HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-10-20; City Council; 9120-2; Report: RSF Rd Alignment CommitteeCI- OF CARLSBAD - AGENC BILL ,$V--J
10/20/87 REPORT OF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD ALIGNMENT COMMITTEE )EPT.r.nMMTTTFF
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Committee recommends that Council approve realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road southeasterly in the general alignment identified as Hunsaker Alignment 2 and that Council direct that required financing and planning efforts be expedited to insure the earliest possible construction of the roadway. prepare necessary environmental documents. If Council concurs, direct staff to amend Circulation Plan and
ITEM EXPLANATION
On July 7 the Council appointed a committee comprised of homeowners, the La Costa Ranch Company, MAG Properties and the City Engineer to study alternative alignments for Rancho Santa Fe Road extending from La Costa Avenue northerly to Melrose Drive. Through its deliberation the Committee explored in detail two potential corridor a1 ignments. The first corridor follows closely the existing a1 ignment exploring various alternatives providing for noise mitigation. The second corridor studied options for relocating the road southeasterly into the canyon in the vicinity of the current truck bypass a1 ignment.
After detailed analysis of several alternatives in each corridor, two alternatives were selected to provide the basis for final analysis.
MITIGATED ALTERNATIVE (Hunsaker 1)
The first alternative, as recommended by the Circulation Committee follows closely the existing a1 ignment providing sufficient relocation to accommodate an optimum noise mitigation. The City contracted with Mestre Greve Associates, noise consultants, to assist in the design of noise mitigation. Several offset designs were explored, but it was determined that a twenty-five foot offset (25 ft.) would be adequate to provide for offsite noise walls varying from 6 to 12 feet in height and landscape buffers. Additional offsets of up to 150 feet provided little in the way of noise mitigation at major costs.
The consultant’s analysis of the proposed mitigated a1 ignment indicates that a noise level of 60 CNEL could be expected assuming conservative projection criteria. Details of the consultant finding are included in the Committee’s final report.
It should be noted that the homeowners on the Committee conceded the consultants findings but are skeptical that any adequate noise mitigation is possible along the existing alignment and further feel that 60 CNEL is not adequate. It is the noise consultant’s opinion that 60 CNEL is below generally accepted standards of 65 CNEL and normally adequate for this situation.
I
*a PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. ?/u?o -
Were the mitigated a1 ignment selected, further detailed noise designs would be required. Each home requires detailed design in conjunction with homeowners. In some cases optimum mitigation may require in-house structural solutions. Staff would a1 so suggest further homeowner education in the form of field review of similar situations.
CANYON REALIGNMENT (Hunsaker 2)
In devel opi ng the Canyon A1 ignment several a1 ternat i ves were expl ored in various locations between the truck bypass and the previously proposed Rick 2 Alignment. The Hunsaker 2 Alignment was selected as the optimum design solution providing for future development potential.
All canyon alignments were located in areas constrained by steep slopes and will require significant grading.
The proposed Canyon Alignment meets City design standards and would be a safe roadway. The Environmental Consultants have reviewed the a1 ignment and see no archaeological, biological or paleontological restrictions. Grading would appear to be the primary negative environmental impact of this a1 ignment.
A major question surrounding either a1 ternative but particularly the Canyon Alternative relates to access and land use interface. In the absence of a detailed land plan it is difficult to fully analyze the land use implications of either alignment. Intersection locations, off roadway grading impacts and access to MAG Properties are all concerns that cannot be answered in the absence of further detailed planning and engineering. The Committee wishes to expedite this process and construction of the roadway.
CONCLUSION
The majority of the Alignment Committee feel that the Mitigated A1 ignment, wi 11 not adequately address noise and environmental impacts. The only acceptable alternative is realignment of the roadway. The proposed canyon alternative is an acceptable road design but will cost from $2 to $5 million more to construct than the Mitigated Alignment, will involve significant grading and is not easily phased. To compensate for these costs in time and expense the La Costa Ranch Company requests assurances that the planning process be expedited.
It should be noted that the M.A.G. Properties’ representative abstained from the Committee’s recommendation. M.A.G. Properties‘ representative has indicated that, if the City Council adopts the canyon alignment, M.A.G. Properties will cooperate with City and adjacent home and land owners in implementing the alignment so long as it is provided with assurances that other suitable commercial property is provided for that
PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 7/20 -*z
taken and rendered unbui 1 dab1 e by the real ignment, reasonable access i s provided from Rancho Santa Fe Road to the site, and processing of its site development pl an i s expedited.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Attached is a memo from the City Engineer to the Community Development Director presenting the Staff’s evaluation of the two proposed alternatives (Exhibit 1). It is staff‘s recommendation that Council endorse the Circulation Committee recommendation and adopt the Mitigated Alignment. This alignment is the most direct, most economical and in the staff’s and consultant’s opinion could adequately address noise concerns. This alternative can also be more easily phased to provide early relief to existing noise and safety problems.
The Canyon Alignment proposed is an acceptable alternative and contains many positive elements related to noise mitigation, community cohesion and overall development economics. Given strong community support, this alternative could be further refined and developed into an excellent scenic corridor. It is unlikely, however, that this alignment can be completed quickly without significant City commitment of time and resources. Staff can support the Canyon A1 ignment provided an alternative site for Fire Station No. 6 can be provided and that no pre-commitments to either MAG Properties or the La Costa Ranch Company are necessary.
FISCAL IMPACT
Unknown.
EXHIBITS
1.
2./ Matrix Comparison of Alternatives
3. Cost Comparison Matrix
Memo from City Engineer to Community Development Director
4. [Final Report on file with City Clerk
3
. .- A
September 29, 1987
TO : COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
FROM: CITY ENGINEER
RANCHO SANTA FE ALIGNMENT RECOMMENDATION
The Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Committee has completed its studies
and is recommending that the Council realign Rancho Santa Fe Road south-
easterly into the Canyon area and that staff provide expedited processing
of La Costa Ranch Company approvals and accelerated construction of the
roadway.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:
Recommended Canyon Aliqnment :
The Canyon Alignment would relocate Rancho Santa Fe Road southerly
in the general vicinity of the truck bypass. This alignment is remote
from the existing development and follows a topographic edge con-
dition at the foot of a steep rocky hillside.
The Committee feels that the Canyon Alignment is the only alternative
which adequately mitigates noise and other environmental impacts on
existing homes fronting the route, and that following the hillside edge
creates a more cohesive residential community.
This alignment, however, does contain the following disadvantages :
o Costs $2 to $5 million more to construct.
o Is more difficult to phase, finance and implement.
o Creates a costly severance of MAG Properties.
o Will require relocation of Fire Station No. 6, which could
o
o
delay development in the area.
May require City financial or priority preferences to expedite
construction.
Requires significant grading to construct.
Mitiqated Alignment:
The Mitigated Alignment relocates the existing roadway 25 feet, varies
roadbed elevations and constructs noise barriers of 8 to 24 feet in
height along the route.
will reduce noise levels to 60 CNEL, which is below generally accepted
levels of 65 CNEL.
Noise consultants predict that this alignment
Page 2
Community Development Director
September 29, 1987
The Mitigated Alignment has the following advantages:
o Less costly.
o More easily phase constructed.
o
o Does not require relocation of Fire Station No. 6.
o
Could be initiated more quickly to provide early mitigation and
improvements to the existing roadway.
Contains fewer right-of-way constraints to implementation.
Disadvantages :
o Requires abutting residents' cooperation.
o Noise and environmental mitigation less effective than relocation.
o
o
Divides residential community more than the Canyon Alignment.
Could experience delays if challenged by the residents.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:
Either alternative will provide an adequate safe highway design to accommo-
date future travel demands.
munity support,and can provide several desirable design features which
could enhance development of the La Costa Master Plan area. Should the
La Costa Ranch Company wish to pursue this option, it could provide a
dramatic scenic corridor and create a very desirable development westerly
of the roadway.
The Canyon Alignment has a depth of com-
Because the Canyon alignment costs more and is significantly more difficult
to implement, staff must concur with the Circulation Committee and rec-
ommend adoption of the Mitigated Alignment.
Should Council choose the Canyon Alignment, it is recommended that the
La Costa Ranch Company be required to provide an alternative site for
Fire Station No. 6 within six months and that no precommitments be made
to either MAG Properties or La Costa Ranch Company re:
o Density transfers
o Grading variances
o Access variances
o Financial support
c
Page 3
Community Development Director
September 29, 1987
RECOMMENDATION :
Staff supports the Circulation Committee and recommends adoption of the Mitigated Alignment.
LLOYD B. HUBBS City Engineer
LBH/pmj
_”-
mbmmenbl Impacts
~~ ~
cost t Financing
policy Inpacts
phased ool.lstruction will inprow the mad conditions mre SUicklY - traffic aontrol during cons- truction with tenporary safety
Noise, pollutian and vibration inpacts to existing haws unacceptable to residents.
-.
constructicnwuuldbemom disruptive to existing msiderh.
9 Leastcostlyandmore easily phase cOPIStructed for ease of financing.
Mitigation may be amst-
rutted mom quickly.
CdulaaaVerselyimpaCthcme
values in the abutting neighbr- hood.
=wrxlldter~Ito~FUM Lands creating environ- merrtdL disnaptim on two, sides of the mad creating a relatively isolated dty on the southeast.
Less likely to require special
policy considerations and priority
p-ing.
9 Cmstmction less dis- wive to existing traffic.
poterrtially significant
cmstnxtion activities P=di-w=N.i=d.
less disruptiw.
= superiornoisemiti- gation for residences.
$2-5,000,000 Oost. Difficult to phase curl- structandfinan=e. May emumter aostly delays due to right of way aan- straints. . Depenains an financing
and priority, could take
5 to 7 years to aJnstm&
with no early relief to
existing rpadway prablarrs.
Earlyconstructim wuuld likely require financing which may tend to increasedevelcpnent
Pa=* - Follc~ds a natural edge
dangacanyonand hillside creating a more cohesive RzM dty northeasterly of the
roadway which may enhame marketing and developnent econcmics offsetting in-
Creasedmadcost.
Will likely require pro-
cessing priority and spe- cial financial pmgmning to eliminate delays to con- struction.
9 Will require the relo- cation of Fh Station No.
6 and poterrtially slaw dev- lapnent in Zone 6. 7
ITEM
RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
ALIGNMENT STUDY
COST COMPARISON MATRIX
MITIGATED CANYON ALIGNMENT ALIGNMENT (HUNSAKER 1) (HUNSAKER 2)
Construction Cost $11,358,330 $14,434,000
Environmental Mitigation $ 983,070 $ - O -
*MAG Properties Right of Way $ 300,000** $ 1,305,Oo
Maintenance
Differential $ 400,000 $ - 0 -
Me1 rose Drive
Adjustment s -0- ($ 1,800.000)
TOTAL $13 , 041 , 400 $13 , 939,000
ITEM CUMULATIVE COST DIFFERENTIAL COST (HUNSAKER 2) DIFFERENTIAL
$3 , 075 , 670 $3,075 , 670
($983 , 070) $2 , 092,600
$1 , 005 , 000 $3 , 097,600
($ 400,000) $2 , 697 , 600
($1,800,000) $ 897,600
*Based on staff analysis subject to further study. up to $2,000,000.
**MAG Properties has indicated that they would dedicate this property at no cost.
Could increase by
c
FINAL
REPORT OF THE
RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
ALIGNMENT STUDY
COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 1987
.--
FINAL REPORT
RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
ALIGNMENT STUDY COmITTEE
SEPTEHBER 1987
t i.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Chai rman Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer
Citizen’s Representatives
Joe Dunn Mike Glass Alan Recce
La Costa Ranch Company
Doug Avis - Representative
MAG Properties Fred Morey - Representative
STAFF SUPPORT
Ross McDonald - La Costa Ranch Company Steve Tate - Hunsaker & Associates Bob Ladwig - Rick Engineering Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Walter Brown, Principal Civil Engineer Lance Schulte, Associate Planner Frank Boensch, Management Analyst Ann Ferguson, Minutes Clerk
.-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
........................ 1 I. Executive Summary
11. Comparison of Alternatives ................... 7
Preliminary Cost Estimate for RSF Rd. Alignment Alternatives. .. 10
111. Mitigated Alternative ...................... 11
Plan for Mitigated Alternative (Hunsaker 1)
Noise Impact/View Analysis Sections ...............
Preliminary Cost Estimates (Hunsaker 1)
13
14
15
16
...........
.............
IV. Canyon A1 ternat i ve .......................
Plan for Canyon Alternative (Hunsaker 2) ............ 19
Prel iminary cost Estimates for Hunsaker 2 ........... 20
V. M.A.G. Properties Right of Way Analysis ............. 21
IV. Appendices
c
e
Exhibit A Memorandum from Fred Morey dated August 8, 1987
Exhibit B MAG Properties Master Plan Designations
Exhibit C MAG Properties Canyon Alternative Rights of Way
Exhibit D Noise Impact Analysis by Mestre Greve Associates
Exhibit E Acoustical Analysis Study by Alexander Segal
Exhibit F Correspondence
Exhibit G Minutes from Committee Meetings
L
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On July 7, 1987, the City Council appointed a committee comprised of
homeowners, the La Costa Ranch Company, MAG Properties and the City Engineer to
study alternative alignments for Rancho Santa Fe Road extending from La Costa
Avenue northerly to Melrose Drive. Through its deliberation the Committee
explored in detail two potential corridor a1 ignments. The first corridor
follows closely the existing a1 ignment exploring various alternatives providing
for noise mitigation. The second corridor studied options for relocating the
road southeasterly into the canyon in the vicinity of the current truck bypass
a1 i gnment .
After detailed analysis of several alternatives in each corridor, two
alternatives were selected to provide the basis for final comparison.
MITIGATED ALTERNATIVE (Hunsaker 1)
The first alternative, as recommended by the City Circulation Committee,
follows closely the existing alignment providing sufficient relocation to
provide noise and environmental mitigation. The City contracted the Mestre
Greve Associates, noise consultants, to assist in the design of noise
mitigation. Several offset designs were explored, but it was determined that a
twenty-five foot offset (25 ft.) would be sufficient to provide for offsite
noise walls varying from 6 to 12 feet in height and landscape buffers.
Additional offsets of up to 150 feet provided little in the way of noise
mitigation at significantly higher costs.
1
_-
The consultant’s analysis of the proposed Mitigated Alignment indicates that a
noise level of 60 CNEL could be expected when mitigation has been constructed.
Details of the consultant‘s findings are included in Section VI.
It should be noted that the homeowners on the Committee conceded the
consultant‘s findings but are skeptical that any adequate noise mitigation is
possible along the existing alignment and further feel that 60 CNEL is not
adequate. It is the noise consultant’s opinion that 60 CNEL is below generally
accepted state and federal standards and normally adequate for this situation.
Were the Mitigated A1 ignment selected, further detailed noise designs would be
required. Staff would also suggest further homeowner education in the form of
field review of similar situations.
It is not likely that all noise can be mitigated offsite. Should the Mitigated
Alternative be selected each home will require detailed design and analysis.
Final mitigation may require in-home structural solutions at a few isolated
locations.
CANYON ALTERNATIVE (Hunsaker 2)
In devel oping the Canyon A1 i gnment several a1 ternat i ves were expl ored i n
various locations between the truck bypass and the previously proposed Rick 2
Alignment. The Hunsaker 2 Alignment was selected as the design solution
providing optimum location for future development potential based on
prel iminary 1 and pl ans.
All canyon alignments were located in areas constrained by slopes and will
require significant grading.
2
c
c
c
c
The proposed Canyon Alignment meets City design standards and would be a safe
roadway. The environmental consultants have reviewed that alignment and see no
archeological, biological or paleontolgical restrictions. Gradins cost and
construction schedulina would aDDear to be the Drimarv neaative asDects of this
a1 i anment .
COST COMPARISON
To fully compare costs of the two alternatives would include a number of
factors which are not possible to consider without complete land plans for each
. alternative. Preliminary Cost Estimates included in the body of the report
deal exclusively with construction of each alternative ignoring any land
development economics. These estimates are as follows:
Mitigated Alternative (Hunsaker 1) $12,341,400
Canyon Alternative (Hunsaker 2) $14,434,000
A1 ternative Differential $2,092,600
(including noise mitigation)
The cost differential can be attributed almost exclusively to additional
grading and excludes any consideration of rights of way. It should be noted
that the Canyon Alignment is 600 feet longer than the Mitigated Alternative.
Factors that must further be considered are right of way, maintenance and
Melrose Drive cost savings. Should the Canyon Alternative be selected it is
calculated that Melrose Drive as a Prime Arterial will be shortened by 1300
feet producing a maximum cost savings of roughly $1.8 million. Should Melrose
be reclassified or deleted from the circulation element this amount would be
reduced or eliminated. The Mitigated Alignment includes a twenty-five (25)
foot landscape buffer which will have an incremental maintenance cost above the
Canyon Alternative of $20,000 per year. Given a 20 year period a $400,000
present worth adjustment may be appropriate. Isnorinq riqhts of wav it would
3
amear from a construction-land economics DersDective there could be little
).
With the exception of the 25 foot landscape buffer and MAG Properties it is
assumed that all other rights of way would be dedicated by the La Costa Ranch
Company at no cost to the project. A detailed analysis of MAG Properties
impacts are
included in Section V. The table below summarizes relevant cost data for each
a1 ternat i ve.
ITEM
Construction Cost
Env i ronmen t a1 Mitigation
c
,
*MAG Properties Right of Way
Maintenance Di fferenti a1
Me1 rose Drive Adjustment
TOTAL
MITIGATED ALIGNMENT (HUNSAKER 1)
$11,358,330
$ 983,070
$ 300,000**
S 400,000
f -0-
$13,041,400
CANYON ALIGNMENT (HUNSAKER 2)
$14,434,000
$ -0-
$ 1,305,OO
$ -0-
_($ 1,800,0001
$13,939,000
COST DIFFERENTIAL
$3,075,670
($983,070)
$1,005,000
($ 400,000)
($ 1,800,000)
$ 892,600
*Based on staff analysis subject to further study.
**MAG Properties has indicated that they would dedicate this property at no cost.
It should be noted that each cost adjustment may be subject to challenge.
approximately one million dollar differential should
be taken as a minimum differential excluding right of way costs. Given
different perspective that cost could range upward to $15 million assuming MAG
Properties analysis of land severance costs is correct.
The
4
CONCLUSION
A majority of the Alignment Committee feels that the Mitigated Alignment,
although the optimum economical design, will not mitigate noise and other
environmental impacts. The only acceptable alternative is a canyon a1 ignment.
The proposed alternative is an acceptable road design but could cost from 1 to
4 million dollars more to construct than the Mitigated Alignment, will involve
significant grading and is not easily phased. To compensate for costs,
financing and time delays the La Costa Ranch Company requests assurance that
plans will be expedited. If these things occur the Ranch Company supports the
Canyon Real ignment.
It should be noted that the M.A.G. Properties’ representative abstained from
the Committee’s recommendation. M.A.G. Properties‘ representative has
indicated that, if the City Council adopts the canyon alignment, M.A.G.
Properties will cooperate with the City and adjacent home and land owners in
implementing the alignment so long as it is provided with assurances that other
suitable commercial property is provided for that taken and rendered
unbuildable by the realignment, reasonable access is provided from Rancho Santa
Fe Road to the site, and processing of its site development plan is expedited.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The Committee recommends that Council approve realignment of Rancho Santa Fe
Road southeasterly in the general a1 ignment identified as Hunsaker 2 A1 ignment
and that Council direct that required financing and planning efforts be
expedited to insure the earliest construction of the roadway.
5
c
. I
CONCLUSION
A majority of the Alignment Committee feels that the Mitigated Alignment,
although the optimum economical design, will not mitigate noise and other
environmental impacts. The only acceptable a1 ternat ive is a canyon a1 ignment .
The proposed alternative is an acceptable road design but could cost from 1 to
4 million dollars more to construct than the Mitigated Alignment, will involve
significant grading and is not easily phased. To compensate for costs,
financing and time delays the La Costa Ranch Company requests assurance that
plans will be expedited. If these things occur the Ranch Company supports the
Canyon Realignment.
It should be noted that the MAG Properties representative dissents from the
Committee’s reco n and maintains that the Canyon Alignment will
severely damag otentially severing access to Rancho Santa
Fe Road. MAG h hey are willing to dedicate all lands
required for the Mitig articipate financially in noise
mitigations proposed for that a ould not voluntarily provide
either of these for the Canyon Align
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The Committee recommends that Council approve realignment of Rancho Santa Fe
Road southeasterly in the general a1 ignment identified as Hunsaker 2 A1 ignment
and that Council direct that required financing and planning efforts be
expedited to insure the earliest construction of the roadway.
5
I1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
c
The attached comparison matrix outlines advantages and disadvantages of the two
alternatives by relevant factors. In reviewing this data several factors
emerge as critical :
. Costs, Financing and Construction Scheduling
. Grading Impacts & Policies
. Quality of Life
COST. FINANCING AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULING
The Canyon A1 ignment is estimated to cost approximately $15,000,000. The
A1 ignment is far removed from existing travel and requires substantial grading.
The project does not lend itself well to phased construction and will require
special financing.
Financing and the early construction of this roadway will require a special
commitment by the City of manpower and resources.
Priority treatment given to Rancho Santa Fe Road and the La Costa area for
financing may have adverse impacts on improvement financing and development in
other segments of the City.
It is the City Engineer’s opinion that given time to refine
the planning and engineering within the project area it could be demonstrated
that the overall land economics will be equalized for both alternatives and
long term cost impacts would not be a consideration.
6
financing priority and phasing opportunities would however remain a primary
i ssue.
GRADING IMPACTS AND POLICIES
The Canyon Alignment will require substantial grading that could significantly
alter the land form in the canyon and surrounding areas.
Review through the Planning Process is designed to fully explore the
significance of grading impacts by all elements of the community. The
significance of grading impacts is a subjective representation of community
values. This determination can only be fairly represented at the conclusion of
a thorough public review.
COMMUNITY COHESION AND OUALITY OF LIFE
The residents living adjacent to the existing roadway believe that the Canyon
Alignment is the only alternative which will unite elements of the community
and restore their quality of life. They feel that the mitigation measures
proposed for the existing alignment are substantial but are not adequate. The
trade-off involved with increased grading and expedited processing are
acceptable to residents on the Committee.
Members of the Committee feel strongly that the existing alignment artificial
divides the community and that the Canyon Alignment follows a topograph
division which provides a natural hill side boundary.
Y
C
CONCLUSION:
Assuming that the land economics for either alternative are roughly equivalent
the issue resolves down to one of competing community values related to grading
7
c
c
impacts, pub1 ic review procedures, and the funding and processing priority of
Rancho Santa Fe Road.
If Rancho Santa Fe Road is a primary City financial commitment and if the
auality of life for existina residents alona the route exceed the Dotential
aradina imacts then the Canyon Alianment is the loqical selection. If either
of these facts are not clear the Mitigated Alternative should be more
thoroughly explored.
8
r-
safety
Cost t Financing
Policy Impacts
' Noise, pollutiopand
VibKatirn iapacts to existirrg
ncm~~ -le to residents.
Leastcostlyandmore easily plase for ease of financing.
MitigationIpaybecrxlst-
rutted mre quickly.
-waildte1~3tom€UM cands creatingenvimn- mentaldismptionontwo sides of the Lpad creating
B relatively isolated
3cIIIRllljty onthe SxmeaSt.
m likely to require §pedal policy amsiderations and prioriQ
processing.
9
. less dis-
ruptive to existbg
traffic.
. Ibtentidlly significant
cmstm&~on activities 1eSS'dismptive.
9 superior mise miti- gation for residences.
gradirrg-.
$2-5,000,000 more Cost.
Difficult to @ass am- Structandfiname. May costly delays due to right of way con-
Depenains on financing and priority, cmld take
5 to 7 years to c2odmXt with no early relief to existing roadway prcbl-.
Early amstnxtion
Wd likely requize financing which may tend to increasedevelopnent
pa=*
Follows a natural dge
aloq a canyon and hillside creating a more wive RIM amwnity northeasterly of the roadway which may enhance marketing and developlent
eccHlQILics offsetting in-
creasedroadcost.
Will likely require pro-
cess- priority and spe- cial financial programing to eliminate delays to con- struction.
Will requirethe&*
6andm * ly slow dev-
cation of Fh Station No.
lapnent in Zone 6.
[ TEMS I
- PRELIMINARY COST EST,'-' ATE SUMMARY RANwIO SANTA FE ROAD ALIGNMENT ALTERNAltVES
1.
2.
3.
4.
9.
6.
7.
8
9.
IO.
SOUND MITIGCITION
EXISTING DEVELOFEMENT
FUTURE DEVELOFEMENT
FARKWCIY LANDSCAPE
(FUTURE DEVELOPEMENT)
REMOVE EXISTINQ IMPROVEMENTS
EARTHWORK
PAVEMENT CIND EASE
CURB AND GUTTER
SIDEWALK
MED I CIN ( CURB 1
MED I CIN ( LANDSCAP I NG 1
STORM DRCIIN
11. FRESSURE REDUCING STATION
12. UTILITIES (GAS, ELECTRIC,
TELEPHONE, CABLE T.V.1
13. STREET LIGHTS
14. GUARD RAIL
15. MISC. REMOVALS & RELOCATIONS
160 WIDENING SAN MARCOS CREEK
BRIDGE TO SIX LANES
47. ENGINEERING
SUBTOTAL
10% CONT I NGENCY
TOTAL
W.O. 470-6
AUGUST 24, 1987 10
Alignment Study Cost
~~
CILIGNMENT 1
st393 ; 700.00
3234,000.00
3381,000.00
3 160,000. 00
42,250,000.00
31,973,250.00
3 158,400. 00
3297,000.00
9138., 600.00
*1~514,70Om00
825r.,, CM:)o. 00
$25, 000. 00
3500, 000. 00
91,325,498.00 ---------------
31 1,087,148.00
$1, 108,714.80
412,195,862.80
ALIGNMENT 2
$840,000. 00
380,000.00
342, 000. 00
3100,000.00
I11 UITIGATED ALTERNATIVE (HUNSAKER 11
c
DESIGN OBJECTIVE
The Mitigated Alternative was designed to meet the recommendations of the City
Circulation Committee by developing a roadway design along the existing
a1 ignment which optimally mitigates noise impacts and provides an aesthetically
pleasing scenic corridor.
Development of the chosen a1 ternative was driven primarily by requirements of
noise mitigation. Noise reduction is obtained through a combination of roadway
movement and construction of berms and walls.
Three conditions exist along the roadway as discussed in more detail in the
Noise Study in Section VI. Adjacent lands are either below the existing road,
level with it, or eight (8) to twenty (20) feet above. Each condition requires
a different design treatment as shown in the attached cross sections. Areas at
grade or below are easily mitigated through a wall and berm combination
representing a 10 to 16 foot barrier. This barrier being easily constructed
within a twenty-five (25) foot buffer. Two story houses on a twelve (12) foot
elevated slope is the most difficult to mitigate and requires a 20 to 24 foot
barrier. This situation occurs with 12 homes located primarily just southerly
of Cadencia Street. To obtain noise mitigation in this situation requires the
filling of back yards and construction of a retaining wall, slope and wall
combination as shown in Section C & D following. To provide additional
protection the easterly uphill roadbed could be depressed up to three feet.
This can also be accomplished within a twenty-five (25) foot buffer except for
selected lots northerly of Cadencia which sit 20 feet above the roadway. In
this condition on-site noise walls are unavoidable.
11
Additional noise mitigation can be accomplished by further movement of the road
easterly but with diminishing utility. The first 50 foot move would effect a 2
to 3dba reduction. To effect the same reduction the next move would have to be
100 feet. The same noise effect can be obtained with an extra one or two feet
of wall height. Movement of the road more than 100 feet introduces significant
topographic constraints and a strip of land difficult to plan, construct and
maintain. It has been estimated that each 50 foot movement of the road costs
$700,000 in land and construction and introduces a $60,000 per year maintenance
cost.
It was concluded that it was most cost effective to minimize the roadway offset
and increase wall heights as required. Twenty-five feet of offset provides
adequate room to construct the required walls, berms and landscape buffer. The
Mitigated Alternative is illustrated fully in the attached plans, typical
sections and cost estimates.
12
a. L
J'Q
c
RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
NOISE IMPACT VIEW ANALYSIS SECTIONS
FRELIM. AKY COST ESTIMATE FOR BUDGtiXNG FURPOSES
RANCHO SAN FE RD. FROM LA COSTA NORTH TO MELROSE
FULL WIDTH IMPROVEMENTS
ALIGNMENT 1
(9,900 LF)
TO? AL -----
1. A. SOUND MITIOATION SUMMARY
(EXISTING DEVELOFEMENT)
6' WALL
8' WALL
10' WALL
4' RETAINING WALL
EARTHWORK
CUL-DE-SAC CADENCIA
LANDSCAPE 25' BUFFER
LAND VALUE
JERSEY BARRIER
Z500 LF
1 (:)or) LE
1300 LF
1300 LF
17500 CY
1 LS
107500 SF
2.56 AC
500 LF
J30.00
340.00
%SO. 00
440. (30
J4.00
340000. i30
93.00
970000. 00
940.00
3 1 os, O(30.00
940,000.00
852,000.00
940,000 . 00
3322 , 500.00
920,000.00
$65,000.00
970, 000. 00
3179,200.00
SUB-TOTAL
B. SOUND MITIGATION
(FUTURE DEVELOPEMENT)
a) 6' WALL 7800 LF 330.00 %234 1 000 c 80
PARKWAY LANDSCAPE
(FUTURE DEVELOPMENT)
REMOVE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
EARTHWORK
PAVEHENT % BASE
CURE & GUTTER
SIDEWALK
MEDIAN (CURB)
MEDIAN (LANDSCAPING)
STORM DRAIN
PRESSURE REDUC ING STAT I ON
UTILITIES (GAS, ELECTRIC,
TELEPHONE, CABLE T.V.)
STREET LIGHTS
GUARD RAIL
MISC. REMOVALS & RELOCATIONS
WIDENING SAN MARCOS CREEK
BRIDGE TO SIX .LANES
ENGINEERINO (1%)
2.
3.
4. a) 5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10. b) ii.
12.
13.
14.
c) 15.
16.
127000 SF
3~0000 LF
450000 CY
877000 SF
19800 LF
198000 SF
19800 LF
168300 SF
1 LS
1 LS
33.00
SQ. so 3s. 00
32.25
B8.00
41.50
97.00
39.00
3250000.0o
325000.00
%381100Q. 00
S16O,00Q060
31 , 973,250-00
3158,400.00
429 250,000. 00
3297,000.00
9250,000. 00
32s , 000.00
9138,600.00
31,s 14,700.00
9900 LF
40 EA
700 LF
1 LS
$792 , 000. c:,o
3 100,000.00
380 9 000 00
414,000.00
1 LS
1 LS
SUB-TOTAL
TOTAL
a) ASSUME SECTION OF 6" AC/l2" BASE
b> NUMBERS TO BE VERIFIED
c) ROUGH COST ESTIMATE
15
,-
IV CANYON ALTERNATIVE (Hunsaker 21
DESIGN OBJECTIVE
Safety, development compatibil ity and grading impacts were of primary concern
in developing the Canyon Alternative. Areas of particular focus of study were
the intersection with La Cost Avenue, impacts on MAG Properties, crossing of
the SDG&E rights of way and optimization of design standards.
Three basic options were analyzed within the Canyon Corridor. The first option
was the Rick Engineering 2 Alternative which maintained acceptable but minimal
design standards in an attempt to cross the canyon quickly to parallel and
replace Melrose Drive. This a1 ternative provides acceptable road design
standards with potential conflicts with transmission lines. The La Costa Ranch
Company has done subsequent development and road alignment studies and has
rejected the Rick 2 Alternative.
