Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 00-02; CALAVERA HILLS II; VERTICAL ALIGNMENT ANALYSIS; 2000-10-31I V Croc-oz I V VERTICAL ALIGNMENT ANALYSIS • , V FOR PORTIONS OF BRIDGE & THOROUGHFARE DISTRICT NO.4 NEAR THE COLLEGE BOULEVARD/CANNON ROAD INTERSECTION I . . iV VV V V. V Prepared for: I City of Carlsbad V V 1635 Faraday. Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008-7314 RECEIVED V V r"v 2. 2000 I V V CITY OF CARLSBAD V V V PLANNING DEPT. I V V V V Prepared By: V V FRASER V V ENGINEERING, INC. I V V 2191 El Camino Real V Suite 208 V I EUpdated October 31,- 2000 I .1 -..: I Vertical Alittnment Analysis for a Portion of Bride & Thoroughfare District No.4 - ON of Carlsbad FRASER ENGINEERING, INC. - TABLE OF CONTENTS I . Topic Page Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1. I Description of Project Area ................................................................................ of i . Description Alternatives................................................................................. 1. StudyApproach ................................................................................................2. I Design Criteria ..................................................................................................2. DesignEvaluation............................................................................................. I . Summar/............................................................................................................a. I .. . • Appendix: Exhibits 0 Exhibit A: Project Location Map Exhibit B: Alternatives 1-4 (Plan and Profile) I . . Prepared by O'Day Consultants Exhibit C: Alternatives 1-4 (Plan and Profile) Prepared by Fraser Engineering, Inc. I Exhibit D: Figure 3G-2 Existing Biological Resources . Prepared by RECON I. 0 - • I I I I I I - September 5, 2000 . I Vertical Alignment Analysis for a Portion of Bridge & Thoroughfare District No.4 1 City of Carlsbad FRASER ENGINEERING. ?NC I INTRODUCTION: I .This report was prepared at the request of the City of Carlsbad to analyze four (4) vertical alignment alternatives for College Boulevard and Carnon Road near the proposed intersection of these roadways. The proposed vertical alignment alternatives for College Boulevard north of the I proposed intersection and Cannon Road west of the proposed intersection were prepared by O'Day Consultants. The proposed vertical alignment alternatives for College Boulevard south of the proposed intersection and Cannon Road east of the proposed intersection were prepared by Fraser Engineering, Inc. using the information presented by O'Day Consultants listed above. I The purpose of this report is to evaluate the vertical alignment alternatives of these roadways based on engineering, environmental, aesthetic, and other pertinent criteria, and to recommend I an alignment based on this evaluation. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA: Bridge & Thoroughfare District No. 4 is located within Local Facilities Management Plans (LFMP) fo r I Zones 7, 14, and 15 in the City's northeast quadrant as shown in Exhibit A - Project Location Map. This report is concerned with the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road and the effects on Cannon Road approximately 1400 feet east and west of the proposed intersection and I College Boulevard approximately 800 feet north and 1700 feet south of the proposed intersection. The entire Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 consists of