 600 feet between El Camino Real on the west and a dirt road about 600 feet to the east, was teStedtO evaluate the significance of this, portion of the., site. The testing program included a surface collection and excavation of five shovel test pits. Four 'artifacts, were recovered from the surface and one shovel test' pit yielded a single flake. It was concluded that the materials in the test area had wasbed"do*iislope from the main portion of the site, and that "the majority of the site appears to be surface in nature as described by Kaldenberg (1976)" (Gallegos and Pigniolo, 1989). It' was recommended that no mitigation or further archaeological study would be necessary, if direct and indirect impacts associated with the proposed road widening were confined to a strip 75 feet north' of the 'existing road alignment. '111-21' 1 I A second site recorded in this study area is W-4318. Situated on a terrace overlooking Encinitas Creek about 450 feet north of the existing Olivenhain Road alignment, this prehistoric site, i nterp reted to be affiliated with the La Jolla Complex, was found and subsequently tested by B. Smith (Smith, 1990). Consisting of a sparse, dispersed scatter of lithics, fourteen &ffacts were recovered from the surface including three flakes, two debitage, two metate fragments, one mano, one scraper plane, and Ave scrapers. No shell or other cultural materials were observed. Twenty-five shovel test pits and a one-meter-square unit were excavated, but no subsurface materials were recovered. This site is not considered to be significant. A third site recorded near the alternative alignments study area is SDi-1 1027. Situated on a terrace south of Encinitas Creek and east of El Camino Real, the site was described by T. Van I Bueren in 1988 as consisting of a light scatter of ihell, fire-affected rock, two manos, several cores, and debitagè. The site is situated approximately 650 feet south of the existing Olivenhain Road alignment I The only other site recorded within the immediate vicinity of the alternative alignments study area is SDi-4400 (W-921, and possibly also W-48). Situated ona mesa overlooking the existing I Olivenhain Road to its south, this site was làcated by R. Kaldenberg in 1976, tested by RECON in 1982, ad tested again by S. Apple and R. Olmo in 1983. Consisting of a surface scatter of flaked and groundstone artifacts, this site location is now a residential development and could not be relocated in 1989 (Gallegos and Pigniolo, 1989). I 3.2.1.1.2 Future Floodwater Detention Basin "D' Study Area The only site recorded in the immediate vicinity of the future detention basin "D" and proposed dike study area is SDi-2734 (W-49-E). Situated approximately 150 feet south of this future I detention basin and abutting the west side 'of Rancho Santa Fe Road, this site was described by Malcolm Rogers as a W. Diegueno site consisting of one acre within the L. Scott Ranch. Rogers reported that W. Sco&possesed a collection from this site, including an intrusive Cahuilla arrow I straightener. ' A single site has been recorded in the immediate vicinity of the potential 100-year flood ponding area located to the east of future detention basin "D". Situated on a knoll north of the Encinitas Creek river boâom and east'of Rancho Santa Fe ROad, site SDi-11,267 (W-48-A) was reported by M. Rogers to be a campsite utilized by San Dieguito, Littoral (i.e., Archaic), and Yuman (i.e., Late Prehistoric) peoples. The site exhibited flaked tools, considerable groundstone tools, ceramics, shell, and hCarth stones. ROgers described the site as having been disturbed anderoded due to a long history of bean farming. SDi-1 1,267 was investigated in 1989 by G. T. Gross, M. Robbins-Wade, and T. Brown Sampson, who described it as a sparse shell and lithic scatter spread over a wide area. The observed artifacts included one mano, one San Die guito-like scraper, one flake, and one hammer. ' 4 I I ffl-22 Li 3.2-1.1.3 La Costa Avenue/El Camino Real Flood Control Berm Study Area A review of previous research disclosed that i site, SDi-6868, had been identified in the immediate vicinity of the proposed flood control jberm study area at the southwest corner of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real intersection J,,First recorded in 1979 by Gary Stickel, shell, fire-affected rock, some pottery sherds, and possibly some grey midden were observed. A subsequent investigation of SDi-6868 by RECOIN in 1989 indicated traces of the site despite the fact that the area had become badly overgrown Several small scatters of shell were located during the field survey, but damage to this site from past agricultural operations appeared to be extensive. BothStickel (1979) And Davis and Hector (1989) concluded that' a, testing program would be necessary to determine the extent, depth, age, complexity, level of disturbance, and significance of tins site If, such testing revealedl a significant subsurface component, mitigation in the form of open space preservation or data recovery would. be',AcpmmendçEi 3.2.1.2 Field Survey Methods An intensive on-foot examination of all three prject study areas listed above was conducted by Mr. John Co1.ok and Dr. Michael ,h of BFr%[A on February 1, and June 3,-'199 1 A survey interval of 30 to 60 feet was maintained throughout all undeveloped portions of the project areas, except for areas of poor accessibility and low surface visibility Special attention was also given to the locations of previously recorded sites and other areas considered to have,the potential for site occurrence Survey of the future detention basin "D" study area was generally restricted to either side of Encinitas Creek. The potential 100-year, floodwater pondmg area east of this dtentioñ• basin offered excellent visibility. Io artifact 'c011ections wéle 'dc, nor was' any subsurface testing conducted as part of this study., . 3213 Results The results of the archaeological surveys were negative in that no significant cultural resources were identified-:in all --three project study areas!. 32.13.1 Alternative Alignments Study Area No cultural resources were found within the aieas proposed for wid11;ening and realignment of the existing Olivenham Road. The northeast comer ,of Olivenhain Road/El Camino Real intersection was the focus of special attention, but no artiacts from site SDi-4872 were located in this area More importantly, an area within about 100 çeet from the roadway edge has been graded since the archaeological Aest reported by Gallegos and. Pigmola (1989) This grading has likely not destroyed any significant resources and, in an case, none were observed. Site SDi-4872 was relocated to the area described by Kaldenerg (Le., about 300 feet north of the existing Olivenham Road alignment), and appears t? be in the condition more recently described by Gallegos and Pigniola (1989). Artifacts observed to be eroding do'h'the:hiIl in 'the direction of Olivenhain Road included a mano, harnmers1tone, and numerous flakes, but these materials are out of tjie project area. HI-23 I In general, the areas directly adjacent to both sides of Olivenhain Road between El Camino Real and the Willow Creek/Rancho del Ponderosa subdivisions have been heavily impacted. On the north side of the road, an area below and east of the north-south high-voltage transmission lines has been cleared of brush and recently graded. This area has generally sustained heavy vehicular traffic. On the south side, the area between Olivenhain Road and Encinitas Creek has been graded in the distant past and currently contains numerous large chunks of asphalt and cement. In addition, a gas plant, gas lines, and an east-west electrical line have been constructed along the south side of the road at its western end. No effort was made to relocate site I W-4318, which is situated about 450 feet north of the existing Olivenhain Road alignment. In any case, the site was tested by B Smith and found not I to be significant (Smith, 1990).'Similarly, no effort was made to relocate site SDi-11027, which is about 650 feet south of Olivenhain Road. Finally, no effort was made to locate SDi-4400, which is in a developed area outside the alternative alignments study. area.- 3.2.1.3.2 Future Floodwater Detention Basin "D" Study Area I No sites were found in the area encompassed by the future detention basm 'D" Although sites are not likely to be located in marshy areas that are regularly inundated, it must be noted that this wetland and its dense riparian vegetation prevented a thorough examination of the study area. I Although site SDi-2734 is descnbed as existing near the southeastern border of this area, no cultural materials were observed. I No cultural resources were found in the creek bottom indicated as a 100-year flood ponding area to the east of detention basin "D", but site SDi-11,267 was relocated on a knoll north of this area. A mano, granitic metate fragment, and cobble hammerstone were observed on this knoll No artifacts were found within about 60 feet of this area. I 321.3.3 La Costa Avenue/El Camino Real Flood Control Berm Study Area With the exception of site SDi-6868, no cultural resources were found in the vicinity, of the areas proposed for a flood control berm under either Alternative #1 or #2 designs (see Figure 2.3-4). The only evidence observed of SDi-6868 was very light scatters of shell along a north-south trending dirt road traversing the study area A few of the relatively cleared areas on either side Of this dirt road also exhibited extremely light shell deposits. Although the site was originally mapped as extending north to La Costa Avenue, no shell or prehistoric cultural remains were observed within 50 feet of the roadway edge No lithics, ceramics, or other artifacts described by Stickel in 1979 were observed in this area, but dense vegetation prevented a thorough surface I examination of the site. 3.2.2 Impacts No cultural resources are located within areas proposed for the widening and realignment of Olivenhain Road; within the area encompassed by proposed construction of floodwater detention basin 'D" dike, the future detention basin, and corresponding 100-year flood ponding area east I S 111-24 IS I of Rancho Santa Fe Road, and witlun the area pzoposed for the construction 6f-'a" , lood control berm at La Costa Avenue/El Camino Real intersection No adveise direct impacts would therefore result from implementation of these thiee aspects of the proposed pojeçt. 32.3 Mitigation Measures I It is unlikely that indirect impacts would occur t sites located in the viciiiüy of the three project study areas In an effort to minimize possible riflks, however 3.2.3.1.- Unlike SDi-6868, SDi-4872 is located at such a distance from proposed roadway construction areas that direct or indirect impacts to it are considered remote Nevertheless, any proposed road construction activities conducted in the nohheast cornr of Olive am, Road/El Camino Real intersection shall be restricted to within a maximum distane of 50 feet from the edge of grading for the preferred alignment, so as not to threaten dad- .to Di to S-4872 Piioe to any road construction in this area, SDi-4872 site boundary shall fl be agged by a certified archaeologist and identified to construction crews as environmentally sensitive I 32.32. All activities related to proposed construction of detention basin "D" dike or improvements to Rancho Santa Fe Road at the Ohvenhain Road mteisection shall be restricted to an area within 50 feet of the current Ranch Santa Fe Road ROW (by the use of flagging and/or temporary signage during .the construction period), so as not to risk indirect impacts to SDi-11267 Since this site is located approximatly 60 feet north of the proposed dike, and about 120 feet east of Rancho Santa Fe Road, it would not be directly impacted either by proposed flood control or road construction activities in these two areas I 32.33 The Alternative #1 flood control berm atLa Costa Avenue/El Camino Real intersection is recommended in terms of a preferred design alternative because itwoüld not impact SDi- 6868, however, if the Alternative #2 berm design is selected, a certified archaeological monitor I shall be retained to periodically monitor the construcuon area to ensure that no impacts occur to this site, since its northern boundary had onginaly been mapped up to the southern roadway edge of U",Costa Avenue I tI I I I It I th25 I I 3.3, GEOLOGIC HAZARDS The following, discussion provides geologic substructure and soils information for the areas encompassed by the alternative road alignments and future floodwater detention basin 'D" General physical characteristics of on-site soils are described and evaluated below as to their suitability for the intended uses This section is based on information obtained from a geology study performed in February, 1991, by Geocon, Inc The complete technical report is included as Appendix 7 of this EIR. 3.3.1 Eidstine Conditions 33.1.1' 'Geology Two geological formations are found within the project vicinity: the Eocene-aged Delmar Formation and the Torrey Sandstone The Delmar Formation generally consists of relatively dense, brown to olive-green sandstones, siltstones, and claystones Geologic processes have shifted this formation in such a manner that it slopes two to five degrees to the opposite direction in which grading is proposed. Weathering has created remolded clay seams between the layers I Portions of the.*project site are capped by Torrey Sandstone which consists of dense, light tan sandstone underlain by the Delmar Formation Contact between the two formations at the I western portion of the site was noted at an approximate elevation of 115 feet above mean sea lóvel (AMSL). 1 3.3.1.2 Soils Three surficial soil types were encountered during field investigations conducted on-site These I surficial soil types consist of alluvium, slopewash, and undocumented fill Figures 33-1 and 33- 2 show the locations of these soil types within the project areas Charactenstics of each soil type I are briefly listed below. Alluvial soils occur within' the drainage bottoms at the eastern and western portions of the project - site. "Alluvial deposits typically consist of silty to clayey sands to sandy clays. Depths of I alluvium at the western end of the Olivenhain Road project area are approximately 30 to 50 feet. The depth Of alluvium in the area of the future detention basin "D" is approximately 25 feet. This soil type has been classified as moderately, to highly compressible. Slopewash soils are found adjacent to and beneath the western portion of the project site, and generally consist of loose to stiff brown and dark brown sandy clays and clayey sands. The I depth of these soils is estimated to be between two and seven feet. Undocumented fills are found mostly beneath and, adjacent to ..the western portion of the 011venhaln Road project area. Some fills were ,also found at the eastern 'portion. Fill depths - range from two to eight feet, and cap the forrnational alluvium and slopewash soils described above. - :1 I. - - - - - - - - - / - - I I 3.3.1.3 Seismicity Although the project site is not located on any known active fault, it is located approximately five miles east of the Rose Canyon Fault zone. This fault zone is currently the subject of research I to determine its potential for seismic activity. A fault zone is classified as active if displacement of sediments younger than 11,000 years has been observed. The results of ongoing research indicate that movement has occurred along the Rose Canyon Fault during the Holocene Epoch. This fault has been classified as active in the downtown San Diego and La Jolla areas. The California Division of Mines and Geology is currently acting to include this fault within an Aiquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Other active faults in the region include the Elsinore Fault zone and the San Jacinto Fault zone which lie approximately 27 and 51 miles to the northeast, respectively. In the event of a major earthquake in the southern California region, the project I .site could be subjected to severe ground shaking. 3.3.1.4 Groundwater I Groundwater was previously encountered in subsurface excavations at various depths within alluvial and formational soils on-site. Groundwater, or seepage, at the site may vary as a result I of seasonal fluctuation and irrigation. Perched water conditions are likely to. exist near the surface, within the major east-west alluvial-filled valley. This potential, shallow groundwater condition may require special consideration to reduce construction difficulties. 3.3.2 ImPacts .. I There are no soil or geologic conditions present on-site that would preclude the proposed widening and realignment of the relevant portion of Olivenhain Road. The presence of undocumented fill soils, compressible alluvium, and shallow groundwater, however, will require I special consideration where development is planned. Impacts to geology of the site can be divided into two different areas: the eastern portion of the existing road alignment, which is planned for widening mainly through restriping, and the area encompassed by the proposed I detention basin dike; and the western portion of the project route, which is planned for road widening and realignment. 3.3.2.1 Eastern Portion of Project Site: Proposed Road WideningfDetention Basin Dike Proposed road widening and grading adjacent to the Thompson Property will require removal and recompaction of loose surficial soils, which may include existing fill soils, The area of the proposed detention basin dike will require remedial grading in the form of 1 removal and recompaction of the near surface, loose alluvial soils and any existing undocumented fill soils. It is anticipated that proposed fill slopes for this dike would be constructed at .I inclinations of 2:1, or less. It should be noted that this same recommendation applies to future construction of the side embankments of detention basin 'D", although not proposed as part of this project. Li I I 3.3.2.2 Western Portion of Project Site: Proposed Road Widening and Realignment Project implementation will require remedial gr4ling of the, existing undocumented fill soils, formational soils with adverse bedding, and slopeyash/alluvial soils at the western portion of the project site The alternative alignments located south of the existing road, are predominantly o underlain by alluvial soils Partial removal and i recompaction of these alluvial soils will be required and construction dewatering will probably be necessary. The alternative alignments located north of the existing 'road-'will require J;iabillzation fills for' slopes,cüt in Delmar Formational 'soils containing adverse bedding. This is because the two- to five46gree slope at this location makes an unstable base' for a roadway without proper grading. Partial removal -and recompaction of the alluvial soils that exist in this area will also be necessary. Any undocumented fills encountered within the western j,ortion of the project site will require removal 'and recOmpaction. Proposed construction for the preferred Alignment #2 will require removal' and recompaction 'of existing fill soils, slopewash and alluvium. Construction will also require a 'stabilization replacement fill for the proposed 32-foot high, 2 1 cut slope located within adverse bedding of the Delmar Formation. The presence of shallow grundwater at this location will limit the depth of remedial grading to just above the groundwater level It should be anticipated that "in situ" treatment of the alluvium (i e , placement of a geotetile fabnc and coarse aggregate blanket) will be required over the exposed cut soils prior to compaction of fill 'and payement. Construction dewatering, particularly adjacent to El Camino Real, will likely be required.. 3.3.3 Mitigation ' The following measures shall be incorporated into the proposed project in' Order to 'mitigate potentially significant, geologic hazards identified herein: , 3.33.L Prior to the approval of final roadway improvement plans, a detailed soils and geologic' investigation addressing the proposed Alignment #2 shall be performed. 3.3.3.2. All proposed roadway improvement and grding plans withili existing utility easements on-site shall be reviewed and approved by the POblic Works Departments of the cities of .Eñcinitas'and Carlsbad prior to final approval. 3.3.3.3. All' manufactured ' fill slopes shall be planted with erosion-resistant groundcover vegetation, and watered by a well-designed and maintained irrigation system. A landscape plan and irrigation system for all graded slopes shall ,be reviewed and approved by'the Public Works Departments of the cities of Encinitas and Carlbad 'prior- to approval of final roadway improvement plans Landscaping and irrigation for all manufactured slopes, per approved plans, shall be installed as soon as practical after grading in order to reduce erosion potential on exposed slopes. ' ' ' ' I ' , • I SSD t p 1 34 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION rhe folldwing discussion simmaizes various trafficstudies conducted within the Olivenham - 'Road project are. Id.,particular, baseline traffic data is derived from- the QeneraFIlan Circulation Elements'of both thèCities of Encinitas àiid Carlsbad,a Geneial Plan traffic analysis, conducted - b' Austin-Foust 'Associ&tes, Iiic (1988) f& the Cityof Eiciut, and traffic studies conducted by ASL Consulting Engineers (1988) and Westor Pruig1e & Associates (1990) for the Arroyo/La Costa Master Plan E in ain the City of Carlsbad. Olivenh RoaI/El amino Real intersection analyses (Appendix 8) conducted by the Cities of Carlsbad(JBK & Associates, 1990and Encinitas (Wilidan and Associates, 1991) arealso summarized below. - • t .-.j. . . - . - - 341,ExItIn!Cond1t,6ns , I 4 - 13411 mySitSements - - .- i.-. ..;.. - .•.. 1 34 11. 1" 1 Ohvenhain R6ad4 - I Ièignated as it sj-iai Prime A'rterial in both the Encinithsand Carlsbad Genral Plans,.the existing OhvenhainRoa4 alignment is lirided into a four-lane'segment from Rancho Santa'Fe Road to the westernmost boundary of the Rancho del Ponderosa subdivision (Carlsbad Tract Nos 8363, 8362, and 8145), and a two-lane unimprved segment fri.om this ubdivision boundary to El Cmino Real The nortir-side of this road from the Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection westerly al6ng the frontaje of the Santa Fe Ridge subdivision (Carlsbad Tract No' 11018) tothe I eastern boundary of the Rancho del Ponderosa subdivision includes two travel lane, a bike lane: cirb/gtter, nd sideia1k. The soiith side of this'rod segment consists f two tra'el lanes with an unimpro\ved shoulder An'uiuinpiovd thedian vane in width along this approximate 85-foot - - 4.-1 -t - .".' .•• . 4 .. -• I paved road segment, between Rancho Santa Fe Road and the-eastern boundary. of Rancho del Poiderosa subdinsion, within a 107-foot wide nght-of-way (ROW) 1 I Continuing west along the froniages of Rancho del Ponderosa subdivision to the north and Willow Creek/Bridgewater (Encinitas Tract No 4579-1) subdivision to the south, to the eastern boundary of the aproved Arroyo/La Cota (Carlsbad Tentative Map No 8873) siibthvision, the I Ohvenhain Road ROW''is a uniform 107fooLwidth This roadtsegment consists of two eastbound and two westboundT lanes separated by a striped median which'allos for left-turn , pockets mt&the adjacent dvelopments 4 Improved bike lanes; curbs/jutters, andsidewa1ks also I occur along both sides ofhis rodl sgment. Two isolated areas along the south side ofthis road sègint have no been impm'ed t&theseonditions, norhas'ROW been dedicated,. I: Weterly of the Rancho del PondeThsa and Willow Creek subthvisionl*ündanes to El Camino -. -. 4'• .. Real, Olivenhain Road transitions to a- two-lane road with a pavement width of 35,eet and I unnnprcved shoulders, within á60466t ,ide ROW Traffic speeds in both directions)along Olivenham Road aie 35 mi1é per houi (mph) for the two-lane road segment, anl 45 mph for the four-lane segment. r 111-31 I 3.4.1.1.2 El Camino Real El Camino Real is a designated PthneArteriál in both the Encinitas and Carlsbad General Plans. Between Garden View Road and Levante Street, this road segment consists of two travel lanes in each direction, a striped median, and berms on both sides The ROW width for this road segment is 108 feet south of Olivenhain Road and 90 feet to the north.'Traffic speeds in both directions along El Caimno Real are 50 mph 3.4.1.1.3 Rancho Santa 'Fe ROad: . Rancho Santa Fe Road is designated as a Prime Arterial north of Olivenhain Road, in both the Encinitas and Carlsbad General Plans South of this intersection, it is designated as a Local Street/Augniented Facility by the City, of Encinitas, and Secondarr Artedal' by the City of. Carlsbad. Between Olivenhain Road and Calle Baitelona, this road segment consists of three travel lanes in each direction, a raised median, and improved curb/gutter and sidewalksin some locations along both roadway edges. The ROW width for this road segment variesbetwçeñ 107 and 120 feet. Between Olivenhain Road and Avenida La Posta, this road:'segment consists of two travel lanes and unimproved shoulders, within a 6.0-foot-wide ROW Posted traffic speeds along this road segment are 35 mph south of Olivenhain Road, and 50 mph to the north 3.4.1.2 Key Intersections 3412.1 Olivenha.n Road/El Camuno Real This is a signalized "T" intersection with four travel lanes and a striped median along El Camino Real The northbound El Camino Real approach to this intersection contains two through lanes and one right-turn lane The southbound approach contains two through lanes and one left-turn lane Olivenhain Road approaches this intersection from the east as an unimprov4 roadw AY skewed approximately 32 degrees parallel with Encimtas Creek, which crosses under El Camino Real directly to the south This westbound approach contains one right-turn lane and one left- turn lane 3.4.1.2.2 Oiivenhain Road/Rancho Santa Fe Road• . . . Olivenhain:, Road approaches this signalized four-way intersection as', a four-lane road with variable width median The eastbound approach contains two throughlanes and one left-turn pocket. Rancho Santa Fe Road continues northeast as a six-lane Prime Arterial, and to the south as an unimproved, two-lane road. Northbound Rancho Santa Fe Road contains one through/left- turn lane and a free right-turn lane, and the southbound approach contains two through lanes onto Olivenhain Road, one left-turn lane, and one right-turn pocket. 'Camino:-Alvaro enters tins intersection from the northwest as a two-lane, 40-foot wide Collector Street with improved median, curb/gutters, and sidewalks on both sides, within a 60-foot wide ROW Its southbound approach contains one through/left-turn/right-turn lane.- I,. 111-32 I I I 1 I I An intersection bypass road extends from eastbound Olivenhain Road, along the southern edge of the triangular-shaped Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD) parcel, for a distance of approximately 1,000 feet. This two-lane bypass allows left turns onto southbound Rancho Santa Fe Road south of its intersection with Olivenhain Road, although left turns are also allowed at this intersection. I 3.4.1.3 Daily Traffic Volumes Existing traffic volumes for Olivenhain Road are estimated at 20,599 vehicles per day, based on 1 24-hour counts performed by JHK & Associates in July, 1990. Existing traffic volumes for El Camino Real south of Olivenhain Road are estimated at 33,222 average daily trips (ADT), based I on 24-hour counts performed by the City of Encinitas in November, 1989 (Vifiegas, 1991). Existing traffic volumes for El Camino Real north of Olivenhain Road are estimated at 18,249 ADT, based on 24-hour counts performed by JHK & Associates in July, 1990 (Attachment A of I Appendix 9). Existing traffic volumes for Rancho Santa Fe Road, south of Olivenhain Road are estimated at 10,500 ADT, based on 24-hour counts performed by the City of Encinitas in 1988 (Guarnes, 1991). Existing traffic volumes for Rancho Santa Fe Road between Olivenhain Road I .and Calle Barcelona are estimated at 18,900 ADT, based on 24-hour counts performed by the City of Carlsbad on March 4, 1990 (Gale, 1991). 3.4.131 Street Segment Operations Roadway capacity is a term used to describe the number of vehicles that can be reasonably accommodated on a facility of a certain classification (e.g., six-lane Prime Arterial, four-lane Major Arterial, etc.). Roadway capacity values for various mad classifications have been empirically derived and are widely publicized in transportation literature. This general method of analysis uses the ratio of two-way ADT to roadway capacity, resulting. in a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio for each road. This value is largely dependent on the number of cross streets and side streets, and their relative traffic volumes. For example, the design capacity of a six-lane Prime Arterial is 51,200 ADT according to City of Encinitas standards. If the roadway segment carries 40,000 ADT, the V/C ratio would be 0.78. Values greater than 1.00 indicate that traffic volumes exceed street segment capacities. The V/C ratio is associated with the level. of service (LOS) provided to motorists. LOS is the measure of a roadway's ability to handle traffic loads. The LOS is expressed by an alpha designation, with LOS F (unstable traffic flows) assigned a numeric value of 1.00 and LOS A (stable traffic flows) assigned a "zero" value. According to both the Encinitas General Plan and Carlsbad Growth Management Plan criteria, any roadway which carries traffic volumes in excess. of LOS D exceeds the capacity standard defined as being acceptable within each City's respective circulation system. Please refer to Tables. 3.4-1 to 3.4-4 for representative ADT capacities and LOS assignments for various roadway classifications within the project vicinity, as identified by the General Plan Circulation Elements of the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad. HI-33 1 [1 I . •• . I I A 1 TABLE3.4-1 .. - - ,. ••_4_• ?t..•• PRIMARY ROADWAYS AND KEY INTERSECTIONS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY .,. Pnmary Roadways Classification -'-_: .: • 1-5 Interstate Freeway I La Costa Avenue • From I-?to El Camino Real Major Artenaf , 1 From El Caiuno Real to Secondary Art?er1a1 Rancho SiifitaCFe Road El Camino Real Prune Arterial Rancho Santa Fe Road Prime Arterial Ohvenhin Road Prime Artenal - Calle Barcelona' Secondary Arterial Leucadia Boulevard1 Major Arterial Key Intersections LaCostaAvenueandElCaninoReal El Camino Real and Levante Street El.;Camino Real and CalleBarcelona El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road Rancho Santa Fe Road and Calle Barcelona Rancho7 Santa Fe Road and Olivenhain Road/Cammo Alvaro Ohvenhain Road and LosPinosDrive Ohvenhaan Road and Amargosa Drive Source City of Carlsbad Circulation Elemert 1 -I These are planned facihties only partially cohstructed, and not presently open to through traffic I I ffl...341 • I : •.:-- • • -- ••• - TABLE STANDARDS FOR ROADW fVolume:tö Level of Service Capacity Ratio A 41 Low Volumes, primarily free flow operations Density is low 000-060 and vehicle can freely maneuver within th traffic stream. I Drivers can maintain their desired speeds with little or no delay. B Stable flow with potential for some restrictionof operation spe&Is 0 610 70 due to traffic conditions Maneuvering is n1y slightly restricted. The stopped delays are not bothersome and drivers ae not subj&ct to appreciable tension 1 C Stable operations, however the ability to mneuver is more restricte 071-080 by the increase in traffic volumes Relatively satisfactory operating speeds prevail but adverse signed coordination or longer queues cause delays D Approaching unstable traffic flow where small 'increases'. m*,,vbhinie .O.81-Q.9Q C01 ld cause substantial delays Most drivers are restricted in their ability to maneuver and their selection of travel speeds omfon and convenlencetare low but tolerable E Operations characterized by significant apprach delays and 091-100 average travel speeds of one-half to one-third the free flow speed. Flow is unstable and potential f9r sttppages of brief duration. High signal density, extensive? queung, or signal progression/timing are the typical causes of the delays F Forced flow operations with high approach delays at critical 100+ signalized intersections Speeds,are reducedsubstantially 77 and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time I because of downstream congestion Source Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 1985 I . . .... V i V. 1 . ) ': i ,.. a 1 . - 4' . ,.• -, - - : I J. 4A - , . • r17!e4V II .. -(V.'• . ._ . - a •.'•. i••. I .' - Th•. 'V. TABLE 3.44 I : .'_;.'••• .'- -' - RODWAY CAPACITYiSTANbADS r * Number . ADT -Capacity' I Facility Type of Lanes LOS C LOS D - LOS,E Freeway 6 108,000 120,000 135,000 I - 8 -" 145,000 160,000 ....175,O0O'.- 10 175,000 '" 195,000 215,000 6 46,000 5i200t 57,000. I - Prune Arterial-Augmented 53 000' 60 000 66000 MajorRoadway . . .. • 4 * 28,200 31:600' c35,200. Major Roadway-Augmented 26300 41000- 45,400-ti I . Co Collector Roadway - 29,200 32,400 '..',. Local Roadway 11,200 12,600 c 14,000 .*LocaRoadwayAugii1ted. ' ' 16000 - 18 000 L 20,000 :1 ' . • . . •• . -fT;' • • .. 1 Source city of EncimtasCirculation E1enieiit 1 ' 1 Capacity means the maximum WWI& forthe, stated level of service.-- a - 1 . - M.. •. .4* -:- ,, - --:•.- .'._,..' .• ..., . •. -i:--' p_ -,-#. - •, - . .- --V.--. V. - •• :. -V - . Vi * ,- I - '-V ••V .V'_ - . - . • £ - - . V -p .' ' . .- - .' . ,• . . 4 - . -I -• . •• . 4 , V • -- - "I According to Table 3.4-5, Olivenhain Road currently operates at an unacceptable level of service 1 (LOS F, V/C=1.07). It should be noted that Olivenhain Road'currently operates at an acceptable LOS based on peak-hour monitoring data. A peak-hour analysis is utilized to more accurately assess the LOS of a given street segment approaching failure. Thus, according to the City of Carlsbad's Mid-Year Growth Management Monitoring Report (A.B. 11425; November 5, 1991), Olivenhain Road meets the City's adopted performance standards under existing conditions. An LOS F based on the V/C ratio (Génerál Plan-level) analysis will, nevertheless, be used to evaluate/characterize "Worst Case" traffic impacts for this road segment under existing conditions. I The segment of El Camino Real between Garden View Road and Olivenhain Road currently operates at LOS A (V/C-0.54). The segment of El Camino Real between Olivenhain Road and Levante Street currently operates at LOS A (V/C-0.24), according to Attachment,A of Appendix 9. The segment of Rancho Santa Fe Road between Olivenhain Road and Calle Barcelona also operates at LOS A (V/C=0.26), as does the segment between Olivenhain Road and Avenida La Posta (V/C=0.42). 3.4.1.3.2 Key Intersection Operations 1 Roadway capacity is, generally limited by. the ability to move vehicles 'through intersections; An intersection V/C ratio is the primary consideration in assessing traffic-related impacts. These impacts are determined using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method of analysis The ICU method results in a numeric value representing the amount of time delay expemienced at an intersection based on a given number of traffic lanes. As with street segment operations, ICU values exceeding 1.00 indicates that travel demand exceeds the intersection capacity. ICU values are also correlated with LOS, in that LOS F (arrival of vehicles, ixceedi intersection I capacity, resulting in unacceptable traffic delays) is assigned-a numeric value of 1.00 and, LOS A (optimal intersection operating conditions with little or no delay to. motorists) is asigned a "zero" value. The ICU is usually calculated for both A.M. and P.M. peak hour conditions. According to the' both Encinitas General Plan and Carlsbad Growth Management Plan criteria, roadways which carry traffic volumes resulting in an LOS ',E at any,.intersection exceeds the capacity standard defined as being acceptable within each City's respective circulation system Please refer to Attachment B of Appendix 9 and Table 34-6 for a detailed explanation of the ICU analysis and description of corresponding LOS assignments. -. According to Table 3.4-7 .the Olivenhain Road/El Camino Real intersection currently operates 'at LOS C (ICU=0.81) in the A.M. peak hour and LOSD (ICU=0.89) in the P.M. peak hour., The Olivenhain Road/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection is currently operating at LOS A (IC1J=0.59) in the A.M. peak hour and LOS B (ICU--O.'69) in the P.M. peak hour (Gale, 1991). Therefore, the two key intersections in the project vicinity meet both the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad performance standards for acceptable levels of service under existing conditions. HI-38 I I - - Volume to Capacity Level of I Road Se2ments Ratio (V/C) Service (LOS) 1-5 Not tested I La Costa Avenue 1-5 to El-Camino Real 1 02 F1 Camino Real to Rancho Santa Fe Road I El 083 El Canuno Real South of La Costa Avenue 058 A I North of Olivenhain Road 0.52 , -. A South of Olivenhain Road 054 A I Rancho Santa Fe Road North of Olivenhain Road 026 A I South of Olivenhain Road 042 A Olivenhain Road I East of El Camino Real 107 F1 Calle Barcelona I Non -Existent I/ Leucadia Boulevard. Non-Existent ------------- 1 According to the City of Carlsbad's Mid-Year Growth Management Monitonng Report (A B 11425, November 5, 1991), however, this road segment currently operates at an acceptable I LOS based on a peak-hour analysis Source City, of Carlsbad Circulation Element -39 i :1.. - TABLE 34-6 INTERSECTION CAPACITY GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONAL DESIGN 24-HOUR SERVICE VOLUME (LEVEL OF SERVICE D), VEHICLES PER DAY (V/D)1 FOR FACILITY UNDER CONSIDERATION Minor Major One-way One-way One-way Facility' Under Grade Local Collector 4-lane 4-lane 6-lane St lane 4-lane 5-lane 6-lane Consideration Separation (Stop) (Signal) (Signal) (Signal) (Signal) (Signal) (Signal) (Signal) (Signal) 4-lane Artenal 80,000 54,000 45,000 40000 21.000 21000 15,000 27,000 27,000 27.000 -(1-0? (90) (75) (70) (45) (35) (25) (45) (45) (45) 6-lane /jtJ r 90000 81000 68 000 63,000 50000 38,000 32 000 50000 50,000 50000 (1 0) (90) (75) (70) (65) (.40)..(35) (65) (60) (60) 8-lane Arterial 120,000 103,000 90.000 901000 60,000 54.000 42000 72000 72,000 72,000 (1-0) (90) (75) (75) (35) (45) (.35) (80) (60) (60) One-way 4-lane 85 000k 82 000 40000 46000 33000 27,000 20.000 33000 33080 28000 (1:0y (95) (75) (70) (.50) (40) (.30) (.50) (50) (30) One-way 5 lane 81,000k 77,000 63.000 57.000 '41,000 28,000 24,000 40,000 41 000 41,000 (1 0) (95) (75) (70) (.50) (35) (30) (30) (50) (30) One-way. 6-lane 97,000 92,000 92000 68 000 49,000 - 34,000 29 000 63.000 49000 49,000 (1 0) (95) (75) (70) (30) (.35) (.30) (.55) (.50) (.50) Total Number of Intersecting-'Streets Intersecting Through Lanes Sum of G/C' two-wayffwo way 8 to 10 90 12to14 80 16 70 Two way/One way 8 to 10 95 11to14 90 One-way/One way 0to 12 100 l V/D = 1,930 vehicles er1ane per hour of green, V/D (one way) = 1 620 vehicles per lane per hour of green. 2 Al! artenals are assumed to haveat least one left toni lane atnitersections, plus other exclusive turn lanes as necessaxy Tie lanes indicated are thiuugh lanes ' Figure us parenthesis is green/cycle (G) ratio assumed. Also equilibrated to expressway operation of 4, 5 or 8 lanes in one direction of flow ffl-40 — - — - - — 4a — — • — .4. t I. •- i A. I TABLE 3A-7 , -: •• I VSUMMARY OF EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE - I WLTHINTHE ROJECT VICINITY P - L J I Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) 4, a 4_I 4. •L4. •?_. '4 - I Intersèctioi A M Peak Hour (LOS) PM Peak Hour (LOS) I El Camino Re93adLaCsta Avenue' 061 075 • El'4 Csmino Real and Olivenhain Road, 081 089 El Cdiniino Real and Garden Viw Road'' 077 I La- Cdstâ Avenueand4El CaimnReal2 0 84(D) -) 0.80( • El CiThino Real and Levante Street2 043(A) 0 54(4) El Camino Real and Calle Barcelona2 Non-Exit Non-Exist, El Cimino Real and Olivenhain Road2 072(C) 0 80(D) I Rancho Santa Fe Road and Calle Barcelona2. 0.35(A) 0.38(A) Rancho Santa Fe Road and Ohvenhain 053(A) . r' '' 0 62(B) I Alvaro2 .> ,Road/.1 1Camino Olivenhain Road and Los Pinos Drive2 060(A)' 1. 0 70(B) Oliveihain R&id and Amargos brive2 0'464(B) - .0 70(B),4 I I I 4 .-.•, " 2. - -7 I Note These are standard condition calculations 'A4.tda1 intersection capacity, ratios may be affected by special c6nditions and circumstances (e.g., adjacent intersections being located very - closetd oneañother) 'Soure City of Encinitas Circulation Element 2 Source City of Carlsbad Circu1ation Elemnt -4.-.. 4 - 44..... . . - - ---.4 '• --4- .-:-I.•. . 1 4. 111-41 I I - . F-I 3.4.2 Future/Build-Out Conditions I 3.4.2.1 Primary Street Segments, 3.4.2.1.1 Olivenhain Road I The Circulation Element of the City of Encinitas Geüeral Plan forecasts build-out (Year 2010) traffic volumes on Olivenhain Road between El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road to be 48,000 ADT. The Carlsbad and County of San Diego General Plan Circulation Elements forecast build-out traffic volumes of 39,000 ADT and 22,000 ADT, respectively, for this road segment. The SANDAG Mid-County Transportation Model forecasts build-out traffic volumes long this road segment to be 39,500 ADT (Attachment B1 of Appendix 8). This model assumes build-out of all adopted land uses and circulation networks west of Interstate 5, south of State Route 78, and north of State Route 56. The model also assumes the North City Sphere Study Concept #4 for the future urban area (in the City of San Diego) and a region-wide 40% "drive alone" rate for home-to-work trips. Although the SANDAG forecast is more recent, the Encinitas General Plan figure is used herein as a 'Worst Case" analysis, Therefore, based on a "Worst Case" ADT of 48,000, this road segment would operate at LOS D with proposed roadway improvements in place (see Table 3.4-4). It should be noted that an LOS C would be achieved for this improved road segment using the Carlsbad General Plan build-out traffic forecasts. Thus, for either scenario, the improved Olivenhain Road would operate at an acceptable LOS under build-out conditions, in conformance with both the cities of Encinitas General Plan and Carlsbad Growth Management Plan performance standards. 3.4.2.12 El Camino Real The Circulation Element of the City of Encinitas General Plan forecasts build-out traffic volumes on El Camino Real south of Olivenhain Road to be 55,000 ADT The Carlsbad and County of San Diego General Plan Circulation Elements forecast build-out traffic volumes of 54,000 ADT and 40,000 ADT, respectively, for this road segment. The SANDAG Mid-County Transportation Model forecasts build-out traffic volumes along this mad segment to be 53,100 ADT (Attachment Bi of Appendix 8). Although the SANDAG forecast is more recent, the Encinitas General Plan figure is used herein as a "Worst Case" analysis Therefore, based on a 'Worst Case" ADT of 55,000, this road segment would operate at LOS E with proposed roadway improvements in place (see Table 3.4-4). It should be noted that this segment of El Camino Real south of Olivenhain Road is within both the County of San Diego and City of Encinitas, and therefore has no relationship to the City of Carlsbad's Growth Management Plan. 3.4.2.13 Rancho Santa Fe Road The Circulation Element of the City of Encinitas General Plan forecasts build-out traffic volumes on Rancho Santa Fe Road to be 22,000 ADT south of Olivenhain Road, and 46,000 ADT to the north. The Carlsbad General Plan Circulation Element forecasts build-out traffic volumes for this HI-42 I road segment of 25,100 ADT to the south, and 24,900 ADT to the north of the Olivenhain Road intersection (Gale, 1991). Based on the Encinitas General Plan, LOS F would be experienced along Rancho Santa Fe Road south of Olivenhain Road (see Table 3.4-4). Based on the Carlsbad I General Plan build-out traffic forecasts, however, LOS C would be experienced to the north; thereby, meeting Growth Management Plan performance standards. - I 3.4.2.1.4 Leucadia Boulevard I The City of Encinitas General Plan Circulation Element designates the continuation of Olivenhain Road west of the El Camino Real intersection as the future Leucadia Boulevard extension, an .ulthnate four-lane Major Arterial "Scenic Roadway" within an 85-foot-ROW traversing the I County of San Diego's "Ecke Agricultural Preserve" to connect with 1-5 to the west. The County's General Plan Circulation Element calls for Olivenhain Road to continue west of El Camino Real as a Major Road through the "Ecke Sphere" to tie into Leucadia Boulevard. This I future alignment would be within the City of Encinitas sphere of influence. The General Plan lists specific goals and policies related to this future "Scenic Roadway". For I example, Policies 5.1 and 5.2 call for the adoption of a Specific Plan by the City of Encinitas for the unincorporated sphere area through which this road would pass, and annexation of this area to the City. Policy 5.3 also lists several general design and improvement standards to be I developed and adopted for this road, subject to review and approval by a Leucadia Boulevard Task Force. One of these standards states thai the "connection of Leucadia Boulevard to Olivenhain Road shall bridge over Encinitas Creek rather than use pipes or culverts to minimize I impacts to the drainage area." - The Circulation Element of the City of Encinitas General Plan forecasts build-out traffic volumes I - on future Leucadia Boulevard extension just west of El Camino Real to be 31,000 ADT. The County of San Diego General Plan Circulation Element forecasts build-out traffic volumes of 28,000 ADT for this road segment. The SANDAG Mid-County Transportation Model forecasts I build-out traffic volumes along this road segment to be 27,600 ADT (Attachment B 1 of Appendix 8). Although the SANDAG forecast is more recent, the Encinitas General Plan figure is used herein as a "Worst Case" analysis. Therefore, based on a "Worst Case" ADT of 31,000, this road I segment would operate at an LOS D with proposed roadway improvements in place (see Table 3.4-4). 1 3.4.3.2 Key Intersections I 3.4.3.2.1 Olivenhain Road/El Camino Real Based on an ICU analysis conducted by Austin-Fouts Associates, Inc. (1988) for the City of I Encinitas General Plan traffic study, the Olivenhain Road/El Camino Real intersection would operate at LOS D in the A.M. (ICU=0.81) and P.M. (ICU--0.89) peak hours at build-out (post- Year 2010) traffic conditions (Attachment B6 of Appendix 8). This would be considered an i acceptable level of service which would not warrant additional intersection improvements. The 111-43 I County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use (DPLIJ), however, expróssed. concerns in a comment letter. (February, .109 1) received during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) review period for the project, that future traffic volumes at this intersection may exceed the capacity of an at-grade-intersection, thereby requiring a grade separation Their concerns were based on SANDAG's Mid-County Transportatioi Model forecast traffic volumes of 86,500 ADT, with 8,650 peak-hour trips,' at this intersection. 0 Grade separations are warranted when an intersection reaches LOS F, and no other measures are feasible This is stated in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (AASHTO, 1990) and Caltrans' Highway an Design Mual (1987), excerpts of which are included in Attachments C-D of Appendix 9 In response to pPLU's concerns, peak-hour turning movements and ICU calculations were conducted at this mtrsection for build-out conditions by the cities of Carlsbad (Attachment A of Appendix 8) and Encinitas (Attachment B of Appendix 8) The City of Carlsbad ICU analysis assumed three through lanes in each direction along Olivenhain Road, and used saturation flow rates. of 2,000 vehicles per hour. for through lanes and, 1,800 vehicles per hour for turn lanes Based on these assumptions, ,the City of Càrlsb d projected a bUildout LOS D. during both the A.M. (ICU=0.84) -and 1P.M. (ICU=0.87) peak hours;thereby,neeting Growth Managemcflt Plan performance stándarIs for this intersection. The City of Encinitas ICU analysis relied on turning movement counts obtained from the SANDAG Mid-County Transportation Model j This analysis assumed saturation flow rates of 1,700 vehicles per hour, for through lanes and J1500 vehicles per hour for turn lanes A 0 10 clearance was also added to account for vehicular flow, rates through yellow lights The lane assumptions used to calculate build-out LOS ai this intersection were as follows 1. ' Northbound El Camino Real = two left, two through, andonethroughkight-turzlanes. 2 Southbound El Camino Real = two left, two through, and one through/right-turn lanes 3., Eastbound future Leucadia Boulevard=wo left-, one through, and one thiough/right-tum 17 lanes I 4. Westbound Olivenhain Road = two 1eft., two through, and one right-tUrn lanes. Based on these assumptiOns, the City of Encinitas projected a build-out LOS Ddtiring bOth the A.ML (ICU-0.89) and P.M.. (ICU=0.88)-, peak hours at this intersection (Attachment BI - of Appendix 8). This is consistent with LOS caculations performedby Austin-FoustAssociates (Attachment B6 of Appendix 8) for post-Year 2010 conditions with the City's adopted Circulation Element. I I.. I I I 3.4.3.2.2 Olivenhain Road/Rancho Santa Fe Road Based on an ICU analysis conducted by JIHK & Associates (1990), the Olivenhain Road/Rancho I Santa Fe intersection would operate at LOS C in the A.M. (ICU=0.72) and P.M. (ICU--0.77) peak hours at build-out (Year 2010) traffic conditions (Gale, 1991). This would be considered an I acceptable level of service which would not warrant additional intersection improvements; thereby, conforming to both the cities of Encinitas General Plan and Carlsbad Growth Management Plan performance standards. I 3.4.4 !mDacts ' 3.4.4.1 Primary Street Segments and Key Iitersections The proposed Olivenhain Road Alignment #2 would improve existing traffic congestion and poor I levels of service (i.e., LOS F) currently experienced along this roadway segment to acceptable levels of service. The proposed improvements would also maintain existing, acceptable levels of service for El Camino Real north and south of Olivenhain Road Rancho Santa Fe Road north I and south of Olivenhain Road; the Olivenhain Road/El Camino Real intersection; and the Olivenhain Road/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection. ' The proposed project would result in acceptable levels of service at all of the above-mentioned street segments and key intersections under build-out (Year 2010) traffic' conditions, except for the portions of El Camino Real (LOS E) and Rancho Santa Fe Road (LOS F) both south of I Olivenhain Road. As previously noted, these road segments would operate at acceptable LOS under build-out conditions as designated by the City of Carlsbad General Plan Circulation Element. Therefore, they have no relationship to non-attainment of Carlsbad's Growth I Management Plan criteria. The proposed Alignment #2 would maintain a through route consistent with the County of San I Diego's Route Location Study for the future extension of Leucadia Boulevard, between El Camino Real and the current eastern terminus of Leucadia Boulevard. Any improvements at the Olivenhain Road/El. Camino Real intersection required for the proposed project would be I coordinated with the County of San Diego Traffic Engineering Department Construction of a bridge over Encinitas Creek, as stated under Policy 5.3 of the City of Encinitas General Plan I Circulation Element, would require raising the Olivenhain Road/El Camino Real intersection, as well as a portion of El Camino Real north and south of this intersection. Please refer to Section 6.0 of this EIR for a complete discussion of this alternative roadway design. Because biological impacts to sensitive wetland habitats and species within this drainage area have been minimized by the proposed design, a bridge is no longer required at this location. 3.4.4.2 Traffic Detouring Some temporary traffic delays may be experienced along Olivenhain Road and its intersections I with El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road during the construction period for the proposed project In addition, the City of Carlsbad Planning Department expressed concern in a comment Li M-45 I letter (February 4, 1991) received during the NOP review period regarding potential impacts to access points into and out of the existing OMWD facilities southwest of the Olivenhain Road/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection during proposed road construction. The City also expressed concern over future access to the approved Arroyo/La Costa (CT 88-3) tentative map development to the north of the proposed realignment. Finally, the City Planning Department is concerned that proposed road construction may result;in traffic safety impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists that use Olivenhain Road. With implementation of a Traffic Control/Detour Plan, as delineated in Section 3.4.5 below, the temporary traffic delays caused by detouring during proposed road construction would not have a significant impact to existing traffic/circulation patterns within the project area. In addition, with implementation of these measures, proposed roadway improvements are not expected to block existing access points along the construction mute, particularly access into and out of the existing OMWD facilities. With respect to maintenance of future access to the planned Arroyo/La Costa development, necessary intersection improvements shall be installed at this future access road intersection with Olivenhain Road, in accordance with the conditions of approval for CT 88-3, to ensure a safe and adequate operational level of service. Finally, the potential impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists along Olivenhain Road during construction of proposed improvements would not be considered significant as long as appropriate measures are included in the Traffic Control/Detour Plan (see Section 3,4.5.4. below) to ensure their safety. 3.4.5 Mitigation 3.4.51. The following roadway improvements are listed either as a condition of approval for the Arroyo/La Costa (CT 88-3) tentative map (City of Carlsbad, 1990), or as a recommended mitigation measure in the certified E (City, of Carlsbad, 1990) for that project, in order to mitigate projected deficiencies in levels of service along El Camino Real: 3.4.5.1.1. El Camino Real shall. be improved to a half street width of 63 feet from Olivenhain Road to Levante Street, including full width landscaped median The developer/owner may be eligible for partial reimbursement from the adjacent property owners on the west half width of the median. A reimbursement agreement must be approved by the City of Carlsbad prior to approval of the final map for this phase. 3.4.5.1.2. Upon construction of the future Leucadia Boulevard extension (between El Camino Real and the existing eastern terminus of Leucadia Boulevard), El Camino Real from Olivenhain Road to Calle Barcelona shall be widened to six lanes Neither the proponents of the Arroyo/La Costa project nor property, owners within the City of Carlsbad Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) Zones 11 and 12 are responsible for funding the construction of this future. roadway extension. If this road extension is not constructed by the Year 2000, however, the segment of El Camino Real identified above shall be widened by the Year 2010 (build-out). Li I 3.4.5.2. The following is intended as a future action to be carried out by the City of Encinitas, according to the General Plan Circulation Element, in order to mitigate projected deficiencies in I levels of service for Rancho Santa Fe Road south of Olivenhain Road: To improve traffic flow and reduce side friction, Rancho Santa Fe Road from Olivenhain Road to Avenida La Posta shall be augmented by either 1) signalizing the Avenida La Posta intersection; 2) adding additional I lanes at the Olivenhain Road intersection; and/or 3) adding a central median along this road segment to allow turning movements, thereby restricting access to the extent possible. Augmentation of this Local Street segment shall occur prior to build-out Year 2010, but not as I part of this proposed project. As such, neither the proponent of the Arroyo/La Costa project nor property owners within the City of Carlsbad LFMP Zones 11 and 12 are responsible for funding these future roadway improvements. I 3.4.5.3. The Contractor shall submit for approval a Traffic Control/Detour Plan prepared by a Registered Traffic Engineer, as directed by the Senior Traffic Engineers of the Cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad, which shall conform to the following provisions: 3.4.5.3.1. Closure of Olivenhain Road to through traffic shall not be permitted during its I proposed construction and widening, unless other detour operations are identified which would be acceptable to the City Engineers of both Encinitas and Carlsbad. For example, traffic during the construction period could be temporarily re-routed to calle Barcelona if this planned roadway .......were constructed prior to proposed widening/realignment of Olivenhain Road. 3.4.5.3.2. One lane shall be available in each direction for use by public traffic. Prior to I commencement of road construction, the City shall re-stripe Olivenhain Road to provide a minimum of one, 15-foot wide traffic lane in each direction. Any lane closures shall conform to provisions of the standard specifications. The lane or lanes to be closed shall be approved by I the City Engineer. The use of reflective traffic delineators to direct traffic away from excavations shall be considered as a lane closure. I 3.4.5.3.3. In conjunction with re-striping, the existing traffic signal at the Olivenhain Road/El Camino Real intersection shall be switched to the flashing red mode during construction I equipment operation. 3.4.5.3.4. The Contractor shall maintain a 50-foot minimum working area/construction zone I along the southerly edge of the proposed Alignment #2. This construction easement shall provide for a width of 15 feet beyond the area required for grading along the northerly edge of the proposed alignment (see Figure 3.4-1). I 3.4.5.3.5. Standard construction barricades equipped with flashing lights shall be placed in the southern easement area at 25-foot minimum spacing adjacent to excavations. Every eighth I barricade shall be equipped with standard signage. Sheeting for these signs shall be high-density (encapsulated lens). Barricade lights shall be required to burn only during hours of darkness. I I M-47 I I 3.4.536. In any excavated section at .which, the contractor is unable to ma ntain the afore- mentiond work areas, the excavation shall be protected by standard rihng at the close of the working day The south edge of the railing shail be a minimum of I2 feet from the èenterhnë striping Each end of the railing shall be flared away from the adjacent travel lanes at approximately 20 degrees All railing shall b equipped with two-way clear reflectors at a minimum 24-foot spacing 3.4.5.3.7. The Contractor shall maintain access to Amargosa Drive, Los Pinos Circle, and all I private driveways on both sides of Olivenhain Rad. 34.5.3.8. At the start of the construction period, the Contractor shall install signage per standard I specifications and as shown on the Detour Plan All signs shall be mounted on 4-inch by 4-inch wooden posts at standard height, and shall be constructed of high-intensity (encapsulated lens) sheeting 34.5.39. The Cont1.ractor shall also abate dust nu4ance by cleanmg or sweeping, and sprinkling with water or other me%-s'.asnece§ary. s The se of water resulting inmud on public streets shall not be permitted as a stitute for cleaning, swe4ng, or other, methods I 34.5.4 In response to comments received from 4 County of San Diego, Deptment of Public Works, during the Public Review Period for this project, the following mitigation measures shall be included as conditions of project approval, to be implemented during project construction and shown on final roadway improvement plans 34.541. Construct the Olivenhain Road/El Camuo Real intersection athght angles I 3.4.5.4.2. Determine appropnate ROW widths arid'.,distances required for relinquishment of access rights in order to implement the proposed pioject I .3.4.5A.34;,Provide adequate sight distance 3.4.534 Provide an alignment for Olivenhain Road (i.e., the proposed Ahnmeni #2)-such,that it would be compatible with the future alignment of the planned Leucadia Boulevard extension west of El Canimo Real 34.54.5 Provide the appropriate number of left-turn \lanes to allow left-turning movements from El Cammo Real to Olivenhain Road, and vice versa.\ 3.5 GENERAL PLAN COMPATIBILiTY I The proposed project boundaries fall within three different jurisdictions: City of Encinitas, City of Carlsbad, and County of San Diego. The relevant portions of the General Plan Circulation I Elements for each jurisdiction is described under Section 3.5.1 below. Section 3.5.2 analyses the proposed project's conformance with these various Plans. 3.5.1 Existing Conditions 3.5.11 City of Encinitas The City of Encinitas lies just south of Olivenhain Road. Property lying within the City of Encinitas and adjacent to Olivenhain Road includes land that is designated as residential (5.01- 8.00 units/acre), and land that is designated as an ecological resource. The City of Encinitas Circulation Element designates Olivenhain Road as a six-lane Prime Arterial, divided into three travel lanes in each direction by a median (Figure 3.5-1). Direct driveway access to and from this roadway is restricted. The desirable' goal for every classified street section is that it carry the designed volume of traffic at the desired level of service. The improved Olivenhain Road would connect with the future Leucadia Boulevard extension, which is planned west of El Camino Real to link with the existing segment of Leucadia I Boulevard near. Interstate 5 (1-5). This linkage provides an important component to facilitate east-west traffic flow from several North County inland communities, such as Olivenhain and San Marcos, to north and south business destinations via I-S. The City of Encinitas also mandates 'I full design and improvement plans for the entire length of Leucadia Boulevard (existing and planned road segments) between I-S and Olivenhain Road. This road shall be a "Scenic Roadway" completed and adopted by the City, subject to the following Circulation Element I guidelines: The City shall form the Leucadia Boulevard Task Force to be composed of residents of I Leucadia. The Task Force will participate with City staff in developing design standards for Leucadia Boulevard east of I-S. Comments by residents of New Encinitas will be considered in the design of the northeast link of Leucadia Boulevard. 1 Design may include full landscape/street-scape design, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, recreational trails, and intersection improvements where desired. Where facilities cannot I be accommodated within the right-of-way, additional easements may be required. The design of the Leucadia Boulevard extension may include broad landscaped medians I 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. I 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. I M-49 I .1 Wildlife corridors across the alignment of Leucadia Boulevard at the Green Valley bluff I and elsewhere as warranted shall be provided to facilitate wildlife passage and provide continuous areas of habitat. I .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. j 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 I be provided prior to or in conjunction with street improvement. Where it is necessary or desirable to construct retaining or noise-attenuation walls along I the Leucadia Boulevard corridor, they shall be constructed with natural-looking 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 lane U highway and Stage U providing additional lanes and improvements as needed to accommodate ultimate projected traffic. I 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 I ..A high priority shall be given to implement these standards in areas where 126 feet of right-of-way presently exists. I . No truck routes shall be permitted along Leucadia Boulevard from 1-5 to Sidonia Street. The City will consider purchasing any land within the right-of-way when:it is offered for I . sale along Leucadia Boilevard from 1-5 to Sidonia Street 3.5.1.2 City of Carlsbad I The City of Carlsbad lies just north of Olivenhain Road. Property lying within the City of Carlsbad and adjacent to Olivenhain Road includes land that is designated low-medium I residential (0-4 dwelling units/acre), and land that is designated for public utilities The City of Carlsbad Circulation Element designates OlivenhainRoad as a six-lane Prime Arterial (Figure 3.5-2). A Prime Arterial is designed to carry large volumes of traffic within and through the city. I Prime Artenals have three moving lanes of traffic in each direction and a median divider. Direct driveway access is-prohibited on a Prime Arterial. The estimated number of average daily, trips .. on a Prime Arterial is 40,000 or more. The Circulation Element of the City of Carlsbad mandates the design of streets in such a way that the number of intersections and other conflicting traffic movements are minimized. The City of Carlsbad supports the maintenance of the future Leucadia Boulevard extension eastward to El Camino Real. I I 3.5.2.3 County of San Diego The Circulation Element of the County of San Diego General Plan designates Olivenhain Road I as a four-lane Major Road (one-half width equals 56 feet), and El Camino Real (SF 1411) as a six-lane Prime Arterial (one-half width equals 68 feet) with bike lanes. Specific design criteria for Major Roads include an 18-foot wide median, 24 feet of paved travel lanes, 10 feet of paved bike lanes, an 8-foot wide shoulder, a 10-foot wide parkway strip, an 82-foot wide roadbed, and 112-foot wide right-of-way (ROW). I .The property through which the future Leucadia Boulevard extension would occur is designated as Agricultural Cropland and is part of what is known as the "Ecke sphere". A portion of the Batiquitos Lagoon Resource Conservation Area extends into the Ecke sphere. The Ecke sphere I remains an important part of the open space and drainage system that feeds into Batiquitos Lagoon. The Ecke sphere has a Specific Planning Area designation over it, allowing a density of 2.8 dwelling units per acre. Agricultural lands not approved for future development in this ' area are to be preserved under the appropriate restrictions as a condition of development. In the event that all development cannot be accomodated within the low-lying areas of the Ecke sphere, additional holdings, especially those distinct from the mesa-top agricultural areas, may be considered for development provided that it be clustered, that it provide, a logical and viable neighborhood, and that it contribute to the establishment of a stable limit to urban development. 3.5.2 Impacts The proposed Alignment #2 would follow a more northerly route from the existing alignment to an intersection with El Camino Real. This proposed alignment meets all Of the design criteria for a Prime Arterial, as established by the City of Encinitas, except that the existing road segment to be re-striped (107-foot wide ROW) will not conform to the ultimate 120-130 foot wide ROW requirement. In addition, the proposed project does not meet all of the City of Carlsbad's design criteria for a Prime Arterial route. Centerline radii would be 1,600 feet, and not the 2,400 feet as per standard. The centerline intersection of Olivenhain Road with El Camino Real would be skewed approximately 3 degrees, rather than perpendicular. Design speed for this alignment would be 50 miles per hour, instead of 60 as per standard. The Circulation Elements for the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad, however, state that variation in design is expected and that the descriptions of width and facilities are offered as non-exclusive alternatives. A comparison of the roadway design guidelines for each jurisdiction is included as Figure 3.5-3. These diagrams are presented as guides to what is reasonable, or desirable, not as inflexible rules. It is therefore determined that the minor inconsistencies between the proposed project and the relevant General Plan design standards for this roadway would not represent a significant deviation from the ultimate configuration required to improve traffic flow and safety through this area. 3.53 Mitigation Because the proposed project is determined to be in substantial conformance with the roadway design guidelines mandated by the relevant General Plan Circulation Elements, no mitigation measures are required. M-53 I 3.6 TRAFFIC NOISE The following section is based on a noise study conducted by James Kurtz of Brian F. Mooney Associates (BFMA) and summarizes an acoustical analysis prepared for the Olivenhain Road project route, of which the complete technical report is provided as Appendix 10 of this EIR. 3.6.1 Existing Conditions The principal noise source for most of the project area is Olivenhain Road traffic. At the western end of this road, the traffic noise from El Camino Real is an additional major source. There are no other significant noise sources in the project area. J Existing traffic volumes on Olivenhain Road are estimated at 20,599 vehicles per day (JHK & Associates, 1990). Traffic speed was estimated during field visits made in February and March 1991. The speeds in both directions of this road are 35 miles per hour (mph) for the two-lane segment, and 45 mph for the four-lane segment. The traffic mix, estimated from observations and counts in February and April 1991, is 95 percent autos, 3 percent medium trucks, and 2 I percent heavy trucks (95/3/2). It was noted that most of the heavy trucks using Olivenhain Road are trash disposal trucks; the road is a principal route to and from a landfill site to the east. The trash truck traffic occurs mostly in the morning hours. During the late afternoon hours, there are I . very few heavy trucks. Existing traffic volumes on El Camino Real south of Olivenhain Road are estimated at 33,222 average daily trips (ADT), based on November 1989 counts performed by the City of Encinitas (Villegas, 1991). Speed is estimated at 50 mph; traffic mix at 93/4/3 Existing traffic noise levels'were measured at the specific (point) locations shown on Figure 3.6- 1. The results of these noise measurements are shown on this figure. Except where noted, these values represent the noise level for the outside or ground floor receptor. In the City of Encinitas, and most other jurisdictions, the exterior receptor is calculated at five feet above the ground level. In the City of Carlsbad, the exterior/ground floor receptor is set at a height of six feet, in accordance with Planning Department Administrative Policy No. 17. For source-receptor geometrics which include noise barriers, the higher receptor will usually have a higher noise level, and will require a higher barrier to achieve a level equivalent that of the five-foot high I receptor. The results of traffic noise level calculations are shown at selected points and as noise contours I in Figures 3.6-2 and 3.6-3, and are described as 24-hour average noise levels (L). This community noise level scale takes into account human sensitivity to noise at night, when ambient noise levels are normally less. A "penalty" of 5 dB is added to noise levels occurring between I the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. A similar community noise level scale, CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level), adds a 3 dB penalty to noise levels occurring between the Im I n TT WTI tT -1 dvl4ke's or 36 ez 5.55 Acres 255 ap _ o — I 00 Map No. 8145 Ml 3p No. 6363 MN 8362 UnIt5_- ç( Unit I 50 49 48 47 46 19 n 10 L 9) 165- 7— ct otEncIrft8S Maim Rom _______ 66 4 13 71 L 56 56 162 P. 34 'Riparian Habitat I at 36 25S-024-01 -,vs 55 255-040-067~ 120 53 Map No. f192 13.65 Acres 10.51 k ILl I I w a AP - 7.5 Is two + N LEGEND Ifl - (13 Point Location *-7 MARCH 91 0/i venhain Road Alignment 0 200' 400' Fql Point Location # -23 APRIL 91 (AM) Measured Existing Noise Levels b nan FrflOOflap 12., Point Location # - 23 APRIL 91 (PM) I planning design & environmental studies eq • •' • •.•. • • • • • - Figure.: 3. 6 1 EIR L ) — - - WE., an - 1 LJ Map No. 1 Unit '-.-- X IM IX I \t 4 7 71 pe 1-7 70 J] 6 tr -040-06 x IL 040. SA 60 55 V N 0 100' 200' LEGEND brian F moonap _____ - 65 Noise Level Contours, Decibels, Ldn design environmental studies Figure 3.6-2 - lQ 40 55 — Oil venhain Road Alignment calculatedEilst'g Noise Levels Western Road Segment ganta _ Rancho Del Ponderosa 1 - . Map No. 8363 18 L Map No 8145 Map N06 362 - J Unit 6 4a A 46 sbG o ~=17 1.95 Acres _1 City of Encinitas 39 738 1 36 nliv is 17 Iii 3 b65 40 I —.J3 255-O4O-4 ... ,25&-040-1J / 4.7O Acre s mornpon 41.86Acre8: . I Map No. 11921 Property _J k___- . - Willow Creek . . . --------------. Bridgewater oil T I --- No' S ....;:•.... 11T o .• .7 N . Olivenhain Road Allgnmeht Calculated Existing Noise Levels 0 200' 4OO . . . -Eastern Road Segment LEGEND. brian F moonuip -• . —65 Noise Level Contours, Decibels, Ldn ptarng. design &envhonmental studies .60 Noise Level Point Locations, Decibels, Ldn . Figure 3.6-3 Il I evening hours of 700p m to 10 OOp m, in addition to a 10 dB nighttime houradjustment The unit of measure for the measured values in Figure 3.6-1 is L, the average noise level for the penod of measurement. The measured noise levels should not be directly compared with, ith calculated noise levels because the traffic volumes and mixes for the two situations are different, as well as are the units of measure The relative differences between noise levels at various point locations, on the other hand, can be compared. This companson is a means of verifying the model calculations, and is I used to confirm and adjust absorption and shielding parameters in the model For existing traffic volumes, average noise levels at the edge of the right-of-way (ROW) in the widened part of Ohvenham Roid (eastern mad segment) are 72 dB Ld, Existing traffic noise levels in the rear yards of homes on the north side of this road segment range from 56 to 624B, Lth, On the south side of this road segment, noise levels in the residential areas range from 55 to 60,4B- La,, Noise levels at second-story receptors on the north side of this road segment are 3-5 dB higher than ground floor noise levels, and range from 60 to 67 dB L11, Noise levels at the second floor elevations of two-story homes are generally higher due to less noise attenuation by the existing walls Existing traffic noise levels'at 50 feet from the centerline of the two-lane western segment of Olivenhain Road, without the influence of vehicle noi se frmo El Camino Real, is 70 dB L 1, Existing traffic noise levels at the El Camino Real ROW, south of Olivenhain Road, is76 db L I 3.6.1.1 City of Encinitas Noise Guidelines H , The following policies, which are1 stated in the Noise Element of the Qty of Encinitas General Plan, are applicable to the asessmentof project-related traffic noise imacs:'. I Policy 11 If a project would increase the traffic noise level by more'than 5 dB and the resulting L would be over 55 dB, then mitigation measures must be evaluated. If the project, or action, would in ceaser traffic noise levels by 3 dB or more and the resulting noise' would exceed '60 dB in oUtdoor use areas in residential development, noise mitigation must be similarly, evaluated. Policy. 1.6:, Include noise mitigation measures in thedesign of new roadway projects Policy -13: Apply Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, associated with noise I insulation standards, to single-family dwellings Policy 21 Any project which would be located in a normally unacceptable noise exposure area, based on the: Land Use Compatibility. Guidelines, shall require an acoustical analysis. Noise mitigation in the future shall be incorporated in the project as needed. ' m-59 1' The City.. of Encinitas NoiseOrdinance limits the hours ofcónstructiOn;to 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.; p.m.;t, Monday through Saturday. No constructibn is allwed on Sundays or. 'hohdays No construction equipment is allowed to be operated that would cause noise levels at a developed residential property to be in excess of 75 dB for more than eight hours 3.6.1.1 City of Carlsbad-:Noise-.,Guidelines The Noise Element of the City of Carlsbad General Plan is in the pfocessof being updated and amended. The current-,,,governing document is Pi4nning Department Admnistratve Policy No 17, which is applicable to proposed new residentil projects of five or more dwelling units The City of Carlsbad has no current policy document relating to the assessment of impact and mitigation measures from projects which mcreae vehicle noise levels to existing sensitive receptors.4 4 3.6.2 Impacts: 36.21 TrafficNotse TheCircuIauon Element of the City, of Encinitas peneral Plan forecasts future traffic volumes on: Ohvenhain Road and El Camino Real, south of Olivenhain Road,to be 48,000 ADT and 55,000 ADT, respectively These values are,use for analysis of future trafficnbide impacts The General Plan designates both roads as Prime Arterials, with steeds of 45 mph on Olivnhun Road-and.-5.0 t mph on El Carnino Real This mdiates an increaser in trafflsi' spedd for only the westerly end tof Olivenhain Road. Although botl roads would have six lanes, the in, in traffic volumes would result in levels oL service ID or 'E,"which implies speeds less than the design speed or alloable speed. Traffic mixes along this road segment would are assumed to be the same as that of existing conditions The western segment of Olivenhain Road would expenence 9icreases in both traffic volumes and speed, resulting in vehicle noise increases of about 6 dB at the ROW edge Increases in traffic volumes along El Camino Ra1 would also increas vehicle noise levels at the ROW edge by 2 dB (Tigure ==s.e.. in future traffic volumes along the eastern section of Olvenhain Road would levels along this segment by about 4 dB, or 76 dB L, (Figure 36-5) Within the Willow Creek/Bndgewater subdivision, on the south side of thisroad segment, noise lvels 'ou1d increase to 58-64 dB Ldfl Noise leyels on the north side of this road segment, 1. within the Rancho del Ponderosa and Santa Fe RKge subdivisions, would increase to 64-66 dB Lth,. Noise levels at elevated, second-story receptors along this road segment wôild also increase, ranging from 65 to 70 dB L in the Rancho dcl Pndemsa and Santa Fe Ridge subdivisions 71 noun cc ii 65 , o I 255-024-0 mum 1 13.65 Ac 75 s Eli I I. .cwjI okil LL.I bric1nFrnooncz N A Jng. design &enviroentaI studies (1) 6 100' 26(Y - - - u- \ -' - — - - — ... I. •.• -/ . 72 6 64 .* 138O c res ti C I .L1 I AoRZ 't1 WHO PH I E1 65 77.7 / .... . - es 60 255-040-06 gp 10.51 Acres £04 •• •• 1 . • . Olivenhain Road Alignment Future Noise Levels .-. Western Segment (Proposed Alignment #2) Figure 3.6-4 0. Iola Santa F w 38 Rancho Del Ponderosa 37 1jIk \ Map No. 8145 Map No:362 unit 5 . L _Unit 1 44,-- . . / 195A ole -10 Tiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 76 — 4,.- 18 1716 15 14 6 — - 65 - 40 / 6O / 1 13 01. 4.7pa8 33 7-255-0 4 Ar 41 6 41 I Map No. 11921 Thompson Willow Creek Bridgewater tow 00 Its I N Olivenhain Road Alignment ED 260' 460' Future Noise Levels — Eastern Segment bricin,E moonc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -. plan,*ig. design 6 environmental studies . . . Figure 3.6-5 - .-.. 'I 1 3.6.2.2 Construction Noise Proposed construction activities associated with road widening and realignment would also I generate noise. The principal noise source from construction equipment such as bulldozers, backhoes, graders, trucks and payers are diesel engines. Compressors or impact tools, such as I jackhammers, if used, may also emit significant noise levels. A commonly accepted value for construction site noise is 89 dB L, measured at 50 feet from the noise source. This noise would decrease at a rate of about 6 dB per doubling of distance. Thus, construction noise levels would I be 83dBL1 at 100 feet, and 75dBLat250 feet from the edge of the proposed 50-footwide construction easement on the south side of Alignment #2, and from the edge of the 15-foot wide easement on the north side of grading required for the proposed road. This construction noise I would be intermittent, which is typical of such activities. Most of the proposed construction activities would take place at the western end of the project route. At present, there are no residential land uses directly adjacent to that section of the roadway. I 3.6.2.3 Existing Residential Areas Within the City of Encinitas Future traffic noise levels in the Willow Creek subdivision would range from 60 to 61 dB L, an increase of 4 dB over the existing condition. The 60 dB threshold value established by General Plan Policy 1.1 (for noise level increases between 3 and 5 dB) would be slightly exceeded for properties at the western end of this subdivision. Future traffic noise levels in the Bridgewater subdivision would range from 60 to 61 dB L, with existing noise level increases of 1-3 dB. But, these noise level increases would not exceed the standards of Policy 1.1. IJ Proposed road widening adjacent to the Thompson property, just east of the Bridgewater subdivision, would result in moving the roadway closer to this existing residence, with the I provision of a 12-foot high slope or retaining wall. Future noise levels at this property, however, would not change. The existing and future calculated noise level will remain at 68 dB L. Proposed grading in this area would provide shielding to offset anticipated increases in vehicle noise generation. 3.6.2.4 Existing Residential Areas Within the City of Carlsbad Because there is no City standard governing noise impacts for existing homes from proposed road projects, Encinitas General Plan Policy 1.1 is Used to evaluate future traffic noise impacts in the Rancho del Ponderosa and Santa Fe Ridge subdivision areas. Future traffic noise levels in these areas would range from 62 to 66 dB L 1,, which represents increases of 4 dB. Thus, all of these properties would experience noise increases which exceed the standards of Policy 1.1. It should be noted, however, that projected traffic noise levels ranging between 62 to 66 dB Ld. would be within acceptable noise level limits (i.e., 65 dB L) established by other jurisdictions, such as I the City of San Diego. Therefore, some flexibility as to strict application of Policy 1.1 standards is permitted, subject to approval by the City Planning Director, for such situations as presented by the proposed project. I I Future traffic noise levels at the second floor 'of hàmes within in the, 'Rancho del Ponderosa and Santa Fe Ridge subdivision areas may exceed the 45 dB La,, standard for interior noise established by Title. 24 of the California Administrative Code.-,,Noise levels,outside the second floor windows would range from 65 to 70 dB L If thbse h1.omes have inechamcal ventilation which allows comfortable occupancy with the windows cosed, and if the windows provide a good seal, then the noise attenuation characteristics are probably adequate to avoid a significant, impact. 3.6.25 Encinitas Creek Riparian Area The' undeveloped property south of proposed Alignment #2, between El Caniino, Real and the Willow Creek subdivision, contains riparian vegettion Some species of sensitivëbreèding birds have been observed, *in this area or may use" this are in the future, and may therefore be 'disturbed by noise levels in excess of 61 dB L. There is also a potential for construction noise impacts to sensitive breeding bird species in this riparian area. Please Se 'c* to Stion 3.1.2.1.3 of this EIR for detailed analysis regarding potentially significant noise impacts to this adjacent "noise sensitive" biological habitat south. of Oliveñhain Roà. . 3.6.2.6 . Other "Noise Sensitive" Areas Within the Project Vicinity.. Füture'traffic 'noise levels at the Olivenhain Muniipa1 Water District (OMWD) property at the eastern end of Ohvenhain Road, west of Rancho Santa Fe Road, would increase by 4 dB, from an existing 69 to 73 dB Lj,. Most of the OMWD bnldings in this area are windowless, however, so the noise increases would not be noticeable. 'Aiy interior areas with windows,, nevertheless, may experience some noise impacts. Portions of the approved Arroyo La Costa development north of Olivenhain Road and west of the Rancho del'Ponderosa subdivision 'would'.be .sibject to potentially significant nOise.impacts from increased traffic volumes and 'speeds along the adjacent widened road segment There is also a potential for short-term construction,noise i impacts from heavy construction' equipment operations within 250 feet of residential receptors. This may occur at the eastern end Of project route, which is about 250 feet from the 'southwest corner of Rancho del Ponderosa, and adjacent to the Thompson property A violation of the pity of Encinitas Noise Ordinance at these locations is very unlikely, however, because normal road -construction, operations do not generate' high noise levels in one location for extended, periods. ' .. It should 'be noted that most of the 'noise impacts described alx)ve may be'attribued to anticipated increases in traffic volumes in the project area, independent of the proposed project, with, the remainder of these impacts attributed directly to 91e project As build-out commences, future traffic analyses for new developments in the area may provide additional information that could be used for a more accurate quantitative differention between project versus non-project traffic 'volume increases, and the 'correspOnding increases in traffic noise levels. , ifiM fri.. I. .. 1 3.6.3 Miti2ation Measures 3.63.1. Plior to road construction, the:wâll at the west end of Lot :39 of. the; Willow Creek V subdivision shall be extended southward for a distance of 30fee4 and theheight of this wall shall be raised to six feet. The wall adjacent to the -entire southern edge of Olivenhain Road, and extending down Amargosa Drive, shall also be increased in height from six to seven feet. This I . mitigation measure would reduce future traffic noise impacts to existing residential areas adjacent to the south side of Olivenhain Road to below -a level' of significance, in conformance with the I thresholds established in City of Encinitas General Plan Policy, 11 ................................................ 36.3 2 As stipulated by Policy 11 of the Encinitas General Plan Noise Element, the I Engineering and Planning departments of the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad shall internally evaluate the feasibility and practicability of a range of applicable noise mitigation measures intended to reduce future traffic noise impacts to existing residences within the Rancho del I Ponderosa and Santa Fe Ridge subdivisio in;; adjacent to the northern edge of Olivenham Road. This evaluation shall include, at a minimum, the possibthty of extending existing walls along the rear yards of these homes If found to be feasible, any proposed wall extensions shall be I constructed of solid materials, abutted directly to the existing structures The wall materials may be masonry, wood, or a transparent material, such as glass or plexiglass Wooden walls should be at least 3/4 inch thick, glass or plexiglass should be at least 3/8 inch thick It should be noted ' that any potential (future) wall extensions intended to reduce traffic noise to exterior and ground floor receptors may not significantly reduce noise levels to second floor receptors I 36.33 The lfbil6wing is listed either as a condition of approval for the Arroyo/La Costa (CT 88-3) tentative map (City of Carlsbad, 1990), or as a recommended mitigation measure in the certified EIR (City of Carlsbad, 1990) for that project In order to mitigate poteR1ally, sigmflcant I impacts to portions of the approved Arroyo/La Costa development resulting from future traffic noise levels along Olivenhain Road which would exceed the City of Carlsbad's 60 CNEL exterior noise standard, noise bamers shall be installed at the top of the slope m this area, to the I satisfaction of the City Engineer. Second-story balconies could require additional mitigation, however, which would be determined when detailed site plans and architectural drawings are submitted for review and approval. I 3.7 PALEONTOLOGY The following discussion is based on a paleontoloical assessment conducted in January, 1991 by RMW Paleo Associates The complete technic yep is include&as Appendñc A1 of this EIR I 371 Existing Conditions Two types of geologic formations ae present within the three project studyareas These formations document some of the major geoloic events that have shape the physical environment of northern San Diego County c Thee formations are Eocene age rocks of the Santiago Formation and Quaternary age marine terace and all deposits Marine and non-marine Eocene age rocks of the Santiago Formation are the oldest rocks to be found in the study areas These rocks are 35 t 54 million years old. A large amount of terrestrial vertebrate and invertebrate fossils have been recovered fom Santiago Formation areas in various nearby North County locations All of these fossils have ben recoverJ entirely from exposures creited by grading activities uaternary age alluvium, which is the other[ type of geologic formation found in the project I vicinity, forms a thin covering over the floor of the Green Valley west of El Caniino Real Scattered exposures of.,Quaternary age marine dep9sits may be present in the study areas Some quaternary deposits may be as old as 1 8 million years but are generally considered to be less than 10,000 tears old. Because of their relatively yung geologic age, these deposits are unlikely to contain significant fossils Fossils of Ice Agearnmals have been thsovered in Quaternary ãg alluvium deposits in San Diego County; however. During a walkover survey, of the project study, areas, iivertebrate fossils were observed at seven locations AlL of these fossils are from the Eoceie age Santiiigo Formation Quatrnary age marine deposits have produced fossil inverterate at localities to the west of the study as. No fossils were discovered in the Quaternary age alluvium or marine deposits within or near the study areas 37.2 Impacts 1 The Santiago Formation contains significant fossils in the Carlsbad area. These fossils represent a significant paleontological resource There is [,a high potential for their discovery during proposed road construction due to the abundance of fossils in the inumediate vicinity of the study area. Project implementation would involve grading activities that may expose fossils in this Formation Potential destruction of any fossils frm the Santiago Formation due to future road grading would result in a significant impact on tle region's paleontological resources, because these fossils can provide information on the age f the Santiago Formation and the diversity of life in southern California during thIiddlEocn.. V H ffl-66 V I I The Quaternary age marine terrace and alluvial deposits within the three study areas haye a low potential for the discovery of fossils because of the absence of fossils in these deposits in the project vicinity. Discovery of fossils in these deposits would provide information on the age of marine terrace deposits and alluvium within the project vicinity. The destruction of fossils from these deposits would represent an adverse impact on the region's paleontological resources. Although Quaternary age deposits have a low potential for the discovery of fossils, it is recommended that the entire area be considered as having a high potential when imilementing mitigation measures. This recommendation is based on the fact that Quaternary age deposits are located above the Santiago Formation, and form a layer of varying thickness over this Formation. Because of this, grading aàtivities may expose the "fossil rich" Santiago Formation at varying rates, depending on the thickness of the Quaternary layer above it. Therefore, it is desirable to have ample mitigation measures being carried out over all three study areas. 3.7.3 Mitiiation The following mitigation measures would reduce the proposed project's adverse impacts to the region's paleontological resources to an acceptable level. These mitigation measures have proven successful in protecting paleontological resources, while allowing the timely completion of other projects in southern California. 3.7.3.1. During proposed road construction, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of excavations and, if necessary, salvage exposed fossils. The frequency of inspections shall depend On the rate of excavation, the materials being excavated, and the abundance of fossils. In areas of high potential, monitoring shall be full-time, initially. 3.7.3.2. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or re-diret grading in the area of an exposed fossil to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage. 3.73.3. Due to the small nature of some fossils in the study areas, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for processing through fine mesh screens. I 3.7.3.4. Any fossils collected shall be prepared to the point of identification and properly curated before they are donated to their final repository. 1 3.7.3.5. All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. I I 3.8 WATER OUALITYIHYDROLOGY. A water quality and hydraulic analysis for the prposed project was coiducted by Nolte and Associates in February, 1991 The following section provides a summary of their technical report, which is attached as Appendix 12. Although this study focused on the proposed Alignment #2, any impacts from the alternative alignments were also analyzed. 3.8.1 Existin2 Conditions - 3.8.1.1 Water Ouality Encinitas Creek borders the alternative alignments study area to the south. This creek' has a drainage basin of approximately 73 square miles and empties into Batiquitos Lagoon to the north This drainage basin makes up 14% of the total Batiquitos Lagoon watershed. Impacts to the Creek may, therefore, directly affect the Lagoon. The proposed project would affect a 0.6 square mile sub-basin of the Encinitas Creek drainage basin. To date, no surface water quality tests have been performed for Encinitas Creek. Batiquitos Lagoon enters the Pacific Ocean between the City of Carlsbad and the Encinitas community of Leucadia. The lagoon waters are extremely shallow (6 to 12 inches in depth) Except after major storm flooding, the Lagoon is blocked from tidal exchange by a naturally- created beach berm just west of Pacific Coast Highway. During summer months, evaporation rates, exceed freshwater inflows, resulting in decreased water level and increased. salinity of the Lagoon. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) maintains water quality standards for Encinitas Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon (Table 3.18-1). RWQCB performed routine water quality sampling in Batiquitos Lagoon monthly from January 1979 through December 1982. Water samples were analyzed for the following contents: 'total phosphate, orthophosphate, nitrite, ammonia, total organic nitrogen, total dissolved: residue, turbidity, conductivity, total' suspended solids, volatile suspended sediment, and settleable residue Table 3.8-2 shows the nutrient values of the Lagoon water. The water quality test results varied with season and year. BecauSe of the vanability in results, it is not possible to determine the impact that the project would have on water quality of the Lagoon. ' Although no test 'borings have been performed to determine the depth or quality of groundwater within the three project study areas, there have been groundwater tests performed on other prodmdly located coastal plains. It can be assumed, therefore, that the groundwater in the study areas would be similar in chemical composition to these other areas. Groundwater occurring in the coastal plains is generally high in sOdium chloride and has a high concentration of' total dissolved solids (TDS) that range from 500 to 5,000 'mg/L , The •poor, chemical quality of groundwater in the area can be attributed to brackish waters that exist-in Batiquitos Lagoon Groundwater does not appear to be a significant source of water for the Lagoon, however, due to a surface layer of silty clay soil that prevents large amounts of lagoon water from percolating into the subsoil. 4 4 I TABLE 3 8-1 1 WATERQUAUTY STANDARDS FOR ENCINITAS CREEK AND BATIQUITOS LAGOON I CONSTITUENT 14 INLAND SURFACE WATER4 , GROUNDWATER U Total Dissolved Soli& 500 1000 Chlorides 250 ' 400 % Sodium 60 60 Sulfates 250 500 Nitrates - TO I Iron 03 03 Manganese 7:0-05 , 0 t051, 1 Methylene Blue o s O.5 Active Substances (MBAS) i Boron 050 050 4 I Odor None Npne Turbidity UTU) 20 15 I Color (Units) 20 15 Fluoride 1.0 7. 1 0 I I 5 Concentrations not to be exceeded -5 more than 10% of the time during any one year period I4 (mg/I or, as noted) 1 S ource San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board I 1 I I: 1 111-70 4 I TABLE 3 8-2 'I BATIQUITOS LAGOON WATER QUALITY (January 1979 to De&mber 1982) I Eastern Basin Western Basin Constituent ' Summer Winler Summer Winter I Total Phosphates (mg/1) O'.50 -036 0.34— 0-.23,' I Total Inorganic Nitrogen (mg/i) 4'.58 ' M9, Q. 85 1 47 I Total OrgarncNitrogen (mg/i) 4 22 2 01 2.42 2 00 Chlorophyll-a (gIl) 12 00 4 30 5 3b 5 10 I Salinity (ppt) 18 6 15 8 31 8 24.8 Turbidity (JTU) 26 60 10 29 I Source San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Currently, there are no sigmficant erosion problems occurring withm the study areas Agricultural I activity withm the Encinitas Creek watershed contributes to some erosive soil loss, however The existing sediment load for Encinitas Creek was estimated by CH2M Hill to be 12,940 tons previously of fines (silts and clays) per year and 6,295 tons of sands per year In order to provide flood attenuation and lower the sediment load carried by Encinitas Creek, the construction of detention basin "D' dike has been proposed (see Figure 23-3). I 3 8 1 2 Hydrologic/Hydraulic Regime In the past, a 1,500-foot segment of Olivenhain Road easterly of its intersection with El Camino Real has been inundated by the 100-year peak discharge of Encinitas Creek prior to the construction of "A" detention basins and '.B"; A drainage'study'perforfnedby Dr. Howard Chang 1 I 111-71 I the proposed project In this report, a HEC-1 flood Ijydrography study was cànducted in ordir to determine the hydrological conditions in the Encinitas Creek watershed based upon ultimate development of the area The 100-year peak discharges computed from the HEC-1 analysis were used as input to the HEC-2 water surface profiles jmodel in order , to determine the 100-year floodplain for Encinitasi Creek Within the Olivenhain Road study area, the 1007year peak discharge for the local area draining into Encinitas Creek is 3611 cubic feet per second (cfs), as compared to a 100-year peak discharge of 4,725 cfs for the entire Encinitas Creek watershed The computation of these flows assumed that no detention facilities were constructed Two 4etention basins are currently in place within th Encinitas Creek watershed "A" and "B' They are located approximately 2,600 and 500 feet, respectively, upstream of Rancho Santa Fe Road Detention basin "C" is approved and soon-to be constructed Figure 3.8-,j shows the locations of these detention basins, as well as the future detention basin "D" With detention basins and "C" in place, the 100-year peak discharj for the entire basin is computed to be 3,450 cfs With detention basins A", "B", "C", and "D" in place, the total 100-year peak discharge is computed to be 2,926 cfs The 100-year peak discharg which contributes directly to the Olivenhain Road study area remains constant throughout all conditions, since its drainage basin is downstream of detention basin 'D" 382 Impacts 3 '8.2 1 Water Oualitv The proposed project is not expected to create significant water quality impacts within Encinitas Creek or the downstream Batiquitos Lagoon 'there 'could be a temporary increae in turbidity and/or total suspended solids (TSS) during the construction phase of the project, but no surface or groundwater impacts to any of the components listed[ in Table 3 8-1 are expected Due to the increase in traffic and asphalt surface area, slight increases in grease and oil residuals runoff may be expected Sediment transport is expected to decreae due to the increased paved area Finally, 2-;slight increase in turbidity may also accompany proposed construction of the detention basin "D" dike I 3 8 2 2 -Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analyses Proposed widening of Olivenhain Road to a six-lane facility would riot significantly impact the 100- year floodplain of Encinitas Creek A slight increase in runoff volumes to Encinitas Creek would occur, however, due to an eight-acre increase in the 1mpervious area But, this equates to an increase of only 0 01 square miles, or approximately 2 of the entire drainage area of the Creek Proposed construction of the.detention basin "D" dike would. further reduce the 100-year floodplain, as compared to existing floodplain limits with detention basins 'A" and "B" already in place It would also-increase flood velocities at the upstream side of the bridge at El Camino Real from 1 to ,6 feet per second (fps). 111-72 I I 1 Proposed construction of the detention basin 'D" dike would also result in some positive impacts on the Encinitas Creek drainage basin. The 100-year peak discharge would be reduced from I 3,450 to 2,926 cfs, which narrows the 100-year floodplain for Encinitas Creek downstream. In addition, the culverts beneath the bridge at El Camino Real would convey the 100-year peak discharge without inundating this intersection, Among many possible sites. for the future I construction of detention basin 'D", the proposed site is the most effective for flood discharge attenuation in the Olivenhain Road project area. I 3.8.3 Miti2ation 3.8.3.1. In order to protect the surface aicd groundwater quality Of the area, the following mitigation measures are recommended: 3.8.3.1.1. Debris fences and screens shall be stationed downstream from areas where grading I activities are occurring, but outside the sensitive wetland habitats mapped for this reach of Encinitas Creek (see Figure 3.1-1). -. i 3.8.3.1.2. Any temporary dam shall only be constructed of material such as clean gravel which will cause little or no siltation. 