The second option was explored by the City in an attempt to minimize canyon
grading impacts. This a1 ternative utilized minimal design standards and
attempted to follow as closely as possible the existing truck bypass alignment
while avoiding utility conflicts. It was determined that this alternative did
not reduce grading impacts significantly,
that it was less than optimal in safety and design standards and was
unacceptable to the La Costa Ranch Company in terms of development potential.
The Hunsaker 2 Alignment strikes a middle ground for design safety and
optimizes development potential. This alternative involves quantitatively
greater grading impacts but is superior in other aspects.
The Hunsaker 2 alignment should not be taken as a final design but rather an
adequate representation. Various refinements would be required in the final
16
design but these should be minor in nature and serve to reduce grading and
provide better interface with the San Marcos Reservoir, and MAG Properties.
LA COSTA AVENUE INTERSECTION
A great deal of Committee work was dedicated to the intersection with La Costa
Avenue. This study was directed at providing a balance between safety and
noise mitigation for the townhomes located below the roadway at the
intersection. It was early agreed that movement of the intersection would not
be cost effective and that issues focused on how quickly the road can be moved
away from the homes, acceptable radii of curvature, superelevation transition,
and traffic barriers.
Safety and noise mitigation issues exist at the intersection. The safety
issue relates to traffic running off the road into the homes, noise mitigation
relates to distance from the road and barrier height. Moving the road away
quickly requires a sharp radius curve and increased superel evati on that tends
to increase hazard potential. It was concluded that safety should take
priority in the design solution and moderate curvature should be maintained
with a 200 foot tangent section running away from the intersection. To enhance
safety 500 feet of "Jersey Barrier" will be provided at the intersection and
heightened noise barriers wi 11 be constructed to mi tigate noise impacts.
LAND USE INTERFACE
The proposed Canyon Alignment has been developed by the La Costa Ranch Company
as a buffer between low medium residential land (RLM 3.2 units per acres) and
the hillside area which will remain substantially undeveloped. The Canyon
Alignment occupies lands not otherwise developable and therefore follows a
natural edge condition. This produces one of the primary advantages of this
17
alternatives. Laying on the fringe of the RLM lands it divides the future
community less and will require miminal buffering on one side. The road will
also provide scenic hillside vistas rather the an urban walled landscape
appearance. These features are appealing to most members of the Committee.
18
t
1.
CI r;. -
2.
4.
c J.
a) 6.
7.
9.
9.
10.
b) Id.
12.
13.
c) 14.
15.
suurin ATTENUATION
FUTURE DEVELOFEMENT
GUFSRD RAIL
PARKWAY LREIDSCWE
FU TUfiE UE'JEL OF' EMEPJT
JERSEY IMRRIER
EFIRTt-ICJORK
PWEt-lEr.IT .% RASE
CURB k GUTTER
SI PEtJnLK
NED I nrd (CURE!
PIED X flN ( LFIIIDSCFIP I I.JG 1
STORM DRRIN
UTILITIES (GAS, ELECTRIC,
TELEF'HONE, CABLE T. V. 1
STREET L I Et ITS
t 1 I SC . REMOVALS P.? RELOCfiT IONS
N I o~t.1 Ir.!G sm rifirxms CREEK
BRIDGE TO SIX LRI-*IES
Et.1G I t4EER I rJG ( 15X )
SUF--TO'T flL
TOTAL
a) ASSIJME SECT ION C1F h" nC/ 12" RASE
b) 14!JI-lPEES TO BE VER IF I ED
c) POUGH COST ESTIPlfITE
NOTE: Right-of-way gain of 6352, l(N
mFfzicts existing r-aad removal
grid water1 ina t-clocatian.
GlUfiNT I TY
1 LS
1 LS
1 Lc:
LJNIT FFIICE TOTAL -----
20
V. MAG PROPERTIES RIGHT OF WAY ANALYSIS
MAG Properties owns 55.3 acres located at the northeast corner of La Costa
Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road. A tentative map (CT 86-5) has been submitted
on the land but has not been accepted and is currently being held pending
approval of the Zone 11 Facilities Plan. The property is variously Master
Planned as office, commercial and open space. Precise boundaries have not been
established for the different uses and the Master Plan is expected to be
revised. The current master plan designations are shown on Exhibit B.
Both the Mitigated Alternative and the Canyon Alignment will require additional
rights of way from MAG Properties. Based on the preliminary studies the Canyon
Alignment will require a net taking of 5.05 acres. The Mitigated Alignment
will require a net taking of approximately 1.0 acre. The original alignment
involves less than half an acre. A summary of right of way requirements and
estimated costs are represented bel ow:
Right of Way Summary
A1 ternative Net R/W Reauirements Estimated Value*
Original 0.35 acres $ 105,000
Mitigated Alignment 1 .OO acres $ 300,000
Canyon Alignment 5.05 acres $1,515,000
*Estimates based on $300,000 per acre derived from current library site acquisition and 37 acre site adjacent to the Encina Treatment Plant, general research, site constraints, and open space designations.
The Canyon Alternative will leave a residual parcel of 3.84 acres. It is
estimated that 3 acres would be developable as residential property with a
value of $210,000. The net Canyon Alignment right of way acquisition is
estimated by staff to cost $1,305,000. This amount being approximately
21
$1,000,000 greater than the Mitigated Alignment. MAG Properties maintains a
land value of $3.5 million with over $9.5 million in severance damages (see
attached memo). Actual value may lie between these extremes.
Severance Damaqes/Access
Severance damages accrue to a property when the taking of a portion of property
decreases the value of the remainder parcel due to some physical impairment or
a reduction in parcel size that would degrade its highest and best use. In the
case of MAG Properties the remaining parcel is nearly 50 acres. This should be
sufficient for the intended uses.
It would seem that MAG Properties assessments of damages is primarily related
to access from Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Under the currently submitted plan, (see
attached), it is proposed
that Mision Estancia be extended to intersect with Rancho Santa Fe Road some
1300 feet northerly of the intersection with La Costa Avenue. This spacing
does not meet Prime Arterial Standards but would meet Major Arterial Standards.
MAG Properties feels that given the Rancho Santa Fe history and topographic
constraints, staff would look more favorably upon a standards variance for the
Mitigated Alignment than on the Canyon Alignment. In their opinion the
resulting loss of access would severely degrade the value of the property.
It is the City Enqineer’s oDinion that access to Rancho Santa Fe Road has eaual
probability under both aliqnments and access should not be a consideration in
severance.
ImDacts on Devel oment
MAG Properties currently has pending an appl ication for development assuming
the existing alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road. Should the alignment change,
22
the project would require redesign. Because the Canyon Alignment would not be
functional until fully completed it would be difficult to construct the
ultimate roadway adjacent to their property. Special conditions including
interim street improvements and landscaping would be required to allow the
project to proceed. Realignment for these reasons could result in delays and
potential costs to MAG Properties beyond those involved in a prompt acquisition
and reconstruction of the roadway.
Concl usi on
It is the City Engineer’s opinion that the net cost of MAG Properties right of
way under the Canyon Alignment would not exceed $2.0 million and that the
probability of severance damages is very low. This opinion should be clarified
as a relatively lay opinion based on limited research. It is rendered only to
lend perspective to the MAG Properties Analysis. The final assessment of value
can only be determined after planning for the area is complete and at the
conclusion of a complicated negotiation process which could involve master plan
revisions, land exchanges with the La Costa Ranch Company and potential access
considerations from the City. The results of such negotiations could
conceivably remove MAG Properties severance as an issue.
23
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
MEMO-UM
To: Members of Rancho Santa Fe Road Study Committee
From: Fred Morey for MAG
Date: August 6, 1987
Re: Probable Acquisition Costs, Severance Damages and Interests Costs
Discussion:
Pursuant to your request we are submitting to your committee our estimate of the land Cost# severance damages and interest as they would relate to the relocation of Rancho Santa Fe Road due to the adoption of the "Canyon Route," these are:
1. Land cost: $3,528,360.00 at $15.25 per square foet for the actual net taking of 5.4 acres (235,224 sq. ft.), which includes the actual toad right-of-way, slope rights and the remaining triangle of land north of the alignment which would be of no economic value.
2. Severance Damages: 59,583,200.00 at $5.00 per square foot for the remaining 1,916,640 square feet of the site.
3. Interest: $1,311,150 per annum from adoption of realignment until paid.
A. The foregoing values have been determined from review of
comparable sales in the immediate and similarly situated areas. The value of commercial and office land is directly related to location, accessibility, and visibility and is generally expressed on a square foot basis.
B. The canyon alignment eliminates any possibility of access to Rancho Santa Fe Road and put the shopping center substantially below grade. As a result the site may be rendered entirely un- suitable for use as a community shopping center.
In summary, our total compensable loss would be not less than $14,422,716-00-
A1
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT 8
__ LOCATION MAP
BORDER
OS - OPEN SPACE
0 - PROFESSIONAL AND. RELATED
C - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
3
NAME: MAG PROPERTIES
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATIONS J
c
c
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
LOCATION MAP I
I
PROPOSED CANYON
ALTERNATIVE
#//I/. ://///,
'/////I //I//, EXISTING TRUCK
'/////I '////I/ '/#I#* BYPASS
PROJECT NAME: MAG PROPERTIES
CANYON ALTERNATIVE RIGHTS OF WAY
c1
EXHIBIT D
NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
FOR THE WIDENING OF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
CITY OF CARLSBAD
August 21, 1987
Repott #87-30-07.a
Prepared For:
Rancho Santa Fe Road Advisory Committee
Prepared By:
Paul H. Dunhotteq P. E. Principal
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
280 Newport Center Drive, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660
71 41760-089 1
NOISE ASSESSMENT FOR THE WDENING OF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD CITYOFCARLSBAD
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to present the resilts of the analysis on the noise impacts from the
future configurations of Rancho Santa Fe Road onto adjacent residential land uses. The
boundaries of the analysis iue along Rancho Sana'Fe Road from Carlsbad Road to the north end
of the truck-by pass. The west boundary of the road consists of single-family residential
developments. These homes have rear yards backing up to the roadway that are situated both
above and below the grade of the roadway.
The proposed improvements to Santa Fe Road include the widening of the roadway from the
current two to six lanes. The &sign plan for these improvements can be categorized in
essentially three alternative alignments. These include cmnt alignment with the additional lanes
added to the east si& of the roadway; shifting the roadway a relatively small distance to the easc
and shifting the roadway east of the current truck by-pass. Each of these potential alignments
will be assessed relative to the noise impact on the existing residential homes.
A number of agencies, including the Federal, State and local govemments have developed criteria
for the assessment of noise impacts from roadway traffic. This report will assess the future
traffic noise from Rancho Santa Fe Road and compare these levels with the community noise
assessment criteria. The effect of various measures to reduce the traffic noise levels in terms of
roadway setback and sound barriers will also be presented in this report. This report is divided
into two sections and is summarized below:
1. The fmt section discusses background information on noise and community noise
assessment criteria. This includes a summary of Federal, State and local community
noise assessment criteria. This is intended to give the reader a greater understanding
Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page 1
on noise and on criteria used to assess potential impacts fiom traffic noise. The
Methodology used in pdicting the noise environment and calculating the mitigating
effect of noise barrias is also presented in this section.
2. The second section presents the noise levels hm existing and future traffic levels.
The existing and future noise levels are presented for the three representative
alternative alignmeats at five cross-sections. The mitigating effect of a six, eight and
ten foot noise barrier is presented for each of these cross-sections. The effect of
shifting the roadway away from the homes and the construction of a sound barrier is
illustrated for one of these cross-sections. The level of mitigation necessary to
comply with various agencies' noise standards is included in this section. The
impacts of the Mic noise levels on the interior noise environmtnt of these homes is
also addressed.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.7 Noise Definitions and Assessment Criteria
Sound is technically described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and fnqutncy
(pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the Decibel
(a). Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frquencies, a special
frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The
A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against
fkquencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.
Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wi& range in
sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale
used to measufe earthquakes. In tenns of human response to noise, a sound 10 dBA higher than
another is judged to be twice as loud; and 20 dBA higher four times as loud; and so forth.
Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud). Noise level
increases less than 3 dBA are usually not considered significant. A noise increase of 5 dBA will
be readily noticeable to the human observer, although it will not be perceived as dramatically as a
-
Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page 2
Rancho Santa Fe Road Fbure I
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Examples of Typical Sound Levels
10 dBA change. Examples of various sound levds in different environments are shown in
Figure 1.
Sound levels demase as a function of distance from the source as a result of wave divergence
atmospheric absorption and ground attenuation. The sound wave form travels away from the
source, the sound energy is dispersed over a greater area dispersing the sound power of the
wave. The interaction of the sound waves with the ground also affects the noise levels. Soft
surfaces such as grass arc more absorptive than hard surfaces such as concrete where the amount
of noise reduction is less. Atmospheric absorption also influences the levels that an nceived by
the observer. The greater the distance traveled, the greater the influence and the resultant
fluctuations. The degree of absoqtion is a function of the hqucncy of the sound as well as the
humidity and temperature of the air. Turbulence and gradients of wind, temperature and
humidity also play a significant role in detcrmuun ' gthedegntofattenuation.
Noise has been defined as unwanted sound and it is known to have several adverse effccts on
people. From these known effects of noise, criteria have been established to help protect the
public health and safety and prevent disruption of certain human activities. This Criteria is based
on such known effects of noise on PeOpIe as hearing loss (not a factor with community noise),
communication interference, sleep interference, physiological responses and annoyance. Each of
these potential noise impacts on people an briefly discussed in the following narratives:
HEARlNG LOSS is, in general, not a concern in community ahport noise problems. The potential for noise induced hearing loss is more commonly associated with occupational noise exposures in heavy industry or very noisy work environments with long term exposure. "he Occupatiunal Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) identifies a noise exposure limit of 90 dBA for 8 hours per day to protect from hearing loss. Noise levels in neighborhoods, even in vcry noisy airport environments near major international airports, is not sufficiently loud to cause hearing loss.
COMMUNICATION INTERFERENCE is one of the primary concerns in environmental noise problems. Communication interference includes speech interference and activities such as watching television. Normal conversational speech is in the range of 60 to 65 dBA and any noise in this range or louder may intedere with speech. There are specific methods of describing speech interference as a function of distance between speaker and listener and voice level. Figure 2 shows the percent of sentence intelligibility with respect to various noise levels.
SLEEP INTERFERENCE is a major noise concern in aircraft noise assessment and,
Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page 3
A WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Noise and Speech Communication Relationship
of course, is most critical during nighttime hours. Slcep disturbance is one of the major causcs of annoyance due to community noise. Noise can makc it difficult to fall asleep, create momentary disturbances of natural sleep patterns by causing shifts from deep to lighter stages and caw awakening. Noise may even cause awakesing which a person may or may not be able to rtcall.
Extensive research has been conducted on the &ect of noise on slcep disturbance. Recommended values for desired sound levels in residential btdroom space range from 25 to 45 dBA with 35 to 40 dBA ljcing the norm The National AssociatiOn of Noise Control Officials have published data on the probability of slcep disturbance with various single event noise levels. Based on expuimental slcep data as related to noise exposure, a 75 dBA interior noise level event will cause noise induced awakening in 30 percent of the cases.
PHYSlOLOGlCAL RESPONSES are those measurable effects of noise on people which are nalized as changes in pulse rate, blood pressure, etc. We such effects can be induced and observed, the extent is not known to which these physiological responses cause harm or are sign of harm. Generally, physiological responses arc a reaction to a loud short term noise such as a rifle shot or a very loud jet overflight.
A"OVANC€is the most difficult of all noise respcmses to describe. Annoyance is a very individual characteristic and can vary widely fiom person to person. What one person considers tolerable can be quite unbearable to another of equal hearing capability. The level of annoyance, of course, depends on the characteristics of the noise (i.e.; loudness, frequency spectra, time, and duration), and how much activity interference (e.g. speech interfereme and sleep interference) results from the noise. However, the level of annoyance is also a function of the attitude of the receiver. Personal sensitivity to noise varies widely. It has been estimated that 2 to 10 percent of the population is highly susceptible to noise not of their own making, while approximately 20 percent are unaffected by noise. Attitudes are affected by the relationship between the person and the noise source. (Is it our dog barking or the neighbor's dog?) Whether we believe that somco~lt is trying to abate the noise will also effect our level of annoyance.
2.2 Noise Assessment Metrics
The description, analysis and reporting of community noise levels is made difficult by the
complexity of human response to noise and the myriad of noise metrics that have been developed
for describing noise impacts. Each of these metrics attempt to quantify noise levels with respect
to community response. Community noise is generally not a steady state and varies with time.
Under conditions of non-steady state noise, some type of statistical metric is necessary in order to
quantify noise exposure over a long period of time. Several rating scales have been developed
for describing the effects of noise on people. They are designed to account for the previously
~
Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page 4
_-
described known effects of noise on people.
Based on these effects, the observation has been made that the potential for noise to impact
people is dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise. A number of noise scales
have been developed to account for this obsemation. The prcdmninate scales ale the: Equivalent
Noise Level (LEQ), the Day Night Noise Level ON) and the Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEL). Each of these cumulative noise metria npresent a fluctuating noise envkmment
over a specified length of time. Throughout the time period, the instantaneous sound level will
vary both above and below the cumulative value. The numeric value of this descriptor
represents the summation of all the noise that occd dhg the time period. These scales EL^
described in the following paragraphs.
LEO is the sound level corresponding to a steady-state sound level containing the same total energy as a time-varying signal over a given sample period. LZEQ is the "energy" average noise level during the time period of the sample. LEQ can be measured for any time period, but is typically measured for 1 hour. This is also Efd to as the Hourly Noise Level (HNL). It is the energy sum of all the events that occur during that time period. This is graphically illustrated in the upper half of Figure 3. Federal Highway Administration and CalTrans noise standards are in tenns of the highest one hour LJ5Q of the day.
CNEL is a 24-hour, time-weighted annual average noise level. It is a measun of the overall noise experienced during an entire day. The time-weighted refers to the fact that noise that occufs during certain sensitive time Mods is penalized far occutring at these times. In the CNEL, scale, those events that take place during evening (7 pm
to 10 pm) am penaliztd by 5 dBA and events that occur during the night (10 pm to 7 am) are penalized by 10 dB. This penalty was selected to attempt to account for increased human sensitivity to noise during the quieter period of a day, where home and sleep is the most probable activity.
The CNEL accounts for the number of events per day, the time of day and the loudness of the events. CNEL is the predominate scale specified by the State of California and the majority of local agencies in California to assess noise and land use compatibility. Referring again to lower half of Figure 3, depicts how hourly LEQs are summed and weighted to compute the daily CNEL level. Figure 4 depicts typical noise environments in terms of the CNEL metric.
LDN is similar to the CNEL scale except that it does not have the evening penalty time period (7 pm to 10 pm). As a result, the LDN values are slightly less than CNEL values for the same location, but for this project, can be considered essentially equivalent. The LON scale is specified the Environmental htection Agency (EPA), the City of Carlsbad and is accepted by the State of California for community noise assessment.
Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page 5
.. .?- .-.
.i
Y 4 LEQ Noise Level
TIM E (Typically On e H o urJ
Tbns Axis Not Draw to Scale Noise EvenbPleMUch ShorterThm ShowrHere - __ - -_- - - -
7.
'" I CNEL Noise Level I
Rancho Santa Fe Road Figure 3
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Noise Metric illustrations
CNEL Outdoor Location
+--Apartment Next to Freeway
34 Mile From Touchdown at Major Airport
Downtown With Some Construction Activity “0-
-10-
-Urban Row Housing on Major Avenue
2 +-Wooded Residential -50- P
3-Agricultural Crop Land
4-&4 Y Rural Residential *=& Wildemess Ambient
+’ -30-
Rancho Santa Fe Road Figure 4
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Typical Outdoor Noise Levels
The public reaction to different noise levels varies from conimunity to community. Extensive
research has been conducted on human responses to exposure of diffmt levels of aircraft noise.
Figure 5 relates CNEL noise levels to community response from one of these smeys.
Community noise standards are &rived hm tradeoffs between community response surveys,
such as this, and economic considerations for achieving these levels.
2.3 Noise/Land Use Comparibiiiry Guidelines
The purpose of this section is to present information regadkg the compatibility of various land
uses with environmental noise. Noise/Land use guidelines have been produced by a number of
Federal and State agencies including the Federal Highway Administration, the EnviraMlental
Protection Agency, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the State of
California. Local agencies including the County of San Diego and the City of Carlsbad, as well
as other illustrative agencies have also developed standards that are generally derived from the
State and Federal guidelines. These guidelines, presented in the following paragraphs, are all
based upon cumulative noise crite,rja such as LEQ, LDN or CNEL
Federal Ndm Sh~?d8rda The purpose of this section is to present infoxmation regarding
noise and land use compatibility guidelines developed by several fedaal agencies. Each of these
are briefly discussed in the following paragraphs.
The FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (FHWA) has adopted and published noise abatement criteria for highway construction projects. CalTrans has
adopted this same criteria for the assessment of noise along all state highways. The noise abatement criteria specified by the FBWA are presented in Figure 6 in terms of the maximum one hour Noise Equivalent Level WQ). The FHWA mise abatement criteria basically establishes an exterior noise goal for residential land uses of 67 Peak hour LEQ and an interior goal for residences of 52 Peak Hour LEQ. The noise abatement Criteria applies to private yard arcas and assumes that typical wood fiame homes with windows open provide IO dB noise reduction (outdoor to indoor) and 20 dB noise reduction with windows closed,
The ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY published in March 1974 a document entitled "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare With an Adequate Margin of Safety" (EPA 550/9-74-004). Figure 7 presents a table of land uses and requisite noise levels. In this table, 55 LDN is described as the requisite level with an adequate margin of safety for areas with outdoor uses, this includes residences, and recreational areas. The interior noise level guideline is 45 LDN. It is important to note that the EPA "levels document" does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation, but
Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page 6
*
SEVERAL THREATS
ACTION, OR
TO WCAL OFFICIMS TO STOP NUS€
WDESPREAO
OR SINGLE THREAT OF LEGAL ACTION
1 NO REACTKIN,
GENERAUY NOTICEA8CE
&a?P
NORMALIZED TO, - URBAN RESIOENTIAL - SOME PRIOR EXPOSURE - WINDOWS PARTIALLY - NO PURE TONE OR
AYBENT NOISE
MWLSES
- URBAN RESIOENTIAL AYBENT NOISE ,- . ...-.. ,.IPOSURE
45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 I
DAY - NlGIHT NOISE LEVELS IN dB
3
Rancho Santa Fe Road
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
Figure 5
Community Reaction Surveys
ACIIWIY DESICMNOISB DESCRIPTIONOFACTIWIYCA'IZGORY CATEGORY LEVEL--
A 57 Wts of land in which serenity and quiet arc of '
-w when the pnservation ofthaw qualitiesisessentialifthelrteaistocontinuetoserve its intended purpose. Such areas could include mphithcatcn, particular parks or portions of open spaces,orhistoricdistricts whicharedcdicatcdor ncognized by appropriate local officials for activith requiring special qualities of serenity and quiet,
significance and serve an important me)
B
C
D
Picnic arms, don areas, playgmunds, active sports ams and parks which arc not included in category A and residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
Dcvdoped lands, properties, or activities not included in Category A or B above.
Fornqu~mcnts of undeveloped lands ste FHWA PPM 773.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms,
auditoriums. (znterior) schools, chGhes, libraries, hospitals,'and
Rancho Santa Fe Road
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
Figure 6
WHA Noise Abatement Criteria
Indoor Activity Herring LOW,
Cerencs tion 'ntero Both €1.
kcis (bl
Inside Transportation I Le(1(24)
To Protect Activity Hearin) Lou Api,lst
. fercnce Inter- Considen-
lion recis (b)
Outdoor
Both €fa
lkrpitalr
45
Mualional
45 55 55
70 70
Farm Land and bq(24) ' kneral Unpopulated
land
RctiJentirl with NO
outsiclc Spa bn
b24)
I I I I
Code:
a. Since different types or rctivitks appear to be auociated with different levels, identifi- cation or,a maximum level for activity interfercace may be difficult except in those circumstances when speech communication is a critical activity. (See Figure D-2 for noitc levels as a function of distance which allow satisfactory communication.)
Dad only on hearing lo# An h(8) or 75 dB may bc idcntified in thcu situations so long as the exposure over
lhc remaining I6 houn per day is low enouih to result in a neyligible contribution to the 24-hour avcragc, i.c., no gnater than an Lep of 60 dB.
Note: Explanation olidcntifird levcl for hearing loss: The exposum priod which rcsulls in lwlrriii~ loss ut tire idcntified level is n period of 40 ycrrs.
*Rrlc.n la tircryy r-thcr than urir hmetic rvcnycr.
b. Bad on Iowcst kvcl. c. J.
SOURCE : EPA
Figure 7
Rancho Santa Fe Road
MESTRE GREVE A
identifits safe levels of environmental noise exposure without consideration for economic cost for achieving these levels. It represents an ideal acceptable noise level.
TheDEpARTMENTOFHOUsINGAM)uRBANDEvELopMENTdctailsnoiSe criteria in their "Environmental Criteria and Standards," (CFR Part 51). In this document (Section 51.101.a) HUD states that"sitcs with aLDN average sound level of 65 and below a~c acceptable," and that the interior noise environment "shall not excd a LDN average sound level of 45 decibels:' The HUD document presents guidelines for achieving the desired noise levels which include three categories of land uselnoise compatibility; acceptable, normally unacceptable, and unacceptable. The noise levels associated with each category are reproduced in Table 1. If the noise levels at.a site are in the HUD acceptable category, no special approvals or requirements are necessary. If the site is normally unacceptable, then additional sound attenuation must be provided in the buildings and the project will require special approvals and environmental review. The unacceptable category requires even more building attenuation and furtherreview and approval.
Table 1 HUD NOISE ACCEPTABILITY CATEGORIES
CATEGORIES
~
LDNNOISELEVEL
Acceptable Less than 65 Normally Unacceptable 65 to 75 Unacceptable Above 75
State Noise Standards. The State of California has adopted noise standanis in the areas of
regulation not preempted by the Federal govenunent. State standards regulate noise levels of
motor vehicles and motor boats, establish noise impact boundaries around airports, regulate
freeway noise affecting classrooms, and set noise insulation standatds for interior noise levels.
The State also =quires each City and County to adopt Noise Elements of their G&d Plans.
Such Noise Elements must contain a Noise/Land Use compatibility matrix. A recommended (but
not mandatory) matrix is presented in the "Guidelines for the Reparation and Content of Noise
Elements of the General Plan," (Office of Noise Control, California Department of Health,
February 1976). Figure 8 presents this recommended matrix. For residential land use, these
~ guidelines generally consider noise levels less than 60 CNEL as normally acceptable in that no
special measures are necessary to meet interior noise levels standards. Noise levels up to 75
CNEL are considered conditionally acceptable when measures are included to the project to
-_
Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page 7
.. ..
LpndUseCatego~
Residential - Multiple Family
I I I 1 I I 1
I I I I I I
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks
Rancho Santa Fe Road Figure 8
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES California Land Use Compatibility Studies
reduce the impacts from noise. Note that the State airport lregulations consider 65 CNEL as the
acceptableCriterianforresidentiallandwnearan~
The State requires residential projects meet the California Noise Insulation Standard (califarnia
.Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4) which specifies that "Inteh
community noise levels (CNEL) -ws closed. attributable to exterior souccs shall not
exceed an annual CNEL of 45 dB in any habitable mom". This applies to all new multi-family
and hotel uses except for single-family develobents. This standad applies to projects exposed
to an exterior noise level of greater than 60
The CWomia Department of Transportation has adopted the FHWA noise standards for the
assessment of noise impacts along State highways. All state highway projects arc subject to
compliance with the pealc hour 67 LEQ noise standard. New highway projects must meet this
standard and hway noise banias arc designed based upon compliance with this noise level.
Local Nuise St8nd8rds. Local agencies as part of the General man have adopted Noise
Elements in order to incorporate noise assessment into land use planning decisions. Many of
these agencies have developed noise standards based upon the guidelines developed by the State.
The criterion used to assess the acceptability of community noise levels can vary with the
municipality. For illustrative purposes standards developed by a number of local agencies are
presented below. These include the City of Carlsbad, the County of San Diego, and the County
of Orange. Only the City of Carlsbad standards would specifically apply to this project.
The CTI'Y OF CARUBAD Noise Element of the General plan was adopted in 1975. As with many jurisdictions in San Diego County, the City has not officially adopted specific noise standards for residential land uses nor is there a specific noise standad for roadway improvement projects; The determination of noise and land use compatibility is determined on a project specific basis. For new residential land uses the City generally considers 65 LDN as the criterion for exterior areas and 45 LDN for interior areas. The noise levels contained in these standards are the predominate standards used in southern California.
The COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Noise Element contains criteria for land use planning with respect to various noise environments. The County of San Diego has encouraged that noise levels in outdoor living areas not exceed 60 CNEL. The County does, however, recognize that in some instances it may not be cost effective or feasible, and in those situations, noise levels up to 75 CNEL may be acceptable as long as the interior noise levels are mitigated to 45 CNEL The County does have a specific noise standard for roadway improvement projects as the Rancho Santa Fe
Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page 8
project. This criteria supmedes all of the other County noise and land use Criteria The County standards require that for roadway projects with federal funds, the project must comply with the FHWA standard (67 dBA peak hour LEQ). For all other highway projects, the standard is 60 CNEL, except if the existing or projected noise levels without the project is 58 CNEL or greater, a 3 dBA increase over existing levels is allowed. This increase is pmnitttd up to the FHWA standard. In summary, the standard is 60 CNEL or 3 dB above existing levels if existing levels exceed 60
CNEL,
The COUNTY OF ORANGE sptcifies noise standards for various land uses. The County's noise criteria for assessing the compatibility of residential land uses is 65 CNEL as the maximum exterior noise level and 45 CNEL as the maximum interior noise level. Incorporated cities within the County of Orange have adopted similar noise requirements to the County. The County of Orange also has specific requirements for new highway projects. New highway projects within the County must be constructed such that adjacent residential land uscs do not exceed 65 CNEL. Even if existing levels exceed 65 CNEL, the project must still mitigate the fbtm noise levels to below 65 CNEL.
2.2 Methodology
The traffic noise levels projected in this report were computed Using the Highway Noise Model
published by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction
Model,'' FHWA-RD-77-108, December 1978). The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle
mk, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the LEQ noise level. A cornputex code has
been Written which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used in CNEL.
Weighting these noise levels and summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic projections
used. Noise contours are found by iterating over many distances until the distances to 60,65,
and 70 CNEL contours are found. The &gal study conducted detailed noise measures along the
project site. The results of these measurements showed good codation with the noise model.
Mitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, or combination
wall/berm) is the most common way of deviating traffic noise impacts. The effect of a noise
barrier is critically dependent on the geometry between the noise source and the receiver, A noise
barrier effect occurs when the "line of sight" between the source and receiver is penetrated by the
barrier. The greater the penetration the greater the noise reduction. A barrier that just breaks the
line of sight achieves 5 dBA of noise reduction. A barrier that does not break line of sight
achieves no reduction. The FHWA model was also used here in computerized format to
determine barrier heights.
Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page 9
An understanding of the acoustical principles which govern the noise duction pvidd by a
barrier is essential to the design of effective baniers. When no obstacles are pitsat between the
source and adjoining axeas, sound travels by a dircct path of "source" to "rcccivd', as shown in
Figure 9. The straight line from the sourcc to the receiver is refed to as the "be of sight".
Introduction of a barrier betwecn the source and receiver which interrupts the line of sight
redistributes the sound enexgy into sed paths; a diffracted path over the top of the bank, a
transmitted path through the banier, and areflected path directed away from the &ver. These
paths are also illustrated in Figure 9. When masonry walls, berms or specially designed
prefabricated material are used, the noise passing through the wall is negligible. The transmitted
path may become important if gaps or holes in the wall are present, or if the wall is made from a
lighter material such as wood The noise reflected off the sound barrier is usually reflected away
from the receiver, and can usually be ignored unless large buildings or other reflecting surfaces
are present. The noise path of primary concern is the dHkactedpath.
