Encinitas City Council
September 9, 2026

From: dustin relethford
To: City Clerk; Jeanenne R
Subject: Comments for Regular City Council Meeting Sep 9 - Agenda Item 12C Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 6:11:34 PM
CAUTION: External Email. Do not click any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender, verified their email address, and know the content is safe.

This is the first time you received an email from this sender ([email protected]). Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.

Secured by Avanan
Comments for Regular City Council Meeting Sep 9 - Agenda Item 12C Dear Mayor Ehlers and Members of the City Council:

I am submitting this written comment regarding Agenda Item 12C on the City Council’s September 9, 2026 meeting agenda. I support the City’s effort through Ordinance 2026-11 and Resolution 2026-45 to establish clear and consistent procedures for evaluating the traffic impacts of development projects. I respectfully ask the Council to consider the following revisions.

1. Protect pending applications. Ordinance 2026-11 does not clearly state whether its new traffic-study, mitigation, and fair-share requirements will apply to applications already submitted and under review. I ask the Council to provide that the ordinance and new Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines apply only to applications deemed complete on or after their effective date. Applicants with pending applications should not become subject to new requirements while their applications are being processed.

2. Require an identified project-related impact. Any required improvement, mitigation measure, or fair-share contribution should be based on an identified transportation deficiency that the proposed project causes, contributes to, or worsens. The existence of a nearby project in the City’s Capital Improvement Program should not, by itself, require an applicant to contribute toward that project’s design and construction costs.

The ordinance states that these obligations must be reasonably related to the project’s impacts. The Guidelines should be equally clear. Before imposing such an obligation, the City should provide a written, project-specific determination identifying the impact and explaining how the required obligation is related and proportional to it.

3. Retain Council review of significant changes. Resolution 2026-45 authorizes the City Engineer to administer, interpret, and update the Guidelines without returning to the Council unless a change materially alters the City’s policy direction. Because the screening thresholds and fair-share methodology can impose substantial costs on applicants, any material change to those provisions should require Council approval.

These revisions would provide applicants and City staff with clearer rules, promote consistent treatment, and help ensure that obligations imposed upon development applicants are appropriately related to the actual impacts of their projects.

We respectfully request that this letter be included in the official record for Agenda Item 12C.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Dustin Relethford
1967 Montgomery Drive
Cardiff-by-the-Sea, California
[email protected]
From: Steve Linke
To: City Clerk
Subject: 9/9/2026 Item 12C (Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines) comment Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2026 3:06:42 AM
CAUTION: External Email. Do not click any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender, verified their email address, and know the content is safe.

Encinitas City Council:

Before, during, and after my time of service on the Carlsbad traffic commission, I encouraged several updates to the city's Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines--with varying degrees of success. A quick read through Encinitas' proposed guidelines is very encouraging. The scoping protocol, the screening criteria (2,000 square feet commercial, 5 residential units, or 50+ net average daily trips), the trip generation methodology (higher of SANDAG or ITE guidance), the allowance of "existing use" credits (requiring active operation in the last two years to claim), the internal capture adjustments (requiring justification based on actual local conditions/behavior), the requirement for a crash history and safety review, etc. are very comprehensive and suitably stringent to help ensure that projects mitigate their impacts to Encinitas' street network.

Of particular importance is the detail on cumulative impact analyses--important to assess impacts of multiple projects in the same area. As an example, I have looked at the traffic studies submitted for the three residential developments planned for the areas around the Encinitas Boulevard/Quail Gardens Drive intersection. While the impacts of each of these projects individually may not necessarily be huge, there did not seem to be a very good assessment of the cumulative impacts, which is likely to be sizable. Hopefully, future projects will have better cumulative impact assessments with these new TIA Guidelines.

Overall, the proposed TIA Guidelines look fantastic, and I urge you to approve them.

A few minor comments/questions:

Can the adequacy of the street capacity for emergency evacuations be a required component of the Safety Analysis, or perhaps that is handled elsewhere? The Study Area Selection (Section 2.2) includes expanded requirements, such as:
"Addition of an intersection may be appropriate if the site trips are expected to have a significant impact (50 trips added) on the intersection, if the intersection is located close to the proposed development, or if the intersection is located between two other study intersections." However, the Study Scenario table (Table 1) does not seem to include this broader definition of the Study Area, which may be particularly important for the cumulative impact analyses. Is the required Study Area for cumulative impacts adequately large?
Projects that exceed the 95th-percentile in the turn-lane queue analysis "shall be responsible for extending the available storage length to accommodate the projected queue, as a condition of approval for the project." Would it be valuable to add the following underlined phrase to that requirement: "shall be responsible for extending the available storage length and/or add an additional turn lane to accommodate the projected queue, as a condition of approval for the project."
For projects that are inconsistent with Policy 1.3 (e.g., they cause an intersection operating at LOS D or better to degrade to LOS E or F, or increase delay at an intersection already operating at LOS E or F), you might consider requiring implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies through conditions of approval--strategies that would theoretically reduce vehicle trips to help mitigate the impacts. I'm not sure if that is addressed somewhere else.

Best regards,
Steve Linke
From: dustin relethford
To: City Clerk; Jeanenne R
Subject: Comments for Regular City Council Meeting Sep 9 - Agenda Item 12C Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 6:11:34 PM
CAUTION: External Email. Do not click any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender, verified their email address, and know the content is safe.

This is the first time you received an email from this sender ([email protected]). Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.

Secured by Avanan
Comments for Regular City Council Meeting Sep 9 - Agenda Item 12C Dear Mayor Ehlers and Members of the City Council:

I am submitting this written comment regarding Agenda Item 12C on the City Council’s September 9, 2026 meeting agenda. I support the City’s effort through Ordinance 2026-11 and Resolution 2026-45 to establish clear and consistent procedures for evaluating the traffic impacts of development projects. I respectfully ask the Council to consider the following revisions.

1. Protect pending applications. Ordinance 2026-11 does not clearly state whether its new traffic-study, mitigation, and fair-share requirements will apply to applications already submitted and under review. I ask the Council to provide that the ordinance and new Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines apply only to applications deemed complete on or after their effective date. Applicants with pending applications should not become subject to new requirements while their applications are being processed.

2. Require an identified project-related impact. Any required improvement, mitigation measure, or fair-share contribution should be based on an identified transportation deficiency that the proposed project causes, contributes to, or worsens. The existence of a nearby project in the City’s Capital Improvement Program should not, by itself, require an applicant to contribute toward that project’s design and construction costs.

The ordinance states that these obligations must be reasonably related to the project’s impacts. The Guidelines should be equally clear. Before imposing such an obligation, the City should provide a written, project-specific determination identifying the impact and explaining how the required obligation is related and proportional to it.

3. Retain Council review of significant changes. Resolution 2026-45 authorizes the City Engineer to administer, interpret, and update the Guidelines without returning to the Council unless a change materially alters the City’s policy direction. Because the screening thresholds and fair-share methodology can impose substantial costs on applicants, any material change to those provisions should require Council approval.

These revisions would provide applicants and City staff with clearer rules, promote consistent treatment, and help ensure that obligations imposed upon development applicants are appropriately related to the actual impacts of their projects.

We respectfully request that this letter be included in the official record for Agenda Item 12C.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Dustin Relethford
1967 Montgomery Drive
Cardiff-by-the-Sea, California
[email protected]
From: Steve Linke
To: City Clerk
Subject: 9/9/2026 Item 12C (Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines) comment Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2026 3:06:42 AM
CAUTION: External Email. Do not click any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender, verified their email address, and know the content is safe.

Encinitas City Council:

Before, during, and after my time of service on the Carlsbad traffic commission, I encouraged several updates to the city's Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines--with varying degrees of success. A quick read through Encinitas' proposed guidelines is very encouraging. The scoping protocol, the screening criteria (2,000 square feet commercial, 5 residential units, or 50+ net average daily trips), the trip generation methodology (higher of SANDAG or ITE guidance), the allowance of "existing use" credits (requiring active operation in the last two years to claim), the internal capture adjustments (requiring justification based on actual local conditions/behavior), the requirement for a crash history and safety review, etc. are very comprehensive and suitably stringent to help ensure that projects mitigate their impacts to Encinitas' street network.