the following major sectors: College Boulevard I Reach A: From El Camino Real intersection to proposed Cannon Road Intersection. Reach B&C: From Cannon Road Intersection to Carlsbad Village Drive Intersection. Cannon Road I . Reach 3: From El Camino Real Intersection to proposed College Boulevard intersection. Reach 4: From College Boulevard intersection to existing Cannon Road at Leisure Village in the City of Oceanside. I DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES: I The vertical alignments consist of four (4) alternatives described as Alternatives 1-4. These alternatives present differing vertical alignments for the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road. All of the alternatives utilize the same horizontal alignment. In some cases, comparisons are made to the current (base design) intersection elevation of 88.26. I ALTERNATIVE This alternative represents a modification of the original vertical alignment prepared by O'Day Consultants for McMillin Homes, the developer of Calavera Hills. The centerline intersection elevation has been lowered from 88.26 to 83.27, which results in a fill of approximately I , 12 feet at the intersection. This alternative provides for the roadway elevations to be above the proposed high water elevation of the proposed Detention Basin BJB (74.0 +1-). This alternative represents the highest elevation of the intersection I ALTERNATIVE This alternative lowers the centerline intersection elevation to 74.56, which is slightly higher than the high water elevation for proposed Detention Basin BJB. While reducing the III required at the intersection, this alternative increases the cut necessary east and south of the I intersection to match this intersection elevation. The resulting fill at the intersection is approximately 3-4 feet. This alternative represents a mid-range of the intersection elevation. ALTERNATIVE 3: This alternative lowers the centerline intersection elevation as low as possible to .. I an elevation of 66.58. This elevation is lower than the high water elevation of proposed Detention Basin BJB and a berm will need to be constructed either as part of the roadway or as part of the September 5, 2000 I I Vertical Alignment Analysis for a Portion of Bridge & Thoroughfare District No.4 City of Carlsbad FRASER ENGINEERING. ?XC. I Detention Basin. This proposed centerline elevation requires a cut of approximately 5 feet at the I intersection. This elevation, combined with the proposed outlet structure for the Detention Basin, will not allow future utilities (water, sanitary sewer, reclaimed water, etc.) to be constructed within the proposed intersection. These utilities will need to be located beyond the toe of the cut/fill slopes for the roadway. This alternative represents the lowest elevation of the intersection. I ALTERNATIVE 4: This alternative lowers the centerline elevation to 72.03, which is slightly lower than the high water elevation for the Detention Basin (74.0), and will require a small berm for the I Detention Basin. As with alternatives 1 and 2, this alternative allows construction of future utilities within the roadway section. The proposed fill at the intersection is approximately 1 foot. As with alternative 2, this alternative represents a mid-range of the intersection elevation. I STUDY APPROACH: In order to evaluate each of the vertical alignment alternatives, it is necessary to establish the I critical ranking criteria. The goal of the analysis was to compare each alternative