3.8.3.1.3. Except as shown on approved plans, no riprap, rock or other impermeable materials shall be discharged into Encinitas Creek. Is 3.8.3.1.4. Any temporary fills shall be constructed of non-erodible materials and shall be removed immediately upon completion of the work. 1 3.8.3.1.5. Except as required to move existing vegetation and earth to construct this project; and except for those materials and measures used in the construction of this project; no debris, soil, I silt, sand, bark, slash, sawdust, rubbish, cement or concrete or washings thereof, oil or petroleum. products, or associated activity of whatever nature shall be allowed to enter into or be placed where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff into Encinitas Creek. I 3.8.3.1.6. Any vegetation removed for initial construction shall be replaced at designated locations (see Figures 3.1-7a and 3.1-7b) with comparable species, and at replacement ratios set forth by the relevant resource agencies (see Conceptual Revegetation Plan, Attachment 1 of Appendix 5, for required specifications).. 3.83.1.7. At completion of construction operations, any excess materials or debris shall be removed from the work, areas. I I ffl-73 El I 3.8.3.2. In addition to the above measures, a Repert of Waste Discharge (RWD) shall be filed withthe RWQCB for the waste discharge requiremnts of this project. Momtoring and reporting of water quality, may be necessary as part of the w1~7aite discharge equireme1.nts This would allow for the identification of water quality trends, and the separation of Olivenhain Road impacts from upsiream impacts 3.8.3.3 Bridge plans for the El Cammo Real bnde just south of Ohvenhain Road intersection indicate that riprap protection is in place approxim4tely 20 feet upstream and downstream of the bridge, ti but is currently silted over. Prior to road construction, the status and condition of this nprap shall be inspected to determine if it is still providing adequate prot6cti&lk against scour from erosive v o n elocities the upstream side of the El Camino Real bridge Provided the nprap is still in place and providing adequate erosion proecfton, no other forms of mitigation shall be required to protect the bridge piers and abutments from local scour If the existing nprap is not providing adequate erosion protection, a detailed Iydrauhc analysis shall be conducted prior to approval of final roadway improvement plans t6 determine additional mitigation measures necessary to protdct the bridge I I I I 1 I 1 I I I 111-74 : I i 3.9 COMMUNITY CHARACTER/VISUAL RESOURCE 3.9.1 Existing Conditions The community character surrounding the alternative alignments study area is semi-rural with some mixed land uses that include commercial, public and residential. Rural areas within the project vicinity are being replaced with newer residential units on smaller lots. Larger tracts of land are being developed, leaving small portions of land unimproved. The community character of the area is changing from that of a rural community to a new "bedroom" community. This change in community character is due to an increase in new development on previously undeveloped land. A street tree theme, consisting of planted pine and eucalyptus, exists within the developed portions of the Olivenhain Road study area. This theme is implemented through landscape plans required by the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad. The north side of the street is landscaped more densely than the south side. A noise wall extends along the southern edge of the road right-of- way (ROW). The undeveloped land surrounding the intersection of Olivenhain Road and El Camino Real consists of disturbed sage scrub and riparian vegetation communities. The City of Encintas General Plan identifies El Camino Real and the future extension of Leucadia Boulevard to the west as "Scenic Highways". The area surrounding the intersection of Olivenhain Road and El Camino Real is designated by the General Plan as a "Scenic View Corridor". This Corridor begins at Garden View Road and continues north to La Costa Avenue (Figure 3.9-1), and has significant aesthetic and visual resources. The Resource Management Technical Report of the Encintas General Plan designates this area as a "High Sensitivity Area", and is considered ecologically significant by biologists and naturalists (Figure 3.9-2) due in part to the extensive riparian woodland along the Encintas Creek floodplain. El Camino Real parallels the east side of this riparian woodland northward to Batiquitos Lagoon. Figure 3.9-3 is a map of the project vicinity showing the photo vantage points. The Olivenhain Road project study area is most visible to those traveling north on El Camino Real. The study area becomes visible at approximately one-half mile south of the existing road alignment, as one approaches the intersection of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road (Figures 3.9-4 and 3.9-5). Residences located on the tops of bluffs to the south and west of the study area have clear views of the existing alignment and its intersection with El Camino Real (Figures 3.9-6 and 3.9-7). Residences along Scott Place and Starfiower Road to the south of the study area have downward views of Olivenhain Road, as shown on Figure 3.9-8. The Thompson residence is a single-story home situated approximately 12 feet below and 80 feet away from the existing roadbed. Elevations rise to meet the road elevation on both sides of this property. Existing plant material on the road bank adjacent to this residence consists of a mixture of ornamental shrubs and native species which partially screen views of Olivenhain Road (Figures 3.9-9 and 3.9-10). 11 M-7 5 I N ED 0 500' 1000' bricin F mooncp planning, design & environmental studies Olivenhain Road Alignment Vantage Point Locations I SOURCE: U.S.G.S. 7.5' Quad Map (Encinitas & Rancho Santa Fe) v:tI • . ; 01 OLIVENHAIN ROAD --ioO- ,,• ,- (Existing Alignment) _.ç. 0" \__•._ 1: \ -'CA) -7r- 11 t - I I 'I I 'I I I I I LI Figure 3.9-3 ft I ." W,14~7` ti ,ji flhIIji,..hI, ¶ 1 ......... ,i..rpilijlllljil IIIIP. .1, .Y..... i\hi .\ loll. IllilIlllll101II',IjJW '1L .1 ,I,IMIhmçiclpl,TWItlfh0W0. , J I If l lA1 - 4 lt Ni lIIl u m il I - hijjiiji i ,j. ii slit 5 1 liii J IT I j oil 111,11 5 ljImIIi jj I i( li I ii .Ilk IIU S.- •fl •• .. .. ""'° . .'5.,...oi''ii till ..,.. ....,.,,, 5, WilI0II'''LS'55io. ,S,fllfl!OOlUfi ,4.'E . •' 0 ,,, 1,SO!fl.'fl1fl11J ' J,A'$"ft4" •.' !SSflthl,'b1t SS, ?i5i..Oo55iIiP'"45IyT0' I I'S '''''""J'I5 ,i55ii .........)5Jl.iiT"°"5II'4II.T.... i5""5'l'I5l 15 " s'..°4JF I' 0 "'l"II flSfl4flfl 1fl ••SS,S •, 9JIAY1th77I7Yj Road WT Vantage Pol, S - S AhIunhIn Rnar 771, , :... , ,!,,, ,,, f. - V V ' V V V i r ¶,ttl.1I1I! V S iii.t IJIlI'V II I IVII!P1 P1 41.•fll!, II •VI &lI.M, ,iIii 111111 .11,, .11,11.1! .IIRl 1I,,"i ,,IlI,' ; I l! V I! .I,1!lI tlI,,U Al ,IV Ill Ill! II 111111111110", -V — .L r'_: ••.—.-o. . , •"' t 4 V V V I A V - V I 1 •= V fit V ft VIA f)0 fIAVtViVV , M V V RE Mam 7f V V )0V 1 Vt 00 NOW ,j V • , A' V V V + / V LVr.' '' ,,,0101 "t'l,, Vl",,1,,, ",,,,,,,''" ••.. ''Vl,fll. '" ' '" '°"" '""""" ]Ipzi, i.77/T:?77r YIn i,i,, r-iii (LOOKIfl9 west trom ei • flhivnhain Rna A. - ,-- - - - j•_••-•• 4 j-- ------- --'-- - - -'.- -,- - .:-.. ----- 7 •--' --- '_--S:-._.-,,.-. •'4__ - -.---"- -._\-':r.- •.'4'__ .',--'- ---'-:..-' .. -•.-- #-..,_. '- S It 4 .5 •4_ '5 -4 1A 44- 4. 4 -. - -4 .., r 4 IL "p 71 4 4 .0 ir - -- - .4 - 32' High Cut Slope .-Sr - 1 --- - Proposed Alignment (#2) -- In- I 6 - I wi ly 3 4. .71 c:x. 4 --- -- ---- ---- L__ - - -- - - -•-.•- ----' - ''- - '' . -3-- 44 4 2 O!Ivenhanh4oadAyme,jj - - Vantage Point44 - (Looking Northeast from El Camino Real) :3- brian F M.070 .-AIL - planning design & environmental studios - Figure 39- 7 1 ,' "S"• - 'S $ EIR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- — — — — — — — — — — — :— — — — — — - brian f mooney planning, design & environmental studies Olivenhain Road Alignment Vantage Point 7 (Looking East from Thompson Residence) Figure 3.9-10 ID I 1 3.9.2 Impacts I Implementation of the proposed project would impact the visual character of the surrounding area to a varying degree, depending on the location of the observer. The proposed Alignment #2 would entail roughly 57,500 cubic yards of excavation, creating a 2:1 cut slope of approximately I 32 feet in height on the northern side of the road. This cut slope would be considered a significant visual impact to Vantage Points 1-5 (see photo-modifications on Figures 3.9-4 to 3.9- 8). A crib wall of approximately six to eight feet in height may also be required at the southeast I corner of the Olivenhain Road/El Camino Real intersection, but would not be considered a significant visual impact to these vantage point locations, if vegetated. I Two alternative road improvement designs are proposed adjacent to the Thompson parcel, both of which would be considered adverse visual impactsto this residence. One alternative design is to construct a 2:1 fill slope, with the toe of slope approximately twelve feet away from the I residence (Figure 3.9-11). The other alternative is to construct a twelve-foot high retaining wall at the edge of the southern road ROW, which would be approximately 35 feet from the residence. Additionally, a four-foot high chain link fence would be constructed atop either the slope or wall I for public safety purposes. The Thompson driveway would be reconstructed at a 15.7% slope from the ROW edge down to meet the existing property grade. The alternative fill slope design would be more visually impactive than the alternative retaining wall design at the Thompson I..........property; therefore, the fill slope will be used as a "Worst Case" analysis in assessing visual impacts to this residence. Proposed constructionconstruction of the detention basin "D" dike within Encintas Creek floodplain near the eastern end of the alternative alignments study area would not be seen from either existing residential development to the west or motorists along Rancho Santa Fe Road to the east due to I intervening topography, vegetation, and elevation differential. - 3.9.3 Mitigation 3.93.1. Mitigation for significant visual impacts associated with proposed roadway grading shall consist of special grading and landscaping techniques described below. Detailed Landscape and Irrigation Plans for all manufactured slopes shall be prepared in accordance with the cities of Encintas and Carlsbad landscape design guidelines. These Plans shall be prepared by a Registered Landscape Architect who is licensed to practice in the State of California. These Plans shall be based on final Grading Plans to be approved by the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad Departments of Public Works, and shall be submitted to the Citys' Landscape Architect for approval. Prior to final "as-built" approval of Grading and Landscape/Irrigation Plans, the Public Works Departments of both cities shall inspect landscape installation for conformance to the requirements of this EIR and the grading permit Additionally, the contracting Landscape Architect shall certify by letter to the cities' Planning and Engineering Departments that the landscape installation conforms to these requirements. I//fl •• 'H ___________ • •1 :j S1L:L 774- Plan Vjw 4 - •ETINCI SOtffllEMLY EDGE 0c - / OUVE 4Ait4 ¶OAD / , Ex%fl ,OIL' gJp.j octE-O I I P0POD cIR'S,4E0 C,QA £LVPT%0M . 1 t' /GWD io- ! ! / KA%L - g30- AFMX ELEVAMOO \ I 120- S%DEW*I. -: viovos€o.I2 110- SLOM ROADY . MUSEHI&w FILL . - MEDIAN PAPSI(WA( copoo - "Oube TO - - Cross Section - - - - - .011venhè!n Road Alignment. "Worst Case" GradingAltemative for the Thompson Property brian F moona pIanng. design & environmental studies -. - - - - - - -. Figure 3.9-11 - - ----- S S - I The following measures shall be included as key components of the approved Landscape and Irrigation Plans required for all manufactured slopes: 1 3.93.1.1. Final Grading and Landscape Plans for all proposed cut and fill slopes shall portray techniques that enhance plant establishment and ensure long-term viability. This may include I scarification of the cut face by the use of a serrated blade or other methods to create pockets in the cut face where bushes and trees could better take hold. All manufactured slopes shall undulate, including rounding of the tops and toes of the slopes to better blend them into the ' surrounding terrain. 3.93.1.2. The final Landscape Plan shall provide functioning habitat which is self-maintaining. I Drought-tolerant vegetation shall be used to decrease water consumption, as well as provide biological and visual compatibility. Rather than hydroseed treatment alone, increased planting densities for container-grown shrubs and trees. shall be used on all slopes over 20 feet high. I Selection of plant material in the upper or lower 10 feet of all slopes over 20 feet in height shall utilize plants in such a way that visual continuity is achieved. I 3.93. 13. Final Irrigation Plans shall include the use of a drip irrigation system for container- grown plants, where appropriate, particularly on slopes over 20 feet high. The Plan shall avoid over-reliance on impact heads, such as rainbirds, which could saturate the slope,. waste water, and I erode the soil. The slope irrigation system shall be maintained and operated until plant material has established an adequate root system, whereby supplemental irrigation is no longer required I for plant survival. Implementation of the above mitigation measures, along with a monitoring program (to be discussed below), would reduce the visual impacts of proposed cut/fill slopes to below a level of significance. 3.93.2 As opposed to the proposed construction of a retaining wall or fill slope as discussed above, one of the following two alternative mitigation measures shall be implemented during road construction in order to reduce adverse visual impacts to the Thompson residence to below a level of significance: 3.93.2.1. A vegetated crib wall shall be installed adjacent to this property. This crib wail shall be designed in two, six-foot high sections, with a three-foot wide planting area between them. Construction of this crib wall shall meet commonly-accepted engineering practices. The wall itself shall also be vegetated and irrigated as specified by the homeowner, but shall not be unreasonably demanded. 3.93.2.2. Two slump-block retaining walls, similar in color and appearance as the existing four- foot high wall fronting the Willow Creek/Bridgewater subdivision to the west, shall be installed adjacent to this property. These walls shall be six feet in height, with a three-foot wide planting area between them. In addition, a four-foot high slump-block wall shall be installed at the southern ROW edge, at the top of the slope, with a three-foot wide planting area between it and the first retaining wall. This wall shall match and tie into the existing aforementioned block wall I ffl-88 I I I I I I I to the west: Construction of these walls would eiable the Thompsons to retain slightly more I front yard than the proposed and alternative plans, provide the Thompsons a greater degree of safety with respect to possible automobile accidnts, than the proposed plans, and possibly minunize traffic noise to a greater extent than the roposed and alternative plans.,Landscaping and irrigation shall also be installed within the planing areas frohting each wall usmg appropriate groundcovers, vines, shrubs, and/or trees, as speciied by the homeowner, but not unreasonably H de.anded... .,•. 1 .. •. •,•. . .. . 3.9.3.2.3. In addition to the two alternative plans above, any manufactured slopes created on the Thompson property as a. result of the proposed ,r+ject shall be vegetated an.1rrigated. 3.93.3 A monitoring program shall be mplemened to ensure the success of landscaped plant matenal on proposed cut and fill slopes along the ieahgnment of Ohvenham Road. The goal of the monitoring effort is to ensure 80 percent vegetative cover by the end of five years The Monitoring Plan shall implement the following masures in order to meet this goal Within the first year, the contracting Landscape Architect shaq survey all landscaped areas All dead plants shall be replaced with like kind. Any hydroseeded areas not establishing shill be re-hydroseeded. The cause of the failure (ie, irrigation, soil, qover, etc) shall be determined and repaired prior, to re-landscaping the area. A second survey shall be conducted by the Landscape Architect during Fall of the same year to determine plant viability If more than 20 percent of the container stock have not survived, the dead material shall be replaced with, the same type and size as originally planted This replanting shall be acomphshed during Ithe winter months Letter reports shall be submitted to the cities of Encintas nd Carlsbad Planning Departments after each site visit to document the progress of the Landscape Plan The above measures shall be incorporated into -final' project pians and specifications, which shall be reviewed by the respective Planning Departmeits prior to approval by the Cities' Engineers Implementation of the above measures shall e the responsibility of the grading and lanJscape 1 contractors, and are subject to approval by the cities of Encintas and Carlsbad Planning and Engineering Departments 7 1 I I H I ffl-89 I I 3.10 PUBLIC SERVICES/UTILiTIES The following information is derived primarily from the comment letters received from the I various agencies listed below during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) review period for the proposed project. I 3.10.1 Existing Conditions I 3.10.1.1 Water Service The Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD) maintains a 12-inch diameter major water I distribution main along the south side of Olivenhain Road in the vicinity of its intersection with El Camino Real. This 12-inch water main connects with a 12-inch diameter water main in El Camino Real. Water service along Olivenhain Road is provided by service laterals which tie into I this transmission main. Water mains are generally located four feet below the ground surface unless there are conflicts with other utilities (Fontanesi, 1991). 3.10.1.2 Sewer Service The Leucadia County Water District provides sewer service to the Olivenhain Road project area. I.......... Facilities along the existing. road alignment include an 18-inch diameter sewer main, which runs below the roadway centerline from El Camino Real to the westernmost Rancho del Ponderosa -subdivision boundary, and four sewer manholes. This 18-inch sewer main connects with 12- and I 18-inch diameter sewer mains in El Camino Real to the west, at a depth of about six to ten feet (Roehi, 1991). I 3.10.1.3 Gas and Electric Service San Diego Gas and Electric provides service to the project area via a 150-foot wide right-of-way I (ROW) easement crossing Olivenhain Road at a distance of approximately 500-600 feet east of its intersection with El Camino Real (Figure 3.10-1), and gas/electric lines along Olivenhain Road. Major facilities within the 150-foot ROW include 138 kilovolt (kV) and 230 kV overhead I electric transmission lines, a 30-inch diameter gas transmission main (800 psi), and a 10-inch diameter oil line (595 psi) belonging to San Diego Pipeline Company. A gas regulator station I also occurs within this easement, approximately 50 feet south of the paved edge of the existing road and about 20 feet west of the eastern ROW edge. Overhead 12 kV electric lines and an underground four-inch diameter gas main (400 psi) occur within Olivenhain Road. The electrical I lines along Olivenhain Road connect with overhead 12 kV lines along El Camino Real to the west. The four-inch gas main within Olivenhain Road feeds into the gas regulator station south of the road. I ~n I U_I5!1I ] .V : . •-.. . .. ' - ,-$-_ -. - - -' - d-1IllfJ 1 BatQUIIoS agOOfl 9 - - - - t 2 •:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;tPrOjeCt - Route 1 I —. 138KV 230 So'Cal Gas 12.7 5 inches - . N. -, Licad3 Blvd ______- Illu' I GlenA,b Encinitas ' 'Substation jocoi1 u.. 69KV.-"-- Hill — th!lI j1liflifIIJflj. Easement : . •• I - aueza St CD - - = 69KV - : - - - ç -So Cal Gas -. E 1275 inches -' : - I hes 0 f-'-' (,: I- 2000' 4000' - \\ io Lagoon brianF moonap planning design & envuronmentai studies - • . .. - :.. ... . -. - - ' Source City of EncinutasGeneral Plan .-. .., -. . .-.- -' Ii I 3.10.1.4 Telephone Service I . Pacific Bell provides telephone service to the project area via a series of underground ducts and connecting conduits within the Olivenhain Road ROW. In particular, twelve, four-inch diameter ducts occur within the southern ROW edge along the 1,200-foot road segment proposed for I realignment, at a depth of about 24 to 30 inches (Buchanan, 1991). These telephone ducts within Olivenhain Road connect with thirteen, four-inch diameter ducts along the easterli ROW edge of El Camino Real. 1 3.10.15 Cable Television Service L. I Daniels Cablevision Communications Center provides cable television service to the project area via a two and one-half inch diameter underground conduit crossing Olivenhain Road along the east side of Amargosa Drive. This conduit is buried approximately 24 inches deep beneath the I eastern edge Of the road ROW. * I 3.104.6 Police Protection The Olivenhain Road pmjet area is' served by both the County of San Diego Sheriff's Department and City of Carlsbad Police Department. The City of Encinitas contracts with the I, Sheriff's Department for law enforcement services. The Encinitas Sheriff sSubstatioñ ii boated at 175 North El Camino Real, Encinitas, and serves the entire North County coastal area south of the City of. Car1sb.d (Hendrickson, 1991). Residential areas south of Olivenhain Road are included in Beat 223, which is bounded by El Camino Real on the west, Olivenhain Road on the 'north, Rancho Santa Fe Road/El Camino del Norte/Carlsbad- City limits on the east, and Encinitàs Boulevard on the south (Schultze,,1991). Average response time for thisBeat during the Fiscal Year July 1, 1989. to June 30, 1990 was approximately 10 minutes for priority calls, and 15 minutes for non-prioritycalls. The City of Carlsbad Police Department is located at 2560 Orion Way, Carlsbad. Residential areas north of Olivenhain Road are included in Beat 46, which is bounded by El Camino Real ' on the west, Alga Road on the north, Rancho Santa Fe Road on the east, and Olivenhain Road on the south (Diamond, 1991). Average response time for this Beat during the Fiscal Year July 1,. 1990 to June 10, 1991 was aiproximately seven minutes for priority calls. I 3.10.1.7 Fire Protectioii/Paramedic Sei4icé . . .. I .The cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad Fire Departments provide fire protection and paramedic services to the Olivenhain Road project are. The nearest stations to the area are located- at 2011 Village Park Way (Encinitas Station #4) at the corner of Mountain Vista Road, Carlsbad Station I. #2 on El Camino Real northof La Costa Avenue, and Carlsbad Station #6near the Rancho Santa Fe Road/Via Estancia intersection (LaMarsh, 1991). According to the City of Encinitas Fire Department, response times for emergency vehicles from these stations to existing residential I areas north and south of Olivenhain Road are plotted by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Response times and routes from the various stations are given below, I *1111-92 i and are based on the "SANDAG Travel Time Study" and response time route maps for the area (Salvati'1991). 1 Encinitas, Station #4 Five to nine minutes via Mountain Vista Road west to El Camino Real north to Olivenhain Road east Carlsbad Station #2 Five to mne minutes via El Camino Real south to Olivenhain Road east. Carlsbad Station #6`_Four to seven minutes via Rancho Santa Fe Road south to Olivenhain Road west. 310.2 Imnacts I 3.10.2.1 Water Service 1 Impacts to the existing 12-inch diameter water transmission line at Olivenhain Road and El Canuno Real cannot be fully assessed at this time given the conceptual/schematic plans depicting the proposed intersection improvements 1 3.10.22 Sewer Service I Relocation of an 18-inch diameter sewer main within the western segment of Olivenhain Road would not be required as long as this line remains within the proposed ROW of the new road alignment, there is no major excavation required for the new roadway cut, and no new facilities I connections are proposed. Af relocation is required, approximately 1,200 linear feet of this line within the existing road segment to be 4eiligned would be moved to follow the new road alignment. The existing sewer facthty would remain in service, however, until the new line has been relocated and tested. As long as standard construction procedures for utility line relocation are followed, no impacts or interruptions to existing service in the project area are anticipated. '110.2.1. Gas and Electric Service Approximately 350 linear feet of the gas transmission main and oil line which occur within the 150-foot wide SDG&E easement that crosses Olivenhain Road near El Camino 'Real may be lowered to accommodate the new profile of the proposed road realignment. The gas regulator station on the south side of Olivenhain Road would not require relocation because it would .renii'' just outsjdethe 50-foot wide construction, easement to the south of the proposed: Alignment #2 Electric and gas facilities witlun the existing 1,200-foot segment of Olivenhain Road to be realigned may be relocated to follow the new road-alignment This may involve the relocation of approximately 1,600 linear feet of an overhead 12 kV electric line and 700 linear feet of underground gas main 111-93 1 I These existing gas and electric facilities would remain in service until all new lines have been relocated, spliced, tested, and in working order. As long as standard construction procedures for utility line relocation are followed, no impacts or interruptions to existing service in the project area are anticipated. Other potential impacts from required utility line relocations, however, could include accidental damage to lines caused by construction or relocation activities and/or public safety impacts from personnel working too close to the lines. In addition, the City of Carlsbad Planning Department commented during the NOP review period that proposed relocation of the regional (30-inch diameter) gas transmission main which crosses Olivenhain Road could I impact riparian habitat within Encinitas Creek floodplain south of the road. As shown on Figure 3.1-1, however, ruderal vegetation is mapped within the area proposed for relocation; therefore, no wetland impacts are anticipated from required lowering of this portion of the regional gas I main. 3:10.2.4 Telephone Service I Relocation of underground telephone lines and manholes along the southern edge of the western segment of Olivenhain Road would not be required as long as there is no major excavation ' required for the new roadway cut or the new alignment does not result in the existing manholes located within travel lanes. If relocation is required, the telephone facilities along the existing 1,200-foot road segment to be realigned would be moved to within the. new alignment. New I telephone ducts would be relocated to a position behind the ultimate curbline of the proposed Alignment #2, if possible, as the roadbed nears. final grade. The existing facilities would remain in service until all new cables have been relocated to their final position, spliced, tested, and in I working order. Safe access into the relocated manholes would be maintained by placing them in an area near the edge of the ROW for the realigned road. No impacts or interruptions to existing telephone service in the project area are anticipated as long as the above methods for relocation are followed. I 3.10.2.5 Cable TelevisiOn Service, Impacts to the existing television cable conduit which crosses Olivenhain Road along Amargosa Drive are not anticipated because roadway grading and widening is not proposed at this road I segment; therefore, relocation of this line is not required. I 3.10.2.6 Police Protection The San Diego County Sheriff's Department, Encinitas Substation, commented during the NOP I review period that the proposed project would have a noticeable impact on traffic flow, particularly during peak-hour commuter periods, from existing neighborhood access points and transition routes in the project vicinity during the construction phase. This may significantly impact law enforcement response time to the affected areas. I p 111-94 I S 3aO.2.7' Firer Protection/Paramedic Service H The proposed project may significantly impact fire potection and paramedic emergency response time to the Olivenhain Road project area, particularl dunng peak-hour commuter periods, should bottlenecks, traffic delays, or detours occur at existiig neighborhood access points and transition routes during ,thè construction phase. • •• 3.103 Mitl2atlon 3.103.1. To ensure that public services ia the project area are not impacted, specifications shall be placed in the construction documents that wouli provide for temporary service connections in the event of anticipated interruptions to water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone, or television lines Any service interruptions from lines that need to be relocated shall be avoided by installing temporary connections during the time period when permanent relocations of these lines are under construction This work shall occur under close coordination between the contractoi and the appropnate utility company representative Furthermore, the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad shall coordinate final approval of roadway improvement plans with the respective utility, companies and agencies listed above to ensure nonLinterference with existing public facthties 3.1032 Grading plans showing proposed changesin elevation over, any portion of the existing potable water lines located within the project area shall be evaluated by OMWD staff and consulting engineers pnor to approval of final project design Prior to commencement of construction, all project drawings andimprovemept plans shall be submitted to OMWD for review of proposed cuts, fills, and changes in traffic loading Any reconstruction or relocation ofexisung waxer, transmisi-ision facilities that does become necessary shall require appropriate advance planning and logistics coordination with OMWD to avoid impacts or interruptions of service to existing customers in the project area. 3.103.3.,-SDG&E tequires, that certain standards be. followed while workir g in.pr around gas transmission facilities The following SDG&E measures, which would mitigate potentially significant impacts to public safety and avoid ac?dental damage to on-site gas transmission facthties, shall become conditions of project approval 3.1033.1. Maintain a minimum 18-inch vertical sparation between any proposed underground utility and existing SDG&E facilities 3.1033.2. Maintain at least three feet of soil covr over the-on-Site'. gas mains at all times 3.103 33. Notify SDG&E pnor to commencem4t of construction activities in the vicinity of the on-site gas mains so that stand-by personnel may be dispatched to the construction site to monitor these activities. • • •;. • . .• .. 3.10.3.3.4... Maintain vehicle access to the SDG&E ROW, both north and south of the proposed road construction area at all times. ., 5: 1 3.103.3.5. No temporary, or permanent structures shall be installed within the SDG&E ROW without prior written approval from its Gas Engineering Department. 1 3.103.3.6. SDG&E's Gas Engineering Department shall review and approve all roadway improvement plans prior to final approval by the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad. 3.10.14. The County of San Diego Sheriff's Department, Encimtas Substation, shall be provided with a copy of the approved Traffic Control/Detour Plan for the proposed road construction I .period.(see "Trafflc/Circultion" mitigation section of this EIR). Concurrent with the-provision of this Plan, the Sheriff's Department shall be provided with full disclosure of all the variables potentially affecting law enforcement response made and time for the project area during the proposed road construction period, such as projected timing phases, levels of service, signage, and detours, as enumerated in this Effi I 31035. The Encinitas and Carlsbad Fire Departments shall be provided with a copy of the approved Traffic Control/Detour Plan for the proposed project (see mitigation measures in "Traffic/Circulation" SectiOn of this EIR) for distribution tothö relevant Fire Station s serving the project area. I II I I I 1 I :1 I 1 I 1'• 4.0 GROWTH INDUCEMENT I Growth inducement refersto the ctors asocated with a prposed project 'hch may have the potential to stimulate rothin an area. General1y, growth-inducing factors are-those which promote the extension of access roads and/or publjc seryices, such as water, sewer, or schools, to an area which hasen resrved in long-raflge planning fo non:urban land uses uini] some, time in the distant futur& The currently proposec Olivenhain Roadnfiprovemeñts would not extend access iadito an area reserved from development, ho.vever, ity facilitate accelerated developnnt in the area I As previously discussed, Olivnhain Road is aetdy experncmg frc congestion and this situation is expected to worsen as future trafflè flows increase The additi6n bf four travel lanes 4ff ' 4 I and a 10-foot wide Ileft turnpocet at the Ohvn1iain Road/El Cannno Real intersection is intended to alleviate congdtion and mitigate the ned for fuither widemng of the1 ro&hay Although Ohvenhnin Road is adjacent to the Encinitas Creek floodplain, cuIrent land uses to the south are fairly intensive 1 Proposed cnstruction of detention basin "D" dike woulfi decreas the remunder of the undisiurbedaia frm the 1O0-y4r.floodplin, but this inoxpe&ed to result in unplanned growth because much of these undevloped ardas are designated as'ai "E" -1 Reserve" by the City of Encinitas General Plan and Zomng maps 1 j I 1 11 H I I' I I I t Iv-1 Il I' I 5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Although the individual effects of the proposed project may be considered insignificant when aalyzed separately, if considered together with other projects presently occurring in the area or reasonably anticipated to occur, cumulative effects may prove to be significant. As required by CEQA, this section analyzes identified impacts of the proposed project in conjunction with other projects in the vicinity (Figure 5.0-1). Specifically, the following projects are included in this I cumulative impact analysis: 5.1 KeyProiectsin the Area 5.1.1 Home Depot Specific Plan. The Home Depot Specific Plan site is located on the southeastern quadrant of the intersection of Olivenhain Road and El Camino Real, within the Encinitas corporate boundaries. The site I consists of approximately 51 acres east of El Camino Real, and includes Encinitas Creek and lowland areas within the 100-year floodplain. The Conceptual Plan proposes to develop 37 of the 51 acres for light industrial, light retail, office, open space, and residential uses. This project is constrained by several environmental factors including the presence of wetlands, sensitive plant I species, and the possibility of flooding due to an inadequate flood control system. I........... 5.1.2 . Arroyo. La Costa Master Plan.. The Arroyo La Costa project site is located on the northeastern quadrant of the intersection of Olivenhain Road and El Camino Real, in the City of Carlsbad. This approved project proposes a low-density residential development on approximately 477 acres, including 1,076 dwelling units, a recreation building, and open space. The approved Master Plan also allows for construction of a community sports complex, elementary school, and junior high school. 5.1.3 The Shelley Property Development . . The Wooley Annexation project entailed an approved EIR for the annexation of a portion of County of San Diego land to the City of Carlsbad. Development of this property was not I proposed in the ER, however, only the annexation of developable land was addressed. The recently proposed Shelley Development is situated on a portion of the Wooley Annexation I . property, and consists of approximately 115 acres in the City of Carlsbad, south of the Olivenhain Road/Rancho Santa Fe. Road intersection. This project proposes a low-density residential development comprised of approximately 256 dwelling units, with open space areas. 5.2 Impact Analysis The following cumulative impact analysis addresses each environmental issue in the order they I appear in the Environmental Analysis Section of this EIR. The projects listed above have been included in the following analysis. LI v-i - -P.-- - SO tO SEE w All _4 pi SO f 000U . ..:,- t sic MA ----- - '.. -. -- .. L H .:. c jr I rnStR cq - ? - 01 c_ I HTE STAGECOACH — —t ---- - ¼ o c - / Shelley Developmentr r • , CoRn ICURVA I Ei(N 0 1 - 0 F I 1OC JR 011venhainRoa1 Al jil lnment Planned Developm:ntin PrJedt Vicinity ol -_±-_,.-. . ', Figure-5.O-1. -: EIR,. - . . - •0- . -- . . -. - I . I 5.2.1 Biological Resources Cumulative impacts with respect to biology would be the net loss of habitats that support sensitive plants and animals. The proposed project's contribution to the cumulative loss of habitats supporting sensitive species in the region include projected impacts to grasslands, chaparral, and wetlands. No net loss of wetland habitats are allowed by the governmental resource agencies; however, implementation of the Conceptual Wetland Restoration Plan, as proposed in the "Biological Resources" Section of this EIR, would mitigate the project's cumulatively significant impacts to these habitat types to a level of insignificance. 5.2.2 Cultural Resources No significant cultural or archaeological sites are located within the three study areas; therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to cumulative impacts to archaeology in the vicinity. 5.2.3 Geolo2ic Hazards All project-related impacts to soils shall be mitigated; therefore, no cumulative impacts to j ) geology , in the project area would occur. The proposed project along with others in the area, would represent an increase in urbanization in an area prone to seismic events As long as they are all constructed according to California Building Code standards, cumulative impacts resulting from seismic events would be minimized. 5.2.4 Traffic Circulation The proposed project would alleviate traffic congestion in the area. Although the projected increase in traffic from other projects would result in cumulative traffic impacts in the project area, Olivenhain Road is designated by both the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad as a six-lane Prime Arterial to accommodate these increased volumes. 5.2.5 General Plan Compatibility Since the proposed project would conform to the roadway design guidelines for a Prime Arterial, as es tablished by the General Plan Circulation Elements of the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad, as well as the County of San Diego, no cumulative traffic impacts would occur. 5.2.6 Traffic Noise Increased future traffic volumes along the widened Olivenhain Road would contribute to cumulative traffic noise impacts in the project area. These cumulative noise impacts would be mitigated for single-story structures and the first floor of two-story structures through the proposed extension of existing noise attenuation walls along the road. These barriers would only be high enough to shield traffic noise from first story elevations. Thus, the projected increase in traffic noise to the second floor of two-story structures along the improved Olivenhain Road would be considered a significant and unmitigable cumulative impact. I 5.27 PaIeontolo2ical Ràources Proposed. Toad.,gradiiig: would not result in significant .cumulative impacts to paleontological resources found near the tifree project study areasJ as long as these activities aie restrictel to within proposed construction easements 5.28 Water Dualityfflydrology I The proposed improvements to Olivenhain Road would result in a slight increase in runcfff volumes into Encinitas Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon downstream of the project area, due to an increase in impervious surface area. Although the incremental contribution from the project to live stream discharge affecting Batiquitos Lagoon is not considered sigiuflcant, whn added to the combined runoff volumes from other projects in the area, long-tern water quality degradation would occur to this watershed. $.2.9 Community Character/Visual Resource Proposed improvements for Olivenham Road would contribute to the significant alteration of the rural community character This change would be regarded as a cumulatively , sigmflcant, unmitigable impact to the rural character of thearea Development plans for the Arroyo/La Costa project show fill slopes on the north side 10f 01ven1!ain Road in excess of 25 feet in height. The proposed Alignment #2 would also affect Lots 24 through 29 of this development by encroaching into the fill slope for this area, thereby, necessitatin the redesign or remo'al of these lots Any reimbursement of costs associated with the required redesign or possible loss of these approved lots, shall be coordinated between the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad. The Home Depot preliminary development pians show that fill would be placed within portions of the Encinitas Creek floodplain in order to ,expand the de 11 velopable areat This would add to the cumulative visual impacts in the area. Finally, fill from the future Wiegand deveiopment I would be-,required to create the side embankmenis of the future detention basm 'D", but no preliminary development plans are available at this time to assess the visual impacts from grading at this location I 5.2.10' Public Services/Utilities Required lowering or relocation of the regional, 3011nch diameter gas transmission main located within the 150-foot SDG&E easement which crosses Olivenhain Road may result in significant cumulative impacts to existing gas service, if road construction were to cause "a'. service interruption or accidental dinizige to this line This pptentially sigmflcait cumulative Impact would be mitigated, however, by establishing tem,oraiy service connè&ions during relocation or in the event of emergency breakage (within 24 iours) I H V-4j I 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT In order to more fully evaluate proposed projects, CEQA mandates that alternatives to their implementation be discussed. These alternatives should focus on the elimination of identified, significant, adverse environmental effects or on the reduction of these effects to a level of insignificance. The evaluation of these alternatives is necessary even if they impede to some degree the attainment of project objectives, or would be more costly. Four alternatives to the proposed project are addressed below. They consist of those reasonable alternatives which would achieve the primary objectives of the proposed action: to expedite traffic flow and reduce flooding along Olivenhain Road. These alternatives were developed with a focus on eliminating identified, significant environmental effects, minimizing these effects to a level of insignificance, and responding to input from policy makers and public agencies. In accordance with CEQA requirements, the "No Project" alternative, "Alternative Alignments" option,, "Grade-Separated Intersection" alternative, and "Alternative Road Widening" options are herein addressed. Each of these alternatives are briefly discussed below, followed by a brief analysis of the major environmental impacts associated with their implementation. 6.1 No Project 6.1.1 Description The existing Olivenhain Road alignment would not be widened to its ultimate six-lane configuration, nor would the proposed flood control improvements be implemented. 6.1.2 Environmental Impacts The "No Project" alternative would result in the reduction of several environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, including impacts to biology, cultural resources, geology, visual quality, paleontology, and hydrology. Implementation of this alternative, however, would result in severe traffic congestion and flooding impacts along Olivenhain Road and at the El Camino Real intersection in the future. 6.2 Alternative Alignments' 6.2.1cit#1So theTh Mi me j] 6.2.1.1 Description This alignment would extend almost due west from the Willow Creek subdivision boundary, (I crossing Encinitas Creek and intersecting roughly perpendicularly with El Camino Real (Figure 62-1) In conformance with the City of '1 I I I I I I I I (I - . -St . . 1 • -. - ..-. •. 4.. - . ....- - •4 ' . - ' .'. 6212..Environmental Impacts • .- 44 .. Jr .. I .2.W14 4.1 - .. 4 ' Implementation of this -alternative alignment would 'require the. consiruc onof ;a'bridge.. ensiuve riparian vegetation associated with Encinitas 'Creek A..majonty., of-this wetland, " vegetation would be4 spanned by the proposed bnge d, but as shownon Table 62-1, alteriative' Ahghmnt #1 would directly impact approximately 138 acres of southern wiUo scrub, 026 acre 41, of coastal freshwaterjnarsh, 027 acre of hsturbed' wetland scrub, 1 46 acres' of ruderal veietatlon, d 100 'acre of disturbed aiea. Iiipacts" to outlièrn willow scrub,4 d coastal fieshvater marsh are coisidered cum ulatively significant The in* tj6 disturbed wtland scrub is' liottconslderedlsigiiiflcant because of its low wildlife value dueto the presence of a hi ., h. 'I percentage 1of nWn-nativespecies Eah alternative alignment I. 'lequire 1 50-foot constructiozieasemeiit from the southernm6st roadvay edge In addition, Ahghment #1 would 4 require a 50-foot cnstrudtion easelr(ent from i ti ts northern roadway,dge, and Ahgnmets #2, #3, ,. and #4 would require ,15-foot constructioh eaT.ements from their n&thern roadway cuts The constructioii"easement for alternative AhgidieTnt#i 'would rsult in temparj impactto;n add1t1ona110.82'acre of sóuihem wi11ow krub,0.28 acre of coastal'fresliwater, nirsh041âcré . . -d...... .. •• • * .• . c. - - of disturbed wetland; scrub, 1.28. acres of. ruderal vegetation, and 008 acre ,o disturbed land.. - "-'i Impact. from Ihis easement to"southern willow. scrub' and freshwater marsh are considered '., 'cumulatively6 sigcnficant, while the: impact to disturbed wetland' scrub' is 'not cbnsiderd :signiflcait... : .. ,.' .•." •;' •• . ' . IL JI 4 t. -._ -, • 4 Remedial grading and iround stab 6& may be required under the roadway.in order to • -• . . .. - • . •. S., -.--.--•_ .., .r- • • ,'-• - -. minimize potential soils settlement. - Thergas . regulator station -locate south of 1exisung - •. 4,- alignment w&ild be impacted ternativeAlignmenr#r-Thisfacthty may need to be relocated further to the-southalong theèxisting 30-inch gas main, if a conflict is determined' during final design Approximately 14,500 cubic yards of fill would be rquired to raisethe '- 4. elevation of the roadbed for this alternative align`iiment from Ranchd del Ponderosa subdivision to jutast of El Canuno Real In"addrnon, "a miximud sloe height of nifie 'feit would be created.fill-slop -Vould-contrast -to Curog npanan vegetanonrresulungin..sighificant visuahmãtsT' I .1.fl -..- •"" •-•--:----;.._ i.': - L-- - ......-. -•' 14 -. . 6.2.2'•Alianment#3: Northern Ali2nment' ;.- .4- - - .- •- ---2:. .--•- 2.2.1DSPtion -. -. -- - .. ':'-- ... ' - -' :.; IL The'alignznent would follow a more northerly route than the existing road to an intersection iith EL Caminó Real (Figure 62-2) This rn altative wöiMd not_allftliE'CitybfCar1sbad's I j)0Tfet1which is standard. The centerline horizontal cuve'wouldbegm at the centerline of • 1El Cmano Real, rnstead of 100 feet beyond the rearof Ahe tiab return, as er standard. The centerlinesintersection of Ohvenhain Road with El Camuio Real would'be"ara7degree-skew,--. - ,—'---------2:--: ... •'-•.- •..- "__. __•.•' - .• -.• , 'sand not_at-th ommended'nghtangle. The.desgn'speed-wou1d-be55-miles per hour & instead of 60 'mph, as per standard.' impienientâtion of this alternative'would reqiire ROW' acquisition west of Rancho del Ponderosa subdivision, the majonty of which consists of land frothtwoparcels ',, '•-,.•- -•• ..r-•, " , If 4 4, - 1_t .4.,. - ,f I -- I 4• V S 4 - ,•- .4. -' -4-. - --_ • ,.4•- 4 • . .'' - - .- VI-3 1 I .4 & ' '_,•* - t -•I. • .t -' - . I 4.41k / . . t - P .• "I S '4 ?.. •. - 4I,, •. 4Z. I -. •s4.. J4k1$4Ifl4• ,. - TABLE 6.2-f SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO VEGETATIVE HABITATS - - WITHIN THE OLIVENHAIN ROAD PROJECT AREA , :.. Ilk .1 Alternative 44 Pro4poêed Alternative 4. AlternaUve t -. Alignment #1 -. Alignment #2 Alignment #3 Alignment #4 Detention Basin "D" I - . -4 . Construction. 14 4' .Construction - Construction- CoitrUction - 'Construction Roads Easement - Road 4 Easement ' Road Easement - Road Easement - 4--' - Dike Easement Habitat Type .14 Southern willow scrub 138 082 0 04; 021 41 ' 0.25 0.35 035 035 . - Coastal salt marsh --- v-- 4. - - k - : 0.26 0.28 - .. . . -- 014 -- O08 . .- .• - . - 016 CoastalfishwateF'nW% - ----- 019 Southern mixed chaparral --. --s-- 033 021 i--- 004 0 11 004 Disturbed wetland scrub 027 041 -f-- 004 ----- 0 19 004 030 0.19 017 Wetland ecotone -- -f-- ---s -- .-- ---- - .4- Ruderal 146' 1.28 47 069 441 075 380 100 089 214 --Diswrbed 1.0:0.08 -0.40 .0.16.---029 S.. - .4. . . .- . • 4.4.. . . -' . . . .: .. --., -- .............-4.. -t-: . i.I... ,.' - Subtotal . '---4'- 2.87 1.45. 1.41... '4.30;1.$9 . .1.24 .2.31'" .4 _4. * 4- • .4 •'-: . .4 .4.-' ..-4. . , j8,. . 4 .......-4- -4 4 -4- -.1i-1 p .44 .... Total 7.24,, 692 . 636 618 355 44.. --- ' b .-- -4 ,, '.-:.--. -44 - - IT - -44.4 . -4 - _5-4•4. -4 .. •404 _: - low PD ' / b MW Ut J. CP 1)1_T.ri 7.2 IienhaIflRoadT1 l,. E. ------ 1' Proposed Alignment N ) '\• . ED No Scale. Olivenhain Road Alignment brian F mod nag ILAIternative#37Northern Alignment ' planntng. design & environmental studies' - - •- -Figure 6.2-2 OURCE: Project Design Consultants - - - 6.2.2.2 Environmental Impacts .. . Alternative Alignment #3 would directly mpactpproxirnate0.25 acre of southern willow scrub, 4.41 acres of ruderal vegetation, and 0.29 acreöfllistiibed land. The impact to southern willow scrub is regarded as cumulatively significant. An additional 0.35 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.08 acre of coastal freshwater marsh, 0.04 acre of southern mixed chaparral, 0.19 acre of disturbed wetland scrub, and 0.75 of ruderal vegetation would be temporarily impacted by the construction easement for alternative Alignment #3. Temporary impacts to southern willow scrub and freshwater marsh from this easement are considered cumulatively significant, while th impact to disturbed wetland scrub is not considered significant. Alternative Alignment #3 may avoid saturated ground areas which may require stabilization. Approximately 50,000 cubic yards of excavation would be required to construct this alignment, creating a cut slope of 25 feet on the north side of the road which may require buttressing. This cut slope would represent a significant visualimpact. The 30-inch gas main and fuel line located within the 150-foot wide SDG&E easement would need to be relocated to é.ccommodate the required road profile.töacc th The constiöf CcritFwalliix to eight feet in height may be required öiTihsoutIrsideof Olivenhain Road, east of El Camino Real, to avoid direct impacts to wetlands in this area; r. . -.---- .-. however, sign ficant--visuaLimpacts may. result from this cnb wallifit'isnot vegetated. 6.23 Alignment #4: Existing Two-Lane Alignment. i 6.23.1 Description This alignment would follow the existing Olivenhain Road for most of its route (Figure 6.2-3), I but Arterial. The !lnic feet as per standard. The-centerline intersection of Olivenhain Road with EfCiino Real would be at I cto:therecommende*right-angle.-.Normally, public agencies would allow a maximum of-i0 dgree skew atan4ntersec-tion. The design speed would be 55 mph, instead of 60 mph as per standard. Implementation of this alternative would require ROW acquisition west of Rancho del J Ponderosa subdivision, the majority of which consists of land from two parcels. 6.23.2 Environmental Impacts . 'U Alternative Alignment #4 would directly impact approximately 0.35 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.04 acre of disturbed wetland scrub, 0.11 acre of southern mixed chaparral, and 3.8 acres I of ruderal vegetation. The impact to southern willow scrub is considered cumulatively significant. The impact to disturbed wetland scrub is not considered significant. Disturbance within the construction easement for alternative Alignment #4 would temporarily impact 1 approximately 0.35 acre of southern -willow scrub, 0.19 acre of freshwater marsh, 0.04 acre of southern mixed chaparral, 0.30 acre of disturbed wetland scrub, and 1.00 acre of ruderal vegeta- I I VI-6 I I I I tj _ Iii 111 I .5 tion. Temporary impacts to southern willow scrub and freshwater marsh from this easement I would be regarded as cumulatively significant, while the impact to disturbed wetland scrub is not considered significant. Roughly 12,000 cubic yards of excavation for this alignment would require the creation of a maximum cut slope of approximately 25 feetbn the north side of the road, which may require buttressing. As with Alternative Alignments #2 and #3, a significant visual impact could result depending on the type of soil material encountered when excavating. For example, because rock slopes do not vegetate easily, significant visual impacts would occur if the excavation is in solid rock. The existing 30-inch gas main and fuel line located within the 150-foot wide SDG&E easement that crosses Olivenhain Road would need to be relocated to accommodate the required alignment profile. 6.3 Alternative Road Widening Option - 6.3.1. Description This alternative involves the widening of another existing or proposed road, as opposed to Olivenhain Road. Several roads were considered. The widening Of Mountain Vista Drive to the 1 south was considered, but rejected because this road only provides access to the community of Olivenhain. The future Melrose Drive connection to the east was also considered as an I alternative. This road would run in a north/south direction from the San Marcos landfill to Del Dios Highway. If this road were widened, its subsequent increased use would not significantly alleviate east/west traffic congestion in the project area. Improvement of east/west traffic flow I is a primary goal of the proposed project; therefore, the Melrose 'Drive connection would not meet this objective. The planned extension of Leucadia Boulevard west of El Camino Real was also considered as an alternative road widening option. SANDAG's traffic projections state that I the primary purpose of this planned road extension would be to route traffic eastward to Interstate 15. The main purpose of the proposed project, however, is to provide westward flow towards Interstate 5. For this reason, the future Leucadia Boulevard extension is not an appropriate alternative route. 6.3.2 Environmental Impacts I' Environmental impacts associated with widening of any of the alternative roads discussed above, would need to be analyzed via CEQA-mandated environmental review guidelines and procedures within the affected jurisdictions. 6.4. Grade-Separated Intersection Alternative 1 6.4.1 Description This alternative would involve raising the intersection at El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road. - Olivenhain Road would still be widened. According to intersection capacity utilization analyses I conducted by the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad (Appendix 8), this intersection would provide acceptable levels of service under buildout conditions. Therefore, construction of a grade- separated intersection is not warranted (please refer to Section 3.4.3.2.1 of this EIR for a detailed - discussion of grade separation warrants for this intersection). I. VI-8 64.2 Environmenti1 ImDacts II Implementation of this, alternative would result increased biological impacts over what is proposed. This alternative would impact an adthti9ial 041 acre of freshwater marsh, 0 14 acre of disturbed wetland scrub, 02 acre of sotthern mixd chapanal,4 4 acres of ruderal vegetation, aiid 1 0 acre of southern willow scrub 1 An increase in impact71, s to public - ---- - -facthties relocations-and poss1ble'service.-inteffuptionscanalso-beexpec ted., .In summary, more. -I __ . environmentiflmpactswould occur from this alternative than from the prdposed projct due to hwid'area, to .. ... t i 1 I I 1 I - . ........................................................ H i I I I Yol I I I 80 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM rES )F MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG. TERM PRODUCTIVITY I S This section addresses -theJongterm effects of te proposed project on the nyironment and impacti th e at narrow th range of beneficial uses of th e envirpnient opose iozg-term r1sk to health and safety Implementation of the proposed project would have a eatre effect on the long-term the This to productivity of physical environment. effect pnmaryrltes the conversion of existing undevelopd land to roadway and flood control improvmnts Shoi-tenn use of the property as open space appears limited, however, as these area aevithn designated right-of-ways, set aside by the General Plans 7of Encnitas and Carlsbad forstret and flood control improvements The long-term pro(-ctve use resulting froth upplemntqon of the proposed project would be the accommoda9on of increased traffic cpabthty withina region with rapidly increasing population I I I F i I c I vffl-1 B -... 100 MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST Mitigation measures which would reduce or ehmiiate potential environmental impacts of the proposed project have been identified in this documnt. The cities of Encimtas and Carlsbad are required to implement adopted mitigation measures In order to ensure compliance, the following Mitigation Monitoring Program and checklist has been formulated. The Mitigation Monitonng Program is intended "to 'be sdministered by the Departinànts'óf Planning (DP), Public Works (DPW), and Code Compliance (CC) of the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad. These Departments, augmented by possble contraöts personnel, shall, be responsible' for enforcement of the zoning regulations It is further intended that funds for administering the Mitigation Momtoring Program be provided on a full-cost recovery basis by the two cities Certifications of Comphance required by other agencies, such as Caltrans, County of San Diego, California Department of Fish and..Game, U S fish and Wildlife Service, and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board shall be secured by the City , of Encinitas 1 Planning Department. No authorization to commence any activity on-site shall be granted except w1th the concurrence of the respective cities' Departments. The following checklist is intended to be used -by. personnel from the above-listed Departments; as the appointed monitoring entities Information contained within the checklist clearly, identifies the mitigation measure, delineates the monitoring schedule and defines the conditions required to verify compliance. Following isan' exp1natkn of the six columns which constitute the checklist. Column 1 Mitigation Measure: -An inventory 4)f each mitigation measure .,is' provided, with. a brief descriptiOn. Column 2 Type: Each mitigation measure classified as either PrOject Design (PD) Mitigation, Ongoing 'Mitigation (OM), or Cumulative Mitigation (CM) based upon,.. the following definitions: . Project Design Mitigation - mitigation which has been incorporated into. the project design (e.g., acoustical barners, road improvements), • , On-going' Mitigation - mitigtion associated with a project over a period of time (e.g., dust control, landscape maintenance); '. . Cumulative.' Mitigation,. - mitigation which requires monitoring . over a greater period of time (e.g., progressive reclamation of mining site). Column 3 . Monitor. Identifies the agency or department which is responsible to determine compliance with the mitigation measure and to inform the City of Encimtas Community Development Departmnt (CDD) regarding compliance. x-1 I 5 4 Column 4 4 4. • 45 Schedule As scheduling is dependeni upon the progression of the overall project, 1 4 specific dates are not used within the "Schedule" column Instead, scheduling • 'of describes a logical succession event (e g, prior -to. occupancy, annual) and, if necessary: delineates a follow-up program.;, ,. f 4_S * 4 '1 - . -'Coluhi 5 4 - U .• - •.1•*4. .. i.:. -* - - .i 4 :5 Reporting Reauirements Tl ¼ status ofon-gomg 'and cumulative S &igation 5 : * measures is to be documented in letter report after each visit The monitor can quickly determine whether a mitigation nieasure has been dbrnpleted by referring to this column Upon satisfaction df the rep&ting rewr6rnen1 listd in this column, the mitigation measure is considered complete Where the "Schedule" I column indicates annual or other bn-gomg mitigation measures, verification of compliance may not occur until completion of the project Information provided ¼ within progress reports twill be helpful m the development of future mitigation I programs - * / 4 S. ¼ • - . ¼ S .5 44 k....4'..'-. rTbi5 Mitigation Monitoring Program4 is to be adopted by the Lead and Responsible agencies upon forriulation of Findings in oidã to comply with the requirements sefforth by Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081 6) ' -01 - I7j ..t. - 4.•: . 4. ;; : -1 .i' -- - I - F' - •- - - • 'NJ.- , 5,. - '-S ) . 5. -- A* 5,. 5.. St. • S - .5 5:4 ' .. - .5 *5 * 4. S - * , 4 , ,..5 4* 45 • 1: • . S .. t .. S 9 5 4. ........* -; S ) . • - - p X-2 4 TABLE 10.0-1 MiTIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST Mitigation Measure Type Moeltar Schedule Repeiling RequIrements Conceptual Revegetaizon Plan Implizaticat Qualified Biologist (Southern Willow Scrub) Qualified Hoiticuhuxahst Landscape Contractor a.. weed control CM Cities DP/DPW Monthly for the first 3 months then Quarterly letter repoeta quarterly thereafter from Ccmshing Biologist b Replacement Planting (based on the following CM CiLy CDD success cnzna) (1) Quantitative Assessments Semi-annually (in late September and mid Quarterly letter reports frjii Febivany) with in-kind replacement between 'Consuhin Biologist to City Belt and line-intercept! surveys to November and January of can growing season, CDI) record shrub and ground cover as follows densities tree and shrub heights Annual letter reports from percent canopy cover for trees and % First year repIaemnn planting if greater Conslihing Biologist tr US - shrub and ground cov& Revegetation than 15% mortality for any species Army Corps of Engineers U S gàalattheendoffiveyearsis- Flsh&WildhifeSe,vice US 40 60% combined tree canopy cover Second yéãF replacement planting if Environmental Protection 30 50% shrub canopy cover greater than 15% mortality for any Agency and California Dept. 2 9% herbaceous cover species and/or less than 50% coverage Fish & Game ad City CDI) 3_9% open groinid Thud year replacement planting if Quadrat2 surveys to record snivivorshipt greater than 159Vinortahifor any, species crown cover tree density and species and/or less than 60% coverage composition diameter at breast height (dth) and foliage volume density Fourth year replacaneni planting if less than 70% coverage Fifth year replacement planting if less than 80% coverage. Consultation with resource agencies if less than 80% coverage (2) Qualitative Assessments CM Monthly for the first yea after installation Quarterly letter reports from Consulting Biologist to City CDD Six,, meter wide belt transects with central line transects shall be randomly established and permanently located within southern willow scrub. Avifaunal surveys shall also be conducted alag the belt transects to record bud species present and any breeding activities taking place on-site The presence of macroinvertebrates and mammals shall also be recorded. 2 ~~~~cstablished-and permanently located within southern willow scrub placed in a north south direcuo across the revegelazion site and cveimg at least ph on, stations shall also be established within the quadrars to visually document vegetational changes-and community developnent. - a - - - - - _ - - - TABLE 10.0.1 (aindnued) MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST Mifigatlon Measure The Monitor Sthle Rqmrftg Requirements 8 perform detailed soils and geologic investigation OM Certified Soils Engineer Prior to approval of final road improvement plans Letter report from Consulting for approved road V.Soils Engineer to City CDD prior to road ccsftuction 9 Review final road improvement/grading plans 0M.Certified Soda Engineer Prior to approval of final road improvement plans Letter report from Consulting within existing utility easements Cities DP/DPW soils Engineer to City CDD prior to road con cam 10 Review final landsàpedlmgation plans for all OM Certified Soils Engineer Peer to approval of final road improvement plans Letter report from Consulting manufactured slopes ICities DP/DPW Soils Engineer to City CDD Prior to road construction 11 Improve El Camino Real from Olivenharn Road to CM Cities-DP/DPW Prior to build-out-Year-2010'.No letter repast required Calle Barcelona to six lane? 12 Augment Randio Santa Fe Road from Ohvenham CM Cities DP/DPW Prior to build-out Year 2010 No letter report required Road to Avenida La Posts by the following a. Signalize the Avenida La Posts intersection b Add lanes at the Ohvenham Road intersection c Add central median to allow turning movements 13 Prepare a Traffic Control/Detour Plan with the OM Registered Traffic Engineer Prior to approval of final road improvement plans Lester report from Consulting ' followingp,rovisionk, Consiniction Supervisor Traffic Engineer to City CDD a. RestnpeOhvenham Road ioprovideon;15 foci wide trafflclane in eath direction b Switch traffic signal at Ohvenhain Road/El Canuno Real intersection to flashing red mode c Maintain 50-foot c&ns*nlcftcn zone from sciuth em road edge, and 15 feet from northern edge di Place construction bamcades with flashing lights in easement areas at 25 foot minimum spacing Landscaping and irrigation for all manufactured roadway slopes per approved plans shall be installed as soon as practical after grading in order to reduce erosion potential on • exposed slopes.. - - This mitigation measure shall be implemented only if the future Leucadia Boulevard extension (between El Camino Real and the existing eastern terminus of Latcadia Boulevard) is not constructed by the Year 2000 - Aft- - - 1 - - - - - - - - . •- - - .- • TABLE 100.1 (cmUnued) * - -' -S '' • -. . - _5. •. - -4-. . F;.. r MiTIGATION MONTOR1NG CHECKLIST .-. S Mitigation Measure •- Type Monitor ' Schedule 4.p: - •- n. . Reporting Requirements - . ., 4 4.-. Install railing with two-way-clear reflectors at . close of working -day at 12 fed ftcsñ centerline .. striping and nimunwn 24-foot spacing . Maintain access to Asnargosa Drive, Los Pinos Circle, and all tdrivevays on both sides . of OlivenuianiRoad .5 4•_S. 5 S . g Install signage per standard specifications Ii. Institute dust abatement measutes',as necessary- •• * -S S-* • S .-.• •. .5) 5 -- . •1. -S • - S.. ., t_ St. 14 in response to comments recieved from County PD Cities DP/DPW During project construction ,. Letter report from CoriutrGcticm DPW during the Public Review Period the following Coinny DPW Supervisor to City CDD at mitigation measures shall also be included as Registered Traffic Engineer completion of imprvemuts required ccxudruons of project approval, and shown Construc*icxi Supervisor cm final roadway improvement plans ,-. - • -.5 . a Construct the Ohvenhain Road/El Canuno Real .f •• S in at tight angles . - .-l4•.-.i - . 14 . •_5 . I-i.-5 4j' b. ;Detemune apprcpnatenght-ofway widths and .. - 4. . . •-. . -" •-. - 5,.,. dustancs required for relinqwshmeiiof access tights 1•- c. Pc adequate sight distance .. . . . . -• . . S. 4- d. Provide the'appropnaze nuxnbeiof, left-turn lanes at the Ohv&iham Road/El Canuno Real intersection . li .. -/ - •_4 • I.., - 15 Adherence to Noise Ordinance limit daily coast- PD Cities DP!DPW. During project grading and construction . Monday report finn ruwon nois and activutiesto less than 75 dB Code Compliance Officer Cities DPW during grading! averaged over an eight hour period 1between 700 Lin. . e k. 5. - ocinstrucuon of facilities oi and 7:O0 p.m Monday through Saturday (no construction upon violation 4 allowed on Sundays and holidays) . * '• '4455 4 5 . . . . •.• .• 4 * •. . . . - ---- - S .:-. . -. . . - - - ;-. • - - - 16 Extend wall at west end of Lot 39 of Willow PD Constriction Supervisor Prior to road construction Letter report from Conszzuctum Creek subdivision southward for a distance of Cities DP/DPW - Supervisor to City CDD at 30 feet, and the height to six fed ccmiplexión of improvements S 4 5 54 5 • ' Adherence to County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District (4PCD) mandatory dust control requirements and Cities' performance standards involves dewatering of ocmstnrction areas to reduce fugitive dust generation during project grading. X-6 •.. . .- S S S. . - -'-- ti •--' -, - - -. .-.. .. . . •. - - . '5 . . ILO REFERENCES, PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 1990 A Policy on Geometric Design of Hi ay rghws and Streets ASL Consulting Engineers 1988 Traffic Analysis for the Arroyo/La Costa (CT 88-3) Tentative Map Draft Environmental Impact Report. I Austin-Faust Associates, Inc 1988 Traffic Analysis for the City of Encimtas General Plan Circulation Element. I Buchanan, Danny, Right-of-Way Liaison Officer, Pacific Bell Telephone Company 1991 Telecommunication with Michael J 3onzales, BFMA (June) Chang, Howard, Ph D 1991 Drainage Study for Encinitas Creek City of Carlsbad 1990 Arroyo/La Costa (CF 8 8-3) Tentati'e Map Final Environmental Impact Report (July31) 1 of I Diamond, Lynn, Research Analyst, City Carlsbai Police Department 1991 Telecommunication with Michael J Gonzales, BFMA (June) I Everett, William T I 1979 Threatened, Declining, and Sensitivi.e Bird Species in San Diego County Fontanesi, Frank D, General Services Director, Ohvenlamn Municipal Water District 1991 Telecommunication with Michael J tGonzales, BFMA (June) Gale, Jun. Traffic Engineering Technician, City of Carlsbad Public Works Department 1991 Telecommunication with Michael J Gonzales, BFMA (June) Gallegos, Dennis and Andrew Pigmolo 1989 Cultural Resource Survey and Testug of a Portion of SiteSDi-4872 (W-982) for the Olivenflain Road Alignment, Carlsbad, California. I Guanies, Ray, Traffic EngineenngTechmcian, City of Encmnitas Public Works Department 1991 Telecommunication with Michael T. Gonzale9,j,,-BFMA,.,( 1 Hector,Susan, and Mac Davis 1989 4`6W Resource Assessment of th Community Bank Project, La Costa, San Diego County I HI Ii I i [I Hendrickson, R, Sergeant, County of San Diego Sheriffs Department Encinitas Substation. 1991 Telecommunication with Michael J. Gonzales, BFMA (June). Jennings, Mark R. 1983 An Annotated Checklist of the Amphibians and Reptiles of California.. JHK & Associates 1990 Traffic Analysis for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Circulation Element. 1991 Intersection Analysis, for Olivenhain Road/El Camino Real Intersection for the City of Carlsbad. Jones, J.K., et al. 1982 Revised Checklist of-North American. Mammals North of Mexico. Kurtz, James P., Senior Acoustician 1991 Personal Communication with Michael J. Gonzales, BFMA (June). LaMarsh, Robert J., Fire Chief, Encinitas Fire Prótèction District 1991 Telecommunication with Michael J. Gonzales, BFMA (June). Mock, Patrick, Senior Biologist, ERC Environmental and Energy Services Company 1989 Personal Communication with Michael-J. Gonzales, BFMA (June). Roehi, Bill, Administrative Assistant, Leucadia County Water District 1991 Telecommunication with Michael J. Gonzales, BFMA (June). Rowson, Mark J., P.E., Project Design Consultants 1991 Contact Memorandum to Michael J. Gonzales, BFMA (February 4).:. Ruth, Michael, Project Hydrologist/Engineer, Nolte and Associates 1991, Telócommunication,with Anne Marie Tipton-Golly, BFMA (May). Salvati, Steve, Management Intern, Encinitas Fire Protection District 1991 Telecommunication with Michael J. Gonzales, BFMA (June). San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 1988. Comprehensive Species Management Plan for the Least Bell's Vireo. Schultze, Lois, Secretary, County of San Diego Sheriff's Department, Encinitas Substation, Tiaffic Division 1991 Telecommunication with 'Michael J. Gonzales, BFMA (May). Smith, Brian F. 1990 An Evaluation of Cultural Resources within the Arroyo/La Costa Project, City of Carlsbad, California. :XI-2 I I LI ãE ;St fate CibfODirtrneifl I131iWG (CDFG)J 199ONaturalDiversity Data Base, SpecialTAii.ls State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 1987 Highway Design Manual. i Tate, James, Jr 1986 The Blue List (National Audubon Society) Villégas,-George, Semor Traffic Engineer, City of En imtas, Public Works Departmeii 1991 Telecommunication with James P Kurtz, BFMA(April) i Weston Prinle & Associates 1990 Tiàffic Analysis for the Arrnyo/La Costa (CF 88-3) Tentatrve . Map Final Environmental Impact Report. Wheeler, Gary P and JackM Fancher I r 1981 San Diego County Ripanan Systems Current Threats an4 Stathary Protection Efforts I Wilidan and Associates 1991 Intersection Analysis for Olivenhain Road/El Caimno Real Intersection for the City of Encimtas I Wonseski, Tony, Project Engineer 1991 Telecommunication with Michael J Gonzales, BFMA (June) 1 I I r I I I I XI-3 I 120 CERTIFICATION 1 r This Draft Environmental Impact Report presents.a full analysis of all thei4entifled resources and iiiformation concerning potentially4 significant environmental effects associaièd with the 1 proposed Oliveithain Road Inprovements Project, s required 1. by the Cahforma Environmental Quality Act. We hereby affirm that to the best ofour knowledge and belief, the statements and information contained herein are in all respcts true and correct. LI4 :• ph cipal Project Manager 1 - This report was prepared by Brian F Mooney Associates, of San Diego, California. Staff members contributing to this report are liked 'below. 'Wi1hsna R. Giiham *Principal Michael G6ria1e Associate Planner/Project Manager Thomas M. Chthy Senior Land Planner Amy Fandel Aistant Environmental Planner Donald E Scoles Assistant Environmental Planner. & John ,R. Cook Sem& Aihaeologist W Larry Swan! Senior Biologist 1 James Kurtz Semor Acoustician 5 Michl Bàksh: Assistant Archaeologist Anne Marie Tipton-Cio1ly Assistant Biologist Af I ' Debbie Surreli Production Specialist • Michael Sctt Gniphic Artist Christy. Rust Graphic Artist I . Ai 4 F Consultants contnbuting to this report include Project Design Consultants . . . . . I . ,Pr. Howard Chang . . . . . GEOCON, Inc. . . . .. . . . RMWPleoAssociates . ., I 44* Nolte and Associates ,.. . . . . 1 4 4* * - I -U. 4 -. .- .• ti TECHNICAL APPENDICES • I . FOR THE FLNAL*. • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT a. I 0 --. •. . - - -• OLIVENHAIN ROAD WIDENING/REALIGNMENT AND FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT - -5-' 5. - ' 5. 3 S • I 0 (SCH# 91011035) -- 5 - . S. * -• - -• -* 4 . 5- 5 * I'•.t; • - - - - U -- ,_ 0• •0 _5 - - • - -': :1 - S - • • _. S, - 0 U. .• ; _ _•5 .4 +• S - Prepirëd for: 2 - 4 5 • I • . A U *5. City of Encinitas • Community Development -Department-' • * 527 Encinitas Boulevaid Encinitãi, California 92024 :-, . • (619):944:5060 I I: U •. 5 • - • • - - Prepared by Brian F. Mooney Associates 9903-B Business par Avenué • 5 San Diego, California 92131 I- -• (619) 5788964 • - • • -* •,,0 - I 5 • .5 - 0 .. • - - ' - - .• .. 4 - . • . S . * 1 * I S January, 1992 S .3- • +0 4,-i £ - - • - •50 -• 4 5 • S •'•S - - •. 01 'a - 0_ - -. :' • 0 • •0 _ + -- - a 0 • S *• I LISTOF TECHNICAL APPENDICES . -. 1 1 1 1 I. I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM FOR OLWENHAIN ROAD INTERIM EXPANSION TO FOUR LANES (Fay Round and Associates) 4 2 NOTICE OF PREPARATION (City of Encmitas) •• I. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING NOTICE OF PREPARATION REVIEW PERIOD . • .•.' . c 4. . DRAINAGE STUDY FOR ENCINITASCREEK(Dr. Chang) 5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT (Brian F Mooney Associates) 6:"CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT (Brian' F. Mooney Associates) . .5 I 7. . .1. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE TECHNICAL REPORT (GEOCON) 8 EL CAMINO REAJ.IOLWENHA1N ROAD INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) I ANALYSES (Cityof Carlsbad and City of Encinitas) . 9. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR EL CAMINO REAL BETWEEN OLWENHAINROAD AND LEVANTE STREET (JHK & Associate), INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION STANDARDS AND RELATIONSHIP TO LEVELS OF:sERvICE (Highway. Ca,aóity Manual), I AND INTERSECTION WARRANTS (AASHTO and Highway Design Manual) 10 ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS TECHNICAL REPORT (Brian F Mooney Associates) 1 ii PALEONTOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL REPORT (RMW Paleo Associates) 12. HYDROLOGY, HYDRAULICS; AND WATER QUALITY TECHNICAL REPORT (Nolte and .1. Associates) 13 LrrERS OF AND RESPONSES TO PUBLIC AND OTHER AGENCY COMMENTS I — I - CASE -NO. DATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I I (To be Completed by APPLICANT) Applicant Fieldstone/La-Costa Associates Ii Address of Applicant 5465 Morehouse Drive, Suite-250.I9 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone Number (619 ) 546-8081 I Name, address and phone number of person to be contacteI hf otherthan Applicant) Mark Rowson, Project Consultants, lUlO Second Avenue Design San Diego, CA 92101 b19-233-b4/1 I GENERAL INFORMATION: (Please be specific) I Project Description Four-1ane interim expansion of Olivenhain Road from Rancho Santa Fe Road on the east to El Camino Real on the west See accompanying1 _OiivenhainRoadRoute Adoption Report fort detailed description.,' . I' Project Location/Address Southern boundary df the City of Carlsbad between 1 ..... . ... -, ,.. - Rancho Santa Fe Road and El Camino Real IN Assessor Parcel Number Varies - General Plan/Zone of Subject Property Six—lane prime artt- ial as shown on Circulation Elements of the General Plans for the cities of Carlsbad and:'EncinataE. Lpcal Facilities Management Zone Adjacent to Zone 12 F Is the site within Carlsbad's Coastal Zone' No Please decrlbe the area surrounding the site to the I North Exiatiim residential & vacant East Open. space & residential South Existing residential & vacant! West Open space & agriculture also OMWD offices r i List all other,.,applicable permits & approvals related to thisproject Grading and improvement plan from City of Carlsbad.1 2 I - I (Please be Specific Attach Additional Pages or Exhibits, if necessary)., Please describe the project site, includ'iñg distinguishing natal and manmade characteristics: Also provide precise slope analysis when a slope of 15' or higher and 15°!. grade or greater is present on the site Project site is approximately one mile in length and encoirpasses the existing alignment of Olivenhain Road from Rancho Santa Fe Road to El Camino Real plus a limited amount of additional right-of-way along both sides of the existing alignment as described in the accompanying Route Adoption Report UrbanlzLd land .uses exist along both'sides of the roadway. EpcinitasCrei parallels the road. Please describe energy conservation measures incorporated into the design and/or operation of the project.' - ... None 3 PLEASE ATTACH A PROJECT SU?Q1ARYSHEET WHICH SHOWS THE FOLLOWING a If a residettial project identify thenumber of uits, type of units, schedule of uiit sizes,ráng'e of sal 6. prices or rejits, and type of household size expected, average daily traffic generation (latest SANDAG rates). b. If a commercial. project, indicate the exact type, activity(ies), square footage of sales area, ave,age1daily traffic generation, (latest SANDAG rates), parking provided; and loading facilities. - c. If an industrial project, indicate the exact type or industry(ies), average daily traffic generatiàn (latest. SANDAG rates), estimated employment per shift, time of shifts, and loading fadlities. d. If an institutional project, indicate- the majors project/site function,, estimated employment per shift,estimatèd äccupancy, loading facilities, and community, benefits to be derived from the project.. . - . .,,.. • Major project function is to prdvide an ihterim 4-lane improvernentand expansion of Olivenhain Road, as called for' in the Arroyo LàCsta Maste Plan EIR mitigation measures. Ultimate expansion of this roadway will be to 6 lanes as called for in the Circulation Elements of both the City of Carlsbad and the City of Encinitas General Plans, however, expansion to its ultimate configuration will be subject to a separate CEQA process and application. Community benefits tobe derived from the proposed 4-lane interim expansion will include reduced congestion, improved traffic flow and increased safety. .' 3 I I I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Please Answer each of the folTbwingquestions by 'pac i n g a ; - c h e c k el, in the appropriate space Then, fullydiscuss and explain why each item was checked yes or no Provid supporting data if applicable Attach additional sheets as necessary 1) Could the project significantly .iripact o'r, change 1• present or future land uses in the, -vicinity of the activity' I X EXPLANATION The proposed project1 is an interim 4—lane 1 expansion ofn existing roaday The interimexpansiori as well as the ultimte expan'sion to6.;lanes.are both in:conforman:e,"with the CirculatibntElements of the cities of Carlstad and Encinitas Could the activity affect the use lof a recreational 1 area, or, area of aesthetic value - X EXPLANATION I I I Could the functioning activity affect the of an established community or neighborhood? X "EXPLANATION The project will impr1ove traffic flow I from exist1ng and planned neighborhoods Could the activity result in the displacemeit of 1 community resiidents EXPLANAT I O N : I 1 I 4 I I .'Could.theactivity. increase the nUrnber:of.low-a n d moderate cost housing unitsinthe 1ty x - - 4 ExPLANATION: 4 - - - At Could the activity significantly affëctexistin g I housing or create adenand for additional ho u s i n g ' EXPLANATION:.' . . . S .. •' . -.'.' 7) Are ny-of the' natural orman-madè features inthe,. I activity area junique, that is, iot found in other - • parts .of the coUnty, state or nation? ' X I EXPLANATION * i - 8) ' Could the activity significantly historical or1archaeological site o'r its settings' X I EXPLANATION:'As described in Attachment A, no significant . ' impacts will occur as long as all activities are .confind . '• U'' - -. 4 •_S_• - to an areawithin 75 .feet.('north) of the.exis t i n g r o a d c u ' . for Olivénhain Road at.itswestern'end,.às pr o p o s e d . 9) Could the activity significantly affect the potential use, extraction, or cohservat ion 'of a • • scarce natural .resource •' ' • - • ;• '- - - X '- - - - • - ' . --.' EXPLANATION: -- -I - S -, N Could the activity significantly afectfish, wildlife or plant resources? ______ x EXPLANATION. As described in Attachment' B, no impacts U I to biological resources will occur as long as improvements at the western end of Olivenhain Road take place on the north,afld the Encinitas Creek riparian area is avoided, as proposed Are there any rare or endangered plant'or animah species in the activity area' X EXPLANATION Although not sighted within the project area, I the least Bell's vireo was sighted in the past (19 2) in the vicinity (Green Valley) Alsosee Attachment B Could the'.activity change existing features of any I of the city's stream, lagoons, bays, tidelands * or beaches' X EXPLANATION - I Could the activity result in the erosion ior elimin- ation of agricultural l ands? X EXPLANATIOti. While agricultural lands exist west of the pro lect area, this project 'will not impact them dir'cE ly. 141 Could the activity serve to encourae development %of presently undeveloped areas or intensify develop- x ment of al-ready developed EXPLANATION: 'I 6 I 4 'I NO 15) Will the activity require ,a variance from estab- Fished environmental standards- (air, water, n o i s e , etc)? V EXPLANATION: VV V: Is the activity tarried o u t a s p a t o f a l a r g e r V V project or series of pro j e c t s ? V X EXPLANATION: This project is 'a n interim expansion o - V an existing roadway whi c h w i l l u l t i m a t e l y b e . e x p a n d e d to- 6 'lanes as called for in the Circulation Ele m e n t s o f the cities of Carlsbad and Encinitas Will the activity rquire c e r t i f i c a t i à n , authoriza- tionVVor;lssuanc e of a permit by anyJoca1, state. or federalenvironmental control agency X - V V EXPLANATION: r.. • V Will the activity require issuance of a variance-0r - conditional use permit by t h e City * X VV V V •. •V EXPLANATION:., V V V - Will -the activity Involve th e a p p l i c " a t i o n , use, or'' V :- disposal of potentlallyVVM a z a r d o u s m a t e r i a l s ? V V VVVV V X V EXPLANATION: - 4..- V V V_V VV V• •V V V V I 7V Will the activity involve construction o f f a c i l i t i e s NO I in a flood plaint -..---. EXPLANATION. L I Will the activity involve construction o f j a c i l i t i e s in the area of an active fau1t X ,EXPLANATION,.' — As described in the accompanying Soil and Geologic a Reconnaissance Repor t , the proJet is not located on or nearan active fault Could the activity result In the generationof significant amounts of dust x EXPLANATION The project will generate dust during I construction, but it is not expected to be significarit as defined by CEQA Will the activity involve the burning o f b r u s h , trees, or other. materials' X EXPLANATION _______________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 Could the activity r,asult in a significant change in the quaIty of any portion of t h e r e g i o n ' s a i r , or water esources (Should note surface, ground water, off:shore ) ______ X EXPLANATION' 8 1 I YES NO - ' 25) Will the project sijbstantially-increase fuel consumption. (electricity, oil, natural gas:, -etc.)? -. I EXPLANATION: . .. . .. - . • .26) 'Will the. activity involve.cónstruction of facilities -'. on'a slope of 25 percent or greater? X I EXPLANATION: -S • -- - -- S J- .5) The maximum.. existing slope.-within the S I . - * .5 . • - -. . -.54. .. project area is 15—. 20 percent. . . - 4 , -- - . •51 - .5 - . '.5 _.,- - . ._. p . - 5'- , , - 27) V --Will -there'.bé. significant"change.toexisting land,.form? . . X - I -. S - . . - - --... - - '-r -- • .5) Y - Indicate estimated grading.to be done in . . cubic-•yards:"-iO-,000,cy- '. •.-•. -. - - - -Percentage of alteration tO the present land form:- —10 percent I Maximum heightof cut or fill slopes: 25-foot cut slope - EXPLANATION: I . 28.) Will -the activity result in substantialL increases •.' in the use of utilities, sewers, drains or streets?' X I EXPLANATION ' I - I I -_ IE LQI Will the project significantly increase wind or water erosion of soils' EXPLANATION. 1, Could the project significantly affect existing fish or wildli:fie habitat? EXPLANATION See Attachmen1 B I I Will the project significantly produce new light o EXPLANATION I I I 1 4- 1 I : 10 Il 'STATEMENT OF NON-SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS If you have answered. yes to any of. the questions in Section I but think the activity, will have no-sigh I ificant environmental effects, indicate your reasons below: • .. . ., '., . . . . The only "Yes" responses coñained. in the foregoing analysis involves Items 11 .,and 16. With regard to #11,. no rare or endangered'plat or animal species were identified within the project area, however the endangered least Bell's vireo was 'sighted in Green Valley (north and west of the project area) in 1982. .. . With regard to #16, this proposed 4-lane expansion is carried outas an interim improvement of Olivénhain Road, which will ultimately be expanded to 6 lanes. Additionally, Attachment A contains an archaeological report which addresses : the project area for ,the' 6-lane expansion, and in the process, encompasses I . the 4-lane expansion projectarea.'This report concludes that no impacts to cultural resources will occur as lông as all activities are confined' to an area within 75' feet (north)of the existing OlIvenhain Road alignment at its ' western end. Likewise, Attachment.B addresses biological resources and concludes that no impacts will occur as long as. the','Encinitas Creek riparian area south of Olivenhain Road -is 'avoided. The project, as proposed, will avoid the sensitive areas noted. .As'a result, the project will have no I significant environmental effects, other than to improve traffic flow in the area. I UI. COMMENTS OR ELABORATIONS TO"ANYOFThE QUESTIONS. IN SECT'TON'T (If additional space Is 'needed for answering any questions, 'attach additlonaisbeets as neeed.) I' Signature Fay O.Found ,Jr. • .,' . . . '•I . oatesignedFaY. MrA 5te3 . I - I Instruct.ela ' . . '. . . . . . , •. . I • LBS:1h' ' ' . . • . ' ' . 1 11 £ Cultural Resource Survey and Testing of a Portion of I Site Di 487'2, (W-982).:-for the Olivenhain Road Alignment, Carlsbad, california Prepared for Fay Round and Associates 2630 Cazadero Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 Prepared by ERC Env I toh mentaF and ,Energy Services Company 5510 Morehouse Drive San Diego, California 92121-1709 Project No 39147001 1 :H H ____________ H Dennis Ga Manag llegos Project er AIII Andèw PigrioIo Associate Archaeologist August 1989 H I i I SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION Mir 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION - The following report presents the results of an archaeological literature review, site records I check, historic map check, and field survey of the Olivenhain Road alignment. It also includes a discussion of testing conducted on site SDi-4872 (W-982) to evaluate Alternative No. 2. This program was conducted by ERC Environmental and Energy Services Company for Fay Round and Associates. Literature information and site records on I recorded cultural resources within a one mile radius of the project area was obtained from data provided by the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University and I the San Diego Museum of Man. Microfilm copies of historic USGS maps of the area, located at the University of California, San Diego were checked for historic structures. In addition to the record search and historic map check, an in-field survey was conducted to I identify cultural resources within the project boundary. Testing was conducted at a portion of SDi-4872 (W-982) to evaluate importance under CEQA. The Olivenhain Road alignment project includes two alternatives (Alternative No. 1 and I Alternative No. 2) located along Olivenhain Road between El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road. The project is located in the northern portion of San Diego County along the boundary between the City of Carlsbad and the City of Encinitas (Figure 1-1). The project includes a small portion of Section 2 on the western end, and is otherwise located within an unseçtioned portion of the Los Encinitos Land Grant in Township 13 5, Range 4 I 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING I The project alignment crosses the north side of an east/west trending valley which contains Encinitas Creek. Large portions of the alignment have been graded and developed but I native Chapparal and Riparian vegetation are present on the western end of the project area. The SDi-4872 (W-982) site area includes both areas of introduced grassed and native chapparal species such as chamise, scrub oak and California buckwheat. Most of the I alignment cuts across the foothills above Encinitas Creek but Alignment No. 1 crosses the floodplain at the western end. The geology is sedimentary and fossiliferous sandstone is U/: present. Elevations within the project area range from 80 to 140 feet above mean sea level :. 40, FALLBROOK SAN ONOFR • WARNER SPRINGS L4hI • I. • . .4 - v VISTA b OCEANSIO PROJECT I Lake, LOCN 4' Woki(o,d ATIO . . ESCONDDO 04 . Lab. LEUCADI4 JULIAN • . • . .4 i. . 'I RAMONA o . • CIA DELMA •'•••• ''PQWAY Son Vkmie is 91 • . . LAJOLL SANTU "ALPINE.- is . CL CAJON Rosermir SAN: LAMESA EXEGO S ATIONAL ?cZ* . N CITY JAMUI. Of . • : , . • CWAA VISTA OULZURA • N • t 1. Oia . ••I •. • IMPERIAL. • __________ • • • fit -FIG URE ERC Environmental Regional Location of Project Site and Energy . Ali 1. Services Co. ..'..". ,. • • (MSL) The sandstone formation within Alternatives 1 and 2 was ed to not c<aln nianne I fossLs dominated by oystez shell / I ( 4 1 4 1 1-4 i SECTION 2 BACKGROUND DATA 2.1 CULTURAL PREHISTORY I For the past 10,000 years, the area now comprising San Diego County was occupied by I Native Americans. This 10,000-year span is divided into two major archaeologically distinct periods (Early and Late). The Early Period includes two cultural complexes, the j San Dieguito and the La Jolla/Pauma. The earliest occupants are known as the San Dieguito, who moved to inland and coastal San Diego County areas from the east. These I : people have been characterized by the use of Santiago Peak Volcanics in the manufacture of large leaf-shaped bifaces and scraper planes. I La Jolla sites, also within the Early Period tend to be located near the coast. The people who occupied these sites depended primarily upon marine resources, as well as seed and J vegetable foods.. In general, the stone tool technology associated with these people is primarily cobble-based at coastal La Jolla sites. This refers to the use of locally available coarse-grained Eocene cobbles for stone tool manufacture. Termed Pauma by True (1959), ) inland La Jolla sites more closely resemble San Dieguito sites, with finely-made stone tools, predominance of grinding implements (rnanos and metates, in particular),. and a lack of shellfish remains. The use of the terms La Jolla and Pauma reflects availability of food, location of sites, and stone tool material for people occupying different regions of San I' Diego County, within the same general time period. I For the past 2000 years, material goods and traits associated with speakers of Yuman languages from the east (Colorado River region) were brought into Imperial and San Diego Counties. This period is identified as the Late Period or Late Prehistoric. These Late Period material goods and traits include ceramic artifacts, small projectile points, obsidian . from Obsidian Butte, and the practice of cremation. L 2.2 PREVIOUS RESEARCH ERC Environmental and Energy Services Company completed a thorough review of pertinent record, data from the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University and the San Diego Museum of Man which indicated that two prehistoric sites (SDi-4400/W-48 and SDi-4872/W-982) were recorded within the project boundary. 2-1 SDi-4400 (W-48) was originally recorded by Malcom Rogers of the San Diego Museum of Man and described as a multi-component habitation site with a shallow depth of 24" which in part was due to agricultural disturbance In 197 6, Kaldenberg recorded a site at the Junction of Olivenhain 'Road and. Rancho Santa Fe on a 'knoll which he dàscribed as recently brushed. The site was described as a lithic scatter with a few milling artifacts and no depth This site was considered to be W-48 although shell and depth were lacking Artifacts included a h2m11erstone, 2 cores, 30 flakes, 2 manos, 10 thermally fractured rocks and no shall The site was described as easily mitigated through surface collection and is presently develped Bissel (1988) suggests that the site was excavated during studies of W-920 and W-921 by Apple and Olmo (1983) Site SDi-4872 W-982), hypothesized as a yucca processing site, was recorded by Kaldenberg containing cobble tools and cobbles on agravel terrace Artifacts observed include scrapers, flakes, chopping tools, cores, and thermally fractured cobbles This site was considered of major importance by Kaldenbe 11 (1976 rg ) and mapping nd collection a were recomthended as mitigation for development impacts SDi-11027 was recorded in 1988 by Van Bueren as a light scatter of marine shell, fire- affected rock, at least two unifacial unshaped manos, several split cobble cores, and debitage The site is located just south of the western portion of the project area Other sites within the regiondate to San Dieguito and La Jolla time periods and include the Great Wstern site which was the location of a major excavation.. Several studies have been conducted within or directly adjacent to project alignments Kaldenberg (1976), Engineering Management (1984), and Bissel (19,8 8), conducted studies along the northern edge of the project alignment and SRS (1982), Recon (1984, 1984), and LSA (1982) conducted studies along the southern portion of the project area The area I directly west of the project was part of a constraints study conducted by Hectpr 1986 who identified a historic structure to the southwest of the project area I Historic maps of the area were checked for structures and a single structure was located on the 1901 edition of the San Luis Rey 15' quadrangle just southwest and outside the project area on the west side of El Canuno Real This structure ap%pears to correspond to standing structures and the site recorded as Ecke 5 by Hector (1986) S S 2-2 i I.. SECTION 3 FIELD METHODS AND RESULTS 3.1 SURVEY METHODS Intensive field survey of the project area was conducted on July 8, 1989 by Andrew J Pigniolo and Steven H. Briggs. Transects over the project area were surveyed on foot at intervals between 10 and 15 meters. Transects paralleled the existing road alignment and I covered a width of 300 feet on each side of both alternatives. The survey area was - narrower where limited by existing developments and structures; The road alignment consists of cut and fill deposits associated with the existing road and development along it. The survey covered the entire project length and overall visibility was good in undeveloped I areas, although some annual grasses and dense riparian vegetation were present. Survey methods employed during this study conform to guidelines and requirements of the f Society for California Archaeology (King, et al. 1973) and those set forthby the National Park Service in their pamphlet "Guidelines for the Preparation of Statements on Environmental Impact on Archaeological Resources" (Scovil, et al 1972) 3.2 TESTING METHODS The testing program was conducted at SDi-4872 (W-982) on August 9, 1989 by Andrew Pigniolo and Steven H. Briggs to determine the importance of SDi-4872 that would be impacted by proposed Alignment No. 2. It consisted of the excavation of 5 shovel test pits I and laboratory analysis of recovered artifacts. The purpose of this program was to identify - site size, depth, content, and integrity of deposit for the evaluation a portion of the site as important or not important under CEQA. A 50 foot area north of the top of the existing road cut was determined to be the direct I impact area and-25 additional feet were included in the study as a buffer for indirect impacts. The testing program for t'is portion of the site consisted of surface collection of the 75 foot wide impact area and the excavation of 4 shovel test pits (STPs) at 40 m intervals along the site 50 feet from the existing Olivenhain roadcut. An additional STP was excavated at 75 feet from the roadcut across from the positive STP. SiPs had a diameter of 30 cm and were excavated in 10 cm levels to at least one level past sterile. When no artifacts were recovered from the first level of an STP, it was excavated to a 3-1 I minimum depth of 30 cm before being declared s1terile All soil was screened through 1/8 1 inch hardware cloth and artifacts were bagged by, STP and level and analyzed at ERCE's laboratory. A standard system of cataloging cultural remains was used All items were washed and counted, weighed and/or measured, and given consecutive catalogue numbers, which were either marked in ink directly on the artifact or onJan attached label In addition, each item was then analyzed and placed in appropriately lateled boxes for storage at ERCE's Cultural I Resources Laboratory. 33 SURVEY RESULTS The survey resulted in the relocation of site Spi4872 (W-982) (Figure 3-1) Cultural material from this site was located within apprximate1y 10 meters of the existing road alignment on the northeast corner of Olivenhain Road and E1 Camino Real Artifacts 1' continued up the ridge to the north, outside the project boundary A steep sided depression of recent origin was noted on the ridge just north of the project area Artifacts consist of cobble-based quartzite and porphyriuc metavolc+ic flakes and angular waste and include at least one core Debitage of pannated fine-grained metavolcanic material was also presen t I and dominates the assemblage in the main portin of the site which is putside and north o f the project boundary. Evidence of 8Di-4400 (W-48) was not locatec during the survey The site location has been developed and although some soil was visible along the road alignment, no cultural material was observed I Site SDi-1.1027 was also not identified within the study area. The site.ls recorded directly south of Alignment No 1 but does not appear tc extend within the study area. 3.4 TESTING-RESULTS Results of testing of a portion of site SDi-487 (W-982) were positive in that one of the five postholes produced an artifact (Figure 32)1 A total of 4 artifacts were recovered from the surface in the portion of the site tested and a single flake was recovered from the 10-20 cm level of STP 40E The remaining four STPs were stenle As part of this study, the site area was better defined to show its relationship to the impacts The site proposed sir 3-2 j :L_ e :- . , '1:4 sL1P_ itself appears to be concentrated on the southern end of one of the small ridges north of I Olivenhain Road. Soil appears to have been eroded away in the densest portion of the site exposing light brown sandstone bedrock Thus the majority.of the site appears to be I surface in nature as described by Kaidenberg (1976). Although the area with the highest - density of cultural material appears to lack developed soil, artifacts were observed eroding out of a soil layer of approximately, 20 cm in depth near the upper portion of the area of I exposed sandstone It appears that shrubs in the area have held the existing soil in place and that a shallow subsurface component is present A low density scatter of cultural I material was also observed to continue to the top of the ridge where well developed soil is present and a pecked metate fragment and small concentration of fire reddened sandstone was present in an erosional cut. I Artifacts on the site include the 1 pecked granitic metate fragment, 2 metate fragments, approximately 15 cores, 10 umfacially flaked tools, and 300-i- flakes and angular waste of locally available quartzite and porphyrinc volcanic cobble material as well as patinated fine- I' •' grained green metavolcanic:rnaterial- from the Santiago Peak Formation w•hich qutcrcips' to the east The site area also includes several concentrations of fire affected rock which may represent the eroded remains of hearths No cultural shell or bone was observed although fossil oyster shelf is present in the area. The portion of the site that was tested during the present project appears to represent a low density scatter of material which has washed down slope from the main portion of the site Although, a single flake was recovered -during the subsurface testing the subsurface component appears to be limited and shallow. Soil in the study area of the site was clay with numerous expansion cracks which would-aid in moving surface artifacts d&in into the soil column. - . SECTION 4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1 ..