Of particular importance is the detail on cumulative impact analyses--important to assess impacts of multiple projects in the same area. As an example, I have looked at the traffic studies submitted for the three residential developments planned for the areas around the Encinitas Boulevard/Quail Gardens Drive intersection. While the impacts of each of these projects individually may not necessarily be huge, there did not seem to be a very good assessment of the cumulative impacts, which is likely to be sizable. Hopefully, future projects will have better cumulative impact assessments with these new TIA Guidelines.

Overall, the proposed TIA Guidelines look fantastic, and I urge you to approve them.

A few minor comments/questions:

Can the adequacy of the street capacity for emergency evacuations be a required component of the Safety Analysis, or perhaps that is handled elsewhere? The Study Area Selection (Section 2.2) includes expanded requirements, such as:
"Addition of an intersection may be appropriate if the site trips are expected to have a significant impact (50 trips added) on the intersection, if the intersection is located close to the proposed development, or if the intersection is located between two other study intersections." However, the Study Scenario table (Table 1) does not seem to include this broader definition of the Study Area, which may be particularly important for the cumulative impact analyses. Is the required Study Area for cumulative impacts adequately large?
Projects that exceed the 95th-percentile in the turn-lane queue analysis "shall be responsible for extending the available storage length to accommodate the projected queue, as a condition of approval for the project." Would it be valuable to add the following underlined phrase to that requirement: "shall be responsible for extending the available storage length and/or add an additional turn lane to accommodate the projected queue, as a condition of approval for the project."
For projects that are inconsistent with Policy 1.3 (e.g., they cause an intersection operating at LOS D or better to degrade to LOS E or F, or increase delay at an intersection already operating at LOS E or F), you might consider requiring implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies through conditions of approval--strategies that would theoretically reduce vehicle trips to help mitigate the impacts. I'm not sure if that is addressed somewhere else.

Best regards,
Steve Linke
15111 Whittier Boulevard, Suite 470
Whittier, California 90603
(714) 761-3007
Terry T. Tao, AIA, Esq. [email protected]
September 9, 2026

VIA E-MAIL ONLY
Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Encinitas
505 S. Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
Re: Proposed Ordinance 2026-11 and Resolution 2026-45; Undisclosed Traffic Criteria, ExistingUse Protections, and Property-Acquisition Pressure—Encinitas Union School District Paul Ecke Central Elementary School Project
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:

This office represents the Encinitas Union School District. We write on the District’s behalf concerning the Encinitas City Council’s consideration of Ordinance 2026-11 and adoption of Resolution 2026-45 under Agenda Item 12C, particularly with respect to the District’s current Paul Ecke Central Elementary School reconstruction project (“Project”). By its terms, Resolution 2026-45 would make the proposed Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines effective immediately, even though the ordinance is only being introduced tonight. The Council should not act before addressing the serious issues concerning the proposed rules and their application to the Project. (Item 12C staff report, p. 1; proposed resolution, packet p. 14.)
Please note that this letter supplements our September 4, 2026 letter, transmitted September 8, 2026, to City Manager Jennifer Campbell and City Attorney Ajit Thind concerning the Project (the “Prior Letter”), and incorporates its legal analysis and original exhibits In addition to our emergent concerns regarding the newly-discovered ordinance and resolution, the Prior Letter expressly reserved a separate response to the City’s second queuing review of the Project. This letter supplies that response. The complete redlined traffic study is attached as Exhibit A.

As the Prior Letter explains in detail, the City has subjected the Project to an unwarranted permitting odyssey and imposed improper conditions and demands. The District does not seek approval of an unsafe design. It seeks a lawful, workable path to reconstruct an existing, decades-old school. It is against the backdrop of the City’s unexplained demand for absolute on-site queuing requirement while simultaneously seeking dedication of additional school property that the City now presents new legislation that could ostensibly be used to justify that requirement after it was imposed.

TAO | ROSSINI APC
Mayor and Members of City Council
September 9, 2026

The language of the proposed ordinance is clear that there was no prior comprehensive framework in place (see page 2 of 33):
[T]he City has not had a comprehensive City Council-adopted Traffic Impact Analysis document establishing standardized procedures for project screening, study scoping, trip generation, study area selection, analysis scenarios, Level of Service evaluation, safety review, active transportation and transit review, and fair-share contribution calculations.

As a result, staff identified the need to better define when a Traffic Study is required, what information must be evaluated, how project-related transportation effects are reviewed, and how related improvements or fair-share contributions may be required as conditions of development approval.

Adopting a new framework leaves open whether the prior demands were authorized, whether the new rules will apply to this Project, and whether the City is exceeding the authority state law gives it over school construction.

I. The chronology shows escalating demands without disclosure of the pending rules in the Project discussions.

Earlier review and CEQA. The Prior Letter (pp. 1–3) describes the original May 28, 2025, staffadvisory review of the Project design and subsequent changes in the City’s direction regarding site drainage. The Draft EIR public review and comment period ran from February 13 through March 30, 2026; the District granted an accommodation by extending the City’s deadline to April 17 and responding to the late comments submitted April 23 and April 29. The April 29 traffic review expressly proposed explaining consistency with LOS policies on the basis that students and staff would not increase from existing conditions and new Project trip generation would therefore be zero. It did not identify the absolute requirement now being imposed that every school pick up and drop off queue remain entirely on District property. The Board certified the Project EIR and approved the Project on May 19. (April 29 Traffic Engineering comments, nos. 4 and 8; Board action on Resolution 18-2526.) June 18 coordination meeting. The City sought expanded traffic analysis; the District and its consultants discussed left-turn restrictions, a passing lane, the secondary northeast drop-off, and alternative routing.

The minutes record both the City’s objection to the southbound left turn and the resulting U-turn difficulty. They also record City proposals for a Union Street-side loading arrangement and more than 2,000 feet of public-right-of-way queue storage along Vulcan Avenue, as well as a demand for dedication to the City of additional school frontage property. No proposed traffic ordinance or impending change of governing standards was disclosed in those recorded discussions. (DLR Group, June 18 meeting notes, pp. 1–4.)
July and August. The District invoked Government Code section 53094 through Resolution 01-2627 to exempt the Project from local land use regulations. The July 24 third-cycle review identified remaining traffic-queuing and grading/hydrology matters, which the District continued addressing. District consultant Garland Associates issued its revised LOS and Queuing Analysis on August 18. At our August 19 meeting with the City, permitting, traffic, dedications, and the easement remained under discussion.

The pending ordinance and guidelines were not identified to us as a proposed source of additional requirements. The California Department of Education separately issued final plan approval on August 19, expressly identifying the site’s acreage constraint.

TAO | ROSSINI APC
Mayor and Members of City Council
September 9, 2026

September 4 and the recent design-team review. At approximately 7:22 p.m. on Friday, September 4, the District received the City review redlines in Exhibit A. They repeatedly direct that vehicle queuing remain entirely on-site. According to the District’s project team, the pending legislation likewise was not disclosed during the recent meeting addressing the review comments, when the City also gave the fencing/easement direction discussed below. The Prior Letter already identified the second queuing comments as problematic and reserved a separate response before our office learned of tonight’s proposal. (Prior Letter, p. 2.)
The staff report now states that several City departments and the City Attorney’s Office have worked on this framework over the past year. It also acknowledges that the City has lacked a comprehensive Council-adopted traffic-analysis document establishing standardized procedures. That work overlapped months of direct discussions with this District.

Why was the pending framework not identified in those discussions, particularly when staff was demanding compliance with an absolute queuing rule and the District was questioning its authority? (Item 12C staff report, p. 2.)
Public availability of a hearing notice does not explain the failure to identify pending standards during months of direct discussions concerning those same requirements. Nor does describing the proposal as a citywide work program resolve whether this Project has been subjected to premature or selective enforcement. The Council should determine whether staff has been improperly applying an undisclosed policy and now seeks to rely on subsequent adoption to defend earlier demands. It should require that explanation before permitting the sequence to prejudice the District.