with the selected ranking criteria and to "rank" each alternative according to a sliding scale of most desirable to least desirable. After ranking each alternative in all criteria categories, an overall ranking of each alternative will be established and a recommendation given for the most desirable alternative. RANKING CRITERIA The ranking criteria for this report was established by Fraser Engineering, Inc. based on an I understanding of the project goals and past experience on similar projects. For purposes of this report, the following ranking criteria was established: Earthworks: Evaluation is based on several factors including cut and fill volumes, I increase (decrease) in total quantities, and height of cut/fill slopes; Right of Way: Evaluation is based on several factors including total area required, slope and drainage easements necessary, and construction easements necessary; 3 Future Utilities: Evaluation is based on the ability to construct future utilities within the road right of way and/or easements; 4. Road Geometrics: Evaluation is based on several factors including horizontal and vertical I . curve lengths, grades into and out of the intersection, vertical curve location in relation to the proposed intersection and changes in grade; I s. Safety: Evaluation is based on several factors including driver comfort, sight and stopping distance, and potential driver distractions; Aesthetics: Evaluation is based on several factors including visual effects and cut/fill I slope treatment; Effects on Adjacent Parcels: Evaluation is basedon several factors including access, drainage, aesthetics, and future development potential; Environmental: Evaluation is based on several factors including type of impact (riparian Woodlands, wetlands, etc.), mitigation potential, increase (decrease) in the amount of environmental land takes necessary, and the overall effect on entire project; Cost: Evaluation is based on several factors including current construction costs, life cycle costs, potential increase (decrease) in costs, and future maintenance effects. I I 2 September 5, 2000 I Vertical Alignment Analysis for a Portion of Bridge & Thoroughfare District No. 4 City of Carlsbad . FRASER ENGINEERING. INC. 1 The above-mentioned criteria will also be given a "weight factor" based on known importance of I each category. For purposes of this report, the following "weight factors" have been established: Earthworks: Weight Factor = 2 I Right of Way: Weight Factor = 1 Future Utilities: Weight Factor = 1' I .4. Road Geometrics: Weight Factor = 1 5. Safety: Weight Factor = 2 6.. Aesthetics: Weight Factor = 2 . Effects on Adjacent Parcels: Weight Factor = 2 Environmental: Weight Factor = 3 9. Cost: Weight Factor,= 2 . Each alternative will be evaluated in each category and given a ranking factor from 1 (least I desirable) to 4 (most desirable). This ranking, will be multiplied by the weight factor and a numerical value of each alternative established (lowest number being the least desirable and highest number being the most desirable). In categories where O'Day rankings and Fraser rankings differ, an evaluation of the most critical condition will be made and an "Overall" ranking established, for those particular categories. Based on this evaluation, a recommendation will be given for the most desirable alternative. I DESIGN EVALUATIONS: . . . The alternatives will be ranked in two (2) areas: College Boulevard north of the proposed intersection and Cannon Road west of the proposed intersection designated as O'Day, and College Boulevard south of the proposed intersection and Cannon Road east of the proposed intersection - designated as Fraser. . . . CATEGORY ALT ALT2 ALT3 •ALT4 Earthworks . O'Day A 1 2 4 . 