- I .•• -•, 41, IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The field survey resultFd in the identiflatiop of site SDi4872 (W-982) along the, northern portion of Alternate No 2 at the western end1f the..projectrea Uder CEQA, only important cultural resources need to be addressed as to impacts or niugat1on of inp a c t s I The portion of site SDi-4872(W-982) that wouik be impacted by the proposeçl alignment was tested to determine site importance Testing included surface collection and subsurface excavation within the area of direct and indirect impacts Thisportion of the site was determined to represent a low density scatter ofcultural material through testing It may have been redeposited by erosion from the mar portion of the site.,higher çn the ridge This portion of the site was deèrnined to not qualify as important under, CEQA, however other.,portions of the site outside the project area may be inportant and require further evaluation The Alternative No 2 alignment will cause no signthcnt impacts to site SDi-4872 (W-982) if both direct and indirect impacts are confined o asu-ip 75 feet north of the eisting road • cut for Olivenhain Road and no mitigation or fuither archaeological study is necessary If project plans chaxge and impacts will include a larger area, further arc!aelogical I . • investigation may. be necessary.: No important culturai:resour es. were located, within the .. . • •. Alternative N 1 alignmeht and no direct oriidirect impacts o cultural resotces will 4 , result from its development. , I Pt II: I: 1., ( SECTION 5 1 REFERENCES CITED Apple, Steven A. and Richard K. Olmo 1983 An Archaeological Evaluation of SDM-W-920 and SDM-W-921, Santa Fe Ridge, Carlsbad, California. Ms. on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University. .1 Bissell, RonaldM and Rod Raschke • 1988 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Literature Review of the.CarlsbadfLa Costa Project Area, San Diego, California. Ms. on file at the South Coastal 1 . Information Center, San Diego State University. Engineering Management, Inc. 1984 Environmental Assessment San Diego Pipeline Expansion Project Los Angeles, • Orange, and San Diego Counties, California. Ms. on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University. I Hector, Susan 1986 Archaeological and Biological Resources of Rancho Verde. Ms. on file at the South Coastal Information Center -San Diego State University. Larry Seeman Associates, Inc. (LSA) 49.82 Draft Environmental Impact Report: Revised Parksand Recreation Element, I.............. Carlsbad, California. King, Thomas F.Michael Morafto and N. Nelson Leonard. 1973 Recommended Procedures for Archaeological Impact Evaluation. University of California Archaeological Survey, and Society of California Archaeology.. Káldenberg, Russell L. : 1976a An Intensive Archaeological Reconnaissance of the La Costa Land Company Property Carlsbad, California. MS on. file at ERC Environmental and Energy Services Company, San Diego, California. I RECON . . 1984 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Scott's Valley. Property. Ms. on file S at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University. 1982 Environmental Impact Report for the Wooley Annexation EIR 82-3. Ms. 0n file at the South Coastal information Center, San. Diego State University. .1 Scientific ResoUte Surveys, Inc. 1982. Cultural Resources Report. on the Rancho Là Costa Properties Located in the County of San Diego. Ms. on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San ,I Diego State University. • Scovil, Douglas, Harland J. Gordon and Keith M. Henderson. 1972 Guidelines for the. Preparation of Statements of Environmental Impact on Archaeological Resources. National Park Service. Tucson Arizona S.' Al HMENT tA ATTAC MTORM FOR SDI-4872 N.. - I - 11 I - I 4 I 1 I I State of California - The Resources Agency UPDATE 1 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Permanent Trinomial:SDi-4872_Supplement ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD Temporary Number:. W-982 ' Page.j_0..4... Agency Designation 1. County: San .Diego. I 2. USGS Quad: Encinitas (7.5)_1968 (15) Photorevised _1975. 3. UTM Coordinates: Zone 11 / 475690 Easting/ 3657O0 Northing. () I 4 Township j.3.. Range jj&,_114 of UEV4 of j1/4 of1/4 of Section..2.....Base(Mer) £.() 5. Map Coordinates: 261. mmS 446 mmE (from NW corner of map) 6. Eievation140 Feet. 7 Location:' ocation This site Is located on the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Otivenhain Road in the City of Carlsbad California The site is adjacent to the boundary of the Los Encinitos grant on a ridge and adjacent slopes Artifacts extend from Olivenhain. Road on the south to a power Dole indicated on the USGS mao on the north () 8 Prehistoric XX Historic Protohistoric 9 Site Description Temoorary I camp or small habitation site on ndae The site includes an area of dense surface artifacts in a eroded or deflated portion of the site with exoosed sandstone bedrock and lithe soil and a low I density scatter which In part may be due to downslooe erosion from the denser oortion of the site Some subsurface deposit was suocested by artifacts exposed in eroded banks at a depth of aooroxtmatelv 20 cm and a flake was recovered from the 10-20 cm level during testing Deoth may be greater toward the too of the ridge where there apoears to be more soil develooment Features may be oresent as indicated by the presence of fire affected rock at the site 10 Area 240NSm(length)x180EWm(width) 43 200m2 Method of Determination Estimation() 11 Depth 20+ cm Method of Determination Erosion cuts and Shovel Test Pits () 12 Features Fire affected rock is present in eroded areas suggesting the presence of hearths at the site. A concentration of fire affected rock was also observed near the metate fragment at the too of the ridge 13 Artifacts Artifacts at the site include 1 pecked granitic metate fragment 2 volcanic metate fraaments aoproximatelv 15 cores 10 unifaciallv flaked tools, and 300+ flakes and I! angular waste of locally available quartzite and and oorohvritic volcanic cobble material as well as oatinated fine-grained green metavolcanic material from the Santiago Peak Volcanic I Formation 14. Non-Artifactual Constituents: None observed. 1 I ' 15.Date Recorded: 8/9/89 .16. Recorded By Andrew Pigniolo. ' () 17. Affiliation and Address: ERC_ Environmental, _5510_ Morehouse _Dr..San_ Diego. _CA_92121_() .1 State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD Pag e...L..oL4.... UPDATE Permanent Trinomial:5DI-4872_Supplement Temporary Number: W-982 Agency Designation: I Human. Remains: None observed. () Site Integrity: Site is generally undisturbed but erosion aooears to have removed: soil in. some areas. The lower portion of the site adjacent to Olivenhain Road may have been disked in the past. A recent pit and several dirt roads are also within the site area. () Nearest Water (type, distance and direction): Encinitas Creek aoorox 50-m south. () 21.1-argest Body of Water within 1 km (type, distance and direction):Encinitas Creek 50m So Vegetation Community (site vicinity): Vegetation Community (on site): Coastal Sage Scrub/ Grassland IPlant List ()] References for above: - 24 Site Soil Sandy loam ( ) 25 Surrounding Soil Sandy loam 26. Geology: _Sedimentary. ( ) 27. Landform:_Ridoe. 28. Slope:0 to 40 degrees. ( ) 29. Exposure:_South. Landowner(s) (and/or tenants) and Address: Northwestern Pacific Railroa& Coft,oai Remarks. Hi 1 'I References- . Name of Project: Olivenhain Road AlIgnment Project . . () 34 Type of Investigation Surface survey and test C) Site Accesalon Number: - Curated At: ERC Environmental. () Photos: Yes, Taken By: Andrew Pigrilolo () Photo Accession Number: - On File At: - 1 1 - I I I - - - I ..ATTACHMENT B I BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE SURVEY tI 4 a I I -2• 1 a - :1 I I! .1 I • I . 0 ' III Murelmu'c I )rivt I San Diego. Cahlitirnia 92121 Telephone: 019-4 58-9044 Ia.: (19-458.0913 I. ERC August IS, 1989 Environmental and Energy Services Co. I .Mr. Fay 0. Round Fay 0. Round and Associates 2630 Cavtdero Drive I Carlsbad, California 92008 - Re: Four lane interim expansion of Olivenhain Road • Dear Fay: The biological resources along Olivenhain Road, between El C a m i n o R e a l a n d I Rancho Santa Fe Road, were surveyed on July 10, 1989. The maj o r i t y o f t h e p r o p o s e d road expansion encompasses areas that are disturbed or are previou s l y d e v e l o p e d . A r e a s that support, natural vegetation are limited to the parcels directly a d j a c e n t . t o the intersection I of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road. - The parcel on the north side of Olivenhain Road contains grasslan d a n d m i x e d chaparral plant communities. The proposed road 4-lane interim expa n s i o n i s e x p e c t e d t o extend 35 feet north of the existing road. This would cause dire c t i m p a c t s t o o n l y grassland vegetation on the northern side of Olivcnhain Road.- Willow-dominated riparian woodland, fringed by ruderal vegetation is t h e p r i m a r y plant community on the southeastern parcel at the Olivenhain R o a d / E l C a m i n o R e a l intersection. The road expansion is expected to extend entirely o n t h e ' n o r t h s i d e o f t h e existing road Therefore, no direct impacts to the riparian habitat on t h e s o u t h s i d e o f J Olivenhain Road are anticipated. , No sensitive plant or wildlife species were detected (luring our survey. This is concordant with recent biological resource, surveys conducted in th e a r e a f o r t h e A r r o y o L a Costa EIR. The riparian habitat is potential nesting habi tat. for the least B e l l ' s v i r e o (Vireo bet/ii push/us). This state and federally listed endangcrc(.1 species wa s l a s t s i g h t e d w i t h i n the Green Valley riparian corridor in 1982, but has not been detected since despite I extensive efforts in locating this species in the area. P J QLc 7 .siT ? Short-term impacts to wildlife habitat associated with construction noise a n d a c t i v i t y I could be niinimized by implementing the project outside the bre e d i n g s e a s o n ( A p r i l 1 t o August 1)-provided this does not seriously compromise the project des i g n . S t a g i n g a r e a s for construction equipment should be sited outside sensitive hab i t a t a r e a s ( i . e . n o t o n t h e southeastern side of the Olivenhain Road/El Camino ReiL intersection). No impact s t o riparian habitat associated with drainage improvements are anticipated. ' 0 If you have any questions, please call inc at 458-9044. I . Sincy , Patrick J. Mock Senior Biologist PJM/dp I, cc: File #39147.001 5510 Morchciuscj)rjvc San Diego, California 92121 101cphrnc: .l9.45i-9O44 t: 19-458-0943 law ERC Environmental T and Energy Services Co. August 1, 1990 Mr. Phillip L. Hinshaw City of Carlsbad Community Development 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 }e: Olivcrihain Road 44ane Interim Expansion - Biological Impacts - Dear Mr. Hinshaw: Enclosed please find Exhibit A - Environmental Impacts for the Olivenhain Road Interim Expansion The biological impacts of this project will be limited to the lo's of one willow where the riparian vegetation is closest to the existing road The remaining areas expected to be disturbed are either bare ground or are covered with ruderal vegetation. This impact to biological resources is not considered significant I have also enclosed a copy of the August 18, 1989 letter report to Fay Round whichdetails existing conditions of the project site. On behalf of The Fieldstone Company, ERCE requests that a Negative Declaration be prepared for this proposed project. If you have any questions, please call me at 458- 9044. Sincerely, Patrick 3. Mock, Ph.D. Senior Biologist cc: D. Avis, Benchmark Pacific K. Kosup, PDC 0 z XALE NOW. I'4Oj3 '14 . is NC HO LAS E iN C J N TAS . F A NC H0 DEL PDNDE MAP MAP NO. 8J45 Lor 7 I I . MOV. M4TC/I I- (fi5 FVR OOC. sVO. 5JI71bE7577!J ' I5517OALJ6JO,4j -VN . . -. a5LX4flO.V 50 M#D ST 24 PUEW!,M0LhVE/ _____ O —Firopo j--- I — — - -_ firl — E (15TAcDffM Am- Tr L?IET . .. %•. I 9 .. . . . '. - • '. ' >- ,$1 NW •. -M BE WAXED . ,•0 • . —• .. RAEr toW 15, icr S - 4_P U&ffD4TfJ_,,_E1J5T4V(P-6 ____ ____ - - it — -. . •. - ---- •. — / :: . --+4 ' /7 4~5 I P4'EMtNTiT 1510W/ON t I XI5T 107' 81W / IRS PtR MAPS 8145- tX/ST 60' Ra4DA5tMENT L. . IOFV6EO (p-.44. OMfPAAV—j 632. 11W F K.S !J() .45 PER &0 131) FEATHER AS 0VFRAY 71) . - . 7 b EXI611A Iii)? 0 LOc J / A NC HO LAS E NC N J TA& \ TRACT N 0. j\jj AP N 0. • 646 IJM/73 OF WAR"I/AS/TAT MAP N O I 74 CA(MON , [ I ZZY REMARK5_ DEPTh' OF 4 'RPGA5 . [TE._5(55/115. 10/0 fOff 57ff/PLAIGPZA// j 7!' k.-NCF(2000-D) AM I/AJ/fM)iYW. ('(RIP? IA! PIE FIELD P t2O' 0) SEE WIERAL AWE 5 04/ S/ItT1. 0__2fatc.?(ZOV ,e IJ0W(ZOOO-O) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS — EXHIBIT "A' — — — 00 — —. — — - -I vo — — I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASS _ESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) I CASE NO. DATE: March 11, 1990 1 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Olivenhain Roadlnterim Expansion to Four Lanes - APPLICANT: Fieldstone/La Costa Associates 1 ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5465 Morehouse Drive, Suite 250 1 San Diego, CA 92121 (619) 546-8081 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: November 1, 1989 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widening of Olivenhain Road to four lanes 1 between El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires th a t t h e C i t y conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine: if a project ma y h a v e a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact A s s e s s m e n t appears in the following. pages in the form ,of a checklist. This c h e c k l i s t identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might b e i m p a c t e d b y the proposed project and provides the City with information to use a s t h e b a s i s for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or N e g a t i v e Declaration. $ A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no subs t a n t i a l evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a signifi c a n t e f f e c t on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checked to ind i c a t e t h i s , determination. An 'EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is subs t a n t i a l I evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a significant effect o n t h e environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration howeve r , i f adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can b e d e e m e d insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under, th e h e a d i n g s "YES-sig" and "YES-insig" respectively. discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures a p p e a r s I t the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Pa r t i c u l a r ttention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts whi c h ' w o u l d therwise be determined significant. I PHYSICAL EUVIROW•IE11T I W LL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES sIg) YES NO (insg) Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property X ' to geologic hazards? ' ______ Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical L Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? X ' Result-in-changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of 'the ocean or X any bay, inlet or lake? I5 Result in substantial adverse effects on air quality? L 'ambient in in, air Result substantial changes movement, odor, moisture, or temperature X Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine,, fresh or floodwaters)? 0 Affect the quantity or quality of. surfáe ' X 'water, ground water or public water supply? I Substantially increase usage or cause 0 X depletion of any natural resources? 'Use substantialamounts of fuel or energy? '. 0 '' '______ . x 11. Alter a significant archeological; 0 paleontological or' historical site., .' 0 structure or object? I I I -2- I BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDL1LLtLY YE NO I l2. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including - trees, shrubs, grass, inicroflora and aatic qu plants)? X :13. Introduce new species of plants into an area, S or a barrier to the normal replenishment of . existing species? X V.14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state Or local importance? S X 15.. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling. organisms and insects? .. Introduce new species of animals into an V area, 'or result in a barrier to the V migration or movement of animals? . J HIJf1At1 ENVIRONMENT V WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: ES YES (insig) NO V Alter the present or planned land use V ofanarea? . . X .18. Substantially affect. public utilities, .: V schools, police, fire, emergency or other V public, services? X V Result in the need for new or modified sewer V systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? V V V X 20. Increase existing noise levels? V X 21 Produce new light or glare? V X V I V VV 51 IlUtwi E1VIflON1•1E!1T JLL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES Y NO THE PROPOSAL. (SI) i nsiESg) Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances but not limited to, oil, I (including, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? X alter the densityöf the I Substantially human population of an area? . X 24 Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X 25. Generate substantial additional traffic?: . . ., X Affect existing parking facilities, or X create a large demand for new parking? I. Impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or . movement of people and/or goods? X . Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? . - X Increase traffic hazards to motor . vehicles, bicyclists., or pedestrians? . Interfere with emergency response plans o x emergency evacuation plans? 31 Obstruct any scenic vista or create an 1 aesthetically offensive public view' X 32. Affect tlè quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? I 1. . 1 0 -4- .1 , 0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 1 YE (iflS Sig) x YES (Sig) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild- life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a p1ant0r animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or en- dangered plant oranintal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environmentis one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future..) Does the project have the possible environmental, effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively-con- s iderable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of -probable future projects.) Does the projeàt have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? NO I .1 I x I • I _ 1 • I x • 1 x 1 -5- I' 1 I OLIVENHAIN ROAD INTERIM ,WIDENING PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II DISCUSSION OF CHECKLiST RESPONSES The following responses were based on the improvement plans for the 4-lane interim road alignment for OLi.venhain Road dated February 13, 1990. This alignment generally follows the -existing road, with widening occurring on both the north and south sides of the road within the existing right-of-way. This alignment is shown as Alternative 42 in the Olivenhain Road Route Adoption Report (Project Design Consultants, August, 23, 1989). The proposed rights-of-way vary, 11 depending on the proximity to existing development However, the project plans do not indicate how the existing future 6-lane road will be accomplished through the areas that have adjacent development. I Olivenhain Road is ultimately planned to be a 6-lane Prime Arterial, and the right-of-way and rdadbed will have to be increased in the future. The current plans do not indicate where I the additional-right-of-way will be ob,tained or what grading will be required to accomplish the ultimate width needed to service the area. Therefore, some irnpaôts cannot be assessed at this I time. The improvement plans do not indicate phasing plans or discuss how traffic will be handled during the road widening. If the 'I project will require the construction of a detour road, the grading for the detour road would have to 'be made part of the proposed project and would also have to be assessed for potential environmental' impacts. It. is possible that a detour road', especially one to the south of 'the existing road, could have more significant environmental impacts than the proposed alignment itself and could constitute a separate project under the $ California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).. The proposed road widening will occur within both the Cities of I ' Carlsbad -and Encinitas. Therefore, 'both cities will have permitting authority and will be required to certify/approve the environmental document prepared for the project 1. The , Soil and Geologic Reconnaissance for Olivenhain' Road Alignment., Carlsbad. California .(Geocon, August 1989) indicated that the proposed interim road alignment is underlain by (1) alluvium, which is generally highly compressible and not suitable for settlement-sensitive improvements, and (2) the Deimar Formation and Torrey Sandstone, both components of the La Jolla Group, which is, described in the City's Geologic and Seismic Safety Element as being susceptible to 'erosion. Potential impacts of the interim road can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The Geoco'n report also noted that there are undocumented fills underlying the existing road and'adjacent areas that will require remedial grading. . The remedial grading will reduce potential hazards to a level of' insignificance. I Because the road will ultimately be;expanded to six lanes, it is not possible to assess the potential long-term impacts because, the grading for the additional lanes is not currently shown on the improvement plans, and the additional acreage to be used for the future expansion was not discussed in Geocon's report. However, if the future expansion ere to occ.ur'to the south, south of the existing road, subsLanti.al remedial grading would be required to remove and recompat' the alluviè'l'soils, and additional fill, would be required. In addition', the floodplain for Encinitas Creek would be changed, possibly creating hydraulic impacts on upstream and downstream areas. On the other hand, if`.- the future lanes are added to the north of the proposed interim road, it would probably require the 'excavation of additional alluvium north of the road and south' of' an existing landslide. Additional study of the future area tobe graded is 'necessary to determine whether the remedial 'grading 'required could possibly reactivate the landslide. This additional study' cannot be completed until a grading plan' is developed showing the' ultimate 6-lane alignment. , The grading required for the' road can be accomplished in rt most areas without sigifs rtl changing the topography, and along some portions of the road, the proposed right-of-way has been reduced to minimize impacts;on existing development. However, the proposed interim road will involve a, partial filling in of the floodplain to the south and a cutting back of the hillside to the north near the intersection of Olivenhain Road with El Camino Real. , While the amóunt"of topgraphic alteration may not be considered. ;signi"ficant for the interim 'road, the topographic alteration that 'wi'IJ be required for the ultimate 6-lane road will be significant. If additionaiwidening occurs to the north, the hillside will be, further cut ,back 'and perhaps steepened If additional widening occurs to the south, the floodplain will require sub'stantial remedial grading and filling. Biological mitigation will be 'required for' :impacts .to riparian areas. The Geologic and Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan notes that La Jolla. Group soils are susceptible .to erosion and the creation of "badlands." It recommends that surface-runoff be diverted away 'from cut and fill slopes in La Jolla Group Soils and that siltation traps be used in these areas to mitigate potential impacts. The grading for 'the proposed interim road and the' ultimate 6-lane road could have significant secondary biological impacts from erosion, 'particularly if grading occurs during the breeding months for the leat Bell's vireo,' a sensitive 'bird species that has been known to use the' Green Valley' area ,i ''n't,he past. Potential siltation of water in the riparian areas of Encinitas Creek, in the southwesternmost portion of "the project, could affect:other biological resources !'as we'll. Erosion impacts 'can be reduced to a level., of i'nsignificanc'e through the implementation of an Erosion Control Plan and a Mitigation Monitoring Program. However, these are not currently included in .I the project. The. ros.i on (oti1. rö I'I;tn hould'. pec'ify the. 'time frame '.for 1 grading and rr'Ve-Lat. ion, I1ropoMrd.. spcci es to he used on siopel and techniques Lo -be. used on .slopes,,to reduce.' the potential for erd'sion, and should discuss ,,Lhe proposed irrigation system. . The -'-Erosi'on . Control 'Plan map shOuld, indicate. the .' proposed iandscaping," irrigation.and. drainage sys'tems', aswll as all sediment traps, energy dissipaters, and 'other erosion and siltation control facilities. The Mitigation Monitoring Program should specify who will be. responsi-ble for monitoring and reporting on'-the 'implementation' ofthe'mitigation measures, how often it, will be done, the criteria 'to ;be used, to. deterrnine 4 if thernftigati.orj is successful, and what 'méasures, may be,.taken if' .th& mitigation 'is', det'errnined to 'be i unsuccssful in controlling erosion'and-si'ltatjon. . . .. Ct 4. The proposed project will reuire .erosion andhedimentation control devices to mitigatepotent.ial water quality and.- biOlogical impacts from erosion.. Thus, 'the sand and silt from the: project will 4 not reach the e baches Although-,- this is an incrementally insignifièant "impact,' it:'w11'1 add-.to 'the g'eneral reductiàn •in ba'chsand thá't has' been evident in San Diego County in recent tears r However,, this will have a beneficial, impact on Enciitá Creek arid BatiquitosILagoon.,,,' -. . The existing box culvert carrying3 Encinitas Cree1 beneath the El Camino" Real/Olivenhain Road "intersection has been noted to be substantially "silted -in,--so. that tit..has lost-, much of its carrying capacity. This has resulted in . indirect imp'acts on the property in the southeast, corner of the Olivenhain Road/El Camino Real ,.. intersection. El ,Camino Real has acted .as,,a'darn and,"has caused-j-, the daforementioned property to be inundated in areas that would . not, b"e"floodéd if.the- drainage systeñi wor.king-asitwas designed It is recommended that the, proposed project include, asa''mitigation thesure,thedleaning out' of, the- culvert under,..) the El Camiri6'Rel/Olivenhain.-Rad- intersection and .,that the' City , be responsible for periodically monitoting'and'-maintaining it..in, ' a coEiditionthatwill maximize the water flow. The sand and silt that is removed should' be tucked .to'.a local- beach,. with the . exact location to, be determined. by, the, City Planning Department. and' Public Works T Department. ' It'is conc'luded, that-this would. mititethe"potential loss of.beach sands-.to a level of- iriigni'ficánce. .-p.•_ . 5. The proposed project could have temporary impacts on air qal'ity"diirin'g'.t'he' grading and-toad constructionphases-as a' result 'of fugitive du'stlànd'. emissions'from construction.. equipment.' Howver, by.relieving .traffic :congestion, the project,.. may reduce the amount of vehicle, emissions tand, reduce i-the. number' I ' of "hot pots" created, by traffic -congestion. in. the long run, as a result of-the•.jiotential for growthpinduc"ement, the, road., ex'pansion wi'l-1 pbably increase vehicle 'ernissions.,HoweVer, the I --grothand'.th'eroad 'expansion. have 'been planned by boththe Citis of'Carlsbad and Encinitas, and is expected,to be ccnsitent with the. Regional.- Air Quality Strategie. . Increases in emissions are expected to 'be incrementally insignificant. 3 Paved areas and other hardscape surraces always result in slightly higher temperatures arid less moisture than would occur with vegetated surfaces. By increasing the number of paved traffic lanes to four, and eventually to six, the microclimate in the area may be minimally altered. However, the difference will be so small as tonot be noticeable and is considered to be an insignificant impact. The proposed interim road would require some filling of the Encinitas Creek floodplain south of the existing Olivenhain Road, and the ultimate 6-lane road could require additional filling. This will result in a change in the hydraulics of the Encinitas Creek system and could significantly affect the potential for land use on the property in the southeast quadrant of the El Camino Real/Olivenhain Road intersection by increasing the amount of land expected to be inundated during a 100-year storm. HEC-2 computer analyses should be prepared to assess the potential for changes in the floodplain and inundation areas that could result from the proposed project. Two analyses should be prepared, with one assuming the current condition of the culvert beneath El Camino Real and the other assuming that the culvert is cleaned out and functioning at its maximum capacity. In addition, the grading plans for the future additional widening of Olivenhain Road to six lanes should be developed now so that it can be determined whether additional hydraulic impacts will occur in the future. The significance of hydraulic impacts cannot be determined without additional technical studies including quantification. If the proposed project requires the construction of a detour road to the south of the existing road in order to accommodate traffic during the road widening, the construction of the detour road would likely require substantial filling of the floodplain and further increase hydraulic and flooding impacts on land in the City of Encinitas, as well as increasing biological impacts. The cumulative impacts would be significant. The Delmar Formation and Torrey Sandstone soils, both within the La Jolla Group, are highly erodible soils, and sedimentation into Encinitas Creek and, ultimately, Batiquitos Lagoon, could be significant. This can be mitigated to a level of insignificance through the design and implementation of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, as discussed in 43 above. The project will require the removal and/or recompaction of a small amount of alluvial soils. It is possible that this could result in the recovery of some and and gravel that is usable for either construction materials or for beach replenishment, a beneficial impact. The Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials In the Western San Diego County Production-Consumption Region (California Department of Conservation, division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 153, 1983) classified the floodplain in the vicinity of the project area as being in Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 3, meaning that there is not enough data available to 4 assess the significance of resources. The County's map of significant aggregate resources does not include the project I. area. The proposed project will require energy for the I construction equipment and will ultimately increase vehicle fuel consumption because it will allow growth to occur. However, the growth is planned and the increase will be incrementally insignificant. In addition, the relieving of congestion on I Olivenhain Road through the road widening and signal modification may, in the short term, result in a reduction in fuel consumption. Portions of the site are underlain by the Delmar Formation and the Torrey Sandstone. The Delmar Formation in other parts of the county has been known to contain rich molluscan assemblages, and it is possible that valuable fossils exist on-site. The yellow-green claystone beds within Torrey Sandstone have been found to be fossiliferous in other San Diego County coastal I areas, and it is possible that these areas on-site also contain fossils (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1975, Geology of the San' Diego Metropolitan Area, California). The loss of possible paleontological resources on-site could constitute a significant impact. However, without some form of excavation, any existing fossils would never be found. Therefore, potential adverse impacts to any existing resources can be mitigated to a level of insignificance and science can be advanced through a paleontological monitoring, salvage, curating and reporting program, as outlined below: 1. A qualified paleontologist should do a literature and. records search, surface study of the site, subsurface testing if necessary, record any sites, and make recommendations regarding the need for further work. If it is determined during Phase 1 that further work is necessary, it should consist of the following: a. A qualified paleontologist should be present at apre- grading conference with the developer, grading contractor, and the City's project planner or environmental consultant. The purpose of the meeting will be to consult and coordinate the role of the paleontologist in the grading of the site. A qualified . paleontologist is defined as an individual with adequate knowledge and experience with fossilized remains likely to be present to identify them in the field and is adequately experienced to remove the resources for further study. No grading permits should be issued until the monitoring plan has been approved by the Director of the Planning Department. I b. A qualified paleontologist or designate should be present during those relevant phases of grading as . 5 determined aL I.Iic' i - ruI I t .oiil'e rence based on the potential for i rid i zig resori rees. The contractor must be made aware of the random nature of fossil occurrences and the possibility of a discovery of remains of such scientific and/or educational importance that a long-term salvage operation or preservation of the resources in-situ might be warranted. The monitor shall have the authority to temporarily direct, divert or halt grading to allow recoveryof fossil remains. At the discretion of the monitor, recovery may include washing and picking of soil samples for micro-vertebrate bone and teeth. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and/or recovery times should be resolved by the Planning Director. Any fossils or potential resources must be prepared and curated in accordance with the standards of the profession. The developer should authorize the deposit of any resources found on the project site in an institution staffed by qualified paleontologists, as may be determined by the Director of the Planning Department. 3. Within one month of the completion of grading, a paleontological monitoring report should be submitted to the Director of the Planning Department. For projects which entail extensive preparation and curation of resources, the time period may be lengthened. The report should (a) describe, in general terms, the stratigraphic setting for all fossils found; (b) describe any unusual or unexpected findings; (c) describe the method(s) used for preparing and curating the resources; and (d) provide a tabulation of the number of hours spent on meetings, monitoring, preparation of the resources,and preparation of the report. Numerous archaeological reports have been prepared for projects in the general area surrounding Olivenhain Road, and numerous prehistoric and a few historic sites have been recorded. However, there appears to be differences of opinion by various archaeological consultants as to what actually constitutes a site and/or the exact location of some sites in the area. In 1976, Russ Kaldenberg recorded Site SDi-4872 (W-982), just north of the westernmost portion of the project, and considered it to be of major importance (An Intensive Archaeological Reconnaissance of the La Costa Land Company Property, Carlsbad, California). Kaldenberg noted the presence of cobble tools, scrapers, flakes, chopping tools, cores and thermally fractured cobbles and hypothesized that it was a yucca processing site. In 1989, ERC Environmental and Energy Services Company (Cultural Resource Survey and Testing of a Portion of Site SDi-4872 (W982) for the Olivenhai'n Road Alignment, Carlsbad, California) field surveyed a 600-foot wide corridor (300 feet on each side of the proposed alignment) and did limited subsurface testing of the portion of Site SDi-4872 (W-982) that was expected to be impacted 6 I - * - •- •, - I by the £proposed interLili ioul it determined that the y maj'oiity,of the -site was -surfic i-al ind .t.hat. the 16-dénsi-ty I .. scattei of material found within.-the proposed roádproject area had 4 washed downslope from the main portin of the site ERC- concluded that the proposed4 4-lane- interim road would ,not I significantly impact archaeological resources as long as direct andindirect impacts were confined toa strip 75 feét north of the éxitirig•road cut for Olivenhain Road. Th proposed grading- would meet thatcr.iter.ia. However., the'ràdi"ng ,shown .on the I improvement plans does not indica'te areas that might be indirectly impacted In order to thitigatepotentiaV impacts of the próposed interim 4-lane road: the edorninedéd gradixg limit's I (75 feet north of the existing cut.) Ishould be ,-flagged prior to. any grading The Mitigation Monitoring Program ..should incivae the presen'c& of a qualified archaeologist -o'n'--site during the I : g radin g 'df the area in, the vicinity àf any, remaining archaéol"ogica-1 sites. . •- -. •- -, • In adiition, the ultimate widening of the road to six lanes may I significantly'impact Site SDi-4872 in the future In order' to ' ensure that all potential ly:significant imi5acts are- mitigated to - a level of insignificance, additional testing and mapping of this1 I sit& will be necessary -after: .t}:.gi.ding -plaris -for the full 6- lane road are developed Therefore, potntial impabts of the ultimate 6-lane road cannot be assessed at this time. 4 .• - .__* : ' : • - •- -*. •_J - J•.., •In a rcent(January 1990). archaeological study prepared for the Arryo La Costa project Environmental Impact Report, Brian F Smith arid- Associates concluded that. tl-è're •ws' a previously.. unrecorded archaeological site e within'- appr locatd wth oxithately 500 feet, east' of recorded site SDi-4872 This site was4 observedto be awidely dispersed flake and tool scatter on a disturbed ..I . terrace and measured approximately -50 feet in diameter.- Itisr possible that - this area is actually aiothCr t1óci of -Site.SDi- 4872, since itis so close, and that it is not a separate, site I Additional -testing and research will be necessary to determine (1) whether this is actual ly. a separate site and-' (2) whether, it is significant according to the CEQA c'riteria. The site- could be' irdirectlirnpacted by either the.proposed 4-lane interim road or I the ultimate 6-lane road Therefore, potential long-term impacts cannot be&ssased unti1 the' additi6nal test ing!-is com1eted' I Because so many consulting firms -have been -inoIved inthe immediate area (ERC, RECON, Brian F Smith arid Associates, TMI • Environmental Services, 'Kaideiiberg,,Van'Buere?i,' Bissel and LSA),. I it is rcommended that either (a) an unbiased archaeologist, who 'has notprviously been, involved in thegeneal-oject area, orli (b) a representative from the aforementioned companies that have— done research in the area, (1) •review the -record searchesand, I. ,. iports, (2).do additional subsurface testing, and (3) assess -whether the:-site.-discovered by Br :F ian.. Smith and '-Associates is actually a separate isite,.whether it is significant, and -what I should be required for mitigation. Potential -long-térm impacts - of the ultimate -6-lane road, cinnot be assessed until the, - - additional testing is completed. I: The proposed interim road will minimize the removal of native vegetation. The potential impacts to riparian res o u r c e s could be significant and will require mitigation, as wel l a s a Streambed Alteration Agreement with the California Department o f Fish and Game and a 404 Permit from the Army Corps of Engi n e e r s . An August 18, 1989 biological survey report prepared by E R C Environmental and Energy Services Co. determined that t h e proposed project would fbi impact. any significant biological resources if all widening occurred north of the existing r o a d . However, the improvement plans indicate that widening will o c c u r on both sides of the road for the 4-lane interim fac i l i t y . Additional widening for a total of six lanes will proba b l y b e accomplished by increasing the right-of-way on the north side o f the road in the future. The ERC analysis did not di s c u s s potential indirect impacts, potential impacts if the interim r o a d was widened on both sides of the existing road, and the poten t i a l impacts of the ultimate 6-1ane road. A recent biological s u r v e y report of the property immediately south of the western m o s t portion of the project area, (Pacific Southwest Biological Services, November 9, 1989, A Report of the Biological Resource s On the 51 Acre Home Depot Specific Plan Area on the Southea s t e r n Corner . El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road, Encinitas, California) delineated the wetlands and sensitive plants on tha t parcel. Based on that delineation, the current proposal would impact a small amount of willow riparian woodland and a sm a l l area of freshwater/brackish marsh south of the existing r o a d . I f the road is widened to the south in 'the future to accommodate t h e planned 6-lane road, additional wetlands could be impacted . It is recommended that the grading plan for the ultimate 6-lane ro a d be completed so that 'potential long-term impacts to bio l o g i c a l resources can be assessed. Without knowing the level of spec i f i c impacts, mitigation cannot be determined.. However, it i s possible that impacts could be mitigated to a level o f insignificance through wetlands replacement and/or enhanc e m e n t . The mitigation will have to be determined in coordination w i t h the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fi s h a n d Wildlife Service, which advises the Army Corps of Engineer s . The proposed interim road and the ultimate 6-lane road coul d result in the introduction of non-native plant species in or d e r to minimize the erosion potential. Significant impacts to wildlife r.a&rces could occur if the project requires either a detour or ' d; widening through a significant portion of the wetlands totheaouth of the existing road. There are no prime agricultural soils or important 'farmlands within the project area, so no significant impacts a r e anticipated. ' The proposed interim road will affect a minor amount of wetlands, which can be mitigated to a level of insignific a n c e through replacement and/or enhancement, either on- or off-s i t e . However, if a detour road is required to be constructed south o f the existing road, or if the future 6-lane road requires furth e r 8 I . widening to the south, wetlands could be significantly impacted and the diversity of habitat, and probably plant and animal species, could significantly decrease. Although the least Bell's vireo has not been sighted since 1982, when it was found in Green Valley to the west, it is possible that this sensitive species could be impacted by a substantial loss of wetlands and by grading if it were to occur during breeding season (April'l to August 1). The grading plans need to be further refined to show the ultimate grading required for a 6-lane road and to discuss phasing and construction time frames before biological impacts can be thoroughly assessed. I 16. The widening of the road could further hinder the movement of animals between the hillsides north of the Olivenhain Road and the creek to the south. Since none of the biological reports for the general area have identified any established wildlife I corridors, this is not considered to be a significant impact because there is already an existing road acting as a barrier. The proposed road expansion will accommodate, but not alter, the planned land uses in the area. According to the Olivenhain Road Route Adoption Report, the I proposed alignment may require the relocation of a 30-inch gas main and two fuel mains that are within the existing SDG&E easement. This is not expected to be a significant impact. I Although the project could impact schools indirectly through potential growth inducement, the road will also improve traffic conditions and emergency access to the area. No significant I -impacts are anticipated. The proposed project would not impact sewer systems, solid I waste or hazardous waste control systems. During construction, the proposed project will increase noise levels in the general area and could impact, on a short- I term basis, existing residential subdivisions both north and south of Olivenhain Road, as well as other commercial, industrial and governmental uses. The proposed road widening I will accommodate existing and future planned traffic. Therefore, noise levels would be expected 'to increase over time. There is currently no noise analysis available,' so potential impacts to I existing and planned development cannot be assessed'. A noise after the grading plans for the are developed, so that impacts ,'to development, tis'currentlY in the planning' stage can be I avoided and so that 'potential impacts to existing uses can be identified and mitigation designed into the project. While there is a potential for a significant impact, a determination cannot I be made without the quantification included in a noise analysis prepared by a qualified acoustician. I' 21.' The proposed project will incrementally increase the amount of light and glare from the road because it will accommodate increases -in traffic. No significant impacts are anticipated. 22.. The underlying geoLogic formations will not require blasting,, and no hazardous substances are involved in the project. The project will accommodate planned growth. It is not, expected to significantly increase the population density. The-project-would not create a demand for additional housing or affect existing housing other th;an through increased traffic and noise levels. No significant impacts are anticipated,. ' The project will not generate any additional traffic, but may facilitate the development of lands farther east, which could generate additional traffic. However, the General Plan has planned for future development and 'traffic, and this is why Olivenhain Road is designated as a 6-lane Prime Arterial. No significant impacts are anticipated. The.project will have no imp.cts on parking and will not create a large demand for new parking, During construction, the poject will impact traffic circulation on Olivenhain Road. This is considered to be a short-term, insignificant impact Overall, the project will beneficially impact traffic: circulation:.-in the long run. 28 The project will not alter watrborne, rail or air traffic The project will not increase traffic hazards, but. will, instead, beneficially impact afety through the street improvements. The project will not interferewith emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans and-will, by improving traffic circulation, aid in the implementation of these plans. The proposed 4-lane interim road will require cut slopes approximately 25 feet high along the north side of some portions of the road The steepest slopes and the highest cut slopes will be on the hillside in the northeast corner of. the El Camino Real/Olivenhain Road intersection and will be highly visible from El Camino Real, which: is designated as aScenic Highway in the General Plans for both the Cities of Carlsbad and,Encinitas. The potential-metr can be mitigated Ito a level of insignificance through the rounding out the tops and toes of the artificial slopes and creating an undulating slope planted with native vegetation that blends with the surounding vegetation. The City of Encinitas has specific design guidelines for projects. The project will not affect any recreational opportunities. The ultimate 6-1ane road could significantly impact the Escondido' Creek wetlands and potential least Bell's, vireo 1.0 .5 I and doWnsLreLIti i'itiIiit I.Iii!I 4)11 .4 'CX.IML trig dtzt1 riage system. PS Growth Inducement..- This- section is required by CEQA. I . Hwever, it is not ant.icip;t.ed that the project-would resu1t ,,.in any significant iinp.ct.s.. . ) . 1. 4,& -. . ,1 .. . . . -- I 4t I . 5- .4 . . ... c , I S. IL '4 I ....... I I ' 1 .5.. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The proposed road alignment, with widening occurring w i t h i n t h e existing right-of-way, on both sides of the road, is con s i d e r e d to be environmentally preferable to the Alternative # 1 a l i g n m e n t that was previously considered, which traversed s u b s t a n t i a l l y more of the wetlands area south of Olivenhain Road and e a s t o f E l Camino Real and would have required creek channeli z a t i o n . However, there are several questions about the cur r e n t p r o j e c t that need to be resolved. A recent court case, Laurel Heights Improvement Associat i o n o f San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of the University of C a l i f o r n i a , (1988) determined that an EIR must discuss a project's r e a s o n a b l y foreseeable uses and their environmental consequences . A n o t h e r court case, Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) m a d e i t c l e a r that mitigation could not be defined in future studi e s , b u t m u s t be identified as part of the environmental review p r o c e s s . ----) Thus, even though the current project does not propose 6 l a n e s , the land and grading required for the ultimate road i m p r o v e m e n t / must be assessed as part of this project. Therefore, the improvement plans need to be revised to reflect the g r a d i n g t h a t will ultimately be required for the 6-lane road before p o t e n t i a l impacts can be fully assessed. Olivenhain Road is designated as a Prime Arterial i n b o t h t h e Encinitas and Carlsbad General Plan Circulation Elements, a n d t h e concept of widening the road is not in question.. Ho w e v e r , t h e exact alignment, and the potential impacts of the gr a d i n g n e e d e d for the alignment, will be critical in determining p o t e n t i a l long-term impacts and planning for future development a l o n g t h e road. The Olivenhain Road Route Adoption Report ra i s e d s e v e r a l issues that need to be resolved regarding the fu t u r e r o a d improvements: (1) the need for a detour road, which c o u l d h a v e very significant impacts; (2) the hillside cutting requ i r e d f o r various alternatives; (3) the. potential impacts to w e t l a n d s , hydraulics, flooding, and land use in Encinitas; an d ( 4 ) t h e variation in rights-of-way that will be necessary to ac c o m m o d a t e existing development. For this reason, it has been determined that an Environmental Impact Report should be pr e p a r e d . I t should include all of the sections and information r e q u i r e d b y the State CEQA Guidelines and Carlsbad's and Encinita s ' l o c a l CEQA guidelines. It. should address the ultimate 6-lane road, including.... .LiQ-.grading plans, and should be focused on the following issues: 1. Biological Resources, especially impacts to wetlands , l e a s t Bell's vireos and sensitive species, including pote n t i a l indirect impacts from erosion and sedimentation. The California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish a n d Wildlife Service should 'be consulted during t h e determination of mitigation measures. 12,. 1 I 2 Cultural Resources, w itli tdlil iorial testing and analysis to determine ( 1 ) whether the tiet' site identified by Brian F. 'Smith and Associates is a separate site of part of Site SDi- 4872 (W-982);. (2) whether the 6-lane road could directly.or indirectly i inp L( UI'. I L,rI I I I III III hit a] resources, and (3) what, if any mitigation measures are recommended to mitigate impacts to significant resources. If all or part of the recommended testing and analysis is completed as part of another project, sticit as Arroyo La Costa, the EIR should I include a summary of the results. 3. Geologic Hazards, specifically addressing (1) whether the I grading required for the ultimate 6-lane road could reactivate the landslide; (2) whether material will have to be imported for fill and' if so, the source of the material and an analysis of potential impacts from the importation of I ' 'the material; and (3) indirect impacts' associated with the necessary remedial tr:i.ding, such as noise, road blockage/traffic congestion, erosion and siltation. 4. Traffic Circulation, specifically addressing (1) project phasing and how' traffic will be handled during each phase; (2') projected timing, traffic and Levels of Service upon completion of the 4-lane interim road and upon completion of the 6-lane road; (3) indirect impacts on other roads during project construction; and (4) compatibility of the project with the Encinitas and Carlsbad General Plans, particularly relating to goals and. policies related to bike lanes, road widths and right-of-way widths. 1 5. . Compatibility with the Carlsbad and Encinitas Genera]. Plans, specifically addressing (1) resource 'and floodplain I ' management; (2) hillside management policies; '(3) preservation of sensitive species and habitats; (4) preservation of cultural resources; (5) public facility management; (6) growth management/inducement; '(7) open space I management/preservation; (8) scenic highway designations and policies; (9) management ofdrainage facilities and systems; and'. (10) topographic alteration/visual quality. 6. Noise, including .A noise analysis with arnap showing projected noise contours for the 6-1ane road and defining I necessary mitigation measures. If. this analysis is completed as part of another 'project, such as Arroyo La Costa, it may be summarized in the EIR. I , Paleontological Resources. This section can incorporáte'the findings and recommendations of this' Initial Study and, should include the recommended Mitigation Monitoring Program. 8. Hydrology/Water Quality. This section should include a quantitative analysis of the potential impacts, and I' "recommended measures to iait.igate. impacts, associated •with (1) erosion resultin m g fro grading and (2) hydraulic changes created by floodplain filling and their impacts on upstream 1 13 and dow ri s L re nih (111 ,1 I ii -~ ;i iid I) ii I Ii C i L iii g d V, i ring C system. 9. Growth.1nducement. T.Iii.s section is CEQA. However, it is not .intiip;Led that the project would result 1 In any significant irnpu:t.s. I I I I I. 1 I •: • • I I I I I it I I ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, C) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. kLTERNATI,-VE #1 Ihe ultimate 6 lane road would be constructed instead of the 4 lane nterim road. The environmental effects would need to be addressed in an EIR as discussed in theprevious pages. I. LTERNATIVE #2 Jhe "no project" alternative would not construct the-proposed 4 lane oad and ultimate 6- laneroad. This alternative would result in evere traffic congestion and a deterioration of air quality in the local area. I- I • I I- • • I • • •. I: • - I • - - I - - • I - - -- •H / Date Date LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have .a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed. X I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required I ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)- -8- APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES I THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH'THE ADDITION OF THSE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. I Date - Signature 1 • i I. 1 I i - - - - . - I --I - - i ..1 I I.. H H 1 I 1 I I . NOTICE OF -PREPARATION (City of Encinitas) I , ..' ...,. I. I S. I I Ii S TO: Fl" V FROM: Cominunity'Development Department V City-.of-Encinitas - V V527 Encinitas Boulevard Encinitas, CA 92024 Y SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report V V V V The 'City of Encinitas will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the project idéntif led below. We need to know the views of your agency,, as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your 'agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description, location, and the probable environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the' Initial Study is not, attached. V , Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response. must V be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days V after receipt of this notice. Please send your response*- to Patrick Murphy; Community Development Department; at the address shown above. We will. need the name for a contact person in your agency. Project Title: Olivenhain Road Alignment, ,Case No. 90-259 Project Applicant, if any: Fieldstone/La Costa Associates DATE: January 3, 1991 V Signature Title Community Development Director Telephone ('619) 944-5060 V "V PM/04/MN6-535.PF (1/4/91) Notice of Completion S Appendix F See O7iocso Mail to: State Cleannghouse, 1400 Tenth SeeL Sacramento. CA 95814 916/5-0€13 SCH 9 I ProjectTitle: Olivenhain Rd. Alignment Case No.90-259 Lead Agency: City of Encinitas ConLaci Patrick Murphy Street Address: 527 Encinitas Blvd. Phone: 619 9445060 ___ City: _ cinitas, CA Zip:92024 Cdunry San Diego Project Location County: San Diego CityIHCaTCSt Community: Encinitas & Carlsbad CrossSoeets: El Camino Real & Olivenhain Road Total Acres: N/A Assessor's Parcel No. Section ______________ Twp. Range: Base: ,N/A Within 2 Miles: State Hwy I5 Waterways: Batiguitos Lagoon Airports N/A Railways: AT & SF Schools: N/A I Document Type CEQA: )NOP DSupplem/Subsequent NEPA ONOI Other: Doint.Document [:)Early Cons - D EIR (Prior SCH No. ) 0 EA 0 Final Document Neg Dec 0 Other --- --- - 0 Draft EIS 0 0ther ___________ ------- - Local Action Type General Plan Update 0 Specific Plan 0 Rzone 0 Annexation General PlanAmcndmcnt - o Master Plan 0 Prezone 0. Redevelopment General Plan Element 0 Planned Unit Development 0 Use Permit 0 Coastal Permit Community Plan 0 Site Plan 0 Land Division (Subdivision, X3 other Road ---------------------- - - - - Parcel Map. Tract Map. etc.) Realignment. Development Type Residential: Urns: Acres D Water Facilities: Type 11GD office: Sq.ft._____ Acres F,wioyses_____ )transportation: Type Road realignment Commercial: Sq.ft. Acres Emoloyces_______ 0 Mining: Min.erai_________________________ CD Industrial: Sc.ft. ' Acres Enp1oyees 0; Power: Type WOJZS._I. Educational 0 Waste Treatment: Type U Recreational ' 0 Hazardous Waste: Type - O Other Project Issues Discussed in Document ------------------------------- -------- Aesthetic/Visual gkFiood Plain/Flooding 0 School.sfUniversities )CR Water Quality O A;ncultural Land 0 Forest Land/Fire Hazard 0 Septic systems 0 Water Supply/Groundw Air Quality (Gcologic/Seisrnic 0 Sewer Capacity -a Wetland/Riparian X0 Archeologieal/Historical 0 Minerals x Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading Wildlife Coastal Zone tJ Noise 0 Solid Waste Growth Inducing X) Drainage/Absorption 0 Population/Housing Balance 0 ToxicMazardous Landuse Economic/Jobs 0 Public Services/Taciliiies (Traffic/Circulation 0 Cumulative Effects 0 Fiscal 0 Recreation/Parks JZkVegetation 0 Other Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use ---------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Olivenhain Road is designated as ,a 6 lane Prime Arterial roadway in both the cities of Carlsbad and Encinitas. Project Description The proposed project is the widening and realignment of the existing Olivenhain Road between Rancho Santa Fe Road and El Camino Real. -S I ,.'OTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If 3 SCH number already xists for a project (C.;. from a Notice ofPrcoara: or prcvious draft document) please fill it in. Rcvi.ccd Oct ,,: OLIVENBAIN ROAD ALIGNMENT EIR CASE ..NO. 90-259 1. NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Proposed Prolect: I. The proposed project, is the widening and realignment of the existing Olivenhain Road between Rancho Santa FeRoad and El Camino Real. Olivenhain Road is an east-to-west .roàd which connects El I Camino Real with Rancho Santa •Fe Road. Olivenhain Road is approximately' one-mile 'in length and is comprised of three typical cross-sections with a major intersecti9n at each end. This section of'Olivenhain Road is designated as'a Prime Arterial (6-lanes) by I the Circulation Element of .both the cities of Carlsbad and Encinitas. The portion of Olivenhain Road that is proposed to be realigned is the segment west of existing the residential,' communities (Bridgewater and Rancho Del Ponderosa) and 'east of El Camino Real. The proposed alignment is referred to as the, most ' northerly alignment minimizing riparian area impacts. A 900 intersection with El Camino Real is maintained. The existing regional gas lines will need to'be relocated. Approximately 5.7,500' cubic yards of I . excavation, would be required with a maximum' slope height of 32 feet. I The project also' includes a floodwater .detention. .basin 1 1ocated south of Olivenhain Road, just .west of Rancho,Santa Fe-,Road and east,-of the Bridgewater,subdivision., The dam, and the spillway of the basin are located at the downstream outlet. The extent of the I ' basin coincides with the existing floodway boundary. The detention basin may provide adequate flood attenuation such that the reduced I discharge may pass through the bridge at El Camino Real The -'existing and .proposed right-of -ways.are located, within the incorporate boundaries of the cities. of Carlsbad and Encinitas I , between El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road. 'The City of Encinitas will serve as the Lead Agency for the preparation of the EIR and the City of Carlsbad will be a responsible agency... i Profitable Environmental Affects of the Project: An'EnvironinentalIinpa'ct Assessment' Form (Part I) was prepared by l Fay Round and Associates in October,, 1989 . (see enclosure). This assessment addresses an Interim Expansion,.of the road as' a 471ane road. The Environmental' Impact -Assessment Form (Part II) was completed bythe Cityof Carlsbad (see.enclosure). . I PM/03/MS17-1886wp5 1(1-7-91-1) • . 'I I I 1' I The Assessment identified several: major issues that- must be addressed in the EIR.' The issues are: Biological resources, especially wetlands; Cultural resources; Geologic hazards; Traffic circulation; General Plan compatibility (both cities); Traffic, noise; Paleontological resources; Hydrology and water quality; and Growth inducement. Other issues identified during the assessment process that will need to be'addressed include: The need for a detour road and other construction impacts; Hillside grading required; 1.2. Wetland, hydraulics,'flooding and land use impacts inthe City of Encinitas; and. I Existing Conditions: Rancho Santa Fe Road Intersection . I Olivenhain Road is approximately one mile in length and is comprised of three typical cross-sections with a major intersection at each end. It begins to the east at the signalized intersection of Ràncho Santa...Fe. Road' and.. Camino Alvaro. Rancho Santa Fe Road approaches this intersection from the north as a 6-lane prime arterial, and continues to the south as an unimproved 2-land road. Olivenhain..Road Along the frontage of the Santa Fe Ridge subdivision west of the Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection, the northerly side of the road has-been improved to include two travel lanes,,a bike lane, curb and gutter, and sidewalk. The southerly side of the road consists of two travel lanes with an,. unimproved shoulder. The median in this area is also unimproved and varies in width. Further to the west, between the Rancho Del Ponderosa and Encinitas Tract No 4579-1 Subdivision, the right-of-way exists at a uniform 107 foot width. The' road. consists of two eastbound and two, westbound lanes separated by a striped median which allows .f or'. left turn pockets into the adjacent developments The improvements also include a bike lane, curb and gutter, and sidewalk along both.,sides of the road. There are two isolated areas that are not improved to these PM/03/N517-1886wp5 I dimensions. These two areas are on the south side of the road adjacent to Encinitas Tract No. 4579-1. Right-of-way has not been dedicated and improvements have not been made in these two locations. West of the boundary of the Rancho Del Ponderosa and Encinitas Tract No. 4579-1 developments, Olivenhain road transitions into a 2-lane roadway with unimproved shoulders to the El Camino Real intersection. C. El Camino Real Intersection The El Camino Real intersection is a signalized intersection, with four travel lanes and a striped median on ElCamino Real. Olivenhain Road intersects El Camino Real at a skew approximately parallel with Encinitas Creek, which crosses .under El Camino Real directly south of its intersection with Olivenhain Road. A preliminary study by Rick Engineering indicated that the existing bridge and creek are extensively silted in this area. PM/03/MS17-1886wp5 3(1-7-91-1) I p PALOMAR AIRPOT \\ Airport R Mekose Drive I \r \\\ La Costa 'I LI Meadqws Drive 17 EATIOtJTTOS LAGOON LA COSTA SttVOfl ROed /s I LA colsta Avenus LEUCADIA H \\. I \ \ Project N 1 Enciritaa Z I ENCS Sarta T[\ Project Locatio Figure Project Design Con5ulta7l J.N. 737.01 APPENDIX 3 COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING NOTICE OF PREPARATION REVIEW PERIOD Q a STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY F1 'I GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor IDEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 Long Beach, CA 90802 (213) 590-5113 tj JAN I 81991 L) CITY OFENCINITAS January 15, 1990 /b Mr. Patrick Murphy Community Development Department City of Encinitas 527 Encinitas Boulevard Encinitas, CA 92024 W Dear Mr. Murphy: We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR for the Olivenhain Road Alignment, Case No. 90-259. To enable our staff to adequately review and comment on this project, we recommend the following information be included in the Draft EIR: A complete assessment of flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area, with particular emphasis upon identifying endangered, threatened and locally unique species and sensitive and critical habitats. A discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts expected to adversely affect biological resources, with specific measures to offset such impacts. A discussion of potential adverse itnpaôts from any increased runoff, sedimentation, soil erosion, and/or urban pollutants on streams and watercourses on or near the project site, with mitigation measures proposed to alleviate such impacts. Stream buffer areas and maintenance in their natural condition through non-structural flood control methods should also be considered in order to continue their high value as wildlife corridors. More generally, there should be discussion of alternatives to not only minimize adverse impacts to wildlife, but to include direct benefit to wildlife and wildlife habitat. Those discussions should consider the Department of Fish and Game's policy that there should be no net loss of wetland acreage or habitat values. We oppose projects which do not provide adequate mitigation for such losses. I Mr. Patrick Murphy -2- January 15, 1991 Diversion, obstruction of the-natural flow, or changes in the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or, lake will require notification to the Department of Fish and Game as called for in the Fish and Game Code. Notification should be made after the project is approved by the lead agency. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions, please äontaát KrisLal of our Environmental Services staff at (213) 590-5137. Sincerely, I I Fred Worthiey Regional Manager Region 5 cc: Office of Planning & Research I I • .1 II • I 1 I I * Olivenhain Municipal Water District 1 -'• BOARD OF DIRECTORS Harold L. Ga no, President Howard G. Golem, Vice President Ann L. Peay, Secretary. Thelma M. Miller, Treasurer I Harley L. 'Denk, Director 1 5 City of Encinitas 527 Encinitas Blvd. ,Encinitas, California '92024 I Dear Mr. Murphy: 1966 OLIVENHAIN ROAD ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024-9761 PHONE (619) 753-6466 FAX: (619) 753-1578 January 17, 1991 GENERAL COUNSEL Smith and Pelizer ENGINEER Boyle Engineering Corp. MANAGER William H. Hollingsworth D LLcin..c'r •T Attention: Mr. Patrick Murp hy Subject: Draft EIR/Olivenhain Road Realignment/Case #90-259 * , The District has received the City's Notice of Preparation of the subject EIR. The only comment pertinent at this point is the fact that -the District does have water line facilities in the vicinity of the intersection of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road. It is requested that the City coordinate its final approval of the plans for the' widening of Olivenhain Road with the -District to ensure non- interference with the District's current water line facilities. Specifiô information concerning those facilities would be available upon receipt of information from the City concerning the City's plans - for the road widening. . elf 1 &, If there are any questions concerning this matter, please contact the undersigned. OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT F. D.. Fontanesi General Services Director 0 A Public Agency ncorporaled on March 24. 1959: lolrned under the Munc'30l Waler Distlicl Law Of 1911 Seclion 71.000 el. sec. of me Slale of California Waler Cone - -. Righr of Waylliaison PAC IF C BELL 7337 Trade Sfreer, Room 5410 San Diego, California 92121 A Pacific Telesis Company (6191586-3900 January 22, 1991 JA 51991 Patrick Murphy Community Development Department City of Encinitas 527 Encinitas Boulevard Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report for Olivenhain Road Alignment Case No. 90-259 In response to your letter dated January 3, 1991, I would like to point out some major concerns of Pacific Bell. On the "Environmental Impact Assessment form - Part II" under the heading "Human Environment" item number 18, the "X" was placed under "Yes (insig)" as to the affect on public utilities. The affect on the telephone plant would be very significant. I have attached a marked copy of our facilities affected by the pro- ject. While it is difficult to determine the amount of conflict without improvement plans, it is probable that our entire structure would have tobe relocated to maintain a safe access into our manholes in an area near the edge of the right of way. Our cost to relocate our facilities is estimated to be in excess of $1,000,000.00. We will require a position behind the ultimate curb- line of the proposed final six-lane alignment if possible. We will need the new roadbed to be near final grade before our facilities can be placed and our existing facilities must remain in service until all cable are in, spliced, tested and working in the new system. Please provide improvement plans at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Dan~Bchanan Liaison STATE OF CALIFORNIA—OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR — f\It'C (\C bi A kIkIlkIf A kt DCCC A D 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 rr _U.J7J1 LIU JAN 2 8!QQ( .CITY Q Ec,...JTAsj DATE: Jan 23, 1991. TO: Reviewing Agency - RE: CITY OF ENCINITAS's NOP for OLIVENHAIN ROAD ALIGNMENT CASE NO. 90-259 SCH # 91011035 Attached for your comment is the CITY OF ENCINITAS's NOtice of Preparation of 'a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the OLIVENHAIN ROAD ALIGNMENT CASE NO. 90-259. Responsible agencies must transmit their concerns and comments on the scope and content of the EIR, focusing on specific information related to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 days of receipt of this notice. We encourage commenting agencies to respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the environmental review process. Please direct your comments to: PATRICK MURPHY CITY OF ENCINITAS 527 ENCINITAS BLVD. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 with a copy to the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCH number noted above in all correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions about the review process, call Terri Lovelady at (916) 445-0613. Sincerely, - David C. Nunenkamp Deputy Director, Permit Assistance Attachments cc: Lead Agency HOP Distribution List S = scat by lead agency X = Sdilt by SCI Resources Agency Karen Cagle 629 S Succ U Dept. of 0osth9 A Waterways 1 SiciamenioCA 95814 916/4456231 Gary I.. ll.dloway Calilornia Coastal Cnuninisslun 631 Howard Sired. 4di flout San Francisco. CA 9410$ 4151343US$ keel lint lerinso State Coastal Conscuvancy L] 1330 fijusdw.y. Sidle 1100 Oakland. CA 94612 415/464-1015 I)annl. O°llrysnl []Dc pi. ntConsc,vstlon 1416 Ninth Siacel, Room 1326-2 5aci.unc.,to.CA 95914 916/322-5173 Div. of Mines and Urology Div. of Oil and Gas Land Resources Pantoi.1. (Jolt IJooglia Wichlier of 1)911. of l'ore-atiy D 1416 Sited. Itnoun 1516-2 Sacia,iicnbo, CA 95814 916/322 0128 lions KrCulizlae,'9 Office of llitiuinc Pgcsc.vaalon I/ P.O. flu. 942896 Sac,.unattu. CA 942960001 916/322-9621 Mlii Doyle of Pacts 10J Recitation D l)cp,. P.O. Do. 942896 Saciantciilo, CA 94296-0001 916/324-6421 Anna leans Brunson fli)ar jRoan1416 []Reclamation Ninth Sitect Ron 706 Saci.mciito, CA 95814 9161322-3140 Nancy Wakiniso Hay Ccaucrvadisi & l)cv'S. Cesnns. D S.F. 30 Van Ness Avenue. itunan 2011 Sail Iraimaco, CA 94102 4151557-3686 Nadell Gayuu l)cpt. of Water Resources [J 1416 fijuith Street. Room 215-4 Sacaamnaiuiu, CA 95814 916/445-7416 D D Fish and Cams - Regional 011k., Gary Stacey, Regional Manage, Dcpautmciit of Fish and China 6011 A"St kcandiitg. CA 960111 916/225-2300 (9-442) Jim Meuersmllh, Regional Managcz Depauiniczfl of Fili & Chine 1701 Nimnlani Road, Suite A Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 9161325-0922(9-438) D. Ilunlar, Regional Manage, U Dcp.nmcsmi of Fish and (linac P.O. On. 41 Yonntvillc, CA 94599 7011944551$ C. UnItes, Regional Manager D ikpsd in anaat of Fish and Ga. 1234 Fiat Show Avenue Fucano. CA 937*0 209/222.3761(1-421) D l'reul A. Worlhley, Jr.. keg. Manages Department of Fish and (ianac 330 Golden Shore. Suite 30 1.'.ig Beach. CA 90*02 21319&5 113 (8-633) Independent Commissions ' John U. l4ulfer D (.Ii1u.nui Energy Comnutulsalon . 1516 Ninth Sired. MS-IS S,ciasnenbu, CA 95814 916/323-9180 William A. Johnson Native American lIcriu.c Casino. 915 Capitol Mail. Room 28$ Sacrarnaato, CA 93114 9161322-7191 (;anre Ilerab D I\at,lic Uthhitica Ccanmlulon SOS Van Uris Avenue San Francisco. CA 94102 41313)7-1313(8-597) Ilefly Eubanks State lands ('tmmmlulon 1807. 13th Susect Sacrauncoto, CA 93814 916/322-2195 Business, Transportation. & housing - Sandy Ileanard D Cahtesna- Division of Aeronautics P.O. fin. 942874 Sac,anuento.CA 94274-000* 9161324-1133 Sgi. JIm WeduhU CalIfornia Ilighwsy Patrol L] 1.1.18 Range PlannIng Section Plaminumg and Analysis Division 255$ Pint Avenue Sacramento. CA 95811 916/445-1991 -. Ron Ilelgason (1 .61 . liamuting IJopailinenI al Transportation D1st,k.t Contacts Jo Sanford District L Caltm.ns. 1656 Union Street Fords. CA 95501 707/445-6611(9-538) Michelle (;anaghnr Dumcl 2 LI Cshtsans. 1657 Riverside 1)4,. Redalitig, CA 96001 916/225-3259(8-442) Di Ion J. Smith Caitrin., Durrieti L] 703 hlStreet Mat 'lie. CA 95901 916fl41-4217 (9.451) Wade Green Durnid 4 LI Cahunna, P.O. ho. 7310 San Pmamidacu, CA 94120 4131557-9162 (8-597) Jerry Isomer Lhtr,ictj LI Cslttina, P.O. flu. $114 San Lois Obispo. CA 93403-1114 1031549-3161 (1-629) l.a,on Fairchild District ó U Caltzana, P.O. Here 12616 I1ucino. (A 93178 209/216-5989 (8-422) Gary McSweeney flLulrics • U Calusiui., 120 South Spring Stied Isa Angeles, CA 90012 213/620-2376(I-640) flat Vey Sawyer District 8 U Caiur.ns, 247 West 11mh4 Street Sin Bernardino. CA 92403 7141383-4108 (8-610) Andy Zeilman U Calumna. lhitdci 9 500 South Main Staves flualiop.CA 94514 6191*32-0693 (8-627) Al Johnson U Caltz.na. lhjs,ict 10 P.O. Due 2018 Stockton, CA 95201 209/941-1838 (1423) Jim Cheshire Caltrana. flfrr,icsll FN P.O. Unit 83406 2829 loan Strcct San Diego. CA 92138-3406 619/237-6753(9-631) Chuck 1.1mm, District 12 U Caustics. 2501 Puilnuan St. Santa Au'a. CA 92705 7141224-2061 (8635) Food and Agriculture Vashek Cervinks of Food and Agriculture 1220 U Dept. N Sired, Koran 104 Sacramento, CA 93814 9*6/322-3227 Health & Wehlars (JtayTu of Ileahh U Dept. 714 PSt,cct.Roozn 1253 Sacramento, CA 93814 916/323-6111 U State and Consumer Services PoIsed Sieppy U Dept. of Gencial Sesvicca 4(15) P SUMS..,. 3460 Sacramento, CA 95814 9161324-0214 Environmental Make fltmh Fletcher ]Alt Resources Board 1102 Q Stied 5sccemcnto,CA 95114 916/322-8261 JI Jeannie Blakeslee Calif. Waste Management Board *020 Nijitlm Street. Room 300 Saciansento, CA 95114 9161321-0454 State Water Resources Control Board Allan Patton U State Water Resources Control Board Division of Loans A Grants P.O. Do, 944212 Sacian,cnto, CA 94244-2120 916/139-4414 Dave Beringer U State Wales Resources Control hosed Delta (hut P.O. Boa 2000 Sscrarncsiio, CA 95810 916(322-9810 Ed Anion U State Watts Resources Control Board Divialman of Water Quality P.O. Boa *00 Sacrauncnto,CA 9380* 916/443-9552 Mike Falkenslein U State Water Rcsnticcs Control hoard Division of Water Rights 901 P Stir-et 5acr.nmcntu, CA 95814 9161124-5636 AI'CH/AQMi): )1" OtOO SCI-IN _9101 10 n. Regional Waist Quality Coilliol Board NORTH COAST 111.07-ION (I) U 1440 C,ucumtcvillc Rd. Santa Rosa, CA 93401 707/576.2220(8-590) SAN FRANCISCO hAY REGION , (2) hill Jackson Street. l*oom6000 [J 0.1 laid, CA 94607 415/464.I255(8-561) - CENTRAL. COAST ItEGION (3) U Il02-/tl.aueclLane San I.ula Obispo, CA 93401 1051549-3147(8-629) OS ANGELES REGION (4) UI 101 Center Plaza Dmivo Monterey P.18, CA 9*754 21312664460 (8.640) VALLEY kEGION (3)- U CENTRAl. 3443 kouties Road, Suite A Sacramento. CA 95827-3099 916/361-3600 Fresno Branch Office 3614 last Ashhaut Avenue • Q Ercsno, CA 93126 209/445-5116(8-421) Re Branch ames Q 100 Fiat Cypress Avenue Rcddimig, CA 96002 916/224-4845 (ATS 441) LAIIONTAN REGION () lake Tahoe l*ommicvamd U 2092 P.O. ,ox 9429 South Lake Taboo, CA 9573* 916/544-3481 Vlcturvlhle Branch omc. Civic Drive. Suite 100 0 15428 Viciorvilic. CA 92392.2359 61912.41-6383 COLORADO RIVER BASIN (1) U REGION 73-211 highway lll, Suite 21 Palm Dcscn, CA 92260 6191346-7491 SANTA ANA REGION (8) 6809 Indiana Avenue, Suite 200 U. Riversidc.CA 92506 7141282-4130(8-632) SAN DIEGO REGION (9) 9771 Claimmmiu,mt Mesa iilvd.. Suite U Sam,l)icgo.C.A 92124-1331 • 619/265-5114(8.636) OIl IER: U OThER: ----aN - 0 FOR REVIEW & COMMENT 0 FOR YOUR SIGNATURE Ai' V I CABLEVISION COMMUNICATION CENTER q JAN 2 899I P.O. Box 344 5720 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 I (619) 438-7723 0 LETTER. OF TRANSMITTAL 7nfiOr 27 -rc vir Attention:rixj P•?t.)1' We are forwarding: BY MAIL tis-material is sent: 0 FOR YOUR ACTION 10. COPIES I 'p I 0 PER YOUR REQUEST DESCRIPTION DATE: O BY MESSENGER FOR YOUR INFORMATION o FOR YOUR APPROVAL t PIES TO: BY: _____________________________________ IF ENCLOSURES AR AS NOTED, PLEASE NOTIFY US AT .ONCE. jJ2J Lr j•i . Proposed R =: /Realignment II / H ._._ •-.- ..-. -' 1 •> i T' LJ I I R L N 16 MO NCEP'dTvS 2-• -- _______—.-' -- _r-_ J (7 :7 I /I '7 -r \\ \' all ?/ I tDetention Basin Vet qaD 1N .1 NOT TO SCALE I I ., January 30, 1991 I OIS HUMPHREYS President - STEPHEN DEERING . . tvVice President . WNE SULLIVAN. Mr. Patrick Murphy Director - Community Development Director JUDY H CITY OF ENCINITAS Director 527 Encinitas Blvd. . .JIWAMLUMAN Encinitas, CA 92024 Director . '. . . . iJDAN GEISEIHART . . . . UJLJI JAN2i :Hi Manager ' •. Re: Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr Murphy I have reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Olivenhain Road Alignment Case No 90-259 Leucadia County Water District provides sewer service in the subjéét:' area. The report states in two, separate' sections that the sewage system.is not likely to be impacted. Be aware that the District does have an l8 sewer main IL with four manholes located in the existing section of Olivenhain Road Any questions regarding LCWD facilities located in this project area may be directed to me at the number listed below Yours very truly, LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 4LQTh cJ . . • Michael J. Bardin - • . • Line Maintenance Superintendent MJB/bls . • • , , . , 'FAX (619) 753.3094 District Office: 1960 La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92009 • P.O. Box 2397, Leurodia, California 92024-0954 . (619) 753-0155 • Printed on recycled paper. pirge LAUREN M. WASSERMAN 11Iuunfg of San DIRECTOR (619) 694-2962 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE I I FIELD OFFICE 334 VIA VERA CRUZ SAN MARCOS CALIFORNIA 92069-2638 (619) 741.4236 #' MAIN OFFICE 6201 RUFFIN ROAD. SUITE B. SAN DIEGO. CA INFORMATION Ifl r (619)694-29to February 1, 1991 FF~ 51991 CITYOFENCINiTAS Community Development Department City of Encinitas 527 Encinitas Blvd Encinitas, CA 92024 Attn: Olivenhain Road Alignment, Case No. 90-259 Thank you for opportunity to comment on this Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for this project. The County of San Diego would like to express our concerns regarding the traffic -"analysis and engineering work to be completed in this effort. The City of Encinitas has issued a Noticeof Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact for the upgrading of Olivenhain Road (SA 680) on the border between the Cities of Encinitas, Carlsbad and the County of San Diego. Olivenhain Road will be improved as an interim four lane road on one of three potential alignments between Rancho Santa Fe Road and El Camino Real. El Camino Real is a shared route between the County of San Diego and the Cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad. At El Camino Real, the County's Circulation Element calls for SA 680 (Olivenhain Road) to continue west as a Major Road through the County island to tie into Leucadia Blvd. The Sandag Mid- County base forecast shows volumes at the intersection of SA 680 and El Camino Real of 52,000 to the north, 54,000 to the south, 28,000 to the west and 39,000 to the east. This would bring 86,500 trips into the intersection and 8,650 trips during the peak hour. This volume may exceed the capacity of an at-grade intersection requiring a grade separation. We request that a peak hour turning movement study be completed to review Intersection Capacity Utilization calculation to determine intersection geometry. If the geometry does not work out, then the intersection will need to be identified as a grade separation, with appropriate right-of-way reserved for grade separation. Any interim improvements and final plans should be developed to accommodate the future requirements of .this intersection. 1 0 V The adopted alternative alignment should reflect a through route consistent with the County's routé. location study for the V alignment of'the segment between El Caminó Real and the current I terminus of Leucadia Blvd. This should be coordinated through the Route Locations section of the County's Department of Public Works. V If you need additional information, please contact Jim Lundquist, Associate Transportation Specialist, at 694-3724. I Sincerely yours, • V 1• VV . V VV '' WASSERMAN, irector • Department of Planning and Land Use V • , V V • •,' 'V 'V' •VV :LMW:JL: V. • .cc: V Jim Lundquist V V • V V Bill' Hoeben ' V V • • VVV V V V Bob Asher V V • V V • file:' SA 680 • ' ' • V ' V '• V V V I V 'VV VV • • VVVV,• V , , •;, VVV•V;,VV V V 1. ' V ""V . , • V ,, V V V "1: V V , . . • V • •' J V •, V ' , V 'V • V 'V V City of Carlsbad February 4, 1991 Patrick Murphy Community Development Department City of Encinitas 527 Encinitas. Boulevard Encinitas, CA 92024 SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Drat Environmental Impact Report for Olivenhaiñ Road Alignment, .Cas No. 90-259 Thank you for allowing the City of Carlsbad the qpportUnity to comment on, the Notice of Preparation for the proposed Olivenhain Roadi widening The Environmental Impact Assessment Form (Part II) which was prepared by the City of Carlsbad comprehensively addresses most of the impacts related to the proposed project. We would like to suggest that, in addition to the issues raised in that document, the EIR also address the following issues to adequately disclose the potential environmental impacts of the project. Relocation of regional gas line is sensitiveto season of year.,Will the relocation: of the regional gas line impact the riparian area? The new gas alignment should be reviewed for those impacts. Portion of intersection of. El Camino Real and Olivenhain, Road is within the• jurisdiction of the County of San ,Diego'. ' How will these improvements .be coopd In. atad? Olivenhain Municipal Water District impacts to the' triangle should be analyzed. How will access from Olivenhain Road be handled? Impacts from a full six lane widening to prime arterial:, standards, should be considered and not just interim widening. Compliancewith 'meeting prime arterial standards should be addressed. Four potential road alignments are 'under consideration and 'not just the two shown. Each feasible alignment should be considered. 2075 Las Palmas Drive • 'Carlsbad, Cal iornia '92009-4859 • (619) 438-1161 lh- 1• Patrick Murphy February 4, 1991 I Page Future circulation patterns must be considered in the EIR such .as the 1-5 to El J" Camino Real road connection (Leucadia Boulevard extension) and the Melrose connection east of the project. A comprehensive analysis of traffic generation and volumes will provide a more realistic idea of traffic impacts to Olivenhain Road and I key intersections. Construction impacts should be addressed, especially with respect to potential I detour routes or temporary road closures. In addition, impacts to pedestrians and bicycles during construction should be addressed. Noise and air pollution during and after construction is an obvious concern. The noise impacts to existing residences on the north side of Olivenhain should be analyzed. (CT 88-3) Access and impacts from Arroyo La Costa to the new alignment should be analyzed in terms of right-in, right-out intersection. 'M. 10. Roadway drainage and flood inundation of the roadway near El Camino Real is a I . concern and should be considered. 11. Intersection improvements at El Camino .Real/Olivenhain to mitigate existing poor levels of service must be analyzed. The Rancho Santa Fe/Olivenhain intersection I. also should be analyzed. 12; Will the alignment require redesign of the approved Arroyo La Costa (CT 88-3) tentative map? What will these impacts be? If there are costs associated with that redesign and possible loss of approved lots, how will reimbursement take place? The EIR should address/analyze the riparian impacts that will occur on theeast side of El Camino Real as well as the impacts that will occur on the west side of El Camino Real when Olivenhain/Leucadia Boulevard is widened. The statement that the detention . basin coincides with the existing floodway I boundary is questionable. Logically thinking, if you build a dam and retain water behind it, that water level would be higher behind the dam than if the dam did not exist. That assumption should be verified before impacts of the water elevation I. can be analyzed. Also, the statement is made that the detention "may" reduce the discharge so that. El Camino Real is not flooded. This should also be verified before impacts can be addressed. If the detention does not work as proposed, alternate forms of flood mitigation should be proposed and analyzed. . The EIR should address what additional permits and applications will be needed I from Fish & Game, Fish & Wildlife, and Corps of Engineers. SI , p Patrick Murphy 1 February 4, 1991 Page H. The Planning Department would also appreciatb the opportunity to review the draft EIR when it is complete If you have any questions regarding these comments, please don't hesitate to call me at 438-1161, extension 4451 Sincerely, 1 Adrienne Landers Senior Planner - - AL:rvo c: Gary Gary Wayne Robert Green • -• Doug Helming • Erin Letsch I I I I 1 I I p I DG San Diego Gas & Electric P.O. BOX 1831 • SAN DIEGO, CA 92112 • 6191696.2000 1 February 5, 1991 JB. TnUU I City of Encinitas I Community Development Dept. 1FEB 6I9j1) Attn: Patrick Murphy 527 Encinitas Blvd. 1 Encinitas, CA 92024 clTy OF ENCINITAS L_.J11L_ SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF DRAFT E.I.R. FOR OLIVENHAIN ROAD ALIGNMENT, CASE NO. 90-259 I Dear Mr. Murphy: I Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above mentioned project. San Diego Gas & Electric has a 150' right-of- way crossing Olivenhain Road in the vicinity of the proposed I realignment. Major Facilities within this right-of-way include 138kV and 230kV electric transmission lines, a 30" 800 psi gas transmission main, and a 10" oil line belonging to San Diego Pipeline Company. There also is a gas regulator station in the 1 right-of-way, just south of Olivenhain Road and underground 12kV electric facilities and a 4" 400 psi gas main in Olivenhain Road. Facility maps are attached for your reference. j With regard to the 30" gas transmission main, SDG&E requires certain standards be followed while working in or around gas transmission facilities. Maintain a minimum of 18" vertical separation between any proposed underground utility and SDG&E facilities. li • Maintain at least 3' of cover over 30" transmission main at all times. I • NOtify SDG&E so we can have a stand-by person present during work near the 30" main. I . Maintain vehicle access to any SDG&E right-of-way, both north and south of project area at all times. I . No structures to be installed within the right-of-way without prior written approval from SDG&E's Gas Engineering Department. [ENCICLTR.B4) I, 'I City of Encinitas -2- February 5, 1991 1 I All improvement plans within SDG&E's right-of-way must be approved by Ron Gregorich of Gas Engineering, 696-4141. If you have any questions regarding these comments or want to discuss the project in general, please don't hesitate to call me at 696-2151, Dave Siino at 696-2410 or Ron Gregorich at 696-4141. Sincerely, - Kay bcock Land Assistant I KMB:jke Attachments 1 cc: J. Burton R. Gregorich D. Siino (I I I' [ENCICLTR.B4] J COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO INTER-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE February 4, 1991 TO: Patrick Murphy Community Development City Of Encinitas SV1IJ13N3 JO A113 7 tLToJ 6618 FROM: K.A. Fulmer, Lieutenant Encinitas Sheriffs Station NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OLWENHAJN ROAD ALUGNMENT, CASE #90-259 I am in receipt of the NOTICE OF PREPARATION,, dated January 3, 1991, and after reviewing our initial concerns are threefold:- There will be a noticeable impact on traffic flow froth existing, neighborhoods and transition routes during the construction phases, particularly during commuter periods. The project, while under construction, will, no doubt impact law enforcement response time to the affected areas. Absent an INTERIM TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN; there is no indication of phasing plans or discussion of how traffic will be handled during the road expansion.' Projected timing phases, levels of service, signage and detours, etc. are all variables potentially effecting law enforcement response mode and time, and needs to be identified concurrent with providing a. detailed Traffic Control Plan. The package has been forwarded to Sergeant R: Hendrickson for fufthe'r review, and comment. He will serve as your' contact and can be reached at 753-1252 if you have any questions. • . . H KA. FULMER, LIEUTENANT ENCINITAS SHERIFFS STATION STOCK 475-3344 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY f (f }1'.-QEORGE DEUKMEJIAN Governor U ill CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO COAST DISTRICT 1333 CAMINO DEL RIO SOUTH,SUITE 125 !LD I 2 L SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-3520 (619) 297-9740 tLQFENC1NITAS I February 11, 1991 '1 Mr. Patrick Murphy Community Development Director - City of Encinitas 527 Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, CA 92024 f Subject: Olivenhein Road Notice of Prepraration (Case 4+90-259) Dear Mr. Murphy: I Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Notice of Prepration of Draft Environmental Impact,-Report for the Olivenhein Road widening (Case #90-259). Our comments are as follows. The Commission's, jurisdiction aver this project is limited to those portions of the project that are located within the coastal zone as established by the State, legislature. In this immediate area, the coastal zone boundary 'fo.11ows El Camino Real. Where the coast-al zone boundary follows a public road. the boundary is defined as the inland extent of the roadway's right-of-way. As a result, portions of this project maybe located within the coastal zone, as defined. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) should clearly delineate the limits of this project with respect 'to the coastal zone boundary to identify those portions of the project that lie within the coastal zone. The Environmental Initial Assessment (EIA) per for the proposed widening identified the area along El Camino Real southerly of the current Olivenhein Road alignment as posessing riparian habitat values. Although 'the EIA has stated that the riparian resources are located southerly of the project boundary, the DEIR should address any potential impacts upon the off-site riparian resources resulting from grading for the road widening, alteration of drainage patterns, increases in noise levels which could affect least Bell's vireo nesting. etc. In addition, the Commission has generally attempted to protect naturally vegetated steep slopes. The EIA states that, 'chaparral habitat has been identified in northeast quadrant 'of the I Olivenhein Road/El Camino Real intersection. It does not 'I Mr. Patrick Murphy February 11, 1991 Page 2 I . I identify the exact location of this habitat relative to the coastal zone boundary. Please identify the exact location of the chaparral vegetation relative to the coastal zone boundary and the anticipated impacts the road widening will have on chaparral vegetation located in the coastal zone, with particuar attention to naturally vegetated s19pes in excess of 25% I grade Again, thank you for the opportunity to respond to this Notice of Preparation. If you have anyquestions regarding our comments, please contact me at the Commission's San Diego Area Office. . * S S S 1 5 Sincerely, .. . I . . . Paul B. Webb Coastal Planner I S '• . I I I I' I) 1 S S I) 1" V 'I 1- F' I. 1 STATE OF CALIFORNLA - BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 11 P.O.BOX 85406 SAN DIEGO 92186-5406 AR_ F~' 1 •C1TYOh. February 27, 1991 t 11-SD-005 (Encinitas) Patrick Murphy I Community Development Department City of Encinitas 527 Encinitas Boulevard Encinitas, CA 92024 Dear Mr. Murphy: Notice of Preparation of a DEIR for, the Olivenhain Road Alignment, SCH 91011035 Caltráns District 11 will probably not have a responsible agency role in the preparation of this document. I Sincerely, JESUS M. GARCIA District Director By iJ ES T. CHESHIRE, Chief .1 nvironmental Planning Branch MO:wkb I - - I - I - S APPENDIX 4 DRAINAGE STUDY FOR ENCINITAS CREEK (Dr. Chang) 0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (1) I. INTRODUCIlON (5) II INPUT DATA FOR HEC-1 STUDY (7) ifi. SITE SELECTION AND HYDROLOGICDESIGNFOR DETENTION BASIN D (9) IV. RESULTS OF HYDROLOGY,STUDY (10) V. COMPARISON OF THIS HYDROLOGY STUDY WITH 1 PREVIOUS STUDIES (12) VI EVALUATION OF DRAINAGE FACILITIES (13) $ Method of Evaluation (14) Results of Evaluation (15) VII RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS VIII. REFERENCES. 1 J LIST OF FIGURES FIGURES 1' APPENDIX A. COMPUTATION OF LAG TIME AND BASIND OUTFLOW APPENDIX B INPUT/OUTPUT LISTINGS FOR HEC-1 STUDY APPENDIX C IN[UT/OUTPUT LISTINGS FOR HEC-2 STUDY ATFACHMENTS Pocket #1 - Encinitas Creek Drainage Exhibit Prepared by Project Design Constltants, November 16, 1990 Pocket #2 A. Conceptual Plan of Detention Basm 'D' - May 1991 DRAINAGE STUDY FOR ENCIMTAS CREEK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A drainage study for the drainage basin of Encinitas Creek has been made. The purpose of the study is to obtain the 100-year flood discharges of the creek and its major tributaries. Existing drainage facilities along the main streams have been evaluated. Recommendations have also been made in order to solve the drainage inadequacies within the stream system. The drainage study considers the ultimate development under the established development constraints, so that the results are also valid in the long term. Under the existing conditions of Encinitas Creek prior to the construction of new floodwater detention basins, two existing facilities have been found to be inadequate in passing the design flow, these are The box culverts at La Costa Avenue, and the El Camino Real bridge near Olivenhain. Because of the insufficient sizes of such facilities, the 100-yr flood will overtop the roads and flood adjacent areas. The design flows of the creek, however, may be reduced by floodwater detention basins. Such basins also enhance ground-water recharge and wildlife habitats. Two such basins are already in place and a additional one will be constructed in the near future. There also exists another suitable site for a fourth detention basin. A total of four floodwater detention basins are in the picture, these are: Basin A - This existing • basin as shown in Fig. 1 is located in subbasin 6A just above the Calle Barcelona Road crossing. The basin is created by The road embankment of Calle Barcelona; the double 60-inch-RCP under the, road controls the outflow of the basin. Basin B - This existing basin as shown in Fig. 1 is located in subbasin 6 near the corner of 1 .1 Olivenhain Road and Rancho Santa Fe Road. It was construàted as a part of the nearby 1 subdivision development. Basin C - This basin which should soon be constructed is located in La Costa Southwest II; its location is within subbasin 11 in Fig. 1. The 100-yr inflow discharge of 602 cfs to the basin is attenuated to 170 cfs by the basin. S •1 Basin D - The selected site Of this potential basin is in subbasin 7 as shown in Fig, 1. It is south of Ohvenham Road, Just west of Rancho Santa Fe Road and east of the subdivision Bridgewater. The dam and spifiway of the basin is located at the downstream, outlet. The extent of the basin coincides with the existing floodway boundary. This open space area is selected in consideration of the following factors: (1) It may provide adequate flood attenuation such that the reduced discharge may pass through.the bridge at El Camino Real, the basin does not take additional usable land since it is in the existing floodway, and other sites are less' effective for floodwater storage. The flood discharges of the drainage system have been computed for different basin .1. status For each case, the drainage conditions are assessed The specific problem areas and their solutions .are described in the following. Box culverts at La Costa Avenue - Drainage under La Costa Avenue is provided by the .triple 12 by 8 concrete box culverts. These culverts are basically free of siltation. The study results pertaining to these culverts indicate the following: (1) The box culverts have inadequate capacity under, the natural conditions of Encinitas Creek without detention basins. The box culverts- will be adequate with detention basins A, B and C in place, subject to recommended minor improvements described later. Floodwater detention basin D will enhance the drainage condition at the box culverts. The road surface of La Costa Avenue is not even in elevation in the vicinity of the 2 1 I I culverts. The surface area directly above the culverts is higher and the elevation drops in J both east and west directions. Under this situation, even though floodwater may not overtop the roadway directly above the culverts, it may still overtop the roadway on both sides. i Overtopping of the roadway should be prevented; it may be accomplished by one of the following measures: ' (1) construction of a earth berm on the upstream side of La Costa Avenue to contain the 100-year flood with a freeboard of at least one foot. (2) a raise of the adjacent roadway elevation. 'I Channel reach west of El Camino Real and south of Olivenhain - This short channel reach 'is along the south branch of Encinitas Creek upstream of the east branch, with a length of about 1,000 feet. Since the publication of the floodplain map in 1982, the floodway area near the confluence has been filled, to an average elevation slightly above the roadway I elevation of El Camino Real. This landfill has some definite effects on the drainage through this channel reach and the 1982 floodway. Cross sections used in the 1982 County study have been revised to reflect recent siltation of the stream bed and the landfill. Computed results along this reach show that the roadway is not subject to inundation under the 100-year flood, of Encinitas Creek. However, the landfill has invalidated the 1982 floodplain study; it pushes the floodplain boundary toward the agricultural field on the west side of the channel. A new floodplain study is recommended. The new study will delineate the floodplain and floodway boundaries under the actual channel configuration. I El Camino Real Bridge near Olivenhain - This bridge which drains the east branch of I Encinitas Creek is located near the intersection of El Camino Real and Olivenhain. The straibi at the bridge crossingcisnowsilted-to4heeley f175fëët. Siltation has I significantly reduced the drainage capacity through the bridge opening. The existing - floodplain map also shows that this part of El Camino Real is within the floodway. Drainage through the El Camino Real bridge has been evaluated for different 1 conditions. For each case, the computed water-surface elevation at the upstream face of the bridge is compared with the roadway elevation. 