II. The City must review the operation actually proposed. • Union Street traffic is expressly included. Pages 3 and 5 of Exhibit A explain that kindergarten and first-grade students will use the northeast/Union-side facility. The analysis assigns 71 percent of the 162 vehicles historically using the former Union facility to Vulcan: approximately 115 vehicles, added to 103 existing Vulcan vehicles, for 218 vehicles before the enrollment adjustment. The study does not assume that every former Union vehicle disappears or that all younger students must use Vulcan.

Nevertheless, the commentary insinuates that the District’s submission is incorrect because former Union traffic was not addressed, when the proposed-condition calculation expressly addresses it. The page 5 deletion comment is directed to an initial calculation using the 103 existing Vulcan vehicles; that illustration can be clarified as existing conditions rather than proof of future adequacy. But it cannot fairly be used to characterize the subsequent 218-vehicle analysis as omitting Union traffic. The City may request support for the grade/vehicle allocation and northeast capacity. It should identify those specific questions, not repeatedly suggest that an explained calculation does not exist. • The left-turn/U-turn sequence is a moving target. The June 18 notes document the City’s position that the southbound left turn was unworkable, the District’s willingness to remove it, and contemporaneous recognition of the U-turn difficulty. The September redlines then reject reliance on U-turns at Halcyon or Orpheus. The City thus knew the consequence when the change was discussed; it cannot reasonably treat that same consequence as an unrelated new surprise. (June 18 notes, p. 2; Exhibit A, pp. 4 and 8.)
TAO | ROSSINI APC
Mayor and Members of City Council
September 9, 2026

A coherent review would evaluate an integrated approach: permitted turning movements, use of the northeast facility, alternative northbound approach routes, signs, and family instructions. Routing habits can change when a reconstructed campus opens, and reasonable expectations about that transition should be analyzed. The District does not assume that education alone eliminates an unsafe maneuver. It objects to rejecting both the original movement and its foreseeable substitute without defining the conditions under which an alternative could be accepted. That process generates an endless series of objections rather than a route to resolution.
• The new design must be evaluated for its operational improvements, not against an unexplained historical footage requirement. The west-side on-campus loading frontage increases from approximately 210 to 400 feet; the design provides separate circulation/passing capacity and a separate approximately 180-foot northeast facility. The historic 510-foot figure combines on-site and off-site storage, including areas without loading frontage. It is not, by itself, a minimum dimension prescribed by law. The relevant comparison must examine both facilities, actual demand, loading performance, conflicts, and spillback duration. (Exhibit A, pp. 1–2, 4–8) These improvements do not remove the need to substantiate service rates, analyze afternoon accumulation, or verify the northeast operation. The District will address those legitimate questions. But potential deficiencies in particular assumptions do not establish that the only lawful or feasible solution is to store every possible queue inside the school boundary.

III. The proposed existing-use protections cannot be defeated by relabeling redistributed trips as new traffic.

The proposed guidelines expressly recognize existing-use trip credits. Section 1.3 identifies a redevelopment threshold of 50 additional daily trips; section 2.1 requires calculation of the net increase or decrease and credits legally established uses actively operating within two years before the application. It also requires the use to have been operating when the supporting traffic counts were collected. (Proposed Guidelines, §§ 1.3, 2.1; packet pp. 19 and 21.)
Paul Ecke is an existing elementary school undergoing demolition, replacement, and circulation reconfiguration—not a new school use introduced onto a previously vacant parcel. The study uses traffic counts taken while the school was operating, including the City’s 2023 counts and Garland’s August 2025 counts. The District therefore invokes the proposal’s existing-use credit and resulting net-new-trip screening protection. The City should not erase that operating history because the campus is temporarily closed for reconstruction or demand that a new count during the closure establish a zero-traffic baseline. (Exhibit A, pp. 2–3 and 13.)
The District’s updated attendance/enrollment information, including average daily attendance (ADA) and California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS) data, reports an approximately 19 percent decline in school attendance, which the District has brought to the City’s attention. That updated information should be reconciled with the earlier forecast in the August 18 report, which used a 13 percent reduction.

Attendance percentages are not automatically vehicle percentages, but neither is it reasonable to ignore declining attendance while characterizing this reconstruction as new school-generated traffic.

TAO | ROSSINI APC
Mayor and Members of City Council
September 9, 2026

Reassigning some existing trips from Union to Vulcan may affect a particular entrance and warrants appropriately scoped access review. It does not, without more, increase the school’s total daily trip generation. The City must distinguish generation from distribution and cannot defeat existing-use credits merely by calling the K–1 arrangement a new drop-off situation. On the District’s no-net-increase showing, the redevelopment trip threshold is not met; any asserted different trigger must be identified and explained, including its application to a public school rather than a commercial development.

These are express protections for existing uses, not a request to disregard demonstrated safety effects. The District invokes those protections together with its school-specific statutory rights and requests an express transition provision protecting pending public-school reconstruction projects. The City must provide a written applicability and credit determination before requiring another comprehensive study or treating the newly proposed standards as controlling.

IV. An all-queues-on-school-property mandate is not a rule of California traffic law.

The repeated directive in Exhibit A is categorical:
“The queue must be fully accommodated on-site. Queue spillback onto Vulcan Avenue will not be permitted.”
It does not identify a percentile, frequency, duration, or particular unsafe obstruction. The Prior Letter identified the second queuing comments as problematic (p. 2), and its original Exhibit A addressed the limits on the City’s authority (pp. 3–8), before we knew of tonight’s item. Nothing in the newly discovered proposal answers the need to identify the law and evidence supporting the requirement actually communicated.

California Vehicle Code sections 22400, 22500, and 22526 distinguish unlawful stopping and obstruction from stops required for safe operation or to avoid conflict with traffic, and specifically protect intersections, crosswalks, and railroad crossings from blockage. Encinitas Municipal Code section

14.40.005(A) likewise recognizes stops necessary to avoid traffic conflicts. A temporary queue is not unlawful merely because its last vehicle is outside the school parcel. Those provisions are not a license for parents to park in a through lane awaiting dismissal, block a driveway or crossing, or create an unsafe condition.

The City may seek to prevent a demonstrated safety hazard and may adopt lawful, supported design criteria. But the legal inquiry is not answered by drawing the property line and declaring every vehicle beyond it prohibited. Existing Encinitas Municipal Code section 23.08.060(B) authorizes traffic studies for specified projects; it does not itself prescribe the categorical on-site-only rule in these redlines. The City has identified no other currently applicable provision to the District that supplies that rule. Its authority must be established, not assumed.

Nor should the Council conflate a 95th-percentile design analysis with an absolute promise that no vehicle will ever queue outside the parcel. Proposed Guidelines section 3.4.3 requires additional storage when the specified 95th-percentile queue exceeds available storage under existing-plus-project or cumulative conditions. That is a mandatory provision, but it is not expressly an all-vehicles, allcircumstances, school-property-only rule. It must also be read with proposed section 23.36.040(C), requiring improvements reasonably related to the Project’s impacts. The Council should clarify that the TAO | ROSSINI APC
Mayor and Members of City Council
September 9, 2026

queue provision does not assign one applicant the entire burden of a preexisting or cumulative deficiency irrespective of its contribution. (Packet pp. 8 and 30.) The City’s own June 18 proposals demonstrate why location and operation matter: an additional Unionside loading arrangement and an extended Vulcan queue lane contemplated storage outside the school parcel. A designated roadside lane is not the same as unsafe obstruction of a through lane. That distinction calls for evaluating feasible public-right-of-way measures, not prohibiting every off-parcel solution. The District does not demand that the City acquire any particular neighbor’s property. It requests a supported comparison of roadway management, operational changes, and feasible storage before the City demands additional educational land.

The site constraint is not an excuse invented for this dispute. CDE’s August 19 final approval identifies

7.2 usable acres—71.29 percent of its recommended 10.1 acres. CDE’s educational approval does not establish roadway safety, but the acreage finding cannot be ignored. Requiring the school to consume its scarce remaining land with vehicle-storage lanes while simultaneously demanding that it dedicate more frontage to the City creates a practical contradiction. On this constrained design, the City has identified no realistic way to satisfy its categorical demand while surrendering the additional land it seeks. A permanent loss of educational space should not be presumed necessary to address limited arrival and dismissal periods without a feasibility analysis. The resulting impasse must not become a means of preventing the reconstruction altogether. (Exhibit B, original Exhibit B, CDE Final Plan Approval, p. 1; Prior Letter, pp. 5–6.)
V. State law limits the City’s authority over public-school construction; a new local label cannot enlarge it.