Consick$ an infinitely long and massive noise barrier placed between the source and the ncciVer.
The bottom of Fip 9 illustrated a cross-section through such a diguration. For this example
(and in most situations) the only way that sound can reach the receiver is by "bending" over the
top of the barrier. The bending of sound waves in this manner over an obstacle is known as
diffraction. The area in. which diffraction occurs behind the barrier is known as the "shadow
zone." The straight path from the source over the top of the barrier forms the boundary of this
zone.
All receivers located in the shadow zone wiU experience some sound attenuation; the amount of
attenuation is directly related to the amount that the sound must bend or diffract. That is, the
barrier attenuation is a function of the geometrical relationship between the sourrce, receiver and
barrier. These parameters can be related to the barrier attenuation by defining the path length
difference (d) as shown in the bottom of Figure 9. The path length difference is the difference in
distance that the sound must travel in diffracting over the top of the barrier rather than passing
directly through it. The frequency of the noise also affects the ability of the sound wave to
diffract. For most practical situations the reduction in sound levels provided by a barrier may be
expressed as a function of a single variable called the Fresnel number. The Fresnel number (N)
is defined as twice the path length difference divided by the wavelength. Figure 10 shows the
.-
Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page 10
Unbroken Line of SMe
Line of SiteJntenupied
-_ Path Lengtb Difference
d=A+B-C
Rancho Santa Fe Road Fbure 9
MESTRE GREVEASSOCIATES Bamer Effects
25
20
15
10
5 - .01 .1 1 10 100
Fresnel Number, N, = 3.21 x a (in meters)
Traffic Noise Barrier Attenuation vs. Fresnel
Number l% for Infinitely Long Barriers
Rancho Santa Fe Road figure 10
MESTRE GREVE ASSOClAlES Barrier Attenuation
relationship between Fxesnel number and bani= attenuation.
3.0 PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS
3.7 Trafflc Modeling Assumptions
Traffic data used to project existing noise level arc shown in Table 2. These data were obtained
from the City of Carlsbad and the Rancho Santa Fe Road Advisory Committee. The traffic mix
and time distribution assumed in the analysis is presented in Table 3. This traffic mix data is
based on traffic counts for typical arterial roadways in Southern California, and additional
calculations to reflect the truck traffic on Rancho Santa Fe Road. The total number of trucks is
assumcdto be 7.58 percent. A typical arterial truckmix is 2to 3 puccnt.
Note that these assumptions reflect worst case conditions. The ADT, vehicle speed and percent
truck assumptions arc all modeled for the highest possible conditions for each variable. Given
assumption of 40,OOO ADT, 50 mph and 4.5 percent trucks, the noise levels presented in this
section would be 3 to 4 dBA less. In addition, existing legislation is expected to reduce future
vehicle noise levels by 3 dBA or more. This expected noise reduction is not included in these
estimates. In summary, the noise levels projected in this report can be considered very worst
case conditions.
Table 2 EXISTING AND FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES
AVERAGEDAILYTRAFFIC SPEED ROADWAY
ROADWAY SEGMENT EXISTING FUTURE (mph) GRADIENT
Rancho Santa Fe Road - North Of La Costa
~ ~
14,200 50,Ooo 60 s 7%
Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page I1
--
Table 3 TRAF~C D~STRIBU~ON PER nE OF DAY
PERCENTOFAIYI'
7am-7pm 7pm- 10- 1Opm-7am VEHICLETYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT
Automobile 71.64 11.92 8.86 MediwnTmck 3.56 0.09 0.19 Heavy Truck 3.64 .0.02 0.08
Table 4 shows the distances to the 60,65, and 70 CNEL and Peak Hour LEQ contours. (Note
that the FHWA 67 Peak Hour LEQ noise standard for future conditions extends 367 fett from the
roadway centerline). These represent the distance from the centerline of the roadway to the
contour value shown. Note that these tables do not include the mitigating effect of the topography
or intervening structures. This is discussed in the next section in terms of the representative
receptor analysis at spccific residential locations.
Table 4 DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOURS
ROADWAY SEGMENT DISTANCETO CONTOUR (n3 -60- -65- -70-
Rancho Santa Fe Road CNEL Existing 428 199 92 Future 991 460 214
PEAK HOUR LEQ
*Existing 465 2 16 100 Future 1075 499 232
Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page 12
3.2 Representative Receptor Analysis
In order to more accurately detennine the noise levels from Rancho Santa Fe Road onto the
existing residential developments the noise levels were estimated at specific receptor locations.
This analysis takes into account the set back from the roadway and the mitigating effect of the
topography and any proposed barriers. The noise levels werc determined at five reprcsentativc
cross-sections for four case studies. The representative locations am indicated by A, B, C, D,
and E in Figure 11. Sites A and B represent residential land uses at the south end of the project
site which are below the elevation of Rancho $anta Fe Road. Site C rtprwents residences in the
middle of the project site which arc at the same elevation as the madway. Sites D and E rqrescnt
residential land uscs at the north end which arc elevated with respect to this roadway.
The four case studies that were analyzed are bigmi to IX indicative of the range in alternative
alignments available for the roadway. These alternatives that were analyzed arc
OEn'ming Care Current Conditions and alignment.
OFutureAltenram, * el Current ' ea Current roadway alignment with additiod! added to the east side ofthe roczmyQy. Eflem've roadway centerline is sh@d 34 feet to the eart.
d Alternative, Shifiins the roadway centerline 25 feet further east of the centerline of Alternative I. The gective centerline is shified 59 feet east of the existing
conditions centerline.
O Fume Alternmive 2
'Future Aikrnative 3 Canvon Alternativa Shifting the roadway east of the caurent truck by-pars route.
Using available grading plans and field observations, the CNEL noise levels were computed.
These noise levels were determined without the effects of any noise barrier and with threc
illustrative banier heights. The actual topography was incorporated in the analysis to estimate
these noise levels. Barrier heights of 6, 8, and 10 feet were analyzed. For pads below the
roadway elevation, the noise barrier was assumed to be located along the top of the slop
property line. For pads above the roadway, the noise barrier was assumed at the top of slope.
For locations at grade, the barrier was assumed to be located along the property line. (Note
detailed grading information was not available, so these results should not be intempted as fd
*_
Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page 13
data. More precise grading information would be necessary f& final baniex design).
The results of the barrier analysis arc shown in Table 5. This .data shows that the htme noise
levels can be reduced by either of two methods. Increasing the setback of the roadway or with
the construction of a sound barrier. A combination of both methods will also reduce the Mic
noise, As would be expected moving the roadway to the truck-by pass or greater would mitigate
the Mic noise levels the ~t. The Alternative 2 shifting of the roadway SO fat reduces the
noise levels by an average of 3 dBA over Alkmative 1. Any of the alternatives can reduce the
Mic noise levels to below 65 CNEL. Almnatives 2 and 3 can reduce the noise levels to below
60 CNEL None of the alternatives can reduce the tdic noise levels to below 55 CNEL All
three alternatives will comply with County of San Diego noise standards for highway projects.
The mitigation quired for each of these standards is summanzed in Table 6. These standards or
goals are listed in the order of the least strict (County of San Diego Standards for new highways)
to the most stringent (55 CNEL goal). Note that the most common criteria used by other Cities
on simiQrroadway projects is 65 CNEL.
_-
Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page 14
Tabk 5 CNEL NOISE LEVELS AT REPRESENTATIVE LOCAnONS
B- ---- CNELTRAm;lCNOISELEVEIS SITE ~IGHT Existing FuturcAlt.1 FutureAlt.2 fitureAlt.3
Current Mitigated ccuryon
A o' 6' 8'
B 0' 6'
C 0' 6' 8' lo'
D 0' 6' 8' lo'
E 0' 6' 8' lo'
67.1 69.8 61.6 60.2
69.8 69.8 61.6 61.6 60.2 60.2
61.6 65.6 58.0
73.6
70.7
. 75.9 69.7 65.8 62.6
73.9 66.1 62.1 59.6
71.0 74.2 66.5 62.4 59.9
59.8 53.5 56.7
73.8 565 67.7 63.9 60.7
72.1 64.8 60.8 58.1
57.4
72.4 57.4 65.1 61.1 58.4
NOTES Blank spaces debtes sound levels were not calculated for thar option. Alternative 3 noise heli include shielding #em of topography.
(For Rancho Santa Fe Road the peak hoMLEQ noise level is calcded tv be 05 dB higher th
the CNEL noise level. Thus, the LEQ values for the various scenarios can be found by adding
05 dB to the CNEL values in Table 5 above. Note that higning a barrier to comply with the 65
CNEZ level would also insure compliance with the peak how 67LEQ criterion.)
Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page 15
.-.
Table 6 MITtGAllON TO COMPLY WITH REPRESENTATIVE NOISE STANDARDS
NOISE STANDARD WALLHEIG~REQUJRED(F1? ALT 1 ALT2 ALT 3 CROSS , SECTION Current Mitigated Cunyon
County of San Diego Standard for New Highways (3 dBA above existing mise levels up to the FHWA stMdLltd) I
FHWNCalTrans 67 Peak Hour LEQ
City of Carlsbad Guideline 65CNEuLDN
(County of Orange SM&r new highways & most common stczndard in Southern California)
(SOCNEULDN
55 CNEuLDN
A B c D E
A B C D E
A B C D E
A B C D E
A B C D E
6 6 8 6 6
6 0 8 6 6
6 6 10 8 8
10 6 NF 10 10
NF NF NF NF NF
6 0 8 6 6
6 0 8 6 6
6 0 8 6 6
10 0 10 10 10
NF 8 NF NF NF
NF -Not Feasible, or wall heights greater than IO feet.
Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment
6 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0
NF 0 6 6
6.
Page 16
.-
Figure 12 shows the noise level versus distance from the observer for Cross-section C. The data
is presented for the no barrier case as well as for 6,8, and 10 foot barriers. Thc results show that
the noise levels dropoff at a decrcashg rate of return. These noise levels reduce at a rate of 4.5
dBA for every doubling of the distance. The table also shows the connccticm between roadway
setback and barrier height to achieve the same level of noise reduction. The data in the figure
show that the noise duction gained by a 9 foot barrier and the roadway centerline located 70 feet
hm the observer is equivalent to moving the roadway centerline to 500 feet from the obscrvex
and no noise barrier construction. Shifting the roadway from 70 feet to 120 feet from the
observer is equivalent to raising the wall height from 8 to 10 feet,
The noise barrier described above may consist of any solid structure with no holes or cracks. A
surface density of at least 4 pounds per square foot is ncommended. Wooden noise barriers ate
not recommended because of deterioration with exposure to weather. Cement block walls,
earthen bums or block walls on earthen berms are vezy effective noise barriers. Barriers partially
constructed with glass orplexyglass arc also acceptable.
3.3 Interior Noise Levels.
As discussed in the noise assessment criteria section, various agencies have developed interior
noise level standards for residential land uses. The most pminent standards are 52 peak hour
LEQ by the Federal Highway Administration and 45 CNELLDN by the State of California.
Many Cities and Counties is California have adopted the 45 CNEUISN interior noise level
criterion. The indoor noise standard applies to habitable interior living space, including the first
and second floors of the buildings. These standards arc all based upon windows being closed.
Residential buildings constructed in recent years with stucco exterior typically achieve 22 to 24
building noise reduction with windows closed. Assuming 22 dB building noise reduction as
typical, the interior noise levels for homes adjacent Rancho Santa Fe Road have been estimated.
These estimates are presented in Table 7. These values are for the second floor observer or an
unmitigated first floor observer. The first flaor noise levels, taking into account the effects of the
proposed noise barriers would be shielded by the barriers and be exposed to interior noise levels
less than 45 CNEL. Second story observers will be looking over the top of the badem and will
-
.
Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page 17
CNEL Versus Distance - Cross Section C 80
75
70
65
60
55
50
0 250 500 750 1000 1250
Distance from Roadway Centerline (feet)
1500
Rancho Santa Fe Road
MESTRE GRWE ASSOCIATES
Figure 12
Noise Levels Versus Distance
not benefit from any noise reduction. Without any noise bders, the first floor would be the
same noise levels as these second story observers.
Table 7 ESTIMATED INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS
CROSS --- INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS -
Existing Future Alt. 1 Future AIL 2 Future AIL 3 Current Mitigated C-n SECITON
CNEL Noise Levels (4s CNEL State of California Criteriu) A '44 47 47 B 43 46 46 C 49 51 50 D 47 50 48 E 47 49 48
Peak HourLEQ (52 LEQ FHWA C&ria)
A 45 48 48 B 44 47 47 C D 50 48 52 51 si 49 E 48 50 49
47 46 35 35 35
48 47 36 36 36
The results show that for some residences, the existing and future noise levels ex& the 45
CNEL criterion for each of the alternative alignments. These noise levels appraach, but do not
exceed the FHWA 52 LEQ crituion. Various measures arc available to reduce the interior noise
levels within these homes.
Mitigation to meet the exterior noise level standard is typically in terms of building setbacks,
building orientation, and/or sound walls. The most common measures to mitigate the interior
noise levels include: (1) blocking the noise transmission paths with a noise barrier, and (2)
shielding the receiver from noise by increasing the noise reduction characteristics of the building.
Mitigation to meet the interior noise level standard for the fmt floor typically consists of building
structure modifications and/or sound walls. Indoor noise levels in the second floor are best
controlled through the design of the structure because of the height of the sound wall necessary to
Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page 18
--.
block the sound transmission path for a second story observer can be prohibitively high. These
potential measures are discussed in the following paragraphs.
The results from Table 7 show that an estimated 6 dBA of additional attcnUatian is necessary to
bring the worst case interior noise levels to below 45 CNEL. The proposed sound walls
presented earlier to mitigate the exterior noise levels will also mitigaw the first floor interior noise
levels to below 45 CNEL. These barriers, (or slightly higher walls) will also mitigate the ScCoIId
floor noise levels for cross-sections A and B where the homes are below the grade of the
roadway. This is the case for each of the alternatives. For Cross-sections C, D and E, the
second story interior noise levels would need additional mitigation in berms of higher sound walls
OT building modifbtions to achieve 45 CNEL.
For sound walls to mitigate the second story observer, the barrier would need to intempt the
sound transmission path between the noise source (as high as 10 feet above the roadway for
trucks) and the top of the second floor window (16 feet above pad). The City of Carlsbad staff
has calculated the necessary barrier heights to achieve this to be as high as 21 feet above the
ground. (Refer to staffrcport for additional idormation).
Increasing the indoorloutdm noise reduction characteristics of the residential buildings provides
the best means of minimizing the potential impacts on second floor interior noise levels. The
outdoor to indoor noise reduction characteristics of a building is determined by combining the
transmission loss of each of the building elements which make up the building. Each unique
building element has a characteristic transmission loss. For residential units the critical building
elements are the roof, the walls, windows, doors, attic configuration, and insulation. The total
noise reduction achieved is dependent on the transmission loss of each element and the area of
that element in relation to the total surface area of the room. Room absorption is the final factor
used in dtttrmining the total noise reduction.
In general, noise will infittrate a building through the element of the building that is acoustically
the weakest. This is important when selecting methods to increase the noise reduction
characteristics of a building. For example, insulation of the buildings will not in~ease the noise
reduction if the windows are the main source of the noise infiltration. Rooms with large window
area have the least noise reduction, because windows typically are the acoustically weakest part
~
Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page 1.9
of the structure.
The following measures arc discussed in terms of their benefit in reducing the traffic noise
impacts on the homes adjacent to Rancho Santa Fe Road. The noise reduction estimates arc
general estimates of the increase in building attenuation that would be achieved. Each building
has unique noise miuction characteristics and the actual attenuation would need to be calculated
specific to each building befare any of these measures are instigated.
Mechanical Ventilation. Providing homes with mechanical ventilation or air conditioning would allow windows to be closed and still supply fresh air and circulation to the rooms. In ordcr to assume that windows can remain closed to achieve greater attenuation, adequate ventilation with windows closed must be provided. T4is would provide the greatest benefit in the summer months when windows are commonly open. The buildings achieve substantially greater noise reduction when the windows arc closcd. MecMcal vcntila!ion or summer switch is attached to the heater and circulates air through the heating ducts. The system should supply two air changes per hour to each habitable mom including 20% fresh make-up air obtained directly from the outside. The frcsh air inlet duct should be of sound attenuating construction and should consist of a minimum of ten feet of straight or curved duct, of six feet plus one sharp 90 degree bend. Air conditioning, that provides outside makeup air will also satisfy this requinment.
Improved Noise Rated Windows. Increasing the noise reduction characteristics of the windows that face the noise sources would increase the ovd noise reduction of the buildings. The types of windows that are available include thicker glazing, double pane, and laminated glass. Most of the homes adjacent to Rancho Santa Fe Road have windows with an STC rating of 22 or less. Providing these homes with windows with STC ratings of greater than 30, would increase the building noise reduction by an estimated 3 to 6 &A. It is estimated that this would reduce the projected interior noise levels with (windows closed) to below the 52 Peak Hour LEQ and the 45 CNEL interior noise level criterion.
Building Insulation. Providing additional insulation of the walls and ceilings would also increase the noise attenuation of the buildings. However, the noise reduction would not be realized unless the windows are also upgraded. If the walls and ceiling wm insulated, along with the upgrading of the windows, the indoor/outdoor noise reduction of the building could increase another 2 dBA.
The options presented in this report are consistent with a feddstate and local policies regarding
the interior noise environment. The measures recommended within the report can result in
- achieving the indoor noise criterion of 45 CNEL.
Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page 20
,.--.
4.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS
A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL. Thc sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-Weighted fdter network. The A-Weighting fdter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in aminner similar to the response of the human ear. A numerical method of rating human judgement of loudness.
AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL. The composite of noise from dl sources near and far. h this context, the ambient noise level coIIstitutw the ncmd or existing level of enviro-tal noise at a given location.
COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL (CNEL). The average equivalent A-Weighted sound level during a %hour day, obtained after addition of five (5) decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7 p.m. to 10 p.a and after addition of tcn (10) decibels to sound levels in the night before 7 am. and after 10 p.m.
DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE LEVEL (LDN). The average equivalent A-Weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of ten (10) decibels to sound levels in the night before 7 am and after 10 p.m.
DECIBEL (dB). A unit for measuring the ampfitude of a sound, qual to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micro-pascals.
dB(A). A-weighted sound level (see definition above)
EQUIVALENT SOUND LEVEL (LE@. The sound level comspondhg to a steady noise level over a given sample period with the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time varying noise level. The energy average noise level during the sample period.
FREQUENCY. The number of times per second that a sound pressure signal oscillates about the prevailing atmosphere pressure. The unit of frequency is the hertz The abbreviation is Hz.
INTRUSIVE NOISE. That noise which intrudes over and above the ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, time of occurrence, and tonal or infomtional content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.
L10. The A-Weighted sound level exceeded 10 percent of the sample time. Similarly L50, L90, L99, etc.
NOISE. Any unwanted sound or sound which is undesirable because it interfen with speech and hearing, or is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. The State Noise Control Act defines noise as "...excessive undesirable sound...".
NOISE ATTEPkJATION. The ability of a material, substance, or medium to reduce the noise level from one place to another or between one room and another. Noise attenuation is specified in decibels.
NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS. Lines drawn around a noise source indicating constant or
Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page 21
L
-.
qual level of noise exposure CNEL andLDN arc typicat Wcs used
NOISE REFERRAL ZONES. Such zones arc defmed as the area within the contour defining a CNEL level of 60 decibels. It is the level at which either Statc or FcderaI laws and standads related to land use become important and, in some cases, prc-empted local laws and regulations. Any proposed noise sensitive development which may be impacted by a total noise environment of 60 dB CNEL or more shd be evaluated on a project specific basis.
NOISE SENSITIVE LAND USE. Those specific land uses which have associated indoor and/or outdoor human activities that may be subject to stms andlor signifhut interkcnce from noise produced by community sound sources. Such human activity typicatly occuls daily for continuous periods of 24 hours or is of such a nature that noise is significantly disruptive to activities that occur for short periods. Specificalty, noise sensitive land uses include: rtsidences of all types, hospitals, rest ~O~CS, convalescent hospitals places of worship and schools.
SOUND LEVEL (NOISE LEVEL). The weighted sound pressure level obtained by use of a sound level meter having a standard finquency-filter for attenuating part of the sound spectrum.
SOUND LEVEL METER. An instrument, including a microphone, an ampWier, au output meter, and fi-equency weighting networks for the measuxemcnt and determination of noise and sound levels.
Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page 22
*-
EXHIBIT E
ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS STUDY
for
ASSESS- DISTRICT NO. 86-5
Roport 86-006
prepared for:
City of Carlsbad
Office of the City Engineer
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989
prepared by:
Alexandor Sogal. Ph.D.
Consultant in Acoustics
5222 Trojan Ave. I 316
San Diego, CA 92115
July 1986
1.
Traffic on Rancho Santa Fe Road presently results in high ievels
of nois0 affecting the existing residences located along
road. Traffic noise impacts greatly depend on medium and heavy
truck trrfflc. Recently adopted Ordinance. which bans trucks
traffic noise decrease in the area.
more than 7 tons from using the road, resulted
T~O fiold sound level measurements and tho theoretical traffic
nois0 prodiction calculations were performed in order to evaluate
traffic noise impacts on a numbor of the existing residences
located along Rancho Santo Fe Road between Olivenhain Road and
Melrose Avenue as illustrated on the topography cross-sections
provided by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. Several
traffic flow alternatives vere considered including the exzsting
traffic flow condi-tions (before and after the truck ban), and the
forecasted traffic flow conditions (vith and without the proposed
widoning of Rancho Santa Fe Road). It was assumed that the
recently imposed truck ban would remain in the future.
The analysis revealed that traffic noise impacts on the majority
of the existing residences under investigation exceed the City of
Carlsbad General Plan exterior noise limit (Ldn=65 dB). After the
truck ban had beon imposed. traffic noise decreased by at least 3
decibel. However, at somo of the residences traffic noise still
exceeds Ldn=65 dB.
It is expected that in tho future traffic flow and traffic noise
would increaso. Since the road widening will result in the road
centerline being located at larger distance from the existing
residences, traffic noise increase would be lower than ?hat
anticipated from tho forecasted traffic flow increase.
Analysis shows that the present (after the truck ban) and the
forecastod traffic noise impacts could be reduced to Ldn.65 d9 by
3 to 7.5 ft high solid acoustical barriers placed between +-he residences under investigation and the road. In order to reduce
traffic noise impacts to Ldn.45 dB inside the residences. dual cr
laminated windows might be needed. Some kind of mechanical
ventilation could also be required in order to provide a
habitable living environment inside the residences at the "closed
window" conditions.
2
E2
Report 86-006
Assessment District NO. 86-5
2. INTRODUCTION
This Acoustical Analysis is submitted in accord with the
agreement with the City of Carlsbad regarding the acoustical'
evaluatlon of traffic noise imp8ctS on the existing residenc€s
located along Rancho Santa Fe Road betwoen Ollvenhain Rood ad
Melroso Avonue and shown on the topography croos-sectiorrs
provided by the City of Carlrbad Planning Departmont. Several
traffic flow alternatives, as specified by the City of CarlsbaJ
Engineer, 8re considered.
The City of Carlsbad Genoral Plan uses a Day-Night Avorage Soud
Level (Ldn) of 65 dB as a noiso limit for the outside "noisr
sensitive" rmsidentirl areas (such as yards, patios, bolconil
etc.). The intorior noise limit is Ldn=lS dB.
Since tho existing and th8 forecasted traffic load on section of
Rancho Santa Fe Road undor consideration is ralatively high
(Avorage Daily Traffic CADTI in excess of 12,000 vehicles per
day), a potential exists that traffic noiso impacts to the
residences along Rancho Santa Fo Road might exceed the City of
Carlsbad Noiso Limits.
2. HICTWOD OF EXTERIOR NOISE EVALUATION
The acoustical condftions in the area under investigation were
evaluated using the d.irect sound level measurements and the
theoretical methods of traffic noise prediction.
The flold noiso mo8surements were made by a Metrosonics dB-306C
Metrologger Digital Sound Level Analyzer, which 1s a Type I1
instrument ln accord with the ANSI S 1.4-1971 requirements. The
Analyzer takes 4 samples of "A" Welghted sound levels per second
("Slow" tlmo constant). Typically Hetrosonics dB-306C was mounted
on a tripod four to fivo feet above the ground with a windscreen fitted to the microphone. Before and after the noise level
measurements the moter was calibrated with a C-302 Acoustical
Calibrator.
3
E3
Report 86-006
A~sossoont DIstrict NO. 86-5
Traffic count-wrs taken during the field sound level measurements
in ordot to aid in comparison analysis betwoon the theoretical
and tho fiold data,
J
The theoretical evaluation of traffic noise impacts was performed
on tho IBH PC computor using a Custom-modo computer program. %e
program is based on tho Fedora1 Highway Administration Traffic
Noiro Prediction Hodel F?fWA-RD-77-108 (1) modified for the
California conditions. The program uses the California Vehicle
Noise (Calveno) reforence enorgy mean ~missiOn levels developed
by Caltrms in 1984 (2). and incorporator tho new revisod grade
corroctionr developed by Caltrans and presented at the January
1986 Transportation Research Board Annu81 Mooting (3).
Basod eithor on tho on.-hour numbor of vohiclos ("VI or on the
average daily numbor of vehrclor (ADTI information, traffic mix.
speed, and other traffic flow and tho project topography data,
the program ostamatos tho on.-hour equivalont sound levo1
CLoq(h13 and the Community Equivalent Noiso Lwol (CNEL) at-tho
specified location. Tho program assumos that CNEL is 1.5 :o 2 dB
higher than Loq(h). .That is rather a consorvativo assumption for
typical rosidential roads sine. lowor traffic volumes on weokends
and lower truck volumor on wookondt and during the night hours
are ignorod.
The program takes into account different sound propagatlon above
the ground conditions (drop-off rate). For acoustically hard
sites ("reflective" sites 'with a site parameter ALPHA.O.0). the
calculations are performed using the propagation rate of 3 dB per
doubling of distanco (3 dB/DD). For acoustically soft sites
("absorptive" rites with a site parameter ALPHA-0.5 and 4.5 dBlDD
propagation rate), the calculations are performed for both the
"soft" and the "hard" sit. conditions.
In ordor to dorcribo potontiol noiso impacts within the project,
tho following community noiro doscriptors were used:
A-Woiahted Sound Level (dB) - the sound level measured with the
utilization of tho "A-weighting" frequency correction. This
corroction weights the contribution of sounds of different
froquoncies a so that the response of the average human ear is
simulated.
Equivalent Sound Level (LEO or Leq) - tho A-weighted level of a
-- continuous steady sound which contains the same total acoustical
energy over the averaging time period as the actual time varying
sound. 4
E4
~oport 86-006
Assessment District No. 86-5
..
-_
Maximum - sound level (Lrnax) - the maximum sound level recorded
during tho moasuroments.
One-Hour E~uivalent Sound Level (Lesch)) - the Leq over one hour
averaging period.
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) - a composite nolse index
derivod from tho summation of hourly LEO'S over a 24-hour tlme
poriod with increasing weighting factors applied to the evening
(7:OO pm to 1O:OO pm, + 5 dB) and the nighttimo (1O:OO pm to 7:OO
am, + 10 dB) time periods.
Day-Niqht Averxae Sound Level (DNL or Ldn) - is identical to CNEL
except that no evening (7:OO pm to 1O:OO pm) adjustment is used.
For mort practical applications, CNEL and Ldn are considered to
be oqurl.
4. EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
In order to determine the existing traffic noise impacts aiong
the strotch of Rancho Santa Fe Road under investigation, the
field sound levo1 measurements were made at several locations on
two Saturdays (April 12 and Hay 24, 1986) and on two Tuesdays
(April 29 and June 24. 1986). The noise reedings were taken
during morning. mid-day and afternoon hours. The measurements
were performed before and after the new Ordinance which bans
trucks woighting more than 7 tons from using the stretch of
Rancho Santa Fe Road betwoen Olivenhain Road and Ouesthaven Road
was approved by the City of Carlsbad Council.
The first noise measurement location was along relatively level
part of Rancho Santa Fe Road north of Cadencra Road and about
several hundred foot south of the SEgE easement. Surrounding
land is relatively level and vacant. Therefore, there was an
unobstructed viow to the road from the measurement location with
subtendod rnglor within -80, +90 degrees. The noise readings were
taken at approximately SO ft from the centerline of Rancho Santa
Fe Road which at that location is a two lane road wi.th posted
traffic speed of 45 mph.
The rcrults'of the sound level measurements at Location 1 with
the corresponding traffic flow data (number of automobiles,
mcdlum and heavy trucks) recorded during each test are summarized
in Table 1.
..
E5
Tablo 1
RESULTS OF THE FIELD SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS AT LOCATION :
~.rt Date Tim. Number of vohiclor Test Leq Lmax No. Auto M.Tr. H.Tr. duration min. sec
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
4-12 4- 5p.m. 146
4-29 1- 2p.m. 118
4-29 1- 2p.m. 130
4-29 1- 2p.m. 127
6-24 8- 9a.m. 180
6-24 8- 9a.m 202
6-24 8- 9a.m 153
6-24 8- 9a.m 154
6-24 9-10a.m 153
6-24 9-10a.m 130
6-24 9-10a.m 179
1
6
6
8
4
S
5.
4
S
S
6
0
8
21
19
1
2
1
0
3
0
3
10.04
10.27
10.33
10.35
10.S8
10.29
10.34
11.11
11.17
10.46
11.45
66
69
73
71
68
69
68
67
68
67
69
82
83
86
85
84
81
81
82
86
87
a3
Tho second noiso moasuremont location was in front o$ the
existing rosidence at the south-west cornor of Cadencia Street
and Rancho Santa Fm Road intersectron. Rancho Santa Fe Road at
that location has 2 traffic lanos with tho road grade ranging
from 2 to 6 percent. Tho notsm readings were taken at roughly 3C
ft from tho road centerlano. There was an unobstructed view tc
the road from the 'measurement location with subtended angles of
about -90, +90 degroes. Posted traffic speed in the area is 45
mph.
The results of tho sound level measurements at Location 2 with the correspondlng traffic flow data (number of automobiles.
medium and heavy trucks) recorded during each test are summarized
in Table 2.
Table 2
RESULTS OF THE FIELD SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS AT LOCATION 2
Tort Data Time Numbor of vohrcles Test Leq Llnax No. Auto M.Tr. H.Tr. duration
min. sec .
1 4-29. 2-3p.m. 166 6 11 10.40 74 91
.2 5-24 4-Sp.m. 170 2 0 13.55 70 97
3 6-24 12-1p.m. 156 5 2 11.17 72 es
6
E6
Report 86-006
Assessment District No. 86-5
third noise measurement location was several hundred feet
south of intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road with Melrise
Avenue. Rancho Santa Fe Road at that location has 2 traffic lanes
and a left turn lane. Near the IUeaSUrement location the road
grade was within 2 percent with signifrcant grade increase
further to the north. Posted traffic speed is 45 mph. The noise
readings were taken at apprOXimlt8ly 45 ft from the road
centerlino (Tests 1. 2. and 3). and at approximately 56 ft from
tho road centerline (Test 4). Ihero was an unobstructed view to
the road from the measurement location with subtended angles of
-90, +90 degrees.
The results of the sound love1 measurements at Location 3 with
tho corresponding traffic flow data (number of automobiles.
medium and heavy trucks) recorded during each test are summarized.
in Table 3.