3 I (F:435,000 cy) (F:363,000 cy) (F:331,000 cy)' (F:344,000 cy) Fraser -. I (F-.2,-700 cy) (C:88,800 cy) (C: 146,900 cy) (C:69,900 cy) Overall . . • 1 3 2 4 I . X Wt Factor (2) 2 .• 6 4 8. Alternative 4 was selected as the most desirable based on the overall balance of cut/fill quantities (Fraser portion) for each alignment, and the overall balance of cut/fill quantities (O'Day portion) for each alignmerit based on an intersection elevation of 88.26 (base design). Since both the O'Day I and Fraser portions of the project include other roadway and earthwork quantities, it is not, practical to compare earthworks between the O'Day and Fraser portions of this analysis'. Alternative 2 I • - represents the second most desirable based on the same analysis. Alternatives I and 3 represent the largest discrepancy between the O'Day and Fraser sections. . I 3 . . September 5, 2000 II I Vertical Alignment Analysis for a Portion of Bridge & Thoroughfare District No. 4 ON of Carlsbad FRASER ENGINEERING, INC I. CATEGORY ALTI ALT2 ALT3 ALT4 Right of Way O'Day. 1 3 2 I . (-062 ac) (-1.47 ac) (-1.25 ac) (-1.59 ac) Fraser 4 3 1 2. I Overall (+1.28 ac) (+1.42 ac) (+1.80 ac) (+1.61 ac) 1 4 2 3 (+0.66 ac) (405 ac) (+0.55 ac) (+0.02 ac) I X Wt Factor (2) 2 . 8 4 6 The acreage flgures given in the O'Day alternatives represent the decreased amount acreage I . necessary for each alignment based on an intersection elevation of 88.26 (base design). The acreage figures listed in the Fraser alternatives represent the increased amount acreage necessary for each alignment based on an intersection elevation of 88.26 (base design). Alternative 2 was selected as the most desirable based on the least amount of right of way necessary based on the I combined (Fraser and O'Day) sections. The remaining alternatives represent the amount of right of way required in declining order (4, 3, then 1) I CATEGORY . ALTI ALT2 ALT3 ALT4 Future Utilities . . O'Day .4 4 1 . 4 I Fraser 4 . 4 . 1 4 . I . Overall . 4 .,. 4 1 . XWt Factor (1) 4 4 1 4 .This section is based on the fact that you either can or can't construct future utilities within the I roadway section, hence, alternatives 1, 2, and 4 receive maximum value and alternative 3 receives minimum value . I CATEGORY - ALTI ALT2 . ALT3 ALT4 Road Geometrics i O'Day 4 .. . 1 2 I . .. Fraser 4 3 1 2 I . Overall . 3 1 2 XWt Factor (1) 4 3 1 2 .Alternate 1 was selected as the most desirable based on incoming and outgoing slopes at the I intersection as well as proximity of vertical curves to the intersection. Alternative 3 is least desirable as vertical curves extend into the intersection. Alternatives 2 and 4 create additional low points in I Cannon Road west of the intersection, but represent more desirable geometrics than alternative 3. I ., ,.,... . . - . . 4 . . September 5, 2000 I I Vertical Alignment Analysis for a Portion of Bridge & Thoroughfare District No. 4 ON of Carisbad FRASER ENGINEERING, LVC CATEGORY ' ALT I ALT 2 ALT3 ALT 4 Safety O'Day S 4 3 1 2 Frser 4 . 3' 1 '2 Overall 4 3 1 2 XWtFactor(3)' 12 9 3 6.. Safety and road geometrics go, hand in hand. Driver discomfort and potential driver distractions were I. . 'less prevalent in Alternative 1 . CATEGORY ALTI . ALT ALT3 ALT4 I Aesthetics O'Day . 