As explained in the Prior Letter’s original Exhibit A (pp. 3–4), the starting point is Hall v. City of Taft (1956) 47 Cal.2d 177, 179–184. The Supreme Court rejected a city’s attempt to subject state-supervised school construction to its building-permit regime. Drawing on California’s constitutional public-school structure, the Court recognized school construction as a statewide governmental function, not simply an ordinary private development subject to municipal control. The District is not a department of the City, and the City does not possess general supervisory authority over the District’s educational property or construction program.

The Legislature subsequently defined the extent of local control through Government Code sections 53090 and following. City of Santa Cruz v. Santa Cruz City School Bd. of Education (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1, 5–6, explains that statutory response and upheld a school board’s zoning exemption for a school-related facility. Section 53094 permits the requisite board action rendering local zoning inapplicable to qualifying school uses; the District has invoked that authority for this Project. The City cannot treat that action as irrelevant merely because a disputed land-use demand is administered through Engineering rather than Planning.

Section 53097 preserves an important, specific exception: the District must comply with city ordinances concerning drainage, road improvements and conditions, and grading insofar as those provisions relate to the design and construction of on-site improvements affecting those matters. For off-site improvements, the statute instead requires consideration of local requirements and expressly contemplates a district’s TAO | ROSSINI APC
Mayor and Members of City Council
September 9, 2026

election not to comply. The distinction is deliberate; it is not erased by describing every public-roadway objective as a school traffic issue.

The District recognizes that an on-site loading layout may affect road conditions and therefore may implicate section 53097. It is not asserting that every traffic requirement is automatically an unenforceable off-site demand. The City must identify the applicable ordinance, explain how the particular requirement falls within the statute, and distinguish regulation of an on-site improvement from compelled off-site widening, dedication, or correction of a historical roadway deficiency. Section 53097 does not itself enact an all-queues-on-site standard or give staff unrestricted power to prescribe one.

San Marcos Water Dist. v. San Marcos Unified School Dist. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 154, 160–165, supplies a related intergovernmental principle. There, a water district could not impose an unauthorized capital assessment on a school district merely by characterizing it as a service charge. The Court examined the demand’s actual purpose and the diversion of resources committed to a separate public function. Applied here, the City must establish authority for the substance of what it demands—school land or schoolfunded roadway capacity—not simply label the demand traffic review. Subsequent legislation permits specified utility capital charges (Gov. Code, § 54999 et seq.); the District does not claim blanket immunity from all public charges or rely on that utility case as a direct holding about this dedication.

The District also recognizes independently applicable CEQA and Coastal Act obligations. State educational autonomy does not eliminate those statutes. Conversely, coastal permitting is not unlimited acquisition authority: Encinitas Municipal Code section 30.80.100(B) prohibits a coastal permit condition not reasonably related to the Project. The City must identify the applicable source of jurisdiction and satisfy its limits, rather than accumulate labels until an otherwise unsupported demand appears enforceable. (See also Exhibit B, original Exhibit A, pp. 7–9.) VI. Unadopted requirements and acquisition-driven review are subject to judicial scrutiny.

The District objects to what appears to be an undisclosed administrative standard enforced as binding policy. Although the formal California APA term “underground regulation” concerns state-agency rulemaking, the underlying concern here is concrete: staff has communicated a categorical requirement without identifying its adopted source, while preparing new rules for later Council action. The District’s objection rests on the City’s actual authority and the lawful administration of its ordinances—not on an assumption that the state APA automatically governs municipalities. (Gov. Code, § 11342.520.) When a reviewable adjudicatory decision is reached, Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 requires lawful procedure, adequate findings, and evidentiary support. Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v.

County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514–517, requires the agency to connect its findings to the evidence and decision. Those duties do not require formal findings for every preliminary markup, but they foreclose a final refusal resting on unexplained conclusions or a misdescription of the proposed operation. Traditional mandate under section 1085 is also available where its requirements are met.

Adoption tonight cannot enlarge the City’s statutory jurisdiction or retroactively supply a missing legal basis for prior action.

The property negotiations make this more than a disagreement over engineering judgment. In Rohn v.

City of Visalia (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1463, 1475–1477, the court invalidated a dedication demand used to obtain land for a preexisting street objective without the necessary relationship to the proposed TAO | ROSSINI APC
Mayor and Members of City Council
September 9, 2026

development. The relevant question here is whether the City is using reconstruction of an existing school as the opportunity to acquire frontage for a broader roadway plan, rather than addressing effects attributable to the reconstruction. (See also Exhibit B, original Exhibit A, pp. 5–7.) Government Code section 7267.5 prohibits coercive acquisition conduct intended to force agreement on the price of property. Section 7274 means that this provision does not create an independent damages claim. Nevertheless, Tilem v. City of Los Angeles (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 694, 704–705, explains that the acquisition directives guide the evaluation of unreasonable or oppressive conduct under Klopping v. City of Whittier (1972) 8 Cal.3d 39, 51–52. Those authorities make the connection between regulatory pressure and the government’s acquisition objective legally significant. A claim requires proof of the requisite conduct, causation, and compensable injury; delay alone does not establish it.

The concern is that escalating requirements could make surrender of school property the practical route to approval. The District will investigate that issue, including the directions of the senior Engineering official involved in both review supervision and the property discussions. It does not ask the Council to presume an individual’s improper motive. It asks the Council to ensure that the same supervisory process is not allowed to use one governmental function as leverage in the other. The City may pursue a lawful roadway acquisition or impose a lawfully supported project condition. It may not manufacture an inability to approve the school in order to obtain a more favorable property bargain.

District representatives have also reported statements conveying that traffic would never be acceptable and that City dissatisfaction would continue. The June 18 minutes use more qualified language: even a supporting study would not necessarily resolve all concerns. The District does not equate those formulations. But, given the subsequent review history, the City should expressly disavow predetermined nonapproval and identify a set of supported requirements that can actually be satisfied. The Council should determine whether review remains a means of solving problems or has become a barrier to rebuilding the school.

VII. The reported cease-and-desist direction requires immediate clarification of the City’s actual property rights.

The design team reports that, at the recent meeting, the City directed it to cease use of the now-closed easement area and stated that temporary construction fencing could not be placed on City property. The District’s understanding is that it owns the underlying land and previously granted the City an easement.

If so, an easement is not fee ownership of the school parcel; its extent depends on the grant. (Civ. Code, § 806.) The City should promptly provide its written directive, the affected boundary, the recorded instrument, the claimed interference with an existing right, and the authority for prohibiting the proposed temporary safety fencing.

The District does not contend that temporary closure automatically extinguished the easement or that it may disregard valid City rights. It requests immediate consideration of a temporary construction accommodation and a definitive response to the vacation/release request addressed at pages 4–5 of the Prior Letter, which already advised that eminent domain might become necessary. If the City refuses, the District will evaluate judicial determination of the parties’ rights and, if necessary and legally justified, acquisition of the City’s easement interest through eminent domain—not repurchase of the District’s own underlying fee. Education Code section 35270.5 authorizes school-district condemnation for necessary TAO | ROSSINI APC
Mayor and Members of City Council
September 9, 2026

district purposes, subject to applicable procedures and existing-public-use requirements, including Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.610 where applicable.

A dispute over the scope or continued need for that interest should not be used to obstruct unrelated permitting or to secure a different dedication. The District is already incurring additional design, consultant, and delay-related costs, and prolonged displacement burdens students and families. It is documenting those consequences and will evaluate recovery where the evidence and law permit. Public resources should be used to rebuild the school, not consumed by avoidable review cycles and unresolved property directives.

VIII. Council action is needed now.

The District requests the following corrective action:

1. Continue both actions tonight. Defer the ordinance introduction and resolution and guideline adoption, accept Exhibits A–B, including the complete Prior Letter and its original exhibits, into the record, and obtain a written City Attorney response to the school-jurisdiction, existing-use, and onsite-queuing objections before further taking action.