Tablo 3
RESULTS OF THE FIELD SOUND LEVEL HWSUREHENTS AT LOCATION-3
Test Date Time . , Number of vehicles Test Leq Lmax
No. Auto H.Tr. H.Tr. duration
1 4-12 3-4p.m. 148 4 0 10.02 68 61
2 4-12 4-5Q.m. 153 1 0 10.10 68 80
3 4-29 2-3p.m. a3 9 14 4.38 7s 89
4 U-2'9 2-3p.m. 152 7 20 10.25 71 86
In order to verify the validity of the theoretical traffic noise
prediction techniques planned to be used, traffic flow data
recorded during each test were transformed to the one-hour values
and based on those value the "calculated" Equivalent Sound Levels
CLeq(e>l were estimated for all noise measurement locations.
Traffic speed of 45 mph was used in all calculations. The
calculatod valuor CLeqCcl) were than compared with those obtained
during tho field tests (LeqCmI). Since the results of the field
tests woro recorded in decibels without the fractional portion
(integers), the results of the acoustical calculations were also
-- converted to integers (by rounding the fractional portion! in
order to' ollov the comparison of identical variables. Tho
examples of the acoustical calculations are shown in Tables i
through 10 in the Attachment.The final results are summarized in
-Tables 4, 5, and 6.
7
E7
F .
Y
Table 4
THEOA~ICAL ANALYSIS OF ?WE FIELD RESULTS AT LOCATION 1
Test HNV X of Trucks Spoed LeqCcl LeqCmI LeqCml-
No. M.Tr. H.Tr. mph tcalc) (moas) LeqCcl
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
876
758
893
873
1012
1197
903
848
85 6
752
960
0.6 0.0
4.5 6.1
3.8 13.4
5.2 12.3
2.2 0.5
2.4 1.0
3.1 0.6
2..5 0.0
3.1 1.9
3.7 0.0
3.2 . 1.6
45
4s
45
45
45
4s
4s
45
45
4s
45
66.8 (67)
69.8 (70)
72.4 (72)
72.1 (72)
68.1 (68)
69.2 (69)
67.9 (68)
67.1 (67)
68.4 (68)
66.8 (67)
68.7 (69)
68
69
72
71
‘6 8
69
68
67
68
67
69
+1
-1
0
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table 5
THEORErICAL ANALYSIS OF THE FIELD RESULTS AT LOCATION 2
Test HNV % of Trucks Speed Leqtcl Lcqtml LeqCmI-
No. M.Tr. H.Tr. mph (calc) (meas) LaqCcI
1 1029 3.3 6.0 45 73.5 (74) 74 0
2 742 2.8 0.0 45 69.1 (69) 70 +l
3 867 3.1 1.2 4s 70.6 (71) 72 +l
8
Report 86-006
~~sessment District NO. 86-5
. Table 6
THEOR~ICAL ANALYSIS OF THE FIELD RESULTS AT LOCATION 3
Test HNV X of Trucks Speed. LeqCcl LeqCml LeqCmI-
No. M.Tr. H.Tr. mph (calc 1 (meas) LeqCcl
1 909 2.6 0.0 45 68.2 (68) 68 0
2 909 0.6 0.0 45 67.8 (68) 68 0
3 1374 6.S 13.2 45 75.3 (75) 75 0
4 1031 3.9 11.1 45 72.2 (72) 71 -1
As can be seen from Tables 4. 5, and 6, tho results of the thcorotical calculations are in a good agreement with those
obtainod during the field tests (somo differences could be
explained by higher traffic speed during the specific-tests,
presonce of unusually loud vehicles an traffic flow, sound
reflections by the intervening topography, etc.). Therefore, the
theoretical noise prediction techniquos specified above can be
used to describo the existing and the forecasted acoustical
conditions in tho area.
The existing noise environment along the stretch of Rancho Santa
Fe Road under investigation was determined based on the traffic
flow information provided by the City of Carlsbad and the average
traffic mix and speed data obtained during the field tests.
According to the City of Carlsbad, the existing ADT on Rancho
Santa Fe Road between Olivenhain Road and La Costa Avenue is
within 12,700, and between La Costa Avenue and Melrose Avenue
traffic increasos to ADTt14.400. The majority of the existing
residences along Rancho Santa Fe Road are located between La
Costa Avenue and Helrose Avenue where the trafflc load is
greater.
For tho purpose of the .noise impact analysis.’ the City of -- Carlsbad-has selected 11 existing residences located along Rancho
Santa Fe‘.Road between Olivenhain Road and Helrose Avenue. The topography cross-sections of these residences, as specified by
the City of Carlsbad, are presented on Fig. 1 through 6 in the
~ Attachment. The topography cross-sections represent the following
residential lots:
9
E9
~~rth of La Costa Avenue
section 1 - Lot 40 (At Cadencia Street, Revised C.T. 72-20);
Section 2 -- Lot 48 (At Cosca Way. Revised C.T. 72-20);
Section 3 - Lot 49 (At Casca Way. Revised C.T. 72-20);
Section 4 - Lot 54 (At Muslo Lano, Revised C.T. 72-20);
Section 5 - Lot 57 (At Muslo Lane, Revised C.T. 72-20);
Section 6 - Lot 92 (At Trigo Lane, Revised C.T. 72-29);
Section 7 - Lot 93 (At Trigo Lane, Revised C.T. 72-20);
Section 8 - Lot 99 (At Piragua Street, Revised C.T. 72-20,;
Section 11 - Lot at Agur Dulse (C.T. 72-20);
South of La Costa Avenuo
Section 9 - Lot 126 (At Ouebrada Circle. C.T. 72-31;
Section 10 - Lot 129 (At Ouebrada Court, C.T. 72-31;
As has boon spocified above. the existing traffic load on Rancho Santa Fo Road botween Olivenhain Road and La Costa Avenue is
slightly lovmr than that between La Costa Avonue and Helrose
Avenue. In ordor to address "tho worst case" conditions, the
calculations were performed assuming that tho existing UT is
14,400 along the entire stretch of Rancho Santa Fe Road under
rnvostigation. Traffic . speed of 45 oph was used in all
calculations.
Analysis of the weekday traffic count data revealed that dur1r.g
tho day-hours there was an average 4.2% medium and 9.4% heavy
trucks in the area before the truck ban, and that there was about
3% of modium and 1% of heavy trucks after the ban was imposed.
These data were further used in the theoretical noise prediction
analysis in order to addross traffic noise impacts before and
after the truck ban.
According to the field observations. some of the existing
residences along Rancho Santa Fe Road are separated from the road
by fences and walls of different size and material. These walls
mighC provide some attenuation of traffic noise impacts. However.
since most of thoro walls aro acoustically not "solid", their
sound rttonuation effect was ignored during this analysis.
All calculations were performed for the "first floor" (5 ft abgve
tho ground) obsorver positlon. The examples of the acaust.i:al
calculrtitans aro presented in Tables 11 and 12 in the Attachaent. The final .results of the acoustrcal calculations are summarized
in Table 7.
10
E10
Report 86-006
~ssessment District No, 86-5
Table 7
TUmIC NOISE IMPACTS AT THE SELECTED CROSS-SECTIONS
(EXISTING CONDITJONS, NO BARRIERS)
soc t ion Before the truck ban After the truck ban
NO. Ldn Complianco Ldn Compliance in dB with Ldn=GS dB in dB with Ldn=65 dB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
74
74
73.
73
74
74 .
75
74
66
71
62
+9
+9
+8 +e
+9
+9
+10
+9
+1
+6
-3
71
71
70
70
71
71
71
71
61
65
S6
+6
+6
+5
+5
+6
+6
+6
+6
-4
0
-9
As can bo seen, traffic noise impacts to most of the existing
residonces under investigation significantly exceed the Ldn=GS dB
limit established by the City of Carlsbad. It also can be seen
that tho noise impacts decreased by at least 3 dB after the truck
ban had been enforcod.
The additional calculations were performed in order to determine
the existing traffic noiso contour location. Since the existing
building structures provide different degree of shielding.
detormination of tha noise contour location within the already
developed areas is considered to be not practical. Therefore, the
noism contour location on the undeveloped "level" land was
addrertmd.
It was determined that before the truck ban the Ldn=65 dB traffic
nolso contour w&s located somewhere at 200 to 220 ft from the
road contoerllne. After tho truck ban had been imposed, the Ldn of
65 dB noise contour is expected to be somewhere at 100 to 130 ft
from the road centerline. For elevated or depressed (in relation
to the road elevation) aroas distance to Ldn=6S dB noise contour
might be different.
11
Ell
5, PWRE: NOISE RJVIRONHENT
Futuro dovoloprnontt in tho aroa and anticipated improvements of
Rancho Smta Fa Road to tho Prim0 Major Arterial standard uxli
result in traffic noiso impact increase. The City of Carlsbad
ertim8t.s that futurm traffic on Rancho $anta Fe Road without the
road vidoning (2 lano road) might increaso to ADT of 20.000. With
tho proposod ro8d improvomonts to a 6 lano standard. the expected ADT might rmrch 44,000.
Tho forocastod traffic flav data verb usod in tho theoretical
nois0 prodiction analysis for dotormination of futuro acoustical
conditions in the area of intorest. Tho rosultr arm summarized in
Tablo 8.
Tablo 8
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS AT "E SELECTED CROSS-SECTIONS- (FUTURE CONDITIONS, NO BARRIERS)
Without the wideninq Wlth the widening
in dB with Ldn.65 dB in dB with Ldn.65 dB
section
Complianco No. Ldn Complianco Ldn
1
2
3
4
5
'6
7
8
9 to
11
72
72
'7 1
71
72
72
73
72
62
67
58
+7
+7
+6
+6
+7
+7
+8
+7
-3
+2
-7
73
74
73
73
74
74
74
74
65
69
59
+e
+9
+8
+8
+9
+9
+9
+9
0
+4
-6
12
E12
~mp~rt 66-006
Asse~sment District NO. 86-5
The anrlYsi~ shows that tho forecasted traffic noise impacts on
tho ma~orlty. of the exlstlng residences under investigation could
,ignlficantly oxcoed Ldn=65 dB outdoor noise. limit established by
the city of Car1sbad:Tho analysis also shows that after the road
traffic noise impacts on the existing residences would
be by 1 to 2 dB higher than that without the widening. mat sound
level increase is somewhat lower than could be anticipated from
the forecasted traffic flow increaso by 220% after the road
widenlng (101og(44000~20000)~3.4 dB). Tho lower noise increase
can be explalned by the fact that after tho widening, the road
centerlino would be furthor from the existing residences than it
is now.
It was doterminod that without the road widening future Ldn=bS dB
traffic noiso contour would bo locatod somowhoro at 120 to 150 ft
from tho road centerline ("level" topography). With the road
widening and the anticipatod traffic incroase, tho Ldnr65 dB
noise contour would be located somewhero at 200 to 240 ft from
the road centerline. As was montionod abovo, for olevated or
depressod (in relation to the road elevation) areas dlstan-ce to
the Ldn.65 dB noise contour could be different.
6. MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis shows that the existing and tho forecasted traffic
noise impacts on some of the existing residences along Rancho
Santa Fo Road might exceed tho Ldn.65 dB noise level limit
established by the City Of Carlsbad. In order to reduce traffic
noise impacts to Ldnr65 dB of less, different noise mitigation
m,easurms were considored. Since the acoustical barriers are the
most widoly usod moasuros for traffic noise mitigation.
application of the free. standing solid acoustical barriers was
evaluated the first.
Tho City of Carlsbad typically considers 6 ft high solid noise
attenuation walls as an acceptable noise mitigation alternative
(4). fhoroforo, the acoustical calculations were performed to
determino tho noise attenuation effect of 6 ft high acoustical
barriers placed between the road and the existing residences
undor the,inveatlgation. The calculatlons were performed for all 4 traffie, flow alternatives considered in this analysis. The
examples o'f the acoustical calculations are shown in Tables 13
and 14 in the Appendix. Tho final results are summarized in
Tables 9 and 10.
13
E13
Table 9
TRAFFIC NOISE'IMPACTS AT THE SELECTED CROSS-SECTIONS
(MISTING CONDITIONS, 6 FT HIGH BARRIERS)
Section Before the truck ban After the truck ban
No. Ldn Compliance Ldn Compliance an dB vith Ldn.65 dB an dB with Ldn.65 dB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
68 +3
68 +3
66 +1
66 +l
67 +2
68 +3
68 +3
68 +3
62 -3
66 +l
Not required
63 -2
63 -2
62 -3
61 -4
63 -2
63 -2
64 -1
64 -1
Not required
Not required
N0.t requrred
Tablo 10 '
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS AT THE SELECTED CROSS-SECTIONS (FUTURE CONDITIONS, 6 R HIGH BARRImS)
sect 1on Without the wadeninq With the wideninq
Compliance No. Ldn Compliance Ldn
in dB with Ldn.65 dB an dB with Ldnr6S dB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
64 -1
65 0
63 -2
63 -2
64 -1
65 0
65 0
65 0
Not required
62 -3
Not r equ a red
67 +2
67 +2
66 +I
65 0
66 +l
67 +2
67 +2
67 +2
Not required
65 0
Not required
14
E14
Report 86-006
~~sessmont Dirtrlct No. 86-5
A$ can be seen from Fables 9 and 10, at the "after the truck ban"
"future 'without widening with the truck ban" traffrc ftow
a1ternativ.s. the 6 ft high solid walls would reduce traffic
noise impacts on the "first floor" observers at the residences
under investigation to Ldn=6S dB Of less. However, at the "before
the truck b8n" Or "future with widening vith the truck ban*'
traffic flow conditions, traffic noise impacts on some of the
'residences could still exceed Ldn=65 dB even with the 6 ft high
acoustical barriers.
The addition81 calculations were performed to determine the
optimal acoust"ica1 barrier hmight needed for traffic noise
mitigation to Ldn=65 dB at a11 cross-sections under the
considerrtlon. The results of the calculations are summarized in
Tables 11 and 12.
Table 11
NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE EXISTING CONDITIONS (COMPLIANCE WITH Ldnr6S d0 LIMIT)
Sect ion Before the truck ban After the truck ban
No. traffic flow conditions traffic flow conditions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wall (8.5' above
Wall (8.0' above
Wall (6.S' above
Wall (6.5' above
Wall (7.0' above
Wall (7.0' above
Wall (7.5' above
Wall (8.0' above'
Wall (3.0' above
Wall (6.5' above
Not required
pad 1
pad)
ped
pad 1
pad
pad 1
pad 1
pad 1
road)
road)
Wall (4.5' above
Wall (4.5' above
Wall (4.0' above
Wall (4.0' above
Wall (5.0' above
Wall (S.0' above
Wall (5.5' above
Wall (5.0' above
Not required
Wall (3.0' above'
Not required
pad 1
pad)
pad)
pad 1
pad
pad 1
pad 1
pad)
road)
15
E15
Report 86-006
~s~eisment-.District NO. 86-5
The nois. attenuation barriers should 'be of solrd design
(masonry, concrete. stucco On wood frame, 2 inch thrck wood.
etc.) without any openings. A barrier that has openings toraiing
10% of its total area provides a maximum of 4 decibel noise
attenuation (5). Therefore. the intended openings in a barrier
(for drainage, etc.) should not exceed 1% of the total area, and
the construction specifications should require that all ~oints
are tightly sealed.
The barriers could contain the light transparent sections (118 to
1/4 inch safety glass, shatterproof plexiglass. etc., and could
consist of the earth berms toppod by the freestanding walls. For
deprossed or elevated (in relation to the road grade) lots, the
barrier height might be lowor than that for "level" lots.
The City of Carlsbad uses Ldn=45 dB as the interior noise lrmit.
In order to reduce the exterior noise impacts specified above to
Ldnx45 dB, the building envelope need to provide at least 20 to
30 decibel of norse reduction. Since sound attenuation of typical
building envelope at the "open window" conditions is relatively
low (somewhat between 10 to 15 decibel depending on size of the
open area, room abs.orption. etc.). it can be expected that with
the windows open, the interior noise ln the residences under
investigation might exceed 45 decibel.
In order to reduce the interior noise impact to Ldn=45 dB, the
windows of the affected residences need to be closed and some
kind of mechanical ventilation need to be used to compensate for
the lost natural ventilation. Additionally. use of dual or
laminated 'glazing could be required in some windows, especially.
at the upper floor rooms.
Cetermrnation of more specific exterior and interior noise
mitigation measures shall be provided on the case by case basis.
It appears that.the exterior and the interior noise analysis need
to be performed for all future residences planned to be placed
within Rancho Santa Fe Road corridor. Traffic noise predictions
and the proposed noise mitigation measures contained in this
report are preliminary only and represent the best estimates
based on currently available information.
17
E17
1. Barry.T.H.* and Rea9an.J.A. (1978). "FHWA Highway Traffic
N~~s~ Prodiction Hod*l." Report No. FHWA-RD-77-108 by the U.S.
Oepartmont of Transportation, Federal Highway Administrataon.
2. HendrikS, ROW.. (1984). "California Vehiclo Noire Emissaon
Levels." Intorixn Report by Office of tho Transportation
Laboratory, California Departmont of Transportation.
3. Hendriks, R.W. .~ (1986). "Heavy Truck Noise Emission Levels on
Grad08 in California." Roport by Office of the Transportation
Laboratory (Ciltr8nS) to the Transportation Rose8rch Board Annual
Mooting.
4. Lotter from tho City of Catlsbad Land Uso Planning Offrco
dated Aprtl 8. 1986.
5. Tho Noiso Guidebook. A Reference Document for Implementing the
Departmont of Housing and Urb8n Developmont's Noise Polrcy,
(1385). U.S. Dopirtment of Housing and Urban Dovolopmont. Office
of Community Planning and Dcvolopment.
18
3. I’ 1
f 2*-r ‘I I
’G - e’- Figure 3. Cross-sections 5 and 6. -
E19
i E.
Figure 4. Cross-sections 7 and 8.
E20
I I
G Y
I
Figuro 5. Cross-sections 9 and LO.
E2 1
\ /
30'
--
Figure 6. Cross-soctlon
0
11.
E22 .
APPaD I X
TABLE 1
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS
WA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PRmICTION MODEL (MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS)
E23
APPEND I X
TABLE 2
--
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATI.ONS
MA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS)
E24
.
RmOm 86-006
APPM I X
TABLE 3
TRAFFIC ..OISE IMPACT CALCUL TI0t.S
MA-RD-77-108 TRNTIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS)
PROJECT GEOHETRY INFORMATION
SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 90.0
SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE - 49.6
0.9 BARRIER TO RECEIVER DISTANCE -
ROAD ELEVAT I ON - 1.0
TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION !WALL) - 1 .a
.SECEIVER ELEVATION - 3.0
RCIAO GRADE (Xj - 1 .o
LEFT ANGLE - -30.0
RIGHT ANGLE - 9O.d ...............................................................
INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATI(5NS f ' REFLECTIVE' SITE)
SOURCE Lea h ) FRESNEL SHIELD 1% Lea ( h ?
(NO BARRIER) . NUMBER in dB ('21ITH A EPaRIEP,
I
E25
APPEND I X
TABLE 4
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS
(nOOIFfED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS)
WA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION XODEL
E26
APPEND I X
TABLE 5
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS
WA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS)
PROJECT GEOPETRY INFORHATION
SWRCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE
SiNtlE-LANE EQUIVALENT GISrANCE
2.ARRIER TO RECEIVER DISTANCE
WAD ELEVAT I ON
TOP OF BARRIER E~EVATI~:JN ' UALLj
RECEIVER ELEVAT I ON ROaD GRADE ! :: )
LEFT ANGLE
RIGHT ANGLE
32.0 - 49. b
1.0
1 .o - 5.0
1 .o
90.0
-
- 0.0 - -
-
-ao. o - -
AUTOS 66.9 -3.76 0.0 bb. 9
H. TRUCKS 61.9 -4.38 0.0 61.9
M. TRUChS 60.4 -3.94 0.0 60.4
FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (WITH SHIELDING)
TOTAL Led( h ) - ' REFLECT1':E' SITE (ALPHA4. C) - 69.7 :E
70 to ?: c2
.*****+++***++*+***+*+++**+*t*+*t++*+*+**++***+t*+*++~+~~**t~~+
EXPECTED CNEL - ' REFLECT IVE' SITE -
E2 7
REPORT 06-0.06
APPEND S X
TABLE 6
TRAFFIC NOISE [*ACT CALCULATIONS
MA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOSSE PR~IC7"ION MODEL (HODIFIm FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS)
E28
,-
APPEND I X
TABLE 7
--
TRAFFIC NOISE *IMPACT CALCULATIONS MA-RD-77-108 NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA -IC CONDITIONS)
-------
HNU - a~. o
;! OF MEDIUM TRUCHS - 3.1 :: OF HEAVY TRUChS - 1.2
SP€ED IN HPH - 4S.O __--_--_----------_-------_----_-------------------_-----------
PROJECT GEWIETRY INFORMAT I ON _------_--_----_--.---~---.-_----------.-----------------------
SOURCE TO RECEIVER D I STANCE 30.0
SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE - 29.4
BARRIER TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 0.0
ROAD ELEVATION - 1.0
5.0 RECEIVER ELEVATION -
ROAD GRAOE (%I 0 4.0
LEFT ANGLE - -90.0
RIGHT ANGLE - 90.0
TOP OF BARRIER ELEV~TI+N (WALL) - 1 .o
~ -~
INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS i 'REFLECTIVE' SiTE J
E29 .
APPEND I X
86-006
TABLE 8
mw I c NO I SE IMPACT CALCULAT I ONS
WA-RD-77-108 -IC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS)
E 30
APPEND I X
TABLE 9
E31
APPEND I X
TABLE 10
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHWA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PRP)ICTION MODEL
(MODIFIED FOR CALIFQRNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS)
/--
APPEND I X
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS
FWA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TFtAFFIC CONDITIONS)
E33
APPEND I X
TABLE 12
--
TRAlTIC NOISE .IMPACT CALCULATIONS
' WA-RD-77-108 -IC NOISE PREDICTION HODEL (MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS)
E34
APPEND I X
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CAKULATIONS
FHWA-RD-?7-1QBTRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA -IC CONDITIONS)
E35
-.
APPEND I X
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS
(MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS) WA-RD-77-1OB TRAFFIC NOISE PRmICTION MODEL
E36
_-
EXHIBIT F
1
I -_
July 30,
TO I
mon I
SUBJtCTI
FRED HOREY FOR HAC PROPERTIES
We thought It would be .pprOpri.t* to provide to the Committee in writing an outline of the thinkin6 of HAC Properties in relard to the
Rancho Santa Ce Alignment. provide the infomation with which MG is working; Before expressing that thinkin6 we will
The construction of 8 prime arterial at its present alignment or moved east fifty feet vi11 cost about $10,500,000 if an over-
pass is not required at HeltOSlr.. If the overpass is required the
cost would be about f12,000,000. This estimate does not include
the cost of any sound and aafety mitigation measures for existing
residences nor does it provide any payment for land required for
Widenin6 and pushing fifty feet east.
Technical stud.ies prepared for the city (Wildan & Associates
7-31-86) and the report of the Corridor Circulation Cornittee
both indicate that the present alignment is the best from a traffic
flow view point.
Based on the infomation we have available the "Canyon" route
would cost either $1~,500,000 or S16,000,000 dependin8 on the
Meltose overpass decision plus the cost of land and severance
damages for MAC Roperties. We have nor quantified this but there
would be a significant dollar cost (certainly in the millions of
dollars range). We do not knou uho would pay this cost. k'e don't
think it could be argued that move would benefit the city as a
whole or even the majority of property obners in the La Costa area.
Under any circumstance it appears that the financing of the four
center lanes of this regional arterial shoulc! be considered for
financing from city wide public facility fees. This road (and Palomlf) is regional in nature and should not (in our opinion) all
be financed by a relatively feu property osners in Zone I1 of the
city.
Now that we have outlined the information with which r;e are workitlg we
will outline those decisions which we think should be mate and the areas
in we think we can be helpful:
(1) We believe the present alignment should be generally fo1lor;ed. We
are willing to provide land for the easterly move of fifty feet in
addition to the land required by the city's designation of the area
as P prime arterial (this is conditioned on the retention of the
provision for an adequate access point on.Rancho Sanca Fe Road for
.%C Roperties).
Fl
(3) gain rrrumin6 the present modified alipment we would Participate
with others In financine 8me rersonrble safety and noise mitiurtion ~~sures. (There is nothinu in city pollcy or practicer that
justifies this expenditure. However, w do want to be 6ood neiahbors and help to solve this difficult "politic81" rituation).
U FOR XAC PROPERTIES
CC: Mayor and Members of City Council
City Hanrget Director of Community Development
City Engineer
Plannin6 Director
F2
August 6, 1987
To Rancho Santa Fe aoad Committse
The La Costa Ranch Company, as one of the nembers of the Rancho Santa Fe Road Committee appointed by the City Council on July 7, 1987, to. examine alternative solutions for the ultimate align- ment of Rancho Santa Fe Road, can support tke "canyon alignment" provided certain conditions and City Council commitnents are included. mating the existing aligrmenc. We can also suFport a mitigated alternative apgroxi-
We understand and appreciat3 why the existing residents would prefer the canyon alignmenc. However, that alignment will require massive grading not cr.ly for the relocated Rancho Santa Fe Road
and Plelrose, but also fer tke fgture adlacant properties. The canyon aligrment cou15 require varzances fram the existing Hillside and Grading Ordinances o€ the City, will result in very substan- tial additional costs for construction of tke road, and will require a close and fast-tracked workirig relationship between
the La Costa Ranch Company, the other propert-es participatizg in the constructicn, including X.A.G. ?ra?erties, ana the Cizy to achieve canyon alignment.
Recognizing this, the La Costa Ranch Csmpany is prqared to supGort
the "canyon alignment" consistent with the Hunsacker Associates engineering to date, providing the City Caunc;l by rzsolutzon directs the following:
1. The Local Facilities Managenent Plans 52: Z3r.es 11 azd 12 be epedited, and the Rancho Santa fs 3oad Coraiztte participate in tSe Rancho Santa Fe aLz;xient seLecti3n and implementation.
the iz!=rovemenc of Rancno Santa ie Road be cczs=z.a=z6 ;r=rtFciy.
2. A defizitive financing plar! and faciliriss acrscnenr for
3. Concurrently, the La Costa Master 2Lsn ap.d ZelatsC Environmental Impacz Reports be modifiec', or amer.iec!
as required to imp1emer.t the Cmmittee" s recomne~.dz:iCn.
4. Variances or other zs1Fef frzm the HilLsi2.e and GraCi-r; Ordinances or' the City be ac5:eved whers a~;rac:iazt ~3 accamoca=e =he rzaligment wltn xizizal r.r.;acr =o E?.=
surrxncizg ?rspertLes and to rni.zr$;a=t ::?e s;ksrx.tiv:e aCiiz::r.al czsts.
..
Page Two Rancho Santa Fe Road Cmmittee August 6, 1987
5. City staff be directed ta work closely with the Rancho Santa Fe Road Committee and the affected property owners, including the La Costa Ranch Company and M.A.G. Properties, to achieve these goals at the earliest possible opportunity so as to expedite the completion of Rancho Santa Fe Road.
Should the Committee wish to recommend the canyon alignment to the
' City Council, the foregoing requirements should be included in the Committee's recommendation and in final City Council action on this matter. We strongly believe the foregoing is fully consistent with the community's goals and objectives and represents the minimum requirements necessary to achieve realistic and reasonable solution to the difficult alignment questions.
Sincerely,
.z
ROSS McDONALD For the La Costa Ranch Company
4
F4
3088 PI0 PIC0 OR. SUITE 202 CARLSBAD. CA 92008
P 0. BOX 11 29 PHONE AREA CODE 619 729-4987
August 18, 1987
Mr. Lloyd Rubbs City Engineer CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palms Drive Carlsbad, California 92009
RE: RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD RICK ENGINEERING JOB NO. 7936-8
Dear Lloyd:
Per the last committee meeting on Rancho Santa Fa Road, August 12, 1987, I would like to submit to you comments relative the concerns we have ah they relate to the M.A.G. properties.
The following are some reasons why we feel the road should be left generally in its existing location. As was pointed out by Mr. Morey, l4.A.G; would be willing to cooperate with the City and the adjacent landowner in the slight movement easterly of the existing alignment to address noise and safety concerns pointed out by your committee and the previous circulation committee.
Some of the reasons we would prefer the alignment to stay generally as it is are as follows:
The existing site plan that has been submitted to the City for processing could be amended to reflect the minor adjustment easterly of the proposed roadway.
The existi-g alignment would conform with the existing Circula- tion Element, General Plan, La Costa Master Plan, and zoning.
The existing alignment and site plan allows for a possible €ulL intersection on Rancho Santa Fe Road approximately 1,200 feet northerly of La Costa Avenue. When the site plan was first prepared, Rancho Santa Fe Road was a major arterial. Since the
designation has been changed to a prime, M.A.G. has been work- ing with the City and the outside traffic consultant to provide data for the City showing that an intersection in that location would work.
F5
Mr. Lloyd Hubbs
Page Two August 18, 1987
.-
O A signalized intersection and entrance one-quarter-mil3 north- erly of La Costa Avenue would provide the ability to enter the M.A.G. property from both north- and southbound traffic on Rancho Santa Fe Road. This would provide good Circalation for the site and not concentrate all the traffic at the existing intersection of La Costa Avenue.
O The extension of Mision Estancia from La Costa Avenue up to Rancho Santa.Fe Road can be accomplished without any variance to the design standards. Because of the distance from La Costa Avenue to Rancho Santa Pe Road, it would also allow for two intersections into the M.A.G. site and conform to City stan- dards for secondary arterial design.
For the following reasons, the M.A.G. properties would not be in favor of the canyon alignment:
There would be a loss of about four-plus acres of their property .
To connect Mision Estancia from La Costa Avenue up to Rancho Santa Fe Road could not be done within the existing street design standards. By moving Rancho Santa Fe Road, the intersec- tion requirements would be 2,400 feet from La Costa Avenue. An
intersection within the M.A.G. property would only allow for 1,700-foot intersection.spacing. In addition, because of the vertical difference, the proposed grades, as shown on the cur- rent canyon alignment, would have to be lowered about LO feet to meet the vertical standards.
Because of the shortened distance from La Costa Avenue to Rancho Santa Fe Road, only one intersection into the M.A.G. property would be allowed, whereas the original design allowed for two.
If the current intersection-spacing requirements were held on Rancho Sanca Pe Road, the Mision Estancia intersection would be 700 feet off the M.A.G. property on adjacent ownershi?. Also, to meet the vertical standards for that intersection, Rancho Santa Fe Road would have to be lowered about 35 feet from its current design.
The horizontal distance on the extension of Mision Estancia to Rancho Santa Fe Road would be about 1,400 feet which would only
allow for one intersection into the M.A.G. property in place or' the two on the current design.
F6
<-
Hr. Lloyd HuSbs
Page Three August -18, i9a7
* Moving Rancho Santa Fe Road compounds the design problsms. The
site has about 100 feet of cross fall from the easterly end of the property on Rancho Santa Fe Road down to La Costa Avenue. By moving Rancho Santa Fe Road, the site is reduced in width by about 400 feet compounding the grade differential and grading
problems.
fn summary, the canyon alignment makes it very difficult to provide reasonable access to the property, forcing all access off
of La Costa Avenue.
We ask that you consider our concerns and your recommendation.
We would be happy to answer any questions.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Ladwig
RCL:kd/OOQ
cc: Mr. Fred Moray Mr. John Stanley, Esq. Mr. Ted Aroney Mr. Larry Mabee
F7
August 20, 1987
To: RSF Rd. Cornmittas
From: Hal Mor-tensen
rw: RSF kd. Alrjnment
As a resident of La Casta rG77:Ts EaJo Ct.) I wall be
impacted by the rlacisrdns ui this ilantnittse and 6utur-e
decisions of caunci 1. 1 dit1 cancer-ned ncw ttloss ijecisionj
will af+ect me. But I dln eqi.tally concerned sbuut how these
decisions will affect Isther*s in this ca ty md throughout
this r*eqion. For- this r'easan I h.A<,e rattended each 06 your
rneetings %::cept the First. I have dn accasaim par-ticipatrd.