1 2 4 3 I " Fraser ' 1 4 2 3 Overall , 1 3 2 4 I . X Wt Factor (2) 2 6 4 8 The aesthetic values were based on the exposure of the cut/fill slopes not only at the intersection, but in the.adjacent roadways as well. When the aesthetic values were combined, Alternative 4 was 1 judged as the most desirable CATEGORY .' ALT I ALT 2 ALT3 ALT 4 I ' Effects on Adjacent Parcels .. . . . O'Day 1 ' 2 4 . 3 - I ' Fraser 2 . 4 1 ' 3 Overall 1 2 3 4 I , X Wt Factor (2) 2 , 4 6 8 ' Alternative 4 was judged as most desirable when balancing site access for all adjacent parcels. The' remaining alternatives were ranked based on the overall effect of site access and utilities ' 1 , CATEGORY ALT ALT2 ALT3 ALT4 ' Environmental I •. O'Day 2 4., 1 . '3 (-0.03 ac) (-0.08 ac) (+0.25 ac) (-0.08 ac) I ' . Fraser , , . (402 ac) (-0.02 ac) (-0.01 ac) (-0.O2 c) ' Overall ' 2 4 1 3 I. ••' ' (405 ac) (-0.10 ac) (+0.24ac) (-0.10 ac) "XWt Factor (3) 6 12 . 3 9 , 1 .. ... 5 September 5, 2000 1 1 , . • . ' ': * • - . . . I Vertical Alignment Analysis for a Portion of Bridge & Thoroughfare District No.4 City f Carlsbad FRASER ENGINEERING, ?X I . The acreage figures given in the O'Day and Fraser portions represent an increase (+) or decrease(-) I n the amount of acreage necessary based on an intersection elevation of 88.26 (base design). Where identical acreage numbers are given, the ranking represents actual sqare footage. Alternative'2 was judged as most desirable based on the overall effect on all of the environmental, concerns, including net decrease or increase in environmental takes required and effect on sensitive areas (riparian woodlands, wetlands, etc.). The remaining alternatives were also ranked accordingly. CATEGORY ALTI ALT2 ALT ALT4 I .. Cost O'Day. 1' 2 3 . 4 I Fraser 4 2 1 3' Overall 1 3 2 . 4 I .X Wt Factor (3) 3 9 6 12 Alternative 4 was judged as the most desirable based 6n estimated costs associated with. I - earthworks, right of way, environmental, future maintenance, and future utilities - ALTI ALT2 ALT3 ALT4 ' TOTAL ' 37 61 , 32 63 I . ' RANKING ' - 2 . 3 1 4 - I . SUMMARY: The evaluation of the four (4) vertical alternatives indicates that alternatives 2 and ' I . 4 appear to be the most desirable alternatives. These two 'alternatives represent the "mid range" of the intersection elevations, while alternative 1 represents the higher elevation and alternative 3 represents the lower elevation. The "mid range" elevations represent a "balance" of cut/fill, right of way, and other factors while alternatives 1 and 3 represent the extremes. Based on the above-mentioned design criteria and the weighted value of the criteria, the ranking for the alternatives is as follows: I ' Most Desirable Alternative 4 Second Most Desirable Alternative 2 ' I 'Third Most Desirable 'Alternative 1 Least Desirable ' Alternative 3' The summary and evaluation is subject to the criteria established for this analysis. The results may vary based on revised criteria and/or revised weight factors. .' I 6 September 5, 2000 , - . . I Vertical Alignment Analysis for a Portion of Bridge & Thoroughfare District No.4 City of Carlsbad FRASER ENGINEERING, INC I . . . . I I APPENDIX . EXHIBIT A Project Location-Map I Prepared EXHIBIT B . Alternatives 1-4 (Plan and Profile) by O'Day Consultants I EXHIBIT C Alternatives 1-4 (Plan and Profile)' Prepared by Fraser Engineering, Inc I EXHIBIT D Figure 3G-2 Existing Biological Resources. Prepared by RECON . I I H . . I I I I APPENDIX EXHIBITS 1 September 5 2000 I . .,. I Vertical