2. Determine applicability and define a workable standard. Confirm the existing-use credit; identify any separate lawful trigger for further review; distinguish redistributed from newly generated trips; and state the applicable queue percentile, design enrollment, AM/PM methodology, permitted storage locations, and evidence of the condition to be corrected. Adopt an express transition provision for pending public-school reconstruction projects rather than allowing new criteria to be applied without an applicability determination.

3. Separate review from acquisition. Confirm whether the same traffic-acceptance criteria will apply if the additional dedication is not made. Identify any asserted property dedication condition expressly, with its authority and Project-related justification. Arrange independent technical review under City Manager and City Attorney oversight, outside the supervisory/property-negotiation personnel whose decisions are disputed.

4. Resolve access, fencing, and the easement on a defined schedule. Consolidate remaining technical questions, evaluate feasible operational and public-right-of-way alternatives, clarify the cease-anddesist direction in writing, and provide a prompt temporary-construction and permanent-easement decision. Supply a consolidated written response by the close of business on September 17, 2026—the deadline already requested in the Prior Letter—and a schedule for reaching a reviewable Project decision. This submission does not extend that response deadline.

Please preserve relevant emails, texts, messaging-platform communications, meeting notes, native redlines and version histories, traffic models and data, ordinance/guideline drafts and their development history, and communications linking Project review to dedication, easement, or acquisition discussions.

Please suspend routine deletion of relevant records; this is a preservation demand, not a request to disclose privileged material.

Available proceedings may include a petition for writ of mandate and appropriate declaratory or injunctive relief, with exaction, inverse-condemnation, or precondemnation claims evaluated as the evidence and governing law support. The fact that both parties are public entities does not categorically TAO | ROSSINI APC
Mayor and Members of City Council
September 9, 2026

foreclose inverse-condemnation relief, although a legally sufficient injury must be established. (Marin Municipal Water Dist. v. City of Mill Valley (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1161, 1164–1166.) The voluntary dedication proposal remains expressly conditioned on satisfactory resolution of the other matters identified in the Prior Letter; this submission does not expand that offer or concede the City’s authority to compel any dedication. (Prior Letter, p. 6.) All objections, claims, and remedies are reserved.

This letter does not replace any required administrative appeal, statutory protest, claim presentation, or timely judicial filing.

Please bring the traffic review back to a defined, evidence-based process and address the property dispute through the legal procedures that actually govern it.

Very truly yours,
Terry T. Tao
TAO | ROSSINI APC
Cc: Jennifer Campbell
Ajit Thind
Andrée Grey, Ed.D
Joseph Dougherty
Eric Smith
Daniel Moskop
Brian Leonard
Jeremy Brust
Sierra Baumgardner
Enclosures:

Exhibit A — Complete traffic study with City redline comments (17 pages) 1 PAUL ECKE CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

ENCINITAS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT

LEVEL OF SERVICE & QUEUING ANALYSIS
Prepared for: Encinitas Union School District
Prepared by: Richard Garland, P.E. - Garland Associates – Traffic/Transportation Consultants Date: August 18, 2026
Introduction and Project Description
Paul Ecke Central Elementary School is located on the south side of Union Street in Encinitas.

The campus is bounded by Vulcan Avenue on the west, Union Street on the north, Orpheus Park on the east, and Halcyon Road and residential properties on the south. The location of the school is shown in Figure 1 and an aerial photograph of the existing school and the nearby streets is shown on Figure 2.

Preliminary plans have been prepared for a proposed reconstruction of the school, as shown on Figure 3. One component of the project is that the west parking lot would be reconstructed and relocated (the parking lot is being moved southward) to be longer and wider than the existing parking lot. It would have an entry-only driveway on the east side of Vulcan Avenue near the southwest corner of the school campus north of Halcyon Road and an exit-only driveway on the east side of Vulcan Avenue near the northwest corner of the campus south of Union Street. It would have angled parking spaces on the west side of the parking lot and a student drop-off/pickup area on the east side of the parking lot. Because of the expanded width as compared to the existing lot, it would have two northbound circulation aisles: one to provide access to the row of angled parking spaces on the west side of the lot and one to serve as a circulation/bypass aisle adjacent to the student drop-off/pick-up area. The site plan also indicates that there would be a new drop-off/pick-up area at the northeast corner of the school campus.

The existing on-site student drop-off/pick-up area in the parking lot adjacent to Vulcan Avenue is approximately 210 feet in length along the areas where a sidewalk is positioned adjacent to the stopped vehicles. This includes the angled curb and sidewalk area leading inward from the entry driveway (80 feet) and the area adjacent to the school building where motorists stop (130 feet). In addition, there is an off-site drop-off/pick-up and queuing area on City-owned right-of-way on the east side of Vulcan Avenue between the parking lot’s ingress driveway and Halcyon Road. The drop-off/pick-up zone where a sidewalk is positioned adjacent to the stopped vehicles at this facility is 200 feet in length, which thereby provides a total drop-off/pick-up area of 410 feet on the west side of the campus. When the segments of the on-site and off-site drop-off and pick-up areas that do not have an adjacent sidewalk are included in the measurement, the total length of the queuing area is 510 feet. The existing parking lot at this location has 15 marked parking spaces, although up to 19 vehicles are often parked here when drivers park in unmarked parking areas and in the adjacent vegetation.

Please clarify
whether the
proposed
exit-only
driveway serving
the
drop-off/pick-up
area off Vulcan
Avenue will
permit vehicles
to make left
turns, right turns,
or both when
exiting onto
Vulcan Avenue.

The report does not currently provide a queuing analysis for the northeast corner parking lot. A queuing analysis should be provided for this lot, similar to the analysis conducted for the Vulcan Avenue parking lot, identifying the available on-site queue/storage length and the anticipated queue based on the number of students expected to utilize the lot. The analysis should demonstrate that the anticipated queue can be accommodated entirely within the parking lot and will not extend onto any City street, including Union Street or Hermes Avenue.

Please verify this
information with the School.
2 The proposed drop-off/pick-up area in the expanded parking lot would be an on-site facility with a length of 400 feet. It would, therefore, be approximately the same length as the existing on-site and off-site zones that have a sidewalk adjacent to the stopped vehicles (410 feet in length) and it would result in all of the drop-off/pick-up activities to be within the school property. The on-site drop-off/pick-up area would increase from an existing 210 feet to a proposed 400 feet in length while the off-site stopping and queuing area would be eliminated. The proposed parking lot at this location would have 18 marked parking spaces, which would be an increase of three spaces from the existing 15 marked spaces. It would also have a separate circulation and maneuvering area behind the parking spaces that would not conflict with the circulation lane for the drop-off/pickup area because a raised island would separate the two circulation lanes. In addition, the new dropoff/pick-up zone at the northeast corner of the school campus would have a length of 180 feet, which would provide a total drop-off/pick-up area of 580 feet at the school.

Although the length of the drop-off/pick-up areas where sidewalks are positioned adjacent to the stopped vehicles would remain approximately the same in the west parking lot (400 feet vs. 410 feet), the total length of the combined drop-off and queuing area would be reduced from 510 feet for existing conditions to 400 feet as a result of the project. The impacts of this reduction are discussed in the Queuing Analysis section.

In response to concerns raised by City of Encinitas staff, a level of service analysis has been conducted for the intersection of Union Street and Vulcan Avenue and a queuing analysis has been conducted for the drop-off/pick-up area proposed in the school’s west parking lot adjacent to Vulcan Avenue.

Level of Service Analysis
A level of service (LOS) analysis has been conducted for the intersection of Union Street and Vulcan Avenue. This is a “T” intersection with stop signs on all three approaches and only one travel lane on each approach. The LOS analysis was conducted using the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Software (HCS - 2026).