1t may be concluded from this comparison that the bridge does not have adequate capacity under the existing conditions with floodwater detention basins A and B in place, but it will have sufficient capacity after detention basin D is constructed. The drainage capacity of the bridge may also be improved to the 100-year flood standard without the construction of detention basin D. The floodplain map of this area should be updated after the.improvements are made. Accelerated siltation of the stream channel for Encinitas Creek can be attributed to cultivation and construction grading. Sediment control measures during the grading period are- recommended to -mitigate the siltation problem. Dredging of the stream channel, perhaps outside the coastal zone (west of El Carnino Real), will also alleviate the siltation problem. Detention Basin D will require little ornO maintenance. A detention basin requires maintenance dredging if siltation reduces its storage capacity. In the case of detention basin D, there exist two upstream detention basins (A and B) which will detain most of the sediment inflow supplied by the drainage basin For this reason, -- a . - • .: - L • -- a 4 DRAINAGE STUDY FOR ENCINITAS CREEK I. INTRODUCFION This hydrology study has been made for the drainage basin of Encinitas Creek in the City of Carlsbad and' City of Encinitas, as'shown in Fig. 1. The purpose of the study is to obtain the 100-year flood discharges of the creek and its major tributaries. Existing drainage facilities along these streams will be evaluated. Recommendations will be made in order to solve inadequate drainage situations of the stream system. The hydrology study considers the ultimate development under the established development constraints, so that the results obtained at this time are also valid in the long term. 'The drainage of Enciñitas Creek has already been modified by the, use of.floodwater detention basins which attenuate the flood discharge. Such basins also enhance ground- water recharge and wildlife habitats. A total of four floodwater detention basins are described in this report, these are: Basin A - This existing basin as shown in Fig. 1 is located in the east branch of Ecithtas Crk (subbasin 6A) just above the Calle Barcelona Road crossing The basin is created-by the road embanknient of Calle Barcelona; the double:,':60-inch RCP under the road controls the outflow, of the basin. Basin B - This existing basin as shown in Fig. 1 is located in subbasin 6 near the corner of Olivenhain Road and Rancho Santa Fe Road. 'it was constructed as a part of the nearby subdivision development. : Fig. 2' shows the dam and spillway at the I ' basin outlet. I Basin C - This basin which should soon be- constructed is located in La Costa Southwest Ii; its location is also marked in subbasin 11 of Fig. 1. The hydrologic i 5 design of the basin is described, in 'the report Hydrology Design of Floodwater Detention Basin for La Costa Southwest, 1989, by Chang. Design drawings of the basin have been prepared by Hunsaker and Associates of San Diego. The inflow peak discharge to the basin is 602 cfs fort the 100-year event; it is attenuated by the basin to 170 efs. Basin D - The site of this basin as selected is in subbasin 7, south of Qlivenhain Road and just east Of Rancho Santa Fe Road as shown in Fig. 3. The dam and spillway of the basin is to be located at the downstream outlet.; Site selection and hydrologic design of this floodwater detention basin are described in a later section Because of the., existing and future floodwater detention basins, this, drainage study covers the following cases: , Case 1 - This case is for the' baseline conditions of. Encinitas Creek prior to the construction of any floodwater detention basin. The ultimate development condition of the drainage basin is assumed for hydrological computation. Case 2 - This case is for the stream system with floodwater detention basins A, B, and C in place but without Basin D This ease reflects the existing condition with the additional approved Basin C. s Case 3 - This case is for the stream system with all floodwater detention basins in place. This study is guided by the Hydrology Manual of the County of San Diego, updated in 1985. As specified in the manual, the SCS 'method for hydrology shall be applied to drainage basins that are larger than 0.5 square mile. The HEC-1 computer model developed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, which employs the SCS method, is the principle tool for this study. The drainage subbsins as selected in this study are shown m 'Fig. 1, together with points of concentration at the, respective 'subbasin outlets. The rII Hydrology Manual also specifies the use of the rational method for drainage basins that are less than 0.5 square mile in area. The rational method is a simpler method which provides the design discharge of specific drain facilities. This study does not cover the rational method since such facilities are selected with future development. I An important objective of the present study is to identify drainage problems and then develop adequate countermeasures for the problem areas. The alluvial channel of Encinitas Creek has been undergoing siltation in recent years. Siltation has significantly reduced the drainage capacity for the bridge on El Camino Real near the intersection of Olivenhain I Road. Suitable solutions forthis problem, together with those for other problems, shall be determined. H. INPUT DATA FOR HEC-1 STUDY For the purpose of hydrologic computation, certain basin characteristics are required. .:I Such characteristics include basin area, precipitation zone number (PZN), antecedent moisture condition, precipitation, SCS curve number (CN), lag time, etc. Methods for 1 obtaining such characteristics are described below separately. Basin Area - The area of a drainage basin is measured directly from the drainage basin map. V V V V Precipitation Zone Number (PZN) -. This value for a subbasin is obtained from Fig. 1 I-A-3 of the County Hydrology Manual. The coastal line has the PZN value of 1 and the PZN of 1.5 line is east of the study area. Subbasins in the study area have PZN values Vi ranging from 1.1 to 1.3. • J Antecedent Moisture Condition (AMC) - The AMC for the 100-year flood is computed based on the PZN value of the basin according to the following relation form the IV V Hydrology Manual I 7 IV IV $ VI PZN-1.0 AMC = 2.0 + (3.0 - 2.0) 2.0-1.0 Runoff Curve Number (CN) - In the SCSI method for runoff estimation, the CN value is used. Table I-A-I of the Hydrology Manual lists the CN values related to, land use, land treatment or practice, hydrologic condition, and soil type. The CN values for the AMC of 2 are listed in the manual. Adjustment to other AMCs is based on the information shown in Table I-A-5 of the manual. Precipitation - The 100-year6-hourstorn and 24-hour storm are used in this study. The precipitation in inches for each case is obtained from the precipitation map in the Hydrology Manual. The values so obtained are listed in Table 1. Precipitation is distributed in accordance with the Type B distribution curve. When both storms are applied in the study, the 6-hour storm normally prpducs higher runoff discharges in small basins, while the 24-hour storm generates higher discharges for large basins. The larger of the two discharges so obtained is adopted. In this study, the 6-hour storm produces hither runoff discharges. Lag Time - The lag time relationship is based on criteria developed by the U. S. Army Crops of Engineers adopted in the Hydrology Manual. Lag is defined as the time in hours from the center of mass of the excess rainfall to the peak discharge, it is an empirical expression of the physical characteristics of a drainage area in terms of time. The lag time computation for this study is given in Appendix A, and the results are listed in Table 1 below. • Table 1. Summary of Drainage Basin Characteristics for Encinitas Creek Subbasin Area PZN AMC iRaffifall, in. Lag Time sq. mi. 6-hr. 24-hr. • hrs. 1 0.88 1.2 2.2 2.8 4.5 • 89 0.117 2 0.58 1.2 •2.2 2.8 4.7 87 0.107 8 4 0.74 1.1 2.1 2.7 4.5 87 0.148 5A 0.64 1.3 2.3 . 2.9 5.0 89 0.274 5 0.68 1.2 2.2 , 2.8 4.8 89 0.212 6A 0.20 1.2 2.2 2.8 4.9 89 0.078 6B 0.37 1.3 ' 2.3 2.9 ' 5.0 90 . 0.137 6C 0.65 1.3 23 2.9 5.1 88 0.216 6 0.25 . 1.2 2.2 2.8 4.8 .89 0.101 8A 0.09 1.2 2.2 2.8 4.8 . 82 0.105 8B 0.53 1.2 2.2 2.8 4.8 82 0.248 8(8A+8B) 0.62 1.2 ' 2.2 2.8 ' 4.7 ' 82 0.347 10 0.42 1.1 2.2 2.7 4.5 82 0.189 11 ' 0.65 1.2 ' 2.2 , 2.8 4.7 88 0.102 13 0.66' 1.1 ' 2.1 2.7. 4.5 82' ' 0.262 Total area = 734 square miles . ifi. SITE SELECTION AND HYDROLOGIC DESIGN FOR DETENTION BASIN D Site selection and hydrologic 'design of the new floodwater detention basin (Basin D) are described herein The selected site of this floodwater detention basin as shown in Fig 3 is south of Olivenhain Road, west of Rancho Santa' Fe Road, and east 'of the' new subdivision Bridgewater. The extent of the basin coincides with the existing floodway boundary. It has an average length of 1,320 feet, an average width of 375 feet, and a surface area of about 11 acres. This open space area has been selected in consideration of the following factors It provides adequate floodwater storage for flood discharge attenuation such that the reduced discharge may pass through the bridge 'at El Camino Real. With the floodway as its boundary, the basin does not take additional usable land. Other sites are less effective for flood discharge attenuation. 4 The elevation-surface area relation for the basm is employed in storage routing The tabulation of elevation-surface area for the basm is given below. Elevation Storage volume ' feet -. acre-feet 100 0 102 ' 3.8 104 15.2 106 38.4 ' 108 61.0 110 83.6 Hydrologic design of this basin is based on HEC1-1 computations. In this process, an initial dam and spillway configuration for the basin is first assumed This spillway is a broad-crested weir with 'sloped upstream I and downstream faces and rounded".corners. Hydraulic computation for its stage-discharge relationship is given in Appéndii -Tbd 100- year flood.is routed through this basin using the HEC-1 computation. The results ofthe routing are evaluated to see if they meet the requirements for flood control. The spillway configuration is then adjusted until the results are satisfactory. The design configuration as .finalized in the study has the following features: Spillway crest elevation: 106 feet. Length of spillway (dimension perpendicular to flow): 28 feet , Width of spillway (dimension in flow direction):. 10 feet. Spillway side slope vertical Maxima outflow discharge: 753 cfs Water surface elevation at spillway crest at maximum discharge 1088 feet Maximum stage in basin: 110.08 feet • . Maximum storage in basin: • 83.6 acre-feet Size of pipe spillway: 36" RCP IV. RESULTSOFHYDROLO.GYSTLflYY. ':'3 •.: , 10 Results of the hydrology tudy'for different cases are summarized in Table 2. Other :detailed, output information can be found from the computer listings of HEC-i in Appendix B. The effectiveness of the floodwater detention basins may be observed from a comparison of the tabulated peak discharges for the cases listed.. Table 2. Summary of Peak Discharges for the 100-Year' Flood Point Area Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Conc. sq.'mi. No basin Basins A+B+C Basins A+B+C+D 6C 0.65 561 .' 561 , 561 6B 1.02 900 " 900 900 6A 1.22 ' 1,025 1,025 1,025 6 1.47 1,215 . . 734 . ' 734 5A 0.64 539 . 539 . .539. '. '5 1.32' 1,051 . . 19051 -1,051 . 7 2.79 .2,241. 1,163 1,163 8 3.41 2,597 1,465 • . .' 827' 1 . 0.88 . 842 842 842 2 '0.58 , 511 511 . 511 3 1.46 . 1,353 1,353 1,353 4 2.20 1,891 1,890 ' 1,890 9 5.61 . ' 4,047 2,832 2,238 ' 10 6.03 '4,207 . 3,013 . . 2,456' 11 , 0.65 602 ''170. ., 170 12 6.68 4,450 . 3,181 2,622 13 '. 7.34 . 4,725 . 3,450 2,926 The difference in discharge among 'these cases is a direct' result Of floodwater detention basins, which will provide substantial attenuation 'of the'-,'pe'ak discharge. The simulated inflow and outflow hydrographs for basins A, B, C, and D are shown in Figs. 4 to 7,. respectively. F in D. the. inflow o aphTha eakdih'ae .6f -r, 11 - " '' of . In addition to • the reduction of the peak discharge, this 1 detention basin also delays the time of peak for the1flood' Intbis case, the peak ti.the'for the inflow is 3.03 hours and that for the outflos is 440 hours The delay of the peak time! is beneficial for the main channel of'Encinitas Creek downstream of the confluenceqf:thef' east and south branches; Since the south brànci has an earlier peak time, the delay of the I peak time for the'east branch by'dçtentionbasin D is an important factor for, thdextent of flood attenuation achieved for the main channel below the confluence Itis also apparent from the graphicalresults of Figs. 4 to 7 that each detention basin will generate a outflow 'hydrographith a thuch nore uniform distribution of the, discharge longer with a duration. Characteristics of the storage and outflow hydrograph for basin D are summarized below Peak storage W.6 acre-feet I Peak stage 11008 feet I - - •' --------,-- - - I Maximum storage duration 6']i (from , 2 hrs. and 40 minutes to.8. hrs. and 40 'minutes after the start of 'rain),, aum'storage"depth raloUt'10t!( j lee Ofi) ' Average storage ,depth of basin at peak stage: about 6 feet - -DVfatiUn h.msomeviiat-less-than-l-lit. I Duration of storage after rainfall: "2.7 hrs. * ' , • ' 'he maximum storage ejeservoif836 acre-feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ op 1 V COMPARISON OF THIS HYDROLOGY STUDY WITH PREVIOUS' STUDIES The discharges for case 1 obtained in this study are compared with those of the previous studies Table 3 summarizes the computed peak discharge of the 100-year flood for these :caSes. • - •' • -• • .'• • 12 1 Table .3. Comparison of Peak Discharges for 100-Year Flood Point Area Corps Koebig County Rick This Study Conc. sq. mi. '1971 1975 , 1980 1988 1990 6C 0.65 672 561 6B 1.02 ' 1,047 900 6A 1.22 1,229 1,025 6 1.41 '1,260 1,365 1,446 19215 5A ' 0.64 , , 604 539 5 1.32 ' ' 1,300 ' 1,22 " 1,183 1,051 7 2.79 2,750 ' '2,621 2,629 29241 3.41 L2,900" ' ti17 1 0.88 . H 930 ' 850 ' 842 2 ' ' 0.58 '600 " 650 ' 513 511 3 1.46 ' ' 1,500 ' " 1,633 " 1,362 1,353 4 . 2.20 ' , 1,950 19891 9 5.61 4,306' 4,294 4,817 .' 4,047 10 6.03 4,190 3,856 ' 5,015 49207 11 ' 0.65 " ' ' 530 '' 602 602 12 ' 6.68 '4,313 ' 5,572' "4,450 13 , 7.34 .4,500 . 49698 49556 5,920 4,725 It appears from this comparison that the peak discharges are generally similar although those obtained by Rick Engineering tend to be higher.. This difference is primarily due to the estimation of the lag time for the subbasins." VI. EVALUATION OF DRAINAGE FACILITIES Certain drainage facilities have been found to be inadequate in previous studies. All drainage facilities along the stream channel included in the hydrology study are evaluated in this study. Those facilities that may be inadequate are listed below. '13 Box culverts at La Costa Avenue - Cross drainage under La Costa Avenue is provided by the triple 12 by 8 concrete box culverts, see Fig. 8. These culverts are basically free of. siltation Floodplain map for Encinitas Creek in the vicinity of these culverts is shown in Fig. 9, which also has the cross-section locations. The cross sectional profile at the culvert outlet is shown in Fig. 10. Channel reach west of El Camino Real and south of Olivenhain - This short channel reach is along the south branch of Encinitas Creek upstream of the east branch, see Fig. 11. This reach has a length of about 1,000 feet, from section 1.303 to 1.520. Figure 11 is the 1982 floodplain map of this area, which shows that a part of El Camino Real is within the floodway. Since the publication of this floodplain map, the floodway area near section 1.403 west of El Camino Real has been filled, to an average elevation slightly above the roadway elevation of El Camino Real. Cross-sectional profiles for these sections are shown in Figs. 12 to 15. This landfill has, some definite effects on the drainage along this channel reach and the 1982 floodway delineation to be evaluated in a following section. El Camino Real Bridge near Olivenhain - This bridge which drains the east branch of Encinitas Creek is located near the intersection of El Camino Real and Olivenhain, see Fig. 11. The cross sections 0.000 to 0.023 shown in Fig. 11 are along the east branch in the vicinity of the bridge; their profiles are shown in Figs. 16 and 17; The stream bed at the bridge crossing as shown in Fig. 18 is now silted to the elevation of 75 feet. The flood plain map of Fig. 11 also shows that a part of El Camino Real is within the floodway, primarily due to the insufficient drainage capacity of the bridge. Method of Evaluation - The drainage capacities of these facilities are evaluated based on the HEC-2 program developed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Input/output listings of the HEC-2 computations are included in.Appendix C. Three different sets of discharges, as listed in Table 2 for cases 1, 2 and 3 respectively, are used. Cross sections used in this study follow those for the floodplain study made by the County of San Diego in 1982, except the elevations are updated to reflect the recent iltation and landfill. Such cross sections near the subject facilities are shown in Figs. 10 and 16. 14 Results of Evaluation - Based on the HEC-2 results, the drainage conditions for the facilities are described below separately. (1) Box culverts at La Costa Avenue - The HEC-2 results pertaining to these culverts for three different discharges are tabulated below. The discharge of 4,725 cfs is the 100-year flood for natural conditions without any floodwater detention basin, 3,450 cfs is forthe case with detention basins A, B and C in place, and the discharge of 2,926 cfs is for the case with all four detention basins in place. Sec. No Location Computed Water Surface Elev. in feet 4.725 cfs 3.450 cfs 2.926 cfs 0.053 At 10' D/S of culverts' 16.90 16.90 15.84 0.054 At D/S face of culverts 18.40 16.91 15.88 0.063 At U/S face of culverts 23.12 17.99 17.15' 0.064 At 10' U/s of culverts 23.57 18.85 17.63 The computed water-surface elevations are compared with the culvert low chord elevation of 17.8 feet and the' top of roadway elevation of 18.8 feet at the upstream face. At the discharge of 4,725 cfs, the roadway surface will be overtopped. The discharge of 3,450 will pass through the culverts as pressure flow and the roadway surface is above the water level by 0.8 foot. At the discharge of 2,926 cfs, the flow will pass through' the culverts as low flow, with a freeboard well over 1 foot. Based on these results, the following may be concluded: The box culverts have inadequate capacity under the natural conditions of Encinitas Creek without detention basins. The box culverts will be adequate with 'detention basins A, B and C in place, I subject to recommended improvements described later in this section. Floodwater detention basin 'D will enhance the drainage condition at the box I culverts. I 15 I It is important to point out that the road surface of La Costa Avenue is not even in elevation in the vicinity of the culverts. The surface area directly above the culverts is higher and the elevation drops off in both .east and west directions. Under this situation, even though the floodwater may not overtop the roadway directly above the culverts, it may still overtop the roadway on both sides. Overtopping of the roadway. should be prevented; it may be accomplished by one of the following measures: construction of a earth berm on the upstream side of La Costa Avenue to contain the 100-year flood with a freeboard of about 3 feet. a raise of the roadway elevation. Overtopping flow is not assumed in the HEC-2 computations. (2) Channel reach west of El Camino Real and south of Olivenhain - Cross sections used in the 1982 County study have been revised to reflect recent siltation of the stream bed and landfill. Computed water-surface elevations at those cross sections along this reach are listed blow, together with the corresponding roadway elevations of El Camino Real. Cross Section 1313 1.403 1.420 1.520 Computed Water Surface Elev, feet 78.40 80.70 83.97 88.99 Road Surface Elev. feet 845 82.0 84.5 89.2 The results show that the computed 100-year flood levels are just below their corresponding roadway elevations of El Camino Real. Therefore, the roadway is not subject I to inundation under the 100-year flood of Encinitas Creek. I The landfill has invalidated the 1982 flod plain study; it pushes the floodplain boundary toward the agricultural field on the west side of the channel. A new floodplain I study is recommended. The new study will delineate the floodplain and floodway boundaries under the actual channeP coMigufation HEC-2 results pertiining to this bridge under three different discharge are tabulatedbelovi; Theisëharge n:at6—ra1-65-n-diLf5ns with—out any fl50—dwa-f-er—d-dteiiii-on7b~asin,7the value of 1,465 cfs is for the existing 100-year discharge with detention basins A"and B in place; and the discharge of832 Effs is for the case when detention basin D isalso constructed -': •. '' ' - Sec No Location Computed Water Surface Elev, in feet 2397 cfs 1.465 cfs :.. 832 cfs 0.000 At 40' D/S of bridge .. . 79.46: 78.69 - 78.27, .-6.006 At D/S.face of.bridge' 81.74' '79.47 78.19- O.021. .At1U/S face of bridge '85 ,01 8203 Y79.61. 0.023 At 20' U/s of bridge. . . - 85.02 "82.03'.. <79.61y 0.110 . At491'U/S'of bridge ' - 85.07. .. 82.31 ,' 80.46 - ' The computed water-surface "eIevation- are compared with the,bfidge low chord elevation of 79 feet and the top of roadway elevition of 81 feet At the discharge of 2,597 cfs,the roadway will be overtopped. .Thesarne situation occurs under,the discharge of 1,465 cfs wiWpass throughthdpeninwith ¶fbrdof"arleasrrfOot measuredfrO rthTöädway 'elvatij It may, therefore be concluded that the bridge does not have adequate èapacity under the existing conditions with floodwater detention A and B in place, but it will have sufficient capacity after detention basin Dis constructed. - Of course the drainage capacity- of the bridgemay alo be improved to pass the 100- year flood without the construction of detention basin D The dredging requirements for passing the present 100-year discharge, of 1,465 cfs are' given in the previous study by Rick Engineering. The floodplain map of this area should be updated after the improvements are made. * 17 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS Recommendations are made herein to provide countermeasures for the drainage problems at the facilities described above, including the., following items. The box culverts at La Costa Avenue has been determined to be adequate for the 100- year flood after detention basin C in La Costa Southwest II is constructed. While the culverts will have the proper capacity, floodwater may still overtop the roadway on the east and west sides of the culverts. To avoid overtopping flow, a berm is recommended at the upstream side of La Costa Avenue. It may bea simple earth berm, similar to what has been installed at Calle Barcelona for the same purpose. ITlie- This basin will attenuate the 100-year flood discharge to be within the present capacity of the bridge crossing and it will also enhance the drainage condition at La Costa Avenue. The floodplain map for Encinitas Creek needs to updated to reflect the recent landfill west of El Camino Real and south of Olivenhain. The floodplain map should also be updated to, reflect the changes in flood discharges due to the recent floodwater detention basins..The existing floodplain and floodway on the roadway. of El Camino 'Real may be totally eliminated after recommended improvements are implemented. Accelerated siltation of the stream channel for Encinitas Creek 'can be attributed to cultivation and construction grading. Sediment control measures during the grading period are recommended to mitigate the siltation problem. Dredging of the stream channel outside the coastal 'zone (west of El Camino Real) will alleviate the siltation problem. 18 1 VIII. REFERENCES "La Costa Southwest II, Detention and Desilting Basins", prepared for La Costa Ranch Company, by Hunsaker and Associates of San Diego, Inc, 1988. "Flood Plain Information for San Marcos Creek", Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, 1971. "Zone 1 Comprehensive Drainage Study", Prepared for San Diego County Flood Control District by Koebig and Koebig, 1975 "Hydrology Report for Encinitas Creek", YF0645, County of San Diego, 1980. "Encinitas Creek Watershed HEC-1 Model Analysis Hydrology Report", Rick Engineering Company, August 19, 1988. "Hydrology Manual", County ofSan Diego, January 1985. 19 H.' UST OF FIGURES 1 Fig. 1. Drainage basin of Encinitas. Creek I ;Fig. 2. Dam and spillway of floodwater dçtendon basin B Fig. 3. Map showing the selected location of floodwater detention basin D. The basin boundary coincides with the floodway bundaiy. Scale of map: I inch .200 feet• Fig. 4. Simulated inflow and outflow hydrographs and time variation of floodwater. storage I, for floodwater detention basin A Fig 5 Simulated inflow and outflow hydrographs and time variation of floodwater storage I for floodwater detention basin B Fig. 6. Simulated inflow and outflow hydrographs and time variation of floodwater storage I for floodwater detention basin C Fig. 7. Simulated inflow and outflow hydrographs and time variation of floodwater storage 1 for floodwater detention basin D Fig. 8. Downstream side of box cuiverts at La costa Avenue I Fig. 9. Floodplain map of Encinitas Creek in the vicinity of La Costa Avenue Scale of map: 1 inch = 200 feet I Fig. 10. Cross-sectional profile at downstream side of box culverts Fig. 11. Flood plain map of Encinitas Creek near the confluence of east and south stream I branches. Scale of map: 1 inch = 200 feet Fig. 12. Cross-sectional profile for section, 1.313 Fig 13 Cross-sectional profile for section 1.403 Fig. 14. Cross-sectional profile for section 1.420 Fig. 15. Cross-sectional profile for section 1.520 Fig. 16. Cross-sectional profile at downstream hide of El Camino Real bridge Fig. 17. Cross-sectional profile at upstream side of El Camino Real bridge Fig. 18. Downstream side of bridge at El Camino Real and Olivenhain I 1, 20 H . I, i $ I (f I • 8 \ )J \ GbOV - (C 35 / — - - jr low- : — -- - - ' ;:.-Y'. •- __ VV?V 7 1ki:T ' L -. -- Fig. 1. Drainage basin of Encinitas Creek . wate 3 2 () point of concentration a -- drainage subbasin V" floodwater detention basin Vh- I 8 :,: - : __-_j- __ < - ; - " 44, " Fig 3 Map showing the selected location of flood- water detention basin D The basin boundary p l t I I coincides with the floodway bounda ILL ' I Scale of map: 1 inch = 200 feet 'I; • I 'a AT , A _ 1 ... .. •,. :'.. ,,/ . \ ' sp -1 : . ... ::.T.::.: • - :; ..; 40 - - p I., I (I) INFLOW (0) OUTFLOW 0. 100. 200. 300. 400 500. 600 700. 800.. 0. 0. 0 0. (S) STORAGE 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 20. 40. 60. 0. 0 0. NPER O 11 --------------------------------------- S ----------------------------------- ------------------- 262.d . S . 4630t • •., S • 664.O"J - - S • . 865.O'{ - . 'S . 066.O't - . S . 267.C) 'k - S . co - 468.. k. - .: s . 669. 'K ..S • - 8 70.ã ) , •I •S . 0 71.cA.,...... ... ............... 272.. . "L. . . •S . . . 473. . -L... . .. . .s . . - 674. - .4......_. . .- .S . . . 0 875. ci. . • . .: .S . . . 03W 0. 76. - . . l... -. . - S . - - a. 277. C) - . . . .S . . . -0. - 478. C) • . . .1-... .. .S 679..b - . . . 1-_.... . S - . -CD on A . ,.._ -. ou. P • . , . - • 0 81. . . C) ........................... 282. C) • .: LS • - - 0 483.G.. 85: : : : : S:I : - . CIL : : : : : : S.44 : g 0 488 'S.. - • S • . 0 6 89 . e.. - I S • 0 . - 890 .'& .- . ts - - W 0 - 0 91 ..................•s........... . . ....... 292.. • . .. . .JS . . 6 94:1 4 10K i co 0 106* 6 104 2 107. :1: :>CL : 895. • • 'Q.• . . . .0 S. . 11111 S C 2 117: Or 11211 ................... 2142. . . - 6 . . . . s . . 4143. . . - 0 • . . • S. . 6.144. . . . • . . . s- . . . . 8145. . . . . . - .. S . . . . 0146. . . Il .,C) . .' . . S. . . 2147. ' . • •': • . . . S. . . 4148. . . 1 .0 . . . . S . . . 6149. . .F .b . .1 . . S. . . 8150. . .1 . . . . S. • . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C; a a Fig 5 Simulated inflow and outflow hydrographs C; and' time varifion of floodwafer storage for floodwater detention bas W CA go CA I!: . . . . . U) U) U) U) • - • • U) U) U) U) 44 U) - U) U) (A U) (A U) (fl. U)U) U) to • • • • (A U) U) U) U) to U) U) U) (I) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) ..................................................................................U) C; a CD • . . . . . . (J • a • .- . S S S • • § a • Inflow hydxograph : as I oo a . J. • S S • S _.U) • SS S S • .5 5 5 5 • S S Ole mj :: Outflow hydkograph 22e,0000. • cm a za a a etoU)ocg..t a ,oac act a Q'OU)ac.a o o atOU)a(%a-* oNU)o*'CU)o(%I-.t oCJ'U)CO -*4 in an in an in DA N Jr.JiVn nnrn -*-*,-* -, -*-*-* -* -*-$-*-* -t-t - -* - -* - -* - -* -* zaao 00000000000000000 aaaoaaaaaa 000000000 a a a a aaa 000000000000000000 a a a aao 000000000000000 a a NCM CU _____1 Fig. 6. Simulated inflow and outflow hydrographs and tIme variation pf floodwater 'storage : : :. ..............fófióódviát dèfntibhiáshi t UU UUU) . . ......................... U) U) U) U) U) U) ' (, . U)U) . . - . U)(AU) - U) . • • U)U)U)U) • U) - U)U)U) . . . U) U) U) U)U)U) ...................................................................................U)U)U) ....... C; (A • U)U) Basin storage U)U)U)U)U) U) U) U) U)U)U)U) • '• . . . . a- U)U)U)U) ........ a ......... ........... CD • . . .4 . . . . 0 C3 a CD I" • Inflow hydrograph a a oa . • . . . . . . I- B . . . . . . 0c; 0 a - - C, . . . . . . In CD CD Otitf1oi hydrograph 0 (U (A 0a Ma 00000O0 InInInInInInInInInIn tt.*' C. 0q. en-.- -n-n-.- C e.-.-.-e. I- • ......................................................................... D InInInInInInInInInInInInInInInInInInInInInInInInInInInInInIn-t - It 4 t--** -.t 4* S 3 43.4.4.4 =aaa a a a oao aaaeaoaa a oaaaaaa000 0000 oaa aaaa 000 0000000000000000 aa a aa a a a aa aaaaaa 0000000000000 a a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C; a : Fig. 7. Simulated inflow and outflow hydrographs and: time variatioô of floodwater storage ° ° : for floodwater detention basin D. (Part 1) : : C; a U) U) (A U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) ........................................U) (A U) U) U) U) U) ..................U) (A(l) U) U) U) U) U) U) (A U) U) (i0 • U) U) Go cow (flU) Basin storage U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) ................................................................ a Aj ••••••••••• d•rph ........................... / JIzz. tflow hyd1ograph ....................................................................... 01 0 OR 010~01 0~0~0*Qaanulaa C= C, 0 X 0C% t.* 't tfl Ifl IA IA IA0000 0 . t'W)* .* *IAUUA IA 1(1000 00 (JAJAHflPflr"fltfl-* -t 1(11(11(11(11(100 pnMM -$--S - ---*-* *.t- -t - -. *4* ' .t IA 1(1 LA IA IA X 00 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000 Fig. 8. Downstream side of box culverts at La Costa Avenue Fig. 10. Cross—Sectional Profile at Downstream Side of Box Culverts Elev.. ft. .. .iiiii .. . ............. 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 La Costa Avenue 30 10 0 -. - . •.-. . - - ' - 7--S, - - y - V. • - - I- • - .- . .. .. I .- V - :: - '. .:• :640\ L • ¶ S C \\ a 4 - -"'• -. - . -. . - ktc ' ' ( - .••- :- - r5 .. •:, - . . S .--d•f4 ; • -•. ... ___•S_____ ._ ..:. •\- :. . V • . .. ' •( A-. %, i'-- . .' - . . . - - r • • '.- - IL TA 6*0 VY N \ Fig 9 Flood plain map of Encinitas Creek in the N\ vicinity of La Costa Avenue ' \ Scale of map 1 inch = 200 feet !e%4 h' L Fig.. 11 Flood plain map of \*j7 > I It 't t *. ___ I " t14ir IL1Pil 1i.! I itjjmimi I II II41,t near south stream branch! Scale of map: .1 inch 04 ItIr F - . - VI jJII ¼ I : IJ A 1FW •- . ! IILch. - --- . - -. ':. • -.- - - . I LMUS -.-- .--:•---:' ••- .. _;. --- - - .--- - - : 'M 77 ..- J. *_• I -- -a NIP PSI - - - IV '-. 2!JiI1i/t3 1 Fig. 12. Cross—Sectional Profile I for Section 1.313 (facing upstream) Elev.. ft. 1 85 LI 75 TI 65 0 200 400 600 800 1; Station. feet I Fig., 13. Cross—Sectional Profile 1 for Section 1.403 (facing upstream) -- Elev.. ft. :1 100 go I 80 :1 70 1 Fig. 14. Cross—Sectional Profile I for Section 1.420 (fain upstream) Elev.. ft 100 C - 0 200 400 600 Station, feet L 1 • Fig. 15. Cross'—Sectional -Profile - for Section 1.520 (faoing upstream) I Elev., ft. 105 95 85 75 - 95 1 85 1 75 HI 1 AS 1 I 85 1 75 1• - 65 I •0 J ApJlkI, 14 11 Li 1 I I 1 I S71,. -' D,jcjttjc. 12L1:4 a -ZD C' Qu//,4w 4/ R £ 5o kk 97' y *0• 0 . 3/a. i I I C%F6 00 27? 0 2 27 4 ô8f Z7 e 0 /.'23. •. 1 0 •0 0 A 2/Z / &( /7c 44o7'Wo d1yV'/ &716'LI I i I APPENDIX B. INPUT/OUTPUT LISTINGS OF HEC-1 RUNS I * * * * FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) * * U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS * FEBRUARY 1981 . * THE HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER * REVISED 02 AUG 88 * * 609 SECOND STREET * * * * DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 * RUN DATE 09/03/1990 TIME 20:57:53 * * (916) 551-1748 ***************************************** x x xxxxxxx xxxxx x x x x x x xx x x x x xxxxxxx xxxx x xxxxx x x x x . x . x x x x - x x xxxxxxx xxxxx xxx THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC-1 KNOWN AS HEC1 (JAN 73), HEC1GS, HEC1DB, AND HEC1KW. THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP- AND -RTIOR- HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED WITH THE 1973-STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE. THE DEFINITION OF -AMSKK- ON RN-CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP 81. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION, DSS:WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY, DSS:READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND AMPT INFILTRATION KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM HEC-1 INPUT ., PAGE LINE ID.......1 .......2.......3........4.......5.......6.......7.......8.......9......10 1 2 ID ID DRAINAGE STUDY FOR ENCINITAS CREEK, CARLSBAD FOR ULTIMATE CONDITIONS OF WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT 3 ID WITHOUT FLOODWATER DETENTION BASINS 4 ID 6-HOUR STORM, 100-YEAR EVENT 5 . ID ZONES 11, 12, ETC 6 IT 2 12DEC89 300 7 10 5 1 8 KK SUB 6C 9 10 KM BA RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 6C 0.65 11 IN 15 12 PB 2.90 13 P1 1 0 .0175 .0175 .0225 .0225 .0275 .0275 .0475 .0475. 0.185 14 P1 .185 .05 .05 .04 .04 .0275 .0275 .0225 .0225 .02 15 P1 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 16 LS 88 17 UD 0.216 18 KK 6C-68 CHANNEL ROUTING 19 RK 3500 0.030 . 0.030 0 TRAP 25 2 20 - KK SUB 68 21 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 68 I 22 BA 0.37 23 LS 90 24 UD 0.137 25 KK PT.6B 26 KM COMBINE FLOWS OF 6C AND 6B 27 HC 2 28 KK 68-6A CHANNEL ROUTING 29 RK 2300 0.011 0.040 0 TRAP 40 2 30 KK SUB 6A 31 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 6A 32 BA 0.20 33 PB 2.8 34 IS 89 35 UD 0.078 36 KK PT.6A CONCENTRATION POINT 6A 37 HC 2 38 KK 6A-6 CHANNEL ROUTING 39 RK 2120 0.011 0.040 0 TRAP 40 2 40 KK SUB 41 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 6 42 BA 0.25 43 PB 2.80 44 LS 89 45 UD 0.101 HEC-1 INPUT LINE ID ....... 1 .......2.......3.......4.......5.......6.......7.......8........9......10 46 KK PT.6 47 HC 2 48 KK SUB 5A 49 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 5A 50 BA 0.64 51 PB 2.90 52 IS 89 53 UD 0.274 54 KK 5A-5 CHANNEL ROUTING 55 RK 4000 0.006 0.035 0 TRAP 20 2 56 KK SUB 57 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 5 58 BA 0.68 59 PB 2.80 60 IS 89 61 UD 0.212 62 KK PT.5 63 HC 2 64 KK PT. 7 65 HC 2 66 KK 7-8 CHANNEL ROUTING 67 RK 5880 0.004 0.040 0 TRAP 50 3 68 KK SUB 69 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 8 70 BA 0.62 71 PB 2.80 72 LS 85 2 PAGE 2 :1 73 UD 0.347 74 KK P1.8 S 75 HC 2 0 76 KK SUB 77 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 1 78 BA 0.88 79 PB 2.80 80 LS 89 81 UD 0.117 82 KK SUB 83 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 2 84 BA 0.58 85 PB 2.80 86 LS 87 87 5UD 0.107 HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 3 LINE ID.......1 .......2.......3.......4.......5.......6.......7.......8.......9......10 88 KK PT.3 89 HC 2 90 KK 3-3A CHANNEL ROUTING 91 RK 2000 0.015 0.020 0 TRAP 10 2 92 KK 3A-4 CHANNEL ROUTING 0 93 RK 3920 0.013 0.040 0 TRAP 50 3 0 94 KK SUB 4 95 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 4 96 BA 0.74 97 PB 2.70 98 LS 87 99 UD 0.148 100 KK P1.4 101 HC. 2 102 KK PT. 9 103 NC 2 0 104 KK 9-10 CHANNEL ROUTING 105 RK, 2920 0.007 0.040 0 TRAP 60 3 106 KK SUB 10 107 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 10 108 BA 0.42 109 PB 2.70 110 LS 82 111 UD 0.189 112 KK P1.10 113 HC 2 114 115 KK KM SUB 11 RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 11 116 BA 0.65 117 PB 2.80 0 118 LS 88 0 119 -' UD 0.102 : 120 KK P1.12 121 HC 2 0 0 122 KK 12-13 CHANNEL ROUTING I .1 123 RK 4040 0.011 0.045 0 TRAP 60 3 124 KK SUB 13 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 13 1 125 126 BA 0.66 127 PB 2.70 128 LS 82 U . 1 129 UD 0.262 HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 4 LINE ID ....... 1 ........2.......3.......4.......5.......6.......7.......8.......9......10 I 130 KK PT.i3 • 131 HC 2 132 ZZ I i * * FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (NEC-1) * * U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS .I* * FEBRUARY 1981 * * THE HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER * * REVISED 02 AUG 88 * * 609 SECOND STREET DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 * * * RUN DATE 12/10/1989 TIME 19:57:23 * . * (916)551-1748 * * I * :1 • . I DRAINAGE STUDY FOR ENCINITAS CREEK, CARLSBAD FOR ULTIMATE CONDITIONS OF WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT FLOODWATER DETENTION BASINS • . . 6-HOUR STORM, 100-YEAR EVENT ZONES 11, 12, ETC .I 7 10 OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL .I. QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE •• . IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NMIN 2 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL I IDATE 12DEC89 STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME - NO • 300 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES NDDATE 12DEC89 ENDING DATE I . NDTIME 0958 ENDING TIME ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL .03 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 997 HOURS . I . ENGLISH UNITS • DRAINAGE AREA SQUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET U FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND . STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT 4 .1. • 1 FLOGRD - MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DX INTERVALS REACHED. MDX= 51 THIS MAY AFFECT ACCURACY OF KW SOLUTION. TO REDUCE ERRORS SHORTEN CHANNEL ELEMENT = 3 RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES PEAK TIME OF' AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK AREA STAGE MAX STAGE + 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR HYDROGRAPH AT + SUB 6C 561. 2.83 121. 73. 73. .65 ROUTED TO + 6C-68 559. 2.90 121. 73. Th .65 HYDROGRAPH AT + SUB 68 381. 2.77 75. 45;. 45• .37. S 2 COMBINED AT' . + PT 6B 900 2.83 196 118 118 1.02 ROUTED TO + 68-6A 899. 2.87 196. 118. 118. 1.02 HYDROGRAPH AT + SUB 6A 197. 2.73 37. 22. 22. .20 2 COMBINED AT + .5. , PT.6A 1025. 2.83 233. 140. 140. 1.22 ROUTED TO . .' + . . 6A-6 1024. 2.87 233. 140, . 140, 1.22 HYDROGRAPH AT + SUB 6 242. 2.77 46. 28. 28. .25 2 COMBINED AT PT. 6 1215. 2.83 279. 168. 168. 1.47 5 HYDROGRAPH AT . S + . SUB 5A 540. 2.87 125. 75, 5 75. , .64 ROUTEDTO + 5A5 539, 3.00 124. ,75. 75. .64 HYDROGRAPH AT , + . SUB 5 588. 2.83 126. 76. 76. .68 2 COMBINED AT . . + PT 5 1051 2.90 250 151 151 1.32 2 COMBINED AT PT. 7 2241. 2.87 528. ' 319. S 319. 2,79 ROUTED TO + 7-8 2240. 3.00 527. 318. 318, .2.79 HYDROGRAPH AT I + SUB 8 361. 2.97 95. 57. 57. . .62 S 2 COMBINED AT 5 S PT. 8 2597. 3.00 621.. 375 375. 5 3.41, S HYDROGRAPH AT + . SUB I 842. 2.77 163. .. 98. 98. .88 i HI I HYDROGRAPH AT + SUB 2 511. 2.77 98. 59. 59. .58 .I 2 COMBINED AT + PT. 3 1353. 2.77 260. 157. 157. 1.46 ROUTEDTO I + 3-3A 1343. 2.77 260. 157. 157. 1.46 ROUTED TO + 3A-4 1340. 2.87 260. . 157. 157. 1.46 I HYDROGRAPH AT + SUB 4 589. 2.80 : 118. 71. 71. .74 2 COMBINED AT . 1 + PT. 4 1891. 2.83 378. 228. 228. 2.20 2 COMBINED AT PT. 9 4047. 2.93 997. 603. 603. 5.61 'I + ROUTED TO + 9-10 4026. 3.00 997. 602. 602. 5.61 HYDROGRAPH AT I + SUB 10 238. 2.83 52. 31. 31. .42 • 2 COMBINED AT • I + pr.lo 4207. 2.97 1048. 634. 634. 6.03 HYDROGRAPH AT • . • + SUB 11 602. 2.77 115. 69. . 69. .65 I . 2 COMBINED AT . . • p1.12 74450 2.97. .1160. 703. 703. 6.68 4 ROUTED TO I. . + 12-13 4446. 3.03 1160. 702. 702. 6.68 HYDROGRAPH AT + . .. . SUB 13 335. 2.90 81 • . 49. 49. .66 • . 2 COMBINED AT • . + . P1.13 4725. 3.03 1240. 751. 751. 7.34 I NORMAL END OF HEC 1 *** I •. ,, .. ,•• • .:. I I ,• ••:..•• I 1 6 * * FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) * . * U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS * * FEBRUARY 1981 * . . THE HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENT * * REVISED 02 AUG 88 . * * .609 SECOND STREET * DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 * * RUN DATE 12/17/1989 TIME 05:10:46 * * (916) 5511748 * * * * * x x •xxxxxxx xxxxx x X • X x x xx x x x x xxxxxxx xxxx x xxxxx x . x x x x .x x x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxxx xxx THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC-1 KNOWN AS HEC1 (JAN 73), HEC1GS, HEC1DB, AND HEC1KW. THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP- AND -RTIOR- HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED WITH THE 1973-STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE THE DEFINITION OF -AMSKK- ON RH-CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP 81. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAKOUTFL0W SUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION, DSS:WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY,. DSS:READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND ANPT INFILTRATION KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM .1 HEC-1 INPUT . PAGE LINE . ID ......... 1 .......2.......3.......4.......5.......6.. .....7.......8. ......9....10 1 ID DRAINAGE STUDY FOR ENCINITAS CREEK, CARLSBAD 2 ID FOR ULTIMATE CONDITIONS OF WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT . . 3 ID WITH FLOODWATER DETENTION BASINS A, B, AND. C 4 ID 6-HOUR STORM, 100-YEAR EVENT 5 • ID ZONES 11, 12, ETC • .. • 6 • IT 2 12DEC89 300 7 10 5 • 8 KK SUB 6C 9 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 6C 10 BA 0.65 . 11 IN 15 12 PB 2.90 . 13 P1 0 .0175 .0175 .0225 .0225 .0275 .0275 .0475 .0475 0.185 14 P1 .185 .05 .05 .04 .04.0275:. .0275 .0225, .0225 .02 15 . P1 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 . .16 LS 88 17 UD 0.216 0 0 18 KK 6C-68 CHANNEL ROUTING • • . • • 19 . RK 3500 0.030 0.030 0 TRAP 0 25 2 0 20 KK SUB 68 0 . 21 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIW 68 0 1 1 22 BA 0.37 23 LS 90 24 UD 0.137 25 KK PT.6B 26 KM COMBINE FLOWS OF 6C AND 6B 27 HC 2 28 KK 68-6A CHANNEL ROUTING 29 RK 2300 0.011 0.040 0 TRAP 40 2 30 KK SUB 6A 31 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 6A 32 BA 0.20 33 PB 2.8 34 LS 89 35 UD 0.078 36 KK PT.6A CONCENTRATION POINT 6A 37 HC 2 38 KK PT.6A FLOODWATER DETENTION BASIN A UPSTREAM OF CALLE BARCELONA 39 KO 2 40 RS 1 STOR -1 41 SV 0 0.04 0.70 2.25 4.83 8.81 14.56 22.20 42 SQ 0 60 180 305 450 535 620 700 43 SE 123 124 126 128 130 132 134 136 HEC-1 INPUT LINE ID.......1 .......2.......3.......4.......5.......6.......7.......8.......9......10 44 KK 6A-6 CHANNEL ROUTING 45 RK 2120 0.011 0.040 0 TRAP 40 2 46 KK SUB 47 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 6 48 - BA 0.25 49 PB 2.80 50 LS 89 51 UD 0.101 52 KK PT.6 53 HC 2 54 KK PT. 6 FLOODWATER DETENTION BASIN B AT OLIVENHAIN AND RANCHO SANTA FE RD. 55 KO 2 56 RS 1 STOR -1 57 SV 0 0.92 3.96 10.16 20.09 33.22 49.95 58 SQ 0 17 48 62 72 303 767 59 SE 108 110 112 114 116 118 120 60 KK SUB 5A 61 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 5A 62 BA 0.64 63 PB 2.90 64 LS 89 65 UD 0.274 66 KK 5A-5 CHANNEL ROUTING 67 RK 4000 0.006 0.035 0 TRAP 20 2 68 KK SUB - 69 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 5 70 BA 0.68 71 PB 2.80 72 LS 89 73 UD 0.212 74 KK PT.5 2 PAGE 2 I. 75 HC 2 76 KK P1.7 77 HC 2 78 . KK 7-8 CHANNEL ROUTING . 79 RK 5880 0.004 0.040 0 TRAP . 50 3 80 KK SUB 81 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 8 - •. 82 BA 0.62 83 PB 2.80 84 LS 85 85 UD 0.347 . HEC-1 INPUT . . PAGE 3 LINE . ID.......1 .......2.......3.......4.......5.......6......7.........8.......9.......10 •- 86 KK P1.8 . . • 87 88 HC KK 2 SUB . 89 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN -1 90 BA 0.88 91 PB 2.80 • • 92 LS 89 - 93 UD 0.117 : 94 KK SUB 2. • . • 95 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 2 96 BA 0.58 97 PB 2.80 98 99 LS UD .87 0.107 • • 100 KK P1.3 . • • 101 HC 2 102 KK 3-3A CHANNEL ROUTING • 103 RK 2000 • 0.015 0.020 0 TRAP 10 2 • • 104 (K 3A-4 CHANNEL ROUTING 105 RK 3920 0.013 0.040 0 TRAP 50 106. KK SUB 4, • .' 107 108 KM BA RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS 0.74 CREEK SUBBASIN 4 109. PB 2.70 110 LS .87 • 111 UD 0.148 . . . . 112 KK P1.4 . 113 HC 2 • . 114 KK P1.9 • • 115 HC 2 . 116 KK 9-10 CHANNEL ROUTING 117 RK 2920 0.007 0.040 0 TRAP 60 . 3 118 KK SUB 10 S • . S. 119 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBB SIN 10 • 120 121 BA PB 2.70 • : 0.42 . . 122 LS 82 . S • S 123 LID 0.189 .. . 5 ID.......1 HEC-1 INPUT .......2.......3......4.......5........6..........7.......8. PAGE 4 ••• LINE ......9......10 • • 3 I 124 KK P1.10 I , 125 HC 2 126 'KK SUB 11 • 127 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 11 128 KO 3 2 • I 129 PB 2.80 130 BA 0.65 131 LS 88 .I 132 UD 0.102 . 133 KK PT.11 134 KM STORAGE ROUTING IN FLOODWATER DETENTION BASIN C 135 KO 3 2 136 -RS 1 ELEV 66.1 1 137 SV 0 0.4 1.5 2.6 3.7 4.9 .6.1 7.6 ' 9;9 13 138 SV ' 22 27.7 34.4 42.3 139 SE 66 67 68 . 69 - 70: 71. 72 .73 74 75 140 .. SE 77 78 79 80 I 141 SQ 0 7 17.5 37.5 70 '101' ., 118 132 143 155 142 50 177 186 196 209 . . . 143 KK P1.12 I 144 HC 2 • 145 KK 12-13 CHANNEL ROUTING 146, RK 4040 0.011 0.045 0 TRAP 60 3 I 147 KK SUB 13 148 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 13 • . 149 BA 0.66 ' •.. , .. . •• , . 150 PB 2.70 .I 151 .LS ' 82 . . 152 UD 0.262 153 KK P1.13 I 154 HC 2 155 ZZ •' .,. , * * FLOOD HYDROGRAPH. PACKAGE ' (HEC-1) * . .. . ' , , * U.S., ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS • * . .I * * FEBRUARY 1981 . - * , . • •. * THE HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER * REVISED 02 AUG 88 . * 609 SECOND STREET * ' * • .. DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 , .I, * • -' •'. RUN DATE 12/17/1989 TIME 05:10:46 * . • • • - * (916) 5511748 * . . -, * . * . . • .* • .I* I . • DRAINAGE STUDY FOR ENCINITAS CREEK, CARLSBAD . • . . 'I • FOR ULTIMATE CONDITIONS OF WATERSHED' DEVELOPMENT . .. • , • WITH FLOODWATER DETENTION,-BASINS A, 8, AND C , • .6-HOUR STORM, 10.0-YEAR EVENT . • • . - ZONES 11, 12, ETC . ' • . . - . • U7 io OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES . • "I' • '.' '-'. __''•:•'•• , 'I I IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL .; • IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL . . QSCAL O. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA .. NMIN 2 MINUTES IN COMPUTATIONI INTERVAL IDATE 12DEC89 STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME. NO 300 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES S NDDATE 12DEc89 ENDING DATE NDTIME 0958 ENDING TIME . . .5 ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK . CONPUTATIONINTERVAL .03 HOURS . TOTAL TIME BASE 9.97 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS . . . DRAINAGE AREA SQUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES I . LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET I FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME. ACRE-FEET SURFACE-AREA ACRES - .5 TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT . . *** *** *** *** *** a** *** *** *** *** *** *** a** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 38 KK * PT.6A * FLOODWATER DETENTION BASIN A UPSTREAM OF CALLE BARCELONA * * 39 KO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES • IPRNT. 5 PRINT—CONTROL • S . • S • S IPLOT 2 PLOT CONTROL • S QSCAL • 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE STATION PT.6A S S 5 5 5 S * * 54 KK * - PT. 6 * FLOODWATER DETENTION BASIN B AT1OLIVENHAIN AND RANCHO -SANTA FE RD. •- 55 KO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES . . . . • S • IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL S IPLOT . 2 PLOT CONTROL . OSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT-SCALE 5 • S . S STATION PT. 6 131 LS ,. SCS LOSS RATE • - . S STRTL . .27 INITIAL ABSTRACTION . 5 CRVNBR 88.00 CURVE-NUMBER S • - 5 • RTIMP .00 PERCENT IMPERVIOUS AREA S 132 UD SCS DIMENSIONLESS UNITGRAPH S TLAG .10 LAG .. . S. I UNIT HYDROGRAPH . - 17 END-0FPRIOD ORDINATES - S • 457. 1554. 2529. 2582. 2O52 1256. 786. 510. 321. - 201. -: • 128. 81. 51. - 33. 22H 13. . 6. 5 51 HYDROGRAPH AT STATION SUB 11 TOTAL RAINFALL = 2.80, TOTAL LOSS = 1.16, TOTAL EXCESS = 1.64 PEAK FLOW TIME MAXIMUM AVERAGE FLOW 6-HR 24-HR 72-HR 9.97-HR + (CFS) (KR) (CFS) 602. 2.77 115. (INCHES) 1.642 69. 69. 1.642 1.642 69. 1.642 (AC-FT) 57. 57. 57. 57. CUMULATIVE AREA = .65 SO MI :1 * ****** * * ** ** * * * I 133 K * PT.11 * * * SI 135 KO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES • IPRNT 3 PRINT CONTROL • IPLOT 2 PLOT CONTROL QSCAL 0, HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE I HYDROGRAPH ROUTING DATA 136 RS STORAGE ROUTING NSTPS 1 NUMBER OF SUBREACHES I ITYP ELEV TYPE OF INITIAL CONDITION • RSVRIC 66.10 INITIAL CONDITION X .00 WORKING R AND D COEFFICIENT -,• S 137 SV STORAGE .0 .4 1.5 2.6 37 4.9 6.1 7.6 99 13.0 • 22.0 27.7 34.4 42.3 S 139 SE ELEVATION 66.00 67.00 68.00 69.00 70.00 71.00 72.00 73.00 74.00 75.00 77.00 78.00 79.00 80.00 I 141 SO DISCHARGE 0 7 18 38 70 101 118 132.'143 155 177. • 186. 196. 209. *** I *** • HYDROGRAPH AT STATION P1.11 PEAK FLOW TIME MAXIMUM AVERAGE FLOW 6-HR 24-HR 72-HR 9.97-HR + (CFS) (KR) S (CFS) IS . + 170. 337 113. 69. 69. 69. S (INCHES) 1.614 1.641 1.641 1.641 (AC-Fl) 56. 57. • 57. 57. I PEAK STORAGE TIME MAXIMUM AVERAGE STORAGE S • • 6-HR 24-HR 72-HR 9.97-HR S S + (AC-FT) (KR) S I . 19.337 10. 6. • 6. 6. • PEAK STAGE TIME • MAXIMUM AVERAGE STAGE • I 6 1 6-HR 24-HR 72-HR 9.97-HR + (FEET) (HR). 76.38 3.37 72.74 70.22 70.22 70.22 CUMULATIVE AREA = .65 SO NI . . RyNOFF SUMMARY: FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF OPERATION, STATION FLOW PEAK AREA. STAGE MAX STAGE + . 6-HOUR: 24-HOUR 72-HOUR HYDROGRAPH AT + SUB 6C 561. 2.83 121. .73. 73. .65 ROUTED TO + 6C 6B 559 2.90 121 73 73 65 HYDROGRAPH AT 45. .37 + SUB-6B 381. 2.77 75. 45. 2 COMBINED AT . + PT.68 900. 2.83 196.. 118. 118. 1.02 ROUTED TO . + . 68-6A 899. 2.87 ,196. 118.. 118. 1.02 HYDROGRAPH AT . SUB-6A 197. 2.73 37.1 22. 22. .20 2 COMBINED AT 1025. 2.83 233. 140. 140. 1.22 + PT.6A ROUTED TO .. . + PT.6A 642. 3.10 233.: 140. 140. 1.22 + 13455 310 ROUTED TO + 6A-6 642 '3.17 233 140 140i 1.22 HYDROGRAPH AT I + . SUB 242. 2.77 46. 28. 2.8. .25 • + 2 COMBINED AT PT 6 734 2.80 279 • 168 • 168 1.47 ROUTEDTO . .•, + + S S PT. 6 558. 383 247. I 159. 159. S 1.47 119.10 • 3.83 • HYDROGRAPH AT • • . 5 1 5 5 SUB 5A 540. 2.87 125. 75. 75.111 .64 • ROUTED TO 5 0 5 5 + 5A-5 539 3,00 124 75 75 64 HYDROGRAPH AT . + . SUB 5 588. 2.83 . 126. 76. 76. .68 • . . 'I•• S 2-COMBINED AT : •. 5 5 . .•• + S PT. 5 1051., 290 250. . .151. 151. 1.32 2 COMBINED AT , . I • • • S + S • PT. 7 1163.. 2.93 492. 1 310. 310. 2.79 . , . • . . , • S • ROUTED TO + 7-8 1160. 3.13 492. .304 304. • 2.79 . S • i I HYDROGRAPH AT + SUB 8 361. 2.97 95. 57. 57. .62 2 COMBINED AT + PT. 8 1465. 3.13 581. 361. 361. 3.41 HYDROGRAPH AT I + SUB 842. 2.77 163. 98. 98. .88 HYDROGRAPH AT + SUB 2 511. 2.77 98. 59. 59. .58 I 2 COMBINED AT + - PT. 3 1353. 2.77 260. 157. 157. 1.46 .I ROUTED TO + 3-3A 1342. 2.77 260. 157. 157. 1.46 ROUTED TO .I + 3A-4 1340. 2.87 260. 157. 157. 1.46 HYDROGRAPH AT + SUB 4 589. 2.80 118. 71. 71. .74 ,I 2 COMBINED AT + ' PT. 4 1890. 2.83 378. 228. 228. 2.20 2 COMBINED AT I + PT 9 2832 2.90 955 589 589 5.61 ROUTED TO + 9-10 2831. 2.97 955. 586. 586. 5.61 I HYDROGRAPH AT + SUB 10 238. 2.83 52. 31. 31. .42 2 COMBINED AT I + P1.10 3013. 2.97 1006. 617. 617. 6.03 HYDROGRAPH AT I + ROUTED TO SUB 11 602. 2.77 115. ' 69. • 69. .65 + PT.11 170. 3.37 • 113. 69. 69. .65 + 76.38 • I 2 COMBINED AT -• + PT.12 3181., 2.97 1119. 686. 686. 6.68 ROUTED TO • + 12-13 3170. 3.03 1118. 683. 683. 6.68 HYDROGRAPH AT SUB 13 335. 2.90 81. 49. 49. ' .66 2 COMBINED AT - + PT.13 3450. 3.03 1195. 732. 732. 7.34 I' NORMAL END OF HEC-1 .1 I • 8 3.37 .1 * FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) * * U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS * FEBRUARY 1981 * * THE HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER * REVISED 02 AUG 88 * * 609 SECOND STREET * * * DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 * RUN DATE 05/07/1991 TIME 16:11:14 * * (916) 551-1748 * ***************************************** x x xxxxxxx xxxxx x x x -x x xx - x x x x xxxxxxx xxxx x xxxxx x - x- x x x x x x --x x x x xxxxxxx xxxxx xxx I THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC 1 KNOWN AS NEC (JAN 73), HEMS, HEC1DB, AND HEC1KW THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES RTIMP AND RTIOR HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED WITH THE 1973 STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE THE DEFINITION OF AMSKK ON RN CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP 81. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOWSUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION, DSS:WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY, DSS READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE GREEN AND AMPT INFILTRATION KINEMATIC-WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM HEC-1 INPUT PAGE LINE ID. ....... 1 .......2.......3.......4.......5.......6.......7.......8.......9......10 1 ID DRAINAGE STUDY FOR ENCINITAS CREEK, CARLSBAD 2 3 ID ID FOR ULTIMATE CONDITIONS OF WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT WITH FLOODWATER DETENTION BASINS A, B,. C AND D - 4 ID 6-HOUR STORM, 100-YEAR EVENT 5 ID ZONES 11, 12, ETC - 6 IT 2 12DEC89 300 7 10 5- 8 KK SUB 6C. • -; -- 9 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 6C 10 11 - BA IN 0.65 15 12 PB 2.90 13 P1 0 .0175 .0175 .0225 .0225 • .0275 .0275 .0475 .0475 0.185 14 15 P1 P1 .185 .05 .05 .04 .04 .0275 .0275 .0225 .02 .02 .02 .02 i02 .0225 .02 16 LS 88 • 17 UD 0.216 • 18 • 19 •• KK RK 6C-68 CHANNEL ROUTING 3500 0.030 0.030 0 TRAP 25 2 20 KK SUB 68 21 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 68 22 / BA 0.37 23 LS 90 24 LID 0.137 25 KK PT.68 • - 26 -KM COMBINE FLOWS OF 6C AND 68 • 27 • HC 2 • 28 KK 6B-6A CHANNEL ROUTING • 29 • RK 2300 0.011 0.040 .0 TRAP 40 2 30 KK SUB 6A • 1 1 31 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 6A 32. BA 0.20 33 PB 2.8 34 LS 89 35 UD 0.078 36 KK PT.6A CONCENTRATION POINT 6A 37 NC 2 38 KK PT.6A FLOODWATER DETENTION BASIN A UPSTREAM OF CALLE BARCELONA 39 KO 2 40 RS 1 STOR -1 41 SV 0 0.04 0.70 2.25 4.83 8.81 14.56 22.20 42 SQ 0 60 180 305 450 535 620 700 43 SE 123 124 126 128 130 132 134 136 HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 2 LINE ID.......1 .......2.......3.......4.......5.......6........7.......8.......9......10 44 'KK 6A-6 CHANNEL ROUTING 45 RK 2120 0.011 0.040 0 TRAP 40 2 46 KK SUB 47 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 6 48 - BA 0.25 49. PB 2.80 50 LS 89 51 UD 0.101 52 KK PT.6 53 HC 2 54 KK PT. 6 FLOODWATER DETENTION BASIN B AT OLIVENHAIN AND RANCHO SANTA FE RD. 55 KO 2 56 RS 1 STOR -1 57 sv 0 0.92 3.96 10.16 20.09 33.22 49.95 58 SQ 0 17 48 62 1 72 303 767 59 SE 108 110 112 114 116 118 120 60 KK SUB 5A . -.61 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 5A 62 BA 0.64 63 PB 2.90 64 LS 89 65 UD 0.274 66 KK 5A-5 CHANNEL ROUTING 67 RK 4000 0.006 . 0.035 0 TRAP 20 2 68 KK SUB '. 69 KM RUNOFF. FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 5 70 BA 0.68 71 PB 2.80 72 LS 89 73 UD 0.212 74 KK PT.5 75 NC 2 76 KK PT.7 77 HC 2 78 KK 78A -CHANNEL ROUTING 79- RK 1500 0.002 0.040 0 TRAP 320 2 80 KK SUB 8A 81 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN. 8A 82 BA 0.09 - 83 PB 2.80 - - 84 LS 85 85 UD 0.105 . HEC-1 INPUT . PAGE 3 2 I LINE ID ....... 1 .2.3..4.5 .6.7.8.9.10 86 87. KK -HC PT.8A, 2 88 KK PT.8A FLOODWATER DETENTION BASIN 0 89 KO 0 2 90 RS 1 STOR -1 5 91 SV .0 3.8 15.2 38.4 61.04 1 83.64 106.25 92 SO 0 22 42 .51 289 .731 1289 93 SE 100 .102 104 106 108 110 112 94 KK 8A8 CHANNEL ROUTING 95 RK 4380 O.004 0.040 0 TRAP . 50 3 . 96 KK SUB 88 -' . 97 98 KM BA RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS 0.53. CREEK . SUBBASIN SB . .5 99 PB 2.80 100 LS 85 . 101 UD 0.248 .5 102 KK PT.8 103 HC 2 104 KK SUB . . .5, .5• 105 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 1 . 106 BA 0.88 . 107 PB 2.80 108 LS 89 . 109 UD 0.117 110 KK SUB . S 111 KM RUNOFF FROM. ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 2 112 BA 0.58 . 113 PB 2.80 . . . . 114 LS 87 5 115 UD 0.107 . • 5; 5 116 KK P1.3 . S I . S., 117 '. HC. 2 . S S. 118 KK 3-3A . CHANNEL ROUTING .. '• 5 5 119 RK, 2000 0.015 0.020 0 TRAP 10 2 120 KK , 3A-4 CHANNEL ROUTING 121 RK 3920 0.013 0.040 0 TRAP 50 122 KK . SUB 4 123 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 4 124 BA 0.74 5 5 125 PB 2.70 . S • 126 127 LS UD 0.14.8 87 . HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 4 LINE ID ....... 1 ....... 2 ....... 3 ....... 4 ..... ..5.'. ..... 6 ....... 7 ....... 8 ....... .9 ...... 10 .• ' • 128 KK PT. 4 . S. 129 HC 2 . . . . . 130 'KK P1.9 131 HC 2 ., • 132 KK 9-10 CHANNEL ROUTING . . 133 RK 2920 0.007 0.040 0 TRAP 60 3 .. 134 KK SUB 10 SS :' )• 135 KM RUNOFF FROM'ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 1P . 136 137 BA PB 2.70 0.42 138 LS 82 . . I 1 139 UD' 0.189 . . 140 KK P1.10 I 141 MC 2 142 KK SUB 11 143 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 11 144 KO 145 PB 3 2 2.80 .I 146. BA 0.65 147 LS .88 148 UD 0.102 149 KK P1.11 . 150 KM STORAGE ROUTING IN FLOODWATER DETENTION BASIN C 151 KO 3 2 152 RS 1 ELEV 66.1 153 ' Sv 0 0.4 1.5 2.6 3.7 4.9 6.1 7.6. 9.9 13 'N 154 sv 22 27.7 34.4 42.3 155 SE '66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 156 SE 77 78 79 80 157 so 0 7 17.5 37.5 70 101 , 118 132 143 155 I 158 SQ 177 186 196 209 159 KK P1.12 160 HC 2 161 KK 12-13 CHANNEL ROUTING 162 RK 4040 0.011 0.045 0 TRAP 60 3 163 KK SUB 13 I 164 KM RUNOFF FROM ENCINITAS CREEK SUBBASIN 13 . • 165 BA 0.66 . 166 . PS '2.70 167 LS. 168 UD 82 0.262 . I . 1 NEC-i INPUT .. PAGE . 5 • LINE. ID... ..... 1 ....... 2.......3-------4.. ..... .5 ....... 6 ....... 7 ....... 8 ....... .9 ....... 10 I 169 ' KK P1.13 170 HC 2 - 171 ZZ * FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-i) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS * * FEBRUARY1981 . * . ' * THE HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER * I* * REVISED 02 AUG 88 * ' * . 609 SECOND STREET DAVIS, CALIFORNIA-95616 * * RUN DATE 05/07/1991 TIME 16:11:14 * * '' •. (916) 551-1748 • * • • * * ***************************************** • I , • DRAINAGE STUDY. FOR ENCINITAS CREEK, CARLSBAD ' FOR ULTIMATE CONDITIONS OF WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT WITH FLOODWATER DETENTION BASINS A,' B, C AND D 6-HOUR' STORM, 100-YEAR EVENT • ZONES 11, 12, ETC • ' .. • 5 ' 7 10 • ' OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES . • IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL ,.IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL • ' I OSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA . • • - NMIN 2 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 12DEC89 STARTING DATE' • • , • • • t • ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME • • : • . . NO 300 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES I i NDDATE 12DEC89 ENDING DATE (I NDTIME 0958 ENDING TIME ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK 0 COMPUTATION INTERVAL .03 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 997 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA SQUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES : LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES S S TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT S. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** I ,t I I IS I C' I 5• •. .5 • 5. S .S . •55 - RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK . AREA STAGE MAX STAGE 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR HYDROGRAPH AT SUB 6C 561. 2.83 121. 73. 73. .65 ROUTED TO 6C-6B 559. 2.90 121. 73. 73. .65 HYDROGRAPH AT SUB 6B 381. 2.77 75. 45. 45. .37 2 COMBINED AT . PT.68 900. 2.83 196. 118. 118. 1.02 ROUTED TO 69-6A 899. 2.87 196. 118. 118. 1.02 HYDROGRAPH AT SUB 6A 197. 2.73 37. 22. 22. .20 2 COMBINED AT . PT.6A 1025. 2.83 233. 140. 140. 1.22 ROUTED TO . PT.6A 642. 3.10 233. 140. 140. 1.22 134.55 310 ROUTED TO 6A-6 642. 3.17 233. 140. 140. 1.22 HYDROGRAPH AT . SUB 6 242. 2.77 46. 28. 28. .25 2 COMBINED AT PT. 6 . 734. 280 279. 168. 168. L'47 ROUTED TO . . PT. 6 558. 383 247. 159. 159. 1.47 119.10 3.83 HYDROGRAPH AT SUB 5A 540. 2.87 125. , 75. 75. .64 ROUTED TO 5A-5 539. 3.00 124. 75. 75 .64 HYDROGRAPH AT SUB -5 '588. 283 126. 76. . 76. .68 2' COMBINED AT PT. 5 1051. 2.90 250. 151. 151. 1.32 2 COMBINED AT PT. 7 . . 1163. 2.93 492. 310. 310., ' , 2.79, ROUTED TO 7-8A 1160. 3.07 492. 306. 306. 2.79 HYDROGRAPH AT SUB BA 72. 2.77 14. 8. B. .09 2 COMBINED AT PT.8A 1185. 3.03 505. 314. 314. 288 ROUTED TO PT.8A 753. 440 420. 263. 263. 2.88 110.08 4.40 6 I ROUTED TO + 8A-8 753 4.60 419 257 257 2 88 HYDROGRAPH.AT + SUB.88 353. , 2.87 81., 49. 49. .53 2 COMBINED AT + PT. 8 827. 4.53 473. 306. 306. 3.41, ( -HYDROGRAPH AT + SUB 1 842. 2.77 163. 98. 98. .88 HYDROGRAPH AT . + SUB 2 511. 277 98. 59. 59. .58 2 COMBINED AT • PT. 3 :1353. 2.77 260'. 157. 157. 1.46 ROUTED TO + 3-3A 1342. 2.77 260. 157. 157. 1.46 ROUTED TO . + 3A-4 1340 2.87 260 157 157 1.146, HYDROGRAPH AT - + SUB 4 589. :2.80 118. 71. 71. .74 2 COMBINED AT -- . + PT 4 1890 2.83 378 228 228 2.20 2 COMBINED AT . - -• • . . PT. 9 2238.. 2.83 842. 534. 534. 5.61 ROUTED TO 9-10 2236. 2.90 842. 530. 5301i 5.61 HYDROGRAPH AT + SUB 10 238. 2.83 . 52. . 31. 31.' .42 -: 2 COMBINED AT . • + PT.-10 2456. 2.90 893. 562. 562. 6.03 ...HYDROGRAPH AT - - + - SUB 11 602. 2.77 115. 69. 69. .65 ROUTED TO . . . + PT.11 170. 3.37 113. 69. 69. . .65 76.38' 3.37 2 COMBINED AT + . PT.12 2622. 2.90 1005. 631, 631. 668 ROUTED TO . . - • 12-13 . 2610. 2.97 1003. 626. - 626. 6.68 HYDROGRAPH AT + SUB 13 335. 2.90 - 81. - 49. .-• 49. .66 2 COMBINED AT , . - . . '. •1 + . . PT.13 2926. 2.97 . 1080. 675. 675. 7.34 NORMAL END OF NEC-i 1 I 7 1 APPENDIX C INPUT/OUTPUT LISTINGS FOR HEC-2 * WATER SURFACE PROFILES * * U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS * * VERSION OF NOVEMBER 1976 * * THE HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER UPDATED MAY 1984 * * 609 SECOND STREET, SUITE D * IBM-PC-XT VERSION AUGUST 1985 * * DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 * (916) 440-2105 (FTS) 448-2105 RUN DATE 09-03790 TIME 15:55:55 * . X X XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXx -. X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXX XXXX X XXXXX XXXXX X X •X X X X •X X X X X X XXXXXXX XXXXX' XXXXXXX 09-03-90 15:55:55 . PAGE 1 THIS RUN EXECUTED 09-03-90 \R - HEC2 RELEASE DATED NOV 76 UPDATED MAY 1984 ERROR CORR - 01,02,03,04,05,06 ' MODIFICATION - 50,51,52,53,54,55,56 IBM-PC-XT VERSION AUGUST 1985 ************************************************** T1 THIS IS A SUBCRITICAL RUN FOR ENCINITAS CREEK EXISTING CONDITIONS T2 FOR EVALUATION OF DRAINAGE CAPACITIES OF BRIDGES AND CULVERTS T3 FOR NATURAL CONDITIONS WITHOUT DETENTION BASINS Ji ICHECK IWO NINV IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS 0 WSEL FO 0. 2. 0. 0. .000000 .00 .0 0. 8.500 .000 J2 NPROF IPLOT PRFVS XSECV XSECH FM ALLDC IBW CHNIM ITRACE 1.000 000 -1.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 QT ,. 3.000 4725.006 3450.000 2926.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 MC .060 .060 .060 .100 .300 .000 . .000 .000 .000 .000 Xl .000 62.000 410.000 530.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 A X3 10.000 .000 ..000 270.000 GR 5.900 .000 5.900 10.000 .000 6.000 .000 20.000 .000 5.900 .000 .000 30.000 5.900 .000. 60.000 OR 5.900 50.000 5.900 60.000 5.900 70.000 5.900 80.000 5.800 90.000 GR 5.800 100.000 5.800 110.000 5.800 120.000 5.700 130.000 5.600 140.000 OR 5.500 150.000 5.400 160.000 5.400 170.000 5.300 180.000 5.200 190.000 5.000 220.000 4.800 230.000 4.500 240.000 GR 5.000 200.000 5.000 210.000 GR 4.200 246.300 249.900 .3.300 3.300 250.000 3.300 252.000 4.000 255.000 OR 4.100 260.000 4.300 270.000 4.300 280.000 4.300 290.000 4.400 300.000 OR 4.600 310.000 4.700 320.000 4.700 330.000 4.800 340.000 4.900 350.000 GR 5.000 360.000 5.000 370.000 4.900 380.000 4.900 390.000 4.900 400.000 i S I GR 4.900 410.000 4.900 420.000, 4.800 430.000 4.700 440.000 4.700 450.000 GR 4.700 460.000 4.800 '470.000 4.700 480.000 4.800' . 490.000, .4.800 '500.000 GR 4.800 510.000 4.900 520.000 5.000 530.000 .5.200 540.000 5.400 550.000 GR 5.800 560.000 5.800 562.900 .000 .000 . .000 .000 .000 .000 NC .000 .000 .000 .300 .500 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Xl .017 48.000 .000 80.000 295.000 295.000 295.000 .000 .000 .000 X3 1,0.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 270.000 .000 .000 ' .000 .000 X2 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 1.500 .000 .000 .000 . .0001 GR 7.200 .000 7.300 10.000 7.400 20.000 7.500 - 30.000 7.600 40.000 GR 7.800 50.000 7.900 60.000 8.000 70.000 8.000 .80.000 8.000 90.000 GR 8.100 100.000 8.100 110.000 8.100 120.000 8.100 130.000 8.000 140.000 GR 8.000 150.000 7.900 160.000 7.800 170.000 7.800 180.000 7,800 190 000 GR 7.700 200.000 7.700 210.000 7.700 220.000 7.600 230.000 . . 7,500 240.000 GR 7.400 250.000 7.400 260.000 7.400 270.000 7.300 280.000 . 7.200 . 290.000 GR 7.100 300.000 7.100 310.000 7.100 320.000 7.500 325.400, ' 8.900, 330.000 GR 13.900 340.000 17.600 350.000 17.900 353.500 17.900 360.000 ' 17.800 '368.900 GR 17.600 370.000 17.700 380.000 17.700 390.000 17.800 400.000 17.900 410.000 GR 18.100 421.800 18.200 430.000 18.200 433.500 .000 .000 .000, .000 09-03-90 15:55:55 . PAGE 2 xi .053 14.000 229.400 266.600 405.000 32,5.000 365.000 .000 .000 .000 .\ X3 .000 .000 .000 229.400 1.8.500 266.600 18.500 .000 .000 .000 GR 16.000 185.000 9.500. 229.400 9.500' 229.500 9.500 ' 241.400 9,500 241.500 GR 9.500 242.000 9,500 '242.100 9.500 254.000 9.500 '254.100 9.500 254.500 GR 9.500 254.600 9.500 266.500 9.500 266.600 16.000 290,000 .000 .000 NC .000 , .000 .017 .000 .000 .000 ' .000 ' .000 .000 .000 Xl X3 .054 .000 14.000 .000 229.400 .000 266.600 229.400 10.000 18.500 10.000 266.600 10.000 18.500 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 81 -14.000 185.000 16.000 .. 16.000 229.400 18.500 9.500 229.500 18.500 17.500 BI .000 241.400 18.500 17.500 241.500 18.500 9.500 242.000 18.500 9.500 81 .000 .242.100 18.500 17,500 254,000 18.500 17.500 254.100 '18.500 9.500 BI .000 254.500 . 18.500 9.500 254.600 18.500 ' 17.500 266.500 18.500 17.500 81 .000 266.600 18.500 9.500 290.000 16.000 16,000 .000 .000 .000 GR 16.000 185.000 9.500 229.400 9.500 229.500 9.500 241,400 9,500 241.500 GR 9.500' 242.000 9.500 242.100 9.500 254.000 9.500. '254,100. ' 9.500 254.500 GR Xl 9.500 .063 254.600 14.000 9.500 229.400 266.500 266.600 9.500 120.000 266.600 . 120.000 16.000 120.000 290.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 X3 .000 .000 .000 229.400 .18.800 ' 266.600 18.800 '.000 .000 ' .000 BI ' -14.000 185;000 ' 16.000 16.000 229.400 18.800 9.800 . 229.500 18.800 17.800 81 .000 241.400 18.800 17.800 241.500 18.800 9.800 ' 242.000 18.800 . 9.800 81. .000 242.100 18.800 17.800 254.000 18.800 17.800 254.100 18.800 9.800 81 .000 254.500 18.800 9.800 254.600 •' 18.8b0, 17.800 266.500 ' 18.800 17.800. 81 ' .000 266.600 ' . 18,800 9.800 290.000. . 16.000 16.000 .000 .000 .000 GR GR 16.000 9.800 185.000 242,000 9.800 .9.800 229.400 242.100 9.800 ' . 9.800 229.500 254.000 9,800 9.800 241.400 254.100 9.800 9.800 241.500 254.500 GR 9.800 254.600 9.800 266.500 9.800 266.600 16,000 290.000 .000 .000 NC .000 .000 ' .050 .000 ' .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 xi .064 14.000 229.400 266.600 10.000 10.000 10.000 .000 , .000 .000 X3 .000 .000 ' .000 229.400 18.800 266.600 18.800 .000 ' .000 - .000.. GR 16.000 185.000 9.800' 229.400 9.800 229.500 , 9.800 241.400 9.800 241.500 GR 9.800 242.000 9.800 242.100 9.800 254.000' 9.800 254.100 9.800 254.500 GR NC 9.800 .000 254.600 . .000 9.800 .120 266.500 .100 9.800 .300 266.600 .000 16.000. . .000 290.000 .000 .000 ' .000 .000 .000' Xl ' .098 45.000 445.300 526.200 135.000 130.000 140.000 ' .000,. .000 .000 X3 10.000 .000 .000 265.100 .000 .000 .000 ' .000 , .000 .000 GR 69.400 .000 69.500 10.000 69.500 20.000 69.500 30.000 69.500 40.000 GR 69.500 60.000 69.400 90.000 73.400 1.000 02 70.500 110.000'" ''67.900 118.700' GR 58.200 120.000 37900 126 800 36 200 130 000 27 500 140 000 25 100 146 200 GR 20.600 153.300 '20.200 160.000 20.200 170.000 20.400 190.000 ' 21.100 220.000 GR ' 20.400 230.700 20.100 265.100 17.900 285.200 ' 17.300 :310.700 ' 17.200 350.600 GR 17.200 420.600 17.100 430.700 17.200 440.700 17.200 445.300 ' 14.800 450.600 GR 13.100 460.600 ' 13.100 470.600 12.700 485.200 12.900 510.700 14.000 526.200 . GR .. 14.300 5.50.600 14.600 580.700 15.000 610.600 16.000 645.200 17.600 685.200 GR ' 18.900 725.300 20.800 765.300 22.900 815.200 ' 24.100 '835.300 '24.900 . 844.100 NC .000 .000 .140 .000 .000 - .000 .000 .' .000 ' ' .000 .000 Xl .129 51.000 400.000 470.000 160.000 145.000 150.000 ' .000 .000 .000 GR 74.600 .000 74.800 10.000 74.900 20.000 74.900 30.000 73.800 60.000 2 . . I OR 76.000 64.800 46.000 69.400 445.900 70.000 43.300 80.000 41.300 90.000 OR 35.900 100.000 34.600 103.300 30.100 105.300 29.700 112.200 29.200. 120.000 OR 29.400 130.000 29.700 140.000 29.800 150.000 29.500 170.000 29.700 180.000 OR 28.600 210.000 25.300 237.500 25.600 260.000 25.500 290.000 25.300 320.000 OR 24.900 325.300 22.200 330.000 17.600 340.000 15.900 347.700 15.900 350.000 OR 15.900 360.000 15.800 370.000 15.900 380.000 16.400 390.000 16.900 . 400.000 GR 16.800 410.000 16.500 420.000 16.500 430.000 17.000 440.000 17.100 450.000 OR 17.200 470.000 17.100 490.000 17.100 510.000 17.300 530.000 17.800 560.000 OR 18.700 590.000 19.900 618.100 21.700 648.100 23.100 688.100 26.000 758.100 GR 26.400 .. 762.100 .000 .000 .000 .000 . .000 .000 .000 .000 Xl .156 67.000 230.900 290.000 .140.000 140.000 140.000 .000 .000 .000 GR 34.900 .000 34.800 10.000 34.500 20.000 34.000 30.000 33.600 40.000 OR 34.400 41.100 34.300 42.300 34.000 50.000 33.100 53.700 30.000 60.000 OR 29.300 65.100 29.300 70.000 28.900 80.000 28.700 90.000 28.500 100.000 28.300 110.000 28.400 120.000 28.600 130.000 28.300 134.200 26.600 140.000 GR GR 24.300 148.100 24.500 150.000 24.400 158.900 24.100 160.000 19.500 170.000 OR 19.600 176.700 19.600 180.000 19.600 190.000 19.400 200.000 19.400 210.000 OR 19.300 220.000 19.200 230.900 17.400 240.000 16.600 250.000 16.800 260.000 OR 17.500 270.000 18.300 280.000 19.000 290.000 19.700 300.000 20.300 310.000 GR 20.700 320.000 20.800 330.000 20.700 340.000 20.700 350.000 20.800 360.000 OR 21.000 370.000 21.200 380.000 21.200 390.000 21.400 400.000 21.400 410.000 OR 21.600 420.000 21.800 430.000 22.000 440.000 22.500 450.000 22.500 460.000 OR 22.800 470.000 23.200 480.000 23.500 490.000 23.700 500.000 24.100 510.000 GR 24.100 520.000 24.300 530.000 24.500 540.000 24.800 550.000 25.100 560.000 OR .26.000 570.000 26.400 575.200 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000. .000 Xl .182 69.000 220.000 300.000 140.300 141.000 140.700 .000 .000 .000 OR 39.300 .000 39.300 10.000 39.400 20.000 39.200 30.000 . 38.500 40.000 OR 38.900 41.400 39.000 43.200 38.800 50.600 36.200 60.000 32.200 70.000 GR 28.500 . 78.000 28.400 80.000 28.200 90.000 28.000 100.000 27.800 110.000 OR 27.400 120.000 26.600 130.000 26.500 140.000 26.600 150.000 26.800 160.000 OR 26.500 162.800 25.600 170.000 24.800 180.000 24.000 . 190.000 23.500 200.000 OR 23.000 210.000 22.600 220.000 22.500 230.100 22.500 240.000 22.400 250.000 OR 22.500 260.000 22.500 261.000 21.100 267.700 21.100 270.000 21.100 280.000 GR 21.600 283.900 22.200 290.000 22.400 297.800 22.400 300.000 22.500 310.000 OR 22.500 320.000 22.700 330.000 22.800 340.000 23.100 350.000 23.300 360.000 OR 23.800 .370.000 24.200 380.000. 24.500 390.000 24.700 400.000 24.800 410.000 OR 25.100 420.000 25.200 430.000 25.200 440.000 25.600 450.000 26.000 460.000 OR 26.300 470.000 . 26.500 480.000 26.600 490.000 26.800 500.000 26.900 510.000 • OR 27.200 . 520.000 27.500 530.000 28.600 540.000 29.300 550.000 30.000 560.000 OR 30.400 570.000 30.800 580.000 31.000 590.000 31.200 597.400 .000 .000 NC .000 .000 .150 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Xl .202 67.000 .200.000 270.000 110.000 115.000 112.000 .000 .000 .000 X3 OR 10.000 42.000 .000 .000 .000 41.800 140.000 10.000 .000 41.500 .000 20.000 .000 42.100 .000 21.200 .000 42.300 .000 22.600 OR 42.400 30.000 42.300 32.100 38.700 ., 40.000 34.300 50.000 31.300 59.200 OR 31.200 60.000 30.600 70.000 30.000 80.000 29.900 90.000 29.600 99.800 OR 29.600 100.000 29.000 110.000 28.500 120.000 28.000 130.000 28.200 133.800 If OR 29.209 140.000 . 28.900 148.300 28.700 150.000 .27.300 . 160.000 26.100 170.000 OR 25.300 180.000 25.200 183.000 25.500 190.000 25.700 200.000 25.300 210.000 OR 25.300 220.000 25.300 230.000 24.300 240.000 24.800 243.200 25.400 249.000 OR 25.400 250.000 25.300 260.000 25.300 270.000 25.500 280.000 25.600 290.000 OR . 25.700 300.000 26.000 310.000 26.000 320.000 26.000 330.000 . 26.200 340.000 OR 26.400 350.000 26.500 360.000 27.000 370.000 27.500 380.000 27.500 390.000 OR 27.700 400.000 27.700 410.000 28.000 420.000 28.100 430.000 28.200 440.000 OR .28.400 450.000 28.600 460.000 28.900 470.000 29.200 480.000 29.600 490.000 GR • 29.900 .500.000 30.100 510.000 30.400 520.000 31.000 .. 530.000 31.500 540.000 OR 31.400 .550.000 . 31.300 555.100 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Xl .240 65.000 180.000 260.000 210.000 205.000 205.000 -000 .000 . .000 t OR 45.400 .000 45.500 10.000 45.500 20.000 45.400 30.000 45.400 38.600 OR .45.400 40.200 44.700 48.900 .44.200 50.000 39.100 60.000 34.200 70.000 OR 32.200 80.000 30.900 90.000 30.500 98.200 30.500 . 100.000 30.400 110.000 OR .. 30.200 120.000 30.100 130.000 29.700 140.000 29.700 150.000 29.500 160.000 OR . 29.300 170.000 . 29.100 180.000 28.500 190.000 27.700 200.000 28.000 210.000 OR 28.000 220.000 28.200 230.000 28.600 240.000 28.700 250.000 29.500 260.000 OR 29.700 270.000 30.000 280.000 29.900 290.000 30.000 300.000 29.900 310.000 3 I' GR 29.800 320.000 29.900 330.000 29.900 340.000 30.100 350.000 30.200 GR . 30.000 370.000 30.200 380.000 '30.300 390.000 30.400 400000 . 31.600" GR " 31.800 410.000 33.800 420.000 34.700 430.000 34.700 434.900 34.600 GR 34.900 450.000 34.200 460.000 34.900 468.700 35.000 470.000 35.300 GR 36.100 490.000 36.100 500.000 36.500 510.000 37.300 520.000 37.800 GR 38.200 540.000 38.300 550.000 38.500 560.000 38.700 570.000 38.700 Xl .277 63,000 220.000 280.000 193.400 191.300 197.400 .000 .000 GR 48.600 .000 48.300 10,000 48.300 20,000 48.300 30.000 47.900 GR 47.400 48.300 45.300 50.000 39.300 60.000 36.200 68.800 36.200 GR 36.000 80.000 35.500 90.000 34,800 100.000 34.300 110.000 33.300 CR1. 33.300 128.000 33.300 130.000 33.700 140.000 33.800 150.000 33.700 GR 33.700 170.000 33.500 180.000 33.300 190.000 33.200 200.000 33.200 GR 33.100 220.000 33.100 230.000 32.900 240000 32.100 250.000 31.900' GR 32.800 270.000 33.000 280.000 33.100 290.000 33.100 300.000 33.100 GR 33.300 320.000 33.300 330.000 33.500 340.000 33.500 350.000 33.700 GR 33.800 370.000 34.600 378.100 34.900 380.000 35.600 390.000 35.800 GR " 36.500 409.000 36.500 410.000 36.300 422.600 37.400 430.000 . 37.900 GR 38.400 450.800 ' 38.800 460.000 39.000 470.000 39.600 480.000 ' 39.900 GR 40.300 500.000 40.900 510.000 41.400 520.000 41.900 530.000 42.100 GR 42.400 550.000 42.800 560.000 43.200 569.000 .000 .000' .000 Xl ' .310 63.000 210.000 270.000 190.000 190.000 190.000 .000 ' 'S .000 GR 51.000 .000 51.000 10.000 50.80d 20.000 50.400 30.000 50.100 GR 49.800 41.600 45.500 50.000 39.600 60.000 39.300 61.500 39.100 •' GR 38.500 80.000 '38.100 90.000 37.500 100.000 36.800 110.000 36,200 GR, 35.500 130.000 34.800 138.700 34.800 140.000 34.800 150.000 35.000 GR 34.800 170.000 34.500 180.000 34.500 190.000 34.600 200.000 34.800 GR " 34.700 220.000 34.800 230.000 34.400 240.000 34.500 ' 250.000 34.700. GR 35.000 270.000 35.400 280.000 35.600 290.000 35.600 300.000 35.400 GR 35.500 320.000 35.600 330.000 35.700 360.000 36.300 '350.000 37.000 GR' 37.300 371.300 37.600 380.000 37.600 .390.000 38.000 400.000 38.400 GR 38.600 420.000 , 39.000 430.000 39.300 440.000 39,800 . '450.000 40.200 GR 40.500 470.000 ' 40.900 480.000 41.406 490.000 41800 500.000 42.300 GR' 42.900 520.000 43.400 530.000 43.800 540.000 44.300 550.000 45,000 GR 45.600 570.000 46.100 580.000 46.300 '582.800 .000 ' .000 .000 Xl .356 64.000 270.000 350.000 245.000 250.000 250.000 ' .000 .000 X3, ': 10.000 .000 .000 .000 ' .000, 400.000 .000 ' .000 ' .000" GR 54.400 .000 54.200 10.000 54.100 20.000 53.800 ', 30.000 53.200 GR' 52.600 42.700 47.500 50.000 44.500 60.000 44.200 '64.500 ' 43.900 GR' ' 43.000 80.000 42.100 90.000 41.000 100.000 40.000 '. 110.000 39.400' GR , 38.900 130.000 38.200 140.000 37.600 150.000 37.600 161.100 ' 37.900 GR 38.200 180.000 38.100 190.000 37.900 200.000 37.800, , 210.000 37.500 GR '37.400 '230.000 .37.300 ' 240.000 37.100: 250.000 ' 36.900 260.000 36.700 GR ' 36.300 280.000 36.100 290.000 36.000 300.000 35.900 310.000 ' '35.900 GR 36.200 331.800 37.300 340.000 38.500 350.000 38.600 , 360.000 38.800 GR 38.900 380.000 40.500 390.300 41.000' 400.000 40.900 ' 403.100 40.800 CR 40.800 419.300 40800 420.000 41.200 : 430000 ' 41.500 ' 440.000 41.700 GR - 41.900 460.000 42.300 ' 470.000 42.900 480.000 43.800 ' 490.000 ' "44.300 GR 44.700 510.000 45.300 520.000 45.700 530.000 46.200 ' 540.000 46.600 GR 47.100 560.000 47.800 570.000 48.600 580.000 48.600 585.000 .000 Xl .401 67.000 260.000 340.000 238.900: ' 238.800 238.800 ' .000 .000 GR 57.000 .000 56.900 10.000 56.500! 20.000 56.500 30.000 56.700 GR '56.800 42.400 55.000 50.000 54 700 52.206' 53.006 60.000 52.400 GR '51.700 70.000. '49.900 80.000 48.800 .90.000 47.800 100.000 . 45.700: GR • 42.400 120.000 41.000 130.000 . 40.600 137.700 40.600 140.000 ' 40.500 GR 40.500 160.000 40.400 170.000 40.100 180.000 '40.100 190.000 40,000' GR 40.000 210.000 ' 39.900 220.000 39.800 230.000 39.600 240,000 39.400 GR ' 39.400 260.000 39.200 270.000 39.1001 280000 39.000 290.000 39.000 GR 38.900 310.000 39.000 320,000 39.400 330.000 39.400 340.000 39.600 GR ' .39.700 360.000 39.800 370.000 40.100 380.000 40.300 . 390.000 40.800 GR - 41.700 4,10.000 41.700 420.000 42.0001 424.700 ' 43.600 ' ' 430.000 43.500' GR 43.500 440.000 ' 43.500 450.000 43.400. ' 460.000 43.600 470.000 ' 43.600 GR .44.100 '480.000 44.800 490.000 45.200' 500.000 45.400 '510.000 '45.700 GR 46.200 ' 530.000 46.800 540.000 47.300 550.000 47.600 ' 560.000 • 47.800 GR 48.700 ' 580000 49.100 589.100 .0001 .000 '.000 .000 • , .000''. NC .000 .000 .130 ' .000 .00OI ' , .000 .000 ' .000 ' .000' 4 4- I Xl .451 81.000 450.000 530.000 260.000 235.000 245.000 .000 .000 .000 GR 75.200 .000 69.900 10.000 65.400 20.000 61.700 30.000 60.700 33.400 GR 60.600 38.000 60.100 39.900 60.100 40.000 60.100 50.000 60.000 60.000 OR 59.800 63.100 59.500 70.000 59.200 80.000 58.700 90.000 58.800 92.500 OR 58.900 100.000 58.600 110.000 58.500 112.900 58.300 120.000 58.000 130.000 OR 58.100 131.100 58.300 132.800 58.300 138.000 58.300 140.000 . 51.900 150.000 OR 50.200 160.000 49.500 170.000 49.300 180.000 49.200 190.000 49.100 200.000 OR 48.800 210.000 48.800 220.000 48.500. 230.000 48.100 240.000 47.500 250.000 OR 46.500 260.000 45.000 270.000 44.000 280.000 43.400 290.000 42.700 300.000 OR 42.200 310.000 42.000 320.000 41.800 330.000 41.600 340.000 41.500 350.000 OR 41.500 360.000 41.500 370.000 41.600 380.000 41.700 390.000 41.800 400.000 OR 42.200 410.000 42.400 420.000 42.500 430.000 42.400 440.000 42.300 450.000 OR 42.200 460.000 42.000 470.000 41.400 480.000 40.900 490.000 40.500 500.000 OR 40.200 510.000 40.600 517.700 40.800 520.000 42.800 530.000 45.400 540.000 GR 45.700 544.200 45.700 550.000 45.800 560.000 46.100 570.000 46.100 580.000 GR 46.000 590.000 45.600 600.000 45.700 604.800 46.100 610.000 46.900 620.000 OR 47.400 630.000 47.600 640.000 47.900 650.000 48.100 660.000 48.400 670.000 OR 48.700 676.100 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 NC .000 .000 .140 .000 .000 .000 .000 . .000 .000 .000 xi .522 79.000 300.000 368.400 390.400 395.700 392.300 .000 .000 .000 OR 56.200 .000 55.700 10.000 56.300 12.000 55.700 14.300 52.800 20.000 OR 48.900 29.800 48.900 30.000 48.600 40.000 48.100 50.000 47.700 60.000 OR 47.700 70.000 47.600 80.000 47.600 90.000 47.400 100.000 47.500 110.000 OR 47.400 120.000 47.400 130.000 47.400 140.000 47.200 150.000 47.100 160.000 OR 47.000 170.000 47.100 180.000 47.100 190.000 46.900 - 200.000 46.600 210.000 GR 46.500 220.000 46.400 230.000 46.300 240.000 46.000 250.000 45.800 260.000 GR - 45.600 270.000 45.300 280.000 . 44.900 290.000 44.600 300.000 44.300 310.000 OR 43.900 320.000 43.700 330.000 43.300 340.000 43.100 350.000 43.300 353.200 I' GR 43.700 360.000 43.900 368.400 43.900 370.000 43.900 380.000 43.900 . 390.000 OR 43.700 400.000 43.300 411.100 43.600 420.000 43.900 430.000 44.000 440.000 OR 44.100 450.000 44.100 460.000 44.100 471.800 45.700 480.000 46.100 485.100 GR 46.100 490.000 46.100 500.000 46.900 507.000 47.000 510.000 47.000 511.500 GR 46.700 520.000 46.700 524.900 46.900 530.000 47.400 540.000 47.900 550.000 OR 48.200 560.000 48.600 570.000 48.600 580.000 48.800 590.000 49.000 600.000 OR 49.100 610.000 49.300 620.000 49.800 630.000 49.900 640.000 - 50.000 650.000 OR 49.900 660.000 50.100 670.000 50.200 680.000 50.200 681.200 .000 .000 Xl .615 89.000 - 410.000 473.600 504.100 513.900 511.300 .000 .000 .000 X3 10.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 569.800 .000 .000 .000 .000 GR 77.300 .000 - 75.700 10.000 72.700 20.000 69.800 28.100 69.600 30.000 GR 68.900 40.000 68.800 50.000 68.800 60.000 - 68.800 70.000 68.300 80.000 OR 68.100 90.000 67.600 98.400 65.800 99.800 65.900 100.000 66.600 101.700 OR 67.500 104.100 66.900 106.900 66.900 108.900 67.000 110.000 67.100 120.000 OR 67.200 127.200 67.200 130.000 67.200 140.000 67.400 148.300 67.400 150.000 68.000 160.000 68.200 166.500 68.200 170.000 68.300 180.000 68.900 185.200 OR GR 69.100 188.600 68.800 .190.400 64.800 200.000 61.500 210.000 61.500 211.500 OR 61.000 220.000 60.500 230.000 60.300 240.000 60.000 .250.000 59.800 - 260.000 GR 59.500 268.400 59.100 270.000 57.200 280.000 54.200 290.000 52.400 300.000 GR 50.500 310.000 49.700 320.000 49.400 330.000 49.100 .340.000 48.900 350.000 GR 48.800 360.000 48.400 370.000 48.100 380.000 48.000 390.000 47.900 400.000 OR 48.000 410.000 47.900 420.000 47.800 430.000 47.800 440.000 47.100 450.000 OR 47.100 456.800 47.100 460.000 47.400 461.700 48.200 470.000 48.300 473.600 GR 48.500 480.000 48.600 490.000 48.600 500.000 48.800 510.000 49.000 520.000 GR 49.200 530.000 49.500 540.000 49.800 550.000 51.000 560.000 52.100 569.800 GR 52.100 570.000 51.500 580.000 51.200 590.000 51.700 601.800 51.700 610.000 GR 52.000 620.000 52.400 630.000 52.600 640.000 53.100 650.000 53.800 660.000 GR 54.100 670.000 54.500 680.000 55.000 690.000 55.800 694.900 .000 .000 Xl .678 93.000 280.000 350.000 336.100 341.300 341.000 .000 .000 .000 X3 10.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 513.600 .000 .000 .000 .000 GR 85.700 .000 77.800 10.000 76.500 13.000 76.900 15.800 77.200 17.600 GR 76.700 19.800 76.700 20.000 76.800 24.200 76.900 30.000 77.200 40.000 t OR 77.300 42.900 77.300 50.000 77.800 60.900 78.000 70.000 77.900 78.500 OR 77.900 80.000 77.800 90.000 78.600 98.000 78.600 100.000 78.600 101.200 - OR 72.100 110.000 67.400 120.000 64.700 130.000 63.200 140.000 61.700 150.000 OR 61.700 154.600 61.500 160.000 60.700 170.000 60.100 181.500 58.300 190.000 OR 57.100 200.000 56.300 210.000 56.500 213.600 56.500 220.000 56.600 230.000 OR 55.700 238.000 55.500 240.000 54.400 250.000 53.200 259.300 53.200 260.000 GR 52.700 a70.000 52.200 280.000 - 51.800 290.000 51.400 300.000 - 50.400 310.000 1 • . 1' GR 50.200 317.800 50.500 .320.000 50.800 330.000 50.900 340.000 51.100 350.000 GR 51.100 360.000 51.200 370.000 51.100 380.000 50.600 390.000 50.500 400.000 GR '50.500 .410.000 50.800 420.000 50.900 430.000 51.100 440.000 51.300 450.000 GR 51.500 460.000 51.800 470.000 53.000 480.000 54.800 490.000 55.100 496.200 GR 54.800 500.000 54.900 510.000 .55.500 513.600 55.500 519.500 55.500 520.000 GR 55.000 $30.000 54.800 537.800 54.800 540.000 54.700 550.000 55.600 555.400 GR 56.000 560.000 56.700 570.000 57.400 580.000 58.200 590000 58.400 597.700 GR 58.200 600.000 58.600 607.300 58.900 610.000 59.600 620.000 60.300 630.000 GR 60.600 640.000 61.100 650.000 61.400 660.000 61.900 670.000 ' 62.400 ' 680.000 GR ' 62.800 690.000 63.300 700.000 64.600 709.700 .000 .000 .000 .000 MC .000 .000 . .130 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 ' .000 .000 - Xl ' . .780 74.000 320.000 390.000 554.000 568,300 '561.700 .000 .000 .000 GR 86.400 .000 79.700 8.200 79.500 9.100 80.700 10.000 80.800 12.000 GR 80.200 14.800 80.100 16.300 80.300 20.000 80.500 30.000 80.400 38.100 GR ' 80.400 40.000 80.200 50.000 80.300 54.800 80.000 60.000 .80.300 70.000 GR • 80.200 74.900 80.100 80.000 79.700 . 90.000 80.100 93.600 80.000 95.000 GR 79.000 98.900 78.900 .:100.000 72.600 110.000 69.400 120.000 68.000 130.000 GR 66.000 140.000 64.200 150.000 63.300 160.000 62.400 170.000 61.500 180.000 GR 60.100 190.000 5,9.700 200.000 59.300 210.000 58.700 220.000 57.900 230.000 GR 57.200 239.800 57.200 240.000 56.900 250.000 56.700 260.000 56.500 270.000 • • GR '56.400 280.000 . 56.500 290.000 56.700 300.000. ' 56.600 310.000 56.600 320.000 ; ' ' 'GR 56.400 330.000 56.200 340.000 56.000 350.000 55.400 357.700 . . 55.800 360.000 " GR 56.100 370.000 56.100 380.000 56.400 390.000 56.600 400.000 56.700 410.000 GR 56.600 420.000 56.400 430.000 56.500 440.000 56.900 450,000 57.200 460.000 GR 58.000 470.000 58.600 480.000 59.000 490.000 58.900 500,000 58,800 510.000 GR 58.900 511.600 59.600 520.000 60.500 530.000 61.000 537,300 . 61.000 540.000 GR 61.000 550.000 61.600 560.000 62.200 570.000 62.500 517.800 .000 .000 x • .834 82.000 370.000 470.000 260.200 248.500 . 253.600 .000 .000 .000 X3 10.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 500.000 .000 .000 ,.000 .000 GR 85.300 .000 82.800 10.000 80.300 20,000 79.100 30.000 77.500 39.600 GR 77,400 40.000 74.800 44.700 74.600 45.500 75.100 .. 47.400 75.800 49,600 GR 75.600 50.000 .75,700 51.700 75.300 53.200 75.500 60.000 , 75.500 70.000 GR 75,500 73.900 75,400 80.000 75,200 90.000 75.000 • 93.500 74.900 100.000 GR 74.600 110.000 74.500 111.800 , 74.300 120.000 74.400 130.500 74,400 132.300 CR. ' 72.800 ' :137.200 70.300 140.000 65.000 150.000, 63.700 156.800 63.700.. 160.000. GR . 63.100 170.000 62.600 180.000 61.900 190.000 61.500. 200.000 61.600 210.000 GR 61.100 220.000 60.600 230.000 60.000 . 240.000 59.500 '250.000 ' 59.100 260.000 GR 58.800 270.000.. 58.800 280.000 58.600 290.000 58.600 . 300.000 58.500 310.000 CR. 58.500 320.000 58.400 330.000 '58.300 .340.000 58.300 350.000 58.100 360.000. GR. 158.000 . 370.000 57.800 380.000 57.700 390.000 57.300 400.000 , 57.200 410.000' GR , 57.100 420.000 57.400 430.000 . 57.600 440.000 57.900 450.000 58.600 460.006 GR ' . 59.600 470.000 61.700 480.000 64.800 490.000 65.100 , 496.800 65.200 300,000 GR 65.200 510 000 65.100 520 000 65.300 530.000 65.300 540 000 653W ; 550.000 GR 65.300 . '554.000 64.900 560.000 64.000 570.000 :63.200 580.000 61.900 590.000 GR ' 61.800 593.600 ' 61.900 600.000 62.500 607.100 62.600 ' 610.000 • 63.400 620.000 GR 64.100 630.000 64.400 638.300 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 NC .000 . .000 .140 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 , .000 • .000 X.1 .918 66.000 810.000 910.000 470.000 460.000 465.000 .000 . .000 , .000 X3 10.000 , 1.000 .000 690.000 .000 .000 . .000 . .000 .000 MOO , GR 68.400 .000 68.700 '10.000 • 68.800 20.000 69.400 40.000 69.500 ,, 60.000 GR 69.400 90.000 69.400 120.000 69.600 160.000 '68.800 200.000 68.400 230.000 GR GR 67.900 65.400 270.000 430.000 67.400 65.100 310.000 440.000 66.800 . 64.200 350.000 460.000 66.300 64.800 380.000 480.000 65.800 . 64.900 420.000 510.000 GR . 64.800 540.000 64.200 580.000 64.200 610.000 ' 67.800 620.000 67.700 630.000 GR 67.500 650.000 66.700 670.000 66.600 690.000 65.900 . 712,700 63.500 720.000 GR • 60.500 729.500 . 60.500 730.000 60,500 740.000 60.700 750.000, 60.900 760.000 GR 60.900 770.000 61.000 780.000 6,1.100 790.000 61.200 ' ' 800.000 61.300 810.000 IN GR • 61.,200 830.000 60.800 850.000 60.700 880.000 61.700 910.000 62.500 • 950.000 GR 62.500 990.000 162.700 1020.000 63.600 1060.000 63.900 1070.000 64.400 1080.000 GR ' 64.900 " 1090.000 65500 1110.000 66.700 1123.600 66.300 1141.900 67.200 .1150.000 GR 68.400 1160.000 69.200 1173.100 68.900 1190.000 68.800 1210.000 69.500 , 1240.000 • GR 69.800 1250.000 '70.400 1270.000 71.100 1290.000 71.400 1310.000 71.600 ' 1320.000 GR 71.800 1324.100' .000 .000 .000 .000 ' .000 .000 .000 ' .000 NC .050 .050 .140 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 ' .000 .000 QT • 3.000 4207.000 3013.000 2456.000 .000 .000 ;000 • .000 ' .000 .000 6 I Xl .998 88.000 150.000 240.000 450.000 425.000 440.000 .000 .000 .000 GR 70.800 .000 71.000 10.000 71.000 19.700 71.000 20.000 70.800 30.000 GR 70.400 39.200 70.400 40.000 70.500 50.000 70.600 57.000 70.400 60.000 GR 70.100 70.000 70.100 74.800 70.000 76.900 69.900 80.000 69.600 81.500 GR 66.500 90.000 62.800 100.000 62.000 105.600 62.000 110.000 62.300 120.000 GR 62.300 130.000 62.400 140.000 62.500 150.000 62.300 160.000 62.300 170.000 GR 62.400 180.000 62.400 190.000 62.400 200.000 62.400 210.000 62.500 220.000 GR 62.900 230.000 63.000 240.000 63.000 250.000 63.000 260.000 63.000 270.000 GR 63.000 280.000 63.000 290.000 63.200 300.000 63.300 310.000 63.300 320.000 GR 63.300 330.000 63.300 340.000 63.300 350.000 63.300 360.000 63.300 370.000 GR 63.300 380.000 63.300 390.000 63.300 400.000 63.300 410.000 63.300 420.000 GR 63.300 430.000 63.300 440.000 63.300 450.000 63.300 460.000 63.400 470.000 GR 64.000 480.000 64.300 490.000 65.100 500.000 66.100 510.000 66.600 520.000 GR 67.000 530.000 67.500 540.000 68.100 550.000 68.800 560.000 69.200 566.500 GR 69.200 570.000 69.200 580.000 69.400 590.000 69.500 600.000 69.600 610.000 CR69.400 620.000 69.200 630.000 69.100 640.000 69.300 647.300 69.800 650.000 GR 76.400 658.600 75.900 660.000 73.200 670.000 70.700 680.000 71.500 683.100 GR 71.800 687.700 71.500 690.000 71.300 700.000 71.800 702.500 72.400 710.000 GR 72.400 712.800 72.700 720.000 73.300 730.600 .000 .000 .000 .000 NC .000 .000 .150 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Xl 1.096 83.000 180.000 330.000 525.000 530.000 525.000 .000 .000 .000 GR 79.300 .000 79.500 10.000 79.500 20.000 79.500 25.800 79.400 30.000 • GR 79.000 40.000 79.200 43.900 79.100 45.200 78.900 48.600 77.900 50.000 GR 72.800 60.000 69.900 70.500 69.900 80.000 70.000 91.100 70.100 101.500 GR 68.700 110.000 66.400 120.000 65.300 130.000 64.700 140.000 64.100 150.000 GR 63.500 160.000 63.100 170.000 63.000 180.000 62.100 190.000 62.000 200.000 GR 62.000 210.000 62.000 220.000 62.000 230.000 62.000 240.000 62.000 250.000 GR GR 62,000 62.000 260.000 310.000 62.000 62.300 270.000 320.000 62.000 62.700 280.000 330.000 62.000 63.000 290.000 340.000 62.000 63.500 300.000 350.000 GR 63.600 360.000 64.200 370.000 64.900 380.000 66.300 390.000 68.500 400.000 GR 70.600 410.000 70.700 417.500 70.700 420.000 70.700 430.000 70.700 440.000 GR 70.700 450.000 71.900 456.600 72.700 460.000 72.900 471.200 70.800 480.900 (I GR 70.900 490.000 70.800 500.000 70.700 510.000 70.600 520.000 70.500 530.000 GR 70.400 540.000 70.500. 550.000 70.600 560.000 70.900 570.000 71.200 580.000 GR 71.600 590.000 71.800 600.000 71 .900 610.000 72.000 620.000 72.000 630.000 GR 72.100 640.000 72.300 650.000 72300 660.000 72.300 670.000 72.700 680.000 GR 72.600 690.000 72.800 700.000 72.900 710.000 .73.200 720.000 73.600 730.000 GR' 73.800 740.000 74.100 750.000 74.200 757.200 .000 .000 .000 .000 NC .055 .050 .150 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Xl 1.164 68.000 100.000 280.000 361.500 367.500 363.400 .000 .000 .000 GR 85.700 .000 80.000 10.000 74.100 20.000 74.000 22.600 74.000 30.000 GR 73.800 40.000 73.500 44.400 72.800 50.000 72.100 60.000 71.100 70.000 GR 69.800 80.000 68.000 90.000 66.300 100.000 65.400 110.000 65.200 120.000 GR 65.300 130.000 65.300 140.000 65.300 150.000 65.300 160.000 65.300 170.000 GR 65.300 180.000 65.100 190.000 65.100 200.000 65.100 210.000 65.100 220.000 GR 65.100 230.000 . 65.200 240.000 65.200 250.000 65.300 260.000 65.500 270.000 GR 66.500 280.000 66.900 290.000 67.000 300.000 67.300 310.000 67.500 320.000 GR 67.700 330.000 67.800 340.000 68.100 350.000 69.000 360.000 73.900 370.000 GR 74.900 375.800 74.800 380.000 74.600 390.000 74.600 400.000 74.700 410.000 GR 74.700 420.000 74.800 430.000 74.900 440.000 75.000 450.000 75.100 460.000 GR 75.200 470.000 75.200 480.000 75.200 490.000 75.200 500.000 75.400 510.000 GR 75.400 520.000 75.600 530.000 75.700 540.000 76.100 550.000 76.300 560.000 GR 76.400 570.000 76.400 580.000 76.700 590.000 76.900 600.000 77.200 610.000 GR 77.500 620.000 77.700 630.000 77.800 632.500 .000 .000 .000 .000 Xl 1.236 73.000 120.000 240.000 359.100 359.600 359.200 .000 .000 .000 .GR 89.600 .000 89.900 .800 89.600 4.900 88.200 10.000 83.800 18.500 GR CR83.800 75.800 20.000 60.000 84.600 75.000 30.000 63.900 84.700 75.100 40.000 70.000 84.000 74.900 44.300 80.000 79.800 74.700 50.000 90.000 GR 74.700 100.000 74.700 110.000 74.300 120.000 73.700 130.000 73.500 140.000 GR 73.200 150.000 73.000 160.000 73.100 170.000 73.200 180.000 73.300 190.000 GR GR 73.300 75.100 200.000 250.000 73.500 76.100 210.000 260.000 73.500 77.300 220.000 270.000 73.800 79.400 230.000 280.000 74.400 79.100 240.000 285.300 GR 79.400 290.000 80.200 300.000 80.300 306.400 80.300 310.000 80.400 320.000 GR 80.300 330.000 81.200 335.700 88.700 338.700 88.800 340.000 90.000 350.000 GR 90.900 356.700 90.400 360.000 88.800 369.100 85.900 370.000 80.100 374.700 GR 80.200 380.000 80.200 390.000 80.100 400.000 80.100 410.000 80.100 420.000 GR 80.100 430.000 . 80.000 440.000 79.800 450.000 79.700 460.000 79.500 470.000 GR 79.200 480.000 79.000. 490.000 79.200 500.000 79.300 510.000 79.300 520.000 1 GR 79.300 530.000 79.400 540.000 79.600 550.000 79.800 560.000 80.000 570.000 OR 80.100 580.000 80.000 590.000 80.400 595.100 .000 .000 .000 .000 NC .050 .040 .130 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Xl 1.313 87.000 270.000 390.000 427.700 414.200 423.600 .000 .000 .000 OR 121.600 .000 114.800 10.000 111.100 20.000 108.000 23.200 96.900 30.000 OR 87.900 40.000 83.900 46.500 83.900 50.000 83.800 51.700 83.400 53.500 OR 83.800 OR 84.100 60.000 100.000 83.900 83.800 70.000 110,000 84.100 83.500 80.000 120.000 84.200 83.600 90.000 130.000 84.200 83.600 93.600 130.700 OR 83.100 135.000 81,300 140.000 77.600 150.000 77.000 152.200 76,900 160.000 OR 76.900 170.000 76.700 .180.000 76.100 190,000 75.300 200.000 75.000 210.000 OR 74.800 220.000 74.500 230.000 74.500 240.000 74.500 250.000 74.300 260,000 OR 74.300 270.000 74.000 280.000 73.800 290.000 73.600 300.000 73.400 310.000 OR 73.300 320.000 73.200 330.000 73.000 340.000 73.100 350.000 73.100 360.000 OR 73.400 370.000 73.500 380.000 73.500 390.000 73.700 400.000 73.800 410.000 OR 73.800 420.000 73.800 430.000 73.800 440.000 74.000 450.000 74.000 460.000 OR 74.200 470.000 74.300 480.000 74.500 490.000 74.700 500.000 74.900 510000 OR 75.000 520.000 75.200 530.000 76.000 540.000 76.800 550.000 77.400 560.000 OR 77.500 562.100 77.700 570.000 78.000 580.000 78.200 590.000 78.400 600,000 OR 79.100 610.000 79.800 620.000 80.600 630.000 80.700 631.600 80.700 640.000 OR 81.200 650.000 81.700 652.200 81.800 656.100 81.800 660.000 82.100 670.000 OR 82.500 680.000 82.900 690.000 83.300 700.000 83.900 710.000 84.500 720.000 OR 85.300 730.000 85.700 735.600 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000\ NC .030 .060 .030 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 OT 3.000 Xl 1.403 1890.000 11.000 1890.000 394.900 1890.000 448.900 .000 535.000 .000 490.000 .000 524.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 X3 .000 .000 .000 394.900 84.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 OR 81.400 .000 81.900 44.800 81.500 68.700 80.300 86.100 82.500 106.000' OR 83.500 280.000 83.500 394.900 76.700 423.900 77.100 448.900 81.400 557.900 OR 87.200 662.400 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 NC .030 .040 .030 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 x 1.420 11.000 404.300 444.700 370.000 360.000 362.000 .000 .000 .000 X3 .000 .000 .000 350.000 84.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 OR 83.800 .000 84.200 33.100 83.600 66.400 82.200 156.800 83.200 236,000 OR 82.300 318.300 81.600 404.300 78.400 . 411.400 84.400 444.700 86.500 526.700 OR 89.900 608.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Xl 1.520 12.000 338.800 396.900 270.000 252.000 252.000 .000 .000 .000 X3 .000 .000 .000 258.600 89.500 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 OR 89.300 .000 88.800 30.900 88.100 67.900 88.300 165.700 89.500 258.600 OR 87.5.00 338.800 85.400 363.000 83.100 377.500 88.500 396.900 92.600 477.300 OR 97.600 558.500 102.400 635.300 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 OT 3.000 4207.000 3013.000 2456.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 NC .050 .040 .130 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 ,000 Xl -1.313 87.000 270.000 390.000 427.700 414.200 423.600 .000 .000 .000 OR 121.600 .000 114.800 10.000 111.100 20.000 108.000 23.200 96,900 30.000 OR 87.900 40.000 83.900 46.500 83.900 50.000 83.800 51.700 83.400 53.500 OR 83.800 .60.000 83.900 70.000 84.100 80.000 84.200 90.000 84,200 93.600 OR 84100 100.000 83.800 110.000 83.500 120.000 83.600 130.000 83.600 130.700 OR 83.100 OR 76.900 135.000 170.000 81.300 76.700 140.000 180.000 77.600 76.100 150.000 190.000 77.000 75.300 152.200 200.000 76.900 75.000 160.000 210.000 OR 74.800 220.000 74.500 230.000 74.500 240.000 74.500 250.000 74.300 260.000 OR 74,300 270.000 74.000 280.000 73.800 290.000 73.600 300.000 73.400 310.000 OR 73.300 320.000 73.200 330.000 73.000 340.000 73.100 350.000 73.100 360.000 OR 73.400 370.000 73.500 380.000 73.500 390.000 73.700 400.000 73.800 410.000 OR 73.800 420.000 73.800 430.000 73.800 440.000 74.000 450.000 74.000 460.000. OR 74.200 470.000 74.300 480.000 74.500 490.000 74.700 500.000 74,900 510.000 .' OR 75.000 520.000 75.200 530.000 76.000 540.000 76.800 550.000 77.400 560.000 OR 77,500 562.100 77.700 570.000 78.000 580.000 - 78.200 590.000 78.400 600.000 OR 79.100 610.000 79.800 620.000 80.600 630.000 80.700 631.600 80.700 640.000 OR 81.200 650.000 81.700 652.200 81.800 656.100 81.800 660.000 82.100 670,000 OR 82.500 680.000 82.900 690.000 83.300 700.000 83.900 710,000 84.500 720.000 OR 85.300 730.000 85.700 735.600 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 V.-.. OT 3.000 2597.000 1465.000 832.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 NC .040 .100 .060 .100 .300 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 x .000 13.000 473.400 552.200 200.000 1400.000 300.000 .000 .000 .000 X3 10.000 73.500 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 OR 79.700 .000 79.600 90.100 79.100 203.300 80.800 295.900 82.300 397.500 s I' . ;. ..:. . . GR 76.100 473.400 73.500 515.600 75.400 552.260 82.100 625.300 82.700 ' 747.300 GR 79.100 840.500 78.600 962.800 82.100 1084.200 .000 .000 . .000 .000 S " PAGE , 11 xi .006 30.000 320.000 360.100 40.000 40.000 40.000 .000 .000 .000 X3 10.000 .000 .000 " .000 .000. .000 . .000 .000 .000 .000. OR 83.400 .000 81.400 82.300 81.100 174.900 80.300 257.100 80.300 290.000 GR 81.000 314.000 81.000 320.000 77.100 320.100 76.800 323.000 . 75.000 327.500 GR 75.000 337.500 79.000 337.600 79.000 362.500 75.000 342.600 75.000 352.500 GR ' 77.100 357.000 77.100 360.000 81.000 360.100 81.000 382.000 81.000 384.000 GR '81.300 387.000' 81.900 532.900 82.200 642.600 83.200 776.600 84.200 880.400 GR 86.700 975.000 87.600. 1060.000 89.300 1171.800 92.400 ' 1308000 99.100 1455.800 SB 1.050 1.600 2.900 400.000 45.000 5.000 140.000 .000 75.000 . 75.000 X .021 .000 .000 .000 110.000 110.000 110.000 .000 .000 .000 -X2 . .000 .000 1.000 79.000 81.000 .000 000 1.050 .000 .000 'BT -8.000 314.000 81.000 81.000 314.100 82.000 81.000 320.000 82.000 81.000 BT . MOO 320.100 82.300 79.000 360.000 82.300 79.000 360.100 82.000 81.000 BT .000 382.000 82.000 81.000 384.000 81.000 81.000 . .000 .000 .000 xi .023 19.000 139.500 284.700 20.000 20.000 20.000 .000 .000 .000 X3 .000 .000 . . .000 150.000 81.000 220.000 81.000 .000 ,' .000 .000 GR ' 96.600 .000 91.700 35.800 79.600 75.400 79.600 100.300 , 78.200 139.500 OR ' 76.000 .157.509 75.000 172.200 ' 75.100 206.800 ' 78.100 284.700 79.400 381.500 GR 79800 491.000 ' 79.900 604.300 ' .82.200 714.400, . 83.500 . 836.100 85.390 961.300 GR 85.3001-.1082.600, 88;100 1191.700 92.400 1277200 99.,800 1353.300 . , .000 ' .000 Xl .110 19.000 '253.700 386.500 485.000 . 425.000 ' 471.000 .000 000 .000 OR 88.000 .000 ' 84.900 15.800 82.000 24.900 83.600 45.800. 80.500 58.700 OR 78.300 97.600 78.700 131.200 78.900 207.800 77.300 253.700 75.800 278.900 OR 76.600 294.700 77.300 386.500 79.100 484.000 82.600 , 608.100 82.000 704.600 GR 83.500 831.300 85.300. 934.600 86.700 1042.900 88.300 1118.200 .000 .000 EJ .000 .000 .000 .000 ' .000 .000 .000 ' .000 ' ' .000 .000 S ' 07:43:29 . S ' . PAGE 12 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG ' HV HI OLOSS BANK ELEV Q TIME GLOB OCH VLOB VCH ' QROB VROB ALOB XNL ACH '- AROB XNCH '.XNR VOL 'WIN TWA LEFT/RIGHT ELMIN SSTA SLOPE XLOBL . XLCH , XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR " TOPUID ENDST *PROF 1 CCHV= .100 CEHV= .300 S S *SECNO .000 3280 CROSS SECTION .00 FEET Is EXTENDED 2.70 . 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 270.0 562.9 TYPE= 1 TARGET= -270.000 .004.20 8.50 . .00 8.50 8.80 .30 .00 .00 4.90 ' 4725. 2352. 1974. 399. 530. 445. 103. ' 0. 0. 500 .00 4.44 4.44 .. 3.88 .060 .060 .060 ., .000 4.30 270.00 . .005611 0. 0..' 0. 0 0 0 .00 292.90 562.90 0. CCHV= .300 S CEHV= .500 *SECNO .017 WATER EL CHANGE FROM X2 CARD 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= .0 270.0 TYPE=' 1 TARGET 269.999 3495 OVERBANK AREA ASSUMED NON-EFFECTIVE,ELLEA= 100000.00 ELREA= 8.00 .02 . '2.80 10.00 .00 .00 10.95 '.95 3.36 . .32100000.00 . . . ' 4725. 0. 1508. 3217. 0. 189. 416. 6. 2. 8.00 .01 .00 7.98 7.73 , .060 .060 .060 .000 7.20 .00 . .034540 295. 295. 295. 