AIinment Analysis for a Portion of Bridge & Thoroughfare District No. 4 City of Carlsbad - FASER ENGINEE.PJM, INC. I I. . . EXHIBIT I - . Project Location Map I - I I--- •- I I I Vertical Alianment Analysis for a Portion of Bridge & Thoroughfare District No. 4 City of Carlsbad F&4SER ENGrnEERI, INC. I, PROJECT T VIloy Center Vista : Oceanside' . San Marcos Escondido Carlsbad\ . Ramona Encinitas e.4 RS;ICIIU / Bernardu f Rancho f Santa Fe I Del Mar Poway' Mira Mesa -. . Santee 7. I 52. -AM -- La Jolla -.. Alpine El Cajon 1 La Mesa San Diego Lemo Gr ye . LVLS1Lfl Approximate Scale I 1"=2 miles I - I Citv of Carlsbad . EXHIBIT A September 5, 2000 I I NI tj Rill SHEET 2 OF 8 SHEETS PROFiLE — COLLEGE BL W. 4L Aim—.;:: low Or 1400W 110ow Wow £#W #X fzw WOW IJ7#0 IJ&W r5P#W 1.X 1014W fSpow l0J#W 1044W faf#W 14W 1174W 14W PROFiLE — CANNON RD. How _,•_ lx' IfRT—l'-IO' ©2000 O'Day Consultants, Inc. ALTERNA77VE 7 PROFILE COLLEGE BL kV. & CANNON RD. a4!Fhe4 .lLY. CONSULT TS — s_. IG PQ Ga flO 7S3-93I-fl S#.y..9 raE 710-031-8600 gO X 74.9 - I.67 0 .59.39 .6513 • ,924 I I I I I II I I II I I I I I I i ®2000 O'Day Consultants, Inc. -. ) II• ' ° - 1NY940 I 'I 702 ...•... OCj\JSIDE JRLEJE) K * ' 0 ••••••.. i1 — - 2 •:9V % N !I L.iWOiV RIcH 5CHLL)L 51\ N 61 lb ____ UI - 7ZX1 / 1 007 7 "° V ,\ \-\. • li__I ••... x:027 • I!I6 1 16 OAS= AMWWWrWr i 01i - 0 RORT5Oi'V5 BY SOLO AMW SUPIM ••••.-' 6 .79 F4)\ICH •: S • __ a4JW Ur 843 I 'J amvRm on 1 • /--: • . 499 •.. • • : • V \ --- - \\ 666 QZJfiF&iR AWLT Mr 60 X608 \ &\ "\i\ -- •.013 XNQ 6110 • - • . • . . P/ -- ORL t . • •.. •. - x - '0., 2<- 69.5 - . • • - 2(722.9 - • 59.6 . . • - 0 . - x • . . . • x - '20 "0 SHEET 3 OF 9 SHEETS *I0T7'AT NUMUMOSAFIGAIMP A T c4gaw RR Rae mw am= WPV MS= 2OU A40 OUNW AACEM 34lL fir QUNW WL ALTERNATiVE 2 PLAN :3- COLLEGE BLVD. & - CANNON RD.. zwjrY ;w,,wm*mr4m mw CONSULT ArN IS &q 700-931-7400 9.#•o C.'SOSVSPQOJ\901020'DVG\CAL*V&49fl404461.QvG 9-5-00 753.58 p.. r I.Lkj JJI • 3UXOc#JI Fes - =- -- -.•• --------1-- ..._.L1 ---k ._ - - - _____ - ___ - Yy 70 WA V - - - / - t*.v am -3 I IV7IfII Aah2MvftI 1 - WW-wpm fm 5=0 r v r ; I _-__-_--_-i_-•----_ au XWO Fit _.-1 ___ . I. .. ii -.- .• . .• _IIILjIII of N Ou ~#Vu -__ iiIiIiI.7II.1IE . —I- 319 MWO9 ;- -- - - -: - ----- • ------.. -----_ - • ----- / . (. a C C 0 .5 8 (3 0 C. © L . . - - - - - - - - - - - - -S. - - - - - - Q2000 O'Day Consultants, Inc. : 0 S107 5 OF 9 SHE 'I i 0 •, Oi\'lLE cARL4D iWOiV llOH SCHOOL D/ST/I\ ,y '0 7' 14*0897 I, J1Il•-low —L27W2EWR '• 7 V Afrnmwm?.. Ir,;7 77<; it F \' 84.3 I ' / - . £S £Z '2 • / ., .. •\ \ 9 668 :9 . 12. a ir• .r . , : • . 4IW #R PAMM JMN 1460.8 . x l . *6.8 ALTERNATiVE 3 6110 PLAN RA I\ /CHO CJZFRLSB/W 6 COLLEGE BL VD. & 100 CANNON RD. x - 69.5 . . 6' X 122,9 59, 0 'i' S CONSULT IS - • S. - 5 - •S - — p__s c_t 0. ('q I - 5- • - ' S.. • - - ii S - C.d. 6 92 - •• - -• '0 -. - • • I • 86O-93l—" S....q 5 - - . 5 ..• S - r: 760—UI 6060 GSDtXSP90J98I0OS0GSCA&tP*'90ZZ620'd 9-5-03 4,I43 . I UUU U uay t.OnSuJtan. Inc. 7-fl-a I!5.I3 SHEET7OP9S//EETSJ 0 X73 ! - 14, ) + OC4i\J5IDE — I WION HIGH SCHJ GL Dill- 0 x MSW Ur 6115 6&6 \ ' . 7 7" 0 0 _' 071 D SAM u a .'FWM \ X 23.3 . •.. —. . \'r- ROBER 15 ON'S MW A709M ': ': £" ,Z •...., ___:. \ 2IV -, . \. - . ACES a. AU D,'] \ // / I .. ''S /. ' ' .tø• . IL'—i I YL [7 ...• I I adw W, /7 A 83 ,- /fft/' 2' " \ ' 1V..• \. / ; 7 • ., . •., 7 - .. .. . .. I .-- \ . '\s 56.6 .5 5•••••: ' ,/., /' . L-MW a ia Awr zF w '4V \S X - 7). 7 çOVfl 1 ,. 7 /.°; :. V..-- I \ \54' .