The traffic volumes used for the LOS calculations are a combination of traffic counts that were taken by the City of Encinitas in 2023 and by Garland Associates in 2025 for the AM and PM peak periods. The AM traffic counts were taken from 7:30 to 8:30 to capture both sides of the school’s 8:00 arrival bell and the PM counts were taken from 1:50 to 2:50 to capture both sides of the school’s 2:20 dismissal bell. The traffic counts for each data collection effort are provided as an attachment. The PM peak hour represents the time period when the school is dismissed as opposed to the later commuter peak period. For each vehicular movement at the intersection (through or turns), the higher traffic volume from the two separate traffic counts was selected, as detailed in the attachment. As the City’s counts did not include the through movements on Vulcan Avenue, these counts are from Garland Associates. The resulting traffic counts are shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1
TURNING MOVEMENTS – UNION STREET/VULCAN AVENUE INTERSECTION Time Period Union Westbound Vulcan Northbound Vulcan Southbound Left Right Through Right Left Through
AM Peak Hour 89 25 90 33 27 99
PM Peak Hour 62 19 86 32 16 103
The statement that the on-site drop-off/pick-up area would increase, or remain the same, from the existing condition is inaccurate. The report does not account for the queuing length currently provided by the Union Street drop-off/pick-up area when comparing the existing and proposed conditions. The report should be revised to account for the existing drop-off/pick-up queuing capacity along Vulcan Avenue and Union Street so that statements comparing on-site drop-off/pick-up storage between the existing and proposed conditions accurately reflect the available capacity under both conditions.

For consistency with the City’s General Plan policies
regarding level of service and traffic circulation,
3 In addition to conducting the LOS analyses for the existing conditions, LOS values were also determined by incorporating the assumption that most of the motorists who previously used the Union Street drop-off/pick-up area would shift to the redesigned Vulcan Avenue drop-off/pick-up area. According to representatives of the Encinitas Union School District, the new drop-off/pickup area at the northeast corner of the school site will be used for kindergarten and 1st grade students.

As there are seven grade levels at the school (K through 6), the kindergarten and 1st grade students represent 29 percent of the student body. So it is assumed that 71 percent of the vehicles that previously used the Union Street drop-off/pick-up area would be shifted to the Vulcan Avenue facility.

Based on the City’s traffic counts from 2023, 124 vehicles turned left from westbound Union Street and 38 vehicles turned right from eastbound Union Street into the drop-off/pick-up area during the AM arrival period. During the PM dismissal period, 54 vehicles turned left from westbound Union Street and three vehicles turned right from eastbound Union Street into the Union Street dropoff/pick-up area. For the analysis, 71 percent of these traffic volumes would be shifted to southbound Vulcan Avenue. This would add 88 trips to the westbound left-turn volume and 27 trips to the southbound through volume at the Union Street/Vulcan Avenue intersection during the AM peak hour and 38 trips to the westbound left-turn volume and two trips to the southbound through volume during the PM peak hour. In addition, since the exit driveway from the Vulcan Avenue drop-off/pick-up area would be relocated from Union Street to Vulcan Avenue, the traffic that previously exited onto Union Street would be added to the northbound through and right turn traffic volumes at the intersection. This shift in traffic patterns would add 122 vehicles to the northbound through movement and 96 vehicles to the northbound right turn movement during the AM peak hour and 49 vehicles to the northbound through movement and 39 vehicles to the northbound right turn movement during the PM peak hour.

The resulting traffic counts at the intersection for this “with project” scenario are shown in Table

2. TABLE 2
FUTURE TURNING MOVEMENTS –

UNION STREET/VULCAN AVENUE INTERSECTION
Time Period Union Westbound Vulcan Northbound Vulcan Southbound Left Right Through Right Left Through
AM Peak Hour 177 25 212 129 27 126
PM Peak Hour 100 19 135 71 16 105
The results of the LOS analysis are shown in Table 3. The LOS calculation sheets are provided as an attachment. The table shows the average delay at the intersection (seconds/vehicle) and the resulting LOS.

TABLE 3
LEVELS OF SERVICE – UNION STREET/VULCAN AVENUE INTERSECTION Scenario Intersection Delay (sec/veh) – Level of Service AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Existing Conditions 8.2 - A 8.0 – A
With Additional Traffic 10.9 - B 8.6 - A
This assumption is only accurate if the Union Street
drop-off/pick-up area is utilized exclusively by Kindergarten and 1st Grade students, with no students using the Vulcan Avenue area. Please confirm this assumption with the school.

Please include the HCM table identifying the Level of
Service (LOS) ranges from A through F.
4 Table 3 shows that the average delay would increase from 8.2 to 10.9 seconds per vehicle and that the level of service would change from LOS A to LOS B for the AM peak hour as a result of the shifted traffic patterns. For the PM peak hour, the average delay would increase from 8.0 to 8.6 seconds per vehicle and the level of service would remain at LOS A with the additional traffic volumes. Levels of service A and B represent acceptable traffic conditions.

Another issue that should be addressed regarding the shift in traffic patterns is that there would be an increase in the number of vehicles traveling south on Vulcan Avenue to turn left into the new drop-off/pick-up area. As the vehicle queues at this facility routinely extend into the northbound travel lane on Vulcan Avenue under existing conditions and would continue to do so with the proposed scenario, left turns from southbound Vulcan Avenue into the drop-off/pick-up would continue to be problematic during the peak arrival and departure times. Because of the difficulty in making the left-turn movement, many drivers would continue south on Vulcan Avenue to make a U-turn at Halcyon Road or Orpheus Avenue. Alternatively, some drivers who previously approached the school on Cereus Street, Hermes Avenue, and Union Street to access the Union Street drop-off/pick-up area might elect to use Hygeia Avenue and Orpheus Avenue as a travel route to northbound Vulcan Avenue to avoid making left turns onto Vulcan Avenue from Union Street and left turns or U-turns on Vulcan Avenue. This situation would potentially result in lane blockages from stopped vehicles on Vulcan Avenue and a minor increase in traffic volumes on these alternate travel routes.

An option that is available to prevent or discourage motorists from turning left into the new dropoff/pick-up area would be to install a No Left Turn sign on southbound Vulcan Avenue with the restricted times posted on the sign. Cones or a retractable arm could also be used to more aggressively prevent the left turning movements. Similarly, a No Left Turn sign with the restricted times posted on the sign could be installed at the parking lot exit onto Vulcan Avenue at the north end of the lot. This would reduce delays for motorists exiting the drop-off/pick-up area during peak periods. These turning restrictions are subject to review and approval by the City of Encinitas.

Queuing Analysis
The proposed student drop-off/pick-up area in the school’s west parking lot will have a length of 400 feet where a sidewalk is positioned adjacent to the stopped vehicles. While this is substantially longer than the 210 feet of the existing on-site drop-off/pick-up area, the City’s off-site dropoff/pick-up facility on the west side of Vulcan Avenue has an additional 200 feet, which results in a total length of 410 feet for the existing drop-off/pick-up opportunities where a sidewalk is positioned adjacent to the stopped vehicles. The proposed design would provide approximately the same length of a drop-off/pick-up area in the west parking lot at the school where a sidewalk is positioned adjacent to the stopped vehicles (400 feet vs. 410 feet). There are, however, some areas along the circulation route for the off-site and on-site facilities that are not drop-off/pick-zones with an adjacent sidewalk but are used for vehicle queuing. Included are the north end of the City’s off-site facility and the gated opening for maintenance vehicle access at the south end of an existing school building. As these areas are typically used for queuing, the total length of the existing onsite and off-site queuing and drop-off/pick-up area is 510 feet. The proposed design would reduce that to 400 feet. Figure 4 shows the locations of the drop-off/pick-up areas and queuing-only areas at the existing school.

Because of the shift from LOS A to LOS B, it would be
beneficial to include the existing conditions analysis to confirm that the change to LOS B can be attributed to the additional traffic impacting the intersection resulting from the closure of the Union Street drop-off/pick-up area.

The queue must be fully accommodated on-site. Queue
spillback onto Vulcan Avenue will not be permitted.

The statement that the proposed on-site drop-off/pick-up area is substantially longer from the existing condition is inaccurate. The report does not account for the queuing length currently provided by the Union Street drop-off/pick-up area when comparing the existing and proposed conditions. The report should be revised to account for the existing drop-off/pick-up queuing capacity along Vulcan Avenue and Union Street so that statements comparing on-site drop-off/pick-up storage between the existing and proposed conditions accurately reflect the available capacity under both conditions.