0 0 : 0 00 270.00 270.00 0 *SECNO .053 . 3280 CROSS SECTION .05 EXTENDED 3.04 FEET .. 3301 HV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS ,. . . . 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 229.4 266.6 TYPE= 1 TARGET 37.200. ELENCL= 18.50 ELENCR 18.50 . . 05 . 9.54 19.04 17.44 .00 21.64 2.60. 9.86 ..83 9.50 4725. :60. 4634. 31. 24: 355. 13. 10. . 3. 18.50 .02 2.48 13.06 2.47 .060 .060 .060 . .000 . 9.50 185.00 :023252 405. 365 325. 6 17 0 .00 10500 290.00-. • 0 - ,.•, 07:43:29 . . .. PAGE SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG ..HV HI OLOSS BANKELEV :. ol GLOB 0CM QROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL TWA. LEFT/RIGHT-. . TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR . WTN . ELMIN SSTA SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST • *SECNO .054 - . .. . .• . . ./ - 4575 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED BELOW ELLC OF 17 500 EGLC= 21 680 EGC= 22.438 WSEL= 19 763 4575 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED BELOW ELLC OF 17.500 EGIC= 21.680 EGC 21.686 WSEL= 17.392 . 3280 CROSS SECTION .05 EXTENDED 2.40 FEET, . •.' . ... •. . . . 3301 MV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS 3370 NORMAL BRIDGE,NRD= 14 MIN ELTRD= 16.00 MAX ELLC= 17.50 . . . . - - . 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 229.4 266.6 TYPES 11 TARGET= 37.200 ELENCL 18.50 . ELENCR= 18.50 .05 . 8.90 :1840 17.50 . .00 2238 14.18 .15 .79 9.50 . 4725. 0. 4725.. 0. 0. 288. 0. 10. 3. .02 .00 16.41 .00. .060 .017 '.060 .000 9.50 229.40 S .010953 . 10. 10. 10. 8 .18 . 0 -43.18 37.20 266.60 0 - *SECNO .063 . . • . - -, . . -S. 3280 CROSS SECTION . .06 EXTENDED 7.12 FEET • . - . . S 3301 HV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS 3370 NORMAL BRIDGE,NRD= 14 MIN ELTRD= 16.00 MAX ELLC 17.80 • . S - 3470. ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 229.4 266.6 TYPE= 1 TARGET 37.200 ELENCL 18.80 ELENCR= 18.80 - -. .06 13.32 23.12 . .00 .00 24.08 : .96 .53 .97 9.80 4725. 578. 3857. 290. 192. 449. .101. 11. 4. - 18.80 S • .02 3.02 8.60 2.87 .060 .017 .060 .000 9.80 185.00 5 .002387 120. • 120. 120. 5 0 0 -46.81 105.00 290.00 . 0 *SECNO .064 - - -- - - -. 3280 CROSS SECTION - . .06 EXTENDED 7.58 FEET - . . . . . 07:43:29 - - - S PAGE •. I 10 .11 . 1 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL OLOSS BANK ELEV 0 GLOB QCH QROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL TWA LEFT/RIGHT TIME VLOB VCH VROB XML XNCH XNR WTN - ELMIN SSTA SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST I 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 229.4 266.6 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 37.200 ELENCL= 18.80 ELENCR= 18.80 .06 13.77 23.57 .00 .00 24.21 .63 03 .10 9.80 4725. 746. 3607. 372. 212. 513. 112. 11. 4. 18.80 .02 3.52 7.04 3.33 .060 .050 .060 .000 9.80 185.00 .002871 10. 10. 10. 2 0 0 .00 105.00 290.00 0 / CCHV .100 CEHV .300 *SECNO .098 3301 MV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS / 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 265.1 844.1 TYPE 1. TARGET -265.100 .10 11.61 24.31 .00 .00 24.33 .02 .06 .06 17.20 4725. 1453. 716. 2556. 1233. 888. 1994. 19. 5. 14.00 .06 1.18 .81 1.28 .060 .120 .060 .000 12.70 265.10 .000176 135. 140. 130. 2 0 0 .00 572.46 837.56 *SECNO .000 3265 DIVIDED FLOW .00 5.96 79.46 .00 .00 79.85 .39. .46 .09 76.10 2597. 294. 2069. 234. 87. 380. 178. 238. 67. 75.40 • I .60 3.40 5.45 .963 200. 300. 005 1.31 400. .040 0 .060 0 .100 0 .000 .00 73.50 424.87 122.99 992.45. 07:43:29 PAGE 20 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL . CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL . OLOSS BANK ELEV • 0 GLOB OCH OROB ALOB • • ACH ARCS VOL TWA LEFT/RIGHT I TIME VLOB VCH SLOPE XLOBL XLCH VROB XLOBR XML ITRIAL XNCH IDC XNR ICONT WTN CORAR ELMIN TOPWID SSTA ENDST *SECNO .006 . • . . 0 • 3685 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED WSEL,CWSEL I 3693 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY • - 3720 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED •• .01 6.74 81.74 81.74 .00 82.36 .62 .34 .07 81.00 2597. 893. 1662. 42. 211. 229. 43. 238. 68. 81.00 I .60 4.23 7.27 .97 .040 .060 .100 .000 75.00 68.28 .013282 . 40. 40. 40. 20 • 12 0 .00 425.85 494.14 • -0 SPECIAL BRIDGE • • SB XK XKOR COFQ RDLEN BWC BWP BAREA SS ELCHU ELCHD I 1.05 1.60 2.90 *SECNO O . 021 • 400.00 45.00 . • . 5.00 140.00 . . • .00 • • 75.00 75.00 • 3280 CROSS SECTION .02 EXTENDED 1.61 FEET • . 3301 HV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS • . . ••. PRESSURE AND WEIR FLOW . . • - EGPRS EGLWC H3 OWEIR OPR BAREA TRAPEZOID ELLC ELTRD 1 • 11• AREA 90.29 82.56 .20 990. 1610. 140. 160. 79.00 81.00 .02 10.01 85.01 .00 .00 85.03. .02 2.67 .00 81.00 2597. 1569. 439. 589. 1200. 360. 1386. 242. 81.00 .63 1.31 1.22 .43 .040 .060 .100 .000. 75.00 .00 .000204 110. 110. 110. 2 0 3 .00 910.97 910.97 0 - *SECNO .023 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 150.0 220.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 70 000 ELENCL 81.00 ELENCR= 81.00 .02 10.02 85.02 .00 .00 85.03 .02 .00 .00 . 81.00 2597. 380. 1215. 1003. 287. 978. 2003. 244. 81.00 .63 1.32 1.24 .50 .040 .060 .100 .000 75.00 60.54 20. 20. 20. 2 0 .000215 0 .00 881.03 941.57 . 0 . ; 0 07:63:29 - PAGE 2 SECNO DEPTH CUSEL CRIUS WSELK EG HV HL OLOSS BANK ELEV 0 GLOB QCW OROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL TWA LEFT/RIGHT TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WIN ELMIN SSTA SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC . ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST *SECNO .110 .. . .11 .9.27 85.07 .00 .00 85.08 .01 .04 .00 77.30 2597. 1229. 828. 540. 1343. 1100. 1825. 283. 79. 77.30 . .81 .92 .75 .30 - .040 .060 .100 .000 75.80 14.94 .000055 485. 471. 425. 2 0 0 .00 906.42 921.36 o 0 . . 07:43:29 0 . PAGE 2 HEC2 RELEASE DATED NOV 76 UPDATED MAY 1984 ERROR CORR .- 01,02,03,04,05,06 . MODIFICATION 50,5152;53,54,55,56 . . IBM-PC-XT VERSION AUGUST 1985 Ti THIS IS SUBCRITICAL RUN FOR ENCINITAS CREEK EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . T2 FOR EVALUATION OF DRAINAGE CAPACITIES, OF BRIDGES AND CULVERTS T3 FOR DISCHARGES WITH DETENTION BASINS A,8 AND C 0 Ji ICHECK 1MG NIWV IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS a 0 WS EL . FO 0 0. 3. 0. 0. .000000 .00 .0 0. 8.500 .000 . J2 NPROF IPLOT PRFVS XSECV XSECH FN ALLDC IBU CHNIM . ITRACE 2.000 .000 -1.000 .000 .000 - .000 .000 .000 . .000 .000 07:43:29 - . PAGE 2 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL OLOSS BANK ELEV 0 GLOB OCH OROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL TWA LEFT/RIGHT TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WIN ELMIN SSTA SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR TOPUID ENDST '•0 - .- - 12 . S .-.-..,.-. *PROF 2 CCHV= .100 CEHV .300 *SECNO .000 . 3280 CROSS SECTION .00 EXTENDED 2.70 FEET 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 270.0 562.9 TYPE= 1 TARGET= -270.000 .00 4.20 8.50 .00 8.50 8.66 .16 .00 .00 4.90 3450. 1717. 1442. 291. 530. .445. 103. 0. 0. 5.00 .00 3.24 . 3.24 . 2.83 .060 .060 .060 .000 4.30 270.00 .002992 0. 0. 0. 0 0 0 .00 292.90 562.90 0 CCHV .300 CEHV .500 *SECNO .017 . . WATER EL CHANGE FROM X2 CARD . . 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS=. .0 270.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 269.999 3495 OVERBANK AREA ASSUMEDNON-EFFECTiVE,ELLEA 100000.00 ELREA= 8.00 .02 2.80 10.00 .00 .00 10.51 .51 1.79 .17100000.00 3450. 0. 1101. 2349. 0. 189. 416. 6. 2. 8.00 .01 .00 5.83 5.65 .060 .060 .060 .000 7.20 .00 .018415 295. 295. 295. 0 0 0 .00 270.00 270.00 0 *SECNO .053 3280 CROSS SECTION .05 EXTENDED .90 FEET 3301 HV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS . . 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 229.4 266.6 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 37.200 ELENCL= 18.50 ELENCR= 18.50 .05 7.40 16.90 .00 ,.00 19.34 2.44 7.87 .97 9.50 3450. 0. 3450. 0. . 0. 275. 0. 9. 3. 18.50 .02 .00 12.54 .00 .060 .060 .060 .000 9.50 229.40 .027798 405. 365. 325. 3 0 0 . .00 37.20 266.60 0 . . 07:43:29 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG MV ML OLOSS BANK ELEV 0 QLOB 0CM OROB ALOB AC . AROB VOL TWA LEFT/RIGHT TIME VLOB VCH VROB . XNL XNCH - XNR WTN ELMIN ,SSTA SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT . CORAR TOPWID ENDST *SECNO .054 3280 CROSS SECTION .05 EXTENDED .92 FEET 3370 NORMAL BRIDGE,NRD= 14 MIN ELTRD' 16.00 MAX ELLC= 17.50 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIOÜS= 229.4 266.6 TYPE= 1 TARGET= . 37.200 ELENCL 18.50 ELENCR= 18.50 .05 7.41 16.91 .00 .00 19.50 2.59 .09 . .07 9.50 3450. 0. 3450. 0. 0. 267. 0. 9. 3. 18.50 .02 .00 12.91 .00 .060 .017 .060 .000 9.50 229.40 .004426 10. 10. 10. 2 0 0 -8.74 37.20 266.60 0 *SECNO .063 .3280 CROSS SECTION .06 EXTENDED 1.99 FEET . 3370 NORMAL BRIDGE,NRD= 14 MIN ELTRD= 16.00 MAX ELLC= 17.80 13 PAGE 24 I 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS 229.4 266.6 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 37.200 ELENCL 18.80 ELENCR 18.80 8.19 17.99 .06 .00 .00 20.22 2.23 .61 .11 9.80 3450. 0. 3450. 0. 0. 288. 0. 10. 3. 18.80 .03 .00 11.98 .00 .060 .017 .060 .000 9.80 229.40 .005840 120. 120. 120. 14 0 0 -16.72 37.20 266.60 0 *SECNO .064 3280 CROSS SECTION .06 EXTENDED 2.85 FEET 3301 HV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 229.4 266.6 TYPE= 1 TARGETS 37.200 ELENCL 18.80 ELENCR 18.80 .06 9.05 18.85 16.22 .00 20.48 1.63 .08 .18 9.86 - 3450. 1. 3449. 0. 2. 337. 1. 10. 3. 18.80 .03 .36 10.24 .36 .060 .050 .060 .000 9.80 185.00 .010648 10, 10. 10. 6 15 0 .00 105.00 290.00 I 07:43:29 PAGE SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG MV ML ' OLOSS BANK ELEV Q GLOB OCR QROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL TWA LEFT/RIGHT TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST CCHV .100 CEHV= .300 *SECNO .098 3301 MV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS ( 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS 265.1 844.1 TYPE= 1 TARGET= -265.100 .10 8.12 20.82 .00 .00 20.86 .04 .22 .16 17.20 3450. • 854. 716. 1880. 604. 606. 1021. 14. 4. 14.00 .05 1.41 1.18 1.84 .060 .120 .060 .000 12.70 265.10 .000629 135. 140. 130. 3 0 0 .00 500.61 765.71 0 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG MV HL OLOSS BANK ELEV 0 GLOB OCH OROB ALOB ACM AROB VOL TWA LEFT/RIGHT TIME VLOB, VCH VROB XML XNCH XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENOST CCHV .100 CEHV= .300 *SECNO .000 3265 DIVIDED FLOW .00 5.19 78.69 .00 .00 78.91 .23 .39 .04 76.10 1465. 114. 1273. 77. 41. 319. 60. 188. 62. 75.40 .65 2.79 399 1.29 040 .060 .100 .000 73.50 441.74 .004031 200. 300. 400. 2 0 0 .00 170.48 965.80 0 *SECNO .006 3301 MV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS 3685 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED WSEL,CWSEL 3693 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY 3720 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED •• : 3495 OVERBANK AREA ASSUMED NON-EFFECTIVE,ELLEA 81.00 ELREA= 81.00 14 1 -.01 4.4-7 79.47 79.47 .00 81.23 1.75 .39 .46 81.00 1465. '. 0. 1465. 0. 0. 138. 0. 62.' '81.60 .. -.65 .00 10.63 .00 .040 -.'060,_. 100 .00 -. 75.00 320.04 -- I .051881 40. 40. 40. 20 15 0 .00 40.02 360.06 0. SPECIAL BRIDGE . I . SB XK XKOR COFO . RDLEN BWC BWP BAREA SS ELCHU ELCHD 1.05 1.60 2.90 400.00 45.00 5.00 '140.00 - .00 75.00. 75.00 *SECNO -.021 PRESS FLOW BECAUSE EGLWC:OF 83.05 EXCEEDS 1.5 DEPTH 3301 NV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS . • ', PRESSURE AND WEIR FLOW .07:43:29 ' ' .. . '' PAGE 31 - , - SECNO 'DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG NV HI OLOSS BANK ELEV -. OLOB OCH - QROB ALOB-, ACH AROB VOL TWA LEFT/RIGHT TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL ' XNCH XNR WTN - ELI4IN - SSTA - - SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL - IDC ICONT CORAR TOPWID - ' :ENDST - EGPRS -EGLWC H3 QWEIR QPR BAREA TRAPEZOID ELLC ELTRD - 'AREA 82.19 83.05 1.83 8. 1454. - 140. 160. ' 79.00 81.00 I .02 7.03 - 82.03 - .00 .00 82.15 .12 -.93 .00, 81.00 - 1465. 618. 799. 48. 285. -240. 93. 63. 81.00 .66 2.16 3.33 .52 - .002606 110. 110. 110. .040 2 .060 0 .100 - 3-- - .000 .00 75.00 523.35 56.45 579.79. .0 - *SECNO .023 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= - 150.0 220.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 70.000 I . -ELENCL= 81.00 ELENCR 81.00 - - - .02 7.14 82.14 .00 .00 82.19 .05 - .03 .01 81.00 - . 1465. - 105. 1134. 226 76.- 561. 425. - 189. 63. 81.00 -- - .66 1.39- 2.02 .53 .040 .060 . - .100 .000 75.0.0 71.17 .. .001194 20. - -20. - 20. 2 ' 0 ' 0 .00 638.01 709.18 O - -, - *SECNO .110 . • - - , 3265 DIVIDED FLOW .11 . 6.51 82.31 .00 .00' 82.32 .01 .12 .00 77.30 .1465. 660. 603. 202. 710. 733. - 594. 206. 70. 77.30 . - .83 .93 .82 .34 . .040 - .060 -, .100 .000 75.80 - 23.94' .000113 485. 471. 425. 2' 0 0 .00 626.36 730.41 O • -. - 07:43:29 PAGE 32 • **************************************************• - HEC2 'RELEASE DATED NOV 76 UPDATED MAY 1984 - .• ERROR CORR - 01,02,03,04,05,06 MODIFICATION - 50,51,52,53,54 55,56 - - • - I -- IBM-PC-XT VERSION AUGUST 1985 0 - 15, - , Ti THIS IS A SUBCRITICAL RUN FOR ENCINITAS CREEK EXISTING CONDITIONS T2 FOR EVALUATION OF DRAINAGE CAPACITIES OF BRIDGES AND CULVERTS T3 FOR DISCHARGES WITH DETENTION BASINS A, B, C AND ,D Ji ICHECK INQ NINV IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS 0 WSEL FO 0 4 0 0 000000 00 0 0 8.500 000 J2 NPROF IPLOT PRFVS XSECV XSECH FM ALLDC IBW CHNIM ITRACE 15.000 000 -1.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 07:43:29 PAGE 33 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS USELK EG HV HL OLOSS BANK ELEV 0 GLOB QCH QROB ALOB ACH ARaB VOL TWA LEFT/RIGHT TIME VLOB VCH VROB XML XNCH XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA, SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST *PROF 3 CCHV 100 CEHV= 300 *SECNO .000 . 3280 CROSS SECTION .00 EXTENDED 2.70 FEET 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS 270.0 562.9 TYP E= 1 TARGET= -270.000 . S .00 4.20 8,50 .00 8.50 8.62 .12 .00 .00 4.90 2926. 1456. 1223. 247. 530. 445. 103. 0. O 5.00 .00 2.75 .2.75 2.40 .060 .060 .060 .000 4.30 270.00 5 .002152 0. 0. 0. 0 0 O .00 292.90 562.90 0 .5 CCHV= .300 CEHV= .. .500 *SECNO .017 . .S WATER EL CHANGE FROM X2 CARD S 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= .0 .270.0 TYPES 1 TARGET= 269.999 3495 OVERBANK AREA ASSUMED NON EFFECTIVE,ELLEA= 100000 00 ELREA= 81.00 - .02 02 2.80. 10.00 AD 00 10.36 36 1.29 12100000 00 2926. 0. 934. 1992' 0.. 189. 416. 6. '8.00. .. 02 00 4.94 4,79 060 060 060 000 7.20 00 .013246 295. 295. 295. 0 0 0 .00 270.00 270.00 . S O .5 *SECNO .053 3301 HV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 229.4 266.& TYPE= 1 TARGET 37.200 ELENCL= 18.50 ELENCR= . 18.50 .05 6.34 15,84 .00 .00 18.23 2.39 6.86 1.01 9..50.,. .5. 2926. 0. 2926. . 0. 0. 236. 0. 9. 18.50 S .02 .00 12.40 .00 .060 .060 .060 .000 9.50 229.40. - .031557 . 405. 365. 325. 4 0 0 .00 :37.20 - 266.60 S 0 *SECNO .054 .07:43:29 PAGE SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG NV HL OLOSS BANK ELEV 0 GLOB QCH QROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL 'TWA LEFT/RIGHT .. , TIME VLOB VCH VROB XML XNCH XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA 16 Il I .. I SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IPC ICONT CORAR TOPUID ENDST 3370 NORMAL BRIDGE,NRD= 14 MIN ELTRD= 16.00 MAX ELLC 17.50 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 229.4 266.6 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 37.200 ELENCL= 18.50 ELENCR 18.50 1 • .05 6.38 15.88 .00 .00 18.39 2.51 .10 .06 9.50 2926. 0., 2926. 0. 0. 230. 0. 9. 3. 18.50 .03 .00 12.72 .00 .060 .017 .060 .000 9.50 229.40 : .004712 10. 10. 10. 3 0 0 -7.26 37.20 266.60 0 - *SECNO .063 3280 CROSS SECTION .06 EXTENDED 1.16 FEET I 3301 HV CHANGED MORE THANHVINS . . 3370 NORMAL BRtDGE,NRD= 14 MIN ELTRD= 16.00 MAX ELLC= 17.80 - • 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= ELENCL= 18.80 ELENCR 229.4 266.6 18.80 TYPE= 1 ' TARGET= 37.200 .06 7.35 :17.15 .00 .00 19.04 1.89 .47 .19 9.80- 2926.. 0. 2926. 0. 0. ' 265. 0. 10; -. 3. '18.80 .03 .00 11.04 .00 .060 .017 .060 .000 -9.80 229.40 .003247 120. 120. 120. 6 0 0 -8.65 37.20 266.60 is O . 'SECNO .064 - • 3280 CROSS SECTION . .06 EXTENDED 1.63 FEET L 3470 -ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 229.4 266.6 TYPE= 1 TARGET 37.200 ELENCL= ' 18.80 ELENCR= 18.80 - .06 7.83 1763 2926. 0. 2926. .00 0. .00 0. 19.20 • 291. 1.57 0. - .06 10. .10 3. 9.80 18.80 .03 .00 10.05 .00 .060 .050 .060 .000 9.80 229.40 -- .011752 10. 10. 10. 3 0 0 .00 37.20 266.60 O - • S 07:43:29 - PAGE-' 35 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS- WSELK EG -HV HL OLOSS BANK ELEV - - I 0 QLOB OCH QROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL TWA LEFT/RIGHT TIME VLOB VCH - VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN - ELMIN SSTA - - SLOPE .XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT • CORAR TOPWID ENDST t CCHV= ..100CEHV= .300 - • • - - ' *SECNO .098 ; • 3301 NV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS 3470 'ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 265.1 844.1 TYPE= - 1 .TARGET= -265.100 : - '•, ' - ' .10 6;95 19.65 .00 .00 19.70 .05 .36 .15 2926. 573. '-718.. 1634. - 395. 511. 755. 13. 4. 14.00'.. • .05 1.45 1.41 2.16 .060 .120 .060 .000 12.70 269.22 - S .001116 135. 140. 130. 3 0 0 -.00 471.85 741.07 *SECNO .129 • • - , - - .13 4.02 19.82 .00 .00 20.16 .34 • .37 .09 16.90 • - 2926. 1278. 440. -1208. 225. 207. 291. 17. 5. I - .06 5.67 2.13 - .009483 160. - 150. 4.16 145. .060, 3 .140 0 .060 0 .000 .00 15.80 281.15 335.17 616.31 1 17 i .156 .16. 5.22 21.82 .00 .00 22.35 .53 2.13 .06 19.20 2926. 11022 1157. 666. 151. 249. 135.: 19. 6. 19.00 .07 7.32 4.65 4.92 .060 .140 .060 .000 16.60 164.96 .028396 140. 140. 140. 3 0 .1: 0 .00 265.,03 430.89 .1.. 0 *SECNO .182 . .18 . 4.36 25.46 .00 .0O. 25.93 .47: 3.57 ..01 2260 .• 2926. 468. 967. 1491. 79. 269. 235. 21. 7. -. 22.40 .07 5,92 3.59 6.34 .060 .140 .060 .000 21.10 171.75 .022804 140. 141. 141. 4 0 . 0 .00 274.74 446.49 - *SECNO .202 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 140.0 555.1 TYPE= 1 TARGET -140.000 . . ,. .20 3.86 28.16 .00 .00 28.72 .56 2.76 03 25.70 •.- 2926. 683. 680. 1563. 96. 207. 267. 22. 8. 25.30 . .08 7.11 3.29 . 6.34 .060 .150 . .060 .000 24.30 153.82 .026192 110. 112. 115. 2 0 0 .00 282.70 436.52 0 .• -., .• S 07:43:29 PAGE 3 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK. . EG HV . . HL OLOSS BANK ELEV . •. Q . QLOB OCH OROB . . ALOB ACM AROB VOL TWA. LEFT/RIGHT'.'S TIME VLOB VCH VROB XML XNCH XNR WTN ELMIN SST SLOPE XLOBI. XLCH XLOBR [TRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR .TOPWID. END-ST . S *SECNO .240 .24 4,34 3204 .00 .00 32.29 .25 3.54 .03 29.10 . •. • 2926. 880. 757. 1289. 194. . 293. 296. 25. 9. 29.50 •:. ,.- • .09 .012.122 4.53 210. 2.59 205. 4.35 205. .060 . 4 .150 0 .060 0 .000 .00 27,70 329.88 81.28 411.17 O . .. • S . **SECNO .277 .277 .28 3.37 35.27 . .00 .00 35.80 .52 3.43 .08 33.10 . • ,:• 2926. 1240. 502. 1184. 205. 158. 185. 28. 11. 33.00 . . .10 6.05 3.18 6.38 .060 .150 .060 .000 31.90 93.22 • .028299 193. .197.. 191. 3 0 0 .00 292.14 385.35 O *SECNO .310 . . .31 .3.75 38.15 .00 .00 38.42 . .27 2.60 .03 34.80 2926. 1530. 428. 969. 325. 209., 250. 31. 12. 35.00 - S.. • • .11 4.71 2.04 3.87 .060 .150 .060 .000 34.40 88.58 . . .5 .008029 . 190. 190. .190. 3 0 0 .00 315.34 403.92 O • • - : .5 *SECNO .356 . S • . . - • 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= .0 400.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 399999 .36 4.48 40.38 .00 .00 4066 .28 2.23 .00 36,70 . . 2926. 1932. 801. 193. 400. 319; 57. 36. 14. 38.50 .13 4.83 2.51 3.36 ;060 .150 .060 .000 35.90 106.22 . .010238 245. 250. . 250. 4 Q 0 .00 283.30 . 389.52 . O . :. S.. *SECNO .401 . 2: .40 3.76 42.66 .00 .00 42.91 .24 2.25 ..Do 39.40 . 2926. 1501. 607. 818. 346. i. 283.. 192. 40. 15. 39.40'.- 4.34 2.14. 4.25 . . .060 .150 .060 .000 38.90 119.20 5 .008687 239. 239. 239. 2 0 0 .00 307.71 426.90 . O *SECNO .451 . . . . ., .45 • 4.66 44.86 .00 .00 45.4 . .28 2.22 .01 • 42.30 • . . '.5 2926. 2198. 709. 19. 471. 284. 8. 45. 17. .4280 • .17 • 4.67 2,50 2.33 .060 .130 .060 .000 40.20 271.38 .008874 260. 245.; 235. 2 0 0 .00 266.55 53793 0 *5 .. 5. 'S , .. 07:43:29 " - . . - . PAGE 31 18 1 V V SECNO DEPTH CWSEL .CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL OLOSS BANK ELEV Q GLOB QCH OROB ALOB, ACM AROB VOL TWA LEFT/RIGHT I TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WIN ELMIN SSTA SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL bC ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST V V *SECNO .522 .. . - .52 4.52 47.62 .00 .00 47.81 .19 2.66 .01 44.60 2926. 513. 505. 1908. 210. . 265. 474. 52. 20. 43.90 .20 2.44 1.91 403 .060 .140 .060 .000 ' 43.10 78.26 : I .005336 390. 392. ' 396. 3 0 0 .00. 466.09 544.35 0 *SECNO .615 .3470 ENCROACHMENT STAT.IONS .0 569.8 TYPE= 1 TARGET 569.799 I, .62 4.26 51.36 .00 .00 51.69 . .33 3.84 .04 48.00 2926. 1363. 634. 929. 263. 234. 196. 62. 24. 48.30 . . .23 5.19 2.70 4.73 .060 .140 .060 .000 47.10 305.46 . V .011418 1 504. 511. 514. 2 0 0 .00 257.78 563.24 V *SECNO .678 V 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= ' ' .0 513.6 TYPE= ' 1 TARGET= 513.599 . V. .68 ' 4.35 54.55 .00 .00 54.87 .32 3.17 .00 .52.20, V V 2926. 138. 529. 2259. 45. 245. 453. 68. 26. 51.10 .25 3.06 2.16 4.98 .060 .140 .060 .000 50.20 268.65 V • .007778 336. 341. 341. 3 0 0 .00 239.95 488.60 1 0 V *SECNO .780 .78 4.07 59.47 .00 .00 59.75 .28 4.88 ' .00 '56.60 " 2926. 1221. 592. 1112. 263. 235. 251. 77. 30. 56.40 .29 4.64 2.52 4.43 ,. .060 .130 .060' . .000 55.40, 205.46 , V .009694 554. 562. 568. 3 0 0 .00 313.12 518.58 • .0 V *SECNO 1.313 . V 1.31 . 498 77.98 .00 .00. 78.05 .07 1.05 .05 .74.30 . . V I . 2456., 526. '.485. . 1445. ' 306. . 546. 584.. 139. 51. 73.50 V .57 1.72 . .89 , 2.47 .050 .130 .040' .000 73.00 148.95 V , , .000803 428., 424. 414. ,V 4 0,' . 0 .00 430.65 579.60 "-V 9 - 07:43:29 • . V V ' PAGE 39 SECNO DEPTH CUSEL CRIWS WSELK EG MV, HL OLOSS BANK ELEV V 'I 0 ' GLOB 0CM OROB ALOB ACM AROB VOL ' TWA LEFT/RIGHT V V TIME VLOB VCH • VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA SLOPE XLOBL XLCH , XLOBR ITRIAL IDC . ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST *SECNO 1.403 V • . V • V . • V . V 3301 HV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS • V V V ,,' V f 3685 -20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED WSEL,CWSEL V V 3693 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY V • , ., . 3720 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED V 3470 ENCROACHMENT.STATIONS= 394.9 V 662.4 TYPE= 1 TARGET= -394.900 ELENCL= 84.00 ELENCR= 100000.00 1.40 4.00 80.70 80.70 .00 81.86 1.16 .86 , V .33 83.50 1890.0. 1305. 585. . 0. ' 129. 164. 150. 54. 77.10 . I' .58 . .00 . 10.11 3.57 .030 .030 .060 .000 . 76.70 406.85 .009489 • 535• V V 524. . '490. 20" ' . 16 0 .00 133.24 540.10 V 0 *SECNO 1.420 . V . - • 'I. . 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 350.0 608.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= -350.000 'Vs. . V ,' •, V • , 19 ' V I ELENCL 84.00 ELENCR= 100000.00 1.42 5.57 83.97 .00 .00 85.05 1.08. 3.19 .01 81.60' 1890. 848. 1042.. 0. 117. 114. 0. 152. 55. 84.40 .60 7.27 9.11 .00 .030 .030 .040 .000 78.40, ' 350.00 .008122 370. 362. ' 360. 4 0 0 .00 92.32 442.32 0 *SECNO 1.520 S 3685 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED WSEL,CWSEL 3693 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY 3720 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 258.6 ELENCL= 89.50 ELENCR= 100000.00 635.3 TYPE= 1 TARGET -258.600 . . 1.52 5.89 88.99 88.99 .00 90.17 1.18 1.92 .03 87.50 1890. 151. 1736. 3. 45. 192. 2. 153. . 56. 88.50 .60 338 9.03 1.21 .030 . .030 .040 .000 83.10 278.89 .006886 270. 252. 252. 20 10 0 .00 127.70 406.59. 0 . *SECNO -1.313 START TRIO COMP -1.313 1.313 77.978 . . . . -1.31 4.98 77.98 .00 .00 78.05 .07 :.00 .00 74.30 0 2456. 526. 485. 1445. 305. 544. 582. 161. 58. 73.50. .66 • 1.72 .89 . 2.48 .050 .130 .040 :000 73.00 . 148.98 .000810 428. 424. 414. .. 0 0 0 .00 430.29 .579.27 0 001 - - 07:43:29 PAGE 40 SECNO DEPTH . CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG NV HL OLOSS BANK ELEV Q QLOB OCH • OROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL TWA LEFT/RIGHT TIME VLOB VCH • VROB XML XNCH XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA SLOPE • XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT . CORAR TOPUID ENDST • CCHV .100 CEHV= ,300 *SECNO .000 • .5 S .00 4.77 78.27 .00 .00 78.37 .10. .31 .01 76.10 832. 50. 744. • 38. 29. 286. 045 168. 60. . 75.40 • .70 1.74 2.60 .84 .040 .060.. .100 .000 73.50 446.84 .001978 200. 300. 400. 2 0 0 .00 136.68 583.51 0 • O *SECNO .006 . 3265 DIVIDED FLOW 3301 HV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS . S 3685'20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED WSEL,CWSEL 5. 3693 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY S • . 3720 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED . 3495 OVERBANK AREA ASSUMED NON-EFFECTIVE,ELLEA= . 81.00 ELREA= 81.00 . 0 .01 3.19 78.19 78.19 .00 79.50 1.31 .22 .36 81.00 832. 0. 832. 0. 0. 91. 0. 168. 60. 81.00",• S .70 .00 9.18 .00 .052736 . 40. 40. 40. .040 20 .060 14 .100 0 .000 .00 TSOO 35.02 320. • 07'. 5 360.03 0 - 0 SPECIAL BRIDGE 5 . 5 . S • SB XK XKOR • - COFQ • RDLEN 0 BWC BWP BAREA SS • ELCHU ELCHD • S. 1.05 1.60 2.90 400.00 45.00 5.00 140.00 00 75.00' 75.-00 *SECNO .021 S . • 3301 MV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS 20 1 CLASS A LOW FLOW 3420 BRIDGE W.S.= 77.90 BRIDGE VELOCITY, 7.18 CALCULATED CHANNEL AREA=, 12-20-89 07:43:29 - PAGE 41 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG NV, HI OLOSS BANK ELEV 0 GLOB OCH OROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL TWA LEFT/RIGHT TIME VLOB VCH VROB XML XNCH XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST EGPRS EGLWC H3 WEIR GLOW BAREA TRAPEZOID ELLC ELTRD AREA 79.07 80.13 1.42 0. . 832 140., 160. 79.00 81.00 .02. 4.61 79.61 .00 .00 80.13 .52 .63 .00 81.00 832 0 832 0 0 143 0 168 60 81.00 .70 .00 5.80 .00 .000 .060 .000 .000 75.00 320.04 .014772 110. 110. 110. 0 0 0 .00 40.03 360.06 0 *SECNO .023 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS. 150.0 220.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 70.000 ELENCL= 81.00 ELENCR= 81.00 5 .02 5.15 80.15 .00 .00 80.24 .10 .07 .04 81.00 832. 0. 832. 0. 0. 336. 0. 168. 61. 81.00 .71 .00 .. 2.48 .00 .040 .060 .100 .000 75.00 150.00 .001429 20. 20. 20. 2 0 0 .00 70.00 220.00 0• S *SECNO .110 .11 4.66 80.46 .00 .00 80.48 .01 .22 .01 77.30 832 296 443 93 343 489 254 176 63 77.30 .86 .86 .91 .37 .040 .060. .100 .000 75.80 59.33 .000236 485. 471. 425. 4 0, 0 .00 473.04 532.37 O -5 07:43:29 - S - PAGE • 42 - S HEC2RELEASE DATED NOV 76'UPDATED MAY' 1984 5 ERROR CORR 01,02,03,04,05,06 5 - MODIFICATION 50,51,52,53,54,55,56 -IBM-PC-XT VERSION AUGUST 1985 5 -- . - SUMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE 150 - • S SECNO XLCH - ELTRD ELLC ELMIN 0 CUSEL CRIWS EG .10K*S VCH. . - .AREA .01K .000 .00 .00 .00 4.30 4725.00 8.50 .00 8.80 56.11 4.44 1077.33 630.77 .000 .00 .00 .00 4.30 3450.00 8.50 .00 8.66 29.92 - 3.24 1077.33 630.77 .000 .00 .00 .00 4.30 2926.00 8.50 .00 8.62 21.52 2.75 1077.33 630.77 .017 295.00 .00 .00 7.20 4725.00 10.00 .00 10.95 345.40 7.98 •• 604.99 254.24 .017 295.00 .00 .00 7.20 3450.00 . 10.00 .00 10.51 184.15 5.83 604.99 254.24 017 295.00 00 00 7.20 2926.00 10.00 00 10.36 132.46 4.94 604.99 254.24 .053 365.00 .00 .00 9.50 4725.00 19.04 17.44 21.64 232.52 13.06 391.50 309.87 - 21 07:43:29 SECNO XLCH ELTRD ELLC ELMIN 0 CWSEL .156 140.00 .00 ' .00 16.60 4725.00 24.44 .156 140.00 .00 .00 16.60 3450.00 21.90 .156 140.00 .00 .00 16.60 2926.00 21.82 .182 140.70 .00 .00 21,10 4725.00 25.56 .182 ' 140.70 .00 00 21,10 3450.00 '25.79 .182 , 140.70 .00 .00 21.10 2926.00 25.46 .202 112.00 .00 .00 '24.30 4725.00 ' 29.24 .202. 112.00 .00 .00 24.30 3450.00 . 28.34 .202 ' 11200 .00 .00 . 24.30 2926.00. 28.16 .240 20500 .00. .00 27.70 4725.00 32.60 .240 205.00 .00 . .00 27.70 3450.00 32.29 .240 205.00 .00 .00 27.70 2926.00 32.04 .277 197.40 .00 .00 31,90 4725.00 36.03. .277 197.40 .00 .00 31.90 ' 3450.00 35.46 .277 197.40 .00 .00 31.90 2926.00 35.27 .310 190.00 .00 .00 34.40 4725.00 38,94 .310 190.00 ' .00 .00 34.40 3450.00 38.43 .310' 190.00 .00 .00 34.40 2926.00 38.15 .356 . 250.00 .00 .00 35.90 4725.00 41.27 .356 250.00 .00 . .00 ' 35.90 3450.00 40.66 .356 250.00 00 .00 ' 35.90 2926.00 40.38 .401 238.80 .00 .00 38.90 4725.00 43.56 .401 238.80 . .00 .00 38.90 3450.00 42.95 .401 238.80 .00 .00 38.90 2926.00 42.66 .451 ' 245.00 '.00 .00 40.20 4725.00 45.78 .451 245.00 .00 .00 . 40.20 3450.00 45.15 .451 245.00 .00 .00 40.20 2926.00 4.86 .522 392.30, , .00 .00 43.10 4725.00 4.55 .522 392.30 .00 00 43.10 3450.00 ' 47.91 .522 392.30 .00 .00 43.10 ' 2926.00 47.62 22 .053 365.00 .00 .00 9.50 3450.00 16.90 .053 365.00 .00 .00 9.50 2926.00 5.84 .054 10.00 16.00 17.50 9.50 4725.00 18.40 .054 10.00 16.00 17.50 9.50 3450.00. 16.91 .054, 10.00 16.00 17.50 9.50 2926.00 15.88 .063 120.00 16.00 17,80 9.80 4725.00 23.12 .063 120.00 16.00 17.80 9.80 3450.00 17.99 .063 120.00 16.00 17.80 9.80 2926.00 17.15 .064 10.00 .00 .00 980 4725.00 23.57 .064 . 10.00 .00 .00 9,80 3450.00 18.85 .064 10.00 .00 .00 9.80 2926.00 17.63 .098 140.00 .00 .00 12.70 4725.00 24.3.1 .098 140.00 .00 .00 12.70 3450.00 20.82 .098 140.00 .00 .00 12.70 2926.00 19.65 .129 150.00 .00 .00 15.80 4725.00 24.31 .129 150.00 .00 .00 15.80 3450.00 20.89 .129 150.00 .00 .00 15.80 2926.00 19.82 ii .00 19!34 277.98 12.54, 275.12 206. .00 18.23 315.57' ''. 12.40 235.99 164.71 17.50 22.58 109.53 ' 16.41' 288.00.' WAS .00 19.50 -. 44.26 12.91 267.15 518,, .00 18.39 '47.12 12.72 230.02 426. o .00 24.08 . 23.87 8.60 741.48'' 967., .00 20.22 ' 58.40 11.98 ' 288.00 451, .00 19.04 32.47 11.04 265.15 513, .00 24.21 28.71 7.04 . 836.67 . 881, 16.22 20.48 106.48 1,0.24' 340.38 334. .00 19.20 117.52 ". 10.05 291.15 269. .00 24.33 1.76 , .81 4114.47 3560.9 .00 20.86 6.29 1.18 . 2230.57 1375,5' .00 19.70 11.16 141 1661.16 876. .00 24.40 8.21 1.16 2212.56 1648.60 .00 21.11 , . 43.57 1.77 1035.97 522.6 .00 20.161, , 94.83 ' 2.13 722.55 .300.4 PAGE 43 CRIWS EG 10K*S VCH ', AREA .01K .00,. 24.66 42.01 2.47 136904 728.9 .00 . 22.38 350.67 5.23 556.73 184.23 .00 22.35 283.96 '4,65 534.94 173.64 25.56 26,68 . 514.87 ' 5.51 612.18 208. .00 ' 26.27 201.57- 3.60 677.82 243.0 .00 25.93 228.04 3,59 583.42 - 193.76 .00 . 29.77, 164.35 '3.21: 886.23 368.5, .00 28.98 276.95 3.53 ' 602.54 207.3 .00 28.72 261.92 3.29 54926 180.80' .00 33.03 150.58 3.18 973.18 :385•0 .00 32.58 118.10, 2.67 868.92 317.4 .06 32.29 121.22 ' 2.59 ' 782.88 265.76' .00 36.70 236.72 3.44 780.74 307.1' .00 36.06 286.71 3.35 604.23 203.70 .00 35.80 282.99. ' 3.18 548.52 173.94 00 ' " '39.32 .88.25 '2.45 '1049.41 502.9 .00 38.72 81.33 ,. 2.16 871.90. 382.5 .00 38.42 80.29 2.04 784.28 326.54w' .00 41.67 102.63 . ' 2.88 1039.82 466.4' .00 . 40.98 102.52 2.64 857.28 340. - .00 40.66 102.38 ' '2.51 775.84 , 289.1' .00 43.92 85.87 , 2.48 1101.98 .00 43.23 86.29 2.25 908.66 509.9 ' 371.3 .00 42.91 .86.87 2.14 821.19 313.9W. .00 46.19 92.47 2.97 1013.21 491.37 ..00 45.47 90.00 2.65. 84044 363.. ' .00 45.14 88.74 2.50 762.75 310.6, .00 '48.76 48.24 2.10 1415.74 680.32. .00 48.11 .51.90 1.98 1092.19 ' 478.8i 1 . .00 47.81 . .53.36 1.91 948.10 400.5 I .615 511.30 ., .00 .00 47.10 4725.00 52.13 .00 52.64 129.46 3.27 895.49 415.28 .615 511.30 .00 .00 47.10 3450.00 51.62 .00 52.00 118.17 2.88 758.99 317.37 .615 511.30 .00 . .00 47.10 2926.00 51.36 .00 51.69 114.18 2.70 693.39 273.83 678 341.00 00 00 50.20 4725.00 55.59 00 56 03 78.51 2.58 1015.76 533.26 .678 341.00 .00 .00 50.20 3450.00 54.88 .00 55.24 78.32 2.30 824.17 389.84 .678 341.00 .00 .00 50.20 2926.00 54.55 .00 54.87 77.78 2.16 743.64 331.78 .780 561.70 .00 .00 55.40 4725.00 60.40 .00 60.76 89.64 2.85 1051.54 499.05 .780 561.70 .00 .00 55.40 3450.00 59.77 .00 60.07 94.04 2.63 842.66 355.76 .780 561.70 .00 .00. 55.40 2926.00 59.47 .00 59.75 96.94 2.52 748.78 297.19 .834 253.60 .00. .00 57.10 4725.00 62.62 .00 62.97 83.54 3.01 1103.28 516.96 .834 .253.60 .00 .00 57.10 3450.00 62.01 .00 62.28 79L07 2.67 919.22 387.99 .834 253.60 .00 .00 57.10 292600 61.72 .00 61.95 76.47 2.51 835.89 334.60 .918 465.00 .00 .00 60.50 4725.00 65.65 .00 65.88 47.76 2.03 1398.62 683.69 .918 465.00 .00 .00 60.50 3450.00 64.97 .00 65.16 49.28 1.86 1133.09 491.46 .918 465.00 .00 .00 60.50 2926.00 64.65 .00 64.82 50.29 1.77 1014.36 412.59 .998 440.00 .00 .00 62.00 4207.00 66.98 .00 67.11 17.63 1.21 .1633.16 1001.83 .998 440.00 .00 .00 62.00 3013.00 66.30 .00 66.40 17.24 1.08 1340.02 725.61 .998 440.00 .00 .00 .62.00 2456.00 65.97 .00 66.05 16.41 .99 1201.40 606.20 1.096, 525.00 .00 .00 62.00 4207.00 68.2 .1 .00 68.43 36.41 2.00 1428.29 697.19 1.096 525.00 .00 .00 62.00 3013.00 . 67.48 .00 . 67.63 32.27 1.73 1219.15 530.42 1.096 525.00 . .00 .00 62.00 2456.00 67.08 .00 67.20 29.82 1.58 1108.65 449.77 1.164 363.40 .00 .00 65.10 4207.00 70.26 .00 70.55 105.38 2.95 1157.68 409.82 1.164 363.40 .00 .00 65.10 3013.00 69.46 .00 69.67 117.40 2.77 930.90 278.08 1.164 363.40 .00 .00 65.10 2456.00 69.02 .00 69.19 127.60 . 2.68 810.14 217.43 1.236 359.20 .00 . .00 73.00 4207.00 . 77.05 76.50 78.08 543.31 5.41 607.78 180.49 1.236 359.20 .00 .00 73.00 3013.00 76.64 75.90 77.32 472.57 4.66 523.28 138.60 1.236 359.20 .00 .00 73.00 2456.00 76.43 75.61 76.95 425.91 4.23 480.21 11901 1.313 423.60 .00 .00 73.00 4207.00 79.20 .00 79.30 8.49 1.07 1984.56 1443.42 1.313 423.60 .00 .00 73.00 3013.00 78.40 .00 78.48 8.32 .96. 1616.81 1044.46 1.313 423.60 .00 .00 7300 2456.00 77.98 .00 78.05 8.03 : .89' 1436.09 866.94 1.403 524.00 .00 .00 76.70 1890.00' 80.70 80.70 81.86 94.76 10.11 293.23 194.16' 1.403 524.00 .00 .00 76.70 1890.00 80.70 : 80.70 81.86 95.03 '10.12 292.89 193.88 1.403 524.00 .00 .00 76.70 1890.00 80.70 80.70 81.86 94.89 10.11 293.06 194.02 1.420 362.00 . .00 .00 78.40 1890.00 83.97 .00 .85.05 81.33 9.12 230.97 209.57 1.420 362.00 .00 .00 78.40 1890.00 83.97 .00 85.05 81.10 9.11 231.19 209.87 1.420 362.00 .00 .00 78.40 1890.00 83.97 .00 85.05 81.22' 9.11 231.08 209.72 1.520 252.00 .00 . .00 83.10 1890.00 88.99 88.99 90.17 .68.81 9.02 239.53 227.84 1,520 252.00 .00 .00 .83.10 1890.00 88.99 88.99 90.17 68.89 9.03 239.41 227.71 1.520 . 252.00 - .00 .00 83.10 1890.00 88.99 88.99 90.17 68.86 9.03 239.46 227.77 -1.313 423.60 .00 .00 73.00 4207.00 .79.20 " .00 79.30 8.49 1.07 198514 1444.09 -1.313 423.60 .00 .00 73.00 3013.00 '78.40 .00 78.48 8.32 .96 1617.02 1044.67 -1.313 423.60 .00 .00 73.00 2456.00 77.98 . .00 78.05 8.10 ,. .89 1431.82 862.87 .000 300.00 .00 .00 73.50 2597.00 79.46 .00 79.85 59.63 5.45 644.10 336.30 .000 300.00 .00 .00 73.50 1465.00 78.69 .00 78.91 40.31 . 3.99 419.98 230.73 .000 300.00 .00 .00 73.50 832.00 78.27 .00 78.37 19.78 2.60 359.99 187.09 .006 40.00 .00 .00 7500 2597.00 81.74 81.74 82.36 132.82 7.27 483.20 225.34 .006 40.00 .00 .00 75.00 1465.00 79.47 79.47 8123 518.81 10.63 137.81 64.32 .006 40.00 .00 .00 75.00 832.00 , 78.19 78.19 79.50 527.36 9.18- 90.63 36.23 .021 110.00 ' 81.00 79.00 75.00 2597.00 85.01 .00 85.03 2.04 1.22 2946.33 1816.56 .021 .110.00 81.00 79.00 75.00 1465.00 82.03 .00' 82.15 26.06 3.33 618.46 286.99 .021 110.00 81.00 79.00 75.00 832.00 79.61 .00 80.13 147.72 5.80 143.36 68.45 .023 20.00 .00 .00 75.00 2597.00 85.02 .00 85.03 ' 2.15 ' .1.24 3269.11 1771.74 .023 20.00 .00 .00 75.00 1465.00 82.14 .00 82.19 11.94 2.02 1062.24 423.98 23 V 023 20 00 00 00 75.00 832.00 80 15 00 80.N 14.29 2.48 33536 22061 .110 471.00 .00 00 75.80 2597.00 95,.07 .00 85.08 .55 .75 4267.85 3497.04 .110 471.00 .00 .00 75.80 1465.00 82.31 .00 82.32 1.13 .82 2037.93 1377.6 .110 471.00 .00 .00 75.80 832.00 80.46 .00 80.48 236 .91 1085.80 541311, SUMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE 150 1 SECNO 0 CWSEL DIFWSP DIFWSX DIFKWS T0PWID XLCH .000 4725.00 8.50 00 .00 .00 292.90 .00 ' .000 3450.00 8.50 .00 .00 .00 292.90 .00 .000 2926.00 8.50 .00 .00 .00 292.90 .00 ' * .017 4725.00 10.00 .00 1.50 .bo 2?O.0O 29500 .017 3450.00 10.00 .00 1.50 .00 270.00 295.00 * .017 2926.00 10.00 .00 1.50 .00 270.00 295.00 .053 .472500 19.04 .00 9.04 '.00 105.00 365.00 .053 3450.00 16.90 -2.14 6.90 .00 37.20 365.00 .053 2926.00 15.84 -1.05 5.84 .00 37.20 365.00 .054 4.25.00 18.40 .00 -.64 .00 37.20 10.00 . .054 3450.00 16.91 -149 .02 .00 37.20 1000 .054 2926.00 15.88 -1.04 .04 .00 37.20 10.00 .063. 4725.00 23.12 .00 '4.72 .00 105.00 129.00 .063 3450.00 17.99 '-5.13 1.08 .00 37.20 120.00 .063 2926.00 17.15 -.84 1.27 .00 37.20 120.00 .064 4725.00 23.57 .00 .46 .00 105,00 10,00 : .064 3450.00 18.85 -4.73 .86 .00 105.00 '10.00 .04 2926.00 17.63 , -1.22 .48 .00 '37.20 10,00 098 4725.00 24.31 00 73 00 52 46 146.00 ..098 3450 00 20.82 -3.149 1.97 00 500.61 146.00 .098 2926.00 19.65 -1.17 2.02 .00 471.85 140.00 .129 4725.00 24.31 .00 01 .00 391.01 150.00 .129 .129 3450.00 2926.00 20.89 19.82 ' -3.42 -1.07 .07 .17 .00 .00 361.90 2L15 150.00 150.00 . . . .156 472500 24.44 .00 . .13 .00 34.02 14 60 . .156 3450.00 21.90 '-2.54 1.01 .00 270.17 140.00 . .156 2926.00 21.82 -.08 2.00 .00 265.93 140.00 . * .182 4725.00 25.56 .00 1.12 .00 278.64 140.70 . .182. 3450.00 25.79 .23 3.89 .00 28647 140.70 . .182 2926.00 25.46 -.34 3.64 .00 2?4.74 140.70 .202' 4725.00 29.24 . - .00 3.67 .00 341.03 112.00 ' S .202 3450.00 28.34 -.90 2.55 .00 29496 112.00 202 2926.60 28.16 18 2.70 00 282 70 112.00 .240 4725.00. , 32.60 .00 3.36 .00 36.04 205,00 .240 3450.00 ' 32.29 -.30 3.95 .00 332.93 205.00 .240 2926.00 32.04 -.26 3.88 .00 39.88 205.00 .277 4725.00 36.03 .00 ' 343 .00 - 32 1 197.40 . .277 3450.00 35.46 - .57 3.17 .00, 27.54 197.40 '. .277 2926.00 35.27 -.19 3.24 00 22.14 197.40 ' .. . . .310 ' 4725.00. 38.94 .00 291 .00 356.00 190.00 - - •' .310 3450.00 38.43 . -.51 2.96 .00 329.65 190.00 .310 2926.00 38.15 -.27 2.88 .00 315.34 , 190.00 .356 - 4725.00 41.27 .00 2.33 .00 . 32.51 250.00 .356 3450.00 40.66 ' -.61 2.24 ' .00 . 290.09 250.00 24 1 .356 2926.00 40.38 -.28 2.22 .00 283.30 250.00 .401 4725.00 43.56 .00 2.29 .00 349.21 238.80 .401 3450.00 42.95 -.61 2.29 .00 309.50 238.80 .401 2926.00 42.66 -.28 2.29 .00 307.71 238.80 .451 4725.00 45.78 .00 2.21 .00 302.80 245.00 .451 3450.00 45.15 -.63 2.20 .00 270.06 245.00 .451 2926.00 44.86 -.29 2.20 .00 266.55 245.00 .522 4725.00 48.55 .00 2.77 .00 527.54 392.30 .322 3450.00 47.91 -.63 2.76 .00 495.83 392.30 .522 2926.00 47.62 -.30 2.75 .00 466.09 392.30 615 4725.00 52.13 .00 3.58 .00 268.38 511.30 615 345000 51.62 -.51 3.70 .00 261.36 511.30 .615 292600 51.36 -.25 3.74 .00 257.78 511.30 .478 4725.00 55.59 MO 3.46 .00 274.52 341.00 .678 3450.00 54.88 -71 3.26 .00 254.86 341.00 .678 2926.00 54.55 -33 319 .00 239.95 341.00 .780 4725.00 6040 .00 4.80 .00 341.07 561.70 .780 3450.00 59.77 -.63 4.89 .00 323.87 561.70 .780 2926.00 59.47 -.29 4.93 MO 313.12 561.70 834 4725.00 62.62 .00 2.23 .00 303.48 253.60 .834 3450.00 62.01 -.62 2.24 .00 292.52 253.40 .834 2926.00 61.72 -.29 2.24 .00 285.53 253.60 .918 4725.00 65.65 .00 3.02 .00 398.25 465.00 .918 3450.00 64.97 -.68 2.96 .00 376.71 465.00 .918 2926.00 64.65 -.32 2.93 .00 368.46 465.00 .998 4207.00 66.98 .00 1.33 .00 440.90 440.00 .998 3013.00 66.30 -.68 1.33 .00 423.56 44000 .998 2456.00 65.97 -.33 1.32 .00 417.32 440.00 1.096 4207.00 68.21 MO 1.23 .00 286.54 525.00 1.096 3013.00 67.48 -74 1.18 MO 279.97 525.00 1.096 2456.00 67.08 -.39 1.12 MO 276.44 525.00 07:43:29 SECNO a CWSEL DIFWSP DIFWSX DIFKWS TOPUID XLCH 1.164 4207.00 70.26 .00 2.05 MO 286.06 363.40 1.164 3013.00 69.46 -.81 1.98 .00 278.98 363.40 1.164 2456.00 69.02 -.44 1.94 .00 275.68 363.40 1.236 4207.00 77.05 .00 6.78 .00 210.99 359.20 1.236 3013.M0 76.64 -.41 7.18 .00 206.60 359.20 1.236 2456.00 76.43 -.21 7.41 .00 204.33 359.20 1.313 4207.00 79.20. .00 2.15 .00 465.73 423.40 1.313 3013.00 78.40 -.80 1.76 MO 452.03 423.60 1.313 2456.00 77.98 -.42 1.55 .00 430.65. 423.60 1.403 1890.00 8070 MO 1.50 .00 133.28 524.00 1.403 1890.00 80.70 .00 2.30 .00 133.21 524.00 1.403 1890.00 80.70 .00 2.72 .00 133.24 524.M0 1.420 1890.00 83.97 MO 3.27 .00 92.31 362.00 1.420 1890.00 83.97 .00 3.28 .00 92.33 362.00 1.420 1890.00 83.97 .00 3.27 .00 92.32 362.00. 1.520 1890.00 88.99 .00 5.02 .00 127.73 252.00 1.520 1890.00 88.99 .00 5.02 .00 127.67 252.00 PAGE 48 25 1.520 1890.00 88.99 .00 5.02 .00 127.70 252.00 -1.313 4207.00 79.20 .00 -9.79 .00 465.76 423.60 -1.313 3013.00 78.40 -.80 -10.60 .00 452.06 423.60 -1.313 2456.00 77.98 -.42 -11.02 .00 430.29 423.60 .000 2597.00 79.46 .00 .26 .00 424.87 300.00 .000 1465.00 78.69 -.77 .29 .00 170,48 300.00 .000 832.00 78,27 -.42 .29 .00 136.68 300.00 * .006 2597.00 81.74 .00 2.28 .00 425.85 40.00 * .006 1465.00 79.47 -2.27 .78 .00 40,02 40.00 * .006 832.00 78.19 -1,28 -.08 .00 35.02 40.00 .021 2597.00 85.01 .00 3.27 .00 910.97 110.00 .021 1465.00 82.03 -2.98 2.56 .00 523.35 110.00 .021 832.00 79.61 -2.42 1.42 .00 40.03 110.00 .023 2597.00 85.02, .00 .01 .00 881.03 20.00 .023 1465.00 82.14 -2.88 .11 .00 638.01 20.00 .023 832.00 80.15 -1.99 .54 .00 70.00 20.00 .110 2597.00 85.07 .00 .05 .00 906.42 471.00 .110 1465.00 82.31 -2.76 .17 .00 626.36 471.00 .110 832.00 80.46 -1.85 .32 ..00 473.04 471.00 07:43:29 PAGE 49 SUMMARY OF ERRORS AND SPECIAL NOTES NOTE SECNO= .017 PROFILE= 1 WSEL BASED ON X2 CARD NOTE SECNO= .017 PROFILE= 2 WSEL BASED ON X2 CARD NOTE SECNO= .017 PROFILE= 3 WSEL BASED ON X2 CARD CAUTION SECNO= .182 PROFILE= 1 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED CAUTION SECNO= .182 PROFILE= 1 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY CAUTION SECNO= .182 PROFILE= 1 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED TO BALANCE WSEL CAUTION SECNO= 1.403 PROFILE= 1 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED CAUTION SECNO= 1.403 PROFILE= 1 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY CAUTION SECNO= 1.403 PROFILE= 1 -20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED TO BALANCE WSEL CAUTION SECNO= 1.403 PROFILE= 2 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED CAUTION SECNO= 1.403 PROFILE= 2 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY CAUTION SECNO= 1.403 PROFILE= 2 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED TO BALANCE WSEL CAUTION SECNO= 1.403 PROFILE= 3 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED CAUTION SECNO= 1.403 PROFILE= 3 PROBABLE MINIMUM;SPEcIFIC ENERGY CAUTION SECNO= 1.403 PROFILE= 3 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED TO BALANCE WSEL CAUTION SECNO= 1.520 PROFILE= 1 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED CAUTION SECNO= 1.520 PROFILE= 1 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY CAUTION SECNO= 1.520 PROFILE= 1 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED-TO BALANCE WSEL CAUTION SECNO= 1.520 PROFILE= 2 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED CAUTION SECNO= 1.520 PROFILE= 2 PROBABLEMINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY CAUTION SECNO= 1.520 PROFILE= 2 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED TO BALANCE WSEL CAUTION SECNO= 1.520 PROFILE= 3 - CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED CAUTION SECNO= 1.520 PROFILE= 3 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY CAUTION SECNO= 1,520 PROFILE= 3 - 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED-TO BALANCE WSEL CAUTION SECNO= .006 PROFILE; 1 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED - CAUTION SECNO= .006 PROFILE= 1 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY CAUTION SECNO= .006 PROFILE= 1 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED TO BALANCE WSEL CAUTION SECNO= - .006 PROFILE= 2 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED CAUTION SECNO= .006 PROFILE= 2 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY CAUTION SECNO= .006 PROFILE= 2 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED TO BALANCE WSEL CAUTION SECNO= .006 PROFILE= 3 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED 26 H , ELI 1• •. . :.. ICAUTION SECNO= . .006 PROFILE= 3 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY CAUTION SECNO= .006 PROFILE= 3 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED. TO BALANCE USEL II, ... 07:46:17 . HEC2 RELEASE DATED NOV 76 UPDATED MAY 1984 ERROR CORR - 01,O2,03,04,05,06'. MODIFICATION 50,51,52,53,54,55,56 . IBM-PC-XT VERSION AUGUST 1985 H I 1. ,. . .. . I a '1 :- . . •0 H . 27- -. 0 •00 . 0• APPENDIX 5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT (Brian F. Mooney Associates) i S 1....: 5•5•5 BIOLOGICAL SURVEY AND REPORT I FOR THE OLIVENHAIN ROAD WIDENING/REALIGNMENT AND FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT S.; 0 I . Prepared for: . City of Encinitas I Community Development Department 527 Encinitas Boulevard Encinitas, California 92024 1. Prepared by . 5 0 Brian F. Mooney Associates 9903-B Businesspark Avenue I .. San Diego, California 92131 5 0 I 1 ' S S S .5 5 0 June 1991 . I I TABLE: OF., CONTENTS Sectio'n'Page SUMMARY OF FINDINGS INTRODUCTION . 0 2 . METHODS . .. 4 . RESULTS 6 1 Botany. 6 Zoology . 10. Sensitive Species V . 10 Sensitive Habitats 19 Habitat Evaluation 19 Applicable Legislation . V 20 -. IMPACT ANALYSIS V V. . 22 Assumptions and Assessment Guidelines 22 Direct Impacts 23 Indirect Impacts V : V V 27 V V V V Off-site Impacts . :.. . 31 V V V V V VWITGATION 31 VVVV. 11 V REFERENCES V V 34. V ATTACHMENT 1 - Conceptual Revegetation Plan I I I V VV V: V VVV VVV V• V •V V VV • .1 F I I, LIST OF FIGURES ii Number Name I i 2 Regional Location Map Vicinity. Map 3 Biological Resources Map - Road Alignments 4 Biological Resources Map - Detention Basin I 5 Biological Resources Map for La Costa Avenue 6 Olivenhain Road Alignment Biologic4 Impacts Map 7, Detention Basin, Biological Impacts Map I 8 La Costa Avenue - Biological Impacts Map Alternative One 9 . La Costa Avenue - Biological Impacts Map Alternative Two LIST OF TABLES Number Name .Plant Species Observed on Olivenhain Road I 2 Bird Species Observed on Olivenhain Road 3 Impact Summary for Olivenhain Road and Flood Control Improvement Project I 4 La Costa Avenue Flood Control Project - Impact Summary I .1 I I Page 3 7 8 9 , 25 26 29 30 Page ii 15 24 28 I H 1 I: I SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Project Description and Location The project is located within the cities of Carlsbad and Encinitas, in northern San Diego County. The project consists of the widening and realignment of the Olivenhain Road, between Rancho Santa Fe Road and El Camino Real; a floodwater detention basin (Detention Basin D) south of Olivenhain Road, just west of Rancho Santa Fe Road, and a berm south of La Costa Avenue, west of El Camino Real. There are four alternative alignments for Olivenhain Road and two alternatives for the berm south of La Costa Avenue. The detention basin would be constructed in two phases. The first phase would be constructed at the same time as the road realignment. This part would consist of a dike at the western end of the property, near an equestrian facility. The other phase of the detention basin would be filling the northern and southern slopes of the current floodplain when development is proposed for this property. The detention basin might result in ponding east of Rancho Santa Fe Road. Existing Setting I Each project area (road, detention basin, berm) supports a complex wetland mosaic of coastal freshwater marsh, coastal salt marsh, southern willow scrub, wetland ecotone, and disturbed wetland scrub, as well as southern mixed chaparral, and disturbed upland. The site at La Costa Avenue also contains baccharis scrub. The disturbed uplands are of little wildlife value. The southern willow scrub has medium value south of Olivenhain Road and high value south of La Costa. The traffic noise does detract from the willows scrub's value. The wetland ecotone has value as edge habitat. The disturbed wetland scrub is of medium value but the baccharis scrub it of relatively high value. The salt marsh south of Olivenhain Road has limited value because it is so dried up but the salt marsh south of La Costa seems to be excellent habitat. The fresh water marsh at all sites has a high habitat value. The southern willow scrub, coastal freshwater and salt marsh, and the wetland ecotone are considered sensitive habitats. One sensitive plant species, southwestern spiny rush, was observed and identified on site, and another sensitive species was observed but its variety was not determined. Southwestern spiny rush was detected in the freshwater marsh, coastal salt marsh, and southern willow scrub. The survey also revealed a sand aster, in a ruderal area west of the tack shop, but it could have been Del Mar mesa sand aster, San Diego sand aster or the more common virgate cudweed aster. Common riparian and wetland fauna were observed on the sites with the exception of two sensitive birds, downy woodpecker and willow flycatcher. Yellow-breasted chat and yellow warbler might also occur in the southern willow scrub. Impacts The loss of southern willow scrub, freshwater marsh, and coastal salt marsh from the road widening, detention basin, and berm are considered significant cumulative impacts. The impact to the sensitive species of these habitats, southwestern spiny rush, downy woodpecker, and willow flycatcher are also regarded as cumulatively significant The willow flycatcher and U I I other songbirds will also be significantly impacted by construction noise. The dike and the construction easement could potentially impact Del Mar Mesa or San Diego sand aster if it I is determined to be present in a slimmer survey. There will be slight increases of oil and grease from the widening of the road which I would be considered a significant cumulative impact. Mitigation We recommend that Alignment 2 of Olivenhain Road and Alternate 1 of the La Costa berm be chosen as the preferred alternatives because they impact less wetland vegetation and animal species. This recommendation is based on the field surveys and habitat type and quantity being impacted by each alternative alignment. Significant impacts from the construction of Alignment 2, the Detention Basin and I .Alternate 1 berm can be mitigated by placing geotextile over vegetation in the construction easements and revegetating the habitat types that will be permanently impacted, southern willow scrub and coastal salt marsh. In order to avoid any water pollution impacts from oil I and gas washing off the road, an oil catchment basin should be constructed south of Olivenhain road. I .The construction period should be restricted to late July through October, to avoid impacts to sensitive nesting birds. There should be a summer survey for sand aster in the ruderal area to the west of the tack shop. I The construction activities should be monitored by a qualified biologist to prevent any unnecessary impacts to wetlands. The revegetation should also be monitored for five years I to evaluate its initial success and direct maintenance activities. The construction easements shall also be surveyed the spring after the construction take place to determine if the plant communities are regenerating on their own. INTRODUCTION 'Project Description The project is located within the cities of Carlsbad and Encinitas, in northern San Diego County (Figure 1). The project consists of the widening and realignment of the I Olivenhain Road, between Rancho Santa Fe Road and El Camino Real; a floodwater detention basin (Detention Basin D) south of Olivenhain Road, just west of Rancho Santa Fe Road; and a berm south of La Costa Avenue, west of El Camino Real. There are four alternative I alignments for Olivenhain Road and two alternatives for the berm south of La Costa Avenue. The detention basin would be constructed in two phases. The first phase would be constructed at the same time as the road realignment. This part would consist of a dike at the western end of the property, near an equestrian facility. The other phase of the detention basin would be filling the northern and southern slopes of the current floodplain when development is proposed for this property. The detention basin might result in ponding east of Rancho Santa I Fe Road. 1 2 I Hinton \, I%o on ç /RSa Mar anks - \ç J ,_) [r L'—/- . Pd ani iit .-.Y\ Stnp/ e \\.. :\-— Ar C yor)-41 " - Cøas j Ii I 0 Radio wallo Ohvenhain Road I PI ECL costs _ C ie Lucadi\ ZI Project Site '°—.- \W IX 4v YY Encinitas Blvd flLh11, ' Encinitas lilt I. 0* Whe VC Cardiff-by-the-Sea\ (Cartilhi) V I -'l,Aj fl PGI.I IY '' r S1\'I. ?.? Solana Beach \ ail.---i up N Olivenhain Road Alignment 2 3 Miles . Regional Location Map brian F mooncv ©llil planning, design I environmental studies Figure 1 SOURCE: U.-S.G.S. 30'x 60' Quad Map (Oceanside) Physiography I The topography of the property south of Olivenhain Road is relatively flat consisting of slopes of less than ten-percent, with a drainage along the southern boundary (Figure 2). The elevation ranges from 100 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) in the drainage, to 140 feet I AMSL in the more upland areas. The La Costa Avenue site is also flat except for the fill slopes of the road. The elevation ranges from zero to twenty feet AMSL at the berm site. I .The project site is underlain by Eocene Marine sediments (Rogers 1965). The soil at Olivenhain Road consists of mainly Salinas clay loam with patches of Corralitos loamy sand and Las Flores loamy fine sand (Bowman 1973). The soils south of La Costa Avenue include I Las Flores, loamy fine sand, Corralitos loamy sand, Placentia sandy loam and terrace escarpments. Land Use The land use in the vicinity of Olivenhain Road consists of OMWD Headquarters, undeveloped land, and single family dwellings to the north; Rancho Santa Fe Road to the east; El Camino Real to the west; and a tackle shop (H and H Tack and Feed), single family residential, and undeveloped land south of the road.. The proposed berm has La Costa Avenue to the north, El Camino Real to the east, and undeveloped land to the south and west. METHODS I The property was surveyed by W. Larry Sward and Anne Marie Tipton-Golly on February 13, 1991 between the hours of 0900 and 1100 and May 29 from 0820 to 1100. I The weather was warm (70-75°F) and sunny- in February and overcast in May. Claude Edwards did a focused survey for sensitive riparian birds June 4, from 1015 to 1245. The weather was .warm (70°F) and hazy. I The timing of the winter field survey corresponded with a period of relatively low biological activity. Most reptiles are inactive and many important local breeding bird species have migrated south for the winter. Many of the herbaceous plants were senescent and I therefore not identifiable at the time of this survey. The entire property was surveyed directly and with the aid of binoculars. Color aerial I photographs (dated 1990) were used as aids in mapping the vegetation. The scale of these photographs are approximately one inch equal to 400 feet . This report was prepared by A.M. - Tipton-Golly and edited by W.L. Sward. I 4 I I (&2 Proposed Detention Basin MIMI Potential 100 ear Flood ';i' :.J)J; • 1 Ponding Area '1 ('-m. ' -! K. -' IL 11 11 11 --,' .. IL '. : • ( •. ...' NN I ---.. -' 1' ell r p /IL4 \'\ '• ':J I i i . ':' ' \ -—''. ,, 2 1 CIty of Carlsbad S IN \ ( sd I CAR ;;\ ( '. , .• no fir ject I- iSite.'i, ! 1 N Olivenhain Road Alignment Vicinity Map 0 1000' 2000' brian F moonc ©ll1 pIanig. design & envonmentat studies Figure 2 SOURCE: U.S.G.S. 7.5' Quad Map (Encinitas & Ranôho Santa Fe) I I RESULTS I Botany Each project area (road, detention basin, berm) supports a complex wetland mosaic of coastal freshwater marsh, coastal salt marsh, southern willow scrub, wetland ecotone, disturbed I wetland scrub, as well as southern mixed chaparral and disturbed upland (Holland 1986)(Figures 3, 4, and 5). The site at La Costa Avenue also contains baccharis scrub. The existing vegetation patterns are probably the result of the natural hydrology, numerous I encroachments into the Encinitas creek and Green Valley floodplains, and urban runoff. The encroachments include fill for the tack shop, a subdivision west of the proposed dike, Rancho Santa Fe and Olivenhain Roads, La Costa Avenue, and El Camino Real. The most abundant I wetland habitat type is coastal fish water marsh which covers 6.49 acres of the site. This habitat type is located in the drainage south of Olivenhain road and south of the culvert at La Costa Avenue. Soft flag (Typha latifolia) is the dominant species in this habitat type at I Olivenhain Road, it covers 95% of this marsh. Other species in the freshwater marsh include salt marsh fleabane (Pluchea odorata var. odorata), great marsh evening primrose (Oenothera cl= ssp. hiriutissiina), and southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus var. sphaerocarpus). Tule I cat tail (Typha domingensis) is the dominant species at La Costa. Coastal salt marsh occurs in the area of the detention basin and berm and it I encompasses 4.64 acres. This habitat is dominated by woody glasswort (Salicomia virginica. At Olivenhain Road, many of the plants are dried up and there are a few dried salt beds scattered among the plants. Alkali-heath (Frankenia salina', and sweet fennel (Foeniculuru vulgare are the other species included in this habitat type. The La Costa site also supports salty susan (Jaumea carnosa) and a dense stand of southwestern spiny rush. I Southern willow scrub occurs in scattered locations south of both roads, constituting 2.43 total acres. There are not any mature trees in the eastern willow scrub near Rancho Santa Fe Road but the trees to the west and at La Costa are older and at least twice as tall (up to 6 and 10 meters). Arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) is the main arboreal element of the I willow scrub with shrubby arroyo willows, mule fat (Baccharis glutinosa), soft flag, and - southwestern spiny rush as understory components. The wetland ecotone exists south of Olivenhain Road as a coastal salt marsh/disturbed riparian scrub mixture. This habitat type covers 1.23 acres of the. site. The marsh species consist of woody glasswort, alkali-heath, and saltmarsh fleabane, while coastal goldenbush (Isocoma veneta) and Russian thistle (Salsola australis) constitute the disturbed scrub element. This ecotone is near the road in the eastern portion of the drainage and south of the road on the western end. The are two types of wetland scrub, disturbed wetland scrub and baccharis scrub. The species composition of disturbed wetland scrub varies along the southern part of the new Olivenhain Road alignments. On the eastern end of the site, near the proposed detention basin, it contains widely spaced coastal goldenbush and coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis ssp. consanguinea) with some non-native species such as castor-bean (Ricinus communis, cheeseweed (Malva parviflora, and Australian saltbush (Airiplex semibaccata). In the middle I 1.1 I I I I Pa sws wf I I i I I L S \•) Legend Dist Disturbed 1; ft C ' Th . DWS Disturbed Wetland Scrub Freshwater Marsh Rud - SWS Southern Willow Scrub SMC E Wetland Ecotone tooI y—.--- CSM Coastal Salt Marsh I 1.' SMC Southern Mixed Chaparral. . %Rud / Willow Flycatcher \\\ •• ® Downy Woodpecker Rud Sv Coastal Zone I \ % bo Planning Area (Eastern Bounda) - SWS SWS SWS \ Dist M DWS_ WS \ -- -- - - - - - 100-Year Floodplain . DWS S. • ' • Wt SWS with Detention Basins A.B.C) I I . - SWS Rud E - FWM Rud- N WSJ FWM iào 26o, S : CSM 011venhalfl Road Alignment Rud - SWS Biological Resources Map. brian • moónc loo-Year Detention Basins AB.C.D) S Figure 3 INO - — -- -- _. — .-. - — — — —M an : — ,Legend Southern Coastal CSIVI Salt Marsh Existing Dist Disturbed Disturbed Wetland Scrub OMWD FWM Freshwater Marsh Offices Rud Ruderal Olivenhain Road \ SWS Southern Willow Scrub \ Sand Aster 7IZJ Rud ®Spiny Rush, /7 Sa Dist .11182 % Floodway ompso / . lesidenc Rud E DWS .7 • Sr ... Dist FWM FWM D Sr E b • , - -••' - - - .• SW I • / Rud' WM - CSM .. N ' •. •..•• 6 Chang) ido' ( Rud Olivenhain Road Alignment brian F moonav ' Future Detention Basin V . Biological Resources Map' Figure 4 Southwestern. 1Spiny Rush Area Fresh Water DIST Batuquitos Lagoon Marsh DIST N \ La Costa Avenue ' \ DIST S DIST1 CSM'NN .--- SwS CSM BS ZP N N \2 -- SwS - 1 SWS DCSS SwS TN\\ N BS\ T -- - DlS1 \ N Olivenhain Road Alignment LEGEND . La Costa Avenue iso' 260 BS Baccharis Scrub . CSM Coastal Salt Marsh Biological Resources Map DCSS Disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub. brian F mooncç DIST Disturbed . .... K) 0 • EUC Eucalyptus Woodland . . ,.. planning. design & environmental studies SWS Southern Willow Scrub • S • Figrue 5 .5. - - . . • • • • . • oiJ - — — — — — — — — no — — — — — — — — I n Li I I of the site, the scrub is dominated by coastal goldenbush with bare ground and red brome between the shrubs. Farther to the west, the community is dominated by coyote bush with marsh elements such as great marsh evening primrose, woody glasswort, and salt marsh fleabane. The site contains 1.89 acres of this plant community. The baccharis scrub consists of a solid stand (0.06 acre) of coyote bush. I Southern mixed chaparral occurs north of Olivenhain Road and a ruderal area. The edge of this habitat type extends 0.54 acre into the project site. The vegetation is dense and one to two meters tall. Dominant species in this habitat type include chamise (Adenostoma I fasciculata), scrub oak (Quercus dumosa), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifoli), and mission manzanita (Xylococcus bicolor). The disturbed area consists of the tack and feed shop area, Eucalyptus woodlands, and areas of ruderal vegetation with non-native species such as Russian thistle, Australian saltbush, mustard (Brassica sp.), soft chess (Bromus mollis, and red brome (Bromus rubens). The fill slope south of La Costa and the disturbed area at the intersection of El Camino Real and La Costa also contain species such as Indian sweet clover (Meliotus indicus), white stem filaree (Erodiurn moschatum, and gazania (Gazania longiscapa). The tack shop and the intersection of La Costa and El Camino Real have stands of eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.) The area south of the proposed detention basin has been recently cultivated. This cultivation included some areas which previously supported coastal salt marsh. There are 6.3 acres of disturbed land and 7.75 acres of ruderal vegetation. Flora. There were 73 plant species observed on site, 34 (46 percent) of which are non-natives (Table 1). The high percentage of non-native species reflects the disturbed nature of most of the Olivenhain Road project area. Some of the slimmer herbaceous species would not be in evidence this time of year, therefore, this is not a complete list of species. I Zoology One reptile species, side-blotched lizard WA stansburiana), was observed in the ruderal area (Jennings 1983). An amphibian species, bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), was observed in a pond in the freshwater marsh. Thirty-five bird species were observed on site (Table 2). All. may breed on site except for the migrants, yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata) and white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), and red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), California towhee (Pipio crissalis), and great blue heron (Ardea berodius) whose nesting habitats are not on site. Evidence of five mammal species were observed in the ruderal or disturbed wetland scrub habitat, they include coyote (Canis latrans), rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.), woodrat (Neotoma sp.), skunk (Mephitis sp.), mule deer (Odocoileus bemionus), and California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyiXJones et al. 1982). Sensitive Species I Plant and animal species are considered sensitive if they have been listed as such by federal or state agencies, or one or more special interest groups. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) publishes a comprehensive list through the Natural Diversity Data I Base (NDDB 1990a and b). This list includes the following categories: California Listed Endangered and Threatened Species, Fully Protected Species, and Species of Special Concern. I' .10 I [1 I I I I 1 TABLE! PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED ON OLIVENHAIN ROAD I Species1 Habitat2 _ DICOTYLEDONEAE I . .. .. . ADoxAEAE .: Sambucus mexicana, desert elderberry W AJZOACEAE - Carpet-weed Family. . . *Carpribrotus edulis, Hottentot-fig , . C. I APIACEAE - Carrot Family . *Apium 'graveolens, common celery F I vulgare, sweet fennel .' D,S ASTERACEAE - Sunflower Family I Ambrosia psilostacbya var.califomica, western ragweed C,DU,W Ambrosia purnila.. San Diego ragweed CF Artemisia californica, California sagebrush C,DU Baccharis glutinosa. mule-fat, . . ,CW B,C,D,F 'pilularis Bacchäris ssp. consanguinea. coyotebush * , , C. *(flijp melitensis, tocalote . Corethrogyne filaginifolia. var.? , D.' *Cyiir cardunculus. artichoke C *Gafljp longiscapa, gazania DU Heterotheca grandiflora, telegraph weed . . . CPU,. Hemizoma fasciculata, tar*eed DU Isocoma veneta, goldenbush Jaumea carnosa. salty susan . •. ... . ... . S *pjjs èchioides, bristly ,ox-tongue . . . C Plucheaodoratavar: odorata,,saltmarsh fleabane , CAF *Senecio vulgans, common groundsel D *Spnchus asper. spiny-leaf sow-thistle . .. W Stephanomeriavirgatassp. virgata, virgata wreath-plant ., , . C *thjU strumarium var. canadense easter cocklebur ' P,w BRASSICACEAE - Mustard Family *Brassjcp sp., mustard . C,DIDU Lepidium lasiocarpum, peppergrass D *Lobularia maritina,. sweet alyssum . DUY CARYOPHYLLACEAE - Pink Family .. *5prgularip marina, saltmarsh sand-spurry S "a ,, I TABLE 1 (Continued) PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED ON OLIVENHAIN ROAD Species' HENOPODIAEAE - Goosefoot Family Atriplex lentiformes, saitbush *Atrjplex semibaccata, Australian saitbush Chenopodium sp. *Chenpp(yjium album, lamb's quarters *5jpp australis. Russian thistle Salicornia virginica, woody glasswort CUCURB1TACEAE - Gourd Family Cucurbita foetidissima, calabazilla CYPERACEAE - Sedge Family Cyprus niger var. capitatus, brown umbrella sedge Eleocharis sp., spike-sedge Scirpus americanus. Olney's bulrush Scirpus californica, California bulrush ERICACEAE - Heath Family Xylócoccus bicolor. mission manzanita EUPHORBIACEAE - Spurge Family communis. castor-bean Eremocarpus setigerus. doveweed FABACEAE - Pea Family Lotus scoparius. deerweed *Medicpgo polymorpha, bur-clover *Mefflptus indicus, Indian sweet clover FAGACEAE - Oak Family Quercus dumosa, scrub oak FRANKENIAEAE Frankenia sauna. alkali-heath GERANIACEAE -. Geranium Family *Ei.vJium sp., filaree. *Erodium botrys, long-beak filaree *ErDdiurn moschatum, white-stem filaree Habitat2 CD. C . F CIE,S 12 TABLE 1 (Continued) PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED ON OLIVENHAIN ROAD Species1 Habitat' LAMIAEAE - Mint Family *Maly a parviflora, cheesewàed LVACEAB Malacothamnus fasciculatus ssp. fasciculatus, mesa bushmallow . DU Maly-ella leprosa, alkali mallow F MYRTACEAE - Myrtle Family. *Eucalyptus sp., eucalyptus D,W ONAGRACEAE Evening Primrose Family. Oenothera elata ssp hirsutissima, great marsh evening primrose C,),F POLYGONACEAE Buckwheat Family Enogonum fasciculatum ssp fasciculatum, flat-top buckwheat CD *Rumex cripus cocklebur S • P,W ROSACEAE - Rose Family •. . Adenostoma fasciculaturn, chamise S M Heteromeles arbutifolia, toyon • M SALICACEAE - Willow Family S S Salix lasiolepi arroyo willow S F,W SAURURAEAE . - Anernopsis cahformca, yerba mansa F SOLANACEAE *Nicotialrn glaupa. tree tobacco S • w MONOCOTYLEDONEAE JUNCACEAE - Rush Family • S . Juncus acutus var. sphaerocarpus, southwestern spiny rush F,W Juncus rnexicanus, Mexican rush W S .13 - -, I TABLE 1 (Continued) PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED ON OL1VENHAIN ROAD I : - Species1 Habitat2 IL • POACEAE - Grass Family *Bm-mak moths soft chess - lie C,D,DU *Bmmus rubens red brome C,D,DU *Cortderip jubata, pampas-grass , CF *Cynodpn.dactylpn, common buEmudagrass, • Distihlisspicata ssp. spiata, coastal salt-grass C,F,P Elynus óondensatus, giant wild rye - -. *Hgmdum.vulgare. cultivated barley DU *Lolium.sp., ryegrass DU I, *Penhisetum setaceuin, African fountain grass DU, Phragmites australis. common red W monspehensis rabbitfoot beardgiiss I *Pplypogon TYPHACEAE- Cat-tail Family Typha doEiningensis, Tale cat-tail I F I Typha latifolia, soft -flag P,W I 1 Nomenclature from Munz (1974) and Beauchamp (1986) -- • 2 Habitat: -- B = Baccharis Scrub I D C = Disturbed Wetland Scrub. = Disturbed • - - DU = Disturbed Upland E = Wetland Ecotone F = Coa'stal Fresh Water Marsh '. I' M = Southern Mixed Chaparral P. = Salt-grass Pasture 5 5 I S Coastal Salt Marsh W -= Southern Willow Scrub • - -1- ' 4 -•- -- i. a-- S • -. • •• • _•*S_ -S j . I , - • * _ -• 1 14 I TABLE BIRD SPECIES OBSERVED ON OLIV NHA]N ROAD Species, turkey: vulture, (Cathartes aura) redshouldered hawk, (Bufeo lineatüs) red-tailed hawk, (Buteo jmaicenSis) great blue heron, (Ardea herodias) killdeer, (Charadriusvociferus) mourning dove, (Zenàida macroura) Anna's hummingbird, (Calypte anna) Nüttall's woodpecker, (Picoides nuttallil) downy woodpecker, (Picoides pubesceni) willow flycatcher, (Empidonax trailili) Pacific-slope flycatcher, (Empidonax occidentalis) black phoebe, (Sayornis nigricans)' ash-throäted flycatcher, (Myiarchus cinerascens) Cassin's kingbird, (Tyrannus vociferans) Northern rough-winged swallow, (Steldigopteiyx ruficollis), cliff swallow, (Hiruiido prrrhonota) scrub jay, (Aphelocoma coerulescens) common raven, (Corvus corax) bushtit, (Psaltriparus miñimus) Bewick's wren (Thryómanes bewickii) house wren, (Troglodytes aedon) Swainson's thrush, (Catharus ustulatus) wrentit, (Chamaea fasciata) California thrasher, (Toxostorna redivivum) European starling, (Sturnus vulgaris) yellow-rumped warbler, (Dendroica cororata) common yellowthroat, (Geothlypis trichas) black-headed grosbeak, (Pheucticus melanocephalus) rufous-sided towhee, (Pipio erthiophthalmus) California towhee, (Pipio crissalis). song sparrow, (Melospiza melodia) white-crowned sparrow, (Zonotrichia leucophrys) red-winged blackbird, (Agelaius phoeniceus) Brewer's blackbird, (Euphagus cyonocephalns) brown-headed cowbird, (Molothrus r) northern oriole, (Icterus galbula) house finch, (Carpodacus mexicanus) 15 Habitat' D,W W W'. W F W. W, 0 W W w W W W F R,W W, W -. F W W W D,W • 1 I I H I: This list also includes Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species, species proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened and Candidate Species. Candidate Species are considered either Category 1 or 2. Category 1 species are those taxa for which the United States Fish and Wildlife Service has sufficient biological information to support a proposal to list as Endangered or Threatened. Category 2 species are those taxa for which existing information may warrant listing, but substantial biological information to support a proposed rule is lacking. These categories can be applied io both plants and animals. I The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) also provides a comprehensive listing of plant species Their sensitivity evaluation of a species is based on its rarity, endangerment, and distribution (Smith and Berg 1988). Number values are assigned to these categories which, when considered together, are the basis for placement on one of four lists: List 1B: "Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere;" List 2: "Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere;" z.List 3: "Plants About Which We Need More Information--A Review List;" and List 4: "Plants of Limited Distribution--A Watch List." For the purposes of this report, species on state or federal lists or CNPS Lists lB and 2 have been of prime consideration. The Audubon Society has provided sensitive bird listings on the national and local level. The Blue List (Tate 1986) is a national listing of sensitive birds which is an "early warning system for sensitive birds." In addition lo reporting on Federal action for the listed species, the list separates the species into those of national concern (The Blue List) and those of local concern. I The local Audubon Society published a list of sensitive bird species for San Diego County (Everett 1979). This listing categorizes species as Threatened, Declining, or Sensitive. Threatened "status is accorded to those species or subspecies which have undergone dramatic, non-cyclical, long-term population declines, to the point where the situation has reached the critical level throughout their range." Declining "status is given to species whose local breeding populations have been steadily reduced, or in some cases extirpated." Sensitive species "are those for which declines have not been documented, but are regarded as such because of: (a) extremely localized or limited distribution, (b) sensitivity to disturbance, (c) actual or impending destruction of essential habitat, or (d) lack of sufficient data on current or past status which significantly increased the potential for serious reduction of a lOcal population. I Analysis of sensitive reptiles, beyond the state and federal lists, is provided by the San Diego Herpetological Society (SDHS). This, group has published a listing of endangered and threatened species of San Diego County (1980). In this listing, "an endangered species is defined to be one whose population and habitat distribution have been reduced to such a widespread extent that the species is unable to reproduce at a normal rate and'is imminently near extinction throughout the majority of its remaining distribution. A threatened species is defined to be one which has had significant population depletion and/or habitat destruction and is potentially endangered but (is) presently reproducing at or near normal where it still occurs." I I I Plants. One sensitive plant species was observed and identified on site, and another sensitive species was observed but its variety was not determined. Southwestern spiny rush I was detected in the freshwater marsh, coastal salt marsh, and southern willow scrub. It is on CNPS List 4. The survey also revealed a sand aster, in a ruderal area west of the tack shop, but it could have been Del Mar mesa sand aster (Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. I linifolia), San Diego sand aster (Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. incana), or the common virgate- cudweed aster (CorethroMe fliaginifolia var. virgata), because it is difficult to identify them until they flower during the slimmer (June to September). Del Mar Mesa sand aster is on CNPS List lB and it is a Candidate for federal listing and San Diego sand aster is on CNPS List 4 (some local botanists think it is more sensitive than its listing suggests). Animals. Two sensitive bird species were observed on site and three sensitive, bird species may also occur. The two birds species observed are downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) and willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii). A variety of migratory riparian songbirds may forage in the southern willow scrub but there probably is not enough space for I nesting territories. These birds include least Bell's vireo (Vireo beffli pusillus), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), and yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens). I A pair of downy woodpeckers and two fledglings were observed west of El Camino Real at the intersection with Olivenhain Road. It is typically found in this type of extensive mature riparian habitat. This species is considered as declining by Everett (1979). Willow flycatchers nest in willow thickets. This species was seen in the southern willow 'scrub but no breeding activity was observed. They were observed south of Olivenhain Road by the intersection, and west of El Camino Real. It is a state candidate for listing as Endangered, a Federal sensitive species, a Blue List species, and Everett determined it to be Declining. The least Bell's vireo is a state and federally listed endangered species. This vireo species was last seen, in the project vicinity, at the Green Valley riparian corridor in 1982 (across El Camino Real). It has not been sighted since then, despite numerous directed surveys. It is an obligate riparian habitat, migratory songbird. This means that it requires woodland vegetation in which to carry out its life cycle. Vireos arrive in San Diego County in late March to early April and leave for their Mexican wintering grounds in September. All reproductive activities, from pair formation to fledgling of young, occur in well-defined territories; usually willow-dominated riparian vegetation with a dense understory. The species appears to be highly site tenacious with males often returning to the same general area used the previous year (Salata 1983). Since the average vireo nest is constructed three to four feet above the ground, young successional riparian habitat, or older habitat with a dense understory component, is required as nesting habitat. Riparian plant succession is an important element in maintaining vireo habitat. Nests are also often placed along internal or external edges of riparian thickets (USFWS 1986). This vireo sub-species is considered to be a generalist with respect to the specific vegetation it selects to nest in, because it chooses a variety of plant species to nest in, including forbs, shrubs, and trees (Gray and Greaves 1981). I I 18 Fi r] I I I I I I [1 I Yellow warbler is a Species of Special Concern (NDDB 1990a), is on the Audubon Society's Blue List (Tate 1986), and is also considered a Declining species (Everett 1979). It is a fairly common spring migrant, uncommon and localized summer resident, fairly common to common fall migrant and rare winter visitor. Migrants disperse throughout the County, but are not numerous in the mountain zone. This species breeds exclusively in riparian woodlands and suffers from brown-headed cowbird parasitism. It may forage within southern willow scrub or in the disturbed wetland scrub. I Yellow-breasted chat is a Species of Special Concern (CDFG 1990), is considered Declining (Everett 1979), and is rarely seen as a migrant in either spring or fall. This migratory species breeds uncommonly in San Diego County, primarily in riparian forest in the coastal lowland of the County. The same is true for this species as for the yellow warbler; both may forage in the project area. Sensitive Habitats Sensitive habitats are those which are considered rare within the region, are declining, or support sensitive plants or animals. The southern willow scrub, freshwater and salt marsh, and the wetland ecotone are considered sensitive habitats. rapidly I coastal The willow scrub and other wetlands are regarded as sensitive and valuable resources due to their ability to support a diversity of wildlife species. Proximity to water, interface between a variety of habitat types, and vertical stratification of foliage are factors which contribute to the richness and productivity of wetlands. While a few wildlife species are restricted entirely to wetlands for all their life requirements, many more are dependent on these habitats for necessities such as food, cover or breeding. Numerous other species also make extensive use of these habitats even though they are not dependent. upon them. In southern California riparian areas by their nature are limited. In San Diego County they are extremely limited; somewhere between 0.2% (5,000 acres) or 0.5% (13,000 acres) of the county's total land area of 23 million acres contains riparian habitat (Wheeler and Fancher 1984). They are also one of the fastest disappearing habitats in the county. Each of the remaining wetland areas (freshwater marsh, coastal salt marsh, and wetland ecotone) are considered sensitive habitats in San Diego County. This is due to their limited area, diminishing acreages, and the sensitive flora and fauna that depend on these habitats. Coastal freshwater marsh and coastal salt marsh are also sensitive because they support a sensitive species, southwestern spiny rush. Habitat Evaluation The habitat values present on the property vary due to the levels of disturbance. Urbanization and disturbances from grading reduced on site habitat values. Often, however, disturbed areas are of significant value to certain animal species such as large mammals and birds of prey, because they provide foraging opportunities. In this case, however, the lack of evidence of significant small mammal and reptile populations observed during the survey indicates a probable low habitat value for the disturbed uplands in the study area. Because 19 Li I I I I ri Li I I I I there is very little cover, the disturbed uplands are of little wildlife value, including forage habitat for birds of prey. I As implied by its name, disturbed wetland scrub .is relatively sparse and it contains non-native species. These are characteristics which attract fewer native animals. In contrast to the previously mentioned disturbances, the- natural resilience of riparian systems positively I affects the habitat value of the disturbed wetland scrub. The wetland ecotone has value as edge habitat. - .I The southern willow scrub south of Olivenhain Road is of medium value and importance to wildlife because it is sparse and relatively small. It is used as foraging habitat by various birds and animals but it probably is not suitable for nesting habitat for sensitive I migratory songbirds. The southern willow scrub at La Costa, however, is dense and mature and it is of relatively high value to wildlife (except for the small stand adjacent to the road). The only problem with the woodland is that it is effected by noise from La Costa Avenue, I .which lowers its value. It may also be too mature to support nesting least Bell's vireo. The habitat value of the southern mixed chaparral is limited because it is. on the edge I next to a disturbed area, and much of the surrounding area will be impacted by the Arroyo La Costa development. On the other hand, the habitat is dense and relatively undisturbed which increases its value. 1 The coastal salt and freshwater marsh habitats are of relatively high value'. In February, the coastal salt marsh plants were drying out, at Olivenhain Road, due to the I drought conditions, but they may have recovered from the March rains. The coastal salt marsh at La Costa seems to be more healthy, possibly due to some degree of tidal flushing from Batiquitos Lagoon. I •. Applicable Legislation . Construction in wetlands or other sensitive habitats may require state or federal permits or approvals in addition to those required by local jurisdictions. This additional regulatory framework consists mainly of: . I . Section 404 of the Clean Water Act The Federal Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act I . • Sections 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code Native Plant Protection Act I .. Issues pertinent to one or more of the approvals required under these regulations are often . addressed as part of the environmental review process. If agency coordination is initiated early in the planning process, the project conditions or mitigation measures required I by a state or federal agency as a condition of their approval can be integrated into the mitigation measures outlined in the environmental document. In such instances the time delays associated with agency review and re-evaluation of existing studies can be avoided. A brief I summary of each of the environmental regulations listed above is provided below: 20 H I Clean Water Act. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act empowers the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to regulate the placement of fill in -"territorial waters of the United States", a definition that includes virtually all wetland areas. Fill or effects of fill impacting one acre or less can be allowed, after a pre-discharge notification in instances when a Federal Endangered Species could not be impacted. At the discretion of the COE and the Environmental Protection Agency, fill of between one and ten acres may be allowed under a Nationwide Permit. Aggregate impacts exceeding ten acres automatically subject to an individual Section 404 permit The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as well as the State wildlife conservation agency are offered thç opportunity to comment on the action. The Federal noticing process is followed. Federal Endangered Species Act. Section 9 of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits the "take" of an endangered species. "Take" refers to any action that would harm, harass or kill the species. There are exceptions to the prohibition against take. These are allowed by Sections 7 and 10 of the ESA. For public or private projects. that require some level of approval by a federal agency, such as a 404 permit, take of an endangered species can be allowed if it can be shown that the take involved will not jeopardize the survival of the species. Take is also allowed under Section 10(a) of the ESA if it occurs in association with an otherwise lawful act and an FWS-approved Habitat Conservation Plan is in place. California Endangered Species Act. The California Endangered Species Act contains the same universal prohibition against take contained in the Federal Act, but does not have the associated criminal penalties. In practice, it applies mainly to State projects. It establishes a mechanism for project review and alternatives analysis. California Fish and Game Code Streamcourse Alteration Agreement Under Section 1600 of the State Fish and Game Code, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has authority to reach an agreement with the project advocate, proposing to affect intermittent or permanent streams and other wetlands. If contracted early enough, the Department generally evaluates the information gathered during preparation of the EIR/EIS and attempts to satisfy its permit concerns via mitigation measures in the environmental document. The CDFG often accepts mitigation for streamcourse impacts as a product of the Agreement. Regardless of whether federal action is involved at any one of the stream crossings, the City must apply directly to the CDFG for a 1601 Sireambed Alteration Agreement for any proposed wetlands impacts despite the acreage amount affected. The CDFG requires no net loss of wetland habitat and typically sets forth construction restrictions and mitigation conditions for the granting of the Agreement. Native Plant Protection Act. The California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) gives the Fish and Game Commission the power to designate native plants as endangered or rare, and to require permits for collecting, transporting, or selling such plants. The legal protection afforded listed plants involves conditions that prohibit the taking of plants from the wild and a salvage requirement for land owners. Under this Act, a landowner notified of the presence of listed species on his property must inform the CDFG at least ten days prior to any proposed land change that would effect the sensitive species. 21 IMPACT ANALYSIS Assessment and Assumption Guidelines Impacts to the flora and fauna observed or expected at the site were determined to be significant or insignificant based upon sensitivity of the resource and the extent of the impact Resources are generally considered significant if they are limited in distribution and their ecological role is critical within a regional and local context. Habitats supporting species listed as rare, endangered, or threatened by the agencies that enforce the California or Federal Endangered Species Act are also regarded as significant resources. In addition, habitats meeting the following criteria were also determined to be significant: Natural areas, communities, and habitats of plant and animal species that are restricted in distribution. Habitat that is critical to species or a group of species for feeding, breeding, resting, and migrating. Biological resources that are of scientific or educational interest because they exhibit unusual physiological, social, or ecological characteristics. Buffer zones to protect significant resources. Corridors or areas that link significant wildlife habitats. A significant impact to a sensitive resource may be direct, indirect, or cumulative. An impact is regarded as direct when the primary effects of the project result in loss of habitat that would cause a reduction in the density or diversity of biological resources within the region. The magnitude of an indirect impact is the same as a direct impact, however, the impact occurs from a secondary effect of the project. An impact is regarded as cumulative when the project impact is not significant but the combined incremental impact of it and other projects in the region is significant The extent of the impact to the sensitive resource must also be considered in determining the significance of an impact For certain highly sensitive resources (e.g. an endangered species) any impact would be perceived as significant. Conversely, other resources which have a low sensitivity (e.g. species with a large, locally stable population but may be declining elsewhere) could sustain a relatively large area of impact or population loss and not result in a significant impact. Biological impacts are considered insignificant if the resource in question does not meet the above criteria for sensitivity or the extent of impact is not considered significant. I Biological impacts from this project may occur from the road., detention basin, a berm, or future traffic generated noise. These impacts are discussed below as either direct, for the construction impacts, or indirect, for the noise impacts. 22 I L i I LI I I 1 [1 I F, I I I Li I I I Direct Impacts Olivenhain Road Expansion. The proponent's preferred alignment, out of four possible alternatives, is Alignment 2. The road would impact 0.04 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.33 acre of southern mixed chaparral, 4.7 acres of ruderal vegetation, and 0.40 acre of disturbed land (Table 3)(Figure 6). The impact to the southern willow scrub is considered cumulatively significant due to this habitat's limited range. Each alignment is anticipated to have a fifty- foot construction easement along the southern edge of the road. Alignment 1 has two of such easements, to the north and south. Alignments 2, 3, and 4 have 15 feet construction easements along the northern edges of the cuts. The construction easement for Alignment 2 would temporarily impact an additional 0.21 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.14 acre of coastal freshwater marsh, 0.04 acre of disturbed wetland scrub, 0.21 acre of mixed chaparral, 0.69 acre of ruderal vegetation, and 0.16 acre of disturbed land. The impacts to southern willow scrub and freshwater marsh are considered significant cumulative impacts. The impact to disturbed wetland scrub is not significant The significance of the impact to the disturbed wetland scrub is due to its low wildlife value from the high percentage of non-native species. Alignment 1 road would impact approximately 1.38 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.26 acre of coastal freshwater marsh, 0.27 acre of disturbed wetland scrub, 1.46 acres of ruderal vegetation and 1.0 acre of disturbed area. The impacts to the southern willow scrub and coastal freshwater marsh are considered significant cumulative impacts. The impact to the disturbed wetland scrub is not significant for the above mentioned reasons. The construction easement would result in temporary impacts to 0.82 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.28 acre of coastal freshwater marsh, 0.41 acre of disturbed wetland scrub, 1.28 acre of ruderal vegetation, and 0.08 acre of disturbed land. The impacts from the construction easement to southern willow scrub and freshwater marsh are cumulatively significant. I The construction of Alignment 3 road would impact approximately 0.25 acre of southern willow scrub, 4.41 acres of ruderal land, and 0.29 acre of disturbed land. The impact to southern willow scrub is regarded as cumulatively significant. Approximately 0.35 acre of willow scrub, 0.08 acre of coastal freshwater marsh. 0.19 acre of disturbed wetland scrub, 0.75 of ruderal vegetation, and 0.04 acre of mixed chaparral would be impacted by the construction easement. The temporary impacts to willow scrub and freshwater marsh are considered cumulatively significant. The impacts to disturbed wetland scrub and chaparral are not significant. I The last alignment, Alignment 4 road, would impact approximately 0.35 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.04 acre of disturbed wetland scrub, 0.11 acre of mixed chaparral, 3.8 acres of ruderal vegetation, and 0.81 acre of disturbed land. The impact to southern willow scrub is considered significant. The impact to disturbed wetland scrub is not significant. The construction easement would impact 0.35 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.19 acre of freshwater marsh, 0.30 acre of disturbed wetland scrub, 1 acre of ruderal vegetation, and 0.04 acre of mixed chaparral. The impact to willow scrub and the loss of freshwater marsh would be regarded as cumulatively significant. Detention Basin. The dike would impact approximately 0.16 acre of freshwater marsh, 0.19 acre of disturbed wetland scrub, and 0.89 acres of ruderal vegetation ("Fable 3)(Figure 7). The impacts to freshwater marsh would be regarded as a significant cumulative impact. The loss of disturbed wetland scrub would not be considered significant due to its disturbed 23 1 F L • - - - - - --- - '_I - .- - p - TABLE 3 -- IMPACT SUMMARY FOR OLIVENHAIN ROAD AND FLOOD' CONTROL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Alignment #1 Alignment #2 Alignment #3 Alignment #4 Iiitzon Basm - Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Road Easement Road Easement Road Easement - Road Easement 'Dike- Easement Habitat Type - Southern willow scrub 1.38 0.82 - O.04 0.21 0.25 035 0.35 0.35 - - Coastal salt marsh' ' - --- - - - -- - - Coastal freshwater marsh 0.26 0.28 --- 0.14 - 0.08 --- -0.19 0.16 Southern mixed chaparral - -- 033 0.21 -- 004 011 004 --- - Disturbed wetlandscrub' 0.27 0.41 0.04 ---- 0.19 ' .0.04 0.30 - 0:19 0.17 Wetland ecotone . --- --- --- ..-..-.. Ruderal 1.46 1.28 4.7 0.69 4.41 0.75 3.8 1 . 0.89 2.14 Disturbed 1.0 0.08, 0.40 0.16. 0.29-. ---- ---' ---- - Subtotal 437 2.87 547 145 495 141 43 1.89 1.24 231 Total 7.24 ' 6.92 ' 6.36 6.18 3.55 -, 24 .-. - Legend Dist . Disturbed 3 DW$ Disturbed Wetland Scrub FWM Freshwater Marsh Rud Ruderal SWS Southern Willow Scrub E Wetland Ecotone CSM Coastal Salt Marsh Roadway Cut SMC Southern Mixed Slopes Chaparral / Willow Flycatcher Downy Woodpecker Construction Easement Dist Rud S s Existing Alignmen I Ill II ' / • I V I • SMC SVVS I : '..'. •• Coastal Zone Planning Area (Eastern Boundary)1 E 100-Year Floodplain (with Detention Basins A.B.C) p01 cc (lIE) 6 ióo' 260 Rud Wrican 1, g mooi-v 100—Year Floodplain BCD ) 41-1911a studIes (with Detention Basins A. CSM \ Olivenhain Road Alignment - • —.. . • Biological Impacts Map Figure 6 SWS>' ;WM . ---• —. .--- - .— -- ------_ — _•: — — — —. - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Legend - CSM Southern Coastal Salt Marsh Dist Disturbed 7 DWS Disturbed Wetland Scrub E Ecotone FWM Freshwater Marsh \ Rud Ruderal \ SWS Southern Willow Scrub \ €) Sand Aster Spiny Rush 10 0 0 1001 200' Sr Olivenhain Road Rud Ol!venhiln Road Alignment Proposed Detention Basin 'D' Dike Biological Impacts Map Figure 7 ituss nature. The impact to the ruderal vegetation may include losses of the sensitive sand aster. The 50 to 60 foot wide construction easement would result in an additional impact of 0.17 acre of disturbed wetland scrub and. 2.14 acre of ruderal vegetation. The impact to disturbed wetland scrub is not significant but the impact to ruderal vegetation can not be ascertained until the variety of sand aster on site is determined. La Costa Avenue Flood Control Improvements. The impacts from either of the two alternatives designs for the berm south of La Costa Avenue would result from the actual berm and the fifteen foot construction easement surrounding the berm (Table 4). The berm for alternative 1 would impact 0.08 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.04 acre of coastal salt marsh, and 0.31 acre of ruderal vegetation (Figure 8). The impacts to willow scrub and coastal salt marsh are considered significant cumulative impacts. The construction easement would impact 008 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.04 acre of coastal salt marsh, 0.03 acre of baccharis scrub, 0.03 acre of eucalyptus woodland, and 0.20 acre of ruderal vegetation. The impacts to willow scrub and salt marsh from the construction easement are regarded as significant cumulative impacts. The second alternative is more impactive (Figure 9). The berm for this alternative would displace 0.19 acre of southern willow scrub, 1.19 acre of coastal salt marsh, 0.01 acre of eucalyptus woodland, and 0.59 acre of ruderal vegetation. The impacts to southern willow scrub is cumulatively significant and the impact to coastal. salt marsh is significant. The construction easement would impact 0.09 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.33 acre of coastal salt marsh, 0.03 acre of eucalyptus woodland, and 0.26 acre of ruderal vegetation. The impacts to both wetland habitats, willow scrub and salt marsh, are considered significant. Sensitive Plants. The dike and the construction easement could potentially impact Del Mar sand aster if it is determined to be present in a summer survey. San Diego marsh elder may be present in the freshwater marsh. Many southwestern spiny rushes (1.19 acres of its habitat) would be impacted for the Alternative 2 berm for La Costa Avenue. This would be considered a significant impact. . Sensitive Animals. The loss of southern willow scrub, which is habitat for both the willow flycatcher and the downy woodpecker, is regarded as a significant cumulative impact. This significance is due the precipitous decline of this habitat type in thó region. Indirect Impacts The project design includes a silt fence along the southern side of the road and a siltation basin 'at the northern side of the road near existing culverts to prevent any sedimentation. The upstream detention. basins (A and B) would detain most of the sediment that would have flowed into Detention Basin D (Nolte 1991). The berm at La Costa Avenue and the fill slopes at the Detention Basin may erode into the adjacent wetlands. This impact would be considered insignificant. There will also be slight increases of oil and grease from the widening of the road which would be considered a significant cumulative impact. The widening of Olivenhain road will also slightly increase the runoff due to an additional eight.. acres of impermeable surface area, which would result in an increase of the 100 year peak discharge from 361 cfs (cubic feet per second) to 368 cfs (Nolte 1991). This increase in runoff would not be regarded as significant. 27 I I I I I 1] 1 I Li I I I I I I I I I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TABLE 4 LA COSTA AVENUE FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Habitat Type Berm Construction Easement Berm Construction Easement Southern willow scrub 0.08 0.08 0.19 0.09 Coastal salt marsh 0.04 0.04 1.19 0.33 Baccharis scrub 0.03 Eucalyptus woodland 0.03 0.01 0.03 Ruderal • 0.59 • TotaL 0.43 0.35 1.98 0.71 Southwestern N. Spiny Ru8h Area Fresh Water \ DIST Batlquitos Lagoon Marsh L1hI \ ..------ ' \ 'N- \\\\\ La Costa Avenue DIST . . •. l N.. DIST oe.-- \ \2•' N.• SWS BS Sw - . \ .\. SwS DIST SWS DCSS B SWS '¼, \.• (zS N N.. \DIST\ N' LEGEND Olivenhain Road Alignment 85 Baccharis Scrub ' £ Avenue 0 100' 2' CS Coastal Salt Marsh ' La Costa venue DCSS Disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub S DIST Disturbed ' Biological impacts Map for brian F moonav EUC Eucalyptus Woodland Alternative 1 Flood Control Berm SWS Southern Willow Scrub ' Plansiilg. design & environmental studies " J Alternative #1 Berm Design Construction Easement Figure 8 D1# - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ['1111110, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — \ Fresh Water Spiny Rush Area DIST \ \ DIST A Batiqultos Lagoon Marsh La Costa Avenue_.. . .,. ;..-. .• •—'"\ \ •3 \_______ %'\•-___ - Zl12ZzzZj 1è2 DIST '-vs \\ BS \SWXr}\ \ IN, N • N - N N N• ..• N vvo ..