I appr-eciats that they hAvs 1.1es.n opm to tna public. I
apprecaate the manner- in which LluyJ tiubbr has conducted
thesa rneetings. I also wish to e::pr't?39 3c)ine per*:33nal
bdcI;:yr-ound thouqh ts and cdncarms.
Whale living in La Costa 6or- the last 14 months, I have
called ''911" 5 tiines for* accidents on "Deadmans Curwe" (4 ovsr--tur*ns, 1 head-on aii~ludinq 1 63t.dlit:f). 'The city
tr-affrc engineer. indicated that all accidents an RSF Rd.
c;n be at tt-ibuted to Jr*ivt?t* neglaqr=lrc(:~ when adiii trona1
r*e+lector-s were suqyested t amplyiny the r-cijd does ilot
contribute). Set-eschiiiy tir-es ar'e the r1or.m icr- this dar-1
winding stretch.
F8
IS it any wondqr why the r-esidents view with ohepticism the
staff recommendations :'to li.a;e the rvad" that are m.xle after years uf communi ty discusSim5, but without thot-,3t.tqh
technical staFf revieh-' Is i t an? wonder- that the comInLtrl1 t:;
is interested in slow-yrawth when rammunity needs and
concerns have not heen adijr'es3dtJ -' Pather. tnan tah inq the
lead in community planning drld dtvelopment-at least in the
past-Planning has only t-exted to it. Is nut the Ljr-owth
Management P 1 an d r-edc t i on -'
With those background thoughts, I would liLe to present wh:/ I believe this road should be moved to the canyon
aliqnment:
1.
2.
T. -a .
4.
e J.
6.
7.
3.
The road and homes should never have been placed in close pro::imity to each other without sound and sa+rty
mi t i gat i on.
As traffic and accidents have built, local government has
fogged the community, and did nut addr-ess or solve the
problem with mitigation measures many years aqo. The
camunity naw has ita back: up and believes the only
solution i's to inove'the road-regardless of cost.
With an itnpr-aperly designed interface between a
residential comlnunity and a prime avter-ial, we cannot move
the community but we do hav.e -the oppoPtunrty to move the
mad and pr-oper*ly design that intertaco.
The General Plan with its vsr-iot-rs elamen t!r (including the
noise element) and other planning documents seek.s to
provide guidelines to ci ty gover-nrnent .and ..+ssurancus to
out- r-esidents that the quality 0.C: wir' lifestyle and
protsction af our community will be a pr-io.r*ity. The noizc;
expert has indicated that $or- 2-stat-y home the noice will
be significantly 'above the norm with the windows
closed. Few people in North County live in enclosed bo::es
with air- conditioning. By his charts, the noise will be
sujf icient to interfere with sleep md normal
conversations inside my home with the winiliJw.::j c113.~i?d.
Moving the r-cad will mitigate noiza +or- all ar'esz a::cspt
right at the intersectlon with La flostd Avu.
While mitigation for- the curr-ent alignment may "wot'l::'',
local residents are skeptical and thisre was a :feciJetl .lack.:
o+' guarantees chat it would.
The canyon route can be laid out with cimsetvdtive, scenic, aweeping curves thr-ough cut- llOlnillLlni ty, Lii+t-lJ*,'ed
qr'adas, and a bet tsr- lacat ii317 3ppr'Gach iiiy heg !:haven.
While not a straight, flat r-odd, this dvniqn .*as baciud
away from the limits o$ the highway t~esiyn-~ttanrl.ar.r3.j ii:ir*
safe roads. It is safe.
The inter-section intif-val can be Inaaintained to tneet pr-ime
arterial standards For collectors and d futi.1r.e
intot-section wi th Melr*urse. Cit-culL*tion elements can provide "nat;ut*al" neparaticns or*
buf for-s betwset-i cornrner-cia1 and i'esiden tial pr-c.iper.tie5.
F9
,-
4, The r-esidential proper*ties can t?.e devzloped af CGIint1nLtrll.is
zltes. The inteqrity of the canlmunlty 15 rrldintairleO. l'h1.s
r-epvesents qood planning!
instal led tis:At- La Casta Ave.
classified ds d malar artst*i31. !hne were rnisleid by city
planning maps and =tatanents tiy city planners that ths
road was in a tempor-dry location. Movrny the road will
make these residents whole.
12.Even with minimal "s:.:tess" gr-adinq, the value of proper*t:v
throughout the dt-ea will be impt-oved-wall in u::cecs oi the
extra road cos.ts. This includes botn fGt* rqssidetnts and
developers (possibly a1 1 devalopers!. This would also
improve the t-utur-e tax base itJt- the city.
17,The overall cost to build and maintain Melrose he. when
the southerly extension 15 built will be lower.
14.The road would placed intc areas otherwise undevelopable.
r-esldentlal atceaa-wi tho(.(t lni31.3tc??d pGCkCt.3 Of t'i-?5llai.ll
1i:l.The best possible noise and safety controls chn be
1l.Some r-esidents bought their' homes when the voad was
I appreciate MAG F'rwper*tj/'s pc3si tim, but f am disappointed
by their- l&ck (s+ pressntation at what it would take to make
thei t- investment watsl:. . with the canyon t-uute (e:.:cep t far
inflsted severance). They sosm to tal.:e for granted with a
current a1 iqnrnent an accms to their- property -Fr-om. RSF Rd.
Their- having riot tried to wor%i:: through to &+. workeble
solution will, I suspect, raise the ire of tlla community.
This lack oF good will towar-ds the cornmunit::.' lriay now affect
them even if' the canyon t-cute is selected. I WUCII~ e;:pect
relatively nar-row interpretations by planninq Arid would
question anything but.
I am also concerned that the decisions made by this
comnittee have been made prematurely before h3ving any thinq
but a gt-.oss ccst-benefi t analysis. Tho gross number-..;
cover-ed only the cost of the road. They do nut ~jhl3w :mi; of
the bsnefits i fcr the canyon route) tor- drcreamed +~..ttt.tt-e
cast 06 rtdir-O'je, incr-ehsjad proper-ty *.,jlite:3, or' IJECI~-~;.S~~~
gratjinq casts to develop the property atter- gt.ac-trng fur. tha
road. Whi le discussions r-eyardiny Cje~er*.mce fIJv PM:
F'roF;erties has been made 1 f the canyon r'm-tts 1: selected,
litigation or the costla t~ devc?lopars-both La Ci;eta Ranch
and PIAG F'r-ope?' t ies for- di+ 13y.s dit* to holneowner. sp}.)(; 5 1 t ion
area development. 1 f the cur-rent alignmer~t 15 iit.lecced. it.
car-tainly shat-ild be undst-stoad that Stme r*e.r;idtrnI;s w1 11
consider no tboad irnpt-ovecnen ts or- developments he t t.er* ct:s..n
an itnpt-oved road at the' cur't-dnt lwatron.
110 Gusts have been dioiuo:aad $Gt- Chr c i ty to COvdt'
F10
I also feel much more infor*mdtian shculii hovs been
pr-arentrd by the La Costa Ranch 110.
they would LIS~ the ldnd for- both r'OuttS (Jl-lst I feel MAij
shal.llJ have). Tha e::tmt ai .ar'iancds 6r'rjm qr-aliinj or-dinances =houlJ be Letter Imdor-stood, ta whrt d', tent the,,
Could be minimized, and inputs and par'tlcipation b)
planning at Ufi ear-lier- staqe -hould pr-efdde dn zndor*semefit
by the local hameownur*4 06 th+ ~iid~ tab1 1 L ty 06 +i31.idl?ces to the qr-ading or*dinance. I ,an cmwinccd that -in econc;mlcal
land use plan can be im~le~nented that is corisiutont wit11 intent uf the current yener*al plan. I 8~Lso beliovs the
lower- slopes but Continues to leave the obser-ver with the
impression o+ Jevaloplnarits built into r-allinq hills
tqenerally con§iotI?nt with the cur-rent tGpOqrlphyl. I
hope that La Casta Ranch Co. will bs abla trl pr-eiunt some
planninq that would show how the!,' rnay develop the land with
both alignments. iilsa that their p1mning may show the
axtent of gr*ading and whEr*@ it may be dppt*Opr.idte.
to ahI>k hOw LIT quner.31
gr-ading Could td1.e place that rnodiCies the Btr'uctur-e tho-.
Reviewing the dr-ait agenda bill and dra+t stai.6
r-ecommondrtions, I felt irnpor*tance 136 not bioectinq the
r*eoidantial comnunity was uih3i?r-statod! T'hii is in important
LSSLL~ Just like Stagecoach Par.1. ~CCSSS is. I would not like
to see th1.s become a Putur-e poll tics1 issue becmse I~F paor-
planning now. The "canyon aliynment" is not ,staiqht and
Flat, but it is saFe. This is dl:jo under-stnted. Haw much
safer is the cut-rwit a1 Lqnment CI.,C-V the "sat'o'' tsnjon
aliqnmcont is never stated. The ldnj term c;ot di the cmym
aliqninent (factor-ing in cost savings for. south Melr-ose
which is in the circuldtim I=lPln6?lTtJ 1s onlya inarscjrnally
more expensive but may slso become tho t'unponsibi 11 t)* ot
the dsveloper*s. The impact to the .;alt.\u $)F MAG F'r'apar*tios
land with d canyun alignment (thus fsr- 1;nlj' stated by MAG
Prwper-ties! has not been campar-od to (nor' ha5 thdr'e I::,esn any attempt to establish) the impact to the valii2 of La
Costans' land which is aloo cer-tainly rnilli=iiS L); cfollar*s.
.-
I certainly hope when the city council Inales A final docirion it 13 +or- the canyon alijnmmt .
After much study and deliberation, we are convinced that the irngacts
of a regional prime arterid roadway throw our community would be
devastating. Both the mitidated alignment (Hunsaker $1) and the
canyon alternative thUnscrker $2) meet city design standards for a
prime arterial roadway, and either would be able to move the pro-
jected number of A.2.T.s safely and conveniently throu~h our community.
Sowever, only the canyon alternative (tiunsaker f2) fully addresses
and solves the concerns of our community.
The Canyon alternative \hunsaker rf2) enhances the development
potential of residential land by combining a community of present
and future homeowners. It is the only alignment accordirg to the
noise consultant, and endorsed by the homeownersI which can mitigate
noise for both one and two .story homes. The canyon alternative will
also provide motorists with d scenic corridor of hillsides and
valleys rather than d feeliry of driving through a tunnel of vh;
created 5y the mitigateG di,nment. i.-.unsaker ;ili ,ince there is
apparently little cost differential in the txo rcaiv:ayz, the cinyon
alternative (hunsaker $21 is the only sensikle aligne3t.
Thus the resident members of the committee ask that the Larlskad
City Council select the canyon alternative (Hunsaker 52) as the
future aliment for hancho ,ata Fe hoad. ;urthermore, .#:e enaorse
the La Costa hanch Company's request to expediate road construction
and development of the adjoir.ing land. nowever, we must o??ose any
intersection north of La Costa Avenue on hancno Janta ;e F.oad that
would specifically service the needs of the AU& rroperties corrmercial
development.
ratio Iiomes with both noise and safety concerns.
This intersection would negatively irn?act the sillside
F12
_--.
EXHIBIT G
MINUTES
Meeting of: Committee
Time of Meeting: 4:OO P.M. Place of Meeting: Date of Meeting: July 9, 1987 '
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study
Carlsbad Community Development Building
Present: Lloyd Hubbs, Joe Dunn, Mike Glass, Ross McDonald, Fred Recce . Morey and Alan
Staff Members Present: Doug Avis, La Costa Ranch Co., Steve Ta e, Engineering Consultant, Walter Brown, Principal Civil Engineer, Frank Boensch, Management Analyst
Following introductions, Mr. Hubbs explained that the committee was formed to recommend a suitable answer to the question of how Rancho Santa Fe Road should be aligned. He then queried fellow committee members as to what their perception of the task was, so that an agreement could be reached on how to proceed. Mr. Hubbs continued to explain that he saw the committee's charge as being to study how mitigation measures can be utilized to permit construction of the prime arterial on or near the current alignment, and also to examine real ignment a1 ternat i ves .
Mr. Glass explained that he saw the committee's task as finding an alignment that would provide a "middle ground" alternative that would be acceptable to all parties involved. Mr. Recce and Mr. Dunn agreed with Mr. Glass. Mr. McDonald stated that he felt the best way to begin finding a suitable alignment would be to study the two extreme alternatives. One extreme would be to construct the prime arterial on or near the road's current alignment utilizing mitigation measures. The other extreme would be the alternative in which the road would be constructed in the canyon.
After stating that he had been instructed to be as cooperative as possible, Mr. Morey expressed his view that technical studies will find the canyon alternative unacceptable. His main concern is that a decision be made on the alignment so that planning can proceed on the proposed development in the area.
G1
f
RANCHO SANTA FE ROAL ALIGNMENT STUDY COMMITTEE MEETING PAGE 2
Discussion followed on City Standards, related problems in constructing the road in the canyon, and decibel limits. Committee members agreed that their next step would be to meet with a sound consultant: That meeting is scheduled the Community Development Bui 1 ding .
LBH: rp
62
MINUTES
Meeting of: Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee Time of Meeting: 4:OO P.M. Place of Meeting: Carlsbad Community Development Building Date of Meeting: July 16, 1987
Committee Members Present: Lloyd Hubbs, Doug Avis, Joe Dunn, Mike Glass, Ross McDonald, Fred Morey and Alan Recce.
Staff Members. Present: Walter Brown, Principal Civil Engineer Steve Tate, Engineering Consultant La Costa Ranch Company Dave Hammer,. Engineering Consultant La Costa Ranch Company Bob Ladwig, Engineering Consultant MAG Properties Frank Boensch, Management Analyst
A. Work Proaram
Mr. Hubbs reviewed the proposed work program designed to provide the City Council with a final report at its August 11, 1987 meeting. Committee Members approved the work program and agreed that subsequent meetings will be held at 4:30 P.M. The Committee will also meet at 9:00 A.M. on August 1, 1987 at the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue for a field review of the final alternatives. Mr. Hubbs introduced Mr. Paul Dunholter, sound consultant, who would provide input for the setting of parameters relating to noise mitigation.
B. Review of Constraints and Desians ODtion for Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue Intersection
Material from CalTrans Design Standards were distrdbuted for review. Mr. Hubbs explained that the City would be forced to justify any variance from these standards if the design of a road is claimed to have been a contributing factor in an accident. He stated that it would be difficult to obtain movement of the intersection and suggested that the Committee use it as a fixed starting point in their discussion.
63
>-
'I .
July 16, 1987 Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee Page 2
Mr. Dunn pointed out that there are examples in the City of where standards were not followed. Mr. Hubbs
conceded that there may be examples of roads not built according to standards but explained that the City may be open to litigation in areas where substandard, situations exist. He continued to explain that the City is now attempting to maintain standards consistently.
Mr. Morey asked if it would be possible for some variation in the location of the intersection to provide mitigation measures in that area. Mr Dunn expressed his concern that trash trucks would be traveling extremely close to homes. Mr. Tate explained that guardrails would be. installed in the area. Committee Members responded that such barriers would not be acceptable but that more effective types such as "Jersey barriers" would be more appropriate and acceptable.
Mr. Ladwig stated that a 10% skew in the road would be the maximum acceptable degree of variance for safety reasons and that such a change would result in nominal
movement of the road. Mr. Dunn stated that he realizes little movement would be possible at the intersection but that the road should be pulled away from homes as soon as it is practical. Committee Members aareed that the intersection should remain in the same aeneral location with minor .movements and arade chanaes made where Dossible to imDrove safetv and noise mitiqation measures.
C. Establishment of Desian Criteria for Mitiaated Alternative
Mr. Hubbs requested that Mr. Dunholter address the Committee on noise measurements and accepted standards. Mr. Dunholter explained that "ldn" is the preferred measurement in Carlsbad and that it is the summation or average of noise in a 24 hour period in which noise at night is weighted most heavily. Community noise surveys were used by the state to arrive at standards for local adoption. The most widely accepted standard in California is 65 ldn. It is the standard which new projects must be designed to meet. This is the level which the average person finds acceptable.
64
July 16, 1987 Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee Meeting Page 3
Mr. Glass stated that he and Mr. Recce do not believe homeowners in the area will accept the 65 ldn limit. Mr. Recce submitted a document from the County of San Diego which stated that the average decibel level in standard residential communities is 42 (interior) and 48 for residential streets (exterior). Mr. Dunhol ter pointed out that these are instantaneous decibel levels, not ldn measurements, and that those levels could not be obtained unless the road is realigned.
Lengthy discussion continued on the appropriate noise level that mitigation measures should be designed to meet. Members of the Committee felt that 65 ldn was too , high and that 50 to 55 ldn would be most acceptable. Mr. Dunholter expressed th’e opinion that 55 to 60 ldn was probably the best that could be expected in any circumstance. It was decided that no sDecific level be selected but that Mr. Dunholter and Mr. Tate be instructed to obtain the qreatest mitiqation Dractical.
Mr. Recce stated that homeowners will not accept the use of double-pane windows and ventilation systems as mitigation alternatives for second story noise. Mr. Dunhol ter responded that an excessively high soundwall would be necessary to mitigate such noise.
Committee Members agreed that mitigation options should be based on 50,000 average daily trips at 60 mph. Mr. Hubbs stated that staff will provide Mr. Dunholter with an estimate of the projected percentage of truck traffic.
Committee Members questioned if Mr. Dunholter would have enough time to prepare his report. Mr. Dunhol ter acknowledged that he would be pressed for time. Discussion followed on possible changes in meeting dates to provide him with additional time. Mr. Glass and Mr. Recce stated that they felt it was important for the consultant to have as much time as needed to complete his study but the Committee agreed to follow the work program as closely as possible.
LLOYD B#::FS City En
LBH: FB: rp
65
MINUTES
Meeting of: Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study
Committee
Time of Meeting: 4:30 p.m.
Place of Meeting: Carlsbad Community Development Building
Date of Meeting: 3uly 23, 19'87
Committee Members Present: Lloyd Hubbs, Doug Avis, 3oe Dunn, Ross McDonald, Fred Morey and
Alan Recce.
Staff Members Present: Walter Brown, Principal Civil
Engineer
Steve Tate, Engineering Consultant
La Costa Ranch Company
Dave Hammer, Engineering Consultant
La Costa Ranch Company
Bob Ladwig, Engineering Consultant
MAG Properties
Frank Boensch, Management Analyst
Lloyd Hubbs reviewed the minutes from the 3uly 16th meeting,
reiterating that the intersection should remain in the same
general location with minor movements and grade changes made
where possible to improve safety and noise mitigation measures.
It was agreed that this wording is acceptable. Another key point
was that it was decided that there was no specific noise level
selected but that Mr. Dunholter and Mr. Tate be instructed to
obtain the greatest mitigation practical. The other item was the
noise parameters. It was agreed that 50,000 ADT and 60 MPH would
be the options. The truck traffic projections were left open.
Walter Brown reported on the numbers he got from Mr. Dunholter
from the EIR that the City of San Marcos performed for the trash
to energy plan. Mr. Brown stated that he also had a study that
was done during the truck ban period by the City and combining
those numbers they were able to come up with a truck percentage
of between 4-112 and 5%. He stated that the City was working
from actual counts and then from the projections by the trash to
energy plan. These are results from an actual count as opposed
to a projection, as was done in the previous traffic study, and
they should be more accurate. It was clarified that it was 4-
112 to 5.% heavy trucks. This was an account of truck traffic
prior to any activity by the City to limit trucks in that area.
It was stated that the way the road is now is not an indication
of when there will be 50,000 daily trips because there will be a
higher net amount but lower percentage. Total traffic and heavy
trucks are the two plug-ins in the system.
G6
3uly 23, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Page 2
Lloyd Hubbs stated that the objective of the meeting is to take a
closer look at the Canyon alignment. Mr. Hubbs continued to give
a statement on how the City would approach the problem. The
following items were indicated:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
What is the land uses that are going to be around this
road and how would you access those land uses? There is
the RLM, inside the loop, and you have the low RL - one
acre lots south of the loop. The Committee should start
thinking about the kinds of uses and how those uses
residential with a control point of 1 to the acre and
RLM is a 3.2 control point (0-4 is the range).
would be accessed by alternatives. RL - is low
Another constraint that the City would look at on a
prime arterial is that there must be 2600 feet between'
access points. How that arterial is accessed must be
carefully studied in relationship to land use
topography.
The next constraint would be topographic constraints.
This constraint affects the land planning as well as the
road planning. The percentage of slope was pointed out
on the map of the area in question. It was pointed out
that the land in that area is basically fairly
constrained for development. The City's grading
ordinance and density consideration adds to these
constraints. It was pointed out that arterial streets
have more flexibility in terms of grading restraints
because they are basically exempt from the grading
ordinance.
The other it.em along with topography is drainage. There
is a drainage channel running down through the canyon.
Consideration must be given to the the possibility of
the reservoir failing and running through the area.
Drainage will tend to be a cost item so sensitivity to
drainage patterns is something that must be considered.
Another. item is utility constraints. This area is webbed with some major utility lines. There are a lot
of power lines with towers that are expensive to move.
There are also some water lines. Hunsaker will provide
a utility constraints map.
G7
3uly 23, 1987 Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Page 3
6. Environmental constraints such ' as rare and endangered
species an.d archelogical sites which must be considered.
Mr. Hubbs stated that he is not aware of any of those
kind of things in this area that would stop any action.
Walter Brown reported that there are no identifiable sites that can not be avoided or mitigated on any
reasonable alignment that has been found through that area at this time.
7. After all the above items have been considered, then the design criteria must be served such as a curve radius
and super elevation and relate those to where the access points are going to be.
8. The last point to be considered is the economics. Cost
will be minimized with e erything. The City will try to
balance the cuts and fills and trade off on the land planning aspects. Ideally there will be some kind of
dirt balance in the area that heavily affects the
economics. Another problem would be the right-of-way costs. The final design will attempt to optomize within
the goals, constraints and as economical a road as possible.
Steve .Tate stated that .their study is in two segments, Dave Hammer talked about what is presently going on at the
intersection of La Costa and the proposed Rancho Santa Fe
projection north of La Costa. He pointed out two scenieros, one dealing with the Canyon alignment. Both of the studies they have come out of the area at the same rate as the Rick Engineering study. He explained that their firm has held the intersection on
this alignment on the curb return so the existing improvements
could be saved. They have come out of the area with an 1800'
radius which provides a 2% super elevation to get the 60 MPH design speed. He further discussed the speed with which they get away from the lots. He stated that when you get to the first lot
line, they have pulled away about 3' with this alignment. When you get to the back fence line between the first two culdesacs,
the right-of-way is pulled back 16' and the curb would be another
IO'. By the time you get up to the dividing line between that culdesac .and the next one you are at 57'. The question was asked
if that would allow for the super elevation transition. He explained that the way the intersection comes down it is super
elevated. Another question asked was when you do your
G8
f"
3uly 23, 1987
Rancho santa Fe Road Alignment study Committee
Page 4
superelevation calculations, is it a 50 MPH or 60 MPH criteria.
It was explained that there are tables that establish that.. Mr.
Tate stated that typically what they would do, if they weren't
trying to pull away from that area so fast, is to come out of
that intersection with a straight tangent and get out a couple
100' and then work into it. The City has indicated that they can
start pulling away at the intersection so that they can get away
from those lots as quickly as possible.
The next segment is called the 1A-Mitigated which is where the
50' buffer zone between the right-of-way of the proposed Rancho
Santa Fe Road and your existing right-of-way. They have put in a
2400' radius curve around the center-line intersection, moving.
the curb and everything ab0ut.a foot or so. At 2400' no super
elevation is needed. Mr. Hammer explained that the section tends
to pull away a little quicker because they are starting back a
little further. At the first lot line they are 9' away. It is
really the first two culdesacs that don't have the standard
buffer.
It was explained that the La Costa Ranch Company has come up with
the details and priced out the 113ersey'1 barriers. That seems to
be the best alternative as far as safety is concerned. The
question was asked if there is enough spacing at the
intersection. It was discussed that there should be no problem
with regard to spacing. One of the possibilities discussed was
that you could put the "3ersey" barrier in and put the sound wall
riqht on top of it.
Mr. Hammer explained three alternatives for the homes in the
area. Case one is where the homes are up above the road, case
two is where they are at grade, and case three is where the area
is depressed. For each case there is a different way of handling
them. In case three, where the homes are depressed, there will
be a wall right along the right-of-way (6' typical sound wall).
In case two (areas at grade), there could be some sort of berm
(possibly 6') and then a wall on top of that. Case one, where
the homes are back away from the right-of-way and above them,
there would be a wall at the top of the slope which would have to be in most cases on private property. They would build to
maintain the existing 2 to 1 slope. Of the three, case one is
the only one that is right on the property. The sound consultant, after he does his work, will come back with the input
- as to how things need to be changed. For property owners to
visualize how this road will affect their property, they could go
out to the property and where the existing curb is and if they go
over 19' further away from their house, that will be where the
closest curb is on the new alignment.
G9
3uly 23, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Page 5
Mr. Tate explained that one of the directions they were given is
what are the various alternatives for the alignments. Alignment
1A-Mitigated is one of the, obvious plans and one that has been objected to. He pointed out the plan and profile of that same
alignment whi h is a little more technical. This map showed the
whole alignment of the road sections that they are dealing with.
The map is a centerline profile, showing the grade going up and
reaching a peak and indicated it going back down. They have done
this for showing the alternative of the 50' up. They have also
done it here. for what is commonly referred to as the "Rick"
alignment 2 study. They have also compelted a third study which
basically pulls the road in a little bit more towards the homes.
In this particular study, there are some constraints from a land
planning standpoint and a technical engineering standpoint that
tend to be a little bit more extreme than we like to see. They
have used some of the limits of the super elevations to get 6%
elevation in order to reduce the radius which helps to pull the
road out, but from a technical standpoint it is on the far end of
the scale and from a land planning standpoint it is difficult to
deal with. Another thing they were looking at is from the land
planning standpoint this road tends to be a little further down
in the Canyon, therefore, the development is going to look more
down at the road. They ha-e confered with Mr. Brown on what some
of the technical constraints from the Citys standpoint. They are
trying to find somewhere in between. He stated that they are
talking about approximately $15 million dollars with that
particular alignment. However, until the other two studies are
complete, there is no way to really compare them.
Mr. Brown stated they examined in some depth Rick's proposal and
the City has come up with a few different numbers than Mr.
Tate's group did. The basic correctness of it is there. It does
meet actual standards, but as was stated, it does meet them riqht
at the limits every time. There is some 20% of the route in a 7%
grade which gives the City cause for concern because the lugging
of the trucks that go up them are noise generators themselves.
The gradients might be adjusted. He also mentioned some concern
with alignment in noted area (as well as Hunsaker's alignment) it
did not accommodate what is presently cominq up to be a
realgnment of Questhaven where Questhaven will be coming into
Rancho Santa Fe in this area. This is a difficult situation
where you have two cities joining where they have current
development and we have current development. It was known to the - City some time ago and they have now made Hunsaker aware since
they are developing this design at this time. There was concern
GI0
3uly 23, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Page 6
on the Rick design that a great portion of the project at the highest elevation was on fill and the City would 1 to see if
at all possible .that be depressed in order to 1) reduce the .
steepness of the grades which would help mitigate noise and 2)
make the road more efficient. Mr. Brown discussed earth balance.
He stated that even the design noted is a million yards in
deficit. Bob Ladwig (Rick Engineering) stated that they did an
earth quantity on their study balanced. Mr. Brown stated they
would be concerned about that and what could be done to try to
mitigate excess grading and bring noted area down. He then
called attention to Rick Alignment 2 Study - lettering at RLM-2,
a pencil alignment - that alignment represents an alignment that
he worked up. This alignment just squeezes by a tower. The
alignment represents the extremes that a road could possibly be
put in. There are not a great number of choices in the alignment
whether they. went with Hunsaker or Ricks or one that is just a
little bit more extreme. Mr. Brown stated they also considered
the alignment of Melrose - Melrose has to go to Rancho Santa Fe
in that area and the.Hunsaker has not addressed Melrose at this
time, but he believes this can be accommodated. It was stated
that this was addressed in a preliminary study.
Mr. Brown stated that they have not really been able to review
the Hunsaker proposals as yet. His initial concern about it was
that even though they do have only 2% super and 1800' radius
which is good, we do start our curve immediately at the
intersection. Whereas with Rick, there was a 300' tangent
section that allows the .traffic to get stabilized before it
begins turning motions at intersections. Design is not a simple
issue. There are trade offs and each one of them must be looked
at.
Ross McDonald stated that when they did their plan it was based
on a land plan that they were trying to adhere to. They were
trying to get the road over as quickly as they could to the
existing alignment of Melrose as on the General Plan. Another
thing that could be a problem is that there needs to be a
connection as he noted. Bob Ladwig stated that Rick Engineering
was asked to put that road out as far as they possibly could to
see what it looked like. Both drawings came from different
instructions.
The issue of Questhaven was addressed. There is presently a
~ proposal in the City of San Marcos to alter the route of
Questhaven. The original proposal was to maintain the alignment
of Questhaven. There .was a later proposal to completely move
GI1
3uly 23, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Page 7
Questhaven onto their neighbors land. Mr. Brown indicated on the
map the present alignment from San Marcos which would have
Questhaven connect with Rancho Santa Fe. He stated that as far
as land use planning, there may be useable property on the side
that can be accessed via Questhaven.
With reference to the Hunsaker modified plan, it was noted that
plan came out of direction from Ross McDonald to Hunsacker in
search of a compromise. They are trying to find a way to have it
not be in the property owner's back yards and with the
constraints as mentioned by Mr. Brown, it hasn't been easy. It
was noted that there has not been time to do a full economic and
site plan impact as yet. They dre looking for a compromise that
can be afforded'and doesn't wipe out half of the property.
Mr. Hubbs brought out an overlay and placed it over the Plan 1A
Mitigated to help the property owners get an idea of what it will
do to their property. Mr. Hubbs pointed out the Rick alignment
and the Hunsacker alignment. A discussion on the land use
followed. One point brought out was not to make the road become
a visual impact or a noise. impact on the land use on both sides
of the road. The other point was to back the road'off its
extreme design standards.
Mr. Dunn stated, in his opinion, the traffic is going from La
Costa Avenue to Rancho Santa Fe Road to Escondido and San Marcos.
It was.discussed that a previous study done by Pringle indicated
that 20% of the traffic is Carlsbad residents.
Joe Dunn brought out the question that if La Costa Ranch Company
came to the City and said they would like to build Rick 2A Road
what would be your response. Mr. Brown stated that his response
would be that he would go to Rick and say that he would feel a
bit more comfortable with about a 4% super - can it be eased out.
He stated that he understands the concern here, and would like to
see them shorten the tangent distance slightly. With hunsaker he
would say that he is concerned that they have absolutely no
tangent area. From a design standpoint he would want to add some
tangent. The best meld of design choices might lie between the
two plans. Mr. Brown discussed grades, dirt moving and the
trade-offs that come into play. He stated that with the
criteria, the terain, and the goal to move away from the houses - what you can do is limited. Lloyd Hubbs stated that the
- question is how is an alignment going to affect that Canyon.
GI2
July 23, 1987 Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Paqe 8
Fred Morey stated that if you realign the road, it means ihe
existing Rancho Santa Fe Road ceases to exist. One of the
implications to this probably would be houses backing into
existing houses. Alan Recce stated that they had a meeting on
that and the consensus of the homeowners was to get rid of the
road and give them some houses.
Mr. Recce asked if there was any possibilty to cut further back
to contain the traffic as well as add a little extra for noise.
It was stated that you are starting off with a 5% grade so you
are constrained with how fast you can go through the
inter section. This is a design constraint. It was further
stated that the City is a little concerned about stretching the
limits of design and desireability. To gain a couple of inches
here and there, you don't want to'sacriface good comfortable
design standards.