The overall neighborhood circulation should be further analyzed in detail to determine how southbound trips on Vulcan Avenue would access and enter the northbound drop-off/pick-up queue. The analysis should identify the anticipated routing and potential conflict points associated with these movements. The City’s objective is to minimize U-turns along Vulcan Avenue. Therefore, the proposed circulation plan should demonstrate how southbound vehicles can access the drop-off/pick-up facilities without relying on U-turns along Vulcan Avenue at Halcyon Road and Orpheus Avenue.
5 There are several formulas that are typically used to calculate the appropriate length for school drop-off/pick-up areas. One is a general rule-of-thumb equation that says the capacity (in vehicles) of a student drop-off/pick-up area should be 10 to 20 percent of the number of students being dropped off. The source of this guideline is a document titled “Smart Design Solutions for School Arrival and Departure” (Gorove Slade Associates – Transportation Planners and Engineers, February 2025, Comparable Analysis section). Based on the traffic volumes provided by City staff from 2023, the egress driveway from this parking/loading area to Union Street has 103 vehicles exiting during the AM arrival time, which is higher than the PM dismissal time volume of 48 vehicles. Ten percent of 103 vehicles is 10.3 and 20 percent is 20.6. Using the higher value, which is 21 vehicles, the length of the drop-off/pick-up and queuing area should be at least 420 feet (21 x 20 = 420). This is based on the assumption that each vehicle would require 20 feet (including the space between vehicles) since the average length of a car is 15 feet. This could be accommodated by the proposed drop-off/pick-up area because the additional single car would readily fit in the area between the driveway entrance and the first drop-off stopping space.

For the proposed school scenario, the number of cars using the Vulcan Avenue drop-off/pick-up area would increase by an estimated 115 vehicles. These are the vehicles that would be shifted to the Vulcan Avenue facility because of the elimination of the Union Street drop-off area. While the City’s 2023 counts indicated that 162 vehicles used the Union Street facility, District staff has stated that the kindergarten and 1st grade students would be dropped of at the new facility at the northeast corner of the school site. As explained in the Level of Service Analysis section, an estimated 71 percent of the students will be in grades 2 through 6. It is assumed, therefore, that 115 additional vehicles (162 x 0.71) would be using the Vulcan Avenue drop-off area. The total of the existing plus additional vehicles is 218 vehicles (103 existing + 115 additional vehicles).

If the high-end value of 20 percent is used, the drop-off/pick-up and queuing area should be able to accommodate 44 vehicles, which would require a queuing length of 880 feet. As this is physically impossible and would result in unacceptable queuing into the northbound lanes of Vulcan Avenue, the District has agreed to set up a program where staff would assist in loading and unloading students from the vehicles and directing drivers to quickly leave the drop-off zone. This type of program would reduce the queuing requirement to 10 percent of the number of vehicles using the drop-off facility. As 10 percent of 218 vehicles equates to 22 vehicles, the required queuing length would be 440 feet (22 vehicles x 20 feet per vehicle). The proposed 400-foot dropoff/pick-up facility could accommodate the anticipated queuing demand because the additional two vehicles could fit in the area between the driveway entrance and the first drop-off stopping space.

There is also a standard queuing formula that is used to determine queue lengths, as documented in the “Traffic Engineering Handbook” (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 7th Edition). The formula for “average number in the system,” which includes the queue plus the vehicles being served, is:

N = AR/(SR – AR)
Where N = number of vehicles, AR = arrival rate, SR = service rate This still does not account for the vehicles that
previously utilized the Union Street drop-off/pick-up
area, and the analysis remains unchanged from the
previous version. As a result, this section is no
longer relevant. Please remove this section.

The queue must be fully accommodated on-site. Queue
spillback onto Vulcan Avenue will not be permitted.
6 The projected traffic volumes in the drop-off area would be 218 vehicles based on the year 2022- 23 enrollment of 608 students. As the number of students at the school has been steadily dropping, the projected student enrollment for the 2026-27 school year is 527 students according to District staff, which is a decrease of 13 percent. It is expected, therefore, that there would be a 13 percent reduction in the number of vehicles using the Vulcan Avenue drop-off facility, which results in an estimated 190 vehicles arriving. As the morning arrive time was observed to last around 20 minutes, the average arrival rate is 9.5 vehicles per minute (190/20 = 9.5). The service rate for student drop-offs is typically six seconds per vehicle, particularly since multiple vehicles are dropping off students simultaneously and the drop-off area would be stationed with assistants to facilitate the movement of students into and out of the vehicles. This equates to a service rate of 10 vehicles per minute dropping off students. Using these values, the calculation for the number of vehicles in the system is:

N = 9.5/(10.0 – 9.5) = 9.5/0.5 = 19 vehicles
A queue of 19 vehicles would require a length of 380 feet (19 x 20 = 380). So the proposed facility length of 400 feet could accommodate the queuing according to the formula under typical conditions, particularly with the use of attendants.

It should be noted that the queue calculations are based on average/typical arrival and service rates at schools. Service times can vary dramatically depending on driver behavior and school policies.

For example, if a school provides attendants to escort students between vehicles and school buildings, the service times are much shorter than if parents exit the car while loading or unloading students. It is recommended that the District consider using attendants during student arrival and dismissal times to facilitate and streamline the drop-off and pick-up activities.

With regard to the PM peak departure time, a queuing formula is not applicable because there is no arrival pattern that is compatible with the queuing calculation. This is because many motorists arrive early and wait for the students to be dismissed. The queuing, therefore, can be lengthy depending on the patterns of the arrival times. This situation frequently leads to numerous stopped vehicles in the queuing area, the nearby streets, and the available on-site parking spaces at schools.

The proposed 400-foot queuing and drop-off/pick-up area would not likely be sufficient to accommodate the queuing during the afternoon dismissal time if numerous parents arrive early and wait.

To accommodate that situation, the proposed site plan indicates that the number of marked parking spaces in the west lot would increase from 15 existing spaces to 18 proposed spaces. In addition, the number of parking spaces on the south side of Union Street would increase from 26 existing spaces (11 parallel spaces on the street, 10 on-site angled spaces, and 5 spaces at the northwest corner of the school site) to 28 proposed spaces. Motorists could use these parking areas while waiting for the students to be dismissed. These 28 spaces on the south side of Union Street would also be available for public use by residents and flea market patrons at all times. In addition, a student drop-off/pick-up area will be provided in the parking lot at the northeast corner of the school site. This facility will have a length of 180 feet.

The queue frequently spills onto northbound Vulcan Avenue during afternoon pick-up under existing conditions. Therefore, the statement that the required queue length of 380 feet would be less than the existing condition appears inaccurate, particularly when considering the additional traffic generated by the closure of the Union Street drop-off/pick-up area. This conclusion should be supported by additional analysis demonstrating the accuracy of Method #2 for determining the required queue length. The queue must be fully accommodated on-site. Queue spillback onto Vulcan Avenue will not be permitted.