-•- \ .... '- - N I N -N • \ . - - o -\ " "• \\ - DIST 4 BS,, A." SWS I)CSS SWS N. Z DIST\ N LEGEND . - Olivenhain Road Alignment : 88 Baccharis Scrub . La Cästa Avenue I - CSM Coastal Salt Marsh - 0 100' 200 DCSS Disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub :Blôloglcal Impacts Map for Alternative 2 DIST Disturbed - Flood Control Berm b - EUC Eucalyptus Woodland nClfl!FflOOflav . SWS Southern Willow Scrub . plannmg. design & environmental studies VII/Illhll Construction Easement're 9 tt.l Alternative #2 Berm Design ri9U Blo I.. 1 Noise generated by traffic along the improved Olivenhain Road may disrupt foraging and mating activities of sensitive song birds within the southern willow scrub, if they are present. The current 61 dB(A) noise contour already covers most of the riparian area. The project would result in moving the 61 CNEL noise contour 110-120 feet to the south. Most of the noise increase comes from increased traffic along El Camino Real which shifts the contour 90 feet to the east. That means 1.64 more acres of southern willow scrub would be impacted by traffic noise. From existing information on the sensitivity of these species to traffic noise (i.e. the proximity of territories to major roads or highways), acceptable noise disturbance levels have been found to be within the 50-60 decibel (dB(A)) range (SANDAG, 1988; Mock, 1989). [The USFWS uses 61 dB(A) LM as its standard noise threshold for least Bell's vireo]. Any impact to sensitive songbirds from noise is not regarded as significant because the anticipated increase in noise impacts are small compared to the amount of habitat currently affected by traffic. There will be, however, noise impacts from the construction of Olivenhain Road and La Costa Avenue berm. The average decibels generated by construction are over 75 dB(A), as far as 200 feet from a point source. This would be considered a significant impact to the sensitive songbird, willow flycatcher. Off-Site Impacts I Olivenhain Road may be connected to Leucadia Boulevard in the future. If that takes place, southern willow scrub and freshwater marsh from the Green Valley riparian area, west of El Camino Real, would be impacted. The preliminary design of the road indicates that 0.05 acre of freshwater marsh would be impacted by the road and the construction easement would impact 0.12 acre of freshwater marsh and 0.05 acre of southern willow scrub. As a result of the detention basin, during a 100-year flood, the salt-grass pasture, east of Rancho Santa Fe, would be inundated with water. The water would flood approximately 4 acres. This would not be considered a significant impact because the habitat is already a disturbed wetland. The location of staging areas for the construction of the road and detention basin are not known at this time, therefore the impacts can not be assessed. There will not be any impacts to vegetation, from detour roads for this project because the existing road and the proposed road will be used for traffic circulation during project construction. MITIGATION We recommend that Alignment 2 of Olivenhain Road and Alternate 1 of the La Costa I berm be chosen as the preferred alternatives because they impact less wetland vegetation and animal species. This recommendation is based on the field surveys, habitat type and quantity I being impacted by each alternative alignment. Significant impacts from the construction of Alignment 2, the Detention Basin and Alternate 1 berm can be mitigated by incorporating the following measures into the project. These recommendations are grouped according to habitats and/or species which may be affected. I 31 1 I I I Wetlands A Section 404 Permit or a 1600 Streaincourse Alteration Agreement would probably I be necessary before any construction takes place. Included in the permit or agreement would be the revegetation of the sensitive wetlands. I The mitigation of wetlands depends upon the nature of the impact. If the impact is permanent then mitigation will be in the form of revegetation (see below). If the impact is temporary, as it is for the construction easement, then the following must take place as a I mitigation measure. The marshes in all construction easements shall be protected by laying geotextile and adding a layer of soil over the cloth. The soil should come from the adjacent areas to be disturbed. The willow scrub in the construction easement shall be cut down to I just above soil height. The cut materials shall be mulched placed according to the revegetation plan. Geotextile shall then be placed over the wetland. Prior to construction and placement of geotextile, the outer limits of the construction easement shall be flagged with I fluorescent tape to avoid additional wetland impacts. Care must be taken to keep the soil within the construction easement to avoid sedimentation. Soil samples shall be taken prior to and after construction to determine if compaction has occurred. If soil is impacted, then I it should be uncompacted. The permanently impacted areas should be replaced as per the revegetation plan (see I Attachment) and shall include the following ratios: The southern willow scrub would have to be replaced at a 3:1 ratio and the marshes at a 1:1 ratio. That translates to 0.36 acres of southern willow scrub and 0.04 acre of coastal salt marsh to be revegetated. Given the I complex hydrology and salinity which resulted in the mosaic of wetland types, creation of these various habitat types may be difficult. Prior to construction of the berm, the costal salt marsh and soil shall be salvaged according to the revegetation plan specifications. The revegetation should also be monitored for five years to evaluate its initial success and direct maintenance activities. The construction easements shall also be surveyed the spring after the construction take place to determine if the plant communities are regenerating on their own. In order to avoid any water pollution impacts from oil and gas washing off the road, an oil catchment basin should be constructed south of Olivenhain road. I Even though the extra erosion from the berm and detention basin fill slopes are not considered significant impacts, the slopes should be seeded with a native hydroseeded mix. The species included in the mix are coastal sage species. The hydroseed mix is as follows: I Coastal Sage Scrub/Riparian Scrub Species Minimum % I Pur Germ LBS/Acre Species 5 20 1 Ambrosia psilostachya (western ragweed) I 15 60 2 Artemisia californica (California sagebrush) 20 50 1 Artemisia palmri (San Diego sagewort) .2 50 1 Baccharis glutinosa (mulefat) I 5 40 2 Baccharis pilularis ssp. consanguinea (chaparral broom) 90 30 1 Croton californicus (California croton) I 32 I 75 55 1 Eremocarpus setigerus (doyeweed) 10 65 10 Eriogonum fasciculatum (flat-top buckwheat) 15 .50 3 Haplopappus venetus (cost .goldenbush) 75 80 2 Lasthema cahformca (goidlields) 40 60 8 Lotus scoparius (deerweed) 95 70 2 Lupinus hirsutissimus (stinging lupine) 95 75 25 Plantago insularis (no cothmon.name)* 40 30 2 Stipa pulchra (purple needle grass) 61 . Total pounds per 'acre * This non-native, non-invasive species is includd to provide fast cover for erosion control Hydroseeding & Slurry Additives Hydro4eding shall consist of hydraulic application of a homogeneous slurry mixture of water, sed, organic soil stabilizer, and mulch (no fertilizer is included since the sites are non-irrigated) Apply the following additives in a one-step hydroseed application: Coastal Sage Scrub/Riparian Scrub 2,000 'LBS/ACRE CI1ulôse Wood Fiber, 160 LBS/ACRE Organic Soil Stabilizer 'Seedinix as specified . :. Water as required . Sensitive Birds The construction period should be restrictèd to iâjJü1ythroughOtOber, to avoid impacts to sensitive nesting birds The impact to sensitive birds would also be mitigated by the revegetation Sensitive Plants There should be a summer survey for sand aster in. the, ruderal area to the west of the tack.. shop. . . .. . Off-site All staging areas should be located outside of sensitive wetland habitats 331. I REFERENCES Bailey. LH. 1925. Manual of Cultivated Plants. MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc. New York. I Beauchamp, R. Mitchel. 1986. A Flora of San Diego County, California. Sweet Water Press, National City, California. 241 pgs. I Binford, Laurence C. 1986. Checklist of California Birds - 1986. Western Birds 17:1-16. Bowman, Roy H. 1973. Soil Survey of the San Diego Area, California. U.S.D.A. I California Department of Fish and Game. 1990a. Natural Diversity Data Base, Special Animals. I .California Department of Fish and Game. 1990b. Natural Diversity' Data Base, Sensitive Plants. November 1990. I DeBendictis, Paul A. 1989. Comments on the thirty-seven supplement to the Check-list of North American Birds. American Birds 43(3):416-418. I Everett, William T. 1979. Threatened, Declining, and Sensitive Bird Species in San Diego County. Sketches 29(10): 2-3. I Gray, M.V. and J.M. (heaves. 1981. The riparian forest as habitat for the least Bell's vireà (Vireo bellii pusifius). Presented at the California Riparian Systems Conference, Univ. of Calif., Davis, September 17-19. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. I Jennings, Mark R. 1983. An Annotated Check List' of the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. California Fish and Game. 69(3):151-171. I Jones, J.K., D.C. Carter, H.H. Genoways, R.S. Hoffman, and D.W. Rice. 1982. Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico. Occasional Papers of the I Museum Texas Tech University. 80:1-22. / Munz, Philip A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, I Los Angeles. 1086 pp. Rogers, Thomas H. 1965. Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet. State of California, I Department of Conservation (Resources Agency). 'Salata, L.R. 1983. Status of least Bell's vireo on Camp Pendleton, California: Report on research done in 1983, Unpubl. Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laguna Niguel, I California. ' I 34 I I San Diego' Herpetological Society. 1980. Survey and Status of Endangered 'and Threatened Species of Reptiles Natively Occurring in San Diego County. San Diego Department of Agriculture. Smith, James P., Jr., and Ken Berg. 1988. hiventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular I Plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Berkeley, California.. Spec Pub No 1, Vol 4 174 pgs Tate, James, Jr 1986 The Blue List for 1986 American Birds, 40(2) 227-236 United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1986 Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants, least Bell's vireo, Determination of endangered status, and reopening of comment period in the proposed critical habitat designation..Federal Register 51(85):- ' 16475-16483. Wheeler, Gary P. and Jack M. Fancher. 1981. San Diego County Riparian Systems: Current Threats and Statutory Protection Efforts In California Riparian Systems, Editors Richard E. Warner and Kathleen M. Hendrix. I I I I I I I. I I I Ie I I I I ATTACHMENT 1 CONCEPTUAL REVEGETATION PLAN I I ..... .. S .1• S I 1 . I C I I I I I I REVEGETATION PLAN FOR THE OLIVENHAIN ROAD WmENINGIREAUGNMENT AND FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT I I - Prepared for: I City of Encinitas I Community Development Department 527 Encinitas Boulevard I Encinitas, California 92024 I Prepared by Bnan F Mooney Associates 9903-B Businesspark Avenue I San Diego, California 92131 I I June 1991 I -, I TABLE OF CONTENTS I Section INTRODUCTION EXISTING CONDITIONS I SITE CONCEPTUAL REVEGETATION PLAN I REVEGETATION GUIDELINES I Site Preparation Planting Specifications Plant Material Standards I .. Timing of Installation Irrigation,. Protective Fencing I Maintenance MONITORING Success Criteria. Maintenance TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I . Southern Willow Scrub Coastal Salt Marsh REFERENCES 1• I . LIST OF FIGURES Page 1 .1 1 .2 2 2. 5 .6 6 7 7, 7 . 8 '8 10 10' 10 11 11 I Number Name . . . . Page A-i Proposed Revegetation Sites 3 g , 'A. SeJcnnd 'Alternative Site for Coastal' Salt Marsh 'Revegetation. . 4 INTRODUCTION This revegetation project is mitigation for the biological impacts associated with the realignment of Olivenhain Road, between Rancho Santa Fe Road and El Camino Real; a floodwater detention basin (Detention Basin D) south of Olivenhain Road; and a berm south of La Costa Avenue. The creation of southern willow scrub habitat would be replaced at a 3:1 ratio, and the marshes at a 1:1 ratio. This translates to 0.36 acres of southern willow scrub and 0.04 acre of coastal salt marsh to be revegetated. The project site is located within the cities of Carlsbad and Encinitas, in northern San Diego County. EXISTING CONDITIONS The topography of the Olivenhain Road site is relatively flat consisting of slopes of less than ten-percent, with a drainage along the southern boundary. The elevation ranges from 100 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) in the drainage. The La Costa Avenue site is also flat except where the site slopes up to the roast The elevation ranges from zero to twenty feet AMSL at the berm site. The southern willow scrub revegetation would be located in an area of disturbed wetland scrub This disturbed habitat contains widely spaced coastal goldenbush (Isocoma venea) and coyote bush (Baccharis psiularas ssp consanguinea) with some non-native species such as castor-bean (Ricinus communis), cheeseweed (Malva parvflora), and Australian saithush (Atriple.x semibaccata). The coastal salt marsh would displace disturbed upland or disturbed wetland scrub. The project site is underlain by Eocene Marine sediments (Rogers 1965). The soils south of' La Costa Avenue include Las Flores loamy fine sand, Corralitos loamy sand, Placentia sandy loam and terrace escarpments. Land Use The land use in the vicinity of Olivenhain Road consists of OMWD Headquarters, undeveloped land, and single family dwellings to the north; Rancho Santa Fe Road to the east; El Camino Real to the west; and a tackle shop (H and H Tack and Feed), single family residential, and undeveloped land south of the road. The proposed berm has La Costa Avenue to the north, El Camino Real to the east, and undeveloped land to the south and west. SiTE SUITABILiTY In order to determine the suitability of the project site as potential habitat for southern willow scrub and coastal salt marsh the following, issues were evaluated: 1) whether the site could support these habitat types over the long term, and 2) whether the site is situated in a location which can be a part of defensible open space system. With respect to these issues We, a field survey was conducted on by W Larry Sward and Anne Marie Tipton-Golly on February 13, 1991 between the hours of 0900 and 1100 and May 29 from 0820 to 1100. The weather was warm (70-75°F) and sunny in February and I overcast in May. Claude Edwards did a focused survey for sensitive riparian birds June 4, from 1015 to 1245. The weather was warm (70°F) and hazy. It was our determination that the site could support the southern willow scrub at the location chosen. However, it was also our determination that the coastal salt marsh habitat needed several alternative site locations in which to optimally relocate this type of habitat. The siting of this habitat shall ultimately depend upon the soil type, salinity, and tidal regime since this habitat is difficult to establish. The sites chosen for the revegetation are located within proposed detention basins or the Batiquitos Lagoon which would be part of an overall open space corridor. This open space corridor would provide a defensible open space network controlled for the propose flood control; therefore, the chosen revegetation areas appear suited for long term support of these habitats once they become established. CONCEPTUAL REVEGETATION PLAN As indicated on the conceptual revegetation plan 0.36 acres of southern willow scrub and 0.04 acre of coastal salt marsh within the larger detention basin have been designated (Figure A-i). Figure A-2 shows the location of one of the alternative locations for the placement of the coastal salt marsh (see Batiquitos Lagoon EIR for potential mitigation site). REVEGETATION GUIDELINES Site Preparation The soil surface shall be prepared prior to installation of any irrigation system and weed eradication. No further preparation or disturbance shall occur in order to avoid bringing additional weed seeds to the surface. Invasive species such as castor bean, giant reed and tamarisk should be mechanically removed and, if necessary, treated with herbicide. The herbicide RODEO or an equivalent that is compatible with the riparian community should be applied by hand to the individual exposed stumps. In addition to the non-native species the native species in the disturbed wetland scrub shall also be removed. Southern Willow Scrub The proposed revegetation site shall be surveyed to determined the depth of the water table, and any soil contaminants or pollutants. Site shall be rough graded to approximately the same elevation as the fresh water marsh. The soil (one foot deep) and leaf litter should be removed from the La Costa berm site and spread over the revegetation site. Depending on the depth of the water table the site should be graded to within 12 to 18 inches of the elevation of the fresh water marsh habitat adjacent to the south. All contaminated soil shall be removed. Willow cuttings that are being removed from the construction easement shall be tilled into the soil to a depth of 12 inches at the revegetation site as per planting specifications below. Horizontally scarify the soil surface by disking to incorporate the use of low berms or "biochannels" to create soil microenvironments. I $ I I I I I I\I I I OA I 1± jJ/T>jY...t1 0~: ~fj '. - ITItN k /J, Proposed Dike Construction Easement I: 1982 100-Year Floodpi In,. L " ( er County) i Dist 11 ' fA ! CS iou.J/\ - (. ... Coastal ii Salt.• -. - .•" •'i Marsh Revegetation ' 1,.• / Alternative 1 Site.-' FWM "•• - I. . l DWS 196ZFLOODWp"t1NE. r : ()3 - I) J LEGEND Southern Willow Scrub LJ Revegetation Site - - CSM Southern Coastal Salt Marsh;. Dist,,. -,,Disturbed 1990 100-Year Floodplain -•.. DWS. Disturbed Wetland Scrub (per Dr. Cháng) FWM Freshwater Marsh Rud Ruderal . . ' Olivenhain Road Alignment N Pröpösed Révegétat!on Sites 0 56' ido' Within Future Detention, Basin "D" brian F mooncv planning, design & environmental studies Figure-Al. BIO rsh Revegetation. Alternative 2 —IZP\ I SwS I' Sws zso 4W [: 1' i I outhwestern 'a DIST Batiquitos Lagoon I La Costa Avenue Fresh ' Water ' Marsh 0. DIST4;".'p CSM'SN 'Ssws N. DIST (T\ . LEGEND J[) ico' 260 SS Baccharls Scrub CSM Coastal Salt Marsh DCSS Disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub brian F mOOnczV DIST Disturbed . Planning.EUC Eucalyptus Woodland design & enV&e Qntal studies • SWS Southern Willow Scrub MJBS FBI Olivenhain Road Alignment La Costa Avenue Alternative Coastal Salt Marsh RevegetatiOfl Site Figure A2 I I I stal Salt Marsh The salt marsh revegetation site shall be prepared by grading three feet below the elevation of the adjacent salt marsh The soil and plant material from the berm area to be impacted shall be salvaged and placed in the salt marsh revegetation site. Soil to be removed for the installation of the plants shall be taken off-site to a legal landfill site or used for the berm. 1 1 'I. Planting Specifications Southern Willow Scrub The trees and shrubs shall be salvaged from the berm area, and transplanted to the revegetation site after the site has been rough graded to the final elevation but prior to the rototilling of the willow cuttings from the construction easement and disking for biochannels Container plants shall supplement the transplants.: The willow scrub would, consist of arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) and mule fat (Baccharis glutinosa). The container plantings shall be planted approximately one year after the transplanted material. The individual plants shall be clumped in groups Of five to ten with an average spacing of approximately 10 feet on center, however, final spacing shall be determined after measurements are made of the willow scrub to be. impacted (see monitoring) . Container Stock Plant List for Willow Scrub Size Species (Gallon) Arroyo Willow . 1• (Salix lasiolepis) . . 5 15 Mule-fat . 1 (Baccharis glurinosa) 5 Herbaceous Seed Mix for Willow Scrub. An herbaceous mix should comprise, five percent of the revegetation area This seed mix should be hand broadcast The reason for not hydroseeding is to avoid any impacts to the revegetation area from hydroseeding (e.g., trampling and overspraymg) The amount of seed mix 'applied (i.e., pounds per acre), will be determined at the time the final planting plan construction drawings are prepared. This will be determined by the landscape architect, biologist, and resource agency personnel during the maintenance and monitoring phase following planting implementation. This mix shall consist Of. Yerba Mansa (Anemopsis californica) Western Ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya var. californica) Great Marsh Evemng Primrose (Oenothera elata ssp hirsuussima) Salt-marsh Fleabane (Pluchea odorata var. odorata) 5 I Coastal Salt M The coastal salt marsh shall be moved whole, like sod, from the area to be impacted to the revegetation site (like Cabrillo Bay, Long Beach). The earth shall be cut three feet below ground level to include all the roots and the pieces of salt marsh should be moved using a moving palette and a forklift. The plants can be watered with ocean water if there is not enough water at the site. If the sod does not do well, then container plants of woody glasswort (Salicornia virginica), alkali-heath (Frankenia sauna), and southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus var. sphaerocarpus) should be planted in the revegetation area. Plant Material Standards Commercial 1; five and fifteen gallon stock will be used for all tree and shrub species listed above. The commercial stock shall be derived from seed, salvaged material taken from areas to be impacted by this project, or from local nursery sources. Note: there is an inherent time lag in this process between the time the plant material is salvaged, and the time it has grown to a one-gallon container plant. If there is insufficient seed or salvaged plant material to develop the container stock, then material will be taken from within the Encinitas Creek drainage. The container stock will be healthy, vigorous, of normal growth, free from disease, insects, and insect eggs. No container plants will have cracked or broken balls of earth when taken from the containers. They will also not be root or pot bound. All plants R are to be well rooted in container with a maximum height of 12 inches. The stock will conform to quality and size with the American Standard for Nursery Stock or equivalent. Any plant material not meeting the above criteria shall be rejected and replaced with approved I container stock of equal type and size. Planting Details J Soil testing will be done to determine if any clay or hard pan soil horizons exist between the surface and water table. If there is none, a hole should be prepared 1.5 times the container's width and a depth such that once planted the root ball is one inch above the finish surface. If a clay or hard pan exists, each hole should be prepared by auguring with an eight-inch diameter auger to the water table and refilling with indigenous soil. The container stock should be planted at the same depth--one inch such above finish grade. 1 Timing of Installation I Container Stock The plants should be installed during a 45-thy period following the on-set of the winter rains, preferably between November and early January to increase survivorship and reduce dependencies on supplemental irrigation. However, with the establishment of the irrigation system plant installation could occur throughout the year. I Herbaceous Seeding The herbaceous seed mix will be installed just prior to the onset of the rainy season and after the container stock has become established. This will be determined by the consulting biologist and resource agency personnel and is expected to be fall of the third year. . 6. I This delay in seeding will allow for efficient weed eradication and maintenance of container plant material. Irrigation All container stock in the willow scrub will be irrigated immediately after planting. This irrigation regime will be determined by the landscape contractor and approved by the biological consultant and resource agencies. Irrigation by a drip irrigation system should start after planting and should continue until introduced plant material has been established and is sustainable without an irrigation system. The watering regime should encourage deep root growth. However, before any irrigation system is dismantled representative test plots shall be established to monitor the effects of a non irrigated condition. The test plot locations shall be determined by the consulting biologist. This evaluation should be accomplished during drought conditions to ensure a "worst case" scenario. Any sign of water stress within the test plots will require the continuance of regular irrigation. The scheduling and length of irrigation applications shall be coordinated with the consulting biologist to encourage deep rooting and prevention of soil and plant diseases. Protective Fencing The revegetation site should be fenced to, discourage foot and vehicular traffic. This could be accomplished with a temporary five-foot high chainlink. Maintenance Responsible Parties In order for the revegetation to be effective,, representatives of the City, the landscape architect, biologist consultant, and the landscape contractor must be involved for a period of five years. Regular and consistent maintenance and monitoring of the revegetated area will be required with quarterly reporting. The City representative will inspect and approve all aspects of the revegetation project. Replacement PlantingfRemedial Measures, Plants lost or stunted as a result of improper maintenance, disease, overwatering, irriga- tion failure, vandalism, within five years of the date of planting, would be replaced in kind and in place between November and January of the same year they die. This replanting should occur at the end of the first, second, third, and fourth growing season. Plants will not be replaced if the replacement would interfere with a seedling of a native species from the surrounding area. The landscape contractor will be responsible for the actual replacement of the individual plants as determined by the consulting biologist. Fertilization and Pruning No post-installation fertilization or pruning is necessary, unless otherwise directed, by mutual agreement of the consulting biologist and City representative. 7 I _'LtSiII1I011 I Arundo donax, Tamarix sp., Nicoriana glauca, Corraderiajubata, and Ricinus communis will be removed (manually) for the first two (2) years of the project life. Weeding will be conducted monthly and the consulting biologist will monitor this for the first three (3) months - of the project. During the quarterly assessments, the City will determine the need for further 1 weeding and will contact the landscape contractor for any required work. The entire willow scrub site will be covered with two inches of mulch for the entire monitoring period, in order to minimize the invasion by weeds. This mulch should be removed from the area to be seeded in the third year. Irrigation The irrigation system will be maintained in good working order and repaired as necessary until irrigation is discontinued as outlined above. I MONiTORING Success Criteria Prior to any construction, measurements of the southern willow scrub and coastal salt marsh should be made to serve as a basis for comparison. In the southern willow scrub, crown cover, tree density (and spacing) and species composition, diameter-at-breast-height (DBH), foliage volume density, and height shall be measured (see Technical Assessment). Cover, survivorship, and productivity shall be measured in the coastal salt marsh. The container plants for the willow scrub are not intended to be planted until one year after the plant material is placed in the revegetation sites. However, naturally reoccurring plant material will need to be evaluated for its replacement value. The worst-case scenario would be that no vegetation would be deemed acceptable. The best case would be that the tilled wi llow cuttings sprout and reduce the need for introduced plant material container stock. Once container stock material is planted the following monitoring program should be implemented: First-Year Monitoring. After the initial planting, the areas should be checked quarterly. There should be a "time zero" report detailing exactly what was done and when and where. Records will be kept of mortality and other problems, such as invasion of the revegetation area by exotic vegetation. . One year after planting, a report will be submitted to the Corps, Service, Environmental Protection Agency, and Fish & Game. The report will describe and delineate with large scale maps, all areas used in the revegetation effort. The report will also record the number of each species planted, shrub and ground cover densities; tree and shrub heights and percent canopy cover, percent shrub cover and percent ground cover. Cover will be determined through line- intercept surveys. Mortality greater than 15 percent for any species used in the revegetation I . 8 effort will be offset by in-kind (size and species) replacement by the applicant. The report will recommend steps required to ensure that on the order of 50 percent coverage will be achieved by the end of the following year. The agencies listed above will have 45 days to review and comment on the report and to make recommendations concerning remedial measures that may be needed at the mitigation site. Second-Year Monitoring. At two years after planting, a second similar report will be submitted to the agencies listed above for their review and comment. Coverage less than 50 percent or mortality of any species used in the revegetation effort greater than 15 percent shall be corrected by the applicant. Third-Year Monitoring. At three years after planting, a third, similar report will be submitted to the agencies listed above for their review and comment. Coverage less than 60 percent or mortality of any species used in the revegetation effort greater than 15 percent shall be corrected by the applicant. Fourth-Year Monitoring. At four years after planting, a fourth, similar report will be submitted to the agencies listed above for their review and comment; however, this fourth report will list steps required to ensure that on the order of 70 percent coverage will be achieved by the end of the fifth year. Fifth-Year Monitoring. At the end of the fifth year, a similar report will be submitted to the agencies. At this time, if 80-percent coverage is not achieved, the City will consult with the Corps, Service, Environmental Protection Agency and Fish & Game to determine corrective measures. At this time, the combined canopy cover of trees shall be 40 to 60 percent shrub canopy cover shall be 30 to 50 percent; herbaceous cover shall be two to nine percent; and open ground shall be three to nine percent. Failure of any significant portion of the mitigation plan (relative to percent coverage by the desired species) may result in a requirement to replace that portion of failed mitigation. At the end of the five years the willow scrub should be progressing at a rate such that it will eventually achieve the status of the impacted site. Coastal Salt Marsh The vegetation in the coastal salt marsh should be thriving and growing with recruitment. It should support various salt marsh species. Quarterly reports should be submitted for the first two years. Maintenance The revegetation project should also be overseen during construction and maintenance to ensure the proper implementation of this plan. This should begin with a preconstruction meeting with the landscape contractor and biologist to walk over the site to identify the limits of construction, off-site sensitive areas, staging areas, and borrow and spoil sites. During construction, the biologist should monitor compliance with the construction limits and fill in unforeseen details. I I During the maintenance phase, the biologist should coordinate with the landscape contractor to ensure the proper execution of the weed control, irrigation, replacement plantings,. I etc. During this phase, the biologist will make weekly visits for the first three months, twice monthly for the next nine months, and quarterly through the remainder of the five year monitoring period. I TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT Southern Willow Scrub Qualitative assessments of the revegetation effort will be made monthly by the ' consulting biologist to determine the success of the revegetation effort for the first year after installation. Quantitative assessments shall be made in July during the five years of monitoring program. The quantitative assessments shall consist of six meter-wide belt transects with line transects down the middle which should be randomly established and permanently located within the willow scrub. The quadrats should cover at least ten percent of the site. They should cross the site in a north-south direction. Within the quadrants the following data will be collected-. 1. Survivorship: assessed by absolute counts. J 2. Crown Cover: a calculation based on perpendicular crown diameter measurements. A meter tape is laid out on the ground from one side of the I crown perimeter to the other through the approximate center of the tree. Another diameter measurement is made approximately perpendicular to the first. Crown cover is then obtained from a simple formula (Mueller-Dombois and I Ellenberg, 1974). Tree density and species composition: number of trees (by species) per 10- meter by 10-meter quadrant. Diameter at breast height: this measurement is taken at 4.5 feet (137 cm) above the ground with calipers or a diameter tape. 1 5. Foliage volume density should be assessed using the methods described in Karen Miner's masters thesis (Miner 1989). I Along the line transects the following data for species will be collected: a) height; b) density; c) cover, and d) bare ground cover in order to establish the relative importance I (ranking) within the revegetation area. All raw data will be recorded on a standard form to be developed and copies of these I will be submitted as an appendix to each required report. Permanent photodocumentation stations will also be established within each quadrant and around the perimeter to visually document vegetational changes and community development. Representative photographs will be taken during each assessment. 10 I Avifaunal transects will be 'conducted using. the same belt quadrats to record bird i ecies present on the site Any breeding activities taking place on the site will also be corded. These surveys will begin upon the completion of the installation Presence of croinvertebrates and mammals should also be assessed. The hydrology of the area, above and below ground, should also be monitored. The )th of the ground water and extent of surface water should be measured quarterly. Coastal Salt Marsh One square meter quadrats should be used for sampling the herbaceous species, and c-by-three meter quadrats for shrubby species They should be permanently established ie salt marsh. Height, percent cover, above ground biomass, and species composition Id be measured. The shrub strata should be recorded in the throe-meter quadrats. The 'ass should be measured to obtain net primary productivity (Erwin 1990). The salt marsh should be monitored quarterly at "time zero," 3, 6,191 12, 15, 18, and onths. The hydrology of the salt marsh area should also be assessed including the tidal regime. RENCES '•• •'• :}L 1990. Wetland Evaluation for Restoration and Creation. In J.A. Kusler and M.E. Kentula Eds., Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status ' of the Science. Island 'Press, Covelo, California. K. 1989. 'Foraging Ecology of. the Least Bell's Vireo, Vireo bellui pusillus. Master's Thesis. San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Oombois, D. and H. Ellenberg, 1974. Aims and Methods of Vegetation &ology. • olin Wiley & Sons. I 1 1 I dl I 11 1' I APPENDIX 6 CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT (Brian F. Mooney Associates) S H I CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEYS FOR THE OLIVENHAIN AOAD WIDENING/REALIGNMENT AND FLOOD CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT S., I I Prepared for I City of Encinitas 527 Encinitas Boulevard I Encinitas, California 92024 Prepared by I Brian .F. Mooney Associates 9903-B Businesspark Avenue San Diego, California 92131 fj . . a 14(LAJ (JLJ I' Michael Baksh, PhD Senior Anthropologist/Archaeologist I V June 1991 I 1 J TABLE OF CONTENTS I Section Page JNTRODUC11ON 1 I I IL PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 ifi 4 STUDYSEUING 6 BACKGROUND 8 .I STUDY METHODS 13 VI. RESULTS. • 15 VIL IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17 I REFERENCES , 18 I . Appendix A 4 1 14 1 FIGURES - Number Title Page .1k : Vicinity Map for the Olivenhain Road Widening/Realignment • and Flood Control Improvements Project 3 4 • 2 Alternate Realignment Routes for Olivenhain Road' 1 4 3 Alternative Locations for the La Costa/El Camino Real Flood 'I Control Berm • 5 I ' 1 ". - I - - ,• -' . I • I. INTRODUCTION This report documents the results of intensive cultural resource surveys for prehistoric and historic archaeological sites for the Olivenhain Road Widening/Realignment, the Encinitas Creek Floodwater Detention Basin, and the La-Costa/El Camino Real Flood Control projects proposed by the Cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad. These three project sites are located generally in the vicinity of Encinitas Creek from near Rancho Santa Fe Road downstream to La Costa Avenue. More specifically, the Olivenhain Road Widening/Realignment project proposes to widen and realign the portion of Olivenhain Road that is east of El Camino Real and west of the residential developments of Bridgewater and Rancho Del Ponderosa. The second project, the Floodwater Detention Basin, is located south of Olivenhain Road between the Bridgewater tract and Rancho Santa Fe Road. Associated with this floodwater detention basin is a proposed 100-year flood ponding area on the east side of Rancho Santa Fe Road. The third project, the La Costa/El Camino Real Flood Control Berm, is located in the Encinitas Creek channel southwest of the La Costa/El Camino Real intersection. The areas. proposed to be impacted by these projects were studied in the effort to locate and evaluate any cultural resources. The archaeological surveys for the Olivenhain Road Widening/Realignment project and the Floodwater Detention Basin project were conducted by Mr. John R. Cook (Cultural Resource Manager) and Dr. Michael Baksh (Senior Anthropologist/Archaeologist) of Brian F. Mooney Associates, and the survey for the La Costa/El Camino Real Flood Control Berm was conducted by Dr. Baksh. Record search information obtained from San Diego State University and the San Diego Museum of Man indicate that the project vicinity was utilized by prehistoric peoples. In all, 60 prehistoric sites were identified within one half mile of the project by the records search. Based upon the records search, a portion of one recorded site appeared to possibly exist within the Olivenhain Road project; a portion of another appeared to possibly exist within the proposed ponding area; and a third site appeared to possibly extend into the area proposed as an alternative for construction of the La Costa/El Camino Real Flood Control berm, However, the intensive surveys disclosed that these. sites are out of the proposed project areas or otherwise would not be impacted. No cultural resources were identified within the project areas, and it is expected that no impacts to cultural resources would occur due to implementation of the proposed projects. A discussion of background information, survey methods, results, and impacts and recommendations follows. Site Records are contained in a confidential appendix that is not available for public review., I I U. PROJECT DESCRIPTION I This report addresses cultural resource investigations of three projects proposed by the Cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad: the widening and realignment of Olivenhain Road, and the creation of a floodwater detention basin and an associated 100-year flood pond area, and the I construction of a flood control berm in the southwest corner of the La Costa/El Camino Real intersection. The locations of these projects are illustrated in Figure 1, and the projects may be described as follows. Olivenhain Road Widening and Realignment ' Olivenhain Road is an east-west road approximately one mile in length that connects the north-south roads of El Camino Real, on the west, and Rancho Santa Fe Road, on the east. The project is intended to accommodate increased traffic along Olivenhain Road brought about I by rapid development in the general area. The portion of Olivenhain Road that is proposed to be realigned is the segment east of El Camino Real and west of the existing residential tracts of Bridgewater and Rancho Del Ponderosa. Four alternate alignments are proposed for I an eventual six lane road in this area (Figure 2). Alternate No. 1 is the southernmost alignment; proposed as a "Straight-Thru" alignment it will cross Encinitas Creek. Alternate No. 2 is the most northerly alignment and, in fact, much of this route is north of the existing I road. Alternate No. 3 is another northern alignment, but with a skewed intersection, and Alternate No. 4 follows the existing two lane alignment. Related to this project is the proposed construction of Leucadia Boulevard extending west from the Olivenhain Road/El Camino Real intersection. Floodwater Detention Basin and 100-Year Flood Pond The second project involves the creation of a floodwater detention basin (Basin "D") and a ponding area designed to retain water during 100-year floods. The detention basin is proposed to be located south of Olivenhain Road between the Bridgewater tract and Rancho Santa Fe Road. Situated on either side of Encinitas Creek, the extent of the basin will coincide with an existing floodway boundary. The 100-year flood pond area will be located upstream from the detention basin on the east side of Rancho Santa Fe Road. La Costa/El Camino Real Flood Control Berm I The third project proposes to construct an earthen berm for flood control purposes in the southwest corner of the La Costa/El Camino Real intersection. The berm is designed to prevent any future flood waters in Encinitas Creek from spilling over and threatening the I integrity of La Costa Avenue during major storms. Two alternative berm designs are proposed (Figure 3). Alternative No. 1 would be a U-shaped berm with the base and associated work area extending west from El Camino Real along the south side of La Costa Avenue for about I 450 feet. The eastern side of this berm extends south along El Camino Real about 175 feet, and the western side extends south from La Costa Avenue for about 250 feet. Under Alternative No. 2, the berm would be constructed primarily along the south side of La Costa I Avenue, extending some 1,600 feet west of El Camino Real. Alternative No. 2 would maintain the eastern side of the berm described for Alternative No. 1, but would eliminate the western side in favor of the longer base along La Costa Avenue. I 2 I, Proposed Detention Basin ( Potential 100-Year Flood Ponding Area 4. (ô &$h2 t ' f ' (r/ 2-_. :: ' •: i1 -. . do .9 A • fl . :7 In 1 41 I I ; ,•;; :, "L L\.L. 3' ,,/. I '_',n I 1 I , -.i City of Carisbed Il ,'Ltr .,'''•' • ,..'•' , ' I I , ' .J Ito 7-1 I I / I City owl . A •;.,\ I .. '. ?(KP', 1apI, (I\I s3 I Project Site- i(\ \_\ç - ( \ \ •\ " ç", IlIJI •. - ..- . - N . Olivenhain Road Alignment Vléinity Map 0 1000' 2000' brian F moonu'9 pIas*ig. de)gn & e,WOnmenIeI studies Figure1 SOURCE: U.SG.S. 7.5' Quad Map (Encinitas & Rancho Santa Fe) . 1— - —' - - - 4 I ( \\I1 L 4 , Ilk - i - • sa 4 sting Align ent Ell U KI Willow Creek- Subdivision Boundary AiNX00TWO Limits, ftbUn Habitat ~11u_ 46 lOOl 260' !ian OOnCV - Olivenhain Road Alignment Alternative Alignments Study Area Figure2 ri Batiqultos Lagoon. \.J,/ 0 . iOo 260 brian F móonczv -1". - pla,nig. design & environmental studies ! \\\ 011venhàin Road Alignment La Costa Avenue Alternative Flood Control Berms Study Area Figure 3. ARcL — — — — ' — ) on, -Ow. no - — ifi. STUDY SETTING The Olivenhain Road and Floodwater Detention Basin projects are located in the northern portion of San Diego County along the boundary of the Cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad. The La Costa/El Camino Flood Control project is in the City of Carlsbad and County of San Diego. More specifically, the western end of the Olivenhain Road project is located in Section 2, Township 13 South, Range 4 West on the USGS Encinitas 7.5' quadrangle. The eastern portion of the Olivenhain Road project, as well as the entire Floodwater Detention Basin project, is located within an unsectioned portion of the Los Encinitas Land Grant on the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' quadrangles. The Olivenhain Road project is on the north side of an east/west trending valley that contains Encinitas Creek, although one alternate route proposed for the road alignment crosses the creek at the far western end. The detention basin and flood pond are located in the same valley on either side of Encinitas Creek. The La Costa/El Camino Real Flood Control project is located in Section 35, Township 12 South, Range 4 West on the USGS Encinitas quadrangle. Much of the study area has been subjected to development activities. Most of Olivenhain Road, for example, is bounded by residential communities. The project area at the western end of Olivenhain Road has generally been cleared of native vegetation and is dominated by grasses and Russian thistle. An exception is the area south of Olivenhain Road along Encinitas Creek which is characterized by dense stands of willows, giant reed, sumac, coyote brush and buckwheat. Patches of Coastal Sage Scrub exist just outside the Olivenhain Road project area on the knolls north of this road and east of El Camino Real. An undeveloped portion of the Olivenhain Road project also exists at its eastern end where the south side of the road is characterized by a vacant plot of land cleared of native vegetation. In the northwest "corner" of the Olivenhain Road/El Camino Real intersection, Encinitas Creek curves north and is characterized by dense riparian vegetation. The southwest "corner" consists of a large lot used at least partly for parking by customers of Hortensia's Flowers. A north-south drainage ditch exists about 200 feet west of El Camino Real, and the area west of this drainage is currently under cultivation. The detention basin and flood pond sites, separated by Rancho Santa Fe Road, are relatively undeveloped but have been subjected to cultivation and other activities. Most of the detention basin area is marsh and densely covered with Salicornia (pickleweed), Typha (cat- tail), and other riparian plants. The northern perimeter of the proposed detention basin appears to have been cultivated in the distant past since it supports little native vegetation; the current vegetation basically consists of sparse clumps of grasses and Russian thistle. The southern side of the detention basin has been recently plowed and disked in preparation for planting. The pond site east of Rancho Santa Fe Road is barren, having been used recently for cattle grazing. The land proposed for the earthen berm southwest of the La Costa/El Camino Real intersection is currently not developed, but the entire area has been cultivated in the past. A vacant, cleared lot that has been graded, probably in association with previous flood control construction activities and with the construction of El Camino Real and/or La Costa Avenue, exists east of the Encinitas Creek bottom where the eastern side of the earthen berm is I Rl [1 I I I i I I I I 1 L] i I proposed for construction. Under both: alternatives, the remaining areas proposed. for construction of the berm consist almost exclusively of marshy wetland and are densely covered with Sahcorma (pickleweed), Typha (cat-tail), willows, and other riparian plants The riparian vegetation is bounded on the north by the south side of La Costa Avenue, and to the southwest it gives way, to a dense covering of mixed grasses and weeds and ultimately to dense chaparral as the terrain rises Geologically, the project sites extend across Eocene nomnarine soils (California Division I of Mines and Geology 1985) More specifically, the area is underlain by the Torrey and Delmar Formations These formations are known to be fossiliferous, the Delmar Formation in particular is known to contain rich molluscan assemblages.I 1 I I I' 1 I I I 1 I 1' I 1 .1 11 IV. BACKGROUND I This section summarizes the cultural history for the region in which the project is located, and describes the results of previous research conducted within the immediate vicinity of the project. I Cultural History I The archaeological record within the San Diego County region provides evidence of three generally recognized temporal periods: Paleoindian, Archaic and Late Prehistoric. The Paleoindian Period, dating from 12,000 to 8,000 B.P., is typified by artifact assemblages of the San Dieguito (Rogers 1966). San Dieguito material culture is represented almost completely by flaked lithic tools such as scrapers, scraper planes, choppers, and large projectile points. This group is hypothesized to have been a band level, generalized hunter-gatherer I, society subsisting on a variety of as yet unspecified plant and animal resources. The San Dieguito occupied the inland and coastal areas of San Diego during a climatic period of somewhat cooler and moister conditions than presently exist. The absence of a milling I -technology differentiates Paleoindian from the later periods. Representatives of the Archaic Period (called variously La Jolla, Encinitas, and Pauma) I . may have existed as early as 9,000 B.P. Although the Archaic lifeway is generally considered to be a generalized hunter-gatherer culture, they differed from the San Dieguito in two distinguishing criteria: their gathering activities emphasized shellfish and seed collection, and they possessed an advanced groundstone technology employing portable milling slabs (Warren 1 1964). Occupation was heaviest along the coast and major drainage systems extending inland. Around 2,000 B.P., Yuman-speaking people from the eastern Colorado River region I began migrating into southern California, representing what is called the Late Prehistoric Period. The Late Prehistoric Period in San Diego County is recognized archaeologically by smaller projectile points, the replacement of flexed inhumations with cremation, the introduction of ceramics, and an emphasis on inland plant food collection and processing, especially acorns (True 1966). Inland semi-sedentary villages were established along major water courses, and montane areas were seasonally occupied to exploit acorns and piñon nuts, I resulting in permanent milling features on bedrock outcrops. Mortars for acorn processing increased in frequency relative to seed grinding basins. This period is known archaeologically in southern San Diego County as the Yuman (Rogers 1945) or the Cuyamaca Complex (True 1 1970). The Kumeyaay (also known as Diegueno) who inhabited the southern region of San I Diego County, western and central Imperial County, and northern Baja California (Almstedt 1982; Gifford 1931; Hedges 1975; Luomala 1978; Shipek 1982; Spier 1923) are the direct descendants of the early Yuman hunter-gatherers. Kumeyaay territory encompassed a large I and diverse environment which included marine, foothill, mountain, and desert resource zones. Their language is a dialect of the Yuman language which is related to the large Hokan super family. I, 1 8 I I There seems to have been considerable variability in the level of social organization and settlement variability. The Kumeyaay were organized by patrilineal, patrilocal lineages that claimed prescribed territories, but did not own the resources except for some minor plants and eagle aeries (Luomala 1976; Spier 1923). Some lineages occupied procurement ranges that required considerable residential mobility, such as those in the deserts (Hicks 1963). In the mountains, some of the larger groups occupied a few large residential bases that would be occupied biannually, such as those occupied in Cuyamaca in the summer and fall, and in Guatay or Descanso during the rest of the year (Almstedt 1982; Rensch 1975). According to Spier (1923), many Eastern Kumeyaay spent the period of time from spring through autumn in larger residential bases in the upland procurement ranges, and wintered in mixed groups in residential bases along the eastern foothills on the edge of the desert (i.e. Jacumba and Mountain Springs). This variability in settlement mobility and organization reflects the great range of environments in the territory. Acorns were the single most important food source used by the Kumeyaay. Their villages were usually located near water necessary for leaching acorn meal. Other storable resources such as mesquite or agave were equally valuable to groups inhabiting desert areas, at least during certain seasons (Hicks 1963; Shackley 1984). Seeds from grasses, manzanita, sage, sunflowers, lemonadeberry, chia and other plants were also used along with various wild greens and fruits. Deer, small game and birds were hunted and fish and marine foods were eaten. Houses were arranged in the village without apparent pattern. The houses in primary villages were conical structures covered with tule bundles, having excavated floors and central hearths. Houses constructed at the mountain camps generally lacked any excavation, probably due to the summer occupation. Other structures included sweathouses, ceremonial enclosures, ramadas and acorn granaries. The material culture included ceramic cooking and storage vessels, baskets, flaked lithic and groundstone tools, arrow shaft straighteners, stone, bone, and shell ornaments. Hunting implements included the bow and arrow, curved throwing sticks, nets and snares. Shell and bone fishhooks as well as nets were used for fishing. Lithic materials including quartz and metavolcanics were commonly available throughout much of the Kumeyaay territory. Other lithic resources, such as obsidian, chert, chalcedony and steatite, occur in more localized areas and were acquired through direct procurement or exchange. Projectile points including the Cottonwood Series points and Desert Side-notched points were commonly produced. Kumeyaay culture and society remained stable until the advent of missionization and displacement by Hispanic populations during the eighteenth century. The effects of missionization along with the introduction of European diseases, greatly reduced the native population of southern California. By the early 1820s California was under Mexico's rule. The establishment of ranchos under the Mexican land grant program further disrupted the way of life of the native inhabitants. Previous Research A review of site records on file at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University and at the San Diego Museum of Man, obtained prior to the field survey, i I 1 indicated that 60 prehistoric sites and one historic site had previously been recorded within one half mile of the project. These sites have been identified as a result of some 50 cultural resource investigations conducted primarily for residential development since 1970 as part of CEQA mandated environmental impact assessments. Most of the prehistoric sites consist of light surface scatters of flaked and/or ground lithic artifacts, and many contain light to moderate scatters of shell. A few sites have extensive midden deposits with relatively high concentrations of lithic artifacts, and a few sites exhibit traces of hearths. The cultural affiliation of about 62% of the prehistoric sites is unknown (or I unspecified), principally due to a lack of diagnostic artifacts. Most of these sites consist of light lithic and/or shell surface scatters. Approximately 16% of the prehistoric sites have been described as Late Prehistoric, 16% have been assigned to the Archaic (milling) period, and 2% I have been described as San Dieguito (Paleoindian). Additionally, 5% of the sites have been described as containing components or traces of the San Dieguito, Archaic, and Late Prehistoric periods. 1 A few sites have been recorded in the immediate vicinity of the three project areas studied for this report, and are described below. All record searches obtained from San Diego I State University and the San Diego Museum of Man are provided in Appendix A (not available for public review). I Olivenhain Road Widening and Realignment A portion of one recorded prehistoric sites appeared to possibly exist within the I Olivenhain Road Widening and Realignment project area. Specifically, site SDi-4872 (W- 982) has been described as existing on the northeast corner of the El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road intersection. This site was first recorded by R. Kaldenberg in 1976, who I noted the presence of scrapers, flakes, choppers, chopping tools, cores, and thermally fractured cobbles located on the southwest slope of a knoll 300 feet northeast of Olivenhain and El Camino Real roads. Described as a possible yucca processing site, the artifact assemblage was I not diagnostic of a particular cultural affiliation. In 1989 a cultural resource study was conducted by ERC Environmental and Energy Services Company for the same Olivenhain Road project area studied for this report, except I that only two alternate alignments for the western end of Olivenhain Road had been proposed at the time. The intensive survey relocated SDi-4872 in the location described by Kaldenberg, and artifacts from this site were also observed to be located within about 10 meters of I Olivenhain Road. Because the then proposed No. 2 alignment right-of-way included an impact area that extended 75 feet north of the existing Olivenhain road cut, this 75 foot wide area (extending for some 200 meters between El Camino Real on the west and a dirt road some I 200 meters to the east) was tested to evaluate the significance of this portion of the site. The testing program included a surface collection and the excavation of five shovel test pits. Four artifacts were recovered from the surface and one shovel test pit yielded a single flake. It was I concluded that the materials in the test area had washed down slope from the main portion of the site, and that "the majority of the site appears to be surface in nature as described by Kaldenberg (1976)" (Gallegos and Pigniolo 1989:3-5), and it was recommended that no I 10 I mitigation or further archaeological study would be necessary if direct and indirect impacts were confined to a snip 75 feet north of Olivenhain Road. A second site recorded in this area is W-4318. Situated on a terrace overlooking Encinitas Creek about 150 meters north of Olivenhain Road, this prehistoric site interpreted to be affiliated with the La Jolla Complex was found and subsequently tested by B. Smith (Smith 1990). Consisting of a sparse, dispersed scatter of lithics, 14 artifacts were recovered from the surface including three flakes, two debitage, two metate fragments, one mano, one scraper plane, and five scrapers. No shell or other cultural materials were observed. Twenty- five shovel tests and a one-meter square unit were excavated, but no subsurface materials were recovered and the site is regarded as not significant. A third site recorded near the Olivenhain Road project is SDi- 11027. Situated south on a terrace south of Encinitas Creek and east of El Camino Real, the site was described by T. Van Bueren in 1988 as consisting of a light scatter of shell, fire-affected rock, two manos, several cores, and debitage. The site is situated approximately 100 meters south of the southernmost alternate alignment (#1) currently proposed for Olivenhain Road. The only other site recorded within the immediate vicinity of the Olivenhain Road project is SDi-4400 (W-921, and possibly also W-48). Situated on a mesa overlooking Olivenhain Road to its south, this site was located by R. Kaldenberg in 1976, and tested by RECON in 1982 and by S. Apple and R. Olmo in 1983. Consisting of a surface scatter of flaked and groundstone artifacts, this site location is now a residential development and could not be relocated in 1989 (Gallegos and Pigniola 1989:3-2). The only site recorded in the immediate vicinity of the Floodwater Detention Basin is SDi-2734 (W-49-E). Situated approximately 50 meters south of the proposed detention basin and abutting the west side of. Rancho Santa Fe, this site was described by Malcolm Rogers as a W. Diegueno site of one acre of the L. Scott ranch. Rogers reported that Mr. Scott possessed a collection from this site, including an intrusive Cahuilla arrow straightener. A single site has been recorded in the immediate vicinity of the proposed 100-year flood pond site. Situated on a knoll north of the Encinitas Creek river bottom and east of Rancho Santa Fe, site SDi-11,267 (W-48-A) was reported by M. Rogers to be a campsite utilized by San Dieguito, Littoral (i.e., Archaic), and Yuman (i.e., Late Prehistoric) peoples. The site exhibited flaked tools, considerable groundstone tools, ceramics, shell, and hearth stones. Rogers described the site as having been disturbed and eroded due to a long history of bean farming. SDi-1 1,267 was investigated in 1989 by G. T. Gross, M. Robbins-Wade, and T. Brown Sampson, who described it as a sparse shell and lithic scatter spread over a wide area. The observed artifacts included 1 mano, 1 San Dieguito-like scraper, 1 flake, and 1 hammer. 11 I I A review of previous research disclosed that a site, SDi-6868, had been identified in the vicinity of the area proposed to be impacted by construction of the flood control berm. This site was first recorded in 1979 by Gary Stickel, who observed shell, fire affected rock, some pottery sherds, and possibly some grey midden. Stickel described the site as being badly disturbed by modern habitation, cultivation, and other recent activities. In particular, the "site has been superimposed by a n/s access road, to former habitation areas which have obliterated most of the site" (Site Survey Form). Stickel concluded that "only a test phase level program could determine its true extent, depth, age, complexity and level of disturbance." A subsequent investigation of SDi-6868 was conducted in 1989 by RECON as part of an assessment of the status of cultural resources on Community Bank property proposed for development. This investigation found traces of the site despite the fact that the area "has become badly overgrown during the long, fallow period following use of the property as an orchard" (Davis and Hector 1989). The findings of the RECON field investigation include the following: Remains of this site, in the form of a thin scatter of shell, including Chione and Argopecten sp., were noted on the flat area identified as a former orchard. A portion of the site extends into an area where active agricultural operations were indicated, although no evidence in the form of soil discoloration (indicative of midden deposits) was noted in the freshly tilled areas. The site is located in that portion of the property where the archaeological visibility is most severely degraded due to overgrowth. This hampered efforts to determine the current extent and integrity. What is visible to the surveyor are several small scatters of shell, located in the approximate area where the site is recorded. Continuity between the visible shell patches cannot be established without removal of the weeds and grasses which obscure the ground. From such evidence as is visible, damage to the site from past agricultural operations appears to be extensive (Davis and Hector 1989:8). Davis and Hector concluded that a testing program would be necessary to determine the significance of this site and that if such a testing program revealed a significant subsurface component, mitigation in the form of open space preservation or data recovery would be recommended to mitigate the impacts of construction. I I I 12 I I U I I I V. STUDY METHODS The methods used to determine the existence of cultural resources included the records search described above and an intensive field survey. The records search, conducted for an area one half mile on either side of the proposed pipeline route, was requested from the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University and the Museum of Man. The intensive on-foot examination of the Olivenhain Road Widening/Realignment and the Floodwater Detention Basin project locations was conducted by Mr. John R. Cook (Cultural Resource Manager) and Dr. Michael Baksh (Senior Anthropologist/Archaeologist) on February 1, 1991. The intensive on-foot examination of the La Costa/El Camino Real project area was conducted by Dr. Baksh on June 3, 1991. A survey interval of 10 to 20 meters was maintained throughout all undeveloped portions of the project areas, except for areas of poor accessibility and low surface visibility (see below). Special attention was also given the locations of previously recorded sites and other areas considered to have the potential for site occurrence. Surface visibility was excellent for the survey of Olivenhain Road, with the exception of the western one-third to one-half of area proposed for alternate alignment #1. This area is crossed by Encinitas Creek which supports dense stands of willows, giant reed, and other plants. Accessibility and ground visibility are generally limited to several trails that pass through the length of this proposed route in this location. The intensive survey of the proposed floodwater detention basin was generally restricted to the perimeter of the project area, which is situated on either side of Encinitas Creek. Most of the project area is marsh and densely covered with Salicornia (pickleweed), Typha (cat- tail), and other riparian plants that obscure ground visibility. The northern perimeter of the proposed detention basin appears to have been cultivated in the distant past since it supports little native vegetation; the current vegetation basically consists of sparse clumps of grasses and Russian thistle that allow fair ground visibility. The southern perimeter abuts a recently plowed field that allows excellent visibility. The proposed 100-year floodwater pond area east of Rancho Santa Fe Road offered excellent visibility. The area has been used extensively for cattle grazing, and currently only supports sparse clumps of grass. The intensive survey of the La Costa/El Camino Real Flood Control project area was largely restricted to area currently not submerged and/or characterized by densely vegetated marsh. The boundary of marsh land along the southern side of La Costa Avenue, where most of the berm will be constructed, was scrutinized for any evidence of cultural remains. The area south and west of the riparian/marsh vegetation was surveyed intensively. This area, which consists of dense stands of grasses, weeds, and other vegetation, corresponds largely with the site SDi-6868 as described by Stickel in 1979 and re-evaluated by Davis and Hector (1989). Aside from a few very small clearings, the north/south dirt road through the site area offered the best ground visibility. The elevated, vacant lot situated immediately southwest of 13 VL RESULTS The results of the archaeological surveys were negative in that no significant cultural resources were identified in the three proposed project areas. Olivenhain Road Widening and Realignment No cultural resources were found within the area proposed 'for the widening and possible realignment of Olivenhain Road. The northeast corner of Olivenhain Road and El Camino Real was the focus of special attention. but no artifacts from site SDi-4872 were located in . the project area. Importantly, the area within about 100 feet of Olivenhain has been graded since the archaeological test reported by Gallegos and Pigniola (1989) was performed. This graded area includes portions of proposed alternate routes., 3, and 4, and in fact extends north for several feet beyond' the alignment of these routes. This grading has likely not destroyed any significant resources and, 1i any case, none were observed. Site SDi- 4872 was relocated in the area described by Kaldenberg (i.e., about 300 feet north of Olivenhain Road) and appears to be in the, condition more recently described by Gallegos and Pigmola (1989) Artifacts observed to be eroding down the hill in the direction of Olivenhain Road included a mano, hmmerstone, and numerous, flakes, but these materials are out of the project area. In general, both sides of Olivenhain Road between El Camino Real. and the Bridgewater and Rancho Del Ponderosa residential tracts have .been heavily, impacted. On the north side of Olivenhain Road, the area below and east of the north-south high voltage transmission lines has been cleared of brush and recently graded, and has generally sustained. heavy vehicular traffic. An east-west electricity line has also been constructed here. On the south side, the area between Olivenhain Road and Encinitas Creek has been graded in the distant past and currently contains numerous large chunks of asphalt and cement. In addition, a gas plant and gas lines have been constructed, and the east-west electricity line mentioned above has been constructed along the south side of Olivenhain Road at its western end. The only relatively undisturbed project area is the proposed. alternate #1 route, but sites are unlikely to occur, in this riparian location and, in any case, none were found. No effort was made to relocate site W-438, which is situated about 150 meters north of Olivenhain Road. In any case, the site was tested by B., Smith and found not to be significant (Smith 1990).' Similarly, no effort was made to relocate site SDi-11027, which is about 100 meters south of the southernmost proposed route (Alternate #1), and no effort was made to locate SDi-4.400, which is in a developed area out of the Olivenhàin Road project area. Finally, no cultural remains were found in the large lot west of the El Camino Real/Olivenhain Road intersection south of Encinitas Creek and between El Camino Real and the cultivated fields to the west. 15' 1 Floodwater Detention Basin and 100-Year Flood 'Pond No sites were found in the area proposed for a floodwater detention basin. Although sites are not likely to be located in marshy areas, that are regularly inundated, it must be noted that this wetland and its dense riparian vegetation prevented a thorough examination of the property. Although site SDi-2734 is described' as existing near the southeastern border of the project area, no cultural materials were observed in this area. No cultwal resources were found in the bottomland area proposed for a 100-year flood pond, 'but site, SDi-ll,267 was relocated on 'a knoll north of the project property and approximately 120 feet east of Rancho Santa Fe Road. Amano, granitic metate fragment, and cobble hsrnimerstone were observed on this knoll. No artifacts were found within "about 60 feet of the project area. , La Costa/El Camino Real Flood Control Berm With the exception of site SDi-6868,' no cultural resources were found in the vicinity of the areas that would .be utilized for a flood control berm under either Alternative No. 1 or Alternative No. 2. The' only evidence observed of SDi-6868 was very light scatters of shell along the north/south dirt road south of the riparian area. A few of the relatively cleared areas on either side of the dirt road "also exhibited extremely light deposits of. shell. 'Although the site Was originally mapped as extending north to La Costa Avenue, no shell or prehistoric cultural remains were observed along the road where it passes through the riparian strip in excess of .50 feet south of La Costa Avenue. If, the site had extended north to La Costa Avenue, it would be impacted with implementation of Alternative No. 2. No lithics, ceramics or other artifacts described by Stickel in 1979 Were observed anywhere, but the dense and virtually impenetrable . vegetation in much of' this area prevented a thorough surface examination of the site. I Li 'I I 16 VII. IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS No cultural resources are located within the areas proposed for the widening and realignment of Olivenhain Road, the floodwater detention basin and the 1007year flood pond, or the construction of an earthen berm southwest of the La Costa/El Camino Red intersection No adverse direct impacts are expected to result from implementation of these three projects It is also unlikely that indirect impacts would occur to sites located in:the, vicinity of the project areas due to project implementation In the effort to minimize such risks, however, it is recommended that all construction activities lin the northeast corner of Olivenham Road and El Caniino Real be restricted to an area within 50 feet of the proposed alternative alignments so as not to threaten damage to SDi-4872 It is also recommended that prior to construction, the site boundary be flagged by an ;archäeologist and identified to construction crews as environmentally sensitive. No dirt or indirect impacts to site SDi-11267 are expected to occur with implementation of the proposed project The construction of detention basin "D" dike, for example, would occur well west of Rancho Santa Fe Road. Similarly, proposed road improvements to Rancho Santa Fe Road are not expected to impact SDi-1 1267, since this site is situated approximately, 120 feet east of the current road alignment. Any road construction activities along Rancho Santa Fe Road should be restricted to an area within 50 feet of the current right-of-way.,-, Finally, although it is unlikely a flood control berm in the vicinity of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real would impact SDi-6868, either through its construction or due to flooding brought about by its presence, it is apparent that implementation of Alternative No 1 would virtually eliminate any risk of impact to the site If Alternative No 2 is selected, it is recommended that an archaeologist monitor the site periodically during construction in light of the original northern boundary having been mpped up to La Costa'Avenue.. 17 1 I REFERENCES I Almtedt, Ruth F. 1982 Kumeyaay and 'ilpay. In APS/SDG&E Interconnection Native American Cultural Resources, edited, by Clyde M. Woods, pp. 6-20. Wirth Associates, I Inc., San Diego. California Division of. Mines and Geology ,I 1985 Geologic Map of California: Santa Ana Sheet. Fifth Printing. The Resources Agency Department of Conservation, Sacramento, California. I Davis, Mac and Susan Hector 1989 A Cultural Resource Assessment of the Community Bank Project, La Costa, San Diego County. RECON, San Diego. I Gifford, E.W. 1931 The Kanna of Imperial Valley. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 98 .1 Hedges, Ken 1975 Notes on the Kumeyaay: A Problem of Identification. Journal of California I . Anthropology 2(1):71-83. Hicks, Fredrick N. . I 1963 Ecological Aspects of Aboriginal Culture in the Western Yuman Area. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1 Luomala, Katherine 1976 Flexibility in Sib Affiliation among the Diegueflo. In Native Californians: A Theoretical Retrospective, edited by L. J. Bean, and T. C. Blackburn, pp. 245- 270. Ballena Press, Socorro, New Mexico. Rensch, Hero E. 1 1975 The Indian Place Names of Rancho Cuyamaca. Acoma Books, Ramona, California. I Rogers, Malcolm J. 1945 An Outline of Yuman Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, I . 1(2):157-198. 1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West. Union-Tribune Publishing, San Diego. Shackley, M. Steven - 1984 Archaeological Investigations in the Western Colorado Desert: A Socioecological Approach, Vol. 1. Wirth Environmental Services, A Division of Dames & Moore, San Diego. I 18 I Shipek, Florence 1982 The Kamia. In APSISDG&E Interconnection Project Native American Cultural Resources, edited by Clyde Woods, pp. 21-33. Wirth Associates, Inc., San Diego. Smith, Brian F. 1990 An Evaluation of Cultural Resources within the Arroyo La Costa Project (City of Carlsbad,-California).Prepared by Brian F Smith & Associates, San Diego, California. Spier, Leslie 1923 Southern Diegueflo Customs University of California Publications in American Archaeology, and Ethnology 20292-358 True, D.L. 1966 Archaeological Differentiation of Shoshonean and Yuman Speaking Groups in Southern California Unpublished Ph D dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1970 Investigation of a Late Prehistoric Complex in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, San Diego County, California Archaeological Survey Monograph, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.' Warren, Claude N 1964 Cultural Change and Continuity On the San Diego Coast. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. 19 ¼ I SOUTH COASTAL INFORMATION CENTER SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH LABORATORY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND LETTERS r T - SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-0436 J A N i 1QQ ' w (619) 594-5682 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FILES RECORD SEARCH PROJECT Sôurcé of Request: BRIAN F. )ONEY ASSOCIATES Date of Request: JANUARY 7, 1991 Date Request Received: JANUARY 8, 1991 Project Identification: D/IDADALIENT ( ) The San Diego County University files show NO recorded sites within the projected area nor within one mile of the project boundaries. (XX The San Diego State University files show recordd site locations within the projected area and/or within one mile of the project. Record check by: JAN CULBERT Date: JANUARY 16, 1991 The San Diego State University files show that the following archaeological reports have been published on projects within one mile of your proposed project. SEE ATTACHED LISTING Archive check by: JAN CULBERT Date: JANUARY 16, 1991 THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY San Diego Museum of Man PORT ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FILESRECORD SEARCH Source of Request: Brian FL Mooney Associates -:Carol Serr Name of Project: OMWD/Roãd Alignment Date of Request: 7 January 1991, Date Request Received: 11 January 1991 The Record Search for the above referenced project has been completed. Archaeological site file information is enclosedfor.,thè following sites locatedwithin or in the vicinity of the project area: W-48 W-49 W-94 W-179 W-180 W-182 W-577 W-896 W-918 [thru] W-923 W-944 W-945 W-947 W-948 W-950 W-951 W-981 W-982 W-1208 (thru) ,W?121O. W-1259 . W-1260 W-1262 W-1315 W-1317 [thru] W-1321 W-1329 W-1350 W-1351 . W-1352 - .W- 1410 W-1576 .W-1741 . W-1947,[thru) W-195,3 W-2050 W-2052 W-2804 .W--2888 W-2889 W-3462 W-3664 . W-3857 W-3858 W-3982 Bibliographic information is enclosed for the following reports on archaeological environmental -impact studies conducted wtthinor. in the vicinity of the project area: :. EIS-23 EIS-41 EIS-42 EIS-54 EIS-55 EIS-105 EIS-199 EIS-1205 EIS-208 EIS-224 EIS-246 . EIS-281 EIS-491 EIS-508 EIS-520 EIS-527 EIS-588 EIS623 EIS-736 EIS-820 EIS-827 . EIS-850 EIS451 EiS-881 EIS-916 EIS-917 This Record Search is based only on information contained in.the files of the San Diego Museum of Man. Archaeological site records. and/or environmental impact studies perftaining to the project area may exist in other repositories. . . Record Search prepared by: JQ-1L. Grace Johnson Date of Record Search: 14 January 1991 50 El Prado. Balboa Park. San Diego. California 92101 619/239-2901 An educational, non-profit corporation founded in 1915 collecting for posterity and displaying the life and history of man APPENDIX 7 SOIL AND GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE TECHNICAL REPORT. (GEOCON) RCE 22527 CEG 86 (6) addres q? GEORGE NO. 22527 ) II EXP. 1231.93/ // ' ENG1NEEl3 I *\ GEOLOGIST j* OF. C Monte L. Murbach Project Geologist GEOCON INCORPORATED Geotechnical Engineers and Engineering Geologists File No. 04392-14-03 February 28, 1991 Brian F. Mooney Associates 9903-B Business Park Avenue San Diego, California 92131 Attention: Mr. Michael Gonzalez Subject: OLIVENHAIN ROAD REALIGNMENT ENCINTFAS, CALIFORNIA SOIL AND GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE Gentlemen: In accordance with your request and our proposal dated September 5, 1990, we have performed a soil and geologic reconnaissance of the subject project. The accompanying report presents the findings from our study and our conclusions and recommendations relative to the geotechnical aspects of future road improvements. Should you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further, service, please-contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, 6960 Flanders Drive San Diego, CA 92121-2974 619 558-6900 FAX 619 558-6159 TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE ...............................................1 SITE AND PROJECF DESCRIPTION .................................... 2 General........................................................ 2 Western Portion ..................................................2 Eastern Portion ..................................................3 Fill) INVESTIGATION .................. . ... ........................ .....; 4 SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ....................................4 DelmarFormation ................................................5 Torrey Sandstone .......................................................5 Alluvium......................................................5 Slopewash.............................................................6 Undocumented Fill ...............................................6 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE .................................................6 GROUNDWATER .................................................... 7 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ..............................................7 Landslides.......................................................... Faulting and Seismicity ...........................................7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................9 General ......................................................... Western Portion of Olivenhain Road Improvement ......................9 Preferred Alignment Alternative No .2 10 Eastern Portion of Olivenhain Road Improvement ........................11 ThompsonProperty .........................................11 Desilting' Basin .............................................11 GeneralPlanning ..................................................12 FutureStudies ....................................................12 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS LIST OF MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1, Vicinity Map Figures 2 - 3, Geological Reconnaissance Maps • I File No. 04392-14-63 February 28, 1991 i SOIL AND GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE PURPOSE AND SCOPE I The purpose of this soil and geologic reconnaissance was to provide preliminary geotechnical information relative to the improvement and realignment of Olivenhain Road for inclusion in an Environmental Impact Report It is understood that as final plans are I developed, more detailed geotechnical studies will be performed The scope of our services consisted of geologic field mapping by a project geologist and a review of geotechnical reports and information relative to the site. In, particular, the following reports, maps, and photographs were reviewed 1 USDA Aerial Stereo Photographs, Flight Nos.-.,8XN-8M-75 and 8XN-8M-76, dated .1953. : 2 On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego 1 County, Abbott, P L, ed.; San Diego Association of Geologists, dated 1985. . ' 1 3 Soil and Geologic Investigation for Olivenhain Road Improvement, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated June 18, 1990 4 Olivenhain Road Alternative Nos 1 through 4, Scale 1 inch equals 200 feet, prepared by Project Design Consultants, dated October 9, 1990, 5 Olivenhain Road Realignment Plans, Scale 1 inch equals 200 feet, I prepared by Brian F. Mooney & Associates, undated. I. I I File No. 04392-14-03 February 28, 1991 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION General The project is located at the northern boundary of Encinitas, California. Olivenhain Road trends east-west and is terminated' on the west by El Camino Real and on the east by Rancho Santa Fe Road. The Olivenhain Road improvement p1änsaré essentially limited to two portions of the existing road: (1) the eastern portion which is planned for widening of the existing road alignment and the construction of.a desilting basin; and (2) the western portion which. is planned. for realignment and widening. 'The referenced maps indicate maximum cuts on the order of thirty feet and fill depths up to 20 feet, with' cut and fill slopes planned at inclinations of 2:1 (horizóntal:vertical) or flatter. It is our understanding that the central portion of Olivenhain Road (which is already widened) does not require geotechnical input for minor improvements planned. ' Western Portion ' The western portion of the existing road is an existing two-lane section which bisects relatively undeveloped land. The land is primarily covered with native brush and grasses and a few small trees. A major north-south oriented utility easement crosses this portion of the project and contains two gas lines and 'one fuel line. Four alternative alignments are being considered for this portion of the project (see references). It is our understanding that Alternative No. 2 is tentatively the preferred -2- File No. 04392-14-03 February 28, 1991 alignment and that our geotechnical review should place emphasis on this alternative. Topographically, this end of the project is dominated by a southerly facing slope which ends in an alluvium-filled, east-west-trending valley. Elevations vary from approximately 150 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL) north of the road to 75 feet, MSL at the intersection of the alluvial valley with El Camino Real. Eastern Portion The eastern portion of the road is a partially widened section with sing1e4ami1y residences to the north and a single family residence and open space to the south The north side of the road abuts the toe of a smith facing artificial slope. which is primarily covered with ice plant and small trees. ,It is our understanding that this slope will not be altered during site development. The, south side of the road section planned for widening is, sparsely covered with native brush and grasses. Topographically, this portion of the project is dominated by southerlyfacbg.artfficial and natural slopes which also end in the alluvium-filled east-west trending valley Elevations vary from approximately 150 feet MSL north of the road to approximately, 105 feet to the south in the valley. Based on review of the referenced plans it is our understanding that the proposed development along this portion will consist of widening the south side of the road and the -3- File No. 04392-14-03 February 28, 1991 construction of a permanent desilting basin located south of the road in the alluviated valley. The proposed widening will encroach the Thompson property wherein a retaining wall and/or a 2:1 slope is planned. to facilitate the improvement. FIELD INVESTIGATION The field investigation included geologic mapping performed on February 19, 1991, by a project geologist. Field observations were assisted by analysis of referenced stereoscopic photographs. The mapping is presented on the base maps provided by Brian F Mooney Associates (Figures 2 and 3). No exploratory excavations or laboratory testing were performed during this investigation. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS Two geologic formations and three surficial soil types were encountered during the reconnaissance. Formational deposits included the Eocene-aged Delmar Formation and the Torrey Sandstone. The surficial deposits consist of alluvium, slopewash and undocumented fill. Each of the geologic formations and surficial-units is described below in order of decreasing age. In the event soil or geologic conditions require mitigation or remediation, such details are discussed later in this report. -4- File No. 04392-14-03 February 28, 1991 Delmar Formation Portions of the western. section of the site are Underlain by the Eocene-aged Delmar Formation that generally consist of relatively, dense, brown to olive green sandstones, siltstones and claystones. Adversely dipping bedding and remolded clay seams were observed at the western portion of the site, as indicated in the referenced investigation report, which will affect slopes excavated within this formation, mitigation is discussed hereinafter. Torrey Sandstone. . Portions of the site are capped by the Eocene-aged. Torrey Sandstone. This formation consists of dense, light tan sandstone and is underlain by the Delmar Formation. The contact between the, two formations at the western portion of the site was noted at an approximate elevation of 115 feet MSL. Alluvium Soils of alluvial origin occur within the drainage bottoms at the eastern and western portions of the site. These deposits typically consist of silty to clayey sands to sandy clays. Depths of alluvium at the western portion are approximated at 30 to 50 feet The depth of alluvium in the area of the proposed desilting basin is approximated at 25 feet. These soils have been previously classified as moderately to highly compressible and mitigation will be necessary. . . - 'I 1 File No. 04392-14-03 .' February 28, 1991 . . "I Slopewash Slopewash soils were observed adjacent to-and beneath the western portion' of the subject '1 road and generally consist of loose to stiff 'brown and dark'brOwn sandy clays and clayey sands. The thicknessof slopewash soils is. approximated between 2 and 7 feet. - . . Undocumented Fill •• The majority of the undocumented fills were observed beneath and adjacent to the western portion of Olivenhain Road. Fills were also noted. at the eastern portion. ApjrOxinatefffl depths range from 2 to-8 feet and cap formational soils, alluvium or slopewash. The fills, .':as observed in the previous investigation, were generally composed of loose to medium - dense, moist to saturated, silty to clayey sands. Undocumented fill soils utilized fOr I construction Of the existing road. will require remedial grading in the' areas planned * for improvement. . . S ' *. • I - - , -. . •• . - I ;GEOLOGIC STRUC'FURE • - . ' ;' iBedding of the Dehnar Formation genérallr dipsfrdm 2 to 5 degrees to the southwest. Previously observed bedding planes and remolded clay seaths will be exposed duiing slope I • excavation and-will.be dipping adversely out-bf-slO,ewhichwill require remedial jráding in theformof a stabilityfill. 1 -S S • S • S 1-6 SI • . . S File No. 04392-14-03 February 28, 1991 = I GROUNDWATER Perched water, or grundwater was previously encountered in subsurface excavations at various depths within alluvial and formational soils Groundwater, or seepage, at the site may vary as a result of seasonal fluctuation or irrigation. Perched water conditions are likely to exist near the surface within the major east-west alluvial-1111e4 valley, and the shallow groundwater, may require special consideration to reduce construction difficUlties. H GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Landslides Landslides were not observed within the proposed area of development during the reconnaissance. Faulting and Seismicity Based on the site reconnaissance and review of in-house reports and published maps, it appears that .the site is not located on any known active fault trace. The Rose.;Canyon Fault, located approximately 5 miles west of the site, is currently, the subject of research to determine the potential for seismic activity. The results of ongoing research indicate movement has occurred along the Rose Canyon Fault during the Holocene Epoch and the California Division of Mines and Geology is currently acting to include this fault within an Aiquist-Priolo Special Studies. Zone. -7- -8- CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General 1 No soil or geologic conditions were encountered that m our opinion would preclude I the widening of the subject portions of Olivenhain Road..However, the presence of undocumented fill soils, compressible alluvium and shallow groundwater will require special consideration where development is planned. I 2 The prevailing earth materials should be readily excavatable with conventional earth moving equipment with the exception of localized zones which may require heavy I ripping. Western Portion of Olivenham Road Improvement I 3 Development at the western portion of the site will require remedial grading of existing undocumented fill soils, formational soils with adverse bedding, and 1 slopewash/alluvial soils Shallow, groundwater will likely be encountered in areas I where alluvial soils are found Proposd alignments located south of the existing road, will predominantly be underlain by alluvial soils where partial removal and I recompaction of these soils will be reqyired; construction dewatering will likely be necessary. Conversely, proposed alignments located north of the existing road will H'. I File No 04392-14-03 February 28, 1991 require stabilization fills for slopes cut in Delmar Foimätional soils containing adverse bedding. Partial removal and recompaction of alluvial soils will also be necessary; construction dewatering will likely be required. Undocumented fills (including trench backfills) encountered within the proposed alignment will require removal and recompaction. Preferred Alignment Alternative No. 2. This plan considered the preferred alignment has a proposed alignment that is located both north and south of the existing road. Construction on this alignment will require removal and recompaction of existing fill soils (including trench backfill), slopewash and 'ahiviuin (partial removal); Construction will also require a stabilization replacement fill for the proposed approximate 32 feet high 2:1 cut slope located, within adverse bedding of the Delmar Formation.' The presence of shallow groundwater will limit the depth of remedial grading to just above the groundwater. It should be anticipated that in situ treatment of the alluvium (i. e. placement of a geotextile fabric and coarse aggregate blanket) will be required Over the exposed cut soils prior to compaction of fill and pavement. Construction dewatering, particularly adjacent to 'El 'Camino Real, will likely be required. _10- File No. 0439244-03 February 28, 1991 Eastern:.Portion of Olivenhain Road Improvement 4. Development at the eastern portion of 'the Olivenhain Road, as, indicated by the referenced plans, will consist of widening the southern lanes This area is underlain predominately by Torrey Sandstone and will require nominal remedial grading in the form of removal and recompaction of the near surface soils. Fill slopes will require a fill key located at the toe of the proposed slope. a. Thompson Property. Proposed plans. indicate that widening Of Olivenhain Road will encroach the Thompson. property. It is our understanding that two options for improvement are proposed to facilitate the road widening: (1) construct a 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) fill slope; or (2) construct a retaining wall and a 2:1 slope. This area is underlain by relatively, shallow fill and Torrey. Sandstone. Remedial grading for either option will consist of removal and recompaction of loose surficial soils, which, may include existing fill soils. Fill slopes will- require a fill key located at the toe of the proposed slope b Desiltmg Basin Proposed plans indicate that a permanent desilting basin will be constructed south of the eastern, road improvement portion in the major east-west valley. In general, the area of the proposed.basin berms will require File No. 04392-14-03 February 28, 1991 I remedial grading in the form of removal and recOmpaction of the near surface loose alluvial soils and any existing undocumented fill soils. It is anticipated that: fill slopes will be constructed at inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or 1 flatter. (1 General Planning I 5. Fill slopes should be provided with an erosion resistant ground cover and a well 'Installation. designed and maintainedirrigation system. should be provided as soon I as practical to reduce the erosion potential. 6 The areas within the existing utility easement will require special considerations :# Proposed improvements across the easement should be reviewed and approved by the owner agency. S 1 5 5 Future Studies S S 7. Prior to the finalization of roadway, improvement plans a detailed soil and geologic I investigation addressing the proposed alignment should be performed. ri . : •' • • •: - S 1 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS I The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, I or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous materials was not, part of the scope of services provided by Geocon Incorporated. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of . his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project .and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors I carry out such recommendations in the field. I 3 The findings of this report are valid as of the present date However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties In addition, changes in I applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years I 4. File No. 04392- 14-03 cq I4------ as CAR '_-- - i ou .r.TB_l Jc bosom A Fr $11 AMANLCJR iR IL - MS Jj M - * • I" . 0 .. - i . I - 61 ' ;k; —± c 71 jJ - " SWRLO 5 T-.CIR / £0T • - , ENCINITAS0D - — — - . 8 - R0flL.L. O .o . . C. ORTE I .. 'ri' .- _ ,,/.,..,.. •••J // Th'A N -00 € - IZI? '" . • I 0 - on 'i 410 RSF' on. - - ' -•:.. -. .- - .4- 4-. - - REF. MAP: 1991 SAN DIEGO THOMASROS. GUIDE' OMAS B PG., 23 :,. On - 4- -, - -*4- -. -p NO SCALE 4. 1 VICINIT-V MAP 'f OLWErHAIN ROAD ALIGNMENT 4_ - -ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA -. I Figure1 File No. 04392-14-03 I, 0 C E Ui (..._. -Ilk - t Apçroajm.SeU Ian HabIsS-- N SCALE 1 .. o ioo' 200 \ ,. S .A LEGNO Qudf__.. UNDOCUMENTED FILL Q3w___ SLOPEWASH I 001 --- ALLUVIUM 7)' lORREY SANDSTONE Ta' DELMAR FORMATION APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT REF. NAP: BRIAN F MOONEY ASSOCIATES GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE MAP OLWEN}{iUN ROJD ALIGNMENT ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA • • I Figure •• . .• I I File No. 04392-14-03 Qudf .011venhaln Road V ....: . .. THOMPSON Qudf Qudf o çl\ TY Disturbed Area PROPERTY APPROX. LOCATION 1 I OF DESILTING BASIN 00/ -00 SCALE * FOR LEGEND SEE FIGURE 2 V Ar-'~ n $ 4 REF. NAP: BRIAN F. MOONEY ASSOCIATES GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE MAP OLWENHAIN ROAD ALIGNMENT V V ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA V Figure APPENDIX 8 EL CAMINO REAL/OLIVENHAIN ROAD INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSES ATTACHMENT A: City of Carlsbad ICU Analysis ATTACHMENT B: City of Encinitas ICU Analysis I ATTACHMENT A I CITY OF CARLSBAD ICU ANALYSIS FOR EL CAMINO REAL/OLIVENHAIN ROAD INTERSECTION I. H I I ;CITY OF ENCINITAB COMMUNITY' DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I . INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: George Villegas, Traffic Engineer 1 FROM: trick S., 'Murphy, Community Development Director DATE: April 9, 1991 I SUBJECT: Traffic Information for Olivenhain Road Alignment EIR I On iarch 28, '1991 the City met with the County. of San. Diego Public, Works staff regarding the response to their request to provide an. intersection traffic analysis of El Camino Real and Olivenhain I Road. . If you recall, their comments to the NO? (Notice of Preparation) for the EIR noted that there was a potential for a grade.separation at El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road. I Are you able to. review the traffic information that we received from the City of Carlsbad and determine whether or not a grade separation is warranted? i' there a specific level of volume that ,would require a grade separation? . .. . Ic . During our meeting with .the County, their staff stated ' that a traffic analysis should also include a discussion of the interim impacts/volumes until,build out is achieved - What would be the impacts of the El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road during-the period that regional' roads are, not constructed? We felt that this question would be difficult. to . impossible to answer, since all I .analysis is typically completed for. build out scenarios, and it would be difficult to determine the timing of the construction of regional roads. /Any suggestions? ' Attention: George Fares, Wilidan Please review the Carlsbad intersection analysis (attached) and compare with the Encinitas Traffic Analysis for similar 'network assumptions. Are you aware of.-.any warrants for grade separation? R, I am of the opinion that when an intersection reaches LOS F it becomes' a candidate for grade separation if no other, measures are feasible. Your opinions are requested. Don't spend too much time on this and need your answer by next week.. George I . . . I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION MODEL NS: EL CAMINO REAL BUILDOUT PROJECTION EW OLIVENHAIN RD AM PEAKTh INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS / LANE GEOMETRY 1 339 463 149 . V --> 0 3, 2 177----' 2 0'--- 587 587 3 3<---- 875 93----, 0 .2,---- 227. 2 3 0 I I I 48 1573 98 North LANE GROUP CAPACITY I Left Thru Right Turn Turn Default Capacity 1500 1700 1500 Northbound 2700 5100 0 Southbound 2700 5100 0 Eastbound 2700 5100 0 Westbound 2700 5100 0 VOLUME/CAPACITY RATIO Left Thru Right .. . Turn Turn . . Northbound'.1.80/0 / 32.8% ----- 0.0% 1 Southbound . .5.5% 353% 0.0% . Eastbound 66% 133% 00% Westbound 8.4% 28.7% EFFICIENCY LOST FACTOR 0.1 CAPACITY UTILIZATION 63.5% Percent Utilization LEVELOFSERVICE ----> 0 . . . •1 I I I INTERSECTION CAPACITY W1LLZATON MODEL NS ELCAMINO REAL BUILDOUT PROJECTION EW: OLIVENHAIN RD. AM PEAK I . TRAFFIC VOLUMES Left Thru Right (Vehicles per Hour) Turn '. 'Turn. Northbound 48 1573 98 Southbound 149; 1463 339 . EastboiThd 177 587 ' 93 I. Westbound . 227 . 875 587 INTERSECTION GEOMETRY I (Number of Lanes) . L LT T TA A LA LTR Default Capacity 1500 1500 1700 1700 1500 1500 1500 . Northbound 2 0 .3 0 0 0 0 j Southbound 2 0 ' 3 0 0 , 0 0 Eastbound 2 0 , 2 1 0 , 0 ' 0 I . Westbound 2 . 2 . 11 0 0 0 - LANE GROUP CAPACITY Left Thru Right (VPH of Green) Turn . Turn 1 ' . Northbound 2700 ' .5100 0 Southbound' 2700 5100' , 0 , I Eastbound 2700 . .. .'5100-i" , 0 Westbound .2700 5100 0 I VOLUME/CAPACITY RATIO Left Thru . Right • . Turn ' Turn • . • Northbound 1.80A' 32.8°Jo 0.00h Southbound .. 5.5% '3.5.3% 0.00/0 ' Eastbound 6.6% 13.30io 0.0% Westbound 8.40/b 28.7% 0.0% INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION MODEL NS: EL CAMINO REAL ,._.BUILDOUPROJECTION EW: OLIVENHAIN RD. PM PEAK INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS I LANE GEOMETRY .. ' •'& . 1- 97 1250 345 . .. .1 .1 .' . -1 0 3 2. 164 ---- 2 0 ---- 262 ' 878 ----- 3 . 3 <---- 436 40----, 0 2---- 220.' ' •... V . '• V .2 3 0 ' .•' I I I. - . .• '1756 122 165. . I . • ' ' North ,•• ' -' LANE GROUP CAPACITY ' Left Turn Thru Right Turn . Default Capacity 1500 . 1700 1.500 ' . •. . Northbound 2700 5100 0 ' Southbound . 2700 5100 0 Eastbound 2700 5100 0 Westbound 2700 5100 0 ' • VOLUME/CAPACITY RATIO . .• ' '.c • • .'. Left Thru ' . S • • Right Turn , Turn S ' Northbound 4.50/0 '37.7% 0.0% Southbound 12.8%• 26.4% 0.0% Eastbound • 6.10/0 18.0% 0.00/0 5 5 5 5 Westbound 8.1% .' 13.7% • 0.06/a ,, • S S EFFICIENCY LOST FACTOR 0.1 S , • . , S • - CAPACITY UTILIZATION : '• 'S , 5 86.60% . • Percent Utilization • S • • LEVEL OF SERVICE ----> D S •S , I INTERSECTION CAPACITY LrnUZA11ON MODEL .. . I ., NS: EL CAMINO REAL BUILDOUT PROJECTION EW: OLIVENHAIN RD. PM PEAK I . TRAFFIC VOLUMES . Left Thru . Right (Vehicles per Hour) . Turn Turn I . Northbound 122 1756 165 Southbound . 345 1250 97 Eastbound 164 . 878 40. . - •. Westbound . . 220 . 436 262 INTERSECTION, GEOMETRY . I .. I . (Number of Lanes) .. Default Capacity . . L 1500 LT 1500 T 1.700 IR 1700 R 1500 LR . LTR 1500 1500 Northbound 2 . 0 3 0 0 0 0 I'. . Southbound 0 3 0 O 0 0 Eastbound . 2 0 2 1' 0 . 2 0 0 0 Westbound 1 0 0 1 LANE GROUP CAPACITY Le: Thru Right (VPH of Green) Turn Turn .- Northbound 2700 51O0. 0 Southbound 2700 5100 0 Eastbound 2700 5100 0, Westbound 2700 5100 0 VOLUME/CAPACITY- RATIO Left Thru . Right 1 . . . Turn . Turn . Northbound 4.5% 37.7% 0.00/0 I ... '. Southbound 12.8% 26.4% 00% Eastbound. .6.1% 18.00/0. 0.0% Westbound 8.10A 13.7% 0.00/0 I . . . . :1 ... ,. . ... .. I H . hk & ass ocarc5 I' I CITY OF CARLSBAD SUMMER 1990 • I Intersection Number: 28 • .• Intersection Location: • El Camino Real adO'lii'énhain Road • CONTENT- A.M. Peak HourICUHeavy Demand Procedure 1 of 2 PM. Peak Hour ICU Heavy Demand Procedure 2 of 2 (I • •/•. • • • . • • • •• • • • • •• • •• ••' .1 I U hk & associates EL CAMINO REAL at OLIVEWNAIW ROAD Lane configuration for Intersection Capáci ty, Utilization Page 2 of 3 Pk Hr. Time Period: So Approach (WBY No Approach (SB) West Appr. (ES) East Appr. (UB) 07:30AMtO ................... .................................................. I'. . 08:'30 -AM Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left ThruRight Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 1 Config- (left) 2 I urations 3 / 6 Outside 5 , , Lane Settings 0 2 1 . 