Mr. Hubbs commented back to Mr. Dunn's supposition about the
strong demand to get across to the freeway. If Lucadia goes in,
it wi totally change the character of what the traffic does.
It has major ramifications to where traffic is and one of them is
La Costa. Mr. Brown stated that Melrose is another wild hair.
The City's supposition is that it will be there. They are
working off of a specific alignment developed by the County which
if it ever goes it will probably be' along that line.
Mr. Recce asked how would La Costa Ranch Company fund Melrose?
It was noted that this is a yet to be decided issue, but it was
stated the funding would probably come out of Zone 11 financing
plan. The question will also be, is it an improvement that La
Costa Ranch Company generated the need for or is it an original
improvement. It was stated that it is clearly not an improvement
that La Costa Ranch Company generated a need for in any of the
studies that were done.
The question was asked by Mr. Recce what is Plr. MoreyIs
impression of the alignment to MAG Properties. Mr. Morey stated
that it was his understanding that the purpose of the meeting
today was to review the alternatives, not to come to any
conclusions. The reason for having the acoustical man here next
week is to look at what these things do, what the present
alignment will do, etc. The existing with some mitigation,
nbise, etc. has a certain affect on MAG Properties, it is - something can probably be worked with. The other one has huge
costs, and engineering problems.
I
GI3
3uly 23, 1987
Ciancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Page 9
Mr. Morey stated that when you talk about additional .costs
everybody in the room has a different idea about who should pay
those costs - the owners, MAG Properties, La Costa Ranch Company,
etc. There are factors that yet have to be talked about. Mr.
Avis discussed that they would like to have some level of
agreement that it is worth pursuing. Mr. McDonald wanted to know
if the Engineering Department, MAG or the owners see any major
problem before they spend more money pursing this study. Mr.
Morey stated he didn't think MAG has any weight in this matter.
He stated that they obviously have concerns and they will
certainly examine it. Mr. Avis stated that they are just about
to embark on a monumental EIR and would like to put this road on,
it at that level rather than do a separate one on it.
Mr. Morey recapped that next time the Committee will have a good
estimate of cost on this canyon alignment, on the existing
alignment as modified, and the ramifications of the time
constraints, 'etc. When the acoustical man comes in he will be
talking about both. It was rioted that the acoustical man will
primarily be addressing the mitigated and existing. Mr. Hubbs
stated that at the next meeting the Committee will focus on the
mitigated alignment. At the Saturday meeting the City will have
all of the costs and two strong proposals so all can go out and
look at it. The Committee will try to come to some compromise
conclusion to take to the City Council. The question was asked
if Melrose is to be figured into all of this. hr. Hubbs stated
that it is something the Committee must figure out. The
Committee will be looking at all factors, comparing like
quantities. Another area of trade off and another area of
concern from the City's perspective is the impact on development,
and the grading and filling of the canyon. Filling the canyon is
an environmentally sensitive issue.
Next Thursday, the Committee will focus on the mitigated
dlignment and the noise impacts. Then Saturday the Committee
will sit down with two complete options. They will evaluate them
and take them to Council. The Committee needs to agree that the
factual information is accurate.
The meping adjourped at 6:15 p.m.
City E u ineer
LBH: FB/af
GI4
.
MINUTES
Meeting of: Rancho Santa Fe Road.Alignment Study
Committee
Time of Meeting: 4:30 p.m.
Place of Meeting: Carlsbad Cpmmunity Development Building
Date of Meeting: 3uly 30, 1987
Committee Members Present: Lloyd Hubbs, 3oe Dunn, Ross McDonald, Fred Morey and
Alan Recce.
Staff Members Present: Steve Tate, Engineering Consultant
La Costa Ranch Company
Bob Ladwig, Engineering Consultant
MAG Properties
Frank Boensch, Management Analyst
Others Present: Paul Dunholter, Acoustical
Consultant, Mestre Greve Associates
Annette Sanchez-Baesel,
Environmental Consultant, Sanchez
Talarico Associates
Lloyd Hubbs reported that the City Council presentation for the
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Committee has been changed to
September 1. This will give the Committee a little more time for
preparation. The next Committee meeting will be on the 13th of
August.
Mr. Hubbs then reviewed a new map showing two sets of lines
drawn, one (red line) set was the Hunsaker alignment and other
one (blue line) was what Walter Brown, Principal Civil Engineer,
designed. This design was stretching the limits of the criteria
to pull it as far to the northwest as possible. The goal the
City had in drawing this alignment was to try to get out of the
Canyon and on the rim and potentially reduce some of the grading
impacts. Ross McDonald stated that what Rick Engineering has
done was make it as extreme as possible and what Hunsaker has
done is bring it back to make it not as extreme. The Hunsaker
alternative seems to be better geometrics with fairly soft curves
and an acceptable canyon alternative. The City is settling in on
this as a good viable one to do the cost comparison on. They are
- still not happy with the grades, but it is good enough to do a
cost evaluation on. Alan Recce asked if the red line alignment
crossed any useable 1a.nd. It was stated that it is all useable
land.
G'I 5
ti
July 30, 1987 Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Page 2
Ross McDonald stated this was the most comfortable alternative
that they could come up with given all the constraints placed on
the alignment. Mr. Hubbs commented that the major disadvantage
is the massive grading through the area. The La Costa Ranch
Company has done some preliminary work on what land planning
configuration would go with that road. Mr. McDonald explained
the land use in the area in terms of the grading. He stated that
Hunsaker has done some preliminary work on the grading plan from
which you can start minimizing the grading. Mr. Tate stated that
they are waiting for all the pieces to fit so they can have
something more stable to put all the information together. Mr.
McDonald went on to explain that they are proceeding right now on
more site plans that will give lot layouts and a bit more
circulation detail. Mr. Hubbs stated that the City has not had
an opportunity to look real close at the Melrose connection and
the connection over in Cadencia is just an idea at this pont. Mr. Recce commented that he would not like to see them meet due
to increase in traffic. Mr. McDonald stated that Melrose doesn't
go anywhere and he also could not see why anyone would want to go
into the neighborhood. Mr. Recce explained that people could use
that route to go to the coast -traffic goes down to La Costa
Avenue.
Mr. Hubbs said the Committee is at the next level in the problem
and that given the alignment, how would a land plan work. In
speaking of the Hunsaker alignment, Mr. Hubbs stated this
alignment optimizes the opportunities to do some good development
westerly of the realignment, and pretty much writes off the land
east for the development. There is a trade off of the grading
against the extra cost of moving the road out. Mr. Tate reported
that their preliminary numbers showed that the road costs moving
over to that alignment is about $4 million dollars more than
leaving it like it is. The estimate was about $11 versus $15
million. This is only preliminary. The trad'e offs start off-
setting the $4 million dollars. Mr. McDonald c0mmente.d that in
getting a fair estimate, the process must be cut off at some
point in time to get a cost figure because it is a very
encompassing on-going target. Mr. McDonald went on further to
explain that what he had asked Mr. Tate to do was to pretend
that there were not going to be any other considerations, the
road is going to be built as it is presently designed, what would
be the costs as a starting point. Mr. Hubbs stated that he
believes this was a little over simplistic and the Committee will
have to do some work on it before presenting it to the Council.
G16
July 30, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Page 3
Mr. Hubbs then introduced Annette Sanchez-Raesel, environmental
consultant,. who has done some work in the area. Ms. Sanchez-
Baesel stated that their company started work in 3une of 1986
preparing an evironmental impact report for the revision to the
Master Plan for the La Costa Area. She stated that at that time
Rancho Santa Fe Road was a separate issue but became involved in
their process because of the different alternative land use in
that area. Their company had completed some of the baseline
work such as archeology, and paleontolony. The landowner had
done some of the preliminary biological baseline which their
company had the initial mapping. She continued that from the
standpoint of paleontology the area is primarily volcanic so
there is no 1ik.elihood of any fossils to occur in the area. From
the standpoint of archeology, the area has been surveyed several
times. There was one instance of a fragment located in that area - but in todays terminology that would not be considered a site.
Ms. Sanchez-Baesel stated that she talked with her archeologist
today and he does not feel that there are any significant
constraints related to archeology in the area. From a biological
standpoint, there are no federal or state listed plant or animal
species that are in danger. There is one sensitive animal
species which is a bird that is becoming of increasing concern in
the San Diego region, however, these are not federally listed
birds. From the standpoint of biology there is nothing wrong
with the alignment in the area. There are some constraints that
would have to be mitigated, but there is nothing that should stop
the alignment of the road in that area.
Ms. Sanchez-Baesel went on to discuss the EIR process for the
area. She noted that there would be a possibility of wraping up
the alignment issue with the EIR for the La Costa project which
is going to start up soon. The time element was discussed to
complete the process. Ross McDonald stated that probably from
the Committee's point of view, they would want do do it as part
of the Master Plan. It was stated that for the entire review
process a time estimate of 7-9 months is what they would be
looking at.
Ms. Sanchez-Baesel stated that this project is wrapped up in the
overall amendment to the La Costa Master Plan. Mr. -Fred Morey
took exception to this statement. He stated that he believes
that since the road goes on the existing alignment it is
~ consistent with the approved Master Plan and that it could be
found that it did not require an evironmental impact. Ms.
GI7
3uly 30, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Page 4
Sanchez-Baesel stated that even if it were consistent with the
Master Plan, and if the City wanted to implement that pro;fect,
and if it potentially had an environmental impact, you would
still have to do an environmental impact. Mr. Morey stated that is a judgement call on the part of the City. Mr. McDonald
commented that even if the City made a judgement call and said
they didn't need an EIR because the road wasn't moving, that it
can be challenged. One person can force it into an EIR. Mr.
Hubbs commented that some environmental documentation is re'quired
and before it is built there will normally be some type of
assessment. Based on that assessment, a negative declaration or
an evironmental report can be done. If a negative declaration is
done, there w.ill have to be a public hearing and that could be
challenged. Mr. Hubbs summed up the environmental issue stating
that the Council could take action. If that happens, the La
Costa Ranch Company sh uld proceed with their Master Plan based
on that assumption, there are a lot of issues to be worked out on
the Master Plan such as the access of property, how that access
is to be actually worked out. Then there they should start
interacting land around the road. Taking the two together, an
environmental evaluation of that would go through the 9 month
process. It would then go back to the City Council. As a part
of that process the City is required to look at alternatives.
After that is complete, houses could be built.
The minutes from the last meeting were reviewed. Mr. Dunn
requested that an addition to his statement on page 7 of the July
23 minutes be added with regard to the traffic going from La
Costa Avenue to Rancho Santa Fe Road traveling to Escondido and
San Marcos. The point of his comment at that time was that he
believes that La Costa Avenue has some problems. It has some
problems in terms of curvature and entrance and exits to DeHese
Court and one way that problem might be alleviated is widening La
Costa Avenue as it approaches the intersection and henceforth
widening the intersection.
Mr. Morey asked Mr. Dunn if there was any item in this process
that would help him with that particular problem. Mr. Dunn
replied that he believes there is a connection in that if La
Costa Avenue could be widened to the south, it would make the
intersection larger and he believes there would be beneficial
points to this.
GI8
3uly 30, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Page 5
Mr. McDonald stated that he thinks that at some point they should
address Mr. Morey's letter. Mr. Morey reiterated that at the
last meeting he stated that MAG properties was not taking a
stance until they reviewed the situation. They have now provided
a letter expressing their thinking. Mr. McDonald stated that he
was unclear as to what was meant by cost such as the cost for
severance damage and how much land is involved. Mr. Tate
commented that it was close to 6 acres. Mr. Morey stated that
they deliberately did not try to establish what they think
severance damages are, but it would be a significant problem to
MAG properties. Mr. Morey stated that it also involves complete
replanning of the property. The area was pointed out on the map.
Mr. Recce stated that in Mr. Morey's letter item B - The Corridor
Circulation Committee did not look at any specific alignment so
they made no decision as to which alignment had the better
traffic flow. Mr. McDonald stated that he is worried about MAG
properties access points. Mr. Ladwig commented that whatever
the road is, the connection between La Costa Avenue and Rancho
Santa Fe Road needs to be worked out. You can't set a new
alignment until you are sure you can make the connection between
the two. The vertical alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road is the
key to making a connection. Mr. McDonald questioned if any work
had been done in looking at how to make access off of alternative
a1 ignments. Mr. Ladwig stated that they did do some and that
access connections are critical. Mr. Hubbs stated that was the
point they were getting to in terms of the Master Plan. Once the
alignment is established, something has to fit into this process
so you can start to relate to it. He stated that the City has
spent a whole lot of time looking at Rancho Santa Fe Road
alignment and potential variations and none of the alternatives
vary too much. Mr. Morey stated that he wanted to emphasize that
from the past meetings The Committee has leaned toward this
alignment as the only alternative, and it is not. The other
alternative is the present route and it should be given an equal
look at by everyone concerned. Mr. McDonald asked if Mr. Morey
would put a dollar number where he is talking about money because
it is part of the deliberation. Mr. Hubbs stated that the
ramification of severence pay should be factored into the cost.
It was noted that there is going to be an access problem with
either of the two alignments.
G19
July 30, 1987 Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Paqe 6
Paul Dunholter gave a brief review of what noise standards are
based on.. He stated that most of the analysis he is presenting .
is based on the CNEL which is a 24-hour, time-weighted annual
average noise level. In his report he has presented as much
noise assessment criteria as possible. He stated that the City
of Carlsbad doesn't really have a specific standard that would apply so there is nothing that says it exceeds the standard or
not. One of the representatives he included was the Federal
Highway Administration (CALTRANS), which is the one hour
standard. The state guidelines and the individual cities and
counties have developed criteria for their area. Generally 65
CNEL LON is what is used by 90-95% of cities that have adopted
standards. The County of San Diego has a specific standard for
roadway projects like this and he did his assessment according to
that. Their standard is 60 CNEL or the existing level, or
actually 3 dB above the existing levels if existing levels exceed
60 CNEL. The County of San Diego is the least restrictive. He
stated he also shows what it would take to get down to 60 CNEL
and what it would take to get down to 65 CNEL.
Mr. Dunholter explained that his report consisted of 3
alternatives and the existing case. The report shows what the
existing levels are, what the levels would be for the current
alignment, what it would be if a lane was added, and what it
would be if the roadway was moved a relatively small distance
(50'). He then referred to page 14 and explained that in future
alternative 3? he chose that as where the current truck by-pass
route is. He stated that he picked up 5 cross-sections to look
at which are shown in Figure 11. Site A is down toward the south
end and continues up to E which is at the North end. A and B are
essentially below the road level, C is relatively close to grade - this is probably the roughest area - D and E are above grade
and a little set back. Table 5 was calculated at each of the 5
locations, what the existing noise levels are and what the future
three alternative noise levels are with no barriers. He then
calculated what the noise levels would be if there was a 6', 8'
or IO' barrier. He stated that he believed IO' is really the
maximum height that can be done on a sound wall. He continued to
explain some of the different cases on Table 5. It was noted
during the discussion that generally the first row of homes
knocks off about 5 to 10 df3. Mr. Dunholter stated that he is
using the assumptions that the Committee asked him to use in the
- study and that was to use a worse case position. He felt that
this tended to over predict. Mr. McDonald noted that page 14
. appears to be everything in a nutshell with all the alternatives.
G20 .
July 30, 1987 Rancho.Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Page 7
Mr. Ladwig asked what would happen if you only had one way truck
traffic under the existing alignment. Mr. Dunholter replied that
he believed the Segal Study showed that it would only drop about
3 dB. Mr. Dunholter clarified that the data on future
alternative 3 for site E is not correct. The data for D is more appropriate for E. He also explained that his dashes in the
study mean that it was not calculated. Mr. Dunn asked that he
would really like to know what the noise level in the homes directly affected on La Costa. Mr. Dunholter stated that he narrowed his study down to Rancho Santa Fe. Mr. Dunn stated
that his concern is what those people are going to hear not what is predicted to come from Rancho Santa Fe. Mr, Dunholter stated
that no matter'what you do to Rancho Santa Fe the noise level is not going to change. It is already loud there, even if Rancho Santa Fe. is moved it will remain loud in the La Costa Area. It was clarified that the noise level is high on La Costa irregardless of Rancho Santa Fe Road. The loudest sound
dominates so in adding two equa sounds together you would increase the noise level by about 3 db. Noise will mask another sound if you have a dominating sound. It was noted that the
influence of La Costa Avenue has been ignored in this study and
that there may be problems with La Costa Avenue.
Mr. Dunholter continued on to Figure 12 which illustrated how
noise levels drop off. He explained that initially there is a drop off when you first move away, but as you continue, the rate
of return diminishes. You have to keep doubling the distance to
get the same amount of noise reduction. He stated there is some ground absorption, but no mitigation as to penetration of the
line of sight. A discussion on how far away a sound wall should
be placed to still be effective continued. It was noted that you
don't get anything out of a sound wall if it is placed too far
away. Mr. Dunholter stated that you get more barrier effect if
the wall is closer, but the noise levels are less at distances
further away, this would only be in certain instances. .
Mr. Hubbs noted that the Committee needs a chart that shows the
cost versus the effects. Such as move it 50' there is only 3 dB
difference and if you move it another 50' it would probably be less, but the cost of the land and mitigation need to be factored into this to get a cost benefit. Mr. Morey asked who would own
the land if it was moved. Mr. Hubbs replied that the City - would.
G21
.- :. . .
..
July 30, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study
Page 8
Mr. Dunholter then interpreted Table 6. He stated in this table
he tried to compare what mitigation would be required to meet
what noise criteria. It goes fro'm the least stringent to the
most stringent. He then reviewed the samples, and clarified
questions. Mr. Morey requested a copy of the Noise Standards for
the County of San Diego. Mr. Dunholter noted that A should be 6
all the way across for the County of San Diego. Another question
asked was what would happen if there was a wall on the median.
Mr. Dunholter stated he had never really thought of something
like that, but it would do some good.
Mr. Recce asked the question about noise standards inside. All
the noise standards are for outside. Mr. Dunholter stated that
regarding inside noise levels, the State has a 45 CNEL interior
standard for multi-family developments.' They have no standard for
single family homes. He was not sure whether Carlsbad had a
standard or not. Generally a building gets about 22 dB noise
reduction from inside to outside. The standards are in terms of
closed windows. He stated the existing and future cases in the
Rancho Santa Fe Road area probably all exceed the 45 CNEL. His
opinion was - moving the roadway just a little bit doesn't get
you all that much, you would have to move it quite a bit.
Effectively moving 50', reduces your wall height a couple of
feet, but the noise level is about the same. If you move it a
little bit, you could get a berm in there and that would be
better. He indicated that this would help locations A and B
because' it gets that nearest travel lane away f-*- overlooking
the edge of the hill. That is where you start getting the noise
reduction. Mr. Hubbs commented that what you could do is balance
dollars versus a mitigation, maybe it isn't 50', maybe it is just
enough to get a berm. This could reduce the maintenance and the
land taken so there could be some economic analysis. Mr. Recce
stated that he assumed all the walls were at the property line. hr. Dunholter stated that it is correct. Mr. Re-ne said he
thought the City Council adopted that all mitigation be off
property. The discussion continued on where the wall should be
placed. Mr. Dunholter commented that there is a limit to how
quiet you can get the area because Rancho Santa Fe is a major
arterial roadway. Mr. Recce stated that as far as the homeowners
are concerned, their satisfaction would not be at the standards.
A discussion continued on what the standards are in other
neighborhoods in the Carlsbad area and what would be acceptable
to the residents in the Rancho Santa Fe area. Mr. Dunholter - continued that the only way to really lower the inside noise
level is to move the roadway further away or do something to the
G 22
July 30, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Page 9
homes. It was noted that the report given to the Committee is an
indication of the sound mitigation in a yard and in a main floor,
not in a second story. Mr. McDonald asked the question of how
many second story homes are involved in this problem. It was not
known, but it was indicated that it would probably be around 20
houses. The question was asked how do .the walls affect the
trucks in terms of noise. Mr. Dunholter stated the extra trucks
were in the daytime period. There is a standard mix for arterial
roadways and trucks that was used on this study and then they
added the extrd trucks. Mr. Dunholter discussed the truck
mitigation at the top of the slope location. He stated that
there is some mitigation because the roadway is quite a bit
lower. He further stated it really depends on the geometry. All-
of the wall heights do break lime of sight with the trucks. Mr.
Hubbs made one observation between Alternative 1 and Alternative
2 that there is not a tremendous difference in the effects of
moving it 50'. This could be cut to maybe 15' which would have
major cost ramifications. If the Committee could get down to
comparing the 2 alternatives, probably neither one of them is
acceptable, but they could provide a fair cost comparison. Mr.
McDonald stated that from the two alternatives you could shrink
those to alternative 1 which could mean moving over 15' or enough
to build a proper berm.
Mr. Hubbs commented that there is one critical point for this
Committee and that is that they need to take two viable options
to the City Commission. Which, from your perspective, may be
totally unacceptable, but if you had to live with a mitigated
alternative, it makes that alternative much cheaper if it is 25'
and you get an adequate berm and wall and the walls go at the top
of slope rather than filling. It is his opinion that the
marginal benefits of any movement over 25' are very nominal, but
the cost is very large. The Committee needs to get an estimate
for the alternative of 25', that is enough to get a berm and a
w.all of IO'. The walls in the upper case would be at top of
slope on the property line and there is questionable mitigation
of the second story. Mr. Recce commented that on alignments 1
and 2 there are no guarantees. It was noted that the Committee
is now looking at two alternatives, the movement of 25' and the
one in the canyon. Mr. Morey stated that he will have in the
Committee's hands at least by the afternoon of the 7th, what
G23
3uly 30, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Page 10
MAG Properties considers to be the cost of land and severence.
Mr. Tate stated there will also be a cost estimate for the next
meeting for each of the alignments. The location of the wall was
then discussed. The residents of the area expressed displeasure
on the close location to the houses. It was noted that the
second story and interior noise levels are questionable on these
alternatives and these alternatives are not going to mitigate all
the problems. The comment was made that the quicker that there
is a barrier to sound, the higher the incidents of reflection and
it is going to go up and away. Mr. Dunholter stated that this is
correct, you either put it closer to the source or to the
receiver. Mr. McDonald clarified that this is about noise and
aesthetics and what this does is for the noise and is not very
acceptable from the aesthetics point of view. However, the
Committee has to make a decision, even if it is unacceptable,the
committee is not recommending it, they are just laying out two
alternatives to get a decision. The suggestion was made to make
a single line expense for what it is going to cost on property
versus off property. Mr. Dunholter stated with regard to walls,
you could use the geometry. If you knew where the home was and
knew the roadway centerline, you just draw the geometry and break
the line of site and that will show where you are getting some
benefit. It was noted that it would be necessary to survey the
houses to draw the line. Mr. Dunholter stated that you very
rarely use a wall to mitigate a second story. The discussion
continued on the size and placement of the wall. Mr. Dunholter
noted that the highest elevation with the biggest yard was the
best chance of mitigating the second story, the lowest was the
worst case. It was clarified that what you then need to do is
take the ground elevation as one and use that to see how far up
you neea to put the 10' barrier to hit the line of sight at the
roof which would be 20' high. It was stated that most homeowners
would feel more comfortable having part of that slope filled and
the wall built up there as opposed to spending the money to put
in thick glass, more insulation and thick walls. Mr. Recce
stated that there is just no way to correct the mitigation for
all the noise problems for upper and lower level with off
property mitigation. It was generally felt that this was not
possible in this area. Mr. McDonald suggested the Committee
take a look at a worst case situation. Mr. Ladwick stated that
if you have a problem area, of a few houses where you can't get
the second story, you might lower the northbound lane 4' lower
than the southbound lane. It was noted that there would be cost
- considerations there again. Mr. Hubbs stated that it looks as if
you are doing a lot of things to lower a second story for just a
G24
3uly 30, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Page 11
couple dB. Mr. Morey suggested that they get into this issue a
little bit more on at the Saturday meeting. Mr. Hubbs stated
that he believes -the suggestion to have two different cost
figures for mitigating on property or off was a good idea. Mr.
Dunholter commented that there are some unique homes in that area
that wauld have to be mitigated on property. Anytime there is a
grading change, there is a problem in the upper unit and some
houses might need to be looked at individually.
The question was asked how accurate are the projections. Mr.
Dunholter stated they are too high. He believes they are 3 to 5
dB too high. He stated that there is another factor that they
generally don't include and that is that in the future vehicles
are suppose to be quieter. Legislation is suppose to require
them to be. It was also asked that if another development went
in on the other side of the road, would there be any reflections
from this. Mr. Dunholter stated there would generally not be, it
is significantly secondary to the primary source of the noise.
Mr. Hubbs suggested that the Committee think about two things:
1) what information does the Committee want to present to the
Council, even if the Committee doesn't agree, it will be agreed
that the information is accurate; and 2) what form should the
Committee present the information to the Council.
The-meetjng was adjgurned at 7:20 p.m.
LLOYD *k B
City Enuneer
LBH: FB/af
G25
Meeting of: Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Time of Meeting: . 9:00 a.m. Place of Meeting: Stagecoach Park Date of Meeting: August 1, 1987
Committee Members Present: Lloyd Hubbs, Joe Dunn, Mike Glass, Ross McDonald, Fred Morey and Alan
Recce
Staff Members Present: Steve Tate, Engineering Consultant La Costa Ranch Company
Frank Boensch, Management Analyst
Lloyd Hubbs began the meeting by reviewing the mitigated alignment stating that the noise consultant did a 50' offset and this 50' offset was equivalent to two feet on the wall. It was
noted that a 25' offset would be adequate to put the berm and
walls. Mr. Hubbs continued to review the three conditions the
Committee is looking at: 1) below grade: 2) at grade and 3) above elevation. He stated the houses sitting above grade are of
the most concern. There is also concern about whether mitigation should be on-site or off-site, and how effective a wall would be. He further stated that he had gone back and reviewed what the
Circulation Committee had recommended and they recommended mitigation be off-site. He took this as a goal to establish mitigation off-site. Referencing the second story houses up on the hill, Mr. Hubbs stated he physically looked at the situation
and most of them happen to be in that upper area which he
indicated on a chart showing wall heights versus the road elevation. The chart indicates moving the road to the east versus varying the grades on the street. Mr. Hubbs indicated two options, one was burying the roadbeds on the east lower than the
west, and the other option was to move both roadbeds. The road
doesn't alter the location of the wall situation significantly. The chart indicated that you can do about as good on the 25' offset for the elevated condition as can be done with any other offset. Mr. Hubbs stated he believes the way to do that would be to present a 5' retaining wall with up to a 10' slope bank and
an 8'- 12' wall on top of it, landscaped and with all the mitigation occurring off property. It should be effective to mitigate second story noise. Alan Recce suggested that the
acoustical man should be checked with to confirm this proposal. Mr. Hubbs asked the committee to look at the possibility of separating the roadways. This can be examined more fully when they get out to the site. He stated that when the Committee returns he wouldlike to establish a few conclusions such as 1) to
G26
August 1, 1987 Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee Paae 2
affirm the offset, 2) to agree that the barrier designs are basically effective and everyone concurs, and 3) to agree that the noise projections make sense. After this, the Committee needs to have two viable alternatives to present to the Council. The first alternative which is the mitigated one and the second one which is the Canyon alternative. It is real important that the Committee agree on the effectiveness of the mitigated alignment. When the Committee returns from the site Mr. Hubbs stated they should cover the cost estimates and then discuss the presentation. He stated he will give an overview of the
alternatives and he will also share his viewpoints on both.
After that time, the Committee will discuss their recommendation to be presented to the Council and how it should be presented.
The Committee then adjourned to the site.
The Committee returned to the meeting room at approximately 11:45
a.m.
Mr. Hubbs began the meeting by indicating on his charts the
three things the Committee should review. The first point was to affirm the offset moving the road over 25'. He stated that if they move it over 50' there is only marginal noise benefit
derived and considerable more cost. For every 25' the road is
moved it costs $180,000.00 and loose of 2-1/2 acres of land for that 25 feet. The 25' also gives an adequate distance to do
walls and berm. This would also have to be landscaped and maintained. The Committee agreed on the 25' offset as the best
alternative. It was stated that the Committee will still have
the noise consultant take a look at this alternative.
Mr. Hubbs continued to review each of the three conditions. The
first condition where the houses are Ifin the holeg1, the Committee is considering a 6' wall. The second condition of the at-grade houses, the Committee is considering a combination of berm and wall to get a 10' to 12' barrier. Mr. Hubbs stated there are a .couple of the two-story, at the at-grade situation, that will have to be looked at individually. The line of sight will have
to be broken. In the third condition, the Committee is considering creating a 20-24' barrier between the road and the
house off property. It was agreed that it is the best that can
be done given the stated alternative. If the mitigated alternative is selected, each specific house will have to be
looked at. The Committee will be giving the noise consultant the conditions agreed upon to review.
There was some discussion regarding the cost consideration for
both alignments. Mr. McDonald stated that they tried to make the same assumptions for each set of costs. It was noted that the
land cost was not included in the figures. Mr. Recce brought up
G27
August 1, 1987 Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Paae 3
the point that another cost item might be mitigating the other side of the road. It was stated that these figures are already in the estimates. Land cost has not been included in either
estimate.
The Committee continued to discuss what an acceptable level of noise is. The generally accepted standard is 65. The homeowners
have indicated that it is not an adequate standard. The homeowners would like to see 55 as a desirable level to reach. The consultant had indicated at the last meeting that the only way to do that would be to move it into the canyon. Mr. McDonald
stated that in his opinion the 55 level doesn't exist anywhere. Mr. Recce stated that they were going to go out to take some readings of their own to see what the other communities have. Mr. McDonald further stated that by all the standards that have been presented, none of them have a 55 level as a standard. Mr.
Recce clarified that there is a difference in a car going by at
60 MPH versus someone mowing a lawn or birds chirping. Mr. Hubbs
summed it up by saying that what the consultant is saying is that
65 is the reasonable level according to standards in other areas. Mr. McDonald stated that the City Council is going to have to look at the entire City and the achievability of the standard in
that particular area. The noise consultant had given the
Committee three alternatives at future traffic projection. He modeled his study using three alternatives - leaving the road where it's at, providing walls for mitigation of 501, and putting
the road in the canyon. He also used maximum wall heights to
make a worse case situation. Mr Hubbs stated the Committee should be looking at maximum wall heights for each case also. For example, with the road where it is at, the wall could be 6'.
According to the consultant's study, this would indicate that
what the Committee is accomplishing is a 60 CNEL. Mr. Hubbs
noted that another thing the consultant said was that all these
estimates are conservative (inflated by 3dB). Mr. Hubbs continued that what the homeowner would be buying would be the 60
CNEL. It is below the generally accepted standard, but it is not what the homeowners wanted to see. They want the, 55. Mr.
McDonald stated that he is not sure whether 55 could be achieved at all in that area. He stated that considering the cost and the general noise level already there, the obtainability is the thing we cannot be sure of. Doug Avis stated that he believes that 55
is really not obtainable in this area. Mr. Hubbs stated that he would like general concurrence on what the Committee thinks they will accomplish by putting the barrier in. Mr. Avis stated that
~ with their goal in mind, he believes that 60 CNEL is about the
best that they can do. Mr. Hubbs stated that 60 CNEL is probably a reasonable number. Mr. Recce stated that the consultant had said that another way to measure noise level was to do a one hour measure at peak traffic, but basically there is noise'all the
time. Mr. Recce continued stating that he is having a real hard
G28
August 1, 1987 Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Paae 4
time believing that the acoustical wall will work and the risk will be the homeowners. Mr. Recce indicated that the acoustical consultant made no guarantees. Mr. Hubbs stated that what the consultant tried to do was present' the best information available,' and concluded that the 60 CNEL level is an obtainable level. The Committee agreed that the proposed solution was
optimum given economic constraints and that the proposed mitigation would effect a 60 CNEL noise level.