• + 00 /'/. . •\,. ' 6.8 lop / - g 6170 Cr •• 60 PANCHO ciRLSJD -00001 ', - 110 C2000 O'Day Consultants. Inc. *NXT STAJU i?4T NV L44V S VfWZaW A W1flY MV= ZOO AAV MUNT FAfl 94L E QE4WM HI ALTERNATiVE 4 PLAN 0 COLLEGE BLVD. & CANNON RD. wxarmmanae .ur. . t?A7 C'TT , 0 000 06 C C.i. Q2 7-931-,700 s..-.,., r.., 700-5)1-6888 5.SS0SVP0JS00I820S0VGSCMAVtPA9020ZZ63 DVG 9-9-68 4.3706 p. SHEET 8 01'8 SHEETS ____ __ ____ _i•__1_••••__ __ ____ __ __ ______ my 57A - S L Ram my api- :ai S UI coop ow )( mu 9XRt# Ffl e AMW LAU m am MOM it it Flo too aum Fo PIUMV - my LA 514 -, 119#47. I LAaz- I 7 14711W fa,#x fO#X (#X 1X 1X !W 1W IfO..X III#X II21-X Iljw 114 II50W If6#X 1l70 II8#4X 119#W I#X W+W t PROFiLE — COLLEGE SL LED. SCALE , .78 -low I.. 02000 O'Day Consuttants, Inc. m sm -7L97 Lp a" 67M Li_Li [liii_Liii __ __EILTLLLL __h_L ,Ag#tv fW#X I50 - - I31#W I: fsyw- - 15I - I#X IX I574 I -W IX loom I814 I*yX Wow f$4#X I# I#W f417#0 two PROF7LE -CANNON RD. -- - . • -- ALTERNATiVE 4 PROFILE COLLEGE BL kV. & CANNON RD. a4s PWAUML .arz - ~S? IS 9980 0a. 041 04 9.4. 80 P-q C. 04.* 92 P7.q 760-931-7780 t 760-931-0480 -4 r.',0OflPP0JS9010200WGSCNA4EP4S902OZZ67 USC 7-fl-S II. -- _________ _- SEC flON f;eT- 1- 20 80 I . 60 50 I I I I I I I. I 1 I I ©2000 O'Day Consultants, Inc. SHE(T9OFPSHEETSI loo 74ME 90 80 60 l(r 4T /CHCI CARL5BAD CALA VERA HILLS - BKNCHMARK O3OFTfr S7AWM-tO S77 'WE -a C~WA W. /f \\ AT 5TATØV 4# el~s, ____ PT i NO.32OI4l C LT')TS kv l*fIflJa/J CMM DAM) OLVATh3N M4?P OAftWU-=&aS GEMM ww RM- 3Ml4 I Vertical Alignment Analysis for a Portion of Bridge & Thoroughtre District No.4 Citv of Carlsbad ThAsER E, rnERrnG, INC. I . EXHIBIT Alternatives 14 (Plan and Profile) Prepared by Fraser Engineering, Inc. . .' I .1 .: ,.. I ,... . I I . . I ft I I September 5, 2000 PM STA - 135+36.57 - 104.40 A.D. - -1.90 . . K - 157.89 00' vc LOW POINT ELEV - 77.80 PM. STA - 14.3+25.45 LOW POINT STA - 146+60.01 V1 ELEV - BM73 PM STA - 147+02.23 AO. - 2.00 PM E1.EV - 76.97 ~I 0 ........................................(-.125.00.............................A.Q,3O2 ...-... + ...............________ 250.00 VC'- . 82.78 .. . I ' ............................................- . . . ''' 250.00' VC - .... .\ ......... . ...................K,,- ........................ ' . ........................................................................- 1 77 '. . . .. '-. ... . PROPOSE GRADE AT CL . ....................................1- EXISThIG GRADE AT (3,. —I ... -, * * ** * 4 4 4 4 * * * * 4 000000000 4 * 4 + 4' * 4 4 4 04 * 4 4 + * 4 4 4 .IAJ IJD$IAJ IJ(+UU '1.)0+UU 1J+00 140+00 141+00 143,+00 14:+00 144.4.00 145+00 148+00 147+00 148+00 149+00 150+00 COLLEGE BOULEVARD ALTERNATIVE 1 - tOO' HOR 24Y VER 200..................................................................-..................................- ...........................- ....................................-................................................... PM STA - 174+74.14 . - ...........................- : ....................-- ........_.PM aEv..9e.23.. ................ -. - ............................................... A.D. - 5.72 180 ....................................-................- . K-1 74.83 .-....-...-.....- ..... ............................................................-.................................... 1000.c0'. . . 