1 2 0. 0 0 0 1 0 1 Capacity, 0 4000 1800, 1800 4000 0 0 0 0 1800 0 1800 Do you want separate Worth/South phases (Yes/No)? N Do you want separate East/Wes.t phases' (Yes/No)' Y Efficiency Lost factor 0.10 Hourly VoLu,e , 0 1 607 433 189 851 0 0 0 0 767 0 21.4 Adjusted Hourly VoLuie0 607 433 189 851 0 0 0 0 767 0 244 . I Utilization Factor, 0.00 6.15 ' 0.24 0.11 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.14 CriticaL. Factors . 0.24 0.11 "' 0.43 ICU Ratio = "0.87 , LOS D ' Turning Movements 'at Intersection of EL CAMINO REAL and OLIVENHAIN ROAD Time: 07:30 AM to 08:30 AM , North Approach EL: CAMINO REAL Date: 07/26/90 Day: THURSDAY. 1891 / <- Total Name: ES ' 1 10401 851 ' < Subtotals ' Sub- 0 ' 851 189 Total totals ' ' Sub- W <-' V '-' , ' totals Total E A , e, . 0 , S . I '''-.• 261. . a s t , ' C . I. . < --- 0 1011 0---' . . 1--- 767 I) A 0 , 0 •-> •, . . j 633 A p 0 ."' ' North V ' p P , I. ,' -.----> 622 p a ' . r ' v i '' OLIVENHAIN ROAD I I I 0 607 433 Subtotals -> 1618 1040 ' Total -> 2658 ' South Approach Note: Left-turn voles include U-turns. I EL CAMIND REAL at OLIVEWNAIW ROAD Lane Configuration for lntersectibn.Capacity UtiLizatiot Page 3 of 3 Pk. Hr. Time Period: So. Approach (NB) No. Approach (SS), West Appr. (ES) East Appr. (US) 04:45 PH to ..........................-. .... 05:45 PM Left Thru:Right Left .Thru Right Left Thru.Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside I 1 1 Config (Left) 2 1 1 1 urat ions 3 1 1 4 Outside 5 Lane Settings 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Capacity 0 4000 .1800 1800 4000 0 0 0 0 1800 0 1860 Do you want separate North/South phases (Yes/No)?, W Do you want separate East/West phases (Yes/No)? Efficiency Lost Factor 0.10 Hourly Votuiie 0 937 639 211 749 w 0 0 .0 0 461 0 .43 Adjusted Hourly Votune 0 937 639 211 749. 0 0 0 0 461 0 143 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.23 0.36 0.12 0.19,0.00 0.00 0.00. 0.00 A.26. 6.00 0..08 Critical Factors 0.36 0.12 026 . ICU Ratio 0.•83.. LOS = D -- I Turning Movements at Intersection of EL CAMIWQ REAL and OLIVENHAII4 ROAD Time: 04:45 PH to 05:5 PH Worth.Approa:h EL CAM! NO REAL . Date: 07/26/90 . Day: THURSDAY 2040 <- Total Name: ES 960. 1080 <- Subtotals N Sub- 0 749 211 Total totals I I I Sub U ........... <. '.> I totals Total E 0 . I a i... 43 s t 0 I <--- 0 604 0---' I /-. 461 A 0 0 ..> •. p 0 -•' Worth I . V 145/. ;. A P : p I . 850 p r •v r I •<-, /> OLIVENHAIN ROAD v I L I• 0 937 639 . • . Subtotals ' 1210. 1576 Total ..' 278.6 • Note: Left -turn volunes in1ude South Appioath U-turns., I 1 I S .1,. jl L 1K & associates I I CITY OF CARLSBAD 1 SUMMER 1990 f LINK COUNT SUMMARY Link Number: 2 Link Location: El Camino Real between Olivenhain Road Levante Street and CONTENT PAGE 15-nute Counts Day 1 1 of 7 I 15 -Minute Counts Day 2 2 of 7 I , 'S 15-Minute Counts Day 3 3 of 7 ••, 48-Hour Volume Summary 4 of 7 1 24-Hour Vol=e Plot Day 1 • 5 of 7 5 24-Hour Volume- Plot Day 2 6 of 7 • • 24-Hour .Volume Plot Day 3 7 of 7 a, I I • . / S I SITE CE 2 Location :11 Camino Real Between 0 FILE: Levante St & Olivenhain Rd Operator : Sink DATE: 7/16 TIME MONDAY 16 . TUESDAY 17 WEDNESDAY 18 THURSDAY 19 FRIDAY 20 SATURDAY 21 SUNDAY 22 AV, BEGIN SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB. NB SB NB 12:00 AM • 43 47 45 54 0 0 S 44 1:00 * 0 0 24 27 18 24 * • • • 2:00 0 , 8 11. 9 14. * * • • • • 3:00 0 0 4 6 9 15 • • • • 4:00 o 0 18 17 12 23 . • 0 0 . ..: • 5:00 65 65 62 70 * • • . 6:00 0 0 227 228 251 233 . 0 * * 2 2 7:00 0 0 471 532 434 531 * 0 0 0 4 8:00 . 591, 545 563 554 . 57 5 9:00 0 0 552 502 557 494 0 0 Y 0 5a:7 4 10:00 0 0 638 491 580 550 • 0 * 0 0 6 5 11:00 0 0 707 543 673 572 .0 0 0 69 .5 12:00 Pm.. • 751 582 723 644 • 0 0 0 0 0 . .737 6 1:00 672 575 690 596 • 0 0 0 0 4 5P 2:00 0 0 683 531 691 622 . * 0 - 0 • 43 5. 3:00 0 0 672 585 660 . 638 * • 0 0 0 66 6 4:00 0 0 791 625 7451 695 * 0 0 * : 768 6 5:00 858 644 761 735 0 * * 0 0 0 80 6 6:00 0 597 494 640' 590 • S • * . 0 5 7:00 0 0 490 401 449 457 • • • • . • * 0 46 . t 8:00 0 0 318 306 305 335 • • • • 311 3 9:00 • • 239 225 229 248 * • • 0 • 23 23 10:00 0 130 143 111 162 • • • , • • • . T2 .11:00 0 . 60 69 77 . 83 * 0 . * .. 0 TOTALS 7606 6214 9339 8910 1960 2012 0 0 0 * 0 0 944 55 COMBINED TOTALS 0 12:00 AM . • . . 90 99 0 0 0 * 1:00 * 0 51 42 0 = 2:00 0 • 22 . 23 - • 0 3:00 . • 0 10 24 • . 0 0 16 4:00 0 . 35 35 0 • 5:00 130 132 • 0 0 0 6:00 . 0 455 484 . • . . 0 7:00 • 1003 965 8:00 . * • . 1138 1117 0 0 9:00 0 • 1054 1051 0 5 0 * 10:00 1129 1130 11:00 • 1250 1245 0 0 0 1247 12:00 PM • 1333 1367 0 1 1:00 • 1247 1286 = 2:00 • 1214 . 1313 0 * 1 3:00 . 1257 1298 • 0 1277 4:00 • 1416 . 1.0 * 14 5:00 1502 1496 0 0 14, 6:00 • 1091 1230 • 0 0. 0 - - 7:00 • 891 906 * . • 0 • • 893 0 • • 5:00 • 624 640 • 0 • 9:00 • 444 . 47 * 0 - • - - 0 4' 10:00 • • 273 273 • * • * 2 11:00 • 129 160 0 * 0 - * • - - 144 ....................... ................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTALS 13820 15249 • 3972 • - * • - 0 0180 hk & SITE CE : 2 Location : El Camino Real Between FILE: c09 Levante St & Otivenhain Rd Operator Bink DATE: 7/17, TIME SB 148 COMBINED DAY: TUESDA\ BEGIN AM PM AM PM AM .. PM 12:00 • 217 5 166 • 383 12:15 • 196 • 136 • 332 12:30 177 • 133 • 310 12:45 ' 161 751 • 147 582 308 1333 1:00 168 • 170 * 338 1:15 • 171 • 142 5 313 1:30 159 5 133 5 292 1:45 174 672 130 575 304 1247 2:00 171 * 144 315 2:15 * 166 • 130 296 2:30 179 128 307 2:45; . * 167 683 • 129 531 ' , 296 1214 3:00 170 135 * ,305 ;3:15 159 . 140 ,. 299 3:30 ' . 165 • . 139 . 304 3:45 • 1.8 672 - 171 525 * ' . 349 1257 4:00 • 201 • 138 * 339 4:15 . - 209 " * 160 369 4:30 , • 175 . 169 ,' * . 344 4:45 206 791 * 158 625 364 1416 5:00 217 5 198 415 5:15 224 . 5 . 150 371. 5:30 • 223 • 142 • 365 5:45 194 858 ,' 154 644 348 1502 .6:00. - . - ': 150 • 139 289 6:15 170 122 292 6:30 • 137 • 125 5 262 6:45 140 597 108 494 248 1091 - -7-.00. • 130 ' 102 a . 232 7:15 • 142 113 . 255 7:30 - 122 - 99 221 7:45 . * 96 2490 67 401 . 183 891 6:00 89 . . 76 5 165 6:15 . 82 a 84 . * 166 6:30 75 . 68 • . 143 8:45 '- '72 318 78 306 . . 150 624 9:00 . 72 72 5 144 9:15 . 72 * 54 • 126 9:30 47 • 62 5 . .109 9:45 .: 48 239 • 37 225 • . 85 1.64 10:00 11.9 . 38 122 41 271 79 10:15. 172 . 41 115 1.4 287 . 25 10:30 ' 151 18 ' ' 124 ' 24 275 42 10:45 166 638 33 130 130 491 34 143 296 1129 67 273 1:00 155 22 ' 113 24 . 268 .6 11:15 •' ' 162 15 . ' 138 18 . 300 33 11:30 204 14 149 12 353 26 11:45 186 707 9 60 143 543 15 69 329 1250 24 129 TOTALS . 1345 - 6261 1034 , 5180 2379 11441 DAT TOTALS . ' 7606 6214 13820 SPLIT - 56.5 54.7 43.5 45.3 - PEAK HOUR ' 11:00 4:45' 11:00 4:15 11:00 4:45 YOLUME 707 870 543' 685 • 1250 - 1518 P.K.F. 0.87 - I 0.97 0.91 • 0.86' 0.59 '0.91 I _1hkL!ssos3ate 'I SITE CODE :2 Location : EL Camino Real Between . . " " FILE: ' Dc Levante St & OLiverain Rd . Operator : Sink : . . . DATE: 7/18. TIME Si NB COMBINED DA S BEGIN AM PM AM , PM AM PM 12:00 , 14 219 11 161 25 380 12:15 9 176 . 14 169 23 . 345 ., .. . . 12:30 . 13 16.4 13 .151 26., . 315 ' 12:45 . 7 .' 43 .164 723 .9 47 163 644 16 90 327 1367 1:00= 1:15 10 4 189 174 ' 6 11 146 149 . 15 16 . . 323 1:30 5 156 ' 4 ' 157 . 9' 313 1:45 5 .24 171 690 6 27 144 596 .11 51 ' .315 1286 2:00 2:15 . ' 2 ' 2 ' 157 ' . 168 '6 2 149 167 - ' 8 4 335 ' 306 . 2:30 . .. 1 . 170 . ' 1 156 . . . 326 2:45 , 3 8 196 . 691 5 . 14 150 622 ' 8' 22' 346 1313' 3:00 , 3:15 ' 2 0 ' . 172' ' 175 ' 2 , 1 159 145 1. 1 , 331 . . ' ' 320 3:30 2 ' ' 165 2 16.4 4 3:45 '0 4 148 ' 660 1 6 .170 638 1' 10 3'16 1298 4:00 ' 4:15 . . 2 . ' 4 174 175 3 7 , 177 172 . " 5 11 351 347 . 4:30 3 , 196 ..,_ 2 . , 167 5. , 363 4:45 9 18 ' 200 745 5 17 , 179 695 14 35 379 1440 5:00 ' 5:15 7 15 ' 206 193. '' 10 15 207 '. 190 ' , , ' 17' ' 30 ' 413 38.3 5:30 19'.191 . . 19 182 38 ' ' 373 5:45 . 24 65 . 171 761 ' 21," 65 .156 ' 735 '. ,. 45 130' ' 327 ' 1496 - 6-00 6:15 35 44 ' ' 175. 157 32 50 . ' 170 153 67' 94 345 310 6:30 ' 69 150 61 .'144 ' 130 ' 294 6:45 79 . 227 158 640 85 228 123 590 16.4 455 . . . 281 1230 7:00 81 '. " 129 92 132 173 , 261 7:15 ' 121 114 ,. 114 '. 102 235 216 7:30 , 124 ' ' ' 105 ' 14' 112 . . 266• --, " ' 217 7:45 145" 471 101 9 182 532 111 457 327. .1003 212 906 2:00 ' 8:15 134 n'-, 134 . ' ,., 98 76 131 137 ' 97 88 ' . , 265 '-._-_-' 271 . 195 . ' ' 164 5:30 14j 67 130 81 . ' 278 . 148 8:45 177 593 64 305 147 545 69 335 324 1138 133 640 9:00 .' .. 9:15 , . :138 138 ' 72 51 . 116 j24 .68 53 . 254 ' 262 , ' 140 . ' 104 9:30 131 , 55 132 ' . 70 263 125 ' 9:45 . 145 552 - .51 229 130 502 ' 57 , 248 275 1054 . 108 477 .10:00 ' ' 133 . ' 39 143 60 ' 276 99 . .10:15 ' 143 . 25 ' 122 33 265 58 . 10:30 159 24 ' 148 ' 33' 307 . 57 . . . 10:45 . 145' 580 23 111 137 550 36 '16.2" . 262., 1130 , . ' 5. ' . 273 11:00 166 ' ' 30 136 . .' 28 . 302 58 11:15 141. 17 128 , 15 272, = 32 11:30 , ' 194 16 ' 149 , 22 ' 343 38 11:45 , ' 169 673 ' 14 77 159 5.72 ' 18 . 83 328 1245 ' 32 160 TOTALS 3258 ' 6061 3105' 5805 6363 ' 118.83 ' DAY TOTALS' , 9339 ' ' 8910 . '' 18249 SPLIT 51.2 ' ' 512 42.8 45.8 . PEAK MJ , 11:00 ' 4:30 ' 7:30 ' 4:45 11:00 ' , 4:45 VOLUME 673 .795 . 594.756 .1245 ,. ' ' 1548 P.H.F. 0.67 '' 0.96 0.22 0.92 , ' o.c . ' ' - c.c . . hk & associates SITE CE : 2 Location' : El Camino Real Between FILE: cbd09 Levante St & Otivenhain Rd Operator : Sink DATE: 7/19/9 TIME SB ........" NB COMBINED DAY: THURSDAY BEGIN AM PM AM PM AM PM 12:00 14 17 . 31 12:15 12 • 11 • 23 12:30 6 . ' 11 • 17 12:45 13 45 15 54 * . 28 99 • 1:00 5 . 16 • 21 1:15 5. 3 . 8 1:30 6 • 5 . •' 1.1 1:45 2 18 • . 0 24 2 42 2:00 2 .* ' 2- • 4 2:15 ., 3 ' . :3 • . 6 2:30 . 2 * .. - 3 5 2:45 , 2 - 9 * 6 14 • 8 23 3:00. 3 ' . ' ', 6 . 9 3:15 . 3 3:30 2 ' 4 ' 6 3:45 , 1 9 . 4 15 • 5 24 4:00 1 . , ' .5 0 6 S 4:15 4 4:30 1. ' 5 6 4:45 6 12 , -12 23 • 18 35 5:00 . 6 9 . ' 15 5:15 12 16 ' 28 5:30 - - 9 17 26 5:45 35 62 • 28 70 63, 132 6:00 3.4 • 31 65 6:15 - 49 ' • ' ' 52 ' 101 6:30 74 • 70 144 6:45 94 251 . 80 233 174 484 * 7:00 75 . ' 102 ' 177 7:15 , '113 125 • 238 7:30 112 , 133 * 245 7:45 134 434 • 171 531 . 305 985 8:00 113 • 130 , ' 243 8:15 ' 131 • 148 • 279 8:30 145 , * . 132 ' 277 8:45 174 563 • 1 554 , • 318 1117 ' 9:00 , 141 • 118 ' 259 9:15 . 139 , 126 ' 285 9:30' 136 • 129 ' .265 - 9:45 141 557 121 494 ' 262 1051 •. 10:00 * , . ' • ' • . 10:15' ' - • ' 10:30 ' • 10:45 * ' * • . • • • 11:00 - * ' - 11:15 • • • -' ' 11:30 ' * • 11:45 • • • • a • TOIALS ' 1960 • 2012 , • 3972 DAY TOTALS 1960 ' 2012 0 ' 3972 SPLIT 1, 49.3 . S • ' 50.7 - PEAK HOUR 8:30 7:30 * 8:15 VOLUME - 599 582 • 1133 P.H.F ' 0.86 - ' • 0.85 ' ' 0.89 24-HourVolumeplot El Camino flea! Biwn. Levanlé St '& Olivenhain Rd 2 4 • o 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 PM Wednesday, July 18, 1990 JUK & Associates IS) Iml _ - so Ow -, — Ob - - - 401 — -. . alik - 24-Hour Volume Plot • El Camino Real. Btwn. Levanle St & Olivenhain Rd .1600 N. U . 1400 rn b e 1200 100.0 0 800 V e 600 400 1 200 e 90 0 12 AM 24-Hour Volume, Plot El Cam i no Real Biwn. Levante St .& Olivenhain Rd 10uu 1400 b e 1200 r • 1000 0 800. 600 h 1 400 200 e. S. 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 AM • PM Thursday, July 19; 1990 JHK & Associates .> I - •s- i.h I 1I. & associates - • I , * - -V CITY OF CARLSBAD SUMMER 1990 1 LINE COUNT SUMMARY 'a - I Link Number Link Location Olivenhain Road between El Caino Real and Amargosa Drive CONTENT PAGE : 2.5-Minute Counts Day 2. I. of 7 15-Minu6-.e Counts Day, 2- •. 2 of 7 15-Minute Counts' Day 3 3 of 7 -• - 48-Hour Volume S-uary * 4 of 7 • * 24-Hour Volume Plot Day'2. 5 of 7 24-Hour Volume Plot Day 2 6 of 7 1. 24-Hour Volthe Plot Day 3 7 of 7 Mal -. ._; - ---• __.* •, - - , lt• j & associates. SITE CE : 11 Location OLIvenIaIn Road Between FILE c10 EL Camino Real £ Amargosa Dr Operator : Sink DATE: 61 TIME MONDAY 16 TUESDAY 17 WEDNESDAY 18 THURSDAY 19 FRIDAY 20 SATURDAY 21 SUNDAY 22 . BEGIN us ED WS ED us ED UB ES us IEB US I ED 'US ED 12:00 AM 50 103 46 126 1:00 . 35 39 ' 26 35 ' * ' 29 2:00 * • 10 22 17 15 ' * '.1 3:00 8 13. 17 19 4:00 * 39 16 29 25 5:00 • • 161 71 149 73,• * .145' 6:00 ' 527 308 ''539 328 • * * .• 0 '7:00 * 887 518 898 '525 . * 89 8:00 * 845 498 857 660 659..1 9:00 662 472 .656 518 * * . * .. 10:00 . 571. 509 567 429 • • • • 5 11:00 578 582 555 535 S 12:00 PM . . 575 601 613 602 * • • . .. * . • 594 1:00 * 48.4 563 504 579 . . - * .'. 2:00 506. .589 523'. 611 3:00 ' 610 735 652 752. 4:00 • 671 853 605 890 * . - . . . • 638. 5:00 620 1142 631 1132 62•1 6:00 508 920 557 903 . : : . ..... 7:00 • 404 660 640 714 • 42 8:00 • 327 627 337 670 . , . 332.. 9:00 ' . 253 536 273 568 • : . . * .263" .10:00 • 146 305 169 331 11:00. ' 85 194 85 163 ------- TOTALS • 7003 9288 972 11035 2576 1606 IC COMBINED TOTALS . 12:00 AM '. . 153 172 100 • . • . . 74 59. . --* . • 2:00 . * 32 32 . . . •. i 31 3:00 ' 21 . 36 . ' . \.. 2 4:00 . . 55 ,54 ' 5• 5:00 . . 2 222 .. 6:00 • 835 . 867 . * . . ,. 7:00 . * 1405 1423 * . 8:00 . .. 1343 1317 . 1331 9:00 * 1134 . 1174 10:00 . " 1033 996 31 11:00 1160 1090 .. .•. . 112 12:00 PM • 1176 ' 1215 . . . . ., . , : 119 1:00 107 1033 C 2:00 ' 1095 1134 •. . . . * ... , . ., 3:00 .- 1345 1404 * . • . • . . 4:00 1524 1495 -' . . * . . 50 5:00 1762 1763 . . . . 6:90 1428 1460 •. . • ,. 1 4 7:00 ' 1064 . 1154 . * . . . . . . . 110 8:00 * 954 1037 9:00 789 841 10:00 451 ' 550 . . -• . . .. sc 11:00 '279 251 • .' * .26 TOtALS' • . 16291 207.47 r' 4182 . .............( . . • .. C jhk & associates_ SITE CE :11 Location : OLivenJain Road Between FILE: cbdlD El Canino Real & Amargosa Or Operator : Rink DATE: 7/18/ TIME 118 ES COMBINED DAY: WEDNESD 8801W AM PM AM PM AK PM 12:00 22 162 36 158 58 320 12:15 11' 153 17 149 28 302 12:30 6 155 29 145 35 300 12:45 11 50 143 613 21 103 150 602 32 153 293 1215 1:00 8 107 5 149 16 256 1:15 13 141 17 122 30 263 1:30 4 132 ' 7 146 11 278 1:45 10 35 124 504 7 39 162 $79 17 74 286 1083 2:00 1 132 6 146 7 278 2:15 . 4 126 . / 5 147 9 273 2:30 2 129 6 144 8 273 2:45 ' ' 3 10 136 523 .. .. 5 22 174 611 8 32 310 1134 3:00 . 0 ' 153 ' ' 2 179 2 '332 3:15 . 2 157 5 167 7 324 3:30 5 160 2 '224 . 7 . ' 384 3:45 ' 8 182 652 4 13 182 752 5 21 364 1404 4:00 8 ' ' 152 " . 3 205 11 357 4:15 6 154 1 201 '7 355 4:30 10 11.3 , 5 229 15 '372 4:45 ' 15. 39 156 . 605 ' 7 16 255 890 .. 22 , 55 411 1495 5:00 . 14 '175 ' , ., 4 28.6' 18' ' 1.61 5:15' 31 144 ' 20 302 51 ' 446 5:30 44 153 . ' 20 , 278 64 431 5:45 , 52 141 ' 159 631 . 27 71 266 1132 79 , 212 425 1763 6:00 84 148 35 ' , 246 , 119 358 6:15 127 150 ' 60 225 187 375 6:30 . 143 127 ' 107 .232 ' 250 . 359 6:45 173 527 132 557 106 305 208 903 279 835 . 335 . 1460 7:00- 157 ' 130 ' 127 , 184 , , 284 314 7:15 194 113 118 173 ' 312 286 7:30 . 266 ' 101 ' 152 183 . 418 284 7:45 270 5.57 96 440 121 518 17( . 714 391 1405 270 1154 8:00 202 93 ' 157 185 ' 359 . 275 8:15 , 188 .' 89 135 158 ' 3Z3 21.7 8:30 248 ' ' 53 95 ' 157 , 31.3 . 240 8:45. . 207 8.45 72 337 111 498 170 670 318 1343 242 1007 9:00 ' 169 . 60 . 152 163 ' . 321 . . 223 9:15 147 . 56 111 106 ' 258 . 192 9:30 , 170 67 137 151 307 218 9:45 170 656 60 273 118 $18 11.8 563 288' 1171. , 208 841 10:00 159 46 89 110 ' 248 ' 156 1005 , 121. 51 ' 111 112 ' ' 235 . ' 163 10:30 14'. 39 ' 109 ' ' 78 . 253 ' 117 10:45 , 140 567 33 169 120 429 81 381 . 260 996, 114 550 11:03 115 30 146 60 ' ' 261 90 11:15 151 , 21 124 44 275 65 11:30 ' 129 ' - 20 ' 146 , . 33 275 53 11:45 160 555 17 , 88 119 535 26 ' 163 279 1090 43 251 TOTALS 4320 5392, 3070 7965 7390 13357 DAY' TOTALS 9712 11035 20747 SPLIT , 55.5 '.0.4 , 41.5 59.6 PEAK HOUR . 7:15 3:00 7:30 ' 5:00 . 7:30' 5:00 VOLUME 932 652 565 1132 1491 ' 1763 F.M.F. 0.5 0.0 0.90 ' 0.9 . 0.89 ' 0.96 24-Hour Volume Plot OlivenhainRoad Btwn. El Camino Real & Amargosa Dr. 2000 N U. m b e 1500 r 0 • 1000 e 1 500. C 1 e 2000 N U 1500 0 V' 1000 'V e h 1.- 500 C 1 e S U 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 • 2 4 6 8 10 AM I • PM -. V Wednesday, :July 18, 1990, V • V JHK & Associates WE; 00 - - C-aft wk 40 — _ - .,24H our Volume Plot Olivenhaln,Road Btwn. El Cami no Real & Amargosa Dr. 24-Flour Volume Plot Olivenhain Road Btwn. El Camino Real & Amargosa Dr. 2000 N U m b e 1500 F 0 1000 V e h 1 500 C 1 e S 0 12 2 4 o 8 10 12 2 - 4 6 8 10 AM PM ;Thursday, July 19, 1990 JHK & AssocIates :• .rn ,- — ,-. L : -, -. •i.. 0 1 I HI - 0 •0• H - ,•0• -: I I ATTACHMENT B CITY OF ENCINITAS ICU ANALYSIS FOR EL CAMINO REAL/OLIVENHAIN ROAD INTERSECTION II I :1 0..' 0 - - 1 I 0 0 000 .•- to--- - 0• , •0 -o ,-- 0 I I MEMORANDUM I City of Encinitas I TO. Patrick Murphy, Director of Community Development FROM:. George Villegas, City Traffic Engineer. I DATE. May 13, 1991 SUBJECT:. El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road Environmental Impact Report * , As requested and as a follow up to George Fares', memo of April 16, 1991, we have completed Level of Service (LOS) calculations under buildout' conditions for the El Camino Real/Olivenhain Road intersection. These calculations indicate LOS D can be achieved under AM and PM peak hour. conditions. These levels of service are I ' : considered acceptable. ' In order to calculate the LOS at the El Camino Real/Olivenhain Road intersection under buildout conditions, turning movement counts were obtained from the SANDAG Mid County Transportation model This model assumes buildout of all adopted land • uses and circulation networks west of Interstate 1-5, south of State Route .78,.and North of State Route '56. , .. . The latest model runs assumed the North City sphere study concept #4 for the future I urban area (in the City of San Diego) and a region wide 40 percent drive, alone rate for home to work trips. The methodology utilized to calculate LOS at the above 'mentioned intersection was the ICU and assigning saturation flow rates of 1,700 and I 1,500 v..hicles per hour of green time for through and turn lanes, respectively. Also, a .10 clearance was added to account for yellow clearance. The lane 'assumptions used 'to calculate buildout LOS were as follows: N/B El Camino Real 2 left, 2 through, 1 through/right S/B El Camino Real 2 left, 2 through, 1. through/right E/B Leucadia Blvd. 2 left, 1 through, 1 through/right W/B Olivenhain Rd. 2 left, 2 through, 1' right 5$ The daily traffic volumes from the Mid County Transportation Study are depicted on attachment 1 and the AM and PM peak hour LOS calculations are illustrated on attachment 2 Attachments 3 through 5 include the AM, PM and daily turning ' movement reports from SANDAG As shown on Attachment #2, the El Camino Real/Olivenhain Road intersection is projected to operate at LOS D during both AM and PM peak hour periods This is consistent with LOS calculations performed by I Austin-Foust Associates (contained as attachment #6) for post year 2010 conditions with the City's adopted circulation plan. . I 1, 3g31corespnd%j0e103906-1.niem1May 15. 1991 •• ATTACHMENT: Bi • H 7i S I (. V I ) OOP ••• I 'I CD in .5 •• r \• H - LO / 8 Ul) (c '.5 I 02_ ATTACHMENT B2 ,44:. 1 ..:'...... ... _ • ATTACHMENT B3 SANDAG -- PRIME TRANPLAN SYSTEM AM PEAK HOUR TURN VCLUMES VERSION 4.0 ASSIGNED TURN VOLUMES -- 1.00 PERCENT LC AT FROM -----------TO AT if -2933- 2915 9424 9763. .9770 SUM IN TWOWAY 2915 . --- 201.. . 328 1335 1864 3321 9424 .248 768 177 1193 1912 9763 222 442 --- 302 966 2627 9770 987 76 565 --- 1628 3442 SUM OUT -1457 719 1661 1814 V .1' $ 0 • . . I. I I I . • . . •••. . 1: HI I I ATTACHMENT B4 I SANDAQ-- PRIME, TRANPLAN SYSTEM PM PEAK HOUR TURN VOLUMES I VERSION A. 0 - ASSIGNED TURN VOLUMES -- 100 PERCENT L' AT FROM -----------TO----------- AT 1' -2933- 291.5 9,424 9763 9770 SUM IN TWOWAY 2915 --- 215 352 1433 2000 3564 9424 266 ---- 825 190 1281 2053 - . 9763 238 47 --- 324 1037 2820 .• 9770 1060 82 606. 1748, 3695 SUM OUT 1564 772 1783 1947 1' I I I I I 'I ... 1 ., ATTACHMENT B5 I SANDAG -- PRIME 1 TRANPLAN SYSTEM DAILY TURN VOLUMES VERSION 4 0 ASSIGNED TURN VOLUMES -- 100 PERCENT AT FROM -----------TO----------- AT -2933- 2915 2915 --- 9424 2854 9763 3913 9770 SUM IN 19960 26727 TWOWAY 50400- 9424 3699 -- 10011 2005 16515 27570 9763 3844 7056 --- 6425 17325 39501 9770 16130 1145"7452 --- 24727 53117 SUM OUT 23673 11055 22176 210.390 1: II i j I I I I I '1 ATTACHMENT B6 TURN r1OVEMNT .1) 1iTEFET0N C.PAr.TT'.:' t:TTI. 2 .TCN 'INi1R• 3. El Camino Real &La Costa 'Post-2010 Adopted Circulation Plan : AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I- -. - - --... -. ,-. - . C ..).).., SF I . NBT toC. ,b,.34 1:14 '.3* : NBR 1 t:)t:) ' , •3 .ô5 i5Q '.l(•) , ISPL 2 2':)c) .3i )5* 15 1%.i.0* 53T 3 4800 1446 O.30 310 '.33 SEA '1. l00 316 O.20 41:3 (..26 1 E3L -2 oo ' 47 .. i I EBT 3200 74 0.0 155. 307 t.10 EBR .- 1.400 , 137 0.12 2t , is WEt ' 1. 1600 11 6.07 .8 ).05 -WBT 2 3200 73 ._.j.6; 19 i).13* WBR ) 223 0.00 204 0.0 TOTAL CAPACITY --------------------------------------------------------- UTILIZATION 0.61 0.75 4. El Camino Real & Olivenhain 1 ! Post-2010 Adopted Circulation Plan , API P1< HOUR PM P1<. HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL: V/C 'VOL , V/C NBL ' 2 ' 3200 : 3 0.05 45 6L05 J : N8T ' 3, . .4800 1512 0.32* i o s; NBR I. ' 1600 804 0.50f , 1.178 - 0.74.f • SBL 2 ' 3200 146 ' 0.0* ' , 371 0.12* 1. SBT 3 4800 1294 , 0.27 1603 0.33 : SBR: 1. 1600 , ,t9 0.12 64 , 0.05 S S 'I' EBL 2 - 3200 0 '0.00 Tq 0.05 EBT 3 - 4800 360 0.08 .669 0.14* J EBR 1 1600 86 0.05 . 4 0.t4 . WL. , 2 3200 1197 0.37* 947 0.30* - WBT 2 3200 800 0.25 568 0.13 1 " . W8R , 1 1600 431 '0.27 216 0.14 I . ' TOTAL J - CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.81 -- 0.89 i APPENDIX 9 1 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR EL CAMINO REAL BETWEEN OLIVENHAIN ROAD AND LEVANTE STREET I (JHK & Associates), INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION STANDARDS AND RELATIONSHIP TO LEVELS OF SERVICE (Highway Capacity Manual), I AND INTERSECTION WARRANTS (AASHTO and Highway Design Manual) I ia.. $ I. I, 13 a 1. I I MEMORANDUM August 21, 1991 TO: CITY ENGINEER S I FROM Traffic Engineer ROAD SEGMENT LOS - ECR BETWEEN LEVANTE AND OLWENHAIN I The above referenced segment was counted as part of the 1990 Growth Management Plan Traffic Monitoring Report. Counts and LOS calculations were conducted 'by JHK & ( Associates, the consultant retained by the City, of Carlsbad to prepare the report. On a peak hour basis, the one-direction volume, and LOS for the subject segment was 870 I vehicles and LOS A (see attached Table A-4). The 24-hour ADT obtained for this segment was 18,249 vehicles (counts attached). On an ADT basis, this road segment level of - service would be "A" per the City of Carlsbad Guidelines and Instructions for the I Preparation of Local Facilities Management PlanTransportation Impact Studies. L'T I ROBERT T. JOHNSON, JR., P.E. - Traffic Engineer S I RTJrz I I I I S ' I S S I Table A-4 CITY OF CARLSBAD SUMMER 1990 ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE Location Segment Link AM or PM Number of V/C Number Segment Location Volume Direction '. Period Lanes2 Ratio LOS' 1 El Camino Real Alga Rd. & • La Costa Ave. 991 SB PM 3 0.18 A 2 El Camino Real Levante St. & Olivenhain Rd. 870 SB ' PM 2 ' 0.24 A 3 Palomar Airport East of • Rd. Melrose Drive 1,710 WB ' AM 1 0.95 E 4 Palomar Airport El Fuerte & Rd. El Camino Real 1 ,687 WB AM ' 2 0.47 A 5 Carlsbad Blvd. Oceanside City Limit & State St. 855 NB PM • 1 0.48 A 6 Jefferson St.' Marron Rd. & 1-5 557 EB PM 1 , 0.31 A 7. Palomar Airport Yarrow, Dr. ,& • • ' , Rd. ' El Camino Real 1,109 ' EB , PM 2 •, ' 0.31 A 8 Palomar Airport Paseo Del Norte & , • Rd College Blvd 1,932. WB PM 3 0.36.. A 9 El CaminoReal Marron Rd. & • '. -• •• , ' Plaza Dr. ' 1,226 N8 PM ' 3 ', 0.23 A 10 Carlsbad Blvd. Cannon Road & • • ' ' • Cerezo Dr.' 675 ' NB PM 1 0.38 A - •- -•• - 'a,., _) - ' — •, wall — - —•— •a •— ap 00 jhk & ass ocaces SITE.CE : 2 Location : EL Camino Real Between FILE: cbd09 Levante. St &Otivenhain Rd Operator : ----------------------------- Sink DATE: 7/18/90 TIME ------- SB ---••- NB COMBINED ----- DAY: WEDNESDAY BEGIN AM PM AM PM AM PM 12:00 14 219 11 161 25 380 1205 9 176 14 169 23 345 12:30 13 164 13 151 26 315 12:45 7 43 164 723 9 47 163 644 16 90 327 1367 1:00 10 189 6 146 16 335 1:15 4 174 11 149 15 323 1:30, 5 156 . 4 157 9 313 1:45 5 24 171 .690 6 27 164 596 11 51, 315 1286 2:00 2 157 6 149 8 306 2:15 2 168 2 167 4 335 2:30. 1 170 1 . 156 . 2 : 326 2:45 3 8 196 691 5 16 150 622 8 22 346 1313 3:00 2 172 2 159 4 331 3:15 0 175 1 145 1 320 3:30 2 165 2 164 4 329 3:45 0 4 148 660 1 6 170 638 1 10 318 1298 4:00 . 2 . 174 3 177 5 351 4:15 4 175 7 172 11 347 4:30 3 196 2 167 5 363 4:45 9 ia . 200 745 5 17 179 695 . 14 35 379 . 1440 5:00 . 7 206 10 207 17 413 54 15 193 15 190 30 . 383 5:30 19 191 . 19 182. 38 ., 373 5:45 26 65' 171 761 21 65. 156 735 . 45, 130 327 1496 6:00 35 175 32 170 67 345 6:15 44 157 50 . 153 94. 310 6:30 69 150 61 144 130 294 6:65 79 227 158 640 85 228 123 590 164 455 281 1230 7:00 81 129 92 132 173 261 7:15 . 121 114 114 .102 235 216 7:30 . . 124 105 . 144 112 . 268 . 217 7:45 . 145 471 101 649 182 532 111 457 327 1003 212 906 8:00 136 98 131 97 265 . . 195 8:15 134 76 137 88 271 .. 166 8:30 148 67 130 81 278 148 8:45 . . 177 593 64 305 147 545 69 335 324 1138 133 640 9:00 138 72 116 68 254 140 9:15. 138 51 126 53 262 104 9:30 131 55 132 70 263 . 125 9:45 145 552 51 229 130 502 57 248 275 1054 108 477 10:00 . 133 39 143 60 276 99 10:15 . . 143 . 25 122 33 265 58 10:30 159 24 168 .33 307 i7 10:65 145 580 23 111 137 550 36 162 282 1130 59 2 . 73 11:00 166 30 136 28 302 58 11:15 144 . 17 . 128 15 272 32. 11:30 194 . 16 149 . 22 . 343 38 11:45 ' 169 673 14 77 159 572 18 83 328 1265 . 32 . 160 TOTALS 3258 6081 3105 5805 6363 11886 DAY TOTALS 9339 8910 18249 SPLIT Z 51.2 51.2 48.8 48.8 PEAK HOUR 11:00 4:30 7:30 4:45 11:00 . 4:45 VOLUME 673 795 594 758 1245 1548 P.H.F. 0.87 0.96 0.82 0.92 0.91 0.94 CRITICAL GAP, RESERVE CAPACITY, LEVEL OF SERVICE HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL, 1985 CRITICAL GAP The "critical gap" 'is',defined as the average-time headw'ay'-between ' two successive vehicles in the major street traffic stream that is accepted by drivers in a subject movement that must cross and/or merge with the major street flow. The critical gap depends on a number of factors, including Type of mareuver being executed. The type of minor street control (Stop or Yield). The average running speed on the major street. .4.' The number al lanes on the major street. 5. The geometrics and environmental conditions at the intersection. R.ESEVE' CAPACITY Reserve Capacity. (Cr) is simply the unused capacity of the, lane in question It is computed by subtracting the total lane volume (v)from the lane capacity (Lc). (Cr =Lc - v) LEVELS OF SERVICE Level of Service criteria for unsignalized intersections are stated in very general terms, and are related to general delay ranges. The.. criteria are based on the Reserve Capacity of the - lane in question. ' • . ' . LEVE'LS 'OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS' RESERVE, CAPACITY LEVEL OF ;. EXPECTED DELAY TO (PCPE)* • SERVICE MINOR STREET TRAFFIC >400 " A •' Little or no delay 300-399 B ' Short traffic delays 200-299 ' C ' 'Average traffic delays 100-199 ' , D ' Long traffic delays • . E Very long traffic. delays < 0 • ' F Excessive delay - warrants ithpLovement. *Passenger cars per hour Caution should be used in the interpretation of' these criteria. They are stated in general terms, without specific numeric values. It is,, therefore, not possible to directly compare an unsignalized LOS with a signalized intersection analysis LOS ..in terms 'of specific delay values without collecting; delay data directly at , the subject' site, The Levels of Service are not associated with- 'the delay values cited fàr signalized intersections.'" CAPACITY, DELAY & LEVEL OF SERVICE '• HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL 1985 CAPACITY I . The: concepts of capacityand level of service are central..to the-analysis of intersections Both capacity and level of service must be fully considered to evaluate the overall operation of a signalized interseqtion Capacitanalii ofiterections results 'in the. computation of v/c ratios'- for individual movements and a composite v/c ratio for'the sum of critical movements .-.-or. lane 'groups within the intersection. '"The v/c-ratio is the actual.. or .:proJected rate 'of, flow on an approach or designated group of lanes. :during a peak.'-minute interval divided by the capacity of the 'approach., or designated groupof.lanes. "Level-of service,is based on the I average stopped" delay per -vehicle 'for various :-movements within the - ' intersection. ::.:For any given -v/c.ratio, 'a.rangeofdelay:.values may result. It is possible to have a critical' -v/c of less 'than .1.00, - and still have - individual movements oversaturated within the signal cycle. A . I critical v/c' ratio' less than .1.00, however, does indicate that all - ' movements in the intersection can be accommodated within the defined cycle length and phase sequence by proportionally allocating green time. I . DELAY. •. . ..'.. ' ' ' - - Level of Service 'for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. Delay. is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. - Delay is a complex measure and 4s dependent on a number - I of variables, including-the quality of progression, the cycle length, the - . green ratio, and the v/c-ratio for the lane group or approach in guestion. LEVELOF SERVICE STOPPED DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC) I ' A . '' --<5.0 -'-5.1 to 15.0 C: '- 15.1 to 25.0 D * ' 25.1 to 40.0 ' I - B - 40.1 to 60.0 >60.0 ' Level of Service A describes operations with very low' delay, i.e., less than 5.0 sec per vehicle. - This -occurs when- progression is 'extremely favorable, . and most- vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles . do not stop at all. Short cycle .lengths may also contribute to law-delay. Level of Service B'describes operations with delay in the range of 5.1 to I 15.0 sec per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. I . .Level of Service C describes with-delay in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 sec per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in I this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. Level of Service D describes operations with delay in the'range of 25.1 to I . 40.0 sec per vehicle. At LOS D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, - long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. 'Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Level of Service B describes operations with delay in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 sec per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values 'generally indicate poor progression, long I cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Level of Service F describes operations with delay in excess of 60.0 sec per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This I ' condition often occurs with oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios -below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression - and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. THREE LE DIRECTIONAL : "Vs -0- SENT BY:WILLDAN SAN, DIEGO —16-91 1528 ;;. WILLDAN SAN DIEGO-. esign of Highways and Zf Grade Separations and Interchanges 855 major highway and a parkway. This design Is appropriate for parkways because design S'pe'ed is usually in the low ranges, largetrucks are prohibited, and turning movements are light. A typical diamond interchange Is illustrated in Figure X.M. Diamond interchanges have huterous other configurations 1 incorporating frontage roads and continuous collector or distributor roads. Figure X-1E is a partial cloverleaf that contains two àloverleaf-type loops afid two diagonal ramps. Varying configurations favor heavier traffic movements. A full cloverleaf, as shown in Figure X-1F, gives each interchanging move- ment an independent, ramp; however, it generates weaving maneuvers that must occur either in the area adjacent to the through lanes or on collector-dis. tributor roads. FigureX-1G is a fully directional interchange. WARRANTS FOR INTERCHANGES AND GRADE SEPARATIONS An interchange Is a useful and an adaptable solution for many intersection problems, but because of the high initial cost, its use to eliminate existing traffic bottlenecks or to correct existing hazardous conditions Is limited to those eases where the required expenditure can be justified. An enumeration of the specific conditions or warrants justifying an interchange at a given intersection is difficult and, in some instances, cannot be conclusively stated. Because of the wide variety of site conditions, traffic volumes, highway types, and intechanje layouts, the warrantsthat justify in interchange may differ at each location. The conditions that should be considered to reach a rational decision are the available warrants. Theseare shown as the following six items: V 1. Design designation. The conclusion to develop 'a highway with. full control of access between selected terminals becomes the warrant for provid- ing highway grade separations or interchanges for all intersecting highways. Although access c6ntro1, provision of medians, and elimination of panting and pedestrian traffic are impdrtant, the separatio of grades on freeways provides the greatest ;increment of safety. Once it has been decided to develop 'a route as a freeway, it must be determined whether each intersecting highway should be terminate, rerouted, or provided with a grade separation or inter- change. For those crossroads that cannot be terminated, the individual war- rant for a separation 6r interchange is absorbed in the decision to develop' the freeway. The chief concern is the continuous now on the major road. If fraffic on the minor road Will cross the freeway, a grade separation orinterchang'e is provided Thus, an intersection that might warrant only traffic signal control if considered as an isolated case, will warrant a grade separation or inter- change when cns1dered as a part of a freeway. • DIRECTIONAL 'FOUR LEG types. SENT Y:W1LL5AN 5AN -CIE3O 6-1Th15:29 L • 856 AASJ'TO—Georne:ric Design of Highways and Streeti I - 2. Elimination of bottlenecks or congestion. Insufficient capacity '• . -spot . at the intersection of heavily traveled routes results in intolerable c'ongestion •' .. I ) n or,,all approaches. Inability to provide capacity with an ,one -essential at-grade facility; provides a warrant for an intcrchane where developirient ' and available right-of-way permit Even on facilities with partial control of I • , - access, the 'elimination -of random signalization., contributes greatly to I • ' . . improvement of free-f]owcharacteristics. 3 Elimination of hazard Some at grade intersections have a dispropor- tionate rate of serious, accidents'. Lacking inexpensive methods of eliminating hazards, a highway grade separation or interchange may be warranted. Acci- .• : 'dern-prone intersections frequently are found at the junction 'of cornpara6e1y • • lightly traveled highways in sparsely, settled rural areas where speeds are -' - - high. In such areas,, structures usually can be constructed at little cost kim. pared with lirban areas, right-of-way is not expensive, and these lower cost developments can Lbe justified by the eliminatioa.of dnly a few seious aci- I . . dents. Serious accidents at heavily traveled intersections, of course, also pro- vide, a warrant for:interchange facilities::I addition to greater safety, the interchange also expedites all movements. . - - • 4. Site topography. At some sites grade-separation designs are the only •• - •- type that can be made economically. The topography at the site may be such • that any-other type ofintersection, to meet required standards, is physically - impossible to develop or is equal or-greater-in cost. S. Road-userbenefits. The road-user costs due to delays at congested , • at-grade intersections are large. Such items as fuel, tires, oil, repairs" time, - • and accidents that require speed' changes, stops, and waiting generate - I expenses well in excess of those for -intersections permitting uninterrupted or continuous operation. In general, interchangs require somewhat more total - .• travel distance than direct crossings at grade, but the added cost of the extra "travel distance ieiess than the saving in cost effected by the reduction In stop- * ping and delay costs. The relation of road-user benefits to the cost of improve- ment indicates an economic warrant for .,that Improvement. For convenience .• I ' . • the relation is expressed as a ratio, the annual benefit divided by the annual capital cost of the improvement. Annual benefit is thedifference in road-user - -. costs for the existing condition and in the conditin after improvement. Annual capital cost is the sum of interest and amortization for the cost of the improvement. ,-The larger the ratio the greater the justification insofar as ' - - road-user benefits- are concerned. Comparison of these ratios for design alter- - nates is aiiLthp*tant factor indetermining the type andextent of improve- ment-to be made., If used for justifying a single project or design, a ratio in • xess of one is necessary for minimum economic justification. Furthermore, - . interchanges usually are adaptable to stage construction, and initial stages 1 . -••. - . I: - - . - - - , -- ' : ' - . SENT YWILLDAN SAN 01E60 ; 1-91 ; iO ; WILLDAN SAN DIEGO-* c eszgn of Highways aiidSrree:s Grade SepararwM and Interchanges 857 congestion Insufficient capacity may produce incremental benefits that compare even more favorably with results in intolerable congestion • - Incremental costs ovide essential capacity with an H . 6. Traffic volume warrant. A traffic volume warrant for interchange interchange where development .Y.'- treatment would be the most tangible of any interchange warrant. Although a facilities with partial control of specific volume of traffic at an intersection cannot be completely rationalized alizatiofl contributes greatly to - as the warrant for an interchange, it is an important guide, particularly when combined With the traffic distribution pattern and the effect of traffic behav- br. However, volumes in excess of the capacity of an at-grade intersection would certainly be a warrant. Interchanges are desirable at cross streets with heavy traffic volumes but may be difficult to provide because of costly right- of-way. The elimination of conflicts due to high crossing volume greatly improves the movement of traffic. .14 Some warrants for separations are given in warrants for interchanges; additional warrants are as follows: 1. Local roads and streets that cannot feasibly be terminated outside the right-of-way limits of freeways. Access to areas not served by frontage roads or other means of access. Railroad grade separations. Unusual concentrations of pedestrian traffic (for instance, a city park developed on both sides of a major arterial). 5. Bikeways and routine pedestrian crossings. Access to mass transit stations within the confines of a major arterial. Free-flow aspects of certain ramp configurations and completing the geometry of interchanges. ADAPTABILITY OF HIGHWAY GRADE SEPARATIONS AND INTERCHANGES There are three general types of intersections—at-grade intersections, highway grade separations without ramps, and interchanges. Each has a field of usage in which it is practical, but the limits are not sharply defined. There is much overlapping and the final selection of intersection type frequently is a compromise after joint consideration of design traffic volume and pattern, cost, topography, and availability of right-of-way. Traffic and Operation Through traffic Is accommodated to varying degrees of efficiency on all types of intersections. Where traffic on minor crossroads is small and subor- ade intersections have a dispropor- icxpensive methods of eliminating erchange may be warranted. Acci- nd at the junction of comparatively .led rural areas where speeds are be constructed at little Cost corn- ot expensive, and these lower Cost iination of only a few serious acci- a intersections, of course, also pro- In addition to greater safety, the ade-separation designs are the only topography at the site may be such :t required standards. IS physically er in cost. icr costs due to delays at congested .ms as fuel, tires, oil, repairs, time1 -1g.-s, stops, and waiting generate sections permitting uninterrupted or anges require somewhat more total rade, but the added cost of the extra :ost effected by the reduction in stop- I-user benefits to the cost of improve- that improvement. For convenience annual benefit divided by the annual benefit is the difference in road-user .n the condition after improvement. st and amortization for the cost of the .e greater the justification insofar as Darison of these ratios for design alter- Ming the type and extent of improve- a sing1e project or design, a ratio in i economic justification. Furthermore, stage construction, and initial stages I 65NTY:WILLAN SAN DlEQ 4-1-51 15:31 ; W1LL.AN SAN DIEO 5329e35; 7 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 500-1 hnuiy, 1987 I I CHAPTER 500 TRAFFIC INTERCHANGES Topic 501 - General Index 501.1 - Concepts A traffic interchange is a combination of ramps and grade separations at the junction of two or more highways for the purpose of reducing or eliminating traffic conflicts, to improve safety, and Increase traffic capacity. Crossing conflicts are eliminated by grade separations. Turning conflicts are either eliminated or minimized, depending upon the type of interchange design. $01.2 Warrants All connections to freeways are by traffic interchanges. An interchange Or Separation may be warranted as part of an expressway (or in special cases at the junction of two nonaccess controlled highways), to improve safety or eliminate a bottleneck, or where to. pography does not lend itself to the construc- tion of an intersection. 501.3 Spacing In general the minimum interchange spac- ing should be 1 mile in urban areas and 2 miles in rural areas. In urban areas spacing of less than 1 mile may be developed by the use of auxiliary lanes, grade separated ramps and collector-distributor roads. Topic 502 - Interchange Types 502.1 General The selection of an interchange type and Its design are influenced by many factors in- cluding the following: the speed, volume, and composition of traffic to be served, the num- ber of intersecting legs, the standards and ar- rangement of the local street system including traffic control devices, topography, right of way COtr61s, local planning, proximity of ad- jacent interchanges, community impact, and cost. Even though interchanges are, of. necessity, designed to fit specific conditions and controls, it is desirable that the pattern of interchange ramps along a freeway follow -some degree of consistency. It is frequently desirable to rearrange portions of the local street system In connection with freeway construction in order to effect the most desir- able overall plan of traffic service and com- munity development. Interchange types are characterized by the - basic shapes of ramps: nacly, diamond, loop, directional, hook, or variations of these types. Many interchange designs are combina- tions of these basic types. Schematic inter- change patterns are illustrated in Figure 502.2 and Figure 502.3. These are classified as: (a) Local street interchanges and (b) Freeway-to- freeway interchanges. See Chapter X of A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets," AASHTO, 1984, for additional exam- pies. 502.2 Local Street Interchanges The use of isolated ramps or partial inter- changes should be avoided because wrong-way movements are more prevalent at isolated off- ramps and there is less confusion to motorists where all traffic movements are provided at an interchange. In general, interchanges with all ramps connecting with a single cross Street are preferred. (a) Diamond Interchange--The simplest form of interchange is the diamond. Diamond interchanges provide a high standard of ramp alignment, direct turning maneuvers at the crossroad, and usually have mini- .1m construction costs. The diamond type Is adaptable to a wide range of traf- fic volumes. The capacity is limited by the capacity of the intersection of the ramps at the crossroad. This Capacity may be increased by widening the ramps to two or three lance at the crossroad and by widening the crossroad in the Intersection area. Crossroad widening will Increase the length of undererossings and the width of overcrossirigs thus adding to the bridge cost. Ramp intersection capacity analysis is discussed in Topic 406. i I I I I I. I I I 1 APPENDIX 10 I ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS TECHNICAL REPORT (Brian F. Mooney Associates) I I I, H I I 0• '• • I II I I I I I 'H I ' ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS OLIVENHAIN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA I I Prepared for I City of Encimtas Communi ty Development Department 527 Encinitas Boulevard Encinitas, California 92024 1 (619) 944-5060- Prepared-by: Brian F. Mooney Associates I 9903-B Businesspãrk Avenue San Diego, California 92131 I I Jmes P Kurtz, B.S. I frkcoustical Engineer I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS I Section L INTRODUCTION IL PROJECT DESCRIPTION ilL EXISTING CONDITIONS I IV. FUTURE CONDITIONS I V. IMPACTS VI. MITIGATION I VIL REFERENCES I APPENDICES A. St'mina 2.0 Noise Model Output I,. FIGURES I Number Title 1 Regional Location Map 2 Vicinity Map I 3 Project Site 4 Measured Existing Noise Levels I 5 6 Calculated Existing Noise Levels - Western Segment Calculated Existing Noise Levels - Eastern Segment 7 Future Roadway Cross-Sections 8 Future Grading at, the Thompson Property I 9 Future Noise Levels - Eastern Segment 10 Future Noise Levels - Western Segment, Alignment 1' 11 Future. Noise Levels - Western Segment, Alignment 2 I I I . Page 1 1 6 12 19- 22 23 Page 3 4 5 8 9 10 13 14 16 17 18 [1 L INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS The City of Encinitas proposes improvements to Olivenhain Road, an existing connection between El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road. The improvements include widening of the western two lane section to six lanes, and restriping the existing four lane section to six lanes. Future traffic volumes on Olivenhain Road are forecast to be more than double the existing volumes. The increase in traffic volume will result in increased vehicle noise. The construction work required for the improvements will also generate noise. The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate existing and future noise conditions in the areas adjacent to Olivenhain Road, to assess noise impacts resulting from the project, and to recommend mitigation measures to reduce the noise impacts. This report is to be included in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Olivenhain Road improvement project. I The principal receptors which would be sensitive to the impacts of increased vehicle noise and construction noise from Olivenhain Road are the occupants of the residential I communities of Willow Creek and Bridgewater on the South Side of the roadway, and Rancho del Ponderosa and Santa Fe Ridge on the north side of the roadway. There may also be noise-sensitive bird species in the riparian area near the southwest end of the road. I Future noise levels along Olivenhain Road. will increase by four to six decibels (dB) at the edge of the right-of-way (ROW). The increase in vehicle noise results in potential I significant impacts, as defined by the City of Encinitas General Plan, to properties in the Willow Creek, Rancho del Ponderosa, and Santa Fe Ridge areas. The properties on the north side of the road are in the City of Carlsbad. City of Encinitas standards were applied to these areas, because Carlsbad does not have applicable standards. Construction noise impacts may be significant, but will be short-term, and will affect a small number of residences. If sensitive bird species are identified in the riparian area, the impacts of future vehicle I noise and construction noise are potentially significant. - If the proposed project to improve the road is not done, the traffic volumes on Olivenhain Road will continue to increase. The "no project" volume increase is not likely to reach the volume forecast for the widened condition; the "no project" future speed almost certainly would not be equal to the speed assumed for the future widened road condition. Therefore, not all of the predicted future noise increase should be attributed directly to the project. If quantification of the amount of noise increase attributable to the project is desired, then "no project" traffic data should be confirmed. The potential significant impacts to residential the level of significance by the increase in height extension of an existing wall. Where view is a increased by use of a transparent bather. I areas may be reduced to a level below of existing walls, and in one case, the consideration, the wall height may be I I I I I I IL PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. LOCATION Olivenhain Road is located on the northern border of the City of Encinitas, in north I San Diego County (Figure 1). The road runs east-west for a distance of approximately one mile, connecting El Camino Real, on the west, with Rancho Santa Fe Road, on the east. The north side of the mad is in the City of Carlsbad' (Figure 2). I B. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Olivenhain Road is within an east-west trending valley which contains Encinitas Creek. The western 1300 feet of the mad is undeveloped. On the north side is a fairly steep hill. Opposite, on the south side is a relatively flat area, which includes Encinitas Creek. Most of the mad is bounded by existing residential developments (Figure 3). These developments are named Willow Creek and Bridgewater, on the south side of the mad, and Rancho del Ponderosa and Santa Fe Ridge, on the north side of the road. Between Olivenhain Road and the Bridgewater development are a preschool, a welding shop, and some undeveloped land. Continuing eastward, on the south side of the mad, is a single family property, known as the Thompson property. As the mad turns northeasterly, the property on the southeast side of the mad contains the buildings of the Olivenhain Municipal Water District At the intersection of El Camino Real, the elevation of Olivenhain Road is about 87 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The road rises slightly through the undeveloped area, then climbs to an elevation of 130 feet at the intersection with' Amargosa Drive.' Easterly, from Amargosa Drive, the road remains at about elevation 130. The homes on the north side of the mad are elevated above the road, those on the south side are at elevations below the mad. C. PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project is the widening and realignment of the existing Olivenhain Road between El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road. This section of Olivenhain Road is designated as a Prime Arterial, six lanes, by the Circulation Elements of theccifies of Encinitas and Carlsbad. The portion of Olivenhain Road that is proposed to be realigned is the segment west of the existing residential communities, and east of El Camino Real. There are four proposed alternative alignments under consideration, with the preferred alignment being the most northerly of the four, identified as Alignment No. 2. 1 El 1 2 I I I r, I I El I - -If / 0 A ; 2 ' 1 I 1) I L / i ?VMt >)nJ _Mar oiI an 9 <'V;: fiv Sir p 6n )r L- Arc I_Jt c 111J I L) cQ!ifil .J/ io 13 o' .. 1fl,'/' '-..' Li Pea/ J, 1 \ 1 m \ t Oil 17 It 44 Lucath; ' I OIL Project S It - C ) Eflclnita8 Blvd Encinitas Gagi fit Mine Vow \ . .. ._ \I T. Cardiff-by-the-Sea \ I (I Solana Beach Js t N Olivenhain Road Alignment 2 3 Miles Regional Location Map brian f mooncv ©011 plannIng, design & environmental studies Figure 1 SOURCE: U.S.G.S. 30' x 60' Quad Map (Oceanside) Noise N Olivenhain Road Alignment Vicinity Map ldoo'2d00' brian F mooncp & eswlronme,del studies Figure 2 SOURCE: U.S.G.S. 7.5' Quad Map (Encinitas & Rancho Santa Fe) fit dPãr 10 X\ I ' - . 1øACI'b T •- .- \ ...1 •.. .---... I . . Arroy/ç.a Costa i•: re 1 611 36 CO S 2I92? 5.66 Acres I Ca Map No. 8362 Urdt 5 4 14 EUnit 1 __ — --- ____ TL Ilvenhain Road - . T TTfl 25&-031-03 - 451 ' " it T ___ __________ 37 30 40 7-7 13 4.70 Acres "4 A Gr I' °' \..•.\ MapN1I92l ....- .. -- UI, .. ••.• 5'S '\ *iVroai. LkThI$S - Riparian Hst' . . / / I.__-----____.-.. - :( 1 - '. II . ____ ... •1 .-_.silo 0, 119 4g, N I \LJ 0 200 brian F moonap 1 planning, design 8 environmental studies -.1 - Olivenhain Road Alignment Project Site Figure 3 - Noise ilL EXISTING CONDITIONS A. ROADWAY The western end of Olivenhain Road, from El Camino Real to the beginning of the existing subdivisions, a distance of about 1200 feet, is a two lane road. East of this point, Olivenhain Road .is a four lane road, with two travel lanes in each direction. The median is painted, and has a variable width. The intersection with El Camino Real is a "T", I and is signalized. The intersections with Amargosa Drive and Rancho Santa Fe Road/Camino Alvaro are signalized, and have left turn pockets. The intersection with Los Piños Circle has no controls on Olivenhain Road, but does have a left turn pocket. I B. TRAFFIC The existing traffic volume on Olivenhain Road is estimated at 20,599 vehicles per day (ADT). This value is derived from counts taken in 1990 by JIHK & Associates. A 1989 survey by Traffic Counts, Inc. (Mestre Greve 1990) calculated the ADT at 19,500. Traffic speed was estimated during field visits made in February and March 1991; the speeds, in both directions, are 35 mph in the two lane segment, and 45 mph in the four lane segment. The traffic mix, based on observations and counts in February and April 1991, is estimated at 95 percent autos, 3 percent medium trucks, and 2 percent heavy trucks. It was noted that most of the heavy trucks using Olivenhain Road are trash disposal trucks; the road is a principal route to and from the landfill site to the east. The trash truck traffic occurs mostly in the morning hours. During the late afternoon hours, there are very few heavy trucks. The existing traffic volume on El Camino Real, south of Olivenhain Road, is estimated at 33,222 ADT, based on November 1989 counts performed by the City of Encinitas (Villegas 1991). Speed is estimated at 50 mph; traffic mix at 93/4/3. C. METHODS OF ANALYSIS Measurements. Field measurements were made March 7 and April 23, 1991. A Larson-Davis LDL model 700 sound level meter was used. The instrument was calibrated before and after each measurement period. The LDL 700 measures peaks and averages, and stores the data for subsequent retrieval. Calculations. Existing noise levels were calculated using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model. The STAMINA 2.0 computer-based version of the model was used. This model calculates noise levels at one or more receptors, from vehicles on one or more roadways, with consideration of barriers and terrain influences. Inputs include the three-dimensional geographic coordinates of the roadways, bathers and receptors, the traffic volumes, speeds and mixes, and numerical factors describing the energy absorbing characteristics of the terrain and space between the roadways and receptors. Receptors were selected at the edge of the ROW, to define a reference level of noise; at points representing typical residential homes and exterior use areas; and as needed to define contours of equal noise levels. n I I I I I L I I I I I I I 1 D. NOISE LEVELS The principal noise source for most of the project area is the traffic from Olivenhain Road. At the western end of the road, the traffic noise from El Camino Real is an additional major source. There are no other significant noise sources in the area. Existing noise levels were measured and were calculated. Noise was measured at the locations shown on Figure 4. The results of the noise measurements are shown in Figure 4. Except as noted, all values given for noise levels represent the noise level for the outside or ground floor receptor. In Encinitas, and most other jurisdictions, the exterior receptor is calculated at five feet above the ground level. In Carlsbad, the exterior/ground floor receptor is set at a height of six feet, in accordance with Carlsbad Planning Department Administrative Policy No. 17. For source-receptor geometries which include noise barriers, the higher receptor will usually have a higher noise level, and will require a higher barrier to achieve a noise level equivalent to the noise level at the five foot, high receptor. The results of the calculations are shown at selected points and as noise level contours in Figures 5 and 6. In Figures 5 and 6, the results are described as 24-hour average noise levels, L. The community noise level scale, L, takes into account the human sensitivity to noise at night, when ambient noise levels are normally less. A "penalty" of 5 dB is added to noise. levels for the hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. A similar community noise level scale, CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level), adds 3 dB to noise levels for the evening hours of 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., in addition to the 10 dB nighttime hour adjustment. The unit of measure for the measured values in Figure 4 is LM, an average noise level for the period of measurement. In interpreting the results of measurements and calculations shown in Figures' 4, 5 and 6, measurement noise levels should not be directly compared with calculated noise levels. The traffic volumes and mixes for the situations are different, as well as the units of measure. The relative differences between noise levels at various points can be compared. This comparison is a means of verifying the model calculations, and is used to confirm and-adjust absorption and shielding parameters in the model.- For the existing traffic volumes, the average noise levels at the edge of the ROW in the widened part of Olivenhain Road are 72 dB L,. Noise levels in the rear yards of the homes on the north side of the road range from 56 to 62 dB L. On the south side of the road, noise levels in the residential areas range from 55 to 60 dB L. Noise levels at the second floor elevations, for two story homes, are generally higher, there is less noise attenuation by the existing walls. Noise levels at second story receptors on the north side of Olivenhain Road are 3-5 dB higher than ground floor noise levels, and range from 60 to 67 dB. 7 I - :. - : • • - -k7 Ofl I • :-.-- ° ( 38 oi I ros.5 • / 25519258 I Map No. 8363 re Map No 8145 Map No 8362 / ( .--.v\ 255 t2IJ Lee' 66 city 01 14nci ON oad of Riparian Habitat ~15 3 13i 36 X. 49 14 33* - I 1510 —i ----- 41.8 c I 0 255-024-01 'so, 55 . 1.9 255-040-06 20 - \ 13.65 Acres , 1051 Acres 1 53 Map No 11921 E 1\xs \ X11 101 2 \ \ 4 / c Iii % I/T_-: A P -t 0. LEGEND-.. ( ) , Point#-7 MARCH91 * OlivenhainRoadAbgnmenf 0 200'- 400' - - - .j -IT Point # -23 APRIL 91 (AM) Measured Existing Noise Levels brian F moonap Point.* — 23 APRIL 91 (PM) - planning design &environmentaI studies 62 Noise Level Decibels L Figure4 w "1'38i 37 40. I , A,, . OIl venhain Road Alignment Calculated Existing NoIse -Levels — Western Segment — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I Map No. Unit 2aJ;e 42.4 ".1 ot pr i arian Habitat 255-024-01 x105 ..90 255-040-06 " I \ 13.65 Acres -55 10.51 Acres / 040 160 ióo' 2k'. LEGEND brian F moon'p froenta1 studies --65— Noise Levels, Decibels, Ldn design & Figure 5 0. 1018 LL- Rancho Del Ponderosa 37 - mJ,:F \Map No. 8I45 ] Map No. 8362 j MapNo. 8383 unit I C 14 1 48 47 40 14W IN 1.96 Acres -2 ku F:o i~ilii~p4f 76 city of Fncb*s 4.70 Acres 25r- Property Map No. 11921 111000 Willow Creek Bridgewater ,- / -- a . - - '' A P NO I.s / / .- -' .,__ • - - - - O Kors 15 d1 O - -' ----------- - - to lit N - Olivenhain Road Alignment Calculated Existing Noise Levels Eastern Segment LEGEND brian F moonp —65— Noise Level, Decibels, Ldn P1a1. design & environmental studies • 60 Noise Level,' Decibels, Ldn Figure 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — IV. FUTURE NOISE ENVIRONMENT ROADWAY Olivenhain Road will be widened and realigned. From El Camino Real eastward to the existing four-lane roadway section, the road will be widened to Prime. Arterial Standards, with a 106 foot curb-to-curb distancóánd a126 fooT ROW (Figure 7) The existing four lane roadway is built on a 107 foot ROW. This section will not be widened, but will ultimately be striped for six lane use, with the median and two traffic lanes narrower than with the 126 foot cross section (Figure 7).. Those sections east of the future 126 foot roadway which are not presently improved to four lane traffic will be improved to the 107 foot configuration. The widening at the Thompson property, just east of the Bridgewater subdivision, will result in moving the roadway closer to the house, with the provision of a 12 foot high slope or retaining wall (Figure 8). These alternatives are equivalent for the purposes of noise analysis. Olivenhain Road will be realigned in the section west of the existing residential developments There are four alternative alignments lEiative alignment 2, the most çnortherly alignment, is Ahe p$rred alignment. Alternative 1, the most southerly alignment, is a westward- projection of the existing four lane section. Alternatives 3 and 4 lie between the two extremes. TRAFFIC The Circulation Element of the City of Encinitas General Plan forecasts the traffic volumes on Olivenhain Road and El Camino Real, south of Olivenhain Road to be 48,000 ADT and 55,000 ADT respectively. These values are used for the analysis of future traffic noise. It is assumed that the speeds will be 45 mph on Olivenhain Road and 50 mph on El Camino Real. This indicates an increase in speed only in the westerly end of Olivenhain Road. Although both roads will be six lane Prime Arterials, the increased volumes will result in levels of service D or E. which implies speeds less than the design speed or allowable speed. Traffic mixes are assumed to be the same as for existing conditions No traffic data was obtained which forecasts the traffic volumes for the "no project" condition, that is, the future volume of traffic if the road remained in the existing configuration. LAND USE Future land use adjacent to Olivenhain Road will continue to be principally residential. A new development will be Arroyo La Costa, to the west of Rancho Ponderosa. The alignment of alternative alignment 2 conflicts with some proposed lots in the southeast part of Arroyo La Costa. 12 I SOUTh. 107' -Right-of-Way NORTH -. .10' -5'.12" 12 12' 5' 12' 12 12' 5' 10' Bike - - - I BikeT Lane ' Lane >- 6 LANES THROUGH TRAFFIC * 0 1 r SOUTH 107' Right-of-Way NORTH 900 : - - - 7' 5' ii 11 11 .10' 4' 11' 11' -1 1' 5' io' Bike rum Lf) - Bike T - • ,Lahe . Lane / LEFT TURN LANE-. . .•. $ SOUTH 126' Right-of-Way . NORTH 106' ib 20' 12' 12' - 9' 9' 12' 12' 20' 10' - 5' Bike - - '.. - S Lane SBik ?18 Lane WhereReq'd. INI 6 LANES THROUGH TRAFFIC - . . Olivenhain Road Alignment 'brian Frnoonczp . . Future Roadwèy. Cross- Sections .. pIaiq. design & envIronmenta' studies 0 0 . . -' . Figur.e 7. 0• - - _.__ Source Project Design Consultants Noise Plan — Alternative 'A9 jtTINCa SOUTHML( EDGE Or- OUVEIAMAIN, / ,X611MG* ,cU L&L'. cVJJ P9OED 1 1 Po900 c's.o C.9AM SLEvAnom - (• /GQA910 I RA%L 120- SIDEWALK NOME ,. RoAowY MO%AN PROPOSED - 1I2-4ouE -ro Mae OP stO Cross Section 011venhiin Road Alignment Future Grading at the Thompson Property bricinE rnoonv pIa,uibg. de&gn I environmental studies - Figure 8 Noise I I Residential development is possible on the three properties on the south side of Olivenhain Road between the 'day care center and the Bridgewater development. The southwest corner of Olivenhain Road and El Camino Real is the site of a proposed light I . industrial/light retail development. In this development, the wetlands area closest to Olivenhain Road would remain undeveloped. The land between this parcel and the Willow Creek homes I is undeveloped; a park is one use that has been proposed. FUTURE NOISE LEVELS I . Eastern Segment. The increase in traffic volumes on the existing four lane section of Olivenhain Road will increase the noise levels in this segment by about 4 dB. This will result in a noise level at the edge of the ROW of 76 dB L,,. These noise levels are independent I of the alternative alignment selected for the western segment of Olivenhain Road. In the Willow Creek and Bridgewater subdivisions, on the south side of the roadway, the noise levels will increase to 58-64 dB. Noise levels on the north side of the road, in the Rancho del I Ponderosa and Santa Fe Ridge subdivisions, will increase to 64-66 dB. The future noise levels for the eastern segment of the project area are shown in Figure 9. Noise levels at elevated, second-story receptors will also increase. The second story noise levels will range from 65 I .to 70 dB L in the Rancho del Ponderosa and Santa Fe Ridge subdivisions. Western Segment. The western segment of Olivenhain Road will have increases in I . both volume and speed. These increases will result in a vehicle noise increase of about 6 dB. The increase in traffic volume on El Camino Real will increase vehicle noise from that roadway by 2 dB. Alternative alignment 1, the most southerly, and Alternative alignment 2, the most northerly, were analyzed for the future noise conditions. The results are shown in I Figures lO and il CONSTRUCTION NOISE I Construction activities associated with widening and realigning of the road will generate noise. Noise will be generated by bulldozers, backhoes, graders, trucks and payers. The principal noise sources in this equipment are the diesel engines. Compressors or impact tools, such as jackhammers, if used, can emit significant noise in addition to the driving engines. A commonly accepted value for construction site noise is 89 dB L,, measured 50 feet from the noise source. This noise would decrease at a rate of about 6 dB per . "doubling distance." Thus, construction noise levels would be 83 dB at 100 feet, and 75 dB at 250 feet. This noise would be intermittent, which is typical of construction activities. I . Most of the construction activities would take place at the western end of the roadway. At present, there are no residential land uses directly adjacent to that section of the roadway. I Construction activities are limited by the City of Encinitas Noise Ordinance to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m on work days, and are prohibited on Sundays and legal holidays. I 15 I / - '7 I' 1.95 Acr 65 tis• I I crei- 60 095 ---.--.--- I N ED ,I I 0 200' 400' brian moonep pIannig. design & environmental studies 011venhaln Road Alignment Future Noise Levels Eastern Segment Figure 9 Nols8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — %_ - — — — — - — — — -- - n / ' I EP 65 'oo ' 'I 65—.-.i , '. .1 - ci. . ---i . ••. 1 . . -. 5-.--. ---- - 2 I2 - iieiu; A_r_cifrtt_It -yi_'• .' . . ii Vsifl E?1I - 41110 60 4U ix AJ 60- 13.65 Adres-.- 04 0 Olivenhain Road Alignment -i .- . •.... . - Emma 1 2a'IzM 's... / * -- • : Future NoièeLevels -Western Segment lU Iq ': . ,. ., :•i ..-: •., -(Alignment 1) bricinFmooflczv ç]: . r i .. • p.d0919n&env(ronmenta studies 100 . . _____ Figure - . . . Noise 255-024-0 13.65 ACpd QP 1 84 4 R4ii Ui VA lqwaa_u 75. SlOW CC 6 10.51 Acres1 \ .* X4 0!!venhain Road Alignment Future Noise Levels - Western Segment (Alignment 2) 4 . Figure 11 U, \r-j- I.. OF I ç n L4fl-7 I cr •. \_ •.:\\ - . NOM — — — — — — — . — — — — — — — — — — V. IMPACTS I A. STANDARDS City' of Encinitas. The following policies, which are stated in. the Noise Element of the General Plan, are applicable to the assessment of noise impacts: Policy 1.1: If a project would increase the traffic noise level by more than 5 dB and I .the resulting L,, would be over. 55 dB, then mitigation measures must be evaluated. If the project, or action, would increase traffic noise' levels by 3 dB or' more and the resulting noise would. exceed 60 dB in outdoor use areas in residential development, I noise mitigation must be similarly evaluated. Policy 1.6:, Include noise mitigation measures in the design of new roadway projects I Policy 17 Apply Title 24 of the Califorma Administrative Code, associated with noise insulation standards, to single family dwellings 1 Policy, 2.1: Any project which. would be located in a normally unacceptable noise exposure area, based on the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines, shall require an I acoustical analysis Noise mitigation in the future shall be incorporated in the project as needed. ., . I .The City of Encinitas Noise Ordinance limits the hours of construction to 7 a.m. - 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No construction is allowed on Sundays or holidays. No construction equipment is allowed to be operated to cause a noise level at a developed I residential property, in excess of 75 dB for more than eight hours City of Carlsbad. The Noise Element of the General Plan is in the process of being I . . updated and amended. The current governing' document is "Planning Department Administrative Policy No. 17, which is applicable to proposed new residential, projects of 5 or more dwelling units. The City of Carlsbad has no current policy document relating to the assessment of impact and, mitigation measures from projects which increase vehicle .noise to I existing sensitive receptors. I B. IMPACTS Existing Residential Areas - Encinitas Future noise levels in the Willow Creek area will range from 60 to 61 dB L,,, an increase of 4 dB over the existing condition The 60 dB I threshold value of Policy 1.1 (for noise level increases between 3 and .5 dB) would be slightly exceeded 'at the properties at the western end of the area; lots' .39-37, approximately. I '.. Futurt noise 'levels in the Bridgewater area 'will range from 60 to 61 dB L, and the noise level increases will be 1-3 dB The increases of 3 dB occur at the properties with future noise levels of 60 dB The lots with future noise levels of 61 dB will have noise level I increases less than 3 dB. Therefore, noise level increases in the Bridgewater, area do not exceed the standards of Policy 1.1. I ' 19 Future noise levels at the Thompson property will not change. The existing and future noise level is calculated at 68 dB L. The proposed grading will provide noise shielding to offset the increased vehicle noise generation. Existing Residential Areas - Carlsbad. As stated, there is no City of Carlsbad standard governing noise impacts from road projects. Encinitas Policy 1.1 is used to evaluate the noise impacts. Future noise levels in the Rancho del Ponderosa and Santa Fe Ridge areas will range from 62 to 66 dB L, which represents increases of 4 dB, All of these properties will have noise increases which exceed the standard of Encinitas Policy 1.1. Future noise levels inside the second floor of homes in the Rancho del Ponderosa and Santa Fe Ridge areas may exceed the 45 dB L standard for interior noise stated by Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, with applicability to this project implied by Encinitas Policy 1.7. Noise levels outside the second floor windows will range from 65 to 70 dB L. If the homes have mechanical ventilation which allows comfortable occupancy with the windows closed, and the windows are of a type which will provide a good seal, then the noise attenuation characteristics are probably adequate to avoid a significant impact - Existing Riparian Area - Encinitas. The undeveloped property between El Camino Real and the Willow Creek development contains riparian vegetation. Some species of birds found in local riparian areas may be disturbed by noise levels in excess of 61 dB L. Noise levels in a significant portion of the riparian area are currently less than 61 dB, and will increase to levels greater than 61 dB. If sensitive species of birds are found in the area, the future noise will cause a significant impact. Existing Commercial Buildings - Encinitas. Noise levels at the Olivenhain Municipal Water District buildings will increase 4 dB, from a present level of 69 dB L. to a future level of 7. dB L. Most of the buildings are windowless, and the change would not be noticed. However, interior areas in the west end of the building, where there are a few windows, may experience some impact Future Development - Encinitas. The undeveloped land on the south side of Olivenhain Road will be exposed to future noise levels greater than 60 dB L. Encinitas Policy 2.1 may apply to proposed development on these properties. Future Residential. Development - Carlsbad. The Arroyo La Costa development will be subject to noise impacts resulting from increased vehicle volumes and speeds on the adjacent section of Olivenhain Road. The impact will also be affected by the alignment of the road, alignment 2 would result in the most severe noise impacts. Construction Noise. There is a potential for short-term impacts from construction noise when heavy construction activities occur within 250 feet of residential receptors. This may occur at the eastern end of the two lane section to be widened, which is about 250 feet from the southwest corner of Rancho del Ponderosa. This may also occur during the widening near the Thompson property. A violation of the City of Encinitas noise ordinance 20 is very unlikely, because normal road construction operations do not generate high noise levels in one location, for extended 'periods. There is also a potential for construction noise impact if sensitive bird species are found in the riparian 'area. C. IMPACTS ATTRIBUTABLE '.TO THE PROJECT The above analysis of impacts compares the future noise environment adjacent to Olivenhain Road with the existing noise environment. If the road is not improved, the traffic, volume will continue to increase, with resulting increases in noise levels The mcreases in traffic volumes may result from new developmentto the east, froth ;the ArroyO La Costa project, from development' to the west, and from road projects, such as the connection of Leucadia Boulevard with:, El Cañiiño Real. '',With this scenario, at some point, the increases in volume.on an unimproved' Olivenhain Road will result in reduced speeds, which will 'offset noise level increases from, the increased volumes. It is therefore reasonable to assume that some of the impacts described in section B may be attributed to traffic growth, independent of the project, and the remainder of the impacts may be attributed directly, to the project. Further traffic analysis would be necessary to'^ quantify, the division of impacts between project and non-project causes With respect to potential impact to species in the riparian area, the impact would be 'caused not only by increased vehicle noise from Oliveithain Road, but also from 'increased vehicle noise from El Camino Real. This latter factor would not be attributable to the project. Li 21 The following mitigation measures would reduce the future noise, as described in section V B, to a level of significance below the thresholds of Policy 11 Willow Creak. The wall at the west end lof lot. 39 should be extended southward for 30 feet, and the height of the wall should be raised to six feet The wall adjacent to Olivenhain Road, and extending down Amargosa Drive, should be increased from the existing six foot height to a height of seven feet. Rancho del Ponderosa and Santa Fe Ridge. As stipulated by Policy 11 of the Encimtas General Plan Noise Element, the 'engineering and planning departments of the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad shall internally evaluate the feasibility and practicabthty of a range of applicable noise mitigation measures intended to reduce future traffic noise impacts to existing residences within the Rancho del Ponderosa and Santa Fe Ridge subdivisions, adjacent to the northern edge of Olivenham Road. This evaluation shall include, at a minimum, the possibility of extending existing wills along the rear yards of these homes If found to be feasible, any proposed wall extensions shall be constructed oUlsolid "materials,, abutted directly, to the existing structures The wall materials may, be masonry, wood, or a transparent material, such as glass or plexiglass Wooden walls should be at least 3/4 inch thick, glass or plexiglass should be at least 3/8 inch thick. It should be noted that any potential (future) wall extensions intended to reduce traffic noise to exterior and ground floor receptors may not significantly reduce noise levels to second floor receptors 22 VII. REFERENCES California Administrative Code 1979 Title 24, Building Standards, section T25-28 Noise Insulations Standards California Department of Transportation 1984 California Vehicle Noise Emision Levels, FHWA/CA/TL-84/13. August. Carlsbad, City of 1990, Planning Department Administrative 'Policy No. 17. March 4. Carlsbad City of : 1991 Telephone conversation' with Terry Woods, Planning Department. March 18.' Encinitas, City of ' 1989 General Plan. March' 17. ' Encinitas, ,City of 1990 Noise Ordinance, Code Section 9.32.400ff. December. Encinitas, City 1991 Telephone conversation with 'George Villegas, Traffic Engineer. April 19. Federal Highway Administration 1978 FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA-RD-'77-108. December. JHK & Associates 1990 Traffic data for Olivenhain Road. July. Mestre-Greve Associates.' 1990 Revised Noise Assessment for Arroyo La Costa. March 26. Project Design Consultants '• 1991 Olivenhain Road Route 'Adoption Report. February 26. Willens, Constance A. and Associates 1989 Home Depot Specific Plan Feasibility/Constraints Study. November 1 I.. 23 STAMINA 2.0/BCR FHWA VERSION (MARCH 1982) TRAFFIC I DEVELOPED NOISE PREDICTION MODEL UNDER CONTRACT BY BBN (INPUT UNITS- E I, OUTPUT UNITS- E I) IODIFIED BY THE MINNESOTA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION OR OPERATION ON A MS-bbS PERSONAL COMPUTER, 1985 H LIVENHAIN ROAD WEST - EXISTING - ORWX 04/24/91 OGRAM INITIALIZATION PARAMETERS . .. HEIGHT CODE DESCRIPTION .00 1 R A N. 1.00 2 A E N 8.00 I . 3 •H D 4 H D T T S A K 2.30 5 H D T D C 0O.Or 6 H D T. P C H, CO = 5.20 Cl= 38.80. SO .00 2.300 7 H D T . P C H 'CA CO = 35.30 Cl = 25.60 so = .00 8.000 8H D T P C H 'CA II CO = 50.40 Cl = 19.20 S0.= .00 fOADWAY 1 EL CAMINO REAL -. SOUTH . S . VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES/HOUR SPEED I . VEH4 . 1792. 50. . VEH5 77. 50. . . VEH6 58. 50. ,. .I .COORDINATES -------------- X .Y ..Z GRADE OLIVRD 540. 1400. 86. 0 IOUTH . . 380. 0. 85. 0 1OADWAY 2 OLIV-EAST OF ECR • VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES/HOUR SPEED . 's I. VEH4 •' 1135. .. 35. ., .. VEH5 36. 35 . . . . . VEH6 24. . 3.5. . . -------------COORDINATES------------- . X .. Y Z GRADE ' )CR . 600. 1355. •. 86. 1 IURVW . .870. 1175. 88. 1 tURVE . 1115. . 1093. • 90. 1 . WGRADE 1890. 1000. 95. 0 OADWAY.. 3 OLIV - 107 FT ROW : VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES/HOUR SPEED VEH4 1135. 45. VEH5 36. 45. VEH6 24. 45. 0 COORDINATES'------------- X Y . Z GRADE WGRAD 1890. 1000. 95. 1. A1ARGOSA 2675. 1000. 130. 1 WFLT 3000. 1000. 137. . 1 EFLAT 4570. 1000. 137. . 0 1BARRIER 1 TYPE (A) OLIV RD WEST, SOUTH EDGE 0 '. COORDINATES---------- X Y ' Z ZO .DELZ W 640. 1295. . 86. 84. 0 ' 0 1 860. 1150. " 88. 86. 2 1100. . 1070. 90.. 85. E 1700. 1005. 90,. 89. 4 1775. 1000.. 91'. 89. 5 1775.. .954. •. 91. 89. 6 ' 2109. 954. 103. 100. 7. 2110 954. 109. 100. 8 .. . 2199. 954. 114. 108. IBARRIER 2 TYPE (A) . SOUTH WILLOW CREEK 0 .COORDINATES ---------- X . Y Z ZO DELZ P below:. 2170. 870. 104. 100. 0. . 0 join 2200. 953.. 112. 108. W39 . 2200. 954.: . 114. 108. CORNER 2700. '954o 136. 130. WRAP 2695. 850. 116,. 110. . , ..... 1BARRIER ' 3 TYPE (A) ' SOUTH - SCHOOL 0 ..COORDINATES ---------- X . Y' .,. . Z , . ZO DELZ ,. P .WWRAP' 2750. 925. . 136. 100. 0. . C WCORN 27,60. . 954• 139:. . 133. " ECORN 2870. 954. 142., 136. EWPAP' 2870. 900.. . 131. .. 128. 1BARRIER 4 TYPE (A) NORTH - PONDEROSA o .--------- COORDINATES ---------- Y Z ZO DELZ P 26 1950. 1100. 130. '97. 0. C 21 2400. 1064. 136. 118. 17. 2650. 1064. 142. .309 3000. 1064. 150 318 . .3.580. 1064. 152. ' 137. 420 . 4000. 1064. 151. 137. 416 . 4250. . . 1064. . 150. 137. 4400. 1115. 155. 137. 'BARRIER. LENGTH BY. SECTION .. 263.49 252-.99 603.51 75.17 46.00 334.22', 6.08 - 89..14 88.62 2.24 500 48 106.02 30.82 .110.04 55 11 451 48 250.07 350.09 580.00 420.00 250 00 15851 1 1RECEPTORS - WEST; SOUTH;. NORTH . . 0 COORDINATES------------- I x Y REF8N . 800. 1270. 103. 1370. 122. FBS 1150,800. . 800. 1170. 85. 8S200 800.. 970. 85. S200 .. 1600. 815. 90. S400 1600. 615. 90. w37 2400. . 900. 107. C37E 2400. 900. 117. U6E 2045. 1130. 133. 2045. 1130. P18 2570. 1080. 143. 2570. 1046. 131. rFP 8 800. 800. 90. 8S6 ' 800. 600. 90. -1-13sio 1200. 1000.1 . 90. IS8 1200. 800. 90. S6 1200. 600. 85. 12S6E . . . . 1200. 600. 95. REF VR2 500. 600. . 95. . 1400. 1000. 92. M315 1400. . 900. 88. ' 1900. 950. 102. I17 18 1900. 900. 99. .M319 1900. 800.. 99. 320 2150 800 101. ALPHA FACTORS - ROADWAY ACROSS,RECEIVER DOWN .1* .0 .0 .5 .. 12 •* .5.0 .5 * ..0 .0 .5 4* 5 5 5 I5* .5 5 5 . 515 * 5 5 5 7* .0 .0 .5 * .0 .0 .0 * .0 .o .0 0* .0 .0 .0 S. 11* .0 -.0 .0 2*.0 .0 .0 3* 5 .5 .5 .. 14 .5 5 .5 . 5 5 I5 '6* .5 .5 .5 17* .5 5 .5 . .5 .5 5 .. 8 * .0 ..0 .0 .0* .5 .0 .0 .al* .5 .5 .5 * .5 .0 .0 * 5 5 5 24* .5 5 5 . . . 15* 5 5 .5 . . F. SHIELDING FACTORS - ROADWAY ACROSS,RECEIVER DOWN . .' 1* .0 .0 .0 '. . . ... 2*1.0 .0 .0 .. '3* .0 .0 .0 . 4* 3.03.0 3.0 5*3.03.03.0 .' .,. 6 * 3.0 3.0 3..0 7*3,02.0 .0 8*3.0.2.0 .0 9 *' 7.0 3.0 3.0 '10 * 7.0 3.0 3.0 .11 8.0 3.0 12 * 8.0 8.0 .0. 13*3.03.03.0 14 * 3.0 3.0 3.0 15 * 3,0 3.0 3.0 16 * 3.0 3.0 3.0 17 * 3.0 3.0 3.0 18 * '3.0 3.0 3.0 19*..0 .0 .0 20* 1.0 .0 .0 21*3.0 3.0 3.0 22. *3.0 .0 .0 23 * 3.0 3.0 3.0 24 * 3.0 3.0 3.0 25* 3.0 .3.0 7.0 1OLIVENHAIN ROAD WEST - EXISTING - ORWX 04/24/91 ORECEIVER LEQ(H) SIG L10 L50 L90 REF8N . 69.5 4.8, 73.0 66.8 60.6 8N150 63.8 3.9 67.0 62.0, 57.0 1.REF8S '66.6. 4.6 70.1 64.2: 58.2 8S200 58.3 2.5 60.8 57.6. 54.4 16S200 54.7 3.4 57.7 53.4 49.1 16S400 51.2 2.4 . 53.6 50.5 47.4 WC37 55.2 47 58.7 52.7 46.6 WC37E ' 59,2 5.3 62.7 55.9 49.1 P26 54.7 3,2 57.6 53.5 49.3 P26E ' 58.2 4.0 61.5 56.4 51.4 P18' . 59.9 4.6 63.3 57.4 51.5 REFP . 70.4 5.1 73.9 ' 67.4 60.9 8S8 ' 57.2 2.5 59,7 56.5 53.4 8S6 '56.4 2.5 58.9 ' 55.7 52.5 12S10 60.7 4.9 64.2 57.9 51.6 12S8 , '54.0 2.6 56.5 53.2 49.8 12S6 ' 51.9 2,0 54.0 51.4 48,9 12$6E ' 51.9 2,0 54.0 51.4' ' 48.9 ECRREF 73.5 4,3 76.9 71.4' 65.9 .M312 ' 67.2 5,1 70,7 64.2 57.7 M315 ,. 56.7 3.9 59.9 54.9 50.0 .M317 69.1 5.2 72.7 66.0 59.4 M318 , 60.4 4.7 63.9 57.9 51.9 M319 55.7 3.8 58.9 54.1 49.3 .M320 51.5 3.7 54.7 49.9 45.1 'I .'•. STAMINA 2.0/BCR FHWA VERSION (MARCH 1982) I TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ..;DEVELOPED UNDER CONTRACT BY BBN (INPUT UNITS- E I, OUTPUT UNITS.- , E I) DIFIED BY THE MINNESOTA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION OR OPERATION ON A MS-DOSS PERSONAL COMPUTER, 1985 IVENHAIN ROAD EAST - EXISTING'- OREX - 04/24/91 OGRAM' 'INITIALIZATION PARAMETERS ' HEIGHT 'CODE •, DESCRIPTION .ÔO• I 1 R A N 1.00 2 A ' 'E' N " .00. • 8.00 3' H D T 4. H D T S A C K 2.30 5 H D T ' D 'C' .000 6 H D T . p Co = 5.20, Cl = . 38.80 So = 2.300 7 ' H ' D T P ' C CO = 35.30 'Cl = 25.60 SO • • 8 H • , D T ' , P ' C I 8.000 CO = 50.40 Cl = 19.20' 'SO'= OADWAY 1'• OLIV-EAST OF ECR VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES/HOUR SPEED VEH4 ' 1135. 35. .VEH5. 36. 35. .VEH6 '24. ' ' 35. COORDINATES------'' X "Y " 'Z GRADE CR 600. 1355. '86. 1 IURVW' , ' 870 1175. ,: 88. ' 1 URVE 1115.. 1093. " 90. 1 " WGRADE ' 1890. 1000. ' ' 95. 0 . 1 ' . OROADWAY ' 2 . OLIV - 107 FT ROW I, VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES/HOUR SPEED VEH4 VEH5 ', 1135. ' " 36. ., 45. 45. -. • VEH6 ' , 24. ' ' 45. o COORDINATES------------- 1 ' X Y ' Z GRADE' GRAD 1890. .1000. ' 95. 1 ANARGOSA ' , • 2675. 1000. 130. 1 ' 1000. 137. 1 ..'FLAT , , FLAT • ' ' 3000. 5 4570. , 1000. • 137. 1 CURV ' ' 4950. • ' 1100. 13O. 1 CURV ' . 5250. 1260. 127. 1 'SF , • 6075. 2155. 122., , • 0 H "CA .00 H '"CA .,00 H'CA .00 TYPE (A) SOUTH - WILLOW CREEK COORDINATES---------- x Y . z zolm 2170. 870. 104. 100. 2200. 112. 108. 2200. 114. 108. 2700. 954. 136. .130. 2695. 850. 116. 110. 2 TYPE(A) SOUTH SCHOOL COORDINATES---------- . X Y Z.. ZO 2750. 925. .136. 100. 2760. 954. 139. 13.3. 2870. 954. 142. 136. 2870. 900. 131. 128. 3 TYPE (A) . SOUTH - BRIDGEWATER COORDINATES---------- x Y z . zo• 3200. 830. 132. 110. 3200. ' 954. 141. 137. 4080. , 954. 141. ' 137. 4 TYPE (A) SOUTH - THOMPSON ROAD EDGE COORDINATES---------- x Y Z Z.0 4080. .964. 130. 120. 4800. 964. . 130. 120. 5 TYPE (A). : NORTH - PONDEROSA WEST COORDINATES---------- Y Z ZO 1950. 1100. 130. 97. 2400. 1064. 136. . 118. .2650. 1064. 142. 136. 3000. 1064. 150. 137, 3580. 1064. 152. 137. 3740. 1064. ' 152. 137. 3740. 1100. 152. . 140. 6 TYPE (A) NORTH -.PONDEROSA EAST COORDINATES---------- X Y Z ZO 3830. 1100., 152. 140.. 3830. 1064. 152.* 140. 4000. 1064.: 151. . 137. 4250. 1064. 150. 137. 4400. 1115. 155. 137. 7 TYPE (A) ' NORTH - SANTA FE COORDINATES---------- x Y Z ZO 4440. 1095. 155. 137. 4550. 1064. . 155. • 137. 4940.. .1160. 150. 130. 5220. .1320.: 140. 127. 5610. 1730. 135. ' 122.. DELZ. P 0.. 0 DELZ 0. if$ DELZ P 11 Q. 0 DELZ P 0. 0 DELZ P . 0. 0. DELZ DELZ P 0. 0 BARRIER LENGTH BY 'SECTION 88.62 • 2.24 500.48 106.02 30.82 110.04 55.11 124.33 880.00 720.00 451.48 • 250.07 . 350.09 580.00 160.00 36.00 36.00 170.00 250.00 • 158.51 114.28 4.01..67 .322.65. 565.88 W -EST; SOUTH; NORTHJECtPT6RS ---------------------COORDINATES-------------. Y z 'C37 2400. . 900. 107. C37E 2400. 9.00.; 117. C35 '2570. '900. 107. C33 . 2635. .785. .H C33E. 2635. ' '785. 121. AS2 . 2915. 745. . 120. R16 ' " 3500. . 850. .117. FBR 3500. 955. 143. 3955. 860. 119. BR4E ,. . . . 860. i. . .. .. 4300. ., 920. . 127'. " ,.: •., IOMPSON CURVE ., 5040. 1030. . 136. MWD '. ' :5230. . 1150. 131. 26'. 2.045. 1130. 133. ' .. . 2 6 E' , . 2045.. 1130. . '18 .. .. 2570. ' .1080. . 144. ,REFP. ' 2570. ' 1046. ' 131. 3000 1079. .153. I309 ,,318 ' 0 3580. ' 1079. H JACAR ' ' 3780. ' ' " 1200.'. . . 1.51. 420' ' ., . .. . 4000. 1080'. . 154'. 420E ' " ' , . : 4000. . 1080.... ' 164. 0, 50 4467 1120 158 S50E 4467 1120 168 41 4980 -120-3...'153 ALPHA FACTORS - ROADWAY ACROSS,RECEIVER DOWN 11* .0 5 12* .0 .0 ".3* .0 .5 .0 '.5' ,0 L4* 5* A. 0 6*45 5 7 * ..Ø o 18* 0 0 ,.9* .0 .0. .0 1 * •5 .5 2* 0 0 13*.0 .0 * .0 0.0 ,I5,* .0 .0 ,.0 * 0 • .0 t7,, 8 * .0' .0 91''*.0 .0 ".20* .0 .0 .0 .0 '2* .0 .0 23 .0 .0 *' .0 .0 I * .0 .0 SHIELDING FACTORS - ROADWAY ACROSS,RECEI'VER DOWN :1 2.0- 0 .2 2.0 .0 3.* .0 .0 4* .0 .0 5* .0 .0 6' * 9.0 3.0 7*9.0 .0 8*' .0 .0 *10.0 .0 iÔ" *10.0 .0 II *10,0 .0 12 * .0 .0 13 *10.0 .0 - 14*3.03.0 1'* 3.0 3.0 16 '* 8.0 3.0 . . 17*' .0 .0 .18.* 8.0 3.0 19 *8,0 3.0 ' 8.0 .0. 21* 8.03.0 22 * 8.0 3.0 ,:23*I00 3.0. 24 *10.,0 3.0 25*10030 'lOLIVENHAIN ROAD EAST - EXISTING OREX. - 04/24/91 ORECEIVER LEQ(H) SIG L10 L50 L90 WC37 ' 54.9 5.0 58.4 52.0 '45.7 WC37E 59.0 5 4 62 6 55.6 48.7 WC35 52 3 4 4 55 7 50 0 44.4 54.8 4.5 58.2 52.5. 46.8 ' WC33E 57 3 4.2 60 .6,. 55.2 49 8 :MEAS2 . 53.6 3..8 '56.8 . 51.9 46.9 54.8 4.5 58.3 52.5 '.46.6 REFBR ' . .. 70.5 5.1 74.1 .67.5 61.0 BR4 59.,l 4.1 62.4 57.1 51.8 BR4E 59.9 4.'2 63.3 57.'9 52 6 THOMPSON 65.8 4.8 69.3 63.1 57.0 SCURVE 66.6 4.0 69.9 64.8 .59.6 OMWD 674 43 708 65.3 59.7- _P2 544 34 574 530 486 P2 6E 58.0 4.1 61.4 56.1 50.9 P18 ' 60.5 . 5.1 , 64.1 57.5 50.,9 ..: REFP 70 4 .5 .1 73.9 67.4 60.9 P309 60.4 ' 4.9 63.9 57.6 51.3 ' 'P318 , 60.1 4.6 63.5 57.6 51.6 JACAR 58.6 5.2 62.1 55.4 48.7 P420 60.1, 4.7 63.5 ' 57.5 51.5 P.4'.2 OE 64.6 4.3 68.0 ' 62.5 56.9 ' 58.4 '4.1 61.7 56.4 51.1 SSOE 62.1 4.2 65.5 60.1 54.7 S41 59 9 41.8 63.4 .57 .1 51.2 STAMINA 2.O/BCR FHWA' VERSION (MARCH 1982) TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION'MODEL . DEVELOPED UNDER CONTRACT BY BBN (INPUT UNITS- E 1, OUTPUT UNITS- E I) ODIFIED BY THE MINNESOTA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION OR OPERATION ON A MS-DOS PERSONAL COMPUTER, 1985 ILIVENHAIN ROAD EAST - FUTURE - OREF - 04)24/91 . . ROGRAM 'INITIALIZATION PARAMETERS .. . HEIGHT CODE DESCRIPTION" J, .00 1 R ' A. N 1.00 '2' A 'E N .00 8.00 3 H D T 4 H D T'. S A C K 2.30 5 . . H D T' D .000 . 6 , H D , T , P ' C ', ' H 'CA'. CO = 5.20-Cl = ' 38.80 SO =' . .00 2.300. 7 ' H D " T P ' C ' H 'CA CO- ' 35.30 'CI = 25.60 'SO =: .09'' 8.000 8' ' H ' D -. T ' ' P C' ' H ''CA Co = 50.40 Cl = . ' 19.20 SO.= .00 DWAY '1' fA OLIV-EAST OF ECR' . VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES/HOUR " SPEED . '. . VEH4 .2645. ' .45. VEH5' ' . . 84.. ' ' , .45. ' 'VEH6 ' ' • 56. ' " 45. ----------------COORDINATES------------- X Y '.' Z GRADE''. '600.' 1355. ' 86.: 1 JURVW 870. •.1175. . 88. JCR URVE 1115. ' 1093. " 90. - , 1 WGRADE 1890. 1000 • 95. . 0 'I OROADWAY "2 ' OLIV -107 FT ROW . " '•' ' .: ' VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES/HOUR 'SPEED . VEH4 ' ' 2645. , .. , 45.. ;' ' .' '• ' . ' VEH5 , ' 84. ' ' , 45. . ' VEH6' •. '56. '' 45. o 'COORDINATES-------------' #GRAD X ' Y ' Z. GRADE' ' . , 1890. 1000. , 95. . 1 AMARGOSA 2675. 1000. , 130. 1 1 FLAT ' ' 3000. . 1000. ' .137. 1 I FLAT 4570. .. ' 1000. 137. 1 CURV ' - ' .4950. ' ' 1100. 130. ' 1 -ECURV 5250. ' 1260. 127. 1 , SF' 6075. 2155. . ' 122,. 0' 1BARRIER 1 TYPE(A) SOUTH - WILLOW CREEK 'I o COORDINATES---------- BELOW X " 2170. Y 870. Z 104. ZO 160. DELZ P 0. 0 JOIN 2200. 112-. 108. .W39' CORNER 2200. 2700. 954. 114. 136. 108. 130. WRAP, 2695. 850.. 116. 110. 1BARRIER 2 TYPE(A) SOUTH SCHOOL 0 COORDINATES-7--- x Y Z ZO DELZ P WWRAP 2750 925 136, 100. 0 0 WCORN 2760. , 954. 139. 133. ., ECORN 2870 954 142. 136. EWRAP 2870. 900. 131. 128. 1BARRIER 3 TYPE(A) SOUTH - BRIDGEWATER. 0 COORDINATES---------- X Y Z ZO DELZ P. WWRAP 3200. 830 132 110 0 0 -WCOPN ' 3200. 954. 141. :137. ECORN. 4080. 954. 141. 137. . ..; 1BARRIER 4 TYPE (A) SOUTH - THOMPSON ROAD EDGE 0 COORDINATES---------- X Y Z ' ZO DELZ P -W . ' 4080. 964. 135. 122. 0. . 0 E 4800 964 135 122 IBARRIER 5 TYPE(A) NORTH - PONDEROSA WEST 0 COORDINATES---------- X Y Z ' ZO DELZ .. P 26 . 1950. 1100.. 130. 97. .0.. 0 21 2400. 1064. 136,, 118.. . 17 '2650. 1064. 142. 13.6. . 3 09 3000. 1064. 137. 318 3580 1064. 152 137 320 ' 3740. . 1064. 152. 137. WRAP 3740. .1100. 152. 140.. 1BARRIER . 6 TYPE(A) ' NORTH - PONDEROSA EAST 0 - - COORDINATES - • S x ': '. Y Z ZO DELZ P WRAP 3830. 1100. . 152. . 140. .. 0. 0 422 .3830. -1064. ' 152. 140. 420 4000. 1664,' 137. 416 4250. 1064. 150. 137. 415' . . 4400. 1115. 155. 137. . • • 1BARRIER 7 TYPE(A) NORTH - SANTA FE 0 COORDINATES .-. 0 Z , ZO. . DELZ P 50 4440 1095 155 137 0. 0 49 0 4550. ' 1064. 155. 137. . . 4.2 ' 4940. 1160. • 150:. 130. . 37 '522.0. 1320. 0 140. ,o 127. . . 2 5610. . 1730. • 135. BARRIER LENGTH BY SECTION 88.62 2.24 ' 500.48 106.02 30.82 110.04 55.11 • .124.33 880.00 720.00 451.48 250.07 3-5;0.. 09 580.00 . ' 160.00 36.00 36.00 17U.0'0 250.00 158.51 114.28 I 401.67 322.65 565.88 - WEST; SOUTH; .NORTH .ICEPTORS ------------ COORDINATES -------- X. Y z C37 2400. 900. 107. IC37E 2400. 900. 117. 'WC35 2570. 900. . 107. ,jjC33 2635. 785. 111. 2635. 785. 121. f33E S2 . 2915. 745. 120. BR16 3500. 850, 117. BR . 3500. 955. 143. VF, 3955. 860. 119. BR4E 3955. . 860. 129. HOMPSON 4300. 920. 127. CURVE 5040. .' 1030. 136. TMWD, • . , ' 5230. 1150. 131. ' . 2045. 1130. 133. 26E f 6 . . 2045. ' 1130. 143. 18 . . .2570. '1080. ' 144. REFP . . 2570. 1046., 131. 309 3000. 1079. ' 318 3580. 1079. , ,. 155. JACAR 3780 1200 151 . 4000. 1080.. ,$420 420E ' 40.00. 1080. 350 4467. 112G. 158. 50E.. ' • ' 4467. ', . 1120. 41 ... ' • • • 4980. ' , 1203. 153'. ALPHA FACTORS - ROADWAY ACROSS,RECEIVER DOWN .0 .5 . . I1* , 2*,.0 .0.. • : ,. 3 * .0 .5 ' • • ' .5, 1 .0 5*, .0 .0 '6* .5 .5 . . 7.* .0 .0 *. .0 .0 , 9 * .0 .0' .. . 10'*, .0 .0 •' ' :. ••' .5 .0 . .'I l* ..* .0 .0 • 13* 0 .0 4* .0 .0' 5* .0 0 6*. .0 .0' 17* .0 .0 •• . . 18* 0 0 9* .0 .0, , . . .20 *.0' .0 .• . . ' • I j-* .0 • .0 .2* .0 .0 ' '23' *: o .0 $5: SHIELDING - FACTORS ROADWAY ACROSS,RECEIVER DOWN 11*20 0 2*200 1 : :' : 6*9.03.0 7*9Ø 8* .0 .0 .0 9*10.0 .o . 10 *10.0 .0 . 11*10.0 .0 . .. '. 12* .0 .0 13 *10.0 .0 ' 14*3.03.0 15*3.03.0 16*8.03.0 . 17* .0 .0 18 * 8.0 3.0 19 * 8.0 3.0 . 20*8.0 .0 ': .. 21 * 8.0 3.0 ' 22 * 8.0 3.0 21 *30 P 0, 3.0 24 *10.0 3.0 25 *10.0 3.0 10LIVENHAIN ROAD EAST FUTURE - OREF -. 04/24/91 ' ORECEIVER LEQ(H) SIG L10 L50 L90 . WC37 58.7 3.7. 61.9 57.1 ' ' 52.4 . ' WC37E 62.8 4.2' 66.1 60.7. 55.4 WC35 ' 56.2 '3.2 59.1 55.1 51.0 WC33 58.6 3,2 . 61.6 57.4 . 53.3 WC33E 61.1 3.0 63.9 60.0 56.1 MEAS2 BR16 • 57.3 58.0 2.8 3.6' 59.9 61.2 ' 56.4 56.5 52.8 ' 51.9 REFBR . 74.2 ':3.9 77.5 72.4 BR4 59..8 3.5 62.9 58.3 53.8 BR4E ' 63.5 3.2 66.4 62.3 58.3 THOMPSON. 66..0 4.3' 69.4 63.9 58.4 SCURVE 70.3 3.0 73.1 69.3 65.5 OMWD 71.'1 3.2 74.0 69.9 65.8 ' . - ' •.' P26 59.2 2.2 61.4 58.6 55.7 P26E ., 62.3 2.7 65.0 61.5 ' 58.01. 'P18 REFP ., 64.2 74.1 4.0, 3.9 67.5 77.3 62.4 72.4 57.3 67.4 • P309 64,0 • 3,8 67.2 62.4 57.6 , ' ' '. • P318 JACAR 63.7 '3.5. 62.2 4.1 66.8 65.6 62.3. 60.3 57.,9 - 55.1 • • ' '' '' c-.: ' P420 , 63.7, 3.5 66.8 62.3 57.8 ' P420E 68.3 3.2 71.2 67.1 63.0 • . ' ' S50 . 62.1 , 3.0 64.9' 61.0 57.1 S50E • 65.8 3.1 68.7 64.7 60.7 S41 • 63.5 3.6 66.7 62.1 57.4 • ' I 1 H ' ' ' , 1' STAMINA 2.0/BCR . FHWA VERSION (MARCH 1982) TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL DEVELOPED UNDER CONTRACT .BY BBN (INPUT UNITS- E I, OUTPUT UNITS- .E I) MODIFIED BY THE MINNESOTA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION FOR OPERATION ON A MS-DOS PERSONAL COMPUTER, 1985 I-OLIVENHAIN ROAD WEST - FUTURE ALT 1 - ORWF1 94/24/91 OPROGRAM INITIALIZATION PARAMETERS HEIGHT CODE DESCRIPTION .00 1 R A' :N 1.00 21 A E N .00 3 ' H D T S C I) 8 .00 4 . H. D T A K 2.30 5 ' .H D T D ' "C .OQO 6 H D ' T P ' . C H 'CA . CO = 5.20 C1.= 38.80 SO '= .00 .2.300 7 H , D T P , C ' H 'CA • CO = 35.30 Cl , 25.60 SO =' .00 8.000 8 H D ' T . p ' "C H 'CA' CO = 50.40 Cl = ' 19.20 So = ,.00. OROADWAY 1 EL CAMINO REAL - SOUTH . . TYPE VEHICLES/HOUR ' 'SPEED . ' VEHICLE VEH4 ' 2967. ' 50. ' ' VEH5 128. 50. . 0 -------------COORDINATES------------- VEH6 . ' . .96. ' 50. ' X' Y Z GRADE. OLIVRD . ' 540. 1400. ' 84. 0 SOUTH 38,0.' 0. 86. .0 OROADWAY 2 OLIV-EAST OF ECR VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES/HOUR SPEED ' • VEH4 2645. 5 45. VEHS ' 84. 45.. ' • VEH6 ' 56. '45. ----- -' . ... - CR . 'JO---------- COORDINATES-------- X . • Y Z GRADE' 550.-'- "'a .988. ' 86. 1 WGRADE 5 1890. ' 1000. 5 95. 0.' OROADWAY 3 OLIV - 107 FT ROW VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES/HOUR SPEED VEH4 • ' 2645. ' 45. I VEHS 84. 45. VEH6 56.. 45. . . 0 ---------------COORDINATES------------- • . X .Y , Z GRADE WGRAD 1890. 1000. 96.' I' AMARGOSA 2675. 1000. 130. 1 WFLAT 3000. 1000. 137. 1 EFLAT 4570. 1000. 137. 0 1BARRIER 1 TYPE (A) OLIV RD WEST, SOUTH EDGE 0 COORDINATES ., X Y Z ZO DELZ P W 5 500. 1775. 925. 954. 86. 96. 83. 89. 0. . 0 • 6 2109 954 103 100 7 2110. 954. 109. 100. ••. 8 . . 2199. 954. 114. 108. 1BARRIER 2 TYPE (A) SOUTH - WILLOW CREEK 0 -------- :•.COORDINATES---------- . X Y Z ZO DELZ P below 2170. 870. 104. 100. • 0. 0 join 1 2200. . 953. 112. 108. W39 2200. . 954. 114. 108. CORNER 2700. .. 954. 136. . 130. WRAP 2695. 850. 116. 110. ,• :. 1BARRIER 3 TYPE (A) . . SOUTH - SCHOOL 0 COORDINATES----------. S X Y Z ZO DELZ P WWRAP 2750. 925. 136. . 100. 0. 0 WCORN 2760. 9540 139. 133. ECORN 2870. 954. 142. 136. • • . EWRAP 2870. 900, • 131. 128. 1BARRIER 4 TYPE (A) NORTH - PONDEROSA • 0 COORDINATES ---------- • • x X Y Z ZO DELZ • P 26 . 1950... 1100. • 130. • 97. 0. 0 • 21 . . 2400.. 1064. 136. 118. • 17 • 2650. 1064. 142. 309 3000 1064 150 137 318. 3580. 1064. 152. 137. 420 .4000. 1064. 151. • 137. • 416 . 4250. 1064. 150. .137. 415 4400. 1115. 155. 137. 5 • BARRIER LENGTH BY SECTION • . S S 1275.37 334.07 6.08 89.14 88.62 2 24 500.48 106.02 30.82. 110.04 .55-11 451.48 250.07 ..350.09 1 580.00 1RECEPTORS 420.00 • 250.00 - WEST; SOUTH; NORTH 158.51 . . 0 COORDINATES --------------S x Y . Z REF8NROW 800. 1050. 91. . S •• .5 8N150 . 800. . 1370. 122,. . REF8SROW 800. 925. . 1 91. 5•5 5 858.5 16S200 800. 1600., 850. 815. 85. • 90. S •• 16S400 . 1600. 615. • .90. WC37 •• 2400. 900. 107. • I WC37E 2400. 900. 117. 7 \ P26 2045. 1130. 133. P26E - 2045. 1130. 143. P18 2570; 1080. 143.. REFP 898 . 2570. 800. 1046. 800. 131. 90. 8S6 800. 600. 90. 12S10 . 1200. 1000. 90. 12S8 . 1200. 800. 90. 12S6 . . 1200. - 600. 85. 12S6E . 1200. 600. 95. " ECRREF 500. 600. 95. 1 ALPHA FACTORS - ROADWAY ACROSS ,RECEIVER DOWN 1* .0 .0 .5 2* .5 .0 .5 3*. .0 .0 .5 4* •5 .5 .5 . 5 5 5 '5* 6* .5 .5 .5 7* .0 .0 .5 8* .0 .9 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 . k io,* .0 .0 .0 11* .0. .0 .0 . i 12* .0 .0 .0 13 * .5 5 5 14.* 5 5 5 15 * 5 5 5 . 16*.5.5 .5 17 * 5 5 5 . 18 * .5 .5 .5 19* .0 .0 .0 . I 1 SHIELDING FACTORS - ROADWAY ACROSS,RECEIVER DOWN * .0 . .o .0 1 2 * 1.0 .0 .0 • 3* .0 .0 .0 4*3.0 .0 .0 5*3.0 .0 .0 6 *3.0 3.0 3.0 - 7*3.02.0 .0 .0 I 8*3.02.0 9*7.03.03.0 10*7.03.03.0 ,.. 11* 8.0 8.0 3.0 12.* 8.0 8.0 .0 13 * 3.0 3.0 3.0 14 * 3.0 3.0 3.0 15 .* 3.0 3.0 .3.0 :I 16 * 3.0 3.0 3.0 17 * 3.0 3.0 3.0 i 18 * 3.0'3.0 19* .0 .0 3.0 .0 . 10LIVENHAIN ROAD WEST - FUTURE ALT 1 - ORWF1 04/24/91, ORECEIVER LEQ(H) SIG L10 L50 L90 REF8NROW 73.6 3.2 76.5 72.4 68.2 8N150 . 64.4 1.9. 66.4 63.9 61.5 REF8SROW . 73.2 3.1 76.]. 72.1 68.2 .1 8S8.5 64.9 3 67.8 63.6 59.4 16S200 62.6 3.3 65.6 61.4 57.2 . .. . 16S400 56.4 1.8 58.4 56.0 53.7 WC37 5.1 3.6 62.2 57.6 53.0 WC37E P26 63.0 58.9 .4.1 2.2 66.3 61.2 61.1 58.4 55.8 55.6 . P2 6E . 62.4 2.9 65.1 .61.4 57.8 ' P18 63.6 3.5 66.6 62.2 57.7 REFP 74.1 3.9. 77.3 72.3 67.2 . . ,. 888 .62.5 2.0 64.6 62.0 59.4. ' 8S6 59.8 1.7 61.6 59.4 57.2 12S10 79.9 6.6 83.4 74.9 66.5 . . .12S8 61.1 2.4 63.5 60.4 57.3 . . • •, C'.. 1286 56.9' 1.6 58.7 56.6 54.5 - •' . 12S6E 56.9 1.6 58.7 56.6 54.5 .. ECRREF 75.8. 3.5 78.9 74.3 69.8 I .1 I • • . " I. Please refer to Section 3.5.2.3 (Page 111-53) of this EIR for a discussion regarding the designation of Olivenhain Road east and west of El Camino Real as ,a four lane Major Road on the County GeneralPian Circulition Element. Also, this teat has been revised to state The Circulation Element of the County of San Diego General Plan designates Olivenhain Road as a rour-lane Major Road (one-half width equals 56 feet), and El Camino Real (SF (411) as a six-lane Prime Arterial (one-half width equals 68 reel) with bike lanes. Specific design criteria for Major. Roads include an18-fooi wide median 24 feet of paved tr ivel lanes 10 feet of paved bike lanes an 8-foot wide shoulder, a 10-foot wide parkway strip, an 82-foot wide roal.lbed.and-112-foot wide right- of-way (ROW)." Please refer to Response to Comment #37. 39• The following text of the EIR has been-revised to include these mitigation measures: Page S-3,'Scction 3.4.5.4. (Page 111-48), and,Côndition-#14 (Page X-7). T111tittLI if tit COUNTY A1111-0.1 S GRANVILLE M. BOWMAN II1ANSPQI1TflJION OPORATTO OIPECIOR - . COUNTY SIIRVEVOfl OEPARTME 5&Uc_W05sKS FLOOO co,,no IOCATIOC,COOT TROT 5666 OVEflT.RND AVE. SOlID wAsrE N 81992 January 61 1992 j CiTYif City of Encinitas 527 Encinitàs Blvd Encinitas CA 92024 . Attn: Craig Ruiz . Dear Mr'. 'Ruiz: - - SUBJECT-: Draft EIR for Olivenhain Road Widening/Realignment and Flood Control Project The Department of Public Works has reviewed the subject document and has the following comments concerning traffic and circulatiols. -. ,,•-.- 1 The document needs to incorporate the County Circulation . Element For example Olivenhain Road east of Fl Casino Real toRancho Santa Fe Road, is classified as a-4-lane Major Road (SA 680) with bike lanes on the County 37 -Circulation Element versus a 6-lane Prime Arterial shown in the document. Additionally, the document should incorporate SA 680, 4-lane Major Road (one-half width equals fifty-six - feet), to reflect that it heads west from the- intersection of El Casino Real and Olivenhai-n Road. 2. The:document needs to Identify that El Camino Real (SF1414) Is classified as a 6-lane Prime Arterial (one-half width 38 equals sixty-eight feet), with bike lanes on the County Circulation-Element. S. 3. We would -like to see the following added to the mitigation measures: a. Construct the intersection of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road at Right angles. 39 b. Relinquish access rights into El Casino Real and Olivenlsajn Road. - C. Provide adequate sight c ance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 36. Comment noted. No response required. 1.' Projects Coordinator . . . . . 2.. Mr.. Patrick Murphy - .. December 18, i991- Page Two. . . - . . . . . 4. User Fee. The project sponsor is subject to the user fee provided by Fish and Game Cod,eSection 111.4, and. the fee is payable to the County Clerk at the time 'of or prior to.filing ' the Notice, of Determination by the lead agency. If a Negative 36 Declaration is filed, the user fee, is $1,250. If an Environmental Impact Report is filed, the fee is'$850. It Is our assessment that this project will result In cumulative loss-of fish and' wildlife resources and is 'not exempt from the User fee. In conclusion, if your:-analysis reveals, that the, - above-mentioned concerns have been .,full,y addressed thrrwghout- yourdecision-maki'ng'process, we would not objectto the project approval. However, we request that you provide us a copy of the final environmental document immediately upon approval and prior - to.filing the Notice of Determination. 'If you have any qii'estions, please contact Mr. Fred Worthley, Regional Manager, Region 5, . Department of Fish and Game, at 330 Golden Shore, Suite' 50, Long Beach, California 90802, telephone (310) 590-5113. ' - Pete Bóntadelli Director cc: Mr. Fred worthley Department of Fish and Game Long Beach California 90802 December18, 1991 State of Caklo,nia We m o r a 6A u m To • Projects to Resources Agency 2. Mr. Patrick Murphy City-,of Encinitas 527 Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, California 92123 Depottn..nl of Fish and Gao,. - Subject; Draft Environmental -Impact- Report for 011venhafn Road Alignmemt Case No. 90-259, San Diego County - SCH 91011035 The California Environmental Quality Actand the California Endangered Species. Act require the lead agency. to appropriately condition the project and fully implement the statutory mitigation and monitoring requirements to offset adverse Impacts to the following resources which may. be impacted by this project. I Enda9,d or threatened sp es of plant and animals If the F roject would resurFTn:take, onor o11 projEriTte,'ot any State-listed species or habitat essential to its continued existence, the applicant must-obtain authorization from the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2081.- 2.. Wetlands.' Compliance with the DFG's Wetland Policy requires tEiTE7e should be no net loss of wetland acreage or wetland habitat values, either on or off project.site, due to project. 