Mr. Hubbs then discussed the cost factors such as land and severance, and the utility relocations. He stated that to make sense of a cost estimate, it will have to be done in a matrix.
Items such as the earthwork are going to be identified
separately.
Steve Tate reviewed his cost analysis. Alignment one cost estimate is the 25' buffer, alignment two is the other- alignment
that goes out into the canyon. He stated that this cost estimate is very preliminary. It compares the different items going down the side. The major difference in the alternatives is the earthwork ($350,000 for Alignment 1 and $4,000,000 for Alignment
2). The cost figure is $11 million plus, versus $15 million
plus, approximately a $4,250,000 difference. He stated that there will be some things to be added on to the figures. The
sound continuation was figured in at $50.00 a lineal foot that
would be a combination berm and walls. When these items are specifically decided, the cost figures can be more accurate. Mr. Tate continued that the land will also affect the cost. Mr.
Tate stated he is looking for direction. A discussion followed
regarding Melrose and La Costa Avenue as being other factors in
determining an accurate cost figure. Mr. Tate stated that as soon
as they get a reasonable alignment from the City on Melrose they can do better cost estimates. The same holds true for La Costa Avenue. Land will also be figured into the equation. Mr. Hubbs
stated that cost will be a key topic of the next meeting. Mr. Morey stated that one of the things that will have to be
determined on alignment 2 is who is going to pay for it. He continued to discuss what happens to property when the City wants the right-of-way. He stated that MAG Properties would be glad to
cooperate with the La Costa Ranch Company, but he didn't know
that there is anything in any ordinance or anywhere else that states that the City will provide the residents with any sound mitigation. If this becomes an identified option, MAG Properties
will be 'happy to consider paying for some of that. Mr. Morey continued to talk about the procedure the City uses to get land.
- He stated they go to each owner and negotiate the acquisition cost and other damages, then if the City determines that they just can't make a deal; they condemn the property and take it any way. In the case of MAG properties there is a cost involved.
Not only is the cost of the land involved, but MAG Properties
G29
August 1, 1987 Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee Pacre 5
must do some significant replanning of the project. This can be
worked out, with a reasonable agreement on cost. Mr. Morey continued to state that MAG Properties will work with whatever becomes the chosen route, but he wanted to make it clear that there is no free lunch, there are other costs involved. It is not a simple situation. Mr. Recce stated he disagreed with one point. when two-lane roads go to six-lane roads there has to be an EIR. In the EIR it would be stated that homes along the road would be impacted by noise exceeding safety standards.
Mitigation would not have to be a cost of the homeowner, it would either have to be a cost of the City or to the developer. Mr. Recce continued that MAG Property has made no statement as far as a compromise such as switching off with open space property. It is always severance damages or a money figure. Possibly moving the MAG property just a little further north making a land swap should be considered. This has never been brought up. Mr. Recce stated he would like to see a letter from MAG Properties that a land swap of some sort would be just as beneficial as severance. Mr.Dunn stated that Mr. Morey seemed to rush by the possibility of a compromise being worked out. He continued that in the process there can be some very nice compromises, the City has a
lot to offer. Mr. Morey replied that he will ask his experts to look at the possibility. It was noted that there would be less options available to MAG Properties if there were structures on the property. This issue is basically still on the table. Mr.
Recce stated that Mr. Moreyls plan will have to change no matter
what as it is it is unacceptable. whatever way the road goes it will still have to be changed. Mr. Morey stated that all those things will get involved in the negotiations. Mr. Hubbs stated that Mr. Morey's characterization of the condemnation process was accurate, if the City wanted to build the road, they would definitely have to negotiate the right-of-way and that was the
process they would go through.
Mr. Hubbs stated that the Committee must move on into what they are going to say to City Council. Mr. Hubbs continued to give
his evaluation of what he sees as the goals of the Committee. He stated he isn't locked in on any one position at present. He stated he would like to see the Committee to set out two viable options, professionally defined so the Council can make a reasonable decision. In presenting these two alternatives, the Committee should be sure they have presented all the factors
involved. The other item that needs to be dealt with is the Committee needs to feel that they have done the best they could in designing a solution to lower the noise down as far as reasonable. All of the group is fairly satisfied that given the existing alignment that the previous discussed alternative is the best. Both alternatives are workable. Mr. Hubbs stated he can live with either one of these solutions and can make a safe
road out of either one. They both are safe. Beyond that point-
G30
August 1, 1987 Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee Paae 6
Mr. Hubbs stated the Committee needs to focus on intangible kinds
of issues such as environmental concerns, ordinances, policies,
economic issues, and the lifestyle impact on the homeowner. He
continued that the environmental concerns are a very real part
of this process. The discussion continued on the importance of
the concerns of the people who are actually living in the area. These people have to be able to live with the final decision, Mr. Hubbs continued that he believes that the City Council is
responsive to the needs of the homeowners - they want to come up with a solution that solves the problem. He continued that they
are not dealing with one clear cut issue at this point. More than just the homeowners next to the road are effected and the Council must consider the overall good for the whole City. Mr. Hubbs noted that he developers also want to develop good
relationships . with the community. This is an extremely hot issue with high political stakes, which makes a reasonable solution difficult.
Mr. Hubbs gave his evaluation of the two alternatives. The
mitigated alignment is 1) cheapest; 2) is the shortest straightest alignment which results in the greatest user benefits; 3) being the straightest alignment it will be the safest alignment. A straight alignment will always be safer than
a curved even though both meet acceptable standards; and 4) the mitigated alignment could likely be constructed in phases and therefore could begin construction sooner and be phased over a longer period of time. Disadvantages of the mitigated alignment
include 1) the severing of a residential neighborhood; 2) a
likelihood that mitigation will not be effective enough to
relieve noise. Evaluating the canyon alignment the major advantages include 1) adequate noise mitigation for the existing residents; 2) does not sever the neighborhood; 3) provides adequate safety; 4) potentially enhances development potential of residential lands; and 5) follows a natural edge.
Disadvantages are: 1) likely induces mass grading which may
violate Hillside Grading Ordinances; 2) higher cost; 3) impossible to phase construction and therefore more difficult to finance; and 4) severs the MAG Properties increasing costs. Mr. Hubbs predicted that it would likely take 5 years to implement
the canyon alignment whereas mitigation along the existing alignment might be completed with one to two years. Mr Hubbs asked the Committee what they want to recommend. Mr. Recce asked what the Planning Department felt. Mr. Hubbs stated the Planning
Department has looked at it and they are concerned that there He are a lot of unknowns. They do not like mass grading. continued that the whole Master Plan would have to be redone before we will fully understand how the Planning interacts with
the road design. Mr. Avis stated that they are in the process of doing that right now, and that they need to have some of the unknowns answered and on the table. Their company cannot blindly
G31
.. .
--
August 1, 1987 Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Paae 7
commit to the canyon alignment. They will need the staff support
for the circulation. He stated they need to get the deal outlined before La Costa Ranch Company can figure out what they are going to be behind. He stated that part of the benefit to them is that the community gets behind the project. A discussion
followed on the time element of getting all the approvals to start the project. Mr. McDonald stated that the La Costa Ranch Company would like to start constructing that road by the end of next year. He thinks that the time frame is achievable if the City gets behind it. Mr. Morey questioned financing of the road by the developer in Zone 11. Mr. McDonald stated that there are other zones involved with this project. He noted that there can not be any more houses built in that area than previously called
out for in the Master Plan and for the number of houses that are
involved in that area the developer cannot pay for the road
alignment themselves in either" alignment. He stated they have
been working on plans to spread that cost in a way that will work.
Mr. Hubbs stated that the only part he thinks wouldn't work is the timing. It is a lengthy process. It is structured in a certain way to protect the citizens. For all the public bodies to have their due process will take time. Mr. Avis stated that what they need is a starting point. The biggest problem he sees is in the financing. Mr. McDonald stated that they could have the Zone Plan for Zone 11 done by Christmas and he believes it is achievable from a technical point of view. Mr. Hubbs stated he
thought that schedule was unrealistic considering all City
priorities.
Mr. Glass stated that there are certain political ramifications relating to this issue. The mayor campaigned for the movement of the road and there is an election year coming up. He stated he believes that the project would be handled expeditiously. If
everyone works together he thinks it would work.
-Discussion continued on the zones as key to a number of property owners. The zones involved are 11, 12 and 19.
Mr. Hubbs stated that the City is trying to implement a Growth
Management Plan and it is very restrictive in some areas. Rancho Santa Fe is a major road, and it takes time to pull all that together. Mr. Recce asked if there was any way to speed things up. Mr Hubbs said that they really don't know what the entire
process will involve. Mr. Morey stated that MAG Properties will object strenuously if the City Council doesn't make a firm decision when they said they would - whatever the decision is
there shouldn't be a delay. There is plenty of information available for that decision and he believes there is not reason why they shouldn't be able to make one. He continued that there
G32
.--
August 1, 1987 Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Pacre 8
have been too many delays already. Mr. Glass agrees - he
thinks that the Council wanted the Committee together to hammer
out a compromise. He stated he would like to take a straw poll and see if the committee favors one situation over another. He continued that he believes. the Council wanted the Committee to come back with one particular recommendation rather than two separate alignments. Mr. McDonald agreed that he thought the goal of this Committee was to fix the situation whichever alignment is used. Mr. Recce stated that whichever way the City goes there is going to have to be a schedule and they are going to have to hold them to that schedule. Mr. McDonald stated that the committee needs to decide whether they are going to recommend one alignment or the other. Maybe at the next meeting the committee could come up with a draft of a schedule. Mr. Hubbs
stated that this project is competing with other interests like , the developers along Palomar Airport Road. He continued that there are limited resources and plenty of problems to go around. It was noted that Zone 11 was one of the first plans that were adopted. Mr. Glass stated that the Council really wants to do something soon in this area because of its present unsafe conditions. He stated that if the Committee gives the Council two alternatives to look at, the process isn't accelerated at all.
Mr. Avis stated that if they voted now, they would vote for the canyon alignment if certain things were done (such as enough money to build it) . Right now La Costa Ranch Company's support is contingent on the Master Plan, and the Zone Plan being
approved. Mr. Morey stated that he didn't believe that the function of the committee was to figure out whether or not they can afford it. He continued that he believes the Committee has
been very objective in looking at the facts and he would like to
have a decision. Mr. McDonald stated that their ability to build that road, depends on the ability to pay for it and the ability to pay for it depends on this process. A discussion continued on the process. It was noted that to build either road you have to go through that process. It was further noted that it is a meaningless decision until they can see a way to implement it.
Mr Dunn stated that the first step for this Committee was to decide on an alignment and get behind it. The time frame to build either alternative was discussed. Mr. Recce stated that if the cost difference is causing the timing problem, it seems that
either alignment would have the same problem. Mr. Hubbs illustrated the financing problem stating that only so many homes can be built into this area no matter which alignment is chosen. It was pointed out that for the existing road, the financing could be in phases. Mr. Glass stated that timing is important and this Committee needs to get it done now or it will go on the
G33
August 1, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Paae 9
back burner.
~r. Hubbs stated that he is going to take. what the Committee said to the Council whatever the results and tell them this is what
the Committee says it wants you to do. They want the canyon
alignment, they want it processed in six months. He stated he
will go back and talk to the Planning Staff and the Community Development Director and let them see the recommendation and we will take a staff recommendation to the City Council outlining the whole problem. Mr. McDonald stated that maybe they come up
with something to mitigate the MAG property and then they could really move on it.
Mr. Hubbs summed up that there is a leaning toward the canyon alignment. The trade offs are the extra cost for the La Costa Ranch Company to absorb they are going to want to recapture those
costs. Some working with the developer to help things like grading will have to be done. It was noted that from the
developer’s standpoint they are looking for support. Mr. McDonald moved that the committee meet once again next week and try to draft a resolution that supports the canyon alignment and for them to implement. A meeting was set up for next Thursday at
4:30 in the Conference room.
It was agreed that the acoustical engineer will still do a study and look at the realignment in a little more detail. Mr. Morey
stated that he will give the City Engineers the cost estimate for
MAG Properties.
The committee voted to endorse the canyon alignment in principle and that in the next week the La Costa Ranch Company will develop a statement to clarify the conditions for the implementation. All the committee members except Fred Morey voted to approve the
motion.
Thuep’tJing was aqourned at 2:30 p.m
LLOYD WBS City Engineer
LBH: FB/af
G34
MINUTES
Meeting of:
Time of Meeting: Place of Meeting: Date of Meeting:
Committee Members
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
4:30 p.m. Carlsbad Community Development Building August 6, 1987
Present : Lloyd Hubbs, Joe Dunn, Ross
McDonald, Fred Morey, Mike Glass, Doug Avis, and Alan Recce.
Staff Members Present: Bob Ladwig, Engineering Consultant MAG Properties Frank Boensch, Management Analyst
Mr. Hubbs distributed copies of the Hillside Development
Regulations. He stated that he had met with the Planning Staff
and the Community Development Director and reviewed the options on both alignments. He stated there are some real concerns about the grading impacts and he thinks this is a key issue. The
Hillside Grading Ordinance goes into what the controls are and what intent the City has with regard to grading. Generally, the thinking is to keep the grading to a minimum consistent with the existing topography, and recognizing the natural features and
blending in with those development features. The ordinance specifically excludes circulation element roads from the criteria. The solution that the Committee has developed will
probably involve offsite grading that will be significantly
different than roadway grading. He continued that areas within
the Master Plan with the canyon alignment would likely not be in
compliance with the volume of grading per acre stipulated. There
are provisions to do that but it requires special over-riding findings. Mr. Hubbs suggested that the Committee should review
the Hillside Grading Ordinance so they will be more aware of the specific findings relating to this study.
Mr. Morey asked why these standards were established. Mr. Hubbs stated it was the results from past practices where mass grading
occurred. Bob Ladwig stated there was a period of heavy rains
which caused large amounts of exposed slopes to fail. There appeared to be a need for some kind of control over grading and the Hillside Grading Ordinance was the result. Mr. Ladwig stated he thinks there is good reason for this ordinance in that it
forces developers to stay out of steep areas. It was noted that the first part of the Hillside Grading handout is the actual
ordinance and the second part is a guideline. It was noted again that circulation roads are exempt from this ordinance. It
G35
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee August 6, 1987 m
was also noted that no matter which way the road goes there will be a lot of grading with regard to the housing development. Mr. Hubbs stated that the La Costa Ranch Company is expected to fill in all that land between the road and make it developable and in the process they will likely exceed the criteria. The La Costa Ranch Company is looking for concessions as far as the grading is concerned. A discussion continued on the cost effectiveness of the extensive grading and filling. Cost estimates will be at the
next meeting.
Mr. Hubbs reported that he has met with the Planning Department and they have talked about the potential concessions and there is a lot of concerns on the staff's part. Mr. Hubbs stated that he is not sure what they are going to be recommending at this point, Mr. Ladwig stated that one thing the staff was concerned about was that someone didn't use circulation roads as a reason to do a lot of grading.
Mr. Glass stated that he went back and did some searching in his notes on the first comm3ttee meeting. He stated that if we use the mitigated alignment the earlier notes indicated the criteria would be 25' from the closest curb and in the later notes it was
indicated that it was 25' or 40' from the furthest curb. Mr.
Hubbs stated the Committee was looking at the relative benefit of moving it just a few feet as opposed to more. The Committed had decided that moving it another 50' doesn't really gain much in
terms of mitigation. Mr. Morey stated that the 25' gives you
room for the berm and the wall. A discussion followed on the 50'
versus the 25' optimizing the mitigation. Mr. Hubbs stated that
if anyone on the Committee feels that the alternative doesn't
optimize the mitigation, then this issue should be opened up again. Mr. Recce stated that all he wanted was to look at off- property mitigation which was done. Mr. Glass stated that his concern was not the noise attenuation, but the aesthetics. Mr. Hubbs stated he will have the Planning Department look at this
and make sure it is adequate with regard to the scenic corridor.
Mr. Hubbs then brought up the point that was talked about at the August 1 meeting with regard to the financing and the
construction timing. One thing that he had indicated was to
realign the route is a major capital improvement. It has to be done as a whole. That is not altogether true of the existing road due to the fact that there is an existing road there now so construction could be phased more easily. Mr. Glass stated that
is not what the Council already promised. He stated he doesn't think the Committee is looking at a phased situation. Mr. Dunn stated that he thinks that the canyon alignment allows you to use
the current road while the new one is being built. Mr. Hubbs
stated that it is true, but you would still have to have the whole $15 million to do the job whereas if you were phasing the
G36
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
August 6, 1987 Paae 3
existing alignment, it could be done in increments. Mr. Morey stated that if you want to build a road the easiest way to go is the present alignment. He continued to discuss the process that will have to be done such as the General Plan Amendments, the
EIR, the Hillside Grading Ordinance, etc. He stated that most of the people in the eastern and southern part of La Costa are not going to be affected by either alignment. Once the City Council
has determined, which they have, that is a prime arterial, it is not going to affect very many people. He continued that if the City Council embarks on the canyon alignments, the Committee is in for a long, long haul. During the discussion, Mr. Green
stated that he doesn't believe there is anyone in the room that
believes that the wall is going to work. Mr. Recce stated that
it all depends on the City Council, they have directed this Committee to be done in an expeditious manner and the City Staff will give this priority number one. Mr. Hubbs stated that is
correct, but they need the $15 million to do it. He continued
that this is of primary concern to the Council right now because of the number of other issues of financing. Mr. Glass stated that he would be very opposed to anything that would segment the road.
Mr. McDonald distributed a letter stating that the La Costa Ranch Company can support the canyon alignment provided certain
conditions have been met. They have identified some of the problems that are unique to the canyon alignment and how they can
be resolved or not. He further stated that if it is the Committee's wishes that the road goes in the canyon, that
decision should be tied to the implementation procedures. Everything in this process is tied together so the entire picture must be looked at how one affects the other. Mr. Dunn stated that he believes the task before the Committee is to put body to the meaning of some of these things. Mr. Glass stated that item
#4 relating to the Hillside and Grading Ordinance is the point of contention. Mr. McDonald stated that they haven't been able to
complete enough engineering estimates but they will obtain more
specifics on this item as soon as they can. Mr. Morey stated
that item #2 is contrary to general impression. He skated that it is going to depend on how much the City is gong to participate in this. The City Council has to think about some of the costs such as right-of-way, grading and others, A discussion on the cost continued. Mr. McDonald stated that getting a cost figure is a complicated formula, He further stated that one of the
things that La Costa Ranch Company is doing is looking at the Hillside Grading Ordinance just to see if they can save some money through the grading, the site timing and the padding areas. There was a discussion on the existing road versus the new canyon
alignment. Mr. Hubbs continued that he believes it is the Committee's job to develop the issues relating to the two alignments. Mr. Recce stated that all the factors have not been
G37
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee August 6, 1987 Paae 4
looked at. Mr. Hubbs commented that he agreed with Mr. Recce, he doesn't think they have good cost figures yet. He believes there
are adjustments that need to be made. IQ. McDonald stated that
he agreed .that there is not yet a complete accurate picture and
they won't have for some time with especially with regard to the grading costs and such. He believes that in terms of comparable
costs, this is a place to start. Mr. Morey emphasized that no where in the discussion on costs were land costs indicated.
Mr. Morey presented his letter to the Committee. He stated that this letter is based on some very skilled information from
several shopping center people and attorneys. From their point of view this is no exaggeration. This was a very well thought
out statement that he believed had to be made. Mr. Hubbs asked
what the cost was based on ($15.00 per square foot). It was indicated that this was based on what commercial land goes for. Mr. McDonald stated that he is not clear about the 5.4 acres or
what actual road right-of-way is or slope rights and would like
to get that clarified. He stated that severance damages is a
legal interpretation of foregone economic costs. Mr. Dunn stated that the Committee really needs to get involved with these people in terms of what can be done for them under this package. Mr.
Morey continued to restate that there is no ordinance that says that the City has to put up sound mitigation at you property and
what he wanted to emphasize was that if the road is on the existing alignment that MAG Properties will cooperate with La Costa Ranch Company. Mr. Recce stated that what the residents support is to have four lanes built and financing the right-of-
way held off to the future. Mr. McDonald stated that it is more
practical for them to build six lanes and strip for four for the present. Mr. Hubbs stated that a lot of what MAG Properties
could expect to do would relate to timing. The discussion continued on the timing issue. Mr. Hubbs stated that the City
will do an evaluation on the cost referencing Mr. Morey's letter. Mr. McDonald brought up the problem of access. Mr. Hubbs stated that there is no way that MAG Properties could access their
property with either alignment and stay within the standards. Mr. McDonald discussed the access that they could get from La
Costa if the road would stay at the existing alignment. Mr. Ladwig indicated on the map where access could be made with the existing alignment and how it cannot be made with the canyon alignment. Mr. Morey stated that access and visibility are the
things that give property value and this is what they are
concerned about.
Mr. Hubbs continued to review the two alternatives. He stated
that the canyon alignment is a viable solution with cost ramifications which are not fully developed yet and needs a closer look, there is also the La Costa Ranch Company concerns. Mr. Hubbs asked the Committee if they had any reflections on the
G38
.. ,
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
August 6, 1987 Paae 5
conditions of the La Costa Ranch Company or would they support
this aspect. Mr. Glass made the motion that the Committee support the canyon alignment as written in the letter from the
La Costa Ranch Company. It was agreed by the Committee except for 1 obtention by Mr. Morey, and Mr. Dunn was absent. Mr. Hubbs continued that he will draft a resolution to this affect and let staff analyze that and they will either be against it or for it. Mr. Glass stated that he believes the Committee should include
some of their concerns in the report to the City Council. Mr. Ross wanted to clarify to the Committee that the road is going to change significantly and he wants everyone to be aware of this fact. Mr. Hhbbs stated that the City would probably take the position to protect that canyon in the end. The discussion
continued on the massive grading. It was noted that no more homes can be built in that area, but the La Costa Ranch Company' might be able to get better home sites.
Mr. Hubbs continued to discuss the mitigated alternative stating
that at the last meeting the Committee had decided that was the
best that could be done in terms of noise mitigation. He stated
that he doesn't want to take an alignment that isn't an optimum solution. If the position that no alignment in the current corridor is acceptable, then he would like to make sure this is correct. There followed a discussion on the noise wall. Mr. Glass stated that everything he knew about them, he didn't
believe they worked. Mr. Hubbs stated that based on the expertise of the consultant, the 60 dB is an acceptable level.
Mr. Glass stated that on what the homeowners have stated, he
doesn't believe that they can endorse the existing alignment.
Mr. Glass continued that the Committee was charged to come to some sort of consensus agreement and go back to the Council with a recommendation that they can endorse or reject, therefore, he doesn't think giving them two alternatives is doing that. The Council also said if the Committee can't make a decision they should come back and tell them so. Mr. Morey stated that four members out of five have indicated that the solution is the canyon alignment and one member out of five thinks the existing alignment is the best. If that one member of the five wants to
be represented, you don't have agreement with that solution. Mr.
Hubbs continued that what they were looking at is that given the existing alignment, what is the best that can be done. If you are not satisfied that the Committee has done the best job on that alternative, is there something else that can be done to
make it better or is it just totally unacceptable. Mr. Recce stated that he didn't believe that the acoustical engineer did a complete report, but he continued that what the Committee came up with regarding the existing alignment was probably the best that could be done and the most cost effective. Mr. Glass asked the question of the Committee if they believed that the 60 CNEL is
reasonable. Mr. Morey stated that he believes that if that berm
G39
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
August 6, 1987 a
is put in and sound walls are put in that there will be a better
acoustical noise level in those homes than in 80% of the homes in Carlsbad. Mr. Ladwig stated that if you stay closer to the existing alignment and go down a little bit, you have a better
chance to do the mitigation. Mr. McDonald stated that the Committee is dealing with a scientific measure and people's perception. He continued that he believes the Committee did the best they could and went to great lengths to discuss the engineering of the road and obtain an expert opinion as to the sound mitigation. Mr. Hubbs stated his greatest fear is that they didn't do the best job they could. It was noted that the noise man was to look at the down slope effect. Mr. Glass stated
that he wants the Council to be aware of the concerns that the
Committee has in this area. Mr. Hubbs stated that they would do
the wall high enough to get 60 CNEL for each home. The sound consultant decides the height of the wall. If this alignment were selected, each lot would have to be looked at individually.
Mr. Glass stated that should be included in the alternative given to the City Council.
Mr. Hubbs asked how the Committee wants to make their
presentation. It was noted that the Staff recommendation may not agree with what the Committee has recommended. Mr. Hubbs also
stated that the Planning Director and the Community Development Director will be at the next meeting to explain the Staff
recommendation. It was noted that the meeting was changed to August 12th, Wednesday at 4:30 in the conference room. Mr. Hubbs stated that he will draft up a summary of what the Committee has done and what the basic findings were and structure
that into a formal resolution of what the majority of the Committee is recommending. Mr Hubbs stated that there will be the cost elements to be presented and he has asked Mr. McDonald to prepare some graphics on how the road will go through
the canyon. He continued that the Committee may want to take a
look at the Staff recommendation before they draft any
statements.
Thqmeqting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. LAY c
LBH: FB/af
G40
MINUTES
Meeting of:
Time of Meeting: Place of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Committee Members
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study
Committee
4:30 p.m. Carlsbad Community Development Building August 12, 1987
Present : Lloyd Hubbs, Joe Dunn, Ross McDonald, Fred Morey, Mike Glass,
Doug Avis, and Alan Recce.
Staff Members Present: Walter Brown, Principal Civil
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Maxty Orenyak, Community
Development Director Steve Tate, Engineering Consultant La Costa Ranch Company
Bob Ladwig, Engineering Consultant
MAG Properties Frank Boensch, Management Analyst
Engineer ..
Mr. Hubbs began the meeting by stating that the main purpose is to approve the Agenda Bill that has to go to the City Council. Copies of the minutes from the two previous meetings, the draft
Agenda Bill, and comments from the Community Development Director and the Planning Director were distributed. Mr. Hubbs suggested
everyone take time to read the handout.
The discussion began with questions regarding the Agenda Bill. The following suggestions were made:
Mr. Recce asked that on page 2 under Mitigated Alternative that
he would like to see something like each house must be studied
independently or custom designed.
Mr. Avis asked what the criteria was for the noise mitigation.
Mr. Hubbs clarified that it was his understanding that no real
agreement was made in this area. It was the consultant's presentation that 60 CNEL could be obtained. He continued to state that he took that as a goal in the mitigated alternative.
Mr. Avis stated that it is a point of concern for him that if the mitigated alignment was chosen, that the La Costa Ranch Company
is not retrofitting the houses indefinitely to some standard that
is never obtainable. Mr. Recce also asked that there be something in regard to the mitigation that it was the most cost
effective solution (not necessarily the best). Mr. Hubbs commented that the noise consultant stated that noise could be
G41
Rancho Santa 'Fe Road Alignment Study Committee August 12, 1987 Paae 2
mitigated with walls to 60 CNEL and that was what the design was
based on. Mr. Recce said he would like to see somewhere that the second story interior has never been properly mitigated. Mr. Hubbs stated he would check with the noise consultant and get his opinion in terms of the interior. What is being said in the Agenda Bill is what the noise consultant reported could be accomplished and the Committee deferred to his expertise. It is clear that the homeowners don't accept that level.
Mr. Glass stated that he still has a problem with the 25', not because of the noise miticration but because of the psychological presence, also the- fact that there is pollution coming out of the cars and trucks, there are a lot of things to
be considered besides the noise. Mr. Morey stated that the-25, @ . in addition to what there is now, is what is required at this time. Mr. Brown noted that the centerline of the road would be
88' from the' property line. The whole roadway would be moved
25'.
Mr. Recce asked if there could be a because statement in where
the Agenda Bill stated that the homeowners are skeptical. He
would like something like such as, they are uncertain how Rancho Santa Fe Road is going to be in the future. Mr. Hubbs noted that one thing that they are trying to do in the Agenda Bill is be as
concise as possible. It will be supported by a report which would attach all the findings, correspondence and letters of clarification on points of interest. Individuals on the Committee could write statements to clarify certain points they want to bring out. He stated that the idea of the Agenda Bill is to get across the basic intent and then the report with the attachments could clarify and expand certain points.
Mr. Recce stated that he thought the roads had nothing to do
with the Hillside Grading Ordinance. Mr. Hubbs replied that he
thinks that comes from the fact that they are going to need the fill and that fill would likely come from off-site grading.
Mr. Glass stated that he doesn't care for the first sentence in the conclusion referencing "The Alignment Committee and particularly the homeowner representatives feel that the Mitigated Alignment, although the best possible design, will not mitigate noise impacts. (1 Mr. Hubbs stated that it can be rewritten to clarify that point. Mr. McDonald commented that he thinks it was the most the Committee could do with that existing
alignment, but it is still unsatisfactory. Mr. Glass stated they
would also like to delete the reference to the homeowner representatives. A discussion on the wording of the sentence continued. Possible wording of the sentence would- be "The Alignment Committee feels that the mitigated alignment will not
adequately mitigate the noise impacts." It was suggested to use
C42
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
August 12, 1987
the words will not mitigate adverse impacts. Mr. Hubbs stated he believes this point is clarified earlier in the report.
Mr. Glass questioned Mr. Morey if he didn't abstain rather than
dissent with reference to the Committee supporting the canyon
alignment. Mr. Morey stated that he did abstain from voting rather than opposing. Mr. Glass asked if Mr. Morey agreed with the second paragraph of the Conclusion on the Agenda Bill.
Mr. Ladwig addressed the memo to Michael Holzmiller from Mike
Howes. Of particular note was item X6 - "Any alternative would seriously impact the developability of the Big Bear commercial site." Mr Hubbs commented that this was an earlier memo and
should be put in perspective. These were concerns that were
being addressed at that time. Mr. Holzmiller stated that he believes the memo should be taken out because certain answers were not available at that particular time and they are available
to a greater extent now. The question was asked if Big Bear had
access on Rancho Santa Fe Road to commercial development. Mr. Holzmiller stated that access to the site hasn't been determined yet .
-
Mr. Recce referred to the last page of the Agenda Bill under
Staff Analysis relating the alignment being the most direct, most economical, etc. He stated he still has problems with that until someone has done a complete and thorough analysis with
reference to the economics. Mr Glass questioned if both alignments are safe. Mr. Hubbs stated they were. Mr. Glass
continued and asked why is it stated that one is safer than the other. Mr. Hubbs stated that the Committee should really defer that opinion to staff. However, making a generality a straight road is usually considered safer than a curved road. Neither
road is unsafe and that was stated in the report.
Cost analysis sheets were handed out. It was noted that the cost figures are coming closer. Mr. Hubbs stated that another factor that is going to be introduced in the cost is the addition
of the landscape buffer. Mr. Ladwig questioned the Melrose savings. Mr. Hubbs commented that it is a City Circulation Element Road and must be planned for. Mr. Tate stated they put the number in because they were asked to. Mr. Hubbs replied that
he thinks this is a legitimate figure and it will be indicated as
off-setting in nature and will be identified as a separate number. Mr. Recce asked if the word economical should stay in. Mr. Hubbs stated that he definitely thinks the straighter road would still be cheaper. The major factor that has not been fully
addressed is MAG Properties. The discussion continued on cost figures. Mr. Hubbs stated that they have done some preliminary figures to compare the two alignments and the mitigated is still cheaper. It will appear in greater detail in the final report.
G43
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee August 12, 1987 Paae 4
The major difference in the cost figures is the grading and the grading numbers have not been analyzed by the City. Mr. Tate stated that they are also analyzing the road from the standpoint
of factors that were not previously known. Mr. Morey questioned the cost figure for noise mitigation in the canyon. Mr. Hubbs stated that it reflects that the canyon won't need the noise walls. Mr. Recce stated that it appears that there will be less homeowner impact with the canyon alignment. This would be a big
advantage. Mr. Morey brought up the financing of the mitigation.