180 140 PROPOSE GRADE AT CL 100 80 W 'W ''.I •O00 I UW I I1IAJ , 11)400 114+00 1.'4W 115+00 111+00 115+00 179+00 180+00 181+00 182+00 183+00 184+00 185400 - . . CANNON ROAD ALTERNATIVE 1 1• -1001 MA PROFILE ALTERNATIVES STUDY 1* - 20' VER . I COLLEGE BLVD. I CANNON ROAD 0:\I20\14\06\XREFS\pROF_11I7.D/G 9-8-00 3:38:11 pm EST ALTERNATIVE 1 I I I I I ' I I I I III H I H I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 'I ii / I I. ii 4; j . . 00 JSERT5ON C, RA - AL 1 - 100 ALTERNATIVE 1 COLLEGE BLVD. / CANNON ROAD - SLLU 'I? S ,) Sr!xtjr ILLF.UWU O'JU •);)Q;fl IJfl - OBERTSON far 1w, / / - L - 1X ALTERNATIVE 2 COLLEGE BLVD. I CANNON ROAD It / CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT - U:\iO\14\O6\XR[FS\PRQF_ III 7.Q\JG 9-8-30 33811 pr EST N ROBERTSCH C, 7/ IRA iOo o• ix• 2 4L I,- 100 - 0\120\I4\06\xREFS\PROF-1117DWG 9-8-00 33811 pi, EST - ALTERNATIVE 3 - COLLEGE BLVD. I CANNON ROAD FRASER ENGINEERING, INC. 2197 EL CAM/NO REAL, OCEANSIDE, CA. 92054 (760)722-J495 FAX (760)722-3490 PM STA - 135+36.57 PM E1IV - 104.40 A.D. - -3.90 K- 78.92 300.0 VC PM STA - 141+32.21 - LOW PONT ELEV - 65.87 LOW POINT STA - 148+97.62 PM STA - 151+77.23 PM U.EV - 81.66 -I -S. ........................................................ -. --.. . DOSTING GRADE AT a. 133+00 134+00 135+00 136+00 137+00 138+00 139+00 140+00 141+00 142+00 143+00 144+00 145+00 146+00 147+00 148+00 149+00 150+00 COLLECE BOULEVARD ALTERNATIVE '3 I00 HOR I-20VER 200 180 ...TT EXISTING GRADE AT CL .T .II. ....... ':.i .:..:...;....:;..... 185+00 186+00 161+00 168+00 189+00 170+00 171+00 172+00 173+00 174+00 175+00 176+00 177+00 178+00 179+00 180+00 181+00 182+00 163+00 184+00 185+00 ALTERNATIVE 3 0:\20\14\06\XREFS\PROF-1117.DWG 9-8-00 33811 pr EST CANNON ROAD ALTERNA1WE3 SCALE. 1- 100NOR 1-20R PROFILE ALTERNATIVES STUDY COLLEGE BLVD. I CANNON ROAD • • U ALTERNATIVE 4 COLLEGE BLVD. / CANNON ROAD ROBERTSON Q\120\14\06\XREFS\PROF- Ill 7D'/G 9-8-00 33811 pm EST - - - - - - - - - -_-. - - - - - - 71.2 8 73.0 \QJTERSECTI0N STA.104+81.3,3 ELE% 72.0 74.8 73.10 ___ _ 1 : ____ S .80 jsI33+a:si - \ 8 EIVCE: 106.03 '04 21 / 2.0 30 8S.l87:7764 IDYCE; 70.05 —, 8 S 8 2 Pr -1W 163 rr 8 161. is 184. 169 8 z :EJ OD ' •1 tiq ..1 I . \ I - \ J _1EvcS -:--- I . • I . / •BVCS; 143+53.34: BVCE 7990 - rl 1 . - EcS: 147+53.34 -. S \S S EVE: 71.90 : :if BVC& 14+52.23 . x BVCE., 70.91 . I EVCS: 149+02.23 - a \ EVCE: 70.91 • f 88 SM 150*1443 ELEV. Vertical Ali cnment Analysis for a Portion of Bridge & Thoroughfare District No. 4 - City of Carlsbad FRASER ENGINEERING, INC. I I EXHIBIT I Figure 3G-2 Existing Biological Resources Prepared by RECON I. I: I.' I: I :... .- i I - . i - -. September 5, 2000 I ____________________ _H ..,. •. . \ I J ••. / ( ' ( \ \\ \ \ U.. Diegan coastal sage scrub A. ( ('• ¼ i (( (\çcl \ . ..... \ 1, \i . •. Southern mixed and chasechaparral ) j \ ¼ Il ( )) /f( I' ¼ \l \ - Riparian forest \ 1 * / i ) ( I) ( / , Jj ! III))) I / \ I - / ( 1 Riparian woodland Riparianscnib Freshwater marsh lClsmontane alkali marsh Cismontane alkali marsh (seasonal) Non-nave grassland I' '¼ 1 I 1 1 1 1 j ) f I (. / V--1 Eucalyptus woodland / Agriculture Disturbed E= Developed G Coastal California gnatcatcher 'I . \ ( I •. ¼ .. ¼ / / ( R Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow s Loggerhead shrike K White-tailed late W Belding'sorangethroatwhiPtail 14 ( \\ / •¼ .•// •rz: iI/ ./'(I . I ,, ,. f1 (1\ )/( Note: The Bridge and Thoroughfare District survey area includes a 500 ft survey area beyond the perimeter of the alignments. / )/(/(/ J ([II! 3 II(y . U ( i.t\\ ¼• ¼/ FIGURE 3G-2 A. Existing Biological Resources Bridge and Thoroughfare District and Detention Basins MON `V T\,J N I FM Feet 1000 2000 16.