The assumptions regarding the six-second service time per vehicle should be supported by school-specific data or field observations. In particular, the assumed service rate of 10 vehicles per minute provides only limited excess capacity relative to the projected arrival rate of 9.5 vehicles per minute. Please provide supporting data demonstrating that these assumptions are representative of actual operating conditions under the proposed drop-off/pick-up configuration. 7 Summary of Findings Regarding Level of Service and Queuing Analysis The key findings regarding the LOS and queuing analysis are outlined below. • The level of service analysis indicates that the intersection of Union Street and Vulcan Avenue currently operates at LOS A during the AM and PM peak hours. It would operate at LOS B during the AM peak hour for the “with project” scenario and would continue to operate at LOS A during the PM peak hour as additional motorists would travel through the intersection to access the Vulcan Avenue drop-off/pick-up area. During the AM arrival time, the average delay would be 8.2 seconds per vehicle for the existing scenario (LOS A) and 10.9 seconds per vehicle (LOS B) with the additional traffic volumes. For the PM dismissal time, the average delay would be 8.0 seconds per vehicle for the existing scenario and 8.6 seconds per vehicle for the “with project” scenario, both of which are LOS A. • The proposed project would result in an increase in the length of the on-site drop-off/pickup areas that have a sidewalk adjacent to the stopped vehicles in the west parking lot from the existing length of 210 feet to a proposed length of 400 feet. The combined length of the on-site area and the off-site drop-off/pick-up area where sidewalks are adjacent to the stopped vehicles is 410 feet (210 feet on-site and 200 feet off-site on the east side of Vulcan Avenue). The project would result in a minor decrease of 10 feet, but the entire dropoff/pick-up area would be within the school campus. • While segments of the on-site and off-site queuing area are not designated as drop-off/pickup zones, they are still available for vehicle queuing. This results in a combined dropoff/pick-up and queuing area that is 510 feet in length. The proposed project would result in a reduction in total queuing area of 110 feet in the west parking lot as 400 linear feet would be provided. A new drop-off/pick-up area that is 180 feet long would be provided in the parking lot at the northeast corner of the school site. • A queuing formula based on typical arrival and service rates indicates that the queue length (including the drop-off/pick-up activities) would be 380 feet (19 vehicles) during the AM arrival time, which could be accommodated by the proposed 400-foot zone. • Another queuing formula that states that the student drop-off/pick-up zone should have a length that is 10 percent of the number of students being dropped off (assuming that attendants are being used to facilitate the students entering and exiting the vehicles). This formula indicates that the facility should have a minimum length of 440 feet. This could be accommodated by the proposed drop-off/pick-up area because the additional two cars would fit in the area between the driveway entrance and the first drop-off stopping space. • A queuing analysis was not conducted for the PM dismissal time because many motorists arrive early and wait for the students to be dismissed. The queuing, therefore, can be lengthy depending on the patterns of the arrival times. This situation frequently leads to numerous stopped vehicles in the queuing area, the nearby streets, and the available on-site parking spaces at schools. The proposed 400-foot queuing and drop-off/pick-up area would not likely be sufficient to accommodate the queuing during the afternoon dismissal time if numerous parents arrive early and wait.
• To accommodate the PM peak activity, the proposed site plan indicates that the number of marked parking spaces in the west lot would increase from 15 existing spaces to 18 8 proposed spaces and the number of parking spaces on the south side of Union Street would increase from 26 spaces to 28 spaces. Motorists could use these parking areas while waiting for the students to be dismissed. In addition, a student drop-off/pick-up area will also be provided in the parking lot at the northeast corner of the school site. It has not yet been determined if the parking spaces in the Vulcan Avenue lot would be designated for staff parking or visitor parking or both.
• The District should consider using attendants during student arrival and dismissal times to facilitate and streamline the drop-off and pick-up activities if it is observed that vehicle queues frequently extend into the northbound lane of Vulcan Avenue. District staff has indicated support for the use of attendants during the drop-off and pick-up activities. • An option that is available to prevent or discourage motorists from turning left into the new drop-off/pick-up area would be to install a No Left Turn sign on southbound Vulcan Avenue with the restricted times posted on the sign. Cones or a retractable arm could also be used to more aggressively prevent the left turning movements. Similarly, a No Left Turn sign with the restricted times posted on the sign could be installed at the parking lot exit onto Vulcan Avenue at the north end of the lot. This would reduce delays for motorists exiting the drop-off/pick-up area during peak periods. These turning restrictions are subject to review and approval by the City of Encinitas
Comments:
- What operational change justifies the substantially shorter queuing area now shown along Vulcan Avenue, given that the project will consolidate additional traffic from Union Street into the same facility? The former site provided approximately 510 feet of queuing along Vulcan Avenue and 300 feet along Union Street. What specific change now allows the increased demand to be accommodated with substantially less roadway storage off Vulcan Avenue, and how does the new demand compare with the previous existing demand? - The service rate is significantly different from the previous analysis, which assumed a service rate of 6 vehicles per minute, or approximately 10 seconds per vehicle. Please explain the basis for changing the assumed service time from 10 seconds per vehicle to 6 seconds per vehicle and provide supporting data or other documentation demonstrating that the proposed queuing area can consistently achieve the revised service rate under the anticipated operating conditions.
- Based on City staff's observations over the past several years, school staff have routinely been present and actively assisted students during morning drop-off.

Despite this staff assistance, the queue associated was frequently observed to extend outside the available queuing area. The report states that District staff supports the use of attendants for school drop-off and pick-up. Please address how the use of attendants will be guaranteed and maintained as a permanent operational requirement, including the mechanism by which the District will ensure that adequate staff are available during the drop-off and pick-up periods. - Under the former conditions, school traffic has been processed through two separate drop-off/pick-up facilities operating concurrently. The revised report identifies 103 vehicles using the Vulcan Avenue facility and 162 vehicles using the former Union Street facility during the AM arrival period. Under the proposed condition, the majority of the traffic previously using the Union Street facility would be shifted to the proposed Vulcan Avenue facility. The historical 20-minute school arrival period represents traffic that was being processed through multiple access/drop-off facilities at the same time. Applying that same approximately 20-minute period to the consolidated Vulcan Avenue demand does not, by itself, demonstrate that the proposed single facility can process the combined traffic demand within that same period. Please address how the 20 minute arrival period still applies to the proposed project. - The revised report now recognizes that the existing Vulcan Avenue circulation system provides approximately 510 feet of total drop-off/pick-up and queuing storage and that the proposed project would reduce this storage to approximately 400 feet. Therefore, the project would reduce the available west-side queue storage by approximately 110 feet, while simultaneously shifting additional school traffic to this facility. The revised report also acknowledges that vehicle queues at the Vulcan Avenue facility routinely extend into the northbound travel lane under existing conditions and would continue to do so under the proposed scenario. The project needs to accommodate all queuing on-site. Formation of queues on a public street will not be permitted. - Since the revised analysis is relying on the northerly facility to accommodate approximately 29 percent of the former Union Street drop-off/pick-up demand, the operational and queuing capacity of that facility must also be evaluated, similar to the Vulcan Avenue evaluation. In addition, please confirm how the kindergarten and first-grade traffic will continue to use the northerly facility in the future. - Please provide supporting documentation for the enrollment projection and explain whether 527 students represents the appropriate design condition for the permanent school reconstruction project.
- The revised report states that the proposed 400-foot queuing/drop-off area would not likely be sufficient to accommodate afternoon dismissal queuing if numerous parents arrive early and wait. The report's summary similarly acknowledges that the proposed facility would not likely accommodate the PM queue under these conditions. The fact that the AM queuing formula may not be applicable to the afternoon dismissal period does not eliminate the need to evaluate this condition. Please provide an appropriate PM queuing analysis based on observed vehicle accumulation, arrival patterns, or 95th-percentile conditions.

Map data ©2026 Google 100 m
Paul Ecke Central Elementary School
FIGURE 1

LOCATION MAP

PAUL ECKE CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

ENCINITAS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT

PROJECT
SITE
Imagery ©2026 Google, Imagery ©2026 Airbus, Data CSUMB SFML, CA OPC, Maxar Technologies, Vexcel Imaging US, Inc., Map data ©2026 50 m Paul Ecke Central Elementary School
FIGURE 2

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF EXISTING SCHOOL

PAUL ECKE CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

ENCINITAS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
X
X
X
X = School Entrances
Imagery ©2026 Google, Imagery ©2026 Airbus, Maxar Technologies, Vexcel Imaging US, Inc., Map data ©2026 20 m Student Drop-Off/Pick-Up Area
Queuing Area
FIGURE 4

DROP-OFF/PICK UP & QUEUING AREAS

PAUL ECKE CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

ENCINITAS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
TRAFFIC COUNTS – UNION STREET/VULCAN AVENUE INTERSECTION AM COUNTS – 7:30 to 8:30 AM
Source of Counts Union Westbound Vulcan Northbound Vulcan Southbound Left Right Through Right Left Through
City of Encinitas
Tuesday 4/25/23 89 25 N/A 33 22 N/A
Garland Associates
Thursday 8/28/25 74 22 90 27 27 99
Used for Calculation
(Highest Count) 89 25 90 33 27 99
PM COUNTS – 1:50 to 2:50 PM
Source of Counts Union Westbound Vulcan Northbound Vulcan Southbound Left Right Through Right Left Through
City of Encinitas
Tuesday 4/25/23 62 19 N/A 32 4 N/A
Garland Associates
Thursday 8/28/25 53 16 86 27 16 103
Used for Calculation
(Highest Count) 62 19 86 32 16 103