He stated that there is no requirement for the City of Carlsbad to provide for mitigation of those houses. MAG Properties is willing to participate in that cost.
Mr. Avis stated that the cost figures are the state of the art today and if someone has any huge problems with them La Costa Ranch Company would like to know $about them. He stated that he wanted to know before September 1 before these things are presented.
Mr. McDonald questioned the last paragraph on page three. Mr. Hubbs stated that he construed that sentence to be MAG
Properties presented.
Mr. Hubbs stated that he hopes this Agenda Bill will give the Council a view of where the Committee is at. He encouraged the members of the Committee to write clarifying letters that will be included with the report to the Council. He will try to have the report out early enough so that everyone will have a chance to look at it to make their comments. The report will pull together
a little more detail on what was looked at on each alignment,
present the alignments, the cost estimates, and will present a graphic analysis on what the Committee has come up with on the two alternatives. It will also have a detailed analysis on MAG properties and the city's evaluation of it. There will be a staff report, a noise analysis and any correspondence anyone
wants to send in, and the minutes attached to the final report.
The question was asked if the staff position is pretty well evolved. Mr. Hubbs introduced Michael Holzmiller, the Planning Director and Marty Orenyak the Community Development Director. He stated they have all gotten together and analyzed the situation and their position is reflected in the attached draft memo. Mr. Orenyak stated that the reason for the draft on the
memo is that there are some questions they would like to ask the La Costa Ranch Company relating to their letter. The following questions and comments were made regarding the memo from the
Community Development Director to the Acting city Manager.
Mr. Recce stated that the 60 CNEL and the 65 CNEL is an outside
level. Nowhere in the information does it indicate what it will
G44
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
August 12, 1987
Paae 5
be on the inside, and it should reflect that somewhere. Mr.
Orenyak stated that the wording would be consistent with the
Agenda Bill and it would be changed to reflect that. Mr. Recce ' indicated that from 60 to 65 is not really a significant difference.
Mr. Recce discussed the third paragraph relating to the
Hubbs stated that from an engineering standpoint the mitigated
alignment can be implemented in phases, but the canyon alignment cannot as easily be done that way. Mr. Glass commented the problem he has with phases goes back to what the City Council has already stated as part of the public record that the north half of the road will not be phased. Mr. Hubbs stated that he thinks
this is an engineering qualification and no one knows where the
$15 million is coming from. From an engineering standpoint, the existing road can be segmented, and the financing can be done in increments to spread the cost.
Mr. Recce stated that he thought there would be a lot of grading no matter which way the road goes. Mr. Holzmiller stated that the grading would have to comply with the Hillside Ordinance. Mr. McDonald stated that they haven't finished their analysis in that area enough to know the extent of the grading, but what La Costa Ranch Company indicated in their letter was where appropriate or where allowable. Mr. Avis stated that in a letter the words where appropriate can be interpreted in a thousand different ways, but the La Costa Ranch Company made that statement in good faith. Mr. Recce stated that his comment was that he thought that there will probably have to be a variance either way the road goes. Mr. Avis replied that he doesn't believe that a variance could be issued for the existing alignment. Mr. Orenyak stated that their decision was not based
on economic reasons, but because of the massive grading of that hillside. He stated that the Master Plan and tentative maps presupposes the financing. They don't anticipate doing any massive grading to accommodate more homes. The discussion
continued on the grading issue. Mr. Avis stated that to solve a
problem and get on with the business at hand, the La Costa Ranch
Company would need some help to do what the Committee wants. Committee wants to move the road to the canyon. The La Costa Ranch Company wants to know that they can get that help if they really have to have it. Mr. Avis continued to comment that the
La Costa Ranch Company knows they may not get all the homes that the Growth Management Plan allows because of the Hillside
Ordinance. Mr. Holzmiller commented that with the existing alignment there is no justification for a variance to be issued. If it is moved to the canyon, there 'is justification. The
request is reasonable if the road has to be moved. It is something the Planning Department doesn't agree with and can't
Mitigated Alignment being easily implemented in phases. Mr.
G45
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee August 12, 1987 L
support, but it is a justifiable request. The discussion continued on the variance. Mr. Avis stated that La Costa Ranch Company's position on the canyon alignment is that if they can't have a variance, they can't build the road. Mr. Holzmiller stated that he thinks the Committee and La Costa Ranch Company
are being perfectly honest when they go to Council and Council
says move the road to the Canyon. Council must accept the fact that to do this they are going to have to consider a variance of
the Hillside Ordinance. The magnitude of it is not known at this
time, but the Council should be aware that they are going to have to do that.
Mr. Hubbs stated that the Staff report will be refined later. Mr. Holzmiller questioned paragraph 2 of the La Costa Ranch
Company's letter. He continued that what staff is afraid of is
that it means you want a plan that will guarantee that you will be able to build some units and have a time schedule connected to that. Mr. McDonald stated that for this to work it has to be financed, and the requirements of financing might be tied to a
number of houses to pay for the financing. The staff indicated that is what they thought. Mr. McDonald continued that there was not any intent on their part to exceed the Growth Management Plan or change it in terms of density or number of units allotted to that zone. Mr. Holzmiller asked what if the zone plans for La
Costa stated that nothing could be built for the next 5 years
because of another road requirement. Was it the intention of the
La Costa Ranch Company that it wouldn't apply. Mr. McDonald replied that if for whatever reason the Growth Management Plan would indicate that they can't build any units for 3 or 5 years,
then the road will not get built in two years. The only way the
maney is available is through the houses. Mr. Orenyak stated
that the Staff priorities might be such that Cannon Road should
be given priority, engineering staff, and financing to that end. Mr. Recce stated that the City Council has made a commitment to Rancho Santa Fe Road to finish it. Mr. Orenyak stated they may
not have enough money to keep that commitment. Mr. Orenyak continued that if staff fixes Rancho Santa Fe Road, they still can't build houses because the interchange isn't fixed. Mr. Avis stated that outside of the Growth Management Plan and Zone 11 and
12 is the requirement to build the road. The biggest part of this is the implementation, and until they can build houses the road will sit exactly where it is. Mr. Holzmiller stated that Staff would feel a little bit more comfortable with that letter
if it said, as permitted by the Growth Management Plan. Mr.
McDonald stated he doesn't believe there is a problem with that. Mr. Avis asked if Staff needed a letter clarifying that point. Mr. Hubbs stated that it can be added on to number two in the
Agenda Bill as follows: "A definitive financing plan and facilities agreement for the improvement of Rancho Santa Fe Road
be consummated promptly consistent with Growth Management.Il Mr.
G 46
--
Rancho Santa 'Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
August 12, 1987
Paae 7
Orenyak stated that their recommendation is based mainly on the massive grading aspect and they will still not be changing that recommendation.
Recce stated that the Staff memo doesn't address anything about future homes being impacted by Rancho Santa Fe Road, If the canyon alignment was chosen, it would combine a community and it would be more of a whole community rather than a subdivided one.
From a community development standpoint, those are the things
that should .be looked at, not from a road standpoint. There are less homes that will be impacted from the canyon alignment. Mr.
Orenyak stated that the environmental report is going to say not to put the road there. A discussion followed regarding how many
people are affected by this impact, Mr. Recce continued that the reason given in Staff's letter is that they don't recommend the canyon alignment because of unknown factors surrounding development. Mr. Orenyak stated all the plans are not in. Mr. Recce stated that he feels that Staff is not looking at the development, they are just looking at the fastest way to move
cars. Mr. Orenyak stated that due to the time constraints, staff is picking one or the other and in anticipation of the environmental impact report, which is going to say don't go with the canyon, the staff has picked the mitigated alignment.
Mr. Morey stated that he would like to have Mr. Ladwig tell the Committee the affect of the canyon alignment on MAG Property.
Mr. Morey stated that the reason the homeowners have 200 to 300 people at all the meetings is that it is symbolic. Basically, everyone there would like not to have a road. It has already been decided that this is going to be a prime arterial and there
is going to be heavy traffic. These people thought there was
going to be a barrier and they were going to get a quiet deal.
There is no one in the area of existing homes that are affected by the route of this project. There is only 29 or 30 people that
are affected. He stated that there are still people that think
this is not going to be a prime arterial and this bas already been done. The only decision is do you run this down to the canyon with all the impacts talked about or do you follow the existing plan that has been in the Growth Management Plan for
years. Mr. Recce stated that they are not talking strictly about noise, but about a community and designing a road that moves traffic according to how the engineers want to see it and something that fits in nicely with the community. With the road going in the canyon, it greatly decreases the impact on the present homes, it is going to be less of an impact on the future homes, and it is going to combine a community. It is coming up
with the best alternative from a community standpoint. Mr. Glass commented that we are at a point in our community where we are going to take a lot of two lane roads and make them bigger roads.
The way this road is handled is going to impact current residents
G47
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee August 12, 1987 L
lives. Mr. Glass commented on the reference to the 30 homes. He stated that right now the decibel level is above the acceptable level of 65, 250' from the centerline in the road. If , you take'all those homes and add them up, there are a lot more than 30 houses.
Mr. Ladwig pointed out how MAG property was affected by the canyon alignment indicating it didn't work from a design
standpoint. Mr. Dunn commented that he thinks that the limitation of access is not limited by the alignment of the road
but because of the designation of the road as a prime arterial. He continued that in a prime arterial that access would be denied
in either instance according to what he read in the circulation
report. Mr. Hubbs commented that in either case it would require a variance. Mr. Dunn continued that the alignment of the road doesn't take anything away from MAG Properties, but what does is the designation as a prime arterial which was a month ago. Mr. McDonald asked if that site will be alienated from commercial development. Mr. Ladwig stated that it would not, but that it
diminishes the value. Mr. McDonald continued that either site has an equal chance to be accessed with either alignments both being primes or not. Mr. Ladwig stated that he thinks the canyon
alignment has a lot less chance. Mr. McDonald asked if that
road is being upgraded to 6 lanes and it is being moved over 25' what is the significant difference? Mr. Ladwig replied that if it is only going over 25' they could try for the indicated alignment even though they would need a variance. He stated that
MAG Properties has a report from a traffic engineer that says
that it would be possible. Mr.Ladwig continued to state that is why the planners put commercial property designation there in the first place because of the traffic and access for the community. Mr. Recce commented that when MAG bought the property there was
no guarantee to get access to Rancho Santa Fe Road. Mr. Morey stated that if the road goes into the canyon it eliminates the possibility of access to Rancho Santa Fe Road. Mr. Hubbs stated that there will be a specific section in the report on MAG properties and he would appreciate Committee comments in writing
to attach to the final report.
Mr. Hubbs stated that one thing that has been accomplished in this meeting is that all the issues are on the table. It has
been his goal to give the full picture to the City Council. He continued that this is a quality of life issue and all the comments that were brought out were valid.
Mr. Hubbs stated that the final report should be out next week and the report is still on the Council Agenda for September 1. The Staff Report will be made available to everyone if they would like. The
report will be mailed to all by Monday the 24th. Mr. Hubbs
The next meeting was scheduled for August 27th.
G48
--
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
August 12, 1987 L
stated that he would like to have all the Committee responses by
Thursday of next week.
6:15 p.m.
LBH: FB/af
G49
.-
Meeting of: Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment ,Study
Committee
Time of Meeting: 4:30 p.m.
Place of Meeting: Carlsbad Community Development Building
Date of Meeting: August 27, 1987
Committee Members Present: Lloyd Hubbs, Joe Dunn, Fred Morey, Mike Glass, Doug Avis, Alan Recce
Staff Members Present: Vince Mestre, Sound Consultant Mestre Greve Associates John Stanley, MAG Properties
Frank Boensch, Management Analyst
Lloyd Hubbs started the meeting by requesting comments on the minutes. There being no comments, the minutes stand as printed.
Mr. Hubbs commented that he has met with the Ranch Company and the Planning Department in terms of what the land planning would look like in the area and what the actual grading impacts would be. Staff is presently in the process of analyzing the
information and they are becoming more comfortable with the
possibility of the Canyon Alignment. Staff still has concerns
about the policy and some of the implications. Mr. Hubbs stated
that Staff has been reevaluating their decision and he believes
the Committee should be aware of Staffs final analysis. The
Committee will meet again next Thursday to review the Staff position and at that time, the Committee will decide whether or not they are satisfied with the report to the Council.
Mr, Hubbs stated that he would like to go over the report to the Council page by page, and he would like to make the report as
,objective and balanced as possible. The following comments were
made:
Paae 1
Last paragraph under Mitigated Alternative, A couple of the
Committee members did not like the use of the word lloptimumll. It was agreed to delete the word lloptimumll.
Pase 2
Mr. Dunn commented on 4 line relating to the sentence, "The consultant s analysis of the proposed Mitigated Alignment
indicates that a noise level of 60 CNEL could be expected when
G50
August 27, 1987 Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee Meeting
Paue 2
mitigation has been constructed.I* It was suggested to include
"for an observer 6' above ground."
Also, a comment was made to the third paragraph where it indicates "that 60 CNEL is not adequate." It was suggested to note that the proposed sound barriers would not function in the case of the second story windows and interiors. Also the "60 CNEL could be expected" contradicts with the final line - "Final mitigation may require in-home structural solutions at a few
isolated locations.'' Mr. Hubbs commented that they did try to structure the noise mitigation to mitigate second story noise with the wall. Mr Hubbs stated that the intent with that sentence was to recognize that there may be existing spots where
it will not be possible. He stated that he also didn't think the mitigation was strictly for the 6' observer. A discussion followed regarding the mitigation of a two-story home looking over a one-story home. Mr. Mestre commented that in those cases,
there are narrow windows and the houses are set-back further
from the road. Once a home is set-back, the noise starts dropping off very rapidly through the first and second row of
houses. Mr. Hubbs stated that the mentioned statement was trying
to capsuliza the consultants opinion. The question was asked regarding the state standards. Mr. Mestre answered that the Uniform Building Code for multicounty residential says that homes that have the noise level greater than 60 have to be verified
that the interior will be 45. The state has an ai.rport standard that the exterior has to be 65 CNEL. That is the only exterior
standard the state has. There is nothing for single family.
Paae 3
Mr. Avis questioned the wording on the bottom paragraph, second
sentence, "In the absence of a detailed land plan it is
difficult to fully analyze the land use implications of either
alignment. Mr. Hubbs stated that the statement reflects where they were a week ago, and should be revised to include a further evaluation. It was noted that there will be a meeting between the La Costa Ranch Company, MAG Properties and Lloyd Hubbs to discuss those aspects.
A suggestion was made on the second paragraph, final line to put "limited variance. Alan Recce clarified that this variance is only for the Rancho Santa Fe Road area. He stated that there had
been rumors around that it was a variance for all of La Costa
Ranch Company properties. Mr. Hubbs stated that it was only for Santa Fe Road.
G5 1
August 27, 1987 Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee Meeting Paae 3
Paae 4
Fred Morey presented his comments in writing. He stated regarding the last paragraph relating to the Melrose Drive and cost savings. He believes this is what is called creative
financing when Melrose may never be built. Mr. Glass stated that the reason Melrose was taken into consideration is that Melrose is on every circulation planning map, and in the Circulation
Committee meetings they stated that it should be a consideration. Mr. Morey stated that Melrose is not in the County Circulation Element . Mr. Avis noted that if it is .going to be a
consideration, they would like it footnoted to show the cost
range. He noted that later on in the report it was discussed as a range. Mr. Recce stated that he believes Melrose is a
legitimate cost, and showing a range would be acceptable. Mr. Avis discussed the complexity of the costing. Mr. Hubbs stated
that. he did attempt to clarify that point by the statement "It . should be noted that each cost adjustment may be subject to challenge by interested parties." Mr. Stanley asked why the
maintenance cost for the additional 600' for the second alternative alignment was not included in the cost. Mr. Hubbs stated Melrose will be shortened by 1300' which would tend to offset the additional maintenance and user costs on the Canyon alignment. It is possible that this Committee could make a recommendation that Melrose be analyzed again. Mr. Hubbs stated that this is still a debatable issue, but he thinks it is a legitimate cost and should be included.
Paae 5
It was noted that MAG Properties will be contributing the right-
of-way for the Hunsaker 1 Alignment, so therefore they did not see this as a cost to be included in the estimate. Mr. Hubbs stated it could be a footnote indicating that the offer has been made. Mr. Morey commented that he did not know how it could be included as a cost if the offer has already been made to dedicate the right-of-way. Mr. Stanley stated that he thinks this is
exaggerating the cost differential. Mr. Hubbs stated that he would clarify the statement.
Paae 6
Mr. Dunn stated that he has a problem with the third paragraph
relating to MAG Properties access to Santa Fe Road. However, it was noted that this was a statement of opinion and MAG properties agrees 'with the statement. Mr. Stanley stated that the Canyon Alignment does eliminate access to Santa Fe Road by virtue of the increased elevation and the severity of the grade making it
impossible to obtain access to Santa Fe Road.
G52
August 278 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee Meeting
Pacre 4
Mr. Morey questioned the meaning of the sentence, "To compensate for costs, financing and time delays, the La Costa Ranch Company requests assurance that plans will be expedited and consideration will be given to assist in cost mitigation." Mr. Hubbs stated
that this was a staff concern also and it is an area that needs further explanation. Financing and timing is a major issue and there is no answer at present.
Pacre 7
No comments. However, Mr. Moreyls notes indicated that some
questions will arise in the peripheral comments. -
Mr. Glass commented regarding the statement "This commitment will likely involve assurances to the La Costa Ranch Company which may tend to increase development pace in the southerly segment of the
City, potentially accelerating traffic impacts in the area." He
continued that 80% of the traffic is generated outside and he doesn't think this is a prime statement. Mr. Morey stated he
thinks it is probably too strong. Mr. Avis stated that he thinks it is probably against the Growth Management Plan. Mr. Hubbs
stated that he thinks it is a reality. He continued that once
this project has been set in motion - the area will need to
develop quickly to generate the revenue to construct the road. Vacant land has to pay that assessment and vacant land doesn't pay anything. Mr. Avis stated that the La Costa Ranch Company is either in business or out of business. If they are in business, the road will get built if they are out of business, the road
will not get built. Mr. Glass stated that the wording of ''potentially accelerating traffic" is what he has the problem with. Mr. Hubbs explained that the additional houses will increase the number of trips. Mr. Hubbs continued that this statement was mainly addressing the timing. Mr. Glass stated he would like to have the whole sentence deleted. Mr. Recce stated that the residents in the area are aware of the implications of
the increased traffic. It was concluded that the sentence be deleted and it would appear in the staff report.
Mr. Morey questioned the use of the words "special financing" and "preferential treatment". Mr. Hubbs stated that this relates to accelerating the project. Changing the words to g@preferential priorities" was suggested.
Paae 9
Mr. Morey took exception with the top two paragraphs on the
"special financing" and "preferential treatment" and questioned
the conclusions. Mr. Recce pointed out that this is the City
G53
August 27, 1987 Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee Meeting Paae 5
Engineers opinion. Mr. Hubbs stated more time will be spent on
this area for clarification. He continued that it has become a more complex issue than building a road - it is also a cost issue.
Mr. Stanley discussed the issue that the City to date has not made any decision as to where the fees are coming from for Santa
Fe Road. Mr. Glass stated that the Council did say that the
completion of Rancho Santa Fe Road would be within two years.
Paae 10
Mr. Morey questioned community cohesion. Stating that there is an inconsistency in the analysis. Mr. Dunn stated that the 2nd paragraph strongly states his opinion. He continued to state that the area in question is already divided by the canyon in a
natural geographic progression. If the road is put straight, that is making a man made division. Mr. Hubbs stated that the statement does bear further clarification. Mr. Hubbs stated that he thinks he can clarify this point in the project description. Mr. Morey discussed the conclusion. He stated that it has so many qualifiers that it is hard to find fault. Mr. Hubbs stated
that there are still too many questions and there are still no
clear answers. He continued that he was trying to bracket the major issues in the conclusion.
Paae 11
Mr, Hubbs stated that he wants to make one change on page 11 putting the construction impacts under environmental impacts. Mr. Morey commented he believes the residents in that area don't realize the length of time that this project will take. Mr. Morey also discussed that if the City wants property in that area they will have to pay for it, He continued that the City of
San Marcos has been cooperating with the truck traffic along the Road and this is something that people need to be aware of.
Paae 12 Mr. Glass stated he has a problem with "Adjacent lands are either below the existing road, level with it, or eight (8) to ten (10) feet above." He stated that it appears as if the four houses that set north of Cadencia Avenue were forgotten. They are 20' instead of log above. He continued that he doesn't believe there is any way the wall with the berm will offer any relief for the noise. Mr. Hubbs stated that in those cases the walls will be on the property. Mr. Mestre stated that they are all top of slope walls and it can be done. Mr. Glass stated that he thinks that should be included in the report so the walls are The not ignored. This will be inserted into the report. question was asked what would happen if a double wall is used.
G54 '
August 27, 1987 Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee Meeting Paae 6
Mr. Mestre stated that it could be done if they are not too far apart they can be made to work, but the geometry makes it too
difficult so it is not usually something that is done. Mr. Recce stated that there are some areas where the second story
cannot be mitigated with a wall. It was noted that the report
indicated that each house will have to be individually
engineered. Mr. Hubbs stated that there is another thing that
hasn't been dealt with and that is the land behind the walls. Possibly a quit claim deed could be made in those areas. There was further discussion on the types of walls that will be needed. Mr. Hubbs stated that the Council wanted the mitigation costs identified as an alternative.
Referencing the preliminary cost estimate, Mr. Morey discussed
the $179,200 that is shown as right of way costs, MAG Properties has already agreed to donate this so the cost figure doesn't
belong in it. Mr. Hubbs stated that it was recognized as an
extra buffer of land. Mr. Morey continued that they would then
have to assume that someone is going to pay for that land and he
doesn't think this is going to happen.
Mr. Morey questioned how the noise mitigation is going to be
financed. The City, as far as he knows has never provided funds for noise mitigation. He continued that the City has no responsibility to mitigate the noise and if they decided to build it where it is without noise mitigation, they could do so. Mr.
Hubbs stated that he thinks financing is a major unresolved issue and neither alternative has a way to be financed at present.
Paae 13
No comments
Paae 14
No comments
Paae 16
Mr. Hubbs stated he will be expanding on the last part to
indicate that there is some development. Comment was made about the division of residential land and buffering required on the
south side.
Paae 17
Mr. Avis questioned if it is the Committee's intent to discuss solution to the apparent problem as it relates to MAG
Properties. Mr. Hubbs replied that he believes they do need to discuss it. Mr. Avis stated that the La Costa Ranch Company
G55
August 27, 1987 Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee Meeting gaae 7
has met with MAG Properties and MAG has given them their criteria. He continued that the La Costa Ranch Company has come up with a tentative alternative. There will be a meeting between
the two to discuss this issue.
Mr. Morey stated that the $300,000 for estimated mitigation should be eliminated. Mr. Hubbs stated that it will be
clarified. Mr. Morey stated that they want to have a
consultation with the City Engineer, and La Costa Ranch Company
to discuss the issue.
Paae 18. 19
Mr. Recce commented that he would like to clarify that MAG
Properties has never been granted access to Santa Fe Road. Mr. Stanley stated that right now MAG Properties has access off Santa Fe Road legally because it is existing. More issues on
land economics were discussed.
Mr. Morey read his comments on the Peripheral matter as stated in
his handout on page three. He stated that these matters are
something that the Committee needs to be aware of.
Mr. Recce stated the citizens want to know where MAG Properties stands right now, are they negotiating, have they discussed a
property swap? Mr. Avis stated that the solution that the La Costa Ranch Company has come up with shows a property swap. He stated that their goal is to get MAG Properties back to where
they were before the Canyon Alignment.
Mr. Glass handed out a paper that shows the homeowners basic position.
Mr. Hubbs stated that hopefully the Committee will be able to present a clear picture to the Council with this report. This was an extremely difficult problem and the City has a lot of different concerns and they need all the facts to balance the issues. He continued that this was his intent when he wrote the report. However, he stated there are still a few unknowns that make him uncomfortable such as grading, access, and financing
(not sure there will be an answer). A discussion followed on this being a precedent setting situation.
G56
August 27, 1987 Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee Meeting Paae 8
Mr. Hubbs stated if there is anything that is bothering Committee members, they need to write letters of clarification. The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
LLOYD B. HUBBS City Engineer
LBH: FB/af
G57
Meeting of: Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee Time of Meeting: 4:30 p.m. Place of Meeting: Carlsbad Community Development Building
Date of Meeting: September 3, 1987
Committee Members Present: Lloyd Hubbs, Joe Dunn, Fred Morey, Mike Glass, Doug Avis, Alan Recce Ross McDonald
Staff Members Present: Steve Tate, Engineering Consultant La Costa Ranch Company Bob Ladwig, Engineering Consultant
MAG Properties John Stanley, MAG Properties Marty Orenyak, Director of Development
Frank Boensch, Management Analyst
Lloyd Hubbs began the meeting by bringing the Committee up to date regarding the staff position on the Rancho Santa Fe Road
alignment. He stated that staff met with the La Costa Ranch
Company to discuss the land planning issues and to try to get a
handle on how much grading was actually going to occur. He
continued that based on what was discussed at that meeting, staff
feels that the factors surrounding the grading can be handled,
therefore, they do not have to make a precommittment to a variance. Given that fact, the staff is now willing to support the Canyon Alignment from an environmental standpoint. However, staff still has serious concerns regarding the priority issues and financing. Staff would like the La Costa Ranch Company to
reevaluate their position on their conditions. At this point,
financing is a major issue. Mr. Hubbs stated that implementing the Existing Alignment would be quicker than the Canyon Alignment. In order for something to happen quickly with the Canyon Alignment, it will take extraordinary efforts and priorities assigned and the ramifications of that are not known.
Doug Avis stated that the position of the La Costa Ranch Company is that they want to make it implementable to do either
alignment. If the decision is the Canyon Alignment, the La Costa Ranch Company wanted to communicate the conditions under which there could be a timely implementation of the building of the
road. He continued that when they wrote their original memo of
G58
i. .
September 3, 1987
Rancha&.mW Fe Road Alignment Study Committee Meeting Paae 2
conditions, they hadn't done the level of work that they have completed now. The La Costa Ranch Company feels, after their meeting with staff, like they can eliminate the issue on the Hillside Ordinance. If the Committee recommends to-the City Council the Canyon Alignment, the La Costa Ranch Company would like the CQmmittee to also recommend that in upcoming considerations of priorities of staff time, that the City Council
make Zones 11 and 12 and the La Costa Master Plan of high priority. The second issue is timing of the road. The La Costa Ranch Company cannot start the construction of the road until
they have the entitlements. Mr. Avis continued that their are
some benchmarks that La Costa Ranch Company has such as security and equity sufficient enough to finance the major improvement which is Rancho Santa Fe Road. The earliest possible point that they could start building the road would be with the approval of
the Zone Plans with some kind of .financing agreement. The financing agreement that they would need would offer some sort of entitlement. He continued that probably the road is going to be built by public financing, probably public financing is going to require an agreement stating that these guys can do this if they are gging to float the bond. If there is such a financing agreeglent attached to the implementation of Zones 11 and 12, the
road could come sooner. If the Zone Plans are approved without a financing plan or financing agreement, then it would probably require waiting for the tentative maps to become final and this would probably mean around another year before the road could be built. The issue of financing still has not been resolved. Mr. Avis cgntinued that the other consideration is that if the
entitlements come all at once, the La Costa Ranch Company is in a
position to build the road all at once.
Mr. Hubbs stated that both options seem to be viable from a
planning construction standpoint, the issues resolve down to financing and timing. It requires more financial commitment and a longer time to implement the Canyon Alignment than to complete the ,Existing Alignment and that is probably its biggest disadvantage. Timing becomes particularly critical to the MAG Propeies situation, along with the access. A major unresolved
issue is the MAG Properties access. Based on that, staff recornends that the Committee postpone going before Council unti1:there is more resolution in this area.
Mr. R-ce questioned if the La Costa Ranch Company would be bumping anyone as far as priority goes at present. Mr. Avis
stated :$hat the Zone 11 and 12 Plan is already in first place as far as:epriority is concerned so it is not a matter of bumping anyone.
Mr. Morey discussed the financing of the road stating that either
way While if decision goes there will need to be financing.
G59
September 3, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee Meeting
paae 3
the Existing Alignment were chosen, MAG properties may be able
to put the road by its property out of its pocket. You are talking about significant up-front money if they go the .Canyon A1 ignment . The La Costa Ranch Company wants some kind of
assurance that there is going to be some kind of construction. Mr. Avis stated that any way the road is built, the security for the money is in the land. There isn't sufficient value to secure that money without some level of entitlenient that a lender or bond underwriter can say is there.
Mr. Morey continued that due to the La Costa Ranch Company, MAG and several other owners, Zones 11 and 12 plans are in the pipeline. The City has been exposed to them. He stated that he
still has a concern on the affect that the Canyon Alignment wil4 have on the Zone 11 Plan. Mr. Morey continued that in the zone plans you have to come up wi& financing mechanisms to assure
that certain improvements are goin7 to be in place. There are a lot of other things involved in the southeast section of Carlsbad.
Mr. Dunn clarified that these considerations go no matter which way the road goes. Financing is still an issue. Ross McDonald stated that they do basically, but the canyon road is more difficult from a timing standpoint. Mr. Hubbs stated that staff
is willing to support the Canyon Alignment if it is supportable, but they would like to spend more time with MAG Properties to help sort out their problems.
Mr. Morey stated that MAG Property had a preliminary look at the La Costa Ranch Company alternative. The position of MAG Property
is that they do not expect to be any worse off financially if the
Canyon Alignment is developed. This is a unusual three-party
situation with the City, La Costa Ranch Company and MAG
Properties. He continued that they are going through
conversations with La Costa Ranch Company and will continue to do so. Some of these things require intense engineering studies such as rock, grading, pads, etc. There will be some kind of agreement or lack of agreement with La Costa Ranch Company and if they do come to some agreement, there will be a lot of conditions that MAG will throw out.
Mr. Recce stated that it is for the betterment of the community so hopefully it can be worked out.
Mr. Glass commented that he is still having problems with the
timing issue. He continued that he understood that the road was already a priority issue based on promises that were made during the election and promises that were made to the City of San Marcos because of the trucks and access to the landfill. Mr. Orenyak stated that they are still a long way from a tentative
G60
..
I ..:
September 3, 1987 Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee Meeting
Paae 4
map approval and it is a priority issue, staff has been spending
a lot of time on it. Mr. Hubbs replied that the issue of
priority is probably going to be decided by the Council. Mr. Morey questioned if there will be a financing plan out of the
Zone 11 plan. Mr. Hubbs stated that there will be a financing
program and schedule in the Zone 11 plan. It still remains that
the Canyon Alignment is a more difficult one to implement.
It was noted that the Committee is at a stopping point until the
MAG Properties issue has reached some kind of agreement. Mr.
Avis stated that he believes the Committee is at a stopping point on the MAG property issue alone. The La Costa Ranch Company removed the condition on the grading and that had been a major
stumbling block, however, there is still the timing and priory
issues. He stated that his expectations are less than optimistic about coming to comprimise with MAG Properties. Mr. Orenyak stated that staff wants to sit down with MAG Property and go over
the issues sometime in the next week. Then within the next 30 days take their recommendation to City Council when they have more answers to provide for their questions. Mr. Hubbs stated that they are not prepared to set another date at this point. It
was agreed that the Study Committee will not meet until there has
been further clarification. If there appeared to be any major changes or revisions needed, the Committee members will be notified. Mr. Hubbs stated that the statement with regard to financing is still a little too open. Mr. Avis stated that the
La Costa Ranch Company just wanted it to be known that this whole thing about timing of the construction of the road is a product of entitlement. Mr. Hubbs stated that when they call everyone
together they will have the final recommendation ready for the
Committee to look at.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
LLOYD B. HUBBS
City Engineer
LBH: FB/af
G61