34 development. A mitigation and monitoring plan subject to DFG .approval should be required for loss of sensitive habitats, Including, but not, necessarily limited to, freshwater marsh; riparian Iwoodland, oak woodland, and riparian scrub vegetation, - 3. Watercourses., The DFG opposes the elimination of watercourses ao/or tFeri conversion into subsurface drains.'All watercourses, whether intermittent or perennial must be retained and provided withsetbàck buffers appropriate to preserve the riparian and aquatic habitat values. Earthen channels should be. interconneted with adjacent large open 35 space areas to increase their effectiveness as wildlife corridors in urban surroundings. The DFG- has direct jurisdiction under Fish and -Game COde' sections 1601-03 in regard to any proposed activities that would divert or obstruct the natural flow or change the bed,. charnel, or. batik Of any rlvir, stream, or 1-eke. We tecornmend..early consultation since modification of the piou ed c oic ma be 'required tO avoid impacts,to fish- and wild.:'e resources. Formal- hotificat ion (with fee) under Fish L4. Gami Code - Section.1603 should be madeaftOr al1--00h-; ern.itand -certifictions have been obtained.. Work ôs.not be initiated until a streambed alteration agreement is executed. 33. No State-listed. "Threatened" or "Endangered" plant or animal species would be impacted by the proposed project. As evaluated in Section 3.1.2 of this EIR, however, the project would directly impact sensitive southern willow scrub and wetland (e.g.. freshwater marsh and coastal salt marsh) habitats, resulting in significant cumulative impacts to willow flycatcher (a State-listed 'Endangered" candidate species), as well as yellow warbler and yellow-breasted chat (State-listed 'Species of Special Concern'). Indirect noise impacts may also occur to sensitive breeding songbirds (e.g., willow, flycatcher) that may use the Encinitas Creek riparian area. As staled in Section 3.1.3 of this EIR, these impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance via implementation of a Conceptual Weiland - Restoration Plan and restriction of project construction period. Furthermore, the project is conditioned to require the submittal of a 1601 Streallibed Alteration Agreement to CDFO for review and approval prior to final approval of roadway improvcmCnt plans. Any additional conditions placed on the project by CDFG through the 1601 pennit process shall be implemented. - - -. 34. Please refer to Response to Comment #33. - - 35. The project does not propose to eliminate EncinitaaCreek, n(!r-convert it into a subsurface drain Please refer to Section 2.3.2.1 (Pages II Il and, II 19) of this LIR and the Conceptual Wetland Restoration Plan (Attachment I of Appendix 5) for reLounils..ndatlons regarding the establishment .of buffer/setback requirements by the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad for any future development approved adjacent to the portion of Encinitas Creek floodplain affected by the -proposed project. These buff era are required to preserve wetland, ripaiian, and aquatic habitat values associated with Encinitas Creek and all proposed habitat restoration sites within the three project areas. The project does not propose the diversion ofEncinitas Creek or the construction of additional drainage channels; therefore, the requirement to create/maintain large open spacc areas as wildlife corridors. adjacent to the project is not applicable. In regards to proposed construction of detention basin "D" dike within Enciiiilas Creek, the project is conditioned to require the submitialofa 1601 Streattibed-Alieration Agreement tuCDFG for review and approval prior to final approval of rosdway-itiiprovenient plans (see Section 3.1.3.1., Pages 111-16 to lll17, of this ElK). - I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON. Governor GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 7. 1400 TENTh STREET 10, I V, I.fr O I'+ Dec 30, 1991 PATRICK 1PHY. CITY OFEN.C:INITAS 527 ENCINITAS BLVD. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 F~"A 2f992J/ C ITY fl Rr.1 U Subject: OLIVENHAIN ROAD ALIGNMENT CASE NO. 90-259 SCM # 91011025 Dear PATRICK. MURPHY: The enclosed comments on your draft environmental documents were received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the state review period. We are f.orarding these comments to you because they provide information Or raise issues which may assist you in.roject review. Lead agencies are not required to respond to late comments. However, you may wish to incorporate these additional comments into, the preparation of your. final environmental document. Please contact Tom Loftus at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions concerning the review process. When you contact the Clearinghouse in this 'matter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Sincerely, David C. Nunenkamp Deputy Director, Permit Assistance Enclosures cc: Resources Agency -. - Notice of Completion Form NOTE Mzc: Suit Cic3nfli1Oue. 1403TcnthSucCL Sacranvrnto.CA9S% 916/44S-0613 scFi t,910/ic 3.5T ] Olvenhain Rd. Alignm e n t C a s e N o . 9 0 - 2 5 9 Project Title: LAgcncy City of Encinitas ConactPer: Patrick Murphy Street AAWCOZ: 527 Encinitas Blvd. 619-944-5060 I City:_____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - 92024 counir. Sar Dieco Project Location Cowsy. San Diego CiTyftcaserCmmwsiiy: Encinitas & Carlsbad CeasSoecu: El Camino Real 1 Olivenhain ZipCodc: 92024 Tou}Acses: 1 .a • Aac&aOt'iPIJtClNO. N/A Within 2Milet: StAia w- batiguitos La000n - AiyMru: IN A AT & SF Schools: N/A ------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Document Typo CEQA: DNOP NEPA: ONCI other: fl Joint Document DE)yCen DER (Prior SCHNo.) C:3 E& D Final Ccurnczu C) Nag Dec QO ' D Draft EIS DOther OSO DFONS Realignment Q cencral Plan Upae 0 Specific Plan 0Rezone ri(ncriPlanAmenQmasI DMuP)an DPcwne DRccleve(opnt Frnctai p1j, Emeni 0 P)a.zuscd Unit o Ust Pcni-s1s 0 Coutzi PCTrIIt Ll Community Plan Site Plan 0 Lzridl Division (Subdisision. )K Other Parcel Map, Tract Map. etc.) Z. D.voiepan.nt Type r-' Rcssdcnua: Viuls______ AC'eJ o Water Facilities: Type MCD * flO!fscc: .Sq.. Acre.1 Employees 'Tranxponiiion: Type roa V7, , & : O Corrunercsal: Sç~. Acres_ POYet ¶j Mining: Sq. Acres - EmpLoyees OPo'. 7ype ..- QEducauoisai Waste TypeO • 0Hinzdous Waic: Type \- OOthct 0 Project issues Discussed in Document , 'AcCfVi1tUaJ Flood PiairsiThoding 0 Schoàlsflcrieics a1eT Quality Agncasltural Land Forest Land/Fire zarc( 0 Septic Sysiana , fl Watc Supply/Groundwater O Air Quality GiologicJSeismnic 0 Sewer Capacity AcOiOgicAlItii5IOTic&l Minerals oil Eision(Compacdon/Grading 'Wildli(c fl Coutaj Zone '0 Noise 0 Solid Waste rowLh Inducing Drasnagc/Absorptiott D PopuaüonTHouingBalaztcc 07oxklHi.wdoiis Land use ECOflOr1UCJ)Obs 0 Public Services/Facilities Tra.ufic/Circulaiion ' - 0 Cumulative E!fe.cis OFiscal ', QR ectcaiiorjParks Vt8csaciott 0 Other Present Land Us./loning1ce nor ai Plan Use -Olivenhain Rd. is designated as a 6 lane Prime Arterial roadway in both the cities of C a r l s b a d a n d ' E n c i n i t a s . . Pro.ct D..crlptlon The Proposed project is t h e w i d e n i n g a n d 'realignment of the existing Olivenhai- Road ret w e e n R a n c h o S a n t a F e R o a c a i c E l C a m ino Reo.i. 0••0 }I• t.tu (916) 445-0613 -' •1 6 ' CM Sf1 ATE REVIEW - _Reources , . •Statr/çosiauaaer Svc. REV TOACEMCY .t2:3I I *CY REV TO SCH: \'\0 , Jonsevfttj 4 COKPLIAsCE 14 - jarka&'ReclOp lWtr 1tt, LSE$OTZScNUM 01 ALL c.rrs . a1trn5 S1i -' tateLandsCo --cent b!_ lead I_'--eflt 11 — — — — — — — — — — — — — S I I UC CAL IFOIINIA . . IT FE WILSON. Govonior - 32 Comment noted No respoflM. iquin.d GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH rDTn7 (. SACRAI.IENIO, CA 95814 .. . . Dec 12, 1991 . . . .• j DEC 161991 iLhul! PAtRICK MURPttY 527 ENCINITASBLVD. . . ..... EIICINITAS, CA 92024 Subject: OI.IVENtiAIN ROAD ALIGNMENT CASE NO. 90-259 .SCH # .91011035 Dear PATRICK MURPHY: The State.le.aritghouse has submitted the above nam e d d r a f t Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to selected s t a t e a g e n c i e s f o r r e y g i .w - The review pgrl2d_is now-closed and the comments f r S t I i r e s p o n d i n g ency(les) is(are) enclosed. On the enc1osed.Notice o f c o m p l e t i o n f o r m you will note that the Clearinghouse has checked t h e a g e n c i e s t h a t h a v e commented. Please review the Notice of Completion- t o e n s u r e t h a t y o u r comment package Is complete. If the comment pa c k a g e i s n o t In order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately . R e m e m b e r t o r e f e r t o the project's eight-digit State Clearinghouse number s o t h a t w e m a y respond promptly. . Please noté that Sectin 21104 of the California Publ i c Resources Code required that: "a responsible agency or other liublic agency shall dnly make substantive comments regarding those activities in v o l v e d I n a 32 ., project which are.within an area of expertise of the agency or, which arerequired.to be carried out or approved by t h e a g e n c y . " Commenting agencies are also required by this section t o s u p p o r t their comments with specific documentation. These c o m m e n t s a r e f o r w a r d C d for your use In preparing your final LIR. Should you need more information or c1arifiction, we recommend t1i5ty o u c o n t a c t t h e . commenting agency(ies). This letter acknowledges that you "ave complied with the State Clearinghouse rev-iew requirements for draft environmen t a l d o ë u m e n t s , pursuant to the California Environmental Quality A c t . P l e a s e c o n t a c t Tom Loftus at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions . regarding the environmental review process. - Sincerely, - - David C. Nunookamp -' - - - Deputy. Director, Permit Assistance Enclosures cc: ttesourcom Ancy -- Consist Zone Planning Area (Eastern Boundary), I v DWS - - - - - - Onvenhain 1oau vM Alignment SWS Rud E 1ôO'260' Rud brian Frnooncvc' 100-Year Floodplain 1212tud4l (with Detention Basins A.B.C.D) SwS ~A - FWM' sWS DWS " I'l Dist Olivenhain Road Alignment Proposed Alignment 02 Biological Impacts Map Figure 3.1-4 _,V 100-Year Floodplain (with Detention Basins A.B.C) - • AOP NOTE's. I VT -' Legend PO1TJQN O 3FTEPA)ED Dist Disturbed cc AÔ ON L I MI ITS EMEIA DWS Disturbed Wetland Scrub 2 AD1G -' n-I" ' FWM Freshwater Marsh ¶ti iS SL Rud Ruderal 'SHOULD S AD SWS Southern Willow Scrub SMC TO bE INC L D E Wetland Ecotone L PART OF( }jTRUCflCActi at ,i -f.1 LliA ji i t; I2 IIUA1: ti-Il I egg", ITm!t11 ;IL:lHI:JH ('a — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — H Pat H h 30 The text of the EIR (Section 3633 Page 111 -65, and Condition #19 of Table 10.0- 1 December 12 1991 Page X-8) has been revised to include an additional noise mitigation measure Page 5 acknowledging that approprriie acoustical attenuation ban-icis shill be installed at die top of slope in the area adjacent to the northern edge of Olivenhain Road which would front 16 Page 111-63 Third Paragraph the potential for significant the approved Arroyo/La Costa (CT 88-3) tentative map deeloprnent Such noise barriers noise impacts on Arroyo La Costa has been evaluated by The shall be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the Carlsbad City En1,incer, and i eldstone Company. Indications 'are that ports oils of the shall be installed by the future developer of CT 88-3 at the time of planned residential project wifl be exposed to future noise levels from traffic construction in this are.i on olIvenhaln Road in excess of Carlsbad's 60 CNL exterior noise standard. To mitigate this impact to less than 31. Cornment No response reqtiutd. noted. significance;,-roise barriers will be installed at the top of the slope in this area to the satisfaction of the City of Carlsbad Second floor balconies could require additional miti'gatin, however, this will be determined when detailed site plans and architectural drawings become available 17. Page V-i, First .Paragraph: This paragraph indicates that ."cumulative effects may prove to be significant". As noted - .i.nour_.eaciier comisént.on_pageS6,_unless_these—i-mpactm--can--------- - •- --------------------- -•------------ - -------- -- - - 31 be reduced to less than significant levels, a Statement of Overriding ConsideratIons wOuld have to be made by the City of Encinitas as Lead Agency. : - - - - - - ---- - - - -- - - Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this Ell?. If you -. - - - have any questions, please let lie know. - Sincerely ZSAV1 DM.A:jb 11 I 1 I Mr. Pat Murphy 26. The text of the EIR (Section 3.4.1.3. 1, Page I11-38) has been revised to acknowledge that December 12, 1991 - Olivenhain Road currently operates at an acceptable LOS based on peak-hour monitoring Page 4 data provided in the City of Carlsbad Mid-Year Growth Management Monitoring Report. An LOS .F, however, will be used to evaluate Worst Case' traffic impacts for this road 12 Page 111-33 and 111-38 Table 3 4-5 The text on page 111-83 segment under existing conditions based on the City a' Encuniias Geneinl Plan traffic and 'Fable 3.4-5 (see source footnote) lead the reader to bsijee analysis which utilizes the V/C ratio Table 3.4-5 (Page 111 -39) has also been revised that under Carlsbad's methodology, certain road segments of La acconhin I y. -Costa Avenue and OlIvenhain Road fail under existing conditions S dolo9Ydthesesel9ments donot when,in act per fail. The Average gasb aily ;d 27 The following text of the ElR has been revised to clanfy that all pnmary street segments analysis Is a more generalized approach appropriate for and key intersec jurisdiction within the project vicinity and in the jusdiction of the City of General Plan level studies. Where more detailed study is Carlsbad.arc projected to meet Growth Managensent performance standards under future warranted as in monitoring road segments approaching failure, (build Out) traffic conditions Section 342 L.1 (Page 111 -42), Section 3.4.2.1.3 (Page III Carlsbad utilizes a peak hour analysis to more accurately 43) Section 3.4.3.2.1 (Page 111 44), and Section 3.4.3.2.2 (Page 111 -45). assess the level of service of a given street segment This type of analysis is also utilized by Carlsbad for monitoring compliance Theiextof the EIR (Section 3.4.5.2. Page Ill- 47) has bccn revised to.clari(y this apparent with theadopted Growth Management standards. Per the City of 28 . . Carlsbad,'s -Mid-year Growth-Management Mon1torIngReport (A.D. lnconstsicncy. 11425 11/5/91) both La Costa Avenue and Oltvenhasn Road operate at acceptable levels of service 'the text on page iii- 29 The text of the EIR (Section 34534 Page 111 -47) has been revised to state "This 26 33 and fable 3.4L5- on page 111-38 should be revised to clearly construction easement shall provide for a width of IS feet b4.ytind the are. rquircd for show that the road segments in question meet Carlsbadl.s adopted grading along the northerly edge of the proposed alignment (see Figure 3.4-1).".Figure Growth Management performance standards under existing 3 I 4 (Page III 9) has also been revised accordingly conditions . . . - -' -. : 13 Pages 111-39 through 111-45,,Traffic - Future Build-Out Conditions As an overall comment regarding the conclusions drawn in this section we feel it is important to re-state 27 . that all of the roadway segments and intersections within the City of. Carlsbad will meet the requirements of its Growth Management Plan during and following .impementation of this project, and none are projected to fail. - 14 Page 111-46, Second and Third Paragraphs: In our opinion, the following sentence at the end of the second paragraph only - applies to Section.3.4.5.3, and shoüldbenmoved to the end of - 28 the third paragraph As such neither the proponent of the Arroyb/La Costa project not property. owners within the City - of Carlsbad L.FKP Zones 11 and 12 are responsible 'for funding these future roadway improvements." - - 15. Page 111-47, Section 3.4.5.4.4: We suggest that the second.'- . sentence be modified as follows: 'This construction easement 29 shall pyLd( a width of 15 feet kynjth jred r_grdjn.g along the northerly edge of the pràposed - alignment (see Figure 3.4-1).". Enclosed. is Figure 3.4-1 with comments for your use. 'Mr. Pat Murphy December '12, 1991 Page 3 -Pag 5-5, Community Character, Mitigation: Wésuggest that .19 the woeds 5Where possible" be added before "All manufactured slopes shall undulate.. ". Page S76, Public Utilities, Mitigation: Although mitigation has been proposed for water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone and television services, no mitigation is proposed for law enf n prcement, fire prbtectio.and paramedic emergency response 20 time which, according to the statement on this page, may be "significantly impacted" If mitigation is not available which would —reduce these impacts to below significance, a Statemeht of Overriding Consideritlbns would have to be made by the City. -7. Page Il-B, Section 2.2.3.1: The 'current 100-year floodplain limits" 'referred to in the second sentence were not mapped by Dr. Chang in '1991. The information shown on Figures 2.2-4a 'and' 4brefèrred to 'in this paragraph 'should indicate that the floodplain limits are based on Psltd reduced totmwa jachprges obtain rom 'the ed 21 A similar clarification should also be made on the figures themselves. 8. Page '11-17, Section .2.3.2.1, First Paragraph: For 22 flexibility, we feel that the width of the' spillway should not be precisely defined at this stage of design. (i.e. "10 feet"). 9. 111-161 Next to Last Paragraph: Reference should also be made to the use of Calle. Barcelona as a temporary detour if jt.js 23 , allowed to be, completed prior to the implementation of this project. 10. Page 111-20, . First Paragraph: The berm 'alo'tig the sosithern edge of La Costa Avenue discussed in this paragraph is not solely a "condition of approval for the planned Arroyo La 24 . Costa (Cl' 88-3) tentative map" as stated here, but instead is required mitigation for development projects within the Zone 11 and 12 drainage basin. 11. Page 111-25, First Paragraph: We suggest modifying the second sentence as follows: , "Nevertheless, any proposed road construction activities conducted in the northeast corner of rt 25 Olivenhai Road/ El Camino Real Intersection shall be restricted to within a maximum distance of 50 feet from the edge of gej,jng.for the preferred alignment, - - The text • of. the EIR (Page S-6) has been revised to state: 'Where 0ossilile, all manufactured slopes shall undulate, with rounding of tle tops and toes of the slopes to better blend them into the surrounding terrain.' The text of the EIR (Page S-7) has been revised to include the requirement that the County Sheriff's Department and local fire depsrtnents be provided copies "-of. the approved 'Traffic ControllDctour, Plan for the prCposcd project, which 'can be used by these ageicies to develop alternate routes or other methods to ensure that emergency response to the project area is not significantly impacted during construction. "is mitigation measure appears in Sections 3.10.3.4. and 3.10.3.5. (Page 111.94), and as Condition #27 (Page X.10) of this EIR. The text of the EIR (Section 2.2.3.1. Page 11-8) has been revised to state: "These figures show the. 1982 floodway/floodplain limits, as mapped by the County of San Diego, and current 100-year floodplain limits obtained from the Encinilas Creek Drainage Study (Dr. Chang, 199 .11 1). 11 should be'noted that the current 100-year floodplain limits shown on these figures are only approximate, and are based on computed reduced stormwater discharges.'' The text of the EIR (Section 2.3,2.1, Page 11-17) has been tevised to delete this reference. The text of the EIR (Section 3.1.2.6, Page 111-16) has been revised to add this reference. The text of the EIR (Section 2.3.2.2, Page 11-19) has been revised to state: 'Rather, it would be constructed as a required condition of approval for development projects within Zones,hl and 12 drainage basins, including the planned Arroyo/La Costa (CT 88-3) tentative map development, within the City of Carlsbad." The text of the EIR (Section .3.2.3.1., Page 11125) has been revised to state: "Nevertheless, any propoed road construction activities conducted in the northeast corner of Olivenhain ROad/El Camino Real intersection shall be restricted tä within a maximum - distance of 50 feet from the edge of grading for the preferred alignment, so as not to threaten damage to SDi-4872." I 16 I 16a I 16b 17 18 Mr. Pat Murphy December 12, 1991 Page 2 2. Page S-2 aid 111-20, Biological Resources, ,Mitigation Measure We do not, feel that the timing restriction proposed for roadway construction ("outside the months of late-July through October") is fully warranted. Because of the potential for severe traffic congestion during the construction period, it would be preferable to have the project completed in one continuous phase as quickly as possible. To ,accomplish this, weask that this mitigation measure I be, re-evaluated with consideration given to the following points: - Although "two sensitive bird species were observed within or near" the study areas; and three others "may occur", only one was actually observed within the boundaries of the project, area (i.e. the willow flycatcher at, two - locations south of Olivenhain Road, as shown on Figure 3.1-4). The other willow flycatchers and the other observed sensitive species (downy woodpecker) are shown - to 'occur to the west of €he project' area, beyond El Camino Real., The other three species mentioned were not observed onsite, but, as stated in the EIR "may forage in the area". No evidence is presented to indicate that any of these species would use the onsite habitat for nesting or breeding. in fact, the EIR states that "The southern willow scrub habitat south of the existing Olivenhain Road alignment is of 'medium value to wildlife due to its sparseness and relatively limited coverage. Used as foraging habitat by various birds and animals, 1j,,J, pro bly at su1tAD1r_Jg-r_j1qj&iM by senjtjjy Qngkir1lB.." Based •on the foregoing, we ask that Mitigation Measure 3.1.3.7 regarding "potentially significant construction noise impacts to enitive be re-evaluated, and, in the interest of safety, that the City consider' ways in which the project can be completed in one continuous phase. 3. 'Page S-3, Traffic/Circulation, First Sentence under Mitigation:, We suggest adding the following to the end of this sentence: "such it is allowed 'to be cgopleted Prior to the inlementation of thJ*-:DX_QJgq-t" 4. Page S-4, Hydrology/water Quality, Impacts: We suggest adding the following to the end of the last sentence, '. . .due to the Increased paved area The text of the EIR (Pages S-2, S-4. and Section 3.1.3.7., Page 111-20) has been revised to State: "Else construction period for the portion of (lie project route between the SDG&E basement and the western Willow Creek subdivision boundary shall not occur within the months of March through-July in order to avoid potentially significant construction noise impacts to Sensitive breeding song birds.' I6.a. Comment noted: No response required 16.b. The text of the EIR (Section 3.1.1.5. Page 111-8) has been revised to stale: "Used as foraging habitat by various birds and animals, it is probably not suitable for nesting by the least Bell's vireo." The text of the EIR (Page S-3) has been revised to state: "Closure of Olivenhain Road to through traffic shall not be permitted during its proposed widening and realignment, unless other detour options, such as Calle Barcelona between El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road (ir it is allowed to be completed prior to project implemen(ation), are identified which would be acceptable to the City Engineers of Encinitas and Carlsbad." - The text of the EIR (Page S-5) has been revised to state: "Sediment transport is expected to decrease due to the increased paved area and the addition of floodwater detention basin "D." -- - - -. - - - - - - -, - - - - - -, - - — — — — — — — — — — aim— — M. — — — — liii: i/ •' / .' v i L Viii 61/1 A OS IA 15 The: intent of this EIR is to report, in a general sense wit it is expected of [his project by other regulatory agencies: It is not the intent to cvalute the project for the oilier agencies. The reader is advised to infer front these slateilleluis that tile pievauling ( - .. requirements at the 'me of stubutuittal should apply. December 12 • 1991 Hr. Pat Murphy Planning Director. City Of Encinitas 527 Enc'initas Boulevard .- S Suite 100 Encinitas, CA 92024 Subject: Letter of Comment - Oliverihain Road Draft EIR . Dear Mr. Murphy: . . Thank you for the opportunity to submit our comments on the above. -. -. - IR...In_generaL,we_feel_that-.-the—report-has--been—we-1-1—prepared -------------- - - -- . - and' adequately addresses the impacts of the proposed roadway improvement, project. . . . However, we have a concern- regarding implementation, of the proposed mitigation measures: Becuse the project fall's within the. jurisdiction of two cities, namely Encinitas and Carlsbad, it is suggested at several points throughout the EIR that; plans, maps, engineering documents, project conditions and mitigation measures be reviewed and approved by the various staffs of both cities. Becaüs'e each:clty has its own individual standards and procedures, this requirement, 'in our opinion, will in o rdinately -burden :the review and' apprOval process with additional time and related costs. - These cos€, in turn, will undoubtedly he passed on to the property owners, the taxpayer or future residents. Therefore, as an alternative to this arrangement, we suggest that . the involved cities either agree' that:. 1) One or the other of the , cities will be 'authorized to review and approve the plans for both - cities; or 2') A third party will be brought into the process to Perform these functions for both cities. - We also have the fol1owi'ng specific comments: ' 1. Pages S-i. & .2, 11-26 and '111-17, Biological Resources, Mitigation: ' Because th&definitlon and notification criteria for obtaining a Section 404 Permit from the U.S. AL-my Corps of Engineers may bechanged,prior to the time the application for this project is, submitted, we feel that - 'all of the ' statements in the EIR reqarding'this process should state that - 15 - they will be based onthe prevailing requirenents t the time - of submittal. 5' - '.- .-: I li/i 01 Lvenlin Ro i l 920 DE 12 owing text of the DR has been revised to include this alternati e mitigation 379 measure: Page S-6, Section 3.9.3.2. (Pages 111-88 to 111-89), and.Condifion N25.f. (Page, ii weinho r II , I ) II ' OF F Nd WI T,\S • 13. Please refer to Response toCominent #12. AL iii Mi. P-i Li I t.I' i'lii t jihy 14 Please refer to Response to Couisnicnt 4112 :Plail'niti(i liii ector of & Criiiiiiiiiuii ty i)eve-li,111111'Iit City of buicin!. las, 522 10ie1 iii Las Ill vi). 0 liii las, CA 921121 . bear Mr. Murphy: Th is teller teLter is LII i It is I is I li._ Ii ii I i iv i 11111 ii I I iii, ii I op I II)- 259-LI Il Cilii( I III I I lii I I 1p, i I u I ii I iii 1 1 Iv 1hilill Ii ii In I uichii I is As Ilut legal I eli i I 111// 0IJvenl%a iiI,l6iad, iuiylwife and I would I PU iuioie seveicly iuiuIsaclel by this onlrucLiiuii than anyone else Iti t:lie area, as we sLauud Ic, Lose more than half of our ox lstliiq ft ,iul y a 6 l' ill this i We uundprstanij f, I y the need For III to I and will often no irguineuit or I es I Vanc e ee C, i It i_ lu I i un I ii ii We ii.) however h sve eve i ii cii 1)1 sI_louis pci I uiiuuiuy to Ic Iie I i_s and safely coiicc-t-iis that. we would like I:i, see uituploiiieiul:ei.1, Iii oider 'b keep the adverse iiiipcIof this 01.11151 riici. ion :0 0 ml ui.iuiiuin . • I'Iore have bern several a) teuual:ive plans III lorlit to focI.) i.taI:e ' liMIng the slope I a rea het-wcu us the i I ii jlut ,1 way iu 1 our lioi C of these the least: di ssyreeili Ic to it!; would be I lie olin cal I my for two six f,ol vc'cletnuled crib will Is sn(iinil:eil by ii lliiee foot liii): I uly area. We are nmh: sit re at: (lii 5 lime iluji how it veyetcu l:e.I euil, wall would look. We think we w,,,uh,l prufur LWo u:eyulcir 6 fooL 'lock retaintily. wal Is iiisLeu1. They would of ciii.ui:se have to be iii le out of the saute cull) cd 51 muiii, block c_k wised un (lie four fool w.i I I front my Lite wi I Iu,w creek developnienL Ii, the west of our 12 property. This plait would enable 05 to reLa LII LI little more. 0 - - front yard thiiu the two oilier plaits. I: has also.b-seuu slilji)Cfite.I I_hat LI 4 It ehi iii Ii uk 1:euice tiu erected •- at the edge of the isc,'j .1).: hel love that lAtis I ype of felice 15 -tiéi I_her visua lly ap e I lug itit r won I I ri si iv,,! a,Jcjqij;i0!Iy as it silo) y ha rrier. Ii 17.66r 'loot- ltiylt slump-hI k will wliin_It Would in iii Is and t:iuiiuuto the cx is) I iuy nif.miiMncuitloiueIl l,Iuck '-c:il,l I:i, I_lie souil:ls would - 13 bo tiioch more uI iiu live iii) li__I), to i tvciil iii uiitniic title lioni r ushing through into ,our front yard i even otir house As in ail-:Icd h,oiius, it: iii.MliI: also piu5si1Iy Iiiiu,ililize- tue toLls) Lr;ufi.ie iiUi,;e Li some extent. hiy 10nd500p1112 in. fisnit of I:luese Walls W;1.11 shiih's, i:C3'_-S and )io5S.ihiy, ivy, we feel lb it (Iii s won Id go it low in C iii iii 1011 the Li rk block Wa I Is Please keep its ii11 I f u rmed , f oSo I UI I i_ins 1-h ;Li: ul being discussed regarding my property and 01 any cislons that have been made We can be reached by uhone at 752-1910 or by miii , ,already Ihonk you for your attention ,, () - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 9 The text of the LIR (Condition 414 of Table 100 1 Page X 4) has been revised to include (i tf Of Carts L) ci this requisernent in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist. 10 The following text of the DR his been revised to clarify this requirement l'itge S-3, —1 II Page S-S, Section 3.3.3.3. (Page 111-30),.Scedoti 3.9.3 (Pages I1I86 in 111-89). Condition December 5 1991 DEC 91991 j 11 4110 of Table 100 I (Page X-5). and Condition #25 of lable 100 I (Pages X 9to X 10) :.--: Il. The text of the ElR (Condition 4118 of.-Table 10.0.1. Page X-8) has been revised to ii include this requirement ut the Mitigation Montionni, Checklist. Patrick Murphy City of Encinitas. planning Department . . . . 527 Encinitas Boulevard . Encinitas, CA. 92024 SUBJECT: OIJVENI lAIN ROAI) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACl REI'l)ltt Dear Patrick: . I have reviewed the draft report for the wideiuiitg/realigii iiieiit ofOlis'enitain Road in reference to earlier comments submitted on the screen draft. I oiler ike following comments atid request that . appropriate mitigation measures be included in the Monitoring Program: I) 3.1.3.6. .A permanent oil caichinetit basin or native grass-lined drainage swale/retention basin is identified as adequate mitigation to avoid.incueineiital Watet - - pollution impacts to Encinitas Creek. However, ike monitoring program only - requires the installation of the catchment basin. The monitoring program should also include the option of installing tue grass lined swale/retentiiin basin. . • - 3.1.3.8, 3.93. Although tile intent of revegetalitig all manufactured slopes is implied in the text of the EIE, the specific mitigations listed in the test and in the io monitoring program only. specify nianulacturcd toadway slopes. Text and monitoring program mitigation should include releteitceto all nianulac(uied slopes. 3.6.3.2 ilte mitigatioh listed in this test section regaiding noise attenuation - - 11 along the Rancho del Ponderosa and Santa Fe Itidge subdivisions should be included . into the Mitigation Monitoring Program. S Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the I)rahi Environmental Impact Report. If yit should have any quetions regarding the ufoietiieniioned comments, please give lute a call at (b19) 438:1161 ext. 4148. . . . Sincerely, - ChIRISTER WESTMAN . . Associate Planner c: Lloyui- Ilubbs • •: : • . Brian hunter • - (avkn, • . -. - . . Mn hylir - 2075 Los Pi,uz,s Dl-., cu,tst.,ru: Cu,Iit,r,,iru o:ruoo-iosq (619)•'- .- . . . • . . ....• • /~sTORACE TIN Now PAPK OFFICE mg.6i OLD OLIVEHAIN R/D I 1ELTcT° EXPA.NStON SHOPS ND}RE ORRXG J1IHI fN1U1( - I \ ADM4RAT1ON1J •gIiUiH$LH I rHH41Hi iIl.rr0 71 - v omicr i14 cs YARD STORAGE - -• - - J.1itiI4n ~.,! ~j HiIIUI \ \ OV V RKG. L ISL MATERIAL 1RtGFrf] _ rrTh1nwwH sg\\\.. - : - - . SITE PLAN f. I -T I . - - - -. -. - n_Jill Pa ir evon . .-.----- I I I 1 [8]. The City of Carlsbad has prepared an EIR/EIS for the Batiqtitos Lagoon Enhancement Project E41 The lack of regular tidal exchange and the very shallow basin of Batiquitos Lagoon result in quite different water quality compared with other Southern California lagoons and salt marsh systems that have tidal connections [6] The lagoon is not subject to significant amounts of freshwater inflow during the dry months and tidal 'exchange viaanocean entrance is limited to short intervals during the rainy season. The lagóoh is therefore relatively stagnant. I I F- Water Quality tests performed on B'atiquitos lagoon's water were extremely variable from season to season and year to year. Because of this variability, it is not possible to determine the impact widening Olivenhain Road will •have on the water quality. Both the depth and salinity of groundwater surrounding Batiquitos Lagoon are independent of lagoon water conditions [6]'r, particularly during the summer and fall. In addition,. groundwater does not appear to be a significant source of water for the lagoon. 'A surface layet of silty clay soil prevents large amounts of water from the lagoon to percolate into the subsoil [8]. Siltation in Encinitas Creek can' be decreased by construction of the 'proposed detention basin "0" [1] on the eastern end' of the' study area This detention basin does not take additional usable land since it is in the existing floodway. The existing detention basins ("A" and "B"), will detain most of the sediment inflow supplied by 'the drainage basin. As a result, a slow rate of sediment deposition within detention basin "D" is expected and very little monitoring and maintenance 'would be required. 2.6 Impacts 'Neither the construction nor continued. existence of Olivenh'ain Road widening, for any of the four alternatives, are expected to create significant water quality impacts within the project ,area or downstream. Some temporary ,,increase in turbidity or Total Suspended Solids (TSS) may occur during construction. ' No surface or groundwater impacts to any of the, constituents listed 9 LI 1 in Table 1 are expected. Slight increases in grease and, oil maybe expected due to -the increase in traffic and asphalt surface area The nutrients in the surface water may initially be slightly increased due to revegetative efforts. Conversely, slight decreases in sediment transport 1 maybe inherent due to increased paved area. I The construction of proposed detention basin "D", will result in the loss of approximately 12.5 acres of habitat during initial construction. An increase in turbidity may also accompany the construction of the detention basin. The long term beneficial effects of the detention basin on water quality include enhanced groundwater recharge and reduced sediment load downstream. I 2.7 Mitigation Measures 1 The following list identifies measures that will be taken to protect surface and groundwater I quality: Grading shall be limited to the normally dry months of the year, and outside the breeding season of most sensitive song bird species which may potentially occur on-site (July. through October). Refer to the Biological Technical Report for a compIete listing of these bird species. Where grading activities occur, debris fence and screens shall be installed above the 100-year. flobd elevations. No riprap, rock or other impermeable materials shall be discharged within Encinitas Creek, except as shown on approved plans Any temporary dam constructed shall only be built from material such as clean gravel :which will cause little or no siltation. Temporary fills shall be constructed of nonerodible materials and shall be removed immediately upon work completion. - Except as required-to move existing vegetation and move earth to construct this project, and except for those materials and measures used in the construction of this project; no debris, soil, silt,, sand, bark, slash, sawdust, rubbish, cement Or concrete or washings thereof, oil br petroleum products, or associated activity of 10 1 I whatever nature shall be allowed toenter into: or be placed where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff into,'Encinitas Creek. Vegetation removed for initial construction shall be replaced with comparable species and mitigatable ratios set forth by affected, agencies. When operations are completed, any excess materials or debris shall be removed' from the work area. , * A Report of Waste Discharge (RWD) will 'need to be filed with the RWQCB, to fulfill waste discharge requirements for this project. Monitoring and reporting of water quality may be required as part of the waste discharge requirements. This will allow identification of water qualit',' trends, and the separation of Olivenhain Road impacts compared to upstream, impacts in particular. 3.0 HYDROLOGIC/HYDRAULIC ANALYSES 3.1 Background A drainage study for Encinitas Creek was perfàrmed in September' 1990 by Howard Chang[1]. This study was used as the base document to evaluate the hydrologic impacts of widening Olivenhain Road to a six-lane facility. In Chang's report, a -HEC-1 [9] study was performed to detérminé' the hydrological conditions in the Encinitas Creek watershed based upon 'ultimate development of the area. The 100-year peak discharges computed frOm the HEC-1 analysis were' used, as input to the HEc-2 [10] model to determine the 100-year floodplain for Encinitas Creek. ' * The 100-year 'peak discharge for the local area draining to Encinitas Creek within',our study area "is '361 cubic feet per second (cfs), compared to a total 100-year peak discharge of 4,725 cfs for the' entire Encinitas Creek watershed. * These flows were computed assuming no detention facilities were constructed. With detention basins "A", "B", and "C" in-place, the 100-year peak discharge for the entire basin is 3,450 cfs [1]. With, detention basins TA", "B", "C", and "D" 11 I., in place, the total 100-year peak discharge is 2,926 cfs. The 100-year peak discharge which ' S contributes directly to our study area remains constant throughout all conditions, since its drainage basin is downstream of detention basin ".D". Ultimate development conditions were considered in all hydrological computations. . S S 'I, Since, detention basins "A" and "B" are currently in place, and detention basin "C" is approved and soon to be. constructed, this is considered to be the existing condition. The construction I of detention basin "D", with basins "A", "B",, and '?C" already in place, Js. considered to be the proposed condition. •.. . S .. S. S The H Ec-2 analysis performed for Encinitas Creek is an update of the, floodplain study prepared , I by the County. of San Diego in 1982 [11]. The topographic data from the County study was updated to model recent sediment deposition within the Encinitas Creek bed. The updated run ' also accounts for the -widening of Olivenhain' Road to a six-lane facility,, the construction of detention basin "D" and a new earthen fill site west of ElCarninoReal. S S Numerous, previous studies have been performed for the Encinitas Creek Watershed. These .studies include: "Zone 1 Comprehensive Plan for Flood Control and Drainage" [12];" "Hydrology 'Report 'for Encinitas Creek" [13]' and Encinitas Creek, Watershed HEC-1 Model Analysis Hydrology Report" [14]. The results of the HEC-1 analysis in the September 1990 report for Encinitas Creek [1] compare 'favorably with the 100-year peak discharges: listed in the other reports mentioned above. 3.2' Analyses S Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses are based upon alignment 2 as prepared by PDC Engineers [2] Other alternatives were cross-checked to ensure that they would not cause any. additional 'impacts. The widening of Olivenhain Road will slightly, increase the runoff to Encinitas, Creek because the impervious areas will increase upon construction of the .road. Since Qlivenhain Road will be widened to six lanes from four lanes, and at the west end of the, study larea. to IS' I. I: 'IS 12 six' lanes from two lanes, this 'inceased. area of 'imperviousness can easily' be computed. Estimating that the existing roadway width of feet for the two 'lane stretch will 'be impervious to the future right-of-way width of 126 feet for a length of 3,900 feet, an eight-acre increase In impervious area is" expected. 'This equates" to' an increase of only 0.,01 square miles, or 'approximately two percent of the entire drainage area' of 0.62 'square miles. A simplified analysis 'would indicate an increase inthe 100-year peak discharge from 361 cfs to 368. cfs. This is not considered 'to be a significant' increase. The HEC-2'analysis performed by Howard Chang [1], modeled Encinitas Creek with these three different alternatives: ' Existing channel conditions with no detention basins in place. ' With detention 'basins "A", "B", and. "C" in place. (3)' With detention basins "A", "B", "C", and "D" in place. The effects of constructing detention basin "D" on the existing 100-year floodplain of Encinitas Creek can be assessed by comparing alternatives 2 and 3 listed above The effects of widening Olivenhain Road (alternative 2) to six lanes cannot be compared to the 'study performed in 1982 'by 'the "County 'of San' Diego [11] since it was based on previous topography,. befáre recent siltation 'had occurred in the Encinitas Creek bed. However, the impacts of alignment 2, based on current 100-y6ar floodplain conditions, may be evaluated. ,. The 100-year water surface elevations for. Encinitas Creek from El Camino Real' to a point approximately 500 feet upstream, are approximately two feet lower for alternative 3 than for alternative 2 [1]. Within the same reach, the 100-year flow velocities range from 1 to 3 "feet per second (fps) for alternative 2 and 1 to 6 fp's for alternative 3. This increase in velocity can be attributed to the lower flow (alternative 3) not overtopping the El Camino Real• bridge and thus 'being- constrained to a smaller flow area.' Futher, velocity losses increase through.' the bridge for alternative 2 becau'se'bf increased head losses due to pressure flow, under the bridge and weir flow over the roadway. This results in a lower velocity at the higher peak discharge 13 1 in alternative 3.,, The 100-year flow velocityof. 6 .fps occurs just upstream of the El Camino I Real bridge, and can be considered to be an erosive velocity. 1 The most current drainage study for Encinitas Creek [1], within the project study area, only. lists HE-2 output to a point 500 feet upstream of the El Camino Real bridge. Therefore, it is not possible to analyze the exact changes in 100-year flow velocities and 100-year water surface elevations between alternative 2 and alternative '3 as listed above, upstream of this point.: A comparison of the 100-year water surface elevations between alternative 2 and alternative 3 can be made upon inspection of the Encinitas Creek Drainage Exhibit found in the rear of the - September, 1990 report [1]. The 100-year water surface elevations are. generally lower,-for alternative 3 than for alternative 2 from the bridge at El Camino Real to a point approximately 1700 feet upstream. From, this point, to the west edge of proposed detention basin "D", the 100-year floodplain boundaries are essentially coincident for'these two. alternatives. A cross the reach occupied by the proposed detention basin "D", the 100-year floodplain widths are essentially equal. However, the proposed detention basin "D" causes the 100-year floodplain to. shift: 50 -80 feet to the north in this region. This "shift" in the 100-year floodplain, does not cause any inundation to the potential six-lane Olivenhain Road. 'The analysis concerning the 100-year floodplain of Encinitas. Creek and the. construction of detention basin "D" are discussed in more detail in the Drainage Study for. Encinitas Creek [1]. The impacts to Encinitas Creek from the widening of Olivenhain Road, are discussed in the following section. . 33: Impacts . . Prior to the construction of detention basins "A" and "B", Olivenhain,RQad was inundated by .the 100-year peak discharge of Encinitas Creek from El Camino' Real. .to approximately 1500 feet to the east [1]. After -the . construction of detention. basins "ATM 'and,' "B", only the intersection . of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road is inundated by the 100-year peak discharge of, Encinitas Creek. . 14 I 1 I I Upon inspection of the drainage exhibit for Encinitas Creek in the September 1990 report [1], the widening of Olivenhain Road 'tO a six-lane 'faciI'itywiIl not cause any additionaF impacts to the 100-year floodplain of Encinitas Creek for the existing condition, which is considered to be with detention basins "A" and "B" in place, upstream of the project area. The construction of detention basin "D" reduces the 100-year floodplain, when compared to the existing 100-year floodplain limits with detention basins "A"' and "B" already in place. With detention basin "D", Olivenhain Road will not impact the 100-year floodplain These impacts are evident upon inspection' of the 100-year floodplain boUndaries :as. shown' on-the. Encinitas Creek Drainage Exhibit 'in the pocket of the Drainage Study, for Encinitas Creek [1]. The' costruction of detention basin "D" has -'a number of positive impacts on the Encinitas Creek drainage basin The 100-year peak discharge within the study area is attenuated by detention basin "D", resulting in a reduced peak' discharge' from 1,465 cfs to 832 cfs. This reduced peak . 100-year flood discharge is approximately the same as the peak 25-year flood discharge with only detention basins "A" and "B" in place. An additional positive Impact 'resulting from the construction of detention basin "D" is a reduction in the amount of sediment transported in Encinitas' Creek. The reduced' 100-year peak'flood discharge resulting from. detention basin "D" will, in effect narrow' the 100-year floodplain for Eñcinitas 'Creek downstream of the detention basin. It also reduces theimpactto the culverts beneath the bridge at El Camino Real. With the construction Of detention basin "D", these culverts will convey the 100-year peak .discharge' without inundating the intersection of El Camino Real an&.Olivenhain Road. This intersection was previously inundated under the existing condition with 'only detention basins "A", and "B" in 'place. ' The reduced 100-year peak' flood discharge resulting from the construction of detention basin "D", will increase the 100-year flow velocity, just upstream of the El Camino Real bridge, from 3 fps, with detention basins "A" and "B" only; to 6 fps with detention basins "A", "B", and "D". This inèrease in velocity can be attributed to the lower peak flow (detention 'basins "A",, "B", and "D") not overtopping the El Camino Real bridge and being constrained to a smaller flow 15 I I, I I area upstream of the bridge Further, velocity losses increase through the bridge with only detention basins "A" and "B" in place because of increased head lossesdue to pressure flow under the bridge and weir flow over the roadway This results in lower velocities at the higher peak discharges It should be noted that the 100-year flow velocities resulting from detention basins "A", "B", and "D" will be approximately the same as the 25-year flow velocities with only detention basins "A" and "B". .1 Although there are other possible sites for the construction of detention basin "D', the chosen site is the most effective for flood discharge atteniiation Detention basin "D" reduces the peak discharge for Encinitas Creek, and attenuates the time of peak for the flood. This delay in peak time assists the conveyance of the main channel of Encinitas Creek downstream of the confluence of the east and south branches, since i the south branch peaks earlier than the east branch. 34 Mitigation Measures . The construction of detention basin "D" will greatly improve the flow conditions beneath El Camino Real bridge and lessen sediment trans ort downstream of the basin. If it is not constructed, an alternative mitigation measure would be to dredge the stream channel for approximately 1,100 feet immediately downstream of the bridge [14]. The bridge at El Camino Real will need to be...inspected to determine if the existing ripräp <is providing adequate protection against scour from erosive velocities on the upstream side [15] Providing that the ripràp is still An place and providing, adequate prtection, no other forms of erosion. protection will be required to protect 'the 'bridge piers and.i abutments from local scour.. If the. existing riprap is not providing adequate protection,, a more detailed study will. need to be made to determine what additional forms of erosion protection may be necessary to protect the bridge. 4.& CONCLUSIONS/DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS lit 1 , • • The results of this studs' have yielded the following onclsidñs: - 5, • . C'.. - '1." Detention basin "D" should :be constructed lii order O alleviate the flooding problem which exists beneath the - El Camino Real bridge. If this basin is not * constructed, the'boxcuIverts should be dredged beneath ElCamino Real in order to achieve the same flow corditions Either of these measures will prevent the 100-year stdrni' from 'inundating El'Camino Real and prevent debris, from being transported downstream. The videning of OIiiehain Road to six 'lanes will not have any significant impacts to water quality, nor will it substantially increase the runoff to Encinitas Creek. The construction dfdetention basin "D" will attenuate the freshwater inflows and kduce sediment franoit into Batiquitos Lagoon. It will also enhance groundwater recharge and.have minimal impacts to wildlife'habitat area. 11 With detention basins "A" and "B" only, the area in the vicinity of the intersection of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road will be inundated. The construction of detention basin "D" will reduce the 100-year floodplain of Encinitas Creek to a point where the intersection of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road will not be inundated.. ' The current 100-year peak runoff and hydrologic patterns will not be significantly altered by the widening of Olivenhain Road to a six-lane facility. The 100-year floodplain 5maps for Encinitas Creek will need to be updated to reflect the current drainage conditions of Encinitas Creek due to the construction of detention basins upstream of the study area. 1 17 5. I 6. Dredging of the El Camino Real box culverts, and the Encinitas Creek stream channel 1,110 feet immediately west of El Camino Real is recommended to alleviate the siltation problem which currently exists in this area This is an alternative to the construction of detention basin "D". This alternative may be feasible from a hydraulic standpoint, but deemed environmentallyundesirable I 7 Erosive velocities occur just upstream of the bridge at El Camino Real for the 1 100-year peak flood discharge with detention basins "A", "B", and "D", or the 25-year. flood peak discharge without detention basin "D". Bridge plans for the El Camino Real bridge indicate that riprap protection is in place approximately 20 feet upstream and downstream of El Camino Real bridge [15], ''but is currently I silted over. The status and condition of the riprap should be field verified to determine if it is still providing adequate erosion protection. Providing that the riprap is still in place and in good condition, no other form of erosion protection will be required to protecLthe bridge piers and abutments from local scour. I I I I I 1 I I OLIVENHAIN ROAD FINAL2.RPT MAY9 18 I 1 5.0 REFERENCES Howard H. Chang, Drainage Study for Encinitas Creek, September, 1990. Project Design Consultants, Alignment Alternatives for Olivenhain Road, September 1990. State Water Resources Control Board, 'Regional Quality Control'Board San Diego Region, Comprehensive Water Quality Control Plan Report for the San Diego Basin, July 1975. City of Carlsbad, Batipuitos Lagoon Enhancement Project EIR/EIS, 1990. California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region, A Review of Nutrient Standards for the Coastal Lagoons in the San Diego Region (Draft), December 1985. Keith B. MacDonald and Associates, Ecological Research Services, Batipuitos Lagoon Habitat Enhancement Studc', April 1985. CH2M.Hill, Sediment Load Study for Batipuitos Lagoon, 1989. Westec Services, Final Environmental Impact Report, Hunt Properties Annexation, City. of Carlsbad, September 1983. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 'HEC-1 Flood Hydrograph Package, revisedJanüary 1985. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, HEC-2 Water Surface Profiles, September 1982. County of San Diego, Floodplain Study for Encinitas Creek, 1982. Koebig and Koebig, Zone 1 - Comprehensive Plan for Flood Control and Drainage, prepared for San Diego County. Flood Control District, July, 1976. County of San Diego, Hydrology Report for Encinitas Creek, 1980. Rick Engineering Company, Encinitas Creek Watershed HEC-1 Model Analysis Hydrology Report, August 19, 1988. Caltrans, State of California Project Plans for Construction of El Camino Real Highway in San Diego County, September 8, 1970. .. . 19 . I I 1: •. , :. . 0o.; • FINAL V 'ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR OLIVENBAIN ROAD WIDENING/REALIGNMENT 1 V 0 AND FLOOD CONTROL PROJEcT V V LETTERS OF AND RESPONSES TO V V., PUBLIC AND .OTHR AGENCY COMMENTS . V.. Received During Public ReviewPeriod . V V V (November 29, 1991 to December 12, 1991) .. •, 0 'O I I 0 : ' V• 0 , ' 5 . 'I 0 V ' 0 0' ,,V• ' .. 0 , V A 45-day Public Review Period for the Olivenhain Road Widening alirirnet and Flood d 1 Control Project draft EIR commened.on November 29, .1991, and ended on December 12, 1991. Six letters of public and other agency comments were received during the Public Review Period, and have been responded to on the following pages Comments were received from the following agencies.nthviduals: Dimension Cable Services - I State of California, State Lands Commission (The Resources Agency) Olivenhain Municipal Water District City of Carlsbad Planning Department Mr. Thompson .. .. . The Villages of La Costa (Fieldstone) State of California, Office of Planning and. Research. (State Clearinghouse) 1 The following. letters were received after the close of the Public. Review Period for this . . . project, and-have aio been responded to below: mw COunty of San Diego,-'Deparmient of Public Works . . . .. .. . ... . .. . .Comments peneñt. to the EIR were idenfied in each letter, numbered, and responses niade accordingly. In response . to some of these comments, revisions have ben made in the Final EIR, so that any additional text has been added and any unwanted/incorrect information has been deleted. Page numbers are provided in eacE response, where applicable, indicating locations throughout the document where these revisions ,,-can be found. . . . .1 I I I 0 • . S. . I .5 •-. -.• . - - - - : .•M. lift, - - '.• . : 5.. 1 . CCEANSID7 1. Comment noted. No response rcquittd. 2790 B ass F5l Dthe 7205 AI7cy 5alaaay 3753 7lssan Sac Also CA 920037000 P.. ontIo CA 9025 510 Oual6le, CA 92054 loll - __- - 993 AIJEA All Aacs • 707 91770 Bassos November 1. 1991 Craig D. Ruiz City of Encinitas - 527 Encinitas Boulevard . . - .4 Encinitas, CA 92024 - Subject: Case Number 90-259, Olivenhain Road . . Dear Mr. Ruiz: • . . . - . . This is to inform., you that Dimension Cable Services has no .. -. facilities on Olivéiihain Road , and we have no comments regarding •.: - t!le-proposed widenig ,nandrealignment. If - we can be of help in any other matter, please feel free to - contact us. - . . a Sincerely, Tom Christ Field Engineer, IX - -1 TC/tcc . - - - 0 -- - -.-- 0. -- 0 .- -- -- 0 •0• - - - - . - -1 - -,_- 0, - 5. 0 •.• - - - - - I • ST ATE Of CALIFORNIA - - - PETE WILSON. G-,- STATE LANDS COMMISSION EXECUTIVE OFFICE 2.. As stated in Sections 2.7 (Page 11-26) and 3.1.3:1. (Page Ill- 17) of this Elk, the City of LEO I M CARTIIY I I C, 0 S--I-16. CA 95514 Enctnttas will be required to process a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pre -discharge GRAY DAVIS C e CHARLES WARREN Notification pnor to the approval of final roadway Improvement plans.Therefore the THOMAS W. HAYES. O,'eclo, et FOAOW E,euIvo proposed project is exempt froiti the requirement to submit a leise application for use of a portion of'the Siatc's:sovercign lands (i.e., Datiquitos Lagoon) from the State Lands Hc,ember 19, 1991 Commission. Ms. Carol Whiteside State Projects Coordinator The Resources Agency . 1-- - 1416 Ninth Street Room 1449 . I- Sacramento, CA 95814 " Mr. Patrick Murphy \: ---- - City of Encinitas 527 Encini'tas' Blvd. Encinitas, CA 92024 Dear Ms Whiteside and Mr. Murphy -, Staff of the State Lands Commission (SLC) has received the . Draft Environmental-Impact Report (DEIR) for the Olivgnhajn Road Aligrlment Case No. 90-259 (SCH 191011035). Upon admission to the Union in 1850, California acquired nearly- 4- million acres of sovereign land underlying the State's navigable waterways. Such lands include, but are not limited to, the beds of more than 120 navigable rivers and slougha, nearly 40 . navigable lakes, and.the 3 mile wide band of tide and submerged lands adjacent to the coast and offshore islands of the State. These lands are managed by the State Lands Commission (SLC). A portion of the proposed project will impact Batiquitos Lagoon. Batiquitos Lagoon adjoining La Costa Avenue is sovereign lands of,the State by virtue of a settlement agreement between the . - State and previous private owners. - This portion-of the lagOon is subject to the Public Trust which Is a sovereign Public, property right held by the State for the benefit of all the people This right limits the uses of these lands to waterborne commerce navigation fisheries open space recreation or other recognized Public Trust purposes b This area has een leased to the California n Departmet of-Fish and Game for-the creation and maintenance of a -- wildlife-refuge, - A lease for the use of the State's sovereign lands is required - from the State Lands Commission (SLC) for any portion of your -- proposed project that will extend onto 'lands under - SLC jurisdiction. However,- in this case. pursuant to Section 6327- of 2 - the Public Resources-Code, if you have received a permit' from, the .U. S. Army Corps of. 'Engineers, The. Rec1aion Board, The Department of Water Resources or the California Debris Commission you need not'ápply. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Ms. Carol Whiteside Mr. Patrick Murphy. . . . . . November :19, 1991 Page Three - - - bcc: Betty Eubanks - - Diane Jones OPR1 - - - - Ms.CarolwhiteSide Mr. Patrick Murphy Movember 19, 1991 Page T,o - . . - - • 0 Thank you for- the opportunity to omment. If you have any questions, please contact - Alan Scott at (916) 322-7841. • - 0 • Sincerely, - . • • - 0 - 00 •• • - 0•• - - -. - - MARY GLGCS, Maer - -. •0 - - - • Environmental Review Section - -- cc: Alan Scott - - - • -. - 0 • 0•0 ---- 0 •. 0 - 000 0 • - 0• Olivenhãin Municipa1 Water District ft AitI) OF DIRECTORS (N EI1AL COUNSEl - in, dii ?.,G noo i'r,'o,i,-,a' 966 OLIVLNI lAIN fOAl) s ;,, and I, i',:o1"Vi,, Pr,'sj,h,,,t ENCINITAS, CAlIFORNIA 92024 9/sI ENGINEER I.,,I,,, I,,-IX'.,k. See1ory ('I (ONE (619) 753 6166 co,. 0G1,s Al. 910kr, Tr,'os,,rer FAX: (619) 753.1578 MANAGER I C. Gok,u. Oocclor i R fl til'°ta' 0110,, December 4, 1995 1 i U U -lit Mr. Patrick Murphy •iil DEC —5lggj City of Encinitas I 527 Encinitas Blvd. ___ Encinitas, CA 92024 ('ifl'OF ENCINITAS RE: DRAFT EIR FOR WIDENING OF OLIVENIIAIN ROAD REALIGNMENT AND FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT CASE NO. 90-259 Dear Mr. Murphy: The undersigned has reviewed the environmental impact .report for the Olivenhain Road / realignment and flood control project. The District respectfully requests that the -following comments be, taken into consideration and that these comments be made a part of the official record and final environmental impact report. I. GENERAL COMMENTS The Olivenhain Municipal. Water District has purchased the parcel of land shown outlined and cross-hatched on,,,tl,e attached plat excerpted from the Draft EIR. 'The District wishes to.be certain that all future road alignments Inthis vicinity as well as the future detention basin and its "dike configurations" are 'thoroughly evaluated and that all of the - 3 . alternatives are included. 'The District has been working with the property owners in this 'vicinity for many - years to develop a suitable circulation elemnt around the District's operational and administrative headquarters to satisfy the 'various general 'purpose agencies involved. The appropriate road alignments should-be taken'into consideration' 4 as, a part of this-EIR (including the vacation, of Olivenhain Road) u The ltimate location of the roads and detention basin dikes, 'as well as-additional prOpOrties needed by the parties - constructing these dikes androads, may have an adverse impact On' the District's ability to develop its property. The District has Included with this letter ä-proposeduse of the, land on the south side- of Olivenhain Road'. This proposal .is tentative, however it does represent, schematically, the proposed future expansion of the District's operational administrative facilities. It is imperative that,any takings -of District property be carefully coordinates with the District and evaluated so asnot to impac' the 'abilities of 5 the District to carry on the efficient del'ivsry of services to the public. 3. Please refer to Section 6.0 Of this IlIR for a complete evaluation of the various available (feasible) future road alignments proposed fOr'he project vicinity. The two alternative flood control benn designs proposed for the La Costa Avenue/El Camino Real intersection are evaluated in Section 3.0 of this EIR. 4 Please refer to Section 2.3.1.1 (Page 1116) of this FIR for a discussion regarding the vacation of, an existing intersection bypass road 'from eastbound Oliveithain Road to southbound Rancho Santa 'Fe Road, just south of the OMVD facilities. The cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad shall coordinate planning efforts for the proposed project with OMWD in order to ensure the District's ability to develop its properly in the future. This includes determining ultimate locations of roads. ROWs, detention basin dike and - cmbInkisicnts, and construction easements; actual construction of proposed roadway improvements; and any additional land acquisitions that may be required to facilitate these improvements. - 5. Any proposed takings of OMWD property reqttircd to iu,plctncnt the proposed project shall necessitate appropriate advance planning and logistics coordination with OMWD to avoid impacts or interruptions of service to existing customers in the project area. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ',e ' - -r -• - 5 :.. ' - - - ' - -ft - •1 -- - - ft -' * 1. - - - - - - - - - _•44 _ - - - - - - - 1 - - ' - 1' - $ - ••_•ft -ft. -. 7 ° - ft -. - _.. ft S o ft AI S ; ,, •0 ft -I. . - .ft••. ft 0 -. -- .5. •0 .4 ft ft.-.-. ft4. ft --,i. . - -•• -, - . ft. ft. ft 0 - -, ftc., •ft4 .• ftft ft - ft ft 0-ft - ft.., - ft - ft ft 0• 5 'b-, •-•' - - ft. ft -. . ft 0 - 'ft - ft ft 'ft .ft - . ft. 0 ••°O•• - - II. SPECIFIC COMMENTS • 0 .'. ft - In- figur'e 2.3-3 a dike, and field banks as, well as a work area ' 6. Please refer to Response toCotisment f4 • .to create the. proposed flood water detention, basin are •- (5.. - - depicted. The -location of use proposed dike and 'field banks 7. ft • - should be coordinated and discussed with. the Olivenhajn - - Municipal Water District. ftThecurrenconceptft..woul-4-1-nd-1-ca-te *t. OMWDS - 6 i'si tr _fms..théDit - ft., . 0 ft ......................ft ft- section has als~o been revised to'include in the vicinity of detenIionbasin __ tile -' -- - following recommendations, ny future developnit.nt on thc Wtegpi 4 ft Cu - - - - - - ts riiüiiiiWof_l00 feet front This Ica ib.could be compnscd of a iit.iximum-50-foot wide hiu1o15uca1 buffer and°n i i ooiiTiTh cOiftde planntiit? and 2) Any future development on OMWD property to the On page 11-17., the last sentence under Section . north of d Ii1i' 'D"- should establish a variable-width building setback between - Propose d.ft Iiood Water' Dete1tjQpDjkpLj~ lLithereport , mapped wetlands tied the l(X)-ycai floodw'ay.as disigriatedlsy 1982 County FEMA-maps. - states that It should be noted that the property owner has . Furthenisure where thcst, bufkr/setback zones ou.ur within disturbed rt.us o the 100 ft given preliminary indication that the future constructicn of ' year floodpluin,Ihey should be planted with appropriale native wetland species. Any - side embankment regu1red4 f0r this basin would maIntaji a ioo- Iandsèaping on OMWD pnpêrsy directly. adjacent to this floodplain should be comprised foot minimum buffer frm the edge of mapped wetland habitat in of appropriate native upland spet.tes The screcilini, effect" provided by the us of native' this area Subsequently, the 01 ivenhain Municipal Water floodpl4tn and 'upland 'plantings within these zones would serve to separate future • District has acquired the property on the horth-ide of the . 4detention.basjn Wiegand developincritlOMWD facilities from sensitive biskhiIgital habitat. .. proposed Whether or not the Olivenhain Municipal Water Dtstrict4 would be wi11iig to maintain a 100- s - foot buffer..from the edge of the mapped wetland habitat area would dependsftu definitiàn.of,"buffer:',,,TIse.'oljvnttain. o pon Municipal;Water District would be willing t maintain a100- - - -foot "setback"of buildings, but under no circumstaices would - - - -the District be willing to dedicate a'100-foot strip of-open space; - The District would be willing to allow appropriate - .plantings of - compatible 'vegetation tb°'povIde a .screening - effect from the wetlands -that would seParate' the disturbed - - - used areas-'.from wetland habitat and also provide desirable - - - aesthetic effect; 0•O, •0 -: - - ft ft. ft ftft' - •- - • ; The -Olivenhain 'Municipal Water District has leased this property foran'estincated seven year-. Prior to-that the - property was ütilizedby contractors a'nd -°'asariding stable. . Additionally, the-eastern portions orthe -District's land are -- ..,ft . -. - .. 4 - .• - - .5 currently occupied by H &"H Feed Store, a retail feed and- tack - 4 '- -. .- - business.-- None of these uses has previously disturbed the ft - existing habitat south of the property. Therefore, the -District sees no reason to maintain-any "buffer".between the use.area andthe-habjtat-°s?' ft — ft '•,• - -- .' - '-' .- ' - '- - ------ - - - -- - - -- - It should be noted that the entire area described as "wetlands" has been ma process of rejtivenatidn°for the past . . l5 to 20 years Thid-- rej 6 ventio'j ánd/°rntijâtion'jnt6 . . -' wetland habitat is.attributable to the increased'runoff, due to development on surrounding hills within this drainage. Formerly, the 'entire,area slated as. a detention basin was 0 -ft ft - - farmed. This area has,béen utilized since the late 1800's toA. - - - grow barley, lima beans and -pasture livestoct- ---A asneil man- - •0 ft made dam exists in the approximate proposed L-ocat5..--i of the - detention basin dike and spill..•ey. This dre 5,-es '-structed . - - - - for the purpose of retaining water from rst7' 'reins for the - watering of livastock in the ry periods. Thii Olivenhain ft Municipal Water District should have no reason to provide any ft , mitigation-of any kind inthe form of a "buffer zone" or - otherwise.. ft - 0 --4. ft . o ..• -- - -.- - 2 - -- On page 111-92, Section 3:10.2.1 ter Service, states "that impacts to the District's existing 12-inch diameter -water transmission line in Olivenhain Road and El Casino Real intersections are not anticipated . . ." Because the road widening has been analyzed only in a Conceptual and schematic fashion, the requirement for relocation of the: transmission line cannot be fully assessed at this V time. . Any change-cif elevation over any portion of the potable water lines involved in road widening must be evaluated by the District's staff and consulting V engineers prior to completion of final deèigh of the 8 project The--- District does not .anticipate any - insurmountable -difficulty, however, a full evaluation of. cuts, fills, and changes in traffic loading :must be Conducted by the District prior to commencement of Construction.- Any reconstruction or relocation that does become -necessary will require appropriate advance planning and logistics coordination to avoid impacts or interruptions of service to existing customers in the project area. The District will oppose the inverse condemnation of its property for.a 100-foot-buffer without compensation to the District at fair market valueas determined by an` acceptable MAI appraisal. The. Olivenhain Municipal Water District has been working with the City of Encinitas for many years, cooperatively serving citizens within our respective jurisdictions The District is thoroughly committed with cooperating -tb - -the City of Encinitas foi development of appropriate public facilities -to provide this community's residents with a continued safe and secure potable water supply and: to accommodate the need for road improvements, flood waters md runoff management. - - The District appreciates thié opportunity to comment onthé City's. project. - The District -would be happy to provide additional information upon request and asks that the opportunity to meet with representatives of the City regarding the specifics of this project be afforded at the soonest convenient time Sincerely OLIVENIIAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT L- /LYJ - ( David C. McCóilom General Manager . V 0CM/lan. Attachments - - cc: Board of Directors Frank Fontanesi, General Services Jerry Campbell, Boyle Engineering Wesley W. -Peltzer, General Counsel - - 8. - The text of the EER (Section 3.10.21-. Page 111-93) has been revised to state 'Impacts to the existing 12-inch diartieter water BanstnissiOn line at Olivenhain Read and El Cansino Real cannot be fully assessed at this time given the conceptual/schematic plans depicting- the proposed Intersection impruseinenLs." In addition, Section 3.10.3.2. (Page 111-95) his been revised to include the requirement that all project drawings. improvement plans, and grading plans shall be submitted io.OMWD for review and approval prior to final project design approval by the cities of Euucinktss and Carlsbad. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — — — — — — — — — Legend CSM Southern Coastal E isting 0151 Dlsturbe Tack & Feed Storóows . OitedWetIerdStrub \• \ E Ecotone —OMWD \ \ •. Offices \ \ FW)A Fr.Oshwa tar Marsh Rud Ruderal .4 S SWS Southern WIllow. Scrub Sand Aster Ca >j J 00 Rud .. E Sr DWS FWM E FWM lDws__ Rud, . . •.-UWM CSM .. N 1990 Floodplain r Dr. Chang) kp Rud 100' 2(30' •. ( Rud Olivenhain Road Alignment bilcin F monczp . . . . . Future. Detention Basin Q' .5 . Biological Resources Map d.. I . Figure 3.1-2 'STAMINA, 2. O/BCR. FHWA VERSION (MARCH 1982) 'TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION ,-MODEL DEVELOPED UNDER. CONTRACT BY BBN . .(.INPUT -UNITS- E I, OUTPUT UNITS- .E I) 1 MODIFIED BY THE MINNESOTA DEPT. OF TRANS, PORTATION. FOR OPERATION ON A MS-DOS PERSONAL COMPUTER, 1985 I'OLIVENHAIN' ROAD WEST FUTURE ALT 2 - ORWF2 04/24/91 OPROGRAN INITIALIZN&ON . PARAMETERS HEIGHT CODE DESCRIPTION ... .00 1. R . A N .1.00 2 A E N .00 3 H 'D .T 8.00 . . 4 H D T A ' K 2.30 5 H D ,.. T , 'D C .000 6 H D T P C CO 5.20, Cl = 38.80 $O 2.300.. .7 }• D T P 'C CO = 35.30 Cl = '' . 25.60 SO = 8.000 8 ' H 'D T P C CO = ' 50.40 Cl = 19.20 SO' = OROADWAY 1 EL CANINO REAL - SOUTH ' H. 'CA .00 H 'CA. 00 H 'CA .00 VEHICLE. TYPE 'VEHICLES/HOUR' SPEED . . ' VEH4' 2967. 50. VEH5 . 128. 50. VEH6 96. ,. . 50. ------------- COORDINATES -------------- X.' Y . z OLIVRD' . . 540. 1400. 84. SOUTH . . ' . . 380. 0. 86. OROADWAY 2 OLIV-EAST OF ECR VEHICLE TYPE VEH4 VEHICLES/HOUR 2645. SPEED 45. VEH5 . 84. 45. VEH6 ' 56. ' 45 '0 : COORDINATES------------- x Y .. z ECR : ' " . 600. .1290. 84. URVW ' CURVE . 910. . 1540. 1270. . 1065. .. 87. 92.. WGRADE 1890. 1000. 96. GRADE 1 1 1 0 BARRIER LENGTH BY SECTION 270.43 668.84 .254.23 334.07 6.08 ,89,14 2.24 500.48 106.02 30.82 110.04 , 55.11 250.07 350.09 580.00 420.00 250.00 158.51 1RECEPTORS - WEST; SOUTH; NORTH 0 COORDINATES ------------- x Y Z. REF8NROW 800. . 1330. . 95. 8N150 800. 1370. 122. REF8SROW 800. 1230. 95. VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES/HOUR SPEED : VEH4 VEHS 2645 84 45 45 VEH6 j 56. 45. ,. ----------COORDINATES------------ . X Y Z GRADE, 1890. 1000. . 96. 1 2675. 1000. '130. 1 3000. 4570. 1000. 1000. 131. 137 1. 0 TYPE (A) OLIV RD WEST, SOUTH EDGE COORDINATES----------- X Y . Z. ZO DELZ :.;' , P. 620 1225 84 82 0 ' 0 890.. 1210.. 87. 85. 1525.. 1775. . 1000, 954. 92. 96. 90. 89. . . ., 2109. 954. 103. 100. 2110.z 954. .109. 100. . '2199. 954. 114. 108. . . 2 TYPE(A) SOUTH - WILLOW CREEK COORDINATES . . X 2170. ' Y 870. Z 104. . ZO 100. DELZ 0. P . . 0 2200. 112. 108. . 2200. 114. : 108. 2.700. .954. 13.6. 130. 2695. .850. 116. 110. . . 3 TYPE (A) SOUTH - SCHOOL COORDINATES---------- X Y Z ZO DELZ P 2750. 925. 136. 100. 0. . 0 2760. . 2870. 954. 954. 139. . 142. 133.. 136. . . . . .. . : 2870. 900. 131. 128. • • . ..•. . '. . • 4 . TYPE (A) . NORTH PONDEROSA . COORDINATES---------. . , . .. X Y Z ZO DELZ P 1950 1100 130 97 0 0 2400 1064 136 118 2650. 1064.. 142. 136. .• 3000. 1064. 150. 137. : 3580. 1064. 137. . . . 4000. 1064. 137:. ' . . .• 4250. 1064. 150. 137. . '•. 4400. . 1115. . 155. 137. ., . [I: WGRAD ANARGOSA WFLAT EFLAT 1BARRIER W 1 2 5 6 7 8 1BARRIER 0 below Jo in W39 CORNER WRAP 1BARRIER 0 WWRAP WCORN ECORN EWRAP. 1BARRIER 0" :2.6 21 17 309 318 420 416 415 I 8S200 800. 1970. 85. 1600. 815. 9O I 16S200 16S400 1600., 615. 90. WC37 2400. . 900. 167. . 2400. 900. 117. .I WC37E, P26 ., 2045. 1130. 133. P26E . 2045. 1130. 143. P18 . 2570.. . 1080. 143. I .REFP . 2570.. . 1046. .. 131.. 8S8 .. . 800. 800. 90. 8S6 800. ':600. .. . 90. . 1200. . bOo. 90. .I 12S10 12S8 1200. 800. 90. 12S6 1200. 600. 85. I 12S6E ECRREF . 1200. 500. 600. 60.0. 95. 95. 1 ALPHA FACTORS - ROADWAY ACROSS,RECEIVER DOWN • .•• 1 * .0 .0 .5. , .. 2*.5 .0 .5 . i' 3* .0 .0 .5 * .5 5*.5 .5 5 .5 5 6* .5 .,5 .5 . 7* .0 .0 .5 • 8: * • .0 .0 .0 I, .,9. .O .0 .0 T10* .0 .0 .0 . .I, 11* ..0 12 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 • • . . • 13 * • .5 .5 .5 .• . 14 * .5 .5 .5 .. . ,15:* 5 .5 .5 . . . .16* .5 .5 .5 17* .5- .5 .5 .. * .5 .5 . . . . I 18 19 * .0 .0 1 SHIELDING FACTORS ROADWAY ACROSS,RECEIVER DOWN . . .J 1 * .0 .0 .0 . . 2* 1.0 .0 .0 • .3* .0 .0 .0 14 3.0. .0 .0 5 * 3.0 .0 .0 .. . • 6 * 3.0 3.0 3.0 . • . 7*3.02.0 .0 1 3.0 2.0 .0 • . -•. U .9 * 7.0 3.0 3.0 ., . 10 * 7.0 3.0 3.0 • • 1 * 8.0 8.0 3.0 • . . . . - • 12 *-.8.6 8.0 .0 -' 13 * .3.0 3.0 3.0 . . 14 0 .3. 3.0 3.0 • 15* 3.0 3.0 3.0 - . 0 • 0 16*3.0 3.0 3.0 0 0 17* 3.0 3.01 3.0 • • :18 * 3.0 3.03.0 . 0 • 19 * .00 .0 . 0 0 10LIVENHAIN ROAD WEST - FUTURE ALT 2 -, ORWF2 04/24/91 ORECEIVER LEQ(H) SIG L10 L50 L90 REF8NROW 8N150 . REF8SROW 8S?00 16S200 16S400 WC37 WC37E P26 P26E P18 REFP 8S8. 8S6, 12S10 12S8 12S6 12S6E ECRREF I,. 73.8 70.3 3.5 .3.1 76.9 73.2 72.3 6.2 67.8 65.2 . • 74.4 3.6. 77.5 72.9 68.2 • 62.4 1.8 64.3 62.0 59.7 . • .61.6 2.7 64.2 .60.7 57.3 . .• . 55.5 1.7 57.4 55.1 .52.9 .59.0 3.6 62.2 5,7.5 52.9 • . .63.0 4.1 66.3 61.:0 55.7 . . 59.6 2.2 61.9. 5.9.O 62.6 2.8 65.3. 61,8 58.3 ,•• 63..6 3.5 66.7 2,2 . 57.8 . ••• .74.1 3.9 77.3 72.3 67.2 • . 59.8 1.8 61.8 59.5 . 57.1 . . . 58.9 1,9 60.9 58.5 56.1 ..: . • • 62.0 2.'6 •. 64,5 61.2 .57.9 . • . ,. • 57.5 L7 59.4 57.2 55.0 • .• •. . 55.3 . 1.4 56.9 55.1 • 53.3 • . .. . . 55.3 75.7 1,4 3.6 56.9 78.8 55.1 74.2 53.3 69.7 .. . . I 1 STAMINA 2. O/BCR OFHWA VERSION (MARCH 1982) TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL DEVELOPED UNDER' CONTRACT BY BBN' (INPUT UNITS- E I. OUTPUT UNITS- E I) MODIFIED BY THE MINNESOTA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION FOR OPERATION ON A MS-DOS PERSONAL COMPUTER, 1985 IOLIVENHAIN ROAD EAST - FUTURE - OREFMT .- 04/25/91 MITIGATION OPROGRAM INITIALIZATION PARAMETERS I HEIGHT CODE DESCRIPTION ' .00 1 R . A N 1.00 2 A E N .00 3 H D T S C' 8.00 4 H 'D T A K • 2.30 5 H D T D C . .000 6 H D T P C H 'CA "I CO = 5.20 Cl"= . 38.80 SO . 00 2.300 7 H D T P C H 'CA CO- 35.30 Cl = .25.60 SO .00 8.000 8 H D T P .0 H' 'CA ,I CO= '50.40.C1= 19.20 SO= .00 OROADWAY 1 OLIV-EAST OF ECR VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES/HOUR SPEED VEH4 2645. 45. . VEH5 84. 45. .VEH6 56. 45. 4 o . COORDINATES ------------- x Y Z' GRADE ECR 600. 1355. 86. 1 ' CURVW 870. 1175. 88. 1 • CURVE . 1115. 1093. 90. ' 1 WGRADE 1890. 1000. 95. . 0 OROADWAY 2 OLIV - 107 FT ROW • ' VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES/HOUR SPEED VEH4 •2645. 45. VEH5 84. .• 45. VEH6 . 56. 45 0 COORDINATES ------------- . WGRAD X Y . x 1890. 1000. ' Z 95. GRADE' 1 ', AMARGOSA 2675. .1000. 130. 1 • • WFLAT 3000. 1000. 137. 1 • EFLAT ..4570.1 1000. ' 137. ' 1 • WCURV . 4950. "V ' 1100. . 130. " 1. • ECURV ' ' 5250. 1260. 127. 1 RSF . ' 6075. 2155. 122. 0 TYPE-(A) SOUTH - WILLOW CREEK COORDINATES---------- X . Y Z Z 0, DELZ P 2170. . 840. 106. 100. 0. 0 2200. 953. 114. 108. 2200. 954. . 115. 108. 2700. 954. 137. 130. 2695. 850. 117. 110. . 2 TYPE (A) SOUTH - SCHOOL COORDINATES--.-------- X Y . Z . ZO DELZ ,,, P 2750. 2760. 925. 954. 136. 139. 100. 133. , 0. ' • 0 . : 2870. 954. 142. 136.' S • 2870. 9000 131. 128. 3 TYPE (A) SOUTH - BRIDGEWATER COORDINATES---------- X Y Z ZO DELZ P 3200. 830. 132. 110.. 3200.. 954. 141. 137. . 4080. 9,54. 141. . 137. 4 TYPE (A) ' SOUTH - THOMPSON ROAD EDGE ' S COORDINATES---------- X Y Z ZO' DELZ P 4080. . , 964. 135. . 122.. 0. 0 4800, 5 TYPE(A) 964. NORTH 135'. - PONDEROSA 122. WEST COORDINATES---------- X Y' Z ZO. ' DELZ . p 1950, 1100. 132. 97. :0 0 2400, 1064. 138. . 118, 2650. 1064. 144. 136. . . 3000. , 3580. 1064. 1064. 152. ' 154. 137. 137. . 3740. 1064. 137, 3740. 1100. 140. 6. TYPE(A) . NORTH- PONDEROSA,EAST COORDINATES---------- X 'Y Z ZO DELZ , P 3830. 1100. .155. 140. 0. 0 '. 3830. 1064. 155. 140. 4000. 1064. 153. 137. . 4250. 1064. ' 152. . 137. 4400. 1115.. 157. 137, 7, TYPE (A) NORTH - SANTA FE COORDINATES---------- X Y Z ZO' DELZ ' P 4440. 1095. 157. 137. 0. , 0 4550. 1064. 157. 137, . 4940. 5220. '' 1160. 1320. 152. 142. 130. 127. • 5610. .. 1730. 137. ' 122. • 1.BARRIER 0 BELOW JOIN W39 CORNER WRAP 1BARRIER 0 WWRAP WCORN ECORN EWRAP 1BARRIER 0 WWRAP WCORN ECORN 1BARRIER 0 W E 1BARRIER 0 26 21 17 309 318 320 WRAP 1BARRIER 0 WRAP H .422 420 416 415 1BARRIER 0 50 49 42 3.7 2 BARRIER LENGTH BY SECTION 117.19 1.41 500.48 106.02 124.33 .880.00 '720.00 451.48 160.00 '36.01 36.00 170.01 .1 30.82 110.04 '55.11 , 250.07 350.09 580.00 250.00 158.51 114.28 ' • • . . I. I 11RECEPTORS - 401.67. - I 322.65 565.88 - WEST; SOUTH; NORTH 0 ------------COORDINATES------------- x Y_- - .I WC37 2400. 900. 107. WC37E 2400. 900. 117. WC35 2570. 900. 111. I WC33 2635. 785. 111. WC33E 2635 785. 121. MEAS2 2915. .74.5. 120. . 3500. 850. 117. I BR16 REFBR . 3500. 955. 143. BR4 3955. 860. 119. BR4E 3955. 860. 129. THOMPSON 4300. 920. 127. SCURVE . 5040. 1030. 136. OMWD . 5230. 1150. 131. P26 2045. 1130. . 133. I' P26E . 2045. 1130. - P18 2570., 1080. I REFP P309 . 2570. 3000. 1046. 1079. 131. P318 3580. 1079. 155. JACAR 3780. 1200. 151. P420 . 4000. 1080. P420E 4000. 1080. 164. $50 4467. .1120. 158. SSOE 4467. . 1120. 168. S41 • . 4980. 1203. • 153., •- S22 2200. 880. 102. S24. 2400. . 880. 107. S26 . 26.00. 8.80. 111. S33 3300. 880. 115. • S35 • • 3500. 880. 117. • '- S37 . 3700. 88.0. • S39 • . 3900. '.. 880. • • .1 ALPHA FACTORS - ROADWAY ACROSS,RECEIVER DOWN •• I 1* .0 .5 2* .0 .0 . . 3* .0 .5 4,* ••j .5 .• : -H I 5*.0 .0 • . 6* 5 5 7*.O 8* .0 .0 .0 9* .0 .0 . . 10* 0 .0 j'11 * .5 .0 . .• . ., . . 1/ 12 * .0. .0 • . - - 13* .0 .0 .• I 14 *. 15* .0 .0 .0 .0 . . . • . 16* .0 .0 . . -. 17* .0 .0 • * .0 -.0 I 18 19* .0.0 ... 3321* ° * 0 0 1 SHIELDING FACTORS.- ROADWAY ACROSS,RECEIVER DOWN 1*2.0 .0 2 *2.0 .0 .3 ' 3.O .0 4*3.0 .0 5*3.0 .0 6*9.03.0 7*9.0 .0 8*'.O .0 9 *10.0 .0 10 *10.0 .0 , 11 *10.0 .0 ' 12* .0 .0 13 *]M. 14*3.03.0 ., .0 15*3,03.0 , 16 *8,0 3.0 ' S 17* .0 .0 18*8,03.0 .19 *8,0 3.0 5 20 *80 .0 , 21* 8.0 3.0 22* 8.0 3.0 23 *10.0 3.0 24 *10.0 3.0 25 *10.0 3.0- 26 * '.0 .0 27 * .0 .0 28* .0 .0 29 .* 8.0 .0 . 30 8.0 .0 31*8.0 .0 . 32 * 8.0 .0 5 . 1OLIVENHAIN ROAD EAST FUTURE - OREFMIT - 04/25/91 - MITIGATION '.ORECEIVER LEQ(H) SIG L10 L50 L90 S WC37 ' 57.8 '3.6 60.9 56.3 51.7 5 5 5 WC37E WC35 61.9 56.5 4.2' 3.4 65.3 59.5 59.9 55.2 54.4 5 55 50.9 WC33 57...9 3.3 60.8 56.6 52.5 WC33E 60.6 ' 3.2 63.5 59.5 . 55.4 'S MEAS2 ' 57.2 2.8' 59.9 56.3 ' 52.7 5 5 BR16 58.0 3.6 61.2 56.5 51.9 5 REFBR 74.2 3.9 77.5 72.4' 67.4 3R4 59.8 . 3.5 62.9 58.3 53.8' BR4E 63.5 3.2 66.4 62.3 '58.2 5 '' THOMPSON 66.0 4.3 69.4 63.9 58.4-' SCURVE 70.3 3.0 73.1 69..3 65.,5 . S I OMWD . 71.1 3.2 .74.0 69.9. 65.8 58.4 2.2 60.6 57.9 55.1 I P26 P2 6E 61.6 2.5 64.1 60.8 57.6 P18 162.5 3.6 65.7 61.0 56.4 ..REFP.. P309 74.1 62.3 3.9 3.7 .77.3 65.5 72.4 60.7 67.4 55.9 P318 61.9 3.7 65.1 60.4 55.6 JACAR ,.. 61.9 4.2 65.3 59.8 54.4 P420 61.9 3.8 65.1 . 60.3. 55.4 ,I P420E 68.3 3,. 2 71.2 67.1 . 62.9 ..,S50 61.3 3.1 64.2 60.2 . 56.2 65.4 33 68.4 64.2 60.0 I S50E S41 61.9 . 3.,9 .. 65.1 60.2 . 55.2 S22 . 58.4 4.3, 61.7 56.3 50.8 S24 58.4 3.6 61.6 56.9 52.3 57.0 3.3 59.9 5•5.7 51.5 I S2.6 S33 . 56.1 3.6 59.3 54.6 49. S35 . 57.3 34 60.3 55.9 51.5 S37 . .57•9 34 60.9 56.5 52.2 S39 58.7 33 61.7 57.5.. 53.3 1 I 'I 1 S S S 'I Hi' H •' H I ' 1:. H 0 ,0 I 0 , 0 J O 0 •0•O 0 0 I 0• 0 •0 I. I • '1 0 PALEONTOLOGICAL' ASSESSMENT PROPOSED REALIGNMENT AND WIDENING OLIVENHAIN ROAD AND EL CAMINO REAL i I OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: BRIAN MOONEY AND ASSOCIATES 9903-B BUSINESS PARK AVENUE', SUITE B SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92131 PREPARED BY: • RMW PALEO ASSOCIATES I 23352 MADERO, SUITE 3 MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691 (14) 770-8042 • FAX (7 14) 458-9058 PROJECT NUMBER '90.-1207 'I 0 0 • • 0 H , .' ,0 " I 0 0 , AUTHOR • • • 0 RODNEY'E. RASCHKE "I •' 0' , 0 ,• , '0 0 • • 0 4 FEBRUARY 1991 I •. ,' 0 • •0 •, 0 ' ' • .1 • 0, 0 •0 , 0 • 'l' ' 0 0 0• • , 0 ,, •,, 0 INTRODUCTION The following presents the results of RMVPsassessinent of the paleontological resources along the proposed realignment and widening, of Olivenhain Road and El Camino Real, and construction of .a retention basin in Green Valley, Carlsbad, California (Figure U. The purpose of this report is to assess the known and potential paleontological resources within the study area. Pertinent geological and paleontological literature was reviewed for information on the paleontological resources within and near the study area.. A walkover survey of the property was performed in January 1990. STRATIGRAPHY AND PALEONTOLOGY Exposed within the study area are sedimentary rocks deposited in marine and nonmarine environments. These rocks record some of the major events that have shaped northern San Diego County. Marine and non-marine Eocene age (54 to 35 million years ago) rocks of the Santiago Formation are the oldest rocks exposed in the study area. These deposits were part of ,a barrier beach - lagoon complex, which formed along the shore of the Eocene sea that occupied San Diego County. At several localities in the Carlsbad and Camp Pendelton, areas sandstones assigned to the Santiago Formation have produced a large and diverse assemblage of terrestrial vertebrate fossils. At developments immediately to the north and west of the study area, significant assemblages of fossil vertebrates and invertebrates have been collected from the Santiago Formation. There are informal reports of fossils from the area immediately east of the study area. All of these assemblages have been recovered entirely from exposures created by grading activities. Invertebrate fossils were observed at seven localities along and near the alignment during this study. Forming a thin covering over the floor of the Green Valley is Quaternary age alluvium, the deposits of streams flowing 1 Pateonlology Figure 1 Archaeology Approximate Location of Road History Widening Project USGS Encinitas Quad 1968 Photorevised 1975 R M".T 23352 Madero. SteJ Mission Viejo. CA92691 USGS Rancho Santa Fe 1968 (714) 770-8342 Photorevised 1983 PakoAssodaics FAX (714) 45&W58 2 across the area. These deposits maybe as old as, 1.8 million years but are generally considered to be less than lO",OOOyears = old. Because of the geologic youth of these deposits, they are unlikely to contain significant fossils However, fossils of Ice Age animals are occasionally discovered in these deposits No fossils are known from these deposits in the vicinity of. the study .area. , Scattered exposures of Quaternary age marine deposits may be present in the study area These deposits have produced fossil invertebrates at localities to the west of the study. area There are no records of fossils from these marine deposits within or near the study area. FIELD SURVEY In January 1991, a walkover survey of the site :was.performed :1 by Dave Stevens of RMW During this survey natural and man-made - exposures were examined for exposed fossil remains Brush cover and current land uses restricted exposures to a small portion of the study area Excavations associated with development on I adjacent properties were also examined for fossils Fossils were located at seven locations during the field suivey '(Figure 2). CONCLUSIONS I The Santiago Formation contains significant fossils in the Carlsbad area. These fossils represent a significant resource. The abundance of fossils in the immediate vicinity of the study area indicates that the Santiago Formation has a high potential for the discovery of fossils during development. This strongly suggests that grading activities associated with this realignment. I and widening project will expose these fossils. However, these, activities will destroy these fossils The destruction of these fossils will be a significant adverse impact on the region's paleontological resources, because these fossils can provide information on the age of the Santiago Formation and the 3 'I. I I N - '-;J--\ -1ÔO' 200' • 4 • -. RMW -t -- PakoAssoc,aicc - * '11 1. - Lend. - - - - - T 126 Right-ofWay; bRU5H (Prefered Alternative No2 ) / / ru 2 too Ôtivenhaln Road . Disturbed Area Ln I diversity of life, in southern California during the Middle I Eocene. Proper mitigation measures can reduce this impact to an acceptable level. The Quaternary age marine terrace and alluvial deposits have a low potential for the discovery of fossils, because of the I: absence of fossils in the vicinity. Discovery of fossils in these - deposits would provide information on the age of th& marine I terrace deposits and alluvium. The destruction of fossils from these deposits would represent an adverse impact on the regions paleontological resources. Because the Quaternary deposits form a I covering of varying thickness over the study area, the entire study area should be considered to have .a high potential when implementing mitigation measures. If future geotechnical studies supplies information on the thickness of these deposits this can be revised as necessary. The following mitigation measures will reduce the adverse I impact of this project on the region's paleontological resources to an acceptable level. These mitigation measures have proven I .successful in protecting paleontological resources, while allowing the timely completion of many developments in southern I . California. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of excavations and, if necessary, salvage I exposed fossils. The frequency of inspections will depend on the rate of excavation, the materials being excavated, and the abundance of fossils. In areas of high potential monitoring shall I be full time, initially. . The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil to facilitate evaluation I and, if necessary, salvage. Due to the small nature of some fossils in the study area I it will be necessary to collect matrix samples for processing through fine mesh screens.'. I 4. Any fossils collected shall be prepared to the point of identification and properly curated before they are donated to their final repository. I 6 I I 5. All fossils collected should be donated to a public, .non- profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. If you have any questions or if we can be of additional servicedo not hesitate to contact us. I I I Respectfully, Rod Raschke I Certified Paleontologist 1 .1 I I I I. I I I .1 I I.. REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONTACTED REFERENCES Demere T.A. and: Boettcher R.S., 1985. Paleontology and biostratigraphy of middle Eocenenearshore marine sedimentary rocks, Leucàdia, San Diego County; California. in Abbott, P.L.(ed.) On the manner of deposition of the Eocene strata in northern San Diego County. San Diego Assoc. of Geologists Guidebook, pp. 49 - 54. Eisenberg, L.I. Pleistocene-faults and.rnarine terraces, northern San Diego County. in Abbott,' P.L.(ed.) On the manner of deposition of the Eocene strata in northern San Diego County San Diego Assoc. of Geologists Guidebook, pp. 87 - 92. Golz, D.J. and Liliegraven, J.A., 1977, Summary of known occurrences of terrestrial vertebrates from Eocene strata of southern California: Contributions to Geology, Univ. of Wyoming, v. 15, no. 1,.p. 43-65. Kennedy., M.P., 1975, Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, I .California, Section A Western San Diego Metropolitan Area Del Mar, La Jolla, and Point Loma 7 minute quadrangles: California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 200 A, pp. 1-39. I Kennedy, M.P. and Peterson, G.L., 1975, Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, Section B Western San Diego Metropolitan Area La Mesa, Poway, and SW Escondido 7 minute quadrangles: California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 200 B,-pp. 43-56.. . 1 Lillegraven, J.A., 1973, Terrestrial Eocene vertebrates from San Diego County, California: in Ross, A. and Dowlen, R.J., Studies on the geology and geologic hazards of the greater .I. San Diego Area., California San Diego Association of Geologists and Association of Engineering Geologists Guidebook for May 1973 Field Trip, pp. 27-32. Novacek, M.J., .1976, Insectivora and proteutheria of the later - Eocene (Uintan) of San Diego County, California: Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Contributions in I Science Number 283, p. 52. . . Weber, F.H., 19.63. Geology and Mineral Resources of San Diego .I County, California. Cal. Div. Mines and Geology, Co.unty Report 3, 309.p. PERSONS CONTACTED 0 Tom. Deméré San Diego Natural History Museum (619) 232-3821 ex. 230 I' 8 I. APPEr4Dx 12 HYDROLOGY, HYDRAULICS, AND I WATER QUALITY TECHNICAL REPORT (Nolte and Associates) HI I I .. . . O.LIVENHA.IN. ROAD E!R' I .' HYDROLOGY,.-HYDRAULICS, AND WATER QUALITY I. . ... . Prepared For: . I . . . . Brian F. Mooney ssoc.iates i ... . H I . . . . . . . • . . . • May 1991 . . :1 . 0 00.0.:' I. •. . . . 0 . . 1 0 • NOLTE and ASSOCIATES . . Engineers / Planners / Surveyors .0:..:,. . I I I I 7 I .: I TABLE OFCONTENTS Page I 1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . 1.1 Study Area S I 1 Scope 1.2 Background and of Work . 2.0 WATER QUALI . . 1.. 2.1 Background . • 2.2 Inland .Waters . 3 Groundwater 2:3 7 0 0 . 2.4 Sedimentation 0 . 8. 2.5 Analyses 2.6 Impacts • . . 9 0.0 • 2.7 Mitigation Measures . . . . 10 0 1. 3.0 HYDROLOGIc\HYDRAULIC ANALYSES . .0 3.1 Background • 3.2 Analyses S . 12 33 Impacts S 0. 14 3.4 Mitigation Measures 0 . 16 4.0 CONCLUSION/DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 0 . . • 17 0 0 0 5.0 REFERENCES 0 0 19 0 • 0 H 0' 1: TABLES 0 0 . 0 5 • • • . . 00 0 •• Table 1 Water Quality Objectives 4 Table 2 Bätiquitos Lagoon Water Quality 0 • • 7 : I FIGURES 0 .. S S 0 Figure 1 Project Site S S • 2 0 5 5 Figure 2 Batiquitos Lagoon Water Sampling Locations . 0 6 • 0 ,,• 5, 0 •, S. S 0. 0 5 0 • j. 0 0 0 1 I I I. ii 1.0 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION. Study Area The proposed widening of Olivenhain Road is located between El Camino Real and Rancho Sante Fe Road within the City of Encinitas and is approximately one mile in length (Figure 1). The proposed project is bordered by the City of carlsbad on the north and Encinitas Creek on the south. The project site is relatively flat, consisting of mild to moderate grades. A detention basin ("D") within the study area was proposed by Dr. Howard Chang [1] to attenuate the peak discharge of Encinitas Creek. This proposed detention basin is located south of Olivenhairi Road near the intersection with Rahcho Sante Fe Road and encompasses approximately 11 acres (Figure 1). 1.2 Background and Scope of Work Olivénhain Road currently consists of two lanes from El Camino Real to the western edge of the Willowhaven development and widens to four lanes to Rancho Sante Fe Road. The City of Encinitas is proposing to widen Olivenhain Road to six lanes through the study area. Four alternative alignments have been suggested for the project [2]. This study concentrated on alignment 2, but noted any impacts that the other alignments would present to the water quality and hydraulics within the study area The scope of work included analyzing potential impacts to and proposing mitigation measures for surface and groundwater quality due to grading and road construcon, hydrology of EIiLIIJiLdS LWeIc. dilU DdLIUILUS LdUUII resU Ung,IlUlui VVIUlIIII5 JIlvuuIIa,Iu IwaU, QIIJ lVIVVuuI5 Encinitas Creek's hydraulics within the study area. Existing water quality data for groundwater, Encinitas Creek, and Batiquitos Lagoon were collected to assist in the water quality analysis. In addition, 11 we analyzed the impacts of the construction of detention basin "D" as described in the Drainage Study for Encinitas Creek [1]. The hydrological analysis studied impacts to 1 PROJECT SITE SAN MARCOS CREEK BAliQUrrOS LAGOON Ø•U0CSU0 0 - - ••• LA COSTA AvENtE - •*e PROJECT SITE I OUVENHAIN ROAD DIA \ DETENTION BASIN . I Encinitas Creek and flow characteristics underneath the bridge at El Camino Real Water I. quality issues included the potential for degradation, :of fresh wàtèr flows and reduced sediment transport downstream of the detention basin The probable loss of habitat during the initial construction of the basin was also addressed..,,. 2.0' WATER QUALITY 2.1 Background Encinitas Creek empties into Batiquitos Lagoon, therefore, impacts to the creek due to widening Olivénhain Road may directly affect the lagoon. The water quality standards of Encinitas :Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon are stipulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and are listed in, Table 1. These two bodies of water are within subunit 4.52 of,the Carlsbad Hydrographic Unit (4.00) of the San Diego Basin [3] . 2.2 ' Inland Waters Encinitas. Creek has a drainage basin of approximately 7.3. square mil e" s and enters Batiquitos. Lagoon under La Costa Avenue in Carlsbad, California The Encinitas Creek drainage basin I makes up only 14% of the total Batiquitos Lagoon watershed, and of the total Encinitas Creek "drainage basin, only .a 0.6 square. mile sub-basin is affected by the proposed project. No study has been performed which discusses the impacts of existing or proposed conditions within the Encinitas. Creek 'watershed on the water quality entering Batiquitos Lagoon. Research : of RWQCB and San- Diego County Health Department records have 'revealed that no surface 1 ' water quality tests have been performed for Encinitas Creek. I Batiquitos Lagoon enters the Pacific Ocean between the City of Carlsbad and the community 2 ," •. of Leucadia. The lagoon waters are extremely shallow (6 to 12 inches 1 I TABLE1 I.. WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES [1] CONSTITUENT . INLAND SURFACE WATER . GROUNDWATER. Total Dissolved Solids 500 1000 Chlorides S 250 fl 400 .. % Sodium . 60 . 60 - Sulfates 250 . . 500 ... ' Nitrates 10 Iron S 0.3: , : 0.3 .. Manganese 0.05 .. . 0.05...4 '.tvtethyléne'Bltie . s 0.5 . 0.5' Active Substances (MBAS) Boron . . 0:50 S'.. '• . 0.50 Odor . Non S None Turbidity (JTU) 20 . S -, 5 ... .. S Color (Units). . ' 20 15 : Fluoride - '• . •'. 1.0 Concentrations not to 'be' exceeded' more than 1 0% of the time, during any one year period (mg/I or as noted). 1: S S S 55 1 I I in depth) and are normally blocked from tidal exchange by a naturally created' beach berm just west of the Pacific Coast Highway. After majorstorm flooding, the ocean entrance may remain open for brief periods, allowing some tidal exchange to take place. As the natural sand bar becomes reestablished and the ocean entrance closes, the lagoon becomes landlocked until.the next major storm [4]. During the dry summer months, evaporation rates exceed stream inflow and the water level gradually recedes. Salinities increase, but some fresh water flow continues to enter the lagoon from San Marcos Creek and, to a lesser extent, Encinitas Creek. In dry years, upper Batiquitos Lagoon becomes a dry, alkaline flat with only a small central area of shallow water. The RWQCB performed routine sampling inBátiquitos Lagoon monthly from January. 1979 thru December 1982 Water samples were collected at three locations the mouth of San Marcos Creek; along the south shore of the upper lagoon; and in the lower lagoon (Figure 2).. All of the stations are located in shallow water with. Station B being subject to dry conditions during portions of the year. . Water samples were analyzed by RWQCB for the following parameters: total phosphate, orthophosphate, nitrite, ammonia, total organic nitrogen, total dissolved residue, turbidity conductivity, total suspended solids; volatile suspended sediment, and settleable residue. Table .2 shows the nutrient values for the study period. All other test results were so variable from year to year' that no correlation could be made. We' were are primarily concerned with test data from Station B since freshwater influence from Encinitas Creek would have the largest impact on this area of the lagoon. 5 BATIQUITQ.S LAGOON WATER: SAMPLING LOCATIONS I I TABLE '2 BATIQUITOS LAGOON WATER QUALITY (JANUARY 1979 TO DECEMBER"1982) CONSTITUENT EASTERN BASIN WESTERN BASIN I Summer Winter Summer Winter Total Phospahtés (mg/!) 0.50 0.36 034 0.23. Tothl ln6rgani6 Nitrogen (mg/I) 1.58 199 0.85 1:47 I Total Organic Nitrogen (mg/I 4.22 2.01 2.42 2.00 ChlorophylIa (gil) 12.00 ' 4.30 5.30 5.10' I 'Salinity (ppt) '" "186 -158 31.8 24.8 Turbidity UTU) ' ' ' " 26 60 10 29 RWQCB [5] I "4 2.3 Groundwater I There have beéi'i no test borings performed to determine the depth or quality of groundwater within the study area. Because of the proxirnit" of the study area to othecoastl plains of the Carlsbad Hydrogràphic .Unit it can be assumed that the groundwater will be similar in chemical composition. Groundwater that -occurs within the coastal plains is generally high in I sodium chloride and has a high' concentration of T6taI Dissolved Solids (TDS) that range from 500 to 5,000 m/l [3]. The poor chemical 'quality 'of the groundwater is probably a 'result of 1 ' brackish' waters' that Occur in Batiquitos Lagoon. However, another possible source of the, chemical content may' be the' result of sea water or1connate water migrating into the alluvium because of over-pumping from the 'groundwater reservoir. The RWQCB's water quality, objctives for., roundwater 'tests are listed' in Table 1. ' ' •.: ' Fifteen shallow water wells were installed around Batiquitos Lagoon to study.the.wáter. table's [ effect on surrounding vegetation [6]. The water level and 'salinity for. each well was measur'ed I I 1 in August and October, 1984. The proposed widening of Olivenhain Road is not expected to have any influence on these two parameters. . I 2.4 Sedimentation I Presently, there are no significant erosion problems occurring within the study area. Current agriculture activity within the Encinitas Creek watershed contributes to some erosive soil loss. However, most irrigation and soil preparation practices are designed to minimize soil loss. [1 The existing. sediment load for Encinitas Creek was previously estimated by CH2M Hill [7] to be 12,940 tons per year fines (silts and clays) and 6,295 tons per year sands. Existing land cover for the sediment study was interpreted from aerial photographs dated February 1988 and the sediment load was estimated using the Universal Soil Loss Equation. Dr. Howard Chang has proposed construction of a detention basin [1] south of Olivenhain Road, just west of Rancho Santa Fe Road and east of the; subdivision Bridgewater, to provide adequate flood attenuation so that the reduced discharge may pass through the bridge at El Camino Real (Figure 1). In addition to providing flood attenuation, the detention basin would lower the sediment load carried by Encinitas Creek. Presently, detention basins "B". and "A" are located approximately 500 and 2600 feet, respectfully, upstream of Rancho Santa Fe Road. 2.5 Analyses . There have been no previous Environmental Impact Reports ([IRs) written for, Encinitas Creek within the study area that address water quality parameters. It is therefore not possible to compare existing or proposed water quality conditions with RWQCB objectives. (Table 1). Batiquitos Lagoon has been studied in the. past for water quality parameters and. environmental concerns. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board has, compiled a draft review of nutrient standards for coastal lagoons within the San Diego Region [3]. Westec Services, Inc. prepared an EIR.in 'September 1983 for the Hunt properties annexation to the City of Carlsbad - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Ruiz 40. The proposed project alignment preferred h referred by bo the èitie of'Encinitas and Carlsbad for —2— January 6, 1992 . Olivenhain Road shall follow Alignment 02, as depicted on Figure 2.3-1 (Page 11-14) of Lilis Elk. d. Provide an alignment for Olivenhain Road such that it will be compatible with the future alignment of SA 680 - to the west and for SA 680 to the east. e. Provide the appropriate number of left-turn lanes for . . . the following left-turn movements: From El Camino Real to Olivenhain Road. - From Olivenhain Road to El Casino Real. 4. The alignment of Olivenhain Road should follow the alignment on the attachment. - Thank.you for' the opportunity to comment on this draft. If you. • .have questions .regar.di our omments', lease contc Bill ttoebdn of DPW, Route Loca€ions'at (619) 694-3244 or Maggie Loy of the DPW . . Environmental 'Services Unit at (619) 694-2829; 'Very truly yOurs, • • • ' . • .- . •.. • •: ': SHARON JASEK REID, Deputy Director • . -. • Department of Public Works - • • SJR:MAI.. • . - - . • - • Attachment . • - -- I - - - • - • -' . - • • , • • - GO / . . ....... 4 34 zc L A M A C A RE • WE CD , Fcmz—)F>3:: 10. i I Cfi R 4 ND4 I N N 3290/7 440C _7/S ___I \ L L. 289.27.. L/77rJ I - _ \